DOCSLIB.ORG

Questionnaire

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Questionnaire Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives QUESTIONNAIRE A. General Information Please answer ALL questions in this table Answer Organisation: Zeleny Kruh Date: 25. 3. 2015 Country (and, if applicable, region) Czech Republic represented: Zeleny kruh is the umbrella association of Czech environmental NGOs representing over 100 organisations. The questionnaire was filled in with Organisation(s) represented: contributions of Birdlife CZ, Hnuti DUHA – Friends of the Earth Czech Republic, Ametyst, CSOP Veronica, Hnuti Brontosaurus, Coalition for Natura 2000, Jaro Jaromer, Bioinstitut, Arnika, Sdruzeni Krajina. Name of contact for enquires (including Mojmir Vlasin follow-up interview if required): Contact email address: [email protected] Contact telephone number: +420602404285 Languages spoken fluently by contact Czech, English person: Language for the interview if it is not possible to conduct it in English Type of organisations you represent: Nature conservation charity EU authority or agency / Member State authority or agency / business or industry / educational or scientific institute / nature conservation charity / recreation / individual expert / other (please specify). Sector represented: environment / water / Environment agriculture / forestry / fisheries / transport / energy / extractive industry / industry / housing and other buildings / recreation & tourism / science & education / other (please specify) Additional comments: 1 Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives Effectiveness This section focuses on assessing the extent to which the objectives of the Birds Directive and Habitats Directive have been met, and any significant factors which may have contributed to or inhibited progress towards meeting those objectives. By 'objectives', we refer not only to the strategic objectives, but also to other specific or operational objectives required under other articles of both Directives (as set out in Annex I to this questionnaire). 'Factors contributing to or inhibiting progress' can relate to the Nature Directives themselves (e.g. the clarity of definitions) or be external factors such as lack of political will, resource limitations, lack of cooperation of other actors, lack of scientific knowledge, or other external factors (e.g. see those listed in the above intervention logic). We are particularly keen to learn of evidence that is not included in the Member State implementation reports1. S.1.1 What progress have Member States made over time towards achieving the objectives set out in the Directives and related policy documents? Please provide evidence on what progress has or is being made towards the achievement of the objectives set out in Annex I that are of relevance to you. Please address separately the objectives of the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive, and specify which objective(s) you are referring to, with references to the corresponding Articles. If possible quantify the progress that is being made. Answer: Czech NGOs judge the progress as average or relatively satisfactory. The infringements of the EU legislation and related national law are rather exceptional. Strategic objectives mentioned in Annex I cannot be evaluated (only) at national level. Moreover 10 years of implementation of both directives in the Czech Republic are too short. In 2007 only 17% of 352 reports according to the Art. 17 of the Habitats Directive referred about favourable conservation status of habitats and species, in 2013 it was 23% of 366 reports on conservation status. Specific objectives: - Art. 3 BD – the list of SPAs is completed, although some sites were designated late (CZ0311037 Českobudějovické rybníky or CZ0311037 Dehtář) or with wrong reduction of the area (CZ0531013 Komárov or CZ0811021 Heřmanský stav – Odra - Poolší), management of habitats in SPAs as well as outside is insufficient (also because of unsuitable adjustment of CAP) - Art. 5 BD – the system of protection for all birds is ensured, persisting problem is in conservation outside of protected areas - Art. 7 BD – actually (after amendment of the Hunting Act in 2001 during harmonization with EU legislation) there is no significant problem with legal hunting - Art. 4 HD – Natura 2000 is based on good principles but still not finished. There are registered political influences and key localities (not even named during biogeographical seminars) as Údolí Labe (Elbe valley), Slavíkovy ostrovy or Ždánický les are still not designated. More in the Analysis of Sufficiency of the National List for the Continental Bio-geographical Region in the Czech Republic (Supplement to the Complaints submitted to the European Commission) which is basic document of ongoing EU Pilot. - Art. 6 HD – site management is not ensured, mainly in localities which are not specially protected by law (some Natura sites are protected only in the regime of general protection without 1 Habitats Directive Reports: http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Reporting/Article_17/Reports_2013/ Birds Directive Reports: http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Reporting/Article_12/Reports_2013/ 2 Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives designation as national park, landscape protected area, nature reserve or nature monument) and are in care of regional authorities. - Art. 10, 12-13, 14, 22 HD – relatively satisfactory secured. S.1.2- Is this progress in line with initial expectations? 