Case study:INTERREG MED WETNET - Memoradum on Participation in Wetland Conservation in Ljubljansko Barje Nature Park

From RESTORE
Jump to: navigation, search
This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.
Approve case study

 

0.00
(0 votes)


To discuss or comment on this case study, please use the discussion page.


Location: 45° 59' 15", 14° 24' 58"
Edit location
Loading map...
Left click to look around in the map, and use the wheel of your mouse to zoom in and out.


Project overview

Edit 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
Interreg Med Wetnet

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the 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

This case study hasn’t got any Monitoring survey and results, you can add some by editing the project overview.

Lessons learnt

This case study hasn’t got any lessons learnt, you can add some by editing the project overview.


Image gallery


ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment

Catchment

River basin district Danube
River basin Danube

Subcatchment

River name Danube
Area category more than 10000 km²
Area (km2)
Maximum altitude category Less than 100 m
Maximum altitude (m)
Dominant geology
Ecoregion
Dominant land cover
Waterbody ID



Other case studies in this subcatchment: Conservation of alluvial, Hainburg River Restoration, Marsh protection in Egyek–Pusztakócs, National Park Danube-Auen, Regelsbrunner Aue, The Bulgarian Wetlands Restoration and Pollution Reduction Project, Witzelsdorf Pilot Project


Site

Name Ljubljansko Barje Nature Park (LJUBLJANA MARSHES)
WFD water body codes
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name
Pre-project morphology
Reference morphology
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body No
National/international site designation EU - Special Protected Area
Local/regional site designations Important Bird Area; Site of Community Importance; Special Protection Area, Nature Park
Protected species present Yes
Invasive species present No
Species of interest
Dominant hydrology
Dominant substrate
River corridor land use
Average bankfull channel width category
Average bankfull channel width (m)
Average bankfull channel depth category
Average bankfull channel depth (m)
Mean discharge category
Mean annual discharge (m3/s)
Average channel gradient category
Average channel gradient
Average unit stream power (W/m2)


Project background

Reach length directly affected (m)
Project started 2016/11/01
Works started
Works completed
Project completed 2019/10/31
Total cost category
Total cost (k€)
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources Project co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund

Cost for project phases

Phase cost category cost exact (k€) Lead organisation Contact forename Contact surname
Investigation and design
Stakeholder engagement and communication
Works and works supervision
Post-project management and maintenance
Monitoring



Reasons for river restoration

Mitigation of a pressure
Hydromorphology
Biology
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications
Floodplain / River corridor 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)
Planform / Channel pattern
Other building of tourist infrastructure, which will provide a targeted visit;
Non-structural measures
Management interventions 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; control of the use of fertilizers and preservatives on agricultural land; respect of the prohibition of the meadows plowing from the KPLB Regulation (also for organic farmers); establishing a zoning of individual subregions where priorities are defined in cooperation with land owners and managers of the protected area and NATURA 2000 (KPLB and ZRSVN); payment for the implementation of the adjusted use on agricultural land
Social measures (incl. engagement) awareness of stakeholders on the importance of adequate maintenance of the arrester;
Other establishment of monitoring of qualifying species and habitat types; 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; designing common tourism products; joint marketing of products;


Monitoring

Hydromorphological quality elements

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative

Biological quality elements

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative

Physico-chemical quality elements

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative

Any other monitoring, e.g. social, economic

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative


Monitoring documents



Additional documents and videos


Additional links and references

Link Description

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information