Fire management for biodiversity conservation : key research questions and our capacity to answer them

Knowing how species respond to fire regimes is essential for ecologically sustainable management. This axiom raises two important questions: (1) what knowledge is the most important to develop and (2) to what extent can current research methods deliver that knowledge? We identify three areas of required knowledge: (i) a mechanistic understanding of species’ responses to fire regimes; (ii) knowledge of how the spatial and temporal arrangement of fires influences the biota; and (iii) an understanding of interactions of fire regimes with other processes. We review the capacity of empirical research to address these knowledge gaps, and reveal many limitations. Manipulative experiments are limited by the number and scope of treatments that can be applied, natural experiments are limited by treatment availability and confounding factors, and longitudinal studies are difficult to maintain, particularly due to unplanned disturbance events. Simulation modelling is limited by the quality of the underlying empirical data and by uncertainty in how well model structure represents reality. Due to the constraints on large-scale, long-term research, the potential for management experiments to inform adaptive management is limited. Rather than simply recommending adaptive management, we define a research agenda to maximise the rate of learning in this difficult field. This includes measuring responses at a species level, building capacity to implement natural experiments, undertaking simulation modelling, and judicious application of experimental approaches. Developing ecologically sustainable fire management practices will require sustained research effort and a sophisticated research agenda based on carefully targeting appropriate methods to address critical management questions.

Resolving conflicts in fire management using decision theory: asset-protection versus biodiversity conservation

Agencies charged with nature conservation and protecting built-assets from fire face a policy dilemma because management that protects assets can have adverse impacts on biodiversity. Although conservation is often a policy goal, protecting built-assets usually takes precedence in fire management implementation. To make decisions that can better achieve both objectives, existing trade-offs must first be recognized, and then policies implemented to manage multiple objectives explicitly. We briefly review fire management actions that can conflict with biodiversity conservation. Through this review, we find that common management practices might not appreciably reduce the threat to built-assets but could have a large negative impact on biodiversity. We develop a framework based on decision theory that could be applied to minimize these conflicts. Critical to this approach is (1) the identification of the full range of management options and (2) obtaining data for evaluating the effectiveness of those options for achieving asset protection and conservation goals. This information can be used to compare explicitly the effectiveness of different management choices for conserving species and for protecting assets, given budget constraints. The challenge now is to gather data to quantify these trade-offs so that fire policy and practices can be better aligned with multiple objectives

Insights into the biodiversity and social benchmarking components of the Northern Australian fire management and carbon abatement programmes

Much of northern Australia’s tropical savannas are subject to annual intense and extensive late dry season wildfires, much of this occurring on Aboriginal land. Based on the successful West Arnhem Land Fire Abatement (WALFA) model, which has resulted in significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions, fire abatement programmes are planned for other significant regions of northern Australia. This study offers an introduction to the ideas behind a proposed environmental and social benchmarking project that aims to evaluate the potential benefits of expanding the fire abatement program in northern Australia, under the leadership of NAILSMA and its partners. Gaining a better understanding of the biodiversity, social and cultural outcomes of these fire abatement activities is an important component of demonstrating multiple benefits of these programmes. We emphasize the role of both biodiversity and cultural mapping to establish benchmarks and baseline states, with the involvement of Indigenous communities being a key element to optimize social and biodiversity benefits. Consultation with Traditional Owners and ranger groups to establish an agreed set of targets, indicators and sampling protocols and methodologies are critical component of this process. Examples of preliminary work to date are provided.

Integrating geo-referenced multiscale and multidisciplinary data for the management of biodiversity in livestock genetic resources

P>In livestock genetic resource conservation, decision making about conservation priorities is based on the simultaneous analysis of several different criteria that may contribute to long-term sustainable breeding conditions, such as genetic and demographic characteristics, environmental conditions, and role of the breed in the local or regional economy. Here we address methods to integrate different data sets and highlight problems related to interdisciplinary comparisons. Data integration is based on the use of geographic coordinates and Geographic Information Systems (GIS). In addition to technical problems related to projection systems, GIS have to face the challenging issue of the non homogeneous scale of their data sets. We give examples of the successful use of GIS for data integration and examine the risk of obtaining biased results when integrating datasets that have been captured at different scales.

