Spatial planning for biodiversity in Europe's changing climate

Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

European EnvironmentEur. Env. 18, 135–151 (2008)

Published online 11 April 2008 in Wiley InterScience

(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/eet.476

Spatial Planning for Biodiversity in Europe’s Changing Climate

Elizabeth Wilson* and Jake PiperSchool of the Built Environment, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK

ABSTRACTClimate change is already having impacts on biodiversity within Europe, with habitats and species needing to change and adapt to rising global temperatures and shifts in bio-climatic zones.

Spatial planning represents an important intervention to further European, national and local biodiversity objectives for climate change adaptation. Drawing on case-studies of plans for inland and coastal areas, and involving stakeholder workshops, this paper reports on a trans-national study examining the scope of spatial plans in the Netherlands, England and France in addressing the impact of climate change. It concludes that spatial planning is making provision for biodiversity and dynamic natural processes. However, while good practice in planning for biodiversity under conditions of climate change is developing, systematic use is not being made of available procedures. The paper examines some of the barriers to implementation of this new policy commitment to climate change adaptation. Recommendations are made covering policy development to include climate change impacts upon biodiversity, modifi ed procedures for plan-making and the appraisal of plans and projects. Amongst the specifi c measures recommended are the climate-proofi ng of projects and plans through the use of EIA and SEA; the integration of plans through adoption of common objectives and review of time horizons and boundaries; and an ecosystem-based planning approach. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Received 16 April 2007; revised 16 January 2008; accepted 18 January 2008

Keywords: spatial planning, biodiversity, climate change, Natura 2000, ecological networks, strategic environmental assessment,

implementation

Introduction

CLIMATE CHANGE HAS BECOME AN IMPORTANT ISSUE IN INTERNATIONAL, NATIONAL AND LOCAL

policy-making in the last decade (IPCC, 2001). The European Union has responded, adopt-

ing a Second Climate Change Programme in 2005 (ECCP II – CEC, 2005), but the principal

focus initially remains on mitigation of the causes of climate change, rather than adaptation to

* Correspondence to: Elizabeth Wilson, School of the Built Environment, Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK. E-mail: [email protected]

136 E. Wilson and J. Piper

Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Eur. Env. 18, 135–151 (2008)DOI: 10.1002/eet

unavoidable climate change. The impact of climate change on biodiversity has not been given as much

attention as might be expected, even though the EU has a well developed system of protection for its

landscapes and biodiversity, based on the Birds Directive of 1979 and the Habitats Directive of 1992

(CEC, 1979, 1992), which instituted the Natura 2000 network (see below).

The EU’s Biodiversity Strategy (CEC, 1998) sets a target of halting reduction of biodiversity by 2010,

but a number of reports suggest that biodiversity is continuing to decline (CEC, 2006a), and that imple-

mentation of the broad conservation policies is unsatisfactory (Beunen, 2006). Given the pressures on

biodiversity from a number of sources, especially land use change and development (EEA, 2003, 2005b,

2006a; English Nature, 2005a), the additional pressures of climate change present a real challenge for

EU biodiversity policy, and for policies for sectors such as spatial planning, which affect biodiversity.

This paper reports on a study undertaken as part of the BRANCH programme (Biodiversity Requires

Adaptation in Northwest Europe under a Changing Climate), funded by the EU Interreg IIIB pro-

gramme. It examines the spatial policies and plans of three member states in North West Europe

(France, the Netherlands and the UK (England)), and the framework provided by European policies,

strategies and legislation, in order to establish the effectiveness of mechanisms for assisting biodiversity

adaptation. Biodiversity adaptation is taken here to include processes whereby species and habitats either

move into newly suitable areas or where measures are taken to reduce vulnerability, increase resilience

and accommodate change. An aim of the policy review was to identify mechanisms that can be used

at European, national, regional and local scales to facilitate spatial planning for changing biodiversity

under conditions of climate and sea level change.

Spatial planning has a multitude of interpretations, and differs from the more narrowly defi ned land-

use planning. Faludi calls it ‘ambiguous – its meaning shifts over time’ (Faludi, 2002, p. 4), but it also

depends on the institutional and socio-legal context within which it is undertaken. It generally involves

the systematic preparation of policies, covering a particular spatial area, involving a range of activities and

interests affecting that space, and coherently worked out in advance of decisions. Promoted originally at

the level of the European Union through the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), spatial

planning has been adopted at national, regional or provincial and local scales as a way of addressing the

‘spatial dimensions of a wide range of other sectoral policies, from economic development, transporta-

tion and environmental protection through to health, culture and language’ (Adams et al., 2006, p. 4).

The methodology of the current study included the review of EU policies and national policies

and planning documents at various levels, followed by consultation with policy-makers, planners and

other stakeholders at workshops in Winchester, The Hague and Brussels, and interviews in northern

France.

Climate Change, Biodiversity and Spatial Planning

Climate Change in Europe

Climate change modelling and socio-economic scenarios provide a complex picture of likely climate

change in Europe as a whole over the period to 2100 (Parry, 2000; EEA, 2003, 2004). Some European

regions seen as being most vulnerable to climate change impacts are the Mediterranean and southern

Europe, mountain and sub-Arctic areas, and densely occupied fl oodplains and coastal zones (EEA,

2006a).

Unavoidable change will happen over the coming 40–50 years as the result of past emissions, and

attempts to mitigate climate change via emission reduction cannot avert this. Projections for Europe

outlined by the EEA (2004) include an increase of annual mean temperature of +2.0–6.3°C over the

Spatial Planning for Biodiversity in Europe’s Changing Climate 137


period 1990–2100. Projections for precipitation show a 1–2% increase per decade for northern Europe

against an up to 1% per decade decrease in southern Europe.

Whilst precise prediction of changes is not yet possible, there is some consensus on warmer and drier

summers, and milder and wetter winters in NW Europe. Other changes in this region include more

frequent summer heat extremes, more frequent droughts and intense precipitation events and increased

risk of storms. In addition, the projected rate of sea level rise in the 21st century is 2.2–4.4 times higher

than in the recent past. At the local and regional level, the impacts of climate will depend on latitude,

topography and distance from the seas, as well as upon land use and settlement patterns. Spatial plan-

ning policies and measures must consequently fi nd ways to respond to this complexity.

There is already evidence of the impacts of a changing climate upon biodiversity: consequences

include phenological changes and loss of habitats and species, as well as species invasion and migration

(Brooker and Young, 2005). The European Environment Agency (2004) points to decreases in popula-

tions of certain plant species over the past three decades in northern and southern Europe, while plant

species diversity is increasing in northwest Europe with the northward movement of species, which is

projected to continue to the 2050s. Moreover, the EEA reports that ‘due to non-climate-related factors,

such as the fragmentation of habitats, extinction rates are likely to increase’ (2004, p. 51).

