Figure 3 - uploaded by Bruno Petriccione
Content may be subject to copyright.
Context in source publication
Context 1
... major categories of forest dynamics are often identified by ecologists: large scale stand-replacing disturbances and small-scale (within-stand) gap dynamics (Hansson 1992). A typical example of largescale stand dynamics is the mosaic of relatively homogenous forest stands of different ages that can be found in boreal forests, created by natural forest fires or maintained by clear-felling practices ( Figure 3). ...
Similar publications
The effect of logging on atmospheric carbon concentrations remains highly contested, especially in the tropics where it is associated to forest degradation. To contribute to this discussion, we estimated the carbon balance from logging natural tropical forests in Costa Rica through a life cycle accounting approach. Our system included all major lif...
Citations
... Abschließend bleibt zu bemerken, dass sich ein erhöhter Kohlenstoffspeicher im Wald in der Regel unmittelbar positiv auf die Biodiversität auswirkt -anders als die Kohlenstoffspeicherung in Holzprodukten und die CO2-Einsparungen durch Substitution von Referenzprodukten ( LARSSON et al. 2007 Im Zuge der Diskussionen über die Erschließung neuer Energieholzpotenziale wurde ver-schiedentlich die Idee vorgetragen, Rückegassen mit schnell wachsenden Baumarten zu bepflanzen. Damit könnte die Forstfläche optimal genutzt werden. ...
Ziel des hier beschriebenen Vorhabens war es, eine regionalisierte Strategie für einen nachhaltigen Ausbau / eine nachhaltige Stabilisierung der Holzenergienutzung unter Berücksichtigung der Holzkaskadennutzung zu formulieren und zu begründen. Diese Strategie sollte dabei neben dem Leitbild einer nachhaltigen Holzenergienutzung v.a. konkrete Handlungsempfehlungen für den regional angepassten Ausbau der Holzenergienutzung beinhalten. Chancen und Risiken wurden in diesem Zusammenhang herausgearbeitet und in die Strategie integriert. Die Holzkaskadennutzung –als eine von der Bundesregierung erkannte mögliche Lösung der Rohstoffproblematik - wurde in besonderem Maße im Rahmen der Strategiebildung eingebunden.
... Concerns have been raised that forestry management with a carbon component may conflict with biodiversity considerations. Strategic management of forest landscapes for biodiversity as well as for carbon sequestration is discussed by Larsson et al. (2007). Natural forest is a biodiversity repository as well as a store for large amounts of carbon. ...
Despite political commitment, Europe is struggling to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010. Forests, as the hosts of much of the biological diversity in Europe, are vital to this debate. Any initiative designed to halt the biodiversity loss in Europe must take forests into account.
Key issues addressed in the executive summary include:
- Forests and biodiversity: are we doing better?
--- Animals and trees are both under threat
--- Climate change will affect biological diversity
--- Larger areas of forests must be connected for viable populations
--- Public awareness and participation
- Forest management: what are we doing and does it work?
--- Sound principles and legislation are already in place
--- Europe needs more research and data exchange
--- Tips for better management of forests
--- Improved fire fighting techniques reduce damage to forests
--- Forests can stock carbon but carbon release must be minimised
- Challenges ahead
--- What to take into consideration when formulating future policy?
In 2010, the international year of biodiversity, new policies for preserving biodiversity in Europe and
worldwide will be developed as targets set by older policies, such as to halt biodiversity loss in the EU by
2010, were not met. This paper aims at sharing the expertise LERU’s members harbour to set the right
priorities for new biodiversity policies.
Three key observations point to the urgency of an effective biodiversity conservation policy: 1) the
alarming global decline in biodiversity; 2) the associated diminishing return in ecosystem services that are
key to human well-being; 3) the dangerous mix of climate change and biodiversity loss.
There are important gaps in our knowledge of the regulating mechanisms of biodiversity and the
relationship of biodiversity to ecosystem services. We therefore list 18 research challenges, which we
consider to be the ‘need-to-know’ building blocks for a future research agenda. Filling the knowledge gaps
is crucial to develop an efficient and sustainable policy towards biodiversity conservation.
