important plant areas in central and eastern europe - Plantlife

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Section 2 In eastern and south eastern Europe there were two main challenges in applying this criteria.The first was the process of translating EU and Bern classification systems into the national classification systems and further work needs to be carried out on this process in many countries.The second was the lack of habitat mapping data in most countries.The IPA process in these regions has also highlighted threatened habitats which are not currently recognised by the EU Habitats Directive or the Bern Convention and could be included in future revisions of the annexes of these legislative instruments. Data availability and data strategies There was a wide variety of data availability in the seven partner countries and the national IPA selection strategies reflect these data availability issues.This also had implications for how national teams prioritised the use of available resources between collating existing data and undertaking new fieldwork. In countries with a high level of recent, computerised and digitised plant and habitat records, much of the selection was based on existing data supplemented by fieldwork or specialist data collation for gap areas. In countries with a lower level of recent or computerised data the IPAs were identified using targeted fieldwork on potential sites, which were highlighted from the existing data. This project has also highlighted areas where we have no current data and these gaps will form the future of further IPA identification work. Site selection An IPA can be selected for one or more qualifying criteria.The basic principles of site selection, including guidelines on site boundaries, and criteria for selection, are given in the IPA Site Selection Manual. Each national team decided on their site selection strategy within the constraints of the criteria and thresholds. Fundamental to these national strategies were decisions of the number and size of IPAs and the definition of site boundaries. Each country decided on the balance of large IPAs with a mosaic of habitats and species and smaller IPAs identified to protect a particular species or habitat. Boundary demarcation, such as the treatment of small IPAs located near to each other, or the defining of boundaries in areas of fragmented habitats or land uses, was decided on the basis of the local conditions of ecological integrity, ownership and practical management. The size range of IPAs in the current project is as follows: up to 100 ha (281 IPAs), >100 and < 1000 ha (207 IPAs), >1000 and < 10,000 ha (148 IPAs), >10,000 and < 10,000 ha (111 IPAs) and > 100,000 ha (43 IPAs). Further work on direct conservation and site management on IPAs will also contribute to refining site selection and boundary definition guidelines for the future. Bryophytes, fungi, lichen and algae The IPA programme includes lower plants and fungi in the assessment methodology. These important organisms are neglected in existing nature conservation legislation and Europe has a particular global responsibility to conserve them. Bryophytes: mosses and liverworts, are well represented in this project.There were 54 bryophytes on the IPA list for the seven partner countries and they are recorded qualifying features on 77 IPAs. Bryophytes are also an important component of several of the threatened habitats under Criterion C and were also used in some countries as indicator species for assessing botanical richness under Criterion B. 18
Methodology Lichens There were 34 lichen species included in the IPA species list for the seven partner countries and they are qualifying features on 24 IPAs. The 1989 European Red List for Macro-lichens was used in this project, however this red list is now quite old and an updated European red list would certainly help to identify priority lichen species and sites. Lichens were also included in this project in some countries under Criterion B and under certain habitats in Criterion C. The availability of data was often a problem for this group. Fungi The list of 33 fungi species prepared by the European Committee for the Conservation of Fungi (ECCF) were included in the list for Criterion A. Fungi are recorded as qualifying features in 20 IPAs under Criterion A. There are significant differences in the specialist disciplines and in the conservation needs of plants and fungi, so in each country the mycologists made the decision on whether there was sufficient data and if it was appropriate to identify priority plant and fungi sites together or separately. Again it was also possible to identify sites for fungi conservation using Criterion B and Criterion C. In Estonia several sites were identified primarily for the importance of their fungi. Lack of data was a significant problem for fungi in this project.A European red list for fungi would help to identify priority species for conservation, and specific recognition for fungi in European legislation and policies would also help in their conservation. Algae Algae are poorly represented in the project, primarily because of the lack of data and the under-representation of algal species on national and regional conservation lists.The Bern Convention lists 12 algae species, although none of these occurred in the partner countries, and none are recognised