Transcript Biogeographic seminars in the countries of EU 10

An overview on Biogeographic Seminars in the
countries of EU 10, the Pannonian region and
Hungary
CEEWEB Policy office
Hungary
http://www.ceeweb.org/
Ildikó Arany, Natura 2000 coordinator
[email protected]
www.ceeweb.org
• May 1 2004: 10 new Eu member states
• Obligation to submit the National Lists of proposed
Sites of Community Interest
• Biogeographic Seminars for each regions
www.ceeweb.org
Alpine:
30-31 May, 2005,
Slovenia
Slovenia, Slovakia,
Poland
www.ceeweb.org
Pannonian:
26-27 September,
2005, Sarród,
Hungary
Hungary, Slovakia,
Czech Republic
www.ceeweb.org
Continental:
26-28 April, 2006,
Darova, Czech
Republic
Poland, Czech
Republic, Slovenia
Additional seminar
for Poland in the
future
www.ceeweb.org
Boreal:
5-7 December, 2005,
Lilaste, Latvia
Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania
www.ceeweb.org
Mediterranean:
„mini-seminar”
Cyprus and Malta
6th December 2006,
Brussels
www.ceeweb.org
Participation in the Biogeographic Seminars
European Commission
European Topic Centre
Official delegation of the national
governments
Independent experts
Land users’ organisations
Observers
NGOs
www.ceeweb.org
NGO participation in the Biogeographic
Seminars is coordinated by the European
Habitats Forum
•Network of European nature conservation NGO networks
committed to the conservation, restoration and sustainable
use of habitats and species in Europe
• Possibility to meet with DG Environment regularly
•Support the implementation of (among others) the EU
Habitats and Birds Directives
• Coordination of NGO representation and participation on
biogeographic seminars
www.ceeweb.org
Role of CEEWEB
• Mandate from EHF for NGO biogeographic secretariat for
EU 10
• Connection between regional NGOs and EHF, DG
Environment, European Topic Centre
• Preparation work for NGOs
www.ceeweb.org
Concept (together with WWF)
• Distributing
Information (booklet)
• Preparatory meetings in the biogeographic
regions for NGO representatives from the
region
www.ceeweb.org
• clarify and understand the biogeographic seminar
process, how to be effective
• review existing information and data, National
Lists and Shadow Lists
•clarify and agree preparations at national and
regional levels
•try out how the Seminar will happen
•agree on and check modalities for the Seminar
(nomination, registration, observers, feed back)
www.ceeweb.org
Pannonian Biogeographical Seminar from NGO point
of view
26-27 September 2005.
Sarrod, Fertő-Hanság National Park
(Neusiedlersee)
Hungary
www.ceeweb.org
NGO meetings:
• 1st meeting: 13. April 2005, Budapest, CEEWEB Office
• participants:
Arnika (Czech Rep.)
Daphne (Slovakia)
Planta Europa
BROZ (Slovakia)
Birdlife Hungary
WWF Hungary
Eötvös Loránd University of Science (Hungary)
Ecological Isnstitute for the Sustainable Development
(Hungary)
WWF Austria
CEEWEB
www.ceeweb.org
NGO meetings:
• 2nd meeting: 07-08 September 2005, Budapest, CEEWEB
Office
• participants:
WWF Austria
Veronica (Czech Republic)
Latvian Fund for Nature
Milvus Group (Romania)
ONG Ecotur (Romania)
WWF Hungary
Birdlife Hungary
CEEWEB
www.ceeweb.org
NGO participants in the seminar
• Three official NGO representatives:
 Mojmir Vlasin (Veronica) from the Czech Republic,
 Viktória Kavrán (WWF Hungary) from Hungary
 Jan Seffer (Daphne) from Slovakia
• Two NGO observers:
 Angela Curtean-Banaduc (ONG Ecotur, Sibiu) from
Romania
 Pranas Mierauskas (Lithuanian Fund for Nature) from
Lithuania
www.ceeweb.org
NGO preparation for the seminar in Hungary
• NGOs’ role in site selection: SPAs: BirdLife Hungary, pSCIs:
MoE, NGOs reactive role
• Data collection from scientific publications, NGOs,
universities, research institutes, NPs (many overlapping with
data sources of MoE)
• Using results of ETC pre-evaluation is crucial
• Data synthesis, short comments for each species and
habitats
www.ceeweb.org
Phases of the seminar
1. General questions
 To clarify methodology and rules of decisions
2. Reference Lists
 To decide, which hab & spec are relevant
3. Sufficiency/Insufficiency
 quantity/quality/coherence of sites
 more investigations or revision of proposals
www.ceeweb.org
General issues
• Shape and size of pSCIs for vertebrate animals, especially
for bats and large carnivores
• Age of records
• Fragmentation of sites
www.ceeweb.org
General issues
• Taxonomic problem of species groups
• Question of site boundaries
• Deleting species near ectinction from the Reference List
www.ceeweb.org
Pre-evaluation and sum-up by the European Topic
Centre
• Backup material of the Hungarian authority was fairly good.
• Preparedness of NGOs was acknowledged.
www.ceeweb.org
Evaluation of Reference Lists and sufficiency of
National Lists
• Hungary:
 Most of the NGO proposals were accepted (decision
insufficiency or scientific reserve).
 Military areas were problematic in Hungary
 Forests under-represented
 North-East Hungary underrepresented (mainly forests)
www.ceeweb.org
To be continued – decisions about future bilateral
negotiations
• Hungary was to send its revised proposal (improved NL) by
June 2006 to the Commission (not happened so far)
• NGOs would like to be involved in the bilateral negotiations
by lobbying both towards the governments and the
Commission / European Topic Centre, by sending their list
of accessory proposed sites.
• No official agreement on NGO contribution
www.ceeweb.org
Thank you for your attention
www.ceeweb.org