Adaptation to Climate Change: Biodiversity and Spatial Planning

There are many reasons why we need to adapt to climate change. The EEA argues that anticipatory action

is more effective than ‘fi re-fi ghting’ action; climate change may progress more rapidly than expected;

immediate and future benefi ts can be gained by ‘better adaptation to climate variability and extreme

climatic events’, and by avoiding policies and practices that constrain future options for adaptation.

(EEA, 2004, p. 79).

These arguments apply particularly to sectors such as water resources, and construction and develop-

ment, so that investments are resilient with respect to future change. However, questions remain about

the effectiveness of current protection for species and sites and wider ecological networks, as well as

questions about the long term ability of planned interventions (such as designated nature reserves) to

protect biodiversity under a changing climate.

The Natura 2000 Network was established to create a coherent European ecological network of sites

protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives, to ensure the restoration or maintenance of natural

habitats and species of Community interest at a favourable conservation status. The preamble to the

Habitats Directive makes reference to the role of land-use planning; Article 6 then sets out site protection

measures to be established by MSs across the network of sites. These include appropriate assessment,

the avoidance of disturbance or, eventually, compensation measures. Article 10 goes on to state that

Member States shall endeavour, where they consider it necessary, in their land-use planning and

development policies and, in particular, with a view to improving the ecological coherence af the

Natura 2000 network, to encourage the management of features of the landscape which are of major

importance for wild fauna and fl ora.

Such features are those which, by virtue of their linear and continuous structure (such as rivers

with their banks or the traditional systems for marking fi eld boundaries) or their function as

stepping-stones (such as ponds or small woods), are essential for the migration, dispersal and genetic

exchange of wild species (CEC, 1992).

European policies for biodiversity (such as the European Biodiversity Strategy, CEC, 1998) look to spatial

planning to help protect and safeguard internationally and nationally designated sites, networks and



species, as well as locally valued sites in urban and non-urban areas, and to create new opportunities for

biodiversity through the development process. However, the BRANCH project has shown that those who

are developing conservation policy are unsure about the current effectiveness of such policy, and about

what is the future for protected areas. It is acknowledged amongst conservationists that many sites are

at risk as the areas are too small and fragmented, whilst the target species (i.e. those for which the site

was designated) may not be resilient to changing climate. It is argued by many (such as Hossell et al., 2000, 2001; Gaston et al., 2006) that this site-based approach does not really acknowledge the dynam-

ics of change in the wider environment. Green et al. (2001, p. 67) argue that under changing climatic

conditions ‘the maintenance of the current scientifi c interest of statutorily designated sites may prove

diffi cult or even inappropriate’ and Ibisch (2005, p. 1) concludes that ‘in the light of projected climate

changes and short-term loss of stability for many species, it is highly improbable that Natura 2000 alone

can accomplish its objectives’.

Not only is the species composition of the designated sites likely to change, but the potential for

habitats and species to move in response to climate change is likely to be constrained by other land-use

changes, some of them driven by climate change. For instance, if the availability of water resources for

urban populations declines, then the need to develop new water resources may create additional stress

on water systems and the biodiversity that depends on them.

Conservationists and conservation bodies have proposed a number of policy changes that aim to make

European ecosystems more resilient to climate change: the European Environment and Sustainable

Development Advisory Councils (EEAC, 2005), for instance, have called for continued development of

the Natura 2000 network, stressing the importance of conservation planning across whole landscapes,

enhancing ecological connectivity and recreating ecosystems on a large scale. Similarly, Vos (2005) has

proposed more robust corridors and networks at a national and international scale, with enlarged nature

conservation areas, and others (Opdam et al., 2006) argue for a coherent large-scale spatial structure

of ecosystems, such as regional-scale ecological networks. Spatial planning is likely to be a key means

of delivering this.

Planning Strategies and Approaches for Biodiversity Under Climate Change

Research Approach

The BRANCH study sought to examine the extent and effectiveness of current spatial plans and planning

measures in aiding or promoting biodiversity adaptation. It interpreted spatial planning as involving

the setting of goals and implementation of actions for the short and longer term of land uses and land-

based activities and their interactions. The scope of the study included terrestrial and coastal planning,

but not planning for the wider marine environment.

The research approach was to identify published strategies and policies, but also, given the questions

about the effectiveness of conservation policy mentioned above, to examine stakeholders’ attitudes to the

issues arising from their implementation. Box 1 aims to clarify terms used in this paper. The documen-

tary review covered the EU policy framework and national, regional and local/municipal spatial plans

and policies and plans in the three EU member states participating in the BRANCH project – France,

the Netherlands and the UK (England) – as at 2005. It examined their treatment of the interaction of

climate change with biodiversity and wider natural processes such as landscape change, natural resource

use, management of water and coastal zones. Plans for designated sites at national, regional and local

level were reviewed, as well as plans for coastal zone management. Case studies were used to examine

the issues arising from climate change impacts in urban and rural, coastal and inland sites, and to

explore the planning measures in place.



Key stakeholders in the fi elds of spatial and biodiversity planning were contacted for information on

relevant plans and policies, and for their views on biodiversity adaptation, on any obstacles to implemen-

tation of adaptation policy and on possible future measures to address these. The stakeholders included

staff of environment and conservation agencies, spatial planning and environment ministries, planners

at regional and local levels, staff of organizations and authorities with responsibilities for managing

protected and other sites and environmental non-governmental organizations.

Two national workshops were held in 2005, in England and in the Netherlands. Participants represent-

ing both planning and biodiversity bodies were invited to discuss a structured set of topics to identify

current awareness of climate change and biodiversity, the obstacles to better spatial planning to enable

adaptation by species and habitats and what is needed to overcome these obstacles (including policy

development and practical measures, information and tools needed). Interviews with policy-makers in

France were held to present and analyse the fi ndings on the shortcomings of current practice.1 Perceived

shortcomings and issues in spatial planning at EU and national level were discussed with a group of

policy analysts and policy-makers working at EU level.

Criteria for Review of Spatial Planning Documents

The study reviewed how far strategies, policies and spatial plans at national, regional or provincial and

local level, across the BRANCH partner countries, consider the implications of climate change for bio-

diversity, including the implications of policy for the conservation and safeguarding of designated sites,

and the provision of opportunities to assist biodiversity to adapt to these changes.

