archnetwork :: NE Joint Report Ipel Union Slovakia 2008

Recent Photos

Latvian Fairytale Magic

Bittern Country, Finland

Timber Lorry in Bulgaria

Bog Walk Latvia

Hydrology - Cyprus

Picture Library on Picassa

Related Web Sites

Chantica on Facebook - join now!

Prof. Dr. Fritz Hans Schweingruber

Under Water Archaeology

Museum of Old Techniques

Bakehouses

Save the bakehouse

The Tay Western Catchment

Main Page » Nature Exchange 2008 » Slovakia (S) Ipel Union

Previous:	Slovakia Ipel Union Itinerary
Next:	"Slovakia Diary 2008" Report By Chris Tyler

NE Joint Report Ipel Union Slovakia 2008

by Libby Urquhart on Tue 23 Sep 2008 03:05 PM BST | Permanent Link | Cosmos

Sept 04 018

This Nature Exchange was funded within the framework of the Leonardo da Vinci programme of the European Commission (DG EAC) and has been promoted by ARCH. The host partner organisation was the Ipel Union

Chapter 1 History leading up to the creation of Slovakia in 1993 by Martin Charlesworth

Chapter 2 Funding Opportunities for the Ipel Valley – Maida Ballarini

Chapter 3 Forestry Open Air Museum and Woodland Wildlife – Steve Irvine

Chapter 4 Woodland Culture – Rachel Avery

Chapter 5 Meadows outside and within the forests; their importance and the use of butterflies and bees as a flagship for their conservation – Paul Kirkland

Chapter 6 Recreation Development and Visitor Management – Susan Nash

Chapter 7 Forest Schools – Anne Murray

Introduction to our hosts the Ipel Union

The Ipel Union is a Non Governmental Organisation funded in December 1992 that covers the Ipel River’s catchment area, two thirds of which lies in Southern Slovakia while the other third lies in Northern Hungary. The total area amounts to 5,100 square kilometres. The mission of the Ipel Union is to conserve and revitalise the natural, cultural and environmental heritage of the Ipel Valley.

The landscape of the Ipel Valley is very characteristic and includes various types of wetland habitats, swamps and meadows, alluvial forest (mainly Turkey Oak) and grazing fields. The revitalisation of the wetland habitats in the watershed area, with particular attention to the Poiplie Ramsar Site, is one of the main goals of the Ipel Union, following the canalisation of the Ipel River in the 70s and early 80s and the subsequent loss of habitats.

The land use of the area is mixed, with predominant practices being agriculture and forestry, with very little industry. The forestry cover of Slovakia is 40% of the total land surface, while Hungary’s 30% - these percentages are quite high when compared to the UK forestry cover (12%) but in line with the European average woodiness, which is 36%.

Participants

Anne Murray (Scottish Natural Heritage) anne.murray@snh.gov.uk
Maida Ballarini (Forestry Commission Scotland) maida.ballarini@forestry.gsi.gov.uk
Martin Charlesworth (Forest of Bowland) Martin.Charlesworth@lancashire.gov.uk
Rachel Avery
Steve Irvine (Forestry Commission Scotland) steve.irvine@forestry.gsi.gov.uk
Susan Nash (Forestry Commission Scotland) susan.nash@forestry.gsi.gov.uk
Paul Kirkland (Butterfly Conservation Trust) pkirkland@butterfly-conservation.org
Libby Urquhart (ARCH Network)

