1. No category

HOW TO CARE FOR THE NATURA 2000 SITE DURING THE
CONSERVATION PLANNING?
EXPERIENCES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE
PILOT PROJECT “PARTICIPATION IN NATURA 2000 SITE
MANAGEMENT PLANNING IN POLAND”
EDITED BY: PAWEL PAWLACZYK
WITH COLLABORATION OF: MONIKA KOTULAK
ENGLISH TRANSLATION BY: BOGUSLAWA
JERMACZEK-MROZ AND PRZEMYSLAW JERMACZEK
ŚWIEBODZIN, JANUARY 2012
1
Introduction
During 2010-2013 y. conservation planning for ca. 400 Natura 2000 sites in Poland is foreseen, by preparing
so called ‘conservation measures plans’ (Polish: plan zadań ochronnych; simplified site management plan). By
2017 such documents should be prepared for all Natura 2000 sites in accordance with national and European
legal requirements, as well, (compare the note of European Commission on SAC designation and on
establishing conservation objectives for Natura 2000 sites).
The ‘conservation measures plan’ or ‘conservation management plan’ is a basic planning document
for Natura 2000 sites in Poland. Its content has a great impact on managing the site in the future and
therefore on the efficiency of its conservation. For anyone who is interested in the protection of Natura 2000
site it is crucial to participate in this conservation planning process. Naturalists should not miss it!
2011 was a year in which several dozens of plans were elaborated. Naturalists Club Poland (Klub
Przyrodników), contracted by CEEweb, took an opportunity and implemented a pilot project whose
objective was to participate in the conservation planning process. We participate in elaboration of 76 plans
(the detail list of sites is Annex I for this report).
In this report we present experience gained in this project in the form of recommendations for
naturalists (and NGOs as well) who would like to take part in such work. We believe that nature conservation
planning is a crucial issue for the future of nature conservation in Poland.
Planning instruments in Poland
There are two types of planning instruments for Natura 2000 sites in Poland: ‘conservation measures plan’ or
‘conservation management plan’ either can be used depending on the actual needs. When the area of a Natura
2000 site coincides with that of a national park, nature reserve or landscape park, it is also possible to
integrate its conservation plans, thus to implement Natura 2000 conservation measures within the
management plan of an appropriate
national nature protection form.
Both
plans:
conservation
measures plan and conservation
management plan are elaborated on the
basis of nature conservation act and
established as domestic law. The
procedure of preparing the plan
provides wide participation of all
stakeholders. This is a requirement of
the act to enable all private persons and
bodies “that are conducting activity in
protected habitats or habitats of the
protected species in the site” to
participate in the preparation of the
plan. Although the act itself does not
Fot: Meeting of the “Local Cooperation Group” for one of sites
describe precisely the form of this
involvement, in practice the so called
“Local Cooperation Group” is established. All the interested stakeholders of the particular site are invited to
the group. Members of this team work as volunteers. The task of gathering all essential information and
drafting the plan; however, is the responsibility of a coordinator chosen by tender or, more rarely, of
collaborators of the nature conservation services responsible for the site (regional directorate for
environmental protection; Polish: Regionalny Dyrektor Ochrony Środowiska).
Local Cooperation Group meets a few times. Firstly, to discuss the current state of knowledge
concerning a particular site and to identify knowledge gaps, then to diagnose the condition of habitats, species
and proposals of planning solutions. Documentation from each stage of the work is also available online.
Comments from the group members should be sent to the coordinator of the group. Eventually, the final
2
version of the plan is exposed to public consultation within a 21-day deadline and it is open to comments for
everyone.
The process of planning is based on the following algorithm:
identification of conservation objects in the site → assessment of “the status of conservation” within the site
using categories FV (favorable) - U1 (inadequate) - U2 (bad) → identification of threats (current and potential
factors responsible for inadequate state of conservation objects or factors that create danger of changing
proper state) -> determination of conservation objectives defined as “appropriate step in the direction of
“favourable status”-> identification of conservation measures leading to reaching goals.
Differences between conservation measures plan and conservation management plan are presented
below:
Conservation measures plan
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
prepared for 10 years;
legal basis: order of regional director of
environmental protection;
obligatory for each Natura 2000 site, with the
exception of marine sites, sites cover with
conservation measures plan or management plan
elaborated for nature reserve or national park, sites
of forest district, which possess forest
management plan that was evaluated during
environmental impact assessment;
elaborated mostly for whole Natura 2000 site, with
the exception of marine sites and sites for which
conservation is planned in other procedure;
elaborated with a view to implement measures,
that are necessary for conservation objects and are
not questionable;
includes only objectives to gain for 10 years and
task to implement;
it is “to do list”, does not describe regulations and
principles of operation;
conservation with “small steps method”, model of
“adaptive planning”: tasks predict for short period
→ verification of results-modification if
conservation measure plan or preparing full
management plan;
elaboration on the basis of current knowledge,
completed through basic field works in standard of
“monitoring observation” - with a goal to
standardize description of each object of
conservation, alternatively verification or
identification of possibilities of implementation of
activities; without special researches and
inventories - but if there is a need, appropriate
research can be one oft task;
can formulate conclusions for changes in current
Conservation management plan
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
prepared for 20 years;
legal basis: decree of Environmental
Minister,
non-obligatory;
can be prepared for the whole Natura
2000 site or a part of it;
the only planning instrument for
Natura 2000 sites: marine areas, forest
inspectorate area that possesses forest
management plan that was evaluated
during strategic environmental impact
assessment;
long-term conservation program can
be changed during implementation
only in particular cases
prepared on the basis of previous
elaborated inventory and researches
defines stable regulations and
proceedings for relatively long time
period;
defines “edge conditions” which have
to be fulfilled in landscape planning,
business run on the site with the aim
not to harm the aims of Natura 2000
site;
can determine regulations for
development, technical and
communication infrastructure (areas
with and without restrictions);
can determine frame conditions for the
implementation of accomplished and
planned projects likely to have
significant effects on Natura 2000 site
and required nature compensation
(that limit as consequences extend and
3
●
landscape plans, eliminating so far as it is possible
with insufficient knowledge “traps for investors” situations, when spatial plan can not be
implemented due to law concerning Natura 2000;
one part of conservation measures plan can be
identification of the necessity of elaboration and
establishing conservation management plan.
●
●
time for future procedures of
Environmental Impact Assessment);
can define conclusions for changing
existing studies and plans in spatial
planning, eliminating totally “traps for
investors” - situations when urban plan
can not be implemented due to
restrictions connected with Natura
2000 sites
for stakeholders active in the Natura
2000 sites it provides predictability and
reliability of conservation concerning
restriction in protected area.
Despite the differences, the way of planning (participation of stakeholders, logic structure of the plan, relation
to proper conservation status and particular characteristics and indicators, planning monitoring that verifies
objectives) is the same.
In the following part of this chapter we concentrate mostly on experiences and recommendations for
the planning process of conservation measures plan, becausethis type of document is elaborated in most
cases. However, the majority of rules described here can be used also in other management plans.
Where to find information concerning planning of conservation of Natura 2000 site
1. The majority of conservation measures plans are prepared within the framework of big project
“Elaboration of conservation measures plans for Natura 2000 sites in Poland”, funded from
European sources, conducted by central administration in nature protection - General Directorate of
Environmental Protection (Pl Generalna Dyrekcja Ochrony Środowiska). Current information about
the project should be published on a dedicated website. There are attempts made to create special
“platform of information and communication” in the frame of the project, the goal of which is to
enable users follow each steps of the process and make comments and remarks.
2. Current terms for conservation measures plan dedicated for each site is available at Regional
Directorate for Environmental Protection (Pl Regionalna Dyrekcja Ochrony Środowiska, abbr.
RDOŚ) which is responsible for each site. In each of 16 RDOŚ there is a dedicated staff member, socalled regional planner, who coordinates the process of planning, and from whom we can get
information on request.
3. Since planning is a public process, it has to be announcedIt is worth following the website of each
RDOŚ.
Recommendation: Each naturalist who is interested in conservation of Natura 2000 site should try to
access information and get involved in the process of planning.
Before planning: visit the site, know the site!
If you want to take part successfully in conservation of Natura 2000 site - you have to know the site well. For
that you have to be there: visit it regularly, know its nature, the most important and interesting places,
recognize dangers and react to it.
4
Knowledge of the area and the most precious places is necessary for sufficient planning and
protection. The more precise our
knowledge is, the better results will
be achieved. Concrete knowledge
about precious moor, for example,
together with the knowledge about
drainage ditch, is invaluable for the
planning. In contrast, imprecise
knowledge such as ”there is possibly
an alkaline moor in the site” is
useless.
We
recommend
informing
appropriate
entities,
such
as
owner/manager, administration of
nature conservation, responsible
authorities of new findings (e.g.
stands of protected species, valuable
places etc) in written form. . This
Naturalist making bog survey – this knowledge is essential for future planning
helps to avoid receiving arguments
like”...we did not know that the place
is so precious”. We also recommend documenting all visible threats in the site. We should remember to send
documentation of our activities to the nature conservation administration. Even if a single intervention that
we experience does not any significant effects, documentation of it adds to the description of problems.
Conservation planning process is a time when you can not avoid discussion about that kind of issues and
thinking about solutions. Documentations about informing about dangers are a gun towards arguments like:
“... we did not know about the problem”.
Naturally it is worth to try to protect a site in a frame of different projects, i.e. implement within
activities for nature conservation. Partner that has experiences in such activities is probably considered as a
lead partner. Nevertheless “implementing in habitats and species habitats” actions is according to law a
premise to “create possibilities for participations in elaborating project of plan”.
Example:
LIFE project concerning protection of xerothermic grasslands, implemented by Klub Przyrodników in the
site PLH 320037 Dolna Odra enabled in measures conservation plan to describe all existing xerothermic
patches with precise actions. If this knowledge had not been available before planning, there would not be
probably enough time for researches.
For naturalist, who does care about Natura 2000 sites this recommendations are obvious. We would
like to emphasize, that it is important in planning process to collect information about problems,
threats and information concerning valuable places, species stands, needs of the site, that create
“critical mass”. This sort of information is the most effective when they are not only collected but
also currently deliver in writing to appropriate entities.
How to take part in the planning process?
1. Elaborating of plan, or parts of it, is often contracted to different contractors. One way to prepare
good plan is to be a contractor preparing it.; try to win the tender !
2. Most often in a frame of preparation of the plan there is so called Team of Local Cooperation
established with up to ca. 30 person. In this group should be involved: key stakeholders (i.e. people
5
and institutions interested in, that are directly affected by plan or that have influence on the
implementing of the plan, within “people and entities that are making their business within habitat or
habitats of species, which are objects of protection in the site) and experts. It is worth taking part in
work of such a team. That means participation in 2-4 workshops with discussion (traveling expenses
at own costs). It creates the best possibility to emphasize needs of nature conservation. Additionally
only the members of the Team are able to consult current versions of prepared documentation. We
advise to inform administration of nature conservation about wish to join such a team, especially
about:
● conducting in the site activity connected with conservation of objects of protection, or
● obtaining data, information or knowledge that could be useful in the planning process.
3. In a frame of the planning process can be created i.e. special website - “information-communication
platform”, where members of Local Cooperation Team can watch every plan, comment it and make
remarks. It is good to comment it from the beginning, therefore you can steer a work.
4. Everyone can make comments to elaborated project of plan during “public consultations” (in
practice project is available in the Internet). For making remarks there is minimum 21 days predict.
At the end there is also a list with comments prepared with information in which way they are
included. Remarks after deadline could not be accepted.
