poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na zapadnom

36
Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom Balkanu: Trenutni status i ključni izazovi – Okvirni dokument Hay making in Macedonia - Petar Andonov

Upload: vudung

Post on 08-Dec-2016

234 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

Ova publikacija je �nansirana od strane DG životne sredine (DG Environment). Izražena mišljenja su mišljenja autora i nisu nužno zvaničan stav �nansijera.

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

Poljoprivredna mreža visoke prirodne vrednosti za Jugoistočnu Evrope koja nije EU

Poljoprivredna mreža visoke prirodne vrednosti u Jugoistočnoj Evropi ima za cilj da:

Pruži forum za povezivanje i razmenu iskustva između zemalja jugoistočne Evrope, i između EU i zemalja koje 1. nisu EU;

Predstavi informacije o trenutnom stanju identi�kacije poljoprivredne proizvodne visoke prirodne vrednosti 2. i podrške u regionu;

Ilustruje poljoprivrednu proizvodnju visoke prirodne vrednosti u regionu sa primerima i studijama slučaja;3.

Identi�kuje zajednički interes i razvoj zajedničkih aktivnosti za poljoprivrednu proizvodnju visoke pririodne 4. vrednosti u regionu tokom 2011. godine i dalje.

Kontakti mreže visoke prirodne vrednosti Jugoistočne Evrope: Yanka Kazakova i Vyara Stefanova [email protected] [email protected]

Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom Balkanu:

Trenutni status i ključni izazovi – Okvirni dokument

Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom Balkanu:

Trenutni status i ključni izazovi – Okvirni dokument

Autorke: Yanka Kazakova i Vyara Stefanova, EFNCP Bugarska, 2010Značajan doprinos od strane Gwyn Jones i Guy Beaufoy, EFNCFotogra�je zasluga: Većina fotogra�ja je obezbeđena od strane učesnika na sastanku Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti u Jugoistočnoj Evropi (HNVF SEE) u So�ji - 6-8 decembar, 2010Prevod: Suzana Živković (Mena Group)

Evropski forum za zaštitu prirode i nomadskog stočarstva (The European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism) (EFNCP) okuplja ekologe, zaštitnike prirode, farmere i kreatore politika.

Ova nepro�tna mreža postoji kako bi povećala razumevanje o očuvanju visoke prirodne vrednosti i kulturnih vrednosti određenih poljoprivrednih sistema i da informiše rad na njihovom održavanju.

Hay

mak

ing

in M

aced

onia

- P

etar

And

onov

Page 2: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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

Sadržaj

Uvod. ....................................................................................................................................................3Biodiverzitet i poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom Balkanu ..................................................................................................................4Ruralna područja na Zapadnom Balkanu ...............................................................................7Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne na Zapadnom Balkanu ...................... .11Politika i podrška poljoprivrednoj proizvodnji visoke prirodne vrednost ............... 29 Ključni izazovi poljoprivredne proizvodnje visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom Balkanu ............................................................................................................... 32Zaključak ......................................................................................................................................... 34 Skraćenice

AL AlbanijaBA Bosna i HercegovinaCAP Zajednička poljoprivredna politika (Common Agricultural Policy)CLC Corine zemljišni pokrivač (Corine Land Cover)EAFRD Evropski poljoprivredni fond za ruralni razvoj (European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development)EEA Evropska agencija za zaštitu životne sredine (European Environmental Agency)EU Evropska unija (European Union)HNV Visoka prirodna vrednost (High Nature Value)HR HrvatskaIACS IIntegralni administrativni i kontrolni sistem (Integrated Administration and Control System)IBA Značajna područja za ptice (Important Bird Area)IPA Značajna područja za biljke (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 Sistem identi�kacije zemljišnih parcela (Land Parcel Identi�cation System) LU Jedinica stoke (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 Udeo korišćenog poljoprivrednog područja (Utilized Agricultural Area)UNSCR Rezolucija Saveta bezbednosti Ujedinjenih Nacija (United Nations Security Council Resolution)XKV Kosovo pod UNSCR 1244/99

Korisni linkovi

Evropski forum o zaštiti prirode i nomadsko stočarstvo za jugo-istočnu Evropu (European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism for South Eastern Europe): http://www.see.efncp.org/ Evropski forum o zaštiti prirode i nomadsko stočarstvo (European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism): http://www.efncp.org/ Evropska agencija za zaštitu životne sredine (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.pdfEvropska komisija DG poljoprivrede (European Commission DG Agriculture): http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rurdev/eval/hnv/guidance_en.pdf

40

Bush

a ca

ttle

gra

zing

on s

emi-n

atur

al g

rass

land

, Ser

bia

- Su

zana

Djo

rdje

vic

Page 3: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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

Države Zapadnog Balkana su sve u procesu pristupanja Evropskoj Uniji. Hrvatska, Makedonija i Crna Gora imaju status država kandidata. Albanija, Srbija, Bosna i Hercegovina i Kosovo pod UNSCR 1244/99 su potencijalne države kandidati, sa perspektivom da postanu članice EU kada ispune postavljene uslove.

Tokom predpristupnog perioda, države kandidati prolaze kroz proces provere celokupnog nacionalnog zakonodavstva i politike sa željom da ih usklade sa acquis communautaire EU. Treba takođe da usklade svoje institucije i ekonomsku politiku, ojačaju vladavinu prava i razviju tržišno orijentisanu ekonomiju.

Ovo je, u određenoj meri, pokretna meta jer se zakoni i politike EU konstanto razvijaju. Sedmogodišnji ciklus budžeta EU često omogućuje pokretačku snagu za ove promene, kao što se može videti iz trenutnih razgovora o izgledu Zajedničke poljoprivredne politike (Common Agricultural Policy - CAP) nakon 2013. godine.

Zajednička poljoprivredna politika i politike zaštite životne sredine su ključni elementi acquis communautaire i povezani su na složene i ponekad protivrečne načine.

U stvari, EU ne uspeva da ispuni ciljeve

zaštite životne sredine koji su usko povezani sa poljoprivrednom proizvodnjom i upotrebom zemljišta, kao što je cilj zaustavljanja opadanja biodiverziteta do 2010. godine. Ključna aktivnost za postizanje ovog cilja je održavanje onih tipova poljoprivredne proizvodnje koji

neguju širok spektar životinjskog i biljnog sveta jer nisu intenzivirani do nivoa većinske „industrionalizovane“ poljoprivredne proizvodnje. To je poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti (High Nature Value - HNV farming).

Koncept poljoprivredne proizvodnje visoke prirodne vrednosti nije komplikovan – on naglašava činjenicu da opšti sistemi poljoprivredne proizvodnje koji podržavaju visok stepen biodiverziteta zahtevaju ciljane instrumente kako bi osigurali održivost. Ovaj tip poljoprivredne proizvodnje se uglavnom zasniva na polu-prirodnim pašnjacima i livadama – ponekad staništa Natura 2000, a ponekad ne – kojima širom Evrope preti napuštanje. Očuvanje staništa poljoprivrednih zemljišta Natura 2000 ima direktne koristi od podrške poljoprivrednoj proizvodnji visoke prirodne vrednosti, kako u određenim područjima visoke prirodne vrednosti, tako i na širim seoskim predelima. Zaštita vodećih staništa se tako kombinuje sa podrškom relevantnim poljoprivrednim sistemima na nivou predela.

Ovaj okvirni dokument ima za cilj da istakne neke od ključnih karakteristika poljoprivredne proizvodnje visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom Balkanu, a u okviru ograničenja raspoloživih podataka. Ovim se ne tvrdi da je ovaj dokument iscrpan, već ga treba sagledati kao polaznu tačku za dalji rad na poljoprivrednoj proizvodnji visoke prirodne vrednosti i njenih posebnih potreba u zemljama Zapadnog Balkana, kako bi mogle da se razviju efektivne politike koje bi imale nekog efekta za poljoprivredne proizvođače visoke prirodne vrednosti na terenu.

Uvod

Page 4: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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

Zapadni Balkan, sa svojim izuzetnim bogatstvom biljnog i životinjskog sveta, jedan je od najbogatijih delova Evrope u pogledu biodiverziteta. Postoji veliki broj endemskih vrsta i staništa, od kojih su mnogi od globalnog ili evropskog značaja za očuvanje. Gustina naseljenosti različitih vrsta životinja, ptica i riba navedenih u Crvenoj listi ugroženih vrsta (po površini) je dva do četiri puta veća nego u 15 starijih zemalja članica EU (EEA, 2010).

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

pašnjaka, slatkovodnih močvara i karstnih terena. Ovo prirodno bogatstvo je priznato kao „zeleno zlato“ jugoistočne Evrope (Plantlife) i „zelena pluća“ Evrope (EEA).

Mnogi od ovih predela i staništa stvoreni su usled vekovima stare prakse ekstenzivne ispaše i nisko-ulaznog uzgoja malog obima širom Balkana. Povezanost između poljoprivrede visoke prirodne vrednosti, biodiverziteta i tradicionalnih predela je izuzetno jaka. Veliki broj budućih staništa Natura 2000 nalaziće se u poljoprivrednim oblastima - to su primeri poljoprivrednog zemljišta visoke prirodne vrednosti. Direktive EU o pticama i staništima zahtevaju da se ova staništa održavaju u povoljnom statusu očuvanja. Postizanje toga će, u praksi, zavisiti od činjenice da poljoprivrednici nastavljaju da žive i rade u poljoprivrednim

regionima visoke prirodne vrednosti.

Smanjenja koja su se dešavala u poslednje vreme, a koja se tiču broja ruralnog stanovništva i broja stoke, dovela su do napuštanja zemlje, naročito u planinskim područjima. To šteti biodiverzitetu pošto se smanjuju površine poljoprivrednog zemljišta visoke prirodne vrednosti, a tako i mozaik staništa za divlji životinjski i biljni svet. U isto vreme, intenzivna poljoprivredna proizvodnja je u ekspanziji, što takođe preti biodiverzitetu.

Vlade u regionu su preduzele korake da se zaštite neke ključne vrste i staništa. Područja pod zvaničnim nacionalnim (zaštićena područja) i međunarodnim oznakama (Ramsarska, Emerald) su, poslednjih nekoliko godina u porastu. Pored toga, preduzeti su početni koraci za uspostavljanje mreže Natura 2000 u većini zemalja.

Pokrivenost ključnih područja biodiverziteta, kao što su značajna područja za ptice, područja značajna za zaštitu biljaka i primarna područja za leptire se takođe povećava što se više podataka prikuplja. Ova područja nisu pod pravnom oznakom, međutim, ona predstavljaju mesta od globalnog značaja za očuvanje biodiverziteta.

Biodiverzitet i poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom Balkanu

Page 5: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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

Analiza njihovog statusa i trendova otkriva dva značajna problema:

(1) Manje od polovine određenih Ključnih područja biodiverziteta su pod zakonskom zaštitom u regionu. Istovremeno, skoro 90% područja značajnih za zaštitu biljaka (IPA) treba kvalifikovati kao oblasti od evropskog značaja, kao što je definisano Direktivom EU o staništima i/ili Bernskom konvencijom (Radford i Odé, 2009).

(2) Staništa travnatih površina su izuzetno važna za očuvanje biodiverziteta u ovom regionu. Ona se pojavljuju u više od 70% staništa područja značajnih za zaštitu biljaka (IPA), i dominantna su staništa u 50% područja. Sa ili bez zakonske zaštite u budućnosti, ova staništa su stvorena i održavaju se preko tradicionalnih poljoprivrednih praksi u regionu. Stoga, kritički aspekt za njihovo očuvanje je nastavak poljoprivredne proizvodnje visoke prirodne vrednosti.

Osim toga, ispaša i poljoprivredni sistemi niskog intenziteta obezbeđuju visoko cenjene usluge ekosistema uz biodiverzitet i tradicionalne pejzaže, kao što su sprečavanje požara i upravljanje slivom. Njihovo održavanje, u velikoj meri, pruža osnovne mogućnosti za floru i faunu da se prilagode klimatskim promenama, na način na koji zaštićena područja to sama ne mogu.

Trenutna politika ne odgovara u dovoljnoj meri uslugama ekosistema. Štaviše, kako ističe Komisija, one neće biti podržane samo od strane mera za očuvanje biodiverziteta: visok nivo očuvanja vrsta i staništa je samo jedna ključna komponenta, ali mnoge usluge se pružaju izvan zaštićenih područja. Takav pristup bi zahtevao obnovu ekosistema u najvećoj mogućoj meri kako bi se ojačala njihova otpornost i održale ključne usluge koje one pružaju, dok se istovremeno postižu ciljevi očuvanja i omogućuje se zemljama članicama da se prilagode klimatskim promenama.

Jedan od najpozitivnijih razvoja u 2010. godini bilo je eksplicitno priznanje, u mnogim dokumentima Komisije, da bi između ovih politika trebalo da postoji bliska povezanost i da jedan cilj politike Zajednice treba da podstiče aktivnosti koje integrišu ove ciljeve. To je osnova inicijative za Zelenu infrastrukturu.

U seoskim životnim sredinama postoje dva načina upotrebe zemljišta koja mogu to postići - šume, uključujući održivo upravljanje šumama, kao i ekološki održiva poljoprivredna proizvodnja. Na intenzivnijem delu spektra poljoprivredne proizvodnje, to znači podršku organskim i sličnim sistemima, ali na ekstenzivnom delu spektra to znači učiniti da poljoprivredni sistemi visoke prirodne vrednosti budu društveno i ekonomski održivi. U slučaju biodiverziteta i pejzaža, ovi sistemi visoke prirodne vrednosti zaista pružaju veći nivo usluga zaštite životne sredine nego organska proizvodnja, i presudno obezbeđuju povezivanje kada su prisutni na nivou pejzaža.

Page 6: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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.

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

Rural Areas in the Western BalkansPrimer 1 Područja značajna za zaštitu biljaka (IPA) na Balkanskom poluostrvu

Područja značajna za zaštitu biljaka (IPA) su najvažnija mesta na svetu za raznolikost biljnih vrsta. Identifikovana su na nacionalnom nivou koristeći međunarodno standardizovane kriterijume; prisustvo ugroženih vrsta, ugroženih staništa i bogatstvo vrsta. Područja značajna za zaštitu biljaka (IPA) nisu pravne oznake, ali obezbeđuju informacije koje pomažu da se odredi prioritet mesta gde bi se radilo očuvanje.

