DOCSLIB.ORG

UNDP Project Document

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UNDP Project Document UNDP Project Document UNDP-GEF Medium-Size Project (MSP) Bosnia and Herzegovina Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina United Nations Development Programme PIMS 3306, MAINSTREAMING KARST PEATLANDS CONSERVATION INTO KEY ECONOMIC SECTORS Atlas Award: 00049292 Atlas Project ID: 00060010 Brief description Karst fields (areas with geologic bedrock mainly consisting of carbonate rocks such as CaCO3 and MgCO3) are important production landscapes that are characteristic for the Mediterannian region. Approximately 35% of the European continent consists of carbonate bedrock, which is around 3 million km² and most of it is karstified. The barriers which hamper mainstreaming karst biodiversity conservation requirements into spatial planning at local level are: (i) Cantons and municipalities lack capacity for analysis of possible options of land use in karst areas. Studies have identified clear capacity gaps among municipalities (such as Grahovo and Livno) and Cantonal authorities to carry out a serious economic and environmental research of options for the short-term, mid-term, and long-term vision of areas such as karst fields, under different assumptions and scenarios; (ii) poor local enforcement capacity. The project aims to remove the above barriers by developing a model for imbedding karst biodiversity conservation concerns into policies and regulations governing spatial planning at the cantonal level, as well as into the said sectors. Specifically, the project will: (i) assist in preparation of biodiversity- minded policy instrument - a Cantonal spatial plan; further, through replication and co-financing the project will trigger biodiversity-friendly local spatial panning at all karst-lying cantons and municipalities in BiH; (ii) introduce municipal-level regulations for karst field biodiversity use by local population parallel to strengthening enforcement capacity of municipal and cantonal officers and inspectors; (iii) develop by-laws and methodological guidance on ecologically safe peat mining, and test it at 750 ha of karst peatlands; and (iv) promote an international (Croatia-BiH) formal agreement and plan for cross-border water management plan. 48 Marsala Tita Street, Sarajevo 71000, Bosnia and Herzegovina Tel: (387-33) 563 800 Fax: (387-33) 552 330 www.undp.ba TABLE OF CONTENTS UNDP PROJECT DOCUMENT................................................................................................................................1 SECTION I – ELABORATION OF THE NARRATIVE........................................................................................4 PART A – SITUATION ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................4 A.1 Environmental context .....................................................................................................................................4 A.2 Administrative and social context....................................................................................................................5 A.3 Eonomic context...............................................................................................................................................8 A.4 Institutional context..........................................................................................................................................9 A.5 Policy and legislation context (including spatial planning) ......................................................................... 10 A.6 Threats, their root-causes and biological impacts at karst poljes and peatlands.......................................... 12 PART B – STRATEGY................................................................................................................................................15 B.1 Baseline Scenario .......................................................................................................................................... 15 B.2 The GEF Alternative: goal, barriers to be removed, outcomes and outputs................................................ 17 B.3 Benefits and innovation................................................................................................................................. 21 B.4 Risks and Mitigation Strategies .................................................................................................................... 22 B.5 Sustainability (including financial sustainability) ........................................................................................ 23 B.6 Stakeholder involvement............................................................................................................................... 24 PART C – MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS............................................................................................................25 C.1 Implementation arrangements....................................................................................................................... 