conserving important plant areas: investing - Plantlife

CONSERVING 

IMPORTANT PLANT AREAS: 

INVESTING IN THE GREEN GOLD OF SOUTH EAST EUROPE

Editors: Elizabeth A. Radford and Baudewijn Odé 

Charts, maps and analysis: Elizabeth Radford, Seona Anderson and Beth Newman 

Designer: Robin Padian rjpdesign.co.uk 

Additional editorial comments from: the IPA team members, Seona Anderson, 

Melanie Bilz, Joanna Bromley, Nicola Hutchinson and Zrinka Jakl. 

Citation 

Radford, E.A. and Odé, B. eds. (2009) Conserving 

Important Plant Areas: investing in the Green Gold of South 

East Europe. Plantlife International, Salisbury. 

Citation for individual sections 

Country pages (section III pages 26 – 74) the following 

citation should be used, for example Montenegro: 

Petrovic, D., (2009) Montenegro. pp 55 – 62 in: Conserving 

Important Plant Areas: investing in the Green Gold of South 

East Europe. (Eds. E.A Radford and B. Odé). Plantlife 

International, Salisbury. 

Pilot project pages (section V pages 104-114) the 

following citation should be used for example 

Macedonia FYR: 

Angelova N., (2009) The conservation of Šar Planina 

(Shara Mountain) an Important Plant Area on the 

Macedonian (FYR) border pp 104 – 107 in: Conserving 

Important Plant Areas: investing in the Green Gold of 

South East Europe. (Eds. E.A Radford and B. Odé). 

Plantlife International, Salisbury. 

Front cover: West Rhodopi Mountain, Bulgaria. 

© Emil Enchev 

Use of the term Macedonia throughout this document 

refers to the Sovereign State known in full as Macedonia 

– the Former Yugoslav Republic (FYR). It is used for 

convenience and to improve readability, and does not 

imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the 

part of Plantlife International concerning the name of 

this State. 

Plantlife International is a charitable, non 

government organisation dedicated exclusively to 

conserving all forms of plant life in their natural 

habitats, in the UK, Europe and across the world. 

We act directly to stop common wild plants 

becoming rare in the wild, to rescue wild plants on 

the brink of extinction and to protect sites of 

exceptional botanical importance. The charity 

carries out practical conservation work, influences 

relevant policy and legislation, involves its 

members in many aspects of its work, and 

collaborates widely to promote the cause of wild 

plant conservation. Plantlife International is a 

member of Planta Europa, the network of 

organisations working for plant conservation across 

Europe. Plantlife’s head office is in Salisbury, UK. 

ISBN 978-1-907141-02-7 

Acknowledgements 

Plantlife International’s Important Plant Areas (IPA) 

programme in south east Europe (2005 – 2008) has 

been supported by the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature 

and Food Quality of the Netherlands (for Bulgaria, 

Croatia and Montenegro) and the MAVA foundation 

(for Macedonia FYR). 

The IPA programme in South East Europe, this 

publication and the associated online IPA database is 

a result of collaboration between the following 

project partners: 

Plantlife International 

Stichting FLORON, the Netherlands 

In Bulgaria: 

The Institute of Botany, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences 

for IPA identification and data collation; and the 

Bulgarian Biodiversity Foundation for the conservation 

pilot project. 

In Croatia: 

The Faculty of Science of the University of Zagreb for 

IPA identification and data collation; and SUNCE - the 

Association for Nature, Environment and Sustainable 

Development for the conservation pilot project. 

In Montenegro: 

The Green Forest Society (NGO). 

Plantlife International – The Wild Plant 

Conservation Charity 

14 Rollestone Street, 

Salisbury, 

Wiltshire, 

SP1 1DX, UK 

Tel: +44 (0)1722 342730 Fax: +44 (0)1722 329035 

E-mail: enquiries@plantlife.org.uk 

Website: www.plantlife.org.uk 

Publicly accessible IPA project database: 

www.plantlife-ipa.org/reports.asp 

In Macedonia FYR: 

The Macedonian Ecological Society working in 

partnership with Ljuboten Mountaineering Club on 

the conservation pilot project. 

The Planta Europa network 

Additional information for this report on Important 

Plant Areas in Turkey and Serbia has been kindly 

provided by Doğal Hayati Koruma Derneği (DHKD) 

and by the Institute of Botany, Faculty of Biology, 

University of Belgrade respectively. These IPA projects 

were undertaken and funded independently of 

Plantlife International. 

Plantlife would also like to thank: 

BirdLife International, for their continued support 

of the objectives of the Important Plant Areas 

programme, and specifically Gill Bunting, Tris Allinson, 

Ian May and Ian Burfield, for providing an analysis of 

the Important Bird Areas in south east Europe against 

IPA data for this report. 

Butterfly Conservation in Europe specifically 

Chris Van Swaay and Martin Warren, for providing data 

to allow an analysis of Prime Butterfly Areas in Europe 

against IPA data for this report. 

Graham Berry of QPR software for the generous 

donation of his time and expertise to ensure the 

smooth running of the IPA database - a tool that is 

central to making this results of the Important Plant 

Areas programme available on the world wide web to 

experts, decision makers, the general public and those 

who simply love plants. 

www.plantlife-ipa.org/resports.asp 

IPA coordinators and IPA teams worldwide, for 

their continued support of the programme, 

improvement of the methodology and for sharing 

experiences and ideas on how to conserve Important 

Plant Areas across the globe. 

CONSERVING IMPORTANT PLANT AREAS: INVESTING IN THE GREEN GOLD OF SOUTH EAST EUROPE

Contents 

Executive Summary 3 

Recommendations 5 

Section I: Context 7 

Introduction 7 

The importance of conserving the South East European flora 8 

Important Plant Areas and key political initiatives 9 

Section II: Important Plant Area identification and data analysis in South East Europe 11 

Overview of IPAs in the four project countries 11 

The need for international community building around plant data collection 

and protection 25 

Section III: Important Plant Area country reports - national overview of IPAs in 6 countries 26 

Bulgaria 26 

Croatia 37 

Macedonian FYR 45 

Montenegro 55 

Serbia 63 

Turkey 70 

Section IV: Important Plant Area Conservation – Policy and Practice 75 

Biodiversity, Nature Conservation and IPAs 76 

Biodiversity, Development (tourism and transport) and IPAs 79 

Forests, Forestry and IPAs 82 

Grassland,Agriculture and IPAs 85 

Wetlands, Coasts,Water Use and IPAs 89 

Wild plant harvesting, fungus collection and IPAs 92 

Section V: Important Plant Area Conservation – pilot projects 95 

Sustainable conservation of the Besaparski Hills IPA – Bulgaria 96 

The conservation of Pantan IPA – Croatia 100 

The conservation of Šar Planina, an IPA on the Macedonian border 

– Macedonia FYR 104 

The conservation of IPA Cijevna Canyon – Montenegro 108 

IPANET – Establishing a Volunteer Network for IPAs in Turkey 111 

Sections VI: Recommendations for IPA conservation in South East Europe 115 

Appendices 

Appendix 1: Summary of Important Plant Area Methodology and the IPA web database 119 

Appendix 2: Summary of country approach to IPA identification and selection 126 

Appendix 3: Relationship between major global and regional conservation and IPAs in South East Europe 128 

CONSERVING IMPORTANT PLANT AREAS: INVESTING IN THE GREEN GOLD OF SOUTH EAST EUROPE 

1

DANKA PETROVIĆ 

Executive summary 

Cypridium calceolus (Lady’s slipper 

orchid) is threatened across Europe. 

A new population of this species was 

found in Montenegro during this project. 

2 CONSERVING IMPORTANT PLANT AREAS: INVESTING IN THE GREEN GOLD OF SOUTH EAST EUROPE


Important Plant Areas are internationally important sites for wild 

plants and fungi, identified at a national level using standard criteria. 

Initially developed to address the lack of focus on conserving plant diversity, IPAs 

provide a framework to assess the effectiveness of conservation activities for 

plants, and target sites for future action.They support existing conservation 

programmes, such as protected area networks, the EU Natura 2000 network and 

the CBD Global Strategy for Plant Conservation. Over 1,500 IPAs have now 

been identified in 17 countries pan Europe, and many countries are embarking on 

IPA initiatives worldwide. 

South East Europe – the Balkan Peninsula - has the richest flora of any 

part of the continent due to its geomorphology, its location at the junction of 

several bioclimatic zones and its long history of human settlement. Recent 

conflict and political and social isolation from the rest of Europe, has slowed 

development in the region and has, to an extent, protected plant diversity and the 

associated natural resources.Today the Balkan region is undergoing immense 

economic and social change, which is placing great pressure on wild plants and 

their habitats. 

This report describes the three-year project to conserve Important 

Plant Areas (IPAs) in South East Europe, a partnership between Plantlife 

International, Stichting FLORON (the Netherlands) and organisations in Bulgaria, 

Croatia, Macedonia FYR and Montenegro. 

291 Important Plant Areas have been identified in the four countries, 

and new site-based data on their botanical features, protection status, 

management, land uses and major threats recorded on the public IPA web 

database.These IPAs contain diverse habitat mosaics, dominated by forest and 

grassland. 152 habitats that are recognised as threatened in Europe are found 

across all the IPAs identified; threatened forest and grassland habitats appear on 

the greatest number of sites. High mountain screes and deep limestone gorge 

habitats are of particular importance in the region as they are home to unique 

vegetation, including relict species from the tertiary era. 355 threatened plant 

and fungus species are present on the IPAs identified, currently 292 of these 

species (which are unique to the Balkan region and known to be threatened) are 

not listed on European legislation. 

South East European IPAs are currently largely intact; however they are 

subject to significant threats which are increasing in intensity.The miles of 

coastline, turquoise seas, spectacular mountains and gorges, and warm summer 

climate are a tour operator’s dream. Consequently development (particularly 

tourist development) is the greatest threat to the integrity of the IPA network, 

adversely affecting over half of the IPAs identified – frequently at the highest level 

of intensity.The prospect of short-term financial gain from tourism is currently 

winning over the long-term security of biodiversity. 

Poor forestry practices are damaging forest habitats on 43 % of IPAs 

identified. Flower-rich farmland – a biodiversity-rich product of traditional 

farming practices - is suffering from abandonment, particularly in Croatia, where 



3


Trollius europaeus 

4 

BORIS ASSYOV 

34% of IPAs are threatened in this way. Climate change is an important threat, 

mainly for coastal and alpine IPAs, though this threat proved difficult to quantify at 

site level. 

59% of IPAs in the project countries remain unprotected at national 

level. Protection levels vary between countries; 59% of IPAs are fully or partially 

protected in Bulgaria compared to just 18% in Croatia. Up to 90% of IPAs in the 

project countries should qualify for protection through European Union 

legislation, if this legislation is implemented when those countries accede to the 

EU. Management plans exist or are in preparation for only 20 of the 291 IPAs 

identified during the project.This is a shockingly low number for sites of 

international importance. 

Broadly speaking, policies exist to safeguard the diversity of IPAs in 

South East Europe, through nature conservation legislation and 

sectoral policy (spatial planning, agriculture and forestry).The development of 

these policies has been helped by the EU policy framework and international 

biodiversity commitments. Unfortunately, the human and financial capacity needed 

in key environmental institutions to enforce the resulting legislation is often 

lacking.There is an equally important need for improved leadership and 

commitment by relevant national, regional and local government departments, to 

ensure legislation is implemented on-the-ground. 

Appropriately targeted incentives for the sustainable management of 

forestry and agricultural land are urgently needed for land owners, users 

and managers, on whom the conservation of IPAs will ultimately depend. The 

opportunity for private land owners (who currently own land within 53% of the 

region’s IPAs) to earn a sustainable income whilst managing the land for 

biodiversity benefit, will be essential to prevent potentially disastrous changes of 

land use. 

This project has shown that IPAs can engage and inspire local 

communities to act positively for conservation. The short-term, plant 

focused, low budget pilot projects, described in section V, have succeeded in 

engaging school children, tour operators, farmers, mountaineers, parents and local 

officials in plant conservation. Each project has been a small but tangible step 

forward in engaging civil society in conservation action on the ground, led by the 

value people place on wild plants and plant resources. 

The key to IPA conservation in South East Europe is to find and 

exploit the links between conservation and development. The challenge 

is to develop prosperous communities in and around IPAs without sacrificing 

plant diversity. Plants are an ideal tool to address this challenge because, just as 

societies need plants, plants need society. South East Europe’s IPAs hold the 

jewels of the region’s green gold - securing them for the future is something we 

cannot afford to fail on. 


Recommendations 

1. RECOGNISE Important Plant Areas (IPAs) as internationally significant priority sites 

for conservation in local, national and regional environmental policies and plans. 

Gov- Nat. 

2. REVIEW the protected area status of IPAs in each partner country in the light of 

data provided by this project, and the commitment of south east European countries 

to protect 50% of their important areas for plants by 2010 (CBD Global Strategy for 

Plant Conservation, 2002). 

Gov- Nat. 

3. INCORPORATE national IPA networks into candidate Natura 2000 networks in 

accession and potential accession countries in south east Europe. 

Gov- Nat. 

4. UPDATE management plans for protected areas that are also IPAs, to include 

specific plant conservation measures that will conserve IPA qualifying species and habitats. 

Gov- Nat. 

5. ENSURE that Environmental Impact Assessments are undertaken on all 

development projects (tourism, transport and industry) within and adjacent to 

Important Plant Areas, that are not under legal protection and ensure their 

recommendations are enforced and monitored. 

Gov- Nat. 

6. ASSESS the vulnerability of the key botanical features of IPAs to climate change. 

Develop solutions to mitigate effects for those that are most vulnerable, for example 

investigating the potential of the IPA Zones of Opportunity concept to the 

restoration of appropriate habitats, corridors and buffer zones. 

Gov- Nat. 

7. FULLY implement government commitments under the Kyiv resolutions on 

forestry, agriculture and biodiversity. 

Gov- Nat. 

8. TARGET IPAs where forestry activities take place for application of sustainable 

forest management schemes and IPAs where agricultural activities take place for 

agri-environment schemes. 

Gov- Nat. 

Gov- Local 

Gov- Local 

EC/EP 

Gov- Local 

Gov- Local 

Gov- Local 

Gov- Local 

EC/EP 

NGOs/Civil 

Donors 

EC/EP 

NGOs/Civil 

Donors 

Scientists 

Donors 


Key: 

Gov- Nat. 

Gov- Local 

EC/EP 

NGOs/Civil 

Scientists 

Donors 


= National government – 

Ministries of 

Environment, 

Agriculture and Forestry 

and their administrations 

= Local government – 

regional authorities, 

municipalities 

= The European 

Commission/European 

Parliament 

= Conservation nongovernment 

organisations 

and Civil society 

organisations and 

individuals 

= Botanists, ecologists, 

conservationists, 

foresters, agronomists, 

sociologists across 

institutions 

= National and international 

funding agencies 

5


6 

9. INCREASE national and regional rural development funding to ensure sustainable 

management of the most biodiverse forests and grasslands in south East Europe.Assist 

land managers in developing sustainable land use practices where they are absent. 

Gov- Nat. 

10. ENCOURAGE communities whose livelihoods depend on plant resources on IPAs 

to participate in IPA conservation planning and activities (e.g. collectors on medicinal 

plants and other non timber forest projects, promoters of nature tourism, hunters, 

mountain guides). 

Gov- Local 

11. INVEST in the provision of comprehensive and up to date information on plant 

and fungi species in South East Europe and use this information to update European 

species protection legislation as appropriate. This should include 

● A valid, accepted European checklist of vascular plants 

● A pan European Red List for vascular plants 

● National Red List for all plant groups and fungi in south east European countries 

● Developing a centralised (European) infrastructure for observation data of plant 

species as a means of enhancing national and international communications 

around plant knowledge and conservation 

Gov- Nat. 

12. USE IPA data and the associated IPA database for ongoing monitoring of the 

ecological status of important sites, threatened habitats, threatened species and the 

success of conservation activities. 

Gov- Nat. 

13. INVEST in building the capacity of key nature conservation institutions and 

conservation NGOs in the region, so they may be better equipped to implement 

legislation and undertake practical conservation activities on key sites. 

Gov- Nat. 

14. USE IPAs as a local and national focus for awareness raising and education about 

the importance of natural resources conservation in general, and plant conservation 

in particular. 

Gov- Nat. 

15. RENEW commitment to ensuring conservation is delivered through good policy 

implementation at all levels of government administration. 

Gov- Nat. 

EC/EP 

NGOs/Civil 

EC/EP 

Gov- Local 

EC/EP 

Gov- Local 

Gov- Local 

Donors 

NGOs/Civil 

EC/EP 

NGOs/Civil 

EC/EP 

EC/EP 

Scientists 

NGOs/Civil 

Donors 

NGOs/Civil 

Donors 

Scientists 

Donors 


Section I: Context 

Introduction 

Europe’s prime sites for plant diversity are not receiving the recognition that they 

deserve, and consequently the attention that will safeguard them for the future. Despite 

the fundamental importance of plants and fungi to healthy ecosystems and in supporting 

livelihoods, data on the distribution and status of plants are the least complete of all 

major groups of organisms. In Europe there are over 12,500 species of vascular plants 

(not including Turkey) and it is the best known flora in the world, yet datasets on the 

location and threatened status of plant species and their habitats are lacking or 

incomplete, along with measures that on focus on conserving plant diversity.This is 

particularly but not exclusively true outside the European Union. 

Plantlife International’s Important Plant Areas programme addresses these issues.The 

programme’s objective is to conserve the best sites for wild plant and fungal diversity 

across the globe, by identifying priority sites using robust criteria, sound data and 

specialist knowledge; and by demonstrating and encouraging appropriate conservation 

action on these sites from global to local (site) level. Over 1500 IPAs have now been 

identified in 17 countries pan Europe, and over 60 countries are embarking on IPA 

initiatives worldwide. 

Important Plant Areas (IPAs) are the most important places in 

the world for wild plant diversity.They are identified at national 

level using internationally standardised criteria; the presence of 

threatened species, threatened habitats and species richness. 

IPAs provide a framework to assess the effectiveness of current conservation activities 

for plants and are targets for future action.They provide essential information to 

support the development, implementation and monitoring of environmental policies and 

programmes (e.g. the Convention on Biological Diversity, protected area networks, site 

management plans, Natura 2000 and rural development plans). Important Plant Areas are 

a sub set of Key Biodiversity Areas; sites of global significance for biodiversity 

conservation. KBAs exist for other species groups in South East Europe; BirdLife 

International has identified Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and Butterfly Conservation in 

Europe has identified Prime Butterfly Areas (PBAs). IBAs and PBAs like IPAs, are not 

legal designations, but provide information to assist the prioritisation of sites for 

conservation action. 

Securing the future of IPAs is of the utmost priority to prevent plant diversity loss, 

preferably using a two-way approach; the development of good environmental policy and 

the enforcement of associated legislation (top down), working in parallel with practical 

conservation action driven by the community (bottom up). 

This report is the result of a three-year programme to implement the Important Plant 

Area (IPA) programme in South East Europe, specifically in Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia 

FYR and Montenegro (referred to collectively in the report as the ‘project countries’). 

It complements work that took place within a previous project in Central and East 


KOEN DE RIJCK WWF/DCP 

Introduction 

Flower rich meadow in Bulgaria – a 

product of traditional farming practices. 

7

BORIS ASSYOV 

Introduction 

Extensive spruce forests near Smolyanski 

Lakes in Trigrad-Perelik-Persenk IPA, 

Bulgaria. 

Europe (2001-2004), where IPAs were identified by Plantlife International and partner 

organisations in seven countries. This current report also includes additional 

information on IPA projects in Serbia and Turkey from projects that took place 

independently of Plantlife International but used the accepted IPA methodology. 

The aim of the IPA programme in the South East European project countries was 

twofold: 

● to identify IPAs and collate site based data on their botanical features, protection 

status, management, land use and the major threats affecting them; 

● to demonstrate conservation activities at IPAs through a series of local conservation 

pilot projects, where the starting point was the plants. 

The importance of conserving the South East European flora 

South East Europe or the Balkan Peninsula contains the richest flora of any region in 

Europe. It possesses greater species numbers than any other European region including 

around 1800 endemic vascular plant species (growing only on this peninsula and 

nowhere else in the World).This diversity is a result of the peninsula’s geomorphology, 

climate and the profound affect of human activity. Relict species persist on the Balkan 

Peninsula that found refuge on the mountains formed in the Tertiary uplift and 

associated ice ages. Classic examples in the project countries include the Macedonian 

Pine (Pinus peuce) or the vascular plant genera Haberlea, Jankaea and Ramonda). Since 


that time speciation has been enhanced by the isolation of 

populations on numerous islands and peninsulas that were created 

by sea level changes during the uplift and fracturing of land that 

took place at the end of the Tertiary/early Quaternary. Climatically 

the region is at a ‘cross roads’ of three bioclimatic zones 

(European continental, Eurasian steppe and Mediterranean) 

resulting in a huge range of conditions for different species and 

vegetation types to evolve in. Agricultural practices have been 

influencing the vegetation and landscape of the Balkans for 10,000 

years; burning of vegetation, grazing, deforestation and cultivation 

have all contributed to the diversity of vegetation types and 

associated species. 

A significant percentage of the region’s plant diversity can be found in the mosaic of 

mountains, forest, grasslands, river gorges, lakes and coastlines of the four countries in 

this project.The Balkan and Rhodope Mountains are recognised as global Centres of 

Plant Diversity. It is imperative that the importance of this enormous plant diversity 

should be properly recognised, documented and conserved. The project countries are 

all countries with economies in transition (from state to market based economy). 

Bulgaria is the only partner country currently within the EU.The drive for economic 

prosperity in these countries, as elsewhere, is often sought with little regard for the long 

term security of natural resources, despite the ultimate dependence of all economic 

activity on these resources. Conservationists have a responsibility to ensure the 

economic, social, aesthetic and intrinsic values of this irreplaceable natural heritage is 

fully understood and properly communicated; ensuring that future decisions taken by 

government and civil society on the future use of natural resources are made in the full 

knowledge of the potential consequences for the wild plants, the habitats and the 

inhabitants of this region. 

IPAs and key political initiatives 

The conservation of important areas for plant diversity is embedded within target 5 of 

the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Global Strategy for Plant Conservation 

(GSPC). Endorsed by the Parties to the CBD in 2002, this Strategy recognises the 

importance of conserving plant diversity and has galvanised botanical and conservation 

communities at global, regional and national levels, drawing together plant conservation 

projects and pushing forward plant conservation. 182 governments have ratified the 

CBD including those of the project countries in this project.Target 5 of the Global 

Strategy for Plant Conservation is Protection of 50 per cent of the most important areas for 

plant diversity assured [by 2010]. Plantlife International and IUCN are recognised as 

facilitating organisations for this target, and the IPA methodology a useful tool in its 

implementation. In Europe plant conservationists have responded by developing the 

European Strategy for Plant Conservation (2002, 2007) with regional sub targets 

including two for the conservation of IPAs. 

Important Plant Areas are not designations, but the criteria for identifying them in Europe 

include those required to designate important sites for biodiversity conservation that 

make up the Natura 2000 and the Emerald networks, actions under the EC Habitats 

Directive and the Bern Convention respectively. IPA criteria differ only in their 

consideration of exceptionally species rich sites and crucially, of species that are 


SONYA TSONEVA 

Haberlea rhodopensis. 

Introduction 

9

TONI NIKOLIČ 

Introduction 

Pelijesac IPA, Croatia. 

10 

recognised as threatened by botanical experts, but are not included within the current EU 

legislation. IPAs therefore provide important baseline data that can be used for defining 

these networks, directly contributing to Natura 2000, the Emerald network and other 

European nature conservation legislation which is discussed in more detail in section III. 

Useful references 

Anderson, S., Kusik,T. & Radford, E. [eds.]., 2005. Important Plant Areas in Central and 

Eastern Europe. Plantlife International, London. 

Convention on Biological Diversity, 2002. The Global Strategy for Plant Conservation. 

UNEP/CBD/COP/V/9 

Polunin, O., 1980. Flowers of Greece and the Balkans - A field guide. Oxford University 

Press. New York 1987. 

Planta Europa and the Council of Europe, 2002. Saving the Plants of Europe; the European 

Plant Conservation Strategy. Plantlife International, London. 

Planta Europa, 2008. A Sustainable Future for Europe; the European Strategy for Plant 

Conservation 2008 – 2014. Plantlife International, Salisbury. 


Section II: Important Plant Area 

identification and data analysis 

in South East Europe – 

Overview of IPAs in the four 

project countries 

Summary 

291 IPAs have been identified in the four SEE project countries, 

covering 3,853,934 hectares. 333 species are present on fewer than five IPAs, 

showing the high levels of local endemicity within the project countries. 

Forest and grassland are the most dominant and frequent habitats 

on IPAs. 71% are made up of threatened forest habitats and 61% of 

threatened grassland habitats. Heathland (encompassing garrique, maquis and 

alpine scrub) is a frequent but less extensive component of the vegetation. 

Threatened habitats associated with scree and rocks are not extensive but 

are present on 30% of IPAs and contain a large number of important, tertiary 

relict species. 118 (41%) IPAs are protected at national level (in full 

or part). This varies greatly between countries, as does the level of 

protection. More IPAs have lower levels of national protection.Approximately 

one third of IPAs overlap with Important Bird Area and Important Butterfly 

Areas but significant numbers do not, illustrating the importance of 

considering all species groups when prioritising conservation action. 

Management plans exist for 13 IPAs out of 291, with an additional 

seven plans in progress. Development is the greatest threat to IPAs affecting 

51% of sites followed by poor forestry practices (43%) and land 

abandonment (34%). Forestry, livestock centred agriculture and tourism are 

the three predominant land uses on IPAs in the project countries. 

Croatia 

Montenegro 

Macedonia (FYR) 

Serbia 


Section II: Important Plant Area identification and data analysis 

Bulgaria 

Fig. 1. IPAs in South East Europe 

Turkey 

11

TONI NIKOLIČ 


Globally threatened Degenia velebitica 

found only on the Velebit mountain 

range in Croatia and depicted on the 

50 lipa coin. 

12 

No. and Size of IPAs 

In each country the majority of IPAs are between 1000 and 10,000 hectares. 

Macedonia and Montenegro contain fewer smaller IPAs. 

Bulgaria Croatia Macedonia Montenegro 

FYR 

No.of IPAs 125 97 42 27 

Area ( ha) 1,721,248 964,655 459,425 708,606 

Table 1. Number and area of IPAs in the SEE project countries 

Size range of IPA (ha) Bulgaria Croatia Macedonia Montenegro Total 

FYR 

Qualifying criteria for IPAs 

The majority of IPAs qualify with more than one criterion: 205 IPAs qualify based on the 

presence of threatened species (criterion A), 270 on the presence of threatened habitats 

(criterion C) and 82 for species richness (criterion B). Most IPAs also have more than 

one qualifying feature ie. more than one A species or C habitat even though one is 

sufficient. For example Bistra Mountain (Macedonia FYR) has 19 IPA qualifying features 

but Cesargradska Mountain (Croatia) and Devisha (Bulgaria) have only one each. 

IPAs with Criterion A threatened species 

205 IPAs (70%) in the project countries were identified using Criterion A (the presence 

of significant populations of threatened species) as the qualifying criteria, these are 

broken down into sub categories in the table below. 378 threatened species are present 

within the 291 IPAs in the project countries, and these have been recorded a total of 

997 times across all sites. 



Criterion A Total IPAs Bulgaria Croatia Macedonia Montenegro 

FYR 

Total sites for A (Ai-Aiv) 205 90 52 40 23 

Ai 52 21 11 5 15 

Aii 158 67 42 28 21 

Aiii 73 14 0 23 9 

Aiv 113 40 16 38 19 

HD species 78 30 25 7 16 

BC species 129 60 31 19 19 

Table 3. IPAs containing criterion A threatened plant and fungus species in the SEE project countries 

Ai = global threat;Aii = regional threat;Aiii = threatened national endemic;Aiv = threatened near endemic/limited range; HD = Habitats Directive; BC= Bern Convention. 

155 threatened species are present in only one IPA in the four project countries, 

such as the globally threatened Tulipa rhodopaea on one IPA in Bulgaria and the endemic 

Nepeta ernesti-mayeri in Macedonia. Five species of Campanula (bellflower) and ten 

species of Verbascum (mullein) are also recorded on only one IPA, two of the many 

genera showing remarkable speciation in the region. 333 threatened species 

are present on fewer than 5 IPAs in the four project countries, for example 

Degenia velebitica and Aquilega kitaibelii are found on only two sites in Croatia 

and globally threatened Daphne malyana on four sites in Montenegro. Many 

other species are found on less than 10 sites: the regionally threatened 

Gomphus calactus ( Pig’s Ear Mushroom) and Cypripidium calceolus ( Lady’s 

Slipper orchid) – both found on five sites.That so many species are confined to 

a small number of IPAs, is a reflection of the high levels of speciation and local 

endemicity present in the region, and the potentially precarious situation for 

many of these species should the integrity of the IPAs be threatened. 

Criterion A species present on the EU Habitats Directive lead to the 

qualification of less than 40% of IPAs, compared to 55 % of IPAs qualifying 

through the presence of threatened near endemic/limited range species 

(endemic to the Balkan region).The annexes of the Habitats Directive do not 

VLADIMIR STEVANOVIĆ 

Endemic of the south east Dinaric Alps, 

Daphne malyana inhabits limestone 

rock crevices. 

13


Gomphus clavatus (Pigs ear fungus) 

recorded on only five IPAs. 

COLIN ROSE /CREATIVE COMMONS 

include many plant species that are threatened in South East Europe, due to the Directive 

being designed for use in the European Union. However, in the absence of a European 

Red List, the annexes of Habitats Directive (and those of the Bern Convention) provide 

the best available list of species threatened accross Europe. 

IPAs with Criterion C threatened habitats 

270 IPAs (93%) were identified using criterion C habitats from the EU Habitats Directive 

and the Bern Convention annexes. 152 criterion C threatened habitat types are present 

across all 291 IPAs, which were recorded 1287 times. 16 threatened habitats are 

recorded on only one IPA in the four countries. For example Pannonic sand steppe 

(Bulgaria), Mediterranean salt steppe (Croatia), Bladderwort colonies and tree spurge 

formations (Montenegro) and xerothermophilous formations with Buxus (Macedonia). 

The steppe habitats are ‘’priority habitats’ on the EU Habitats Directive, 

Criterion C Total IPAs Bulgaria Croatia Macedonia Montenegro 

FYR 

Total sites for C (Ci-Cii) 270 109 95 40 26 

Ci 161 72 55 33 1 

Cii 250 93 91 40 26 

HD habitats 251 107 94 37 13 

BC habitats 78 11 3 39 25 

Table 4. IPAs containing criterion C threatened habitats 

Ci = priority threatened habitats as defined by the Habitats Directive 

Cii = threatened habitats; HD = Habitats Directive; BC= Bern Convention. 


IPAs under Criterion B, botanical richness 

80 Croatian IPAs qualified under criterion B, one in Montenegro ( sand dune habitat) 

and one in Macedonia (alpine and sub alpine pastures).The criterion was not used in 

Bulgaria. Use of this criterion was limited to habitats about which there is more 

detailed knowledge. 

Major habitats 

The most frequently occurring habitats on IPAs in south east European project countries are 

forest or woodland (on 81% if IPAs) and grassland (on 76%) and these habitats are dominant 

in 50% of sites where they occur. Heathland is present on 50% of sites but is a less extensive 

component of the vegetation.‘Heathland’ encompasses the garrique and maquis component 

of habitats in the Mediterranean and the sub-alpine scrub in continental regions. 

No. of IP As 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Marine 

Coastal 

unknown 

49% or major cover 

100% cover 

Inland water 

Bog, Mire, Fen 

Grassland 

Heathland 

Woodland 

No or scarce vegetation 

Cultivated 



Constructed 

Fig. 2. Major habitats and their extent on IPAs in the SEE project countries 

Major habitat Cover 

Total no. of IPAs 100% cover >49% or


Cliffs, screes, alpine grassland and forests 

of Dolina Grbaje IPA, Montenegro. 

Threatened habitat types 

on IPAs 

Threatened forests and grassland 

habitats appear on the greatest number 

of IPAs, reflecting the significance of 

these general habitats in the region and 

their importance on a European level. 

European threatened habitats associated 

with scree, rock and stone (e.g. 

calcareous and siliceous rocky slopes 

and screes and eastern Mediterranean 

screes) are present on high numbers of 

IPAs within the project countries.This 

reflects the importance of the vegetation 

associated with high mountain screes 

and the rock faces of deep limestone 

gorges, including unique relict species 

from the tertiary. 

Total IPAs IPAs containing 

Criterion C habitat type containing Ci priority 

habitat type habitat type* 

(% of all IPAs) (% of all IPAs) 

Threatened forest habitats 207 (71%) 68 (26%) 

Threatened grassland habitats 178 (61%) 109 (41%) 

Threatened bog and wetland habitats 22 (8%) 12 (5%) 

Threatened inland water habitats 46 (16%) 0 

Threatened scree/rock/stone habitats 88 (30%) 0 

Threatened scrub and heath habitats 59 (20%) 19 (7%) 

Threatened coastal and halophytic habitats 35 (12%) 4 (2%) 

Threatened dune habitats 13 (4%) 2 (

Protection and management of IPAs 

118 (41%) of the IPAs identified have some sort of protection/designation on at least 

part of the site, which may include more than one protection mechanism (table 7).This 

figure varies dramatically between countries, for example 59% of IPAs are fully or 

partially protected in Bulgaria compared to 18% in Croatia. 