Itinerary
Thursday 28^th August
Arrive at Budapest airport and travel to Ipeľský Sokolec, a small village on the Slovak-Hungarian border. Accommodation at the Honey Farm B&B in Ipeľský Sokolec.
Friday 29^th August
Met with the Ipeľ Union in their office at Šahy and visited the Kingfisher Centre, Poiplie Ramsar site, a Turkey oak forest and crossed a footbridge into Hungary.
Saturday 30^th August
Trip to Banská Štiavnica, a UNESCO World Heritage Site to see a mining museum and for a guided tour around the old town which included visiting the botanical garden of the secondary school of forestry.
Sunday 31^st August
Trip to Ipolytarnóc Fossils Nature Conservation Area on the Hungarian side of the Ipeľ watershed in the morning. Trip to Hollókő, UNESCO World Heritage mountain village, with its beautiful old wooden log-houses, old castle and nature trails in the afternoon.
Monday 1^st September
Walk through the Turkey oak forest along part of the 35km long trail to the ruins of the Čabraď Castle.
Tuesday 2^nd September
Visit to the Forest School of Visegrád followed by a guided walk in the Danube-Ipoly National Park, located on the Hungarian side of the border.
Wednesday 3^rd Sept
Trip to Vydrovo valley near Čierny Balog and the Open-air Forest Museum.
Thursday 4^th September
Trip to the traditional craft centre at Salko, Estergom and visit to the developing Eco house and community woodland in Ipeľský Sokolec.
Friday 5^th September
Return to Budapest and flight home.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Ida Wollent and Joseph Wollent for sharing their knowledge and experience with the group and patiently showing us around their fascinating country. We are all very grateful to ARCH, Grampus and the Leonardo da Vinci programme of the European Commission (DG EAC) for this opportunity to participate in this trainer exchange. It was a very interesting and stimulating programme from which we have all learnt a lot and been enthused by. We look forward to applying this in our lines of work. A special thank you goes to Anne Murray for co-ordinating the production of this report
Chapter 1: History leading up to the creation of Slovakia in 1993
Martin Charlesworth, Forest of Bowland - Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Slovakia had been a recognised ethnic area with its own distinct language since before the 1^st World War but it took until 1993 to come into existence as a country after the peaceful ‘velvet divorce’ from the Czech republic. The area where we were based, Ipeľský Sokolec has a Hungarian speaking majority - over 60% in Sahy, the nearest town, with a minority population of Roma. The ethnic mix in Slovakia as a whole is approx 85% Slovak 10% Hungarian and 1-2% Roma.
The people we spoke to in Ipeľský were proud to be Slovak but proud also of their Hungarian heritage. They said that there was a recent influx of Romas from northern Slovakia who had come for generally low pay/low skill/seasonal work. To understand the ethnic mix of Slovakia it is necessary to look back to the end of the 1^st World War.
The peace agreements that redrew national boundaries after the break up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire following the first World War created Czechoslovakia, a union of 2 Slavic ethnic groups, Czechs and Slovaks. Within this newly defined geographic area were many Hungarians and Germans. On our trip to Banská Štiavnica for example, we were told that Germans developed the mining industry and that significant number of ethnic Germans and Hungarians lived and worked there in its heyday. The enforced resettlement and property confiscation from Germans and Hungarians from the new country created tensions that contributed to the start of WW2 and continue to affect the relationship between Slovakia and Hungary. The so called ‘Benes decrees’ (named after the first Prime Minister of Czechoslovakia) that laid the framework for the resettlements, were not implemented with 100% consistency, however, and were tempered by the practicalities of maintaining industry and agriculture. As a result there remains a significant ethnic Hungarian population in the South of Slovakia.
Communism and soviet domination after the 2^nd World War put a lid on boundary changes but the policy of ‘collectivisation’ had a profound effect on land ownership and management that is still being unravelled by the process of ‘restitution’. (see below). Slovakia was the poorer and more rural part of the former Czechoslovakian Federation (CSFR), which was known as one of the richer countries before World War II. At the time of the fall of the communist regime in November 1989, the Czechoslovak Federation was a relatively poor country (compared to the members of the EU).
Slovakian history since 1993
Initially, Slovakia had frosty relations with the European Union and Nato combined with rejection of economic reform. For the first five years after independence, there was growing international criticism of the lack of respect for minority rights and the democratic process shown by the authoritarian prime minister, Vladimir Meciar. Hungary, in contrast, had a flying start to life after communism and as a consequence attracted a greater share of foreign investment. Vladimir Meciar pursued nationalist and populist policies until October 1998 when he was ousted by an alliance of liberals, centrists, left-wingers and ethnic Hungarians. The prime minister of the new coalition, Mikulas Dzurinda, forged ahead with an economic reform programme that was unpopular with voters but won praise from international organisations and saw a boost in foreign investment. His government also tried to improve the lot of minorities. He oversaw EU and Nato entry.
The current prime minister is Robert Fico, a former human rights lawyer. His left-wing Smer Party won nearly 30% of the votes, but not enough seats to govern alone, at general elections in June 2006. He reached a coalition agreement with the Movement for a Democratic Slovakia (HZDS), led by Vladimir Meciar, and the right-wing Slovak National Party. Mr Fico has said that his main priority was to strengthen social welfare measures, reversing some of the policies of the previous government.
We were impressed on our visit to Banská Štiavnica by our guide who said that people should be proud to be Slovak but also proud of their heritage of being one of the wealthiest and most important towns in the old Austro-Hungarian empire. It was clear from speaking to several people, that it was now very hard to make a decent living without moving to the cities or abroad. There was plenty of evidence of Foreign investment – Tesco, Samsung, Volkswagen and Sony – but the impression given was that the multinationals were there to take advantage of lower labour costs and that the bargaining power of the workers was low in particular in the agricultural sector.

Landscape and land management

There were many contrasts between the UK and Slovakia apparent to us on first impressions which were –
Massive field sizes – several square miles is not uncommon. Under the communist economic system, much of Slovakia's agriculture, particularly on the plains, was collectivized, meaning that small private farms were taken by the government in order to create state-owned cooperatives. Under this setup, individuals who lived in a village would be employed by the nearby collective farm.

Lack of field boundaries and older farm dwellings – hedges, walls, fences and small farms and associated farm buildings were just absent from the agricultural landscape. All that remains are collective farm buildings and some of those looked abandoned.

Very little livestock grazing although there were some fodder crops.

Areas away from the most suitable land for intensive management were unmanaged or being managed traditionally – we saw scythes and hayricks. These areas of grassland or scrub had high species diversity. In the UK most land is managed to some extent whereas in this region of Slovakia whatever land was not intensively managed appeared to be unmanaged and consequently of high environmental value.

Large areas of unmanaged woodland – or what we were later learnt were community owned woodlands at a lower level with state owned and managed woodland at a higher level

Compact villages where older houses, ‘long houses’, are built sideways on to the street and extended end to end down the garden which was generally of a good size and devoted to fruit and vegetable growing.

