Ecological Networks and Climate Change

International workshop

Ecological Networks and Climate Change

- Summary, Recommendations and Outlook -

27-30 October 2008

organised by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation and held at the International Academy for Nature Conservation

Isle of Vilm / Germany

Ecological Networks and Climate Change Isle of Vilm, Oct 2008

2

Content 1. Summary A. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................3 B. Mobility and dispersal of species as basis for an adaptation to climate change?................4 C. Effects of climate change on elements of ecological networks and their functioning ..........6 D. Ecological networks as a strategy to mitigate the effects of climate change .......................8 2. Recommendations for planning and implementation of ecological networks A. General aspects.................................................................................................................11 B. Target species ...................................................................................................................12 C. Core Areas.........................................................................................................................12 D. Corridors, Stepping stones ................................................................................................13 E. Buffers and managing the matrix .......................................................................................13 F. Implementation...................................................................................................................13 3. Outlook (Questions and tasks for further research) Mobility and dispersal of species as basis for an adaptation to climate change? ..................15 Effects of climate change on elements of ecological networks and their functioning.............16 Ecological networks as a strategy to mitigate the effects of climate change..........................16 Annex Programme of the workshop List of participants Abstracts and presentations


3

1. Summary The workshop “Ecological networks and climate change” was organised by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation in order to collate information on species and habitat responses to climate change and to learn from European experiences of tailoring the design of ecological networks to meet new needs arising from climate change. 28 experts coming from research institutions, conservation agencies, consultancies and protected area authorities from Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Spain convened to exchange experience and develop recommendations. This report and the presentations as well as a paper study (in German only) are also available for download on the website http://www.bfn.de/0610_vortraege+M52087573ab0.html. The workshop organisation and documentation was supported by the Department of Environmental Planning from the Leibniz University Hannover.

A. Introduction

Speakers: - Gisela Stolpe (Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Vilm) - Karin Ullrich (Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Bonn) - Michael Reich (Institute of Environmental Planning, Leibniz University Hanover) - Holger Göttel (Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg) - Katrin Vohland (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research)

Ecological networks are often claimed to be an adaptation strategy for species and ecosystems facing the impacts of climate change. They are expected to enable species to reach suitable climatic zones and potential habitats in time. However, are there sufficient scientific findings that support this hypothesis, and even if so, are the current concepts and plans for ecological networks in Germany and Europe suitable to buffer the consequences of climate change? Against the background of these questions the aims of the workshop were to discuss the scientific basis of ecological networks as an adaptation strategy to climate change and how to implement this knowledge into the future planning of ecological networks. The expected outputs were recommendations for the planning and implementation of ecological networks as a strategy to mitigate the effects of climate change, with special focus on Germany. Definition: the term “ecological network” is used for networks with a broader focus on species communities, landscape structure and land use pattern, corresponding to the German term “Biotopverbund”. The term “habitat network” is used for networks with a focus on single species and their demands.


4

Mr. Göttel showed which climatic changes are expected in Central Europe on a regional scale, according to the model REMO. The most important results for Germany at the end of this century can be summarized as follows:

- increase of the annual mean temperature up to 4°C (depending on scenarios and regions);

- decrease of summer rainfall in large parts of Germany; - increase of precipitation in the South and Southeast; - less precipitation as snow.

Mrs. Vohland addressed the principal differences between REMO and statistical climate models like WETTREG.

B. Mobility and dispersal of species as basis for an adaptation to climate change?

Speakers: - Wolfgang Fiedler (Max Planck-Institute for Ornithology, Radolfzell) - Thomas Fartmann (Institute of Landscape Ecology, University of Münster) - Helmut Franz (National Park Berchtesgaden) - Ingolf Kühn (Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Halle)

Main questions:

- Which implications arise by climate change for species with different mobilities? - How will their distribution pattern and range change and how will they be able to

respond? - Is it possible to aid these species by the means of ecological networks? - Will the target species for habitat networks be the same in future as they are today? - If so, which specific demands on ecological networks arise from this? (see also

“recommendations”) Many studies demonstrate a shift in the distribution pattern and the range of species along climatic gradients due to climate change. For birds, Mr. Fiedler showed that the breeding distribution of many species in Europe has already shifted northwards. Therefore, a turn-over with winners and losers will happen on a regional scale. Large protected areas to allow habitat dynamics are therefore of high importance. For butterflies and grasshoppers Mr. Fartmann showed that the range shift depends on population structure, dispersal ability, habitat specialisation and habitat availability. Among the butterflies the mobile generalists will be winners, northern species and sedentary habitat specialists will be losers. For species with moderate mobility a network of habitat patches is important. For species with low mobility habitat quality and patch size are more important. Local habitat diversity can be important for insects e.g. to move from southern slopes to


5

northern slopes within a reserve. However Mr. Fartmann expected for this group of species that range shifts will generally lag behind climate change. Mr. Franz demonstrated for the National Park Berchtesgaden a high extinction risk especially for alpine-nival plants. Climate change will prolong the vegetation period, but the area with equivalent temperature will be reduced (the lower the temperatures, the more reduced the area will be). A case study of the fauna of springs in the national park currently showed no changes, but an increase in water temperature is expected to cause high extinction rates. For plants Mr. Kühn presented a study which predicts changes in species ranges for Germany (mostly a reduction). An increase of more than two degrees (mean annual temperature) will have significant effects on species distribution. The majority of species will loose more range than they gain. The impact on endangered species, listed in the red data book, will be stronger than on non-listed species as they are more vulnerable. Especially trees and dwarf shrubs, insect pollinated species and species with high moisture requirements are at high risk. It is assumed that fragmentation mostly inhibits the dispersal of rare and specialist species. Species respond idiosyncratically and thus biological interactions are likely to decouple under climate change. Accordingly biological interactions have a substantial influence on the sensitivity of species to climate change. The results show that species with high mobility like birds are able to respond. They can adapt their distribution pattern and range along climate gradients. For these species, ecological networks are less important as long as suitable habitats are available. Species with moderate mobility (e.g. butterflies) can also change their distribution pattern, but they are highly dependent on the permeability and quality of the landscape. Therefore, in fragmented landscapes like in Central Europe, ecological networks are very important. For species with low mobility (e.g. some grasshopper species), the question is, whether their potential mobility will correspond to the temporal and spatial scales of habitat changes caused by climate change. These species will need additional measures like large protected areas with high heterogeneity. In some cases, even ex-situ conservation or translocation of species could be necessary. The list of “target species” for which habitat networks would be a helpful adaptation strategy has not been finalised yet.


6

C. Effects of climate change on elements of ecological networks and their functioning Speakers:

- Pam Berry (Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford) - Katrin Vohland (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research) - Sandra Balzer (Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Bonn)

Main questions:

- Which habitat types are sensitive to climate change in Central Europe? - Which habitat types can be expected to change in character or species composition? - Which new habitat types can we expect? - Is there a realistic chance that habitat types shift in location as the site factors change

and shift? - How will their ecosystem functions change and can these be taken over by other or

new habitats? - Is it possible to support this by the means of ecological networks? - How are land-use types and patterns expected to change due to the influence of

climate change, economical factors and e.g. agricultural policy? - Which influence will this have on the permeability of the landscapes for species and

indirectly for habitat types? - Which specific demands on ecological networks arise from this? (see also

“recommendations“) - Which demands e.g. on agriculture and forest policy arise from this?

The impact of climate change on habitats and landscape structure is more difficult to project than for species. The main factors affecting vulnerability of habitats, so Mrs. Berry, are the degree of exposure to climate change, the sensitivity capacity (especially: climatic tolerance threshold, range margin, environmental tolerance) and the adaptive capacity (especially: lack of opportunity for migration, limited dispersal capacity, barriers to dispersal, population number, genetic diversity). But there are many other factors which may affect the sensitivity and the success of adaptation. Problems for species arise for example if the present and potential future distribution do not overlap. As important adaptation measures for protected areas and ecological networks Mrs. Berry named the reduction of direct (e.g. invasive species) and indirect impacts (e.g. new crops), the increase of resilience (e.g. by reduced fragmentation) and the accommodation of change by landscape permeability to facilitate dispersal. Mrs. Vohland showed habitats in core areas of ecological networks in Germany which are strongly affected by climate change. Especially wetlands might not fulfil their functions within the network when facing climate change. For example, the probability of extreme low water level conditions will increase in some rivers, despite increasing annual precipitation. More


7

frequently occurring extreme events (drought, storm, rainfall, flood) will affect many ecosystems. For the expected vegetation changes, only spatial projections of vegetation zones at the European scale are available. For consideration in the context of landscape planning higher spatial resolutions are needed at the regional scale. How land use change will influence ecological networks (core areas, stepping stones, corridors and landscape matrix) was a topic addressed by Mr. Klotz in his abstract (he was prevented from speaking at the workshop). He assumed that in landscapes where the persistence of species and the cohesion of habitats is relatively intact, range shifts are inhibited, but possible. These landscapes allow species to colonize new areas and habitats better than in fragmented landscapes. However, studies in agricultural landscapes showed also that the size of non agricultural habitats is much more important for species richness than the fragmentation of the landscape. As a consequence of this, so Mr. Klotz, it should be aimed to protect and to increase the size of important habitats as well as the cohesion within the landscape. Therefore an integrated nature conservation policy is needed with focus on the whole landscape (not only Natura 2000) including agricultural areas, heavily used forests and urban areas. Because of climate change Mrs. Balzer expected that some habitat types will be affected by losses of locations, for example azonal habitat types that are strongly dependent on the precipitation regime and water balance (e.g. mires, temporary and permanent standing waters), and others by changes in their species composition. As many habitat types are threatened and not in a good conservation status today, due to negative impacts of land use, they are expected to have a low resilience to the effects of climate change. How exactly species composition will change, and to what extent this will also change ecosystem functions is not yet clear. So far, we do not exactly know if habitat types will shift in location, which new habitats will develop on which sites and how land-use changes will change landscape permeability. Facing the expected effects of climate change Mrs. Balzer enumerated several options for conservation action, especially for ecological networks:

- adaptive measures (e.g. restoration and improvement of water cycle in degenerated ecosystems),

- restoration of habitats (e.g. rivers), - maintenance and development of effective structural and functional coherence inside

and between core areas, - improvement of connectivity between core areas and potential habitats, - enforcement of implementation of ecological networks, - ex-situ conservation and translocation of single species, - enlargement of protected areas for species with small dispersal rates, - integration of the mitigation measures of nature conservation in all policy goals.


8

D. Ecological networks as a strategy to mitigate the effects of climate change

Speakers: - Roger Catchpole (Salford University) - Diogo Alagador (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid) - Kersten Hänel (University of Kassel) - Willemien Geertsema (Alterra, Wageningen University) - Stefan Kreft (University of Applied Sciences Eberswalde) - Daniel Fuchs (PAN Planning office for applied nature conservation, Munich)

Main questions:

- Will actual systems of conservation areas protect the areas needed when expected shifts in species and habitat distribution patterns and ranges occur?

- Can we identify potential core areas and potential corridors that should be protected as a precaution measure?

- Do existing plans and concepts of ecological networks fulfil the demands arising from the expected changes?

- Which new demands will ecological networks have to meet? Mr. Catchpole named three potential conservation strategies as a precautionary approach of climate change adaptation:

- ecological networks, - adaptive habitat/species management and - flexible conservation objectives.

For this conceptual framework he presented a vulnerability assessment regarding the favourable status of sites that is based on their integration in an ecological network, and thus uses the latter as one important indicator. In addition the vulnerability assessment should allow an evaluation where more flexible objectives and adaptive management practices will be necessary in the future. For England there have been areas identified that might be most and least vulnerable to climate change as well as habitats and species of conservation interest that are associated with these areas. Remarkable is that species and sites which are most vulnerable to climate change are not necessarily always located in protected areas (e.g. Natura 2000). Mr. Alagador presented a case study from the Iberian Peninsula where the effectivity of the European Network of Protected Areas was assessed for a sample of animal and plant species. The study predicted for many species a loss of climatic suitability inside protected areas. The present system of protected areas, so the conclusion of Mr. Alagador, is not sufficient to face the impacts of climate change on biodiversity. When species shift their


9

distribution pattern and range it is also important to improve the connectivity of the core areas. An analysis of current ecological network plans of the German Länder by Mr. Hänel proved that they do not yet consider the impact of climate change. Most of these plans have been developed before climate change became an issue in German nature conservation. Additionally, nature conservation agencies do not have enough staff and financial capacities to adapt the plans. Network planning has no high priority and no programs for implementation exist. Another problem is that scientific findings are not sufficiently prepared for real world applications of planning and difficulties in the implementation of ecological networks. However, not the low consideration of climate change aspects is the main problem, but the very hesitant implementation of planned ecological networks. What we need is a faster implementation of planned networks, so the conclusion of Mr. Hänel. He assumed that the spatial frames of (well) planned networks are qualified for best possible compensation of effects of climate change in consideration of current and future land use, because the most important components (areas) of ecological networks will be the same like today and the main structure of land use will not change substantially. Corridors with a mosaic of major ecosystem types with a high density of suitable habitats and high variability within the habitat types offer possibilities to buffer the effects of climate change. Mrs. Geertsema ascertained that the expected changes of the conditions for many species impose new demands on conservation strategies. Especially the combination of climate change and habitat fragmentation in densely populated landscapes like in Central Europe has a negative impact on species with limited dispersal capacity. Case studies show that some species can not colonize the predicted suitable climate zone because of habitat fragmentation and isolation. This resulted in the following recommendations:

- increase the colonization capacity of species by linking networks, - increase the permeability of landscapes surrounding reserves, - enlarge the area and increase the heterogeneity of nature reserves.