25 C.2 Consultations, Coordination and Collaboration between and among Implementing Agencies and the GEF Secretariat, if appropriate .............................................................................................................................................. 26 PART D – MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN AND BUDGET ............................................................................27 D.1 Monitoring and Reporting............................................................................................................................. 27 D.2 Evaluation...................................................................................................................................................... 30 D.3 Audit Clause.................................................................................................................................................. 31 D.4 Learning and Knowledge Sharing ................................................................................................................ 31 PART E – LEGAL CONTEXT .....................................................................................................................................31 SECTION II – STRATEGIC RESULTS FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................32 SECTION III – TOTAL BUDGET AND WORK-PLAN (GEF BUDGET).........................................................33 SECTION IV – ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND ANNEXES....................................................................35 APPROVED MSP PIF...................................................................................................................................................35 LETTERS OF CO-FINANCING, AND THE GEF OPERATIONAL FOCAL POINT ENDORSEMENT LETTER ..........................35 TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR RELEVANT STAFF .............................................................................................................35 ANNEX 1 LOGICAL FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................................................51 ANNEX 2 BD-2 TRACKING TOOL .....................................................................................................................54 ANNEX 3 GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND BIODIVERSITY SIGNIFICANCE OF BIH KEY KARST FIELDS.............60 ANNEX 4 LIST OF REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................81 ANNEX 5 PROJECT BUDGET BY OUTPUTS .......................................................................................................83 ANNEX 6 INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS AND MATRIX................................................................................84 SIGNATURE PAGE .................................................................................................................................................88 BiH Karst peatlands biodiversity MSP 2 ACRONYMS APR Annual Progress Report BiH Bosnia and Herzegovina BD Strategic Priority of Global Environment Facility in biodiversity CBD United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity CAP Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union CO Country Office COP Conference of Parties EU European Union FBiH Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina GEF Global Environment Facility GEFSEC Secretariat of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) Ha hectares IA Implementing Agency M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MSP Medium-Size Project NGO Non-Government organization NPARD National Plan for Agriculture and Rural Development OP Operational Program PD Project Director PDF Project Development Facility of the Global Environment Facility PB Project Board PM Project Manager RC Regional Coordinator of UNDP/GEF RCU Regional Coordination Unit of UNDP/GEF RS Republika Srpska SCM Project board Meeting SFA State Fund Agriculture TOR Terms of Reference UNDP United Nations Development Programme BiH Karst peatlands biodiversity MSP 3 SECTION I – ELABORATION OF THE NARRATIVE PART A – Situation analysis A.1 Environmental context 1. Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) is a small country (51,129 km2) in the mid-western Balkans. Most of the country is mountainous with at least 30% of the area in the karst regions of the Dinaric mountain range which is stretching in general direction NE-SE in the southern part of the country, mostly in Herzegovina. Especially limestone formations have peculiar hydrogeological features formed due to chemical reactions between water and CaCO3 resulting
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Jtudies Concerning Teliospore Germination 1And