For participation in planning of conservation of Natura 2000 site you should be prepared. We advice to get
detailed knowledge on national legal regulation and management planning guidelines. It is useful to reach also
to European law that is with Natura 2000 sites connected
Each naturalist, who cares about particular Natura 2000 site or sites, should try to participate in the
planning process in one of the described above ways.
Understand Natura 2000!
Before we take part in planning of conservation of the Natura 2000 site it is crucial to understand well what
Natura 2000 actually is, what it protects, what it does not protect, what kind of requirement of the law are
with it connected. In chapters of this book we will try to help to understand these issues.
Knowledge about exact borders of the Natura 2000 is key issue for conservation of habitats and
species protected through this network. Habitats and species beyond the Natura 2000 site do not benefit in
principle so much from this conservation regime. However, in case when one species e.g. lesser spotted eagle
that nests in forest within the border of Natura 2000 site, feed on meadows beyond Natura 2000 - site, that
kind of habitat should also be protected. Understanding what can and what can not be protected by Natura
2000 site is crucial. You should always consider if the site concerns “habitats” or “birds” and so what kind of
conservation subjects do we have to deal with (see further). One misunderstanding is an assumption that due
to Natura 2000 you can preserve landscape or cultural heritage. You should remember that Natura 2000 can
not prevent any, even very negative changes, when they are neutral for subjects of conservation in each
particular site.
Although, such limitations are sometimes to overcome. Planning of conservation can be some kind
catalyst of thinking in wider terms - it can bring pride from such places, discover its not only nature but also
cultural value. It can be chance for region. Such way of thinking about a site can influence other spheres people can carry more for other elements of heritage - not only about that, which are required by European
directives...
If it is only possible, such solutions can be our long - term goal, although it is sometimes hidden.
Conservation of Natura 2000 site is efficient and durable only when we build an agreement with stakeholders
that have impact on the site. Such a consensus can be solid basis for efficient, local cooperation for real
protection of the site with all its aspects. Such agreement, which part is acceptance of ecological needs of
6
species and habitats is the best solution for each Natura 2000 site. The key to success is when everyone sees
his/her own business in conservation of the Natura 2000 site. An idea around which agreement could be
build is local sustainable development. It can and should use i.e. nature values that are protected in Natura
2000 site and also ecosystem services but it should not harm it.
On the other hand you should be conscious that term: “enable of sustainable development” could be
in many situations mistaken
and use as a pick to preserve
area
from
“to
strict
conservation”.
Such
an
interpretation
should
be
criticized.
Sustainable
development is a development
which has clear borders
resulting from needs of nature
conservation.
Not
every
Natura 2000 site has to
develop sustainably. Existing
of Natura 2000 site should
influence regions and lands
toward
sustainable
development.
It is not true that
Natura 2000 sites stands as
opposition to current nature
conservation or even to
Photo W. Mróz. Conservaton and restoration of “Błędowska Desert” (huge area of sands
compare “modern Natura
and dunes) in Poland creates the whole style of the local sustainable development based on the
2000” with “old-fashioned
“desert tourism”
nature conservation”.
All
known since many years
method of conservation or form of nature conservation - like strict conservation, acceptance of natural
processes, active conservation, renaturisation or nature-friendly development, take place in Natura 2000 sites.
Example:
Site of Community Interest (SCI) - Wrzosowiska Przemkowskie PLH200015 is area of work of Local Activity
Group “Wrzosowa Kraina” (Heath-land), which implements projects within Leader Program. Local
advertised regional product is i.e. heath honey. Conservation of European dry heaths (habitat 4030, main
object of conservation of Natura 2000 site) means also protection of base component of honey. Business of
beekeepers is now to keep heats in good conditions. Heathland by Przemków is also local tourist and
landscape attraction. This place drawn in tourists not only because of beautiful landscape, especially with
heath in bloom, but also due to delicious honey than can you buy from local beekeeper during trip. In winter
taste of honey brings memories from the heathland...
During preparing the plan you should “play the game”: plan is elaborated for conservation of
species or habitats, which are objects of conservation of Natura 2000 and are situated within the
borders of this protected area. Workshops, meetings and discussions that take place while planning
process could be the beginning of building new activities towards local sustainable development.
Nature-friendly development, sustainable development, development of tourism, ecotourism as a
chance for local development - that are chances for sustain existing Natura 2000 site indeed, not only
in nature, but also in social aspect. They could not justify departure from fastidious conservation of
what should be protected. Basis of planned conservation of Natura 2000 sites is good for located
there species and habitats. Sustainable development in the plan can be build as a “superstructure”.
7
Borders of Natura 2000 sites
Current borders of Natura 2000 site can be in Poland found on the maps that are available on state website:
http://natura2000.gdos.gov.pl/natura2000/ or as WMS layer: http://wms.gdos.gov.pl/geoserver/wms?. It
can be use with Geoportal1 (www.geoportal.gov.pl) or with some GIS software (in both cases borders can be
displayed against topographical map, ortophoto, land lot).
General view of borders of Natura 2000 sites in Europe is available also on website of European
Environment Agency http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/.
Planning of conservation of
Natura 2000 site is actually
different process from marking
out the borders. In principle it
should be accepted that shape of
the site is determinated and
established (with the borders that
was send as vectors by Poland to
European Commission). With
conservation measures plan it
could not be possible to change
borders of the site or “detalising”
it somehow - change of borders
of Area of Special Conservation
requires a decree of Minister of
Environment after acceptance of
European Commission and
change of borders of Site of
One of the Natura 2000 sites in Polish Geoportal
Community Interest (“habitat
site” requires decision of EC.
Conservation measure plan is approved by decree of Regional Directory of Environmental Protection
(RDOŚ) and can not replace above given acts. Generally you should avoid situation when discussion
concerning conservation of Natura 2000 change into discussion concerning correctness of marking out its
borders.
However, when the plan is being prepared, some postulates of corrections of borders crucial for its
conservation can appear. It can be e.g. enlarging site and enclosing fundamental for identified subjects of
protection. Task to make such correction can be included in the plan as a one of conservation measures
(although implementation of such correction requires separate procedure).
It is necessary to remember that:
1. Enlarging the site can be included as “to do task”, if there is justification for it from the view of
needs of objects of conservation. Enlarging of the Natura 2000 site probably does not meet
objections of European Commission, but the sooner it is submitted, the sooner it can be
implemented (e.g. for “habitats areas” enlarging send to Commission till September 2012 could be
realize during few moths, whereas later its implementation could last more than 6 years).
2. “Specifying borders” of Natura 2000 site (e.g. draw the border to land lots, forest subunit etc.) is
possible only when there are no doubts that it excludes fragments important for conservation
Geoportal it is Polish tool, which is part of implementing INSPIRE. Similar tools function in other EU members. It is
a duty result from European Law.
1
8
objects. This kind of change can not be made within the same conservation measures plan - it
requires full procedure of changing decree of minister or decision of European Commission.
3. Excluding of particular parts from Natura 2000 site is generally difficult and allowed only in
exceptional cases. Certainly it can not result from political, social, economical motives. It is possible
only under condition of delivering “evidence of great quantity” that the area is within the border of
Natura 2000 due to failure that means that:
- it had not high nature value in the day of “requirement of assignation of the site” - in case
of Poland it is date of accession to European Union (1 May 2004),
- it has not received such value after that day,
- it is not important according to integrity of the site (e.g. it is not necessary for protection of
values of places in neighborhood).
This type of change requires informing European Commission and in case of “habitat areas” also its decision.
Examples:
During works on conservation plan for small Natura 2000 site PLH220010 Hopowo it turned out that
current version of borders accepted by European Commission is drawn by hand on general map. In fact, in a
field it was identified that protected feature - a dystrophic lake that is was habitat for swamp minnow
(phoxinus percnurus) is located in fact outside these borders of Natura 2000 site. A proposal of area borders
based on field details were made. The application concerning borders changes was submitted to GDOŚ and
then further to European Commission.
Similar situation is connected with the site Natura 2000 PLH020013 Sztolnie w Leśnej (ang Adits by
Leśna) that protects hibernation places of bat species in adits of old mines. During work at conservation plan
it occurred that current borders, accepted by European Commission did not include any of 9 adits which
were habitats of the bats. The application concerning borders changes was submitted to GDOŚ and then
further to European Commission. In both cases it is to expected, that changes in borders of sites will be
accepted.
Example:
Ministry of Environment while delivering to European Commission a conclusion of detailed borders for
Natura 2000 site 2000 PLH240005 Beskid Śląski excluded small part of the area on the slope of Szyndzielnia
as a proposal of city council Bielsko-Biała. The aim was to enable one investment - in the field of tourism and
skiing which was important for development of the city. After detecting in excluded parts protected habitats patches of beechwood and forests of slopes, screes and ravines, the European Commission did not accept
proposal of changes. As a consequence Poland sent motion without exclusion and the EC accepted it.
As a member of Local Cooperation Team you could and also should make comments and
conclusions that are based on above mentioned rules. Especially when enlarging of the site is
needed, such conclusion should be included in the plan as one of the tasks. You should strongly
insist that on no political or social or economic reasons any sites should be excluded from Natura
2000. You should point out that it is not possible according to Polish and European law.
Objects of conservation (protected features) in the Natura 2000 site
As it is well known, Natura 2000 site is not “protected area” but “site of conservation” - area in which not
everything is protected, but only specific ecosystems (habitats) and habitats of concrete species. This selected
ecosystems or species are so called “objects of conservation” - conservation measures plan is prepared for
them and conservation objectiver are established for them.
Due to “habitat site” (SCI-SAC), art. 6(1) of habitat directive requires “essential conservation
measures appropriate for habitats from annex I of directive and species that live in the site”. It means that all
“nature” habitats and species (that are mentioned in annex II habitat directive, transposed also to proper
9
Minister for Environment decree), that occur in “habitat” site, should be object of conservation, and
therefore should be included in conservation measures plan. Aim of conservation of Natura 2000 site is to
bring them to “proper conservation
status” and maintain it in this form.
One, common use interpretation
says, that it does not relate to
habitats and species that in
Standard Data Form (SDF) have
letter “D” - they are of marginal
significance in the site. Therefore
presumably list of conservation
objects of the site consists a list of
habitats and species defined in
Standard Date Form with letter A,
B, C (general grade). However with
new scientific information and
data, when new habitats or species
are found (and they are of minor
importance), that are not included
in SDF. They should be treated as
objects of conservation. Member of
the EU should actualize SDF (it is
Oligotrophic lake (3110 habitat)
expected that SDF-s should be
updated every 6 years).
If habitat or species disappear from the site, interpretation depends on cause of this situation. In case
when vanishing of species or habitat is permanent and was impossible to avoid (e.g. due to climate change,
unpredictable natural disaster, fire etc.), such habitat or species is not treated as conservation object anymore.
If in this way disappear all conservation objects, the Natura 2000 site could even be suppressed. If
disappearance of species or habitat was a result of insufficient conservation (lack of appropriate measures
towards natural succession, e.g. overgrowth of meadows), it can not be a circumstance to erase conservation
object, on the contrary there is requirement of its restoration. Any political, social or economic conditions can
not lead to removal of conservation object from the form.
Generally, bird species are not direct conservation objects in “habitat site” and also any species from
behind the 2nd annex of directive. Nevertheless both birds and all other groups of species can indirectly
benefit from conservation of habitats - if they are considered as so called “typical species” for habitat (see
below). In this case accomplishing proper state of conservation of such species means also proper state of
habitat.
In “bird site” (SPA) you should remember that in contrary to habitat directive, in bird directive there
are more annexes - list of birds species, for which Natura 2000 site is established. Annex I of directive is only
a part of such a list. Second part consists of migratory species, not presented in directive. They are included in
polish Minister decree establishing Special Protection Areas (SPAs).
The Birds Directive generally describes that conservation objects are those bird species for which
certain area “is the most appropriate”. It concerns those bird species which demands are compatible with
ecological type of the site. For instance in a site with forest objects of conservation belong to wood species
and not to randomly appearing field or meadow species.
In Poland, decree of Minister of Environment specifies selection of objects of conservation of “bird
area”. It says that object of conservation is a species from I directive annex or migratory bird species:
a) which appears at least 1% of state breeding species population, or
b) which appears regularly at least of 1% of migrating population of migratory species, or
c) which appears regularly among at least 20000 individuals of wetlands migratory species during
migration or overwintering, or among at least 10000 pairs of one or few migratory marine species, or
10
d) which appears regularly altogether with at least 5000 of white storks or 3000 common cranes, or
3000 species of birds of pray, observed during spring and autumn migration period, or
e) that the area is one of 10 the most important state breeding areas for endangered species in the
EU, or
f) which regularly appears globally and is endangered.
It should be assumed that the list of conservation objects is the list of species marked in Standard Data Form
for a site (general grade) as A, B or C (but not D). However new scientific data indicating that a species
population should be assessed in SDF as “A, B, or C”, should change status of species - which till achieving
of such knowledge, should be considered as “object of conservation”.
Similar to “habitat” site if a species
disappears from the site, interpretation depends on
causes of this phenomenon and on that if it was
possible to avoid it. If vanishing of species is
permanent and it was not possible to counteract
(e.g. due to climate change, unpredictable natural
disaster, fire etc.), this species is no longer treated as
object of conservation. If in this way all objects of
conservation disappear, Natura 2000 site can even
be deleted from the network. Nevertheless, if
vanishing of species is a consequence of lack of
proper conservation (within also lack of appropriate
measures towards natural succession, e.g.
overgrowth of meadows), it can not be a
circumstance to erase conservation object, and on
the contrary there is requirement of its restoration.
Direct conservation object in “bird site”
Natura 2000 are neither habitats nor any unfledged
species. However they can bring in a profit
indirectly from conservation of bird species or their
habitats, when they use the same area (habitat as a
habitat of bird species) or part of it (e.g. amphibians
as prey base for birds).
Standard Data Form of Natura 2000 - a
base of information about objects of conservation,
can
be
found
on
website
http://natura2000.gdos.gov.pl/natura2000/ and in
European
Commission
service:
http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/
Fot. Ewa Wnuk
In process of preparing a plan determining
objects of conservation of the site involves
Grus grus, BD Annex I species
analyzing and defining - on the basis of available
data, also SDF, importance of the area for conservation and restoration resources of habitats or species, for
which Natura 2000 site is established.
These habitats and species that had or have importance since 1 May 2004 should be considered
objects of conservation. Therefore in planning process list of conservation objects of Natura 2000 site (list of
species and habitats for which conservation should be planned) should be defined as follows:
species
and
habitats with
A, B, C grades
from Standard
+
new found species
and habitats, for
which that site has
crucial
meaning
-
species and habitats that was
incorrectly included in SDF (but
species
or
habitats
that
disappeared as a consequence of
=
objects
of
conservation
of a site
11
Data Form
(should be included
in SDF with A, B or
C grade)
lack of proper conservation after
1.05.2004 can not be erased)
If you participate in process of planning you could and should make comments and remarks based
on above mentioned rules. Especially you should inform as soon as possible RDOŚ about habitats
and species that are not included in SDF and which should be considered as object of conservation.
These objects should be included in process of conservation planning. You should also pay attention
to attempts to narrow down some objects of conservation that is against above mentioned rules.
SDF is not sacred
Standard Data Form of the Natura 2000 is the best possible description of the site (at the time of drafting).
But actually any of descriptions is really completed. As a result of growing knowledge about the site, the
Form can and should be supplemented, and all possible errors corrected.
The European Commission expects that SDFs for Natura 2000 sites will be supplemented, detailed
and corrected at least once every 6 years. All changes resulting from the actualization should be accepted. For
example, if it appears that the number of a species is smaller than estimated in previous version of the SDF,
the change will not give evidence about bad conservation of area. Therefore it can not be basis for any
charges. It will be quite different, if the number of one of the objects of conservation will really present a
declining trend.
Making changes in SDFs require precise description concerning causes of the situation. Differences
in number of species or habitats site in next versions of SDFs are not automatically interpreted as a trend in
numerical force or surface, but of course can prove it. However, assessment of the situation is never
automatic.
Process of planning of conservation of Natura 2000 site usually involves tasks that detailing
knowledge about this site (inventories, critical analysis of various sources of information). Often planning of
conservation of the site results in a proposal to improve, refine or supplement the SDF. This is normal!
Example:
During work at project of measures conservation plan for Natura 2000 site PLH260010 Lasy Suchedniowskie
it was found that described in SDF xerothermic grasslands (habitat with code 6210) are located beyond the
border of Natura 2000 and additionally they have poor structure. Probably this habitat was given in SDF by
mistake. As a result of researches in the forest localization of three rare xylobionthic beetles were found
(species that depends on decaying wood) - Boros schneideri, flat bark beetle Cucujus cinnaberinus and
Rhysodes sulcatus. This discovery means that this area is a key-site for conservation of this species in Poland.
Therefore beetle species were considered as objects of conservation and xerothermic grasslands not.
Appropriate changes in SDF were indicated.
If you participate in planning process you could and should make remarks and conclusions based on
given above rules. You should pay attention to attempts minimalising extend of nature conservation
due to manipulating with SDF content.
Content of field work for conservation measures plan
For elaboration of plan limited budget and time is available, therefore probably not all objects of conservation
can be recognized and described in field. In process of planning a debate should be make about what kind of
12
issues are priority for investigations in the field, what can be postpone. However work in the field is the most
important part of planning. As a participant of planning process you should make effort to made executor of
the plan to conduct field inventory so detailed as it is possible.
Especially such situation when for field work there is no time left should be strongly criticized. For
example order preparing of documentation for plan in autumn time with deadline for winter.
Existing data concerning site should be use in planning conservation. Nevertheless, credibility and
completeness of each source of
information and each set of
information should be assessed.
While analyzing available information
it is worth to think about research
methodology
used,
time
for
researches available, authors of
researches, what interpretations for
habitat were used etc.
Where gaps of knowledge
and inventories are detected,
procedure of preparing project of
plan
allows
to
implement
complementary field work (e.g.
inventory for some elements of
nature or assessment of condition of
it). First should be recognize those
issues that potentially have the
biggest impact on “planning effect” that means issues on which rely need
of undertaking active conservation
measures and modifying current
management of site etc.
One task described in a
frame of the plan should be
supplementation of information for
issues that can not be recognized
during preparing of project of plan
(e.g. making inventory or detailed
analysis).
Fish survey = Natura 2000 site in Romania, during the CEEWeb academy
During participation in the planning process you can and should make remarks and conclusions
concerning quality of available documentation, inventories and also conclusions connected with
making inventories and its range. Such conclusions are desirable at the early stages of planning.
Only then it is possible to influence content of predicted field work. You should look after that for
field work there are not savings made.
Vision of ‘favorable conservation status’ of the object of conservation
In principle, goal of Natura 2000 network should be achieving for objects of conservation so-called ‘favorable
conservation status’ and permanent maintaining of this state. The vision of the correct conservation status
should be based on standards and indicators, developed in a standardized way for the whole country and
identical to the parameters and indicators used for nature monitoring. More detailed indicators for rating the
various parameters are determined by each Member of the EU individually.
13
Obligation, that results from the Habitats Directive is to keep or restore favorable conservation
status of habitats and species at the level of the country and biogeographic region (similar rules are for the
Birds Directive). The planning process should determine, what is the role of particular Natura 2000 site in
achieving this goal. Site conservation objectives should “optimalise” this role.
In Poland it is assumed that conservation state of species and habitats will be determined obligatory
with the same model of standards and indicators in each particular Natura 2000 site during work at the plan.
In addition in a frame of monitoring of habitat and species carried out since 2007, state of conservation for
many species and habitats has been determined (results are published on the website:
http://www.gios.gov.pl/siedliska/).
Criteria of determination of state of conservation for habitat or species within Natura 2000 site are
determined in the decree of Ministry of Environment.
Conservation status for species in Natura 2000 site is defined with parameters given below:
1) parameter 1: population;
2) parameter 2: habitat;
3) parameter 3: chance of maintaining of species
Each of parameter is qualified in the scale: FV=favorable, U1=inadequate, U2=bad. In a case lack of data we
sue XX=unknown. It is supposed, that FV is marked with green, U1 - orange or amber, U2 - red.
Parameter 1: ‘population’ is assessed with given below scale
Parameter
FV (Favorable)
1.
The number of individuals is
Population stable over a longer period (may
occur natural fluctuations) and
the population uses potential of
the area, age structure, fertility
and mortality probably not
differ from the standard
U1 (inadequate)
U2 (bad)
The number show a slow
decreasing trend, or is much
lower than the potential
possibilities of the area, or
structure, reproduction or
mortality
rate
are
anthropogenic disturbed
The number show a strong
decreasing trend, or age
structure,
fertility
and
mortality rates are distorted
in a way that there is a
threat of the occurrence
such trend in the near
future
For assessment of natural condition and disturbances of features of population they are use separate
set of parameters, accepted for national nature monitoring, based on the scientific knowledge (these research
methodics are published on the website: http://www.gios.gov.pl/siedliska/). It should be here emphasize,
that elimination parameters only to so called ‘fundamental parameters’ it is incorrect.
In practice for each species different, suitable for indicators of population status are used. It can be
direct population indicators (number of individuals, fertility, mortality), or indirect indicators of state of
population (number of trees colonized by xylobiont species, frequency of occurrence of rare insect species.
Parameter 2. ‘habitat’ is assessed by the following scale:
Parameter FV (favorable)
2. Habitat
U1 (inadequate)
The size is large enough and The size and the quality of habitat
the quality is good enough is so anthropogenic degraded,
for long-term survival of the that is not optimal for the species
species
U2 (bad)
The size is too small or the
quality certainly is not
providing long-term survival
of the species
14
For assessment of size and quality of habitat of species there are different for each species indicators
use. They are accepted for national nature monitoring, based on the scientific knowledge (this research
methodology is published on the website: http://www.gios.gov.pl/siedliska/). In practice habitat is assess
with indicators. They are focused on the size of available habitat (is it big enough for the species?) and its
quality. Indicators are of course different for each species - they can describe e.g. number of places for
breeding, accessibility of nourishment, availability of shelters etc. Indicators should from one site display this
features that are factors of good condition of population, and from another show this feature of habitats that
are crucial for its survival.
Parameter
FV (favorable)
U1 (inadequate)
U2 (bad)
3. Chances
of survival
of
the
species
Lack of significant negative
impact, they are no bigger threats
in the future foreseen; there are
no negative changes in population
and habitat. Preservation of
species within perspective of 1020 years is almost certain.
Preservation
of
species
within perspective of 10-20
years it is not certain, but it is
probably, as far as existing
negative
impacts
and
predictable, moderate threats
are prevented
Preservation of species in
10-20 years will be
difficult, strong negative
changes in population
and habitat and predicted
threats in the future
(practically hardly to
eliminate)
Together evaluation of state of conservation is a result from 1-3 parameters by follow scheme:
1) if only one of three parameters is U2, then global grade = U2;
2) if situation is not like above, but at least one from three parameter is evaluated as U1, global grade
=U1;
3) if situation is not like above, but two or three parameters have XX, global grade =XX;
4) if situation is not like above (i.e. three parameters have FV or two parameters have FV and one
has XX), global grade = FV .
