poljoprivredna proizvodnja velike prirodne vrijednosti na zapadnom

Izdavanje ove publikacije �nancirao je DG za zaštitu okoliša (DG Environment). Izražena mišljenja su mišljenja autora i nisu nužno službeni stav �nancijera.

www.efncp.orgwww.see.efncp.org Email: [email protected]

Poljoprivredna proizvodnja velike prirodne vrijednosti na Zapadnom Balkanu:

Trenutni status i ključni izazovi – Okvirni dokument

Proiz

vodn

ja sij

ena u

Mak

edon

iji - P

etar

Ando

nov

Mreža poljoprivrede velike prirodne vrijednosti za Jugoistočnu Europe izvan EU-a

Ciljevi Mreže poljoprivrede velike prirodne vrijednosti u Jugoistočnoj Europi su:

Pružiti forum za povezivanje i razmjenu iskustva između zemalja jugoistočne Europe,kao i i između EU 1. zemalja i one koje nisu članice EU-a;

Predstavi informacije o trenutnom stanju identi�kacije poljoprivredne proizvodne velike prirodne vrijednosti 2. i potpore u regiji;

Ilustrirati poljoprivrednu proizvodnju velike prirodne vrijednosti u regiji s primjerima i studijama slučaja;3.

Identi�cirati zajednički interes i razvoj zajedničkih aktivnosti za poljoprivrednu proizvodnju velike pririodne 4. vrijednosti u regiji tijekom 2011. godine i dalje.

Kontakti mreže poljoprivrede velike prirodne vrijednosti Jugoistočne Europe: Yanka Kazakova i Vyara Stefanova [email protected] [email protected]



Autorice: Yanka Kazakova i Vyara Stefanova, EFNCP Bugarska, 2010Vrijedan doprinos dali su Gwyn Jones i Guy Beaufoy, EFNCP

Izvori fotogra�ja: Većinu fotogra�ja ustupili su sudionici sastanka Poljoprivredna proizvodnja velike prirodne vrijednosti u Jugoistočnoj Europi (HNVF SEE) u So�ji - 6-8 prosinca, 2010

Prijevod: Prijevod: Milivoj Mesić, prof. i SonjaKaroglan Todorović

Europski forum za zaštitu prirode i pastoralizam (The European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism) (EFNCP) okuplja ekologe, zaštitare prirode, poljoprivrednike i kreatore politika.

Ova nepro�tna mreža postoji kako bi povećala razumjevanje o velikim prirodnim i kulturnim vrijednostima određenih poljoprivrednih sustava i da informira o radu na njihovom održavanju.

3

The Western Balkan countries are all in a process of accession to the European Union. Croatia, Macedonia and Montenegro have the status of candidate coun-tries. Albania, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo under UNSCR 1244/99 are potential candidate countries, with the prospect of joining the EU when they meet the established conditions.

During pre-accession, the candidate countries go through a process in which they review all their na-tional legislation and policies with a view to harmoniz-ing it with the EU acquis communautaire. They also have to adapt their institutions and economic policies, strengthen the rule of law and develop market-oriented economies.

To a certain extent, this is a moving target, as the body of EU legislation and policies is constantly evolv-ing. The 7-year EU budget cycle often provides a driver for these changes, as can be seen in the current dis-cussions surrounding the shape of the Common Agri-cultural Policy (CAP) after 2013.

The CAP and environmental policies are key ele-ments of the acquis communautaire and are linked in complex and sometimes contradictory ways.

In fact the EU is failing to meet environmental aims

that are intimately tied up with farming and the use of

rural land, such as the target to halt biodiversity decline by 2010. A key action for achieving this target is to maintain the types of farming that continue to harbour a wide range of wildlife, because they have not been intensified to the degree of mainstream “industrialised” farming. This is High Nature Value (HNV) farming.

The HNV farming concept is not complicated – it highlights the fact that broad farming types supporting high levels of biodiversity require targeted instruments to ensure their sustainability. This type of farming is predominantly based on semi-natural pastures and meadows – sometimes Natura 2000 habitats, some-times not – that are threatened with abandonment across Europe. Supporting HNV farming directly ben-efits the conservation of Natura 2000 farmland habi-tats, both within the designated sites and in the wider countryside. Protection of flagship sites is thus com-bined with support for the relevant farming systems at the landscape scale.

This scoping document aims to highlight some of the key features of the HNV farming in the Western Balkans within the constraints of available data. It does not claim to be exhaustive and should be viewed as a starting point for further work on HNV farming and its particular needs in the countries of the Western Bal-kans so that effective policies can be developed which will make a difference to HNV farmers on the ground.

Introduction

SadržajUvod ............................................................................................................................................................... 1

Biološka raznolikost i poljoprivreda velike prirodne vrijednosti

na Zapadnom Balkanu ............................................................................................................................ 2

Ruralna područja na Zapadnom Balkanu ......................................................................................... 5

Poljoprivredna proizvodnja velike prirodne vrijednosti na Zapadnom Balkanu ............... 9

Politika i podrška poljoprivredi velike prirodne vrijednosti .....................................................27

Ključni izazovi za poljoprivredu velike prirodne vrijednosti

na Zapadnom Balkanu ..........................................................................................................................30

Zaključci ......................................................................................................................................................33

Skraćenice

AL AlbanijaBA Bosna i HercegovinaCAP Zajednička poljoprivredna politika (Common Agricultural Policy)CLC Corine zemljišni pokrov (Corine Land Cover)EAFRD Europski poljoprivredni fond za ruralni razvoj (European Agriculture Fund\ for Rural Development)EEA Europska agencija za zaštitu okoliša (European Environmental Agency)EU Europska unija (European Union)HNV Velika prirodna vrijednost (High Nature Value)HR HrvatskaIACS Integrirani administrativni i kontrolni sustav (Integrated Administration and Control System)IBA Područja važna za ptice (Important Bird Area)IPA Područja značajna za �oru (Important Plant Area)IPARD Instrument predpristupne pomoći za ruralni razvoj (Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance for Rural Development)GDP Bruto domaći proizvod (Gross Domestic Product)JRC Zajednički istraživački centar (Joint Research Center)LPIS Sustav za identi�kaciju zemljišnih čestica (Land Parcel Identi�cation System) LU Uvjetno grlo (Livestock Unit)ME Crna GoraMK Makedonija BJR (Macedonia FYR)NGO Nevladine organizacije (Non-governmental Organization)PBA Primarna područja za leptire (Primary Butter�y Areas)RDP Program ruralnog razvoja (Rural Development Programme)SR SrbijaUAA Korišteno poljoprivredno zemljište (Utilized Agricultural Area)UNSCR Rezolucija Savjeta sigurnosti Ujedinjenih Naroda (United Nations Security Council Resolution)XKV Kosovo pod UNSCR 1244/99

Korisni linkovi

Europski forum za zaštitu prirode i pastoralizam za Jugoistočnu Europu (European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism for South Eastern Europe): http://www.see.efncp.org/ Europski forum za zaštitu prirode i pastoralizam (European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism): http://www.efncp.org/ Europska agencija za zaštitu okoliša (European Environmental Agency): http://www.eea.europa.eu/ http://reports.eea.europa.eu/report_2004_1/enZajednički istraživački centar (Joint Research Center) : http://agrienv.jrc.it/index.htm http://agrienv.jrc.it/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdfEuropska komisija DG poljoprivrede (European Commission DG Agriculture): http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rurdev/eval/hnv/guidance_en.pdf

40

Buša

na is

paši

na po

luprir

odnim

stan

ištim

a, Sr

bija -

Suza

na Đ

orđe

vić

3

The Western Balkan countries are all in a process of accession to the European Union. Croatia, Macedonia and Montenegro have the status of candidate coun-tries. Albania, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo under UNSCR 1244/99 are potential candidate countries, with the prospect of joining the EU when they meet the established conditions.

During pre-accession, the candidate countries go through a process in which they review all their na-tional legislation and policies with a view to harmoniz-ing it with the EU acquis communautaire. They also have to adapt their institutions and economic policies, strengthen the rule of law and develop market-oriented economies.

To a certain extent, this is a moving target, as the body of EU legislation and policies is constantly evolv-ing. The 7-year EU budget cycle often provides a driver for these changes, as can be seen in the current dis-cussions surrounding the shape of the Common Agri-cultural Policy (CAP) after 2013.

The CAP and environmental policies are key ele-ments of the acquis communautaire and are linked in complex and sometimes contradictory ways.

In fact the EU is failing to meet environmental aims

that are intimately tied up with farming and the use of

rural land, such as the target to halt biodiversity decline by 2010. A key action for achieving this target is to maintain the types of farming that continue to harbour a wide range of wildlife, because they have not been intensified to the degree of mainstream “industrialised” farming. This is High Nature Value (HNV) farming.

The HNV farming concept is not complicated – it highlights the fact that broad farming types supporting high levels of biodiversity require targeted instruments to ensure their sustainability. This type of farming is predominantly based on semi-natural pastures and meadows – sometimes Natura 2000 habitats, some-times not – that are threatened with abandonment across Europe. Supporting HNV farming directly ben-efits the conservation of Natura 2000 farmland habi-tats, both within the designated sites and in the wider countryside. Protection of flagship sites is thus com-bined with support for the relevant farming systems at the landscape scale.

This scoping document aims to highlight some of the key features of the HNV farming in the Western Balkans within the constraints of available data. It does not claim to be exhaustive and should be viewed as a starting point for further work on HNV farming and its particular needs in the countries of the Western Bal-kans so that effective policies can be developed which will make a difference to HNV farmers on the ground.

Introduction

Sve zemlje Zapadnog Balkana su u procesu pristupanja Europskoj uniji. Hrvatska, Makedonija i Crna Gora imaju status zemalja kandidatkinja. Albanija, Srbija, Bosna i Hercegovina i Kosovo su potencijalne zemlje kandidatkinje, s perspektivom da postanu članice EU kada ispune postavljene uvjete.

Tijekom predpristupnog perioda, zemlje kandidatkinje prolaze kroz proces provjere cjelokupnog nacionalnog zakonodavstva i politike sa namjerom da ih usklade s pravnom stečevinom (acquis communautaire) EU-a. Također moraju prilagoditi svoje institucije i ekonomsku politiku, ojačati vladavinu prava i razviti tržišno orijentiranu ekonomiju.

Ovo je, u određenoj mjeri, pokretna meta jer se zakoni i politike EU-a neprestano razvijaju. Sedmogodišnji ciklus EU budžeta često predstvalja pokretačku snagu za ove promjene, kao što se može vidjeti iz trenutnih razgovora o izgledu Zajedničke poljoprivredne politike (Common Agricultural Policy - CAP) nakon 2013. godine.

Zajednička poljoprivredna politika i politike zaštite okoliša su ključni elementi acquis communautairea i povezani su na složene i ponekad proturječne načine.

EU, u stvari, ne uspijeva ispuniti ciljeve zaštite

okoliša koji su usko povezani s poljoprivrednom proizvodnjom i korištenjem zemljišta, kao što je cilj zaustavljanja smanjenja biološke raznolikosti do 2010. godine. Ključna mjera za postizanje ovog cilja je održavanje onih tipova poljoprivredne

proizvodnje koji podržavaju široku paletu divljih biljnih i životinjskih vrsta jer nisu intenzivirani do nivoa prevladavajuće „industrijalizirane“ poljoprivredne proizvodnje. To je poljoprivredna proizvodnja velike prirodne vrijednosti (High Nature Value - HNV farming).

Koncept poljoprivredne proizvodnje velike prirodne vrijednosti nije kompliciran – on naglašava činjenicu da različiti sustavi poljoprivredne proizvodnje koji podržavaju velik stupanj biološke raznolikosti zahtijevaju ciljane instrumente kako bi osigurali održivost. Ovaj tip poljoprivredne proizvodnje se uglavnom zasniva na poluprirodnim pašnjacima i livadama – ponekad NATURA 2000 staništima, a ponekad ne – kojima širom Europe prijeti napuštanje. Potpora poljoprivredi velike prirodne vrijednosti izravno koristi očuvanju NATURA 2000 poljoprivrednih staništa, kako u zaštićenim područjima prirode tako i u širim ruralnim područjima. Na taj način se zaštita najvrijednijih staništa kombinira s potporom relevantnim poljoprivrednim sustavima na nivou krajobraza.

Cilj ovog okvirnog dokumenta je istaknuti neke od ključnih karakteristika poljoprivrede velike prirodne vrijednosti na Zapadnom Balkanu, a u okviru ograničenja raspoloživih podataka. Ovim se ne tvrdi da je ovaj dokument iscrpan, već ga treba sagledati kao polaznu točku za daljni rad na poljoprivredi velike prirodne vrijednosti i njenih posebnih potreba u zemljama Zapadnog Balkana, kako bi se mogle razviti efikasne politike koje bi imale stvarnog efekta za poljoprivredne proizvođače velike prirodne vrijednosti na terenu.

Uvod

4

The Western Balkans, with its exceptional wealth of plants and animals, is one of the richest parts of Eu-rope in terms of biodiversity. There is a high number of endemic species and habitats, many of which are either of global or European conservation importance. The density of animal, bird and fish species listed in the Red List of Threatened Species (by area) is two to four times higher than in the 15 older EU Member States (EEA, 2010).

The Western Balkans encompass a great variety of natural habitats, ranging from coastal lagoons and

wetlands to Mediterranean forests, mountain meadows and pastures, freshwater wetlands, and karstic terrain. This natural wealth is recognized as the ‘green gold’ of South Eastern Europe (Plantlife) and the ‘green lungs’ of Europe (EEA).

Many of these landscapes and habitats were cre-ated by the centuries old practices of extensive graz-ing and low-input small-scale cropping throughout the Balkans. The inter-linkage between HNV farming, bio-diversity and traditional landscapes is very strong. A large number of the future NATURA 2000 sites will be located in agricultural areas – these are examples of HNV farmland. The EU Birds and Habitats Directives require that these habitats are maintained in a favour-

able conservation status. Achieving this will depend in practice on farmers continuing to live and work in HNV farming regions.

The recent decline in rural population and in the number of livestock animals has led to land abandon-ment, especially in mountainous areas. This harms biodiversity by shrinking the area of farmland of high natural value and thus the mosaic of habitats for wild-life. At the same time, intensive agriculture is expand-ing, which also threatens biodiversity.

The governments in the region have taken steps to protect some key species and habitats. The areas un-der official national (protected areas) and international designations (Ramsar, Emerald) have been increasing in recent years. Additionally, initial steps to set up the NATURA 2000 network are being taken in most of the countries.

The coverage of Key Biodiversity Areas such as Im-portant Bird Areas, Important Plant Areas and Primary Butterfly Areas is also increasing as more data is being collected. These areas are not under legal designation however they represent sites of global significance for biodiversity conservation.

Biodiversity and HNV Farming in the Western Balkans

Adonis vernalis – one of the plants which extensive grazing is supporting

Suza

na D

jord

jevi

cWhinchat, Saxicola rubetra

Geo

rgi P

opge

orgi

ev

5

The analysis of their status and trends reveals two important issues:

(1) Less than half of the designated Key Biodiver-sity Areas are under legal protection in the region. At the same time, close to 90% of the IPAs (for exam-ple) should qualify as sites of European importance as defined by the EU Habitats Directive and/or the Bern Convention (Radford and Odѓ, 2009).

(2) Grassland habitats are extremely important for biodiversity conservation in the region. They occur in more than 70% of the IPA sites, and are the dominant habitat in 50%. With or without legal protection in the future, these habitats were created and maintained by the traditional farming practices of the region. There-fore, a critical aspect for their conservation is the con-tinuation of HNV farming.

Furthermore, low-intensity grazing and farming systems provide highly valued ecosystem services

alongside biodiversity and cultural landscapes such as fire prevention and watershed management. Their maintenance on a large scale provides essential scope for flora and fauna to adapt to climate change, in a way that protected areas alone cannot do.

Current policy does not sufficiently address eco-system services. Moreover, as the Commission points out, these will not be sustained by biodiversity con-servation measures alone: high levels of species and habitat conservation are just one, key, component; but many services are provided outside protected ar-eas. Such an approach would call for the restoration of ecosystems insofar as possible to strengthen their resilience and sustain key services they provide, while also achieving conservation objectives and enabling Member States to adapt to climate change.

One of the most positive developments in 2010 has been the explicit recognition in a wide spectrum of Commission documents of the intimate link which should exist between these policies and that an aim of Community policy should be to encourage activities which integrate these objectives. That is the basis of the Green Infrastructure initiative.

In the rural terrestrial environment there are two land uses which can do this – forests, including sustainable woodland management, and ecologically sustainable agriculture. At the more intensive end of the farming spectrum, this means supporting organic and similar systems, but at the extensive end, it means making High Nature Value farming systems socially and eco-nomically sustainable. Indeed in the case of biodiversi-ty and landscape, these HNV systems provide greater levels of environmental services than organic farming and crucially deliver connectivity when present at the landscape scale.

Sinite kamani nature park, Bulgaria

Stan

imir

Stoy

chef

f

Geor

gi Po

pgeo

rgiev

Zapadni Balkan, sa svojim izuzetnim bogatstvom biljnog i životinjskog svijeta, jedan je od najbogatijih dijelova Europe u pogledu biološke raznolikosti. Postoji veliki broj endemskih vrsta i staništa, od kojih su mnoga od globalnog ili europskog značaja. Gustoća naseljenosti različitih vrsta životinja, ptica i riba navedenih u Crvenim listama ugroženih vrsta po površini je dva do četiri puta veća nego u 15 starih zemalja članica EU (EEA, 2010).

Zapadni Balkan obuhvaća veliki broj različitih prirodnih staništa, od primorskih laguna i močvara do mediteranskih šuma, planinskih livada i

pašnjaka, slatkovodnih močvara i krških područja. Ovo prirodno bogatstvo je priznato kao „zeleno zlato“ jugoistočne Europe (Plantlife) i „zelena pluća“ Europe (EEA).

Mnogi od ovih predjela i staništa stvoreni su uslijed stoljećima stare prakse ekstenzivne ispaše i ekstenzivne poljoprivredne širom Balkana. Povezanost između poljoprivrede velike prirodne vrijednosti, biološke raznolikosti i tradicionalnih krajobraza je izuzetno jaka. Veliki broj budućih NATURA 2000 staništa na-lazit će se u poljoprivrednim područjima - to su primjeri poljoprivrednog zemljišta velike prirodne vrijednosti. Direktive EU-a o pticama i staništima zahtjevaju da se ova staništa održavaju

u povoljnom stanju očuvanosti. Postizanje toga cilja će, u praksi, ovisiti o tome da poljoprivrednici nastave živjeti i raditi u poljoprivrednim područji-ma velike prirodne vrijednosti.

Stalno smanjenje broja ruralnog stanovništva i opadanje broja stoke, dovela su do napuštanja zemlje, naročito u planinskim područjima. To šteti biološkoj raznolikosti budući da se smanjuju površine poljoprivrednog zemljišta velike prirodne vrijednosti, a time i mozaik staništa za divlje bilj-ne i životinjske vrste. Istovremeno, intenzivna poljoprivredna proizvodnja je u ekspanziji, što takođe prijeti biološkoj raznolikosti.

Vlade u regiji su poduzele korake za zaštitu nekih ključnih vrsta i staništa. Područja pod služ-benim nacionalnim (zaštićena područja prirode) i međunarodnim (Ramsarska, Emerald) oznakama zaštite su posljednjih nekoliko godina u porastu. Pored toga, u većini zemalja poduzeti su početni koraci ka uspostavljanju mreže NATURA 2000.

Što se više podataka prikuplja to se povećava po-krivenost ključnih područja biološke raznolikosti, kao što su Područja važna za ptice (IBA), Područja značajna za floru (IPA) i Primarna područja za lep-tire (PBA). Premda ova područja

Smeđeglava travarka, Saxicola rubetra

Biološka raznolikost i poljoprivreda velike prirodne vrijednosti na Zapadnom Balkanu

Adonis vernalis – jedna od biljaka čiji rast ekstenzivna ispaša podržava

4

The Western Balkans, with its exceptional wealth of plants and animals, is one of the richest parts of Eu-rope in terms of biodiversity. There is a high number of endemic species and habitats, many of which are either of global or European conservation importance. The density of animal, bird and fish species listed in the Red List of Threatened Species (by area) is two to four times higher than in the 15 older EU Member States (EEA, 2010).

The Western Balkans encompass a great variety of natural habitats, ranging from coastal lagoons and

wetlands to Mediterranean forests, mountain meadows and pastures, freshwater wetlands, and karstic terrain. This natural wealth is recognized as the ‘green gold’ of South Eastern Europe (Plantlife) and the ‘green lungs’ of Europe (EEA).

Many of these landscapes and habitats were cre-ated by the centuries old practices of extensive graz-ing and low-input small-scale cropping throughout the Balkans. The inter-linkage between HNV farming, bio-diversity and traditional landscapes is very strong. A large number of the future NATURA 2000 sites will be located in agricultural areas – these are examples of HNV farmland. The EU Birds and Habitats Directives require that these habitats are maintained in a favour-

able conservation status. Achieving this will depend in practice on farmers continuing to live and work in HNV farming regions.

The recent decline in rural population and in the number of livestock animals has led to land abandon-ment, especially in mountainous areas. This harms biodiversity by shrinking the area of farmland of high natural value and thus the mosaic of habitats for wild-life. At the same time, intensive agriculture is expand-ing, which also threatens biodiversity.

The governments in the region have taken steps to protect some key species and habitats. The areas un-der official national (protected areas) and international designations (Ramsar, Emerald) have been increasing in recent years. Additionally, initial steps to set up the NATURA 2000 network are being taken in most of the countries.

The coverage of Key Biodiversity Areas such as Im-portant Bird Areas, Important Plant Areas and Primary Butterfly Areas is also increasing as more data is being collected. These areas are not under legal designation however they represent sites of global significance for biodiversity conservation.

Biodiversity and HNV Farming in the Western Balkans

Adonis vernalis – one of the plants which extensive grazing is supporting

Suza

na D

jord

jevi

cWhinchat, Saxicola rubetra

Geo

rgi P

opge

orgi

ev

5

The analysis of their status and trends reveals two important issues:

(1) Less than half of the designated Key Biodiver-sity Areas are under legal protection in the region. At the same time, close to 90% of the IPAs (for exam-ple) should qualify as sites of European importance as defined by the EU Habitats Directive and/or the Bern Convention (Radford and Odѓ, 2009).

(2) Grassland habitats are extremely important for biodiversity conservation in the region. They occur in more than 70% of the IPA sites, and are the dominant habitat in 50%. With or without legal protection in the future, these habitats were created and maintained by the traditional farming practices of the region. There-fore, a critical aspect for their conservation is the con-tinuation of HNV farming.

Furthermore, low-intensity grazing and farming systems provide highly valued ecosystem services

alongside biodiversity and cultural landscapes such as fire prevention and watershed management. Their maintenance on a large scale provides essential scope for flora and fauna to adapt to climate change, in a way that protected areas alone cannot do.

Current policy does not sufficiently address eco-system services. Moreover, as the Commission points out, these will not be sustained by biodiversity con-servation measures alone: high levels of species and habitat conservation are just one, key, component; but many services are provided outside protected ar-eas. Such an approach would call for the restoration of ecosystems insofar as possible to strengthen their resilience and sustain key services they provide, while also achieving conservation objectives and enabling Member States to adapt to climate change.

One of the most positive developments in 2010 has been the explicit recognition in a wide spectrum of Commission documents of the intimate link which should exist between these policies and that an aim of Community policy should be to encourage activities which integrate these objectives. That is the basis of the Green Infrastructure initiative.

In the rural terrestrial environment there are two land uses which can do this – forests, including sustainable woodland management, and ecologically sustainable agriculture. At the more intensive end of the farming spectrum, this means supporting organic and similar systems, but at the extensive end, it means making High Nature Value farming systems socially and eco-nomically sustainable. Indeed in the case of biodiversi-ty and landscape, these HNV systems provide greater levels of environmental services than organic farming and crucially deliver connectivity when present at the landscape scale.

Sinite kamani nature park, BulgariaSt

anim

ir St

oych

eff

nemaju legalnu oznaku zaštite, ona predstavljaju mjesta od globalnog značaja za očuvanje biološke raznolikosti.

Analiza njihovog statusa i trendova otkriva dva značajna problema:

(1) Manje od polovice određenih ključnih područja biološke raznolikosti u regiji je pod zakonskom zaštitom. Istovremeno, gotovo 90% Područja značajnih za floru (IPA) treba kvalificirati kao područja od europskog značaja, kao što je definirano EU Direktivom o staništima i/ili Bernskom konvencijom (Radford i Odé, 2009).

(2) Staništa travnjaka su izuzetno važna za očuvanje biološke raznolikosti u ovoj regiji. Ona se pojavljuju u više od 70% staništa Područja značajnih za floru (IPA), i dominantna su staništa u 50% tih područja. Sa ili bez zakonske zaštite u budućnosti, ova staništa su stvorena i održavaju se primjenom tradicionalnih poljoprivrednih praksi u regiji. Stoga, kritički aspekt za njihovo očuvanje je nastavak poljoprivredne proizvodnje velike prirodne vrijednosti.

Osim toga, uz biološku raznolikost i tradicionalne krajobraze, ispaša i poljoprivredni sustavi niskog intenziteta osiguravaju visoko vred-novane usluge ekosustava kao što su sprječavanje požara i upravljanje vodenim slivovima. Njihovo održavanje, u velikoj mjeri, pruža okvir za prilagod-bu flore i faune klimatskim promjenama, na način na koji zaštićena područja to sama ne mogu.

Trenutna politika ne daje dovoljno značaja uslu-gama ekosustava. Štoviše, kako ističe Komisija, one neće biti podržane samo kroz mjere očuvanja biološke raznolikosti: visoki nivo očuvanja vrsta i staništa je samo jedna ključna komponenta, ali mnoge usluge se pružaju izvan zaštićenih područja prirode. Takav pristup bi zahtjevao obnovu ekosustava u najvećoj mogućoj mjeri kako bi se ojačala njihova otpornost i održale ključne usluge koje oni pružaju, dok se istovremeno postižu ciljevi očuvanja i omogućuje zemljama članicama EU-a da se prilagode klimatskim promenama.

Jedan od najpozitivnijih razvoja u 2010. godini bilo je izričito priznanje u mnogim dokumentima Komisije, da bi između ovih politika trebala postojati tijesna povezanost i da jedan od ciljeva politike Zajednice treba podsticati aktivnosti koje integriraju ove ciljeve. To je osnova Inicijative za zelenu infrastrukturu.

U seoskim životnim sredinama postoje dva načina uporabe zemljišta koja mogu to postići - šume, uključujući održivo upravljanje šumama, kao i ekološki održiva poljoprivredna proizvodnja. Na intenzivnijem dijelu spektra poljoprivredne proizvodnje, to znači podršku ekološkim i sličnim sustavima, ali na ekstenzivnom dijelu spektra to znači učiniti poljoprivredne sustave velike prirodne vrijednosti društveno i ekonomski održivima. U slučaju biološke raznolikosti i krajobraza, ovi po-ljoprivredni sustavi velike prirodne vrijednosti zaista pružaju veći nivo usluga ekosustava nego ekološka proizvodnja, i presudno osiguravaju povezanost kada su prisutni na nivou krajobraza.

Park prirode Sinite Kamni, Bugarska

6

Box 2 Climate change impacts in the Western Balkans

By 2005, the pan-Europe region (i.e. including Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia countries) had experienced a 1.4°C increase in temperatures over pre-industrial levels: higher than the global average. Southern Europe, including the Western Balkans, experienced even stronger warming than the rest of pan-Europe.

In the Western Balkans, climate change is expected to bring higher summer temperatures and lower rainfall. It could have far-reaching impacts on agriculture in the region, increasing the need for irrigation, reducing crop production and possibly shifting crop ranges.

These changes will have wider effects on ecosystems in the region: reduced water flows will affect freshwater ecosystems and in mountain areas, higher average temperatures will shift the tree line upwards. Across ecosystems, climate change could encourage invasive species. By one estimate, up to 25 % of endemic plant species in southern European countries may disappear.

Biodiversity in the Western Balkans is also under threat. However, there is a lack of information and analysis about the links between the Western Balkan environment and global environmental changes i.e. climate change and biodiversity loss.

Source: EEA, 2010, Environmental trends and perspectives in the Western Balkans

Box 1 Important Plan Areas on the Balkans Peninsula

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 are not legal designations, but provide information to assist the prioritisation of sites for conservation action.

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 was the basis for the identification of 398 IPAs in six Balkan countries covering more than 4 million hectares of land. These IPAs contain diverse habitat mosaics, dominated by forest and grassland.

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. Thus, grassland habitats occur in more than 70% of the IPA sites, and are dominant habitat in 50%.

Land abandonment or reduction of land management is the third most important threat (after land development and poor forestry practices), affecting over one third of all IPA sites. This results in loss of biodiversity rich grassland habitats as they revert to coarse grassland /scrub when grazing is reduced. This is particularly evident in Croatia, where 34% of IPAs are threatened by abandonment of flower-rich farmland.

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.

Source: Radford, E.A. and Odѓ, B. eds. (2009) Conserving Important Plant Areas: investing in the Green Gold of South East Europe. Plantlife International

Table 1 Area and population in the Western Balkan countries

Country Total area (km2)Population Population

density (per km2)

Total(‘000) Rural (%)

Albania 28 750 3 153 54 109,7

Bosnia and Herzegovina 51 209 3 844 52 75,1

Croatia 56 542 4 441 44 78,5

Kosovo (UNSCR 1244) 10 887 2 070 65 190,1

Macedonia 25 713 2 042 43 79,4

Montenegro 13 812 625 40 45,2

Serbia 77 474 7 382 55 95,3

All Western Balkans 264 462 23614 50 89,2

EU-27 4 308 406 492090 56 114,4 Source: DG Agri country files

7

Agricultural land use in the Western Balkans

Land used for agriculture comprises approximately half of the entire territory of the Western Balkan region. Pastures and meadows cover close to 19% and arable land and permanent crops 29%.

Between the countries there are significant varia-tions due to the region’s diverse landscapes and cli-mates which often change markedly over very short distances, producing a great diversity of crops and farming. On the plains and in the river valleys, land use is more intensive and cereals are the major crop. On the lower slopes of the mountainous areas, there are

fruit orchards and vineyards and the upland areas are used for livestock, in particular sheep and goats. Tradi-tional olive groves are grown along the Adriatic coast.

Thus, in Montenegro only 5% of the entire territory is used for permanent and arable crops, and 37% for pastures and meadows. In Croatia, the land use is al-most the opposite since 22% of the territory is used for arable and permanent crops, while pastures and meadows cover 9%. However, as explained in Box 3, these statistics can sometimes be unhelpful or even misleading, especially in the case of Mediterranean pastures, which often take the form of scrublands or even forests.

The total area of the Western Balkan countries is 264 462 km2 (equivalent to 6% of the EU territory). The population is 26.3 million, of which 50% live in ru-ral areas. The average population density of 89.2 peo-ple per km2 is much lower than that of the EU (114.4). Comparatively low population densities are observed in mountainous and karstic areas in Montenegro (45.2),

Bosnia and Herzegovina (75.1) and Croatia (78.5). These regions are subject to substantial ageing and depopulation processes. In general, settlements are small and numerous; there are few large unpopulated areas. A common trend in all countries of the region is migration from rural areas to urban and coastal zones as well as abroad.



density (per km2)


Albania 28 750 3 153 54 109,7


Croatia 56 542 4 441 44 78,5

Kosovo (UNSCR 1244) 10 887 2 070 65 190,1

Macedonia 25 713 2 042 43 79,4

Montenegro 13 812 625 40 45,2

Serbia 77 474 7 382 55 95,3



Rural Areas in the Western BalkansPrimjer 1 Područja značajna za floru (IPA) na Balkanskom poluotoku

Područja značajna za floru (IPA) su najvažnija mjesta u svijetu za raznolikost flore. Identificirana su su na nacionalnom nivou koristeći međunarodno standardizirane kriterije; prisustvo ugroženih vrsta, ugroženih staništa i bogatstvo vrsta. Područja značajna za floru (IPA) nemaju legalni status zaštite, ali pružaju informacije koje pomažu određivanju područja vrijedna zaštite.

Balkanski poluotok sadrži najbogatiju floru u Europi. Ovdje se nalazi veći broj vrsta nego li u bilo kojoj drugoj europskoj regiji, uključujući oko 1800 endemskih vrsta vaskularnih biljaka (rastu samo na ovom poluotoku i nigdje drugdje u svijetu). Ovo je bila osnova za identifikaciju 398 Područja značajna za floru (IPA) u šest balkanskih zemalja, što pokriva više od 4 milijuna hektara zemljišta. Ova IPA područja obuhvaćaju raznolike mozaike staništa, kojima dominiraju šume i travnjaci.

Poljoprivredne prakse već 10 000 godina utječu na vegetaciju i krajobraz Balkana; spaljivanje vegetacije, ispaša, sječa šuma i obrađivanje zemljišta doprinjeli su raznolikosti tipova vegetacije i povezanih vrsta. Trav-njačka staništa prisutna su u više od 70% Područja značajna za floru (IPA), a dominantna su staništa u 50%. Zapuštanje zemljišta ili smanjeno gospodarenje zemljištem je treća najznačajnija prijetnja (poslije promjene korištenja zemljišta i neodgovarajućih šumarskih praksi), i utječe na više od jedne trećine svih Područja značajna za floru (IPA). Ovo dovodi do gubitka vrstama bogatih travnjaka koji zbog nedo-statka ispaše zarastaju u grmoliku vegetaciju i šipražje. Ovo je naročito vidljivo u Hrvatskoj, gdje je čak 34% Područja značajna za floru (IPA) ugroženo zapuštanjem poljoprivrednih zemljišta bogatih cvjetnim vrstama.

