Strasbourg, 25 January 2017 T-PVS/DE (2017) 5 [de05e_2017.docx] CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF EUROPEAN WILDLIFE AND NATURAL HABITATS Standing Committee 37th meeting Strasbourg, 5-8 December 2017 __________ REPORT ON THE SPOT EXPERT APPRAISAL OF THE MATSALU NATIONAL PARK (ESTONIA) 12-14 September 2016 Document prepared by Mr Michael B. Usher (United Kingdom) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. Ce document ne sera plus distribué en réunion. Prière de vous munir de cet exemplaire. T-PVS/DE (2017) 5 - 2 - The European Diploma for Protected Areas (EDPA) was awarded to the Matsalu Nature Reserve in 2003. The EDPA was renewed in 2008 following consideration of a report by an expert, Joe Sultana and appropriate committees in the Council of Europe. The name of the EDPA has been changed to Matsalu National Park. This report is written is relation to the possibility of the renewal of the EDPA for the period 2018 until 2027. The Secretariat was not present during the on-the-spot visit in September 2016. 1. THE AIM OF THE ON-THE-SPOT APPRAISAL A letter dated 30 May 2016 from Iva Obretenova, Head of the Biological Diversity Unit, to me stated the following: “The objective of the on-the spot appraisal is to assess whether the conditions of the site remain the same as when the Diploma was awarded and extended, or whether they have improved or deteriorated. “I should be grateful if you would accept being the independent expert in charge of the on-the- spot appraisal, visiting the site, meeting relevant stakeholders as per the draft agenda, and preparing a report, including the necessary recommended actions.” 2. INTRODUCTION It could be said that the organisation of nature conservation and the management of protected areas in Estonia is both rather puzzling to an outsider and complicated. Since Matsalu Nature Reserve was awarded the Diploma in 2003 there have been major changes. Until 2006 the conservation functions were the responsibility of 11 local administrations. During the period 2006-2009 these local administrations were merged into a State Conservation Agency. Planning and decisions were the responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment, and a State Conservation Centre was responsible for management and monitoring. There was further change during the period 2009 to 2012. The Ministry for the Environment retained the planning function. A newly created Environmental Board was responsible for decisions, as well as management and monitoring on privately-owned land. A newly created State Forest Management Centre (RMK) assumed responsibility for management and monitoring on state-owned land. Since 2013, further reform of the structures and responsibilities occurred. In outline the responsibilities and structures are: Planning Ministry of the Environment Decisions Environmental Board Management RMK¹ and Environmental Board² Monitoring Environmental Board² and a newly created Environment Agency Enforcement Environment Inspectorate ¹ Only on state-owned land ² Only on privately-owned land It seems likely that there might be further changes in the future. In September 2016 the Environmental Board had three departments – the Nature Conservation Department (with semi-natural habitats, species protection and nature conservation planning units), the Forestry Department (which includes a game and fisheries unit) and the Nature Education Department. My impression is that the systems of government are still evolving, even after the 25 years of the post-Soviet era. Estonia also has a variety of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) which are active in relation to environmental matters. Perhaps the foremost of these is the Estonian Fund for Nature (ELF), but others include an Ornithological Society, a Wetlands Society, a Semi-natural Community Association, MTÜ Põhjakonn (an NGO concerned with frogs and toads), and a Green Movement (this list is not comprehensive, but it indicates the range of NGOs in Estonia). - 3 - T-PVS/DE (2017) 5 The programme for the visit is given in Annex 1. Meetings were held with all of the branches of Government and its agencies listed in the box above, as well as with a sample of County and Municipality administrations, NGOs and entrepreneurs. 3. CHANGES TO THE CONDITION OF THE EDPA This could not be assessed because, with all of the administrative changes, the original document proposing the Matsula Nature Reserve for the award of the EDPA could not be located. Hence direct comparisons were not possible. However, during the visit I was able to gain an impression of the condition of the National Park. Since 2015 there is a very detailed management plan for the Park, for the period 2015 – 2024, which is 254 pages in length. The plan is written in Estonian, but an English-language translation has been provided to me and this is included as Annex 2. What is certain is that the management plan, when fully implemented, provides not only for the maintenance of the Park’s condition but also for its improvement. Recommendation 