The type of protection can give a greater indication of the level of real protection 

afforded to a site (table 7). Many IPAs are protected in only a small part of the site where 

there is a feature particular of interest (this feature may or maybe not be botanical). For 

example one part of an IPA may be a strict nature reserve (high protection) and the rest 

of the site within a natural park (lower protection).A more detailed analysis of 

protection levels in each of the project countries can be found in the country pages from 

page X. Most of the protected IPAs are under the lowest level of national protection 

(table 8) and 59% percent of IPAs identified have no national protection, a large 

proportion considering that IPAs are of international importance for wild plants. 



Lilium rhodopaeum in Sivino IPA, the 

mountain hay meadow is cut once a year 

and then grazed. 

17 

SONYA TSONEVA


Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Montenegro 

Macedonia FYR 

18 

Total no. Unprotected IPAs with multiple PA Relationship between 

IPAs with IPAs types recognised protected areas and 

protection IPAs (No. of IPAs) 

National 

protection 

on IPAs 

(higher level) 

37 

9 

6 

7 

National 

protection 

on IPAs 

(lower level) 

63 

12 

7 

7 

1 2 3 4 PA PA is PA and 

type types types types contains within IPA 

IPA IPA overlap 

Bulgaria 74 (59%) 51(41%) 50 17 7 0 22 51 1 

Croatia 18 (19%) 79 (82%) 14 3 0 1 1 6 11 

Montenegro 11(41%) 16 (59%) 9 0 2 0 3 6 2 

Macedonia FYR 15 (36%) 27 (64%) 14 1 0 0 10 2 3 

Total 118 173 

(41%) (59%) 

Table 7. IPAs in the SEE project countries with existing protection (all or part) PA = protected area 

The majority of IPAs (over 90% in some countries) in South East Europe should qualify as 

sites of European importance as defined by the EU Habitats Directive and/or the Bern 

Convention, as the criteria for designating sites under these European policies are 

incorporated into the IPA criteria. However in Bulgaria 71 (57%) of IPAs have been 

proposed as SACs under the EU Habitats Directive (table 8).When they are approved by 

the European Commission, they should be the subject of conservation measures to avoid 

their deterioration under article 6 of the Directive and Bulgaria’s commitment to 

biodiversity conservation will be tested. Substantial overlap exists between IPAs and 

potential Natura 2000 networks in Croatia, Montenegro and Macedonia, although active 

measures for conservation are not yet widespread at these sites. 

One of the best indications of conservation management on an IPA is the presence of a 

management plan (and evidence of its implementation). Currently management plans are in 

place for all or part of 13 IPAs out of 291 IPAs identified during the project.An additional 

seven IPAs are the subject of prepared but unapproved plans. Overall this is an extremely low 

percentage for sites of such importance for biodiversity conservation. 

European 

recognition of 

IPAs (as potential SAC & 

Emerald sites*) 

SAC: 71 

Significant overlap with IPAs and 

potential SAC network /existing 

Emerald network 

Emerald: 22 

Emerald: 31 

Table 8 Levels of protection of IPAs in the project countries in SEE 

*SAC= Special Area of Conservation designated under the EU Habitats Directive (part of the Natura 2000 network) 

Emerald site = Site of Nature Conservation Interest designated under the Bern Convention as part of the pan European Emerald Network 

International recognition of 

IPAs (not necessarily 

protected) 


5 

4 

2 

39

Flood plain forest on the edge of Skadar Lake IPA, Montenegro. 

Official protection (through national protected area mechanisms) is not the only way of 

ensuring the future integrity of IPAs, and may not always be the most appropriate. 

Ultimately the key to safeguarding IPAs will be securing appropriate management for the 

plant diversity on each site and this will depend heavily on landowners and managers. 

IPAs and Key Biodiversity Areas 

Important Plant Areas are a sub set of Key Biodiversity Areas; sites of global significance 

for biodiversity conservation. KBAs exist for other species groups in south east Europe; 

BirdLife International has identified Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and Butterfly 

Conservation in Europe has identified Prime Butterfly Areas (PBAs). IBAs and PBAs like 

IPAs, are not legal designations, but provide information to assist the prioritisation of 

sites for conservation action. Within the project countries there is significant overlap 

between some of these sites, around 60 % of IBAs overlap to some extent with an IPA, 

and 65 % of PBAs overlap with an IPA, any conservation measures should take account 

of this breadth of diversity. However a proportion of IBAs, IPAs and PBAs do not 

overlap and are globally significant for one species group only, illustrating the importance 

of considering all species groups when prioritising sites for conservation action. 



Total IPAs No. of IBAs which are No. of PBAs which are 

in some part IPAs in some part IPAs 

(total IBAs)* (total PBAs)* 

Bulgaria 125 47 (114) 32 (50) 

Croatia 97 31 (40) 3 (3) 

Macedonia 42 13 (21) 5 (8) 

Montenegro 27 3 (5) 4 (5) 

Table 9: IPAs, Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and Prime Butterfly Areas (PBAs) in the SEE project countries* 

IBA analysis provided by BirdLife International and PBA data provided by Butterfly Conservation in Europe. See also references below 

ELIZABETH RADFORD 

IBA references: 

Bulgaria: Kostadinova, I. and Gramatikov, M., 

eds. (2007) Important Bird Areas in Bulgaria and 

Natura 2000. Bulgarian Society for the 

Protection of Birds, Sofia. 

http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sites/index.h 

tml?action=SitHTMFindResults.asp&INam=&Re 

g=7&Cty=33 

Croatia: Radovic, D., Kralj, J.,Tutis,V., Radovic, J. 

and Topic, R. (2005) National Ecological Network – 

areas important for birds in Croatia. Institute of 

Ornithology, Zagreb. 

http://www.cro-nen.hr/pdf/publikacije/NEMptice.pdf 

[Note: some of the sites proposed 

await formal confirmation as IBAs by BirdLife 

International 

Macedonia Velevski, M., Hallmann, B., Grubač, 

B., Lisičanec, E., Božič, L., Lisičanec,T., Stoynov, E. 

and Stumberger, B. (in prep.) Important Bird Areas 

in Macedonia. 



g=7&Cty=239 

[Note: some of the sites proposed await formal 

confirmation as IBAs by BirdLife International. 

Montenegro: Puzovic, S. and Grubac, B. 

(2000) Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Pp. 725- 

745 in Heath, M. and Evans, M., eds. Important 

Bird Areas in Europe: priority sites for conservation. 

Volume 2: Southern Europe. BirdLife 

International, Cambridge, UK. 



g=7&Cty=272 

PBA references: 

Van Swaay C.A.M and Warren M.S. (2003) Prime 

Butterfly Areas: Priority sites for conservation – 

National Reference Centre for Agriculture, 

Nature and Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, 

Nature Management and Fisheries.Wageningen, 

The Netherlands. 

Bulgaria: Abadjiev, S. & Beshkov, S. 2007. Prime 

Butterfly Areas in Bulgaria. - Pensoft, Sofia- 

Moscow, 222 pp. [In Bulgarian and English]. 

19


Threats to IPAs in South East Europe 

Threats to IPAs are assessed based on extent, potential damage and timescale to 

produce a ‘high’ ‘medium’ or ‘low’ threat rating. Development and poor forestry 

practices affect the largest number of IPAs in the south east European project countries. 

Development (industry, infrastructure, tourism and urban) affects 51% of all sites, with 

tourism development alone affecting 31%. Ohrid Lake (Macedonia), Nesbar Sand Dune 

(Bulgaria), Mljet Island (Croatia) and Kotor-Risanki Bay World Heritage Site 

(Montenegro) are just a few of those IPAs highly threatened by tourist development. 

Poor forestry practices threaten over 40% of IPAs, deforestation and intensified forest 

management are the main activities responsible. For example, high levels of 

deforestation threaten well known IPAs in Bulgaria; Rila, Strandhza and the Western 

Balkan IPAs. Intensification of forest management is threatening forest habitats on 

Komovi Mountain in Montenegro and in the Crn Drim gorge in Macedonia. 

Land abandonment or reduction of land management is the third most important threat, 

affecting 100 IPAs (over one third of all sites) resulting in loss of biodiversity rich 

grassland habitats as they revert to coarse grassland /scrub when grazing is reduced (see 

also Section IV page 85). this is particularly evident in Croatia for example on Žumberak 

and Bistrinci IPAs. On these IPAs human intervention through active land management is 

necessary to maintain the plant biodiversity. 

Tourism development, deforestation, agricultural intensification through over grazing and 

combined water management threats, show a high or medium level of threat at over 

two thirds of the IPAs where they occur.These threats are frequently associated with 

irreversible activities: building hotels, roads, dykes, dams and drainage channels, and 

removal of forest. Eutrophication and water mismanagement show high levels of threats 

affecting fewer IPAs. Only twelve out of 291 IPAs have no recorded threats at present. 

Kotor-Risanski bay IPA, under huge pressure from tourism. 

20 CONSERVING IMPORTANT PLANT AREAS: INVESTING IN THE GREEN GOLD OF SOUTH EAST EUROPE 

ELIZABETH RADFORD

No. of IP As 

No. of IP As 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

development* 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

poor forestry practices* 

habitat fragmentation* 

land abandonment* 

agricultural intensification 

water mismanagement* 

Fig. 3.Top ten threats affecting IPAs in SEE project countries 

*Development: tourism, urban, industrial and infrastructure development 

*Poor forestry practices: damaging afforestation and deforestation and inappropriate management of forests 

*Water mismanagement: dredging and canalisation, drainage, management systems and constructions of 

dams/dykes. 

*Natural events: flood, drought, fire etc 

aquaculture/fisheries 

extraction* 

intrinsic species factors* 

unsustainable plant exploitation 


other 

invasive species 

climate change 

eutrophication 

unknown 

low 

medium 

high 

n o th reats 

unknown 

low 

medium 

unknown 

natural events* 

no threats identified 

Fig. 4. Other threats affecting IPAs in SEE project countries 

*Extraction:: minerals, quarries and peat extraction 

*Intrinsic species factors: slow growth, density etc 

high 


burning of vegetation 

21


Eryngium alpinum – a European 

threatened species (criterion Aii). 

Species restricted to high mountain tops 

are especially vulnerable to the rising 

temperatures associated with climate 

change. Korab – Dešat IPA. 

22 


The threat to IPAs from climate change 

Climate change has been recorded in this project as a threat that affects only a few IPAs. 

This is surprising in a region where the threatened flora is highly locally endemic, 

frequently associated with the mountains and where many species live in distinct 

ecological niches and display high niche specificity.What is not surprising is that where 

the level of intensity of this threat is recorded it is largely unknown. 

Amongst the conclusions of the report from the Intergovernmental panel on Climate 

Change (Climate Change 2007) is the statement that the effects of climate change in 

Europe will be greatest in the south; particularly the Mediterranean where there will be 

a decrease in available water resources, and in high mountain ecosystems where snow 

cover will decrease and there will be extensive species losses (up to 60% by 2080 in 

some scenarios). IPA teams within the region are all aware of the threat posed by 

climate change to plant diversity, they know that change will come to plant populations 

and vegetation, and it will be profound. Due to the nature of the climate change threat - 

potentially huge, intangible and with no one obvious remedy or solution - quantifying the 

threat at site level in south east Europe has proved very difficult.The site based threats 

recorded for climate change represent the changes that can be quantified with some 

degree of certainty. Undoubtedly further sensitising to the threats posed by climate 

change is needed at grass roots conservation level throughout the region, as elsewhere 

in Europe.The climate change threat is significant and deserves more understanding and 

attention and most importantly, the development of activities that can contribute to 

ameliorating the threat at site/local level. The IPA Zones of Opportunity concept which 

aims to links core areas of IPAs within the wider countryside is a small step in this 

direction and will be explored in section IV. 

MACEDONIAN ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY 



Threat No of IPAs Level of threat 

(% of all IPAs) high medium low unknown 

Development 149 (51%) 49 55 33 12 

a. Development (recreation/tourism) 91 (31%) 32 33 19 7 

b. Development (urbanisation) 48 (16%) 15 12 14 7 

c. Development (infrastructure/transport) 45 (15%) 8 22 11 4 

d. Development (industry) 10 (3%) 4 2 3 1 

Poor forestry practices 124 (43%) 36 48 34 6 

e. Forestry (deforestation) 57 (20%) 20 18 16 3 

f. Forestry (intensified forest management) 53 (18%) 12 30 10 1 

g. Forestry (afforestation) 24 (8%) 4 6 12 2 

Abandonment/reduction of land management 100 (34%) 38 29 19 14 

Agricultural intensification 82 (28%) 26 24 24 8 

h.Agricultural intensification (grazing) 35 (12%) 12 12 9 2 

i.Agricultural intensification (arable) 30 (10%) 9 8 9 4 

j.Agricultural intensification (general) 19 (7%) 5 4 8 2 

k.Agricultural intensification (horticulture) 4 (1%) 1 2 1 0 

Water mismanagement 77 (26%) 37 21 10 9 

l.Water (dredging/canalization) 27 (9%) 14 6 4 3 

m.Water (management systems) 26 (9%) 14 4 3 5 

n. Construction/impact of dyke/dam/barrage 23 (8%) 8 6 5 4 

o.Water 17 (6%) 10 4 3 0 

(extraction/drainage/canalisation/management) 

p.Water (drainage) 11 (4%) 2 7 1 1 

Other 38 (13%) 19 5 9 5 

Invasive species 34 (12%) 9 8 13 4 

Eutrophication 34 (12%) 14 14 4 2 

Natural events (disease/flood/fire/drought/etc) 34 (12%) 11 11 10 2 

Burning of vegetation 33 (11%) 9 11 13 0 

Habitat fragmentation/isolation 26 (9%) 9 10 7 0 

Aquaculture/fisheries 21 (7%) 6 6 7 2 

Extraction (minerals/quarries/peat) 20 (7%) 4 6 9 1 

Intrinsic species factors (slow growth, density) 16 (6%) 5 4 6 1 

Unsustainable plant exploitation 16 (6%) 3 7 5 1 

Climate change/ sea level rise 12 (4%) 1 2 1 8 

Unknown 2 (


Grazing livestock as here in Kotel, East 

Bulgaria is crucial for maintaining high 

diversity grassland. 


24 

Ownership and land use 

61% of IPAs are currently owned (at least in some part) by the state in the project 

countries, 53% have some private ownership and 43% have an ownership that involves 

municipalities. Other significant ownership categories are communal and ‘other’. Five 

IPAs are owned by conservation organisations. 

Forestry, livestock centred agriculture and tourism are the three predominant land uses 

on IPAs in the project countries. Forestry where it occurs often takes place on over 

50% of each IPA. Nature conservation and research activities are also significant, 

reflecting the high percentage of sites under some sort of protective area mechanism 

and thus frequently the subject of ongoing research. 

No. of IP As 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

forestry 

tourism/recreation 

agriculture (animals) 

nature conservation 

Fig. 5.Top ten land uses at IPAs and their extent in SEE project countries 

Further information on land use within the SEE project countries can be found in the 

table overleaf and in the country sections from page 27 

hunting 

agriculture (mixed) 

agriculture (arable) 

unknown 

urban/industrial/transport 

49% or 'major' cover 

100% cover 

fisheries/aquaculture 

water management 



Land Use Cover 

Total 100% >49% 25% - 49%


Fieldwork equipment. 

Collecting specimens for the herbarium. 

26 

TONI NIKOLIČ 

A centralised and accepted Pan-European checklist 

Conservationists are in need of a European checklist of plant species. Probably the most 

promising initiative now is PESI (Pan European Species-directories Infrastructure, 

www.eu-nomen.eu/pesi/). Connection to the Worldwide initiatives as Encyclopedia of 

life (EOL) and (Catalogue of life (COL) is provided in the PESI initiative.This online free 

available list should include Worldwide, European and national Red List status, Habitats 

Directive status etc. of all species as far as available. 

A centralised infrastructure around observation data 

European internet data collection initiatives and the delivery of observation (and 

collection) data that are governed by national communities is growing.A good national 

example is provided by the UK National Biodiversity Network; in Europe similar 

initiatives such as Life Watch are emerging. In the Netherlands the Dutch National 

Database of Flora and Fauna (NDFF), is the central data facility for the Netherlands. It is 

linked to webportals for online observation data entry (like www.telmee.nl and 

www.waarneming.nl).Webportals are beginning to consider international possibilities 

(for example www.observado.org). Observations collected in a country automatically 

reside in national domains and are thus available for conservationists and policy makers. 

National conservation organisations should also be involved in the data validation.Those 

organisations can raise species or species group specialists both volunteer and 

professionals that could validate observations. 

As this infrastructure is highly internet-based, and involves a lot of people working on the 

same national or international species-group, it is very suitable for community building. 



Section III: Important Plant Area 

country reports – national overview of 

IPAs in six countries 

Bulgaria 

By D. Peev,A. Petrova, I.Apostolova, M. Delcheva 

Fig. 6. IPAs in Bulgaria 

Each circle represents one IPA – the diameters of the circles are proportional to the size of the IPA 

Summary 

Bulgaria has 125 Important Plant Areas covering 1,721,248 hectares. Of 

these, 68% qualify through the presence of both threatened species and 

threatened habitats (criteria A and C). Final site selection was also strongly 

influenced by parallel work developing the Natura 2000 network in Bulgaria. 

74 IPAs are either fully or partly within protected areas and many contain 

more than one level of protection. It is anticipated that nearly two thirds 

of IPAs will fall within the Natura network, but more may qualify that may 

be excluded, including a few sites that are vulnerable to tourist 

development. 51 Bulgarian IPAs are currently unprotected. The greatest 

threats to Bulgaria’s IPAs are poor forestry practices and development 

(affecting over 50%) and agricultural intensification (affecting 34%). Half of 

Bulgaria’s IPAs are associated with agriculture and the maintenance of 

traditional farming systems on these sites is crucial, as is the need for 

widespread sustainable forestry practices. 


Section III: Important Plant Area country reports – national overview of IPAs 

National IPA team 

Institute of Botany, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences: 

Apostolova, I.,Assyov, B., Delcheva, M., Dimitrov,V., 

Ganeva,A., Georgiev,V., Gussev, C., Gyosheva, M., 

Meshinev,T., Nacheva, R., Peev, D., Popova, N., 

Tsoneva, S.,Vladimirov,V. Botanical Garden, Bulgarian 

Academy of Sciences: Petrova,A.,Venkova, D. NGO 

Wilderness Fund: Spiridonov, G. Translation: Dimitrova, 

D. For the pilot project the Bulgarian Biodiversity 

Foundation: Angelova, K.,Avramov, S.,Vassilev, R. 

National coordinating organisation: Institute of 

Botany, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences 

National Coordinator: Prof. Dimitar Peev 

Deputy National Coordinator: Dr Antoaneta 

Petrova 

Senior Consultant: Prof.Tenyo Meshinev 

Cooperating organisations/individuals: Ministry 

of the Environment and Waters; National 

Environmental Agency; Regional Inspectorates of 

Environment and Water of Sofia,Varna, Bourgas, 

Pleven, Stara Zagora, Haskovo and Shumen town; 

National and Nature Parks (Directorates) Pirin, Rila, 

Central Balkan; Natural Parks Sinite kamani, Balgarka, 

Vitosha and Shumensko plato; Botanical Garden of 

BAS; Institute of Space Research; the Wilderness Fund, 

the Bulgarian Society for Protection of the Birds; 

Project “Rhodops”; National Museum of Natural 

History, BAS; Faculty of Pharmacy, Medical University; 

State forestry departments in Krumovgrad Town, 

Kirkovo village and Elhovo Town; National 

Gamegrowing Station,Tundzha,Yambol Town; Fund for 

Wild Flora and Fauna; the Mathematic Secondary 

School, Stara Zagora; Sofia University “St. Kliment 

Ohridski”; Forest-Engineering University, Sofia; 

Mechmed,Achmed (local farmer, Zvezdelina village); 

Nyagolov, Konstantin (Expert, Karnobat Town); 

Stoyanova, Milka (local farmer, Simeonovo village). 

Additional data kindly provided by: Project 

“Natura 2000”; State Forestry Agency; experts from 

Sofia University (Department of Botany); National 

Museum of Natural History 

27



Pirin IPA, Bulgaria 

28 

Bulgaria is situated in the north-eastern part of the Balkan Peninsula and covers an 

area of 110 990 km 2 . Her northern boundary is the Danube and Romania; to the east, 

the Black Sea; to the west, Macedonia (FYR) and Serbia; and to the south Greece and 

Turkey.The altitude range is from sea level to 2,925m, the height of Musala peak on 

Rila Mountain, which is the highest summit on the Balkan Peninsula.Two thirds of 

Bulgarian territory is mountainous and forested, with 200 peaks higher than 2000m. 

The fauna and flora of Bulgaria is of special interest due to its intermediate 

(transitional) character between the Central European and the Mediterranean 

biogegraphic zones.The flora is especially rich with an incredible 3900 vascular plants, 

6000 species of fungi, and 6000 algae.This includes a considerable number of 

(mountain) endemics and limited range species. Nearly 190 of Bulgarian’s vascular 

plants are tertiary and glacial relicts; there are 174 endemic plant species, 100 

subspecies, and over 300 Balkan endemics within her territory, the genera Centaurea, 

Cyanus, Dianthus,Thymus , Sedum,Verbascum and Viola, are amongst those rich in 

endemics.The same levels of diversity exist within vegetation and habitat types; 89 

(38.4%) of the 232 European habitats of conservation importance are present in 

Bulgaria. Broadleaf deciduous forests dominated by oak (seven species), and beech 

(three species), are the largest major habitat type in Bulgaria, followed by Picea and 

Pinus dominated coniferous forests and then grassland habitats.There are well 

preserved sand dune habitats along the Black Sea coast. 

Bulgaria became a member of the European Union in January 2007, and is a member 

of the Council of Europe. 


Qualifying IPAs 


Criterion A No. of IPAs Criterion A No. of IPAs Criterion C No. of IPAs 

Tax. Group 

All sites with A species 90 Vascular plants 89 All sites with C habitats 109 

Ai 21 Bryophytes 8 Ci 72 

Aii 67 Lichens 0 Cii 93 

Aiii 41 Algae 0 

Aiv 40 Fungi 22 HD habitats 107 

HD species 30 BC habitats 11 

BC species 60 

Table 12. Qualifying criteria for IPAs in Bulgaria: threatened species and habitats 

Ai = global threat;Aii = regional threat;Aiii = threatened national endemic;Aiv = threatened near endemic/limited range; HD = Habitats Directive; BC = Bern Convention. Ci 

= priority threatened habitats as defined by the Habitats Directive; Cii = threatened habitats. 

Criterion A is used as a single criterion for the selection of 11 IPAs including one site for 

fungi. Criterion C is used as a single criterion for the selection of 28 (23% of the total 

number of sites). 21 sites contain global threatened species in Bulgaria. Endemic species 

are a significant element of the Balkan flora and 80 Bulgarian IPAs contain threatened 

endemic (Aiii) and near endemic (Aiv) species. 30 IPAs contain regionally threatened 

species from the EU Habitats Directive, which does take into account some of the 

regional priorities for conservation in the east of the European Union region. Regionally 

threatened species from the appendix of the Bern Convention are present on 60 sites. 

The Bulgarian IPA team used predominantly threatened habitats from the EC Habitats 

Directive to identify IPAs, this list was modified when Bulgaria acceded to the EU and is 

therefore appropriate. 107 IPAs (86%) contain regionally threatened habitats. Regionally 

threatened habitats from the Bern Convention are present on 11 sites. For further 

information on the Bulgarian IPA selection methodology see appendix 2. 

C. pseudoaxillaris and Centaurea mannagettae – threatened Bulgarian endemic 

species, two of the many Centaurea species restricted to the Balkans. 


KIRIL METODIEV 

29


30 

No. of IP As 

100 


Forest and grassland are the most frequent habitats at IPAs in Bulgaria; they occur on 

over 70% of sites and as a significant component of the vegetation cover. Broadleaved 

woodland occurs at the most sites (83) followed by coniferous forests (16). Dry 

grasslands occur at 75 sites mesic and alpine/sub alpine grasslands at 20 and 13 IPAs 

respectively. Only five IPAs contain a single habitat type (3 dune and 2 steppe habitats). 

The remaining sites contain up to 10 habitats. 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Marine 

Coastal 

Inland water 

Mire, Bog, Fen 

Grassland 

Fig. 7. Major habitats at IPAs in Bulgaria 

Heathland 



Forest 

No vegetation 

u nknown 


100% cover 

Cultivated 

Constructed 

Protected areas in Bulgaria are designated based on the presence of exceptionally high 

plant diversity, therefore it follows that 74 (59%) of Bulgaria’s IPAs have protection in 

some part of the site. Many IPAs contain more than one type of protection. For example 

Strandzha IPA is within Strandzha Natural Park (lower level of national protection), this 

Natural Park contains 4 Strict Nature Reserves (higher level of national protection) and 

all of these are within the IPA. Pomoriysko ezero IPA is a wetland site, part of it is a 

Ramsar site of international importance and a nationally Protected Site, but other parts 

are not protected. 51 Bulgarian IPAs are not currently protected at national level. 

Several of these unprotected IPAs were selected as a result of field work undertaken 

within this project.


Total Un Total no. National National European International 

IPAs protected protected protection protected recognition recognition 

(all or part) (higher level) (lower level) (Emerald (not necessarily 

or potential protection) 

SAC*) 

125 51 (41%) 74 (59%) Strict Nature Natural Park (8) SAC (71) Ramsar wetland 

Reserve (23) site (5) 

National Park (4) Protected site (32) 

Table 13. Protection of IPA in Bulgaria 

*SAC= Special Area of Conservation designated under the EU Habitats Directive (part of the Natura 2000 network). 

Emerald site = Site of Nature Conservation Interest designated under the Bern Convention as part of the pan European Emerald Network. 

It is encouraging for the future of Bulgarian IPAs that 57% are in the final stages of the 

process to include them in the Natura 2000 network as Special Areas for Conservation, 

and will therefore be the subject of conservation measures to avoid their deterioration 

and disturbance (Article 6 of the EC Habitats Directive). However there are 29 IPAs 

that qualify through both criterion A and criterion C and are not proposed for inclusion 

within the Natura 2000 network, including Primorsko Perla Sand dunes, Gabarevo-Elaka, 

Sigmen-Glumche. All of these sites contain species and habitats of European 

importance and some are also prime sites for tourist development. 

Threats to IPAs in Bulgaria 

No. of IP As 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

poor forestry practices 

development 


water mismanagement 


other 

land abandonment 



unknown 

low 

medium 

natural events 

habitat fragmentation 

Fig. 8.Top ten threats affecting IPAs in Bulgaria 



*Water mismanagement: dredging and canalisation, drainage, management systems and constructions of dams/dykes. 

high 

31

SONYA TSONEVA 


New hotel complex threats important 

habitats in Trigrad-Perelik-Persenk IPA. 

Threats to IPAs in Bulgaria strongly reinforce the pattern emerging in the region as a 

whole; poor forestry practices, development (particularly tourist development), 

agricultural intensification and water mismanagement are the greatest threat to IPAs in 

Bulgaria, with land abandonment/ reduction of management close behind. Forestry and 

development related threats are affecting over 50% of sites, as expected given the large 

percentage of IPAs containing forest habitats. 28 sites are affected by ‘other’ threats 

which include non native species planting and chemical pollution of freshwater. In most 

cases the sites are endangered by the complex interaction of several threats, only three 

out of 125 of Bulgaria’s IPAs are classed as unthreatened. 





Poor forestry practices (a-c combined) 68 (54%) 29 20 19 0 

a. Forestry (intensified management) 32 (26%) 11 14 7 0 

b. Forestry (deforestation) 29 (23%) 15 9 5 0 

c. Forestry (afforestation) 11 (9%) 3 1 7 0 

Development (d-g combined) 63 (50%) 24 19 19 1 

d. Development (recreation/tourism) 35 (28%) 16 9 10 0 

e. Development (infrastructure/transport) 20(16%) 4 7 8 1 

f. Development (industry) 9 (7%) 4 2 3 0 

g. Development (urbanisation) 14 (11%) 3 5 6 0 

Agricultural intensification (h-j) 43 (34%) 18 15 10 0 

h.Agricultural intensification (grazing) 22(18%) 11 7 4 0 



Water mismanagement (k-o) 32 (26%) 16 11 5 0 

k.Water (management systems) 15 (12%) 10 3 2 0 

l. Construction/impact of dyke/dam/barrage 7 (6%) 2 3 2 0 

m.Water (drainage) 7 (6%) 1 5 1 0 

n.Water (dredging/canalization) 5 (4%) 3 1 1 0 

o.Water (extraction/drainage/canalisation) 2 (2%) 2 0 0 0 

Other 28 (22%) 16 4 8 0 

Land abandonment 27 (22%) 9 14 4 0 



Natural events 23(18%) 7 7 9 0 

Habitat fragmentation 16 (13%) 8 3 5 0 



Extraction (minerals/quarries/peat) 8 (6%) 4 3 1 0 




No threats identified 3 (2%) 

Table 14.Threats and their intensity (level) at IPAs in Bulgaria 


33


Honey production is common on the IPAs 

of South East Europe. 

34 


Land use 

Forestry activities are dominant in Bulgaria, as are forest habitats.Agricultural land uses 

are associated with over 50% of sites, particularly grazing and haymaking. Many IPAs are 

used for nature conservation and research, common activities on protected areas, of 

which there are a large proportion in the Bulgarian IPA network. IPAs are prime sites 

for nature, so tourism related land uses are also expected. Hunting in Bulgaria is a 

popular pass-time and the third most frequent land use on IPAs. Hunting is for deer, wild 

boar, hare and birds (quail, pheasant, wild ducks and geese). Hunting is allowed over large 

parts of the territory state, municipal and some privately owned lands. It takes place in 

different seasons, for example arable lands are used for hunting hare and quail only after 

harvesting. In most cases hunting has a neutral impact on plant biodiversity. Fossicking 

wild boar open up bare ground for colonisation by woodland plants which can be 

positive, and when the populations are high, hunting quotas increase which can benefit 

the rare bulb species on which they browse. 

No. of IP A s 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

forestry 


hunting 





unknown 



100% cover 

mowing/hay making 

Fig. 9.Top ten land uses and their extent (cover) on IPAs in Bulgaria 

not utilised 


Ownership 

The state and municipal authorities own land within over 70% of IPAs (full or part 

ownership) and 55% of IPAs are at least partially under private ownership. The future 

approach taken to managing the Natura 2000 network in Bulgaria (which overlaps 

considerably with the IPA network) will be a good indication of the level of State 

commitment to the protection of plant diversity.With such a large proportion of IPAs 

under government stewardship, environmental regulations and conservation initiatives 

affecting the Bulgarian IPA network should have a reasonable chance of success. 



The regional inspectorates of the Ministry of Environment and Waters have already 

engaged in IPA conservation initiatives on a small scale (ref. Bulgarian pilot project on 

page 96).Their local knowledge and contacts mean they are ideally placed to influence 

conservation action associated with the IPA network, as are the administrations of the 

National and Natural Parks. Trigrad-Perelik-Persenk IPA. 

Trigrad-Perelik-Persenk IPA 

A large IPA (64,000ha) in the Central 

Rhodope Mountains, containing a mosaic of 

forest, shrub and grassland habitat types. Six 

threatened forest types (criterion C) are 

found here including Moesian silver fir, 

Rhodopide and Balkan Range Scots pine, 

Hellenic beech and (Sub-) Mediterranean 

pine forests with endemic black pines. Other 

important habitats include the alkaline fens, 

endemic oro-Mediterranean heaths with 

gorse,Alpine and subalpine calcareous 

grasslands and calcareous rocky slopes with 

associated chasmophytic vegetation. Fifteen 

criterion A threatened species can be found 

at this site, including Arenaria rhodopaea, 

Haberlea rhodopensis, Secale rhodopeum, 

Sedum kostovii andTrachelium rumelianum.The 

area has a rich bryophyte flora characteristic 

of humid shaded calcareous rocks, including 

10% of the Bulgarian population of the moss 

Buxbaumia viridis, threatened across Europe. 

Part of the site – the region of Trigrad – is a 

Prime Butterfly area and an Important Bird 

Area, as well as being one of the most 

popular tourist destinations in Bulgaria. 

35 

SONYA TSONEVA


Landscape within Strandzha IPA. 

References 

Peev, D., Petrova,A. & Apostolova, I. (eds)., 2009. 

Important Plant Areas of Bulgaria. Institute of Botany, 

BAS. Sofia (In press in Bulgarian and English) 

Asenov,A., 2006. Biogeography of Bulgaria. Sofia.AN 

– DI. (in Bulgarian) 

Assyov, B. & Petrova A. S. eds., 2006. Conspectus of 

the Bulgarian vascular flora. Distribution maps and 

floristic elements. Ed. 3. BBF, Sofia. 

Revised Database Natura 2000, BAS & MOEW, 

2008. 

Kavrakova,V., Dimova, D., Dimitrov, M.,Tsonev, R. & 

Belev,T. eds., 2005. Manual of identification of habitats 

with European significance in Bulgaria, Published by 

WWF, Green Balkans federation of nature 

conservation NGO’s, MOEW, Sofia (in Bulgarian). 

Gyosheva, M., Denchev, C., Dimitrova, E.,Assyov, B., 

Petrova, R.D. & Stoichev, G., 2006. Red List of fungi in 

Bulgaria. – Mycologia Balcanica, 3: 81-87. 