The research approach recognized that plans differ in their level of detail. We distinguished between

framework or policy plans (such as regional strategies) and those proposing specifi c measures (such as

action plans for coastal zones). The literature covering aspects of climate change is growing, but there

is still little on the three-way relationship of spatial planning, climate change and biodiversity. The selec-

tion of the assessment criteria therefore drew on the literature on climate change and spatial planning

(such as ODPM, 2004), on biodiversity and spatial planning (such as EEA, 2003; CEC, 2006b; Byron

and Treweek, 2005), on climate change and biodiversity adaptation (such as Hossell et al., 2001; EEA,

Policy instruments Implementation measures (examples)

• Strategic environmental assessment• Appropriate Assessment (at Natura 2000 sites)• Plans, objectives• Strategies• Policies to reduce pressures on biodiversity

• Designation and protection of internationally valuable biodiversity sites at local level, such as through SANGs (see below)

• Designation of corridors linking sites and establishment of biodi-versity networks (e.g. Netherlands Ecological Network and PEEN)

• Protection of fl oodplains from development• Financial support for rehabilitation of brownfi eld areas as biodiver-

sity habitat, for example in Greater London at Rainham Marshes (English Nature, 2003)

Box 1. Instruments and measuresSANGs: Suitable Alternative Natural Green Spaces – now being proposed in connection with Thames Basin Heaths (Natural England, 2007).PEEN: Pan-European Ecological Network (Council of Europe, undated).

1 In France, a less developed awareness of issues surrounding climate change and biodiversity adaptation made it appropriate to use a different approach to gain participation from stakeholders.



2004, 2006b; Brooker and Young, 2005; Hulme, 2005) and on climate change adaptation generally

(such as EEA, 2004; West and Gawith, 2005).

Spatial planning works to a range of time-horizons: national or regional level plans may have horizons

of up to 25 years, or even longer for some functions such as coastal zone management planning, with

local plans having a shorter timescale. However, as built development is likely to persist over 60–100

years, and in some cases longer, it is important that spatial planning takes account of the changing

climate that will be experienced throughout the 21st century. The research therefore examined the time-

horizon of plans. The criteria used are shown in Box 2.

Spatial Planning, Biodiversity and Climate Change in the BRANCH Partner Countries

The fi ndings from the three BRANCH partner countries are described, before the broader issues are

drawn out. More details, particularly of the case studies, are to be found in the full BRANCH report

(Piper et al., 2006). The case study examples were proposed by the BRANCH project partners to illustrate

some of the current tensions and issues in responding to climate change, and to demonstrate aspects

of changing practice.

FranceFrance adopted a Strategy for Sustainable Development early in 2003 (MEDD, 2003), with a fi ve year

timetable, which emphasized the need to reduce the causes of climate change, but not the need for

adaptation to its effects. A serious heat wave later that year prompted considerable research and policy-

making initiatives. The French national plan on climate change (MEDD, 2004) states that ‘Adaptation

should bring together national policy with local level approaches in order to take account elements

linked to climate in the different decision-making mechanisms’. The Plan committed government to an

adaptation programme, published in 2005 (ONERC, 2005), which discusses in general terms the need

for measures to enable biodiversity to adapt, as well as to further research.

The French spatial planning system emphasizes the responsibilities of higher or more strategic

territorial levels with respect to climate change; the lower or more local levels had not yet taken action

with respect to either mitigation or adaptation (in 2006). As with the other BRANCH partner coun-

tries, there is a complex array of governmental agencies responsible for spatial planning, economic

Treatment of climate change in framework and policy plans• acknowledgement of climate change as an issue;• reference to climate change timescales and plan horizons;• identifi cation of the impacts of climate change on biodiversity and natural resources, and on natural processes, and • mention and identifi cation of any cumulative and synergistic impacts.

Analysis of forward planning measures in implementation/action plans• adaptive capacity identifi ed and adaptation measures proposed;• recognition of the need to work with changing environments;• assessment of existing practice;• recognition of climate change impacts within both valued habitats and the wider landscape;• mention of compensatory provision of sites for biodiversity;• mention of the possible safeguarding sites for restoration as biodiversity sites for the future;• recognition of areas of confl ict and potential for compromise.

Box 2. Criteria used for the assessment of existing plans



development, coastal management and biodiversity, and new initiatives are underway for integrated

coastal planning.

A study of climate change impacts on sites owned by the Conservatoire du Littoral (Clus-Auby

et al., 2005) identifi ed the Baie des Veys, Basse Normandie, as one of the Natura 2000 sites particularly

vulnerable to sea-level rise and coastal fl ooding. The review of plans in this case-study area (Commis-

sion Locale de l’Eau, 2004; Prefectures of Haute-Normandie and Basse-Normandie, 2004) revealed

little evidence as yet of clear integration either horizontally between plans or vertically between levels of

planning, or of the use of integrative tools such as SEA or appropriate assessments under the Habitats

Directive. However, spatial, regional and water management plans are currently being developed that

affect the Baie des Veys site, including an overall spatial planning strategy for the Seine estuary. Coastal

fl ood risk management has traditionally adopted the hard engineering approach, but policy-makers are

recognizing the need for an understanding of dynamic coastal processes and appropriate action.

Considerable plan-making activity is now addressing some of the issues: territorial climate plans are

being prepared that will address mitigation, and the next round of regional plans will address climate

change adaptation. The focus of the climate change research organization, ONERC, is on the bio-physical

regions of mountains and coasts, and on the impact on sectors such as forests, viti-viniculture, build-

ings and public health.

Despite these signifi cant shifts in approach, stakeholders interviewed pointed to mixed and complex

messages on climate change, with the link to biodiversity rarely made. They felt there was a low level

of understanding of climate change adaptation at all levels of the planning hierarchy, with poor com-

munications and piecemeal availability of biodiversity data. It was felt at that time – Spring 2006 – that

staffi ng and fi nancial resources available for this policy area were low.

The NetherlandsThe Dutch have a long-standing history of national action on sustainable development, with the Fourth

National Environmental Policy Plan (Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, The

Netherlands (VROM), 2000) acknowledged as the precursor of a sustainable development strategy (on

which the government consulted in 2002). NEPP4, which had a planning horizon of 30 years, identifi ed

climate change as a key issue. The national response to climate change is increasingly characterized

by the integration of policies across a wide range of policy spheres, with a commitment to fl exibility

in spatial planning for the future. This approach is found in the National Spatial Strategy Nota Ruimte

(VROM, 2004), which outlines policies up to 2030. The Strategy identifi es a range of measures aimed

at preventing, but also adapting to, the effects of climate change while achieving residential, commercial,

recreational and ecological goals.

