Distribution of the Green Network of Estonia

Forestry Studies|Metsanduslikud Uurimused 53, 66–74, 2010 DOI: 10.2478/v10132-011-0090-x Distribution of the Green Network of Estonia

Janar Raet*, Kalev Sepp, Are Kaasik, Valdo Kuusemets and Mart Külvik

Raet, J., Sepp, K., Kaasik, A., Kuusemets, V., Külvik, M. 2010. Distribu- tion of the Green Network of Estonia. – Forestry Studies | Metsanduslikud Uurimused 53, 66–74. ISSN 1406-9954.

Abstract. Estonia has joined the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy which obligates signatories to participate in developing the Pan-European Ecological Network. The plan “Environmental conditions for guiding settlement and land use” was initiated in all 15 counties of Estonia in 1999. One of the important subtopics of this plan is the “Green Network”. The ﬁrst thematic plans were validated in three counties in 2002. The last county to validate its Green Network thematic plan was Saare County in 2008. The Green Network of Estonia is supposed to complement the network of protected areas, combining them into a uniﬁed system of natural areas. One of the goals of the Estonian Green Network was to spatially incorporate the Natura 2000 sites as areas of European importance. Results demonstrated that in 10 of the 15 counties, this goal can be considered to have been achieved, as a minimum of 95% of the Natura 2000 sites within these counties have been incorporated into the Green Network. In three of the other counties about 90% have been incorporated, but in Võru and Valga counties, this percentage is much lower. In Võru, 75% of the Natura 2000 sites have been incorporated into the Green Network and in Valga only 60%. Therefore the revision of Green Network thematic plans should be considered in these counties. Key words: Green Network of Estonia, Natura 2000. Authors’ address: Department of Landscape Management and Nature Conservation, Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estoni- an University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi 5, 51014 Tartu, Estonia. *e-mail: [email protected]

Introduction

At the third Environment for Europe conference for Ministers of the Environment in Soﬁa on 25 October 1995, the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS) was approved. The long-term goal of the PEBLDS was to protect biological and landscape diversity throughout Europe over the 20 years following the adoption of the strategy. The strategy stipulated the development of the Pan- European Ecological Network (PEEN) for the protection of ecosystems, habitats, species and their genetic diversity and landscapes that are of European importance (Council of Europe, 1996). Estonia is a participant in this process. The multi-functional approach to ecological networks in Estonia has been noted in several studies as being one of the pio- neering national concepts in Europe (Baldock et al., 1993; Jongman & Smith, 2000; Bennett & Wit, 2001). It is based on a strong tradition of land-use planning, with wilderness and areas of conservation value, as core areas, interlinked by natural

66 Distribution of the Green Network of Estonia and semi-natural landscapes (Jagomägi et al., 1988; Mander et al., 1988; Jongman & Kristiansen, 2001; Sepp et al., 2001; Jongman et al., 2004). By Order 763-k issued by the Government of the Republic of Estonia in 1999 entitled “Initiation of thematic plans for county plans”, the thematic plan “Environmental conditions for guiding settlement and land use” was initiated in all the counties of Estonia. Two subtopics of this plan are the “Green Network” and “Valuable Landscapes”. A county’s thematic plan is the basis for local governments to compile their comprehensive plans. Section 8 of the Estonian Planning Act (Government of Estonia, 2003) points out that one of the specific objectives of the comprehensive plan is to establish conditions that ensure proper functioning of the Green Network (sometimes also referred to as the Ecological Network). The Estonian Spatial Plan states that the Green Network is a coherent system of extensively used areas in a comparatively good natural state that helps maintain biodiversity and the stability of the environment (Estonian Ministry of Environment, 2001). A methodology for delineation of green networks at the county level was formed, so that authorities could put it into practice upon compil- ing the thematic plan (Sepp & Jagomägi, 2002). The Green Network of Estonia is supposed to complement the network of protected areas, combining them into an inte- grated spatial system of natural and semi-natural areas. One of the goals mentioned in the methodology was to incorporate all the Natura 2000 Network sites as areas of European importance. Performing this task was somewhat complicated since in most cases, the county’s thematic plans were validated before 2004 when Estonia became a member of the European Union, i.e. before the official list of national Natura 2000 sites was declared (Estonian Ministry of the Environment, 2010). According to the methodology (Sepp & Jagomägi, 2002), there were two main maps which were suggested to be used as a source: the CORINE Land Cover map (1: 100 000) and the Estonian Base Map (1: 50 000). A more detailed Estonian Basic Map in the scale 1:10 000 was not included in the main list of vector maps, as at the time it did not cover the whole of Estonia. Other more general maps were also suggested for use as additional information. Core areas, buffer zones and connecting corridors at different levels were formed in counties to ensure connectivity within the network. The county thematic plan “Environmental conditions for guiding settlement and land use” with its sub-topic “Green network” is the basis for several processes. These processes include: preparing comprehensive and detailed plans, preparing management plans for catchment areas, preparing management plans for nature protection areas, preparing forest management plans, preparing land management plans, managing nature conservation outside of protection areas and planning national infrastructures. These are all processes which are based on the thematic plan “Environmental conditions for guiding settlement and land use” (EEIC, 2008). The legal process of the county thematic plans of the Green Network started in Estonia in 1999. The first three Green Network thematic plans were validated in 2002 in Rapla, Järva and Valga counties. The last of the 15 counties to validate its Green Network thematic plan was Saare County in 2008 (Fig. 1). Presently, every county has a validated Green Network thematic plan, although there is no central database or map layer of the Green Network that covers the whole of Estonia. Most of the Green Network data can be found in the county’s local government web pages. If not, it has to be requested from county governments. The data and map layers are not yet incorporated into the Estonian Nature Information System (EELIS/ENIS) – the system dealing with most of the spatial information concerning Estonian nature protection.

67 J. Raet et al.

Figure 1. Validation year of a county’s thematic plan and the share of the county’s territory covered by the Green Network. Joonis 1. Maakondliku teemaplaneeringu kehtestamise aasta ja rohelise võrgustiku osakaal maakonna territooriumist.

Material and Methods

As there was no comprehensive Estonian Green Network map of county networks connecting up at national level, the ﬁrst task was to gather information on thematic plans from the counties and create a uniform mask of the Estonian Green Network. There was one thematic map about the Estonian Green Network published by the Estonian Environment Information Centre (EEIC, 2008), but when it was compared to the original thematic plans from county governments, some discrepencies were discovered. Therefore, a new layer was created using data originating from all county governments (15 countries). The data from different counties varied greatly in terms of structure and detail (levels of corridors etc.). Arranging data to cover the whole of Estonia was necessary but for the general mask, the absence of detailed information in some counties was not important. The mask layer of the Estonian Green Network was composed in the GIS programme MapInfo Professional (Fig. 2). To study the composition of the Green Network areas according to different land use classes, cartographic comparisons were made between counties. The Estonian Base Map (1:50 000) and the Estonian Basic Map (1:10 000) were used to assess land use. In most of these thematic plans at the county level, the Estonian Base Map was used for the compilation process. As the Estonian Base Map is more general than the Basic map, the presumption was that according to different maps, there could be differences in the composition of the Green Network land use classes, especially in southern Estonia, where the landscape is more mosaic. The Estonian Basic Map is more detailed and contains more classes than the Estonian Base Map. In compari-

68 Distribution of the Green Network of Estonia

Figure 2. The Green Network of Estonia. Joonis 2. Eesti roheline võrgustik. sons made within this study, the class “Forest” contains three Basic Map classes: forest, young forest and bushes. The class “Field” incorporates three Basic Map classes: grassland, field, garden. The class “Yard” contains yard areas and buildings. Comparisons with Natura 2000 sites were also carried out to calculate the actual share of Natura 2000 sites incorporated into the Green Network. The Natura 2000 network is actually composed of two different types of protected areas. SPAs – Special Protection Areas (linnualad in Estonian) and SACs – Special Areas of Conservation (loodusalad in Estonian). SPAs are defined by the EU “Bird directive” (Council Directive 79/409/EC on the Conservation of Wild Birds) and SACs by the EU “Habitat directive” (Council Directive 92/43/EC on Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora). Therefore, the two different areas were handled separately (respec- tive digital map layers originated from the Estonian Nature Information System). As Green Network areas are defined only on land but some Natura 2000 sites are also located on open water, then the layer of the Estonian Land Board municipality borders from the year 2007 (the year when last thematic plan was compiled) was used to eliminate areas located on open water (Baltic Sea, Lake Peipus, Lake Võrtsjärv).

