100
The shaping of the global protected area estate
areas are geographically contiguous or inclusive, or
both.
5.2.2 Biogeographical ( c ompositional)
v ersus Ecological ( f unctional) a pproaches
A second way of subdividing protected area planning
approaches is between those schemes based upon and
emphasizing composition (vertical line in Figure 5.1 )
oil palm (and subsequently soya) estates sought a standard that would enable them to claim environmental responsibility and to apply the term ‘ sustainable ’ to their products. As a result, the standard
is now also applied to non - forest habitats, and the approach is being referred to as ‘ the HCV approach ’
and the outputs of identifi cation as ‘ HCV areas ’ . The adoption of the HCV standard (or equivalent if
it existed) is increasingly required in order to meet regulatory stipulations. Notably, the sustainability
criteria of the 2009 European Commission ’ s Renewable Energy Directive (Directive 2009/28/EC)
forbids biofuels to be made from raw material obtained from land with high biodiversity value.
Each of the six High Conservation Values is written as a standard, and guidelines on how to apply
each are contained in HCVF hand/sourcebooks (see summary in Table B5.1a ). Some of these draw
on the frameworks reviewed in this chapter (notably HCV1), but others, particularly HCV2, relating
to landscape - level forests, have proved diffi cult to put into operation.
Crucially, the detailed guidelines on the interpretation and application of each value/standard are
developed nationally through consultation with a range of stakeholders. This ensures that standards
are appropriate to local conditions, but it also means that HCV areas may not be entirely comparable
from region to region. Application of these standards to forest/land management units (e.g. concessions) are conducted by specialist third party consultancies, often with an established track record
in Forest Stewardship Council certifi cation.
The HCV standard is being adopted by industry associations creating and promoting sustainability
standards, notably the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), the Roundtable on Sustainable
Biofuels (RSB) and the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO). It is being incorporated in
various sourcing and purchasing policies, declarations and commitments, and is starting to inform
national/regional land use planning.
Several million hectares of HCV land are currently in the process of identifi cation and protection.
However, there are crucial issues that still need to be worked through. One of the most fundamental,
at least from a reserve network planning perspective, is the fact that any one site ’ s value is relational
to what is protected elsewhere. Put another way, in the case of HCV1 and HCV3, it is not the presence of endemic or threatened species or rare or endangered habits per se that matters, it is the
extent to which these attributes are represented in established protected areas and the likelihood
of them persisting therein.
Another challenge is the political nature of HCV assessment. Companies might quite rightly argue
that they have acquired land that has already been zoned for productive use and, while they are willing
to protect part of their land area, they must still cultivate a signifi cant proportion of it. Environmental
and social activists, on the other hand, may wish to frame HCV as a tool that legitimizes planned
deforestation, and can deploy the HCV standards to argue that all of the remaining forest in an area
should be designated HCV forest and should therefore be protected. This is aided by the ‘ scale - less ’
HCV1 and, in particular, HCV 4 standards, and by the fact that site conservation designations (e.g.
Important Bird Areas, Key Biodiversity Areas, hotspots) are being produced by private conservation
groups that are under no particular pressure to identify precise or optimal boundaries.
and those emphasizing function (horizontal line in
Figure 5.1 ; see also Table 5.2 ).
We term schemes based upon mapping composition
of communities, habitat types or regions ‘ biogeographical approaches ’ , because they are based on pattern
detection using data on membership of biotas at
whatever scale the analysis is conducted. For the
UK ’ s National Vegetation Classifi cation, which has
been used as a framework for both national and
The shaping of the global protected area estate
areas are geographically contiguous or inclusive, or
both.
5.2.2 Biogeographical ( c ompositional)
v ersus Ecological ( f unctional) a pproaches
A second way of subdividing protected area planning
approaches is between those schemes based upon and
emphasizing composition (vertical line in Figure 5.1 )
oil palm (and subsequently soya) estates sought a standard that would enable them to claim environmental responsibility and to apply the term ‘ sustainable ’ to their products. As a result, the standard
is now also applied to non - forest habitats, and the approach is being referred to as ‘ the HCV approach ’
and the outputs of identifi cation as ‘ HCV areas ’ . The adoption of the HCV standard (or equivalent if
it existed) is increasingly required in order to meet regulatory stipulations. Notably, the sustainability
criteria of the 2009 European Commission ’ s Renewable Energy Directive (Directive 2009/28/EC)
forbids biofuels to be made from raw material obtained from land with high biodiversity value.
Each of the six High Conservation Values is written as a standard, and guidelines on how to apply
each are contained in HCVF hand/sourcebooks (see summary in Table B5.1a ). Some of these draw
on the frameworks reviewed in this chapter (notably HCV1), but others, particularly HCV2, relating
to landscape - level forests, have proved diffi cult to put into operation.
Crucially, the detailed guidelines on the interpretation and application of each value/standard are
developed nationally through consultation with a range of stakeholders. This ensures that standards
are appropriate to local conditions, but it also means that HCV areas may not be entirely comparable
from region to region. Application of these standards to forest/land management units (e.g. concessions) are conducted by specialist third party consultancies, often with an established track record
in Forest Stewardship Council certifi cation.
The HCV standard is being adopted by industry associations creating and promoting sustainability
standards, notably the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), the Roundtable on Sustainable
Biofuels (RSB) and the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO). It is being incorporated in
various sourcing and purchasing policies, declarations and commitments, and is starting to inform
national/regional land use planning.
Several million hectares of HCV land are currently in the process of identifi cation and protection.
However, there are crucial issues that still need to be worked through. One of the most fundamental,
at least from a reserve network planning perspective, is the fact that any one site ’ s value is relational
to what is protected elsewhere. Put another way, in the case of HCV1 and HCV3, it is not the presence of endemic or threatened species or rare or endangered habits per se that matters, it is the
extent to which these attributes are represented in established protected areas and the likelihood
of them persisting therein.
Another challenge is the political nature of HCV assessment. Companies might quite rightly argue
that they have acquired land that has already been zoned for productive use and, while they are willing
to protect part of their land area, they must still cultivate a signifi cant proportion of it. Environmental
and social activists, on the other hand, may wish to frame HCV as a tool that legitimizes planned
deforestation, and can deploy the HCV standards to argue that all of the remaining forest in an area
should be designated HCV forest and should therefore be protected. This is aided by the ‘ scale - less ’
HCV1 and, in particular, HCV 4 standards, and by the fact that site conservation designations (e.g.
Important Bird Areas, Key Biodiversity Areas, hotspots) are being produced by private conservation
groups that are under no particular pressure to identify precise or optimal boundaries.
and those emphasizing function (horizontal line in
Figure 5.1 ; see also Table 5.2 ).
We term schemes based upon mapping composition
of communities, habitat types or regions ‘ biogeographical approaches ’ , because they are based on pattern
detection using data on membership of biotas at
whatever scale the analysis is conducted. For the
UK ’ s National Vegetation Classifi cation, which has
been used as a framework for both national and