important plant areas in central and eastern europe - Plantlife

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Section 4 Key threats and threat status Threat No of IPAs high medium low unknown (% of all IPAs) Forestry 349 (44%) intensified forest management 212 53 75 50 34 afforestation 159 26 48 52 33 deforestation 130 27 38 52 13 Tourist/recreation 302 (38%) 85 97 95 25 development Agricultural intensification/ 232 (29%) expansion grazing 126 12 42 56 16 general 86 11 24 34 17 arable 71 9 16 33 13 horticulture 12 0 2 10 0 Abandonment/reduction of 217 (27%) 79 65 44 29 land management Development 197 (25%) transport/infrastructure 127 23 47 36 21 urban 115 22 36 47 10 industrial 62 10 21 24 7 Water (extraction/ 171 (21%) drainage/canalisation/ management) drainage 59 22 15 5 17 dredging/canalisation 32 7 13 7 5 management systems 27 6 3 8 10 Habitat fragmentation/ 165 (21%) 39 42 26 58 isolation Consequences of invasive 138 (17%) 20 38 44 36 plant species Eutrophication (nutrient 122 (15%) 18 46 39 19 pollution Burning of vegetation 94 (12%) 12 28 34 20 Unsustainable plant 81 (10%) 4 22 50 5 exploitation Extraction (minerals) 76 (10%) 14 13 25 24 Aquaculture/fisheries 71 (9%) 10 20 26 15 Construction of 54 (7%) 19 16 15 4 dam/dyke/barrage Consequences of invasive 47 (6%) 4 8 14 21 animal species Intrinsic species factors 47 (6%) 2 10 18 17 (slow growth etc) Extraction (peat) 31 (4%) 3 4 16 8 28
Summary of IPA data Damaging forestry practises, which include intensified forest management, afforestation and deforestation, threaten almost half of IPAs.The threat to IPAs from invasive species also comes in part from exotic trees species that take over existing forest habitats. Protection of forest IPAs and control of damaging forestry practices must be a high priority for future conservation action at IPAs. Tourism and recreation development is the second most widespread threat to IPAs.The threat comes not only from facilities and infrastructure but also from exceeding carrying capacity on nature trails and paths.Tourism is a powerful tool for raising awareness about nature and conservation, but needs to be developed with local land managers and specialists to prevent the destruction of priority sites. Agricultural intensification or expansion (grazing, mixed agriculture and arable) threatens almost one third of IPAs. Land abandonment affects over a quarter of IPAs. Rare grassland habitats are particularly vulnerable to abandonment of grazing or mowing regimes.Agri-environment schemes and Rural Development Programmes have the potential to save both important grassland habitats and the local communities that maintain them, if local, national and EU policy makers support and recognise the importance of a healthy, thriving countryside. Transport and urban development threaten one quarter of priority plant sites. National and EU transport planners and funders have the necessary information to avoid destroying priority sites yet even some Natura 2000 sites with a high level of protection are threatened by transport projects.The EU in particular has a responsibility to ensure that structural funds used for transport networks such as TEN-T do not destroy priority sites and contradict its commitments to biodiversity conservation. A high number of IPAs are threatened by damaging water management practices such as drainage, canalisation, and extraction.Wetlands, including peatlands, are one of the most threatened and rapidly disappearing habitats in Europe.A significant number of IPAs are also threatened by eutrophication or nutrient pollution, which often results from agricultural or industrial discharge into water systems. Damage to wetland ecosystems destroys not only the wetland sites themselves but also the many other habitats which rely on these ecosystems.The EU Water Framework Directive can be used to prevent water pollution and also to maintain the ecological status of important wetland sites. Ownership and land use Almost half of IPAs are owned by state organisations (state 364 (46%), municipal 24 (3%), military 7 (1%)). Many IPAs are also privately owned (private 187 (23%), religious groups 8 (1%)), and 69 (9%) are communally owned. 16 (2%) are owned by conservation organisations, and just over 10% of IPAs have mixed ownership or the ownership is unknown. 29
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 and 26: Summary of IPA data 149 threatened
Page 27: Summary of IPA data IPAs and Key Bi
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?