The Dutch tradition of land reclamation, and making room for people, is giving way to a signifi cant

and revolutionary national shift in policy to making room for rivers (MVW, 2000a; De Vries, 2006). This

has two elements: ensuring that the ecological functions of the water system provide the foundation for

spatial planning decisions (such as through the requirement for a Water Test, under which each provin-

cial and local spatial plan has to consider the issues of water storage and retention in the plan), and the

pro-active designation of areas for the permanent or temporary storage of water. SEA was undertaken

of the Space for Rivers policy, which concluded that it would have positive impacts on natural dynamics

and ecosystems (Kolhoff and Slootweg, 2005). The national policy towards coastal zone management

(MVW, 2000b), sets out short- (<5 years), medium- (<30 years) and long-term (up to a century) policies,

and specifi cally considers the consequences of rising sea-levels as a result of climate change. There is

a shift underway towards policies that promote working with dynamic coastal processes, but particip-

ants at the workshop in The Hague did not consider that these are suffi cient to integrate biodiversity

objectives into spatial planning.



The Netherlands has also been innovative in biodiversity planning. A long-standing policy, origi-

nally launched in 1990, has been to establish a National Ecological Network (NEN), which looks to

spatial plans (especially at the provincial level) to implement the network and determine biodiversity

conservation objectives (MLNV, 2000). The principles are to enlarge existing biodiversity conserva-

tion areas, to develop new areas and to develop local ecological corridors. The NEN was proposed as a

response to habitat loss and fragmentation (though not climate change – Hootsmans and Kampf, 2004).

Later, to improve spatial cohesion, provincial governments were asked to explore a set of ‘robust cor-

ridors’. Kolhoff and Slootweg (2005) consider that the network provides an important frame for the

consideration of biodiversity in spatial plans, and that overall it is a successful means of extending

conservation areas. However, priority is given to the realization of the NEN; non-designated areas also

perform valuable ecosystem functions, but they receive less attention.

At the provincial level, the Provincial Water Management Plans take account of climate change;

there is evidence of cross-boundary and inter-provincial co-operation on climate change issues and

adaptation for climate change is increasingly recognized. An example is the Provincial Environmental

Plan for Limburg (Provincial Council of Limburg, 2001), which highlighted water management issues,

and approved the Limburg ‘robust corridor’. The corridor links a chain of habitats along the east bank

of the River Maas/Meuse, and a signifi cant part of it has Natura 2000 status. The corridor has been

reviewed within preparations for the next Environment Plan for Limburg, to provide a Strategic Policy

Framework due in 2007: consultation is underway, but decisions (such as on acquisition and funding)

are still to be made.

Despite what seems to be innovative and long-term strategic provision in the Netherlands, stakehold-

ers at the national workshop raised a number of concerns over implementation. They considered that

the link between climate change and biodiversity is not fully apparent. The issue of water and safety is

a key issue, but the Water Test faces institutional obstacles (LUC et al., 2004). There are also problems

of negotiating for and acquiring land for water storage (De Vries, 2006).

The UK (England)At national level, climate change is recognized as an important and current issue, not merely one of

interest in the long term (HM Government, 2005). There is no national spatial plan for England (unlike

the position in Wales and Scotland), and planning horizons have been generally short. General guidance

on the response of planning to climate change has been published (ODPM, 2004). The government

has consulted on a new policy on making space for water, developed on the Dutch model (DEFRA,

2004), with policy implications for restoring the natural dynamics of rivers and fl ood-washlands, and

hence scope for improvement in wetland and riverine habitats. In 2006 this led to the revision of exist-

ing planning policy on fl ood risk and development (ODPM, 2001) to put more emphasis on protecting

fl oodplains and introducing institutional change, making the Environment Agency a statutory consultee

on fl ood risk for certain developments (Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG),

2006a). National spatial planning policy for biodiversity takes account of the Natura 2000 Network and

wider conservation principles (PPG 9 and more recently PPS9), though PPS9 simply states that regional

plans need to take climate change into account (ODPM, 2005).2

The England Biodiversity Strategy (DEFRA, 2002) is similarly unspecifi c about the more general

role of the towns, cities and development sector in biodiversity adaptation to climate change, but the

2 Offi cial government planning policy subsequent to the present study, the draft Planning and Climate Change supplement to PPS1 on sustain-able development (CLG, 2006b), reiterates that regional planning bodies and all planning authorities should ‘sustain biodiversity, and in doing so recognize that the distribution of habitats and species will be affected by climate change’.



climate change element of the strategy was reviewed in 2006–07. In the coastal zone, however, the

nature conservation agencies and fl ood defence agencies recognize the need to act in ways that respond

in a dynamic manner to climate change as illustrated by the shift in policy from coastal protection to

working with natural coastal processes and ‘managed realignment’ in circumstances where ‘holding the

line’ is recognized as no longer sustainable (English Nature, 2005b). The integration of this approach

into spatial planning policy is nevertheless a lengthy process of plan-making and negotiation.

At the regional level, new regional spatial strategies are being prepared, which look to 25 year time-

horizons. Climate change is explicitly recognized in these strategic plans, and specifi c strategic landscape

measures have been devised in some regions. For example, the Draft South East Plan (SEERA, 2005a)

includes policies specifi cally promoting climate change adaptation, and proposes policies for areas of

strategic biodiversity opportunity. The draft sustainability appraisal of the plan (SEERA, 2005b), which

aims to fulfi l the requirements of the SEA Directive, identifi es climate change as a critically important

issue, but considers that further work on adaptation needs to be fast-tracked to inform the implementa-

tion of the plan.

At the local level, some plans now include proposals for the creation of landscape features, such as

stepping-stones and green corridors, and to consolidate existing networks linking wildlife sites. Addi-

tional spatial measures undertaken to protect and promote biodiversity are the restoration and enhance-

ment of rivers and wetlands, but, as indicated, this is not yet a national requirement. The case study of

Queenborough and Rushenden, a regeneration area in North Kent on the Thames estuary, showed that

forward planning for biodiversity under a changing climate was taken into account in the Masterplan

(DEFRA, 2006). The aim was to allow natural processes to continue, with the expectation of some fl ood-

ing being planned for, with core green and blue (terrestrial and water-related) infrastructure integrated

into the site, with minimal barriers to movement of water and species, and a network of permeable

habitat spaces, corridors and links.

Review of EU Policy

The policy framework set by the European Union is also of evident importance, especially for biodiver-

sity. Strategies and procedures for the assessment of plans’ impacts on biodiversity (such as the Direc-

tives on Habitats (92/43/EEC), Strategic Environmental Assessment (2001/42/EC) and Environmental

Impact Assessment (97/11/EC) and the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)) were therefore also

reviewed. Although the European Union does not as such have a specifi c mandate for spatial planning,

it does publish relevant initiatives such as the European Spatial Development Perspective (CEC, 1999)

and thematic strategies such as that on the urban environment (CEC, 2006b), which the study briefl y

reviewed.

