Strasbourg, 2 February 2011                                                                                T-PVS (2010) 25

[tpvs25e_2010.doc]

CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF EUROPEAN WILDLIFE

AND NATURAL HABITATS

Standing Committee

30th meeting

Strasbourg, 6-9 December 2010

__________

Report

Document prepared by

the Directorate of Culture and Cultural and Natural Heritage


Part I – Opening

1.         Opening of the meeting and adoption of the agenda

Relevant documents:     T-PVS (2010) 1 - Draft agenda

                                      T-PVS (2010) 19 -Annotated draft agenda

      The Chair, Mr Jón Gunnar Ottósson (Iceland), opened the 30th Standing Committee meeting and welcomed participants (see appendix 1).

      He particularly greeted the delegates of Georgia and Montenegro, stressing that the Bern Convention entered into force in both countries in 2010, raising the total number of Parties to 50.

      He further introduced the agenda, which was adopted with minor amendments, as set out in appendix 2 to this report.

Decision: The draft agenda was amended and adopted.

2.         Chairman's report and communications from the delegations and from the Secretariat

Relevant documents:     T-PVS (2010) 3 and 16 - Reports of the Bureau meetings in March and September 2010

      Before presenting the Chairman’s report, Mr Ottósson wished to remember Mr Jean-Paul Koune, who passed away a month ago. Mr Koune participated in many Standing Committee meetings on behalf of the NGO Journée européennes du Cortinaire and, as a representative of the European Council for the Conservation of Fungi, and did an excellent work in bringing a number of threatened European mushrooms to the attention of the Standing Committee. On behalf of the Standing Committee, the Chair expressed gratitude for Mr Koune’s work and passed on the Committee’s deepest sympathies to his family and friends.

      The Chair informed that the work programme for 2010 had been completed in conformity with the decisions taken the previous year, except for the National Workshop on Invasive Alien Species in Armenia, and the Legal analysis of the implementation of the Convention in at least one Contracting Party, which had been replaced by the Legal opinion on the Interpretation of article 9 of the Bern Convention. Furthermore he reported that the Bern Convention’s Group of Experts on Biodiversity and Climate Change, on Large Carnivores and Herbivores, and on Invasive Alien Species, had produced new draft guidance for the Committee’s attention and examination.

      He thanked the Secretariat and the Bureau members for the work done in 2010 as well as for the good co-operation, while informing the Committee about the nominations received for the election of the Chair, the vice-Chair and two other Bureau members, to be carried out under agenda item 8, following the amended rules of procedure adopted in 2009. Mr Ottósson highlighted that although it has been a privilege to serve the Standing Committee as a Chair for the past four years, he would not stand for elections in 2010; he wished good luck to the other candidates.

      The Chair underlined the importance of co-operation and synergies with other biodiversity conventions and partner organisations and recalled the signature, in 2010, of a Memorandum of Co-operation between the Bern Convention and IUCN, which will be inter alia the frame for a collaborative partnership around the biodiversity of European islands for 2011. Mr Ottósson also mentioned the important co-operation with the European Environment Agency, a privileged partner in the field of Nature protection, particularly with regards to Protected Areas. He thanked the European Union for the financial support to a 3-year project to develop the Emerald Network in seven countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus.

The Chair highlighted the involvement of the Bern Convention in the debates on the post-2010 targets, stressing its contribution to conference “Post-2010 Biodiversity Vision and Target - The Role of Protected Areas and Ecological Networks in Europe”, co-organised in January 2010 by the Spanish presidency of the European Union and the Swiss presidency of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers. This was the first European attempt to elaborate a vision as well as to set political priorities to stop the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services, and restore them significantly, by 2020.

Mr Ottoson stressed that the Bern Convention is now called to give a regional contribution to the effective implementation of the Aichi targets adopted by the CBD at the Nagoya COP 10, by concentrating on the fields where the Convention has been most successful, and namely invasive alien species, protected areas and ecological networks, large carnivores and climate change among others. The full version of the Chairman’s Report can be found in the addendum to this report.

Mr Robert Palmer, Director of Culture and Cultural and Natural Heritage at the Council of Europe, welcomed participants as well as the representatives of other Conventions and Agreements. He summarised the main contents of the agenda of the Standing Committee meeting, and informed the Committee on the ongoing reform process at the Council of Europe which, from now on, will particularly concentrate on the strategic development and identification of priorities for the Council of Europe Programme of Activities. He stressed that, following the review of the more than 200 Council of Europe Conventions with the aim of assessing their added value and effectiveness, the Bern Convention has been included among the 46 “core” Conventions, i.e. those which help shaping the ideals and principles shared by all Council of Europe member States.

Mr Palmer continued by informing that although no further significant financial reductions have taken place in the Bern Convention budget for 2010, increased financial support from Parties in the coming years is particularly needed, especially in view of the expectations for the Bern Convention after the Nagoya CoP-10. He thanked Contracting Parties which have made contributions in 2010, and expressed gratitude to the European Union for the contribution to the 3-year joint project aimed at the setting-up of the Emerald Network in 7 Central and Eastern European countries, and South Caucasus. He wished participants a successful meeting.

Conclusion: The Committee took note of the information presented by the Chair and the Secretariat on the work carried out in 2010.

Part II – Monitoring and implementation of legal aspects

3.         Monitoring of the implementation of the legal aspects of the Convention

3.1              Introductory report from Georgia and Montenegro

Relevant documents:     T-PVS/Inf (2010) 18 - Introductory report from Georgia

                                      T-PVS/Inf (2010) 19 - Introductory report from Montenegro

      The delegates of Georgia and Montenegro presented their respective introductory reports, summarising the main legal, policy and institutional framework of nature conservation in their countries, including information on the status and trends of biodiversity, main threats for habitats and ecosystems and ongoing activities to improve nature conservation.

      The representative of EUROBATS thanked Montenegro for engaging the negotiations for the signature of the Agreement, and took the opportunity for informing the Committee on two Resolutions of relevance for the Convention adopted at the Eurobats’ Meeting of Parties held in Prague, Czech Republic, in September 2010. These are Resolution 6.3 which states that the geographical scope of the Agreement shall be defined as the Western Palaearctic region; and Resolution 6.10 on “Synergies between the Agreement and Other European Treaties for Nature Conservation”, which supports further exchanges, communication, cooperation and coordination between bodies of the Agreement and other European treaties for Nature Conservation.

      The representative of ACCOBAMS congratulated Georgia and Montenegro for the activities undertaken in the field of biodiversity conservation, namely with regards to the protection of cetaceans; she stressed the importance of collaboration between the Bern Convention and ACCOBAMS on marine issues and renewed ACCOBAMS offer to organise a training in Montenegro to help the country to comply with international obligations.

Conclusion: The Committee welcomed the introductory reports by Georgia and by Montenegro.

3.2              Biennial reports 2007 - 2008 concerning exceptions made to Articles 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 and quadrennial reports 2005 -  2008

Relevant documents:     T-PVS/Inf (2010) 13 - Biennial Reports 2005-2006

                                      T-PVS/Inf (2010) 14 - Biennial Reports 2007-2008

                                      T-PVS/Inf (2010) 15 - General Reports 2001-2004

                                      T-PVS/Inf (2010) 20 - General Reports 2005-2008

       In conformity with Article 9, paragraph 2, of the Convention, all Parties having made exceptions to Articles 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 must present these exceptions in writing.

       The Secretariat presented the biennial reports received, while thanking two Contracting Parties which submitted general reports for 2005-2008 on a voluntary basis.

The delegate of Serbia informed about their report, which will soon reach the secretariat.

The delegate of Switzerland informed the Committee that the biennial report for 2007-2008 is under preparation and will be soon sent to the Secretariat.  

He further informed the Standing Committee that Switzerland intends to present a request of amendment to article 22 of the Bern Convention, as follows: article 22 of the Bern Convention as amended should allow any Contracting Party to express reservations regarding certain species specified in Appendices I to III also after the signature or after depositing its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. By proposing such an amendment Switzerland, with regard to the changes that have occurred in the country concerning notably the wolf since the adoption of the Convention by the Federal Assembly in 1980, would like to have the possibility of preventing the negative impact of the wolf on other species, its harmful nuisance on livestock, all other goods as well as on hunting and touristic activities.

The Chair recalled article 16 of the Bern Convention, which states that “Any amendment to the articles of this Convention proposed by a Contracting Party or the Committee of Ministers shall be communicated to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and forwarded by him at least two months before the meeting of the Standing Committee to the member States of the Council of Europe, to any signatory, to any Contracting Party, to any State invited to sign this Convention in accordance with the provisions of Article 19 and to any State invited to accede to it in accordance with the provisions of Article 20”. He invited Switzerland to present the request of amendments according to the above mentioned legal provisions.

Decision: The Committee took note of the biennial reports submitted, and took note of the communications of the delegates from Serbia and Switzerland, whom informed that their national reports would be forwarded to the Secretariat by the end of the current year.

The Committee invited the Contracting Parties which have not yet fulfilled this obligation to do so as soon as possible, and thanked Contracting Parties who submitted General reports on a voluntary basis.

Part III - Institutional matters

4.                  Interpretation of Article 9.1 of the Bern Convention

4.1             Legal analysis of the interpretation of Article 9.1 of the Bern Convention

Relevant document: T-PVS/Inf (2010) 16 - Interpretation of Article 9 of the Bern Convention

      The consultant, Ms Clare Shine, presented the legal opinion on the interpretation of Article 9 of the Bern Convention, prepared at the request of the Bureau, to determine whether the restrictions on derogations (exceptions) foreseen under the Convention are broad and clear enough to be considered sufficient. The consultant stressed that the legal opinion was prepared taking into account current practices and legislation in other fora.

The delegate of Belgium, speaking on behalf of the European Union, welcomed the clear and detailed report although she stressed that much time is needed to compare the proposed interpretation and related reporting system with EU requirements. She thus suggested to report the discussions, as well as the adoption of the draft revised Resolution No. 2 (1993) on the interpretation and scope of article 9 of the Bern Convention, to next year Standing Committee meeting.

In line and to complete the intervention by the European Union, the delegate of the Slovak Republic noted that reporting is an important tool which enables Contracting Parties to give a feedback on national activities; however, to avoid duplication, she suggested to check whether it would be possible – for EU member States - to report to the Bern Convention by using the Habitat Directive reporting system, both under a legal and a technical point of view. She finally pointed out that it would be useful to spot concrete additional issues on which reporting should focus on.

The delegate of Norway noted that monitoring the use of derogations is a challenging issue which needs clear guidelines. He further highlighted that disparity in reporting systems under different international agreements accrues the administrative burden on Contracting Parties. Supported by the delegate of Germany, he suggested to introduce IT technologies in the reporting, as well as to consider possible harmonisation with the reporting system under other international instruments.

The delegate of Monaco stressed that the report on the legal opinion on the interpretation of article 9 suggests improving the reporting system which is crucial for appropriate monitoring of the use of derogations.

The delegate of Switzerland pointed out that the draft revised Resolution No. 2 (1993) includes only some of the proposals made by the consultant; he asked the Committee to consider the possibility of including more information provided in the report in the text of the draft revised resolution.

The delegate of Sweden, referring to the draft Model form for biennial reports, proposed some amendments regarding falconry, namely concerning a better monitoring on reproduction and use of hybrids, and the threats related to the risk of escape.

      The representative of FACE welcomed the effort to clarify the interpretation of the Bern Convention’s provisions so to improve its implementation, and recalled that the Bureau, at its meeting in March 2010, evoked the possibility of establishing an ad hoc working group to elaborate interpretation guidelines for both articles 8 and 9 of the Convention. He expressed support for the setting-up of such a working group, which could assess all the implications of a revised interpretation of article 9, including the adequacy of using scientific data for justifying that no alternative solutions are possible.

The representative of the ACCOBAMS praised the decision of the Parties to revise and further clarify the interpretation of Art 9 in order to ensure the effective implementation of its provisions. She further stressed the importance of considering the practices under other international instruments, in order to avoid any inconsistency. Concerning document T-PVS/Inf (2010)7 on the capture of bottlenose dolphins in Turkey, she asked for updated information on the status of these animals, as well as on the measures undertaken by Turkish government with regards to the dolphins captured in 2007. She further mentioned the conclusions of a recent scientific study carried for ACCOBAMS, revealing that the benefits of the dolphin therapy cannot be proved scientifically. She concluded by informing that Turkey is about to ratify the ACCOBAMS agreement.

Decision: The Committee took note of the report on the Interpretation of Article 9 of the Bern Convention and thanked the consultant for the excellent work.

       The Committee discussed the Draft Revised Resolution No. 2 (1993) on the scope of articles 8 and 9 of the Bern convention (Adopted by the Standing Committee 3 December 1993) and stressed the importance of updating and further clarifying the interpretation of article 9 of the Bern Convention. However, the Committee decided to report to next Standing Committee meeting the discussion and possible adoption of the Draft Revised Resolution No. 2 (1993) in view of ensuring the coherence of the interpretation of article 9 of the Bern Convention with other relevant instruments at European level. It therefore asked the European Commission to compare the proposed interpretation under the Bern Convention with the interpretation and reporting requirements under relevant EU instruments, and to forward its findings to the Bureau for analysis.

       Taking into account the concern expressed by Switzerland and other Parties, the Committee further asked the Bureau, with the assistance of the Secretariat and of the consultant, to review the proposed Draft Revised Resolution No. 2, in view of including in the final draft text other relevant recommendations formulated in the consultant’s report. In addition, the Bureau will examine proposals for improving the reporting system, including the possibility of using electronic reporting tools, similar to those provided for member states by the European Union.

4.2             Guidelines for the reporting system set under article 9.2 of the Bern Convention

Relevant documents:     T-PVS (2010) 21 – Draft Model form for Biennial reports

This item was not discussed.

Decision: Finally, the Committee decided to postpone to its next meeting the discussion and decision on the Draft revised model form for biennial reports, while taking note of a proposal for amendment made by the European Union regarding falconry.

Part IV – Monitoring of species and habitats

5.         Monitoring of Species and Habitats

5.1             Group of Experts on Biodiversity and Climate Change – Draft Recommendations

Relevant documents:     T-PVS (2010) 6rev - Comments of the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention on Recommendation 1918 (2010) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on Biodiversity and Climate Change

                                      T-PVS/Inf (2010) 5 - Report on Biodiversity and climate change by the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs (APCE) - Rapporteur: Ms Francine JOHN-CALAME

T-PVS (2010) 7-8-9 – Draft recommendations on Biodiversity and Climate Change

T-PVS (2010) 10 - Meeting report of the Group of Experts on Biodiversity and Climate Change (Reykjavik, Iceland, 21-22 June 2010)

T-PVS/Inf (2010) 6 - National Reports on Biodiversity and Climate Change

T-PVS/Inf (2010) 8 - Impacts of Climate change on Mountain Biodiversity in Europe               

T-PVS/Inf (2010) 9 - Climate change and the biodiversity of European islands

T-PVS/Inf (2010) 10 - Climate Change, Wildland Fires and Biodiversity in Europe

       The Chair of the Group of Experts on Biodiversity and Climate Change, Mr Snorri Baldursson, presented the report of the meeting held in Reykjavik (Iceland) on June 2010, stressing that the Group examined 3 reports, on “Climate change and mountain biodiversity”, on “Climate change and island biodiversity”, and on “Climate change, wildland fire and biodiversity in Europe”. These resulted in three draft recommendations for the Standing Committee’s analysis and possible adoption. Mr Baldursson further presented the proposals of the Group for its future work, highlighting the valuable interaction with other Bern Convention Groups of Experts, the preparation of further guidance as well as the focus on adaptation and mitigation measures.

       The Secretariat briefly presented the Standing Committee’s opinion on Recommendation 1918 (2010) of the Parliamentary Assembly on “Biodiversity and Climate Change”, submitted by the Bureau on behalf of the Standing Committee to the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers.

       The Secretariat further introduced the three draft recommendations; the delegate of Belgium, speaking on behalf of the European Union, expressed full support to the three draft recommendations and made some proposals of amendments.


Decision: The Committee thanked the authorities of Iceland for the excellent preparation of the meeting and the excellent hospitality, and took note of the report of the meeting of the Group of experts, including the proposals for the future work.

The Committee further took note of the Comments of the Bureau on behalf of the Standing Committee on Recommendation 1918 (2010) of the Parliamentary Assembly on Biodiversity and Climate Change, submitted by the Bureau to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

The Committee amended and adopted the following three recommendations:

·          Recommendation No. 145 (2010) on guidance for Parties on biodiversity and climate change in mountain regions;

·          Recommendation No. 146 (2010) on guidance for Parties on biodiversity and climate change in European islands;

·         Recommendation No. 147 (2010) on Guidance for Parties on wildland fires, biodiversity and climate change.

5.2             Group of Experts on Island Biodiversity in Europe

Relevant documents:     T-PVS (2010) 12 - Report of the meeting of the Group of Experts on European Island Biological Diversity (Svalbard, Norway, 26-27 July 2010)  

                                                T-PVS/Inf (2010) 11 - National Reports on European Islands and Biological Diversity

                                      T-PVS/Inf (2010) 12 - Charter on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity in European Islands – First draft July 2010

       The Chair of the Group of Experts on Island Biodiversity, Mr Øystein Størkersen, presented the report of the meeting held in Svalbard (Norway) on July 2010, stressing the particular geographical and biological features of islands, which make these territories very rich in endemism. Mr Størkersen informed on the proposals of the Group for its future work, which will focus inter alia on “ecosystem health”, specific conservation approaches as well as elaboration of specific guidance on legislation and priorities for action. Some issues that are not covered by other initiatives were selected as particularly relevant, such as island red lists, areas of special concentration of breeding birds or marine mammals or reptiles, as well as biological interest of coastal waters around islands.

Decision: The Committee thanked the Norwegian conservation authorities and the Environment Office of the Governor of Svalbard for the excellent hospitality and most professional organisation of the meeting.

The Committee further took note of the report of the meeting of the Group of Experts, in particular on the progress towards preparing a Charter on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity in European Islands, as well as of the proposals by the Group for its future work.

The Committee welcomed the establishment of an advisory group in partnership with IUCN ISSG and EPPO to provide support and advice on eradication of IAS in islands.

The Committee thanked the government of France for the invitation to host the next meeting of this Group of Experts in 2011 in Corsica.

5.3         Large Carnivores and Herbivores:

a.             Progress  report and draft recommendation on Large Carnivores in the Caucasus

Relevant documents:     T-PVS (2010) 11 - Report of the meeting on the “Large Carnivores in the Caucasus”, 18 May 2010, Tbilisi (Georgia)

                                      T-PVS (2010) 14 - Draft Recommendation on conservation of large carnivores in the Caucasus

       The Secretariat presented the results of a workshop held in Tbilisi on 18 May focused on Large carnivores in the Caucasus. In the past years the Convention has been working with the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe, the Cats Specialist Groups and other working groups under IUCN-SSG to promote conservation of Large carnivores in Western Europe, Central Europe and South-East Europe. Now the priority is the Caucasus where monitoring, conservation and training needs are high. The Workshop was the first step of an action that has to be continued in the future starting with a training programme in 2011.

       Concerning large carnivores (particularly wolf) in Western Europe, the Committee was in favour of better analising co-existence of large carnivores and people so that conflicts may be avoided. A number of Contracting Parties are interested in exploring further human-dimension aspects of large carnivores and agreed that the Convention has a key role to play in this.

       The delegate of Spain presented an update of the Convention Action on the Iberian lynx. There is a positive evolution of the two existing populations in the wild in the last years, even if the situation of the species is still critical. The captive breeding programme, which produced more animals than the targets fixed, is now suffering some down backs from kidney problems having appeared in many of the captive bred lynx. Release of animals in the wild was starting.

       The representative of the Large Herbivore Network presented their activities and expressed the wish to work closer with the Convention, particularly in European bison and Wild goat in the Caucasus.

Decision: The Committee took note of the report of workshop on « Large Carnivores in the Caucasus » and thanked Georgia and the International Bear Association (IBA), NACRES and IUCN Cats Specialist Group for their support in the organisation of the meeting.

The Committee amended and adopted the following Recommendation:

·          Recommendation No. 148 (2010) on the conservation of large carnivores in the Caucasus.

The Committee took note of the information provided on the conservation action on the Iberian Lynx (Lynx pardinus).

The Committee took note of the information presented by the Large Herbivore Network and encouraged collaboration with the Convention.

b.             Large Carnivores in Western European countries

The Secretariat informed that the Bureau suggested inviting the Committee to hold a discussion on Large Carnivores in Western European countries. However, no comments were made by Contracting Parties on this item.

5.4       Invasive Alien Species:

a.             Progress report

Relevant document:        T-PVS (2010) 17 - EPPO/CoE Workshop on Invasive Alien Plants (Trabzon, Turkey, 2-6.8.2010)- Conclusions

       The Secretariat presented the Conclusions of the EPPO/Council of Europe 2nd Workshop on Invasive Alien Plants in Mediterranean type regions of the world, held in Trabzon (Turkey) from 2 to 6 August 2010.

       The workshop’s conclusions highlighted the importance to promote awareness on IAP, encouraged the elaboration of priority lists for control and eradication and noted the interest of codes of conduct on IAP and horticulture for controlling the entry and spread of IAP. The Workshop invited European institutions to develop an early-warning and rapid response system and proposed that biofuel crops be subject to risk assessment.

Decision: The Committee took note of the report of the Workshop on Invasive Alien Plants jointly organised by EPPO and the Council of Europe.


b.             Code on Invasive Alien Species and Companion Animals

Relevant documents:     T-PVS/Inf (2009) 16 - Code of Conduct on companion animals and Invasive Alien Species (including ornamental fish) in Europe

T-PVS (2010) 15 - Draft Recommendation on the European Code of Conduct on Companion Animals and Invasive Alien Species

T-PVS/Inf (2010) 21 - Eradication of the Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis in the Western Palaearctic: a review of progress and a revised Action plan, 2011–2015

                                               T-PVS (2010) 22 – Draft recommendation on the Ruddy Duck

       The Secretariat presented, on behalf of the Consultant, the Code of Conduct on companion animals and Invasive Alien Species, intended mainly as an awareness instrument through which the industry can collaborate with governments to avoid that companion animal are released and start populating in the wild.

       Belgium, on behalf of the European Union, expressed the wish that the document be reviewed by the Bern Convention Group of Experts on Invasive Alien Species at its next meeting so that terminology could be aligned with that of the CBD AHTEG on this topic, and the problem of pets as vectors of decrease be dealt with.

       The delegate of Norway noted that there is an urgent need to develop appropriate instruments to tackle this issue. He informed that the country is already working with the industry and preparing appropriate legislation which will be implemented already in 2011; he expressed support to the elaboration of European Guidelines. He offered to invite a consultant to present the measures implemented by Norway at next Standing Committee meeting.

       The Committee instructed the Secretariat to circulate the report for review, have it discussed by the relevant Group of Experts and present a draft recommendation at its next meeting.

Decision: The Committee examined the Code of Conduct on Companion Animals and IAS and decided to ask the Group of Experts to review this text, harmonising as appropriate with the work under the CBD and taking into account the potential role of companion animals as a vector of pathogens and parasites, endorsing the code at its next meeting. The Committee welcomed the offer from Norway to invite a consultant to present, at next Standing Committee meeting, the results of an on-going co-operation and information initiative on companion animals in Norway.

c.             European Action Plan on the Ruddy Duck

Relevant document:       T-PVS/Inf (2010) 21 Eradication of the Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis in the Western Palaearctic: a review of progress and a revised action plan, 2011–2015

Under the leadership and financial contribution by France, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom, the Bern Convention was requested to update its 1999 “Action Plan for the Eradication of the Ruddy Duck in Europe” (1999-2002). The work was assigned to the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust. The preliminary draft text was reviewed by a Group of Experts.

The Chair of the Group of Experts, Ms Elaine Kendall (United Kingdom), presented a summary of the Eradication Plan as well as of the main conclusions of the meeting of the Group of Experts, held in Madrid on 11 November 2010.

The Eradication Plan follows a LIFE project that managed to reduce the Ruddy Duck population in the United Kingdom from around 6,000 birds to a few hundred (200-300 expected at the end of winter). The Ruddy Duck has, however, created relatively important population in the last years in Belgium, the Netherlands and France, although in the latter there is much eradication action on-going.

The Eradication plan comes at a critical moment and, if properly implemented, can succeed in eliminating that species from Europe in a few years. However if the States concerned do not act speedily, an opportunity will be lost.

       The representative of AEWA congratulated the Bern Convention for the work carried out for the eradication of the Ruddy Duck; he informed the Committee on the international Single Species Action Plan (SSAP) for the conservation of the white-headed duck, highlighting that the eradication of the Ruddy Duck will certainly contribute to the goals of the SSAP.

       The representative of BirdLife International stressed the continued deterioration of the conservation status of the white-headed duck, recalled the need for a co-ordinated eradication action at pan-European level with regards to the Ruddy Duck, and offered its assistance in monitoring the progress in the eradication of the invasive species.

Decision: The Committee took note of the European Eradication Plan for the Ruddy Duck, presented by the Chair of the Group of Experts, congratulated the United Kingdom for the excellent work done and encouraged all Parties to eradicate Ruddy Ducks in their territories.

The Committee amended and adopted the following Recommendation:

·         Recommendation No. 149 (2010) on the eradication of the Ruddy Duck (Oxyura jamaicensis) in the Western Palaearctic

5.5       Draft European Charter on Recreational Fishing and Biodiversity

Relevant documents:     T-PVS (2010) 4 - Report of the Working Group on the Elaboration of a European Charter on Angling & Biodiversity (Strasbourg, 9 April 2010)

                                      T-PVS/Inf (2010) 3rev - European Charter on Recreational Fishing and Biodiversity: Final Draft

                                      T-PVS (2010) 20 - Draft Recommendation on the European Charter on Recreational Fishing and Biodiversity

      Mr Trausti Baldursson (Iceland), who had chaired the Working Group, presented the results of the meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group of 9 April 2010. He emphasised what an active part the observers had played in the work.

      The consultant, Mr Scott Brainerd, presented the draft Charter, which complemented the Charter on Hunting and Biodiversity, which he had also drafted. He said that the scope had been enlarged to include all forms of recreational fishing, while acknowledging that angling was the most common.

      He went through all the non-binding principles and guidelines for sustainable recreational fishing, which were based on the principles of Addis Ababa and Malawi adopted by the Conference of Parties to the CBD.

      Full account had been taken of existing instruments such as the Code of the FAO’s European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission (EIFAC).

      The German delegate expressed a reservation with regard to Principle 3.

      Speaking on behalf of the European Union, the Belgian delegate expressed her support for the Group’s work, but argued that it was wrong to be focusing exclusively on freshwater species, as fishing activities at sea were also important. She asked for the scope of the Charter to be extended. The English version of the text should be considered the official one, as there were a few problems with the terminology used in the French translation.

      The representative of ACCOBAMS informed the Standing Committee that the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) had held a workshop on recreational fishing in the Mediterranean and Black Seas in October 2010 and passed on a message from the secretariat of this committee that it would shortly be drafting guidelines on the subject and that it wished to establish co-operation with the Bern Convention.

      The representative of the European Anglers Alliance (EAA) presented a few proposed amendments.

Decision: The Committee took note of the report of the meeting of the Working Group on the Elaboration of a European Charter on Recreational Fishing and Biodiversity.

The Committee discussed, amended and further endorsed the European Charter on Recreational Fishing and Biodiversity, noting the reservation expressed by Germany toward principle 3 of the European Charter.

The Committee amended and adopted the following Recommendation:

·          Recommendation No. 150 (2010) on the European Charter on Recreational Fishing and Biodiversity.

5.6       Illegal killing of Birds

Relevant Documents:    T-PVS/Files (2009) 23 - Report by the NGO on illegal trapping, killing and trade of birds in Cyprus

                                      T-PVS/Inf (2008) 25 - Information note from the Secretariat on the issue of illegal killing of birds                            in Mediterranean Parties

        The issue of the illegal killing of birds, particularly in Cyprus and in some Mediterranean Parties, has been discussed several times by the Standing Committee and was again on the agenda of the last three years meeting. In 2007 the Standing Committee considered that trapping should be examined on a pan-Mediterranean basis, and decided to revisit its Recommendation No. 5 (1986) “on the prosecution of persons illegally catching, killing or trading in protected birds”.

        In 2008, the Secretariat informed the Standing Committee that there had not been a good response from Parties to report on this issue, and therefore the only conclusion which could be drawn was that the illegal killing of birds is still carried out in some parts of the Mediterranean where implementation of national legislation is weak.

        In 2009, following the presentation of an independent expert, Mr. Joe Sultana, the Standing Committee held an animated debate which showed that illegal killing, trapping and trading of birds is a quite common phenomenon, interesting not only Mediterranean Parties but also Central and Northern countries. The Standing Committee expressed its concerns for the continuation of such practices and requested the Bureau to have a discussion on this issue and make proposals at its next meeting.

        As a result of the discussions held in 2010, the Secretariat proposes to organise in July 2011 a Conference devoted to clearly identifying the extent of the problem in Contracting Parties, including by analysing its human dimension (attitudes, behaviours, beliefs, as well as willingness to accept different management options); collecting information on the implementation of the relevant Bern Convention’s recommendations, as well as of other legislation in place at European level; taking stock of national experiences as well as to put forward examples of best practices in order to make proposals to improve compliance with obligations.

        The Secretariat informed that the Conference will be hosted by Cyprus authorities (the Game Fund Service – Ministry of Interior).

        The delegate of Germany welcomed the organisation of the conference and recalled that, as stated at the 29th Standing Committee meeting, the German NGO ‘NABU’ and the Italian NGO ‘LIPU’ have carried out a successful project to protect honey buzzards and other migratory birds in South-Italy. He renewed the offer to invite a representative of this project to give a presentation at the conference in 2011.

        The delegate of Norway recognised that the problem is widespread and appreciated the decision of organising a conference on the issue. He furthermore suggested to ask the participants to examine and conclude on specific targets, goals, and implementation plans associated to clear milestones, to be submitted to the Standing Committee for analysis.

        The delegate of the Czech Republic underlined that the problem is very serious in his country, especially with regards to poisoning, which mostly affects white-tailed eagles. He informed that the Ministry of Environment of his country organised a meeting for all involved stakeholders, including police officers, representatives of the Ministry of agriculture and representatives of animal welfare organisations. However, although participants agreed on a common approach, the problem remains actual as the issue is not tackled by specialists.

        The delegate of the European Union provided an update on the initiatives undertaken by the European Commission, including a survey prepared by BirdLife on the extent of the problem in the EU member states. She stressed the need for the co-operation of all stakeholders and confirmed the EU interest in participating and contributing to such a conference, through an overview of law enforcement mechanisms in member states.

        The delegates of Croatia, Hungary, Serbia and Slovakia also expressed their support for this initiative and informed on activities undertaken at national level.

        The representative of FACE stressed that there are several aspects of the issue of illegal keeping, trading and killing of birds which need to be addressed and which are very difficult to assess or evaluate. He pointed out that illegal activities are not recorded and enforcement reports or court cases almost always give an incomplete or distorted view of the situation. He suggested that this is an emotional issue which makes the debate quite laborious. He further recalled that the European Commission has dealt with the topic as a result of the discussion of last Standing Committee meeting, noting little progress. He continued identifying a number of issues on which the Parties should focus, namely on the extent of the problem, on definitions and concepts, on the reasons of the failure in law enforcement, on the human dimension, as well as on the real impact on bird populations and means to improve the situation. He suggested gathering an evidence base on which to build a consensus. This could be done by analysing current practices and experiences in Contracting Parties. He concluded by confirming FACE readiness to contribute to the success of this effort.

        The representative of BirdLife expressed its will to contribute to the organisation of the conference, including by assisting in the collection of information from Parties. He added that changing public attitudes to trapping should be among the priority issues. In this respect, clear condemnations of trapping from Ministers and other public personnalities could contribute achieving a shift in public attitude. Such statements could also serve to impress upon judges the seriousness of trapping offences, leading to the imposition of deterrent penalties for those convicted. He further referred to the specific situation of Cyprus, by recalling that BirdLife monitoring system revealed that autumn 2010 was particularly worrying with respect to bird trapping, which has been on the rise for the past four years, with very high mist netting levels both in Cyprus and in Dhekelia British Sovereign Base Area.