Results The Estonian Green Network map was created by combining the data of the Green Network thematic plans from all 15 counties (Fig. 2). As environmental conditions vary between counties, then the share of a county’s territory covered by the Green Network also varies. The largest share of a county’s territory is Ida-Viru County and the smallest share in Tartu County (Figure 1).

69 J. Raet et al.

Differences were expected to occur in land use composition comparisons based on the Estonian Base Map (1:50 000) and the Estonian Basic Map (1:10 000). Especially in southern Estonia, where the landscape forms more fine-grained mosaic, than other parts of the country. In reality, the numbers did not differ much at all. The distribution of Green Network areas in counties was compared according to the Base Map and Basic Map (Table 1). If 100% marked the total territory of the Green Network in a county, then the mean difference of forest share was 8% in the sense that the Base Map contained more forestland in the Green Network areas than the Basic Map. What was surprising was that the biggest differences did not occur in the southern counties (Valga, Võru), but in the western counties (Saare, Hiiu, Lääne) instead. The mean difference in field land incorporated to the Green Network was 3.8% in the sense that the Base Map contained fewer fields in the areas of the Green Network than the Basic Map. In this case, the biggest difference between the two maps occurred in Lääne and Hiiu County. In comparisons with the Natura 2000 sites, the Natura Special Areas of Conservation (loodusalad) and the Natura Special Protection Areas (linnualad) were handled separately (Table 2, Fig. 3). In 10 of the 15 counties, the share of incorporated Natura sites within a county’s territory was around 95% or higher. In three counties (Harju, Tartu, Pärnu), the incorporated share was around 90%. An outstandingly low incorporation occurred in Valga County and in Võru County. In Võru County, only about 75% of the county’s Natura sites were located in the Green Network areas. In Valga County, the numbers were even smaller, only about 60% of the county’s Natura sites were incorporated into the county’s Green Network thematic plan.

Table 1. Distribution of the land use classes in the area of the Green Network on the Estonian Base Map (1:50 000) and the Estonian Basic Map (1:10 000). Counties are listed by % of territory covered by the Green Network (Fig. 1). Tabel 1. Eesti rohelise võrgustiku kõlvikuline koosseis lähtudes Eesti Baaskaardist (1:50 000) ja Eesti Põhikaardist (1:10 000). Maakonnad on järjestatud rohelisse võrgustikku kaasatud territooriumi osakaalu alusel (joonis 1).

County Forest / Mets Field / Põllumajandusmaa Yard / Õueala Other / Muu maa Maakond Base Basic Base Basic Base Basic Base Basic Map:/Kaart: Baas- Põhi- Baas- Põhi- Baas- Põhi- Baas- Põhi- Ida-Viru 81.2 73.9 1.2 4.3 0.6 0.4 17.0 21.3 Pärnu 74.5 68.5 7.8 11.0 0.6 0.5 17.1 20.0 Lääne 65.1 51.9 10.3 19.7 0.9 1.0 23.7 27.4 Saare 79.9 65.1 10.2 15.1 0.8 0.6 9.1 19.2 Jõgeva 74.7 69.2 15.5 17.6 0.8 0.7 9.0 12.5 Hiiu 82.9 68.4 8.7 16.3 1.6 1.6 6.8 13.7 Rapla 73.1 67.5 10.6 13.1 0.7 0.7 15.6 18.8 Harju 80.5 71.7 3.5 7.2 0.8 0.8 15.2 20.3 Põlva 71.5 66.4 15.7 16.8 1.0 0.8 11.8 16.0 Järva 74.0 70.9 12.2 14.0 0.5 0.4 13.3 14.7 Võru 79.1 70.8 12.9 17.1 0.9 0.8 7.1 11.3 Lääne-Viru 78.7 71.4 13.2 17.9 1.3 0.9 6.8 9.8 Viljandi 76.0 68.1 6.5 10.2 0.6 0.5 16.9 21.2 Valga 83.6 75.1 11.9 15.0 0.6 0.7 3.9 9.2 Tartu 63.4 58.1 11.3 13.6 1.1 0.9 24.2 27.3

70 Distribution of the Green Network of Estonia

Table 2. Distribution of the Natura 2000 sites along the Green Network areas (open water areas were not taken into account). SPAs – Special Protection Areas, SACs – Special Areas of Conservation. Counties are listed by % of territory covered by the Green Network (Fig. 1). Tabel 2. Natura 2000 alade paiknemine Eesti rohelise võrgustiku suhtes (maismaal). Maakonnad on järjestatud rohelisse võrgustikku kaasatud territooriumi osakaalu alusel (joonis 1).