State of conservation status of habitat in Natura 2000 site is determined with parameters as
following:
1) parameter 1: area of habitat;
2) parameter 2: structure and function;
3) parameter 3: chances of conservation of habitat.
Each of parameters is evaluated in the scale: FV=favorable, U1=inadequate, U2= bad. In case of
lack of data we use XX=unknown. It is supposed, that FV is marked with green, U1 - orange or amber, U2 red.
Parameter 1:’area of habitat’ is evaluated in following scale:
Parameter
FV (favorable)
U1 (inadequate)
U2 (bad)
It indicates slow decreasing It indicates quick decreasing trend
1. Area of It is not decreasing, it is not
trend or it is anthropogenic or it is strongly anthropogenic
habitat
anthropogenic fragmented
fragmentized
fragmentized
If habitat occurs in a form of dispersed patches due to natural conditions (e.g. relief), it is not
evaluated as anthropogenic fragmentation.
Parameter 2: ‘structure and function’ is evaluated in following scale:
15
Parameter FV (favorable)
2.
Structure
and
function
U1 (inadequate)
U2 (bad)
Small disturbance e.g. un- Significant, deep disturbances, e.g.
In good state, lack of
optimal management, small lack of proper management,
significant
disturbances,
structural
disturbances, impairing of structure, lack of
typical
for
habitat
disturbance of typical for habitat typical for habitat ecological
ecological processes area
ecological processes, decreasing processes, deep decrease of
having place, state of
of biodiversity, impairing of biodiversity, loss of function, bad
typical species favorable,
functions, inadequate state of state of typical species or clear
biodiversity of habitat not
particular typical species
impairment of the composition of
poor
species
There are different for assessment
of structure and function of habitat
indicators use. They are accepted for
national nature monitoring, based on the
scientific
knowledge
(this
research
methodics are published on the website:
http://www.gios.gov.pl/siedliska/).
It
should be here emphasised, that it is
incorrect to eliminate parameters only to so
called ‘fundamental parameters’.
In practice parameter ‘structure and
function’ is evaluated on the basis on
indicators. Composition of those indicators
can be different for each habitat (adapted to
ecological specificity), although many
indicators for different habitat can be
Deadwood is important indicatior of fores favourable f“structure and
similar or even the same. Part of indicators
function”
describe conditions of habitat (e.g. water
condition, land use), part describe direct
structure of habitat. ‘Typical species” status (if the species typical for the habitat are indicated) should also be
used as indicator.
Different indicators describe particular features of structure or/and processes and factors that shape
that habitat and influence of its functioning. Value of each factor is assessed in the scale FV-U1-U2-XX.
There are fundamental and ancillary indicators to distinguish. Value of parameter is determined by the value
of particular indicators in that way that it can not be better than the worst value of fundamental indicator,
while value of ancillary indicators influences on parameter’s value, but they do not absolutely determine it. It
is thought not allowed to center only on evaluation of fundamental indicators! Indicators should indicate such
features, that are crucial for persistence and “quality” of ecosystem, within also for preservation of complete
biodiversity connected with particular ecosystem.
Parameter 3: ‘chances of preservation of habitat’ is evaluated by following scale
Parameter
FV (favorable)
U1 (inadequate)
U2 (bad)
Preservation of habitat in not
Preservation of habitat in not
Lack of threats and negative
deteriorated state in a prospect of
3. chances of
deteriorated state in a prospect
trends. Preservation of
10-20 years will be very difficult:
preservation of
of 10-20 years is not certain
habitat in not-deteriorated
advanced processes of recession,
habitat’
but it is probable if existing
state in a prospect of 10-20
strong negative trends or
threats are eliminated
years is almost certain
significant threats
16
Total assessment of state of conservation is a result from parameters 1-3, following the scheme of
conclusion:
1) if at least one from three factors is evaluated as U2, global evaluation =U2;
2) if situation is not like above, but at least one from three parameters is evaluated as U1, global
evaluation = U1;
3) if situation is not like above, but two or three parameters are evaluated as XX, global
evaluation=XX;
4) if situation is not like above (i.e. all three parameters are evaluated as FV or two parameters receive
FV, and one XX), global evaluation =FV.
Generally vision of favorable conservation state of habitat or species should include particularly
following elements:
● number of individuals of species or area of habitat in the site it is not decreasing, if it is possible can
increase, simultaneously you should prevent anthropogenic fragmentation of habitat;
● fundamental ecological features (e.g. water condition and process of peat creation; flooding of
riparian forests) of habitat are preserved or reestablished;
● providing appropriate management of semi-natural habitats, that require such measures (e.g.
meadows, pastures);
● preserve biodiversity connected with particular ecosystem (habitat), also typical, rare, protected,
specific for habitat species;
● preserving or reconstructing key elements of the structure (e.g. contribution of old trees and dead
wood in the forest);
● preserving in appropriate state habitats necessary for full life cycle of protected species in the site.
Habitat should be treated ‘
’costystemic’: favourable habitat
status means healthy, well
functioning ecosystem, with high
biodiversity. Vision of ‘favorable
conservation status of habitat’
usually agrees with vision of
ecosystem that was aim in nature
conservation before era of
Natura 2000.
The vision of ‘favorable
state of conservation of habitat’
should include and accept natural
variability of ecosystems (e.g. for
forest you should not aim to
precise forest stand composition
of species, but rather to forest
Dune habitats favourable conservation status must be understood as “natural dynamic
with
particular
ecological
complex”
character; you should accept
fluctuations of some trees’ species). Similarly vision should include and accept natural, typical for ecosystem
ecological processes and their results.
In some cases, the vision of 'favorable conservation status of habitats’ will be dynamic like naturally
functioning mosaic of different habitat types, such as dynamically formed by wind complex of dunes, which
includes the habitats of the dunes, dune heathland , dune depressions, etc. Particular habitats will change their
location and the surface, but the living character the whole system ensures that the existence of each of these
habitat types in the complex is preserved.
17
The vision of 'favorable conservation status of natural habitat’ should emphasize those structural
features of the ecosystem that are “litmus paper” of its nature value. For instance, for forests it will be a
contribution of dead wood (for development of natural groups of xylobiont species usually should be 30-40
m3/ha, but such resources should cover only 20-30% of the whole forest’s area), and the participation of
thick and old trees. For the river with Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation it will be
hydromorphological diversity (natural riverbed).
Noteworthy is the idea of the so-called 'typical species' of habitats. Habitat should be treated as
ecosystems - typical species are species essential for the functioning of the ecosystem, or determining its local
character, also important for saving related to ecosystem biodiversity. This species are also beyond "Natura
2000".
For example in river with
Ranunculion fluitantis and CallitrichoBatrachion vegetation (habitat 3260)
typical species are specific water
plants (common water-crowfoot,
flowering rush) and fishes as well
(e.g. brown trout, grayling,
common barbel).
For xerothermic grassland
(habitat 6210) typical species are
specific
plant
species
and
invertebrates.
In beech forests (habitat 9130) to
such species belong besides beech
(that determines the structure of
Flowering Iris sibirica – typical species for the 6410 habitat. Photo A. Jermaczek
the forest) woodpeckers, their
hollows are used by numerous birds species For typical species can be consider - Hericium coralloides (rare
fungus that colonize decaying beech wood) or lesser stag beetle Dorcus parallelipipedus - a species of beetle that
is typical for natural forest, which larva lives in infected by fungi wood.
Here also the rule is to consider for typical species for habitats those species that are like ‘litmus
paper’ for nature value of particular ecosystem. During the preparing of the plan there is a place for
evaluation what kind of species should be locally treated (in the specific Natura 2000 site) as typical for each
habitat. If an object of conservation is one habitat, than aim of conservation is to i.e. preservation or
reconstruction favorable conservation status its ‘typical species’
Example:
Natura 2000 site PLH060098 Wrzosowisko w Orzechowie protects European dry heaths (habitat 1030). Klub
Przyrodników gave a proposal during preparing conservation measures plan for the site, that for ‘typical
species’ should be considered woodlark - which is typical for heathlands and has there high concentration.
Aim of Natura 2000 site PLH060105 Maśluchy is to protect i.e. species-rich Nardus grasslands (habitats
6230). Klub Przyrodników apply for acknowledgement such plant species like Botrychium multifidum,
fragrant Orchid Gymnadenia conopsea and wolf's-foot clubmoss Lycopodium clavatum (described in the
SDF as local ‘floral curiosity of grasslands), as typical species while preparing conservation measures plan.
Vision of ‘favorable conservation status of species’ should emphasize these features of habitat of species that
are key issues for particular species. In this case whole life cycle should be taken into account. For instance
the hermit beetle requires - appropriate number of old trees with rotten wood that stand in short distance. In
case of the European fire-bellied toad essential are: shallow, warm ponds for mating time, deeper ponds that
are used in summer time, abundance of shelters for winter and undisturbed migration route, without barriers,
between winter and summer quarters. For wolf essential is extensive forest rich in game (base of prey),
without barriers, that includes hidden places for reproduction, without dangerous objects (like roads with
heavy traffic).
18
For many species and habitats important element of favorable conservation status are suitable water
conditions. This issue is especially important because if it is included in plan, it will be not only aim of nature
conservation but also Water Framework Directive and therefore activity for administrators of the water.
Generally vision of ‘ favorable conservation status’ of most of habitats and species is not in variance with
vision of sensible, economic use of ecosystems - although it could requires some modifications, in the
direction to leave place for crucial for ecosystems natural processes and elements of structure.
‘Favorable conservation status’ for majority of habitats and species does not lead to conflict with vision of
ecosystems managed by natural processes. On the contrary, in Europe there are many examples indicating
that passive conservation, especially in forest, lead to excellent favorable conservation state. This type of
conservation is thought not appropriate for semi-natural habitats (e.g. meadows), which require specific form
of management.
During participation in planning process you can and should make comments and conclusions
about the vision of ‘favorable conservation state’ of objects of conservation - e.g. by indicating
species that are indicators of value of the site - ‘typical species’; by pointing the need of enclosing in
the plan elements of structure, that is now in shortage(like dead wood in a forest), by proving the
necessity of including in the plan natural ecological processes as an element for favorable
conservation state of habitat etc.
19
Example:
Indicators for “local” assessment of conservation status of 9160 habitat (Stelario-Carpinetum oak-hornbeam forest) in Natura 2000 site Drawa Great Forests,
with proposed planning follow-up for unfavorable status
Parame
Indicators
ters
Area of habitat
Specific
structur
e and
functio
n
Characteristic
floristic
combination of
undergrowth *
Species that
dominate in
particular levels
of plant
communities *
Favorable
Inadequate
Bad
FV
U1
U2
It is not antropogenic
50-90%
<50% of the border with
fragmented
borders with other
other forest subdivisions
– surrounding
forest subdivisions from from the same potential
subdivision from this
the same potential
biochore is the border
potential biochore
biochore is also a border with replacement plant
(>90% border)
with other patches of
communities, not with
represents habitat too
habitats
other subdivisions of
habitat
Typical, proper foe Distorted in comparison Dominated by atypical
natural habitat
to typical for habitat in species for oak-hornbeam
(including regional
the region
forests
specificity
In each levels typical for In each levels typical for In one or more levels one
habitat species are
habitat species are
alien for plant community
dominating, with natural dominating, natural
species is dominating
quantitative relationship
quantitative
relationships are
disturbed
>90%
50-90%
<50%
Contribution in
forest stand of
deciduous species
(without species
of early
succession stage)
Contribution of
>10% of forest stand
hornbeam *
<10% of the forest
stand
Contribution of
'early succession'
of tree stands
<10%
present
10-30%
or not present
Species that are
alien ecologically
in the stand
<10%
10-50%
Lack in the forest stand ,
hornbeam in brushwood
or any
>30%
>50%
Planning:
U1, U2 follow-up
Anthropogenic fragmentation can be a premise for planning of
rebuild of forest stands, that are fragmented to oak-hornbeam
forests
Even if value of an indicator is negative, it is not necessary to plan
conservation activities – re-establishing of natural structure of
undergrowth you should leave to natural processes or eventually
you should shape other features of ecosystem
In case of domination of pine, spruce sees comments concerning
'Species that are alien ecologically in the stand. In case of
domination of successive species (birch alder) – leave preferably to
natural succession Reconstruction of natural domination in other
levels – should be leave to spontaneous processes
In case of domination of pine or spruce in trees stand – see
remarks concerning indicator: 'Species that are alien ecologically in
the stand ' In case of domination of successive species (birch,
aspen) – preferably to leave to natural succession.