        BirdLife acknowledged a 75% increase in mist net use and an 89% increase in limestick setting compared to autumn 2009 and the estimated trapping toll was over 1.35 million birds within the survey study areas in the Famagusta and Larnaca districts. BirdLife considers this situation being an ecological disaster, especially when the non-selective nature of trapping is taken into account. BirdLife called on the Standing Committee to address the situation with urgency, asking the state authorities from both Cyprus and the United Kingdom to implement targeted action plans and allocate adequate resources to reversing trends. The representative concluded by highlighting, as an example of good practices, a recent police operation held in Cyprus, addressed to restaurants which provide the economic impetus for trapping by buying and serving ambelopoulia.

        The representative of Terra Cypria welcomed the offer of Cyprus government to host the conference and hoped that this will give an input to the Government to confront the problem, especially with regards to public statements in favour of trapping in a pre-election year. She further proposed that the national authorities find the way to involve the Cyprus judiciary in the objectives of the conference, in order to make the judiciary aware of European concern on this issue, bearing in mind that court fines are often not high enough to be a deterrent.

Decision: The Committee expressed its deep concern on the extent and negative trends of illegal killing of birds in the European continent, and took note of the information presented by the Secretariat on the preparation of a “European Conference on illegal killing of birds” to be held in July 2011. It welcomed the willingness of the European Union to be involved in the Conference and its proposal of eventually preparing an overview of the law enforcement mechanisms in EU member states.

The Committee further welcomed the proposal of cooperation from BirdLife Cyprus and BirdLife International to support the Bern Convention in the planning and organisation of the Conference, more particularly by preparing and presenting an updated survey on the illegal killing of birds which would cover, as far as possible, the 50 Contracting Parties to the Bern Convention, as well as a focused report on the issue in the Western Balkan countries, highlighting shortcomings in the implementation of international legislation and practice.

  The Committee further noted the interest expressed by FACE to contribute to the success of the European Conference, as well as the suggestion of convening a reduced working group of the interested stakeholders for its preparation.

Finally, the Committee thanked Cyprus authorities for offering to host the Conference, encouraged the co-operation with the European Union and other concerned international governmental and non-governmental organisations, and encouraged Parties to attend the Conference and report on the situation in their countries.

5.7       Habitats

a.             Group of Experts on Protected areas and Ecological networks: Report

Relevant Document:      T-PVS/PA (2010) 11 - Report of the meeting of the Group of Experts on Protected Areas and Ecological Networks, Strasbourg, 14-15 September 2010

       The Vice-Chair of the Group of Experts, Mr Jacques Stein, presented the outcomes of the 2nd meeting of the Group, including the proposals for its future work. Mr Stein reported on the ongoing work for the setting-up of the Emerald Network and informed on national and sub-regional initiatives on the implementation of the PEEN.

Decision: The Committee took note of the report of the meeting of the Group of Experts.

b.             Setting up of the Emerald Network : strategic development and steps forward

Relevant Documents:    T-PVS/PA (2010) 13 - Second progress report of the CoE / EU joint programme: “Support for the implementation of the CBD’s Programme of Work on Protected Areas in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, the Russian Federation and the Ukraine

                                      T-PVS/PA (2010) 7 - Report of the Emerald Pilot Project in Morocco

                                      T-PVS/PA (2010) 8 rev – Draft Calendar for the implementation of the Emerald Network of Areas of Special Conservation Interest 2011-2020

                                      T-PVS/PA (2010) 12 – Draft criteria for assessing the National Lists of proposed Areas of Special Conservation Interest and procedure for examining and approving Emerald candidate sites

                                      T-PVS/PA (2010) 2 – Draft Information form for species and habitats to be integrated in the Bern Convention Annexes and Resolutions

                                      T-PVS/PA (2010) 10 – Draft Revised Annex I of Resolution 4 (1996) of the Bern Convention using the EUNIS Habitat Classification

                                      T-PVS/PA (2010) 14 - Revised Biogeographical regions’ map

The Secretariat informed on the work undertaken on the setting-up of the Emerald Network in seven Central and Eastern European countries, and the South Caucasus, through a 3-year Joint EU/CoE Programme implemented since 2009. The Secretariat stressed that all project activities have so far taken place within the time schedule and budget allocations, and that data delivered in 2010 reveal that participating countries are on track to achieve their respective objectives by the end of 2011. Increased cooperation with the EEA and ETC/BD has allowed for the electronic delivery of data through the Central Data Repository.

The Secretariat further informed on the results of an Emerald pilot project carried out in Morocco, with the financial contribution of Monaco, aimed at identifying 10% of the potential Emerald sites for the country. The project was completed on time and the data delivered are consistent. The Secretariat appealed to all contracting parties to contribute to the continuation of this project in Morocco, with a perspective of covering the Maghreb region overall.

The Secretariat reported on the status of co-operation with the EEA, focussing on future steps for the scientific assessment of the proposed Emerald sites at national level as well as informing on the preparation of the biogeographical seminars scheduled for 2011.

The delegate of the European Union expressed the full support of the EU towards the Emerald Network, and insisted on the need to allocate adequate resources to its implementation.

The consultant for the Emerald Network, Mr Marc Roekaerts, introduced the draft “Calendar for the implementation of the Emerald Network 2011-2020”, which details the different steps to be undertaken for the completion of the Network by 2020, including the strategic issues to be dealt with.

The delegate of Norway brought his country’s support to the Emerald process, noting the need for clear criteria for the assessment and nomination of the Emerald sites.

The representative of ETC/BD, Ms Dominique Richard, presented the “Draft criteria for assessing the National Lists of proposed Areas of Special Conservation Interest and the procedure for examining and approving Emerald candidate sites”, stressing that major efforts have been done to ensure harmonisation between the Emerald and the Natura 2000 process.

Ms Richard insisted on the fact that phase II of the setting-up of the Emerald Network is an iterative process and that it will call for a significant amount of human resources. She informed that the EEA disposes now of some funds under the European Neighbourhood Policy Instruments funds, although these are not directly allocated to biodiversity issues. She thus called on the Standing Committee to encourage the EEA to release part of these funds for the work to be carried out under the Emerald Network.

Mr Roekaerts further presented the draft revised Annex I of Resolution No.4 (1996) of the Bern Convention, stressing that this consists in a “translation” of the existing units of Resolution No. 4 (1996) from the Palearctic Habitat classification system to the EUNIS one. The adoption of the EUNIS habitat classification will enable to update Resolution No. 4 (1996) in the future by relying to an officially established organism who could easily integrate new habitat types, while providing a common vocabulary on habitats for the European continent. EUNIS could also be an effective tool to further develop the marine areas.

The consultant continued by introducing the draft information form for species and habitats, as well as the updated Map of biogeographical regions for the European continent. Regarding the latter, the Committee requested to the Group of Experts on Protected Areas to consider the possible extension of the EU-Marine regions map to the seas of the European continent

The delegate from France expressed the support of her country to the Emerald related activities, calling for the 27 EU member States support to the EEA and the ETC/BD in their implication towards the completion of the Emerald Network.

The representative of BirdLife noted that, when the evaluation of proposed sites is at stake, the biogeographical methodology could not be a suitable approach for birds. He suggested using the flyway approach when providing guidance on the evaluation of sites; he further noted that it would be important to make a clear reference to Important Bird Areas in the identification process.

The delegate of Slovakia welcomed the harmonisation of the Emerald and Natura 2000 processes, which is speeded up through the documents proposed for adoption. She insisted on the need to adequately financing the setting-up of the Network, as well as to adopt appropriate management guidelines.

The Committee further decided to ask the GoEPAEN to study the possible extension of the EU-marine regions’ map to the pan-European region.

Decision: The Committee took note of the report of the Group of Experts as well as of the activities proposed for 2011. It welcomed the preliminary outcomes of the CoE / EU Joint Programme for the setting-up of the Emerald Network in seven Central and Eastern European countries and South Caucasus, and congratulated the authorities of Morocco for the completion of the national Emerald pilot project.

The Committee further endorsed the proposed calendar for the implementation of the Emerald Network of Areas of Special Conservation Interest 2011-2020, as well as the updated Map of biogeographical regions for the European continent, and agreed to establish the status of “official candidate sites” for proposed Emerald sites delivered to the Secretariat.

The Committee adopted the following documents:

-             Criteria for assessing the National Lists of proposed Areas of Special Conservation Interest and the procedure for examining and approving Emerald candidate sites (appendix 11 to this document);

-             Information form for species and habitats to be integrated in the Bern Convention Annexes and Resolutions (appendix 12 to this document);

-             Revised Annex I of Resolution 4 (1996) of the Bern Convention (appendix 13 to this document)

Furthermore, the Committee expressed its full support to the EEA with regards to the cooperation with the Council of Europe, as well as in its work towards EUNIS updates; it encouraged ETC/BD’s commitment towards future updates of the EUNIS system in the light of the progress made within the Emerald Network. The Director of the ETC/BD, Ms Dominique Richard, ensured the Standing Committee of the strong commitment from EEA and ETC/BD towards making full use of progress achieved the Emerald Network process when updating the EUNIS classification system, as well as in other relevant aspects of their work.

c.                European Diploma of Protected Areas: review of the draft resolution concerning the renewal of the European Diploma of Protected Areas awarded to the Bílé Karpaty Protected Landscape Area (Czech Republic)

Relevant documents:     T-PVS/DE (2010) 16 Report of the meeting of the Group of Specialists of the European Diploma of Protected Areas (Strasbourg, 4-5 March 2010)

                                      T-PVS/Inf (2010) 17 - Renewals of the European Diploma of Protected Areas in 2010 – Adopted texts

                                    T-PVS/DE (2010) 17 - Draft Revised Resolution on the renewal of the European Diploma of Protected Areas to the Bílé Karpaty Protected Landscape Area (Czech Republic)

       The Secretariat presented the main results of the meeting of the Group of Specialists for the European Diploma of Protected Areas on 4 and 5 March 2010.

       The application from the Sumava National Park (Czech Republic) was welcomed.

       The Group had examined the reports from various on-site visits and draft Resolutions on the renewal of the European Diploma relating to 18 sites. These draft Resolutions had been adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 16 September, apart from the Resolution on the Bílé Karpaty Protected Landscape Area, as the Rapporteur Group on Education, Culture, Sport, Youth and Environment (GR-C) had decided to refer it back to the Standing Committee for more detailed examination in accordance with the Czech authorities’ request.

       The Group had also taken note of the 70 annual reports on sites with diplomas. In relation to the two non-renewals of the European Diploma in respect of Bialowieza (Poland) and Belovezhskaya Pushcha (Belarus), it had been informed of the findings of the peer review of the Belovezhskaya Pushcha Park management plan and progress on the Bialowieza management plan, which was being finalised. It had proposed to organise a joint visit with UNESCO in 2011 but, in the meantime, to stand by its decision, taken in 2007, not to renew the diploma.

       The Secretariat said that the European Diploma had been presented by the Chair of the Group, Mr Michael Usher, to the Central Balkan National Park at a ceremony in Gabrow (Bulgaria) on 22 May.

Decision: The Committee took note of the report of the meeting of the Group of Specialists and welcomed the application from the Sumava National Partk (Czech Republic).

        The Secretariat informed the Committee on the decision of the Rapporteur Group on Education, Culture, Sport, Youth and Environment (GR-C) to refer back to the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention the draft resolution concerning the renewal of the European Diploma of Protected Areas awarded to Bile Karpaty Protected Landscape Area (Czech Republic) for further discussion following the request of the Czech authorities. Furthermore, the Secretariat informed the Committee than 17 other Resolutions for the renewal of the Diploma were adopted by the Committee of Ministers.

        The Committee examined the proposed draft Resolution on the renewal of the European Diploma of Protected areas to the Bile Karpaty Protected Landscape Area and decided to forward it to the Committee of Ministers for adoption.


Concerning the non-renewal of the European Diploma of Protected Areas to the Belovezhskaya Pushcha National Park (Belarus) and Bialowieza National Park (Poland) the Committee approved the proposal made by the Group to organise in 2011 a joint visit with UNESCO to analyse the content of the management plan of the Bialowieza National Park and the implementation of the plan for Belovezhskaya Pushcha National Park.

Part v – Monitoring of specific sites and populations

6.       Specific sites and populations

6.1     Files opened:

Ø   Ukraine: Proposed navigable waterway in the Bystroe Estuary (Danube delta)

Relevant documents:     T-PVS (2010) 2 rev - Summary of case files

This case concerns the excavation of a shipping canal in Bystroe estuary of the Danube delta in Ukraine, which is likely to affect adversely both the Ukrainian Danube Biosphere Reserve – the most important of Ukraine’s wetlands – and the whole Danube delta dynamics.

In 2004 the Standing Committee adopted Recommendation No.111 (2004) on the proposed navigable waterway through the Bystroe estuary (Danube Delta), inviting Ukraine to suspend works, except for the completion of phase 1, and not to proceed with phase 2 of the project until certain conditions were met.

      In 2008, an on-the-spot appraisal visit was carried out, including the participation of representatives from the Espoo and Ramsar Conventions, the European Commission, and Unesco.

The Standing Committee meeting in 2008 kept the file open, while expressing its satisfaction with the repealing of the final decision to proceed with phase II of the project; and welcomed the decision to carry out a proper EIA that may permit a decision compatible with Ukraine’s international obligations. The Committee noted that there were still reasons for concern; urged Ukraine to fully implement Recommendation No. 111 (2004).

In 2009, the delegate of Ukraine presented a report to the Standing Committee, highlighting Ukrainian openness and willingness to have a dialogue and fruitful co-operation with the Romanian authorities regarding this project. He further informed the Committee of the initiative to collaborate with the International Commission on the Protection of the Danube River regarding research and monitoring of the transboundary part of the Danube Delta.

The Committee welcomed the positive co-operation underway between Ukraine and Romania. However, it agreed to keep the case file open and asked Ukraine to continue to report to the next meeting of the Standing Committee in 2010.

In March 2010, the European Union informed the Council of Europe that Ukraine adopted a final decision on the project at the end of January 2010. Ukraine decided to start works related to the full-scale implementation of the Danube-Black Sea Navigation Route, thus initiating the implementation of Phase II of the Bistroe Channel project.

       The Secretariat asked Ukrainian authorities to inform on the issue; however, the national report was only sent on 1st December 2010.

       The delegate of Ukraine presented the government report, highlighting that consultation with all stakeholders, including public hearings, had been carried out in 2004-2009 to evaluate the project as well as its EIA before adopting the decree launching Phase II of the project was adopted. He stressed that the authorities had examined ten alternative variants routes for the navigation before choosing the Bystroe estuary. He further stressed that the management plan for the Danube Biosphere Reserve was adopted by decree in October 2010. Pursuant to item 10 of the Recommendation 111 of the Standing Committee, adopted on 3 December 2004, regarding the Trilateral Agreement for the Creation and Management of a Cross-boarder Protected Area between Moldova, Romania and Ukraine in the Danube Delta and the Lower River Prut, the delegate of Ukraine has reminded to the Committee on the necessity to hold under the umbrella of the Council of Europe a meeting of States Signatories of the Agreement in order to discuss relevant matters concerning this and other issues dealt within the Agreement. He concluded his presentation by affirming that Ukraine considers having implemented all the requirements of the Recommendation No. 111 (2004) and thus requested the file to be closed. He proposed to organise a trilateral meeting of the concerned parties, under the auspices of the Council of Europe, for establishing an ad hoc working group on the elaboration of joint measures for the conservation of the species and habitats protected by the Bern Convention in the Danube delta area.

      The delegate of Romania noted that the late presentation of the report of the Ukrainian authorities left insufficient time for a meaningful analysis as well as for a comprehensive reply from the Romanian side. He highlighted that Ukraine has failed to comply with its obligations under the Espoo Convention, and has shown disregard for the decisions of the meetings of the State Parties to that Convention. The delegate further pointed out that the authorities of Ukraine have failed to inform Romania about the developments and implementation of the project. In addition, he noted that the EIA prepared by Ukraine is focused on the impacts on the Ukrainian side of the Delta, while disregarding the transboundary dimension of the project; he stressed that Romania has repeatedly informed the authorities of Ukraine about the persistence of important gaps in the EIA. The delegate highlighted the risk of a supplementary flux of sediment which will occur in extremely sensitive areas like Musura and Stambulul Vechi branches, as a result of massive dredging as well as of the construction of the flowing guide dam. He also mentioned that the Romanian authorities had tried again to convene in Romania, in mid-December 2010, the first meeting of the Trilateral Commission established under the Agreement mentioned above, but the Ukrainian authorities had asked for a postponement of such meeting for the first semester of 2011. In conclusion, the delegate of Romania recalled the will to host such a meeting in the first semester of 2011, and asked the Standing Committee to keep the file open and continue its follow-up, in co-operation with other international instruments.

          The delegate of the European Union expressed its full support to the proposal made by Romania requesting the file to be kept open.

Decision: The Committee took note of the report of Ukrainian authorities as well as of comments from other Parties, noting that the national report has been submitted only on 1st December 2010 and calling for an improved and regular exchange of information with the Secretariat.

The Committee decided to keep the case file open.

The Committee agreed to the creation of a Select Group of Experts to facilitate dialogue on the issue. The Group will meet after relevant Parties and the Chair of the Standing Committee agree on the terms of reference.

Ø   Cyprus: Akamas peninsula

Relevant documents:     T-PVS (2010) 2 rev - Summary of case files

                                      T-PVS/Files (2010) 16 – Report by the Government

                                      T-PVS/Files (2010) 27 –Report by the NGOs

       This case concerns plans for the tourist development in the Peninsula of Akamas (Cyprus), with detrimental effect on an ecologically valuable area with many rare plant and animal species protected under the Bern Convention.

This case was first discussed at the 16th meeting of the Standing Committee in 1996. Two on-the-spot appraisals were carried out in 1997 and 2002 and a recommendation adopted in 1997 (Recommendation No. 63 (1997) on the conservation of the Akamas peninsula in Cyprus and, in particular, of the nesting beaches of Caretta caretta and Chelonia mydas).

In 2008, the Standing Committee kept the file open, while acknowledging progress in the preparation of the management plan. Nevertheless, the Committee asked Cyprus to send the plan as soon as it is ready, and wished that the area of Limni also gets adequate protection.

       In 2009 the Standing Committee decided to keep the file open, taking note of the observations and reports from the government and NGOs. The Committee asked Cyprus to present a report for its next meeting, to send to the Secretariat as soon as possible the management plan for Limni and the revised town planning provisions for the area as they are produced, as well as to fully implement its Recommendation No. 63 (1997) and ensure that obligations under the Convention are fulfilled.

Noting the absence of delegates from Cyprus, the Secretariat briefly summarised the government report, stressing that a part of the Akamas Peninsula has been officially proposed to integrate the Natura 2000 Network and that the final boundaries of the area, as well as the management plan, have been forwarded to the Secretariat. However, regarding the latter it was impossible to assess its content as the plan is only available in Greek. In addition, the Secretariat informed that the authorities of Cyprus are implementing a Plan for the management of the entire area of Akamas Peninsula, which includes provisions for the improvement of the infrastructure, the restriction of certain human activities taking place in the area (i.e., safari, rally, etc.), the promotion of ecotourism. With regards to the Natura 2000 area of Limni (“Polis-Gialia”), the Secretariat informed that a draft Management Plan for the Natura 2000 site has been presented to local communities in March 2010, but negotiations are still on-going. The Secretariat further informed that the European Commission recently received a complaint claiming insufficient designation and protection of the Akamas Peninsula.

The representative of Terra Cypria recalled that Recommendation No. 63 (1997) requested Akamas peninsula to be declared National Park. Instead, government proposals for the protection of Akamas have continuously been reduced and the official proposal made to the European Union hardly exceeds the already protected state forest. According to Terra Cypria this is inadequate for both a Specially Protected Area designation under the Birds Directive as well as for Sites of Community Importance under the Habitats Directive. She continued explaining that, following official complaints made by NGOs to the European Union, the European Commission is now in a pre-infringement process against Cyprus regarding the SPA proposal and is considering its actions towards the inadequacy of the SCI proposal. As for Limni, an EU Natura 2000 site, although its management plan has yet to be implemented, it will still be ineffective as the area proposed for conservation is only a narrow strip of coast. Already much disturbance occurs beyond this strip, disturbing sea turtle nesting. Given all the above, Terra Cypria proposed that there were no grounds to close the Akamas file.

The representative of MEDASSET seconded the request made by Terra Cypria.

Decision: In the absence of delegate of Cyprus the Secretariat presented the Government report. The Committe took note of the observations and reports from the NGOs and decided to keep the file open, while asking Cyprus to present a report for its next meeting, as well as to send to the Secretariat as soon as possible the translation into English of the management plan for Limni as well as to fully implement its Recommendation No. 63 (1997). The Committee asked the Secretariat to follow-up the file in close co-operation with the European Union.

Ø   Bulgaria: Wind farms in Balchik and Kaliakra –Via Pontica

Relevant documents:     T-PVS (2010) 2 rev - Summary of case files

                            T-PVS/Files (2010) 30 - Government report

                            T-PVS/Files (2010) 22 – Report by the NGO

      This case concerns the building of the first windfarms in Bulgaria, at Balchik and Kaliakra, on the Black Sea coast. The NGO is challenging the chosen sites located on the Via Pontica which is one of the main migratory routes in Europe especially for soaring birds.

       In 2004, the Standing Committee decided to open a file in order to stimulate the Bulgarian government to further implement Recommendation No. 98 (2002).

      In 2009, the delegate of Bulgaria informed the Committee that an “Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)” of Bulgaria’s Energy Strategy and National Plan for Renewable Energy Sources had been initiated in spring 2009, with meetings at expert level. Bulgaria’s Ministry of Environment and Water expressed their readiness and intention to co-operate with civil society and business representatives to achieve the necessary results and fulfil the country’s obligations for the protection of its nature and biodiversity.

The Committee thanked the delegate of Bulgaria for its updated report and decided to keep the case file open and continue to follow it up in close co-operation with the European Commission.

The delegate of Bulgaria presented the government report, informing -among others- of measures taken concerning the preventive protection of NATURA 2000 sites. Furthermore, she confirmed that no new authorisations for development in SPA Kaliakra and IBA Kaliakra have been issued in 2010. She concluded by thanking the Secretariat, as well as the European Union, for the assistance and the support in the implementation of Recommendation No. 98 (2002)

The delegate of the European Union informed that the Commission is currently monitoring windfarm developments in the region of Kaliakra and Balchik, particularly in the framework of three infringement procedures, namely on insufficient designation of Kaliakra IBA, on windfarm developments and other urbanization projects breaching the Birds Directive’s provisions, and on systematic failure to provide adequate protection to birds. However, the delegate stressed that the EU noted progress and efforts from national authorities, although she requested the case-file to be kept open for ensuring international co-ordination and support on the issue.

The representative of BirdLife noted that cumulative impacts have to be taken into account as, for instance, collisions of birds nearby protected areas are still an issue. He recognised that the government undertook positive steps, although he pointed out that the problem is far to be solved. He suggested that the case-file be kept open and asked the Standing Committee to request to the European Union to take all necessary steps to ensure the effective protection of Kaliakra.

The representative of AEWA stressed that this is a case of great concern for the Agreement since the number of turbines in the area has exponentially increased since the case-file was opened. He noted that the location of the windfarm is critical because it is on a migratory route and pointed out that the plan for the development of windfarms coincide with some critical feeding areas. He recalled that AEWA participated in the on-the-spot appraisal conducted in 2007 and that the findings showed that the case brought at a stake the existence of a few species. He offered AEWA support to the Bern Convention Secretariat for the monitoring of this case-file and asked the case to be kept open.

Decision: The Committee thanked the delegate of Bulgaria for presenting an updated report. It took note of the information provided by the Delegate of the European Union, as well as by the representatives of BirdLife and AEWA.

The Committee decided to keep the case file open and continue to follow it up in close co-operation with the European Commission, taking into account the three infringement procedures opened.

Ø   France: Habitats for the survival of the common hamster (Cricetus cricetus) in Alsace

Relevant documents:     T-PVS (2010) 2 rev - Summary of case files

                            T-PVS/Files (2010) 14 - Government report

                            T-PVS/Files (2010) 24 – Report by the NGO

In 2006, the Secretariat of the Bern Convention received a complaint from the Association “Sauvegarde Faune Sauvage” expressing its concern over the insufficient measures aimed at ensuring the maintenance of the habitats needed for the survival of the Common Hamster.

In 2007, the French authorities provided the Secretariat with information on the Action Plan for the Common hamster in Alsace (2007-2011); the preparation of the second rescue plan for the Common hamster for 2007-2013; the planned agri-environment measures for the protection of the Common hamster; and the modalities of compensation measures for farmers.

The Standing Committee decided to open a case file, the aim being not to call into question the efforts already made by the authorities, but to highlight the urgent need for action in the field, which was still insufficient.

In 2008, the French delegation reported on the concerted approach taken with the involvement of national and local authorities, NGOs and farmers, to safeguard the Common hamster of Alsace. Considering that the population is still under threat, the European Commission brought the case before the European Court of Justice in June 2009

In 2009, the delegate of France reported on the results of the measures taken within the framework of the restoration plan, including the positive attitude of farmers towards the proposals of contracts; the control of infringements, with the launching of a specific plan; and actions undertaken to give statutory value to the whole mechanism. However, the delegate pointed out that the phase of regression was over but that the situation remains precarious. The representative of the Association Sauvegarde Faune Sauvage felt that the situation is still very worrying as 387 burrows were not covered by biotope protection agreements in 2009.

The Committee decided to keep the case file open and continue to follow it up in close co-operation with the European Commission.

The French delegate announced that the situation of the species was stabilising and was even improving as a result of the application of the 2007-2011 Action Plan. The increase in numbers since 2007 showed how co-ordinated and effective the measures had been.

The findings of the prospection campaign had confirmed the presence of the common hamster in 25 different municipalities (24 in Bas-Rhin, 1 in Haut-Rhin). The target of 22% of suitable crops in protected agricultural areas (ZAPs) had been reached and there had been a significant increase in the surface area of land covered by agreements. The increase in wild populations was continuing. The species’ needs were taken into account when drawing up urban planning documents. As to public road-building projects, particularly significant compensatory measures were planned (Strasbourg western bypass and southern ring road, Piémont des Vosges expressway).

The representative of ASFS said that the policy that had been implemented had failed. Many relict populations had disappeared, not enough account was taken of species in urban planning documents and the impact of agreements with farmers was limited. He asked for the common hamster to be added to Appendix II to the Habitats Directive and for the case file to remain open.

The representative of the Study, Research and Conservation Centre for the Environment in Alsace (CERPEA) said that the figures given by the French authorities should be viewed in context and that efforts focused too much on ZAPs.

The European Commission delegate said that a hearing on this subject had been held at the European Court of Justice. The conclusions would be published in January 2011.

Decision: The Committee took note of the information presented by the delegate of France, the representatives of NGOs and the representative of the European Commission.

In light of the small size of the hamster population, as well as of the current management, the Committee decided to keep the case file open and continue to follow it up in close co-operation with the European Commission.

Ø   Italy: Eradication and trade of the American Grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis)

Relevant document:       T-PVS (2010) 2 rev - Summary of case files

      T-PVS/Files (2010) 28 - Report by the Government

This case concerns the presence of the American grey squirrel in Italy, as a serious threat for the survival of the protected native Red squirrel, and the related potential to turn the invasion of this species into a continental problem.

In 2007, the Standing Committee asked the Bureau to examine the possibility of opening a file for a possible breach of the Convention by Italy on this case. An on-the-spot appraisal was carried out in May 2008.

In 2008, the Standing Committee agreed to open a case file, and addressed a list of recommended actions to the Italian government (including monitoring, eradication, a trade ban, regional collaboration and co-operation).

In 2009 the delegate of Italy reported on progress made towards the adoption of legislative tools to control the species. The Committee welcomed progress in the conclusion of a Memorandum of Understanding among all the actors involved in the control of the species and the plans to pass legislation banning the trade on the species. Yet the Committee understood that there had been no action on the ground or legislation approved, so it decided to keep the file open and asked Italy to fully implement Recommendation No. 123 (2007) and inform the Committee and Bureau of progress.

The delegate of Italy presented the report from the government, informing that in August 2009 a Memorandum of cooperation was signed by the three concerned Regions, although this is still awaiting the signatures of the competent Provinces for entering into force. He continued by informing that the draft decree for banning the trading and keeping of the Grey squirrel is currently under discussion of the competent legal offices. He further highlighted some measures recently undertaken in the field of the control and eradication of the species, focusing on a Life+ Project, launched in September this year which is likely to contribute to solving the situation. The delegate also mentioned that, at last CITES Committee of the EU member states management authorities, Italy successfully proposed the inclusion of the Grey Squirrel in Annex B of Regulation No. 338/97, which concerns the introduction in the EU of species which are particularly dangerous to native species of flora or fauna. He concluded by asking the Standing Committee to recognize the progresses made to the case-file.

The delegate of Switzerland welcomed the progress in this case-file. However, he considered that much still remains to be done in future, and so far the measures undertaken have been only a few. He recalled that the listing of species under CITES Convention concerns the control of international trade, while in the current case-file it is the national control on domestic trade which is questioned. He suggested keeping the case file opened.

Decision: The Committee took note of the information presented by the delegate of Italy; it welcomed the information concerning a LIFE+ project which has been launched in September 2010 to provide effective tools for implementing actions aimed at the eradication of the American Grey Squirrel in the country.

However, noting that the decree concerning the banning of the trade and keeping of the American grey squirrel is not approved yet, the Committee decided to keep the file open and asked Italy to inform the Committee and the Bureau of progress made in the implementation of the LIFE+ Project and the adoption of appropriate legislative tools.

6.2  Possible files

Ø   France: Protection of the European Green Toad (Bufo viridis) in Alsace

Relevant documents:     T-PVS (2010) 2 rev - Summary of case files

                            T-PVS/Files (2010) 18 - Government report

                            T-PVS/Files (2010) 6rev – Report by the NGO

A complaint was lodged in 2006 by the Association BUFO (Association pour l’étude et la protection des amphibiens et reptiles d’Alsace) focusing on threats to the Green toad’s few remaining habitats in Alsace. It specifically targeted shortcomings in the impact studies carried out for a major bypass and urban development projects, and a project for the construction of a leisure complex.

In 2008, the French government reported that a restoration plan for the Common Spadefoot (Pelobates fuscus) and the Green toad (Bufo viridis) was under development, at the initiative of the regional authorities (DIREN Lorraine). The plan would be at the end of 2009, with specific actions starting in 2010.

In 2009, the delegate of France informed the Committee about the National Action Plan, which will pay special attention to awareness-raising.

The representative of the Association Sauvegarde Faune Sauvage stressed that the situation is highly critical for the Green toad, as out of seven sites of reproduction in the Haut-Rhin only one remains, showing that the viable population has been decimated. He asked for the opening of a file.

       The Committee took note of the information presented by the French delegate and by the NGO, and considering the very limited progress achieved, decided to treat this pending complaint as a “possible case file” at its next meeting in 2010.

      The French delegate announced that the National Action Plan was to be validated in the spring by the Ministry of Ecology. Activities had already started. Attempts to find out more about the species and consult a very wide range of stakeholders had held up the finalisation of the plan.

      The representative of the regional environment, planning and housing directorate (DREAL) said that the regional implementation of the plan would be a priority in 2011 and that all planning files were carefully monitored.

      The representative of ASFS said that the population was at threat of extinction.

      According to the representative of Societas Europaea Herpetologica (SEH), the plan was still at the drafting stage, nothing had actually been done and development projects were continuing.

Decision: The Committee took note of the information presented by the delegate of France and by the representatives of the Association Sauvegarde Faune Sauvage and Societas Europaea Herpetologica.

The Committee decided to keep the file as a possible case file as the procedure for drawing up the National Action Plan is not completed. It asked the French authorities to report at the next Bureau meeting.

