1 / 40

NATURA 2000 implementation in Bulgaria

This article discusses the implementation of the Natura 2000 network in Bulgaria, including field inventories, designation of pSCIs and pSPAs, and the political process involved. The article also highlights the challenges and achievements during the implementation process.

drury
Download Presentation

NATURA 2000 implementation in Bulgaria

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NATURA 2000 implementation in Bulgaria Andrey Kovatchev Natura 2000 Expert, BALKANI Wildlife Society, Bulgaria

  2. 2002 - 2004 DEPA project- Green Balkans Federation NGOin cooperation with the Ministry of Environment and Waters Budget: 500 000 Euro Non systematic approach – field inventories of preliminary identified territories (CORINE Biotops Sites, protected areas, expert opinion) on 12.5% of the countries territory Lack of division between pSCIs and pSPAs. At the end – based on best expert opinion identified as potential NATURA 2000 sites on 34% of the countries territory. 16 % of them studied.

  3. Other territories Non protected territories National Parks Natural Reserves 1994 - 1996 Nature Parks CORINE Biotops project

  4. Map of potential NATURA 2000 sites at the end of 2004 16% of the country’s territory studied by the end of 2004. Jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhkkkk hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh 34% of the country’s territory coverage of all potential sites.

  5. 2005 - 2006 Division of work on the designation of pSCIs and pSPAs Projects financed by Bulgarian Government: • for inventory of pSCIs and coordination of this action with other projects: Green Balkans Federation NGO, budget: 700 000 EURO • for inventory of pSPAs and coordination of this action with other projects: Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds (BirdLife Bulgaria), budget: 150 000 EURO

  6. 2005 - 2006 Contribution of other projects with international financing – overall more than2 500 000 EURO • Projectof NGO coalition “NATURA 2000 in Bulgaria – public contribution”, PIN MATRA • Projects of WWF DCP in Danube basin • GEFproject “Conservation of globally important biodiversity in the Rhodope landscape” • Project “Prime Butterfly Areas” of Butterfly Conservation Europe (Wageningen) and National Natural History Museum, PIN MATRAprogram • Projectof Forestry Institute of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences“Inventory and strategy for protection of old growth forests in Bulgaria”, PIN MATRA • Development of Brown bear action plan, coordinated by BALKANI Wildlife Society, PIN MATRA and BBI MATRA • Development of Chamois Action Plan: 2007 -2016, implemented byBulgarian Biodiversity Foundation • Project of Bulgarian Academy of Sciences on new Bulgarian Red Data Book • A number of smaller projects

  7. 2005 - 2006 • Till October 2006 - submitted scientific proposals • for pSCIs covering 35% of country’s land territory • October –November 2006 - working group initiated by NGOs: • Participants – NGOs, key experts, Ministry of Environment and Waters, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry • Tasks: to complete sufficient scientific list of pSCIs according to the criteria of Stage 2 • Results – Optimization of submitted documentation to 225 sites occupying 28,6 % of country’s land territory

  8. 2005 - 2006 Comparison - version 20 October (35%) and version 20 November (28,6%) NGOs submitted proposals - Green Balkans Federation, BALKANI Wildlife Society, WWF – DCP Bulgaria, Center for Environmental Information and Education, Association of Parks

  9. hhhhhhhhhhhhhgggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhbbbbbbbbbbbbhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhgggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhbbbbbbbbbbbbhhhhhhhhhhhh 2005 - 2006 hhhhhhhhhhhhhgggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhbbbbbbbbbbbbhhhhhhhhhhhh NGOs submitted proposals - Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds

  10. 2007 Political process of designation of NATURA 2000 network • Delayed decision of the Council of Ministers • The decision on list of pSCIs and pSPAs is made on 15 February 2007 – one and a half months after EU accession date • The decision is made available to public on 5 March 2007. • The decision is to cut both list of sites leading to drastic insufficiencies in both lists. • The decision is justified on purely economic grounds. It stipulates future exclusion from borders of SPAs and SACs of all areas with development demands and spatial plans appeared to date of issuing of designation order.

  11. List of SPAs – excluded (red) and adopted (green)

  12. List of pSCIs – excluded (red) and adopted (green)

  13. 2007 Every week protests for NATURA 2000 in front of the Council of Ministers Soap opera Coins to pay EU sanctions Species left outside of NATURA 2000 Political umbrella…

  14. 2007 After 1 year of an NGO campaign almost all proposed sites adopted in December 2007 and submitted in EU – SPAs and pSCIs • Number of other street protest for protection of NATURA sites and against different threats • Campaign within government – letters, position papers, meetings with Ministers • Written statements and submission in Brussels, meetings with representatives of EU Commission and with the European Commissioner Stavros Dimas (April 2007)(with support of international networks)‏ - network so week that even biogeographical seminar could not be started

  15. hhhh Overlapping between pSCIs (28,6) and SPAs (23,4)–together 34,5% hhhhhhhhhhhhhgggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhh

  16. 2007 Political process of designation of NATURA 2000 network • Final differences – scientific proposal – political decision (despite 1 year delay) • pSCIs – missing site “Rila – buffer” – question lefto to be decided by the biogeographical seminars • SPAs – significantly reduced sites Pirin, Rila, Central Balkan, Rhodopi Zapadni and Kaliakra. Started in 2007 infringement procedure by the European Commission. In 2010 with the exception of Kaliakra (still pending) all sites finally designated in near original scientific borders by the Government in order to prevent appeal in the Court of justice.

