naturopa

The 25 years

of the Bern

Convention

No. 101 / 2004ENGLISH

Sustainable spatial planning for nature, culture and landscape

EditorialThe Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats or Bern Convention R-P. Lebeau .......................... 3

History and functioningHow the Bern Convention came into being J-P. Ribaut .......................... 4The Bern Convention and I V. Koester .................................................... 5A laboratory of ideas E. Fernández-Galiano .......................................... 6The irreversible threat to biodiversity M. Déjeant-Pons ........................ 7On-the-spot appraisals F. Bauer ............................................................ 10

Remarkable progressPolitical aspects and development G. C. Boere...................................... 11In the Czech Republic J. Plesník ............................................................ 12Belgium, the Walloon Region P. De Wolf .............................................. 13In Ukraine Y. Movchan, V. Domashlinets, T. Hardashouk .............. 14In Senegal S. Dieme .............................................................................. 15

Conservation of natural habitatsIs habitat protection still a relevant conservation tool?J. R. Haslett .............................................................................................. 16The Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve A. Baz.......................................... 17

Viewpoints ........................................................................................ 18

The Emerald Network H. Jaffeux ............................................................20Emerald and Natura 2000 networks P. Skoberne ................................ 20

Protection of the speciesThe European Strategy on Invasive Alien SpeciesP. Genovesi................................................................................................ 21The European Plant Conservation Strategy J. Smart.............................. 22Endangered mushrooms in Europe J-P. Koune ...................................... 22Invasive alien species in Slovakia A. Cvachová, E. Gojdicová ............ 23The protection of invertebrates Y. Gonseth .......................................... 24What space for large carnivores in Europe? A. Olszanska.................... 25Cry wolf! P. Degeorges .......................................................................... 26The Bern Convention and the catsU. Breitenmoser, C. Breitenmoser-Würsten ........................................ 27Fragile, please take care A. I. Queiroz .................................................. 27Protection of amphibians and reptiles P. Edgar, A. Stumpel .............. 28Mediterranean sea turtle strife! L. Venizelos ........................................ 28Windfarms and birds R. Langston ........................................................ 29

The future?A new approach outside the protected areas E.Kuijken ...................... 30Towards reinforcement of the Bern Convention I. Jepsena .................. 31Imagine the scene C. de Klemm ............................................................ 32

At the Council of Europe .................................. 34

naturopaN o . 1 0 1 – 2 0 0 4

Chief EditorCatherine RothDirector of Culture and Culturaland Natural Heritage

Director of publicationMaguelonne Déjeant-PonsHead of Spatial Developmentand Landscape Division

Concept and editingChristian Meyerchristian.meyer@coe.int

Naturopa Network Bureau Paul DruryChair of the Steering Committeefor Cultural Heritage (CDPAT)pdrury@ftech.co.uk

Adriana BazChair of the Committee for the Activitiesof the Council of Europe in the fieldof Biological and Landscape Diversity(CO-DBP)baz@mappm.ro

Maria-Jose FestasChair of the Committee of Senior Officialsof the European Conference of Ministersresponsible for Regional Planning (CHF-Cemat)gabdg@dgotdu.pt

LayoutEmmanuel Georges

PrinterBietlot – Gilly (Belgium)

Articles may be freely reprinted providedthat reference is made to the source and acopy sent to the Centre Naturopa. Thecopyright of all illustrations is reserved.

The opinions expressed in this publicationare those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the Councilof Europe.

Since 1993 Naturopa has been printedon chlorine-free paper.

© Cover: otter (Lutra lutra) by R. HumlerVignette 1: Iveragh Peninsula in Irelandby Claudie/SunsetVignette 2: Argus (Plebejus argus)by Wilmhurst/SunsetVignette 3: Field of poppiesby Delfino/Bios

R.-

P.

Le

be

au

3n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

A wind of change, like a new Renaissance, came alongin the wake of May 1968 and its liberating ideas,inspired by the global views of the Club of Rome. At thetime, ecology, ecosystems and biodiversity were termsused by the scientific fraternity alone. The competentinstitutions, governments, non-governmentalorganisations and a handful of individuals were ofcourse already active in the field of natureconservation, but it was not an issue that arousedwidespread interest among policy makers and thegeneral public.

European Nature Conservation Year, launched by theCouncil of Europe in 1970 was a resounding success.Public opinion suddenly became aware of theimmeasurable value of the natural environment whichwas visibly being destroyed throughout the whole ofplanet Earth, photographed by the astronauts walkingon the moon. However, there was no internationalconvention at world or regional level devoted to theprotection of the planet’s wild flora and fauna.

How can one forget those marathon sessions in thecommittee drafting the future convention, when aDanish pipe-smoking lawyer did all he could to placatethe pragmatic but ardent Irishman – a great otterhunter – aghast at the Swiss representative who wasjustifying the inclusion of this proud carnivore –already on the CITES list and later to become thesymbol of the convention – in Appendix II for specieswhich had to be afforded strict protection. Or the“naval” battles with an illustrious lawyer from St. Malo,a relentless negotiator on the law of the sea, who withhis logic and rationality steered a more realistic courseamidst the bursts of audacity and unfettered idealism ofthe naturalists present.

Out of these lively debates emerged, in the form ofprinciples, the unique features of the Convention on theConservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats(Bern Convention), a front-runner in the field ofconservation.

As an eminently cultural text, the conventionconstitutes an appeal to humankind and emphasises thelatter’s role as manager of a common, natural andlandscape heritage which it is imperative to preserveand bequeath to future generations.

It incorporates the principles of irreversibility,prevention and precaution, and states that the absenceof conclusive scientific certainty should not serve as apretext for delaying the introduction of effectivemeasures.

At the very foundation of the convention lies theprinciple of “sustainable development”, even thoughthis term did not become current until 1992 and the RioDeclaration, in so far as contracting parties undertaketo adopt the necessary measures to maintain thepopulation of wild flora and fauna at a level which

corresponds in particular toecological, scientific andcultural requirements, whiletaking account of economicand social needs.

The convention also includes theprinciple of integration, in other words that wildlife andhabitats must be taken into account in and be anintegral part of all economic and development policies,such as regional/spatial planning, farming, transport ortourism. This point was developed in the 1994 MonacoDeclaration on the role of the Bern Convention in theimplementation of worldwide international instrumentsfor the protection of biodiversity. It is thereforeimportant to ensure that biological and landscapediversity is also conserved outside protected areas.

Well before the fall of the Berlin Wall, the conventionpromoted and encouraged the principle of outreach andsolidarity, and encouraged co-operation between stateswithin and outside the borders of western Europe, sincefrom the very beginnings in 1979 it was open to thecountries of central and eastern Europe and of northand west Africa.

From the outset, the convention has espoused theprinciple of participation and transparency, fullyinvolving the relevant governmental and non-governmental organisations, thereby setting up effectiveand creative partnerships.

It has also been heavily committed to international co-operation, complementing and interacting with theUnited Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, theRamsar Convention on Wetlands, the Convention on theConservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals(Bonn Convention) and its agreements, the Conventionfor the Protection of the World Cultural and NaturalHeritage and the European Landscape Convention, aswell as other institutions at pan-European and worldlevel, active in the field of biodiversity conservation.

It is therefore not surprising that the Bern Convention,a formal legal instrument, constitutes a particularlydynamic regional international framework, which isboth flexible and precise, political and pragmatic,appreciated and acknowledged by the contractingparties who are committed to its application in theinterest of our common heritage and futuregenerations.

Raymond-Pierre LebeauSwiss Representative on the Standing Committee

of the Bern Convention Head of the Ecological Compensation Division,

Federal Office for Environment, Forests and LandscapeCH-3003 Bern

Raymond-Pierre.Lebeau@buwal.admin.ch

E d i t o r i a l

C

Co

un

cil

of

Eu

rop

e

The Convention on the Conservationof European Wildlife and Natural Habitats or Bern Convention

4 n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

H i s t o r y a n d f u n c t i o n i

From the outset, the Council of Europefocused considerable attention on the pro-tection of the natural heritage. The first pub-lications in the Nature and Environmentseries, for example, were devoted to forestsand endangered mammals.It is therefore not surprising that in view ofthe deterioration of biological diversity andnatural habits (wetland drainage, eradica-tion of the bocage, etc.), the EuropeanCommittee for the Conservation of Nature,formed in 1962, very soon decided to stepup its activities.So, in Brussels in 1976, at the 2nd EuropeanMinisterial Conference on the Environment,Switzerland presented a study recom-mending the drafting of a convention. Theaim was to protect the fauna, flora and nat-ural habitats of Europe. At the time, theCouncil of Europe had less than twentymembers and it was in the middle of the coldwar period. There were no official contactswith the countries in the Communist bloc,except with a small number of experts. At this Brussels conference, Norway sug-gested that, in view of the political situa-tion in Europe, an international legaldocument be drafted that was not restrictedto the Council of Europe member statesalone, so that the non-member countries ofthe Communist bloc could accede to it moreeasily. Under this proposal, the Councilwould simply provide a secretariat for thecontracting parties. Ultimately, this pro-posal was not accepted as the majority ofcountries felt that the Council’s accumu-lated expertise in this field should beexploited to the full and, consequently, thatthe convention should be firmly part of theCouncil of Europe’s corpus.The Bern Convention was drafted over aperiod of three years by an ad hoccommittee and opened for signature bymember states on 19 September 1979, atthe start of the 3rd European MinisterialConference on the Environment in Bern.Eighteen of the twenty-one countries signedthe text that day, which is something of arecord number. Without going into details,it has to be said that the drafting process wasmade a little more complicated by the factthat the European Commission in Brusselswas in the process of drafting its CouncilDirective on the conservation of wild birds(Birds Directive) at the very same time.

Marathon discussionsDrafting the convention involved somemarathon discussions which remain clearlyin my mind. While the majority of delega-

tions felt that the correct approach was todraw up a list, based on scientific criteria,of animal species that required total pro-tection (the current Appendix II), Germanycalled for the inclusion of all the variousspecies of sparrow, and Denmark insistedon affording protection to the nightingale.There was also much discussion aboutincluding in the list certain species whichwere genuinely endangered in Europe, suchas the lynx, the otter and the wolf, eventhough some of these were being hunted ina perfectly regulated way. Not only that, itwas human beings who demanded thatthey be hunted! The outcome of these some-times bitter discussions is an indication ofthe working climate and the commitmentto co-operate at all costs which has alwaysprevailed amongst the contracting parties.In this way, solutions were found in all cases,primarily thanks to Article 9 of the conven-tion which allows for exceptions, but undervery precise conditions.Among the substantive discussions, thoseconcerning the protection of habitats(Article4) were undeniably the most impor-tant and the most difficult. Did this articleneed to be further developed? Should effortsbe made to lay down identification criteriaand implementing conditions? And perhapsmore importantly, should it refer explicitlyto the networks of protected areas whichcould serve as its basis (the networks of bio-genetic reserves and the areas awarded theCouncil of Europe’s diploma, plus theRamsar networks, the Unesco natural and

cultural heritage networks, and the antici-pated results of the work of the EuropeanCommission – the future Natura 2000)?Once again, common sense and a flexibleapproach prevailed, resulting in an Article4 which may appear very general (exces-sively so perhaps), but which has proved tobe effective, thanks to the case-law whichhas gradually been built up in this area.In explanation, it should be pointed out thatfrom the very outset, and in line with Councilof Europe tradition, non-governmentalorganisations (NGOs) were invited to playan active part in the implementation of theconvention. These national or internationalNGOs can submit precise details of a givencountry’s failure to comply and this in turncan lead to a file being opened and an expertappraisal undertaken on the spot. TheStanding Committee, the convention’s deci-sion-making body comprising representa-tives of the contracting parties, looks at eachcase and takes the appropriate decisions.The skill of Ambassador Seidenfaden(Denmark), chair of the interim committee,then Ambassador Wacker (Switzerland) andtheir successors made it possible to avoidfalling into the trap of producing a conven-tion that was too demanding – and whichsome countries would therefore find impos-sible to apply – or a weak convention whichmade for no real progress.May this jewel in the Council’s crown longcontinue to shine!

Jean-Pierre RibautFormer Head of Division of the Environment

and Natural Resources27 rue Rabié

F-33250 Pauillacjeanpierreribau@wanadoo.fr

How the Bern Convention came into being

Co

un

cil

of

Eu

rop

e

Bern where the convention was opened for signature

5n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

His

to

ry

a

nd

f

un

ct

io

nin

g

It is difficult to write about the BernConvention in an objective manner, ignor-ing the fact that the Bern Convention andI have had a very special relationship, andthat it has always been close to my heart. I was present when the idea of developinga broad comprehensive European natureprotection convention was launched at aCouncil of Europe conference of ministersfor the environment by a young NorwegianEnvironment Minister, Gro HarlemBrundtland. I attended that conference asassistant to the Danish Ambassador,Gunnar Seidenfaden, who was represent-ing the Danish Environment Minister, andto whom the task of chairing the negotia-tions of the proposed convention later(November 1976) was entrusted. I headedthe Danish delegation during the negotia-tions (1976-1979), and I participated inthe ministerial conference in Bern (1979)when the convention was adopted andsigned. I was chairing the Danish delega-tion at the first meeting of the StandingCommittee after the entry into force of theconvention (1982). I chaired the StandingCommittee until 1989, which provided mewith an opportunity to work closelytogether with a number of devoted andvery capable civil servants of the Councilof Europe. I was in charge of the ratifica-tion process in Denmark and have beenresponsible since the beginning for Danishimplementation of the convention. I expe-rienced the growth of the convention inrespect of both its importance and thenumber of contracting parties, and I expe-rienced its maturing process.So, what should I highlight on the occasionof the twenty-fifth anniversary of the BernConvention?

A Danish experienceFirst, a small, but important event from myown country. Before the Bern Conventiononly one species of amphibians and reptileswas protected (Triturus alpestris). Attemptshad been made by the National NatureProtection Agency to protect all those species,but the Department of Environment hadturned down all proposals, and once a draftregulation was used as the subject for a songat the annual Christmas revue of the ministry.However, due to the Bern Convention a gen-eral protection of all Danish species ofamphibians and reptiles, including the viper(Vipera vipera) was carried through, an exam-ple demonstrating that the Bern Conventionwas not set up on the basis of the lowestcommon denominator principle.

The case file systemThis is not the place for a full review of thecase file system, but a few remarks shouldbe made. Although this procedure wasdeveloped, in essence, twenty years ago,before the issue of “compliance” becamepopular, it comprises most of the featuresof modern compliance mechanisms, that is, a mechanism inter alia of a non-confrontational, non-judicial and co-operative nature. However, the conven-tion case file system also has some ratherunique features, among them that it per-mits complaints from NGOs, and that it isextremely transparent allowing for full par-ticipation of NGOs in deliberations. It istrue that the procedure is not perfect, butneither probably is any compliance mech-anism, and it is beyond any reasonabledoubt that the Bern Convention case filesystem has accomplished a lot.

The Bern Conventionand the Habitats DirectiveA further success story of the conventionis that it is probably one of the main rea-sons for the adoption of the EuropeanCommunity (EC) Habitats Directive(Directive 92/43/EEC, 21 May 1992, on theconservation of natural habitats and offauna and flora). The convention is notrecognised and reflected in the “consider-ations” of the directive (which, by the way,is an expression of rather typical EuropeanCommunity behaviour!) but it is no secretthat the European Commission in the late1980s was worried about the rather poorimplementation of the convention by anumber of EC member states, taking alsointo consideration that the EC as such wasa contracting party to the convention. So,the Bern Convention might be regardedas a means of implementation and enforce-ment of the convention at European Union(EU) level. In any event, a comparison ofthe two instruments reveals a number ofstriking similarities between, for example,their provisions on species protection andsome of their appendices.

The Bern Conventionand the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD)Whether the Bern Convention also servedas a source of inspiration for the 1992United Nations Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD) is probably doubtful, butit is a fact that the coverage of the BernConvention with regard to biological fea-tures is almost as broad as the CBD, most

of all because the Bern Convention in prin-ciple covers all natural habitats. To someextent the Bern Convention even aims atprotecting the gene pool of wild fauna andflora with its reference to sub-species andvarieties in Article 2. Modern traits are alsoembodied in the preamble referring tointer-generational equity (indirectly) andecological balance, as well as in Article 17providing a simplified “opt-out” procedurefor amendments to the appendices. Thenotion of “sustainable use” is not reflectedin the convention, but should this reallybe considered as a shortcoming? After allno provision of the convention seems toprevent sustainable use.

The futureIt is difficult to find any major failures of theBern Convention. It is still a modern, com-prehensive regional agreement. Also it isstill needed. It is true that the enlargementof the EU poses some risks because themajority of the parties to the convention(25) are now under the more strict obliga-tions of the Habitats Directive. However,a number of parties (19) are not memberstates of the EU, among them the Africanstates parties to the convention (BurkinaFaso, Morocco, Senegal and Tunisia), andthere is still a need for co-operation betweenthose parties and the member states of theEU regarding protection of wild fauna andflora as well as natural habitats. I am quitesure that the Bern Convention has a longlife ahead of it.