Ø   Sweden: Natterjack (Bufo calamita) population on the coastal island of Smögen

Relevant documents:     T-PVS (2010) 2 rev - Summary of case files

In December 2007, the Secretariat received information from the Chair of the Bern Convention’s Group of Experts on Amphibians and Reptiles concerning the threat presented by a residential housing project in Hasselösund Väster, Smögen, to the northernmost population of the worldwide distribution of the Natterjack toad (Bufo calamita), a species listed in Appendix II of the Bern Convention.

At the 2008 meeting of the Standing Committee, the Swedish delegation informed that the decision regarding the plan for the residential housing project had been appealed to the County Administrative Board of Västra Götaland and that, in the meantime, the plan had come to a halt pending the outcome of the decision by that County Administrative Board.

In September 2009, the Swedish government reported that the County Administrative Board rejected the appeals of the Municipality’s decision, as it considered that the habitats for the Natterjack toad had been taken into account in a satisfactory manner. However, the County Administrative Board's decision has been appealed to the Swedish Government and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency awaits the decision of the Swedish Government on this issue. There is no set timeframe for the Swedish government to take a decision on the appeal. In the meantime, the plan has come to a halt and, according to the County Administration board, no exploitation has yet been started.

At the 29th meeting of the Standing Committee, the delegate of Sweden confirmed that the decision of the government on the appeal was pending and the project had been stopped in the meantime (the decision was expected in early 2010). The Standing Committee took note of the information presented by the delegation of Sweden and asked them to inform the Secretariat when the decision on the appeal will be available. It agreed to review this case in 2010 as a “possible case file”.

The Secretariat introduced the issue noting that no new information has been received in 2010.

The delegate of Sweden confirmed that there will not be a decision this year, although he stressed that the plan is not implemented and no other exploitation have taken place so far.

Decision: The Committee took note of the information presented by the Swedish delegate, namely confirming that the decision of the government on the appeal is still pending, and that the plan of a residential housing project is halted in the meantime. The Committee decided to keep the complaint as a possible file, and asked the delegation of Sweden to inform the Secretariat as soon as the decision on the appeal will be available. It agreed to review the possible case-file at the next Standing Committee meeting.


Ø   Italy: Wind farm threat to wildlife in Alta Maremma, Grosseto

Relevant documents:     T-PVS (2010) 2 rev - Summary of case files

                            T-PVS/Files (2010) 29 - Government report

                            T-PVS/Files (2010) 4 – Report by the NGO

In September 2008, the Secretariat received a complaint from the Comitato Nazionale Paesaggistico, based in the Alta Maremma region, concerning plans for a wind-farm of 6 mega turbines at Bellaria (Roccalbegna), less than 3km away from an existing 10 turbine plant in the town of Scansano (built without EIA and therefore declared illegal but still operating).  The location of the turbines at Roccalbegna would worsen the damage already caused by the turbines at Scansano, and would interrupt an important ecological corridor between the sites of the Albegna valley and those of the Trasubbie and Trasubbino.

The Bureau discussed the complaint in March 2009 and asked for more information about the status of the project and on the affected populations.

In February 2010, the NGO (CNP/Comitato Civico per Roccalbegna) reported on the status of the project, highlighting that the existing wind farms in the area are located in an IBA. The planned turbines, with masts 80 metres height and blades span of 90 metres, are to be sited less than 3 km away from the existing 10 turbines of Poggi Alti. According to the NGO report, the project presented by ENEL Green Power is largely based on data that the NGO considers distorted and misleading, as it ignores the cumulative impacts, and does not indicate the bird species present in the area, such as the Lanner. In addition WWF estimates that the project would impact a number of species protected under the Bern Convention. Finally, ISPRA, the Italian environmental research institute “proposes an unfavourable verdict to the realisation of this installation”.

Noting the lack of information available from Italian authorities in September 2010, the Bureau decided to consider the case as a possible case-file.

The delegate of Italy provided information about the existing wind farm in Scansano aiming to show it was realized in full compliance with relevant legislation – even though broadly discussed – and informed the Committee that the project of windfarms in Roccalbegna was finally rejected by the competent authorities who, after examining in deep the project proposal, didn’t deliver the necessary authorisation.

Decision: The Committee welcomed the report of Italian authorities informing that the project of the wind farms in Roccalbegna has been rejected as it didn’t receive the necessary authorisations. In the light of this information, the Committee decided to close the possible file.

6.3  On-the-spot appraisal

Ø   France: Impacts on the Hermann tortoise (Testudo hermanni) of a waste management plan (1) and  a housing project in the Var region (2): Draft Recommendation

Relevant documents:     T-PVS (2010) 2 rev - Summary of case files

                            T-PVS/Files (2010) 25 – Report of the on-the-spot appraisal

T-PVS (2010) 18 – Draft Recommendation on the Herman tortoise (Testudo hermanni) in the Var region

       (1) This case concerns a complaint received in May 2008 from Dr. Marcel Barbero, president of the Regional Scientific Committee for Natural Heritage, about the construction of a waste management plant in the Var region which would affect the population of Hermann tortoise in the commune of Cabasse, some 20 kms away from the Massif des Maures, where lie few core places for the species. Dr. Barbero informed that this area covers the only viable western population of Hermann tortoise on calcareous and calcareous-dolomite substrate, which has been decreasing for 40 years. The Regional Scientific Committee for Natural Heritage has stated that the impact study did not sample this population correctly and that data is insufficient. The effects that the construction of this waste plant could have on the population would be devastating as it would split up its habitat, affecting breeding, feeding and nesting areas and causing the total extinction of the species in this particular area.

        (2) This case concerns a complaint received in July 2008 from the association “Les amis de Ramatuelle” against a housing project (of 120 units) over 10 ha in the town of Ramatuelle (Var department) in a forested area known as “Combes Jauffret”, situated less than 2 kms away from a Natura 2000 site (the “3 Caps”), and where around 30 individuals of Hermann tortoises have been recorded (with an estimated population of 41 and a population density of 8.2 individuals per hectare) and which is also a site of reproduction (three independent inventories have bee carried out recently).

In 2009, the delegate of France reported on both complaints. Regarding the first complaint, the delegate of France considered that it has a direct link with the Recommendation No. 118 (2005) inviting the French authorities to find a feasible alternative solution to the waste storage center of Balançan, located in the heart of the Plaine des Maures. He declared that Cabasse represents a possible step for alternative solutions. The project manager has decided to reshape and reduce the size of the project and the choice of the site has been made after an impact study and significant compensatory measures have been foreseen. In the end, the Conseil national pour la protection de la nature has given a positive opinion. He stressed the Committee of his government’s genuine commitment on this matter.

Regarding the second complaint, he said that on the basis of the results of the diagnosis fauna-flora-habitats, the initial version of the project had been modified in order to delete, reduce or compensate the effects on the Hermann Tortoise. He referred to the SRU law (on urban solidarity and renewal) which imposes the obligation for the municipalities to build 20% of social housing, but at the moment no decision has been taken.

The Standing Committee had decided to organise an on the spot-appraisal in 2010 and this had been carried out on 14 and 15 June 2010. The expert, Mr Guy Berthoud, presented the findings of his appraisal visit.

Since the adoption of Recommendation No. 118 (2005), major protection measures had been introduced, particularly the creation of a national nature reserve and the publication of the National Action Plan to protect the Hermann Tortoise, knowledge about the status of the species in the Var region had evolved and a fourth facility for the storage of non-dangerous waste had been authorised at Balançan, causing further harm to the Hermann tortoise.

As to the first complaint, the Billettes site (in Cabasse) was a well-preserved priority habitat, of benefit to many protected species including the Hermann tortoise. The felling of 26 hectares of forest and the construction of a 1.7 km-long fenced-in road would increase the isolation of a population that was already partly cut off, and the compensatory measures that had been proposed did not guarantee the preservation of the species in this area. As it stood, the project should be rejected.

As to the second complaint, the Combes Jauffret housing project consisted of a plan to construct 110 homes, 70 of which would provide social housing.

After the discovery of a population of Herman tortoises on the site, the initial surface area of 18.8 hectares had been reduced to 3.3 hectares to avoid disturbance in the most sensitive areas. The project would have to be monitored very closely as it was carried out.

The expert highlighted two major problems – the intolerable predation of the species by boars and the future high-speed rail link that was to cross the Plaine des Maures.

The report contained proposals which had been partly incorporated into the draft recommendation.

The French delegate considered that Recommendation No. 118 had had a major impact. The establishment of the 5 276-hectare reserve had been a major turning point. He stressed how complex and difficult it had been at local level to find a satisfactory alternative to Balançan. The Cabasse waste landfill site project had been devised to provide a solution and if it was not implemented, it would be difficult to find an alternative.

The representative of the Societas Europaea Herpetologica welcomed the efforts made by the French authorities.

Decision: The Committee thanked the French authorities for the organisation of the visit as well as the expert for his report.

It welcomed the efforts made by the French authorities.

The Committee decided not to open a file. It adopted the following Recommendation:

·         Recommendation No. 151 (2010) on protection of the Hermann tortoise (Testudo hermanni) in the Massif des Maures and Plaine des Maures localities (Var) in France

6.4       Complaints in stand-by

Ø   France: Black Grouse (Tetrao tetrix) in Drôme and Isère

Relevant documents:     T-PVS (2010) 2 rev - Summary of case files

                            T-PVS/Files (2010) 15 – Government report

                            T-PVS/Files (2010) 32 –ONG Report

In April 2009, the association ASPAS (Association pour la Protection des Animaux Sauvages) sent a complaint to the Secretariat for the possible breach of Articles 7 and 9 of the Bern Convention by France concerning the Black Grouse (in Appendix III species) in the departments of Drôme and Isère. In particular, the complaint stated that human activities such as tourism and sport developments in mountain areas are destroying the winter and reproduction sites of this species, causing also disturbances in these areas and in their calling sites, while hunting compounds the problems for the species.

The ASPAS association reports that current population levels in France are estimated at 16000-20000 individuals, with an “unfavourable conservation status” at the national level and a strong decrease in numbers, especially in the Drôme region where estimates are at about 100 individuals. ASPAS contests the French hunting regulations, which do not favour the repopulation of Black grouse nor prevents their destruction, given the unfavourable conservation status of the species, and therefore are not in line with the Bern Convention. The NGO has also lodged a complaint to the European Commission in June 2010.

In July 2010, the French authorities submitted a report describing the monitoring of the distribution area, as well as the breeding and hunting situations. The report informs that in 2009, the regional environment, planning and housing directorate (DREAL) worked with Rhône-Alpes Region to devise and implement a regional action plan, which the OGM was asked to run. It is planned to extend it to the Region of Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur as soon as possible. The main aims of this plan are to enhance, add to and co-ordinate the conservation measures introduced in the French Alps since the beginning of the 1990s. Most of these measures were based on hunters’ ideas. Their support on the ground is essential to promote and/or facilitate the implementation of the action plan at local level, particularly outside protected areas.

The case has also been referred to the European Commission.

The French delegate reported on the state of the population of Black Grouse in France, the reduction of the distribution area of the species in the French Alps, the very thorough monitoring of the species that was carried out and the relevant hunting regulations. A hierarchical analysis of the issues had shown that other factors, of more concern than hunting, were having an impact on the species, including the reduction of habitats, leisure activities and tourism, and changes in grazing practices.

In the delegate’s view, France was not infringing the provisions of the Bern Convention.

The representative of ASPAS said that the Black Grouse population was in clear decline (by ten percent compared to the previous decade). Even if hunting was not the main reason for the decline, it was a mathematical cause of diminishing populations, not just because of kills but also because of the disturbance caused by counts. As long as hunting continued, the Black Grouse population could not be safely preserved.

Decision: The Committee took note of the information presented by the delegate of France and by the representative of ASPAS (Association pour la Protection des Animaux Sauvages) and found no ground for pursuing this complaint.

It invited French authorities to keep the Secretariat regularly informed on the situation of the species. 

Ø   Morocco: Ecological impacts of a tourism centre in Saïdia

Relevant documents:     T-PVS (2010) 2 rev - Summary of case files

                            T-PVS/Files (2010) 2 – Government report

                                      T-PVS/Files (2010) 26 – NGO report

A complaint was lodged in 2009 by the “Espace de Solidarité et de Coopération de l’Oriental” (ESCO), based in Oujda, Morocco. It related to the 4 500-hectare Moulouya estuary site, which ranks as a “zone of biological and ecological interest” (SIBE, in the French acronym), and has been a Ramsar site since 2005. The organisation denounced the huge project for a new tourist resort in Saïdia, which formed part of the country’s ‘Blue plan’ for the strategic development of the tourist industry. The project was, they claimed, devised without prior environmental impact studies and the planned infrastructure (roads, canals, water treatment plants) would damage the Ramsar site of Moulouya, which was very important for migratory bird species and hosted two thirds of Morocco’s total known bird species. The organisation had submitted a complaint to the public prosecutor at the Berkane Court of First Instance in 2006, to which it had had no response to date. They had also organised a petition to safeguard the Moulouya site, which had been signed by 680 people.

The Moroccan authorities have informed the Secretariat that this 700-hectare project along a 6 km-long beachfront lies outside the limits of the SIBE and the Ramsar site. It is part of the strategic priorities for the region’s development and was agreed to, launched and encouraged by the Government. The authorities have stressed that the studies carried out under the MedWestCoast project are completely reliable.

The Secretariat announced that a Ramsar Advisory Mission had been conducted on the site from 12 to 16 October 2010. As a result, many recommendations had been made, covering all aspects of plant and wildlife conservation.

The Moroccan delegate, who had taken part in this visit, informed the Committee that the tourist project next to the Ramsar site had indeed raised concerns but these had been dispelled as a result of the on-the-spot visit. The report was currently being validated by the Moroccan authorities but certain measures had already been taken.

Decision: The Committee took note of the information presented by the delegate of Morocco and by the Secretariat about the cooperation with the Ramsar Convention on this issue.

It instructed the Bureau to analyse the report of the consultative visit organised from 12 to 16 October 2010 in the framework of the Ramsar Convention and take appropriate decision on this issue.

6.5       Follow-up of previous Recommendations

Ø   Recommendation No. 66 (1998) on the conservation status of some nesting beaches for marine turtles in Turkey

Relevant documents:              T-PVS/Files (2010) 23 - Government report on the follow–up of Recommendation No. 66 (1998)

T-PVS/Files (2010) 8 - NGO report on the follow–up of Recommendation No. 66 (1998)

The Secretariat introduced this issue by recalling that, in 2009, the NGO MEDASSET expressed concern over the threats facing the three nesting beaches for the Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) in Fethiye (Turkey), due to development plans, mainly for tourism purposes, with a consequent destruction of nesting beaches despite the fact that the whole bay is a SPA under the Barcelona Convention, as well as one of the most important nesting sites in Turkey.

In Recommendation No. 66 (1998) on the conservation status of some nesting beaches for marine turtles in Turkey, the Standing Committee asked the Turkish government to “secure the remaining unbuilt beach plots against development” in Fethiye. The Secretariat informed that in June 2010 the Environmental Protection Agency for Special Areas (EPASA) submitted a report informing on several progress made to protect the area as well as to devise and implement appropriate management measures to cushion the impact of various economic activities such as tourism, fish farming, transport, mining and agriculture, including a comprehensive biological monitoring survey as well as consultation with various stakeholders.

The representative of MEDASSET informed the Meeting about unsuccessful nesting attempts by turtles and hatchling disorientation incidents, the severe decline of nesting due to human impacts and the authorities' intention to allow further development on the last remaining wetlands for the construction of a shipyard next to Akgöl nesting beach, which would permanently destroy this key area for turtles. She continued by informing that MEDASSET's short film on the appalling situation on the nesting beaches was shown at the 30th Annual International Sea Turtle Symposium in Goa, in April 2010, and was also sent to all relevant Turkish Authorities, international tour operators, the press, local hotels, etc. Further filming of the nesting beaches will take place in 2011 in order to compare the situation to that recorded in 2009.

The representative of MEDASSET further informed about worries concerning highly toxic solid waste sitting in Kazanli beacu, one of the most important green turtle nesting beaches.

The Chair reminded that the Kazanli case was not on the agenda of this year meeting and suggested to the representative of MEDASSET to keep the Secretariat informed.

The delegate of Turkey informed that the EPASA orgnised several meetings in Fethiye, convening all relevant stakeholders, to examine possible problems and suggest solutions. He underlined that the Action Plan developed for the area will be fully implemented in 2011.

Ø   Recommendation No. 98 (2002) on the project to build a motorway through the Kresna Gorge (Bulgaria)

Relevant documents:     T-PVS/Files (2010) 31 - Government report on the follow–up of Recommendation No. 98 (2002)

The Secretariat summarised this recommendation, recalling that a complaint concerning a planned motorway crossing an area of high biological diversity was examined by the Standing Committee in 2002, leading to the adoption of Recommendation 98 (2002) “on the project to build a motorway through the Kresna Gorge (Bulgaria)”. The Standing Committee invited the Bulgarian government to abandon the plans to enlarge the current road and look for more suitable alternatives, compatible with Bern Convention obligations.

In 2008 the delegate from Bulgaria informed that the Minister of environment and water issued an EIA Decision containing specific conditions, aiming protection of the biota of the region and decreasing the habitat fragmentation.

At last year Standing Committee meeting the Bulgarian authorities informed that a decision to design the road-bed in West direction, out of the gorge had been taken, although the final technical project for the alternative road bed had not been prepared yet. The Standing Committee welcomed the positive news and agreed to close this case file, asking the Government of Bulgaria to report to the Standing Committee at its next meeting.

The delegate of Bulgaria informed the Committee that in 2010 there were no substantial changes in the situation and that a final decision for an alternative route for the Strouma Motorway in the section of the Kresna Gorge has not been officially taken yet.

The representative of BirdLife noted highlighted important delays in the overall construction of road infrastructure in the country which, according to him, push Bulgarian authorities to speed up the construction of priority road projects in order not to lose EU funds; he expressed concerns for the situation as well as for the risk that commitments could be ignored in the future. He asked the Bureau to continue monitoring the implementation of this recommendation.

Ø   Recommendation No. 113 (2004) on military antenna in the Sovereign Base Area of Akrotiri (Cyprus)

Relevant documents:     T-PVS/Files (2010) 17 - Government report on the follow-up of Recommendation No. 113 (2004)

T-PVS/Files (2010) 20 - NGO report on the follow-up of Recommendation No. 113 (2004)

This Recommendation has been reviewed by the Standing Committee several times. In 2009 the UK government reported on each of the recommendations adopted in 2004, addressing bird collision monitoring; consultations on a management plan for Akrotiri wetlands; the delays and change of approach in the designation process for SPAs and SACs; and the Akrotiri Environmental Education and Information Centre.

At the same time, Birdlife Cyprus reported that although there has been systematic monitoring of bird movements at the antenna site, significant gaps still remained. Among the priority actions, Birdlife Cyprus, as well as Terra Cypria, called for the prompt nomination of the area as the equivalent of a Natura site and to ensure that the designation is in place before further interventions occur. In addition, the NGO reported on a number of turtle deaths on the Akrotiri/Episcopi coasts, and on the negative impact of too permissive regulations regarding fishing nets

The delegate of UK shared concerns for the high rates of turtle deaths in 2009 and expressed her interest to work with fishermen to improve the situation for the next breeding season.

Apologising the absence of the delegate from UK, the Secretariat informed the Committee that, in July 2010, the UK government sent an updated report informing that bird collision studies including the last flight path survey should be undertaken between September 2010 and November 2010, and that the evaluation of data would be carried out in cooperation with the other stakeholders.

With regards to paragraph 2 of the recommendation, the UK government suggested to close the item as the Pluto EIA concluded that there was no evidence from which one could predict significant effects of EM radiation on bird.

In addition, the government informed that Akrotiri Wetlands candidate SPA had been formally designated in April 2010, as well as Akrotiri Cliffs and Episkopi cliffs candidate SPAs; the SBA Administration intends to designate SACs in the near future. The report highlights the continuing trend of water reduction in all Akrotiri wetlands. It also provides additional information on the activities carried out by the Akrotiri Environmental Education and Information Centre.

For what concerns marine turtle conservation, the UK government informs that the Administration launched, in May 2010, a survey to address the issue of the high number of dead turtles washing up on SBA beaches which should have been finalised in November 2010.

The representative of BirdLife welcomed the designation of most of Akrotiri peninsula as the equivalent of a NATURA 2000 site as well as the recent appointment of an officer to move the management process forward. However, BirdLife still considered that progress is slow, and emphasize that none of the many development projects proposed for inside or around the Akrotiri SPA (road building, solar plants, wind power plants or golf courses) should be considered until after the management plan has been drawn up.

The representative of BirdLife thus called the Committee to urge the British Sovereign Base Area Administration (SBAA) for the immediate completion and swift implementation of a comprehensive management plan for the Akrotiri SPA, as well as for the strict implementation of ‘appropriate assessment’ procedures for all proposed developments and for a renewed effort to fully assess and take mitigation measures for the bird strike risk posed by the Antenna installations. He stressed that, although a Management Plan is a good tool for engaging local communities and to taking into account social and economic circumstances, this should not be at the detriment of the conservation objectives of the site. Finally, he formulated a warning in relation to the proposal for a massive solar power plant on the Akrotiri peninsula. According to BirdLife such a project, with its sizeable impact on habitats, should not pass the first screening stage of a proper assessment and should be rejected as early as possible to avoid building up developers’ hopes.

The representative of Terra Cypria welcomed the comprehensiveness of the UK authorities report despite some reservations on the optimism expressed. She informed the Committee that important policy changes are happening in the British Base, since this is now opening-up to non military developments and is consequently subject to increasing pressure. The position of the NGO is that the SBA should first designate the quasi-Natura 2000 sites, then install management plans and finally consider the compatibility of development projects. Referring to the high turtle mortality rates, which is dramatically increasing, the representative of Terra Cypria considered that the SBA has now sufficient evidence for implementing appropriate protective measures. She stressed that there had been 20 deaths in 2008, 26 in 2009 and 32 in 2010 with most victims found entangled in fishing nets. She concluded by confirming the will of the NGOs concerned to continue the negotiations process with the SBA in the coming months and years, and asked the Standing Committee to continue monitoring the situation.

The representative of MEDASSET took the floor to convey on concern regarding fisheries interaction with turtles in Episkopi (Cyprus), an area which includes nesting beaches and foraging areas of both loggerhead and green turtles, and which is under the authority of the SBA. She explained that the annual number of dead loggerhead and green turtles, due to intentional clubbing or net entanglement, has risen to unsustainable levels. MEDASSET's representative reminded the Committee that as only about 350 breeding green turtles remain in the Mediterranean, the death toll of 48 subadult green turtles in Episkopi since 2008 is alarming and should be taken under immediate consideration by the Cyprus Authorities, the SBA and the leaders of the green turtle conservation project in Lara.

Ø   Recommendation No. 137 (2008) on population level management of large carnivore populations

Relevant documents:              T-PVS/Files (2010) 12 - Governments’ reports on the follow-up of Recommendation No. 137 (2008)

The Secretariat informed that a compilation of national reports has been prepared in 2010 following the reports received by 12 Contracting Parties, including the European Union. Contracting Parties have mainly reported on management plans and monitoring, as well as measures for protection and conservation, and in some cases they put forward examples of transboundary cooperation in the management of the species (for instance between Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia and Herzegovina; Italy, France and Switzerland in the West Alps, or France, Spain and Andorra).

The delegate of Serbia raised the attention on the report from her authorities, emphasizing the good co-operation with the NGOs for the management on brown bears.

Conclusion: The Committee took note of the information presented on the four recommendations above, welcomed the comments made, and informed that these will be reflected in the meeting report.

Ø   Recommendation No. 144 (2009) of the Standing Committee, on the wind park in Smøla (Norway) and other wind farm developments in Norway

Relevant documents:              T-PVS/ Files (2010) 33 - Government report on the follow–up of Recommendation No. 144 (2009)

       The Secretariat recalled that the Standing Committee, at its 29th meeting, decided not to open a case file following a complaint lodged in 2001, concerning the establishment of two wind farm complexes in the Archipelago of Smøla, in an area of importance for the nesting of White-tailed Eagles and other species. The Committee adopted Recommendation No. 144 (2009) on the wind park in Smøla (Norway) and asked the government of Norway to report on its implementation at the next meeting of the Standing Committee.

       The delegate of Norway presented the national report on the implementation of the Recommendation, including information on the EIA regulation with regards to wind-farms projects; on a coordinated licensing process for addressing cumulative effects, as well as on conservation policies. She emphasized that the population trends as regards white-tailed eagle are positive on Smøla as well as in Norway, and that the species could by now comprise more that 3000 pairs (in Norway). She noted that all the successful breeding on Smøla in 2010 took place outside the wind farm area. She further informed that the research project on windfarm power generation and birds launched in 2007 is expected to be completed next year. As part of this project a large international conference will take place on 2-5 May 2011 in Trondheim(Norway), on wind energy and wildlife impacts, including debates on challenges and solutions. She proposed to invite one of the scientists involved in the research programme to present its findings at the next Standing Committee meeting. She concluded by informing on administrative procedures.

       The representative of BirdLife informed the Committee on some gaps in the government report, highlighted by the Norwegian Society of Ornithology. The gaps concern information on the mortality caused directly by the windfarm. He noted that losses have been increasing if compared with previous years. He appreciated the research presented in the national report, noting however that only few information are provided on the cumulative impact.

       The delegate of Norway explained that the mortality figures are public and correspond to 9 fatal collisions accidents for white-tailed eagles in 2008, seven in 2009 and ten in 2010. She confirmed that these figures are source of concern for the authorities and that they constitute a worrying trend but argued that the population of white-tailed eagles in Smola is increasing and that this increase is likely to be reflected in the mortality numbers.

Decision: The Committee welcomed the reporting from Norway on the Recommendation No. 144 (2009) on the wind park in Smøla (Norway) and other wind farm developments in Norway, as well as the proposal from the Norwegian delegate to present the findings of the related on-going research project at next year Standing Committee meeting, once the project will be finalised. The Committee thus decided to review Recommendation No. 144 (2009) at next Standing Committee meeting.

Ø    Recommendation No. 110 (2004) on minimising adverse effects of above-ground electricity transmission facilities (power lines) on birds

Relevant documents:     T-PVS/Files (2010) 11 - Governments’ reports on the follow-up of Recommendation No. 110 (2004)

                                      T-PVS/Files (2010) 21 – Report of the NGO

       In 2009, the Standing Committee recognised that this is an important issue which requires further follow-up and agreed to include this topic in its 2010 meeting agenda, with a view to discussing a draft recommendation on the basis of the information and assessments received.

       A compilation of national reports has been prepared in 2010 (document TPVS/Files (2010) 11) following the reports received by 14 Contracting Parties. The NGO report from 2009 has been reviewed in 2010 (T-PVS/Files (2010) 13), including recommendations to expedite the work in Western and Central Europe, avoid new legacy of dangerous power poles in Eastern Europe and raise awareness for avoiding electrocution in Northern Europe. The NGO report also suggests to temporarily introduce a bi-annual reporting system to collect regular update on progress made in the implementation of the recommendation. A decision on the issue could be eventually taken by the Standing Committee at its 30th meeting.

       The representative of the NGO presented the updated report, focussing on its recommendations.

       The delegate of Serbia informed that the country will forward to the Secretariat an updated report because since the last one in June there has been important progress in the adoption of binding legislative instruments which can be considered as examples of good practices. Serbia will also report on steps regarding the co-operation with the energy sector for the construction of new poles and the installation of isolated conductors reducing electrocution.

       The representative of Birdlife highlighted that the issue is not controversial but a technical one. He informed that BirdLife is preparing a European conference on this topic, to be held in April in 2011 and hosted by the Hungarian national electricity company under the Hungarian Presidency of the European Union. The conference will be a high level event focussing on banning the use of dangerous power lines.

       The delegate of Hungary expressed his country’s support to all initiatives aimed at avoiding electrocution of birds and invited contracting parties to attend the European conference in April.

       The delegate of Germany informed on the successful experience of German authorities to tackle this issue and explained that there are several solutions which are not necessarily expensive. He offered his country’s assistance to other contracting parties to share the examples of good practices contained in the national guidance on the “Protection of Birds on Powerlines” as well as to present them at next Standing Committee meeting. 

       The representative of AEWA stressed the leading experience of the Bern Convention in combating electrocution of birds and recalled that the progress made in this sense will be taken into consideration by the initiatives undertaken under the CMS and AEWA initiative.

       The delegate of the Czech Republic informed that the country did great efforts to prevent electrocution of birds and the problem is starting to be solved. However, this was a long process which would benefit from sharing solutions and good practices. He expressed his support for the initiative of Hungary and concluded by stressing that it would be important to set clear deadlines for the implementation of the Recommendation.

       The delegate of “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” expressed support for initiatives aimed at exchanging information and breaking isolation and highlighted that the impact assessment for birds is compulsory for energy companies in his country.

       The delegate of Norway expressed concerns regarding the NGO’s recommendation of introducing a temporarily two-years reporting system.

       The delegate of Slovakia suggested that it would be good to have a catalogue of good examples to be inspired on, as well as to introduce a ban on dangerous power-poles through national legislation. She stressed that solving the problem of electrocution is a long process demanding time and capacity to tackle two different issues: the one of the new poles and the one of securing the old powerpoles.

Decision: The Committee discussed the implementation of Recommendation No. 110 (2004) on minimising adverse effects of above-ground electricity transmission facilities (power lines) on birds, and the report prepared by BirdLife International for the Council of Europe, noting that electrocution on powerlines continues to be one of the main causes for severe losses in population, and that a number of countries have issued or are in the process of finalising their technical standards of suitable and proven mitigation methods (for existing power poles) and of new power pole configurations which are safe for birds by design.

The Committee reiterated the need to develop and implement, or reinforce, as appropriate the work aimed at improving technical standards, and to adopt mitigation measures and encouraged the dissemination of technical and ornithological research related to bird safety.

The Committee welcomed the proposal from the delegate of Germany to disseminate and present at next Standing Committee meeting the national guidance document including examples of best practices. 

The Committee finally asked the Bureau to analyse the recommendations included in the updated NGO report, particularly with regards to the proposal of introducing a temporarily reporting requirement on a 2-years follow-up basis on progress made towards the effective implementation of Recommendation 110 (2004).

Part VI – Strategic development of the Convention

7.           Strategic development of the Convention

7.1     European Conference on “Post-2010 vision and targets: The role of Protected Areas and Ecological Networks” (Madrid, 25-27 January 2010)

Relevant documents:     T-PVS/Inf (2010) 1 – Conclusions of the Madrid Conference

The delegate of Spain informed the Standing Committee of the success of the Madrid “Conference post 2010 vision and target”, attended by nearly 500 people including two ministers and nine secretaries of State. The Conference had seen the presentation of a European Commission communication including options for a European Union biodiversity target for post 2010, had “chair conclusion” (Cibeles declaration) to guide European dialogue for CBD-COP10 and proposed action on conservation and management of European ecological networks.

Conclusion: The Spanish delegate presented the main outcomes of the Conference. The Committee took note of the information and welcomed the co-operation between the Spanish Presidency of the European Union and the Swiss Presidency of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers.


7.2     Implementation of CBD COP-10 decisions: re-enforcing the role of the Convention in implementing 2020 Biodiversity targets in Europe

       The Secretariat presented the main decision of COP-10 of the Convention on Biological Diversity as expressed in the CBD Strategic Plan for the post-2010 period. It was important to take into account decisions in Nagoya and new orientations of the CBD to make the Convention more relevant as regional instrument to implement some obligations of the CBD. It could be useful to examine some targets (for instance target 5 on rate of loss of natural habitat, target 9 on IAS, target 10 on ecosystems impacted by climate change, target 11 on Protected Areas or target 12 on threatened species) to see whether it was feasible to agree to more specific European targets.

       The Vice-Chair, Mr Jan Plesnik, explained the status and some of the 47 decisions adopted by COP-10 of CBD and said that it was important to work nationally and regionally in the implementation these targets. For instance, there is commitment to protect 17 % of land and 10 % of coastal and marine areas as protected areas. The Convention could play a role in the achievement of those targets and their monitoring. Europe should be ambitious enough to set ambitious targets, for instance concerning loss of national habitats and in prevention of species. The decisions at CBD were very relevant for governments and international organisations so as to better focus European conservation work.