Almost all EU spheres of competence have potential for indirect impacts upon the environment

(such as agriculture policy, industrial policy and transport policy), but this research concentrated upon

those aspects of policy that can be used to support spatial planning action to protect biodiversity under

a changing climate. Impacts from and interactions with other policy areas are being explored within

the MACIS project.3

Land use planning is outside the formal competence of the EU. Nevertheless, the EU has recently

adopted a thematic strategy on the urban environment (CEC, 2006b), a commitment in the Sixth Envi-

ronmental Action Plan. This strategy provides guidance on integrated environmental management,

3 MACIS: Minimization of and Adaptation to Climate Impacts on Biodiversity (under Sixth Framework Programme). See www.macis-project.net



linking this with policy areas such as climate change, nature and biodiversity, sustainable urban design

(land-use planning), the loss of natural habitats and impacts such as soil-sealing (i.e. creation of hard

surfaces, impermeable to precipitation), and the promotion of urban biodiversity. It does not expressly

mention the role of spatial planning in assisting biodiversity to adapt to climate change.

The emerging sustainable communities agenda may also be important for improving the resilience

of biodiversity to climate change. The Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities (German Federal

Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Affairs (BMBVS), 2007), which builds on the 2005 Bristol

Accord, refers to the need to improve the quality of the environment but is less specifi c than the earlier

Accord on biodiversity and habitats.

The fi rst European Climate Change Programme (ECCP) was chiefl y concerned with the reduction of

greenhouse gas emissions in line with Kyoto Protocol targets. Adaptation will form a more signifi cant

part of ECCP II, with objectives including the integration of adaptation into appropriate policy areas,

such as biodiversity, urban planning and construction (CEC, 2005). The EU has not so far been at the

forefront of climate change adaptation, and it is acknowledged by the European Environment Agency

(EEA, 2005a) that climate change considerations have not yet been integrated to any great extent into

the key EU environmental policies, nor into economic, regional or agricultural policies.

Emerging Issues: Achievements and Barriers

Achievements and Shortcomings

On the basis of the policy review, workshops and interviews, the study concluded that the place of

dynamic biodiversity is becoming more fully realized within spatial planning in the three countries.

Plans are recognizing the importance of ecological networks at European and regional scale, to counter

the issues of fragmentation and isolation, and are beginning to include measures that aid the devel-

opment of a matrix of non-protected areas (including urban areas) across the wider landscape. Plan

horizons are growing longer, and measures are in place (particularly prompted by the needs of water

systems) to deal with cross-boundary issues. Box 3 shows some of the progress at provincial and regional

scales (not yet at a European scale).

While spatial planning is acknowledging the wider context for dynamic biodiversity, there is less

evidence of direct response to the needs of climate change adaptation.

Safeguarding new sites specifi cally for climate change adaptation is rare (except through land acquisi-

tion by NGOs). Compensatory provision under the Habitats Directive is being used, but again this is

geared to retaining favourable conservation status under change caused by drivers other than climate

change (such as port development). SEA is not being used systematically to address impacts under a

• Indications of plans’ use of concept of dynamic biodiversity to respond to a changing climate.• Promotion of defensive approaches – trying to reduce the development and other pressures on biodiversity.• Promotion of active approaches, such as creating new habitats.• Adoption of plan objectives to promote wider, strategic landscape ecosystems.• Wider acceptance of the concept of ecological networks.• Specifi c responses at the local level include

� designating buffer zones, wildlife corridors, green and blue infrastructure, stepping-stones, and� avoiding fragmentation by development and disturbance by recreation.

Box 3. Achievments at provincial and regional scales



changing climate. Climate change impacts may act cumulatively and synergistically with impacts result-

ing from other sectors or with other pressures (such as policy or demographic change), but typically

there is little identifi cation or assessment of cumulative impacts.

Overcoming Barriers

In any area of policy there are issues of implementation arising from the different ways in which policy is

framed and interpreted, infl uenced by the distribution of power across institutions and policy networks,

styles of regulation, and understandings and attitudes to knowledge (Hill, 2005; Beunen, 2006). This

is especially so in this case where different policy communities – here, those of spatial planning and

of biodiversity – are responding to a European requirement for ecological protection, while also begin-

ning to take on a new and uncertain policy area of climate change adaptation. The BRANCH research

therefore aimed to identify any barriers that inhibit the adoption of more effective policies and measures,

in the two areas of plan-making and the use of tools and knowledge. Box 4 summarizes these barriers,

which are discussed further in the following paragraphs.

Many plans (with the exception of some Dutch plans) are relatively short term in comparison with the

period over which climate change is forecast (for instance, 5–10 years in comparison with predictions

made for climate change over the coming century). Spatial plans that are not able to conceive of signifi -

cant future changes, for instance in the quality and distribution of biodiversity, are not able to take pre-

emptive action now. Amongst both scientists and policy-makers, the lack of consensus about appropriate

intervention measures, and uncertainty surrounding their outcomes, is an obstacle. Sustained habitat

creation is diffi cult, and biodiversity response cannot be planned exactly, but there was consensus that,

in order to enable biodiversity to be maintained, plan objectives need to recognize dynamic processes,

with protection of existing semi-natural habitat, the creation or re-creation of habitat targeted to increase

the potential for connections between sites, and a more ‘permeable’ landscape. This would require a

strategic and fl exible approach with land earmarked and safeguarded for biodiversity.

Implementation powers and means (such as resources) are also necessary to fulfi l objectives. Powers

and competences to prepare and implement spatial plans vary across member states and across different

spatial scales. For instance, in England, central government has powers to ensure conformity by lower

(regional and local) tiers by means of national statements of policy, and through plan approval. In the

Netherlands, a national spatial planning framework sits alongside strong provincial plan-making powers,

while in France regional plan-making powers exist but are less used (CEC, 1997).

The study found that planners in England and the Netherlands do not have powers for direct

implementation of appropriate measures (these might include designating areas with potential for

rehabilitation and protection as biodiversity habitat in the future), but generally must rely on indirect

implementation, for instance via negotiations, or planning conditions and obligations. Not all existing

plans are statutory in nature – the implementation of non-statutory plans is not guaranteed. Moreover,

• Plan horizons too short (e.g. 5–10 years)• Lack of consensus on intervention measures• Uncertainty on climate change impacts• Diffi culties with habitat creation (ecological, fi nancial and inadequate authority)• Confl icts between different plans and interests of different sectors• Boundary issues (boundaries do not coincide)• Existing tools not fully utilized (SEA, AA)

Box 4. Barriers to policy development and implementation



confl icts between overlapping plans and initiatives, especially in coastal zones, and poor integration of

social, economic and environmental objectives, have led to potential for confl icts between policy aims.