County SPAs / Linnualad SACs / Loodusalad Maakond Area / Pindala (Ha) Area / Pindala (Ha) in county on network % in county on network % maakonnas rohevõrgustikus maakonnas rohevõrgustikus Ida-Viru 48413.5 48391.0 100.0 51972.8 51415.5 98.9 Pärnu 92265.0 82943.4 89.9 90556.0 81872.6 90.4 Lääne 68994.0 67632.5 98.0 75548.5 73993.0 97.9 Saare 40235.1 39391.9 97.9 52856.9 51740.1 97.9 Jõgeva 19248.4 18018.8 93.6 20958.6 19907.0 95.0 Hiiu 11201.0 11180.1 99.8 23743.5 23710.6 99.9 Rapla 20450.1 20281.3 99.2 51872.5 50688.4 97.7 Harju 60432.9 53657.7 88.8 73409.8 64854.1 88.3 Põlva 6251.8 6023.5 96.3 14406.8 13789.5 95.7 Järva 22329.4 22110.5 99.0 22662.5 22230.4 98.1 Võru 28120.7 20782.8 73.9 34166.3 25714.9 75.3 Lääne-Viru 36709.7 36334.6 99.0 45539.2 44676.7 98.1 Viljandi 42207.0 42012.0 99.5 45970.8 45323.3 98.6 Valga 33105.5 19446.0 58.7 37838.8 24291.6 64.2 Tartu 44837.1 40815.8 91.0 51739.2 47264.4 91.4

Figure 3. The Green Network of Estonia and the Natura 2000 sites. Joonis 3. Eesti rohelise võrgustiku ja Natura 2000 alade paiknemine.

71 J. Raet et al.

Discussion and Conclusions

The Green Network is also supposed to be smoothly and efficiently connected in the counties’ border zones. In reality, there are still some conflict areas along the county borders. The reasons for this can be found in different issues (bad communication between counties, time lag, changed interests, etc.). The process of producing Green Network thematic plans for counties was mainly handled by county governments. A county’s thematic plan is the basis for more accu- rate Green Network thematic plans issued by local municipalities. Some authors suggest that in this process, local stakeholders should be more involved in the initial stages, not only in the public discussion stage at the end of the process (Külvik et al., 2008; Kivimaa et al., 2009). As a conclusion, it can be suggested that in Võru County and in Valga County, the revision of the Green Network areas has to be re-considered. In the case of Võru County, it can be pointed out that only about 75% of Natura 2000 sites are incorporated into the Green Network. In the case of Valga, the incorporation is even smaller, only about 60% of Natura 2000 sites. Validation of the Green Network thematic plan prior to the announcement of the final list of national Natura 2000 sites is the main cause for this discrepency in Valga county. In Võru County, this explanation can not be used, as the thematic plan was validated in 2005, being one of the last thematic plans validated. The process covering the whole country, was initiated in 1999 and ended in 2008, when the last county Green Network thematic plan was validated in Saare County. All of this, as planned, has hopefully created a more solid basis for sustainable land use planning and development. As to how much this basis has been taken into account in real life, would be the subject matter of another study.

Acknowledgements. This study was supported by the Target Funding Project No. 1090050s07 of the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research.

