Natura 2000 Areas and Sites of National Interest (SNI): Measuring (un)Integration between Naturalness Preservation and Environmental Remediation Policies

The Natura 2000 network was established as a tool to preserve the biological diversity of the European territory with particular regard to vulnerable habitats and species. According to recent studies, a relevant percentage of Natura 2000 sites are expected to be lost by the end of this century and there is widespread evidence that biodiversity conservation policies are not fully effective in relation to the management plans of the protected areas. This paper addresses the issue by analyzing a specific case in which there is a problem of integration between different competences and sectoral policies that leads to the lack of a monitoring system of territorial management performances. The study area, located in the Basilicata Region (Southern Italy), includes a Site of National Interest (SNI), for which several reclamation projects are still in the submission/approval phase, and a partially overlapping Natura 2000 network site. The tool used to monitor biodiversity in the study area is the degradation map obtained through the “habitat quality and degradation” InVEST tool which is used to assess the current trend and thus define a baseline for comparison with two medium and long-term scenarios applicable to the SNI’s procedure of partial and total remediation. The proposed methodology is intended to be a part of a larger and more complex monitoring system that, developed within the framework of ecosystem services, allows for the overcoming of the limits related to fragmentation and contradictions that are present in land management by offering a valuable support to decision makers and the competent authorities in biodiversity conservation policy design.

[1]  R. Gregory,et al.  International Conservation Policy Delivers Benefits for Birds in Europe , 2007, Science.

[2]  Current and future effectiveness of Natura 2000 network in the central Alps for the conservation of mountain forest owl species in a warming climate , 2015, European Journal of Wildlife Research.

[3]  Martin Dieterich,et al.  The challenge of implementing the European network of protected areas Natura 2000 , 2015, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[4]  G. Daily,et al.  Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity , 2012, Nature.

[5]  D. Doak,et al.  What is the future of conservation? , 2014, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[6]  M. Marchetti,et al.  Assessing habitat quality in relation to the spatial distribution of protected areas in Italy. , 2017, Journal of environmental management.

[7]  Tom A. August,et al.  Declining resilience of ecosystem functions under biodiversity loss , 2015, Nature Communications.

[8]  Nina Schwarz,et al.  Synergies, Trade-offs, and Losses of Ecosystem Services in Urban Regions: an Integrated Multiscale Framework Applied to the Leipzig-Halle Region, Germany , 2012 .

[9]  S. Marshall,et al.  Advantages and challenges associated with implementing an ecosystem services approach to ecological risk assessment for chemicals. , 2017, The Science of the total environment.

[10]  G. Ziv,et al.  Model development for the assessment of terrestrial and aquatic habitat quality in conservation planning. , 2016, The Science of the total environment.

[11]  Stephen Polasky,et al.  A Global System for Monitoring Ecosystem Service Change , 2012 .

[12]  Beniamino Murgante,et al.  Carbon Stock as an Indicator for the Estimation of Anthropic Pressure on Territorial Components , 2018, ICCSA.

[13]  Beniamino Murgante,et al.  Comparing the territorial performances of renewable energy sources' plants with an integrated ecosystem services loss assessment: A case study from the Basilicata region (Italy) , 2020 .

[14]  M. Sotirov,et al.  The implementation of Natura 2000 in forests: A trans- and interdisciplinary assessment of challenges and choices , 2015 .

[15]  L. Stringer,et al.  Participation in environmental conservation and protected area management in Romania: A review of three case studies , 2013, Environmental Conservation.

[16]  Kalliope Pediaditi,et al.  Participation in the management of Greek Natura 2000 sites: evidence from a cross-level analysis. , 2012, Journal of environmental management.

[17]  Francesco Scorza,et al.  Improving EU Cohesion Policy: The Spatial Distribution Analysis of Regional Development Investments Funded by EU Structural Funds 2007/2013 in Italy , 2013, ICCSA.

[18]  Robert Costanza,et al.  Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? , 2017 .

[19]  Giuseppe Borruso,et al.  Military Training Areas as Semicommons: The Territorial Valorization of Quirra (Sardinia) from Easements to Ecosystem Services , 2020 .

[20]  Manchun Li,et al.  Constructing Ecological Networks Based on Habitat Quality Assessment: A Case Study of Changzhou, China , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[21]  G. Mace,et al.  Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. , 2012, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[22]  Evaluation of habitat protection under the European Natura 2000 conservation network – The example for Germany , 2018, PloS one.

[23]  W. Kepner,et al.  The Use of Scenario Analysis to Assess Water Ecosystem Services in Response to Future Land Use Change in the Willamette River Basin , Oregon , 2010 .

[24]  Andrea Arcidiacono,et al.  Ecosystem Services Assessment Using InVEST as a Tool to Support Decision Making Process: Critical Issues and Opportunities , 2015, ICCSA.

[25]  Uta Schirpke,et al.  How to support the effective management of Natura 2000 sites? , 2017 .

[26]  M. Spalding,et al.  The world's protected areas : status, values and prospects in the 21st Century , 2008 .

[27]  Antonio Boggia,et al.  Development of policies for Natura 2000 sites: a multi-criteria approach to support decision makers. , 2014, Journal of environmental management.

[28]  Davide Geneletti,et al.  Ecosystem services classification: A systems ecology perspective of the cascade framework , 2017, Ecological indicators.

[29]  Tomasz Noszczyk,et al.  The InVEST Habitat Quality Model Associated with Land Use/Cover Changes: A Qualitative Case Study of the Winike Watershed in the Omo-Gibe Basin, Southwest Ethiopia , 2020, Remote. Sens..

[30]  Qiu-hao Huang,et al.  Integration of InVEST-habitat quality model with landscape pattern indexes to assess mountain plant biodiversity change: A case study of Bailongjiang watershed in Gansu Province , 2019, Journal of Geographical Sciences.

[31]  Jarrett E. K. Byrnes,et al.  A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change , 2012, Nature.

[32]  K. Chan,et al.  Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values , 2012 .

[33]  Raoul Beunen,et al.  The governance of Natura 2000 sites: the importance of initial choices in the organisation of planning processes , 2011 .

[34]  S. Pauleit,et al.  From Multifunctionality to Multiple Ecosystem Services? A Conceptual Framework for Multifunctionality in Green Infrastructure Planning for Urban Areas , 2014, AMBIO.

[35]  M. C. Diaw,et al.  Summary for policymakers of the regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Africa of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services , 2018 .

[36]  Andreas Y. Troumbis,et al.  Questioning the effectiveness of the Natura 2000 Special Areas of Conservation strategy: the case of Crete , 2004 .

[37]  L. Nalley,et al.  Quantifying and mapping multiple ecosystem services change in West Africa , 2013 .

[38]  Corrado Zoppi,et al.  Conservation Measures and Loss of Ecosystem Services: A Study Concerning the Sardinian Natura 2000 Network , 2016 .

[39]  Olaf Bastian,et al.  The role of biodiversity in supporting ecosystem services in Natura 2000 sites , 2013 .