Contractual Difficulties in Environmental Management and the Protection of Biodiversity: The Case of Conservation and Mitigation Banking

This paper offers a principal-agent model of feasible private contracting in mitigation and conservation banking aimed at the protection of natural habitat and bio-diversity of US wetlands and uplands. It is shown that while it is straightforward to design an incentive contract, such a contract may not achieve the federally mandated objective of no net loss of habitat. This is because the minimum payment required as an economic incentive to private agents may be greater than what they should receive for the habitat values that they actually created in the field. This possible problem is shown to derive from nonconvexity in the production possibility set between the biological value of land as natural habitat and in non-habitat uses such as in urban development. The paper concludes with a consideration of several institutional devises that may promote the convergence of private contracting and the attainment of no net loss. These include the payment of subsidies, greater accuracy in the identification of actual quality by the principal, and the use of several incentive alignment devises.

Participatory approaches in the management of Natura 2000: when EU biodiversity policy gets closer to its citizens. Bruges Political Research Paper No. 26/May 2012

The Habitats Directive has created a European network of protected areas combining environmental protection with social and economic activities. Although not clearly advocated in the Directive, participatory approaches have incrementally emerged in order to ensure an adequate management of the Natura 2000 network. This paper looks at the reasons why the European Commission on one side and the national/local authorities on the other side chose to engage in participatory approaches and assesses the structure, degree and scope of these approaches in the light of input and output legitimacy. Main findings are that participation was mostly implemented as a reaction to conflicts and out of a concern over policy implementation, two elements that continue to drive the philosophy of the Natura 2000 network‘s management. The limits of participation in Brussels are contrasted with the potential for more genuine and effective participation mechanisms on the field.

Implementing biodiversity action plans within environmental management systems

DUE TO COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS ONLY AVAILABLE FOR CONSULTATION AT ASTON UNIVERSITY LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES WITH PRIOR ARRANGEMENT

The importance of realistic dispersal models in planning for conservation : application of a novel modelling platform to evaluate management scenarios in an Afrotropical biodiversity hotspot

Funded by European Union's Horizon 2020 Marie Sklodowska-Curie. Grant Number: 661211 Research Foundation Flanders (FWO). Grant Numbers: G.0055.08, G.0149.09, G.0308.13 FWO Research Network on Eco-Evolutionary dynamics French Ministère de l'Energie de l'Ecologie du Développement Durable et de la Mer through the EU FP6 BiodivERsA Eranet NERC. Grant Number: NE/J008001/1

Priorities in policy and management when existing biodiversity stressors interact with climate-change

There are three key drivers of the biodiversity crisis: (1) the well known existing threats to biodiversity such as habitat loss, invasive pest species and resource exploitation; (2) direct effects of climate-change, such as on coastal and high elevation communities and coral reefs; and (3) the interaction between existing threats and climate-change. The third driver is set to accelerate the biodiversity crisis beyond the impacts of the first and second drivers in isolation. In this review we assess these interactions, and suggest the policy and management responses that are needed to minimise their impacts. Renewed management and policy action that address known threats to biodiversity could substantially diminish the impacts of future climate-change. An appropriate response to climate-change will include a reduction of land clearing, increased habitat restoration using indigenous species, a reduction in the number of exotic species transported between continents or between major regions of endemism, and a reduction in the unsustainable use of natural resources. Achieving these measures requires substantial reform of international, national and regional policy, and the development of new or more effective alliances between scientists, government agencies, non-government organisations and land managers. Furthermore, new management practices and policy are needed that consider shifts in the geographic range of species, and that are responsive to new information acquired from improved research and monitoring programs. The interactions of climate-change with existing threats to biodiversity have the potential to drive many species to extinction, but there is much that can be done now to reduce this risk.

Environmental Governance for Biodiversity

Effective environmental governance is hampered by the continuing presumption of the state as central actor in the domestic and international political contexts. Over the last 20 years, the traditional 'Westphalian' conception of the sovereign state has come under increasing pressure not only in theory, but also in practice, as evidenced by the increasing importance attributed to the participation of quasi-government and non-government actors in decision-making in domestic and international political issues. This paper is a contribution to the on-going debate about the meaning of effective environmental governance by mapping out a post-Westphalian conception of governance. In particular, it defines governance in relation to the protection of biodiversity; highlights obstacles to effective governance in this area, and discusses forming environmental management plans and environmental governance regimes to implement them. The final section of the paper suggests seven directions for ensuring the realisation of effective environmental governance.