73 Grassland management in protected areas – implementation of the EU biodiversity strategy in certain post-communist countries Abstract The post-communist countries of Central-Eastern Europe (CEE) when imple- menting agricultural and conservation policies, face other challenges than Western European countries: (1) specific institutional design for each, developed on the remnants of totalitarian system causing difficulties for transposing directives; (2) different integration of Natura 2000 network into national protected area govern- ance resulting in slow elaboration of the management plans; (3) farming land- scapes were better preserved than in Western Europe, but lacking the continuity of extensive farming so large areas of conservation; and (4) formal protection of sites, lacking in many cases financial support. This paper summarizes: the histori- cal background of the last century that changed the farming landscapes of the CEE countries and the challenges in the management of protected areas in an unsteady socio-economic and political context. The results are focusing on the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania. Two main conclusions are proposed. First, socialism and capitalism slowly abolished family farming, causing people to become disconnected from the landscape – a key element in conservation oriented grassland management. Second, the gaps of knowledge on different aspects of policy implementation sabotage the results of conservation initiatives. Izvleček Postkomunistične države iz srednje in vzhodne Evrope (CEE) se pri uvajanju kmetijskih in naravovarstvenih politik soočajo z drugačnimi izzivi kot zahodno- evropske države: (1) specifična ureditev inštitucij v vsaki državi, ki se je razvila na ostankih totalitarnega sistema in ki povzorča težave pri prenosu direktiv; (2) različna integracija omrežja Natura 2000 v upravljanje z zavarovanimi območji na nacionalni ravni, ki se odraža v slabi izdelavi načrtov upravljanja; (3) kmetijska krajina je bila bolje ohranjena kot v zahodni Evropi, vendar se je prenehalo kon- tinuirano ekstenzivno gospodariti, je pa zato moč ohraniti velika območja; in (4) določena območja so uradno zaščitena, a z nezadostnim financiranjem gopodar- jenja. V članku povzemamo zgodovinsko ozadje v preteklem stoletju, ki je spre- menilo kmetijsko krajino v državah CEE in izzive gospodarjenja z zavarovanimi območji v negotovih socio-ekonomskih in političnih razmerah. Rezultati temeljijo na kabinetnih raziskavah, osredotočenih na razmere na Češkem, Slovaškem, na Madžarskem in v Romuniji. Predlagamo dve glavni ugotovitvi. Prvič, socializem in kapitalizem sta počasi privedla do ukinitve družinskih kmetij in nepovezanosti ljudi s krajino, to pa je glavni element sonaravnega gospodarjenja s travišči. Drugič, pomanjkanje znanja o različnih vidikih izvajanja politike onemogočajo rezultate naravovarstvenih pobud. Keywords: barriers to conservation, nature-people disconnection, knowledge gaps, policy, practice, traditional farming landscapes. Ključne besede: ovire v naravovarstvu, nepovezanost narave in ljudi, pomanjkanje znanja, politika, praksa, tradicionalna kmetijska krajina. Received: 3. 2. 2017 Revision received: 1. 9. 2017 Accepted: 31. 10. 2017 Co-ordinating Editor: Michał Żmihorski * Sapientia Hungarian University of Transylvania, Department of Environmental Studies, Calea Turzii 4, 400193, Cluj-Napoca, Romania. E-mail: balazsi.agnes.sapientia@gmail.com Ágnes Balázsi* DOI: 10.1515/hacq-2017-000817/1 • 2018, 73–84 17/1 • 2018, 73–84 74 Á. Balázsi Grassland management in protected areas – implementation of the EU biodiversity strategy in certain post-communist countries Introduction The new EU Biodiversity Strategy proposes to halt biodi- versity loss and the degradation of ecosystem services by 2020. It is an ambitious proposal, built around six targets, each supported by a set of actions. The mid-term report in 2015 on the Biodiversity Strategy 2020 concluded that overall, no significant progress has been achieved since 2011 (European Commission 2015). Despite that, EU indicators for the conservation status of the habitats and species (SEBI 03, SEBI 05) show increasing tendency (Target 1), the most emergent actions will remain the effi- cient management of the Natura 2000 network and its fi- nancial support (Kati et al. 2014, Blicharska et al. 2016). In this paper Target 1 and Target 3A are specifically ad- dressed because these have a direct influence on grassland management in protected areas. Target 1 is designed to achieve the appropriate implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives and Target 3A designed to integrate biodiversity policy into agriculture (Common Agricul- tural Policies) and forestry. Grassland management in protected areas is a very specific, but transdisciplinary process, where conflicting policy implementation must be harmonized (agriculture vs. nature conservation). When it comes to policy harmo- nization, the post-communist member states are in a spe- cial situation. First, farming landscapes and biodiversity have survived industrialization trends of the last century in better ecological shape than in developed countries. Consequently, conservation has to embrace social-ecolog- ical systems in their complexity, rather than just patches of habitats and number of species. Second, the success of transposing those conflicting EU directives depends on the institutional structure of the authorities and their co- operation. The centralized governmental system reduces the ability of many authorities to implement strategies, programs which respond to regional, or local challenges (Henle et al. 2008, Stoate et al. 2009). The main aim of this paper is to summarize the con- straints and identify challenges for the future of grassland conservation in protected areas in four post-communist countries of Central-Eastern Europe (CEE): the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania. Methods This paper includes a desk study focused on the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania and field visits in six protected areas in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary. The desk study reviewed the relevant scientific and grey literature. The selection of papers was conducted in Google Scholar, using the name of the country and different keywords: protected areas, Natura 2000, land use-changes, post-socialist/communist, agricultural land- scape. The review of grey literature included documents that transpose EU directives on biodiversity conservation and agriculture into national legislation in each country; EU reports on the Biodiversity Strategy, national rural development plans and strategies, and websites of govern- mental and non-governmental institutions, relevant for nature conservation and agriculture. Participant observations and five semi-structured in- terviews took place with farmers and employees of pro- tected areas, in 2016. The protected areas visited were the Krkonoše Mountains National Park and the White Carpathians Protected Landscape Area – Czech Republic; the Low Tatras National Park and the Great Fatra Na- tional Park – Slovakia; the Hortobágy National Park and the Bükk National Park – Hungary. I spent one week in each, being involved in every day’s work of the employees (rangers, botanists, ornithologist, managers, and adminis- trative persons). The observations and interviews concen- trated on five topics: (1) public administration structure, (2) management plans of the protected areas and con- servation measures for grassland habitats, (3) monitoring, (4) reward systems and (5) collaboration with the stake- holders. Interviewees were selected from individuals who has interest in grassland management (actively involved – 2 farmers; administratively involved – 3 protected area employees, just in cases where participant observation and discussions could not cover the topic of the study). Results and discussions Overview on the last century – changes in agriculture and loss of semi-natural grassland biodiversity During the last century dramatic political changes have taken place in the countries of CEE including several land reforms, two world wars, establishment and collapse of the communist regime and the accession to the market economy of Europe (Bogaerts et al. 2002). All of these changes have generated shifts in the boundaries of dif- ferent countries and large transmigration of people (Ger- mans from Czechoslovakia and Sachsen from Romania), resulting in the disconnection of cultural components from landscapes (Van Dijk 2007). It is considered that the management and conservation of grasslands can be better understood if the socio-economic changes of the last century are also considered (Hartel et al. 2014). 17/1 • 2018, 73–84 75 Á. Balázsi Grassland management in protected areas – implementation of the EU biodiversity strategy in certain post-communist countries During socialism The land reforms and land management after 1945 have had important consequences for nature conservation and protected area management. The abolition of small- scale farm systems due to collectivization in 1945–1962 has generated a series of changes in the structure and function of rural landscapes in Slovakia (Lieskovský et al. 2015), Czech Republic (Bičík et al. 2001) Hungary (Burger 2006) and Romania (Fischer et al. 2012). The disconnection of whole generations from their land, changes in traditional practices (e.g. paradigm changes towards production oriented agriculture) have been the most significant losses of the 20th century from the na- ture conservation point of view (Isselstein et al. 2005, Varga et al. 2016). The wave of designation of protected areas of national importance began in the CEE counties in the late 1960s, early 1970s and focusing on the most valuable areas of the countries. They were established during the commu- nist era with a top-down approach and minimal public discussion (Švajda & Fenichel 2011). Large areas were formally designated but with inadequate management re- sources for their administration (Iojă et al. 2010). Other barriers were the continuously changing social contexts, combined with product oriented economic and agricul- tural paradigms of the last century. Moreover, nature con- servation paradigms considered protected areas as some untouchable areas by humans. This changed the tradi- tional grassland management in many areas, without tak- ing into account their values from conservational point of view (Bičíket al. 2001, Lemaire et al. 2005, Mikulcak et al. 2015, Levers et al. 2016). After socialism The period after the soviet era (i.e. after 1989) could be described by the trend of migration from rural to ur- ban areas in the search of higher living standards, com- pounded disconnection of people from their land in the countryside. The most important change, which had repercussions on grassland management was the fluctua- tions in livestock numbers and changes in extensive graz- ing systems (Varga et al. 2016). After the end of commu- nist cooperatives, privatization happened quickly for the most productive areas, while unproductive areas suffered from the disinterest of investments, bad infrastructure and restricted production (Van Dijk 2007, Gorlach et al. 2008). The need to develop market networks in the EU for the new farming structure (private, medium to big) urgently overwhelmed the newly formed countries (Bezák & Mitchley 2014). The management and governance of protected areas be- came significantly more complex after the property rights restitution and landownership changes (Oszlányi et al. 2004, Knorn et al. 2012, Kluvánková & Gežík 2014, Stan- ciu & Ionita 2014, Molnár et al. 2016). Several changes took place which influenced the protected area adminis- trations as well. In this period, nature conservation was struggling with complex problems. On the political level, despite the fact that the CEE counties ratified most of the international agreements (even in the Communist period), protected areas were lacking the political will and support (Drgona & Turnock 2001, Ioras 2003, Bojnec & Latruffe 2013). At the economic level, the pressure on protected areas was represented by agricultural encroachment, com- mercial overharvesting of natural resources, and chaotic infrastructure development (Zellei et al. 2005, Kohlheb & Krausmann 2009, Bezák & Halada 2010). At the social level, nature conservation was facing insufficient outreach and partnerships, lack of community support and lack of enforcement (Stringer & Paavola 2013). Challenges of the present – governance of protected areas in the European context Integration of EU policy by public institutions EU accession included a set of new regulations and insti- tutional changes for the new member states. A detailed overview on the challenges in public administration faced by the countries visited in this study is available in Liebert et al. (2013). Shortly, the EU Environmental acquis has to be harmonized with the remnants of the totalitarian communist systems. The most significant challenge was, and still is, the establishment of the Natura 2000 network (Hochkirch et al. 2013). Fulfilling the requirements of the Habitats and Birds Directives quickly overshadowed the ongoing conservation initiatives for national ecological networks (Mikulcak