Even negative value of indicator it is not a condition to plan
conservation activities – increase of hornbeam should be live to
spontaneous processes
In the case of domination or increase contribution of species of
early succession – preferably leave this issue to natural succession.
Species could be important for biodiversity e.g. birches for hollow
resources, aspen for some insects. In the case of lack, leave
supplement to natural processes.
Negative value of indicator can be a condition to plan to remove
those species, but you should consider that they can be important
for connected biodiversity (especially when trees are old, with
hollows etc.). Then do not plan their removal and leave this issue to
20
Species strange < 1%and do not rebuild
<10% and do not
geographically
rebuild
(alien species) in
trees stand and
brushwood*
Dead wood
>10% thickness of
3-10% thickness of
resources (in
living trees
living trees
total)*
Dead wood
> 5 st. / ha
3-5 szt. / ha
standing or lying
>3 m long and
>50 cm thick
Age of forest
>10% contribution of <10% contribution of
stands
trees elder than 100
trees older than 100
(occurrence of
years
years and >50%
old trees)*
contribution of trees
older than 50 years
Nature
Yes, with hornbeam
Yes, but only single or
regeneration of abundant, react to forest without contribution of
trees stand
gaps and exposure to
hornbeam
the light
The vertical and Diverse; >50% of the Uniform old tree stand
spatial structure area covered with forest or diverse structure with
of vegetation
stands, though
dense old tress stand
occurrence of forest
with cover: 10-50% of
gaps and exposure to
the area
the light
Invasive alien
Lack
Present but at least 1
species in the
species, not strong
undergrowth and
invasive
ground cover
Expansive native
At least single
Contribution increased
species
but species not very
(apophytes) in
expansive
the undergrowth,
in which species
of clear cuttings,
including wood
small reed,
blackberries
natural processes, even if it would last longer.
>10% lub spontanicznie Negative value of indicator can be a condition to remove alien
odnawiające się,
species. In some places alien species can have cultural and
niezależnie od udziału landscape value, required to leave.
< 3% miąższości żywego In the case of negative indicator’s value, consequently leave dead
drzewostanu
trees and trees in bad conditions, especially from deciduous species
< 3 szt. /ha
In the case of negative indicator’s value, consequently leave dead
trees and trees in bad conditions, especially from deciduous species
<10% contribution of Consequently wait for getting old of the forest stand
trees older than 100 years
and < 50% contribution
of trees older than 50
years
Missing
Even negative value of indicator, mostly does not mean to
undertake activities toward stimulating renewal, wait for
spontaneous renewal. Only negative evaluation in the whole Natura
2000 site could require action.
Uniform young tree stand Favorable leave to natural spontaneous processes
< 10% covered by Old
stands fragments
Present more than 1
Can be condition for planning of removal of species, it depends
species, or species strong from the feasibility of activities. Discuss with floral team. Consider
invasive
limiting activities causing disturbances (e.g. stand thinning, logrolling, tourisms).
Very expansive
Preferable leave to natural, spontaneous processes. You should
consider avoiding activities that deepen disturbance (e.g. stand
thinning).
21
The destruction
of undergrowth
and soil
associated with
logging
Another
disturbances
(dilapidation,
beaten, littering)
Status of key
biodiversity
species typical of
the local habitat
General structure and
functions
Future prospect
General assessment
Lack
single traces
numerous traces
Lack
Occur but not
significant
strong
State of all species
Favorable (FV)
State of some species
inadequate (U1)
All principal factors
evaluated as FV, rest at
least as U1
Preservation habitat in
non-deteriorated state in
20 years is obvious
All three parameters
evaluated as FV
Preferable leave to natural, spontaneous processes. You shold
consider to avoid activities that deepen disturbance
Preferably leave to natural, spontaneous processes, with the
exception of littering- for which plan to remove garbage. You
should consider avoiding activities that could deepen disturbances.
State of some species bad By the need of suitable species – they will be determined on the
(U2)
basis of flora and fauna conservation's reports
All principal indicators
One or more principal
at least inadequate U1 indicators evaluated as U2
Preservation of habitat Preservation of habitat in
in non-deteriorated non-deteriorated condition
condition in prospect of in prospect of 20 years is
20 years is probable
very difficult
At least one from three One or more indicators
indicators evaluated as
evaluated as U2
U1, lack of U2
22
Does every object of conservation should be brought to ‘favorable state of conservation’? Conflict of
requirements of different objects of conservation.
According to art.6(1) of the Habitat Directive ‘For special areas of conservation, Member States shall establish the
necessary conservation measures (...) which correspond to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types in Annex I and
the species in Annex II present on the sites’. Article 2 (2) of Directive reads as follows: ‘Measures taken pursuant to this
Directive shall be designed to maintain or restore, at favorable conservation status, natural habitats and species of wild fauna and
flora of Community interest’. According to art. 1.l special area of conservation means a site of Community importance
designated by the Member States through a statutory, administrative and/or contractual act where the
necessary conservation measures are applied for the maintenance or restoration, at a favorable conservation
status, of the natural habitats and/or the populations of the species for which the site is designated (see also
chapter 2)
This duty concerns not only maintaining ‘favorable conservation status’ for each species and habitat in every
Natura 2000 site, where it appears, but rather “optimization’ of contribution of each Natura 2000 site to
accomplishment of favorable conservation status of particular habitats and species in the country. However
during elaboration of conservation of Natura 2000 sites in Poland it was assumed, that achieving favorable
conservation status of objects of conservation, expressed with specific parameters and indicators, should be
long-term goal of planning of conservation of each site. Deviation from the assumption is possible only when
reestablishing of parameters to ‘favorable’ is impossible due to objective reason (e.g. natural habitat’s
condition). Short-term goals e.g. conservation measures plan should be indentified in the light of long-term
vision - i.e. should be step with proper size towards accomplishing parameters and indicators of favorable
conservation step.
Parameters and indicators defining the state of conservation objects should be subject to monitoring
for measuring progress in achieving these goals.
Assessment conservation status by specific parameters and indicators shows "critical points" for the
achievement of the favorable status of species and habitats, and shows the most urgent needs for
conservation measures. Many indicators can in fact be improved by such action. Obviously it does not apply
for all indicators -to improve contribution of old trees in forest stand you have to wait, any conservation
activity, can accelerate this process. Although contribution of dead wood it is possible to increase (in some
countries there are special piles of wood for stag beetle built, because lack of old oaks; in some countries trees
were deliberately injured to increase local microhabitats for xylobiotic species ...)
Naturally in the course of work on the planning conservation of a particular area Natura 2000 you
should take into account specific local populations of species and habitat resources and adapt to it specific
indicators of conservation status and specific conservation goals, based on that indicators. While working on
a plan there are often working algorithms of planning inference prepared and algorithms of planning (or not)
possible conservation activities in particular patches of natural habitat (e.g. separation of forest), according to
values of indicators. Not every case of "inadequate conservation status” has the effect of taking action to
achieve the object of conservation to favorable status with methods of active conservation. In many cases,
better (and cheaper) is to leave it to the natural processes...
Example:
Klub Przyrodników argued that conservation measures plan for the site PLH240014 Graniczny Meander
Odry (Border Meander of Odra River) should based on the conception of designation and preservation of so
called ‘ corridor of free migration of the river’, in which natural changes in stream of the river and
morphology of riverbed are tolerated. This concept should be implemented cross-border, also in Czech
Republic (in this site river is state border).
In practice, it happens that the requirements of different conservation objects may be divergent. For
instance in vast complex of forest the most conservation objects rely on old woods with natural features, but
23
one conservation object according to SDF - red-backed shrike, which prefers clear cuttings. Or: raised bog
(habitat 7110) overgrows bog woodland (habitat 91D0): reconstruction of open surface of the bog by
removal of trees my be necessary, although both habitats are priority Annex I habitats and both are objects of
conservation.
Such conflicts should be resolved in the planning process. To do this, it is necessary to identify the
role of the Natura 2000 site in whole Natura 2000 network, and therefore select the option, which is better
contribute
to
the
accomplishing of favorable
state of conservation of
nationwide habitat or species
resources.
Example:
Natura 2000 site PLH 220040
Łebskie Bagna consists two
nature reserves that protect
remains of raised bogs, mostly
overgrow with forest. In
conservation
plan,
which
includes
requirements
of
Natura 2000 - site it was
proposed to reconstruct raised
bogs due cutting trees from the
area of ca. 80 ha. As a result
another habitat - initial form of
bog woodland (habitat 91D0)
will be destroy on purpose,
because more important in this
case is complex of raised bogs
(habitat 7110 and 7120).
Removing 91D0 habitat for restoring 7110. Łebskie Bagna.
By participating in the planning process, you could and should make observations and conclusions
based on these principles. Each case of inadequate conservation state of species or habitat in the site
should be considered, but not every require immediate active conservation measures. Generally,
often good solution is to leave ecosystem to natural processes. Aim of Natura 2000 network is to
accomplish favorable state of conservation of national resources of species and natural habitats, not
each species and habitat in every site. By planning conservation of particular site you should proper
interpret, what role the site has in the network and its contribution in the achievement of this general
goal.
Detection of threats
Existing threats are mostly factors that are responsible for grade inadequate (U2) or bad (U1) for particular
objects of conservation, parameters and indicators of conservation status.
Potential threats are factors, that can in the future deteriorate state of objects of conservation, especially lead
to mark U1 or U2.
One of threats can be low awareness of society concerning site and its conservation - it should be
also identified. Another danger is insufficient knowledge about objects of conservation that increases risk of
making mistake in its conservation
24
To potential threats belong also planned undertakings - written in local land use plan, strategy of development
or simply planned by authorities or other entities.
Probably list of threats indentified by planning of conservation of Natura 2000 will be use not only
directly for purpose of the plan, but also during an impact assessment for plans and undertakings in the
future. Therefore the list of threats includes all dangers that can result from potential enterprises.
List of threats in the planning should in further step of planning serve as a list of factors, against which plan is
prepared, according to responsibility to prevent all deteriorations of condition of habitats and significant
disturbance of species, that result from the article 6(2) of Directive. Plan should i.e. evaluate if and on what
kind of condition current land use can proceeded without harm for Natura 2000 site
Example:
In Special Protected Area PLB320009 Zalew Szczeciński growth of kite surfing lead to disturbance of birds.
The best conditions for this sport has a bay that is a place of concentration up to 800 80 thousand of ducks,
within for greater scaup Aythya marila. In conservation plan it is necessary to find solutions for minimizing
this impact.
Participating in the planning process, make sure that everything that you do not want to have in the
area has been articulated as actual or potential threats for particular object of conservation (species
or natural habitats).
