• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

EP United Nations Environment Programme UNEP(DEC)/MED WG.268/3 11 May 2005 ENGLISH ORIGINAL: FRENCH MEDITERRANEAN ACTION PLAN Seventh Meeting of National Focal Points for SPAs Seville, 31 May - 3 June 2005 STATUS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPA PROTOCOL UNEP RAC/SPA - Tunis, 2005 UNEP(DEC)/MED WG.268/4 Page 1 STATUS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPA PROTOCOL General introduction In anticipation of the Seventh Meeting of Focal Points for SPAs concerning the implementing of the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean, to be held in Seville, from 31 May to 3 June 2005, RAC/SPA asked the Parties to the SPA Protocol to prepare national reports showing the progress made in implementing the Protocol in their respective countries, according to the improved format suited to the reporting system established in the context of the Barcelona Convention. Countries that sent in reports The twenty following countries sent in their reports to RAC/SPA on the date set: Albania, Algeria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, Libya, Malta, Morocco, Monaco, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovenia, Spain, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey. Two of them (Italy and Cyprus) each sent a first report followed by a second, corrected, report. Format adopted when presenting reports According to the previously-indicated format, the information was to be presented as a summary that should be no longer than six pages. This was not respected by all the countries; some even sent 105-page-long reports (Bosnia-Herzegovina) and one was only 3 pages long (Turkey). The period that was to be covered by the national reports was that between the Sixth Meeting of Focal Points (Marseilles, 17-20 June 2003) and the Seventh Meeting, planned for Seville from 31 May to 3 June 2005, i.e. the two years from March 2003 to March 2005. In most of the reports, the period covered was from March (June or July) 2003 to March 2005; in some reports this restriction was not observed (Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, France, Greece, Serbia and Montenegro, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey) (see Annex I). According to the correspondence sent by RAC/SPA to the Focal Points about preparing reports on the national aspect of the implementing of the SPA Protocol, the reports were to be based on four main lines, i.e.: - a first part for general information, especially on the identity and function of the writer of the report, and the national organisations and/or bodies that contributed by providing pertinent information - a second part describing the administrative and legislative steps taken, according to the terms of the Protocol, over the biennial period (2004-2005) - a third part for information on how far implementation of the Protocol had proceeded at the technical level - a fourth part where a description of the possible problems and constraints met when implementing the Protocol had been requested. UNEP(DEC)/MED WG.268/4 Page 2 Although this structuring was generally kept to, some reports were constructed according to models that differed from the improved format suited to the Barcelona Convention reporting system (Bosnia-Herzegovina, France, Tunisia and Turkey). The Bosnian report was 105 pages long; everything that had anything to do with the environment was exhaustively treated, without respecting the four parts previously indicated. Here it should be said that according to the Constitution in force, the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina is in charge of regulating environmental protection (jointly between the Federal Government and the cantons). Turkey’s report was extremely short and did not give all the information requested, including information about the writer. UNEP(DEC)/MED WG.268/4 Page 3 Summary of National Reports on Implementing the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean Introduction The present document, which is a synthesis of the information collected from the national reports, was prepared on the basis of an improved format. For more clarity and synthesis, some information was given in the form of tables to make the progress made in implementing the SPA Protocol in the Mediterranean more clearly visible. The general information that emerges from the national reports is that few new Specially Protected Areas have actually been created since the last Meeting of Focal Points (Marseilles, France, 2003). Efforts have focused more on improving institutional and regulatory aspects and on the tools aimed at protecting SPA and conservation of species and biodiversity, than on creating new Areas. As to countries joining the relevant regional and international agreements, eight instruments are taken into consideration by the countries in their attempts to protect the marine environment generally and to protect species, resources and natural habitats of ecological and environmental interest for protecting wildlife. The Barcelona Convention, the Convention on the Protection of the Mediterranean Marine and Coastal Environment and its Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Berne Convention on the Conservation of Wildlife and Natural Habitats, the Bonn Convention on Conservation of Migrant Wild Fauna Species, the CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and the ACCOBAMS Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area. For those countries that are members of the European Union (Spain, Italy, France, Slovenia, Greece, Malta and Cyprus), the directives on protection and conservation, particularly Directive 92/43/EC on Habitats and Directive 79/409/EC (Natura 2000), were integrated within the national legislation; they cover, according to the writers of the concerned reports, at least in part, the countries’ obligations under the Protocol. The Protocol’s remaining obligations are seen in certain counties (Greece) as secondary, given their lack of means (staff and equipment). I- General information The general information requested includes the identity of the writer of the report and the body or authority to whom s/he is responsible, and the parties or persons who contributed to the elaborating of the report and/or provided pertinent information, including their addresses. It should be noticed here that the reports were generally made by people employed by the national institutions or bodies or organisations responsible for the environment, nature protection and conservation more especially, UNEP(DEC)/MED WG.268/4 Page 4 with, in some cases, contributions from NGOs. The information was provided by persons and/or bodies each competent in his/her field of activity or responsibility. The impression this part usually gives is of growing, sizeable support from the departments and individuals concerned by nature protection generally and protection of the marine and coastal environment in particular for the efforts made by the countries to implement the Protocol. In most of the countries, responsibility for implementation belongs either to the central public administrative authorities or, at the same time, the central and regional governments (for local or regional issues), as is the case in Spain and, in part, Italy. The information collected from the national reports on this general information part appears in Annex I. II- Legal and/or administrative steps taken in pursuance of the Protocol A summary of the information emerging from the national reports appears in Annex II. RAC/SPA reminded the Focal Points that the national reports had to be restricted to the inter-Meeting period 2003-2005, and that for legal measures it had been requested that a copy of a text that had come into force should accompany the report, or be handed in at the Meeting of Focal Points. No report contained any such copy. These should be provided at the coming Meeting in Seville. Also, RAC/SPA pointed out that in several reports the instruction that the report only deal with the period indicated had not always been respected. As for the basic question concerning progress made in implementing the Protocol by adopting recent legislative and/or administrative measures, it emerges that the actual measures introduced to this end have not been very numerous during the period between the two Meetings. The year 2003 was more productive of legal instruments; in the European countries legal measures had been introduced to incorporate European Union regulations into their own national legislation. In all, 13 laws were passed, most of them in 2003, 5 decrees and legal notices (5) in Malta, a regional act in Spain, and an unspecified legal instrument for Turkey. As for administrative measures, these usually concerned the decisions of councils of ministers, acts funding activities especially on a regional scale (Spain), setting up boards of directors of parks and/or reserves, encouragement for work on databases and study and research projects, etc. In several countries, technical and scientific activities were carried on to enable legal texts, Protected Area management plans and activity regulatory plans to be prepared. III- Technical implementation of the Protocol III.1. Lists of Specially Protected Areas created in pursuance of Article 5: During the inter-Meeting period, four national parks were created, in Algeria (3) and Morocco (1). A marine reserve was created in Algeria and two others were declared in Spain; two reserves were cited as being partially protected in Cyprus. UNEP(DEC)/MED WG.268/4 Page 5 III.2. Suggestions made to put areas within the national jurisdiction on the SPAMI List: Five suggestions were made on this subject during the inter-Meeting period (see Annex III), four by Algeria and one by Italy. III.3. List of SPAs established in pursuance of Article 5: Only the following countries (France, Italy, Libya, Malta, Slovenia, Spain and Tunisia) appended lists to their reports. As for modifications of the borders or the legal status of SPAMIs, these were almost inexistent, both as regards the legal system and as regards SPAMI borders (see Annex III).

Load more

  240

Copy Link