It was a surprise to look up the figures and find that the agricultural sector is the smallest in the Slovak economy, making up approximately 4 to 5 percent of the GDP. More than one-third of Slovakia's territory is cultivated. It is no surprise to see the UK figures at even less though – just 1%.
Although the share of small farms and household plots on land use appears to be rather negligible their contribution to agricultural output is high. More than 60 % of potato production took place on this farm type according to an EU report. We saw many ‘summer houses’/wine cellars on the slopes of hills bordering collective farms where people living in local towns could grow food and make wine.
Our hosts, however, said that agricultural employment was still shrinking as foreign managers cut workforces. They cited a Danish firm that started management of the local collective farm taking care to understand and integrate into village life but a change of manager brought a more hard-nosed attitude with job cuts and pay cuts.
Restitution of land

After the collapse of communism in 1989, cooperatives were transferred to private owners, often by the direct sale of the farm as a unit, though some lands were also restored to their former owners. As a result of privatisation collective farms and nearly all state farms disappeared and private co-operatives and large private farms emerged, organised as corporate farms. As a result of restructuring, following privatisation, private co-operatives started to split up to corporate farms, so the number of corporate farms is on the increase. Slovak farm size structures, which formed as the result of transition, are amongst the largest in Europe. This confirms our first impression.
Laws were passed, making expropriations and other transfers of property illegal if they breached basic human rights and happened in former Czecho-Slovakia during the years of communism. Since that time, many assets of Slovak citizens have been returned to their legitimate owners. Our hosts said that deadlines to file restitution claims expire only to be extended. They said that land restitution was still an ongoing process which hampered long term planning. One had to be a Slovak citizen with permanent residence in the Slovak Republic in order to file a restitution claim. Foreign ownership of land was prohibited but many foreigners leased land that was either owned by people unable or unwilling to farm it themselves, or else land that was still in dispute without an owner. The state rather than the local authority managed this land or gained revenue from its lease.
It seemed to us that local authorities and the state were still dealing with the issues of land restitution and foreign ownership/management as a priority above environmental protection considerations.
The EU says that ‘the unsettled question of old debts, which are stemming from the first year of transition and burden the co-operatives, remain a severe obstruction for economic recovery. Land consolidation and the yet uncompleted land restitution of old owners is an obstacle in the imperative emergence of a land market.’

Chapter 2 – Funding Opportunities for the Ipel Valley

Maida Ballarini, Forestry Commission Scotland
Day one of our trip to Southern Slovakia was dedicated to familiarise with our hosts and the programme of the Ipel Union, a Non-Governmental Organisation based in Sahy, Slovakia. At the heart of the Ipel Union there are Ida Wollent and her dad, Joseph Wollent. The two of them have established the NGO in 1992 and are now supported by 2 part-time colleagues.

The main activities that the Ipel Union currently focuses on are:

The scarcity of Governmental and EU support and the competitive nature of available funds have left the Ipel Union (as well as other NGOs) with no other choice but to generate income from consultancy services, focusing on environmental education and eco-tourism. The Ipel Union is in the process of developing the King Fisher Centre, just outside the town of Sahy, an education centre for the delivery of environmental education and forest schools. The site will be multi-functional with conference facilities being developed for groups of delegates from Slovakia and other foreign countries too, generating income for the Union. The site is planned to open next year, pending funding from Inter Reg.


The fragmented land ownership of the Region also presents a barrier to partnership working between the Ipel Union and other interested groups as co-ordinated land management cannot be implemented in the area. This has obviously repercussions on the eligibility of the Region for funding for conservation and habitat management projects, that the Ipel Union and other partners could potentially undertake.

Meadows outside and within the forests; their importance and the use of butterflies and bees as a flagships for their conservation

Paul Kirkland, Butterfly Conservation Trust

Background

The UK has lost almost all of its lowland species-rich grassland. Much of this grassland was ancient – it was created when humans cleared the forests for their animals and crops in the Mesolithic. Since then it had developed a distinctive flora and fauna, adapted to various management regimes, as crops, meadows with both grazing and mowing, or year-round grazed pasture. Much of this flora and fauna would formerly have only occurred along the forest edge or within the forest, in areas kept relatively free of trees – through erosion, altitude, thin soils, fire, landslides or by herbivores (deer, aurochs, beavers etc.).

Modern agriculture has now drained, re-seeded, deep-ploughed, limed and fertilised these grasslands, and used pesticides to remove damaging and competing plants, fungi and insects. Unimproved lowland grassland is now (in theory) protected across the EU from ploughing. However it can still be lost through fertilising, drainage – and increasingly significantly, through abandonment.

At the same time forests in the UK have themselves become much more shady, due to a decline in traditional forms of woodland management. This has led to a massive loss of woodland edge and open woodland species.

Eastern Europe still possesses huge areas of species-rich lowland grassland. Most of this has never been ‘improved’ agriculturally, although large areas in some countries are reverting and becoming more species-rich, due to the post-Communist collapse of agriculture and lack of money for fertilisers.

In contrast, in many Eastern European countries grazing was completely removed from forests after the Second World War. This, coupled with high levels of hunting, has meant that many forests are expanding, filling in former rides and ‘forest meadows’ where stock was held, and also moving uphill where grazing animals and climate formerly limited their extent. (However, while efficient management of the forests has protected their extent, it has removed older trees so these forests are often poor in ancient woodland species).

The dramatic recent changes to the former Eastern Bloc countries, coupled with accession to the EU, are leading to rapid changes in land management. Agricultural intensification is happening on a large scale in productive farmland, while in peripheral areas (e.g. areas remote from markets, and the uplands), what little remains of traditional agriculture (severely damaged by collectivist farming practises) is vanishing very quickly as young people move away for economic and other reasons.

The upshot is that, while the countries of Eastern Europe are still much richer in wildlife than the west, grassland and open woodland species in particular are declining very rapidly.

The Status of Butterflies and Bees in Europe

A review of Europe’s 576 species of butterfly showed that 274 are at least of conservation concern. Of these, 71 are threatened as defined by IUCN criteria, and 34 of these are especially at risk, either due to their rate of decline or globally restricted distribution (Van Swaay & Warren, 1999).