Plans typically call for partnerships, and within these partnerships such topics as economic development,

tourism or land protection interests may dominate biodiversity interests. Water-related activities such

as inter-catchment transfer, reservoir building and water abstraction may have signifi cant consequences

for aquatic, wetland and terrestrial biodiversity, especially where affected by drought. Where fl ooding

(fl uvial, groundwater or coastal) has been severe in recent years, this has acted as a trigger for action on

climate change, but it is not clear that policies to enhance security from fl ooding will lead to a higher

profi le for biodiversity.

Implementation is also affected by boundary issues: administrative and functional boundaries rarely

coincide with the natural boundaries that are relevant to wildlife. This is an issue at both local and also

international level, such as the Rhine and Maas in The Netherlands, where for example, the species

that are the principal conservation objective of the Natura 2000 sites might cross borders in response

to climate change. There are also issues over changing site boundaries as coastlines and rivers change.

However, the River Basin Management Plans under the Water Framework Directive are catchment

based, and can provide a model for cross-boundary ecosystem planning. In the wider landscape, plan

objectives are limited by a lack of permeability, insuffi cient space for biodiversity and the fragmentation

of landscapes via infrastructure and other development. It is increasingly recognized (DEFRA, 2002)

that the network of parks, gardens, semi-natural and brownfi eld sites in urban areas is important for

biodiversity. However, for species with poor dispersal capacity, providing permeable landscapes will not

be suffi cient to help them to move.

Existing tools, such as SEA and Appropriate Assessments under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive,

are not being used systematically to consider the impacts of climate change (indeed, climate change is

not expressly mentioned in the directives). However, strategic levels of assessment have been identifi ed

in international agreements relating to biodiversity (the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ramsar

Convention on Wetlands and the Convention on Migratory Species). Treweek et al. (2005) argue that

SEA can be an important tool for ensuring that conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity are

pursued as fundamental objectives of strategic decision-making and planning, and Kolhoff and Slootweg

(2005) show that this has been effective in the Netherlands. The BRANCH review suggests that SEA

could be used more explicitly to promote the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity under

climate change. The impact of the plan or programme should be assessed against a changing climatic

context, over time, taking into account the proposed mitigation measures (to reduce plan impacts). The

likely effectiveness of compensatory measures must also be assessed in the light of climate change. If

climate change impact assessment becomes a standard element in the SEA process, then these benefi ts

could be gained and directed towards adaptation for climate change. Guidance is available on SEA and

climate change (Levett-Therivel et al., 2004), and on the treatment of climate change within Appropriate

Assessments (Scott Wilson et al., 2006). Other potential benefi ts of SEA relate to areas outside protected

sites and opportunities to implement biodiversity initiatives pursued by local stakeholders, NGOs and

other partnerships.

It is also important to consider the role of spatial planning within the wider context of public opinion.

Public awareness of climate change has been stimulated by weather events, such as the French heat wave

of 2003, and fl ooding events. Whilst the public may now be more aware that some degree of climate

change is unavoidable, it is less aware of likely impacts upon particular sectors, for example, impacts

upon biodiversity. Public interest in biodiversity is variable, though many public campaigns (such as

the Natuurkalendar on phenology in the Netherlands) appear successfully to promote interest. Linked

to this is a conservative sensitivity about change, especially in treasured landscapes, which may be an

obstacle to early adaptation.



Conclusions

The BRANCH review concluded that spatial plans should recognize that biodiversity offers both important

direct and indirect benefi ts through the inherent value of species and habitats, biological products and eco-

system services, as acknowledged, for instance, in the EU’s review of the implementation of its biodiversity

strategy (CEC, 2006a). Benefi ts include maintaining the quality of land, air and water, and maintaining the

role of wetlands in fl ood mitigation (EEA, 2003). Biodiversity also contributes signifi cantly to the distinctive

quality of places, and to people’s quality of life, health and well-being. Thus, in circumstances of climate

change, spatial planning has a particularly important duty to put in place measures that directly protect

and enhance biodiversity, and measures that control the impacts of human activities, or safeguard areas

of current or future importance for biodiversity. Many of these measures will also provide other benefi ts

both for the support of ecosystem functions and for human quality of life.

It is diffi cult to attribute actions to policies, and to judge outcomes when the criteria for effectiveness of

successful implementation may be unclear (Beunen, 2006; Gaston et al., 2006). Moreover, conclusions

from cross-national studies need to acknowledge that regulatory, institutional and professional cultures

vary across nations, and inferences must be tentative. The principle of the BRANCH project has been

to examine the impacts of climate change from an international perspective, and to share experience

and knowledge to fi nd transferable results, and to strengthen transnational co-operation in the fi eld of

spatial development planning. While the review has shown how circumstances differ between the three

partner countries, it has also shown how climate change will continue to affect northwest Europe in

signifi cant ways, and that all member states face similar issues in the implementation of international

and European legislation for biodiversity protection.

The understanding of the interaction of climate change, biodiversity and spatial planning at the

European level is changing. Until recently, the focus has been upon mitigation through the Kyoto process

and achieving emissions targets. This position is shifting, with reforms such as the ECCP underway,

and support for research into the impacts of climate change on biodiversity across Europe (Harrison

et al., 2006). Key legislative and policy instruments (such as directives and strategies) have considerable

potential for addressing climate change adaptation, and supporting the further policy responses now

under development. The review underlined the need for fl exible responses to changing environments

and biodiversity, with stakeholders also seeking action in the wider landscape to enhance adaptive capac-

ity through networks, and to improve the habitat quality, viability, resilience and permeability of the

matrix of land between protected areas.

The BRANCH project has identifi ed research needs across a broad scope: examination of the interac-

tions between climate change impacts and other pressures for change (for example, demographic and

economic change) and the indirect effects of these upon biodiversity, as well as biodiversity research (for

example, species’ dispersal capabilities). Another fi eld of work would cover spatial planning approaches

(such as ICZM and integrated fl ood management) to identify measures suitable for different environ-

mental and economic circumstances; other areas include partnership approaches, training and skills

upgrades and communication methods – including web-based GIS methods. Also important is analysis

of the interplay of the sectoral policies (transport, agriculture, water) with spatial planning and biodiver-

sity, in order to identify approaches that more effectively bring win–win–win solutions, with benefi ts

for mitigation, adaptation and biodiversity.

At the national level, spatial planning policies and measures for promoting dynamic and changing

biodiversity, and for wider ecological networks, are being implemented.

