Content uploaded by Malte Timpte
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Malte Timpte on Oct 02, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Case study -"How would the Three Conditions-Approach work for the German National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP)?", Institute for Biodiversity - Network e.V. (ibn).
Abstract and Figures
Three Global Conditions for Biodiversity Conservation
The current study investigates how the Three Conditions-Approach developed by IUCN's World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) Post-2020 task force would work for the current German National Biodiversity Strategy (of 2007) and the Nature Conservation Action Programme 2020 launched by the Ministry of the Environment in 2015, the environmental conditions given in a densely populated and highly industrialized country like Germany, and Germany's global cooperation under the CBD. The Three Conditions map for Germany shows that most areas fall into conditions C1 (Cities and Farms) and C2 (Shared Landscapes) while condition C3 (Large wild areas) is nearly not found any more.
The study presents information about the situation in Germany with respect to different categories of protected areas and types of land use and compares the conservation measures undertaken in Germany for the implementation of the NBS with the activities proposed for each of the Three Conditions. The authors findings and conclusions were discussed with German experts in a workshop.
Overall, the study finds that the Three-Conditions-Approach would work well for Germany as its proposed conservation objectives are to a large extent in line with the German NBS and the Nature Conservation Action Programme 2020, as well as with the implementing actions Germany is undertaking currently. The application of the approach could also add value to country level activities in Germany and help to develop implementation priorities. On a global scale the Three Conditions-Approach would provide a rational basis for measures to decrease Germany's footprint in the world and take tele-coupling effects into account. It could also help to prioritize Germany's efforts in nature conservation abroad, e.g. provided through Official Development Assistance (ODA).
Therefore, if the Three Conditions-Approach would be used for shaping the post-2020 biodiversity framework it could help to advance Germany's nature conservation efforts domestically to some degree and significantly in the global context.
Figures - uploaded by Malte Timpte
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Malte Timpte
Content may be subject to copyright.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
There are numerous reasons for the establishment of more wilderness areas. The issue is becoming more and more important worldwide, considering the increasing natural disruption. This also applies to densely populated countries like Germany. The National Strategy on Biological Diversity (NBS) sets goals for preserving and establishing more wilderness areas in Germany: 2% of the national land territory shall be designated to become large-scale wilderness areas and 5 % of the forested areas in Germany are to be preserved as permanently unused woodland (areas). There may be partial overlaps since large forest areas of unused woodland qualify for both wilderness targets.
The implementation of these wilderness objectives is achieved within the political framework through public administration activities, scientific work and communication.
As a result of these activities a definition for wilderness areas in Germany as well as quality criteria for large wilderness areas in Germany have been developed. Furthermore, the potential for large wilderness areas was identified on a surface-oriented basis. These potential areas cover approximately 3.5% of Germany's land territory and can be found in woodlands, watercourses, coastlines, peatlands and high mountain ranges as well as in former military training grounds or mining areas.
To support the wilderness targets, the Federal Government has made 156,000 hectares of federal land available as ‘National Natural Heritage’. To date, approximately 0.6% of the national land territory is protected as large-scale wilderness areas and approximately 1.9% of the forested area is designated to be permanently unused woodland; however, there is still a gap of 1.4% (large areas) and 3.1% (forests), to fulfill the targets of the NBS.
It is shown, that no starting point of the natural state can be defined for "wilderness areas". For a particular area to be classifiable as a wilderness area, natural processes without or with very slight human influence must be ensured.
Our analysis reveals that the goals for more wilderness areas in Germany are ambitious, but achievable. The first steps for their realization, like the establishment of specific goals, the development of specific strategies and programs by the federal states and the demonstration of a realistic potential for more wilderness areas in Germany have been taken. However, the road to reach these goals is still long, and in the following years there is a continual need for numerous concerted activities by the relevant stakeholders in the field of wilderness.
Global declines in insects have sparked wide interest among scientists, politicians, and the general public. Loss of insect diversity and abundance is expected to provoke cascading effects on food webs and to jeopardize ecosystem services. Our understanding of the extent and underlying causes of this decline is based on the abundance of single species or taxo-nomic groups only, rather than changes in insect biomass which is more relevant for ecological functioning. Here, we used a standardized protocol to measure total insect biomass using Malaise traps, deployed over 27 years in 63 nature protection areas in Germany (96 unique location-year combinations) to infer on the status and trend of local entomofauna. Our analysis estimates a seasonal decline of 76%, and midsummer decline of 82% in flying insect biomass over the 27 years of study. We show that this decline is apparent regardless of habitat type, while changes in weather, land use, and habitat characteristics cannot explain this overall decline. This yet unrecognized loss of insect biomass must be taken into account in evaluating declines in abundance of species depending on insects as a food source, and ecosystem functioning in the European landscape.
