Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Exploring restoration options for habitats, species and ecosystem services in the European Union|
|Authors:||EGOH BENIS NCHINE; PARACCHINI Maria-Luisa; ZULIAN GRAZIA; BIDOGLIO Giovanni; SCHAEGNER JAN|
|Citation:||JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY vol. 51 no. 4 p. 899-908|
|Type:||Articles in periodicals and books|
|Abstract:||1. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the European Union have set a target of restoring 15% of degraded ecosystems by 2020 with the aim of conserving biodiversity and enhancing the supply of ecosystem services. This target must be implemented alongside other similar targets aimed at reducing the number of threatened habitat and species as assessed under the Birds and Habitats directives. However, there are several uncertainties associated with achieving these targets including the benefits of restoring biodiversity and ecosystem services, the contribution required from member states, and the effect of different restoration scenarios on target achievement. 2. In this study we evaluate options that exist for meeting an EU-wide 15% restoration target while conserving habitats and species and enhancing ecosystem services. We explored the effects of different restoration scenarios on the percentage of threatened habitat and species secured. Lastly, we explored the effects of including financial cost into the prioritization procedure. 3. Focusing restoration efforts on habitats with unfavorable conservation status in the reporting of the Habitats Directive provides the largest benefit for species and ecosystem services. If the restoration target is set at 10% for habitat and species with unfavourable conservation status, and at 2% for all ecosystem services, about 18% of EU ecosystems should be restored to meet these targets. 4. When the targets is set at 15% of habitat and species and 3% of all ecosystem services, results showed that France hosts the highest percentage of identified priority areas (13%) followed by Spain and Finland with about 11% and Sweden with 9%. However these numbers change when financial cost is included alongside with other criteria, with France containing 34% of all areas identified. 5. Synthesis and applications: These results suggest that to achieve the highest benefits, funding for restoration should be directed towards habitats with unfavourable conservation status rather than to species. Some countries have more of such threatened habitats than others coupled with lower restoration cost thus offering better opportunities for such restoration work and in meeting the 15% restoration target at the EU level.|
|JRC Directorate:||Sustainable Resources|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.