'Initial expectations' refer to the expectations, positive or negative, held by different stakeholders at the time the legislation transposing the Directives came into force in your country. For example, government reports and plans might provide evidence of intended timetables for the identification and designation of Natura 2000 sites. We are seeking to understand the extent to which progress made to date has met, exceeded, or fallen short of such expectations. If possible, in your answer please address separately each of the objectives referred to in question S1.1 for which you have provided evidence. Answer: The process of Natura 2000 sites designation (Art. 4 HD) is much more slow-going and politically influenced than was expected. Some sites were deleted from the scientific proposal in the course of inter-ministerial comment proceedings. The lobby is sometimes stronger than meeting state's obligations to EU. The problem is also in non-participative approach during the designation process represented by poor communication with stakeholders (mainly owners and managers). The interest of responsible authorities ensuring the management of sites (Art. 6 HD) is careless and poorly coordinated from Ministry of Environment, Czech NGOs expected more active approach. Management of some sites ignore scientific cognition and needs of target habitats and species on sites, actually we can see problems in counter-productive set agri-environment measures, forest management (traditional management against possibilities for wilderness or forests with needed measures), pond management (too intensive oriented on carps) and spontaneous succession (overgrowing by shrubs) on non-forest habitat types. The degradation of many sites continue and status of target habitats and species worsen. The example of a rapid extirpation of a strong population of globally threatened butterfly, Colias myrmidone, from the White Carpathians was described by Konvička et al. in 2008 (Konvička, M., Beneš., J., Čížek, O., Kopeček, F., Konvička, O., Víťaz., L., 2008: How too much care kills species: Grassland reserves, agri-environmental schemes and extinction of Colias myrmidone (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) from its former stronghold. Journal of Insect Conservation 12(5): 519-525). The situation changed after pressure caused by scientific results and NGOs activity. Czech NGOs expected much more strict position of the European Commission and assignment of requirements and potentially sanctions. The assessment of complaints is stretching and the complainer is not regularly informed about the process (e.g. complaint on bad conservation of sites Šumava CZ0314024 (EU Pilot 2216/11/ENVI) or Soutok – Podluží CZ0624119 sent by NGO Veronica). Other initial expectations are more or less met. S.1.3 - When will the main objectives be fully attained? On the basis of current expectations and trends, please provide evidence that indicates the likely year or range of years that the main objectives will be met. By 'main objectives' we mean the strategic objectives of the Birds Directive (as set out in its Article 2) and the Habitats Directives (in its Article 2), as well as the specific objectives set out in Annex I to this document. Answer: The Czech Republic has to complete the national list during 2015. Czech NGOs (Coalition for Natura 2000) will check the completeness and correctness of the list. The assurance of fully sufficient management is depending on expert data, financing and political will. We are not able to determine when needed state of affairs will come even Czech NGOs insist on 3 Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives fulfilment of the Art. 6 of the Habitats Directive. The pressure from European Commission side is needed. S.2 – What is the contribution of the Directives towards ensuring biodiversity? In particular to what extent are they contributing to achieving the EU Biodiversity Strategy* Objectives and Targets? By 'contribution towards ensuring biodiversity', we are referring not only
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Conservation Covenants
    Law Commission Consultation Paper No 211 CONSERVATION COVENANTS A Consultation Paper ii THE LAW COMMISSION – HOW WE CONSULT About the Law Commission: The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Rt Hon Lord Justice Lloyd Jones, Chairman, Professor Elizabeth Cooke, David Hertzell, Professor David Ormerod QC and Frances Patterson QC. The Chief Executive is Elaine Lorimer. Topic of this consultation: This Consultation Paper examines the case for introducing “conservation covenants” into the law of England and Wales, and considers how a scheme of conservation covenants might be framed. A conservation covenant is a private agreement made by a landowner, for the purposes of conservation. We discuss the current law and set out a number of provisional proposals and options for reform on which we invite consultees’ views. Geographical scope: The Consultation Paper applies to the law of England and Wales. Impact assessment: In Chapter 9 of this Consultation Paper, consultees are asked also to comment on the likely costs and benefits of any changes provisionally proposed. Consultees’ responses will inform our final recommendations and a formal impact assessment document that will be published with our Report. Availability of materials: This Consultation is available on our website at: http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/consultations/conservation-covenants.htm. Duration of the consultation: We invite responses from 28 March 2013 to 21 June 2013. Comments may be sent: By email to: [email protected] or By post to: Luke Campbell, Law Commission, Steel House, 11 Tothill Street, London SW1H 9LJ Tel: 020 3334 0200 / Fax: 020 3334 0201 If you send your comments by post, it would be helpful if, whenever possible, you could send them to us electronically as well (for example, on CD or by email to the above address, in any commonly used format).
