‘On the Road to Kyiv’
Implementation of international commitments in Central and Eastern European countries
CEEWEB May 2003
Contributors
Bulgaria Green Balkans
Croatia Jagoda Munic, Green Action Irma Popovic Tomislav Tomasevic
Czech Republic Mojmir Vlasin, Ecological Institute Veronica of Czech Union for Nature Conservation
Hungary Eszter Bokodi CEEWEB Klára Hajdu CEEWEB Anna Iványi CEEWEB András Krolopp CEEWEB
Latvia Latvian Fund for Nature
Lithuania Rūta Vaičiūnaitė, Lithuanian Fund for Nature
Poland Andrzej Kepel, The Polish Society for Nature Protection "Salamandra" Przemysław Wylegała, The Polish Society for Nature Protection "Salamandra"
Romania Márton Kelemen, Milvus Group Tamás Papp, Milvus Group
Slovakia Dr. Jaromír Šíbl, BROZ (Regional Association for Nature Conservation and Sustainable Development)
Slovenia Anamarija Slabe, Institute for Sustainable Development Ariana Lucija Tratar Supan, Institute for Sustainable Development Katja Poboljsaj, Herpetological Society Nejc Jogan, Biological Society
The opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the policies or opinions of the REC. The REC assumes no liability, expressed or implied, arising out of the activities of any of its grantees.
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 3 INTRODUCTION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...... 6 BULGARIA...... 13 Introduction ...... 13 Physical-geographical description ...... 13 Short historical data ...... 13 State of nature...... 14 Natural characteristics of the country...... 14 Priority areas in terms of nature conservation...... 15 Threats and human impact ...... 16 Decision-making system in conservation policy and nature resource management...... 16 State sector...... 16 NGO participation in the decision making system...... 17 International commitments ...... 17 Short historical overview ...... 17 International agreements and conventions and their ratification...... 18 Evaluation of the conventions...... 19 Conclusion and recommendations ...... 24 CROATIA...... 26 Introduction ...... 26 Situation of environmental NGOs in Croatia...... 26 State of nature...... 27 The natural features of the country ...... 27 International Commitments...... 30 Evaluation of the conventions...... 31 Conclusions...... 35 THE CZECH REPUBLIC...... 36 Introduction ...... 36 State of Nature ...... 36 Fauna and flora ...... 37 Decision-making system...... 38 Structure of nature conservation ...... 38 NGO participation in decision making process...... 38 International Commitments...... 39 Evaluation of the conventions...... 39 Conclusions and recommendations...... 45 ESTONIA ...... 46 Introduction ...... 46 State of Nature ...... 46 Biological Diversity ...... 46 Decision making system in Nature Conservation ...... 49 NGO participation in decision making system ...... 50 International Commitments...... 50 State of the conventions ...... 50 Evaluation of the conventions...... 52 Conclusions and recommendations...... 59 HUNGARY ...... 61 Introduction ...... 61 State of nature...... 61 Biological diversity...... 62 Decision making system...... 64 International Commitments...... 65 Evaluation of the conventions...... 65 Conclusions...... 75
3 LATVIA...... 77 Introduction...... 77 State of nature ...... 77 Natural features of the country...... 77 Biological Diversity ...... 77 Decision making system ...... 79 Structure of Nature Conservation...... 79 NGO participation in decision-making system ...... 80 International Commitments...... 80 Short historical overview ...... 80 State of international conventions ...... 81 Evaluation of the conventions ...... 81 Conclusions...... 87 LITHUANIA...... 88 Introduction...... 88 State of Nature...... 88 Biological Diversity ...... 88 Decision-making system...... 89 International Commitments...... 90 Evaluation of the conventions ...... 91 Conclusions...... 106 POLAND ...... 108 Introduction...... 108 State of Nature...... 108 Natural features of the country...... 108 Biological Diversity ...... 109 Decision making system ...... 110 Structure of Nature Conservation...... 110 NGO participation in decision making system...... 110 International Commitments...... 111 Short historical overview ...... 111 Evaluation of the conventions ...... 112 Conclusions...... 124 ROMANIA...... 126 Introduction...... 126 State of Nature...... 126 Introduction...... 126 Biological Diversity ...... 127 Nature Conservation structure...... 130 International Commitments...... 132 Short historical overview ...... 132 State of international conventions ...... 133 Evaluation of the conventions ...... 133 Conclusions...... 148 Recommendations ...... 148 SLOVAKIA ...... 149 Introduction...... 149 State of Nature...... 149 Introduction...... 149 Biological diversity ...... 150 Decision making system ...... 153 Structure of Nature Conservation...... 153 NGO participation in decision making system...... 153 International Commitments...... 154 Short historical overview ...... 154 Evaluation of the conventions ...... 155 Recommendations ...... 182
4 SLOVENIA ...... 184 Introduction ...... 184 State of nature...... 184 Introduction and natural features of the country ...... 184 Biological diversity...... 185 Decision-making system in nature conservation...... 187 National nature conservation legislation...... 187 Legal framework for the sustainable use of the components of biological and landscape diversity... 188 Institutional structure of nature conservation...... 189 Interactions, gaps, bottlenecks, recommendations ...... 191 International commitments ...... 191 Evaluation of the conventions...... 192
5
INTRODUCTION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The 'Environment for Europe' (EfE) process is an essential political framework for cooperation on environmental issues in the UN/ECE region. Since 1991 it regularly brings together Ministers of Environment at pan-European conferences to formulate environmental policy and to take important decisions in this area as well as to review the results achieved. Since 1998 the EfE focus has been moving to the East (refocusing on the NIS decision in Aarhus, 1998). However, the success of the EfE process will be impossible without addressing problems and seeking integral solutions for the entire region.
The 5th EfE Ministerial Conference (to be held in Kiev, Ukraine, 21-23 May 2003) is the next important milestone in this process. It will focus on and seek common solutions for strengthening the environmental pillar of sustainable development in the region, providing environmental security and building new partnerships among all stakeholders.
The objective of this report was to give an overview on the implementation of the various nature conservation conventions and other commitments our countries have undertaken, and to find out whether their full potential is harnessed to the benefit of biological diversity. The result is sad, but true: these commitments cannot always fulfil their role of safeguarding the values of biodiversity. The report also tries to look into the underlying causes of this apparent inability, so that we can draw the consequences and learn the lessons, the sooner the better.
I would like to express my thanks and appreciation for the authors of the national reports: Green Balkans (Bulgaria), Jagoda Munic, Tomislav Tomasevic, Irma Popovic (Croatia) Mojmir Vlasin (the Czech Republic), Eszter Bokodi, Anna Iványi, Klára Hajdu (Hungary), Latvian Fund for Nature, Rūta Vaičiūnaitė (Lithuania), Przemysław Wylegała, Andrzej Kepel (Poland) Márton Kelemen, Tamás Papp (Romania), Dr. Jaromír Šíbl (Slovakia), Anamarija Slabe, Ariana Lucija Tratar Supan, Katja Poboljsaj, Nejc Jogan (Slovenia).
Moreover I would like to express my special thanks to my colleague, Anna Iványi, without her help this report could not been produced in time and in quality. I must also recognise the invaluable help of our accountant Edit Szász, in keeping track of the finances.
Last, but not least I also want to say thank you for the generous support from the grant from the Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC), funded by the Norwegian Royal Ministry of Foreign Affair.
Budapest, May 2003
András Krolopp General Secretary CEEWEB
6 Implementation of international biodiversity conventions in Central and Eastern Europe - Summary -
The evaluation study on the implementation of certain biodiversity and nature protection related commitments was conducted in the following countries: Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. The commitments examined were the followings: • Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention); adopted on 2 February 1971, Ramsar • Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), adopted on 3 March 1973, Washington • Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) (Bonn Convention), adopted on 23 June 1979, Bonn • Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention), adopted on 19 September 1979, Bern • Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), adopted on 5 June 1992, Rio de Janeiro • Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS), adopted on 25 October 1995, Sofia • Council Directive 79/409/EEC (EU Birds Directive) • Council Directive 92/43/EEC (EU Habitat Directive) (Natura 2000 network) The aim of this study was to find out, whether conventions signed and directives incorporated into national legislation provide an effective way to improve the state of nature. The template for the study included very specific questions targeted at the institutional structure, human capacities dedicated and the financial resources earmarked to the implementation of the international commitments in question. The study also presents the concrete results and improvements achieved due the obligations stipulated in these documents. The state of nature conservation and the level of the implementation of these commitments differ significantly in these countries, but what they all agree in is that despite some remarkable achievements attained recently, there is still a long way to go. Depending on previous advance made by the different countries in the field of nature conservation, current circumstances and national priorities, there have been considerable steps forward in amending national legislation for incorporating international commitments, setting up comprehensive nature conservation strategies, involving sites and species under international conventions (Bern Convention, Bonn Convention, CITES, etc.), designating national ecological networks and Natura 2000 sites, promoting effective cooperation among the numerous stakeholders, etc. While acknowledging the significance of the progress made in the Central and Eastern European region, it should be also pointed out however that there are still some serious gaps in the institutional and legislative basis of national nature conservation, and even more in implementing the already undertaken international commitments. The following concrete examples give a brief overview on the problems the region has to face with regards to nature conservation: • Slovakia: Even seriously threatened species are considered by hunting law as game species and intensively hunted (e.g. wolf).
7 • Poland: EU Birds and Habitat Directives: 7% of Natura 2000 areas is conserved in national parks (all the national parks are to be included in the future network), 34% in landscape parks, 2% in nature reserves and almost 60% is not included in any of these forms of nature conservation, therefore they cannot be considered as protected areas. The fact that the majority of these areas is situated within the so called “areas of conserved landscape” has no practical significance due to the very low dignity of this form of nature conservation. • the Czech Republic: 44% of higher plants and 41% of vertebrate animals are under threat or already extinct in the Czech Republic. The percentage of threatened invertebrates can hardly be estimated. A considerable part of the species population of invertebrates has yet to be discovered. The situation is similar in the case of fungi. The overall conclusion of the study was that the bottleneck for successful and effective implementation is the lack of human and financial resources. And what are the underlying reasons of nature conservation issues being such a low priority? The first point is maybe the political will and commitment of decision-makers (or rather the lack of it), because according to these reports, the means and instruments sometimes are existing, but they are not used to their full potential. Of course the political climate of these countries is slightly different, depending on their position regarding EU accession. First round countries with their accession foreseen in 2004 (the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia) show – must show – a strong commitment towards the implementation of the EU directives, because they are obligated to comply with all EU legislation by the time of their accession if no derogation period has been requested and endorsed. The countries of the second round (Bulgaria and Romania) with the working hypothesis of 2007 as the date of their accession, have the target set and the objectives well defined as well, but nature conservation is still not placed appropriately in the list of priorities. Croatia has just started negotiating with the EU, and important favourable changes can be already observed, though the “situation is far from perfect”. The integration of nature conservation considerations in all sectoral policies would be an essential step to the implementation of these agreements. However, actually not even nature conservation activities themselves are coordinated efficiently. The scope of the international commitments selected for this study shows a significant overlapping. This kind of duplication in most of the cases does not duplicate the effectiveness of implementation, but it is rather used an excuse to shift the responsibility. Thus instead of taking advantage of the opportunity of a strong cooperation and a rational distribution of tasks on the field of overlapping issues, the lack of coherence and insufficient information flow results in the waste of already scarce (human and financial) resources. However, you can find good examples as well. Below you can read the relevant section of the Latvian report: For the reasons of better coordination and use of resources, it has been decided that one unified biodiversity related strategy will be prepared for Latvia, incorporating also strategic goals of Ramsar convention, Bonn convention, CITES convention and regional conventions like Bern and HELCOM. It is approved as the National Programme on Biological Diversity. Sectors like Forestry, Agriculture, Fisheries, Transport, Energy have to integrate provisions from the National Programme in their strategies
8 and programmes. Integration of requirements of other conventions in biodiversity strategy and their simultaneous implementation helps to reach the goals of those documents in most efficient way.
The same insufficiency applies for the cooperation (exactly the lack of it) with the non-governmental sector. The inappropriate amount and quality of information due to the lack of scientific and monitoring systems on different components of biodiversity is a serious obstacle for proper evaluation and efficient implementation of biodiversity protection and nature conservation. The following quotation from the National Strategy and Action Plan of Croatia illustrates the gravity of the problem: Croatia belongs to the rare European countries that have not described its flora, micoflora and fauna and is still lacking the essential popular science handbooks (the so called keys) for identification of species, even the translation of similar handbooks that apply to the entire Europe. [...] Without being familiar with the present state of biological taxa as one of the fundamental national wealth, they can be neither correctly evaluated nor properly protected. [...] The majority of Croatian national parks and other especially protected natural objects have neither the inventory of species living in the relevant area nor knowledge about the state of their population. Therefore it is difficult to apply the adequate approach to their management and protection.
Of course the situation is not that serious in all of the countries, still almost all reports stated that there is no effective monitoring, so an important part of the information is outdated, incomplete or difficult to access. Most of the involved NGOs call for enhanced cooperation between the non-governmental and the non-profit sector, since the synergy of available capacities may at least partially solve the acute lack of adequately qualified human resources. (For example, the data gathered by NGOs on wetlands and on waterfowls in Romania is not sufficiently used in the activities related to the implementation of the Ramsar Convention. The Ramsar Bureau and BirdLife International recently published a report “Important Bird Areas and potential Ramsar Sites in Europe”, according to the report there are 22 identified IBAs that fulfil the Ramsar criteria but lacking the designation in Romania.) The opportunities of such cooperation have been recognised neither by governmental organizations, nor by scientists yet, with the exception of a few positive examples. In Estonia in the case of the Ramsar Convention six academic and 14 non- governmental organisations are more closely involved in wetland protection and management; and in Slovakia the preparation of the Natura 2000 network developed a unique cooperative mechanism among different stakeholders possessing relevant data. However, in this latter case the introduction of further measures is still needed in order to keep up cooperation in the future. The conclusion can be drawn that increased knowledge on species, habitats and landscapes, improved data management, the development of easy- to-use and publicly accessible databases and the promotion of GIS systems would improve the implementation of all biodiversity-related international commitments. Not only the participation of NGOs should be fostered, but also local people and all other stakeholders should be involved in the communication and consultation process,
9 especially with regards to the designation of Natura 2000 sites. Awareness raising would be crucial, targeted at a wider audience to increase the commitment of local communities in all nature conservation fields. A few examples, where such information campaigns could help to improve the situation: ¾ with respect to the Bern Convention: in Bulgaria major infringements are related to the encouragement of the use of prohibited means (poisoned baits) for regulating the numbers of wolves and other big predators, as well as the use of prohibited rodenticides. ¾ with respect to CITES: in Romania the illegal fishing of sturgeons and illegal egg collecting are the most important threat to the sturgeon population; in Poland the trade of species and derivative products included in the convention is still carried out semiofficially. Beside the necessity to raise the general level of awareness, governments and legislation have also an important role to play. Though well-informed citizens can act responsibly, it would be the government's task to establish and enforce deterrent sanctions, which is missing in all of the above examples. Moreover even governments so far did fail with complying their commitments undertaken by signing different international agreements in the following areas as well: • in the Czech Republic one of the ten Ramsar Sites on the international Ramsar list is still unprotected, though pursuant to the Ramsar Convention all Ramsar Sites should be protected in accordance with national law; • in the Czech Republic the National Biodiversity Strategy – a goal defined in the Convention on Biological Diversity – is still unfinished, in spite of being twice financed by GEF; • in Hungary the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan is also not adopted yet, claimed to be under revision at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences since early 2000, when the preparation and consultation phase was finished with a wide-scale involvement of different stakeholders; • in Slovenia several parts of the Convention on Biological Diversity are more or less ignored in the legislation; • in Bulgaria the National Plan for priority actions on the protection of the most significant Bulgarian wetlands, elaborated in 2000, is not concrete and grounded enough, so it cannot be used for management and planning as stipulated in the Ramsar Convention under Article 3.1 on "wise use".
The next problem, which governments and all other stakeholders face even after imposing the relevant legislation, is the lack of financial resources. Below a few examples from the reports can be seen to illustrate the seriousness of the problem • Slovenia: Ministry of the Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy (MESPE) has a single budget line “UKREPI ZA OHRANJANJE BIOTSKE RAZNOVRSTNOSTI” (“Measures for protection of biodiversity”) for the implementation of all biodiversity related conventions and directives. For 2003 that is 40 million SIT (175.000 EUR). • Estonia: The revised NEAP for 2001-2003 (adopted in 2001) defines the maximum number of nature conservation activities to be financed from national budget and
10 international funds. The total cost is estimated to be 22 million EUR over a three- year period. This is 3−4 times more than available from state budget. • Romania: Lack of national financial means for supporting activities concerning the Birds and the Habitat Directives as well as the drawing up of the Natura 2000 network is (along with the time shortage and lack of adequately qualified human resources) the main obstacle for the implementation.
So what shall be done? Instead of any further explanation, please read the following statement. It might give you a hint on how to proceed...
STATEMENT of the NGO meeting convened by CEEWEB, organized by Green Balkans in preparation for the Ministerial Meeting “Environment for Europe” in Kyiv, Ukraine, 21-23 May, 2003
In the course of the Regional Preparatory NGO Conference on Biodiversity held in Plovdiv, Bulgaria on April 10-11, 2003, 45 delegates from the countries as follows: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Romania, Slovakia and Ukraine endorsed the following statements addressed to the governments of the Central and Eastern European countries:
Considering the vital contribution of NGOs to the protection of biological diversity;
Acknowledging the legislation reform completed in most of the CEE countries, but requiring further institutional reforms for enhancing the capacity of governments to fulfil their responsibilities;
Recognizing the role of NGOs to engage in critical analysis of governmental activities with regard to complying with their commitments in the field of biodiversity protection and to applying pressure on the Convention Secretariats to evaluate national reports;
Stating that the Secretariats should employ more stringent criterion in the evaluation of national reports and provide public access to these evaluations;
Taking note of the lack of intersectoral integration at the highest state level mandated by Article 6 of the Convention on Biological Diversity;
Requesting governments to give biological diversity and its value a higher priority at all levels of their activities;
11 Our recommendations concerning biodiversity related international agreements:
1. We urge all countries to become party and ratify all relevant environmental conventions and agreements to achieve a truly Pan-European coverage. 2. With the act of ratification and for all already ratified conventions the government should have an action plan together with financial resources identified. 3. Environmental and other relevant ministries and authorities have to be supported by governments and international institutions in order to fulfill relevant obligations in the spirit of the Environment for Europe process. 4. It is imperative to involve representatives of civil society in the formulation and development of plan for implementation from the inception phase. 5. The plan of implementation should consider and build upon already ratified agreements in order to enhance synergy and to avoid overlaps. 6. National steering committees, representing governmental and non-governmental sectors, should be established in order to ensure the implementation of international agreements. 7. The ministries should ensure that NGOs are included in government delegations to Conferences of the Parties. 8. It is necessary to establish and to facilitate regular consultation, exchange of information and closer cooperation between different national focal points.
12 BULGARIA
Report executors and structure: The present report is elaborated by a team of the Bulgarian NGO Green Balkans. Information sources: • 19 Bulgarian legislative normative acts in the field of environment and biodiversity conservation • 8 international conventions and agreements • 10 political documents (strategies and declarations) • numerous internal administration documents (orders, resolutions, decisions, recommendations, etc.) • shorthand minutes of the meetings of the Bulgarian Parliament • interviews of state officials and independent experts • publications – described at the end of the report
Information analyses and expert assessments are made by NGO experts, independent experts and ex-governmental officials. The report (elaborated according to an assigned structure) contains the following parts: • introduction –short information with baseline data about the country • state of nature – short summary of baseline data about biodiversity, threats and decision- making system, as well as NGP participation. • international commitments – dossiers of all biodiversity related conventions have been consequently presented, as well as assessments of their application effectiveness • conclusion and recommendations
INTRODUCTION
PHYSICAL-GEOGRAPHICAL DESCRIPTION Bulgaria is situated in the latitude of 41 44 º N and the longitude of 22 - 28 º E. It covers an area of 110 912 km2 in the North-East part of the Balkan Peninsula, bounded on the west with Macedonia and Serbia, on the south with Greece and Turkey, on the east there is a large outlet to the Black Sea, and on the north it shares a border with Romania. The population of the country is more over 7 900 000 people. The capital is Sofia. The country is characterized by a variety of relief and landscape as a result of millions of years of geomorphologic processes. The relief of the country is strongly segmented vertically. There are five identified belts: lowland, plain and hilly, low mountainous and high mountainous. 70% of the country territory is covered by lowlands and plains. The average altitude is 470m. The highest mountain chains in the Balkans are located within the territory of Bulgaria – the highest peek of the Peninsula is Musala (2 925m). The water reserves of the country are not very rich despite the numerous springing rivers, such as Maritsa, Tundzha, Struma, Mesta, Arda, etc., underground waters and karsts springs. The climate is continental to mediterranean.
SHORT HISTORICAL DATA Bulgaria as a state on the Balkan Peninsula is established in 681. Since 1396 to 1878 the territory falls within the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire. After the liberation in 1878, following the Berlin Contract, Bulgaria is severely dismembered. On the north from the Balkan Mountains a new autonomous Bulgarian principality forms, tributary to the Sultan, and South Bulgaria remains
13 entirely under the political and military power of the Sultan, with administrative autonomy and bearing the name South Rumelia. In 1885 Bulgarian principality and South Rumelia unite. In 1879 Turnovo Constitution announces the Monarchic rule in Bulgaria, which is preserved till 1944. From 1944 till 1989 the country is a Republic ruled by the communistic party, supported by the USSR. After 1989 the country undertakes the way of the democratic development. After 1985 until 2000 the country suffers a hard economic crisis, caused by the change of the political system and high foreign indebtedness. As a consequence of a number of political and structural collisions in the period of 1990-2000, political parties unanimously identify the foreign political course of the country towards accession to the European Union. During the totalitarian regime (1944-89) the existence of an independent NGO movement was extremely impeded and almost impossible. The Communist party controlled the classical large organizations, such as the Red Cross, the Bulgarian Tourist Union and the Bulgarian Hunting and Fishing Union. Related to the environment, a National Committee for nature protection existed, entirely controlled by the communist rule and broke down after 1989. The first informal organizations, founders of the NGO movement in Bulgaria, appear in 1987-88, after Russian perestroika started. The first environmental organization is the Committee for Saving Rousse, which later grew into the National Ecoglasnost Movement. The first nature conservation organization is Green Balkans, established in 1988. During the period of 1990-93 a number of environmental NGOs were established. At present they amount to 350. The major organizations that influence policy in the field of environment and conservation are: Green Balkans Federation of Nature Conservation NGOs, National Ecoglasnost Movement, Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds, Borrowed Nature, Bulgarian-Swiss Biodiversity Conservation Programme, Wilderness Fund, Balkani Wildlife Society. Only two organizations have established networks nationally: Green Balkans and Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds.
STATE OF NATURE
NATURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COUNTRY Although Bulgaria has a relatively small territory (110 912 km2), it has a rich biological diversity due to its high diverse climatic, geological, topographic and hydrological conditions. These conditions allow the existence of a biota that includes 94 mammal species, 410 birds, 36 reptiles, 16 amphibians, 210 Black sea and fresh water fishes, about 27 000 insects and other invertebrates, 3 500 -3 750 species of higher plants and more than 6 500 lower plants and mushrooms. The richness of Bulgarian biological diversity is defined by the biogeographic location of the country. The small country territory contains biota, influenced by three biogeographic sub-regions of all eight: Palearctic – continental, Mediterranean and Irano – Turanean (Caspian). Bulgarian biota includes a significant number of endemic species and sub-species. Plant endemics comprise about 5 percent of the total flora – a rather large share compared to other, larger European countries. The information available for invertebrate taxa states that 8.8% of the non-insect species and 4.3% of the insect species are endemics. This percentage will most probably be increased after a further complete study of the groups. Rarity rate varies significantly in the different taxonomic groups. Rare for the flora and fauna have been categorized more than 700 higher plants, a great part of which are endemic species, distributed in high mountain regions; 567 species of non-insect invertebrates (approximately 23% of all known species); over 1 500 insect species; 29 species of Black sea and fresh water fishes; 2 snake species, 80 bird species (including 18 species of the list of globally threatened species of 1993 of the World Conservation Union [IUCN]); and at least 10 large mammals, including the Black sea Monk seal, the endemic dolphin sub-species of the Porpoise and the Bottlenosed dolphin, the chamois, the brown bear, the wolf, the otter and the European Marbled polecat. Summarized table for the species diversity is presented in Appendix 1.
14 The distribution of areas of high biological diversity is well illustrated by the conducted gap analyses and the extent of significance of each area, based on the data about species richness, endemism, rare taxa, as well as on data of a map of protected areas with the size of 100 ha. (Appendix № 2) (Source – National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy). Bulgaria is characterized by large habitat diversity and has examples of almost all main types of habitats and biotopes, known in Europe. The list of habitats that are unique and preserved exclusively in that part of the Balkan Peninsula is not short. Due to a number of reasons, a lot of them have been destroyed in the other part of its Palearctic area. The sub-mediterranean communities of Quercus rubescens Willd., Carpinus orientalis Mill., Juniperus oxycedrus, Moesian beech, etc,. deserve to be mentioned here. The so-called pseudomaquis are dispersed in the southeast part of the country. Only here in whole Europe (Strandzha Mountain) the relict flora communities of South Euxine type occur. They contain Fagus orientalis, Quercus petraea, Carpinus orientalis and Quercus hortwissiana. Their undergrowth of Rhododendron ponticum, Teucrium latifolium, Daphne pontica, etc., is unique too. The dune communities along the Black Sea coast are also interesting, as well as the alluvial and floodplain forests along the Maritsa and Tundzha Rivers. Special attention should be given to Bulgarian forests, which cover 33% of the total country area. 60% of Bulgarian forests are of natural origin. Unfortunately, a complete evaluation of the habitat diversity has not been made to date. Experts agree that EU Directive 92/43 can include a further list of habitats of high conservation value on the territory of Bulgaria. The new Bulgarian Biodiversity Act defines 105 nature habitats of high conservation value. (Appendix № 3) Protected areas and national ecological network. 4,9% of the country territory is protected in conformity with the Protected Areas Act. Less than 3% are subject to a protection regime (national parks and nature reserves). The conclusion that the network of protected areas is extremely undeveloped and insufficient for the conservation of Bulgarian biodiversity is confirmed by a number of Bulgarian official documents, including the National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy. There are many reasons for that, mainly subjective and political, part of which are the insufficiently developed capacities. Experts point out that over 42% of the country territory comply with conservation criteria of EU Directive 92/43 and Natura 2000. Despite the recommendations of European and Bulgarian experts, the political will was not enough for a timely start of Natura 2000. The programme started as late as in 2003, covering only limited areas throughout the country. Bulgarian nature conservation community is hoping that Natura 2000 instrument will develop a national ecological network that will secure protection to at least 30% of Bulgarian areas of high conservation value.
PRIORITY AREAS IN TERMS OF NATURE CONSERVATION Coordinated with the National Biodiversity Strategy and the National Action Plan for Biodiversity Conservation. • Development of the national ecological network • Enhancement of the network of protected nature areas • Identification of sites and areas under Natura 2000 • Establishment of management plans for protected areas and sites under Natura 2000 • Establishment of a common management code for the national ecological network • Capacity development for the management of the national ecological network • Intersectoral integration. Implementation of the requirements of the Convention on Biological Diversity for intersectoral integration and the National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy. • Management capacity development for nature resources of high conservation value.
15 THREATS AND HUMAN IMPACT Unfortunately, there is no national assessment and analyses of the threat action, considering the National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy as well. The main reason for the threats listed below is the lack of effective management policy and capacities in the field of nature conservation. The prioritization that has been made is based on the opinions of Green Balkans experts.
1. Destruction and degradation of habitats. Main reasons: a. Environmentally unfriendly changes in forest policy, mass poaching and incorrectly conducted restitution of forest cause the elimination of 15% of Bulgarian forests in the period of 1992-2002, with particular damage to floodplain forests. b. Drainage and destruction of wetlands. c. Change of land ownership, which has caused the destruction of meadows and pastures due to restitution of land in the period of 1992-2000. d. Destruction of landscapes of high conservation value as a consequence of environmentally unfriendly infrastructure projects (construction of gas channels, water power plants and large resort complexes). Strong lobbyist interests caused change in Protected Areas Acts and controlled EIA. Even National Parks were affected, where the management plans were changed. 2. Invasive introduced species. A great number of species have caused serious damage on Bulgarian communities. The harsh consequences are caused by the mass introduction of Ailantus altissiama and Amorpha fruticosa in the country 30 years ago. These two species form entire communities in many regions of the country and are a serious threat to native habitats. 3. Excessive exploitation of nature resources. First, populations of medicinal plants and forests are threatened by environmentally unfriendly forest management projects. Harsh economic conditions have forced local population to poach in mass, which is hard to be controlled by state structures. This threatens seriously the populations of valuable game species. 4. Intensification of agriculture. It is not a leading threat for the period 1989-1999, due to an abrupt decrease of artificial fertilizers and pesticides per unit area because of economic reasons. In the past two years increase of the threat is observed due to incorrect policy in regard of agriculture subsidies. 5. Environmental pollution. Not leading for the country as whole, but separate areas are damaged to a significant extent. Fortunately, they still have spot feature.
DECISION-MAKING SYSTEM IN CONSERVATION POLICY AND NATURE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
STATE SECTOR The Ministry Of Environment And Waters (MOEW) is a body of the Implementing Authority. The structure of MOEW in a hierarchical aspect is of two levels and consists of Central management and 15 Regional inspections. The unit responsible for biodiversity conservation is the Directorate of National Nature Protection Service (NNPS). NNPS is responsible for the application and implementation of the international commitments, the Protected Areas Act, Biodiversity Act and Medicinal Plants Act. The Service has a staff of 15 persons. The territory of the country is divided in 15 parts, in each of which a Regional Inspectorate of Environment and Waters is established (RIEW), which is a local section of the MOEW and implements governmental policy in the relevant area. There are 40 experts working in the 15 RIEW throughout the country (distributed unevenly, one to three in number).
16 As a consequence of the established tradition, a significant part of the policy related to nature conservation is made not only by MOEW but also by the National Forest Board (NFB), which is a Department to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forests (MAF). This refers not only to forest management and other nature resources, but also to commitments related biodiversity conservation in some protected areas. This type of distribution of responsibilities has significant shortcomings, which will be commented in the conclusions and summaries of the reports. A particular unit in the NFB, responsible for conservation policy, is the ‘Protected Areas, International Cooperation and NGO relations’ Department. The staff is rather small – only four persons. The specialists in the department are in charge of policy conduct in the field of protected areas of the Nature park type (most often analogical to IUCN Category V).
NGO PARTICIPATION IN THE DECISION MAKING SYSTEM Due to insufficiently developed capacities and resources in state sector, a great part of the activeness in the past 10 years in terms of decision-making and initiatives is made by NGOs. Large NGOs as Green Balkans, the Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds and the Bulgarian Swiss Biodiversity Conservation Programme have proposed more and much larger protected areas than the Government has. The same applies to the mediation for securing international donors. NGO contribution is also significant in regard of legislation activities. Six projects have been implemented under the programme ‘Public support to the reform in nature conservation legislation’, administered by Green Balkans, funded by the USAID and the EU. As a result of this programme, 127 texts have been approved by the Parliament in leading nature conservation laws (Protected Areas Act, Biodiversity Act, Forest Act, etc.) Part of this programme has accelerated the ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1996. The Government still does not appreciate this serious NGO contribution to the sector and does not provide opportunities for a legitimate participation in the decision-making system. For example, only two NGO representatives are part of the National Consultative Council for biodiversity conservation, who have been chosen according to subjective criteria and do not represent NGO sector in this field. The efforts of the NGO movement for challenging public discussion on the reports on international conventions and their publication in Internet are uncountable. This has not been done for the moment.
INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS
SHORT HISTORICAL OVERVIEW Till 1990 the Republic of Bulgaria was a party only to 2 conventions in the field of biological diversity: Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage and Convention on Wetlands of International Importance. Despite the pressure exerted by NGO and the international support, the period between 1990-95 is characterized by extremely low interest and responsibility of the governments with regard to international commitments fulfilment. In this period only CITES (1990) and the Bern Convention (1991) were ratified. Ratification was the only act that was not followed by the establishment of management structures and fulfilment of international commitments. Nature conservation community hoped that the adoption of the National Biological Diversity Conservation Strategy (1994) and the Ministerial meeting “Environment for Europe”, which was held in Sofia in 1995 and adopted PEBLDS, would stimulate governments’ activeness. Unfortunately, no such activeness occurred. CBD was ratified at the end of 1996, following considerable public campaign and pressure exerted by NGOs. Considerably low activity was observed as far as the implementation of the commitments under PEBLDS is concerned. In the studies carried out, for the period 1996-2002, there wasn’t even one governmental document, which
17 recommends any kind of enforcement of PEBLDS. There was not even an official document of the Ministry of Environment and Waters, quoting PEBLDS. In the period 1995-98, the requirements and strategic goals, on which the Conventions and the National Biological Diversity Conservation Strategy were grounded, have not been enforced effectively in the nature conservation practice yet. This period is characterized by an institutional rivalry between the Ministry of Environment and Waters (MOEW) and the then Forest Committee, concerning protected areas management functions and nature conservation policy. Conservation policy is still outside the focus of the parliaments and governments. The relevant evidences are: • No personnel have been established for administering conventions, with only few exceptions (CITES and Bern) and their requirements are not fulfilled. • The National Biological Diversity Conservation Strategy, elaborated in 1993, had to wait its turn for receiving a signature by the Ministerial council for more than 5 years. • Although CBD was ratified in 1996, no change in the policy followed, regarding its integration and the internal legislation approximation. • Till the end of 1997, actually there was no contemporary nature conservation legislation in Bulgaria. The former Nature Conservation Act of 1967 was still valid, and it did not correspond to the international commitments and conventions, although the greater part of the package had already been ratified. Serious impetus in conservation policy development was launched at the end of 1997, when the Government adopted the EU accession program and was forced to accelerate the reform in nature conservation policy. In a short time (1997-99) 9 acts in the field of environment were adopted, among which were those related to conservation. The ratification of the main international conventions package was completed (see list below). The greatest achievement in the field of nature conservation policy and law creation is the recently adopted Biological Diversity Act (August 9th, 2002). It integrates the commitments resulting from several international conventions (CITES, CBD, Bonn, etc.), and, most of all, EU Directive on Habitats (92/43). It could be considered that adopting this Act the main part of approximation in the field of nature conservation policy has been completed. The process of elaboration of statutory documents for enforcement of the Biological Diversity Act, and, most of all, for the implementation of the European program “Natura 2000” in Bulgaria, started in September. The Act postulates the protection of all territories of high conservation value, as selection criteria have been entirely conformed to the lists and Annexes of the EU Directive on Habitats 92/43 and the Directive on Birds 79/409/EEC.
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS AND CONVENTIONS AND THEIR RATIFICATION
1. UN Convention on Biological Diversity, ratification – 29 February, 1996 2. Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat - promulgation 10 July 1992 3. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora - ratification 12 December 1990 4. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage - promulgation 17 December 1975 5. Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats – ratification 25 January 1991 6. Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals – ratification 23 July 1999 7. UN Convention on Desertification in Countries, Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa – ratification January 2001
18 8. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity – ratification 8 August 2000.
EVALUATION OF THE CONVENTIONS
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat
Procedures and adoption. Open to endorsement on 02.02. 1971 in Ramsar, Iran. Confirmed by Resolution № 389 of the Ministerial Council of 18.11.1974, effective in Bulgaria since 24.01.1976. Amended by Protocol of 3.12.1982, effective in Bulgaria since 27.02.1986, promulgated in OJ, issue 56 of 10.07.1992; www.ramsar.org Background. One of the first international conventions adopted in Bulgaria. Subject of the convention are five wetlands. Two more wetlands are undergoing adoption procedure. Considerably good traditions have been established in its administration. Focal point. NNPS. National coordinator – Valery Georgiev. Main commitments. Preparing an official position of the country, monitoring of wetlands, maintaining a database, research and proposing new wetlands, preparing national reports and maintaining the national Ramsar Committee. Conservation instruments, in which it has been transported. Natural Protected Areas Act, Biological Diversity Act. Financial resources. There is no direct financial commitment of the Government and the budget. The particular funding (salaries of the personnel in natural protected areas) is realized on the basis of the MOEW budget. External donors – main part taken by the Bulgarian-Swiss Biodiversity Conservation Program and GEF fund, administered by UNDP and the World Bank. Institutional and personnel capacity. Directly responsible for the administration of the convention is Valery Georgiev, sparing about 20% of his work for this particular issue (Valery Georgiev – NNPS official). There are no programs for developing the capacities of the personnel, responsible for the particular protected areas. National bodies. National Ramsar committee has been established, involving representatives of the Ministries and NGOs. So far, it has carried out two meetings. Concrete achievements. Unlike other Conventions, it has good achievements and practices. In almost all key wetlands, subject of the convention, great volume of external resources has been invested for concrete restoration and conservation activities. Most of them have been made under the initiative of NGOs and external donors. Noteworthy are the investments of the Swiss government and private donors in “Srebarna” Nature Reserve, the investments in the large coastal Black sea wetlands – Shabla, Urankulak and Bourgas Lakes complex. The National Plan for priority actions on the protection of the most significant Bulgarian wetlands, elaborated in 2000, is not concrete and grounded enough, so it cannot be used for management and planning. Monitoring and evaluation. There is no system for regular planned monitoring at the Ramsar sites. The information is gathered for the needs of the national reports preparation, as well as by the personnel managing particular projects in the relevant wetlands. No overall evaluation of the management and enforcement of the convention has been made. NGO participation. Unlike other conventions, NGO participation has been ensured to a relatively good extent. NGOs' proposals are taken into consideration when approving and editing the national reports, including those concerning the designation of new protected areas. The last four areas under the convention have been designated due to elaborated detailed proposals by NGOs. There are NGO projects for establishment of wetlands database by using instruments such as GIS etc.
19 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
Procedures and adoption. Open to endorsement on 03.03.1973 in Washington, the USA. Ratified with a Resolution of the Great national Assembly of 12.12.1990 - OJ, issue 103 of 1990. Effective in the Republic of Bulgaria since 16.04.1991. Promulgated in OJ, issue 6 of 21.01.1992; www.cites.org Background. One of the few exceptions, when endorsement and ratification were realized in a relatively short period of time. Focal point. NNPS. National coordinator – Valery Georgiev, Rayna Hardalova and Velichko Velichkov. Main commitments. Insignificant part of the convention’s commitments is implemented. It was just recently when the establishment of customs and border control system started. Till 2003 officially there were no CITES centers established. Conservation instruments, in which it was transported. Biological Diversity Act. Financial resources. Till 2002 financial commitments of the state budget were not envisaged. In 2003 international funding (Phare Program) was attracted for supporting capacity building and promoting the future CITES centers. For the time being, state funding has not been granted to the CITES centers that were recently designated with an order by the MOEW. Institutional and personnel capacity. There is no full-time personnel appointed. Three national coordinators with slight, only partial occupation, respond for the separated trends of the convention. National bodies. Not established. Concrete achievements. As late as 2003 the government became more active concerning the convention, attracting funds under Phare program for supporting future establishment of CITES centers. Green Balkans had established CITES center 7 years ago, but it was officially supported by the government in February 2003. Monitoring and evaluation. There is no monitoring and evaluation system established. NGO participation. In the period 1999-2000, NGOs were the main driving forces as far as the convention is concerned, implementing particular projects aiming to decrease the trade in rare species. The three most active NGOs in this field are: Green Balkans, Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds and the Society for the Protection of Raptor Birds. International funding of a coalition between Green Balkans and Milvus Group aims at customs officers training, capacity building and CITES development for Bulgaria and Romania.
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
Independent instruments to the Convention: • African-Eurasian Migratory Water Bird Agreement. Ratified with an act adopted by the 38th National Assembly on 23.09.1999 - OJ, issue 87 of 1999. Effective in the Republic of Bulgaria since 1.02.2000. Promulgated in OJ, issue 16 of 25.02.2000. • Agreement on the Conservation of Bats in Europe (EUROBATS), open to endorsement on 04.12.1991 in London. Ratified with an act adopted by the 38th National Assembly on 23.07.1999, OJ, issue 69/03.08.1999. Effective in the Republic of Bulgaria since 9.12.1999. Promulgated in OJ, issue 16 of 25.02.2000; www.eurobats.org; • Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and contiguous Atlantic area (ACCOBAMS), open to endorsement on 24.11.1996 in Monaco. Ratified with an act, adopted by the 38th National Assembly on 23.09.1999 - OJ, issue 87 of 5.10.1999. Effective in the Republic of Bulgaria since 1.06.2001. Promulgated in OJ, issue 95 of 8.10.2002; www.accobams.mc
20 Procedures and adoption. Open to endorsement on 23.06.1979 in Bonn, Germany. Ratified with an act adopted by the 38th National Assembly on 23.07.1999 - OJ, issue 69 of 3.08.1999. Effective in the Republic of Bulgaria since 1.11.1999. Promulgated in OJ, issue 16 of 25.02.2000. Background. The late ratification of the convention is a consequence of the insufficient commitment of the governments. Focal point – NNPS. National coordinator – Ivaylo Zafirov (NNPS). For the African-Eurasian Migratory Water Bird Agreement – Valery Georgiev (NNPS). For the Agreement on the Conservation of Bats in Europe – Maria Karadimova (NNPS). For the Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and contiguous Atlantic area – Krastyo Popov (NNPS). Main commitments. National reports elaboration only. Conservation instruments, in which it has been transported. Biological Diversity Act and protected Areas Act. Financial resources. There is no direct commitment of the state budget and specialized funding. International funding has been settled under separate agreements, directed towards NGO initiatives and the National Museum of Natural History. Institutional and personnel capacity. There is no full-time personnel appointed. In general, Valery Petrov is responsible for the convention, and the coordinators described in 5.3 are responsible for the separate agreements. National bodies. Not established. Concrete achievements. Concrete achievements related to the subject of the convention are various projects of NGOs and institutes, related to particular species. The following organizations are very active: Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds, Green Balkans Society and Bulgarian Ornithological Centre, working on concrete conservation projects, concerning migratory birds. These organizations implement annually the mid-term reports on wintering and migratory birds. NGO bat group and the National Museum of Natural History have implemented several significant projects for conservation and study of the migration of bats. Monitoring and evaluation. No system for monitoring and evaluation has been established. NGO participation. Most of the initiatives are implemented by NGOs and BAS Institutes. Description of main participants is given in 5.9.
Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats
Procedures and adoption. Open to endorsement on 19.09.1979 in Bern, Switzerland. Ratified by the Great National Assembly by resolution of 25.01.1991 - OJ, issue 13 of 1991. Effective in the Republic of Bulgaria since 1.05.1991. Promulgated in OJ, issue 23 of 10.03.1995; www.coe.int/t/e/Cultural_Co-operation/Environment/ Background. Relatively early ratification – 1991, but comes into actual effect 4 years later, as it has not been published inthe Official Journal. The latter is a very good indicator of the non- committedness and irresponsibility of the governments in the period 1991-95, regarding the implementation of their international commitments. Focal point. NNPS. National coordinator – Rayna Hardalova. Main commitments. Elaboration of national reports every two and every four years. Participation in the international meetings of the Convention’s Standing committee and working groups. Conservation instruments, in which it has been transposed. Biological Diversity Act, Natural Protected Areas Act, statutory acts – permission schemes for using plant and animal species, procedures for designation of protected plant and animal species etc. Financial resources. No particular programs have been envisaged for financing and involving the state budget. International funding has been provided for the so-called Twinning project
21 BG2000/IB/EN/01-B under PHARE on institutional strengthening for enforcement of the convention. Institutional and personnel capacity. There is no specialized personnel. Partial responsibility of Velichko Velichkov, Valery Georgiev and Rayna Hardalova. National bodies. No such bodies established. Concrete achievements and enforcement problems. There are no concrete achievements directly resulting from the enforcement of the convention. Serious problems have repeatedly aroused in the past 10 years, due to the non-observance of key requirements of the convention. Major infringements are related to the encouragement of the use of prohibited means (poisoned baits) for regulating the numbers of wolves and other big predators, as well as the use of prohibited rodenticides. Monitoring and evaluation. There is no system for regular planned monitoring and evaluation of the enforcement of the convention, as well of the species under its jurisdiction. There is no information concerning the reports elaborated. NGO participation. Four campaigns have been implemented, involving NGO coalitions, addressing the systematic violations of the Bern convention committed by the government , concerning the usage of banned poison baits. As a result of this pressure, usage of poisons for regulation the number of wolves was prohibited. Unfortunately, there is no state control over the observance of this prohibition.
Convention on Biological Diversity
Procedures and adoption. Open to endorsement on 05.06.1992 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Ratified by an act adopted by the 37th National Assembly on 29.02.1996 - OJ, issue 22 of 15.03.1996. Effective for the Republic of Bulgaria since 16.07.1996. Promulgated in OJ, issue 19 of 2.03.1999; www.biodiv.org Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was signed on 29.01.2000 and ratified on 08.08.2000. The protocol is expected to come into effect at the end of 2003. Background. Considerable delay of ratification – more than 4 years after formal endorsement. The convention comes into effect almost 6 years after its endorsement and 2 years after its ratification. The relevant reasons are the extremely low responsibility and commitment of the Parliament and governments at that time. The process of ratification is accelerated by a national NGO support campaign and the international conference for the Euro-Asian Bureau of the Convention, which was held in Bulgaria. Focal point – National Nature protection Service. National coordinator – Hristo Bozhinov. CHM National Coordinator – Ivaylo Zafirov. Cartagena protocol National Coordinator – Maria Karadimova – Head of Biodiversity Department at the National Nature Protection Service. Main commitments. Triennial national reports. Information exchange system – Clearing house mechanism. Till 2002 national reports were difficult to access and were not subject to public discussions. After 2001, the reports are accessible, but are not available on the Internet yet. Conservation instruments, in which it has been transposed. Till 2002, there is no strategy and program for its transposal, which makes its incorporation into conservation instruments chaotic. However, analogous instruments are included into the Protected Areas Act (1997). The main instrument for implementing the Convention was established on 10.08.2002 – Biological Diversity Act. Financial resources. There is no state document binding the Convention with particular financial commitments of the Government. The implementation of conservation projects is realized with the support of ЕU and GEF, as the initiative comes from non-governmental or governmental sources, regardless of the Government’s commitments to the Convention. There is no item in the state
22 budget, allocated for funding the activities under the convention. The elaboration of the National Biological Diversity Conservation Strategy and the National Action Plan is funded by external donors – USAID, UNDP and GEF. Institutional and personnel capacity. Hristo Bozhinov – director of the National Nature Protection Service (NNPS), is responsible for the direct administration of the Convention, sparing not more than 20% of his working time for that purpose. There is no full-time expert employed. National bodies. There is no functioning governmental national body for control over the implementation of the Convention. Concrete achievements. The elaboration of the National Biological Diversity Conservation Strategy (1994) and the National Action Plan (2000) could be considered as pursuance of art.6 of the Convention. The main achievement of the Convention is the creation of the new Biological Diversity Act (2002). Both documents were elaborated under the initiative of international donors and programs. Monitoring and evaluation. There is no system for regular monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the Convention. The information is gathered and summarized for the needs of the national reports preparation. NGO participation. No opportunity has been provided for direct involvement of NGOs in the control and evaluation of the Convention. Ratification of the Convention was supported and accelerated by a public campaign, organized by NGOs and realized during the international conference “Environment for Europe, which was held on 22 October 1995 in Sofia. NGOs were involved in the elaboration of the National Biological Diversity Conservation Strategy.
Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy
Procedures and adoption. The Pan-European Biological and landscape Diversity strategy /PEBLDS/ was adopted on 25 October 1995 at the Ministerial Conference “Environment for Europe”. For Bulgaria, this document remains of desirable nature, as no particular procedure can be applied for its legal adoption /endorsement/. In 1996, a group of NGOs made a proposal for PEBLDS to be put to the vote and adopted at Ministerial Council, as well as a plan for its implementation to be elaborated. Financial resources, institutional and personnel capacity. In the period 1996-2002, in the studies carried out, no official documents showing any attitude of the Bulgarian governments towards PEBLDS were found, which is an evidence that in fact there is no direct implementation and enforcement of PEBLDS. This is the reason why Governments cannot provide any information on this subject. Detailed explanation of the reasons is presented in the National Report Template – PEBLDS Bulgaria, pages 6-10. Absolutely formally, Hristo Bojinov – head of the National Nature Protection Service, is appointed as PEBLDS focal point. Concrete achievements. Although there is no particular and responsible commitment regarding PEBLDS, some officials of the Bulgarian Governments in the period 1996-2002 report various conservation projects or engagements, implemented on the basis of the Bulgarian Natural Protected Areas Act, as PEBLDS. These concrete achievements are close to the logic of Action Themes 6 to 10 inclusive, which provides the grounds for incorrect reporting of implementation, because in most cases the logic of implementation of the particular conservation projects is not the logic of PEBLDS, where a specific approach is proposed, consisting in the elaboration of: program guidelines; regional orientation; relevance to the European Network “Natura 2000”; integrated protection of landscape etc., as well as taking into consideration the ten principles introduced by PEBLDS. This incorrect approach for reporting PEBLDS used by the Governments is described in details in the National Report Template –PEBLDS Bulgaria.
23 Monitoring and evaluation. No monitoring and evaluation of PEBLDS implementation has been carried out in Bulgaria in the period 1996-2002. NGO participation. Several Bulgarian NGOs have provoked the Government through various declarations and statements to implement PEBLDS. Actively involved were Green Balkans, Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds, Wilderness Fund, Balkani Wildlife Society etc. In the period 1996-2002, Green Balkans has implemented a series of educational projects for local capacity development and promotion of PEBLDS ideas.
Council Directive 79/409/EEC and Council Directive 92/43/EEC
The texts of the Habitat Directive, the Bird Directive and the development of the Natura 2000 Programme in Bulgaria are integrated within the new Bulgarian Biodiversity Act. The Act comes into force on August 10, 2002. It integrates not only the above mentioned documents, but almost all international conventions, such as CITES, CBD, Ramsar, etc. This Act is rather good considering the opinion of many experts, but unfortunately the country does not have the institutional capacity for its application. The Government conducted only few cosmetic structural reforms, separating the National Nature Protection Service in two sub-divisions, one of them being the Biodiversity Protection Department with 6 experts and 1 chief, whose name is Maria Karadimova. Until September 2002 the country had not conducted any concrete initiatives under the Natura 2000 Programme. Then an international project started - “Conservation of species and habitats in Bulgaria: EU approximation”, funded by DANCEE (the Danish Environmental Agency). The aim of the project is the introduction of the Natura 2000 Programme in Bulgaria, but unfortunately it does not have sufficient resources and will achieve its goals only in certain regions of the country.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summarized assessment of the policy for the application of international conventions Since 1989 a new road of the country towards Europe was chosen. The question which nature conservation community asked was how long that road would be - 10 or 20 years and what the victims would be? How many habitats of European significance would disappear before they receive Pan-European protection – modern nature conservation legislation and adequate institutions for its implementation. Unfortunately, 14 years later now, Bulgaria is still in the beginning of achieving that objective. Only one out of the three stages has been reached – approximation of national legislation. A lot of efforts need to be put for actualising intersectoral integration and establishing national responsible management and conservation system. The process of approximation of Bulgarian nature conservation legislation starts with ratification of the Bulgarian conventions in the field of nature conservation legislation. In the period 1990- 1997 the whole set of conventions has been ratified. Article 5, paragraph 4 of the new Constitution (1990) of Bulgaria has got a key significance to Bulgarian nature conservation. It states: ‘International contracts, ratified constitutionally, promulgated and enforced for the Republic of Bulgaria, are a part of the internal legislation of the country. They can take advantage of any internal legislation norms that contradict them’. Despite the timely ratification of the conventions and the good base the Constitution provides during the period 1990-1997, the necessary integration of the conventions into national nature conservation legislation, i.e. an actual approximation did not occur. The real urge for approximation appeared much later, in 1998-2000, when concrete programmes and terms had to be adopted, under the requirement of the European Commission, necessary for the accession of the country. Nine acts in the field of environment were adopted for a very short time. A serious success for law creation and integration of international conventions into the internal
24 normative base is the newly accepted Biodiversity Act. It integrates the requirements of several international conventions - CBD, CITES, Bonn Convention, etc., the EU Habitat Directive 92/43. The quality of the approximation to sectoral legislation on resources (Forest Act, Hunting Act, Medicinal Plants Act) is rather lower, as the interests of important actors are affected. These actors protect their interests, which is very often contradicting the international conventions. The process of integrating the commitments of international conventions into national and regional plans and programmes is in the very beginning. It can be stated, with few exceptions, that the intersectoral integration is still not actualized. The expectations are that the new Biodiversity Act will accelerate the process. The process of preparation and institutional strengthening of capacities for enforcement and implementation of international conventions is also in an initial phase. The Bulgarian budget is absolutely non-committed to the inter-sectoral integration and the institutional reform. The administration of the separate conventions proves this. The studies revealed that in most cases one person from the National Nature Protection Service is responsible for 2 or more conventions, so this activity is not more than 10-20% of his/her professional occupation. The lack of personnel determines the extremely low activeness concerning particular commitments under separate conventions. In most cases, the government’s commitments are reduced to composition of national reports, which, moreover, are not subjected to public discussions (exception - Ramsar). Fortunately, some significant Bulgarian successes related to the enforcement of the conventions were achieved due to the initiatives of international NGOs and donors. For example – the National Biological Diversity Conservation Strategy and the National Action Plan, which are direct consequence of article 6 of the Convention of Biological Diversity. There are numerous reasons for the unsatisfactory activeness in enforcing implementation of the international conventions. First comes the underestimation of the national significance of biological diversity as national richness and the lack of sufficient political culture in the governments and the Parliament. Overlapping of topics under separate conventions or the lack of good enforcement criteria cannot be an excuse for delay in the reform of the conservation policy.
Recommendations There is an urgent need of institutional and structural reform in the Ministry of Environment and Waters and, in particular, the National Nature Protection Service in terms of: • Significant increase of the personnel directly responsible for and funding the international conventions, as for each convention there should be at least one person employed full-time. For that purpose, significantly more serious engagement of the national budget is needed. • Elaboration and implementation of a program for development of capacities, necessary for the management and implementation of the conventions. Intersectoral integration: If the requirements of the international conventions are not integrated in the internal normative base and especially in the national and regional development plans, their impact on real policy will be very slight. For this purpose it is necessary to: • Elaborate a national program for intersectoral integration of nature conservation legislation, including international conventions. The program should comprise a detailed evaluation of the state, reasons and problems for the delay of the intersectoral integration as well as elaborate a detailed plan for the implementation of revisions in the internal normative base and the national and regional sectoral programs and plans. • Implementation of the national program for intersectoral integration could be implemented only with considerable support by the Ministerial Council and the provision of the necessary financial resources.
25 CROATIA
INTRODUCTION
Croatia is a small country covering about 56 610 km2 and it is populated by about 4,5 million citizens. New Croatian Constitution came into power on 22nd of December 1990. There were few minor changes after that but the main point is that with this new Constitution, Croatia became Republic of Croatia, democratic and independent state from the former Yugoslavia. Constitution Act guarantees all freedoms and human rights in the time of peace. State power in Croatia is constituted according to the principle of three separated parallel powers. All state laws have to be in accordance with the written Constitution Act and all other acts in accordance with the Constitution Act and all written state laws. Croatia has parliamentary system. Members of Parliament are elected on direct elections by citizens of Croatia with the right to vote. President of Croatia is elected directly on the elections but the main executive power lies in the hands of Prime Minister and his government. Parliament has only one House. All legislation is happening in the parliament and law can come to power only when absolute majority of Members of Parliament vote for it. From last elections for the parliament in January 2000 and when new government came in power, Ministry of Environment and spatial planning was established.
SITUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL NGOS IN CROATIA The total number of active environmental NGOs in Croatia is difficult to define, as their activities are not monitored after the official registration. The distinction between civil society organizations, institutional NGOs and small non-profit enterprises (for example organizations for organic food production) is also unknown. According to REC list there is 149 NGOs in Croatia. If scout and hikers organizations are excluded, the number is cut down to 97. One has to bear in mind that after the fall of communism Croatia faced four years of war and another five of HDZ party rule that considered the environmental movement as a trouble-maker. The favoured environmental NGO was Lijepa nasa (Our Beautiful), a national ENGO that worked with education in schools and was strongly tight with the State Directorate for the Protection of Environment. In spite of such unfavourable conditions the environmental movement in Croatia managed to undertake several successful local and national campaigns. As a consequence, its recognition grew steadily in the media and among the general public. A detailed public opinion poll undertaken in 1999 by a governmental research institute discovered that the environmental movement gained high public trust and confidence (higher than that of unions or independent press) and that 3,3% of all citizens would like to join an environmental organization. In 1994 Croatian Green Alliance was set up to network all environmental NGOs in Croatia. Its activity decreased in time and to fill the gap in 1997 a national umbrella network named Green Forum was established. Its members meet on annual basis. Green Forum serves as a national forum for discussion as well as for planning national campaigns. From 1997 until 2001 Green Action provided the basic secretarial service for the network including the hosting of a Green Forum bulletin and joint fundraising. In 1999 several NGOs that work directly with local communities and citizens on a project Green Phone (that is in fact, an environmental hot-line for citizens to solve environmental problems) set up the Green Phone Network. The network included 7 NGOs and they have covered whole Croatia with a common number. In 2001 co-ordination of the network has been taken over by Green Istra (from Green Action).
26 NGOs of course don’t have any special role in decision-making process but there’s Civil Society Council to the Government of Republic of Croatia and this advisory board is functioning in sub- councils that deal with specific issues and/or problems. Also NGOs and civil servants can take part in the work of the Parliament Committees, which is not true for the Committee on Environment.
STATE OF NATURE
THE NATURAL FEATURES OF THE COUNTRY In relation to the majority of European countries Croatia distinguishes itself by a great diversity of ecological systems and habitats reflected also in a considerable wealth and diversity of its flora, mycoflora and fauna. Such a wealth is due to Croatia’s being situated on the dividing line between several biogeographical regions, of the indented relief, geological, pedological, hydrological and climatic conditions, as well as human activities. According to its natural features Croatia may be divided into four sections: • the lowland Croatia - the lowland Pannonian section bordered by the Sava, the Drava and the Danube River, including Pannonian hills on the edges (54.4% of the mainland area); • the highland Croatia - the high zone of karst with “islands” of impermeable rocks, karst fields and river valleys; a section of the Dinara mountain region (14% of the mainland area); • the coastal and insular Mediterranean Croatia - the narrow coastal zone separated from the hinterland by high mountains (31.6 % of the mainland area); • the Adriatic sea.
Lowland Croatia Primarily lowland region bordered by the Sava, the Mura, the Drava and the Danube River Peculiarities: • wide areas of wet oak-woods with the greatest biological diversity (significant populations of species threatened all over Europe: white-tailed eagle, lesser spotted eagle, black stork; • rivers, marshes and carp ponds, important habitats for migratory water-fowls (significant populations of species threatened all over Europe: ferruginous duck, beaver, mixed colonies of herons and spoonbills); • wet meadows and pastures (significant populations of species threatened all over Europe: blackbird, stork, large blue butterfly); • Remnants of free sand grassland and the most western elements of steppe flora and fauna.
Highland Croatia High karst strip from mountain to pre-mountain stretch, a section of Dinara mountain region Peculiarities: • the highest mountain: Dinara (1,831 m) • forests of beeches and firs - significant populations of carnivore (wolf, brown bear, lynx) • great wealth of endemic and relict mountain flora and fauna (unique vegetation and fauna of rocks and screes: Velebit degenia, Martino’s snow vole) • remnants of the most southern European moors • geomorphological diversity (8,000 registered phenomena: caves, pits, rocks, ravines, karst valleys) • natural lakes • karst watercourses (unique and threatened living communities of travertine downstream beds; endemic fishes) • karst underground (the wealth of endemic fauna: olm, cave leech, crustaceans, aquatic isopods, snails, beetles, pseudoscorpions; significant winter quarters for bats).
27 Coastal and insular Mediterranean Croatia Littoral area with islands The most indented Mediterranean coast. Peculiarities: • 5,835 km of the coastal line, 1,200 islands and reefs; habitats of griffon vulture, Eleonora’s falcon, dusty-miller • forests and their degradation stadiums (evergreen holm oak; deciduous forests of pubescent oak and others) • mostly stony limestone coast, gravelly and rare sandy beaches, endemic flora of coastal rocks • endemic flora and fauna of the islands • rivers of the Adriatic catchment area with endemic fauna • submarine springs, karst river mouths, Mediterranean marshes (the Neretva Delta) and natural lakes.
