作者: Axel Hochkirch , Thomas Schmitt , Joscha Beninde , Marietta Hiery , Tim Kinitz
DOI: 10.1111/CONL.12037
关键词: Environmental resource management 、 Threatened species 、 Common Agricultural Policy 、 Business 、 Habitats Directive 、 Natural resource economics 、 Legislation 、 Directive 、 Land use 、 Natura 2000 、 Measurement of biodiversity 、 Ecology (disciplines) 、 Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics 、 Nature and Landscape Conservation
摘要: Maes et al. (2013) argue that amendments to the Annexes of Habitats Directive “would divert attention and resources risks being counterproductive,” other species would also benefit from conservation measures for listed on priority should focus funding implementing management. This argumentation very well illustrates inertia European administrative processes, such as Directive. A time span 20 years has apparently not been sufficient implement a properly managed reserve network, whereas during same time, major changes in Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) led rapid land use threatening biodiversity (e.g., Eggers 2009). We are concerned with current lists only 7 left, it will be virtually impossible halt loss territory EU by 2020. It is probably never “the right time” (Maes 2013) change any directive, simply due protracted complex legislation processes. However, we believe regular stronger link Red Lists assure becomes an adaptive tool hence independent Contrary argument diverted put forward (2013), via mechanisms embedded itself, can ensure threatened which annexes. Local administrations fully occupied Natura 2000, few left protect unlisted species, even if they highly endangered. is, thus, rather optimistic rely