As a useful adaptation strategy she presented the concept of climate corridors. This concept was elaborated for the Netherlands and shows that the existing corridors of the national ecological network probably solve some of the spatial bottlenecks for species to shift their range also across country borders. But on the other side there are bottlenecks which are not covered by the existing network. Therefore, different aspects of conservation planning need to be reframed, e.g. target settings, relations between protected sites and the surrounding landscape or the spatial scale of conservation units. Mr. Kreft presented different demands on ecological networks at the national level. They are related to biological-ecological goals, to socioeconomic and institutional network feasibility and to network implementation framework. Considering the global environmental change, habitat patches and corridors of ecological networks should be as large, connected and


10

protected as possible, not for specific species, but for a large number of arriving and leaving species. According to Mr. Kreft forest ecosystem should be priority elements of ecological networks, because among others they are originally most continuous and habitat of many species with lowest dispersal ability and with low tolerance of climatic variability. Concerning ecological network planning he commented that the existing bottom-up hierarchy (regional, national) level is not enough, rather a top-down, hierarchical and nested planning system as a framework is needed. Local examples for ecological network plans in Baden-Württemberg (top-down approach on the state level) and Bavaria (bottom-up approach, local initiatives) were presented by Mr. Fuchs. At the moment possible impacts of climate change are not considered in these case studies. However, he notified that new demands on ecological networks are often not easy to identify on the local level. As ‘new’ demands on ecological networks he summarized:

- an improvement in the connectivity of core areas, - a stronger focus on those species that need better ecological networks to survive

climate change, - generally ‘more space’ for nature conservation, - better co-operation between conservationists and other participants in climate

change-induced activities, and - more emphasis on quick implementation than on planning.

In comparing the top-down and the bottom-up approaches of Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria Mr. Fuchs assessed that both approaches show advantages. For the local acceptance and implementation of measures, probably the bottom-up approach is more effective. One important new aspect, to be considered when planning an establishment of ecological networks, could be to protect areas with high habitat potential as future habitats of species with shifting range. The question is whether we can identify potential core areas and potential corridors that should be protected as a precaution measure. Currently the availability of land is the most relevant obstacle.


11

2. Recommendations for planning and implementation of ecological networks

Based on the presentations and the discussions during the workshop the following recommendations for planning and implementation of ecological networks were worked out. They address the scientific community, nature conservation administration, NGOs and generally all actors dealing with ecological networks and landscape planning. The recommendations give a first review about the state of the art and the challenges for planning and implementation of ecological networks. The discussion during the workshop made clear that ecological networks can be an important strategy to mitigate the effects of climate change, but there is still some work left to define the exact requirements.

A. General aspects

Ecological networks could make a key contribution for the adaptation of biodiversity to climate change.

Existing networks and network plans are needed anyhow and will still be helpful in future to meet the requirements of climate change.

Today’s NATURA 2000 and other nature reserves should form the backbone of ecological networks in future.

It is important to enhance the resilience of habitats and species that are often negatively affected by other factors, e.g. fragmentation or intensive land use, to the effects of climate change.

For assessment the effects of climate change Scenario A1Fi - B1 should be regarded as the worst case scenario instead of Scenario A2. The full range is necessary to test stronger effects, which do have a high probability with the current rate of green house gas emission to persist.

We have to care for the core areas, corridors, stepping stones and the matrix for ecological networks to be effective as an adaptation strategy.

Addressing the proper scales (local, regional, supraregional) for the problem (climate change, fragmentation), the objects (species, communities, and ecosystems at particular risk and/or with low adaptive capacity) and the measures is crucial for the success of ecological networks.

Generally, more space is needed to achieve the already agreed conservation targets with regard to climate change. More space can be found when combining nature conservation with other functions.

We have to reframe target setting (functional groups, target species) in order to arrive at targets which will retain their long-term validity in face of inevitable changes.


12

Habitat heterogeneity within core areas and nature reserves is important as a climatic buffer.

Environmental gradients in the landscape are important for habitat networks under climate change along climatic gradients at all scales (e.g. Mediterranean-boreal, Atlantic–continental, uphill-downhill, northern-southern slopes).

Local patch gradients are important and therefore local networks are necessary.

Ecological networks are not the solution for all problems in nature conservation. Therefore, additional measures are necessary.

B. Target species

We should identify species that need ecological networks to survive under climate change conditions.

Ecological networks as an adaptation strategy for climate change are likely to be very important for species with an intermediate mobility.

Ecological networks as an adaptation strategy for climate change are likely to be less important for species with high mobility.

For species with low dispersal rates, additional measures are necessary (improvement of habitat quality, enlargement of protected areas, management of habitat heterogeneity). In extreme cases, ex-situ conservation and translocation may have to be considered.

There are different approaches towards the development, design and implementation of ecological networks. Usually they are focused on habitats and/ or on target species, which very often are also umbrella species. Sometimes flagship species are easier to communicate. Instead of dealing with entire communities, the use of functional groups could also be an alternative.

Immigrating or colonizing species that are native in neighbouring countries should not be considered as alien species.

C. Core Areas

We need to increase the size and to improve the quality and structural and functional coherence of conservation areas, depending on the target species and habitats (to promote their resilience and the persistence of populations and ecosystem processes), and to reduce direct and indirect impacts (pressures). Special attention should be paid to opportunities for improving or restoring the hydrological integrity of ecosystems in order to enhance their resilience.

Areas with a high potential as future core areas, due to their abiotic characteristics, should be identified for future land use planning.


13

We have to protect endangered species also outside of protected areas, bearing in mind that many species also occur outside of nature reserves. Even some of the present and future core areas might be outside of today’s protected areas.

D. Corridors, Stepping stones

It is important to connect regional networks (with “robust corridors”) integrating bottom-up and top-down approaches and cross-boundary initiatives.

We have to think about “climate corridors” for Europe (to enable large-scale movement of ecosystems over decades, e.g. European Green Belt, marshlands, forest) to enable species adaptation over longer distances.

It is important to identify and manage existing patterns of connectivity.

E. Buffers and managing the matrix

It is important to consider ecological requirements on 100% of the landscape.

Green-blue veining and functional land mosaics are important elements to improve the permeability of the landscape.

We can accommodate change by improving landscape permeability through a reduction of land use intensity to facilitate dispersal.

F. Implementation

We need integrated planning approaches and integrated land-use concepts (e.g. water management, water framework directive, environmental goods and services) combining ecological networks with other landscape functions.

We should keep in mind the multifunctionality of landscapes to find strategic partners (recreation, water retention, flood protection, pest control, pollination, and climate change mitigation).

In times of high uncertainty and limited knowledge on the effects of climate change on biodiversity it is important to have an adaptive approach and monitor outcomes. Although knowledge is still limited, it is important to start implementation.