Balkansko poluostrvo sadrži najbogatiju floru od bilo kog regiona u Evropi. Poseduje veći broj vrsta nego bilo koji drugi evropski region, uključujući oko 1800 endemskih vrsta vaskularnih biljaka (rastu samo na ovom poluostrvu i nigde drugde u svetu). Ovo je bila osnova za identifikaciju 398 područja značajnih za zaštitu biljaka u šest balkanskih zemalja, što pokriva više od 4 miliona hektara zemljišta. Ova područja, značajna za zaštitu biljaka, sadrže različite mozaike staništa, kojima dominiraju šume i pašnjaci.

Poljoprivredne prakse već 10 000 godina utiču na vegetaciju i pejzaž Balkana; spaljivanje vegetacije, ispaša, seča šuma i obrađivanje zemljišta su doprineli raznovrsnosti tipova vegetacije i povezanih vrsta. Stoga, staništa travnatih površina se javljaju u više od 70% područja značajnih za zaštitu biljaka, a dominantna su staništa u 50%.

Napuštanje zemljišta ili smanjenje upravljanja zemljištem je treća najvažnija pretnja (posle promene upotrebe zemljišta i loših šumarskih praksi ), i utiče na više od jedne trećine svih područja značajnih za zaštitu biljaka. Ovo dovodi do gubitka staništa travnatih površina bogatih u pogledu biodiverziteta pošto se ona preinačuju u grube travnjake/šipražje kada se ispaša smanjuje. Ovo je naročito vidljivo u Hrvatskoj, gde za 34% područja značajnih za zaštitu biljaka preti napuštanje poljoprivrednih zemljišta bogatih cvećem.

Adekvatno ciljani podsticaj za održivo upravljanje šumskim i poljoprivrednim zemljištem je hitno potreban vlasnicima, korisnicima i upravnicima zemljišta, od kojih će očuvanje područja značajnih za zaštitu biljaka na kraju zavisiti. Prilika za privatne vlasnike zemljišta (koji trenutno poseduju zemlju unutar 53% područja značajnih za zaštitu biljaka u regionu) da zarade održivi prihod upravljajući zemljištem u korist biodiverziteta, biće od suštinskog značaja za sprečavanje potencijalno katastrofalnih promena u upotrebi zemljišta.

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

Primer 2 Uticaj klimatskih promena na Zapadnom Balkanu

Do 2005. godine, pan-evropski region (tj. uključujući države Istočne Evrope, Kavkaza i Centralne Azije) doživeo je porast temperature od 1,4°C više od pred-industrijskog nivoa: više od globalnog proseka. Južna Evropa, uključujući i Zapadni Balkan, iskusila je veće zagrevanje od ostatka pan-evropskog regiona.

Očekuje se da će klimatske promene na Zapadnom Balkanu doneti veće letnje temperature i manje padavina. To bi moglo imati dalekosežne uticaje na poljoprivredu u regionu tako što bi povećalo potrebu za navodnjavanjem, smanjilo proizvodnju useva i eventualno promenilo opseg useva. Ove promene će imati širi uticaj na ekosisteme u regionu: umanjen protok voda će uticati na ekosistem slatkih voda, a u planinskim područjima više prosečne temperature će promeniti liniju graničnih šuma naviše. Širom ekosistema, klimatske promene bi mogle da podstaknu invazivne vrste. Prema jednoj proceni, do 25% endemskih biljnih vrsta u južnoj Evropi može nestati.

Biodiverzitet na Zapadnom Balkanu je takođe pod pretnjom. Međutim, postoji nedostatak informacija i analiza o povezanosti između ekoloških promena na Zapadnom Balkanu i globalnih ekoloških promena, odnosno klimatskih promena i gubitka biodiverziteta.

Izvor: EEA, 2010, Ekološki trendovi i perspektive na Zapadnom Balkanu (Environmental trends and perspectives in the Western Balkans)

Page 7: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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.

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

Rural Areas in the Western Balkans

Ukupna površina zemalja Zapadnog Balkana iznosi 264 462 km2 (što iznosi 6% teritorije EU). Broj stanovnika iznosi 26,3 miliona, od kojih 50% živi u ruralnim područjima. Prosečna gustina naseljenosti od 89,2 stanovnika po km2 je mnogo manja nego u EU (114,4).

Ruralna područja na Zapadnom BalkanuRelativno niska gustina naseljenosti je uočljiva

u planinskim i karstnim oblastima Crne Gore (45,2), Bosne i Hercegovine (75,1) i Hrvatske (78,5). Ovi regioni su izloženi značajnom procesu starenja i depopulacije. Generalno gledano, naselja su mala i brojna; postoji nekoliko velikih nenaseljenih područja. Zajednički trend u svim zemljama regiona je migracija iz ruralnih područja u urbane i priobalna područja, kao i u inostranstvo.

Tabela 1 Površina i stanovništvo u državama Zapadnog Balkana

DržavaUkupna površina

(km2)

Stanovništvo Gustina populacije (po km2)Ukupno(‘000) Ruralno (%)

Albanija 28 750 3 153 54 109,7Bosna i Hercegovina 51 209 3 844 52 75,1Hrvatska 56 542 4 441 44 78,5Kosovo (UNSCR 1244) 10 887 2 070 65 190,1Makedonija 25 713 2 042 43 79,4Crna Gora 13 812 625 40 45,2Srbija 77 474 7 382 55 95,3Celokupan Zapadni Balkan 264 462 23614 50 89,2EU-27 4 308 406 492090 56 114,4

Izvor: DG Poljoprivredne državne datoteke (Agri country files)

Upotreba poljoprivrednog zemljišta na Zapadnom Balkanu

Zemljište koje se koristi za poljoprivrednu proizvodnju zauzima gotovo polovinu celokupne teritorije Zapadnog Balkana. Pašnjaci i livade pokrivaju skoro 19%, dok obradive površine i stalni usevi pokrivaju 29% područja.

Postoje značajne varijacije između zemalja zbog različitih predela i klime regiona, koji se često značajno menjaju na veoma kratkim rastojanjima, uzrokujući veliku raznovrsnost useva i zemljoradnje. U ravnicama i rečnim dolinama upotreba zemljišta je intenzivnija, a žitarice su

glavni usev. Na nižim obroncima planinskih područja su voćnjaci i vinogradi, dok se planinske oblasti koriste za stočarstvo, naročito uzgoj ovaca i koza. Tradicionalni maslinjaci se gaje duž jadranske obale.

Tako se u Crnoj Gori samo 5% ukupne teritorije koristi za stalne i obradive useve, a 37% za pašnjake i livade. U Hrvatskoj, upotreba zemljišta je gotovo suprotna, pošto se 22% teritorije koristi za obradive i stalne useve, dok pašnjaci i livade pokrivaju 9%. Međutim, kao što je objašnjeno u Primeru 3, ova statistika ponekad može da odmogne, ili čak dovede u zabludu, naročito u slučaju mediteranskih pašnjaka, koji su često pod šipražjem ili čak šumom.

Page 8: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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.

Primer 3 Neka opažanja po pitanju zvaničnih podataka o upotrebi zemljišta u poljoprivredi

Statistika upotrebe poljoprivrednog zemljišta u zemljama zapadnog Balkana je daleko od potpune. Postoje varijacije u podacima u zavisnosti od nacionalnih podataka – nacionalni statistički podaci, katastarski registar i/ili nacionalni popis (tamo gde su se oni sprovodili).

Glavni izazov je u pravljenju razlike između poljoprivrednog područja i korišćenog poljoprivrednog područja. Nacionalni statistički podaci najčešće izveštavaju o područjima koja su potencijalno dostupna za poljoprivrednu proizvodnju (u okviru fondova za poljoprivredno zemljište), a ne o zemljištu koje se stvarno koristi za poljoprivrednu proizvodnju.

Jedan drugi povezan i takođe vrlo važan izazov je prikupljanje podataka o neiskorišćenom poljoprivrednom zemljištu: nije lako napraviti razliku između ugarenog zemljišta, nekultivisanog zemljišta i napuštenog zemljišta.

I na kraju, ali ne i manje važno, šume i šumski pašnjaci se obično koriste za ispašu u čitavom ovom regionu, ali nijedna od zemalja ne pruža podatke o područjima koja su predmet ovih ispaša. Ovo je još gore u mediteranskoj zoni, u kojoj se registrovane šume često sastoje od šipražja različitih tipova, zajednica vegetacije koje se koriste za ispašu, kao i brstenje koje se obavlja već hiljadama godina.

Slika 1 Glavna upotreba zemljišta po državi (procenti i hektari)

Page 9: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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.

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

Glavni razlozi mogu biti vezani za različite metodologije i periode prikupljanja podataka. Pored toga, predstavljeni podaci o korišćenju zemljišta ne obuhvataju urbane i druge oblasti kao što su vodna tela. Ipak, veličina varijacija je veoma značajna. Moguće je da je jedan važan faktor veoma široko korišćenje zemljišta u većem delu regiona, a naročito struktura mozaika koji karakteriše mnoge zone. Slabosti nacionalne

statistike koje su navedene u Primeru 3 mogu takođe biti značajne.

Neka od intenzivno obrađivanih zemljišta se nalaze na rubu napuštanja i u praksi neka od njih su već napuštena. To je u izvesnoj meri prikazano kroz kategoriju neobrađenog zemljišta, što predstavlja 6% od ukupnog korišćenja zemljišta, ili nekorišćenja.

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

Slika 2 Upotreba zemljišta i zemljišni pokrivač na Zapadnom Balkanu

Page 10: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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 Prosečna veličina gazdinstva i zemljišta na Zapadnom Balkanu (ha)

Država Prosečna veličina gazdinstva (ha) Prosečna veličina zemljišta (ha)Albanija 1.1 0.3Bosna i Hercegovina Nema podataka Nema podatakaHrvatska 2.4 0.3Kosovo (UNSCR 1244) 2.2 0.27Makedonija 2.5 do 2.8 0.3 do 0.5Crna Gora Nema podataka Nema podatakaSrbija 3.6 0.3

Izvor: Različiti izvori podataka sa nacionalnog nivoa

Struktura farmi

Udeo poljoprivrede u ekonomijama zemalja Zapadnog Balkana (izmereno po BDP-u) je u opadanju od 2000. godine. Međutim, celokupna važnost ostaje visoka zbog velikog broja ljudi koji su angažovani u poljoprivredi.

Postoji veoma veliki broj malih farmi sa višebrojnim parcelama u celom regionu. U Makedoniji, 40% gazdinstava su manja od 2 hektara, dok je na Kosovu pod Rezolucijom UN 1244-99 skoro 80% gazdinstava veličine 0,5-2,0 hektara. Čak tri četvrtine svih hrvatskih porodičnih gazdinstava je manje od 3 hektara. Učešće gazdinstava manjih od 5 hektara je 84% u Bosni i Hercegovini. Ne čudi onda činjenica da

je prosečna veličina gazdinstva u Albanija samo 1,1 hektar, a u Srbiji samo 3,6 hektara. Prosečna veličina pojedinačnih parcela je 0,3 hektara.

Ovi proseci, međutim, ne uključuju obradiva zemljišta koja se koriste od strane poljoprivrednika pod neformalnim ugovorima, niti zajedničke pašnjake. U Crnoj Gori ima oko 155 000 hektara pašnjaka (33% celokupnog poljoprivrednog zemljišta) čiji je vlasnički status nejasan (Arcotrass Konzorcijum 2006).

Neformalni ugovori za korišćenje zemljišta koriste se u svim zemljama regiona. Njih je veoma teško otkriti u zvaničnim statistikama. Ti „skriveni“ privatni aranžmani mogu biti od izuzetnog značaja za kreiranje politike.

Page 11: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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

U ovom izveštaju koristimo zajednički termin „Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti“ (‘High Nature Value (HNV) farming’) koji obuhvata poljoprivredna zemljišta visoke prirodne vrednosti i poljoprivredne sisteme visoke prirodne vrednosti, gde se poljoprivredno zemljište visoke prirodne vrednosti u ovom

Definicija poljoprivrednog zemljišta visoke prirodne vrednosti

„Poljoprivredno zemljište visoke prirodne vrednosti sastoji se od onih područja u Evropi gde je poljoprivreda glavni način (najčešće dominantni) upotrebe zemljišta i gde ta poljoprivreda podržava, ili je povezana sa velikom raznovrsnošću vrsta i staništa ili prisustvom vrsta koje su od izuzetne važnosti za očuvanje u Evropi, ili i jedno i drugo“ (Andersen et al, 2003)

Ova definicija poljoprivrednog zemljišta visoke prirodne vrednosti razvijena je za, i prihvaćena je od strane Evropske agencije za zaštitu životne sredine (EEA). Identifikovana su tri glavna tipa poljoprivrednog zemljišta visoke prirodne vrednosti (bez jasno određenih granica između njih):

Tip 1: Poljoprivredno zemljište sa visokim udelom polu-prirodne ili prirodne vegetacije

Tip 2: Poljoprivredno zemljište sa mozaikom staništa i upotrebom zemljišta niskog intenziteta

Tip 3: Poljoprivredno zemljište koje podržava retke vrste ili visok udeo evropskih i svetskih populacija

Tokom više godina (2003-2007), Zajednički istraživački centar i Evropska agencija za zaštitu životne sredine (JRC/EEA) zajedno su radili na poboljšanju identifikacije potencijalnih oblasti poljoprivrednog zemljišta visoke prirodne vrednosti na nivou EU. To je učinjeno na osnovu pretpostavki o povezanosti pojedinih tipova zemljišnog pokrivača i intenziteta poljoprivredne proizvodnje i prisustva visokih prirodnih vrednosti. To su bili mapirani crteži u skupovima podataka dostupnih na nivou EU: Corine podaci

Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom Balkanu

kontekstu definiše u odnosu na zemljišni pokrivač visoke prirodne vrednosti (npr. pašnjaci, voćnjaci), dok se poljoprivredni sistemi visoke prirodne vrednosti odnose na poljoprivredne prakse na tom zemljištu (npr. ispaša, košenje, orezivanje) koji su dinamični i menjaju se kroz vreme.

Poljoprivredno zemljište visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom Balkanu

o zemljišnom pokrivaču, Natura 2000 odabrane lokacije koje sadrže staništa koja zavise od ekstenzivnih poljoprivrednih praksi i značajna područja za ptice (IBA) imenovana radi njihovog značaja za „ptice na poljoprivrednim zemljištima“ i koja još uvek nisu određena pod Natura 2000. Pored toga, podaci o mnoštvu populacija ptica i leptira, kao i drugi relevantni nacionalni i transnacionalni izvori podataka bili su uključeni kadgod je to bilo moguće.

To se sada uglavnom naziva „EEA pristup“ pri identifikovanju poljoprivrednog zemljišta visoke prirodne vrednosti i neke zemlje ga koriste kao osnovu za identifikovanje na nacionalnom nivou (Bugarska 2007. godine, kao i Srbija 2010. godine). Slabosti pristupa koji zavisi od podataka na nivou EU su jasni. Tamo gde su, na nacionalnom nivou, dostupni detaljniji podaci (npr. u Holandiji), EEA pristup može pružiti korisne informacije. U Srbiji su prilikom identifikacije potencijalnih poljoprivrednih zemljišta visoke prirodne vrednosti na osnovu EEA pristupa korišćene dodatne nacionalne baze podataka.

Page 12: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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

Poljoprivredna zemljišta visoke prirodne vrednosti u zemljama Zapadnog Balkana

Sve u svemu, koncept poljoprivrednog zemljišta visoke prirodne vrednosti je novina za zemlje Zapadnog Balkana. Nedavno su dve od njih (Srbija i Makedonija) preduzele inicijalne korake

za njegovu identifikaciju (projekti vođeni od strane NVO). Međutim, jasno je, čak i u odsustvu detaljnih studija, da generalno veoma opsežan karakter poljoprivrede u zemljama Zapadnog Balkana sugeriše da postoje velike površine poljoprivrednog zemljišta visoke prirodne vrednosti koja predstavljaju neki od tri tipova.

Tip 1 poljoprivrednog zemljišta visoke prirodne vrednosti sa velikim udelom polu-prirodne vegetacije, kao što su travnate površine bogate vrstama, se očekuje da dominira Zapadnim Balkanom, kao što je to slučaj i u drugim delovima Evrope. To se održava tradicionalnom proizvodnjom sena i ispaše (uključujući selitvenu pašu i nomadsko stočarstvo) goveda, ovaca, koza, konja, magaraca i, u nekim područjima, svinja, od kojih su sve lokalne sorte ili ukrštene rase.

U Albaniji postoji oko 400.000 hektara prirodnih pašnjaka podeljenih na letnje i zimske pašnjake. Letnji pašnjaci se nalaze u pred-planinskim i planinskim oblastima zemlje. Najveće oblasti letnjih pašnjaka se nalaze u okruzima Tropoje, Dibr, Kukeš, Korča, Đirokastra, Kolonje itd. Letnji pašnjaci se koriste oko 150 dana, od 15. maja do 15. oktobra.

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 reka Vjosa i Šušice (Valona), Malakaster (Fier) i Dumre (Elbasan).

Travnate površine u Hrvatskoj se, po svemu sudeći, trenutno prostiru na oko 340,000 hektara. Osim toga, postoji blizu 500,000 hektara, uglavnom napuštenih travnatih površina, koje počinju da bivaju obrasle prirodnom vegetacijom i da se pretvaraju u šume (Karaoglan Todorović, 2010.). Ekstenzivno korišćeni travnjaci (tradicionalna ispaša) nalaze se u nizinskim aluvijalnim područjima, duž velikih reka poput Save i Drave. Visoke planine u primorskoj oblasti okružene su tipičnim karstnim ekosistemima i polu-prirodnim travnatim površinama.

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

Travnate površine su takođe dom retkim sisarima kao što su hrčci (Cricateus cricateus) i stepski miš (Mus spicilegus) i među ugroženim vrstama, Evropska tekunica (Citellus citellus) i slepo kuče (Nannospalax leucodon). Staništa travnatih površina u Hrvatskoj imaju bogatu faunu skakavaca i leptira, od kojih se većina može naći na livadskim staništima.

Travnate površine u Makedoniji su uglavnom prirodne i polu-prirodne ( 542,000 ha u 2008. godini). Većina se nalazi u planinskim predelima -

Page 13: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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

Šar planina, Bistra, Korab, Jakupica, Suva Gora. Karakteristike centralnog dela 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 verovatno da će većina njih biti klasifikovana kao tip 1 visoke prirodne vrednosti.

Fauna povezana sa ekosistemima travnatih površina u Makedoniji uključuje ćurlikovce, običnu prepelicu, peščanu bou, slepo kuče, veliku droplju, običnu jarebicu, Balkanskog zidnog guštera i malu droplju.

Pašnjaci i livade u Crnoj Gori su uglavnom prirodni i polu-prirodni i pokrivaju 450,000 hektara. Uglavnom se koriste ekstenzivno u gotovo svim regionima i mogu se zato smatrati poljoprivrednim zemljištem visoke prirodne vrednosti (Markovic et al. 2010). Najviše su skoncentrisani u severnim i severozapadnim delovima Crne Gore.

Ima oko 1 milion hektara potencijalnih travnatih površina visoke prirodne vrednosti u Srbiji (SEAP, 2010). Većina njih su polu-prirodne travnate površine, ali takođe postoje prirodne i primarne travnate površine u planinskim predelima, na poplavljenim zemljištima u nizijskim dolinama i u stepskim sušnim oblastima i/ili slanim staništima u severnom delu zemlje (Vojvodina). Oni sadrže značajnu raznolikost biljaka uključujući endemske vrste. Više od 60% srpskih endemskih biljaka rastu u travnatim površinama (Stevanović et al. 2010.).

Poljoprivredno zemljište visoke prirodne vrednosti u karstnim predelima Zapadnog Balkana

Karstni predeli su naročito bogati po pitanju biodiverziteta, ali predstavljaju značajan izazov za poljoprivrednu proizvodnju. Formirani su na krečnjaku i karakteriše ih nedostatak površinskih potoka, jer najveći deo vode teče podzemno, ili u dubokim klisurama. Karstni predeo u regionu Zapadnog Balkana sastoji se od dolina (dubokih, širokih ponikvi), škrapa (površnih karstnih jaruga i šupljina), polja (širokih karstnih zaravni), kao i sistema pećina.

Karstni tereni se najviše nalaze u južnom delu Hrvatske, na jugu i jugozapadu Bosne i Hercegovine, kao i u Crnoj Gori. U karstnim regionima, travnate površine dominiraju u upotrebi poljoprivrednog zemljišta i na taj način već vekovima favorizuju ekstenzivnu ispašu stoke. Oni bi se obično klasifikovali kao tip 1 poljoprivrednog zemljišta visoke prirodne vrednosti.

Danas ovim krajevima dominira značajno starenje gazdinstava i depopulacija, što dovodi do neiskorišćenost pašnjaka i livada bogatih vrstama, a nakon toga i do promene vegetacije.

Primer 4 Poljoprivreda u karstnim predelima Crne Gore

Karstni predeo se sastoji od centralnih regiona opština Cetinje i Nikšić i pokriva 21% celokupne teritorije Crne Gore.

Poseduje vrlo mali deo obradivog zemljišta (samo 8% predela), koje se uglavnom nalazi u ponikvama i depresijama. Ova karakteristika u kombinaciji sa istaknutom bezvodnošću, ograničava proizvodnju biljaka (osim u Nikšiću i Grahovskom Polju), mada postoji izvesna proizvodnja useva i voća (do 700-800 m).

Najznačajniji poljoprivredni sektor u ovom regionu je stočarska proizvodnja, naročito uzgoj koza i ovaca, kojima najviše odgovaraju karstni pašnjaci. U poslednjih nekoliko godina, postoji blagi porast u broju goveda u regionu, što je verovatno povezano sa razvojem prerađivačkih kapaciteta.

Page 14: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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

Tip 2 poljoprivrednog zemljišta visoke prirodne vrednosti sa mozaikom malih polja obradivih parcela, voćnjaka, vinograda i travnatih površina niskog intenziteta rasuta su po čitavom regionu Balkana. Raznolikost useva je značajna pošto je glavni cilj zadovoljiti, što je više moguće, potrebu porodice za hranom. Ova polja se obično nalaze u zadnjim dvorištima kuća, kao i u oblastima u blizini sela. Ovaj tip upotrebe zemljišta niskog obima već nestaje iz intenzivnijih regiona.

Postoji vrlo malo, ako i uopšte, dostupnih kvantitativnih informacija o tipu 2 poljoprivrednog zemljišta visoke prirodne vrednosti, zbog činjenice da su to uglavnom porodične i seoske bašte na veoma malim parcelama. Većina proizvodnje je za potrošnju u okviru porodice i kao takva se ne prijavljuje u zvaničnim statistikama. Ako se neki

proizvodi i prodaju na tržištu, to se obično radi neformalno između komšija ili seljana.

Primer 5 Biodiverzitetska vrednost karstnih travnatih površina na Dinarskim planinama

Karstni pejzaži su deo Dinarskih planina. Očuvanje biodiverziteta travnatih površina na Dinarskim planinama u Hrvatskoj je usko povezano sa obnavljanjem tradicionalne ispaše goveda i ovaca, uz regulativu o sprečavanju preterane ispaše.

Suve krečnjačke travnate površineOd karstnih polja, pa do planinskih zona, postoji nekoliko tipova krečnjačkih travnatih površina. Dve glavne grupe tipova su suve travnate površine sa kontinentalnim uticajem i suve travnate površine sa mediteranskim uticajem, sa velikim razlikama u zajednicama koje se nalaze u različitim visinskim šumskim zonama. Sve one imaju obilje vrsta i veoma su bogate po pitanju regionalnih endema. Registrovano je nekoliko podtipova. Tipične vrste uključuju: 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 karstnih poljaDinarska karstna polja imaju nekoliko endemskih zajednica travnatih površina u zavisnosti od različitih hidroloških uslova i trajanja letnje suše. Sve one su dom Dinarskoj endemskoj biljci Scilla litardierei. Biljne vrste se kod njih kreću od umerenih količina do velikih bogatstava, dok su siromašne po pitanju životinjskih vrsta, 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 staništima sa ostacima tipičnih (endemskih) vlažnih travnatih površina Dinarskih karstnih polja, preporučuje se tradicionalno košenje ili sezonska ispaša, i treba ih podsticati.

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

Page 15: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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

Mozaični pejzaž niskog obima proizvodnje u Albaniji se obično sastoji od povrtnjaka, obradivih parcela, voćnjaka ili vinograda i travnatih površina. Tradicionalni voćnjaci i vinogradi koji se gaje na veoma malim parcelama se uglavnom nalaze u centralnim i jugoistočnim delovima zemlje (Prespanski Nacionalni park).

Mozaični pejzaž manjeg obima proizvodnje sa obradivim parcelama, povrtnjaci, tradicionalni voćnjaci i vinogradi se mogu naći širom Hrvatske, posebno u brdovitim područjima i duž obale. Mnoge vrste koje su vredne očuvanja se još uvek mogu pronaći u poljoprivrednim staništima,

mada su neke u opadanju. Divlje biljke uključuju kukuruz kukolj (Agrostemma githago) koji je nestao iz oblasti intenzivne poljoprivredne proizvodnje (Slavonija i Baranja) i lale (Tulipa praecox), koja je lokalno ograničena na vinograde ostrva Korčula.

U Makedoniji, mozaični pejzaž niskog obima proizvodnje odlikuju porodične bašte (oko naselja), mali tradicionalni voćnjaci i/ili pojedinačna stabla, kao i vinogradi domaćinstava. Lokalne sorte se još uvek gaje u porodičnim vrtovima na jedan veoma ekstenzivan način. Tipični su, takođe, i tradicionalni voćnjaci (uglavnom kruške, jabuke i šljive) i vinogradi koji se gaje za sopstvenu potrošnju.

U Crnoj Gori, tradicionalni voćnjaci takođe još uvek preovlađuju, naročito u kontinentalnom sektoru voćarstva. Većina drva maslina se gaji na tradicionalan način, bez redovnog orezivanja i sa naizmeničnim prinosima.

Tip 3 poljoprivrednog zemljišta visoke prirodne vrednosti je uglavnom zemljište kojim se intenzivnije upravlja i koje još uvek podržava vrste od važnosti za očuvanje. Iz perspektive regiona Zapadanog Balkana kao celine, postoji nekoliko veoma intenzivnih poljoprivrednih područja – većinom u severnoj Srbiji i nekim delovima Hrvatske i Makedonije.

U Makedoniji, žitarice koje se gaje intenzivnim putem se nalaze u nizijama sa 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% ukupne teritorije Makedonije, ali udeo obradive površine nije poznat.

U Hrvatskoj, obradive i travnate povšine su još uvek domaćini pticama koje su od evropske važnosti za očuvanje, kao što su prdavac (Crex crex), jarebica (Perdix perdix) i druge, međutim, nema detaljnih podataka kako bi se definisalo da li su oni potencijalno područja tipa 2 ili 3.

Page 16: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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

Primer 6 Obrazac upotrebe zemljišta u koncentričnim krugovima oko albanskih sela

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

Drugi tip domaćinstva nije imao kapitala, ali je imao dovoljno radne snage na raspolaganju koja je mogla da obrađuje zemlju. Domaćinstva u ovoj kategoriji su se bavila različitom vrstom proizvodnje, uključujući intenzivne i ekstenzivne poljoprivredne strategije. Svoje centralne parcele koristili su intenzivno, uzgajajući povrće, grožđe i žitarice za polunaturalnu proizvodnju ili za pijacu. Svoje udaljenije parcele, na kraju sela, koristili su za proizvodnju stočne hrane, ili kao pašnjake za stoku.

Treći tip domaćinstava je imao pristup kapitalu, ali mu je nedostajala radna snaga. Domaćinstva u ovoj kategoriji su koristila celokupno svoje zemljište na vrlo niskom nivou intenziteta. Domaćinstva su često napuštala svoje parcele na kraju sela, ili su ih koristili kao pašnjake za stoku. Na parcelama bliže kući kultivisali su povrće, voće ili grožđe za polunaturalnu proizvodnju. S vremena na vreme su iznajmljivali parcele domaćinstvima sa stalno uposlenim poljoprivrednicima.

I na kraju, četvrtom tipu domaćinstava nedostajalo je i kapitala i radne snage. U poređenju sa ostala tri tipa domaćinstava, poljoprivredna proizvodnja domaćinstava u ovoj kategoriji je bila najmanje intenzivna. Ova domaćinstva su prestala sa obradom zemljišta na parcelama na kraju sela i obrađivala su samo nekoliko parcela u blizini svojih kuća. Žene i penzioneri su obavljali veći deo poljoprivredne proizvodnje u tim domaćinstvima. Neiskorišćene parcele su se ponekad iznajmljivale onim domaćinstvima koja su imala kapitala da ih plate i radne snage da ih obrađuju.

Posmatrano zajedno, proizvodna strategija domaćinstava oblikovala je obrazac unutar-seoskog intenziviranja i ekstenziviranja proizvodnje. Specijalan raspored korišćenja zemljišta strukturisan je u koncentrične krugove oko centra sela. Krugovi su se smanjivali u pogledu intenziteta korišćenja zemljišta što se više približavalo kraju sela.

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 iako neko domaćinstvo nije moglo da koristi neku od svojih parcela u određenom krugu intenziteta korišćenja zemljišta zbog nedostatka kapitala i/ili radne snage, druga domaćinstva koja su imala pristup tim resursima mogla su da popune prazninu iznajmljivanjem parcele.

Od početka ranih 1990-tih godina, korisnici zemljišta u svim kategorijama su smanjila intenzitet proizvodnje na parcelama na kraju sela, zbog opšteg 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.

Politička ekologija postsocijalističke ruralne transformacije (Rent from the land: A political ecology of postsocialist rural transformation)

Page 17: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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 procena potencijalne pokrivenosti poljoprivrednog zemljišta visoke prirodne vrednosti na Balkanu

Do sada je kvantitativna procena opsega poljoprivrednog zemljišta visoke prirodne vrednosti urađena samo u dve države.

Agencija za zaštitu životne sredine Republike Srbije identifikovala je potencijalna poljoprivredna područja visoke prirodne vrednosti u Srbiji 2010. godine koji se bazira na EEA pristupu, koristeći dostupne nacionalne skupove podataka. Rezultati pokazuju da potencijalno poljoprivredno zemljište visoke prirodne vrednosti pokriva 1,187 miliona hektara (oko 20% poljoprivredne površine). Veći

deo toga su travnate površine koje pokrivaju oko 1 milion hektara. Procene stručnjaka su da je ukupna površina poljoprivrednog zemljišta visoke prirodne vrednosti u Srbiji verovatno veća, pošto pristup koji je sleđen nije u potpunosti obuhvatio mozaičko poljoprivredno zemljište ili poljoprivredna zemljišta koja podržavaju retke vrste (Cooper et al 2010).

U Bugarskoj, identifikacija potencijalnog poljoprivrednog zemljišta visoke prirodne vrednosti dovela je do rezultata ukupne površine od 1 630 035 hektara (32,4% udeo korišćenog poljoprivredng zemljišta – UAA). I ovde su većina područja stalne travnate površine (951 256 hektara), zatim sledi obradivo zemljište (359 611 hektara), mešovita upotreba (279 013 hektara) i stalni usevi (40 155 hektara).

Page 18: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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).

Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti se karakteriše kombinacijom (1) niskog intenziteta upotrebe zemljišta i (2) prisustvom polu-prirodne vegtacije, a u mnogim slučajevima (3) prisustvom mozaičnog pejzaža.

Dominantna karakteristika poljoprivredne proizvodnje visoke prirodne vrednosti je upotreba zemljišta niskog intenziteta, kao i drugi faktori proizvodnje niskog intenziteta (osim za radnu snagu i tradicionalno znanje). Takođe je važno značajno prisustvo polu-prirodne vegetacije u poljoprivrednom području. U nekim situacijama, polu-prirodna vegetacija se pronalazi u mozaiku obradive površine niskog intenziteta i/ili obradivih useva. Prirodne vrednosti imaju tendenciju da budu više kada se zasejane površine koriste u niskom intenzitetu i time omogućavaju mešavinu staništa koja se koriste od strane širokog spektra divljih vrsta sa brojnim i kompleksnim protokom vrsta (beskičmenjaci, ptice, sisari i reptili).

Vrlo često polu-prirodna vegetacija koja se koristi za ispašu nije deo poljoprivrednog zemljišta gazdinstva već ima drugi oblik vlasništva (zajedničko zemljište, državno zemljište, itd.), tako da je važno ne uzimati u obzir samo udeo korišćenog poljoprivrednog zemljišta (UAA), koji je u okviru gazdinstva, kada se identifikuje poljoprivredno zemljište visoke prirodne vrednosti.

Činjenica da se vegetacija koristi za ispašu stoke (ili se kosi za seno) je veoma važna, pošto to potvrđuje da je ona deo poljoprivrednog sistema. To nisu neophodno travnate površine: šipražje i šume su bitan resurs krmnog bilja u nekim zemljama Zapadnog Balkana (kao i u drugim južnim zemljama članicama EU), i treba se prepoznati kao poljoprivredno zemljište. Međutim, polu-prirodna šumska područja koja se

ne koriste za ispašu treba smatrati kao zasebnu, ne-poljoprivrednu upotrebu zemljišta.

Poljoprivredni sistemi visoke prirodne vrednosti u zemljama Zapadnog Balkana

Tipični poljoprivredni sistem u Albaniji uključuje značajne prirodne i polu-prirodne travnate površine (uključujući planinsku i podplaninsku vegetaciju). U istorijskom smislu nema upotrebe đubriva kako bi se povećala produktivnost pašnjaka. Napasanje se praktikuje na travnatim pašnjacima i u šumama (većinom površine sa šipražjem i šume sa izdancima). Šume takođe još uvek obezbeđuju krmivo kroz orezivanje u nekim područjima.

Ekstenzivni i tradicionalni sistemi uzgoja stoke koriste domaće vrste životinja, prvenstveno lokalna goveda, magarce, svinje i koze. Male farme sa 10 do 30 životinja (najčešće ovce i koze) su još uvek dominantne. Međutim, postoji rastući trend broja srednjih farmi sa prosekom od 150 glava po stadu u južnim delovima zemlje. Do skora se selitveno stočarstvo praktikovalo u čitavoj zemlji, ali je sada najviše ograničeno na jugoistočne delove Albanije.

U Albaniji se poljoprivredni sistemi visoke prirodne vrednosti karakterišu kombinacijom malih površina obradivog zemljišta (koje su dalje podeljene u veoma male parcele u različitom vlasništvu) i površinama polu-prirodne vegetacije, bilo u nizijskim, brdskim ili visinskim područjima.

U nekim područjima pritisak tradicionalne poljoprivredne proizvodnje je još uvek dovoljno visok da bi napuštanje zemljišta bilo praćeno lokalizovanom preteranom ispašom.

U Makedoniji, goveda, ovce i koze pasu na velikim površinama polu-prirodnih i prirodnih

Poljoprivredni sistemi visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom Balkanu

Ključne karakteristike poljoprivrednih sistema visoke prirodne vrednosti

Poljoprivredni sistemi visoke prirodne vrednosti se definišu kroz dve glavne komponente (Beaufoy, 2008):

1. Najdominantnji zemljišni pokrivač koji karakteriše svaku od kategorija poljoprivrednog zemljišta visoke prirodne vrednosti, naročito tipove polu-prirodne vegetacije, vrste zasejanih površina i njihovu prostornu pokrivenost i distribuciju na nivou farme (npr. proporcija poljoprivrednog zemljišta pod svakim od mozaičnih obrazaca).

2. Način na koji se upravlja ovim zemljišnim pokrivačem od strane najdominantnijih poljoprivrednih sistema i praksi, kao što su režimi ispaše, načini uzgoja i intenzitet upotrebe (npr. gustina stoke po hektaru unosa krmiva i azota).

Page 19: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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).

pašnjaka u planinskim predelima gotovo čitave godine. Tokom zime se stada sele u ravnice centralne Makedonije. Iako u Makedoniji još uvek nema zvanične klasifikacije, jasno je da su ovo poljoprivredni sistemi visoke prirodne vrednosti.

Ekstenzivna proizvodnja govedine koja se bazira na napasanju praktikuje se, kako od strane pojedinačnih poljoprivrednih proizvođača za njihovu ličnu konzumaciju, tako i od strane tržišno orijentisanih porodičnih gazdinstava. U tim sistemima krava dojilja goveda rastu sporije, ali je meso zrelije i ima jači ukus. U tim poljoprivrednim sistemima životinje se najčešće ukrštaju sa najmanje 20% tradicionalne lokalne rase (Buša).

Uzgoj ovaca je polu-nomadski i ima dugu tradiciju u Makedoniji. Najčešće se spovodi u planinskim područjima duž granice severnih, zapadnih i istočnih delova zemlje u pojasu od 10 do 80 km širine. Najviše se koriste rase za kombinovanu proizvodnju mleka i mesa. Ovčarske farme su najčešće porodični biznis, iako postoji trend uspostavljanja komercijalno orijentisanih ovčarskih farmi.

Za Makedoniju je takođe karakteristična povrtarska i voćarska proizvodnja niskog intenziteta. Glavna povrtarska proizvodnja su paradajz i paprike. Veći deo proizvodnje je polu-naturalan.

Postoje takođe male parcele tradicionalnih vrsta jabuka, krušaka, šljiva i vinograda koji se uzgajaju u porodičnim baštama ili u blizini sela. Voćnjaci se često kombinuju sa pčelinjacima. Mozaični pejzaž ovih poljoprivrednih sistema se može povezati sa tipom 2 visoke prirodne vrednosti, iako često u širem kontekstu pejzaža kojim dominira polu-prirodna vegetacija.

U Crnoj Gori, planinski teren ograničava poljoprivrednu proizvodnju na veće sisteme dolina i uski priobalni pojas. Terasasta proizvodnja i suvi zidovi koji zadržavaju kamenje koje hvata veoma plitko površinsko zemljište su tradicionalne prakse. Ova dobro organizovana poljoprivredna infrastruktura je izuzetno osetljiva na depopulaciju koja dovodi do napuštanja.

Ratarska proizvodnja se obavlja samo u nekim dolinama, gde su se akumulirale aluvijalne naslage. Ona je dodatno ograničena oskudnim vodnim resursima. Većina domaćinstava održava male porodične parcele u blizini svojih kuća za proizvodnju voća i povrća.

Dominantni poljoprivredni sistem je ekstenzivna

ispaša goveda, ovaca i koza na polu-prirodnim pašnjacima. Neki stočarski sistemi dosežu nadmorsku visinu od 2000 m na svojim letnjim selidbenim pašnjacima (transhumantnost).

Glavna stočarska područja su u dolini Lima na severo-zapadu i u dolini Ibra na centralno-istočnoj granici. Ova dva područja su odgovorna za oko 70% govedarske proizvodnje i 73% ovčarske proizvodnje. Druga zapažena stočarska područja su Berane i Plav gde je mlečna poljoprivredna proizvodnja dominantna proizvodnja i postoje značajna područja ograđenih vlažnih travnatih površina. Druga značajna područja mozaičnog pejzaža kojim dominiraju travnate površine, u ovom slučaju sa jedinstvenim bokaž (bocage) karakterom, se nalaze blizu granice sa Albanijom, u opštini Ulcinj.

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

U Srbiji, poljoprivrednim sistemima u plodnim ravničarskim predelima na severu (Vojvodina) i centralnim delovima zemlje dominira intenzivna proizvodnja žitarica i industrijskog bilja, kao i mlečne farme. Njihove proizvodne metode se baziraju na visokoj upotrebi inputa i visokom nivou opremljenosti. Tokom perioda tranzicije kada spoljni inputi nisu bili lako dostupni (previše skupi), doživljavali su mnogo veći pad proizvodnje nego privatna gazdinstva manjeg obima u manje plodnim područjima, mada u dugoročnom periodu mogu nastaviti sa intenziviranjem.

U manje plodnim, i uglavnom planinskim, regionima južne Srbije, poljoprivredni sistemi su raznovrsniji (povrtarstvo, vinogradarstvo i proizvodnja krmnog bilja kao podrška stočarstvu). Proizvodne metode su uglavnom niskog unosa, radno intenzivne i izuzetno fokusirane na polu-naturalnu proizvodnju.

Farme često imaju i šumsku parcelu, retko veću od jednog hektara, prvenstveno radi ogreva. Ekstenzivna ispaša u planinskim šumskim predelima je omogućila razvoj značajne vegetacione raznovrsnosti na visinskim pašnjacima. Neki od travnatih površina se koriste u kombinaciji sa ekstenzivnom ispašom i kasnim košenjem. Trenutna gustina napasanja se procenjuje na 1 JG (LU) na 3 ha (Njegovan, 2006).

Page 20: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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

Primer 7 Poljoprivredni sistemi niskog intenziteta u Srbiji

1. Belogorične šume sa velikom proporcijom travnatog pokrivača

Agro-šumarski sistem niskog intenziteta sa polu-prirodnim travnatim površinama za ispašu ovaca i goveda u plavljenim šumama na obalama reka Save, Dunava, Tise, Tamiša i drugih ravničarskih reka u Vojvodini. Jedan od najstarijih agro-šumarskih sistema u ravničarskoj Srbiji.

2. Zimski nomadski pašnjaci na ruderalnom zemljištu i strnjištima

Ovi pašnjaci se uglavnom nalaze u regionu Srema, u Banatu i dolinama reka u blizini visokih planinskih venaca u celoj Srbiji – ovaj sistem se naziva „popaša“, i sada je već izumrla praksa.Praksa selidbene paše je nedavno nestala u Vojvodini.

3. Polu-prirodne livade ili livade sa posejanom mešavinom koja se koristi za proizvodnju sena

Ovaj poljoprivredni sistem je odgovoran za kreiranje poznatih predela šumadijskih planina u Srbiji. Njihovo ekstenzivno upravljanje karakteriše kasno košenje i ponovno sejanje domaćih sorata. Obe prakse su dovele do održavanja visoke raznolikosti u biljnim i životinjskim zajednicama. Od 1960-tih do 1980-tih godina, upravljanje je intenzivirano. Međutim, tokom poslednje dekade, intenzitet upravljanja zemljištem je opao sa povratkom više tradicionalnih praksi.

