Assessment and Spatial Planning for Peatland Conservation and Restoration: Europe’s Trans-Border Neman River Basin as a Case Study

Abstract

Peatlands are the “kidneys” of river basins. However, intensification of agriculture and forestry in Europe has resulted in the degradation of peatlands and their biodiversity (i.e., species, habitats and processes in ecosystems), thus impairing water retention, nutrient filtration, and carbon capture. Restoration of peatlands requires assessment of patterns and processes, and spatial planning. To support strategic planning of protection, management, and restoration of peatlands, we assessed the conservation status of three peatland types within the trans-border Neman River basin. First, we compiled a spatial peatland database for the two EU and two non-EU countries involved. Second, we performed quantitative and qualitative gap analyses of fens, transitional mires, and raised bogs at national and sub-basin levels. Third, we identified priority areas for local peatland restoration using a local hotspot analysis. Nationally, the gap analysis showed that the protection of peatlands meets the Convention of Biological Diversity’s quantitative target of 17%. However, qualitative targets like representation and peatland qualities were not met in some regional sub-basins. This stresses that restoration of peatlands, especially fens, is required. This study provides an assessment methodology to support sub-basin-level spatial conservation planning that considers both quantitative and qualitative peatland properties. Finally, we highlight the need for developing and validating evidence-based performance targets for peatland patterns and processes and call for peatland restoration guided by social-ecological research and inter-sectoral collaborative governance.

Mires in Europe—Regional Diversity, Condition and Protection

“…It should be also noted that this target refers to both quantitative and qualitative criteria, i.e., that not only the proportion of peatlands in protected areas matters, but also their condition. This, and the gaps in protection, have been recently described for peatlands in the Nemunas catchment region [40]. As peatlands are areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services [1,7,8], our analysis underlines the need to enlarge the protected area network with regard to peatlands.…”

Barriers and bridges for sustaining functional habitat networks: A macroecological system analysis of wet grassland landscapes

“…Drained wetlands lack this variation. Widespread drainage of wetlands for intensive agriculture has led to a drastic decline in the area of species‐rich wet grassland and transformed species compositions (Manton et al, 2021 ).…”

Woodland key habitat contribution to preserve biological diversity in Lithuania: assessing the difference between 2005 and 2017

“…The implementation of policy targets and conservation approaches about ecological sustain-ability towards successful conservation of species, habitats and processes is a paramount contemporary challenge (Sabogal et al 2015). The concept of biodiversity (Noss 1990) is a good example for the analysis of generating evidence-based knowledge of performance targets, measures for managing and restoring habitats for species (e.g., Svancara et al 2005;Lele et al 2013;Manton et al 2021). To support the implementation of policies aiming at sustainable forest management, non-formal conservation approaches, such as the Woodland Key Habitat (WKH) initiative, have been developed.…”

“…According to Rauschmayer et al (2009) outcomes of policy processes can be divided into two parts. Firstly, the implementation of policy tools and initiatives to be employed by planners and managers (Angelstam, Andersson 2001;Manton et al 2021), https://doi.org/10.17221/64/2021-JFS as well as tactical planning and operational management approaches (e.g., Eriksson, Hammer 2006;Angelstam et al 2011). Secondly, the consequences of the implementation of these plans and actions in the field (e.g., Angelstam et al 2011).…”

“…However, this second step in the policy implementation process is often poorly studied (e.g., Mansourian, Vallauri 2014, Popescu et al 2014. Thus, there is a need to assess the consequences in the field (Rauschmayer 2009;Manton et al 2021). Following two decades in action, the woodland key habitat (WKH) initiative provides an excellent opportunity to fill this gap.…”