CEEweb for Biodiversity Széher út 40, 1021 Budapest, Hungary Phone: +36 1 398 0135 Fax: +36 1 398 0136 ceeweb@ceeweb.org 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.
Helyi jelentőségű védett természeti terület neve: Annex 1. Utoljára módosítva: Megye: A terület kiterjedése: Községhatár: 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):
Connected to other PAs Connected to natural areas Is it (at least partly) N2000 site? Is there conservation management? Land use Ecosystem (forest, grassland, scrub, wetland, other) Is the resason for protection status still Area there? (ha) Name of site Setlement 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. 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 public benefit no no no no forestry, bee Csorvás Petőfi-pusztai park és kastély 9,60 yes 80% forest keeping no no no no 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
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 Bréda-majori kastélypark 2,38 yes other recreation no no yes no Medgyesegyháza, anyaggödör, felhagyott Medgyesegyháza homokbánya 0,57 no other no data no no no no Medgyesegyháza, A központi díszpark és Medgyesegyháza 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 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.