    [Show full text]
  • Land Use Element of the General Plan
    General Plan Land Use Element Adopted December 15, 1993 Amended November 9, 2011 Amended July 22, 2015 Amended July 26, 2016 Amended April 26, 2017 Amended September 26, 2017 Amended December 13, 2017 Amended December 17, 2019 Amended October 6, 2020 County of Sacramento Office of Planning and Environmental Review . This page is blank County of Sacramento General Plan Land Use Element Amended October 6, 2020 Table of Contents SECTION I ..................................................................................................................................... 1 ELEMENT INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 Required Contents of the Land Use Element .............................................................................. 1 Concepts of the Land Use Element ............................................................................................. 1 Relationship to Other Elements .................................................................................................. 2 Relationship to Other County Planning Tools ............................................................................ 3 Relationship to Regional Planning Efforts ................................................................................. 6 THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM ......................................................................... 7 How to Use the Land Use Diagram ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation Report 2020
    London Borough of Enfield Review of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation An Addendumx to the Enfield Blue and Green Strategy Final report London Borough of Enfield Review of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation An Addendum to the Enfield Blue and Green Strategy Version Status Prepared Checked Approved Date 1. Draft report for client comment R. Turner S. Swindlehurst S. Swindlehurst 06.11.2020 A. Coleman R. Glackin 2. Final Report R. Turner R. Turner R. Turner 17.11.2020 3. Final Report – re-issued to take R. Turner R. Turner R. Turner 01.04.2021 into consideration comments from stakeholders Bristol Land Use Consultants Ltd Landscape Design Edinburgh Registered in England Strategic Planning & Assessment Glasgow Registered number 2549296 Development Planning London Registered office: Urban Design & Masterplanning Manchester 250 Waterloo Road Environmental Impact Assessment London SE1 8RD Landscape Planning & Assessment landuse.co.uk Landscape Management 100% recycled paper Ecology Historic Environment GIS & Visualisation Contents Review of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation November 2020 Contents Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Background 1 Chapter 2 Methods 3 Site Selection 3 Desk Review 3 Site Survey 3 Site Evaluation 4 Limitations 6 Chapter 3 Summary of the SINC Assessment 7 Summary 7 Recommendations 7 Summary of SINC Review 8 Appendix A Figure 1.1-1.3: Biodiversity Assets in the Borough and Figure 1.2 Areas of Deficiency in Access to Nature A-1 Appendix B Figure 3.1: Summary of SINC Review Recommendations B-1 Appendix C Summary of SINC Review C-1 Appendix D Proformas D-1 LUC I i Chapter- 1 Introduction Review of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation November 2020 Chapter 1 Introduction LUC was appointed in June 2020 by Enfield London Borough Council to undertake a review of existing Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) within the borough.
    [Show full text]
  • An Investment Primer for Reforestation CARBON REMOVAL, ENVIRONMENTAL and SOCIAL IMPACTS, and FINANCIAL POTENTIAL
    1 An Investment Primer for Reforestation CARBON REMOVAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS, AND FINANCIAL POTENTIAL JANUARY 2020 1 CONTENTS Contents About CREO 2 Terms 3 Executive Summary 4 Background Forestry for Climate 6 Reforestation Investment Potential 9 - Investment Avenues 9 - Costs and Returns 10 Carbon Markets Regulatory Compliance 14 Voluntary 15 Corporate Offsetting 15 Summary 16 Timber and Non-Timber Forest Products Timber 18 Agroforestry 19 Summary 20 Restoration and Conservation Initiatives Direct Revenue Creation 22 Blended Finance 23 Catalytic Capital 24 Summary 24 Moving Forward 25 Appendix A: CREO Modelling Assumptions 26 Appendix B: Carbon Markets 27 Citations 28 2 ABOUT CREO About CREO The CREO Syndicate (“CREO”) is a 501c3 public charity founded by wealth owners and family offices with a mission to address the most pressing environmental challenges of our time affecting communities across the globe—climate change and resource scarcity. By catalyzing private capital and scaling innovative solutions, CREO is contributing to protecting and preserving the environment and accelerating the transition to a sustainable economy for the benefit of the public. CREO works closely with a broad set of global stakeholders, including Members (wealth owners, family offices, and family-owned enterprises), Friends (aligned investors such as pension funds), and Partners (government, not-for-profit organizations and academia), who collaboratively develop and invest in solutions across sectors, asset classes and geographies. CREO’s primary activities include 1) knowledge building; 2) relationship building among like-minded, values-aligned, long-term investors; 3) conducting select research to support the advancement of its mission; and 4) deal origination. 3 TERMS Terms Afforestation (AF): Planting and/or deliberate seeding on land not forested over the last 50 years.
