Research Ideas and Outcomes :
Workshop Report
|
Corresponding author: Alexander M. Weigand (alexander.weigand@mnhn.lu)
Received: 26 Apr 2022 | Published: 04 May 2022
© 2022 Alexander Weigand, Szilárd-Lehel Bücs, Stanimira Deleva, Lada Lukić Bilela, Pierrette Nyssen, Kaloust Paragamian, Axel Ssymank, Hannah Weigand, Valerija Zakšek, Maja Zagmajster, Gergely Balázs, Shalva Barjadze, Katharina Bürger, William Burn, Didier Cailhol, Amélie Decrolière, Ferdinando Didonna, Azdren Doli, Tvrtko Drazina, Joerg Dreybrodt, Lana Ðud, Csaba Egri, Markus Erhard, Sašo Finžgar, Dominik Fröhlich, Grant Gartrell, Suren Gazaryan, Michel Georges, Jean-Francois Godeau, Ralf Grunewald, John Gunn, Jeff Hajenga, Peter Hofmann, Lee Knight, Hannes Köble, Nikolina Kuharic, Christian Lüthi, Cristian Munteanu, Rudjer Novak, Dainis Ozols, Matija Petkovic, Fabio Stoch, Bärbel Vogel, Ines Vukovic, Meredith Hall Weberg, Christian Zaenker, Stefan Zaenker, Ute Feit, Jean-Claude Thies
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Weigand AM, Bücs S-L, Deleva S, Lukić Bilela L, Nyssen P, Paragamian K, Ssymank A, Weigand H, Zakšek V, Zagmajster M, Balázs G, Barjadze S, Bürger K, Burn W, Cailhol D, Decrolière A, Didonna F, Doli A, Drazina T, Dreybrodt J, Ðud L, Egri C, Erhard M, Finžgar S, Fröhlich D, Gartrell G, Gazaryan S, Georges M, Godeau J-F, Grunewald R, Gunn J, Hajenga J, Hofmann P, Knight LRFD, Köble H, Kuharic N, Lüthi C, Munteanu CM, Novak R, Ozols D, Petkovic M, Stoch F, Vogel B, Vukovic I, Hall Weberg M, Zaenker C, Zaenker S, Feit U, Thies J-C (2022) Current cave monitoring practices, their variation and recommendations for future improvement in Europe: A synopsis from the 6th EuroSpeleo Protection Symposium. Research Ideas and Outcomes 8: e85859. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.8.e85859
|
This manuscript summarizes the outcomes of the 6th EuroSpeleo Protection Symposium. Special emphasis was laid on presenting and discussing monitoring activities under the umbrella of the Habitats Directive (EU Council Directive 92/43/EEC) for habitat type 8310 "Caves not open to the public" and the Emerald Network. The discussions revealed a high level of variation in the currently conducted underground monitoring activities: there is no uniform definition of what kind of underground environments the "cave" habitat should cover, how often a specific cave has to be monitored, and what parameters should be measured to evaluate the conservation status. The variation in spatial dimensions in national definitions of caves further affects the number of catalogued caves in a country and the number of caves to be monitored. Not always participants are aware of the complete national monitoring process and that data sets should be freely available or easily accessible. The discussions further showed an inherent dilemma between an anticipated uniform monitoring approach with a coherent assessment methodology and, on the contrary, the uniqueness of caves and subterranean biota to be assessed – combined with profound knowledge gaps and a lack of resources. Nevertheless, some good practices for future cave monitoring activities have been identified by the participants: (1) Cave monitoring should focus on bio- and geodiversity elements alike; (2) Local communities should be involved, and formal agreements envisaged; (3) Caves must be understood as windows into the subterranean realm; (4) Touristic caves should not be excluded ad-hoc from regular monitoring; (5) New digital tools and open FAIR data infrastructures should be implemented; (6) Cave biomonitoring should focus on a large(r) biological diversity; and (7) DNA-based tools should be integrated. Finally, the importance of the 'forgotten' Recommendation No. 36 from the Bern Convention as a guiding legal European document was highlighted.
cave monitoring, Habitats Directive, habitat type 8310, Emerald Network, Bern Convention, Recommendation 36
26/ 10 - 30/10/2021; International Academy for Nature Conservation (INA), Isle of Vilm, Germany.
