Questionnaire on HNVF - Detailed results

1,073 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,073
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
10
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Questionnaire on HNVF - Detailed results

  1. 1. Question 1: Which terms are used in your country in connection with an ecological improvement respectively recreation of habitats (Semi-natural grassland as a source of bio-diversity improvement) and how they are understood?
  2. 2. Question 2: Are there other terms used in this context?
  3. 3. Question 2: Other terms used in this context <ul><li>PL: Environmental restitution, reintroduction, metaplantation, renovation, conservation </li></ul><ul><li>D, A: seeds of regional origin, extensivierung (reduction of intensity), Wildpflanzensaatgut (wild flower seeds), Ökotypensaatgut (seeds of ecotypes), Regiosaatgut (regional seed), regionale Herkünfte (seeds of regional origin) </li></ul><ul><li>I: plant rehabilitation, revitalisation, reforming of natural habitat </li></ul><ul><li>CZ, SK: grassing, grass downing </li></ul>
  4. 4. <ul><li>All respondents answered that semi-natural grasslands deserve to be protected because of the following reasons: </li></ul><ul><li>high ecological and landscape value, potential donor sites, genetic resource, source of variability also for breeding programmes, hunting restocking areas . </li></ul><ul><li>Some types are actually protected according to: </li></ul><ul><li>Nature Conservation Act </li></ul><ul><li>EU Habitat Directive, Natura 2000 </li></ul><ul><li>Federal Nature Conservation Law </li></ul><ul><li>Agro-environmental programmes </li></ul><ul><li>Nongovernmental organizations </li></ul>Question 3: Do semi-natural grasslands deserve to be protected in your country/region/province and are they seen as a resource (donor site - target site, high ecological value, high landscape value…)?
  5. 5. <ul><li>Ministries for agriculture and environment </li></ul><ul><li>Agricultural chambers and agencies resp. agricultural advisory centres </li></ul><ul><li>National parks offices </li></ul><ul><li>National and regional NGOs </li></ul><ul><li>Nature protection offices and funds </li></ul>Question 4: What official authorities and administrative bodies are responsible for implementation and realisation of corresponding projects (ecological improvement or recreation of high nature value grassland) in your country/region/province?
  6. 6. <ul><li>Authorities are in general not very interested </li></ul><ul><li>Scientists are aware of high nature value and proclaim traditional management and are very interested in the subject, many running projects </li></ul><ul><li>Farmers are generally interested but most times lack of information about what is possible </li></ul><ul><li>Farmers have increased interest via agro-environmental programs, financial support and increasing information about the value of HNVG </li></ul>Question 5: Regarding the use of semi-natural high nature value grassland: what is the general point of view or the interest of authorities, scientists, users?
  7. 7. <ul><li>PL: Agri-Environmental Programmes, National Initiatives, leaflets, brochures </li></ul><ul><li>D, A: Guideline for site specific restoration, Guideline for restoration Upper Austria, REWISA (in progress), VWW-Regiosaaten (Certified Wild Flower Seeds), National and regional agricultural programmes, handbooks </li></ul><ul><li>I: Guidelines for management of low fertilized and wet meadows (BZ) </li></ul><ul><li>CZ, SK: Grasslands of the White CarpathiansDAPHNE-national grassland inventory </li></ul>Question 6: Regarding to this topic: are there any national or regional ongoing or existing activities, guidelines, handbooks or stipulations in your country/region/province?
  8. 8. <ul><li>PL: National Parks, Landscape Parks, National Agriculture Advisory Centres, Regional offices of Nature Protection, Universities </li></ul><ul><li>D, A: Administration of nature conservation, landscape architects/engineers, D VL Verband für Landschaftspflege, authorities (e.g. road administration, railway authorities, authorities for hydraulic engineering …), Conservation NGOs, seed supplier </li></ul><ul><li>I: Universities, public authorities. No institutions or companies interested </li></ul><ul><li>CZ, SK: non governmental institution Daphne CR, Bile Kaparty </li></ul>Question 7: Do you know institutions or companies which are interested in this topic and would they need support? Specify their names
  9. 9. Question 8: Are there already running or completed projects dealing with the use of diaspores harvested from semi-natural grassland?
  10. 10. <ul><li>PL: Institution of Natural Protection, Inst. For Land Reclamation and Grassland Farming, University Crakow </li></ul><ul><li>D, A: D VL Verband für Landschaftspflege, Uni Gießen, RegioSaatGut, www. stromtalwiesen, ALPEROS, SURE etc. </li></ul><ul><li>I: University, Provincial departments (nature and landscape, forest, hydraulic works). State forest body (forest seeds) </li></ul><ul><li>CZ, SK: Research institute, Academy of sciences, National Park Administration, Nature Conservation Association </li></ul>Question 8: Are there already running or completed projects dealing with the use of diaspores harvested from semi-natural grassland?
  11. 11. Question 9: Do you know what kind of techniques are used for the transfer of diaspores from donor sites?