Veit KoesterChair of the Standing Committee

of the Bern Convention 1986-1989External Professor at Roskilde

University Centre, Denmark Visiting Professor at UN University

Institute of Advanced Studies of YokohamaFondazione Aage V Jensen

Centro Residenziale (CR)53 Capo Berta

I-18100 Imperiaveitkoester@mail.dk

The Bern Convention and I

n g

Co

urt

ea

u/B

ios

The alpine newt (Triturus alpestris) was the only amphibian protected in Denmark

6 n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

H i s t o r y a n d f u

Conventions are not only legal texts thatbind states, they are also human adven-tures, frameworks for discussion andexchange of views and for innovation ininternational relations, living initiatives,laboratories of ideas. As important as thetext itself is what people and governmentsbuild around a convention, how they shapeits content and substance, how their workhas influence on changing policies and atti-tudes. In the field of biological diversity,the Bern Convention was the first inter-national European text to try to cover allaspects of nature conservation, and notjust a particular group of species or a cer-tain type of habitat. This approach wasbold and innovative and paved the wayfor the most influential treaty in this field,the Convention on Biological Diversity of1992.

Holistic point of viewIf the text was a major breakthrough indealing with biodiversity issues from aglobal perspective, the Bern Conventionwas also forward-looking in other aspects.One of these was that its governing bodydecided to meet at least once a year:between 1982 and 2004, twenty-four meet-ings have been held of its Conference of theParties – the “Standing Committee” (morethan twice as many as comparable biodiversity-related treaties). This has createdan inspired and confident working atmos-phere in which most delegates know eachother personally quite well, enablingfriendly negotiation of solutions, which adelegate some years ago called “a clubspirit built on a gentlemen’s agreement” (ata time when there were indeed – and unfor-tunately – few ladies represented at theStanding Committee and certainly fewerlanguage constraints). Most of the BernConvention delegates also often meet inother Council of Europe or European Unionfora, so decisions by consensus havebecome the rule in the adoption of positionsand texts, including the 115 recommen-dations and resolutions adopted. There isnot always agreement on everything – andthe animated discussion on certain diffi-cult cases involving presumed breaches ofthe convention by some states hasenlivened many meetings – but on thewhole the culture of agreement and com-promise wins the day. States play the game,

take the convention seriously and workhard to deliver solutions to help the conser-vation of biological diversity.

Opening up to civil societyAnother factor that contributes to makingthe convention and its meetings a livingforum is undoubtedly its openness to civilsociety, represented by a vast and variedmembership of conservationist organisa-tions. NGOs are the salt and often the teethof the convention. Although the conventionis primarily an agreement between par-ties, NGO participation has always beenso welcomed and encouraged that theyhave become major players, actors thatcan raise burning issues, ask the embar-rassing questions, point out with precisionwhere the convention is not working prop-erly, and suggest solutions. There are fewbiodiversity-related treaties in which NGOsparticipate so actively and influence somuch the agenda and the outcome. It is alsotrue that NGOs have become very profes-sional over the years and they bring extraor-dinary scientific and technical expertisewhich helps progress in many conservationissues. They are also strongly committedto conservation and open to working withgovernment and to supporting conserva-tion agencies (politically and technically)wherever possible.

Real conservation issuesA third factor that contributes to the conven-tion’s progress is the way in which it doesnot shy away from difficult issues and alwaysmaintains its interest in down-to-earth mat-ters. It may look vague or too idealistic whenit adopts an action plan for managementof certain species over the whole of Europe,but it reacts quickly and without hesitationwhen one or other population may be atrisk, making on-the-spot visits, talking tolocal people, to managers, to governments,to NGOs, proposing solutions and acting asan “honest broker” among the differentinterests involved. This close touch with realconservation issues has enabled the StandingCommittee to truly play its role of “facili-tating a friendly settlement on any difficultyto which the execution of the Conventionmay give rise” – as stated rather diplomat-ically in Article 18. This has been done bear-ing in mind the only real interest of theconvention, its Standing Committee expertsand its secretariat: to conserve wild floraand fauna and their natural habitats and topromote co-operation among the partieson biodiversity issues.

As Secretary to the Bern Convention fornearly twenty years, I take this opportu-nity to thank all the many people who havehelped me in my task: government dele-gates, experts, NGOs, scientists, otherCouncil of Europe staff. So many havebecome friends and I have learned so muchfrom them all. I have to admit withoutshame that I have had a great time duringthese years, visited magnificent places,met a lot of interesting people, enjoyed adiversity of hospitality in Europe and inAfrica and found myself welcomed every-where. I won’t mention the paperwork! Iam particularly grateful that everyoneunderstood that, apart from their enthusi-asm, secretariats have one great strengthin their bag: their independence. Therespect of that independence by all hashelped to make this convention reliableand successful and heralds a bright future.

Eladio Fernández-GalianoHead of the Natural Heritage and Biological

Diversity DivisionCouncil of Europe

eladio.fernandez-galiano@coe.intwww.coe.int/bernconvention

A laboratory of ideas

JL G

on

zale

s G

ran

de

/Bio

s

Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus)

7n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

His

to

ry

a

nd

f

un

ct

io

nin

g

“…Recognising that wild flora and faunaconstitute a natural heritage of aesthetic,scientific, cultural, recreational, economicand intrinsic value that needs to be pre-served and handed on to future genera-tions…”

Preamble of the Bern Convention

Species certainly disappear naturally overtime, but human activities are accelerat-ing this process appreciably, and a quar-ter of species are in danger of vanishingwithin the next thirty years. There arecurrently around 15 to 30 million animaland vegetable species on Earth – somesay anything between 5 and 100 million,only 1.5 million of which have beenrecorded. In Europe, 22% of higher orderplants, 52% of fish and 42% of mam-mals are endangered. From north tosouth, from east to west, there is also agrowing standardisation or “globalisa-tion” of landscapes and destruction ofecosystems.

Awareness of immeasurableriches and the need for urgent action The need to preserve “biological diver-sity” is now universally recognised, bothin the Convention on Biological Diversityagreed in Rio on 5 June 1992 and in theAction 21 programme also adopted inRio on 14 June 1992 and reconfirmed inJohannesburg on 4 September 2002. TheConvention on Biological Diversity statesthat determined action must be takenwithout delay to preserve and conservegenes, species and ecosystems in orderto ensure sustainable management anduse of biological resources. Over theyears, international agreements at worldand regional level (Africa, Europe,Antarctica, the Mediterranean, theAssociation of South East Asian Nations(ASEAN) region, the south-east Pacificand the Caribbean) have been adopted topreserve certain specific species, andwildlife as a whole.At the European level, the Conventionon the Conservation of European Wildlifeand Natural Habitats, known as the “BernConvention”, recognises that “wild floraand fauna constitute a natural heritageof aesthetic, scientific, cultural, recre-ational, economic and intrinsic value thatneeds to be preserved and handed on tofuture generations”, acknowledges their“essential role” in maintaining a biolog-ical balance, and states “that numerous

species of wild flora and fauna are beingseriously depleted and that some of themare threatened with extinction”.

Objectives

Conserving wildlife andnatural environments... The contracting parties to the BernConvention accept that the conservationof wild flora and fauna should be takeninto consideration by governments intheir national goals and programmes,and that international co-operation shouldbe established to preserve migratoryspecies in particular. The convention setsout four goals: establishing minimumprotection for all wild species of flora andfauna and strengthened protection forthose which are at particular risk, withspecial regard to migratory species; pro-tecting the habitats of wild species of floraand fauna and safeguarding natural habi-tats in danger of disappearing; promot-ing co-operation between contractingparties in the field of nature conserva-tion, and more particularly in respect ofspecies and habitats whose conservationrequires international co-operation, withparticular importance attached to theconservation of migratory species.

... in Europe The Bern Convention currently has forty-five contracting parties, including thirty-

nine member states of the Council ofEurope and five non-member states ofthe Council of Europe and the EuropeanUnion. The Committee of Ministers ofthe Council of Europe may, after consulting the contracting parties, inviteany non-member state of the Council ofEurope to accede. The StandingCommittee of the convention also invitesnon-member states of the Council ofEurope to take part in its meetings asobservers. Since the convention is by itsvery nature intended to apply to the entireEuropean continent, it is highly desirablethat all European states should accede toit. Co-operation between Europe andAfrica is also vital to ensure protectionof shared wild flora and fauna and ofmigratory species along their migrationroutes, and in the locations where theystay for longer.

Principles It is essential to lay down principles sincethese establish attitudes and help to guidethe way in which states behave in mak-ing economic and political choices affect-ing the environment. The principles ofprevention, caution and sustainable devel-opment underpin all the obligations withwhich the contracting parties to the BernConvention undertake to comply. Thefirst is based on the old maxim that “pre-vention is better than cure”, and the sec-ond on the notion that where there is a

The irreversible threat to biodiversity

n c t i o n i n g

S.

Co

rdie

r

Bialowieja forest in Poland

8 n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

H i s t o r y a n d f u n c t i o n i

risk of serious or irreversible damage,the absence of absolute scientific cer-tainty must not serve as a pretext forpostponing the adoption of effectivemeasures to prevent the degradation ofthe environment. The convention is alsobased – even before the term existed –on the principle of sustainable develop-ment, as recognised in the fourth princi-ple of the Rio Declaration on environmentand development and reaffirmed in theJohannesburg Declaration on sustainabledevelopment.

International legal obligations The legal obligations with which contract-ing parties undertake to comply concernthe protection of areas or “habitats”, andthe conservation of species. Some aregeneral and must underpin all theiractions, while others are specific to habi-tats, wild flora and fauna, and migratoryspecies. The contracting parties under-take generally to: – take all requisite steps to implement

national policies for conservation ofwild flora and fauna and natural habi-tats, paying particular attention tospecies that are vulnerable or in dangerof extinction, especially endemicspecies, and to endangered habitats;

– have regard to the conservation of wildflora and fauna in planning and devel-opment policies, and in measures tocombat pollution;

– encourage education and disseminategeneral information about the need toconserve species of wild flora and faunaand their habitats;

– co-operate whenever relevant, espe-cially where such co-operation maystrengthen the effectiveness of themeasures taken; and encourage andco-ordinate research relating to the aimsof the convention.

Methods InstitutionalThe institutional organs of the BernConvention are the Standing Committee,the Bureau and the secretariat. TheStanding Committee is responsible formonitoring the application of the conven-tion and is made up of delegations fromthe contracting parties to the convention.The Bureau, comprising the chair of theStanding Committee, the vice-chair andthe former chair, takes decisions on man-agement and organisation between meet-ings. The convention secretariat, which

is responsible for monitoring imple-mentation, is headed by the SecretaryGeneral of the Council of Europe, the chiefaim of the Organisation being to createa closer union between its members inthe field of nature conservation. Groupsof experts also meet to deal with the top-ics covered: conservation of plants, pro-tection of invertebrates, protection ofamphibians and reptiles, legal aspects ofthe introduction and reintroduction ofwild species, conservation of certain ani-mal species (turtles, Mediterranean monkseal, wolf, European bison, etc.), and pro-tection of habitats.The convention allows observers fromnon-governmental organisations (NGOs)which are bodies or institutions techni-cally qualified in the field of protection,conservation or management of wildflora and fauna and their habitats toattend meetings of the StandingCommittee, a practice therefore fully inline with the new trend to encourageworldwide “partnership” between statesand key sectors of society and peoples,as confirmed by the Rio andJohannesburg declarations. NGOs playa crucial role in monitoring the applica-tion of the convention.

LegalThe Standing Committee has the powerto address recommendations to thecontracting parties on the measures tobe taken to implement the convention.These generally result from legal and sci-entific work aimed at exploring certainfields in greater depth, or from the open-ing of “files”. Given the threats to biodi-versity and ecological diversity, theconvention seeks to take account of thelatest discoveries and developmentsconcerning species and environments,and is thus a living legal tool. One hun-dred and fifteen recommendations anda number of guidelines have beenadopted to date.

Control mechanisms The Bern Convention has set up a varietyof control mechanisms to ensure states’compliance with their commitments.These mechanisms are either expresslyprovided for in the text or have devel-oped in practice in response to need.Their flexible “paralegal” nature reflectsthe current status of international envi-ronmental law, which is in transition andneeds to be consolidated.

ReportsThe convention adopts a reporting sys-tem, whereby states which are party tothe agreement have to submit regularreports on the way in which they are ful-filling their obligations. Contracting par-ties submit an introductory report to theStanding Committee describing their leg-islation on the protection of nature at thetime of their accession and subsequentlylodge four-yearly reports. They also sub-mit two-yearly reports on derogationsfrom the specific obligations with whichthey are required to comply. The StandingCommittee may draw up recommenda-tions for particular states.

Files The convention has given rise to the devel-opment of a particular control procedureusing “files”, a practice which provides anexcellent tool for international co-operation. The Standing Committee, itschair or the secretariat, receives a letteror a “complaint” from an individual or a non-governmental organisation containing an allegation of non-compliance with the provisions of theconvention by a contracting party. In thelight of the evidence at its disposal, thesecretariat then assesses whether thereare grounds to refer the allegation to thecontracting party concerned for furtherinformation and then, with the approvalof the Bureau, considers whether there are

S.

Co

rdie

r

9n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

His

to

ry

a

nd

f

un

ct

io

nin

g

grounds to discuss the matter in theStanding Committee, which may decideto open a file and adopt a recommenda-tion.

On-the-spot appraisalsWhere it is evident from these discus-sions that there are difficulties over themeasures to be taken to implement theconvention with regard to a habitatrequired to safeguard wild species of floraand fauna, and where it is necessary togather relevant information, the StandingCommittee may, in serious cases, decidethat a visit should be made by an expertto gather information on the spot, withthe agreement of the authoritiesconcerned (see the following article).

Follow-up torecommendationsThe Standing Committee may invite thecontracting parties to whom recom-mendations are addressed to submitreports on how these have been fol-lowed up.

ArbitrationAlthough provided for under the conven-tion, the arbitration procedure has notbeen used to date. It is of relevance, how-ever, since it could enable differencesbetween contracting parties over inter-pretation or application of the conven-tion to be settled in cases where it has

not been possible to resolve them ami-cably within the Standing Committee or through negotiation between the contending parties.The Bern Convention provides a highlydynamic framework for international co-operation entailing legal and scientificactivities of great relevance to all itscontracting parties and, more widely, forthe conservation of wildlife and naturalhabitats in Europe.Recommendation Rec (2002) 1 of theCommittee of Ministers to memberstates on the Guiding Principles forSustainable Spatial Development of theEuropean Continent refers specificallyto the Bern Convention in a section on“enhancing and protecting naturalresources and the natural heritage”.It accepts that natural resourcescontribute not only to the balance ofecosystems, but also to the attractive-ness of regions, to their recreationalvalue and the general quality of life,and that they must therefore be pro-tected and valued.

Maguelonne Déjeant-PonsHead of the Spatial Planning

and Landscape Division Council of Europe

maguelonne.dejeant-pons@coe.int

n g

Member states of the Council of EuropeAlbania, Andorra, Austria, Azerbaijan,Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus,Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,Finland, France, Germany, Greece,Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia,Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg,Malta, Moldova, Netherlands, Norway,Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia,Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,the former Yugoslav Republic of

Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, UnitedKingdom

Non-member states of the Council of EuropeBurkina Faso, Monaco, Morocco,Senegal, Tunisia

International organisationEuropean Unionhttp://conventions.coe.int/treaty/Fr/v3defaultFRE.asp

States parties to the Bern Convention

10 n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

H i s t o r y a n d f u n c t i o n i n g

On-the-spot appraisals are one of thecontrol mechanisms put in place underthe Bern Convention to ensure that statescomply with the commitments that theyhave made.Such a procedure is used essentially toexamine disputed complaints lodged byprivate individuals and non-governmentalorganisations (NGOs) of alleged breachesof the convention. Certain appraisals may,however, be of a more preventive nature.The expert appointed by the SecretaryGeneral who makes a site visit accom-panied by a member of the secretariat isexpected to:– evaluate the situation;– flesh out certain aspects of the file;– meet all parties involved;– draw up recommendations.He or she thus fulfils the invaluable roleof mediator by helping the nationalauthorities, in agreement with the vari-ous partners concerned, to find the mostappropriate solution that will enable socio-economic interests to be reconciled withthose of nature conservation.Having carried out the visit, the expertsubmits a report which is put to the meeting of the Standing Committee.Conclusions on measures to be taken aresummed up in the form of a specific rec-ommendation from the StandingCommittee addressed to the contractingparty.

ExamplesA number of visits have been organisedin relation to turtles strictly protectedunder the convention which are at riskfrom the development of tourism andthe disruption which this causes.In Cyprus, two visits in 1997 and 2002made it possible to study the impact ofthe creation of a vast tourism complex onthe ecology of the Akamas peninsula, andin particular the major egg-laying sites ofthe green sea turtle (chelonia mydas) andthe loggerhead sea turtle (caretta caretta).The impact of building a holiday villagein the region of Agadir, Morocco, withinthe Souss Massa National Park, whichprovides shelter to the last population inthe world of bald ibis, was appraised in2002. Proposals were put forward to pre-vent further decline in this key speciesof Moroccan bird life and to suggest waysof managing tourism and types of tourismthat would satisfy environmental require-ments.