       Norway, the European Union and Serbia welcomed the idea of setting targets for the Bern Convention and offered their support and collaboration to the Convention and its Secretariat to foster this work so the increase the role and profile of the Convention as a regional pan-European instrument to implement relevant aspects of the commitments taken at Nagoya.

Decision: The Committee welcomed the ongoing co-operation with the CBD and the information provided by the Secretariat and the Vice-Chair on COP-10 of CBD.

The Committee took note of the willing expressed by the European Union to collaborate with the Secretariat and the Bureau in reinforcing the role of the Bern Convention in the implementation of the CBD Cop 10 decisions in Europe.

The Committee instructed the Bureau to examine carefully the CBD Strategic Plan for the post-2010 period in view of possibly setting European Targets for 2020 regarding some issues of special concern for the Convention. The Bureau is invited to propose activities that may help implement the CBD in the territory of the Convention, thus contributing to play a regional role in its implementation of CBD.

7.3         Presentation of the Council of Europe Declaration “Working together for Biodiversity: protection of natural areas and the fight against climate change”

      The representative of the Conference of the INGOs of the Council of Europe, Ms Edith Wenger, informed about the European Biodiversity Day, held on 28 April 2010 to mark the 2010 International Year of Biodiversity, organised by the Conference of INGOs, in cooperation with the Parliamentary Assembly and the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities. To underscore their common objectives, the three bodies signed a Joint Declaration entitled “Working together for Biodiversity, Protection of Natural Areas and the Fight against Climate Change”. By signing this declaration, the three bodies committed themselves to pursuing their action at Pan-European level to improve the state of biodiversity, protect natural areas, and fight against climate change. They particularly called on governments to recognize the right to a healthy environment as an integral part of human rights, as well as provide appropriate funding for policies and practical measures to protect and improve biodiversity.

      The delegate of “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” expressed support both for the work of the Bern Convention and for the declaration “Working together for Biodiversity”, especially in view of the forthcoming presidency of “the former Yugoslav Repulic of Macedonia” of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers.


Conclusion: The Committee took note of the Declaration “Working together for Biodiversity”, welcomed the offer by the delegate of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” to support the Declaration during the forthcoming presidency of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, and praised the common work by the different bodies of the Council of Europe in the field of biodiversity, protected areas and climate change.

7.4         Draft Programme of Activities for 2011

Relevant documents:     T-PVS (2010) 5 – Draft Programme of Activities

       The Secretariat presented a proposal of activities for the year 2010, prepared following discussions by the Bureau.

       The Bureau will hold a discussion on the structure of the Standing Committee meeting in order to set out a draft agenda which ensures that enough time is devoted to targeted items.

Decision: The Committee examined, amended and adopted the Programme of Activities for 2011.

7.5    States to be invited as observers to the 31st meeting

Decision: The Committee decided unanimously to invite the following States to attend its 31st meeting: the Russian Federation, San Marino, Algeria, Belarus, Cape Verde, Holy See, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mauritania, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

Part VII - Other items

8.               Election of Chair and Vice-Chair and Bureau members

     In accordance with Article 18(e) of the Rules of Procedure “The Chair, Vice-Chair and two additional Bureau members shall be elected at the end of each meeting. They shall execute their respective terms of office from their election onwards until the end of the meeting following the meeting where they were elected. Their terms of office may be renewed, but the total length of term of office shall not exceed four years or, as appropriate, the end of the first meeting following the expiry of this period of four years ([T-PVS (2009) 16]).

       The Committee elected Mr Jan Plesnik (Czech Republic) as Chair.

       The Committee elected Mr Olivier Biber (Switzerland) as Vice-Chair.

       The Committee elected Mr Jón Gunnar Ottósson (Iceland); Mr Silviu Megan (Romania) and Ms Snezana Prokic (Serbia) as Bureau members.

9.           Date and place of the 31st  meeting, adoption of the report

        The Committee decided on the date and place of its 31st meeting: 29 November – 2 December 2011, in Strasbourg.

10.         Adoption of the main decisions of the meeting

The Chair presented the draft document with the list of decisions from this meeting, including the draft recommendations and all the draft texts for adoption.

The Committee adopted the main decisions of the meeting.

The Secretariat informed the Committee that the report of the meeting would be prepared the following week and sent to the Chair for comments. After a week, the report will be finalised and sent to be translated into French.

In accordance with Article 15 of the Convention, the meeting report including adopted texts will be forwarded to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

11.         Other business (items for information only)

None were raised


APPENDICES TO THE REPORT

Appendix 1     List of participants

Appendix 2     Agenda

Appendix 3     Recommendation No. 145 (2010) on guidance for Parties on biodiversity and climate change in mountain regions

Appendix 4     Recommendation No. 146 (2010) on guidance for Parties on biodiversity and climate change in European islands

Appendix 5     Recommendation No. 147 (2010) on guidance for Parties on wildland fires, biodiversity and climate change

Appendix 6     Recommendation No. 148 (2010) on the conservation of large carnivores in the Caucasus

Appendix 7     Recommendation No. 149 (2010) on the eradication of the Ruddy Duck (Oxyura jamaicensis) in the Western Palaearctic

Appendix 8     Recommendation No. 150 (2010) on the European Charter on Recreational fishing and Biodiversity

Appendix 9     Recommendation No. 151 (2010) on protection of the Hermann tortoise (Testudo hermanni) in the Massif des Maures and Plaine des Maures localities (Var) in France

Appendix 10    Revised Resolution on the renewal of the European Diploma of Protected Areas awarded to the Bílé Karpaty Protected Landscape Area (Czech Republic)

Appendix 11   Criteria for assessing the National Lists of proposed Areas of Special Conservation Interest (ASCIs) at biogeographical level and procedure for examining and approving Emerald candidate sites

Appendix 12   Information Form for Species or Habitats

Appendix 13   Revised Annex I of Resolution 4 (1996) of the Bern Convention on endangered natural habitat types using EUNIS habitat classification

Appendix 14   Programme of Activities for 2011

Appendix 15   List of Parties and Observers having made voluntary contributions to the 2010 activities

Addendum     Chairman’s report


Appendix 1

List of participants

__________

I.       CONTRACTING PARTIES / PARTIES CONTRACTANTES

Albania / Albanie

Ms Elvana RAMAJ, Senior Expert, Nature Protection Policies Directorate, Ministry of the Environment, Forests & Water Administration, Rruga e Durresit, No. 27, TIRANA.

Tel: +355 69 21 21 425.   Fax: +355 4 22 70 624.   E-mail: eramaj@moe.gov.al or eramaj@hotmail.com

Armenia / Arménie

Ms Hasmik GHALACHYAN,  Phd, Head of  Plant Resources Management Division, The Ministry of Nature Protection, Agency of Bioresources Management, Government Building 3, Republic Square, YEREVAN.

Tel: :+374 580711 or +374 273890.   E-mail: hasmikghalachyan@yahoo.com

Austria / Autriche

Mr Harald GROSS, Amt der Wiener Landesregierung, Magistratsabteilung 22 – Umweltschutz, Dresdnerstraße 45, A-1200 WIEN.

Tel: +43 1 4000-73788   Fax: +43 1 4000-99 73788.   E-mail: harald.gross@wien.gv.at

Azerbaijan / Azerbaïdjan

Mr Faig SADIGOV, Manager, Division of International Cooperation, Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources, B. Aghayev Street 100 A, AZ‑1073 BAKU.

Tel: +994 4 50 501 0584.   E-mail: faig_sadigov@yahoo.com or faiq1975@mail.ru or azeri7@mail.az

Belgium / Belgique

Ms Catherine DEBRUYNE, Attachée, Service public de Wallonie - Direction générale de l’Agriculture, des Ressources naturelles et de l’Environnement (DGARNE), Département des Politiques européennes et des Accords internationaux, Direction de la Politique environnementale, Avenue Prince de Liège, 15, 5100 JAMBES

Tel: + 32 81 335 804.   Fax: +32 81 335 822.   E-mail : catherine.debruyne@spw.wallonie.be

Mr William VAN DINGENEN, Attaché to the Department European Policies and International Agreement, Directorate General for Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment (DGARNE), Avenue Prince de Liege 15, B-5100 JAMBES (NAMUR)

Tel: +32 81 335 187.  Fax : +32 81 336 510.  E-mail : william.vandingenen@spw.wallonie.be

Ms Els MARTENS, Policy Division – Coordination, Agency for Nature and Forests, Central Offices, Koning Albert II-laan 20 bus 8 te 1000 BRUSSELS

Tel. +32 2 553 76 86.   Fax +32 2 553 76 85.   E-mail: els.martens@lne.vlaanderen.be

Ms Sandrine LIEGEOIS, Attachée en charge de la cellule « Espèces », Service public de Wallonie - Direction générale de l’Agriculture, des Ressources naturelles et de l’Environnement (DGARNE), Département Nature et Forêts, Avenue Prince de Liège, 15, 5100 JAMBES

Tel : +32 81-335 887.   Fax: +32 81 335 822.   E-mail : Sandrine.LIEGEOIS@spw.wallonie.be

Bosnia and Herzegovina / Bosnie-Herzégovine

Ms Nermina SKEJOVIĆ-HURIĆ, Senior Adviser, Department for Environmental Protection, Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations, Musala 9, 710 00 SARAJEVO.

Tel: +387 33 552 366.   Fax: +387 33 552-365.   E-mail: nermina.skejovic-huric@mvteo.gov.ba and nerabosnia@yahoo.com

Bulgaria / Bulgarie

Ms Rayna HARDALOVA, Head of Biodiversity Division, Ministry of Environment and Water, 22, Maria Luiza Blvd., 1000 SDOFIA

Tel: + 359 2 940 6163.   Fax: + 359 2 940 6127.   E-mail: hardalovar@moew.government.bg

Croatia / Croatie

Ms Zrinka DOMAZETOVIC, Senior Expert Advisor, Nature Protection Directorate, Ministry of Culture, Runjaninova 2, HR-10 000 ZAGREB

Tel:+385 1 4866 127.   Fax:+385 1 4866 100.   E-mail: zrinka.domazetovic@min-kulture.hr

Czech Republic / République tchèque

Mr Jan PLESNIK, Advisor in international co-operation, Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection of the Czech Republic, Nuselská 39, CZ-140 00   PRAGUE 4

Tel +420 241 082 519.   Fax +420 241 082 999.   E-mail: jan.plesnik@nature.cz or plesnik.jan@seznam.cz

Ms Alena VACÁTKOVÁ, Bern Convention National Focal Point, Department for the International Conservation of Biodiversity, Ministry of the Environment, Vršovická 65, CZ-110 00 PRAHA 10.

Tel: +420 267 122 470.   Fax: +420 267 126 470.   E-mail: alena.vacatkova@mzp.cz

Denmark / Danemark

Mr. Sten ASBIRK, Head of Section, Agency for Environmental and Spatial Planning, Haraldsgade 53, DK-2100 COPENHAGEN.

Tel. +45 7254 4867.   E -mail: sta@blst.dk

Estonia / Estonie

Ms Merike LINNAMÄGI, Senior Officer of the Nature Protection Department, Ministry of the Environment, Narva mnt 7a, 15172 TALLINN.

Tel: +372 62 62 900.   Fax: +372 62 62 901.   E-mail: merike.linnamagi@envir.ee

European Commission / Commission europeenne

Ms Marta KACZYŃSKA, Policy Officer, European Commission - DG Env, DG ENV.B.2 "Biodiversity", Avenue de Beaulieu 5, 1160 BRUSSELS, Belgium

Tel : +32 229 88387.   Fax: +32 229 68824.   E-mail: Marta.KACZYNSKA@ec.europa.eu

Finland / Finlande

Mr Matti OSARA, Senior Adviser, Ministry of the Environment, PO.Box 35, FI-00023 Government, Finland

Tel: + 358  400 274 995.   Fax: +358 9 1603 9395.   E-mail: matti.osara@ymparisto.fi

Mr Sami NIEMI, Ministerial Adviser, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Department of Fisheries and Game, Mariankatu 23, PO Box 30, FI-000230 GOVERNMENT

Tel: +358 400 238505 .   Fax : +358 9 1605 2284.   E-mail : Sami.Niemi@mmm.fi

France / France

Ms Marianne COUROUBLE, Chargée de mission Affaires internationales, Direction de l’eau et de la biodiversité – DGALN/DEB, Ministère de l’Ecologie, du Développement durable, des Transports et du Logement (MEDDTL), Arche Sud, 92055 LA DEFENSE Cedex.

Tel : +33 140 81 31 90.   Fax : +33 +140 81 75 33.   E-mail : marianne.courouble@developpement-durable.gouv.fr

Ms Fanny LENDI-RAMIREZ, Coordinatrice biodiversité, Direction de l’eau et de la biodiversité – DGALN/DEB, Ministère de l’Ecologie, du Développement durable, des Transports et du Logement (MEDDTL) Arche Sud, 92055 LA DEFENSE Cedex.

Tél. : +33 140 81 37 17.   Fax : +33 140 81 77 09.   E-mail: Fanny.lendi-ramirez@developpement-durable.gouv.fr

Mr Vincent BENTATA, Chargé de mission, Direction de l’eau et de la biodiversité – DGALN/DEB, Ministère de l’Ecologie, du Développement durable, des Transports et du Logement (MEDDTL), Arche Sud, 92055 LA DEFENSE Cedex.

Tel : +33 140 81 31 75.   Fax : +33 140 81 75 33.   E-mail : vincent.bentata@developpement-durable.gouv.fr

Mr Julien TOUROULT, Directeur adjoint du Service du Patrimoine naturel, Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, CP41, 36 rue Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 75005 PARIS

Tel : +33 140 79 32 57.   E-mail : touroult@mnhn.fr

Ms Florence BONNAFOUX, Directrice de projet hamster, DREAL Alsace, 2 route d'Oberhausbergen, 67000 STRASBOURG

Tel : +33 388 13 08 82.   E-mail : florence.bonnafoux@developpement-durable.gouv.fr

Mr Hugues TINGUY, Chef de projet hamster, DREAL Alsace, 2 route d'Oberhausbergen, 67000 STRASBOURG

Tel : +33 388 13 08 84.   E-mail : hughes.tinguy@developpement-durable.gouv.fr

Mr Laurent CHARNAY, Chargé de mission, Unité biodiversité & ressources minérales, DREAL Rhônes-Alpes, 208 bis rue Garibaldi, 69509 LYON Cedex 03

Tel : : +33 437 48 36 59.   Fax: +33 437 48 36 51.   E-mail : Laurent.charnay@developpement-durable.gouv.fr

Ms Emmanuelle CARON, Chef du Service Milieux et Risques Naturels, DREAL Alsace, 2 route d'Oberhausbergen, BP 81005, 67070 STRASBOURG-CRONENBOURG Cedex.

Tél: +33 388 13 06 94.   E-mail : emmanuelle-d.caron@developpement-durable.gouv.fr

Georgia / Géorgie

Ms Maka TSERETELI, Ministry of Environment Protection and Natural Resources, Head of Environmental Policy Division, 6 Gulua street, 0114 TBILISI

Tel. +995 99 95 55 52.   E-mail : m_tsereteli@yahoo.com

Germany / Allemagne

Mr Edward RAGUSCH , Executive Officer, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Division N I 5, Specific International Nature Conservation Conventions, Robert-Schuman-Platz 3, D-53175 BONN

Tel: +49 228 99 305 2663.   Fax: +49 228 99 305-2684.   E-Mail: edward.ragusch@bmu.bund.de

Mr Detlef SZYMANSKI, Bundesratsbeauftragter, c/o Hessisches Ministerium für Umwelt, Energie, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz, Referat VO 5B; Mainzer Str. 80, 65189 WIESBADEN

Tel: +49 611 815 16 54.   Fax: +49 611 815 19 72.   E-mail: detlef.szymanski@hmuelv.hessen.de

Hungary / Hongrie

Mr Zoltan CZIRAK, Biodiversity and Gene Conservation Unit, Ministry of Rural Development, Fő u. 44-50, H-1111, BUDAPEST.

Tel: +36 1 395 6857.   Fax: +36 1 275 4505.   E-mail: Zoltan.czirak@vm.gov.hu

Iceland / Islande

Dr Jòn Gunnar OTTÒSSON, Director General, Icelandic Institute of Natural History, Urriðaholtsstræti 6 - 8, ISL-212 GARÐABAER. (P.O. Box 125)

Tel: +354 5900 500.   Fax: +354 5900 595.   E-mail: jgo@ni.is

Mr Trausti BALDURSSON, Head of International Affairs, Icelandic Institute of Natural History, Urriðaholtsstræti 6 - 8, ISL-212 GARÐABAER (P.O. Box 125)

Tel: +354 5900 500.   Fax: +354 5900 595.   E-mail: trausti@ni.is

Italy / Italie

Mr Felice CAPPELLUTI, Technical Officer, Ministry of the Environment, Land and Sea, Directorate-general for Nature and Sea Protection, Division II – Biodiversity, Via Capitan Bavastro 174, I‑00154 ROMA.

Tel:  +39 06 57228403.   Fax:  +39 06 57228468.   E-mail: Cappelluti.Felice@minambiente.it .   Website: www.minambiente.it

Liechtenstein / Liechtenstein

Mr Michael FASEL, Dipl.Biologe, Amt für Wald, Natur und Landschaft, Dr. Grass Strasse 12, FL‑9490 VADUZ

Tél    +423 - 236 64 05.   Fax   +423 - 236 64 11.   E-mail   michael.fasel@awnl.llv.li

Luxembourg / Luxembourg

Mr Laurent SCHLEY, Service de la Nature, Administration de la Nature et des Forêts, 16 rue Eugène Ruppert, L-2453 LUXEMBOURG

Tel:  +352 402 201-314.   Fax:  +352 402 201-350.   E-mail: laurent.schley@anf.etat.lu.   Website: http://www.emwelt.lu

Moldova / Moldova

Ms Veronica JOSU, Deputy Head of Division, Natural Resources and Biodiversity Division, Ministry of the Environment, 9, Cosmonautilor str., MD-2005 CHISINAU

Tel: +353 22 204 535.   Fax: +373 22 226 858.   E-mail: josu@mediu.gov.md

Monaco / Monaco

Ms Céline VAN KLAVEREN, Rédacteur Principal, Direction des Affaires Internationales, Département des Relations extérieures, Principauté de Monaco, Ministère d'Etat, Place de la Visitation, MC 98000 MONACO.

Tel: +377 98 98 44 70.   Fax: +377 98 98 19 57.   E-mail : cevanklaveren@gouv.mc

Montenegro / Monténégro

Ms Milena KAPA, Senior Advisor, Head of Department of Nature Protection, Land and Biodiversity, Ministry for Spatial Planning and Environment, Rimski trg, 46, 81000 PODGORICA

Tel. +382 67 577 151.   Fax:  +382 20 234 131.   E-mail: milena.kapa@gov.me

Morocco / Maroc

Ms Hayat MESBAH, Chef de Service de la Conservation de la Flore et de la Faune Sauvages, Haut Commissariat aux Eaux et Forêts et à la Lutte contre la Désertification, 3, Rue Haroun Errachid, Agdal, RABAT.

Tél: + 212 5 37 67 42 70 or +212 6 61 74 19 53.   Fax : +212 5 37 67 26 28.   E-mail : mesbah_ef@yahoo.fr

The Netherlands / Pays-Bas

Mr Gerard VAN DIJK, Senior Executive Officer, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture & Innovation; Department of Nature, Landscape & Rural Affairs, P.O. Box 20401, 2500 EK DEN HAAG

Tel. +31 70 378 5009.   E-mail g.van.dijk@minlnv.nl

Norway / Norvège

Ms Solveig PAULSEN, Senior Advisor, Norwegian Ministry of Environment, Postboks 8013 Dep, 0030 OSLO, Norway

Tel: +47 22245854.   Fax: +47 22249560.   E-mail: solveig.paulsen@md.dep.no

Ms Mary Elisabeth JERNQVIST, Senior adviser, Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management, Tungasletta 2, 7485 TRONDHEIM, Norway   

Tel: +47 73580949.   Fax:+47 73 580501.   E-mail: elisabeth.jernqvist@dirnat.no

Mr Øystein STØRKERSEN, Principal Adviser, Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management, Postboks 5672 Sluppen, 7485 TRONDHEIM, Norway

Tel. +47 7358 0500.   Fax: +47 7358 0501 or 7358 0505.   E-mail: oystein.storkersen@dirnat.no

Poland / Pologne

Ms Małgorzata OPĘCHOWSKA, Senior Specialist, General Directorate for Environmental Protection, Department of Nature Conservation, Wawelska 52/54, 00-922 WARSAW.

Tel: +48 22 57 92 153.   E-mail: malgorzata.opechowska@gdos.gov.pl

Ms Ewa Maria PISARCZYK, Expert for invasive alien flora species, General Directorate for Environmental Protection, Department of Nature Conservation, Wawelska 52/54, 00-922 WARSAW.

Tel: +48 22 57 92 156.   Fax: +48 22 57 92 128.   E-mail: ewa.pisarczyk@gdos.gov.pl

Romania / Roumanie

Mr Stelian STOIAN, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Permanent Representative, Permanent Representation of Romania to the Council of Europe, 64, allée de la Robertsau - 67000 STRASBOURG

Tél. +33 388 37 01 60/+33 388 37 92 21.   Fax +33 388 37 16 70.   E -mail : reprocoe@fr.oleane.com

Mr Silviu MEGAN, Regional Commissionaire, Ministry of Environnment and Forest, National Environnmental Guard- Timis Regional Commissariat, Carei Street, No. 9D, TIMISOARA, Timis County

Tel/Fax: +40 745 592 881.   Fax: +40 256 293 587.   E-mail: silviu.megan@gnm.ro

Ms Antonia OPRISAN, Counselor, Directorate of Nature Protection, Ministry of Environmentand Forest, 12, Libertatii Blvd., district 5, BUCHAREST.

Tel : +40 722 12 90 54.   Fax: +40 21 316 02 87.   E-mail: antoaneta.oprisan@mmediu.ro or toniaoprisan@yahoo.com 

Serbia / Serbie

Ms Snezana PROKIĆ, Adviser for Ecological Network, Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning, Omladinskih brigada 1. Str, SIV III, NEW BELGRADE, 11070

Tel: +381 11 31 31 569.   Fax : +381 11 313 2745.    E-mail: snezana.prokic@ekoplan.gov.rs

Slovakia / Slovaquie

Ms Jana DURKOŠOVÁ, Senior Advisor, Division for Nature Protection and Landscape Development, Ministry of the Environment, Námestie Ľ. Štúra 1, 821 08 BRATISLAVA.

Tel: +421 2 5956 2211.   Fax: +421 2 5956 2031.   E-mail: jana.durkosova@enviro.gov.sk

Spain / Espagne

Ms Barbara SOTO LARGO, Jefe de Sección, Subdirección General de Conservación de la Biodiversidad, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Medio Rural y Marino, Dirección General de Medio Natural y Política Forestal, C/ Ríos Rosas 24, 28003 MADRID.

Tel : 34 91 749 37 04.   Fax: + 34 91 749 38 73.   E-mail : bsotolargo@mma.es  

Sweden / Suède

Mr Peter ÖRN, National Focal Point Bern Convention, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 106 48 STOCKHOLM

Tel: +46 10 698 15 26.   E-mail :  peter.orn@naturvardsverket.se

Switzerland / Suisse

Mr Olivier BIBER, Chef Biodiversité internationale, Office fédéral de l’environnement, des forêts et du paysage (OFEV), CH‑3003 BERNE

Tel : +41 31 323 06 63.   Fax : +41 31 324 75 79.   E-mail : olivier.biber@bafu.admin.ch

Mr Reinhard SCHNIDRIG-PETRIG, Division Gestion des Espèces, Office fédéral de l’Environnement (OFEV), CH‑3003 BERNE

Tel : +41 31 32 303 07.   E-mail : reinhard.schnidrig@bafu.admin.ch

« The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia » / L’”ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine”

Mr Aleksandar NASTOV, Head of Department of Biodiversity, Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning, Bul.Goce Delčev bb, MTV XI (1127), 1000- SKOPJE

Tel.: +389 23251466.   Fax: +389 23220156.   E-mail: a.nastov@moepp.gov.mk  or anastov@gmail.com

Turkey / Turquie

Mr Aybars ALTIPARMAK, General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks, Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Söğütözü Cad. 14/E Söğütözü ANKARA

Tel: .+90 312 207 59 20.   Fax: +90 312 207 59 81..   E-mail:  aaltiparmak@cevre.gov.tr

Mr Mahmut AKAN, Agriculture Engineer, Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Department of Nature Conservation, Söğütözü Cad. 14/E Söğütözü ANKARA

Tel:+90 312 207 5925.   Fax: +90 312 207 5959.   E-mail : mah_akan@hotmail.com

Ms.Aynur HATIPOGLU, Protection Department Director, EPASA ‑ Environmental Protection Agency for Special Areas, Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Söğütözü Cad. 14/E Söğütözü ANKARA

Tel: +90 312 222 1234/310.   Fax: +90 312 222 2661.   E-mail: aynurhat@yahoo.com

 

Mr Yakup KASKA, Assoc. Prof. Director, Pamukkale University, Department of Biology, KINIKLI-DENIZLI

Tel: +90 258 296 3668.   Fax: +90 258 296 3335.   E-mail: caretta@pau.edu.tr or yakupkaska@gmail.com

Mr.Ali Fuat CANBOLAT, Hacettepe University, Department of Biology, …

Tel: +90 …   Fax: +90 …   E-mail: canbolat@hacettepe.edu.tr

Ukraıne / Ukraıne

Mr Ihor Borysovych IVANENKO, Deputy Head, State Agency for Protected Areas, Ministry of Environmental Protection, 35 Uryts’kogo Str., KYIV, 03035.

Tel: +380-44-206-25-88.   Fax: +380-44-206-31-19.   E-mail: ecoland@menr.gov.ua

United Kingdom / Royaume-Uni

Ms Elaine KENDALL, Head of Wild Birds, Zoos and Wildlife Crime, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Zone 1/14, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, BRISTOL, BS1 6EB.

Tel: +44 117 372 8322.   Fax: +44 117 372 8354.   E-mail: Elaine.kendall@defra.gsi.gov.uk

II.      MEMBER STATES NON CONTRACTING PARTIES / ETATS MEMBRES NON PARTIES CONTRACTANTES B

Russian Federation / Fédération de Russie

San Marino / Saint-Marin

III.    OTHER STATES / AUTRES ÉTATS

Holy See / Saint Siège

Mr Jean-Pierre RIBAUT, 27 rue Rabié, 33250 PAUILLAC, France.

Tel : +33 556 59 13 64.   Fax : +33 556 59 68 80.   E-mail : jeanpierreribau@wanadoo.fr

IV.    INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS AND SECRETARIATS OF CONVENTIONS / ORGANISATIONS INTERNATIONALES ET SECRÉTARIATS DE CONVENTIONS

Secretariat of the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Waterbird (UNEP/AEWA) / Secrétariat de l’Accord sur la conservation des oiseaux d’eau migrateurs d’Afrique-Eurasie (UNEP/AEWA)

Mr Sergey DERELIEV, Technical Officer, UNEP/AEWA Secretariat African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement, UN Campus, Hermann-Ehlers-Str. 10, 53113 BONN, Germany

Tel.: +49-228-815-2415.   Fax: +49-228-815-2450.   E-mail: sdereliev@unep.de.   Website: www.unep-aewa.org

Secretariat of the Agreement on the Conservation of Bats in Europe (EUROBATS) / Secrétariat de l’Accord sur la conservation des chauves-souris en Europe (EUROBATS) 

Mr Andreas STREIT, Executive Secretary, UNEP/EUROBATS, United Nations Campus, Hermann-Ehlers-Str. 10 , 53113 BONN, Germany

Tel. +49 228 815 2420.   Fax +49 228 815 2445.   E-mail: astreit@eurobats.org.   Website: www.eurobats.org

Secretariat of the Protocol concerning Mediterranean specially protected areas / Secrétariat du Protocole relatif aux aires spécialement protégées de la Méditerranée (Geneva / Genève)

Regional Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas (RAC/SPA) – Tunis / Centre d’activités régionales pour les aires spécialement protégées (CAR/ASP)

Mr Abderrahmen GANNOUN, Directeur du CAR/ASP, Boulevard du leader Yasser Arafat, BP 337, 1080 TUNIS Cedex, Tunisia

Tel : +216 71 206 851.   Fax : +216 71 206 490.   E-mail : gannoun.abderrahmen@rac‑spa.org

Secretariat of the Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and contiguous Atlantic area (ACCOBAMS) / Secrétariat de l’Accord sur la Conservation des Cétacés de la mer Noire, la Méditerranée et la zone Atlantique adjacente (ACCOBAMS)

Ms Marie-Christine GRILLO COMPULSIONE, ACCOBAMS, Secrétaire Exécutive, Villa Girasole, 16 bd de Suisse, MC 98000 MONACO

Tel : +377.98.98.8010/2078.   Fax - +377.98.98.42.08.   E-mail - mcgrillo@accobams.net

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)/ Union internationale pour la conservation de la nature (UICN)

Mr Robert KENWARD, Chair of Sustainable Use Specialist Group in Europe (SSC), c/o Stoborough Croft, Grange Road, Wareham, Dorset BH20 5AJ, United Kingdom

Tel : +44 1929 553759.  Fax : +44 1929 553761.   E-mail : reke@ceh.ac.uk

V.     OTHER ORGANISATIONS / AUTRES ORGANISATIONS

Association pour la Protection des animaux sauvages (ASPAS)

Ms Ariane AMBROSINI, La Plaine, BP505, 26401 CREST Cedex, France.

Tel : +33 475 25 10 00.   Fax : +33 475 76 77 58.   juris@aspas-nature.org

BirdLife International  / BirdLife International

Mr Boris BAROV, Conservation Manager, BirdLife International, Avenue de la Toison d'Or 67, B‑1060 BRUSSELS, Belgium.

Tel.  +32 2 541 07 83.   Fax: +32 2 230 38 02.   E-mail: boris.barov@birdlife.org

Mr David HOCCOM, Head of Species Policy/Acting Head, Investigations, RSPB/BirdLife International, The Lodge, SANDY Bedfordshire SG19 2DL, United Kingdom.

Tel: +44 1767 680551.   Fax: + 44 1767 68279.   E-mail: David.hoccom@rspb.org.uk

Mr Hans JERRENTRUP, EPO (Society of Protection of Nature and Ecodevelopment) in Hrysoupolis / Greece, Auramilia, GR-64200 HRYSOYPOLIS, Greece.

Tel: +30 6932 576008.   E-mail: epo@kav.forthnet.gr or ecoconsult-epo@kav.forthnet.gr

Mr Bernd SCHUERENBERG, Expert support to BirdLife Europe, Kapellenweg 46, D-88090 IMMENSTAAD, Germany.

Tel: +49-7545-6290.   E -mail: schuerenberg.bernd@t-online.de

Ms Edit LOOSLI, Délégué by BirdLife Cyprus (subject: illegal killing of birds in Cyprus), MBBC Migratory Birds Conservation, International Monitoring Organisation, Schorenstr 33, CH‑3645 GWATT (THUN), Switzerland;

Tel: +41 33 3363045.   E-mail: flora.ch@gmx.net

Bureau Européen de l'Environnement

Ms Edith WENGER, Représentante du Bureau Européen de l’Environnement, Commission OING Développement territorial durable, 7, rue de Cronenbourg, F-67300 SCHILTIGHEIM, France.

Tel / Fax : +33 388 62 13 72.   E-mail: elwenger@free.fr

Eurogroup for Animals

Ms Staci McLENNAN, Policy Officer Wildlife, Eurogroup for Animals, 6 rue des Patriotes, B - 1000 BRUSSELS, Belgium

Tel. + 32 (0)2 740 08 95.   Fax + 32 (0)2 740 08 29.   E-mail: s.mclennan@eurogroupforanimals.org.   website: www.eurogroupforanimals.org

European Anglers Alliance (EAA)

Ms Jan KAPPEL, Secretary General, European Anglers Alliance (EAA), Rue du Luxembourg 47, B-1050 BRUSSELS, Belgium.

