1 / 24

An overview on Biogeographic Seminars in the countries of EU 10, the Pannonian region and Hungary

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 arany@ceeweb.org. May 1 2004: 10 new Eu member states

hubert
Download Presentation

An overview on Biogeographic Seminars in the countries of EU 10, the Pannonian region and Hungary

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. 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 arany@ceeweb.org

  2. 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

  3. Alpine: 30-31 May, 2005, Slovenia Slovenia, Slovakia, Poland

  4. Pannonian: 26-27 September, 2005, Sarród, Hungary Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic

  5. Continental: 26-28 April, 2006, Darova, Czech Republic Poland, Czech Republic, Slovenia Additional seminar for Poland in the future

  6. Boreal: 5-7 December, 2005, Lilaste, Latvia Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania

  7. Mediterranean: „mini-seminar” Cyprus and Malta 6th December 2006, Brussels

  8. Participation in the Biogeographic Seminars • European Commission • European Topic Centre • Official delegation of the national governments • Independent experts • Land users’ organisations • Observers • NGOs

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. Concept (together with WWF) Distributing Information (booklet) Preparatory meetings in the biogeographic regions for NGO representatives from the region

  12. 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)

  13. Pannonian Biogeographical Seminar from NGO point of view 26-27 September 2005. Sarrod, Fertő-Hanság National Park (Neusiedlersee) Hungary

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. Phases of the seminar • General questions • To clarify methodology and rules of decisions • Reference Lists • To decide, which hab & spec are relevant • Sufficiency/Insufficiency • quantity/quality/coherence of sites • more investigations or revision of proposals

  19. General issues • Shape and size of pSCIs for vertebrate animals, especially for bats and large carnivores • Age of records • Fragmentation of sites

  20. General issues • Taxonomic problem of species groups • Question of site boundaries • Deleting species near ectinction from the Reference List

  21. Pre-evaluation and sum-up by the European Topic Centre • Backup material ofthe Hungarian authority was fairly good. • Preparedness of NGOs was acknowledged.

  22. 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)

  23. To be continued – decisions about future bilateral negotiations • Hungarywas 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

  24. Thank you for your attention

More Related