Transport infrastructures are undeniablyexpanding in Europe. Economic andstrategic interests conflict with the inter-ests of nature protection. The proposal to build a road through theGrünewald Forest – which is the largesttypical sandstone plateau beech wood inLuxembourg – is one of the great suc-cesses of the convention. Following theappraisal by an expert in 1996, theLuxembourg Government took com-pensatory measures and chose a far moreexpensive solution than that originallyplanned in order to avoid damaging thenatural environment.A preventive visit was made in 1997 tothe Hopa region, in Giresun, Turkey, tohelp the authorities to update measuresto protect the exceptionally rich her-petological fauna of that region.In 2002, an expert visited Bulgaria tostudy the impact of the proposal to builda motorway through the Kresna Gorge,which provides shelter to numerous habi-tats and priority species protected underthe convention, notably the only speci-mens of certain tortoises in the Balkans.He suggested a range of ecologicallyacceptable routes and a desirable way ofidentifying compensatory and integra-tive measures and formulating propos-als to give the site suitable legal protection.More recently, in 2003, the committeeresponded favourably to an invitationfrom the Polish authorities to organise avisit to Poland to look at the impact on thenatural environment of the proposed “ViaBaltica” motorway linking Warsaw withHelsinki.A visit was arranged in 2003 to Portugalto study the proposal to build a dam onthe river Odelouca on grounds of over-riding public interest and health, and theforeseeable impact on the natural envi-ronment, especially the habitat of theIberian lynx, one of the most endangeredspecies of mammal in the world. Theexpert proposed an ambitious pro-gramme to reduce and offset the effects,together with the launch of a nationalemergency action plan to support theIberian lynx.The afforestation policy adopted in low-lying areas, and its consequences forwildlife, were the subject of a visit toIceland in 2002 to try to find a fair bal-ance between the potentially conflictinggoals of re-establishing forest cover andpreventing soil erosion, and conservingprotected birds. The visit gave fresh impe-

tus to a process of dialogue and consul-tation between the parties involved, whoall accepted the expert’s conclusions.Following this visit, the committeedecided not to open a file on the case.On-the-spot appraisals are thus genuinetools for negotiation which can effectivelyhelp to resolve problems.

Françoise BauerPrincipal Administrative Assistant

Council of EuropeFrancoise.bauer@coe.int

On-the-spot appraisals

S.

Co

rdie

r

Bald ibis in Morocco

11n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

Re

ma

rk

ab

le

p

ro

gr

es

s

The famous 1972 United NationsConference on the Human Environment inStockholm stimulated the development ofvarious international instruments in thefield of environment and nature conser-vation such as the Convention on theConservation of Migratory Species of WildAnimals (Bonn Convention).However, some activities, on the globallevel, were already ongoing, for instancethe development of the RamsarConvention, which was concluded in 1971and became one of the most efficientconventions. This was probably because itwas based on a concrete species and habi-tat approach, similar to the BernConvention. At the same time it developed,via resolutions, a number of guidelines andactivities tailored to meet recent develop-ments, including those resulting from theRio de Janeiro conference, such as theConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD)and the Framework Convention on ClimateChange (FCCC).It is this flexibility to meet the needs ofmodern social and general political devel-opments, together with a good infrastruc-ture in place (secretariat, Bureau, activeparties, reasonable budget), which makesa convention work. In cases where this isall lacking, a convention will slowly “go tosleep”, in spite of its probably well-developed aims and goals.

The political environment of the timeThe above certainly did not apply to the pio-neering Bern Convention. It has shown allthe necessary potential to be an efficientinternational instrument, regionally ori-ented, and demonstrating the necessaryflexibility to remain so. However, in those days the political sep-aration between western and easternEurope was strong and difficult to over-come and the Council of Europe, wherethe Bern Convention was developedand which provided the secretariat func-tions and other support, was not recog-nised by the countries on the easternside of the iron curtain. They were cer-tainly not disposed to ratify the conven-tion in spite of its ambition to be reallypan-European.It meant that the convention started withonly a small group of countries which slowlygrew to twenty parties. Almost all ratifica-tions after 1989 came from countries fromcentral and eastern Europe, although somewestern European countries also came on

board late, for instance France (1990),Belgium (1990) and Iceland (1993).

The Bern Convention and the European UnionIn a political sense the work of the BernConvention became more complicatedonce the European Union developed itsBirds Directive (1979) under strong pres-sure from NGOs. Although the directiveand the convention have similar aims,there is an important difference betweenthese two texts: non-observance of the firstis punishable by a court of justice: theEuropean Court of Justice. Furthermorethere is the need for EU members to decideon a common position before meetings ofthe Standing Committee of the BernConvention. This dominant presence of the EU alsoinfluenced the successful monitoring sys-tem of national implementation of the BernConvention – the so-called “file system”,in a way which caused some tensionamong EU members and between the EUand non-EU members of the BernConvention concerning the possible role ofthe European Commission in cases wherea file was opened against an EU memberstate. It took some time before possibletension could be defused thanks to proce-dural improvements.

The Bern Convention and centraland eastern European countries.Most central and eastern European coun-tries (including a number of new states)have joined the Council of Europe andmany have already ratified the BernConvention. Politically it is extremely important thatthe Russian Federation should join the Bern

Convention due to its wealth of expertisein biodiversity, and it should have a specialrole in the European conservation agenda.It should be recognised that probably over50% of Europe’s remaining high qualitynatural sites are in the Russian Federationand its former republics. This is one of the greatest political chal-lenges for the Bern Convention: to bring theremaining countries under its umbrella asthe regional biodiversity convention forthe whole of Europe.

Its future roleThe convention was able to adapt to andassimilate the great changes in the politi-cal and geo-political map of Europe. It hascarefully followed global developments inconservation and taken them into accountin its work and procedures.In my opinion the Bern Convention is agood example of how to approach conser-vation at regional level in a practical waythat remains close to the people involved,solidly based on scientific data thanks tothe work of the groups of experts and opento global developments.

Gerard C. BoereChair from 1998 to 2000 and representative

of the Netherlands on the StandingCommittee of the Bern Convention

Dorrewold 22NL-7213 TG Gorssel

gcboere@worldonline.nl

Political aspects and development

R e m a r k a b l e p r o g r e s s

Bru

ne

t/S

un

set

Loiret landscape (France)

12 n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

R e m a r k a b l e p r o g r e s s

After the political, social and economicchanges which occurred in formerCzechoslovakia in 1989, a new act on theprotection of nature and the landscape wasprepared by the newly established Ministryof the Environment of the Czech Republicand State Nature Conservancy authorities.The fall of the iron curtain brought toCzechoslovak nature conservationists, amongothers, the possibility to learn more fromexperience abroad. In addition to progress inconservation biology, ecology and environ-mental science, the authors of the law werealso substantially inspired by the BernConvention. The previous main legal instrument for speciesprotection in former Czechoslovakia, Act No. 40 on State Nature Conservation, waspassed in 1956. The decrees of the Ministryof Education and Culture listing protectedwildlife species were adopted in 1958 and1965 respectively. Act No. 114/1992 on theProtection of Nature and the Landscape cameinto force on 1 June 1992. It is based on a rel-atively modern integrated approach stress-ing ecological integrity, that is, both the div-ersity and the importance of life-supportingprocesses in various biological systems. The Act includes ways of protecting specialwildlife species (individuals or whole popu-lations) as well as information concerningthe protection and management of their habi-tats. It is also recognised in the legislativeinstrument that habitat protection and eco-logically sound management of ecosystemsis the most cost-effective approach to pre-serve the diversity of species in a given ter-ritory. Under the Act, all wild animals and

plants are generally protected at all stages oftheir development, with the exception ofspecies important from the point of view ofthe economy and those associated with dis-ease (“pests”). Special attention is also paidto geographically non-native species sinceinvasive alien species, which threaten ecosys-tems, habitats and other species are consid-ered to be one of the most significant risksfor biological diversity, including in centralEurope.

Learning for the futureAlthough the Czech Republic became a partyto the Bern Convention as late as 1998, Czechexperts and officials have been involved inactivities in the framework of the conven-tion, particularly in groups of experts since1990. It was at a Bern Convention meetingwhere some of them, including the author ofthis article, entered for the first time the inter-national conservation forum. One of theresults of this involvement is the addition tothe convention’s appendices of species andsubspecies of wild flora and fauna occurringin the Czech Republic or, more generally, incentral and eastern Europe.

The European otter, a flagship species In the Czech Republic there are only a fewlakes. On the other hand, approximately 23 000 fishponds of various sizes have beenbuilt in the country. They are the preferredhabitat of the European otter (Lutra lutra). In1993, the Trebon Otter Foundation wasestablished to undertake research and conser-vation projects relating to the otter in the

Trebonsko Protected Landscape Area andBiosphere Reserve (south Bohemia), inhab-ited by the most numerous population of thecarnivore in central Europe. In 1999, thefoundation was replaced by the Czech OtterFoundation Fund, the latter having a nation-wide scope. The fund carries out and sup-ports otter conservation projects in the CzechRepublic. The research includes studies on dietbehaviour, habitat selection, dispersal usingtelemetry, contamination of otters by PCBs,etc. The fund also provides environmentaleducation and communication activitiesthrough television programmes, lectures,exhibitions, brochures and competitions forschoolchildren, including the disabled. Inaddition, it aims to integrate conservationand research on otters in the Czech Republicwith projects in the rest of Europe. After final-ising the long-term project in 2004, the organ-isation will continue on a slightly modifiedbasis. All the activities of both bodies havebeen substantially supported by the Ministryof the Environment of Luxembourg in theframework of the Bern Convention.

Jan PlesníkRepresentative of the Czech Republic on

the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape

Protection of the Czech RepublicKalisnická 4-6

CZ-130 23 Praha 3jan_plesnik@nature.cz

In the Czech Republic

/Bio

s

Czech landscape

13n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

Re

ma

rk

ab

le

p

ro

gr

es

s

On 20 April 1989, Belgium enacted legis-lation approving the Convention on theConservation of European Wildlife andNatural Habitats. The Walloon Region,which has responsibility in this matter, hastaken a variety of measures to implementthe convention. All the species included in the appendicesto the convention are referred to in theNature Conservation Act of 12 July 1973,which means that they are fully protectedboth against harm to individuals (beingkept, disturbed, sold, bought, killed, etc.)and against the intentional deteriorationof habitats, with the exception of birds.Moreover, unless expressly excepted, thisAct prohibits the introduction into the nat-ural environment and game parks of non-indigenous species and of indigenousspecies of non-indigenous stock, and thereintroduction into the natural environ-ment of indigenous animal and vegetablespecies.The Walloon Region is playing a full partin establishing an ecological network, at alower level than the pan-European “mega”ecological network, by setting up a localecological network of local authority naturedevelopment plans through the Emeraldand Natura 2000 networks, thereby imple-menting Resolution 5 of the convention. Inthe Walloon Region the Natura 2000 net-work has the peculiarity of being basedlargely on an oro-hydrographic network.This network of 239 sites, which covers inall nearly 13% of the surface area, is prin-cipally made up of woodland (around 75%,two thirds of which is broad-leaved).However, because of the population den-sity in the Walloon Region (an average of200 inhabitants per square kilometre), it hasbecome necessary to take a large numberof measures aimed at improving the net-work for certain types of habitat, particu-larly by preserving natural spaces outsideprotected areas. Operations such as thecreation of ponds, delayed cutting of road-side verges, and grants for planting andmaintaining hedges, are key elements andare of benefit to many species (includinghymenoptera).Once an inventory had been made of peatbogs, heathland and dry grassland, meas-ures were taken to protect them and man-age them sustainably. Upland peat bogsare rare environments of exceptional bio-logical importance. It is believed that thereremain only some 2 000 ha of degradedpeat bog and around 200 ha of sub-intactpeat bog in the Walloon Region. Most of the

larger peat sites are now protected, andappropriate management measures havebeen put in place.

Protection of habitatsand speciesIn the Walloon Region, heathland and drygrassland are largely accounted for by twomilitary camps. An agreement has beensigned between National Defence and theNature and Forests Department to takeinto account and manage the natural her-itage in military areas. This agreement isof particular benefit to these two environ-ments, and especially to the sand lizard(Lacerta agilis), the distribution of which isvery restricted in Belgium.The broad-fingered crayfish (Astacus asta-cus) is the only indigenous crayfish foundin Belgium, and its populations are underserious threat. A complete list has beendrawn up of sites where it is found through-out the Walloon Region. The species isbeing bred with a view to its reintroductioninto rivers of adequate quality. Fishing leg-islation forbids the taking of broad-fingeredcrayfish.The pearl mussel (Margaritifera margari-tifera) is the subject of a Life project aimedat the long-term conservation of the habi-tats which provide shelter for its popula-tions. While it used to be widespread inEurope, more than 90% of the individualmembers of the species disappeared overthe last century. In Belgium, there is onlyone major population (over 1 000 individ-uals) left in the Walloon Region, with fur-ther very small, scattered populations,largely in a few good-quality rivers in theArdennes. The results expected from thisproject are a significant improvement inwater quality, awareness of pearl musselsin strategic planning decisions, and a risein the populations of host fish.The operation to encourage occupation ofsteeples and roofs of public buildings bybats (known as Operation “Roofs andSteeples”) and the statutory listing of manysubterranean cavities, have made it possibleto maintain, restore and create a large net-work of summer and winter sites for chi-roptera which is of particular benefit to thegreater horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus fer-rumequinum) and the pond bat (Myotisdasycneme). In conclusion, other examples could begiven of practical implementation of rec-ommendations. What is attempted hereis to demonstrate their relevance and thatthey have given rise to a whole range of poli-

cies and legislation. As chair of the work-ing group developing a new strategy oninvasive species, I do not for a momentdoubt the potential significance of thesedocuments for many parties, especiallypoliticians.

Patrick De WolfRepresentative of Belgium on the Standing

Committee of the Bern Convention Ministry of the Walloon Region

Nature and Forests Division15 avenue Prince de Liège

B-5100 Jambes (Namur)p.dewolf@mrw.wallonie.be

Belgium, the Walloon Region

M.

Du

frê

ne

The Hautes Fagnes in Belgium

14 n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

R e m a r k a b l e p r o g r e s s

Ukraine regained its independence in 1991.A typical representative of post-communistcountries, it inherited from the previousregime a number of problems related to theenvironment, including exhaustible exploita-tion of natural resources, particularly mineraldeposits and bioresources (forests andwildlife), water, air and soil pollution, land ero-sion and radionuclide contamination. Steppelandscapes had been reduced due to agri-cultural activity. It is not an easy task to imple-ment sustainable development policy evenunder the favourable conditions of a pros-perous economy, thus it is much more dif-ficult to pursue this goal in Ukraine, sincethis country is now undergoing dramaticchanges, trying to overcome a profound cri-sis and to solve numerous individual prob-lems. However, Ukrainians are aware of theimportance of natural resource preservationand biological conservation as a key pre-condition of transition to sustainable devel-opment in concordance with internationallyaccepted criteria. This is why the basicUkrainian environmental policy documentsadopted at different levels take into consid-eration the necessity of biodiversity conser-vation, the maintenance of productivecapacity of forest ecosystems, the enhanc-ing of the contribution of natural ecosystemsto global cycles and climate stability, decreas-ing acidification and air pollution, and theelimination of the consequences of nuclearcontamination.

General contextIn this respect the general context can bementioned: as a result of drastic politicalchanges in the world, and especially in thecentral and eastern European region duringthe last decade, new challenges have arisen,as have opportunities for the implementa-tion of sustainable development and newecological standards for nature conservationand management. At the same time, aprocess of social development and/or tran-sition to a market economy entails somenegative economic and social consequences,

in particular financial crises and unemploy-ment. This means that any proposal con-nected with environmental matters shouldbe considered in a systematic way, taking intoaccount social, ecological and economicconditions.According to the commitments enshrined inthe Bern Convention, Ukraine has been tak-ing necessary steps to incorporate therequirements of this convention and the rec-ommendations of the convention’s StandingCommittee into national legislation whenappropriate. The convention came into forcefor Ukraine in 1999 and the Ministry forEnvironmental Protection of Ukraine is thegovernmental body responsible for imple-mentation of the convention’s provisions.According to the requirements of the BernConvention, the Law of Ukraine on Huntingand the Law of Ukraine on the AnimalKingdom were amended in order to bringthem in line with the convention. Much atten-tion was paid to reviewing the national listof plant and animal species included in theAppendices I and II of the convention andtheir ranges over the territory of Ukraine.Thanks to the generosity of the Governmentof The Netherlands, a series of publicationswas prepared and printed in order to publi-cise the convention and to raise public aware-ness on species and habitats listed in theconvention’s appendices. A number of pub-lications were devoted to species of higherorder plants, invertebrates, amphibians, rep-tiles, birds and mammals listed in the appen-dices.The recommendations and resolutions ofthe convention’s Standing Committee playan important role in the planning of activi-ties relevant to endangered species and habi-tats in Ukraine. Resolution No. 3 (1996) of the StandingCommittee concerning the setting-up of apan-European ecological network was oneof the background documents to promote theidea of developing the ecological networkin Ukraine. The Law of Ukraine on the StateProgramme of Formation of the NationalEcological Network for the Period 2001-2015was drafted and later adopted by theParliament of Ukraine (Verkhovna Rada,2000) to promote development of the eco-logical network on the territory of Ukraineas a part of the European Ecological Network(EECONET). Resolutions Nos. 4, 5 and 6 ofthe Standing Committee concerning theestablishment of the Emerald Network serveas background documents which led to rel-evant activities in Ukraine. The crucial devel-opment issues of the Ukrainian Emerald

Network as an integral part of the Europeannetwork and within the structure of thenational eco-network were discussed at thenational seminar involving representativesof the Council of Europe. A recommendationon the conservation of underground habitatswas the basis for the implementation of therelevant project in Ukraine on the assess-ment of populations of certain species ofanimals adapted to existence in caves. Thecountry took an active part in the applicationof recommendations on the conservationof brown bears (Ursus arctos), on the conser-vation of the wolf (Canis lupus) and on theconservation of the European lynx (Lynxlynx), on the basis of which the country’sspecific action plans were developed.The Ukrainian Government, scientific cir-cles and environmental NGOs consider theintegration of Ukraine into European envi-ronmental legislation as an extremely impor-tant step towards Europe. The preservationof plant and animal species and their habi-tats in the territory of Ukraine contributesnot only to the implementation of the BernConvention, but also to the conservation ofthe European common heritage. The controversial process of globalisationand an instrumental approach to natureresult in unsustainable use of natureresources, loss of biodiversity, etc. Despitesubstantial efforts by the international com-munity over the last decades through a largenumber of both international and regionalinitiatives (such as adoption of conventions,programmes and projects), the degradationof bio- and landscape diversity is continu-ing. It is high time that their efficiency andeffectiveness in terms of nature conservationand human welfare is assessed. From thetime twenty-five years ago when the BernConvention was accepted by the Council ofEurope and from the shorter experience ofits implementation in Ukraine, we may saythat this convention is one of the most effi-cient and workable international legally bind-ing instruments, encouraging both politiciansand nature conservationists to preserve liv-ing beings on the terrain of Europe for pres-ent and future generations.

Yaroslav Movchan, Volodymyr Domashlinets and Tetiana Hardashouk

Representative of Ukraine on the StandingCommittee of the Bern Convention

Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources

PO box 190Urytskoho, 35

UKR-Kyiv 03035movchan@menr.gov.ua; iar@gala.net

In Ukraine

La

cz/S

un

set

Brown bear (Ursus arctos)

15n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

Re

ma

rk

ab

le

p

ro

gr

es

s

Thanks to its geographical location,Senegal is home to a great diversity ofhabitats, ranging from Sahelian ecosys-tems to Guinean ecosystems, of bothmainland, marine and lagoon varieties.However, the 1970s were marked by eco-logical disasters which eventually trig-gered awareness at national andinternational level, and Senegal tookmeasures to curb the deterioration of itsnatural resources, which included signingand ratifying several international conven-tions on the conservation of wildlifespecies and their habitats. These measures supplemented Senegal’sexisting arrangements for conserving itsbiological resources, including the set-ting up of a vast network of protectedareas.The Bern Convention entered into forcein respect of Senegal in 1987.

Network of protected areasThe network comprises several ensem-bles:– the first of these is a 913 000 hectare

park of savannah land: the NiokoloKoba National Park, established to pre-serve the remaining representatives ofthe country’s large land animals;

– the second ensemble consists of coastalwetlands (coastal areas, estuaries anddeltas) and, through its multitude ofhabitats, is vital to the migration ofpalearctic birds. It covers a surface areaof 20 000 ha of islands, swamps,lagoons, mangroves and forests and50 000 ha of marine habitats;

– the third ensemble consists of theSahelian ecosystems represented bythe Ferlo Nord wildlife reserve(400 000 ha), whose management wasentrusted to the National ParksDirectorate in 1996. It is home to resid-ual populations of gazelle (Gazellarufifrons), African spurred tortoise(Geochelone sulcata), over 180 birdspecies including the ostrich (Struthiocamelus), Abyssinian ground-hornbill(Bicorvus abyssinicus) and Arabian bus-tard (Otis arabs).

Initial attempts are currently under wayto reintroduce wildlife species into thereserve, with oryx and dama mhorrgazelles.In addition to these three ensembles,there is another ensemble comprising:– 213 listed forests;– 20 silvopastoral reserves;– 8 cynegetic areas.

Several areas have been listed under inter-national conventions. The networkincludes two World Heritage sites, twobiosphere reserves and three Ramsarsites. Furthermore, over 220 animalspecies present in the parks and reservesare protected under the Bern and Bonnconventions.

Emerald NetworkThe Bern Convention mechanism is man-aged in Senegal by the Ministry of theEnvironment and Nature Protection,through the offices of the National ParksDirectorate.It was in June 1989 that the StandingCommittee of the Bern Convention heldan extraordinary meeting and adopted anumber of recommendations on habitatprotection, including RecommendationNo. 16 (1989). This recommendationurged the contracting parties to establisha network of conservation areas underthe convention, known as “areas of spe-cial conservation interest” (ASCIs). At itsmeeting in October 1996 the StandingCommittee also decided, in ResolutionNo. 3 (1996), to set up a network includ-ing the ASCIs, known as the “EmeraldNetwork”.Having already set up a national team inOctober 2001, Senegal had its requestfor network membership granted by theStanding Committee in December 2002.

The setting up of the network was a majorstep forward in Senegal’s collaborationwith the Bern Convention.After Senegal’s membership request wasgranted, a training seminar was organisedin Dakar with technical and financial sup-port from the convention secretariat. Itbrought together the representatives ofthe main state agencies and the NGOsinvolved in implementing the pro-gramme.At the end of the seminar a site (LakeTanma) was selected for establishment asan ASCI. The technical file is now beingfinalised so that the Senegalese govern-ment can officially propose the site as anarea of special conservation interest.Implementing the Emerald Network pro-gramme will certainly enable Senegal toconsolidate its network of protected areasand better conserve its biologicalresources.

Samuel DiemeWater and forestry engineer

Deputy Director of the National Parks of Senegal

BP 5135Dakar – Senegaldpn@sentoo.sn

In Senegal

Fe

rre

ro-L

ab

at/

Bio

s-P

ho

ne

Migrating storks

16 n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

C o n s e r v a t i o n o f n a t u r a

Any immediate answer to the somewhatprovocative title question must, of course,be yes. Habitats are not only still usefulbiological and administrative conserva-tion tools, but also remain an essentialingredient of modern conservation biol-ogy. However, conservation biology, justlike any other scientific discipline, is proneto changes in fashion. In the early daysof the Bern Convention, emphasis wasplaced upon protecting particular species,mainly flowers or birds or furry animals.Formal lists were drawn up of speciesdeemed to be particularly worthy of activeprotection – “red lists” – which servedto draw the attention of the public, includ-ing politicians, to the importance of“nature conservation”, and the fact thatspecies can become extinct throughhuman influences. Then some scientistspointed out that species are becomingextinct because their habitat is beingdestroyed, so it is ultimately the habitatthat deserves most of the attention,money, and effort. This change of empha-sis from species to habitat started out asscientific, but was quickly taken up withinthe political arena. Now, the dilemma of“species or habitat” protection has takenon the proportions of the earlier “singlelarge or several small” (SLOSS) discus-sions of nature reserve design that werestimulated by island biogeography theoryin the 1970s, particularly in the USA (forinstance Shafer, 1990). Just as in thatdebate, a paradigm shift in the scientificworld has resulted in a change of fashionoutside. One of the main problems with habitatconservation per se is the temptation toadopt a “blanket protection” approachin which a particular habitat, or a groupof habitats within a protected area, ismanaged at large, “human” scales inap-propriate for the majority of the speciespresent and for the functioning of thesystem. One example of this is providedby the Berchtesgaden National Park andits buffer zone in the Bavarian Alps dur-ing the 1980s. At that time the “state-of-the-art” management strategy reliedheavily upon protection of alpine habi-tats for golden eagles, chamois, and afew other species in the belief that thiswould be sufficient to guarantee protec-tion of all the other animal and plantspecies underneath the “umbrella” –including invertebrate animals listedwithin the appendices of the BernConvention. Predictably, this turned out

not to be the case (Haslett, 1990). Nowconservation management of the area ismuch more dynamic and takes accountof the different needs of a wide range oforganisms that use their habitats over anequally wide range of spatial scales.

Spatial heterogeneityIt is this idea of spatial heterogeneity overa wide range of scales that provides thevery essence of the habitat concept in itsmodern form. Different organisms per-ceive and exploit their environment atdifferent scales and it is essential that thisbe taken into account in conservationmanagement. Thus, when we think of amosaic of different habitat patches at thescale of looking out of an aeroplane win-dow – the eagle’s eye view of a wood-land, a meadow, a lake – this is verydifferent to the habitat mosaic relevantto, say, a beetle that exists within a fewsquare metres, but which experiencesequally heterogeneous patches of terrainat that scale (for instance, Haslett andTraugott, 2000). Within any such habi-tat mosaics, a variety of parametersbecome important to conservation,including the shape, size, content andedge complexity of the individual patches.All of these are relevant to how the dif-ferent plants and animals exist and inter-act within the mosaics (for instance,Haslett, 1994; Wiens, 1995). This means that a habitat is really a verycomplicated entity, and is certainly notsimply a vegetational unit such as a“woodland” or a “meadow” sensu Wilson(1992). To conserve a habitat at the lat-ter, simplistic level is not wrong (one hasonly to think of rain forest destruction inthe tropics, or wetland drainage inEurope), but also requires conservingspecies, or groups of species, at differ-ent spatial scales, independently fromany conservation of “flagship” speciesthat epitomise rarity on a red list.Recent technical advances in geograph-ical information systems and remotesensing techniques make the practicali-ties of understanding and managing habi-tat mosaic dynamics much easier. Thenetworks of protected areas and areasimportant for nature conservation thatare presently being constructed acrossEurope – Natura 2000, the EmeraldNetwork, important plant areas (IPAs) –will all benefit greatly if each of the com-ponent areas are treated as dynamic habi-tat mosaics where plants and animals

interact over a wide range of spatialscales. Thus habitat conservation is still a veryuseful conservation tool, but only if we arebroad-minded enough to take account ofthe “organism point of view”, which isseldom equivalent to our own percep-tion. To be able to appreciate and allowfor that difference, we need to knowabout the variety of different species pres-ent and their functional roles within therelevant mosaics of habitat patches, andthen to manage accordingly. Habitat andspecies conservation go hand in hand!

John R. HaslettDepartment of Organismal Biology

University of SalzburgHellbrunner Strasse 34

A-5020 Salzburg john.haslett@sbg.ac.at

Is habitat protection still a relevant conservation tool?

17n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

Co

ns

er

va

tio

n o

f n

at

ur

al h

ab

it

at

s

Environment and Water Management,are to improve ecological management,including the rehabilitation of the aban-doned polders and the restoration ofaffected forests and landscape.

Policies for sustainabledevelopmentTo avoid future conflicts, the DDBRA isdetermined to formulate policies for sus-tainable development. Fortunately, therelatively low population (about 15 000inhabitants), and their concentration insmall settlements makes such a policyviable.The management plan elaborated for the2002-06 period for this complex and sen-sitive area, is based on the results of sci-entific studies and includes objectivesfocused on several major goals: improve-ment of the hydrological conditions inthe lacustrine complexes to restore thepopulations of some affected fish species(wild carp, zander, etc.); the use of nat-ural resources in a sustainable way;improvement of communication and theinvolvement of local people; develop-ment of research and monitoring ofecosystems; the establishment of a strat-egy for sustainable spatial development;and the rehabilitation of the landscape. Several projects have already been startedin the Danube delta with a view to restor-ing the affected natural landscape (includ-ing forestation works along the canals,the removal of the abandoned ships,buildings and illegal houses), to settingup a spatial plan based on the cadastralsurvey, and to defining planning regula-tions for new buildings in the rural set-tlements of the Danube delta.The recent finalised trilateral manage-ment plan for the protected wetlandsshared by Romania, Ukraine and theRepublic of Moldova in the Danube deltaand the lower Prut river flood plain, willpromote transborder co-operation in theregion including the protection and sus-tainable use of the landscape to promoteecological education and tourism.

Adriana BazRepresentative of Romania on the Standing

Committee of the Bern Convention Ministry of Agriculture, Forests, Water

and EnvironmentLibertatii blv. no. 12, sector 5

RO-70542 Bucharestbaz@mappm.ro

Over many millennia the River Danubehas built one of the biggest and the mostbeautiful wetlands in Europe, on its deltawith the Black Sea. The delta covers atotal area of 4 178 square kilometres,shared by Romania (82%) and Ukraine(18%). Closely associated with theDanube delta are many large lakes(limans or former marine bays), as wellas shallow coastal marine waters that sur-round the delta. The lower river Prut, thatenters the Danube, developed a largefloodplain, shared between Romania andthe Republic of Moldova, characterised bywinding river meanders, natural lakesand channels, covering about 144 squarekilometres. These together form a hugewetland complex covering more than 6 700 square kilometres. In Romania, the most important wetlandcomponents comprising the Danube deltaitself, the Razim-Sinoie lagoon complexes,and the coastal zone of the Black Sea,were designated as a biosphere reservein 1990, included in the MAB-Unesco net-work of biosphere reserves. The Danubedelta was also recognised as a Ramsarsite, a Unesco World Heritage site andwas awarded the European Diploma forProtected Areas in 2000.

Diversity of animals and plantsThe natural habitats formed here offergood living conditions for an importantnumber, more than 5 200 species, ofplants and animals. Among these, reed

beds form one of the largest singleexpanses in the world and the forestsgrowing in the Letea and Caraorman sanddunes represent the northern limit fortwo rare species of oak, more frequentlymet in the south of the Italic and Balticpeninsulas. Together with the great number of aquaticand terrestrial plants, there are also manyimportant colonies of pelicans (the sym-bol of the reserve) and pygmy cormorantsas well as a variety of other water birdswhich reside in or visit the delta for breed-ing or wintering (315 species in total).Without doubt, the impressive range ofhabitats and species which occupy a rel-atively small area (one third of the speciesfrom Romania) makes the delta a vitalcentre for biodiversity in Europe and anatural genetic bank with incalculablevalue for natural heritage.

Ancient human dwellingMany of the plants and animals from thedelta are also important natural resourcesfor economic use as food, building mate-rials and medicine; they attracted peo-ple to the area since ancient times. Thehuman dwellings were chiefly based onthe use of these natural resources, thusdeveloping traditional economic activi-ties and characteristic cultural and socialhabits. Later, there was a tendency tooverexploit some of these naturalresources. This tendency, which is stillseen at present, put increasing pressureon the resources, especially fish and grass-land, and was compounded by the devel-opment of economic activities which werenot in harmony with the environment.In fact, during the final decades of thelast century the impact of human activ-ity, both from outside and inside the area,affected the natural habitats and land-scape of the Danube delta. Several majorworks for cutting new canals for naviga-tion, without any scientific reason, or forland reclamation for agriculture and fishfarming changed the natural hydrologi-cal characteristics, transforming manyecosystems. In addition, the abandonedsand exploitation plant and abandonedships on the Danube delta territoryaffected the natural landscape, as didsome small illegal houses built along sev-eral canals. The main objectives of the Danube DeltaBiosphere Reserve Authority (DDBRA),as the management body working underthe co-ordination of the Ministry of

The Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve

l h a b i t a t s

M.

Gu

nth

er

/Bio

s

The pelican is the delta’s symbol

18 n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

The 25th Anniversary of the Bern Convention

19n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

La Convention de Berne a 25 ans

Illu

stra

tio

n:

F.

Pil

lot

20 n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

C o n s e r v a t i o n o f n a t u r a l h a b i t a t s

If there is one field in which the adoptionof the Bern Convention has paved the wayfor a new era, it is undoubtedly the conser-vation of natural habitats, whether thosewhich have their own intrinsic value orthose which are essential for supportingwild flora and fauna species (especiallyareas of importance for migratory species).Prior to the adoption of the convention,nature conservation activities were aimedat eradicating, limiting or controlling humanactivities (hunting, fishing, collecting, gath-ering, trade, etc.), which in the past hadbeen the main direct cause for the reduc-tion, or at times complete disappearance,of certain species. However, the many scientific studies (pub-lished in the Nature and Environment series)undertaken by the Council of Europe inthe course of the first European NatureConservation Year, highlighted new fac-tors which had been contributing to thediminishing numbers of certain wild speciessince the 1950s. The older causes contribut-ing to the disappearance of species some-times still persisted, but suddenly had beenjoined or replaced by the direct destruc-tion or modification of the habitats whichare home to these species throughout theirlife cycle.

Action taken in responseThis gave rise to the specific provisionsin the Bern Convention relating to thepreservation of habitats. Contracting par-ties were required to undertake to adoptthe necessary measures at national level.However, it was not until some ten yearslater that the Standing Committee of theBern Convention adopted a resolutionand three recommendations to promoteways of conserving habitats, recom-mending that contracting parties desig-nate areas of special conservation interest(ASCIs). They were to draw up specialmeasures for the priority preservation ofnatural habitats and habitats of species. The political events of 1989 and subsequentyears in central and eastern Europe hadmajor repercussions on the functioning ofthe Council of Europe, while at the sametime the European Community, a contract-ing party, was drafting a directive for theapplication of the convention in theCommunity. In 1992 the EC adopted theDirective on the conservation of naturalhabitats and of wild fauna and flora (HabitatsDirective), which provided for the setting upof “Natura 2000”, a network of special areasof conservation (SACs), thereby supple-menting the Directive on the conservation

of wild birds (Birds Directive), drawn up atthe same time as the Bern Convention.In 1996, the Standing Committee adopteda resolution to bring the ASCIs togetherunder a new “Emerald Network” (the namebeing a reference to the colour of this pre-cious stone). The network was to be set upunder the guidance of a group of expertsfrom the contracting parties responsiblefor carrying out the necessary activities.One of its first tasks was to draw up foradoption by the Standing Committee a listof threatened natural habitats and speciesrequiring special conservation measurescovering the whole of Europe.Since 1999, this group of experts has beenmeeting annually and has been particu-larly monitoring what has been going onin the countries of central and easternEurope which accepted the Council ofEurope’s proposal to initiate pilot projectsin their respective countries. In late 2003,twenty-three countries were carrying outsuch projects, including Senegal, the firstAfrican country to do so, with the intentionof involving neighbouring countries. Itwould appear, from the information avail-able, that Tunisia wishes to follow suit. Inall, thirty-eight countries are involved inthe Emerald Network, twenty-five of which– since the recent enlargement of theEuropean Union – contribute via the Natura2000 network. The pilot projects clearly show that adynamic process is under way. We mustdo all we can to ensure that the timetableadopted by the Standing Committee in2002 will be complied with. It lays downthat by 2006 all potential Emerald sites inall countries will have been identified andthat the Emerald Network will be com-pletely operational by 2010, which, it willbe remembered, is the date that the major-ity of the countries in the world have fixedfor taking stock of progress made in reach-ing the biodiversity target. Europe musttherefore set an example in addressing thisworldwide challenge.