Vlasnicima, korisnicima te svima koji gospodare poljoprivrednim i šumskim zemljištem žurno su potrebni pravilno ciljani poticaji za održivo upravljanje zemljištem jer će o njima očuvanje Područja značajnih za floru (IPA) u konačnici i ovisiti. Mogućnost da privatni vlasnici zemljišta (koji trenutno posjeduju zemlju unutar 53% IPA područja u regiji) ostvare održivi prihod upravljajući zemljištem na način koji će očuvati biološku raznolikost, bit će od ključnog značaja za sprječavanje potencijalno katastrofalnih promjena u korištenju zemljišta.

Izvor: Radford, E.A. i Odé, B. eds. (2009) Očuvanje Područja značajnih za floru: ulaganje u Zeleno zlato Jugoistočne Europe(Conserving Important Plant Areas: investing in the Green Gold of South East Europe). Plantlife International

Primer 2 Utjecaj klimatskih promjena na Zapadnom Balkanu

Do 2005. godine, pan-Europska regija (uključujući države Istočne Europe, Kavkaza i Centralne Azije) doživjela je porast temperature od 1,4°C više od pred-industrijskog nivoa: više od globalnog prosjeka. Južna Europa, uključujući i Zapadni Balkan, iskusila je veće zagrijavanje od ostatka pan-Europske regije.

Očekuje se da će klimatske promjene na Zapadnom Balkanu donijeti veće ljetne temperature i manje padalina. To bi moglo imati dalekosežne posljedice na poljoprivredu u regiji, povećavajući potrebu za navodnjavanjem, smanjenje poljoprivredne proizvodnje i eventualno promjenu opsega usjeva. Ove promjene će imati širi utjecaj na ekosustave u regiji: umanjen protok voda će utjecati na ekosustav slatkih voda, a u planinskim područjima više prosječne temperature će promijeniti liniju graničnih šuma naviše. Širom ekosustava, klimatske promjene bi mogle potaknuti širenje invazivnih vrsta. Prema jednoj procjeni, do 25% endemskih biljnih vrsta u južnoj Europi moglo bi nestati.

Biološka raznolikost na Zapadnom Balkanu je također pod prijetnjom. Međutim, postoji nedostatak informacija i analiza o povezanosti između okoliša na Zapadnom Balkanu i globalnih ekoloških promjena, odnosno klimatskih promjena i gubitka biološke raznolikosti. Izvor: EEA, 2010, Ekološki trendovi i perspektive na Zapadnom Balkanu (Environmental trends and perspectives in the Western Balkans)

6

Box 2 Climate change impacts in the Western Balkans

By 2005, the pan-Europe region (i.e. including Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia countries) had experienced a 1.4°C increase in temperatures over pre-industrial levels: higher than the global average. Southern Europe, including the Western Balkans, experienced even stronger warming than the rest of pan-Europe.

In the Western Balkans, climate change is expected to bring higher summer temperatures and lower rainfall. It could have far-reaching impacts on agriculture in the region, increasing the need for irrigation, reducing crop production and possibly shifting crop ranges.

These changes will have wider effects on ecosystems in the region: reduced water flows will affect freshwater ecosystems and in mountain areas, higher average temperatures will shift the tree line upwards. Across ecosystems, climate change could encourage invasive species. By one estimate, up to 25 % of endemic plant species in southern European countries may disappear.

Biodiversity in the Western Balkans is also under threat. However, there is a lack of information and analysis about the links between the Western Balkan environment and global environmental changes i.e. climate change and biodiversity loss.

Source: EEA, 2010, Environmental trends and perspectives in the Western Balkans

Box 1 Important Plan Areas on the Balkans Peninsula

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 are not legal designations, but provide information to assist the prioritisation of sites for conservation action.

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 was the basis for the identification of 398 IPAs in six Balkan countries covering more than 4 million hectares of land. These IPAs contain diverse habitat mosaics, dominated by forest and grassland.

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. Thus, grassland habitats occur in more than 70% of the IPA sites, and are dominant habitat in 50%.

Land abandonment or reduction of land management is the third most important threat (after land development and poor forestry practices), affecting over one third of all IPA sites. This results in loss of biodiversity rich grassland habitats as they revert to coarse grassland /scrub when grazing is reduced. This is particularly evident in Croatia, where 34% of IPAs are threatened by abandonment of flower-rich farmland.

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.

Source: Radford, E.A. and Odѓ, B. eds. (2009) Conserving Important Plant Areas: investing in the Green Gold of South East Europe. Plantlife International



density (per km2)


Albania 28 750 3 153 54 109,7


Croatia 56 542 4 441 44 78,5

Kosovo (UNSCR 1244) 10 887 2 070 65 190,1

Macedonia 25 713 2 042 43 79,4

Montenegro 13 812 625 40 45,2

Serbia 77 474 7 382 55 95,3



7

Agricultural land use in the Western Balkans

Land used for agriculture comprises approximately half of the entire territory of the Western Balkan region. Pastures and meadows cover close to 19% and arable land and permanent crops 29%.

Between the countries there are significant varia-tions due to the region’s diverse landscapes and cli-mates which often change markedly over very short distances, producing a great diversity of crops and farming. On the plains and in the river valleys, land use is more intensive and cereals are the major crop. On the lower slopes of the mountainous areas, there are

fruit orchards and vineyards and the upland areas are used for livestock, in particular sheep and goats. Tradi-tional olive groves are grown along the Adriatic coast.

Thus, in Montenegro only 5% of the entire territory is used for permanent and arable crops, and 37% for pastures and meadows. In Croatia, the land use is al-most the opposite since 22% of the territory is used for arable and permanent crops, while pastures and meadows cover 9%. However, as explained in Box 3, these statistics can sometimes be unhelpful or even misleading, especially in the case of Mediterranean pastures, which often take the form of scrublands or even forests.

The total area of the Western Balkan countries is 264 462 km2 (equivalent to 6% of the EU territory). The population is 26.3 million, of which 50% live in ru-ral areas. The average population density of 89.2 peo-ple per km2 is much lower than that of the EU (114.4). Comparatively low population densities are observed in mountainous and karstic areas in Montenegro (45.2),

Bosnia and Herzegovina (75.1) and Croatia (78.5). These regions are subject to substantial ageing and depopulation processes. In general, settlements are small and numerous; there are few large unpopulated areas. A common trend in all countries of the region is migration from rural areas to urban and coastal zones as well as abroad.



density (per km2)


Albania 28 750 3 153 54 109,7


Croatia 56 542 4 441 44 78,5

Kosovo (UNSCR 1244) 10 887 2 070 65 190,1

Macedonia 25 713 2 042 43 79,4

Montenegro 13 812 625 40 45,2

Serbia 77 474 7 382 55 95,3



Rural Areas in the Western BalkansUkupna površina zemalja Zapadnog Balkana

iznosi 264 462 km2 (što iznosi 6% teritorija EU). Broj stanovnika iznosi 26,3 milijuna, od kojih 50% živi u ruralnim područjima. Prosječna gustoća naseljenosti od 89,2 stanovnika po km2 je mnogo manja nego u EU (114,4).

Relativno niska gustoća naseljenosti je uočljiva

Ruralna područja na Zapadnom Balkanuu planinskim i krškim oblastima Crne Gore (45,2), Bosne i Hercegovine (75,1) i Hrvatske (78,5). Ove regije izložene su značajnom procesu starenja i depopulacije. Generalno gledano, naselja su mala i brojna; postoji nekoliko velikih nenaseljenih područja. Zajednički trend u svim zemljama regije je migracija iz ruralnih područja u urbana i priobalna područja, kao i u inozemsto.

Tabela 1 Površina i stanovništvo u državama Zapadnog Balkana

Korištenje poljoprivrednog zemljišta na Zapadnom Balkanu

Poljoprivredno zemljište zauzima gotovo polovicu ukupne površine Zapadnog Balkana. Pašnjaci i livade pokrivaju skoro 19%, dok obradive površine i trajni nasadi pokrivaju 29% područja.

Postoje značajne varijacije između zemalja zbog raznolikosti krajobraza i klime u regiji, koji se često značajno mjenjaju na vrlo malim udaljenostima, uzrokujući veliku raznovrsnost kultura i poljopri-vrede. U ravnicama i riječnim dolinama korištenje zemljišta je intenzivnije, a žitarice su glavni usjev. Na nižim obroncima planinskih područja su

voćnjaci i vinogradi, dok se viša planinska po-dručja koriste za stočarstvo, naročito uzgoj ovaca i koza. Tradicionalni maslinici rastu duž jadranske obale.

U Crnoj Gori se samo 5% ukupne površi-ne koristi za trajne nasade i oranice, a 37% za pašnjake i livade. U Hrvatskoj, uporaba zemljišta je gotovo suprotna, pošto se 22% površina koristi za oranične i višegodišnje kulture, dok pašnjaci i livade pokrivaju 9%. Međutim, kao što je objašnjeno u Primjeru 3, ovi statistički poda-ci ponekad mogu dovesti u zabludu, naročito u slučaju mediteranskih pašnjaka, koji su često pod šipražjem ili čak šumom.

DržavaUkupna površina

(km2)

StanovništvoGustoća naseljenosti

(po km2)Ukupno('000)

Ruralno (%)

Albanija 28 750 3 153 54 109,7

Bosna i Hercegovina 51 209 3 844 52 75,1

Hrvatska 56 542 4 441 44 78,5

Kosovo 10 887 2 070 65 190,1

Makedonija 25 713 2 042 43 79,4

Crna Gora 13 812 625 40 45,2

Srbija 77 474 7 382 55 95,3

Ukupno Zapadni Balkan 264 462 23614 50 89,2

EU-27 4 308 406 492090 56 114,4Izvor: Nacionalne poljoprivredne statistike

8

Figure 1 Main land use per country (percent and hectares)

Source: National statistical data

Box 3 Some observations on the official data for land use in agriculture

The use of agricultural land use statistics in the countries of the Western Balkans is far from straightforward. There are variations in the data depending on the national source – national statistics, cadaster registers and/or national census (where such were carried out).

The main challenge is the distinction between agricultural area and utilized agricultural area. Usually, the national statistics report the areas potentially available for agriculture (within the agriculture land funds) and not the lands actually used in agriculture.

Another related and important gap is the recording of unused agricultural land: it is not easy to differentiate between fallow land, uncultivated land and abandoned land.

And last, but not least, forests and forest pastures are commonly used for grazing throughout the region but none of the countries reports the areas subject to forest grazing. This is exacerbated in the Mediterranean zone, where legal forests often consist of scrublands of various types, vegetation communities used for grazing and browsing for thousands of years.

9

Figure 2 Land Use and Land Cover in the Western Balkans

Source: National Statistical data (2003-2009) excluding urban and other areas

Source: EEA, CLC 2000

There are also significant apparent discrepancies between national statistics and Corine Land Cover 2000 data (EEA, 2010). Arable land and permanent crops cover 29% of the total area according to national statistics and 13% according to CLC, while pastures and meadows cover 19% or 32% depending on the source.

The main reasons may be related to the different methodologies and periods of data collection. Addi-tionally, the presented land use data does not cover urban and other areas such as water bodies. Yet the magnitude of variation is quite substantial. It is pos-sible that an important factor is the very extensive land use in much of the region, and particularly the mosaic pattern which characterises many zones. The weak-

nesses of national statistics noted in Box 3 may also be significant.

Some of the extensively used land is on the edge of abandonment and in practice some of it is already abandoned. This is to some extent reflected by the cat-egory of uncultivated land which represents 6% of total land use or, non-use.

This reasoning, albeit speculative, leads to a prelim-inary estimation of the extensively used and potentially High Nature Value agricultural land in the Western Bal-kans of around 7.8 million hectares. This is excluding forest grazing which accounts for as much as 60% of the forage resources in some Albanian villages.

Primjer 3 Neka opažanja o službenim podacima o korištenju poljoprivrednog zemljišta

Statistika korištenja poljoprivrednog zemljišta u zemljama zapadnog Balkana je daleko od potpune. Postoje razlike u podacima zavisno od izvora nacionalnih podataka – nacionalni statistički podaci, katastarski upisnik i/ili nacionalni popis poljoprivrede (tamo gdje su se provodili).

Glavni izazov je u razlikovanju između poljoprivrednog zemljišta i korištenog poljoprivrednog zemljišta. Nacionalni statistički podaci najčešće izvještavaju o područjima koja su potencijalno dostupna za poljoprivrednu proizvodnju, a ne o zemljištu koje se stvarno koristi za poljoprivrednu proizvodnju.

Jedan drugi povezan i takođe vrlo važan problem je prikupljanje podataka o nekorištenom poljoprivrednom zemljištu: nije lako napraviti razliku između neobrađenog, zapuštenog i zemljišta pod ugarom.

I na kraju, ali ne i manje važno, šume i šumski pašnjaci se obično koriste za ispašu u čitavoj regiji, ali nijedna od zemalja ne iskazuje podatke o tim područjima. Ovaj problem je još izraženiji u mediteranskom području, u kojem se registrirane šume često sastoje od šipražja različitih tipova, zajednica vegetacije koje se koriste za ispašu i brstenje već tisućama godina.

Slika 1 Glavno korištenje zemljišta po državama (postoci i hektari)

Burimi: Të dhëna statistikore për shtet

Glavno korištenje zemljišta pozemljama (ha)

Glavno korištenje zemljišta pozemljama (%)

Livade i pašnajci

Ratarske i višegodišnie kulture

Sumsko zemljište

Uku

pno

ZB

8

Figure 1 Main land use per country (percent and hectares)

Source: National statistical data

Box 3 Some observations on the official data for land use in agriculture

The use of agricultural land use statistics in the countries of the Western Balkans is far from straightforward. There are variations in the data depending on the national source – national statistics, cadaster registers and/or national census (where such were carried out).

The main challenge is the distinction between agricultural area and utilized agricultural area. Usually, the national statistics report the areas potentially available for agriculture (within the agriculture land funds) and not the lands actually used in agriculture.

Another related and important gap is the recording of unused agricultural land: it is not easy to differentiate between fallow land, uncultivated land and abandoned land.

And last, but not least, forests and forest pastures are commonly used for grazing throughout the region but none of the countries reports the areas subject to forest grazing. This is exacerbated in the Mediterranean zone, where legal forests often consist of scrublands of various types, vegetation communities used for grazing and browsing for thousands of years.

9

Figure 2 Land Use and Land Cover in the Western Balkans

Source: National Statistical data (2003-2009) excluding urban and other areas

Source: EEA, CLC 2000

There are also significant apparent discrepancies between national statistics and Corine Land Cover 2000 data (EEA, 2010). Arable land and permanent crops cover 29% of the total area according to national statistics and 13% according to CLC, while pastures and meadows cover 19% or 32% depending on the source.

The main reasons may be related to the different methodologies and periods of data collection. Addi-tionally, the presented land use data does not cover urban and other areas such as water bodies. Yet the magnitude of variation is quite substantial. It is pos-sible that an important factor is the very extensive land use in much of the region, and particularly the mosaic pattern which characterises many zones. The weak-

nesses of national statistics noted in Box 3 may also be significant.

Some of the extensively used land is on the edge of abandonment and in practice some of it is already abandoned. This is to some extent reflected by the cat-egory of uncultivated land which represents 6% of total land use or, non-use.

This reasoning, albeit speculative, leads to a prelim-inary estimation of the extensively used and potentially High Nature Value agricultural land in the Western Bal-kans of around 7.8 million hectares. This is excluding forest grazing which accounts for as much as 60% of the forage resources in some Albanian villages.

Slika 2 Uporaba zemljišta i zemljišni pokrov na Zapadnom Balkanu

Takođe, postoje značajne očigledne razlike između nacionalnih statistika i podataka Corine zemljišnog pokrova 2000 (Corine Land Cover 2000-CLC) (EEA, 2010). Prema nacionalnim statistikama, oranice i stalni usjevi pokrivaju 29% ukupne površine, a prema CLC-u 13%, dok pašnjaci i livade pokrivaju 19% ili 32% u zavisnosti od izvora.

Glavni razlozi ovih razlika mogu biti vezani za različite metodologije i periode prikupljanja podataka. Pored toga, predstavljeni podaci o korištenju zemljišta ne obuhvaćaju urbana i druga područja kao što su vodene površine. Ipak, veličina varijacija je vrlo značajna. Moguće je da je jedan od važnih faktora ekstenzivno korištenje zemljišta u većem dijelu regije, a naročito mozaična struktura koji karakterizira mnoga područja. Slabosti

nacionalne statistike koje su navedene u Primjeru 3 mogu također biti značajne.

Neka od ekstenzivno obrađivanih zemljišta se nalaze na rubu napuštanja i u praksi neka od ovih su već napuštena. To se u izvjesnoj mjeri ogleda kroz kategoriju neobrađenog zemljišta, što predstavlja 6% od ukupnog korištenja zemljišta, ili nekorištenja.

Ovaj način razmišljanja, iako spekulativan, dovodi do preliminarne procjene ekstenzivno iskorištenog i potencijalnog poljoprivrednog zemljišta velike prirodne vrijednosti u zemljama Zapadnog Balkana od oko 7,8 milijuna hektara. Ovo je bez šumskih ispaša, što u nekim albanskim selima čini čak 60% krmnih resursa.

Izvor: Nacionalni statistički podaci (2003-2009 )izuzevši urbana i druga područja

Izvor: EEA, CLC 2000

Korištenje zemljišta na Zapadnom Balkanu

Zemljišni pokrov na Zapadnom Balkanu, CLC 2000

Šumsko zemljište

Livade i pašnajci

Ratarske i višegodišnie kulture

Neobrađeno zemljište

Šume i prijelazno šumsko grmlje

Prirodni travnjaci, zemljište pustara,sklerofilne vegetacije

Pasnjacii mjesovito poljoprivredno zemljište

Oranice i trajni nasadi

Ostalo

10

Farm Structure

The share of agriculture in the economies of the Western Balkan countries (as measured by GDP) has been decreasing since 2000. However, its overall im-portance remains high due to the large number of peo-ple engaged in farming.

There are very large numbers of small farms with numerous plots of land throughout the region. In Mac-edonia, 40% of the farms are smaller than 2 hectares while in Kosovo under UNSCR 1244-99 nearly 80% of the farms are within the size of 0.5-2.0 ha. As much as three quarters of all Croatian family farms are smaller than 3 hectares. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the share of farms with less than 5 ha is 84%. It is of no surprise

then that the average farm size is as low as 1.1 ha in Albania and only 3.6 ha in Serbia. The average size of the individual plots is 0.3 ha.

These averages, however, do not include arable land that is used by farmers under informal agreements, or common grazing land. In Montenegro, there are ap-proximately 155 000 hectares of pastures (33% of all agriculture land), whose ownership status is unclear (Arcotrass Consortium 2006).

Informal agreements for use of land are widespread in all countries of the region. These are very difficult to detect from the official statistics. These ‘hidden’ private arrangements may be of considerable significance for policy making.

Table 2 Average farm and plot size in the Western Balkans (ha)

Country Average farm size (ha) Average plot size (ha)

Albania 1.1 0.3

Bosnia Herzegovina No data No data

Croatia 2.4 0.3

Kosovo (UNSCR 1244) 2.2 0.27

Macedonia 2.5 to 2.8 0.3 to 0.5

Montenegro No data No data

Serbia 3.6 0.3

Source: Various data sources from national level

11

In this report we use ‘High Nature Value (HNV) farming’ as an umbrella term encompassing both HNV farmland and HNV farming systems, HNV farmland be-ing in this context defined with reference to the high

nature value land cover(e.g. pasture, orchard), whereas HNV farming systems refers to the farming practices on this land (e.g. grazing, mowing, pruning), which are dynamic and change over time.

High Nature Value Farming in the Western Balkans

Definition of High Nature Value Farmland

“High Nature Value farmland comprises those ar-eas in Europe where agriculture is a major (usually the dominant) land use and where that agriculture supports or is associated with either a high species and habitat diversity, or the presence of species of European con-servation concern, or both” (Andersen et al, 2003)

This definition of High Nature Value (HNV) Farmland was developed for and adopted by the European Envi-ronmental Agency (EEA). Three main types of High Na-ture Value farmlands were identified (without a clear-cut division between them being set out):

Type 1: Farmland with a high proportion of semi-natural or natural vegetation

Type 2: Farmland with a mosaic of habitats and low-intensity land uses

Type 3: Farmland supporting rare species or a high proportion of European or World populations

Over several years (2003-2007), the Joint Research Centre and the European Environmental Agency (JRC/EEA) have worked together to improve the identifica-tion of potential HNV farmland areas at the EU level. This was done on the basis of assumptions about the relationship between certain types of land cover and the intensity of farming and the presence of high nature values. These were mapped drawing on datasets avail-able on a EU scale: CORINE land cover data, NATURA 2000 selected sites containing habitats dependent on extensive agricultural practices and Important Bird Ar-eas nominated for their significance for ‘farmland birds’ and as yet undesignated under NATURA 2000. In addi-

High Nature Value Farmland in the Western Balkans

tion, bird and butterfly population abundance data and other relevant national and transnational data sources were incorporated when available.

This is now largely referred to as the “EEA approach” to HNV farmland identification and some countries use it as the basis for their national identifications (Bulgaria in 2007 as well as Serbia in 2010). The weaknesses of an approach dependent on EU scale data is clear. Where much more detailed information is available at national level (e.g. in the Netherlands), the EEA approach can provide useful information. Additional national data bases were used in Serbia in the identification of po-tential HNV farmland based on the EEA approach.

High Nature Value Farmland in the countries of the Western Balkans

Overall, the concept of HNV farmland is a novelty for the Western Balkan countries. Recently two of them (Serbia and Macedonia) have taken some initial steps towards its identification (NGO-led projects). However,

Rusk

a M

icev

a

Sheep grazing in Porecie, Macedonia

Tabela 2 Prosječna veličina poljoprivrednog gospodarstva i parcela na Zapadnom Balkanu (ha)

Struktura poljoprivrednih gospodarstava

Udio poljoprivrede u ekonomijama zemalja Zapadnog Balkana (računajući prema BDP-u) je u opadanju od 2000. godine. Međutim, cjelokupna važnost poljoprivrede ostaje velika zbog velikog broja ljudi koji su uključeni u nju.

U čitavoj regiji postoji vrlo velik broj malih poljo-privrednih gospodarstava sa brojnim parcelama. U Makedoniji, 40% gospodarstavaje manje od 2 hektara, dok je na Kosovu skoro 80% gospodarstava veličine 0,5-2,0 hektara. Čak tri četvrtine svih hrvatskih po-ljoprivrednih gospodarstava je manje od 3 hektara. U Bosni i Hercegovini udio gospodarstava manjih od 5 hektara je 84%. Stoga ne čudi činjenica da je

prosječna veličina gospodarstva u Albaniji samo 1,1 hektar, a u Srbiji samo 3,6 hektara. Prosječna veličina pojedinačnih parcela je 0,3 hektara.

Ovi prosjeci, međutim, ne uključuju obradiva zemljišta koju poljoprivrednici koriste pod neformalnim ugovorima, niti zajedničke pašnjake. U Crnoj Gori ima oko 155 000 hektara pašnjaka (33% cjelokupnog poljoprivrednog zemljišta) čiji je vlasnički status nejasan (Arcotrass Konzorcijum 2006).

Neformalni ugovori za korištenje zemljišta koriste se u svim zemljama regije. Njih je izuzetno teško „otkriti“ u službenim statistikama. Ti „skriveni“ privatni aranžmani mogu biti od izuzetne važnosti za kreiranje politike.

Država Prosječna veličina poljoprivrednog

gospodarstva (ha)

Prosječna veličina parcela (ha)

Albanija 1.1 0.3

Bosna i Hercegovina Nema podataka Nema podataka

Hrvatska 2.4 0.3

Kosovo 2.2 0.27

Makedonija 2.5 do 2.8 0.3 do 0.5

Crna Gora Nema podataka Nema podataka

Srbija 3.6 0.3Izvor: Različiti nacionalni izvori podataka

10

Farm Structure

The share of agriculture in the economies of the Western Balkan countries (as measured by GDP) has been decreasing since 2000. However, its overall im-portance remains high due to the large number of peo-ple engaged in farming.

There are very large numbers of small farms with numerous plots of land throughout the region. In Mac-edonia, 40% of the farms are smaller than 2 hectares while in Kosovo under UNSCR 1244-99 nearly 80% of the farms are within the size of 0.5-2.0 ha. As much as three quarters of all Croatian family farms are smaller than 3 hectares. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the share of farms with less than 5 ha is 84%. It is of no surprise

then that the average farm size is as low as 1.1 ha in Albania and only 3.6 ha in Serbia. The average size of the individual plots is 0.3 ha.

These averages, however, do not include arable land that is used by farmers under informal agreements, or common grazing land. In Montenegro, there are ap-proximately 155 000 hectares of pastures (33% of all agriculture land), whose ownership status is unclear (Arcotrass Consortium 2006).

Informal agreements for use of land are widespread in all countries of the region. These are very difficult to detect from the official statistics. These ‘hidden’ private arrangements may be of considerable significance for policy making.

Table 2 Average farm and plot size in the Western Balkans (ha)

Country Average farm size (ha) Average plot size (ha)

Albania 1.1 0.3

Bosnia Herzegovina No data No data

Croatia 2.4 0.3

Kosovo (UNSCR 1244) 2.2 0.27

Macedonia 2.5 to 2.8 0.3 to 0.5

Montenegro No data No data

Serbia 3.6 0.3

Source: Various data sources from national level

11

In this report we use ‘High Nature Value (HNV) farming’ as an umbrella term encompassing both HNV farmland and HNV farming systems, HNV farmland be-ing in this context defined with reference to the high

nature value land cover(e.g. pasture, orchard), whereas HNV farming systems refers to the farming practices on this land (e.g. grazing, mowing, pruning), which are dynamic and change over time.

High Nature Value Farming in the Western Balkans

Definition of High Nature Value Farmland

“High Nature Value farmland comprises those ar-eas in Europe where agriculture is a major (usually the dominant) land use and where that agriculture supports or is associated with either a high species and habitat diversity, or the presence of species of European con-servation concern, or both” (Andersen et al, 2003)

This definition of High Nature Value (HNV) Farmland was developed for and adopted by the European Envi-ronmental Agency (EEA). Three main types of High Na-ture Value farmlands were identified (without a clear-cut division between them being set out):

Type 1: Farmland with a high proportion of semi-natural or natural vegetation

Type 2: Farmland with a mosaic of habitats and low-intensity land uses

Type 3: Farmland supporting rare species or a high proportion of European or World populations

Over several years (2003-2007), the Joint Research Centre and the European Environmental Agency (JRC/EEA) have worked together to improve the identifica-tion of potential HNV farmland areas at the EU level. This was done on the basis of assumptions about the relationship between certain types of land cover and the intensity of farming and the presence of high nature values. These were mapped drawing on datasets avail-able on a EU scale: CORINE land cover data, NATURA 2000 selected sites containing habitats dependent on extensive agricultural practices and Important Bird Ar-eas nominated for their significance for ‘farmland birds’ and as yet undesignated under NATURA 2000. In addi-

High Nature Value Farmland in the Western Balkans

tion, bird and butterfly population abundance data and other relevant national and transnational data sources were incorporated when available.

This is now largely referred to as the “EEA approach” to HNV farmland identification and some countries use it as the basis for their national identifications (Bulgaria in 2007 as well as Serbia in 2010). The weaknesses of an approach dependent on EU scale data is clear. Where much more detailed information is available at national level (e.g. in the Netherlands), the EEA approach can provide useful information. Additional national data bases were used in Serbia in the identification of po-tential HNV farmland based on the EEA approach.

High Nature Value Farmland in the countries of the Western Balkans

Overall, the concept of HNV farmland is a novelty for the Western Balkan countries. Recently two of them (Serbia and Macedonia) have taken some initial steps towards its identification (NGO-led projects). However,

Rusk

a M

icev

a

Sheep grazing in Porecie, Macedonia

Rusk

a M

icev

a

U ovom izvještaju koristimo zajednički termin „Poljoprivredna proizvodnja velike prirodne vrijednosti“ (‘High Nature Value (HNV) farming’) koji obuhvaća poljoprivredna zemljišta velike prirodne vrijednosti i poljoprivredne sustave velike prirodne vrijednosti, gdje se poljoprivredno zemljište velike prirodne vijrednosti u ovom

Definicija poljoprivrednog zemljišta velike prirodne vrijednosti

„Poljoprivredno zemljište velike prirodne vrijednosti sastoji se od onih područja u Europi gde je poljoprivreda glavni način (najčešće dominantni) uporabe zemljišta i gdje ta poljoprivreda podržava, ili je povezana sa velikom raznolikošću vrsta i staništa ili prisustvom vrsta koje su od posebnog interesa za očuvanje u Europi, ili i jedno i drugo“ (Andersen et al, 2003)

Ova definicija poljoprivrednog zemljišta velike prirodne vrijednosti razvijena je za, i prihvaćena je od strane Europske agencije za zaštitu okoliša (EEA). Identificirana su tri glavna tipa poljoprivrednog zemljišta velike prirodne vrijednosti (bez jasno određenih granica između njih):

Tip 1: Poljoprivredno zemljište sa velikim udjelom poluprirodne ili prirodne vegetacije;

Tip 2: Poljoprivredno zemljište sa mozaikom staništa i niskimg intenzitetom korištenja zemljišta;

Tip 3: Poljoprivredno zemljište na kojem obitavaju rijetke vrste ili veliki udio europskih i svjetskih populacija.

Tijekom više godina (2003-2007), Zajednički istraživački centar i Europska agencija za zaštitu okoliša (JRC/EEA) zajedno su radili na poboljšanju identifikacije potencijalnih područja poljoprivrednog zemljišta velike prirodne vrijednosti na nivou EU-a. To je učinjeno na osnovu pretpostavki o povezanosti pojedinih tipova zemljišnog pokrova i intenziteta poljoprivredne proizvodnje i prisustva velikih prirodnih vrijednosti. To su bili mapirani crteži baza podataka dostupnih na nivou EU-a: Corine podaci o zemljišnom pokrovu, NATURA 2000

Poljoprivredna proizvodnja velike prirodne vrijednosti na Zapadnom Balkanu

kontekstu definira u odnosu na zemljišni pokov velike prirodne vrijednosti (npr. pašnjaci, voćnjaci), dok se poljoprivredni sustavi velike prirodne vrijednosti odnose na poljoprivredne prakse na tom zemljištu (npr. ispaša, košenje, obrezivanje) koji su dinamični i mjenjaju se kroz vrijeme.

Poljoprivredno zemljište velike prirodne vrijednosti na Zapadnom Balkanuodabrane lokacije koje sadrže staništa koja ovise o ekstenzivnim poljoprivrednim praksama i Važna područja za ptice (IBA) predložena radi njihovog značaja za „ptice na poljoprivrednim zemljištima“ i koja još uvek nisu određena pod NATURA 2000. Pored toga, podaci o brojnosti populacija ptica i leptira, kao i drugi relevantni nacionalni i transnacionalni izvori podataka bili su uključeni kad god je to bilo moguće.

To se sada uglavnom naziva „EEA pristup“ pri identifikaciji poljoprivrednog zemljišta velike prirodne vrijednosti i neke zemlje ga koriste kao osnovu za određivanje na nacionalnom nivou (Bugarska 2007. godine, kao i Srbija 2010. godine). Slabosti pristupa koji ovisi o podatcima na nivou EU-a su jasni. Tamo gdje su, na nacionalnom nivou, dostupni detaljniji podaci (npr. u Nizozemskoj), EEA pristup može pružiti korisne informacije. U Srbiji su prilikom identifikacije potencijalnih poljoprivrednih zemljišta velike prirodne vrijednosti na osnovu EEA pristupa korištene dodatne nacionalne baze podataka.

Ispaša ovaca u regiji Poreče, Makedonija

12

it is clear even in the absence of detailed studies that the generally very extensive character of agriculture in the countries of the Western Balkans suggests that there are large areas of HNV farmland representing each of the three types.

Type 1 HNV farmland with high proportion of semi-natural vegetation such as species-rich grasslands would be expected to predominate in the Western Balkans as elsewhere in Europe. This is maintained by traditional hay making and grazing (including tran-shumance and nomadic herding) of cattle, sheep, goats, horses, donkeys and, in some areas, pigs, all of which are usually from local breeds or crosses.

In Albania, there are about 400,000 hectares of natural pastures divided between summer and winter pastures. Summer pastures are situated in the pre-mountainous and mountainous areas of the country. The largest areas of summer pastures are situated in the districts of Tropoje, Diber, Kukes, Korce, Gjirokaster, Kolonje etc. They are used for about 150 days from May 15th to October 15th.

Winter pastures are situated along the coastal and hilly areas between 400 – 800 m.a.s.l. The most strik-ing pasture massifs are those of Delvine and Vrine

(Sarande), Karaburun, Shashice and the pasture be-tween the rivers of Vjose and Shashice (Vlore), Mal-lakastra (Fier) and Dumre (Elbasan).

Grasslands in Croatia apparently extend currently to about 340,000 ha. Additionally, there are close to 500,000 ha of mostly abandoned grasslands which are in a process of succession by natural vegetation and turning into forest (Karaoglan Todorovic, 2010). Exten-sively used grasslands (traditional grazing) are found in the lowland alluvial areas along big rivers such as the Sava and the Drava. High mountains in the coastal area are surrounded with typical karstic ecosystems and semi-natural grasslands.

