XVIl - 77 - 1996 ACROCEPHALUS 
Ignoranca Birokratskega Aparata (IBA) 
Multinacionalka BirdLife Internatio-
nal (BLI) je pognala svoj naravovarstve-
ni stroj z vso paro. Pred sedmimi leti je v 
bliskovitem napadu pregazila Evropo in 
jo prepredla z mrežo oporišč, OPO ime-
novanih (OPO = ornitološko pomembno 
območje) . Počasi, a odločno se polašča 
tudi drugega sveta. Navidez neustavlji-
va je na svojem pohodu k cilju -
zagotoviti obstoj populacij danes 
živečih vrst ptic. To ni ofenziva z vsemi 
razpoložljivimi sredsM. Nasprotno, sred-
stva so skrbno izbrana, merila za izbor 
pretanjena. Moderna so in kvantitati-
vna. Morda najpomembnejša dobljena 
bitka je bila tista, v kateri je BLI-ju uspelo 
iztisniti iz ornitološko še tako molčečih 
evropskih držav odločilno priznanje: o 
številu svojih ptic. In smo vsi priznali, 
Slovenci po svoji naravi vselej pošteno, a 
še raje skromno. Malo tudi v strahu, da 
bi kdo preverjal. Naši južni sosedje, 
naprimer, velikodušno. Od tod naprej 
je imela znanstvena objektivnost prosto 
pot. Namesto zamegljenih "eno po-
membnejših, eno najjužnejših, eno naj-
večjih v tem delu Evrope .. . " so nastale 
pregledne lesMce. Vsak podatek je 
opremljen s številko in uvrščen v rang. 
Iz teh rangov je jasno razvidno, kaj je 
pomembno in kaj ne. Z razmeroma 
enostavnimi matematičnimi operacija-
mi seštevanja in deljenja so nam dali 
vedeti: Slovenija je za preživetje ptičjih 
populacij v Evropi nepomembna. Po-
ložite betonsko ploščo čez svojo deželo in 
nič se ne bo spremenilo, nam govorijo. 
S spretnim kombiniranjem kriterijev 
in kakšnim pogledom čez prste bomo v 
Sloveniji vendarle zbrali za peščico OPO-
jev. S seznama globalno ogroženih 
bomo lahko pobrali našo edino pravo 
ENPV (evropsko naravovarstveno po-
m embno vrsto) prve kategorije, kosca, 
in na njegov račun predlagali tri do štiri 
območja. Z malo sreče bomo na Dravi 
prešteli dovolj prezimovajočih vodnih 
ptic, da se obdrži status. Tudi Triglavski 
narodni park bo lahko ostal OPO, če ne 
drugače, zaradi značilne avicenoze 
evrazijskega visokogorskega bioma. 
Nadalje lahko predlagamo OPO-je za 
yrste iz nižjih kategorij ENPV (2,3,4). 
Stevilo takšnih OPO-jev je omejeno z 
relativno velikostjo ptičjih populacij v 
Sloveniji. Nekako po kopitu: kolikor 
odstotkov celotne evropske populacije 
živi v Sloveniji, toliko OPO-jev lahko 
predlagamo. Ti morajo biti naša najpo-
membnejša območja za te vrste. Sedaj 
se nam nekoliko maščuje skromnost pri 
ugibanju števila slovenskih ptic. Večine 
vrst ni v Sloveniji niti za en odstotek. 
Vrste, ki jih je pri nas teoretično sicer 
dovolj, imajo skrit nekakšen kavelj 22. So 
namreč izrazito razprš"eno razširjene, 
tako da jim je z območnim varstvom 
težko pomagati. Le s težavo bomo 
zakoličili po eno najpomembnejše gnez-
dišče postovke, vodomca, vijeglavke, 
zelene žolne, prosnika ali rjavega srako-
perja. V tolažbo so nam lahko vrste 
ENPV 4. kategorije. Med njimi smemo 
varovati celo kosa, ščinkavca in zelen-
ca. Še več, BLI nam dovoljuje kar po dve 
območji za črnoglavko, kmečko lastov-
ko in rdečeglavega kraljička. 
Bolj ali manj diskretno so nam visoki 
možje pri BLI-ju že nekajkrat dali vedeti, 
da je zanje Slovenija ornitološko nezani-
miva. Z izidom publikacije o številu ptic 
v Evropi je to vsakomur predstavljeno 
črno na belem. Temu primerno nizko je 
mednarodno zanimanje za vlaganja v 
ornitološko-naravovarstvene projekte v 
Sloveniji. Sodelovanje v veliki medna-
rodni igri kajpak prinaša določene kori-
sti. Od (zaenkrat le obljubljenih) podpor 
nacionalni koordinaciji projekta OPO 
prek tako pomembne publicitete do 
možnosti uporabe mednarodnih in te-
rvencijskih orodij. In še kaj bi se našlo. 
Zato vsekakor velja sodelovati . 
Vprašanje je le, s kolikšnim vložkom. V 
Sloveniji deloma že imamo, deloma pa 
še moramo definirati lastne naravovar-
101 
ACROCEPHALUS 
stvene cilje in smernice. Te naj nam bo 
glavno vodilo! Saj želimo ohraniti pest-
rost v mq:jhnem in ne ogromnih popula-
cij, kakršnih Slovenija tako ali tako ne 
premore. Ne slepimo se s cararji, koma-
tarji in črnoglavkami. Napak bi bilo s 
takimi vrstami igrati botra državni na-
ravovarstveni politiki gozdnatih krajin-
skih in regijskih parkov. Kajti mi vemo, 
da so pri nas ogroženi tudi škurh in 
kozica, brškinka in polojnik, kreheljc in 
sivka, repaljščica in kobiličar, čeprav 
seznami ENPV pravijo drugače. Te ptice 
naj bodo naša prva skrb. Našla se bodo 
stičišča dejansko ogroženih vrst z OPO-ji. 
Tam bodo OPO-ji v pomoč. Zahtevam po 
varstvu bodo dali mednarodno težo. In 
XVII - 77 - 1996 
kot vselej bo dobrodošla arpimentacija 
tista, ki postavlja merila nasi evropskosti 
z izpolnjevanjem mednarodnih dogovo-
rov. OPO-ji so zasnovani kot globalno oz. 
evropsko pomembni. In država, ki ne 
varuje svojih OPO-jev, škoduje vsej 
mednarodni skupnosti. Tega Slovenija 
gotovo ne bi želela. 
Poslanstvo slovenskega nacionalne-
ga koordinatorja je zahtevno in delikat-
no. Ob čim manjšem birokratskem 
vložku mora iztisniti iz mednarodnega 
žaklja OPO kar se da koristnega in pri 
tem ne zakrivati naših lastnih prednost-
nih ciljev. 
Peter Trontelj 
Ignorance of Bureaucratic Apparatus (IBA) 
The multinational organization BirdLi-
fe International (BLI) has set in motion its 
conservationist machinery with all its 
might. Seven years ago it trampled, in 
a blitz, the en tire Europe and spun it with 
a web of strongholds called IBA's 
(Important Bird Areas). Slowly, but reso-
lutely, it is now appropriating the rest of 
the world. The organization seems al-
most unstoppable in its march towards 
its goal: to secure the existence of the 
currently living bird species populations. 
This, however, is not an offensive with all 
available means. On the contrary, the 
means have been chosen with greatest 
care, and the selection criteria are truly 
sophisticated. They are modern and 
quantitative. 
Perhaps the most triumphant battle 
was the one in which the BLI succeeded 
iri squeezing, from the ornithologically 
most taciturn European countries, that 
decisive confession: about the numbers 
of their birds. Everybody conceded. We, 
the Slovenes, did it honestly, humbly 
and according to our nature, a little also 
in fear that somebody might do some 
102 
checking up. Our southern neighbours, 
for example, conceded magnanimou-
sly. From here on the way for the 
scientific objectivity was utterly unhin-
dered. 
Instead of those blurred phrases, such 
as "one of the more important", "one of 
the southernmost", "one of the greatest in 
this part of Europe", etc., certain synoptic 
scales came into force. Every datum is 
equipped with a number and suitably 
ranked. From these ranks it is more than 
evident what is important and what is 
not. With the aid of relatively simple 
mathematical operations of adding and 
dividing they let us know the following: 
Slovenia is insignifican t as far as the 
survival of bird populations in Europe is 
concerned. Lay a reinforced concrete 
floor over your country and nothing w ill 
change, they teli us. 