Planning under incomplete knowledge
Regardless of the possibility to complete knowledge about the objects of the conservation afforded by
conservation planning process of the Natura 2000 site, this knowledge often will still be incomplete. Often we
plan conservation of habitats and species in the area, without knowing, exactly where they occur. Such a
planning is difficult, but possible. It must be based on awareness that our knowledge is incomplete and we
have to estimate how much it may be incomplete.
The biggest mistake that can be made - and in practice that happened often - is to limit the planning only to
those elements of nature that we know.
For instance we know that in one Special Protected Area object of conservation is boreal owl, which
population is assessed as ca. 30-40 breeding pairs, nevertheless we know localization of only two tress with
hollows used by this species. Conservation only of this two trees and establishing protective zones is of
course insufficient. Proper solution is conservation of potential habitat of the owl (elder spruce forest stands)
and key - species - black woodpecker, that dig potential hollows; efficient procedures of saving trees with
hollows in forestry; procedures of regular examination of forest stands from the point of view of boreal owl
occurrence before forest works and excluding this part from exploitation...
Another example: we know that in a vast complex of meadow there are located very valuable patches of
Molinia meadows, we know few patches, but we presume that there are more of them, but we do not have
inventory. It is not proper solution to extend conservation regime of Molinia meadows (mowing in early
autumn) only to known patches and resign from any arrangements for rest of the area, even if we planned as
additional activity to make new researches. Correct conservation should support late mowing and
preservation of proper water conditions in whole complex.
Without knowing the exact location of mating places of fire-bellied toad, we can still care for the preservation
of small ponds in agricultural landscape and for preservation of such their features that are desirable for this
species. Not knowing whether any particular tree is inhabited by the hermit beetle, we can still look after
avenue of old trees in the landscape (and plant new avenues as well) and take care of efficient conservation of
all old trees with hollows and decaying wood.
This means that in the absence of good knowledge about the objects of conservation, the solution is to
protect ‘more’ - conservation even of potential places of occurrence of objects of conservation. Paradoxically
25
- the less we know, the more radical must be the conservation. Of course in some cases such activity
could be too excessive - but it is just the price one must pay for the lack of knowledge...
This approach probably raises in the planning process a lot of controversy. That means, after all, "more than
you really need to" costs and "stronger than they really need to" restrictions. It is however necessary until
knowledge concerning of Natura 2000 site is insufficient and we want efficiently to preserve its natural values.
In this situation a support can be found in standards of European law. Article 6(2) of the Habitat Directive
(that can you use also by SPAs requires to avoid any deterioration of natural habitats and habitats of species
and significant disturbance of protected in Natura 2000 site species. That apply to both deterioration due
human activity or due refrain from proper conservation). This requirement is not limited to habitats and
species, which localization is known, concerns whole resources of habitats and species in each site. Also
repeatedly stressed in this book, the precautionary principle requires prevention of the threats and
implementation of appropriate conservation measures, without waiting until everything is inventoried, and
significance of the threats are fully demonstrated.
By participating in the planning process, explain issues of the completeness / incompleteness of
identification of particular objects of conservation in the area. If knowledge is incomplete, try to
realize this. If there is lack of data concerning objects of conservation, do not accept limitation of
conservation only to those elements that are known. Apply for such measures, which preserve not
fully recognized locations of habitats and species.
Conflicts
Nature conservation must affect different interests - otherwise it would be unnecessary, because nature would
not be endangered and could protect itself. The same refers to the Natura 2000 site. Generally, in the
planning process appears existing and potential conflicts related to this conservation.
Practice shows, that most of the conflicts is based on misunderstanding and is easy to solve by
simple clarification of what exactly each party depends. Conservation planning process is of course an
excellent place to do that. For other conflicts, it turns out that restrictions that are necessary in order to
conserve the Natura 2000 site are not so very big, and are then possible to negotiate and reach at the time of
preparing the plan. However, some conflicts are a real clash of material interests and did not find an easy
solution. In the planning process, such situations can not be hidden.
The conservation of the Natura 2000 site can not be placed in a model that “avoids conflicts ". There
are hard duties of conservation of the area - it must be planned and executed so as to avoid deterioration of
protected habitats and significant disturbance of protected species. It must also carry out the mission which
the site has in the preservation of the habitats and species in Poland. Apart from this line can not be undone.
However, while allowing this condition, there is wide scope to seek solutions. It is obviously difficult. It is
probably the hardest part of the planning process. It is necessary to apply basic principles of conflict
resolution: a fair hearing and understanding the arguments of all parties, the treatment of all parties and all the
arguments with respect. It may be useful to tap the experts in mediation and conflict resolution.
Example
In one of Natura 2000 site forest inspectorate had anxiety of deep forest management restrictions in relation
to the conservation area. In fact, the objects of conservation are swamp forests and peat bogs distributed
among the woods that are not used economically. Their conservation requires only about 50 m zone around
the peat in which clearing cuttings are not allowed. For the rest large area between the peat bogs, forest
management may be continued as before, does not adversely affect water conditions of bogs. The conflict, in
fact, practically does not exist, and fears were the result of a misunderstanding of the requirements of the area
conservation.
26
Example:
In the Natura 2000 site Ostoja w Ujściu Wisły (Wistula Mouth) PLH220044, one of the object of
conservation is grey seal. This is the only place on the Polish coast where this species occurs permanently.
Local fishermen complain that the seals eat out of the fish (including valuable salmon) from the nets, and that
this phenomenon is locally so intense that it results in unprofitable fisheries. Their postulate of hunting the
seals and limit the number to 3-5 individuals, which according to them would be "acceptable number". The
conflict is real. From the perspective of the Natura 2000 site, established for the seal, any interference which
would violate art. 6 (2) of the Directive it is not possible - i.e. that would cause a destruction of the habitats,
significant impact on the population of seals or significant disturbance. Any solution of this type can not
therefore be included in the plan. Solutions may be found at most in the use of alternative fishing gear (that
prevent the seals from eating fishes), or possibly to compensate fishermen for their losses.
Conflict is not bad. It a problem, that requires searching for solution. By participating in the
planning process, do not try to conceal conflicts but articulate and explore it. It is the first step to
solve them. Do not yield to temptation of 'shortcuts': force the conservation plan that ignore conflict
situations, or create a plan, that is ‘social desires - friendly’ : conflict-free, but ineffective in
conservation the site.
Determining the objectives of the conservation measures
The vision of 'Favorable conservation status "is an idealistic and long term vision”. On its basis in the process
of elaborating a plan should be a realistic vision to achievement in 10 years - the objectives of the
conservation measures plan. However, in the case of conservation plan, it is adopted for 20-year planning
period.
Such objectives should be a step towards bringing the object of conservation towards ‘Favorable
conservation status "- and this step should be not too small. Though the Birds or Habitats Directive does not
contain any requirements about a term, in which general objective of Favorable conservation status of
habitats and species it is to achieve, but you should take into account that:
· EU leaders pledged to implement the so-called ‘2020 goal’, stop loss of biodiversity and restoration
of nature, "as far as feasible". Deadline for 2020 should therefore be also taken into account as the
deadline for restoring Favorable conservation status for objects of conservation within Natura 2000,
as far as is technically feasible;
· The Water Framework Directive requires the achievement by 2015 of all "water conditions"
Favorable conservation status of objects of conservation in the Natura 2000 sites.
Well-formulated objectives are specific, possible to verify. The mistake is to set activity as a goal itself. The
objective can not be "striving for improvement ...", but it should be to achieve any particular state. A well
stated objective has to be (so-called principle of SMART):
a. Simple and understandable,
b. Measurable, or at least verifiable,
c. Achievable,
d. Realistic,
e. Time based (embedded in a specific term) - usually less than 10 years.
27
Formulating
the
objectives
relating to water conditions, be
aware that they will automatically
be
called.
"Environmental
objectives for water" and should
be considered in planning for
water management (see Chap. 4).
In this case, you should take
special care so that they are
sufficiently specific and precise so that in the “water planning”
they are clear enough and precise,
so in that planning it is clear what
elements of water quality are to
achieved and / or maintain.
Aims to achieve a
Favorable conservation status are
Korytnica river in Drawska Great Forest Natura 2000 site. Natura 2000 objective, to
"mandatory goals’ package." In
restore river continuity for Cottus gobio, became water environmental objective
addition targets for ‘socioeconomic use of the area’ may be
optionally formulated - for example, use the area for particular forms of tourism, sharing it, communication
to the society of the importance of the sites’ conservation needs, etc. However, such objectives can not
violate the core base - the effective and ambitious conservation of occurring in the area of habitats and
species. The purpose of the discussion on this topic should be not only a compromise between conservation
and other aspects of the site (some changes in the land use in exchange for some deviations from the
requirement of conservation), but a consensus (full conservation and modified, and new management from
which nature conservation benefits). Finding such solutions is of course one of the most difficult points of
the planning process.
Example:
In the Natura 2000 site PLH080014 Nowosolska Dolina Odry following conservation objectives have been
proposed for habitat 91F0 (Riparian mixed forests):
● Ensuring or preserving passive protection (exclusion stands from the exploitation) for the most valuable,
representative patches covering at least 25% of the habitat’s area, maintaining of biodiversity of the site,
including preservation of a Favorable conservation status of typical species like the middlespotted
woodpecker Dendrocopos medius and great Capricorn beetle Cerambyx cerdo.
● providing for the entire site and each major forest complexes permanent contribution in patches of habitats
stands older than 100 years at least at the level of 70%.
● Protection of the Odra River hydrological regime that guarantees maintaining the Favorable status of
indicator "water conditions", including the acceptance of the occurrence of a spring period of at least 30 days
a year with water level exceeded 400 cm at water gauge in Nowa Sól.
Example:
In the Natura 2000 site PLB080002 Dolina Dolnej Noteci following conservation objectives has been
proposed for whooper swans and wild geese, wintering in the site:
● Securing the sustainability of water conditions suitable to the species in area between embankments of the
Warta and Noteć River, in particular the presence in the period from November to April shallow, extensive
backwaters.
● Acceptance for flooding for at least 90 days a year.
● Evaluation of mortality on power lines that cross the valley in order to take mitigation actions.
28
By participating in the process of preparing the plan, you can and should request that the objectives
of the conservation measures plan are defined in an "ambitious but realistic" way, respecting the
above-mentioned obligations. You should resist the tendency to limit the conservation objectives
due to the anticipated financial difficulties, legal and organizational - effective conservation of
Natura 2000 is obviously a difficult and challenging task, but it is our duty towards Europe. Longterm vision of the Natura 2000 site should be a consensus between nature conservation and socioeconomic aspects and not a compromise between conservation and land use.
You should ensure that conservation objectives are set out in a way that is "verifiable" (and in
general are SMART), and not only in the form of vague entries.
For the aspects of the water bodies, it is worth emphasizing the connection of conservation
objectives of Natura 2000 site with environmental objectives for water and the deadline for their
implementation.
Determination of conservation activities
Conservation activities have to provide implementation of plan’s objective. While planning conservation
activities you should determinate: the type of conservation activities, the range of work planned for
implementation, and if appropriate conditions of execution; area or place their implementation; the term or
duration and frequency of their implementation, the costs of their implementation, the entity responsible for
their implementation and monitoring . Pointing responsible entity you may take into account:
● Supervisors of the area,
● entities cooperating in the conservation of the Natura 2000 site
(eg, entities acting on behalf of the State, public authorities, water management, forest management,
etc.)
● agricultural beneficiaries of direct payments from the European Union, within the scope of the
requirement of compatibility,
● other parties with their consent.
