CEEweb for Biodiversity Széher út 40, 1021 Budapest, Hungary Phone: +36 1 398 0135 Fax: +36 1 398 0136
[email protected] www.ceeweb.org
The potential of locally protected areas for supporting Green Infrastructure in Hungary interim report of the ongoing study done by CEEweb for Biodiversity, in cooperation with National Society of Conservationists – Friends of the Earth Hungary
The concept of Green Infrastructure In order to respond to the challenge of biodiversity crisis and to meet global and EU commitments, in May 2011 the European Commission released its new Biodiversity Strategy1 titled as ‘Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020’ as a follow-up on the previous ’2006 Biodiversity Action Plan’. The latter had included a long list of recommended measures meant to achieve its main goal of stopping the loss of EU biodiversity by 2010. Unfortunately, that time the EU had failed to achieve this goal. The new Strategy has put forward six targets: -
to better implement the EU nature directives, to establish EU green infrastructure and restore a significant area of degraded ecosystems, to mainstrean biodiversity conservation in regulation and practice of agriculture, forestry and that of fisheries, to combat invasive alien species and to, going beyond the EU level, address the global biodiversity loss.
Under the second target of the Biodiversity Strategy, which is more precisely, to ensure that ‘by 2020, ecosystems and their services are maintained and enhanced by establishing Green Infrastructure and restoring at least 15% of degraded ecosystems’, three main actions are identified. Among them, the following actions are particularly relevant for our study: Member States, with the assistance of the Commission, will map and assess the state of ecosystems and their services in their national territory by 2014, assess the economic value of such services, and promote the integration of these values into accounting and reporting systems at EU and national level by 2020. By 2014, Member States, with the assistance of the Commission, will develop a strategic framework to set priorities for ecosystem restoration at sub-national, national and EU level. In 2013, the European Commission released its Communication: ‘Green Infrastructure – Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital’2. The Communication outlines the strategy to maintain and enhance
1 European Commission, DG Environment. 2011. Communication from the Commission: Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 (COM(2011) 244) 2 European Commission, DG Environment. 2013. Communication from the Commission: Green Infrastructure (GI) (COM(2013) 249 final)
Europe’s ecosystems and their services, as defined by the European Union’s Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Green Infrastructure is a relatively new concept which is, according to the EU understanding, “addressing the spatial structure of natural and semi-natural areas but also other environmental features which enable citizens to benefit from its multiple services. The underlying principle of Green Infrastructure is that the same area of land can frequently offer multiple benefits if its ecosystems are in a healthy state. Green Infrastructure investments are generally characterized by a high level of return over time, provide job opportunities, and can be a cost-effective alternative or be complementary to 'grey' infrastructure and intensive land use change.” In practice, Green Infrastructure (GI) is a spatial network of natural and semi-natural features, which is designated and managed to provide ecosystem services and protect biodiversity in both rural and urban settings for the benefits of people. Green Infrastructure is built up of various both natural and artificial elements at different scales. It can provide both socio-economic and conservation benefits at different scales – from local or regional level to EU level.
Objectives and methods of the current study CEEweb for Biodiversity has been involved in the recent international discussions of Green Infrastructure (GI) and Ecosystem Services (ESS). Several activities have been implemented in these topics, e.g. CEEweb participates in the MAES group, the management EC expert group, has organized the Academy and significantly contributed to the assessment of ecosystem services of Carpathians, which was executed within the framework of the CarpathCC project3. These activities so far have been mostly at conceptual level or, in the case of the CarpathCC, desktop studies. However one of CEEweb’s strengths lies in the fact that it, through its network of grassroot nature conservation organizations, CEEweb represents an interphase between policy and practice. During the discussions about GI and ESS, the need was raised to test the applicability of the GI concept on the ground in Hungary. More specifically, to test how it can be integrated into the current framework of nature conservation and, on a wider scale, of land use. As a first step, the Visegrad land use study4 was prepared, describing the status of ecological networks, as backbones of GI at national level, in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia. This current study aims to take a look at the network of Hungarian locally protected areas, in order to answer, based on field data collection, its main question: To what extent can local PAs fulfil the role of effective GI elements at local and regional level and contribute to the implementation of Biodiversity Strategy target 2? The reasons for focusing on locally protected areas were the following:
3 http://carpathcc.eu/ 4 http://www.ceeweb.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/12/Assessing_Green_Infrastructure_Elements_in_the_Visegrad_Countries_updated.pdf
-
There are a high number of such areas, many of which are small in size and thus are integrated into the cultural landscape in multiple ways, the nature conservation status of these areas is relatively unknown compared to the nationally protected areas or Natura 2000 sites, which are regularly monitored, many of these sites are themselves are strongly multifunctional and deliver often cultural ESS, since often they are old parks, botanical gardens, gardens of historical monuments, street trees and avenues etc., situated inside of a settlement, and thus important elements of the GI network.
