important plant areas in central and eastern europe - hirc.botanic.hr ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Section 7ReferencesBirdlife International, (www.birdlife.organd www.birdlifecapcampaign.org)2004, Birdlife International’s vision for ruralEurope. 2002, CAP Reform Proposals: a tenpoint plan for radical reform of the CAP.European Commission CAP Reformwebsite,(www.europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/capreform)European Environment Agency agriculturesection, (www.themes.eea.eu.int/Sectors_and_activities/agriculture)Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and FoodQuality,The Netherlands, 2005, LandAbandonment, Biodiversity and theCommon Agricultural Policy (CAP)IPAs and Agricultural PolicyContextThe negative effects on plant diversity of the intensive, high production farming of theEU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) have been acknowledged for many years. Europeis now entering a transition period where much of the high nature value farmland of theCEE will be managed under the EU CAP system.Although there have been somereforms of the system, there is still a long way to go to ensure that socio-economic andbiodiversity needs are balanced with agricultural production to ensure a healthy andsustainable rural Europe.There is an urgent need to ensure that the biodiversity-rich farmlands and the ruralcommunities of CEE are not devalued in the same way as those of western Europe.Reform of the EU CAPThe BirdLife International review of EU Rural Development policy highlights theinconsistencies of the system proposed in the reform of 2003.The proposed systemseparates agricultural production from rural communities, has no requirement fortargeted, objective-lead agri-environment schemes, and has a complex, overlappingsystem of payments which do not cover the true costs of delivering the EU’scommitment to halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010.50% of the EU budget is spent on agriculture. Rural Development takes only 10% of thattotal budget.Agri-environment schemes are only one part of many different areascompeting for Rural Development funding.The schemes are funded using nationallydefined criteria, which are not required to include conservation of biodiversity, nor arethey required to meet clear objectives, or to provide monitoring indicators of theirsuccess in conserving biodiversity.IPAs and agriculture444 IPAs (56%) contain threatened grassland habitats, and 296 IPAs (37%) containpriority threatened grassland habitats.232 IPAs (29%) are threatened by agricultural intensification (grazing, arable, mixed,horticultural)217 IPAs (27%) are threatened by land abandonmentBRANO MOLNARGrasslands are home to much of Europe’sspecies diversity. High Nature Value areasshould be brought under biodiversitysensitive management and targeted forfunding.98
Existing legislation & programmesIPAs and Forest PolicyContextSpecific forest protection and management legislation is only present at the nationallevel in Europe. There is no common forestry policy in the EU with binding legalcommitments, although forest conservation measures are included in the EU BiodiversityStrategy including the Natura 2000 network of sites. The Ministerial Conference for theProtection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) was established in 1990. It provides a policyframework for the sustainable management of forests and incorporates the aims of themajor forest conservation initiatives such as the CBD. However, the recommendationsare voluntary.The protection of Europe’s old growth forests and rare forest habitats is possiblethrough national legislation, protected area networks and forest certification schemes.However many valuable forest areas are under threat from damaging management andintensive logging.ReferencesEuropean Commission, 2004, Natura 2000and forests – “Challenges andopportunities”– interpretation guide.Forest Stewardship Council (www.fsc.org)Ministerial Conference on the Protectionof Forests in Europe1st, 1990, Strasbourg Conference2nd, 1993 Helsinki Conference3rd, 1997 Lisbon Conference4th, 2003 Vienna ConferenceThe area of forest in Europe is increasing although there are many conservationconcerns about some afforestation practices.• The replacement of species rich, old growth forest with new plantations• The preference for exotic and coniferous species over indigenous and deciduousspecies• The afforestation of former grassland areasIPAs and forests455 IPAs (57%) contain threatened forest habitats, 353 (44%) contain prioritythreatened forest habitats.In total, 349 IPAs (44%) are threatened by poor forestry practices.212 IPAs (27%) threatened by intensified forest management.159 IPAs (20%) threatened by afforestation.130 IPAs (16%) threatened by deforestation.Almost half of IPAs are threatened bypoor forestry practices.99
Page 1 and 2:
IMPORTANTPLANT AREAS INCENTRAL ANDE
Page 3 and 4:
AcknowledgementsAcademy of Sciences
Page 5 and 6:
ContentsBRANO MOLNARContentsExecuti
Page 7 and 8:
Executive SummaryExecutive SummaryT
Page 9 and 10:
Executive SummaryRecommendations:IP
Page 11 and 12:
IntroductionMONICA SARBUDANKA PETRO
Page 13 and 14:
IntroductionTransparency is one of
Page 15 and 16:
IntroductionDANA TURONOVAThreats to
Page 17 and 18:
MethodologyBRANO MOLNARBRANO MOLNAR
Page 19 and 20:
MethodologyLichensThere were 34 lic
Page 21 and 22:
MethodologyIPA site selection crite
Page 23 and 24:
IPA databaseThe online IPA database
Page 25 and 26:
Summary of IPA data149 threatened s
Page 27 and 28:
Summary of IPA dataIPAs and Key Bio
Page 29 and 30:
Summary of IPA dataDamaging forestr
Page 31 and 32:
Summary of IPA dataIPAs and land us
Page 33 and 34:
Summary of IPA dataNumber of IPAs w
Page 35 and 36:
BelarusMethodology summaryCriteria
Page 37 and 38:
BelarusOLEG MASLOVSKYRecommendation
Page 39 and 40:
Czech RepublicCriteria listsCriteri
Page 41 and 42:
Czech RepublicQualifying criteria f
Page 43 and 44:
EstoniaEstoniaBy Mart Külvik, Anne
Page 45 and 46:
EstoniaApart from nature conservati
Page 47 and 48: PolandPolandBy Zbigniew MirekPoland
Page 49 and 50: PolandHabitats and land usesNo. ofI
Page 51 and 52: RomaniaRomaniaBy Anca SârbuRomania
Page 53 and 54: RomaniaHabitats and land use:No. of
Page 55 and 56: RomaniaANCA SARBUReferences:Jalas,
Page 57 and 58: RussiaJONATHAN RUDGEOngoing workBel
Page 59 and 60: SlovakiaMethodology summaryCriteria
Page 61 and 62: SlovakiaOf the 154 IPAs in Slovakia
Page 63 and 64: SloveniaSloveniaBy Nejc JoganSloven
Page 65 and 66: SloveniaQualifying criteria for IPA
Page 67 and 68: IPAs in South East EuropeIPAs in so
Page 69 and 70: BulgariaPETKO TSVETKOVCriteria and
Page 71 and 72: CroatiaTONI NIKOLICCriteria and met
Page 73 and 74: MacedoniaCriteria and methodologyCr
Page 75 and 76: Serbia and MontenegroDANKA PETROVI
Page 77 and 78: Serbia and MontenegroCurrent IPA st
Page 79 and 80: IPA Projects in other countriesANDR
Page 81 and 82: Habitats and land usesANCA SARBU ˘
Page 83 and 84: Habitats and land usesBRANO MONLART
Page 85 and 86: Habitats and land usesIPAs and fore
Page 87 and 88: Habitats and land usesSustainable p
Page 89 and 90: Existing legislation & programmesIP
Page 97: Existing legislation & programmesIP
Page 103 and 104: ContactsContactsPlantlife Internati
show all

important plant areas in central and eastern europe - hirc.botanic.hr ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?