    [Show full text]
  • The Story of Creag Meagaidh National Nature Reserve
    Scotland’s National Nature Reserves For more information about Creag Meagaidh National Nature Reserve please contact: Scottish Natural Heritage, Creag Meagaidh NNR, Aberarder, Kinlochlaggan, Newtonmore, Inverness-shire, PH20 1BX Telephone/Fax: 01528 544 265 Email: [email protected] The Story of Creag Meagaidh National Nature Reserve The Story of Creag Meagaidh National Nature Reserve Foreword Creag Meagaidh National Nature Reserve (NNR), named after the great whalebacked ridge which dominates the Reserve, is one of the most diverse and important upland sites in Scotland. Creag Meagaidh is a complex massif, with numerous mountain tops and an extensive high summit plateau edged by a dramatic series of ice-carved corries and gullies. The Reserve extends from the highest of the mountain tops to the shores of Loch Laggan. The plateau is carpeted in moss-heath and is an important breeding ground for dotterel. The corries support unusual artic- alpine plants and the lower slopes have scattered patches of ancient woodland dominated by birch. Located 45 kilometres (km) northeast of Fort William and covering nearly 4,000 hectares (ha), the Reserve is owned and managed by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). Creag Meagaidh has been a NNR since 1986 and during the last twenty years SNH has worked to restore natural habitats, particularly woodland, on the Reserve. Like much of the Highlands, the vegetation has been heavily grazed for centuries, so it was decided to reduce the number of grazing animals by removing sheep and culling red deer. The aim was not to eliminate grazing animals altogether, but to keep numbers at a level that allowed the habitats, especially the woodland, to recover.
    [Show full text]
  • Working at the Landscape Scale: Lessons from the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Planning Process
    Working at the Landscape Scale: Lessons from the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Planning Process By: Anna Bengtson Alyssa Cudmore Brian Fadie David Markowitz A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Natural Resources and Environment) at the University of Michigan August 2016 Faculty Advisor: Professor Steven Yaffee Client: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, California State Office Working at the Landscape Scale: Lessons from the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Planning Process Acknowledgements The authors of this report would like to express our gratitude for the mentorship and assistance of the following with this project: We would like to thank Dr. Steven Yaffee, Professor at the School of Natural Resources and Environment and Director of the Ecosystem Management Initiative at the University of Michigan. His insight and guidance were invaluable for the completion of this report. We would also like to thank Michael Sintetos, Renewable Energy Program Manager for the Bureau of Land Management in California. He was essential for setting up this project and introducing key players and sites to our team. In addition, we want to thank the Bureau of Land Management’s California state office for providing funding that allowed the team to visit the DRECP planning region and meet in-person with individuals. We are also grateful for the funding provided by the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and Environment to assist with the creation and presentation of this material. Lastly, we would like to extend our gratitude to all those who allowed us to inquire about their experiences with the DRECP to allow for a more comprehensive report.