Please refer to the complete list of authors. No differentiation is made between physical and virtual participants.
This publication summarizes the outcomes of the 6th EuroSpeleo Protection Symposium entitled "Assessing, monitoring and protecting cave biotopes and geotopes through Natura 2000 or similar programs in Europe", held from 26th to 30th October 2021 at the International Academy for Nature Conservation (INA) on the Isle of Vilm (Germany). Тhis hybrid event, jointly organized by the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) and the European Cave Protection Commission (ECPC) of the European Speleological Federation (FSE), gathered 45 participants from 22 countries (16 EU, 4 non-EU Europe, Australia and United States of America).
A questionnaire was sent to the participants before the meeting, with the aim to generate a descriptive overview of the status quo of cave monitoring activities in the participating countries (Suppl. material
The participant's feedback received via the questionnaire revealed a high level of variation in the currently conducted underground monitoring activities. On the one hand, these differences result from the different framework conditions the Habitats Directive and the Emerald Network set for monitoring activities. Generally, Natura 2000 sites within the Habitats Directive are considered as the contribution of the EU member states to the global Emerald Network. However, as a more significant discrepancy, there is only a recommendation for reporting in the Emerald Network (e.g. H1 "Terrestrial underground caves, cave systems, passages and waterbodies"). In contrast, there is an obligation to report on and explicitly assess the conservation status of habitat types 8310/8330 as well as Annex species in the six-year reporting cycle of the Habitats Directive (Art. 17). On the other hand, the surveyed countries showed very strong discrepancies in terms of who carries out the monitoring activities (independent experts, speleological societies, research institutes, universities, museums, NGOs, bat specialists, national parks, ministries or regional administrations) and what resources can be relied on (financial, infrastructural, personnel, pool of knowledge). At site level the "Natura 2000" standard data form is harmonized with Emerald-site descriptions, however there is no explicit ruling how often this needs to be updated. Here the local degree of conservation should be reported. Moreover, there is no uniform definition of what kind of underground environments the “cave“ habitat should cover (Table
Geographical coverage |
Definition of a cave |
Defined spatial criteria of a cave |
Legal source |
EU member states |
Caves not open to the public, including their water bodies and streams, hosting specialised or high endemic species, or that are of paramount importance for the conservation of Annex II species (e.g. bats, amphibians) |
Not defined |
Interpretation Manual of European Union Habitats, version EUR 28 |
Bosnia and Herzegovina (Entity: Federation of BiH and Entity: Republic of Srpska) |
Speleological objects are naturally formed underground cavities longer than 5 meters, that can be entered by man, and the dimensions of the entrance are less than the depth or length of object (caves, pits, abysses, estavels, etc.) |
More than 5 m long; object can be entered by man, with dimensions of the entrance less than the depth or length of object |
Zakon o zaštiti prirode („Službene novine Federacije BiH“, broj:66/13); and Zakon o zaštiti prirode (“Službeni glasnik Republike Srpske, broj:113/08) |
Bulgaria |
The cave is an underground cavity with a volume, big enough to fit a man |
Big enough to fit a man |
Source used in the speleology manual: Malcolm S. Field (2002) A Lexicon of Cave and Karst Terminology with Special Reference to EnvironmentalKarst Hydrology. Office of Research and Development,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC |
Croatia | Speleological objects/spaces are naturally formed underground spaces (caves, pits, abysses, estavelles, etc.), as well as their parts | Not defined | Point 46, paragraph 1, article 9 of the Nature protection act (Official Gazette, No. 80/2013, 15/2018, 14/2019 and 127/19) |
Germany |
Caves, including their waterbodies, are usually inhabited by specialized typical species (cavernicolous fauna), which may include rare local or regional endemics, restricted to one or a few cave systems. Semi-caves ("Balmen") are included if they have specific vegetation or fauna |