et al. 2013, Sarvašová et al. 2013, Balázs et al. 2016). Harmonizing the management plans of Natura 2000 sites with the plans of other existing protected ar- eas is the most difficult step, especially for Romania and Slovakia (Iojă et al. 2010, Křenová & Kindlmann 2015, Hossu et al. 2017). The Natura 2000 network was more successfully implemented in the Czech Republic, and Hungary. Hence, the new Czech Biodiversity Strategy (2016–2025) rather focuses on setting pragmatic priori- ties for nature conservation in developing societies, than on the network itself. Surprisingly, other countries are still giving a significant attention to Natura 2000 network de- 17/1 • 2018, 73–84 76 Á. Balázsi Grassland management in protected areas – implementation of the EU biodiversity strategy in certain post-communist countries velopment and management, even after more than 10 years of designation. However, with EU accession several meaningful pos- sibilities become available for the CEE countries like international a professional network of specialist in na- ture conservation, transboundary management and EU funds for conservation (Křenová & Kindlmann 2015). Nature conservation initiatives have started to occupy a niche and become an important discussion partner and decision maker for development plans and projects. For example, some directorates of the national parks in Hun- Analyzed aspects Czech Republic Slovakia Hungary Romania governance and management of protected areas Delegated to state nature conservation at regional level and national park administrations; NGOs have an important par- ticipative role. Delegated to state nature conservation authority; some NGOs have mean- ingful contribution in conservation initiatives. Centralized; covered and coordinated by the national parks directorates, based on their operational area; NGOs have limited par- ticipation, because of the centralized system. Delegated to admin- istrators – large scale protected areas (10 year contract) or custodians – small scale protected areas (5 year contract); NGO participation is remarkable. management plans and conser- vation measures Good overall situation of the management plans at national level; every category of protected area has its own management plan, in case if different categories overlap, the objectives are harmonized together; buffer zones are outside of the limits of the national park. Weak overall situation of the management plans; slow process because of the complexity of the management categories which has to integrate the regulation for Natura 2000 network; buffer zones are outside of the limits of the national park. Medium overall situation of the management plans for national interest pro- tected areas – compulsory measures; distinct, nature conservation guidelines for Natura 2000 sites - rec- ommended conservation measures; buffer zones are within the limits of the na- tional parks. Medium overall situation, debatable quality in some of the cases (fist plans); integrated management plans for Natura 2000 and national protected area categories; compulso- ry conservation measures; buffer zones are within the limits of the national parks. restitution of property rights for land owner- ship after the collectivization in protected areas Difficult property right restitution, excluding those who left the terri- tory of Czechoslovakia during the communism; the agricultural activities are mostly abandoned in mountain areas which are under protection. Restitution of property rights, but re-establish- ment of cooperatives in some areas; properties were very fragmented; disinterest of land own- ers for agriculture; aban- donment of less produc- tive areas. Land aquisition by pro- tected area directorates/ remained state property; Partially collective property was privatized, establish- ment of large farming companies or former land- owners had no interest for agriculture. Restitution of property rights to former landown- ers; viable small-scale farms, producing mostly for self-consumption; after EU accession con- siderable changes in farm- ing structure; small-scale farms are not eligible for rural development programs. actual nature conservation pri- orities for grass- land habitats Restoration of species- richness in former arable land; continuity of (tradi- tional) farming practices. Establishment of active management; involvement of stake- holders in conservation Raising interest for farm- ers to rent land and keep animals in national parks property. Survival of traditional farming practices and small-scale farms; to maintain connection of people with their land. gary (e.g. Hortobágy) have become landowners of sig- nificant amounts of the protected areas or are responsible for administrating the state property (Stanciu & Ionita 2014). In the White Carpathians important areas were purchased by nature conservation authorities and re- stored to species-rich hay meadows – being transformed in arable land during collectivization (Jongepierová et al. 2007). A general comparison is presented in Table 1 on how different countries approach protected area governance and management. Table 1: Comparison on the most important features in protected areas with direct influence on the grassland habitats’ manage- ment and conservation (based on participant observation). Tabela 1: Primerjava najpomembnejših lastnosti zavarovanih območij z neposrednim vplivom na gospodarjenje s traviščnimi habitati in njihovim varovanjem (na osnovi opažanj deležnikov). 17/1 • 2018, 73–84 77 Á. Balázsi Grassland management in protected areas – implementation of the EU biodiversity strategy in certain post-communist countries Gap between policy and practice The gap between policy and practice in grassland conser- vation and management is created by: (i) the very differ- ent objectives of the directives, coming from the conflict- ing paradigms of nature conservation and agriculture; (ii) the inflexibility of institutions to mediate between policy makers and practitioners (e.g. farmers, conservationists); (iii) agriculture becoming a profit oriented activity of companies (registered farmers), and no longer a way of living of families, which were functionally part of the bio- diversity rich farming landscapes. The effectiveness of EU policies in halting biodiversity loss is questionable, especially in landscapes with a his- tory of intensive farming management (Kleijn et al. 2011, Plieninger et al. 2012, Sutcliffe et al. 2013, Arlettaz et al. 2014). The agri-environmental schemes require ma- jor improvement in the CEE countries (e.g. to develop results-oriented schemes, specified requirement for differ- ent zones, simplified accession) and real harmonization with nature conservation objectives (Sutcliffe et al. 2015). Compensatory payments for conservation measures are available only in isolated cases, being part of the agri-envi- ronmental schemes. Despite the invested efforts (e.g. in- stitutional, monetary, political), grasslands habitats have one of the highest proportion of ‘unfavourable – bad’ or ‘deteriorating’ status. Effective conservation of these eco- systems depends on the extensive farming, which is func- tional part of a ‘healthy’ social-ecological system (Bignal & McCracken 2000, Halada et al. 2011, Plieninger & Bieling 2013). In addition, weak collaboration exists between the in- stitutions responsible for nature conservation and agri- culture authorities in these countries (Apostolopoulou & Pantis 2009, Křenová & Kindlmann 2015, Lieskovský et al. 2015, Hossu et al. 2017). This creates difficulties to implement regulations in-situ, especially for the reward systems. The lack of knowledge transfer on the subject of grassland management and protected area governance en- larges the gap between the science, practice and public ad- ministration (Cogăniceanu & Cogălniceanu 2010, Cent et al. 2013, Mihók et al. 2015, Orlikowska et al. 2016). Unfortunately, the socio-economic changes of the last century have led to the abolition of extensive farming systems in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary (Drgona & Turnock 2001, Bogaerts et al. 2002). Discon- nection of people from their land was much more high- lighted there, than it was in Romania. Romania has an advantage: many of the land users still maintain the natu- ral functions of the species-rich grasslands based on local traditional knowledge (Babai & Molnár 2013,Florentina et al. 2015, Loos et al. 2015). This situation is much more a result of local circumstances (subsistance or semi-sub- sistance conditions), not conservation oriented approach (Hartel et al. 2014), which makes the traditional systems highly vulnerable to the new trends in globalization. Maintaining land-use and land management practices within the cultural landscape is not a conscious choice of the farmers. Human-nature interactions created an in- formal framework of unwritten conservation rules, which have been respected for centuries with minimal interven- tion from institutions (Hartel et al. 2014). The knowledge from such informal structures must be integrated within formal institutional systems and policy and conservation strategies at a local level. As long as the land owners and users have a participatory role in the nature conservation actions, public institutions can profit from the viability of these social-ecological systems (e.g. biocultural refugia, sensu Barthel et al. 2013). Therefore, a holistic approach is needed in the case of grasslands, in order to re-establish functional social-eco- logical systems in all of the countries and resilience based perspectives need to be integrated (Plieninger & Biel- ing 2013). Lessons learned in protected areas of the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary What follows is a summary of the most important ob- servations made in the protected areas visited during this study. Box 1. The White Carpathians Landscape Protected Area – Czech Republic • The Czech part of the White Carpathians is admin- istrated by regional nature conservation authorities, covering 715 km2, overlapping different categories of protected areas. The WCLPA is well known for its large species-rich hay meadows. • Significant NGO support strengthens the meadows’ conservation. Several projects were implemented in collaboration with conservation authorities to restore meadows from arable land, using regional seed mix- tures. Monitoring plots and experimental fields were established for more than 20 years to develop prac- tice-based conservation. • Instead of focusing on local conservation of habitats/ species, grassland ecosystems are considered function- al part of the landscape in conservation strategies. • Mosaic mowing represented a fruitful compromise for mechanization and nature conservation. However, abandonment and plant succession still represents a 17/1 • 2018, 73–84 78 Á. Balázsi Grassland management in protected areas – implementation of the EU biodiversity strategy in certain post-communist countries risk for species-rich hay meadows. An applicable solu- tion was land acquisition of protected sites and acces- sion of funds for conservation measures from different sources (e.g. Life, national grants). • Agri-environmental schemes integrated some of the conservation initiatives (e.g. use of regional seed mix- tures for over seeding), but it is impossible to cover measures for particular species or habitats. Farmers perceive the conservation oriented grassland manage- ment as unusual, complicated despite of higher com- pensation. Figure 1: Traditional cultural landscape in Certoryje with species-rich hay meadows and scattered trees; this area is famous about the meadows’ species-richness and it is the most well preserved area of the White Carpathians Protected Landscape Area. Slika 1: Tradicionalna kulturna krajina na območju Certoryje z vrstno bogatimi gojenimi travniki in redko posajenimi posameznimi drevesi; območje je poznano po vrstno bogatih travnikih in je najbolj ohranjeno območje v Zavarovanem krajinskem območju Beli Karpati. Figure 2: Different stages of the vegetation applying mosaic mowing in the White Carpathians. Slika 2: Različne stopnje vegetacije pri mozaičnem načinu košnje v Belih Karpatih. 17/1 • 2018, 73–84 79 Á. Balázsi Grassland management in protected areas – implementation of the EU biodiversity strategy in certain post-communist countries Box 2. The Krkonoše Mountains National Park – Czech Republic • The Czech part belongs to the Administration of KMNP and covers 425 km2 ha, overlapping more categories of protected areas. This is one of the most visited national parks in the world for its touristic in- frastructure (e.g. cross-country ski, ski resorts, moun- tain bike trails, hiking trails). • The local towns in the proximity (buffer zone) are the most important recreation centers. The new manage- ment plan (2010–2020) proposed changes in the ini- tial zonation, which generated a series of debates, but was successfully approved. • Several research and educational projects have been performed in order to achieve favourable conservation of the grassland habitats and raise awareness within local community about their importance. • The migration of German communities after World War II from the mountain area caused the abolition of traditional farming systems and changes in the land- scape