    JTUDIES CONCERNING TELIOSPORE GERMINATION 1AND THE SUBSEQUENT INFECTION OF CERTAIN PYCNIAL-AECIAL HOSTS OF PUCCINIA RE CONDIT A ROB . EX DESM. F . SP , TRITICI ERIKSS . BY DICKIE DON DA,, VIS Bachelor of Science University of Oklahoma Norman, Oklahoma 1960 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE June, 1963 comPiHU!Viit't .~u/l;\1lE rn~1:veJ11si1:0ir.­ ilJ~Fu~~v STUDIES CONCERNING TELIOSPORE GERMINATION AND THE SUBSEQUENT INFECTION OF CERTAIN PYCNIAL~AECIAL HOSTS OF PUCCINIA RijCONDIT A, ROB. EX PESM, F. SP. TRITICI ERIKSS, Thesis Approved: '"' ··-- ; 541894 ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to thank Dr. H. C. Young, Jr. for aid in sec1,1ring materials essential to these experiments and for 1;1,elpful suggestions during th,<;? course of the studies and in preparation of the manuscript. The writer is also indebted to Dr. J. E. Thomas for aid in clarifying tbe pr~sentation, and to Dr. W. W. Hansen for critical reading of the map.u­ SCl;'ipt. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION • • . 1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE . 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS 13 RESULTS • • . • • • • . 16 Experiment 1. Attempted Germination of Greenhouse-Grown Teliospores Under a Wide Range of Conditions for One Year. .. 16 Experiment 2. Attempted Germination of Greenhouse -Grown Teliospores Under an Arbitit'arily Chosen S~t of "Opti- mum" Conditions of Six Weeks Duration. • . • 22 Exgeriment 3. Environmental Conditions Resulting in Success- ful Germination of Field-Grown, Overwintered Telio- spores. 24 Experiment 4. Germination of Field-Grown Teliospores Under Carefully-Coo.trolled Environmental Conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • RIS) Categories Approved by Recommendation 4.7 of the Conference of the Contracting Parties
    Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands (RIS) Categories approved by Recommendation 4.7 of the Conference of the Contracting Parties Note: It is important that you read the accompanying Explanatory Note and Guidelines document before completing this form. 1. Date this sheet was completed/updated: 28th March 2002 2. Country: Slovakia 3. Name of wetland: Latorica 4. Geographical coordinates: 48º 28' N, 022º 00' E 5. Elevation: (average and/or maximum and minimum) 100 m (99 – 103 m) 6. Area: (in hectares) 4 404,7 ha (refined estimation) 7. Overview: (general summary, in two or three sentences, of the wetland's principal characteristics) The site includes a part of the floodplain area of the Latorica River defined by levees, from the Ukrainian borders to the confluence with the Laborec River in the Latorica Protected Landscape Area, in S part of the East Slovakian Lowland. It is characterized by a well-developed system of branches, seasonally inundated habitats with adjacent floodplain forests and grasslands. Threatened and rare aquatic and swamp biocoenoses of lowland, flooded habitats are represented. Several nature reserves are included in the site. 8. Wetland Type: (please circle the applicable codes for wetland types as listed in Annex I of the Explanatory Note and Guidelines document) marine-coastal: AB CDE FGH I J KZk(a) inland: L MNO PQRSpSs Tp Ts UVaVtW Xf Xp Y Zg Zk(b) human-made: 1 2 3 45 678 9 Zk(c) Please now rank these wetland types by listing them from the most to the least dominant: P, Tp, M, Xf, O, 4, Ts, W, 9, 7 9.
    [Show full text]
  • The Phytochemistry of Cherokee Aromatic Medicinal Plants
    medicines Review The Phytochemistry of Cherokee Aromatic Medicinal Plants William N. Setzer 1,2 1 Department of Chemistry, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL 35899, USA; [email protected]; Tel.: +1-256-824-6519 2 Aromatic Plant Research Center, 230 N 1200 E, Suite 102, Lehi, UT 84043, USA Received: 25 October 2018; Accepted: 8 November 2018; Published: 12 November 2018 Abstract: Background: Native Americans have had a rich ethnobotanical heritage for treating diseases, ailments, and injuries. Cherokee traditional medicine has provided numerous aromatic and medicinal plants that not only were used by the Cherokee people, but were also adopted for use by European settlers in North America. Methods: The aim of this review was to examine the Cherokee ethnobotanical literature and the published phytochemical investigations on Cherokee medicinal plants and to correlate phytochemical constituents with traditional uses and biological activities. Results: Several Cherokee medicinal plants are still in use today as herbal medicines, including, for example, yarrow (Achillea millefolium), black cohosh (Cimicifuga racemosa), American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius), and blue skullcap (Scutellaria lateriflora). This review presents a summary of the traditional uses, phytochemical constituents, and biological activities of Cherokee aromatic and medicinal plants. Conclusions: The list is not complete, however, as there is still much work needed in phytochemical investigation and pharmacological evaluation of many traditional herbal medicines. Keywords: Cherokee; Native American; traditional herbal medicine; chemical constituents; pharmacology 1. Introduction Natural products have been an important source of medicinal agents throughout history and modern medicine continues to rely on traditional knowledge for treatment of human maladies [1]. Traditional medicines such as Traditional Chinese Medicine [2], Ayurvedic [3], and medicinal plants from Latin America [4] have proven to be rich resources of biologically active compounds and potential new drugs.