Jordanov, D. (Ed. princ.), 1963. Flora na Narodna 

Republika B lgaria [Flora Republicae Popularis 

Bulgaricae], v. 1 (1963), v. 2 (1964), v. 3 (1966), v.4 

(1970), v. 5 (1973), v. 6 (1976), v. 7 (1979), v. 8 

(1982), v. 9 (1989), v. 10 (1995), [v. 10 as: Flora na 

Republika B lgaria – Flora Reipublicae Bulgaricae]. 

Sofia,Acad. Press. [in Bulgarian] 

Meshinev,T., I.Apostolova,V. Georgiev,V. Dimitrov,A. 

S. Petrova, P.Veen., 2005. Grasslands of Bulgaria. Final 

Report on National Grassland Inventory 2002 – 

2004 (PINMATRA/2001/020). Sofia. Dragon 2003 

Ltd. Publishers. 

Meshinev,T., I.Apostolova.,2005. The habitats in 

Bulgaria. - – In: Petrova,A.V. (ed.). Current state of 

Bulgarian biodiversity – problems and perspectives, 

75-104, Institute of Botany, Sofia 

Natcheva, R., Ganeva,A. & Spiridonov, G., 2006. Red 

List of the bryophytes in Bulgaria. - Phytol. Balcan., 

12(1): 55- 62. 

Peev, D. (ed.). 2009. Red Data Book of Republic of 

Bulgaria.Vol.1 Plants, MOEW - BAS (in press) 

Peev, D., Petrova,A., Spiridonov, G., Meshinev,T., 

Apostolova, I.Tsoneva, S.,Valjovska, N. & Kaneva, Z., 

2005. Bulgaria. In:Anderson, S., Kusik,T. & Radford, 

E. (eds.). Important Plant Areas in Central and 

Eastern Europe: 68-69. Plantlife International, 

London. 

Petrova,A. S. In press. Important Plant Area project in 

Bulgaria.Vascular plant species list. - In: Proceedings 

“5-th European Conference on the Conservation of 

Wild Plants in Europe” Septemper 5-9, 2007, Cluj- 

Napoca, 

Petrova,A.V. (ed.), 2006. Atlas of Bulgarian Endemic 

plants, Sofia. Gea-Libris. 

Petrova,A. & Vladimirov,V. (eds). 2009. Red list of 

Buglarian vascular plants. Phytol. Balcan. 15(1): 63-94. 

Velchev,V. (ed.), 1984. Vol. 1. Plants, p. 196. Publ. 

House of the Bulg.Acad. of Sci., Sofia (in Bulgarian). 

36 

DIMITAR PEEV 

Strandzha IPA 

This site is a Natural Park of 116,068 hectares in south-east Bulgaria. It covers most 

of Bulgarian part of Strandzha Mts, including Black Sea coast and contains five strict 

reserves and 19 other protected areas that are important for plants species and 

habitat diversity.The site holds important relict vegetation, with a total vascular 

flora of about 1500 species (nearly 37% of the Bulgarian flora). Significant habitats 

include: western pontic beech forests with Laurocerassus officinalis, Rhododendron 

ponticum, riparian mixed forests of oak elm and ash, arborescent matorral with 

Juniperus spp., semi-natural dry grasslands, and scrub on calcareous substrates with 

important orchid sites and pseudo-steppe. Strandzha IPA contains 14 criterion A 

species of vascular plants and fungi, including Tulipa thracica,Verbascum 

bugilifolium,Teucrium lamifolium and 100% of the national population of Veronica 

turriliana and Vaccinium arctostaphylos. 12 species of fungi and 15 bryophytes from 

Bulgarian Red Lists also occur.The site is also an Important Bird Area and contains 

a Prime Butterfly Area. 

Recommendations for IPAs in Bulgaria 

Data related 

● Ensure the data gathered on IPAs in Bulgaria is made available to and used by local 

and regional authorities – such as the regional inspectorates for the Ministry of 

Environment and Waters, and the municipalities for use in conservation and to help 

influence planning decisions. 

● Improve the data in relation to ‘lower plants’: bryophytes (mosses and liverworts, 

ferns, fungi and algae) as well as for the gaps about the populations of the flowering 

plants and coverage or rare habitats. 

● Prioritise field research for endemic species where there is no recent data about their 

localities and populations; implement monitoring schemes for populations of critically 

endangered taxa; map the coverage of Criterion Ci (priority) habitats in IPAs. 

Awareness 

● Raise awareness of the IPA network within civil society, encourage individuals and 

organizations to watch over and care for their local IPAs. 

Policy practice 

● Consider using the IPA network for targeted environmental and conservation policy 

for e.g. example biodiversity polices affecting forestry and agriculture, as these sites 

now have baseline data and can be easily monitored. 


Croatia 

By Toni Nikolić 

Fig. 10. IPAs in Croatia 


Summary 

Croatia has 97 Important Plant Areas, covering 964,655 hectares.The 

majority qualify through the presence of both threatened species and 

threatened habitats (criteria A and C).The use of digitised data was an 

important part of the selection process. 

Only 18 IPAs in Croatia are either fully or partly protected at national 

level – the lowest percentage in the project countries. Land abandonment 

is the greatest threat to Croatia’s IPAs, affecting 62% of sites, so 

maintaining rural land management practices will be as a necessity if 

Croatia’s plant diversity is to be secured. Three quarters of IPAs are used 

for tourism and recreation activities. Development threatens 44% of sites 

and 33% are threatened by development specifically associated with 

tourism: coastal and island IPAs are especially vulnerable. 



National IPA team members: Nikolić,T.,Vuković, 

N.,Alegro,A., Štrbenac,A., Bogdanović, S, Mitić, B., 

Britvec, M., Buzjak, S.; Franjić, J.,Topić, J., Radović, J. 

Nenad, J., Milović M., Ruščić M., Jelaska, S.,Vrbek, M. 

National coordinating organisation: Faculty of 

Science, University of Zagreb 

National coordinator: Professor Toni Nikolić 

Cooperating organisations in the national 

team: Faculty of Science, Faculty of Agronomy, Faculty 

of Forestry (University of Zagreb); Museum of Natural 

History; State Institute for Nature Protection; 

Croatian Botanical Society; Institute for Marine and 

Terrestrial Ecology (University of Dubrovnik). 

37


Velebit IPA, Croatia. 

38 

Croatia covers 56,500 km 2 from the Adriatic coast to the mountains of the north 

plus 31,067 km 2 of territorial waters. Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and 

Montenegro, and Hungary all share borders with Croatia.There are four 

biogeographic zones: Pannonic, Continental,Alpine and Mediterranean which 

contain large numbers of Balkan endemic plants and a rich mosaic of plant 

communities. 

Lowland Croatia is bordered by the Sava, Mura, Drava and Danube rivers. Large 

areas of wet oak-woods contain the greatest biological diversity of the region, with 

significant populations of threatened European bird species. Rivers, marshes and 

carp ponds are important habitats for migratory water-fowl.Wet meadows and 

pastures, remnants of inland dunes and the most westerly elements of steppe flora 

and fauna are also present in this region. Highland Croatia consists of a section of 

the Dinaric Alps; a ridge of karst (limestone) stretching parallel to the coast from 

the north-west to the south-east of the 

country.The highest peak is Dinara at 

1,831m.The major habitats are the 

beech and fir forests which contain wolf, 

brown bear and lynx; the high mountain 

rock and scree with unique endemic and 

relict mountain flora and fauna 

(e.g.Velebit degenia and Martino’s snow 

vole); and remnants of the most 

southerly European heaths.The 

geomorphological diversity is immense; 

8,000 registered phenomena include 

caves, pits, rocks, ravines, karst valleys 

and natural lakes containing unique 

aquatic fauna. Coastal and insular 

Croatia covers the littoral zone, and 

forms the most indented part of the 

Mediterranean coast, with 6116 km of 

coastline including 1,231 islands, islets 

and reefs.The major natural features are 

the coastal forests and their succession 

stages (evergreen holm oak, deciduous 

forests of pubescent oak), the stony 

limestone coast the islands, and the 

rivers, marshes and lakes of the Adriatic 

catchment area. 

TONI NIKOLIĆ 

Croatia is a member of the Council of 

Europe and an accession state to the 

European Union. 


Qualifying criteria 




Tax. Group 







BC species 31 

Table 15. Qualifying criteria for IPAs in Croatia 

Ai = global threat;Aii = regional threat;Aiii = threatened national endemic;Aiv = threatened near endemic/limited 

range; HD = Habitats Directive; BC = Bern Convention. Ci = priority threatened habitats as defined by the 

Habitats Directive, Cii = threatened habitats on the Habitats Directive and the Bern Convention. 

82 (84%) of Croatia’s IPAs qualify with more than one criterion, and all but two sites 

qualify under criterion C (presence of threatened habitats). Fifteen sites qualify on one 

criterion only; 13 IPAs through criterion C and two 2 through criterion B. Eleven IPAs 

contain globally threatened species in Croatia.The country has many national vascular 

plant endemics endemics, but fewer threatened endemics than the other project 

countries, as the endemic taxa are found mostly in undisturbed locations. Many sites 

contain threatened near endemic (Balkan endemic) species. Most IPAs contain regionally 

threatened species (42) and habitats (95) that are present on European legislation 

(qualifying under Aii, Ci and Cii). In Croatia, as in Bulgaria, threatened habitats from the 

EC Habitats Directive were used to identify IPAs, as Croatia is already compiling this 

information in preparation for entry into the EU. For more information on the approach 

to IPA selection in Croatia see appendix 2. 

TONI NIKOLIĆ 

Convolvulus cneorum, a relict 

species endemic to the Croatian 

islands and coast. 

39


40 

Major habitat at IPAs in Croatia 

Forest (woodland) and grassland habitats are the most frequent on IPAs in Croatia, 

occurring on 93% and 87% respectively. In Croatia, more than elsewhere, IPAs are 

formed from a mosaic of different habitats; heathland, cultivated and constructed 

habitats are present up to 25% in two thirds of IPAs. Broadleaved woodland is the most 

frequent forest habitat (78 sites), followed by broadleaved evergreen woodland (33) and 

coniferous woodland (28). Dry grasslands are frequent component of the IPA network, 

but there are also higher numbers of IPAs with seasonally wet or wet grassland (33) 

than in other parts of the region. Garrique (33) and temperate and mediterraneomontane 

scrub (30) are important heathland habitat components of Croatia’s IPAs.Two 

habitats are represented at only one site: sub littoral rock and inland saline grass and 

herb dominated. 

No. of IP As 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Marine 

unknown 


100% cover 

Coastal 

Inland water 


Grassland 

Heathland 

Fig.11. Major Habitats at IPAs in Croatia 

Woodland 

Protection and management of IPAs Croatia 

No vegetation 

Cultivated 

Constructed 

Over 80% of IPAs in Croatia are not currently protected at national level, 18 IPAs 

overlap with existing protected areas (Parks of Nature or National Parks) in four cases 

the area of the IPA is greater than that of the protected area, 14 IPAs and Protected 

Areas overlap 100%.A number of IPAs have more that one type of protection associated 

with them, where the smaller Strict Nature Reserves are within National Parks or Parks 

of Nature, for example at Gorski kotar – Kupa valley and Velebit IPAs. 

The government of Croatia is currently working on the identification and designation of 

Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) for the Natura 2000 network.The indications are 

that following the designation of the Natura 2000 network, the percentage of IPAs 

under protection – at least on paper - will increase.As the criteria used for identifying 


IPAs include those used for SACs, the Croatian IPA inventory will provide site-based 

baseline data needed for this process, and thus can act as a guide to ensure appropriate 

sites are finally designated. 






SAC*) 

97 79 (82%) 18 (19%) Strict Nature Park of Significant overlap Ramsar wetland 

Reserve (3) Nature (12) with the Natura site (3) 

National Park (6) 2000 network – Biosphere 

no precise data reserve (1) 

available 

Table 16. Protection of IPAs in Croatia 

*SAC = Special Area of Conservation designated under the EU Habitats Directive (part of the Natura 2000 network) 


Threats to IPAs in Croatia 

The top ten threats to IPAs in Croatia are similar to those throughout the region, but 

the issue of land abandonment is far greater than elsewhere in the project countries and 

is the greatest threat to Croatian IPAs, affecting 62% of sites. Development related 

threats affect 44% of sites.The influence of climate change is only broadly assessed and 

remains unknown for many sites. 

No. of IP As 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

land abandonment* 

development* 

water mismanagement* 


poor forestry practices* 


invasives 

other 

extraction* 

unknown 

low 

medium 

natural events* 


Fig.12.Top ten threats affecting IPAs in Croatia 



*Water mismanagement dredging and canalisation, drainage, management systems and constructions of dams/dykes. 

high 

41




Abandonment of land 60 (62%) 28 12 6 14 

Development ( a. - c. combined) 43 (44%) 11 17 6 9 




Water mismanagement ( d.-h. combined) 25 (26%) 9 5 2 9 

d.Water (management systems) 11 (11%) 4 1 1 5 

e.Water (dredging/canalization) 10 (10%) 4 3 0 3 

f. Construction/impact of dyke/dam/barrage 8 (8%) 2 0 2 4 

g.Water (drainage) 4 (4%) 1 2 0 1 

h.Water (extraction/drainage/canalisation) 3 (3%) 1 2 0 0 

Agricultural intensification ( i. - l. combined) 21 (22%) 7 2 7 5 



k.Agricultural intensification (grazing) 2 (2%) 1 1 0 0 

l.Agricultural intensification (horticulture) 1 (1%) 0 0 1 0 

Poor forestry practices ( m.-o. combined) 15 (15%) 1 6 3 5 

m. Forestry (afforestation) 10 (10%) 0 4 4 2 

n. Forestry (deforestation) 6 (6%) 1 2 1 2 

o. Forestry (intensified forest management) 2 (2%) 0 1 0 1 

Consequences of invasive species 12 (12%) 4 2 4 2 

Other 10 (10%) 3 1 1 5 

Extraction (minerals/quarries) 8 (8%) 0 2 5 1 










Table 17.Threats and their intensity (level) at IPAs in Croatia 


Land use 

75% of IPAs are used for tourism and recreation, and 39% for nature conservation 

research, all reflecting the high nature value of Croatian IPAs.Agriculture and forestry 

land uses are high as expected based on the predominant habitat types. Hunting, the 

sixth most frequent land use, is by concession in Croatia, its affect on plants and 

vegetation is not perceived to be an important conservation issue. 

No.of IP As 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 


agriculture (arable) 


forestry 


Fig. 13.Top ten land uses on IPAs in Croatia 


hunting 



unknown 



100% cover 

not utilised 


Ownership 

The state authorities own land within over 50% of IPAs (full or part 

ownership) and 53% of IPAs are at least partially under private ownership. 

28 sites have a communal element to ownership. Land owners are critical 

stakeholders in any process to secure good conservation management of 

these sites, but information on land ownership is one of the most difficult to 

collect, particularly regarding the sites that are not in state ownership. In 

theory with such a large proportion of IPAs under government stewardship, 

environmental regulations and conservation initiatives affecting the Croatian 

IPA network should have a reasonable chance of success. 

The level of sympathy of private landowners to conservation is difficult to 

judge in Croatia and currently there may be more scope for conservation 

measures with the state owned sites.The key to engaging private land owners 

may be the provision of incentives through agricultural policy (to which 

Croatia is committed through the Kiev resolution). Site based plant 

conservation activity at Pantan IPA in this project has succeeded in gaining the 

cooperation of private land owners (see section V) and also initiatives led by 

the State Institute for Nature to engage volunteers in monitoring. 

Abandonment of land and loss of traditional farming 

practices is a huge threat to Croatia IPAs. 


43


Centaurea ragusina, on Palagruza IPA – 

endemic to the islands and coast of 

Croatia. 

References 

Nikolić T.,Topić J.,Vuković N. eds., 2009. In 

press: Important Plant Areas in Croatia. Faculty 

of Science, University of Zagreb & Školska 

knjiga d.o.o., Zagreb. (English version) 

Nikolić T.,Topić J.,Vuković N. eds., 2009. In 

press : Područja Hrvatske osobito značajna za 

floru. Prirodoslovno-matematički fakultet, 

Sveučilište u Zagrebu & Školska knjiga d.o.o., 

Zagreb. (Croatian version) 

Martinić, I. ed., 2000. An overview of the state of 

biological and landscape diversity of Croatia with the 

protection strategy and action plans. Ministry of 

Environmental Protection and Physical Planning, 

Zagreb, i-xix, 3-158. (www.biodiv.org/world/reports) 

Nikolić T., 2003 Preliminary Analysis of a Potential 

Network of IPAs, Croatia. Zagreb. 

Nikolić,T.;Topić, J., 2005. Red Data Book of Vascular 

Flora of Croatia. Ministarstvo kulture, Državni zavod za 

zaštitu prirode, Zagreb, 1-693. (also available as on-line 

version http://hirc.botanic.hr/fcd/CrvenaKnjiga/) 

Nikolić T. ed., 2008. Flora Croatica Database On-Line 

(http://hirc.botanic.hr/fcd) Department of Botany, 

Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb. 

TONI NIKOLIĆ 

Palagruža IPA 

Palagruža is a small and remote archipelago in the southern Adriatic Sea. It is 

surrounded by deep sea and was not connected to the mainland during the periods 

of glaciation. This long isolation has resulted in the evolution of many new taxa and 

the island has a rich paleoendemic flora.The only inhabitats of the archipelgo are 

two lighthouse keepers. 

Neretva Delta IPA 

The Neretva Delta is the 

largest remaining 

wetland on the Croatia 

coast, containing unique 

plants and habitats 

threatened by land 

reclamation and drainage 

projects, such as the 

halophytic (salt loving) 

communities.The site is 

also an Important Bird 

Area and a Ramsar site. 

Recommendations for IPAs in Croatia 

For identification and monitoring 

● Systematic taxa and habitat mapping activities on national level to fill the gaps in 

information, and to ensure more objective spatial evaluation of the state territory. 

This will benefit the creation of the Natura 2000 network and the national 

ecological network. 

● Continue with the education of volunteers to support these activities. 

For IPA conservation 

● Ensure the implementation of Natura 2000 and the associated necessary 

conservation measures work for IPAs. 


TONI NIKOLIĆ 

TONI NIKOLIĆ

Macedonia – FormerYugoslav Republic 

By Ljupcho Melvoski,Vlado Matevski and Natalija Angelova 

Fig. 14. IPAs in Macedonia (FYR) 


Summary 

Macedonia (FYR) has 42 Important Plant Areas, covering almost 18% of the 

country’s territory. Only 13 of these are protected at national level. 

Conservation measures within IPAs in national parks include measures for 

forests, but not for plant species.Although Macedonia has ratified almost all 

conventions for biodiversity protection, the conservation status of plants 

and habitats is not favourable. Remarkably, for such a unique flora, only 

eight Macedonian plant species are present on the EC Habitats Directive, 

illustrating the need for amending this, should Macedonia join the EU. 

Forestry and stock based agriculture is the predominant land use on 

Macedonian IPAs. Poor forestry practices threaten 69% of sites, mostly at 

high threat intensity.Wetlands are also particularly threatened and a third 

of IPAs suffer from water mismanagement, notably from dams and 

hydropower units.The majority of IPAs are owned by the state but 

denationalisation is ongoing and private land owners will be important 

stakeholders in future conservation activities. 



National IPA team members: Melovski, Lj., 

Matevski,V., Karadelev, M., Kostadinovski, M.,Avukatov, 

V.,Angelova, N., Melovski, D. (in the pilot project 

activities). 

National coordinating organisation: Macedonian 

Ecological Society 

National coordinator: Natalija Angelova 

Cooperating organisations in the national team: 

Institute of Biology, Faculty of Natural Sciences and 

Mathematics; Museum of Natural History; Public 

Institution “National Parks of Macedonia”; Ministry of 

Environment and Physical Planning; Faculty of 

Forestry; Mountaineering Club “Ljuboten”. 

45

LJUPČO MELOVSKI 


Belasica IPA, Macedonia 

Macedonia (FYR) covers an area of almost 26,000 km² with mountain terrain in 

the west and east, and lowland habitats in the centre. Macedonia borders Bulgaria, 

Greece,Albania, Kosovo and Serbia and contains two biogeographic zones, the 

Alpine and the Continental but the biogeographic division used within the country 

is of a finer scale and includes sub-mediterranean and pontic steppes.The valleys 

located deep in the continental part have a strong Mediterranean influence. 

Macedonia has comparatively a very high level of local and Balkan endemic species, 

and relict species in the mountains, forests and “steppes” of the lowlands. 3.6% of 

the vascular flora is endemic including two endemic bryophyte species and 114 

endemic vascular plant species (including one fern) for e.g. Heptaptera macedonica, 

Hedysarum macedonicum, and multiple endemic species from the genera Alkanna, 

Centaurea, Silene,Verbascum and Viola. The percentage of near endemic (Balkan 

endemic) species is considerably greater including the notable Ramonda nataliae, 

Pinus peuce and Stipa rechingeri.Although the flora is well studied, there are often 

records for new species (even newly described). Many species reach the borders 

of their range in the territory; the southern border for boreal and alpine species, 

northern for Mediterranean species and western border Ponto-Caspian and Asia 

Minor elements.The diversity of plant communities is also high. 

Macedonia (FYR) is a member of the Council of Europe. 


42 IPAs have been selected in Macedonia using all three criteria.Twelve of them are 

cross border IPAs with neighbouring countries. Many of the IPAs cover wide areas 

(mountain massifs) and some have a relatively small area (some wetlands and sites with 

steppe-like vegetation. 


Tax. Group 




Aiii 23 Algae 0 HD habitats 38 

Aiv 38 Fungi 13 BC habitats 40 

HD species 9 

BC species 24 

Table 18. Qualifying criteria for IPAs in Macedonia: threatened species and habitats 

Ai = global threat;Aii = regional threat;Aiii = threatened national endemic;Aiv = threatened near endemic/limited range; Ci = priority threatened habitats as defined by the 

Habitats Directive Cii = threatened habitats; HD = Habitats Directive; BC = Bern Convention. 


All but three IPAs in Macedonia qualify under both criterion A and criterion C. Five sites 

contain globally threatened species, however many endemic and near endemic species in 

Macedonia have yet to be properly assessed and the flora may prove more threatened 

than current lists suggest. Threatened endemic species (Aiii) are present at 50% of 

Macedonian IPAs and threatened near endemic species (Aiv) at 90% of sites, however 

IPAs in Macedonia contain only eight species listed on the EC Habitats Directive: 

Aldrovanda vesiculosa L, Marsilea quadrifolia L., Ramonda serbica Pancic, Lindernia 

procumbens (Krocker) Philcox, Ranunculus degenii Kummerle & Jav, Astragalus physocalyx 

Fisch., Ranunculus cacuminis Strid & Papan and Thymus oehmianus Ronninger & Soška.This 

underlines the ineffectiveness of this directive for prioritising plant species requiring 

conservation measures in parts of south east Europe.The Macedonian team were able 

to use the threatened habitats list from the Habitats Directive, as for the most part 

these can be easily matched to those of the pan European Bern Convention, a more 

familiar system in Macedonia. For more information on how IPAs were selected in 

Macedonia, see Appendix 2. 




Forest (woodland) and grassland habitats are the most frequent on IPAs in Macedonia, 

occurring on 85% and 67% of IPAs respectively, where these habitats occur they often 

are the dominant vegetation types, especially on the 18 mountainous IPAs.The most 

common forests are broad leaved deciduous woodland (on 34 IPAs) and broadleaved 

evergreen woodland (23) and coniferous forests (9). Of the grassland habitats, dry 

grasslands are the most frequent (on 20 IPAs), then alpine and sub alpine grassland (12). 

Sparsely or non- vegetated habitats are also common on Macedonian IPAs occurring on 

60% of IPAs.These habitats include the vegetation associated with screes and rock on 

mountain IPAs (5), but largely reflects the importance of inland cliff habitats for plants in 

Macedonia (25 IPAs) especially those associated with deep river gorges (8 IPAs). Alshar IPA. 

47 

LJUPČO MELOVSKI


No. of IPAs 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Marine 

Coastal 

Inland water 


Fig. 15. Major habitats at IPAs in Macedonia 


unknown 

Minor cover 

Major cover 

Grassland 

Heathland 


Woodland 

No vegetation 

Cultivated 

Constructed 

Only 13 IPAs (31%) are within protected areas in Macedonia (three national parks, two 

strict natural reserves and seven monuments of nature).Two of the national parks more 

or less overlap with corresponding IPAs and National Park “Mavrovo” contains three 

IPAs. However most of the conservation measures in national parks are concerned only 

with game animals and forests. Strict natural reserves were established mainly for bird 

conservation, with the plant component (wetland habitats and some other species), not 

recognised as being important. Monuments of Nature do not have management 

administration and no conservation measures are applied.The exception is Matka 

canyon, which is part of the Treska Gorge IPA.This is the only locality of Thymus 

oehmianus (Ai species), which was formerly considered extinct. In spite of this, water 

management practice is threatening rare flora and fauna in the canyon (recently one dam 

was constructed and one is in the stage of construction). Other sites (IBAs, PBAs and 

Ramsar sites) are not included in the national protected area system. 

It is important to note that recent process of designating Emerald sites has made an 

attempt to compensate for the gaps from previous times. 31 or 74% of IPAs overlap 

with Emerald sites and almost 89% of all Emerald sites are IPAs (31 out of 35). 





SAC*) 

42 26 (69%) 13 (31%) Strict Nature Monument Emerald sites Ramsar wetland 

Reserve (2)* of Nature (7)* (31) site (1) 

National Park (5) IBA (18) 

PBA (10) 

Table 19. Protection of IPAs in Macedonia FYR 

* Strict Nature Reserve “Ezerani” overlaps with the Monument of Nature “Prespa Lake”

Threats affecting IPAs in Macedonia 

The top four threats to IPAs in Macedonia reflect the pattern for the whole south east 

European region. Poor forestry practises including non timber forest product collection 

threaten nearly 70% of IPAs (29 sites) and, in the majority, the threat is at its highest 

level. Much of the forest is owned and controlled by the state and there is a well 

established system of wood cutting, although not perfect it does not threaten the 

survival of plant species.There is a threat from illegal cutting which is recognised by the 

officials in the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management.The problem has 

intensified since the conflict in 2001 because of the limited control that can be exerted 

by the state forestry inspectors over large territories.This, along with rising poverty 

during the last decade, causes increased pressure on forests. 

Development is a concern at over 50% of sites – predominantly tourist development and 

agricultural intensification (over grazing) and water mismanagement at around 30%. Where 

water mismanagement occurs the threat level is usually high or medium.There is 

considerable concern about canalisation and drainage in Macedonia and four IPAs are 

threatened by the construction of dams. In January 2008, the Ministry of Economy approved 

400 small hydroelectric power plant concessions across Macedonia, each lasting 20 years. 

Many of these concessions lie within IPAs or existing protected areas and Emerald sites 

(future Natura 2000 sites) and could devastate the biodiversity in the areas concerned. 

17% of IPAs are also affected to a lesser extent by land abandonment where once 

overgrazed pastures are suffering from scrub encroachment as sheep flocks have 

undergone a huge reduction the last 50 years. For example on Galičica Mountain one 

hundred sheep graze now where up to 30,000 were grazing in 1968. On Bistra 

Mountain IPA 120,000 sheep grazed prior to World War II, these have been reduced to 

less than 20,000.The problem is not as advanced as in some of the new member states 

of the European Union, but if efforts are not made to improve the situation for rural 

shepherds, the threat could increase. 

There are no IPAs without any threats affecting them. 

No. of IP As 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

poor forestry practices 

development 



intrinsic species factors 


habitat fragmentation 




unknown 

low 

medium 

high 

unsustainable plant exploitation 

extraction 

Fig 16.Top ten threats affecting IPAs in Macedonia FYR 





A dam generates hydroelectric power in 

the Matka gorge IPA, site of globally 

threatened Thymus oehmianus – 

numerous Macedonian IPAs are 

threatened by potential hydropower 

developments. 

49




Poor forestry practises (a - c combined) 29 (69%) 21 7 1 0 

a. Forestry (deforestation) 13 (31%) 0 6 6 1 

b. Forestry (afforestation) 1(2%) 0 1 0 0 

c. Forestry (intensified forest management) 18 (43%) 0 15 3 0 

Development (d - g combined) 22 (52%) 5 11 4 2 

d. Development (recreation/tourism) 12 (29%) 2 7 2 1 

e. Development (urbanisation) 8 (19%) 3 3 2 0 

f. Development (infrastructure/transport) 7 (17%) 1 5 1 0 

g. Development (industry) 1(2%) 0 0 0 1 

Agricultural intensification (h-k combined) 15 (36%) 1 4 7 3 

h.Agricultural intensification (grazing) 9 (21%) 0 2 5 2 

i.Agricultural intensification (general) 3 (7%) 0 0 2 1 

j.Agricultural intensification (horticulture) 3 (7%) 1 2 0 0 

k.Agricultural intensification (arable) 2 (5%) 0 2 0 0 

Water mismanagement (l-m combined) 14 (33%) 7 4 3 0 

l.Water (extraction/drainage/canalisation) 11 (26%) 6 2 3 0 

m. Construction/impact of dyke/dam/barrage 4 (10%) 1 2 1 0 






Extraction (minerals/quarries) 3 (7%) 0 0 3 0 


Unknown 2 (5%) 0 0 0 2 


Eutrophication 1(2%) 1 0 0 0 

Natural events (disease/flood/fire/drought) 1(2%) 1 0 0 0 

Table 20.Threats and their intensity (level) at IPAs in Macedonia FYR 


Land use in Macedonia 

As expected from the habitat analysis, forestry and animal based agriculture are the 

predominant land uses on IPAs – on 71 % and 67% of sites respectively.Tourism and 

recreation, nature conservation and research and other forms of agriculture take place 

to on many fewer sites and largely to a much lesser extent. 

No. of IP As 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Forestry 

Ownership 

Agriculture (animals) 

Tourism/recreation 

Agriculture (arable) 

Agriculture (mixed) 

Fisheries/aquaculture 

Nature conservation 



'minor' cover 

'major' cover 

Agriculture (horticulture) 

Other 

Urban/industrial/transport 

31 IPAs (74%) are owned in some part by the state and 10 (24%) by private owners and 

8 (19%) include mixed ownership.These data must be treated with caution as the 

process of denationalisation (that began after the political changes of 1991), is still in 

progress and the situation remains unclear. Some forest areas must still be reclaimed by 

private owners. It should, in theory, be easier to undertake (plant) conservation activities 

on state owned land, but in order to conserve IPAs for the future it will be necessary to 

engage private land owners and civil society.This is certainly possible on a small scale in 

Macedonia with key interest groups (see pilot project on page 104).The challenge will 

be making the safeguarding of these sites of relevance and importance to the whole 

community through the delivery of improved livelihoods in and around IPAs. 

51


Fritillaria gussiachiae, threatened in 

Europe. 

Dryas octopetala, a boreal-artic relict 

species. 

52 


Galičica IPA (including Stara Galičica, Kazan, Vojtina, 

Tomoros, Lako Signoj, Poljce, Petrina) 

Galičica is a cross border IPA with Albania in the south west of Macedonia.This site 

represents the Boreal biogeographic region and Middle-South-European mountain 

biogeographic region (both in the Scardo-Pindic province). 21 threatened species have 

been recorded on this site including three species of global conservation concern: 

Fritillaria gussichiae, Malus florentina and Pinus heldreichii var. leucodermis. Some species 

are especially important for plant conservation due to their extremely small range 

(Crocus cvijicii, Centaurea soskae,Ajuga piskoi, Rindera graeca) or over exploitation 

(Nepeta ernesti-mayeri and Sideritis raeseri).15 species have their locus classicus at this 

site (the place where they were first collected and described). Ramonda serbica 

Habitats Directive and Bern Convention species is also present. 

Most of the IPA is within Galičica National Park, land uses include nature 

conservation research, agricultural and forestry activities and limited tourism. 

Tourist activities are likely to increase in the future as the adjacent Ohrid Lake is a 

famous tourist destination.Threats include development of tourism and intensified 

forest management (including some parts of the park). In recent years there has 

been concern about the decline of grazing agriculture at the site, which will lead to 

a change in the floristic diversity as well as the social issues associated with 

declining rural livelihoods. 

Nidze IPA (including Kajmakcalan, Belo Grotlo, Zmejca, 

Dobro Pole) 

Nidze is a cross border IPA with Greece.This site also represents the boreal and 

Middle-South-European mountain biogeographic regions. Its silicate peak 

Kajmakchalan (2512 m) contains alpine habitats and the large limestone massifs of 

Belo Grotlo and Zmejca are known for their rich plant diversity. Molika pine (Pinus 

peuce) is one Balkan endemic that can grow on limestone bedrock. 

20 threatened species have been recorded in this site including: 

Linum elegans var. iberidifolium, Aconitum divergens, Pyrola chlorantha, 

Dryas octopetala, Huperzia sellago, Saxifraga pedemontana ssp. 

cymosa, Saxifraga stellaris ssp. alpigena, Silene ciliate,Trollius europaeus, 

Veronica bellidioides, Stachys viridis. Globally threatened Ranunculus 

cacuminis also occurs and the narrow endemics Dianthus 

kajmakzalanicus and Silene horvatii.The IPA contains nine 

threatened habitats.The land is used for forestry and to a lesser 

extent agriculture. Currently the threats (all at a low level) include 

land abandonment and intensified forest management. Hunting is 

common in the IPA and some times plant hunters overexploit 

plant resources (medicinal and aromatic plants). Gentiana punctata 

is the most threatened plant species on Kajmakchalan. 

