important plant areas in central and eastern europe - Plantlife
important plant areas in central and eastern europe - Plantlife important plant areas in central and eastern europe - Plantlife
Section 4 Protection and management of IPAs IPAs have been identified both on protected and currently unprotected land.The following table illustrates the number of IPAs that are currently in protected areas. However, there are many different levels of protection, and legal protection does not necessarily mean that the specific management requirements of plants and habitats are addressed. Data are being collected on the level of management at IPAs and these will be used to prioritise any future action.Where appropriate IPAs that are not currently protected will be proposed as protected areas or proposed for inclusion in conservation management schemes. Number of IPAs with existing protection (whole site or partial) Unprotected Total no. High level Lower level European International protected national national recognition recognition of (all or protection protection of IPAs IPAs (not part) of IPAs of IPAs (SAC & SPA necessarily protected) protected) Belarus 2 8 4 4 Not Ramsar (2) applicable Biosphere Reserve (1) Czech 7 68 66 17 SAC (68) Ramsar (15) Republic Emerald (27) Biosphere Reserve (3) Estonia 5 103 5 67 SAC (98) Ramsar (18) SPA (51) Biosphere Reserve (1) Poland 19 97 59 – SAC (67) Ramsar (3) SPA (51) Biosphere Reserve (1) Romania 66 210 182 6 Not Ramsar (22) applicable Biosphere Reserve (2) Slovakia 36 118 79 76 SAC (121) Ramsar (16) SPA (78) Biosphere Reserve (5) Slovenia 35 22 1 27 SAC (45) Ramsar (2) (20 of these Biosphere proposed for Reserve (1) protection) [Higher level protection are designations such as National Park or Zapovednik depending on national systems; lower level protection are designations such as nature reserve or Zakaznik etc, based on national systems; some sites have overlapping types of national and regional protection; SAC = Special Area of Conservation under the EU Habitats Directive; SPA = Special Protection Areas under the EU Birds Directive] 26
Summary of IPA data IPAs and Key Biodiversity Areas Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and Prime Butterfly Areas (PBAs) like Important Plant Areas (IPAs) are not in themselves legal site designations.There is a significant overlap between these sites and any future conservation action and policy should recognise the high overall biodiversity value of these sites. Total IPAs IBAs which are also PBAs which are also IPAs (total IBAs) IPAs (total PBAs) Belarus 10 4 (19) 2 (7) Czech Republic 75 3 (16) 3 (15) Estonia 107 8 (52) 3 (7) Poland 109 31 (89) 4 (16) Romania 274 9 (44) 5 (16) Slovakia 154 14 (32) 9 (13) Slovenia 57 10 (14) 10 (20) Threats: threats to IPAs, either to the site as a whole or to qualifying species or habitats, were assessed for their extent, potential damage and timescale, to produce a threat rating of ‘high’,‘medium’ or ‘low’. Details of threat rating are given in the IPA Site Selection Manual for Europe (Anderson, 2002).The table and graph below highlight the factors threatening IPAs and their threat rating. Details of the threats breakdown for each country are given in Section 5. Key threats to IPAs Flooding, often made worse by changes in land use, presents a serious threat to many IPAs. 27
- 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 and 18: Methodology BRANO MOLNAR BRANO MOLN
- Page 19 and 20: Methodology Lichens There were 34 l
- Page 21 and 22: Methodology IPA site selection crit
- Page 23 and 24: IPA database The online IPA databas
- Page 25: Summary of IPA data 149 threatened
- 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
Section 4<br />
Protection <strong>and</strong> management of IPAs<br />
IPAs have been identified both on protected <strong>and</strong> currently unprotected l<strong>and</strong>.The follow<strong>in</strong>g<br />
table illustrates the number of IPAs that are currently <strong>in</strong> protected <strong>areas</strong>. However, there<br />
are many different levels of protection, <strong>and</strong> legal protection does not necessarily mean that<br />
the specific management requirements of <strong>plant</strong>s <strong>and</strong> habitats are addressed. Data are be<strong>in</strong>g<br />
collected on the level of management at IPAs <strong>and</strong> these will be used to prioritise any<br />
future action.Where appropriate IPAs that are not currently protected will be proposed as<br />
protected <strong>areas</strong> or proposed for <strong>in</strong>clusion <strong>in</strong> conservation management schemes.<br />
Number of IPAs with exist<strong>in</strong>g protection (whole site or partial)<br />
Unprotected Total no. High level Lower level European International<br />
protected national national recognition recognition of<br />
(all or protection protection of IPAs IPAs (not<br />
part) of IPAs of IPAs (SAC & SPA necessarily<br />
protected) protected)<br />
Belarus 2 8 4 4 Not Ramsar (2)<br />
applicable Biosphere<br />
Reserve (1)<br />
Czech 7 68 66 17 SAC (68) Ramsar (15)<br />
Republic<br />
Emerald (27) Biosphere<br />
Reserve (3)<br />
Estonia 5 103 5 67 SAC (98) Ramsar (18)<br />
SPA (51) Biosphere<br />
Reserve (1)<br />
Pol<strong>and</strong> 19 97 59 – SAC (67) Ramsar (3)<br />
SPA (51) Biosphere<br />
Reserve (1)<br />
Romania 66 210 182 6 Not Ramsar (22)<br />
applicable Biosphere<br />
Reserve (2)<br />
Slovakia 36 118 79 76 SAC (121) Ramsar (16)<br />
SPA (78) Biosphere<br />
Reserve (5)<br />
Slovenia 35 22 1 27 SAC (45) Ramsar (2)<br />
(20 of these Biosphere<br />
proposed for Reserve (1)<br />
protection)<br />
[Higher level protection are designations such as National Park or Zapovednik depend<strong>in</strong>g on national systems;<br />
lower level protection are designations such as nature reserve or Zakaznik etc, based on national systems; some<br />
sites have overlapp<strong>in</strong>g types of national <strong>and</strong> regional protection; SAC = Special Area of Conservation under the<br />
EU Habitats Directive; SPA = Special Protection Areas under the EU Birds Directive]<br />
26
Change language