structure. • Managed hay meadows represent just small amount of the grassland habitats and because of their low eco- nomic interest they are threatened by abandonment. The conservation measures need often negotiation or compromises with farmers especially in case of private properties. Several grassland areas are property of the park, but without active farming they are vulnerable for succession. (Figure 4) Figure 3: Traditional agricultural activities were abandoned after World War II; no active grassland management (use) was re-established. Slika 3: Tradicionalno gospodarjenje so po drugi svetovni vojni opustili in aktivnega gospodarjenja s travišči niso več vzpostavili. Figure 4: Animal husbandry was mostly abandoned at higher elevations; in some areas grazing is restricted (e.g. stop erosional processes, vegetation protection). Other areas, like on the picture, are not regularly mowed or grazed. Old cooperative farms were restructured in the valleys and are functioning mostly for milk, cheese production (Great Fatra National Park). Slika 4: Živinorejo so opustili na višjih nadmorskih višinah; na nekaterih območjih je paša prepovedana (zaradi preprečitve erozijskih procesov, ohranjanja vegetacije). Druga območja, kot to na sliki, pa neredno kosijo ali pasejo. Stare zadružniške kmetije so v dolinah obnovili in proizvajajo predvsem mleko in sir (Narodni park Velika Fatra). 17/1 • 2018, 73–84 80 Á. Balázsi Grassland management in protected areas – implementation of the EU biodiversity strategy in certain post-communist countries Box 3. The Low Tatra National Park and the Great Fatra National Park – Slovakia • The national parks are administrated by the Slovak Nature Conservancy covering 728 km² (LTNP) and 261 km² (GFNP) overlapping more categories of pro- tected areas. In the last 10 years several restructuration took place which downgraded the national park ad- ministrations capacity (e.g. economically and number of employees). • The administrations have no property rights in the area, nor administrate any state property. The com- plex ownership structure makes difficult to regulate human activities within the parks (e.g. farming, for- estry, tourism, investments). • Abandonment, followed by fast succession, threatens the semi-natural grasslands in upper areas. The pro- ductive grasslands are managed by cooperatives of local farmers, which were reestablished after the com- munist era. They have no interest, however, to man- age the hardly accessible grasslands, especially hay meadows. The cooperatives slowly eliminated small plots and property borders, causing changes in the landscape structure. • The agri-environmental schemes are generally estab- lished for the whole county and cannot cover suffi- cient conservation requirements on regional or local scales. It is difficult, to access any compensation for special conservation measures as long as the harmo- nization of management plans (Natura 2000 sites overlapped with national park) still taking place. The most important areas under conservation (mostly in natural reserves) are managed by the employees of the park administrations. National park administrations, or nature conservancy are not directly involved in the elaboration of agri-environmental schemes. (Figure 5) Box 4. The Hortobágy National Park – Hungary • The national park directorates in Hungary fulfill ad- ministrative functions on larger areas than their ad- ministrative territory and other categories of protect- ed area. The HNP covers about 820 km2 and overlaps with a multitude of protected area categories. • The HNP has an advantage, because the HNP Direc- torate owns huge amount of land, or administrates state property within the park. Their administrative role is more difficult in Natura 2000 sites due to the variety of property rights. • However, the directorate has just consultative role in decision making for environmental regulation pro- cesses, which belongs to the Environment and Nature Protection Inspectorates. • More governmental support (e.g. institutional, eco- nomic, political) would grant better administrative capacity of the directorate. • Actual challenges in grassland habitat management and conservation relates to grazing and mowing strategy: • a) regulation of pasturing (who? when? where? and which kind of animals?): to guaranty optimal SLU/ha for different weather conditions (e.g. rainy, dry) and site conditions; to make pasturing rules compulsory Figure 5: Traditional farm in the Hortobágy National Park. Slika 5: Tradicionalna kmetija v Narodnem parku Hortobágy. 17/1 • 2018, 73–84 81 Á. Balázsi Grassland management in protected areas – implementation of the EU biodiversity strategy in certain post-communist countries for the farmers; to maintain traditional land use prac- tices and landscape structure (e.g. common grazing with grey cattle, racka sheep and wild horses); • b) regulation of moving (when? where? and how?): to simplify the electronic registration and monitor- ing system for mowing period approval; to maintain mosaic moving for conservation; to adapt mowing for certain species conditions (isolated cases); • Landscape restoration projects have been implement- ed to eliminate canals, dikes and replacing wire lines with underground cable, restoring wetlands, estab- lishment of best grazing practices for conservation; collaboration with the scientific area could be better developed in the future. Considerable effort is now being given to combat the invasive plant species and re-establish the natural herbaceous vegetation. Box 5. The Bükk National Park – Hungary • The BNP Directorate has minimal property right, but plays an administrative role over the limits of the national park. The state property, mostly forests (94%), is administrated by state forest corporations. Grassland habitats are unimportant from forester’s perspective, being under the regulation of forest management plans. The most species-rich grasslands are under strict protection. The national park covers about 420 km2 overlapping with different categories of protected areas. • Natura 2000 sites management guidelines should focus better on the regulation of permitted activities instead of enumeration of prohibited actions. • The BNP Directorate has just a consultative role in the decision making. • The directorate faces difficulties in the management of grasslands (unfavorable conservation status in EU classification) especially in Natura 2000 habitats. Mowing and grazing were abandoned between 1960– 1970. To re-establish animal husbandry, hay making and pasturing, in actual unfavorable economic con- ditions is mostly impossible (e.g. variety of property rights, conflicting