in the EU Habitats Directive. However in Estonia, three sites have been proposed as IPAs entirely for their marine algae species, under Criterion B.A European red list for algae would also help to prioritise conservation action for this group. Methodology challenges: Putting theory into practice is always a challenging experience and much valuable information has been gained in the process of implementing the seven national projects and in other pilot projects.These experiences will be used to refine the methodology and prepare guidance information for new countries. The most common methodological challenges are: • Lack of recent and accessible data for species and habitats • Lack of red lists at the national and regional level • Deciding on the number and area of IPAs in each country • Defining practical boundaries Open methodological discussions among specialists, and transparency in site selection have been strong points of this project.The reasons for identifying sites as IPAs are made available to all, and with the rigorous selection of species and habitats under the criteria there can be no doubt about the importance of these sites. References Anderson, 2002 Identifying Important Plant Areas in Europe: A Site Selection Manual and a Guide to developing criteria in other parts of the world. Evans, S., Marren, P. & Harper, M., 2002, Important Fungus Areas: a provisional assessment of the best sites for fungi in the United Kingdom. Plantlife,Association of British Fungus Groups, British Mycological Society. Palmer, M., & Smart, J., 2001, Important Plant Areas in Europe: Guidelines for the Selection of Important Plant Areas in Europe. Planta Europa & Plantlife. Parmasto, E., Perini, C., & Rahko,T., 2004, Attempts to introduce fungi into nature conservation activities (Presentation: Planta Europa IV Conference,Valencia (www.nerium.net)) Plantlife International, 2003 Technical Report from 7 national IPA workshops in Central and Eastern Europe. (www.plantlife.org.uk) Plantlife International, 2003 Report from IPA CEE Regional Workshop in Bratislava, November 2003 (www.plantlife.org.uk) Planta Europa 1995, Proceedings of the First European Conference on the Conservation of Wild Plants, Hyères, France, 2-8 September 1995 (Ed. John Newton). Plantlife Planta Europa 1998, Second European Conference on the Conservation of Wild Plants, 9-14th June 1998, Uppsala, Sweden. (Ed. Hugh Synge & John Akeroyd) Swedish Threatened Species Unit & Plantlife Planta Europa 2001, Third European Conference on the Conservation of Wild Plants, 23-28 June 2001, Pruhonice, the Czech Republic: Developing a Plant Conservation Strategy for Europe. Czech Agency for Nature Conservation & Landscape Protection, Planta Europa, the Council of Europe. Stewart, N. F. 2004, Important Stonewort Areas, An assessment of the best areas for stoneworts in the United Kingdom. Plantlife International, Salisbury, U.K. 19
Page 1 and 2: IMPORTANT PLANT AREAS IN CENTRAL AN
Page 3 and 4: Acknowledgements Academy of Science
Page 5 and 6: Contents BRANO MOLNAR Contents Exec
Page 7 and 8: Executive Summary Executive Summary
Page 9 and 10: Executive Summary Recommendations:
Page 11 and 12: Introduction MONICA SARBU DANKA PET
Page 13 and 14: Introduction Transparency is one of
Page 15 and 16: Introduction DANA TURONOVA Threats
Page 17: Methodology BRANO MOLNAR BRANO MOLN
Page 21 and 22: Methodology IPA site selection crit
Page 23 and 24: IPA database The online IPA databas
Page 25 and 26: Summary of IPA data 149 threatened
Page 27 and 28: Summary of IPA data IPAs and Key Bi
Page 29 and 30: Summary of IPA data Damaging forest
Page 31 and 32: Summary of IPA data IPAs and land u
Page 33 and 34: Summary of IPA data Number of IPAs
Page 35 and 36: Belarus Methodology summary Criteri
Page 37 and 38: Belarus OLEG MASLOVSKY Recommendati
Page 39 and 40: Czech Republic Criteria lists Crite
Page 41 and 42: Czech Republic Qualifying criteria
Page 43 and 44: Estonia Estonia By Mart Külvik, An
Page 45 and 46: Estonia Apart from nature conservat
Page 47 and 48: Poland Poland By Zbigniew Mirek Pol
Page 49 and 50: Poland Habitats and land uses No. o
Page 51 and 52: Romania Romania By Anca Sârbu Roma
Page 53 and 54: Romania Habitats and land use: No.
Page 55 and 56: Romania ANCA SARBU References: Jala
Page 57 and 58: Russia JONATHAN RUDGE Ongoing work
Page 59 and 60: Slovakia Methodology summary Criter
Page 61 and 62: Slovakia Of the 154 IPAs in Slovaki
Page 63 and 64: Slovenia Slovenia By Nejc Jogan Slo
Page 65 and 66: Slovenia Qualifying criteria for IP
Page 67 and 68: IPAs in South East Europe IPAs in s
Page 69 and 70:
Bulgaria PETKO TSVETKOV Criteria an
Page 71 and 72:
Croatia TONI NIKOLIC Criteria and m
Page 73 and 74:
Macedonia Criteria and methodology
Page 75 and 76:
Serbia and Montenegro DANKA PETROVI
Page 77 and 78:
Serbia and Montenegro Current IPA s
Page 79 and 80:
IPA Projects in other countries AND
Page 81 and 82:
Habitats and land uses ANCA SARBU
Page 83 and 84:
Habitats and land uses BRANO MONLAR
Page 85 and 86:
Habitats and land uses IPAs and for
Page 87 and 88:
Habitats and land uses Sustainable
Page 89 and 90:
Existing legislation & programmes I
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Contacts Contacts Plantlife Interna
show all

important plant areas in central and eastern europe - Plantlife

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?