Foundations for a networkThis date ties in with the timetable for com-pletion of the Natura 2000 network, andwith that adopted by the 5th pan-Europeanministerial conference, “An Environmentfor Europe”, held in Kyiv in May 2003. Thisis important in view of the fact that theNatura 2000 and Emerald sites will – giventhe political significance, geographicalextent and biological diversity of the net-works they form – constitute the founda-tions on which the core zones of the

The Emerald Network

It is astonishing that the Bern Conventionis able to accommodate new tendencies innature conservation. Even twenty-five yearsago the basic concept was not limited tocertain species, but to their habitats andconnections. When the ecosystemapproach was finding support in scientificcircles the convention was an appropriateexisting tool, ready to use at once. So theidea of implementing the Pan-EuropeanEcological Network across the wholegreater European area became realistic.Some small formal adaptations needed tobe carried out to make legal provisionsoperational. The Standing Committee ofthe convention adopted adequate provi-sions and the Emerald Network was born.At the beginning there was some hesitationabout the Emerald Network and even confusion regarding different networkapproaches in Europe. But soon it becameclear that it was a legally backed instru-ment that could and should be used. Itsmain advantage is that it can be applied allover the Europe and is complementary toother similar initiatives. Regarding the polit-ical situation three approaches can be foundin Europe: – European Union member states

contribute to the Emerald Networkthrough the Natura 2000 network inorder to avoid fragmentation or compe-tition of network ideas;

– for accession countries the EmeraldNetwork was a good opportunity to conduct preparation work for Natura2000. All specific tables (for example,

Emerald and Natu

pan-European ecological network providedfor by the Pan-European Biological andLandscape Diversity Strategy will be built. We must ensure that the Emerald Networkdevelops in the spirit of the “DurbanAgreement”, that is, in renewed dialogue withthe local populations and the interest groupsconcerned, putting into practice the threefocal points of sustainable development.

Henri JaffeuxChair of the Committee of Experts

for the Development of the Pan-EuropeanEcological Network

Ministry of Ecology and SustainableDevelopment

Directorate of Nature and Landscapes20 avenue de Ségur – F-75007 Paris

henri.jaffeux@environnement.gouv.fr

S.

Co

rdie

r

21n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

Pr

ot

ec

tio

n o

f t

he

s

pe

cie

s

The number of exotic species invadingEurope is growing very rapidly as a consequence of the globalisation of theeconomy, causing major impacts onregional biological diversity. Some of themost endangered species in Europe aredirectly threatened by species inten-tionally or accidentally introduced byman, like the European mink – one ofthe only two endemic carnivores of theregion – threatened by the introducedAmerican mink, or the rare white-headedduck endangered by hybridisation withthe North American ruddy duck.Introduced species also threatenEuropean ecosystems, as in the case ofthe ongoing expansion of the Americangrey squirrel from northern Italy that is

causing the progressive disappearanceof the native red squirrel and is consid-ered a threat to forest ecosystems on acontinental scale. The European forestshave already been deeply affected by theintroduced Dutch elm disease that dev-astated elm tree populations in much ofcentral Europe and Great Britain.

Apply good practicesIt is now clear that the impacts of manypast invasions could have been mitigatedif states had uniformly applied appro-priate best practices and taken rapidaction to eradicate introduced speciesfollowing detection. And the arrival ofmost unwanted alien species now threat-ening Europe might have been preventedby greater awareness and a stronger com-mitment. One of the most clear exam-ples of this is the case of the Caulerpataxifolia – the killer algae introduced inthe early 1980s and that for several yearsafter introduction remained confined toa few square metres. It took over tenyears before European states realisedthat it was urgent to control it, and whenthey did, it was too late, as the alga hadthen expanded to a large portion of theMediterranean.What Europe needs is a much more activepolicy aimed at preventing new invasionsas a priority, at rapidly eradicating newlyestablished alien species when preventionfails and at mitigating the impacts wheneradication is not feasible. But to achievethis, states need to know more about thepatterns of arrival and expansion of alienspecies, to increase their ability to mon-itor them, to improve their responsemechanisms and, in most cases, to revisetheir legal frameworks. To provide the basis for a co-ordinatedand integrated approach to biologicalinvasions, the Bern Convention has pro-duced a European Strategy on InvasiveAlien Species – adopted by the StandingCommittee of the convention lastDecember – that is the last step of a long-standing effort carried out in the lasttwenty years by the convention on theissue of biological invasions, through theadoption of recommendations, theproduction of technical reports, the organ-isation of workshops and the establish-ment of a group of experts. The strategyis the result of over three years of work,carried out with the scientific and tech-nical support of the World ConservationUnion (IUCN) Invasive Species Specialist

Group and with the co-operation of manyexperts and organisations. It has thenbeen officially welcomed by theConvention on Biological Diversity andthe Council of the European Union. The European countries are now called onto prepare national strategies based on theEuropean document and to enhancestricter co-operation with the aim of pre-venting new invasions and mitigating theimpacts of alien species already estab-lished.

Piero GenovesiNational Wildlife Institute

Via Ca’ Fornacetta 9I-40064 Ozzano Emilia (BO)

infspapk@iperbole.bologna.it

The European Strategy on Invasive Alien Species

P r o t e c t i o n o f t h e s p e c i e s

the national system of designated areas,biogeographical regions, etc.) needed forthe Emerald Network can be used directlyin Natura 2000 standard data form;

– the third group of countries are non-EUcountries such as Switzerland, Norway,Turkey and the Balkan countries. Throughthe Emerald Network they contribute tothe common ecological network regard-less of the current political situation.

Ecological relations are commonly notunderstood; we have to present them in away that is understandable to planners,decision makers and the general public.Through ecological networks drawn on amap, connections in nature suddenlybecome visible!But we need more! We need networkingbetween nature conservation and othersectors, with civil society, within the gen-eral public, financial institutions, scien-tists… We need networking in our heads!And we can learn this through admiringand respecting networks in nature.

Peter SkoberneRepresentative of Slovenia on the Standing

Committee of the Bern Convention Ministry of the Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy

Dunajska 47SI-1000 Ljubljana

peter.skoberne@gov.si

ra 2000 networksJa

me

s /S

un

set

The grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) has started to invade the European continent

22 n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

P r o t e c t i o n o f t h e s p e c

Sometimes something happens which feelsso momentous that you know, with com-plete certainty, that history is being made.Such a moment was 4.25 p.m. on 19 April2002, when the Conference of the Parties(COP) to the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD) adopted the Global Strategyfor Plant Conservation.On the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniver-sary of the Bern Convention it is fitting to paytribute to the role played by the Council ofEurope and the Bern Convention to itsachievement. In the year 2000, at their fifth meeting, theCBD had decided to “consider the adoptionof a global strategy for plant conservation”at their next meeting (COP6). The Councilof Europe, working with Planta Europa –the network of organisations working forthe conservation of plants and fungi inEurope – were, at this time, planning to tryto tackle the ever-growing threats to wildplants in Europe by rationalising the hugejob to be done through developing aEuropean Plant Conservation Strategy.

A cohesive regional approachIt was realised that if a European strategywere developed as a contribution to anemerging global strategy, it would bothunderpin and support the global effort forplants. At the same time it would spearheada cohesive regional approach within a globalframework, and in so doing strengthen thestatus of both strategies. The European strat-egy would also be likely to increase supportfor the global strategy at COP6.At an informal meeting held with a numberof international institutions CBD ExecutiveSecretary, Hamdallah Zedan, expressed hisaspiration for the global strategy: it shouldcontain clear targets to allow progress to bemeasured. This was also the plan for theEuropean strategy: clear targets were nec-essary to determine plant conservationachievements.Then came the third Planta Europa confer-ence (organised by Planta Europa, theCouncil of Europe and the Agency for NatureConservation and Landscape Protection ofthe Czech Republic) on the conservation ofwild plants, in the Czech Republic (23-28 June 2001). Targets were developed atthe conference through a highly participa-tive process. A series of workshops involv-ing 157 delegates from 38 countries debatedand fine-tuned them after two days (andpart of the nights) of intense hard work.Architect of the strategic planning process,Christoph Imboden, declared that it was

one of the largest participatory exercisesever undertaken.

TargetsThese targets became the basis of the PlantaEuropa/Council of Europe European PlantConservation Strategy. They cover issuessuch as important plant areas, protectedarea management, information exchange,capacity building and development of thePlanta Europa network.The European Plant Conservation Strategywas submitted formally to the scientific wingof the CBD, in November 2001, as a contri-bution to the emerging global strategy. Aftera great deal of lobbying by a number ofindefatigable people, this scientific bodycalled for a refinement of the targets, beforethe global strategy could be presented tothe CBD at COP6. The recommendationspecifically recognised the Council ofEurope/Planta Europa European PlantConservation Strategy as “a valuable contri-bution to global plant conservation”.Likewise, later that month, the StandingCommittee of the Bern Convention consid-ered and recognised the European strategyas a valuable contribution to global plantconservation.The following year, in April 2002, PlantaEuropa and the Council of Europe submit-ted the final version of the European strat-egy, again as a contribution to the globalone. What would the world think? As it hap-pened, at the formal plenary, speakers fromover forty national delegations supportedthe adoption of the global strategy, many ofthem stressing the regional approach toimplementation by citing the European PlantConservation Strategy.The Global Strategy for Plant Conservationwas formally adopted on 19 April 2002. Theresult is a clear way forward for plant conser-vation; the world community now has aprecise framework for the work.Planta Europa is delighted that as the firstregional plant conservation strategy pro-duced, it is serving as an example for otherregions who are undergoing similarprocesses to ensure that the global strategycontains “bottom up” elements – for afterall the CBD is designed to be implementedat national level.September of this year sees the fourth PlantaEuropa conference (Valencia, Spain, 17-20 September 2004) organised by theRegional Government of the ValencianCommunity and the Botanical Garden atthe University of Valencia in associationwith Plantlife International and the Council

The European Plant Conservation Strategy

Just as at one point not so long ago when vipers, toads

and other predators were somewhat discredited, the

importance of mushrooms and fungi in the environ-

mental sector is even today not fully realised: some

people think of them as merely something good to eat,

others comment that there are certain poisonous species

which can kill you, and these should be trampled under

foot, while yet others see them as hallucinogenics.

However, mushrooms play a crucial role in the life of

ecosystems. There are more than 8 000 visible species

(that is, those which are big enough to see) in Europe.

Unfortunately, many are endangered. Mushrooms or

fungi used to be classified as vegetables but today they

are in a class of their own, and yet do not appear in

Appendix I to the Bern Convention.

In 1997, France appointed me NGO representative

on the Standing Committee. I put forward the case

for fungi to the committee delegations, with the sup-

port of a large number of European scientists.

The Bern Convention secretariat asked me to produce

a report in 2000 on endangered mushrooms and fungi

in Europe. This gave me the opportunity to collate the

Endangered mus

All organisations involved in plant conservation are

invited to join the growing Planta Europa network.

Please contact the Planta Europa secretariat: Nadia

Bystriakova, at the address below for details or see

www.plantlife.org.uk or www.plantaeuropa.org. For

details of the forthcoming Planta Europa conference

see www.nerium.net/plantaeuropa

of Europe. After all this talk of strategies,paper and meetings there is a real need toget on with the work. The aim of the confer-ence is therefore to showcase success sto-ries and thereby build the European PlantConservation Strategy with real conservationaction.

Jane SmartExecutive Director of Planta Europa and Chief

Executive of Plantlife International14 Rollestone Street

GB-Salisbury, Wiltshire, SP1 1DX jane.smart@plantlife.org.uk

S.

Co

rdie

r

Lizard orchid(Himantoglossum

hircinum) andPyramidal orchid

(Anacamptispyramidalis)

23n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

Pr

ot

ec

tio

n o

f t

he

s

pe

cie

s

Slovakia like many other countries faces theproblem of invasive alien species whichinvade not only human-made ecosystemsbut penetrate into semi-natural and natu-ral ecosystems and also threaten protectedareas.The Ministry of the Environment and theState Nature Conservancy of the SlovakRepublic, in particular, have been sys-tematically dealing with the problem since1997. First of all it started with the map-ping of invasive alien species distributionand later, based on the results of the map-ping, with eradication and control of someselected species. However, most of thework has been done in relation to invasivealien plant species so far. In 2002 a List ofAlien, Invasive Alien and Expansive NativeVascular Plant Species of Slovakia (seconddraft) was published. According to the listforty-seven taxa are considered to be inva-sive at national level and forty-nine atregional level. Increased attention asregards mapping and management is beingpaid to these particular plant species andabout 3 000 sites of fifty species have beenrecorded so far. Practical management(mostly eradication and control) is con-centrated in protected areas, but areaswhere no special protection is providedare also subject to action where thesespecies exist. Every year nature conser-vation bodies take care of about 120 local-

ities. Good results are, for example, withcontrol of Heracleum mantegazzianum inthe Nízke Tatry National Park (Low Tatras)and in the protected landscape area ofKysuce. As for the other sectors, watermanagement authorities contribute to theelimination of invasive alien plant speciesthrough regular management of watercourses.

Legislation and invasive alien speciesThe law (Act No. 543/2002 Coll.) on natureand landscape protection should signifi-cantly help to solve the problem of invasivealien species. Some of its regulations alsoprovide protection for ecosystems com-posed of natural species, including:– regulation of intentional dissemination of

alien species;– monitoring of occurrence, population

size and spread of alien species;– elimination of invasive alien species.As well as these regulations the law alsodeals with the trade in invasive alien speciesand obliges owners (administrators, ten-ants) to eliminate invasive alien speciesfrom their land. However, in everyday lifelaw enforcement conflicts with many otherproblems, such as unclear and disputedland ownership, and so the state now hasto bear the main burden of alien specieselimination. According to an order of theMinistry of the Environment the compul-sory elimination of invasive alien speciesapplies only to the seven most problematicplant species: Fallopia japonica, Fallopia xbohemica, Fallopia sachalinensis, Heracleummantegazzianum, Impatiens glangulifera,Solidago canadensis and Solidago gigantea.

Enforcing the lawThe law and its enforcement is one side ofthe coin, the other is how society under-stands, accepts and supports it. Societyoften has limited understanding of therange of threats posed by invasive alienspecies. Building awareness and publicsupport is a very important part of thestruggle. The State Nature Conservancy isalso developing many activities in this field,for instance contributions to local, regional,and national mass media (newspaper,magazines, radio and television broad-casting), brochures, leaflets, and educa-tional programmes for schools.All the above-mentioned activities concern-ing invasive alien species are just the firststeps towards solving the problems posed.To be more successful, a pile of work is

still waiting for Slovakia, for instance thepreparation and publishing of further listsof invasive alien species in those system-atic groups which have not yet beenresearched (non-vascular plants, birds,invertebrates), the development of bilateralco-operation with neighbouring countries,shared responsibilities with other sectors:governmental and non-governmentalorganisations as well as general public, etc.The European strategy on invasive alienspecies makes a lot of concrete sugges-tions and recommendations for furtherwork. A national strategy on invasive alienspecies – not only its preparation andapproval but its implementation in partic-ular – is the biggest challenge for Slovakia.

Alzbeta CvachováState Nature Conservancy

of the Slovak RepublicCentre for Nature and Landscape

ConservationCZ-974 01 Banská Bystrica

cvachova@sopsr.sk

Ema GojdicováState Nature Conservancy

of the Slovak RepublicRegional Office for Nature and Landscape

ConservationHlavná 93

CZ-080 01 Presov,egojdic@sopsr.sk

Invasive alien species in Slovakia

i e s

various regulations and red lists available in thirty coun-

tries in Europe and the study was published in the

Nature and Environment series.

In 2001 the scientific committee of the European

Council for the Conservation of Fungi (ECCF) presented

a document containing thirty-four datasheets on endan-

gered mushrooms in Europe which could be included

in Appendix I to the convention. Sweden took an active

part in formatting the document and was due to pro-

pose that it be adopted at the Standing Committee’s

twenty-third meeting. However, Sweden had to with-

draw this proposal, expressing its regret that it had

been unable to count on the support of the majority

of the European Union countries.

We hope that there may be some changes to the

convention in the near future that will help promote

the protection of mushrooms and fungi.