Croatian grasslands support numerous endangered plants, among which the most important are the whole family of orchids (Orchidaceae) as well as the Anemo-ne, Arnica, Daphne, Dianthus, Edraianthus, Eryngium, Gentiana, Iris, Lilium, Ligularia, Linum, Narcissus, Primula, Scilla and Veratrum genera.

The grasslands are also home to rare mammals such as hamsters (Cricateus cricateus) and mound-building mice (Mus spicilegus) and among endangered species, the European ground squirrel (Citellus citellus) and lesser mole rat (Nannospalax leucodon). Grassland habitats in Croatia have a rich fauna of grasshoppers and butterflies, the majority of which can be found in meadow habitats.

Common grazing in Macedonia

Rusk

a M

icev

aRu

ska

Mic

eva

Sheep grazing in Brest village, Macedonia

13

Grasslands in Macedonia are mainly natural and semi-natural (542,000 ha in 2008). The majority are found in the mountains - Shar Planina, Bistra, Korab, Yakupitsa, Suva Gora Mountains. The central part of Macedonia (Negotino, Shtip and Veles) is character-ized by different halophytic and steppe-like communi-ties. The upland pastures represent plant communities of Festuco-Brometea class while meadows communi-ties of Molinio-Arrhenatheretea class are specific to valleys. It is very likely that the majority of them will be classified as HNV type 1.

The fauna associated with grassland ecosystems in Macedonia include stone curlew, common quail, sand boa, lesser mole rat, great bustards, common par-tridge, Balkan wall lizard, and little bustard.

Pastures and meadows in Montenegro are mostly natural and semi-natural and cover 450,000 ha. They are used extensively in almost all regions and thus can

Box 4 Agriculture in the karst region of Montenegro

The karstic region comprises the central regions of Cetinje and Nikšić municipalities and covers 21% of the entire territory of Montenegro.

It has a very small area of arable land (only 8% of the region), which is mainly located in sinkholes and depressions. This feature together with emphasized aridity, limits plant production (except for Nikšić and Grahovsko polje), although there is some crop and even fruit production (up to 700-800 m).

The most significant agricultural sector in this region is livestock production, particularly goats and sheep, which are best suited to utilise the karstic grasslands. In the recent years, there is a slight increase in the number of cattle in the region which is probably linked to the development of processing capacities.

be regarded as HNV farmland (Markovic et al. 2010). Their biggest concentration is in the northern and north-west part of Montenegro.

There are around 1 million ha of potentially HNV grasslands in Serbia (SEAP, 2010). Most of them are semi-natural grasslands, but there are also natural or primary grasslands in high-mountainous areas, on flooded land in lowland valleys and in xeric steppe and/or salinized habitats in the northern part of the coun-try (Vojvodina). They contain significant plant diversity including endemic species. More than 60% of the Ser-bian endemic plants grow in grasslands (Stevanovic et al., 2010).

HNV Farmland in the Karst regions of the Western Balkans

Karst regions are particularly rich in biodiversity but pose significant challenges for agriculture. They are formed on limestone and are characterized by a lack of surface streams, with most water flowing underground or in deep gorges. The karst landscape in the Western Balkans is comprised by dolina (deep, wide sinkholes), karren (superficial karstic gullies and cavities), polje (wide karstic flats), and systems of caves.

Karst terrains are widely found in the south of Croatia and south and south-west of Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as in Montenegro. In karst regions, grasslands are dominating the agriculture land use thus favouring extensive livestock grazing throughout the centuries. They would usually be classified as type 1 HNV farm-land.

Wetland pastures on Danube bank in Banat, Serbia

Suza

na D

jord

jevi

c

Zajednička ispaša u Makedoniji

Rusk

a M

icev

aRu

ska

Mic

eva

Ovce na ispaši u selu Brest, Makedonija

Poljoprivredna zemljišta velike prirodne vrijednosti u zemljama Zapadnog Balkana

U cjelini, koncept poljoprivrednog zemljišta velike prirodne vrijednosti je novina za zemlje Zapadnog Balkana. Nedavno su dvije od njih (Srbija i Makedonija) poduzele inicijalne korake

za njegovu identifikaciju (projekti koje su provele nevladine organizacije). Međutim, jasno je, čak i u odsustvu detaljnih studija, da općenito vrlo eksten-zivan karakter poljoprivrede u zemljama Zapadnog Balkana upućuje na to da postoje velike površine poljoprivrednog zemljišta velike prirodne vrijednosti koja predstavljaju neki od tri tipa.

Tip 1 poljoprivrednog zemljišta velike prirodne vrijednosti sa velikim udjelom poluprirodne vegetacije, kao što su travnjaci bogati vrstama, se očekuje da dominira Zapadnim Balkanom, kao što je to slučaj i u drugim dijelovima Europe. To se održava tradicionalnom košnjom i ispašom (uključujući transhumantno i nomadsko stočarstvo) goveda, ovaca, koza, konja, magaraca i, u nekim područjima, svinja, od kojih su sve lokalne sorte ili križane pasmine.

U Albaniji postoji oko 400.000 hektara prirodnih pašnjaka podjeljenih na ljetne i zimske. Ljetnj pašnjaci se nalaze u predplaninskim i planinskim po-dručjima zemlje. Najveća područja ljetnih pašnjaka se nalaze u okruzima Tropoje, Dibr, Kukeš, Korča, Đirokastra, Kolonje itd. Ljetni pašnjaci se koriste oko 150 dana, od 15. svibnja do 15. listopada.

Zimski pašnjaci se nalaze duž priobalnih i brdovitih područja između 400 - 800 mnm. Najupadljiviji masivi pašnjaka su Delvine i Vrine (Sarande), Karaburun, Šušice i pašnjaci između rijeka Vjosa i Šušice (Valona), Malakaster (Fier) i Dumre (Elbasan).

Travnjaci u Hrvatskoj se, po svemu sudeći, trenutno prostiru na oko 340,000 hektara. Osim toga, postoji blizu 500,000 hektara, uglavnom napuštenih travnjaka, koji zarastaju u prirodnu vegetaciju i pretvaraju se u šikare i šume (Karoglan Todorović, 2010.). Ekstenzivno korišteni travnjaci (tradicionalna ispaša) nalaze se u nizinskim aluvijalnim područjima, duž velikih rijeka poput Save i Drave. Velike planine u obalnom području okružene su tipičnim krškim ekosustavima i poluprirodnim travnjacima.

Hrvatski travnjaci podržavaju brojne ugrožene biljke, među kojima su najznačajnije cijele porodice orhideja (Orchidaceae), kao i rodovi biljaka Anemon, Arnica, Dafne, Dianthus, Edraianthus, Gentiana, Iris, Lilium, Ligularia, Linum, Narcis, Primula, Scilla i Veratrum.

Travnjaci su također dom rijetkim sisavcima kao što su hrčci (Cricateus cricateus) i miš humkaš (Mus spicilegus) i među ugroženim vrstama, europska tekunica (Citellus citellus) i sljepaš (Nannospalax leucodon). Travnjačka staništa u Hrvatskoj imaju bogatu faunu skakavaca i leptira, od kojih se većina može naći na livadskim staništima.

U Makedoniji su travnjaci uglavnom prirodni i poluprirodni ( 542,000 ha u 2008. godini). Većina se nalazi u planinskim predjelima - Šar planina, Bistra,

12

it is clear even in the absence of detailed studies that the generally very extensive character of agriculture in the countries of the Western Balkans suggests that there are large areas of HNV farmland representing each of the three types.

Type 1 HNV farmland with high proportion of semi-natural vegetation such as species-rich grasslands would be expected to predominate in the Western Balkans as elsewhere in Europe. This is maintained by traditional hay making and grazing (including tran-shumance and nomadic herding) of cattle, sheep, goats, horses, donkeys and, in some areas, pigs, all of which are usually from local breeds or crosses.

In Albania, there are about 400,000 hectares of natural pastures divided between summer and winter pastures. Summer pastures are situated in the pre-mountainous and mountainous areas of the country. The largest areas of summer pastures are situated in the districts of Tropoje, Diber, Kukes, Korce, Gjirokaster, Kolonje etc. They are used for about 150 days from May 15th to October 15th.

Winter pastures are situated along the coastal and hilly areas between 400 – 800 m.a.s.l. The most strik-ing pasture massifs are those of Delvine and Vrine

(Sarande), Karaburun, Shashice and the pasture be-tween the rivers of Vjose and Shashice (Vlore), Mal-lakastra (Fier) and Dumre (Elbasan).

Grasslands in Croatia apparently extend currently to about 340,000 ha. Additionally, there are close to 500,000 ha of mostly abandoned grasslands which are in a process of succession by natural vegetation and turning into forest (Karaoglan Todorovic, 2010). Exten-sively used grasslands (traditional grazing) are found in the lowland alluvial areas along big rivers such as the Sava and the Drava. High mountains in the coastal area are surrounded with typical karstic ecosystems and semi-natural grasslands.

Croatian grasslands support numerous endangered plants, among which the most important are the whole family of orchids (Orchidaceae) as well as the Anemo-ne, Arnica, Daphne, Dianthus, Edraianthus, Eryngium, Gentiana, Iris, Lilium, Ligularia, Linum, Narcissus, Primula, Scilla and Veratrum genera.

The grasslands are also home to rare mammals such as hamsters (Cricateus cricateus) and mound-building mice (Mus spicilegus) and among endangered species, the European ground squirrel (Citellus citellus) and lesser mole rat (Nannospalax leucodon). Grassland habitats in Croatia have a rich fauna of grasshoppers and butterflies, the majority of which can be found in meadow habitats.

Common grazing in Macedonia

Rusk

a M

icev

aRu

ska

Mic

eva

Sheep grazing in Brest village, Macedonia

13

Grasslands in Macedonia are mainly natural and semi-natural (542,000 ha in 2008). The majority are found in the mountains - Shar Planina, Bistra, Korab, Yakupitsa, Suva Gora Mountains. The central part of Macedonia (Negotino, Shtip and Veles) is character-ized by different halophytic and steppe-like communi-ties. The upland pastures represent plant communities of Festuco-Brometea class while meadows communi-ties of Molinio-Arrhenatheretea class are specific to valleys. It is very likely that the majority of them will be classified as HNV type 1.

The fauna associated with grassland ecosystems in Macedonia include stone curlew, common quail, sand boa, lesser mole rat, great bustards, common par-tridge, Balkan wall lizard, and little bustard.

Pastures and meadows in Montenegro are mostly natural and semi-natural and cover 450,000 ha. They are used extensively in almost all regions and thus can

Box 4 Agriculture in the karst region of Montenegro

The karstic region comprises the central regions of Cetinje and Nikšić municipalities and covers 21% of the entire territory of Montenegro.

It has a very small area of arable land (only 8% of the region), which is mainly located in sinkholes and depressions. This feature together with emphasized aridity, limits plant production (except for Nikšić and Grahovsko polje), although there is some crop and even fruit production (up to 700-800 m).

The most significant agricultural sector in this region is livestock production, particularly goats and sheep, which are best suited to utilise the karstic grasslands. In the recent years, there is a slight increase in the number of cattle in the region which is probably linked to the development of processing capacities.

be regarded as HNV farmland (Markovic et al. 2010). Their biggest concentration is in the northern and north-west part of Montenegro.

There are around 1 million ha of potentially HNV grasslands in Serbia (SEAP, 2010). Most of them are semi-natural grasslands, but there are also natural or primary grasslands in high-mountainous areas, on flooded land in lowland valleys and in xeric steppe and/or salinized habitats in the northern part of the coun-try (Vojvodina). They contain significant plant diversity including endemic species. More than 60% of the Ser-bian endemic plants grow in grasslands (Stevanovic et al., 2010).

HNV Farmland in the Karst regions of the Western Balkans

Karst regions are particularly rich in biodiversity but pose significant challenges for agriculture. They are formed on limestone and are characterized by a lack of surface streams, with most water flowing underground or in deep gorges. The karst landscape in the Western Balkans is comprised by dolina (deep, wide sinkholes), karren (superficial karstic gullies and cavities), polje (wide karstic flats), and systems of caves.

Karst terrains are widely found in the south of Croatia and south and south-west of Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as in Montenegro. In karst regions, grasslands are dominating the agriculture land use thus favouring extensive livestock grazing throughout the centuries. They would usually be classified as type 1 HNV farm-land.

Wetland pastures on Danube bank in Banat, Serbia

Suza

na D

jord

jevi

c

Pašnjaci na vlažnim terenima obale Dunava, Srbija

Suza

na Đ

orđe

vić

Korab, Jakupica, Suha Gora. Karakteristike centralnog djela Makedonije (Negotino, Štip i Veles) su različite halofitske zajednice i zajednice slične stepskim. Brdski pašnjaci predstavljaju zajednice biljaka klase Festuco-Brometea, dok su zajednice livadskih biljaka klase Molinio-Arrhenatheretea specifične za doline. Vrlo je vjerovatno da će većina njih biti klasificirana kao tip 1 poljoprivrednog zemljišta velike prirodne vrijednosti.

Fauna povezana s ekosustavima travnjaka u Makedoniji uključuje ćurlikovce, običnu prepelicu, pješčanu bou, sljepaša, veliku droplju, običnu jarebicu, balkanskog zidnog guštera i malu droplju.

Pašnjaci i livade u Crnoj Gori su uglavnom prirodni i poluprirodni i pokrivaju 450,000 hektara. Uglavnom se koriste ekstenzivno u gotovo svim regijama te se stoga mogu smatrati poljoprivrednim zemljištem velike prirodne vrijednosti (Marković et al. 2010). Najviše su koncentrirani u sjevernim i sjeverozapadnim djelovima Crne Gore.

U Srbiji ima oko 1 milijun hektara potencijalnih travnjaka velike prirodne vrijednosti (SEAP, 2010). Većina njih su poluprirodni, ali također postoje prirodni ili primarni travnjaci u planinskim područjima, na poplavljenim zemljištima u nizinskim dolinama i u stepskim sušnim područjima i/ili slanim staništima u sjevernom djelu zemlje (Vojvodina). Oni sadrže značajnu raznolikost biljaka uključujući endemske vrste. Više od 60% srpskih endemskih biljaka raste na travnjacima (Stevanović et al. 2010.).

Poljoprivredno zemljište velike prirodne vrijednosti u krškim područjima Zapadnog Balkana

Krška područja su naročito bogata biološkom raznolikošću, ali predstavljaju veliki izazov za poljoprivrednu proizvodnju. Formirana su na va-pnencu i karakterizira ih nedostatak površinskih voda, jer najveći dio vode teče podzemno, ili u dubokim klisurama. Krški predjeli u regiji Zapadnog Balkana sastoje se od dolina (dubokih, širokih ponikvi), škrapa (površnih krških jaruga i šupljina), polja (širokih krških zaravni), kao i sustava pećina.

Krška područja se najviše rasprostranjena u južnom djelu Hrvatske, na jugu i jugozapadu Bosne i Hercegovine, kao i u Crnoj Gori. U krškim područjima, travnjaci su dominantan način korištenja poljoprivrednog zemljišta na kojima se stoljećima ekstenzivno napasa stoka. Oni bi se obično klasifikovali kao tip 1 poljoprivrednog zemljišta velike prirodne vrijednosti.

Danas je za ove krajeve karakteristična depo-pulacija i starenje stanovništva, što dovodi do neiskorištenost pašnjaka i livada bogatih vrstama, a nakon toga i do promjene vegetacije.

Primjer 4 Poljoprivreda u krškim područjima Crne Gore

Krško područje se sastoji od centralnih regija općina Cetinje i Nikšić i pokriva 21% ukupnog teritorija Crne Gore.

U ovom području vrlo je mali dio obradivog zemljišta (samo 8% područja), koje se uglavnom nalazi u ponikvama i depresijama. Ova karakteristika u kombinaciji sa aridnošću, ograničava biljnu proizvodnju (osim u Nikšiću i Grahovskom Polju), mada postoji određena proizvodnja ratarskih kultura i voća (do 700-800 m).

Najznačajniji poljoprivredni sektor u ovom području je stočarstvo, naročito proizvodnja koza i ovaca, kojima najviše odgovaraju krški pašnjaci. U poslednjih nekoliko godina, postoji blagi porast u broju goveda u ovom području, što je vjerojatno povezano s razvojem prerađivačkih kapaciteta.

14

Box 5 Biodiversity value of the karst grasslands in the Dinaric Alps

The karst landscapes are a part of the Dinaric Alps. The biodiversity conservation of the grasslands in the Dinaric Alps in Croatia is closely linked to the recovery of traditional grazing with cattle and sheep, with regulation to prevent overgrazing.

Dry calcareous grasslandsFrom karst poljes to the montane zone, several types of calcareous grasslands exist. The two main groups of types are dry grasslands with continental and dry grasslands with Mediterranean influence, with great differences in communities among different altitudinal forest zones. All have an abundance of species and are very rich in regional endemics. Several subtypes are registered. Typical species include Mellicta dydima, Proterebia afra, Prionotropis hystrix, Saga pedo, Polysarcus denticauda, Poecilimon elegans, Podarcis melisellensis, Lacerta agilis, Burchinus oedicnemus, Anthus campestris, Lullula arborea, Microtus arvalis, Microtus subterraneus, Apodemus sylvaticus.

Wet meadows of karst poljesDinaric karst poljes have several endemic grassland communities, depending on the different hydrological conditions and the duration of the summer drought. All of them are home to the Dinaric endemic plant Scilla litardierei. They are moderate to rich in plant species, but poor in animal species, mostly of relicts from colder geological phase. Common species: the plants Scilla litardierei, Edreianthus dalmaticus, Ranunculus acris, Succisa pratensis, Peucedanum coriacea ssp. pospichali, Molinia caerulea, Sesleria uligonosa, the grasshopper Chrysochraon dispar, the butterfly Euphydryas aurinia, the shrew Neomys anonmalus, the frog Rana dalmatina and the bird Crex crex.

In all sites with remains of typical (endemic) Dinaric karst polje wet grasslands, traditional mowing or seasonal grazing are recommended and should be encouraged.

Source: Tvrtkovič N.& P.Veen, 2006, The Dinaric Alps Rare Habitats and Species, Part A

Nowadays, these regions are usually subject to sub-stantial ageing and depopulation, leading to underutili-zation of the species-rich pastures and meadows and consequent vegetation succession.

Type 2 HNV farmland with a mosaic of low inten-sity, small fields of arable plots, vegetable gardens, or-chards, vineyards, and grasslands is widespread in the entire Balkan region. Crops are rain-fed with limited use of fertilizers. The variety of crops is significant as the main aim is to satisfy as much as possible the family food needs. These are typically situated in backyards of houses as well as on areas close to the villages. This type of small scale land use is already disappearing from the more intensive regions.

Very little, if any, quantitative information is avail-

able for type 2 HNV farmlands due to the fact that it is mostly family and village gardens on very small plots. The majority of produce is for own family consumption

Stan

imir

Stoy

chef

f

Traditional orchards in Belitza, Bulgaria

15

In Macedonia, the small scale mosaic landscape is characterised by family gardens (around settlements), small traditional orchards and/or standing trees, as well as household vineyards. Local varieties are still grown in the family gardens in a very extensive way. Also typical are traditional orchards (mainly pears, apples and plums) and vineyards grown for own consump-tion.

In Montenegro, traditional orchards also still pre-vail, especially in the continental fruit growing sector. The majority of the olive trees are cultivated in tradi-tional way without regular pruning and with alternating yields.

Type 3 HNV farmland is usually more intensively managed land that still supports species of conserva-tion importance. From the perspective of the Western Balkans region as a whole, there are a few really inten-

sive agricultural areas – mostly in northern Serbia and some parts of Croatia and Macedonia.

In Macedonia, cereals usually managed in an inten-sive way are in the lowlands with fertile soils and cover around 39.7% of total arable land. Some of these are important for around 33 bird species from Annex 1 of

Suza

na D

jord

jevi

c

Mowed orchard with hedgerow in Central Serbia

and as such is not reported in official statistics. If some produce is sold on the market this is usually done in-formally between neighbours or fellow villagers.

The small-scale mosaic landscape in Albania usual-ly comprises vegetable gardens, arable plots, orchards or vineyards and grasslands. Traditional orchards and

vineyards grown in very small plots are found mostly in the central and southeastern parts of the country (Prespa National Park).

Small-scale mosaic landscapes with arable plots, vegetable gardens, traditional orchards and vineyards can be found all over Croatia, especially in hilly areas and along the coast. Many species of conservation val-ue can still be found in agricultural habitats, although some are in decline. The wild plants include the corn-cockle (Agrostemma githago) that has disappeared from the areas of intensive agriculture (Slavonia and Baranja) and the tulip (Tulipa praecox), which is locally limited to vineyards of the island of Korčula.

Mediterranean mosaic landscape in Albania

Gw

yn J

ones

Tradicionalni voćnjaci u Belici, Bugarska

Stan

imir

Stoy

cheff

Tip 2 poljoprivrednog zemljišta velike prirodne vrijednosti s mozaikom malih oraničnih parcela, voćnjaka, vinograda i ekstenzivnih travnjaka široko je rasprostranjen po čitavoj regiji Balkana. Raznolikost kultura koje se uzgajaju je velika pošto je glavni cilj proizvodnje zadovoljiti, što je više moguće, potrebu kućanstava za hranom. Ove parcele se obično nalaze u stražnjim dvori-štima kuća, kao i u blizini sela. Ovaj tip korištenja zemljišta nestaje iz područja s intenzivnom poljo-privrednom proizvodnjom.

Postoji vrlo malo, ako uopće, dostupnih kvantitativnih informacija o tipu 2 poljoprivrednog zemljišta velike prirodne vrijednosti, zbog činjenice da su to uglavnom obiteljski i seoski vrtovi na vrlo malim parcelama. Većina proizvodnje je za potrošnju u kućanstvu te se ne pojavljuje u službe-

nim statistikama. Ako se neki proizvodi i prodaju na tržištu, to se obično radi neformalno među susjedi-ma i suseljanima.

Primjer 5 Biološka raznolikosts krških travnjaka na Dinarskim planinama

Krški pejzaži su dio Dinarskih planina. Očuvanje biološke raznolikosti travnjaka na Dinarskim planinama u Hrvatskoj je usko povezano s obnavljanjem tradicionalne ispaše goveda i ovaca, uz regulativu o sprječavanju prekomjerne ispaše.

Suhi vapnenački travnjaciOd krških polja, pa do planinskih zona, postoji nekoliko tipova vapnenačkih travnjaka. Dvije glavne grupe tipova su planinski i pretplaninski vapnenjački travnjaci i eumediterasnki travnjaci, sa velikim razlikama u zajednicama koje se nalaze u različitim visinskim zonama. Sve one imaju obilje vrsta i bogate su regionalnim endemima. Tipična fauna uključuje: Mellicta dydima, Proterebia afra, Prionotropis hystrix, Saga pedo, Polysarcus denticauda, Poecilimon elegans, Podarcis melisellensis, Lacerta agilis, Burchinus oedicnemus, Anthus campestris, Lullula arborea, Microtus arvalis, Microtus subterraneus, Apodemus sylvaticus.

Vlažne livade krških poljaDinarska krška polja imaju nekoliko endemskih travnjačkih zajednica u zavisnosti od različitih hidroloških uvjeta i trajanja ljetnih suša. Sve one su dom dinarskoj endemskoj biljci Scilla litardierei. Raznolikost bilj-nih vrsta je kod njih umjerenoa do bogata, dok su siromašne po pitanju faune, uglavnom reliktima iz hladnije geološke faze. Uobičajene vrste: biljke Scilla litardierei, Edreianthus dalmaticus, Ranunculus acris, Succisa pratensis, Peucedanum coriacea ssp. pospichali, Molinia caerulea, Sesleria uligonosa, skakavac Chrysochraon dispar, leptir Euphydryas aurinia, vodena rovka Neomys anonmalus, žaba Rana dalmatina i ptica Crex crex.

Na svim mjestima s ostacima tipičnih (endemskih) vlažnih travnjaka Dinarskih krških polja, preporučuje se tradicionalna kosidba i ispaša koje treba poticati.

Izvor: Tvrtković, N.& P.Veen, 2006, Rijetka staništa i vrste Dinarskih planina, dio A (The Dinaric Alps Rare Habitats and Species, Part A)

14

Box 5 Biodiversity value of the karst grasslands in the Dinaric Alps

The karst landscapes are a part of the Dinaric Alps. The biodiversity conservation of the grasslands in the Dinaric Alps in Croatia is closely linked to the recovery of traditional grazing with cattle and sheep, with regulation to prevent overgrazing.

Dry calcareous grasslandsFrom karst poljes to the montane zone, several types of calcareous grasslands exist. The two main groups of types are dry grasslands with continental and dry grasslands with Mediterranean influence, with great differences in communities among different altitudinal forest zones. All have an abundance of species and are very rich in regional endemics. Several subtypes are registered. Typical species include Mellicta dydima, Proterebia afra, Prionotropis hystrix, Saga pedo, Polysarcus denticauda, Poecilimon elegans, Podarcis melisellensis, Lacerta agilis, Burchinus oedicnemus, Anthus campestris, Lullula arborea, Microtus arvalis, Microtus subterraneus, Apodemus sylvaticus.

Wet meadows of karst poljesDinaric karst poljes have several endemic grassland communities, depending on the different hydrological conditions and the duration of the summer drought. All of them are home to the Dinaric endemic plant Scilla litardierei. They are moderate to rich in plant species, but poor in animal species, mostly of relicts from colder geological phase. Common species: the plants Scilla litardierei, Edreianthus dalmaticus, Ranunculus acris, Succisa pratensis, Peucedanum coriacea ssp. pospichali, Molinia caerulea, Sesleria uligonosa, the grasshopper Chrysochraon dispar, the butterfly Euphydryas aurinia, the shrew Neomys anonmalus, the frog Rana dalmatina and the bird Crex crex.

In all sites with remains of typical (endemic) Dinaric karst polje wet grasslands, traditional mowing or seasonal grazing are recommended and should be encouraged.

Source: Tvrtkovič N.& P.Veen, 2006, The Dinaric Alps Rare Habitats and Species, Part A

Nowadays, these regions are usually subject to sub-stantial ageing and depopulation, leading to underutili-zation of the species-rich pastures and meadows and consequent vegetation succession.

Type 2 HNV farmland with a mosaic of low inten-sity, small fields of arable plots, vegetable gardens, or-chards, vineyards, and grasslands is widespread in the entire Balkan region. Crops are rain-fed with limited use of fertilizers. The variety of crops is significant as the main aim is to satisfy as much as possible the family food needs. These are typically situated in backyards of houses as well as on areas close to the villages. This type of small scale land use is already disappearing from the more intensive regions.

Very little, if any, quantitative information is avail-

able for type 2 HNV farmlands due to the fact that it is mostly family and village gardens on very small plots. The majority of produce is for own family consumption

Stan

imir

Stoy

chef

f

Traditional orchards in Belitza, Bulgaria

15

In Macedonia, the small scale mosaic landscape is characterised by family gardens (around settlements), small traditional orchards and/or standing trees, as well as household vineyards. Local varieties are still grown in the family gardens in a very extensive way. Also typical are traditional orchards (mainly pears, apples and plums) and vineyards grown for own consump-tion.

In Montenegro, traditional orchards also still pre-vail, especially in the continental fruit growing sector. The majority of the olive trees are cultivated in tradi-tional way without regular pruning and with alternating yields.

Type 3 HNV farmland is usually more intensively managed land that still supports species of conserva-tion importance. From the perspective of the Western Balkans region as a whole, there are a few really inten-

sive agricultural areas – mostly in northern Serbia and some parts of Croatia and Macedonia.

In Macedonia, cereals usually managed in an inten-sive way are in the lowlands with fertile soils and cover around 39.7% of total arable land. Some of these are important for around 33 bird species from Annex 1 of

Suza

na D

jord

jevi

c

Mowed orchard with hedgerow in Central Serbia

and as such is not reported in official statistics. If some produce is sold on the market this is usually done in-formally between neighbours or fellow villagers.

The small-scale mosaic landscape in Albania usual-ly comprises vegetable gardens, arable plots, orchards or vineyards and grasslands. Traditional orchards and

vineyards grown in very small plots are found mostly in the central and southeastern parts of the country (Prespa National Park).

Small-scale mosaic landscapes with arable plots, vegetable gardens, traditional orchards and vineyards can be found all over Croatia, especially in hilly areas and along the coast. Many species of conservation val-ue can still be found in agricultural habitats, although some are in decline. The wild plants include the corn-cockle (Agrostemma githago) that has disappeared from the areas of intensive agriculture (Slavonia and Baranja) and the tulip (Tulipa praecox), which is locally limited to vineyards of the island of Korčula.

Mediterranean mosaic landscape in Albania

Gw

yn J

ones

Mediteranski mozaični krajolik u Albaniji

Mozaični krajobraz s ekstenzivnom proizvodnjom u Albaniji se obično sastoji od povrtnjaka, orani-ca, voćnjaka ili vinograda i travnjaka. Tradicionalni voćnjaci i vinogradi koji se uzgajaju na vrlo malim parcelama se uglavnom nalaze u centralnim i jugoistočnim djelovima zemlje (Prespanski Nacionalni park).

Mozaični krajobraz sa oranicama, povrtnjacima, tradicionalnim voćnjacima i vinogradima može se naći diljem Hrvatske, posebno u brežuljkastim po-dručjima na sjeverozapadu zemlje i duž obale.

Mnoge vrste koje su vrijedne očuvanja još uvijek se mogu pronaći na poljoprivrednim staništima, mada su neke u opadanju. Divlja flora uključuje kukolj (Agrostemma githago) koji je nestao iz područja intenzivne poljoprivredne proizvodnje (Slavonija i Baranja) i tulipan (Tulipa praecox), koja se može naći u vinogradima na otoku Korčuli.

U Makedoniji, mozaični krajobraz niskog intenziteta proizvodnje odlikuju obiteljski vrtovi (oko naselja), mali tradicionalni voćnjaci i/ili pojedinačna stabla, kao i obiteljski vinogradi. Lokalne sorte još uvijek se uzgajaju u obiteljskim vrtovima na vrlo

ekstenzivan način. Tipični su, takođe, i tradicionalni voćnjaci (uglavnom kruške, jabuke i šljive) i vinogradi koji se uzgajaju za vlastitu potrošnju.

U Crnoj Gori, tradicionalni voćnjaci također još uvek preovladavaju, naročito u kontinentalnom vo-ćarskom sektoru. Većina stabala maslina uzgaja se na tradicionalan način, bez redovitog obrezivanja i sa izmjeničnim prinosima.

Tip 3 poljoprivrednog zemljišta velike prirodne vrijednosti je uglavnom zemljište kojim se intenzivnije gospodari i koje još uvijek podržava vrste važne za očuvanje. Iz perspektive regije Zapadanog Balkana kao cjeline, postoji nekoliko vrlo intenzivnih poljoprivrednih područja – većinom u sjevernoj Srbiji i nekim dijelovima Hrvatske i Makedonije.

U Makedoniji, žitarice se uzgajaju intenzivno u nizinama s plodnim zemljištem i pokrivaju oko 39,7% ukupne obradive površine. Neke od njih su važne za oko 33 vrsta ptica iz Aneksa 1 Direktive o pticama. U 2008. godini je organizacija ’Birdlife International’ predložila određivanje IBA područja za 25% ukupnog teritorija Makedonije, ali udio oranica nije poznat.

U Hrvatskoj, na oranicama i travnjacima još uvijek se mogu naći ptice koje su od Europske važnosti za očuvanje, kao što su kosac (Crex crex), jarebica (Perdix perdix) i druge, međutim, nema detaljnih podataka kako bi se definiralo da li su ovo potencijalno područja tipa 2 ili 3.

Gw

yn Jo

nes

Pokošen voćnjak sa živicom u centralnoj Srbiji

Suza

na Đ

orđe

vić

16

Box 6 Land use pattern of concentrated rings around villages in Albania

The pattern of concentrated rings around the villages emerged as the result of flexible land tenure arrangements and different household production strategies:

Households, in which both capital and labour were accessible, tended to use all their land as intensively as possible. The households invested their capital and labour into commercial vegetable production and vineyards. They also had incentives to continue use their plots at the village fringes as orchards or hayfields.

The second type of households lacked capital but had sufficient labour power available to work the land. Households in this category engaged in diverse production, including both intensive and extensive agricultural strategies. They used their central plots intensively, cultivating vegetables, grapes and grain either for subsistence production or for the market. They used their more remote plots at the village fringes either for fodder production or as grazing land for their livestock.

The third type of household had access to capital but lacked the labour power. Households in this category used all their land at a very low level of intensity. The households often abandoned their plots at the village fringes or used them as pasture land for their livestock. On plots closer to home, they cultivated vegetables, fruits or grapes for subsistence production. At times, they rented out plots to households of full-time farmers.

Finally, the forth type of household, lacked both capital and labour power. Compared to the three other types of households, the agricultural production of households in this category was the least intensive. These households de-intensified land use on their plots at the village fringes and kept only a few plots close to their homes under cultivation. Women and pensioners did most of the agriculture production in these households. Unused plots were sometimes rented out to households that had the capital and labour power to pay for and work them.

Taken together, households’ production strategies shaped the pattern of intra-village intensification and extensification. The special layout of land use was structured in concentric rings around the village centres. The rings decreased in land use intensity the further they moved to the village fringes.

The differences between land users’ access to key productive resources were mitigated by widespread informal land rentals which kept land tenure arrangements flexible. Thus, even if a household could not use one of its plots in a certain circle of land use intensity for lack of capital and/or labour, other households with access to these resources could fill the gap by renting the plot.