The review also showed that the butterflies of unimproved and species-rich grasslands were those that were most under threat. The main threats for all habitats overall and in order of significance, are: agricultural intensification, isolation of habitats, urbanisation/tourism developments, afforestation and abandonment.

431 “Prime Butterfly Areas” (PBAs), covering 1.8% of the land area, have subsequently been identified by experts in all European countries (Van Swaay & Warren, 2003), based on the distribution of Europe’s 34 most threatened species. These are an initial selection of the best sites for each species in each country, and are thus not meant to represent complete coverage of all key sites. 13 PBAs have been identified in Slovakia, and 22 in Hungary. Most PBAs support several key species, and are also important for other taxa.

Unfortunately much less is known of the status of bees in Europe, although there are reports of widespread declines of bumblebees in Germany, France, Belgium and Hungary (where half the species are declining, with possibly four extinct). Agricultural intensification, simplification (reduction in the variety of crops) and use of pesticides are cited as possible causes.

Honeybees have suffered a variety of problems in recent years, and it is difficult to relate population changes to changes in the countryside. However, losses of wildflower meadows cannot be helping them face the pressures they face from Varroa mites, disease, pesticides and (supposedly) transmissions from mobile phone masts.

The Large Blues

Hungary and south and west Slovakia are strongholds for several threatened lowland grassland butterflies, in particular the Large Blue, Dusky Large Blue and Scarce Large Blue (Maculinea arion, M. telejus and M. nausithous), all of which are listed on both the Habitats Directive and the Bern Convention. Formerly widespread across lowland Europe, they have suffered rapid declines in many countries.

The larval foodplant for the Large Blue is thyme (Thymus sp.), and it is associated with lowland calcareous grasslands, while for the two latter Maculinea species, the foodplant is Greater Burnet (Sanguisorba officinalis), a plant of neutral, damp and marshy grassland. All three species also require a specific ant host (Myrmica spp), upon which the older larvae feed.

Figure 7: A meadow with greater burnet

328 PBAs have been identified across Europe for these three Large Blue species, and for 30% of them the trend for the Large Blues is of decline.

	Decrease	Stable	Increase	Unknown
Large Blue	42	79	2	50
Scarce Large Blue	29	37	1	19
Dusky Large Blue	22	24	1	22

Figure 8: Table showing the trends for all European Prime Butterfly Areas for the three Large Blue species.

Grasslands seen during the Nature Exchange

During this tour we visited National Parks, strict nature reserves, forest parks and sites without any designation. We also saw much while travelling between sites.

The contrast in the grasslands we saw was huge – from vast fields of maize (probably genetically-modified) and sunflowers, to beautiful and very species-rich meadows, full of colour despite it being late in the season. Some of these had already been cut once for hay/silage. Others were forest meadows, still rich despite obviously no longer being grazed or mown, with coarse grasses and scrub encroachment apparent.

Perhaps it was just the sites we visited, but it is probably fairly standard that although much is done to protect, management and promote the forests as important sites for biodiversity, education, recreation and their other environmental benefits, little mention is made of the importance of grasslands, even those within the forest. Grasslands are not just important for grassland species; they are often used, and sometimes essential, for woodland species as well.

Although the butterfly season was drawing to a close, we saw a good variety of butterfly species and a few moths. Butterflies were identified with the help of the superb Butterflies of Europe, field guide and key (Lafranchis, 2004).

Figure 9: One of the commonest butterflies we saw, the spectacular silver-washed fritillary

At almost all sites we saw Silver-washed Fritillary (Argynnis pahia), Meadow Brown (Maniola jurtina), Common Blue (Polyommatus icarus), Clouded Yellow (Crocea colias), Wood White (Leptidea sinapis/reali) and Small Heath (Coenonympha pamphilus). Honeybees (Apis mellifera) were also present on many sites.

Sites visited

Kingfisher Centre

The grassland surrounding the chalets was quite species-rich, and plenty of butterflies were seen, including Lesser Fiery Copper (Lycaena thersamon) and Short-tailed Blue (Everes argiades).

It was interesting to see the profusion of False acacia or black locust (Robina peudoacacia) growing along a wayleave under electricity power lines outside the Kingfisher Centre fence. These areas often provide excellent habitat for woodland edge species, but the false acacia was preventing this. This introduced tree is causing concern in Hungary for its invasive habits, and is mentioned as a threat to at least one PBA in Slovakia (Van Swaay & Warren, 2003).

The riverside meadows at the Poliplie Ramsar site were dominated by sedges, but the riverbanks were more diverse. A Mallow Skipper (Carcharodus alceae) was seen amongst the other more common species.

Roadside meadows from Banska Stiavnica

Driving back from Banska Stiavnica, we passed many species-rich meadows. In one area, several meadows were dominated by Greater Burnet, food plant of the Scarce and Dusky Large Blues. It was too late in the day to see any butterflies, but the plant diversity was very high. Autumn Crocus was flowering. Similar meadows in lowland England support plant species such as Snake’s-head Fritillary, but are now very rare and are of European importance.

The Ipolytamoc Geopark & Holloko village

The wide, sheltered sunny mown grasslands that led to the geopark were rich in butterflies. Of the less frequently seen butterflies during the week, we saw here High Brown Fritillary (Argynnis adippe), Silver-spotted Skipper (Hesperia comma) and the Map (Araschia levana) in its striking black and white summer form.

At the outskirts of Holloko village were Great Banded Grayling (Brintesia circe).

Turkey oak forest and Cabrad castle

The walk to Cabrad castle was mostly through shady beech, hornbeam and oak forest, but occasionally there were ‘forest meadows’, clearings possibly of some antiquity, with a diverse flora.

