EUROPEAN TOPIC CENTRE ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Under contract with the European Environment Agency

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN TOPIC CENTRE ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Under contract with the European Environment Agency CENTRE THEMATIQUE EUROPEEN SUR LA DIVERSITE BIOLOGIQUE Sous contrat avec l'agence Européenne de l'environnement Streamlining Biodiversity indicators in the West Balkans Support for biological diversity activities and capacity building Synthetic report November 2013 The European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity (ETC/BD) is a consortium of nine organisations under a Framework Partnership Agreement with the European Environment Agency NCA-CR ECNC GDNAP-TR ILE-SAS ISPRA JNCC MNHN SLU UBA-V

2 Disclaimer This ETC/BD report has not been subjected to European Environment Agency (EEA) member country review. Please note that the contents of the working paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the EEA. 2

3 Streamlining Biodiversity indicators in the West Balkans Support for biological diversity activities and capacity building Synthetic report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. SUMMARY 4 2. INTRODUCTION 4 3. OVERVIEW OF BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION 5 ALBANIA 5 BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 6 CROATIA 7 THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA 9 KOSOVO UNDER UNSCR 1244/99 10 MONTENEGRO 10 SERBIA GAPS AND NEEDS ANALYSIS PRIORITY ACTION LIST WORK ON THE INDICATOR FACT SHEETS SUGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PARTICIPANTS 19 REFERENCES 21 3

4 1. Summary The European Environment Agency (EEA) is cooperating with the seven West Balkan countries, which participate in the European Environment Information and Observation Network (Eionet) on a similar basis as the 32 EEA member countries. The SEBI (Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators) process was initiated in 2005 to stimulate cooperation between countries in the pan-european region around the issue of streamlining a set of biodiversity indicators to support the achievement of the 2010 biodiversity target. Many European countries have been actively involved in the SEBI process since that time. However, countries in the West Balkan region could have been more involved. Therefore, the project Streamlining Biodiversity Indicators in the west Balkans supported their active involvement in the process by: identifying current progress on biodiversity indicators in the region; mapping possible gaps and needs; setting out a plan to fill possible gaps; and building capacity by actually producing selected indicator fact sheets. Within the project an overview of the current state of play and existing biodiversity indicators in the region was prepared in consultation with national experts. In addition, two workshops were organized. The first one focused on identifying gaps in indicator development and prioritizing needs for improved streamlining; and on drafting action plans for developing national biodiversity indicators, including a priority list of actions. The second workshop focused on hands-on training to improve/finalize the preparation of two indicator fact sheets per country and on sharing experiences on the preparation of the fact sheets. Several initiatives and on-going work are being developed in relation to the production of biodiversity indicators in the West Balkan region. Most of the countries have lists of biodiversity indicators or are developing them, and the indicators are used for the production of a number of reports. However, several issues that still need to be addressed were highlighted by workshop participants: lack/fragmentation of data and monitoring programmes; insufficient capacity building; deficient cooperation between national institutions; methodological problems; and lack of funding. 2. Introduction The European Environment Agency (EEA) is cooperating with the seven West Balkan countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia since 1997; Croatia since 2001; Serbia and Montenegro together since 2002 and separately since 2007; and Kosovo under UNSCR 1244/99. The seven West Balkan cooperating countries participate in the European Environment Information and Observation Network (Eionet) on a similar basis as the 32 EEA member countries. The EEA work programme has been extended to include wider coverage of West Balkan countries according to their state of development and the scale of financial support provided to cover a selection of the major EEA activities. The SEBI (Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators) process was initiated in 2005 to stimulate cooperation between countries in the pan-european region around the issue of streamlining a set of biodiversity indicators to support the achievement of the 2010 biodiversity target. Many European countries have been actively involved in the process since that time. A number of these countries 4