Since the early 1990s, land users in all categories had de-intensified production on plots at the village fringes because of the general constraints on capital and labour availability in rural Albania. These plots were not only further away from their homes, but also often on less fertile or located on steep terrain.

Source: Stahl, J., 2010, Rent from the land: A political ecology of postsocialist rural transformation

17

identified the potential HNV farmland in Serbia in 2010 on the basis of the EEA approach using the available national datasets. The results show that potential HNV farmland covers 1.187 million ha (approximately 20% of the agricultural area). The majority are grasslands covering around 1 million ha. The experts’ estimations are that the total area of HNV farmland in Serbia is likely to be significantly higher, as the approach followed did not fully capture the mosaic farmlands or farmlands supporting rare species (Cooper et al 2010).

In Bulgaria, the identification of the potential HNV farmlands resulted in a total area of 1 630 035 ha (32.4% of the UAA). Here too, the majority are perma-nent grasslands (951 256 ha), followed by arable land (359 611 ha), mixed use (279 013 ha) and permanent crops (40 155 ha).

the Bird Directive. In 2008, Birdlife International pro-posed IBAs designation for 25% of the total territory of Macedonia but the share of arable land is not known.

In Croatia, arable land and grassland still host birds of European conservation importance such as Corn-crake (Crex crex), Partridges (Perdix perdix) and other, however, there is no detailed data to define whether these are potentially type 2 or type 3 areas.

First assessments of the potential coverage of HNV farmland on the Balkans

So far, quantitative assessments of the extent of HNV farmland have been made in only two countries.

The Serbian Environmental Protection Agency

Stippa Cappillata, Beseparski ridove, Bulgaria

Chav

dar G

usev

BSPB

Organic garden, Beseparski ridove, Bulgaria

Primjer 6 Obrazac korištenja zemljišta u koncentričnim krugovima oko sela u Albaniji

Obrazac koncentričnog kruga oko sela se pojavio kao rezultat fleksibilnih aranžmana zakupa zemljišta i različitih proizvodnih strategija domaćinstava:Kućanstva u kojima su kapital i rad bili dostupni imala su tendenciju da svu svoju zemlju koriste što je intenzivnije moguće. Kućanstva su ulagala svoj kapital i rad u komercijalnu proizvodnju povrća i grožđa. Oni su takođe imali poticaje da nastave koristiti svoje parcele na kraju sela kao voćnjake ili sjenokoše.

Drugi tip kućanstava nije imao kapitala, ali je imao na raspolaganju dovoljno radne snage za obradu zemljišta. Kućanstva u ovoj kategoriji su se bavila različitom vrstom proizvodnje, kako intenzivnom tako i ekstenzivnom. Svoje središnje parcele koristili su intenzivno, uzgajajući povrće, grožđe i žitarice za samodostatnu proizvodnju ili za tržište. Svoje udaljenije parcele, na rubovima sela, koristili su za proizvodnju stočne hrane, ili za ispašu stoke.

Treći tip kućanstava je imao pristup kapitalu, ali mu je nedostajala radna snaga. Kućanstva u ovoj kategoriji su koristila cjelokupno zemljište izrazito ekstenzivno. Često su napuštala svoje parcele na kraju sela, ili su ih koristili kao pašnjake za stoku. Na parcelama bliže kući uzgajali su povrće, voće ili grožđe za samodostatnu proizvodnju. Povremeno su iznajmljivali parcele kućanstvima sa stalno zapo-slenim poljoprivrednicima.

I na kraju, četvrtom tipu kućanstava nedostajalo je i kapitala i radne snage. U usporedbi s ostala tri tipa, poljoprivredna proizvodnja kućanstava u ovoj kategoriji je bila najmanje intenzivna. Ova kućanstva su prestala sa obradom zemljišta na parcelama na kraju sela i obrađivala su samo nekoliko parcela u blizini svojih kuća. Žene i umirovljenici su obavljali veći dio poljoprivredne proizvodnje u tim kućanstvima. Neiskorištene parcele su se ponekad iznajmljivale onim kućanstvima koja su imala kapitala da ih plate i radne snage da ih obrađuju.

Promatrano zajedno, proizvodna strategija kućanstava oblikovala je obrazac unutar-seoskog intenziviranja i ekstenziviranja poljoprivredne proizvodnje. Specijalan raspored korištenja zemljišta strukturiran je u koncentrične krugove oko centra sela. Što se više približavalo kraju sela intenzitet kori-štenja zemljišta u krugovima se smanjivao.

Razlike u pristupu korisnika zemljišta ključnim proizvodnim resursima bili su ublaženi široko rasprostranjenim neformalnim iznajmljivanjem zemljišta koje je održavalo fleksibilnost aranžmana zakupa zemljišta. To je značilo da čak i ako neko kućanstvo nije moglo koristi neku od svojih parcela u određenom krugu intenziteta korištenja zemljišta zbog nedostatka kapitala i/ili radne snage, druga kućanstva koja su imala pristup tim resursima mogla popuniti prazninu iznajmljivanjem parcele.

Od ranih 1990-tih godina, korisnici zemljišta u svim kategorijama smanjili su intenzitet proizvodnje na parcelama na kraju sela, zbog općeg ograničenja u dostupnosti kapitala i radne snage u ruralnoj Albaniji. Ove parcele nisu se samo nalazile dalje od njihovih domova, već su i često bile na manje plodnim ili strmim terenima.

Izvor: Stahl, J., 2010, Najam od zemljišta: Politička ekologija postsocijalističke ruralne transformacije (Rent from the land: A political ecology of postsocialist rural transformation)

16

Box 6 Land use pattern of concentrated rings around villages in Albania

The pattern of concentrated rings around the villages emerged as the result of flexible land tenure arrangements and different household production strategies:

Households, in which both capital and labour were accessible, tended to use all their land as intensively as possible. The households invested their capital and labour into commercial vegetable production and vineyards. They also had incentives to continue use their plots at the village fringes as orchards or hayfields.

The second type of households lacked capital but had sufficient labour power available to work the land. Households in this category engaged in diverse production, including both intensive and extensive agricultural strategies. They used their central plots intensively, cultivating vegetables, grapes and grain either for subsistence production or for the market. They used their more remote plots at the village fringes either for fodder production or as grazing land for their livestock.

The third type of household had access to capital but lacked the labour power. Households in this category used all their land at a very low level of intensity. The households often abandoned their plots at the village fringes or used them as pasture land for their livestock. On plots closer to home, they cultivated vegetables, fruits or grapes for subsistence production. At times, they rented out plots to households of full-time farmers.

Finally, the forth type of household, lacked both capital and labour power. Compared to the three other types of households, the agricultural production of households in this category was the least intensive. These households de-intensified land use on their plots at the village fringes and kept only a few plots close to their homes under cultivation. Women and pensioners did most of the agriculture production in these households. Unused plots were sometimes rented out to households that had the capital and labour power to pay for and work them.

Taken together, households’ production strategies shaped the pattern of intra-village intensification and extensification. The special layout of land use was structured in concentric rings around the village centres. The rings decreased in land use intensity the further they moved to the village fringes.

The differences between land users’ access to key productive resources were mitigated by widespread informal land rentals which kept land tenure arrangements flexible. Thus, even if a household could not use one of its plots in a certain circle of land use intensity for lack of capital and/or labour, other households with access to these resources could fill the gap by renting the plot.

Since the early 1990s, land users in all categories had de-intensified production on plots at the village fringes because of the general constraints on capital and labour availability in rural Albania. These plots were not only further away from their homes, but also often on less fertile or located on steep terrain.

Source: Stahl, J., 2010, Rent from the land: A political ecology of postsocialist rural transformation

17

identified the potential HNV farmland in Serbia in 2010 on the basis of the EEA approach using the available national datasets. The results show that potential HNV farmland covers 1.187 million ha (approximately 20% of the agricultural area). The majority are grasslands covering around 1 million ha. The experts’ estimations are that the total area of HNV farmland in Serbia is likely to be significantly higher, as the approach followed did not fully capture the mosaic farmlands or farmlands supporting rare species (Cooper et al 2010).

In Bulgaria, the identification of the potential HNV farmlands resulted in a total area of 1 630 035 ha (32.4% of the UAA). Here too, the majority are perma-nent grasslands (951 256 ha), followed by arable land (359 611 ha), mixed use (279 013 ha) and permanent crops (40 155 ha).

the Bird Directive. In 2008, Birdlife International pro-posed IBAs designation for 25% of the total territory of Macedonia but the share of arable land is not known.

In Croatia, arable land and grassland still host birds of European conservation importance such as Corn-crake (Crex crex), Partridges (Perdix perdix) and other, however, there is no detailed data to define whether these are potentially type 2 or type 3 areas.

First assessments of the potential coverage of HNV farmland on the Balkans

So far, quantitative assessments of the extent of HNV farmland have been made in only two countries.

The Serbian Environmental Protection Agency

Stippa Cappillata, Beseparski ridove, Bulgaria

Chav

dar G

usev

BSPB

Organic garden, Beseparski ridove, Bulgaria

Prva procjena potencijalne pokrivenosti poljoprivrednog zemljišta velike prirodne vrijednosti na Balkanu

Do sada je kvantitativna procjena opsega poljoprivrednog zemljišta velike prirodne vrijednosti napravljena samo u dvije države.

Agencija za zaštitu okoliša Republike Srbije identificirala je potencijalna poljoprivredna područja velike prirodne vrijednosti u Srbiji 2010. godine bazirano na EEA pristupu, koristeći dostupne nacionalne baze podataka. Rezultati pokazuju da potencijalno poljoprivredno zemljište velike prirodne vrijednosti pokriva 1,187 milijuna

hektara (oko 20% poljoprivredne površine). Veći dio toga su travnjaci koje pokrivaju oko 1 milijun hektara. Procjene stručnjaka su da je ukupna površina poljoprivrednog zemljišta velike prirodne vrijednosti u Srbiji vjerovatno značajno veća, pošto pristup koji je primjenjen nije u potpunosti obuhvatio mozaično poljoprivredno zemljište ili poljoprivredna zemljišta koja podržavaju rijetke vrste (Cooper et al 2010).

U Bugarskoj, identifikacija potencijalnog poljoprivrednog zemljišta velike prirodne vrijednosti dovela je do rezultata ukupne površine od 1 630 035 hektara (32,4% udio korištenog poljoprivrednog zemljišta – UAA). I ovdje su većina područja trajni travnjaci (951 256 hektara), zatim slijede oranice (359 611 hektara), mješovita upotreba (279 013 hektara) i trajni nasadi (40 155 hektara).

Stippa Cappillata, Beseparski ridove, Bugarska

Ekološki vrt, Beseparski ridove, Bugarska

Chav

dar G

usev

18

HNV farming is characterised by a combination of (1) low intensity of land use and (2) presence of semi-natural vegetation, and in many cases (3) presence of a landscape mosaic.

The dominant characteristic of HNV farming is the low-intensity use of the land and of other factors of pro-duction (except for labour and traditional knowledge). Also essential is a significant presence of semi-natural vegetation on the farmed area. In some situations, the semi-natural vegetation is found in a mosaic with low-intensity arable and/or arable crops. Nature values will tend to be higher when the cropped areas are under low-intensity use, providing a mix of habitats that are used by a range of wildlife species, with numerous and complex species flows (invertebrates, birds, mammals and reptiles).

Often the semi-natural vegetation used for grazing is not part of the farm’s agricultural land, but has some other ownership (common land, state land, etc.), so it is important not to consider only the UAA within the farm when identifying HNV farmland.

The fact that the vegetation is grazed by livestock (or mown for hay) is important, as this confirms that it is part of a farming system. This is not necessarily grassland: scrub and forest are an important forage re-source in some of the Western Balkan countries (as in other southern EU member states), and should be rec-ognised as farmland. However, semi-natural woodland that is not grazed should be considered as a separate, non-farming land use.

HNV farming systems in the countries of the Western Balkans

The typical farming system in Albania includes con-siderable natural and semi-natural grasslands (includ-ing alpine and subalpine vegetation). Historically, there is no use of fertilizers to increase pasture productivity. Grazing is practised in herbaceous pastures and forests (mostly shrub lands and coppice forests). Forests also still provide fodder through lopping in some areas.

Extensive and traditional livestock systems use do-mestic breeds of animals, primarily local cattle, don-keys, pigs and goats. Small farms with 10 to 30 ani-mals (usually sheep or goats) are still dominant. How-ever, there is a growing number of middle-size farms with an average of 150 heads per herd in the southern part of the country. Until recently, transhumance was practised throughout the country but now it is mostly limited to the south-eastern part of Albania.

In Albania, the HNV farming systems are also char-acterised by combinations of small areas of arable land (further divided into very small plots of different own-ers) and areas of semi-natural vegetation, whether in the lowlands, hills or upland areas.

In some areas the pressure from traditional farming is still high enough for land abandonment to be accom-panied by localised overgrazing.

In Macedonia, cattle, sheep and goats graze on

HNV farming systems in the Western BalkansKey characteristics of HNV farming systems

HNV farming systems are defined by two main components (Beaufoy, 2008):

The predominant land cover that characterises each category of HNV farmland, especially the types of 1. semi-natural vegetation, types of cropped land, and their typical spatial coverage and distribution at the farm level (e.g. proportion of farmed area under each, mosaic patterns).

The way in which this land cover is managed by the predominant2. farming system and practices, such as grazing regimes, cropping patterns and intensity of use (e.g. livestock densities per hectare of forage, nitrogen inputs).

19

large areas of semi-natural and natural pastures in the mountains almost all of the year. During the winter flocks are moved to the plains in the central part of Macedonia. Although there is no official classification yet in Macedonia, these are clearly HNV farming sys-tems.

Extensive, pasture-based beef production is prac-tised both by individual farmers for their own con-sumption and by market oriented family farms. In these suckler cow systems cattle grow more slowly, but the meat is more mature and has a stronger taste. In these farming systems the animals are mainly cross-breeds, with at least 20% of a traditional local breed (Busha).

Sheep breeding is semi-nomadic and has a long tradition in Macedonia. It is mainly carried out in the mountain areas along the northern, western and eastern borders in a belt 10 to 80 km wide. Breeds for combined milk and meat production are mostly used. Sheep farms are usually family-owned busi-nesses although there is a trend of establishing com-mercially oriented sheep farms.

Low input vegetables and fruits garden produc-tion is also typical for Macedonia. The main vegeta-bles grown are tomatoes and peppers. Most of the production is for subsistence.

There are also small parcels of traditional varieties of apples, pears, plums and vineyards grown in the family gardens or near the villages. Orchards are of-ten combined with beehives. The mosaic landscape of these farming systems can be associated with HNV type 2, although often in the wider context of a landscape dominated by semi-natural vegetation.

In Montenegro, the mountain terrain limits farm-ing to the major valley systems and a narrow coastal strip. Terracing and dry stone retaining walls to cap-ture the very shallow top soils are traditional prac-tices. This well organised agricultural infrastructure is extremely vulnerable to depopulation and the re-sulting abandonment.

Crop production is carried out only in some valleys, where alluvial deposits have accumulated. It is further limited by scarce water resources. Most households maintain small family plots adjacent to their houses for the production of fruit and vegetables.

The dominant farming system is the extensive grazing of cattle, sheep and goats on semi-natural pastures. Some livestock systems extend to an alti-tude of 2000 m in their summer transhumance.

The main livestock areas are in the Lim Valley in the northeast and in the Ibar valley on the central eastern border. These two areas account for some 70% of cattle production and 73% of sheep produc-tion. Other notable livestock areas are Berane and Plav where dairy farming dominates production and there are significant areas of enclosed damp grass-lands. Another significant area of grassland-domi-nated mosaic landscape, this time with a unique bo-cage character, is found near the Albanian border in Ulcinj municipality.

Olive production is limited to a small area in the south of Montenegro (Lazovic et al., 2010) but the production system is very traditional: trees are old and grown without irrigation on terraces; the semi-natural ground flora is not treated with herbicides.

In Serbia, the farming systems in the fertile plain areas in the northern (Vojvodina) and central parts of the country are dominated by intensive production of cereals and industrial crops as well as dairy farms. Their production methods are based on high use of inputs and high levels of mechanisation. During the transition period when external inputs were not easily available (too expensive), they have suffered a much larger decline in production compared to the small-scale private farmers in less fertile areas, though in the longer term they may well intensify further.

In the less fertile, and predominantly mountain-ous, regions of southern Serbia, the farming sys-tems are very diversified (vegetables, vineyards, and fodder crops to support the livestock). Production methods are mostly low input, labour intensive, and highly focused on subsistence.

The farms often contain a wood lot, seldom more than one hectare, primarily to provide fuel. The ex-tensive grazing in the mountain woodlands enabled the development of significant vegetation diversity in the upland pastures. Some of the grasslands are used in a combination of extensive grazing and late mowing. The current grazing density is estimated at 1 LU per 3 ha (Njegovan, 2006).

Poljoprivrednu proizvodnju velike prirodne vrijednosti karakterizira kombinacija (1) niskog intenziteta korištenja zemljišta i (2) prisustva poluprirodne vegetacije, a u mnogim slučajevima (3) postojanja mozaičnog krajobraza.

Dominantna karakteristika poljoprivredne proizvodnje velike prirodne vrijednosti je korištenje zemljišta, kao i drugih faktora proizvodnje niskim intenzitetom (osim radne snage i tradicionalnog znanja). Također, ključno je značajno prisustvo poluprirodne vegetacije u poljoprivrednom području. U nekim situacijama, poluprirodna vegetacija nalazi se u mozaiku oranica niskog intenziteta obrade i/ili oraničnih kultura. Prirodne vrijednosti obično su veće kada su obradive površine kultiviraju niskim intenzitetom i time pružaju mješavinu staništa koja koristi široki spektar divljih vrsta s brojnim i kompleksnim protokom vrsta (beskičmenjaci, ptice, sisavci i reptili).

Vrlo često poluprirodna vegetacija koja se koristi za ispašu nije dio poljoprivrednog zemljišta gospodarstva već ima drugi oblik vlasništva (zajedničko zemljište, državno zemljište, itd.), tako da je, kada se identicira poljoprivredno zemljište velike prirodne vrijednosti na pojedinom gospodarstvu, važno ne uzimati u obzir samo udio korištenog poljoprivrednog zemljišta (UAA).

Činjenica da se vegetacija koristi za ispašu stoke (ili za sjenokošu) je vrlo važna, pošto to potvrđuje da je ona dio poljoprivrednog sustava. To ne moraju nužno biti travnjaci: šipražje i šume su bitan resurs krmnog bilja u nekim zemljama Zapadnog Balkana (kao i u drugim južnim zemljama članicama EU), i treba ih prepoznati kao poljoprivredno zemljište. Međutim, poluprirodna šumska područja koja se ne koriste za ispašu treba smatrati kao posebno,

nepoljoprivredno korištenje zemljišta.

Poljoprivredni sustavi velike prirodne vrijednosti u zemljama Zapadnog Balkana

Tipični poljoprivredni sustav u Albaniji uključuje značajne prirodne i poluprirodne travnjake (uključujući planinsku i podplaninsku vegetaciju). Povijesno gledano, ne koriste se gnojiva kako bi se povećala produktivnost pašnjaka. Ispaša se prakticira na travnjacima i u šumama (većinom u šipražju i šumama sa izdancima). U nekim područjima šume također predstavljaju izvor krmiva orezivanjem.

Ekstenzivni i tradicionalni sustavi uzgoja stoke koriste domaće pasmine životinja, prvenstveno lokalna goveda, magarce, svinje i koze. Male farme sa 10 do 30 životinja (najčešće ovce i koze) su još uvijek dominantne. Međutim, prisutan je rastući trend broja srednje velikih gospodarstava s prosjekom od 150 uvjetnih grla po stadu u južnim djelovima zemlje. Do nedavno se transhumantno stočarstvo prakticiralo u čitavoj zemlji, ali je sada najviše ograničeno na jugoistočne djelove Albanije.

U Albaniji su poljoprivredni sustavi velike prirodne vrijednosti karakterizirani kombinacijom malih površina obradivog zemljišta (koje su dalje podjeljene u vrlo male parcele u različitom vlasništvu) i površinama poluprirodne vegetacije, bilo u nizinskim, brdskim ili planinskim područjima.

U nekim područjima pritisak tradicionalne poljoprivredne proizvodnje je još uvek dovoljno velik kako bi zapuštanje zemljišta bilo praćeno lokalno prekomjernom ispašom.

U Makedoniji, goveda, ovce i koze pasu na

Poljoprivredni sustavi velike prirodne vrijednosti na Zapadnom Balkanu

Ključne karakteristike poljoprivrednih sustava velike prirodne vrijednosti

Poljoprivredni sustavi velike prirodne vrijednosti definiraju se kroz dvije glavne karakteristike (Beaufoy, 2008):

1. Dominantni zemljišni pokrov koji karakterizira svaku od kategorija poljoprivrednog zemljišta velike prirodne vrijednosti, naročito tipove poluprirodne vegetacije, vrste zasijanih površina i njihovu prostornu pokrivenost i distribuciju na nivou poljoprivrednog gospodarstva (npr. udio poljoprivrednog zemljišta pod svakim od mozaičnih obrazaca).

2. Način na koji se kroz najdominantnije poljoprivredne sustave i prakse, kao što su režimi ispaše, načini uzgoja i intenzitet uporabe (npr. gustoća stoke po hektaru, unosa dušika) upravlja ovim zemljišnim pokrovom.

18

HNV farming is characterised by a combination of (1) low intensity of land use and (2) presence of semi-natural vegetation, and in many cases (3) presence of a landscape mosaic.

The dominant characteristic of HNV farming is the low-intensity use of the land and of other factors of pro-duction (except for labour and traditional knowledge). Also essential is a significant presence of semi-natural vegetation on the farmed area. In some situations, the semi-natural vegetation is found in a mosaic with low-intensity arable and/or arable crops. Nature values will tend to be higher when the cropped areas are under low-intensity use, providing a mix of habitats that are used by a range of wildlife species, with numerous and complex species flows (invertebrates, birds, mammals and reptiles).

Often the semi-natural vegetation used for grazing is not part of the farm’s agricultural land, but has some other ownership (common land, state land, etc.), so it is important not to consider only the UAA within the farm when identifying HNV farmland.

The fact that the vegetation is grazed by livestock (or mown for hay) is important, as this confirms that it is part of a farming system. This is not necessarily grassland: scrub and forest are an important forage re-source in some of the Western Balkan countries (as in other southern EU member states), and should be rec-ognised as farmland. However, semi-natural woodland that is not grazed should be considered as a separate, non-farming land use.

HNV farming systems in the countries of the Western Balkans

The typical farming system in Albania includes con-siderable natural and semi-natural grasslands (includ-ing alpine and subalpine vegetation). Historically, there is no use of fertilizers to increase pasture productivity. Grazing is practised in herbaceous pastures and forests (mostly shrub lands and coppice forests). Forests also still provide fodder through lopping in some areas.

Extensive and traditional livestock systems use do-mestic breeds of animals, primarily local cattle, don-keys, pigs and goats. Small farms with 10 to 30 ani-mals (usually sheep or goats) are still dominant. How-ever, there is a growing number of middle-size farms with an average of 150 heads per herd in the southern part of the country. Until recently, transhumance was practised throughout the country but now it is mostly limited to the south-eastern part of Albania.

In Albania, the HNV farming systems are also char-acterised by combinations of small areas of arable land (further divided into very small plots of different own-ers) and areas of semi-natural vegetation, whether in the lowlands, hills or upland areas.

In some areas the pressure from traditional farming is still high enough for land abandonment to be accom-panied by localised overgrazing.

In Macedonia, cattle, sheep and goats graze on

HNV farming systems in the Western BalkansKey characteristics of HNV farming systems

HNV farming systems are defined by two main components (Beaufoy, 2008):

The predominant land cover that characterises each category of HNV farmland, especially the types of 1. semi-natural vegetation, types of cropped land, and their typical spatial coverage and distribution at the farm level (e.g. proportion of farmed area under each, mosaic patterns).

The way in which this land cover is managed by the predominant2. farming system and practices, such as grazing regimes, cropping patterns and intensity of use (e.g. livestock densities per hectare of forage, nitrogen inputs).

19

large areas of semi-natural and natural pastures in the mountains almost all of the year. During the winter flocks are moved to the plains in the central part of Macedonia. Although there is no official classification yet in Macedonia, these are clearly HNV farming sys-tems.

Extensive, pasture-based beef production is prac-tised both by individual farmers for their own con-sumption and by market oriented family farms. In these suckler cow systems cattle grow more slowly, but the meat is more mature and has a stronger taste. In these farming systems the animals are mainly cross-breeds, with at least 20% of a traditional local breed (Busha).

Sheep breeding is semi-nomadic and has a long tradition in Macedonia. It is mainly carried out in the mountain areas along the northern, western and eastern borders in a belt 10 to 80 km wide. Breeds for combined milk and meat production are mostly used. Sheep farms are usually family-owned busi-nesses although there is a trend of establishing com-mercially oriented sheep farms.

Low input vegetables and fruits garden produc-tion is also typical for Macedonia. The main vegeta-bles grown are tomatoes and peppers. Most of the production is for subsistence.

There are also small parcels of traditional varieties of apples, pears, plums and vineyards grown in the family gardens or near the villages. Orchards are of-ten combined with beehives. The mosaic landscape of these farming systems can be associated with HNV type 2, although often in the wider context of a landscape dominated by semi-natural vegetation.

In Montenegro, the mountain terrain limits farm-ing to the major valley systems and a narrow coastal strip. Terracing and dry stone retaining walls to cap-ture the very shallow top soils are traditional prac-tices. This well organised agricultural infrastructure is extremely vulnerable to depopulation and the re-sulting abandonment.

Crop production is carried out only in some valleys, where alluvial deposits have accumulated. It is further limited by scarce water resources. Most households maintain small family plots adjacent to their houses for the production of fruit and vegetables.

The dominant farming system is the extensive grazing of cattle, sheep and goats on semi-natural pastures. Some livestock systems extend to an alti-tude of 2000 m in their summer transhumance.

The main livestock areas are in the Lim Valley in the northeast and in the Ibar valley on the central eastern border. These two areas account for some 70% of cattle production and 73% of sheep produc-tion. Other notable livestock areas are Berane and Plav where dairy farming dominates production and there are significant areas of enclosed damp grass-lands. Another significant area of grassland-domi-nated mosaic landscape, this time with a unique bo-cage character, is found near the Albanian border in Ulcinj municipality.

Olive production is limited to a small area in the south of Montenegro (Lazovic et al., 2010) but the production system is very traditional: trees are old and grown without irrigation on terraces; the semi-natural ground flora is not treated with herbicides.

In Serbia, the farming systems in the fertile plain areas in the northern (Vojvodina) and central parts of the country are dominated by intensive production of cereals and industrial crops as well as dairy farms. Their production methods are based on high use of inputs and high levels of mechanisation. During the transition period when external inputs were not easily available (too expensive), they have suffered a much larger decline in production compared to the small-scale private farmers in less fertile areas, though in the longer term they may well intensify further.

In the less fertile, and predominantly mountain-ous, regions of southern Serbia, the farming sys-tems are very diversified (vegetables, vineyards, and fodder crops to support the livestock). Production methods are mostly low input, labour intensive, and highly focused on subsistence.

The farms often contain a wood lot, seldom more than one hectare, primarily to provide fuel. The ex-tensive grazing in the mountain woodlands enabled the development of significant vegetation diversity in the upland pastures. Some of the grasslands are used in a combination of extensive grazing and late mowing. The current grazing density is estimated at 1 LU per 3 ha (Njegovan, 2006).

velikim površinama poluprirodnih i prirodnih pašnjaka u planinskim predjelima gotovo čitave godine. Tijekom zime tada se sele u ravnice centralne Makedonije. Iako u Makedoniji još uvek nema službene klasifikacije, jasno je da su ovo poljoprivredni sustavi velike prirodne vrijednosti.

Ekstenzivna proizvodnja govedine bazirana na ispaši prakticira se, kako za vlastite potrebe pojedinih poljoprivrednih proizvođača, tako i za tržište kod onih gospodarstava koja su tržišno orijentirana. U tim sustavima krava-tele goveda rastu sporije, ali je meso zrelije i ima jači ukus. U tim poljoprivrednim sustavima životinje se najčešće križaju s najmanje 20% tradicionalne lokalne pasmine (Buša).

Uzgoj ovaca je polunomadski i ima dugu tradiciju u Makedoniji. Najčešće je prisutan u planinskim područjima duž granice sjevernih, zapadnih i istočnih djelova zemlje u pojasu od 10 do 80 km širine. Najviše se koriste pasmine za kombiniranu proizvodnju mlijeka i mesa. Ovčarske poljoprivredna gospodarstva su najčešće obiteljska gospodarstva, iako postoji trend osnivanja komercijalno orijentiranih ovčarskih poljoprivrednih gospodarstava.

Za Makedoniju je također karakteristična povrtlarska i voćarska proizvodnja niskog intenziteta. Glavne povrtlarske kulture su rajčica i paprike. Veći dio proizvodnje je samodostatan.

Postoje takođe male parcele tradicionalnih sorti jabuka, krušaka, šljiva i vinograda koje se uzgajaju u obiteljskim vrtovima ili u blizini sela. Voćnjaci se često kombiniraju s pčelinjacima. Mozaični krajobraz ovih poljoprivrednih sustava se može povezati sa tipom 2 velike prirodne vrijednosti, iako često u širem kontekstu krajobraza kojim dominira poluprirodna vegetacija.

U Crnoj Gori, planinski teren ograničava poljoprivrednu proizvodnju na veće sustave dolina i uski priobalni pojas. Terasasta proizvodnja i suhozidi koji zadržavaju vrlo plitko površinsko zemljište, tradicionalne su prakse. Ova dobro organizirana poljoprivredna infrastruktura je izuzetno osjetljiva na depopulaciju koja dovodi do napuštanja poljoprivrede.

Ratarska proizvodnja vrši se samo u nekim dolinama, gdje su se akumulirale aluvijalne naslage. Ona je dodatno ograničena oskudnim vodnim resursima. Većina kućanstava održava male porodične parcele u blizini svojih kuća na

kojima proizvodi voće i povrće.Dominantni poljoprivredni sustav je ekstenzivna

ispaša goveda, ovaca i koza na poluprirodnim pašnjacima. Neki stočarski sustavi dosežu nadmorsku visinu od 2000 m na svojim ljetnim selidbenim pašnjacima (transhumantnost).

Glavna stočarska područja su u dolini Lima na sjevero-zapadu i u dolini Ibra na centralno-istočnoj granici. Ova dva područja čine oko 70% govedarske proizvodnje i 73% ovčarske proizvodnje. Druga zapažena stočarska područja su Berane i Plav gdje je proizvodnja mlijeka dominantna proizvodnja i gdje postoje značajna područja ograđenih vlažnih travnjaka. Druga značajna područja mozaičnog krajobraza kojim dominiraju travnjaci, u ovom slučaju sa jedinstvenim bokaž (bocage) karakterom, nalaze se blizu granice sa Albanijom, u općtini Ulcinj.

Proizvodnja maslina je ograničena na malu površinu na jugu Crne Gore (Lazović et al., 2010) ali je proizvodni sustav vrlo tradicionalan: drveće je staro i uzgaja se bez terasastog navodnjavanja; poluprirodna flora zemljišta ne tretira se herbicidima.

U Srbiji, poljoprivrednim sustavima u plodnim ravničarskim predjelima na sjeveru (Vojvodina) i centralnim djelovima zemlje dominira intenzivna proizvodnja žitarica i industrijskog bilja, kao i mliječne farme. Njihove proizvodne metode se temelje na velikoj uporabi inputa i visokoj mehaniziranosti. Tijekom perioda tranzicije kada vanjski inputi nisu bili lako dostupni (preskupi), doživjeli su puno veći pad proizvodnje nego mala obiteljska gospodarstva u manje plodnim područjima, premda će duugoročnom periodu nastaviti s intenzifikacijom.

U manje plodnim, i uglavnom planinskim regijama južne Srbije, poljoprivredni sustavi su raznovrsniji (povrtarstvo, vinogradarstvo i proizvodnja krmnog bilja kao podrška stočarstvu). Proizvodne metode su uglavnom one niskih vanjskih inputa, radno intenzivne i izuzetno fokusirane na samodostatnu proizvodnju.

Poljoprivredna gospodarstva često imaju i šumsku parcelu, rijetko veću od jednog hektara, prvenstveno radi ogrjeva. Ekstenzivna ispaša u planinskim šumskim područjima omogućila je razvoj značajne raznolikosti vegetacije na visinskim pašnjacima. Neki od travnjaka koriste se u kombinaciji sa ekstenzivnom ispašom i kasnim košenjem. Trenutna gusoća stoke procjenjuje se na 1 UG (LU) na 3 ha (Njegovan, 2006).

20

Box 7 Low intensity farming systems in Serbia1. Decidious forests with high proportion of grassland cover

Low intensity agroforestry systems with semi-natural grasslands grazed by sheep and cattle in flooded forests on the banks of the Sava, Danube, Tisa, Tamis rivers and other lowland rivers of Vojvodina. One of the oldest agro-forestry systems in lowland Serbia.

2. Winter nomadic pastures on ruderal lands and stubble

These pastures are mainly located in Srem region, in Banat and river valleys near high mountain ranges across the whole of Serbia – this system is called ”popaљa “, and is now extinct.Transhumance grazing practices have recently vanished from Vojvodina.

3. Semi-natural meadows or meadows with sown mixtures used for hay production

This farming system led to the creation of the landscapes of Šumadija mountains in Serbia. Their extensive management was characterized by late mowing and reseeding with native species. Both practices resulted in the maintenance of a high diversity of plant and animal communities. From the 1960s until the 1980s, management was intensified. However, in the last decade, the intensity of land management has decreased with the return of more traditional practices.