The Adriatic Sea Great biological diversity of the sea Peculiarities: • dolphins, marine turtles • submarine caves with deep sea and relict fauna • depths of the Jabuka hollow and the southern Adriatic
One of the environmental protection objectives towards sustainable development is the permanent conservation of the authenticity of natural communities biodiversity and the conservation of ecological stability. The Law on Nature Protection ('Narodne novine' 30/94, 72/94) is the basic Croatian law regulating the issues of biological and landscape diversity preservation. Pursuant to the Law on Nature Protection, approximately 10% of the Croatian state territory is protected in this manner. This Law establishes 8 spatial protection categories (national park, park of nature, strict reserve, special reserve, monument of nature, protected landscape, park- forest and park architecture monument). The predominant part of the protected area - vast tracts of land of national and international significance under special protection of the State - is taken up by parks of nature (approx. three quarters) and national parks (approx. one sixth). Among other categories, managed by the respective Counties, strict and special reserves are subject to very strict biodiversity protection measures. The structure of national parks and parks of nature illustrates the richness and the diversity of Croatian nature. Three of the National Parks are situated on Adriatic islands (Kornati, Brijuni, Mljet) including the surrounding sea, two of them illustrate hydrographic and morphological peculiarities (Plitvice Lakes, the river Krka), while the three of them are typical mountainous areas with interesting vegetation and relief (Risnjak, Sjeverni Velebit and Paklenica). Three of the parks of nature are typical mountainous areas (Velebit, Biokovo, Ucka, Papuk and Medvednica); one of them is insular (Telascica), while two of them represent biological richness of floodplains (Kopacki rit and Lonja Plains). The Plitvice Lakes are on the UNESCO World Natural Heritage List. The Velebit Mountain is on Biosphere Reservations List (UNESCO 'Man and Biosphere' Scientific Programme - MaB), while four of the areas are on the Ramsar Convention List (Kopacki rit, Lonja Plains, Neretva River Delta and Crna Mlaka). Management of national parks and nature parks is based on physical plans. Physical plans for national parks have already been made, some even revised, and the elaboration of physical plan for nature parks is still to follow. Other categories of protected parts of nature, considering their rather modest territories, do not anticipate special respective physical plans elaboration, but merely protection measures brought by County administrations with the consent from the national regulatory body in charge of nature
28 protection. These territories are managed by public institutions founded by County assemblies (currently organised in the Istrian County, the Split-Dalmatian County and the Koprivnica-Krizevci County). All together there are 8 national parks, 10 nature parks, 2 strict reserves, 69 special reserves, 72 nature monuments, 28 protected landscapes, 23 park-forests and 114 park architecture monuments in the Republic of Croatia. Apart from the protected physical entities, there are also certain plant and animal species that are protected pursuant to the Law on Nature Protection. These are predominantly species endangered or rare in the national scale, but also some other, e.g. internationally endangered species, that we are bound to protect in accordance with various international conventions. The Law on Nature Protection prohibits killing, catching, hurting, captivation, buying, selling, importing or exporting protected species as well as the destruction of their habitats. This Law also protects all wild animals in national parks, strict and special reserves, as well as the entire wildlife of the caverns. An array of different laws regulates protection of other, economically significant animal species, such as the Law on Hunting ('Narodne novine' 10/94, 22/94, 5/95, 25/96), the Law on Freshwater Fisheries ('Narodne novine' 34/89, 19/90, 26/93) and the Law on Marine Fisheries ('Narodne novine' 74/94, 57/96). Economic use of other unprotected species is regulated by special permits for collecting from nature, issued by the state administrative authority in charge of nature protection pursuant to the Law on Nature Protection. This concerns, in particular, gathering edible snail and green toad species, and, to a lesser extent, certain other animals. Protected is also the majority of native mammal species, with the exception of the so-called 'problematic' species and species intended for hunting. All Croatian nesting birds are under protection, together with all other European bird species, except for the species intended for shooting, cormorants at the fishponds and starlings on agricultural land. Regarding the reptiles, currently increasingly endangered by the so- called pet-trade, almost all native reptile species, except for the horned viper and the common adder, are protected, and so are almost all amphibian species, except three green toad species. Revision of the protection of other animal species is in progress, although insufficient scientific data and poor knowledge of our fauna present serious problems. By this point, there are only 44 protected plant species; The Ministry of Environment is working on a rulebook that would regulate protection of all the species on the Red List in Croatia. Habitat protection in economically exploited areas is improved by implementing specific guidelines of nature protection on the side of agricultural, forestry, water management, physical planning and other services. The Law on Forests ('Narodne novine' 92/90, 76/93) regulates management of forests and forest soils. Charges for multiple non-wood forest functions amounting to 0.07% for all legal persons in the Republic of Croatia, has contributed to solving this issue in the manner of other European countries. Forests are covering about 40% of Croatia and have been managed in way to protect and replant native species so they resemble old grown forests. Hrvatske Sume d.o.o. is the State owned forest company that manages all state owned forests (that is 80% of total cover) and in October 2002, they have received FSC certificate issued by Soil Association/Woodmark. Rule Book on Forest Regulation ('Narodne novine' 11/97) makes multiple non-wood forest functions a part of the instrumental records of the forest management base. The process of selecting the multiple non-wood forest functions evaluation method is currently underway. Provisions of the Law on Financial Stimuli in Agriculture and Fisheries secure financial assistance to breeders (e.g. Istrian ox, Turopolje hog). Breeders tend to organise into breeders' associations as an attempt of implementing the protection programmes. The ex-situ measures of the conservation of certain parts of biological diversity out of their natural habitats are of extreme importance for very rare and endangered species threatened by extinction, so their genes need to be preserved or even multiplied for the purposes of repopulating their natural habitats. Plant genes are possible to conserve in the forms of seed or tissue culture, while animal genes can be stored in the so-called gene libraries, where deep frozen genomes are deposited. The alternative
29 is keeping and breeding or growing certain plant or animal species. In Croatia, such material is mostly kept in botanical gardens, although the Faculty of Agriculture is currently working on a project of founding the Croatian Bank of Plant Genetic Resources. Zoological gardens are very important in ex-situ preservation of rare animal species. The Zagreb Zoological Garden has recently entered the European Endangered Species Programme (EEP) that coordinates breeding of certain endangered species in the zoos with the help of International Species Information System (ISIS). Although this currently concerns only two non-native species, the snow leopard and the maned wolf, participation in this project is a significant contribution to the global biodiversity protection efforts. The leading body for nature protection is the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning - more precisely nature protection department. National and Nature Parks have management units, that are directly under the Ministry. Scientific institutes are taking part in research and conservation and the biggest among them is Croatian Natural History Museum. NGO participation in decision-making is rather poor. There are several reasons for this. For instance, there is no tradition of NGO involvement and, quite often, Government perceive NGOs as organisations dealing with education of citizens and children but not interfering in law drafting. It has to be noted, that in the last several years, since 2000, some of the Governmental bodies have opened to the NGOs and are taking into account their comments in legislation preparation. However, this is still in its rudimentary phase. To illustrate this statement - cases of public hearing for EIA when NGOs have not been admitted to attend them or when they have not been able to observe meeting of commissions on EIA and obtaining conclusions, although in the bylaws of MOE it is stated that EIA commission meetings are open to public.
INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS
Croatia is a party of the following international treaties regarding nature protection: 1. Convention of Protection of Natural and Cultural World Heritage (Paris, 1972) 2. Convention on Wetland Habitats (Ramsar, 1971) 3. Convention on protection of the Mediterranean (Barcelona, 1976.) and Protocol on the Specially Protected SEA Areas in the Mediterranean (Geneva, 1982.) 4. Convention on Biodiversity (Rio de Janeiro, 1992) 5. Convention on Protection of Migratory Wildlife (Bonn, 1979) and the subsequent agreements: • Agreement on Protection of Euro-Asian and North-African Migratory Wetland Birds (AEWA), 1995; • Agreement on Protection of European Bats (EURROBATS) 1991; • Agreement on Protection of Cetaceans (Cetacea) in the Black sea, Mediterranean and Atlantic sea (ACCOBAMS), 1996; • Memorandum of understanding of protection measures for Numenius tenuirostris, 1994. 6. Convention on conservation of wild European species and habitats (Bern, 1979) 7. Convention of international trade of endangered wild species CITES), Washington, 1973) 8. Biosafety protocol (Cartagena 2000) 9. European Landscape Convention (Firenze, 2000), ratified in 2002. 10. Protocol on the specially protected marine areas in the Mediterranean and biodiversity that replaces previously signed Protocol on the specially protected sea areas in the Mediterranean (Geneva, 1982.) in the framework of Barcelona convention (Ratified in 2001). 11. Memorandum of understanding on the conservation measures for Otis tarda (2000.) in the framework of the Bonn convention. The MOU has been signed in 2002.
30 The following convention has not been ratified and/or implemented but are in ratification procedure: Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and legislation (Aarhus, 1998.); In the new proposed law on nature protection articles that are implementing the above-mentioned conventions have been incorporated as a basis of the implementation. Participation in the international activities regarding the above mentioned conventions have increased in the last couple of years. This is primarily because increased staff capacity of the Nature Protection Department of the Ministry of Environment. However, it has to be noted that the current capacity is still not satisfactory and there is still lack of incorporation of convention articles in the national legislation and even more there is lack implementation in the practice.
EVALUATION OF THE CONVENTIONS
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat
The Convention on Wetlands came into force for Croatia on 25 June 1991. Croatia presently has 4 sites designated as Wetlands of International Importance, with a surface area of 80,455 hectares.
27th Meeting of the Ramsar Standing Committee -- Small Grants Fund: approval of project proposals for 2002 SGF 2002 - Category A1 projects, recommended for immediate funding, listed by Ramsar regions Croatia, project code: SGF/02/CRO/01 Project Title: Development of the Croatian Wetland Inventory requested CHF 40,000, score: 48
Description: Wetland Inventory. A good quality national-scale proposal with clearly defined objectives and expected outputs. The project is a part of a bigger one, which has been launched in 2001. The current proposal aims at providing additional funds needed to help with completion of the Croatian National Wetland Inventory, so far exclusively funded by the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Physical Planning (MEPPP). The proposal has been submitted previously to SGF cycles of 2000 and 2001 (rated Category A2). The project will deal with providing the most comprehensive inventory of Croatian wetlands, evaluating prospective Ramsar sites, identifying threats and restoration/rehabilitation needs, mapping in order to include the wetlands in he physical planning process at state and local levels. Last, but not least, the project will enable preparation of a National Wetland Policy. Its results will be made available to the public and more specifically to decision- makers. Envisaged project's outputs will be a wetland inventory database (MedWet 2000 format), hardcopy, CD-ROM and web preliminary list of wetlands, maps M 1:100,000, an information leaflet about the project and a poster with a map of Croatian wetlands. The project will be implemented by the MOESP. Project includes SFr 20,000 in-kind support from the proposer.
Contacts: Designated Ramsar Administrative Authority Jasminka Radovic, Head of the Department for the Protection of Species Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning Mailing: Ulica grada Vukovara 78, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia Telephone: +385 1 6106 551
31 Fax: +385 1 6112 073 E-mail: [email protected] For the COP 7 Croatia has submitted a national report. For the implementation of the Conference there are several projects, in Kopacki Rit WB/GEF), in Lonjsko Polje (LIFE III Country) and in Neretva valley trans-boundary wetland protection (through the REReP).
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
Ratification. Croatia is the 154th country that signed the CITES convention on 14/03/2000, while ratification entered into force on 12/06/2000. Contact person: Darka Spudic Ministry of Environmental Protection and Physical Planning Name: Ms. Jasminka Radovic Address: Biological and Landscape Diversity Conservation Department Ul. Grada Vukovara 78/III 10000 Zagreb, Croatia Tel.: (+385 1) 610 6522 Fax: (+385 1) 611 8388 Advisory scientific bodies prof.dr.sc. Milorad Mrakovcic Science faculty, University of Zagreb Rooseveltov trg 6 10000 Zagreb Tel: +385 1/4826 660 dr.sc. Jelena Kralj HAZU, Zavod za ornitologiju Ilirski trg 9/II 10000 Zagreb Tel/fax: +385 1/4851 322
Existing legislation in nature protection (proposed new law) and customs laws must be changed to enable permits of import and export quotas. Such legislation should prescribe monitoring of import and export of flora and fauna. As the CITES is a relatively lately ratified Convention it has to be noted that its implementation so far has been to incorporate its provisions into the new law proposals, in particular the new nature protection law. Further implementation is expected to happen after the law will enter into force.
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
The Bonn convention has been included (partially) into existing nature protection law form 1994 and this will be fully implemented in the proposed nature protection law that has entered the parliamentary procedure (first reading) in April 2003. In 2003 Croatia has submitted an official request to join European Union. Therefore, in the process of law harmonization, the Directive on bird protection 79/409/EEC and Species and Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC will be included in the national legislation and indeed the proposed law is heading in that direction. NGOs involved in initiatives for the conservation of migratory species in Croatia are:
32 • Blue World, Zagreb - research, monitoring, conservation of dolphins and marine turtles and their habitats • Croatian Ornithological Society, Zagreb - research, monitoring, conservation of birds and their habitats • Croatian Society for the Protection of Birds and Nature, Zagreb - research, monitoring, conservation of birds and their habitats • Eco-Center Caput Insulae - Beli, Rijeka - research, monitoring, conservation of the Griffon Vulture • Monk Seal, Zagreb - research, monitoring, conservation of the Monk Seal and its habitats Private sector sometimes, but rarely, supports financially conservation projects of NGOs. Governmental sector is implementing relevant legislation, organizing conservation activities and gives technical and financial support to NGO-projects
Statement from the COP in 2002: Following the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Republic of Croatia developed and adopted the National Strategy and Action Plan on the Protection of the Biological and Landscape Diversity (NSAP) in 1999. This is the first document by which the Republic of Croatia has tried to chart systematically and to plan comprehensively the nature protection activities. The analysis carried out during the development of this document showed the great diversity of migratory fauna in Croatia and pointed out the threats. As a result, the NSAP laid down elaboration of a number of action plans concerning the protection of migratory wild animals and their habitats. The activities that have been undertaken so far mostly include inventorying of the parts of biological diversity and threat assessment, as a basis for formulation of action plans for the protection of certain migratory species of wild animals. In this regard, Croatia recognized the significance of the Bonn Convention, its Agreements and Memoranda of Understanding for the implementation of the NSAP and joined the Convention as a full party in October 2000. I would like to express the commitment of the Republic of Croatia to continue its work and to contribute to the further implementation of the Bonn Convention. We believe that the new Nature Protection Law that is in the official enactment procedure will improve the regulation of this problem area, in accordance with the provisions of the Bonn convention, as well as other international agreements covering protection of biological diversity.
Convention on Biological Diversity
Signature: 11/06/1992 Ratification by the Parliament: in 1996 Participation on international conferences: YES, representatives of State directorate for nature protection (till 2000) and MoE (after 2000). Croatia has been represented by Minister Bozo Kovacevic and Mrs. Jasminka Radovic from MOESP1 at the 2002. COP at Hague, and Ivana Jelinic has represented Croatia at the Biosafety Protocol meetings. Focal point Mrs. Jasminka Radovic (CBD National Focal Point, CHM Focal Point) Biodiversity and Landscape Department - Nature Protection Division Ministry of Environmental Protection and Physical Planning Ul. grada Vukovara 78/III HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia
1 Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning
33 Telephone: +385 1 6106 551, Fax: +385 1 6118 388 E-mail: [email protected]
The first report on biodiversity strategy has been prepared in 1998-1999- by the State Directorate for the protection of nature and environment2 and with numerous scientists and experts involved. The whole report has been published in the Croatian "Official Gazette" no 81/99 (3rd August 1999). Financial assistance for the report has been provided by WB/GEF donation. The report includes Conservation Action Plan for Croatia and it has been adopted by the Parliament. Report on the implementation of action plan has to be submitted to the Government in 2003. However, the NGO participation in the report preparation has been neglected, excluding few NGOs that are dealing with inventories and assessment of biodiversity. Public advocacy and participation has been practically excluded. As a part of implementation process Croatian Government has started Karst Ecosystem project, 5,5 million USD grant by WB/GEF that is aiming to protect one of the biodiversity hot spots.
Biosafety Protocol (Cartagena Protocol) Signature: 07/10/1996 Ratification: 29/08/2002 In January 2003, the implementation of the Project on the "Development of the National Biosafety Framework" commenced, supported by grant funds from UNEP and GEF. During 2003 the draft proposal of the new Law on Nature Protection is expected to undergo parliamentary adoption procedure, while other legislative regulations to govern GMO-related issues are expected to be drafted and to undergo the stage of adoption by the Government. At present GMO use in Croatia is confined to: 1. the use of genetically modified microorganisms (GMMO) in pharmaceutical industry for the production of drugs, vitamins, etc.; 2. scientific research carried out by scientific institutions under conditions of confined (laboratory) use. The Project on the "Development of the National Biosafety Framework" consists of four phases: o Phase 0 - development of the project design and establishment of institutional and management structures, including the selection of the National Project Co-ordinator (NPC) and setting up the National Co-ordinating Committee (NCC); o Phase 1 - development of surveys and inventories of all areas related to biosafety and biotechnology, and development of the national database; o Phase 2 - identification of all stakeholders (governmental, the public and private sector, NGOs, farmers, consumers, etc.) related to biosafety and biotechnology issues, and the consultation, analysis, training activities needed to identify priorities and parameters for the drafting of the National Biosafety Framework; o Phase 3 - drafting of the National Biosafety Framework.
Implementation: National Executing Agency: Ministry Of Environmental Protection and Physical Planning Ul. Republike Austrije 20, 10000 Zagreb Contact person: Jasminka Radovic, BSc, Head of the Biodiversity and Landscape Conservation Department (tel:+385 1 6106 551, fax: +385 1 6118 388, e-mail: [email protected])
2 It become Ministry of Environment in 2000
34 Duration: 18 months Commencing: February 2003, Completion: July 2004 Cost of National Project: Cost to the GEF Trust Fund 136,800 USD Co-financing (in-kind/in-cash) Government contribution 68,500 US$ Total Cost of the Sub-project: 205,300 USD
Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy
National focal point: Ms A. Strbenac (2000 -) Adviser, Dept. for Species Protection, Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning, Ul. Grada Vukovara 78, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia, Tel. + 385 1 6106 522 Fax: + 385 1 6112 073 E-mail [email protected] (10 May 2000)
PEBLDS provisions are planned to be included in the national legislation but it is unknown when they will enter into force.
CONCLUSIONS As already mentioned, Croatia has shown a significant improvement in the implementation of the above-mentioned conventions as well as in the active nature protection in the last several years. There are several reasons for this, first of all political decision to form the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning in 2000, after the elections. It has to be noted that the department for Nature Conservation within the Ministry has been extremely weak in terms of human and financial resources, but also regarding political power. Although the situation is far from perfect, changes are observed, several younger staff joined the Department since and started to take over some responsibilities. As this is still the beginning, practically there is no monitoring system implemented to follow up implementation of the Conventions and some of conventions are only started to be included in the national legislation. NGO involvement and public participation in the process is still rather weak and sporadic and cooperation between scientific institutions, Ministries and NGOs are still to be developed in the coming years. Opportunities arising from such cooperation have not been recognised yet, neither by Civil Servants nor by scientists. Financial possibilities are not fully used, several projects are in the starting phase, when it is too early to judge their success. From an NGO perspective, Croatian Government should ratify Aarhus Convention as soon as possible and put more human resources in the Ministry to enable them to implement conventions and also to tap potential funding resources. If the processes would be more opened up to local, national and international NGOs the effectiveness of convention would be increase significantly, particularly in the implementation and follow up.
35 THE CZECH REPUBLIC
INTRODUCTION
The Czech Republic (CR) is an inland country lying in the centre of the temperate zone of the northern hemisphere in the central part of Europe. With an area of 78 866 km2 it is the 21st in size among the countries of Europe. Its population of 10 309 000 inhabitants places it in the 12th position in Europe. The CR has state border with Poland, Germany, Austria and Slovakia. The main European watershed passes through the CR, separating watersheds of the Baltic Sea and Black Sea. The central node of this watershed is Kralicky Sneznik Mountain, 1423 m above sea level. The CR is very rich in geological sources and mineral water. For example the warmest mineral spring is Vridlo in Karlovy Vary Spa is 72 °C. The Czech Republic has a rich and varied ecosystem due to its location between different ecological regions and variations in geography from fertile plains to high mountains. The impact of human activity varies significantly, on the one hand there are areas that have been utilised intensively for hundreds of years, and on the other hand there remain areas of pristine forests with a minimum of human impact. There are more then 200 environmentally oriented NGOs in the CR. The biggest one by membership is CSOP (8 000 members)
STATE OF NATURE
The values of various components of nature or types of landscape are different. Previously the main interest of wildlife protection was to preserve specific species and communities that were rare; nowadays it is essential also to protect typical phenomena and processes. It is important to preserve remnants of natural and original communities, the climax communities, but also specific succession communities. The most important ecological communities in the Czech Republic include: • Wetlands, including low-lying moors and bogs • Sites with a high number of species, but also being the last refuges of several critically endangered species. Moreover, this is a land with a high capacity to retain water in the landscape, which protects against flooding. • Natural forests: areas more or less influenced by man, and which have regained their original state by self-regulation or human action. On the whole they do not contain a large variety of species, but they are important for a number of species that are dependent on the specific conditions in natural forests. • Lakes: water reservoirs formed by natural processes, often habitats of endemic or endangered species of fauna and flora. • Free flowing rivers and streams. They serve an important role as examples for revitalising damaged or regulated streams and rivers. They often form bio-corridors connecting different natural areas, also between regions and countries. • Damp meadows, mountain meadows: semi-natural communities maintained by regular human activity, such as hay mowing or using as pasture. Important communities with a high abundance of species.
36 The most essential types of landscape include: • Mountain areas with little-disturbed wildlife, covered to a large extent by forest communities; • Mountain meadows with extensive farming, particularly with large-sized meadows and pastures; • Hilly areas with a typically rural structure of settlement, including fields, meadows, forests and freely-growing trees and shrubs; • Flood-plain sites along large rivers with abundant wetlands, natural forests and meadows.
FAUNA AND FLORA 44% of higher plants and 41% of vertebrate animals are under threat or already extinct in the Czech Republic. The percentage of threatened invertebrates can hardly be estimated. A considerable part of the species population of invertebrates has yet to be discovered. The situation is similar in the case of fungi. For a comparison of the species diversity of vertebrates in the Czech Republic and elsewhere: • There are 46 species of fish (not counting introduced species) of which 17 are endangered – roughly 37%. For instance in Norway no fish species is endangered, while in the Netherlands nearly 80% of the species are in danger. • 390 species of birds have been found in the Czech Republic, 186 of which have regularly nested here in the last ten years. In total 147 species are endangered, which represents 52%. In Europe the number of nesting bird species is roughly 520 and 78 (15%) of them are deemed endangered. In Cyprus, 3% of the species are endangered, and in Switzerland 41%. • 85 species of mammals have been found in the country, 29 (34%) of which are endangered. As a comparison, Luxembourg has 53% of endangered mammals, and Poland 12%. In total 250 species live in Europe, 100 (42%) of them are endangered. In global scale about 13 % of mammal species are endangered. • The Czech Republic covers only 0.76% of Europe, but 35% of 1 278 species of European vertebrate live here. The country covers 0.05% of the dry surface of the Earth, but 1.04% of known vertebrate species lives here. To summarise: the country is rich in vertebrate biodiversity. The biological potential of the Czech Republic is fairly high, which also indicates the high level of responsibility of the country for preserving the world's biodiversity. This is also highlighted by the high percentage of endangered species here. The country still has some gaps in species conservation. As an example, there are significant problems with the protection of wolf and bear, which is linked to hunting and damage compensations. The critically endangered great bustard and the European roller have disappeared. Many other species are critically endangered. One of the main causes of the unfavourable state of wildlife and landscape protection has been the prominence of economic aspects over ecological ones. For example, intensification of forestry resulting in unnatural species structure of forests (spruce monocultures) has reduced the biodiversity in the forests, and also caused certain instability of the forest ecosystems (e.g. serious outbreaks of bark beetles). Species protection can also show some significant victories. To mention just a few, one of them is the successful introduction of the sea eagle that has again become a nesting species, bringing the lynx to Sumava where it is starting to spread, or the beaver in Litovelské Pomoraví Protected Landscape Area. The populations of otter, lesser horseshoe bat, corncrake, European bee-eater, corn bunting and others are growing. The country has a well-developed system of protected areas: national parks, nature reserves, protected landscape areas and natural monuments.
37 Small-size specially protected areas (nature reserves and natural monuments) cover 824 km2 in total or 1% of the country's surface. Since 1933, when the first reserves were declared, the number has increased from nil to nearly 1757 specially protected areas. There are 4 National Parks, and the 24 Protected Landscape Areas (PLAs) are also an important element in the protected area system, covering over 10 000 km2, about 13% of Czech land. Within the protected landscape areas, important landscape elements are identified, which can receive more stringent protection. These important elements are ecologically, geomorphologically or aesthetically valuable parts of the landscape that complement its typical appearance or contribute to its stability. In compliance with the law on nature and landscape protection, important landscape elements are defined as forests, peat bogs, rivers and streams, ponds, lakes and flood plains. The legal existence of important landscape elements and their fairly simple registration provide an important tool for the conservation of Czech landscapes. A principle of territorial system of ecological stability has been introduced in the Czech nature conservation. This is an active and dynamic approach, where the leading ideas are to create an interconnected network of ecosystems that maintain a natural balance, with local, regional and supra-regional systems, including buffer zones and restoration zones. The Czech Republic participates actively in international activities in nature protection, e.g. in the Man and Biosphere programme (MAB, EuroMAB), the European Ecological Network programme (EECONET), the European Network of Biogenetic Reserves, and bilateral nature protection schemes. Due to the long traditions in nature protection and adoption of modern approaches, the Czech network of protected areas in general is relatively comprehensive and appropriate. There are core areas that are protected totally, there are buffer zones and ecological corridors. The nature protection authorities are aware of the few gaps in the network and the need to develop it (however the situation is not very thoroughly analysed).
DECISION-MAKING SYSTEM
STRUCTURE OF NATURE CONSERVATION
National level Ministry of Environment Czech Environmental Inspection Authority, (CEI), Division of Nature Protection Agency For Nature Conservation And Landscape Protection of the Czech Republic (ANCLP-CR) Czech Environmental Institute Geological Institute Geofond Research Institute for Horticulture Regional level National Parks (3) Special state administration in nature and landscape protection (24 regional offices of the ANCLP-CR ) Regional offices (14) Local level Municipalities, local authorities
NGO PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKING PROCESS
Thanks to the Nature Conservation Law 114/92 Sb. and the Access to Information Law 123/98 Sb, Czech NGOs have the possibility to participate in decision-making processes. Environmental NGOs have a right to participate in administrative processes in issues that have or should have an influence
38 on the environment. If NGOs fulfil all procedures, they become a participant of the process, so they have the right to appeal etc. There is also (not only for NGOs but for all citizens) access to the Ombudsman.
INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS
In the following, the relevant EU legislation and conventions are described in brief. The two most important Directives, 79/40/EEC (the Birds Directive) and 92/43/EEC (the Habitats Directive) are not described in detail, because it is a part of the accession agreement to the EU. Council Regulation 338/97 and Commission Regulation 2307/97 are also important, since they implement the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). The Pan-European Biological and Landscape Strategy (PEBLDS) is not covered in this report, as there was no information available on it. The official standpoint claims that the existing nature conservation law and the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan implements more or less the content of PEBLDS. It should be noted that the provided set of legislation and conventions is not all-inclusive. As a consequence, the Convention on Desertification and other international treaties and conventions have been omitted. In addition, the EU Directives dealing with water management and air quality have not been included, even though they are of major importance to the health of Czech ecosystems. Due to the limited scope and duration of this analysis the review has been selective.
EVALUATION OF THE CONVENTIONS
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat
Endorsement It was signed by the Minister of Environment in 1990. It was ratified by Federal Parliament on 22 July 1990. It is in force in CR from 1 January 1993. Focal point Josef Chytil, Secretary of Ramsar Committee. Financial resources All Ramsar sites – hereinafter RS – (excluding one) are protected as PLA or NP and all costs are paid from state budged. Institutional and personnel capacity There is a Czech National Ramsar Committee. Head of it is Petr Roth (MoE), secretary is Josef Chytil. There are several member scientists from the Academy of Sciences, Universities and Museums and/or from Nature Conservation Authorities. Petr Roth works 1/4 of his capacity for RC, Josef Chytil 1/2 of capacity. The remuneration of the committee is paid by MoE. Concrete achievements According to the Convention all Ramsar sites should be protected in accordance with national law. One of the 10 RSs listed in the international Ramsar list is still unprotected at all, which is a concrete example of terrible law breaking in the field of nature conservation. Monitoring and evaluation The only monitoring carried out to monitor the activities inside the listed RSs is the so-called Moreaux record. There was a Ramsar Advisory Mission in the Sumava Mountain, and MoE and NP Sumava headquarters felt no obligation to fulfil findings of the mission.
39 NGO participation The Czech Ornithological Society, the Hnuti Duha Movement – Friends of the Earth CR and the Czech Union for Nature Conservation co-operated with the National Ramsar Committee very closely. For example the Ramsar Advisory Mission in Sumava NP in 2001was organised together with the General Secretary of the Ramsar Convention. The maim aim was to pass a judgement on the management of RS inside of NP Sumava. Two NGO representatives (Mr. Hora from the Czech Ornithological Society and Ms. Pellantová from the Czech Union for Nature Conservation) regularly participated in the meetings of the National Ramsar Committee. This is a partly working convention.
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
The Regulation implements the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). It aims to protect wild species, which are or may be affected by uncontrolled trade by means of protection, regulation or monitoring. The Regulation establishes a framework covering all aspects of trade in wild animals and plants both inside and outside the European Community. Species listed in Annexes to the Regulation may only be imported to the EU upon issuance of a permit by the management authority of the Member State of destination. The issuance of a permit is subject to certain restrictions. Moreover, the Member States are required to notify the Commission before introducing controls for a particular species. The Regulation also introduces strict trade control measures at the EU’s external borders to compensate the abolition of controls at internal borders. Certain types of species under certain conditions can be exempted from the scope of the Regulation.
Endorsement Signed by deputy minister 28 May 1992. Ratification by the Parliament 1992, in force since 1 January 1993. Regular participation on international conferences NGOs pushed MoE and parliament towards ratification. Two amendments were signed and ratified. Focal point Dr. Jan Kucera, MoE. Reports Available on web sites.
Financial resources International funding possibilities EU and CITES Secretariat pay a lot of money for training customs officers and environmental inspectors (about million EUR). National resources The national resource for the implementation is the state budged through the Czech Environmental Inspection, the Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection and the State Environmental Fund. Total spending on the implementation Excluding membership fee (around 10 000 USD) there is no specific money for implementation (it is hidden in the budged of MoE, the Czech Environmental Inspection, the Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection and the State Environmental Fund)
40 Institutional and personnel capacity There is a special department within the Czech Environmental Inspection. There are approximately 20 persons employed full time for the convention-related work. Concrete achievements Do to this convention a special law 16/98 Sb was adopted implementing this convention. This law is quite good. It is good enough for EU. Because of the application of this law smuggling of endangered species has been reduced to less than one third in the last 5 years. Monitoring and evaluation The MoE, the Czech Environmental Inspection, the Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection and the Czech Customs are responsible for monitoring. MoE produces regularly an annual report. The endangered species to be monitored are listed under annex I and II of CITES. The number of declared specimen and also the number of smugglings discovered and caught is reported to CITES secretariat. Reports Hlavácek, 2001: International activates of MoE, 2000-2001, Prague, 2001, ISBN 80-7212-173-1 NGO participation There is big participation of NGOs in the implementation. Beside zoological gardens and botanical gardens there is a special station for handicapped animals run by the Czech Union for Nature Conservation where custom officers may bring confiscated animals. This is probably the only really working convention in CR.
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
The Czech legislation, in particular the Law No. 114/1992 on nature conservation and landscape protection, covers the requirements laid down by the Convention. However there are certain provisions of the Convention that need to be transposed into the Czech Law. Law 114/1992 should state that in case the Czech Republic is a range state of the migratory species listed in Appendix I of the Convention, it must prohibit the capturing (defined according to the Convention) of animals belonging to such species. This statement should be set in the section of Law 114/1992 dealing with the special protection of animal species. The convention was signed on 20 October 1993 by the Minister of Environment, and ratified be the Parliament on 1 May 1994. The participation in international conferences is regular. Background of the participation There was a massive and long debate about the participation between the Ministry of Environment and Agriculture. The hunter lobby did not want to follow the convention and that's why the Czech Republic excluded some species from conservation. The Agreement for Conservation of Bats was signed on 24 February 1994. Focal point Libuse Vlasakova, MoE Reports Hlavácek, 2001: International activities of MoE, 2000-2001, Prague, 2001, ISBN 80-7212-173-1
Financial resources Membership fee Approximately 4000 USD/year International funding Only Phare, no LIFE.
41 National, regional resources for the implementation Approximately 1 million CZK (=33 000 EUR) per year for NGO grants each year (together with the Bern Convention) Availability of other funding: N.A. Total spending on the implementation It is hard to say: there is half person for this convention in the MoE and few people work on it in the Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection of the CR.
Institutional and personnel capacity Developed infrastructure for implementation Nearly zero: half person in the MoE, no secretariat, and no department. People employed 1 person in the Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection of the CR.
Concrete achievements Influence in the legal system and institutional structure is very low. The only result of the Convention was that during the adaptation of the new hunting law 449/2001 Sb., NGOs used it as an argument, but the Habitats and Birds Directives were more useful. The agreement about protection of bats was signed, and this agreement was published in the Official Journal – it means that it is a part of Czech legislation. Because this is not implemented in any other law (e.g. Nature protection law) it hasn't got any significant influence. Established protected areas Nothing, really nothing. I don’t know about any special protected area, which was been established because of this convention. There is no co-ordination with other international conventions. Every year the end of August there is a celebration of the European night for bats. This is organised by the Czech Union for Nature Conservation and the Czech Association for Bat Conservation. These activities are supported by the Czech National Forestry entrp. and the Ministry of Environment.
Monitoring and evaluation Responsible person is Eva Suchomelová from the Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection. Regularly written reports cover only bureaucratic procedures, but not achievements. On the web page of MoE there is nothing about monitoring either in Czech or in English. NGO participation During the preparation of the ratification 3 NGOs were involved: the Czech Union of Hunters, Hnutí Duha – Friends of the Earth CR and the Czech Ornithological Society. The first organisation wanted to have the convention as weak as possible while the other two wanted to make it as strong as possible. Now this convection is neglected, because all NGOs are focusing on Natura 2000. There is no active information sharing, no real implementation and evaluation.
Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats
The Convention was drawn up under the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in order to conserve threatened migratory species of wild animals. According to the main principle of the Convention, the states on whose territory the populations of threatened migratory species are found must take the conservation and management measures appropriate for the species in question, covering the whole of the geographic area of the species. The species concerned are divided into two categories: those that require immediate and strict protection actions and those that are subject
42 to later international agreements. It is strictly forbidden to hunt the species belonging to the first category, but in the second category the protection obligations are less severe. The Convention also covers measures for controlling the capturing of animals belonging to the species in question, conservation and management plans, the maintenance of networks of suitable habitats, and the control of discharges of substances which are harmful to migratory species.
Endorsement Signed by the Minister on 2 July 1990. Ratification was done by the Parliament of the Czech Republic on 8 October 1997, endorsed on 1 June 1998. CR regularly participated on international conferences (COP meetings) This convention is a hidden one. For example the work on the implementation of the Emerald network never started, because of the appearance of the Natura 2000 program. Focal point Dr. Jan Plesnik, deputy director of the Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection. Reports Hlavácek, 2001: International activities of MoE, 2000-2001, Prague, 2001, ISBN 80-7212-173-1, web page: www.env.cz Annual reports are not available. Financial resources There is not any specific support system for the implementation of the convention. Something was done through the Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection and through the Program of Management of Countryside, but it was NOT done because of this convention. There is no membership fee, so CR pays nothing for membership. International funding possibilities are not known. There are no specific national or regional resources for the implementation of the convention. Institutional and personnel capacity There is no infrastructure for implementation (secretariat, department, etc.) There is one person employed full time for the convention-related work in MoE and one in the Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection. Concrete achievements There is no direct influence in the legal system and institutional structure in CR. But thanks to the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives some positive measures was taken (changes in hunting legislation, protected species, establishment of protected areas, etc.) Beside the work done in connection with the implementation of the EU legislation no other co- ordination with other international conventions has been done since 1998. In the Action Plan of MoE there is a goal to establish a reservation for great bastard (Otis tarda) but it is still not established. Monitoring and evaluation Dr. Jan Plesnik, deputy director of the Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection is the responsible person. Annual reports are not available. NGO participation During the preparation of the ratification there Hnuti Duha Movement – Friends of the Earth CR participated, commenting changes in the hunting law. Information is only shared through the web pages of MoE. This is not a working convention
43 Convention on Biological Diversity (implemented by Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC)
The Convention seeks to conserve biological diversity and to ensure the sustainable use of biological resources. It also aims for an equitable distribution of the benefits accruing from the use of genetic resources. By enabling developing countries to receive the benefits from maintaining and preserving their biological resources, the Convention seeks to ensure that a true economic value is attributed to such resources. Each signatory is required to set up a system of protected areas. The Convention was signed at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. The material rules of the Convention are included in the Habitats (92/43/EEC) and Wild Birds (79/409/EEC) Directives.
Endorsement Signature in 1992 by the Federal Minister of Czechoslovakia in Rio de Janeiro. It was ratified by the Czech Parliament on 3 Mach 1994. Regular participation on international conferences This document was signed before the splitting of Czechoslovakia, and after splitting the Czech Republic is doing nothing for real implementation. The first step –to prepare and publish the National Biodiversity Strategy – hasn't been done. All other countries I know – parties to the convention –have fulfilled this goal. Focal point ing. Milena Roudna, MoE Reports Hlavácek, 2001: International activities of MoE, 2000-2001, Prague, 2001, ISBN 80-7212-173-1 Web page: www.env.cz Hruby, Rezek: National report about the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, manuscript for FERN (Bonn, 2002)
Financial resources There is no support system for the implementation of the convention. There is a grant program of MoE open for all NGOs for the practical support of biodiversity in CR but it is NOT because of this convention, but because of the implementation of the Czech Nature Conservation Law 114/92 Sb., which was prepared and adopted before this convention. International funding GEF paid twice the National Biodiversity Strategy and it is still not finished. For this target state many was also used through the Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection. For the critical review of the convention the international NGO Fern pays some money to Hnutí Duha (Rainbow Movement) – Friends of the Earth CR It is difficult to say how much money has been spent totally on the implementation because some money was used (without any effect) for preparing the Strategy. For example in the Action Plan of MoE (see references) there is a goal to finish Strategy until 30th of May 2001. Nothing was done! But without the Strategy many useful measures was taken using money from different sources such as the State Environmental Fund, the State Program for Revitalisation of River Systems, the State Program for Landscape Management etc. Institutional and personnel capacity There is no infrastructure for the implementation as a secretariat or department. Mrs Roudna is the only person in MoE working on this convention. Except her no person is employed full time for the convention-related work. A very important document for the implementation of the Convention is the State Program of Nature Conservation and Landscape. Due to the dilatory work of MoE and Ministry of Agriculture it remains proclamations.
44 A great contribution for maintaining biodiversity is the work of scientific research institutes such as the Research Institute for Forestry and Game Management, the Institute for Forest Management, the Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection, the Czech Environmental Inspection etc.
Concrete achievements This convention has had no influence in the legal system and institutional structure. No protected area was established because of this convention. Only co-ordination with other international conventions is through preparing Natura 2000 network, but this network should be finished anyway because of joining of EU. There are NO achievements thanks to this convention!!!! Monitoring and evaluation The responsible person for this convention is Dr. Jan Plesník from the Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection. Because the strategy for implementation is still not ready, there is NOTHING to monitor. NGO participation There was no NGO participation during the preparation of the ratification. With regards to the implementation: there were two attempts to prepare the Strategy. More than 200 pages of very difficult text in English were distributed to more than 50 NGOs in CR one week (!) before the meeting. All NGOs were invited and asked for comments. Because of the above circumstances there were NO comments and only 3 NGOs participated. This is a typical convention, without any influence to practical life.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS It is very difficult to comment the positive effects of the conventions in the field of nature conservation. Firstly – there are too many conventions and there is very low practical knowledge about it (also in the MoE). Secondly there is a huge overlapping between these conventions and/or EU directives, and sometimes is difficult to say which convention made a positive effect (if any). If the convention is not implemented and forced by a special law, they are too abstract to help real practical nature conservancy. There is really lost opportunity: except for CITES none of the conventions has any financial (penalty, incentive) mechanism to push parties (states) to fulfil the convention. Technically the conventions have more power, which is not used.
RECOMMENDATIONS To prepare and adopt an amendment of the Ramsar, Bonn and Bern Conventions including a mechanism for implementation, using financial instruments and mechanism for the exclusion of parties, which do not fulfil their commitments at all.
45 ESTONIA
INTRODUCTION
The territory of the Republic of Estonia, the northernmost of the three Baltic countries, covers 45,227 km2, including the two large islands of Saaremaa and Hiiumaa. Maritime neighbours of Estonia are Finland to the north and Sweden to the west. Its eastern land border abuts the Russian Federation while to the south lies Latvia. Estonia is a lowland country, its highest point rising to only 318 meters above sea level. Estonia is the smallest of the Baltic States, with a total population of 1.439 million (1 January 2000). The average population density is 32 inhabitants/km2, which is well below the European Union (EU) average of 114 inhabitants/km2. Over 70% of the population is concentrated in urban zones, and population density within the country therefore varies considerably from the highly populated northern coast to the sparsely populated rural south. The Republic of Estonia restored its independence in August 1991 and its new democratic constitution was approved in June 1992. Estonia is a parliamentary democracy – its parliament, the Riigikogu, consists of 101 members elected for a 4-year period. Four parliamentary elections have been held after Estonia regained its independence. The Government of the Republic of Estonia is formed on the basis of coalition of parties represented in the parliament. The President of the Republic of Estonia performs the functions of representing the state and is elected for a 5 year period. The Republic of Estonia is a member of the United Nations Organisation (since September 1991) and the European Council (since May 1993) and WTO (since November 1999). The territory of the state is divided into 15 counties. Each county has a county government headed by the county governor appointed by the Government of the Republic. Local issues are decided and organised by local governments. Local government units are rural municipalities and cities. There are 206 rural municipalities and 47 cities in Estonia.
STATE OF NATURE
Estonia lies entirely within the drainage area of the Baltic Sea. In the west and north it has a long coastline on the Baltic Sea with more than 1,500 islands. It has approximately 3,780 km of coastline. The variety and mosaic of Estonian landscape results from the differences in bedrock and the retreating ice shield, which radically changed the appearance of the country after the last glacial period. Significant differences in climatic conditions over only a few hundred kilometres (from typical maritime to typical continental) have created diverse ecosystems. The variety of soil types has resulted in favourable conditions for flora and fauna. Beside the diverse natural conditions, unique changes in the land-use have occurred with four principal land reforms carried out during the 20th century. The last reform (since 1990), involved land re-privatisation and the re-transformation from industrialized agriculture to small-scale land-use.
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
Estonia retains a rich diversity of flora and fauna, including the preserved wooded meadows in western Estonia, which have remained under traditional usage. The preservation of bogs, wooded meadows and wetland forests – mostly destroyed in the rest of Europe – is largely a result of the late introduction of intensive land use practices and the continued use of manual labour until relatively recently.
46 Thanks to the variable natural conditions Estonia is rich in species and habitats and the biodiversity is remarkably well preserved. Several species, threatened on a European scale, are abundant in Estonia (e.g. beaver, wolf, otter, black and white stork, corncrake, lesser spotted eagle, cranes, etc.). This is probably due to relatively low human population density and to a lack of economic development during the Soviet period and to long-term nature conservation traditions starting from the beginning of the 20th century. The preservation of bogs, wooded meadows, wetlands, forests and several other landscape types, mostly destroyed in the rest of Europe, and the establishment of an extensive system of protected areas have been possible through the joint efforts of nature conservation activists and dedicated scientists, and support from the general public.
Habitat types On a global scale Estonia has a relatively high level of biodiversity. For instance, in Estonia altogether 22 site-types and 71 forest types have been identified according to Estonian classification system. The most important types include dry pine forests on sandy soils, temperate spruce forests, transitional swampy forests, dry heath pine forests, bog pine forests, fen birch forests, species-rich swampy black alder forests, floodplain forests and alvar forests. Estonia belongs to the temperate hardwood-coniferous forest zone. As a result of geographical location, there are features of both taiga and broadleaved forests. Grasslands, meadows and natural or semi-natural pastures are some of the vegetation types most characteristic of Estonia. During the last fifty years the area of grasslands (meadows and pastures) has remarkably decreased. Mires cover approximately 9150 km2 or 21.5%, together with water-logged areas where the peat layer is less than 30 cm, even 31% of the territory of in Estonia. Fens (eutrophic mires) cover 57%, transitional (mesotropic) mires 12%, and bogs (oligotrophic mires) 31% of the total area under mires. Estonian mires are deep-layered, hundreds of bogs have peat layers thicker than 5 m. In Estonia there are 60 habitat types of Annex I of Habitat Directive, 15 of them are priority habitat types.
Biological Corridors Estonian green (ecological) network has been prepared and approved within the framework of the Planning and Building Act, by the long-term spatial strategy “Estonia – Vision 2010”. The vision contains a chapter on “green networks” and a schematic map of the Estonian green network. Core areas of international importance are defined as natural areas with a territory of at least 100 km2. In Estonia these form 12 major core areas (predominantly forests and swamps). Core areas of national importance are natural areas with a territory of at least 15 km2. The core areas are linked with corridors that are comprised of linear elements in the landscape, e.g. river valleys and valley flats, as well as interconnected parts of forests and coppices. Corridors bind the core areas into a structural whole, making the spread of species and exchange in the genotype of the association possible, thus undoing local damage to nature and recreating biodiversity The national plan, Estonia 2010, has been approved and the action plan for its implementation adopted by Government Order No. 770-k of 19/09/00.
Species and Genetic Diversity The Estonian territory is traversed by an important European biogeographical borderline dividing the area into two provinces. Phytogeographically, the western part of the country belongs to the Mid- European province (on Ordovician-Silurian limestone bedrock with alvars, calciphilous fens, rich-in- species wooded meadows, broadleaved forests, numerous calciphilous species dominating in plant communities, etc.). The eastern part belongs to the East-European province (with acid soils on Devonian sandstone bedrock, acidophilous plant communities with dominating pine in forests). The list of the Estonian vascular plants consists of ca 1500 species. Many plant species are at their distribution border in Estonia (251 higher plants are so-called margin-species). Bryophytes are a very important component in the ecosystems of Estonia, especially in forests and mires. Of the 507 known
47 species, 350 belong to the order Bryales, 120 to Hepaticae, 37 to Sphagnales. Algae (together with Cyanophyta which are transferred to Bacteria as Cyanobacteria in modern times) species –form a rich macrogroup in Estonian biota: at present we know more than 2500 freshwater, marine, soil and aerophilous algae species. Fungi is the greatest macrogroup in the old Kingdom of Plants with its 3,461 species; they grow on 1,160 phorophytes (on fir - 157 species, on pine - 121). Lichen-flora consists of 786 species while its composition consist of many highly rare arcto-alpine, nemoral, xerocontinental and oceanic species. Zoogeographically, Estonia is situated within a transitional area of the Western and Eastern Palearctic regions, while Western Palearctic species are dominating. The development of this fauna has particularly been influenced by the Baltic Sea, and, of course, by various types of inland waterbodies. Invertebrates constitute naturally the greatest macrogroup – 11,597 species are known. The richest with respect to the species composition in invertebrate groups are insects –nearly 10,000 species (including Coleoptera, about 3,050 species, Lepidoptera, 1,787, Diptera, 2,113 species). The list of the Estonian vertebrates consists of 488 species, including the vertebrates, which are naturally spread in Estonia and 8 wild breeding introduced species. Cyclostomes (Cyclostomata) are represented by three species. Fish-fauna (Pisces, 73 species) includes only 1 chondrostean fish species. Most freshwater fish (about 30 species) are also spread in the brackish coastal waters of the Baltic sea. The protected teleosts (the Wels Silurus glanis, the Grayling Thymallus thymallus and the Asp Aspius aspius) are distributed only in freshwaters. In addition to the Baltic Sea, commercial fisheries are well developed on our largest lakes, Peipus (Peipsi) and Võrtsjärv. There are 11 species of amphibians (Amphibia) recorded in Estonia; however, the occurrence of the Marsh Frog Rana ridibunda in Estonia is not certain. Reptiles (Reptilia) are represented by 5 species (including the widely distributed Viviparous Of the 332 bird species, 222 are breeding in Estonia (206 regularly); in addition to those, dozens of species have been recorded as transit migrants and/or winter visitors. Sixty-four (64) mammal species have been recorded in Estonia. Five (5) species having been introduced into the Estonian fauna (the Raccoon Dog Nyctereutes procyonoides, the American Mink Mustela vison, the Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus, the Red Deer Cervus elaphus. The European Beaver Castor fiber became extinct in the mid-19th century but a vital population exists in Estonia again since the 1950s, thanks to its reintroduction from Russia.) Twenty-nine (29) mammal species have been taken under national protection. The endangered mammal species in Estonia are the European Mink Mustela lutreola, the Flying Squirrel Pteromys volans and the gleridans (Gleridae). At present, 17 mammal species are used as game animals; the Moose Alces alces, the Wild Boar Sus scrofa and the Roe Deer Capreolus capreolus being of high commercial importance. Thanks to reasonable hunting policy, moderate forest management, etc. the abundance of several mammal species strictly protected elsewhere in Europe, have considerably increased during the last 60 years and have been included in the list of game animals in Estonia (e.g. the Wolf Canis lupus, the Lynx Felis lynx, the Brown Bear Ursus arctos). Indices as protected area and forest coverage as percentages of the total country area According to official data, 49% of the Estonian territory is covered with forests and forested land (young forest plantations, open woodlands and bogs covered with trees). Four per cent of forests are old forest stands (over 100 years). The majority of old stands (more than 95 per cent) are predominantly pine or spruce. Protected areas cover totally ca 11% of the land territory of Estonia, while those with a revised protection regime form ca 2/3 of the total protected territory. The total number of protected areas is ca 360.
Priority Areas from nature conservation point of view The overall priorities for biodiversity conservation in Estonia are set in the National Environmental Strategy (1997): This strategy specifies the trends and priority goals of environmental management and protection, and sets the main short-term and long-term tasks to be achieved by 2000 and 2010 respectively.
48 Estonian Environmental Strategy contains the following aims on the maintenance of biodiversity and landscapes. Goal: to ensure preservation of viable populations of local plant and animal species, natural and semi-natural communities and landscapes typical of Estonia. Tasks by the year 2000: • to improve protection of plant and animal species, their habitats and landscapes in accordance with revised legislation, bearing in mind international agreements and European Union requirements; • to improve the existing network of nature reserves in accordance with EU recommendations in order to ensure protection of ecosystems; • to establish a network of protected forests according to nature conservation criteria thus ensuring preservation of all natural and semi-natural forest types and communities. Tasks by the year 2010: • to establish a network of nature reserves corresponding to EU recommendations where zones of strict protection (strict nature reserves and special management zones) would cover up to 5% of the terrestrial area of Estonia.
Human Impact The National Environmental Strategy (1997) highlights the following problems as factors endangering biological diversity: loss of semi-natural habitats, excessive population density in roadside and waterside areas, damaging of vulnerable communities due to local excessive intensity of economic activity, formation of extensive waterlogged wasteland in fallow fields, and enhancement of the above negative trends due to public attitudes that underestimate the need to preserve biodiversity.
DECISION MAKING SYSTEM IN NATURE CONSERVATION
The environmental management system includes: Riigikogu (the Estonian Parliament) – the highest legislative body; the Government of the Republic of Estonia – supreme executive body; and the Ministry of Environment – higher executive body on the territory of the Republic of Estonia, responsible for carrying out national environmental policy and communicating with other states and international environmental organizations. The Ministry of Environment is the largest ministry in the Estonian Government comprising ten departments (Nature Conservation, Forestry, Waste, Water, Fish Resources, International Co- operation, Environmental Management and Technology, Strategy and Planning, Investment, and Legal Affairs), as well as the Land Board, subordinated bodies and academic institutions (see www.envir.ee). The Department for International Co-operation bears overall responsibility for implementation of international agreements. Department of Nature Conservation of MoE is the overall responsible authority for nature conservation. At county level environmental problems are dealt with by fifteen County Environment Departments, which are responsible for regional control of the use and protection of the environment and natural resources, and co-ordination of environmental activities of the municipalities. Overall, the Ministry of Environment counts ca 150 staff at the Ministry level and ca 300 in the 15 county authorities (i.e. about 20 employees per county office).
49 NGO PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKING SYSTEM
Today, Estonia’s society is still undergoing the phase of recognizing the legitimacy of non- governmental organizations (NGOs). However, without the contribution of NGOs it would be difficult to imagine how the norms, values and habits related to sustainable development, including the environmental aspects, could find common acceptance in the society. Identification of NGOs as channels for participation in civic initiative as well as the main watchdogs of legitimacy (and, thereby, also of the openness and dynamic nature of the society) is largely a task for the future. There are several NGOs in Estonia, whose primary activity is the protection of biological diversity (such as the Estonian Fund of Nature, the Estonian Ornithological Society, the Estonian Naturalists' Society etc), or to promote sustainable transport, energy, agriculture, etc. In the register, based on the results of a survey by the Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe (REC), there are 125 Estonian non-profit organisations, which deal with education and information dissemination on environment or nature conservation. Especially the species protection is a field of active work of NGOs.
INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS
Estonia is a Party to following conventions: Convention on Biological Diversity since 1992 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention) since 1993; Convention on Biological Diversity from 1994 and Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) since 1992; Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Washington Convention) since 1993; Baltic Sea Environment Protection Convention (Helsinki Convention) since 1994; Convention on Fisheries and the Protection of Fish Resources in the Baltic Sea and Protection of Belts (Gdansk Convention) since 1992; Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (Paris Convention) since 1992.
STATE OF THE CONVENTIONS
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitats
Signature: in 1992, ratified in 1993 Focal point Management Authority: Ministry of the Environment Estonian Ramsar Committee. The Estonian Ramsar Committee as an advisory body is promoting coordination between the various administrative and scientific institutions responsible for conservation and wise use of wetlands. Participation on international conferences: yes Reports • National Report of Estonia for COP7 • National Report of Estonia for COP8
50 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna
Signature: in 1992, ratified in 1993 Focal points: Management Authority: Ministry of the Environment Scientific Authorities: • Tallinn Botanical Gardens; • Tallinn Zoological Gardens; • Zoology Museum of the Tartu University; • Estonian Museum of Natural History.
Participation on international conferences: yes Reports: Overviews in the annual reports “Estonian Environment”.
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals Estonia is not a Party to the Bonn Convention.
Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats
Signature: signed and entered into force 1992 Focal point: Management Authority: Ministry of the Environment Participation on international conferences: yes Reports: Several working documents and overviews for the Standing Committee
Convention on Biological Diversity
Signature: in 1992, ratified in 1994; Participation on international conferences: yes. Focal points • Management Authority: Ministry of the Environment • Ministry of the Environment has nominated the following thematic focal points of CBD: Forestry: Dr. Mart Külvik from the Environmental Protection Institute, Estonian Agricultural University; Access to genetic resources and benefit sharing arrangements: Prof. Ain Heinaru from University of Tartu; Taxonomy: Ms Ülle Reier from University of Tartu; Clearing-House Mechanism: Mr Lauri Klein from the Environmental Information Centre. Reports • First National Report; • Second National Report; • Thematic Report on Alien and Invasive Species; • Thematic Report on Access and Benefit Sharing; • Thematic Report on Forest Ecosystems; • Thematic Report on Mountain Ecosystems.
51 The Pan-European Biodiversity and Landscape Strategy
Estonia has participated in the PEBLDS process, but no special program for PEBLDS has been worked out. There are several strategic documents on biodiversity and landscape, which are fitting well with the objectives of PEBLDS. Important steps in the implementation of PEBLDS were the Act on Sustainable Development and the National Environmental Strategy adopted by the Estonian Parliament in February 1995 and March 1997 respectively. The National Environmental Action Plan for years 2001–2003, adopted in 5 June 2001, includes the obligation to update and adopt the Biodiversity Action Plan (prepared during 1998−1999 with UNEP support). National Program Estonian NATURA 2000 for the years 2000–2007 was adopted by the Government in July 2000. This programme is a necessary precondition for joining the European Union. It is related with general nature protection policy and with the implementation of the CBD. The other policies relevant for preserving or developing biological and landscape diversity are the Estonian Forest Policy (1997), the Estonian Forestry Development Plan (2001), Forest management and protection in Estonia (2003) and the Estonian biodiversity strategy and action plan (EME and UNEP, 1999). Programme on Plant Genetic Resources is currently under preparation by the Ministry of Agriculture.
Council Directive 79/409/EEC and Council Directive 92/43/EEC Estonia has prepared the implementation of the European Habitats and Birds Directives, preliminary selection of NATURA 2000 areas has been completed by 2002. Followed by the EU accession process, MoE is preparing for the establishment of Natura 2000 network, which expands the current network of protected areas by area and protection goals. Estonian Government has adopted a state programme on the establishment of Natura2000 in 2000−2007 in Estonia. SPAs and pSCIs will be selected and proposed to the European Commission for consideration on the date of accession to EU. It is anticipated that the current extent of protected areas may expand. Amended structure, procedure of designation and management of sites will be stipulated in the new nature conservation act, which is currently being drafted.
EVALUATION OF THE CONVENTIONS
Financial resources
International funding possibilities Through UNEP GEF funded several projects in Estonia on biodiversity (See also table 1). For example in 1995 Estonia received funds for assistance for the preparation of the Biodiversity Country Study in Estonia and in 1997 received funds for the preparation of the Estonian National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) and for the first national report to the CBD of Estonia
52 GEF supported Projects in Estonia on biodiversity
Project Name: Implementing Executing Description Agency Agency Assessment of Capacity- United Nations Ministry of Estonia NBSAP identified several building needs for Environment Environment, key areas where it was necessary Biodiversity and Programme Estonia for the country to develop capacity Participation in to conserve and manage the use of Clearing House biodiversity. However, certain Mechanism constraints did not permit delineation of specific mechanisms needed to investigate these capacity building needs. As the biodiversity clearing house mechanism is not yet established in Estonia, the project will build up a national network for exchange of biodiversity information. National Capacity Self- United Nations Institute of Assessment (NCSA) for Environment Ecology at Global Environment Programme Tallinn Management Pedagogical University National Biodiversity United Nations Department The aim of the project is to give Strategy, Action Plan Environment of Nature assistance to the country to and First National Programme Conservation formulate and manage sectoral Report to the CBD and Wildlife and cross-sectoral programmes to Management, meet the objectives of the Ministry of Convention on Biological Environment Diversity through a cost effective approach within the context of national sustainable development efforts, and to report to the Convention on progress achieved in implementing agreed commitments. The activities stipulated in this project thus focus specifically on implementing Article 6 of the CBD and on the preparation of the first national report pursuant to Article 26 of the CBD, which were highlighted as programme priorities by the second meeting of the COP in its Decisions II/7 and II/17.
Baltic Sea Regional United Nations Helsinki The Baltic Sea Regional Project Project, Phase I Environment Commission (BSRP) objective is to increase Programme (HELCOM) sustainable biological in productivity, improve coastal zone
53 cooperation management and reduce with the agricultural non-point source International pollution through the introduction Baltic Sea of ecosystem-based approaches Fisheries for land, coastal and marine Commission environmental management. The (IBSFC) and Project’s long-term goal is to International provide the three Baltic Sea Council for cooperating international bodies, the HELCOM, IBSFC, ICES, and the Exploration recipient countries with of the Sea management tools for sustainable (ICES) agricultural, coastal and marine management, while improving social and economic benefits for the farming, coastal and fishing communities. Development of the United Nations Ministry of The aim of this project is to carry National Biosafety Environment Environment, out an assessment of current Framework for Estonia Programme Estonia technological capacity to manage biosafety issues, and the implications of this on the implementation
The project Assessment of Capacity-building needs for Biodiversity and Participation in Clearing- house Mechanism in Estonia (supported by GEF through UNEP) is ongoing (January 2002-July 2003). The objectives of the project are: to establish and operate an information network through the National Biodiversity Clearing-house Mechanism; and to assess capacity-building needs for managing the use and conservation of biodiversity in Estonia. Development of the National Biosafety Framework for Estonia (also supported by GEF through UNEP) is ongoing (January 2002-January 2003). The aim of this project is to carry out an assessment of current technological capacity to manage biosafety issues, and the implications of this on the implementation. Estonia has signed the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and is in the process of ratification.
EU LIFE Nature programme supports several projects in Estonia: 1) Restoration, management and education project at Häädemeeste wetland complex, the project co-ordinator is the Estonian Ornithological Society, 2001; 2) Preservation of Boreal-Baltic coastal meadows (West-Estonia), the project co-ordinator is the Estonian Ministry of Environment, 2001; 3) Recovery of Mustela lutreola in Estonia: captive and island populations, the project co- ordinator is the “Lutreola”, NGO, 2001; 4) Preservation of Natura 2000 biotopes in Karula National Park, the project co-ordinator is the Karula National Park, 2002; 5) Protection of priority forest habitat types in Estonia, the project co-ordinator is the Estonian Forest Centre, 2002; 6) Conservation of Natura 2000 biotopes in Räpina polder, the project co-ordinator is the Environmental Department of Põlva county; MoE, 2003; 7) Restoration of habitats of endangered species in Silma Nature Reserve, the project co- ordinator is Silma Nature Reserve, MoE, 2003.