    [Show full text]
  • RSPB CENTRE for CONSERVATION SCIENCE RSPB CENTRE for CONSERVATION SCIENCE Where Science Comes to Life
    RSPB CENTRE FOR CONSERVATION SCIENCE RSPB CENTRE FOR CONSERVATION SCIENCE Where science comes to life Contents Knowing 2 Introducing the RSPB Centre for Conservation Science and an explanation of how and why the RSPB does science. A decade of science at the RSPB 9 A selection of ten case studies of great science from the RSPB over the last decade: 01 Species monitoring and the State of Nature 02 Farmland biodiversity and wildlife-friendly farming schemes 03 Conservation science in the uplands 04 Pinewood ecology and management 05 Predation and lowland breeding wading birds 06 Persecution of raptors 07 Seabird tracking 08 Saving the critically endangered sociable lapwing 09 Saving South Asia's vultures from extinction 10 RSPB science supports global site-based conservation Spotlight on our experts 51 Meet some of the team and find out what it is like to be a conservation scientist at the RSPB. Funding and partnerships 63 List of funders, partners and PhD students whom we have worked with over the last decade. Chris Gomersall (rspb-images.com) Conservation rooted in know ledge Introduction from Dr David W. Gibbons Welcome to the RSPB Centre for Conservation The Centre does not have a single, physical Head of RSPB Centre for Conservation Science Science. This new initiative, launched in location. Our scientists will continue to work from February 2014, will showcase, promote and a range of RSPB’s addresses, be that at our UK build the RSPB’s scientific programme, helping HQ in Sandy, at RSPB Scotland’s HQ in Edinburgh, us to discover solutions to 21st century or at a range of other addresses in the UK and conservation problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Mountain Areas Such As the Cairngorms, Taking Into Consideration the Case for Arrangements on National Park Lines in Scotland.”
    THE MOUNTAIN AREAS OF SCOTLAND -i CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT A report by the COUNTRYSIDE COMMISSION FOR SCOTLAND THE MOUNTAIN AREAS OF SCOTLAND CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT COUNTRYSIDE COMMISSION FOR SCOTLAND Opposite: Glen Affric. 2 CONTENTS CHAIRMAN’S PREFACE 3 INTRODUCTION 4-5 THE VALUE OF OUR MOUNTAIN LAND 7-9 LAND USEAND CHANGE 10-16 WHAT IS GOING WRONG 18-24 PUTTING THINGS RIGHT 25-33 MAKING THINGS HAPPEN 34-37 THE COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS 38-40 Annex 1: The World Conservation Strategy and Sustainable Development 42 Annex 2: IUCN Categories for Conservation Management and the Concept of Zoning 43 - 44 Annex 3: Outline Powers and Administration of National Parks, Land Management Forums and Joint Committees ... 45 - 47 Annex 4: THE CAIRNGORMS 48 - 50 Annex 5: LOCH LOMOND AND THE TROSSACHS 51 - 53 Annex 6: BEN NEVIS / GLEN COE / BLACK MOUNT 54 -56 Annex 7: WESTER ROSS 57 -59 Annex 8: How the Review was Carried Out 60 Annex 9: Consultees and Contributors to the Review 61 - 62 Annex 10: Bibliography 63 - 64 3 CHAIRMAN’S PREFACE The beauty of Scotland’s countryside is one of our greatest assets. It is the Commission’s duty to promote its conservation, but this can only be achieved with the co-operation, commitment and effort of all those who use and manage the land for many different purposes. The Commission has been involved with few environmental and social issues which generated so much discussion as the question of secur ing the protection of Scotland’s mountain heritage for the benefit, use and enjoyment of present and future generations.
    [Show full text]
  • NLI 2016 Conservation Finance Report
    PREPARING FOR LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP: A DUAL APPROACH FOR ILLINOIS November 2016 Summary Report Prepared by: Contributors Bill Schleizer, CEO Delta Institute Ben Shorofsky, Programs Specialist Delta Institute Kerry Leigh, Executive Director Natural Land Institute Caitlin Hopkins, Independent Contractor Natural Land Institute Jen Walling, Executive Director Illinois Environmental Council Nishaat Killeen, Communications and Engagement Associate Delta Institute Acknowledgements The report was made possible through generous funding from the Grand Victoria Foundation. We would like to thank them for their continued leadership in the conservation space in Illinois and for supporting practitioners working to maintain the high value ecosystems in our state. In addition, we would like to thank those who contributed to the content of this report by providing their insight, feedback, and enthusiasm. We would specifically like to thank the Vital Lands Illinois network and the funding working group and members of the Prairie State Conservation Coalition. Preparing for Long-Term Stewardship: A Dual Approach for Illinois Beginning in October of 2015, Delta Institute, Illinois Environmental Council (IEC), and the Natural Land Institute (NLI) engaged in a robust conversation with Illinois conservation practitioners to better understand the conditions that are hindering broader funding for long- term stewardship of conserved land and to identify mechanisms that could provide that funding in the future. This research, funded by the Grand Victoria Foundation and rooted in the work of the Vital Lands Illinois collaborative, sets the stage for more long-term work, implementing sustainable stewardship funding mechanisms in a collaborative, concerted effort. This summary report summarizes the stages of that research and presents the Dual Approach we are presenting for stewardship funding in Illinois.