The research challenges are broadly grouped in five areas. A first set focuses on different challenges posed
by documenting and monitoring biodiversity. A second group describes six research challenges on drivers
of biodiversity that need more attention. These challenges relate to 1) insight into the processes of
community assembly; 2) large and complex ecosystems; 3) landscape metapopulation structure; 4) ecoevolutionary dynamics; 5) species networks and identifying its key players; and 6) issues associated with
complex dynamics and alternative stable states. The challenges of linking biodiversity, functional diversity,
and ecosystem functioning and services are set out in a third group of research challenges, which also
highlights the need to analyse ecosystem services at landscape level and to investigate the economics of
biodiversity and ecosystem services. A fourth set of research challenges focuses on understanding how
species respond to anthropogenic impact (global change), and a fifth group emphasizes the need to
understand how species respond to nature conservation measures.
Besides describing important research challenges, LERU also provides recommendations for effective
biodiversity conservation strategies, which are not only aimed at policy makers, but also at researchers,
other stakeholders and the general public:
It is necessary to invest in a European infrastructure for biodiversity data and research. LERU
emphasizes the importance for Europe to invest in adequate infrastructures which support biodiversity
research to increase our knowledge on biodiversity and its impact on the functioning of ecosystems, and
hence help decision makers in devising cost-effective management plans to reach the stated goals.
There is a need for a powerful research agenda enhancing fundamental knowledge on biodiversity
drivers and threats. This vigorous biodiversity-targeted research programme should be initiated at the
European level, but also with strong national support.
There is a great need for an effective translation of scientific knowledge into biodiversity practice to
guarantee that scientific evidence is available to inform both policy development and practical
implementation of conservation management.
There is a need for a consistent and global biodiversity conservation policy, which also aims at changing
the way people live and work in Europe to ensure biodiversity conservation within and outside Europe’s
borders.
Given that biodiversity and ecosystem services are of paramount importance to the development of human
societies in the long run, a “biodiversity check” in all policies should be implemented.
When future biodiversity conservation strategies are developed, it should be verified if the measures taken
are climate change-proof.
The economic consequences of biodiversity loss and gain need to be quantified to enable a system in
which the agent causing the loss will need to pay for the costs linked to the loss and the restoration of
ecosystems, instead of society as a whole.
Prevention is by far the most efficient strategy to reduce the number of invasive exotic species and their
negative impact on biodiversity. To realise efficient prevention, a European strategy to deal with
invasive exotic species is mandatory.
LERU emphasizes the importance of collaboration across scientific disciplines for modern biodiversity
research and therefore emphasizes the need for support for multidisciplinary collaborative networks.
LERU calls for an improved science-policy interface in biodiversity protection, which could be realised
by reinforcing the existing Intergovernmental platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).
Increased efforts for raising biodiversity education and awareness are necessary to get the needed
support from society as a whole for a successful biodiversity policy. Research-intensive universities can
play a leading role in this.
Research-intensive universities can contribute to fighting biodiversity loss by implementing an ambitious
biodiversity research agenda, by developing inter-university networks sharing research infrastructures, and
by investing in biodiversity education. LERU considers the study of biodiversity and the ecological
responses to environmental change a top priority with an enormous added value to society.
Purpose: REDD is being criticized on several fronts and thus, there is a need for an integrated, comprehensive paradigm that incorporates emissions reduction, biodiversity conservation, and community development, and is leveraged towards sustainability in forests and livelihoods rather than narrower goals such as emissions reduction or conservation.
Design/methodology/approach: A SWOT analysis of REDD is conducted and based on the results of the analysis, a new framework is proposed.
Findings: Although REDD has enormous potential to not just reduce emissions but also provide significant co-benefits, there has also been criticism on various fronts. A new theoretical framework with carbon, conservation, and community as the three pillars has been proposed.
Originality/value: The paper proposes a new paradigm that addresses GHG emission reduction, conservation of forests and biodiversity, community livelihoods support, and valuation of environmental services provided by forests. Forests, covering one-third of the earth’s surface, are home to more than half of the biodiversity on earth, provide multiple ecosystem services, and contribute to more than a billion livelihoods globally. However, forests have largely been mismanaged and remain one of the key challenges in international as well as national policy and governance. The dual role of forests in climate change, both as a source and sink of GHG emissions, adds to the urgency for action. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) is being intensely discussed for its likely role in climate change mitigation. The argument had originated with avoided deforestation, subsequently broadened to REDD and is currently being discussed around REDD+, an indication that there is more to this debate than just incentivizing emissions reduction. Although REDD has enormous potential to not just reduce emissions but also provide significant co-benefits, there has also been criticism on various fronts. The author proposes the climate, community, conservation, and sustainability (C3S) paradigm which would include objectives such as GHG emissions reduction, valuation of environmental services provided by forests, conservation of forests and biodiversity, and community livelihoods support.