BORIS ASSYOV 


Recommendations for IPAs in Macedonia (FYR) 

Data 

● Habitat maps are urgently needed.A lack of habitat maps for the whole territory is 

the main obstacle for nature conservation in Macedonia (for e.g. the elaboration of 

Environment Impact Studies is hampered by this). Some mapping has begun in the 

national parks but a comprehensive mapping project is needed. 

● Development of a national Red List.The criterion A lists developed for this project 

could provide a good starting point for this initiative in Macedonia. 

Policy practice 

● It is important to use IPA knowledge in Macedonia and the IPA database in 

preparation of the future national Natura 2000 network.The preparation of national 

ecological network (an obligation under PEBLDS) is currently in progress, being led 

by the NGO sector, this too will benefit from the IPA project. 

● Commitment to, and action for nature conservation is needed from the highest to 

lowest administrative levels.The relevant administrations, though hampered by lack of 

resources and capacity, lack commitment to the development and implementation of 

policy, it is very difficult to make progress in the field of conservation at ground level. 



Pastures, beech forests, karst slopes and 

rocky outcrops of Galičica IPA. 

References 

Melovski, Lj., Matevski,V.,Angelova, N., 

Kostadinovski, M. and Karadelev, M., 2009. In 

press: Important Plant Areas of Macedonia. 

Macedonian Ecological Society. (In 

Macedonian) 

Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning, 2002, 

2005, 2007. Reports on the pilot, second and third projects 

on the realization of pilot project for the development of 

Emerald network in the Republic of Macedonia. (In 

Macedonian) 

Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning, 2003. 

Country study for biodiversity of the Republic of 

Macedonia. Skopje. 

Velevski, M., Hallmann, B., Grubač, B., Lisičanec,T., 

Stoynov. E., Lisičanec, E., Božič, L. and Štumberger, B., 

2009. Important bird areas in Macedonia: Overview of 

present knowledge and identification of future activities. 

Manuscript, 20 pp. 

http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sites/index.html?act 

ion=SitHTMFindResults.asp&INam=&Reg=7&Cty=239 

53 

LJUPČO MELOVSKI

RAYNA NACHEVA 


Buxbaumia viridis – one of many bryophytes that are threatened in Europe. 


Montenegro 

By Danka Petrović 

Fig. 18. IPAs in Montenegro 


Summary 

The IPA project in Montenegro has been exceptionally well publicised and 

received a high level of positive public interest. Montenegro has 27 IPAs, 

covering 708,606 hectares.There is good coincidence between the 

Montenegrin IPA network and the Emerald Network (designated under the 

Bern Convention) and 11 IPAs are protected either fully or partially. 

However, this leaves nearly 60% of Montenegro’s IPAs unprotected. Other 

than National Parks,‘protected areas’ in Montenegro do not have 

management plans or any regulation of potentially damaging activities. 

Most IPAs in Montenegro are owned part by the state and part by private 

land owners. Tourism and recreation is the dominant land use at 81% of 

sites and thus, unsurprisingly, development threatens 78%, with over half of 

the sites threatened specifically by tourist development.This is a particular 

problem on the coast. Forestry and mixed agriculture takes place on almost 

half of Montenegrin IPAs and low level wild plant harvesting on one third. 

One third of sites are also threatened by deforestation and burning of 

vegetation.The mismanagement of water resources threatens five lake and 

coastal IPAs at an acute level. 



National IPA team members: Petrović, D., 

Vuksanović, S., Stešević, S., Hadžiablahović S., Mačić D., 

Kasom,V., Dragićević, G., Biberdžić, S., Djurišić,V., 

Bubanja, S., Bušković, N., Boroja, V., Karaman, M. 

National coordinating organization: Green 

Forest Society 

National coordinator: Danka Petrović 

Cooperating organisations in the national 

team: University of Montenegro (Department of 

Biology), Ministry of Environment; Natural History 

Museum; Republic Institution for Protection of 

Nature; Institute for Marine Biology; National Parks of 

Montenegro; UNDP office in Montenegro. 

55


Komovi IPA in Montenegro home to 14 threatened species and numerous Balkan endemics. 

Montenegro covers an area of 

almost 14,000 km² and has two 

biogeographic zones: Mediterranean 

and Alpine. Montenegro borders 

Albania, Bosnia-Hercegovina, 

Croatia, Kosovo and Serbia. On a 

European scale Montenegro is 

believed to have the greatest 

number of vascular plants per unit 

area, and contains many national and 

Balkan endemics – Asperula, 

Campanula, Dianthus, Edrianathus and 

Ophrys are just a few of the 

important genera.The natural and 

semi-natural habitats are 

characterised by forest (oak, beech 

and coniferous), grasslands, and the 

coastal habitats of the Adriatic Sea. 

Montenegro is a member of the 

Council of Europe. 


Tax. Group 







BC species 19 

Table 21. Qualifying criteria for IPAs in Montenegro: threatened species and habitats 

Ai = global threat;Aii = regional threat;Aiii = threatened national endemic;Aiv = threatened near endemic/limited 

range; HD = Habitats Directive; BC = Bern Convention. Ci = priority threatened habitats as defined by the 

Habitats Directive Cii = threatened habitats; 


Twenty seven IPAs have been identified in Montenegro. 21 (78%) of Montenegro’s IPAs 

qualify under both criterion A (threatened species) and criterion C (threatened habitats). 

Criterion A is used as a single criterion for the selection of two sites, and criterion C for 

four sites. 

Despite the lack of information on threatened species and the relatively small size of the 

Montenegrin territory, 15 IPAs have been identified containing globally threatened plant 

species, nine with national endemics and 19 with near endemic (Balkan endemic) species. 

The smaller number of IPAs containing species and habitats from the Habitats Directive 

reflect both the lack of systematic assessment of the Montenegrin flora prior to this project, 

and that the species and habitats on the Directive are more relevant to those countries 

within the European Union.The Montenegrin IPA team to identify IPAs under criterion C 

used the pan European threatened habitat list associated with the Bern Convention. 


ELIZABETH RADFORD


Forest (woodland) habitats are the most frequent in Montenegro with significant 

coverage on most of the sites where they occur. Grassland, cultivated and inland water 

habitats are also frequent. IPAs in Montenegro are largely made up of habitat mosaics 

other than three sites which are 100% marine. Broadleaved deciduous woodland occurs 

at the most sites (19), followed by coniferous forests (14) and mixed forests (8). 

Predominant grassland habitats are mesic (8), sub alpine and alpine (8) and dry (5). 

No. of IP As 

20 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Marine 

Coastal 

unknown 


100% cover 

Inland water 


Grassland 


Heathland 

Woodland 

Fig 19. Major habitats at IPAs in Montenegro 


No vegetation 

Cultivated 

Protection and management of IPAs in Montenegro 

Constructed 

Sixteen of Montenegro’s 27 IPAs (nearly 60%) are unprotected.The other 40% have 

some level of official national protection on all or part of the site. Multiple protection 

systems on one site are uncommon only occuring on two IPAs: Durmitor and Tara 

Canyon (World Heritage site, National Park and containing a Reserve of Nature) and 

Skadar Lake, ( Ramsar site, National Park and containing a Monument of Nature and a 

Reserve of Nature). 22 IPAs have been recognised at European level through their 

inclusion in the Emerald Network. 

Wulfenia blecici – a threatened 

Montenegrin endemic recorded on four 

IPAs, currently unprotected in Europe. 





SAC*) 

27 16 (59%) 11 (41%) Nature Monument Emerald (22) World Heritage 

Reserve (2) of Nature (5) 12 IPAs are site (1) 

National Park (4) Site of Special smaller, 10 Ramsar (1) 

Nature Merits (2) have the same 

boundaries 

Table 22. Protection of IPAs in Montenegro 

*SAC= Special Area of Conservation designated under the EU Habitats Directive (part of the Natura 2000 network) 



57


58 

Other than National Parks,‘protected areas’ in Montenegro only have protection on paper. 

They do not have management plans and there is no regulation of potentially damaging 

activities such as urbanisation, wood cutting, hunting and sand and gravel exploitation. 

Consequently these activities go ahead and degrade or destroy the natural ecosystems. 

National Parks have perennial and annual management plans, and there is much better 

protection of natural ecosystems within them than in other protected areas. However, 

within National Parks there are some activities that should not be tolerated: urbanisation in 

Durmitor National Park and sand/gravel exploitation in Skadar Lake National Park.The best 

protected and conserved National Park is Bjelasica.All four National Parks in Montenegro 

are IPAs and the borders of the IPA are identical to the borders of the National Park. 

The Emerald Network has good coincidence with the IPA network and should 

Montenegro join the European Union these sites would provide a good guide for the 

identification Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) sites for the Natura 2000 network. If 

appropriate conservation measures are then taken on these sites, for example the 

development and implementation of conservation management plans as required by the 

EU Habitats Directive, the future of the plant diversity on IPAs and protected areas of 

Montenegro will be more promising than it is at present. 

Threats to IPAs in Montenegro 

The top two threats to IPAs in Montenegro, as elsewhere in the partner countries are 

development (largely for tourism) and poor forestry practices.The level of threat is high 

or medium on 50% of the sites affected.Agricultural related threats also predominate; 

burning vegetation, land abandonment and intensification, and threats to IPA integrity 

through water mismanagement. More particular to Montenegro is the threat from 

aquaculture and fisheries, reflecting the important marine and freshwater sites in 

Montenegro: Kotorsko-risanski Bay, Skadar Lake, and the IPAs containing the Tara, Piva 

and Lim rivers and the islands of Katići, Donkova and Velja seka. In Montenegro climate 

change is recognised as one of the top ten threats to IPAs, but proved impossible to 

quantify. Only one site, Lukavica currently has no threats associated with it. 

No. of IP As 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

development 

poor forestry practises 





climate change 

invasive species 

unknown 


natural events 

Fig. 20.Top ten threats affecting IPAs in Montenegro 





low 

medium 

high



Development (a - c combined) 21 (78%) 9 8 4 0 




Poor forestry practices (d - f combined) 12 (44%) 6 1 5 0 

d. Forestry (deforestation) 9 (33%) 4 1 4 0 

e. Forestry (afforestation) 2 (7%) 1 0 1 0 

f. Forestry (intensified forest management) 1 (4%) 1 0 0 0 




Water mismanagement (g - i combined) 6 (22%) 5 1 0 0 

g. Construction/impact of dyke/dam/barrage 4 (15%) 3 1 0 0 

h.Water (dredging/canalization) 1 (4%) 1 0 0 0 

i.Water (extraction/drainage/canalization) 1 (4%) 1 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 



Agricultural intensification (j-l combined) 3 (11%) 0 3 0 0 

j.Agricultural intensification (grazing) 2 (7%) 0 2 0 0 

k.Agricultural intensification (arable) 1 (4%) 0 0 1 0 

l.Agricultural intensification (general) 1 (4%) 0 1 0 0 



Extraction (peat) 1 (4%) 0 1 0 0 



Table 23 Threats and their intensity (level) at IPAs in Montenegro 

Land use 

The dominant land use on IPAs in 

Montenegro is tourism and nature 

conservation/research. Tourist activities 

take place at 82% of sites.These are 

followed by agriculture and forestry 

activities, as would be expected from the 

major habitats analysis. Hunting is also an 

important land use; quarry includes 

wolves and pigs in the the forests and 

birds at coastal and lake IPAs. Low level 

wild plant harvesting takes place in over 

one third of Montenegro’s IPAs. 


DIANE RADFORD 


Narcissus from upland pastures, collected by children and sold to passers by in Montenegro. 

59


No. of IP As 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Tourism/recreation 

Nature conservation 

Agriculture (mixed) 


Forestry 

Hunting 

Fisheries/aquaculture 

Wild plant harvesting 

Agriculture (animals) 

unknown 


100% cover 

Urban/industrial/transport 

Fig. 21.Top ten land uses and their extent (cover) on IPAs in Montenegro 

Ownership 

Extraction (peat) 

Virtually all IPAs are owned in part by the state (99%) and in part privately (88%), with 

an additional nine IPAs also part owned by the municipality. The large proportion of 

IPAs within state ownership may reflect the current focus of IPAs on the well known 

parts of Montenegro.When the more poorly known areas are investigated, the 

proportion of IPAs in state ownership may decline. In Montenegro the interest of 

private landowners in conservation activities has not been widely tested.The IPA team 

believe in order for private land owners to engage with conservation issues in the 

current economic climate in Montenegro, it is essential that their livelihoods improve 

through benefits these activities bring and/or though incentives offered for proper 

conservation management. Civil society in Montenegro is ready to engage with these 

issues as has been demonstrated on a small scale through the pilot project in Cijvena 

canyon (see section V).The engagement has been helped by strong and effective 

promotion of the IPA project on national television, in daily newspapers, through 

lectures, information tables and through the project web site. In general the importance 

of IPAs to Montenegro has been vigourously promoted to the general public and well 

received by them.

Long Beach-Ulcinj and Ada Bojana Island IPA 

The Long Beach (Velika plaža) of Ulcinj is located at the eastern end of 

Montenegro’s coastline between Port Milena (in the west), and river 

Bojana (in the east).The IPA is 12 kilometres long and varies from 200 - 

1000m in width and contains the best preserved sand dune vegetation 

on the eastern Adriatic coast.The important biodiversity is located 

mainly in eastern part of the beach, and the western part is under 

increasing threats from human activity. Eight criterion C habitats can be 

found on this site in the littoral zone, beach, dunes, depressions with 

alkaloid and fresh water habitats up and the remains of the indigenous 

Skadar Oak forest.Ada Bojana Island (440 hectares) is characterised by 

a natural mosaic of habitats formed by the dynamic delta of the Bojana 

River. Alluvial, undisturbed forests are a remarkable feature of the island.The sand 

dunes of Long Beach and Ada Bojana contain all plant species characteristic for this 

habitat type in Montenegro including Calystegia soldanela and Pancratium maritimum 

which have vanished from other sites due to intensive urbanisation. The beach is 

protected by national legislation, recognised as an area with special natural values, 

and protected as monument of nature. 

Durmitor Massif and the canyon of the Tara River IPA 

This huge IPA overlaps with the borders of Durmitor National Park and covers an 

area of 35,757 ha. Durmitor NP is characterised by exceptional diversity of vascular 

flora with more than 1300 taxa known to occur on its territory, 22 vascular plants 

are local, national or Balkan endemics and the site represents an 

important refuge centre for high-mountain flora.The IPA contains 35 

taxa from the criterion A qualifying list – the most for any current IPA 

in Montenegro. It is specially important for Adenofora lilifolia – the 

complete Montenegrin population is located in Tara River Canyon; 

Protoedraianthus tarae – the locus classicus for this Montenegrin endemic; 

and Cypripedium calceolus – half of the Montenegrin population is 

located with Durmitor on Crna poda. 17 criterion C threatned habitats 

are also present. Forests habitats are significant on Durmitor, the best 

and most valuable forests are under strict protection. 

Since 1980, Durmitor has been on UNESCO's World Heritage list, and 

the Tara canyon is also part of the National Park.Tara River Basin is also 

a biosphere reserve under UNESCO’s Man and Biosphere Programme. 



Alluvial forest in the dynamic delta of the 

Bojana River. 

Cypridium calceolus (Lady’s slipper 

orchid), threatened across Europe. Half 

of the Montenegrin population is found 

on Durmitor mountain. 

61 

MARKO KARAMAN DANKA PETROVIĆ

NICCOLO TEMPINI 


Tara canyon in autumn – part of 

Durmitor and Tara Canyon IPA. 

References 

Petrović, D. et al (2009) In press: Važna Biljan 

Staništa U Crnoj Gori – IPA projekat Important 

Plant Areas of Montengro IPA programe. Green 

Forest Society. (In Montenegrin) 

62 

Recommendations for IPAs in Montenegro 

For identification and monitoring 

● Preparation of a Plant Red Data Book using IUCN categories is a priority for 

Montenegrin botanists because without this important document, future projects on 

the protection of plants and their habitats cannot be successfully implemented. 

Some work has already begun on red listing vascular plants. Preparation of the Red 

Book should be accompanied by the establishment of a database with detailed 

distributional and population data on target taxa. 

● Data on lichens should be incorporated in further identification of IPAs 

● Monitoring of species whose populations were evaluated as decreasing during this 

project should be established as a priority. 

● Priority for the field research should be those areas which, according to the 

literature, contain populations of criterion A species and were not visited during the 

course of this project.This is particularly important for those species which were 

not found at all during the course of this project. 

● The coverage of Criterion C habitats (EU Habitats Directive and Bern Convention 

habitats) should be better defined particularly within IPAs. 

For IPA conservation 

● Conservation activity should focus at the local level (though the municipalities on 

which territories the IPAs are located). It will be important to increase 

understanding of the value of nature protection in the context of the difficult 

economic situation by many in Montenegro, where short term benefits for example 

wood cutting, sand and gravel exploitation, hotel construction and the construction 

of hydro-power plants are seen as ways to improve livelihoods (see also section III). 


Serbia 

Vladimir Stevanović & Jasmina Šinžar-Sekulić 

Fig. 22 IPAs in Serbia 

Summary 



The Serbia IPA project 

was undertaken as a 

separate initiative 

(2004 – 2006), funded 

by the Ministry of 

Environment of the 

Republic of Serbia. A 

summary of the results 

of the project are 

included here to 

provide further insight 

into the Important 

Plant Areas of South 

East Europe, beyond 

the partner countries 

included within Plantlife 

International’s 2005 – 

2008 programme. 

Serbia has 62 IPAs. 31 qualified through all three criteria, including 

criterion B, so indicating the presence of at least 600 native plant taxa 

within the IPA. Approximately 40% of the total IPA area is covered by 

forest (mostly broadleaved) and semi-natural grassland habitats cover 

almost 30%. 

56% of Serbian IPAs are nationally protected in full or in part - nearly half 

at a higher level of protection. The most frequent threats to Serbian IPAs 

are land abandonment, fragmentation and invasive species but the most 

acute threats come from deforestation and water extraction. 

National coordinating organisation: Ministry 

of Environmental Protection of the Republic of 

Serbia 

National coordinator: Prof Vladimir Stevanović 

National IPA team: Institute of Botany, Faculty of 

Biology, University of Belgrad: Stevanovic Vladimir, 

Lakušić Dmitar, Sabovljević Marko, Šinžar-Sekulić 

Jasmina, Stevanović Branka, Tomović Gordana, 

Vukojičić Snežana; 

Department of Biology and Ecology, University of 

Novi Sad: Anačkov Goran, Pal Boža, Radulović 

Snežana; Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, 

University of Nis: Jušković Marina, Zlatković Bojan, 

Vučković Mirjana, Ranđelović Vladimir; Institute of 

Nature Protection of the Republic of Serbia: Amidžić 

Lidija, Butorac Branislava, Panjković Biljana, 

Lazarević Predrag, Stojšić Vida; Natural History 

Museum, Belgrade: Niketić Marjan; Faculty of 

Sciences and Mathematics, University of Kosovska 

Mitrovica: Krivošej Zoran. 

63



Natural forest steppe of silver lime and 

durmast oak on the north facing dunes of 

Deliblatska Sands IPA. 

Serbia is situated in the central part of the Balkan peninsula, and is bordered by 

Hungary, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Macedonia FYR, Bulgaria 

and Romania.The territory covers 88,361 km 2 , the climate is continental in the 

north and south east with semi-arid summer and cold winter periods, in the west 

it is humid-temperate and in the centre and east semi-arid temperate-continental 

or sub-continental, with transitional sub-Mediterranean parts. 

Northern lowland Serbia consists of the south east Pannonian plain where wide 

alluvial lowlands and surrounding loess plateaus are found along the Danube, Sava, 

Tisa,Tamiš and Begej rivers.Two mountains are found here: Fruška Gora (538m) 

and Vršačke planine (640m). Southern Serbia is mountainous except the valleys of 

the Velika, Morava,Western Morava, Southern Morava, Nišava and Ibar rivers.The 

mountains belong to four systems: Dinaric Alps, Carpathian-Balkan mountains, the 

Rhodopes and Scardo-Pindhic. In the east., old ignaceous rocks and limestone and 

siliceous bedrocks support croplands with some steppe and sand-steppe vegetation 

with remnants of diverse continental psammophyte vegetation.West and central 

Serbia is formed of limestone, serpentine and ignaceous rocks. 

Along the main rivers, alluvial forest of white willow, white and black polar, ash and 

pedunculate oak, as well as small areas of marshes with rich macrophyte flora, occur. 

Mountainous regions of Serbia are covered by mixed oak forests, mainly by 

Hungarian-Turkish oak and Sessile oak-Hornbeam communities.The vegetation belts 

above are composed of beach or beech-silver fir forests. Subalpine forest is either 

spruce forests in the continental mountains and Macedonian or White-barked Pine 

in the mountains of Kosovo and Metochia province.The limestone and serpentine 

gorges and canyons hold a very rich flora of numerous relict and endemic taxa. 

Mountain areas above the tree line are also rich in diverse chasmophytic, scree and 

rocky ground communities composed by endemic and Alpine orophytes. 





Pannonian Continental Mountain 

Criterion A IPAs 12 20 15 

Criterion B IPAs with more than 500 taxa per IPA 7 13 11 

Criterion C IPAs 26 21 15 

Table 24. IPAs in Serbia identified under the different criteria across three 

biogeographic zones 


Approximately 40% of the total IPA area is covered by forests. More than 80% are 

various broad-leaved deciduous forests: lowland alluvial poplar-white willow, ash and 

pedunculate oak forests, montane oak and beech forests, thermophilous European and 

Oriental hornbeam forests and planted poplar and false acacia forests. Coniferous 

forests cover less than 10% of IPAs, the majority are Black Pine and mixed Black and 

Scots Pine forests on serpentine bedrock, and Bosnian and Macedonian pine in the south 

west. Spruce forests cover less of 3%. Mixed deciduous – conifer forest of beech-silver 

fir and spruce-beech forest occupy 10%. 

Natural and semi-natural grassland formations cover almost 30% of the total area of 

IPAs, the majority on limestone and serpentine soils. Inland surface water habitats 

include lowland marshes, ponds and macrophytic vegetation and cover approximately 5% 

of the area IPAs, particularly those situated in lowland flooded areas along rivers. 

Heathland and scrub habitats cover around 13% of total IPA area. Temperate and 

mediterraneo-montane scrub habitats are dominant, with significantly less high mountain 

heath. Mire, bog and fen habitats and sparsely vegetated habitats occupy around 2% of 

the area covered by IPAs. 

Fig. 23. EUNIS level I habitat types on IPAs in Serbia 

C: Inland surface water, D: Mire bog and fen, E: Grassland, F: Heathland and scrub, G: Forests, H: Sparse or unvegetated 

65


Fig. 24. EUNIS level II habitat types on IPAs in Serbia 

C: Inland surface water – C1 standing waters, C2 running waters, C3 Littoral zone of inland waters. 

D: Mire bog and fen – D1 Raised and blanket bogs D2 Valley mires, poor fens and transition mires, D5 Sedge 

and reed beds. 

E: Grassland – E1 Dry grassland, E2 Mesic grasslands, E3 Seasonly wet and wet, E4 Alpine and sub alpine, E5 

woodland fringes, E6 inland saline grass and herb. 

F: Heathland and scrub – F2 artic alpine and sub alpine scrub, F3 temperate/mediterraneo-montane scrub, F4 

Temperate shrub heathland 

G: Forests – G1 broad leaved decidous, G3 coniferous, G4 mixed deciduous and coniferous 

H: Sparse or unvegetated – H1 cave systems, H2Screes, H3 Inland cliffs 

Total IPAs with National protection National protection European International 

IPAs no legal of IPAs (high level) of IPAs (lower level) recognition recognition 

protection of IPAs of IPAs 

62 (100%) 27 (44%) 28 (45 %) 7 (11 %) Ramsar (9) 

Table 25. Protection of IPAs in Serbia 

Protection and management 

56% of IPAs in Serbia are protected in full or in part. 44% of IPAs are not under 

protection and frequently exposed to anthropogenic threats.These unprotected IPAs are 

currently under evaluation and may be proposed for protection in near the future. 

National Park (5), Landscape of 

Natural Park (8) , outstanding Natural 

Regional Nature Qualities (6), 

Park (1), Natural Monument (1). 

Special Nature 

Reserve (14), 


Threats 

Every IPA has at least one high or moderate threat affecting it which has the potential 

to destroy habitat or cause sudden decline in the populations of threatened species. 

The most important threats are directly related to human activity: water extraction, 

drainage, creation of reservoirs, expansion of agriculture in lowland areas, fertilisation 

of natural meadows in mountain areas and poor forest management (both afforestation 

and deforestation). 

Fig. 25 Threats affecting IPAs in Serbia 



67


Rindera umbellata – a steppic species that is 

rare across the whole Panonnian plain. 

Picea omorika – Mt Tara 

VLADIMIR STEVANOVIĆ VLADIMIR STEVANOVIĆ 

Deliblatska Sands IPA 

Deliblatska Sands IPA represents the greatest sandy area in south east of the 

Pannonian plain covering 900km2 with an altitude of 75-230m. 34,829 ha is under 

protection as a nature reserve. Sand-steppe, steppe, hawthorn and common 

juniper scrubs, mixed silver lime and downy oak forests are present at this IPA, as 

well as the flooded river islands and marshes of the Danube - the “Labudovo 

okno” Ramsar site. Huge tracts are under cultivation as forests of black and scots 

pine and false acacia.The total number of vascular plants is approx. 900 taxa 

including criterion A species Artemisia pancicii,Astragalus dasyanthus , Colchicum 

arenarium Fritillaria montana Hoppe (=F. degeniana), Paeonia officinalis L. subsp. 

banatica, Paeonia tenuifolia, Pulsatilla vulgaris subsp. grandis. Deliblatska Sands is the 

richest part ofVojvodina province in terms of rare steppic plants. Rindera umbellata, 

Iris pumila,Adonis vernalis, Stipa sabulosa, Hesperis tristis, Prunus tenella,Astragalus asper, 

Centaurea sadlerana, Echinops ruthenicus, Peucedanum arenarium,Alyssum tortuosum, 

Senecio integrifolius, Festuca vaginata are some of those present.The main natural 

type of vegetation is forest-steppe on sandy soils, the succession of vegetation is 

closely related to the evolution of these soils, pioneer vegetation on sands, Festuca 

vaginata on sandy steppe, well developed steppe communities on sandy chernozem 

e.g. Chrysopogon gryllus communities. Natural forests are restricted to north facing 

dunes. In the last hundred years, the vegetation cover has been changed by intensive 

planting of pine and false acacia forest and the elimination of grazing. 

Mt Tara IPA 

Mt Tara IPA is a national park 19,200 hectares situated in west Serbia.The 

majority of the IPA is mountain plateau of 1000-1300 m the highest peak is 

1591m.The IPA is covered by mixed deciduous and conifer forest and mountain 

meadows, including wet peat.The plateau is surrounded by deep limestone gorges 

and canyons of the Drina, Derventa, Brusnica and Grlac rivers. Highly diverse 

flora and vegetation occurs throughout the IPA, 1100 species of vascular plants 

have been recorded.The majority of the species belong to the central-European 

and Boreal floristic elements, while endemic Balkan species constitute approx. 6% 

of total flora.The Serbian Spruce (Picea omorika) and its relict habitats on north 

faced limestone slopes of canyons are particularly interesting. Other endemic 

species having restricted distribution in the Dinaric Alps are Aqulegia grata, Daphne 

malyana, Centaurea derventana, Moehringia bavarica, Onosma stellulatum, Edraianthus 

graminifolius aggr., Micormeria croatica and Achillea serbica. Endemics that are 

retricted to serpentine rock include Halacsya sentneri, Stachys scardica, Euphorbia 

glabriflora, Linaria rubioides, Gypsophila spergulifolia and Genista friwaldskyi. 

Mt Tara IPA contains the most diverse forest in Serbia. Large areas of Mt Tara are 

covered by beech, silver fir and spruce forests. Pure stands are very rare.Well 

preserved old forest stands are within strict natural reserves. Serpentine soils 

are covered by mixed Black and Scots pine with Erica herbacea in lower shrub 

layer. On the deep cliffs of the limestone canyons are mixed forests of beech, few 

species of maple, Sessile and Turkish Oaks, Common Walnut, lime, European hophornbeam, 

common hornbeam,Turkish hazel, black pine etc. Significant areas are 

covered by mowed mountain meadows, while wet meadows and peat-bogs are 

restricted to depressions along the mountain streams in forest zones. 


Turkey 

Sema Atay,Andrew Byfield, Neriman Özhatay 

Turkey was the first country to complete a national inventory of Important Plant Areas following 

a partnership project undertaken by Doğal Hayatı Koruma Derneği (DHKD), Fauna & Flora 

International (FFI) and Istanbul University Department of Pharmaceutical Botany (ISTE) in the 

1990s.Turkey is a botanically complex country and it was through the project in Turkey that the 

original IPA criteria were tested and refined.This work along with the opinions of numerous 

botanists and conservationists across Europe helped influence and shape the present day IPA 

criteria for Europe. A summary of the results of the project are included here to provide 

further insight into the Important Plant Areas of South East Europe, beyond the partner 

countries included within Plantlife International’s 2005 – 2008 programme. 

Fig. 26 IPAs in Turkey 

Summary 

144 IPAs have been identified in Turkey since in 2003, covering 11,301,000 

hectares – 13% of Turkey’s total area.The sites range from 154 to 

1,545,632 hectares. Over 50% of the selected sites qualify as IPAs by 

meeting more than one criterion. 3442 rare taxa occur within the 144 

IPAs. Detailed information can be found in the publications listed at the end 

of this section. 

The greatest threat to Turkish IPAs is the intensification of agriculture 

which affects 44 % of sites followed by development related to tourism and 

recreation (35%) and deforestation (24%). 



National IPA coordinators: Sema Atay and 

Neriman Özhatay 

National coordinating organisation: Doğal Hayatı 

Koruma Derneği (DHKD) 

69


Acantholimon sp. 

70 

ANDREW BYFIELD 

With about 11,000 native vascular plant taxa – and one in every three endemic – 

the flora of Turkey is richer than that in any other mainland country in the 

Western Palaearctic, both in terms of overall plant diversity and endemism.Turkey 

has three floristic regions (Euro Siberian, Mediterranean and Irano-Turanian), and is 

the meeting place of the floras of Europe and Asia.The flora is also of exceptional 

importance from an economic point of view: major parts of two of the eight 

centres of crop plant diversity lie within Turkey; over 350 medicinal plants are 

collected for trading purposes; and garden plants have been derived from over 200 

genera.The habitats mimic this diversity, and range from semi-desert and salt 

steppe, through Mediterranean cedar/fir forests and temperate rainforest, to a 

wide range of grassland, wetland, peatland and heathland habitats. 

Approximately 50% of the Turkish land surface is covered by semi-natural 

vegetation principally forest, steppe and montane habitats. Over one quarter of 

Turkey’s land surface was covered in forest in 1980.Approximately 1,240,000 

hectares of wetlands of international importance for birds have been identified as 

Important Bird Areas. 

Turkey-in-Europe covers 24,378 m². East of the Bosphorus sea is Anatolia largely a 

huge plateau (about 790,200 m²), which rises steadily towards the east and is 

bounded in the north and south by steep mountain ranges. North Anatolia is 

characterised by heavy rainfall, particularly in the east. South and West Anatolia are 

typically Mediterranean climate near the coast, with higher temperatures in the 

South. Inner Anatolia is continental, winter temperatures are very low, particularly in 

the eastern highlands, many of which remain under snow from November to March. 

In Southeast Anatolia temperatures are higher, and the flora has affinities with the 

Syrian Desert, of which it is effectively the northern extension.Turkey is a member 

of the Council of Europe and an accession country to the European Union. 


Threats 

Virtually all parts of the Turkish land mass are used, except the most inaccessible cliffs and 

upland regions, and many habitats and species are under severe threat. Much irreplaceable 

habitat has been lost over the last 30 years: 79% of the south-western Black Sea sand 

dunes, 85% of the heathlands, 90% of the peatlands, and 1.6 million hectares of wetlands. 

Just 12% of the north-eastern Anatolian temperate rain forest survives in a pristine state. 

The threats facing the Turkish IPAs are diverse covering 25 categories, ranging from 

agricultural reclamation, intensive forestry and industrial/urban development which often 

affect sites to a large and highly damaging extent, to less obvious threats such as the 

collection of species for trade and the spread of aggressive alien plant species into the 

environment. Overall, 94% of the IPAs are thought to be threatened to some extent by 

at least one potentially damaging activity, with the vast majority - approximately 80% - 

threatened by two or more factors. 

Threat No. % 

IPAs IPAs 

affected affected 

Agricultural intensification (livestock / grazing) 63 44 

Development (recreation / tourism) 43 35 

Forestry (deforestation, including gathering of fuelwood) 35 24 

Forestry (afforestation) 32 22 

Agricultural expansion (arable) 30 21 

Water (extraction / drainage / canalisation) 28 20 

Development (urbanisation) 24 20 

Development (transport / infrastructure) 16 12 

Unsustainable plant exploitation 16 11 

Burning of vegetation 12 10 

Eutrophication 12 10 

Pollution (industrial) 12 10 

Construction / impact of dyke, dam, barrier 9 7 

Extraction (minerals / quarries) 8 7 

Agricultural expansion(horticulture) 6 5 

Abandonment / reduction of land management 5 4 

Agricultural expansion (general) 4 3 

Extraction (peat) 3 2 

Intrinsic species factors (slow growth, density etc) 3 2 

Dumping 3 2 

Development (industry) 2 2 

Habitat fragmentation / isolation 2 2 

Aquaculture / fisheries 1 1 

Consequences of invasive species (plants) 1 1 

No threats identified 6 5 

Table 26.Threats affecting IPAs in Turkey 



71

SEMA ATAY 


Uludağ IPA. 

