Table 3 Assessment of options to adapt conservation to climate change by conservation practitioners in Brandenburga.
Option /Usefulness
/Feasibility
/ ImplementationMean score (n)
/Reasoning
/ /Mean score (n)
/ Main obstacles for implementation /Mean score (n)
/ Reasoning and examples1 Reduce vulnerability of conservation management
1.1 Broaden dimensions of planning and management / 3
(13) / • Only if smaller scales of space and time are not abandoned and logically combined with planning on larger scales / 2 (10) / • Unclear responsibilities for transboundary approaches with different administrative unites involved – no superordinate coordinating unit
• Existing administrative structures, borders and levels (also other sectors)
• High alignment and communication effort and unequal willingness to cooperate
• No experience with and resources for large-scale planning / 2 (13) / • Network of large protected areas as a first approach
• Single transboundary projects of nature parks
1.2 Maintain horizontal and vertical coherence in planning and management / 3
(12) / • No specification / 3 (10) / • Differences in water and land use regulations in different administrative units
• Static predefinition of planning contents on the different planning levels
• High alignment effort and unequal willingness to cooperate / 2 (13) / • Already prescribed as planning principle by LUGV, but not consequently applied in practice
1.3 Adopt integrative seascape/landscape planning / 3 (11) / • Especially useful considering the small size and high degree of isolation of many Natura 2000 sites
• Necessary due to increased land use change as climate change adaptation of other sectors use (e.g., biomass production for energetic purposes) / 3 (11) / • High alignment effort and unequal willingness to cooperate
• Conflicts of interests
• Political reluctance
• Funding scheme in agriculture: financial incentives for unsustainable practices / 2 (11) / • Landscape programme and landscape framework plan follow integrative approach
• Increasing cooperation with land owners and users in and near protected areas, especially concerning climate change adaptation
1.4 Dynamise conservation / 3
(11) / • Useful in terms of dynamic selection of conservation targets, but less useful in terms of flexible protection regimes (e.g., flexible borders) / 2 (11) / • Static regulatory framework - administrative procedures to change borders too complex and long
• Conflict of interests of land users
• Lack of resources for compensation payments
• Reserved position of authorities towards flexible solution / 2 (11) / • Water level-dependent passing bans for boats on protected water courses
• Area closures adjusted to the changing activity of migratory birds
• Temporal adaptation of landscape maintenance measures
• Adaptation of conservation targets if focal targets are lost within a given area
1.5 Apply adaptive management – iterative-cyclic approach in planning and management / 3
(9) / 2* (9) / • Prevalence of small-scale thinking and reservation against planning
• Insufficient monitoring and control of success (and no capacity for extension)
• Lack of personal resources
• Differing planning regulations on different legislative levels (local, state, European) – high alignment effort
• Considered too theoretical and elaborate an approach
• Fear of errors and loss of control / 2 (9) / • Only applied on local level with direct connection to certain activities and in an intuitive way
• Not part of the planning process and not permanently applied
• Occasional update of management plans of large protected areas
1.6 Apply proactive risk management / 3
(7) / • Useful in times of uncertain changes of different kinds (land use changes also very important) / 2* (7) / • Lack of knowledge, experience and instruments regarding risk management
• Reservation against dealing with uncertainty and taking responsibility
• Low recognition of risks
• Static legal framework / 2 (8) / • Potential changes are considered, but not truly integrated into planning
1.7 Adopt scenario planning / 3
(9) / • It helps to deal with and prepare for uncertain future changes
• Alternative goal and strategy planning important considering climate change / - / • Lack of strategic planning approach and effective communication in general
• Insufficient availability of space to have adequate action framework
• Static regulatory framework (esp. Natura 2000, preservation of status quo)
• Lack of confidence in/reservation towards dealing with the future
• High uncertainty and coarseness of climate change scenarios / 2* (9) / • Not integrated into planning but only occasionally applied by single persons in daily conservation work in an unofficial and personal format
1.8 Accept and facilitate change where appropriate / 3
(8) / • Static conditions not maintainable under climate change
• May support valuable ecological processes / 3 (10) / • Static legal framework (esp. Natura 2000, ‘standstill principle’ for conservation status of conservation targets)
• Reluctance to give up species
• Out-dated conservation approaches / 3 (5) / • Protection of ecological processes in large protected areas
• Automatic implementation due to lack of interference
2 Reduce vulnerability of conservation targets
a) Reduce loss of or restore functionality of conservation targets2.1 Reduce conventional threats to conservation targets / 3
(12) / • Conventional conservation measures that increases resilience of conservation objects towards climate change / 1 (10) / • Funding schemes in agriculture (EU)
• Conflict of interests of land users
• Weak position of conservation – not treated as cross-sectoral issue, restricted sphere of influence / 3 (12) / • Conventional conservation approach and measures
2.2 Protect ecological key components and processes / 3
(7) / • Conventional conservation measure that increases resilience of conservation objects towards climate change / - / • No specification / - / • In large protected areas conventional conservation measure