To gather the data, a field data sheet was prepared, as shown in Annex 1 (in Hungarian). Data were collected by field data collectors provided by the National Society of Conservationists, as subcontractor for this study. All locally protected areas of the following counties were covered: Békés, Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén, Csongrád, Győr-Moson-Sopron, Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok, Vas, Zala. Data were collected on the following most important aspects: -
is the protected feature (original reason for the protected status) still there ecosystem type (5 main categories) type of land use existence of conservation management presence of invasive alien species is the site also part of the Natura 2000 network is the site connected to natural areas / other PAs (Natura 2000, national PA, local PA, ecological network)
Preliminary results As a first step, evaluation of field data sheets from Békés county was done. In this county, all locally protected areas, altogether 85 sites were surveyed by the field data collectors. Results of the raw data sheets were processed into a spreadsheet, shortened version see in Annex 2. About the area. Békés County is an administrative division in south-eastern Hungary, on the border with Romania. Békés county lies on the Pannonian Plain (Great Plain), it is a flat area with nutrient rich soil and the land use is predominantly agricultural. Average rainfall is 645 mm/year. The river Körös runs through the county, creating valuable water-based habitats and wetlands. Collected data. Preliminary results of the data collection are the following: -
-
-
Area of sites: ranging between 0 hectares and 260 hectares, average site area: 13,25 hectares. the protected feature (original reason for the protected status) is still there in 78 cases, while in 7 sites it is (partly or fully) disappeared. ecosystem type (5 main categories): predominantly forest: 19 sites, predominantly grasslands: 11 sites, predominantly wetlands: 10 sites, mosaic of different ecosystems: 9 sites, cultural landscapes (urban, park etc.): 34 sites, no information: 2 sites type of land use: water habitat based land use (fishing, reed cutting): 2 sites, recreation/public benefit/cultural importance: 32 sites, forestry: 11 sites, mining: 1 site, mowing/grazing: 27 sites, not used: 12 sites existence of conservation management: yes: 23 sites, no: 62 sites is the site also part of the Natura 2000 network: yes: 13 sites, no: 72 sites
-
is the site connected to natural areas / other PAs (Natura 2000, national PA, local PA, ecological network): yes: 26 sites, no: 58 sites, no information: 1 site
Conclusions Results show the following. Area of locally protected sites in Békés countries is generally small. The protected feature (original reason for the protected status) is still there in the biggest majority of sites. The biggest number of sites is dominated by secondary habitats with cultural significance. This is in line with the fact that the land use of the biggest number of sites is recreation / public benefit. Most of these sites are connected to urban areas or to rural settlements, typically gardens of historical monuments, old graveyards, botanical gardens etc. We must emphasize the significance of these sites from 2 points of view: (1) provision of cultural ecosystem services and (2) local green infrastructure. This is a typical characteristic feature of locally protected areas in Békés county, which gives a significant difference compared to larger, nationally protected or Natura 2000 sites. Also, these sites in most cases are rather fragmented, not being connected to any other protected site or natural area. In most of the cases, there are no targeted conservation management on these sites. Therefore, these areas are vulnerable and should receive special attention. The GI concept has the potential to bring forward such increased attention, but there is need for capacity building of the local decision makers about the concept. Besides the high number of sites with cultural significance, there are many sites dominated by forest, grassland or wetland ecosystems, or the mosaic of these. Forestry and grazing/mowing is a frequent land use type, although relatively high number of the sites are abandoned and not managed. Here again, very few sites receive specific conservation management measures. Among the bigger sites with natural vegetation, it is more common to be either designated for Natura 2000 status themselves, and/or to be adjacent to other protected areas / natural areas. This is particularly true for the wetland habitats, as they are in most cases connected to the river Körös, which formulates a designated ecological corridor of Hungary. As such, these sites are also significant from the perspective of Green Infrastructure, but unlike the local cultural sites, these are also important from regional or national aspect, too.
Next steps Some more accurate statistics will be done to challenge the above mentioned preliminary results of Békés County, as well as analysis of the remaining counties will be carried out.