4. Polu-intenzivna ispaša brdsko-planinskih polu-prirodnih travnatih površina u šumskim zonama i prirodnim travnatim površinama iznad šumskih zona

Polu-intenzivni stočarski sistemi koji se zasnivaju na ispaši ovaca, goveda i konja u brdsko-planinskim polu-prirodnim travnatim površinama u šumskim zonama i prirodnim travnatim površinama iznad šumskih zona. One se uobičajeno nalaze u vlažnijim delovima zapadne Srbije.Odsustvo ljudi i životinja u ovim predelima zajedno sa dolaskom invazivnih vrsta dovelo je do smanjenja ekonomskih i ekoloških vrednosti ovih travnatih površina.

5. Ekstenzivna nomadska ispaša brdsko-planinskih travnatih površina

Ekstenzivan stočarski sistem, sa ovcama, kozama i govedom na ispaši na brdsko-planinskim travnatim površinama u južnoj, jugoistočnoj i istočnoj Srbiji. Preko 100,000 hektara pašnjaka je pod ekstenzivnom ispašom, uglavnom od strane domaćih rasa ovaca, kao što je Pramenka (Zeckel). Ispaša je tradicionalni pastirski sezonski sistem.

6. Ekstenzivna ispaša zatvorenih seoskih pašnjaka

Ekstenzivan stočarski sistem, sa slobodnim napasanjem svinja, živine i ovaca, ispaša na polu-prirodnoj vegetaciji u upravljanim voćnjacima (uglavnom šljiva) i šumskim parcelama zemljišta. Praktikuje se u čitavoj centralnoj Srbiji.

7. Kombinovana upotreba planinskih travnatih površina

Stočarski sistem koji se zasniva na ispaši ovaca i goveda na livadama u dolinama, sredinom planine u kombinaciji sa namenskim livadama i brdsko-planinskim pašnjacima. Predstavlja polu-nomadski stočarski sistem koji prati sezonske promene u vegetaciji na različitim nadmorskim visinama koji je još uvek sačuvan u jugoistočnoj i istočnoj Srbiji.

8. Belogorične šume orezane za zimsko krmno bilje

Ekstenzivan planinski ovčarski sistem, sa zimskim krmnim biljem koje se prikuplja iz belogoričnih šuma rezanjem. Praktikuje se u nekim planinskim područjima sa ograničenim resursima za proizvodnju zimske ishrane. Zabranjena je, ali se još uvek sprovodi u nižem dunavskom regionu i istočnoj Srbiji.

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

Polu-intenzivni pašnjački sistemi sa ispašom od strane ovaca, goveda i magaraca na peskovitim dinama, slanom i tvrdom zemljištu sa visokom tabelom vode koje se tipično može naći na području Banata.

10. Ispaša na vlažnim poljanama u nizijskim selima

Vekovno stara praksa eksploatisanja javnih pašnjaka za ispašu nepreživara (svinja i živine, uglavnom patki, guski i ćurki) je nastavljena u nekim delovima Srbije i dan danas. Međutim, trenutno opada zbog pretnje od infekcija trihinelozom i ptičjim gripom.

Autor: Đorđević-Milošević, S., 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).

Page 21: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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

Zajednička obeležja poljoprivrednih sistema visoke prirodne vrednosti u Zapadnom Balkanu

Iako postoje veoma značajne regionalne razlike, poljoprivredni sistemi visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom Balkanu imaju mnoga zajednička obeležja, kao što su selitvena ispaša (transhumantnost) i nomadska ispaša, zajednička ispaša i šumska ispaša, korišćenje adaptiranih lokalnih rasa i varijeteta biljaka na najbolji mogući način, kao i, nažalost, depopulacija i napuštanje zemlje.

Veoma je teško pronaći dostupne i uporedive informacije o većini ovih karakteristika. Ipak, ovo su sve veoma važna pitanja i njihov status i trendovi mogu biti od ključne važnosti za budućnost poljoprivrednih sistema visoke prirodne vrednosti.

Selitvena ispaša (transhumantnost)Sezonsko kretanje pastira i njihove stoke

između planinskih i nizijskih pašnjaka omogućilo je optimalno korišćenje dostupnih resursa travnatih površina na Balkanu.

Selitvenom ispašom se izbegava preterana ispaša u nizijama (tamo gde se stada drže u toku zime) i održavaju se planinski pašnjaci otvorenim (tamo gde se stada vode u toku leta). Staništa travnatih površina i ekosistemi koji su pogodni za ovu ispašu imaju veoma veliki diverzitet biljaka i insekata. Postoji nekoliko vrsta biljaka, ptica

grabljivica (naročito supova i orlova), kao i sisara kojima danas preti istrebljenje usled napuštanja travnatih površina, što rezultira gubitkom njihovih staništa.

Praksa selitvene paše ima dugu istoriju na Bal-kanu. Do kasnog 19. veka, selitvena ispaša je bila široko u upotrebi uz slobodno kretanje stoke i životinja na Balkanu.

Nakon uspostavljanja granica na Balkanu, njihov prelaz je za pastire postajao sve teži i teži, a nakon Prvog Svetskog rata je i zabranjen. Nakon ovog perioda se selitvena ispaša nastavila uz pokrete na kratkim razdaljinama i sa manjim brojem stoke. Komunistički režimi su skoro okončali praksu selitvene ispaše, uz totalno ignorisanje tradicional-nih prava ispaše i nacionalizaciju životinja u nekim zemaljama. Ipak, selitvena ispaša je preživela i još uvek se praktikuje u Crnoj Gori, kao i u Albaniji.

U Crnoj Gori postoji više od 2000 porodica koje sele svoje životinje sa njihovih stalnih prebivališta u letnje planinske kolibe koje se zovu ‘’katuni’’ (po-daci Stočarske selekcijske službe o sprovođenju programa subvencija za 2010. godinu). Ovo je karakterističnije za severni deo zemlje, ali se takođe praktikuje i u centralnom delu.

U Albaniji, stočarski sistemi uključuju selitvenu pašu i ponekad nomadsko stočarstvo. Važnost sezone u korišćenju pašnjaka se takođe ogleda i u zvaničnoj statistici koja deli pašnjake na letnje (70%) i zimske (30%) pašnjake.

Page 22: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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

Letnji (planinski) pašnjaci nisu tako daleko od zimskih pašnjaka u ravničarskom delu i obično se selitvena paša obavlja u okviru istog okruga, ili u okolne okruge (Shundi, 2004). Premeštaj kod selitvene paše zahteva jedan dan ukoliko se koriste kamioni, ili 3 do 10 dana ukoliko životinje hodaju.

Na budućnost selitvene paše u Albaniji utiče emigracija ljudi u urbane centre ili van zemlje, kao i nedostatak volje kod mladih farmera da više sele svoje životinje u planine. Sve ovo vodi povećanom pritisku ispaše na onim pašnjacima koji su ranije bili samo zimski pašnjaci.

Primer 8 Istorija selitvene paše u Hercegovini

U Hercegovini, pravo na godišnju selitvenu pašu je prepoznato od strane otomanske, austrijske i kasnije jugoslovenske vlasti. Svaka porodica je znala gde ima svoj planinski pašnjak, a ponekad takođe, i planin-sku kolibu i za obe je plaćala poreze. Austrougarska je bila prva koja je u katastarske register zabeležila pravo na zimske pašnjake, a to je urađeno kako bi se sprečilli sukobi suprostavljenih zahteva.Obično, svake godine krajem maja, zainteresovane porodice bi se sastale kako bi organizovale letnje stočarsko udruženje i kako bi se dogovorile o obavezama i odgovornostima porodica koje učestvuju. Vođa planinske grupe je obično biran iz porodice koja je posedovala planinsku kolibu. Svaka od porodica koje su sarađivale davala je jednog ili dva pastira. Oni su se takođe dogovarali oko količine hrane koju bi svaka porodica trebalo da obezbedi, kao i o izboru majstora za pravljenje sira, kao i njegovog pomoćnika.

U nekim vremenima, selitvena paša je bila prekidana socijalnim nemirima, kugom ili sušom. Selitvena paša je takođe bila suspendovana tokom ratova (I SR i II SR), svaki put na nekoliko godina. Tokom ovih perioda, planinski pašnjaci su bili prerasli i urasli u nepoželjne trave, a planinske kolibe je trebalo očistiti i popraviti kako bi se selitvena paša mogla nastaviti.

Ipak, poljoprivredne politike komunističkog perioda su bile štetne za privatne uzgajivače životinja. Naročito štetna mera je bio Zakon o agrarnoj reformi i kolonizaciji iz 1945. godine, koji poriče pravo seljaka da koriste i poseduju planinske pašnjake. Ovo je značajno narušilo poljoprivrednu ekonomi-ju. 1947. godine, većina planinskih pašnjaka je pripojeno državnim farmama za uzgoj stoke. Od tada, do danas bilo je čestih promena u administriranju pašnjaka, i sve su ignorisale (nisu uzimale u obzir) tradicionalna prava ispaše.

Nemarno korišćenje pašnjaka izazvalo je teška oštećenja. Područja pod pašnjacima su se naglo smanjila, jer nije ništa urađeno kako bi se predupredila preterana ispaša ili pašnjaci zaštitili od porasta nepoželjnih trava. Na nekim mestima, područja sa drvećem su se graničila sa pašnjacima, i u tom slučaju bi ovi prvi bili opustošeni.

Tabela 3 Letnji i zimski pašnjaci u Albaniji po tipu vlasništva

PašnjaciPovršine (ha)

Letnji Zimski UkupnoDržavni 110 942 33 135 144 077Komunalni 164 152 77 371 241 552Privatni 16 372 13 940 30 312Ukupno 291 466 124 466 415 911

Izvor: DGFP, 2003

Page 23: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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

Zatim, 1952. godine, uspostavljene su zadruge za ispašu i one su prihvatile životinje svih vlasnika, bez obzira da li su ranije bili uključeni u selitvene paše. Novo-podeljeni planinski pašnjaci su bili dodeljeni selima ili naseljima (komunama). Tamo gde nije bilo kooperativa za ispašu, opšta poljoprivredna zadruga je sama organizovala premeštaj stoke u planine. Neka zemljišta pod zimskim pašnjacima su bila vraćena ranijim vlasnicima.

Sve ove promene su duboko poremetile tradicionalne sisteme ispaše u Hercegovini, ali je ono preživelo period komunizma, i još uvek se sprovodi u nekim regionima, mada znatno drugačije od onoga kako je izgledalo u prošlosti.

Izvor: Vucinich, W., 2003, Selitvena ispaša, u Jugoslaviji i njena istorija (Transhumance, in “Yugoslavia and its historians”), ed. Naimark, N. i H. Case, Stanford University Press

Primer 9 Zajedničko korišćenje travnatih površina u Bugarskoj

Zajedničko korišćenje travnatih površina je istorijska tradicija u Bugarskoj. Svako selo ili opština je posedovalo i koristilo šume, planinske pašnjake i seoske “merije” gde se stoka zajednički napasala tokom letnjih meseci. Ukupan broj stoke je zavisio od broja i veličine travnatih površina sela. Svakom tipu životinja je dat poseban deo pašnjaka. Na primer, najviše planinske pašnjake su brstile koze i nemlečne ovce. Niži pašnjaci su služili za ispašu konja, krava i teladi. Mlečne ovce su napasane u nižim, toplijim predelima. Kretanja stada na pašnjacima su pratila sezonski obrazac. U toplim letnjim mesecima, ona su bila gore na planinama. Nakon žetve i kosidbe, bilo im je dozvoljeno da pasu oko sela na strništima, drugom otkosu i sl.

Svi vlasnici životinja su slobodno koristili opštinske pašnjake u svojim naseljima, bez ikakvih ograničenja. Ukoliko bi neki pašnjaci preostali, dodeljivani su ljudima koji su izvan tog naselja. Takođe su se dešavali i slučajevi sporova oko nepodeljenih “merija” između naselja, naročito u visokim planinskim područjima.

Pre pristupanja Bugarske Evropskoj Uniji nisu postojala plaćanja za poljoprivredu koja su zasnovana na površinama. Ipak, zajednička upotreba zemlje bila je regulisana ili prateći istorijske regulative, ili u mnogim slučajevima, neformalno.

Uvođenje mera podrške Zajedničke poljoprivredne politike (CAP) i direktnih plaćanja 2007. godine učinilo je da postane evidentno da postojeći zakonski okvir mora biti dopunjen. Korisnici zajedničke zemlje (bilo da je reč o pojedincima ili udruženjima) morali su imati zakonsko pravo da koriste pašnjake. Te godine, moć da dodeljuje takva prava data je glavnoj skupštini naselja.

Marta 2007. godine, Zamenik ministra poljoprivrede zadužen za razradu Sistema identifikacije zemljišnih parcela (LPIS) i Integralnog administrativnog i kontrolnog sistema (IACS) izdao je pravila za raspodelu prava za korišćenje “merija” uzgajivačima stoke. To je ohrabrilo uspostavljanje udruženja korisnika zemljišta i dalo im prednost prilikom raspodele zajedničkog zemljišta. Samo nakon zadovoljavanja potreba udruženja mogli su se deliti delovi zajedničkog zemljišta individualnim korisnicima. Veoma je važno da su pravila, takođe, precizirala da se zemljište mora održavati u dobrom poljoprivrednom i ekološkom stanju.

Uopšte, zakonska regulativa koja je usaglašena sa Zajedničkom poljoprivrednom politikom o zajedničkom korišćenju zemljišta je relativno novo-razvijena i administracija je još uvek na liniji 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) koja treba rešiti.

Izvor: Stefanova,V.,&Y.Kazakova, 2010, Pregled zajedničke ispaše u Bugarskoj (Overview of common grazing in Bulgaria), EFNCP-Bugarska

Page 24: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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

Primer 10 Upravljanje državnim pašnjacima u Makedoniji

Skoro svi pašnjaci u Makedoniji (a naročito planinski) pripadaju državi. Njihovo upravljanje je regulisano Zakonom o pašnjacima (2000). Opšte upravljanje je delegirano Javnom preduzeću za upravljanje pašnjacima (državno telo). Svake godine objavljuje se poziv za ponude za korišćenje pašnjaka. Korisnička prava se dodeljuju u skla-du sa prirodnim granicama i kapacitetom pašnjaka. Pašnjaci iznad 1200 m se koriste za pašu uglavnom u letnjim mesecima (od maja do oktobra). Ugovori se potpisuju za period od 5 godina i poljoprivrednici za pravo da koriste pašnjake plaćaju nadoknadu po grlu.