    [Show full text]
  • Colonial Garden Plants
    COLONIAL GARD~J~ PLANTS I Flowers Before 1700 The following plants are listed according to the names most commonly used during the colonial period. The botanical name follows for accurate identification. The common name was listed first because many of the people using these lists will have access to or be familiar with that name rather than the botanical name. The botanical names are according to Bailey’s Hortus Second and The Standard Cyclopedia of Horticulture (3, 4). They are not the botanical names used during the colonial period for many of them have changed drastically. We have been very cautious concerning the interpretation of names to see that accuracy is maintained. By using several references spanning almost two hundred years (1, 3, 32, 35) we were able to interpret accurately the names of certain plants. For example, in the earliest works (32, 35), Lark’s Heel is used for Larkspur, also Delphinium. Then in later works the name Larkspur appears with the former in parenthesis. Similarly, the name "Emanies" appears frequently in the earliest books. Finally, one of them (35) lists the name Anemones as a synonym. Some of the names are amusing: "Issop" for Hyssop, "Pum- pions" for Pumpkins, "Mushmillions" for Muskmellons, "Isquou- terquashes" for Squashes, "Cowslips" for Primroses, "Daffadown dillies" for Daffodils. Other names are confusing. Bachelors Button was the name used for Gomphrena globosa, not for Centaurea cyanis as we use it today. Similarly, in the earliest literature, "Marygold" was used for Calendula. Later we begin to see "Pot Marygold" and "Calen- dula" for Calendula, and "Marygold" is reserved for Marigolds.
    [Show full text]
  • Skarpa Ursynowska” Nature Reserve (Poland)
    SPECIES RESTITUTION – A WAY TO IMPROVE FLORISTIC DIVERSITY OF MEADOW COMMUNITIES IN „SKARPA URSYNOWSKA” NATURE RESERVE (POLAND) Maria JANICKA1*, Bogumiła PAWLUŚKIEWICZ2 1Department of Agronomy, Warsaw University of Life Sciences – SGGW, Poland 2Department of Environmental Improvement, Warsaw University of Life Sciences – SGGW, Poland *Corresponding author: [email protected] Abstract The landscape reserve „Skarpa Ursynowska” is one of the 12 nature reserves situated in Warsaw (Poland). It was created in 1996 to protect piece of the high Vistula escarpment along with meadows and peat bogs of high natural values, which are located at the foot of Vistula escarpment. Cessation of management (from 1998 year) and the neglected, non-functioning drainage system for many years, as well as the storm canal banks covered with the concrete, have contributed to changes in habitat conditions and in botanical composition of post-marsh meadow communities. Floristic impoverishment of meadow communities, development of herbaceous (mainly willow) communities and invasive, arable land weeds and ruderal plants were demonstrated. These communities were characterized by small natural values, which reduced the aesthetic and landscape value of the reserve. The inadequate protection status of the meadow communities of the “Skarpa Ursynowska” reserve obliges to take action to stop the above mentioned processes and to restore the multi-species meadow communities. For this purpose, seedlings of wild flowers, dicotyledonous plant species (grown in laboratory conditions from seeds obtained from natural sites) were planted. The studies were carried out during 2015–2016. The growth and development of plants, the condition and range of the populations and the threats of 22 plant species were determined.
    [Show full text]
  • Wet Meadow Plant Communities of the Alliance Trifolion Pallidi on the Southeastern Margin of the Pannonian Plain
    water Article Wet Meadow Plant Communities of the Alliance Trifolion pallidi on the Southeastern Margin of the Pannonian Plain Andraž Carniˇ 1,2 , Mirjana Cuk´ 3 , Igor Zelnik 4 , Jozo Franji´c 5, Ružica Igi´c 3 , Miloš Ili´c 3 , Daniel Krstonoši´c 5 , Dragana Vukov 3 and Željko Škvorc 5,* 1 Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Institute of Biology, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia; [email protected] 2 School for Viticulture and Enology, University of Nova Gorica, 5000 Nova Gorica, Slovenia 3 Department of Biology and Ecology, Faculty of Science, University of Novi Sad, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia; [email protected] (M.C.);´ [email protected] (R.I.); [email protected] (M.I.); [email protected] (D.V.) 4 Department of Biology, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia; [email protected] 5 Faculty of Forestry, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia; [email protected] (J.F.); [email protected] (D.K.