Acrocephalus 35 (162/163): 125-138, 2014
Travniška katastrofa Grassland disaster
Raziskava sprememb v avifavni Kozjanskega regijskega parka med letoma 1999 in 2010 je razkrila zaskrbljujočo razsežnost poslabšanja stanja travniških gnezdilk. Populacije ptic, ki so vezane na travniške habitate, so se v komaj enajstih letih v Parku zmanjšale za dramatičnih 91 %. Če kje, je tu na mestu izraz "zlom populacije".
Zaskrbljenost je še večja ob dejstvu, da nimamo opraviti z običajno kmetijsko krajino. Zlom travniških ptic se je zgodil na območju posebnega naravovarstvenega pomena, ki ga varujeta nacionalna in evropska naravovarstvena zakonodaja. Zavarovano je kot regijski park. Torej z drugo najvišjo stopnjo zavarovanja, kar jih za širša zavarovana območja pozna slovenska zakonodaja. Velik del Kozjanskega je varovan tudi kot območje Natura 2000, s sistemom, ki državi nalaga zagotavljanje ugodnega stanja varovanih vrst. Pravila so jasna, nedvoumna in podprta s sodbami Evropskega sodišča.
Vprašati se moramo, zakaj sistem varstva narave na Kozjanskem ne deluje. V čem je Kozjansko posebno? Zal ni posebno prav v ničemer! Stanje je enako po vsej državi. Zavarovana območja in Natura 2000, ki so sinonim za uspešno varstvo narave v Evropski uniji, nimajo v Sloveniji za ohranjanje narave v kmetijski krajini očitno nobenega učinka.
Dokazi o tem se v zadnjih letih kopičijo. Poglejmo nekaj primerov z drugih koncev Slovenije.
Na primer Kras, še eno območje, varovano s sistemom Natura 2000, saj kraški travniki spadajo med biodiverzitetne bisere Evrope. Kako jih "ohranjamo", je razkrila študija Kaligariča & Ivajnsiča (2014). Med letoma 2002 in 2012 se je njihova površina zmanjšala kar za 20,4 %. S 5920 je padla na 4710 ha. Velika večina izgube gre tu na račun zaraščanja. Avtorja ocenjujeta, da na Krasu izginjanje travnikov napreduje z alarmantno hitrostjo 220 ha na leto.
Pa Ljubljansko barje. Na raziskanem delu prve varstvene cone Krajinskega parka Ljubljansko barje (KPLB) se je površina travnikov med prvim popisom, opravljenim v letih 1998-2000, in drugim iz 2010 zmanjšala za 18,9 % (s 1292 je padla na 1047 ha), površina njiv pa se je povečala kar za 40,6 % (s 419 je narasla na 589 ha). Za nameček so se preostali travniki močno intenzivirali. Površina ekstenzivnih travnikov se je zmanjšala za 29,4 % (s 1271 ha na 897 ha), površina najbolj intenzivnih in sejanih travnikov pa se je povečala za kar 7-krat, z 21 na 150 ha (Trčak et al. 2010). Ali pristojne službe ne vedo, da Uredba o KPLB intenziviranje kmetijske rabe v prvi varstveni coni parka prepoveduje?1
Ali pa Goričko: med letoma 2003 in 2010 so bile tu komasacije izvedene na 9,5 % površine območja Natura 2000. Vpliv komasacij je bil uničujoč za strukturo habitatov v kmetijski krajini in za njeno krajinsko podobo,2 populacija velikega skovika pa je med letoma 1997 in 2011 z 210-250 parov
109
Uvodnik / Editorial
strmoglavila na zgolj 64 parov (Denac et al. 2011). Mar pristojni ne vedo, da jim Uredba o Krajinskem parku Goričko nalaga spodbujanje naravi prijaznih oblik kmetovanja, ki je usklajeno z ohranjanjem biotske raznovrstnosti in krajinske pestrosti?3
In tako naprej, v nedogled.
Zaskrbljujoče stanje morda najbolje strne raziskava splošno razširjenih vrst ptic za določitev slovenskega indeksa ptic kmetijske krajine (Kmecl et al. 2014). Raziskava razkriva kontinuiran vsakoletni upad travniških ptic, katerih populacije so se na državnem nivoju od leta 2008 zmanjšale kar za 37,2 % (slika 1).
100
80
60
40
20
2008
2009
2010 2011 Leto / Year
2012
2013
2014
Slika 1: Sestavljeni indeks travniških vrst ptic za Slovenijo (Kmecl et al. 2014)
Figure 1: Composite index of grassland bird species for Slovenia (Kmecl et al. 2014)
0
Vsi zgoraj našteti primeri slabega stanja travniških habitatov in travniških ptic pomenijo kršitev naravovarstvene zakonodaje. Na eni strani gre za kršitev evropskih direktiv, ki državam nalagajo zagotavljanje ugodnega ohranitvenega stanja varovanih vrt ptic in travniških habitatov. Na drugi strani pa gre za množico vsakodnevnih kršitev nacionalnih predpisov o zavarovanju posameznih zavarovanih območij. Očitno je, da kmetijska politika in pristojne kmetijske službe varstva narave ne upoštevajo. Še več. Videti je, da so naravovarstvene predpise v celoti prezrli.
Naj ponazorim s primerom: metulj barjanski okarček Coenonympha oedippus je vrsta, varovana na območju Natura 2000 Ljubljansko barje. Zaradi intenziviranja kmetijstva je vrsta na Barju pred izumrtjem. Leta 2010 je neki kmet preoral enega zadnjih travnikov, kjer vrsta na Barju še živi, in tam posejal silažno koruzo. Takrat je že veljala uredba, ki tu prepoveduje intenziviranje kmetijske rabe. In kakšne so bile posledice za kmeta, ki je napravil uničujoči prekršek? Za dobrih 200 €/ha so se mu povečale kmetijske subvencije. Konkretno gre za prejemke iz naslova t. i. neposrednih plačil.
Pravna država in vladavina prava sta temeljni predpogoj za vsako uspešno družbo. Za pravno državo pa ni bolj uničujočega udarca, kot je nespoštovanje predpisov s strani državne administracije.
110
Acrocephalus 35 (162/163): 109-113, 2014
***
The research carried out between 1999 and 2010 into the differences arising in the avifauna of Kozjansko Regional Park unveiled an alarming deterioration in the status of grassland breeders. In no less than eleven years, the population of birds restricted to grassland habitats fell to dramatic 91% within the Park. If anywhere, it is here that the expression "population collapse" would apply.
Given the fact that this is not an ordinary agricultural landscape, the concern is even greater. The grassland bird population collapse took place in the area of special conservation concern, protected by the national as well as EU nature conservation legislation. It has been safeguarded as a regional park, i.e. by the second highest protection degree known by Slovenian legislation for the wider protected areas. A fairly large part of Kozjansko has additionally been protected as a Natura 2000 site — with a system obliging the state to provide for favourable conservation status of protected birds. The rules are clear, unambiguous and supported by verdicts of the Court of Justice of the EU.
Now let us ask ourselves why the nature conservation system does not work at Kozjansko. What is so special about this region? Unfortunately, there's nothing special about it at all! The situation is the same all over the country. The protected areas and Natura 2000, as synonyms for successful nature conservation in the EU, have no effect in Slovenia for nature protection in agricultural landscape.
The evidence about it has been piling up in the last few years. Let us have a look at some examples from other parts of Slovenia.
For instance at the Kras (Slovenian Karst), yet another area protected by the Natura 2000 system, since karst grasslands are considered biodiversity pearls of Europe. Our "conservation" efforts in this respect have been revealed in the study by Kaligaric & Ivajnsic (2014). Between 2002 and 2012, their surface area decreased by no less than 20.4%. It fell from 5920 to 4710 ha, with the highest share of the loss attributed to overgrowing. The authors estimate that the Kras grasslands are disappearing at the alarming speed of 220 ha per year.
Or at Ljubljansko barje (Ljubljana Moors). In the researched part of the first conservation zone of Ljubljansko barje Nature Park, the grasslands' surface area was reduced by 18.9% (falling from 1292 to 1047 ha) between the first survey carried out in the 1998-2000 period and the second survey conducted in 2010. The surface area of the fields, on the other hand, increased by no less than 40.6% (rising from 419 to 589 ha). On top of it all, the use of remaining grasslands was highly intensified. The surface area of extensively farmed grasslands was reduced by 29.4% (falling from 1271 to 897 ha), while the surface area of most intensively farmed and sown grasslands increased by no less than seven times, rising from 21 to 150 ha (Trcak etal. 2010). Is it possible that the relevant state services do not know that the Decree on Ljubljansko barje Nature Park prohibits agricultural intensification in the first conservation zone?1
Or at Goricko. Between 2003 and 2010, mergers of individual properties were implemented on 9.5% of the Natura 2000 surface area. The impact of these mergers was devastating for habitat structure in agricultural landscape and for its landscape image,2 while the Scops Owl population plummeted from 210-250 pairs to no more than 64 pairs between 1997 and 2011 (Denac et al.
111
Uvodnik / Editorial
2011). Is it possible, once again, that the competent people do not know that the Decree on Ljubljansko barje Nature Park obliges them to stimulate nature-friendly forms of agriculture, which is in agreement with biotic and landscape diversity?3
And so on, ad infinitum.
This alarming state is perhaps best summarized by the research into generally distributed bird species for the stipulation of Slovenian index of agricultural landscape birds (Kmecl et al. 2014). Specifically, the research reveals a continuous annual decline of grassland species, the populations of which have decreased from 2008 by no less than 37.2% at the national level (Figure 1).
All of the above examples of the grassland habitats' and grassland birds' poor condition denote a serious violation of the nature conservation law. On the one hand, it is a violation of EU directives, which oblige member states to provide for favourable conservation status of protected bird species and grassland habitats, while on the other hand it concerns numerous everyday violations of the national regulations on protection of individual areas. It is more than clear that the agricultural policy and the competent agricultural services pay no heed to nature conservation. Even more than that. It looks that the nature conservation regulations have totally been ignored by them.
Let us illustrate this with the following example: the False Ringlet Coenonympha oedippus is a protected species at the Natura 2000 Ljubljansko barje site. Owing to the agricultural intensification, however, this butterfly species is now near extinction at this site. In 2010, a farmer ploughed up one of the last meadows still inhabited by this species and sowed maize for silage there. At that time, the regulation prohibiting agricultural land-use intensification was already in force. And what were the consequences for the farmer who committed this devastating offence? He had his agricultural subsidy increased by a good 200 €/ha! Explicitly, this was remuneration from the so-called "direct payments".
The legal system and the rule of law are the basic prerequisite for every successful society. And there is nothing more devastating for the legal system than failure to comply with regulations by the state administration itself.
Tomaž Jančar
Varstveni ornitolog pri DOPPS / BirdLife Slovenia
Conservation ornithologist at DOPPS -
38
Acrocephalus 35 (162/163): 125-138, 2014
Literatura / References
Denac K., Mihelič T., Denac D., Božič L., Kmecl P., Bordjan D. (2011): Monitoring populacij izbranih vrst ptic, Popisi gnezdilk spomladi 2011 in povzetek popisov v obdobju 2010-2011. - [http://ptice.si/20l4/wp-content/ uploads/2014/03/201111_denac_monitoring_v_letu_2010_in_2011-copy.pdf], 10/12/2014.
Denac K., Božič L., Mihelič T., Kmecl P., Denac D., Bordjan D., Jančar T., Figelj J. (2014): Monitoring populacij izbranih vrst ptic - popisi gnezdilk 2014. - [http://ptice.si/2014/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/20141110_denac_porocilo_ monitoring_iba_2014.pdf], 10/12/2014.
Kaligarič M., Ivajnšič D. (2014): Vanishing landscape of the "classic" Karst: changed landscape identity and projections for the future. - Landscape and Urban Planning 132: 148-158.
Kmecl P., Figelj J., Jančar T. (2014): Monitoring splošno razširjenih vrst ptic za določitev slovenskega indeksa ptic kmetijske krajine - poročilo za leto 2014. -DOPPS - BirdLife Slovenija, Ljubljana.
Trčak B., Erjavec D., Govedič M., Grobelnik V. (2010): Kartiranje in naravovarstveno vrednotenje habitatnih tipov izbranih območij v Krajinskem parku Ljubljansko barje. - [http://www.ljubljanskobarje.si/uploads/datoteke/MOL_KP_ Ljbarje_HT_koncno_2010.pdf], 10/12/2014.
Opombe / Footnotes
1	3. alineja 1. odstavka 12. člena Uredbe o Krajinskem parku Ljubljansko barje / Paragraph 3 of Section 1 of Article 12 of the Decree on Ljubljansko barje Nature Park http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=URED4722
2	Primerjajte fotografiji na strani 130 v poročilu Denac et al. (2014) / Compare photos on page 130 in the Report by Denac et al. (2014)
3	4. člen Uredbe o Krajinskem parku Goričko / Article 4 of the Decree on Goričko Nature Park http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=URED2867
39