5 have developed indicator sets or amended existing sets to align with the European set of 26 indicators. Outside the EEA Member States, countries in the West Balkan region in particular could have been more involved in the process than they were. Some of these countries are developing indicator sets at national level. It was not clear to what extent these were streamlined with the European set. The project Streamlining Biodiversity Indicators in the West Balkans goal is to achieve the wider involvement of countries, in particular in the West Balkans, in the process of developing biodiversity indicators that is facilitated by SEBI. The project objectives are: 1. Review the current state of play regarding development and implementation of biodiversity indicators in the West Balkans 2. Identify possible gaps and needs in order to streamline West Balkan indicators with European indicators 3. Develop, in a participative way, an action plan that aims at filling possible gaps 4. Begin the implementation of the action plan by holding a capacity building training session to produce/update indicator fact sheets To achieve these objectives the following activities were undertaken: An overview of the current state of play and existing biodiversity indicators in the region was prepared in consultation with national experts. An Expert Workshop on Biodiversity Indicators was organized on 3-5 June in Tirana, Albania, to get a common understanding of biodiversity indicator development in the region; to identify gaps in indicator development and prioritize needs for improved streamlining; and to draft an action plan for developing national biodiversity indicators, including a priority list of actions. A Capacity Building Workshop on Biodiversity Indicators was organized on 4-6 November in Dubrovnik, Croatia to follow up on the steps agreed during the first workshop; and to share experiences and improve/finalize the preparation of two indicator fact sheets per country. This report compiles the main results achieved during the project. 3. Overview of biodiversity indicators development and implementation The first step in the project was to review the current state of play regarding the development and implementation of biodiversity indicators in the West Balkan countries. An overview of indicators was prepared based on the information from the 4 th National Reports to the CBD, the European environment state and outlook 2010 country assessments and internet search. The report was updated in consultation with national experts. In addition, the results of the Eionet consultation on the SEBI process were reviewed and summarized in the overview, mainly in relation to country priorities and needs. Albania The Fourth National Report to the United Nations Convention of Biological Diversity of Albania states that monitoring of biodiversity elements in Albania has shown development but still remains not comprehensive and thus does not provide a full picture of the situation. The setting-up of a 5

6 comprehensive network of biodiversity inventory and monitoring is in its early stages. A decision of the Council of Ministers on Biodiversity inventory and monitoring was enacted in 2009 (Republic of Albania, Ministry Environment, Forests and Water Administration, Biodiversity Directorate, 2010). The Agency of Environment and Forestry of Albania was established in One of its most important missions is to gather data from environmental monitoring, including biodiversity monitoring, data processing and assessment, and reporting on the national and international level (Republic of Albania, Ministry Environment, Forests and Water Administration, Biodiversity Directorate, 2010). A number of biodiversity indicators were also considered in the project Consolidation of the environmental monitoring system in Albania (CEMSA) which ended in March 2013 (CEMSA project, 2013). However, the project was not entirely successful and another project will be needed to build a unique database. The monitoring system in the country is composed by monitoring stations which belong to the different monitoring networks in line with the environmental topics (e.g. air, water, soil and biodiversity). Indicators are divided in three groups: Environmental Indicators of Quality (EIQ); Environmental Indicators of Impact (EII); and Environmental Indicators of Pressure (EIP).In addition, three levels of priority have been defined to make the monitoring system flexible in terms of timeline implementation and budget availability. The system includes 76 biodiversity related indicators: 50 in the first priority, 17 in the second priority and 9 in the third priority. The Red list of species for Albania is to be produced in 2013, but some data were lost due to the economic crisis. Data were compiled since 2009 for 36 species of mammals, 115 species of birds, 37 species of reptiles and some molluscs. Currently they are in preparations to conduct the national forestry inventory which will also deal with biodiversity issues. Within the answers to the Eionet consultation on the SEBI process the main priorities identified by Albania are: to revise the SEBI set of indicators, especially for non-eu countries, in light of the EU and global biodiversity targets; to reinforce the ecosystem services approach, which is a new field of work in Albania; to develop national and regional activities quickly; to give governmental institutions a leading role in the process, using their existing working relations with research bodies and NGOs; and to communicate findings to the public in plain language through awareness raising activities. Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia and Herzegovina s Fourth Report to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity states that Red lists of flora, fauna or fungi species which would monitor such species on a regular basis have not been established so far. Monitoring of invasive species has not been put in place. In addition, there are no direct data on the monitoring of climate change impacts on Bosnia and Herzegovina s biodiversity (Bosnia and Herzegovina Fourth Report to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity Biodiversity Targets National Assessments, 2010). The European environment state and outlook 2010 country assessment of Bosnia and Herzegovina states that there is no established monitoring for the population status of species. However, some 6

7 research including the status of populations, indicator values, etc. is occasionally carried out for certain species in order to acquire knowledge of their ecological range. These data could provide the basis for the future monitoring system. Research on certain ecosystem types is also occasionally conducted in order to acquire knowledge of their structure and dynamics. However, a national list of indicators for regular monitoring of the environment has never been established (EEA, 2013). The country assessment also states that the preparation of Bosnia and Herzegovina's NBSAP The Strategy of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Action Plan for Biodiversity and Landscape s Protection (NBSAP BiH ) is extremely important for the country. It will improve the state of biodiversity, but also other related aspects such as sustainable development (EEA, 2013). Croatia A project to develop a national list of indicators in Croatia was launched in The project aimed to establish a system to collect, process and report data on the state of the environment at national and European level. The National list of indicators includes prescriptions on the time dynamics of data collection, format, source and mode of data flow. The proposal of the list was coordinated with the EEA in order to align it with the SEBI set of indicators. The methodology to develop biodiversity indicators in Croatia was also developed (The Republic of Croatia Ministry of Culture, 2009). The draft National List of Indicators was produced in 2009 and has been revised in 2011 and 2013 by the Croatian Environment Agency (CEA) in cooperation with the competent authorities of the Croatian Government and professional and scientific institutions. The National list of indicators contains 245 data sheets for 27 topics, including 19 biodiversity indicators. The CEA is also in charge of the preparation of the state of environment report every 4 years based on the set of environmental indicators. The environment in your pocket annual publication is also based on indicators. Table 3.1 Proposal of national biodiversity indicators in the Republic of Croatia Source: Croatian Environment Agency (CEA), 2013 BR 01 Areas in the ecological network of the Republic of Croatia BR 02 Areas of interest for the EU BR 03 Representation of certain class of habitat types BR 04 Representation of threatened and rare habitat types in Croatia BR 05 Representation of habitat types of interest to the EU BR 06 State of conservation of endangered wild species from the Croatian Red List BR 07 Abundance and distribution of the selected species BR 08 Population trends of birds in agricultural areas BR 09 Invasive alien species BR 10 Conservation of genetic resources in agriculture BR 11 Share of agricultural area in the areas of interest for the EU BR 12 Agricultural areas of high natural value BR 13 Freshwater fishponds of high natural value BR 14 Dead trees in the forests BR 15 Fragmentation of natural and seminatural areas BR 16 Marine Protected Areas BR 17 Funding of biodiversity protection and conservation 7

8 BR 18 Public awareness about nature conservation ZPV 01 Protected areas under the Nature Protection Act The 4 th National Report to the CBD of Croatia states that in 2006 a manual for inventory and monitoring of habitats was developed, educational workshops were held and the inventory of habitats started (The Republic of Croatia Ministry of Culture, 2009). The map of habitats has been completed with additional field data and results of detailed habitat mapping for individual protected areas. The ecological network GIS database has been created, as well as the GIS database for the Croatian proposal of the Natura 2000 network, which has been continually updated with new field data and research results (EEA, 2013). Also in 2006 the development of the manual for inventory and monitoring of fauna started, with a methodology and keys for determination of representatives of individual groups of animals, including freshwater fish, amphibians, reptiles and bats. Systematic monitoring of individual species of birds is being carried out (The Republic of Croatia Ministry of Culture, 2009). The activities related to setting up the National Biodiversity Monitoring System are being taken forward for example through the development of standardised manuals for systematic collection of data and monitoring of flora, habitats and particular groups of fauna. Activities on publishing red books and preparing red lists are also continued. Red books on mammals, amphibians, reptiles, freshwater fish, sea fish, fungi and dragonflies have been published, and red lists on corals, lichen, ground beetles and stoneflies have been compiled. Progress has also been made in the development of protected area management plans (EEA, 2013). The State Institute for Nature Protection, on the basis of the Nature Protection Act, was authorized for the coordination of inventories and the monitoring of the condition of biological diversity. By establishing the State Institute, the collection of data has been institutionalized since 2003 (The Republic of Croatia Ministry of Culture, 2009). Croatia became an EU Member State in July 2013 and therefore they have been working on a proposal for Natura Negotiations with the EC started in 2008, followed by thorough consultation. They proposed 780 Natura 2000 sites, 742 psci and 38 SPA. Next steps will be dealing with appropriate assessments, management of Natura 2000, monitoring and reporting. Through the IPA 2009 Natura MANMON project monitoring programmes were prepared for 3 habitat types and 24 species. In addition, the general design of the national Natura 2000 monitoring framework in Croatia was defined. Within the answers to the Eionet consultation on the SEBI process the main priorities identified by Croatia are: to develop more detailed indicators in a way that sectors become involved and get responsibilities for biodiversity issues; to include governmental institutions in the process, inform them about findings, and ask them for opinion and a certain level of commitment; to publish awareness raising materials, organize workshops and consult on documents and the whole process; to define more concrete indicators to reinforce the ecosystem services approach; and to make a thorough analysis of the new EU and global biodiversity targets and adapt the current set of indicators accordingly. 8

9 The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia The Fourth National Report of the Implementation of the CBD in the Republic of Macedonia ( ) lists a proposed set of indicators and the adopted set of national indicators for biodiversity. The latter set was produced by the Macedonian Environmental Information Center (MEIC) in 2007 as part of the National Environmental Indicators (NEI) and adopted by the Macedonian Government in 2008 (Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning, 2010 and 2013). The National Environmental Indicators set consist of 40 indicators, including 3 biodiversity indicators (Table 3.2). However, a few more indicators are directly relevant for biodiversity, for example the use of water resources, forest fires, areas under organic agriculture, land use (in accordance with CORINE land cover nomenclature), etc. Table 3.2 Adopted set of national indicators for biodiversity in Macedonia Source: Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning, 2010 Threatened and protected species MK-NI 007 Protected areas MK-NI 008 Species diversity MK-NI 009 The proposed set of indicators (Table 3.3) listed in the Fourth National Report has not been elaborated in detail. In addition, some of the proposed indicators (size of protected areas, endangered species, Emerald Network) are already covered within the adopted set of indicators. During the process of Revision of the NBSAP a list of biodiversity indicators will be proposed according to CBD recommendations and Aichi Targets. Table 3.3 Proposed set of indicators in Macedonia Source: Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning, 2010 Sustainability indicator for species diversity Endangered species Conservation status of habitats types and species Size of protected areas Emerald network/ Natura 2000 Water quality in rivers, lakes and dams (accumulations) Populations of selected commercial species (gastropods, turtles, fish, amphibians, birds, mammals) Within the answers to the Eionet consultation on the SEBI process the main priorities identified by Macedonia are: to reinforce the ecosystem services approach by delivering objective data and assessments to decision makers to promote the sustainable use of resources and a balanced distribution of benefits from ecosystems; to disseminate findings to national and regional environmental authorities to strengthen institutional capacities, streamline knowledge in the decision-making process and monitor progress towards the objectives and goals; to strengthen stakeholder involvement through a concerted approach to the emerging challenges; to integrate a sectoral approach; and to inform the public about the state of the environment and biodiversity. 9

10 Kosovo under UNSCR 1244/99 The Strategy and Action Plan for Biodiversity of Kosovo states that there are no national biodiversity indicators in Kosovo, which creates obstacles to the use of data and therefore to address issues of national priority. The strategy mentions that the indicators would serve as tools to assess biodiversity and its threats. The indicators will also help determining and monitoring national policies on biodiversity, environment and sustainable development and reporting on the implementation of international agreements such as the CBD and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (Republic of Kosovo. Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning). Montenegro The Fourth National Report of Montenegro to the Convention on Biological Diversity states that monitoring of biodiversity in Montenegro has been carried out in a limited manner, within the framework of the National Environmental Monitoring Programme, since Data gathered so far do not offer the possibility for complex analyses of trends in the condition of indicator species populations, or changes in selected habitats and the overall living environment. The report also states that the existing Biodiversity Monitoring Programme needs to be expanded, with particular emphasis on the Protected Areas network and the forthcoming Natura 2000 Network (Ministry of Spatial Planning and Environment, 2010). The European environment state and outlook 2010 country assessment of Montenegro states that knowledge of biodiversity is not systematic, and is scattered throughout the expert and scientific literature; thus, there are insufficient scientific inventories of numerous taxonomic groups, and data on population dynamics, ecosystems and levels of genetic variation of many species are lacking. Monitoring of the state of biodiversity is not sufficient and does not provide the necessary level of information. This limits the elaboration of adequate protection measures and the monitoring of ecological changes. In addition, even if there is not much information about the sustainable use of biological resources, there are certain indicators which show that some species are being over exploited and that the management of natural resources is not based on a solid model of sustainable use (EEA, 2013). The Decree on National List of Environmental indicators was adopted in April 2013 by the Government of Montenegro. It was a two years process including the proposal of the list to the Government and the adoption. The Decree prescribes the National list of indicators and determines time dynamics of data collection, form, source and manner of data flow, as well as the most important indicators with an aim to establish a unique operational system of data exchange and reporting on the environment. The list contains 54 environmental indicators including 7 directly related to biodiversity. However, there are several gaps in relation to the 7 biodiversity related indicators and only two of them have good data quality and availability of trends. The list is in compliance with different guidelines at the international and national level. Initial biodiversity indicator lists were formulated previously and were considered as starting point for further discussions and development of the list of National Biodiversity Indicators. To a certain extent, the formulation of this list was done consulting European indicators of biodiversity (SEBI), but further discussions among relevant institutions and experts were required. 10

11 The Environmental Protection Agency of Montenegro was founded in November According to the Law on environment, the Agency Department for monitoring, analyses and reporting is responsible for the management of all the activities in the field of monitoring of the environment, as well as for all reports in the field of environment and databases related to the environment. The first state of the environment report, which is being prepared, is based on indicators. Table 3.4 Biodiversity related indicators included in the national list of indicators and their status Indicator B01 Designated areas B02 Species diversity B03 Invasive and/or non-native species B04 Distribution and the status of selected species B05 The abundance and population dynamics of wildlife in hunting B06 Dead trees in forests B07 Forest fires Status Available Present status based on estimations; trends are not possible to express Only list available; it is not possible to express trends Descriptive There are differences between data for the same period and from the same data source between EPA and Monstat Present state based on National forest inventory without available trends Available Serbia The Fourth National Report to the United Nations Convention of Biological Diversity of Serbia states that the current status of biodiversity monitoring in Serbia is rather incomplete and fragmented. The level and quality of the data obtained from monitoring is also very heterogeneous. Another important issue is the scale of monitored parameters and the quality of data obtained in monitoring. A Draft of National Biodiversity Indicators is included in Appendix II of the 4 th National report to the CBD (Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning, 2010). Table 3.5 Draft of national biodiversity indicators Source: Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning, 2010 Protected species Protected areas Structure of protected areas Number of endangered species by IUCN Number of species Trends in birds and butterfly populations Forest area changes Type of forests ICP Forest monitoring Growing stock Damages in forests Firewood per capita Forest cutting Contribution of forest sector to GDP Deadwood 11

12 Forest holdings Naturalness Protected forests Forest area under Management Plan Number of game animals Catching Freshwater fishing Structure of Fishery Structure of fishing Water quality in aquatic ecosystems The Serbian Biodiversity Clearing House Mechanism also states that the existing biodiversity monitoring is incomplete and fragmented. It includes four biodiversity indicators (Serbian CHM, 2013). Table 3.6 Biodiversity indicators included in the Serbian Biodiversity Clearing House Mechanism Source: Serbian CHM, 2013 Endangered and protected species Protected areas Diversity of species Deadwood The European environment state and outlook 2010 country assessment of Serbia includes several indicators under the following topics: state and impacts; key drivers and pressures; and existing and planned responses (EEA, 2013). Table 3.7 Nature protection and biodiversity indicators Source: Several in EEA, 2013 Indicator of state Indicator of trend Indicator of pressure Indicator of solutions and actions State of selected woodland bird species Forest area in Central Serbia Deadwood in forest Forest cutting in Serbia Exceedances of critical loads for acidification by deposition of nitrogen and sulphur compounds in Serbia One of the missions of the Serbian Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), established in 2004, is to gather data from environmental monitoring, including biodiversity monitoring, process the data, and elaborate assessments and reports at the national and international level (Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning, 2010). Within the answers to the Eionet consultation on the SEBI process the main priorities identified by Serbia are: to harmonize indicators according to biogeographical regions and EU and global biodiversity targets; to integrate information from sectors which could provide a measure of the pressures on nature and sustainable development; to increase the geographical coverage; and to 12