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: The article deals with wet meadow plant communities of the alliance Trifolion pallidi that appear on the periodically inundated or waterlogged sites on the riverside terraces or gentle slopes along watercourses. These plant communities are often endangered by inappropriate hydrological interventions or management practices. All available vegetation plots representing this vegetation type were collected, organized in a database, and numerically elaborated. This vegetation type appears in the southeastern part of the Pannonian Plain, which is still under the influence of the Citation: Carni,ˇ A.; Cuk,´ M.; Zelnik, Mediterranean climate; its southern border is formed by southern outcrops of the Pannonian Plain I.; Franji´c,J.; Igi´c,R.; Ili´c,M.; and its northern border coincides with the influence of the Mediterranean climate (line Slavonsko Krstonoši´c,D.; Vukov, D.; Škvorc, Ž.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecuador & Galapagos
    Estonia, species list and trip report, 26th May to 2nd June 2019 WILDLIFE TRAVEL v Estonia 2019 1 Estonia, species list and trip report, 26th May to 2nd June 2019 # DATE LOCATIONS AND NOTES 1 26th May Flight to Tallinn, travel to western Estoni and Matsalu National Park, nr Puise 2 27th May Matsalu NP, Puise peninsula, Silma nature reserve, Haapsalu 3 28th May Pusie, Pogari-Sassi, Lagleranna matkarada, Udruma meadows, Keemu reserve, Kasari River 4 29th May Puise Nina, Rame junction, Laelatu meadow, Tuhu, Virtsu, Muhu Island- Koguva 5 30th May Loona- Saaremaa island, Viidumae, Kogula, Loode, Hotell Saaremaa, Sorve Peninsula 6 31st May Loona, Kaali Krater, Laidevahe Nature Reserve, Puhtu-Laelatu, Pärnu Nature Reserve 7 1st June Klaara Manni, Sooma Rahuspark 8 2nd June Paljasaare Peninsula Tallinn LIST OF TRAVELLERS Leader and Guide Charlie Rugeroni Wildlife Travel Peeter Vissak NatourEst, Estonia Photos all by Charlie Rugeroni, unless marked PV (Peeter Vissak) and JR (Judith Robinson) Cover: Lady’s Slipper Orchid. Above: Laelatu 2 Estonia, species list and trip report, 26th May to 2nd June 2019 Day 1 Sunday 26th May Outbound to Lennart Meri Tallinn Airport; transfer to Puise Nina Guesthouse We were welcomed to Estonia by Peeter and once our bags were in the minibus we set off west to Puise peninsula and our first night’s guesthouse. The trip, on a Sunday afternoon, was straightforward and quiet. In the late-afternoon-early-evening northern light we were able to catch glimpses of Estonia’s Siberian-like natural forests, its peat bogs, coastal meadows, reed beds and fascinating coastline with innumerable inlets, glacial erratics and its flatness.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant List 2011
    ! Non-Arboretum members who spend $25 at Saturday’s Plant Sale receive a coupon for a future free visit to the Arboretum! (One per Person) University of Minnesota ASTILBE chinensis ‘Veronica Klose’ (False Spirea)--18-24” Intense red-purple plumes. Late summer. Shade Perennials ASTILBE chinensis ‘Vision in Pink’ (False Spirea)--18” Sturdy, upright pink plumes. Blue-green foliage. M. Interest in Shade Gardening continues to grow as more homeowners are finding ASTILBE chinensis ‘Vision in Red’ (False Spirea)--15” Deep red buds open their landscapes becoming increasingly shady because of the growth of trees and to pinky-red flowers. Bronze-green foliage. July. shrubs. Shade plants are those that require little or no direct sun, such as those in ASTILBE chinensis ‘Vision in White’ (False Spirea)--18-24” Large creamy- northern exposures or under trees or in areas where the sun is blocked for much of the white plumes. Smooth, glossy, green foliage. July. day. Available from us are many newly introduced plants and old favorites which can ASTILBE chinensis ‘Visions’ (False Spirea)--15” Fragrant raspberry-red add striking foliage and appealing flowers to brighten up your shade garden plumes. Deep green foliage. M. You will find Shade Perennials in the SHADE BUILDING. ASTILBE japonica ‘Montgomery’ (False Spirea)--22” Deep orange-red ACTAEA rubra (Red Baneberry)--18”Hx12’W Clumped bushy appearance. In spring plumes on dark red stems. M. bears fluffy clusters of small white flowers producing shiny red berries which are toxic. ASTILBE simplicifolia ‘Key Largo’ (False Spirea)--15-20” Reddish-pink flow- ers on red stems.