  12. 12. <ul><li>To clone (grasses vegetative propagation) </li></ul><ul><li>Transfer of overburden with seed bank and vegetative propagules </li></ul><ul><li>Topsoil transfer </li></ul><ul><li>Habitat/turf transplantation </li></ul><ul><li>Different combined methods (seed sward combination) </li></ul><ul><li>Raking (D, ?) </li></ul>Question 9: Other techniques used for the transfer of diaspores from donor sites?
  13. 13. <ul><li>Hand collection as a supporting method for collection of rare species </li></ul><ul><li>Very good results with fresh cutting and hay mulching (question about the difference – 1 day between cutting and spreading?) </li></ul><ul><li>Very good results with threshing </li></ul><ul><li>Good results with seed stripping </li></ul>Question 10: Do you have positive experience with the different techniques listed?
  14. 14. <ul><li>Hand collection is very time consuming </li></ul><ul><li>Threshing: problematically due to old machinery and unfavourable weather conditions </li></ul><ul><li>Transfer of overburden/turves is very expensive </li></ul><ul><li>Production and planting of plants/clones is very expensive </li></ul>Question 10: Do you have negative experience with the different techniques listed?
  15. 15. Question 11: Are there assessments on the influence of diaspore harvest (depending on technique or frequency) on the ecological status or value of donor sites?
  16. 16. <ul><li>PL: unidentified </li></ul><ul><li>D, A: up to now no negative influence assessed but up to now no specifically survey done </li></ul><ul><li>I: no negative effects assessed </li></ul><ul><li>CZ, SK: Jongepierova, Pokova (eds.) (2006); DAPHNE study from Morava river </li></ul>Question 11: assessments on the influence of diaspore harvest on the ecological status or value of donor sites:
  17. 17. Question 12: What techniques are used for production of seeds or plant material?
  18. 18. <ul><li>PL: Small scale seed propagation, horticultural reproduction </li></ul><ul><li>D, A: Seeds, threshing, fresh cutting, hay mulching </li></ul><ul><li>I: seed propagation </li></ul><ul><li>CZ, SK: Seeds, small scale seed propagation of wild ecotypes </li></ul>Question 12: Main techniques used for production of seeds or plant material
  19. 19. Question 13: Are there already existing certifications of plant material or of production flows in your country/region/province (e.g. origin of seeds, quality of threshings, seed multiplication)?
  20. 20. Question 13: already existing certifications of plant material or of production flows <ul><li>PL: none </li></ul><ul><li>D, A: VWW Regiosaaten (certificate for seed quality and origin), Certification of wild seeds in Upper Austria, Certification of local bosk (Gehölze) in Lower Austria </li></ul><ul><li>I: none </li></ul><ul><li>CZ, SK: Regional mixture of White Carpathians </li></ul>
  21. 21. Question 14: What techniques are used for the establishment of semi-natural grassland or HNVF?
  22. 22. Question 14: Other techniques used for establishment <ul><li>Cloning of grasses </li></ul><ul><li>Horticultural production of plants </li></ul><ul><li>Sod rolls </li></ul>
  23. 23. Question 15: What are the pros and cons of the most important used methods? <ul><li>Dry seeding: cheap, simple, well known but most times unexplained origin of seeds, seed quality often a problem </li></ul><ul><li>Application of fresh cutting, hand collection, threshing, hay mulch seeding: very specific local populations can be successfully transferred. </li></ul><ul><li>Fresh cutting: invertebrates can be transferred too, erosion protection </li></ul><ul><li>Natural succession: cheap, without human intervention but slow, not suitable for large scale projects, needs diaspores from donor site nearby </li></ul>
  24. 24. <ul><li>PL: Farmer‘s old tradition, generally low ecological concience, lack of money for projects </li></ul><ul><li>D, A: Lack of interest of authorities and stakeholders. Information deficits. High costs and efforts. Lack of donor sites. Differing interests of breeding companies. Seed law versus Nature Protection law. Availability of acceptor sites. </li></ul><ul><li>I: Lack of local seeds, cultural ignorance and low sensibility to the subject matter, more concentration should be given to communication of results. Most methods are too difficult to use, commercial seeds are a good compromise (Alto Adige). Methods are easy, costs are too high in comparison to commercial seeds </li></ul><ul><li>CZ, SK: overcoming of agricultural groovy methods, certificated regional mixtures do not exist (SK) </li></ul>Question 16: What are the difficulties when trying to implement these methods in your country/region/province?
  25. 25. <ul><li>Wide range of answers to the questionnaires. Criticism of being much too general as well as much too particular </li></ul><ul><li>Semi-natural grassland is seen as a very important and valuable resource </li></ul><ul><li>The awareness of important stakeholders concerned (authorities, construction companies, engineers, farmers) is surprisingly low. Raising the public awareness is very important </li></ul><ul><li>Experience about techniques of collection and transfer of diaspores is very different between countries </li></ul><ul><li>Certificates of origin for regional seed- and plat material are broadly demanded </li></ul>SUMMARY

×