Nevertheless, it is clear that there are challenges to placing biodiversity adaptation at the heart of

spatial planning. Climate change presents particular problems of lack of certainty and knowledge of the



extent, rate and type of changes and the necessary interventions to secure biodiversity. In addition, there

are signifi cant problems in promoting a longer-term view for spatial planning when political horizons

are short, and in adopting suffi ciently robust language to address climate change effectively (Wilson,

2006; Bulkeley, 2006). Even if some barriers to implementation were overcome, concerns remain that

the wider political and economic context, expressed for instance in the Lisbon agenda promoting EU

competitiveness, may be an obstacle to appropriate action and policy evolution on climate change and

biodiversity.

Acknowledgements

The research on which this paper is based was part of the BRANCH (Biodiversity Requires Adapta-

tion in Northwest Europe under a Changing Climate) Programme. BRANCH is a three year Interreg

IIIB multi-partner multi-project programme aiming to identify, develop and advocate spatial planning

mechanisms to allow for the adaptation of both terrestrial and coastal biodiversity habitats to chang-

ing climate in northwest Europe. English Nature is the lead partner for this project, with partners in

southeast England, France and the Netherlands: Alterra, Conservatoire du Littoral, Environment Agency,

Environmental Change Institute, Hampshire County Council, Kent County Council, Provincie Limburg

and Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.

The authors acknowledge the contribution of Joe Weston, Stewart Thompson and John Glasson of

Oxford Brookes University, and they are grateful to the BRANCH partners and workshop attendees. The

views expressed in the paper are those of the authors.

References

Adams N, Alden J, Harris N. 2006. Regional Development and Spatial Planning in an Enlarged European Union. Ashgate:

Aldershot.

Beunen R. 2006. European nature conservation legislation and spatial planning: for better or for worse? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 49(4): 605–619.

Brooker R, Young J (eds). 2005. Climate Change and Biodiversity in Europe: a Review of Impacts, Policy, Gaps in Knowledge, and Barriers to the Exchange of Information Between Scientists and Policy-Makers, report presented at the European Platform for

Biodiversity Research Strategy meeting held under the UK Presidency. London: DEFRA.

Bulkeley H. 2006. A changing climate for spatial planning. Planning Theory and Practice Interface 7(2): 203–214.

Byron H, Treweek J. 2005. Guest editorial: SEA – great potential for biodiversity? Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 7(2): v–xiii.

CEC. 1979. Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds. Offi cial Journal L103.

CEC. 1992. Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora. Offi cial Journal of the European Communities L206.

CEC. 1997. The EU Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies, report, Nadin V, Hawkes P, Cooper S, Shaw D, Westlake

T (eds). Offi ce for Offi cial Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg.

CEC. 1998. Communication of the European Commission to the Council and to the Parliament on a European Community Biodiversity Strategy, COM (98) 42. CEC: Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/docum/pdf/9842en.pdf [12 April 2007].

CEC. 1999. ESDP – European Spatial Development Perspective: Towards Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the European Union. Offi ce for Offi cial Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg.

CEC. 2005. Climate Change: Start of the Second European Climate Change Programme, IP/05/1330.

CEC. 2006a. Communication from the Commission: Halting the Loss of Biodiversity by 2010 – and Beyond. Sustaining Ecosystem Services for Human Well-Being, COM(2006)216 Final. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2006/com2006_

0216en01.pdf [22 August 2006].

CEC. 2006b. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment, COM(2005)718 Final.

Clus-Auby C, Pasko R, Verger F. 2005. Chaud et Froid sur le Littoral. Conservatoire du Littoral: Paris.



Commission Locale de l’Eau. 2004. SAGE du Bassin Cotier du Boulonnais. http://www.sage-boulonnais.com [6 July 2005].

Council of Europe. Undated. The Pan-European Ecological Network. http://www.coe.int/t/e/cultural_co-operation/environment/

nature_and_biological_diversity/ecological_networks/PEEN/ [5 December 2007].

De Vries J. 2006. Climate change and spatial planning below sea-level: water, water and more water. Planning Theory and Practice 7(2): 223–227.

Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG). 2006a. Development and Flood Risk, PPS 25. The Stationery Offi ce:

London.

Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG). 2006b. Draft Supplement to PPS 1, Delivering Sustainable Development. The Stationery Offi ce: London.

Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). 2002. Working with the Grain of Nature: a Biodiversity Strategy for England. TSO: London.

Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). 2004. Making Space for Water: Developing a New Government Strategy for Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management in England. DEFRA Publications: London.

Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). 2006. Adapting to Climate Change Impacts – a Good Practice Guide for Sustainable Communities. DEFRA Publications: London.

English Nature. 2003. Thames Gateway and green grids. Patchwork Spring 2003. http://www.english-nature.org.uk/about/

teams/team_photo/Patchwork2003.pdf [5 December 2007].

English Nature. 2005a. Going, Going, Gone? The Cumulative Impact of Land Development on Biodiversity in England, Research

Report 626. English Nature: Peterborough.

English Nature. 2005b. Our Coasts and Seas: Making Space for People, Industry and Wildlife. English Nature: Peterborough.

European Environment Agency (EEA). 2003. Europe’s Environment: the Dobris Assessment, Environmental Assessment Report 10.

Offi ce for Offi cial Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg.

European Environment Agency (EEA). 2004. Impacts of Europe’s Changing Climate: an Indicator-Based Assessment, EEA Report

2/2004. Offi ce for Offi cial Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg.

European Environment Agency (EEA). 2005a. Environmental Policy Integration in Europe: State of Play and an Evaluation Framework, EEA Technical Report 2/2005. EEA: Copenhagen.

European Environment Agency (EEA). 2005b. The European Environment – State and Outlook 2005, EEA Report 1/2005, Offi ce

for Offi cial Publications of the European Communities.

European Environment Agency (EEA). 2006a. Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change in Europe, EEA Technical Report

7/2005. EEA: Copenhagen.

European Environment Agency (EEA). 2006b. Progress Towards Halting the Loss of Biodiversity by 2010, EEA Report 5/2006,

Offi cial Publications of the European Communities.

European Environment and Sustainable Development Advisory Councils (EEAC). 2005. Biodiversity Conservation and Adaptation to the Impacts of Climate Change, statement of the EEAC. http://www.eeac-net.org/workgroups/cont_frame10.htm [28

March 2007].

Faludi A (ed.). 2002. European Spatial Planning. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy: Cambridge.

Gaston KJ, Charman K, Jackson SF, Armsworth PR, Bonn A, Briers RA, Callaghan CSQ, Catchpole R, Hopkins J, Kunin WE,

Latham J, Opdam P, Stoneman R, Stroud DA, Tratt R. 2006. The ecological effectiveness of protected areas: the United

Kingdom. Biological Conservation 132: 76–87.

German Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Affairs (BMBVS). 2007. Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities. http://www.bmvbs.de/Anlage/original_998680/Leipzig-Charter-on-Sustainable-European-Cities-agreed-

on-24-May-2007.pdf [15 November 2007].

