| Natura 2000 Best Practices Estonia |
 |
|
Now, that the Natura 2000 site designation process is coming to an end in CEE countries more attention can be payed to the establishing the management framework for the network. According to the Habitats Directive, Member States "...shall establish the necessary conservation measures involving, if need be, appropriate management plans specifically designed for the sites or integrated into other development plans, and appropriate statutory, administrative or contractual measures which correspond to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types in Annex I and the species in Annex II present on the sites." It is a Member State responsibility to establish the most appropriate methodes and instuments to implement the provisions of the Birds and Habitats Directive. While there is some guidance given by the Commission on management the approaches taken by the MS will most likely be very different. Every site is different in its ecological characteristics and the socio-economic environment surroundig it. The management solutions will therefore be dependent on the circumstances, just as much as on the willingness and creativity of people who establish them.
CEEweb is now collecting BEST PARCTICE examples of MANAGEMENT of Natura 2000 from our region. The goal of collecting such examples is to create a database of good examples which than can be looked at by others and used in various ways.
The cases from Estonia are described below.
Karula national park, Estonia KARULA National Park is situated in the Põlva-Valga-Võru region of Estonia, in the southern part of the country. The site is designated as a SPA as well as SCI. Karula cultural landscapes form about one third of the national park. Nature co-existed here with human settlement and agricultural activities for many centuries and the maintenance of biodiversity values depends on the ongoing management of the landscape by man.
Thus the main management problems are related to the maintenance and recovery of semi-natural habitats – mostly grasslands. As the number of cattle has been falling everywhere in Estonia after the 1990s and agriculture was orientated more to large-scale production, the main threat to semi-natural grasslands is lack of management. semi-natural habitats are ecologically very valuable land types but their species richness disappears if they are overgrown with bushes and. Many meadow dependant bird, plant and insect species cannot survive the loss of suitable habitats. As the landscapes are hill-locked and very varying (slopes are alternating with little wetland areas between them) and the size of an average meadow is rather small, the management is not profitable by rule.
Various subsidies have been provided for conservation reasons. But the management subsidies for the following year are only contracted on short period during the spring. While signing the contract, farmers take responsibility to carry on management on contracted meadows. However, managing (i.e mowing and removing the hay) on alluvial and other humid meadows works are strictly dependant on the yearly weather conditions. It means that on wet springs the managing can be problematic or strongly delayed, sometimes obscuring other necessary works. So, signing the contract on humid meadows always includes an amount of uncertainty for farmers and therefore it is not very popular. Also managing small meadow patches or patches with restricted or bad access is by rule non-profitable and thus not attractive for farmers. Secondly, there is no possibility to pay to farmers which do specific management for nature conservation (e.g. raising the nesting density of farmland birds). Payments on Natura 2000 grassland are also too low compared to the real costs of the time-consuming and non-profitable grassland management. On the other hand payments for arable land and forest land on Natura 2000 area do not require any other input from land-owner than just doing the minimum, (from: Natura 2000 implementation; Fact sheet Estonia).
To better protect, preserve and manage semi-natural grasslands of Karula, the former administration of the national park decided that national subsidies only are not enough. Besides the specific management for nature conservation (e.g. raising the nesting density of farmland birds) also the restoration of already out-of-use meadows was work-consuming and expensive. Therefore the administration decided to apply for various European Funds to give a head start on taking unmanaged meadows back to use. The applications were mostly successful. Important factor in all the applications has been the cooperation with local NGOs and people. Between 2001-2004 a LIFE project for the protection of Natura 2000 habitats (mostly meadows) was implemented. There were two novel aspects for Estonia in this project: first, a personal protection obligation notice was sent to each one of the landowners within the boundaries of the national park. The notice included illustrated information about the conservation values situated in the land property. A normal, i.e. official procedure only sees that a very official, dry and not very explicit obligation notice is sent to landowners. The official obligation notice does not explain the values nor reasons to protect those values. Whereas on this case a personal approach was taken to explain the specific values related to every single property and thus bringing landowners closer to the conservation goals and to increase the knowledge of conservation values among locals. Secondly, a broad partnership was established for the project – including the ministry of agriculture, local municipalities and NGOs (Estonian Fund for Nature). The wide range of different partners enabled a better problem solving. As a follow-up to the LIFE project another project for ERDF was jointly applied for by the project partners, in order to restore 40 ha and manage 240 ha of humid grasslands. The implementation period was in 2006-2007. Again, a local NGO (Karula Hoiu Ühing) representing different local stakeholders and activists were strongly engaged in the project implementation. To fulfil the goal –– some special machinery for managing wet meadows was procured and acquisited for use to farmers.