Rapid growth in the agricultural and industrial sectors, combined with a fast-increasing 

population is placing immense pressures on many of the most threatened species, and 

the often-unique habitats in which they grow in Turkey. Few if any of the IPAs identified 

in the Turkish IPA inventory remain altogether unscathed by the negative impacts of 

man's activities. Accordingly much still needs to be done to adequately conserve 

Turkey's botanical diversity, under a wide range of topics, from legislation to on-theground 

site management. 

Uludağ IPA (Bursa) 

Uludağ is the highest mountain in North-western Anatolia and has a wide range of 

habitats, including broadleaved and coniferous forests, sub-alpine moorland, seasonal 

moorland pools, extensive alpine cliff communities, glacial lakes, and exposed 

summit communities.The flora is exceptionally rich: a total of 791 taxa have been 

recorded. Of the 96 nationally rare species that have been found, 57 taxa are of 

global and European conservation concern and 25 are endemic to this single site, 

including Arabis drabiformis, Gypsophila olympica and Ranunculus fibrollosus. 

Despite protection as one of the first national parks in Turkey (declared in 1961), 

the area is still under considerable threat, most notable is the destruction of sub 

alpine moorland vegetation from the continuing expansion of ski facilities within 

the site which began in the 1940s.The loss of this important habitat on a 

protected site, illustrates the woeful inadequacy of Turkish laws and regulations in 

being able to protect the unique scientific importance of Uludağ in particular, and 

of statutory protected areas in general. Construction of a second complex of 

seven hotels (bed capacity of 2100) within the subalpine moorland east of the 

existing resort started in 1995, and is currently 50% completed.These 

developments have resulted in further damage and destruction of unique 

vegetation, further loss of natural spring communities (to provide a water supply 

for the hotels) and increased disturbance to wildlife. 


Çoruh Valley IPA (Erzurum and Artvin): 

Located in the North-east of Turkey, the IPA comprises the middle and lower reaches 

of the Coruh River, one of the largest and the least disturbed rivers in Turkey.The 

vegetation includes mixed deciduous forest at low altitudes, small stands of stone pine 

(Pinus pinea), and extensive dry steppe on the valley sides.Approximately 750 taxa 

occur in the flora, of which at least 104 are nationally rare and of these about 67 are 

endemic to Turkey.There are 6 globally threatened taxa and 61 that are threatened in 

Europe including mulitiple endemic taxa from the genera Allium,Anthemis,Asperula, 

Astragalus, Campanula, Centaurea, Galium, Hieracium, Salvia and Sempervivum. 

Despite its exceptional floristic importance, the Çoruh River Gorge receives no 

formal protection. It is under immense threat principally through the proposed 

construction of series of major dams along the length of the main river, and its 

tributaries. Construction has commenced on three of the main dams (1998): at 

Borçka, Muratlı, and the giant Deriner Dam upstream of Artvin province.The 

Turkish government is looking into options for further dams up to 27 on the upper 

reaches of the Çoruh River and all its tributaries. Substantial populations of many of 

the rarer endemics of the gorge will be destroyed by these hydrological engineering 

schemes. If realized, they would incalculable damage to one of Eurasia’s richest and 

most distinctive botanical sites. 



Coruh Valley IPA. 

73 

SEMA ATAY



Davis, P.H. (ed.), 1965. Flora of Turkey, University Press, 

Edinburgh 

Özhatay, N., Byfield,A.,Atay, S., 2005. Türkiye’nin 122 

Önemli Bitki Alanı (122 Important Plant Areas of Turkey), 

WWF Türkiye, stanbul. 

Özhatay, N., 2006, Türkiye’nin BTC Boru Hattı Boyunca 

Önemli Bitki Alanları (Important Plant Areas along the BTC 

Pipeline in Turkey), BTC Şirketi, stanbul. 

Recommendations for IPAs in Turkey 

A national IPA conservation strategy should be developed in the context of the 

institutional framework for national conservation and natural resource management 

(legislation, strategies, institutional and political structures, tenure, etc.). 

Data and capacity 

● Continue to identify and assess sites for addition to the IPA inventory, and to 

undertake detailed surveys of poorly-understood habitats (e.g. grasslands). 

● Continue to assess the status of Turkey’s rarest plant species, taking account of 

species that have only been recorded once. 

● Provide statistics on the Turkish situation for the European and the world botanical 

databases. 

● Increase capacity of NGOs, and local/central governmental agencies in Turkey and to 

prioritise plant conservation action. 

● Support of educational and public awareness campaigns at IPA sites and in Turkey in 

general. 

● Increase knowledge of botanists, scientists and other interest groups all around the 

world about Turkey’s plants. 

Legislation 

● IPA data should be used to support, inform and underpin existing conservation 

strategies, including those inherent to protected areas, ecological restoration, 

community management and sustainable use, and legislative improvement. 

● IPAs should be used as an integral part of the Pan European Ecological Network in 

Turkey and the Natura 2000 network in Turkey. 

● Review current legislation protecting sites of nature conservation importance across 

Turkey in the light of the IPA inventory. 

● Use IPA criterion A species to review species on Appendix I of the Bern Convention 

● Use IPA criterion A, B and C lists for reviewing candidate habitats and species for 

listing on Annexes I and II of the EU Habitats Directive. 

Conservation action 

● IPAs should be the focus for developing micro projects involving local resource 

users, authorities, the private sectors and rural communities in IPA management 

through sustainable utilisation of plants in a manner which delivers poverty 

alleviation, income and food security. 

● IPAs can provide a target to engage civil society in conservation such as IPANET: 

Establishment of aVolunteer Network for the Important Plant Areas inTurkey (see section IV). 


Section IV: 

Important Plant Area 

Conservation – Policy and 

Practice 

Identifying Important Plant Areas is the first step towards securing their future. 

However, this action alone will not result in their conservation. Following identification, 

concerted action is required to take up opportunities for conservation and to remove, 

or mitigate against, potential threats.This section provides an opportunity to examine 

plant conservation in relation to various environment instruments and policies both 

within and without the EU.A summary of the relationship between IPAs and various 

nature conservation policies and initiatives that are active at global and regional level can 

be found in Appendix 3. 

The process of IPA conservation begins during the identification process.The provision of 

scientifically robust plant conservation priorities and associated data on the status, 

botanical features, threats and management of IPAs, informs future conservation activities 

and provides a baseline for monitoring IPA condition.The process of selecting the 

network of IPAs spreads knowledge on the existence of these important sites throughout 

communities, which can help ‘prepare the ground’ for future conservation actions.These 

actions can be divided into two main types; those relating to policy and those related to 

practice, i.e. conservation activity on the ground. The two are mutually reinforcing as 

policy development will eventually lead to changes in practice and vice versa. 

This section focuses on IPA conservation in relation to policy; the development and 

application of existing environmental policy and legislation in south east Europe.The 

policy context for nature conservation in the partner countries is similar, in that all their 

governments have committed to the three major international conservation charters: 

they are signatories of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); participants in the 

Pan European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS) - a means of 

implementing the CBD in Europe; and signatories to the Bern Convention of the 

Council of Europe. The partner countries have differing relationships with the European 

Union. Bulgaria is an EU member country, Croatia and Macedonia FYR are EU accession 

countries and Montenegro is a potential accession country. 

IPAs are not a legal designation – they are priority sites for the conservation of 

wild plants, fungi and their habitats.The IPA data collected as part of this project 

can contribute to the implementation of existing environmental policies, legislation 

and biodiversity conservation targets within south east Europe, both inside and 

outside the European Union. IPAs can and should benefit from the proper 

application of these policies. 


Section IV: Important Plant Area Conservation – Policy and Practice 

75


Cortinus viola 

Himantoglossum caprinum – threatened in 

Europe (criterion Aii species) and 

present on 18 IPAs in south east Europe. 

76 

KIRIL METODIEV DANIELLA STEŠEVIĆ 

Biodiversity, Nature Conservation 

and IPAs 

Quick statistics: 

● 116 (40%) IPAs in the south east European partner countries are protected in part 

or fully at national level, though this percentage is widely different in each country. 

● 175 (60%) IPAs are unprotected. 

● 59 (20%) are protected with higher level national legislation, at least in part. 

● 129 (44%) IPAs contain species from the Bern Convention and 78 contain species 

from the Habitats Directive. 

● 78 (27%) IPAs contain habitats from the Bern Convention and 251 contain habitats 

from the Habitats Directive. 

● 94 (32%) IPAs overlap to some extent with Important Bird Areas (IBAs = 180). 

● 44 (15%) IPAs overlap with Prime Butterfly Areas (PBAs = 66). 

Places of high biodiversity value have long been singled out for special conservation attention 

as ‘priority sites’.The biodiversity value of sites can be measured in a number of ways but 

most approaches consider irreplaceability (uniqueness) and vulnerability (threat) of the 

species and habitats therein. If priority sites are lost, there is an irreversible loss of 

biodiversity and associated resources, and damage to ecosystem services.Traditionally, 

priority sites have been declared protected areas and all south east European partner 

countries have at least one national system of protected areas. Since the late 1970s, 

conservationists have begun to favour the ecological network approach, where ‘core areas’ 

(priority sites for biodiversity) are surrounded by buffer zones and linked by natural 

corridors or stepping stones. Ecological networks are now widely accepted as an effective 

tool for conserving biological diversity, particularly with the growing threat of climate change. 

In identifying priority sites, IPA methodology considers both the uniqueness of and threats 

to species, (by considering threatened endemics species), as well as the integrity of the 

(semi) natural vegetation present and species richness associated with it (see also 

appendix 1 on methodology). 355 species and sub species in the four partner countries 

are known to be threatened and endemic (either nationally endemic or endemic to the 

Balkan region), 292 of these are not currently on any global or regional Red List 

or on European legislation that protects species.This reflects the inadequacy of 

existing European biodiversity legislation to protect the plant species diversity within the 

Balkans region. If this legislation is to be effective for species when the EU is further 

enlarged, additional species will need to be incorporated in the annexes of relevant 

directives.The regionally threatened habitat lists used for IPAs are those associated with 

the Bern Convention (Resolution 4) for Pan Europe, and the EU Habitats Directive 

(Annex 1) of the European Union. 183 regionally threatened habitats from these lists are 

present in the four partner countries.These lists provide good coverage of threatened 

habitats but some of the more unique habitats in the Balkans may be missing from this list. 

IPAs can be interpreted as a gap analysis for plant interest in existing protected site 

networks, along with other species initiatives that show gaps for birds and butterflies - 

Important Bird Areas and Prime Butterfly Areas. Gaps in protected area systems for 

plants do exist; 60% of IPAs in the partner countries are currently unprotected at 

national level.There are strong correlations between IPAs and sites recognised by 

European and international site legislation, but until this legislation is implemented in the 

partner countries, the protection of the biodiversity on IPAs will remain inadequate. 

Lonicera glutinosa a threatened Balkan endemic recorded on only one IPA in 

Montenegro. Currently unprotected by European legislation. 


An emerging concept within the IPA programme is IPA Zones of Opportunity. A Zone 

of Opportunity is simply an area in or around one or more IPAs in which some form of 

habitat restoration is desirable and possible, either to increase the extent or quality of the 

IPA, improve existing habitat within a buffer zone (which may then qualify as an IPA in the 

future), or to restore connectivity between IPAs through corridors or stepping stones. 

Zones of Opportunity can be located by mapping all the relevant ecological factors 

(habitat characteristics, soil type, rainfall etc) in concentric rings around the IPA, and then 

restricting the overlap to areas that have the potential to be restored, i.e. they have the 

correct ecological characteristics and are not developed or beyond restoration.This 

concept is in its infancy and has not yet been investigated in south east Europe, it has most 

potential in fragmented (semi) natural landscapes such as lowland Bulgaria and Serbia and 

could be used to improve connectivity in the Pan European Ecological Network. 

IPAs were never intended to be ‘another site designation’ they are however a robust 

scientific framework for identifying priority sites for conservation action. Protected 

areas and related initiatives are an important, but not the only mechanism which can be 

used to conserve IPAs.The potential role of current site-related policies in the 

conservation of IPAs is examined below. 

The policy response 

A suite of site based policy responses that can be applied to conservation of IPAs in 

south east Europe have been initiated at international and European level.These build on 

the traditional national protected area mechanisms operating in every country in the 

region.All have encouraged countries to develop and implement national policies on 

protected areas and networks. 

The Convention on Biological Diversity is especially significant for plant 

conservation, primarily due to the Parties’ endorsement of the Global Strategy for 

Plant Conservation (GSPC) in 2002.Target five of this sixteen-target strategy 

requires signatory governments to “ensure the protection of 50% of the most important 

areas for plants” [by 2010]. IPAs provide an ideal framework for the implementation of 

this and other targets in this strategy on the conservation of production lands, 

sustainable use of plants and control of invasvive species aswell as targets within the 

CBD work programme on protected areas. 

In Europe, Planta Europa and the Council of Europe have developed the European 

Strategy for Plant Conservation (ESPC), the European contribution to the CBD 

GSPC in which IPA conservation is embedded. Now in its second phase, this regional 

strategy has been endorsed by the Bern Convention Standing Committee in 2001 

(recommendation no. 87) and again in 2008 (recommendation no. 138). Pan Europe, the 

PEBLDS-initiated Ministerial Process ‘Environment for Europe’ is of particular 

relevance to the conservation of IPA across south east Europe.Through this process 

European Ministers of Environment approved a key policy framework in 2003 known as 

the Kyiv Resolution on Biodiversity its ultimate goal is halting the loss of 

biodiversity in Europe and one of nine key targets is the recognition and conservation of 

the Pan European Ecological Network of sites and corridors.The resolution is not 

legally binding; commitments should be delivered through programmes and legislation 

developed and implemented at national level. 



MELANIA GYOSHEVA KIRIL METODIEV 

Fungi are also considered in the IPA 

project – such as Hericium erinaceum 

threatened in Europe. 

Marrubium friwaldskyanum a vulnerable 

Bulgarian endemic. Currently 

unprotected by European legislation. 

77


Arborescent matorral with Juniperus spp. 

A habitat directive habitats in the Easter 

Rhodope mountains Bulgaria. 


Anderson, S. et al., 2005. Important Plant Areas in Central 

and Eastern Europe. Plantlife International, Salisbury. 

Bennett, G., and Mulungoy, K. J., 2006. Review of the 

experience with ecological networks, corridors and buffer 

zones. CBD Technical Series 23, Convention on 

Biological Diversity, Ottawa. 

Bennett, G. and Wit, P., 2001. The Development and 

Application of Ecological Networks. AIDEnvironment: 

Amsterdam, Holland. 

Biro, E. et al., 2006. Indicative map of the Pan European 

Ecological Network in south eastern Europe technical 

background document. Tilburg ECNC 

Hutchinson, N. and Dines,T., 2008. Developing IPA 

boundaries in the UK. Plantlife paper on 

www.plantlife.org.uk – for IPA Zones of Opportunity 

Langhammer, P.F., et al., 2007. Identification and Gap 

Analysis of Key Biodiversity Areas Targets for 

Comprehensive Protected Area systems. Gland 

Switzerland IUCN 

Bulgaria, as the only EU member within the 

partner countries is also legally bound by the 

European Union’s Habitats Directive, 

which requires the designated and 

conservation of Special Areas of 

Conservation within the Natura 2000 

network.Accession and potential accession 

countries (Croatia, Macedonia FYR and 

Montenegro), are working to align their 

national policies with those of the European 

Union and also are committed to designating 

Sites of Conservation Importance for the 

Emerald Network under the Bern 

Convention which fulfils the same goals Pan 

Europe but is not legally enforceable. 

267 (91%) of IPAs in the South East European project countries Habitats Directive 

species and/or habitats. 163 (56%) contain Bern Convention species and/or habitats, but 

in most partner countries the Habitats Directive classification of habitats was used in 

preference to use of the Bern Convention – there is some but not total overlap 

between these two classifications. 

Priorities for improving nature conservation and biodiversity policy and 

practice in south east Europe 

● Improved enforcement of existing legislation relating to protected areas and 

other priority sites for biodiversity. Appropriate policy frameworks are already in 

place. 

● Ensure proper implementation of the EU Habitats and Species Directive (or 

equiv.). In countries acceding to the EU, their IPA networks can provide information for 

the development of Natura 2000 networks. 

● Increasing the connectivity between IPAs and other priority sites for 

biodiversity. The IPA Zones of Opportunity concept is a scientifically robust way to 

approach the creation of site networks, and a realistic approach to the restoration of 

appropriate habitats, corridors and buffer zones. 

● Ensure the development and implementation of effective management plans for 

protected areas and IPAs that contain actions to conserve plant and fungal 

diversity. The IPA database, country inventories and IPA national team members can 

provide useful information to assist with this process. 

● Development of national Red Lists of threatened species for plants and fungi in 

Macedonia and Montenegro. IPA criterion A species (global regional and national 

threat) provide a good starting point for countries developing national Red Lists and for 

improving annexes of EU legislation in those countries hoping to accede to the EU. 


MALINA DELCHEVA

Biodiversity, development (tourism 

and transport) and IPAs 


● Tourism and recreation is a land use in 143 (49%) of IPAs in south east Europe. 

● Urban, industrial or transport related land uses are present on 52 (18%) of IPAs in 

the south east European partner countries. 

● 149 (51%) of IPAs are threatened by development: recreation and tourism (31%), 

urbanisation (16%), infrastructure and transport (15%), industry (3%).This threat is 

the most frequent on IPAs in the partner countries. 

Tourism and transport development affects all habitat types on IPAs.Tourism has the 

potential to be a huge industry in the Balkans and is widely viewed as the key to 

bringing economic prosperity to the region.The miles of coastline, turquoise seas, 

mountains cloaked in forest, spectacular gorges and a warm summer climate makes 

south east Europe a tour operator’s dream, and it is unsurprising that tourism or 

recreation activities are the second most frequent land use on IPAs in the partner 

countries.The Adriatic coast is a popular tourist destination and Bulgaria has also 

established itself as a holiday venue in summer and winter as her mountain ski resorts 

offer a more affordable alternative to the Alps. Undoubtedly tourism will be a crucial 

wealth generating mechanism in these countries in transition, but at what cost? 

Development is currently the greatest known threat to the integrity of the IPA network 

in south east Europe adversely affecting over half of the IPAs identified in this project, 

frequently at high levels of intensity.The prospect of short term financial gain is currently 

winning over the long term security of biodiversity. 

Relaxation of controls on foreign investment has resulted in prolific building on and 

around prime tourist destinations, many of which are also prime sites for nature. These 

activities are plainly evident along the length of Adriatic Coast as well as in many towns 

inland.The Black Sea Coast is also suffering loss of critical plant habitats as a result of 

often controversial development, for e.g. the Golden Pearl holiday complex built of 

Strandzha IPA (also a national park) that was declared illegal following its construction. 

In parts of the Rhodopes, Rila and Pirin mountains ski hotels are being built on every 

available clearing at the edge of the forest irreversibly destroying meadow habitat. The 

destruction of habitats through building is one problem; the pressure on the associated 

infrastructure (roads, sewage etc) frequently leads to further problems from pollution. 

Also in Bulgaria there is concern that large scale investors (construction, real estate and 

energy producing companies and some sectors of mass tourism e.g. ski and golf 

development) area favoured over the smaller biodiversity friendly investors (e.g. ecocamping 

or organic agriculture) as the latter will not be required to pay large amounts 

of commission to the government. 

Another development drive aimed at increasing economic prosperity in the region is the 

improvement of transport links and other large infrastructure projects.The project PP18 

Rhine/Meuse-Main-Danube inland waterway, a priority project from Europe’s Transport 

Infrastructure (TEN-T), will affect six Bulgarian IPAs (and 15 Romanian IPAs) located 

along the Danube as well as 62 Important Bird Areas. Numerous additional IPAs lie in the 

zone of influence of the Danube. Elsewhere in the Balkans concern has been raised about 

the environmental impact of extensions to the TEN-T schemes; the proposed motorway 




Road building threatens IPAs throughout 

the Balkan region – here cutting through 

wolf habitat near Biokovo IPA, Croatia. 

79

INSTITUTE OF BOTANY, BAS 


Construction of ski infrastructure is 

damaging threatened habitat in 

Bulgarian IPAs 

80 

axis between Ljublijana and Thessaloniki and rail links from Ljubljana through Sofia to 

Istanbul and through Skopje to Thessaloniki.The EU has been forced to emphasise the 

requirements for proper Strategic Environmental Assessments before committing to 

further financing. Regional road building has already highlighted the lack of robust planning 

policy for biodiversity in the region. New highways in Croatia are threatening plant 

biodiversity on and around IPAs.A section of the Vc motorway threatens the Drava 

wetlands, other highways threaten the Neretva wetland area, Kozjak mountain (tunnel), 

Biokovo mountain (tunnel) and Medvednica (tunnel).There is concern about the impact 

of constructing a bridge at Pelješac on both the Pelješac peninsula and Maloston Bay. In 

Macedonia the EIA for Demir Kapija-Smokvica resulted in the diversion of the motorway 

from an important cave but did not succeed in saving European threatened habitats (e.g. 

Buxus thickets) from deterioration.The planned improvement of a road through the 

Kresna gorge in Bulgaria has also been the subject of intense environmental scrutiny. If 

the road through the gorge is completed, some unique Bulgarian habitats will be 

destroyed, the final decision on the route for the road currently sits with the Council of 

Ministers. In Bulgaria the development of wind power farms are also a potential serious 

threat to key species and habitats on extensive highly biodiverse pastures, especially 

vulnerable are the sub Pannonian and Pontosarmatian habitats. 

Policy response 

Within the European Union the ‘Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive’ as it is 

known (approved in 1985 and amended in 1997) requires Environmental Impact 

Assessments (EIAs) to be undertaken for all major projects; full public participation in 

these assessments; and due diligence to their findings. Legislation in Bulgaria and 

Macedonia is compliant with these directives and other partner countries are working 

to bring their legislation to this standard. Conservationists have little confidence in the 


implementation of national EIA legislation 

in the partner countries, and fears that 

biodiversity will be compromised by 

development have to date been largely 

justified. Sites qualifying for Natura 2000 in 

Bulgaria were initially excluded from the 

official list as a result of influence by 

investors.The government ultimately 

responded to pressure from the nature 

conservation community and now the list 

includes all these sites except the Rila 

buffer, an area close to Rila National park, 

which has been kept aside for 

development of ski resorts.The few official declaration orders for Natura sites that have 

been published by the government (showing precise borders, internal zoning, 

management regimes and the restrictions for each given site) suggest the restrictions 

will be as weak as possible in order not to conflict with the interest of investors. The 

“devil is in the detail”, in this case, in the implementation of the legislation. 

In Croatia regulations exist on Strategic Impact Assessment, Environmental Impact 

Assessment and Nature Impact Assessment.The latter should protect the National 

Ecological Network, but the level of public involvemen in decision making should be 

increased. Frequently changing and overlapping legislation marginalises nature 

conservation and public participation.This is compounded by a lack of clarity on who is 

responsible for implementation amongst ministries, institutions and agencies, which 

means the legislation does not work in the field. In Macedonia the Ministry of 

Environment and Physical Planning needs increased capacity to monitor activities after 

EIAs have been completed, otherwise the current lack of control of the implementation 

of mitigation measures will persist. 

Priorities for improving development policy and practice in South East 

Europe 

● Undertake EIA on all development projects within and adjacent to Important 

Plant Areas that are not already under legal protection, and the application of the 

precautionary principle to all decisions. 

● Ensure EIA outcomes are properly monitored 

● Increase the understanding of the potential and extent of impacts of the extension 

to the European Transport Infrastructure (TEN-T) in the Balkan region (on 

potential Natura 2000, Emerald Network and other important biodiversity sites). 

● Ensure that the EU and European Investment Bank fund only sustainable 

transport and infrastructure development projects across the region. 

● Stronger commitment by administrations to the enforcement of EU and national 

environmental law in relation to development projects. 

● Guard against over reliance on tourism activities to support conservation measures. 



Destruction of sub Pannonian steppe 

habitat in Bulgaria for wind farms 

Useful references/websites 

Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects 

of certain public and private projects onteh 

environment ( the EIA directive) and its amendments 

97/11/EC. 

CEE Bankwatch network: http://bankwatch.org/ 

BirdLife and EU transport policy: 

http://www.birdlife.org/eu/EU_policy/Ten_T/index.ht 

ml 

Various publications from the Regional Environmental 

Centre: http://www.rec.org/ 

81 

LYUBOMIR PROFIROV

DANIELLA STEŠEVIĆ 


Some of South East Europe’s most 

pristine old growth forest in Biogradska 

Gora IPA. 

82 

Forests, forestry and IPAs 


● 237 (81%) IPAs in the South East European partner countries contain forest habitats 

(214 broadleaved deciduous, 57 broadleaved evergreen, 67 coniferous, 12 mixed and 

14 contain forest habitats with a strong anthrogenic influence). 

● 207 (71%) IPAs contain threatened forest habitats from the Habitats Directive and 

the Bern Convention, 23% of these sites contain ‘priority habitats’from the Habitats 

Directive. 

● 51% of IPAs are used for forestry activity. 

● 32% of IPAs are used for hunting. 

● 43% are threatened by poor forestry practices: deforestation (20%), intensified forest 

management (18%) and afforestation (85%). 

The forests of South East Europe are the most diverse in Europe, not only in the 

diversity of their tree species but also of other woody, herbaceous and lower plant 

(moss, fungi and lichen) species associated with them.This diversity is often associated 

with large tracts of old growth (ancient or virgin) forest found throughout the region.The 

forests include fir, spruce, pine and conifer forest above 700m; deciduous beech forest 

and lowland mixed forest of oak and hornbeam; Mediterranean coastal forests with 

maquis and garrigue shrub layers; and the mixed deciduous forest (oak, hornbeam, laurel, 

ash and maple) of the Mediterranean interior. Between and within these zones are a 

large number of transitional forest communities that are frequently highly diverse and 

important from a biodiversity perspective. For example: mixed Hungarian oak forests, 


Oriental Beech and Rhododendron forests, 

Karst ash and oak, Oriental Plane and 

Walnut, Sweet and Horse Chestnut, 

Macedonian oak woods and, unique to the 

Balkans, Macedonian Bosnian and Balkan 

pine forests (Pinus peuce, P. leucodermis and 

P. heldreichii).The latter occur very locally 

and are particularly vulnerable. 71% of 

IPAs in the partner countries contain forest 

habitats that are threatened in Europe. 

Forestry is an important industry in the 

region (for construction and fuel wood) 

and forest cover has increased since 1990, 

mainly through afforestation and some natural regeneration. Many of the biodiversityrich 

forests are threatened by deforestation and replacement with plantations, and this is 

strongly reflected in the IPA analysis; the second most damaging threat to IPAs in the 

partner countries is poor forestry practices affecting 43% of sites – deforestation 

threatens 20% and intensified forest management 18%. Not only does this diminish the 

biodiversity value of South East Europe’s forests, but all the associated ecosystem 

services. Undisturbed forests prevent soil erosion and maintain the water balance, as 

well as providing income for (often the poorest) rural communities through non-timber 

forest products (fungi, medicinal plants, berries etc). Recent research (Luyssaert et al 

2008) shows that old-growth forests act as efficient carbon sinks.They continue to 

sequester carbon for up to 800 years in live woody tissues and slowly decomposing 

organic matter in leaf litter and soil.This carbon re-enters the atmosphere if the forests 

are disturbed. 


Since the early 1990s international policy processes have acted as a driving force for 

national forest policy development.There is no pan European forest policy but across 

Europe 46 countries – including all partner countries - participate in the Ministerial 

Conference for the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE). Since 1990 nineteen 

resolutions on sustainable forest management have been adopted by this Conference. 

These aim to promote a balance between the economic, ecological, social and cultural 

dimensions of sustainable forest management. For example the conservation of IPAs can 

contribute to the resolutions of MCPFE V4: Forest Biological Diversity, H2: Biological 

diversity and S1: Monitoring of Forest Ecosystems and thus to the Forest Biodiversity 

Expanded Programme of Work of the CBD. 

The Parties have adopted general (voluntary) guidelines for the Sustainable Management 

of Forest in Europe and for the Conservation of the Biodiversity of European Forests. 

The MCPFE activities have been brought under the framework of PEBLDS and the 

Environment for Europe process; they are embedded in the Kyiv Resolution on 

Biodiversity 2003). 

Measures relating to conserving EU forest biodiversity can be found in a number of 

documents: the EU Forestry Strategy and Forest Action Plan, the Rural Development 

Regulation and the Forest Focus regulation.All of these policies and resolutions rely on 

the development of national forest programmes, with appropriate regulation and 

allocation of sufficient resources at the national level. 



Deforestation is a major threat to the 

integrity of IPAs across the region. 

83 

SONYA TSONEVA



Montane and sub-montane beech forests 

in Macedonia. 


Luyssaert, S., Detlef Schulze, E., Börner,A., Knohl,A., 

Hessenmöller, d. Law, B.E., Ciais P. and Grace, J., 2008. 

Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks Nature 455, 

213-215. 

MCPFE Liaison Unit Warsaw, UNECE and FAO., 2007. 

State of Europe’s Forests 2007 – the MCFPEs report on 

Sustainable Forest Management in Europe (Full and 

Summary reports).Also other information at 

www.mcpfe.org 

Ratarova,V. and Ferdinandova,V., 2008. Funding forests 

into the Future? How the European fund for rural 

Development affects Europe’s forests:The Case of Bulgaria. 

FERN report series.Also other information at 

www.fern.org 

Bulgaria’s forest policy is articulated in two 

strategic documents which recognise the 

need for sustainable development in the 

forest sector. The national forest 

programme is in the development phase, 

and has been delayed due to lack of 

registration of forest owners.A study by 

the NGO FERN (Ratarova and 

Ferdinandova, 2008) found that measures 

to improve economic return through 

intensive exploitation of Bulgaria’s forest 

and marketing the (timber) products are 

greater than those which conserve forest 

biodiversity (2008). Within the Rural Development Programme for agriculture and 

forestry only one environmental measure supports the conservation of forests on 

Natura 2000 Special Areas of Conservation – estimated at 0.48% of the RDP budget. 

Croatia, Montenegro and Macedonia all have national forest policies in various stages of 

development, all of which incorporate the concepts of sustainable forest management. 

In Croatia much of the forest is managed by the state with cutting limited or forbidden 

in ‘unexploitable’ or protected forests (though only 18 IPAs are protected in Croatia). 

In theory Croatian forests receive the official certificate SA-FM/COC-001212 from The 

Forest Stewardship Council which guarantees sustainable management according to 

strict rules; however those rules need to be more consistently applied. Five of the 35 

policy statements in Montenegro’s draft forest strategy have direct links to 

conservation of forest biodiversity and five out of 42 actions within Macedonia’s forest 

action plan (2007 – 09) relate to environmental and social aspects of forestry, though 

none of these are specific to biodiversity. Both countries will rely on significant 

donations from organisations outside the country to ensure the fulfilment of their 

national programmes. 

Priorities for improving forest conservation policy and practice in 

South East Europe 

● Increase the protection of the most ancient and diverse forests in Europe 

through existing protection mechanisms. Forest IPAs are suitable target sites for 

this protection. 

● Increase the funding from rural development programmes that is available for 

sustainable forest management schemes.Target these schemes at forests where 

there are high levels of forestry activity and forest biodiversity. Forest IPAs are 

suitable targets for these schemes and can provide focus for awareness-raising around 

the importance of forest biodiversity. 

● Include further development and expansion of sustainable forest management 

practices within national forest policies and allocate resources to their 

development where they are absent. 


Grasslands,Agriculture and IPAs 


● 220 (76%) IPAs in the south east European partner countries contain grassland 

habitats. 

● 178 (61%) IPAs contain threatened grassland habitats from the Habitats Directive 

and the Bern Convention, 41% of these sites contain ‘priority habitats’. 

● 43% are used for agriculture (grazing animals). 

● 7% are used for haymaking/mowing. 

● 12% are used for other forms of agriculture (arable, mixed, horticulture). 

● 34% of IPAs are threatened by land abandonment. 

● 28% are threatened by agricultural intensification. 

Traditional, low input agricultural systems are predominant in South East Europe.These 

systems result in farmland of high biological diversity, whose conservation importance 

has been recognised by policy makers across Europe and the land categorised as High 

Nature Value (HNV) farmland. Grassland/agricultural IPAs in the partner countries provide 

a subset of HNV farmland. IPAs are not only representative of HNV areas associated 

with rare species (type 3), but IPA criteria include an assessment of threatened habitats 

(land cover) and species richness (high quality semi natural vegetation) across all habitat 

types. 76% of sites within the IPA network in the partner countries contain grassland 

habitats and 135 IPAs are used for agriculture related to grazing animals, hay making 

and/or mowing (46%), underlining the importance of grassland habitats and associated 

agricultural activities in maintaining sites of exceptional botanical diversity. On many of 

these sites mosaics of semi natural vegetation are common. 



Upland hay meadows in Durmitor IPA. 

85 

DIANE RADFORD


Supporting traditional agricultural 

systems in South East Europe is crucial 

to maintain High Nature Value farmland. 