Green RE, Harley M, Spalding M, Zockler C (eds). 2001. Impacts of Climate Change on Wildlife. RSPB–UNEP–WCMC–English

Nature–WWF: Sandy.

Harrison PA, Berry PM, Butt N, New M. 2006. Modelling climate change impacts on species’ distributions at the European

scale: implications for conservation policy. Environmental Science and Policy 9: 116–128.

Hill M. 2005. The Public Policy Process, 4th edn. Pearson Longman: Harlow.

HM Government. 2005. Securing the Future: Delivering the UK Sustainable Development Strategy. TSO: London.

Hootsmans M, Kampf H. 2004. Ecological Networks: Experiences in the Netherlands, Working Paper. Ministry of Agriculture,

Nature and Food Quality: The Hague.

Hossell JE, Briggs B, Hepburn I. 2000. Climate Change and UK Nature Conservation: a Review of the Impact of Climate Change on UK Species and Habitat Conservation Policy. ADAS: Wolverhampton.

Hossell JE, MacGillivray A, Hepburn IR, Ellis N, Harley M. 2001. Implications for policy needs and research. In Climate Change and Nature Conservation in Britain and Ireland. MONARCH – Modelling Natural Resource Responses to Climate Change,

UKCIP Technical Report, Harrison PA, Berry PM. Dawson TE (eds). Oxford.



Hulme PE. 2005. Adapting to climate change: is there scope for ecological management in the face of a global threat? Journal of Applied Ecology 42(5): 784–794.

Ibisch P. 2005. Natura 2000 and climate change adaptation. Adaptation strategies: sites and ecological networks. Climate Change and Biodiversity Conservation: Knowledge Needed to Support Development of Integrated Adaptation Strategies, BioPlatform E-

Conference. http://www.nbu.ac.uk/biota/Archive_climatechange/forum325.htm [18 August 2006].

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Climate Change 2001: the Scientifi c Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ,

Noguer M, van der Linden PJ, Dai X, Maskell K, Johnson CA (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kolhoff A, Slootweg R. 2005. Biodiversity in SEA for spatial plans – experiences from the Netherlands. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 7(2): 267–286.

Land Use Consultants (LUC), Royal Haskoning, University Duisburg-Essen. 2004. ESPACE (European Spatial Planning Adapting to Climate Events): Developing a Knowledge and Information Base. http://wwww.espace-project.org/index.htm [7

April 2006].

Levett-Therivel Sustainability Consultants, CAG Consultants, Environmental Change Unit. 2004. Strategic Environmental Assessment and Climate Change: Guidance for Practitioners. UKCIP: Oxford.

Ministère de l’Ecologie et du Développement Durable (MEDD). 2003. Stratégie Nationale de Développement Durable. http://www.

ecologie.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/sndd-2.pdf [27 March 2006].

Ministère de l’Ecologie et du Développement Durable (MEDD). 2004. Plan Climat 2004. MEDD: Paris.

Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries, Netherlands (MLNV). 2000. Nature for People, People for Nature.

http://www9.minlnv.nl/pls/portal30/docs/folder/minlnv/lnv/staf/staf_dv/rapporten_en_notas/rapporten_en_notas_

2000/notanvmnbl21.pdf [27 March 2006].

Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, The Netherlands (VROM). 2000. Fourth National Environmental Policy Plan. VROM: The Hague.

Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, The Netherlands (VROM). 2004. Nota Ruimte: Ruimte voor Ontwikkeling

[The National Spatial Strategy: Creating Space for Development]. VROM: The Hague.

Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, The Netherlands (MVW). 2000a. Ruimte voor de Rivier. MVW:

The Hague.

Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, The Netherlands (MVW). 2000b. Third Coastal Policy Document. MVW: The Hague.

Natural England. 2007. Alternative Green Space is Key to Plan, press release. http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/press/

releases2007/260207.htm# [5 December 2007].

Observatoire National sur les Effets du Rechauffement Climatique (ONERC). 2005. Un Climat à la Dérive: Comment s’Adapter. http://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/onercdocfrancaise.pdf [9 January 2006].

Offi ce of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). 2001. Planning Policy Guidance 25: Development and Flood Risk. ODPM: London.

Offi ce of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). 2004. The Planning Response to Climate Change: Advice on Better Practice. ODPM

Publications: London.

Offi ce of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). 2005. Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. TSO:

London.

Opdam P, Steingrover E, van Rooij S. 2006. Ecological networks: a spatial concept for multi-actor planning of sustainable

landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 75(3/4): 322–332.

Parry M (ed.). 2000. Assessment of Potential Effects and Adaptations for Climate Change in Europe: the Europa ACACIA Project. Jackson Environment Institute: Norwich.

Piper JM, Wilson E, Weston J, Thompson S, Glasson J. 2006. Spatial Planning for Biodiversity in our Changing Climate, English

Nature Report 677. Peterborough: English Nature.

Prefectures of Haute-Normandie and Basse-Normandie. 2004. Spatial Planning Strategy for the Seine Estuary. http://www.seine-

maritime.pref.gouv.fr [20 July 2005].

Provincial Council of Limburg. 2001. Provincial Environmental Plan for Limburg. Provincie Limburg: Maastricht.

Scott Wilson, Levett-Therivel, Treweek Environmental Consultants, Land Use Consultants. 2006. Appropriate Assessment of Plans. http://www.scottwilson.com/PDF/AA%20of%20plans%20draft%20-%20pdf%20version.pdf#search=%22appropr

iate%20assessment%20of%20plans%20scott%20wilson%20levett%20therivel%22 [16 August 2006].

South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA). 2005a. Draft South East Plan. SEERA: Guildford.

South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA). 2005b. Second Draft Sustainability Appraisal Report. Version for Plenary. SEERA:

Guildford.

Treweek J, Therivel R, Thompson S, Slater M. 2005. Principles for the use of SEA as a tool for promoting the conservation and

sustainable use of biodiversity. Journal of Environmental Assessment and Policy 7(2): 173–199.



Vos C. 2005. Increasing European ecosystems’ resilience, adaptation strategies: sites and ecological networks. Climate Change and Biodiversity Conservation: Knowledge Needed to Support Development of Integrated Adaptation Strategies, BioPlatform E-

Conference. http://www.nbu.ac.uk/biota/Archive_climatechange/forum325.htm [10 August 2006].

West C, Gawith M. 2005. Measuring Progress: Preparing for Climate Change Impacts through the UK Climate Impacts Programme,

UKCIP Technical Report, Oxford.

Wilson E. 2006. Developing UK spatial planning policy to respond to climate change, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 8(1): 9–25.

Spatial planning for biodiversity in Europe's changing climate

Documents

Transcript of Spatial planning for biodiversity in Europe's changing climate