• key species and threatened habitats protected by Natura 2000 network
2.3. Adjust existing protected areas borders / 3
(6) / • Although protected area system in BB very functional and effective it might have to be revised in terms of climate change and connectivity / 1 (5) / • Reservation against protected areas amongst land users and population - conflict of interests
• Low availability of space
• Static legal framework (esp. Natura 2000)
• Administrative procedures complex and long / - / • Protected area network in Brandenburg considered largely functional and effective
2.4 Develop a functional protected area system (add new protected areas, provide for connectivity) / 3
(7) / • Although protected area system in BB very functional and effective it needs revision in terms of climate change and connectivity / - / • Low acceptance by land users and population
• Dependence on landscape planning outside protected areas
• Lack of resources / 2 (6) / • Habitat connectivity as goal
• Natura 2000 network
• Wildlife bridges and corridors
• Removal of barriers from watercourses
2.5 Improve landscape permeability by land use extensification in the matrix (provide for protection also outside protected areas) / 3
(8) / 2* (7) / • Insufficient interference/cooperation with other land users
• EU funding scheme in agriculture – supports economic interests, conservation sector has no power to reverse incentives
• Increased wood demand / 2 (7) / • Integrative conservation approach in large protected areas
• Forestry sector cooperative and supportive
• Agricultural sector shows opposite developments
b) Reduce sensitivity of conservation targets
2.6 Manipulate ecosystems to improve or maintain habitat quality for certain species/populations or site conditions for certain life communities / 2
(10) / • Short-sighted, costly, laborious, very static/inflexible approach – not effective over long-term
• Should only be applied in exceptional situations
• Measures to strengthen resilience more useful than permanent active interferences / 1 (7) / • Option not sufficiently effective over long-term
• Option too costly and not sustainable / - / • No specification
2.7 Conserve species ex-situ / 2* (10) / • Gaining significance in terms of risk management and conserving genetic diversity for uncertain future developments (more significant for building adaptive capacity)
• Only the last option to save a species from extinction and only reasonable if there is a chance for their (independent) long-term survival / - / • No specification / - / • Fruit trees and shrubs
• Terrapin (Emys orbicularis)
c) Enhance adaptive capacity of conservation targets
2.8 Design and create ecosystems / 2
(6) / • Should only be applied in single cases and where landscape has been influenced
• Small-scale initial measures to trigger or speed natural adaptation processes
• No large-scale solution / - / • Low availability of space
• Impossibility to reconstruct complex ecosystems / 2 (7) / • Implemented on small scales and without direct connection to climate change
• E.g., creation of wetlands and breeding islands for birds, landscape restoration after open-cast mining, creation of functional systems below power lines (e.g., pasture systems), initial plantings on relocated dikes, afforestation
2.9 Protect and restore certain areas proactively/precautionary / 2
(10) / • Very theoretical approach
• Not possible in current legal and societal framework / 1 (7) / • Lack of supporting policies
• Low availability of space
• Static regulatory framework (esp. Natura 2000, preservation of status quo)
• Conflicts of interest with other land users, low acceptance
• Forecasts to uncertain – situation not urgent enough / 1 (9) / • Currently protected areas selected for their conservation value (biological or ecological objects)
• Systematic land purchase by private conservation sector
2.10 Support, facilitate and manage changes of life communities and ecosystems / 2*
(5) / • Allow for natural variability and adaptive capacity but avoid active interference like translocation / - / • Static legal framework (esp. Natura 2000, e.g., ‘standstill principle’ for conservation status of conservation targets)
• Reluctance to give up species / - / • Implemented in single cases (cultural landscapes) but without connection to climate change and natural adaptation processes
3 Mitigate climate change
3.1 Maintain and enhance carbon stock in the biosphere and pedosphere and avoid carbon release / 3
(13) / • Good overlay with conservation targets in Brandenburg / 2 (12) / • EU funding scheme in agriculture
• Low societal recognition of climate change adaptation and mitigation measures – species conservation approach still predominant
• Conflicts of interest with other land users
• Lack of supporting policies / 3 (11) / • Good protection status and restoration of carbon-rich forests and wetlands (due to significant species or important ecosystem types, not directly connected to climate change)
• Increase of dead and old wood in forests
3.2 Maintain and enhance the natural protective and (climate) regulating functions of ecosystems / 3
(5) / • Good overlay with conservation targets in Brandenburg / - / • Lack of acceptance and ecological understanding of land users of other sectors / - / • Protection and restoration of forests and wetlands
• Maintenance of cool air corridors
3.3 Reduce emissions / 3 (9) / • Conservation institutions constitute special example for a general reduction of emissions / 3 (7) / • Partial contradiction with species conservation
• Increased resources need (time, finances) / 2 (9) / • Environmental management in large protected area administrations; EMASb-certification of the LUGV
• Environmental education
• Demonstration projects with land users
a Values: 3 = high, 2 = partial, 1 = very low; * = divergent opinions (none of the three score values amounted more than half of the sum), - = eliminated evaluation score due to n<5
b EMAS: The European Eco-Management and Audit Scheme