9 7

Acta Biol. Univ. Daugavp. 9 (1) 2009ISSN 1407 - 8953

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NATURE MANAGEMENTPLANS FOR SPECIALLY PROTECTED NATURETERRITORIES IN LATVIA: STAKEHOLDER AWARENESS,APPLYING GIS TOOLS, INDICATORS FOR MANAGEMENTSUCCESS

Jolanta Bāra, Kristīna Aksjuta, Dainis Lazdāns, Māris Nitcis

Bāra J., Aksjuta K., Lazdāns D., Nitcis M. 2009. The implementation of nature managementplans for Specially Protected Nature Territories in Latvia: stakeholder awareness, applyingGIS tools, indicators for management success. Acta Biol. Univ. Daugavp., 9(1): 97 - 102.

Nature management plans are one of the instruments for governance of Specially ProtectedNature Territories. Latvia has about 15 years experience of development of nature managementplans. The process of development and implementation of such plans is regulated by severallegal acts (Law and Regulations of Cabinet of Ministers) now. 25-30 these plans are beingdeveloped in Latvia each year.

Development of nature management plans is routine practice, nevertheless not always eventhe best plan; zoning and even the implementation of these plans can guarantee conservationof nature values and favorable conservation status for species and habitats. Often the mainproblem in nature conservation policy implementation is active antagonism of main stakeholders(landowners, local people, municipalities) to management activities and conservation regimes,especially if the economic interests are touched. The governance of Specially ProtectedNature Territories is complicated system of biological diversity management, public relations,and local socio-economics. Therefore there are raising need for indicator system (biological,social and economic) for evaluation of success af implementation of nature managementplans and management of Specially Protected Nature Territories as such.

Key words: nature management plan, favorable conservation status, indicators of managementsuccess.

Jolanta Bāra, Kristīna Aksjuta, Māris Nitcis, Systematic Biology Institute, DaugavpilsUniversity, Vienibas str. 13, Daugavpils, Latvia, LV-5401, jolanta.bara@biology.lv,kristina.aksjuta@biology.lv, maris.nitcis@biology.lv

Dainis Lazdāns, Daugavpils University, Vienības iela 13, Daugavpils, LV-5401, Latvia, e-mail: dainis.lazdans@du.lv

9 8

INTRODUCTION

The process of implementation of naturemanagement plan (NMP) for Specially ProtectedNature Territories (SPNT’s) could be divided inthree components, including public awarenessactivities, the management itself, and themonitoring of process and results. All thesecomponents are extremely important forsuccessful management and sound governanceof SPTN’s, therefore all this process should bemonitored carefully, using available methods andtechniques for easy perceiving of information (GIStools, interactive maps and databases,presentation techniques).

Public awareness: applying GIS tools

One of most important issues in furtherimplementation of nature management plans isawareness and understanding of local people –landowners, farmers, foresters, municipalities,state institutions etc. Therefore it is extremelyimportant to use all possible procedures andtools for the information spreading, explanation,education and awareness raising among localinhabitants during development of the naturemanagement plan. The public hearing procedureis one of such tools and it is really important touse all methods available to choose, prepare,visualize and show information about naturevalues in SPNT and ways to protect them.

The developers of nature management plansdon’t have special background in public relationsoften. Therefore the public hearing procedure ofis done only formally and don’t really engageand don’t involve people in management ofspecially protected areas. It can mean failure ofnature management plan as such, becausewithout local activity these planning documentswill never be implemented.

Understanding this developers of naturemanagement plans have to prepare publichearings really carefully, taking in account the

socio – economic context, seeking for supportand trust among local people.

The GIS tools and mathematic methods help toshow nature values and possible threats andimpacts to them in easy accessible way. Thathelps to visualize scientific information and toinvolve people to discussion.

