So after a bit of a delay, the @EU_Commission finally published the proposal of #RestoreNature. This is a major step forward in the implementation of the @EUEnvironment Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. However there is still some potential for improvement. A thread.
First a brief examination of the many positive aspects of the proposal. It’s ambitious but arguably achievable in most of its goals. It covers agricultural, forest, freshwater, marine and habitats with specific targets, indicators and approaches for each.
It is progressive over time, with targets for 2030, 2040 and 2050. And aims for a positive future for biodiversity as in the #naturefuturesframework @ipbes or the ideas of bending the curve of biodiversity loss, by Georgina Mace and others.
It includes urban ecosystems, recognizing the importance of restoring nature in urban ecosystems, where most of the EU population lives.
It proposes a set of specific indicators for each type of ecosystem. These indicator sets are diverse and well adapted to each ecosystem and measure a range of the dimensions of biodiversity change.
Some ideas of the #rewilding approach to restoration are present in the proposal, such as the removal of river barriers to promote free flowing rivers or the emphasis on restoring connectivity of terrestrial ecosystems.
However there are also some aspects where I believe there’s space for improvement. Let me start with the choice of indicators. They are currently enshrined into articles of the law. This will limit adapting them in the future as new approaches and methodologies emerge.
The current set of indicators proposed are mostly those that are already implemented since many years (common birds, grassland butterflies) or are currently being implemented (pollinators), and is limited in novelty, not covering some of the @GEOBON_org #EBV classes.
It would be important to establish a process for which the indicator list can be improved and revised in years to come, to cover more dimensions of biodiversity change and more taxonomic groups.
One key aspect of the #rewilding approach is missing in the current proposal: restoring trophic complexity and the functional role of large carnivores and herbivores in ecosystems.
Finally, and perhaps for me the weakest component of the proposal is the focus on the habitats of the Habitats Directive. The HD was a major achievement 30 years ago and one of the first pieces of legislation worldwide to confer protection to ecosystem types.
However, it was based on a phytosociological approach that was already critically seen by many scientists at the time. The problems with the lack of scientific rigor of such approach have been apparent in the implementation over decades.
The same habitat in the HD can be identified very differently in two countries, or I dare to say, by two different botanists. Years of harmonization and manuals of habitat interpretation have improved the situation but the fact remains that it’s not scientifically sound
Habitats are dynamic and evolve over time. They are influenced by the animals that live on them, for instance grazers or detritivorous species. They are not static collections of species, and they are agnostic about indicator species…
The restoration law is a major opportunity to bring better ecological science to ecosystem conservation, by using a dynamic and functional approach. I hope the @europeanparliam introduces some modifications in this direction. Thanks for reading this long thread!
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