We have to improve exchange of knowledge between academia and practitioners.

Cooperation on the level of federal states as well as on the international level has to be strengthened. There is need for more cross-border exchange of research and implementation.


14

Potential core areas and corridors should be identified and legally protected or secured otherwise as a precaution measure.

A guidance to design ecological networks at different scales in relation to the impacts of climate change should be set up.


15

3. Outlook (Questions and tasks for further research) The main questions of the workshop are addressed in the summary and recommendations chapters. However, not all of them could be ultimately answered during the workshop. Additionally, the discussion continuously produced new aspects and questions which are listed below. Very often they address topics for further research. It is important to notice that not all of them need to be answered before planning and implementation of ecological networks can be started. With regard to climate change and its effects, there are so many uncertainties that detailed predictions are often quite impossible, but the expected overall trends (eg. northward, uphill, southern-northern slopes) of species’ range shifts already allow for adjustments of the existing networks. Finally, ecological networks are a pragmatic approach for a world with high uncertainty and limited information.

Mobility and dispersal of species as basis for an adaptation to climate change?

Questions: In this section, the two most important research questions relevant for the planning of ecological networks are: - Can functional groups of species be found, that help to generalize demands and to

draw conclusions from the many individual examples, i.e. to find general principles? - For which species do we need ecological networks along gradients on the local,

regional and international scale most urgently?

Other questions which are actually in research and also important for ecological networks: - What changes in species interactions will occur? - What changes in species composition will occur?

a) Ecological requirements of species and habitats and their sensitivity to climate change (ecological optimums, adaptation capacity) b) Establishment of species and habitats on new sites

- How can predictions and models be improved? - How can dispersal be included in the models on a realistic basis? - How will climate change affect dispersal rates of the species?

Tasks: - Understanding the processes behind changes in species composition and the

changes of ecosystem functions under climate change. - Modelling climate change, habitat dynamics and species dispersal on regional and

international scales.


16

Effects of climate change on elements of ecological networks and their functioning

Questions: The most important research questions relevant for the planning of ecological networks in this section are: - Which habitat types are sensitive to climate change in Central Europe? - Which are minimum requirements for landscape permeability under climate change

conditions (agriculture, forestry, flood control)?

Other questions are: - Can we use species as indicators of habitats at risk? - Should we manage change in species composition or assortment?

Tasks:

- Modelling of the future distribution of species on regional scales, regarding dispersal abilities and land-use changes.

- Land-use change scenarios have to be linked to climate change scenarios (more detailed land-use classes than in existing models like the ALARM project). However so many uncertainties are involved that predictions remain very vague.

- Additional impacts (economics, agricultural policy) have to be assessed, especially on their impact on land-use types and patterns, as well as their impact on the permeability of the landscape for species.

- Specific demands on ecological networks arising from landscape changes have to be identified.

Ecological networks as a strategy to mitigate the effects of climate change

Questions: - How do we make networks robust and resilient? - Which new demands will ecological networks have to meet?

a) What are the thresholds for area requirements under climate change conditions? b) What are the thresholds for maximum distances between core areas (colonization rates)?

- Will the actual system of nature reserves in Germany protect the target species when expected shifts in species and habitat distribution patterns and ranges occur?


17

Tasks: - Existing network plans have to be analysed for their robustness towards climate

change.

- Guidance tools to design ecological networks especially at local and regional scales in relation to the impacts of climate change should be developed.


18

Annex Programme of the workshop

Background

Ecological networks are often claimed to be an ad-

aptation strategy to the impacts of climate change.

They are expected to enable species to reach suit-

able climatic zones and potential habitats in time.

However, are there sufficient scientific findings that

support this hypothesis, and even if so, are the cur-

rent concepts and plans for ecological networks in

Germany and Europe suitable to buffer the conse-

quences of climate change?

Aims and scope

We want to discuss the scientific basis of ecological

networks as an adaptation strategy to climate

change and how to implement this knowledge into

the future planning of ecological networks.

Participants

National and international experts from the scientific

community and from nature conservation authori-

ties.

Programme

Monday, 27 October 2008

until 18.30 Arrival

18.30 Dinner

19.30 Welcome and introduction round

GISELA STOLPE (BfN)

A. Introduction

20.15 Ecological networks and climate change

KARIN ULLRICH (BfN)

MICHAEL REICH (Leibniz University Hannover)

Tuesday, 28 October 2008

07.30 Breakfast

09.00 Regional aspects of climate change in Ger-

many

HOLGER GÖTTEL (Max-Planck-Institute for Me-

teorology, Hamburg)

10.00 Coffee break

B. Mobility and dispersal of species as an adap-

tation to climate change?

10.20 Effects of climate change on ecological net-

works for animal species with high mobility

WOLFGANG FIEDLER (Max-Planck-Institute for

Ornithology)

11.00 (Effects of climate change on the connec-

tivity of metapopulations of animal species

with moderate mobility)

11.40 Effects of climate change on the connectivity

of metapopulations of animal species with

low mobility

THOMAS FARTMANN (University of Münster)

12.30 Lunch

13.30 Guided tour around the Isle of Vilm Nature

Reserve

JUDITH JABS (BfN)

15.00 Coffee break

15.30 Effects of climate change on sessile species

and isolated populations

HELMUT FRANZ (National Park Berchtesgaden)

16.10 Effects of climate change on the distribution

of plant species

INGOLF KÜHN (Helmholtz Centre for Environ-

mental Research, Halle)

16.50 Discussion on block B

17.20 Coffee break

C. Effects of climate change on ecological net-

works

17.30 Which habitats in core areas of ecological

networks are most affected by climate

change?

PAM BERRY (Oxford University Centre for the

Environment)

18.00 Which habitats in core areas of ecological

networks in Germany are most affected by

climate change?

KATRIN VOHLAND (Potsdam Institute for Cli-

mate Impact Research)

18.30 Dinner

Wednesday, 29. October 2008

07.30 Breakfast

09.00 (Effects of climate and land use change on

biodiversity in fragmented landscapes)

09.30 What potential do ecosystems and species

have in a changing environment?

SANDRA BALZER (BfN)

10.00 Coffee break

10.20 Discussion on block C

D. Ecological networks as a strategy to miti-

gate the effects of climate change

11.00 Conservation Planning and the Use of Eco-

logical Networks in Evaluating Climate

Change Vulnerability: a National Perspective

ROGER CATCHPOLE (University of Salford)

11.30 Do existing plans and concepts consider the

expected changes?

Case study from the Iberian Peninsula

DIOGO ALAGADOR (Biodiversity and Global

Change Lab, Spain)

12.00 A case study from Germany: Planning of

Ecological Networks on the level of the fed-

eral states. Suitable to compensate effects

of climate change?

