CEEweb for Biodiversity Széher út 40, 1021 …...Location: Pieniny National Park Type of area:...
3
CEEweb for Biodiversity Széher út 40, 1021 Budapest, Hungary Phone: +36 1 398 0135 Fax: +36 1 398 0136 [email protected] www.ceeweb.org Template on Financing Nature Project Country: Slovakia Person filling in: Lubomira Vavrova in cooperation with K. Kiskova (Pieniny NP) Organisation: BROZ Date: 30 November 2011 Site code (if relevant): 1. Brief Description of the case (max. 3 sentences) The case study is focusing on management and conservation of Maculinea butterflies and their habitats in Pieniny National Park in Slovakia. 2. Detailed Description including Changes in the land use practices, including abandonment of meadows, vegetational succession, drainage, non-appropriate timing and way of mowing, etc. in Slovakia in the past have resulted in decline of population of Maculinea species in Slovakia. To protect the species and their habitats it is necessary to secure regular management of the habitats and to collect data on ecology and distribution of the species and host plants and ants. The study presents an example of implementation of Action plan for endangered Maculinea species in Slovakia with financial support through EU funds. Pieniny National Park is an area with the occurrence of several Maculinea species as well as other endangered butterflies (e.g. Parnassius apollo). Many former habitats of the species had been overgrown by vegetation (trees, bush) and did not meet ecological requirements of the species. Within the Action plan former habitats of the species were identified. On these sites, restoration management activities have been applied in order to re-create suitable habitats conditions for the species and their host plants. Since SNC does not have sufficient personal capacities to carry out the restoration work, a close cooperation have been established with local municipalities. It resulted in active participation of locals in the activities under supervision of the professional nature conservationists. Type of case (good or bad example): positive example Location: Pieniny National Park Type of area: National Park Category of area: part of SACs, sites included in the national network of protected areas Type 1 , source and amount of main financing: Operational programme "Environment", Priority axis 5. Conservation and revitalization of natural landscape and environment (EU funds); Total amount for the area of Pieniny National Park: 4385 € (in 2010), 4387 € (in 2011) Any additional source of financing: Actions financed by the source: Management of the Maculinea species habitats: bush and trees removing, mowing; Monitoring of the Maculinea species and other butterflies and their host plants. Duration of financing (if relevant): 2010 - 2013 Stakeholders: owners of the target sites, farmers, forest owners associations 3. Positive and negative aspects of the financing 2 : 1 EU Fund, governmental, private, other 2 leveraged additional money, mobilised private money, sustainable (long term) funding, valuing ecosystem services, etc. OR exploiting natural resources, infrastructural investment detrimental to nature, etc.
Transcript of CEEweb for Biodiversity Széher út 40, 1021 …...Location: Pieniny National Park Type of area:...
CEEweb for Biodiversity Széher út 40, 1021
Budapest, Hungary Phone: +36 1 398 0135 Fax: +36 1 398 0136 [email protected]
www.ceeweb.org
Template on Financing Nature Project
Country: Slovakia Person filling in: Lubomira Vavrova in cooperation with K. Kiskova (Pieniny NP) Organisation: BROZ Date: 30 November 2011 Site code (if relevant): 1. Brief Description of the case (max. 3 sentences)
The case study is focusing on management and conservation of Maculinea butterflies and their habitats in Pieniny National Park in Slovakia.
