Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 639–648 | Cite as

To which extent is the interdisciplinary evaluation approach of the CBD reflected in European and international biodiversity-related regulations?

Original Paper

Abstract

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is a major step forward towards an integrated approach of biodiversity and conservation to sustainable development. The CBD mentions in its preamble the intrinsic value of biological diversity and the ecological, genetic, social, economic, scientific, educational, cultural, recreational and aesthetic values of biological diversity and its components. However, there are still grave implementation deficits in practise on global, European, and national level. Therefore, the following research analyses the extend to which the different values mentioned in the preamble of the CBD are already included into a selection of European and international regulations related to biodiversity and to which extent a condensed amount of the same criteria is applied for comprehensive, transparent, and comparable evaluations. The study reveals that the established European and international biodiversity-related regulations do not sufficiently consider the different values of biodiversity, but also do not relate them to the same incomplete criteria. They still follow the traditional nature conservation approach, which has failed to halt the loss of biodiversity. Democratic participatory processes are needed, which integrate the different measures of Agenda 21 while applying the interdisciplinary evaluation framework of biodiversity for sustainable development.

Keywords

Agenda 21 Biodiversity evaluation Biodiversity strategy CBD values Environmental impact assessment Landscape planning Nature conservation assessment Sustainable development 

References

  1. CBD (1992) Convention on Biological Diversity. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. http://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-un-en.pdf. Cited 22 Jul 2008
  2. CBD (2005) Fifth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 5). Decision V/6. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. http://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/COP-05-dec-en.pdf. Cited 22 Jul 2008
  3. CBD (2008) Decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its ninth meeting. Bonn, 19–30 May 2008. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. http://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/COP-09-dec-en.pdf. Cited 22 Jul 2008
  4. CITES (2008). What is CITES? CITES Secretariat, Geneva. http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/what.shtml. Cited 10 Sep 2008
  5. EC (1979) Council Directive of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (79/409/EEC). Consolidated version of 1 January 2007. European Commission, Brussels. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1979L0409:20070101:EN:PDF. Cited 22 Jul 2008
  6. EC (1992) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Consolidated version 1 January 2007. European Commission, Brussels. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1992L0043:20070101:EN:PDF. Cited 22 Jul 2008
  7. EC (2008) Progress towards halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010. A first assessment of implementing the EC Biodiversity Action Plan. European Commission, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/rep_biodiv_ap/pdf/2007_report.pdf. Cited 22 Jul 2008
  8. Klausnitzer B (1993) Ökologie der Großstadtfauna, 2nd edn. Gustav Fischer, Jena StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  9. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being. Biodiversity synthesis. A report by the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.354.aspx.pdf. Cited 22 Jul 2008
  10. Posey DA (1999) Introduction: culture and nature—the inextricable link. In: Posey DA (ed) Cultural and spiritual values of biodiversity. United nations environment programme. Phonix Trykkeriet, Denmark, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  11. UN (1992) Agenda 21. United Nations, New York. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21toc.htm. Cited 22 Jul 2008
  12. WHO (2006) WHO Constitution. World Health Organization, Geneva. http://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf. Cited 22 Jul 2008
  13. Zisenis M (1996) Secondary woodland on Nunhead Cemetery, London, UK. In: Zerbe S (ed) Vegetationsökologie mitteleuropäischer Wälder. Kolloquium zum „Ökologietag” 1995 in Berlin. Landschaftsentwicklung und Umweltforschung. Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, pp 73–80Google Scholar
  14. Zisenis M (1998) Proposal for an interdisciplinary nature conservation assessment approach applied to an exemplary evaluation of Nunhead Cemetery, London, UK. In: Breuste J, Feldmann H, Uhlmann O (eds) Urban ecology. Springer, Berlin, pp 713–714Google Scholar
  15. Zisenis M (2005) Kann eine interdisziplinäre Bewertung zur Erfassung und Stärkung der biologischen Vielfalt beitragen? In: Korn H, Feit U (eds) Treffpunkt biologische Vielfalt V Interdisziplinärer Forschungsaustausch im Rahmen des Übereinkommens über die biologische Vielfalt. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn-Bad Godesberg, pp 247–252Google Scholar
  16. Zisenis M (2006) A framework of values and criteria for interdisciplinary evaluations of nature and landscapes. Thesis, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin. http://opus.kobv.de/tuberlin/volltexte/2006/1232/index.html. Cited 22 Jul 2008
  17. Zisenis M (2008) A critical analysis of the quality of Environmental Impact Studies in Germany. Landschaftsplanung.NET. http://www.lapla-net.de/texte/2008//zisenis/Zisenis.pdf. Cited 22 Jul 2008

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations