Case study:INTERREG MED WETNET - Memoradum on Participation in Wetland Conservation in Ljubljansko Barje Nature Park: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
|Subcatchment=Danube | |Subcatchment=Danube | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Site}} | {{Site | ||
|Name=Ljubljansko Barje Nature Park (LJUBLJANA MARSHES) | |||
|Heavily modified water body=No | |||
|Site designation=EU - Special Protected Area | |||
|Local site designation=Important Bird Area; Site of Community Importance; Special Protection Area, Nature Park | |||
|Protected species present=Yes | |||
|Invasive species present=No | |||
}} | |||
{{Project background}} | {{Project background}} | ||
{{Motivations}} | {{Motivations}} | ||
Revision as of 10:23, 9 December 2019
This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.
Project overview
| Status | Complete |
|---|---|
| Project web site | http://wetnet.interreg-med.eu |
| Themes | Economic aspects, Environmental flows and water resources, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Monitoring, Social benefits |
| Country | Slovenia |
| Main contact forename | Ales |
| Main contact surname | Smrekar |
| Main contact user ID | |
| Contact organisation | ZRC SAZU – Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts |
| Contact organisation web site | http://www.zrc-sazu.si/en |
| Partner organisations | |
| Parent multi-site project | |
| This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
ZRC SAZU held a series of participatory events from September 2018 to April 2019 involving various stakeholders, including: representatives of ministries, landowners, farmers, representatives of non-governmental organizations and scientific institutions. At the first territorial lab the team presented the WETNET project and the idea of the wetland contract. Thereafter, experts from the sectors of water, biology and agriculture presented their expert opinions for the maintenance of biodiversity and the water regime of the Ljubljansko barje Nature Park. After the introductory presentations, the question “Which problem do you face in the Ljubljansko barje Nature Park?” was done to the stakeholders. A discussion followed on the issues perceived by stakeholders in the pilot area. At the second territorial lab the method used was the so-called World Café. The stakeholders were divided in four groups discussing on different topics: agriculture, water management, nature and tourism. All the participants discussed all four themes. At each group, which was led by an expert in the subject, participants discussed the most pressing problems they faced in the pilot area on a particular topic, they were asked to find possible solutions to the problem and ultimately expose potential barriers that prevent the implementation of possible solutions. At the end, the experts who led the tables presented the findings in their working tables, and the starting points for the coexistence and functioning of different stakeholders in the pilot area. The third territorial lab was conducted as a round table. The stakeholders discussed potential goals, measures, initiatives and risks for three different areas: governance, environment and economic and social development. The forth territorial lab was conducted as a round table. We invited the stakeholders of agricultural sectors, stakeholders and rightholders. The stakeholders discussed potential goals, measures, initiatives and risks for three different areas: governance, environment and economic and social development. In general, we believe the methodology used was useful and appropriated to engage the stakeholders in the participatory process.
The final document, the Memorandum, which was developed though the process, took the form of an Environmental Agreement for the implementation of the Action Plan shared by the stakeholders. The legal support of the agreement are the Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC of 23 October 2000) specifically the “negotiated environmental agreements” mentioned in Part B of Annex VI, the The Decree on the Ljubljansko Barje Nature Park (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 112/08) and the Interim Management Guidelines for the Ljubljansko Barje Nature Park (http://www.ljubljanskobarje.si/uploads/files/ZUS%20KPLB%202011.pdf).
An integral part of the Memorandum is the Action Plan, which is the result of the joint conclusions of all participants in the process of its creation, and which defines goals, measures, initiatives and risks in Ljubljansko barje Nature park. The Memorandum is a voluntary document signed by project partners and various stakeholders from public authorities, education and research institutions, civil society, the economic sector and others related to the wetland, with a view to achieving the objectives of restoring the environmental, social and economic aspects of the wetland.
The actors in charge of the coordination of the Memorandum are Research Centre of Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts (the partner of the project) and Ljubljansko barje nature park (the associated partner of the project). The bodies responsible for implementing the Memorandum are the Assembly and the Supervisory Board. The Memorandum Assembly is composed of all signatories to this Memorandum, and it is open to those who wish to join the Memorandum at a later stage. The Monitoring Committee of the Memorandum consists of representatives of three experts (in the field of nature: Center for Cartography of Flora and Fauna, agriculture: Biotechnical Faculty of the University of Ljubljana and water management: Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering of the University of Ljubljana). The partners coordinate the work of The Monitoring Committee. The Monitoring Committee and the Assembly meet as needed to assess the state of implementation of the Action Plan, to take careful action and to identify improvements and upgrades. All signatories to the Memorandum undertake to include the appropriate resources available for active participation in the activities. Decision-making procedures follow the principles of information, consultation and active cooperation, in accordance with the applicable national law and the provisions of the European Union. The Action Plan of the Memorandum includes 16 measures that can be classified as concrete. Those are:
From the field of management:
- control of drainage of water from secondary arrester to main dams (river) with locks;
- control of drainage of water from tertiary arrester;
- coordinated maintenance of ditches;
- awareness of stakeholders on the importance of adequate maintenance of the arrester;
- Control of the use of fertilizers and preservatives on agricultural land.
from the field of environment:
- compliance with the ban on the permanent grass cut from the KPLB Regulation (also for organic farmers);
- mowing, adapted to the conservation of species and habitat types;
- adequate maintenance of borders and green belts (selective logging, preservation of trees, maintaining adequate width of green belts along ditches and watercourses);
- establishing a zone of individual subregions where priorities are defined in cooperation with land owners and managers of the protected area and NATURA2000 (KPLB and ZRSVN) - with the participation of the Agricultural Advisory Service;
- the establishment of monitoring of qualifying species and habitat types;
- an example of good practice of coherent policies on the land of the Agricultural Land and Forests Fund (SKZG);
- prepare an analysis of the development possibilities and the restructuring plan for individual agricultural holdings in cooperation with agricultural institutions and with the financial support of agricultural policy;
- payment for the implementation of the adjusted use on agricultural land.
In the field of economic and social development:
- designing common tourism products;
- joint marketing of products;
-building of tourist infrastructure, which will provide a targeted visit;
Along the whole process we had some problems to actively involved agricultural sector and right holders. Finally, we decided to arrange the special territorial lab for them, which was very successful. Similar problem was with public sector especially on the national level. The Action plan was prepared in a sufficient way with our external experts from all three strategical areas. The problem has arisen when the actions with specified responsible stakeholders, financial resources and workplan were presented to the potential responsible stakeholders. We decided to cut the actions and build up the modified action plan with goals, measures, initiatives and risks.
The other problem occurred as the prepared document was named “Contract”. The potential stakeholders expressed the concern on too binding formulation of the document. Finally, we agreed on changing it into the voluntary “Memorandum”.
Monitoring surveys and results
Lessons learnt
Image gallery
|
Catchment and subcatchmentSelect a catchment/subcatchment
Catchment
Subcatchment
Other case studies in this subcatchment: Conservation of alluvial, Hainburg River Restoration, Marsh protection in Egyek–Pusztakócs, National Park Danube-Auen, Regelsbrunner Aue, Renaturation of Stržen's riverbed on intermittent Cerknica Lake, The Bulgarian Wetlands Restoration and Pollution Reduction Project, Witzelsdorf Pilot Project
Site
Project background
Cost for project phases
Reasons for river restoration
Measures
MonitoringHydromorphological quality elements
Biological quality elements
Physico-chemical quality elements
Any other monitoring, e.g. social, economic
Monitoring documents
Additional documents and videos
Additional links and references
Supplementary InformationEdit Supplementary Information
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||