2. Detailed Description including Changes in the land use practices, including abandonment of meadows, vegetational succession, drainage, non-appropriate timing and way of mowing, etc. in Slovakia in the past have resulted in decline of population of Maculinea species in Slovakia. To protect the species and their habitats it is necessary to secure regular management of the habitats and to collect data on ecology and distribution of the species and host plants and ants. The study presents an example of implementation of Action plan for endangered Maculinea species in Slovakia with financial support through EU funds. Pieniny National Park is an area with the occurrence of several Maculinea species as well as other endangered butterflies (e.g. Parnassius apollo). Many former habitats of the species had been overgrown by vegetation (trees, bush) and did not meet ecological requirements of the species. Within the Action plan former habitats of the species were identified. On these sites, restoration management activities have been applied in order to re-create suitable habitats conditions for the species and their host plants. Since SNC does not have sufficient personal capacities to carry out the restoration work, a close cooperation have been established with local municipalities. It resulted in active participation of locals in the activities under supervision of the professional nature conservationists. Type of case (good or bad example): positive example Location: Pieniny National Park Type of area: National Park Category of area: part of SACs, sites included in the national network of protected areas Type1, source and amount of main financing: Operational programme "Environment", Priority axis 5. Conservation and revitalization of natural landscape and environment (EU funds); Total amount for the area of Pieniny National Park: 4385 € (in 2010), 4387 € (in 2011) Any additional source of financing: Actions financed by the source: Management of the Maculinea species habitats: bush and trees removing, mowing; Monitoring of the Maculinea species and other butterflies and their host plants. Duration of financing (if relevant): 2010 - 2013 Stakeholders: owners of the target sites, farmers, forest owners associations
3. Positive and negative aspects of the financing2: 1 EU Fund, governmental, private, other 2 leveraged additional money, mobilised private money, sustainable (long term) funding, valuing ecosystem services, etc. OR exploiting natural resources, infrastructural investment detrimental to nature, etc.
CEEweb for Biodiversity Széher út 40, 1021
Budapest, Hungary Phone: +36 1 398 0135 Fax: +36 1 398 0136 [email protected]
www.ceeweb.org Management activities have been implemented in close cooperation with locals. Locals have been working under supervision of professional staff from the State Nature Conservancy (SNC) of the Slovak Republic. In many cases, these areas are with a high level of unemployment. Providing opportunity to locals to participate in the management also gives them an opportunity to benefit from the actions (mowing abandoned meadows, hay and wood collecting, direct salary for the work, etc.). It is expected that local communities will support the management of the sites in terms of both human resources (seasonal employment) and finances in the future. However, particularly the financial support needs to be in combination of state funds and local funds.
4. Financing-specific recommendations on how the site could be better financed, and how the sources could be better spent: - to introduce a seasonal employment (mowing, hay collecting, bush and trees cutting) supported by the local municipalities (so-called activation works) - long-term regular support from the state budget (financing implementation of management and conservation plans for Natura 2000 species and habitats)
5. General information on financing nature in your country:
• Does your country have a system of measuring / reporting biodiversity related spending? There is no specific mechanism of measuring or reporting biodiversity related spending. SNC provides annual reports including financial report. In this document it is specified how much money has been spent on actions supporting biodiversity conservation within the organization. Other state organizations provide similar documents.
• Are you aware of existing applied innovative financial mechanisms (PES, Biodiversity offset mechanisms, environmental fiscal reform, markets for green products, etc.)?
I personally am aware of existing financial tools. However, these specific tools have not been introduced to the public yet. To apply these tools effectively it is necessary to communicate them and explain their purpose and potential benefits to stakeholders and public.
• What are the financial instruments available specifically for Natura 2000 (national and international sources)?
Mostly state budget, EU funds through Operational programmes, other funds such as LIFE+ Programme, South-East European Programme, etc.
• Is it possible to estimate the total annual biodiversity (nature conservation) related spending, what does it entail?
It is very difficult to estimate these expenses since different organizations and institutions as well as companies (both state and private), local municipalities, etc. spend part of their budget on environmental activities. Some companies (e.g. Slovnaft, Orange, etc.) have established green funds to support small scale environmental projects.
6. Annexes (pictures, maps, websites, etc.)
CEEweb for Biodiversity Széher út 40, 1021
Budapest, Hungary Phone: +36 1 398 0135 Fax: +36 1 398 0136 [email protected]
www.ceeweb.org
Fig. 1: Haligovské skaly before and after restoration action (K. Kisková)
Fig. 2: Prielom Lesnického potoka before and after restoration action (K. Kisková)
THANK YOU!