KERSTEN HÄNEL (University of Kassel)

12.30 Lunch

14.00 Climate change and ecological networks in

biodiversity conservation planning

WILLEMIEN GEERTSEMA (Alterra - Landscape

Centre, Wageningen University)

14.40 Discussion

15.20 Coffee break

15.50 Which new demands do ecological networks

have to meet?

A national perspective

STEFAN KREFT (University of Applied Sciences

Eberswalde)

16.20 A regional perspective

DANIEL FUCHS (PAN Planning office for applied

nature conservation, Munich)

16.50 Discussion and elaboration of recommenda-

tions

18.30 Dinner

20.00 E. Summary and outlook

Thursday, 30. October 2008

07.30 Breakfast

7.20 or 08.20 or 9.20 Departure of the boat from

Vilm

Management/Moderation/Conception

JUDITH JABS (BfN)

KARIN ULLRICH (BfN)

PETER FINCK (BfN)

MICHAEL REICH (Leibniz University Hannover)

Venue

The International Academy for Nature Conservation

is located on the Isle of Vilm, an island of

significance in terms of both natural and cultural

history. Just south of the Island of Rügen in the

middle of the South-East Rügen Biosphere Reserve,

it is uniquely placed to host seminars and workshops

in a concentrated atmosphere.

Costs

Lodging in single room: 47 € per person/day, in

double room: 35 € per person/day. Full board

24 €/day + 3.50 € for coffee/tea and cake.

We prefer payment by EC-Card (Maestro-Card)

or credit card.

Arrival

By train via Stralsund - Bergen/Rügen to Lauterbach

Mole (Rügen). By car via Stralsund or Glewitzer

Fähre, Garz, Putbus to Lauterbach.

The crossing from Lauterbach to the island of Vilm

takes 10 minutes and is only possible in a boat from

BfN. (Travel information: www.bfn.de)

Contact:

Martina Finger International Academy for Nature Conservation

D-18581 Putbus

Tel.: +49 38301 86-112

Fax: +49 38301 86-117

e-mail: [email protected]

Programme

International workshop

Ecological Networks

and Climate Change

27 - 30 October 2008

Federal Agency for Nature

Conservation (BfN) – International

Academy for Nature Conservation

Isle of Vilm

List of participants No. Name Institution Address Country Phone/Fax/e-mail 1. Alagador, Diogo

Andre Speaker

Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, CSIC

Calle Jose Gutierrez Abascal, 2 28006 Madrid

Spain Tel.1: +34 914/111 328 Tel.2: + 351 /966 459 279 Fax: +34 915 /645 078 e-mail: [email protected]

2. Dr. Balzer, Sandra Speaker

Bundesamt für Naturschutz FG I 2.2

Konstantinstr. 110 53179 Bonn

Germany Tel.: +49 228/ 84 91-1541 Fax: +49 228/8491-1519 e-mail: [email protected]

3. Dr. Berry, Pam Speaker

Environmental Change Institute University of Oxford

South Parks Road Oxford OX1 3QY

United Kingdom

Tel.: +44 1865/2758-82 Fax: +44 1865/2758-50 e-mail: [email protected]

4. Dr. Catchpole, Roger Speaker

Salford University (English Nature), Block 2 Wing 6 Government Buildings

LS 16 5 QT Lawnswood, Leeds

United Kingdom

Tel.: +44 1924/334515 Fax: +44 1924/334535 e-mail1: [email protected] e-mail2: roger.catchpole@ naturalengland.org.uk

5. Epple, Cordula

German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation Biodiversity Unit

Insel Vilm 18581 Putbus

Germany Tel.: +49-38301-86136 Fax: +49-38301-86-150 e-mail: [email protected]

6. Dr. Fartmann, Thomas Speaker

AG Biozönologie, Institut für Landschaftsökologie, Universität Münster

Robert-Koch-Str. 26 48149 Münster

Germany Tel.: +49 251/8331967 Fax: +49 251/8338352 e-mail: [email protected]

7. Dr. Fiedler, Wolfgang Speaker

Vogelwarte Radolfzell at Max Planck-Institute for Ornithology

Schloßallee 2 78315 Radolfzell

Germany Tel.: +49 7732/150-160 Fax: +49 7732/150-169 e-mail: [email protected]


22

No. Name Institution Address Country Phone/Fax/e-mail 8. Franz, Helmut

Speaker Nationalpark Berchtesgaden

Doktorberg 6 83471 Berchtesgaden

Germany Tel.: +49 8652-9686153 e-mail: [email protected]

9. Fuchs, Daniel Speaker

PAN GmbH Planungsbüro für angewandten Naturschutz

Rosenkavalierplatz 9 81925 München

Germany Tel.: +49 89-9101545 Fax: +49 89-91077048 e-mail: [email protected]

10. Geertsema, Willemien Speaker

Alterra - Wageningen UR

PO Box 47 6700 Wageningen

Germany Tel.: +31 317/486111 e-mail: [email protected]

11. Göttel, Holger Speaker

Max Planck Institute for Meteorology

Hamburg

Germany Tel.: +49 40/41173-433 e-mail: [email protected]

12. Dr. Grunewald, Ralf

Federal Agency for Nature ConservationFG I 3.1


Germany Tel.: +49-3830186155 Fax: +49-8630186150 e-mail: [email protected]

13. Hänel, Kersten Speaker

Universität Kassel FB 6 Fachgebiet Ökologische Standort- und Vegetationskunde

Gottschalkstr. 26a 34109 Kassel

Germany Tel.: +49 561 - 804 - 3646 Fax: +49 561 - 804 - 3558 e-mail: [email protected]

14. Hertwig, René

Institut für Umweltplanung Leibniz Universität Hannover

Herrenhäuser Str. 2 30419 Hannover


15. Jabs, Judith Organisation

Federal Agency for Nature ConservationInternational Academy for Nature Conservation Isle of Vilm

18581 Putbus Germany Tel.: +49 38301/86-115 Fax: +49 38301/86-150 e-mail: [email protected]

16. Dr. Korn, Horst

Federal Agency for Nature Conservation


Germany Tel.: +49-38301-86130 Fax: +49-383031-86150 e-mail: [email protected]


23

No. Name Institution Address Country Phone/Fax/e-mail 17. Kreft, Stefan

Speaker Fachhochschule Eberswalde/ University of Applied Sciences Eberswalde Faculty of Forestry Nature Conservation

Alfred-Möller-Str.1 16225 Eberswalde


18. Dr. Kühn, Ingolf Speaker

Helmholtzzentrum für Umweltforschung - UFZ Department Biozönosenforschung

Theodor-Lieser-Str. 4 06120 Halle

Germany Tel.: +49 345/ 558-5311 e-mail: [email protected]