54 National resources for the implementation The main financial sources are the state budget and the Estonian Centre for Environmental Investments (ECEI), supplemented by international grants on project basis. The annual national budget for nature conservation forms ca 1.3 million EUR, i.e ca 5% of the total budget allocated to the MoE in 2001. This budget is regarded adequate for administration, but inadequate for development and management of semi-natural habitats. Restoration and management of semi- natural habitats have been supported since 2001 (administered by the Ministry of the Environment). In 2001, 1.2 million EUR was allocated from the national budget all over the country. Also, two EU Life III funded projects were started in 2001 to restore semi-natural habitats in the western coast of Estonia. The restoration and management of 16,360 ha of semi-natural habitats was supported in 2001 and 17,830 ha was supported in 2002. The Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) has developed an agri-environment programme (AEP) in 2000. The programme has been launched in 2001 in 3 communes and it is designed to be gradually expanded over the whole country. In 2002 55 communes were involved in the environmentally friendly management scheme. Another important component of the environment programme is a financial support to landscape management in order to reduce the share of unused or abandoned agricultural land. Estonia has dedicated state budget funding to the implementation of AEP notably to national implementation of four selected AEP measures starting from 2000. This is a support for organic farming and the breeding of endangered native cattle breeds (both under the MoA), plus from the 2001 the management of semi-natural habitats
Availability of other funding Several international grants have been used under the framework of bilateral projects between DANCEE and MoE, e.g. to develop management plans of Soomaa National Park and Alam-Pedja Nature Reserve. DANCEE financial support has been used to establish Estonian Forest Protected Area Network (EFCAN). Swedish Government has supported the identification and establishment of Estonian forest key biotopes. In 1999, an inventory of these key biotopes was completed and 3000 sites were identified, covering 6000 ha. The management of these sites will be based on voluntary contracts between MoE and the land-owner. To date, 40 contracts (120 ha) have been signed. Dutch Government, Ministry of Agriculture Nature Management and Fisheries and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs via the Matra Fund Program International Nature Management has supported numerous projects, for example the project on “Development of national ecological networks in the Baltic countries in the framework of the Pan-European Ecological Network” and "Project on Selection of SPA". WWF, EU Phare, World Bank have funded the preparation of integrated management plans for Matsalu and Käina Bays. Ramsar Small Grant Fund has provided a tractor for the management of semi-natural wetlands in Matsalu; EU Life I programme has supported the preparation of a management plan for Alam-Pedja Nature Reserve. Several donor-supported projects are underway: DANCEE (Danish Government) supports the project of Implementation of the Natura 2000 network in Estonia regarding freshwater species and habitats.
Institutional and personnel capacity The contact persons of CBD, Ramsar, Bonn Convention and CITES are specialists all working in the Department of Nature Conservation of MoE. The contact persons have good cooperation and mutual information exchange, thus duplication should be effectively avoided. The Ministry of Environment is co-ordinating activities of focal points and secretariats. For instance the Estonian Ramsar Committee is an advisory body promoting coordination between the various administrative and scientific institutions responsible for conservation and wise use of wetlands. The Estonian Ramsar Committee is made up of 10 voluntary members representing the Nature Conservation Department of the Ministry of Environment, scientific institutions, administrations of Ramsar sites, and NGOs.
55 Concrete achievements
Influence in the legal system and institutional structure Estonian legislation supports quite well the fulfilling the objectives of different conventions on nature protection, but should be supplemented to meet also the legal requirements of EU Birds and Habitats Directives. The Act on Protection of Natural Objects (1994, amended in 1998, 1999, 2001) is one of the main legal instruments concerning nature conservation. This Act determines the nature of protection and the procedure for taking territories (landscapes), single objects of nature (geomorphologic features), plant, fungi and animal species into protection. It determines the rights and responsibilities of land-owners, land-users and other persons in regard to protected natural objects and regulates the introduction and reintroduction of protected species, etc. Other important acts on nature conservation are the Act on Protection of Marine and Freshwater Coasts, Shores and Banks (1995) stipulates the principles for using and protecting the Estonian coast and shoreline. The other laws and regulations which could indirectly and directly support preservation include the Act on Forestry (1998), the Act on Hunting Management (1994), the Act on Land Improvement (1994), the Act on Water (1994), the Act on Fisheries (1995), the Act on Planning (2002), and the Act on Wildlife Protection (1998). A new nature conservation act is currently being prepared to meet also the legal requirements of EU Birds and Habitats Directives. Important steps in the implementation of Conventions and PEBLDS were the Act on Sustainable Development and the National Environmental Strategy adopted by the Estonian Parliament in February 1995 and March 1997 respectively. The Act on Sustainable Development includes Article 9, which sets the basis for CBD implementation. The overall priorities for biodiversity conservation in Estonia are worked out and set in the National Environmental Strategy (1997). This strategy specifies the trends and priority goals of environmental management and protection, and sets the main short-term and long-term tasks to be achieved by 2000 and 2010 respectively. The National Environmental Strategy proceeds from the main traditional goal of environmental protection – which is to provide people with a healthy environment and natural resources necessary to promote economic development without causing significant damage to nature, and to preserve the diversity of landscapes and biodiversity while taking into consideration the level of economic development. The priorities presented in the strategy are taken into account when planning environmental activities, developing international co- operation and allocating national funds. NBSAP is divided into different thematic sectors: nature protection, genetic resources and biotechnology, education, transport, industry, landscape aspects in planning and land management, agriculture, forestry, hunting, fishery, national defence, border control, tourism. The main objective of the AP was to bridge different sectors in the implementation of CBD. The updated National Environmental Action Plan for years 2001–2003, adopted on 5 June 2001, includes the obligation to update and adopt the Biodiversity Action Plan (prepared during 1998−1999 with UNEP support). Estonian Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan was prepared during 1998-1999. Estonian NBSAP consists of two parts: the first, textual part is the Strategy and the second part comprises tables of 13 sectoral action plans. The strategy part gives the overview of the current situation, identifies the gaps and constraints of implementation of CBD in Estonia, but it also gives recommendations for future activities. These recommendations are incorporated into the sectoral actions plans where concrete actions, responsible institutions, time schedule, budget and the possible or existing resources are identified. MoE is planning to submit the Action Plan for adoption by the Government. The other policies relevant to fulfilling the objectives of the Conventions and for preserving or enhancing biological and landscape diversity are the Estonian Forest Policy (1997), the Estonian Forestry Development Plan (2001), and Forest management and protection in Estonia (2003). A Programme on Plant Genetic Resources is currently under preparation by Ministry of Agriculture.
56 National Programme “Estonian Natura 2000 for the years 2000 2007” was adopted by the Government in July 2000. This programme is a necessary precondition for joining the European Union. It is related to general nature protection policy and the implementation of the CBD. The objectives of the National Programme “Estonian Natura 2000” adopted for the time period from 2000-2007 are: • Stage I (2000-2002): to draw up and submit to EC a list of potential Natura 2000 sites; • Stage II (2003-2007): to organise protection of the Natura 2000 sites in conformity with the EC requirements, including designation of protected areas, determination of protection measures, drawing up management plans, etc.
Established protected areas Estonia has designated 10 Ramsar sites: Matsalu Nature Reserve, Soomaa National Park, Nigula Nature Reserve, Muraka Nature Reserve, Puhtu-Laelatu-Nehatu Nature Reserve, Islets of Hiiumaa and Käina Bay, Alam-Pedja Nature Reserve, Emajõe Suursoo mire and the Endla Nature Reserve, Vilsandi National Park. Sixteen areas, including already protected areas like the Läänemaa-Suursoo mire complex, Nätsi-Võlla Bog, etc. and areas not yet protected, such as Kihnu Straits, Hari Kurk Straits, etc., have been designated as potential Ramsar sites. A Latvian-Estonian transboundary protected area called Sookuninga was established in 1999. Followed by the EU accession process, MoE is preparing for the establishment of Natura 200 network, which expands the current network of protected areas by area and protection goals. More attention is being paid to the protection of habitats than before. The Estonian Forest Conservation Network and Forest Key Biotopes contribute to the in-situ conservation of species and habitats. Several inventories were carried out in the period 1993−2000 and projects related to implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives were carried out in the period 1998–2002. The proposal of potential Natura 2000 sites is based on the results of these inventories and projects, as well as analyses of existing protected areas and IBAs. Sites are suggested also by the relevant species or habitats experts, county environmental departments and by the administrations of nature protection areas. Ministry of the Environment has the co-ordination role in the process of site selection. In 2003 a preliminary list of NATURA sites is proposed.
Coordination with other international conventions The contact persons of CBD, Ramsar, Bonn Convention and CITES are specialists all working in the Department of Nature Conservation of MoE. The contact persons have a good cooperation and mutual information exchange, thus duplication should be effectively avoided. Also, a joint programme between Ramsar Convention and Convention on Biological Diversity, and also with the Natura 2000 Programme has been worked out.
Other achievements, benchmarks The National Environmental Strategy has set the goal of establishing by 2010 a protection regime with the prohibition of any economic activity in at least 5% of the territory of Estonia. By 15 May 2000, such protection regime was established on 161 thousand hectares (3.5% of the territory of Estonia). The objectives of the National Programme “Estonian Natura 2000” for stage II are: to organise the protection of the Natura 2000 sites in conformity with EC requirements, including designation of protected areas, determination of protection measures, drawing up management plans.
57 Monitoring and evaluation
National Biological Diversity Monitoring Programme gained legal status in Estonia in 1994. After 4 years of implementation, a need for improvements became obvious. In 1998, a PHARE Project: “Establishment of GIS based Biodiversity Monitoring System for Estonia” was carried out. This project also included identification of biological diversity components for further monitoring. The main efforts were put into the monitoring of habitats, but also landscape and species level components were monitored. Genome level monitoring was not planned at that stage, since the national financial resources were limited. Only minimum requirements for 47 monitoring programmes, addressing the most important components of biological diversity, were set. As a result of this project, a Biodiversity Monitoring Master Plan for Estonia was completed and planned to be approved by the Government. That approval is, however, still missing. Currently, the Environmental Protection Institute at the Estonian Agricultural University is a co-ordinator of Biodiversity and Landscape Monitoring Programme. The monitoring reports are available at the website www.seiremonitor.ee. Information exchange in the European Environment Information and Observation Network (EIONET) system for the European Environment Agency through the European Topic Centre of Nature Protection and Biodiversity and its Phare Topic Link (all member states of EU and all Phare countries) – cooperation through national focal points (NFP) and national reference centres (NRC) – Estonian NFP and NRC for nature conservation and biodiversity are nominated at 1998 in Estonian Environment Information Centre. For the maintenance and analysis of monitoring and identification data, MoE has established a general national information system on data on nature – Estonian Nature Information System (EELIS). This information system is a database containing data obtained via biological diversity inventories and monitoring programmes. The data of the national nature conservation register is also available via EELIS. The Estonian National Environmental Action Plan for 2001−2003 foresees the following activities (specified as of medium priority): • “9.2.18. Develop and operate Estonian Nature Information System at all administrative levels (33% of financial resources are available); • “9.2.17. Educate regularly environmentalists and planners to use Estonian Nature Information System” (33% of financial resources are available). To ascertain the distribution and status of rare habitat types, inventories of wooded meadows, alvars, old forests, coastal and alluvial meadows and wetlands have been carried out. The decline in the area of natural and semi-natural grasslands has begun to affect also the species living in these habitats. In order to preserve such habitats, special programmes have been launched for mowing the wooded meadows, and farmers are paid compensation for keeping animals on protected areas.
NGO participation
Co-operation between GOs and NGOs in the field of nature conservation is quite intensive. The NGOs are active concerning nature conservation issues at the national level, dealing partly with the technical and legal aspects of new legislation, for example they contributed to the drafting of the Act on Protected Natural Objects, the new Forest Act and of the statutes and protection rules for the new national parks and protected areas. Some NGOs are involved in providing detailed information and expertise in their particular fields (the Ornithological Society concerning bird species and areas needing protection and the necessary degree of protection imposed by e.g. the Bird Directive, the Naturalists' Society concerning lists of insect species, the Estonian Theriological Society concerning mammals protection, etc.). The Nature Conservation Commission of the Academy of Sciences is currently responsible for the preparation of a new version of the Red Data Book for Estonia. Some NGOs have been involved in running projects surrounding the Baltic Sea, pollution, promotion of
58 public awareness concerning environmental problems and education. Some NGOs like the Estonian Fund for Nature and Nature Conservation Association “Kotkas” do both inventorying and also manage the survival of threatened species. Other NGOs worth mentioning are: European Mink Conservation and Breeding Committee (EMCC) Estonian branch, Lutra Society, Estonian Society of Lepidopterologists, etc. In the case of the Ramsar Convention six academic and 14 non- governmental organisations are more closely involved in wetland protection and management.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Considering the objectives arising from biodiversity and landscape related documents (conventions, directives, strategies etc), we have to admit that many positive things have happened in Estonia. During the last five years many important biodiversity-related regulations and strategic documents have been worked out, several of them is under preparation. For instance a new nature conservation act is currently being prepared to meet also the legal requirements of EU Birds and Habitats Directives. Despite the success on biodiversity conservation we are still facing several serious problems on nature conservation. One of the most crucial is limited human and financial resource. For example the revised NEAP for 2001-2003 (adopted in 2001) defines the maximum number of nature conservation activities to be financed from national budget and international funds. The total cost is estimated to be 22 million EUR over a three-year period. This is 3−4 time more than available from state budget. The availability of financial resources for the identification of spatial components of biological diversity (e.g. habitats, landscapes) has been severely limited, compared to those for species. The underlying causes and problems in nature conservation are: • Speed of economic development (fragmentation of land, intensification of land use etc); • Lack of coherence between conservation and sector policies and financial instruments; • Insufficient integration between nature conservation and environmental protection instruments; • Relatively low political profile; • Low human and financial resources; • Decline in the quality of protected areas, increase in the number of threatened species.
On the basis of the above the following conclusions can be drawn: • State should find more human and financial support for biodiversity and landscape conservation; • More local people and NGOs have to be involved in the process of establishing biodiversity protection measures at state and regional levels; • Conservation and environmental measures and instruments of different conventions and directives should be better co-ordinated; • More NGOs should be involved and an early-warning system should be established to identify possible conflicts between conservation interests and other developments • Procedures should be established and instruments should be applied for resolution of possible conflicts (e.g. Round Tables of Stakeholders; application of SEA etc.); • Nature conservation outside protected areas should be better promoted; • The involvement of local communities should be promoted in the field of decision-making and management activities in connection with biodiversity and landscapes; • Management plans for protected areas should be developed, including regular monitoring of effectiveness of the management measures to avoid negative changes in the ecological character of the sites;
59 • Management plans for protected areas are required to be integrated into regional development planning, which takes into consideration both nature conservation requirements and interests of the people of the region. Priority areas for integration should be identified.
60 HUNGARY
INTRODUCTION
Hungary is situated in the Carpathian basin in Central Europe. It was a party to the Warsaw Pact, thus economically, politically and socially the country was closely linked to the eastern block. The transition process toward market economy in Hungary began around 1990 and similarly to other former socialist countries. A deep economic crisis started in the second half of the 80’s. The capacity of the economy touched the bottom in 1993 and at that time the GDP fell by 20%. The process of socio-economic transition restructured the production, the consumption and the political system, bringing about new economic, societal and environmental challenges. The prospect of Hungary’s accession to the European Union (EU) in 2004 is of strategic importance for political, economic and social reasons alike. The legal harmonisation work and the adoption of the Acquis Communautaire(AC) are well on the way, the final accession negotiations are closed. Therefore it is necessary to start the implementation of the Community legislation. The awakening of the environmental NGO movement in the eighties took place together with the political changes. The foregoing changes and the evolving green movement mutually enforced each other around the transition to a democratic state. Since then the movement has also developed a democratic structure for itself, which is unique in the region. However due to the diversity of positions within the movement, it still cannot present a common stance in many cases towards the governmental sector.
STATE OF NATURE
Hungary is situated in the centre of the Carpathian basin in an overlapping zone of various biogeographical regions. Its territory is under various climatic influences. Apart from the Atlantic effect from the North, the Mediterranean one from the South and the Continental one from the East, there is also microclimatic influence from the Carpathian Mountains and the Alps. They all have contributed to the evolution of an extraordinarily rich mosaic of fauna and flora. There is a large number of indigenous species that are not native west of Hungary. Another factor of this mosaic-like feature and of the rich biodiversity, is that during the last glacial period (ended approximately 10 000 years ago), the Carpathian basin was at the edge of the ice sheet. The species forced south by the ice could settle here. Several plants and most probably some lower animals survived during the ice age on the warmer, southern slopes, some of them evolving into new, unique species. After the thaw, some species remained in areas of Hungary that have a colder microclimate. (Of course, this migration towards the south was a thousand year long process; in such a long period even the forests were able to migrate from the north to the south). After the glacial epoch some species requiring warm climate, which had migrated more to the south from the Carpathian basin, could return to this place too, contributing to the diversity of the country. Scientists have understood the uniqueness of the Carpathian basin for a long time, classifying its independent flora under the name Pannonicum. Of course this is not a political category, the described region stretches into neighbouring countries to some extent.
61 BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
Habitat types In the natural areas of Hungary no natural landscape structure exists any more. The continuous landscape structure was fragmented and transformed by human activities. Before the spreading of the human activity 85 % of Hungary’s present territory was covered by forests. Today forests only account for 18-19 % of the total area. Most of the landscape – 70% - is occupied by agricultural activities, while 11-12% of the whole territory is covered by built-up areas. From this statement follows, that nowadays there are only fragments of natural and semi-natural areas that can be found in areas characterized by human activity. Areas of cultivation such as forests, gardens, vineyards, orchards, meadows, reedy and fish ponds which amount to 38-39% of the whole territory, contain comparatively many original habitats but only a few of these can be considered as near-natural habitats. More than half of the forests are planted monocultures containing mostly species alien to the landscape. After applying some stricter criteria – such as mixture and age-distribution – we will only find a few real natural forests. The vegetation structure in Hungary’s lands can be referred to as natural or semi-natural only in 3-4 % of the cases, and even if we put all temporary, converted and recovering semi-natural and near- natural habitats together, we must conclude that only as little as 15-17% of Hungary’s whole territory – jointed all the natural and semi-natural habitats - account for 90-95% of its total biodiversity. In Hungary the typology of the National Habitat-Classification System is applied, in which degraded and devastated habitats as well as near-natural habitats are characterized in an equally detailed manner (see the habitat types in Annex I).
Biological corridors As mentioned above Hungary’s natural and semi-natural habitats are divided and isolated from each other by human habitats, hindering the migration of species and the gene-flow between the different populations. Ecological corridors that ensure the connection between the natural and semi-natural habitats form an ecological network. In Hungary terrestrial habitats form four large subnetworks, which overlap each other repeatedly. Range of mountain-subalpine habitats that form an arch containing the highest parts of the mountains, along an east-west axis, from Alpokalja to the Tokaj mountains. Series of submountain habitats that also follows the east-west line from Keszthelyi-hegység to Tokaj-hegyalja. This zone is characterised by significant and diverse semi-natural ecosystems, a large amount of human influence, a fairly strong submediterranean climatic effect, considerable mosaic formations and a vulnerable stability. Habitats of Dunántúli-dombság and those of some scattered individual mountains. This subnetwork shows the highest level of fragmentation. The rest of semi-natural habitats has a significant diversity, but they are very much isolated from each other by human habitats. The climatic effect of the Atlantic varies on a large scale but the submediterranean climatic effect is strong and even. A high degree of mosaic formation is typical for this subnetwork. Plain habitats form the largest part of the country, but the proportion of semi-natural habitats is the smallest here. In our country continentality is growing in east direction. The ecological stability of the areas is usually decreasing with the growth of aridity. In the fifth place we have to mention aquatic ecological corridors, and those that extend along rivers. These interweave the four networks mentioned above, and play an important role in the stabilisation of plain habitats. As the country’s borderland were isolated from the intensive developing trends in the last fifty years, some untouched ecological corridors could remain along the borders and these functioning corridors enrich the basin with different species.
62 Species and genetic diversity In consequence of the facts described in the introduction, Hungary’s flora and fauna have a very high diversity value. As a result of the different climatic influences Hungary possess many different flora and fauna element, which enrich the country’s biodiversity. Some of them have a wide distribution area, while others are limited to smaller territories at the border of the Carpathian basin. 3,5 % of Hungary’s 2424 vascular plant species are endemic in the Carpathian Basin. Most of the vertebrate animal species (466 of the 541) as well as the endangered representatives of invertebrata (389 of about 42.000) are protected as are threatened plant species of which 515 are protected from the about 3,000 vascular plants and mosses.
Priority areas from nature conservation point of view One field of the priorities is the territorial protection. 9,9% of the whole territory of Hungary is currently under protection. To save the optimum stage of biodiversity, 30% of the country’s territory should be protected, supposing that sustainable land-use is a main priority acknowledged by agriculture. It is necessary to increase the territory of pasture lands and to further develop the network of forest reservations, as well as to select ,,Environmentally Sensitive Areas” as required by the National Agro-environmental Programme. Another very important priority is habitat protection. If we are to take care of species diversity we have to protect all kinds of habitats in the appropriate size. The threatened habitats are: mixed oak- elm-ash forests of great rivers, marshlands, bogs and all kinds of wetlands, lowland steppes, karstic grasslands and salt steppes. The Hungarian legislation ensures ex lege protection (i.e. irrespective of where the areas concerned are situated) for certain habitat types (bogs, salt lakes, sink-holes of sinking streams, springs, caves), which can be attributed to their specially threatened status (for instance 97% of the bogs of Hungary have been destroyed). There are territories out of protection which should be saved however, especially those intact zones that can be found near the borders, like the Tornai Karst, Ipolyság, Tokaji Mountains, Szathmár- Bereg, Körösök vidéke, Dráva-sík, Alpokalja etc. We should give priority to some refuge places, where unique biotopes or species of European importance can be found (Hortobágy, Kiskunság etc.).
Human Impact The remains of the potential vegetation can be found only on the 9 % of the country’s territory, and most of them are influenced by human activities.
Agriculture The most significant type of human land use is the agriculture. The main threats in agriculture also experienced in Hungary are: • Large farming sites and farming lots • Monocultures • Chemical pest and weed control • Use of artificial fertilisers • No utilisation and recycling of by-products • Continuous and intensive land use • Heavy machines in cultivation • Removing natural edge associations
Agriculture in Hungary has undergone a considerable recession after the political transition. The distribution of agricultural areas among sectors has changed. Namely, proportions of forestry areas, reed-beds and fish-ponds have increased by 0.3 %, 2.4 % and 0.4 % respectively, whereas the area
63 of uncultivated arable land has been enlarged by 188 %. As positive changes we can mention that owing to the spreading of the ecological awareness there is a shift to cultivating technologies that enrich biological diversity, a few environmental organisations are interested in raising and producing traditional and regional species. However, negative tendencies can be observed as well: foreign species and hybrids gain more and more importance in agricultural production.
Industry and human settlements One of the main characteristics of the communist system was the centralised heavy industry. Four bigger regions in the country were developed as industrial regions. This development brought about a high density of human population in these areas and eventually lead to a dramatic contamination of the vicinity of the industrial facilities. About 20 % of the whole country is hit by the heavy industrial pollution that made the flora and fauna actually disappear from these areas. Huge industrial agglomerations also create barriers for migrating species by splitting biotopes and corridors.
Water management In the 19th century the intensive drainage of wetlands, the cutting-off of meanders of rivers and the regulation of water courses resulted in a long term negative impact on the biodiversity and on the water table. The loss of wetlands (as they were transferred into plough lands) decreased the habitat size and the genetic diversity of species. Struggle with nature finally resulted in disadvantages for the agriculture and the people through the frequent flooding. Some wet territories have been tried to recreate in order to improve the water supply of the soil, which created some new biotopes for birds and other animals as well.
Hunting and game management Nowadays the aim of hunting is no more the obtaining of the prey that ensures the subsistence of the hunters. It is directed by new standpoints: capturing of animals with enormous trophy and hunting of exotic species. As a consequence of the today hunting demands the stock of the games is enlarged, which causes the depreciation of the stock (like the deer stocks of Hungary), but it can also damage the habitat (such as wild boar stocks). In addition the introduction of non-native species is a serious problem too. Mouflon was introduced from the Mediterranean region to Hungary. This species prefers staying on sunny rock grasslands, and damage this habitat by grazing, trampling and intensive dunging. Grasslands have a high biodiversity value, thus their preserving is an important element of the enhancement of the biological diversity in our country.
DECISION MAKING SYSTEM
The highest level of administrative-executive power for nature conservation and environmental policies is the Hungarian Ministry of Environment and Water. It also prepares the bills within its competence, which are discussed and voted about by the Parliament and in some cases are also sent back for improvement to the Ministry. The Environmental Committee follows the environmental and nature conservation related decision-making within the Parliament. Following the general elections held in the spring of 2002 major structural changes took place in the course of the year and in the beginning of 2003. The Ministry of Environment and Water (MEW) is the governmental body with primary responsibility in environmental issues, which also includes the coordination of the implementation of the international nature conservation conventions. The national focal points for these conventions can thus work in tight co-operation, which is also justified by the overlapping between the
64 obligations. After the structural changes in the institutional system the MEW is now responsible for the preparation and implementation of environmental legislation and regulations at the national level, to achieve integrated environmental protection, nature conservation and water management. The National and Regional Environmental Inspectorates perform all the major tasks related to production, monitoring, and enforcement under the overall coordination of the MEW. The National Environmental Inspectorate is as the competent public authority at the national level. The provision and supervision of environmental services (public services as provision of water, sewage treatment and waste management) is assigned to the local authorities. However, local authorities often lack human and financial capacity to tackle environmental issues in addition to their responsibilities for environmental services. Unless major environmental problems are experienced, they tend to disregard small-scale environmental degradation. In some cases they do not even have the means to identify the threats and signs of environmental problems. In the future the Environmental and Water Management Research Institute, a newly integrated institution will provide sound scientific background for the work of the MEW. It will carry out research and undertakes tasks such as the greenhouse gas emission inventories. Nonetheless, the present human and financial resources do not enable the expansion of the activities. Right now the above tasks are within the responsibility of the Environmental Management Institute. The MEW, as the national coordinator of the Rio Conventions and other agreements is working in close cooperation with other Ministries involved, as the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Transport, and the Ministry of Finance. An important organization which provides a platform for inter-sectoral coordination in the field of environment, as well as a window opportunity for non-governmental organizations to participate in decision-making process related to environmental protection and nature conservation is the National Environmental Council. Since 1996 it serves as an advisory body to the Government and holds up stance on guiding principles of different environmental programs, regulations and decisions related to environmental protection and various environmental issues. The Council consists of 22 members with seven representatives from: a) non-governmental organizations with an environmental protection goal, b) professional and industrial advocacy organs and c) the epistemic community delegated by the President of the Hungarian Academy of Science. These three sectors are represented on equal proportion basis. The Council elects the chairman from among its members, while the Minister of Environment and Water, who represents the Government, is the co-chairman. No other comparable advisory body exists in any other sector of the country, similarly no other environmental and nature conservation advisory board with such authority and power exists in any of the neighbouring countries either. Among the significant scientific institutions outside governmental authority, the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the Hungarian Society of Agricultural Sciences and the Hungarian Hydrological Society are also dealing with different aspects related to international conventions.
INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS
EVALUATION OF THE CONVENTIONS
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat
Endorsement Hungary ratified the Ramsar Convention on 11 April 1979. As in Hungary there are many unique wetlands, waterfowl habitats, the country always regarded their protection especially important and the joining to the Convention was not debated.
65 The text of the Ramsar Convention was adopted under the title "The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat” on 3 December 1982, which was later amended (such as the Hungarian Act XLII of 1993). The Hungarian representatives regularly took part in the COP meetings and Mrs Alojzia Lakos (MERP) was alternate representative of Eastern Europe in the Standing Committee between 1990- 1993, and she served as the regional representative of Eastern Europe and also as the chair of the Committee between 1993-1996 and 1996-1999. Mr. Mihály Végh (MERP) was a member of the Scientific and Technical Review Panel for the period 1993-1996 and the vice-chairman between 1996-1999. The National Focal Point is Mr András Bőhm, he is responsible for reporting towards the Secretariat and shares the responsibility for attending the COP meetings. Financial resources There are not any earmarked resources currently available for the activities connected to the Ramsar Convention. However later some resources (about 10 million Ft per year for the period of six years) will be earmarked for the implementation of the Convention within the National Nature Conservation Plan. Hungary has not applied for EU or GEF funding for Convention related activities, however a Hungarian NGO (Tisza Club) successfully applied for support from the Ramsar Small Grant Fund, which was established in 1996. Later however Hungary lost its eligibility for applying this grant as an OECD member. Specific tasks (as training course, management of sites e.g. in Gemenc and Hanság) were carried out in international cooperation with Dutch, German and Danish partners, while another project is also under preparation with US partners. Hungary also paid in substantial amounts on an ad hoc basis for the Convention Secretariat for assisting developing countries in participating at the COPs. Institutional and personnel capacity There is not sufficient capacity for the Convention related work neither in the Ministry, nor at the National Parks. The 80% of the work time of the Focal Point is devoted to the Convention, while the Head of Department deals with this issue only in 10% of her work time. Similarly the zoological supervisers at the NPs can afford to spend around 10% of their work time on the related activities, though about 40% would be more suitable. However this situation will improve to some extent, when additional ward will become responsible of the CITES related activities at each NP, who will probably have more time for these activities as well. The nominated Wetland Communication, Education and Public Awareness (CEPA) National Focal Point in Hungary is the same person as the National Focal Point (András Böhm), while there is an NGO CEPA Focal Point nominated as well. Concrete achievements Although single comprehensive wetland policy or strategy does not exist in Hungary, nature conservation and other environment-related legislation (for instance the Act on Nature Conservation, see it above) and national programmes incorporate the conservation concept of wetlands. The National Biodiversity Strategy still under preparation will contain a chapter on wetlands. Hungary presently has 21 sites designated as Wetlands of International Importance, with a surface area of 154,147 hectares. Hungary has not designated a site that had no special conservation status previously in the period of 1999-2002, but at least one such site is expected to be designated. The site in question is the Upper Tisza, a planned quadrilateral Ramsar Site shared by Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and Ukraine. The long internal consultation process caused delay in the designation process. There are comprehensive inventories for certain wetland types (mires, alkaline ponds, sanctuary oxbows) compiled; they are available for reference and application by all ministries and stakeholders. A survey was launched in 2002 to assess all potential Ramsar Sites in the country.
66 Currently there are three sites with no management plans in place (Rétszilas, Balaton, and Kis- Balaton Ramsar Sites), though their plans are under preparation. In the case of Lake Balaton, being a unique natural value of the country, instead of nature conservation management plan a national program and a mechanism are in place to maintain its natural state. In the case of Ramsar sites with management pans, the concepts are not fully implemented in some cases due to various reasons. They include the lack of concensus among other authorities (in case of Kis-Balaton), lack of appropriate funds (for Rétszilas) or a different type of program being in place (Lake Balaton). Covered by a separate budget line for this purpose and additional (external) funding, Hungary is undertaking a program on restoration and rehabilitation of priority wetlands continuously. The continuous monitoring of the ecological status of Ramsar sites, which is undertaken by the responsible nature conservation authorities, identified factors that threaten the ecological conditions of the sites. At Gemenc, Béda Karapancsa and Szaporca Ramsar Sites this factor was riverbed lowering in the last years and nutrient rich water at Pacsmag and Kis-Balaton Ramsar Sites. For all of them special measures had been planned and taken after having observed a change in their ecological character. For Kis-Balaton the consultations are still underway with other ministries within the government. So far three educational centres has been built at wetland sites in the national park directorates (Hortobágy, Kiskunság and Fertő Ramsar Sites) and two more are planned (at Tata Old Lake and Kardoskút Ramsar Sites). Within the Communication, Education and Public Awareness program there has been a booklet prepared for awareness raising and special programs are organised on every the World Wetlands Day on 2 February. Monitoring and evaluation In 1995 a National Committee involving representatives of the Ministry, the civil society (e.g. farming associations), the private and the scientific sector was established. It elaborates recommendations towards the Authorities and discusses the reports submitted by the National Parks on their activities and the emerging problems. The National Nature Conservation Plan for 2003- 2008 sets the objective that the National Committee has to be revived. A piece of legislation regulating the functioning of the National Committee is currently under preparation. The Nature Conservation Authority also supervises the NPs at personal visits as well as through the official clearance procedures. The National report towards the Secretariats prepared by the National Focal Point but also endorsed and signed by the Deputy Secretary of State for Nature Conservation. The Ramsar Sites are monitored by the responsible Nature Conservation Authorities, their ecological status is assessed and the potential threatening factors are identified. NGO participation The civil society is represented in the (largely inactive) National Committee, while the NGOs also serve as watchdogs over the NPs. Through the ample information sharing projects, campaigns of environmental NGOs the propagation of the wetland protection also forms an integrate part of NGO participation in the implementation. Similarly to many other countries, there is also an NGO CEPA Focal Point nominated (Dr József Hamar, Chair, Tisza Klub for Environment and Nature).
67 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
Endorsement Hungary acceded to the Convention in 1985. The Convention was promulgated by Law Decree 15 of 1986; its national implementation provided by the Decree 4/199 (XII.7.) KTM. Participation at Conferences of the Parties The Hungarian delegation participates at the Conferences of the Parties held every 2,5 years. Focal point Katalin Rodics (Ministry of Environment and Water, Authority of Nature Conservation). She is the head of the Administration Authority, she signs licences and confiscation resolutions. Financial resources Earmarked support: There is no earmarked support system for the implementation of CITES; the attendance of the CoP meetings is financed by the CITES Secretariat. National funding: The running awareness raising campaign with the cooperation of WWF and Rex Dogshelter Foundation is partly financed by the Ministry of Environment and Water. Other funding: The funds of the above mentioned NGOs are involved. No statistics available about the total spending on CITES. Institutional and personnel capacity The work time of the persons involved in CITES in the Authority of Nature Conservation equals to 3 persons full time. A system of employing a CITES officer in all directorates of the 10 National Parks is being developed. Concrete achievements From 20 December, 2002 a new implementation decree is in effect including more rigorous measures, such as the obligation of unique identification and the possibility of imposing a fine (100 000 HUF, about 400 EUR) in case of non-compliance. The decree constitutes a part of the EU legislation harmonisation process. An effective cooperation with custom officers is in place, training courses are organized; the cooperation with the police is also under way. Monitoring and evaluation Monitoring essentially means the preparation of the national report, but these reports are not too informative; there is no information on the results of legal procedures arising from CITES. Annual reports are prepared by the Authority of Nature Conservation. They are not published on the internet, but are accessible. NGO participation NGOs are mainly involved in awareness raising activities. The most important participants are TRAFFIC, Rex Dogshelter Foundation, MME BirdLife International. The representative of this latter is also included in the Scientific Board and consulted regularly. Conclusion Generally the Convention is sufficiently implemented. The results of the new implementation decree are not seen yet, but – together with the system of CITES officers working in each National Park – they are promising.
68 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
Endorsement Hungary deposited the accession document on 12 July 1983. The Convention was promulgated with Law decree No. 6. of 1986. Participation at Conference of the Parties Hungary participates in all COP meetings, held every 2-2,5 years. The Convention covers more conventions, of which the relevant ones are also signed by Hungary, e.g. EUROBATS. Recently (on 1 March, 2003) Hungary joined the AEWA (African-Eurasian Migratory Water Bird Agreement). Focal point Lakosné Horváth Alojzia, she compiles the biannual reports before the CoP meeting. Financial resources There are no earmarked resources. The Secretariat finances the participation of a single person in the CoP meetings. Institutional and personnel capacity Altogether the 3/4 of a full time employment is dedicated to the Convention. Concrete achievements There are no concrete achievements directly arising from the Convention. There are ongoing activities connected to the Convention (such as bat monitoring or the National Biodiversity Monitoring Program), but they were not initiated by the Convention itself. Monitoring and evaluation Monitoring is done by NGOs (MME BirdLife International and local groups of "bat-friends", but these activities are not triggered by any obligations included in the Convention.
Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats
Endorsement Hungary ratified the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) on 16 November 1989, it entered into force on 1 March 1990, however it has not been announced in law, neither an execution decree has been approved. Participation at the Conference of the Parties Through one or two national experts Hungary actively participates at the meetings of the Standing Committee of the Convention. Focal point Gábor Nechay, senior counsellor at the Department of International Nature Conservation Conventions within the MEW. Financial resources There is not any earmarked resource specifically for the implementation of the Convention. However, within the Ministry of Environment and Waters (MEW) there is specific resource devoted to the protection of biodiversity. Hungary joined the CEE pilot program on the establishment of a database on the natural assets of European significance in 2001, which was supported by the Council of Europe. Institutional and personnel capacity There are more persons within the Department of International Nature Conservation Conventions that deal with activities related to the Bern Convention, however there is not any person exclusively in charge of the tasks connected to it. Though due to the fulfilling of obligations interrelated with other international commitments and national programs, it is not necessary.
69 Concrete achievements Apart from the general recommendations and resolutions of the Convention, there have been recommendations on specific cases approved by the Standing Committee. Only one of them (Recommendation No. 23 (1991)) applied specifically to Hungary on the protection of the habitat of Vipera ursinii rakosiensis, which recommendation was approved in 1991. In the framework of its implementation a research and protection programme is being developed. Hungary joined the Central and East European pilot project program on the establishment of a comprehensive database of the natural assets of European significance in 2001. Within this pilot project data on the 10% of the Hungarian sites recommended for inclusion in the Emerald Network (10 sites) was integrated into the database. At the selection of the sites it was a main priority that they should represent the Pannonicum biogeographic region, the different types of ecosystems (forests, grasslands, wetlands, etc) and also comply with the criteria of the Natura 2000 sites. As the Emerald Network practically corresponds to the Natura 2000 network, the sites designated for the Natura 2000 network can be incorporated into the Emerald Network required by the Bern Convention as well.
Monitoring and evaluation To prepare general reports is only a voluntary commitment, not obligatory also because of the great overlaps with other reporting obligations (e.g. with CBD). Hungary did not submit general report yet, only two-yearly reports summarising the specific data provided by the National Parks. NGO participation NGOs take part in the general nature conservation work, which contributes to achieve the objectives of the Convention, however these activities are not directly related to the Convention implementation itself.
Convention on Biological Diversity
Endorsement Hungary signed the Convention on Biological Diversity on 13 June 1992 at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Hungary ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity in February 1994 and it has been enacted by the Parliament as an Act (No. LXXXI of 1995). Hungary has been playing a major role already from the preparatory phase of the Convention, from 1988-89. A national committee on the Convention was established still in the preparation process of the CBD, which also involved civil and academic sectors. The committee was charged with the preparatory work for the signature in Rio. Since then Hungary actively took part in the Conferences of the Parties, the country’s representative, Gábor Nechay of the Ministry of Environment and Rural Planning represented the Central and Eastern European region as a vice-chairman of the bureau of the Convention’s Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice between 1995 and 1998. Dr. Ervin Balázs from the Centre of Biotechnology (Gödöllő) was a member of the Open-ended Ad Hoc Working Group on Biosafety. The focal point of the Convention in Hungary is Gábor Nechay senior counsellor, who is responsible for the reporting towards the Convention’s Secretariat, and for preparing recommendations for the Hungarian authorities related to the national implementation. The annual reports (two of them prepared so far) are compiled according to the Secretariat’s requirements. They are both available on the Convention’s web site. Financial resources There is not any earmarked resource specifically for the implementation of the Convention. However, within the Ministry of Environment and Waters (MEW) there is specific resource devoted
70 to the protection of biodiversity. The planning and implementation of the identification and evaluation program related to numerous elements off biodiversity was carried out with PHARE support (“Hungarian National Biodiversity Monitoring Project”). The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan has been prepared under UNEP/GEF project. In addition other activities not implicitly declared to be connected to the implementation of CBD has been carried out with foreign support. Hungary contributes to the budget of the Secretariat in proportion with their UN scale of assessment (0,12% for Hungary, which meant USD10.537 in 2001-2002 and USD11.097 in 2003). Institutional and personnel capacity Governmental resolution allocates the responsibilities and tasks among the different Ministries, and appoints the Ministry of Environment and Water (formerly Ministry of Environment and Regional Development and then Ministry of Environment) as the responsible authority for the Convention. This means however that this Ministry can provide less emphasis than e.g. the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as the appointed responsible authority in other countries. (In some cases the Min. of F.A., is regarded as the partner by the international bodies, for instance the Secretariat of the Bern Convention.) The Convention related work is assigned to the National Focal Point, who is assisted by a lawyer. They are both employed full time and deal with the activities related to the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Bern Convention and form the Department of International Conventions under the European Union, International and Strategic deputy secretary of state. Their work is not supported by any administrative personnel. This capacity has proved to be insufficient for the amount of work and the significance of the Department. Concrete achievements Some provisions had been already fulfilled before and separate from the Convention, for instance agricultural basis for ex situ nature conservation, such as gene banks at various places in the country. However major achievements took place after the ratification and the Convention had several direct and indirect positive effects on the nature conservation policy of Hungary and the surrounding region, as well as the EU. In Hungary the overall regulation of environmental protection is ensured by the Act LIII of 1995, which declares that the preservation and protection of natural heritage and environmental assets as well as the improvement of their quality are prerequisites for the human health and quality of life and neglecting them threatens the health of present generations, the existence of future generations and the surviving of many species. The Law introduced new instruments such as environmental impact assessment (EIA) and preliminary environmental state assessment (the 20/2001 Governmental Resolution on environmental impact assessment enlists the activities that must be subject to prior EIA). There are also other pieces of legislation that significantly contribute to achieving the objectives of the Convention. On of them being of key importance is the law on nature conservation (No. LIII. of 1996.), which progressively extends nature conservation concerns on the areas and landscapes not being under protection by ensuring ex lege protection on certain natural territories (e.g. saline lakes, mires, caves, springs). The preparation of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) started in 1997 with wide stakeholder participation. In addition to the general nature conservation strategy specialised working groups drafted the different sectoral plans (tourism, agriculture, hunting, fishing, forestry, regional development, water management, gene technology, mining (strip- mining)) with the wide participation of civil and academic stakeholders. After drafting the Strategy the Hungarian Academy of Sciences was charged at the beginning of 2000 of amending the document, the national debate of the revised document will expectedly start in spring 2003. The design of the National Biomonitoring System (NBmS) was initiated and organised by the Authority for Nature Conservation of the Ministry of Environment and Regional Policy. A comprehensive series of 10 manuals in Hungarian has been published. Since the launch of the
71 monitoring programme in 1998, 10 projects were initiated. The programme of the NBmS, which is organised into projects, has partly been implemented for more groups of species either under central control as national projects, or under central coordination, but incorporated into the monitoring programs of the National Parks. As the data gathered from the NBmS programme and from other monitoring activities before have not been integrated into a comprehensive database, this task has to be done in the next years. The monitoring programme contributes to the implementation of the monitoring and reporting commitments deriving from the Habitats and Birds Directives of the EU. As the effect of the ratification of the CBD, an act on regulating biotechnology was approved (Law XXVII on gene technological activities 1998), which appoints the Ministry of Environment (assigned to the National Environmental Inspectorate) as the authority for the clearance procedures of genetically modified organisms. However due to lack of capacity it functions only formally. Hungary, though signed the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety 24 May 2000, it has not ratified yet and the system necessary for its implementation has not been created either. For this the scientifically well-founded, real completion of the authority tasks of the Ministry has to be ensured. Monitoring and evaluation The national monitoring of the implementation of the Convention is restricted to the National Biodiversity Monitoring System, which does not cover other obligations of the Convention (e.g. the fulfillment of the EIA obligations, the sustainable use of natural resources, identification and monitoring of activities potentially harmful on the environment). The different monitoring activities have not been connected sufficiently either (e.g biodiversity monitoring and pest management, Cartagena Protocoll). The work of the National Committee on the Convention did not have the sufficient administrative background and also due to this it could not operate efficiently and lost its significance in the implementation and its monitoring. The role of the national committee was largely taken over by the Interministerial Committee on Sustainable Development (ICSD), which also has civil and academic representatives among its members. The first national report of Hungary was endorsed by the ICSD, the second report, which had a greatly different format was consulted with non-governmental (civil, academic) experts. NGO participation The national committee established during the preparation process of the Convention was partly comprised of civil representatives. The ICSD, which largely took over the task of the National Committee also has two NGO representatives, who are elected by the Hungarian environmental movement in a democratic way. The drafting of the NBSAP took place with the participation of numerous specialised experts and NGOs, while the final meeting where the document was discussed was organised by environmental NGOs and several green organisations (e.g. Hungarian Ornithological Society, Ecological Institute for Sustainable Development, Hungarian Association of Nature Conservationists, Pro Silva), farmer organisations, local authorities were invited.
72 Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy
Financial resources There is not any earmarked resource specifically for the implementation of the Strategy. However, within the Ministry of Environment and Waters (MEW) there is specific resource devoted to the protection of biodiversity. Institutional and personnel capacity There is no adequate capacity within the Ministry of Environment and Water for the implementation of the Strategy, however the establishment of the National Ecological Network is the most supported by personnel capacity. Concrete achievements Hungary designated the National Ecological Network while taking the recommendations of the Council of Europe and the natural characteristics of the country into account. During this process Hungary followed other global, European, EU as well as regional initiatives, agreements and action programmes too. Nine regional ecological networks were designated (under the jurisdiction of nine National Parks), of which data were integrated into a digital database (1:50.000 scale) of the national network. The National Ecological Network encompasses territories of different status: protected natural areas, buffer zones of protected natural areas, natural areas, areas to be managed as natural areas (e.g. floodplains), near-natural areas, ecological and green corridors. However the official designation of the areas not under protection currently, namely the ecological corridors and the near-natural areas, has not taken place through a resolution due to the long consultation process (the draft ministerial resolution on the detailed regulation of the ecological network has been prepared), thus their protection has not been enforced either. The National Ecological Network Programme has to be elaborated for the period 2003-2008. Every territorial Directorate should make a so called network plan (that would substitute the regional plans), for which the requirements have to be set and the preconditions for their implementation ensured beforehand. Similarly the habitat mapping of the Network has not been completed yet and there is still no monitoring system for the Network in place. Monitoring and evaluation The major achievement which can be more directly connected to the Strategy, namely the designation of the National Ecological Network has not involved the establishment of a monitoring system for its total area yet either. NGO participation NGOs participate in many nature conservation activities that fall in line with the objectives of the PEBLDS, however these programmes have not been initiated because of that. NGOs have traditionally great share in information sharing and awareness raising in environmental and nature conservation issues, but they also contribute to the achievement of its objectives through field work and political activities. In the evaluation of the implementation CEEWEB was engaged already in 1998, when the network published an assessment with the involvement of seven CEE countries.
Council Directive 79/409/EEC and Council Directive 92/43/EEC
Endorsement In advance it is to be mentioned that through the establishing of the Natura 2000 areas the implementation of the EU Habitats Directive is carried out in close connection with that of the Birds Directive. Their institutional background and financial support system can’t be separated, and in their preparation process it can be found many common programs. That is why we discuss their evaluation in one common document. During the accession negotiations – in July 1999 - Hungary undertook to carry out the Habitats and
73 Birds Directive of the EU. The Directives will come into force by the day of the accession, which is expected to be 1 May 2004. The Ministry of Environment and Water is responsible for the preparation for Natura 2000 through the Nature Conservation Agency, which takes the lead in managing the process. Mr Gábor Magyar is the focal point for the EU accession related tasks, but not exclusively for the Habitats or the Birds Directive. Financial resources There is no earmarked support system for the implementation of the Directives. EU funding possibilities are used for the implementation the Natura 2000: one project is supported by the PHARE program and one by the PHARE Access Micro program (11900 EUR). By the LIFE program four Habitats Directive related projects are supported: 1. Funding the base of long term large carnivore conservation in Hungary (390.793 EUR). 2. The practical protection of Angelica palustris habitats (1.330.000 EUR). 3. Restoration of pannonic steppes, marshes of Hortobágy National Park (780.744 EUR). 4. WWF Tisza LIFE project –Middle-Tisza region: Management of floodplains on the Tisza (435.326 EUR). Two Birds Directive related projects are supported by the LIFE program: 1. Conservation of Aquila heliaca in the Carpathian Basin (585.475 EUR), 2. Furthering the habitat management of Hortobágy eco-region for bird protection (829.534 EUR). The EU accession related tasks at the National Park Authorities were supported by SAPARD program, but it can not be indicated how much money has been spent specially on their implementation. National resources are also available: 3 organisations are running Natura 2000 programs supported by the Hungarian Central Environmental Fund. Institutional and personnel capacity No department has been developed specially for the implementation of the EU Habitats and Birds Directives. Some people were employed for the EU accession related work at the Nature Conservation Authority as well as the National Park Directorates, where besides other tasks they are also responsible for the implementation of the Directives. A Natura 2000 department is planned to be established within the Nature Conservation Authority for the EU accession related tasks. Concrete achievements The animal and plant species protected in the EU were put on the list of the species protected in Hungary, thus the number of the species protected as well as strictly protected has increased considerably. (695 plant species and 965 animal species are protected; 63 plant species and 137 animal species are strictly protected.) As new element in the Hungarian nature protection more than 50 bryophyte species were declared a protected status. Ecological groups necessary for the functioning of ecosystems (e.g. anthills as colonies of valuable ant species) were declared a protected status for the first time in Hungary. A PHARE project was run as preparation for the implementation of the EU Habitats Directive between September 2000 – September 2001. This project included a twinning program organised with Spanish and Finnish conservation professionals and Hungarian environmental ministry staff. Within the framework of the project the EU Directives related tasks were accomplished: supervising and developing the existing National CORINE Biotopes Database through compiling the list of the pSCI on the ground of the Habitats Directive; according to the requirements of the Birds Directive, selection of IBAs and elaboration of a strategy and action plan for their management were proposed. In order to preserve particular plant and animal species proposed to be put on Annex II of the Habitats Directive programs have been conducted by the National Park Directories. The programs - concerning 11 plant and animal species, respectively - comprise projects on monitoring the populations, elaborating the plan of the preservation and ensuring the conditions of the protection.
74 8 new habitat type of Hungary got on the list in Annex I of Habitats Directive, and 50-50 new plant and animal species got on the list in Annex II. 4 new bird species of Hungary got on the list in Annex I of Birds Directive, and 10 new bird species that can be hunted got on the list in Annex II/2. Transposition of the EU Directives in national legislation is still in progress. Big delays can be observed in the field of site selection and elaboration of the legal provisions for the protection of the sites. Another problem is the lack of reference to Natura 2000 in other major policy documents and development plans. Three seminars were organized for National Park staff on Natura 2000. During 2002 and 2003 ongoing consultations have been held with National Park Directorates to select the Natura 2000 areas and to discuss the practical problems. 80 % of the proposed Natura 2000 areas have already been designated. Publications summarising the information about the Directives and Natura 2000 and the results of the preparation for their implementation have been compiled for professionals. In 2001 the Ministry of Environment and Water promoted Natura 2000 for the public by producing a general brochure. NGOs have also contributed to raise the awareness of Natura 2000 (concrete activities see below). Monitoring and evaluation The preparation for the implementation of the EU Directives is required within the EU accession process and hence regarded as high priority. Hungary’s solid intention to join the European Union ensures their timely fulfilment. Since the site selection is still in progress no on-field monitoring activities have begun on Natura 2000 sites. NGO participation A Natura 2000 Working Group was established by four NGOs: Birdlife Hungary (MME), WWF, National Association of Conservationists (MTVSZ) and CEEWEB, to coordinate their Natura 2000 related activities. Beside them local NGOs have contributed to raise public awareness and to the work of site selection with data collecting. Concrete NGO activities – During the SPA site selection process, Birdlife Hungary (MME) was the major contributor as partner in the PHARE project. Birdlife Hungary has run a public awareness campaign on the methodology, schedule, possibilities and obligations relating to the establishment of the Hungarian Natura 2000 Network (exhibition material and CD-ROM were produced). They also held regional seminars on nature conservation and rural development. – The National Association of Conservationists (MTVSZ) organized Natura 2000 trainings for local NGOs, and also has run Natura 2000 model projects. – WWF Hungary organized a conference for conservationists and stakeholder groups, and prepared publications on special issues (socio-economic benefits, legal aspects). – WWF and Birdlife Hungary (MME) organized a conference on financing Natura 2000. – CEEWEB prepared a study on German experiences with Natura 2000 to present the best practices and the failures of implementation of the Habitats Directive in Germany. CEEWEB also runs a civil coordination office to facilitate information exchange between NGOs and the European Habitat Forum, which primarily deals with the issues related to the Habitats Directive.
CONCLUSIONS
Although the international commitments scrutinized had more or less different scope of objectives the lack personnel capacity proved to be a general obstacle for the full implementing the international commitments (to give an example in the case of completing a review of the Joint Work Plan between Ramsar and Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to establish the areas of priority for cooperative implementation of these Conventions). Limited staff is not only typical of the Ministry of Environment and Water, but also of National Parks, which however are also responsible for a substantial part of the tasks of implementation and of reporting. In general laying
75 the appropriate ground for and implementing the tasks connected to the act on nature conservation and EU preparation is not possible at the required rate, as due to the increased amount of administrative tasks there is not enough time left for quality work. Another typical problem is scarce financial resources. There are no earmarked amounts for the implementation of the objectives of the specific conventions, but only to the protection of biodiversity, although this situation will presumably improve in the future. The preparation for the EU accession enjoys high priority in candidate countries, which can have both advantages in fulfilling its international commitments (e.g. increasing personnel capacity of National Parks by employing a supervisor responsible for CITES) and disadvantages as well (threat of pushing other commitments into the background, e.g. the establishment of the national ecological network as part of the Pan-European Ecological Network required by the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy). However the required institutional capacity building connected to the tasks of the EU preparation has not taken place sufficiently yet, and there is also considerable delay in designating Natura 2000 sites. The national committees of specific conventions are not functioning appropriately, if at all. These committees should be established or revived, and the NGO representation in them should be ensured (as it is in some committees already). The active involvement of NGOs into the implementation, monitoring and evaluation process would also greatly contribute to the efficient implementation of the conventions and to their acceptance by the wider society.
76
LATVIA
INTRODUCTION
Latvia is situated in north-eastern Europe on the east coast of the Baltic Sea. Its coastline is 494 km long. Latvia borders on Estonia, Russia, Byelorussia and Lithuania, the total border length of Latvia is 1,862 km. The territory of Latvia is 64 589 km2 of which 62 046 km2 is land, 2543 km2 internal waters. Latvia is divided into 4 regions: Vidzeme, Latgale, Kurzeme and Zemgale. The population of Latvia is 2 346 000 inhabitants, population density is 37 people per km2, 70,8 % live in urban areas, 29,2 % in rural areas. Latvian state was established on 18th November 1918, independence of state was restored after occupation by the USSR (1940-1941,1945-1991) and Germany (1941-1945) in 1991. After regaining independence, Latvia had to resolve problems associated with stabilizing the independent state, the promotion of democracy and the transition to a market economy, while at the same time ensuring the creation of national state political and economic systems. According to data from the Enterprise Register, there were 6,000 social or non-governmental organisations (NGO) registered in Latvia by 2002, and from these approximately 500 are involved in the environmental protection sector. Since 1992, due to changes in the normative acts, NGOs have substantially increased their practical opportunities to participate in decision-making. More and more often state institutions share the opinion that NGOs are partners in achieving environmental protection, social and education objectives. NGOs have proved their effectiveness by drawing society’s attention to problems and motivating it to take action, as well as substantially influencing different decisions. Collaboration has been strengthened and delegation of functions is developing in areas such as environmental protection and social assistance.
STATE OF NATURE
NATURAL FEATURES OF THE COUNTRY
Forests cover 46 % of the state’s territory. Timber product reserves increase is 16,5 mill.m3 per year. Agricultural lands cover 38,5 %, bogs cover 4,9 %, peatbogs cover 0,4% of the territory of Latvia. Water resources are rich. There are more than 12,400 rivers and 2,256 lakes in the country, which together with water reservoirs cover 3.7 % of the territory. Largest lake – Lake Lubans, 80,7 km2 Deepest lake – Lake Dridzis, 65,1 m Longest river – Gauja, 452 km Largest river – Daugava, total length of 1005 km: 352 km in Latvia
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
Biological diversity can be characterized by the following figures: 18 047 wild animals, including 507 vertebrate species 5396 plant species 4000 species of fungi 63 fish species registered in waters of Latvia, 34 of them are industrially important. 8.9 % of territory of Latvia has been classified as specially protected areas.
77 Habitat types 2,9 mill. ha or 46 % of the territory of Latvia is covered by forests. The overall territory of forests is increasing due to overgrowing of abandoned agricultural lands and artificial afforestation, stimulated by SAPARD. Approximately two-thirds of the area is covered by coniferous forests, in which pine (Pinus sylvestris) is the most widespread. Birch, white alder and aspen grow in considerable areas, while the surviving old oak and ash woods are very few. 23% of forests grow on drained soils. Agricultural land covers 39% (2,48 mill. ha) of the area of Latvia. 55% of agricultural land are arable (1,36 mill. ha), 23% are meadows and pastures (0,57 mill. ha), long-term agriculture (orchards) - 1% (0,025 mill. ha). 60% of agricultural land are drained. Still 0,133 mill. ha are moist agricultural land. 21,7% of agricultural lands are abandoned. Wetlands cover more than 5% of the area of Latvia. Raised bogs comprise 42%, transition mires - 9%, fens - 49% of the total bog area. Peat extraction pits cover 4,2% of the total bog area. 12% of the wetlands are under national protection. The 12,5 thousand rivers of Latvia have a total length of 38 thousands km. About 37% of rivers are regulated. Latvia has almost 3000 lakes with a total area of 1000 km2. Latvia has approximately 500 km long shoreline. Kurzeme shore supports ecosystems which have been little disturbed and which include many species adapted to this unique environment, its length is about 300 km.
Biological Corridors There is no concept of biological corridors in territorial planning. Forest and other lands in protected belts along the rivers function as biological corridors. Important conservation measure of species and habitats outside protected areas is development of micro reserves. In forest habitats ongoing inventory of forest key habitats forms a basis for development of national network. The national semi-natural grassland inventory will result in a network of valuable grassland areas in 2003. International support is still essential for those inventories.
Species and Genetic Diversity 27 443 plant and animal species are found in Latvia. However, the real species number may be more than 30 000. 747 species (2,7% of the total number) are rare and threatened. 3,3% or 907 species of all species registered in Latvia are protected now. Latvia is the home of many globally threatened species, such as the black stork, corncrake, lesser spotted eagle, lamprey, wolf and lynx. Ex-situ conservation targets are included in the National Programme on Biological Diversity. In-situ conservation measures are a priority due to the fact that there are no native species or group of species that has reached critical size of populations or critical loss of habitats to give priority to ex- situ measures.
Protected area and forest coverage 2,9 mill. ha or 46 % of the territory of Latvia is covered by forests. In order to ensure the conservation of biological diversity and the protection of the environment and nature, forestry activities are not undertaken in 11% of forest areas, clear-cutting is forbidden in 13% of forest growth, and totally 17% of forests are included under various categories of protected territories.
Priority Areas from nature conservation point of view Requirements of the EU Birds Directive (“On Conservation of Wild Birds”, 79/409 EEC) and the Habitats Directive (“On Conservation of Species and Habitats,” 92/43 EEC) are highlighted as priority at this moment. According to these directives, the EU member states have to create a network of the protected territories called NATURA 2000. By the time Latvia is ready for EU accession, we shall have to submit to the EU Commission the list of NATURA 2000 locations and
78 the database. In order to ensure appropriate protection of the potential NATURA 2000 locations, provisions for creation and protection of such locations have been worked into the national legislation.
Human Impact Wood is an important export item of Latvia. In monetary terms, timber and timber products account for more than 40 % of Latvia’s exports. Experts estimate that the forestry sector contributes 14-16 % to GDP. Timber cutting has increased from 4 mill. m3 to 11 mill. m3 per year over the last 10 years. The large increase in the cutting of forest resources has been due to private forests becoming commercially available, as well as market demand. The rapid cutting of forests leads to fragmentation of forest stands and loss of old-growth forests, which in turn threatens biological diversity. Due to economical disadvantage of agriculture and farming large areas of agricultural land are abandoned and are overgrown or rapidly overgrowing. That causes disappearance of such habitats as semi-natural meadows and one of the rarest habitat types in Latvia - coastal meadows. Opposite situation is in fertile soil region - Zemgale, territories with intensively managed agriculture have lost practically all the important elements of the landscape: individual trees, shrubs and ponds. The rapid increase of recreational pressure and extension of building activities in the coastal areas are the main threats to conservation of natural habitats and species in coastal areas. In the beginning of 90-ies the intensity of peat extraction has reduced though it is expected that it will increase in the next years. Few invasive alien plant species colonize secondary habitats and are not considered as threat for natural habitats. Monitoring of those species and habitats is included in the National Programme on Biological Diversity and in the Monitoring Programme. American mink is considered as very damaging invasive species in wetlands.