Applying GIS tools in nature management plansand during implementation of them help to assessenvironmental impact and pressures of severalactivities to vulnerable habitats and species aswell as serve as easy accessible source ofinformation. It is necessary to accumulate variousdata and from a range of sources for the creationof management plans for SPNT. This includesgeographic, geological, biological, ecological,economic and legal information referring to SPNT,as well as structural zoning, specially protectedspecies and biotopes, land cadastre, forms ofcadastre-registered property and land owners.This huge multiform information is best organizedwhen thematically structured with electronic databases accompanying each constituentcomponent, which will facilitate its further use inthe GIS setting for sampling, splitting or merging,and thematic restructuring of information (e.g.exposed to erosion or biologically valuable areas).

Most of the habitats in SPNT are vulnerable torecreational pressure and commercial activities.These habitats are not mapped and evaluated inall SPNT’s. Therefore the activities of landownersand municipalities threaten these habitats. Forexample, houses, car parking places and campingsites can be planned and built in the areas ofendangered habitats. If the information isavailable, less valuable habitats could be chosenfor building thus leaving the endangered habitatsuntouched.

All SPNT hold habitats and species of EU andinternational importance, but they are notinventoried and mapped fully. Only the mostimportant and immediate threats to such habitatsare identified. There are no detailed habitat mapsin municipalities. Due to incomplete information,

Bāra J., Aksjuta K., Lazdāns D., Nitcis M.

9 9

further management and building activities canthreaten habitats.

The GIS based methods are one of thepossibilities to achieve better understanding ofnature conservation issues among people whohave no special knowledge about these problems.

Examples:· 3 D modeling and planning of tourism

infrastructure and build- up areas(Figure 1. Interactive map of recreationsites at Nature park „Dridža ezers”(„Lake Dridža”));

· 3 D modeling and erosion r iskassessment (Figure 2. The slopegradient map of Protected LandscapeTerritory „Kaučers”; Figure 3. Map ofthe landscape terrain at Nature park„Dridža ezers” („Lake Dridža”);

· Digital databases and interactive mapsof nature values, environmentalinformation systems

Other important factor to achieve the goals ofnature conservation by nature management planis integration of requirements of naturemanagement plans to other planning documents,e.g. spatial planning (SP). Main gaps intransferring information from nature managementplans to spatial plans can be found in lowawareness about nature conservation amongspatial planning specialists as well as limitedknowledge among developers of naturemanagement plans for SPNT’s about spatialplanning (Bāra J., 2007).

For connectivity with spatial plans, naturemanagement plans development should include:

· Analysis of all planned activities in SP’sagainst nature conservation aims

Fig. 1. Interactive map of recreation sites at Nature park „Dridža ezers” („Lake Dridža”)

The implementation of nature management plans for Specially Protected Nature Territories in Latvia...

100

(building versus rare species andhabitats, tourism and habitats, linearobjects (roads, railways, power lines)versus migratory routes anddefragmentation of habitats;

· Suggestions for amendments of SP’s (ifneeded);

· Map of functional (structural) zoning;· Draft individual Regulations for specific

SPNT with restricted activities in eachzone defined (Bāra J., 2007).

The management of Specially Protected NatureTerritories : Influencing factors

The Nature management plans normally shouldinclude several groups of activities – specificspecies and habitat management itself;awareness raising, information and education

activities; suggestions for governance ofconcrete SPNT; suggestions for improvementor development tourism infrastructure, ifrequired; prevention and elimination ofenvironmental pollution (waste, wastewater,visual degradation); and monitoring of results.

Specific species and habitat management.These activities are targeted directly to ensurefavorable conservation status to species andhabitats. The goal of NMP is not only name theactivities needed (grass mowing, bush cutting,grazing, building of dams etc.), but also toanalyze local situation to find the best ways toimplement these activities and ensure thesustainability of them. Therefore it is necessaryto estimate funding needed, and – undeniably –persons or organizations, who can perform thesemanagement activities and what is theirmotivation.

Fig. 2. The slope gradient map of Nature park „Dridža ezers” („Lake Dridža”)

Bāra J., Aksjuta K., Lazdāns D., Nitcis M.