19. Mattern, Kati

Umweltbundesamt

Wörlitzer Platz 1 06844 Dessau


20. Matthies, Sarah

Institut für Umweltplanung Leibniz Universität Hannover



21. Prof. Dr. Reich, Michael Speaker

Leibniz Universität Hannover Institut für Umweltplanung



22. Rüter, Stefan

Leibniz Universität Hannover Institut für Umweltplanung



23. Schäffer, Stefan

Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) FG I 3.1 - Biological Diversity Unit Coordinator, BfN Experts Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change

Isle of Vilm - Branch Office 18581 Putbus


24. van der Sluis, Theo

Alterra Green World Institute Team Crossing Borders Researcher

Postbus 47 6700 AA Wageningen

The Netherlands

Tel.: +31 317/481752 Fax: +31 317/419000 e-mail: [email protected]


24

No. Name Institution Address Country Phone/Fax/e-mail 25. Stolpe, Gisela

Organisation Bundesamt für Naturschutz Internationale Naturschutzakademie



26. Dr. Ullrich, Karin Organisation

Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) FG I 2.1

Konstantinstr. 110 53179 Bonn

Germany Tel.: +49 228/8491-1522 Fax: +49 228 /8491-1519 e-mail: [email protected]

27. Dr. Vohland, Katrin Speaker

Potsdam Institut für Klimafolgenforschung Department Erdsystemanalyse

Telegraphenberg A 62 14473 Potsdam


28. Vreugdenhil, Bram

Landschapsecoloog Provincie Gelderland

Markt 1 6800 GX Arnheim

The Netherlands

Tel.: +31 26/3599526 e-mail: [email protected]

Abstracts and presentations


26

Regional aspects of climate change in Germany? Holger Göttel, Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie, Hamburg Meteorological and hydrological observations demonstrate that during the last decade the climate has changed. As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007), a mean increase of temperature by 0.09 K per decade was observed globally from 1951 to 1989. Up to now, 2006, this trend has continued. Europe experienced an extraordinary heat wave in summer 2003, with daily mean temperatures being about 10° warmer than the long term mean. The increase of temperature varies depending on the region and season. If the temperature of the atmosphere increases, it should be assumed that the water cycle is intensified. However, it has not been possible until now to present clear statements on changes in the water cycle as a consequence of climate change.

Global climate models (GCM) have been developed to study the Earths climate system in the past and future, for which assumptions of green house gases are needed. Theses models are mathematical images of the Earth system, in which physical and biogeochemical processes are described numerically to simulate the climate system as realistically as possible. The model quality, however, can only be judge on in comparison with independent observations. Therefore, time periods of the past are simulated and the model results are compared against measurements before the models are used for climate change studies.

Even today global climate models provide information only at a relatively coarse spatial scale. Therefore high resolution regional climate models (RCM) are nested into global calculations to investigate the impact of potential global climate change on specific regions. The results of these investigations depend on both the quality of the global and regional models and the choice of the climate scenario.

In order to achieve information about the probability, e.g. for the intensification of the hydrological cycle over Europe, several models from different European climate research institutes are used, such as it was done in the EU project PRUDENCE (prudence.dmi.dk). This study on 50x50 km² shows a good agreement of all models for Northern, Western and Central Europe for temperature and precipitation. In Eastern Europe the models shows uncertainties of future projections in precipitation especially in summer. Under climate change conditions not only the absolute amounts of precipitation may change but also the precipitation intensities, i.e. the amount of precipitation within a certain time period. The simulation of precipitation intensities or extreme precipitation events requires however a considerably higher resolution than the PRUDENCE results presented above so that for example the influence of the topographically largely varying Alps on the formation of precipitation over the Rhine catchment could be adequately calculated. High resolution RCM results show that the global warming until 2050 will lead to an increase of high precipitation events over the Alpine part of the Rhine catchment, especially in summer. This climate


27

change signal becomes clearly visible in the Pre-Alps, but a similar trend is seen in the high resolution simulations over large parts of Europe. An overview over existing regional climate change simulations for Europe will be presented together with results achieved within several EU-funded projects like MERCURE, PRUDENCE and ENSEMBLES.

A major break through was possible with the regional climate change simulations on 10 km grid scale. Within a co-operation with the national environmental agency, REMO was used for a control simulation from 1950 to 2000 and three transient run for the IPCC SRES scenarios A2, A1B and B1. The simulation domain covers Germany, Austria and Switzerland. As an example the most important results for Germany at the end of this century are summarized as follows:

– Increase of the annual mean temperature by 4°C (depends on emission amount and region)

– South and Southeast warm more than the other areas – Decrease of precipitation amount in wide areas of Germany during the summer – Increase of precipitation amount in South and Southeast during the winter – Less precipitation as snow

Climate change signal for summer (left) and winter (right) precipitation (%) for A1B.

The simulations results offer a variety of follow-up analyses, like extreme value statistics, which is currently in progress, or impact studies. All data are stored in the CERA data base and are open for commercial and non-commercial use.


28

Effects of climate change on ecological networks for animal species with high mobility Wolfgang Fiedler, Radolfzell How will distribution patterns and ranges change and how will species be able to respond? The evidence for changes in distribution patterns of birds - mainly due to climate change, but also due to other types of global changes - is almost countless. As a general pattern concerning changes of wintering areas it can be seen that (1) many species of temperate zones winter closer to their breeding grounds, (2) many species of temporal zones winter in higher latitudes, (3) in many partial migratory populations the sedentary part increases and the migratory part decreases and (4) in typical evasion species (like tits) evasions tend to happen less often in temperate zones. Breeding distributions of many bird species in Europe and the US have shifted already in northerly directions and the trend is predicted to continue. The main trends are: (1) many species breeding at lower latitudes expand their breeding ranges into higher latitudes, (2) some species breeding in higher latitudes retreat with their distribution borders from lower latitudes and (3) neozootic bird species are increasingly successful. Recent modelling approaches as in the book "A Climatic Atlas of Breeding Birds" (Huntely et al., 2007) give an idea about the magnitude of changes that can be expected for the next decades but they still do not consider habitat availability in the forecasted future distribution area. Therefore it must be assumed that population numbers have to be estimated through predicted ranges in a rather pessimistic way.

Is it possible to aid these species by the means of ecological networks? The key question for birds seems to be the habitat perspective while the movement through (or over) a fragmented and carved landscape is a smaller problem for these highly mobile species. The already observed changes of breeding or wintering ranges show that many bird species can cope with the changes at least to the current extent. It can be expected that ecosystems will rather not move as a whole in a poleward direction but that different components will move with different speed. As a consequence, this means a decoupling of components of ecological systems. It can be an important task for ecological networks to stabilize these decoupled systems.

Which specific demands on ecological networks arise from this? Ecological networks, along with other conservation elements, need to ensure more flexibility of ecosystems to adapt to new climatic conditions. This certainly requires rather large protected areas with the possibility of natural dynamics on a larger scale and it also requires the consideration of ecological requirements not only in the "knot areas" of ecological networks but also in the rest of the landscape. For highly mobile species such as migrating birds effective ecological networks need to span around large parts of the world. It is important to note that some of the most endangered European breeding bird species spend half or more of the year outside Europe.