Annex 1. Helyi jelentőségű védett természeti terület neve:
Utoljára módosítva: Megye:
Községhatár:
A terület kiterjedése:
Védetté nyilvánítás év:
GPS koordináták: Felmérést végző személy(ek) neve: Felmérő címe: Felmérő telefonszáma:
E-mail címe:
A terület megközelíthetőségének leírása (pl. melyik utcán kell elhagyni a települést stb.):
Terület rövid, szöveges bemutatása (max. 2000-2500 karakter): megközelíthetőség, terület jellegének leírása (pl. természetes erdőfolt puhafa ligeterdővel stb.):
2. A TERÜLET ÁLTALÁNOS FELMÉRÉSE 2.1. Megtalálható még a védettség indoka a területen? Igen - Nem - Részben Szükség esetén részletezés, "Nem/Részben" válasz esetén indoklás:
2.2. Milyen élőhelyek mozaikok borítják a területet és milyen arányban? __ % Erdő __ % Gyep __ % Cserjés __ % Vizes terület __ % Egyéb 2.2. Egyéb:
2.3. Élőhelyi besorolás ÁNÉR- szerint (http://www.novenyzetiterkep.hu/?q=magyar/node/45):
2.4. Területhasználat (kérjük, jelölje az észlelteket): Kaszálás, Legeltetés, Nádaratás, Erdészeti tevékenység Egyéb típus: Jellemzőik, intenzitás: 2.5. Folyik-e természetvédelmi kezelés a területen? Igen - Nem Felmérés, Őrzés, Bemutatás, Özönnövények irtása, Legeltetés, Kaszálás, Égetés, Vadkizárás, Árasztás, Vízelvezetés, Kotrás, Fásítás, Szálalás, Faj visszatelepítés, Rekonstrukció Egyéb típus:
2.6. Megtalálhatóak-e az alábbi özönfajok a területen, s milyen mennyiségben: Akác: Nincs - Kevés - Sok
Selyemkóró: Nincs - Kevés - Sok Parlagfű: Nincs - Kevés - Sok Magas/kanadai aranyvessző: Nincs - Kevés - Sok Japánkeserűfű: Nincs - Kevés - Sok Gyalogakác: Nincs - Kevés - Sok Bálványfa ("ecetfa"): Nincs - Kevés - Sok Keskenylevelű ezüstfa: Nincs - Kevés - Sok Muflon: Nincs - Kevés - Sok Egyéb (nevezze meg):
2.7. Része a terület a Natura 2000 hálózatnak? Igen - Nem Egy része: ____ % 2.8. Érintkezik a terület más természetes élőhelyekkel? Igen - Nem 2.9. Ha igen, milyen típusú élőhellyel?
2.10. Érintkezik a terület más természetvédelmi oltalmat élvező területtel? (pl. Natura 2000, országos védettség, ex lege) Igen - Nem 2.11. Ha igen, milyen természetvédelmi oltalmat élvező területtel? 2.12. Van védettséget jelző tábla a területen? Igen - Nem Darabszám: ___ Állapotuk: ___ 2.13. Vannak vadgazdálkodási létesítmények a területen? Magasles: ___ db Vadetető: ___ db Szóró: ___ db Egyéb (név és db):
Nincsenek: 3. Védett és fokozottan védett, ill. Natura 2000-es növényfajok és számolt vagy becsült mennyiségük felsorolása (a becslés lehet tőszámra, vagy területnagyságra vonatoztatott, fokozottan védett faj esetében pontos tőszámot kell megadni)
4. Védett és fokozottan védett, ill. Natura 2000-es állatfajok és számolt vagy becsült mennyiségük (fokozottan védett fajoknál pontos állománynagyságot kell megadni)
5. Egyéb észrevétel
Annex 2.