13 European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity integrate civil society and the broader public, considering their importance in the valuation of ecosystem services. 4. Gaps and needs analysis During the first workshop participants worked to identify the gaps and needs related to work on biodiversity indicators in the region. Two types of gaps were identified: gaps related to the process (stakeholders, communication, data access, etc.); and gaps related to content (data selected, year of collection, geographical coverage, etc.). The gaps that were identified had a lot of commonalities across the countries in the region and can be summarised as follows: Main gaps identified in connection to the process: Problems of cooperation/communication between institutions/sectors/stakeholder Problems of expertise within some institutions Much more data exist than what is available: scattered data, problem of ownerships of data Lack of human capacity for data collection Lack of: legislation; capacity (human resources, etc.); financing; defined indicator set; exchange of experience with other countries; public awareness Main gaps in connection to the contents: No national monitoring system or monitoring system not efficient enough Data not well balanced between the countries Some data are specific at country level and not relevant for European level Data not equally distributed through the whole country (protected areas well covered but rest of the territory not) Figure 4.1 Results of the exercise on identifying the gaps in biodiversity indicators work 13

14 5. Priority action list During the first workshop participants worked to prepare the action plans which could help to solve some of the gaps identified in relation to biodiversity indicators work in the region. Participants defined the objectives that should be achieved in order to resolve the gaps identified and then prioritised them. The list of identified objectives, listed according to the prioritisation is as follows (number of votes in brackets; bold = retained for action plan development): Functional monitoring programme/framework, that covers whole territory, in place [8] Financing mechanisms (from the state budget) improved [8] Harmonisation of biodiversity indicators in/between Western Balkans [7] Communication between stakeholders improved [6] Public awareness about ecosystem services increased [6] Harmonised Biodiversity indicators set with SEBI [3] Biodiversity indicators used for public awareness [1] Make existing data public/available To make uniform legislation for development of indicators Full set of biodiversity indicators defined Figure 5.1: Participants prioritising the list of objectives The top three objectives (according to the votes of participants) were selected to be worked out in an action plan that would address the main actions to achieve them. Although Financing mechanisms (from the state budget) improved was chosen as one of the top priorities, participants 14

15 agreed that it was not feasible to tackle that objective in the context of the workshop. Therefore it was agreed to select the next one from the list: Communication between stakeholders improved. Then participants worked on developing Action Plans to achieve the selected priority objectives. The action plans prepared for each objective are included in the tables below. Table 5.1 Objective 1: Functional monitoring programme/framework that covers whole territory, in place Action / Target Gap analysis of institutions and data Preparing secondary legislation Data collection Capacity building Reporting How / What (needs to be done) - List of institutions - Inventory of data - Preparing Rulebook for Monitoring Methodology - Collect from other sectors - Collection of new biodiversity data according to Monitoring Methodology - Development of training or network - Assessment reports - Public materials Who When Involvement of stakeholders / group MoEPP, Agency of Environment, Institute for Nature Conservation MoEPP, Agency of Environment, Institute for Nature Conservation MoEPP, Agency of Environment, Institute for Nature Conservation MoEPP, Agency of Environment, Institute for Nature Conservation MoEPP, Agency of Environment, Institute for Nature Conservation 3 months Relevant ministries (sectors); Experts/ NGOs; PA management authorities; Scientific institutions 1 year Relevant ministries; Experts/ NGOs Permanent Relevant ministries; Scientific institutions; NGOs; Experts; PA managers 3 years Scientific institutions; Public Institutions; NGOs; Experts; PA managers Permanent Relevant ministries; Scientific institutions; Experts; PA managers Resources / Means State budget State budget EC-IPA etc. State budget; EC, REC, WWF, IUCN. Euronatur, UNEP, ECNC EC State budget State budget Table 5.2 Objective 2: Harmonisation of biodiversity indicators in/between Western Balkans Action / Target Situation analyses, in all western Balkan countries How / What (needs to be done) - Develop database Relevant national institutions (Ministries, agencies...) Who When Involvement of stakeholders / group First step, 6 months Government (Ministries, agencies,..), NGOs, Universities, and scientific Resources / Means State budget, international funds 15