29

Effects of climate and land use change on biodiversity in fragmented landscapes Stefan Klotz Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ Department of Community Ecology Theodor-Lieser-Strasse 4 D-06120 Halle/Saale [email protected] Land use change is the main driver of biodiversity change and biodiversity loss. These changes are caused by new technologies in agriculture and forestry but also by an important increase in urbanization. Climate change itself influences the potentials of land use and leads to adaptations in land use systems. New mitigation methods to climate change have consequences for the land use itself and for land use intensity. A typical example is the intensification of agriculture for biomass production world wide. These present changes influence the size and structure of different habitats and the configuration of habitats in the whole landscape. Land use adaptation to climate change and mitigation methods will have strong consequences for different elements of biodiversity.

These changes will have impacts on the landscape matrix, the linear landscape elements/corridors, stepping stone habitats as well as core areas itself. In landscapes in which the degree of habitat fragmentation allows persistence of selected species and the cohesion of habitats is relatively intact, the change and or shift of species ranges is inhibited, but generally possible. Additionally, these landscapes allow new species to colonize new areas and habitats better than highly fragmented landscapes. In landscapes with a low spatial cohesion of the habitats climate change will impact much more the degree of species loss and will inhibit the range expansion of new species. An increased frequency of extreme weather events will cause local species loss and an overall reduction of the distribution range, particularly in areas with relatively low levels of spatial cohesion.

However, in most of the recent studies on the influence of fragmentation on biodiversity it was not clear separated between the habitat loss effect of the fragmentation process and the fragmentation/isolation effect itself. Studies in agricultural landscapes in Europe showed that the size of non agricultural habitats is much more important for species richness than the fragmentation of the landscape itself. The main consequence of these findings is to safe and to increase the size of important habitats (core areas as well as the size of stepping stones and the size of linear elements) as well as to safeguard and increase the cohesion within the landscapes. This background is important to understand climate change impact on ecological interactions between species within habitats. Both, climate change impact and land use change can result in a mismatch of species ranges and increase in species loss.

Generally, it will be possible to mitigate the effects of these changes by an integrated nature conservation policy. During the last years our focus was strongly oriented on the


30

development of the NATURA 2000 network and on the protected areas itself. But this is only one element of nature conservation. Our focus must be the whole landscape including the agricultural areas, heavily used forests and urban areas. Instead of separation of nature conservation from the main land uses and land users we need the integration of nature conservation in all activities of land use, land use change, adaptation and mitigation activities to climate change.


31

Effects of climate change on the distribution of plant species Sven Pompe1, Franz Badeck2, Jan Hanspach1, Stefan Klotz1 & Ingolf Kühn1* 1) Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Dept. Community Ecology,

Theodor-Lieser-Str. 4, 06120 Halle, Germany, *) Corresponding author: E-mail: [email protected]

2) Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Telegraphenberg A 31, 14473 Potsdam, Germany

We evaluated (Pompe et al. 2008)1 the potential impact of climate change on the distribution of 845 European plant species, 550 of which are currently observed in Germany. We used climate and land use scenarios up to 2080 based on possible temperature increases of 2.2, 2.9 or 3.8 degrees Celsius. The impacts of climate change will result in local losses of the flora. Saarland, Rhineland Palatinate and Hesse and the lowland plains of Brandenburg, Saxony-Anhalt and Saxony could suffer from particularly high species losses. The effects in the simulations become greater as the temperature increases. Even under a moderate scenario (approx. +2.2°C), 15–19% (across models) of the species we studied could be lost locally - averaged across 2995 grid cells in Germany - and, about seven percent of species will lose more than two thirds of their current ranges. This increases to eleven percent at a warming of 2.9 degrees Celsius and twenty percent at 3.8 degrees Celsius. The fact that the extent of change increases disproportionately to the projected increase in temperature argues in favour of the European Union's stabilisation target of two degrees Celsius in order to protect biodiversity.

The reduction in the ranges of plants is a general trend, although some central and southern European species move in which were not previously recorded in Germany. The impacts will vary locally, with the greatest reduction in species numbers likely to take place in north-eastern and south-western Germany. Scenarios were characterized by an increasing number of species occupying small ranges, as evidenced by changes in range-size rarity scores. Migrating species from southern Europe could not compensate for these losses in the models.

Local extinction risk to climate change, however, is not evenly distributed across all species. We therefore further investigated ecological and life history traits from plant species that currently occur in Central Europe and which could be vulnerable under climate change. We tested species traits using life-form, leaf persistence, ecological strategy types after Grime, pollen vector, life strategy, number of floristic zones, number of habitats, Ellenberg indicator values for relationships with range loss and range gain. We identified effects of traits on 1 Pompe, S., Badeck, F.-W., Hanspach, J., Klotz, S., Thuiller, W., Kühn, I. 2008. Projecting impact on plant distributions under climate change - a case study from Germany. Biology Letters 4: 564–567.


32

range contraction and range gain related to climate change in Germany. Species that are warm-and dry adapted are less vulnerable to range loss under climate warming. Results from study showed highest decline in species with currently smaller distributions in Germany.


33

WWhhiicchh hhaabbiittaattss iinn ccoorree aarreeaass ooff eeccoollooggiiccaall nneettwwoorrkkss aarree mmoosstt aaffffeecctteedd bbyy cclliimmaattee cchhaannggee?? PPaamm BBeerrrryy,, EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttaall CChhaannggee IInnssttiittuuttee,, UU.. ooff OOxxffoorrdd.. The impacts of climate change on habitats is much more difficult to project than for species. Nevertheless, there are principles relating to climate change vulnerability that could be applied. These include the exposure of the habitat to climate and other drivers of change, such as pollution and land use/management, sensitivity to these drivers and its autonomous adaptive capacity, as well as the human planned adaptive capacity. The factors affecting adaptive capacity will be examined and a number of possible adaptive strategies will be suggested. Given the various pressures on habitats and networks, the need for the integration of mitigation and adaptation measures across sectors will be highlighted in order to ensure that they are complementary rather than conflicting.