Connected to other PAs
for still
(forest, scrub,
Connected to natural areas Is it (at least partly) N2000 site? Is there conservation management? Land use
Ecosystem grassland, wetland, other)
Is the resason protection status there?(ha) Area
Name of site
Setlement
Battonya
Battonyai Szárazér-csatorna
38,96
yes
wetland
mowing
no
yes
yes
yes
Battonya
Kistompai-löszpusztarét
20,00
yes
grassland
mowing
yes
yes
yes
yes
Békés
Békési Csatárkert
5,13
yes
mixed
public benefit
yes
no
yes
no
Békés
Békési Vargahossza-csatorna
0,00
yes
other
no data
yes
no
yes
no
Békés
Békési Élővíz-csatorna
5,48
yes
mixed
no data
no
no
yes
yes
Békés
Békési Duzzasztómű
8,31
yes
other
no data
yes
yes
yes
yes
Békéscsaba
Békéscsabai-parkerdő
25,06
yes
80% forest
forestry, mowing
no
no
no
no
Békéscsaba
Erzsébethelyi (Jaminai) belvíztározó és környéke
4,66
yes
80% wetland
mowing, grazing
no
no
no
no
Békéscsaba
Negyedik kerületi (Kisréti) belvíztározó és környéke
26,25
no
mixed
mowing, grazing
no
no
no
no
Békéscsaba
Ó-gerlai Kovácsi erdő
25,57
yes
70% forest
no
no
no
no
no
Békéscsaba
Fürjesi vadkörtés ősgyepmaradvány
18,90
no
other
occasional mowing
no
no
no
no
Békéscsaba
Pósteleki-kastélypark
14,00
yes
forest
forestry
yes
yes
yes
no
Békéscsaba
Gerlai védgát és kubikja
12,80
yes
mixed
mowing, grazing
no
no
no
yes
Békéscsaba
Gerlai kastélypark
3,00
yes
mixed
public benefit
no
no
yes
yes
Békéscsaba
Öntözött rét
146,97
yes
80% grassland mowing, grazing
no
yes
yes
yes
Bélmegyer
Kárászi-kastélypark
1,03
yes
forest
forestry
no
no
no
no
Csabaszabadi
Beliczay kastélypark
2,00
yes
80% forest
forestry
no
no
no
no
Csabaszabadi
Millecentenáriumi Emlékpark
0,30
yes
other
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
Csorvás
Petőfi-pusztai park és kastély
9,60
yes
80% forest
public benefit forestry, keeping
Csorvás
Hankó-gyep
0,90
no
other
intensive mowing
no
no
no
no
Csorvás
Makkosi-kiserdő
1,00
yes
forest
no data
no
no
no
no
Csorvás
Gubján-forrás menti nádas
1,50
yes
wetland
reed cutting
no
no
no
no
Csorvás
Homokbánya-tó
2,00
yes
mixed
mowing
yes
no
no
no
Csorvás
Rudolf majori kastélypark
3,00
yes
other
mowing
yes
no
no
no
Csorvás
Mágocs-ér
3,00
yes
wetland
no data
no
yes
no
no
Csorvás
Szikes-dűlő, Csárda-dűlő szórvány nádasai
0,90
no
no data
no data
n.d.
n.d.
n.d. n.d.
Csorvás
Csorvási-ősgyep
0,00
yes
grassland
mowing
yes
yes
no
yes
Doboz
Dobozi-kastélypark
3,81
yes
other
public benefit
no
no
no
no
Doboz
Szanazugi tanösvény és sétaút
0,00
yes
forest
forestry
yes
yes
yes
yes
Füzesgyarmat
Füzesgyarmati Hosszúi-erdő
260,00
yes
forest
no data
no
no
yes
yes
Geszt
Geszti Emlék-park
0,50
yes
other
public benefit
no
no
no
no
Gyomaendrőd
Erzsébet-liget
4,80
yes
80% forest
recreation
yes
no
yes
no
Gyomaendrőd
Endrődi-népliget
2,03
yes
forest
recreation
no
no
yes
yes
Gyula
Máriafalvai katonai temető
0,11
yes
other
graveyard
no
no
no
no
Gyula
Dürer-parkerdő
0,00
yes
forest
public benefit
no
no
no
no
Gyula
Gyulai Izraelita temető
1,16
no
other
cultural
no
no
no
no
Gyula
Megyei Bíróság kertje
0,11
yes
other
public benefit
no
no
no
no
Gyula
Gyula Népkert (Göndöcs-kert)
3,98
no
other
public benefit
no
no
no
no
Gyula
Gyula, Harruckern és Erkel terek parkja
0,70
yes
other
public benefit
no
no
no
no
Gyula
Gyula, Gyermekkórház kertje
0,97
yes
other
recreation
no
no
no
no
Gyula
Gyulai Megyei Kórház kertje
7,20
yes
other
recreation
no
no
no
no
Gyula
Gyulai Széchenyi-tér parkja
0,22
yes
other
recreation
no
no
no
no
Gyula
Gyula, Csiga-kert
4,12
yes
other
public benefit
yes
no
yes
no
Gyula
Gyula, Kisökörjárási-parkerdő
17,86
