important plant areas in central and eastern europe - Plantlife

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Section 4 Protection and management of IPAs IPAs have been identified both on protected and currently unprotected land.The following table illustrates the number of IPAs that are currently in protected areas. However, there are many different levels of protection, and legal protection does not necessarily mean that the specific management requirements of plants and habitats are addressed. Data are being collected on the level of management at IPAs and these will be used to prioritise any future action.Where appropriate IPAs that are not currently protected will be proposed as protected areas or proposed for inclusion in conservation management schemes. Number of IPAs with existing protection (whole site or partial) Unprotected Total no. High level Lower level European International protected national national recognition recognition of (all or protection protection of IPAs IPAs (not part) of IPAs of IPAs (SAC & SPA necessarily protected) protected) Belarus 2 8 4 4 Not Ramsar (2) applicable Biosphere Reserve (1) Czech 7 68 66 17 SAC (68) Ramsar (15) Republic Emerald (27) Biosphere Reserve (3) Estonia 5 103 5 67 SAC (98) Ramsar (18) SPA (51) Biosphere Reserve (1) Poland 19 97 59 – SAC (67) Ramsar (3) SPA (51) Biosphere Reserve (1) Romania 66 210 182 6 Not Ramsar (22) applicable Biosphere Reserve (2) Slovakia 36 118 79 76 SAC (121) Ramsar (16) SPA (78) Biosphere Reserve (5) Slovenia 35 22 1 27 SAC (45) Ramsar (2) (20 of these Biosphere proposed for Reserve (1) protection) [Higher level protection are designations such as National Park or Zapovednik depending on national systems; lower level protection are designations such as nature reserve or Zakaznik etc, based on national systems; some sites have overlapping types of national and regional protection; SAC = Special Area of Conservation under the EU Habitats Directive; SPA = Special Protection Areas under the EU Birds Directive] 26
Summary of IPA data IPAs and Key Biodiversity Areas Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and Prime Butterfly Areas (PBAs) like Important Plant Areas (IPAs) are not in themselves legal site designations.There is a significant overlap between these sites and any future conservation action and policy should recognise the high overall biodiversity value of these sites. Total IPAs IBAs which are also PBAs which are also IPAs (total IBAs) IPAs (total PBAs) Belarus 10 4 (19) 2 (7) Czech Republic 75 3 (16) 3 (15) Estonia 107 8 (52) 3 (7) Poland 109 31 (89) 4 (16) Romania 274 9 (44) 5 (16) Slovakia 154 14 (32) 9 (13) Slovenia 57 10 (14) 10 (20) Threats: threats to IPAs, either to the site as a whole or to qualifying species or habitats, were assessed for their extent, potential damage and timescale, to produce a threat rating of ‘high’,‘medium’ or ‘low’. Details of threat rating are given in the IPA Site Selection Manual for Europe (Anderson, 2002).The table and graph below highlight the factors threatening IPAs and their threat rating. Details of the threats breakdown for each country are given in Section 5. Key threats to IPAs Flooding, often made worse by changes in land use, presents a serious threat to many IPAs. 27
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: Summary of IPA data 149 threatened
Page 29 and 30: Summary of IPA data Damaging forest
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?