The national responsibility approach to setting conservation priorities—Recommendations for its use

The implementation of conservation strategies for species and habitats is frequently hampered by the availability of the necessary resources. These should be prioritized and focused on those species and habitats most in need, but also in regard to the importance of their distribution in a certain region, country or other administrative unit. In that perspective, the concept of national responsibilities (NR) is a recently developed tool to support priority setting. It captures the impact of the loss of a particular species or habitat within the focal region (usually a country) may have on the global persistence of that species or habitat type. Although the method consists of a few simple steps and is not very demanding in regard to data availability per species and habitat type, it is still impossible to determine NRs for all species and habitats. Here, we focus on the difficulties in determining NRs due to missing distribution data, varying interpretations of definitions especially in respect to habitat types, and differences in data formats and maps using European examples of these data limitations and sources of bias. These include artificially enlarged distribution areas resulting from grid cells being reported more than once, gridded shapefiles stretching into the sea or into other biogeographic regions, and differences in the size and the shape of grid cells and hence the resolution of maps. While focusing on European examples, these sources of bias are also relevant for conservation efforts on a global scale. Our analysis stresses the importance of quickly improving data quality, availability and comparability to render conservation more efficient. We give policy relevant examples on how the NR approach can be applied, e.g. how to help attributing budgets to poorer countries, on which species and habitats to focus limited monitoring resources, and how to consider newly emerging diseases. Generally, our analyses suggests (i) to develop clear global data standards, (ii) to regularly assess data to keep up with advances in data handling, and (iii) to use downscaling approaches for biodiversity data to a higher resolution for reducing the impact of bias to a negligible level together with improving the overall quality of distribution data for conservation purposes.

[1]  Dirk S. Schmeller,et al.  Priorities for biodiversity monitoring in Europe: A review of supranational policies and a novel scheme for integrative prioritization , 2013 .

[2]  Robert J. Rudd,et al.  Bat White-Nose Syndrome: An Emerging Fungal Pathogen? , 2009, Science.

[3]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Securing the conservation of biodiversity across administrative levels and spatial, temporal, and ecological scales - Research needs and approaches of the SCALES project , 2010 .

[4]  Dirk S. Schmeller,et al.  Determination of national conservation responsibilities for species conservation in regions with multiple political jurisdictions , 2008, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[5]  Y. Heymann,et al.  CORINE Land Cover. Technical Guide , 1994 .

[6]  Jorgen B. Thomsen,et al.  Biodiversity Hotspots and Major Tropical Wilderness Areas: Approaches to Setting Conservation Priorities , 1998 .

[7]  Miklos D. F . Udvardy,et al.  A classification of the biogeographical provinces of the world , 1975 .

[8]  D. Schmeller,et al.  Cultivation of genetically modified organisms: resource needs for monitoring adverse effects on biodiversity , 2008, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[9]  Anders Klemetsen,et al.  The Charr Problem Revisited: Exceptional Phenotypic Plasticity Promotes Ecological Speciation in Postglacial Lakes , 2010 .

[10]  Don Faber-Langendoen,et al.  Standards for associations and alliances of the U.S. National Vegetation Classification , 2009 .

[11]  Dirk S. Schmeller,et al.  Bird-monitoring in Europe – a first overview of practices, motivations and aims , 2012 .

[12]  D. Moss,et al.  The CORINE biotopes project: a database for conservation of nature and wildlife in the European community , 1994 .

[13]  N. Pettorelli,et al.  Essential Biodiversity Variables , 2013, Science.

[14]  J. Brownstein,et al.  Emerging fungal threats to animal, plant and ecosystem health , 2012, Nature.

[15]  R. W. Becking The zürich-montpellier school of phytosociology , 1957, The Botanical Review.

[16]  K. Bollmann,et al.  From Red Lists to Species of Conservation Concern , 2004 .

[17]  T. Brooks,et al.  Global Biodiversity Conservation Priorities , 2006, Science.

[18]  Eren Turak,et al.  Building a global observing system for biodiversity , 2012 .

[19]  Pierre-Yves Henry,et al.  A review and a framework for the integration of biodiversity monitoring at the habitat level , 2008, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[20]  Robert Lee Schooley,et al.  Patchy Landscapes and Animal Movements: Do Beetles Percolate? , 1997 .