DECISION MAKING SYSTEM
STRUCTURE OF NATURE CONSERVATION
In 2000, Nature Protection Department was established at the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development (MEPRD). The department is developing nature protection policy and strategy, performs transposition of EU legislation into the legislation of Latvia, co- ordinates implementation of the National Programme of Biodiversity, administration of the protected nature territories and international co-operation in the sphere of nature protection. Management of the Strict Nature reserves, nature reserves and Biosphere reserve is performed by administrations of these territories. Eight Regional Environment Boards perform monitoring and control of other protected areas. In order to ensure implementation of a unified policy of nature protection and use of natural resources a new institution subordinated to the MEPRD – the Nature Protection Board was established in 2002. It supervises the implementation of the National Programme of Biodiversity, the nature conservation plan for the protected territories as well as the development and implementation of species and habitats protection plans. It also ensures accessibility of information about nature protection and issue the permits determined by legislation. State Environmental Inspectorate. The State Environmental Inspectorate controls and supervises the implementation of legislation framework in the field of environmental protection and natural resources use in the territory of Latvia, continental shelf, economic zones of the Baltic Sea and the Riga Gulf, territorial waters and inland waters. It also supervises and guides the activities of Regional Environmental Boards, Marine Environmental Board and environmental inspectors at state reserves and other particularly protected nature areas.
79 Environmental Protection Fund - pursuant to normative acts, all revenue from the natural resources tax and excise tax on oil products paid to the national environmental protection special budget is managed on behalf of the Ministry by the Latvian Environmental Protection Fund. Funds of the Latvian Environmental Protection Fund also come from fines and late charges paid pursuant to the law “On Natural Resources Tax”, fines and compensation for damage done to the environment laid down by other normative acts and other revenue laid down by normative acts. These funds may be used only to finance and credit measures and projects of environmental protection, repaying amounts of taxes received for goods and products harmful to the environment to businesses utilizing or recycling leftovers of these goods and products, financing programmes of environmental studies and projects, training and continued education of specialists in the environmental protection area, and other environmental protection purposes laid down in the Founding Law of the Fund.
NGO PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING SYSTEM
NGOs can participate in elaboration of legislative acts, but the process is still not well established. In few cases NGOs are involved in drafting of legislative acts (this is often the case with Individual Protection and Management regulations for protected areas and establishment of borders for protected areas). After the legislative act has been drafted by the responsible Ministry, it is announced in the meeting of State Secretaries and published on Internet for comments. The number of cases when opinion of NGOs and local municipalities have been asked at this stage increase in the past years. When announced in the meeting of State Secretaries, there are usually 2 weeks allocated for commenting the legislative act. NGOs, who are involved in Center of NGOs receive the information from this Center about recently announced legislative acts and are invited to participate in providing comments. NGOs can also participate in the meeting of State Secretaries, but they have to send the letter with request to participate before the meeting. In many cases it is too late to change the legislative act at this stage. After all the comments have been received, they are incorporated into draft and sent to Cabinet of Ministers for endorsement. In case of Law, there is one more stage after approval of Cabinet of Ministers – the Law is sent to the Saeima for adoption. After the Saeima have adopted the Law, is has to be announced by the President. The president have the right to return the Law to the Saeima for revision. Situation with involvement of NGOs in decision-making process probably will improve by the establishment of Environmental Consultation Board. This Board is consisting of members of largest NGOs in Latvia from all fields, related to environmental protection. The Board has been recently established and it has held just first meetings.
INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS
SHORT HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
Since regaining of independence in 1991 Latvia was accepted as a member of the United Nations and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and later also as a member of the European Council and other organisations. Latvia has actively participated in international activities related to environmental and nature protection. This period of Latvia ’s development coincides with the time, when at the 1992 UN world state leader conference “Environment and Development ” in Rio de Janeiro, the need for sustainable development was politically recognised.
80 STATE OF INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
In 1995, a European agreement between the member states of the European Union and Latvia was concluded. According to this agreement, Latvia has undertaken to improve its legislation and to incorporate the requirements of the EU Birds Directive (“On Conservation of Wild Birds”, 79/409 EEC) and the Habitats Directive (“On Conservation of Species and Habitats,” 92/43 EEC). According to these directives, the EU member states create a network of the protected territories called NATURA 2000. To fulfill the requirements of EU Habitat Directive and to support NATURA 2000 network inventories of existing protected sites according EU criteria are started. EMERALD/NATURA 2000 project is analysing existing sites and proposing additional areas as potential EMERALD/NATURA 2000 sites till the end of 2003. Latvia have ratified the following conventions: o Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, Especially as Waterfowl habitat, Ramsar; o UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and National Heritage; o Convention on International Trade with Endangered species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), Washington; o Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, Bern; o Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, Bonn; o Convention on Biological Diversity, Rio de Janeiro; o Convention on Protection of Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, Helsinki.
EVALUATION OF THE CONVENTIONS
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat
The Convention was ratified in 1995 by the Saeima (Parliament) of Latvia; Law "On Convention of 2.02.1971. on Wetlands of International Importance, Especially as Waterfowl Habitats" (05.04.1995). Participants from Latvia attended all meetings after ratification of convention. The Ramsar Convention Pan-European Regional Meeting was held in Riga, June 1998. The Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development hosted it. Delegates from both Eastern and Western Europe had an opportunity to come together for this meeting a year prior to COP7. Location of the meeting in Riga especially allowed participation of wide range of representatives from CEE countries, including people from national NGOs. For implementation of the convention please see the information about National Programme on Biodiversity and The Action Plan for National Programme on Biological Diversity under section “Convention on Biological Diversity”. National focal point Ms. Ilona Jepsena (Director) Nature Protection Department Ministry for Environment; Address: Peldu 25 LV-1494; Riga; Latvia Telephone: +371 702 6517 Fax: +371 782 0442 E-mail: [email protected] There were two reports prepared: 1. National Report prepared for the 7th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties 2. National Report for the 8th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties
81 The following institutions and organizations have been supporting projects that promote implementation of Ramsar Convention in Latvia: Ramsar Small Grants Fund (Inventory of Peatlands), GEF/UNDP (National Report on Biological Diversity, National Programme on Biodiversity and Action Plan), Swedish Environment Protection Agency (ICZM Plan for Engure- Kanieris Task Area), Danish Environment Protection Agency (Pape and Jurkalne Management plans), EUCC (Management Plan for lake Kanieris), JACA (Integrated Management Plan for Lubana wetland complex), European Commission (CORINE biotopes project report), EU LIFE (Red Data Book), EU PHARE (Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the Baltic States and Poland), Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Conservation and Fisheries (Aerial counts of wintering waterfowl; and with Wetlands International: publication of booklet on wetlands and the Ramsar Convention in Latvia), BirdLife International / Swedish Ornithological Society (inventory of Important Bird Areas), MATRA programme of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Management Plan for Lake Kanieris), LIFE Nature (Management Plan for Lake Engure). Latvian Government contributed about US$ 20,300 for organization of the Ramsar Convention Pan- European Regional Meeting held in Riga, June 1998. Latvian Fund for Nature and Latvian Ornithological Society have consequently produced wetland inventories, available to other NGOs and the Government. WWF’s general opinion is also publicized through its Baltic Bulletin. NGOs produce infrequent educational and public awareness materials about wetlands, like leaflets, booklets, newsletters, articles etc, though lack long-term coordinated educational programmes. NGOs are providing useful and competent assistance to implementation and promotion of Ramsar Convention, especially in practice with projects on research, management and public awareness at national level. Latvia has designated 3 Ramsar sites in 1995 (Lake Kanieris, Lake Engure and Teicu and Pelecares bogs total area 43 200 ha) and 3 sites in 2002 (Lubana wetland complex, Pape wetland complex and Ziemelu bog total area 104 945 ha). All territories are designated also as National Specially Protected Nature Territories. The monitoring of the Ramsar Convention sites is included in National Environment Monitoring Programme, which is accepted by the Ministry of Environment at 15.06.2002. Latvian Environmental Agency maintains the monitoring programmes and databases of the protected territories, species and habitats.
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
The Saeima (Parliament) of Latvia ratified convention in 1996; Law "On Washington Convention of 1973 on International Trade with Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora" (17.12.1996). Participants from Latvia attended meetings after ratification of the convention: Tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Harare (Zimbabwe), 1997, Eleventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Gigiri (Kenya), 2000, and Twelfth meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Santiago (Chile), 2002. National focal point Mr. Vilnis Bernards (Senior Officer) Nature Protection Department Ministry for Environment; Address: Peldu 25 LV-1494; Riga; Latvia Telephone: +371 702 6524 Fax: +371 782 0442 E-mail: [email protected] For implementation of the convention please see the information about National Programme on Biodiversity and The Action Plan for National Programme on Biological Diversity under section “Convention on Biological Diversity”.
82 There were prepared Annual reports (issued permits) (1997-2001), Biannual (implementation of the Convention, improvement of legislation, institutional development) (1998, 2000), Annual report (2002) and Biannual report will be prepared this year too. Reports are not accessible. Most essential project "Implementation of the Convention of International Trade in Endangered species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the Related EU Legislation" was financed by Danish government (DANCEE) with co-financing from Ministry of Environment of Latvia. Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers "On Trade with Endangered and Protected Species of Plants and Animals" (Nr.133/06.04.1999) were developed and accepted for fulfilment of the requirements of the Convention. Nature Protection Board, which was established to ensure implementation of a unified policy of nature protection and use of natural resources, take over supervision and issuing of permits under Convention requirements starting with beginning of 2003. 2 persons from Board are full time employed for the Convention related work.
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
The Saeima (Parliament) of Latvia ratified convention in 1999; Law "On Bonn Convention of 1979 on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals" (25.03.1999) Participants from Latvia attended all meetings after ratification of convention. National focal point Mr. Vilnis Bernards (Senior Officer) Nature Protection Department Ministry for Environment; Address: Peldu 25 LV-1494; Riga; Latvia Telephone: +371 702 6524 Fax: +371 782 0442 E-mail: [email protected] For implementation of the convention please see the information about National Programme on Biodiversity and The Action Plan for National Programme on Biological Diversity under section “Convention on Biological Diversity”.
Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats
The Saeima (Parliament) of Latvia ratified convention in 1996; Law "On Bern Convention of 1979 on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats" (17.12.1996) Participants from Latvia attended all Standing Committee meetings and Expert meetings after ratification of convention. During last Standing Committee meeting Ms. Ilona Jepsena (Director of the Nature Protection Department of the MoE) was Chair of standing Committee. National focal point Ms. Ilona Jepsena (Director) Nature Protection Department Ministry for Environment; Address: Peldu 25 LV-1494; Riga; Latvia Telephone: +371 702 6517 Fax: +371 782 0442 E-mail: [email protected] Requirements of the Convention as well as requirements of the EU Birds Directive (“On Conservation of Wild Birds”, 79/409 EEC) and the Habitats Directive (“On Conservation of Species and Habitats,” 92/43 EEC) are integrated into national legislation. The law “On Conservation of Species and Habitats” regulates the conservation of particularly protected species and habitats. Lists of those species and habitats are included in appendices of relevant regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers. Main conservation measure of species and habitats outside protected sites is the development of microreserves. In forest habitats ongoing inventory of
83 forest key habitats forms a basis for development of national network. The national semi-natural grassland inventory will result with a network of valuable grassland areas in 2003. International support is still essential for those inventories. In 2001 project EMERALD/NATURA 2000 (2001-2003) started. During the project the existing conservation areas are covered by inventories of species and habitats listed in annexes of EU Habitat Directive. Analysis of protected areas is done according to EMERALD/NATURA criteria, additional site selection will be carried out on the final stage of the project in 2003. The monitoring on species and habitats is included in National Environment Monitoring Programme (Chapter: Monitoring of Biological Diversity), which is accepted by the Ministry of Environment at 15.06.2002. Latvian Environmental Agency maintains the monitoring programmes and databases of the protected territories, species and habitats. Identification and monitoring activities in universities and other scientific institutions are supported by grants of Latvian Council of Science. Relevant projects of NGOs (Latvian Fund for Nature, Latvian Ornithological Society, Latvian Entomological Society, Latvian Malacological Society) are financed by different international organisations and foundations.
Convention on Biological Diversity
On 5th June 1992, Latvia signed the Convention of Biological diversity, which was ratified in 1995 by the Saeima (Parliament) of Latvia (Law On Rio de Janeiro Convention of 05.06.1992 on Biological Diversity (08.09.1995), Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers "On Fulfillment of Rio de Janeiro Convention of 05.06.1992 on Biological Diversity" (Nr.60/10.02.1999)). Participants from Latvia attended all previous 6 COP meetings. Latvia has served the Bureau of the COP 5 and COP 4. This has given the opportunity to work closely with other countries for better operation of the Convention. National focal point Ms. Ilona Jepsena Director of Nature Protection Department Ministry for Environment; Address: Peldu 25 LV-1494; Riga; Latvia Telephone: +371 702 6517 Fax: +371 782 0442 E-mail: [email protected] First national report was prepared at 1998, report was supported by a GEF/UNDP grant under contract No.LAT/97/G32 and second national report was prepared at 2002, report was supported by a GEF/UNDP grant under contract No.LAT/01/G31/A/1G/99. (See attached files) In order to implement provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Latvia has developed National Programme on Biodiversity that was approved by the Cabinet of Ministers in 2000. Goals and proposed solutions of particular problems, listed in National Programme also meet requirements of other nature conservation conventions, such as Ramsar, Bern, Bonn, HELCOM and Washington Conventions. National Program on Biological Diversity fully serves as a strategic document for coordinated implementation of the above mentioned international conventions. Integration of requirements of other conventions in biodiversity strategy and their simultaneous implementation helps to reach the goals of those documents in most efficient way. For such a small country with its economy in transition as Latvia is, this approach saves finances, effectively uses limited human resources, prevents duplication of activities, facilitates implementation, management and supervision of implementation process. The Action Plan for National Programme on Biological Diversity has been elaborated for the period until the year 2010 and determines the amount of work, priorities, executors and financing necessary for implementation of the programme. The Plan covers ten activities, which require 12,5 million Euro during the first five years.
84 In the period 2000-2002 10,7 million Euros were used for activities mentioned in the Action Plan. 80% of finances for the nature conservation comes from international sources: Denmark – 3,7 million. Euros; Netherlands – 0,5 milllion Euros; LIFE – 4,5 million Euros; GEF, Ramsar, Wetlands International – 0,5 million Euros. Latvian Environmental Agency (LEA) developed National Monitoring Programme, including all aspects of biodiversity monitoring: species, ecosystems and genetic diversity. Within the UNDP/GEF project LAT/01/G31/A/1G/99 on Priority Capacity Building for Biodiversity and Establishment of CHM Structures the LEA is developing capacity building program in the areas of monitoring and establishing the CHM. Identification and monitoring activities in universities and other scientific institutions are supported by grants of Latvian Council of Science. Relevant projects of NGOs (Latvian Fund for Nature, Latvian Ornithological Society, Latvian Entomological Society, Latvian Malacological Society) are financed by different international organisations and foundations. The development of the National Monitoring Programme was an interactive process. A series of workshops and regional awareness campaigns were organised. More than 100 experts, national and regional authorities took part in the development of the Programme. Leading scientists of universities and research institutes, as well as related NGOs (Latvian Fund for Nature, Latvian Ornithological Society, Latvian Entomological Society, Latvian Malacological Society), representatives of governmental agencies and independent experts attended workshops on all major questions.
Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy
On 5 June 1992, Latvia signed the Rio de Janeiro Convention on Biological Diversity, which was ratified in 1995 by the Saeima (Parliament) of Latvia. This confirmed the willingness to adhere to the convention and to integrate it into national policy. In 1997, the European Union accepted the Biological Diversity Strategy, to integrate the requirements of the Convention on Biological Diversity into sector Regulations. Since Latvia is associated to this organisation by formal agreement, by which Latvia has confirmed its determination to harmonise its legislation with EU policy, then the Articles of the Strategy are binding also for Latvia.
Council Directive 79/409/EEC and Council Directive 92/43/EEC
In 1995, a European agreement between the member states of the European Union and Latvia was concluded. According to this agreement, Latvia has undertaken to improve its legislation and to incorporate the requirements of the EU Birds Directive (“On Conservation of Wild Birds”, 79/409 EEC) and the Habitats Directive (“On Conservation of Species and Habitats,” 92/43 EEC). According to these directives, the EU member states create a network of the protected territories called NATURA 2000. Latvia is working to be ready for EU accession, by this time we shall have to submit to the EU Commission the list of NATURA 2000 locations and the database. In order to ensure appropriate protection of the potential NATURA 2000 locations, provisions for creation and protection of such locations have been worked into the laws. Nature protection legislation is based on two pillars – the law “On Specially Protected Nature Territories” and the law “On Conservation of Species and Habitats”. Law “On the Specially Protected Nature Territories”, 1993, 1997, 2002. Determines the key principles of the specially protected nature territories system, procedure for establishing such territories and ensuring their existence, process of territorial management,
85 monitoring and registration. The law has been amended with the procedure for creation of the NATURA 2000 network of protected nature territories of European interest. It also provides for the development of compensation mechanism to the landowners in the protected areas. Separate laws establish National Parks, Nature Reserves and Biosphere Reserve: On Ķemeri National Park, 1997. On Gauja National Park, 1999. On Ziemeļvidzeme Biosphere Reserve, 1997. On Moricsala Strict Nature Reserve, 2000. On Grīņi Strict Nature Reserve, 2000. On Slītere National Park, 2000. On Teiči Strict Nature Reserve, 2000. On Krustkalni Strict Nature Reserve, 2000. Nature Reserves, Nature Parks, protected Landscape areas are determined by the Cabinet of Ministers’ Regulations: CM regulations No 212 “On Nature Reserves, 1999. CM regulations No 83 “On Nature Parks”, 1999. CM regulations No 69 “On protected Landscape Areas”, 1999. CM regulations No 60 “On the Nature Park of Engure”, 1998. CM regulations No 131 “On the Protected Dendrologic Plantations”, 2001 CM regulations No 175 “On the Protected Geological and Geomorphologic Nature Monuments”, 2001. Conservation of protected territories, their management, zoning and permitted and prohibited activities on these territories are determined by: CM regulations No 345 “On General Protection and Use of the Specially Protected Nature territories”, 1997. Specific management of some protected territories are regulated by individual regulations on general protection and use approved by the Cabinet of Ministers.
The Law on Conservation of Species and Habitats, 2000. Objective of the law – to ensure biodiversity, conserving the flora, fauna and habitats characteristic of Latvia. The law determines lists of the specially protected species and animals and habitats, where the endangered, vanishing or rare species and habitats as well as the species inhabiting specific habitats. In order to prevent reduction of the numbers and spreading of the local species or vanishing of rare habitats, the law provides for establishing of micro-reserves outside the protected nature areas. The law also determines the rights and responsibilities of the landowners and provides for compensations for the damage caused by specially protected and migrating animal species on the land property. According to this law the Cabinet of Ministers has adopted several regulations: • CM Regulations No 369 “On the List of Specially Protected and Limitedly Exploitable Specially protected Species”, 2000. • CM Regulations No 421 “On the List of Specially Protected Habitats”, 2000. • CM regulations No 45 “On Creation of Micro-Reserves, their Conservation and Management”, 2001. • CM regulations No 34 “On the Order of Issuing Permits for Introduction, Reintroduction and Capturing of Individuals of Non-g Species”, 2001. • CM regulations No 117 “On Indemnification of Losses for Extermination or Damaging of Specially Protected Species Specimens or Habitats”, 2001. • CM regulations No 345 “On the Procedure of Compensation Amount Determination to the Landowners for the Substantial Damage Connected with Material Damage Caused by the Non-Game and Migrating Specially Protected Species, 2001.
86 CONCLUSIONS
Ratification of the Conventions has helped to raise a political profile for nature protection and sustainable use of biodiversity. The requirements of the Conventions ensure that Latvia is following the common strategy in conservation of nature values. For the reasons of better coordination and use of resources, it has been decided that one unified biodiversity related strategy will be prepared for Latvia, incorporating also strategic goals of Ramsar convention, Bonn convention, CITES convention and regional conventions like Bern and HELCOM. It is approved as the National Programme on Biological Diversity. Sectors like Forestry, Agriculture, Fisheries, Transport, Energy have to integrate provisions from the National Programme in their strategies and programmes. Integration of requirements of other conventions in biodiversity strategy and their simultaneous implementation helps to reach the goals of those documents in most efficient way. For such a small country with its economy in transition as Latvia is, this approach saves finances, effectively uses limited human resources, prevents duplication of activities, facilitates implementation, management and supervision of implementation process. Among weaknesses it should be mentioned that there is a lack of human resources to facilitate the implementation of conventions. Usually there is just one person in the Ministry of Environment, responsible for implementation of the respective convention and this task is just one among the others. There have been no Committees or advisory Boards established to ensure more participatory implementation of the Conventions. This problem generates from the lack of capacity in governmental institutions. But in this case, NGOs should be more involved in implementation of Conventions as they can help with human resources and expertise. Another weakness to be mentioned is lack of public awareness about different conventions and their importance, as well as about their requirements.
87 LITHUANIA
INTRODUCTION
Lithuania is located in the eastern part of Europe, bordering Latvia, Belarus, Poland and Kaliningrad (region of Russia). Total area of the country is 6.53 million ha. Total population – 3.692 million. Population density – 53.4 inhabitants per square kilometre. The capital city is Vilnius. Lithuania is a country in transition. The macroeconomic trends for the country have been pointing in a favourable direction since 1994. GDP per capita in 2001 was 13752 Litas (3929 USD). The name of Lithuania was first mentioned in the historical sources in 1009. In 14th –16th centuries the Great Duchy of Lithuania was one of the greatest European states. In 1940 Lithuania was annexed by the Soviet Union, and during the long decades the name of Lithuania, as of other Baltic states, was deleted form the political map of Europe. In 1990 it was one of the first former Soviet Republics to announce its independence. The new Constitution approved in 1992 introduced a parliamentary system with President – the head of the state. Lithuania is divided into 10 counties and 44 districts. The population is evenly distributed between the 10 counties, which is considered as an important strength for Lithuania. The NGO movement started in 1998-2000, as the public movement for independence. Environmental ideas served as a basis for political protests against the Soviet Union. This period was the start of the Lithuanian Green Movement, afterwards other environmental NGOs were established, and now their number is estimated at 80-100. Lithuanian environmental NGOs co- operate closely with international NGOs.
STATE OF NATURE
Lithuania is considered as a country of plains, however, because of its rich variety of scenery, stimulating contrasts can be found within short distances. On the land surface, areas of hills and lowlands can be observed. The average absolute surface altitude is 100 m above the sea level; the highest point (294 m) is in the east of the country. Of the 6.530 thousand hectares of total area, utilised agriculture area (UAA) at the beginning of 2001 equalled 3.488,7 thousand hectares, or 53.4 per cent of total country area. Arable land accounted for 2.932,6 thousand hectares (84.1 per cent of UAA), meadows and natural pastures – 497.1 thousand hectares, or 14.2 per cent of UAA and permanent crops - 59 thousand hectares, or 1.7 per cent of UAA. Forests cover 1998.4 thousand hectares (or 30.6 per cent of total country area), water bodies – 262.1 thousand hectares (or 4.0 per cent of total country area), roads – 131 thousand hectares (or 2.0 per cent of total country area), build-up territories – 187.3 thousand hectares (2.9 per cent of total country area), other land – 462.5 thousand hectares (or 7.1 per cent of total country area). The reclaimed area equalled 3.05 million hectares, 85 per cent of which has been drained.
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
Lithuania occupies both the boreal and temperate biogeographic regions, with mixed-forest biome predominating at its southern boundary. The broadly ecotonal pattern at the boundaries of three biomes gives Lithuania special significance for biodiversity not only at the local, but also at the regional and national levels. In Lithuania, three main biogeographic regions are represented: Eastern Baltic, the Baltic Sea Marine and Central European.
88 The Republic of Lithuania has a very rich variety of habitats, specific features of which include extensive wetlands (7% in terms of the total area of the Lithuanian territory) and huge dune landscapes on the Curonian Spit (Kursiu Nerija). More than 50% of the territory of Lithuania is used for agricultural purposes and about 30% is covered by forests, of which two-thirds are coniferous. There are about 1,800 species of flora and 17,000 species of fauna. There is currently a system of protected areas in Lithuania, which was largely created during the 1980s. In 2002, specially protected areas covered 773.9 thousand hectares, equalling 11.9 per cent of total country area. There were 1,062 protected sites listed in total, including 4 strict nature reserves, 5 national parks, 30 regional parks, nearly 300 managed reserves and around 700 nature monuments. Most of the protected areas are concentrated in the Southeast Lithuanian regions. The protected areas are linked to others deemed to be important from the environmental protection point of view to form a general management system of ecological compensation zones, known as the Nature Frame. With the factual development of the system of particularly protected areas before land reform, good preconditions for the conservation of landscape and biodiversity in Lithuania have been created; however, part of the areas especially valuable from the biodiversity point of view are still unprotected. The quality of biological diversity is threatened by a combination of factors, including the privatisation of land (leading to an increase in construction), land-reclamation, development of road and urban infrastructure (causing habitat fragmentation), intensified forest felling, damage of forest ecosystems because of natural calamities and pollution, change in ecologic conditions of meadows due to economic activity or its reducing (land abandonment has become quite common phenomenon), making of rivers and rivulets into ponds, the weakening of administrative procedures and responsibility, lack of management plans, lack of public information and education, and insufficient inventories of flora and fauna etc. Precondition for that is the low level of economic consciousness. Lithuanian National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and Action Plan defines priority goals and actions for different sectors, as well as territories of priority interest for biodiversity conservation. However, due to lack of institutional capacity and resources, at present the first national priority for conservation of biodiversity is preparation for implementation of the EU nature conservation requirements.
DECISION-MAKING SYSTEM
The Ministry of Environment is the main managing authority of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania which forms the country's state policy of environmental protection, forestry, utilisation of natural resources, geology and hydrometeorology, territorial planning, construction, provision of residents with housing, utilities and housing, as well as co-ordinates its implementation. One of the main tasks of the Ministry of Environment is the preservation of characteristic Lithuanian landscapes, natural ecosystems, nature values and biological diversity. In this sphere the Ministry drafts laws and other legal acts on the protection of biological diversity and resources, develops and approves rules, norms and standards for the use of biological resources, arranges activities for protected areas planning, creates programmes on environmental measures for the preservation of biological diversity, assigns limits and conditions for the use of biological resources, regulates and controls the register of natural resources, arranges for the compilation and maintaining of protected areas, plant and wildlife cadasters, makes proposals for the establishment of protected areas, regulates and controls activities in protected areas, organises activities of strict nature reserves, national and regional parks, compiles and supplements the Red Data Book, organises and performs activities related to the preservation and increase of rare and declining plants, fungi and animals, regulates the procedures of import and export of plants, animals, and trophies, and also the keeping
89 of animals in captivity, determines the procedures for assessing the environmental impacts of economic activities and the approval of projects, organises and co-ordinates the integrated ecological monitoring, organises and co-ordinates applied research related to biological resources protection, formation of networks of protected areas, etc. Direct implementation of programmes for the conservation of biological diversity is the responsibility of strict nature reserves, national and regional parks’ administrations. Special programmes aimed at the conservation of biological diversity are implemented at the local level by municipal institutions. All the municipalities of Lithuanian cities and districts have environmental units or responsible officials. Pursuant to the Law on Environmental Protection municipal institutions within their competence arrange for the implementation of environmental protection legislation and decisions on the issues of environmental protection made by the Government and the Ministry of Environment. In Lithuania there are about 80 environmental NGOs. The main tasks of NGOs are to raise public environmental awareness, instil harmony into the relations between man and nature, involve the general public in the process of solving environmental protection problems, initiate co-operation with the general public in foreign countries, instil respect and love for nature, biological diversity and responsibility for its preservation for future generations, involve experts from specific fields of science into the work of public environmental information and training of specialists. The main non-governmental organisations working in the field of biological diversity conservation are Lithuanian Fund for Nature, Lithuanian Ornithological Society and others. Recently the Minister of Environment of Lithuania Mr. Arūnas Kundrotas and Ms. Margot Wallström, EC Member of the Commission for Environment, signed Memorandum of Understanding between the European Community and the Republic of Lithuania on Lithuania's participation in the Community action programme promoting non-governmental organisations primarily active in the field of environmental protection. This will ensure more active NGO involvement in the decision-making process.
INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS
After the re-establishment of the independence of Lithuania on the basis of a new national economic development policy and taking into account new environmental protection problems and objectives as well as priorities of the environmental policy, the Parliament of the country approved the Environmental Protection Strategy of Lithuania in 1996. The Government adopted the Action Programme aimed at directing the country towards sustainable development so that the clean and healthy environment, biological and landscape diversity could be preserved and effective consumption of natural resources ensured. Currently Lithuania has joined or ratified six conventions and one international agreement regarding protection of nature and biodiversity. Lithuania has acceded to the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Convention) in 1993 as well as the Convention on Fisheries and the Protection of Fish Resources in the Baltic Sea and Protection Belts (Gdansk) in 1992. The Lithuanian Government has ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio de Janeiro) in 1995, the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) in 1996, CITES – the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Washington Convention) in 2001, CMS - the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention) in 2001, and Agreement on the Bat Protection in Europe in 2001. Recently Lithuania has implemented a state programme “Gene pool” that corresponds to the European Council Directive 1467/94. Lithuania is one of the 34 European countries participating in the European Co-operative Programme for Crop Genetic Resources Networks (ECP/GR) and one of
90 30 European countries taking part in the European Forest Genetic Resources Programme (EUFORGEN).
EVALUATION OF THE CONVENTIONS
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat
Endorsement Ramsar convention was the first international convention on nature protection that Lithuania has joined. It was acceded on 10 June 1993. Since then Lithuanian representatives participate in the COP meetings and prepare regular reports for them. The sites were decided by the Ministry of Environment. There was no need for ratification of the Convention, therefore there were no debates about it. Focal point is Mr. Jonas Karpavičius, Chief specialist of the Division of Nature Resources, Nature Protection Department of the Ministry of Environment. His main responsibilities are collecting information on implementation of the Convention, preparation of the reports for COP and participation in the COP meetings. The reports are made in accordance with the format provided by the Ramsar Secretariat and are available on the Ramsar website. Financial resources Ramsar sites get annual budgetary allocation as State Protected Areas (Strict Nature Reserve and Regional Park) within larger budget of the Ministry of Environment. Implementation of the Ramsar Convention in Lithuania is supported by World Bank (Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and Action Plan, 1997), Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Conservation and Fisheries (Important wetlands of Lithuania, 1998), EU Phare (Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the Baltic States and Poland), European Commission (The CORINE Land Cover Project of Lithuania, 1998), WWF Denmark (the management plan for the Nemunas Delta Regional Park, 1998), WWF Sweden (Conservation and Management of Lithuanian Wetlands, 1995-1997), EUCC European Union for Coastal Conservation (the management plan for Rusne Island, 1997), GEF (Conservation of Inland Wetland Biodiversity in Lithuania, 2002-2007). Provisions are made to use SAPARD funds and the EU funds after accession. Institutional and personnel capacity In the Ministry of Environment, there is only one person responsible for the Convention (the focal point). Ramsar Convention is only one of his responsibilities, therefore there is none full-time employment for the implementation of the Convention in Lithuania, which results in many shortages. However, since there are a lot of activities going on in the country, there are plans to establish Ramsar National Committee in future. Recently established Public Institution “Nature Heritage Fund” which implements the GEF project “Conservation of Inland Wetland Biodiversity in Lithuania”, is providing strong assistance with regards to implementation of the Ramsar Convention. Concrete achievements National Wetland Policy does not exist in Lithuania as a separate document. But there are other documents related to this issue. Lithuanian Environmental Strategy was prepared by the Ministry of Environmental Protection (now Ministry of Environment) together with foreign experts in 1995 and approved by the Parliament in 1996. The National Environmental Strategy of Lithuania was used as the background for preparation of the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and Action Plan. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and Action Plan was developed in 1997 and adopted by the Ministry of Environmental Protection (now Ministry of Environment) and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (now Ministry of Agriculture) in January 1998. This document presents action plans for protection of the most important ecosystems including wetlands (Baltic Sea shore, inland water bodies and mires); action plan for the protection of coastal and the Baltic Sea ecosystems; action
91 plan for the protection of inland aquatic ecosystems; action plan for the protection of wetland ecosystems. Joining the Ramsar convention, Lithuania has designated 5 Ramsar sites – strict nature reserves Žuvintas, Čepkeliai, Kamanos, Viešvilė, Nemunas Delta Regional Park (total area – 50,451 hectares). They all have legal protection status. The Lithuanian Ramsar Sites are implemented in national legislation through Executive Order No 408 of 25 May 1994. Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan for the Curonian Lagoon was prepared by HELCOM PITF MLW Curonian Lagoon Area Task Team with the aim to balance the impact of human activities with the need to protect and sustainably develop the fragile ecosystem. Lithuanian Fund for Nature prepared a management plan for Curonian Lagoon, and a management plan for Rusne Island (part of Nemunas Delta Regional Park) that is currently being implemented. The management plan for the Nemunas Delta Regional Park (Ramsar site) has been prepared and adopted in 1998. Agreements with Russia and Belorus are being prepared for Integrated Management Planning of Nemunas River Basin. Lithuanian Fund for Nature made an inventory and a database of selected Lithuanian wetlands, prepared a wetland conservation strategy and published a booklet on the importance and protection of wetlands. The Ministry of Environmental Protection in 1995 produced the third supplemented edition of the State Register of Peatlands. It includes the majority of wetlands of Lithuania, as most are peatlands. The Register contains data on mires that are larger than 3 ha, which constitutes 5,735 peatlands. The information provided on each site is as follows: surface area (ha), maximum and average depth of peat (m), volume of peat (m3), transect of peat depth, map of boundaries (1:10,000 scale), administrative location, ownership. The Register does not include data on biological diversity, but there is a plan to add this type of information. One way to fill this gap may be to link the Register to the Register on Biodiversity on which the Ministry of Environment is starting to work. Data on biological diversity are currently spread among many institutions. The countrywide inventory of all important wetlands in Lithuania was initiated in 1997. The results were compiled in the book "Important wetlands of Lithuania" (1998). This publication describes all important elements of the most valuable Lithuanian wetlands (designated and potential Ramsar sites), their important habitats, fauna and flora, their natural functions, economic and ecological values, national system of wetlands conservation and management. This book was inspired and organized by Wetlands International. It has been published with financial support from the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Conservation and Fisheries. 28 potential Ramsar sites were identified, there are plans to designate 5 potential sites into Ramsar List by 2008. Lithuanian Fund for Nature implements a project for restoration of hydrological regime in the damaged mire Puscia. The management plan for the damaged raised bog Didysis Tyrulis is being prepared for its restoration. The list of eutrophicated lakes (120 lakes) has been issued that should be renovated. Ministry of Environment has issued the Damaged land reclamation plan, including damaged peatlands restoration. In 2002, a GEF project Conservation of Inland Wetland Biodiversity in Lithuania started. The main goal of the project is to stop the decrease in biological diversity in the most important inland wetlands in the country (Žuvintas, Čepkeliai, Kamanos, Viešvilė and Girutiškis strict nature reserves) and to prepare strategies and management plans that would ensure their long-term protection of values. At the same time this project might serve as a pilot project, on the basis of which restoration of biological diversity and conservation works would be carried out in other territories. A wide range of activities is foreseen in this project, including nature management, institutional strengthening of the Strict Nature Reserves, legal actions (initiation of legal act amendments and preparation of new necessary legal acts), socio-economic activities, and public awareness and education actions. Preparation phase has just finished, and the implementation phase will last four years.
92 Monitoring and evaluation The State Monitoring Programme elaborated in 1998 cover all the territory of the country; consequently including protected areas. However in the Nemunas Delta Regional Park additionally local monitoring is implemented to observe ecological trends within the park. Establishment of the programme was supported by WWF Denmark. Monitoring of the Ramsar sites is being executed by local site managers and scientists; local community is additional information source. Wetland management committee is in place in one Ramsar site only. NGO participation NGOs of different levels participate in implementation of the Ramsar Convention in Lithuania: international (WWF), regional (Coalition for Clean Baltic, European Union for Coastal Conservation (EUCC)), national/provincial (Lithuanian Fund for Nature, Lithuanian Green Movement, Lithuanian Ornithological Society, Lithuanian Geographical Society, Lithuanian Botanical Society, Čepkeliai Friends’ Club, Nature Heritage Fund). NGOs express their views on wetland conservation through different publications (books, booklets, brochures, bulletins) available to other NGOs and the Government. There is Advisory Council of the Ministry of Environment, which includes representatives of NGOs too. There are also annual meetings between the Ministry of Environment and NGOs representatives. NGOs also implement a number of projects, like Conservation and Management of Lithuanian Wetlands 1995-1997 prepared by Lithuanian Fund for Nature in cooperation with Lithuanian Ornithological Society, Lithuanian Geographical Society and Lithuanian Botanical Society (the aim of the project was to make comprehensive inventory of wetlands in Lithuania, to improve management of most valuable areas and to prepare Wetland Conservation Plan for Lithuania), Integrated Coastal Zone management plan for Curonian Lagoon by Lithuanian Fund for Nature, some wetland restoration projects by Lithuanian Fund for Nature, Lithuanian Ornithological Society, and others. NGOs are involved in implementation of the Wetland Biodiversity project.
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
Endorsement This is another convention just recently joined by Lithuania. It was ratified on 22.05.2001 without signing, entered into force March 2002. Like in the case of the Bonn Convention, The Ministry of Environment did not seem to be very active and interested in joining it, and NGOs of different levels were constantly urging the Ministry about necessity to join this important Convention. Lithuanian representatives participate in COP meetings and in technical workshops and meetings related to the CITES. There was no report produced till now, because of the very recent accession to the Convention, but report will be certainly produced in future. The focal point of the Convention is Mr. Selemonas Paltanavičius, Head of Biodiversity Division in Nature Conservation Department, Ministry of Environment. Financial resources Until now, there were not many resources available for the implementation of CITES. The Ministry of Environment has asked Environmental Support Programme for small funding of the production of an information leaflet about the Convention. After official involvement of the Customs Department at the Ministry of Finance in CITES implementation in Lithuania, national funds became available for training of Customs officers through their training programmes. This training has already started. Additional funding is coming from the above-mentioned PHARE project “Protection of endangered species of flora and fauna and their habitats through implementation of CITES and the Bern and Bonn Conventions and the related EU legislation”. After Lithuania joins the EU, implementation of the CITES, like other nature conservation activities can be funded from EU structural funds.
93 Institutional and personnel capacity The Managing authority of the CITES in Lithuania is Ministry of Environment. Scientific authorities – Institute of Botany and Institute of Ecology. There is no secretariat. Responsibility for co-ordination of work on the Convention lies within Biodiversity Division of Nature Protection Department, Ministry of Environment, however, there is no special staff dealing with the CITES Convention only. After the Customs Department and State Food and Veterinary Service signed official documents related to CITES implementation, these institutions also have responsibility for implementation of the CITES. The Customs Department appointed a special person for the implementation of CITES. Concrete achievements Even before acceding to CITES, Lithuania had to follow the rules of animal export and import established by the Convention. So, the Ministry of Environment was issuing permissions for CITES species’ trade, export and import for a number of years. However, before 2003 the Customs offices did not require the permissions strictly. Since the Convention was joined officially, things are rapidly changing. During the 2002, Rules for Animal Trade, Export and Import were prepared and approved by the Minister of Environment, Director of Customs Department at the Ministry of Finance and Director of State Food and Veterinary Service. These Rules came into force on 01.01.2003 and replaced Procedure of Animal Trade and Export approved by the Minister of the Environment. The new Rules, and especially their endorsement by the Customs Department, had a positive impact on implementation of the CITES Convention in Lithuania. The standard forms for permissions were approved, and Customs officers started to check the animals and their parts on the state borders and in sales places. Permissions for export and import are issued by the Biodiversity Division in the Ministry of Environment, while permissions for trade – by Regional Environment Protection Departments. At present, one permission is issued every second day on average. Currently the biggest problem in implementation of the Rules is lack of knowledge and information. Customs Department organises training seminars and workshops for their staff, with the assistance of the Ministry of Environment and Customs institutions from other countries. There is no information material on CITES available in Lithuanian language yet, so information materials produced in Latvia and Estonia are used at present. However, a booklet on CITES was prepared by the Ministry of Environment, it is waiting for funding in order to be printed, but this will hopefully happen in 2003. The future PHARE project “Protection of endangered species of flora and fauna and their habitats through implementation of CITES and the Bern and Bonn Conventions and the related EU legislation” will make a gap analysis and report on the requirements needed to be implemented according to the requirements of CITES, analysis of training needs of relevant institutions for implementation of the prepared guidelines and procedures, develop the databases, including data analysis and reporting, develop training programmes and seminars and deliver training, compile a mobile exhibition about CITES, create a database for purposes of implementation of CITES Convention in Lithuania. Monitoring and evaluation Institutes of Botany and Ecology are appointed as monitoring and consulting institutions responsible for scientific evaluation of export quotas of rare and endangered wild plant and animal species. Ministry of Environment has responsibility for evaluation of trade procedures and legitimacy. NGO participation NGOs were actively lobbying for signing the CITES Convention. At present they are not involved in its implementation process, mostly due to lack of information. The booklet about CITES that is planned to be published by the Ministry of Environment, will be the first step for public information and further involvement. NGOs will certainly be participating in the implementation of the PHARE project.
94 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
Endorsement Lithuanian Parliament has ratified the Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals on 22 May 2001 without signing, and Agreement on Conservation of Bats in Europe in 2001. This Convention was acceded together with the CITES Convention, and thus the process of joining biodiversity-related international conventions in Lithuania was finished. Just like in case of CITES, many years lasting passiveness of the Ministry of Environment regarding the Bonn Convention, gave the opportunities for NGOs of different levels to stress the importance of joining this important Convention on every relevant occasion. Lithuanian representatives participate in COP meetings and in technical meetings related to the Bonn Convention. There was no report produced till now, because of the very recent accession to the Convention, but report will be certainly produced in future. The focal point of the Convention is Mr. Selemonas Paltanavičius, Head of Biodiversity Division in Nature Conservation Department, Ministry of Environment. Financial resources Until now, financial resources for implementation of the Bonn Convention in Lithuania were very small. The Ministry of Environment was financing the work on protected species. The first more substantial funding is coming from PHARE project “Protection of endangered species of flora and fauna and their habitats through implementation of CITES and the Bern and Bonn Conventions and the related EU legislation” that will start in 2003. As for the other Conventions, EU Life programme and Structural funds will be the main source of financing the activities for the Bonn Convention implementation in Lithuania. Institutional and personnel capacity Like in case of some other Conventions, responsibility for co-ordination of work on the Convention lies within Biodiversity Division of Nature Protection Department, Ministry of Environment, however, there is no special staff dealing with the Bonn Convention only. Concrete achievements Since the Convention was joined so recently, there was not much done until now. The International Bat nights are organised in Lithuania by Lithuanian Theriological Society. In 2003 a memorandum of understanding will be signed with Belorus regarding the protection of Aquatic Warbler. Migrating and wintering birds populations are being monitored, especially in Nemunas River Delta and the Curonian Lagoon. The PHARE project “Protection of endangered species of flora and fauna and their habitats through implementation of CITES and the Bern and Bonn Conventions and the related EU legislation” that will start in 2003 will make a gap analysis and report on the requirements needed to be implemented according to the requirements of the Bonn Convention, develop guidelines and recommendations for marking of certain specimens of protected wild fauna and flora species, prepare management plans and regulations for migrating species and their habitats and for protected areas, make analysis of training needs of relevant institutions for implementation of the prepared guidelines and procedures, develop the databases, including data analysis and reporting, develop training programmes and seminars and deliver training, create databases of species listed in appendices of Bonn Convention, make a national inventory of endangered species, listed in appendices of Bonn Convention in Lithuania, create a database for purposes of implementation of the Bonn Convention in Lithuania. Monitoring and evaluation Monitoring of migrating species is part of the biodiversity monitoring within the state environmental monitoring programme. It is being carried out by administrations of protected areas, Institute of Ecology. However, this monitoring is insufficient due to inadequate funding. Lithuanian Environmental NGOs, such as Lithuanian Ornithological Society, Lithuanian Theriological Society, also contribute to monitoring activities.
95 NGO participation NGOs were actively lobbying for acceding to the Bonn Convention, together with CITES Convention. At present they are involved in its implementation process, mostly small projects and monitoring. With increase of state activities in relation to the Bonn Convention, public involvement and NGO participation will increase as well. NGOs will certainly be participating in the implementation of the PHARE project.
Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats
Endorsement The Convention was signed by Lithuania on September 28, 1994, ratified by the Parliament on September 5, 1996, and came into force on January 1, 1997. Lithuania made three reservation acceding to the Bern Convention: wolf hunting is allowed with certain restrictions, night hunting of wild boars with artificial light sources is allowed, and catching of beavers by leg-traps is allowed as well. Before joining this Convention, Lithuanian Ministry of the Environment had consultations with different stakeholders, like Universities and Scientific Institutes, environmental and hunters NGOs, mostly regarding restrictions on hunting. Lithuanian representatives attend the COPs of the Conventions, as well as the different working groups. According to the requirements of the Bern Convention Secretariat, reports on excerptions regarding strictly protected plant and animal species are produced and submitted. The focal point is Mr. Jonas Augustauskas, chief specialist of Biodiversity Division, Nature Protection Department of the Ministry of Environment. Financial resources Until now, financial resources for implementation of the Bern Convention in Lithuania were very limited. The Ministry of Environment was financing some work on protected species, especially the Red Data Book, including publishing of the publication “Red sheets”. Separate projects on rare species conservation were financed by the Council of Europe (Pilot study of Emerald Network in Lithuania), GEF Small Grants Programme (Conservation of European Pond Terrapin, Conservation of European Tree Frog and Fire-bellied Toad), Dutch Embassy MATRA/NKIP Programme (Information and awareness raising about European Pond Terrapin), EECONET Action Fund (Conservation Plan for the Aquatic Warbler), The Whitley Awards Foundation, Rufford Small Grant Facility (Protection of Nests of Birds of Prey and Valuable Forest Habitats). Additional funding is coming from PHARE project “Protection of endangered species of flora and fauna and their habitats through implementation of CITES and the Bern and Bonn Conventions and the related EU legislation” that will start in 2003. Since 2003 Lithuania can benefit from the Life Programme. After joining the EU, implementation of the Bern Convention, like other nature conservation activities can be funded from EU structural funds. Institutional and personnel capacity In the Ministry of Environment, there is only one person responsible for the Convention (the focal point). Like in the case of the Ramsar Convention, the Bern Convention is only one of responsibilities of this person, therefore there is no full-time employment for the implementation of the Convention in Lithuania, which results in many shortages. Concrete achievements It is not yet possible to make full evaluation on whether the Lithuanian populations and species protection are compatible with obligations set out in the Convention. The Red List of protected species was published in 1991 and revised in 2000. In 2000, Lithuanian Red Data Book of Plant Communities was prepared. Publication on rare and protected plant and animal species “Red Sheets” is published by the Ministry of Environment every year (the 8th issue will be published in 2003).
96 The Ministry of the Environment regulates hunting on separate species, issues permissions for capturing rare animal species for scientific purposes. For example, wolf hunting is being decreased every year, and the aim is to phase it out in future. Meteliai Regional Park has implemented a project for conservation of population of European Pond Terrapin, another project concerning the same species was implemented by Lithuanian Fund for Nature, together with Meteliai Regional Park. In the framework of this project, a small leaflet of this protected species was produced and distributed to local community, mainly through schools, and this helped to find new localities of European Pond Terrapin in Lithuania. Lithuanian Fund for Nature also published a booklet on different dormice species and their protection in Lithuania. Lithuanian Fund for Nature made a conservation plan for Aquatic Warbler and implemented a project on the protection of nests of birds of prey and valuable forest habitats. Veisiejai Regional Park is implementing a project on restoration populations of European Tree Frog and Fire-bellied Toad. It is planned to use EU Funds for complex conservation of the entire population of the European Pond Terrapin (together with Polish partners). The biggest concrete achievement for implementation of the Bern Convention in Lithuania perhaps is the pilot study for Emerald network in Lithuania, implemented by Lithuanian Fund for Nature in 2001-2002. The aim of the project was to start implementation of the Bern Convention Emerald Network in pilot areas, for which data base and digital maps were prepared. Nowadays the work on the implementation of the Bern Convention in Lithuania is being integrated into the preparation for implementation of the EU nature conservation legislation. The upcoming PHARE project “Protection of endangered species of flora and fauna and their habitats through implementation of CITES and the Bern and Bonn Conventions and the related EU legislation” will make a gap analysis and report on the requirements needed to be implemented according to the requirements of the Bern Convention, develop guidelines and recommendations for marking certain specimens of protected wild fauna and flora species, prepare management plans and regulations for rare species and their habitats and for protected areas, make analysis of training needs of relevant institutions for implementation of the prepared guidelines and procedures, develop the databases, including data analysis and reporting, develop training programmes and seminars and deliver training, create databases of species listed in appendices of Bern Convention, make a national inventory of endangered species, listed in appendices of Bern Convention in Lithuania, create a database for purposes of implementation of the Bern Convention in Lithuania. Monitoring and evaluation Monitoring of rare species is part of the biodiversity monitoring within the state environmental monitoring programme. It is being carried out by administrations of protected areas, Institute of Ecology and Institute of Botany. However, this monitoring is insufficient due to inadequate funding. Lithuanian Environmental NGOs, such as Lithuanian Ornithological Society, Lithuanian Botanical Society, Lithuanian Teriological Society, Lithuanian Entomological Society, also contribute to monitoring activities. NGO participation Lithuanian NGOs do participate in the process of implementation of the Bern Convention since the very beginning. This participation started through consultations on the accession to the Convention, especially on the reservation regarding the hunted species, and goes on. The Ministry of Environment consults scientists and NGOs on different matters relating to the implementation of the Convention. All NGOs listed above are active participants in these consultations, as well as Lithuanian Hunters and Fishers Society. As it can be seen from the text above, environmental NGOs help to monitor status of rare species and their habitats, and for the time being are the most active bodies as regards to initiating and implementation of concrete projects.
97 Convention on Biological Diversity
Endorsement The Convention of Biological Diversity was signed by Lithuania at the World Summit in Rio de Janeiro on 11.06.1992, and ratified by the Parliament on 01.02.1996. A workshop “Practical implementation of the Convention on the Biological Diversity in the Baltic States” organised by the UNEP ROE in Tallinn in 1994 gave a strong impulse for ratification of the Convention. Representative of the Ministry of Environment participate in the COP meetings, participation in other meetings depends upon available funding. Lithuania did not produce the first report; while the second report, as well as two thematic reports (the Thematic Report on Alien and Invasive Species, and the Thematic Report on Forest Ecosystems), were submitted to the Commission Secretariat and can be found on the CBD website. The focal point is Ministry of Environment. Ms. Kristina Klovaitė and Ms. Sigutė Ališauskienė, chief specialists of the Biodiversity Division in Nature Protection Department of the Ministry of Environment, are responsible for general co-ordination of the Convention, The GMO division of the same department is responsible for implementation of the Cartagena Protocol. Financial resources Although many activities for biodiversity protection are financed from state and municipality funds, the support of international organisations and the European countries can be considered as outstanding achievement of the recent decade. The annual budget of the Ministry of Environment was restructured in 1998. A special budget line titled “Biodiversity conservation” was created. The priority issues for financing were set by the Regulation issues by the Minister of the Environment also in 1998. For example, in 1998 the biodiversity programme totalled 107,000 LTL (cc 29,000 EUR), in 1999 620,000 LTL (cc 180,000 EUR) and in 2000 only 50,000 LTL (14,500 EUR). The substantial cut back of budget for the year 2000-2001 has resulted in the freeze of many biodiversity programmes and initiatives. Biodiversity projects were supported by the World Bank, PHARE, UNDP, the Governments of Denmark, Sweden, Ireland, Finland, USA and other countries, scientific research projects of Framework 5 programme financed by the EU were started to carry out. Since 2003, the LIFE programme became available for Lithuania, in the case of the EU accession the EU structural funds will be available for financing nature conservation. Institutional and personnel capacity The Government of the Republic of Lithuania granted credentials to the Ministry of Environment to co-ordinate all measures aimed at preservation of biological diversity. These measures are carries out both at state and local levels. The Ministry of Environment Established Department of Biodiversity (current Nature Protection Department – 22 persons employed at present). Seeking to strengthen the effectiveness of activities in protected areas, a special Service of Protected Areas was established in 2001. The staff includes the headquarters in Vilnius, as well as administrations of 4 Strict Nature Reserves, 5 National Parks and 30 Regional Parks. Concrete achievements The Parliament of Lithuania ratified the CBD in 1995, however, work aimed at implementation of certain requirements of the Convention was started much earlier and is carries out quite consistently. Constitutional provisions are implemented by preparing and adopting the following legal documents important to protection of biodiversity: the Law on Protected Areas (1993, amended in 2001), the Law on Land (1994), the Law on Forests (1994, amended in 2000), the Law on EIA of Proposed Economic Activities (1996, amended in 2000), the Law on Environmental Monitoring (1997), the Law on Protected Fauna, Flora and Fungi Species and Communities (1997), the Law on Flora Protection (1997), the Law on Water (1997), the Law on Marine Protection (1997), the Law on the National Genetic Resources of Plants (2001) and other laws. Currently 36 laws regulating environmental protection and use of natural resources are in force in Lithuania. Many requirements for the protection of biological diversity are included in other laws regulating
98 economic activity. Necessary secondary legislation has been prepared and implemented. With the negotiations with the EU, the Lithuanian legal acts are being approximated to the relevant EU directives. Very important step in dealing with the protection of biodiversity at state level was the preparation of the National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and Action Plan. (BCSAP). It was completed in 1997, and approved by the Ministry of Environmental Protection (now Ministry of Environment) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (now Ministry of Agriculture) in January 1998. The BCSAP was based on the Pilot National Action Plan for the Conservation of Biological Diversity, a document developed in three Baltic States in 1995, following the recommendations by the World Bank and using the Lithuanian Environmental Strategy compiled in 1995-1996. The Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan were prepared for a twenty year period, though many measures were elaborated for a five-year period (1998-2002). BCS Action Plan (1998) comprises six areas of action: Nature Frame action plan, forest ecosystems protection, coastal ecosystems protection, inland water ecosystems protection, wetlands and meadow ecosystems protection, and anthropogenic environmental ecosystems protection. In addition to that it also addresses protection of species and ex-situ protection. BCS Action Plan provides six areas of action each split into four categories: actions needed in the fields of legal-institutional regulation, territorial planning, research and monitoring, and information, training and education. The greatest achievements are in traditional sphere of species protection: the territories of protected areas were enlarged by 3 times, a system of protected areas corresponding to the European standard was created and protected areas of international importance established. In 2000, the National Strategy for Development of Protected Areas that intended to increase the role of regional environmental structures in implementing the policy of protected areas management, to improve the internal interaction between protected areas as well as to strengthen their integration into the international protected areas network was prepared. A number of local governments of Lithuanian districts exerted a great influence on organising biodiversity preservation. With the help of NGOs, University and Institutes’ scientists, inventories of biodiversity of Marijampolė, Kėdainiai, Anykščiai, Akmenė, Rokiškis and other districts were made and the most necessary measures to protect it were foreseen. Lithuanian Red Data Book was first published in 1981 and revised second edition in 1992. Lithuanian Red Data List of protected species was updated in 2000. Recently (in 2000) the Lithuanian Red Data Book of Plant Communities, the first such kind of book in Europe, has been prepared. Currently there is no statistically precise evaluation of the scope of activities related to GMOs and GMPs in Lithuania, because such activities are considered as a new phenomenon in Lithuanian society. For the present, Lithuania is participating in the Cartagena process and ratified the Biosafety Protocol. In order to co-ordinate the national efforts in the field of management of GMOs and GMPs, a GMO division in the Nature Protection Department of the Ministry of Environment was established and a Consultative Committee on GMO management was set. The European Committee under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania has sub-contracted the national environmental consultancy in order to assess and evaluate the socio-economical consequences for the implementation of the Council Directive 2001/18/EC (17 of April 2001, amending Directive 90/220/EEC) “On the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms”. A Phare twinning project “Strengthening of Institutional capacity to implement EU requirements on chemicals and genetically modified organisms management” will be completed in the first half of 2003, and a GEF project “Establishment of Biosafety System in Lithuania” was started in 2003. Following the change in the curricula of secondary schools, there is a possibility to devote a special cycle of lessons to analysis, identification and preservation of biodiversity and to encourage extra curricular activities for environmental protection. Only in 2000 and 2001, over 80 groups of outstanding extra curricular activities took part in competitions to win the award of Valdas Adamkus. Expeditions for pupils and students are organised so that they could study biodiversity of
99 different territories. Original and translated textbooks and atlases encompassing problems of biodiversity for secondary schools and universities were published, as well as other publications for general public. Fundamentals of biodiversity are included in the curricula of the universities. The research of the most important aspects of biodiversity is included in the plans and projects of the scientific studies of the main universities and scientific institutes. See other actions and projects under other Conventions. In summarising the work carried out over the decade, changes can be described as purposeful transition from preservation of separate elements of biological diversity to systematic evaluation of its condition, analysis of the possibilities to preserve all elements and implementation of specific actions and projects. The system of territories important for landscape and biodiversity protection is included in the developed Master Plan of the territory of the Republic of Lithuania. The Master Plan provides for integration of the requirements for biodiversity protection into the strategies, development programmes and action plans of all economic sectors. The elaborated materials on preservation and use of biodiversity will be included in the National Sustainable Development Strategy. There are several internal problems of further improvement and elaboration of Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan: it is necessary to prepare the Biodiversity Country Study, to improve protection of genetic resources and to make detailed analysis of ecosystems. Monitoring and evaluation The first national monitoring program was launched in 1989. The Law on Environmental Monitoring was adopted in November 1997. The Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP) was approved in June 1998. In terms of biodiversity monitoring, it comprises four relevant components. These are monitoring of vegetation, wildlife and agricultural ecosystems and integrated monitoring of semi-natural ecosystems. The EMP is a comprehensive program covering a large number of elements of biodiversity monitoring. As referred in the document, the main constraints to the implementation of the program are the financial ones. Thus, the vegetation monitoring is exclusively forests monitoring. Monitoring of wetlands, meadows, aquatic vegetation as well as rare and threatened plant species is non-systematic and financed well behind the actual needs. Monitoring of agricultural ecosystems was initially started in three stations, but ceased to a single site due to the lack of funds. Monitoring of Wild Fauna experiences the same insufficient funding situation. Full implementation of EMP is foreseen, including the biota monitoring. Based on the information provided in BCSAP and the First National Report to CBD, Lithuania has remarkable achievements in inventories and identification of components of biological diversity. Due to restricted financial resources the Environmental Monitoring Program and Inventories of range of species groups and habitats can’t be finished at this time. A Commission on Landscape and Biodiversity consisting of 22 members representing governmental authorities and NGOs and chaired by the Director of Institute of Botany advises the Minister of Environment on different relevant issues, including drafting the laws. The Commission is also authorised to monitor the implementation of BCSAP. Permanent updating of the Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan will help to strengthen positive perspectives of preserving and use of biodiversity in future. The first stage of the implementation of the strategy was completed in 2002. Following it, monitoring of the implementation of the Strategy and Action Plan will be carried out and further action will be planned taking into consideration its results. The monitoring and evaluation will be carried out by different institutions, including NGOs. NGO participation International, regional and national/local NGOs were involved in the process since the very beginning. First they participated in the Tallinn Workshop and made input in the resolution on the importance of ratification and implementation of the CBD. The strongest nature protection NGOs, like Lithuanian Fund for Nature, Lithuanian Ornithological Society, Lithuanian Botanical Society, and others, were involved in preparation of the Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. NGOs had
100 the possibility to participate and lobby in legislation establishing process, and made many practical activities, like implementation of different biodiversity projects (see under other Conventions) and education and public awareness actions.
Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy
Endorsement The Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy was signed by the Lithuanian Minister of the Environment at the first Environment for Europe Ministerial Conference in Sofia in October 1995. Since then Lithuanian representatives take part in the PEBLDS meetings. The focal point in Mr. Dalius Sungaila, Chief specialist of the Protected Areas Strategy Division, Nature Protection Department of the Ministry of Environment. Financial resources Since PEBLDS was set for implementation of the Convention of Biodiversity in Europe, financial resources used for implementation of the Strategy are the same as for the other Conventions, and particularly for the CBD and includes local (municipality budgets), national (state budget, state environmental protection fund), as well as international (the World Bank, GEF, international NGOs, EU PHARE, Governments of other countries) sources. In future, LIFE programme and the EU structural funds will make a significant contribution to protection of biodiversity and landscape in Lithuania. Institutional and personnel capacity The Government of the Republic of Lithuania granted credentials to the Ministry of Environment to co-ordinate all measures aimed at preservation of biological diversity. These measures are carried out both at state and local levels. The Ministry of Environment Established Department of Biodiversity (current Nature Protection Department – 22 persons employed at present). Seeking to strengthen the effectiveness of activities in protected areas, a special Service of Protected Areas was established in 2001. The staff includes the headquarters in Vilnius, as well as administrations of 4 Strict Nature Reserves, 5 National Parks and 30 Regional Parks. Concrete achievements Biodiversity and Landscape protection in Lithuania is implemented according to the National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and Action Plan. (BCSAP). From the 12 Action Themes of the PEBLDS, 11 are to different extent being implemented (there is no plan set up for implementation of the Action Themes, however, there are many ongoing national activities that can be incorporated in the implementation of the PEBLDS Action Themes). Action Theme 10 – Mountains Ecosystems – is not relevant to Lithuania, as the country does not have mountains. Regarding the activities for Action Themes 0 (Pan-European action to set up the strategy process), 3 (Raising awareness and support with policy makers and the public), 5 (Coastal and marine ecosystems), 6 (River ecosystems and related wetland), 7 (Inland wetland ecosystems), and 11 (Action for threatened species) see chapters on other conventions. The territorial system of the sites important for the protection of biodiversity is identified on the basis of the recommendations for the development of ecological networks provided by the experts of the Council of Europe by making use of the material of the latest works on the protection of biodiversity (Ramsar sites, CORINE biotopes, IBAs, Natura 2000). The Lithuanian national ecological network consisting of core areas of European, national and regional importance, stepping stones, ecological corridors and buffer zones, has been developed and localised in 1999-2001, when Lithuanian Fund for Nature, with support of IUCN, implemented a project “Development of Ecological Network in Lithuania). The results of the project were establishment of the criteria for the selection of an ecological network in Lithuania and a digital map of the Lithuanian ecological network (1:200 000) and local ecological network of Klaipėda district (1:50 000). The implementation of ecological network is necessary for ecologically balanced development of the
101 region and for implementation of the principles of sustainable development, maintenance of landscapes and biodiversity, as well as implementation of the EU Habitat and Bird Directives (Natura 2000 areas), Agri-Environmental programmes, as a process of the EU accession, and also Biodiversity and Bern Convention (EMERALD network). The general structure of ecological network - core areas, corridors, buffer zones and stepping stones - is accepted in the country. Development of the national ecological network provides Lithuania a tool for setting priorities in biodiversity protection and will start integration of general and cross-sectoral policies, applying concepts of European and Regional Ecological Networks. The project was implemented in co- ordination with Estonia, Latvia and Poland. Seeking to balance the regional differences, to formulate strategic objectives of the state and development trends, to determine activity priorities and establish territorial possibilities for their implementation, the Master Plan of the Republic of Lithuania was prepared in 1996-2001. The basic principle of the Master Plan is to ensure sustainable development of the country’s territory, designating the best possible way to use the territory without harm to landscape and without violating interests of the present and future generations, preserving and strengthening the country’s identity. On the ecological foreground the following objectives are singled out: • to keep and strengthen the present system of environmental healthiness, • the protection of landscape and biological diversity and maintenance of the nature frame; • to guarantee effective protection and rational use of national and cultural environmental values forming the identity of the country and its regions; • to ensure realisation of ecologically balanced land management programmes; in order to integrate the landscape and biological diversity protection requirements into the action plans of all economic activities. The Master Plan identifies structural diversity of the country’s landscape, establishes the most valuable landscape complexes, identifies the areas important for biodiversity protection and formulates general regulations on it. The following priority tasks are provided for ensuring ecological balance of landscape and protection of its diversity in the Master Plan: • optimisation of the general land use structure by strengthening the functions of the nature frame areas of ecological compensation; • organisation of protected areas network and preventing degradation of their natural and cultural values; • protection of wetland and karst landscape; • protection of elements of natural landscape in urbanised areas; • sustaining natural recreation environment and preventing urbanisation of the most attractive natural sites; • re-cultivation of exhausted quarries and re-naturalisation of peatlands; • protection of the structure of a natural hydrographic network. In 2000 Lithuania signed the European Landscape Convention. This allows the country to develop protection and management of the landscape more intensively within the context of the system of European legislation, to formulate a more accurate state policy in this sphere, to draw attention of the public to the problems. It is necessary to encourage integrated application of the principles of landscape protection and rational land use in the development projects. In implementing the principles of sustainable development, currently it is most important to co-ordinate and balance the strategic objectives of the state, municipal needs and private initiatives to guarantee effective protection and rational use of natural and cultural environmental values preserving the identity of the country and its regions. The joint Swedish-Lithuanian project "Pilot Woodland Key Habitat Inventory in Lithuania" has been launched in 2001. Seeking to preserve biodiversity in the forest ecosystems the pilot inventory of all Lithuanian forests and development of methodology, organisation and training methods have
102 been started. In addition there are a number of special research projects which have been successfully conducted or are being performed at the moment, for instance Inventory of Wood- grouse in 13 forest enterprises and Dzūkija national park, preparation of recommendations to manage inventoried mating-places and proposals to establish reserves for its protection, and recommendations of biodiversity protection in ongoing forest management activities. At the end of 2002, Lithuanian Fund for Nature started a three-year project “Group certification for private forest owners in Lithuania” aimed at providing information on FSC certification for private forest owners and other stakeholders within forestry and nature conservation sector in Lithuania and promotion of protection of biological diversity in private forests. The same timeframe is foreseen for another project of Lithuanian Fund for Nature – National Inventory of Grasslands. An appropriate balance between environmental, economic and social development can be achieved only by creating interaction between sectors ensuring and regulating the legal basis and special institutions functioning on its basis. Rules on state and private forest use and management have been updated by including measures for biodiversity conservation and implementing principles of sustainable forest management. New forestry policy and strategy statement was prepared. The transport sector follows the requirements of all international treaties on transport and environment. The National Programme for Agricultural and Rural Development for 2000-2006 devised by the Ministry of Agriculture is distinguished by the greatest integrity among the sectoral strategies and programmes. In this programme the main attention is paid to integrated rural development by closely harmonising social, economic and ecological challenges. As the most common objective of agriculture and rural development “to contribute to the solution of economic, nature conservation, social and cultural issues related to rural prosperity and that of the whole country, to co-operate with private sector and local communities” is specified as a challenge. It should be noted that this programme is one of the few ones where a relation with other programmes is considered. Monitoring and evaluation The Forest Inventory and Management Institute periodically conducts stand-wise inventory in state and private forests. The institute at regular intervals carries out forest and game management planning, forest mapping and strategic planning of forestry. Information of forest monitoring has being analysed periodically. Research results on forest biodiversity are available from projects of research institutions: Lithuanian Forest Research Institute and Forestry Faculty at Lithuanian Agricultural University. The results of the projects have been published and are accessible to the general public as well. See more in the chapter on Convention on Biological Diversity. NGO participation All interested NGOs were involved in the process of preparation of different strategies, e.g. Lithuanian forest policy and strategy, they are able to comment on draft legislation, the biggest ones, like Lithuanian Fund for Nature and Lithuanian Ornithological Society, make their input in or even initiate preparation of different documents. Quite many practical activities are implemented by NGOs. The biggest achievement would be Lithuanian national ECONET, developed by Lithuanian Fund for Nature. See more on NGO participation under Convention on Biological Diversity.
Council Directive 79/409/EEC and Council Directive 92/43/EEC
Endorsement Two main EU directives related to nature protection - Wild Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) and Natural Habitats of Wild Fauna & Flora Directive (92/43/EEC) form the legal basis for a network "Natura 2000". The major part of Europe is guided by the principles and the requirements on nature protection described in these directives. In accordance with the above-mentioned legal documents,
103 "Natura 2000" - the European network of protected areas has been created and is being compiled until now. Lithuania started official negotiations for the membership of EU on 15th of February, 2000. During the process of negotiation the conditions proposed by EU itself, may be accepted, but a candidate country may insist on the transitional periods or exemptions for the enforcement and implementation of the separate EU legal acts. In co-operation with the project financed by DANCEE programme, Lithuania has already prepared the negotiation position paper for the nature protection sector. The focal point for the EU Birds and Habitats Directives is Mr. Edmundas Greimas in the Ministry of Environment. Financial resources The preparation for implementation of the EU Birds and Habitats Directives/Natura 2000 network in Lithuania is supported by Denmark. The support was given in the form of 2 projects. The Danish-Lithuanian project "Approximation of Lithuanian capacity, policies and procedures on nature protection to the EU requirements, with particular focus on implementation of the EEC Habitats directive (92/43) and the EEC Birds directive (79/409)" was initiated on September 1999. The project ended 31December, 2001. The project is established between the Danish and Lithuanian governments. The main responsible institutions of the project were the Lithuanian Ministry of Environment and DANCEE (Danish Co-operation for the Environment of Eastern Europe) of the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy. The companies Ornis Consult Ltd. and NEPCon implemented the project. The goal of the project was to help the Lithuanian Ministry of Environment to fulfil the EU nature conservation requirements, which encompass the EEC Habitats directive (92/43) and EEC Birds directive (79/409). The project activities mainly focused on selection and legal designation of areas to be included in the European network of conservation areas of special importance for Europe's biodiversity - Natura 2000 network. The project “Implementation of NATURA 2000 network on Regional and National level in Lithuania” continues the work made during the first project. Both projects are supported by Danish Co-operation for Environment in Eastern Europe (DANCEE), Danish Environmental Protection Agency. The project ends on 31 December, 2003. The overall aim of the project is to strengthen the protection of habitats and wildlife in Lithuania through implementation of the EU NATURA 2000 network. For concrete implementation of Natura 2000 network different funds will be used – namely, EU PHARE, LIFE, EU structural funds, and others. Institutional and personnel capacity Until 2002, the main capacity for implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives/Natura 2000 network in Lithuania was the institutional set-up of the Lithuanian-Danish projects. It comprises project co-ordinator, project assistant, and 5 working groups for each project. In the end of 2002, Protected Areas Strategy Division was established in the Nature Protection Department of the Ministry of Environment (currently 4 people employed). Its main task is implementation of the Natura 2000 network in Lithuania. Concrete achievements The main and most important task when implementing the EU and other international obligations is to combine them with national legal system. In order to implement the EU directives and international conventions, the changes of much national legislation were prepared and accepted during the last few years. The regulations of Birds and Habitats directives were transferred to the Act on Protected Areas (09- 11-1993, I-301) and Act on Species of Protected Animals, Plants, Mushrooms and Communities. Until 2004 Lithuania undertook to establish the network of SPAs and SACs and guarantee protection of bird species and natural habitats of European importance. The selection criteria of SPAs and SAC were confirmed by the executive orders of the minister of environment (No. 22, 09- 01-2001; No. 219, 20-04-2001). According to these criteria the list on sites, which could guarantee
104 protection of species and natural habitats, enumerated in Annex 1 of Birds Directive and Annex 1 and 2 of Habitats Directive, was identified. A big part of the sites of the list is not involved in natural areas protected nowadays within the international context (national, regional parks, strict nature reserves or nature reserves). As a result, in order to guarantee the protection of species and habitats indicated in Birds and Habitats Directives, Lithuania will have to establish some new strict nature reserves and nature reserves and/or correct the lines of the present ones. At the moment Lithuania still stands behind the supposed average of the EU member states according to the common area of the protected sites. The average should be not less than 13% of state land surface. NATURA 2000 database will have to be filled in for every SPA and SAC and sent to the European Commission. Lithuania's rich biological diversity warrants that the inclusion of Lithuania into the European Union will constitute a significant contribution to the NATURA 2000 network. Some of the species found in Lithuania are very rare or even extinct in Western Europe, and Lithuania still hosts substantial populations of species such as the white stork and the wolf. Before joining the EU, Lithuania is obliged to prepare the national list of candidate areas for the inclusion into the NATURA 2000 network. The first step during this process is to identify priority species and habitats and evaluate their status. The national legal basis of nature protection also needs to be amended in order to comply with the requirements of EU nature conservation legislation. Full designation of sites may only take place after Lithuania's accession to the European Union. Lithuania comprises 53 different types of preserved habitats of European importance. This represents 24% of the entire number of preserved habitats (218) that are recognised in the European Union and listed in the Habitats Directive. Many of these habitat types need protection. They are found within various sea, freshwater, sand, meadow, forest, and swamp areas. Joining the European Union, Lithuania will become responsible for the protection of a number of habitats of European importance. The proper management and protection of these habitats do not only show the commitment to the European Union - it will also benefit the Lithuanian people, as it will enable us to enjoy these unique natural values and to preserve them for our children and the future generations. The concrete achievements currently include: • Draft list of habitats included in the Annex I of the Habitat Directive, occurring in Lithuania; • Classification system of Lithuanian Habitats; • Comparison of Lithuanian habitat classification system with CORINE and Braun- Banquet V.; • Typological and phytosociological approaches in classification of forest communities of Lithuania: a comparison; • Plant species included in Annex II of Habitat Directive and assessment of the plant species and their habitat status in Lithuania; • Inventory of national species/biodiversity databases; • Analysis of compliance of existing databases with EMERALD database system, and • Draft list of Natura 2000 sites. A number of publications aimed at different target groups was published: NATURA 2000 in Lithuania, The EU nature protection requirements and NATURA 2000 sites management, Habitats of European importance in Lithuania, NATURA 2000 habitats in Lithuania. Two new upcoming PHARE projects: “Protection of endangered species of flora and fauna and their habitats through implementation of CITES and the Bern and Bonn Conventions and the related EU legislation” and “Development of management plans for protected habitats: technical assistance and supplies” will also contribute to implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives through ensuring a full compliance with EU nature protection requirements by revision and implementation of national policies and procedures with particular focus on implementation of the Directives;
105 developing management and action plans for administrations of pilot protected areas (20 Special Protected Areas (SPAs) and 40 Special Areas of Conservation (SACs); development of internal procedures for information management; purchase and installation of equipment related to environmental management information sub-system of nature conservation for monitoring, data analysis and subsequent reporting. Monitoring and evaluation Every member state has to guarantee the sustained protection in NATURA 2000 sites for the species of animals, plants and natural habitats, for which those sites were established. Therefore, Lithuania will have to prepare the monitoring program of these sites, suppose the system of planning, control and management. Every 6 years the Ministry of Environment (MoE) will have to present its reports on how the obligations intended in Habitats Directive are being implemented for the European Commission. The MoE, responsible for the protection, will provide monitoring and management of newly established NATURA 2000 sites. It could happen that the capacity of MoE regional subdivisions (regional nature protection agencies, administrations of state parks and strict nature reserves) is not enough. Therefore, municipalities, scientific institutions or NGOs may help additionally. Legal basis, which regularises assessment procedures of the influence upon the environment, soon has to be changed in such a way, that it would take notice of the assessment of SPAs and SACs properly, i.e. to know if the intended economic politics will not do harm to the habitats and species protected in the sites of European importance. NGO participation Since the first Danish-Lithuanian project, NGO participation was ensured officially through participation in the working groups. There were 5 working groups established for each project, and in each of them NGO representatives were involved. Furthermore, each project had a Public Awareness working group that aim to inform decision makers on the subject of the project and to form their favourable opinion about the problems that will need to be solved; to provide information on requirements of Habitat and Birds Directives and their implementation measures in Lithuania for officials responsible for implementation of the decisions at regional level; to provide information related to implementation of Habitat and Birds Directives in Lithuania to land and forest owners and users, taking into account their interests; to form, through informing scientists, NGOs and media, favourable opinion of the public. Many events for different target groups were organised in the framework of the projects, and NGOs were able to participate, make their comments and contributions to the project.
CONCLUSIONS
Whether on a global or regional scale, countries are, will and must be involved in international co- operation on a large number of environmental and nature conservation issues. It is a sad but inescapable fact that environmental protection and nature conservation is, ultimately, governed by economic concerns. Being a country of economy in transition, Lithuania for quite a long period has experienced this fact, and could not take the full responsibility for preservation of its biodiversity. At present we highly appreciate the fact that Lithuania has finally joined all international agreements and treaties important for biodiversity protection. International Conventions constitute a framework of objectives, goals and guidelines. They provide the platform, but they cannot do the actual work. International actions – whether on a global or a regional or even a bilateral scale – are made up of individual, national measures. Many conventions are vague and without any specific provisions on what the Contracting Parties must do to achieve the agreed goals. Since most of international agreements on biodiversity conservation double and overlap with each other, countries with limited financial resources, like Lithuania can use this as an excuse not to form
106 specific institutional structures or create specific action plans for separate treaties. Insufficient institutional capacities and lack of funding are also the main reasons for Lithuania’s poor concrete effort to implement some Conventions. Since the CBD can be considered as a framework convention for biodiversity conservation and includes many aspects form other agreements, Lithuania was concentrating its work mostly on implementation of this Convention. The strict reporting procedures of this Convention also provide for putting efforts in activity co-ordination and evaluation. The same applies to the Ramsar Convention. Other conventions, unfortunately, were regarded by Lithuania far less seriously. But it is very important, that the country has a strong basis for all kinds of nature conservation activities – National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and Action Plan. But the situation is rapidly changing in relation to the EU accession process. Implementation of the EU Directives on nature conservation is obligatory to the member states. Since the European Union has ratified or joined many international conventions, the requirements of some of them were transposed to the EU Directives and Regulations. The example, that during the last couple of years Lithuania has joined important CITES and Bonn Conventions indicate that with the EU accession our commitments for nature conservation will increase even more. Although never the ultimate solution to any problem, an international treaty can serve both as a lever for action and as an unpleasant reminder of what remains to be done. NGOs and progressive politicians can use an international treaty as a means of bringing pressure to bear on the environmental and nature conservation work at home. Obvious benefits from participating in the international co-operation for Lithuania, as a country in transition, are the possibilities to pool resources for science, monitoring and assessments, to exchange information and experiences, to participate in the transfer of technical know-how, to be entitled to economic assistance and co-operation. During the last couple of years international funding available for biodiversity conservation has considerably increased, and more funds will be open with the EU accession. This should considerably increase Lithuania’s capacity for practical implementation of international nature conservation requirements, and as a result, status of biodiversity in the country. In order to use these possibilities efficiently, co-ordination of all related activities would be needed.
107 POLAND
INTRODUCTION
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE COUNTRY
In terms of its area, Poland is the ninth country in Europe. The area of the land is 312 685 km2, the area of the territorial sea is 8,700 km2, and the area of lagoons (The Szczecin Lagoon and the Vistula Lagoon) – 1,200 sq. km. The beginnings of the Polish state date back to the 10th century. The present borders of Poland were established after World War II. After the war the communists seized power, supported by the USSR. Communist governments ruled until 1989. In January 1990 the Sejm introduced the new name of the state: The Republic of Poland. Currently Poland is a multi-party republic with a bi- cameral parliament. In 1998 a new administrative division was adopted into 16 provinces, which were divided into 373 counties and 2489 communes. Poland is an industrial and agricultural country. The total income of the national budget in 2002 amounted to 143,867,000,000 PLN, and the total expenditures – 182,979,500,000 PLN. 1 EURO = approx. 4.35 PLN (17 March 2002). In Poland there are several hundred non-governmental organisations whose aim is protecting the environment. The largest nature protection organisations are: the Polish Society for Bird Protection [Ogólnopolskie Towarzystwo Ochrony Ptaków], the Polish Society for Nature Protection “Salamandra” [Polskie Towarzystwo Ochrony Przyrody „Salamandra”], the Naturalists Club [Klub Przyrodników], the League for Nature Protection [Liga Ochrony Przyrody], the Polish Society of Friends of Nature „pro Natura” [Polskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Przyrody „pro Natura”], the Mazovian Society for Fauna Protection [Mazowieckie Towarzystwo Ochrony Fauny], the Committee for Eagle Protection [Komitet Ochrony Orłów]. Most of them were established after 1990.
STATE OF NATURE
NATURAL FEATURES OF THE COUNTRY
Poland lies in the eastern part of Mid-European Lowlands. The lowland area covers approx. 91.3% of the total area, the upland area 5.6%, and mountains only 3.1%. There is also the coastal line along the coast of the Baltic Sea. The northern part of the country is occupied by a lake regions with the landscape of young glacial period. A characteristic feature of Polish lowlands are broad, flat river valleys. In the south of Poland there is a belt of old mountains and uplands, which is highly diverse in terms of geology and sculpture. Poland is situated in the centre of Europe in the transition zone from west to east, between oceanic and continental climate and from north to south between boreal and snow-forest as well as temperate warm and humid climate. Due to such a geographical position the country is situated in the area of so called central-European province of deciduous and mixed forests which belongs to the euro-siberian area and to the Nearctic (Holarctic) plant society.
108 BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
Habitat types Poland has a comparatively very high variety of natural habitats. You can meet here dry steppes and large marshlands, alpine zones of high mountains and big areas of sandy dunes, large areas of coniferous, deciduous or mixed forests and rural areas of extensive agriculture with fairly high biodiversity. This is the result of geographical location and the history of the country. The composition of forests differs greatly from the natural one to artificial monocultures. Scotch pine Pinus sylvestris constitutes 70% of them. Generally, in Poland 485 plant societies have been inventoried. 71 out of them are given in the Appendix I of UE Habitats Directive.
Biological Corridors In Poland there are a few main ecological corridors having an international significance. These are big lowlands river valleys, especially the valleys of Vistula, Oder, Bug, Narew, Warta, and Noteć. All the aforementioned river valleys (or their parts) are the refugee for European birds as well as routes for different groups of migrating animals. These corridors have a very important role which is not only due to the rivers themselves but mainly due to habitats in their valleys.
Species and Genetic Diversity It has been estimated that from 72 up to 75 thousand living species, including 33-45 thousand of animal species exist in Poland. Vascular plants are represented by about 2750 species and subspecies, and vertebrates by 620 species (including 87 fish species, 18 amphibian species, 9 reptile species, about 400 bird species, and 91 mammal species). Due to its specific geographical position Poland abounds in species having their habitat boundaries on its area. For example 30% of mammals, 16% of birds, and from 7% up to 50% of invertebrates (it depends on the taxonomic group) hosted in the country belongs to this group. Lack of natural geographical barriers and continuity of habitats in the parallel lay-out have made flora and fauna on Polish lowlands areas poor in endemic species which can mainly be met in the mountainous areas of the Carpathian and Sudeten ranges.
Protected area and forest coverage Nowadays 28,2% of Poland is occupied by forests. The number and indices of different kinds of protected areas in Poland by the end of the year 2001 according to the data of the Ministry of the Environment was as follows: 23 national parks with a total area of 314,500 ha (1% of the area of Poland), 120 landscape parks – 2,552,800 ha (8.2%), 1345 nature reserves – 147,700 ha (0.5%), 412 areas of conserved landscape – 7,353,800 ha (23.5%), 102 documentary stands – 949,8 ha (0.003%), 173 environmental-landscape complexes – 78,900 ha (0.25%), 6448 ecologically used lands – 46,800 ha (0.15%). The total size of these areas are ca. 25% of the area of Poland. However the most of them are areas of landscape conservation – the bans introduced in case of them are minimal and the efficiency of these forms of conservation is very small.
Priority Areas from nature conservation point of view In Poland there are a few big forest complexes only slightly transformed by people which belong to the most precious natural areas. The most valuable is Puszcza Białowieska – one of the last primeval forests in Europe). There are also big forest complexes created nearly completely by planting podsols They also belong to very precious natural areas – i.e. some bird species which are endangered in their existence and which are typical for these specific habitats have their nests there. Ecosystems connected with big lowland river valleys situated on mineral soil are equally valuable. The valley of the Vistula is particularly valuable (this is the last such a big river in Europe the riverbed of which mostly hasn't been regulated) as well as the valley of the Bug, the lower Narwia,
109 the Pilica, and the middle part of the Warta. Valleys of rivers flowing on peat lands are not less important. These are Biebrza Valley, Narwia Valley, lower Oder Valley or Noteć Valley. The habitats characteristic for these valleys include extensively maintained hay meadows, fens, littoral communities, reservoirs in old river beds, swampy and alluvial alder-ash forest. The seaside areas are also very valuable natural areas. These are for example Gulf of Puck (sand dunes, seaside meadows, marine benthic algae communities), Słowiński National Park (coastal pine forests, shallow seaside lakes) or Świna Estuary (coastal salt meadows, litoral communities). Very precious are also mountainous areas such as Tatry (many types of alpine vegetation), Beskidy or Bieszczady (mountain spruce forest, beech forest).
Human Impact Nowadays one of the most serious anthropogenic threats is related to changes in agriculture – agricultural production intensification. Other serious threats to nature are connected with waterlogged environments transformation – melioration, peat land deposit exploitation, hydrotechnical building development of river valleys (river-beds straightening, deepening and engineering, construction of embankments and dam reservoirs, waterside deforestation – including marshy forests). There are also some other threats such as: utilization of open areas for housing, industrial, touristic and recreational purposes together with transport system infrastructure development; air, water and soil pollution; massive tourism (especially in some waterside, mountainous and lake districts).
DECISION MAKING SYSTEM
STRUCTURE OF NATURE CONSERVATION
According to the Nature Protection Act (Article 6) there are only two units of state administration responsible for the protection of nature: the minister of the environment and governors (the state authorities of regions = provinces). Both units fulfil the duties of nature protection with the help of natureconservationists. On the country level there is a Main NatureConservationist, who is the vice minister. On the province level there are Province Nature Conservationists, who are usually the subordinate to the Directors of The Province Departments of Agricultural and Environmental Affairs. The Nature Protection Act gives also some duties, rights and responsibilities connected with the nature protection to the local, municipal authorities. For the flow chart of the decision making system.
NGO PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKING SYSTEM
By the end of the 1980s there was one big nature conservation organisation called The League for Nature Conservation and a few local groups. The League, that had a relatively big influence on the decisions in the field of nature protection, consisted of many well-known naturalists, who dealt with the nature protection in practice, as well as of scientists. After the communism fell in 1990 there has been a great outburst of non-governmental ecological movement. In the first years there were about 2000 ecological organisations, in majority weak and small. At the same time, the importance of The League for Nature Conservation was diminished. In practice, the ecological organisations lost influence on the decisions. If they had any, it happened due to private connections of particular members. However, there was no clear system that would allow organisations to give an opinion on particular acts or decisions that pertained to the environment. Nowadays the situation is being changed due to two parallel processes:
110 – Some of the ecological organisations, also those that deal with the nature protection, have developed, settled and gained social recognition. Some organisations start to be seen as reputable and well-prepared partners in the discussions about the environment. – The Polish law has been gradually adapted to the EU standards, in which the society’s access to information and participation in the decision making system play an important role. New procedures that enable giving opinions on new laws are being introduced. The procedures also enable members of social organisations to take part in various advisory and supervising bodies. These two processes lead to a graduate rise in the influence of social organisations on taking decisions that are vital for the environment. Yet, the changes take place very slowly and are mostly limited to the right to give an opinion on the decisions. The authorities at various levels treat the consultations with the organisations rather as a formal duty, and their results are mostly not taken into consideration. Nevertheless, as the non-governmental organisations strengthen their position and administrative changes are introduced, the situation is changing in the desired direction.
INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS
SHORT HISTORICAL OVERVIEW Poland was not particularly active in international activities related to preparation of any of the following conventions. It took usually several years before Poland ratified them. But after the ratification Polish representatives usually take part in all conferences and meetings of the parties connected with conventions. In Appendix II there is information about the history if signing and ratification of different Conventions related to environment.
STATE OF INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS All the conventions mentioned herein are potentially of great importance for the nature conservation in Poland. There are as many as 71 kinds of habitats, which are listed in the EU Habitats Directive. Some of them cover large areas of the country. Migratory routes of many species of birds and mammals (e.g. bats) run in Poland. In the whole area of Poland there are 168 bird habitats that should be protected, 81 of which are of European importance. Within Polish Natura 2000 network there are about 280 areas that are to be protected. Some of them agree with the bird habitats proposed to be protected. These areas are of key importance for the protection of most precious ecosystems and species of plants and animals that are connected with them. The majority of the areas are wetlands and marshy areas (i.e. river valleys, peat bogs, fish ponds, lakes and sea shores). In order to protect the areas effectively, the following conventions and directives shall be executed or brought into effect: the Ramsar Convention, the Bonn Convention, the Bern Convention, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive. Animals that are smuggled from the Eastern to the Western Europe go through Poland. There is also a developing market of exotic animals (both living and stuffed), as the number of collectors and breeders is growing. Therefore, it is of great importance that the Washington Convention is executed in Poland.
111 EVALUATION OF THE CONVENTIONS
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, Especially as Waterfowl Habitats
Endorsement Signature: 22.11.1972 Ratification: 22.03.1978 Participation on international conferences The Polish part participates in all conferences and meetings of parties. Focal point Helena Kamińska – Ministry of Environment, Department of Nature Protection, Section of Ecosystems and Species, ul. Wawelska 52/54, 00-922 Warszawa, Poland, room 359; tel.: +48-22-5792696, fax: +48-22-5792555, e-mail: [email protected]. Reports Reports on execution of the Convention resolutions (once / 3 years) are regularly placed in the Convention’s secretary office. The copies of the reports are accessible on the Ministry of Environment.
Financial resources Earmarked support system There is no earmarked support system for the implementation of the convention. The financial resources for the execution of Convention resolutions theoretically come from the state budget and from resources of the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management. International funding possibilities Non-governmental organisations which carry out protecting programmes connected with the Convention can be supported by the financial resources of GEF/SGP UNDP. National, regional resources for the implementation State foundations can partially finance the projects that are related to the Convention and are executed mostly by non-governmental organisations. The following foundations offer support: at the state level – the EcoFund Foundation, the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management, at the province level – the Regional Funds for Environmental Protection and Water Management. Total spending on the implementation There is no summary review of expenses of the execution of the Convention. Yet, the expenses are tiny and mostly linked with preparation of reports and participation in conferences and meetings. Resources which are used by non-governmental organisations pertain to specific projects and are not treated as expenses spent in connection with a particular convention.
Institutional and personnel capacity Developed infrastructure for implementation None. Activities connected with the Convention are coordinated by the Department of Nature Protection in the Ministry of Environment. People employed full time for the convention related work None.
112 Concrete achievements Influence in the legal system and institutional structure On order of the Ministry of the Environment a strategy for conservation of wetlands was formulated. The strategic research was published in Polish and English in 1998 from the resources of, among others, the Ramsar Convention Bureau. The research contains a review of water and swamp environments in Poland including rivers, dam reservoirs, lakes, ponds, sea coast with bays, peat-bogs and swamps, an analysis of their current conservation state (reserves, national parks, landscape parks) and it gives recommendations in reference to the strategy of conservation of these environments in the future. Wetland areas requiring renaturalisation actions have been determined mostly in the framework of the research on the strategy of conservation of these areas, made on order of the Ministry of the Environment. Moreover, there is a detailed database concerning wetlands in Poland along with the description of their present state; these areas were recorded and valorised in reference to the environment protection. Within the database of swamps and grasslands, a list of important wetlands areas was determined on the basis of criteria adopted in Montreux (1990) and criteria applied by ICBP. There were classified 86 refugia of European importance and 81 refugia of national importance. Established protected areas Poland designated for conservation in the framework of the Ramsar Convention the following 8 areas: the lakes: Łuknajno, Świdwie Karaś and Siedmiu Wysp, Milicz Fishponds and the national parks: Biebrza, Słowiński and Warta Mouth. An important action as far as the implementation of the Ramsar Convention is concerned is the determination and description of 168 birds refugia in Poland, the majority of which comprise water- swamp areas. These areas are included in long-term national biologic monitoring programme. Poland co-operates on common basis with Germany in reference to creation of a transborder conserved area comprising the valley of lower Oder as an important ecological corridor for birds. One of Polish Ramsar areas, Słońsk (Warta Mouth National Park), is located within its borders. On the German side the conserved area of Gottesheide can be found. Poland co-operates also with Ukraine for the benefit of common conservation of border water- swamp ecosystems in Poleski National Park and in the Ukrainian Szacki National Park. The following areas are supposed to be designated to the Ramsar List in the nearest future: Narwiański National Park, Drużno Lake, Poleski National Park, Chełmskie Bagna Węglanowe (Chełm carbonate swamps) and the Szczecin Bay. The Institute for Environment Conservation of the Polish Academy of Sciences proposed for designation in the future, along with the adequate documentation, the following areas: Stawy Przemkowskie (Przemków Fishponds), Middle Vistula Valley and the Peat-bogs in Karkonoski National Park. There are being implemented some bilateral Polish – Dutch projects, including those supporting "Biebrza" project connected with land management of Biebrza National Park.
Monitoring and evaluation Monitoring of objects protected by the Ramsar Conventions are not conducted. Only some researches (for example ornithological ones) are provided on this areas by different scientific institutions and private persons. When the results of these researches are published, they are also used in National Reports.
NGO participation In preparation of the ratification Non-governmental organisations did not play an important role in preparations to ratify the Convention.
113 Information sharing Non-governmental organisations take active part in spreading the information on the significance of wetlands and the need to protect them. Some of them established The Coalition for Wetland Protection (PROM). A lot of these organisations carry out projects in connection with conservation of wetlands. Implementation Non-governmental organisations have their representatives in the Scientific Councils of such Ramsar areas as: Biebrza National Park, Słowiński National Park, and Warta Mouth National Park. They take part in making decisions (consulting most of them) on the method of management of these areas.
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
Endorsement Ratification: 12.12.1990 Participation on international conferences The Polish part participates in all conferences and meetings of parties. Focal point Barbara Zbiegieni – Ministry of Environment, Department of Nature Protection, Section of Species Protection, ul. Wawelska 52/54, 00-922 Warszawa, Poland, room 386; tel.: +48-22-5792259, fax: +48-22-5792555, e-mail: [email protected]. Reports Reports on execution of the Convention resolutions (once per year about the agreements given and once per 2 years about the changes in the law instruments) are regularly placed in the Convention’s secretary office. The copies of the reports are accessible on the Ministry of Environment.
Financial resources Earmarked support system There is no earmarked support system for the implementation of the convention. The financial resources for the execution of Convention resolutions theoretically come from the state budget and from resources of the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management. International funding possibilities Non-governmental organisations which carry out protecting programmes connected with the Convention can be supported by the financial resources of GEF/SGP UNDP. National, regional resources for the implementation State foundations can partially finance the projects that are related to the Convention and are executed mostly by non-governmental organisations. The following foundations offer support: at the state level – the EcoFund Foundation, the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management, at the province level – the Regional Funds for Environmental Protection and Water Management. Total spending on the implementation There is no summary review of expenses of the execution of the Convention. Yet, the expenses are tiny and mostly linked with preparation of reports and participation in conferences and meetings. Resources which are used by non-governmental organisations pertain to specific projects and are not treated as expenses spent in connection with a particular convention.
114 Institutional and personnel capacity Developed infrastructure for implementation The Ministry of the Environment has been assigned as the administrative body responsible for implementation of the resolutions. The State Council for Environmental Protection has been appointed as the scientific body of the Convention. People employed full time for the convention related work None.
Concrete achievements Influence in the legal system and institutional structure According to the resolutions of the Convention: • Border crossings have been determined where plants and animals are cleared by the customs; • Reports on the trade of specimens of species protected under the convention are submitted annually to the Convention Bureau; • Domestic regulations on the international trade of wild animals and plants are improved. With a view to meeting Convention resolutions trainings for customs-officers are carried out and auxiliary materials for these services have been published. Other achievements, benchmarks There is a problem of the lack of shelters for animals detained by customs-officers at border crossings. These issues are currently solved thanks to the co-operation with zoological gardens that accept the confiscated animals. However, this is only a temporary solution which will be difficult to maintain for be continued in longer terms.
Monitoring and evaluation The Ministry of Environment monitors a number of agreements given for the import and export of individuals, specimens or products from species listed in Convention Appendixes.
NGO participation In preparation of the ratification Non-governmental organisations did not play an important role in preparations to ratify the Convention. Information sharing Non-governmental organisations make the society acquainted with the Convention, mainly by educational activities and publications. Implementation Some organisations start the pilot project connected with monitoring of realizations of rules of Conventions in Poland.
115 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
Endorsement Ratification: 01.05.1996 Participation on international conferences The Polish part participates in all conferences and meetings of parties. Focal point Andrzej Langowski – Ministry of Environment, Department of Nature Protection, Section of Landscape Management, ul. Wawelska 52/54, 00-922 Warszawa, Poland, room 365; tel.: +48-22-5792456, fax: +48-22-5792555, e-mail: [email protected]. The person is also responsible for the implementation of EUROBATS and ASCOBANS. Reports Reports on execution of the Convention resolutions are regularly placed in the Convention’s secretary office (once / 3 years). The copies of the reports are accessible in the Ministry of Environment. The EUROBATS reports are also accessible in Internet page of Agreement: http://www.eurobats.org/PartyReports/index.htm.
Financial resources Earmarked support system There is no earmarked support system for the implementation of the convention. The financial resources for the execution of Convention resolutions theoretically come from the state budget and from resources of the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management. International funding possibilities Non-governmental organisations which carry out protecting programmes connected with the Convention can be supported by the financial resources of GEF/SGP UNDP. National, regional resources for the implementation State foundations can partially finance the projects that are related to the Convention and are executed mostly by non-governmental organisations. The following foundations offer support: at the state level – the EcoFund Foundation, the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management, at the province level – the Regional Funds for Environmental Protection and Water Management. Total spending on the implementation There is no summary review of expenses of the execution of the Convention. Yet, the expenses are tiny and mostly linked with preparation of reports and participation in conferences and meetings. Resources which are used by non-governmental organisations pertain to specific projects and are not treated as expenses spent in connection with a particular convention.
Institutional and personnel capacity Developed infrastructure for implementation Activities connected with the Convention are coordinated by the Department of Nature Protection in the Ministry of Environment. The Chiropterological Information Centre in Kraków was established as an institution responsible for gathering the information on bats conservation and monitoring. People employed full time for the convention related work None.
116 Concrete achievements Influence in the legal system and institutional structure Species of animals listed in Appendix I and II of Convention are mostly taken under one of the kinds of law protection in Poland. Now new rules of species protection are prepared, according to which all species from these Appendix will be taken into consideration. State conservation programmes are introduced in order to protect the most endangered species, for example Migratory Fish Protection Programme. Two agreements have been signed in the framework of the convention: Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas (ASCOBANS) of 17/03/1992. 5 coastal areas (including land and waters) have been determined within the Polish zone of the Baltic Sea and there are being considered 2 more having importance in reference to the marine mammals conservation. All the species of marine mammals are under strict conservation in Poland. The research centre dealing with whales conservation in Poland is the Marine Station of the University of Gdańsk. As far as education and increasing of social awareness are concerned, there is carried on an information campaign on mammals living in the Baltic Sea entitled "The Friends of Hel" with participation of the Ministry of the Environment, the Marine Station of the University of Gdańsk and local non-governmental ecological organisations. The Agreement is implemented in co-operation with the Ministry of Transport and Maritime Economy and marine boards. The Agreement on the Conservation oh Population of European Bats (EUROBATS) of 04/12/1991. Implementation of the Agreement resolutions in Poland consists mostly in putting all bat species existing in Poland under species protection. Established protected areas Ratification of the Convention has not the visible influence on the protection of certain areas in Poland. Some sites important for migratory birds were taken under the protection according to the rules of Ramsar Convention. In the biggest bat hibernaculum in Poland on all its area the reserve of nature was established (before it only half of this fortification was protected). The next bat reserve – in Fort Szczaliny – waits for the approval. Monitoring and evaluation No monitoring has been realised specially because of the Convention . Some scientific or non- governmental institutions and organisations provide the monitoring of the certain migratory animals species (e.g.: geese during the migration – West Pomeranian Ornithological Society, abundance of water bird wintering on the Polish costal zone – University of Gdańsk; abundance of swans wintering in Poland – Ornithology Department of Polish Academy of Science, winter bats census – several organisations and institutions).
NGO participation In preparation of the ratification Non-governmental organisations did not play an important role in preparations to ratify the Convention. Information sharing Non-governmental organisations make the society acquainted with the Convention, mainly by the realisation of projects connected with the Conservation and educational activities that accompany them. Implementation Non-governmental organisations run various projects that deal with the protection of specific migratory species of animals and their habitats. Several organizations lead the projects on the conservation of bats. Also the ornithological organizations are often active in the field of conservation.
117 Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats
Endorsement Signature: 24.03.1995 Ratification:01.01.1996 Participation on international conferences The Polish part participates in all Bern Convention Standing Committee meetings. Focal point Krystyna Wojciechowska – Ministry of Environment, Department of Nature Protection, Section of Species Protection, ul. Wawelska 52/54, 00-922 Warszawa, Poland, room 346; tel.: +48-22- 5792673, fax: +48-22-5792555, e-mail: [email protected]. Reports Reports on execution of the Convention resolutions are regularly prepared. Also some thematic reports and reports on Agreements are prepared. The copies of the reports are accessible in Internet http://www.nature.coe.int/english/main/Bern/meetings.htm and in the Ministry of Environment.
Financial resources Earmarked support system There is no earmarked support system for the implementation of the convention. The financial resources for the execution of Convention resolutions theoretically come from the state budget and from resources of the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management. International funding possibilities Non-governmental organisations which carry out protecting programmes connected with the Convention can be supported by the financial resources of GEF/SGP UNDP. National, regional resources for the implementation State foundations can partially finance the projects that are related to the Convention and are executed mostly by non-governmental organisations. The following foundations offer support: at the state level – the EcoFund Foundation, the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management, at the province level – the Regional Funds for Environmental Protection and Water Management. Total spending on the implementation There is no summary review of expenses of the execution of the Convention. Yet, the expenses are tiny and mostly linked with preparation of reports and participation in conferences and meetings. Resources which are used by non-governmental organisations pertain to specific projects and are not treated as expenses spent in connection with a particular convention.
Institutional and personnel capacity Developed infrastructure for implementation None. Activities connected with the Convention are coordinated by the Department of Nature Protection in the Ministry of Environment. People employed full time for the convention related work None.
118 Concrete achievements Influence in the legal system and institutional structure The following acts contain most important resolutions related to the Bern Convention: The Nature Protection Act serves as the grounds for taking species of plants and animals as well as their habitats under protection. On the basis of the act most species listed in the Appendix 1 and 2 of the Convention were taken under strict or partial protection. The Environment Minister decrees introduce detailed regulations. The decrees order, for example, to create protected areas around the breeding grounds of certain species (especially birds of prey), which contributes to the protection of the habitats. The Hunting Law Act constitutes the basis for rational use of species of game animals that are listed in Appendix 3 of the Convention. On the grounds of Appendix 4 of the Convention the Ministry of Environment issues decrees that regulate close seasons and forbidden ways of pursuing the game animals. Coordination with other international conventions It is important to protect the 168 bird habitats in order to execute the Bern Convention in Poland. In majority the habitats consist of marshy areas. Only a small part of them is protected under the Ramsar Convention.
Monitoring and evaluation In 1998 in order to fulfil the Convention resolutions, the conception of nature monitoring in Poland started to be prepared. The result of this preparation – the Integrated Monitoring of Natural Environment was included in the system of the State Monitoring of Environment. Because of lack of sources it is limited mostly to the monitoring of the level of air, water and soils Most of the monitoring activity concerning nature in Poland is provided by scientific institutions (e.g. Universities, Polish Academy of Science) and non-governmental organisations. It is usually not directly connected with the Convention. Examples of nature monitoring realised by NGOs are: abundance and the breeding success of birds of prey in Poland (the Committee for Eagle Protection) or the winter monitoring of bats (e.g. Polish Society for Nature Protection „Salamandra” and several other organisations).
NGO participation In preparation of the ratification Non-governmental organisations did not play an important role in preparations to ratify the Convention. Information sharing Non-governmental organisations make the society acquainted with the Convention, mainly by the realisation of projects connected with the Conservation and educational activities that accompany them. Implementation Non-governmental organisations run various projects that deal with the protection of specific species of plants, animals and their habitats. However, the resolutions of the Convention are not particularly taken into consideration when these projects are planned and executed. Most urgent necessities of Polish nature conservation are given priority.
119 Convention on Biological Diversity
Endorsement Signature: 05.06.1992 Ratification: 13.12.1995 Participation on international conferences The Polish part participates in all conferences and meetings of parties. Focal point Dr Bożena Haczek – Ministry of Environment, Department of Nature Protection, Section of Landscape Menagement, ul. Wawelska 52/54, 00-922 Warszawa, Poland, room 345; tel.: +48-22-5792282, fax: +48-22-5792555, e-mail: [email protected]. Reports National Reports on execution of the Convention resolutions are placed once/4 years in the Convention’s secretary office. Up to now 2 National Reports and 4 Thematic Reports (on Alien and Invasive Species, on Access and Benefit Sharing, on Forest Ecosystems, on Mountain Ecosystems) have been sent. The copies of the reports are accessible in the Ministry of Environment and in Internet on the web page http://www.biodiv.org/world/map.asp.
Financial resources Earmarked support system There is no earmarked support system for the implementation of the convention. The financial resources for the execution of Convention resolutions theoretically come from the state budget and from resources of the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management. International funding possibilities Non-governmental organisations which carry out protecting programmes connected with the Convention can be supported by the financial resources of GEF/SGP UNDP. National, regional resources for the implementation State foundations can partially finance the projects that are related to the Convention and are executed mostly by non-governmental organisations. The following foundations offer support: at the state level – the EcoFund Foundation, the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management, at the province level – the Regional Funds for Environmental Protection and Water Management. Total spending on the implementation There is no summary review of expenses of the execution of the Convention. Yet, the expenses are tiny and mostly linked with preparation of reports and participation in conferences and meetings. Resources which are used by non-governmental organisations pertain to specific projects and are not treated as expenses spent in connection with a particular convention.
Institutional and personnel capacity Developed infrastructure for implementation None. Activities connected with the Convention are coordinated by the Department of Nature Protection in the Ministry of Environment. People employed full time for the convention related work None.
120 Concrete achievements Influence in the legal system and institutional structure In 1997 Poland received from UNEP financial means for implementation of a project whose objective was to develop the national strategy of biological diversity conservation along with action plan. One of the points of the agreement concerning the possibility of receiving financial means from UNEP says that the condition for finishing the works is the acceptation of the strategy and action plan by the Ministry of the Environment. However, the Ministry of the Environment did not accept the strategy and plan developed by the National Foundation for Environment Protection within the framework of this project at that time. Only at the beginning of the year 2003 was the National Strategy of Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Biological Diversity along with the Action Plan accepted,. Their resolutions are criticised by Polish NGOs as insufficient. There are also being prepared alterations to the environment protection law and the proposals of the Ministry of Environment, which prepares these changes, are usually evaluated positively. Conservation of the forest biological diversity constitutes a part of the national strategy of biological diversity conservation and at the same time it is an important element of the Polish policy of complex forest resources conservation, included in the document entitled "State Forest Policy" adopted by the Government in 1997. The policy tends towards construction of a contemporary model of forest management, which is to leave aside clearly economic priorities for the benefit of ecological, economic and social values of forests. At present the proper services are making attempts to start the implementation of a complex environment monitoring programme at biocenosis, ecosystem and species levels. The Wildlife monitoring implementation programme for the years 1996-2005 provides for evaluation of all the levels of environment systems organisations: from individuals through populations, species, biotic communities, landscapes until the crust vegetation of the country. Results of the monitoring will supply the databases of the national system of information on the biological diversity. Unfortunately, the lack of mechanisms of financing the environment monitoring results in the fact that it is doubtful that its implementation, on at least a minimum sensible level, is possible in the nearest future. Basic element of the Clearing House Mechanism on Biological Diversity in Poland was supposed to be an Internet service designed by a team of specialists co-ordinated by the Institute of Environmental Protection. The main goal of this service is to ensure the mechanism of efficient exchange of information on biological diversity in Poland between involved persons and institutions. It is also assumed, that the service will facilitate the access to the information on biodiversity status and management in Poland. It was decided to achieve the above goals, using a Clearing House Mechanism (CHM), understood as a system of information exchange. In line with the CHM philosophy, the system shall help to combine information from different sources, provide easy access to and render available for public circulation the information, databases and analytic elaborations provided by various stakeholders. Unfortunately, due to various reasons, including the lack of means for its maintenance, the system is currently of rather poor quality and because of the lack of frequent updates a lot of information is not up-to-date anymore.
Monitoring and evaluation In spite of the fact, that the “Accomplishment Program of Wildlife Monitoring for years 1996- 2005” was approved, such monitoring was not realized in Poland.
NGO participation In preparation of the ratification Non-governmental organizations did not play an important role in preparations to ratify the Convention.
121 Information sharing Non-governmental organisations make the society acquainted with the Convention, mainly by educational activities and publications. Implementation Some of the projects conducted by Polish NGOs fit to the Convention, but mostly the reason of these undertakings are not Convention, but the needs of nature.
Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy
Endorsement Signature: Sofia, 1995 Focal point Dr Bożena Haczek – Ministry of Environment, Department of Nature Protection, Section of Landscape Menagement, ul. Wawelska 52/54, 00-922 Warszawa, Poland, room 345; tel.: +48-22- 5792282, fax: +48-22-5792555, e-mail: [email protected].
Institutional and personnel capacity Developed infrastructure for implementation None. Activities connected with the PEBLDS are coordinated by the Department of Nature Protection in the Ministry of Environment. People employed full time for the convention related work None.
Concrete achievements The Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS) was not supposed to aim at introducing new legislation or programmes. This assumption was completly fulfilled. First and for all, the Strategy was supposed to support the implementation of the Convention of Biological Diversity. In practice it was assumed that the realisation of the Convention will mean realisation of the PEBLDS postulates. Consulted non-governmental organisations agree unanimously that effects of existence of PEBLDS cannot be discerned in Poland. The resolutions from Ryo Convention are carried out slowly and with much delay. PEBLDS seems to have not much influence on the process of the realisation. Some of the resolutions of the convention have been carried out in recent years, especially those that did not require rising funds or introducing changes in other sectors of life. To summarise, PEBLDS does not play any role in nature protection in Poland. The document is not widely known and not used. Because PEBLDS contains very general expressions, it is not possible to use it to put pressure on the state administration
NGO participation At the moment no non-governmental organisations participate in PEBLDS realisation. All Polish NGOs that deal with protection of nature do realise the Strategy recommendations in practice. This is not intentional, however, and cannot be connected with PEBLDS.
122 Council Directive 79/409/EEC and Council Directive 92/43/EEC
These documents are binding in the countries that belong to the EU. Poland is not one of the countries yet. The list of species of birds and types of habitats in the appendixes of the Birds and Habitats Directive was one of the criterion taken into consideration in establishing areas to protect within NATURA 2000 network in Poland. It is one of the elements of adapting the Polish law to the EU rules and regulations. The preparatory works were done by the panel of experts that consisted of the following consultants: – Marek Baranowski (UNEP/GRID-Warsaw) – Anna Dyduch-Falniowska (Institute of Nature Conservation of the Polish Academy of Sciences) – Jerzy Solon (Institute of Geography and Spatial Organisation of the Polish Academy of Sciences) – Maria Andrzejewska (UNEP/GRID-Warsaw) – Marek Górski (Law Department of the University of Łódź) – Tomasz Żylicz (Economy Department of the University of Warsaw) The Ministry of Environment appointed a Steering Committee that consisted of 14 people in order to improve the works within the project. The Institute of Ornithology of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Gdańsk is in charge of the part that pertains to the Birds Directive. Institute of Nature Conservation of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Kraków deals with the Habitats Directive preparations. The preparation of NATURA 2000 network was started from the implementation of a project financed from Phare funds. The list of areas of NATURA 2000 network was supposed to be ready by the end of 2002 (it is still in the stage of preparations). A system of management of these areas is to be developed in the year 2003. The areas proposed for conservation were chosen mostly on the basis of archive materials. A data analysis was made in reference to those areas that were already under protection (national parks, landscape parks, nature reserves) and to the areas situated outside the areas of conservation. With this view all the source materials available were used, including data from bases of CORINE Biotopes, CORINE Land Cover, ATPOL (the base of the Atlas of Distribution of Vascular Plants in Poland), Bird Refugia. During the preparation of the NATURA 2000 network it turned out, that the very expensive, long-lasting environmental inventory made in communes (municipal level), financed from state budget, gave no reliable materials for national projects of nature conservation. In 2002 a preliminary version of the research which included descriptions of the areas as well as their maps was sent to Province Implementation Teams established in all the provinces (voivodships). The objective of this action was to verify the proposals on the grounds of data being in the possession of local scientific institutions, nature conservationists and non-governmental organisations. Until now ca. 280 areas have been chosen to be included in Natura 2000 network, all of them cover an area of 45,000 km2 (15% of the area of Poland). Although the NATURA 2000 network takes into consideration all the most important ecological corridors (lowland river valleys) on the European scale, the areas that are established in the country do not have a network framework. They are usually isolated areas that are not connected by ecological corridors. The protected areas are not placed evenly. The majority of the areas lies in the following provinces: Podlaskie, Zachodniopomorskie, Podkarpackie, Warmińsko–Mazurskie and Lubuskie. The proposed areas that should be part of the NATURA 2000 network comprise from 4 to 25 percent of the province area. The size of chosen areas is diversified. Big areas prevail, there are more than 100 areas bigger than 10,000 ha, including 22 of the area exceeding 50,000 ha. Only 62 objects are smaller than 1000 ha.
123 About 7% of NATURA 2000 areas is conserved in national parks (all the national parks are to be included in the future network), 34% in landscape parks, 2% in nature reserves and almost 60% is not included in any of these forms of nature conservation, therefore they cannot be considered as protected areas. The fact that the majority of these areas is situated within so called “areas of conserved landscape” has no practical significance due to the very low dignity of this form of nature conservation.
CONCLUSIONS
Concrete positive affects Positive outcomes of the fact that Poland ratified the aforementioned conventions are quite insignificant. These are especially: designation of 8 areas for conservation within the framework of the Ramsar Convention (however, it has to be noticed that this was not of much importance to the conservation of these areas), tightening of state borders (Washington Convention) and adoption of the National Strategy of Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Biological Diversity, along with the Action Plan, at the beginning of the year 2003. The species included in particular conventions are also gradually put under legal protection. There is a big hope in connection with two issues being developed at the moment: the Polish part of the NATURA 2000 network and the amendment to the Nature Protection Act, which is to adjust Polish law to the regulations of international law, prepared by the Ministry of the Environment.
Overlaps between the conventions The scope of influence of all the mentioned conventions overlaps to a larger or smaller extent. The strongest connections exist between the Conventions of Ramsar, Bonn and Bern and the NATURA 2000 programme. The existence of strong connections between these conventions has no significant impact on implementation of their resolutions by Poland. The fact that the PEBLDS should only support implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity results in this Strategy being entirely neglected when it comes to planning any kinds of actions.
Lost opportunities One of the most important lost opportunity is the preparation of the Polish part of Environmental Network NATURA 2000. If it were prepared really well, we would have very precious, unique material about he most valuable areas in our countries. Main reason why this opportunity has been lost are: too big speed in the preparation process, and the lack of sources for the field work (for the resent state of areas values control). In Poland doesn’t exist the stable monitoring of the most precious natural sites, so many information concerning them are outdated, incomplete or difficult to access.
Rate of the full power of the convention used Poland, in spite of the fact it ratified many international conventions and agreements (21 altogether), did relatively little to implement their resolutions and commitments arising under them. 8 areas have been designated within the framework of the Ramsar Convention. This is definitely not enough. 81 birds refugia of European importance have been recorded in Poland, most of them being water-swamp areas meeting the requirements for putting under conservation within the framework of the Ramsar convention. Some areas of significant value have not been designated for conservation, among them the Valley of Vistula – one of the last unregulated rivers in Europe, the Valleys of Middle Warta, Bug, Narew, Lower Oder or Świna Lagoon. The strategy for conservation of wetlands developed on order of the Ministry of the Environment has not been implemented. A lot of valuable wetland areas have not been put under any form of
124 protection. There is no environmental monitoring, neither in the areas covered by the Ramsar Convention nor in the remaining areas. In case of the Conventions of Bonn and Bern, the implementation of convention resolutions has been limited almost entirely to the legal acts enumerating the species of protected animals and plants and the ones on the basis of which it is possible to place under conservation the area of particular environmental value constituting the habitats of fauna and flora. Regulations connected with the CITES Convention are gradually introduced to the Polish legal system, but in practise the trade of species and the derivative products included in this convention is carried on semiofficially and there are no specialised forces which would supervise observing these regulations. To sum up, the implementation of the majority of conventions in Poland is proceeding very slowly. Even though some slow changes in the right direction can be observed, they concern mostly only those actions, which do not require any financial contribution. To a great extend this is the outcome of the difficult financial situation of the country but this is also the proof of the lack of efficient mechanisms that could exact the settlements made by the international society. That is why Polish environmentalists somehow count on the improvement of the situation after Poland will have joined the European Union. On the one hand this will enable the access to the Union financial means designated for nature conservation, on the other hand this will increase the pressure on obeying the binding law.
125 ROMANIA
INTRODUCTION
The governmental type of Romania is republic, it’s 1991 constitution proclaims Romania a democracy and market economy, in which human dignity, civic rights and freedoms, the unhindered development of human personality, justice, and political pluralism are supreme and guaranteed values. The constitution directs the state to implement free trade, protect the principle of competition, and provide a favourable framework for production. The constitution provides for a president, a Parliament, a Constitutional Court, and a separate system of lower courts that includes a Supreme Court. Romania is a country with a transition economy. The reconstruction process started in 1990 has determined a decrease of production in all fields of activity in the context of a pronounced lack of financial funds and equipments as well as of an unfavourable international climate. Starting from 1994, a recovery process of industrial production has been under way accelerated in the last 3 years, based on monetary macro stabilization (inflation decreased from 296% in 1993, to 56,9% in 1996 and 34,5% in 2001). The environmental movement in Romania seems to represent the most dynamic and coherent part of the non-profit sector, at least in terms of activities conducted and coalitions established. Since 1990, environmental NGOs have constantly promoted networking, and some have reached distinguished levels of organizational development in their movement toward self-sustainability. Most Romanian NGOs focus on environmental education and training (88 percent), environmental fieldwork (65 percent), nature conservation, pollution prevention, and environmental information dissemination and raising public awareness (52 percent). They are less effective in influencing environmental legislation and lobbying. Romanian environmental NGOs are generally poor in terms of financial resources: half of them have an annual budget of less than USD 500. Membership fees do not represent an important financial resource. Most groups are totally dependent on foreign funding, and only a few are capable of recovering part of their costs from the community. Training in fund-raising methods and financial management would increase their access to multiple funding sources, including local resources. There is a clear need for training on public participation practices and methods involving representatives from all three sectors (authorities, profit sector and non-profit sector).
STATE OF NATURE
INTRODUCTION
Romania is situated in south-eastern Europe with an area of 237,500 sq km between 43° 37´ 07´´ and 48° 15´ 06´´ North, and 20° 15´ 44´´ and 29° 41´ 24´´ East. Extending inland halfway across the Balkan Peninsula, it occupies the greater part of the lower basin of the Danube River system and the hilly eastern regions of the middle Danube basin. It lies on either side of the mountain systems collectively known as the Carpathians. Romania is a country with rich biodiversity (ecosystems, species and genetic diversity) and a high percentage of natural ecosystems – 47% of the land area of the country is covered by natural and semi-natural ecosystems. Since almost half of all forests in Romania (13% of the country) have been managed for watershed conservation rather than production, Romania has one of the largest areas of undisturbed forest in Europe. The natural integrity of Romanian forest ecosystems is indicated by the presence of the full range of European forest fauna, including 60% and 40% of all European brown bears and wolves, respectively. Europe's largest wetland, the Danube Delta, also
126 lies predominantly in Romania. Major grasslands, caves, and an extensive network of rivers, add to the ecosystem richness. Important for Romania’s biodiversity is that the territory of the country is a meeting point between biogeographic regions. There are 5 European Bio-geographical Regions represented in Romania: Continental, Alpine, Steppic, Pannonic and Black Sea. The high level of geographic diversity in Romania and the consequence of its location as a biological meeting place, has produced a floral diversity that includes over 3,700 species and a fauna diversity estimated to be more than 33,802 species. Climate: Moderate. In general Romania has a temperate climate with significant zonal aspects. Some regions have high humidity and low thermic amplitudes, dryer continental climate exists in other areas creating higher thermic amplitudes, while in the south and west the influence of the sub- Mediterranean warm and dry climate is felt. The average annual temperature is 8-10°C, with frosty winters (-3° to -4°C) and warm summers (21 to 22°C). The average annual precipitation is 637 mm, varying between 400-500 mm (Romanian Lowland, Dobruja and the Danube Delta) and 1.000- 1.400 mm (mountains). The relief is characterized by three main levels. The highest is represented by the Carpathian Mountains, the middle level by the hill-land around these mountains and the third is the lowland, which includes the lower portion of rivers and the Danube Delta. The mountainous region is curve- formed and covers 31% of the total surface. The highest point is the Moldoveanu peak from the Fagaras Mountains (2.544 m). The hill-land area is situated inside (Transylvania) and outside (Subcarpathians) the Carpathians and covers 36%. Lowlands can be found in the western and south- southeastern part of the country and cover 33%. The biomes that existed on the country territory, prior to human modification, consisted primarily of forests (77%), steppe grasslands (16%), aquatic ecosystems and wetlands (5.8%) and alpine and subalpine ecosystems (1.2%).