Species highlights included Knapweed Fritillary (Melitaea phoebe), Grizzled Skipper (Pyrgus malvae), Peacock (Inachis io) and wood ant nests along the woodland edge.

Also seen here was Touch-me-not Balsam (Impatiens noli-tangere), the sole foodplant in the UK of the very rare Netted Carpet moth (Eustroma reticulatum), confined to a few sites in the Lake District.

At the castle itself we watched egg-laying Weaver’s Fritillaries (Boloria dia), and saw Great Banded Grayling, Small Copper (Lycaena phlaeas) and Comma (Polygonia c-album) near its caterpillar foodplant, Hop.
Visegrad Forest School and Nat reserve

Above the restaurant at the Forest School were two large meadows dominated by Spiny Restharrow (Ononis spinosa). We saw a very large almost black bumblebee, probably the violet carpenter bee (Xylocopa violacea).

Along the track up to the viewpoint of the forest nature reserve was a Queen of Spain Fritillary (Issoria lathonia).

Figure 10: The spiny restharrow meadow

Vydrovo Forest Park

At the garage stop en route to the Forest Park we saw a large but rather poorly Convolvulus Hawkmoth (Agrius convolvuli), and a Bordered Beauty moth (Epione repandaria).

Much of the forest park trail was through conifer plantation and thus shady, but along the roads and tracks was Red Admiral, Large Copper (Lycaena dispar) near its caterpillar foodplant, Water Dock (Rumex hydolapathum), and White Admiral (Ladoga camilla).

Threats

The threats to lowland meadows in Slovakia and Hungary include intensification of management (fertilisers, more frequent cutting, herbicides), drainage, afforestation, abandonment and development (roads, housing etc) (Van Swaay & Warren, 2003).

The decline or complete absence of traditional management is a severe problem facing the long-term future of species rich grasslands. Although a common problem in most European countries, it has been made far worse by the communist experiment that completely disrupted traditional agriculture in many East European countries.

Their only value at present seems to be for the provision of fodder for livestock. Economic investment could rapidly destroy many meadows forever through re-seeding, application of artificial fertilisers, or replacement by a more profitable crop.

Butterflies and bees as flagships for lowland grassland biodiversity

Butterflies and other insects generally did not appear to have a very high profile at the Forest Park or other the visitor centres we visited, although there were references to them on some of the National Park posters we saw in Hungary. They did feature on one exhibit in the forest school.

For awareness, education & involvement

Butterflies also provide an especially good way of getting local people involved, through recording familiar species in their gardens or village and creating ‘butterfly gardens’, to regular monitoring programmes and surveys of nature conservation and other sites.

Butterfly imagery was seen on several occasions in the towns, being used to promote environmentally friendly products, alternative health services etc. as it is in the UK.

Figure 11: Butterflies at the Forest School

For the local economy

The diversity of plants and butterflies in these meadows is in stark contrast to the uniformity and lack of interest of the improved grass and maize fields. Much has been leant about how many species of butterfly need large areas of habitat for long-term viability - a few isolated meadow nature reserves cannot support a high diversity. There are increasing numbers of butterfly and moth enthusiasts coming to Eastern Europe to enjoy the sights that are now just memories in the west. Ecotourism is one way in which an economic value can be placed on wildife-rich habitats.

Figure 12: Butterfly imagery in Hungary

Honeybees are an important part of the local economy, especially relevant as we were staying next to a ‘honey farm’ (a business processing and making honey and beeswax-related products). Without wildflower meadows there will be no more ‘wildflower honey’. Moreover a lack of honeybees and bumblebees could mean that fruit and other crops will suffer low levels of pollination.

Figure 13: Honey Produce at the Forest School at Visegrad

Relevance to Scotland

Seeing what still occurs in Slovakia is a reminder of what we have lost in lowland Scotland. The few remnants of unimproved lowland meadow are increasingly difficult to manage, due to lack of expertise, livestock, and the fact that the species confined to them can have subtly different requirements. When meadows were more extensive the variety of management regimes meant that a range of species benefited. But with few meadows it is difficult to ensure all species will benefit from their management.

Possible future projects

Collaborative projects between the UK and East European countries are developing - there are now links with Butterfly Conservation members and Hungary and Bulgaria. A project on the large blues, their meadows and public involvement could be an exciting project for the Ipel Union area, in both Slovakia and Hungary. It is possible that a trans-national LEADER project could be put together with a region in the UK

Summary

Forests as such are not under threat in Slovakia. We also heard of changes occurring to improve their wildlife value, retaining more dead wood, and allowing trees to live longer. But unimproved lowland meadows certainly are threatened, and with them their flora and fauna.

Ways need to be found of placing a value on these meadows before they are lost forever.

References

Lafranchis (2004). Butterflies of Europe, field guide and key. Diatheo, Paris. ISBN 2-9521620-0-X

Van Swaay & Warren Red Data Book of European Butterflies (Rhopalocera). Vols I and II. (1999) Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats Nature and Environment, No. 99. Council of Europe Publishing.