16 Action / Target Capacity building (Improve knowledge and capacities of institutions and personnel) Develop and harmonize set of indicators in WB countries which are in accordance with SEBI Harmonization of legal framework in WB countries How / What (needs to be done) - Identify gaps in each country - Workshops, training - Workshops, training - Biodiversity indicators included in all relevant legislation Who When Involvement of stakeholders / group institutions, etc. Relevant national institutions (Ministries, agencies...) National and international experts National and international experts Relevant national institutions (Ministries, agencies..) First step, 6 months Whole period, 24 months Government (Ministries, agencies,..), NGOs, Universities and scientific institutions, etc. Responsible national and subnational (regional) institutions (relevant ministries, agencies...) 6 months Relevant national institutions (Ministries, agencies,..) 6 months Government (Ministries, agencies,..), NGOs, Universities and scientific institutions, etc. Resources / Means State budget, international funds State budget, international funds State budget, international funds State budget, international funds Table 5.3 Objective 3: Communication between stakeholders improved Action / Target Identify relevant stakeholders for development of Biodiversity Indicators Analyse existing sectoral indicators and responsible institutions Prepare decree for responsibilities of How / What (needs to be done) - Appoint a coordinator in the Ministry of Environment - Prepare list of stakeholders - Establish working group for analysing/ development of indicators - Contact State Statistics Office - Conduct analysis of existing sectoral indicators - Prepare the text of the Decree - Follow the Who When Involvement of stakeholders / group Minister EEA NFP Coordinator Minister Coordinator Working group Ministry of Environment At a workshop 1 month 2 months 2 months 3-4 months Different ministries; Relevant institutions Different ministries; Relevant institutions Different ministries; Relevant Resources / Means State budget; Project funding State budget 16

17 Action / Target different institutions in the reporting and indicators development How / What (needs to be done) adoption procedure Who When Involvement of stakeholders / group 6 months institutions Resources / Means 6. Work on the indicator fact sheets During the first workshop participants agreed on a set of indicators for which the fact sheets will be elaborated/improved for the second workshop. The selection was as follows: - One common indicator for all the countries: SEBI 07 Nationally designated protected areas - One additional indicator to be selected between the following three: SEBI 01 Abundance and distribution of selected species SEBI 02 Red list index for national red list species SEBI 14 Fragmentation of river systems At the second workshop participants presented their work on the indicator fact sheets and exchanged experiences on the main problems, difficulties and more straightforward things they encountered to prepare the fact sheets. The main issues discussed are listed below. SEBI 07 Nationally designated protected areas The main problems/issues listed by participants for the elaboration of SEBI 07 fact sheet are the following: In relation to the fact sheet instructions and methodology: - Instructions must be shorter and clearer - The instructions for creating the map are not clear - The forum link is not clear - Within the data package for the graph, the difference between a) sheet drill down data and b) sheet drill down data info is not clear - They find some technical problems with the preparation of cumulative graphs - Methodology for gap filling does not exist - There is no national template for filling the fact sheet In relation to data availability: - There is a lack of data on the surface of protected areas - There is lack of data on protected area borders (digital GIS data) - General lack of data - Fragmentation of data In relation to human capacity: - There is lack of capacity - Capacity building is needed - There is lack of people dealing with the issue 17

18 - There is lack of human capacity for management of protected areas In relation to finance: - There are financial problems - There is lack of financial resources In relation to regulations and legislation: - There is lack of legislation for protected areas - There are different priorities for issues and targets of protected areas The main positive things highlighted by participants in relation to the preparation of SEBI 07 fact sheet are: There is a clear concept for the indicator and a methodology for its presentation There is an existing template There is enough data for protected areas This indicator can stimulate action to increase protected areas Intention for more protection Development of ecological network which includes protected areas Figure 6.1: Problems and easy things encountered by participants when preparing the indicator fact sheets In relation to the three additional indicators, the main issues highlighted by participants are: SEBI 01 Abundance and distribution of selected species: - Lack of data for selected species - Lack of monitoring programmes in place - Lack of human capacity 18