objectives with forestry and unfa- vorable subsidies for extensive farming). • Experimental projects are under development, testing the best pasturing practices on the Dél-Heves area, connected to bird species conservation as well. • Several landscape restoration projects and combating invasive woody species were implemented. Unfor- tunately, land abandonment prevents restoration on long term. Conclusions The political, social, economic and environmental con- text of the last century has generated complex and syn- ergistic challenges for the effective nature conservation in the CEE countries. The top-down governance model and centralized administrative power has resulted in people’s disconnection from their land over almost two genera- tions. Therefore, the manner of designation of protected area networks in the communist era created from the be- ginning (i) a gap between local communities and authori- ties and (ii) a formal protection of sites lacking financial support for management, personnel capacity and techni- cal equipment. These gaps have not been bridged in all of the cases. Figure 6: Dry grasslands in May (Bükk National Park). Slika 6: Suha travišča v maju (Narodni park Bükk). 17/1 • 2018, 73–84 82 Á. Balázsi Grassland management in protected areas – implementation of the EU biodiversity strategy in certain post-communist countries The main challenges for the post-communist countries lies in their capacity to: (i) access complementary funds for nature conservation, beside their inadequate annual budget for nature conservation, assured by the govern- ments; (ii) harmonize the policy implementation between nature conservation and agriculture; (iii) bridge the gaps between science, practice and policy by continuous knowledge transfer between research, farmers, conserva- tionist and employee of public institutions, politicians; and (iv) address regional, often local problems, raised around the implementation. Organizational changes in the structure of ministries at a central and regional level are necessary in order to balance the disparities between their responsibilities. The gaps between public administration, managers of pro- tected areas and stakeholders must be bridged within in- tegrated multilevel governance (e.g. nature conservation and agriculture) instead of a domain oriented approach (e.g. nature conservation or agriculture). The knowledge transfers from research to public administration and be- tween institutions could be a huge advantage making the public administration respond more realistically and flex- ible to the needs of social-ecological systems. Sustainable agricultural practices must be developed and adopted to local conditions in order to respond to the conservation objectives. Furthermore, detailed comparative case studies can lead to a deeper understanding of the complexity of the current situation for countries in transition, focusing on the history of political systems, changes in property rights and land use after Communism. Acknowledgements This study was founded by the Alfred Toepfer Natural Heritage Scholarship, offered by the Alfred Toepfer Foun- dation and Europarc Federation in 2016. I would like to express my gratitude for the persons who provided a great support in organizing my field visits. I am very thankful for Michał Żmihorski and Jonathan Mitchley improving the early version of this manuscripts with their useful and constructive comments. The manuscript was inspired by the framework of the STACCATO project (BiodivERsA- FACCE2014-47) where I am currently involved. References Apostolopoulou, E. & Pantis, J. D. 2009: Conceptual gaps in the national strategy for the implementation of the European Natura 2000 conservation policy in Greece. Biological Conservation 142(1): 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.10.021 Babai, D., & Molnár, Z. 2013: Multidimensionality and scale in a landscape ethnoecological partitioning of a mountainous landscape (Gyimes, Eastern Carpathians, Romania). Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 9: 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-9-11 Balázs, B., Pataki, G. & Lazányi, O. 2016: Prospects for the future: Community supported agriculture in. Futures 83: 100–111. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.03.005 Barthel, S., Crumley, C. & Svedin, U. 2013: Bio-cultural refugia- Safeguarding diversity of practices for food security and biodiversity. Global Environmental Change 23(5): 1142–1152. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.001 Batáry, P., Dicks, L. V., Kleijn, D. & Sutherland, W. J. 2015: The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology 29(4): 1006–1016. Bezák, P. & Halada, L. 2010: Sustainable Management Recommendations to Reduce the Loss of Agricultural Biodiversity in the Mountain Regions of NE Slovakia. Mountain Research and Development 30(3): 192–204. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD- JOURNAL-D-10-00023.1 Bezák, P. & Mitchley, J. 2014: Drivers of change in mountain farming in Slovakia: from socialist collectivization to the Common Agricultural Policy. Regional Environmental Change 14(4): 1343–1356. Bičík, I., Jeleček, L., & Štěpánek, V. 2001: Land-use changes and their social driving forces in Czechia in the 19th and 20th centuries. Land Use Policy 18(1): 65–73. Bignal, E. M. & McCracken, D. I. 2000: The nature conservation value of European traditional farming systems. Environmental Reviews, 8(3): 149–171. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-8-3-149 Blicharska, M., Orlikowska, E. H., Roberge, J. M. & Grodzinska- Jurczak, M. 2016: Contribution of social science to large scale biodiversity conservation: A review of research about the Natura 2000 network. Biological Conservation 199: 110–122. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.007 Bogaerts, T., Williamson, I. P. & Fendel, E. M. 2002: The role of land administration in the accession of Central European countries to the European Union. Land Use Policy 19(1): 29–46. Bojnec, Š. & Latruffe, L. 2013: Farm size, agricultural subsidies and farm performance in Slovenia. Land Use Policy 32: 207–217. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.09.016 Burger, A. 2006: Why is the issue of land ownership still of major concern in East Central European (ECE) transitional countries and particularly in Hungary? Land Use Policy 23(4): 571–579. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.01.003 Cent, J., Mertens, C. & Niedziałkowski, K. 2013: Roles and impacts of non-governmental organizations in Natura 2000 implementation in Hungary and Poland. Environmental Conservation 40(02): 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892912000380 Cogălniceanu, D. & Cogălniceanu, G. C. 2010: An enlarged European Union challenges priority settings in conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 19(5): 1471–1483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531- 010-9777-1 17/1 • 2018, 73–84 83 Á. Balázsi Grassland management in protected areas – implementation of the EU biodiversity strategy in certain post-communist countries Drgona, V. & Turnock, D. 2000: Policies for rural Eastern Europe in transition: The case of Slovakia. Geo Journal 50(2-3): 235-247. European Comission 2015: Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the council. The mid-term review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52015DC0478&from=EN Fischer, J., Hartel, T. & Kuemmerle, T. 2012: Conservation policy in traditional farming landscapes. Conservation Letters 5(3): 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00227.x Florentina, G. I., Maria, C. S., Adrian, L. & Simona, M. 2015: Better Governance for Biodiversity Conservation is Possible in Romania? Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering Technology 3: 210. https://doi.org/10.12974/2311-8741.2015.03.01.1 Gorlach, K., Los, M. & Mooney, P. H. 2008: Agriculture, communities, and new social movements: East European ruralities in the process of restructuring. Journal of Rural Studies 24(2): 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.12.003 Halada, L., Evans, D., Romão, C. & Petersen, J. E. 2011: Which habitats of European importance depend on agricultural practices? Biodiversity and Conservation 20(11): 2365–2378. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10531-011-9989-z Hartel, T., Fischer, J., Câmpeanu, C., Milcu, A. I., Hanspach, J. & Fazey, I. 2014: The importance of ecosystem services for rural inhabitants in a changing cultural landscape in Romania. Ecology and Society 19(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06333-190242 Henle, K., Alard, D., Clitherow, J., Cobb, P., Firbank, L., Kull, T., … Young, J. 2008: Identifying and managing the conflicts between agriculture and biodiversity conservation in Europe – A review. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 124(1–2): 60–71. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2007.09.005 Hochkirch, A., Schmitt, T., Beninde, J., Hiery, M., Kinitz, T., Kirschey, J., … Proelss, A. 2013: Europe Needs a New Vision for a Natura 2020 Network. Conservation Letters 6(6): 462–467. https:// doi.org/10.1111/conl.12006 Hossu, C. A., Ioja, I. C., Nita, M. R., Hartel, T., Badiu, D. L. & Hersperger, A. M. 2017: Need for a cross-sector approach in protected area management. Land Use Policy 69: 586–597. Iojă, C. I., Pătroescu, M., Rozylowicz, L., Popescu, V. D., Vergheleţ, M., Zotta, M. I. & Felciuc, M. 2010: The efficacy of Romania’s protected areas network in conserving biodiversity. Biological Conservation 143(11): 2468–2476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biocon.2010.06.013 Ioras, F. 2003: Trends in Romanian biodiversity conservation policy. Biodiversity and Conservation 12(1): 9–23. https://doi. org/10.1023/A:1021254615841 Isselstein, J., Jeangros, B. & Pavlů, V. 2005: Agronomic aspects of biodiversity targeted management of temperate grasslands in Europe – A review. Agronomy Research 3(2): 139–151. Jongepierová, I., Mitchley, J. & Tzanopoulos, J. 2007: A field experiment to recreate species rich hay meadows using regional seed mixtures. Biological Conservation 139(3–4): 297–305. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.07.026 Kati, V., Hovardas, T., Dieterich, M., Ibisch, P. L., Mihók, B. & Selva, N. 2014: The challenge of implementing the European network of protected areas Natura 2000. Conservation Biology 29(1): 260–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12366 Kleijn, D., Rundlöf, M., Scheper, J., Smith, H. G. & Tscharntke, T. 2011: Does conservation on farmland contribute to halting the biodiversity decline? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 26(9): 474–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.05.009 Kluvánková, T. & Gežík, V. 2014: Survival of commons? Institutions for robust forest social-ecological systems. Journal of Forest Economics 24: 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2016.01.002 Knorn, J., Kuemmerle, T., Radeloff, V. C., Szabo, A., Mindrescu, M., Keeton, W. S., … Hostert, P. 2012: Forest restitution and protected area effectiveness in post-socialist Romania. Biological Conservation 146(1): 204–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.12.020 Kohlheb, N. & Krausmann, F. 2009: Land use change, biomass production and HANPP: the case of Hungary 1961–2005. Ecological Economics, 69(2): 292–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolecon.2009.07.010 Křenová, Z. & Kindlmann, P. 2015: Natura 2000–Solution for Eastern Europe or just a good start? The Šumava National Park as a test case. Biological Conservation 186: 268–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biocon.2015.03.028 Lemaire, G., Wilkins, R. & Hodgson, J. 2005: Challenges for grassland science: Managing research priorities. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 108(2): 99–108. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.01.003 Levers, C., Butsic, V., Verburg, P. H., Müller, D. & Kuemmerle, T. 2016: Drivers of changes in agricultural intensity in Europe. Land Use Policy 58: 380–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.08.013 Liebert, S., Condrey, S. E. & Goncharov, D. 2013: Public administration in post-communist countries: Former Soviet Union, central and Eastern Europe, and Mongolia. CRC Press. Lieskovský, J., Bezák, P., Špulerová, J., Lieskovský, T., Koleda, P., Dobrovodská, M., ... & Gimmi, U. 2015: The abandonment of traditional agricultural landscape in Slovakia–Analysis of extent and driving forces. Journal of Rural Studies 37: 75–84. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.12.007 Loos, J., Turtureanu, P. D., Wehrden, H. Von, Hanspach, J., Dorresteijn, I., Frink, J. P. & Fischer, J. 2015: Plant diversity in a changing agricultural landscape mosaic in Southern Transylvania (Romania). Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 199:, 350–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.10.013 Mihók, B., Kovács, E., Balázs, B., Pataki, G., Ambrus, A., Bartha, D., … Báldi, A. 2015: Bridging the research-practice gap: Conservation research priorities in a Central and Eastern European country. Journal for Nature Conservation https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2015.09.010 Mikulcak, F., Haider, J. L., Abson, D. J., Newig, J. & Fischer, J. 2015: Land Use Policy Applying a capitals approach to understand rural development traps: A case study from post-socialist Romania. Land Use Policy 43: 248–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landusepol.2014.10.024 Mikulcak, F., Newig, J., Milcu, A. I., Hartel, T. & Fischer, J. 2013: Integrating Rural Development and Biodiversity Conservation in Central Romania. Environmental Conservation 40(2): 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892912000392 Molnár, Z., Kis, J., Vadász, C., Papp, L., Sándor, I., Béres, S., ... & Varga, A. 2016: Common and conflicting objectives and practices of herders and conservation managers: the need for a conservation herder. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability 2(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/ ehs2.1215 17/1 • 2018, 73–84 84 Á. Balázsi Grassland management in protected areas – implementation of the EU biodiversity strategy in certain post-communist countries Orlikowska, E. H., Roberge, J. M., Blicharska, M. & Mikusiński, G. 2016: Gaps in ecological research on the world’s largest internationally coordinated network of protected areas: A review of Natura 2000. Biological Conservation 200:216–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biocon.2016.06.015 Oszlányi, J., Grodzińska, K., Badea, O. & Shparyk, Y. 2004: Nature conservation in Central and Eastern Europe with a special emphasis on the Carpathian Mountains. Environmental Pollution 130(1): 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2003.10.028 Pe’er, G., Dicks, L. V., Visconti, P., Arlettaz, R., Báldi, A., Benton, T. G., Collins, S., Dieterich, M., Gregory, R. D., … Scott, A V. 2014: EU agricultural reform fails on biodiversity. Science 344(6188): 1090–1092. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1253425 Plieninger, T. & Bieling, C. 2013: Resilience-based perspectives to guiding high nature value farmland through socio-economic change. Ecology and Society 18(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05877-180420 Plieninger, T., Schleyer, C., Schaich, H., Ohnesorge, B., Gerdes, H., Hernández-Morcillo, M. & Bieling, C. 2012: Mainstreaming ecosystem services through reformed European agricultural policies. Conservation Letters 5(4): 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755- 263X.2012.00240.x Sarvašová, Z., Šálka, J. & Dobšinská, Z. 2013: Mechanism of cross-sectoral coordination between nature protection and forestry in the Natura 2000 formulation process in Slovakia. Journal of Environmental Management 127: 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvman.2012.06.005 Stanciu, E. & Ioniță, A. 2014: Governance of protected areas in Eastern Europe. Overview on different governance types, case-studies and lessons. Bfn-Skripten, 360. Stoate, C., Báldi, A., Beja, P., Boatman, N. D., Herzon, I., van Doorn, A., … Ramwell, C. 2009:. Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe – A review. Journal of Environmental Management 91(1): 22–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvman.2009.07.005 Stringer, L.C. & Paavola, J. 2013: Participation in environmental conservation and protected area management in Romania: A review of three case studies. Environmental Conservation 40(2): 138–146. doi: 10.1017/S0376892913000039 Sutcliffe, L. M. E., Batáry, P., Kormann, U., Báldi, A., Dicks, L. V., Herzon, I., … Tscharntke, T. 2015: Harnessing the biodiversity value of Central and Eastern European farmland. Diversity and Distributions 21(6): 722–730. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12288 Sutcliffe, L., Akeroyd, J., Page, N. & Popa, R. 2015: Combining approaches to support high nature value farmland in southern Transylvania, Romania. Hacquetia, 14(1), 53–63. https://doi. org/10.1515/hacq-2015-0011 Sutcliffe, L., Paulini, I., Jones, G., Marggraf, R. & Page, N. 2013: Pastoral commons use in Romania and the role of the Common Agri- cultural Policy. International Journal of the Commons 7(1): 58–72. Švajda, J. & Fenichel, E. P. 2011: Evaluation of integrated protected area management in Slovakian National Parks. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies 20(4): 1053–1060. Van Dijk, T. 2007: Complications for traditional land consolidation in Central Europe. Geoforum 38(3): 505–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. geoforum.2006.11.010 Varga, A., Molnár, Z., Biró, M., Demeter, L., Gellény, K., Miókovics, E., ... & Babai, D. 2016: Changing year-round habitat use of extensively grazing cattle, sheep and pigs in East-Central Europe between 1940 and 2014: Consequences for conservation and policy. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 234: 142–153. Zellei, A., Gorton, M. & Lowe, P. 2005: Agri-environmental policy systems in transition and preparation for EU membership. Land Use Policy 22(3): 225–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landusepol.2003.09.008 Documents and websites used for desk study EU Biodiversity Strategy 2020 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/ brochures/2020%20Biod%20brochure%20final%20lowres.pdf Hungarian Biodiversity Strategy 2015–2020 http://www.termeszetvedelem.hu/_user/browser/File/Stragegia/ MK15083_NBS.pdf Czech Biodiversity Strategy 2016–2025 https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/cz/cz-nbsap-v2-en.pdf Slovak Biodiversity Strategy 2020 https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/sk/sk-nbsap-v3-en.pdf Romanian Biodiversity Strategy 2014–2020 https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/ro/ro-nbsap-v3-ro.pdf Carpathian Integrated Biodiversity Information System http://www.ccibis.org/carpathian-values/100-nature-protection-and- protected-area-legislation Czech Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection http://www.cittadella.cz/europarc/index.php?p=historie_ ochrany&site=zakladni_udaje_en Family Farming in Romania http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/consultations/ family-farming/contributions/adept_en.pdf Hungarian Nature Conservation Authority http://www.termeszetvedelem.hu/index.php?pg=menu_1729 Hungarian Nature Conservation Information System http://geo.kvvm.hu/tir_en/ Protected areas of Romania http://www.propark.ro/images/uploads/file/manual%20arii%20 protejate_net.pdf Hortobágy National Park Directorate Webpage: http://www.hnp.hu Bükk National Park Directorate Webpage: www.bnpi.hu National Park Nízke Tatry (Low Tatras) Webpage: http://www.napant.sk/ National Park Velka Fatra Webpage: http://www.sopsr.sk/velkafatraweb/en Krkonoše Mountains National Park: www.krnap.cz White Carpathians Protected Landscape Area Webpage: http://vis.bilekarpaty.cz