Recorded in the conservation plan activities can also be located outside the site, if it is necessary for the
conservation of natural habitats and species in the Natura 2000 .
Protective activities may include, in particular:
● performing certain single or repetitive tasks of active conservation, especially if the current state of
the objects of conservation it the site has been assessed as inadequate or bad,
● implementation of modifications in the current management of natural habitats and habitats of
species, if the present state of the objects of conservation has been evaluated as inadequate or bad /
maintenance of certain methods of management of natural habitats and habitats of species, if the
current state of the conservation object has been assessed as Favorable
● complete knowledge of the object of conservation if the conservation status of it is not possible to
evaluate.
Measures of active conservation required in the Natura 2000 site should conduct in most cases a supervisor
of the area, and within the National Forests - forest inspector. Another entity, especially non-governmental,
can also take this responsibility (e.g. tasks can undertake non-governmental organization in a frame of the the
project), but only with the consent of a supervisor. In this situation the supervisor is released from
responsibility of implementation of essential activities.
Modification of methods of using the land can undertake each stakeholder
(person).Determination of planning should be eliminated to modifications that are really useful from the
point of view of objects of conservation (according to parameters and indicators of conservation state).
Management of the site, that does not include modifications of plan can be considered as activity that can
29
have significant negative impact on the Natura 2000 site, what according of article 33 of Nature conservation act
is against the law. Regional Directorate of Environmental Protection can impose to suspend such activities on
the basis of art. 37 of the act. For the farmer, the introduction of appropriate modifications will become an
element of cross-compliance rules (cross compliance) as part of their agricultural land use - that is, its compliance
with the requirements of EU law, conditioning the receipt of EU subsidies to agricultural land.
Example:
In the project of measures conservation plan elaborated for the Natura 2000 site PLH260010 Lasy
Suchedniowskie - there is proposal of modification for forestry according to the need of conservation of
habitats type: 9110, 9130, 9170, 91P0 and xylobiotic beetles as well made:
1. Within Natura 2000 site there was ‘valuable nature area’ selected, for which it was assumed:
- suspension of cuttings foreseen in forests management plan with exeption of felling IVa, IVd with intensity
10-15% of output state (planting 0,8-1,0) for 10 years (reduction of planting not bigger than 0,1-0,2),
- leave active deadwood in in an amount that is not a threat for forest stand,
- leave maximum amount of passive deadwood, the target is deadwood thicker than 10 cm >10% reserve of
forest stand,
- leave trees that are thicker as 40 cm, that thickness has 10% of forest stand thickness.
2. In rest of the forest of the Natura 2000 site forestry should be in traditional way, with an exception of
habitat 91D0 (elimination of from forestry with 20 m buffer around patches) and 91E0 (elimination from
forestry zones 40+40 m from streams, rest as group felling or shelter wood felling, leaving part of trees more
than 40 cm thick).
Example:
In the Special Protection Area PLB320003 Dolina Dolnej Odry hunting of wild geese species and hunting of
wildboars and wild geese in crane resting places during autumn period is a serious problem due to disturbance
of birds. In elaborated conservation measures plan it is proposed to establish five ‘tranquility zones’, that are
excluded from hunting on birds during whole year and excluded from hunting in a period 1 March - 30
November, during spring, autumn migration and breeding time. Opening site for hunting in the site in the
late autumn and in winter (1 December-28 February) allow to eliminate big game like wildboar, especially to
monitor of wild populations of wildboar. Due establishing zones objects of conservation should achieve
Favorable conservation status. These restrictions should not influence hunting significantly in the site. Such
zones cover only few percent of SPAs area and are located in unapproachable parts of the area, which are not
in the use, therefore it has no impact on economy of the region.
Example:
In the project of conservation plan prepared for Special Protection Area PLH300012 Lasy Puszczy nad Gwdą
(wielkopolskie voivodeshipit was proposed to establish in the forest so called ‘zones for anthropofobe
species’ (species that avoid human).
In this zones it is planned that:
· forest management should lead to contribution of at least 40 % of the forests at the age of 80 years and
17% at the age over 100 years (rates increased in relation to the indicators set as a target for the whole of
the Natura 2000 ), this target is predicted for 20 years,
· reduction within borders of this zones work during the breeding of birds (from 15 February to 1 August),
· resignation during the period of any works and treatments in stands over 80-year-old,
· restriction of entry and residence of persons according to competence of forest inspector in connection
with the Forest Act,
· tourist trails should no be design through these zones trails.
30
In the same area one of the problem is
the possible increase in the intensity of
canoeing in comparison to the present
day (which is likely because advertising
was created and many companies
organize trips, especially in the river
Rurzyca). To prevent risks and protect
the common golden eye, mergansers,
Eurasian eagle owl and other birds
species associated with rivers and their
surroundings. For this site it is proposed
that:
· for river Rurzyca (that is protected as
nature reserve) waters sports should
be limited: in the period 1 July - 31
December maximally 50 kayaks pro
Although canoieing is generally nature-friendly kind of tourism,in some sites
day, whereas in the period 1 Januarymutst be limited for water fauna conservation
30 June -up to 20 kayaks pro day
· in other rivers in the site number of kayaks should be monitor and if the number increases significantly
(few times t medium values - for May- August more than 100 kayaks pro day on the Gwda river and
more than 50 on other rivers ) attempts to reduce it should be made.
Measures towards maintaining specific methods of land use in natural habitats and habitat of species are
sometimes necessary, e.g. according to habitats and species dependent on agriculture. Such conservation tasks
in the plan can be addressed also to non-state actors, such as farmers, but there is no obligation for them in a
legal sense to implement particular way of farming. For the farmer, these records will be part of the
application of cross compliance as part of their farms - that is, compliance with EU law, and it is a condition
for receiving EU subsidies to agricultural land. Any management in a way that destroys the habitat that is
protected, potentially result in exclusion of the right to any payment from the EU budget, and at the same
time may be a so-called damage to the environment, which is associated with a legal obligation to repair and
compensation (see Chap. 2.8 of this book).
The farmer is not required to use her/his agricultural land. Responsibility of the state is to encourage
him to continue such use. Helpful in that there may be agri-environmental programs. A problem is that agrienvironment payments may not be gratification for carrying out the obligatory duties that resulted from a law.
Records of the plan should be skillfully constructed - so that with one hand effectively defined the conditions
for objects conservation, and rightly confined boundary conditions of such behavior, on the other hand
would not result in excluding the possibility of using agri-environmental programs.
Under specific conditions of particular areas, the standard agri-environmental programs (tailored for
average conditions in the country) may also prove to be ineffective. So you can not assume that agrienvironmental programs are a panacea for all problems of protection of Natura 2000, appearing at the
interface with agriculture.
Example
In the Natura 2000 site PLH120018 Gorce one problem is preservation of mountain clearings, that requires
extensive pasturage. Because of the difficult mountainous conditions, significant fragmentation of ownership
and a significant bureaucratic burden associated with participation in agri-environmental program,
maintaining usage of clearings, even with the support of agri-environment program, it is not profitable for
their owners, as indeed some of them were trying to verify by participating in the program, and then
withdrawing from it.
In some cases, the good protective effect may be to create within the Natura 2000 another, national
nature conservation form. You can use this approach when for the effective protection of objects in Natura
31
2000 site you need a package of regulations from one of these national forms. For example, establishing the
river as a nature reserve is necessary to restrict the kayak tourism, harmful to the objects of conservation of
this site. Either establishing part of the forest as a nature reserve is the easiest way to exclude it from an
economic use, which is desirable for the conservation of natural habitats. This possibility should not be
abused. Conservation of the Natura 2000 site should not be reduced only to postulate of the creation of other
forms of nature conservation within the site.
Example:
During the discussions on the program of local cooperation elaborated for Natura 2000 site PLH300012
Rogalińska Dolina Warty it was stressed that for effective conservation of the site it is necessary to establish
for the most precious old river-beds and some parts of the forest, nature reserves. That excludes these
fragments from the forest management and old river bed from pressure of angling.
One activity provided in the conservation measures plan - if needed - can be to carry out researches
or inventories. It is advised to predict such a need, especially when the lack of knowledge is critical for
effective conservation of objects of conservation.
The program of conservation measures should ensure achievement of described objectives. You can
not restrict the necessary measures in view of the difficulties - legal, organizational or financial. Effective
conservation of the Natura 2000 site is our duty, in spite of "some difficulties", which causes such protection.
The conservation measures plan is a tool to find a way to overcome such difficulties.
Example:
In the pilot study of conservation of Natura 2000 site PLC200004 Puszcza Białowieska, for conservation of
one species butterfly The Danube Clouded Yellow Colias myrmidone such activities were planned: cutting
shrubs and trees from active trackway and old trackway Hajnówka-Bialowieża (90 %, 2-3 times) and than
alternating mowing in 2-3 years, with leaving shrubs of broom.
By participating in the planning process, you could and should make remarks and conclusions
based on mentioned above principles.
Monitoring
Monitoring in the conservation measures program is recorded as one of the protective action. It is here in
particular to design a local monitoring program, using methods relevant to local needs, in such a way that it
provide to supervisor needed "warning signals" of potential threats to the objects of conservation (for
example there have been initial signs of deterioration of object of conservation detected). You should
monitor:
· parameters that were used to determine the conservation objectives;
· factors threatening the objects of conservation, and the parameters that are most sensitive to the
identified threats (they can be used for early warning, indicating that state of the object of
conservation is getting worse);
· parameters and indicators of conservation status of species and habitats that are based on the
standard methodology for monitoring of natural habitats and species - established the whole Poland ,
adopted in the state monitoring of the nature. Monitoring have to provide data for reporting to the
supervisor of the Natura 2000.
Appropriate monitoring should be recognized as one of the planned conservation measures.
By participating in the planning process, you could and should make remarks and conclusions
based on mentioned above principles.
32
Indications of necessary changes in the land use plans
In the process of elaboration of conservation plan existing plans in urban planning, concerning the site or
documents that could have significant negative impact on the sites have to be analyzed.
In case of detecting negative influences, appropriate proposals for those elements included in studies
or plans, which implementation harm or create risk of significant negative impact on Natura 2000 site, have
to be change. There could be also instructions prepared, that should be used during elaboration of changes of
studies or plans in order to implement objectives of the site conservation.
Example:
In the project of conservation measures plan for the Natura 2000 site PLH240016 Suchy Młyn it is indicated
that:
● in an existing urban plan elaborated for one community it is necessary to exclude possibility of building
area by the Pilica river. This development of building is against of the requirement to preserve Favorable
conservation status for species of fishes, which need natural hydromorphology and regime of the river;
● in valid study of conditions and directions of spatial planning of one community, there should be made a
change of planned afforestations. Currently this area covers protected natural habitats that can not be
afforested.
By participating in the process of planning, you could and should make comments and proposals,
indicating that the records of existing studies and plans are incompatible with the protection of
Natura 2000, and which records should not enter the study and plans for the future.
Logic of the planning
A well-written conservation plan/conservation measures plan has a strictly defined logical framework:
● For each of the identified risks for objects of conservation should be scheduled with opposed activities.
It should be set also a target of the conservation measures plan that liquidate or reduce the threat.
● The vision of the Favorable conservation status should refer to specific parameters and indicators of
conservation status of a species or natural habitat. The same that are used for monitoring of the habitat or
species.
● Objectives of measures conservation plan should be determined so as to improve reaching the strategic
objectives that is proper state of conservation of objects.
● The objectives of conservation measures plan should be logical consequence of current state of objects
of conservation and refer to all identified risks.
● Scheduled tasks should serve for implementation of operational objectives. For each objective you need
to plan an activity and each of the activities should serve to achieve one of objective.