101

Usually there are three possible ways to organizemanagement of species and habitats:1) Most sustainable way is to support

traditional ways of agriculture, because lotsof species and habitats are dependent onextensive agriculture – sometimes it can becalled even “conservation of rurallandscape” or “rural lifestyle”. Thereforeunderstanding of the local people aboutnature values and how these values dependon intensity of grazing, period of mowingand level of groundwater in their lands, andreadiness to adjust the traditionalmanagement activities according needs ofspecies and habitats is crucial inmanagement sustainability. Most suitableto long term year-to-year activities.

2) The management funded andcoordinated by governmental institutionsor nature conservation targeted projects.These activities are easy to organize,nevertheless often the sustainability is low

– when funding is spent the managed areasoften are abandoned. Therefore this way ofmanagement is most suitable to short timevery specific management (dam building,selective tree cutting, building of bird nestsupports), or starting activities – bushcutting, primary mowing.

3) Voluntary work in post-Soviet regionsis still not very popular, excluding somecampaigns for collecting waste in natureareas. If such works are planned, there arelots of organization and supervision worksneeded to educate and coordinatevolunteers.

DISCUSSION

Monitoring of management success . Asmentioned before, there is wide spectrum ofmanagement and governance activities as wellas wide range of stakeholders involved.

Fig. 3. Map of the landscape terrain at Nature park „Dridža ezers” („Lake Dridža”)

The implementation of nature management plans for Specially Protected Nature Territories in Latvia...

102

Therefore there are necessary to develop widerindicator system to evaluate results of specificmanagement of species and habitats andimplementation success of NMP in total, and themain goal – to estimate if all complex of measurespromote reaching of favorable conservationstatus of targeted species and habitats in wholecountry and biogeographical region. Suchindicator system should include:

1) complex of biological indicators – statusand functions of habitats (absence ofinvasive species and waste, presence ofbiodiversity supporting structures, presenceof indicator species and rare species), statusand functions of ecosystems in landscapelevel – populations of rare species;

2) complex of social indicators – attitudeof landowners and local people torestrictions in SPNT’s, is it possible tomanage the land abiding these restrictions,do the stakeholders understand the need ofthese restrictions or they raise dislike andimpedance, perceived as bureaucraticobstacle. Note: important is not only attitudeof landowners but also attitude ofinhabitants of local villages and towns,because they are using recreationalresources of SPNT’s;

3) complex of economic indicators – whatis the benefits/losses for local municipalitiesbecause of existence of SPNT, real long termbenefits/losses for landowners, benefits/losses in regional level (tourism, recreation).

CONCLUSIONS

1) Taking in account complexity of factorsinfluencing natural ecosystems andvariability of measures of natureconservation in SPNT’s (implementation ofNature management plans, governanceactivities of state and municipalorganizations, enforcement ofenvironmental legislation) as well as suchfactors as agriculture, forest management,

tourism and recreation – there are essentiallack of landscape level monitoring of natureconservation measures success in reachingfavorable conservation status for speciesand habitats.

2) Digital maps, data bases, functional zoningand appropriate protection measures, andmanagement plans for habitats of EUimportance must be available inmunicipalities and governmentalenvironmental institutions. This gives anopportunity to coordinate the activities andmanagement actions presupposed by theSPNT nature management plan and by thelocal municipalities spatial planning.

3) More suggestions include raising awarenessand training among spatial planners anddevelopers of nature management plans.

REFERENCES

Lazdāns, D. Nitcis, M. 2009. Dabas aizsardzībasplāns “Aizsargājamo ainavu apvidus“Kaučers””, Vides ministrija.

Bāra, J. 2007. Dabas aizsardzības plāns “Dabasparks ”Bauska””, Vides ministrija.

Bāra, J. 2007. Dabas aizsardzības plāns “Dabasliegums “Raķupes ieleja””, Vides ministrija.

Received: 03.05.2009.Accepted: 20.06.2009.

Bāra J., Aksjuta K., Lazdāns D., Nitcis M.