Jean-Paul Koune27 rue du Commandant François

F-67100 Strasbourgjean-paul.koune.jec@wanadoo.fr

shrooms in Europe

Bri

ng

ard

/Su

nse

t

The Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) is taking over Europe

Sto

elw

ind

er

Fo

tog

rap

hie

/Bio

s

24 n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

P r o t e c t i o n o f t h e s p e c

The protection of invertebrates wouldnot be where it is today without the BernConvention and the efforts of the manypeople who have toiled, under itsumbrella, to demonstrate the importanceof invertebrates in terms of biodiversity.The 1 200 000 species of invertebrates sofar described account for nearly 95% ofthe animal kingdom and occupy a pri-mordial position in biological cycles, bothon dry land, in marshland and in water.Until 1986, when the “InvertebratesCharter” was ratified by the Committeeof Ministers of the Council of Europe,they were the poor relations of natureprotection. They were studied only bysoft-hearted dreamers or, in the case ofthe tiny minority of species causing prob-lems for human beings, livestock andhuman cultures, by researchers and prac-titioners charged with “controlling” pop-ulations. The effects of this doubleirresponsibility have been devastating:accumulation of highly toxic residual pes-ticides in the biosphere, growing resist-ance among the target species, collapsein the populations of their enemies, anddecline in those of their predators, par-ticularly vertebrates.

Impact of the Bern ConventionWhat has the Bern Convention achievedhere?Shortly after invertebrate species wereincluded in Appendices II and III of theconvention in 1988, they also began toappear in national legislation. Their sta-tus then suddenly changed: ceasing to

be disregarded, they became the targetof very effective protection measures andtools for enhancement and thus protec-tion of certain habitats.The recommendations issued under theconvention have consistently pushedmembers to collect information on atleast some of their invertebrate fauna. Incertain countries, this has led to the estab-lishment of and/or greater support forinstitutions working in this field. The workof national centres in Austria, Belgium,France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands,Switzerland and the United Kingdom, inlisting, monitoring, revising the status ofand conserving species, has and contin-ues to have a positive effect.The growing number of national inven-tories has encouraged some researchersto collate the information available inorder to evaluate the European status ofentire groups. The report by Heath (1981)on endangered Rhopalocera (diurnal but-terflies) in Europe and its update by vanSwaay and Warren (1999) are two exam-ples. Their effects are still felt today invarious countries where practical pro-grammes have been introduced to conserve the most endangered species.Work under the convention has notfocused exclusively on a few key groups(diurnal butterflies or dragonflies, forinstance) but also on other groups(Hymenoptera aculeata, 1991), and evenless popular species. In the latter case,activities have included, in particular, thedrafting of action plans for bivalves ofthe genus Margaritifera. The resulting

research, which has enhanced the levelof knowledge of their biology, has helpedto improve the situation of some, at least,of their European populations.The protection of species is only oneaspect of a reasoned policy of nature pro-tection. It must be complemented by pro-tection of habitats. For this to succeed, itis vital to identify clearly those that areof real significance. The publicationsdevoted to saproxylic insects (1989),marine ecosystems (1990), wetlands(1992) and the habitats of invertebrateslisted in the appendices to the BernConvention and the Habitats Directive(1996) remain key references and have,in at least some countries, led to the emer-gence of practical programmes.This list of work done under the BernConvention and of its effects on the pro-tection of European invertebrates is farfrom exhaustive. Its influence onEuropean legislation (Habitats Directive)is another example. Rather than addingto the list, it is more important to stressthat the most effective contribution ofthese activities has been to change atti-tudes. It is certainly no coincidence thatgroups which until recently dismissedany idea of protecting nature have sud-denly become concerned for the futureof butterflies, coleoptera and molluscs inthe agricultural and woodland landscape.The message must undeniably continueto be proclaimed so that this attitude issustained.

Yves GonsethSwiss Centre of Fauna Cartography (CSCF)

Terreaux 14CH-2000 Neuchatel

yves.gonseth@unine.ch

The protection of invertebrates

JC M

ala

usa

/Bio

s

Pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) on a rock in Ireland

25n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

Pr

ot

ec

tio

n o

f t

he

s

pe

cie

s

“But the wildest of all the wild animals wasthe Cat. He walked by himself, and all placeswere alike to him.”

Rudyard Kipling (Just So Stories)

When talking about carnivores, we hearwords like hate, evil, bloodthirsty, viciousbut also majestic, beautiful, mystic.Scientists working on large carnivoresoften say that they are charismatic, butfirst of all they are a conflict species.In Europe large carnivores have been liv-ing close to humans since prehistory,sharing space and resources. None theless, most European carnivore popula-tions have experienced large reductionsin numbers and distribution. In the lastcentury nature conservation became oneof the priorities of European societies.The image of large carnivores has alsochanged and they are no longer perceivedas pests, but as an essential and vital partof sustainable ecosystems. Yet, thisapproach is still not so common, espe-cially among those who live close to thecarnivores and whose wealthy existencedepends on them. In addition, we prob-ably know more about Siberian tigers orChinese giant panda than about ourEuropean endemic, critically endangeredIberian lynx or wolverine, characteristicof the northern landscape of Fennoscandiaand the Russian Federation, the most elu-sive and least known of European carni-vores.When thinking about the conservationof large carnivores, one has to bear inmind their ecology, the fact that they arewide-ranging animals requiring continu-ous and relatively undisturbed habitats,that they live in quite low densities, havelow reproductive output, travel long dis-tances when young and are quite vul-nerable to landscape changes. Therefore,their successful conservation is a verycomplex process and requires appropri-ate management of large areas, the useof sufficient methods of damage pre-vention and mitigation and appropriatemanagement of populations in multi-uselandscapes. But as we cannot protect car-nivores inside protected areas (howeverbig and spacious they may be), it alsorequires a change in human attitudetowards the presence of large carnivoresin our modern environment.

Recent changes in policyThe last few decades have brought anessential change in policy towards the

protection, conservation and manage-ment of large carnivorous species.Management objectives have switchedfrom extermination to conservation.Populations of wolf, Eurasian lynx andbrown bear have begun to recover inmany European countries and regionsthrough natural recovery and reintro-duction. In many cases the successfulstories of large carnivores returning totheir natural territories have been a resultof international co-operation and a multi-partner approach.Large carnivores are included in the BernConvention and listed as “protected”(Eurasian lynx) and “strictly protected”(wolf, brown bear, wolverine and Iberianlynx). For the last fifteen years the Councilof Europe has been successfully workingon large carnivore conservation, hasorganised numerous meetings and work-shops, created a Group of Experts onLarge Carnivores and together with theLarge Carnivore Initiative for Europe(LCIE) elaborated action plans for fivelarge carnivore species in Europe. Apart from appropriate and sustainablemanagement, habitat conservation andeffective damage prevention measures,there is a need for more radical conser-vation methods. There is a need for spacefor large carnivores in people’s minds,not only for those ferocious but mysticwolves, bears, and lynxes but also for themuch lesser known wolverines. There isa need for space and tolerance and agree-

ment for co-existence for Nature, for others, for those not like us. “... and when the moon gets up and nightcomes, he is the Cat that walks by himself,and all places are alike to him. Then hegoes out to the Wet Wild Woods or up theWet Wild Trees or on the Wet Wild Roofs,waving his wild tail and walking by his wildlone.”

Rudyard Kipling (Just So Stories).

Agnieszka OlszanskaLCIE co-ordinator

Institute of Nature Conservation PASal. Mickiewicza 33PL-31-120 Krakow

olszanska@iop.krakow.pl www.large-carnivores-lcie.org

What space for large carnivoresin Europe?

i e s

S.

Co

rdie

r

Little is known about the wolverine

26 n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

P r o t e c t i o n o f t h e s p e c

Since they were recorded as reappearingin 1992 in the central area of theMercantour National Park, wolves havebecome more widely distributed in theAlpine massif. As a result of favourableecological conditions (rural depopulation,rapid reafforestation, geographical anddemographic expansion of wild prey) and,since 1993, the status of “protected species”under the international (Bern Convention)and European (Habitats Directive) com-mitments entered into by France, thereare now probably more wolves (betweenfifty-five and seventy) than the thirty or soindividuals officially recorded to date.

Bitter disagreementDespite being welcomed by public opinion,defended by ecological groups as a sym-bol of wild nature whose return has restorednational biodiversity and as an essentialprerequisite for the proper functioning ofecosystems, wolves are still the subject ofbitter disagreement. In the mountainousareas where wolves were resettled, theeradication of predators had permitted theextensive rearing of lambs in the preced-ing thirty years. Most breeders had givenup tending their flocks, but with the pres-ence of wolves they found they had tomake significant changes to their ways ofworking, or to revise them completely, inorder to keep their stock safe. The crisis inthis sector of activity, the survival of whichdepends on agricultural grants, made itparticularly difficult to cope with an addi-tional structural constraint on top of exist-ing problems. Between 1997 and 2003,the implementation of two European Lifeprogrammes, which aimed to provide shep-herds with resources for protection andwith compensation for losses and for the

efforts required in living with wolves,opened the way to reconciliation. The fund-ing of these measures made it possible toreduce the degree of conflict by helpingthe adversaries of yesterday to becomepartners, encouraging consultation andcollaboration, and building confidencebetween breeders, the authoritiesconcerned and the associations supportingthe rehabilitation of the large carnivores.However, despite the progress made, thefuture of the wolf remains a matter ofdebate and still provokes violent dis-agreement. This antagonism is notexplained solely by the damage to stockcaused by wolves, which is relatively lightwhen compared with the diseases that dec-imate sheep every year or the depreda-tions attributable to stray dogs.

A multi-faceted conflictThe problem raised by the reappearanceof the wolf takes different forms, depend-ing on whether its protection is associatedwith the restoration of environments, orregarded as urban exploitation of ruralcommunities with the purpose of replac-ing declining pastoral activities with aneconomy based on nature tourism. Wolvesare charismatic creatures imbued by folk-lore and history with ambivalent attrib-utes, and they have in effect been“recruited” for much more far-reachingdisagreements. Those who have been com-plaining about camouflaged reintroduc-tion for the last ten years and regard thepredator as the “Trojan horse” of an “eco-logical plot” to dispossess the traditionalcustodians of the mountains of their free-dom of enterprise by imposing a new “slav-ery” on them, still call for eradication ofthe “nuisance”. For the detractors of thewolf, attacks on flocks provide the ammu-nition with which to pillory the idealistic,technocratic failings of an “ecologist” culture which pits Nature against Humanityand is deaf to the economic and socialconsequences of its entrenched attitudes.Opposition to wolves contrasts the legiti-macy of local communities managing theirown territory as they see fit with the “dik-tats” of “Paris” or “Brussels” and sharplycriticises the irresponsibility of protectingnature at a cost which is disproportionateto the anticipated benefits. Those who feel,on the other hand, that the difficulties cre-ated by settling wolves permanently withinthe national territory are part of an obli-gation on the state to reinforce failing pol-icy on the protection of natural areas, argue

that the Bern Convention and the HabitatsDirective require the management ofspecies. The defenders of the wolf claimthat it is a prerequisite of sustainable man-agement of mountain regions to maintainwolves in a “favourable state of conserva-tion”. This must, they argue, lead to thecreation of protected zones and the coher-ent expansion of “ecosystemic” manage-ment of environments nationwide. These competing ways of looking at theproblem influence decisions about themanagement of these large predators,which is expected to be technically effec-tive, biologically satisfactory and above allsocially acceptable. The Ministry ofAgriculture and the Ministry of Ecologyand Sustainable Development, who arejointly drawing up a plan to “regulate” thewolf and support pastoralism, in order tomaintain the achievements of the Life pro-grammes for the next five years, intend tomake use of the dispensations authorisedby both the Bern Convention and Article 16of the Habitats Directive to reduce to astrict minimum the impact on stock-rearing. This plan, which will be publishedin June 2004, is being presented as a “rea-soned strategy” that should reassure thesheep-rearing community. It will establishsupport measures for breeders exposed towolves and will argue the need for “popu-lation quotas” and the geographical restric-tion of wolves to the Alpine massif becauseof the financial impossibility of extendingguaranteed compensation beyond the com-munities already covered in 2003. If thisplan is adopted, it will none the less fail tosatisfy ecological groups, which are threat-ening to refer it to the National NatureConservancy Council as an infringementof the principle of caution and a worryingprecedent for the future. Because it typifies the difficulties raisedby the need to achieve a fair balancebetween the continuation of human activ-ities and the requirements of preservingspecies and environments, the “wolfaffair” is thus a key issue. It directly affectsthe credibility of the French State in meet-ing its European and international com-mitments to protect biodiversity.

Patrick DegeorgesDoctoral student of political sociology

and public policy PROSES / Sciences Po Paris

104 rue Blomet F-75015 Paris

degeorgesjames@wanadoo.fr

Cry wolf!

S.

Co

rdie

r

Wolf (Canis lupus)

27n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

Pr

ot

ec

tio

n o

f t

he

s

pe

cie

s

Europe hosts three cat species: theEurasian lynx (Lynx lynx), the Iberianlynx (Lynx pardinus), and the wildcat(Felis silvestris), listed in the BernConvention under Appendix III (Eurasianlynx) and II (Iberian lynx and wildcat).The cat species are also listed in theIUCN red list. Here, the Eurasian lynx ismentioned as “near threatened”, theIberian lynx as “critically endangered”,and the wildcat as of “least concern”,whereas the Scottish wildcat (Felis sil-vestris grampia) is considered “vulnera-ble”, and its upgrading is beingdiscussed. One of the top items on the conservationagenda is the preservation of the Iberianlynx, the world’s most threatened cat.The efforts to conserve this endemicspecies of the Iberian Peninsula is at thesame time an example of co-operationof an IUCN body with the BernConvention. The convention follows atop-down approach to conservation. Thesignature countries commit themselvesto protecting nature according to inter-national standards and under peersupervision. The institution responsible

for this is the Standing Committee, withthe secretary’s office as its watchdog.This is a wonderful instrument in allcases where nature conservation needsa strong political commitment and strictcross-border co-operation – and this isgenerally true for large carnivore conser-vation. The IUCN/SSC Cat SpecialistGroup, on the other hand, is a group ofexperts and scholars, who provideknowledge on the ecology of the speciesand insight into conservation techniques,but typically are not the decision mak-ers. The members of the specialist groupcan, however, provide expert knowl-edge to the authorities in charge. It isalready a tradition that expert groupssuch as the Large Carnivore Initiativefor Europe (LCIE) closely co-operate withthe secretary of the Bern Conventionwith regard to large carnivore conser-vation.In the case of the Iberian lynx, the BernConvention, the Spanish national author-ities, the Junta de Andalucía, the LCIE,and the IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Grouporganised a seminar on the conserva-tion of the Iberian lynx in Andújar

(Andalusia) in October 2002. This wasthe start of a close co-operation betweenthe five institutions. Since then, the so-called international follow-up committeefor the conservation of the Iberian lynx(Bern Convention secretary, LCIE co-ordinator, and chair of the Cat SpecialistGroup) have repeatedly visited Madridand Seville to review progress regard-ing the conservation of the Iberian lynxtogether with all partners from Spain.

Urs Breitenmoser and Christine Breitenmoser-Würsten

Co-Chairs, IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist GroupInstitute of Veterinary Virology

University of BernLaenggass-Str. 122

CH-3012 Bernurs.breitenmoser@ivv.unibe.ch

The Bern Convention and the cats

i e s

One of our more fragile semi-aquaticmammals lives in the IberianPeninsula and the western Pyrenees.It inhabits streams and small riverswith clean and fast-running waters.People rarely see it and often don’trecognise it as a mole. Small andhairy, it has other particular mor-phological features: large hind pawswith natatory membranes and aprominent proboscis. The first fea-ture is an obvious adaptation forswimming. The proboscis, we knownow, contains its key sensorial appa-ratus regarding touch. To it, vision isalmost nothing.We call it the Pyrenean desman orIberian desman, the Latin designa-tion being Galemys pyrenaicus. Itssole cousin lives in the RussianFederation, Desmana moschata, andboth share an endangered future inEurope. As for many other species,its vulnerability is mostly related tochanges in habitat.

What can we do for this beast?Because it is aquatic and exigent, wehave to maintain the natural character ofwatercourses. As it cannot move easilyout of water, we must avoid the buildingof hydroelectric dams and other infra-structures that physically and morpho-logically change the riverbed and theriver banks, creating barriers and frag-mented populations. When work isplanned we must carry out an environ-mental impact assessment (EIA), andrespect measures to replace bank vege-tation and to construct fauna passages.As it feeds only on freshwater inverte-brates, where there is a dam or a waterpumping station, we must ensure themaintenance of a minimal “ecological”flow. As it dives for foraging but breathesair, we must avoid the use of nets inrivers in desman areas as they contributestrongly to mortality by drowning. As itis not a well-known species, we mustencourage research and public aware-ness. This concerns us all.

To know more about appropriate conser-vation measures for Galemys pyrenaicus,look at Recommendation No. 47 of the Standing Committee, adopted on 26 January 1996, on the conservation ofEuropean semi-aquatic insectivores.

Ana Isabel QueirozInstitut for Nature Conservation

Rua Filipe Folque 46-1°P-1050-114 Lisbon

aiqueiroz@mail.telepac.pt

C.