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
In total 17 major terrestrial ecosystem formations exist in Romania including all of Europe’s major ecosystems. These are boreal coniferous forests with 41 ecosystem types, mesophilous, hygrophilous and xerothermic broadleaved forests with 110 ecosystem types, different grassland ecosystem formations with 560 ecosystem types and different shrubby ecosystem formations with 47 ecosystem types. There is also a rich diversity of aquatic ecosystems including mountain springs and rivers, river floodplains, glacial lakes, coastal wetlands, bogs and others. As a consequence of its geographical setting and the evolution of human society in the region, Romania has a unique and high level of biodiversity and intact ecological systems. Natural and half- natural eco-systems represent about 47% from the Romania’s total surface. As a result of the studies financed through CORINE Biotopes Programme, a number of 783 habitats types were identified and characterized (13 coastal, 89 wetland, 196 meadow, 206 forest, 54 swamp, 90 rocky/sandy and 135 agricultural) on 261 areas analyzed on the entire territory of the country. The largely unbroken Carpathian mountain chain and the Danube River and its tributaries are particularly important in providing corridors for the spread of biodiversity. Romania is crossed mainly by bird populations, which are migrating through the eastern part of the Mediterranean basin on the following route: Greece, Bosphorous – Nil Valley. The main migration zone of Romania is in the east between the Carpathians and the Black Sea, Moldova, Dobrogea and the east of Muntenia. To this can be added the fly route through the West Plain, part of the Tisza Plain, with a lateral branch along the Danube from east to west. The secondary fly route is passing the Transylvania basin, from northwest to southwest. In total about 3,700 species of higher plants exist in Romania. Among them, 23 species are declared as natural monuments, 39 species are endangered, 171 species are vulnerable and 1,256 are rare species (according to the Red List of Higher Plants of Romania, elaborated by the Romanian
127 Academy in 1994). Grassland species include 37% of the total species represented. About 600 species of algae and a total of over 700 species of marine and coastal plants exist. A very high percent of the species of plants (4%) are endemic. In total there are 57 endemic taxa (species and subspecies) and 171 sub-endemic taxa (with their territory mostly in Romania). 75% of the endemic and sub-endemic species are found in the Carpathian Mountains. The main endemic centers for plants are the Mountains of Rodna, Bistrita-Ceahlau, Bucegi-Piatra Craiului, Retezat-Godeanu, parts of these mountain massifs being declared as national parks. Although Romania has a high level of plant diversity it is particularly important as a center of population density for a variety of threatened and endangered animals. Of greatest significance is the high density of bears, wolves and lynx. The Romanian populations of these species are the highest of any country in Europe. In addition to large carnivores, Romania has over 33,802 other animal species, out of which 33,085 invertebrates and 717 vertebrates. The vertebrates include 191 species of fish, 20 amphibian species, 30 species of reptiles, 364 species of nesting and migratory birds and 102 species of mammals. In addition to being rich in species, Romania has a very high level of genetic diversity among many species because of varying habitat conditions. There are for example a large number of genotypes of Norway spruce, pine, beech and oak. These genotypes have varying growth rates and resistance to disease and pests. Picea abies, Larix decidua, Pinus nigra are all represented by Carpathian races and there are distinct climatic types of Quercus robur, Picea abies and edaphic types of Quercus robur, Q. petraea, and Fraxinus excelsior. There is also generally a high level of intraspecific variation among insects within Romania. The following priority areas for nature conservation have been identified for targeting within the biodiversity conservation strategy (according to the National Strategy and Action Plan for Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use of its Components): Habitats characterized by a large number of endemic species and a high biological diversity A concentration of habitats with a great number of endemic, rare, relict species can be noticed in the mountain massifs of Rodna, Bistrita and Ceahlau, Bucegi and Piatra Craiului, Retezat-Godeanu, Cernei-Mehedinti, Apuseni. A high biological diversity can also be found in the Northern Dobrogea Plateau, in the southern Banat, on the Transylvanian Plateaux and Danubian gorges, as well as on the Moldavian Plateau. The most important wetland habitats are those in the Delta and the oligotrophic and eutrophic swamps conserving relict and rare species such as the Petea thermal lake and Valsan river. These areas of high biodiversity value need priority protection. Habitats that are threatened to be irreversibly degraded or destroyed Habitats existing around extreme polluting sources that are threatened with irreversible damage should be a priority target for protection. The floodplain habitats in which the underground water and the flood conditions have been modified (e.g. along the Danube River floodplain) and wetlands that are being heavily polluted and drained (Olt River) also need priority attention for conservation and restoration. Habitats and species whose conservation and sustainable management can provide benefits at a local and national level Habitats which contain major species of trees with high wood production, herbaceous species with high medicinal, melliferous, fodder values, must be conserved and managed in a sustainable manner. All forest ecosystems with natural structures that are strongly diversified can provide large economic benefits, if managed in a sustainable manner. Aquatic ecosystems such as the Danube floodplains and tributaries, or the Danube Delta can bring large local and regional benefits if protected, restored and effectively managed. Habitats with high aesthetic landscape value, which can be rendered through ecotourism also add to the above mentioned. Habitats and species whose conservation and/or sustainable management can provide educational benefits Part of the habitats and species whose sustainable conservation and management can bring educational benefits, are contained within the boundaries of protected areas, national parks and biosphere reserves.
128 Threatened habitats and species, which must be controlled through special regulations The utilization of grasslands, especially those on steep hills, should be regulated and strictly controlled in order to prevent their degradation and the reduction of biodiversity due to overgrazing and erosion. Stringent regulations and permanent control over the gathering and selling of wildlife plants and animals are needed in order to avoid the loss of valuable species and ensure their sustainable use. Moreover, special regulations should also be issued in order to prevent the reduction of biodiversity in agro-ecosystems. Human activities have significantly modified the Romanian landscape. These modifications have reduced the abundance of certain elements of the ecosystem (most notably steppe grasslands) and also added new components. Although Romania is rich in biodiversity (particularly because of the large size and quality of valuable ecosystems) the country has suffered a progressive loss of biodiversity as a result of human activity. In particular, agriculture, industrial development, transportation and the expansion of cities have affected the biological diversity, both generally and locally. Pollution, alteration to river courses and hydrotechnical works, resource extraction and overexploitation of natural resources have been the principle factors involved. It has been estimated, that in the last fifty years, there has been a permanent loss of 250,000 ha of forest and grassland ecosystems and that an additional 280,000 ha have been temporarily or only partially lost. A total of about 400,000 ha of wetland habitat (most of it along the Danube River) have been permanently or partially lost as well. Air, water and soil pollution have been and continue to be major threats to biodiversity in Romania. Industrial pollution decreased in the first years of the economic transition process due to significant reductions in industrial output. However, it can be expected that as the Romanian economy begins to grow, industrial pollution of air, water and soil will begin to rise again unless changes are undertaken by instituting new manufacturing processes or by installing pollution control equipment. Agriculture runoff is also a major pollutant factor in some areas. Part of the interior waters, which could sustain a rich biological diversity is polluted and Danube brings from the upstream countries a pollution level with negative impact upon the river’s biological diversity, as well as the delta and the Black Sea. The high nutrient load of the Danube River has caused eutrophization in the Danube Delta lakes where macrophyte, molluscs, benthic and fish species have consequently been reduced. This is particularly damaging to fish population but also to marine mammals. Among the most significant ecological changes that have taken place in Romania has been the alterations of the course of rivers and the building of hydotechnical facilities. In most instances these actions have had major negative consequences for aquatic biocoenoses and caused the loss of natural ecosystems and terrestrial habitats, as well as the loss of ecological equilibrium of these ecosystems on a large scale. The loss of groundwater as a result of hydrotechnical works has, for example, produced the partial or total drying out of about 20,000 ha of forests. The draining of wetlands was promoted by the previous government in order to create arable land for agriculture. This practice led to the loss of approximately 400,000 ha of floodplains, particularly along the Danube river and in the Danube Delta (80,000 ha). The embanking of the Danube and the building of the Portile de Fier dam has also had a major impact in destroying spawning areas of many fish species. Together with pollution this factor has led to a reduction of sturgeon harvest (50 times lower than previously reported) and carp (10 times lower than previously reported). Building of dams on the Danube catchment area have reduced the sediment load to the Black Sea coast and caused the partial loss of some psamophyllous habitats. Reservoirs associated with dams in other areas have also reduced forest and grasslands surfaces by about 140,000 ha. Resource Extraction and Use and Changes in the Land Use Since 1989, given the economic difficulties experienced by many Romanians, the tendency has been to exploit as much as possible the natural resources available in order to generate quick incomes. There has therefore been considerable illegal extraction and gathering of forest resources, including the cutting of small fir trees, mushroom collection, medicinal herbs, aquatic animals, poaching and others.
129 Forest management practices in Romania have not always been highly sensitive to protection and sustainable use of biological resources. In particular the overexploitation of wood in some areas, the selective extraction of economical (and ecologically) important trees, and the introduction of non- native species or non autochthonous (Douglas fir and Austrian pine) have negatively impacted biodiversity. It is generally accepted that these practices have reduced the quality of biodiversity on about 1,000,000 ha of land. Surface mining operations (brown coal in the north of Oltenia, sulphur in the Calimani Mountains, and bituminous shale in Banat) have caused the loss of some important forest and grassland habitat. Soil resources have also been diminished historically in Romania as a consequence of erosion from poor farming and agriculture practices. Estimates are that about 40% of the agricultural area is affected by erosion with an average rate of 16.5 t/ha/yr. The total area of agriculture in Romania is 14,797,500 ha, silviculture utilizes 6,680,200 ha – out of which 6,245,800 ha are forests and the grassland surfaces are of 4,872,100 ha, from which 3,378,400 are pastures and 1,493,700 ha are hay fields. Of major significance for biodiversity richness and useful natural resources is the total surface of water bodies of 888,300 ha. Irrigation of agricultural land (about 3,200,000 ha in 1989) has also brought about increased salination on large areas. Overgrazing in some areas is also reducing soil resources (e.g. contribution to erosion, especially on slopes).
NATURE CONSERVATION STRUCTURE
In the Ministerial Council, the Ministry of Waters and Environment Protection is representing nature protection. As the protection of forested areas is under the authority of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forests, this ministry also represents part of nature protection issues. Generally in Romania, the authorities responsible for environmental (and nature) protection are the Ministry of Waters and Environmental Protection (MWEP), the local Environmental Protection Inspectorates (EPI) and the Administration of Danube Delta Reserve. The MWEP has three General Directorates, several Directorates and a State Inspectorate. A quite big number of other institutions such as ministries, units working under the MWEP, research institutions, etc. has certain responsibilities in nature protection.
Relevant units subordinated to the MWEP: Public institutions financed by the state budget: • The National Commission for Control of Nuclear Activities; • 42 county Environment protection inspectorates (EPI), including the Bucharest municipality inspectorate; • Administration of the “Danube Delta” Biosphere Reserve
Units under authority of the MWEP: • Romanian Water Authority • Institute of Meteorology, Hydrology and Water Management
Scientific research and design units coordinated by the MWEP, financed by extra-budgetary resources: • The National Institute for Research and Development for Environment Protection – Bucharest; • The “Grigore Antipa” National Institute for Marine Research and Development – Constanta; • The “Danube Delta” National Institute for Research and Development - Tulcea.
130 In nature protection issues inside the MWEP the General Directorate for Environmental Protection is relevant (there is also a Secretary of State in Environment Protection). This General Directorate has two sub-divisions: - Ecological control and monitoring division - Biodiversity conservation and protection, protected areas and nature monuments division (see chart for details). The "Biodiversity conservation and protection, protected areas and nature monuments" sub- division, under the direct coordination of the State Secretary, is the most important unit responsible for nature-protection in Romania. (See the organigram of the Ministry of Water and Environment Protection) This sub-division is represented in the Environment Protection Inspectorates (EPI's) by similar departments dedicated to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of resources. Inside this sub- division there are separate departments treating different problems: conserving biodiversity, CITES regulation, management of nature protected areas, etc. This subdivision has the following tasks regarding nature protection: coordinating the nature-protection activity in the country, elaborating the policy and strategies in biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of resources; coordinating the administration of Protected Areas and Nature Monuments through the network of EPI’s from the territory; funding, elaborating and proposing for application – in collaboration with the Romanian Academy – different plans, measures and strategies regarding the protection of natural habitats; proposing, in collaboration with the Romanian Academy and other specialized institutions, new protected areas and Nature Monuments to be included in the national network; participating in the approval of Environmental Impact Studies for major territory management works, for exploitation of certain natural resources, etc.; coordinating the preparation of the “Protected Area and Nature Monuments Catalogue” and of the “Red Data Book” concerning endangered species of Romanian Flora and Fauna; assuring and safeguarding the application of recommendations and direction of the international Conventions signed by Romania in connection with nature protection. The representatives of the MWEP in the provinces are the 42 local Environmental Protection Inspectorates (EPIs) subordinated to the MWEP. They play a key role in the enforcement of legislation. Most of the activities on implementation and enforcement of environmental legislation have to be carried out by the EPIs. Their main functions regarding nature protection are: - possessing information about the existence and distribution of endangered, rare or endemic animals and plants in the county where they work and taking steps for their conservation; - keep evidence, check and analyse periodically the state of protected areas from the county where they work; - assuring that management plans for the protected areas are applied; - authorizing – if it is the case – the collection of wild plants and animals by persons or institutions; - collaborating with local stakeholders (agriculture and forest authorities, prefectures, major- houses, etc.) in order to identify the territories unsuitable for other purposes and afforesting them; - identifying damaged ecosystems and making plans for their ecological reconstruction; - analysing – from biodiversity point of view – and approving – if it is the case – the studies received in order to get authorization for the economical activities.
131 Other relevant ministries and authorities: The Commission for the Protection of Nature Monuments of the Romanian Academy has direct scientific responsibility for all categories of protected areas (strictly protected areas, national parks, nature monuments, natural reserves and protected landscapes). Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forests – this Ministry is particularly important, as where the protected areas are forest areas ROMSILVA (National Forest Authority, subordinated to this ministry) has the responsibility of management. It is stated that, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forests and MWEP supervise and control the enforcement of the regulations regarding forest protection. In reality, MWEP has reduced control over forested territories. Even if these are protected areas their management is done by the RomSilva personnel or under surveillance of RomSilva. This leads sometimes to contradictory situations because this authority has important financial income from logging, which should be significantly reduced or stopped in nature protected areas. The Autonomous Administration of Forests, ROMSILVA S.A., was established in 1990 to act as an agent with state capital, and based on economical efficiency and responsible for the administration and management of most of the state owned forests (99.5 %). ROMSILVA is coordinating 41 forest subsidiaries, corresponding to the administrative counties of the country. Under them there are about 400 forest districts, each covering from 6 to 20 000 ha of forest area. Since the political changes in 1989 environmental NGOs have played an increasingly important role in environmental issues in Romania. However, NGO participation in the decision-making system is not an easy task in any field in Romania. Nature protection is not an exception. NGOs, including highly professionalized groups and local volunteer organizations, have undertaken a wide range of initiatives, including contributing pressure to achieve policy or management improvements and organizing various field activities (species protection, environmental education, acting as wardens etc.). Together with local, regional, and international governments and agencies and institutions, NGOs have also often organized or participated effectively in cooperative projects in the interest of biodiversity conservation. In the Danube Delta, for example, the organization Pro Delta, the Danube Delta Institute, The Biosphere Reserve Authority and the World Wide Fund for Nature, have together undertaken restoration of wetland areas unsuccessfully drained for agriculture. The law permits NGOs to propose protected areas and a new law (in preparation) will even permit to take them in their custody. Despite this, there are only limited official means for NGOs to voice their opinions or provide direct input into official decisions affecting the management of biodiversity.
INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS
SHORT HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
Romania has ratified most of the main multilateral environmental agreements, a process that has been taken place especially after 1989. Romania is one of the countries, which first ratify the Conventions, and only after formal acceptance started to develop the necessary institutional, legislative measures that allow for compliance with international requirements. This is why in most of the cases the implementation is lagging behind the ratification procedure. Romania has not followed a prioritization strategy for the ratification of the conventions and this was mainly the result of Romania’s wish to align to the international community and the respective legislative framework. In Romania the main authority for the implementation of biodiversity related conventions is the Ministry of Water and Environment trough its Directorate for Biodiversity Protection and Conservation, Protected Areas and Natural Monuments. There is a complex institutional framework for the implementation, with the involvement of many institutions, from
132 central authorities, with their local branches, to various research institutes and various companies coordinated by the central authorities. In most cases this creates a problem with regards to proper coordination of activities initiated by all the responsible authorities and lack of a proper and effective centralization of all relevant data. There are some initiations for creation of Coordination Committees for different conventions.
STATE OF INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention), ratified by Law 13/18.05.1993 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), ratified by Law 58/13.07.1994 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Animals (CITES), ratified by Law 69/15.07.1994 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention), ratified by Law 13/08.01.1998 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention), ratified by Law 5/25.01.1991
EVALUATION OF THE CONVENTIONS
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat
Endorsement Romania has ratified the Ramsar Convention on the basis of Law Nr. 5/25.01.1991. Participation on international conferences Since it became Party, Romania took part in the Conference of the Parties meetings, it submitted the national reports on the status of implementation of the Ramsar Convention. Focal point The National Focal Point for the Implementation of the Ramsar Convention is the Ministry of Waters and Environmental Protection through the Directorate for Biodiversity Protection and Conservation, Protected Areas and Natural Monuments. Ioan Jelev – Secretary of State Virgil Munteanu – Governor of the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Adriana Baz – Director of the Directorate for Biodiversity Protection and Conservation, Protected Areas and Natural Monuments Grigore Baboianu – Director of the Administration of the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Diana Mihaela Cocai – employee of the directorate Annual reports Since ratifying the convention, Romania took part in the Conferences of the Parties and submitted national reports on the status of implementation of the Ramsar Convention.
Financial resources Earmarked support system No special support system created for the implementation of the convention. The National Plan for water and environmental management coordinated by the Ministry of Waters and the Environmental Protection includes the funds for wetland conservation and wise use activity. The Ministry establishes the priorities based on the importance of each project.
133 International funds The Ramsar Small Grants Fund for Wetland Conservation and Wise Use have financed only 3 projects by now. The projects are: – Study of Romanian wetlands in preparation for new Ramsar sites, – Selection and characterization of potential Ramsar sites in southern Romania and – Establishing a transboundary Ramsar wetland area in the Upper Tisza region, (cooperation between Hungary, Romania, Slovakia and Ukraine). Mainly EU, GEF, and WWF funded other projects contributing to the implementation of the Convention. Most of these projects are implemented by the Danube Delta National Institute for Research and Development. (Center of Excellence for Deltas and Wetlands – 2000-2003; Integrated Management of European Wetlands – 2000-2003; Restoration of the Danube Delta wet zones – monitoring and equipment – 1998-1999) National, regional resources for the implementation There are some important research programs funded by the national government with relevance for the convention. These programs are also implemented by the Danube Delta National Institute for Research and Development. (E. g. Research on the protection and recovering of the migratory marine sturgeon populations in the Danube River) No information about the amount of money spent on the implementation of the convention.
Institutional and personnel capacity The Romanian Ministry of the Environment has commissioned the Danube Delta National Institute for Research and Development with the management of all wetlands in Romania and with the coordination of all Danube Green Corridor activities. The National Focal Point for the Implementation of the Ramsar Convention is the Ministry of Waters and Environmental Protection through the Directorate for Biodiversity Protection and Conservation, Protected Areas and Natural Monuments. Romania has not established yet a National Ramsar Wetland Committee, but the establishment of such Committee is being planned. There are Management Committees established for both Ramsar sites. No people employed full time for the implementation and/or coordination of the convention
Concrete achievements Influence in the legal system and institutional structure Regarding the legislative framework the relevant laws for the implementation of the Ramsar Convention are the same like the ones presented for the CBD. Other documents with special relevance are: Declaration of Cooperation for the Creation of a Lower Danube Green Corridor, signed by the environmental ministries of Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova and Ukraine (5 June 2000, Bucharest, Romania) Declaration of cooperation in the area of the Danube Delta and lower Prut river protected areas signed by the relevant Ministers of Moldova, Romania and Ukraine (5 June 2000, Bucharest, Romania) Established protected areas Up to now Romania has two Ramsar sites recognized: Danube Delta World Heritage Site, UNESCO Biosphere Reserve 647,000 ha. The Danube delta (Romanian part) consists of a fluvial zone characterized by sandy levees and densely vegetated lakes, a transitional zone of larger lakes, reed swamps and forested levees, and a marine zone, dominated by dune and barrier beach complexes. The site supports a rich flora, fish fauna (75 species), and important populations of several mammals. The area is internationally important as breeding, stopover and wintering site for waterbirds. Nesting species include internationally important numbers of cormorants and pelicans. The site was formally twinned with the Camargue
134 Ramsar site by an agreement between the Governments of Romania and France, 1992. Ramsar site no. 521. Small Island of Braila: 17,586 ha; Natural Reserve. A group of wetlands in the Lower Danube region, one of the rare areas along the river that has preserved its natural hydrological conditions and which contains a representative sample of habitats characteristic of floodplains as well as a former inland delta. Comprising seven small islands stretching over 61 km between two arms of the Danube just south (upstream) of Braila, the site is of major interest for at least 34 internationally protected bird species, two of which, the Pygmy Cormorant and the Dalmatian Pelican, are considered priorities for LIFE financing, and 65 species of fish. The wetlands perform important hydrological functions, particularly during seasonal inundation, and affect the local microclimate. Ramsar site no. 1074. According to the national report from 1999 there are 7 other wetland areas identified that comply with the Ramsar designation criteria and further actions will need to be taken for their international recognition. Since then no designation was made for the mentioned areas. Romania does not have a specific strategy for wetlands, as this is part of the National Strategy and Action Plan for Biological Diversity Conservation and Sustainable Use of its Components. The inventory of national wetlands was done by the Danube Delta Research Institute. In the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve in 1992 an important wetland restoration program was initiated. The program is focused on the restoration of the abandoned, unused polders for agriculture and fishponds. Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Authority identified the abandoned agriculture polders and fishponds, 11,425 ha of these areas, are already subjects of restoration works.
NGO participation There are NGOs working on wetlands, concentrating mainly on water birds (Romanian Ornithological Society; Association “Milvus Group”). The data gathered by them is not sufficiently used in the activities related to the implementation of the Ramsar Convention. The Ramsar Bureau and Bird Life International recently published a report “Important Bird Areas and potential Ramsar Sites in Europe”, according to the report there are 22 identified IBAs that fulfil the Ramsar criteria but lacking the designation in Romania.
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Animals
Endorsement Romania has ratified the Washington Convention in 1994 on the basis of Law no 69/15.07.1994. Participation on international conferences Romania has actively participated at the Conference of the Parties, since it became party to CITES Convention. Focal point The National Focal Point for the Convention is the Directorate for Biodiversity Protection and Conservation, Protected Areas and Natural Monuments (MWEP). Responsible persons: Ioan JELEV – Secretary of State Adriana BAZ – Director of the directorate Violeta ROTARU – employee of the directorate Romulus STIUCA – DDNIRD Annual reports Romania started the regular submission of reports in 2000. In September 2000 Romania was one of the countries receiving notification for failure in submitting annual reports for three consecutive years (1998, 1997, 1996). Starting with 2000 (when the reports for 1998, 1999 and 2000 were sent) Romania is in compliance with the reporting requirements.
135 Financial resources No special fund or support system created in the favor of the implementation of the convention. The MWEP has not benefited of specific assistance from international funds for the implementation. No information on the total amount of money spent for the implementation.
Institutional and personnel capacity Developed infrastructure for implementation The main administrative bodies are the Ministry of Waters and Environmental Protection with its Directorate for Biodiversity Protection and Conservation, Protected Areas and Natural Monuments and the environmental protection inspectorates. The General Custom Directorate and its territorial units are also included in the implementation. According to the Ministerial Order no 647/2001 the MWEP and the General Customs Directorate will select the custom points where international trade with animals covered by CITES will be carried out. The Management Authority for the purposes of this Convention is the Ministry of Waters and Environmental Protection, while the Scientific Authority is the Romanian Academy (National Council for Natural Monuments) and in certain cases the Institute for Forest Research and Planning. The Ministry of Environment is responsible for issuing the import, export, re-export licenses. The Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Administration plays a role in the licensing procedure in particular cases related to sturgeon harvesting from the area of the reservation. People employed full time No people employed full time for the implementation of the convention
Concrete achievements Romania ratified the convention according to the Law no 69/15.07.1994 for the ratification of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Animals. As a result the convention became part of the national legislation, but for 7 years no internal regulations for the implementation were created at all, as a result the convention was not applicable. At the moment the most important regulation for the purposes of the CITES Convention is the Ministerial Order No 647/6.06.2001 for the approval of the authorization procedure for the cropping, seizing, and/or acquisition and trading on the domestic market and export/import of the plants and animals from the wild flora and fauna. The law is clarifying some procedural aspects concerning the trading activity with wild species covered by CITES as well as with other species not included in the annexes of the convention. According to the Ministerial Order No 647/6.06.2001 the procedure for trading specimens/parts of plants or animals covered by CITES is the following: Export: For the export of species covered by one of the Appendixes of the CITES, (in the case of hunting trophies and sturgeons specific regulations are applied), the following documentation has to be submitted: – the agreement of the Romanian Academy (National Commission for Natural Monuments), – the proof of the legitimacy of capturing, and – an agreement from the relevant authorities of the importing country. Import: For the import of species covered by CITES, the following documentation has to be submitted: – the agreement of the National Academy (CNM) or in certain cases of the Institute for Forest Research and Planning; – proof about adequate means for the transport and care of specimens; – the CITES export or re-export license; – veterinary or phyto-sanitary certificate of the specimens. Re-export: For the re-export of species covered by CITES, the following documentation has to be submitted: – the CITES import license;
136 – proof that the specimens will not be used for commercial purposes. An important role is played by Romania in the working group on sturgeon management in the Black Sea region. The type of sturgeon fishing gear is strictly regulated by the relevant Romanian legislation. A Ministerial Order of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forests sets the fishing season yearly. Special fishing license is required to harvest sturgeons in Romanian waters. Being part of the CITES sturgeon program, Romania was assigned export quotas for sturgeons (as well as for hunting trophies), quotas that are officially respected. Still, it’s a fact that the illegal fishing of sturgeons as well as the illegal egg collecting are the most important threatening factor for the sturgeon populations. The most important obstacle in the way of implementation is that MO nr. 647/2001 did not establish concrete sanctions for non-compliance with its regulations. (Pursuant to Romanian legislation sanctions can not be imposed through ministerial orders). There are no legal provisions, which invest the enforcement authorities (mainly custom) with right/obligation to control the certificates or with power to confiscate illegally traded/possessed specimens. Some enforcement system exists on the basis of EPL, art. 59 and specific regulations regarding fishing and hunting activities. The penalty system varies from administrative sanctions (fees) to criminal sanctions (imprisonment).
NGO participation Until recently no significant actions were implemented by the nongovernmental sector with relevance to the CITES. In 2002 the Association “Milvus Group” initiated an international project (in cooperation with Green Balkans, Bulgaria; financed by the REC-Szentendre) aiming at awareness raising and enforcement related to CITES and generally to the problem of illegal trade. The Directorate for Biodiversity Protection and Conservation, Protected Areas and Natural Monuments (MWEP) offered its support to help the implementation of the project.
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
Endorsement Romania has ratified the Bonn Convention on the basis of Law no 13/08.01.1998. Date of entry in force: 01.07.1998 Participation on international conferences The COP 8 in 2002 was the first meeting attended by Romania as a Party. Focal point The National Focal Point for the Convention is the Directorate for Biodiversity Protection and Conservation, Protected Areas and Natural Monuments (MWEP). Responsible persons: Ioan JELEV – Secretary of State; MWEP Adriana BAZ – Director of the directorate Violeta ROTARU – employee of the directorate Romulus STIUCA - DDNIRD Simion NICOLAEV - GANIMRD Reports Romania submitted two progress reports to the secretariat of the convention (1999 and 2002). A thematic report concerning the EUROBATS agreement was presented by Romania in February 2001.
137 Financial resources Earmarked support system No special/direct support system developed for the purposes of the convention. The Ministry of Waters and Environmental Protection is allocating resources for different projects after a prioritization process. International funds No project financed by international bodies directly concerning the CMS. Although, most of the projects financed by international foundations/bodies (EU, GEF, others) concerning nature protection have strong relevance for the convention (projects aiming species protection are usually dealing with species included in the appendixes of the convention). National, regional resources for the implementation The situation is similar to the one in the case of international funds. The implementation of the convention is not directly financed, but the research, monitoring and conservation projects financed from national resources are (in many cases) relevant for the CMS as well. No information on the amount of money spent totally on the implementation.
Institutional and personnel capacity Developed infrastructure for implementation The competent authority for the implementation of the convention is the MWEP, Directorate for Biodiversity Protection and Conservation, Protected Areas and Natural Monuments. Other departments involved in the implementation of the convention are: Department for Fish, Fisheries and Aquaculture (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forests MAFF) Department of Hunting (MAFF) Important role is played by different research institutes (mainly the Danube Delta National Institute for Research and Development and the National Institute for Marine Research and Development “Grigore Antipa”) in the research and monitoring activities carried out in the favour of species covered by the CMS. No people employed full time for the implementation of the convention.
Concrete achievements Influence in the legal system and institutional structure: Romania ratified the following agreements developed in the framework of the CMS: Law no 89/2000 for the ratification of the Agreement on the Conservation of African- Eurasian Migratory water-birds Law no 90/2000 for the ratification of the Agreement on the Conservation of Bats in Europe Law no 91/2000 for the ratification of the Agreement on the Conservation of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation and Management of the Middle- European Population of the Great Bustard, signed by Romania on 9 October 2000 During the modification of different national laws, provisions were included to achieve compliance with CMS. The most relevant national laws modified to achieve compliance are: Law No 103/1996 on hunting fund; modified twice Law no 192/2001 on fishing Law No 137/1995 on Environmental Protection, republished in 2000 Law no 462/2001 for the approval of the Government Emergency Ordinance no 236/2000 regarding the regime of natural protected areas, conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna. Romania made efforts to compile with the monitoring obligations of Appendix 1 species. Monitoring projects focusing mainly on different bird and bat species were implemented.
138 NGO participation There are quite a few NGOs involved in the research, monitoring and protection of different species covered by the CMS. A few of them are working almost exclusively on such species (Association “Milvus Group”, Romanian Ornithological Society, different associations aiming bat conservation and research etc.) The results of research and monitoring projects as well as the outcome of protection activities are usually published in journals or other publications. According to the National Progress Report 2002 joint projects between the MWEP and NGOs were implemented.
Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats
Endorsement Romania has ratified the Bern Convention on the basis of Law no 13/18.05.1993. The law entered in force at 01.09.1993. Participation on international conferences Romania has attended regularly the meetings organised under this Convention. Focal point The National Focal Point for the Convention is the Directorate for Biodiversity Protection and Conservation, Protected Areas and Natural Monuments (MWEP). Responsible persons: Ioan JELEV – Secretary of State Adriana BAZ – Director of the directorate Adriana NITESCU- employee of the directorate Marius GROZA – employee of the directorate Reports In 28.08.2001 Romania presented a thematic report “Emerald network pilot project in Romania”
Financial resources Earmarked support system No special/direct support system developed for the purposes of the convention. The Ministry of Waters and Environmental Protection is allocating resources for different projects after a prioritization process. International funds The Emerald Pilot Project was supported by EU funding. Most of the projects financed by international foundations/bodies (EU, GEF, others) concerning nature protection have strong relevance for the convention (projects focusing on protection, monitoring or research of certain species/areas are usually dealing with species included in the appendixes of the convention). National, regional resources for the implementation The situation is similar to the one in the case of international funds. The implementation of the convention is not directly financed, but the research, monitoring and conservation projects financed from national resources are (in many cases) relevant for the Bern Convention. No information on the amount of money spent totally on the implementation.
Institutional and personnel capacity Developed infrastructure for implementation The competent authority for the implementation of the convention is the MWEP trough its Directorate for Biodiversity Protection and Conservation, Protected Areas and Natural Monuments. Other departments involved in the implementation of the convention are: Department for Fish, Fisheries and Aquaculture (MAFF) Department of Hunting (MAFF)
139 Important role is played by different research institutes in the research and monitoring activities carried out in favour of species covered by the Bern Convention. The 18 people included in the scientific team of the Romanian Emerald Project Team are also coming from different research institutes, universities and NGOs, these are: Romanian Academy of Sciences Biological Research Institute “Danube Delta” National Institute for Research and Development “Grigore Antipa” National Museum of Natural History “Grigore Antipa” National Institute of Research and Development Institute of Speleology Forest Research and Management Planning Institute University of Bucharest Romanian Ornithological Society (NGO) No people employed full time for the implementation of the convention.
Concrete achievements Influence in the legal system and institutional structure Even if the Bern Convention was ratified in 1993, the legislative compliance with its provisions was achieved only after several modifications of different national laws as well as after the creation of a series of new laws. The main laws created/modified to achieve compliance are: o Law No 13/1993 on Romania’s adhesion to the Convention on the Preservation of the European Wildlife and Natural Habitats o Law No 137/1995 on Environmental Protection, republished in 2000 o Governmental Decision no 409/1999 for the approval of the Regulation of organisation and structure of the National Institute for Research-Development Danube Delta (NIRDDD) o Law no. 103/1996on hunting fund; modified twice afterwards. o Law no 192/2001 on fishing o Law No 5/2000 on the territorial planning o Law no 462/2001 for the approval of the Government Emergency Ordinance no 236/2000 regarding the regime of natural protected areas, conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna. According to the present legal framework the Romanian list of nature conservation designation types contains the following major categories: Scientific Reserves, National Parks, Natural Monuments, Natural Reserves (botanical, zoological, geological, speleological, paleonthological, forests, mixed), Special Areas for Conservation, Special Protected Areas, Landscape Reserves, Natural Parks, Biogenetic Reserves, Biosphere Reserves, World Natural Heritage Sites, Wetlands of International Importance Sites (Ramsar Sites). An important project developed under the Bern Convention was the development of the EMERALD network. Romania signed the contract for the pilot project on 6 July 2000. The project leader is the Director of Nature and Biological Diversity Conservation Directorate (MWEP). In this framework Romania has identified the species and natural habitats that exist in Romania. The 5 European Biogeographical Regions that are represented in Romania have been identified and mapped: Continental, Alpine, Steppic, Pannonic and Black Sea. The experts of the MWEP Directorate of Nature and Biological Diversity prepared a Standard Form at national level for Characterisation of Protected Areas that were filled in by the County Environmental Protected Inspectorates experts with the available information (for all 844 protected areas). Lists of the Romanian Emerald species and Emerald habitats have been completed. The Emerald software has been installed in the MWEP. There have been proposed 7 ASCI (Areas of Special Conservation Interest for Europe), which are submitted to the Secretariat of the Bern Convention. (2 Continental, 2 Alpine, 1 Pannonic, 1 Black Sea and 1 Steppic area)
140 NGO participation Implementation Some NGOs are active in the field of conservation of species covered by the convention. NGOs are also involved in preparation of documentation for designation of protected areas. Experts from the Romanian Ornithological Society are included in the Emerald Project Team. Evaluation In 1996 a network for supervising the implementation of environment related international conventions in Romania was created. On of its sub-networks is dealing with the Bern Convention. The sub-network is coordinated by the Silva – Forestry Students Organization (Brasov city). The sub-network published a guide for the functioning of the network, dedicated to NGOs, the publication is presenting the convention, describes all of the species that are distributed in Romania and are covered by the convention and presents the idea of the network. No reports or evaluations concerning the implementation of the convention are available (according to the knowledge of the author).
Convention on Biological Diversity
Endorsement The Convention on Biological Diversity was adopted in Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992 and Romania has adopted it on the basis of Law no 58/1994 for the ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Romania has participated to all Conference of the Parties up to now, except the first one and it has also been regularly represented at the meetings of the Subsidiary Body on scientific, technical and technological advice. National Focal Point The Directorate for Biodiversity Protection and Conservation, Protected Areas and Natural Monuments. Responsible persons Ioan JELEV – State Secretary Adriana BAZ – Director Violeta ROTARU Romulus STIUCA (National Institute for Research-Development Danube Delta) Simion NICOLAEV (National Institute for Marine Research and Development “Grigore Antipa”) Romania has presented until now two reports of national level, one in 1998 and the second one in 2001. Romania presented thematic reports about alien species and mountain ecosystems.
Financial resources Earmarked support system In terms of financing resources they are not sufficient for the existing needs. The establishment of administrative bodies for the management of National Parks as well as other protected areas is a significant problem, with regards to funds for securing their functioning. At the same time, the financial resources allocated directly from the national resources for biodiversity related activities can’t cover the total estimated needs. International funds Romania has benefited so far of two very important GEF/World Bank projects: the Danube Delta Biodiversity (USD 4.8 million) and Integrated Protected Areas and Conservation management (USD 8.8 million). Romania was the first accession country to take part in the Community financial assistance program: LIFE-Environment and LIFE-Nature. Thus, until now an important number of biodiversity related projects have been financed.
141 National, regional resources for the implementation The Romanian government has until now co-financed part of two biodiversity related projects: GEF Danube Delta Biodiversity Project and Biodiversity Conservation Management. Another field where financial support have been granted by the Romanian authorities is the promotion of sustainable agriculture and biodiversity conservation for the western end of the Eurasian Steppe Area covering the Southeastern region of Romania, although this was also limited. Availability of other funding Other financing bodies are present, such as the WWF, who awarded support in the framework of the Danube-Carpathian Program. No information available about the amount of money spent totally on the implementation.
Institutional and personnel capacity Developed infrastructure for implementation The institutional framework relevant for the purposes of Convention on Biological Diversity is represented by the following authorities and research institutes: Ministry of Waters and Environmental Protection, Directorate for Biodiversity Protection and Conservation, Protected Areas and Natural Monuments being the main authority responsible for the implementation of the CDB. Environmental Protection Inspectorates also have a special unit for biodiversity protection and conservation. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry being the main authority for forest management, fish stocks and policy for sustainable agriculture practices National Forest Authority – its Protected Area Service and the territorial branches of the NFA Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Authority – the management body of the Danube Delta area under the authority of MWEP Romanian Academy, through its Commission for the Protection of Nature Monuments that is the National Scientific Authority on Protected Areas and through its Institute for Biology that authorizes the introduction of microorganisms, plants and living animals into the country. Research institutes, such as the Danube Delta National Institute, the National Institute for Marine Research and Development, etc. No people employed full time for the implementation of the convention.
Concrete achievements The following relevant laws have been created or modified to achieve compliance with the provisions of the CBD: Law No 58/1994 for ratifying the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Law No 137/1995 on Environmental Protection, republished in 2000; includes two specific chapters, one for the protection of soil, subsoil and terrestrial ecosystems and one regarding the regime of protected areas and of natural monuments Law no. 107/1996 on Waters; providing specific obligation for conservation of ecosystems in water management activities Ministerial Order no 287/1999 for the establishment of management structures in Retezat National Park, Piatra Craiului National Park and Vanatori Neamt Forestry Park and the establishment of the Service for Protected Areas within the National Forestry Authority Governmental Decision no 409/1999 for the approval of the Regulation of organisation and structure of the National Institute for Research-Development Danube Delta (NIRDDD) Forest Code (Law No 26/1996) Law on hunting fund (law no. 103/1996) modified twice. Law no 192/2001 on fishing Law No 5/2000 on the territorial planning – section III-Protected areas
142 Law no 73/2000 modified by GEO no 93/2001 regarding the establishment of the Environmental Fund Law no 462/2001 for the approval of the Government Emergency Ordinance no 236/2000 regarding the regime of natural protected areas, conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna. Law no.5/2000 on Land-Use Planning, is dealing with 844 Natural Protected Areas, covering 5,18% of Romanian territory. Law no 462/2001 for the approval of the Government Emergency Ordinance no 236/2000 regarding the regime of natural protected areas, conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna is dedicating the conditions for declaring protected areas under different status, and provides guidelines for the establishment and management of these. It is necessary to mention that while the legal framework is in place, only a couple of the designated protected areas have functional management systems, while the others are paper-protected areas. Fortunately the forestry plans take into account the assigned status of these areas. Romania has developed in 1996, with the support of GEF/World Bank, a National Strategy and Action Plan for Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use of its Components (NBSAP). Officially “the developed strategy and actions plan have integrated the principles and objectives of the Convention on biological diversity conservation, the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy, as well as the most pertinent international conventions and agreements in the field of nature and biodiversity conservation.” The Strategy provides the objectives and priority actions in the short term (5 years), medium (10 years) and long term (20 years). Parts of the strategy have been updated in 1999, according to priorities set in the accession process to EU. The Action Plan of the NBSAP contains objectives, priority actions and target outputs. The cost of the activities proposed is not stated, neither is the financing of the Action Plan secured. Its (partial) implementation has been financed with funds, which have not been specifically budgeted for the NBSAP but for relevant nature conservation activities carried out with state or international funds. We can conclude that the five-year Action Plan has only been implemented to a limited extent. However the simultaneous launch of several actions of the Action Plan in the last few years suggest that implementation is being accelerated. The Romanian NBSAP is a rather descriptive document with a focus on nature conservation. It could be much more action-oriented and have a more balanced coverage of conservation, sustainable use and other aspects of the CBD. According to the MWEP the whole NBSAP is currently revised and updated. (The description of the NBSAP is based on the “National Assessment of Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity Romania” implemented by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre in August 2000) Romania initiated the drawing up of the Protected Area Network (PAN), during these first steps focusing mainly on the mountain ecosystems and on the Lower Danube Green Corridor. In the Carpathians 13 big nature protection areas were designated (9 National Parks, 2 Biosphere Reserves and 2 Nature Parks), which are interlinked by areas covered by natural or semi-natural habitats (mainly forests). The Lower Danube Green Corridor projects aim is to designate new protected areas in Danube floodplain with a view to create a network of natural sites. The ecological reconstruction of some sections of the floodplain is also envisaged. Although these initial steps are very promising, Romania has to make significant (financial and scientific) efforts to achieve a functional National Ecological Network. An important activity undertaken by the MWEP (with relevance also for the CDB) is the participation in the EMERALD program (for details see the chapter about the Bern Convention). Romania has undertaken some measures for initiating an inventory program at species and ecosystems level, but the progress is slow. It is important to mention here the Biodiversity Information Management System project, financed by GEF and initiated in 2002. The project aims to centralize the information gathered by different research institutes, NGOs and independent researchers on species and habitats distribution. The main activities taken with regards to
143 monitoring and inventory are: the inventory program of biological diversity in the Danube Delta and the National Marine Monitoring Program.
NGO participation The MWEP supports the NGOs activities in this sector, and provides information with regards to the priority of actions. There is no direct cooperation with the NGOs for the implementation of the CBD. A big number of projects and activities developed by NGOs have strong relevance with the different types of obligations deriving from the CBD. NGOs are particularly active in the field of public education and awareness raising and in different monitoring and research projects. Also the results achieved by NGOs are significant, closer collaboration with the official bodies and prioritization of actions may enhance considerably the efficiency of these actions.
The Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy
Endorsement The Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS) was endorsed by the Ministers of Environment at the Ministerial Conference in Sofia, on 25 October 1995. Focal point The National Focal Point for the Convention is the Directorate for Biodiversity Protection and Conservation, Protected Areas and Natural Monuments.
Financial resources Earmarked support system No direct support system developed to support the implementation of the PEBLDS. The Ministry of Waters and Environmental Protection is allocating resources for different projects after a prioritization process. International funds No project financed by international bodies directly for the support of the PEBLDS. Almost all of the projects financed by international foundations/bodies (EU, GEF, others) concerning nature/biodiversity protection have strong relevance for the strategy as well. National, regional resources for the implementation The same situation as in the case of international funds. The implementation of the Strategy is not directly financed, but the research, monitoring and conservation projects financed from national sources are relevant for the PEBLDS.
Institutional and personnel capacity Developed infrastructure for implementation The institutional framework relevant for the purposes of PEBLDS is represented by the following authorities and research institutes: Ministry of Waters and Environmental Protection, Directorate for Biodiversity Protection and Conservation, Protected Areas and Natural Monuments being the main authority responsible for the implementation Environmental Protection Inspectorates with special units for biodiversity protection and conservation. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry the main authority for forest management, fish stocks and policy for sustainable agriculture practices National Forest Authority – through its Protected Area Service and the territorial branches of the NFA Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Authority - the management body of the Danube Delta
144 Romanian Academy, through its Commission for the Protection of Nature Monuments that is the National Scientific Authority on Protected Areas Research institutes, such as the Danube Delta National Institute, the National Institute for Marine Research and Development, etc. No people employed full time for the purposes of the strategy.
Concrete achievements The strategy is not closely followed by Romania, there are very few initiatives aiming directly the fulfilment of obligations deriving from PEBLDS. There are a lot of projects developed as part of national strategies for nature conservation (e.g. NBCSAP) or activities related to the obligations concerning the ratified nature conservation conventions (CBD, Ramsar, CMS, Bern Convention, etc.), which have strong relevance for the PEBLDS as well. The main results with relevance are: Romania has developed in 1996, the National Strategy and Action Plan for Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use of its Components (NBSAP). through CORINE Biotopes Programme, a number of 783 habitats were identified and characterized 17 major terrestrial ecosystem formations were identified in Romania including all of Europe’s major ecosystems (These are boreal coniferous forests with 41 ecosystem types, mesophilous, hygrophilous and xerothermic broadleaved forests with 110 ecosystem types, different grassland ecosystem formations with 560 ecosystem types and different shrubby ecosystem formations with 47 ecosystem types.) Romania initiated the drawing up of the National Ecological Network, during these first steps focusing mainly on the mountain ecosystems and on the Lower Danube Green Corridor several Landscape Reserves established in the country the NDP trough its regional development plans is stimulating idea of development based on traditional knowledge and traditional craft industry. Strategic Action Plan for the Rehabilitation and Protection of the Black Sea has been adopted by Romania as one of the parties of the Bucharest Convention (Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution) in Istanbul, 1996 through the “National Institute for Research and Development “Gr. Antipa” Romania has developed the National marine monitoring program which includes biological diversity components as well. the project Lower Danube Green Corridor is aiming the recovery of the Danube and its tributaries, biological diversity conservation, ecological restoration and protection of river meadow forests, as well as development of sustainable agricultural systems. ecological restoration of the abandoned, unused, polders for agriculture and fishponds in the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve the National Agency on Mountains Zones, established under the Ministry of Agriculture, Foods and Forests is working to develop a Strategy for Mountains Zones. many projects emphasizing on protection of certain species, implemented mainly by research institutes and different NGOs specialized on certain species or species groups Monitoring and evaluation No information on the monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the PEBLDS. NGO participation No NGO participation in the implementation of PEBLDS, however a lot of projects developed by NGOs have a strong relevance for the PEBLDS as well.
145 Council Directive 79/409/EEC and Council Directive 92/43/EEC
Endorsement On February 1, 1993, Romania signed the Europe Agreement (EU association agreement); Two years later, the agreement came into effect; In June 1995, Romania applied for EU membership; In March 1998, the EU enlargement process was launched, Romania being included in this process; In November 1998, the first EC regular report regarding Romania's EU accession application was published (Opinion update); In June 1999, Romania submitted the National Programme for EU Accession In December 1999, the European Council of Helsinki decided to open accession negotiations with another six candidate states, including Romania Romania opened the negotiation for the 22nd chapter Environment at 30.10.2001 Romania accepts the acquis communautaire in the field of environmental protection (Chapter 22), in force on December 31, 2000. Romania has unilaterally assumed the date of January 1, 2007 as a working hypothesis for finalizing the preparations for its accession to the European Union, Romania also assumed that it will implement the acquis communautaire in the field of environmental protection until the date of accession.
Financial resources International funds Important projects with relevance for the Bird and Habitat Directive (BHD) are supported by different EU funding programs (PHARE and LIFE). Virtually all of them are focused on the Danube River (including the Danube Delta) and on the Black Sea. National, regional resources for the implementation The most important national financial contribution of the co-financing of different projects supported by EU funding programs. Lack of national financial means for supporting activities concerning the BHD as well as the drawing up of the Natura 2000 network is (along with the time shortage and lack of adequately qualified human resources) the main obstacle for the implementation. No information on the total amount of money spent on implementation.
Institutional and personnel capacity Developed infrastructure for implementation The competent authority for the implementation of the convention is the Ministry of Waters and Environment (Directorate for Biodiversity Protection and Conservation, Protected Areas and Natural Monuments) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forests (Department for Fish, Fisheries and Aquaculture and Department of Hunting) Important role is played by different research institutes (mainly the Danube Delta National Institute for Research and Development and the National Institute for Marine Research and Development “Grigore Antipa”) in the implementation of different research and monitoring activities. No people employed full time for the implementation of the convention.
Concrete achievements Influence in the legal system and institutional structure The national legislative framework in this field includes most of the international conventions and agreements, which Romania has ratified: Law No 5/1991 for ratifying the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as waterfowl habitats,
146 Law No 13/1993 on Romania’s adhesion to the Convention on the Preservation of the European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, Law No 58/1994 for ratifying the Convention on Biological Diversity Law No 13/1998 for ratifying the Convention on the Preservation of Migratory Species of Wild Fauna, Law No 89/2000 for ratifying the International Agreement on the Protection of the Migratory Species of African-Eurasian Birds Law No 90/2000 for ratifying the International Agreement on the Preservation of Bats in Europe, Law No 91/2000 for ratifying the International Agreement on the Conservation of Cetacean in the Black Sea, Mediterranean and contiguous Atlantic Area. Law No 462/2000 for the approval of Emergency Government Ordinance No 236/2000 on the status of natural protected area, natural habitats and species of wild flora and fauna conservation, through which the legislative framework necessary for the development of the network Nature 2000 in Romania is established, has fully transposed the community legislation (regarding Council Directive No 92/43/EEC and Council Directive No 79/409/EEC). In total 17 major terrestrial ecosystem formations were identified in Romania including all of Europe’s major ecosystems. These are boreal coniferous forests with 41 ecosystem types, mesophilous, hygrophilous and xerothermic broadleaved forests with 110 ecosystem types, different grassland ecosystem formations with 560 ecosystem types and different shrubby ecosystem formations with 47 ecosystem types. As a result of the studies financed through CORINE Biotopes Programme, a number of 783 habitats types were identified and characterized (13 coastal, 89 wetland, 196 meadow, 206 forest, 54 swamp, 90 rocky/sandy and 135 agricultural) on 261 areas analyzed on the entire territory of the country. The proposals for the natural habitat types to be included in (Habitat Directive) Annex 1 and plant species to be included in Annex II and IV were transmitted at the beginning of February 2001. The schedule for the implementation of the Directive No 92/43/CEE: o Establishing the competent authorities – accomplished o Listing the sites –2004 o Establishing the special preservation areas and management plans (Article 4) – 2005 o Establishing the necessary measures for the preservation of that areas, including co- financing (Articles 6 and 8) – 2005 o Establishing the strict protection system of the species from Annex IV (Articles 12 and 13) – 2005 o Establishing the monitoring system for the preservation status of habitats and species (Article 11) o Assessing the status of species from Annex V and seizing and killing measures for some animal species (Article 15) – 2003 o Prohibiting the use of means and methods for seizing and killing of some animal species (Article 15) – prohibited o Establishing the monitoring system of accidental seizing/killing of species from Annex VI (Article 12) – established but it will be improved until 2005. o Establishing the mechanism for public consultation on the projects that could affect the special preservation areas or reintroduction of some species (Articles 6 and 22) – established o Establishing the promoting mechanism of education and public information (Article 22) – established o Full implementation – 2005
147 NGO participation Some NGOs and expert groups possess information (databases) with relevance for the implementation of the envisaged activities. The centralization of these data is in progress. NGOs are implementing or initiating projects, which are directly linked to the implementation of the BHD (monitoring of certain species or species groups, preparation of documentation about certain areas or regions etc.). Popularization and awareness raising concerning the Natura 2000 network is one of the areas where the NGOs will play a major role.
CONCLUSIONS
Romania has ratified all of the main international conventions regarding nature and biodiversity protection. Generally Romania first ratified the Conventions, and only after formal acceptance by the parliament started to develop the legal and institutional framework that allows achieving compliance with the provisions of the commitments. That’s why the implementation is usually lagging behind the ratification procedure. Occasionally there is a several year long gap between the ratification of the conventions and the adoption of the framework legislation for implementation (e.g. CITES). Romania’s wish to align (with a 50 year drawback) to the international community and the respective legislative framework, leads to the ratification of the conventions even if in some cases the financial, institutional and human resources are lacking for implementation. As for the positive effects of the conventions’ ratification/implementation they are numerous. The most significant result is the positive effect on the legislation. Romania achieved almost full compliance of national legislation with the provisions of ratified international commitments. Hence the nature protection legislation became much better than it was before. The positive effect of conventions is clearly visible in the field of designation of nature protection areas, the number of these increased significantly in the last years. The ratification of conventions contributed to the use of available international technical and financial assistance. Acknowledging the results achieved so far, we must conclude that Romania does not use the full power of the conventions.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Urgently complete the revision of the NBSAP and in particular revise and update its Action Plan; Training of the enforcement is urgently needed generally and specially with regards to CITES; Strengthening of the enforcement capacity, creating effective sanction system; Initiate public awareness campaigns and enhance public information to key issues like Natura 2000 network; Achievement of a realistic sectoral integration of biodiversity conservation considerations; Enhanced cooperation with the nonprofit sector, an effective cooperation may partially solve the acute lack of adequately qualified human resources; Significantly increase the financial assistance offered to the MWEP, Directorate for Biodiversity Protection and Conservation, Protected Areas and Natural Monuments, which is responsible for the implementation of virtually all biodiversity related conventions.
148 SLOVAKIA
INTRODUCTION
The Slovak Republic was established on January 1st 1993 after the peaceful split of the former Czechoslovakia into two independent sovereign countries. The country lies in the heart of Central Europe with the geographical centre of Europe being situated on its territory and shares borders with five states: the Czech Republic, Austria, Hungary, the Ukrainian Republic and Poland. According to the Constitution of the Slovak Republic, it is a country with guaranteed human rights and freedoms, political rights, rights of ethnic minorities and ethnic groups, economic, social, and cultural rights, right to the protection of the environment and cultural heritage, and with the right to court and other legal protection. The only constitution and law-making body of the Slovak Republic is the National Council of the Slovak Republic, consisting of 150 members of Parliament. The environment protection is namely provided by the Ministry of the Environment of the Slovak Republic (ME SR). Since 1999 development has been directed by the SR Government Council for Sustainable Development. The area of the Slovak Republic is 49,036 km2. Total population of the Slovak Republic is 5,402,547 , that represent population density about 110 inhabitants per km2 (as of December 31st, 2000). According to the Act of the NC SR No. 221/1996 Coll. on Territorial and Administrative Division of the SR, the country is divided into 8 regions and 79 districts. Within this broader administrative division there are 2 893 municipalities including 138 towns. The environmental movement historically has a long tradition in Slovakia. The main organizations from pre-revolutionary times, the Slovak Union of Nature and Landscape Protectors (SZOPK) and the youth organization Tree of Life (Strom Zivota) were founded already in 1969 and 1979 respectively. After the political changes in former Czechoslovakia, many new NGOs appeared as well as professional and specialized groups. Recently the environmental NGOs dealing with nature protection issues, are among the strongest ones in the country.
STATE OF NATURE
INTRODUCTION
The relief of the country is characterised by great differences in altitude which ranges from 94 to 2.655 m above the sea level. At the territory of Slovakia, two large biogeographic regions are represented - the Carpathian mountain range and the Pannonian Region. At the same time there are borders between several European watersheds. Almost 60 % of the total area of the Slovak Republic is composed of mountains, mainly of the Western Carpathians. The largest mountains such as Tatry, Nizke Tatry and Slovenske rudohorie as well as smaller mountains are of rich geological diversity. Tertiary limestones, dolomites and young volcanic minerals are the prevailing geological composition while mesozoic crystalline minerals and older geological substrate are in minority. For southern parts of Slovakia the lowlands are typical by young tertiary and quarternary sediments. Danubian Lowland, situated along the Danube River, is the largest one. The Slovak Republic is situated on the boundary of the climatic influence of the ocean and continent, which results in relatively mild summers and winters. The continental character of the climate has more influence in the eastern areas of the territory. The long-term average temperatures are 20,5 oC and -3 oC in the summer and winter periods, respectively. The temperature decreases by 0.52 oC in average per each 100 m of elevation. There are three climatic zones in Slovakia: the warm zone of lowlands, the middle zone of lower parts of mountains and the cold zone of mountains.
149 Great altitudinal differences, rich diversity of geological substrates, many geomorphologic phenomena in combination with a continental climate and a large diversity of microclimatic phenomena form the basic precondition for a rich diversity of flora and fauna, as well as habitat types in Slovakia. More than 11.270 plant species (including algae and fungi) and more than 28,800 animal species (including invertebrates) and 1,000 species of protozoa have been determined in Slovakia up to now. The estimates are even higher, for instance the number of animal species is estimated to be over 40,000. Many species exist here as endemics. Also relic species can be found.
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
Habitat types Diversity of natural habitat types in Slovakia is influenced by three main factors: altitude, diversity of geological conditions and the availability of water, which influences the character of ecosystems in all vertical zones and on every geological substrates. For the semi-natural and artificial (man- made) habitats, the further important factor is the character, intensity and time period (duration) of human activities shaping the actual state of the respective habitat type. The most important habitats for biodiversity in Slovak Republic include natural and semi-natural forests, wetlands and inland waters, grasslands, alpine and sub-alpine habitats. Forest habitats are an important source of biological diversity, represent a country's economic potential, and provide many functions related to management of water supplies, erosion control, soil protection, recreation, social-health and aesthetics. In Slovakia, forests cover 1,930,000 ha, which represents 40,8 % of the country's total area. Of these forests, 40 to 48 % are semi-natural, but what distinguishes them is that they have a composition of species that only slightly differs from the original forests. This is very special compared to most of the countries of central and western Europe. There are also over 70 fragments of natural and virgin forests with a total area of 20,000 ha that have been preserved. Wetlands can be found from the lowlands to the alpine zone. Floodplain forests are considered both wetland and forest habitats. Soft wood (willow-poplar) floodplain forests are found in locations with regular, relatively high and long lasting floods. The underground water level remain relatively high, though it drops in drier periods. The soft wood floodplain forests have been one from the most affected habitat types in Slovakia and their last remnants are preserved only on the banks of the Morava, Danube and Latorica Rivers. Hard wood forests are located on the higher sites of the river floodplains. These areas are drier and are usually away from regular floods. Their usual location are the river valleys of the lowlands. Other wetland types, located mainly in the lowlands and along the river valleys, include riparian and swamp alder woods, stagnant and slow flowing waters and marches. Sparsely at small areas there can be found also fens, bogs and mountain lakes. From the different kinds of grasslands, wet meadows, dry sub-mountainous and mountain meadows and xerophilous habitats have especially high value for biodiversity.
Biological corridors In Slovakia the ecological network is called Territorial System of Ecological Stability (TSES). TSES is being developed at 3 main levels: national, regional (district) and local level. – National Ecological Network is called the Supraregional Territorial System of Ecological Stability, and it was approved by the Government and the National Council of the Slovak Republic in 1992. It is the basic frame for the elaboration of ecological networks (TSES projects) at regional (district) and local levels. – Regional (district) and Local Territorial Systems of Ecological Stability (ecological networks) are obligatory part of basic territorial (landscape planning) documentation. The Territorial System of Ecological Stability has been also incorporated into the new rules for management of agricultural lands and for land amendment projects. The complex, sophisticated
150 methodology has been developed for the planning and implementation of the TSES, especially at the local and regional level. TSES methodology is considered compatible with the idea of European Ecological Network (EECONET).
Species and Genetic Diversity The location of the Slovak Republic in Central Europe and the wide range of altitudes determines the basic ecological parameters for a variety of species. Within this relatively small territory one can find continental and oceanic as well as Arctic-Alpine and sub-Mediterranean species. The scale of communities varies from thermophilous species and Pannonnic species occuring in warmer southern and lowland regions to psychrophilous species in higher altitudes. The diversity of geological, geomorphological, hydrological and climatic conditions have influenced the variability of ecological conditions for flora and fauna that is reflected in the relatively large number of plant and animal species which occur in Slovakia. There are 3,124 species of higher (vascular) plants in Slovakia and 92 of these are classified as endemics. It is estimated that there are about 40,000 - 50,000 animal species living in Slovakia, most of them being invertebrates. Among them there are 102 classified taxa of Carpathian endemic animals. In total 85 species of mammals include 5 endemic taxa of which the area of distribution is limited to the territory of Slovakia. There are also some relic species, that can be found in Slovakia. The territory of Slovakia may be geographically divided into two basic units with different histories, varieties of species, and stages of nature damage: the Carpathian Massif and the Pannonian Region. Accordingly, two types of flora interact: Pannonian and Carpathian, which subdivide into subregions and districts. The Pannonian type, with thermophilic flora, is characterized by numerous xerophytes (on limestone), swamp and aquatic plants. This flora is mostly spread throughout the lowlands of Southern Slovakia: xerophytes on drift sands, floodplain forests along the larger rivers, and halophytes on saline soils. The Carpathian flora subdivides into western and eastern subregions. The former contains a rigorous hierarchy of flora related to altitude. The latter is characterized by large beechwood areas.