    [Show full text]
  • Samara English Edition 34 (PDF)
    The International Newsletter of the Millennium Seed Bank Partnership July - December 2018 brahmsonline.kew.org/msbp/Training/Samara ISSN 1475-8245 Issue: 34 PuttingPutting seedsseeds toto goodgood useuse KyrgyzstanKyrgyzstan exploresexplores thethe pharmacologicalpharmacological potentialpotential ofof itsits nativenative floraflora Landscape of Kyrgyzstan Photo: RBG Kew ANARA UMRALINA (Head of Plant Biotechnology Laboratory, Institute of Biotechnology National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic) Contents Page 1. Putting seeds to good use. SERGEY HEGAY Page 3. A message from Jonas Mueller. A message from Sandrine Godefroid. (Plant Biotechnology Researcher, Biotechnology Institute National Academy of Scien- Page 4. Reintroduction of endangered grassland species in ces of Kyrgyz Republic) Luxembourg. Page 5. RBG Kew develops a land restoration model to support the Great Green Wall in sub-Saharan Africa. yrgyzstan, despite its rather limited territory, has one of the richest floras in Cen- Page 6. Achieving GSPC Target 8 in Azerbaijan. tral Asia, with around 4,000 species described to date, at least 10% of which are Page 7. Seed Banking as a Last Resort for Endangered endemic or sub-endemic (i.e. grow only in Kyrgyzstan or slightly beyond its bor- Plant Populations. K Young researchers experience the Austrian Alps ders). The floristic diversity is partly due to Kyrgyzstan’s geographic location in the heart through seeds. of the mountain systems of Tian Shan and Pamir Alay, where the vegetation ranges from Page 8-9.Germination research and species reintroductions. semi-desert to tall herb meadows and from fruit and nut forests to alpine pastures. Page 10.A model of reforestation, food security and long-term carbon sequestration in Haiti.
    [Show full text]
  • New Plant Community (Caricetum Buekii Hejný Et Kopecký in Kopecký Et Hejný 1965) from Croatia
    NAT. CROAT. VOL. 17 No 1 15¿26 ZAGREB March 31, 2008 original scientific paper / izvorni znanstveni rad NEW PLANT COMMUNITY (CARICETUM BUEKII HEJNÝ ET KOPECKÝ IN KOPECKÝ ET HEJNÝ 1965) FROM CROATIA ZVJEZDANA STAN^I] Ul. Stjepana Radi}a 28, HR-49 221 Bedekov~ina, Croatia (E-mail: [email protected]) Stan~i}, Z.: New plant community (Caricetum buekii Hejný et Kopecký in Kopecký et Hejný 1965) from Croatia. Nat. Croat., Vol. 17, No. 1., 15–26, 2008, Zagreb. In this paper, the association Caricetum buekii is noted for the first time in Croatia. It has been es- tablished in wet habitats in the valleys of the Korana and Radonja rivers. Phytosociologically, it be- longs to marshland vegetation of the class Phragmito-Magnocaricetea. The present paper also makes a contribution to the knowledge of the distribution of Carex buekii in Croatia. The species has been found at three new localities south of Karlovac: in Vukmani}ki Cerovec, Tu{ilovi} and Krnjak. Key words: Carex buekii, distribution map, marshland vegetation, Phragmito-Magnocaricetea, Mag- nocaricion elatae, Croatia Stan~i}, Z.: Nova biljna zajednica (Caricetum buekii Hejný et Kopecký in Kopecký et Hejný 1965) u Hrvatskoj. Nat. Croat., Vol. 17, No. 1., 15–26, 2008, Zagreb. U ovome radu je po prvi puta zabilje`ena asocijacija Caricetum buekii za Hrvatsku. Utvr|ena je na vla`nim stani{tima u dolini rijeke Korane i Radonje. Fitocenolo{ki pripada mo~varnoj vegetaciji razreda Phragmito-Magnocaricetea. Ovim radom je tako|er dat doprinos poznavanju rasprostranje- nosti vrste Carex buekii u Hrvatskoj. Vrsta je ustanovljena na tri nova nalazi{ta ju`no od Karlovca: u Vukmani}kom Cerovcu, Tu{ilovi}u i Krnjaku.