  17. Biogeographical seminar • Habitats Directive: • Art. 4 (1) and AnnexIII Stage 1- National list (pSCIs) • Art. 4 (2) and AnnexIII Stage 2 – Assessment by the Commission in agreement with Member State (biogeographic seminars followed by bilateral negotiations) • Formal requirement – to select SCIs from a larger list of pSCIs (criteria in Stage 1 define broader set of zones) • Reality during biogeographical seminars – to assess insufficiencies in the official Member state proposals and identify places for upgrading with new sites to achieve coherence

  18. Biogeographical seminar • Preparation - the European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity (ETC/BD) (important to be lobbied by the NGOs) • official advisory scientific body, participating at the seminar • Preliminary technical and scientific analysis of the pSCIs • Preparation of the official documentation prior the seminars: • a. The reference lists for each biogeographical region • b. The Natura 2000 standard data forms of all the sites proposed by the Member States for the biogeographical region • c. Maps of sites proposed - each habitat/species per biogeographicalregion • d. A summary table - each habitat/species per biogeographical region , • - the number of sites proposed by each Member States • - the coverage (indicated by %) • - Coherence analyses, first preliminary conclusions and comments

  19. Biogeographical seminar • Criteria stage 2 for selecting SCIs (Annex III Habitats Directive)- • relative national value • migration routes of species • cross-border ecosystem (internal Community frontiers) • total area of the site • number of habitats and species in the site • global ecological value (unique aspect of its features) of the site

  20. Biogeographical seminar • Stage 2 - criteria in Hab. 97/2 rev. 4 18/11/97 • “Pre-selection” phase 20-60% Rule (biogeographical region) – applied during the seminar. • The habitats/species which occurrence is covered to an extent: • higher than 60% are considered, in principle, as sufficiently represented • lower than 20% are considered, in principle, as insufficiently represented • between 20% and 60% are the subject of a case-by-case analysis • For priority, rare, endangered species and habitats lowest required threshold for coverage in the region is 60%!

  21. Biogeographical seminar • Hab. 97/2 rev. 4 18/11/97 • “Case by case "phase (biogeographical region) • “Priority” criterion - at least one priority habitat or species • “Uniqueness” criterion - containing the only significant example of a non priority habitat or species • “High-quality” criterion - having a high national value for at least one non-priority habitat or species • “High-diversity” criterion - containing a significant number of non-priority habitats and/or species • “Network coherence” criterion - playing a role to ensure the coherence (as well structural as functional) of the Natura 2000 Network - migration routes, ecological corridors, “relic” localisations, cross-border ecosystems, bordering a major protected area, restoration measures for at least one priority habitat or species • “Safeguard clause” criterion – safeguarding sufficient coverage

  22. Biogeographical seminar • The seminar • Theseminars discuss • reference lists per biogeographical regions • the sufficiency of each species and habitat, according to the agreed reference lists separately for each biogeographicalregion

  23. Biogeographical seminar • Criteria used during the biogeographical seminar • Simplified and reversed criteria of Hab. 97/2 rev. 4 18/11/97 to answer the question - is the submitted list of pSCIssufficient? • “Pre-selection” criterion 20-60% widely used (low coverage) • Geographical insufficiency/gap – missing sites in certain area with proven distribution or at the border of natural distribution • Missing locality – for rare species with few localities • Missing best/representative locality or several best/representative localities • Missing locality/site playing role of stepping stone bio-corridor – ecological coherence (site should host species permanently in order to be accepted) • Not presented important variation (subtype, subspecies)

  24. Biogeographical seminar • Possible decisions on sufficiency – habitats/species review • SUF (Sufficient) No further sites needed • IN MAJ (Insufficient major) No sites proposed at present. A major effort to designatesites is needed. • IN MOD (Insufficient moderate). One or a number of additional sites (or maybe extensionto sites) required. • IN MOD GEO - means that additional site(s) are required in certain region to eliminate geographical gap. • IN MIN (Insufficient minor)- habitat/species should be noted on sites already proposed for other habitats/species • CD (Correction of data) Data needs to be corrected/completed/deleted • Sci Res (Scientific reserve) A definite conclusion is not possible: need to investigate/clarify a scientific issue

  25. Biogeographical seminar • Participants • European Commission • ETC/BD • Independent experts invited by the Commission • National Governments and their experts • NGOs (through Habitats Forum) • Observers • Decisions – consensus leaded by the chairmen from the Commission, input from the ETC/BD and independent experts crucial (lobby them!!)