U realnosti, iznajmljeni pašnjaci se veoma često koriste od strane drugih farmera, s obzirom da ne postoje fizičke granice oko njih. Ovo je veoma uobičajeno na nizijskim pašnjacima i na pašnjacima u blizini sela.Ukoliko se tokom godine stado poveća preko prihvatnog kapaciteta trenutno rentiranog pašnjaka, proljoprivrednik ili pastir mora da se prijavi sledeće godine za novi pašnjak za prekobrojna grla. Obično, novi pašnjak je na drugom mestu i zvanično poljoprivrednik mora da podeli stado.

Program upravljanja pašnjacima (2000-2009) je odobren 2000. godine. On se bazirao na popisu prihvatnih kapaciteta skoro 60% pašnjaka (koji je bio sproveden od strane Instituta za šumarstvo u ime Ministarstva poljoprivrede). Program je opisao različite aspekte pašnjaka: njihovo zemljište, travnatu kompoziciju, dostupnost vode, geološke karakteristike, da li su oni letnji ili zimski pašnjaci i koje mere za poboljšanje treba preuzeti u narednim godinama. Predložene mere su se fokusirale na čišćenje nepoželjne vegetacije, izgradnju ili obnovu zaklona, bazene za piće (mesta za napajanje) i puteve do udaljenih pašnjaka, zaštitu pašnjaka od zaoravanja i pošumljavanja, u nekim područjima i đubrenja. U programu nisu bile predviđene bilo kakve mere za očuvanje biodiverziteta. Većina ovih mera je ostalo samo na papiru.

U poslednje vreme, mnogi farmeri su se žalili na način na koji se upravlja pašnjacima. Usled nedostatka fondova, Javno preduzeće trenutno samo prikuplja nadoknade od farmera, bez sprovođenja bilo kakvih mera za poboljšanje na pašnjacima. Mesta 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. Sveobuhvatni rezultat je veliki gubitak područja za ispašu i poluprirodnih staništa zbog žbunja i invazije drveća.

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

Primer 11 Šumska ispaša u Albaniji

Šume zauzimaju više od 1 miliona hektara u Albaniji – više od jedne trećine ukupne površine države. Ljudi u ruralnim sredinama veoma zavise od šuma kako bi osigurali svoj život u pogledu ogrevnog drveta za kuvanje i grejanje. Važnost šuma za ruralno življenje ide izvan njihove upotrebe kao goriva. Većina domaćinstava obezbeđuje sebi dodatnu korist od šumskih resursa i to kroz šumsku ispašu i sakupljanje šumskih proizvoda, kao što su lekovito bilje i borova smola.Studija opštine Blerimi otkrila je da poljoprivredno zemljište zadovoljava u proseku 40% potreba lokalne stoke za stočnom hranom, dok se preostalih 60% zadovoljava iz komunalnih šuma (40-50%) i državnih šuma (10-20%).

U istoj opštini, postoji 10-godišnji ugovor za zajedničko korišćenje i upravljanje šumama. Lokalnim korisnicima je zagarantovano pravo na korišćenje šumskih pašnjaka i seču ogrevnog drveta i stočne hrane u nekim područjima, a za uzvrat oni se dogovaraju sa lokalnim vlastima koje ostavljaju sa strane druge šume za njihovu zaštitu i obnovu.

Pre potpisivanja ugovora o prenosu, seosko veće odlučuje kako će se koristiti i upravljati prenetom šumom. Ono teži društvenom upravljanju, pre nego individualnom, zasnovanom na dogovorima porodice. Razlozi su dvostruki: na jednoj strani, neki ljudi se plaše konflikata koji mogu proizaći iz

Page 25: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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

individualizacije šumskih parcela, kao što se to ranije desilo sa poljoprivrednim zemljištem. Sa druge strane, mnogi se plaše i odgovornosti, posebno finansijske, koja se podrazumeva pojedinačnim dogovorom.

Seljaci plaćaju naknadu za pravo da koriste komunalne šume. Pravo da seku godišnju zalihu ogrevnog drveta za jedno domaćinstvo može se dobiti za €4. Godišnja naknada za prikupljanje hrastovih grančica za zimsku ishranu bila je €1,60. Upotreba šuma kao pašnjaka košta €4.80 po grlu stoke i €0.80 po ovci ili kozi.

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

Napuštanje zemljišta

Napuštanje zemljišta je najuočljiviji i statistički zabeležen problem, kako poljoprivrede, tako i očuvanja prirode na Zapadnom Balkanu. Iako mu je teško izmeriti tačne razmere u regionu,

najnegativniji uticaj napuštanja zemljišta, a naročito pašnjaka, na staništa i vrste već je zabeležen u studijama o biodiverzitetu.

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

U Albaniji, oko 123,000 ha poljoprivrednog zemljišta se naziva “odbačenim” a ponekad i “vraćenim” zemljištem. Bivši vlasnici ovog zemljišta nisu želeli da ga uzmu nazad od države, s obzirom da je bilo veoma erodirano i nije moglo da se koristi za poljoprivrednu proizvodnju. Veći deo ovog zemljišta je najverovatnije sada napušteno, iako se neka možda koriste za ispašu. Ne postoje zvanične brojke o napuštenom zemljištu u Albaniji.

Nedavna studija (Müller&Munroe, 2008) ba-zirana na satelitskim podacima pokazala je da je najveće napuštanje obradivog zemljišta na po-četku tranzicionog perioda bilo skoncentrisano u marginalnim, ređe naseljenim područjima. U još skorije vreme, napuštanje je u većoj meri obliko-vano ekonomskom dobiti od obrade zemlje i po-rastom konkurencije sa nepoljoprivrednim život-nim strategijama. U poslednje vreme, najveći deo napuštanja bio je povezan sa podelom zemljišta (fragmentacijom zemljišta)

U Hrvatskoj, značajno napuštanje travnatih površina i marginalnih obradivih površina od oko 500,000 ha bilo je povezano sa povećanom inten-zifikacijom na ostatku zemlje. Oba trenda imaju negativni uticaj na poljoprivrednu proizvodnju visoke prirodne vrednosti i na biodiverzitet poljo-privrednog zemljišta.

Promene u poljoprivrednim područjima Crne Gore su dvostruke: područja obradive zemlje i ba-šta su se smanjile za 15% od 1992. do 2003. godine. Stalni usevi su smanjeni za oko 6%. Sa druge strane, površine pod livadama su povećane za 11%.

Page 26: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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

Tokom dekade od 1998. do 2008. godine, pol-joprivredno zemljište u Makedoniji se smanjilo za 229,000 ha (17% od ukupnog na početku ovog perioda). Od toga, 132,000 ha je bilo obradivog zemljišta, a 114,000 ha su bili pašnjaci. Glavni razlozi koji su navedeni su migracije iz ruralnog u urbano područje, kao i upotreba bivšeg poljo-privrednog zemljišta za razvoj i druge nepoljopri-vredne svrhe. Kao dodatak tome, procenjeno 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 gazdinstva u planinskim regionima ne koriste između četvrtine i trećine svoje zemlje. Glavni razlozi su povezani sa lošim kvalitetom zemljišta, nepristupačnim pute-vima i time visokim transportnim troškovima, kao i lošim dreniranjem.

Lokalne rase domaćih životinja

Tradicionalne lokalne rase domaćih životinja su deo nacionalnog nasleđa svake zemlje. One su do-bro adaptirane za potrebe planinske poljoprivre-de, uključujući otpornost na hladnoću, sposobno-sti da koriste grubu ispašu, itd. Ove karakteristike omogućavaju održavanje tradicionalnih sistema ispaše i njihovih pratećih krajolika i staništa.

Uzgoj životinja je jedna od drevnih aktivnosti u zemljama Zapadnog Balkana. Rezultat ovih

stogodišnjih praksi je veliki diverzitet stočarskih rasa goveda, ovaca, koza, bivola, konja, svinja, živi-ne i drugih domaćih životinja. Njihov genetski di-

verzitet je takođe blisko povezan sa geografskim i kulturološkim diverzitetom prirode, s obzirom da različiti ljudi u različitim mestima često vide ve-oma različite prednosti za specifične vrste i rase životinja koje drže.

Zakonske mere koje su preduzimane u prošlo-sti dovele su do ogromnog smanjenja u broju od-ređenih lokalnih rasa. Jedan očigledan primer je zabrana tradicionalnih nomadskih sistema planin-skih ovčarskih praksi koje praktikuju Karakačani i

konfiskacija njihovih stada. Ovo je dosta sman-jilo broj Karakačanskih ovaca, konja i pasa – svih koji su tradicionalne i sada ugrožene ili retke u Bu-garskoj, Makedoniji i Srbiji.

Danas je dostupnost finansijske podrške privat-nim valsnicima lokalnih rasa od ključne važnosti za očuvanje genetskog diverziteta, očuvanje po-lu-prirodnih staništa i poljoprivrednih sistema vi-soke prirodne vrednosti, kao i podršku prihodima individualnih farmera. U poslednjih nekoliko go-dina mnoge od zemalja regiona su ili planirale ili sprovele mere za očuvanje svojih lokalnih rasa.

U Makedoniji, zvanično priznate autohtone rase su goveče Buša, ovca Pramenka (Karaka-čanska, Ovčepoljska i Šarplaninska rasa), Doma-ća koza, Lokalna primitivna koza i Šarplaninski ovčarski pas. Tačan broj čistih rasa životinja je još uvek nepoznat. Ipak, sistem krava dojilja je široko rasprostranjen, i najmanje 20% od ovih krava je ukršteno sa Bušom

Podrška autohtonim rasama je prioritet Nacio-nalne strategije poljoprivrede i ruralnog razvoja

Page 27: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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

(2007-2013). Mere podrške za nisko-produktivne rase goveda (fokusirano na Buša goveče) su bile sprovedene u 2009. godini upotrebom nacional-nih fondova. Druga mera iz ovog okvira koja pod-ržava kako lokalne rase, tako i poljoprivredu viso-ke prirodne vrednosti je podrška za plate pastira. Pilot mera za podršku lokalnih rasa je predviđena kao deo IPARD programa.

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

Podrška lokalnim rasama je od 1998. godine obezbeđivana iz nacionalnih fondova. Uzgajivači moraju biti registrovani u Nacionalnom registru autohtonih rasa. Podržane životinje su uključene u uzgojne programe dvaju glavnih uzgajivačkih udruženja u Zemun Polju i Novom Sadu. Do 2008. godine, podrška se sastojala od direktnih plaćanja po grlu domaće životinje, ali od tada je dostupna i pomoć u investicijama. Investicije podržavaju održavanje i opremu na farmama sa autohtonim rasama, kao i kupovinu novih životinja.

Tradicionalni maslinjaci na Zapadnom Balkanu

Maslinjaci su tipični širom Mediteranskog regiona, tako da oni u zemljama Zapadnog Balkana koje leže u okviru Mediteranske klimatske zone nisu nikakav izuzetak.

Maslinjaci se mogu klasifikovati u tri glavne kategorije (EFNCP, 2000) prema intenzitetu upravljanja: a) tradicionalni zasadi s niskim ulaganjima; b) intenzivirani tradicionalni zasadi; i c) moderni intenzivni zasadi. Podaci iz zemalja

Zapadnog Balkana navode da velika većina maslinjaka iz regiona spada u tradicionalne maslinjake sa niskim ulaganjima. Ipak, u Hrvatskoj, trećina svih stabala maslina (1 milion) je prijavljena da je pod intenzivnijim upravljanjem (Radinović, 2004).

Tradicionalni zasadi sa niskim ulaganjima su obično malog obima sa 40 do 150 stabala po hektaru i često su zasađeni na terasastom terenu. Stabla su veoma često dosta stara i lokalni su va-rijetet. Uobičajeni način za kontrolu vegetacije na parceli je ispaša, ili povremeno oranje. Veštačko đubrenje, upotreba pesticida i navodnjavanje su izuzetno retki u ovim zasadima. Kombinacija ovih faktora stvara visoku prirodnu vrednost u pogledu biodiverziteta i krajolika, kao i pozitivan uticaj na životnu sredinu kao što su kontrola erozije i oti-canje vode.

Istovremeno, ekstenzivno upravljanje dovodi do niskih prinosa koji su veoma osetljivi na prirod-ne uslove. Sve zemlje prijavljuju visoku varijabil-nost u prinosima u zavisnosti od godine. U Crnoj Gori, na primer, prinosi u dobroj plodnoj godini mogu biti i do 12 puta veći od onih u lošoj godini, što vodi do veoma nesigurnih prihoda i veoma ni-skog ekonomskog rezultata.

Kao rezultat ovoga, tri glavne pretnje opstan-ku tradicionalnih zasada maslina su: intenziviranje proizvodnje kao odgovor na rastuće zahteve trži-šta, naročito u regionima sa turizmom u razvo-ju; napuštanje zemljišta, naročito u zabačenijim maslinjacima; razvoj zemljišta u priobalnim pod-ručjima. U Crnoj Gori postoji nekoliko izveštaja o starim stablima koja su posečena, uprkos što to zakon zabranjuje.

Page 28: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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

Primer 12 Lokalne sorte maslina u regionu Dalmacije, Hrvatska

U Hrvatskoj, oko 42 000 porodičnih farmi uzgaja masline; od toga oko 36 000 je u Dalmaciji. U pogledu količine, masline su dominatna vrsta voća koje se uzgaja u Dalmaciji i proizvodnja se izrazito povećava. Procenjeno je da 45% porodica koje žive na hrvatskoj obali uzgajaju masline ili kao svoju glavnu ili dodatnu delatnost, a ovaj broj raste sve do 93% na nekim od ostrva. Masline se skoro isključivo proizvode za ulje.

Poljoprivredni i biološki diverzitet maslina je izuzetan, sa više od 37 prirodnih varijeteta na području Dalmacije. Dominantna sorta je Oblica, sa više od 50 procenata proizvodnje, a slede sorte Lastovka i Levantinka.