1: The management plan for 2015 to 2024 needs to be fully implemented, appropriately funded, and revised before the end of the plan period in 2024. During the visit I was able to see aspects of the management of the alluvial (flood) and coastal meadows which occur on a broad spatial scale in the National Park, to see the much smaller scale management of wooded meadows and alvar grassland, as well as to observe the large numbers of migrating cranes (Grus grus), geese and swans. There was discussion about the wading birds, some species such as ruff (Philomachus pugnax) declining and others such as the Baltic subspecies of dunlin (Calidris alpina schinzii) with its breeding habitat carefully managed. My overall impression is that the condition of the National Park is certainly as good as when the EDPA was first awarded, and that, with implementation of the 2015 to 2024 management plan, the condition of the National Park is likely to improve. 4. REVIEW OF THE PREVIOUS CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Matsalu National Park has been punctilious in reporting annually to the Secretariat of the Bern Convention. During the final discussion session with Kaja Lotman, I discussed the four conditions and five recommendations which had been agreed for the renewal of the award in 2008. My assessment of Matsalu National Park’s implementation of these nine topics is given in Annex 3. In summary, I consider that all four conditions have been fulfilled. Also, there has been very considerable progress in implementing the five recommendations; four of these will, however, be repeated in a revised form. 5. NATIONAL PARK STAFF AND FUNDING Despite the complexity referred to above, co-ordination across the various departments and agencies appeared to work well. Apart from Kaja Lotman, whose role changed on 1 October 2016, the Environmental Board has 9 staff working on National Park issues. The impression is that there is a good balance between the various roles needed for the effective management of the Park – people working on planning, biological issues, practical management, education, the built heritage, etc. Perhaps more surprisingly compared to other EDPAs which I have visited, everyone seemed contented with the resources available and there was no lobbying to include a request for more funds in this report! My assessment is that morale is good and that, whatever the person’s nature of employment, there is a very positive attitude about the National Park. 6. THE SEMI-NATURAL GRASSLANDS The National Park contains four distinct types of semi-natural grassland, all of which have conservation importance. The two most extensive types are the coastal meadows and the alluvial (flood) meadows. There are more scattered fragments of alvar grasslands and wooded meadows. The extensive meadows are particularly important as feeding and nesting habitats for birds, whilst the two more restricted types of meadows are especially important for their plants and the invertebrates which T-PVS/DE (2017) 5 - 4 - rely on those plants. Management of all four types of semi-natural grassland is essential if they are to retain their conservation importance. Coastal meadows: these will mostly be grazed by cattle, but sometimes by horses or sheep, to keep the vegetation height relatively short. Of particular sensitivity is the structure of these grasslands as a nesting habitat for wading birds. Aluvial meadows: the conservation importance of these meadows would be reduced either if a hay- cut was not taken and transported off the area or if they were not grazed. The National Park has provided access for the farmers who take a hay crop. Perhaps more work need to be undertaken to find suitable uses for the large quantities of hay which can be removed annually. Wooded meadows: these are small in size and irregular in shape; hence they are unsuitable for management by large machinery. The National Park will need to work closely with farmers to cut the hay in order to maintain the great diversity of flowering plants in these habitats. Alvar grasslands: if unmanaged, these could become overgrown with juniper bushes (Juniperus communis) and young trees germinating from seed blown in from surrounding trees. To maintain their biodiversity richness they need to be appropriately grazed. Recommendation 2: Continuing co-operation with the local farmers is essential for the management and well-being of the grassland communities of the National Park. This should be fostered at all opportunities, and liaison with both farmers and others in relation to the use of the hay cut would be beneficial. 7. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND EDUCATION The National Park provides an excellent variety of habitats, under long-term ownership and management, which can be used for scientific (both natural and socio-economic) research. A list of publications from 2003 to 2006 was included in the previous review of the Matsalu National Park; this has been updated by Kaja Lotman and the list from 2007 to 2016 is included as Annex 4.