References Baldock, D., Beaufoy, G., Bennett, G., Clark, J. 1993. Nature conservation and new directions in the common agricultural policy. Report for the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries of the Netherland, Institute for European Environmental Policy, Arnhem. Bennett, G., Wit, P. 2001. The Development and Application of Ecological Networks. A Review of Propos- als, Plans and Programmes, AIDEnvironment and IUCN. Council of Europe 1996. The Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy, submitted by the Council of Europe at the Ministerial Conference Environment for Europe (Soﬁa, Bulgaria, 23−25 October 1995). – Nature and Environment, No. 74, Council of Europe Press. 69 pp. Government of Estonia 1999. Order 763-k. Initiation of thematic plans for county plans. State Gazette Supplement, 110, 1425. EEIC. 2008. Estonian Nature Conservation in 2007. Tallinn, Estonian Environment Information Centre. 80 pp. [WWW document]. – URL http://www.keskkonnainfo.ee/publications/329_PDF.pdf. [Accessed 5 December 2010]. Estonian Ministry of the Environment. 2001. Estonia 2010. Tallinn, National Spatial Plan. [WWW document]. – URL http://www.siseministeerium.ee/public/tais2010.pdf. [Accessed 5 December 2010]. Estonian Ministry of the Environment. 2010. Estonian Natura 2000 homepage managed by the Estonian Ministry of the Environment. [WWW document]. – URL http://www.natura2000.envir.ee/ [Ac- cessed 5 December 2010]. Government of Estonia 2003. Planning Act. State Gazette Supplement, 99, 579.

72 Distribution of the Green Network of Estonia

Jagomägi, J., Külvik, M., Mander, Ü., Jacuchno, V. 1988. The structural–functional role of ecotones in the landscape. − Ekologia, 7(1), 81–94. Jongman, R.H.G., Smith, D. 2000. The European experience: from site protection to ecological networks. − Sanderson, J., Harris, L.D. (eds.). Landscape Ecology. A top-down approach. London, New York & Washington, D.C., Lewis Publishers, 157−182. Jongman, R.H.G., Kristiansen, I. 2001. National and regional approaches for ecological networks in Eu- rope. European Center for Nature Conservation report, Council of Europe Publishing: Strasbourg, Nature & Environment. Jongman, R.H.G., Külvik, M., Kristiansen, I. 2004. European ecological networks and greenways. − Land- scape and Urban Planning, 68 (2−3), 305−319. Kivimaa, K., Kreisman, K., Külvik, M., Sepp, K., Suškevičs, M. 2009. The Green Network plan in Estonia: implementation lessons learned at county and local levels. − Catchpole, R., Smithers, R., Baarda, P., Eycott, A. (eds.). Ecological Networks: Science and Practice. Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the International Association of Landscape Ecology (UK Chapter), Edinburgh Uni- versity, 1−3 September 2009. IALE (UK), 113−119. Külvik, M., Suškevičs, M., Kreisman, K. 2008. Current status of the practical implementation of ecological networks in Estonia. [WWW document]. – URL http://www.ecologicalnetworks.eu/documents/ publications/ken/EstoniaKENWP2.pdf. [Accessed 5 December 2010]. Mander, Ü., Jagomägi, J., Külvik, M. 1988. Network of compensative areas as an ecological infrastructure of territories. − Schreiber, K.-F. (ed). Connectivity in Landscape Ecology. Proceedings of the 2nd International Seminar of the International Association for Landscape Ecology, Münster 1987, Münstersche Geographische Arbeiten, 29, 35–38. Sepp, K., Jagomägi J. 2002. Roheline võrgustik. (The Green Network – planning methodology). [WWW document]. – URL http://www.siseministeerium.ee/public/roh.vorgustik.pdf. [Accessed 5 December 2010]. Sepp, K., Jagomägi, J., Kaasik, A., Gulbinas, Z. 2001. Development of National Ecological Networks in Baltic Countries. − Hedegaard, L., Lindström, B. (eds.). North European and Baltic Sea Integration Yearbook 2001/2002 (NEBI). Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 103−121.

Eesti rohevõrgustiku paiknemine Janar Raet, Kalev Sepp, Are Kaasik, Valdo Kuusemets ja Mart Külvik