Not defined |
Legal source refers only to EU Habitats Directive itself, BNatSchG § 31-36 (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz, framework law) at National level, different implementations in the 16 Federal states with additional laws on nature conservation (Landesnaturschutzgesetze). See also |
Greece |
Caves are not defined/interpreted in Greece's legislation |
Not defined |
Not available |
Hungary |
Cave is a natural cavity formed in the earth's crust, which exceeds the length of 2 meters along its longitudinal axis and - after the removal of its current or natural deposit - it is possible for a human to enter |
More than 2 m long (longitudinal axis); broad enough to enter |
1996. évi LIII. törvény a természet védelméről (Law on nature protection), Tvt. 23§ |
Italy |
Both natural and artificial cavities are not defined/interpreted in Italy's legislation. They are not protected at the origin but only by special laws on extractive activities, mineral waters, archaelogy and fine arts, or by parks, reserves and regional laws |
Not defined |
Underground mines stay under the dictates of the D.P.R. no. 128 of 09/04/1959 (Police regulations of mines and quarries, updated with Legislative Decree no. 624/96) while cavities of historical-archaeological interest or of particular geological singularity are protected by the Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape (Legislative Decree 22.01.2004 no. 42) |
Latvia |
Natural or naturalised subterranean entity within bedrock or cemented Quaternary sediments more than 3 m long and broad enough to enter |
More than 3 m long; broad enough to enter; length > width of the entrance |
Page 12 in |
Luxembourg |
Caves and semi-caves not used for tourism, including their water bodies. Requirements: 1) naturally formed underground cavity with a dark zone. 2) minimum size: cavities into which a person can enter, larger than 5m³, with a depth of at least 5m. 3) animal burrows are explicitly excluded |
At least 5 m long; broad enough to enter; volume larger than 5m³ |
Monitoring sheet and national interpretation manual |
Romania |
The cave is a natural cavity formed in the earth's crust, wide and deep enough to allow a human to enter. By extension, the cave can be a system that can have more than one entrance and consists of several galleries, halls, wells and chimneys. The term also applies to the cavities defined above, which are partially or completely submerged or which have been opened by demolition or clearing |
Wide and deep enough to allow a human to enter |
Art. 43(3) from Governmental Emergency Ordinance 57/2007, approved by Law 49/2011 |
Anecdotally, caves are just holes in the ground and maybe important for bats. And, they should be in generally good conservation status since nobody has access to them or it is physically too demanding to enter them. These typical misunderstandings are challenged by the fact(s) that caves are under strong human impact. Environmental pollution and sports, tourism and leisure activities are frequently identified as the main pressures and threats, which are often further intensified by illegal collections of cave-dwelling species and speleothems in some countries or specific caves (
Trends of illegal cave-dwellers trade are particularly prominent in developing and transition countries, mostly due to ineffective local and regional management systems and insufficient interest in governing structures on this issue. In Dinaric Karst speleological objects, collecting and illegal trade mainly dates back to the 19th and early 20th centuries (
Another severe problem, especially in Vjetrenica cave, was the sampling of numerous specimens within (already small) metapopulations of rare species. With or without a collecting permit, these negative examples have been observed even among well-known and established scientists, who are expected to have high ethical principles. Furthermore, obtaining permits is relatively simple and generally does not contain mechanisms to control the sampling methodology and/or number of samples, nor are fines imposed for non-compliance. Thus, transition countries often become a twilight zone for illegally collecting valuable samples, with holotypes often ending outside the home country. Furthermore, most of these countries are not signatories to the Nagoya Protocol, and have no impact to any benefit-sharing, while their subterranean biodiversity is directly threatened.