4. Semi-intensive grazing of highland semi-natural grasslands in forest zones and natural grasslands above the forest zone

Semi-intensive livestock system based on the grazing by sheep, cattle and horses of highland semi-natural grasslands in forest zones and natural grasslands above the forest zone. Typically found in the more humid zones of Western Serbia.The absence of humans and animals in these landscapes, coupled with the arrival of invasive species, has led to a reduction in the economic and ecological value of these grasslands.

5. Extensive nomadic grazing of highland grasslands

Extensive livestock system, with sheep, goats and cattle grazing highland grasslands in Southern, South Eastern and Eastern Serbia.Over 100,000 hectares of pasture are under extensive grazing mainly by indigenous sheep breeds, such as Pramenka – Zeckel. Grazing is in a traditional shepherded seasonal system.

6. Extensive grazing of closed village pastures

Extensive livestock system, with free range pigs, sheep and poultry, grazing on semi-natural vegetation in managed orchards (mainly plums) and in forests patches. Practised across all of central Serbia.

7. Combined use mountain grasslands

Livestock system based on grazing by sheep and cattle of valley meadows, mid-mountain combined purpose meadows and highland pastures. It represents a half-nomadic livestock system which follows seasonal changes in vegetation at different altitudes still preserved in South-Eastern and Eastern Serbia.

8. Deciduous forests lopped for winter forage

An extensive mountain sheep system, with winter forage collected from deciduous forest by lopping. It is practised in certain mountain areas with limited resources for the production of winter feed. It is prohibited but is still carried out in lower Danube region and Eastern Serbia.

9. Marginal grazing on land with light, salinized or hard soils

Semi-intensive grazing systems with grazing by sheep, cattle and donkeys on sandy dunes, salinized or hard soils with high water table, typically found in the Banat region.

10. Grazing on wet areas in lowland villages

The centuries-old practice of exploiting communal pastures for grazing by non-ruminants (pigs and poultry, mostly duck, geese and turkeys) continues in some parts of Serbia today. However, it is currently in decline because of the threat of infection from Trichinellosis and avian influenza.

Author: Đorđević-Milošević, Source: Cooper, T., Pezold, T. (eds.), Keenleyside, C., Đorđević-Milošević, S., Hart, K., Ivanov, S., Redman, M., Vidojević, D. (2010). Developing a National Agri-Environment Programme for Serbia.

21

Common features of the HNV farming systems in the Western Balkans

While there are very significant regional differences, the HNV farming systems in the Western Balkans share many common features such as transhumance and nomadic herding, common grazing and forest grazing, making best use of the adapted local breeds and plant varieties as well as, unfortunately, depopulation and land abandonment.

Available and comparable information about most of these characteristics is very difficult to find. And yet, these are all important issues and their status and trends may be critical importance to the future of the HNV farming systems.

Transhumance

The seasonal movement of shepherds and their livestock between mountainous and lowland pastures made an optimal utilization of the available grasslands resources on the Balkans.

Transhumance avoids overgrazing in lowlands (where herds are kept in winter) and maintains mountain pastures opened (where herds are taken in summer). The grasslands habitats and ecosystems adapted to it display a high diversity of plants and insects. There are several species of plants, birds of prey (especially vul-tures and eagles) as well as mammals that are threat-

ened of extinction nowadays due to the abandonment of grasslands and the resulting loss of habitats.

The practice of transhumance has a long history in the Balkans. Until the late 19th century, transhumance was widely practiced with free movement of livestock animals on the Balkans.

After the establishment of the borders on the Bal-kans, their crossings by shepherds became more and more difficult and after World War I, they were banned. After this period the transhumance continued in short distant movements and in less numbers of livestock. The communist regimes almost ended transhumance practice with total ignorance of traditional grazing rights and nationalization of livestock animals in some of the countries. However, transhumance did survive and is still practised in Montenegro as well as in Albania.

In Montenegro, there are more than 2000 families which move the animals from their permanent settle-ments to the mountain summer cottages called ‘’ka-tuns’’ (data of Livestock Selection Service on imple-mentation of the subsidies program for 2010). This is more typical for the northern part of the country but is also practised in the central part.

In Albania, the pastoral system includes tran-shumance and sometimes nomadic herding. The im-portance of the seasonality in the utilization of pas-tures is reflected also by the official statistics which divide pastures to summer (70%) and winter (30%) pastures.

Bardoka and Karakachan sheep on Stara planina highland pasture , Serbia

Suza

na D

jord

jevi

c

Mariovo region, Macedonia

Zora

n Na

leto

ski

Primjer 7 Poljoprivredni sustavi niskog intenziteta u Srbiji

1. Bjelogorične šume s velikom udjelom travnjaka

Agro-šumarski sustav niskog intenziteta s poluprirodnim travnatim površinama za ispašu ovaca i goveda u plavljenim šumama na obalama rijeka Save, Dunava, Tise, Tamiša i drugih ravničarskih rijeka u Vojvodini. Jedan od najstarijih agro-šumarskih sustava u ravničarskoj Srbiji.

2. Zimski nomadski pašnjaci na ruderalnom zemljištu i strništima

Ovi pašnjaci se uglavnom nalaze u regiji Srema, u Banatu i dolinama rijeka u blizini velikih planinskih lanaca u cijeloj Srbiji – ovaj sustav se naziva „popaša“, i sada je već izumrla praksa.Transhumantna ispaša nedavno je nestala u Vojvodini.

3. Poluprirodne livade ili livade sa zasijanim mješavinama koje se koriste za proizvodnju sjena

Ovaj poljoprivredni sustav oblikovao je poznate krajolike šumadijskih planina u Srbiji. Njihovo ekstenzivno gospodarenje karakterizira kasna košnja i ponovno zasijavanje autohtonim sortama. Ovim praksama održala se velika raznolikost biljnih i životinjskih zajednica. Od 1960-tih do 1980-tih godina, gospodarenje je intenzivirano. Međutim, tijekom posljednjeg desetljeća, intenzitet gospodarenje je smanjen uz povratak više tradicionalnom gospodarenju.

4. Poluintenzivna ispaša brdsko-planinskih poluprirodnih travnjaka u šumskim zonama i prirodnih travnjaka iznad zone šuma

Poluintenzivni stočarski sustavi koji se temelje na ispaši ovaca, goveda i konja na brdsko-planinskim poluprirodnim travnjacima u šumskim zonama i prirodnim travnjacima iznad zona šuma. One se uobičajeno nalaze u vlažnijim djelovima zapadne Srbije.Odlazak ljudi i životinja uz širenje invazivnih vrsta rezultiralo je smanjenjem ekonomskih i ekoloških vrijednosti ovih travnjaka.

5. Ekstenzivna nomadska ispaša brdsko-planinskih travnjaka

Ekstenzivan stočarski sustav, sa ovcama, kozama i govedom na ispaši na brdsko-planinskim travnjacima u južnoj, jugoistočnoj i istočnoj Srbiji. Preko 100,000 hektara pašnjaka je pod ekstenzivnom ispašom, uglavnom od udomaćene pasmine Pramenke (Zeckel). Ispaša je tradicionalni pastirski sezonski sustav.

6. Ekstenzivna ispaša zatvorenih seoskih pašnjaka

Ekstenzivan stočarski sustav, sa slobodnim napasanjem svinja, peradi i ovaca, ispaša na poluprirodnoj vegetaciji u održavanim voćnjacima (uglavnom šljiva) i šumskim parcelama. Prisutan u cijeloj centralnoj Srbiji.

7. Kombinirana uporaba planinskih travnjaka

Stočarski sustav koji se zasniva na ispaši ovaca i goveda na livadama u dolinama, sredinom planine u kombinaciji s namjenskim livadama i brdsko-planinskim pašnjacima. Predstavlja polunomadski stočarski sustav koji prati sezonske promjene u vegetaciji na različitim nadmorskim visinama koji je još uvijek sačuvan u jugoistočnoj i istočnoj Srbiji.

8. Bjelogorične šume orezane za zimsku krmu

Ekstenzivan planinski ovčarski sustav, sa zimskom krmom koja se prikuplja orezivanjem bjelogoričnih šuma. Primjenjuje se u nekim planinskim područjima s ograničenim resursima za proizvodnju zimske ishrane. Ova praksa je zabranjena, ali se još uvek primjenjuje u nižoj dunavskoj regiji i istočnoj Srbiji.

9. Marginalna ispaša na tlu sa laganim, slanim ili tvrdim zemljištem

Poluintenzivni pašnjački sustavi sa ispašom ovaca, goveda i magaraca na pjeskovitim dinama, slanom i tvrdom zemljištu koje se tipično može naći na području Banata.

10. Ispaša na vlažnim livadama u nizinskim selima

Stoljećima stara praksa iskorištavanja općinskih pašnjaka za ispašu nepreživača (svinja i peradi, uglavnom patki, gusaka i purana) je nastavljena u nekim djelovima Srbije do danas. Međutim, trenutno u opadanju zbog prijetnje od infekcija trihinelozom i ptičjim gripom.

Izvor: Cooper, T., Pezold, T. (eds.), Keenleyside, C., Đorđević-Milošević, S., Hart, K., Ivanov, S., Redman, M., Vidojević, D. (2010). Razvoj nacionalnog agro-ekološkog programa za Srbiju (Developing a National Agri-Environment Programme for Serbia).

20

Box 7 Low intensity farming systems in Serbia1. Decidious forests with high proportion of grassland cover

Low intensity agroforestry systems with semi-natural grasslands grazed by sheep and cattle in flooded forests on the banks of the Sava, Danube, Tisa, Tamis rivers and other lowland rivers of Vojvodina. One of the oldest agro-forestry systems in lowland Serbia.

2. Winter nomadic pastures on ruderal lands and stubble

These pastures are mainly located in Srem region, in Banat and river valleys near high mountain ranges across the whole of Serbia – this system is called ”popaљa “, and is now extinct.Transhumance grazing practices have recently vanished from Vojvodina.

3. Semi-natural meadows or meadows with sown mixtures used for hay production

This farming system led to the creation of the landscapes of Šumadija mountains in Serbia. Their extensive management was characterized by late mowing and reseeding with native species. Both practices resulted in the maintenance of a high diversity of plant and animal communities. From the 1960s until the 1980s, management was intensified. However, in the last decade, the intensity of land management has decreased with the return of more traditional practices.

4. Semi-intensive grazing of highland semi-natural grasslands in forest zones and natural grasslands above the forest zone

Semi-intensive livestock system based on the grazing by sheep, cattle and horses of highland semi-natural grasslands in forest zones and natural grasslands above the forest zone. Typically found in the more humid zones of Western Serbia.The absence of humans and animals in these landscapes, coupled with the arrival of invasive species, has led to a reduction in the economic and ecological value of these grasslands.

5. Extensive nomadic grazing of highland grasslands

Extensive livestock system, with sheep, goats and cattle grazing highland grasslands in Southern, South Eastern and Eastern Serbia.Over 100,000 hectares of pasture are under extensive grazing mainly by indigenous sheep breeds, such as Pramenka – Zeckel. Grazing is in a traditional shepherded seasonal system.

6. Extensive grazing of closed village pastures

Extensive livestock system, with free range pigs, sheep and poultry, grazing on semi-natural vegetation in managed orchards (mainly plums) and in forests patches. Practised across all of central Serbia.

7. Combined use mountain grasslands

Livestock system based on grazing by sheep and cattle of valley meadows, mid-mountain combined purpose meadows and highland pastures. It represents a half-nomadic livestock system which follows seasonal changes in vegetation at different altitudes still preserved in South-Eastern and Eastern Serbia.

8. Deciduous forests lopped for winter forage

An extensive mountain sheep system, with winter forage collected from deciduous forest by lopping. It is practised in certain mountain areas with limited resources for the production of winter feed. It is prohibited but is still carried out in lower Danube region and Eastern Serbia.

9. Marginal grazing on land with light, salinized or hard soils

Semi-intensive grazing systems with grazing by sheep, cattle and donkeys on sandy dunes, salinized or hard soils with high water table, typically found in the Banat region.

10. Grazing on wet areas in lowland villages

The centuries-old practice of exploiting communal pastures for grazing by non-ruminants (pigs and poultry, mostly duck, geese and turkeys) continues in some parts of Serbia today. However, it is currently in decline because of the threat of infection from Trichinellosis and avian influenza.

Author: Đorđević-Milošević, Source: Cooper, T., Pezold, T. (eds.), Keenleyside, C., Đorđević-Milošević, S., Hart, K., Ivanov, S., Redman, M., Vidojević, D. (2010). Developing a National Agri-Environment Programme for Serbia.

21

Common features of the HNV farming systems in the Western Balkans

While there are very significant regional differences, the HNV farming systems in the Western Balkans share many common features such as transhumance and nomadic herding, common grazing and forest grazing, making best use of the adapted local breeds and plant varieties as well as, unfortunately, depopulation and land abandonment.

Available and comparable information about most of these characteristics is very difficult to find. And yet, these are all important issues and their status and trends may be critical importance to the future of the HNV farming systems.

Transhumance

The seasonal movement of shepherds and their livestock between mountainous and lowland pastures made an optimal utilization of the available grasslands resources on the Balkans.

Transhumance avoids overgrazing in lowlands (where herds are kept in winter) and maintains mountain pastures opened (where herds are taken in summer). The grasslands habitats and ecosystems adapted to it display a high diversity of plants and insects. There are several species of plants, birds of prey (especially vul-tures and eagles) as well as mammals that are threat-

ened of extinction nowadays due to the abandonment of grasslands and the resulting loss of habitats.

The practice of transhumance has a long history in the Balkans. Until the late 19th century, transhumance was widely practiced with free movement of livestock animals on the Balkans.

After the establishment of the borders on the Bal-kans, their crossings by shepherds became more and more difficult and after World War I, they were banned. After this period the transhumance continued in short distant movements and in less numbers of livestock. The communist regimes almost ended transhumance practice with total ignorance of traditional grazing rights and nationalization of livestock animals in some of the countries. However, transhumance did survive and is still practised in Montenegro as well as in Albania.

In Montenegro, there are more than 2000 families which move the animals from their permanent settle-ments to the mountain summer cottages called ‘’ka-tuns’’ (data of Livestock Selection Service on imple-mentation of the subsidies program for 2010). This is more typical for the northern part of the country but is also practised in the central part.

In Albania, the pastoral system includes tran-shumance and sometimes nomadic herding. The im-portance of the seasonality in the utilization of pas-tures is reflected also by the official statistics which divide pastures to summer (70%) and winter (30%) pastures.

Bardoka and Karakachan sheep on Stara planina highland pasture , Serbia

Suza

na D

jord

jevi

c

Mariovo region, Macedonia

Zora

n Na

leto

ski

Zajedničke karakteristike poljoprivrednih sustava velike prirodne vrijednosti u Zapadnom Balkanu

Iako postoje vrlo značajne regionalne razlike, poljoprivredni sustavi velike prirodne vrijednosti na Zapadnom Balkanu imaju mnoga zajednička obilježja, kao što su selitvena ispaša (transhumantnost) i nomadska ispaša, zajednička ispaša i šumska ispaša, korištenje adaptiranih lokalnih vrsta i pasmina, kao i, nažalost, depopulacija i napuštanje zemlje.

Vrlo je teško pronaći dostupne i usporedive informacije o većini ovih karakteristika. Ipak, ovo su sve vrlo važna pitanja i njihov status i trendovi mogu biti od ključne važnosti za budućnost poljoprivrednih sustava velike prirodne vrijednosti.

Transhumantno stočarstvo (selidbena ispaša)

Sezonsko kretanje pastira i njihove stoke između planinskih i nizinskih pašnjaka omogućilo je optimalno korištenje dostupnih resursa travnjačkih površina na Balkanu.

Selidbenom ispašom se izbjegava pretjerana ispaša u nizinama (tamo gde se stada drže u toku zime) i planinski pašnjaci održavaju se otvorenim (tamo gde se stada vode u tijeku ljeta). Travnjačka staništa i njima prilagođeni ekosustavi imaju vrlo veliku raznolikost biljaka i insekata. Postoji

nekoliko vrsta biljaka, ptica grabljivica (naročito supova i orlova), kao i sisavaca kojima danas prijeti nestajanje uslijed napuštanja travnjaka i gubitka staništa.

Praksa selidbene ispaše ima dugu povijest na Balkanu. Do kasnog 19. stoljeća, selidbena ispaša je bila široko rasprostranjena uz slobodno kretanje stoke na Balkanu.

Nakon uspostavljanja granica na Balkanu, njihovo prelaženje je za pastire postajalo sve teže, a nakon Prvog svjetskog rata je i zabranjeno. Nakon ovog razdoblja transhumantnost je nastavljena uz selidbu na na kratkim udaljenostima i s manjim brojem stoke. Komunistički režimi su gotovo ukinuli transhumantnost, potpunim ignoriranjem tradicionalnih prava ispaše i nacionalizacijom stoke u nekim zemljama. Ipak, selidbena ispaša je preživjela i još uvek je prisutna u Crnoj Gori, kao i u Albaniji.

U Crnoj Gori postoji više od 2000 obitelji koje sele svoje životinje sa njihovih stalnih boravišta u ljetne planinske kolibe koje se zovu ‘’katuni’’ (podaci Stočarske selekcijske službe o provođenju programa subvencija za 2010. godinu). Ovo je karakterističnije za sjeverni dio zemlje, ali se također prakticira i u centralnom djelu.

U Albaniji, stočarski sustavi uključuju transhu-mantnost i ponekad nomadsko stočarstvo. Važnost

sezone u korištenju pašnjaka se također ogleda i u službenoj statistici koja djeli pašnjake na ljetne (70%) i zimske (30%) pašnjake.

Ljetni (planinski) pašnjaci u ravničarskom djelu nisu tako daleko od zimskih pašnjaka i obično se se-

Bardoka (bijela metohijska ovca) i Karakačanska ovca na planinskim pašnjacima Stare planine, Srbija

Suza

na Đ

orđe

vić

Mariovo, Makedonija

Zora

n N

alet

oski

22

Box 8 The history of transhumance in Herzegovina

In Herzegovina, the right to annual transhumance was recognized by the Ottoman, Austrian and later Yugoslavian authorities. Every family knew where it had its mountain pasture and sometimes also its mountain cabin for both of which they paid taxes. Austria-Hungary was the first to record mountain pasture rights into a cadastral register; this was done to prevent disputes over conflicting claims.

Normally, every year in late May, the interested families met to organize the summer pastoral association and to agree on the duties and responsibilities of the participating families. The head of the mountain group was usually chosen from the family that owned the mountain cabin. Each of the cooperating families contributed one or two shepherds. They also agreed on the amount of food that each family should provide and on the choice of the cheese-maker and the cheese-maker’s assistant.

At times, transhumance was interrupted by social unrest, plagues and drought. Transhumance was also suspended during the wars (WWI and WWII) for several years each time. For these periods, the mountain pastures were overgrown with undesirable grasses, and the mountains cabins needed cleaning and repair in order to resume transhumance.

However, the agricultural policies of the communist period were detrimental to private animal breeding. A particularly harmful measure was the 1945 Law on Agrarian Reform and Resettlement, which denied peasants the use and ownership of mountain pastures. This undermined significantly the pastoral economy. In 1947, most of the mountain pastures were assigned to state-owned livestock breeding farms. Since then there were frequent changes in the administration of pastures all of which ignored the traditional grazing rights.

Careless use of pastures caused heavy damage. The areas covered by pasture land had rapidly shrunk because nothing was done to prevent overgrazing or to protect pastures from the growth of undesirable grasses. In some places the wooded areas adjoining the pastures were devastated.

PasturesAreas (ha)

Summer Winter TotalState 110 942 33 135 144 077Communal 164 152 77 371 241 552Private 16 372 13 940 30 312Total 291 466 124 466 415 911

Source: DGFP, 2003

Table 3 Summer and winter pasture in Albania by ownership type

The summer (mountain) pastures are not so far from winter pastures in the lowlands and usually most of the transhumance takes place within the same dis-trict or to the neighbouring district (Shundi, 2004). Transhumance takes one day when trucks are used or 3 to 10 days if the animals are walked.

The future of transhumance in Albania is influenced by the emigration of people to urban centres and abroad as well as by the unwillingness of young farm-ers to move their animals to the mountains any more. All this leads to increased grazing pressure on what used to be only winter pastures.

23

Box 9 Common use of grasslands in Bulgaria

Common use of grasslands is a historical tradition in Bulgaria. Each village or municipality owns and uses forests, mountain pastures and villages “meri” where livestock are grazed in common during the summer months. The total number of livestock depended on the number and size of the village grasslands. Each type of animals was allocated a specific area of pasture. For example, the highest mountain pastures were browsed by goats and non-milking sheep. Lower pastures were grazed by horses, cows and calves. Milking sheep were grazed in lower, warmer areas. The herds’ movements on the pastures followed seasonal pattern. In the hot summer months, they were up in the mountains. After harvest and mowing they were allowed to graze around the villages on stubble fields, aftermaths and so on.

All animal owners used the municipal pastures in their settlement freely and without any limitation. If there were pastures left, they were given to people from outside the settlement. There were also cases of disputes on undivided “meri” between settlements especially in the high mountain areas.

Prior to Bulgaria’s accession to the EU, there were no area-based payments for farming. Thus, the common use of land was either regulated following the historical regulations or, in many cases, informally.

The introduction of the CAP support measures and direct payments in 2007 made it evident that the existing legislative framework needed amendment. The users of the common lands (whether individuals or associations) needed to have a legal right to use the grasslands. In that year the power to grant such rights was given to the general meeting of the settlement.

In March 2007, the Deputy Minister of Agriculture responsible for the elaboration of the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS) and the Integrated Administration and Control Systems (IACS) issued rules for distributing the right to use “meri” to livestock breeders. It encouraged the establishment of associations of land users and prioritized them in the distribution of common lands. Only after the needs of the associations were fulfilled were individual users to be given shares of common land. The rules also, importantly, specified that the land was to maintained in Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition.

Overall, CAP-compliant legislative regulation of common land use is a rather new development and the administration is still on a learning curve, which has resulted in a number of amendments and modifications in the regulations. However, the situation on the ground still presents a number of difficult issues (legislative and administrative and social ones) that need to be addressed.

Source: Stefanova,V.&Y.Kazakova, 2010, Overview of common grazing in Bulgaria, EFNCP-Bulgaria

Then, in 1952, pasturing cooperatives were established which accepted animals from all owners, regardless of whether they had previously engaged in transhumance. The newly distributed mountain pastures were assigned to villages and communes. Where there were no pasturing cooperatives, the general agrarian cooperatives organized the movement of stock to the mountains on their own. Some mountain pasture lands were returned to earlier users.

All these changes profoundly disrupted the traditional pastoral system in Herzegovina, but it survived the communist period and is still practised in some regions, albeit in a substantially different form to that which took place in the past.

Source: Vucinich, W., 2003, Transhumance, in “Yugoslavia and its historians”, ed. Naimark, N. and H. Case, Stanford University Press

lidbena ispaša vrši u okviru iste općine, ili u susjedne općine (Shundi, 2004). Za premještaj stoke kod selid-bene ispaše potreban je jedan dan ukoliko se koriste kamioni, ili 3 do 10 dana ukoliko životinje hodaju.

Na budućnost transhumantnosti u Albaniji utje-

če emigracija ljudi u urbane centre ili u inozemstvo, kao i nedostatak volje kod mladih poljoprivrednika da i dalje sele svoje životinje u planine. Sve ovo vodi povećanom pritisku ispaše na onim pašnjacima koji su ranije bili samo zimski pašnjaci.

Tabela 3 Ljetni i zimski pašnjaci u Albaniji po tipu vlasništva

PašnjaciPovršine (ha)

Ljetni Zimski Ukupno

Državni 110 942 33 135 144 077

Komunalni 164 152 77 371 241 552

Privatni 16 372 13 940 30 312

Ukupno 291 466 124 466 415 911Izvor: DGFP, 2003

Primjer 8 Povijest transhumantnog stočarstva u Hercegovini

U Hercegovini, pravo na godišnju selidbenu ispašu priznavale su otomanske, austrijske i kasnije jugos-lavenske vlasti. Svaka obitelj znala je gdje ima svoj planinski pašnjak, a ponekad također, i planinsku kolibu i za oboje je plaćala poreze. Austrougarska je bila prva koja je u katastarske upisnike unijela pravo na zimske pašnjake, što je napravljeno kako bi se sprječilli sporovi oko suprotstavljenih zahtjeva.Obično, svake godine krajem svibnja, zainteresirane obitelji bi se sastale kako bi organizirale ljetnu stočarsku udrugu i kako bi se dogovorile o obvezama i odgovornostima sudjelujućih obitelji. Vođa planinske grupe obično je biran iz obitelji koja je imala planinsku kolibu. Svaka od obitelji davala je jednog ili dva pastira. Također su dogovarane količine hrane koju je svaka obitelj morala osigurati, te su birani majstor za izradu sira, kao i njegov pomoćnik.

U nekim vremenima, transhumantnost je bila prekidana socijalnim nemirima, kugom ili sušom. Selidbena ispaša također je bila prekidana tijekom Prvog i drugog svjetskog rata, svaki put na nekoliko godina. Tijekom ovih razdoblja, planinski pašnjaci su zarastali u nepoželjne trave, a planinske kolibe je trebalo očistiti i popraviti kako bi se selidbena ispaša mogla nastaviti.

Ipak, poljoprivredne politike komunističkog perioda bile su štetne za privatne uzgajivače životinja. Naročito štetna mjera bio je Zakon o agrarnoj reformi i kolonizaciji iz 1945. godine, koji je negirao pravo seljaka da koriste i posjeduju planinske pašnjake. Ovo je značajno narušilo pastoralnu ekonomiju. 1947. godine, većina planinskih pašnjaka pripojena je državnim agro-kombinatima koji su uzgajali stoku. Od tada do danas bilo je čestih promjena u administriranju pašnjaka, i sve su ignorirale tradicionalna prava ispaše.

Nemarno korištenje pašnjaka izazvalo je velike štete. Područja pod pašnjacima su se naglo smanjila, jer ništa nije napravljeno kako bi se spriječila prekomjerna ispaša ili pašnjaci zaštitili od zaraštanja.

Zatim, 1952. godine, osnovane su su zadruge za ispašu i one su prihvatile životinje svih vlasnika, bez

22

Box 8 The history of transhumance in Herzegovina

In Herzegovina, the right to annual transhumance was recognized by the Ottoman, Austrian and later Yugoslavian authorities. Every family knew where it had its mountain pasture and sometimes also its mountain cabin for both of which they paid taxes. Austria-Hungary was the first to record mountain pasture rights into a cadastral register; this was done to prevent disputes over conflicting claims.

Normally, every year in late May, the interested families met to organize the summer pastoral association and to agree on the duties and responsibilities of the participating families. The head of the mountain group was usually chosen from the family that owned the mountain cabin. Each of the cooperating families contributed one or two shepherds. They also agreed on the amount of food that each family should provide and on the choice of the cheese-maker and the cheese-maker’s assistant.

At times, transhumance was interrupted by social unrest, plagues and drought. Transhumance was also suspended during the wars (WWI and WWII) for several years each time. For these periods, the mountain pastures were overgrown with undesirable grasses, and the mountains cabins needed cleaning and repair in order to resume transhumance.

However, the agricultural policies of the communist period were detrimental to private animal breeding. A particularly harmful measure was the 1945 Law on Agrarian Reform and Resettlement, which denied peasants the use and ownership of mountain pastures. This undermined significantly the pastoral economy. In 1947, most of the mountain pastures were assigned to state-owned livestock breeding farms. Since then there were frequent changes in the administration of pastures all of which ignored the traditional grazing rights.

Careless use of pastures caused heavy damage. The areas covered by pasture land had rapidly shrunk because nothing was done to prevent overgrazing or to protect pastures from the growth of undesirable grasses. In some places the wooded areas adjoining the pastures were devastated.

PasturesAreas (ha)

Summer Winter TotalState 110 942 33 135 144 077Communal 164 152 77 371 241 552Private 16 372 13 940 30 312Total 291 466 124 466 415 911

Source: DGFP, 2003

Table 3 Summer and winter pasture in Albania by ownership type

The summer (mountain) pastures are not so far from winter pastures in the lowlands and usually most of the transhumance takes place within the same dis-trict or to the neighbouring district (Shundi, 2004). Transhumance takes one day when trucks are used or 3 to 10 days if the animals are walked.

The future of transhumance in Albania is influenced by the emigration of people to urban centres and abroad as well as by the unwillingness of young farm-ers to move their animals to the mountains any more. All this leads to increased grazing pressure on what used to be only winter pastures.

23

Box 9 Common use of grasslands in Bulgaria

Common use of grasslands is a historical tradition in Bulgaria. Each village or municipality owns and uses forests, mountain pastures and villages “meri” where livestock are grazed in common during the summer months. The total number of livestock depended on the number and size of the village grasslands. Each type of animals was allocated a specific area of pasture. For example, the highest mountain pastures were browsed by goats and non-milking sheep. Lower pastures were grazed by horses, cows and calves. Milking sheep were grazed in lower, warmer areas. The herds’ movements on the pastures followed seasonal pattern. In the hot summer months, they were up in the mountains. After harvest and mowing they were allowed to graze around the villages on stubble fields, aftermaths and so on.

All animal owners used the municipal pastures in their settlement freely and without any limitation. If there were pastures left, they were given to people from outside the settlement. There were also cases of disputes on undivided “meri” between settlements especially in the high mountain areas.

Prior to Bulgaria’s accession to the EU, there were no area-based payments for farming. Thus, the common use of land was either regulated following the historical regulations or, in many cases, informally.

The introduction of the CAP support measures and direct payments in 2007 made it evident that the existing legislative framework needed amendment. The users of the common lands (whether individuals or associations) needed to have a legal right to use the grasslands. In that year the power to grant such rights was given to the general meeting of the settlement.

In March 2007, the Deputy Minister of Agriculture responsible for the elaboration of the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS) and the Integrated Administration and Control Systems (IACS) issued rules for distributing the right to use “meri” to livestock breeders. It encouraged the establishment of associations of land users and prioritized them in the distribution of common lands. Only after the needs of the associations were fulfilled were individual users to be given shares of common land. The rules also, importantly, specified that the land was to maintained in Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition.

Overall, CAP-compliant legislative regulation of common land use is a rather new development and the administration is still on a learning curve, which has resulted in a number of amendments and modifications in the regulations. However, the situation on the ground still presents a number of difficult issues (legislative and administrative and social ones) that need to be addressed.

Source: Stefanova,V.&Y.Kazakova, 2010, Overview of common grazing in Bulgaria, EFNCP-Bulgaria

Then, in 1952, pasturing cooperatives were established which accepted animals from all owners, regardless of whether they had previously engaged in transhumance. The newly distributed mountain pastures were assigned to villages and communes. Where there were no pasturing cooperatives, the general agrarian cooperatives organized the movement of stock to the mountains on their own. Some mountain pasture lands were returned to earlier users.

All these changes profoundly disrupted the traditional pastoral system in Herzegovina, but it survived the communist period and is still practised in some regions, albeit in a substantially different form to that which took place in the past.

Source: Vucinich, W., 2003, Transhumance, in “Yugoslavia and its historians”, ed. Naimark, N. and H. Case, Stanford University Press

obzira da li su ranije bili uključeni u transhumantnost. Novo podjeljeni planinski pašnjaci su bili dodjeljeni selima ili kotarima. Tamo gdje nije bilo posebnih zadruga za ispašu, opća poljoprivredna zadruga je sama organizirala premještaj stoke u planine. Neka zemljišta pod zimskim pašnjacima su bila vraćena ranijim vlasnicima.

Sve ove promjene su duboko poremetile tradicionalne sustave ispaše u Hercegovini, ali je ono preživjelo period komunizma, i još uvek se prakticira u nekim regijama, mada znatno drugačije od onoga kako je izgledalo u prošlosti.

Izvor: Vucinich, W., 2003, Transhumantnost, u „Jugoslavija i njezini povjesničari“ (Transhumance, in “Yugoslavia and its historians”),ed. Naimark, N. i H. Case, Stanford University Press

Primer 9 Zajedničko korištenje travnjaka u Bugarskoj

Zajedničko korištenje travnjaka je povijesna tradicija u Bugarskoj. Svako selo ili općina je posjedovalo i koristilo šume, planinske pašnjake i seoske “merije” gde se stoka zajednički napasala tijekom ljetnih mjeseci. Ukupan broj stoke zavisio je od broja i veličine seoskih travnjaka. Svakoj vrsti životinja je dat poseban dio pašnjaka. Na primjer, najviše planinske pašnjake su brstile koze i nemliječne ovce. Niži pašnjaci su služili za ispašu konja, krava i teladi. Mliječne ovce su napasane u nižim, toplijim predjelima.

Kretanja stada na pašnjacima su pratila sezonski obrazac. U toplim ljetnim mjesecima, stada su bila visoko u planinama. Nakon žetve i kosidbe, bilo im je dozvoljeno da pasu oko sela na strništima, drugom otkosu i sl.

Svi vlasnici životinja slobodno su koristili općinske pašnjake u svojim naseljima, bez ikakvih ograničenja. Ukoliko bi neki pašnjaci preostali, dodjeljivani su ljudima koji su izvan tog naselja. Također, bilo je i slučajeva sporova oko nepodjeljenih “merija” između naselja, naročito u velikim planinskim područjima.Prije pristupanja Bugarske Europskoj uniji nisu postojala plaćanja u poljoprivredi temeljena na površinama. Ipak, zajednička uporaba zemlje bila je regulirana ili prateći povijesna pravila, ili u mnogim slučajevima, neformalno.

