Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

The EU Habitats Directive - A hundred times nothing kill the donkey

The importance of considering cumulative effects in the frame of Appropriate Assessment and how the Krkonoše Mountains National Park in Czech Republic has introduced it as a methodological approach. Presented by Stanislav Březina, botanist at the Krkonoše Mountains National Park.
Presented at EUROPARC Webinar - "The EU Habitats Directive: from theory to practice". read more about it at www.europarc.org/europarc-webinars

  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

The EU Habitats Directive - A hundred times nothing kill the donkey

  1. 1. A hundred times nothing killed the donkey Stanislav Březina The authority of the Krkonoše Mts. National Park (sbrezina@krnap.cz)
  2. 2. The Krkonoše Mts NP protects the highest mountains of the Czech Republic. They rise up to 200-300 m above the timber- line. Due to their geographical position they make home for plants both from Northern and Southern Europe
  3. 3. • Subalpine species together with other species • 27 phytosociological types of the meadows in the Krkonoše Mts. Large part of the NP is covered by traditionally managed mountain meadows.
  4. 4. Lowland hay meadows Mountain hay meadows *Species-rich Nardus grasslands, on siliceous substrates in mountain areas In total there is about 10 000 ha of the meadows in the NP.
  5. 5. Most of the meadows are located in the peripheral zones of the National Park. zone III: 39,5% buffer zone: 58,2% zone II: 1,9% zone I: 0,5%
  6. 6. The most valuable meadows are usually very near to places where people live.
  7. 7. The area of NP is attractive for tourists (5-8 mills of visitors / year)… and supporting infrastructure is often concentrated into the peripheral zones of NP…
  8. 8. …usually into the most valuable meadow vegetation. Developmental projects and habitats.
  9. 9. This trend continued despite designation of Krkonoše SCI in 2004…
  10. 10. …and despite functional Appropriate Assessment procedures. The Administration of the Krkonoše Mts. National Park Quick estimate Could the investment project potentially have significant impact on the SCI or SPA Krkonoše? Authorised experts Approppriate Assessment (part of EIA procedure) Does the investment project have significant negative effect on the SCI or SPA Krkonoše? Investor Is it possible to realize an investment project in the SCI or SPA Krkonoše? Yes No Yes No Realization Prohibition
  11. 11. This is mainly because of small relative area of individual projects... pensions or houses w negligible size. Most often they are not golf greens with profound size… BUT Such projects either do not enter AA procedure or do not hav significant effect according to AA. The results of assessments of the projects situated in the habitat 6510 (2004-2008) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 without effect with effect
  12. 12. It was necessary to take into account cumulative effect of all the projects. Concept of limited loss of the traditionally managed meadows 0,15ha + 0,1 ha + 0,1 ha + 0,15ha + 0,15 ha ... The limit
  13. 13. CIS LO VEC KATASTR ROK ZAM/KONC LZE/NELZE BIOTOP REPRE/ ZACH PLOCHA VRATNOST_ VLIVU 1 Intenzifikace ČOV Špindlerův Mlýn 2004 Z L X 2 rekonstrukce chaty Zámeček v Janských Lázních Janské Lázně 2004 Z L X 3 oprava cest, svážnic a chodníků v r. 2004 (18 akcí) KRNAP 2004 Z L X 4 záměr výstavby parkovacích domů a příjezdu k nim Pec pod Sněžkou 2004 Z L X 5 Rekonstrukce místní komunikace (sport. areál Sv. Petr-nám.- autokemp KRNAP) Špindlerův Mlýn 2004 Z L X 6 "Čistá horní Úpa" KRNAP 2004 K L N 7 "Čisté horní Labe" KRNAP 2004 K L N 8 zadání změny č. 4 ÚPSÚ Benecko, Horní Štěpanice, Mrklov, Dolní Štěpanice Benecko 2005 Z N N 9 4. změna ÚPSÚ Benecko, Dolní Štěpa- nice, Horní Štěpanice, Mrklov - doplněk Benecko 2005 Z N N 10 Rekonstrukce č.p. 185 a 186 v k.ú. Černý Důl Černý Důl 2005 Z N N 11 Rekonstrukce a nadstavba č.p. 185 a 186 v k.ú. Černý Důl Černý Důl 2005 Z N T2.2 B/B 0.2 V 12 ÚP, sjezdová dráha a LV Vápenice, varianta II Doní Dvůr 2005 Z N N 13 Výstavba 4 RD na pozemku p.p.č. 481/2 v k.ú. Dolní Štěpanice Dolní Štěpanice 2005 Z N T1.1 B/A 1,00 N 14 Spalladio Harrachov Harrachov 2005 Z N X 15 Ubytovací komplex Praha - Harrachov Harrachov 2005 Z N X Habitat 6230 6510 6520 Quality I I + II I I + II I I + II Limit (%) 1 2 3 6 3 6 The limits are percentage of total cover of the meadows in area of individual municipalities in NP… …their current state is registered by Administration of NP… …and summarized every year online. http://www.krnap.cz/natura-2000
  14. 14. The concept works! It is accepted by Authorised experts during AA procedures. It is accepted by munipalities during spatial planning. Challenge: compensatory measures! It was accepted by Ministry of Environment of the CZ as official methodology for AA.
  15. 15. Key points: • Significant losses to nature result from cumulative effects of small projects. • AA can efficiently reduce such losses only if it estimates the cumulative effects really approppriately. • Approppriate estimates of cumulative losses are enhanced by transparent, simple and consensual methodology. • Any such methdology will be useless without reliable evidence of projects opened to the public.
  16. 16. Thank you for your attention!

×