Tel: +32 22 86 59 56.   E-mail: email@eaa-europe.eu or jan.kappel@skynet.be

Mr Mathias von LUKOWICZ, Vice-President, Verband Deutscher Sportfischer (VDSF), Vice-President VDSF, Siemensstr. 11-13, 63071 OFFENBACH, Germany

Tel. +49 (0)69 8157 7722.   E-mail: m.vonlukowicz@vdsf-praesidium.de.  

Mr Stefan SPAHN, Research Associate, Verband Deutscher Sportfischer VDSF, Siemensstr. 11-13, D-63071 OFFENBACH, Germany

Tel. +49 (0)69 85 706971.   Fax +49 (0)69 87 3770.   E-mail: s.spahn@vdsf.de.

Mr Bruno BROUGHTON, Expert Advisor, EFTTA, European Fishing Tackle Trade Association, EFTTA Ltd / EFTTEX Trenchard, Lower Bromstead Road, Moreton, Newport, Shropshire TF10 9DQ, United Kingdom.

Tel: +44.1952 691515.   E-mail: bruno.broughton@virgin.net.   Website: www.eftta.com

European Centre for Nature Conservation (ECNC)

Mr Hans KAMPF, Director Large Herbivore Network, Senior Programme Manager – Ecosystem and Species Management, ECNC-European Centre for Nature Conservation, PO Box 90154, 5000 LG TILBURG, the Netherlands

Tel:  +31 35 6029376.   Fax:  +31 13 5944945.   E-mail: hans@largeherbivore.org;   website: www.lhnet.org; www.ecnc.org

European Squirrel Initiative

Mr Andrew KENDALL, Director, European Squirrel Initiative, Unit 4, East Bank House, Tide Mill Way, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 1BY, United Kingdom.

Tel; +44 01394 610022.   E-mail: andrew.kendall@kendallscom.co.uk


European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity / Centre Thematique Europeen sur la Diversite Biologique/

Ms Dominique RICHARD, Directrice/ Manager, Centre Thematique Europeen sur la Diversite Biologique/European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity, Museum national d'Histoire naturelle, 57 rue Cuvier, FR- 75231 PARIS cedex 05

Tel: +33 1 40 79 38 70.   Fax: +33 1 40 79 38 67.   E-mail: drichard@mnhn.fr

Federation of Associations for hunting and conservation of the EU (FACE)

Mr Yves LECOCQ, Secretary General, FACE - Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the E.U, Rue F. Pelletier 82    B-1030 BRUSSELS, Belgium

Tel : +32 2 732 69 00.   Fax : +32 2 732 70 72.   E-mail : ylecocq@face.eu

Mr Gabor von BETHLENFALVY, Conservation Project Manager, FACE - Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the EU , Rue F. Pelletier 82, B-1030 BRUSSELS, Belgium

Tel: +32 (0) 2 732 6900.   Fax: +32 (0) 2 732 7072.   E-mail: biodiversity@face.eu.   Website: www.face.eu

Il Nibbio – Antonio Bana’s Foundation for research on ornithological migration and environmental protection / Il Nibbio – Fondation Antonio Bana pour la recherche des migrations ornithologiques et la protection de l’environnement

Mr Giovanni BANA, FEIN President, Via S. Antonio, 11, 20122 MILAN, Italy

Tel: / Fax: +39 031762162.   E-mail: gb@studiobana.it.   Site : http://www.nibbio.org

Mr Ferdinando RANZANICI, Environmental Certification and Natura 2000 Expert, FEIN Il Nibbio, Via Perego, 22060 AROSIO (CO), Italy.

Tel : +39 031 762162.   E-mail : ferdinando.ranzanici@tin.it. Site : http://www.nibbio.org

Large Herbivore Network – Saving Eurasia’s Wildlife Treasures

Mr Hans KAMPF, Director Large Herbivore Network, Senior Programme Manager – Ecosystem and Species Management, ECNC-European Centre for Nature Conservation Headquarters, PO Box 90154, 5000 LG TILBURG, the Netherlands.

Tel: +31 13 5944 944.   E-maill : hans@largeherbivore.org.   website: www.lhnet.org or www.ecnc.org

Mediterranean Association to Save the Sea Turtles (MEDASSET) / Association méditerranéenne pour sauaaver les tortues marines (MEDASSET)

Ms Lily VENIZELOS, President of MEDASSET, 1c Licavitou St., 10672 ATHENS, Greece.

[c/o 24 Park Towers, 2 Brick St., LONDON W1J 7DD, United Kingdom.]

Tel: +30 210 361 3572 and +30 210 364 0389.   Fax: +30 210 361 3572.   E-mail: lilyvenizelos@medasset.gr or medasset@medasset.gr .  

Dr. Max KASPAREK, MEDASSET's Scientific Advisor, Moenchhofstr. 16, D‑69120 HEIDELBERG, Germany

Tel.: +49 6221 475069.   Fax: +49 6221471858.   E-mail: Kasparek@t-online.de

Pro Natura – Friends of the Earth Europe

Mr Friedrich WULF, Responsable pour les affaires internationales, Pro Natura – Friends of the Earth Switzerland, Dornacherstrasse 192, Postfach, CH-4053 BASEL, Switzerland.

Tel : +41 61 317 92 42.   Fax : +41 61 317 92 66.   E-mail : friedrich.wulf@pronatura.ch

Website: www.pronatura.ch

Sauvegarde Faune Sauvage (France-Alsace et Est de la France)

Mr Jean-Paul BURGET, Président, Sauvegarde Faune Sauvage, 23, rue du Limousin, F‑68270 WITTENHEIM / France.

Tel : +33 389 57 92 22.   Fax : +33 389 57 92 22.   E-mail: faune-sauvage68@orange.fr

Mr Pierre BALLAND, Vice-Président, Sauvegarde Faune Sauvage, 23, rue du Limousin, F‑68270 WITTENHEIM / France.

Tel : +33 389 57 92 22.   Fax : +33 389 57 92 22.   E-mail: faune-sauvage68@orange.fr

Ms Julie LEDIT, Chargée de mission, Sauvegarde Faune Sauvage, 23, rue du Limousin, F‑68270 WITTENHEIM / France.

Tel : +33 389 57 92 22 / +33 607 41 11 32.   Fax : +33 389 57 92 22.   E-mail: faune-sauvage68@orange.fr or ledit.julie@vab.fr

Societas Europaea Herpetologica (SEH)

Mr Jean-Pierre VACHER, Délégué du Conservation Committee de la SEH, 10 rue du Viel Hôpital, 67000 STRASBOURG

Tel : +33 954 35 10 82.   E-mail : jpvacher@gmail.com

Study, Research and Conservation Centre for the Environment in Alsace / Centre d’Etudes, de Recherches et de Protection de l’Environnement en Alsace (CERPEA)

Mr Gérard BAUMGART, Président du CERPEA, 12, Rue de Touraine, 67100 STRASBOURG

Tel : +33 388 39 42 74.   Fax : +33 388 39 42 74.   E-mail : gerard.baumgart@free.fr

Terra Cypria (Cyprus Conservation Foundation)

Ms Artemis YIORDAMLI, Executive Director, Terra Cypria, the Cyprus Conservation Foundation, P.O.Box 50257, 3602 LIMASSOL, Cyprus

Tel: +357 25 369475.   Fax: +357 25 352657.   E-mail : director@terracypria.org

Mr Adrian AKERS-DOUGLAS, Director, Terra Cypria, the Cyprus Conservation Foundation, P.O.Box 50257, 3602 LIMASSOL, Cyprus

Tel: +357 25 369475.   Fax: +357 25 352657.   E-mail : Adrian@spidernet.com.cy

VI.        CONSULTANTS / EXPERTS CONSULTANTS

Mr Snorri BALDURSSON, Park Manager, Western Region Vatnajokull National Park, Klausturvegi 2, 880 KIRKJUBÆJARKLAUSTRI

Tel: +354 470 0401.   E-mail: snorri@vjp.is or sbaldursson@gmail.com.   Website: www.vatnajokulsthjodgardur.is

Mr Guy BERTHOUD, Bureau ECONAT, 7 Rue du Montélar, CH-1400 YVERDON LES BAINS, Switzerland

Tel: +41 24 425 92 63.   E-mail: econat@bluewin.ch

Mr Scott BRAINERD, 1380 Garay Street, FAIRBANKS, AK 99709, USA

Tel. +1 907-687 4527.   E-mail : scott.brainerd@nina.no or smbrnor@yahoo.com

Mr Peter CRANSWICK, Head of Species Planning, Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust (WWT), Slimbridge, Glos GL2 7BT, United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)1453 891265.   Fax: +44 (0)1453 890827.   E-mail: peter.cranswick@wwt.org.uk.   Website: wwt.org.uk

Mr Keith DAVENPORT, Ornamental Aquatic Trade Association Ltd (OATA), 1st Floor Office Suite, Wessex House, 40 Station Road, Westbury, Wiltshire BA13 3JN, United Kingdom

Tel.: +44 0870 0434013.   Fax: +44 01373 301236.   E-mail: keith@ornamentalfish.org.   Site :  www.ornamentalfish.org

Mr Marc ROEKAERTS, Ringlaan 57, B-3530 HOUTHALEN, Belgium.

Tel : +32 11 60 42 34.   Fax : +32 11 60 24 59.   E-mail : marc.roekaerts@eureko.be

Ms Clare SHINE, Associate, Institute for European Environmental Policy, Barrister and Consultant in Environmental Policy and Law, 37 rue Erlanger, 75016 PARIS, France

Tel: (00 33) (0)1 46 51 90 10.    E-mail: clare.shine@wanadoo.fr

Mr Jacques STEIN, Département de l’Etude du Milieu Naturel et Agricole, Direction Nature et Eau, Avenue Maréchal Juin, 23, B- 5030 GEMBLOUX / Belgique

E-mail : jacques.stein@gmail.com

 

Mr Michael B USHER, c/o School of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Stirling , STIRLING   FK9 4LA, United Kingdom.

E-mail: m.b.usher@stir.ac.uk

VII.   INTERPRETERS / INTERPRETES

Ms Ingrid CATTON-CONTY, 26, rue de l’Yvette, F-75016 PARIS, France.

Tel: +33 1 40 50 04 22.   Fax: +33 1 40 50 80 84.   E-mail: ingrid.catton@wanadoo.fr

Ms Starr PIROT, Chemin des Toches, 1261 LONGIROD, Suisse

Tel : +41 22 368 20 67.   E-mail: s.pirot@aiic.net

Mr William VALK, 2, rue des Jardins, Duntzenheim, F-67270 HOCHFELDEN, France.

Tel: +33 3 88 70 59 02.   Fax: +33 3 88 70 50 98.   E-mail: william.valk@wanadoo.fr

VIII. COUNCIL OF EUROPE / CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE

Directorate of Culture and of Cultural and Natural Heritage / Direction de la Culture et du Patrimoine culturel et naturel, F‑67075 STRASBOURG CEDEX, France

Tel : +33 3 88 41 20 00.   Fax : +33 3 88 41 37 51

Mr Robert PALMER, Director of Culture and Cultural and Natural Heritage / Directeur de la Culture et du Patrimoine culturel et naturel DGIV,

Tel.  +33 3 88 41 22 50.   Fax  +33 3 88 41 27 55. E-mail : robert.palmer@coe.int

Mr Eladio FERNÁNDEZ-GALIANO, Head of the Biological Diversity Unit / Chef de l'Unité de la Diversité biologique, Directorate of Culture and Cultural and Natural Heritage / Direction de la Culture et du Patrimoine culturel et naturel DGIV

Tel : +33 3 88 41 22 59   Fax : +33 3 88 41 37 51   E‑mail : eladio.fernandez‑galiano@coe.int

Ms Ivana d’ALESSANDRO, Administrator / Administrateur, Natural Heritage and Biological Diversity Division / Division du Patrimoine naturel et de la Diversité biologique

Tel :  +33 3 90 2151 51.   Fax : +33 3 88 41 37 51.   E-mail : ivana.dalessandro@coe.int

Ms Iva OBRETENOVA, Administrator / Administrateur, Natural Heritage and Biological Diversity Division / Division du Patrimoine naturel et de la Diversité biologique

Tel :  +33 3 90 21 58 81.   Fax : +33 3 88 41 37 51.   E-mail : iva.obretenova@coe.int

Ms Françoise BAUER, Principal administrative assistant / Assistante administrative principale, Biological Diversity Unit / Unité de la Diversité biologique

Tel :  +33 3 88 41 22 61.   Fax : +33 3 88 41 37 51.   E-mail : francoise.bauer@coe.int

Ms Véronique de CUSSAC, Administrative Assistant / Assistante administrative, Biological Diversity Unit / Unité de la Diversité biologique

Tel : +33 3 88 41 34 76   Fax : +33 3 88 41 37 51.   E-mail : veronique.decussac@coe.int

Ms Marie-Laure LAMBOUR, Administrative Assistant / Assistante administrative, Biological Diversity Unit / Unité de la Diversité biologique

Tel : +33 3 88 41 35 64   Fax : +33 3 88 41 37 51.   E-mail : marie-laure.lambour@coe.int

Ms Daria CHEREPANOVA, Administrative Assistant / Assistante administrative, Biological Diversity Unit / Unité de la Diversité biologique

Tel : +33 3 88 41 43 34   Fax : +33 3 88 41 37 51.   E-mail : daria.cherepanova@coe.int


Appendix 2

AGENDA

PART I – OPENING

1.         Opening of the meeting and adoption of the agenda

2.         Chairman's report and communications from the delegations and from the Secretariat

PART II – MONITORING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL ASPECTS

3.         Monitoring of the implementation of the legal aspects of the Convention

3.3              Introductory report from Georgia and Montenegro

3.4              Biennial reports 2007 - 2008 concerning exceptions made to Articles 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 and quadrennial reports 2005 -  2008

* Items for information:

         T-PVS/Inf (2010) … Introductory report from Georgia

         T-PVS/Inf (2010) … Introductory report from Montenegro

         T-PVS (2010) 3  and … Bureau Reports

         T-PVS/Inf (2010) 13, 14 and 15 Biennial and General Reports

PART III - INSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

5.                  Interpretation of Article 9.1 of the Bern Convention

5.1             Legal analysis of the interpretation of Article 9.1 of the Bern Convention

5.2             Guidelines for the reporting system set under article 9.2 of the Bern Convention

PART IV – MONITORING OF SPECIES AND HABITATS

5.         Monitoring of Species and Habitats

5.4             Group of Experts on Biodiversity and Climate Change – Draft Recommendations

5.5             Group of Experts on Island Biodiversity in Europe

5.6             Large Carnivores and Herbivores:

c.       Progress report and draft recommendation on Large Carnivores in the Caucasus

d.      Large Carnivores in Western European countries

5.4       Invasive Alien Species:

d.    Progress report

e.     Code on Invasive Alien Species and Companion Animals

f.     European Action Plan on the Ruddy Duck

5.5       Draft European Charter on Angling and Biodiversity

5.6       Illegal killing of Birds

5.7       Habitats

d.      Group of Experts on Protected areas and Ecological networks: Report

e.       Setting up of the Emerald Network : strategic development and steps forward

f.       European Diploma of Protected Areas: review of the draft resolution concerning the renewal of the European Diploma of Protected Areas awarded to the Bílé Karpaty Protected Landscape Area (Czech Republic)

                                                                          

PART V – MONITORING OF SPECIFIC SITES AND POPULATIONS

6.         Specific sites and populations

6.1       Files opened:

Ø  Ukraine: Proposed navigable waterway in the Bystroe Estuary (Danube delta)

Ø  Cyprus: Akamas peninsula

Ø  Bulgaria: Wind farms in Balchik and Kaliakra –Via Pontica

Ø  France: Habitats for the survival of the common hamster (Cricetus cricetus) in Alsace

Ø  Italy: Eradication and trade of the American Grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis)

6.4  Possible files

Ø  France: Protection of the European Green Toad (Bufo viridis) in Alsace

Ø  Sweden: Natterjack (Bufo calamita) population on the coastal island of Smögen

Ø  Italy: Wind farm threat to wildlife in Alta Maremma, Grosseto

6.5  On-the-spot appraisal

Ø  France: Impacts on the Hermann tortoise (Testudo hermanni) of a waste management plan and  a housing project in the Var region: Draft Recommandation

6.4       Complaints in stand-by

Ø  France: Black Grouse (Tetrao tetrix) in Drôme and Isère

Ø  Morocco: Ecological impacts of a tourism centre in Saïdia

6.5       Follow-up of previous Recommendations

Ø  Recommendation No. 66 (1998) on the conservation status of some nesting beaches for marine turtles in Turkey

Ø  Recommendation No. 98 (2002) on the project to build a motorway through the Kresna Gorge (Bulgaria)

Ø  Recommendation No.113 (2004) on military antenna in the Sovereign Base Area of Akrotiri (Cyprus)

Ø  Recommendation No. 110 (2004) on minimising adverse effects of above-ground electricity transmission facilities (power lines) on birds

Ø  Recommendation No. 137 (2008) on population level management of large carnivore populations

Ø  Recommendation No. 144 (2009) of the Standing Committee, on the wind park in Smøla (Norway) and other wind farm developments in Norway

PART VI – STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONVENTION

8.                     Strategic development of the Convention

7.1       European Conference on “Post-2010 vision and targets: The role of Protected Areas and Ecological Networks” (Madrid, 25-27 January 2010)

7.2       Implementation of CBD COP-10 decisions: re-enforcing the role of the Convention in implementing 2020 Biodiversity targets in Europe

7.3       Presentation of the Council of Europe Declaration “Working together for Biodiversity: protection of natural areas and the fight against climate change”

7.5             Draft Programme of Activities for 2011

7.5       States to be invited as observers to the 31st meeting

                                                  PART VII - OTHER ITEMS

8.         Election of Chair and Vice-Chair and Bureau members

12.              Date and place of the 31st  meeting, adoption of the report

13.              Adoption of the main decisions of the meeting

14.              Other business (items for information only)


Appendix 3

Convention on the Conservation

of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats

Standing Committee

Recommendation No. 145 (2010) of the Standing Committee, adopted on 9 December 2010, on guidance for Parties on biodiversity and climate change in mountain regions

The Standing Committee of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, acting under the terms of Article 14 of the Convention;

Having regard to the aims of the Convention to conserve wild flora and fauna and its natural habitats;

Recognising that climate change affects biological diversity in the territory covered by the Convention, including species, habitats and the Areas of Special Conservation Interest of the Emerald Network;

Recognising the need to adapt conservation work to the challenges of climate change so as to minimise its impacts on the species and natural habitats protected under the Convention;

Bearing in mind that uncertainties surrounding the precise nature of future climate change and its impacts on biodiversity should not delay practical conservation action;

Noting that the biodiversity of mountain regions in Europe is particularly vulnerable to climate change as many species, particularly those in the upper parts of mountains are going to experience important reductions in their distribution area as the climate warms up;

Noting that biodiversity of European mountain systems is to be more affected than other mountain ranges of the world as migration of species Northwards following temperature increase will not be possible because of their West-East orientation;

Noting that many European mountain ranges have a high degree of habitat fragmentation and can be considered “evolutionarily isolated ecosystem”, which increases the vulnerability of their biodiversity to climate change;

Recalling CBD COP 10 Decision X/33 on Biodiversity and climate change;

Recalling Recommendations No. 135 (2008) and No. 143 (2009) of the Standing Committee, on addressing the impacts of climate change on biodiversity;

Welcoming and bearing in mind the report “Impacts of climate change on Mountain Biodiversity in Europe’ by Ms Eva Spehn [doc. T-PVS/Inf (2010) 8];

Recommends Contracting Parties to the Convention and invites Observer States to:

1.      Address and communicate the impacts of climate change on mountain biological diversity and its conservation,

2.      Carry out specific national and European research or, as appropriate, reinforce existing research on the mountain areas habitat types and species that will be most affected by climate change, monitoring their change and co-operating as appropriate with neighboring states in shared mountain ranges; Promote sharing of information on research carried out in different countain ranges of Europe,

3.      Develop specific climate change adaptation policies and action for mountain biodiversity, taking due account of the proposed guidance set out in the Appendix to the present recommendation;

4.      Where appropriate, implement the proposed actions of the guidance in appendix to this recommendation

Further recommends Contracting Parties of the Convention on the Protection of the Alps and Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Management of the Carpathians and invites their observer States to help implement this recommendation in their respective frameworks.


APPENDIX

Guidance

This guidance draws on the expert report commissioned by the Council of Europe and discussed by the Group of Experts on Biodiversity and Climate Change at its meeting in 2010.

Measures that may be considered as appropriate for addressing the impacts of climate change on biodiversity, for the purposes of the application of the Convention, are listed for consideration by Contracting Parties. These measures are offered as examples of action that may be taken by authorities at all levels of governance to address this issue. Other complementary measures may be identified by governments as equally appropriate to their particular circumstances and concerns. Notwithstanding these adaptation measures, there is an urgent need for climate change mitigation actions at local, regional, country and global levels. Effective mitigation is crucial to contain climate change to levels within which we may have a reasonable chance of achieving effective adaptation. Although these recommendation focus on the adaptation to climate change, it is important to bear in mind that, on the one hand, climate change mitigation activities may be harmful to biodiversity and, on the other hand, the conservation and restoration of certain ecosystem types ­ in particular forests and wetlands ­ have to play an important role in the overall mitigation effort.

The effects of climate change on mountain ecosystems and their biological communities are complex. The impacts of a changing climate on the species and habitats protected by the Bern Convention may differ widely, depending on the species and the interactions with other species and/or their habitats, as well as according to location. The effects that climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, taken in other sectors, can have on species and habitats should also be considered in order to avoid negative impacts.

Mountains and climate change

       Changes in the environmental factors of European mountains caused by climate change are already visible. There is a decrease in mountain glacier area, an increased annual precipitation with changing seasonality in the Alps, less predictability of rainfall and temperatures in Mediterranean mountains and a marked migration of species “uphill” as mean temperatures rise.

       Mountain forest plants have been found to climb between 25 and 93 meter per decade since the 1950’s and a number of other groups (carabids, fungi, birds, molluscs and spiders) have also shown a marked variation along an altitudinal gradient.

       Mountain ecosystems are also naturally vulnerable because of their relatively smaller extension, the risk of erosion and the extreme conditions of many mountain habitats.

       Mountains exhibit the most pronounced climatic gradients and, in evolutionary and biographical terms, they can be compared to islands, archipelagos of high elevation habitats, isolated by the lowlands. As such isolated ecosystems they host a very high proportion of endemic species that are at great risk of extinction because of the unprecedented speed of present climate change and the West-East orientation Europe’s mountain ranges, which hinders North-bound migration possible in other mountain ecosystems of the world (for instance in the Americas). Particularly threatened will be species confined to summits or the plains, late successional plant species, species with small restricted population and species with relative low mobility, as some amphibians. Other species (in mix-altitudinal ranges) are also likely to see their habitats reduced as they are displaced uphill, thus becoming more vulnerable to extinction.

PROPOSED ACTIONS

Improve Protected Areas in mountains: Re-evaluate management goals of protected areas, ensure continued protection and appropriate management of existing protected areas. Increase the effective size of the protected area where and when possible (e.g., enlarged core protection zone and buffer zone with nature-friendly land use) and/or create new protected areas. Protect altitudinal gradients avoiding further fragmentation. Cooperate to develop common approaches with adjacent or nearby protected areas.

Connect: The safeguard of latitudinal and altitudinal ecological continuums will be a crucial element in adaptation to changing conditions for many species and populations, mainly in areas of actual or potential tree line and in urbanised areas in the Alps. However, improving ecological connectivity also facilitates the dispersal of disease and invasive alien species along corridors.  More research is needed on how ecological connectivity improves biodiversity and ecological persistence. 

Permeable landscapes: Enhance existing incentive schemes promoting lower intensity land management and the development of greater landscape heterogeneity. Retain as many patches of “semi-natural habitats”, especially in urbanised or intensively used areas.

Reduce anthropogenic stresses: minimize localised human-cased disturbances (e.g. fragmentation, nitrogen addition or other pollution) that hinder the ability of species or ecosystems to withstand climatic events. It can also mean to keep traditional land use in regions where this has been the predominant management, in order to preserve species diversity and sensitive ecosystems.

Protect key ecosystem features: manage to maintain structural characteristics, organisms or areas that support the overall system, such as keystone organisms. Protect variant forms of a species or ecosystem so that, as climate changes, there may be populations that survive and provide a source for recovery. Maintain or establish more than one example of each ecosystem or population within a management systems, such that if one area is affected by disturbance, replicates in another area may reduce risk of extinction and provide a source for recolonisation. Sustain the slow variables (e.g., soil resources and the species’ pool) that accumulate slowly and provide buffers. Sustain both ecological legacies (e.g., old forest growth, woody debris) and cultural legacies (e.g. people’s connection to land).

Restoration: restore ecosystems that have been lost or degraded. Restore or facilitate recovery of missing keystone species (e.g., wolf, beaver).

Identify refugia: use areas that are less affected by climate change than other areas as sources for recovery or as destinations for climate sensitive migrants and maximise populations of rare and threatened species.

Relocation: relocate where appropriate and necessary organisms from one location to another in order to bypass a barrier (e.g. urban area). This may involve translocation of genotypes, species or soil invertebrates or microbes, if appropriate, captive breeding programs and ex-situ conservation programmes of the genetic diversity of threatened mountain plants.

Build communication and scientist-manager-public partnerships: Create interdisciplinary teams of economists, climatologists, land use experts and modellers with the mission to carry out integrative research combining conservation planning climate change, adaptive capacities, human livelihoods that may offer further guidance.


Appendix 4

Convention on the Conservation

of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats

Standing Committee

Recommendation No. 146 (2010) of the Standing Committee, adopted on 9 December 2010, on guidance for Parties on biodiversity and climate change in European islands

The Standing Committee of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, acting under the terms of Article 14 of the Convention;

Having regard to the aims of the Convention to conserve wild flora and fauna and its natural habitats;

Recognising that climate change affects biological diversity in the territory covered by the Convention, including species, habitats and the Areas of Special Conservation Interest of the Emerald Network;

Recognising the need to adapt conservation work to the challenges of climate change so as to minimise its impacts on the species and natural habitats protected under the Convention;

Bearing in mind that uncertainties surrounding the precise nature of future climate change and its impacts on biodiversity should not delay practical conservation action;

Recalling CBD COP 10 Decision X/33 on Biodiversity and climate change;

Recalling the “Message from Reunion Island” issued at the conference “The European Union and its Overseas Entities: Strategies to Counter Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss” (July 2008) and the exceptional importance of the biodiversity of the EU’s Overseas Countries and Territories and Outermost Regions and their vulnerability to climate change;

Recalling Recommendation No. 99 (2003) of the Standing Committee on the European Strategy on Invasive Alien Species;

Recalling Recommendation No. 91 (2002) of the Standing Committee on Invasive Alien Species that threaten biological diversity in Islands and geographically and evolutionary isolated ecosystems;

Recalling Recommendations No. 135 (2008) and No. 143 (2009) of the Standing Committee, on addressing the impacts of climate change on biodiversity;

Noting that European islands are home to many species and habitats of conservation concern, that they contain a large number of endemic species (particularly in the Mediterranean and Macaronesian Regions), many of which are listed in Appendices I and II of the Convention as strictly protected species;

Noting that often, due to their geographical characteristics, many islands biodiversity is already vulnerable because of their limited space in islands and the high concentration of human activities affecting natural ecosystems, particularly in their costs;

Noting also that island biodiversity, because of its endemicity , the reduced possibilities in increasing habitat connectivity and the reduced distribution area of many species, is particularly vulnerable to climate change and the risk of spread of invasive alien species;

Noting that, following the report of the Group of Experts on European Islands Biological Diversity [document T-PVS (2009) 13], the geographic scope of this recommendation is restricted to islands in the Mediterranean and Black Seas, the Baltic Sea, the Arctic and East Atlantic (from Iceland to Ascension Island);

Welcoming and bearing in mind the report “Climate change and the biodiversity of European islands’ by Ms Cordula Epple [document T-PVS/Inf (2010) 9];

Recommends relevant Contracting Parties to the Convention and invites relevant Observer States to:

1.   Address and communicate the impacts of climate change on island biological diversity and its conservation including coastal and marine biodiversity in the waters surrounding islands;

2.   Carry out inventories and specific national and European research on island biodiversity that will be most affected by climate change, monitoring their change, identifying in particular species that may go extinct in the next decades, and propose solutions for the conservation of their genetic diversity;

3.   Carry out a special effort to create more reserves in and around islands, in particular coastal and marine reserves, ensuring their functionality and better integrating biodiversity concerns in development, water and tourism policies;

4.   Develop specific climate change adaptation policies and action for island biodiversity, taking due account of the proposed guidance set out in the Appendix to the present recommendation.

5. Where appropriate, implement the proposed actions of the guidance in appendix to this recommendation.

 
APPENDIX

Guidance

This guidance draws on the expert report commissioned by the Council of Europe and discussed by the Group of Experts on Biodiversity and Climate Change at its meeting in 2010.

Measures that may be considered as appropriate for addressing the impacts of climate change on biodiversity, for the purposes of the application of the Convention, are listed for consideration by Contracting Parties. These measures are offered as examples of action that may be taken by authorities at all levels of governance to address this issue. Other complementary measures may be identified by governments as equally appropriate to their particular circumstances and concerns. Notwithstanding these adaptation measures, there is an urgent need for climate change mitigation actions at local, regional, country and global levels. Effective mitigation is crucial to contain climate change to levels within which we may have a reasonable chance of achieving effective adaptation. Although these recommendation focus on the adaptation to climate change, it is important to bear in mind that, on the one hand, climate change mitigation activities may be harmful to biodiversity and, on the other hand, the conservation and restoration of certain ecosystem types ­ in particular forests and wetlands ­ have to play an important role in the overall mitigation effort.

The effects of climate change on island biodiversity are complex. The impacts of a changing climate on the species and habitats protected by the Bern Convention may differ widely, depending on the species and the interactions with other species and/or their habitats, as well as according to location and, especially latitude. The effects that climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, taken in other sectors, can have on species and habitats should also be considered in order to avoid negative impacts.

Islands and climate change

       Islands are more vulnerable than other territories as in many of them there has been an intensive human occupation and because some of them are small so that developments that would be environmentally feasible in the continent have greater impact on natural ecosystems. Pollution is often a problem in islands, linked with relatively high human density, and often not much water. Management of waste can be a challenge due to scarcity of land. The absence of long rivers in small islands has often lead in Mediterranean and Macaronesian islands to water scarcity, intensive use of ground water and sometimes saline intrusions. Invasive alien species have a strongest impact on island endemics than in flora and fauna elsewhere. This marked environmental fragility of island ecosystems is likely to be worsened by climate change.

       European islands are home to many species and habitats of conservation concern, including endemic as well as threatened biodiversity. Endemism is largely concentrated on islands in the Mediterranean and Macaronesian region. There are significant knowledge gaps concerning current and potential future impacts of climate change on European island biodiversity. However, there is enough evidence to demonstrate that impacts already take place and are likely to increase in future. Processes related to climate change which are particularly relevant in the island context include sea level rise and the possibility of increasing incidence of invasive alien species. Available measures to support adaptation for biodiversity are similar to those recommended for other areas However, possibilities to enhance connectivity beyond the individual island are limited so that a greater attention has to be paid to island unique ecosystems and their conservation.


PROPOSED ACTIONS

1.   Applying general policy on climate change adaptation to islands

      Fully implement previous Bern Convention recommendations relevant to the conservation of island biodiversity under climate change which have already been approved by the Standing Committee and should be applied in the island context as a matter of urgency.