Sa

nz/

Ph

on

e-B

ios

Iberian desman

Fragile, please take care

28 n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

P r o t e c t i o n o f t h e s p e c

Amphibians and reptiles are characteristicand important components of manyEuropean habitats but are also amongthe most severely threatened animalgroups in the world. Apart from the moreobvious threats, such as habitat destruc-tion and pollution, many species also suf-fer from unsustainable pressuresincluding inappropriate habitat man-agement, traffic-induced mortality, col-lection for the pet trade and, in somecases, outright persecution. The Bern Convention has long been apowerful mechanism for drawing atten-tion to the plight of amphibians and rep-tiles, especially among governments andpolicy makers, and for initiating practicalconservation measures throughoutEurope. The Standing Committee isadvised by its Group of Experts on theConservation of Amphibians and Reptiles,which includes both governmental andNGO representatives, and also commis-sions on-the-spot appraisals to gathermore detailed information where neces-sary. The Conservation Committee of theSocietas Europaea Herpetologica has beena particularly active participant and,indeed, the work of its former chairman,Dr Keith Corbett (who has recentlyretired), predates even that of the BernConvention.As a result of these activities, the StandingCommittee has adopted twenty-one rec-ommendations since 1987 that directlyrelate to the conservation of amphibiansand reptiles. Eleven of these involvemarine turtles (see text box by LilyVenizelos), while ten concern terrestrialspecies. Three of the latter recommen-dations have incorporated a wide rangeof proposals to European governments

while seven have addressed problemsfaced by particular species and their habi-tats. These include the Hungarianmeadow viper Vipera ursinii rakosiensis(Hungary), the natterjack toad Bufocalamita (Ireland), the great crested newtTriturus cristatus (United Kingdom),threatened reptile habitats on lowlandheathland (United Kingdom), the Milosviper Macrovipera schweizeri (Greece),the spur-thighed tortoise Testudo graeca(Spain) and the Aesculapian snake Elaphelongissima (Austria, Czech Republic,Germany and Ukraine).

Improved legal protectionThe conservation measures proposedand realised as a direct result of the BernConvention have resulted in the improvedlegal protection of species and habitats,direct habitat management, re-introductionand education programmes, further surveys and research. Numerous threatsto amphibians and reptiles, such as devel-opment pressures, roads, mining,tourism, pollution and introduced species,have been reduced in specific areas, andbeneficial practices, such as traditionalagriculture, supported. In some cases,projects to implement Bern Conventionrecommendations for amphibians andreptiles in EU countries have attractedsubstantial Life grants. In addition, theStanding Committee also plans to com-mission detailed species action plans fora range of European amphibians and rep-tiles.Of course a huge amount remains to bedone to ensure the continued survival ofmany amphibian and reptile species inEurope. Incorporating biodiversityconservation into sustainable develop-ment plans, ensuring positive agricul-tural reform, re-establishing theecological networks and habitat corri-dors that are so crucial to terrestrialspecies and investigating recent massamphibian die-offs are just a few of thechallenges that will be faced in the future.Unlike much other wildlife, however,generating support for amphibians andreptiles is often extremely difficult. Theneed to protect rare venomous snakes,for example, especially when this is indirect conflict with schemes to createmuch needed jobs, would seem unlikelyto receive a sympathetic and balancedhearing. None the less, this is exactlythe type of situation that the BernConvention has been helping to resolve

for the last twenty-five years with suchsuccess.

Paul EdgarThe Herpetological Conservation Trust

655a Christchurch RoadGB-Boscombe, Bournemouth,

Dorset, BH1 4APpaul.edgar@herpconstrust.org.uk

Anton StumpelAlterra - Green World Research

Wageningen University and Research Centre (WUR)

Postbus 47NL-6700 AA Wageningen

anton.stumpel@wur.nl

Protection of amphibians and reptiles

Sea turtles are a flagship species for conser-vation. They are marine creatures that neston sandy beaches: tourism has an enor-mous impact on their habitats and fish-eries kill tens of thousands each year. In the1960s, Mediterranean governmentsshowed little concern for sea turtles.International agreements and national leg-islation have gradually emerged.Governments spend enormous amountson their main policies: tourism and devel-opment, while the environment is side-lined. They regard conservation objectivesas a nuisance. Only international conven-tions, non-governmental organisations andpublic opinion can challenge this, as in thecase of the intervention of the BernConvention in Kazanli, Turkey.

ConfusionContradictory land and sea legislation hasoften caused confusion and controversy,leading to inactivity and denial of respon-sibility for these dual habitat creatures. Within the Bern Convention, contractingparty delegates are “pro-environment”,but in practice they are often “economicalwith the truth”.Environmental impact assessments (EIAs)should be mandatory. Conservation insti-tutions should have the power andresources to veto decisions with adverseenvironmental impact. Environmental legalaid (ELA), funded by environmental“crimes” fines would allow use of the courtsto secure better enforcement.Since 1986 the convention has been piv-otal in the case of sea turtles in Zakynthos,

Mediterranean s

Me

da

sse

t

Turtle lost on a beach invaded by tourists

29n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

Pr

ot

ec

tio

n o

f t

he

s

pe

cie

s

Windfarms are developing rapidly in theBern countries, as governments seek tocounter the predicted impacts of globalclimate change. The BirdLife Internationalreport (Windfarms and birds: an analysisof the effects of windfarms on birds, andguidance on environmental assessment cri-teria and site selection issues), commis-sioned by the Council of Europe for theBern Convention, sought to present anobjective review of the available infor-mation on the impacts of wind turbineson birds and to provide guidance to min-imise the risks of such impacts. The main hazards for birds associatedwith wind turbines are collision, distur-

bance leading to displacement and habi-tat loss.

Fatal collisionsSeveral cases of high levels of bird colli-sion mortality have been associated withpoorly located wind turbines. Collisionrisk is greatest in poor flying conditionsthat affect visibility or the birds’ ability tocontrol flight. Collision mortality is a prob-lem for large, long-lived species, espe-cially if rare, that are slow to mature andhave a low reproduction rate. Even smallincreases in their mortality rates may besignificant, particularly when cumulativemortality occurs across their geographi-cal range.The scale of habitat loss, together withthe availability of alternative habitats,will determine whether or not there is anadverse effect of habitat loss or distur-bance exclusion. Loss of, or damage to,habitat due to wind turbines and associ-ated infrastructure, is a concern in sen-sitive habitats. Windfarm installationsmay disrupt ecological links betweenfeeding, breeding and roosting areas.There is a need for robust, objective base-line studies to inform sensitive siting ofwindfarms and minimise deleteriouseffects on birds and their habitats. Post-construction monitoring is also neces-sary at consented installations wherethere are environmental sensitivities.There is a need to determine the geo-graphical scales at which impacts mayapply. The present unknowns hampereffective decision making.

It is advocated that statutory or qualify-ing international (for example, Natura2000) or national sites for nature conser-vation, or other areas with large concen-trations of birds, especially species ofconservation concern, should be avoidedfor windfarm development, as a precau-tionary measure.

Rowena LangstonConservation Science Department

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds The Lodge

GB-Sandy, Bedfordshire. SG19 2DL rowena.langston@rspb.org.uk

Windfarms and birds

i e s

with on-the-spot assessments, discus-sions in the Standing Committee and rec-ommendations to Greece. Cyrille deKlemm’s 1996 “analysis of the legal posi-tion in Zakynthos”, for the BernConvention, showed that legal barrierswere not responsible for Greece’s failureto take decisive action. The setting up of the Zakynthos NationalMarine Park announced at the 1999Standing Committee meeting was fol-lowed by uproar in Zakynthos, due to thelack of compensatory measures, and thelocal feeling that it was an unwanteddecree. This conflict continues today.Sea turtle conservation is as much aboutpeople as about wildlife: in the end, it ispolitics – not biology.

Lily VenizelosMEDASSET- Mediterranean Association

to Save the Sea Turtles1c Licavitou St.

GR-106 72 Athensmedasset@hol.grwww.medasset.gr

sea turtle strife!

M.

Gu

nth

er

/Bio

s

30 n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

T h e f u t u r e ?

Nature conservation concepts and strate-gies over almost a century have mainlyfocused on the protection of scenic land-scapes, pristine habitats and rare orthreatened species. A growing numberof sites of outstanding value became des-ignated as nature reserves, national parksor areas of specific conservation status.These were also the key items and objec-tives of the classic international treatiesat the time of their creation.In recent decades, landscape and habitatfragmentation throughout Europe hasbeen generally recognised as a core prob-lem of conservation. Spatial isolation,shrinkage of the surface area and thedecreasing quality of natural habitats arethe main threats for biodiversity. Theyare the triggers for many physical andecological processes or functions withnegative impacts on natural habitats andthus on the viability of plant and animalpopulations.With the Pan-European Biological andLandscape Diversity Strategy and theEuropean Landscape Convention theCouncil of Europe recognised the impor-tance of an integrated conservationapproach, not only through the protectionof outstanding natural areas or individualthreatened species, but also by integrat-ing action in a broader regional context,covering landscape features and alsosmall elements of both natural or anthro-pogenic origin.

Landscape fragmentationIn the light of increasing landscape frag-mentation and in order to establish func-tional networks of ecosystems andhabitats, concepts of “ecological corri-dors” and “nature restoration” have beendeveloped. The traditional and quite suc-cessful practice of nature conservationenvisaged as a priority the protection andsound management of valuable naturesites or landscapes for their physical andecological character, including life com-munities or specific species. This strat-egy has clearly shifted towards a moreintegrated approach that perceives a siteor habitat as one component of a whole:the surrounding environment. Nowadays,targets, priorities and decisions are alsobased on reflections concerning the “func-tional role” of these components in thelandscape ecological context. Historic land development must there-fore also be taken into account in orderto agree on relevant references in space

and time, determining ecological pat-terns and processes. Thus the “historicand ecological authenticity” of landscapeswas added as a criterion, preventing unre-alistic projects of species introductionand the creation of totally artificial habi-tats as a substitute or compensation forlost precious original regional character-istics.Given the drastic effects of landscape andhabitat fragmentation, the crucial chal-lenge for conservation is to establish orrestore a “functional connectivity” main-tained by biological and geophysical inter-relations. Although a number of soundecological basic principles and guidelineshave been set up, the designation andespecially the implementation of corri-dors on both the European and regionalscale turn out to be the crucial link in theecological network concept.

Constant risk of conflictsAs nature conservation is not the onlyfunction and rarely has the highest priorityin physical planning, these connectivityzones and stepping stones risk being inconstant conflict with existing land use.In the framework of monothematic andsector-oriented planning traditions it isnecessary to set up a multifunctional land-scape concept. Without proper planningprocedures the environmental and habi-tat qualities for often small patches ofland have to be maintained without suit-able instruments. Where linking corri-dors are missing, the restoration ofhabitats and axes of functional connec-tivity through nature restoration or devel-opment projects is even more difficult. Fora number of species, especially large car-nivores, survival largely depends on theterritorial integrity of their favoured habi-tats and the potential for undisturbedmigration between populations. In thislight the construction of new transportaxes (such as the Via Baltica) or otherinfrastructure projects (canals, hydro-logical changes etc.) really threaten therich natural resources of the countriesconcerned and they need a preliminaryenvironmental impact assessment includ-ing the study of alternatives. Permanentecological monitoring is also required toenable the development of mitigatingmeasures where necessary. Here the BernConvention or EU directives can functionas important references.In the light of the above, it also seemsessential to actively protect the wealth

of natural elements in the common orgarden landscape, as this often repre-sents the last remnants of the “connec-tivity matrix” linking natural areasvaluable in their biodiversity. Global pres-sure on the environment due to the ever-increasing intensity of agriculturalexploitation, urban, industrial and infra-structural development has had a destruc-tive effect on numerous critical speciesand on biodiversity in general.

A network of corridorsEven if nature conservation could stopthe decrease in biodiversity (the EU 2010target!), many specialised species in theprocess of disappearing will find it diffi-cult to return to their original distributionareas as a result of man-made barriersand the lack of a sufficiently dense net-work of corridors. Therefore, as well asthe need to preserve large areas and spe-cific sites for habitat development, animportant precondition is the qualityimprovement of the overall environmentincluding the remaining habitats, and therestoration of interconnectivity betweenexisting habitat patches by altering theexisting land use. Target species, popu-lations, communities or ecosystems suffering from isolation need free migra-tion and dispersal of species in multi-functional landscapes. Conservation cannot restrict itself to protected areas. Amix of legal instruments and agreementsbetween different authorities and theinvolvement of a variety of stakeholdersare necessary to ensure a successfulimplementation and maintenance of thebiodiversity concept at the integratedlandscape level and on an appropriatebio-geographical dimension. With only 2% to 10% of land surface asstrictly protected core areas and up to30% urbanised area in some denselypopulated countries or regions, conser-vation has to increase its efforts in a trans-boundary approach to take care not onlyof red list species or unique habitats, but

A new approach outsidethe protected areas C

. C

ha

ron

/Bio

s

Ruault Peninsula (France)

31n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

Th

e f

ut

ur

e?

also of “simple” natural riches outsidereserves and national parks before theyvanish. Existing conventions and direc-tives quite rightly include specific or rarerspecies and habitats in their appendicesfor priority action such as designatingspecial areas of conservation and main-taining “favourable conservation status”.In addition, however, the time has cometo also pay attention to more commonenvironmental elements contributing tobiodiversity in general. This requires spe-cific instruments (management agree-ments with the agricultural sector,ecologically sound forestry principles,alternatives in infrastructural design) aswell as long-term biological monitoringand, in particular, increased educationalefforts aimed at the public at large.

Eckhart KuijkenInstitute of Nature Conservation

Kliniekstraat 25, B-1070 Brussels

eckhart.kuijken@instnat.be

When this issue of Naturopa is pub-lished, significant changes will havetaken place on the map of Europe.Ten more countries will be membersof the European Union. Twenty-fiveBern Convention member states willfollow a common policy for sustainableuse and conservation of biodiversity.They will be bound by common lawand strict implementation require-ments. Will this weaken or strengthenthe Bern Convention?

Use the opportunityWe must act to be able to use thisopportunity, not to weaken but tostrengthen the convention. And thereis a very good example – the EmeraldNetwork, which designates the net-work of protected areas in Europe.Because of the strict monitoring ofimplementation of the Birds andHabitats directives, all EU memberstates have done the work in order toimplement the Natura 2000 networkby 2005. It has had its costs – somegovernments had to resign, some offi-cials had to leave their positions andsome countries had to answer to theEuropean Court of Justice. But it hasalso given a lesson to the EuropeanCommission and now ten enlarge-ment countries have had to submit aproposal for sites by 1 May. And thesecountries have fulfilled their task. There is now a real political and prac-tical niche for the Bern Convention:to complete the network outside theEU, to have the Emerald shine through-out Europe! Europe was the politicalforce behind the decision to create aglobal network of protected areas. Aglobal treaty, the Conference of theParties of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity approved this decision inFebruary and the Bern Conventionhas to become a significant drivingforce for implementation of this deci-sion. With its pilot projects, it has ini-tiated the work in many countries andnow special attention has to be paidto member states from Africa, South-east Europe and the Caucasus. Infuture we also have to strengthen the

involvement of the Russian Federationin the process.

Following global political developmentsThe strategy of the convention and itsmember states always has been to fol-low the latest development of globalpolitical processes. The world summitin Johannesburg in 2002 generated anew challenging goal – to halt bio-diversity loss by 2010. This goal is formulated in Chapter I of the BernConvention. Since its entry into forcetwenty-five years ago, the conventionhas been working towards this goal.There are success stories to tell andthere have also been failures. But thestrength of the Bern Convention is inthe fact that member states have beenwilling to work together and to changestrategy, to be flexible if new pres-sures are brought on nature or if newtrends in population size or distribu-tion range of species are alarming.Management plans for species, strate-gies, guidelines, the case file systemand reporting are significant instru-ments for reaching both the goal ofthe Bern Convention and that now setup by global society. The Bern Convention has also beenopen to the NGO community. It hasbeen benefiting from scientific adviceand also from signals sent to haltunsustainable development projects.Civil society has always been involvedin further development of the conven-tion’s work. Only by all workingtogether can we reinforce the conven-tion inside and outside the geograph-ical borders of Europe.

Ilona JepsenaChair of the Standing Committee of

the Bern Convention 2002-2004.Ministry for Environment of the Republic of Latvia

Nature Protection DepartmentPeldu Iela 25

LV - 1494 Rigailona.jepsena@vidm.gov.lv

Towards reinforcement of the Bern Convention

32 n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

T h e f u t u r e ?

It is the early twenty-first century, 2010AD or thereabouts. All the countries ofEurope have ratified the BernConvention. They have been joined bythe majority of countries along the south-ern shore of the Mediterranean and bythose of north-western Africa. Apart froma few minor gaps, the convention is appli-cable throughout the western and thePalearctic region, including the Urals,the Caucasus and the Sahara; the majorpart of the Atlantic migration route forwaterfowl is also covered.In all these countries, the danger ofextinction has been removed from nearlyall vertebrates and higher order plants.There are restoration plans to take careof most of the formerly endangeredspecies. They are monitored regularly,and observers now report that their num-bers are on the increase nearly every-where. The natural populations of mostspecies are deemed to be viable andthere is no longer any need to reinforcethem with animals reared in captivity orwith artificially propagated plants. Therestoration plans take account of all theprocesses that affect the conservationstatus of the species concerned and oftheir habitats. In the case of inverte-brates, lower order plants and micro-organisms, and most of the marineorganisms which were practically disre-garded for a long time, it has been pos-sible to identify a fairly large number ofendangered species and the habitats par-ticularly favourable to them, and pro-tective measures are starting to be taken.All the endangered natural and semi-natural habitat types have been identi-fied as well as the processes responsiblefor their destruction or deterioration. The

areas most amenable to the conserva-tion of those habitats have for the mostpart been designated as nature reserves.The others are in no danger now thatgeneral measures for the protection ofnatural habitats are an integral part ofevery land-use plan. Potentially destruc-tive processes have been brought undercontrol and their impact has been considerably reduced.