Van Swaay & Warren eds. (2003). Prime Butterfly Areas in Europe. Agriculture Ministry, Netherlands. http://www.bc-europe.org/upload/PBA_summary.pdf

Websites

Large Blues

http://www.macman-project.de/

http://www.butterfly-conservation.org/uploads/large_blue(1).pdf

How you can help conserve European butterflies and bumblebees

http://www.butterfly-conservation.org/text/53/bc_in_europe.html

http://www.bc-eig.org.uk

http://www.bc-europe.org

http://www.bumblebeeconservationtrust.co.uk/

Butterflies and Bees Declines In Conservation Europe

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/02/eabutt102.xml

http://www.lepidopterology.com/butterfly_areas_bg/

http://www.bc-europe.org/upload/Swaay_Warren_JIC_2006.pdf

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/research/projects/bombus/decline.html#europe

http://www.sbes.stir.ac.uk/people/goulson/biologist2006.pdf

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=3551E4021433231D7066A5930577DDB8.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=851276

http://www.springerlink.com/content/y4q2827381733x01/

Lowland hay meadows

http://www.jncc.gov.uk/ProtectedSites/SACselection/habitat.asp?FeatureIntCode=H6510

Finally, how to say ‘butterfly’ in other parts of the world!

http://butterflywebsite.com/Articles/saybut.htm

Chapter 6 – Recreation Development and Visitor Management

Susan Nash, Forestry Commission Scotland

The following recreational sites were visited and observations noted regarding how visitors are managed to protect the natural heritage and how interpretation is used to offer a visitor experience.

Poiplie Ramsar Site/Ipel River Valley Forest, South-Western Slovakia

The Ipel Union is a NGO set up in 1992 with a mission to conserve and revitalise part of the Ipel watershed region located in south-western Slovakia and forming part of the border with Hungary. Poiplie is an important wetland ecosystem and was registered on the Ramsar List in 1998 because of its diverse flora and fauna. It has been drawing a growing number of tourists and experts primarily for bird watching due to the number of migratory birds visiting here in the spring and autumn.

Figure 14: Martin Clark (Grampus Heritage) interpreting interpretation

The Ramsar site is located next to a privately owned Turkey Oak Forest, which is managed by the State Forestry Company. Slovak Forests cover 41% of the country’s area and, like the UK, timber production is no longer the driving force for woodland management. Forests are recognised now as being important for health and recreation, and which offer opportunities for wildlife watching and raising environmental awareness.

Figure 15: Watchtower overlooking the Ramsar site

With European funding and help from British organisation Grampus, the Ramsar site Tourist Trail was developed in 2003, which initially included 10 multilingual interpretation boards. Since then, wooden bridges, bird hides and a watchtower have been built, mainly by students and volunteers, and with the approval of the State Nature Conservancy Authorities. Part of the site is a strictly protected National Nature Reserve with limited access at certain times so the developments have ensured visitors do not disturb more sensitive sites. It is hoped that these developments will also encourage interest and participation from local people in the natural heritage of the area.

Figure 16: Bird Hide on the Ramsar Site

Plans to develop an old pioneer camp into Visitor Centre and residential educational facility (Kingfisher Centre) are underway but awaiting funding for further construction at this time. The Union wish to develop an educational programme that would benefit students as environmental education is lacking in Slovakia at present. Further funding will be used to market the area as a tourist attraction with the development of leaflets and brochures and a website to encourage visitors to the region.

Figure 17: Kingfisher Centre

Vydrovo Valley Open-Air Forest Museum Cierny Balog, Central Slovakia

The Valley has a historical narrow gauge forest railway, which was originally used for the transportation of timber and is now, a visitor attraction transporting tourists. This led to the subsequent development of the Open-Air Forest Museum by the State Forestry Company which opened in July 2003.

The museum consists of a circular 3.5km educational trail that winds up the valley with currently 64 stops where interpretation panels, artefacts and exhibits relate the Forestry story to the visitor. The museum has been a very successful tourist attraction in the region with interpretation panels and facilities being developed each year since it opened. There is also a Visitor Centre with information about the area, which sells souvenirs and crafts, and catering facilities are adjacent.

Figure 18: View from the Trail overlooking the valley

The Educational trail lends itself to its surroundings as it has been a sustainable build using natural resources such as timber and stone in it’s development. It incorporates real life Forestry artefacts such as buildings, machinery and tools; includes interactive interpretation; uses carved wooden sculptures and contemporary art exhibits as well as real life natural forest processes to stimulate interest.

Figure 19: Respect for Foresters and Slovakia’s First Forest Nature Conservators

The interpretative panels are visually appealing using illustrations to convey information as well as having an English translation on many of the boards. The language used may not be so appealing, however, to younger audiences or visitors unfamiliar with Forest processes. The written text is predominately fact based which may deter some readers however the boards are “stand-alone” and it is not necessary to read every panel in order to engage with the Forest experience.

Figure 20: Roe Deer trap used for capturing animals

The use of the forester’s cottage is particularly noteworthy with artefacts from bygone days as well as modern forestry tools and equipment. Historical information and photos were displayed here also, as well as good quality contemporary interpretation and exhibits. As with Forest recreation provision in the UK, developments to encourage visitors of all abilities would be beneficial. This could possibly include diversions to shorter trails, alternative interpretative methods and improved access to certain exhibits.

Figure 21: Foresters Cottage - proper wooded one!

The development of the museum has also had a positive conservation impact on the Dobroc Virgin Forest NNR which is located about 8km from Cierny Balog. Visitors have been drawn to the developments at Vydrovo and away from this protected Virgin Forest thus leaving it undisturbed and very close to it’s natural state.

Ipolytarnoc Nature Conservation Area, Hungary

This site lies on the Hungarian side of the Ipel watershed and is a remarkable excavation site preserving the remains of flora and fauna of a tropical jungle, which was destroyed by an ancient volcanic event. It’s finds date back to 20-30 million years ago and, after many years of scientific research and excavations, the site became protected in 1944 and is managed by the Hungarian Bukk National Park Directive.