We question whether the increasingly popular, radical idea of turning half the Earth into a network of protected areas is either feasible or just. We argue that this Half-Earth plan would have widespread negative consequences for human populations and would not meet its conservation objectives. It offers no agenda for managing biodiversity within a human half of Earth. We call instead for alternative radical action that is both more effective and more equitable, focused directly on the main drivers of biodiversity loss by shifting the global economy from its current foundation in growth while simultaneously redressing inequality.
We question whether the increasingly popular, radical idea of turning half the Earth into a network of protected areas is either feasible or just. We argue that this Half-Earth plan would have widespread negative consequences for human populations and would not meet its conservation objectives. It offers no agenda for managing biodiversity within a human half of Earth. We call instead for alternative radical action that is both more effective and more equitable, focused directly on the main drivers of biodiversity loss by shifting the global economy from its current foundation in growth while simultaneously redressing inequality.</p
Human pressures on the environment are changing spatially and temporally, with profound implications for the planet's biodiversity and human economies. Here we use recently available data on infrastructure, land cover and human access into natural areas to construct a globally standardized measure of the cumulative human footprint on the terrestrial environment at 1 km(2) resolution from 1993 to 2009. We note that while the human population has increased by 23% and the world economy has grown 153%, the human footprint has increased by just 9%. Still, 75% the planet's land surface is experiencing measurable human pressures. Moreover, pressures are perversely intense, widespread and rapidly intensifying in places with high biodiversity. Encouragingly, we discover decreases in environmental pressures in the wealthiest countries and those with strong control of corruption. Clearly the human footprint on Earth is changing, yet there are still opportunities for conservation gains.
Globalization entails increased interdependence and interconnectivities among distal regions and social-ecological systems. This global interregional connectedness – telecoupling – gives rise to specific sustainability challenges , which require new governance solutions. Moving beyond 'scaling-up' governance to address global environmental problems, and exploring the implications of telecoupling for state-led environmental governance, ways the state can effectively address telecoupled environmental issues both within and beyond national borders are addressed, drawing on the example of soy trade between Brazil and Germany. This builds on recent contributions to the literature on governance of interregional ecological challenges to elaborate potential policy and governance options, ranging from classical bilateral, multilateral, and international agreements, to information-based, economic, and hybrid governance modes. While telecoupled environmental problems create governance challenges related to scale, knowledge gaps, coordination, and state capacity, the state has an important role to play. To explore this further, interdisciplinary inquiry is required that includes but moves beyond the state.
Humans, unlike any other multicellular species in Earth’s history, have emerged as a global
force that is transforming the ecology of an entire planet. It is no longer possible to understand, predict, or successfully manage ecological pattern, process or change without understanding why and how humans reshape these over the long-term. Here, a general causal theory is presented to explain why human societies gained the capacity to globally alter the patterns, processes and dynamics of ecology and how these anthropogenic alterations unfold over time and space as societies themselves change over human generational time. Building on existing theories of ecosystem engineering, niche construction, inclusive inheritance, cultural evolution, ultrasociality, and social change, this theory of anthroecological change holds that sociocultural evolution of subsistence regimes based on ecosystem engineering, social specialization and nonkin exchange, or “sociocultural niche construction”, is the main cause of both the long-term upscaling of human societies and their unprecedented transformation of the biosphere. Human sociocultural niche construction can explain, where classic ecological theory cannot, the sustained transformative effects of human societies on biogeography, ecological succession, ecosystem processes, and the ecological patterns and processes of landscapes, biomes and the biosphere. Anthroecology theory generates empirically testable hypotheses on the forms and trajectories of long-term anthropogenic ecological change that have significant theoretical and practical implications across the subdisciplines of ecology and conservation. Though still at an early stage of development, anthroecology theory aligns with
and integrates established theoretical frameworks including social-ecological systems, social metabolism, countryside biogeography, novel ecosystems and anthromes. The "fluxes of nature" are fast becoming "cultures of nature". To investigate, understand, and address the ultimate causes of anthropogenic ecological change, not just the consequences, human sociocultural processes must become as much a part of ecological theory and practice as biological and geophysical processes are now. Strategies for achieving this goal and for advancing ecological science and conservation in an increasingly anthropogenic biosphere are presented.
In 2007 the German Federal Government formulated and adopted the National Strategy on Biological Diversity. With this step the government set a challenging agenda for the conservation and development of biological diversity in Germany. The strategy was drawn up in a comprehensive consultation process involving a broad range of social groups and stakeholders. As a result, implementation provides opportunities for active participation on the part of numerous groups and stakeholders. This paper examines important impulses on federal, state and municipal level that have resulted from the National Biodiversity Strategy. It briefly sets out selected fields of activity according to the current level of achievement of their objectives. The authors come to the conclusion that the strategy has a presence in the national political arena. This presence is particularly strong wherever there are very clearly focused objectives, time horizons and players.