      These include:

·          Bern Convention Recommendation 135 (2008) on addressing the impacts of climate change on biodiversity, and in particular the points of guidance on taking an integrated approach to climate change response activities, addressing non-climatic threats to vulnerable species, taking early action on the protection of island-endemic amphibian and reptile species, maintaining and restoring large intact habitats as well as ecosystem structure and function, establishing networks of interconnected protected areas, increasing protected area coverage where necessary to ensure that vulnerable species groups and habitats are included, establishing buffer zones around conservation areas, avoiding development in coastal areas, considering the role of species translocation and ex situ conservation, ensuring policy integration, using adaptive management and addressing invasive species issues.

·          Bern Convention Recommendation 143 (2009) on further guidance for Parties on biodiversity and climate change, and in particular the points of guidance on minimising threats to vulnerable invertebrates and plants, including in Atlantic and Mediterranean islands, implementing appropriate protected area management to increase resilience and considering mechanisms for implementation of off-protected areas management.

·          Bern Convention Recommendation 91 (2002) on invasive species that threaten biological diversity on islands and evolutionary isolated ecosystem which ask for special mechanisms to prohibit intentional introduction of alien species and special precautionary measures to avoid their unintentional introduction.

·          The European Strategy on Invasive Species endorsed in Recommendation No. 99(2003) which requests Contracting Parties to draw up and implement national strategies on invasive alien species taking into account that guidance.

2.   Islands of special concern

‑     When developing adaptation measures, special consideration should be given to islands of the Mediteranean and Macaronesian regions because of their high rates of endemism and expected serious changes in precipitation regimes, and within these regions particularly to those sites hosting vulnerable or threatened endemic taxa, or unique habitat types; mountain habitats in both regions are under a double threat of being small, be particularly isolated and often, contain unique ecosystems or species that can migrate nowhere (like the high Canarian mountain) .

‑     Identify islands in other regions may also contain highly sensitive biota which require attention, as exemplified by the observed drastic declines in seabird populations of the North East Atlantic region.

3.   Ensuring preservation of species that may lose their climate space

Because many island species have no or little possibility to migrate or extend their geographical range to other territories, and taking into account the high level of endemism on certain islands, special consideration should be given to the question of ex situ conservation and translocation for those species which are threatened with extinction in their current habitat, and unlikely to be able to reach other suitable habitat by natural dispersal. Although both ex situ and translocation measures are very resource-intensive strategies and not always feasible in practice, and translocation also carries a significant amount of risk to biota in the target area, where such options exist they may be the only way to ensure the survival of certain taxa.


4.   Developing special financial and regulatory mechanisms for island biodiversity

      Because islands gather, together with mountains, a very high proportion of Europe’s endemic flora and fauna (see for instance that Appendix I of the Bern Convention had to be split in two parts, the second exclusively with Macaronesian flora) a special and solidarity effort has to be carried out at the European level to provide support to research and conservation in high diversity islands. Islands should receive the appropriate means to be able to cope with the responsibility of conserving such a rich common European heritage.

5.   Island biodiversity research needs

In addition to research needs already identified in previous reports (including improving the information base on the vulnerability of Bern Convention species and habitats, and strengthening monitoring schemes) and by other Expert Groups (including the identification of knowledge gaps in European island threatened biodiversity and on invasive alien species on European islands), the following specific research needs should be addressed:

·          improving knowledge about island endemic species in less well researched groups,

·          monitoring climate change impacts on island biota (including impacts on migratory species),

·          further development of appropriate approaches to assess the vulnerability of rare and endemic species to climate change, including trait-based assessment frameworks,

·          improving climate projections at a resolution which is appropriate for consideration of climate change effects on islands,

·          improving knowledge on species that depend both on islands and the marine environment to see how their survival m ay be affected by climate change.


Appendix 5

Convention on the Conservation

of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats

Standing Committee

Recommendation No. 147 (2010) of the Standing Committee, adopted on 9 December 2010, on guidance for Parties on wildland fires, biodiversity and climate change

The Standing Committee of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, acting under the terms of Article 14 of the Convention;

Having regard to the aims of the Convention to conserve wild flora and fauna and its natural habitats;

Recognising that climate change affects biological diversity in the territory covered by the Convention, including species, habitats and the Areas of Special Conservation Interest of the Emerald Network;

Recognising the need to adapt conservation work to the challenges of climate change so as to minimise its impacts on the species and natural habitats protected under the Convention;

Bearing in mind that uncertainties surrounding the precise nature of future climate change and its impacts on biodiversity should not delay practical conservation action;

Recognising that fire is a major factor in shaping vegetation and that it may trigger important permanent ecosystem change in a context of climate change;

Aware that both many natural and seminatural habitats and forest plantations may be more prone to burn if rainfall decreases and temperatures rise with climate change in some parts of Europe;

Conscious that nature conservation and forestry policies need to take into account and be adapted to changing patterns of fire that will accompany climate change;

Recalling CBD COP 10 Decision X/33 on Biodiversity and climate change;

Recalling Recommendations No. 135 (2008) and No. 143 (2009) of the Standing Committee, on addressing the impacts of climate change on biodiversity;

Welcoming and bearing in mind the report “Climate change, wildland fires and biodiversity” by Mr Jose Manuel Moreno [doc T-PVS/Inf (2010) 10];

Recommends Contracting Parties to the Convention and invites Observer States to:

1.   Assess how fire may affect biological diversity in a context of climate change, particularly in fire-prone areas; identity which areas may increase their risk of fire in different climate change scenarios and take precautionary measures; identify, in particular, areas that may be at risk of desertification in Europe by a combination of higher temperatures, repetitive fire and erosion;

2.   Assess the changes required in land use and land management policies, including forestry, to make forests and other ecosystems more resilient to fires in a context of climate change;

3.   Consider the role of fire in the implementation of Bern Convention guidance on biodiversity and climate change.

4. Where appropriate, implement the proposed actions of the guidance in appendix to this recommendation.

 
APPENDIX

Guidance

This guidance draws on the expert report commissioned by the Council of Europe and discussed by the Group of Experts on Biodiversity and Climate Change at its meeting in 2010.

Measures that may be considered as appropriate for addressing the impacts of climate change on biodiversity, for the purposes of the application of the Convention, are listed for consideration by Contracting Parties. These measures are offered as examples of action that may be taken by authorities at all levels of governance to address this issue. Other complementary measures may be identified by governments as equally appropriate to their particular circumstances and concerns. Notwithstanding these adaptation measures, there is an urgent need for climate change mitigation actions at local, regional, country and global levels. Effective mitigation is crucial to contain climate change to levels within which we may have a reasonable chance of achieving effective adaptation. Although these recommendation focus on the adaptation to climate change, it is important to bear in mind that, on the one hand, climate change mitigation activities may be harmful to biodiversity and, on the other hand, the conservation and restoration of certain ecosystem types ­ in particular forests and wetlands ­ have to play an important role in the overall mitigation effort.

The effects of wildland fires on ecosystems and their biological communities are complex. The impacts of a changing climate on the species and habitats protected by the Bern Convention may differ widely, depending on the species and the interactions with other species and/or their habitats, as well as according to location. The effects that climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, taken in other sectors, can have on species and habitats should also be considered in order to avoid negative impacts.

Wildland fires, biological diversity and climate change

       Fire has a complex impact on ecosystems. It helps shape vegetation and it can be a major factor of plant communities change in a climate change context. Mediterranean ecosystems have evolved in a world with fire, so numerous plant traits can be associated to a long evolution with fire.

Fires do not burn the landscape at random, and tend to affect certain vegetation types more often than others, and occur at certain locations. Fires burn through natural protected areas as well. During the last three years, of all the area burned in the largest EU Mediterranean countries nearly 1/3 was part of the Natura 2000 network. Areas close to or at intermediate distance to roads or towns are the ones that burn most frequently. These elements of fire risk are important for conservation areas.

Although many ecosystems of Southern Europe and the Mediterranean can be considered to have evolved under fire, the current fire regime is different from what it might have been in the past. Changes in fire regime, such as increased frequency and severity of fires, threatens ecosystem stability and, in some areas, favours degradation loops that impedes the recovery of the vegetation towards more mature stages.

Postfire regeneration usually follows the autosuccessional pattern. Plants are able to withstand fires mainly by surviving the blaze and resprouting or by germinating from seeds that survive the fire as well and, in many instances, require heat-related stimuli to germinate. In a few years after fire the plant community resembles that before the burn. However, direct regeneration is not always warranted, especially if the climatic on soil conditions have changed. Furthermore, there are many emblematic species that do not regenerate well after fire.

      It is not excluded that, with climate change, parts of Southern Europe and the Mediterranean become more arid and that many areas of Central and Northern Europe where fire does not affect at present large surfaces may see more frequent fires as temperatures rise and rainfall patterns change.

Difficult as it is to project future impacts of climate and other global changes on the vegetation and species composition of any system in the first type, much more difficult it is to do so in Southern Europe and the Mediterranean areas. Restoration has no easy models to use them as a reference, and many ideas need to be revisited at the light of new paleo-ecological evidence. Given the threats of changes in fire and other climate and global changes over the values at hand, not the least its distinct and rich biodiversity, the challenge of conserving these territories under the ongoing climate and land-use/land cover changes and other global changes is paramount.

PROPOSED ACTIONS

1    Include the role of fire in conservation of species and habitats in fire prone areas

Fires have been occurring, and will most certainly occur within many protected areas in southern Europe and in the landscape matrix that surrounds them. Fires are generally considered as a threat, and fire suppression is the dominant policy throughout SEM. There are enormous skills and capacities to fight fires. Yet, when they break out inside or around protected areas they will burn through them. But since the main/only policy is to fight them, provisions to understand how they directly or indirectly affect protected areas and species once burned are, for the most part, lacking. Until now, the ecological role of fire is ignored. Consequently, when they occur there is no contingency plan as to how the affected system will be impacted. Therefore, even without any climate change, biodiversity conservation plans need to consider how fires will affect species and habitats throughout the territory. Fire ecology is a must in all management and conservation plans, and strategies to incorporate this knowledge must be enacted.

2.   Identify the role of natural fire or prescribed burning in conservation

Some ecosystems and species depend on fire or can benefit from it. Identifying them might be critical since current policies will jeopardize their persistence. In these cases, plans for introducing fire, either by prescribed burning, or, when appropriate, with wild fires within acceptable conditions to avoid other risks must be made. Because the prevailing view is that fires are undesired, and the risks that entail managing fires is great, conservation plans in need of fire must be implemented with great care to avoid accidents that would stop the continuation of needed plans with the concourse of fire.

3.   When drawing up conservation plans aimed at specific target species, consider how fire will affect them

Species or groups of species are impacted by fire differently, depending of fire characteristics and other factors. In the case of protected areas whose objective is one or a group of particular species, the viability of their conservation in a context of fire needs to be specifically considered. Management plans that address the possible impacts of fire need to be species or group specific, since different species are likely to respond differently to fire.

4.   Assess the vulnerability of the protected areas network to fire

Corridors and stepping stones are important elements for insuring population persistence and species migration, more so in view of the impending threats. These elements, however, may be subject to fire. When these components are formed by forest, fire can alter their functioning capacity for long. Since it is very likely that some of these more isolated elements are in areas with greater human influence, their susceptibility to fire and repeated fire might be rather great and needs to be quantified since its long-term persistence may be severely threatened. As with the rest of the protected areas, the impact of fire needs to be known in advance in order to better evaluate their capacity to continue playing their role. Robust network designs, capable of not succumbing to a single fire, are needed to allow these places continue playing their vital service.

5.   Ensure, where urban developments and roads are near protected areas, that measures are taken to extreme fire vigilance

Most fires are lit by people. Towns and roads are the main sources of ignitions. However, the probability of burning is still high at some intermediate distance to roads and towns since fire can travel long distances. Protected areas within these domains are at higher risk of fire than those further away. Urban developments into the wildlands and near protected areas can be a threat to these due to increase ignition probability and subsequent fire. Also, the network of roads crossing protected areas, in addition to other perils, can clearly add risk. These two elements must be cautiously considered when declaring protected spaces and be particularly monitored during the time of high fire risk. Eventually, specific restrictions might have to be put in place to minimize risks. Risk mapping of protected spaces taking into consideration proximity to roads and towns is critically needed.

6.   Identify synergies/conflicts between fire and conservation

Fire fighting includes, among other, fire break lines or fire-break areas. These can provide open space and hence favour species persistence different to those in the preserved matrix, particularly when these are forest. The role of such areas and corridors as sources of rapid colonization after fire needs to be appraised. These areas can serve as colonization points but there are positive or negative elements (increasing potential for invasive species) that need to be fully considered. The advantages and disadvantages of these areas in the event of fire need to be taken into consideration.

7.   Assess changes in the landscape matrix through fire

Abandonment will continue in response to changes in socioeconomics and with climate change. Abandonment modifies the landscape matrix towards homogenization and that can threatened the persistence of many species. Fires can open up space and introduce large changes in the landscape matrix. Not all organisms will be equally affected but such changes in the landscape structure. Some, through the openings made by fire, will be favoured. Others will be negatively affected. Conservation plans must therefore contemplate the landscape scale changes that are introduced by fire.

8.   Assess future risks

Changes in fire frequency, intensity/severity, size and season must be specifically contemplated for conservation areas under scenarios of climate and land-use/land cover change. This must be done for current areas with fires and for those in which fires were not present but that are likely to occur due to the changes in climatic conditions and other factors. Each of the parameters that define the fire regime can differentially affect the various species. Changes in fire season, particularly when migrant species are concerned, need to be cautiously considered. Consequently, the impact of each of them needs to be assessed in general or for the particular species or group of species that are of interest.

9.   Assess how drought and other stresses may increase fire risks when drawing management plans for biodiversity

Conservation scenarios that include fire must take into consideration the level of stress being endured by the various species since, little by little, they will inhabit areas that are more stressful for them due to changes in climate among other stressors. The capacity of particular species or groups to respond to fire under such circumstances and to changes in fire regime needs to be appraised. As fires might occur under extreme conditions not seen until now (drought being the most relevant) this type of interactions need to be fully taken into consideration in future management plans for biodiversity conservation. Additional stresses due to more frequent and intense heat waves, particularly in the open habitats of the first years of regeneration after fire, must also be known.

10. Include worst case scenarios in conservation plans

Although the great majority of fires are of small size, some of then can attain very large sizes, in the order of thousands of hectares. In Spain, the maximum size of any fire recorded is around 30.000 ha, and the maximum length is 45 km (Moreno et al. 1998). The potential for one fire to spread over a whole protected area at once is not negligible. Smaller and homogeneous areas in a matrix of high fire risk are the most threatened. The prospect of increasing fire size under future conditions further adds to this. Consequently, worst case scenarios that include burning a large portion or even the whole protected area when these do not exceed several thousands of hectares needs to be contemplated. The role of buffer zones in this context needs to be equally appraised.

11. Examine how fires may bring opportunities to accommodate species to the new climate

Fires, by opening new space, and by having reduced competition among organisms in the early phases can open new space for species to move upwards or northwards in search of suitable climate. But this can also be used for invaders. Differentiating the new colonizers that are now attuned to the new conditions from those invading is important. Identifying the potential for fire to act as stepping stones must also be considered.

12. Identify species at greater risk

Species of late successional stages, thus requiring longer time to colonize burned areas, are probably the ones at greater risk in scenarios of increased fire frequency. Moister sites should regenerate quicker than more xeric sites, but their rate of recovery will be delayed with the onset of reduced precipitations under future climate for large parts of SEM. Consequently, their recovery period will be extended and the probability of burning again in earlier stages of regeneration indicates that species proper of mature successional stages might suffer. Studies should emphasize determining which groups of species enter at which state of the postfire succession and on the time needed for their recovery.

13. Identify which species may never recover after fire

Among those species most likely to suffer from fire are those of reduced distribution that are linked to particular systems that are fire sensitive. That is, those that do not regenerate after fire. A fire, particularly a large one, can severe these populations for long, making its recovery difficult. Identification of bottle-necks and deadly-traps among organisms and their systems in the event of fire is critical for those species that may be most threatened.

14. Promote research in the ecological links between species that may suffer a mismatch by the combination of fire and climate change

Climate change is producing mismatches among species (in pollination, in dispersal). Furthermore, fire con contribute to alter them. Identifying mismatches that are enhanced by the combination of fire and climate change might be of relevance for the maintenance of species that may already be in danger.

15. Examine risk of fire in possible changes in the protected area network

With climate change, the size of the protected areas will have to be increased to achieve the same conservation objectives. Until now, fire has not been taken into consideration in the design of the network of protected areas. Yet, its effectiveness can vary. Consequently, future modifications must consider how fire would affect its effectiveness. Since it is likely that the protected areas of the current network are those in a better state of conservation, which, presumably, are those further away from human influence, it is likely that new additions will be closer to human habitations, thence with higher risk of fire. Risk of fire must be included at the time of modifying the network of protected areas.

16. Improve awareness on the ecological role of fire

Fire is commonly seen as something negative, but it can play a dual role in the conservation of biodiversity. Fire, for the most part, hardly receives any attention in education, even in university programs, or not as much as its relevance demands. Every effort must be done to form and inform the general public and students at all levels about the role of fire in ecosystems and biodiversity conservation.

17. Promote research in how wildland fires affect biodiversity in a context of climate change

Knowledge on how fire affects the various groups of organisms across gradients is still a must. Long term observation sites, where the main groups of are studied jointly should be established.

Large fires, particularly large fires episodes, are laboratories that should be explored in depth for their role on biodiversity. Since many of these fires occur along gradients, these are opportunities that should not go by unexplored.

Maps with fire history are now possible for the last decades. These offer opportunities to study the impact of repeated fires on biodiversity across groups and across landscapes.

Protected areas are not static and will change with climate change. Modelling their fate and their vulnerability under scenarios of climate and fire change are crucial to understanding their future role in biodiversity conservation.


Appendix 6

Convention on the Conservation

of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats

Standing Committee

Recommendation No. 148 (2010) of the Standing Committee, adopted on 9 December 2010, on the conservation of large carnivores in the Caucasus

The Standing Committee of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, acting under the terms of Article 14 of the Convention;

Having regard to the aims of the Convention to conserve wild flora and fauna and its natural habitats;

Wishing to promote co-existence of viable populations of large carnivores with sustained development of rural areas in appropriate regions;

Noting the great interest of the Caucasus region for large carnivores;

Aware that the drafting and implementation of Action Plans may be a useful tool to redress the situation;

Recalling its following Recommendations:

Recommendation No. 115 (2005) on the conservation and management of transboundary populations of large carnivores,

Recommendation No. 137 (2008) on population level management of large carnivores poulation;

Recommends that Contracting Parties to the Convention in the Caucasus region:

1.     Monitor populations of large carnivores and their prey in the region, co-operating and sharing information relating to the conservation and management of shared populations of large carnivores,

2.     Elaborate national action plans for all large carnivores species present in their territories, giving priority to those more threatened at the national level (ie. Armenia: lynx and bear; Azerbaijan: leopard and striped hyena; Georgia: lynx and bear; Turkey: leopard and bear),

3.     Draft and implement jointly an action plan for leopard in the Caucasus,

4.     Increase technical capacity in monitoring and conservation of large carnivores,

5.     Launch, resources permitting, human-dimension, awareness, education and mediation programmes, aimed at knowing and improving attitudes of inhabitants and tourists to large carnivores. Develop appropriate concrete help measures for mitigation conflict with livestock farmers and hunters.

6.     Fight poaching of protected large carnivores,

7.     Integrate lynx conservation objectives into forestry management;

Invites Observer states to implement, where appropriate, the recommendation above.


Appendix 7

Convention on the Conservation

of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats

Standing Committee

Recommendation No. 149 (2010) of the Standing Committee, adopted on 9 December 2010, on the eradication of the Ruddy Duck (Oxyura jamaicensis) in the Western Palaearctic

The Standing Committee of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, acting under the terms of Article 14 of the Convention;

Having regard to the aims of the Convention to conserve wild flora and fauna and its natural habitats;

Recalling that Article 11, paragraph b, of the Convention requires parties to strictly control the introduction of non-native species;

Recalling that Article 1, paragraph 2, of the Convention requires Contracting Parties to give particular emphasis to the conservation of endangered and vulnerable species;

Noting that the species Oxyura leucocephala, listed in Appendix II of the Convention, is endangered;

Recognising the efforts of Contracting Parties in preserving the populations of this species;

Noting, however, that the main threat to the long-term survival of the species is its hybridisation with American Ruddy Ducks Oxyura jamaicensis introduced in Europe;

Conscious of the need to arrest the expansion in Europe and Northern Africa of the Ruddy Duck;

Recalling Recommendation No. 48 of the Standing Committee, adopted on 26 January 1996, on the conservation of European globally threatened birds;

Recalling the International Single Species Action Plan for the Conservation of the White-headed Duck, prepared by BirdLife International, Wetlands International and the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust and adopted by CMS, AEWA  and the European Union;

Recalling Recommendation No. 61 (1997) on the conservation of the White-headed Duck (Oxyura leucocephala) which asked Contracting Parties to develop and implement without further delay national control programmes which could include the eradication of the Ruddy Duck from all the countries in the Western Palaearctic;

Recalling the Bern Convention Action plan for eradication of the Ruddy Duck (1999-2002) drafted by the Wildfowl & Wetland Trust [document T-PVS/Birds (99) 9];

Noting that the Bern Convention Action Plan for the eradication of the Ruddy Duck is an integral part of the International Single Species Action Plan for the Conservation of the White-headed Duck;

Welcoming the very effective control carried out in the United Kingdom, in the framework of the LIFE project, to drastically reduce the number of Ruddy Ducks in its territory;

Welcoming also the commendable efforts to control the species in the wild in other contracting parties;

Regretting, however, that delayed or insufficient action in some states following the Bern Convention eradication plan, has allowed the establishment of populations in mainland Europe and thereby made eradication more costly and difficult;

Noting that very little action has been taken to address the issue of Ruddy Ducks in captive collections;

Referring to the document “Eradication of the Ruddy Duck (Oxyura jamaicensis) in the Western Palaearctic: a review of Progress and revised Action Plan 2011-2015” by the Wildfowl & Wetland Trust [document T‑PVS/Inf (2010) 21];

Conscious that, following present culling efforts, it is realistic to achieve a full eradication of the Ruddy Duck in the wild in the Western Palaearctic in the next five years;

Noting, however, that this commendable goal will only be reached if all states concerned collaborate in a common action plan for eradication of the species,

Noting that failure to act effectively and immediately will increase the threat to the White-headed Duck and increase the complexity and financial cost of eradication;

Recalling also Resolution 4.5 of AEWA, which, amongst others, strongly urges all countries with Ruddy Duck populations to establish or step up complementary eradication measures in order to prevent the spread of the species in Europe and towards its complete eradication in the AEWA area,

Recommend that:

All Contracting Parties:

1.      Implement without delay the actions specified in the “Action Plan for the Eradication of the Ruddy Duck in the Western palaearctic, 2011-2015 enclosed as appendix to this recommendation;

Priority States:

2.      Belgium urgently implement an eradication  programme aimed  at achieving the common target of eliminating annually at least 50 % of Ruddy Duck national population to achieve total eradication in its territory no later than 2015;

3.      France intensify present efforts to eradicate Ruddy Duck and carry out an extensive public awareness campaign;

4.      The Netherlands urgently implement the existing eradication programme, providing the resources needed for its completion; and as a matter of urgency establish the national co-ordination foreseen in the plan so as to facilitate its implementation, taking into account that delays will increase costs;

5.      Spain continue its current policy to eradicate every single Ruddy Duck or hybrid detected in its territory;

6.      United Kingdomcontinue present efforts to eradicate the remaining populations of Ruddy Duck and pursue them after the end of the very effective and positive LIFE project;

Other States:

7.      Denmark, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland eliminate systematically all Ruddy Ducks appearing in their territories;

8.      Morocco control systematically Ruddy Ducks and hybrids in its territory;

9.      Tunisia monitor White-headed Duck and eliminate systematically Ruddy Ducks and hybrids in its territory;

Invites Algeria to monitor White-headed Duck and eliminate systematically Ruddy Ducks and hybrids in its territory.


APPENDIX

Action Plan for the Eradication of the Ruddy Duck in the Western Palaearctic, 2011-2015

Goal

Ruddy Ducks [1] stop being a threat to the White-headed duck

Target

Long-term eradication of the Ruddy Duck in the western Palaearctic and establishment of measures to avoid new introductions of the species.

I.    Actions concerning eradication of Ruddy Ducks in the wild

General target

Eradication of the Ruddy Duck in the wild in the western Palaearctic by 2015

National targets

Annual reduction of at least 50 % of the national wintering population

Action 1

Action 2

Action 3

Action 4

Remove legal barriers that may hinder the control of Ruddy Ducks

Monitor the status and distribution of Ruddy Duck in the wild

Eliminate Ruddy Ducks in the wild following the national target

Establish, as necessary, national working groups to guide the implementation of this eradication strategy and appoint a national focal point for international co-ordination.

II.  Actions concerning Ruddy Duck in captivity

Goal

Avoid any new escape of Ruddy Ducks to the wild in the Western Palaearctic

General target

Phase out all captive populations of Ruddy Ducks, if possible by 2020

Action 5

Action 6

Action 7

Action 8

Prohibit the release of Ruddy Ducks from captivity

Prohibit trade in Ruddy Ducks by 2013

Monitor the status of Ruddy Ducks in captivity

Encourage the sterilisation and/or elimination of Ruddy Ducks in captivity

III. Actions concerning public awareness, reporting and international co-ordination

Goal

Improve understanding by the public of the problem

Goal

Follow the progress of the eradication plan and update it as necessary

Action 9

Action 10

Implement public awareness activities on the need to control Ruddy Ducks.

Report annually to the Bern Convention on national action and collaborate with other states, the Bern Convention, AEWA and other appropriate bodies in the implementation of this eradication plan and the Action plan for the conservation of the White-headed Duck.


Appendix 8

Convention on the Conservation

of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats

Standing Committee

Recommendation No. 150  (2010) of the Standing Committee, adopted on 9 December 2010, on the European Charter on Recreational fishing and Biodiversity

The Standing Committee of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, acting under the terms of Article 14 of the Convention;

Having regard to the aims of the Convention to conserve wild flora and fauna and their natural habitats;

Noting that integrated ecosystem management and habitat protection have great advantages for the preservation of biodiversity and should go hand in hand with species protection efforts;

Aware that the identification of processes and categories of activities which have or are likely to have significant adverse impact on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity (as stated in Article 7 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD) are also of utmost importance for the preservation of threatened species;

Recalling Decision V/6 of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD on the Ecosystem Approach, adopted in 2000, and including the 12 principles of the Ecosystem Approach;

Recalling the 2003 Kyiv Resolution on Biodiversity, which includes the commitment to ‘halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010’, as adopted by Environment Ministers and Heads of delegation from 51 countries in the Pan-European region;

Recalling Decision VII/12 of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD on Sustainable Use, adopted in 2004, and including the Addis Abeba Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity;

Recalling the 2010 Bern Declaration on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in Europe: 2010 and beyond;

Recalling its Recommendation N°128(2007) on the European Charter on Hunting and Biodiversity;

Recognising that the 2010 biodiversity target has not been achieved;

Desirous to avoid a further loss of biological diversity in Europe;

Having regard to the EIFAC ( European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission) Code of practice for recreational fisheries, to the FAO Code of conduct for responsible fisheries and other relevant policy regarding fishing;

Acknowleging the complementarity of these different instruments;

Desirous to ensure that all forms of recreational fishing in Europe are practiced in a sustainable manner, avoiding negative impacts on biodiversity and making a positive contribution to the conservation of species and habitats;

Referring to the principles and guidelines included in the European Charter on Recreational Fishing and Biodiversity (document T-PVS/Inf(2010)3 revised);

Considering this Charter as guidelines for competent national authorities and relevant stakeholders as appropriate;

RECOMMENDS Contracting Parties to the Convention, and INVITES Observer States and Organisations, to take into consideration the European Charter on Recreational Fishing and Biodiversity and apply its principles in the elaboration and implementation of their policy on recreational fishing so as to ensure that recreational fishing is carried out in a sustainable way.

INVITES Contracting Parties to the Convention, Observers States and Organisations to take into consideration the Charter also in recreational fishing in coastal and maritime areas where appropriate.


Appendix 9

Convention on the Conservation

of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats

Standing Committee

Recommendation No. 151 (2010) of the Standing Committee, adopted on 9 December 2010, on protection of the Hermann tortoise (Testudo hermanni) in the Massif des Maures and Plaine des Maures localities (Var) in France

The Standing Committee of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, acting under the terms of Article 14 of the Convention,

Having regard to the aims of the Convention to conserve wild flora and fauna and their natural habitats;

Having regard to Resolution (78) 22 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on threatened amphibians and reptiles in Europe;

Recalling its Recommendation No. 26 (1991) on the conservation of some threatened reptiles in Europe, recommending that “the French Government protect as a nature reserve the habitat of Testudo hermanni in the Massif and the Plaine des Maures, thus removing further threats from development”;

Recalling its Recommendation No. 59 (1997) on the drafting and implementation of action plans for threatened wild fauna species;

Recalling its Guidelines of 1993 to be taken into account in recovery plans for species of amphibians and reptiles;

Recalling that Article 3 of the Convention provides that each Contracting Party shall take the necessary steps to promote national policies for the conservation of wild flora, wild fauna and natural habitats, with particular attention to endangered and vulnerable species, especially endemic ones, and endangered habitats;

Recalling that Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention provides that each Contracting Party shall take appropriate and necessary legislative and administrative measures to ensure the conservation of the habitats of the wild flora and fauna species, especially those specified in Appendices I and II, and the conservation of endangered natural habitats;

Referring to the other provisions of the Convention relating to protection of habitats and conservation of species;

Taking into consideration the report drawn up the expert after his on-the-spot appraisal [T‑PVS/Files (2010) 25] ;

Recalling that the Plaine des Maures locality in the département of Var, France, comprises not only an exceptional site for the preservation of the Hermann tortoise, a strictly protected species listed in Appendix II to the Convention, but that the plain and the Massif des Maures also constitute, together with a small population in Spain, the last European retention site for continental populations of the species;

Considering that the transformation and destruction of the specific habitats constitute the most fundamental threat to which the species is exposed;

Considering that systematic account has been taken of the 13 points made in Recommendation No. 118;

Observing that in the meantime several schemes (urban build-up, clearance of vegetation for grape-growing, extension of refuse tips, etc.), which have been allowed to go ahead without proper control or co-ordination by the administrative authorities have irreversibly impaired wide expanses of vital habitats for the tortoises and numerous protected species;

Aware of the threats posed by the LGV (high-speed rail-link) project and the need to make advance preparations for the integration of new transport infrastructure in the limited area of the Plaine des Maures;

Having taken note of the publication of the Biotope Protection Order concerning the Saint-André-La Pardiguière area in March 2006;

Having taken note of the publication of the decree concerning the creation of a national nature reserve on the Plaine des Maures in June 2009;

Having taken note of the publication of the National Action Plan to protect the Hermann Tortoise in France in November 2009;

Stressing the need to take the additional measures warranted by the conservation requirements of the species and to adopt a more detailed and comprehensive approach to the problem,

Recommends that the French Government:

1.           Rapidly appoint a team of managers with responsibility for both maintenance work and scientific activities. The team should also be capable of organising the monitoring of the habitats and populations of Hermann Tortoise throughout the entire range situated outside the reserve, as identified in the National Action Plan (PNA);

2.           Continue to actively seek alternatives to the Balançan waste storage centre, which is to be closed in 2012. These alternatives should, insofar as possible, be situated outside the specific range identified or at all events not restrict the potential habitats of this species any further;

3.           Conduct rigorous monitoring of the application of the reduction, compensation and accompanying measures that will be taken as part of the “Combes Jauffret” housing project, which is justified by overriding public interests of a social nature, and keep the Standing Committee informed;

4.           Establish from the outset the conditions in which the high-speed rail link that is to cross the Plaine des Maures will be carried out, fixing in advance priority principles which will make it possible to take account of all natural habitats, restore ecological networks to their original state and protect tortoise populations;

5.           Ensure the active implementation of the action plan by focusing on priorities corresponding to objectives 1 – 2 – 3 and 7, i.e. to take better account of the conservation requirements of the species, conserve a coherent network of favourable sites and populations, maintain and develop favourable habitats and base directives and conservation activities on scientific knowledge and appraisals. The aim is to rapidly have scientific references and ecosystem models which can serve as a basis for long-term management and as an example for other species and other sites.