Status 37 prepoznatih sorti maslina u Dalmaciji je sledeći:jedna sorta je izgubljena; 12 sorti je dramatično ugroženo, sa svega nekoliko preostalih stabala; 8 sorti imaju veoma malu proizvodnju sa manje od 1,000 stabala; 7 sorti imaju 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 biodiverzitet u Dalmaciji (Agriculture and Biodiversity in Dalmatia), 2009, projektni izveštaj, COAST projekat, UNDP

Tabela 4 Površine pod maslinama na Zapadnom Balkanu

Zemlja Površina pod maslinama (ha)

Stabla maslina(Broj)

Prosečna gustina (stabla/ha)

Albanija 42 000 3,6 miliona 85Hrvatska 15 000 3,5 miliona 233Crna Gora 3 200 0,412 miliona 128

Izvor: Nacionalni dokumenti

Primer 13 Tradicionalna proizvodnja maslina u Crnoj Gori

Maslinjaci su najstariji mediteranski usev na obali Crne Gore koji pokriva površinu od 3,200 ha. Postoji procena da ima 412,000 stabala maslina u zemlji, što je smanjeno od 620,000. Preovlađuju stabla starija od 100 godina. Procenjeno je da je najstarije stablo staro preko 2000 godina.Sa otprilike 70% maslinjaka se upravlja na tradicionalan način. Berba se obavlja ručno, skupljanjem maslina sa zemlje. Oko 90% sorti su prirodne (žutica i druge) i koriste se i za proizvodnju ulja, ali i kao stone masline. Manje od 10% stabala se može smatrati mladim stablima.

Proizvodnja je ekstremno ekstenzivna, ali stopa iskorišćenja je ispod 50%. Nacionalni prinos varira od 300 tona u lošim godinama berbe, pa sve do 4,000 tona u plodnim godinama. Uprkos postojećem zahtevu 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, Finalni izveštaj projekta finansiranog od strane EU

Page 29: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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 visoke prirodne vrednosti (HNV) i evropski ciljevi biodiverziteta

Koncept poljoprivrede visoke prirodne vrednosti ističe da ciljevi očuvanja biodiverziteta u Evropi ne mogu biti ispunjeni samo zaštitom određenih staništa i vrsta, ili određivanjem nekih područja, kao što su to područja NATURA 2000. Ovo stanovište je jasno izraženo od strane Evrop-ske Komisije u zvaničnoj komunikaciji o zaustavl-janju propadanja biodiverziteta. Takođe je esenci-jalno podržati upotrebu zemljišta koja idu u prilog biodiverzitetu na širem prirodnom području.

U Nacrtu EEA i njihovoj poruci 2010 za poljoprivredu koja proizvodnjom zauzima skoro polovinu od ukupne površine EU, biodiverzitet Evrope je neraskidivo vezan za poljoprivredne prakse, i stoga mora postojati priznanje da on čini vredne ekosisteme širom Evrope. Biodiverzitet u agro-sistemima je pod značajnim pritiskom što je rezultat inenzivirane proizvodnje i napuštanja zemljišta. Održavanje i obnavljanje biodiverziteta pruža osnovu za sve usluge vezane za agro-ekosisteme. Postoji nekoliko mogućnosti za očuvanje i poboljšanje upotrebe biodiverziteta u poljoprivrednim područjima Evrope, dok se istovremeno ispunjavaju potrebe za hranom, vlaknima, stočnom hranom i bioenergijom.

Sada je u mnogim dokumentima EU prepoznato da su intenzivni poljoprivredni sistemi ekološki neodrživi i da je niskointenzivna poljoprivreda glavna za održivost poljoprivrednih predela, iako niskointenzivna poljoprivreda nije ekonomski isplativa pod trenutnim tržištem i zakonima. Tradicionalno, niskointenzivni poljoprivredni sistemi visoke prirodne vrednosti polako ali sigurno nestaju, kaže EEA.

Evropske zakonske obaveze prema poljoprivredi visoke prirodne vrednosti

EU i sve njene zemlje članice su se obavezale na tri jasne akcije koje se tiču poljoprivrede visoke prirodne vrednosti: (a) Identifikacija poljoprivrede visoke prirodne vrednosti; (b) Podržavanje i održavanje poljoprivrede visoke

Politika i podrška poljoprivrediVisoke prirodne vrednosti

prirodne vrednosti, naročito kroz Programe ruralnog razvoja (RDP); i (c) Monitoring promena na području zemljišta koje je pod poljoprivredom visoke prirodne vrednosti, i prirodnih vrednosti koje prate poljoprivredu visoke prirodne vrednosti , kao deo njihovog monitoringa RDP-a.

U cilju uključivanja efektivnih mera za poljoprivredu visoke prirodne vrednosti u svoje RDP-e, zemlje članice moraju da urade neku osnovnu procenu potreba i definišu načine kako je najbolje da ih ispune. EAFRD koji sprovodi regulative kaže da bi one morale da sačine analizu: “Životne sredine i upravljanja zemljištem: poteškoće sa kojima se suočavaju farme u područjima pod rizikom od napuštanja i marginalizacije, sveobuhvatni opis biodiverziteta sa fokusom na njegovu povezanost sa poljoprivredom i šumarstvom, uključujući i poljoprivredu visoke prirodne vrednosti i šumske sisteme […]”

RDP za period 2007-2013 bi trebalo da demonstrira da su uspostavljene mere koje se sprovode za održanje poljoprivrede visoke prirodne vrednosti i šumskih sistema. Efekti programa moraju biti procenjeni spram svojih ciljeva, primenjujući specifične “indikatore visoke prirodne vrednosti”.

Pristupanje EU i poljoprivreda visoke prirodne vrednosti

Na Zapadnom Balkanu, Hrvatska, Makedonija i Crna Gora su zemlje kandidati, dok su Albanija, Bosna i Hercegovina, Kosovo koje je pod UNSCR 1244 i Srbija su potencijalne zemlje kandidati.

U poslednjih nekoliko godina, sve one su usvojile dugoročna ili srednjoročna strateška dokumenta, gde su utvrđeni ciljevi i prioriteti poljoprivrede i ruralnog razvoja. Njihovi strateški ciljevi su u skladu sa principima EU, i fokusiraju se na stabilnu proizvodnju hrane po razumnim cenama i bezbednost hrane, održivo upravljanje resursima, povećanu konkurentnost i obezbeđivanje adekvatnog životnog standarda za poljoprivredne proizvođače i ruralno stanovništvo.

Page 30: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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

U smislu sprovođenja, postoje značajne razlike između zemalja. Jedna stvar koja je zajednička je jak fokus na unapređenju konkurentnosti i res-trukturisanje poljoprivrednog sektora. Sve druge mere samo slede ove glavne prioritete, i budžeti koji se njima dodeljuju su minimalni.

Poljoprivreda visoke prirodne vrednosti nije po-menuta ni u jednom od ovih zvaničnih strateških dokumenata. Jedini koraci za identifikaciju pol-joprivrede visoke prirodne vrednosti su preduzeti od strane ekoloških NVO-a u Srbiji i Makedoniji.

Trenutna podrška ekološki prihvatljivim pol-joprivrednim praksama je skoro u potpunosti fo-kusirana na organsku poljoprivredu (Albanija, Hr-vatska, Makedonija, Crna Gora i Srbija) i autohtone rase životinja i biljne vrste (Makedonija, Crna Gora i Srbija).

Podrška organskoj poljoprivredi ima neke veze sa sistemima visoke prirodne vrednosti, ali su one relativno slabe. Ono što je interesantno je da najveći sektor koji je organski sertifikovan je sakupljanje divljeg i lekovitog bilja.

Podrška lokalnim stočnim rasama je u praksi podrška sistemima ispaše visoke prirodne vred-nosti u ovim zemljama. Glavni problem je veoma ograničeno finansiranje, koje se obezbeđuje samo na godišnjem nivou, i ne postoji dugoročna sigur-nost za ove mere ukoliko se budžet menja svake godine.

Postoje takođe i drugi primeri mera koje, iako nisu naznačene kao podrška poljoprivredi visoke

prirodne vrednosti, potencijalno podržavaju upra-vo te sisteme poljoprivredne proizvodnje. U Ma-kedoniji, podrška platama za pastire se daje kroz podršku za životinje na paši. U Crnoj Gori, mere za održivu upotrebu planinskih pašnjaka de fac-to podržavaju selitvene sisteme. U Srbiji, farme sa lokalnim rasama pored plaćanja po grlu, takođe dobijaju podršku investicijama za unapređenje i održavanje same farme.

Ipak, većina plaćanja za podršku poljoprivredi u regionu (kao i u EU) su još uvek usmerena ka in-tenzivnim praksama. Jedan izuzetan primer je po-litika direktnih plaćanja u Albaniji. Zapanjujuće je da zemlja sa najmanjim farmama (u proseku oko 1 ha) usmerava sve svoje fondove na srednje i velike farme. Od 2007. godine podrška je bila obezbeđe-na farmama sa 10 do 30 grla, sa više od 50 ovaca ili sa više od 50 košnica (Cela et al, 2010). Podrška je takođe pružana i za proizvodnju puževa. Podrška za masline je fokusirana na zaštitu od maslinove muve na plantažama većim od 100 ha, kao i za proizvodnju maslinovog ulja. U okviru nacional-nih mera za ruralni razvoj, podrška za investicije je pružana novim plantažama voća, maslina i vino-grada. Takođe, postoji i podrška za 50% troškova za sertifikaciju organske proizvodnje za lokalno ili izvozna tržišta.

Ovo je jasna naznaka da je prioritet albanske politike restrukturisanje poljoprivrednog sektora prema mnogo većim i intenzivnijim poljoprivred-nim posedima. Ne postoji podrška (ili prepozna-vanje) za bilo koji od elemenata poljoprivrednih sistema visoke prirodne vrednosti, kao što su male farme ili ekstenzivna proizvodnja.

Page 31: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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

Primer 14 Značajna područja za ptice (IBA) i Poljoprivreda visoke prirodne vrednosti u Bugarskoj

Bugarsko društvo za zaštitu ptica (BSPB) je trenutno uključeno u projekat koji se tiče poljoprivrede visoke prirodne vrednosti, s obzirom da je upravljanje travnatim površinama usko povezano sa postojanjem i kvalitetom ishrane i staništa za uzgoj mnogih ptičjih vrsta. U zemljištu travnatih površina žive mnogi beskičmenjaci kojima se hrane ptice. Na primer, insekti travnatih površina su glavna hrana za ševe. Evropska tekunica, koja je glavna hrana za mnoge ptice grabljivice, nastanjuje ekstenzivno korišćene travnate površine.

U 2010. godini, BSPB je pokrenuo pilot grant šemu za podršku farmerima u tri pilot regiona koji su takođe proglašena Specijalnim zaštićenim područjima u okviru Direktive o pticama EU: Ponor, Besapari Brda i Zapadni Balkan. Dvogodišnja pilot šema ima za cilj da ohrabri farmere da usvoje prakse za upravljanje zemljištem koje su usklađenije sa dobrobitom biodiverziteta u odabranim područjima visoke prirodne vrednosti.

Mere koje se primenjuju preuzete su iz EAFRD menija i sastoje se od: agro-ekoloških plaćanja; kompen-zacijskih plaćanja za NATURA 2000; neproizvodnih investicija i investicija u gazdinstva. Ipak, one se ne preklapaju sa merama koje su u aktuelnom RDP-u Bugarske.Mere su pokrenute nakon dvogodišnjih priprema, tokom kojih je projektni tim bio u mogućnosti da upozna i ostvari redovne kontakte sa većinom poljoprivrednika u ovim regionima. Ovo je omogućilo da se predložene mere usklade tako da su najpogodnije i relevantne potrebama malih poljoprivrednika.

Mobilni tim konsultanata pruža savete i podršku zainteresovanim poljoprivrednicima ne samo u vezi projektnih pilot grant šema, već i o tome kako da se prijave za podršku bugarskog RDP-a. Oni rade tokom čitavog procesa sa farmerima, od identifikacije njihovih potreba za podrškom, do razvitka i podnošenja aplikacije, pa sve do sprovođenja mera i finalnog izveštavanja. Ovo uključuje i identifikaciju zemljišta u LPIS.

Bilo je ukupno 47 aplikacija samo u prvoj godini. Jedna je bila odbačena, a dve su bile povučene iz ličnih razloga. Sve ostale su podržane. Mnogi od korisnika su se prijavili za više od jedne mere podrške.

Ključni razlozi uspeha su, po svemu sudeći, dvostruki. Mobilni timovi i posebno lični kontakt na farmi i u domaćinstvu su veoma važni kako bi mogli motivisati poljoprivrednike da učestvuju. Ovo takođe stavlja veoma veliku odgovornost na leđa konsultanata, s obzirom da se poljoprivrednici jako oslanjaju na njihove savete.

Drugo, kontrast između grant šema i RDP-a je značajan. Prva isplaćuje u veoma kratkom vremenskom roku nakon što se aplikacija podnese, dok drugi uključuje relativno dugo čekanje.

Izvor: BSPB projektni tim, 2010, Projekat „Konzervacija globalno važnog biodiverziteta u polu-prirodnim travnatim površinama visoke prirodne vrednosti kroz podršku tradicionalnoj lokalnoj ekonomiji (Conservation of globally important biodiversity in highnature value semi-natural grasslands through support for the traditional local economy”), finansiran od strane GEF/UNDP

Page 32: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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).

Socio-ekonomski izazovi

Postoji veoma dobro razvijena neformalna • ekonomija koja se bavi upotrebom zemljišta, kao i (lokalnom) proizvodnjom i prodajom. Ovo je bazirano na tradicionalnim mrežama, ali izvan zvaničnog sistema. Veoma male farme su izvan ključnih administrativnih, knjigovodstvenih, fiskalnih i inspekcijskih sistema. Ove farme ne dobijaju nikakve subvencije. One se vode opstankom – nisu tržišno orjentisane, proizvode uglavnom za svoju upotrebu. One imaju specijalnu ulogu u trenutnoj poljoprivrednoj situaciji visoke prirodne vrednosti i način na koji će one funkcionisati u budućnosti može imati veoma veliki uticaj na nju.

Spoljna migracija i starenje populacije. Ovo je • značajni izazov koji nije jedinstven samo za Za-padni Balkan. Ipak, mnoge zemlje iz regiona već imaju gustinu stanovništva koja je mnogo niža nego prosečna u 27 zemalja EU. Očekuje se da se ovo nastavi i u budućnosti i da dovede do još

većeg napuštanja zemljišta, naročito u zabačenim i planinskim regionima .