Uvođenjem poticajnih mjera Zajedničke poljoprivredne politike (CAP) i izravnih plaćanja 2007. godine postalo je jasno da postojeći zakonski okvir mora biti dopunjen. Korisnici zajedničke zemlje (bilo da je reč o pojedincima ili udrugama) morali su imati zakonsko pravo za korištenje pašnjaka. Te godine, moć da dodjeljuje takva prava dana je glavnoj skupštini naselja.

U ožujku 2007. godine, zamjenik ministra poljoprivrede zadužen za razradu Integriranog administra-tivnog i kontrolnog sustava (IACS) i Sustava za identifikaciju zemljišnih čestica (LPIS) izdao je pravila za raspodjelu prava za korištenje “merija” uzgajivačima stoke. To je ohrabrilo uspostavljanje udruga koris-nika zemljišta kojima je dana prednost prilikom raspodjele zajedničkog zemljišta. Dijelovi zajedničkog zemljišta mogli su se dijeliti individualnim korisnicima samo nakon zadovoljavanja potreba udruga . Vrloe važno da su pravila, također, precizirala da se zemljište mora održavati u dobrom poljoprivrednom i ekološkom stanju.

Općenito, zakonska regulativa koja je usuglašena sa Zajedničkom poljoprivrednom politikom o zajedničkom korištenju zemljišta je relativno novo razvijena i administracija je još uvek u procesu učenja, što je rezultiralo brojnim amandmanima i modifikacijama u samoj regulativi. Ipak, situacija na terenu i dalje pokazuje brojna teška pitanja i probleme (zakonska, administrativna i socijalna) koje treba riješiti. Izvor: Stefanova,V.,&Y.Kazakova, 2010, Pregled zajedničke ispaše u Bugarskoj (Overview of common grazing in Bulgaria), EFNCP-Bugarska

24

Box 10 Governance of State Pastures in Macedonia

Almost all pastures in Macedonia (and particularly the mountain pastures) belong to the state. Their management is regulated by the Law on Pastures (2000). The overall governance is delegated to the Public Enterprise for Pasture Management (a State body). Each year a call for tender is launched for the use of the pastures. The usage rights are allocated following natural boundaries according to the capacity of the pastures. Pastures above 1200 m are grazed mainly in summer months (from May to October). Contracts are signed for a period of five years and the farmers pay a fee per head for the right to use the pasture.

In reality the leased pastures are often used by other farmers since there are no physical barriers around them. This is very common in the lowland pastures and in pastures near villages.

If the herd increases above the carrying capacity of the currently-rented pasture during the year, the farmer or shepherd has to apply during the next year for a new pasture for the excess animals. Usually, the new pasture is in a different place and officially the farmer has to split the herd.

In 2000, a programme for the management of pastures (2000-2009) was approved. It was based on inventories of the carrying capacity of almost 60% of the pastures (carried out by the Forestry Institute on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture). The programme described the different pasture blocks: their soils, sward composition, water availability, geological characteristics, whether they are winter or summer pastures and the ameliorative measures to be undertaken during the coming years. The proposed measures focused on clearing unwanted vegetation; the construction or reconstruction of shelters, drinking pools (watering places) and paths to the remote pastures; the protection of pastures from ploughing and afforestation; fertilization in some areas. No direct measures for biodiversity conservation were envisaged in the programme. Most of the measures remain on paper only.

Recently, many farmers have been complaining about the way pastures are managed. Due to lack of funds, the Public enterprise is now only collecting fees from farmers without carrying out any ameliorative measures on the pastures. The watering places and animal shelters are almost derelict and new ones have not been erected. Paths to remote pastures have not been kept clear and cannot be used. The overall result is a big loss of grazing area and semi-natural habitats due to shrub and tree invasion.

Source: Stefanova, V., 2010, Pastures in Macedonia, non-published working document

Box 11 Forest grazing in Albania

Forests occupy more than 1 million hectares in Albania – more than one third of the country’s land surface. Rural people depend heavily upon forests to secure their livelihoods in terms of firewood for cooking and heating. The importance of forests to rural livelihoods goes beyond their use for fuel however. Most households generate additional benefits from forest resources through forest grazing and the collection of non-timber forest products such as medicinal herbs and pine resins.A study of Blerimi commune revealed that agricultural land satisfies on average 40% of the forage needs of the local livestock, while the remaining 60% is satisfied by communal forests (40-50%) and state forests (10-20%).

In the same commune, there is a 10 year contract for the communal use and management of the forest. Local users are granted the right to use forest pastures and cut firewood and fodder in some areas; in turn they agree to local administration setting aside other forest land for their protection and rehabilitation.

Before the transfer contract was signed, the village council decided how to use and manage the devolved forest. It opted for communal management rather than individual, family-based arrangements. The reasons

Vyar

a St

efan

ova

25

were twofold: on the one hand, some people were afraid of conflicts resulting from individualizing forest plots, as had previously happened with agricultural land. On the other, many also feared the responsibility, not least financial, implied by an individual arrangement.

The villagers pay fees for the right to use the communal forest. The right to cut yearly supply of firewood for one household could be obtained for €4. The annual fee to lop oak branches for winter fodder was €1,60. Using forest as pasture cost €4.80 per head of cattle and €0.80 per head of sheep or goats.

Source: Stahl, J., 2010, Albanian forests after Socialism, and ILC-NACFP, 2008, Final Report on Enhancing Tenure Security on Communal Forest and Pastures in Albania

Land abandonment

Land abandonment is the most notable and statis-tically recorded problem for both farming and nature

conservation in the Western Balkans. Although its ex-act extent across the region is difficult to measure, the mostly negative impacts of land abandonment, and especially of grasslands, on habitats and species are already detected by biodiversity studies.

The countries use different terms such as “fallow land”, “uncultivated land”, “non-utilized land” and even “refused land”, but in most cases these are all aban-doned lands.

In Albania, about 123,000 ha of agricultural land is referred to as “refused” and sometimes as “returned” land. The former owners of this land did not want to take it back from the state since it was much eroded and could not be used for agriculture production. Most of this land is now probably abandoned although some

may be used for grazing. There are no official figures for land abandonment in Albania.

A recent study (Müller&Munroe, 2008) based on satellite data indicated that most abandonment of ar-able land at the beginning of the transition period was concentrated in marginal, less densely populated areas. More recently, abandonment was increasingly shaped by economic returns from cultivation and growing competition with non-farm livelihood strategies. More recently, most bandonment was associated with land fragmentation

In Croatia, the significant abandonment of grass-lands and marginal arable land on around 500,000 ha has been accompanied by an increasing intensification on the rest of the land. Both trends have a negative impact on HNV farming and on farmland biodiversity.

The changes in the agricultural area of Montene-gro are twofold: the area of arable land and gardens decreased by 15% from 1992 to 2003. The permanent crops decreased by about 6%. On the other hand, the area of meadows has increased by 11%.

Golem Korab (2765) – highest peak in Macedonia

Suza

na K

rato

valie

va

Grassland abandonment in Stip region, Macedonia

Vyar

a St

efan

ova

Primjer 10 Upravljanje državnim pašnjacima u Makedoniji

Skoro svi pašnjaci u Makedoniji (a naročito planinski) pripadaju državi. Njihovo upravljanje je regulirano Zakonom o pašnjacima (2000). Opće upravljanje je delegirano Javnom poduzeću za upravljanje pašnjacima (državna institucija).

Svake godine objavljuje se poziv za ponude za korištenje pašnjaka. Korisnička prava se dodjeljuju u skladu s prirodnim granicama i kapacitetom pašnjaka. Pašnjaci iznad 1200 m se koriste za pašu ugla-vnom u ljetnim mjesecima (od svibnja do listopada). Ugovori se potpisuju za razdoblje od 5 godina i, za pravo korištenja pašnjaka, poljoprivrednici plaćaju naknadu po grlu.

U stvarnosti, iznajmljene pašnjake vrlo često koriste drugi poljoprivrednici, pošto ne postoje fizičke granice oko njih. Ovo je vrlo uobičajeno na nizinskim pašnjacima i na pašnjacima u blizini sela.Ukoliko se tijekom godine stado poveća preko prihvatnog kapaciteta trenutno unajmljenog pašnjaka, poljoprivrednik ili pastir se iduće godine mora prijaviti za novi pašnjak za prekobrojna grla. Obično, novi pašnjak je na drugom mestu i službeno poljoprivrednik mora podijeliti stado.

Program upravljanja pašnjacima (2000-2009) je odobren 2000. godine. On se bazirao na inventarizaciji prihvatnih kapaciteta skoro 60% pašnjaka (proveo ga je Institut za šumarstvo u ime Ministarstva poljoprivrede). Program je opisao različite aspekte pašnjaka: njihovo zemljište, botanički sastav, dostupnost vode, geološke karakteristike, da li su ljetni ili zimski pašnjaci i koje mjere za poboljšanje treba poduzeti u slijedećim godinama. Predložene mjere su se fokusirale na čišćenje nepoželjne vegetacije, izgradnju ili obnovu zaklona, bazene za piće (mjesta za napajanje) i puteve do udaljenih pašnjaka, zaštitu pašnjaka od zaoravanja i pošumljavanja, u nekim područjima i gnojidbe. U programu nisu bile predviđene nikakve mjere za očuvanje biološke raznolikosti. Većina ovih mjera je ostala samo na papiru.

U poslednje vrijeme, mnogi poljoprivrednici su se žalili na način na koji se upravlja pašnjacima. Uslijed nedostatka fondova, Javno poduzeće trenutno samo prikuplja nadoknade od poljoprivrednika, bez provođenja ikakvih mjera za poboljšanje na pašnjacima. Mjesta za napajanje i skloništa za životinje su skoro propala, a nova nisu podignuta. Putevi do udaljenih pašnjaka nisu održavani čistim i ne mogu se koristiti. Ukupni rezultat je veliki gubitak područja za ispašu i poluprirodnih staništa zbog prorastanja grmljem i drvećem.

Izvor: Stefanova, V., 2010, Pašnjaci u Makedoniji (Pastures in Macedonia), neobjavljeni radni materijal

Primjer 11 Šumska ispaša u Albaniji

Šume zauzimaju više od 1 milijun hektara u Albaniji – više od jedne trećine ukupne površine države. Ljudi u ruralnim područjima izuzetno ovise o šumama kao izvoru ogrjevnog drva za kuhanje i grijanje. Međutim, važnost šuma za ruralni život nadilazi njihovu uporabu kao gorivo. Većina kućanstava ima dodatnu korist od šumskih resursa i to kroz šumsku ispašu i sakupljanje šumskih proizvoda, kao što su ljekovito bilje i borova smola.Studija općine Blerimi otkrila je da poljoprivredno zemljište zadovoljava u prosijeku 40% potreba lokalne stoke za krmom, dok se preostalih 60% zadovoljava iz komunalnih šuma (40-50%) i državnih šuma (10-20%).

U istoj općini, postoji 10-godišnji ugovor za zajedničko korištenje i upravljanje šumama. Lokalnim korisnicima je u određenim područjima zagarantirano pravo na korištenje šumskih pašnjaka i sječu drva za ogrijev i krmu, a za uzvrat oni se obvezuju lokalnoj administraciji da će ostale šume ostaviti za zaštitu i obnovu.Prije potpisivanja ugovora o prijenosu, seosko vijeće odlučuje kako će se koristiti i upravljati tom šumom. Radije nego individualnom, obiteljskom, ono teži zajedničkom upravljanju.. Razlozi za ovo su dvostruki:

24

Box 10 Governance of State Pastures in Macedonia

Almost all pastures in Macedonia (and particularly the mountain pastures) belong to the state. Their management is regulated by the Law on Pastures (2000). The overall governance is delegated to the Public Enterprise for Pasture Management (a State body). Each year a call for tender is launched for the use of the pastures. The usage rights are allocated following natural boundaries according to the capacity of the pastures. Pastures above 1200 m are grazed mainly in summer months (from May to October). Contracts are signed for a period of five years and the farmers pay a fee per head for the right to use the pasture.

In reality the leased pastures are often used by other farmers since there are no physical barriers around them. This is very common in the lowland pastures and in pastures near villages.

If the herd increases above the carrying capacity of the currently-rented pasture during the year, the farmer or shepherd has to apply during the next year for a new pasture for the excess animals. Usually, the new pasture is in a different place and officially the farmer has to split the herd.

In 2000, a programme for the management of pastures (2000-2009) was approved. It was based on inventories of the carrying capacity of almost 60% of the pastures (carried out by the Forestry Institute on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture). The programme described the different pasture blocks: their soils, sward composition, water availability, geological characteristics, whether they are winter or summer pastures and the ameliorative measures to be undertaken during the coming years. The proposed measures focused on clearing unwanted vegetation; the construction or reconstruction of shelters, drinking pools (watering places) and paths to the remote pastures; the protection of pastures from ploughing and afforestation; fertilization in some areas. No direct measures for biodiversity conservation were envisaged in the programme. Most of the measures remain on paper only.

Recently, many farmers have been complaining about the way pastures are managed. Due to lack of funds, the Public enterprise is now only collecting fees from farmers without carrying out any ameliorative measures on the pastures. The watering places and animal shelters are almost derelict and new ones have not been erected. Paths to remote pastures have not been kept clear and cannot be used. The overall result is a big loss of grazing area and semi-natural habitats due to shrub and tree invasion.

Source: Stefanova, V., 2010, Pastures in Macedonia, non-published working document

Box 11 Forest grazing in Albania

Forests occupy more than 1 million hectares in Albania – more than one third of the country’s land surface. Rural people depend heavily upon forests to secure their livelihoods in terms of firewood for cooking and heating. The importance of forests to rural livelihoods goes beyond their use for fuel however. Most households generate additional benefits from forest resources through forest grazing and the collection of non-timber forest products such as medicinal herbs and pine resins.A study of Blerimi commune revealed that agricultural land satisfies on average 40% of the forage needs of the local livestock, while the remaining 60% is satisfied by communal forests (40-50%) and state forests (10-20%).

In the same commune, there is a 10 year contract for the communal use and management of the forest. Local users are granted the right to use forest pastures and cut firewood and fodder in some areas; in turn they agree to local administration setting aside other forest land for their protection and rehabilitation.

Before the transfer contract was signed, the village council decided how to use and manage the devolved forest. It opted for communal management rather than individual, family-based arrangements. The reasons

Vyar

a St

efan

ova

25

were twofold: on the one hand, some people were afraid of conflicts resulting from individualizing forest plots, as had previously happened with agricultural land. On the other, many also feared the responsibility, not least financial, implied by an individual arrangement.

The villagers pay fees for the right to use the communal forest. The right to cut yearly supply of firewood for one household could be obtained for €4. The annual fee to lop oak branches for winter fodder was €1,60. Using forest as pasture cost €4.80 per head of cattle and €0.80 per head of sheep or goats.

Source: Stahl, J., 2010, Albanian forests after Socialism, and ILC-NACFP, 2008, Final Report on Enhancing Tenure Security on Communal Forest and Pastures in Albania

Land abandonment

Land abandonment is the most notable and statis-tically recorded problem for both farming and nature

conservation in the Western Balkans. Although its ex-act extent across the region is difficult to measure, the mostly negative impacts of land abandonment, and especially of grasslands, on habitats and species are already detected by biodiversity studies.

The countries use different terms such as “fallow land”, “uncultivated land”, “non-utilized land” and even “refused land”, but in most cases these are all aban-doned lands.

In Albania, about 123,000 ha of agricultural land is referred to as “refused” and sometimes as “returned” land. The former owners of this land did not want to take it back from the state since it was much eroded and could not be used for agriculture production. Most of this land is now probably abandoned although some

may be used for grazing. There are no official figures for land abandonment in Albania.

A recent study (Müller&Munroe, 2008) based on satellite data indicated that most abandonment of ar-able land at the beginning of the transition period was concentrated in marginal, less densely populated areas. More recently, abandonment was increasingly shaped by economic returns from cultivation and growing competition with non-farm livelihood strategies. More recently, most bandonment was associated with land fragmentation

In Croatia, the significant abandonment of grass-lands and marginal arable land on around 500,000 ha has been accompanied by an increasing intensification on the rest of the land. Both trends have a negative impact on HNV farming and on farmland biodiversity.

The changes in the agricultural area of Montene-gro are twofold: the area of arable land and gardens decreased by 15% from 1992 to 2003. The permanent crops decreased by about 6%. On the other hand, the area of meadows has increased by 11%.

Golem Korab (2765) – highest peak in Macedonia

Suza

na K

rato

valie

va

Grassland abandonment in Stip region, Macedonia

Vyar

a St

efan

ova

Zapuštanje zemljišta

Zapuštanje zemljišta je najuočljiviji i statistički zabilježen problem, kako poljoprivrede, tako i očuvanja prirode na Zapadnom Balkanu. Iako je teško točno utvrditi razmjere ovog problema u

regiji, najnegativniji utjecaj zapuštanja zemljišta, a naročito travnjaka, na staništa i vrste već je zabilježen u studijama o biološkoj raznolikosti.

Zemlje koriste različite termine, kao što su “ugar”, “neobrađeno zemljište”, “neiskorišteno zemljište”, čak i “odbačeno zemljište”, ali u većini slučajeva ovo je sve zapušteno zemljište.

U Albaniji, oko 123,000 ha poljoprivrednog zemljišta se naziva “odbačenim” a ponekad i “vraćenim” zemljištem. Bivši vlasnici ovog zemljišta nisu ga željeli uzeti natrag od države, s obzirom da je bilo zahvaćeno jakom reozijom i nije se moglo koristi za poljoprivrednu proizvodnju. Veći dio ovog zemljišta je najverovatnije sada zapušten,

iako se neka možda koriste za ispašu. Ne postoje službene brojke o zapuštenom zemljištu u Albaniji.

Nedavna studija (Müller&Munroe, 2008) temel-jena na satelitskim podacima pokazala je da je najveće zapuštanje obradivog zemljišta na počet-ku perioda tranzicije bilo koncentrirano u margi-nalnim, rjeđe u naseljenim područjima. U novije vrijeme, zapuštanje je u većoj mjeri uvjetovano ekonomskom dobiti od obrade zemlje i rastućim natjecanjem s nepoljoprivrednim životnim stra-tegijama. U posljednje vrijeme, najveći dio zapu-štanja bio je povezan s fragmentacijom zemljišta.

U Hrvatskoj, značajno napuštanje travnjačkih površina i marginalnih oraničnih površina od oko 500,000 ha praćeno je intenzifikacijom na ostalim zemljištima. Oba trenda imaju negativni utjecaj na poljoprivrednu proizvodnju velike prirodne vri-jednosti i na biološku raznolikost poljoprivrednog zemljišta.

Promjene u poljoprivrednim područjima Crne

s jedne strane, neki ljudi su se bojali sukoba koji bi mogli proizać iz individualizacije šumskih parcela, kao što se to ranije desilo sa poljoprivrednim zemljištem. S druge strane, mnogi se boje i odgovornosti, posebno financijske, koja se podrazumjeva pojedinačnim dogovorom.

Seljaci plaćaju naknadu za pravo korištenja komunalnih šuma. Pravo da sijeku godišnju zalihu ogrjevnog drva za jedno domaćinstvo može se dobiti za 4 EUR. Godišnja naknada za prikupljanje hrastovih grančica za zimsku krmu je 1,60 EUR. Uporaba šuma kao pašnjaka košta 4.80 EUR po grlu goveda i 0.80 EUR po ovci ili kozi.

Izvor: Stahl, J., 2010, Albanske šume poslije socijalizma (Albanian forests after Socialism), i ILC-NACFP, 2008, Završni izvještaj o poboljšanju sigurnosti zakupa komunalnih šuma i pašnjaka u Albaniji (Final Report on Enhancing Tenure Security on CommunalForest and Pastures in Albania)

Napušteni travnjaci u štipskoj regiji, Makedonija

Vyar

a St

efan

ova

Golem Korab – najviši vrh u Makedoniji

Suza

na K

rato

valie

va

26

Over the decade from 1998 to 2008, agricultural land in Macedonia decline by 229,000 ha (17% of the total at the start of the period). Of this, 132,000 ha were arable land and 114,000 ha were pastures. The main reasons specified are the rural-urban migration and the use of former agricultural land for development and other non-farming purposes. In addition, it is esti-mated that between 20% and 34% of arable land (100-170 000 ha) is left fallow each year in Macedonia.

Results from survey research in Serbia (Bogdanov, 2007) show that rural farm holdings in mountainous re-gions do not use between a quarter and a third of their land. The main reasons are related to the low quality of land, inaccessible roads and thus high transport costs, and poor drainage.

Local breeds of farm animals

Traditional local breeds of domestic animals are part of the national heritage of each country. They are well adapted to the needs of mountain agriculture, including resistance against cold, the ability to utilise rough grazing, etc. These characteristics facilitate the maintenance of traditional grazing systems and their associated landscapes and habitats.

Animal breeding is an ancient activity in the West-ern Balkan countries. The result of these centuries-old farming practices is a great diversity of livestock breeds of cattle, sheep, goats, buffaloes, horses, pigs, poultry and other domestic animals. Their genetic diversity

is also closely related to the geographical and cultural diversity of the countryside since different people in

different places often had very different preferences for the species and breeds of animal they kept.

Legislative measures undertaken in the past led to huge decrease in the number of certain local breeds. One prominent example is the prohibition of the tra-ditional nomadic system of mountain sheep farming practised by the Karakachani and the confiscation of their flocks. This heavily reduced the numbers of Ka-rakachan sheep, horses and dogs – all of which are

traditional and now endangered or rare in Bulgaria, Macedonia and Serbia.

Nowadays the availability of financial support for private owners of local breeds is of crucial importance for preserving genetic diversity, conserving semi-natu-ral habitats and HNV farming systems as well as sup-porting the income of private farmers. In recent years many of the countries of the region have either planned or implemented measures for preserving their local breeds.

In Macedonia, the officially-recognised autoch-thonous breeds are Busha cattle, Pramenka sheep (Karakachanska, Ovchepolska and Sharplaninska ra ces), Domestic goat, Local primitive goat and Shar-planinets sheep dog. The exact number of pure bred animals is still not known. However, the suckler cow system is widespread, and at least 20% of those cows are Busha crosses.

Support for the autochthonous breeds is a prior-ity in the National Agricultural and Rural Development Strategy (2007-2013). A measure supporting low-pro-

Busha cow

Suza

na D

jord

jevi

c-M

ilose

vic

Flock of authochtonic Balkan Goats shaping grasslands in forest zone in Stara Planina

Suza

na D

jord

jevi

c

27

ductivity cattle breeds (focused on Busha cattle) was implemented in 2009 using national funds. Another measure in this framework which reinforces both local breeds and HNV farming is the support for the shep-herds’ salaries. A pilot measure to support local breeds is envisaged as part of the IPARD programme.

In Serbia, the list of autochthonous domestic live-stock breeds includes more than 30 breeds and lan-draces.

Support for local breeds has been provided from na-tional funds since 1998. The breeders have to be regis-tered in a National Register of Autochthonous Breeds. The supported animals are included in the breeding programmes of the two main breeding associations in Zemun Pole and Novi Sad. Until 2008, the support consisted of a direct payment per head of domestic animal, but since then there an investment aid has also been available. The investments encourage the main-tenance and equipment on farms with autochthonous breeds as well as the purchase of new animals.

Traditional olives in the Western Balkans

Olive groves are typical throughout the Mediterra-nean region and those Western Balkan countries which lie within the Mediterranean climate zone are no excep-tion.

Olive groves can be classified in three main cate-gories (EFNCP, 2000) according to their management intensity: a) traditional low-input groves; b) intensified traditional groves; and c) modern intensive groves.

Data from the Western Balkan countries indicates that the majority of the olive groves from the region fall within the traditional low-input olive grove category. In Croatia, however, a third of the olive trees (1 million) are reported to be under more intensive management (Radinović et al, 2004).

Traditional low-input groves are usually small sized with 40 to 150 trees per hectare and are often planted on terraces. The trees are usually very old and are local varieties. The normal way to control vegetation on the plot is by grazing, or by occasional tillage. Chemical fertilization, pesticide use and irrigation are extremely rare in these groves. The combination of these factors creates high nature value in terms of biodiversity and landscape as well as positive environmental impacts such as controlling erosion and water run-off.

At the same time, extensive management makes for low yields that are very vulnerable to natural condi-tions. All countries report high variability in the yields depending on the year. In Montenegro, for example, the yields in a good fertile year can be up to 12 times those of a bad year, leading to very insecure incomes and a very low overall economic performance.

As a result the three main threats to the survival of the traditional olive system are: the intensification of production in response to the increasing market de-mands especially in regions with developing tourism; land abandonment, mostly in the more remote olive groves; land development in coastal areas. In Mon-tenegro, there are several reports of old trees being cut down, despite the law forbidding it.

Razka sheep – authohtonic sheep from Banat region

Suza

na D

jord

jevi

c

Olive groves in Montenegro

Gw

yn J

ones

Suza

na Đ

orđe

vić

Buša

Gore su dvostruke: područja oranica i vrtova su se smanjila za 15% od 1992. do 2003. godine. Trajni nasadi su smanjeni za oko 6%. S druge strane, po-vršine pod livadama su povećane za 11%.

Tijekom desetljeća od 1998. do 2008. godine, poljoprivredno zemljište u Makedoniji se sman-jilo za 229,000 ha (17% od ukupnog na početku ovog perioda). Od toga, 132,000 ha su bile oranice, a 114,000 ha su bili pašnjaci. Glavni razlozi koji se navode su migracije iz ruralnog u urbano područje, kao i prenamjena bivšeg poljoprivrednog zemljišta za razvoj i druge nepoljoprivredne svrhe. Kao do-datak tome, procjenjeno je da se između 20% i 34% obradivog zemljišta (100-170 000 ha) svake godine u Makedoniji ostavi kao ugar.

Rezultati istraživanja u Srbiji (Bogdanov, 2007) pokazuju da ruralna poljoprivredna gospodarstva u planinskim regijama ne koriste između četvrtine i trećine svoje zemlje. Glavni razlozi su povezani s lošom kvalitetom zemljišta, nepristupačnim pute-vima i time velikim transportnim troškovima, kao i lošom drenažom.

Lokalne pasmine domaćih životinja

Tradicionalne lokalne pasmine domaćih životinja su dio nacionalnog nasljeđa svake zem-lje. One su dobro adaptirane za potrebe planinske poljoprivrede, uključujući otpornost na hladnoću, sposobnosti da koriste grubu ispašu, itd.

Ove karakteristike omogućavaju održavanje tradicionalnih sustava ispaše i njihovih pratećih krajolika i staništa.

Uzgoj životinja je jedna od drevnih aktivnosti u zemljama Zapadnog Balkana. Rezultat ovih stol-jetnih praksi je velika raznolikost pasmina goveda, ovaca, koza, bivola, konja, svinja, peradi i drugih domaćih životinja. Njihova genetska raznolikost je također blisko povezana sa geografskom i kultur-nom raznolikošću krajobraza, s obzirom da različiti ljudi u različitim mjestima često imaju vrlo različi-te sklonosti za specifične vrste i pasmine životinja koje uzgajaju.

Zakonske mjere koje su poduzimane u prošlosti dovele su do ogromnog smanjenja u broju odre-đenih lokalnih pasmina. Jedan očigledan primjer je zabrana tradicionalnih nomadskih sustava pla-ninskih ovčarskih praksi koje su prakticirali Kara-kačani i konfiskacija njihovih stada. Ovo je jako smanjilo broj Karakačanskih ovaca, konja i pasa – svih koje su tradicionalne i sada ugrožene ili ri-jetke u Bugarskoj, Makedoniji i Srbiji.

Danas je dostupnost financijske podrške privat-nim vlasnicima lokalnih pasmina od ključne va-žnosti za očuvanje genetske raznolikosti, očuvan-je poluprirodnih staništa i poljoprivrednih sustava velike prirodne vrijednosti, kao i podršku prihodi-ma poljoprivrednika. U posljednjih nekoliko godi-na mnoge zemlje regije su ili planirale ili provele mjere za očuvanje svojih lokalnih pasmina.

U Makedoniji, službeno priznate autohtone pasmine su govedo Buša, ovca Pramenka (Karaka-čanska, Ovčepoljska i Šarplaninska rasa), Domaća koza, Lokalna primitivna koza i Šarplaninski ovčar-ski pas. Točan broj čistih pasmina životinja je još uvijek nepoznat. Ipak, sustav krava-tele je široko rasprostranjen, i najmanje 20% ovih krava je križa-no s Bušom.

Stado autohtonih balkanskih koza oblikuje travnjake šumskim područjima Stare planine

26

Over the decade from 1998 to 2008, agricultural land in Macedonia decline by 229,000 ha (17% of the total at the start of the period). Of this, 132,000 ha were arable land and 114,000 ha were pastures. The main reasons specified are the rural-urban migration and the use of former agricultural land for development and other non-farming purposes. In addition, it is esti-mated that between 20% and 34% of arable land (100-170 000 ha) is left fallow each year in Macedonia.

Results from survey research in Serbia (Bogdanov, 2007) show that rural farm holdings in mountainous re-gions do not use between a quarter and a third of their land. The main reasons are related to the low quality of land, inaccessible roads and thus high transport costs, and poor drainage.

Local breeds of farm animals

Traditional local breeds of domestic animals are part of the national heritage of each country. They are well adapted to the needs of mountain agriculture, including resistance against cold, the ability to utilise rough grazing, etc. These characteristics facilitate the maintenance of traditional grazing systems and their associated landscapes and habitats.

Animal breeding is an ancient activity in the West-ern Balkan countries. The result of these centuries-old farming practices is a great diversity of livestock breeds of cattle, sheep, goats, buffaloes, horses, pigs, poultry and other domestic animals. Their genetic diversity

is also closely related to the geographical and cultural diversity of the countryside since different people in

different places often had very different preferences for the species and breeds of animal they kept.

Legislative measures undertaken in the past led to huge decrease in the number of certain local breeds. One prominent example is the prohibition of the tra-ditional nomadic system of mountain sheep farming practised by the Karakachani and the confiscation of their flocks. This heavily reduced the numbers of Ka-rakachan sheep, horses and dogs – all of which are

traditional and now endangered or rare in Bulgaria, Macedonia and Serbia.

Nowadays the availability of financial support for private owners of local breeds is of crucial importance for preserving genetic diversity, conserving semi-natu-ral habitats and HNV farming systems as well as sup-porting the income of private farmers. In recent years many of the countries of the region have either planned or implemented measures for preserving their local breeds.

In Macedonia, the officially-recognised autoch-thonous breeds are Busha cattle, Pramenka sheep (Karakachanska, Ovchepolska and Sharplaninska ra ces), Domestic goat, Local primitive goat and Shar-planinets sheep dog. The exact number of pure bred animals is still not known. However, the suckler cow system is widespread, and at least 20% of those cows are Busha crosses.

Support for the autochthonous breeds is a prior-ity in the National Agricultural and Rural Development Strategy (2007-2013). A measure supporting low-pro-

Busha cow

Suza

na D

jord

jevi

c-M

ilose

vic

Flock of authochtonic Balkan Goats shaping grasslands in forest zone in Stara Planina

Suza

na D

jord

jevi

c

27

ductivity cattle breeds (focused on Busha cattle) was implemented in 2009 using national funds. Another measure in this framework which reinforces both local breeds and HNV farming is the support for the shep-herds’ salaries. A pilot measure to support local breeds is envisaged as part of the IPARD programme.

In Serbia, the list of autochthonous domestic live-stock breeds includes more than 30 breeds and lan-draces.

Support for local breeds has been provided from na-tional funds since 1998. The breeders have to be regis-tered in a National Register of Autochthonous Breeds. The supported animals are included in the breeding programmes of the two main breeding associations in Zemun Pole and Novi Sad. Until 2008, the support consisted of a direct payment per head of domestic animal, but since then there an investment aid has also been available. The investments encourage the main-tenance and equipment on farms with autochthonous breeds as well as the purchase of new animals.

Traditional olives in the Western Balkans

Olive groves are typical throughout the Mediterra-nean region and those Western Balkan countries which lie within the Mediterranean climate zone are no excep-tion.

Olive groves can be classified in three main cate-gories (EFNCP, 2000) according to their management intensity: a) traditional low-input groves; b) intensified traditional groves; and c) modern intensive groves.

Data from the Western Balkan countries indicates that the majority of the olive groves from the region fall within the traditional low-input olive grove category. In Croatia, however, a third of the olive trees (1 million) are reported to be under more intensive management (Radinović et al, 2004).

Traditional low-input groves are usually small sized with 40 to 150 trees per hectare and are often planted on terraces. The trees are usually very old and are local varieties. The normal way to control vegetation on the plot is by grazing, or by occasional tillage. Chemical fertilization, pesticide use and irrigation are extremely rare in these groves. The combination of these factors creates high nature value in terms of biodiversity and landscape as well as positive environmental impacts such as controlling erosion and water run-off.

At the same time, extensive management makes for low yields that are very vulnerable to natural condi-tions. All countries report high variability in the yields depending on the year. In Montenegro, for example, the yields in a good fertile year can be up to 12 times those of a bad year, leading to very insecure incomes and a very low overall economic performance.

As a result the three main threats to the survival of the traditional olive system are: the intensification of production in response to the increasing market de-mands especially in regions with developing tourism; land abandonment, mostly in the more remote olive groves; land development in coastal areas. In Mon-tenegro, there are several reports of old trees being cut down, despite the law forbidding it.