Figure 22: New Visitor Centre at the start of the Geological Trail

There is a geological study trail, which was awarded a European diploma in 1995 for it’s unique geological and palaeontological value and the site is now part of the European Heritage of natural assets. Fossils that have been unearthed at the site include shark teeth, petrified trees, leaf impressions and more than 3000 animal footprints of eleven species. A giant petrified tree trunk was exposed through natural erosion processes at the beginning of the 19^th century. Unfortunately, much of the specimen has been damaged or transported elsewhere and even after the construction of a shelter around1860 could not prevent the theft of fragments of the tree.

Figure 23: Fragments of the Silicified Tree encased in the floor of the Visitor Centre

Since its protected status, permanent staff now look after the trails and offer guided tours. There is now a permanent wooden hall, which protects the excavation area and the large collection of in-situ fossil vertebrate tracks discovered in the riverbank sandstone. Included in this building is an array of interpretative panels and specimens detailing the complex geological processes, which have given rise to these amazing finds. There is also a short 3D animated film looking in more detail at the prehistoric track-making fauna.

Figure 24: Vertebrate fossils tracks preserved in sandstone

Recently the site has been enhanced by the construction of a visually appealing Visitor Centre. The Centre’s main corridor represents the inner cavity of the giant petrified tree. This houses further exhibits in a large auditorium including information on other European “Geoparks”, and a small shop selling guides and souvenirs. There is also a high tech visitor experience in the form of a simulator chair 3D-film presentation, which takes the visitor back in time to just before the catastrophic volcanic event. This would be very appealing to the younger audiences, however, the moving chairs wouldn’t be to everyone’s taste.

The natural heritage on all of the three sites visited and detailed here has been recognised for its conservation value and is being well looked after and protected. Tourism has the potential to bring financial benefits to these areas and will hopefully encourage the development of facilities and infrastructure that will enhance the region and bring more visitors.

Chapter 7 – Forest Schools
Anne Murray, Scottish Natural Heritage

Visegrad Forest School

The first thing that struck us about the Forest School (FS) at Visegrad was the outside of the building. Designed by the famous Hungarian architect Makovecz Imre the dome-shaped turf-roofed building had a wow factor that straight away had us all excited and intrigued about what was inside. It must have a similar impact on the school groups that come here winning over the kids even before they’ve stepped inside!

Figure 25: Visegrad Forest School classroom building designed by Makovecz Imre

Once inside we weren’t disappointed. The building is circular with a large central room filled with robust wooden tables and chairs, heated by massive wood burning stoves, featuring a puppet theatre and adorned with colourful shields and pictures. Off this central circular room are a series of workshop rooms including the kitchen where the visiting groups cook with food they’ve gathered in the woodlands.

This forest school was the first of its kind in Hungary and is now one of a network of 30 official forest schools in the country – there are also a number of unofficial B&B style forest schools. It is run by the Pilis Forest Park, a state organisation, and staffed by three permanent staff (including two teachers). The full time staff are supported by freelance instructors where necessary.

It started off life as a temporary summer camp with the state commissioning the current building in 1988 under the Russian Socialist Regime. The building was 20 years old this year so they have just celebrated their 20 year anniversary, which explained the colourful celebratory pictures hanging in the main hall. As well as the classroom building, they also have 10 chalets each sleeping 12 and a further building sleeping 20.

Each year 5 to 6,000 school pupils come to the centre to take part in the different programmes they offer. The pupils are aged between 6 and 15 and take part in groups of 10 – 25 in size. Their education programmes are tailored to suit the groups’ needs and can be anything from one to seven days long. Priority is given to schools that make repeat visits year on year with the same schools, teachers and potentially the same pupils visiting the centre every year. Pupil to teacher ratios are generally 2 teachers to 25 pupils.

We were interested to learn that most of the pupils who come here are from Budapest, which is a one-hour drive away. The local schools seem a little dismissive of the facility saying that they are already familiar with the local woodland environment. They have even declined the offer of free visits which is unimaginable in the UK where I am sure teachers would jump at such an offer.

The centre is owned and run by the state and it used to be partly state funded but that money has now dwindled to nothing. 2008 was the first year when they received no core funding from the government. In the current climate it would be possible to get a one-off grant to establish a FS but core funding is not available either from the state or from private funders. Indeed, because the facility is state run it is ineligible to apply for many grants. This means that FSs in Hungary have to be self-sustaining.

Inevitably this means that the schools that come here have to make a contribution towards food and, if they are staying overnight, accommodation. The cost of a group spending 7 days here is 32,000 Hungarian forint (about £106). As the schools only have small budgets for trips, parents are expected to pay. A week at a FS is considered expensive in Hungary where a week at a horse riding camp would be less (25,000 Hungarian forint c. £83). The cost of attending means that some schools choose to commute every day rather than stay at the centre and they also choose shorter programmes. This is both to the detriment of learning and the long-term sustainability of the FS.

The topics they cover depends very much on what’s needed and how much time the pupils have but all are given a strong message to respect woodlands, manage them in a sustainable way and to tread lightly leaving as little a trace as possible. Evidence of this and the other topics they cover was tantalising displayed all round the building (see figure 13 for picture of honey products).

For a school visiting the centre for five to seven days the programme would follow a set pattern:

Day 1 - Getting to know each other and how to behave in and feel comfortable in the forest.

Days 2 to 7 are made up of 3 different blocks of 1.5 hour lessons per day. The lessons they can choose between include:

Plant and animal identification

Mini-beasts

Life-cycles and food webs

Collecting herbs, leaves and mushrooms from the forest and learning about their culinary and medicinal uses. Then going on to cook and make lotions and potions with them including making yoghurt (using woodland fungi), jams and teas. The pupils get to taste everything they make with their teachers taking responsibility of anyone who might have allergies that would prevent them from joining in!