U čitavom region, rizik od siromaštva je viši za • ruralnu populaciju, koja čini većinu siromašnih. Oni koje žive u ruralnim sredinama su izuzeti ne samo u smislu materijalne dobrobiti (prihod i potrošnja), već i zbog njihove izolacije, naročito u planinskim regionima, oni veoma često imaju neadekvatan pristup odgovarajućem obrazovanju, zdravstvu i kulturnim uslugama.

Ruralna infrastruktura i usluge su često veoma • nerazvijene. U najvećem broju zemalja, postoji ograničeni pristup adekvatnim infrastrukturalnim objektima (putevi, snabdevanje vodom, struja, itd.), što stvara značajnu prepreku modernizaciji poljoprivrede. To tera 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 opšti negativni uticaj.

Ključni izazovi za poljoprivredu visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom Balkanu

Danas je prepoznata vrednost održavanja poljoprivrede visoke prirodne vrednosti u cilju višestrukih dobrobiti koje ovi sistemi proizvode. Ipak, poljoprivreda visoke prirodne vrednosti se suočava sa ogromnim izazovima socio-ekonomske održivosti. Pošto se intenzivna poljoprivreda širi i njeni prinosi rastu, a i njeni prihodi rastu u široj ekonomiji, postaje sve teže zarađivati za život od poljoprivrede visoke prirodne vrednosti .

Izazovi za politike podrške

Usklađivanje politika podrške za male proizvođače • i potencijalne farme visoke prirodne vrednosti u procesu pridruživanja EU. Zemlje su u procesu harmonizacije zakonodavstva, kao i politika podrške, s obzirom da mnoge od skorašnjih mera podrške nisu u skladu sa zakonima EU. Postoji veoma ozbiljan rizik da u ovom procesu, podrška poljoprivredi visoke prirodne vrednosti bude usmerena samo na manje, ekološki fokusirane delove programa ruralnog razvoja (tip mera “Osa 2” tip mera), koje su veoma pozitivne, ali ograničene u obimu koji obuhvataju i ne najpogodnije za nivo potreba i uslove regiona. Pozitivni primeri, kao što su podrška platama pastira (MK) ili investicije za farme lokalnih rasa (SR) ili za visoko-planinske pašnjake (ME) treba da budu proširene u celom region, i ne budu izgubljene zbog percepcije da one nisu u skladu sa EU pravilima.

Harmonizacija nacionalnog zakonskog okvira • sa EU acquis i osvrtanje na nacionalne uslove i potrebe je više-dimenzionalni zadatak. Jedan od veoma izazovnih primera je harmonizacija veterinarskih i higijenskih zahteva za farme i prerađivače hrane, i odgovaranje na karakteristike i usklađivanje sa potencijalima malih farmi.

Primeri iz Bugarske i Rumunije pokazuju •da pod pritiskom završetka Poglavlja pregovora, ovo uopšte nije bilo razmatrano. Tek nakon pristupanja i nakon meseci protesta (Rumunija) i lobiranja (Bugarska), nacionalni zakoni su promenjeni kako bi oslikali nacionalne uslove.

Pravo zemljišta na podršku Zajedničke • poljoprivredne politike. Ovo je kritično pitanje kako iz perspektive ekstenzivnog korišćenja pašnjaka, zajedničke ispaše i šumske ispaše, tako i iz perspektive pravila minimalne veličine

Page 33: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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).

koja ima pravo. Travnate površine sa visokom zastupljenošću žbunja i/ili drveća su od posebne biodiverzitetske vrednosti i njihova nastavljena održiva paša je naročito važna. Ipak, u mnogim zemljama ovakva zemljišta su isključena iz podrške Zajedničke poljoprivredne politike, zbog pravila politike i njihovog tumačenja.

Neophodno je da CAP pravila budu •razjašnjena i promenjena kako bi osigurala da pašnjaci sa grmljem i šumski pašnjaci mogu dobiti plaćanja bez potpunog čišćenja nezeljaste vegetacije. Istovremeno, zemlje Zapadnog Balkana moraju da usklade svoje nacionalne političke okvire tako da postupaju pošteno sa trenutnom stvarnošću korišćenja zemljišta i maksimiziraju potencijalnu podršku od politika EU, kao što je trenutno nezvanična upotreba šumskog zemljišta za stočnu hranu. Oni treba da traže smernice od IACS iz zemalja kao što je Španija, sa sličnom vegetacijom i sistemima upotrebe zemljišta, pre nego iz zemalja severne Evrope.

Jedna dodatna važna komplikacija je da •je mala prosečna veličina farme u većini

zemalja najverovatnije znači da će mnoge farme biti ispod granice za podršku koja će morati da bude utvrđena od strane svake nove zemlje članice EU.

Podrška turizmu i organskoj poljoprivredi u • poljoprivrednim područjima visoke prirodne vrednosti se veoma često vidi kao značajna mogućnost za budući razvoj. Mnogi strateški politički dokumenti iznose vezu između podrške ekološki-prihvatljivim praksama, organske poljoprivrede i turizma i smatraju to dobrim pristupom. Ipak, u stvarnosti strukturalne slabosti ovih farmi i regiona retko omogućavaju ovakav integrisani razvoj sam po sebi.

Razvoj turizma (eko, agro ili ruralni) kao i •organska poljoprivreda je u stvari veoma ozbiljan izazov. On zahteva značajne preduzetničke veštine i širok dijapazon drugih veština, kao i kapitala. Postojanje po-voljnih prirodnih uslova je dobar preduslov, ali to nikad nije dovoljno. Preživljavanje i razvoj poljoprivrede visoke prirodne vred-nosti ima svoje posebne potrebe i zahtevaj specifičnu i ciljanu podršku.

Promena paradigme

Za većinu mladih farmera u regionu “ekstenzivna • poljoprivreda” nije dovoljno “ozbiljna”. Uprkos poslednjim tendovima u Evropi gde se prepoznaje vrednost i važnost malih farmi, u regionu (kao i u mnogim drugim regionima) ova vrsta poljoprivrede se još uvek smatra staromodnom i zastarelom. Razumevanje i prepoznavanje ekoloških, socijalnih, kulturoloških i ekonomskih vrednosti poljoprivrednih sistema visoke prirodne vrednosti i javnih dobara koje obezbeđuju poljoprivrednik koji njima upravljaju je još uvek na veoma niskom nivou ili uopšte ne postoji. Istovremeno, mora se priznati da EU, uprkos njenim nedavnim izjavama koje idu u prilog polu-naturalnoj proizvodnji, ipak još uvek treba da dokaže u praksi kako takvo uvažavanje može biti pretvoreno u konkretne mehanizme podrške.

Modernizacija nije nužno jednaka intenzifikaciji i • svakako ne isto što i restrukturiranje – u stvari ova pojednostavljena shvatanja su zastarela. Ovo je jedna od ključnih poruka koje treba da se razu-

meju od strane poljoprivredne zajednice i kreatora poljoprivredne politike.

F• arme visoke prirodne vrednosti često preživljavaju zahvaljujući jeftinim, minimalno rizičnim strategijama. Ali, kao i na svim farmama, investicije su potrebne kako bi se održala i unapredila infrastruktura, smeštaj životinja, mehanizacija i razvilo ka nekoj mnogo održivijoj budućnosti. Farmeri sa ograničenim prihodima takođe obično imaju ograničen kapital, i suočavaju se sa teškoćama u pristupanju pomoći u vidu grantova za kapitalne investicije, s obzirom da mere zahtevaju od farmera da obezbedi deo kapitala. Više stope grantova bi trebalo da budu dostupne za farme visoke prirodne vrednosti gde su investicije opravdane na bazi koristi po životnu sredinu koje pruža ta farma. Pitanje kapaciteta treba da bude rešavano kroz neki vid neprestane podrške kao što je primer BSPB pilot projekta u Bugarskoj (vidite Primer 14).

Page 34: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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.

Poljoprivreda visoke prirodne vrednosti je u opadanju. Farme se svakodnevno napuštaju i, iako neko zemljište može biti preuzeto od strane drugih farmera koji će njime upravljati na sličan način, dosta toga je prepušteno prirodnoj sukcesiji, ili se direktno pošumljava, ili se pretvara u mnogo intenzivnije korišćenje.

Glavni razlog je da se dobija nedovoljni prihod od niskointenzivne poljoprivrede na onome što je generalno loše zemlje. Situacija se sastoji od relativno niskog nivoa podrške za ovaj tip poljoprivrede koja se dobija iz nacionalnih programa podrške (ili čak koja je predviđena u okviru IPARD programa), u poređenju sa intenzivnijom poljoprivrednom proizvodnjom na boljem zemljište.

Glavni cilj koncepta visoke prirodne vrednosti je da se preusmeri podrška u korist nisko-intenzivne poljoprivredne proizvodnje širom ekstenzivnih područja krajolika. Ovo ne zahteva savršene vežbe mapiranja i indikatore koji mogu da se uspostave u cilju da bi se uvela podrška poljoprivredi visoke prirodne vrednosti.

Najrasprostranjenija poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti uključuje nizak intenzitet stočarstva, sa polu-prirodnim pašnjacima kao bitnim delom izvora stočne hrane. Usmeravanje podrške ovom tipu poljoprivrede nije tako komplikovano. Već postoji iskustvo ovog tipa podrške u zemljama regiona. Njihove glavne slabosti su nedovoljni budžeti koji se određuju na godišnjem nivou, a koji se menjaju iz godine u godinu.

Zemlje iz regiona mogu učiti iz iskustava jedni drugih. Kombinacija podrške za ispašu na visokim pla-ninskim pašnjacima (Crna Gora), plate pastira (Makedonija) i investicije za farme sa lokalnim rasama (Srbi-ja) sa savetodavnom službom BSPB projekta (Bugarska) bi mogli da naprave skoro idealan paket agro-ekološke podrške za poljoprivredu visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom Balkanu.

Zaključci

Page 35: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

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.

Sadržaj

Uvod. ....................................................................................................................................................3Biodiverzitet i poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom Balkanu ..................................................................................................................4Ruralna područja na Zapadnom Balkanu ...............................................................................7Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne na Zapadnom Balkanu ...................... .11Politika i podrška poljoprivrednoj proizvodnji visoke prirodne vrednost ............... 29 Ključni izazovi poljoprivredne proizvodnje visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom Balkanu ............................................................................................................... 32Zaključak ......................................................................................................................................... 34 Skraćenice

AL AlbanijaBA Bosna i HercegovinaCAP Zajednička poljoprivredna politika (Common Agricultural Policy)CLC Corine zemljišni pokrivač (Corine Land Cover)EAFRD Evropski poljoprivredni fond za ruralni razvoj (European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development)EEA Evropska agencija za zaštitu životne sredine (European Environmental Agency)EU Evropska unija (European Union)HNV Visoka prirodna vrednost (High Nature Value)HR HrvatskaIACS IIntegralni administrativni i kontrolni sistem (Integrated Administration and Control System)IBA Značajna područja za ptice (Important Bird Area)IPA Značajna područja za biljke (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 Sistem identi�kacije zemljišnih parcela (Land Parcel Identi�cation System) LU Jedinica stoke (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 Udeo korišćenog poljoprivrednog područja (Utilized Agricultural Area)UNSCR Rezolucija Saveta bezbednosti Ujedinjenih Nacija (United Nations Security Council Resolution)XKV Kosovo pod UNSCR 1244/99

Korisni linkovi

Evropski forum o zaštiti prirode i nomadsko stočarstvo za jugo-istočnu Evropu (European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism for South Eastern Europe): http://www.see.efncp.org/ Evropski forum o zaštiti prirode i nomadsko stočarstvo (European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism): http://www.efncp.org/ Evropska agencija za zaštitu životne sredine (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.pdfEvropska komisija DG poljoprivrede (European Commission DG Agriculture): http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rurdev/eval/hnv/guidance_en.pdf

40

Bush

a ca

ttle

gra

zing

on s

emi-n

atur

al g

rass

land

, Ser

bia

- Su

zana

Djo

rdje

vic

Page 36: Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom

Ova publikacija je �nansirana od strane DG životne sredine (DG Environment). Izražena mišljenja su mišljenja autora i nisu nužno zvaničan stav �nansijera.

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

Poljoprivredna mreža visoke prirodne vrednosti za Jugoistočnu Evrope koja nije EU

Poljoprivredna mreža visoke prirodne vrednosti u Jugoistočnoj Evropi ima za cilj da:

Pruži forum za povezivanje i razmenu iskustva između zemalja jugoistočne Evrope, i između EU i zemalja koje 1. nisu EU;

Predstavi informacije o trenutnom stanju identi�kacije poljoprivredne proizvodne visoke prirodne vrednosti 2. i podrške u regionu;

Ilustruje poljoprivrednu proizvodnju visoke prirodne vrednosti u regionu sa primerima i studijama slučaja;3.

Identi�kuje zajednički interes i razvoj zajedničkih aktivnosti za poljoprivrednu proizvodnju visoke pririodne 4. vrednosti u regionu tokom 2011. godine i dalje.

Kontakti mreže visoke prirodne vrednosti Jugoistočne Evrope: Yanka Kazakova i Vyara Stefanova [email protected] [email protected]

Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom Balkanu:

Trenutni status i ključni izazovi – Okvirni dokument

Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti na Zapadnom Balkanu:

Trenutni status i ključni izazovi – Okvirni dokument

Autorke: Yanka Kazakova i Vyara Stefanova, EFNCP Bugarska, 2010Značajan doprinos od strane Gwyn Jones i Guy Beaufoy, EFNCFotogra�je zasluga: Većina fotogra�ja je obezbeđena od strane učesnika na sastanku Poljoprivredna proizvodnja visoke prirodne vrednosti u Jugoistočnoj Evropi (HNVF SEE) u So�ji - 6-8 decembar, 2010Prevod: Suzana Živković (Mena Group)

Evropski forum za zaštitu prirode i nomadskog stočarstva (The European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism) (EFNCP) okuplja ekologe, zaštitnike prirode, farmere i kreatore politika.

Ova nepro�tna mreža postoji kako bi povećala razumevanje o očuvanju visoke prirodne vrednosti i kulturnih vrednosti određenih poljoprivrednih sistema i da informiše rad na njihovom održavanju.

Hay

mak

ing

in M

aced

onia

- P

etar

And

onov