DIMITAR PEEV 

86 

Traditional farming systems are declining in the region, being replaced by either more 

intensive farming, or being abandoned altogether; 28% of IPAs are threatened by 

agricultural intensification and 34% by land abandonment.The net result is loss of 

biodiversity (see references). 

High Nature Value Farmland (HNV):Those areas in Europe where agriculture is a 

major land use and where that agriculture supports or is associated with a high 

species and habitat diversity and/or the presence of species of European 

conservation concern. 


The importance of traditional (low input) agricultural systems in maintaining biodiversity, 

and the need to identify and conserve HNV farmland is recognised in the agricultural 

targets of the Kyiv resolution (Environment for Europe process) and the Rural 

Development Policy (the basis of the second pillar of the EU Common Agricultural 

Policy – CAP), see box on page 87. The complexities of implementing EU Rural 

Development Policy through the Rural Development Regulation, are well documented 

elsewhere (see references), but essentially both the Kyiv targets and the EU’s Rural 

Development Regulation require incentives/subsidies to be given to farmers to maintain 

measures which use resources sustainably and maintain biodiversity.Their limited 

success in delivering conservation of biodiversity in west and central Europe has also 

been well documented. Successes are frequently undermined by subsidies provided by 

other production orientated measures in Rural Development Plans, which have negative 

affects on farmland biodiversity across large parts of the EU. 


Bulgaria, the only SEE IPA partner country within the EU, has begun a national agrienvironment 

programme which includes the maintenance and restoration of HNV 

farmland and traditional crop varieties and increasing knowledge of traditional farming 

practices. In 2007 the European Forum for Nature Conservation and Pastoralism and 

WWF found a number of key issues preventing effective implementation of rural 

development measures that could benefit HNV farmland in Bulgaria (and Romania). 

Crucially not all of the appropriate HNV land has access to payments because it is not 

officially registered. National and EU deterrents to registration include: the minimum size 

rules for land registration in Bulgaria which exclude the land parcels of many very small 

scale semi subsistence or subsistence farmers; the ban on the inclusion of forested land 

as forage, which is difficult for those owning herds which include forest browsing goats; 

and difficulties associated with accessing payments on communal land, another common 

characteristic of Bulgarian farming systems.There are significant problems to overcome 

in the Bulgarian scheme and farmers need considerably more financial, administrative 

and technical support to ensure RDP payments provide benefits to those farmers those 

whose farming methods support biodiversity conservation. 

Croatia, Montenegro and Macedonia FYR, as accession/potential accession countries, are 

developing Rural Development Programmes, often through enhancing existing national 

legislation. Despite this, the identification of HNV farmland and development of 

supporting programmes is in its infancy in the Western Balkans. DeRijck and Erg (2006) 

concluded that a number of key measures were needed to promote and implement 

appropriate policies: establishment of datasets; pan European monitoring on species and 

habitats; sound comparative and analytical research into the effectiveness of policy 

responses; innovative plans for HNV protection and considerable awareness-raising 

(through literature, demonstration farms, training and international organisations). In 

light of the threats faced by the agricultural and grassland IPAs in South East Europe, 

that have been quantified by this project (34% threatened by land abandonment), there is 

an urgent need to start delivering on these recommendations now. 

Relevant agricultural policy in partner countries: 

Ministerial Environment for Europe process:The Kyiv resolution on biodiversity (2003), 

specifically the agriculture and biodiversity targets 

● identify high nature value areas in agricultural ecosystems by 2006 

● to ensure that a substantial proportion of these areas will be under biodiversity 

sensitive management by using appropriate mechanisms such as rural 

development instruments, agri-environment programmes and organic 

agriculture….( by 2008) 

Common Agricultural Policy and the Rural Development Regulation 

Pillar 2 of the CAP offers support for farmers through the European Agricultural 

Fund for Rural Development.The Rural Development Regulation determines how 

that money will be spent requires EU Member States to develop national rural 

development strategies and plans (RDPs).A number of measures must be chosen 

to help the protection and enhancement of natural resources and landscapes in 

rural areas, and at least 20% of funding must go to sustainable land management. 

This funding should contribute to the EU priority areas of safeguarding biodiversity, 

and the preservation of high nature value farming and forestry systems and 

traditional agricultural landscapes. 



87



De Rijck, K., and Erg, B. (compilers), 2006. High Nature 

Value Farming in the Western Balkans. Final report of the 

workshop on High Nature Value farming in Western 

Balkans 2-3 February 2006, Belgrade. UNEP WWF 

EFNCP.WWF Danube Carpathian Programme. 

European Forum for Nature Conservation and 

Pastoralism Newsletter La Cañada Nos. 20, 21 and 22 

(2007 and 2008). 

European Forum for Nature Conservation and 

Pastoralism website: www.efcnp.org and documents 

therein 

Keenleyside, C., Szemplińska, M. and Van Dijk, G. (eds), 

2007. The relationship between the CAP and biodiversity 

2006 – Outcome of an international seminar in Warsaw, 

Poland 7-8 December 2006:The Common Agricultural 

Policy and farmland biodiversity in an enlarged EU. DLG 

Government Service for Land and Water Management, 

the Netherlands 2007. 

A typical High Nature Value landscape 

mosaic in the Eastern Rhodope, Bulgaria. 


88 

Priorities for improving agricultural policy and practice in South East 

Europe 

● Define and prioritise support for the HNV farming systems that are crucial to 

HNV farmland. Grassland/agricultural IPAs (as a sub set of HNV farmland) provide a 

good place to start with the bottom up process of defining the HNV farming systems. 

● Undertake research into the impact of policy reponses on farmland. IPAs are a 

ready made network with comprehensive baseline biological data on species and 

habitats providing a good platform from which to monitor change. 

● Develop effective agri-environment schemes and target them at farmers HNV 

farming systems that are maintaining high diversity. Grassland/Agricultural IPAs (as 

a sub set of HNV farmland) are ideal targets for these schemes. 

● Invigorate the promotion and awareness-raising of HNV farmland concept in 

the Western Balkans. Grassland/agricultural IPAs can provide focus for awarenessraising 

around the importance of agricultural biodiversity. 

● Develop pilot conservation projects that engage local communities and focus on 

raising the economic viability of HNV farming: for example branding specialist 

farming products. 


Wetlands, Coast,Water use and IPAs 


Inland water 

● 93 (32%) of IPAs in the south east European partner countries contain inland water 

habitats: surface standing water (49), surface running waters, (47) surface water 

bodies (27). 

● 46 (16%) of IPAs contain threatened inland water habitats from the Habitats 

Directive and the Bern Convention. 

Mire, bog and fen 

● 50 (17%) IPAs in the partner countries contain mire, bog and fen habitats: raised and 

blanket bogs (1), poor fens, valley and transition mires (10), base-rich fens (12), sedge 

and reed beds (32). 

● 22 (8%) of IPAs with mire, bog and fen habitats contain threatened habitats from the 

Habitats Directive and the Bern Convention, 12 of these sites contain ‘priority habitats.’ 

Marine and coast 

● 16 (5%) IPAs in the partner countries contain marine habitats: littoral rock (3), 

littoral sediments (7), sublittoral rock (3), sublittoral sediments (6), pelagic water 

column (1). 

● 33 (11%) IPAs in the partner countries contain coastal habitats: coastal dune and 

sand (13), coastal shingle (5), cliffs, ledges and shores (23). 

● Of the coastal and marine sites, 35 (2%) contain threatened habitats from the 

Habitats Directive and the Bern Convention and 4 of these sites contain ‘priority 

habitats’ for marine and coast. 

Land use 

● 51 (18%) of IPAs are used for fisheries /aquaculture. 

● 48 (17%) IPAs are used for water management (reservoirs, hydropower etc). 

● 5 (2%) of IPAs are used for peat extraction. 

Threats 

● 77 (26%) of IPAs are threatened by water mismanagement: dredging and canalisation 

(27), management systems (26), construction of barrage/dam (23), 

extraction/drainage 17, drainage (4). 

● 21 (7%) of IPAs are threatened by aquaculture and fishery activities. 

● 34 (12%) of IPAs are threatened by eutrophication. 

● Tourism development is a significant threat for many marine and coastal IPAs. 



Riparian mixed forests of Oak (Quercus 

robur),Ash (Fraxinus excelsior, F. 

angustifolia) and Elm (Ulmus laevis, U. 

minor) are threatened in Europe 

89 

DIMITAR PEEV


Tourist developments threaten 

important habitats on the Black Sea 

Coast, Bulgaria. 

90 

INSTITUTE OF BOTANY, BAS 

Water and wetlands habitats are universally important for water supply, agriculture, 

fisheries, hydropower, water regulation and flood control. Balkans countries are rich in 

water of good quality, but industrial, pesticide and fertiliser pollution of rivers and their 

estuaries with the Adriatic Sea has been a major problem in the region, especially prior 

to the conflict in the 1990s. 

Coastal habitats are of major economic importance for tourism in Croatia, Montenegro 

(the Adriatic) and Bulgaria (the Black Sea).The coast and associated dune habitats are 

under pressure and in many cases threatened by tourism development (as discussed in 

the policy section on biodiversity development page 79). Coastal wetlands are few in the 

region, largely because they have been drained and used for intensive agriculture; the 

Neretva Delta on the Croatian/Bosnian border is the largest remaining coastal wetland 

in the partner countries and even here only fragments of the original Mediterranean 

wetland remain. Rivers and deep gorges are another characteristic feature of most of 

the limestone mountains in the Balkans, for example the Moraca,Tara and Vardar rivers. 

The undisturbed sides of the gorges, were refuges in past times of changing climate and 

are particularly rich in Tertiary relict species.These canyon habitats are threatened by 

the creation of dams and reservoirs to secure water supply and deliver hydropower - 

8% of IPAs in the region are threatened by dam or barrage construction. Small 

hydropower plants (SHP) are gaining ground in the Balkans because of the need for 

energy independence. If not located wisely, SHP will devastate sites of unique 

biodiversity. During this project the Macedonian government granted 400 twenty-year 

concessions for small hydroelectric power plants. 11 IPAs in Macedonia (out of 42) will 

be affected as well as additional Important Bird Area, Emerald sites and two National 

Parks. Similar problems, albeit on a smaller scale, exist in Bulgaria. 

Large freshwater lakes are present in all partner countries except Croatia and they 

often cross borders for e.g. Lake Ohrid (Macedonian /Albanian border) and Skadar Lake 

(Montenegro /Albanian border).These lakes frequently contain their own endemic fauna 

and flora, and like the coastal regions are threatened by eutrophication and poorly 

regulated aquaculture and fishing activities. Artificial lakes are also present in the region 

for e.g. Lake Marovo in Macedonia, as well as numerous glacial lakes in the mountain 

regions. Rila Mountain in Bulgaria has 190 glacial lakes alone. 

Bog, and mire habitats are much less common in the Balkans than in northern Europe, 

fens are slightly more common as are reed and sedge beds – which is reflected in the 

IPA habitat data.As a result, where these habitats do occur they are significant – in half 

of the IPAs containing these types of wetland habitats, the habitats are threatened at a 

European level. 

Policy response 

Within the European Union the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) provides legally 

binding regulation to protect the water systems’ of Member States (rivers, lakes, coast, 

estuaries and groundwater).The Directive includes a commitment to protect and 

enhance aquatic ecosystems and the terrestrial and wetland ecosystems that depend on 

them.This legislation currently applies to Bulgaria as the only EU Member State within 

the partner countries, but all partner countries are working to harmonise their water 

policy with that of the EU.When the WFD is transposed into national law it requires a 

number of elements which can be either assisted by using IPA data, or that will assist 


with wetland IPA conservation these are: a national register of protected areas within 

water systems, management plans for river basins, and a network of sites to monitor the 

ecological status of water systems. 

The Ramsar Convention is the key international treaty that obliges governments to 

identify and protect wetland sites; providing a framework for national action and 

international cooperation on the conservation of wise use if wetlands and their 

resources. 10 IPAs in the partner countries are currently designated as Ramsar sites, 

many of which are cross borders such as Skadar Lake. The criteria for designating 

Ramsar sites overlap with those used to identify IPAs. 

Croatia is a signatory of the Barcelona Convention for protection against pollution in 

the Mediterranean Sea. Signatories agree to take specific measures against water 

pollution from various sources, to cooperate with others, to protect biodiversity, to 

apply legislation and facilitate public access to information and public participation. It is 

perceived by conservationists as one of the weakest Conventions, the goal is integrated 

coastal zone management but practically in Croatia, there is little evidence of it working 

for biodiversity. 

Countries in the south east European region have taken steps to harmonise their 

approach to water management through BALWOIS (The Water Observation and 

Information System for Balkan Countries). The network aims to create a community of 

the main stakeholders in the field of water protection and water management ranging 

from scientists, private sector, experts, NGO’s, to decision makers and wider public. 

Priorities for improving water policy and practice in South East Europe 

All the prorities for nature protection and biodiversity apply to water 

bodies in the region. 

● Reassess the protection levels of key water bodies based on information now 

available of wetland IPAs. 

● Ensure the siting of hydroelectric developments balance energy needs and 

biodiversity conservation benefits (avoiding sites of international importance for 

biodiversity) 

● Prioritise the reduction of water pollution in internationally important wetland 

and coastal IPAs 



MALINA DELCHEVA 


The Ramsar Convention: www.ramsar.org 

The EU Water Framework Directive: 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/waterframework/index_en.html 

Wetlands Knowledgebase: 

http://www.wetlands.org/RSIS/WKBASE/ 

Priority coastal habitats such as these 

fixed dunes on the Black Sea Coast are 

extremely threatened by development. 

91


Wild harvesting of fungi provides 

additional income for those in rural areas. 

Cultivation of Scardica sideritis, has 

relieved pressure on this species in the 

wild – around beehives in Trigrad IPA. 

92 

DIMITAR PEEV ELIZABETH RADFORD 

Wild plant harvesting, Fungus 

collection and IPAs 

Quick statistics 

● Wild plant harvesting is recorded as a land use on 30 (10%) of IPAs in the south 

east European partner countries 

● 16 (5 %) of IPAs are threatened by unsustainable wild plant and fungi collection 

Plant and fungi species are known to be collected from the wild in 10% of IPAs in the 

South East European project countries and wild plant harvesting has a long and deep 

rooted tradition in the rural areas of the partner countries. It is likely that this is an 

underestimate, as much collection goes unrecorded or even unnoticed beyond very local 

communities, especially if it is not threatening species and habitats. Collection is both 

commercial and non commercial (for personal use) and includes bark, leaves, fruits, roots 

and whole herb parts for flowering plants and the whole fruiting body of fungi.The main 

uses are herbal medicine and fruits and mushrooms (fungi) for food. Significant parts of 

rural population depend on wild harvesting for additional income (especially the poor or 

the retired) and individuals of all social/age groups collect for personal use. 

The numbers of species collected by wild harvesting are difficult to ascertain but it is in 

the hundreds, many of the plants collected are relatively common species (e.g 

Blackthorn- Prunus spinosa, Nettle - Urtica diocia, Bilberry - Vaccinium myrtilis, Juniper - 

Juniperus communis and Blackberry - Rubus fructicosus) but some are threatened species 

and known to have declined in recent years through over collection (e.g. Gentiana lutea, 

Sideritus scardica, Paeonia officinalis) hence half the IPAs where this land use is recorded 

are also threatened by this activity though only at a low level. Some of these threatened 

species are now cultivated, or being investigated for their cultivation potential as their 

collection in the wild is so difficult because natural populations have decreased 

significantly, for example Sideritius scardica in Bulgaria. In Croatia cultivation of medicinal 

plants is not common practice. 

The collection of wild plant and fungi can be a huge opportunity for conservation 

activities, both within and outside IPAs. The sustainable collection of more common 

species and promotion of their plant products can help safeguard sites and bring benefits 

for the more threatened species and habitats, whilst improving local livelihoods.Those 

who collect wild plants and fungi know that only sustainable harvesting will ensure their 

survival.This not only means careful harvesting and monitoring of the species concerned 

but care for the habitat on which they depend. Experience elsewhere (Romania, Italy, 

the Himalayas, East Africa) shows that the local collectors themselves are frequently the 

most motivated to conserve species and habitats. Medicinal plants, herbal tea, fungi, 

fruits etc provide an opportunity for both conservation and development; a very tangible 

income derived and enhanced from conservation activities.The potential to tap into 

local interest for conservation of medicinal plants was demonstrated in the Macedonian 

pilot project on Shara Mountain (section V) where the medicinal plant species 

highlighted within the project generated much interest and discussion. 

Policy response to over harvesting 

CITES the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species prohibits the 

collection and sale of many plant species, whilst others are monitored and regulated, 

Bulgaria, Croatia and Montenegro are signatories. The ability to comply depends on 


national legislation. EU regulations 

implement CITES provisions in Europe 

with an number of stricter measures 

affording species listed in four annexes. 

Annex V of the EU Habitat Directive 

obliges members to safeguard resources of 

some commercially important plant 

species. 

Nationally Bulgaria has a specific Medicinal 

Plants Act (amended in 2002) with 500 

species within the annex to which various 

restrictions apply. Croatia’s medicinal 

plants are covered by the Law on Nature Protection, in Macedonia they are referred to 

within the Sustainable Development Plan. In general medicinal or harvestable species 

already on protected species lists cannot be harvested. Other medicinal plants may 

require permits to collect, for which a fee is paid to local authorities.A number of 

species in Bulgaria and Croatia are subject to quotas defined by regional and municipal 

authorities, or by protected area authorities with national and nature parks. This 

practice ensure also a regular monitoring of the populations of those species. 

In Bulgaria the quota system is regarded as a good policy that works in practice, for 

example for Leucojum aestivum and Arctostaphylos uva-ursi. Macedonia has developed 

National List of threatened species for export control known as D4, based on the 

CITES requirements.The national level of collection was estimated for some plant 

species and quotas for export were defined for e.g. Arctostaphylos uva-ursi and Evernia 

prunastri. Collection of Gentiana lutea has been banned for five years. 

IUCN, BfN and WWF Germany have developed a standard for the sustainable wild 

collection of medicinal plants for ecological, organic, ethical, and social best-practice and 

certification systems involving wild plant species, the International Standard for the 

Sustainable Wild Collection of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (ISSC-MAP). 

Priorities for improving wild plant harvesting policy and practice in 

South East Europe 

● Encourage sustainable development practices in local communities where wild 

plants and fungi are collected, for example those contained in the International 

Standard for the Sustainable Wild Collection of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants. 

● Develop relationships that allow local wild plant collectors to use their 

knowledge to assist plant conservation on priority sites for example to help 

define quotas in protected areas and IPAs where collection is damaging plant 

populations. 

● Develop pilot conservation projects that engage local wild harvesting 

communities and focus on ensuring sustainable collection and subsequent 

development and promotion of the sustainably sourced plant products. IPAs are 

a natural target for these projects. 



Crocus harvested for saffron in Turkey. 


Еvstatieva, L., Hardalova, R. & Stoyanova, K., 2007. 

Medicinal plants in Bulgaria: diversity, legislation, 

conservation and trade. - Phytol. Balcan. 13(3): 415- 

427. 

Hamilton,A.C. (editor), 2008. Medicinal plants in 

conservation and development: case studies and lessons 

learnt. Plantlife International, Salisbury, UK. 

International Standard for the Sustainable Wild 

Collection of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (ISSC 

MAP). IUCN 

http://www.floraweb.de/mappro/Standard_Version1_0.pdf 

Kathe,W., Honnef, S. and Heym,A., 2003. Medicinal and 

Aromatic Plants in Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, 

Croatia and Romania.Traffic Europe and WWF 

Deutschland/TRAFFIC Europe-Germany. Bundesamt 

für Naturschutz (BfN) Bonn 2003. 

Lange, D., 1998. Europe’s medicinal and aromatic plants: 

their use, trade and conservation. TRAFFIC International, 

Cambridge U.K. 

Schmitt, S., 2007. Conservation of Eastern European 

Medicinal Plants: Arnica montana in Romania. Final 

report for the Darwin Initiative Project 162/13/020. 

WWF-UK and WWF Danube Carpathian programme. 

Venturella, G., Zervakis. G. and Raimondo, F.M., 2004. 

Mycology in sustainable development:The case of Pleurotus 

nebrodensis in Sicily (Southern Italy) 

http://www.nerium.net/plantaeuropa/Download/Proc 

edings/Venturella_et_al.pdf 

93 

ANDREW BYFIELD

SONYA TSONEVA 


Lilium rhodopaeum, a Bulgarian endemic. 

Conclusion 

The policy frameworks to deliver the conservation of plant diversity on and off IPAs 

exist in all the major sectors in the partner countries in South East Europe. In recent 

years there has been considerable progress in policy development, encouraged by 

internationally driven processes and commitments. In Europe EU policy backed by EU 

financing has done much to improve the delivering of environmental policy in the EU. 

Mistakes have and continue to be made, particularly in the implementation of agricultural 

policy, but there is a perfect opportunity for south east European accession and 

potential accession countries to learn from these mistakes and to make and enforce 

much better policy for the environment as they enter the EU. 

Despite this improvement in policy, a serious and crucial lack of commitment exists 

through all administrative levels to implement national environmental policy on the 

ground (writing policy is the easy part). Obstacles include over complication of 

legislation, overlapping competences within key institutions, diminishing the authority of 

nature protection agencies, marginalising public participation in decision making, diverting 

resources away from conservation and the environment and, especially in coastal areas, 

over reliance on tourism as the Holy Grail to finance conservation as well as improving 

economic prosperity. 

It is essential that appropriately directed and properly managed financial resources 

(incentives/subsidies) and expertise are made available for conservation, and that the 

authorities have a proper understanding of the fundamental importance of biodiversity 

and healthy environments in the long term.These should be underpinned by total 

commitment to proper enforcement of sound environmental legislation, if (plant) 

conservation is to be achieved in the Balkan region. 

Governments are critical in the process, but society and the choices it makes for itself at 

a local level are equally important.The next section discusses on the ground 

conservation activity, focusing on plants and with an emphasis on engaging civil society. 


Section V: 


Conservation – Pilot projects 

Placing the local community at the heart of the conservation has the potential to benefit 

the greatest number of IPAs.Traditional protected area mechanisms, subsidies and 

regulation are expensive and will benefit biodiversity on only a proportion of IPAs, 

especially in South East Europe where fewer resources are available. The policies and 

legislation behind these ‘top down’ (government driven) conservation mechanisms take 

time to establish and enforce, but in the accession and potential accession countries of 

South East Europe, conservation needs to be happening now. Plant conservation can also 

be driven from the ‘bottom up’; community based conservation.This approach 

acknowledges that to achieve sustainable conservation of IPA networks, it is necessary to 

engage the people who live on and around these sites and who use the natural resources 

available within them in their everyday lives. It understands that social processes are as 

important as biological processes in conservation. Community based conservation is 

fundamental to the Ecosystem Approach championed by the Convention on Biological 

Diversity as the main approach to sustainable conservation and development (see box). 

Community conservation is not an easy option, particularly in South East Europe where 

the economy is in transition and value is placed on products and activities that provide 

income quickly.The advantage of focussing on plants is that plants and their pollinators 

are invariably the fundamental component of the (economic) value of any site: grassland 

as a grazing pasture; forest as a source of fuel; medicinal plants as both income and for 

health, vegetables, grains and fruit for food and flowers (with bees) for honey. Plants are 

key component of ecosystem services, for example peat land and forest are both water 

regulators and carbon sinks. 

Each IPA team in the partner countries completed a small pilot project to explore the 

potential for conservation work focusing on plants at IPAs. The budgets for these 

projects were small, between 5 and 10,000 Euros. Each team took a bottom up 

approach to plant conservation engaging the communities that lived on or near IPAs and 

used the sites frequently.These pilot projects are described in this section.An additional 

project taking place on IPAs in Turkey and led by the NGOs Doğal Hayatı Koruma 

Derneği and Stichting Rubicon is also described. 

Practical steps to the ecosystem approach (based on The Ecosystem 

Approach: five steps to implementation, Shepherd 2004). 

1. Determine stakeholders and the relationship between them and the area 

under scrutiny; 

2. Characterise the structure and function of the ecosystem and set in place 

mechanisms to manage and monitor it; 

3. Identify important economic issues affecting the ecosystem and stakeholders; 

4. Adapt management and determine impacts over space; 

5. Adapt management and determine impacts over time. 


Section V: Important Plant Area Conservation – Plant Conservation pilot projects 

95


Organisation responsible for project: The 

Bulgarian Biodiversity Foundation (BBF) 

The BBF is an NGO working for nature conservation 

and sustainable development. Its mission is to 

contribute to the conservation of the natural heritage 

of Bulgaria and neighbouring countries of South- 

Eastern Europe, by increasing the involvement of the 

civil society in conservation. 

Project team: BBF: Katerina Angelova (coordinator), 

Georgi Popgeorgiev, Dimitar Plachiiski, Stefan Avramov 

and Rossen Vassilev; Botanical Garden of the Bulgarian 

Academy of Sciences, Sofia:Antoaneta Petrova; Institute 

of Botany of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia: Iva 

Apostolvoa; Regional Inspectorate of the Environment 

and Waters – Pazardjik: Kiril Metodiev; Regional Museum 

of Natural History – Plovdiv: Stefan Stanev. 

Project period: February 2007 to May 2008 

96 

Sustainable conservation of the 

Important Plant Area: 

The Besaparski Hills, Bulgaria 


Katerina Angelova, Bulgarian Biodiversity Foundation 

Critically endangered Gypsophila tekirae – at Besaparki the population is threatened 

by the invasive Ailanthus altissima 

Geographical and Botanical context of IPA 

The Besaparski Hills are located in the southwest of the Upper Thracian plain, near the town of 

Pazardik at the foot of the Western Rhodope Mountains, Bulgaria.The hills are rounded limestone and 

marble, predominantly grassland with rocky outcrops, and range from 350 to 536 metres.The 

Besaparski Hills IPA is 4,035 hectares and contains 45 floristic elements, the largest being Sub 

Mediterranean following by Euro-Mediterranean and Euro-Asiatic. 

The climate is transitional-continental due to the southern geographical position, the proximity to the 

Mediterranean Sea and the protective role of the Stara Planina Mountain. In addition to these conditions 

a range of local factors such as lime rich bedrock, the predominant lack of forests, the shallow dark soils 

rich in humus and carbonate and the almost complete lack of water considerably modify the 

temperature and precipitation, enhancing the xerothermic conditions of the hills. 

In relation to its size, the Besaparski hills are extraordinarily diverse with numerous rare relict and endemic 

plant species and habitats species, 260 of which are of conservation importance and 13 are IPA qualifying 

species under criterion A. For example Fritillaria gussiachae, Gypsophila tekirae and Onosma rhodopea. The 

species on the Besaparski hills represent 42.9 % of the plant families of Bulgaria and 15,5 % of the diversity of 

her vascular flora.There are 5 criterion C qualifying habitats. 140 hectares of the site was already a protected 

area at the beginning of the project and the site is also important for raptors and mammals (suslik). 

Project aim 

To secure the sustainable conservation of the Besparski Hills though improving 

legal mechanisms and community involvement, firstly by providing detailed 

documentation of the site’s key features of conservation importance and secondly by 

successfully engaging local stakeholders in activities that illustrate the potential benefits 

of valuing and conserving the site. 


Plant conservation issues 

The plant diversity of the Besaparski hills is exposed to a number of threats: habitat loss 

though conversion of pastures and meadows into vineyards; expanding quarries; illegal 

fungi extraction from habitats of protected species by local people; afforestation with 

non-characteristic species - for example Cedar; encroachment by the invasive species 

Ailanthus altissuma and plans for rubbish dump and garbage processing plant near local 

villages.There are additional general threats to the site’s habitats and particularly to the 

raptor populations: including burning pastures and stubble, illegal hunting and nest 

robbing, pesticides, erosion, contamination from industry and disturbance from the 

potential creation of wind farms, road building and forestry activities. 

Activities and outcomes 

Legal mechanisms 

Initially the provision of accurate information for decision makers was important 

for this site.The project team assisted by experts researched and documented the 

important botanical features of the site, updating old records, combining them with new 

information and digitally mapping the extent and distribution of priority species and 

habitats.This information was used to present a strong case to the Ministry of 

Environment and Waters to present the case for enlarging the protected area to 

safeguard the most important plant species and habitats. The consultation process also 

involved the Regional Inspectorate of Environment and Water and State forestry office 

in Pazardjik who manage much of the site. Detailed analysis and mapping of 

threats to the site and proposal for solutions to address them were also documented, 

including suggested management activities. The proposal to enlarge the protected 

area at Besaparski Hills was accepted, including measurers to restrict certain 

damaging activities within the protected area (construction, change of use, new quarries 

and other mining, building wind arms, removing topsoil, forestation and hang gliding).The 

area protected has increased from 140 to 860 hectares on the state and municipal lands. 

A small part of the population of the local endemic and globally threatened species 

Gypsophylla tekirae, as well as other populations of other important species are now 

included within the enlarged protected area. Unfortunately the majority of the 

population of the local endemic remains out of the protected area in private lands. 

Community involvement 

A major part of the project was engaging local communities in the conservation of 

Besparski Hills, through raising awareness of the importance of the site and promoting 

opportunities for conservation activities. Seminars were held for both tour operators 

and farmers.The tour operators discussed the opportunities for nature tourism within 



The quarry encroaching on the IPA. 

97 

KIRIL METODIEV


98 

Prize winners from the school competition 

Besaparski IPA. EU agri-environment schemes have not yet been launched in Bulgaria but 

Ministry officials assisted with the project seminar where farmers and other land 

managers were informed about the forth coming agricultural measures and how they 

could use the subsidies for the benefit of nature conservation. 31 representatives of the 

local communities including landowners, farmers, agricultural advisers, mayors, journalists 

and NGOs attended this meeting. A larger project with agri-environmental activities 

and grants for the local farmers is now taking place led by The Bulgarian Society for the 

Protection of Birds (BSPB). 

A regional competition was carried out in 62 schools in Parzardjik and Plovdiv 

districts with the aim to increase interest in protected areas and species in the local 

environment involving 917 children.Training handbooks and practical exercises were 

prepared for the competition and students were taught about national and regional 

protected areas, rare and threatened species in their districts, the legal aspects of nature 

conservation, the creation of the Important Plant Area network in Bulgaria. Each school 

and all the finalists received a diploma and special awards were presented to the top ten 

competitors in both regions.The Regional Inspectorates in both regions were partners 

in the competition along with the Agricultural University in Plovdiv and the 

Confederation of Employers and Industrialists of Bulgaria in Pazardjik. 

A booklet “The Natural Wealth of the Besaparski Hills” was produced during the 

project. In 50 colour pages the booklet represents the biodiversity of the hills and the 

conservation status of all species and habitats there.The text is illustrated with over 100 

photos. 1000 copies of a booklet were distributed across the Pazardijk and Plovdiv 

region ( to schools and university libraries, biology teachers, university lecturers, staff of 

the Regional Inspectorate of Environment and Walters, ecology students, BBF 

volunteers, tour operators, NGOs and competition finalists).This was produced as part 

of the project and included creating a library of 1400 photographs of the IPA, illustrating 

the biodiversity of the site and the key species and habitats within it.A large proportion 

of the local community is now much more aware of the importance of Besapari Hills for 

nature conservation. 


Future Recommendations 

● Protect larger territories in the region and declare new protected zones. 

● Undertake further scientific studies and monitoring of the status of the species with 

conservation importance.The localities of the local endemic species Gypsophyla 

tekirae are found mainly on private lands; a purchase of these lands would help their 

sustainable management in favour of the species survival. 

● Develop a good Natura 2000 management plans for the site using the results of this 

project. Implement check-ups for improved control on legislation. 

● Develop sustainable agriculture practices in the private farmlands by: training of local 

landowners in the application of the agri-environment schemes, supporting the 

establishment of producer associations, sharing know-how on increasing agricultural 

production.Technical support for business plans and project preparation oriented 

towards sustainable land use and nature protection in the Natura 2000 zone. 

● Develop a promotion strategy for the region. E.g. the establishment of a permanent 

exhibition presenting the biological diversity in local community centres and 

continuing the educational activities to develop environmental awareness for 

children – showing environmental awareness and active behavior for nature 

protection are an integral part of the sustainable development of the area. 

● Create a good tourist map of the region together with the information materials 

and panels in foreign languages.The development of tourism trails and a GPS 

guidebook of the type Where to watch wildlife on Bessaparski Hills would attract more 

tour-operators to include the site in their eco-tourism programmes and would 

encourage the local people to valuate high and to protect the nature. 



Calcareous grassland of the rounded 

limestone and marble hills of 

Besparski IPA. 

The guide showcasing the nature of 

Besaparski Hills IPA. 

99 

KIRIL METODIEV


Organisation responsible for project: SUNCE the 

Association for Nature, Environment and Sustainable 

Development 

SUNCE is a regional NGO founded in 1998 in Split, 

Croatia.Today it is the largest environmental 

association in the Dalmatian region.The main 

beneficiaries of Sunce’s activities are the citizens of 

Split and the Dalmatian coast and islands, but Sunce is 

also active on national and international level, through 

partnerships with other organisations and institutions. 

The main goals of the association are: the 

conservation of nature and protection of environment 

as basic values society, and the management of natural 

resources through the implementation of sustainable 

development. 

Project team: SUNCE: Ivana Carev (coordinator) and 

Ivana Marić; University of Split: Professor Mirko Rusičić 

Volunteer: Mirela Bilokapić. 