Appendix 10

Convention on the Conservation

of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats

Standing Committee

Revised Resolution on the renewal of the European Diploma of Protected Areas awarded to the Bílé Karpaty Protected Landscape Area (Czech Republic)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15.a of the Statute of the Council of Europe,

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15.a of the Statute of the Council of Europe,

Having regard to Resolution (65) 6 instituting the European Diploma for certain protected landscapes, reserves and natural features, as amended by Resolution CM/ResDip(2008)1 on the revised regulations for the European Diploma of Protected Areas;

Having regard to Resolution ResDip(2000)13 on the award of the European Diploma to the Bílé Karpaty Protected Landscape Area (Czech Republic);

Taking into consideration the expert’s report as presented at the meeting of the Group of Specialists for the European Diploma of Protected Areas on 4 and 5 March 2010;

Having regard to the proposals of the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention,

Renews until 20 June 2020 the European Diploma of Protected Areas awarded to the Bílé Karpaty Protected Landscape Area;

Attaches the following two conditions to the renewal:

1.    Keep at least the existing access to the Radejov hunting reserve for the visitors and decrease the population size of the non-indigenous game species - fallow deer, control the pressure exerted by game so that the forest may regenerate, draw up a hunting plan in conjunction with the administration of the protected area, and finally refrain from building any new facilities (eg hunting lodge);

2.    Amend agri-environmental funding rules in accordance with the protected area´s management plan  in order to secure financing of management needed to attain objectives set.

Attaches to the renewal the following five recommendations:

1.    Reassess and guarantee the requisite financial and human resources to ensure implementation of the management plan;

2.    Arrive at a concerted method of agricultural management that promotes the Bílé Karpaty Protected Landscape Area through close co-operation between the Ministries of Agriculture and the Environment, the departments active in the field (agriculture, forestry and Bílé Karpaty departments) as well as the local authorities and other bodies involved;

3.    Eliminate non-indigenous species, namely fallow deer, from the nature reserves and the other strictly protected areas and further develop consultation between the Ministries of Agriculture and the Environment in order to control big game populations;

4.    Continue the current forestry policy of conversion to hardwood stands and encourage the natural regeneration of existing hardwood forests;

5.    The European Diploma should be more visibly associated with the image of the Bílé Karpaty Protected Landscape Area (for example, in the information centre, in publications and on the website).


Appendix 11

Criteria for assessing the National Lists of proposed Areas of Special Conservation Interest (ASCIs) at biogeographical level and procedure for examining and approving Emerald candidate sites

1.     Background

The creation of the Emerald Network of areas of special conservation interest was agreed by the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention in 1989, through the adoption of Recommendation No.16 (1989) on the Areas of Special Conservation Interest (ACSI). The Recommendation advocates Contracting Parties to take, either by legislation or otherwise, steps to designate areas of special conservation interest to ensure that necessary and appropriate conservation measures are taken for each area situated within their territory or under their responsibility.

Article 4 of the Bern Convention is the most relevant article, as it states that Contracting Parties “shall take appropriate and necessary legislative and administrative measures to ensure the conservation of the habitats of the wild flora and fauna species, especially those specified in Appendices I and II, and the conservation of endangered natural habitats”.

Nonetheless, the real implementation of the Emerald Network only started in 1998, through the adoption by the Standing Committee of Resolution No 3 (1996) concerning the setting up of a pan-European Ecological Network, and Resolution No 5(1998), concerning the rules for the Network of Areas of Special Conservation Interest (Emerald Network).

Resolution No. 3 (1996) encourages "Contracting Parties and observer states to designate ASCIs", thus inviting all the European Union states, European states which are not members of the European Union and some African states to join the Emerald Network. Participation in the Emerald Network is therefore optional, as Contracting Parties and Observers States benefit from the “soft law” approach characteristic of Council of Europe recommendations and resolutions. However, it is important to note that the obligations on the Contracting Parties to protect natural habitats are rigorous requirements clearly set out in the Convention and forming part of binding international law.

The European Union, as such, is a Contracting Party to the Bern Convention. Implementation of the Bern Convention by EU member states is achieved mainly through full compliance with the Habitats and Birds Directives and the requirements of the Bern Convention with regard to habitats are met by designating sites for the Natura 2000 Network. According to Resolution No. 5 (1998) of the Bern Convention Standing Committee on rules applying to the network of Areas of Special Conservation Interest, “for Contracting Parties which are Member States of the European Union, Emerald Network sites are those of the Natura 2000”. The provisions of the Birds and Habitats Directives are thus the only procedures that apply to these countries. As indicated both in the EU Habitats Directive and in the Bern Convention, the ultimate goal for the creation of such a sites network is the “long term survival and maintenance of a favourable conservation status of the species and habitats of European Interest”.

In order to ensure a full complementarity and consistency between the EU Natura 2000 and the Emerald networks, the Group of Experts on Protected Areas and Ecological Networks (GoEPAEN) recommended that any evaluation of the proposed Emerald sites should be based on the same rules and procedures as developed for Natura 2000, i.e using a biogeographic approach. At the same time, in full recognition of the resources and time needed to implement such a process, the GoEPAEN called for a simplified approach without loosing the essence of the evaluation.

In 2006, a first attempt was made to agree criteria for a simplified biogeographic approach to the evaluation of Emerald sites as described in document T-PVS/Emerald (2007) 03, on the basis of the criteria adopted by the Habitats Committee in 1997 (Hab. 97/2 rev. 4 18/11/97). Meanwhile, the EU accumulated experience within the different Biogeographical seminars and the procedure was gradually amended accordingly. The present paper aims at revising document T-PVS/Emerald (2007) 03, taking into account recent developments in the implementation of the Natura 2000 network and proposing a process to be applied in the preparation of the Pan-European list of ASCIs under the Bern Convention. It is relevant to the implementation of phases II and III of the Emerald process as described in T-PVS/Emerald (2010)5.

Although the constitution of Emerald Network is still ongoing, three different stages or “Phases” of implementation can be identified:

Phase I: Participating countries assess their natural resources and identify species and habitats to be protected according to the relevant resolutions of the Bern Convention. They subsequently select potential sites which are suitable for ensuring the long-term survival of the “Emerald” species and habitats, and they send a database containing scientific information on the proposed sites to the Bern Convention’s Secretariat.

Phase II: An evaluation of the efficiency of the proposed sites which has to be done on a species by species and habitat by habitat base. Ideally the evaluation would only start if a complete inventory of proposed sites exists for a certain area. Realistically, this would mean that over 80 % of the finally proposed sites would already be available for the evaluation. This exercise is to be conducted in cooperation with the European Environment Agency.

Once the scientific value of the proposed sites is assessed, the candidate sites will be submitted to the Standing Committee and will eventually be approved so to formally integrate the Emerald Network. For EU member states an approved Natura 2000 Network of sites will automatically fulfil the parties’ obligations towards the Bern Convention and the Emerald Network.

Phase III: National designation of the adopted ASCI’s and implementation of management, reporting and monitoring measures, under the responsibility of national authorities.

Sites proposed as Emerald sites by individual countries will be eligible to become ASCIs only if they contribute to the conservation of habitat types listed in Recommendation 4 and species listed in Recommendation 6 of the Bern Convention and endorsed by the Standing Committee of the Convention.

ASCI selection is guided by Recommendation 16, paragraph 1, which describes six general conditions; all ASCIs should fulfil at least one:

a)      It contributes substantially to the survival of threatened species, endemic species, or any species listed in Appendices I and II of the convention;

b)      It supports significant numbers of species in an area of high species diversity or supports important populations of one or more species;

c)      It contains an important and/or representative sample of endangered habitat types;

d)      It contains an outstanding example of a particular habitat type or a mosaic of different habitat types;

e)      It represents an important area for one or more migratory species;

f)       It otherwise contributes substantially to the achievement of the objectives of the convention;

Following the principles described in Annex III of the Habitats Directive for setting up Natura 2000 sites under that Directive, two distinct stages in the setting up of the Emerald network can be identified:

1)      An evaluation of the sufficiency of proposed ASCIs species by species and habitat by habitat (equivalent to Annex III, stage 1 of the Habitats Directive); see section 2;

2)      An evaluation of the proposed ASCIs site by site at the bio-geographical level (equivalent to Annex III, stage 2 of the Habitats Directive), followed by approval by the GoEPAEN and subsequently adoption at the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention; see section 3.

The Areas of Special Conservation Interest – like the Natura 2000 sites – are regarded as core areas for the Pan-European Ecological Network (PEEN).  As such, they represent key components of the Pan-European Network.  The introduction of a vast natural infrastructure, of the kind ultimately envisaged by the Pan-European Ecological Network, will make the areas identified for the Emerald Network even more important and will focus attention on their possible linkage with other protected areas. The state of ecological connectivity of a concerned ASCI with other natural areas should be taken into account when assessing its compliances to the criteria of the Recommendation No. 16 (1989). A degree of policy convergence between the various networks concerned (PEEN, Natura 2000 and Emerald) should therefore be encouraged.

2.    Evaluation of sufficiency of proposed ASCIs for species and habitats

2.1  Overall description of the procedure

The evaluation of Emerald databases at a national level should be viewed as a cycle consisting of the following steps:

(1)     Submission of proposals in the form of a database by the National Authorities to the Bern Convention Secretariat, using the Common Data Repository of the European Environment Agency;

(2)     Quality check of the database by the Council of Europe Secretariat, followed by correction of incompleteness and errors by parties;

(3)     Nomination as official candidate sites by the Bern Convention Standing Committee

(4)     Preliminary evaluation by EEA-ETC/BD of sufficiency of the proposed list of ASCIs (feature/ country/ bio-geographical region);

(5)     Scientific discussion at the regional bio-geographical seminar and assessments of sufficiency,

(6)     If necessary, proposal of additional Emerald Sites and updating the database by national authorities;

(7)     Submission of revised database;

(8)     Submission of the final sitelist to the GoEPAEN for discussion;

(9)     Submission to the Bern Convention Standing Committee for adoption.

The construction of the Emerald databases at a national level should be viewed as a cycle consisting of the first seven steps of the overall procedure.

Evaluation of the Emerald network is viewed as an iterative process. Conclusions on the sufficiency of national ASCI proposals will result in the need for new proposed Emerald sites or extension of existing sites if the conclusions are found unsatisfactory. An increase in site numbers with time is expected due to improving scientific knowledge and changes in nature. In all cases, re-submitted ASCI proposals will be re-evaluated providing updated conclusions.

2.2  Emerald database submission, completeness and quality

Databases should be uploaded to the appropriate folder in the EEA data centre together with an official letter by national authorities noting the delivery of an official database. Second and subsequent deliveries should also include a description of the changes between versions.

Emerald databases should be prepared according to the instructions given in the Emerald Software User Manual (T-PVS/Emerald (2003) 2). Complete databases are essential and for the evaluation process including discussions at the bio-geographical seminars. All species of Resolution 6 and Habitats of Resolution 4 regularly present on a site should be listed and all relevant data-fields completed. Quantitative data on species populations and habitat cover areas at sites should be provided whenever possible. However, species which have been recorded occasionally but which are not regularly occurring (e.g. vagrants) should not be included. It is difficult to give a general rule on listing species for which only historical records exist, for many small, poorly known species, even old records may still be valid (e.g. for bryophytes or small molluscs such as Vertigo spp.) unless recent survey shows the species is no longer present or if the habitat has changed and is no longer suitable.

Before evaluation for network sufficiency, submitted databases and associated spatial data will be checked for completeness and quality. After country authorities have received an assessment of database quality, identified gaps and errors should be corrected as quickly as possible and the updated database should be uploaded again to the Common Data Repository of the EEA.

2.3  Preliminary evaluation

Preliminary evaluation of sufficiency of national ASCI proposals will be essentially a scientific preparation for the discussions at the bio-geographical seminar. It will be carried out by an independent scientific institution (EEA – ETC/BD). Preliminary evaluation will examine the latest submitted database by the party (but not later than 90 days before the planned bio-geographical seminar) and take into account relevant available scientific information.

Establishment of the Reference lists of species and habitats

Prior to evaluation, a preliminary Reference List of species and habitats of Bern Convention Resolution (1996) No 4 and Resolution (1998) No 6 regularly present in each country per bio-geographical region will be prepared based on current scientific information, in order to show for which features which country is obliged to designate ASCIs. The reference lists should not be considered as checklists of species and habitats occurring in the countries and respective regions, thus they should exclude vagrant or accidental species. An ‘X’ in the list will mean that countries have an obligation to designate sites for that species or a habitat in a particular bio-geographical region. A question mark (?) will indicate that the status of the species or habitat is not clear and additional research is needed to clarify it’s status.

Evaluation of sufficiency

The contribution towards favourable conservation status for a given species or habitat type through the designation of a given list of ASCIs will not only depend on the intrinsic quality of those sites, but also on the intensity of the current or proposed conservation measures for each habitat or species including actions outside designated areas. The assessment must be based on the intrinsic value of the proposed sites for each species and habitat type, taking into account their potential contribution to the defined conservation goal, i.e. maintaining or restoring the species and habitats to Favourable Conservation Status”.

It is clear that the factors relevant to the assessment of network sufficiency for each species and habitat type will vary greatly from case to case, depending on different factors. In general, there should be a proportionate response by the parties, so that for the rarest habitats and species of European interest there will be a high proportion of the resource included within the Emerald Network, while for those which are more abundant there will be a lower proportion of the resource within the Network.

It would not be realistic to try to establish one single quantitative criterion equally valid for all habitats and species in all situations. The expected assessment of site lists for the bio-geographical region must be based on a case-by-case (feature/country/biogeographical region) discussion, taking into account additional information on different parameters related to each species and habitat type.

Requirements to be met

Four requirements can be expected to be met by a representative list of sites to be considered as sufficient to enable a favourable conservation status for a given species or habitat type at bio-geographical level:

1)        it should represent sites from the entire distribution range of every Emerald species and habitat at a national level and bio-geographical level if a party shares more than one region;

2)        it should reflect the ecological variation of the habitat and of the species (genetic) within the bio-geographical region. In case of species, site proposals must include the whole range of habitats that are needed for the different stages of its life-cycle such as reproduction, migrations, foraging (etc.)

3)        it should be well-adapted to the specific conservation needs, in particular to those related to the distribution patterns (endemicity, degree of isolation/fragmentation, historical trends, climate change) and to the human pressures, threats and vulnerability of the considered species or habitat type;

4)        if the first 3 conditions are met it will be expected that site proposals will include significant proportions of habitat area and species populations within the Emerald network versus the overall national resource.

0Outcomes of the evaluation and Preparation of draft list of Emerald sites

A draft list of candidate ASCIs per biogeographical region within the region of concern at the seminar (West-Balkan, Caucasus, etc …) will be prepared using the data from the respective Emerald databases and according to the table structure shown in the Table 1. Parties will be requested to check information in these lists so to be ready for the final approval at the bio-geographical seminar.

Table 1.  Contents of the “Draft List of Proposed Emerald Sites”

Column count

Description

A

ASCI code comprising nine characters, the first two being the ISO code for the Member State

B

ASCI name

C

Surface area of ASCI (ha)

D

Centroid coordinates of ASCI (latitude and longitude)

E

Number of species of Resolution 6 at the ASCI

F

Number of habitat types of Resolution 4 at the ASCI

The results of the preliminary evaluation will be: (1) draft Reference Lists for species and habitats; (2) draft Detailed Conclusions and (3) draft lists of proposed Emerald sites. These documents will form the basis of discussions at the bio-geographical seminar.

The evaluation of the Emerald site proposals will also include bird species using the same methodology as for other species, contrary to the Natura 2000 bio-geographical seminars which only consider species covered by the Habitats Directive. 

More detailed guidelines for site selection and proposal evaluation for certain taxonomic groups (e.g., birds, fish) or environments (e.g., marine) may have to be further developed when parties involved in the Emerald phase II gain more experience.

2.4  Regional Bio-geographical seminar

Regional bio-geographical seminars will be organised involving all parties represented in a region (e.g. West-Balkan, South Caucasus, etc), provided that they all have submitted Emerald databases of sufficient quality to enable evaluation of sufficiency as described above. The seminars will discuss (1) reference lists; (2) the sufficiency of each species and habitat, according to the agreed reference lists and (3) suitability of sites for inclusion in the final list of ASCIs.

Each seminar will include participants from the Bern Convention Secretariat, the ETC/BD, the Bern Convention parties, independent experts chosen by the Council of Europe and the ETC/BD, an agreed number of representatives of relevant NGOs and observers from the neighbouring countries.

The seminar will be organised as a discussion forum among the stakeholders described above where each species and habitat will be assessed per party and bio-geographical region, according to the agreed Reference List. The discussions will result in an agreed conclusion (see categories in Table 2) on sufficiency/ insufficiency of site proposals for each individual species and habitats present in the countries. Sites which do not host any species of Resolution (1996) No 4 or habitats of Resolution (1998) No 6 will be discussed to assess their suitability for designation as ASCI, referring to the general conditions for site selection described in Recommendation 16. Final detailed conclusions of the seminar, together with the revised Reference Lists and lists of approved sites, will be published on the Council of Europe’s Emerald website.

At the later stages of the Emerald network building, after the bio-geographical seminar(s), further assessments may be required due to additional site proposals or modifications of existing sites and bi-lateral meetings may be called between an individual Bern Convention party and Bern Convention secretariat (involving also ETC/BD as an independent jury) to follow the site designation progress in a concerned party.

2.5  Actions after the seminar

Final Detailed Conclusions will guide parties on what actions they should undertake in order to improve the Emerald network at national and bio-geographical level. Table 2 shows the type and categories of conclusions that will be used during the seminar and actions that will be required from the parties after the seminar.

Together with dissemination of Final Detailed Conclusions, the Group of Experts on Protected Areas and Ecological Networks and the Bern Convention Secretariat will agree on the date by when parties will be expected to deliver requested amendments and additions to site proposals.

Evaluation of site proposals will be an iterative process and further work will be required as a result of additional site proposals arising from seminar conclusions and/or changes due to improving scientific knowledge.

Table 2. Conclusions and their abbreviations used in bio-geographical seminars. Codes can be combined, for example ‘IN MOD and CD’ would indicate that additional sites are required and that the existing proposals need correcting or completing.

Code

Meaning

Action required

SUF

Sufficient

No further sites needed

IN  MAJOR

Insufficient major

No sites proposed at present. A major effort to designate sites is needed.

IN MOD

Insufficient moderate

One or a number of additional sites (or maybe extension to sites) required. IN MOD GEO means that additional site(s) are required in certain region to eliminate geographical gap.

IN MIN

Insufficient minor

No additional sites required but habitat/species should be noted on sites already proposed for other habitats/species

CD

Correction of data

Data needs to be corrected / completed / deleted

Sci Res

Scientific reserve

A definite conclusion is not possible: need to investigate/clarify a scientific issue – interpretation of habitat, controversial presence of species, etc.

3.    Approval and adoption of sites at the bio-geographical level

Once the iterative process of the evaluation of the Emerald candidate sites has reached a sufficient level of agreement, the last two steps of the overall procedure are undertaken:

(8) Submission of the final database sitelist to GoEPAEN for discussion;

(9) Submission of the sitelist to the Bern Convention Standing Committee for adoption.

The Group of Experts on Protected Areas and Ecological Networks receives the final database of official candidate sites for discussion. The GoEPAEN will then forward the final list to the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention for adoption. This final list will be published using the format as described above (Table 1).

Published EU Community Lists of NATURA 2000 sites are available as examples at:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:030:0001:0042:EN:PDF

Figure 1. Schematic description of the Emerald network evaluation cycle: from database submission to approval of ASCIs.


Appendix 12

Information Form for Species or Habitats

DATE: ...........................................

Proposed by:.................................................................................................................... (Countries)

Information Form for species or habitats to be included in:

£         Appendix I:    Strictly protected flora species

£         Appendix II:   Strictly protected fauna species

£         Appendix III: Protected fauna species

            and

£         Resolution (1998) 6:          Species requiring specific habitat conservation measures

            or

£         Resolution (1996) 4:          Endangered natural habitats requiring conservation measures

Species proposal

Latin Name (incl. Author + Year):……………………………………………………………………….
Latin Synonyms:............................................................................................................................
Source of the scientific name: .......................................................................................................

Vernacular name:
English Name: ...............................................................................................................................
French Name:................................................................................................................................
other: (specify language):...............................................................................................................

Systematics:
Phylum:.........................................................................................................................................
Class:.............................................................................................................................................
Order:............................................................................................................................................
Family:...........................................................................................................................................

Habitat proposal

EUNIS Habitat code: .....................................................................................................................

Habitat title:...................................................................................................................................

Habitat Definition: (only if a new subdivision in the EUNIS classification is suggested) ………….…………………………………………………………………………….

Proposal for amending Res. 6 or Res. 4: additional information needed

Name of Biogeographical Region(s) in which the species or habitat occurs (please mark with "x")

£ Alpine                     £         Anatolian        £         Artic               £         Atlantic

£ Black Sea               £         Boreal             £         Continental     £         Macaronesia

£ Mediterranean     £        Pannonic        £        Steppic

Marine region: (if a marine region map is adopted by the SC):

Is the Species or Habitat present in EUR 27:   £ Yes                     £ No

Other International Conventions, Instruments and Agreements:
(Please mark with "x" if mentioned)

Convention on Migratory Species (Bonn Convention):            Annex I        £

                                                                                                 Annex II       £

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora (CITES):

                                                                                                 Annex 1       £
                                                                                                 Annex 2      
£

Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR)

                                                                                                 Ref. 2008-6 part 1    £
                                                                                                 Ref. 2008-6 part 2   
£

Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora

                                                                                                 Annex I        £
                                                                                                 Annex II      
£
                                                                                                 Annex IV    
£
                                                                                                 Annex V      
£

Directive 2009/147/EC (79/409/EEC amended) on the conservation of wild birds
                                                                                                 Annex I       
£
                                                                                                 Annex II      
£
                                                                                                 Annex III     
£

Other: (Barcelona Convention, IUCN red data books, etc ……)

Short Description / Distinguishing Characteristics

European Interest

Please mark with "X" for which of the following criteria the species or habitat is proposed (as interpreted from the guideline 1 in the Bern Convention’s Recommendation 56 (1997), and also indicated in subparagraphs of Article 1 g of the Habitats Directive)

£         Endangered, except those species whose natural range is marginal in that territory and which are not endangered or vulnerable in the Western Palaearctic Region

£         Vulnerable, i.e. believed likely to move into the endangered category in the near future if the causal factors continue operating

£         Rare, with small populations that are not at present endangered or vulnerable but at risk. The species is located within restricted geographical areas or are thinly scattered over a more extensive range

£         Endemic and requiring attention by reason or the specific nature of its habitat or the potential impact of its exploitation on its habitat or the potential impact of its conservation status

Remarks:
as described in Recommendation 56 (1997) account will be taken of the category of threat, the vulnerability of the species to changes in its habitat, its particular link with a threatened habitat, the trends and variations in population level and its vulnerability to a possible non sustainable use. Account will be taken of whether the species is declining in the central area of its distribution, or it is only threatened in the border of its range.

For species only: ecological role (as described in Recommendation 56 (1997): account will be taken of the ecological role of the species, such as their position or role in the food chain (i.e. raptors, insectivorous species such as bats), their structural role in ecosystems (i.e. corals, heathlands) or the fact that endangered species or endangered ecosystems may be highly dependent on them (i.e. marine phanerogams like Posidonia oceanica) or risk to become threatened by their exploitation (like the mollusc Lithophaga lithophaga).

Geographical distribution

In addition, include maps with the distribution of the species or habitat (GIS format preferred), with reference to scale and projection.

- in the country:

- in the Pan-European region:

- in other parts of the world:

Further comments concerning the geographical distribution :(e.g. known subtypes, regional varieties, loci typici)



Estimated population size and trends (guideline 1 from Rec. 56 (1997):
(Indicate the situation in the country(ies) and, as far as possible, European wide and world wide)
(according to EEA guidelines for indicating population data)

Reasons for decline or threats:

Conservation status: (within country, region, pan-European level, etc …)

Important references / literature / publications:
(especially those relevant for the taxonomy, conservation status and geographical distribution)

Further remarks: (any additional important information not given above, relevant for evaluating the proposal)

Picture of species or habitat:


Contact Person(s) for additional questions concerning this species or habitat:
(if multi-country proposal, please add relevant persons for each country)

Name: …………………………………………………………………………..
Institution: ………………………………………………………………………
Postal Address: ………………………………………………………………...

Country: …………………………..     Phone No: …………………………….
Fax No: ……………………………    E-mail: ………………………………..

If not identical with Contact Person, author of this data form:

Name:

Institution:

Postal Address:

Country:

Phone No:
Fax No:

E-mail:


Appendix 13

Revised Annex I of Resolution 4 (1996) of the Bern Convention on endangered natural habitat types using EUNIS habitat classification

ENDANGERED NATURAL HABITAT TYPES

     A               Marine habitats

     A1             Littoral rock and other hard substrata

     A1.1          High energy littoral rock

!    A1.11        Mussel and/or barnacle communities

     A4.14        Mediterranean and Black Sea communities of lower mediolittoral rock very exposed to wave action

!    A1.141      Association with [Lithophyllum byssoides]

     A1.2          Moderate energy littoral rock

!    A1.22        Mussels and fucoids on moderately exposed shores

     A1.4          Features of littoral rock

!    A1.44        Communities of littoral caves and overhangs

     A2             Littoral sediment

!    A2.2          Littoral sand and muddy sand

!    A2.3          Littoral mud

!    A2.4          Littoral mixed sediments

!    A2.5          Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds

                       includes the following subtypes separately listed in or split units from the 1998 version:

A2.521      Atlantic and Baltic brackish saltmarsh communities

A2.531      Atlantic upper shore communities

A2.542      Atlantic lower shore communities

A2.5514    [Salicornia veneta] swards

A2.5515    Black Sea annual [Salicornia], [Suaeda] and [Salsola] saltmarshes

A2.553      Atlantic [Sagina maritima] communities

     A2.6          Littoral sediments dominated by aquatic angiosperms

!   A2.61        Seagrass beds on littoral sediments

!   A2.621      [Eleocharis] beds

     A2.7          Littoral biogenic reefs

!    A2.72        Littoral mussel beds on sediment

!    A3             Infralittoral rock and other hard substrata

                      includes the following subtypes separately listed in or split units from the 1998 version:

A3.71        Robust faunal cushions and crusts in surge gullies and caves

A3.74        Caves and overhangs in infralittoral rock

!    A4             Circalittoral rock and other hard substrata

                       includes the following subtypes separately listed in or split units from the 1998 version:

A4.24        Mussel beds on circalittoral rock

A4.26        Mediterranean coralligenous communities moderately exposed to hydrodynamic action

A4.32        Mediterranean coralligenous communities sheltered from hydrodynamic action

A4.71        Communities of circalittoral caves and overhangs

!    A5             Sublittoral sediment

                       includes the following subtypes separately listed in or split units from the 1998 version:

A5.627      Baltic mussel beds in the infralittoral photic zone

     A6             Deep-sea bed

     A6.9          Vents, seeps, hypoxic and anoxic habitats of the deep sea

       A6.91        Deep-sea reducing habitats

!    A6.911      Seeps in the deep-sea bed

     B               Coastal habitats

     B1             Coastal dunes and sandy shores

!    B1.3          Shifting coastal dunes

!    B1.4          Coastal stable dune grassland (grey dunes)

!    B1.5          Coastal dune heaths

!    B1.6          Coastal dune scrub

!    B1.7          Coastal dune woods

!    B1.8          Moist and wet dune slacks

!    B1.9          Machair

     B2             Coastal shingle

!    B2.3          Upper shingle beaches with open vegetation

     C               Inland surface waters

     C1             Surface standing waters

!    C1.1          Permanent oligotrophic lakes, ponds and pools

                       includes the following subtype separately listed in or split unit from the 1998 version:

C1.14         Charophyte submerged carpets in oligotrophic waterbodies

     C1.2          Permanent mesotrophic lakes, ponds and pools

     C1.22        Free-floating vegetation of mesotrophic waterbodies

!    C1.222      Floating [Hydrocharis morsus-ranae] rafts

!    C1.223      Floating [Stratiotes aloides] rafts

!    C1.224      Floating [Utricularia australis] and [Utricularia vulgaris] colonies

!    C1.225      Floating [Salvinia natans] mats

!    C1.226      Floating [Aldrovanda vesiculosa] communities

     C1.24        Rooted floating vegetation of mesotrophic waterbodies

     C1.241      Floating broad-leaved carpets

!    C1.2416    [Nelumbo nucifera] beds

!    C1.25        Charophyte submerged carpets in mesotrophic waterbodies

     C1.3          Permanent eutrophic lakes, ponds and pools

     C1.34        Rooted floating vegetation of eutrophic waterbodies

     C1.341      Shallow-water floating communities

!    C1.3411    [Ranunculus] communities in shallow water

!    C1.3413    [Hottonia palustris] beds in shallow water

     C1.4          Permanent dystrophic lakes, ponds and pools

!    C1.44        Charophyte submerged carpets in dystrophic waterbodies

!    C1.5          Permanent inland saline and brackish lakes, ponds and pools

     C1.6          Temporary lakes, ponds and pools

!    C1.66        Temporary inland saline and brackish waters

!    C1.67        Turlough and lake-bottom meadows

     C2             Surface running waters

     C2.1          Springs, spring brooks and geysers

!    C2.12        Hard water springs

     C3             Littoral zone of inland surface waterbodies

     C3.4          Species-poor beds of low-growing water-fringing or amphibious vegetation

!    C3.41        Euro-Siberian perennial amphibious communities

     C3.42        Mediterraneo-Atlantic amphibious communities

!    C3.421      Short Mediterranean amphibious communities

!    C3.422      Tall Mediterranean amphibious communities

     C3.43        Central Eurasian amphibious communities

!    C3.431      Ponto-Pannonic riverbank dwarf sedge communities

     C3.5          Periodically inundated shores with pioneer and ephemeral vegetation

     C3.51        Euro-Siberian dwarf annual amphibious swards

!    C3.511      Freshwater dwarf [Eleocharis] communities

!    C3.512      Dune-slack [Centaurium] swards

!    C3.5132    Swards of small [Cyperus] species

!    C3.5133    Wet ground dwarf herb communities

!    C3.55        Sparsely vegetated river gravel banks

     C3.6          Unvegetated or sparsely vegetated shores with soft or mobile sediments

!    C3.62        Unvegetated river gravel banks

     D               Mires, bogs and fens

     D1             Raised and blanket bogs

!    D1.2          Blanket bogs

     D2             Valley mires, poor fens and transition mires

     D2.2          Poor fens and soft-water spring mires

     D2.22        [Carex nigra], [Carex canescens], [Carex echinata] fens

!    D2.226      Peri-Danubian black-white-star sedge fens

!    D2.3          Transition mires and quaking bogs

                       includes the following subtype separately listed in or split unit from the 1998 version:

D2.3H     Wet, open, acid peat and sand, with [Rhynchospora alba] and [Drosera]

     D3             Aapa, palsa and polygon mires

!    D3.1          Palsa mires

!    D3.2          Aapa mires

!    D3.3          Polygon mires

     D4             Base-rich fens and calcareous spring mires

!    D4.1          Rich fens, including eutrophic tall-herb fens and calcareous flushes and soaks

!    D4.2          Basic mountain flushes and streamsides, with a rich arctic-montane flora

     D5             Sedge and reedbeds, normally without free-standing water

!    D5.2          Beds of large sedges normally without free-standing water

     D6             Inland saline and brackish marshes and reedbeds

!    D6.1          Inland saltmarshes

                      includes the following subtypes separately listed in or split units from the 1998 version:

D6.15     Interior Iberian [Microcnemum] and [Salicornia] swards

D6.16     Interior central European and Anatolian [Salicornia], [Microcnemum], [Suaeda] and [Salsola] swards