With a proficient combination of 
criteria and perhaps by condoning our 
shortcomings we will get a handful of 
IBA's in our country after all. From the list 
of globally endangered species we will 
be able to take our only real SPEC 1 
XVIl- 77 - 1996 
species, i.e. the Corn Crake, and propose 
three to four areas for it. With a little luck 
we will count enough wintering aquatic 
birds on the Drava river to retain its 
threat status. The Triglav National Park 
will also be allowed to remain an IBA, if 
not for other reasons then due to the 
characteristic avicenosis of the Eurasian 
upland biome. Then IBA's for the species 
from the lower SPEC categories (2,3,4) 
can be proposed. The number of such 
IBA's is limited with a relative size of the 
Slovene bird populations, in accordance 
with the model that as many IBA's can 
be proposed as there is the percentage 
of the entire European population living 
in our country. These must be our most 
important areas for these species. Now 
our modesty in guessing the numbers of 
our birds is slightly avenging itself on us. 
In Slovenia, the majority of species do 
not amount to even a single percent. In 
the species which in our country theore-
tically live in sufficient numbers, there is 
some sort of a hidden Catch 22. As they 
are distributed distinctly dispersedly, it is 
of course difficult to protect them in 
certain areas. With great difficulty we 
shall mark out a single most important 
breeding ground for the Kestrel, Kingfi-
sher, Wryneck, Green Woodpecker, Sto-
nechat or Red-backed Shrike. We may 
find some comfort in SPEC 4 species, 
among which we can protect even the 
Blackbird, Chaffinch and Greenfinch. 
And even more than that, the BLI 
allows us to have no less than 2 areas 
each for the Black cap, Barn Swallow 
and Firecrest. 
More or less discreetly, the big shots at 
the BLI have let us know a f ew times that 
Slovenia is not ornithologically intere-
sting to them. This has been made clear 
to everybody with the publication of the 
numbers of birds in Europe. Adequately 
low is the international interest to invest 
in our ornithological-conservationist pro-
jects. Participation in the great interna-
tional game yields, of course, certain 
benefits - from a firm support (only 
promised so far) in the national coordi-
nation of the IBA project, through the 
very important publicity, to the possibi-
ACROCEPHALUS 
lity of using international interventionist 
tools. And stili more could be found. This 
is why it is certainly worth taking part. 
The only question is, how large the 
investment should be. In Slovenia, we 
partially already have - and partially 
still have to define - our own conserva-
tionist goals and guidelines. These 
should be our main guidance, for we 
wish to conserve diversity of small and 
in no way huge populations which we, 
in any case, do not have at ali. Let us not 
delude ourselves with Mistle Thrushes, 
Ring Ouzels and Blackcaps. It would be 
wrong to act, with such species, as 
godfathers to the state conservationist 
policy of wooded landscape and regio-
nal parks, as we know very well that the 
Curlew and the Snipe, the Fantailed 
Warbler and the Black-winged Stilt, the 
Teal and the Pochard, the Whinchat 
and the Grasshopper Warbler are en-
dangered in our country as well, even 
though the SPEC lists speak otherwise. 
These birds will not be our prime con-
cem. For those truly endangered species 
junctures with IBA's will be found. There 
the IBA's will be of some help and the 
requests to protect them will be given 
international weight. And as always we 
shall welcome that particular argumen-
tation which stipulates the criteria for our 
European character with the implemen-
tation of international agreements. The 
IBA's have been conceived as globally 
important entities. And the country 
which does not protect its IBA's is 
detrimental to the entire international 
community. This is certainly not what 
Slovenia is longing for. 
The mission of the Slovene national 
coordination is very demanding and 
delicate. With as small as possible 
bureaucratic investment it must squee-
ze as many useful things as possible 
from the in ternational IBA sack and at 
the same tirne ensure that our own 
preferential aims are not pushed into 
the background. 
Peter Trontelj 
103