Project period: February 2007 to December 2007 

Total project cost: 4, 630 Euros 

100 

The Conservation of Important Plant 

Area Pantan 

Ivana Carev 

Investigating public opinion on the conservation of Pantan IPA. 

Geographical and Botanical context of the project site/IPA 

Pantan is a 40 hectare wetland on the Dalmatian coast in the western end of Kaštel Bay, just east of the 

city of Trogir. It is one of the remaining coastal wetlands in Croatia, and listed as a protected area for 

fish and birds.The site has considerable floristic value at both regional and international levels but the 

vegetation is not noted as a feature of the protected area.The site is dominated by Phragmites which 

surrounds a lagoon, and prior to the project 42 vascular plant species and six plant associations have 

been recognised at the site (Limonio-Artemisietum coerulescentis, Salsoletum sodae, Juncetum maritimo-acuti, 

Ruppietum maritimae, Phragmitetum australis, Bolboschoenetum maritime).These associations occur in a 

mosaic complex reflecting the varied patterns of water depth, salinity, tidal movements and soil texture 

across the site.The IPA qualifying habitat is rivers with muddy banks with Chenopodion rubri p.p.and 

Bidention p.p. vegetation. On the basis of the EU Habitats and Species Directive (Council directive 

92/43/EEC) the Croatian State Institute for Nature Protection has recognised Pantan as potential 

Natura 2000 site. 

Project aim 

To raise public awareness of the value of Pantan, and work towards better management 

of the IPA though extensive engagement with stakeholders and civil society in the 

surrounding area. 


ELIZABETH RADFORD


Despite protection by law, Pantan is threatened by a number of anthropogenic activities, 

mainly a result of lack of public awareness and proper management of the site (there is 

no site management plan).The site was under pressure from all sides prior to the start 

of the project. Previous regulation of the water course and the construction of 

greenhouses and artificial ponds had already severely damaged certain areas of the site. 

Other ongoing threats include 

● Infilling of the wetland for farmland extension in greenhouses inside of the protected 

area. 

● Run off from a road adjacent affecting the main spring for the site. 

● Excavations in preparation for the planned construction of housing and a slaughter 

house on the northern part of the beach. 

● Eutrophication from encroaching horticultural activities (greenhouses legally and 

illegally placed) and sewage 

● Dumping of rubble and rubbish. 

The outer edge of the shallow lagoon is also threatened from disturbance by summer 

swimmers, local people search for shellfish in the lagoon and the beach is busy with 

people and litter in the summer when a small café opens on the shore. 



Pantan IPA. 

101 

IVANA CAREV


Information on the plant diversity for 

visitors to the Mill. 

102 

IVANA CAREV 


Initially SUNCE carried out face to face interviews with a number of local people 

and distributed questionnaires to determine the level of existing knowledge on Pantan 

and (in the case of owners of private properties) information on the legislation and their 

rights and obligations under Croatia law and the EU Directives. Concurrently, with staff 

from the University, SUNCE carried out extensive field research on the vegetation 

of Pantan (5 visits assessing winter and summer vegetation), including detailed GIS 

observations for entry into the national Flora Croatica Database 

(http://www.botanic.hr/).This up to date information on the floristic value of the site 

was presented to the Public Institution for the Management of Nature Values of Spilt- 

Dalmatia County - who is responsible for the proper management of the site. 

All those interviewed; local farmers, the café owner, public institution officials, fishermen 

and women, residents, users of the beach, along with the townspeople of Trogir, 

journalists and the town major, were invited to a specially prepared photographic 

exhibition on Pantan in the local library.The exhibition was in partnership with the 

library, the Public Institution and the local senior school and was promoted on local TV 

and radio.The photographs were later displayed in Pantan Mill – a fortified renaissance 

mill of the late 16 th century, immediately adjacent to the wetland, whose owner is keen to 

promote the area.All those who had filled in questionnaires or who had shown interest 

in the site were invited to a public meeting at the library where the result of the 

survey and interviews were presented, and the issues around the current and future 

management Pantan were discussed. Both the regional Public Institution for Management 

of Nature Values and the State Institute for Nature Protection were represented. 

The survey showed that 60% stakeholders thought Pantan was worth protecting and the 

present conservation action is not adequate.The main problems were seen as 

inadequate sewage and waste disposal, as rubbish dumping is very close to the area of 

Pantan’s source spring. Low human awareness and inappropriate behaviour of local 

residents lighting fires inside the protected area, illegal agricultural activities were also 

recognised as significant problems. Other threats were perceived as the airport and 

illegal activities due to lack of law enforcement. 

The workshop discussion was very positive and constructive, participants welcomed the 

opportunity to discuss and give recommendations on the future management of Pantan 

as follows: 

● Local people are interested in the management of Pantan and should be included in 

future management planning. 

● The main threats to Pantan are coming from the lack of awareness on the 

importance of Pantan and enforcement of law. 

● The Public Institution for Nature Protection of Split Dalmatian County presented their 

future plans for Pantan with the main objective of developing management plan of 

Pantan.They plan to make 3 sections with different management measures for each: 


Section A: to include the lagoon and the wetland with 

main species Phragmites.This is most valuable section of 

Pantan where approach should be forbidden or strictly 

limited in order of conservation. 

Section B:To include the beach, is also very valuable as 

section A, but as it is famous beach for the people of 

Trogir, so the approach to this section will be less 

restricted than to section A, allowing access from 15th 

July to 15th September. 

Section C:The most degraded and least valuable part of 

Pantan where many human activities persist and will be 

allowed but under controlled conditions.This presents 

zone where some small agricultural activities and tourist 

activities will be allowed, and the main emphasis will be 

on restoration of wetland. 

In preparation for the exhibition and the public meeting SUNCE 

produced a small information booklet about Pantan using the results of the field 

research. Following the meeting educational tables were produced for the Pantan 

reserve, they are currently located within the Pantan Mill.The Public Institution, who is 

managing Pantan, plans to put them on the site after the development of the 

management plan. 

During the project the profile and understanding of the value of Pantan in Split-Dalmatia 

County was raised significantly, especially among local residents and the Public 

Institution.The coordinator obtained excellent local and national media coverage, 

with one report on national TV and the exhibition and workshop were covered by local 

media on TV, newspapers and on the web. 

The Future 

This project has facilitated agreement by the Public Institution to make a management 

plan for Pantan within a year and along with four other sites in the county.The plans 

development will involve Croatian experts and local stakeholders through and SUNCE 

has said they will facilitate this involvement of local stakeholders.At the time of writing 

the management plan process has not begun but the Public Institution has arranged for 

rubbish clearance from Pantan. 

As the local residents have been sensitised to the importance of Pantan (not just as a 

place to swim or meet friends) it is hoped that should new activities start that further 

threaten the site they will be quick to react. 



An initial proposal for a management 

plan for Pantan. 

103


Organisation responsible for project: The 

Macedonian Ecological Society (MES) in partnership 

with the Ljuboten Mountaineering Club 

The Macedonian Ecological Society was established in 

1972 in order to unite ecologists and environmental 

workers in Macedonia with the aim of better and more 

effective resolving of the ecological and environmental 

problems and improving nature conservation. MES is 

non-governmental organization with about 100 active 

members - experts working in many areas of ecology 

and protection of the environment such as fundamental 

ecology (terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems), 

biodiversity, agroecology, landscape ecology, pollution, 

monitoring, measures for the protection of 

environment, ecological education etc. 

Project team: MES: Natalija Angelova (coordinator), 

Ljupčo Melovski,Vlado Matevski, Mitko Karadelev, 

Mitko Kostadinovski,Vasko Avukatov, Dime Melovski. 

Ljuboten Mountaineering Club,Tetovo: Jovan Bozinoski, 

Dimce Grncaroski, Risto Ristoski, Miroslav Ristoski, 

Dragan Ileski,Vanco Dupicinov, Marina Jancevska. 

Project period: July 2007- February 2009 

Total project cost: 9435.00 Euro funded by the 

MAVA foundation 

104 

The conservation of Šar Planina 

(Shara Mountain): an Important Plant 

Area on the Macedonian (FYR) border 


Natalija Angelova 

Bruckenthalia spiculifolia found in association with Juniperius communis, Vaccinium myrtillus, 

V. uliginosum, Sorbus chamaemespilus and Daphne mezereum in the project locality. 

Geographical and Botanical context of the IPA 

Šar Planina is an 80 km mountain range that is situated on the north western border of Macedonia 

(bordering Albania, Kosovo and Serbia).There are numerous summits along the length of the range, all 

of which rise above 2000 m.The project activities focused on the area if the mountain around Popova 

Shapka above the town of Tetovo (including the summits of Ljuboten,Vakuf,Titov Vrv and Gorna 

Leshnica).This area consists of a wide mountain belt from 1650 m to 2250m, which has a sub alpine to 

alpine climate. In Popova Shapka (a tourist and ski-centre) the summers are short, cool and humid 

(highest average 13.2 ˚C) and the winters are long, very cold and snowy (-3. 8˚C). Spruce forest occurs 

between 1300m and 1600m at lower altutudes mixing with fir and beech. Forests give way to sub alpine 

scrub and grassland around 1720m. In the sub alpine belt the vegetation is composed of small bushes 

called hits, mostly on silicate substrates. 

Close to 2,000 plant species exist on Šar Planina (the whole of Macedonia has 3,700), from the warmer 

gorges at lower altitudes to the highest alpine regions. It is a significant Balkan and European centre of 

mountain endemism containing numerous local, national and Balkan endemic and relict vascular plant 

species from over 60 genera including: Silene, Pedicularis, Saxifraga, Potentilla,Viola,Thymus, Sedum, Sesleria, 

Gentianella, Androsace, Soldanella, Campanula, Knautia, Allysum and Lilium. Shara Planina is the locus classicus 

(first recorded location) of 15 plant species.The unique forests of the endemic Macedonian and Bosnian 

pines (Pinus peuce and P. heldreichii) are a trademark of Shara. 

The extraordinary floral diversity is mirrored in the fauna. Šara Planina supports 130 species of diurnal 

butterflies:; 150 species of ground beetles; 11 amphibians; 18 reptiles,; 129 birds including Aquila chrisaetos, 

Gyps fulvus, Bubo bubo, Falco peregrines, Falco subbuteo; 48 mammals including the extremely rare Balkan 

Lynx, the Brown bear, wolf, chamois, Eurasian water-shrew mole, Mediterranean mole, Martino’s snow 

vole, subterranean vole, yellow-necked mouse, striped field mouse and European wild cat. Many of these 

species are endemic and/or threatened. 


Project aims: 

● To educate mountaineers and other visitors engaged in recreation, about the value 

of the flora and fauna on Šar Planina, through the provision of information and the 

development of new mountains trails 

● To promote the conservation and wise use of umbrella species of plants (for example 

medicinal plants) enabling the conservation of other species at the same time 

● To increase the knowledge of flora of the area to contribute to a Red List for 

Macedonian plants. 


Conservation and development issues are closely linked on Šar Planina.The area is 

declining economically it was formerly a tourist ‘hotspot’, but since the mid nineties it 

has been associated with conflict and visitors have declined.Agriculture (sheep rearing 

for milk, cheese and meat) is a major summer activity on the IPA, and is instrumental in 

maintaining the diversity of the high remote pastures. It too is declining (or becoming 

concentrated in small areas close to habitation) as it is no longer profitable and people 

are moving to the towns for work.This land abandonment could eventually lead to 

scrub encroachment on the pasture reducing the diversity, and concentration of stock 

can lead to erosion nearer settlements. Long term destruction of the forest has opened 

up more areas of pasture and bushy vegetation.At lower altitudes there is some illegal 

cutting of the forest, this is not on a large scale. 

Neither the project site nor any part of Šar Planina is subject to any nature 

conservation legislation and it is not therefore officially protected. The most endangered 

endemic and relict species would benefit from protection, for this to be effective it must 

include the maintenance of their natural habitats, and the whole mountain landscape.The 

benefits of establishing Šar Planina Mt. trans-boundary protected area could go well 

beyond biodiversity conservation; such an area could also play a major role in promoting 



Alpine grasslands and forests of Šar 

Planina. 

105 

ELIZABETH RADFORD

NATALIJA ANGELOVA 


The information panels set up on newly 

opened trails. 

106 

cooperation and confidence building 

between Macedonia and Kosovo and 

within the Balkan region.The conservation 

challenge is to secure the plant diversity 

of Šar Planina for the future whilst 

addressing development issues and lifting 

the economy. 


The project was created around a new 

conservation partnership between the 

Macedonian Ecological Society and the 

local Mountaineering Club “Ljuboten”, 

based in Tetovo. After initial field 

investigation by the project team, special 

localities were selected based on: the 

presence of IPA species and habitats, high 

species diversity, important (relict) forests 

and the potential of these places to be 

popular with visitors. Detailed 

fieldwork was undertaken within these 

localities to provide information and photographs for eight new ‘information tables’. 

Eight trails were selected for promotion as hiking/walking routes and these 

were way-marked by members of the mountaineering club. A tourist map has been 

produced in Macedonian,Albanian and English for visitors to the area, as well as small 

leaflets for each mountain trail. Information on important habitat and species in the 

project area has been researched and presented in situ on information tables in nine 

areas within the IPA.All promotional materials from the project together with the 

information tables were presented to other mountaineering clubs, ecological societies 

and local people to encourage new initiatives. 

During the winter and spring six lectures were arranged for local people in the town 

of Tetovo and the surrounding villages, attendees included local NGO representatives, 

biology teachers, students from the university, officials from the municipal government 

and members of the Ljuboten MC and other mountaineering clubs.The activities of the 

conservation project were presented, focusing on interesting habitats and species (such 

as medicinal plant species) that could be used as flagships for promoting the natural 

value of the area. In addition MES presented the activities associated with the Balkan 

Lynx recovery programme that is coordinated by the Society and active in the same 

area. Local opinion was sought and the projects discussed. 


The structure of the audiences was different in different places (in age, profession, 

culture and nationality) reflecting the complexity of the area.The challenge was to unify 

the people within this large area and to explain them that if this area is protected they 

will benefit.The lectures proved to be the best way of promoting what the project was 

trying to do, and the team feel this should continue for every future activity connected 

to this area, because the local community were pleased to have be included and 

informed of the project, and proud that their area was being promoted in a 

positive way. It was the first time that many of the IPA project team had been in 

contact with some communities since the conflict of the 1990s and they were very well 

accepted by the local people. Locals were also impressed by the activities of the 

partnership and particularly because this was the first project to promote the natural 

beauty of their home. Many contacts were established and the cooperation with some 

of them is continuing. 

The Future 

It is hoped that other mountaineering clubs and societies will take similar initiatives in 

their areas.Awareness of the importance of the region will be promoted through the 

Ljuboten mountaineering club who are the main disseminators of information actively 

distributing leaflets to visitors to Šar Planina. If further resources can be found the 

Project team would like to print an educational mountain guide that will be mixed with 

lot of impressive mountain trails, maps, ecological information, flora and fauna, tourism 

opportunities etc. 



Ljuboten mountaineering club members 

marking the mountain trails. 

107 

NATALIJA ANGELOVA


Organisation responsible for project: 

Green Forest Society 

Green forest aims to address the needs of protecting 

nature through sustainable development. To educate 

and develop the awareness of the population through 

illustrate the advantages of development in harmony 

with natural principles, to promote the importance of 

the relationship between humans and nature and to 

promote and present the wealth and diversity of plant 

and animal world of Montenegro nationally and 

internationally. 

Pilot Project team: Green Forest: Danka Petrovic, 

Marko Karaman, Danijela Stešević, Snežana 

Vuksanović. 

Project period: September 2007 – March 2008 

Total project cost: 3,150 Euros 

108 


The conservation of Important Plant 

Area Cijevna Canyon, Montenegro 

Danka Petrovic and Marko Karaman 

Ramonda serbica this important Balkan relict species is found in the canyon. 

Geographical and Botanical context of the IPA 

The Canyon of Cijevna River is a deep limestone canyon, 15km east of the capital city of Podgorica. 

The source of the river is in the Prokletije Mountains in Albania and its total length is approximately 59 

km, 32km is within Montenegro where it has formed an impressive limestone canyon that reaches a 

depth of 300m in places. The water is of extremely high quality and a large number of plant and animal 

species are associated with the river and the canyon. 

The dynamic geological past, diverse relief and vegetation cover, complex climate results in a very diverse 

plant with both Mediterranean and mountain floristic elements found within the canyon. The walls of the 

canyon are a refuge for many rare plant species, relicts from the Tertiary period. 959 plant taxa (one third 

of the Montenegrin flora) are found within the wider canyon area and more than 30 plant communities 

Several vegetation strips alter with change of altitude and change of climate regime.The dominant 

vegetation type is thermophilic oak forests and particularly important are the well preserved high oro- 

Mediterranean pine forests (one of the 10 criterion c habitat found in the canyon).These forests are also 

characterised with high diversity of fungi; about 200 fungi species have been recorded so far on this IPA 

10 of them are protected by national legislation.The site contains 14 threatened species from the 

criterion A list including Cymbalaria ebelii, Hyancinthella dalmatica, Narcissus angustifolius,Tulipa grisebachiana, 

and one of the five largest populations of the Balkan endemic Ramonda serbica. 

Project aim 

To increase the awareness of the international importance of the Cijevna River Canyon 

in terms of its floristic richness, with activities aimed at the local population, the 

municipalities (Tuzi and Podgorica) and the Institution for Protection of Nature. 

To prepare a proposal for the protection of the Cijevna River canyon, for presentation 

to the Institution for the Protection of Nature. 



The Cijevna river canyon is not currently formally protected, but neither at present is it 

greatly threatened. However there is growing concern about the effect of gravel 

extraction from the riverbed and increasing water extraction.These have the potential 

to cause damage to the vegetation and river profile close to the extraction sites and to 

degrade the water quality.These issues are of relevance and interest to the local 

population (small village of about 300 in habitants) who extract water from the river for 

domestic use. 

A number of activities aimed at protecting the Canyon have been attempted, but they 

were not successful because they did not include the local people and were not based 

on an understanding of the natural value of the system or on accurate data on the flora 

and fauna. The local people were therefore unaware of why action was needed. 


The project focused on the promotion of the natural value of Cijevna Canyon amongst 

the local and national population and to investigate the possibilities for future protection 

through both the actions of local citizens and municipal authorities. 

A seminar was arranged for the local population 60 people attended including the 

director of the Institute for Nature Protection, representatives of NGO “Friends of 

Cijevna Canyon”, NGO Green Home that realized the “Sustainable development of 

Cijevna River Basin” project,TV Crna Gora, several representatives of elementary 


Section IV: Important Plant Area Conservation – Plant Conservation pilot projects 


Cijevna canyon. 

Low level domestic water extraction in 

the canyon. 

109 

ELIZABETH RADFORD


The poster with the results of the 

photograph competition. 

110 

schools. Leaflets containing information on 

botanical values of the canyon, the 

importance of its protection, the IPA 

project were distributed with details of a 

competition for the selection of the most 

beautiful photographs of the canyon. 

The discussion concluded that “Values and 

importance of the canyon are 

unquestionable, but idea of their protection 

will be hard to realise.” 

Features on the Cijevna River Canyon, its 

botanical values and the IPA project in 

Montenegro were recorded for national 

TV Crna Gora and national Radio 

Crna Gora 

IPA pilot project was presented at a round table meeting “Potentials for sustainable 

development of Cijevna River Basin” organized by NGO Green Home in cooperation with 

NGO Albanian Association for Ecological Education. 

A photo competition for the most beautiful photo of the canyon, with particular 

focus on the flora and habitats was launched as part of the promotional campaign.The 

winning photos were included on a poster of the canyon which contains information 

on the IPA and its key botanical features, the objectives and importance of the IPA 

project, information on factors endangering the biodiversity and the importance of its 

preservation.The poster has been distributed in elementary schools in Tuzi and 

Podgorica (the municipalities through which the river flows), distribution in schools all 

around Montenegro is also planned.The poster was delivered to institutions responsible 

for research and protection of environment (University of Montenegro Department of 

Biology), Ministry of Environment, Natural History Museum, Republic Institution for 

Protection of Nature, UNDP office in Montenegro) and some partner NGOs. 

Information boards two wooden boards of dimensions 1m x 1,2m, were installed 1.6 

m above the ground in the vicinity of the main road, supported by the local authorities of 

Tuzi urban municipality.The text on the boards is in Serbian and Albanian and states: 

Cijevna Canyon is an area that is important for plants - an Important Plant Area or IPA, where 

you can see rich flora, rare protected plants, endemic plants, endangered and protected habitats. 

The Future 

The project was not designed to deliver official protection of the Cijevna Canyon as a 

result of the pilot project, but to inform and enthuse local communities about the site – 

which it has achieved. It has been an important contribution to awareness-raising about 

the botanical values of the canyon and importance of its protection.These messages 

have been spread beyond the local community to the whole of Montenegro because of 

the involvement of national media. 

The involvement of municipalities and the Institute for Nature Protection of 

Montenegro throughout the project has been very important and a future proposal for 

the protection of the canyon may be submitted in the near future. 


IPANET – Establishing a Volunteer 

Network for Important Plant Areas 

on Turkey 

Sema Atay and Canan Orhun 

This 22 month project is coordinated by The Society for the Protection of Nature (Doğal Hayatı 

Koruma Derneği-DHKD) and the Rubicon Foundation with support from IVN Netherlands and 

FLORON. It is funded by the Matra Projects Programme of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign 

Affairs. Plantlife is grateful to the project partners who have given permission for a summary of 

the project to be included in this report, because of its relevance to the conservation of 

Important Plant Areas and to the South East European region. 

Geographical and Botanical context of the project 

Practically the project focuses on nine Important Plant Areas across 12 Turkish provinces, representing a 

huge diversity of species and variety of habitat types.The results are applicable on a national scale. 

1. Ergene Basin IPA (within the provinces of Edirne and Kirklareli): Relict fragments of dry closed 

grasslands overlying calcareous loams and marls, containing 7 species of Global and European 

conservation concern. 

2. Omerli Basin IPA (Istanbul):A water catchment area for Istanbul, with a mosaic of heath and coppice 

forest habitats, with associated grassland, seepage mire on peat, and seasonally flooded pool.The site 

has at least 36 nationally rare species and 15 species of global and European conservation concern. 

3. Uludağ IPA (Bursa):The highest mountain in North-western Anatolia with many habitats including 

broadleaved and coniferous forests, sub-alpine moorland, seasonal moorland pools, extensive alpine cliff 

communities, glacial lakes and exposed summit communities. 791 plant taxa are endemic to this single site. 

4. Coruh Valley IPA (Erzurum and Artvin): An undisturbed river system, with mixed deciduous forest 

including stone pine (Pinus pinea) at lower altitudes and extensive dry steppe on the valley sides. 

Approximately 750 taxa occur at this site. 67 are endemic to Turkey. 

5. Baba Mountain IPA (Mugla):An altitudinal succession from maquis through lowland pine forest, cedar 

of Lebanon (Cedrus libani) forest, scree, cliff and exposed summit communities in alpine zone. 50 

nationally rare plants have been recorded, including 40 of global and European importance. 



Overall project responsibility: Rubicon 

Foundation, the Netherlands; 

www.rubiconfoundation.org 

Organisation responsible for project in Turkey: 

The Society for the Protection of Nature (Doğal 

Hayatı Koruma Derneği -DHKD) www.dhkd.org 

Founded in 1975, DHKD is one of the leading nongovernmental 

organisations in Turkey. For more than 

30 years, DHKD has been dedicated to conserving 

the rich flora and fauna and their natural habitats in 

Turkey. DHKD’s goal is to contribute to the 

protection of nature and natural resources and to 

build a future in which man lives in harmony with 

nature. DHKD’s mission is to achieve its goal through: 

i) the preservation of ecosystems and biodiversity; ii) 

the promotion of sustainable use of natural resources; 

iii) the contribution to the development of national 

environmental policies. 

Project team: Rubicon: Canan Orhun (overall 

project Coordinator); DHKD: Sema Atay (coordinator 

in Turkey), Ozlem Dagdeviren, Kerem Ali Boyla, Didem 

Dogruoz; IVN: Ruud Maarschall; FLORON: Baudewijn 

Odé and Wout van der Slikke. 

Project period: 2007 – 2009 (on going) 

111


Centaurea truimfetti. 

112 


6. Lara-Perakende Sand Dunes IPA (Antalya):The flora of the site is rich in species largely restricted to 

the Pamphylian Plain: 34 nationally rare plants have been recorded and 18 of global and European 

importance 

7.Ahır Mountain IPA (Kahramanmaras):A barren limestone mountain in South-eastern Anatolia where 

the vegetation has been affected by human activities; degraded oak scrub, montane steppic grassland and 

barren rubble plant communities. The flora remains rich: 122 Turkish endemic taxa are recorded. 

8. Erciyes Mountain IPA (Kayseri):The largest extinct volcano in Central Anatolia,where dense forests 

have been replaced by montane steppe communities following cutting and grazing.The flora remains 

rich, with over 840 taxa recorded. 

9. Cildir Lake IPA (Kars and Ardahan):A series of oligotrophic lakes on the upland plateau of 

easternmost Anatolia.The lakes support vegetation types otherwise rare in Turkey.As a result, the flora 

is rich in species that are highly localised in Turkey.The IPA contains at least 10 threatened plant species. 

Project aim 

To create and train a strong civil network, skilled to work at the community level on 

plant conservation with various stakeholders (i.e. government organisations, local 

NGOs, universities, private sector and individuals), to develop and trigger proper 

participatory processes in order to influence political decisions about the management 

of Important Plant Areas that have implications on the livelihoods of the society and the 

future of the IPAs. 


The sites within the project have conservation issues that are as diverse as the habitats 

and species within them.Those issues largely relate to the improper management of 

natural resources that has resulted (or is resulting) in a dramatic decline in the size and 

quality of many Turkish habitats (peat land, wetlands, sand dunes, heathlands, liquid amber 

forests and old growth colchic forests to name but a few).An issue that is relevant to all 

IPAs in Turkey (and in many South East European countries) is the insufficient capacity at 

the governmental level to implement conservation measures, and a lack of awareness and 

participation from the civil society in the decisions that affect these important sites, the 

resources they contain and thus the lives of those who are dependent upon them. In 

Turkey there is also a lack of individual and organisational capacity in the conservation of 

natural (plant) resources, civil society is not frequently engaged with conservation activites. 


The project has three main elements with associated activities running concurrently: 

capacity building (training), awareness raising and establishing the IPANETs volunteer 

network and multi-stakeholder platforms for each IPA. 

Capacity Building 

The core project team from Turkey and the Netherlands carried out a series of training 

workshops for the nine Local Coordinators, which allowed them to develop skills in 

participatory processes that would help to engage members of civil society in their area 

in conservation. Some of the themes covered during the trainings are as follows: 


● Explaining and promoting the ecosystem approach to resource management 

● Developing site visions and site action plans through participation 

● Working with volunteers (recruiting, retaining, motivating) 

● Training volunteers to monitor sites and species within sites 

Capacity building is ongoing in three major areas: building the capacity of DHKD as a 

national NGO to continue taking the lead in IPA conservation, building the capacity of 

the IPA Coordinators to work at the local level and building the capacity of the local 

authorities in understanding the IPA process.The latter includes how IPA conservation is 

actually supporting the national legislation of Turkey, along with the country’s 

international obligations under Ramsar, CBD, Bern and the EU accession process. 

DHKD is using the IPA programme as an umbrella in promoting itself actively.This 

concerted effort has lead to new sponsors thus strengthening the operations of the 

organization.The IPA Coordinators through the training they receive have been 

empowered and motivated to start local level actions and are much motivated.The 

actions are also leading to renewed relations with local authorities some of whom have 

joined the IPANET themselves. 

Awareness-raising 

A number of promotional events will continue throughout the life of the project. 

Materials (booklets) about the project and selected IPAs were produced for the first 

introductory meeting with local coordinators and for the high profile launch event. The 

launch was covered by national TV and attended by national and regional level 

stakeholder representatives (of NGOs, government authorities and MPs) as well as 

journalists and other interested individuals. 



IPANET volunteers learn from the 

Volunteer coordinator on Uludağ IPA. 

113 

SEMA ATAY


Crocus chrysanthus on Uludağ IPA. 

114 


A public awareness raising campaign is being carried out in the 12 provinces associated 

with the IPANET including: the production and distribution of IPA posters; face to face 

meetings with government stakeholders at provincial level to ask for their participation 

in the activities; public presentations of the project, and meetings between the Local 

Coordinators and various community groups.There is a project website which provides 

up-to-date information to the public. It is also linked to the Planta Europa website and 

the international IPA database.The website may be viewed at www.obanet.net. 

Through media promotion the IPA concept and DHKD is being kept alive in the public 

eye.As the project progresses local IPA Coordinators are being contacted by media 

rather than having to seek attention and members of the public are asking how they can 

join the local actions.Visits to the DHKD and project websites have increased. 

There have been ripple effects, for example all IPA Coordinators have been successful in 

finding Assistant (or Co-coordinators) for their IPAs. At several IPAs local level actions 

have started, i.e. the campaign to encourage the locals at Kahramanmaras IPA to grow 

an endangered local crab apple tree in their gardens.A poster was developed under the 

project and distributed along with seedlings of the crab apple tree.At Lara-Perakende 

IPA (Antalya) there has been a huge positive reaction from the public to the media 

actions taken by the IPA Coordinators.The workshops are also motivational at the local 

level for the public and the local authorities, especially in very rural areas (i.e Kars).The 

locals are motivated by our interest and willingness to help.The opportunities which 

surface for rural development and exchange of ideas are contributing to the long term 

sustainability of the actions and the IPANET. 

Multi-stakeholder platforms – creation of the IPANET of volunteers 

Throughout the project local coordinators will work to identify and recruit local 

volunteers to participate in the IPANET and to work together to influence the 

authorities on the future conservation of their local IPA. 

To date some of the local coordinators arranged a number of public meetings in each 

province, which were attended by all those willing to participate in the local IPANET. 

Provincial government officials also attended.These public meetings were used as part of 

“learning by doing” process where the Local Coordinators led participatory discussions 

and put into practice the skills learned in earlier theoretical training. 


Conclusion and recommendations for IPA conservation in South East Europe 

Section VI: 

Conclusion and recommendations for 

IPA conservation in South East Europe 

Protected areas are, traditionally, the backbone of site-based conservation in 

south east Europe. They remain an important element in safeguarding IPAs but 

a greater emphasis on the development and implementation of management 

plans for the areas with particularly attention on measures to protect wild 

plants and their habitats is crucial. 

IPA data show clearly where the existing, officially recognised species and 

habitat lists underpinning current legislation need updating. This provision of 

new site-based information on priority plants, fungi and their habitats has and 

will continue to inform national and regional conservation programmes and 

legislation; particularly country commitments to the CBD Global Strategy for 

Plant Conservation (target 5), the (potential) Natura 2000 Network, the Pan 

European Ecological Network and many targets within the Kyiv resolution on 

biodiversity. Furthermore, the IPA data illustrates where current national and 

regional environmental policies and legislation are working for plants and where 

they are going wrong. 

Improved enforcement of legislation related to development (tourism, 

infrastructure and urban) is vital for safeguarding IPAs, as is a renewed focus on 

targeting government-administered funds to maintain biodiversity through 

sustainable forestry and agricultural practices. Addressing the balance between 

energy provision and the protection of wetland biodiversity is also becoming an 

increasingly important issue in the region, with wetland and riverine IPAs at risk 

from severe damage. In addition, more attention is needed to understand the 

local effects of climate change, alongside solutions to ease negative affects. 

IPAs are ideal tools for engaging communities in conservation.They 

inspire pride in the local natural environment, and provide a focus for 

conservation action.As the basis of economic, social and cultural facets of 

everyday life, wild plants should be regarded as an integral link between 

conservation and sustainable development within the Balkans region. 

The flora of South East Europe is astonishingly diverse. A significant 

part of this diversity is unique to the region, under threat and of global 

importance to conservation.The Important Plant Areas programme has begun 

the process of improving the conservation of this diversity, through data 

provision, analysis, heightened public awareness and pilot conservation projects. 

As the region continues to undergo rapid economic and social change, there is 

an opportunity to develop a refreshed approach to conservation that puts the 

value of plant diversity at its core; an opportunity that should be 

wholeheartedly embraced. 


DIMITAR PEEV 

Paeonia peregrina 

115

Key 

Sections IV 

Gov- Nat. 

Gov- Local 

EC/EP 

NGOs/Civil 

Scientists 

Donors 

116 

= National government – 

Ministries of 

Environment, 

Agriculture and Forestry 

and their administrations 

= Local government – 

regional authorities, 

municipalities 

= The European 

Commission/European 

Parliament 

= Conservation nongovernment 

organisations 

and Civil society 

organisations and 

individuals 

= Botanists, ecologists, 

conservationists, 

foresters, agronomists, 

sociologists across 

institutions 

= National and international 

funding agencies 

Recommendations 

1. RECOGNISE Important Plant Areas (IPAs) as internationally significant priority sites 

for conservation in local, national and regional environmental policies and plans. 

Gov- Nat. 

2. REVIEW the protected area status of IPAs in each partner country in the light 

of data provided by this project, and the commitment of south east European 

countries to protect 50% of their important areas for plants by 2010 (CBD Global 

Strategy for Plant Conservation, 2002). 

Gov- Nat. 

3. INCORPORATE national IPA networks into candidate Natura 2000 networks in 

accession and potential accession countries in south east Europe. 

Gov- Nat. 

4. UPDATE management plans for protected areas that are also IPAs, to include 

specific plant conservation measures that will conserve IPA qualifying species and 

habitats. 