34

Which habitats in core areas of ecological networks in Germany are most affected by climate change? Katrin Vohland (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research) What makes core areas of the ecological network in Germany sensitive to climate change? The network consists of spatially more or less connected open and forested habitats and rivers (BfN2). Climate change modifies abiotic and biotic conditions for target species of the ecological network. Further, ecological networks are assumed to be important in providing pathways for species adapting their distribution area. However, proofs from evaluation of this function at different scales are scarce to non-existent. Climate impact and the German Riverine Biotop network Climate change manifests in higher temperatures but also in changes of precipitation. While for Germany as whole higher amounts are projected, for some regions of especially eastern Germany precipitation might decrease. But even in areas with an increase of precipitation, climatic water balance can be (more) negative as evaporation increases with increasing temperatures. This also impact run off of targeted rivers. Using three rivers of the Riverine Biotop Network, i.e. Bära, Wilde Gera and Hamel, located in upland, hills, and lowland, respectively, a general decrease in run-off is projected with the Integrated Soil and Water Model SWIM (Prange & Vohland, in prep.)3. Also the number days with low water increases which might have negative impact on target species of the ecological web such as the river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis) or predaceous diving beetles (Platambus maculates). Climate impact and the terrestrial biotope network Terrestrial habitats will change their performance, new assemblages will occur. This also might affect animals if they rely on specific plants for diet or breeding etc. Using the example of forests, climate change induced impacts on the natural forest type are described4. This may lead to other forest types and subsequently to changed habitat qualities for target organisms. Conclusions Spatial planning of the ecological network should especially consider changing water cycles and therefore aim an integrated water management planning. Future functions of the network for species dispersal remain unclear; research is needed to identify the specific requirements of target species (functional groups) at different scales. However, it is clear that space for 2 BfN-Map: http://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/themen/landschaftsundbiotopschutz/ Karte_Flaechen_BVS_national_gross.pdf 3 Prange, S. & Vohland, K., in prep., impact of climate change on river habitats in Germany 4 Hickler, T., Vohland, K., Costa, L., Miller, P., Smith, B., Feehan, J., Sykes, M. (2009) Vegetation on the move – where do conservation aims have to be re-defined? Atlas of Biodiversity Risk, eds: Settele, J.,Penev, L.,Georgiev, T., Grabaum, R., Grobelnik, V., Hammen, V., Klotz, S.,Kühn, I. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia-Moscow.


35

habitats is needed. Therefore nature conservation has to provide strong arguments for nature conservation and seek partners also outside this community5.

5 Vohland, K., Epple, C., Cramer, W. 2008: Naturschutz als Partner in der Klimapolitik. Kompass-Newsletter 4: 2-6.


41

Which new demands do ecological networks have to meet? A regional perspective. Daniel Fuchs, PAN Planungsbüro für angewandten Naturschutz GmbH, München [email protected] 1) Introduction: New demands on ecological networks – which new demands? Since the effects of climate change are hardly known for most species and habitats, it’s not easy to define ‘new’ demands on ecological networks. A sample from presentations and discussions from this workshop comprise: - Stronger resilience of areas to change, which probably depends on a high within-area

heterogeneity. - Improvement in connectivity of core areas / improvement in permeability of surrounding

matrix. - Stronger focus on those species that need better ecological networks to survive climate

change – which probably means those with neither too good nor too bad dispersal abilities.

- Generally ‘more space’ for conservation - Better co-operation between conservationists and other participants in climate change-

induced activities. - More emphasis on quick implementation than planning. 2) Baden-Württemberg: a top-down approach The most recent plans for an ecological network in Baden-Württemberg are a clear-cut example of a centrally designed, habitat based network. Based on an analysis of the ‘biotope survey’ (‘Biotopkartierung’ which encompasses roughly 750,000 patches), core areas and development zones are derived. While all core areas of state importance consist of biotope patches, some development zones have no actual function as important habitat. These are potential habitats due to of soil type and humidity (mostly nutrient-poor, moist to wet or dry soils which are of little agronomic importance). The network is designed for woodland, rivers, and open habitats separately, with open habitats again split in dry and moist ones. While the network was designed on the state level in the years 2005 to 2007, the ten regional planning authorities (‘Planungsverbände’) are supposed to implement it from 2009 onwards. 3) Bavaria: a bottom-up approach In Bavaria, building an ecological network started in the late 1980ies, after mapping of important and protected habitats and target species had begun several years earlier. From 1984 to 1997 regional ‘Species and biotope protection programmes’ (ABSP) were designed for all 71 counties, each taking roughly 15 months from start to completion. In 1997, a round of updates was begun, of which 48 have been completed so far. In these programmes, target areas and areas of special importance for conservation are demarcated which together with target corridors form the backbone of a state-wide ecological


42

network. Areas and corridors are assigned regional, supraregional or state-wide importance. Each time one of these programmes or programme updates has been officially completed, a round of consultations with local and regional stakeholders take place. In these talks, stakeholders decide in which of the target areas implementation projects should be undertaken. To date, 350 of these implementation projects have been started in the whole of Bavaria, ranging in size from one to almost 2,000 square kilometres. Guiding principle for these projects is that all measures are to be taken on a voluntary basis. While the project stewards (usually the local or regional government or a conservation NGO) have to provide a small part of funding, state bodies funnel European and state-wide funds preferentially to the project areas. A permanent steering group comprising civil servants from the Bavarian ministry for the environment and professionals from a private consultancy function as advisers, facilitators and trouble-shooters. Two case studies illustrate the scope of theses implementation projects. 4) Case study 1: Königsauer Moos The Königsauer Moos is a large fen in the alluvial valley of the river Isar in eastern Bavaria. While up to the 1960ies most of its 1,300 Hectares where used as unimproved meadows, nowadays more than a third of the area are arable fields and most of the grassland has been improved. Measures in the area focus on acquiring the remaining areas of conservation value and on concrete measures for creating new habitats, e. g. for the target species curlew and dusky large blue. 5) Case study 2: Krailling military training area Situated near the western outskirts of Munich in a large forest, this former pioneer training area harbours large tracts of calcareous grassland. Main threats are encroachment by shrubs and trees due to cessation of grazing, and direct disturbance by visitors (e. g. for woodlark and wryneck). 6) Comparisons and conclusions In comparing the two approaches with regard to the demands mentioned above, some preliminary conclusions can be drawn. - Stronger resilience of areas to change: In the Bavarian model, a local management in

the 350 implementation areas allows for targeted improvement of resilience, e. g. by increasing habitat heterogeneity. Although this will never comprise all core areas, the direct approach seem better suited if quick responses are needed.

- Improvement in connectivity of core areas: A top-down habitat-based network which identifies important connectivity corridors, such as in Baden-Württemberg, gives more leverage to management of these corridors than the core-area-centered Bavarian method.

- Stronger focus on those species that need better ecological networks to survive climate change: in Bavarian implementation project single species can be directly targeted, whereas in Baden-Württemberg, species are at the moment not in the focus of the network.


43

- Generally ‘more space’ for conservation: which model ist better suited for this purpose depends on the degree of implementation. Bavaria seem more advanced in this regard.

- Better co-operation between conservationists and other participants in climate change-induced activities: in Bavarian implementation projects, a steering group is obligatory. All stakeholders should take part in these groups’ sessions.

- More emphasis on quick implementation than on planning: If this is a valid demand, then the Bavarian approach with its strong emphasis on implementation is certainly well suited to fulfil it.

Documents

Ecological Networks and Climate Change