Kokkuvõte

1995. aastal toimunud kolmandal Euroopa keskkonnaministrite konverentsil „An Environment for Europe“ (Keskkond Euroopa jaoks) võeti vastu Pan-Euroopa bio- loogilise ja maastikulise mitmekesisuse strateegia, mis ühe meetmena nägi ette Euroopa ökoloogilise võrgustiku (Pan-European Ecological Network – PEEN) loo- mist, tagamaks Euroopa ulatuses oluliste elupaikade, liikide ja maastike säilimist ja kaitset. Selle protsessi üheks osaliseks on ka Eesti. 1999 kohustas Vabariigi Valitsus korraldusega 763-k “Maakonnaplaneeringute teemaplaneeringu algatamine” maa- kondi algatama teemaplaneeringut „Asutust ja maakasutust suunavad keskkonna- tingimused“. Selle teemaplaneeringu üheks alateemaks oli “Roheline võrgustik”. Vastav teemaplaneering koos rohelise võrgustiku alateemaga on alusdokumendiks paljudele tegevustele: üld- ja detailplaneeringute koostamine; valgalade veema- janduskavade koostamine; kaitsekorralduskavade koostamine; metsamajandamis- kavade koostamine; maakorralduskavade koostamine; looduskaitse korraldamine väljapool kaitsealasid; üleriigiliste infrastruktuuride planeerimine. Esimesed tee- maplaneeringud kehtestati aastal 2002 (Valgamaa, Raplamaa, Järvamaa). Viimane maakonna teemaplaneering sellel teemal valmis 2008 Saaremaal. Maakondade jaoks

73 J. Raet et al. välja töötatud metoodika „Roheline võrgustik“ soovitas ühe lähtekaardina kasutada Eesti Baaskaarti (1:50 000) ning nägi ühe eesmärgina ette Natura 2000 alade kaasa- mist täitmaks PEEN püüdlusi. Natura 2000 alad jagunevad loodusaladeks ja linnu- aladeks ning nende alade määratlemine oli üheks Euroopa Liiduga liitumise eeltin- gimuseks. Nimekirjad valmisid liitumishetkeks aastal 2004. Kuna osad maakonnad olid oma rohelist võrgustikku käsitleva teemaplaneeringu kinnitanud enne seda, ei pruukinud kõik Natura 2000 alad olla rohelisse võrgustikku kaasatud. Hetkel ei ole olemas ametlikku ühtset Keskkonnaministeeriumi poolt hallatavat rohelise võrgustiku kaardikihti. Keskkonnaministeeriumi Info- ja Tehnokeskuse (ala- tes 01.04.2010 Keskkonnainfo Keskus) poolt on aastal 2008 välja antud trükis, kus on toodud Eesti rohelise võrgustiku teemakaart. Kuna aga lähemal uurimisel ilmne- sid seal mõned vead, otsustati käesoleva töö jaoks tekitada maavalitsustest saadud andmetest uus Eesti rohelise võrgustiku mask. Maavalitsustest saadud andmed olid erineva detailsusega ning erineva struktuuriga, mistõttu vajasid ühtse tervikkaardi koostamiseks korrastamist. Sõltuvalt keskkonnatingimustest oli maakondades rohelise võrguga hõivatud eri- nev pindala. Kõige väiksem oli see pindala Tartumaal (rohelise võrgustikuga kae- tud 44,6% maakonna pindalast), suurim aga Ida-Virumaal (75,6% maakonna pindalast). Uurimaks, kui palju erineb Eesti Põhikaardi detailsem situatsioon rohevõrgu aladel selle koostamisel kasutatud üldistatumast Eesti Baaskaardist, tehti maakasutus- klasside võrdlus rohevõrguna deﬁneeritud aladel. Erinevus oli olemas, kuid see oli oodatust väiksem ja üllatuslikult polnud see suurem mitte mosaiikse maastikumust- riga Lõuna-Eestis, vaid hoopis Lääne-Eestis. Natura 2000 alade puhul uuriti rohevõrku kaasatust linnualade ja loodusalade osas eraldi. Võrdlusest elimineeriti Maa-ameti administratiivpiiride kaardikihi abil merealadele ja suurtele siseveekogudele jäänud Natura 2000 alad (kuna roheline võrgustik neid alasid ei käsitle). Kümne maakonna puhul olid rohelisse võrgustikku kaasatud Natura 2000 aladest 95% ja rohkem. Kolme maakonna puhul jäi kaasatus 90% juurde. Võrumaal oli Natura 2000 aladest kaasatud kolmveerand, Valgamaal jäi kaasatus vaid 60% juurde. Kui Valgamaa puhul on ilmselt põhjuseks teemaplaneeringu varajane kinnitamine võrreldes Natura 2000 alade nimekirja valmimisega, siis Võrumaa puhul seda arvata ei saa. Mõlema maakonna puhul oleks soovitav vastav teemaplaneering ümber vaadata, saavutamaks metoodikas seatud eesmärke. Received February 8, 2010, revised February 14, 2011, accepted February 17, 2011