Besides the actual nature conservation activities also trainings and info-days were organised with the most important result of bringing local community together. As a result of both large EU projects, many smaller projects were initiated by the local communities afterwards – also aiming to preserve Karula’s nature in one way or the other. For example surveys about the old settlement and land use patterns, also how the management practices have been developing have been carried out to collect and preserve the local history and thus ensure the sustainable management also for future (see more on the web-page www.khy.ee, unfortunately, mostly in Estonian). The lesson learnt from both projects was that a joint project carried out by various interest groups: environmental authorities, municipalities and local communities and NGOs enhance conservation results (rather than a project carried out strictly by conservationists or environmental authorities). On the one hand it increases trust, self-consciousness and identity of local NGOs and rural communities, while in the same time answering to the needs of nature conservation. Both projects serve as examples as for how to widen the perspectives of Natura 2000 from the pure conservation politics to wider integration of sustainable living and local community life. On longer perspective, both projects act as head start and catalysts for wider management of valuable meadows. As the hardest part – restoration work – was done with the support of the EU funds and also as machineries was bought and distributed, it is easier in future to widen the area of managed meadows. As the engagement of local community and personal approach has been quite significant during both projects it ensures that the management will be carried on also after projects end.
Sources:
Karula rahvuspargi administratsiooni aastaaruanne, 2004
Natura 2000 implementation; Fact sheet Estonia
CONSERVATION OF NATURA 2000 BIOTOPES IN KARULA NATIONAL PARK
Final and interim reports of LIFE nature project LIFE2002NAT/EE/8559
„Karula rahvuspargi niidukoosluste hooldamine ja märgade niitude taastamine“, final and interim reports of the 2006-2007 ERDF project
Koiva-Mustjõe landscape reserve, Estonia
The Koiva-Mustjõe landscape reserve is located in Valga and Võru county in the southern part of the country. Also here the management problems are related to the maintenance and recovery of semi-natural habitats. In Koiva, majority of semi-natural grasslands are described as northern boreal alluvial meadows (EU habitat code: 6450) where plant communities as well as humidity conditions vary in large ranges. The management of these meadows is also depending on national subsidies, so farmers have to follow strict rules and regulations. For example, the national regulation allows mowing on the 10th July the earliest. However, the quality of hay as forage is decreasing significantly during June-July and especially those farmers with large land units can not plan their time adequately. Also due to the late starting period they are not interested in mowing the small and/or humid patches and patches with restricted access. As a consequence, management concentrates on large and thus most profitable areas while the meadows with high conservation value and/or are threatened by expanding scrubs remain constantly unmanaged because of size or access. So from both points of view – profitability of farmers and efficiency of conservation works – the best solution would be more flexibility and more specification in the management rules.
According to the Nature Protection Act the management plan of a protected area can provide specifications to the national regulations on management of semi-natural habitats. This possibility was also used in the case of Koiva. During the process of developing the management plan for Koiva (process carried out and the plan compiled by Estonian Fund for Nature) most of the stakeholders were collected into joint round-table talks to find out best solutions for managing Koiva grasslands, considering nature protection goals as well as farmers’ needs. During the joint talks of conservation experts, conservation authorities and actual managers (i.e. farmers), a more flexible solution for grassland management was agreed on.
Round-table talks during the compilation of the management plan provided an opportunity for all stakeholders to discuss the near future and activities of Koiva Natura 2000 site. Because the actual management of Koiva alluvial meadows has been overtaken by local farmers mainly, the submissions and proposals provided by them proved to be very valuable. Even though joint round-table discussions are not among the most innovative solutions as they should be a priori the way of action in all site management cases, the benefit of investing into the personal approach is often overlooked and thus information gained from actual site managers is wasted. The integration of various local stakeholders into the development of management plan, as well as in the actual management of the Natura 2000 area proved to be very useful in both organising the site management and creating a sense of common interest.
Thus, the solution in this case did not require strong financial support (e.g. EU funds) but simply more effective communication between affected people and the subsequent stronger specification of management obligations through management plan preparation to fit stakeholders’ interest better. As an agreement was found to make protection rules more flexible for farmers, it creates an opportunity to plan the time and works more efficiently. As managing (i.e. mowing and removing the hay) can be started earlier on drier meadows, it means that in total, more time will be left to manage the whole area and thus, potentially larger areas can be managed.
Sources:
Management plan for Koiva-Mustjõe landscape reserve
|
© Copyright 1993-2011 Estonian Fund for Nature (ELF). All rights reserved.
This webpage is supported by EU.
This webpage is supported by EU.