Based on the Habitats Directive 2013-2018 assessments (
As a result, lacking adequate underlying data for monitoring can lead to erroneous conclusions regarding the conservation status of habitat 8310 or resident species, creating further inadequate conservation measures, or in case of a false favorable status, to no actions at all.
Modern trends in conservation (speleo)biology prioritise the protection of endemic, relict or permanently endangered animal groups and their habitats, which necessitates an accurate assessment of the actual faunal inventory. Apart from being the basis for the preparation of Red Lists or Red Books of subterranean fauna, an adequate inventory is crucial for professionally guided monitoring activities of the often extremely vulnerable cave-dwelling organisms and subterranean ecosystems as a whole.
In line with a proposed conservation roadmap for the subterranean biome (
Caves harbour valuable bio- and geodiversity, and as such, both measures should be monitored and their entities protected. There was also a strong agreement that geodiversity elements guide biodiversity elements in underground environments and it is fundamental to secure them for effectively protecting cave-dwelling communities, which is in line with the recently adopted Resolution WCC-2020-Res-074-EN. An aspect that is intrinsically understood but not always explicitly formulated. Hence, a strong link between Life and Earth Sciences is needed to conduct monitoring activities, which often stays in contrast with established departmental and community structures. Goal-oriented integrative expert groups and networks should form, involving biologists, geologists, anthropologists, archaeologists, speleologists, speleodivers, and public administrations. A multidisciplinary community is needed to merge our understandings of caves being important sites of cultural heritage and endangered habitats of specific cave-dwelling communities (
Cave protection is a multi-layered process. The local community is physically, and often also emotionally, most closely involved. As such, local communities should be centrally involved in protecting caves, as no one can be more interested in protecting and improving their natural heritage (assets). This can be done e.g., by highlighting emblematic cave organisms (e.g., cave animal of the year;
Caves allow humans to more or less easily enter underground environments, and to act in them. However, caves as an anthropocentric term must be understood and seen as windows into the subterranean realm (
The habitat type 8310 of the Habitats Directive excludes touristic caves from legal monitoring obligations. However, touristic caves are often the best-studied and understood underground environments in a country (Baradla Domica cave system in Hungary; Frasassi caves in Italy; Vjetrenica cave in Bosnia and Herzegovina; Grotte de Han in Belgium; Meziad cave in Romania) and harbour at least equally rich bio- and geodiversity elements compared to non-touristic caves (
The FAIR principles of data management and stewardship should be followed to more effectively use and interconnect existing information, i.e. fostering the Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse of digital assets (
The protection of the subterranean realm and fauna of a region always begins with the protection of certain caves and groups or organisms (
Underground habitats represent complex ecosystems, with specific trophic transfers and food-webs (
Faunistic assessments of subterranean communities can widely benefit from more widespread implementation of DNA-based tools. The digital taxonomic knowledge deposited in DNA barcode reference libraries can be freely utilised, without the direct need or immediate availability of a morpho-taxonomic expert. Undeterminable developmental stages or complicated genders can be readily identified and members within cryptic species complexes, i.e. biological species currently taxonomically lumped under a single name, can be more precisely told apart, which is an often highlighted conservation concern for subterranean biota (
Cave montoring practices are far from being standardised in Europe. On the one hand, this is due to the fact that variable resources and levels of support are available to the nations, and on the other hand, imposed by the fact that central parameters of cave monitoring are poorly described in the Directive 92/43/EEC and very poorly interpreted in the EU Habitat Interpretation Manual (e.g. definition of "cave", definition "not open to the public", term "specialised species", term "endemic species"). Although, and due to natural constraints, cave monitoring needs to have a certain level of national flexibility to account for the variation of bio- and geodiversity elements, some basic standardisation guidelines and open data repositories are needed to compare data across space and time.
The most important European legal document on the conservation of underground habitats is the Recommendation No. 36 (
This questionnaire was mandatory for each applicant. It should yield important information about the Natura 2000 monitoring and conservation of cave habitats in the country of origin. The information derived was presented at the Symposium and was an important foundation for discussion.