Handicrafts and traditional skills including archery, basket making and textiles.

Rural skills – background to hunting etc.

Storytelling using the puppet theatre to enact fairytales they’ve written.

Celebrations of Earth Day, Forest Day, Christmas etc.

At the end of the week the aim would have been to ensure all the pupils had a basic understanding and respect for the woodland environment.

Environmental education is an integral part of the Hungarian curriculum and schools have to cover it in certain topics but it’s not a standalone subject. However, the visits to the FS didn’t appear to be embedded into the schools programme with pre and post visit activities as they might be in the UK. However, at Visegrad they are developing new teaching methods with one school current piloting a course about the global natural environment. For this the school are visiting the Forest School regularly using it as a field centre and FS staff are visiting them.

Interestingly the education system in Hungary is based on a German model that favours ‘average’ children – the teacher at the FS feels that the system disadvantages bright children as well as those with learning difficulties. The pupils who visit the FS are in mainstream education and the centre doesn’t specifically target their programmes towards children with behavioural, social or learning difficulties. However they have been developing the centre so that disabled children can come. This work has included developing activities for visually impaired children including a ceramic tile trail. They are also starting to work more with family groups.

As in the UK the network of Forest Schools meet regularly to share good practice and discuss specific issues.

Figure 26:Tree hanging with handmade decorations

In contrast to Hungary, Slovakia is much less developed. Environmental education is also an integral part of the Slovakian curriculum but not a standalone subject. However, there is no network of FS in Slovakia. Like Hungary, Slovakia also had pioneer camps and invested in buildings during the soviet era. But unlike Hungary funding wasn’t continued under the new regime. We saw two examples (the Kingfisher Centre and a centre at Cabrad Castle) where the state had spent not insignificant amounts of money building FS style buildings only to abandon the idea before they were used and put them up for sale.

It is good to know that the Ipel Union is working towards finishing building works at the Kingfisher centre with the aim of running it as an environmental education centre. Lecture theatres, laboratories and a library are all planned but, 4 years after the buying the site, funding to complete building works has been almost impossible to secure. Another c. £650,000 is needed to finish the works.

We were all impressed by the vision, determination and the dedication of the Ipel Union and are confident that the centre will be up and running at some point. The plan is that the centre will also be used for tourist groups (as well as schools) and that income from this will help to fund their education work. With the chalets almost complete they should start generating income from next spring.

Comparison to Forest Schools in the UK

The UK’s Forest Education Initiative is a partnership between various conversation agencies and NGOs as well as forestry industry representatives. Their aim is to improve understanding and appreciation of woodland, it’s social, environmental and economic benefits and in particular to show how woodlands are relevant to everyday life. Their audience includes young people and teachers, relevant education advisors as well as the people involved in the management and processing of wood. They oversee ‘forest school’ as we know it in the UK.

Although there are a number of FSs that have classroom buildings comparable to the one at Visegrad (Abriachan Inverness-shire) in the UK, FS in the UK is process lead rather than being focussed around a particular building. The central concept is about getting pupils out to woodland that is local to them regularly (weekly) over a set period of time. FEI support the process training and supporting the 160 plus leaders we have in Scotland and in the UK FS is delivered mainly to primary aged children.

During these sessions the idea is that pupils will become familiar and comfortable in the forest environment - many of them will not have spent much time in woodlands. That they will learn about: woodland plants and animals, to have respect for the countryside and to understand why woodlands are important to man and the environment. As in Hungary the workshops are likely to include identifying and using woodland resources to cook with and make things from although I suspect that the in the UK H&S features more prominently. Therefore, although there is a difference in how FS is delivered the content and aims of the two types of FS are very similar.

There are a number of marked differences between FS in Hungary and the UK:

The woodland’s location compared to the school’s location. In the UK choosing woodland close to and within easy reach of the school is a key element. In Hungary the children are travelling an hour or more by bus to reach FS - in many ways the delivery of FS at Visegrad compares more closely with the work of our field centres rather than our FSs.

The length and regularity of the contact. The Hungary schools tend to spend a number of consecutive days at a FS once a year whereas the focus in the UK is on pupils visiting the same woodland every week for at least 6 weeks in a row.

FS in the UK is embedded into the curriculum with classroom activities rather than the woodland visits being standalone.

Interestingly an evaluation of a Scottish EE project concluded that one day standalone visits to woodlands, even one day per year for three years in a row, has little long term impact on the knowledge, understanding and beliefs of primary school aged children. In contrast 6 shorter visits a week apart does have an impact on attitudes. It would be interesting to know whether similar research has been undertaken in Hungary – especially as there was one group of children who have attended the Visegrad FS for a week a year for five years in a row.

It has been noted in the UK that pupils with behavioural and learning difficulties can react really well to outdoor learning opportunities. As a result organisations like Findhorn based Wildthings! are targeting these groups with good results. This is an area of work that Hungary FS could investigate and develop.

We were impressed with the displays of work at Visegrad and the activities the centre was using to get their message across. In particular the clay tiles of animal footprints, dyed wool, stuffed animals and jars of food stood out. I have since suggested these to a colleague would is input to the development of activities for the woodland component of the BBC’s do one thing campaign.

We all very much enjoyed our visit to the Visegrad Forest School and the enthusiasm and dedication of the staff was infectious!

Keywords: Slovakia

Posted to:

Slovakia (S) Ipel Union