Razka sheep – authohtonic sheep from Banat region

Suza

na D

jord

jevi

c

Olive groves in Montenegro

Gw

yn J

ones

Racka ovca – autohtona ovca iz Banata

Suza

na Đ

orđe

vić

Maslinici u Crnoj Gori

Gw

yn Jo

nes

Podrška autohtonim pasminama je prioritet Na-cionalne strategije poljoprivrede i ruralnog razvoja (2007-2013). Mjere podrške za nisko-produktivne pasmine goveda (fokusirano na Bušu) su bile pro-vedene u 2009. godini korištenjem nacionalnih fondova. Druga mjera iz ovog okvira koji podržava kako lokalne pasmine, tako i poljoprivredu velike prirodne vrijednosti je potpora za plaće pastira. Pi-lot mjera za podršku lokalnim pasminama je pre-dviđena i kao dio IPARD programa.

U Srbiji, lista autohtonih, domaćih pasmina uključuje više od 30 rasa i lokalnih populacija.

Potpora lokalnim pasminama je od 1998. godi-ne osiguravana iz nacionalnih fondova. Uzgajiva-či moraju biti registirani u Nacionalnom upisniku autohtonih pasmina. Ove životinje su uključene u uzgojne programe dvije glavne uzgajivačke udru-ge u Zemun Polju i Novom Sadu. Do 2008. godine, potpora se sastojala od direktnih plaćanja po grlu-domaće životinje, ali od tada je dostupna i pomoć u investicijama. Investicije podržavaju održavanje i opremu na poljoprivrednim gospodarstvima sa

autohtonim pasminama, kao i kupovinu novih ži-votinja.

Tradicionalni maslinici na Zapadnom Balkanu

Maslinici su tipični širom mediteranske regije, tako da oni u zemljama Zapadnog Balkana koje pripadaju mediteranskoj klimatskoj zoni nisu nikakav izuzetak.

Maslinici se mogu klasificirati u tri glavne kategorije (EFNCP, 2000) prema intenzitetu upravljanja: a) tradicionalni ekstenzivni nasadi;

b) intenzivirani tradicionalni nasadi; i c) moderni intenzivni nasadi. Podaci iz zemalja Zapadnog Balkana navode da velika većina maslinika iz regije pripada u tradicionalne ekstenzivne nasade. Ipak, čini se da je u Hrvatskoj trećina svih stabala maslina (1 milijun) pod intenzivnim gospodarenjem (Radinović, 2004).

Tradicionalni ekstenzivni nasadi obično su mali, sa 40 do 150 stabala po hektaru i često su zasađeni na terasastom terenu. Stabla su vrlo često dosta stara i lokalnih su sorti.. Uobičajeni način za kon-trolu vegetacije na parceli je ispaša, ili povremeno okopavanje. Primjena umjetnih gnojiva, pesticida i navodnjavanje su izuzetno rijetki u ovakvim na-sadima. Kombinacija ovih faktora stvara veliku pri-rodnu vrijednost u pogledu biološke i krajobrazne raznolikosti, kao i pozitivan utjecaj na okoliš kao što su kontrola erozije i otjecanje vode.

Istovremeno, ekstenzivno gospodarenje re-zultira niskim prinosima koji su vrlo ranjivi na prirodne uvjete. Sve zemlje izvještavaju o velikoj varijabilnosti u prinosima u zavisnosti od godine. U Crnoj Gori, na primjer, prinosi u dobroj plodnoj godini mogu biti i do 12 puta veći od onih u lošoj godini, što vodi do izuzetno nesigurnih prihoda i lošeg ekonomskog rezultata.

Kao rezultat ovoga, tri glavne prijetnje opstanku tradicionalnih ekstenzivnih nasada maslina su: intenziviranje proizvodnje kao odgovor na rastuće zahtjeve tržišta, naročito u turističkim područjima; zapuštanje zemljišta, naročito u zabačenijim maslinicima te razvoj infrastrukture u priobalnim područjima. U Crnoj Gori postoji nekoliko izvještaja o starim stablima malina koja su posječena, usprkos zakonskoj zabrani.

28

Table 4 Area of olives in the Western Balkans

Country Area of olives (ha)

Olive trees (Number)

Average density (tree/ha)

Albania 42 000 3,6 million 85Croatia 15 000 3,5 million 233Montenegro 3 200 0,412 million 128

Source: National documents

Box 12 Local olive varieties in the region of Dalmatia, Croatia

In Croatia, about 42 000 family farms grow olives; of these, about 36 000 are in Dalmatia. Olives are the dominant type of fruit cultivated in Dalmatia in terms of volume and production is increasing markedly. It is estimated that 45% of families living on the Croatian coast cultivate olives as either their main or ancillary occupation; the figure rises as high as 93% on some of the islands. Olives are produced almost exclusively for oil.

The agricultural and biological diversity of olives is extraordinary, with as many as 37 native varieties in the area of Dalmatia. The dominant variety is Oblica, with over 50 percent of the production, followed by Lastovka and Levantinka varieties.

The status of the 37 recognized cultivars of olives in Dalmatia is as follows:one cultivar is lost; 12 cultivars are dramatically endangered, with only several trees remaining; 8 cultivars have very small populations with less than 1,000 trees; 7 cultivars have populations ranging between 1,000 and 10,000 trees; and only 9 cultivars have satisfactory populations with over 10,000 trees.

Source: Agriculture and Biodiversity in Dalmatia, 2009, project report, COAST project, UNDP

Box 13 Traditional olive production in Montenegro

Olive groves are the oldest Mediterranean crop on the Montenegro coastline covering an area of 3,200 ha. There are an estimated 412,000 olive trees in the country, down from 620,000. Trees older than 100 years predominate. It is estimated that the oldest tree is over 2000 years old.

Approximately 70% of the olive groves are managed traditionally. Harvesting is done manually by picking olives off the ground. About 90% of varieties are native (zutica and others) and are used both for the production of oil and for table olives. Less than 10% of the trees could be considered young.

Production is still extremely extensive, but utilisation rates are below 50%. The national yield varies from 300 tonnes in a poor harvest year, up to 4,000 tonnes in fertile years. Despite the existing demand for domestic olive products, current olive production does not satisfy national demand.

Source: Agriculture and Rural Development Strategy in Montenegro, 2006, MAFWM, Final report of the EU funded project

29

some background evaluation of needs and how best to address them. The EAFRD implementing regulation states that they should produce an analysis of: “Envi-ronment and land management: the handicaps facing farms in areas at risk of abandonment and marginali-sation; overall description of biodiversity with focus on that linked to agriculture and forestry, including high nature value farming and forestry systems […]”

The 2007-2013 RDPs should demonstrate that measures are in place to maintain HNV farming and forestry systems. The effects of programmes have to be evaluated against this objective, by applying spe-cific “HNV indicators”.

EU accession and HNV farming

In the Western Balkans, Croatia, Macedonia and Montenegro are candidate countries, while Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo under UNSCR 1244 and Serbia are potential candidate countries.

In recent years, all of them adopted long or mid-term strategic documents, where objectives and pri-orities for agriculture and rural development were set. Their strategic goals are aligned with the EU principles, and focus on stable production of food at reasonable prices and food security; sustainable resource man-agement; increased competitiveness and ensuring an adequate standard of living for agricultural producers and the rural population.

In terms of implementation there are significant dif-ferences between the countries. One thing in common is the strong focus on improving the competitiveness and restructuring of the agriculture sector. All other measures are only accompanying these main priori-ties, and the budgets allocated to them are minimal.

HNV farming is not mentioned in any of these offi-cial strategic documents. The only HNV farming identi-fication steps have been undertaken by environmental NGOs in Serbia and Macedonia.

Current support to environmentally-friendly farming practices is almost entirely focused on organic farming (Albania, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia)

HNV farming and European biodiversity goals

The HNV farming concept emphasises that biodiver-sity conservation goals in Europe cannot be met only by protecting particular habitats or species, or designating certain areas, such as NATURA 2000 sites. This view has been expressed clearly by the European Commis-sion in official communications on halting biodiversity decline. It is also essential to support the landuses that favour biodiversity across the wider countryside.

The EEA outlines in its 2010 Message for agriculture that with farming covering about half of EU land area, Europe’s biodiversity is linked inextricably to agricultur-al practices, and there should be recognition that these are creating valuable agro-ecosystems across Europe. Biodiversity in agro-ecosystems is under considerable pressure as a result of intensified farming and land abandonment. Maintaining and restoring biodiversity provides the basis for all agro-ecosystem-related serv-ices. There are several opportunities to preserve and make better use of biodiversity in Europe’s agricultural areas, while meeting demand for food, fibre, feedstock and bioenergy.

It is now recognised in a plethora of EU documents that intensive farming systems are environmentally unsustainable and low-intensity farming is central to the sustainability of agricultural landscapes, yet low-intensity farming is not economically viable under cur-rent market and policy. Traditional, low-intensity farm-ing systems with high nature value have gradually and steadily disappeared, say the EEA.

The European policy commitments to HNV farming

The EU and all its Member States have committed themselves to three distinct actions concerning HNV farming: (a) Identifying HNV farming; (b) Supporting and maintaining HNV farming, especially through Rural Development Programmes (RDPs); and (c) Monitoring changes to the area of land covered by HNV farming, and to the nature values associated with HNV farming, as part of their monitoring of RDPs.

In order to include effective measures for HNV farming in their RDPs, Member States need to do

Policy and Support for HNV Farming

Primjer 12 Lokalne sorte maslina u Dalmaciji, Hrvatska

U Hrvatskoj, oko 42 000 obiteljskih poljoprivrednih gospodarstava uzgaja masline; od toga je oko 36 000 u Dalmaciji. U pogledu količine, masline su dominatna vrsta voća koje se uzgaja u Dalmaciji i proizvodnja se izrazito povećava. Procjenjeno je da 45% kućanstava koje žive na hrvatskoj obali uzgajaju masline ili kao svoju glavnu ili dodatnu djelatnost, a na nekim otocima ovaj broj raste sve do 93%. Masline se gotovo isključivo proizvode za ulje.

Poljoprivredna i biološka raznolikost maslina je izuzetna, sa više od 37 prirodnih varijeteta na području Dalmacije. Dominantna sorta je Oblica, koja čini više od 50 posto proizvodnje, a slijede sorte Lastovka i Levantinka.

Status 37 prepoznatih sorti maslina u Dalmaciji je slijedeći:jedna sorta je izgubljena; 12 sorti je dramatično ugroženo, sa svega nekoliko preostalih stabala; 8 sorti ima vrlo malu proizvodnju sa manje od 1,000 stabala; 7 sorti ima populaciju koja se kreće između 1,000 i 10,000 stabala; i svega 9 sorti imaju zadovoljavajuću populaciju sa preko 10,000 stabala.

Izvor: Poljoprivreda i biološka raznolikost u Dalmaciji (Agriculture and Biodiversity in Dalmatia), 2009, projektni izvještaj, COAST projekt, UNDP

Primjer 13 Tradicionalna proizvodnja maslina u Crnoj Gori

Maslinici predstavljaju najstarije mediteranske kulture na obali Crne Gore i pokrivaju površinu od 3,200 ha. Postoje procjena da ima 412,000 stabala maslina u zemlji, što je smanjeno u odnosu na ranijie pro-cjene od 620,000 stabala. Prevladavaju stabla starija od 100 godina. Procjenjeno je da je najstarije stablo staro preko 2000 godina.

Sa otprilike 70% maslinika gospodari se na tradicionalan način. Berba se obavlja ručno, skupljanjem maslina sa zemlje. Oko 90% sorti su autohtone (žutica i druge) i koriste se i za proizvodnju ulja, ali i kao stolne masline. Manje od 10% stabala se može smatrati mladim stablima.

Proizvodnja je izuzetno ekstenzivna, ali stopa iskorištenja je ispod 50%. Nacionalni prinos varira od 300 tona u lošim godinama berbe, pa sve do 4,000 tona u plodnim godinama. Unatoč postojećoj potražnji za domaćim proizvodima od maslina, trenutna proizvodnja maslina ne zadovoljava domaće potrebe.

Izvor: Strategija poljoprivrede i ruralnog razvoja u Crnoj Gori (Agriculture and Rural Development Strategy in Montenegro), 2006,MAFWM, Završni izvještaj EU financiranog projekta.

Tabela 4 Površine pod maslinama na Zapadnom Balkanu

Zemlja Površina pod maslinama

(ha)

Stabla maslina(Broj)

Prosječna gustoća (stabala/ha)

Albanija 42 000 3,6 milijuna 85

Hrvatska 15 000 3,5 milijuna 233

Crna Gora 3 200 0,412 milijuna 128Izvor: Nacionalni dokumenti

28

Table 4 Area of olives in the Western Balkans

Country Area of olives (ha)

Olive trees (Number)

Average density (tree/ha)

Albania 42 000 3,6 million 85Croatia 15 000 3,5 million 233Montenegro 3 200 0,412 million 128

Source: National documents

Box 12 Local olive varieties in the region of Dalmatia, Croatia

In Croatia, about 42 000 family farms grow olives; of these, about 36 000 are in Dalmatia. Olives are the dominant type of fruit cultivated in Dalmatia in terms of volume and production is increasing markedly. It is estimated that 45% of families living on the Croatian coast cultivate olives as either their main or ancillary occupation; the figure rises as high as 93% on some of the islands. Olives are produced almost exclusively for oil.

The agricultural and biological diversity of olives is extraordinary, with as many as 37 native varieties in the area of Dalmatia. The dominant variety is Oblica, with over 50 percent of the production, followed by Lastovka and Levantinka varieties.

The status of the 37 recognized cultivars of olives in Dalmatia is as follows:one cultivar is lost; 12 cultivars are dramatically endangered, with only several trees remaining; 8 cultivars have very small populations with less than 1,000 trees; 7 cultivars have populations ranging between 1,000 and 10,000 trees; and only 9 cultivars have satisfactory populations with over 10,000 trees.

Source: Agriculture and Biodiversity in Dalmatia, 2009, project report, COAST project, UNDP

Box 13 Traditional olive production in Montenegro

Olive groves are the oldest Mediterranean crop on the Montenegro coastline covering an area of 3,200 ha. There are an estimated 412,000 olive trees in the country, down from 620,000. Trees older than 100 years predominate. It is estimated that the oldest tree is over 2000 years old.

Approximately 70% of the olive groves are managed traditionally. Harvesting is done manually by picking olives off the ground. About 90% of varieties are native (zutica and others) and are used both for the production of oil and for table olives. Less than 10% of the trees could be considered young.

Production is still extremely extensive, but utilisation rates are below 50%. The national yield varies from 300 tonnes in a poor harvest year, up to 4,000 tonnes in fertile years. Despite the existing demand for domestic olive products, current olive production does not satisfy national demand.

Source: Agriculture and Rural Development Strategy in Montenegro, 2006, MAFWM, Final report of the EU funded project

29

some background evaluation of needs and how best to address them. The EAFRD implementing regulation states that they should produce an analysis of: “Envi-ronment and land management: the handicaps facing farms in areas at risk of abandonment and marginali-sation; overall description of biodiversity with focus on that linked to agriculture and forestry, including high nature value farming and forestry systems […]”

The 2007-2013 RDPs should demonstrate that measures are in place to maintain HNV farming and forestry systems. The effects of programmes have to be evaluated against this objective, by applying spe-cific “HNV indicators”.

EU accession and HNV farming

In the Western Balkans, Croatia, Macedonia and Montenegro are candidate countries, while Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo under UNSCR 1244 and Serbia are potential candidate countries.

In recent years, all of them adopted long or mid-term strategic documents, where objectives and pri-orities for agriculture and rural development were set. Their strategic goals are aligned with the EU principles, and focus on stable production of food at reasonable prices and food security; sustainable resource man-agement; increased competitiveness and ensuring an adequate standard of living for agricultural producers and the rural population.

In terms of implementation there are significant dif-ferences between the countries. One thing in common is the strong focus on improving the competitiveness and restructuring of the agriculture sector. All other measures are only accompanying these main priori-ties, and the budgets allocated to them are minimal.

HNV farming is not mentioned in any of these offi-cial strategic documents. The only HNV farming identi-fication steps have been undertaken by environmental NGOs in Serbia and Macedonia.

Current support to environmentally-friendly farming practices is almost entirely focused on organic farming (Albania, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia)

HNV farming and European biodiversity goals

The HNV farming concept emphasises that biodiver-sity conservation goals in Europe cannot be met only by protecting particular habitats or species, or designating certain areas, such as NATURA 2000 sites. This view has been expressed clearly by the European Commis-sion in official communications on halting biodiversity decline. It is also essential to support the landuses that favour biodiversity across the wider countryside.

The EEA outlines in its 2010 Message for agriculture that with farming covering about half of EU land area, Europe’s biodiversity is linked inextricably to agricultur-al practices, and there should be recognition that these are creating valuable agro-ecosystems across Europe. Biodiversity in agro-ecosystems is under considerable pressure as a result of intensified farming and land abandonment. Maintaining and restoring biodiversity provides the basis for all agro-ecosystem-related serv-ices. There are several opportunities to preserve and make better use of biodiversity in Europe’s agricultural areas, while meeting demand for food, fibre, feedstock and bioenergy.

It is now recognised in a plethora of EU documents that intensive farming systems are environmentally unsustainable and low-intensity farming is central to the sustainability of agricultural landscapes, yet low-intensity farming is not economically viable under cur-rent market and policy. Traditional, low-intensity farm-ing systems with high nature value have gradually and steadily disappeared, say the EEA.

The European policy commitments to HNV farming

The EU and all its Member States have committed themselves to three distinct actions concerning HNV farming: (a) Identifying HNV farming; (b) Supporting and maintaining HNV farming, especially through Rural Development Programmes (RDPs); and (c) Monitoring changes to the area of land covered by HNV farming, and to the nature values associated with HNV farming, as part of their monitoring of RDPs.

In order to include effective measures for HNV farming in their RDPs, Member States need to do

Policy and Support for HNV Farming

Poljoprivreda velike prirodne vrijednosti (HNV) i europski ciljevi biološke raznolikosti

Koncept poljoprivrede velike prirodne vrijednosti naglašava da ciljevi očuvanja biološke raznolikosti u Europi ne mogu biti ispunjeni samo zaštitom određenih staništa i vrsta, ili proglašavanjem nekih područja zaštite, kao što su to područja NATURA 2000. Europska komisija je ovaj stav jasno izrazila u službenoj komunikaciji o zaustavljanju smanjenja biološke raznolikosti. Ključno je podržati načine korištenja zemljišta koja potiču biološku raznolikost na širem prirodnom području.

EEA u svojoj Poruci 2010 za poljoprivredu nagla-šava da je, zbog poljoprivrede koja pokriva gotovo polovicu ukupne površine EU, biološka raznolikost Europe neraskidivo vezana za poljoprivredne prakse, te je stoga potrebno priznati da te prak-se stvaraju i održavaju vrijedne agro-ekosusta-ve diljem Europe. Biološka raznolikost u agro-ekosustavima je pod značajnim pritiskom što je rezultat intenziviranja proizvodnje i zapušta-nja zemljišta. Održavanje i obnavljanje biološke raznolikosti predstavlja osnovu za sve usluge vezane za agro-ekosustave. Postoji nekoliko mogućnosti za očuvanje i bolje korištenje biološke raznolikosti u poljoprivrednim područjima Europe, istovremeno ispunjavajući potrebe za hranom, vlaknima, stočnom hranom i bioenergijom.

Danas je u mnogim EU dokumentima prepoznato da su intenzivni poljoprivredni sustavi ekološki neodrživi i da je poljoprivreda niskog intenziteta ključna za održivost poljoprivrednih krajobraza, iako poljoprivreda niskog intenziteta nije ekonomski isplativa pod trenutnim tržištem uvjetima i zakonima. Tradicionalni, niskointenzivni poljoprivredni sustavi velike prirodne vrijednosti polako ali sigurno nestaju, kaže EEA.

Europske zakonske obaveze prema poljoprivredi velike prirodne vrijednosti

EU i sve njezine zemlje članice su se obvezale na tri jasne akcije koje se tiču poljoprivrede

Politika i podrška poljoprivredi velike prirodne vrijednosti

velike prirodne vrijednosti: (a) Identifikacija poljoprivrede velike prirodne vrijednosti; (b) Podržavanje i održavanje poljoprivrede velike prirodne vrijednosti, naročito kroz Programe ruralnog razvoja (RDP); i (c) Monitoring projmena na zemljištima koje je pod poljoprivredom velike prirodne vrijednosti, i prirodnih vrijednosti povezanih s poljoprivredom velike prirodne vrijednosti, kao dio njihovog monitoringa RDP-a.

U cilju uključivanja efikasnih mjera za poljoprivredu velike prirodne vrijednosti u svoje RDP-e, zemlje članice moraju napraviti neku osnovnu procjenu potreba i definirati najbolje načine da ih ispune. EAFRD provedbena regulativa traži da naprave analizu: “Upravljanja okolišem i zemljištem: poteškoće s kojima se suočavaju poljoprivredna gospodarstva u područjima pod rizikom od zapuštanja i marginalizacije, sveobuhvatni opis biološke raznolikosti sa fokusom na njezinu povezanost s poljoprivredom i šumarstvom, uključujući i poljoprivredu velike prirodne vrijednosti i šumske sustave […]”

RDP-i za razdoblje 2007-2013 bi trebali pokazati da su uspostavljene mjere kojima se održava poljoprivreda i šumarstvo velike prirodne vrijednosti. Efekti programa moraju biti procjenjeni u odnosu na svoje ciljeve, primjenjujući specifične “indikatore velike prirodne vrijednosti”.

Pridruženje Europskoj uniji i poljoprivreda velike prirodne vrijednosti

Na Zapadnom Balkanu, Hrvatska, Makedonija i Crna Gora imaju status zemalja-kandidatkinja za EU, dok su Albanija, Bosna i Hercegovina, Kosovo i Srbija potencijalne zemlje kandidatkinje.

U posljednjih nekoliko godina, sve one su usvojile dugoročne ili srednjoročne strateške dokumente, u kojima su utvrđeni ciljevi i prioriteti poljoprivrede i ruralnog razvoja. Njihovi strateški ciljevi su u skladu sa principima EU, i usmjereni su na stabilnu proizvodnju hrane po razumnim cijenama te sigurnost hrane, održivo

30

and autochthonous breeds of animals and plant spe-cies (Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia).

Support to organic farming has some links to HNV systems, but these are rather weak. Interestingly, the largest organically-certified sector is wild herb and medicinal plant collection.

The support to local livestock breeds is in practice supporting the HNV grazing systems in these coun-tries. The main problem is the very limited available funding, that is provided on an annual basis only; there is no long term security for the schemes if budgets change every year.

There are also other examples of measures which although not labelled as support for HNV farming po-tentially support exactly these farming systems. In Macedonia, support for shepherds’ salaries is provided for grazing animals. In Montenegro, the measure on the sustainable use of mountain pastures is de facto supporting transhumance systems. In Serbia, farms with local breeds besides the payment per animal can also receive investment support to improve and main-tain the farm itself.

However, the majority of the agriculture support payments in the region (as in the EU) are still directed towards intensive practices. An outstanding example is the Albanian direct support policy. It is striking that the country with the smallest farms (around 1 ha on aver-age) directs all its funding to medium and large farms. Since 2007 support has been provided to farms with 10 to 30 cattle, more than 50 sheep or more than 50 beehives (Cela et al, 2010). Support is also provided for the production of snails. The support for olives is fo-cused on protection from olive fly on plantations larger than 100 ha as well as for the production of olive oil. Under the national rural development measures, invest-ment support is provided for new plantations of fruits, olives and vineyards. There is also support for the 50% of the certification costs for organic production for the local or export markets.

This is a clear indication that the priority of the Al-banian policy is restructuring the agriculture sector towards much larger and intensive agriculture hold-ings. There is no support (or recognition) for any of the elements of the HNV farming systems such as small scale farms or extensive production.

31

Box 14 Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and High Nature Value Farming in Bulgaria

The Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds (BSPB) is currently engaged in a project about High Nature Value farming, since grassland management is closely linked to the presence and quality of feeding and breeding habitats of many bird species. In grassland soils there are many invertebrates that are eaten by birds. For example, grassland insects are the main food for larks. The European suslik, which is the main food for many birds of prey, inhabits extensively used grasslands.

In 2010, BSPB launched a pilot grant scheme to support farmers in three pilot regions which are also Special Protection Areas under EU Birds Directive: Ponor, Besapari Hills and Western Balkan. The two year pilot scheme aims to encourage farmers to adopt more biodiversity-friendly land management practices in selected HNV areas.

The measures that are implemented were taken from the EAFRD menu and comprise: Agri-environmental payments; Compensatory payments for NATURA 2000; Non-productive investments and Investments in holdings. However, they do not overlap with the measures in the actual Bulgarian RDP.

The scheme was launched after two years of preparation, during which the project team was able to meet and establish regular contacts with most of the farmers in the regions. This allowed the proposed measures to be shaped in a way that is most beneficial and relevant to the needs of the small farmers.

A mobile team of consultants provides advice and support to the interested farmers not only regarding the project pilot grant scheme, but also on how to apply for Bulgarian RDP support. They work through the whole process with the farmers, from the identification of their support needs, to the development and submission of the application, all the way to implementation of the measures and final reporting. This includes the identification of the land in LPIS.

There were a total of 47 applications in just the first year. One was rejected and two others withdrew due to personal reasons. All others are supported. Many of the beneficiaries have applied under more than one measure.

The key reasons for success seem to be twofold. The mobile teams and especially the personal contact at farm and household level are very important in order to be able to motivate farmers to participate. This also puts a very heavy responsibility onto the consultants’ shoulders, since the farmers come to rely on their advice.

Secondly, the contrast between the grant scheme and the RDP is significant. The former delivers payment in a very short time after the application is submitted, whereas the latter involves at best a long wait.

Source: BSPB project team, 2010, Project „Conservation of globally important biodiversity in high nature value semi-natural grasslands through support for the traditional local economy”, funded by GEF/UNDP

upravljanje resursima, povećanu konkurentnost i osiguravanje zadovoljavajućeg životnog standarda za poljoprivredne proizvođače i ruralno stanovništvo.

U pogledu provođenja, postoje značajne razlike između zemalja. Jedna stvar koja je zajednička je snažna usmjerenost na unapređenje konkurent-nosti i restrukturiranje poljoprivrednog sektora. Sve druge mjere samo slijede ove glavne priorite-te, i budžeti koji se njima dodjeljuju su minimalni.

Poljoprivreda velike prirodne vrijednosti nije spomenuta ni u jednom od ovih službenih strateških dokumenata. Jedine korake ka identi-fikaciji poljoprivrede velike prirodne vrijednosti poduzele su ekološke nevladine udruge u Srbiji i Makedoniji.

Trenutna potpora ekološki prihvatljivim pol-joprivrednim praksama je gotovo u potpunosti usmjerena na ekološku poljoprivredu (Albanija, Hrvatska, Makedonija, Crna Gora i Srbija) i autoh-tone sorte i pasmine (Hrvatska, Makedonija, Crna Gora i Srbija).

Potpora ekološkoj poljoprivredi ima određene veze sa sustavima velike prirodne vrijednosti, ali su one relativno slabe. Zanimljivo je da je najveći sektor pod ekološkim certifikatima sakupljanje divljeg i ljekovitog bilja.

Podrška domaćim i udomaćenim pasminama u praksi je podrška sustavima ispaše velike prirod-ne vrijednosti u ovim zemljama. Glavni problem je vrlo ograničeno financiranje, koje se osigurava samo na godišnjem nivou, pa u slučaju promjene bužeta svake godine, ne postoji dugoročna sigur-nost za ove mjere.

Postoje također i drugi primjeri mjera koje, iako nisu označene kao podrška poljoprivredi ve-like prirodne vrijednosti, potencijalno podržavaju upravo te sustave poljoprivredne proizvodnje. U Makedoniji, podrška plaćama za pastire se daje kroz potporu za ispašu stoke. U Crnoj Gori, mjere za održivu uporabu planinskih pašnjaka de facto podržavaju transhumantno stočarstvo. U Srbiji, poljoprivredna gospodarstva s lokalnim pasmina-ma uz plaćanja po grlu, također dobijaju i potporu investicijama za unaprijeđenje i održavanje samih poljoprivrednih gospodarstava.

Ipak, većina plaćanja za potporu poljoprivredi u regiji (kao i u EU) su još uvek usmjerena ka in-tenzivnim praksama. Jedan izuzetan primjer je po-litika izravnih plaćanja u Albaniji. Zapanjujuće je da zemlja s najmanjim poljoprivrednim gospodar-stvima (u prosjeku oko 1 ha) usmjerava sve svoje fondove na srednja i velika poljoprivredna gospo-darstva. Od 2007. godine potpora je bila osigurana poljoprivrednim gospodarstvima s 10 do 30 gove-da, s više od 50 ovaca ili sa više od 50 košnica (Cela et al, 2010). Potpora je također bila pružana i za proizvodnju puževa. Potpora za masline je usmje-rena na zaštitu od maslinove muhe na plantažama većim od 100 ha, kao i za proizvodnju maslinovog ulja. U okviru nacionalnih mjera za ruralni razvoj, potpora za investicije je pružana novim plantaža-ma voća, maslina i vinograda. Takođe, postoji i po-tpora za pokrivanje 50% troškova za certifikaciju ekološke proizvodnje za lokalno ili izvozna tržišta.

Ovo je jasna naznaka da je prioritet albanske po-ljoprivredne politike restrukturiranje poljoprivred-nog sektora prema mnogo većim i intenzivnijim po-ljoprivrednim gospodarstvima. Ne postoji potpora (ili priznavanje) bilo kojem elementu poljoprivred-nih sustava velike prirodne vrijednosti, kao što su mala poljoprivredna gospodarstva ili ekstenzivna proizvodnja.

30

and autochthonous breeds of animals and plant spe-cies (Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia).

Support to organic farming has some links to HNV systems, but these are rather weak. Interestingly, the largest organically-certified sector is wild herb and medicinal plant collection.

The support to local livestock breeds is in practice supporting the HNV grazing systems in these coun-tries. The main problem is the very limited available funding, that is provided on an annual basis only; there is no long term security for the schemes if budgets change every year.

There are also other examples of measures which although not labelled as support for HNV farming po-tentially support exactly these farming systems. In Macedonia, support for shepherds’ salaries is provided for grazing animals. In Montenegro, the measure on the sustainable use of mountain pastures is de facto supporting transhumance systems. In Serbia, farms with local breeds besides the payment per animal can also receive investment support to improve and main-tain the farm itself.

However, the majority of the agriculture support payments in the region (as in the EU) are still directed towards intensive practices. An outstanding example is the Albanian direct support policy. It is striking that the country with the smallest farms (around 1 ha on aver-age) directs all its funding to medium and large farms. Since 2007 support has been provided to farms with 10 to 30 cattle, more than 50 sheep or more than 50 beehives (Cela et al, 2010). Support is also provided for the production of snails. The support for olives is fo-cused on protection from olive fly on plantations larger than 100 ha as well as for the production of olive oil. Under the national rural development measures, invest-ment support is provided for new plantations of fruits, olives and vineyards. There is also support for the 50% of the certification costs for organic production for the local or export markets.

This is a clear indication that the priority of the Al-banian policy is restructuring the agriculture sector towards much larger and intensive agriculture hold-ings. There is no support (or recognition) for any of the elements of the HNV farming systems such as small scale farms or extensive production.

31

Box 14 Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and High Nature Value Farming in Bulgaria

The Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds (BSPB) is currently engaged in a project about High Nature Value farming, since grassland management is closely linked to the presence and quality of feeding and breeding habitats of many bird species. In grassland soils there are many invertebrates that are eaten by birds. For example, grassland insects are the main food for larks. The European suslik, which is the main food for many birds of prey, inhabits extensively used grasslands.

In 2010, BSPB launched a pilot grant scheme to support farmers in three pilot regions which are also Special Protection Areas under EU Birds Directive: Ponor, Besapari Hills and Western Balkan. The two year pilot scheme aims to encourage farmers to adopt more biodiversity-friendly land management practices in selected HNV areas.

The measures that are implemented were taken from the EAFRD menu and comprise: Agri-environmental payments; Compensatory payments for NATURA 2000; Non-productive investments and Investments in holdings. However, they do not overlap with the measures in the actual Bulgarian RDP.

The scheme was launched after two years of preparation, during which the project team was able to meet and establish regular contacts with most of the farmers in the regions. This allowed the proposed measures to be shaped in a way that is most beneficial and relevant to the needs of the small farmers.

A mobile team of consultants provides advice and support to the interested farmers not only regarding the project pilot grant scheme, but also on how to apply for Bulgarian RDP support. They work through the whole process with the farmers, from the identification of their support needs, to the development and submission of the application, all the way to implementation of the measures and final reporting. This includes the identification of the land in LPIS.

There were a total of 47 applications in just the first year. One was rejected and two others withdrew due to personal reasons. All others are supported. Many of the beneficiaries have applied under more than one measure.

The key reasons for success seem to be twofold. The mobile teams and especially the personal contact at farm and household level are very important in order to be able to motivate farmers to participate. This also puts a very heavy responsibility onto the consultants’ shoulders, since the farmers come to rely on their advice.

Secondly, the contrast between the grant scheme and the RDP is significant. The former delivers payment in a very short time after the application is submitted, whereas the latter involves at best a long wait.

