Sutherland W.J.,University of Cambridge |
Albon S.D.,Macaulay Institute |
Allison H.,The Woodland Trust |
Armstrong-Brown S.,Royal Society for the Protection of Birds |
And 26 more authors.
Journal of Applied Ecology | Year: 2010
1. The conservation of biodiversity depends upon both policy and regulatory frameworks. Here, we identify priority policy developments that would support conservation in the UK in the light of technological developments, changes in knowledge or environmental change. 2. A team of seven representatives from governmental organizations, 17 from non-governmental organizations and six academics provided an assessment of the priority issues. The representatives consulted widely and identified a long-list of 117 issues. 3. Following voting and discussion during a 2-day meeting, these were reduced to a final list of 25 issues and their potential policy options and research needs were identified. Many of the policies related to recent changes in approaches to conservation, such as increased interest in ecosystem services, adaptation to climate change and landscape ecology. 4. We anticipate that this paper will be useful for policy makers, nature conservation delivery agencies, the research community and conservation policy advocates. 5. Although many of the options have global significance, we suggest that other countries consider an equivalent exercise. We recommend that such an exercise be carried out in the UK at regular intervals, say every 5 years, to explore how biodiversity conservation can best be supported by linked policy development and research in a changing world. 6. Synthesis and applications. Opportunities for policy development were prioritized and for each of the top 25 we identified the current context, policy options and research questions. These largely addressed new issues relating to developing topics such as ecosystem services, landscape planning and nanotechnology. We envisage that this will largely be used by researchers wishing to make a contribution to potential policy debates. © 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 British Ecological Society.
Agency: European Commission | Branch: FP7 | Program: CP | Phase: ENV.2012.6.2-1 | Award Amount: 11.49M | Year: 2012
Despite improved understanding of the links between ecosystem health, provision of ecosystem services and human well-being, further conceptual and empirical work is needed to make the ideas of ecosystem services (ESS) and natural capital (NC) operational. OpenNESS will therefore develop innovative and practical ways of applying them in land, water and urban management: it will identify how, where and when the concepts can most effectively be applied to solve problems. To do this, it will work with public and private decision makers and stakeholders to better understand the range of policy and management problems faced in different case study contexts (ranging across locales, sectors, scales and time). OpenNESS will consolidate, refine and develop a range of spatially-explicit methods to identify, quantify and value ecosystem services, and will develop hybrid assessment methods. It will also explore the effectiveness of financial and governance mechanisms, such as payments for ecosystem services, habitat banking, biodiversity offsetting and land and ecosystem accounting. These types of interventions have potential for sustaining ESS and NC, and for the design of new economic and social investment opportunities. Finally, OpenNESS will assess how current regulatory frameworks and other institutional factors at EU and national levels enable or constrain consideration of ESS and NC, and identify the implications for issues related to well-being, governance and competitiveness. OpenNESS will analyse the knowledge that is needed to define ESS and NC in the legal, administrative and political contexts that are relevant to the EU. The work will deliver a menu of multi-scale solutions to be used in real life situations by stakeholders, practitioners, and decision makers in public and business organizations, by providing new frameworks, data-sets, methods and tools that are fit-for-purpose and sensitive to the plurality of decision-making contexts.
Briggs B.D.J.,The Environment Bank Ltd. |
Hill D.A.,The Environment Bank Ltd. |
Gosler A.G.,University of Oxford |
Gosler A.G.,Institute of Human science
Journal for Nature Conservation | Year: 2012
The degree to which Special Protection Area (SPA) designation reflects ecological reality is of critical importance to wildlife conservation. We examined whether the designation of a large SPA designated to conserve wintering waterfowl (chiefly Gadwall . Anas strepera and Northern Shoveler . Anas clypeata), reflected the birds' habitat preferences and their use of the SPA in the context of the broader geographic area. To do this, 67 discrete waterbodies in and around the South-West London Waterbodies Special Protection Area (SWL SPA) were surveyed regularly each winter from 2004/5 to 2006/7, and new analytical methods developed, to investigate habitat selection and multiple-site use by the birds. Significant pressure on these waterbodies for mineral extraction, development and recreation, together with a long history of human usage has resulted in a wide range of habitats and conditions for these wildfowl.We found that Gadwall and Shoveler were able to adjust their site preferences and patterns of site use in response to changes in food resources and other ecological variables both within and between winters. Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC) was used to model the distribution of wildfowl between sites using a large number of physical and ecological predictor variables. This showed that Gadwall and Shoveler differ in many of their habitat preferences, to the extent that managing a site for one will not necessarily directly benefit the other.At the time of this study the habitat preferences of Gadwall and Shoveler do not closely match the ecological condition of the SWL SPA waterbodies. Furthermore, an investigation into the use of multiple sites by Gadwall and Shoveler indicated that although there is evidence for populations of wintering birds using groups of waterbodies in the SW London area, their patterns of site use do not closely match the distribution of the seven separate SPA component waterbodies.We provide guidelines for managing habitats for Gadwall and Shoveler, and suggest that in addition to bird counts the SPA designation process for multi-site protected areas should consider the behaviour, habitat requirements and the influence of human disturbance on the species concerned. In this instance, the patterns of wildfowl site use present a reasoned argument for the inclusion of additional sites in the SW London Waterbodies SPA, or for dealing with the SPA in a different manner to a site with a more contiguous boundary. © 2012 Elsevier GmbH.
Agency: European Commission | Branch: H2020 | Program: SME-1 | Phase: SC5-20-2015-1 | Award Amount: 71.43K | Year: 2015
The objective of our overall innovation project is to boost the growth potential and internationalisation of EBLs unique and highly innovative business model, systems and services for habitat banking. The subsequently expected outcomes will be: (1) habitat banks demonstrated and critical market mass attained in England (our current market); (2) habitat banks demonstrated and market replicated in Spain (where new regulation provides the most promising entry point for market replication in continental Europe). The overall project will provide a robust springboard for further growth in England and Spain and market replication in other EU countries, allowing us to seize the business opportunity presented by expected growth of a multi-bn/yr habitat banking market. The specific objectives of this Phase 1 feasibility study are: (1) To fill key gaps in our feasibility assessment for England, through: (a) legal analysis to give clarity to planning mechanisms for habitat banking; (b) market demand studies for three pilot areas (Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Surrey); (c) land manager partner searches for these pilot areas; (d) economic analysis of the cost of operations to create and manage restoration of native grassland; (e) legal analysis of IP protection, or strategy for subsequent commercialisation of licences, for project-derived metrics. (2) To fill key gaps in our feasibility assessment for Spain, through: (a) refining our assessment of potential market demand and supply in Extremadura; (b) developing partner and user relations, building on our existing links with central government, regional planning authorities, developers, landowners, lenders and consultants; (c) refining our assessment of feasibility in relation to the emerging legal framework in Spain. (3) To develop a comprehensive feasibility assessment and strengthened business plan to meet the broad aim of our overall innovation project, for incorporation in a subsequent SME Instrument Phase 2 submission.