Convention on Biological Diversity and European Landscape Convention: An Alliance for Biocultural Diversity?

  • Bianca Maria SeardoEmail author
Part of the Environmental History book series (ENVHIS, volume 5)


While the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) addresses the safety of species and ecosystems diversity, the European Landscape Convention (ELC) stresses the importance of preserving, managing and creating high-quality landscapes encompassing both natural and man-affected ones, in accordance to cultural values and taking into account people’s perceptions of landscapes. This recent pan-European policy may be a strong support to widen the application of the CBD, but is this really happening? As a matter of fact, although almost all of the European Member States have ratified both the CBD and the ELC, it is not obvious at all that respective national policies proceed in an integrated way. The paper will focus on the potential interactions between the CBD and the ELC in sustaining biocultural diversity, then a brief overview, will show how the landscape conception promoted by the ELC is influencing sectorial biodiversity national policies.


Landscape policies Biodiversity policies Landscape planning Landscape multifunctionality Biocultural diversity 


  1. Antrop M (2006) From holistic landscape synthesis to transdisciplinary landscape management. In: Tress B, Tres G, Fry G, Opdam P (eds) From landscape research to landscape planning. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 27–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beatley T (1995) Planning and sustainability: the elements of a new (improved?) paradigm. J Plan Lit 9:383–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berger G, Steurer R (2009) Environmental policy integration and sustainable development: conceptual remarks and governance examples. European Sustainable Development Network—ESDN Quarterly Reports, June 2009Google Scholar
  4. Cassatella C (2014) Linking public participation and landscape planning: the experience of the landscape observatory of AMI (Italy) at a sub-regional scale, people and landscape III. European Landscape Convention in Practice. Lednice na Morave. Czech Republic. 29–30 May 2014Google Scholar
  5. Cassatella C, Seardo BM (2014) In search for multifunctionality: the contribution of scenic landscape assessment. In: Rega C (ed) Landscape planning and rural development. Key issues and options towards integration. Springer, Berlin, pp 41–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cevasco R (2007) Memoria verde. Nuovi spazi per la geografia, Edizioni Diabasis, (RE) ItalyGoogle Scholar
  7. Chan KMA, Shaw RM, Underwood EC, Daily GC (2006) Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol 4(11) e379:2138–2152Google Scholar
  8. Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP) (2000) Report of the fifth meeting of the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity, Decision V/16, Article 8(j) and related provisions, Fifth meeting, Nairobi, 15–26 MayGoogle Scholar
  9. Council of Europe (2000) European landscape convention. Treaty Series n. 176, FlorenceGoogle Scholar
  10. Daniel TC (2001) Whiter scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape Urban Plan 54:267–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Forman RTT (1995) Land mosaics. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Ingegnoli V (1999) Ecologia del paesaggio. In: Massa R, Ingnegnoli V (eds) Biodiversità, estinzione e conservazione: fondamenti di conservazione biologica. UTET, Torino, pp 189–210Google Scholar
  13. IUCN (2008) Resolution n. 4.099. Recognition of the diversity of concepts and values of nature, In: The World Conservation Congress, 4th World Congress, Barcelona, 5–14 Oct 2008Google Scholar
  14. Maffi L (2008) Biocultural diversity and sustainability. In: Jules P, Andy B, Julia G, David O, Max P, Hugh W (eds) The Sage handbook of environment and society. Sage Publications Ltd, London, pp 267–277Google Scholar
  15. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  16. Seardo BM (2012a) The implementation of a multifunctional-landscape project: the emblematic case of Hanover-Kronsberg. Urbanistica 148:76–79Google Scholar
  17. Seardo BM (2012b) Conditions favouring landscape multifunctionality in German landscape planning system. Urbanistica 148:79–82Google Scholar
  18. Tudor C (2014) An approach to landscape character assessment, Natural EnglandGoogle Scholar
  19. UNESCO (1972) Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. In: Adopted by the general conference at its seventeenth session, Paris, 16 Nov 1972Google Scholar
  20. United Nations (1992) Convention on biological diversityGoogle Scholar
  21. van Asschea A, Djanibekov N (2012) Spatial planning as policy integration: the need for an evolutionary perspective. Land Use Policy 29:179–186Google Scholar
  22. Waldron A, Mooers AO, Miller DC, Nibbelink N, Redding D, Kuhn TS, Roberts JT, Gittleman JL (2013) Targeting global conservation funding to limit immediate biodiversity declines. PNAS 110(29):12144–12148PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

National Biodiversity and Action Plans Cited in This Paper

  1. Cabinet of Germany (2007) National strategy on biological diversityGoogle Scholar
  2. Council of Ministers of the Republic of Bulgaria (1999) National Biodiversity Conservation Plan, SofiaGoogle Scholar
  3. DEFRA, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2011) Biodiversity 2020: a strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (?) Actions for biodiversity 2011–2016. Ireland’s national biodiversity planGoogle Scholar
  5. Estonian Ministry of the Environment, United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), Environmental Protection Institute of the Estonian Agricultural University (1999) Estonian Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, Tallin-TartuGoogle Scholar
  6. Finnish Government (2012) Government resolution on the strategy for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in Finland for the years 2012–2020, ‘Saving Nature for People’Google Scholar
  7. Latvia (2003) National Programme on Biological DiversityGoogle Scholar
  8. Ministère de l’Écologie, du Développement durable, des Transports et du Logement (2004) Strategie nationale pour la biodiversité – National biodiversity strategy 2011–2020Google Scholar
  9. Ministrstvo za okolje in prostor Republike Slovenije, Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning (2002) Biodiversity conservation strategy of SloveniaGoogle Scholar
  10. Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic (2005) National biodiversity strategy of the Czech RepublicGoogle Scholar
  11. Österreich, Umweltbundesamt (2005) Weiterentwickelte österreichische Strategie zur Umsetzung des Übereinkommens über die biologische VielfaltGoogle Scholar
  12. Poland (2005) The national strategy for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversityGoogle Scholar
  13. Portugal Ministerio di ambiente e do ordenamento do territori (2001) Estratdgia Nacional de Conservação da Natureza e da BiodiversidadeGoogle Scholar
  14. Republic of Lituania, Environmental Protection Ministry (1996) Biodiversity conservation. Strategy and action planGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DIST, Dipartimento di Scienze, Progetto e Politiche del TerritorioPolitecnico e Università di TorinoTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations