(Smit and Pilifosova 2001). Adaptation of conservation management means adjustments in management practices, decision-making processes and organisational
structures (Welch 2005). Although the adaptation process should be started now,
it must be planned as a long term process. It will be successful only if as many
institutions and stakeholders as possible are actively involved and are willing to
support it.
Scientists have an important role to play in the development of adaptation
strategies, but to facilitate effective implementation of adaptation actions local
communities and decision-makers are essential. Expertise and data provided by
research are a basis for a transparent and understandable decision-making process,
but scientific results need to be translated and presented in a form that is accessible
to professionals and decision-makers and local stakeholders (Welch 2005).
The scientific information for local climate adaptation must be relevant for the
decision at hand and tailored for the decision context. It should be authorised and
trusted by the people affected, and transparent in the process of production. Meeting
and addressing the needs, knowledge and language of local communities who have
to implement adapted management practices is a major challenge for many scientists in climate impact research.
Acknowledging this challenge, the project HABIT-CHANGE initiated a
science-management approach to plan jointly for adaptation in protected areas.
This kind of collaborative research has already produced beneficial results in other
areas (Littell et al. 2012; Lonsdale and Goldthorpe 2012). The science-practice
partnership for collaborative research proved to be invaluable for testing useful
methods, the identification of applicable solutions and the enhancement of practical
conservation management within HABIT-CHANGE. It was built on an intensive
dialogue between an interdisciplinary panel of scientists and local management and
facilitates the co-production of knowledge. In this process several barriers to the
practical implementation of theoretical concepts were identified. Much data and
many methods provided by science did not fit with planning reality and the decision
context of protected area management. On the other hand, many management
practices were lacking a foundation in solid facts and evaluation of their success
was often neglected. Furthermore, it seems that much of the available knowledge
and guidance on adaptation of conservation management does not reach local
management.
From the experience gained in the project we could see that climate change is
rarely perceived and accepted as a high priority challenge on site level. There is
often too little awareness that climate change is already a main driver of biodiversity loss and that its significance will increase even more in the future. Usually,
neither management authorities nor land users and stakeholders have enough
information, knowledge or incentives to plan and negotiate necessary adaptations
to climate change. The adaptive capacity of local institutions like the administrations of National Parks or Biosphere Reserves is a crucial component too. The lack
of expertise, methods and tools for climate adaptation as well as limited resources
prevents proper management and adaptation (Fig. 20.1). The institutional setting of
protected areas influences capacity and willingness to respond to new challenges
292
S. Rannow et al.
structures (Welch 2005). Although the adaptation process should be started now,
it must be planned as a long term process. It will be successful only if as many
institutions and stakeholders as possible are actively involved and are willing to
support it.
Scientists have an important role to play in the development of adaptation
strategies, but to facilitate effective implementation of adaptation actions local
communities and decision-makers are essential. Expertise and data provided by
research are a basis for a transparent and understandable decision-making process,
but scientific results need to be translated and presented in a form that is accessible
to professionals and decision-makers and local stakeholders (Welch 2005).
The scientific information for local climate adaptation must be relevant for the
decision at hand and tailored for the decision context. It should be authorised and
trusted by the people affected, and transparent in the process of production. Meeting
and addressing the needs, knowledge and language of local communities who have
to implement adapted management practices is a major challenge for many scientists in climate impact research.
Acknowledging this challenge, the project HABIT-CHANGE initiated a
science-management approach to plan jointly for adaptation in protected areas.
This kind of collaborative research has already produced beneficial results in other
areas (Littell et al. 2012; Lonsdale and Goldthorpe 2012). The science-practice
partnership for collaborative research proved to be invaluable for testing useful
methods, the identification of applicable solutions and the enhancement of practical
conservation management within HABIT-CHANGE. It was built on an intensive
dialogue between an interdisciplinary panel of scientists and local management and
facilitates the co-production of knowledge. In this process several barriers to the
practical implementation of theoretical concepts were identified. Much data and
many methods provided by science did not fit with planning reality and the decision
context of protected area management. On the other hand, many management
practices were lacking a foundation in solid facts and evaluation of their success
was often neglected. Furthermore, it seems that much of the available knowledge
and guidance on adaptation of conservation management does not reach local
management.
From the experience gained in the project we could see that climate change is
rarely perceived and accepted as a high priority challenge on site level. There is
often too little awareness that climate change is already a main driver of biodiversity loss and that its significance will increase even more in the future. Usually,
neither management authorities nor land users and stakeholders have enough
information, knowledge or incentives to plan and negotiate necessary adaptations
to climate change. The adaptive capacity of local institutions like the administrations of National Parks or Biosphere Reserves is a crucial component too. The lack
of expertise, methods and tools for climate adaptation as well as limited resources
prevents proper management and adaptation (Fig. 20.1). The institutional setting of
protected areas influences capacity and willingness to respond to new challenges
292
S. Rannow et al.