    [Show full text]
  • The IUCN Red List of Threatened Speciestm
    Species 2014 Annual ReportSpecies the Species of 2014 Survival Commission and the Global Species Programme Species ISSUE 56 2014 Annual Report of the Species Survival Commission and the Global Species Programme • 2014 Spotlight on High-level Interventions IUCN SSC • IUCN Red List at 50 • Specialist Group Reports Ethiopian Wolf (Canis simensis), Endangered. © Martin Harvey Muhammad Yazid Muhammad © Amazing Species: Bleeding Toad The Bleeding Toad, Leptophryne cruentata, is listed as Critically Endangered on The IUCN Red List of Threatened SpeciesTM. It is endemic to West Java, Indonesia, specifically around Mount Gede, Mount Pangaro and south of Sukabumi. The Bleeding Toad’s scientific name, cruentata, is from the Latin word meaning “bleeding” because of the frog’s overall reddish-purple appearance and blood-red and yellow marbling on its back. Geographical range The population declined drastically after the eruption of Mount Galunggung in 1987. It is Knowledge believed that other declining factors may be habitat alteration, loss, and fragmentation. Experts Although the lethal chytrid fungus, responsible for devastating declines (and possible Get Involved extinctions) in amphibian populations globally, has not been recorded in this area, the sudden decline in a creekside population is reminiscent of declines in similar amphibian species due to the presence of this pathogen. Only one individual Bleeding Toad was sighted from 1990 to 2003. Part of the range of Bleeding Toad is located in Gunung Gede Pangrango National Park. Future conservation actions should include population surveys and possible captive breeding plans. The production of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is made possible through the IUCN Red List Partnership.
    [Show full text]
  • Wetland Action Plan for British Columbia
    Wetland Action Plan for British Columbia IAN BARNETT Ducks Unlimited Kamloops, 954 A Laval Crescent, Kamloops, BC, V2C 5P5, Canada, email [email protected] Abstract: In the fall of 2002, the Wetland Stewardship Partnership was formed to address the need for improved conservation of wetland ecosystems (including estuaries) in British Columbia. One of the first exercises undertaken by the Wetland Stewardship Partnership was the creation of a Wetland Action Plan. The Wetland Action Plan illustrates the extent of the province's wetlands, describes their value to British Columbians, assesses threats to wetlands, evaluates current conservation initiatives, and puts forth a set of specific actions and objectives to help mitigate wetland loss or degradation. It was determined that the most significant threats to wetlands usually come from urban expansion, industrial development, and agriculture. The Wetland Stewardship Partnership then examined which actions would most likely have the greatest positive influence on wetland conservation and restoration, and listed nine primary objectives, in order of priority, in a draft ‘Framework for Action’. Next, the partnership determined that meeting the first four of these objectives could be sufficient to provide meaningful and comprehensive wetland protection, and so, committed to working together towards enacting specific recommendations in relation to these objectives. These four priority objectives are as follows: (1) Work effectively with all levels of government to promote improved guidelines and stronger legislative frameworks to support wetlands conservation; (2) Provide practical information and recommendations on methods to reduce impacts to wetlands to urban, rural, and agricultural proponents who wish to undertake a development in a wetland area; (3) Improve the development and delivery of public education and stewardship programs that encourage conservation of wetlands, especially through partnerships; and (4) Conduct a conservation risk assessment to make the most current inventory information on the status of B.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – a Guide to Good Practice
    Planning for Biodiversity PLANNINGand Geological Conservation: A Guide to Good Practice ISBN 13-978 185 112 852 8 ISBN 10-185 112 8522 Price: £18.00 Planning shapes the places where people live and work and the country we live in. It plays a key role in supporting the Government’s wider economic, social and environmental objectives and for sustain- able communities. Planning for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – A Guide to Good Practice March 2006 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: London Acknowledgement This guide has been produced by ODPM, Defra and English Nature. The Departments and English Nature wish to thank all those who assisted with the guide including those who kindly gave their permission for the use of case studies and other materials. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Telephone: 020 7944 4400 Website: www.odpm.gov.uk © Crown Copyright, 2006 Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the publication specified. Any other use of the contents of this publication would require a copyright licence. Please apply for a Click-Use Licence for core material at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ system/online/pLogin.asp, or by writing to the Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich, NR3 1BQ.
    [Show full text]