Gov- Nat. 

5. ENSURE that Environmental Impact Assessments are undertaken on all 

development projects (tourism, transport and industry) within and adjacent to 

Important Plant Areas, that are not under legal protection and ensure their 

recommendations are enforced and monitored. 

Gov- Nat. 

6. ASSESS the vulnerability of the key botanical features of IPAs to climate change. 

Develop solutions to mitigate effects for those that are most vulnerable, for example 

investigating the potential of the IPA Zones of Opportunity concept to the 

restoration of appropriate habitats, corridors and buffer zones. 

Gov- Nat. 

7. FULLY implement government commitments under the Kyiv resolutions on 

forestry, agriculture and biodiversity. 

Gov- Nat. 

Gov- Local 

Gov- Local 

EC/EP 

Gov- Local 

Gov- Local 

Gov- Local 

Gov- Local 

8. TARGET IPAs where forestry activities take place for application of sustainable 

forest management schemes and IPAs where agricultural activities take place for 

agri-environment schemes. 

Gov- Nat. EC/EP 

NGOs/Civil 

EC/EP 

NGOs/Civil 

Scientists 

Donors 


9. INCREASE national and regional rural development funding to ensuring sustainable 

management of the most biodiverse forests and grasslands in south East Europe.Assist 

land managers in developing sustainable land use practices where they are absent. 

Gov- Nat. 

10. ENCOURAGE communities whose livelihoods depend on plant resources on IPAs 

to participate in IPA conservation planning and activities (e.g. collectors on medicinal 

plants and other non timber forest projects, promoters of nature tourism, hunters, 

mountain guides). 

Gov- Local 

11. INVEST in the provision of comprehensive and up to date information on plant 

and fungi species in South East Europe and use this information to update European 

species protection legislation as appropriate. This should include 

- A valid, accepted European checklist of vascular plants 

- A pan European Red List for vascular plants 

- National Red List for all plant groups and fungi in south east European countries 

- Developing a centralised (European) infrastructure for observation data of plant 

species as a means of enhancing national and international communications 

around plant knowledge and conservation 

Gov- Nat. 

12. USE IPA data and the associated IPA database for ongoing monitoring of the 

ecological status of important sites, threatened habitats, threatened species and the 

success of conservation activities. 

Gov- Nat. 

13. INVEST in building the capacity of key nature conservation institutions and 

conservation NGOs in the region, so they may be better equipped to implement 

legislation and undertake practical conservation activities on key sites. 

Gov- Nat. 

EC/EP 

NGOs/Civil 

EC/EP 

Gov- Local 

EC/EP 

Donors 

NGOs/Civil 

EC/EP 

NGOs/Civil 

14. USE IPAs as a local and national focus for awareness raising and education about 

the importance of natural resources conservation in general, and plant conservation 

in particular. 

Gov- Nat. Gov- Local EC/EP NGOs/Civil Donors 

15. RENEW commitment to ensuring conservation is delivered through good policy 

implementation at all levels of government administration. 

Gov- Nat. Gov- Local EC/EP 

Scientists 

NGOs/Civil 

Donors 

Conclusion and recommendations for IPA conservation in South East Europe 

Donors 

Scientists 


117

Section IV 


Fritillaria macedonica. 


Appendix I 


identification and data analysis 

Important Plant Area Methodology and the IPA database 

Important Plant Areas (IPAs) are internationally important places in the world for wild 

plant diversity. An IPA is a natural or semi-natural site exhibiting exceptional botanical 

richness and/or supporting an outstanding assemblage of rare, threatened and/or 

endemic plant species and/or vegetation of high botanic value. 

Important Plant Areas are identified on the basis of three international 

recognised criteria: 

Criterion A: presence of threatened species 

Criterion B: presence of exceptional botanical richness 

Criterion C: presence of threatened habitats 

The methodology for identifying Important Plant Areas and the detail of how to apply 

the criteria (accepted reference sources, categories and thresholds) has been developed 

and refined through extensive consultation over several years.The European criteria are 

summarised for Europe in the table on page 123, further detail on the application of the 

methodology can be found in two publications listed at the end of the section 

(Anderson, 2002 and Plantlife, 2004). Below the application of the methodology in the 

South East European partner countries is outlined, further detail can be found in the 

individual country page in section II. 

Criterion A: threatened species 

For the four partner countries 450 taxa were included in the Criterion A list of threatened 

species. 405 of those were vascular plants, 14 bryophytes, 4 lichens and 26 fungi. 

Ai Global threat 35 taxa 

Aii European (regional threat) 114 taxa 

Aiii National Endemic (threatened) 133 taxa 

Aiv Near Endemic/Limited Range (threatened) 165 taxa 

A national endemic is defined as a species that occurs in only one country.A ‘near endemic’ 

species is defined as a ‘species which occur in limited range in no more than 3 countries’. 

For Ai, global threat, the following sources are accepted: the IUCN Global Red List 

updated annually on the web at www.iucnredlist.org; the IUCN Global Red List for 

Vascular Plants 1997 (uses a previous version of the IUCN criteria); the World List of 

Threatened Trees 1998; and the Global Red List for Bryophytes 2001. For Aii, European 

threat, the following sources are used: the EU Habitats Directive Annexes IIb and IVb 

(83 taxa on these annexes are present in the partner countries); the Bern Convention 


Appendix I 

119

Appendix I 

120 

Appendix 1 (45 taxa in the partner countries); the European Red List of Bryophytes 

1995; the European Red List of Macro-lichens 1989; and the 33 threatened fungi species 

prepared by the European Committee for the Conservation of Fungi (ECCF) were also 

used in this project under Aii. 

National Red Lists were used for assessing the threat status of Aiii (national endemic) 

species and Aiv (near endemic/limited range) species where they were available. Neither 

Macedonia nor Montenegro have completed national Red Lists for vascular plants or 

fungi. In Montenegro national endemic and near endemic species from the list of 

officially protected species were used instead, and the project team began to undertake 

Red List assessments on these and other potentially threatened species as part of the 

project. 40 national Red List assessments have been completed to date. In Macedonia a 

list of ‘potentially’ threatened endemic and near endemic species was compiled during 

the project – which will form the basis of future work to produce a national Red List, 

with an existing published list of preliminary threatened macromycetes (fungi).The 

assessment for the Red Data List of Plants and Fungi in Bulgaria is based on the 

selection of about 900 species. 35% of Bulgarian endemic plant species and 56% of 

Balkan endemics are ‘Data Deficient’ or ‘Not Evaluated’. 

There are 292 criterion Aiii and Aiv species (threatened endemics and near 

endemic/limited range species) in the four partner countries, which are not currently 

recognised on any global or regional Red Lists or European species protection 

legislation. If completed Red Lists were available undoubtedly there would be more. This 

reflects the potential inadequacy of the annexes of current European nature 

conservation legislation to deal with the diversity the Balkans region.When the EU is 

further enlarged and if the existing legislation is to do an effective job, additional species 

may need to be incorporated into these annexes. 

The two main challenges to the application of criterion A were the lack of national red 

lists of threatened species in Macedonia and Montenegro, and the lack of a European 

Red List.The latter would allow the identification of priority threatened species which 

are not endemic or limited range, but are relatively widespread geographically and 

declining everywhere. Currently IUCN is leading two projects for vascular plants in 

Europe that will improve this situation: the status of national endemics in the 

Mediterranean region will be assessed in 2009 and 2,000 European vascular plant species 

will be assessed by the end of 2010. European Red Lists for lichens, fungi and algae 

would also help to prioritise target species for conservation action. 

Criterion B: botanical richness 

The methodology for applying this criterion is based on a comparison of species 

richness within standard units of habitat classification. In Europe, EUNIS level 2 habitats 

are the unit of comparison. For example sites ‘Dry Grasslands’ (EUNIS habitat E5) are 

compared for species richness with each other using indicator lists of species drawn up 

specifically for dry grasslands, sites containing other habitats are compared with each 

other, like with like. Each country defines the indicator species to use and they can 

include all characteristic species for that habitat, or be targeted towards threatened, rare 

or endemic species, or focus on particular taxonomic groups, such as mosses, lichens, 

fungi or algae.This criterion was not applied in Bulgaria and only in limited way in 

Macedonia and Montenegro due to lack of comprehensive data on characteristic species 

and the comparative richness of habitats. In Croatia the criterion was applied using rare 


and threatened species coincidence (ref. country pages in section II) 

Criterion C: threatened habitats 

The list of threatened habitats in Europe consists of the EU Habitats Directive Annex I, and 

the Bern Convention Resolution 4 list of habitats. The criterion is split into two categories 

Ci and Cii, where Ci are ‘priority threatened habitats’ defined as such by the EU Habitats 

Directive.183 threatened habitats in the Criterion C lists were present in the four partner 

countries; 34 Ci (priority threatened habitats) and 149 Cii (threatened habitats). 

Bulgarian, Croatian and Macedonian teams used both habitat classification systems with 

their IPA project, but predominantly those from the EU Habitat Directive, as 

considerable work has already been done to interpret this classification alongside their 

national classification systems.The Montenegrin team used only the Bern Convention 

system.The application of this criterion is difficult all partner countries as detailed 

national habitat maps are lacking. 

Bryophytes, fungi, lichen and algae 

The IPA programme includes lower plants (bryophytes, lichens and algae) and fungi in 

the assessment methodology (criteria A and B) as the conservation of these important 

organisms frequently are neglected this is reflected in the lack of species in the annexes 

of European nature conservation legislation. None of these groups are particularly 

strongly represented in this south east European IPA project, due to considerable lack of 

data. In future the IPA inventories will benefit from further information on the 

distribution of lower plants. 

Bryophytes (mosses and liverworts) were recorded as qualifying features on 17 IPAs in 

Bulgaria or Montenegro only. Lichens were not used as qualifying species on any IPAs in 

the four countries.The 1989 European Red List for Macro-lichens is the standard 

reference for lichens in Criterion A, however this Red List is now quite old and an 

updated European Red List would help to identify priority lichen species and sites. In 

Macedonia a preliminary list of threatened fungi has been published, and near endemic/ 

limited range species on this list contributed to identifying IPAs there. Criterion A fungi 

are recorded on 89 IPAs, but the percentages of the national populations are unknown, 

so it is not known whether these species hit the criterion A threshold for qualifying 

sites. In each country the mycologists made the decision on whether there was 

sufficient data and if it was appropriate to identify IPAs using fungal species. In Croatia 

there are no mycologists so fungi data was excluded. Lack of data was a significant 

problem for fungi in this project.A European red list for fungi would help to identify 

priority species for conservation and specific recognition for fungi in European 

legislation and policies would also help in their conservation.The Bern Convention lists 

12 algae species, although only one of these was known by the teams to occur in the 

partner countries, in Montenegro. No algal species are recognised in the EU Habitats 

Directive. A European Red List for algae would also help to prioritise conservation 

action for this group. 

Data availability and data strategies 

Data availability and quality varied in the four partner countries, and fieldwork was an 

important part of the project to establish the accuracy of existing data and updae 

records. Bulgaria and Croatia had more recent, computerised and digitised plant and 

habitat records, IPAs were selected based on existing data supplemented by fieldwork in 


Appendix I 

121

Appendix I 

122 

targeted regions that were less well known. In Macedonia and Montenegro, fewer recent 

or computerised records were available and IPAs were identified using targeted 

fieldwork on potential sites, known from the existing data and/or knowledge of experts. 

In these countries the project has highlighted areas where there are no current data and 

these gaps could form the future of further IPA identification work. 

Site selection 

An IPA can be selected for one or more qualifying criteria.The basic principles of site 

selection, including guidelines on site boundaries, and criteria for selection, are given in 

the IPA Site Selection Manual for Europe. Fundamental to decisions on site selction were 

the number and size of IPAs and the definition of site boundaries. Each country decided 

on the balance of large IPAs with a mosaic of habitats and species and smaller IPAs 

identified to protect a particular species or habitat. Boundary demarcation, such as the 

treatment of small IPAs located near to each other, or the defining of boundaries in 

areas of fragmented habitats or land uses, was decided on the basis of the local 

conditions of ecological integrity, ownership and practical management. 

Methodology challenges 

Implementing the programme in south east Europe presented similar challenges to the 

previous project in Central Europe: 

● Lack of recent and accessible data for species and habitats – population and trend 

data and habitat maps 

● Lack of red lists at the national and regional level (this is a more acute problem in 

south east Europe than in central Europe) 

● Chronic lack of data on lower plant and fungus species 

● Defining practical boundaries 

IPAs can only be identified on the basis of what is known by the botanical and 

mycological experts and specialists in the national IPA team, the regional authorities and 

members of the community who live and work on or close to the sites. If a site’s 

inclusion in the IPA list can be justified by sound scientific data that relates to the 

criteria supplemented by the knowledge of national and regional experts and then that 

is sufficient, no better authority will exist to select IPAs.All information is made available 

to everyone through national inventories and the online IPA database (see below).The 

latter can easily be updated by IPA coordinators whenever new data is made available. 


IPA site selection criteria in Europe 

CRITERION DESCRIPTION THRESHOLD NOTES 

A(i) 

(threatened species) 

A(ii) 


A(iii) 


A(iv) 


B 

(species richness) 

C(i) 

Priority threatened habitats 

C(ii) 

Threatened habitats 

Site contains globally threatened 

species 

Site contains regionally 

(European) threatened species 

Site contains national endemic 

species with demonstrable threat 

not covered by A(i) or A(ii) 

Site contains near 

endemic/limited range species 

with demonstrable threat not 

covered by A(i) or A(ii) 

Site contains high number of 

species within a range of 

defined habitat types 

Site contains threatened habitat 

Site contains threatened habitat 

All sites known, thought or inferred to 

contain 5% or more of the national 

population can be selected, or the 51 

‘best ‘ sites, whichever is the most 

appropriate. 

1 (In exceptional cases, for example 

where there are less than 10 sites in 

the entire country or there are 

between 5-10 large populations of a 

species, up to 10 sites can be selected) 

(populations must be viable or there is a 

hope that they can be returned to 

viability through conservation measures) 

Up to 10% of the national resource 

(area) of level 2 EUNIS habitat types, 

or 52 ‘best’ sites, whichever is the 

most appropriate. 


there are between 5 and 10 

exceptionally rich sites for a particular 

habitat, up to 10 sites can be selected 

for each level 2 habitat type) 



resource (area) of priority threatened 

habitats can be selected, or a total of 

20-60% of the national resource, 

whichever is the most appropriate. 



resource (area) can be selected, or the 

53 ‘best’ sites, whichever is the most 

appropriate. 


where there are less than 10 sites in 

the whole country, or there are 5-10 

exceptional sites, up to 10 sites can be 

selected) 


Appendix I 

Species must be listed as ‘threatened’* on IUCN 

global red lists 

Species must be listed as ‘threatened’* on 

European IUCN red list; or Habitats Directive 

Annexes IIb & IVb;or Bern Convention Appendix I 

Species must be listed as national endemic (on any 

recognised list or publication) and ‘threatened’* 

on national red lists 

Species must be listed as near endemic/ limited 

range (on any recognised list or publication) and 

‘threatened’* on national red lists 

Species richness based on nationally created list 

of indicator species created for each habitat type 

and from the following types of species 

characteristic species and/or endemic 

species and /or nationally rare and scarce 

species (where the endemic and rare and scarce 

species are numerous and/or are characteristic for 

the habitat) 

Defined Habitat Type taken as level 2 (generic) 

habitat types in EUNIS (e.g. D1 raised & blanket 

bogs; G1 broad-leaved deciduous forests; E1 dry 

grasslands) 

Priority threatened habitats are those listed as 

priority on Annex I of the Habitats Directive (and 

any corresponding habitat from the Bern 

Convention Res. 4) 

Threatened habitats are those listed on Annex I of 

the Habitats Directive and the Bern Convention 

Resolution 4, not covered by C(i) 

* Criterion A, threatened species must be listed as Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN) or Vulnerable (VU) using the current IUCN criteria, or 

Extinct/Endangered (Ex/E), Endangered (E) or Vulnerable (V) using former IUCN categories in publications prior to 1998. 

123

Appendix I 

124 

The IPA database http://www.plantlife-ipa.org/reports.asp 

The Important Plant Areas database is the key tool for storing information on IPAs 

across Europe and can be used in conjunction with the IPA questionnaire from the site 

selection manual (Anderson 2002). The database holds site based information on each 

IPA: location, area, altitude, general habitats, land-use, existing protection, threats, site 

management, presence and trends of qualifying species and habitats and a summary of 

the IPA’s main features. Collectively this information is known as the ‘IPA site account’ 

and the contributors to the accounts are also recorded. Data is entered on line by the 

partners, all of whom have their own dedicated log in and password. Presence, 

abundance and trend of qualifying species and habitats can also be monitored using the 

database, which can be used to provide an indication of site condition over time 

Use of the data is governed by a data sharing agreement, which includes data ownership 

issues and confidential information. Each national partner can download their country’s 

data into MS Access from the website for analysis. IPA factsheets are publicly available 

for every site at http://www.plantlife-ipa.org/reports.asp along with statistics on threats, 

key species and habitats. The IPA database was designed to hold data which are 

compatible with the Important Bird Areas database of BirdLife International). Improving 

the public access to IPA information ensures that decision makers and stakeholders will 

have the latest information on plant conservation benefits and threats. 


Anderson, S., 2002 Identifying Important Plant Areas:A Site Selection Manual for Europe, 

and a basis for developing guidelines for other regions of the world. Plantlife 

International, London. [And references therein] 

Plantlife International, 2004. Identifying and Protecting the world’s Important Plant Areas 

– a guide to implementing target 5 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation. 

Plantlife International, Salisbury. 

Plantlife International’s website www.plantlife.org.uk: Technical Reports from various 

national and regional IPA workshops [including Central and East Europe, southern Africa 

and the Mediterranean]. 


A summary of the methodology for IPA selection in each country 

Criteria - Species and habitats used for IPA selection in each country 

Criterion A Threatened 

species 

Criterion B 

Species richness 

Criterion C 

Threatened habitats 


Appendix I 

Bulgaria Croatia Macedonia FYR Montenegro Turkey 

230 threatened species 

Ai global (18) 

Ai/Aii global/regional (4) 

Aii regional (83) 

Aiii national endemic (82) 

Aiv near endemic (43) 

Habitats Directive (24) 

Bern Convention (58) 

Vascular plants (201) 

Fungi (13) 

Algae (0) 

Lichens (4) 

Bryophytes (12) 

Not applied in current 

project. 

148 threatened habitats 

Ci (25) 

Cii (125); 




Ai global (3) 

Ai/Aii global/regional (3) 

Aii regionally (33) 

Aiii nationally endemic (1) 





Fungi (0) 

Algae (0) 

Lichens (0) 


Applied using best available 

distributional data on 

threatened plant taxa from 

the national Red Data Book 

of vascular plants and the 

distribution atlas of endemic 

plants 


Ci (23) 

Cii (66) 




Ai global (4) 







Fungi (19) 

Algae (0) 

Lichens (0) 


2 habitat types assessed 

(Alpine and sub-alpine 

grasslands) 


Ci (6) 

Cii (50) 




Ai global (6) 





Bern Convention (22). 


Fungi (4) 

Algae (1) 

Lichens (0) 


1 habitat type assessed 

(Coastal and sand dune), 1 

site selected 


Ci (12), 

Cii (91); 

Habitats Directive (51), 


3900 threatened taxa 

Ai global(311), 



125

Appendix 2 

Notes on criteria 

Data and field work: 


Criterion A taxa were 

identified using the national 

Red List of Vascular plants 

and fungi elaborated in 

2005. Criterion C list 

includes all habitats of 

European significance listed 

in the Biological Diversity 

Act of Bulgaria. 

The IPA selection was 

based on existing data and 

additional field inventories 

undertaken during the 

course of the project; 

considerable information 

was obtained from 

published records and the 

knowledge of experts.The 

relatively newly created 

Natura 2000 network 

(2004-2007) was also used 

to provide information on 

ownership, land use and 

threats. 

Appendix 2: Summary of 

country approach to IPA 

identification and selection 

For criterion B 224 Red 

Data Book taxa in 

categories CR, EN, and VU, 

and 352 taxa of 

stenoendemic, endemic 

and/or sub-endemic status 

for the national territory 

were used as trigger 

species.The taxa were 

mapped and the greatest 

concentrations investigated 

as potential IPAs. Some 

IPAs qualifying under B 

criterion were composed 

of a number of habitats 

with a varying number of 

trigger species depending 

on their associated habitat 

type, those sites containing 

up to 10% of the national 

resource of the habitats or 

the 5 best habitat types 

qualified as IPAs under 

criterion B. 

Much of the information 

related to species 

distribution that was used 

to select IPAs came from 

the existing Flora Croatica 

Database of the Faculty of 

Science (University of 

Zagreb) see 

http://www.botanic.hr/. 

Information about habitat 

types came from the 

national habitat maps (scale 

1:100000). Field work 

focussed on the data poor 

areas, and 33 additional 

potential IPAs were 

explored in these areas 

during 2007-2008.Almost 

10,000 new records for 

668 taxa were generated at 

213 localities to support 

IPA selection and this data 

was entered on and 

analysed through the Flora 

Croatica Database. 

Initially existing data on the 

qualifying species and 

habitats were collated and 

potential sites for field 

investigation selected.Two 

extensive field seasons on 

almost 50 sites were 

carried out during 2007 

and 2008. Literature data 

were checked and some 

additional threats were 

identified. 

For criterion A the team 

members used lists of rare, 

endemic and threatened 

species protected by law in 

Montenegro (Official 

Register of the Republic of 

Montenegro, no. 36/82; 

Official Register of the 

Republic of Montenegro, 

no. 26/06.) and began to 

assess some vascular plant 

species as a first step to 

make a National Red List 

for the vascular plants of 

Montenegro. 

For criterion B in addition 

to the one site selected it 

is recognised that there is 

exceptional diversity of 

fungi species within Canyon 

of Cijevna river and Hum 

orahovski IPA, and 

exceptional diversity of 

fungi and bryophytes in 

Durmitor IPA which cannot 

yet be quantified. 

The project began with a 

literature search of all the 

data available on target 

species and habitats. Large 

amounts of data were 

rather old, inaccurate 

and/or doubtful, but were 

used along with knowledge 

of the IPA team members 

to prioritise field work 

activities. Field trips 

focused on checking old 

data and collecting more 

accurate data on the 

condition of populations of 

criterion A species and 

criterion C habitats.All 

potential IPA sites were 

visited during the course of 

the project and significant 

amounts of data were 

collected. Fieldwork 

activities were a major 

element of this project in 

Montenegro. 

Prior to the project, no list 

of threatened species and 

habitat types of global 

conservation concern and 

botanical importance had 

been drawn up for Turkey, 

therefore particular effort 

was made to include 

information within the final 

inventory on the wide 

range of rare species and 

habitats found within the 

IPA network.The full list of 

rare and threatened species 

and threatened habitat 

types featured in the IPA 

network are listed in the 

appendices of the Turkish 

IPA inventory along with 

their IUCN threat 

categories and the specific 

number for the IPAs in 

which they occur 3442 rare 

taxa occur within the 144 

IPAs. 

Approximately 40 botanists 

from 20 universities, many 

other researchers and 

institutions provided 

assistance, compiling the 

site accounts.The principle 

source of data was the 

knowledge of experts 

within this botanical 

network. In many cases the 

IPA site accounts represent 

many years of detailed 

collecting and research at 

the sites in question, 

supplemented by additional 

information in the form of 

theses, reports and papers. 

The project also included a 

series of habitat-by-habitat 

surveys to fill gaps in 

existing knowledge (e.g. 

reviewing Turkey’s peatlands 

and sand dunes). 


Site selection: 

Key issues: 


Appendix 2 


IPA selection follows 

existing Natura 2000 sites 

which have sufficient 

representation of Criteria 

A species and C habitats to 

be selected as IPAs. In 

some cases the selected 

boundaries of Natura 2000 

sites include agricultural 

fields and ruderal 

communities which were 

excluded from the IPA 

selected territories. 

Due to the incomplete 

inventories of fungi, 

bryophytes and algae in the 

country these groups are 

only partially incorporated 

in the site selection, and the 

algae are not considered. 

The lack of national 

inventory for habitats 

distribution, boundaries and 

area, made it difficult to 

estimate the threshold for 

habitat representation for 

criterion C. 

IPA data was largely 

interpreted through GIS in 

Croatia. Initially the whole 

state territory was analysed 

according to the total 

number of taxa per square 

unit (MTB ¼ square, ~25 

km2) to show spatial 

coincidence.Taxa 

associated with A and B 

criteria were treated 

separately. Individual 

information was presented 

by circle (the radius of 

which depended on the 

quality of the geocoding 

information available for 

the species records). 

Additional calculated 

indices were used for to 

assessing emphasising 

incidence of the rare taxa. 

All habitats from criterion 

C were selected from the 

national habitat maps, and 

represented as a number of 

target habitats per square 

unit, as above.The results 

showed spatial coincidence 

of the target habitats. 

All the areas that satisfied 

any of the criteria were 

provisionally delimited on 

maps of scale 1:100.000. 

Additional potential IPAs 

were added according to 

the personal knowledge of 

professionals. Finally the 97 

confirmed IPAs were fine 

delimited to a scale of 

1:25,000. 

Lower plants, non-vascular 

plants and fungi are not 

included in the IPA analysis 

for Croatia because of a 

lack of data and experts for 

these groups. For small 

IPAs the resolution of 

available habitat maps was 

not sufficient (9 ha), so 

additional vegetation data 

were used from literature 

and the personal 

experience of 

collaborators.The best 

available data do not always 

cover real situation in the 

field so future work could 

include a national vascular 

plant mapping programme 

which will allow the IPAs to 

be updated. 

The national site selection 

strategy focused initially on 

selecting larger sites, which 

contain a high number of 

qualifying criteria, and a 

complex of habitat types. 

Criterion A was applied 

first and then Criterion C. 

Criterion B was than 

applied only to a limited 

extent. 

The main obstacles to full 

implementation of the IPA 

methodology in Macedonia 

were lack of data on plants 

and fungi; lack of 

assessment of the 

threatened status of the 

flora and no national Red 

List, lack of assessment of 

threats to Macedonia’s 

habitats and vegetation. 

There are no databases of 

the flora and the vegetation 

and no vegetation maps for 

the whole country. As a 

result the species on the 

Bern Convention do not 

include species that are 

believed to be of 

conservation concern in 

Macedonia. Many of the 

floristic and vegetation data 

are very old. Criterion B 

was only implemented for a 

limited number of sites due 

to the lack of appropriate 

data on species richness. 

In the first phase of site 

selection, areas of 

exceptional floristic 

diversity which contained 

the most representative 

criterion C habitats were 

selected, based both on the 

literature and fieldwork 

experience.These sites 

included the best 

populations of criterion A 

species.Additional sites 

were selected that 

i) contained good 

populations of one or 

more criterion A species, 

but did not have 

important habitats or 

special botanical values 

ii)contained important 

(criterion C ) habitats, 

but did not have other 

special botanical values 

iii) contained exceptional 

diversity of bryophytes 

and/or fungi (4 sites) 

Two sites that were on the 

preliminary list are not on 

the final IPA list of 2008, 

because insufficient field 

research has taken place to 

justify their inclusion. 

A lack of a Red Data book 

for Montenegro was the 

biggest problem in applying 

the methodology. Combined 

with the lack of a European 

Red list for plants means 

that many threatened 

Montenegrin species 

(endemic, sub-endemic and 

rare species) have not been 

assessed or therefore 

incorporated into European 

legislation and do not 

appear in the accepted lists 

for criterion A species. 

Lichens were not taken in 

consideration for this 

project because before 2007 

there were no lichenologists 

working in Montenegro.A 

lack of mycological data was 

also a problem during the 

selection of areas important 

for fungi. 

Lack of harmonisation of 

Montenegrin habitats with 

the EUNIS habitat 

classification significantly 

complicated the 

implementation of B and C 

criteria.And the unequal 

degree of research into the 

flora of different regions 

within the national territory. 

The IPAs were chosen to 

fully represent Turkey’s 7 

administrative regions 

(which roughly equate to 

the main phytogeographical 

regions in the country).The 

IPA selection methodology 

also sought to identify the 

most floristically-rich 

examples from each habitat 

category within each of the 

three biogeographic 

regions (Anatolian, Black 

Sea and Mediterranean). 

For this purpose, the 

Palaearctic Habitat 

Classification (formerly EU 

CORINE biotopes) 

nomenclature was used. 

There was limited research 

and information on nonvascular 

plants in Turkey, so 

it was not possible to 

consider these groups 

during the IPA identification 

process.The Turkish IPA 

inventory represents the 

first attempt to identify 

sites of international 

botanical importance in 

Turkey and some habitat 

types – sand dunes, 

heathlands, peatlands, 

montane systems and 

larger wetlands, for 

example – are relatively 

well represented in the 

listing. However, it is clear 

that other habitat types are 

far less well represented – 

notably grassland and 

maquis/phrygana 

communities – and every 

effort should be directed at 

their identification and 

protection. 

127

Appendix 3 

Asphodeline lutea 

128 

Appendix 3: Relationship 

between major global, regional 

conservation policies and IPAs 

in South East Europe 

(For further information see also Anderson et al 2005) 


KIRIL METODIEV

Policy/legislation 

Global 

CBD Global Strategy for Plant 

Conservation 

Ref: www.cbd.int 

Ramsar Convention (1971) 

Ref: www.ramsar.org 

European 

The Pan European Biological and 

Landscape Strategy ( PEBLDS) and 

the Ministerial Process Environment 

for Europe 

Ref: UN/ECE ( 2003) Kyiv 

Resolution on biodiversity. Fifth 

Ministerial conference ‘Environment 

for Europe’. Kyiv , Ukraine 21-23 

May 2003. Document ECE/CEP/108. 

Council of Europe and Planta Europa 

European Strategy for Plant 

Conservation 

The Bern Convention (1979) and 

subsequent recommendations 

The EU Habitats Directive 

The EU Water Framework Directive 

The EU Common Agricultural Policy 

Key components 

Target 5 of this 16 target strategy requires 

signatory governments to “ensure the 

protection of 50% of the most important 

areas for plants [by 2010] 

The convention provides the framework 

for conservation and wise use of wetlands 

and their resources, the guidelines for 

selecting Ramsar sites include 4 criteria for 

plants and plant communities 

The Kyiv Resolution on biodiversity 

(2003), with targets on biodiversity 

conservation related to: forests; HNV 

agricultural land; the Pan European 

Ecological Network (PEEN), which seeks 

to identify priority sites and corridors; 

invasive alien species; financing; monitoring; 

public participation and awareness. 

This 30 target strategy is a Pan European 

level contribution to the implementation of 

the CBD GSPC above.Target 5.1 states 

that all countries should develop an action 

framework for the conservation of IPAs or 

equivalent programmes. 

This convention requires signatories 

( members of the Council of Europe) to 

establish a network of sites that contain 

species and habitats of European 

importance;The Emerald Network 

This legally binding directive requires EU 

member states to identify and protect 

Special Areas of Conservation SACs which 

together with Special Protection Areas for 

birds, make up the Natura 2000 network 

This legally binding directive requires EU 

member states to protect the water 

systems of Europe 

Article 6, 7 and 8 require a register of 

protected areas which fall within these 

water systems; management plans for river 

basins and a network of sites to monitor 

ecological status of water systems 

Rural development schemes pillar II 


Relationship to IPA 

Appendix 3 

IPA programme provides a framework for this target 

and conservation of IPAs contributes to many of the 

16 targets in this strategy 

IPA data provides information that supports the 

identified of Ramsar sites, as the criteria include 

components common to both processes.The data can 

also be used to assist management prescriptions of 

Ramsar sites 10 IPAs in partner countries are Ramsar sites 

IPA data can be used to assist with the identification 

of HNV areas and provide potential pilot sites for 

incentive and subsidy schemes 

IPAs have been incorporated in certain areas of the 

PEEN and the new data from this project can make a 

significant contribution to improving and expanding 

the PEEN in SEE 

IPA data highlights invasive species threats in SEE 

IPA programme provides a framework for target 5.1 

of this strategy and the conservation of IPAs 

contributes to many of the other targets. 

The criteria by which IPAs are identified include those 

used for the Emerald Network and can be interpreted 

as the plant component of the Emerald Network. 

Of the 4 countries 26% of sites contain BC habitats 

and species 

The criteria by which IPAs are identified include those 

used for the sites within the Natura 2000 network 

and can contribute to its development 

Of the 4 countries 86% of sites contain HD habitats 

and species 

IPAs can be used to provide a check on the 

comprehensiveness of the registers of areas, and the sites 

within the IPA network can be used monitoring sites. 

93 sites in SEE partner countries contain inland water 

habitats 

50 sites contain Mire bog and fen 

33 coastal and halophytic 

IPAs on agricultural sites are potential target sites for 

incentives and subsidies 

129



131



133



135

Section Head 



Plantlife International – The Wild Plant Conservation Charity 

14 Rollestone Street, Salisbury Wiltshire SP1 1DX. 

Telephone +44 (0)1722 342730 Fax +44 (0)1722 329 035 

enquiries@plantlife.org.uk 

www.plantlife.org.uk 

Plantlife International -The Wild Plant Conservation Charity is a charitable company limited by guarantee. 

Registered charity Number: 1059559. Registered Company Number: 3166339 © 2009 

ISBN: 978-1-907141-02-7 


Design: www.rjpdesign.co.uk

conserving important plant areas: investing - Plantlife

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?