  26. Biogeographical seminar • NGOs - how to prepare prior seminars • Ensure good unofficial cooperation scientists/NGOs (scientists are not always in a position to say freely everything, but NGOs could be) • Establish good communication with the Commission and ETC/BD on the topic as soon as possible • Choose as fast as possible your representatives (knowledgable and trustable), 1-3 persons for the seminar through consensus • Lobby through European Habitats Forum members (WWF-European Policy Office, CEEWEB, BirdLife) and directly through the Commission to receive invitation for these persons • Prepare alternative NGOs assessments, shadow lists and reports and distribute them as early as possible

  27. Biogeographical seminar • NGOs - how to prepare prior seminars • Make critical analyses of the Governmental proposal • b. Revise reference lists – they should be truly presented in the biogeographical region/ or missing species/habitats • c. For every or for most important habitat and species from the reference list: • make an assessment of coverage and coherence of the official list • try to propose a shadow list of sites • prepare a report with maps (shadow list, localities of the species, habitats etc) and submit it to the secretariat of the convention and the ETC prior the seminar (as early as possible)

  28. Biogeographical seminar • NGO’s shadow lists – could be a • Complicated map - containing detailed NATURA 2000 data base and border of sites (in some countries NGOs developed official proposals) • Simplified map - polygons (GIS or even GOOGLE EARTH) accompanied with a simple EXCEL table with a referent list of species and habitats for each polygon • Or even a map of localities for particular species and habitats • The shadow list is our demand for enlarging the network – there was no case in other EU countries NGOs to be satisfied by the Governmental proposal.

  29. Biogeographical seminar • NGOs assessment of coverage • Number of localities covered • % of distribution - simple overlapping with UTM grids or similar simplified methods • Maps of distribution • Deductive models of suitable habitats (for species) using free GIS layers

  30. 2006-2007 Biogeographical seminar – Bulgarian case • Preparation by NGOs • Mapping species and habitats in 2006 and 2007 • Forest habitats – full forestry inventory (1: 5 000 scale) and assessment of the type of habitat by modeling of forestry data • Grasslands – partial inventory and modeling in scale 1:100 000 (CORINE Land Cover based) • Species – distributional data available for most of the species (presence/absence) and deductive models of suitable habitats developed in scale 1:100 000 (problems – old data or scarce data especially for invertebrates) • In 2007 critical reassessment of all network on systematic basis – on the base of developed GIS maps!!

  31. 2008 Biogeographical seminar – Bulgarian case • The documentation prepared by the NGOs in 2008 • Analyses of coverage made for most of species and habitats • b. A report for 23 species and 9 habitats for which network was regarded to be insufficient for biogeographical region concerned. Maps and GIS accompanied every individual report. • c. Reports sent to the ETC in 10 April 2008, 2 months prior to the seminar – included in the preliminary official analyses of the ETC • d. BG – RO NGO preparation meeting in the end of April 2008. • e. Biogeographical seminars for BG and RO – June 2008. NGO participation – 3 experts (through European Habitats Forum)

  32. 2008 Biogeographical seminar – Bulgarian case Continental region - coverage within the official list of sites: 54.5% NGO assessment of sufficiency: Insufficient Moderate Low coverage: priority habitat with less than 60% coverage in the region. Geographical coherence: There are no sites in the area of Surnena Sredna Gora Mountain.

  33. 2008 Biogeographical seminar – Bulgarian case Alpine region - coverage within the official list of sites: 39% NGO assessment of sufficiency: Insufficient Moderate Low coverage: glacial relict, endangered species Geographical coherence: There are no sites in the area of Rila Mountain (missing site Rila – buffer).

  34. 2008 Biogeographical seminar – Bulgarian case Alpine region - coverage within the official list of sites: 67,25%. NGO assessment of sufficiency: Insufficient Moderate • Justification of the NGO assessment • Missing sites of high quality: Missing high quality site Rila buffer • Geographical coherence: Low coverage of the species in Rila Mountain region – only about 30 % of the population is covered by the submitted sites. Almost all summer habitats of the species in the Mountain are outside the protection as these sites are mostly encompassing alpine belt. • Ecological coherence: Missing site "providing bio-corridor habitats

  35. 2008 Biogeographical seminar – Bulgarian case Continental and Alpine regions - coverage within the official list of sites: 49% NGO assessment of sufficiency: Insufficient Moderate • Geographical coherence: edge of distribution of the species along the Struma and Mesta Rivers. Lack of pSCIs in Surnena Sredna Gora Mountain. • Ecological coherence: stepping stones along river valley of Struma River

  36. 2008 Biogeographical seminar – Bulgarian case Example of NGO’s BG-RO cross-border analyses (sent to the ETC and Commission in May 2008) – map of sites

  37. 2008 Biogeographical seminar – Bulgarian case Example of NGO’s BG-RO cross-border analyses (sent to the ETC and Commission in May 2008) – list of species in cross - border sites

  38. 2008 Biogeographical seminar – Bulgarian case Results – despite high % of the network number of moderate and minor insufficiencies and correction of data, as well as scientific reserves State of progress in reaching sufficiency for the Habitat Directive Annex I habitats and Annex II species, June 2008

  39. 2008 Biogeographical seminar – Bulgarian case December 2008 DG Env. - decision for adoption BG sites as SCIs

  40. Thank you for your attention Andrey Kovatchev BALKANI Wildlife Society kovatchev6@gmail.com www.balkani.org

More Related