● Plan’s objectives and activities must be written in a concrete and verifiable way, so that it is always
possible to determine whether and to what extent objectives are achieved or activities implemented. The
purpose may not be as "striving for ...".
● If an obstacle in the planning is lack of knowledge about all or some of the objects of conservation,
supplementing this knowledge should be one of the operational objectives, and the necessary researches or
inventories - one of the tasks. At the same time, in such a situation, the proposed conservation must be
"redundant" in accordance with the precautionary principle (you can not wait with planning of conservation
for the necessary researches).
33
● Monitoring must be designed in the way that allows assessment of implementation and achievement of
objectives of conservation measures plan.
● Monitoring should also be designed to provide information on the conservation status of resources of
species or habitats within Natura 2000 site. This condition should be evaluated on the basis of criteria and
indicators adopted for the species or type of habitat in the national monitoring ( it should be obvious, since
under the same parameters and indicators should be objectives of the conservation measures plan
constructed ).
By participating in the planning process, you could and should make remarks and conclusions
based on mentioned above principles.
Important European rules
According to art. 6(1) and 6(2) of the Habitat Directive and the Birds Directive Poland has a duty to:
● avoid the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as significant
disturbance of the species for which the Natura 2000 sites have been designated (that concerns
deteriorations that are both a result of human activity or abandonment of proper conservation);
● undertake appropriate steps suitable for ecological needs of objects of conservation that lead to
preservation or restoration of Favorable conservation status of objectives of conservation.
These responsibilities define the overall objective of both the protection of Natura 2000 sites and its
planning. The duty of conservation according to the art. 6 (2) of the Directive is created immediately after
establishing the ‘bird area’ / approval from European Commission of the ‘habitat area’. With its
implementation you can not wait until plan of the conservation site is ready or researches or expertise
prepared. The obligation to take proactive actions can therefore be part of detailed and planned in time
program of activities.
All authorities and entities that are representing the state have to, in a frame of its competences,
implement this objective. A special role plays supervisor of Natura 2000 site that is directly responsible for
the carrying of these objectives drawing up appropriate plans organizing effective cooperation of respective
holders.
Planning instruments of Natura 2000 (conservation measures plan of Natura 2000, conservation plan
of Natura 2000 or an approach in adequate range of other conservation plans) are tools that could and should
be helpful for supervisor.
In planning the conservation of the Natura 2000 site are in force also another rules arising from
European law, further presented in Chapter 1 and 2 of this book. Particularly important is the "planning
character" of the precautionary principle: undertaking of conservation measures should be required if only the
existence of a causal link between threatening factor, and the expected negative changes in the environment is
sufficiently possible". "If there is uncertainty towards the existence or extent of the risks, you should take
protective measures without having to wait until the reality and seriousness of those risks will be fully
demonstrated." Thus, protective measures should be taken; restrictions in the name of nature conservation
could and should be implemented without waiting for hard and conclusive evidence of negative effects. You
can not accept the risk of insufficient conservation of habitats and species, but you can accept the risk that we
will protect them "too much"
How to use the plan?
·
The conservation plan for the Natura 2000 site, which is established by the Minister of the Ministry
of the Environment is an act of common law and established by the Regional Director of
Environmental Protection conservation measures plan - is the act of local law. These plans are
34
therefore sources of law.. Implementation of the elaborated and accepted plan is a responsibility of
the body responsible for conserving of the Natura 2000 site, as well as entities working on behalf of
the state. From them you can require the implementation of the plan. Shelve the plan and lack of
implementation defect European law,, which in relation to other countries has already been
confirmed by the Court of Justice of the European Union.
·
If anyone within the Natura 2000 site undertakes any action inconsistent with the arrangements of
the conservation plan, the Regional Director of Environmental Protection, as a supervisor in this
area, is required to order their immediate suspension - according art. 37, paragraph 2 of the Polish
Nature Conservation Act, and take the prescribed time limit activities necessary to restore the
previous state of the site, its parts or the protected species.
·
The conservation plan can not be a source of generally applicable prohibitions. These can be entered
only by the act., however, polish law (Article 33 of the Nature Conservation Act) introduces a
prohibition of activities that may, alone or in combination with other measures have a significant
adverse impact on the conservation objectives of Natura 2000 site, including in particular degradation
of the natural habitats or habitats of species of plants and animals for which conservation the Natura
2000 site is established, negative affect of the species for which conservation Natura 2000 has been
designated or degradation of the integrity of the Natura 2000 site or its connections with other sites.
The plan, although it can not alone prohibit anything, can specify what kind of activities might be
considered as inconsistent with the Articles cited above 33rd.
·
For the farmer determinations of the plan will become part of cross-compliance of the agricultural
economy of European environmental requirements. Compliance with these requirements is a
condition for receiving EU subsidies to agricultural land and other payments from EU sources, such
as agri-environment. In practice, in the case of non-compliance, first farmer will receive relatively
small financial penalties, but further inconsistency with these requirements would result in loss of
entitlement to payment.
·
Established conservation plan or conservation measures plan for the Natura 2000 site - as a valid act
of the law -creates a framework for other prepared plans. Local development plan or forest
management plan can not be inconsistent with the plan drawn up for the conservation of Natura
2000. Possibility of conflicts should be examined during strategic environment impact assessment.
·
We should require from Regional Directorate of Environmental Protection, forest inspectorate, and
other stakeholders, that are working on the behalf of the state, to implement all what states in the
plan. Lack of execution of the planned activities could potentially be considered a violation of its
obligations under Article. 6 (1) of the Habitats Directive and art. 3 (2) and 4 (4). If as a result of not
implementing the provisions of the plan came to the deterioration of the protection of protected
habitats and species - it would be obvious breach of the conditions of Article. 6 (2) of the Habitats
Directive.
35
Keep in the mind!
1. Records in the plan may also concern the locations outside the Natura 2000 site - until it is necessary for
the preservation of the objects of conservation in this site.
2. List of the threats determined in the plan will be used for qualifying undertakings and plans during
complete environmental impact assessment for the site. Undertakings identified as "potential threat" will
surely required such assessment. It is therefore necessary to introduce in the 'list of threats' entries, that
will show potentially dangerous types of undertakings - in the future it can help to justify the requirement
of the precise assessment.
3. If the undertaking is included in the conservation plan, it is not a release of obligation of preparing the
assessment of impacts on the Natura 2000 site. The exemption applies only for this undertakings, that
serve directly and strictly for the protection of objects of conservation.
4. Objectives of the plan in relation to water conditions will become mandatory environmental objectives
for water in terms of the requirements of the Water Framework Directive - according to the European
law, there is an obligation to achieve them by 2015, unless the proceedings in accordance with Directive
forseen derogation of the term (but in no case later than 2027). That this requirement of European law
was not yet properly transposed into Polish law.
5. The assignation of the plan will be mandatory for the farmers as so. cross compliance. Violation of such
arrangements will result in financial sanctions for the farmer to receive direct payments. It is therefore
important to include such determinations that would give possibility to use these restrictions.
6. If anyone violates restrictions of the plan, the administration of nature conservation has to under Polish
law to order the suspension of action and reconstruction on earlier state. It is therefore important to
establish in a plan a record that enables application of this regulation.
7. In the conservation plan should be included a monitoring system, that would generate "warning signal" in
the case when it is ‘something wrong’ with objects of conservation.
It is worth reading:
·
·
·
Alexander M., A guide to management planning. Conservation Management System Consortium,
Talgarth, Wales, UK, 2010 (http://www.cmsconsortium.org)
Idle E., Bines T., Planowanie ochrony obszarów cennych przyrodniczo. Przewodnik dla praktyków i ich
szefów. Tłumaczenie i adaptacja: Kierus M., Pawlaczyk P. Wydawnictwo Klubu Przyrodników,
Świebodzin 2004 (www.kp.org.pl).
Setting conservation objectives for Natura 2000 sites. EC DG ENV, note draft (2011, November, 18th)
36
Annex I
Plans of Natura 2000 sites used as a base of experience presented in this report
Code PLB.. indicates SPAs, code PLH indicates SCIs (future SACs), code PLC indicates site with combined SPA&SCI
status
Site code
PLB020006
PLB040002
PLB080002
PLB120008
PLB140004
PLB140011
PLB140013
PLB200005
PLB220004
PLB220005
PLB220010
PLB240001
PLB280010
PLB300017
PLB320001
PLB320003
PLB320005
PLB320009
PLB320016
PLB990033
PLC080001
PLH020004
PLH020006
PLH020044
PLH040013
PLH040018
PLH040019
PLH040022
PLH060016
PLH060098
PLH060101
PLH060105
PLH080001
PLH080006
PLH080012
PLH080014
PLH120013
PLH140001
PLH140035
PLH160002
PLH160007
PLH200001
PLH200003
Site name
Góry Stołowe
Bagienna Dolina Drwęcy
Dolina Dolnej Noteci
Pieniny
Dolina Środkowej Wisły
Bagno Całowanie
Ostoja Kozienicka
Puszcza Augustowska
Ujście Wisły
Zatoka Pucka
Bielawskie Błota
Dolina Górnej Wisły
Zalew Wiślany
Ostoja Rogalińska
Zalew Kamieński i Dzwina
Dolina Dolnej Odry
Jezioro Miedwie i Okolice
Zalew Szczeciński
Lasy Puszczy nad Drawą
Zatoka Pomorska
Ujście Warty
Góry Stołowe
Karkonosze
Stawy Sobieszowskie
Cyprianka
Torfowisko Mieleńskie
Ciechocinek
Krzewiny
Popówka
Wrzosowisko w Orzechowie
Horodyszcze
Maśluchy
Dolina Leniwej Obry
Ujście Noteci
Kargowskie Zakola Odry
Nowosolska Dolina Odry
Pieniny
Bagno Całowanie
Puszcza Kozienicka
Góra Świętej Anny
Góry Opawskie
Jeleniewo
Ostoja Suwalska
37
PLH200004
PLH220002
PLH220019
PLH220032
PLH220044
PLH240016
PLH240040
PLH260001
PLH260010
PLH260014
PLH260041
PLH280007
PLH280032
PLH280046
PLH280047
PLH280050
PLH280054
PLH280055
PLH300001
PLH300003
PLH300003
PLH300010
PLH300012
PLH320006
PLH320009
PLH320011
PLH320018
PLH320019
PLH320036
PLH320037
PLH320046
PLH320047
PLH990002
Ostoja Wigierska
Białe Błoto
Orle
Zatoka Pucka i Półwysep Helski
Ostoja w Ujściu Wisły
Suchy Młyn
Las koło Tworkowa
Dolina Krasnej
Lasy Suchedniowskie
Dolina Bobrzy
Wzgórza Chęcińsko-Kieleckie
Zalew Wiślany i Mierzeja Wiślana
Uroczysko Markowo
Swajnie
Torfowiska Źródliskowe koło Łabędnika
Niedźwiedzie Wielkie
Mazurskie Bagna
Mazurska Ostoja Żólwia Baranowop
Biedrusko
Dąbrowy Obrzyckie
Dąbrowy Krotoszyńskie
Ostoja Wielkopolska
Rogalińska Dolina Warty
Dolina Płoni i Jezioro Miedwie
Jeziora Szczecineckie
Wielki Bytyń
Ujście Odry i Zalew Szczeciński
Wolin i Uznam
Bagno i Jezioro Ciemino
Dolna Odra
Uroczyska Puszczy Drawskiej
Warnie Bagno
Ostoja na Zatoce Pomorskiej
The report was generously supported by the European Commission, however it does not necessary reflect its position and opinions.
38