    [Show full text]
  • Gap Analysis Final Report
    University of Primorska Science and Research Centre of Koper Institute for Biodiversity Studies WWF Project Reference No 9Z1387.05 “Protected Areas for a Living Planet – Dinaric Arc Ecoregion Project” Protected Area Gap Analysis (Final Report) Peter Glasnovi ć, BSc Boris Krystufek, PhD Andrej Sovinc, MSc Mileta Bojovi ć, BSc Deni Porej, PhD December 2009 WWF Dinaric Arc Ecoregion Project Protected Area Gap Analysis The Final Report by: University of Primorska Science and Research Centre of Koper Institute for Biodiversity Studies Garibaldijeva 1 6000 Koper Tel.: ++386 5 663 77 00, fax: ++386 5 663 77 10 E-mail: [email protected] Regional Scientific Coordinator: Peter Glasnovi ć, BSc; Boris Krystufek, PhD; Andrej Sovinc, MSc Cartography: Mileta Bojovi ć, BSc National Scientific Coordinators: Leon Kebe, BSc (Slovenia); Irina Zupan, MSc (Croatia); Senka Barudanovi ć, PhD (Bosnia and Herzegovina); Dragan Roganovi ć, PhD (Montenegro); Genti Kromidha, PhD (Albania) External experts: Boris Sket, PhD; Maja Zagmaister, PhD; Borut Štumberger, BSc WWF Mediterranean Programme Office: Director of Conservation Deni Porej, PhD Project Leader Stella Šatali ć, MSc Partners of the project: TNC (The Nature Conservancy), EuroNatur, Institute for Nature Conservation in Albania (Albania), University of Sarajevo – Faculty of Science (Bosnia and Herzegovina), State Institute for Nature Protection (Croatia), Institute for Nature Protection (Montenegro) 2 WWF Dinaric Arc Ecoregion Project Protected Area Gap Analysis Acknowledgments: Dragan Kova čevi ć, Banja Luka
    [Show full text]
  • Red List of Vascular Plants of the Czech Republic: 3Rd Edition
    Preslia 84: 631–645, 2012 631 Red List of vascular plants of the Czech Republic: 3rd edition Červený seznam cévnatých rostlin České republiky: třetí vydání Dedicated to the centenary of the Czech Botanical Society (1912–2012) VítGrulich Department of Botany and Zoology, Masaryk University, Kotlářská 2, CZ-611 37 Brno, Czech Republic, e-mail: [email protected] Grulich V. (2012): Red List of vascular plants of the Czech Republic: 3rd edition. – Preslia 84: 631–645. The knowledge of the flora of the Czech Republic has substantially improved since the second ver- sion of the national Red List was published, mainly due to large-scale field recording during the last decade and the resulting large national databases. In this paper, an updated Red List is presented and compared with the previous editions of 1979 and 2000. The complete updated Red List consists of 1720 taxa (listed in Electronic Appendix 1), accounting for more then a half (59.2%) of the native flora of the Czech Republic. Of the Red-Listed taxa, 156 (9.1% of the total number on the list) are in the A categories, which include taxa that have vanished from the flora or are not known to occur at present, 471 (27.4%) are classified as critically threatened, 357 (20.8%) as threatened and 356 (20.7%) as endangered. From 1979 to 2000 to 2012, there has been an increase in the total number of taxa included in the Red List (from 1190 to 1627 to 1720) and in most categories, mainly for the following reasons: (i) The continuing human pressure on many natural and semi-natural habitats is reflected in the increased vulnerability or level of threat to many vascular plants; some vulnerable species therefore became endangered, those endangered critically threatened, while species until recently not classified may be included in the Red List as vulnerable or even endangered.
    [Show full text]