     E                Grasslands and lands dominated by forbs, mosses or lichens

     E1              Dry grasslands

     E1.1           Inland sand and rock with open vegetation

     E1.11         Euro-Siberian rock debris swards

!    E1.112       [Sempervivum] or [Jovibarba] communities on rock debris

!    E1.2           Perennial calcareous grassland and basic steppes

!    E1.3           Mediterranean xeric grassland

     E1.7           Closed non-Mediterranean dry acid and neutral grassland

!    E1.71         [Nardus stricta] swards

     E1.8           Closed Mediterranean dry acid and neutral grassland

!    E1.83         Mediterraneo-montane [Nardus stricta] swards

!    E1.B          Heavy-metal grassland

     E2              Mesic grasslands

     E2.2           Low and medium altitude hay meadows

!    E2.25         Continental meadows

     E3              Seasonally wet and wet grasslands

!    E3.1           Mediterranean tall humid grassland

                       includes the following subtypes separately listed in or split units from the 1998 version:

E3.111    [Serapias] grassland

!    E3.4           Moist or wet eutrophic and mesotrophic grassland

!    E3.5           Moist or wet oligotrophic grassland

     E5              Woodland fringes and clearings and tall forb stands

     E5.4           Moist or wet tall-herb and fern fringes and meadows

     E5.41         Screens or veils of perennial tall herbs lining watercourses

     E5.411       Watercourse veils (other than of [Filipendula])

!    E5.4111     [Angelica archangelica] fluvial communities

!    E5.4112     [Angelica heterocarpa] fluvial communities

!    E5.4113     [Althaea officinalis] screens

!    E5.414       Continental river bank tall-herb communities dominated by [Filipendula]

!    E5.415       Eastern nemoral riverbanks with tall herb communities

     E5.42         Tall-herb communities of humid meadows

!    E5.423       Continental tall-herb communities of humid meadows

!    E5.424       Eastern nemoral Tall-herb communities of humid meadows

     E6              Inland salt steppes

!    E6.1           Mediterranean inland salt steppes

!    E6.2           Continental inland salt steppes

                       includes the following subtype separately listed in or split unit from the 1998 version:

E6.23      Central Eurasian solonchak grassland with [Crypsis]

     E7              Sparsely wooded grasslands

!    E7.3           Dehesa

     F                Heathland, scrub and tundra

     F2              Arctic, alpine and subalpine scrub

     F2.2           Evergreen alpine and subalpine heath and scrub

     F2.22         Alpide acidocline [Rhododendron] heaths

!    F2.224       Carpathian [Rhododendron kotschyi] heaths

!    F2.225       Balkan [Rhododendron kotschyi] heaths

!    F2.26         [Bruckenthalia] heaths

     F3              Temperate and mediterranean-montane scrub

     F3.2           Submediterranean deciduous thickets and brushes

     F3.24         Subcontinental and continental deciduous thickets

!    F3.241       Central European subcontinental thickets

     F4              Temperate shrub heathland

!    F4.1           Wet heaths

!    F4.2           Dry heaths

!    F4.3           Macaronesian heaths

     F5              Maquis, arborescent matorral and thermo-Mediterranean brushes

     F5.5           Thermo-Mediterranean scrub

!    F5.52         [Euphorbia dendroides] formations

!    F5.54         [Chamaerops humilis] brush

!    F5.55         Mediterranean pre-desert scrub

!    F5.56         Thermo-Mediterranean broom fields (retamares)

!    F5.5B        Cabo de Sao Vicente brushes

     F6              Garrigue

!    F6.7           Mediterranean gypsum scrubs

!    F6.8           Xero-halophile scrubs

!    F7              Spiny Mediterranean heaths (phrygana, hedgehog-heaths and related coastal cliff vegetation)

     F9              Riverine and fen scrubs

!    F9.1           Riverine scrub

!    F9.3          Southern riparian galleries and thickets (Excluding F9.35: Riperian stands of invasive shrubs)

     G               Woodland, forest and other wooded land

     G1             Broadleaved deciduous woodland

     G1.1          Riparian and gallery woodland, with dominant [Alnus], [Betula], [Populus] or [Salix]

!    G1.11        Riverine [Salix] woodland

!    G1.12        Boreo-alpine riparian galleries

!    G1.13        Southern [Alnus] and [Betula] galleries

     G1.2          Mixed riparian floodplain and gallery woodland

!    G1.21        Riverine [Fraxinus] - [Alnus] woodland, wet at high but not at low water

     G1.22        Mixed [Quercus] - [Ulmus] - [Fraxinus] woodland of great rivers

!    G1.221      Great medio-European fluvial forests

!    G1.223      Southeast European [Fraxinus] - [Quercus] - [Alnus] forests

!    G1.224      Po [Quercus] - [Fraxinus] - [Alnus] forests

     G1.3          Mediterranean riparian woodland

!    G1.36        Ponto-Sarmatic mixed [Populus] riverine forests

!    G1.37        Irano-Anatolian mixed riverine forests

!    G1.38        [Platanus orientalis] woods

!    G1.39        [Liquidambar orientalis] woods

     G1.4          Broadleaved swamp woodland not on acid peat

     G1.41        [Alnus] swamp woods not on acid peat

     G1.411      Meso-eutrophic swamp alder woods

!    G1.4115    Eastern Carpathian [Alnus glutinosa] swamp woods

!    G1.414      Steppe swamp [Alnus glutinosa] woods

!    G1.44        Wet-ground woodland of the Black and Caspian Seas

     G1.5          Broadleaved swamp woodland on acid peat

!    G1.51        Sphagnum [Betula] woods

!    G1.6          [Fagus] woodland

!    G1.7          Thermophilous deciduous woodland (excluding G1.7D Castanea sativa woodland)

                       includes the following subtypes separately listed in or split units from the 1998 version:

G1.7B     [Quercus pyrenaica] woodland

G1.7C     Mixed thermophilous woodland

!    G1.8          Acidophilous [Quercus]-dominated woodland

     G1.A         Meso- and eutrophic [Quercus], [Carpinus], [Fraxinus], [Acer], [Tilia], [Ulmus] and related woodland

!    G1.A1       [Quercus] - [Fraxinus] - [Carpinus betulus] woodland on eutrophic and mesotrophic soils

!    G1.A4       Ravine and slope woodland

!    G1.A7       Mixed deciduous woodland of the Black and Caspian Seas

!    G2             Broadleaved evergreen woodland (excluding G2.8 Highly artificial broadleaved evergreen forestry plantations and G2.9 Evergreen orchards and groves)

     G3             Coniferous woodland

     G3.1          [Abies] and [Picea] woodland

!    G3.15        Southern Apennine [Abies alba] forests

!    G3.16        Moesian [Abies alba] forests

!    G3.17        Balkano-Pontic [Abies] forests

!    G3.19        [Abies pinsapo] forests

!    G3.1B        Alpine and Carpathian subalpine [Picea] forests

!    G3.1C        Inner range montane [Picea] forests

!    G3.1D       Hercynian subalpine [Picea] forests

     G3.1E        Southern European [Picea abies] forests

!    G3.1E1      Southeastern Moesian [Picea abies] forests

!    G3.1E3      Montenegrine [Picea abies] forests

!    G3.1E4      Pelagonide [Picea abies] forests

!    G3.1E5      Balkan Range [Picea abies] forests

!    G3.1G       [Picea omorika] forests

!    G3.1H       [Picea orientalis] forests

     G3.2          Alpine [Larix] - [Pinus cembra] woodland

!    G3.21        Eastern Alpine siliceous [Larix] and [Pinus cembra] forests

!    G3.22        Eastern Alpine calcicolous [Larix] and [Pinus cembra] forests

!    G3.25        Carpathian [Larix] and [Pinus cembra] forests

!    G3.26        [Larix polonica] forests

     G3.3          [Pinus uncinata] woodland

!    G3.31        [Pinus uncinata] forests with [Rhododendron ferrugineum]

!    G3.32        Xerocline [Pinus uncinata] forests

     G3.4          [Pinus sylvestris] woodland south of the taiga

!    G3.41        Caledonian forest

     G3.42        Middle European [Pinus sylvestris] forests

     G3.423      Western Eurasian steppe pine forests

!    G3.4232    Sarmatic steppe [Pinus sylvestris] forests

!    G3.4233    Carpathian steppe [Pinus sylvestris] woods

!    G3.4234    Pannonic steppe [Pinus sylvestris] woods

     G3.44        Spring heath [Pinus sylvestris] forests

!    G3.442      Carpathian relict calcicolous [Pinus sylvestris] forests

!    G3.4C        Southeastern European [Pinus sylvestris] forests

!    G3.4E        Ponto-Caucasian [Pinus sylvestris] forests

     G3.5          [Pinus nigra] woodland

!    G3.51        Alpino-Apennine [Pinus nigra] forests

!    G3.52        Western Balkanic [Pinus nigra] forests

!    G3.53        [Pinus salzmannii] forests

!    G3.54        Corsican [Pinus laricio] forests

!    G3.55        Calabrian [Pinus laricio] forests

!    G3.56        [Pinus pallasiana] and [Pinus banatica] forests

!    G3.6          Subalpine mediterranean [Pinus] woodland

     G3.7          Lowland to montane mediterranean [Pinus] woodland (excluding [Pinus nigra])

     G3.71        Maritime [Pinus pinaster ssp. atlantica] forests

!    G3.711      Charente [Pinus pinaster ssp. atlantica] - [Quercus ilex] forests

!    G3.712      Aquitanian [Pinus pinaster ssp. atlantica] - [Quercus suber] forests

!    G3.714      Iberian [Pinus pinaster ssp. atlantica] forests

!    G3.72        [Pinus pinaster ssp. pinaster] ([Pinus mesogeensis]) forests

!    G3.73        [Pinus pinea] forests

     G3.74        [Pinus halepensis] forests

!    G3.741      Iberian [Pinus halepensis] forests

!    G3.742      Balearic [Pinus halepensis] forests

!    G3.743      Provenço-Ligurian [Pinus halepensis] forests

!    G3.744      Corsican [Pinus halepensis] woods

!    G3.745      Sardinian [Pinus halepensis] woods

!    G3.746      Sicilian [Pinus halepensis] woods

     G3.747      Italic [Pinus halepensis] forests

!    G3.7471    Gargano [Pinus halepensis] forests

!    G3.7472    Metapontine [Pinus halepensis] forests

!    G3.7473    Umbrian [Pinus halepensis] forests

!    G3.748      Hellenic [Pinus halepensis] forests

!    G3.749      Illyrian [Pinus halepensis] forests

!    G3.74A     East Mediterranean [Pinus halepensis] forests

!    G3.75        [Pinus brutia] forests

!    G3.8          Canary Island [Pinus canariensis] woodland

!    G3.9          Coniferous woodland dominated by [Cupressaceae] or [Taxaceae]

                       includes the following subtypes separately listed in or split unit from the 1998 version:

G3.9C     [Cedrus] woodland

!    G3.D         Boreal bog conifer woodland

!    G3.E          Nemoral bog conifer woodland

     H               Inland unvegetated or sparsely vegetated habitats

!    H1             Terrestrial underground caves, cave systems, passages and waterbodies

     H2             Screes

     H2.6          Calcareous and ultra-basic screes of warm exposures

     H2.61        Peri-Alpine thermophilous screes

!    H2.613      Paris Basin screes

     X               Habitat complexes

!    X01           Estuaries

!    X02           Saline coastal lagoons

!    X03           Brackish coastal lagoons

!    X04           Raised bog complexes

!    X18           Wooded steppe

!    X29           Salt lake islands

!    X35           New EUNIS complex ! "Inland Sand Dunes"


Appendix 14

Activities for 2011

in Euros

1.

Monitoring of the legal application of the Convention

1.1

Reports of the implementation of the Convention in at least one Contracting Party and legal assistance to new Contracting Parties

Reports providing a legal analysis of the implementation of the Convention in two Contracting Parties, suggesting ways to improve such implementation and adapt it to the provisions of the Convention (for new Parties)

Fixed appropriation for consultants

6,000

2.

Conservation of natural habitats

2.1

Group of experts on protected areas and ecological networks

Terms of reference

To do the necessary work to implement Recommendation No. 16 (1989) and Resolution No. 3 (1996) on areas of special conservation interest. The group will review the technical documents prepared by the experts and make proposals to build up the Emerald Network.

Travel and subsistence expenses for one expert from each of the following 23 states:

albania, armenia, azerbaijan, bosnia and herzegovina, bulgaria, croatia, czech republic, estonia, georgia, latvia, lithuania, moldova, monaco, montenegro, morocco, romania, russian federation, serbia, , slovakia, “the former yugoslav republic of macedonia”,Switzerland  turkey, ukraine

Travel and subsistence expenses for 1 consultant.

Strasbourg, 2 days, September

25,000

1,000

2.2

Biogeographical seminar for the implementation of the Emerald Network

Travel and subsistence expenses for a consultant; interpretation and translation services

Travel and subsistence expenses for one expert from each of the following 6 states (courtesy of the EEA):

albania, bosnia and herzegovina, croatia, montenegro, serbia,“the former yugoslav republic of macedonia”,Switzerland  turkey, ukraine

Strasbourg, 2 days, October-November (t.b.c.)

10,000

2.3

Technical seminar for the setting-up of the Emerald Network in Norway

Norway, 3 days, June (t.b.c.)

2.4

Technical seminar for the setting-up of the Emerald Network in Switzerland

Switzerland, 3 days, August (t.b.c.)

2.5

Pilot projects for the setting-up of the Emerald Network at national level in some states

Financial contribution for the setting-up of the Network in 2 States (tbc)

20,000


2.6

Strategic implementation of the Pan-European Ecological Network

Fees, travel and subsistence expenses for a consultant

8,000

2.7

Group of Specialists on the European Diploma of Protected Areas

Travel and subsistence expenses for eight delegates

Consultants for the Protected Areas and Ecological Networks

Consultants will be hired to manage the setting-up of the Emerald Network and to do the necessary technical work required, included software, lists, handling of data, etc.

Strasbourg, 14‑15 March

8,000

20,000 

3.

Monitoring of species and encouraging conservation action

3.1

Biodiversity and Climate Change

‑ Group of Experts on Biodiversity and Climate Change

Strasbourg, 3 days,

Terms of reference:

Recognising the need to adapt conservation work to the challenges of climate change so as to minimise its impact on the species and natural habitats protected under the Convention, the Group of Experts will provide guidance to Parties on understanding climate change impacts and threats, and developing appropriate measures in national policies regarding the species and habitats protected under the Bern Convention. 

October (t.b.c.)

Travel and subsistence expenses for 1 expert from each of the following 21 states:

ALBANIA, armenia, BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, BULGARIA,CROATIA, DENMARK, FRANCE, GERMANY, ICELAND, LATVIA, NETHERLANDS, MOROCCO, NORWAY, PORTUGAL, SERBIA, SPAIN, SWEDEN, SWITZERLAND, TURKEY, UKRAINE, UNITED KINGDOM

28,000

Participants: All Contracting Parties

Observers: All observer states and qualified organisations active in this field. 

Travel and subsistence expenses of consultants

6,000

Consultants to prepare draft reports for consideration by the Group of Experts

12,000

3.2

Island Biodiversity

‑ Group of Experts on Island Biodiversity

 

Terms of reference:

Identify specific conservation problems of biological diversity in European islands, registering threatened endemics, identifying island species and habitat-types at risk from global change, networking regional experts and contributing to the CBD’s programme of work on island biodiversity, proposing special conservation solutions for European islands, liaising with the Group of Experts on Biodiversity and Climate Change regarding the impacts of climate change on island biodiversity in Europe.

Corsica, France, 9‑11 June


Travel and subsistence expenses for one expert from each of the following 15 States:

CROATIA, CYPRUS, FRANCE, GERMANY, GREECE, ICELAND, IRELAND, ITALY, MALTA, NORWAY, PORTUGAL, SPAIN, SWEDEN, TUNISIA, UNITED KINGDOM

Participants: All Contracting Parties

Observers: All observer states and qualified organisations active in this field. 

Travel and subsistence for three consultants

Consultants

20,000

3,000

12,000

3.3

Invasive Alien Species

‑ Group of Experts on IAS

Terms of reference:

Follow-up and review the implementation of the European Strategy on Invasive Alien Species (IAS). Discussion of CBD COP-9. Decision on IAS, preparation of guidance for Parties on accompanying animals and consideration of relevant issues such as trade, climate change, etc.

Malta, 3 days, 18‑20 May

Travel and subsistence expenses for one expert from each of the following 25 States:

ALBANIA, ARMENIA, BELGIUM, CROATIA, CYPRUS, CZECH REPUBLIC, ESTONIA, FINLAND, GEORGIA, GREECE, HUNGARY, ICELAND, IRELAND, MALTA, MOLDOVA, MONTENEGRO, MOROCCO, POLAND, PORTUGAL, SLOVAKIA, SLOVENIA, SPAIN, TUNISIA, TURKEY, UKRAINE

Participants: All Contracting Parties

Observers: All observer states and qualified organisations active in this field. 

Travel and subsistence for four consultants

Consultants

25,000

4,000

6,000

3.4

Conservation of Large Carnivores and Herbivores

These activities are carried out in co-operation with the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE) and the Large herbivores (Eurasian support network), a number of regional working groups have been established to monitor implementation of European action plans.

Training workshop for Large Carnivores (Tbilisi)

Workshop on European bison (Ukraine)

7,000

5,000

3.5

Illegal killing of birds

Conference on Illegal Killing of Birds in co-operation with the European Commission and BirdLife

Terms of reference:

31 years after the adoption of the Bern Convention and the Birds Directive, there are still difficulties in their implementation, illegal killing of birds being relatively common in some States. The Conference will identify the extent of the problem, see examples of best practice and make proposals to improve compliance with obligations.

 

Cyprus, 3 days, 6‑8 July


Travel and subsistence expenses for one expert from each of the following 17 States:

ALBANIA, AZERBAÏJAN, BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA,CROATIA BELGIUM,  FRANCE, GERMANY, GREECE, ITALY, MALTA, MONTENEGRO, MOROCCO, PORTUGAL, SERBIA, SPAIN, TUNISIA, TURKEY

Participants: All Contracting Parties

Observers: All observer states and qualified organisations active in this field.

15,000

Travel and subsistence for three consultants

3,000

3.6

European workshop on hamster conservation (to be confirmed)

Travel and subsistence grants for 8 participants 

Germany, 2 days

6,000

4

Sectorial policies and biodiversity conservation

4.1

Biodiversity in cities

 

As more citizens live in cities, it becomes important to use cities for awareness on biodiversity conservation issues, making also cities more nature-friends. Report to analyse the issue and sugget possible activities

This activity is to be carried out on co-operation with the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe

5,000

4.2

Charter on gathering of mushrooms and other wild biodiversity (in cooperation with IUCN).

5,000

5.

Monitoring of sites and populations at risk and Emergencies

5.1

On-the-spot visits

On-the-spot visits, by independent experts designated by the Secretary General to examine threatened habitats and travel and subsistence expenses incurred by such experts to inform the Standing Committee or its groups of experts. It includes appraisals of the European Diploma.

12,000

5.2

Sites at risk as a result of an emergency

Fixed appropriation to cover expenses for reports, travelling of experts or Secretariat to areas under a particular environmental stress as a result of natural catastrophes or accidents caused by man. It includes assistance to areas under political or military conflict. It may cover training of specialists, aid to establish environmental monitoring. This chapter will only be used under instruction of the Bureau and will be paid for both from the Council of Europe or by voluntary contributions. 

Fixed appropriation for consultant

p.m.

6.

Awareness and visibility

Funds for the conception, the translation, the photocomposition and publication of technical documents, posters, brochures, stickers, postcards, making of buttons, and other documents.  It includes publication on Internet and conception and update of a Website. 

25,000


7.

Operational expenditure of the Standing Committee’s Secretariat

7.1

Strategic development of the Convention after CBD/COP 10 for the European targets for 2020

p.m

7.2

Chair’s expenses

Fixed appropriation to cover travel and/or subsistence expenses incurred by the Chairman or delegate T-PVS after consultation with the Secretary General. Expenses of the Chair to attend the meetings of the Standing Committee

4,000

7.3

Delegates of African states and some delegates of Central and Eastern Europe

Travel and subsistence expenses incurred by the delegates of African states to attend the Standing Committee meeting or other meetings organised under its responsibility

7,600

Travel and subsistence expenses incurred by some delegates from Contracting Parties of Central and Eastern Europe to attend the Standing Committee meeting.

8,000

7.4

Travel of experts and Secretariat

Travel and subsistence expenses incurred by experts to attend meetings of special relevance under instruction from the Committee or the Chair, and Secretariat official journeys. 

25,000

7.5

Meetings of the Bureau

Travel and subsistence expenses incurred by the members of the Bureau to attend the Bureau meetings

10,000

Secretariat:  Staff and office costs

7.6

Permanent staff (provided by the CoE): Administrator, Principal Administrative Assistant, Administrative Assistant

304,600

7.7

Temporary staff

70,000

7.8

Office costs for temporary staff

26,000 

7.9

Overheads (interpretation, translation and printing of documents)

80,300

TOTAL

832,500

      The Bern Convention Special Account will be used to cover expenses that cannot be covered by the ordinary budget of the Council of Europe.

      The Council of Europe is expected to provide around € 586,300 in 2011 (€ 281,700 for financing the programme of activities including overheads, and € 304,600 for staff costs). Parties are expected to provide new voluntary contributions in 2011. A detailed report on 2010 expenditure and a list of voluntary contributions will be presented to the Committee for information.


Bern Convention Programme of Activities and Budget for 2011 (Summary)

in Euros

1.

Monitoring of the legal application of the Convention

6,000

1.1

Reports on the implementation of the Convention in one Contracting Party

6,000

2.

Conservation of natural habitats

92,000

2.1

Group of experts on protected areas and ecological networks

26,000

2.2

Biogeographical seminar for the implementation of the Emerald Network

10,000

2.3

Technical seminar for the setting-up of the Emerald Network in Norway

2.4

Technical seminar for the setting-up of the Emerald Network in Switzerland

2.5

Pilot projects for the setting-up of the Emerald Network at national level in some States

20,000

2.6

2.7

2.8

Strategic implementation of the Pan-European Ecological Network

Group of Specialists on the European Diploma of Protected Areas

Consultants

8,000

8,000

20,000

3.

Monitoring of species and encouraging conservation action

152,000

3.1

Biodiversity and Climate Change

46,000

3.2

Island Biodiversity

35,000

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

Invasive Alien Species

Conservation of Large Carnivores and Herbivores

Illegal Killing of Birds

Hamster conservation

35,000

12,000

18,000

6,000

4.

Sectorial policies and biodiversity conservation

10,000

4.1

Biodiversity in the Cities

5,000

4.2

Collection of mushrooms and other wild species

5,000

5.

Monitoring of sites and populations at risk and emergencies

12,000

5.1

On-the-spot visits, including European Diploma appraisals

12,000

5.2

Sites at risk as a result of an emergency

p.m.

6.

Awareness and visibility

25,000

6.1

Costs of part-time webmaster, publications

25,000

7.

Operational expenditure of the Standing Committee and its Secretariat

535,500

7.1

Strategic development of the Convention after CBD/COP 10 for the European targets for 2020

7.2

Chair’s expenses

4,000

7.3

Delegates of African states and of some delegates of Central and Eastern Europe

15,600

7.4

Travel of experts and Secretariat

25,000

7.5

Meetings of the Bureau

10,000

Secretariat: Staff and office costs

7.6

Permanent staff (provided by the CoE)

304,600

7.7

Temporary staff

70,000

7.8

Office costs for temporary staff

26,000

7.9

Overheads (interpretation, translation and printing of documents)

80,300

TOTAL

832,500

Appendix 15

Voluntary contributions to the Bern Convention

received in 2010 (in alphabetical order)

Andorra 

Belgium (région wallonne)

Bulgaria

Cyprus

Czech Republic

European Union

Finland

Germany

Iceland

Luxembourg    

Monaco

Netherlands

Norway

Switzerland

United Kingdom

TOTAL

1,200 €

25,000 €

5,000 €

5,000 €

8,000 €

10,000 €

7,000 €

38,000 €

3,918 €

308 €

18,000 €

5,000 €

30,021 €

49,000 €

16,908 €

222,355 €


Addendum to the report

Chairman’s report

on Monday 6th December 2010:

·         I welcome you all to the 30th meeting of the Standing Committee, which should be attended for the first time by 50 Contracting Parties. At our last meeting held in Bern in Switzerland in November last year celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Convention, I informed you that Georgia had just deposited its instrument for ratification bringing the number of contracting parties to 50. The Convention entered into force in both Georgia and Montenegro early this year making them full members of the Standing Committee and I welcome them both.

·         Before informing you about the work carried out in 2010, I would like to take this opportunity to remember Mr Jean-Paul Koune, who left us a month ago. Mr Koune was a French mycologist who did excellent work in bringing Fungi to the attention of the Standing Committee; he participated in many Standing Committee meetings on behalf of the Journée européennes du Cortinaire NGO, and, as a representative of the European Council for the Conservation of Fungi, he contributed much to proposals of amendments of Appendix I of the Bern Convention aiming at the inclusion of a number of threatened mushrooms at European level. On behalf of the Standing Committee, I would therefore like to express our gratitude for his work and pass on our deepest sympathies to Mr Koune’s family and friends.

·         The Bureau has been busy this year reviewing the programme of activities, as well as dealing with the complaints received and the treatment of case files. Regarding the Programme of Activities for 2010, all planned activities have been carried out successfully except for the National Workshop on Invasive Alien Species in Armenia, and the Legal analysis of the implementation of the Convention in at least one Contracting Party. The latter one was replaced by a Legal opinion on the Interpretation of article 9 of the Bern Convention.

·         All the planned meetings of the Expert Groups where held according to schedule and later on we will have the reports from these groups. These are The Group of Experts on Biodiversity and Climate Change, the Group on Large Carnivores and Herbivores, and the one on Invasive Alien Species. These three groups have all produced new draft recommendations which we are going to examine and deal with this week. Then we have, among others, progress reports from the Group on Island Biodiversity in Europe and the Group on Protected areas and Ecological Networks on the setting up of the Emerald Network, as well as a report from the Working Group on the European Charter on Angling and Biodiversity, including the proposed Charter which we will deal with later today.

·         The running of the programme of activities scheduled for 2010 in a satisfactory and efficient way is primarily the work of our good and very competent Secretariat which has managed the task along with their several other duties. The head of the Secretariat, Carolina Lasen-Diaz left us early this year for a new challenging job here at the Council of Europe, dealing with human trafficking. Her departure putting extra burden on the broad shoulders of our good friend, the Head of the Biological Diversity Division of the Council of Europe, Eladio Fernandez-Galliano (I don´t know where the Convention would be without him!). A few weeks after Carolina´s departure a good decision was taken when Ivana D’Alessandro was appointed the new head of the Secretariat. Ivana has proved to be very efficient, dedicated and good head since she took over the responsibilities for the Secretariat. I thank Eladio, Ivana and all the other members of the Secretariat for their excellent work and friendship during the year. Carolina is not here but I would like to send her our best wishes and thanks for her good work for the Convention.

·         In 2010, the Bern Convention has reinforced its cooperation with IUCN, through the signature of a new Memorandum of Co-operation which took place in Madrid, on 27th January 2010, at the occasion of the European Conference on “Post-2010 Biodiversity Vision and Target -The role of Protected Areas and Ecological Networks in Europe”. The MoC was signed by Mr. Fernando-Galliano on behalf of the Council of Europe in the presence of the Chair of our Standing Committee. The MoC replaces the Agreement signed back in 1962 between the Council of Europe and IUCN.  The new MoC will also be the frame for a collaborative partnership around the Biodiversity of European Islands for 2011.

·         I should also inform you, having mentioned the Madrid Conference in January this year on “Post-2010 Biodiversity vision and Target”, that the Secretariat of the Bern Convention along with your Chair of the Standing Committee and a few delegates from Contracting Parties, participated actively in the running of the Conference and in the preparation process in close cooperation with the Spanish hosts and the European Commission.

·         The cooperation with the Convention on Biological Diversity and other international biodiversity conventions, international organisations, governmental and non-governmental, has continued on regular basis. In this respect, I would like to stress the ongoing and increased co-operation with the European Environment Agency, a privileged partner in the field of Nature protection and particularly with regards to Protected Areas. Through the enhanced cooperation between the Bern Convention and the European Environment Agency, (The ETC/BD in Paris) big steps forward in the implementation of the Emerald Network have been taken this year. The Standing Committee will be called to discuss and hopefully adopt important decisions in this respect already this afternoon.

·         Coordination and exchange of information has been carried out on a regular basis with the European Commission. The Bern Convention Secretariat participates actively in the meetings of the EU Coordination Group for Biodiversity and Nature, and attended a number of international conferences organised at the initiative of the EU and, as from next year, the Convention will participate in the EU working group on Invasive Alien Species. Also, I should remind you that The European Union is financing the Council of Europe /European Union project aimed at the setting-up of the Emerald Network in 7 Central and Eastern European countries;

·         2010 has been in many respects a critical year for biodiversity conservation, marked by several historical moments: - it has been the occasion for analysing the reasons which led to the failure of the Copenhagen Climate Summit; - it confirmed that we were unable to reach the ‘2010 target’, to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010; - however, it has also been the occasion for celebrating biodiversity through the UN International Year of Biodiversity; - it has been the year of animated debates on the post-2010 targets, which the Bern Convention has followed both at the EU and international level; - and, most important, 2010 will be remembered as the year of the CBD Nagoya Summit, COP-10, which achieved its three inter-linked strategic objectives. These will certainly have an impact on the decisions that the Standing Committee is called to take with regards to the Strategic development of the Bern Convention and its Programme of Activities for 2011.

·         Unfortunately, I could not attend the CBD COP-meeting in Nagoya, but Eladio Fernandez-Galliano was there on behalf of the Council of Europe. Also, our good friend Jan Plesnic, the Vice-chair of the Standing Committee was there. Later Jan will inform us about the main CBD COP-10 decisions including the Aichi Target, the new strategic plan on biodiversity for 2011-2020.

 [3 Nagoya objectives: adoption of the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization; the “Aichi Target”, i.e. the new strategic plan on biodiversity for 2011-2020; a Resources mobilisation strategy]

·         2010 showed us that we are capable of reacting to failures and gave us a second chance to halt biodiversity loss. We are now called upon to give a regional contribution for the implementation of the Aichi target, as well as to set targets and identify priorities for the development of the Bern Convention. To do so, we have to concentrate on the fields where the Bern Convention has been most successful by accumulating extensive knowledge (for instance, on invasive alien species, protected areas and ecological networks, large carnivores and climate change); at the same time, we have to take advantage from the dimension of both the Bern Convention and the Standing Committee as a platform to negotiate, talk and interact between governments, scientists, the international community and non-governmental organisations. We have to continue being innovative in finding acceptable solutions to the numerous challenges posed to nature.

·         I therefore call on all of you to join efforts to develop and agree on a meaningful vision for the future of biological diversity in Europe. I believe no less now than before that the Bern Convention is a unique instrument to help European countries to achieve this goal in the years to come.

·         Dear colleges. This will be the last time I deliver the “Chairman’s report”. I have had the privilege and the honour of chairing this Standing Committee for the past three years. And I am thankful for that. In the history of the Bern Convention only one chairman has been elected four times. That was the first chair, my good friend and one of the fathers of the Convention, Veit Koester from Denmark. It is my firm believe that we should not change that and elect each chair of this Committee maximum two or three times. We will elect a new chair at the end of this meeting as well as a vice chair and two additional Bureau members. I wish those of you who are nominated all the best looking forward to work with the new Bureau next year as á ex-chair.

·         These three years I have chaired the Standing Committee the atmosphere at the Bureau meetings has always been friendly and relaxed and all pending issues solved without difficulties. I would like to thank the members of the Bureau very much for their support and commitment in the past years. And again, I thank the members of the Secretariat of the Council of Europe, for their professionalism, assistance and dedication. Thank you.

***



[1] In the framework of this action plan the term « Ruddy Ducks » refers both to Ruddy Ducks and to the hybrids of Ruddy Ducks and White-headed Ducks.