19 - Lack of funds - Application of different methodologies in monitoring programmes, not standardized - This results in difficulties to get good quality data SEBI 02 Red list index for national red list species: - Fragmentation of information - Different interpretation of IUCN criteria was used in the different assessments, which makes that changes of category are due to a more precise application of the criteria and the application of regional guidelines more than to real trends. SEBI 14 Fragmentation of river systems: - It is difficult to use the methodology of the fact sheet. They used data that are available. The indicator could be defined as the barrier density: number of damns per length of rivers. It could also be related to the area of water bodies or to the volume of water. For many small rivers the surface of the river is better for calculations. Dams are categorized according to height, so this could be another parameter. The number of dams built per year can also be a measure of pressure. Another measure could be the number of rivers with two or more dams. Mitigation can be measured with the number of dams that have fish passes. There are also data available on fish population (e.g. sturgeon). - Another issue is to assess the impact of dams on habitats and species (e.g. decline of sturgeon populations). 7. Suggestions and recommendations from participants Based on the personal feedback from participants expressed during the workshops and on the summary of the workshop evaluation forms, the workshops were considered to be the most useful because of: Sharing experience from different countries in filling in the indicator fact sheets (exchange of experience and networking in general). Explanation of the concept/ template of the fact sheet and practical way to get familiar with it. Discussion about pros and cons of fact sheets and discussing the problems in preparing them. Receiving homework to work with real data and analyse them. Getting to know all documents and reports connected to the topic. A lot of new information about developing indicators at national level. Communicating indicators. Regarding what else could have been discussed/ presented/ explained at the workshop to improve it the suggestions were the following: The methodology which is behind each of the indicators is important. The figures shown on the EEA web pages do not show the formula behind them. Without this it is difficult to replicate them. Specific examples of monitoring of species and presentation of different models of monitoring (methodologies). 19

20 Discuss indicator methodologies in detail and the possibility for flexibilities in the ways of presenting data. More examples and problems from countries that have the indicator system in place; and solutions to tackle these problems. Ways of collecting and processing data for SEBI indicators 1, 2 and 14. As possible general improvements in the workshop structure the participants suggested to allocate even more time to working in groups and to include a visit to a nature site as part of the programme. There is still a need for support on various topics in all the countries of the region, on biodiversity indicators but also on other topics. Therefore the participants suggested a number of possible followup activities: Organising workshops for collecting more knowledge on biodiversity indicators. Capacity building on SEBI indicators methodologies. Discussion on how to make monitoring programmes in compliance with indicator needs. Potential pilot project regarding monitoring or developing indicators. Signing a memorandum of understanding between the EEA, and other entities involved, with the representatives of countries. The new topic could be: ecosystem assessment and mapping (including ecosystem services) - there is a lack of available methodology. 20

21 References Bosnia and Herzegovina Fourth Report to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity Biodiversity Targets National Assessments, Available at: (Accessed 13 February 2013) CEMSA project, Consolidation of the environmental monitoring system in Albania (CEMSA). Available at: (Accessed 26 February 2013) Croatian Environment Agency (CEA), Nacrt Nacionalne Liste Pokazatelja (NLP), Available at: (Accessed 23 May 2013) EEA, Country assessments. The European Environment state and outlook Available at: (Accessed 26 February 2013) Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning, Fourth National Report of the Implementation of CBD in Republic of Macedonia ( ). Available at: (Accessed 13 February 2013) Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning, Indicators for Environment in the Republic of Macedonia 2010 Biodiversity. Available at: (Accessed 26 February 2013) Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning, Fourth National Report to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. Available at: (Accessed 13 February 2013) Ministry of Spatial Planning and Environment, Fourth National Report of Montenegro to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Vasilije Buskovic & Milena Kapa (Eds). Available at: (Accessed 13 February 2013) Republic of Albania, Ministry Environment, Forests and Water Administration, Biodiversity Directorate, Fourth National Report to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. Available at: (Accessed 13 February 2013) Republic of Kosovo. Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning. Strategy and Action Plan for Biodiversity Available at: (Accessed 21 February 2013) Serbian CHM, Biodiversity indicators. Available at: (Accessed 21 February 2013) The Republic of Croatia Ministry of Culture, Fourth National Report of the Republic of Croatia to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Available at: en.pdf (Accessed 15 February 2013) 21

22 The Strategy of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Action Plan for Biodiversity and Landscape s Protection (NBSAP BiH ). Available at: (Accessed 25 February 2013) 22