Vertical diversity of flora in Slovakia includes the following zones: 1. Lowland zone (100-200m) – occupies the lowest areas of Slovakia with thermophilic flora and advanced agriculture. The original vegetation of soft and hardwood forests, and communities of blown sands have been preserved only sparsely compared to the prevailing fields, meadows, vineyards, orchards and gardens. 2. Hilly landscape zone (200-500m) features the abundant occurrence of oak and oak- hornbeam forests (Quercus sp., Carpinus betulus). The southern slopes are characterised by common „rocky steppes“ with very varied xerophilous flora. The northern slopes are covered by beech forests. Fields occupy a large area in this zone. 3. Sub-mountainous zone (ca 500-900m) with prevailing beech forests. 4. Mountainous zone (ca 900-1,550m) is characterised by the prevalence of coniferous trees – spruce and fir. 5. Sub-alpine zone (ca 1,550-1,800m) with dwarf pine (Pinus mugo). 6. Alpine zone (ca 1,800-2,300m) – deficient in tree species, characterised by alpine meadows, small willows and rocky habitats. 7. High mountains or sub-nival zone (above 2,300m) with sparse vegetation. Fauna developed similarly to the vegetation. The country ranks among those rich in fauna, as it is situated on the overlap of two subregions of the Paleoarctic zoogeographic region: steppe and greenwood zones. The greenwood zone spreads over the larger part of the country and subsumes 75 % of indigenous animal species, including in larger mountain areas the wolf (Canis lupus), bear (Ursus arctos), lynx (Lynx lynx) and wildcat (Felis sylvestris). The steppe zone covers lowland areas in southern and eastern Slovakia. Intensive agriculture had changed original greenwoods into
151 cultivated steppe with important animal species: hare, hamster, gopher, partridge, roebuck. In south- western Slovakia there is also small, declining population of bustard (Otis tarda).
Priority Areas from nature conservation point of view Biological diversity in various territories of Slovakia depends on many factors including the substrate type, the diversity of relief, the isolation and fragmentation of habitats, bio-geographical borders with various overlapping elements, the degree of habitat disturbance, succession, etc. In Slovakia, the areas richest in species are found in the karst sections of the Western Carpathians, where over 1,400 species of high plants have been registered on a relatively small area of Slovak Karst. The highest parts of Carpathians, which are formed by the complex of the High Tatras, are also very rich in species. So far, over 1,300 species of higher plants, including a large number of endemic and relic species, have been found there. Comparably, the karst areas of Muranska plateau have 1,150 higher plant species recorded and the area of the Slovak Paradise has 930 higher plant species recorded. The lowlands of Slovakia are the most affected by human influence, but in spite of this, these regions still contain several well preserved areas and wealth of species that is comparable to the mountainous areas. As far as biodiversity is concerned, the Zahorie lowland is the most valuable, with the Morava River floodplain having over 1,200 species of higher plants.
Human Impact Slovakia is predominantly covered by forest (40,8%) and agricultural land (arable land - 30,2 % meadows and pastures 17,0 %). Lowlands and valleys of the Pannonian Region are the most intensively used land, being used for agriculture, industry, transport and settlements. In the Carpathian massif, nature is not under such a great pressure from human activity as it is in the Pannonian area. Decidous trees covering large areas still exist here. There is almost no large-scale degradation of ecosystems. The impacts are relatively local, limited to individual basins and their surroundings. In Slovakia, the main reasons for the loss of biodiversity and the deterioration of the remaining natural areas, including the protected ones, are as follows: Forestry: - unsustainable forest management - clear-cut, construction of forest roads, planting monocultures of non-native species, e.g. spruce (in highlands) or poplars (in lowland floodplains). Agriculture: - intensive agriculture causing the large scale devastating effects - increased soil erosion, changes of natural water regime and eutrofication of the landscape. - large-scale drainage and reclamation schemes on wetlands and moist meadows - large-scale application of pesticides affects directly field weeds and other target organisms. - eutrophication of the countryside - is caused by excessive and incorrect use of fertilizers, and by the impact of nitrogen from rainfall. Water management: - pollution, regulation and damming of rivers. Industry and traffic: - air pollution mainly caused by industrial and traffic emissions. - excessive mining and processing of raw materials, often in naturally sensitive areas, e.g. brown coal, lime stone, dredging of sand and gravel, etc. - fragmentation of habitats caused by construction of new traffic infrastructure - roads and highways
152 Recreation and tourism: - unregulated recreation and tourism – affects most seriously the most sensitive fragile ecosystems of high mountains (e.g. High Tatra Mts.) Hunting and fishing: - unsustainable hunting and fishing practices and legislation – even seriously threatened species are considered by hunting law as game species and intensively hunted (eg. wolf) - introduction of non-native types. - spreading (invasions) of non-native alien species Due to degradation of the natural environment in past decades many habitat types has declined substantially, as well as many plant species. Similarly, the diversity of animal species is declining. For example, the species like chamois and marmot (both are endemic subspecies, living only in Slovak and Polish Tatra Mountains) or bustard are virtually facing extinction.
DECISION MAKING SYSTEM
STRUCTURE OF NATURE CONSERVATION
Nature protection as a main component of biodiversity conservation is under responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment of the Slovak Republic (hereafter the "Ministry"). The responsibilities of the Ministry with respect to nature protection are mainly in three areas: – the state administration at the national level (the Ministry itself is the central body for state administration for the environment) and also at regional and local level, – the state supervision, especially under the responsibility of the Slovak Environmental Inspection; – coordination and development of nature and environmental protection and monitoring, with assistance of the specialised institutions established by the Ministry: - Slovak Environmental Agency - State Nature Conservancy of SR - Slovak Caves Administration - State Geological Institute - Slovak Hydrometeorological Institute - ZOO Bojnice - Slovak Mining Museum - Slovak Museum of Nature Protection and Speleology The Ministry of the Environment of the Slovak Republic cooperates with other ministries on the issues related to sustainable management of nature and landscape, mainly within the sectors of education, culture, land use, forestry, agriculture, land use and industry. Cooperation between the Ministry and non-governmental organizations is officially considered of high importance, namely with those dealing with environmental education and nature protection.
NGO PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKING SYSTEM
Recently almost all environmental NGOs have a quite difficult position in Slovak society. Because of the ongoing process of transformation in the Slovak economy, and its direct consequences (increase of unemployment and poverty, especially in rural areas), Slovak people care less about their environment than they did during the previous political regime before 1989. However, there are also some positive trends. „New style“ environmental NGOs have emerged especially at the local and regional level. Also the "opening" of Slovakia to the activities of foreign and international NGOs, increased availability of foreign and domestic funds and the recent improvements in
153 legislation (e.g. new Act on Right for Information) have substantially contributed to the strengthening of the Slovak environmental movement. Many NGOs have used the opportunity, given to them by the Act on EIA, and participate in the EIA processes, which concern their interests. Some NGOs do regular or occasional lobbying activities and awareness campaigns, focused on specific topics at the different levels, from the local authorities to the Parliament and respective ministries.
INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS
SHORT HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
The political changes in Slovakia since 1989 have brought about greater openness towards international collaboration also in the area of nature protection. Slovakia, after achieving its independence in 1993 as an associated country has committed itself to an approximation of its legislation to the legislation of the European Union. This has resulted in the preparation of further necessary measures in the area of both legal and practical protection of nature within the context of the international community. The European Agreement on Association, signed between the European Community and its member countries on one side and the Slovak Republic on the other, the so-called Association Agreement (Luxembourg, 4th October, 1993), which came into effect on 1st February 1995, contains a special Article 81 „The Environment“ on the contractual basis of the co-operation between the Slovak Republic and the EU in the area of the environment. The first important international convention on nature and biodiversity protection of which the Slovak Republic became a party (at that time as a part of the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic) was the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar, 1971). Since 1990 Slovakia has been carrying out its obligations arising out of the Convention as a separate member country and it became an individual member country on January 1, 1993. In 1991 the Slovak Republic started to implement the measures under the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (Paris, 1972). The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Washington, 1973 – CITES) became effective in the Slovak Republic in 1992. The Slovak Government agreed to adhere to the Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio de Janeiro, 1994) in May 1993 and Slovakia thus became a contractor to the Convention. The Slovak Republic has been contracting party to the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn, 1979) since 1995. In 1996 the Slovak Republic joined the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern, 1979). Thus the Slovak Republic has become closer to the measures of the EU Birds Directive (Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds) and Habitats Directive (Council Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora). From the other relevant conventions, Slovakia is party e.g. to the Danube River Protection Convention and Antarctic Treaty.
154 EVALUATION OF THE CONVENTIONS
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat
Endorsement Government of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic (2.7.1990), Government of Slovak Republic became separate contracting party by succession (1.1.1993). Governmental signature: 2.7.1990 Date of entry into force: 2.7.1990 Participation on international conferences Slovak Republic was represented by its delegates at all meetings of the Conference of Contracted Parties since 1990. Furthermore, the Slovak Republic was appointed to be a representative of the European region in the Ramsar Standing Committee for a three-year period (1999 –2002). Background The Ramsar Convention was the first important international convention on nature and biodiversity protection signed by the Slovak Republic. Besides the fact that the Ramsar Convention belongs to the first global conventions on environment and international pressure had increased, the main reason for its accession was the real loss and endangerment of wetlands in the whole territory that achieved its maximum in the end of the eighties. Critical loss and insufficient protection of wetlands led also to the revising of policy and legislation on water management, landscape planning and nature conservation. Focal point Ramsar Administrative Authority Ministry of the Environment of the Slovak Republic, Nature and Landscape Conservation Division Dr. Jozef Kramárik – Director General Námestie Ľudovíta Štúra 1, 812 35 Bratislava tel: +421-(0)2-59562160 fax: +421-(0)2-59562533 e-mail: [email protected] National focal point Ms. Adriána Klindová, Nature and Landscape Conservation Department tel: +421-(0)2-59562106 fax: +421-(0)2-59562533 e-mail: [email protected]
The Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic has established its own advisory body dealing exclusively with the Ramsar Convention matters – the Slovak Ramsar Committee (SRC). Reports - National Report on Implementation of the Ramsar Convention (elaborated for the 7th meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties in 1999 in San José, Costa Rica), - National Report on the Implementation of the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially Waterfowl Habitat to the 8th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties (Valencia, 2002) Further plans The SNC SR in co-operation with NGOs are currently developing the methodology for elaboration of the management plans for the areas of international importance (the Ramsar sites, future NATURA 2000 sites, etc.). The methodology is resulting from existing approaches including the Ramsar guidelines for management plans. It will be tested in several pilot areas within the currently running projects and consequently presented at the seminars for the nature protection bodies.
155 Financial resources Earmarked support system for implementation Until now there has been no earmarked support system for the implementation of the Ramsar Convention. International funds Implementation of the Ramsar Convention objectives in cooperation with other international agreements and institutions was successfully supported from financial sources (GEF, PHARE, Ramsar SGF, DANCEE, Japan Expert Dispatch Program, Wetlands International, etc.) in the past time. In future the elaboration of agro-environmental and conservation management projects for proposed NATURA 2000 sites (including the Ramsar sites) is planned mainly in sites which meet criteria to apply for funds of financial tools of the European Commission – SAPARD, LIFE III. National, regional resources for the implementation Allocation of funds to fulfil the obligations resulting from the Ramsar Convention is carried out as a separate allocation to the National Wetland Policy and its Action Plan as well as a part of a broader allocation to environment and a part of the programs provided by the MoE SR. The priorities for allocation of funds are determined by the Resolution of Government of the SR No. 664/2000 on the Conception of a New Manner for Financing the Protection of Environment. Availability of other funding Currently the bilateral development assistance programmes with the governments of Denmark and the Netherlands are in place in Slovakia. According to this assistance the funds are allocated for the full range of activities including the wetland issues. All the projects proposed within this assistance are subject to strict assessment procedures taking account of environmental, societal and economical values of wetlands. The Ramsar Administrative Authority is consulted during the screening and assessment phases of the projects. Prior to the approval of the Minister of Environment these projects have to be approved by relevant divisions of the Ministry, including the Division of Nature and Landscape Protection, which is the Ramsar Administrative Authority in the Slovak Republic. Total spending on the implementation Within 3 years (2000–2002) 123.037.000 SKK (EUR = ca 42 SKK) has been spent. From this amount, only 21.137.000 was spent by the sector (ministry) of environment from its own resources, as well as from the external resources. Remaining 101,900,000 was spent by the sector (ministry) of land management, mainly for specific river and wetland restoration projects. Further resources were spent by this sector for elaboration of the hydroecological plans and water management plans for individual watersheds, which are not included into the above figures.
Institutional and personnel capacity Developed infrastructure for implementation Since 1991 the Slovak Ramsar Committee (SRC) exists as an advisory body of the Minister of the Environment of the Slovak Republic. Its main responsibility is to co-ordinate activities on wetland conservation and wise use at national level. It consists of representatives of the relevant ministries (environment, education, foreign affairs, land use), experts from the Slovak Academy of Sciences and universities, the Slovak Water Management Enterprise, the Research Institute on Water Management as well as NGOs (SOVS – Society for Protection of Birds in Slovakia – a BirdLife International partner, Daphne – Institute for Applied Ecology – a Wetlands International partner, SZOPK – Slovak Union of Nature and Landscape Protectors – IUCN member and BROZ – Regional Association for Nature Conservation and Sustainable Development). In addition the Ramsar sites managers and the administration of Slovak Caves are presented in SRC. People employed full time Full time: 0 Part time: 2
156 Concrete achievements In the past years the Slovak Republic has performed a considerable progress in the implementation of the mission, objectives and main obligations of the Ramsar Convention especially by: – enlisting appropriate sites in the List of Wetlands of International Importance (up to 2002 there were 12 Ramsar sites listed representing different wetland types and scale of sites with the total area 38206,46 ha) – ensuring the wise use of these Ramsar sites as well as of other important wetlands (involvement of the Ramsar Sites as well as of other important wetlands in different types of landscape planning and nature protection documentation, legislation adjustments, preparation and implementation of management plans for protected wetlands), – supporting further education on appropriate wetland management and general public awareness, – international co-operation (consultations and preparation of common management plans for protection of transboundary wetlands, communication with other Contracting Parties and partner organisations of the Ramsar Convention). Influence in the legal system and institutional structure The (revised) National Wetland Policy and its Action Plan were approved by the Government of SR in 2000. In 2002 two crucial national laws with respect to wetland management were finalised and adopted, namely the Water Act and the Act on Nature and Landscape Protection. In the new Water Act (Act of the National Council of the Slovak Republic No. 184/2002) all water related EU regulations were transposed except for the Water Framework Directive. The new Act on Nature and Landscape Protection No. 543/2002 Coll. (replacing the Act of the National Council of the Slovak Republic No. 287/1994 of the Legal Codes) aims to be complementary with the relevant EU legislation (especially with the Birds Directive and Habitats Directive) and at the same time reflects other international concepts for nature protection such as guidelines for wetlands. The above laws have been prepared in the light of the previous review of the national legislation within the framework of the EU approximation process (the Integrated EU approximation strategy in the Environmental sector was approved by the Government of the Slovak Republic on December 6th 2001) and are connected with institutional changes and building up administration capacities. These institutional changes were partially implemented in 2002 (e.g. 31 new staff persons were accepted in the State Nature Conservancy of the Slovak Republic specifically for the EU approximation process). The further review of existing legislation and institutional structure is subject to the actually revised Nature Conservation Policy of the Slovak Republic. This document is based on cross-sectoral co- operation in nature protection, including wise use of wetlands. Established protected areas 12 wetlands of international importance (Ramsar sites) are established in Slovakia. Coordination with other international conventions The concept of Wise Use Guidelines has been reflected in further policy documents at national level, such as in the National Environmental Action Programme (NEAP II, 1999) containing measures for improvement of the state of wetlands and prevention of their degradation, and also in the National Biodiversity Strategy (1997). The objectives of this Strategy (elaborated under the Convention on Biological Diversity) contribute also to the effective protection of wetlands because sustainable use of wetlands is a part of biodiversity protection. Common implementation of the Ramsar Convention and the Convention on Biological Diversity is based on the Action Plan on Implementation of National Biodiversity Strategy in Slovakia for 1998-2010 (approved by Resolution of Government of SR No. 515/1998 on April 4th 1998), which includes several activities related to wetlands. Within the Action Plan´s budget also the projects on protection of wetlands and their species are funded. Currently the implementation of the Action Plan is in process.
157 For both conventions, there is the same management authority (MoE SR) and the same implementation agency (SNC SR), which determine the priorities of implementation of the conventions and other international commitments together. Priorities of co-operation between the Ramsar Convention and the Convention on Biological Diversity are mainly the following: habitat and species management, controlling of invasive species, assessment of impact of water resources utilisation on biological diversity, inventory research. It is proposed to update the Action Plan on Implementation of National Biodiversity Strategy and implement the Joint Work Plan of the Ramsar Convention and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Some arrangements are provided by the bilateral committees for protection of environment and nature with Hungary and Poland, established on the basis of bilateral agreements, as well as by the Commission for International Waters. Other achievements, benchmarks The program „Living Nature“ for primary schools has been started by the Slovak Environmental Agency in co-operation with Field Studies Council (UK). The School of Nature Conservation has been established in 2001 with the support of Danish Government (DANCEE) as well as with the contribution from the British Know How Fund. In connection with several projects (e.g. TEMPUS) the textbooks for students including those of distance courses, such as „Conservation of Biodiversity – International Aspects“ and „Restoration of River Ecosystems“ have been issued by the Comenius University, Faculty of Natural Sciences in Bratislava and the Slovak Agricultural University in Nitra. The publication „Plant Communities of Slovakia III – Vegetation of Wetlands (Valachovič ed., 2001) has been published thanks to co- financing of the Society of Wetland Scientists.
Monitoring and evaluation Responsibility There are two levels of monitoring the implementation of the Ramsar Convention. The first level is within the sector of environment. At this level the respective sections of the ministry report to the minister about the state of implementation of specific tasks. At the second level, the minister reports to the government on the general state of implementation of Ramsar Convention, as well as on other international conventions related to the environment. Regularity For each calendar year the State Nature Conservancy of the SR elaborates its annual working plan – this plan is evaluated annually. For other tasks the regularity depends on the deadlines that have been set by the Ministry or by the Government. Usually all tasks are being evaluated by the end of the year. Subject of monitoring Tasks - fulfilled/not fulfilled, activities implemented, amount of financial resources spent To whom to report Minister of Environment (the respective sections of the ministry report to the minister about the state of implementation of specific tasks) Government of Slovak Republic (the minister reports to the government on the general state of implementation of the Ramsar Convention) Stakeholders All sectors (ministries) have been involved in the evaluation of the respective reports and other materials, that have been submitted to the government. There are some other reports available on the ministry web site. This way, the public and NGOs have had also a chance to submit their comments on the reports or other materials. Availability of reports Slovak version: www.enviro.gov.sk English version: www.ramsar.org
158 NGO participation Information sharing Recently there are several members of the Slovak Ramsar Committee who were nominated by NGOs (Daphne – Institute for Applied Ecology as the partner of Wetlands International, SOVS as the partner BirdLife International, SZOPK as the IUCN member and BROZ - Regional Association for Nature Conservation and Sustainable Development) Implementation Slovak NGOs have been traditionally involved in the implementation of the practical measures in the area of nature protection, including wetlands, mainly at local level, but also at regional and national level. Most important NGO activities are implemented at national and regional level: Daphne - Institute for Applied Ecology has elaborated the educational materials „World of Wetlands“ and „World of Grasslands“ for training the teachers of primary and secondary schools. The new material „World of Peatlands“ is currently under preparation. It is proposed to incorporate these materials into the syllabus of environmental education for primary and secondary schools. Trilateral Ramsar Platform has been established jointly with Czech and Austrian partner NGOs for the tri-lateral Ramsar Site „Morava River Floodplain“. SOVS has implemented the project IBAs in Slovakia (several important wetlands have been identified as IBAs), developed the management plan for the Ramsar site Senné, carries out monitoring and protection of bird species (including wetland species). SZOPK has carried out the national inventory of wetlands. Sosna is monitoring water quality and restoration of riverhine wetlands in the Hornad River watershed (East Slovakia). Ipel (Ipoly) Union has contributed with the development of regional strategies and management plan for the Ramsar Site Poiplie (South Slovakia - Ipel River watershed). BROZ – Regional Association for Nature Conservation and Sustainable Development – has prepared and implemented several projects focused on wetland protection and restoration in the region of West Slovakia, e.g. the Restoration of Peatlands at Zahorie Lowland; the Restoration of Water Regime in Sur Fen Nature Reserve; Rudava River Restoration Project. SNOVK – Slovak Wetlands Restoration Fund – is involved in the promotion of wetland protection and restoration at national, regional and local level.
Evaluation According to our opinion, recently the power of the Ramsar convention has been used in Slovakia at about 60%. The positive effects of the convention ratification and implementation are mainly found in the improved legislation and planning for wetland protection and sustainable use, and in increased financing both from domestic and external sources. Overlaps Currently there are several committees in the Slovak Republic (mainly the Board for the Sustainable Development and the Slovak National Committee for the Program Man and Biosphere – MaB UNESCO) that superintend and co-ordinate integration of international and regional conventions and agreements, which the Slovak Republic is Contracting Party to. There are also some overlaps between the Ramsar Convention, the Bonn Convention and the AEWA agreement. Lost opportunities The national inventory of wetlands, carried out since 1991, is not completed yet due to a lack of funds and capacities and unclear competencies and priorities. Until now it has been co-ordinated by SZOPK (NGO) and performed by volunteers. Nowadays, however, it is not possible to obtain the scientific data of higher quality necessary for monitoring and management planning with the same funds. SZOPK does not dispose of sufficient capacities to complete the inventory. The inventory has been partially included in the tasks of State Nature Conservancy of SR, who, however, does not dispose of sufficient capacities neither, and work is partially still provided by volunteers.
159 At least in four of the currently registered Ramsar sites, there has been registered serious negative changes in their ecological character (Sur Fen, Senne fishponds, Danube floodplain, Rudava River Valley). There is a general lack of priorities and capacities for management of wetlands and also insufficient utilisation of the financial resources available, both from the external and domestic resources.
Recommendations Strengthen the coordination with other international conventions and commitments in the area of nature conservation. Give priority to the strict protection of remaining natural and seminatural wetlands. Set up comprehensive national program for the restoration of wetlands, rivers and their watersheds. Bridge the existing gap between the recent contradictory approaches to the flood control (flood protection) and river and wetland protection and their sustainable use. These two approaches have been till now largely incompatible. Therefore there is a strong need for integrated watershed management, that would integrate both of these aspects into one concept.
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
Endorsement The Slovak Republic has been a member state of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora since 1st January 1993. (Former Czechoslovakia acceded to CITES in February 1992 and become the party of CITES according to the Article XXII (2) of the Convention on 28th May 1992.) The text of the Convention, together with the announcement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs on accession to the Convention by the CSFR, were published in the official Bulletin (Law Digest) under ref. No. 572/1992 on 16th December 1992. Participation on international conferences Slovak delegation have participated at all Conferences of the Parties since 1992. Focal point The national Management Authority (focal point) is the Ministry of the Environment of the Slovak Republic (Ministry), where CITES agenda is dealt with at the Nature and Landscape Protection Department. (Nám. Ľ. Štúra 1, 812 35 Bratislava, Slovakia, fax: +4212/5956 2207). The national Scientific Authority is the State Nature Conservancy of the Slovak Republic (Hanulova 5/D, 844 40 Bratislava, Slovakia, fax: +4212/6428 3982).
Financial resources Earmarked support system There is no earmarked support system for the implementation of CITES. National resources All resources for the implementation of CITES are from the state budget except for activities carried out within the DANCEE project. Last year the rescue center for confiscated animals was finished, with the total spending of ca 37 mil. SKK. Other funding The project “Implementation of CITES and the Related EU Legislation” (training activities, raising of public awareness and technical assistance) - this project is sponsored by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Danish Cooperation for Environment in Eastern Europe (DANCEE). Total spending on the implementation There is no available statistics about the total spending on CITES.
160 Institutional and personnel capacity Management Authority – 3 persons full time Scientific Authority – 3 persons full time Slovak Environmental Inspection – 4 persons part time (it is planned full time)
Concrete achievements Influence in the legal system and institutional structure Recently the relevant existing legislation on the Convention has been further strengthened by the new Act No 237/2002 on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and on Amending and Complementing Certain Acts and the Regulation of the Ministry No 346/2002. The Act and the Regulation have entered into force on 1st July 2002. As a result of improved legislation and strengthened institutional structure, remarkable progress has been made in the implementation of CITES over the last few years. There have been several cases of successful confiscations of illegally kept CITES species by the Slovak Environmental Inspection. In the past something like this could have happened only very exceptionally. Other achievements Last year the rescue center for confiscated animals was finished, with the total spending of ca 37 mil. SKK.
Monitoring Illegal trade is monitored by the Management Authority (ministry) in co-operation with the Customs Authorities and the Slovak Environmental Inspection.
Availability of reports Annual reports are being prepared by the Management Authority and submitted to the international secretariat of CITES. The English version of these reports is available there or at the Management Authority. Slovak versions are also available at: www.enviro.gov.sk
NGO participation Several Slovak NGOs have been involved in the preparation of and lobbying for new legislation on CITES (mainly the new Act No 237/2002 on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and on Amending and Complementing Certain Acts). The most active NGOs that have been dealing with CITES matters are: – SOVS - Society for Protection of Birds in Slovakia - a BirdLife International partner – SVODAS – Society for Research and Protection of Birds of Prey and Owls – Freedom of Animals (Sloboda zvierat).
Evaluation According to our opinion, recently the power of the CITES convention has been used in Slovakia to about 80 %. The main positive effect of the Convention is that there has been some real improvement of the previously very bad situation – at least some reduction of the illegal transport and trade in the CITES species in Slovak Republic. Other positive effects of the convention ratification and implementation are found in the improved legislation and institutional structure, and in increased financing both from domestic and external sources. Overlaps Due to the specific focus of the CITES on illegal trade in animal and plant species, there are no significant overlaps with the other international conventions.
161 Recommendations In cooperation with customs authorities strengthen the control on the borders to prevent to a larger extend (that is further reduce) the illegal imports and exports of CITES species. Strengthen the cooperation with police, especially with regards to the control of companies, private legal and individual persons keeping and trading in CITES species. Strengthen the control in pet shops to prevent any sales of CITES species in these shops.
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
Endorsement Date of entry into force of the Bonn Conventio: 1st March 1995 Date of entry into force of the AEWA in Slovakia: 1st July 2001 Participation on international conferences: The Slovak delegation have participated at all Conferences of the Parties since 1995. Focal Point Mr. Peter Pilinský Ministry of the Environment Dept. of Nature and Landscape Protection Nám. L. Štúra 1 812 35 Bratislava Slovak Republic Tel.: (+421 7) 59 56 21 89 Fax: (+421 7) 59 56 25 33 E-mail: [email protected] Reports First national report was elaborated and submitted to the secretariat of the Bonn Convention in 2002. This report covers the period of four years (1998 – 2001).
Financial resources Earmarked support system There is no earmarked support system for the implementation of Bonn Convention in Slovakia. National resources Most of the resources for the implementation of Bonn Convention are from the state budget (general administration, operation of national focal point, preparation of reports, participation at the conferences, etc.). Other funding Other funding (mostly project oriented) has been available from the various foreign resources, e.g. GEF, REC Budapest; Wetlands International; Program PIN MATRA; PHARE, British Embassy, Know How Found; Ramsar Small Grants Fund, etc.
Institutional and personnel capacity People employed full time: 0 Part time (Ministry of the Environment, Dept. of Nature and Landscape Protection): 1
162 Concrete achievements
Implementing legislation: Act of the Ministry of Agriculture 172/1975 on hunting Law 17/1992 on Environment Act of the National Council of the Slovak Republic No. 543/2002 on Nature and Landscape Protection Act of the National Council of the Slovak Republic No. 115/1995 on the Protection of Animals
National policy instruments (e.g. national National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy biodiversity conservation strategy, etc.): (NBCS) Action Plan for Implementation of NBCS (1998 – 2010) National Environmental Action Plan II National Strategy For Sustainable Development
Concerted Actions for Appendix I species The Slovak Republic is a Range State for the only one Appendix I species according to resolution 3.2, 4.2, 5.1 and 6.1. Otis tarda for which concerted actions should be undertaken. Trilateral project aimed at the recovery of the Great Bustard population in the border region (Austria, Hungary), as well as aimed at the promotion of environmental friendly methods in agriculture and land use. Strategic plan for the CMS Main objectives and the relevant operational objectives of the Strategic Plan of CMS for 2000–2005 have been incorporated into the Action Plan for Implementation of National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy, as well as into the National Action Plan for Implementation of Ramsar Strategic Plan. Other achievements Several specific projects have been developed and implemented that focused on conservation activities having direct benefits for migratory species: Project ”Death poles” aimed at preventing birds from electrocution on electric poles of the external 22 kV power lines in Slovakia, gradual ecologization (adjustment) of 22 kV power lines. Project ”Protection of the imperial eagle” & implementation of National Action Plan for Imperial Eagle aimed at regular monitoring of the population, regulation of the forest management plans in order to avoid wood logging in regular nesting habitats, documentation of occurrence of the species during breeding, migration and winter season. Project ”Conservation of Golden Eagle in the Carpathian region” aimed at monitoring of the breeding occurrence, guarding of the nest during breeding season. Project ”Re-establishing of the Great Bustard population in the border region with Austria and Hungary” – trilateral project aimed at the sustainable use of land in breeding habitats of Great Bustard. Project ”Ciconia” aimed at monitoring and support of the breeding population of White Stork in Slovakia. Project aimed at the supporting of nesting habitats of peregrine and saker falcons. Implementation of National Action Plan for Corncrake (Crex crex). Implementation of National Action Plan for Great Bustard (Otis tarda).
163 Slovakia has also supported one specific conservation project having direct benefits for migratory species in other (developing) country: the Zoological Garden Bratislava has participated in the Reintroduction Project of Scimatar-horned Oryx to Sidi Toui National Park, Tunisia. Further examples of specific activities having direct benefits on migratory species can be found in the annex.
Monitoring and evaluation Responsibility There are two levels of monitoring the implementation of the Bonn Convention. The first level is within the sector of environment. At this level the respective sections of the ministry report to the minister about the state of implementation of specific tasks. At the second level, the minister reports to the government on the general state of implementation of the Bonn Convention, as well as of the other international conventions related to the environment. Regularity For each calendar year the State Nature Conservancy of the SR elaborates its annual working plan – this plan is evaluated annually. For other tasks the regularity depends on the deadlines that have been set by the Ministry or by the Government. Usually all tasks are being evaluated by the end of the year. The regularity of the national reports submitted to the international secretariat of the Bonn Convention depends on the terms set by the Conference of Parties. Subject of monitoring Tasks - fulfilled/not fulfilled, activities implemented, amount of financial resources spent To whom to report Minister of Environment (the respective sections of the ministry report to the minister about the state of implementation of specific tasks) Government of the Slovak Republic (minister reports to the government on the general state of implementation of the Ramsar Convention) National reports are submitted to the international secretariat of the Bonn Convention. Stakeholders All sectors (ministries) have been involved in the evaluation of the respective reports and other materials, that have been submitted to the government. These and some other reports are available on the ministry web site. This way, the public and NGOs have had also a chance to submit their comments on the reports or other materials. Availability of reports All reports are available from the national focal point of the Bonn Convention. Slovak version: www.enviro.gov.sk English version: (reports and other information on AEWA): www.unep-wcmc.org/AEWA/ or http://trinity.unep-wcmc.org/imaps/aewa/
NGO participation There are two main non-governmental organizations that have been actively involved in initiatives for the conservation of migratory bird species in Slovakia: SVODAS – Society for Research and Protection of Birds of Prey and Owls is an NGO with the following goals: – research and conservation of birds of prey and owls in Slovakia; – to organize people involved in research and conservation activities; – to promote conservation of raptors in public, – to provide consulting and organize activities concerning research and conservation. SVODAS especially concentrates on monitoring the breeding occurrence of the most endangered species, identification of the factors that impose a threat to these species, protection of nesting sites. Special attention is given to the problem of electrocution of birds on electric
164 poles of 22 kV power lines. In cooperation with the European ringing center in France, SVODAS conducts a ringing program. SOVS – Society for Protection of Birds in Slovakia is an NGO participating in: – research on the ecology and population trends of endangered bird species and their habitats; – restoration of habitats suitable for endangered species; – preparation and undertaking of awareness campaigns focused on the specific groups of stake-holders (hunters, land owners); – environmental education at schools.
Evaluation According to our opinion, recently the power of the Bonn Convention has been used in Slovakia to about 20%. The positive effects of the convention ratification and implementation are mainly found in the improved legislation and in the increased availability of financing both from domestic and external sources. Overlaps There are some overlaps between the Bonn Convention, the Bern Convention, the Ramsar Convention and the AEWA agreement. Lost opportunities There is general lack of priorities and capacities for conservation and sustainable management of migratory species and also insufficient utilisation of the financial resources available, both from the external and domestic resources.
Recommendations Strengthen the coordination with other international conventions and commitments in the area of nature conservation. Give priority to the strict protection of the most threatened migratory species, that have their breeding populations at the territory of Slovakia (e.g. Otis tarda, Aquila heliaca, Haliaeetus albicilla, Aythia nyroca, Ciconia nigra) and increase also the protection of their remaining natural and seminatural foraging habitats and nesting sites. Set up comprehensive national program for the migratory species and their habitats. Bridge the existing gap between the recently contradictory approaches of the hunting lobby and nature conservation. These two approaches have been till now largely incompatible, even some seriously threatened migratory species, that would deserve strict protection, e.g. Scolopax rusticola, Anser sp., are still being hunted in Slovakia. Therefore there is a strong need for integrated approach, that would integrate both aspects – conservation and sustainable use (including hunting) – into one single concept.
Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats
Endorsement Signature: 28. April 1994 Ratification by President of the Slovak Republic: 15. August 1996 Date of entry into force of the Bern Convention: 1st January 1997 Participation on international conferences: The Slovak delegation has participated in all Conferences of the Parties since 1995. Focal Point Ministry of the Environment Dept. of Nature and Landscape Protection
165 Nám. L. Štúra 1 812 35 Bratislava Slovak Republic Tel.: (+421 7) 59 56 21 89 Fax: (+421 7) 59 56 25 33 E-mail: [email protected] Reports The last national report covers the period of two years (1999–2000).
Financial resources Earmarked support system There is no earmarked support system for the implementation of Bern Convention in Slovakia.
National resources Most of the resources for the implementation of Bern Convention are from the state budget (general administration, operation of national focal point, preparation of reports, participation at the conferences, etc.). Other funding Other funding (mostly project oriented) has been available from various foreign resources, e.g. GEF, REC Budapest; Wetlands International; Program PIN MATRA; PHARE, British Embassy, Know How Found; Ramsar Small Grants Fund, etc.
Institutional and personnel capacity People employed full time: 0 Part time (Ministry of the Environment, Dept. of Nature and Landscape Protection): 1
Concrete achievements Implementing legislation: Act of the Ministry of Agriculture 172/1975 on hunting Law 17/1992 on Environment Act of the National Council of the Slovak Republic No. 543/2002 on Nature and Landscape Protection Act of the National Council of the Slovak Republic No. 115/1995 on the Protection of Animals
National policy instruments (e.g. national National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy biodiversity conservation strategy, etc.): (NBCS) Action Plan for Implementation of NBCS (1998 – 2010) National Environmental Action Plan II National strategy for sustainable development
The implementation of the Bern Convention is largely overlapping and remain in the shadow of NATURA 2000. Therefore it is rather difficult to separate the achievements of the Bern Convention from those of Natura 2000.
166 There are several expert working groups (taskforces) formed by the State Nature Conservancy of Slovak Republic, that have been working on specific projects, focused on the respective problems of the threatened species and their habitats.
Monitoring and evaluation Responsibility There are two levels of monitoring the implementation of the Bern Convention. The first level is within the sector of environment. At this level the respective sections of the ministry report to the minister about the state of the implementation of specific tasks. At the second level, the minister reports to the government on the general state of the implementation of Bern Convention, as well as on the other international conventions related to the environment. Regularity For each calendar year the State Nature Conservancy of the SR elaborates its annual working plan – this plan is evaluated annually. For other tasks the regularity depends on the deadlines that have been set by the Ministry or by the Government. Usually all tasks are being evaluated by the end of the year. The regularity of the national reports submitted to the international secretariat of the Bern Convention depends on the terms set by the Conference of Parties. Subject of monitoring Tasks - fulfilled/not fulfilled, activities implemented, amount of financial resources spent To whom to report Minister of Environment (the respective sections of the ministry report to the minister about the state of implementation of specific tasks) Government of Slovak Republic (minister reports to the government on the general state of the implementation of Ramsar Convention) National reports are submitted to the international secretariat of the Bern Convention. Stakeholders All sectors (ministries) have been involved in the evaluation of the respective reports and other materials that have been submitted to the government. These and some other reports are available on the ministry web site. This way, the public and NGOs have also had a chance to submit their comments on the reports or other materials. Availability of reports All reports are available from the national focal point of the Bern Convention. Slovak version: www.enviro.gov.sk
NGO participation Slovak NGOs have been traditionally involved in the implementation of the practical measures in the area of nature protection, mainly at local level, but also at regional and national level. Recently there has been a remarkable progress in the implementation of the Bern Convention, related to the implementation of Natura 2000. Several Slovak NGOs have been members of the consortium of organisations that implemented the project "Establishment of Natura 2000 Network in the Slovak Republic”, namely DAPHNE- Institute of Applied Ecology, SOVS - Society for Protection of Birds in Slovakia and SVODAS – Society for Research and Protection of Birds of Prey and Owls. Several other Slovak NGOs have participated in field inventories focused on identification of the potential Sites of Community Interest under the Habitats Directive (SCIs). Some other NGOs have focused on the protection of threatened species and their habitats, such as WOLF – Forest Conservation Association: protection of forest habitats and large carnivors, sustainable forestry; BROZ – Regional Association for Nature Conservation and Sustainable Development: protection and restoration of wetlands and forests in the region of West Slovakia.
167 Evaluation According to our opinion, recently the power of the Bern Convention has been used in Slovakia to about 40 %. The positive effects of the Convention ratification and implementation are mainly found in the improved legislation and in increased availability of financing both from domestic and external sources. Overlaps Recently in Slovakia the Bern Convention is almost completely overlapping and „shadowed“ with the Natura 2000 implementation process. There are also some overlaps between the Bern Convention, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Bonn Convention, the Ramsar Convention and the AEWA agreement. Lost opportunities In spite of the remarkable progress made during recent years, there is still a general lack of priorities and capacities for conservation and sustainable management of threatened species and their habitats, and also insufficient utilisation of the financial resources available, both from external and domestic resources. Recommendations Strengthen the coordination with other international conventions and commitments in the area of nature conservation. Give priority to the strict protection of the most threatened species, that have their breeding populations at the territory of Slovakia and increase also the protection of their remaining natural and seminatural foraging habitats and nesting sites. Bridge the existing gaps between the recently contradictory approaches of the forestry, hunting and fishing and nature conservation. These approaches have been till now largely incompatible. For instance, even some seriously threatened species, that would deserve strict protection (e.g. wolf – Canis lupus) are still being legally hunted in Slovakia. Therefore there is a strong need for integrated approach, that would integrate both aspects – conservation and sustainable use (including hunting) – into one single concept. The most desirable option would be to move the whole state forestry, hunting and fishing administration from the ministry of land management to the ministry of environment.
Convention on Biological Diversity
Endorsement Signature: May 1993 Ratification by the President of the Slovak Republic: 23. August 1994 Date of entry into force: 23. November 1994 Participation on international conferences Slovak delegation have participated at all Conferences of the Parties since 1994. National Focal Point Ministry of the Environment of Slovak Republic, Biodiversity Protection Dept. Igor Ferencik Nám. L. Stura 1 812 35 Bratislava tel: +421-7-5956 2185 fax: +421-7-5956 2533 e-mail: [email protected] Reports - First National Report (1998) – describing the status and development of species and habitat (nature) conservation in Slovakia - Second National Report (2002) (full version is enclosed as annex)
168 The basic background for preparation of the Second National Report has been the information available from the ongoing assessment of the Action Plan for the implementation of National Biodiversity Strategy (NBS) which was approved by the Government of Slovakia in April 1997. Due to the database of all „biodiversity“ activities in Slovakia (including basic research, NGO activities, tasks and goals of Ministry of the Environment and others sectors), which is managed by the National Biodiversity Secretariat, the information given in this National Report provided a realistic reflection and is corresponding with the real situation regarding the status of implementation of CBD and NBS in Slovakia.
Financial resources Earmarked support system There is no earmarked support system for the implementation of CBD in Slovakia. National resources Most of the resources for the implementation of CBD are from the state budget (general administration, operation of national focal point, preparation of reports, participation at the conferences, etc.).
Other funding Other funding (mostly project oriented) has been available from the various foreign resources, e.g. GEF, REC Budapest; Wetlands International; Program PIN MATRA; PHARE, British Embassy, Know How Found; Ramsar Small Grants Fund, etc. There were a lot of smaller projects supported by the above and several other donors. There was also one large-scale GEF Biodiversity Protection Project implemented in the period 1993-1998. This Project was considered very successful and valuable for the Slovak Republic.
Institutional and personnel capacity People employed full time: 0 Part time (Ministry of the Environment, Dept. of Nature and Landscape Protection): 2
Concrete achievements The Slovak Government agreed to adhere to the Convention on Biological Diversity in May 1993 and Slovakia thus became a contractor to the Convention. As a consequence, the National Secretariat for the Convention on Biological Diversity was established in 1994 at the Slovak Ministry of the Environment. The National Secretariat served as the fundamental organisational and co-ordinating unit having direct links both to the institutions using the components of biological diversity and to the international network of focal points responsible for its implementation (the secretariat was abolished by the decision of the minister on 1. December 1994). Also the special inter-sectoral and expert advisory body – the Slovak Commission for the Convention on Biological Diversity – was established. In 1994-1995, based on the existing knowledge, a rapid assessment was carried out on biological diversity in Slovakia. The results were summarised in a Country Study, which also contained a review of the legislation relevant to the conservation of biodiversity and use of its components as well as a description of the institutional framework dealing with biodiversity. An evaluation of the state of biotechnologies and biosafety was a special part of the Country Study. As a next step, the Framework for the National Biodiversity Strategy was developed in late 1995, with the financial assistance from UNEP. The Framework, developed by experts under the co-ordination of the National Secretariat for the Convention on Biodiversity, the Ministry of the Environment, outlined that the future strategy would be a complex document embracing all aspects of the Convention.
169 The Framework, subject to broad formal and informal consultations among different stakeholders, was further developed into the National Biodiversity Strategy in Slovakia, which was adopted through Government Resolution No. 231 dating from 1st April 1997 and endorsed by the National Council of the Slovak Republic through Resolution No. 676 from 2nd July 1997. Several guiding principles have to be followed during the implementation of the Strategy: – all biodiversity is to be conserved - preferably in-situ; – induced loss of biodiversity has to be compensated to the highest possible extent; – diversified landscapes have to be maintained in order to sustain the variety of life forms at all levels; – biological resources have to be always used in a sustainable way; – everyone must share the responsibility for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. The Strategy identifies 24 strategic goals corresponding to the respective articles of the Convention, which are divided into four areas: I. Conservation II. Sustainable Use III. General Measures for Conservation and Sustainable Use IV. International Co-operation As a follow-up to the Strategy, the Action Plan for the period of 1998-2010 has been developed with financial assistance from GEF. It represents a response from the respective sectors (ministries) to the Strategy and contains a list of specific actions, including time horizons and financial implications of implementation. This Action Plan has been updated for the period 2003–2010.
Influence in the legal system and institutional structure Following the political changes after 1989, the altered national legislation also modified the legal framework for nature and landscape protection. In 1994 the Act of the National Council of the Slovak Republic No. 287/1994 on Nature and Landscape Protection, was passed and became effective from January 1, 1995. The Act on Nature and Landscape Protection defined into five degrees (levels) of protection for the complex nature and landscape protection areas, differentiated according to natural values. The Act on Nature and Landscape Protection further specified responsibilities of state bodies during the decision-making processes and the approval procedure. State administration with respect to the nature and landscape protection is performed by the Ministry of the Environment of the Slovak Republic, the Slovak Environmental Inspection, regional and district authorities. The Act has introduced personal responsibility for the state of nature. The Act, furthermore, has established several economical instruments. For instance, the owner (administrator, user) of the lands is obliged to give way to restrictions resulting from prohibitions and other conditions of nature and landscape protection. If due to this restriction property loss occurs, the owner is entitled to a compensation for the property loss, which is paid by the state. Along with the positive incentives, the Act has also introduced sanctions. First, violation of this Act can result in a fine. Second, the most significant violation of this Act, such as damaging or destroying a protected plant or animal species, cutting of woods growing outside the forest will be classified as a crime, according to the Criminal Code. The person committing the offence may be either imposed a penalty or jailed up to maximum of 8 years. Third, it is the violator's obligation to restore the damaged, destroyed or negatively affected part of nature and landscape to its previous state. The Act No. 287/1994 on Nature and Landscape Protection was an organic part of the new national legislation which has been revised since November 1989. This legislation is based on the Constitution of the Slovak Republic (Act No. 460/1990). According to the Constitution, natural heritage, underground water, natural healing sources and water streams are owned by the state. The Sixth Part of the Constitution deals with protection of the environment and cultural heritage.
170 The Act No. 17/1992 on the Environment is an umbrella law, which has introduced basic terminology with respect to the environment such as the environment itself, ecosystems, ecological stability, carrying capacity, sustainable development, ecological loss and others. In addition, this Act has established principles of environmental protection, including the institute of environmental impact assessment (EIA). The special EIA Act No. 127/1994 was also approved. Apart from above legislation, protection of several components of the environment (such as water, air, soil, forests) and economic activities (forestry, hunting, fishing) are subject to special legislation. Though the Ministry of Land Use of the Slovak Republic is in charge of state administration for agriculture, forestry hunting and fishing, their decision-making process is obligatorily based on the written comments of the nature protection body. The nature protection body also gives comments for other activities, such as construction. The preparation of the Slovak Republic to the EU accession in the area of nature conservation has mainly focused on the approximation of relevant EU legislation, strengthening of institutional capacities and, in terms of practical actions, on fulfilling the provisions of the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive – taking the practical steps towards the establishment of NATURA 2000 in Slovakia. In 2002 crucial national law with respect to nature conservation was finalised and adopted – Act of the National Council of the Slovak Republic No. 543/2002 on Nature and Landscape Protection. The new Act on Nature and Landscape Protection (replacing the Act of the National Council of the Slovak Republic No. 287/1994 of the Legal Codes) aims to be compliant with the relevant EU legislation and at the same time reflects other international concepts and agreements in the area of nature conservation. All EU regulations related to nature conservation were transposed into the above law, especially the Birds Directive and Habitats Directive. The law has been prepared in the light of a previous review of national legislation within the EU approximation process (the Integrated EU approximation strategy in the Environmental sector was approved by the Government of the Slovak Republic on December 6th 2001) and is connected with institutional changes – building up the administration capacities. These institutional changes were partially implemented in 2002 (e.g. 31 new staff persons were accepted in the State Nature Conservancy of the Slovak Republic especially for the EU approximation process). Further review of existing legislation and institutional structure is subject to the actually revised Nature Conservation Policy of the Slovak Republic. This document is based on cross-sectoral co- operation in nature protection.
State environmental policy of the SR Biodiversity conservation and its sustainable use is generally considered as an important part of the state environmental policy of the Slovak Republic. "Preservation of biodiversity, conservation and rational use of natural resources, and optimizitaion of land use" is one of the five priorities of the official State Environmental Policy. In the document "Strategy, Principles and Priorities of the State Governmental Environmental Policy", approved in 1993 by the Government and by the National Council of the Slovak Republic, the following objectives in the area of nature protection are explicitly stated: 1. Long-term objectives (2010-2050) – halting the reduction of biodiversity in order to preserve both ecological stability and non- renewable genetic resources; – completing a territorial system of ecological stability at a national scale (national ecological network); – complete the inventories of biocentres at local and district level and ensure their protection within the fourth and fifth degree of protection; – applying the second and third degree of protection to significant areas in 30 % of the territory, and completing the territorial system of ecological stability in lowlands and plains; – reducing the threats to wildlife and facilitating the rescue of critically endangered species.
171 2. Medium-term objectives (2000-2010) – development of the system of national parks and protected landscape areas (on the basis of the General Framework of the Territorial System of Ecological Stability = National Ecological Network) and protection of biocentres ( = core areas according to EECONET terminology) (biocentres of national importance as well as biocentres located on national biocorridors), development of biocorridors of national importance; – designation of additional bilateral and trilateral protected areas; – application of legal and economic instruments regulating access of landscape and incentives for the owners of protected areas; – introduction of a system of entries, nature trails and educational centres regulating number of visitors; – maintaining and improving specially protected nature areas, mainly national parks; – "greening" of municipalities, agricultural and industrial facilities; – orienting science and technology towards the environmental problems. These objectives have been further elaborated in two National Environmental Action Programmes (NEAP) which contain more concrete tasks and projects to improve the state of nature. The first National Environmental Action Programme (NEAP I) was approved by the Resolution of the Government of the SR No. 350/1996). The second National Environmental Action Programme (NEAP II) was approved by the Resolution of the Government of SR No. 1112 from 16th December, 2000).
Coordination with other international conventions All international conventions related to nature conservation are dealt with at one department of the MoE (Dept. of Nature and Landscape Protection) – and within the State Nature Conservancy of the SR. Therefore, at least the basic level of coordination within the environmental sector is achieved.
Monitoring and evaluation Responsibility There are two levels of the monitoring of the implementation of the CBD. The first level is within the sector of environment. At this level the respective sections of the ministry report to the minister about the state of the implementation of specific tasks. At the second level, the minister reports to the government on the general state of implementation of CBD, as well as on other international conventions related to the environment. Regularity For each calendar year the State Nature Conservancy of the SR elaborates its annual working plan – this plan is evaluated annually. For other tasks the regularity depends on the deadlines that have been set by the Ministry or by the Government. Usually all tasks are being evaluated by the end of the year. The regularity of the national reports submitted to the international secretariat of the CBD depends on the terms set by the Conference of Parties. Subject of monitoring Tasks – fulfilled/not fulfilled, activities implemented, amount of financial resources spent To whom to report – Minister of Environment (the respective sections of the ministry report to the minister about the state of implementation of specific tasks); – Government of the Slovak Republic (minister reports to the government on the general state of implementation of CBD); – the national reports are submitted to the international secretariat of the CBD. Stakeholders All sectors (ministries) have been involved in the evaluation of the respective reports and other materials that have been submitted to the government. These and some other reports have been
172 available on the ministry web site. In this way, the public and NGOs have had also a chance to submit their comments on the reports or other materials. Availability of reports All reports are available from the national focal point of the CBD. Slovak version: www.enviro.gov.sk
NGO participation The advisory body of the Ministry of the Environment on CBD – the National Committee for the CBD (NCCBD) consists of representatives of all sectors (ministries, universities, scientific bodies, NGOs) dealing with biodiversity matters or influencing by their activities at any levels the status of biodiversity. Slovak NGOs have been traditionally involved in the implementation of the practical measures in the area of nature protection, mainly at local level, but also at regional and national level. Recently, there has been a remarkable progress in the implementation of the CBD, related to the implementation of Natura 2000. Several Slovak NGOs have been members of the consortium of organisations that implemented the project "Establishment of Natura 2000 Network in the Slovak Republic”, namely DAPHNE- Institute of Applied Ecology, SOVS – Society for Protection of Birds in Slovakia and SVODAS – Society for Research and Protection of Birds of Prey and Owls. Several other Slovak NGOs have participated in field inventories focused on identification of the potential Sites of Community Interest under the Habitats Directive (SCIs). Some other NGOs have focused on the protection of threatened species and their habitats, such as: WOLF – Forest Conservation Association: protection of forest habitats and large carnivores, promotion of sustainable forestry, mainly in East and Central Slovakia BROZ – Regional Association for Nature Conservation and Sustainable Development: protection and restoration of wetlands and forests in the region of West Slovakia
Evaluation According to our opinion recently the power of the CBD has been used in Slovakia at about 20%. The positive effects of the Convention ratification/implementation are mainly found in the improved legislation and in increased availability of financing both from domestic and external sources. Overlaps Recently in Slovakia the Biodiversity Convention is almost completely overlapped and „shadowed“ with the Natura 2000 implementation process. There are also some overlaps with the Bern Convention, the Bonn Convention and the Ramsar Convention. Lost opportunities In spite of the remarkable progress made in recent years, there is still a general lack of priorities and capacities for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity components, including the threatened species and their habitats, and also insufficient utilisation of the financial resources available, both from the external and domestic resources. By the decision of the minister, the National Secretariat for the Convention on Biological Diversity was abolished in December 2001, and its agenda was substantially reduced. By this decision, even the weak activities related to the CBD till that time were further reduced. The whole agenda has remained in the hands of a few persons, working at the Ministry, however without the necessary establisment of the institutional and professional structures.
173 Recommendations Re-establish the National Secretariat for the Convention on Biological Diversity that was abolished in December 2001 Strengthen the coordination with other international conventions/commitments in the area of nature conservation. Give priority to the strict in-situ protection of the most threatened species and habitats. Bridge the existing gaps between the recently contradictory sectoral approaches (e.g. in the agriculture, transport, industry, military, forestry, hunting and fishing sectors) and nature conservation. These approaches have been till now largely incompatible. Therefore there is a strong need for an integrated approach, that would integrate both aspects – conservation and the sustainable use of biodiversity components into one concept.
Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy
Endorsement Endorsed in 1995 on conference in Sofia, signed by minister Pavle Gantar. Participation on international conferences Slovenia has taken part regularly on all meetings from 1999-2002. Slovenia was the Leader of the Board of Strategies and member of the Office of Strategies. Focal point Peter Skoberne Counsellor to the Government
Annual reports N/A Financial resources Earmarked support system Earmarked support system for the implementation was the national budget, the organizer covered the attendance (the majority of attendances was sponsored). International funding possibilities None National, regional resources for the implementation None Availability of other funding None
Implementation of the PEBLDS Action Theme 1: Slovenia is taking part in the establishment of the Pan-European Ecological Network with Emerald pilot project, as a part of preparation for Natura 2000.
Action Theme 2.: Integration of biological and landscape diversity consideration into sectoral policies is the basic part of the implementation of CBD Convention; in Slovenia there are activities related to this issue mostly in agriculture and forestry.
Action Theme 3.: Raising awareness and support with policy makers and the public: communication projects are part of implementation of CBD Convention and Natura 2000 project. Some projects are part of Dutch connection and in connection with experts from IUCN Commission (a MATRA project for setting up the basis for the establishment of the Sneznik Regional Park).
174 Action Theme 4.: Conservation of Landscapes: National Office for Spatial Planning (Ms. Blanka Bartol) has an overview on the activities. There were no concrete actions. 5 books were published that are dealing with the topic.
Action Theme 5.: Coastal and marine ecosystems (when applicable) Action Theme 6.: River ecosystems and related wetlands Action Theme 7.: Inland wetland ecosystems These Action Themes (5 – 7) are not a part of the Slovenian PEBLDS Programme anymore. Action Theme 8.: Grassland ecosystems: activities in accordance with Natura 2000 (see there). Action Theme 9.: Forest ecosystems: No special activities, Agency of Environment cooperates with the Department of Forestry at the Biotechnical Faculty in Ljubljana.
Action Theme 10.: Mountain Ecosystems In Slovenia is not the topical subject, there are no important threats.
Action Theme 11.: Actions for threatened species: Activities in connection with Bonn and Bern Convention (see there). The formal protection status of species in Slovenia threatened on the European level: all are included in the Slovenian Red Data lists, but not all of them are protected formally yet. New Act is expected at the end of 2003. There were no specific measures (besides legal acts) related to the species that are subject to the prohibition of hunting (Annex 5). There are some measures for sustainable use of habitats of threatened species: in agriculture (agri-environmental programme), forestry and in the regimes of protected areas.
Natura 2000 – Council Directive 79/409/EEC and Council Directive 92/43/EEC
Endorsement Background The European Agreement on Association, signed by the European Community and its member countries on one side and the Slovak Republic on the other, the so-called Association Agreement (Luxembourg, 4th October, 1993), which came into effect on 1st February 1995, contains a special Article 81 „The Environment“ on the contractual basis of the co-operation between the Slovak Republic and the EU in the area of the environment (Article 80 on Nuclear Safety, Article 87 on Regional Development and Territorial Planning, Article 70 on Approximation of Environmental Legislation, Article 97 also on the Protection and Restoration of Monuments). Establishing Natura 2000 networks – based on the EU Birds and Habitat Directives – has proven to be a real test for EU Member States. In fact these Directives are being referred to as the worst implemented directives in the EU. This relates without any doubt to the enormous complexity of their implementation in terms of geographic coverage, required data, involvement of expert organisations covering all sectors of flora and fauna, and at last but not at least consultation and agreement with all relevant stakeholders. The Slovak Republic faces an even more difficult task than the average Member State: to comply with the Directives at the date of EU entry, so in May 2004. According to the results of the Helsinki summit held in December 1999, the Slovak Republic was included in the first accession group of ten Central Eastern European countries. Therefore, Slovakia as other candidate countries had to start full harmonisation of legislation with the European “acquis communautaire”. The nature conservation sector, though regulated by a few directives and regulations only, was
175 recognised as extremely problematic in this context. The major challenge has been to prepare for the implementation of the Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (the Birds Directive) and the Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (the Habitats Directive), the latter being called the worst implemented Directive in the history of the EU environmental law. In Slovakia, a specific law-based system that ensures the designation of nature areas and protection of species has been in place since 1955. However, the 1999 screening discussions in Brussels concluded that the Slovak nature conservation legislation was not in compliance with the relevant legal instruments of the EU. Besides, it has been recognised that knowledge then in Slovakia of the species and habitats according to EU classification and the existing procedures was not sufficient to support identification, designation and implementation of a Natura 2000 network, provided for by the Habitats Directive. In the same year the Slovak Ministry of the Environment initiated an effort to amend Act No 287/1994 on Nature and Landscape protection to make it comply with EU legislation. Focal point Ministry of the Environment of Slovak Republic - Natura 2000 Office (Nám. Ľ. Štúra 1, 812 35 Bratislava, Slovakia). Reports available Project Completion Report on the project: "Establishment of Natura 2000 Network in the Slovak Republic” summarising the overall project achievements and lessons learned. The project was implemented from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2002.
Financial resources Earmarked support system There is no earmarked support system for the implementation of NATURA 2000. International funds Certain EU pre-accession instruments are available, such as SAPARD designed to prepare candidate countries for Structural and Cohesion Funds and to assists them in long-term adjustment of the agricultural sector and in development of rural areas. National SAPARD agency was established in Slovakia already in 1999. Recently Slovakia acceded to LIFE - the Financial Instrument for the Environment. The first projects under the LIFE-NATURE scheme to maintain or restore natural habitats and/or species populations to a favourable conservation status were drafted and submitted to the Commission. National resources Most of the resources for the implementation of NATURA 2000 are from the state budget except for the activities carried out within the above mentioned MATRA project "Establishment of Natura 2000 Network in the Slovak Republic”.
Concrete achievements In 2000, in order to support a broader capacity development for implementing the Birds and Habitats Directives, the Ministry of the Environment submitted a Matra Pre-accession project proposal entitled “Development of the EMERALD/Natura 2000 network in Slovakia”. Based on this initial request, Senter Internationaal formulated the project “Establishment of Natura 2000 network in the Slovak Republic”. The project was implemented from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2002. The overall objective of the project was to contribute to the full Slovak compliance with international agreements concerning nature protection and securing natural values of the country on a long-term basis. The immediate objective of the project was the implementation of the Birds Directive and provision for the first stage of implementation of the Habitats Directive, including legal compliance and capacity for the development of the Natura 2000 network before end of 2003.
176 The objectives of the project were to be achieved through working towards the three results identified, that included: – Organisation and capacity building, – Database and inventory development and – Awareness raising. A consortium of ten organisations led by VVMZ East European Investment Service (VVMZ) implemented the project. Other members of the consortium included the Dutch organisations International Agricultural Centre, SOVON, AVALON, and the Slovak organisations DAPHNE- Institute of Applied Ecology, Institute of Botany of Slovak Academy of Sciences, Institute of Landscape Ecology of Slovak Academy of Sciences, Faculty of Natural Sciences of Comenius University, SOVS – Society for Protection of Birds in Slovakia and SVODAS – Society for Research and Protection of Birds of Prey and Owls. Influence in the legal system and institutional structure The project provided important input to the effort to transpose into the national law the provisions of the Birds and Habitats Directive. A new Nature and Landscape Conservation Act No. 543, was passed by the National Council of the Slovak Republic (Parliament) in June 2002 and has become effective on January 3rd 2003. At the national level, the Ministry of the Environment, Nature and Landscape Conservation Section and the State Nature Conservancy show a high degree of commitment to implementing Natura 2000 in Slovakia. This has been confirmed, inter alia, through restructuring the SNC to enable it to cope with challenges arising from Natura 2000 concept, increasing its staff by 31 employees in 2002 as well as extraordinary allocations of the funds to support preparatory works for NATURA 2000. The Birds and Habitats Directives have been transposed in to the new Nature and Landscape Conservation Act, which represents the comprehensive legal framework for implementing Natura 2000 network in Slovakia. Additional MoE regulations concerning implementing relevant provisions of the new law (for instance concerning management plans, lists of species and habitats of European importance, etc.) have accommodated or will accommodate in the near future the project results and thus provide for their nation-wide sustainable application.