[21]  Lubomír Tichý,et al.  JUICE, software for vegetation classification , 2002 .

[22]  T. Traavik,et al.  The Precautionary Principle: Scientific Uncertainty and Omitted Research in the Context of GMO Use and Release , 2002 .

[23]  Cynthia E. Davies,et al.  EUNIS HABITAT CLASSIFICATION REVISED 2004 , 2004 .

[24]  D. Aanensen,et al.  RACE: Risk assessment of chytridiomycosis to European amphibian biodiversity , 2012 .

[25]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Landscape Zonation, benefit functions and target-based planning: Unifying reserve selection strategies , 2007 .

[26]  Michael L. Morrison,et al.  The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology , 1997 .

[27]  Florian Wetzel,et al.  The need for an integrated biodiversity policy support process – Building the European contribution to a global Biodiversity Observation Network (EU BON) , 2014 .

[28]  Ulf Gärdenfors,et al.  Classifying threatened species at national versus global levels , 2001 .

[29]  Douglas Evans,et al.  Building the European Union’s Natura 2000 network , 2012 .

[30]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Incorporating asymmetric connectivity into spatial decision making for conservation , 2010 .

[31]  M. Fisher,et al.  Global emergence of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and amphibian chytridiomycosis in space, time, and host. , 2009, Annual review of microbiology.

[32]  G. Ulf Population viability analysis in the classification of threatened species: problems and potentials , 2000 .

[33]  J. Janssen,et al.  Red list assessment of European habitat types. A feasibility study , 2013 .

[34]  Doug Evans,et al.  THE HABITATS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION HABITATS DIRECTIVE , 2022, Biology and Environment: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy.

[35]  Michael Hoffmann,et al.  Pinpointing and preventing imminent extinctions. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[36]  Rob H. G. Jongman,et al.  A high-resolution bioclimate map of the world: a unifying framework for global biodiversity research and monitoring , 2013 .

[37]  Peter Carey,et al.  Environmental stratifications as the basis for national, European and global ecological monitoring , 2013 .

[38]  G. Head,et al.  Environmental monitoring of genetically modified crops. , 1999, Journal of environmental monitoring : JEM.

[39]  Zoltán Botta-Dukát,et al.  A grid-based, satellite-image supported, multi-attributed vegetation mapping method (MÉTA) , 2007, Folia Geobotanica.

[40]  Mark A. Burgman,et al.  Scientific Foundations for an IUCN Red List of Ecosystems , 2013, PloS one.

[41]  Cedric E. Ginestet,et al.  Factors driving pathogenicity vs. prevalence of amphibian panzootic chytridiomycosis in Iberia. , 2010, Ecology letters.

[42]  D. Noble,et al.  Regional IUCN Red Listing: the Process as Applied to Birds in the United Kingdom , 2005 .

[43]  Jean Clobert,et al.  Integrating ongoing biodiversity monitoring: potential benefits and methods , 2008, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[44]  Doug Evans Interpreting the habitats of Annex I: past, present and future , 2010 .

[45]  Dirk S. Schmeller,et al.  Effectiveness of the Natura 2000 network to cover threatened species , 2013 .

[46]  Bruce A. Robertson,et al.  A comparison of North American avian conservation priority ranking systems , 2004 .

[47]  J. Wiens,et al.  Interactions between landscape structure and animal behavior: the roles of heterogeneously distributed resources and food deprivation on movement patterns , 1999, Landscape Ecology.

[48]  Dirk S. Schmeller,et al.  National responsibilities for conserving habitats – a freely scalable method , 2012 .

[49]  Caspar A. Mücher,et al.  Modelling the spatial distribution of Natura 2000 habitats across Europe , 2009 .

[50]  K. Kull,et al.  Necessity and reality of monitoring threatened European vascular plants , 2008, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[51]  D. Schmeller,et al.  National Responsibilities in European Species Conservation: a Methodological Review , 2008, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[52]  Bruce B. Collette,et al.  The Impact of Conservation on the Status of the World’s Vertebrates , 2010, Science.

[53]  P. Maitland,et al.  Are phenotypic traits useful for differentiating among a priori Coregonus taxa? , 2012, Journal of fish biology.