www.ceeweb.org

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

Hungary

CEEWEB Policy officeHungary

http://www.ceeweb.org/Ildikó Arany, Natura 2000 coordinator

arany@ceeweb.org

www.ceeweb.org

• May 1 2004: 10 new Eu member states

• Obligation to submit the National Lists of proposed Sites of Community Interest

• Biogeographic Seminars for each regions

www.ceeweb.org

Alpine:

30-31 May, 2005, Slovenia

Slovenia, Slovakia, Poland

www.ceeweb.org

Pannonian:

26-27 September, 2005, Sarród, Hungary

Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic

www.ceeweb.org

Continental:

26-28 April, 2006, Darova, Czech Republic

Poland, Czech Republic, Slovenia

Additional seminar for Poland in the future

www.ceeweb.org

Boreal:

5-7 December, 2005, Lilaste, Latvia

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania

www.ceeweb.org

Mediterranean:

„mini-seminar”

Cyprus and Malta

6th December 2006, Brussels

www.ceeweb.org

Participation in the Biogeographic Seminars

European CommissionEuropean Topic CentreOfficial delegation of the

national governmentsIndependent expertsLand users’ organisationsObserversNGOs

www.ceeweb.org

NGO participation in the Biogeographic Seminars is coordinated by the European Habitats Forum

•Network of European nature conservation NGO networks committed to the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of habitats and species in Europe

• Possibility to meet with DG Environment regularly

•Support the implementation of (among others) the EU Habitats and Birds Directives

• Coordination of NGO representation and participation on biogeographic seminars

www.ceeweb.org

Role of CEEWEB

• Mandate from EHF for NGO biogeographic secretariat for EU 10

• Connection between regional NGOs and EHF, DG Environment, European Topic Centre

• Preparation work for NGOs

www.ceeweb.org

Concept (together with WWF)

• Distributing Information (booklet)

• Preparatory meetings in the biogeographic regions for NGO representatives from the region

www.ceeweb.org

• clarify and understand the biogeographic seminar

process, how to be effective

• review existing information and data, National

Lists and Shadow Lists

•clarify and agree preparations at national and

regional levels

•try out how the Seminar will happen

•agree on and check modalities for the Seminar

(nomination, registration, observers, feed back)

www.ceeweb.org

Pannonian Biogeographical Seminar from NGO point of view

26-27 September 2005.

Sarrod, Fertő-Hanság National Park

(Neusiedlersee)

Hungary

www.ceeweb.org

NGO meetings:

• 1st meeting: 13. April 2005, Budapest, CEEWEB Office• participants:

Arnika (Czech Rep.)Daphne (Slovakia)Planta EuropaBROZ (Slovakia)Birdlife HungaryWWF HungaryEötvös Loránd University of Science (Hungary)Ecological Isnstitute for the Sustainable Development (Hungary)WWF AustriaCEEWEB

www.ceeweb.org

NGO meetings:

• 2nd meeting: 07-08 September 2005, Budapest, CEEWEB Office• participants:

WWF AustriaVeronica (Czech Republic)Latvian Fund for NatureMilvus Group (Romania)ONG Ecotur (Romania)WWF HungaryBirdlife HungaryCEEWEB

www.ceeweb.org

NGO participants in the seminar

• Three official NGO representatives:Mojmir Vlasin (Veronica) from the Czech Republic,Viktória Kavrán (WWF Hungary) from HungaryJan Seffer (Daphne) from Slovakia

• Two NGO observers:Angela Curtean-Banaduc (ONG Ecotur, Sibiu) from

RomaniaPranas Mierauskas (Lithuanian Fund for Nature) from

Lithuania

www.ceeweb.org

NGO preparation for the seminar in Hungary

• NGOs’ role in site selection: SPAs: BirdLife Hungary, pSCIs: MoE, NGOs reactive role

• Data collection from scientific publications, NGOs, universities, research institutes, NPs (many overlapping with data sources of MoE)

• Using results of ETC pre-evaluation is crucial

• Data synthesis, short comments for each species and habitats

www.ceeweb.org

Phases of the seminar

1. General questions To clarify methodology and rules of decisions

2. Reference Lists To decide, which hab & spec are relevant

3. Sufficiency/Insufficiency quantity/quality/coherence of sites more investigations or revision of proposals

www.ceeweb.org

General issues

• Shape and size of pSCIs for vertebrate animals, especially for bats and large carnivores

• Age of records

• Fragmentation of sites

www.ceeweb.org

General issues

• Taxonomic problem of species groups

• Question of site boundaries

• Deleting species near ectinction from the Reference List

www.ceeweb.org

Pre-evaluation and sum-up by the European Topic Centre

• Backup material of the Hungarian authority was fairly good.

• Preparedness of NGOs was acknowledged.

www.ceeweb.org

Evaluation of Reference Lists and sufficiency of National Lists

• Hungary:Most of the NGO proposals were accepted (decision

insufficiency or scientific reserve).

Military areas were problematic in Hungary

Forests under-represented

North-East Hungary underrepresented (mainly forests)

www.ceeweb.org

To be continued – decisions about future bilateral negotiations

• Hungary was to send its revised proposal (improved NL) by June 2006 to the Commission (not happened so far)

• NGOs would like to be involved in the bilateral negotiations by lobbying both towards the governments and the Commission / European Topic Centre, by sending their list of accessory proposed sites.

• No official agreement on NGO contribution

www.ceeweb.orgThank you for your attention