Specific outcomes of the project “Establishment of Natura 2000 network in the Slovak Republic” The Project focused on developing specific skills and expertise needed in Slovakia for timely and effectively implementing the Natura 2000 network. These included improving knowledge of the natural habitat types and species of wild fauna and flora of Community interest, developing site selection procedures, advancing data management and improving participatory management planning skills. Last but not least, the Project contributed to raising awareness among stakeholders of what are the legal requirements concerning nature conservation issues in the EU. The initial period of the project focused on organisational arrangements and the establishment of an effective project management. A Letter of Agreement was signed that outlined commitments by both the Ministry of Environment and the Consortium. Natura 2000 Office was set-up at the premises of the Ministry of Environment. The office has been currently restructured into a more flexible office to coordinate nature conservation projects and programmes financed through foreign funds. Below the Project outcomes are described in the context of initial objectives and expected results.
1. Organisation and capacity building Initial objective By the end of the project the State Nature Conservancy (SNC) is organised and staffed with a qualified team of experts for the implementation of the EC Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive as well as for the co-ordination of international conventions on biodiversity and nature conservation.
177 The objective has been met through restructuring the SNC, and increasing its capacities through provision of hardware and software to support data management for Natura 2000 process, developing management planning and site selection skills and GIS capabilities of the staff.
Restructured SNC In 2001, the SNC restructured its organisational structure to include new tasks and activities, particularly those arising from EU accession. Three departments have been established: ¾ Department for International Co-operation, Public Awareness and Education ¾ Department for Documentation, Informatics and Monitoring ¾ Department for Methodology and Co-ordination of Nature Conservation Activities. The SNC has become a principal institution in Slovakia to coordinate Natura 2000 related activities. Its responsibilities include, inter alia, the following: • Maintenance and update of the list of Natura 2000 sites based on the information provided by expert staff of the SNC, scientific institutions and non-governmental expert organisations; • Maintenance of the Natura 2000 meta data base and GIS accessible for expert groups and scientific institutes; • Provision of information to project developers and initiators as well as to regional and local authorities about the values of Natura 2000 sites and the distribution of habitats and species listed in the respective Annexes of the Birds and Habitats Directive; • Co-ordination of management planning for Natura 2000 sites; • Compilation of monitoring and evaluation reports; • Development of project proposals to obtain financial support (national as well as international) for the implementation of management and restoration activities in Natura 2000 sites; • Awareness raising and information dissemination about Natura 2000 and nature protection to the public at large. A specific Natura 2000 Centre was established, however, separately from the international cooperation unit. It is placed in the Department for Documentation, Informatics and Monitoring, which also includes GIS management. Establishment of the Project Programming and Co-ordination Unit has been postponed until 2003.
Elaboration of guidelines for management plans and application of the guidelines for two selected pilot areas At the early stages of the Project, the existing Slovak conservation management planning methodology was not found to be comprehensive enough to support management planning for Natura 2000 sites. Therefore the management planning exercise started with the review and the discussion of a few conservation-oriented management-planning guidelines, namely: ¾ Management Guidelines for Ramsar Sites (issued by the Ramsar Bureau); ¾ The Management Guidelines issued by Eurosite; ¾ Existing Slovak guidelines for the elaboration of management plans; ¾ The Czech methodology for the elaboration of management plans. The Eurosite guidelines were considered to be the most comprehensive. Therefore, management- planning guidelines were developed on that basis with necessary adaptations to local circumstances. The Project supported participatory management planning through training and assistance with drafting the management plans for two pilot areas – Morava Floodplain and Polana-Strelniky, both identified as potential Natura 2000 Sites. By the time of the Project completion, the management plans were drafted and submitted to SNC.
178 Site selection methodologies The project has resulted in two site selection approaches for SPAs and sites eligible for identification as SCIs, respectively. The SPA team, while making use of the experience gained in the Netherlands and additional know- how from BirdLife International, elaborated site-selection criteria for SPAs. Guidelines for setting thresholds have been elaborated using new data on total European and national populations of 142 selected bird species. Existing thresholds for breeding, migrating and wintering populations were adjusted on the basis of these guidelines. The SPA site selection criteria were presented and endorsed at the combined PMT/PMB meetings in November 2001 and February 2002. In June 2002 the SPA selection criteria were submitted to the MoE. It was recommended to formalise them through Ministry Decision. At the early stages of the Project, the CTA elaborated draft guidelines for selection of proposed SCIs on the basis of the experience in the Netherlands. The team responsible for the elaboration of the site selection procedures considered them in developing a comprehensive site selection methodology.
2. Database and inventory development Initial objective The nature conservation centre at the SNC is operational with a well-equipped meta database on species and habitats, with data from other institutions collected and processed, and with a potential to plan management activities in Emerald/Natura 2000 sites. The following activities were carried out and outcomes produced in a framework of the project. Review of existing databases, their accessibility and usefulness The databases held by the Slovak partners of the consortium – Grassland and Peatlands (DAPHNE), Database of higher plants and Database of relevés (Institute of Botany), Databank of Slovak Fauna (Faculty of Natural Sciences of the Comenius University), and Database of IBAs (SOVS) – were reviewed at the early stages of the project. The database at the SNC was also reviewed. Data included in these databases and relevant “soft” information (i.e. the present structure of protected areas, National Ecological Network, Ramsar sites, IBAs, Wetland Shadow List) were used to identify potential network of Natura 2000 sites in Slovakia. Gap-analyses gave direction to field research in 2001 and 2002. The data held by the Ministry of Agriculture in forest databases were reviewed with regards to their scope and their format in summer 2002. Late access to forest databases prevented more comprehensive fieldwork to be carried out in forests within the framework of the project.
Development of interpretation manual for habitats in Annex 1 Translation of the Annex 1 habitat types to a Slovak system of biotopes was the necessary first step for their identification within the databases. Therefore an adjustment of Annex 1 habitats to the Slovak situation was developed by the Habitat Team and printed with the funding of the Ministry of the Environment.
NATURA 2000 database The NATURA 2000 database compatible with the general Information System on Taxons and Habitats (ISTH) was established at the SNC. The central server supports data exchange and co- operation between various institutions in data gathering, data storing and data analysing that is inevitable for the identification, management and monitoring of Natura 2000 sites. In order to make the co-operation more efficient and avoid overlapping efforts, the concept of a support information system on the status of inventories has been developed. Though not all data have yet been transferred into the database, data available already provide support for the identification of Natura 2000 sites. Plans exist to make the database available through the internet.
179 Collection of data through fieldwork The project has produced a considerable amount of new data on the distribution of the Annex habitats and species. The inventories mostly focused on the potential Natura 2000 sites identified at the early stages of the Project on the basis of existing networks. For instance, according to the agreement with the State Conservancy, the Institute of Botany collected recent data on the distribution of the following 15 species of Annex II: Aldrovanda vesiculosa, Asplenium adulterinum, Cochlearia tatrae, Coleanthus subtilis, Eleocharis carniolica, Erysimum hungaricum, Lindernia procumbens, Ostericum palustre, Pulsatilla patens, Pulsatilla pratensis subsp. Hungarica, Spiranthes aestivalis, Thesium ebracteatum, Thlaspi jankae and Tozzia carpatica.
Elaboration of draft list of SPA pursuant to the Birds Directive Of Slovak avifauna, in total 142 species were selected as endemic, regularly breeding or migrating species listed in Annex I of the EU Birds Directive (Art. 4.1) or migratory and particularly water bird species endangered in Europe (Art. 4.2). Preliminary SPA sites were identified using several protection networks (National parks and Landscape protected areas, backbone of Emerald Network, Ramsar wetlands, Important Bird Areas etc.). GIS based analyses were worked out where qualitative and quantitative data on well-known species and habitat information were considered. Additional inventories were carried out in the preliminary identified sites. For each species an expert was consulted and the gathered information have been evaluated. Additional information was collected and entered into the database. The sites were ranked in accordance with the criteria and guidelines. On the basis of the analysis and ranking the backbone of the SPA network was identified at an SPA Team meeting in October 2002. The backbone was further analysed for each species in order to fulfil all criteria. In accordance with the criteria of identification the final draft list of SPA sites was elaborated at the final meeting of the SPA Team during the Natura 2000 Conference. The boundaries of the selected sites were delineated in December 2002 in accordance with the guidelines for boundary delineation and in consultation with experts involved in mapping at respective regions (mostly experts from the SNC). In total 46 sites were identified, which are potential SPAs with an area 13,600 square kilometres, i.e. 27.7% of the area of Slovakia.
The outcomes also include the following ¾ Digital map on the boundaries of SPA sites optimised for the scale 1:50 000; ¾ Tables with populations of selected bird species for each SAP site; ¾ Analysis of the coverage and the geographical distribution of selected bird species; ¾ Percentage of the national bird populations covered by SPA network.
Elaboration of preliminary list of sites eligible to be identified as SCIs pursuant to the Habitats Directive Sites eligible to be identified as SCIs were pre-selected using several protection networks (National parks and Landscape protected areas, Emerald Network, Ramsar wetlands, Biosphere Reserves, etc,) data available from the past stored in various databases as well as recently collected data from additional inventories in a framework of the Project as well as from the GEF-funded grassland project. The selection process followed the site selection methodology developed for this purpose in a framework of the Project. In total 59 sites were identified, covering some 31,7 % of the national territory.
180 3. Awareness raising Initial objective Increased awareness of stakeholders on existing legislation and a need for nature conservation regulation and improved public awareness on Natura 2000. The project contributed to raise awareness among stakeholders on the objectives and means of the Natura 2000 concept. The actual project outputs related to awareness raising have been even broader compared to the expected ones and include the following: Information leaflet. It explains nature conservation approaches in the EU in the context of the Natura 2000 network, gives general information about the Birds and Habitats directives and introduces LIFE Program and Agro-environmental Program of the EU. Postcards promoting Natura 2000 network. The first national conference/stakeholder meeting, March 2002. The Conference raised awareness among major partners involved in the Natura 2000 development in Slovakia, and prepared them to participate in the Natura 2000 process at the early stages of the site selection process. It also provided a platform for discussion among relevant stakeholders of the issue. The second national conference/expert meeting, November 2002. The second Conference provided a discussion forum for experts of the site selection methodologies and criteria and mobilized additional expertise on distribution of the habitats and species, including birds, listed in respective Annexes of the Birds and Habitats Directives, for the purpose of compiling national lists of SPAs and proposed SCIs, respectively. Natura 2000 Home Page. The NATURA 2000 Home Page was created with support from the Project. It can be accessed through the home page of the SNC (http://www.sopsr.sk/). The home page gives information about, among others, what is Natura 2000, what methods are being used to define the network, about projects for establishing the Natura 2000 network – most notably this Project – and contacts to all Project partners. Publication in Slovak language of the Manual on Environmental Impact Assessment. This publication is a translation of the English version of the document “Assessment of Plans and Projects Significantly Affecting Natura 2000 Sites” and interprets in detail Paragraphs (3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive Article 6. Communication strategy. It aims at providing the beneficiaries with comprehensive advise on opportunities of communicating Natura 2000 related information to stakeholders and to the public at large. The Communication strategy was drafted on the basis of elements developed at the early stages of the project.
Monitoring The Project Advisory Committee (PAC) chaired by the representative of Senter International monitored the overall implementation of the project "Establishment of Natura 2000 Network in the Slovak Republic”. At the PAC, beneficiary institutions, namely Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Agriculture and the State Nature Conservancy of the Slovak Republic (SNC) were represented.
NGO participation Slovak NGOs have been traditionally involved in the implementation of the practical measures in the area of nature protection, mainly at local level, but also at regional and national level. One of the major achievements of the above project was that it strengthened the co-operation between NGOs and state institutions in Slovakia. Several Slovak NGOs have been members of the consortium of organisations that implemented the above mentioned project "Establishment of Natura 2000 Network in the Slovak Republic”, namely DAPHNE – Institute of Applied Ecology, SOVS – Society for Protection of Birds in Slovakia and SVODAS – Society for Research and Protection of Birds of Prey and Owls. Several other Slovak NGOs have participated in field inventories focused on the identification of potential Sites of Community Interest under the Habitats Directive (SCIs).
181 Evaluation and Conclusions The outcomes of the Project, particularly the procedures for the selection of Special Protection Areas of the Birds Directive (SPAs) and proposed Sites of Community Interest under the Habitats Directive (SCIs), as well as draft lists of the SPAs and proposed SCIs, will make it possible for Slovakia to timely implement pre-accession commitments in the nature conservation sector. Furthermore, in implementing the Project, MoE and the SNC have become clear leaders in the Natura 2000 process within the country. The above factors make the Project a principal driving force in initial stages of preparation for Natura 2000 in Slovakia. The Project has established a so-far unique co-operation between major organisations in Slovakia – both governmental and non-governmental – that carry out activities contributing to nature conservation in Slovakia and/or hold data and information relevant to the Natura 2000 process. MoE and the SNC developed an understanding of the complexity of challenges and opportunities relative to the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives. Increased knowledge of species and habitats, improved data management and setting up an information system based on Natura 2000 database and GIS will allow to improve the performance of the MoE not only in implementing the Natura 2000 network, but also in respect of international conventions, particularly the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Bern, the Bonn and the Ramsar Conventions.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Despite the remarkable achievements described above and the substantial input of the Government of Slovakia, it is apparent that a lot of work remains to be done regarding both the selection and designation of SPAs and SCIs, both capacity development for implementation – particularly for protection, management and monitoring of Natura 2000 sites. This implies that a long-term support for the protection and management of Natura 2000 sites and species in Slovakia would be useful through, inter alia, foreign funding schemes. The Slovak Government may therefore wish to take the opportunity of continuing eligibility to request assistance through existing foreign assistance programmes and agencies of the EU countries, particularly those offering opportunities for continuing cooperation (e.g. MATRA, LIFE, etc.). There are also some crucial prerequisites that can influence the persistence of certain achievements that have been already reached. For instance, in order to sustain the unique cooperative mechanism that has evolved through the involvement of major institutions holding and/or collecting data needed for the purposes of the Birds and Habitats Directive, the beneficiary institutions have to introduce measures that would serve as long-term incentives to encourage cooperation in the future. Such cooperation is crucial for further effective database development, and for the sake of monitoring and reporting commitments of Slovakia. It is also necessary to ensure proper coordination of activities related to Natura 2000 and other international conventions at the national level. To pursue further cooperation of various agencies possessing capacities to collect and assess data concerning habitats and species of Community interests it is necessary to (i) formalise the procedures for data collection, processing and assessing the trends in the conservation status of habitats and species; (ii) define clear mandates of respective agencies in the above mentioned effort; (iii) ensure an appropriate funding of the above from the national sources. Future specific actions should include the following: ¾ continuation of mapping of habitats and species to obtain more exact and current data on habitats and species of Community interest; ¾ transformation of forestry data into useful Natura 2000 information; ¾ stakeholder communication and consultation process with regional authorities and stakeholders on the designation of sites;
182 ¾ delineation of sites and completion of the final list of Natura 2000 sites to be submitted to the EU; ¾ definition of the favourable status of habitats types and species of wild flora and fauna of Community interest; ¾ development of procedures and institutional structure for assessing the impact of human activities on the status of habitats and species of wild fauna and flora of Community interest; In order to carry on with the overall process of developing Natura 2000 in Slovakia, it is recommended that MoE develop a work plan including the following: (i) technical and administrative activities, deadlines and resources needed for timely implementing the pre-accession obligations of Slovakia concerning Natura 2000 (i.e. until the reference date of accession by SR to EU), (ii) capacity development activities, and (iii) awareness raising activities, oriented towards a broader and well targeted information campaign for specific stakeholder groups and with a proper information on: – the process of establishment of Natura 2000 in Slovakia; – its influence to landowners and users; – compensation and incentives mechanisms. It is crucial that these activities are executed in co-operation with the agricultural sector. Taking into consideration that the proper implementation of Natura 2000 would require more operational capacity, it is recommended that the MoE restructure the Nature and Landscape Conservation Department and increase its staff.
183
SLOVENIA
INTRODUCTION
The Republic of Slovenia (capital city is Ljubljana) lies in the middle of Europe where the Alps and the Mediterranean meet the Pannonian plains and the Karst. Slovenia has a population of 2 million. The official language is Slovene. Slovenia measures 20.273 km2 and has 46.6 km of sea coast. History. The Slavic ancestors first settled in the area in the 6th century AD. In the 7th century the Slavic Duchy of Carantania was established, the first Slovene state which in AD 745 becomes part of the Frankish empire; the Slavs convert to Christianity and gradually lose their independence. From the 14th century to 1918 all the Slovene regions belonged to into the possession of the Habsburgs, later the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. In 1918 the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was formed, in 1945 Federal Peoples' Republic of Yugoslavia. In April 1990 the first democratic elections took place, still in the former Yugoslavia, and on 23 December 1990 88.5% of voters at the referendum vote in favour of an independent Slovenia. On 25 June 1991 Slovenia officially declared its independence. On 1 February 1999 Association Agreement with the EU comes into effect. Economy. Slovenia is among the most successful of the countries in transition from socialism to a market economy. It boasts a stable growth in GDP and ranks among the countries with the lowest degree of risk. The completed privatisation process and other measures are increasing the competitiveness of its economy directed towards the EU. GDP per capita: 9,451 USD (2001). Growth in gross domestic product (GDP): 4.6% (2000), 3,0% (2001). Standardised rate of unemployment (ILO): 6.4% (2001). Inflation rate (%): 7,5 (2002). External Trade: Exports (in Mio USD): 10,357 (2002); Imports (in Mio USD 10,929 (2002); Export/import ratio (%): 91.2 (2001). Major external trade partner countries (2002): Exports: Germany, Italy, Croatia, Austria, France. Imports: Germany, Italy, France, Austria, Croatia. NGO movement. Number of NGOs active in many different fields boosted after independence and introduction of democracy after 1990-91. Now there are some 150 environmental NGOs with some 25% of them very active.
STATE OF NATURE
INTRODUCTION AND NATURAL FEATURES OF THE COUNTRY The small territory of Slovenia is characterised by a rich diversity of plant and animal species, ecosystems and landscapes. This rich diversity results from Slovenia’s transitional position at the contact area of tectonic units and biogeographical regions (the Mediterranean, Pannonian, Alpine and Dinaric), changing relief (from the sea bottom to the altitude of 2,864 m) and its diverse geological, pedological, climatic and hydrological conditions. The Slavic, German and Roman cultures influencing human activities has also contributed to the rich cultural and landscape diversity of the present. Main characteristics: Geology: juncture of four geotectonic units: Eastern Alps, Dinarids, Pannonian Basin, Adriatic- Apulian foothills (Placer, 2000), diverse rock structures. Biogeographic regions: the Alps (30 %), the Dinaric Mountains (30 %), the Mediterranean Basin (10 %), and the Pannonian Plain (30 %), covering a total area of 20,273 km2, give the country an ecotone character. Relief: varied relief, altitude above sea-level 0 to 2,864 metres 1/6 of the territory is of Quaternary sediments, some 44 % carbonate bed-rock, mainly karstified areas (over 7,000 caves registered). Hydrological: two drainage systems: 2/3 to the Black Sea, 1/3 to the Mediterranean Sea; five catchment areas: the Soča, Sava, Drava in Mura rivers, and the Slovenian Littoral relatively large karst area with no surface streams. Vegetation cover: 56 % of the territory covered by forests 36 % of the territory is agricultural land. Flora: about 3,200 vascular plants; 60
184 endemic taxa, including 22 narrow endemics with predominant distribution in Slovenia. Fauna: about 13,000 - 15,000 species (expected 50,000 up to 100,000); about 4,000 endemic taxa (above all cave animals). In Slovenia, well preserved forests, mountain areas and freshwater underground ecosystems with the high diversity of plants and animals, including many endemic species, and the diverse ecosystems are of particular importance. The natural features and the limited impact of the economic factors in the past are the reason for the relatively high biodiversity in Slovenia. However, the data show that it has declined in the last decades. The development of industry and agriculture, the construction of transport infrastructure and the urbanisation have contributed significantly to the pollution of surface and underground waters, soil and air and to the degradation of specific areas. The result is the biodiversity loss at the ecosystem, species and genetic levels and loss of landscape diversity.
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
Habitat types Almost the entire territory of Slovenia would have been covered by forests if there had been no human impact (thinning of forests, land use for agricultural production, drainage of wetlands, modifications to the coast and canalisation of watercourses, mining, construction of roads, urbanisation, etc.) As a consequence of human activities, the plant and animal species had been forced to find refuge in rather small areas. Many habitats, like lowland forests and wetlands (bogs, fens and reed beds) have locally disappeared and with them the populations of species characteristic of such habitats. On the other hand, new landscapes, such as pastures, grasslands, fields, have been created which often interchange with the remains of forests, hedges and watercourses. Large mammals (brown bear, wolf, European lynx etc.) withdrew to the remote parts of their primary habitats, some species became extinct, others adapted to the new agricultural landscapes. The typology of habitats was prepared in 2001, based on the PHYSIS system for habitat coding. There are 7 types of habitats at the first level, followed by 35 subtypes at the second level. In Slovenia, more than 2,000 species were identified as endangered in 2001. Some of them are included in the lists of species for which conservation measures are required in accordance with the international regulations More than 300 such species are found in Slovenia. The reasons for the decline in the populations of species are the direct destruction of specimens or the loss of their habitats. Most of the species on the Slovenian Red Data List are species which are threatened because of the loss of their habitats. Some habitats are more threatened than others because of their specific traits (rare bedrock formations - ‘mrazišča’) and in general declining (wetlands).
Biological Corridors No special biological corridors have been established so far.
Species and Genetic Diversity According to the data compiled, the diversity of species in Slovenia is extremely high, despite the smallness of its territory. Only a small proportion of the species that are believed to live in Slovenia has so far been identified. Approximately 22,000 species have been recorded. The estimated number is between 50,000 and 120,000, which reflects the outstandingly rich biodiversity for such a small area.
Genetic diversity of crops and domestic animal breeds Crops: Indigenous cultivars and populations named after Slovenian settlements and regions are evidence that our ancestors had been breeding these plants for centuries. Varieties of some of the
185 indigenous cultivars have been selected and entered in the list of varieties, such as: salad Ljubljanska ledenka (included in the European list as Laibacher Eis), cabbage Ljubljansko zelje, rampion Ljubljanski motovilec, carrot Ljubljansko korenje, onion Ptujska rdeča čebula, garlic Ptujski spomladanski česen, Ptujski jesenski česen, chicory Goriški radič, beans Ribničan, Jeruzalemski fižol, hop Savinjski golding, stubble turnip Kranjska okrogla repa, Kranjska podolgovata repa, olive tree Istrska belica, apple trees Dolenjska voščenka, Gorenjska voščenka, Goriška sevka, Štajerski mošancelj, apricot tree Pišeška marelica, cherry tree Vipavska češnja, pear tree Tepka and vine Bela glera, Briška glera, Cundra, Danijela, Dišečka, Dolga petlja, Klarnica, Osipka, Pinela, Pergolin, Planinka, Poljšakica, Racug, Radgonska ranina, Ranfol or Štajerska belina, Rečigla, Rožica, Sladkočica ali Sladkočrn, Verbena, Volovnik, Vrtovka, Zelen, Zelenika, Zunek - durelo, Žametovka.
Domestic animal breeds: In Slovenia the breeding of domestic animals was already well developed in the Middle Ages. At the beginning of the 20th century the number of domestic animals was higher than today; indigenous breeds used to be a main source of income for many farms in Slovenia. Nowadays, many breeds are lost or hybridised and others are only preserved in extremely low numbers.
Genetic diversity of forest woody plants It is generally believed that the established concept of sustainable management in Slovenian forestry ensures the genetic diversity of the complex of biological components in forest ecosystems. This belief arises from ignorance of the actual genetic diversity, affected by the introduction and promotion of spruce in the past, the selective forest cultivation measures, supporting only individual tree species, the introduction and uncontrolled transfer of propagating material, the selective human impacts on forests - in particular the pollution of environmental media and climate change - the ignorance of the biocomponents of the forest soil, the biology of symbionts and pathogens of the forest trees, etc. Despite the traditionally sustainable forest management and the long-lasting expert work on the forest gene bank the origin of some of the prevailing tree species found in Slovenian forests is not known. Problematic species are in particular: spruce, which was uncontrollably transferred across Central Europe; even the origin of seed in the seed bank is doubtful; oak, in particular English oak and sessile oak, whose origin is not clear; oak species are also a taxonomic problem because the species are cross-breeding; the data provided in the Forest inventory issued by the Slovenian Forest Service do not reflect the actual status; fir, whose natural rejuvenation is hindered by the abundant game. Rare and endangered species or species, whose distribution boundary is in Slovenia, are Taxus baccata, Sorbus domestica and Sorbus torminalis, Ulmus glabra, Ulmus minor, Ulmus laevis, Castanea sativa, partly endangered species like Pyrus pyraster, Malus sylvestris and Juglans regia. In addition to the mentioned, other rare, mostly sub-Mediterranean, species of Slovenian forests are also endangered. Amongst them are: Laurus nobilis, Mespilus germanica, Pyrus amygdaliformis, Cercis siliquastrum, Pistacia terebinthus, Acer obtusatum, Acer tataricum, Ilex aquifolium, Quercus crenata, Quercus ilex, Celtis australis and Phillyrea latifolia.
Priority Areas from nature conservation point of view Establishment of nature protection areas (regional and landscape parks) and first of all establishment of Natura 2000 network.
Human Impact The result of human impact is that the natural habitats in Slovenia are getting smaller, their fragmentation is continuous and their ability to support life is reduced; the isolation of small populations causes that they are no longer capable of maintaining the biologically important links to larger gene pools of the primary ecosystems. The number of threatened species is continuously increasing. One of the main obstacles to assessing the situation is the insufficient availability and
186 quality of data on ecological parameters for specific habitats and the needs of the species that populate these habitats. In spite of its incompleteness, the overview of the habitats shows the richness of Slovenia in the main habitat categories. Invasive species. For Slovenia, data are available for plants and freshwater fishes. The highest proportion of invasive plant species is in ruderal habitats (e.g. along railway lines and streets, in landfills, etc.), clear-cuts and riparian communities of tall herbs where non-indigenous species have entirely out-competed the native ones (e.g. Impatiens glandulifera, Echynocystis lobata, Fallopia sp.). Among the woody invasive plants, Ailanthus altissima and Robinia pseudoaccia spread considerably. Out of them, seven reproduce successfully. Mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) was introduced in the Primorska region to reduce the number of mosquitoes, while other fishes were mainly introduced to increase the number of angling fishing species. The American trout is spawning wherever it has been introduced and it has spread all over Slovenia. It is successfully invading the native species, brown trout and grayling. Pumpkinseed and largemouth bass are also on the list of invasive species (illegally introduced also into the accumulation lake of Vogeršček). Ctenopharyngodon idella has been successfully introduced into stagnant waters threatening water plants and, in turn, all the vegetation dependent species. Two species, Chondrostoma genei and Chondrostoma soetta, have become extinct in the Adriatic catchment due to the introduction of nase (Chondrostoma nasus) native to the Danube catchment.
DECISION-MAKING SYSTEM IN NATURE CONSERVATION
NATIONAL NATURE CONSERVATION LEGISLATION
The Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia gives the grounds for regulation environmental protection and nature conservation. In its general provisions it is laid down that the State provides for the preservation of the natural wealth and creates opportunities for the harmonious development of society and culture in Slovenia. The Constitution stipulates that the acts and other regulations have to comply with the principles of international law and the international treaties which oblige our country. This provision is of great importance for the nature conservation and the protection of the environment because the relevant conventions form a constituent part of Slovenia’s legislation. With regard to the hierarchy of legal acts, the laws and executive regulations which have not been harmonised or are in contradiction with the mentioned conventions and international treaties may not be applied pursuant to these provisions. Environmental Protection Act (EPA) is a fundamental act regulating the objectives and principles of environmental protection. The purpose of the legislation is to protect the closely connected living and natural environment and to direct the developmental processes and activities affecting the environment based on the balanced developmental and environmental needs. The EPA provides the principles, the basic instruments and the institutes for the regulation of the legal protection of the environment which form a framework for the preparation of all other acts regulating the specific environmental protection fields. With regard to the natural assets (natural public good, natural resources, valuable natural features, natural wealth) the EPA sets only the general directions that have to be taken into account and discussed in sectoral acts (Agricultural Land Act, Waters Act, Forests Act, Nature Conservation Act, the regulations concerning mineral raw materials, game, fish, air, etc.). Pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act, the Government had drawn up the National Environmental Action Programme adopted by the National Assembly. In the programme the objectives, directions and strategies for the protection of the environment and the use of natural assets have been defined for the next ten years. Within the NAEP a framework programme for the biodiversity conservation until 2008 and the programme of measures until 2003 are included. Its basic objectives in the field of the biodiversity conservation are: BIO 1: to prevent the reduction of
187 biological diversity at the ecosystem, species and genome levels; BIO 2: to prevent further threats to natural equilibrium of ecosystems caused by inappropriate exploitation of animal and plant species. The EPA provides ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MEASURES, many measures and procedures are also important also for biodiversity conservation: The Nature Conservation Act (the NCA) is the fundamental regulation in the field of the conservation of biodiversity of wild plant and animal species. The conservation of biodiversity in nature is closely linked to the maintenance of the natural equilibrium. In order to protect the environment, the measures for the biodiversity conservation have been determined and the system for the protection of valuable natural features established. The biodiversity conservation measures regulate the protection of wild plant and animal species, including their genetic material, habitats and ecosystems. The system for the protection of the valuable natural features lays down the procedures and methods for the designation of the status of a valuable natural feature and for their protection. Both systems are combined and complemented to ensure the effective nature conservation. The NCA establishes a general conservation regime for all wild plant and animal species. The regime is based on the fundamental limitations and prohibitions and on the detailed rules of conduct stipulated by the Government. The general conservation of plant and animal species stipulates the minimum rules of conduct which have to be respected by all the entities involved and which apply to all human activities. In compliance with the environment conservation development, only those human activities are permitted which meet human needs in a reasonable manner. Pursuant to the NCA, the nature conservation measures and the system for the protection of valuable natural features are taken into account in the spatial planning and in the use and exploitation of natural assets in a way stipulated by the law. In the NCA, the biodiversity conservation measures are divided into different groups, i.e. the conservation of diversity at the genetic, species and ecosystem levels. Other more relevant legislation: Caves Protection Act will regulate the protection and use of caves as particularly threatened habitats, and the restoration of the polluted and damaged caves. Animal Protection Act regulates the public responsibility to protect animals (their life, health and welfare). In view of the biodiversity conservation this act is of extreme importance for the protection of species. Its provisions also apply to wild animals.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF THE COMPONENTS OF BIOLOGICAL AND LANDSCAPE DIVERSITY
Sectors which directly exploit the components of biodiversity are: forestry, agriculture, hunting and fisheries and the water management sector; other sectors have a more indirect influence (transport, industry, tourism etc.). All these activities are regulated by sectoral acts. Unfortunately, most of these acts do not incorporate the principles of biodiversity conservation and the sustainable use of its components. The exceptions are the forestry sector and, lately, agriculture. The strategies and development programmes of other sectors comprise only a few strategic objectives and directions for the biodiversity conservation. The only exceptions are the strategy of economic development and the regional development strategy, where the first steps in this direction had been taken. Forests Act regulates the conservation, protection, cultivation, exploitation and use of forests as natural wealth in a manner to ensure their sustainable and multipurpose management in compliance with the principles of protection of the environment and valuable natural features, and the optimum functioning of forests as ecosystems. Agriculture Act defines the objectives of the agricultural policy, planning of the agricultural and rural development, the measures of agricultural policy, etc. Rural development plan adopted in December 1999 declares that the development of the countryside significantly affects biodiversity and nature conservation in the major part of Slovenia. The international and national legislation
188 concerning biodiversity conservation through the in situ conservation of endangered species’ habitats and endangered habitats are still not taken into account. In the substantive part of the Rural Development Plan - the strategy and priority tasks for acquiring assistance from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) - the assistance for the measures concerning biodiversity conservation has not been provided for. This deficiency has been partly covered by adoption of the Agri-Environmental Programme of Slovenia, but the trend towards deplation of biodiversity has still not been halted. Agri-Environmental Programme of Slovenia (SKOP) reflects substantial progress for the established management and a transition towards environment friendly agriculture. The programme is divided into three sections which determine the nature and content of the measures concerning direct payments: Section I: reduction of negative effects of agriculture on the environment; Section II: conservation of natural attributes, biodiversity, soil fertility and traditional cultural landscape; Section III: protection of protected areas. Rules on organic production and processing of agricultural products and/ or food regulate organic farming. Agricultural Land Act regulates the use of the agricultural land and its protection, the trade in it and the lease conditions, the agrarian operations and the management of common pastures. None of the measures, requirements, conditions and procedures concern the nature conservation. National Farmland and Forest Fund Act stipulates the setting-up of the Fund of the Republic of Slovenia for Agricultural Land and Forests and its tasks, competencies, rights and obligations. Seeds and Propagating Materials Act regulates the production, processing and placing on the market of seeds and propagating materials intended for agricultural and forestry production, etc. The provisions of this Act concerning the species and genetic diversity conservation could be important for biodiversity conservation, but unfortunately no relevant measures have been adopted. Freshwater Fisheries Act regulates the protection and breeding of fish and the designation of fisheries, fishing areas and districts. It specifies the fishbreeding plans, regulates the fishing activities in open waters, establishes and regulates the functioning of the fishing organisations and lays down the competencies and responsibilities of the fishing inspection. For biodiversity conservation, several measures are important. Hunting Law regulates the protection, breeding, hunting and use of game (hunting) and the management and maintenance of hunting grounds for the conservation of the balance between game and plants in the environment. Several measures of the Hunting Act are directly or indirectly relevant to biodiversity. Water Act (1981): The relevant measures relate in particular to the protection of the human environment and drinking water supply but are also important for the biodiversity conservation. Spatial Planning Act defines spatial planning as the protection of a public good. It regulates the purposeful land use, the directions for the development of activities and their spatial organisation. The act regulating the management of genetically modified organisms regulates the management of GMOs and stipulate the measures for the prevention of their possible detrimental effects on the environment, in particular on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and human health, as a result of the contained use of GMOs, their deliberate release into the environment and their placing on the market.
INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF NATURE CONSERVATION
National assembly of the republic of Slovenia adopts the laws, programmes and other documents which are important for the biodiversity conservation. It has established the Council for Environmental Protection whose tasks concern the biodiversity conservation. The Council is a civil society institution and it deals with the protection of the environment and nature. The Committee for Infrastructure and the Environment is, as a working body of the National Assembly, responsible for
189 the preliminary reading of the material covering the field of nature conservation and thus biodiversity as well. Government of the republic of Slovenia adopts the executive regulations and directs and harmonises the implementation of policy decisions through the competent ministry. In 1997 the Government established the Council for Sustainable Development whose tasks also include the nature conservation issues. Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning The Nature Conservation Department within the Ministry makes decisions, implements the nature conservation policy and harmonises the intersectoral projects and strategies which have an impact on the nature conservation (7 employees). Environmental Agency of the Republic of Slovenia is a body within the Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning. It covers various working areas of the ministry (nature conservation, environmental protection, water management, hydrology, meteorology, monitoring of the state of the environment, geophysics, rehabilitation). There are 21 civil servants employed in the field of nature conservation which is 5.3 % of all the Agency’s staff. Nature Conservation Institute of the Republic of Slovenia. The Institute has been conferred powers to issue environmental protection consents and guidelines, to keep the register of valuable natural features and the records and data bases in compliance with the law, to guarantee the uniformity of methods and procedures, to implement the technical supervision and direct control of the designated areas and to grant consents in the procedure for obtaining consent for legal transactions on the real-estate located in protected areas. Currently 40 experts are employed at these institutes. In compliance with the new legislation these public services are planned to be reorganised. Management institutes. By 2001 three management institutes had been established (Triglav National Park, Škocjanske jame Regional Park and Kozjansko Regional Park), and one concession granted (Škocjanski zatok Nature Reserve). These three public institutes have 71 employees. The manager of the protected area carries out the management, protection, technical and control tasks in the protected area. He/she also draws up a management plan proposal, cooperates with local communities, and manages real-estate located in the protected area, if stipulated by the instrument of protection; guarantees the protection of valuable natural features; presents the protected area and carries out other tasks in compliance with the Nature Conservation Act. Stewardship of valuable natural features On the basis of a public tender the steward of the Sečoveljske soline Landscape Park has been selected. Inspection of the implementation of the provisions of the Nature Conservation Act is carried out by the inspectors responsible for the nature conservation at the Inspectorate for the Environmental and Spatial Planning.
NGOs In the areas which are important for the biodiversity conservation societies/associations mainly participate in the field work, in the public awareness raising and advocating their ideas. The institutes and institutions function as non-profitable providers of services on the market and as advocates of their ideas. In the past, mainly the environmental NGOs and their members made an important contribution to biodiversity conservation and the implementation of the activities concerning the Convention on Biological Diversity. So far, the NGOs have helped to conserve biodiversity by the collection of data on natural heritage and the state of biodiversity and by their active participation in the preparation of strategic documents. A more detailed presentation of the Slovenian environmental and nature conservation NGOs is available on the REC homepage (http:// www.rec-lj.si). In 2000-01 a Programme of cooperation between environmental NGOs and the Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning has been developed – ‘Partnership for the Environment’. The programme sets the specific objectives, mechanisms and activities for the establishment of efficient cooperation.
190 INTERACTIONS, GAPS, BOTTLENECKS, RECOMMENDATIONS
The effectiveness of the work on the institutional level suffers from the overall and deep changes in the political, administrative and social system that are an important cause of changes or imbalances in the institutional mandates. Capacity constraints in the management of Institutions are a lack of qualified and properly skilled personnel to manage institutions in the condition of a market economy, resulting in weak management, oversight and enforcement, lack of team work within the institutions. Capacity constraints in the Staff Management Policies: salary structures and the incentives system within the public institutions not possibly affect the individuals’ motivation, general lack of certain professions working in the area of biodiversity due to deficiencies in education system. Capacity constraints in the Financial Resources framework: public institutions in general, and particularly those of the environment, education and research sectors tend, to be underfunded to the extent that it hinders their effective functioning. The availability of Human resources such as lack of qualified staff in the public sector, lack of opportunities for decision makers to receive training in novel concepts relevant to sustainable development, including biodiversity conservation, gaps in curricula at all academic levels, environmental education lacks an economic background, education in social and economic fields lacks a background on environmental issues, hence the general level of understanding of linkages between the environment and development is low, and the consequences of biodiversity loss are not understood, lack of qualified lecturers in certain fields, particularly in environmental policy and economies and in environmental communication. On Individual level there is a critical lack of environmental economists, environmental lawyers and bank analysts concentrating on the economic and financial analysis of environmental and nature conservation projects. An important general deficiency is also the lack of training opportunities, on the one hand, and the lack of interest in adequate training on the other.
References: Biological and Landscape Diversity in Slovenia – an overview. Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning, Environmental Agency of the RS, Ljubljana, 2001. Strategija ohranjanja biotske raznovrstnosti v Sloveniji. Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning, Ljubljana, 2002.
INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS
International biodiversity related conventions ratified by Slovenia
GLOBAL CONVENTIONS Ramsar Convention notification in 1992 (Ur. l. RS, 15/92) Paris Convention notification in 1992 (Ur. l. RS, 15/92) Washington Convention ratified in 1999 (Ur. l. RS, MP* 31/99) Bonn Convention ratified in 1998 (Ur. l. RS, 72/98, MP 18) Rio de Janeiro Convention ratified in 1996 (Ur. l. RS, 30/96, MP 7)
REGIONAL CONVENTIONS Bern Convention ratified in 1999 (Ur. l. RS, 55/99, MP 17) Florence Convention signature and ratification under way Aarhus Convention signed in 1998; ratification under way Salzburg Convention ratified in 1995 (Ur. l. RS, 19/95, MP 5) Barcelona Convention notification in 1992 (Ur. l. RS, 15/92)
191 EVALUATION OF THE CONVENTIONS
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat
Endorsement The Convention was already ratified in former Yugoslavia in 1979. After Slovenian independence the National Assembly has notified an agreement on succession of former Yugoslavia and accepted all obligations related to the Ramsar convention, so the convention was enacted on 25th of June 1992. Participation on international conferences At COP, SBSTTA and regional meetings Focal point Name: Gordana Beltram Responsibility: National Focal Point Activities: The Wetland Inventory has been prepared. Each year wide public awareness actions are organized in cooperation with schools and managers of Ramsar sites on 2nd February, the Day of Wetlands. A National Ramsar Committee with representatives of different sectors (MAFF, MESPE, UNECCO, NGOs) was established. Annual reports There are no regular annual reports, but reports have been prepared for COPs. http: //ramsar.org/cop8_nrs_slovenia1.pdf http: //ramsar.org/cop8_nrs_slovenia2.pdf
Financial resources Earmarked support system Ministry of the Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy (MESPE) has a single budget line “UKREPI ZA OHRANJANJE BIOTSKE RAZNOVRSTNOSTI” (“Measures for protection of biodiversity”) for the implementation of all biodiversity related conventions and directives. (For 2003 that is 40 million SIT (175.000 EUR)). International funding possibilities Ramsar Small Grant Fund (for Wetland Inventory project). National, regional resources for the implementation N/A Availability of other funding For Ramsar Sites (Škocjan cave and Seèovlje saltpans) managers receive some money and they are fully responsible for them. Total spending on the implementation Not possible to obtain any figures.
Institutional and personnel capacity Developed infrastructure for implementation Ministry of the Environment, Physical Planning and Energy is responsible for the implementation of the Ramsar Convention and it has established the National Ramsar Committee. The Agency of Environment is the National Focal Point and the Clearing House Mechanism Focal Point. People employed full time for the convention related work One person working 1/3 of his time on the Convention, otherwise the number depends on the particular tasks or projects, in certain cases employees of the Nature Conservation Unit within the Department of the Environment at the Agency of Environment are appointed for specific tasks.
192 Concrete achievements Influence in the legal system Because of harmonization of national and European legislation some new laws have been adopted, including the Water Law where Ramsar Convention principles are included. Influence in the institutional structure N/A Established protected areas Seèoveljske soline (1993), Škocjanske jame (1999). Slovenia is on the list of the countries, where in the last 10 years no new Ramsar Site was established (both Ramsar Sites were already established protected areas prior to Ramsar declaration). Coordination with other international conventions Coordination with all the biodiversity related conventions: the Bonn Convention, the Bern Convention , the Convention on Biological Diversity, least of all the CITES Convention. Other achievements, benchmarks Principles of the Ramsar Convention are included in the National Biodiversity Strategy.
Monitoring and evaluation Monitoring and evaluation of the implementation goes through the COP reports. It depends on postulations of the specific convention. Responsibility National Focal Point Regularity At the moment a management plan for Seèovlje saltpans is in preparation and monitoring is a part of the plan according to the convention rules. To whom to report To the Secretariat of the Conventions, to the COP meetings
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
Endorsement It was ratified by National Assembly of Slovenian Republic on 21st of December 1999 and is in force since 23rd of April 2000. Ratification by the Parliament Signed by Janez Podobnik, President of the Parliament, 21. December 1999. Participation on international conferences Slovenia participated on two COPs, the first time as observers in year 2000. At that time the Convention wasn't enacted yet. Second time the country participated as a contracting party. Two meetings of the Standing Committee and on one of the Plants Committee were attended. Slovenia also takes an active part in regional committees. Focal point Name: Robert Bolješiè Responsibility: Senior technical adviser Activities: Reporting to Secretariat of the Conventions, participations in COPs meetings, sanctioning offences of illegal trade of species listed in the annexes of the Convention, qualification of supervising (inspector) organs, encouraging and financing researches (useful for endangered species), public information. Parties have an obligation to adopt a national legal system. Annual reports Two annual reports were written and sent to the Secretariat of the Convention. Content: statistical data on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (one yearly report). Two-
193 yearly report contains more data: provisions, administrative measure, data on illegal import, sentences.
Financial resources Earmarked support system Ministry of the Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy has a budget line-UKREPI ZA OHRANJANJE BIOTSKE RAZNOVRSTNOSTI for the implementation of all biodiversity related conventions (For 2003 that is 40 million SIT (175.000 EUR)). International funding possibilities N/A National, regional resources for the implementation All activities are financed from the above budget line. Availability of other funding Participation of the conferences is financed from the yearly membership of the convention. The projects are financed from the Trust Fund (the convention fund). Trust Fund comprises the Secretariat and the Contractors work. This year Germany gave us technical support (advanced study courses, settlement for the Agency of Environment). Total spending on the implementation Last year 9 million SIT (39.000 EUR) were spent on the public awareness action.
Institutional and personnel capacity Developed infrastructure for implementation N/A People employed full time for the convention related work Three persons are employed full time in the Agency of Environment: Robert Bolješiè, Andrej Arih, Urška Mavri; and one person in the Institute for Nature Conservation (expert body): Nika Debeljak.
Concrete achievements Influence in the legal system Some new regulations were adopted: • Regulation on the implementation of the resolution regulating the issuing of CITES certificates • Act on the conditions for maintenance of captured wild animals – in zoos, etc. • Act on the shelter for wild animals • Act on the international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (Regulation on the trade of free-living plant and animal species) Influence in the institutional structure N/A Established protected areas N/A Coordination with other international conventions Cooperation with Bonn Convention on international level, cooperation with Interpol and World Customs Organization on political level (negotiation of criminal activity), with FAO and with International Whaling Commission. Other achievements, benchmarks Successful public awareness campaign. Good results in qualification of the customs workers – successful results on border control. There is daily information from the borders. A database, an easy to use tool to help reporting is established. Slovenia became internationally recognised. The country complies with the conditions of the EU although the enactment will be enforced on the day
194 of our EU accession. We comply with the conditions of the European Union regarding international trade questions, set up the internal control of domestic trade, cooperation between criminalists, inspectors, etc.
Monitoring and evaluation Responsibility The Environmental Agency as a managerial agency is controlling international trade. The responsible for endangered species is the Institute for Nature Conservation as an expert body – they have full authority for export restriction in case of irregularities. MESPE is responsible for the implementation of the Convention; the Standing Committee is a control mechanism, reporting to the government. Regularity There are no precise rules. It depends on the number of sent applications. The Standing Committee has meetings on regional level (region by region). Every region has its representative. Irregularities have to be reported to the Standing Committee. To whom to report To CITES Secretariat seating in Geneva, UNEP has a contract with the WCMC (World Conservation Monitoring Centre), where all data are collected. In the year 2004 we have to prepare a report for the European Commission. Stakeholders Representatives of MOPE, ARSO, Customs, police, CITES Standing Committee Availability of reports Reports will be accessible on the home page, when prepared.
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
Endorsement Signature: President of RS Milan Kučan. Ratification by the Parliament: It was ratified by Parliament and entered into force on 24th of September 1998. Participation on international conferences Slovenia is participating every 2 years in the COP meetings, there are also written reports. Focal point Name: Now Mateja Blažiè, before Robert Bolješiè Responsibility: National Focal Point Activities: No specific activities Annual reports Reports are prepared for the meetings – in accordance with the list of queries. From 1998 to 2001 one report was written and sent. For year 2001, the report is still in preparation. In the report there are questions for every protected and/or threatened species, as well as for the agreements. Reports are not available yet (see above), but they are supposed to be publicly available.
Financial resources Earmarked support system Ministry of the Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy (MESPE) has a single budget line “UKREPI ZA OHRANJANJE BIOTSKE RAZNOVRSTNOSTI” (“Measures for protection of biodiversity”) for the implementation of all biodiversity related conventions and directives. (For 2003 that is 40 million SIT (175.000 EUR)).
195 International funding possibilities None National, regional resources for the implementation None Availability of other funding None
Institutional and personnel capacity Developed infrastructure for implementation No infrastructure except the focal point - Mateja Blažiè (Environmental Agency) and secretary for legal and financial issues - Štefka Novak (MESPE). For each agreement there is a responsible person: Andrej Bibiè (AEWA), Jana Kristanc (EUROBATS), Andrej Arih (ACCOBAMS). People employed full time for the convention related work None
Concrete achievements Influence in the legal system and institutional structure None Established protected areas None Coordination with other international conventions Coordination with all biodiversity-related conventions: the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ramsar Convention, the Bern Convention, least of all with CITES Convention.
Monitoring and evaluation No monitoring yet, but MESPE intends to prepare a monitoring programme, in accordance with EU legislation. Responsibility Mateja Blažiè for implementation and reporting, Štefka Novak for legal issues. To whom to report Within Slovenia not decided yet. Availability of reports Will be publicly available.
Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats
Endorsement On the 20th of October 1998 by Magdalena Tovornik, ambassador, in Strasbourg, ratified by the Slovenian National Assembly on the 15th of June 1999. Slovenia turned over the act of ratification to the depositary (Council of Europe) on the 29th of September 1999 and it entered into force on 1st of January 2000. Ratification by the Parliament: President of National Assembly Janez Podobnik on 15th of June, 1999. Participation on international conferences Standing Committee meetings since 1999. Focal point Name: Peter Skoberne Activities: No special activities at the moment, the objectives of the Bern Convention are mostly incorporated in the Nature Conservation Law.
196 Annual reports Every 5 years an implementation report and every three years a report on exceptions (such as dormouse, Glis glis, in the case of Slovenia) is prepared. The ideas of the Convention are well represented in the Natura 2000 concept in a project running in Slovenia now.
Financial resources Earmarked support system Ministry of the Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy (MESPE) has a single budget line “UKREPI ZA OHRANJANJE BIOTSKE RAZNOVRSTNOSTI” (“Measures for protection of biodiversity”) for the implementation of all biodiversity related conventions and directives. (For 2003 that is 40 million SIT (175.000 EUR)). International funding possibilities The Council of Europe. National, regional resources for the implementation 500 000 SIT (cca. 2200 EUR). Availability of other funding None Total spending on the implementation Finances for implementation came from the national budget, there was also a donation of the Council of Europe for the Emerald project.
Institutional and personnel capacity The formal responsibility is with the MESPE, the implementation responsibility is with the Agency for Environment. For each of the conventions 0,2 person (e.g. focal point) is responsible plus some additional technical and administrative support. Developed infrastructure for implementation No secretariat or department, combination with other connected activities (EU, CBD). People employed full time for the convention related work None
Concrete achievements Influence in the legal system Good collaboration with the customs, police, court of justice. For instance in the case of illegal transfer of killed threatened birds across the border, an appeal to Bern Convention has been made. Institutional structure N/A Established protected areas Indirectly – Natura 2000 sites. Coordination with other international conventions Coordination with all the biodiversity related conventions: Bonn Convention, Ramsar Convention, Convention on Biological Diversity, the least of all with CITES Convention. Other achievements, benchmarks Slovenia puts an emphasis on preparation for the accession to the EU before all formalities are done, especially with the Emerald project and co-operations with the CBD, the Ramsar Convention and the Bonn Convention. There is no program of implementation of the Bern Convention. Such program is planned and it should include also action plans and schedules of their implementation. There is only an action plan (strategy) for the management of brown bear, and further action plans for the management of wolf and lynx populations are being prepared.
197 Monitoring and evaluation Almost no monitoring. For the exceptions (dormouse) the data is gathered from hunting organisation and reports are sent to the Standing Committee. Responsibility Peter Skoberne Availability of reports: Publicly available.
Convention on Biological Diversity
Endorsement The Convention was endorsed in Rio de Janeiro on 13th of June 1992 and ratified by Slovenia in 1996. The Convention is enacted since the 9th of October 1996. On 24th of May 2000 Slovenia endorsed the Protocol of Biological Security in Nairobi. On 20th of December the Government of RS adopted The Biodiversity Conservation Strategy in Slovenia. Ratification by the Parliament: 16th May 1996, by President of Parliament, Jožef Školè. Participation on international conferences Slovenia is participating since 1998 at COP, SBSTTA and regional meetings. Focal point Name: Gordana Beltram Responsibility: National Focal Point Activities: No special activities. Annual reports The 1st and 2nd National Reports are available at http://www. biodiv.org/world/map.asp
Financial resources Earmarked support system Ministry of the Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy (MESPE) has a single budget line “UKREPI ZA OHRANJANJE BIOTSKE RAZNOVRSTNOSTI” (“Measures for protection of biodiversity”) for the implementation of all biodiversity related conventions and directives. (For 2003 that is 40 million SIT (175.000 EUR)). International funding possibilities used GEF funds for the preparation of National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (started with a large workshop with the participation of over 100 experts, later on the NBSAP was prepared without wider expert participation). Availability of other funding None Total spending on the implementation Not available
Institutional and personnel capacity Developed infrastructure for implementation None, in spite of some contradictory information available on MESPE web page. People employed full time for the convention related work One working on the Convention, otherwise the number depends on the particular tasks or projects; in certain cases employees of the Nature Conservation Unit within the Department of the Environment at the Agency of Environment are appointed for specific tasks.
198 Concrete achievements Influence in the legal system CBD influenced some points of a very general Nature Protection Law (1999), and some subordinated acts as "Introduction of non-native organisms risk assessment act". Several parts of CBD are more or less ignored by Slovenian legislation. Institutional structure None. Established protected areas None. Coordination with other international conventions: Coordination with all the biodiversity related conventions: Bonn Convention, Ramsar Convention, Bern Convention, the least of all with CITES Convention. Other achievements, benchmarks A strategic action plan for the next 10 years is in preparation.
Monitoring and evaluation None. Responsibility National Focal Point – Gordana Beltram To whom to report There is no monitoring as there is no need to report. Stakeholders Several NGOs are monitoring the changes of biodiversity in Slovenia, but there is no official coordination and/or support and/or financing of these activities from the MESPE. Availability of reports General reports available on internet (see URL above) but they were prepared non-transparently, without participation of other (non-governmental or independent expert) stakeholders.
Council Directive 92/43/EEC
Endorsement No ratification, the starting point of the negotiation with the EU is confirmed. Our convention contract is anticipated to the day of our EU accession. The signature is anticipated on 16th of April 2003, the ratification by the Parliament will be on 1st of May 2004. Participation on international conferences There are no regular meetings; otherwise Slovenia is invited as an observer. Focal point Name: dr. Peter Skoberne Responsibility: Responsible for preparation of “expert” proposals Activities: Activities will take place with Slovenia’s EU accession, now everything is in preparation. Slovenia has to revise legislation – the part that refers to the protection of habitat types in Natura 2000 (designation of SAC, implementation of conservation goals and measures). There's an important role of two basic activities: protection of species and protection of habitats. Annual reports N/A
199 Financial resources Earmarked support system Part of the resources comes from the communication programs financed by the Ministry of the Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy the other part comes from MAP projects. National resources for Natura 2000 Ministry of the Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy has a budget line – UKREPI ZA OHRANJANJE BIOTSKE RAZNOVRSTNOSTI – for the implementation of all biodiversity related conventions and directives. (For 2003 that is 40 million SIT (175.000 EUR)). International funding possibilities EU (Life Nature projects, PHARE programs) National, regional resources for the implementation N/A Availability of other funding N/A Total spending on the implementation N/A
Institutional and personnel capacity Developed infrastructure for implementation Ministry of the Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy is responsible for legislative and other formal issues. There is no specific secretariat. The Agency of Environment is responsible for implementation, and also some technical bodies: Institute of RS for Nature Protection, as well as managing institutions (Triglav National Park, Škocjanske Caves Regional Park, Kozjansko Regional Park, Seèovlje Saltpans Nature Reserve, Škocjanski Zatok Nature Monument). For every directive there is one responsible person. The responsible person for the Habitat Directive is dr. Peter Skoberne. People employed full time for the convention related work N/A
Concrete achievements Influence in the legal system EU legislation is being transposed accordingly. There were no new acts in 2002. For 2003 Act on Protection of Wild Animals, Act on Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Act on Special Protected Areas are planned, so the SACs and ESAs will be designated and the first Natura 2000 sites, too. Influence in the institutional structure A transformation of the Institute of RS for Nature Protection has taken place, and new personnel has been employed. Established protected areas In the last 10 years almost nothing has been done with regard to the newly protected areas, so it is hard to believe that something will change (radically) until 2004. But the "intention" to establish new areas remains, as always. Coordination with other international conventions The Convention on Biological Diversity is the basis for the Bird Directive and Habitat Directive. It contains definitions for management of Natura 2000. There is an on-going co-ordination with the Ministry of Agriculture concerning agricultural policy, regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment and regulation on transport policy. The aim of co-ordination is to ensure that policy measures in agriculture would incorporate measures for biodiversity conservation.
200 Monitoring and evaluation At present, there is no monitoring on state level. Responsibility Dr. Peter Skoberne
Council Directive 79/409/EEC
Endorsement On 16 April, 2003 Slovenia endorses the Accession Contract, the ratification will follow on May 1, 2004. Participation on international conferences No regular meetings. Slovenian representatives are invited as observers. Focal point For this directive there is no specific Focal Point. Peter Skoberne is responsible for commitments, after the accession the person responsible for transposition will be Andrej Bibiè, Counsellor to the Minister. His superior is Mladen Berginc. Activities: Activities will begin with our accession to the EU, at present all activities can be sorted under preparation. Slovenia has to revise the legislation on nature protection in its last part that refers to the protection of habitat types in Natura 2000. There is an important role of two basic activities: protection of species and protection of birds’ habitats. Annual reports There has been no reporting yet; this obligation will start after the accession.
Financial resources Earmarked support system Ministry of the Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy (MESPE) has a single budget line “UKREPI ZA OHRANJANJE BIOTSKE RAZNOVRSTNOSTI” (“Measures for protection of biodiversity”) for the implementation of all biodiversity related conventions and directives. (For 2003 that is 40 million SIT (175.000 EUR)). International funding possibilities EU (Life Nature projects, PHARE programs, SAPARD programs National, regional resources for the implementation A very small part of the budget for the implementation of Slovenian Agri-Environmental Programme (SAEP) is spent on specific measures to protect birds. (Total for SAEP in 2002-2003 is 2 billion SIT (8,7 M EUR). 1 million SIT (4300 EUR) from MESPE is reserved for nature protection in total (2002-2003). These relatively modest amounts are spent for collection of data for Natura 2000. Availability of other funding Few million SIT is available for NGO projects that among others deal with the protection of birds. Total spending on the implementation It was not possible to identify.
Institutional and personnel capacity Developed infrastructure for implementation Ministry of the Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy is responsible for legislative and other formal issues. There is no specific secretariat. Agency of Environment is responsible for implementation, and in addition to that also some technical bodies: Institute of RS for Nature Protection, as well as managing institutions (Triglav National Park, Škocjanske Caves Regional Park, Kozjansko Regional Park, Seèovlje Saltpans Nature Reserve, Škocjanski zatok Nature
201 Monument. For every directive there is one responsible person. The responsible person for Bird Directive is Andrej Bibiè. People employed full time for the directive related work N/A
Concrete achievements Influence in the legal system EU legislation is being transposed accordingly. There were no new acts in 2002. For 2003 Act on protection of wild animals, Act on environmentally sensitive areas and Act on special protected areas are planned, so the SPAs and ESAs will be designed and the first Natura 2000 sites, too. Influence in the institutional structure A transformation of the Institute of RS for Nature Protection has taken place, and new personnel has been employed. Established protected areas In the last 10 years almost nothing has been done with regard to the newly protected areas, so it is hard to believe that something will change (radically) until 2004. But the "intention" to establish new areas remains, as always. Coordination with other international conventions CBD Convention is the basis for Bird Directive and Habitat Directive. It contains definitions for management of Natura 2000. There is an on-going co-ordination with the Ministry of Agriculture/agricultural policy, Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment and Regulation on Transport Policy. The aim of co-ordination is to ensure that policy measures in agriculture would incorporate measures for biodiversity conservation.
Monitoring and evaluation Responsibility At present, there is no monitoring on state level. There is informal monitoring from the side of some NGOs, especially BirdLife Slovenia. Regularity On-site monitoring programme is in preparation (a very general project of Slovenian Forestry Institute). Currently monitoring is performed informally by some NGOs. Subject of monitoring Officially nothing, informally NGOs monitor among others also indicator bird species and their habitats. To whom to report As there's no formal monitoring system, there's no address for reports. Stakeholders At the moment only some NGOs, whose work is not officially coordinated and directly financed (or is only partly supported) by the Government. Availability of reports A very general Report on the State of Environment of Slovenia was published last year and is available also on MESPE homepage, as always, they "intend" to prepare more detailed reports in the future, when they expect that Slovenia will be a member of EU.
202