yes
80% forest
forestry
no
no
no
yes
Gyula
Gyulai Élővíz-csatorna belterületi szakasza
3,98
yes
wetland
public benefit
no
no
yes
yes
Gyula
Petőfi tér
0,55
yes
other
public benefit
no
no
no
yes
Gyula
Gyula, Szent Miklós-park
0,80
yes
other
recreation
no
no
no
yes
Gyula
József Attila Szanatórium parkja
18,46
yes
other
recreation
no
no
no
yes
Gyula
Várfürdő és Almássy-kastély parkja
9,29
yes
other
public benefit
yes
no
yes
yes
Gyula
Várkörnyék zöldfelülete
5,56
yes
other
public benefit
no
no
yes
bee
Gyula
Mályvád-Bányaréti őstölgyes
1,80
yes
forest
forestry
yes
yes
yes
yes
Hunya
Hunyai homokbánya
3,05
yes
70% wetland
mining
no
no
no
no
Kardos
Kardosi erdő
1,68
yes
forest
no data
no
no
no
no
Kaszaper
Szárazér-csatorna
2,07
yes
wetland
mowing
no
yes
no
no
Kétegyháza
Várfürdő és Almássy-kastélypark
14,20
yes
other
forestry
yes
no
no
no
Kondoros
Batthyány-Geist kastély és parkja
6,83
yes
other
public benefit
no
no
no
no
Kondoros
Bókoló zsálya (Salvia nutans) termőhelye
1,08
yes
grassland
mowing
yes
no
yes
no
Körösladány
Gulya-legelő ősgyep
237,52
yes
75% grassland mowing, grazing
no
no
yes
yes
Kötegyán
Kötegyáni-gyepek
0,00
yes
70% grassland no data
no
no
no
no
Lökösháza
2,38
yes
other
recreation
no
no
yes
no
0,57
no
other
no data
no
no
no
no
Medgyesegyháza
Bréda-majori kastélypark Medgyesegyháza, anyaggödör, homokbánya Medgyesegyháza, A központi faállománya
1,55
yes
other
public benefit
yes
no
no
no
Medgyesegyháza
Szociális otthon parkja
0,83
yes
other
public benefit
yes
no
no
no
Mezőberény
Mezőberényi erdei tulipán élőhelye
0,29
yes
grassland
mowing
no
no
no
no
Mezőberény
Városi liget
5,17
yes
forest
public benefit
no
no
no
no
Mezőberény
Mezőberényi nyúlánk sárma élőhelye
0,98
yes
grassland
mowing
yes
no
yes
no
Mezőkovácsháza
Horgásztó és környéke
0,00
yes
wetland
fishing
no
no
no
no
Mezőkovácsháza
Mezőkovácsháza, Református templom kertje
0,25
yes
other
public benefit
no
no
no
no
Mezőkovácsháza
Mezőkovácsháza, Római katolikus templom kertje
0,51
yes
other
public benefit
no
no
no
no
Mezőkovácsháza
Mezőkovácsházai Szociális otthon díszkertje
2,95
yes
other
public benefit
no
no
no
no
Mezőkovácsháza
Mezőkovácsházai Szárazér-csatorna
17,89
yes
wetland
mowing
no
yes
no
no
Orosháza
Rágyánszki arborétum
1,90
yes
other
park
no
no
no
no
Pusztaföldvár
Kistatár-sánc
2,57
yes
mixed
mowing
no
no
no
no
Szabadkígyós
Szabadkígyósi millenniumi emlékpark
0,00
yes
grassland
mowing
no
no
yes
yes
Szarvas
Szarvasi kígyónyelv és békakonty termőhelye
0,08
yes
forest
no data
no
no
no
no
Szarvas
Millenniumi emlékmű sétánya
0,00
yes
grassland
mowing
yes
no
no
no
Szarvas
Szarvas, Szent István park
0,00
yes
other
mowing
yes
no
yes
yes
Szarvas
Szarvas, Tessedik Sámuel Főiskola udvara
0,00
yes
mixed
mowing
yes
no
yes
yes
Szarvas
Szarvasi Belső-park (Bolza-kastélypark)
1,68
yes
other
mowing
yes
no
yes
yes
Szarvas
Anna-liget
27,84
yes
mixed
mowing, forestry
yes
no
yes
yes
Tarhos
Tarhosi-kastélypark
39,06
yes
forest
forestry
no
no
no
no
Telekgerendás
Telekgerendási Millecentenáriumi emlékpark
0,30
yes
grassland
mowing
no
no
no
no
Tótkomlós
Tótkomlósi Száraz-ér csatorna
15,48
yes
wetland
mowing
no
yes
yes
yes
Végegyháza
Végegyházai Száraz-ér csatorna
8,69
yes
wetland
mowing
no
yes
no
no
Zsadány
Zsadányi Orosi-tölgyes
0,65
yes
forest
forestry
no
no
no
no
Medgyesegyháza
felhagyott díszpark
és
CEEweb for Biodiversity is a network of non-governmental organizations in the Central and Eastern European region. Our mission is the conservation of biodiversity through the promotion of sustainable development.