Situation under controlThe Natura 2000 network of theEuropean Union has been in existencesince 2004 and is continuing to develop.By the common consent of all concerned,the network has been extended to thoseparties to the Bern Convention that arenot members of the Union. For severalyears there have been no reports ofexotic species being introduced and plac-ing indigenous species and natural habi-tats at risk. Concerted measures havebeen taken by the parties to eradicatethe most harmful species introduced inearlier times. Measures to control theimport of exotic species have also beenadopted. All parties to the Bern Convention nowhave adequate legislation for complyingwith their obligations. Not only may theynow regulate on the taking and selling ofall wild species and establish protectedareas; they are also – and this is moreimportant – empowered to prevent thedestruction of natural habitats, establishcorridors from one protected area toanother, conserve natural landscape fea-tures and minimise the effects of destruc-tive processes.To a very large extent these changeshave been brought about by amendingplanning legislation so as to make properprovision for the protection of naturalhabitats. Another factor is the consider-able development of schemes wherebycontracts are awarded or incentivesoffered for the conservation and espe-cially the management of natural areasand in some cases their restoration andre-creation as well. The landownersreceive sufficient remuneration for theseactivities to provide them with an accept-able income, or income supplement.Thus these measures are popular. Tohave a valuable natural habitat on one’sland is now regarded as a bonus and nota liability. More and more specialisedtraining establishments offer courses forfuture advisers on environmental man-

agement. The new graduates are verymuch in demand, not least by localauthorities concerned to apply ecologi-cal planning policies to their territory.Most parties have devised national natureconservation strategies; and some arealso in possession of plans for national,regional and local action, and of theadministrative and financial resourcesnecessary for putting them into effect;and all are entitled to essential supple-mentary funding from international aidschemes put in place by the EuropeanUnion and other organisations.

The Standing Committee defines objectivesThese achievements are largely due tothe action of the Standing Committee ofthe Bern Convention. This is thecommittee which officially identifiedmost of the threatened species. Since1995 it has concerned itself with endan-gered habitat types, also singling outthose areas that need priority protectionby reason of their biological richness. Itwas responsible for issuing the recom-mendations which have led to their hav-ing protected status. It is, in addition,also the committee which identified theprocesses potentially damaging to bio-logical diversity and natural habitats, andformulated guidelines for their regula-tion and management.The committee began by preparing astrategy and an action plan identifyingthe shortcomings in the convention’sapplication, setting precise objectivesand establishing an order of priorityamong the studies to be undertaken andthe conservation measures to be carriedthrough. To formulate and monitor strate-gic action over the long term, it appointeda small group of independent experts tomake a periodic examination and eval-uation of general trends and conserva-tion needs. The technical questions areexamined, and proposals made, by smallcommittees of specialists. In organisingtheir meetings and preparing the essen-tial basic studies, they were greatlyhelped by the parties’ decision substan-tially to increase their voluntary contri-butions to the convention’s budget andprovide the secretariat with more staff.

Power of democracyThe procedures for monitoring the par-ties’ success in implementing the conven-tion are operating well. Periodically, the

Imagine the scene

Cyrille de Klemm, one of the mosteminent nature conservationlawyers, wrote this text forNaturopa in 1995. Several yearspreviously, with specialists fromthe IUCN, he had proposed the setting up of a convention whichwould become the United NationsConvention on Biological Diversity,inspired in part by the BernConvention.The reproduction of his article, illus-trated by a flight of birds dear tohim, is homage to his memory.

33n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

Th

e f

ut

ur

e?

committee examines the detailednational reports submitted by the par-ties, assesses their conservation per-formance and decides what measuresthey should adopt in order to fulfil theirundertakings. It points to any short-comings and suggests ways in which theparties responsible can remedy them.The number of cases under examinationbegan to increase considerably in 1995when it dawned upon the NGOs that theStanding Committee, whose meetingsthey were attending in ever larger num-bers, was an effective ally in their cam-paign to ensure compliance with theconvention. For some years thecommittee’s workload continued togrow, but shortly after 2000 AD the sit-uation levelled off and the number ofcases under examination has since fallensharply, which goes to show that theconvention is now being applied nearlyeverywhere.

The main factor responsible for thisresounding success, which fifteen yearsago seemed hardly conceivable, is, ofcourse, public opinion. After the crisis,the public took up the cause of biologi-cal diversity and natural habitats withincreasing determination. More andmore people joined the voluntary conser-vation organisations, improving theirfinancial situation and enabling them toplay a decisive part in developing thisnew awareness. Democracy did the rest.

Cyrille de Klemm

Mu

nie

r/B

ios

Flock of cranes (Grus grus)

A T T H E C O U N C I L O F

34 n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

Support for Transitionin the Arts and Culturein Greater Europe (Stage)Stage is a project specially tailored tothe three countries of the South Caucasus(Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia).Launched by the Council of Europe’sCultural Policy and Action Departmentin 2000, it aims to help them developnew and dynamic cultural policies and foster cultural exchanges betweenthem and with other European countries.

Stage aims at national level:– to encourage an open, democratic and

transparent approach to policy mak-ing and cultural management enablingpublic authorities, the cultural sectorand civil society to work together moreefficiently;

– to promote the four major principlesacknowledged as key issues for culturalpolicy in most European countries:building cultural identity, respectingintercultural diversity, stimulating cre-ativity and encouraging people to joinin with cultural life;

– to help policy makers to accept the chal-lenges of democratic transition, forinstance in the fields of new ways offinancing, decentralisation, privatisa-tion, artists’ status and developmentof civil society.

At European level:– to encourage and foster regional ini-

tiatives and international co-operation;– to reinforce stability in the South

Caucasus region thanks to cultural co-operation.

Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia are thecountries taking part. Austria, Germany,Greece, the Russian Federation,Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine areobserver and donor countries.

First phase of the project (2000-2003)Forty activities, involving forty interna-tional experts and about 600 participantshave been organised. They aimed to:– develop national and sector-specific

cultural strategies;– launch a strategy for the training of

trainers in all areas of culture;– develop cultural policies for cities;

– foster relationships between culturalprofessionals;

– reinforce regional cultural exchangesand international co-operation.

Results so far are encouraging: the assess-ment by an independent expert (GrzegorzBoguta) was very positive and the bene-ficiary, observer and donor countrieshave seen the beginnings of a remark-able process creating efficient culturalpolicies in the South Caucasus, a priorityregion of the Council of Europe. With thesuccessful completion of the first proj-ect, a second phase can be launched aswas requested by the Council of Europe’sCommittee of Ministers.

Second phase of the project(2004-2005)The new Stage action plan aims for thereinforcement of cultural policies and thedevelopment of cultural policies for cities.

Specific objectives:– to help draw up and carry out cultural

policies for museums and libraries;– to initiate and reinforce cultural strate-

gies for cities;– to develop new partnerships for

culture and foster pan-European co-operation.

Museums and librariesActions will include:– helping to improve museums and

libraries, following national evaluationof needs;

– organising workshops and trainingcourses;

– writing manuals and guidelines;– twinnings between museums and

libraries from the South Caucasus andother European countries, with possi-ble joint projects.

Cultural policies for cities Actions will include:– drawing up and implementing short-

and medium-term cultural strategies;– helping to strengthen local authorities’

resources and skills; – developing networks and new part-

nerships for culture;– city twinnings between the South

Caucasus and other European cities,with possible joint events such as exhi-bitions, cultural routes and festivals;

– developing new cultural partnershipsand boosting pan-European co-operation.

PublicationsCouncil of Europe texts – such as reportsand manuals – will be drawn up espe-cially for the project.

EvaluationThe new action plan will be regularlyassessed by the beneficiary, observer anddonor countries, with a final assessmentby an external consultant at the end of thetwo years of activity.For further information please contact: Dorina BodeaSTAGE Project ManagerCultural Policy and Action DepartmentDirectorate of Culture and Cultural andNatural HeritageCouncil of EuropeF- 67075 Strasbourg Cedexdorina.bodea@coe.int

Hunting and environmentalbalance in EuropeProtection of the environment and nat-ural resources is a key concern in themajority of European countries. As sus-tainable development is one of the pri-orities of the Parliamentary Assembly ofthe Council of Europe, it has decided tolook at the relationship between huntingand environmental balance. The countries of central and easternEurope have a long hunting tradition,backed up by the existence of a rich arrayof animals. Large carnivores like thebrown bear (Ursus arctos), the wolf (Canislupus), and the lynx (Lynx lynx) are stillfound in significant numbers in Bulgaria,Poland and Romania, whilst in the major-ity of west European countries they haveeither vanished or are in the process ofdisappearing. Hunting legislation, drawnup in the Communist era, laid down manyrestrictions as regards both the use offirearms and the right to become a hunter.However, there were no provisionsconcerning property rights as they relateto hunting areas or maintenance of theenvironmental balance.Following the fall of the iron curtain, com-mercial hunting – game tourism – hasdeveloped considerably in these coun-tries. Improving the relationship between

AT

T

HE

C

OU

NC

IL

O

F

EU

RO

PE

35n a t u r o p a N o . 1 0 1 / 2 0 0 4

E U R O P E

B.

Pa

mb

ou

r/B

ios

The European Landscape Convention enteredinto force on 1 March 2004. By 1 July it hadbeen ratified by thirteen states and signed bysixteen more. The convention work pro-gramme plans the organisation of informationmeetings in several countries. Armenia hav-ing signed the convention on 17 May 2003,the seminar, held in Yerevan on 23 and 24 October aimed:– to provide better information for national,

regional and local authorities as well as themain actors within Armenia (academics,architects, persons in charge of institutesor NGOs) on the implications and contentof the convention;

– to identify and analyse the specific charac-teristics and needs of Armenia.

Following the seminar Armenia ratified theconvention on 23 March 2004.

Conclusions of the Seminar on spatial planning and landscapeThe participants in the information seminarparticularly wish to thank the Armenian Ministryof Urban Development for taking the initiativeof co-organising with the Council of Europe aSeminar on spatial planning and landscape.

The following conclusions were reached at theseminar:1. Armenia is a country with an exceptionally

rich heritage. Wide valleys, plateaux, moun-tains, ravines and gorges alternate with lakesand rivers over an area of 29 800 square kilo-metres. This dramatic and extremely beauti-ful scenery is brought to life by the richbiodiversity of the natural environment, thesetting of an immeasurable historical andcultural heritage.

1. The intangible heritage of customs, tradi-tions, age-old knowledge and know-how hasalso contributed to shaping a unique land-scape.

2. Being a country in transition, Armenia stillhas to cope with economic difficulties, result-ing in a form of territorial development thatmust be controlled and monitored in ordernot to jeopardise this heritage.

1. It is therefore necessary to take care to avoidany disappearance of, or damage to, parts ofthe national heritage as well as any alter-ation of the landscape that would result in itbeing degraded or even losing its distinctivecharacter.

3. Having signed the European LandscapeConvention, the Armenian Government haveexpressed their intention to comply with itsprinciples and ratify it soon.

4. It will therefore be necessary to ensure thatall the provisions are introduced that willhelp to ensure the convention’s proper imple-mentation as regards both the distributionof responsibilities and the legal, scientific andtechnical aspects (Articles 4, 5 and 6 of theconvention).

5. The convention provides in particular thateach state party shall undertake to includethe landscape in regional planning policies.This approach could be facilitated throughthe work of the Committee of Senior Officialsof the European Conference of Ministersresponsible for Regional Planning (CEMAT).The landscape is to be seen in a wider terri-torial development context.

1. At its last session, the ministerial conferenceadopted, on 17 September 2003, the LjubljanaDeclaration on the territorial dimension ofthe sustainable development of the Europeancontinent. It details the numerous challengesshaping our future in Europe, including thetransformation and disappearance of land-scapes, and provides that states will in futurehave to submit reports (based on indicators)

on how they implement the Guiding Principlesfor Sustainable Spatial Development of theEuropean Continent.

1. In this connection, various countries havedrawn up national regional planning strate-gies. Such a step could be taken in Armenia,which would thus make it easier to establisha national umbrella instrument to give land-scape policies a stronger basis. This strategycould be accompanied by the passing orappropriate implementation of the necessarylegislation.

1. It should be remembered that the landscapeis one of the key aspects of Committee ofMinisters’ Recommendation Rec (2002) 1 onthe Council of Europe’s Guiding Principlesfor Sustainable Spatial Development (GPSS-DEC-CEMAT).

1. The recommendation underlines the impor-tance of three methodological principles thatneed to be highlighted with respect to theEuropean Landscape Convention:

1. – horizontal co-operation: it is necessary toencourage interministerial co-operation onthe landscape and to set up, for example, anational landscape council;

1. – vertical co-operation: co-operation needsto be encouraged between national, regionaland local levels;

1. – public participation: the EuropeanLandscape Convention underlines theimportance of such participation and explic-itly refers to the Aarhus Convention;

1. – the partnership of associations and NGOs.1. Land must henceforth be seen as a limited

and precious asset that must be developedwith care and moderation, that is, used spar-ingly instead of being developed in a detri-mental manner.

1. Assets (biological diversity, cultural heritage,intangible assets) must henceforth be seenas an opportunity, as a source of enrichmentand as a factor and driving force for devel-opment.

1. A few key phrases used at the seminar shouldbe called to mind: appointment of develop-ment officials; establishment of links withgrass roots organisations, professional bod-ies and administrative authorities; contrac-tual and consensual approach; taking accountof the mythical and mystical value of specificsites; role of the collective imagination.

1. Moreover, on a more practical level, concreteaction needs to be pursued at certain pilotsites (Lake Savan, the river Hrazdan and theYerevan master plan were mentioned in thisconnection), perhaps through the CEMATregions of innovation project. The EuropeanRural Heritage Observation Guide also needsto be adapted to the situation in Armenia.

1. Finally, it is necessary to implement the pro-visions of the Ljubljana Declaration, which:calls on the European Union and the Councilof Europe to enhance their co-operation onterritorial development; and asks theEuropean Commission to define tools that,on the basis of the experience of the Interreg,Phare, Tacis, Cards and Meda programmes,would facilitate co-operation betweenEuropean and neighbouring countries in thefield of spatial development in order to pre-vent divisions caused by unbalanced devel-opment.

6. Finally, the exhibition on the landscape seenthrough the eyes of children in Armenia – apilot scheme developed in Armenia in connec-tion with the implementation of Article 6 ofthe European Landscape Convention – shouldbe presented at the 2nd meeting of theWorkshops for the Implementation of theEuropean Landscape Convention to be heldin Strasbourg on 27 and 28 November 2003.

Information Seminar on the European Landscape Convention

the economic advantages deriving fromthis recreational pursuit and protection ofthe environment with due regard for theprinciples of sustainable development isa priority for the Parliamentary Assembly.It is now essential to improve huntingregulations and co-ordinate not only tech-nical aspects – relating to the identifica-tion of species that may be hunted, thedefinition of the open season, policyregarding migratory species and largepredators, etc. – but also provisions relat-ing to the actual practice of hunting itself,protection of the environment, etc. Lastly,harmonisation of the legislation is notjust a simple operation of aligning nationallegislation, but also includes introducinga new dimension focusing on the sus-tainable development of rural commu-nities. It is clear that this process ofharmonisation must be addressed withcare, with due regard for the principle ofsubsidiarity so as not to prejudice the var-ious local traditions. The Assembly’sCommittee on the Environment,Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairswill be covering these different aspects inthe report which is currently beingdrafted.

ISSN 0250 7072

Council of EuropeDirectorate of Culture and Cultural

and Natural Heritage Regional Planning and Landscape Division

F-67075 Strasbourg cedexFax: 33-(0)3 33 41 37 51christian.meyer@coe.int

Web: http://www.coe.int/naturopaThe Council of Europe is an intergovernmental organisation whichwas founded in 1949. Its aim is to work towards a united Europebased on freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

Today the Organisation comprises forty-five member states and isthus a privileged platform for international co-operation in many

fields such as education, culture, sport, youth, social and economicaffairs, health and, not least, regional planning, landscape

and natural and cultural heritage.The Naturopa magazine, published since 1968, is intended

to raise awareness among European citizens and decision makersof the importance of sustainable development in Europe

by focusing on its unique heritage.From 1968 to 2000 Naturopa concentrated on promoting nature

conservation, sustainable management of natural resources and thedevelopment of a multidisciplinary approach to environmental issues.Since 2001 Naturopa has progressively introduced new themes suchas cultural heritage and landscape preservation in a perspective of

sustainable development and enhancement of the quality of life.Naturopa is published twice yearly in the two official languages

of the Organisation (English and French).In order to receive Naturopa or to obtain further information on theCouncil of Europe, please contact the National Agency or the Focal

Point for your country (see list on http://www.coe.int/naturopa).

Next issue: Nature and culture