Source: BSPB project team, 2010, Project „Conservation of globally important biodiversity in high nature value semi-natural grasslands through support for the traditional local economy”, funded by GEF/UNDP

Primjer 14 Područja važna za ptice (IBA) i poljoprivreda velike prirodne vrijednosti u Bugarskoj

Bugarsko društvo za zaštitu ptica (BSPB) je trenutno uključeno u projekt koji se tiče poljoprivrede velike prirodne vrijednosti, s obzirom da je upravljanje travnjacima usko povezano s postojanjem i kvalitetom staništa za ishranu i gnježđenje mnogih ptičjih vrsta. Travnjačka tla dom su mnogim beskralježnacima kojima se hrane ptice. Insekti koji žive na travnjacima glavna su hrana za ševe. Tekunica, koja je glavna hrana za mnoge ptice grabljivice, nastanjuje ekstenzivno korištene travnjake.

U 2010. godini, BSPB je pokrenuo shemu darovnica za podršku poljoprivrednicima u tri pilot regije koje su takođe proglašene Područjima posebne zaštite u okviru EU Direktive o pticama: Ponor, Besapari Brda i Zapadni Balkan. Dvogodišnja pilot shema ima za cilj ohrabriti poljoprivrednike da usvoje prakse za gospodarenje zemljištem koje su usklađene s očuvanjem biološke raznolikosti u odabranim područjima velike prirodne vrijednosti.

Mjere koje se primjenjuju preuzete su iz EAFRD menija i sastoje se od: poljoprivredno-okolišnih plaćanja; kompenzacijskih plaćanja za NATURU 2000; neproizvodnih investicija i investicija u u poljoprivredna gospodarstva. Ove mjere se ne preklapaju s mjerama u aktualnom RDP-u Bugarske.Mjere su pokrenute nakon dvogodišnjih priprema, tijekom kojih je projektni tim bio u mogućnosti upo-znati i ostvari redovne kontakte sa većinom poljoprivrednika u ovim regijama. Ovo je omogućilo uskla-đivanje predloženih mjere na način da su najkorisnije i relevantne za potrebe malih poljoprivrednika.

Mobilni tim konzultanata pruža savjete i podršku zainteresiranim poljoprivrednicima ne samo u vezi projektnih darovnica, već i o tome kako da se prijave za potpore iz bugarskog RDP-a. Oni pomažu poljo-privrednicima tijekom čitavog procesa, od identifikacije njihovih potreba za potporom, do osmišljavan-ja i podnošenja zahtjeva, sve do provođenja mjera i završnog izvještavanja. Ovo uključuje i identifikaciju zemljišta u LPIS-u.

Samo u prvoj godini bilo je ukupno 47 aplikacija. Jedna je bila odbačena, a dvije su bile povučene iz osobnih razloga. Svi drugi zahtjevi su financirani, a mnogi od korisnika su se prijavili za više od jedne mjere podrške.

Po svemu sudeći, dva su ključna razloga za uspjeh: Mobilni timovi i posebno osobni kontakt na nivou poljoprivrednog gospodarstva i kućanstva su izuzet-no važni za mobilizaciju poljoprivrednika za sudjelovanje. Ovo stavlja izuzetno veliku odgovornost na leđa konzultanata, s obzirom da se poljoprivrednici jako oslanjaju na njihove savjete.

Drugo, razlika između ovih darovnica i RDP-a je značajan. Darovnica se isplaćuje u vrlo kratkom vremen-skom roku nakon što se aplikacija podnese, dok se isplata iz RDP-a relativno dugo čeka.

Izvor: BSPB projektni tim, 2010, Projekt „Konzervacija globalno važne biološke raznolikosti u poluprirodnim travnjacima velike prirodne vrijednosti kroz podršku tradicionalnoj lokalnoj ekonomiji (Conservation of globally important biodiversity in high naturevalue semi-natural grasslands through support for the traditional local economy”), finansiran od strane GEF/UNDP-a

32

Key Challenges to HNV Farming in the Western Balkans

Today the value of maintaining HNV farming for the multiple environmental goods such systems produce is rec-ognised. But HNV farming faces enormous challenges of socio-economic viability. As intensive farming expands and its yields increase and as incomes rise in the wider economy, it becomes harder to earn a living from HNV farming.

Socio-economic challenges

There is a very well developed informal economy dealing with land use, as well as (local) production and selling. This is based on traditional networks, but outside the official system. The very small scale farms are outside the key administrative, book-keeping, fiscal and inspection systems. These farms do not receive any subsidy. They are geared toward subsistence - non-market oriented, producing mostly for self-consumption. They have a special role in the current HNV farming situation and the way they will operate in the future may have a significant impact on it.

Outmigration and ageing of population. This is a significant challenge that is not unique to the Western Balkans. However, most of the countries from the region already have population density that is much lower than the EU-27 average. This is expected to continue in the future and lead to more

land abandonment, especially in the remote and mountainous regions.

In the entire region, poverty risk is higher for the rural population, who comprise the majority of the poor. Those living in rural areas are excluded not only in terms of material wellbeing (income and consumption), but also due to their isolation, especially in the mountainous regions, they often have inadequate access to current education, health and cultural provision.

Rural infrastructure and services are often very underdeveloped. In most countries, there is limited access to adequate infrastructure facilities (roads, water supply, electricity, etc.), which constitutes a considerable barrier to modernizing agriculture. This pushes young people to migrate to more urban areas, increases significantly the costs of production or of doing any other business including tourism, thus having a very strong overall negative impact.

Policy support challenges

Aligning policy support to small scale and potentially HNV farms in the process of EU accession. The countries are in a process of harmonizing legislation as well as policy support, as many of their recent support schemes are not in line with the EU legislation. There is a serious risk that in this process, support to HNV farming is pushed only to the smaller, environmentally-focused parts of rural development programmes (“Axis 2” type of measure), which are very positive but limited in scope and not entirely suited to the scale of the needs and conditions of the region. The positive examples such as support to shepherds’ salaries (MK) or investments for local-breed farms (SR) or for high-mountain pastures (ME) should be expanded throughout the region,

and not be lost due to perceived non-compatibility with EU rules.

Harmonization of national legislation with the EU acquis and reflecting the national conditions and needs is a multi-dimensional task. One of the very challenging examples is the harmonization of the veterinary and hygiene requirements for farms and food processors, and responding to the characteristics and adaptation potential of small scale farms.

Examples from Bulgaria and Romania show that in the urge for closing negotiation Chapters, these were not considered at all. Only after accession and after months of protests (Romania) and lobbying (Bulgaria), the national legislations were changed to reflect the national conditions.

33

Land eligibility for CAP support. This is a critical issue both from the perspective of the extensive use of pastures, common grazing and forest grazing as well as from the perspective of minimum size eligibility rules. Grasslands with a high proportion of shrub and/or trees are of particular biodiversity value and their continued sustainable grazing is especially important. Yet in many countries such land is excluded from CAP support, because of CAP rules and their interpretation.

It is essential that CAP rules are clarified and changed to ensure scrubby and woody pasture can receive payments without total clearance of non-herbaceous vegetation. Concurrently, Western Balkans states need to align their national policy frameworks to deal honestly with current land use realities and maximise the potential support from EU policies, such as the currently-unofficial use of forest land for livestock forage. They should seek guidance on IACS from countries such as Spain, with its similar vegetation and land use systems, rather than from northern European States.

An important added complication is that the small average farm size in most countries most prob-ably means that many farms will be under the minimum threshold for support which would have to be set by any new EU Member State.

Support for tourism and organic farming in HNV farming areas is often seen as a significant opportunity for future development. Many strategic policy documents express a link between the support for environmentally-friendly practices, organic farming and tourism and consider it as a good approach. However, in reality the structural weaknesses of these farms and regions rarely enable such integrated development on its own.

Development of tourism (eco, agro or rural) as well as organic farming is in fact a very serious challenge. It requires significant entrepreneurship and a variety of other skills as well as capital. The existence of favourable natural conditions is a good precondition but is never enough. The survival and the development of HNV farming has its own needs and requires specific and targeted support.

Shift of paradigm

For most young farmers in the region ‘extensive farming’ is not ‘serious’ enough. Despite the recent trend in Europe recognising the value and importance of small scale farms, in the region (as probably in many other regions as well) this type of farming is still considered old-fashioned and backward. The understanding and recognition of the environmental, social, cultural and economic values of the High Nature Value farming systems and the public goods provided by the farmers managing them is still very low or not existing at all. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that the EU, despite its recent statements in favour of semi-subsistence farming, has yet to show in practice how such appreciation can be turned into concrete support mechanisms.

Modernisation is not necessarily equal to intensification and certainly is not equal to

restructuring – in fact this simplistic notion is out of date. This is one of the key messages that needs to be understood by the farming community and the agriculture policy makers.

HNV farms often survive thanks to a low-cost, minimum risk, strategy. But as on all farms, in-vestments are needed to maintain and improve infrastructure, animal housing, machinery, and to evolve towards a more sustainable future. Farm-ers with limited incomes also tend to have limited capital, and face difficulties in accessing grant aid for capital investments, as schemes require the farmer to provide a proportion of the capital. Higher rates of grant should be allowable for HNV farms where these investments are justified on the basis of the environmental benefits the farms provide. Issues of capacity need to be addressed through the kind of ongoing support exemplified by the BSPB pilot project in Bulgaria (see Box 14).

Ključni izazovi za poljoprivredu velike prirodne vrijednosti na Zapadnom Balkanu

Vrijednost održavanja poljoprivrede velike prirodne vrijednosti zbog višestrukih ekoloških dobara koje ovi sustavi proizvode danas je prepoznata. Ipak, poljoprivreda velike prirodne vrijednosti suočava se sa ogromnim izazovima socio-ekonomske održivosti. Širenjem intenzivna poljoprivreda i povećanjem njezinih prinosa te širi i njeni prinosi rastu, te rastom priohoda u široj ekonomiji, postaje sve teže zarađivati za život od poljoprivrede velike prirodne vrijednosti .

Socio-ekonomski izazovi

Postoji vrlo dobro razvijena neformalna •ekonomija vezana uz korištenje poljoprivrednog zemljišta, kao i (lokalnu) proizvodnju i prodaju. Ovo se bazira na tradicionalnim mrežama, ali izvan službenog sustava. Vrlo mala poljoprivredna gospodarstva su izvan ključnih administrativnih, knjigovodstvenih, fiskalnih i inspekcijskih sustava. Ova poljoprivredna gospodarstva ne dobivaju nikakve potpore. Ona s usmjerena na opstanak – nisu tržišno orjentirane, proizvode uglavnom za svoje potrebe. Ona imaju specijalnu ulogu u trenutačnom gospodarenju poljoprivrednim područjima velike prirodne vrijednosti i način na koji će ova gospodarstva funkcionirati u budućnosti može imati vrlo velik uticaj ova područja.

Migracija i starenje stanovništva. Ovo je •značajan izazov koji nije jedinstven samo za Zapadni Balkan. Ipak, mnoge zemlje ove regije već imaju gustoću stanovništva koja je puno niža nego prosječna u 27 zemalja EU. Očekuje se da se ovo nastavi i u budućnosti i da će dovesti do još većeg zapuštanja zemljišta, naročito u marginalnim i planinskim područjima .

U čitavoj regiji, rizik od siromaštva je veći za •ruralnu populaciju, koja čini većinu siromašnih. Oni koje žive u ruralnim sredinama su isključeni ne samo u smislu materijalne dobrobiti (prihod i potrošnja), već i zbog njihove izolacije, naročito u planinskim područjima. Vrlo često nije im dostupno odgovarajuće obrazovanje, zdravstvene i kulturne usluge.

Ruralna infrastruktura i usluge su često vrlo slabo •razvijene. U najvećem broju zemalja, pristup odgovarajućim infrastrukturnim objektima je neodgovarajuć (putevi, opskrba vodom, strujom, itd.), što stvara značajnu prepreku modernizaciji poljoprivrede. Ovo tjera mlade ljude da migriraju

u urbanija područja, značajno poskupljuje troškove proizvodnje ili bavljenje bilo kakvim drugim poslom, uključujući i turizam, i time ima veoma jak opći negativni utjecaj.

Izazovi za politike potpore

Usklađivanje politika potpore za male •proizvođače i potencijalna poljoprivredna gospodarstva velike prirodne vrijednosti u procesu pridruživanja EU. Zemlje su u procesu harmonizacije zakonodavstva, kao i politika potpore, s obzirom da mnoge od dosadašnjih mjera nisu u skladu sa zakonima EU-a. Postoji vrlo ozbiljan rizik da u ovom procesu, potpora poljoprivredi velike prirodne vrijednosti bude usmjerena samo na manje, ekološki fokusirane djelove programa ruralnog razvoja (tip mjera iz “Osi 2”), koje su vrlo pozitivne, ali ograničene u opsegu i nisu uvijek najprikladnije za nivo potreba i uvjeteu regiji. Pozitivni primjeri, kao što su potpora za plaće pastira (MK) ili investicije za poljoprivredna gospodarstva s lokalnim pasminama (SR) ili za visoke planinske pašnjake (ME) trebalo bi proširiti u cijeloj regiji, i ne bi smjele biti izgubljene zbog percepcije da nisu u skladu sa EU pravilima.

Harmonizacija nacionalnog zakonodavstva •s EU acquis-om uzimajući u obzir nacionalne uvjete i potrebe višedimenzionalan je zadatak. Jedan od izuzetno izazovnih primjera je harmonizacija veterinarskih i higijenskih zahteva za poljoprivredna gospodarstva i prerađivače hrane, vezano uz specifične karakteristike i usklađivanje s potencijalima malih poljoprivrednih gospodarstava. Primjeri iz Bugarske i Rumunjske pokazuju da pod pritiskom završetka određenih poglavlja pregovora, ovo uopće nije bilo razmatrano. Tek nakon pristupanja i nakon mjeseci protesta (Rumunjska) i lobiranja (Bugarska), nacionalni

32

Key Challenges to HNV Farming in the Western Balkans

Today the value of maintaining HNV farming for the multiple environmental goods such systems produce is rec-ognised. But HNV farming faces enormous challenges of socio-economic viability. As intensive farming expands and its yields increase and as incomes rise in the wider economy, it becomes harder to earn a living from HNV farming.

Socio-economic challenges

There is a very well developed informal economy dealing with land use, as well as (local) production and selling. This is based on traditional networks, but outside the official system. The very small scale farms are outside the key administrative, book-keeping, fiscal and inspection systems. These farms do not receive any subsidy. They are geared toward subsistence - non-market oriented, producing mostly for self-consumption. They have a special role in the current HNV farming situation and the way they will operate in the future may have a significant impact on it.

Outmigration and ageing of population. This is a significant challenge that is not unique to the Western Balkans. However, most of the countries from the region already have population density that is much lower than the EU-27 average. This is expected to continue in the future and lead to more

land abandonment, especially in the remote and mountainous regions.

In the entire region, poverty risk is higher for the rural population, who comprise the majority of the poor. Those living in rural areas are excluded not only in terms of material wellbeing (income and consumption), but also due to their isolation, especially in the mountainous regions, they often have inadequate access to current education, health and cultural provision.

Rural infrastructure and services are often very underdeveloped. In most countries, there is limited access to adequate infrastructure facilities (roads, water supply, electricity, etc.), which constitutes a considerable barrier to modernizing agriculture. This pushes young people to migrate to more urban areas, increases significantly the costs of production or of doing any other business including tourism, thus having a very strong overall negative impact.

Policy support challenges

Aligning policy support to small scale and potentially HNV farms in the process of EU accession. The countries are in a process of harmonizing legislation as well as policy support, as many of their recent support schemes are not in line with the EU legislation. There is a serious risk that in this process, support to HNV farming is pushed only to the smaller, environmentally-focused parts of rural development programmes (“Axis 2” type of measure), which are very positive but limited in scope and not entirely suited to the scale of the needs and conditions of the region. The positive examples such as support to shepherds’ salaries (MK) or investments for local-breed farms (SR) or for high-mountain pastures (ME) should be expanded throughout the region,

and not be lost due to perceived non-compatibility with EU rules.

Harmonization of national legislation with the EU acquis and reflecting the national conditions and needs is a multi-dimensional task. One of the very challenging examples is the harmonization of the veterinary and hygiene requirements for farms and food processors, and responding to the characteristics and adaptation potential of small scale farms.

Examples from Bulgaria and Romania show that in the urge for closing negotiation Chapters, these were not considered at all. Only after accession and after months of protests (Romania) and lobbying (Bulgaria), the national legislations were changed to reflect the national conditions.

33

Land eligibility for CAP support. This is a critical issue both from the perspective of the extensive use of pastures, common grazing and forest grazing as well as from the perspective of minimum size eligibility rules. Grasslands with a high proportion of shrub and/or trees are of particular biodiversity value and their continued sustainable grazing is especially important. Yet in many countries such land is excluded from CAP support, because of CAP rules and their interpretation.

It is essential that CAP rules are clarified and changed to ensure scrubby and woody pasture can receive payments without total clearance of non-herbaceous vegetation. Concurrently, Western Balkans states need to align their national policy frameworks to deal honestly with current land use realities and maximise the potential support from EU policies, such as the currently-unofficial use of forest land for livestock forage. They should seek guidance on IACS from countries such as Spain, with its similar vegetation and land use systems, rather than from northern European States.

An important added complication is that the small average farm size in most countries most prob-ably means that many farms will be under the minimum threshold for support which would have to be set by any new EU Member State.

Support for tourism and organic farming in HNV farming areas is often seen as a significant opportunity for future development. Many strategic policy documents express a link between the support for environmentally-friendly practices, organic farming and tourism and consider it as a good approach. However, in reality the structural weaknesses of these farms and regions rarely enable such integrated development on its own.

Development of tourism (eco, agro or rural) as well as organic farming is in fact a very serious challenge. It requires significant entrepreneurship and a variety of other skills as well as capital. The existence of favourable natural conditions is a good precondition but is never enough. The survival and the development of HNV farming has its own needs and requires specific and targeted support.

Shift of paradigm

For most young farmers in the region ‘extensive farming’ is not ‘serious’ enough. Despite the recent trend in Europe recognising the value and importance of small scale farms, in the region (as probably in many other regions as well) this type of farming is still considered old-fashioned and backward. The understanding and recognition of the environmental, social, cultural and economic values of the High Nature Value farming systems and the public goods provided by the farmers managing them is still very low or not existing at all. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that the EU, despite its recent statements in favour of semi-subsistence farming, has yet to show in practice how such appreciation can be turned into concrete support mechanisms.

Modernisation is not necessarily equal to intensification and certainly is not equal to

restructuring – in fact this simplistic notion is out of date. This is one of the key messages that needs to be understood by the farming community and the agriculture policy makers.

HNV farms often survive thanks to a low-cost, minimum risk, strategy. But as on all farms, in-vestments are needed to maintain and improve infrastructure, animal housing, machinery, and to evolve towards a more sustainable future. Farm-ers with limited incomes also tend to have limited capital, and face difficulties in accessing grant aid for capital investments, as schemes require the farmer to provide a proportion of the capital. Higher rates of grant should be allowable for HNV farms where these investments are justified on the basis of the environmental benefits the farms provide. Issues of capacity need to be addressed through the kind of ongoing support exemplified by the BSPB pilot project in Bulgaria (see Box 14).

zakoni su promjenjeni kako bi odražavali nacionalne uvjete.

Ostvarivanje prava na potporu iz Zajedničke •poljoprivredne politike. Ovo je kritično pitanje kako iz perspektive ekstenzivnog korištenja pašnjaka, zajedničke ispaše i šumske ispaše, tako i iz perspektive pravila minimalne veličine na koju se ostvaruje pravo. Travnjaci s velikom zastupljenošću grmlja i/ili drveća su od posebne vrijednosti i nastavljanje njihovog održivog napasanja je naročito važna za održavanje biološke raznolikosti. Ipak, u mnogim zemljama ovakva zemljišta su isključena iz potpore Zajedničke poljoprivredne politike, zbog pravila politike i njihovog tumačenja.

Nužno je da ZPP pravila budu razjašnjena i promjenjena kako bi se osigurala da pašnjaci s grmljem i šumski pašnjaci mogu dobiti potporu bez potpunog čišćenja drvenaste vegetacije. Istovremeno, zemlje Zapadnog Balkana moraju uskladiti svoje nacionalne političke okvire kako bi se otvoreno suočile s trenutnom stvarnošću korištenja zemljišta, kao što je trenutno neslužbeno korištenje šumskog zemljišta za stočnu ishranu, te maksimiziraju potencijalnu podršku od politika EU. Trebale bi tražiti smjernice o IACS-u od zemalja poput Španjolske, koje imaju sličnu vegetacijom i sustave korištenja zemljišta, radije nego od EU zemalja iz sjeverne Europe.

Jedna dodatna važna komplikacija je da mala prosječna veličina poljoprivrednih gospodarstava u većini zemalja najverovatnije znači da će mnoge gospodarstva biti ispod granice za potporu koju će svaka nova zemlja članica EU-a morati utvrditi.

Podrška turizmu i ekološkoj poljoprivredi u •poljoprivrednim područjima velike prirodne vrijednosti se vrlo često vidi kao značajna mogućnost za budući razvoj. Mnogi strateški politički dokumenti potiču vezu između podrške ekološki prihvatljivim praksama, ekološke poljoprivrede i turizma i smatraju to dobrim pristupom. Ipak, u stvarnosti, strukturalne slabosti ovih poljoprivrednih gospodarstava i regija rijetko omogućavaju ovakav integralni razvoj sam po sebi.

Razvoj turizma (eko, agro ili ruralni) kao i ekološka poljoprivreda je u stvari vrlo ozbiljan izazov. On zahtjeva značajne poduzetničke vještine i širok

spektar drugih vještina, kao i kapital. Postojanje povoljnih prirodnih uvjeta dobar je preduvjet, ali to nikad nije dovoljno. Opstanak i razvoj poljoprivrede velike prirodne vrijednosti ima svoje posebne potrebe i zahtjeva specifičnu i ciljanu podršku.

Promjena paradigme

Za većinu mladih poljoprivrednika u regiji •“ekstenzivna poljoprivreda” nije dovoljno “ozbiljna”. Unatoč najnovijim trendovima u Europi gde se prepoznaje vrijednost i važnost malih poljoprivrednih gospodarstava, u regiji (kao i u mnogim drugim regijama) ova vrsta poljoprivrede se još uvek smatra staromodnom i nazadnom. Razumijevanje i prepoznavanje ekoloških, socijalnih, kulturoloških i ekonomskih vrijednosti poljoprivrednih sustava velike prirodne vrijednosti i javnih dobara koje osiguravaju poljoprivrednici koji njima upravljaju, još uvijek je na vrlo niskom nivou ili uopće ne postoji. Istovremeno, mora se priznati da EU, uprkos nedavnim izjavama koje idu u prilog polunaturalnoj proizvodnji, tek treba u praksi dokazati da se takvo uvažavanje može pretvoriti u konkretne mehanizme potpore.

Modernizacija nije nužno jednaka intenzifikaciji •i svakako nije isto što i restrukturiranje – u stvari ova pojednostavljena shvaćanja su zastarjela. Ovo je jedna od ključnih poruka koju trebaju razumjeti kako poljoprivredni proizvođači tako i kreatori poljoprivredne politike.

Poljoprivredna gospodarstva velike prirodne vrijednosti često preživljavaju zahvaljujući jeftinim, minimalno rizičnim strategijama. Ali, kao i na svim poljoprivrednim gospodarstvima, investicije su potrebne kako bi se održala i unaprijedila infrastruktura, smještaj životinja, mehanizacija i osigurao razvitak prema nekoj puno održivijoj budućnosti. Poljoprivrednici s ograničenim prihodima najčešće imaju i ograničen kapital, te se suočavaju s poteškoćama dobivanju potpora kapitalnim investicijama, s obzirom da mjere zahtjevaju od poljoprivrednika da osigura dio kapitala. Više stope potpora trebale bi biti dostupne za poljoprivredna gospodarstva velike prirodne vrijednosti gdje su investicije opravdane ekološkim koristima koju ta gospodarstva osiguravaju. Problem ljudskih kapaciteta mora biti riješavan kroz neki oblik stalne podrške kao što je primjer BSPB pilot projekta u Bugarskoj (vidi Primler 14).

34

ConclusionsHNV farming is in decline. Farms are abandoned daily, and although some of the land may be taken over by other

farmers and managed in a similar way, much is left to natural succession, is directly afforested, or is converted to more intensive uses.

The main reason is that insufficient income is generated by low-intensity farming on what is generally poor land. The situation is compounded by the relatively low levels of support for this type of farming received from national support programmes (or even being envisaged under IPARD programmes), compared with more intensive farming on better land.

The central objective of the HNV concept is to shift support in favour of low-intensity farming across extensive areas of landscape. This does not require highly sophisticated exercises of mapping and indicators to be in place in order to introduce support to HNV farming.

The most widespread HNV farming involves low-intensity livestock-raising, with semi-natural pasture as an important part of the forage resource. Directing support to this type of farming is not complicated. There is already experience of this type of support in the countries of the region. Their main weaknesses are the insufficient and yearly set budgets which change from one year to next.

The countries from the region can learn from each other’s experience. A combination of the support for high mountain grazing (Montenegro), shepherds’ salaries (Macedonia) and investments in farms with local breeds (Serbia) with the advisory service of the BSPB project (Bulgaria) would make an almost perfect package of agri-environmental support for HNV farming in the Western Balkans.

Zaključci

Poljoprivreda velike prirodne vrijednosti je u opadanju. Poljoprivredna gospodarstva se svakodnevno napuštaju i, premda određeno zemljište mogu preuzeti drugi poljoprivrednici koji će njime upravljati na sličan način, većina zemljišta prepuštena je prirodnoj sukcesiji, izravno se pošumljava, ili se pretvara u puno intenzivnije korištenje.

Glavni razlog je to što niskointenzivna poljoprivreda na osigurava dovoljan prihod, na generalno lošem zemljištu. Situacija je dodatno složena zbog relativno niske potpore za ovaj tip poljoprivrede, iz nacionalnih programa podrške (ili čak koja je predviđena u okviru IPARD programa), u usporedbi s potporama intenzivnijoj poljoprivrednoj proizvodnji na boljem zemljištu.

Glavni cilj koncepta velike prirodne vrijednosti je preusmjeriti potporu u korist poljoprivredne proizvodnje niskog intenziteta u ekstenzivni krajobrazima. Ovo ne zahtjeva sofisticirane vježbe mapiranja i indikatore koji se mogu uspostaviti s ciljem uvođenja potpora poljoprivredi velike prirodne vrijednosti.

Najrasprostranjenija poljoprivredna proizvodnja velike prirodne vrijednosti uključuje ekstenzivno stočarstvo, s poluprirodnim pašnjacima kao bitnim dijelom izvora stočne hrane. Usmjeravanje podrške ovom tipu poljoprivrede nije tako komplicirano. Iskustvo ovog tipa podrške već postoji u zemljama regije. Njihove glavne slabosti su nedostatni budžeti koji se određuju na godišnjem nivou, a koji se mijenjaju iz godine u godinu.

Zemlje regije mogu učiti iz iskustava jedni od drugih. Kombinacija potpore za ispašu na visokim planinskim pašnjacima (Crna Gora), plaćama pastira (Makedonija) i investicijama za poljoprivredna gospodarstva s lokal-nim pasminama (Srbija) sa savjetodavnom službom BSPB projekta (Bugarska) mogla bi stvoriti gotovo idealan paket poljoprivredno-okolišne potpore poljoprivredi velike prirodne vrijednosti na Zapadnom Balkanu.

34

ConclusionsHNV farming is in decline. Farms are abandoned daily, and although some of the land may be taken over by other

farmers and managed in a similar way, much is left to natural succession, is directly afforested, or is converted to more intensive uses.

The main reason is that insufficient income is generated by low-intensity farming on what is generally poor land. The situation is compounded by the relatively low levels of support for this type of farming received from national support programmes (or even being envisaged under IPARD programmes), compared with more intensive farming on better land.

The central objective of the HNV concept is to shift support in favour of low-intensity farming across extensive areas of landscape. This does not require highly sophisticated exercises of mapping and indicators to be in place in order to introduce support to HNV farming.

The most widespread HNV farming involves low-intensity livestock-raising, with semi-natural pasture as an important part of the forage resource. Directing support to this type of farming is not complicated. There is already experience of this type of support in the countries of the region. Their main weaknesses are the insufficient and yearly set budgets which change from one year to next.

The countries from the region can learn from each other’s experience. A combination of the support for high mountain grazing (Montenegro), shepherds’ salaries (Macedonia) and investments in farms with local breeds (Serbia) with the advisory service of the BSPB project (Bulgaria) would make an almost perfect package of agri-environmental support for HNV farming in the Western Balkans.

SadržajUvod ............................................................................................................................................................... 1

Biološka raznolikost i poljoprivreda velike prirodne vrijednosti

na Zapadnom Balkanu ............................................................................................................................ 2

Ruralna područja na Zapadnom Balkanu ......................................................................................... 5

Poljoprivredna proizvodnja velike prirodne vrijednosti na Zapadnom Balkanu ............... 9

Politika i podrška poljoprivredi velike prirodne vrijednosti .....................................................27

Ključni izazovi za poljoprivredu velike prirodne vrijednosti

na Zapadnom Balkanu ..........................................................................................................................30

Zaključci ......................................................................................................................................................33

Skraćenice

AL AlbanijaBA Bosna i HercegovinaCAP Zajednička poljoprivredna politika (Common Agricultural Policy)CLC Corine zemljišni pokrov (Corine Land Cover)EAFRD Europski poljoprivredni fond za ruralni razvoj (European Agriculture Fund\ for Rural Development)EEA Europska agencija za zaštitu okoliša (European Environmental Agency)EU Europska unija (European Union)HNV Velika prirodna vrijednost (High Nature Value)HR HrvatskaIACS Integrirani administrativni i kontrolni sustav (Integrated Administration and Control System)IBA Područja važna za ptice (Important Bird Area)IPA Područja značajna za �oru (Important Plant Area)IPARD Instrument predpristupne pomoći za ruralni razvoj (Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance for Rural Development)GDP Bruto domaći proizvod (Gross Domestic Product)JRC Zajednički istraživački centar (Joint Research Center)LPIS Sustav za identi�kaciju zemljišnih čestica (Land Parcel Identi�cation System) LU Uvjetno grlo (Livestock Unit)ME Crna GoraMK Makedonija BJR (Macedonia FYR)NGO Nevladine organizacije (Non-governmental Organization)PBA Primarna područja za leptire (Primary Butter�y Areas)RDP Program ruralnog razvoja (Rural Development Programme)SR SrbijaUAA Korišteno poljoprivredno zemljište (Utilized Agricultural Area)UNSCR Rezolucija Savjeta sigurnosti Ujedinjenih Naroda (United Nations Security Council Resolution)XKV Kosovo pod UNSCR 1244/99

Korisni linkovi

Europski forum za zaštitu prirode i pastoralizam za Jugoistočnu Europu (European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism for South Eastern Europe): http://www.see.efncp.org/ Europski forum za zaštitu prirode i pastoralizam (European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism): http://www.efncp.org/ Europska agencija za zaštitu okoliša (European Environmental Agency): http://www.eea.europa.eu/ http://reports.eea.europa.eu/report_2004_1/enZajednički istraživački centar (Joint Research Center) : http://agrienv.jrc.it/index.htm http://agrienv.jrc.it/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdfEuropska komisija DG poljoprivrede (European Commission DG Agriculture): http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rurdev/eval/hnv/guidance_en.pdf

40

Buša

na is

paši

na po

luprir

odnim

stan

ištim

a, Sr

bija -

Suza

na Đ

orđe

vić

Izdavanje ove publikacije �nancirao je DG za zaštitu okoliša (DG Environment). Izražena mišljenja su mišljenja autora i nisu nužno službeni stav �nancijera.

www.efncp.orgwww.see.efncp.org Email: [email protected]



Proiz

vodn

ja sij

ena u

Mak

edon

iji - P

etar

Ando

nov

Mreža poljoprivrede velike prirodne vrijednosti za Jugoistočnu Europe izvan EU-a

Ciljevi Mreže poljoprivrede velike prirodne vrijednosti u Jugoistočnoj Europi su:

Pružiti forum za povezivanje i razmjenu iskustva između zemalja jugoistočne Europe,kao i i između EU 1. zemalja i one koje nisu članice EU-a;

Predstavi informacije o trenutnom stanju identi�kacije poljoprivredne proizvodne velike prirodne vrijednosti 2. i potpore u regiji;

Ilustrirati poljoprivrednu proizvodnju velike prirodne vrijednosti u regiji s primjerima i studijama slučaja;3.

Identi�cirati zajednički interes i razvoj zajedničkih aktivnosti za poljoprivrednu proizvodnju velike pririodne 4. vrijednosti u regiji tijekom 2011. godine i dalje.

Kontakti mreže poljoprivrede velike prirodne vrijednosti Jugoistočne Europe: Yanka Kazakova i Vyara Stefanova [email protected] [email protected]



Autorice: Yanka Kazakova i Vyara Stefanova, EFNCP Bugarska, 2010Vrijedan doprinos dali su Gwyn Jones i Guy Beaufoy, EFNCP

Izvori fotogra�ja: Većinu fotogra�ja ustupili su sudionici sastanka Poljoprivredna proizvodnja velike prirodne vrijednosti u Jugoistočnoj Europi (HNVF SEE) u So�ji - 6-8 prosinca, 2010

Prijevod: Prijevod: Milivoj Mesić, prof. i SonjaKaroglan Todorović

Europski forum za zaštitu prirode i pastoralizam (The European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism) (EFNCP) okuplja ekologe, zaštitare prirode, poljoprivrednike i kreatore politika.

Ova nepro�tna mreža postoji kako bi povećala razumjevanje o velikim prirodnim i kulturnim vrijednostima određenih poljoprivrednih sustava i da informira o radu na njihovom održavanju.

poljoprivredna proizvodnja velike prirodne vrijednosti na zapadnom

Documents