Search

Changes of the social-political system in the last twenty-five years heavily affected biodiversity conservation in the post-soviet Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. We used a framework to present the effect of the two fundamental social, political and economic changes on the biodiversity and ecosystems of Hungary from 1989 until recently. First, following the democratic transformation in 1989 social, political, economic and institutional drivers led to the increase in farmland biodiversity, improvement of water quality due to less chemical use and decrease of habitat loss within protected areas. At the same time, land privatisation and uncertain ownership led to habitat degradation, abandonment and fragmentation. These changes were coupled with the spread of alien species and re-ploughing. The second change was joining the European Union in 2004. This resulted in the establishment of the Natura 2000 network, the application of the relevant EU policies, and access to conservation related EU funds, which contributed to successful habitat restorations increasing of some charismatic species' populations. Meanwhile, however, disappearance of extensive farming practices, agricultural intensification and infrastructural developments driven by some increasing EU funds led to a net habitat loss, degradation and decline in biodiversity, with more than half of the species of European importance having unfavourable conservation status. Increased support for conservation institutions, adaptive and extended agri-environment schemes and further research and monitoring to establish, refine and supervise sustainable management practices, including water management, are needed to prevent further biodiversity loss in the coming years.

In constantly changing complex social-ecological systems conservation organisations need to take steps toward adaptive co-management if they want to be effective in their conservation activities. In the surroundings of the soda pans of the Kiskunsag region in Hungary, a participatory process was initiated with the local national park directorate to understand the socio-economic context of the sodic wetland area, reveal the perceptions of local stakeholders about the current and preferable management of the area and start discussions with them about certain priority management issues related to sustainable use (grazing and ecotourism). In this article, we show how this process helped in taking the first steps toward adaptive co-management. For the assessment, criteria of effective adaptive co-management were derived from the literature. The results show that most conditions for adaptive co-management have already been fulfilled (e.g. identified set of stakeholders, sense of place shared or incentives for participation) and some social outcomes were achieved. The participatory process assisted the collaboration of stakeholders, which can contribute to positive economic and ecological outcomes in the future. Through the engagement of local stakeholders some conflicting management issues were resolved (e.g. accepting a wider range of grazing animal species and allowing flexible time for mowing) and collaboration started on ecotourism issues (e.g. information sharing with the assistance of the national park directorate). This process can be seen as the ‘formulation’ phase of adaptive co-management but more efforts are needed to move toward the ‘conjoint’ phase with more actions, monitoring and social learning. Our case also shows that ACM can be a good method for both conservation and rural development but supporting policy environment as well as financial resources assisting the participatory process and nature-friendly farming activities can be important for its long term success.

Halting biodiversity loss is a critical aim for the forthcoming decades, but is hindered by the gap between research and practice. Bridging this gap is a significant challenge in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, where, compared to Western European countries, biodiversity is higher but the research budget is lower. Approaches to address bridging this gap include participatory research prioritizing exercises. These demand-driven collaborative ranking processes have proven to be a useful tool in providing a research agenda derived from a review of critical challenges based on stakeholder engagement. However, for research agendas to be effectively realized, they are best developed and implemented at the operative level of research financing and implementation. This paper shows the process and the outcome of an exercise conducted in Hungary aiming to compile the most important conservation research questions at the country-level and outlines a set of further measures and tools required for dissemination and advocacy for the research agenda. During the process 792 research questions were collated from conservation practitioners and natural resource managers based on interviews and via an online questionnaire; the final 50 most important questions were identified by practitioners and policy makers during an expert workshop. Questions are embedded in global and EU biodiversity targets and imply a pragmatic approach with the aim of identifying research that supports policy- and decision-making regarding habitat management, land-use and regional development, while also focussing on conflicting issues. The outcome of the process includes the potential for lobbying, therefore post-publication activities and dissemination strategies are outlined as an integrated part of the exercise.

Land use changes induced by nature conservation regulation and management practices, especially in protected areas, often result in trade-offs between ecosystem services (ESs). Exploring trade-offs between ESs and linking them with stakeholders can help reveal the potential losers and winners of land use changes. In this paper, we demonstrate that ES trade-offs do not always go hand in hand with conflicts. The perception of local stakeholders about trade-offs between ESs at three protected sites in the Great Hungarian Plain were assessed through qualitative methods. In all areas significant conservation measures had been introduced since the 1990s resulting in land use changes. Locals (farmers at each site and inhabitants at one site) were the main ‘losers’ of the land use changes and related ES trade-offs, while there were many winners at different spatial and temporal scales. Conflicts appeared only between locals and the national park directorates, and not between locals and other beneficiaries of the new ESs. Due to scale mismatch, locals might not be in direct contact with other stakeholders, and vice versa, and therefore there is no interface between them for confrontation and negotiation. Integrating scale into the analysis also helps in advising policy instruments to minimise local-level conflicts.

Background Previous studies showed an in-depth ecological understanding by traditional people of managing natural resources. We studied the landscape ethnoecological knowledge (LEEK) of Székelys on the basis of 16-19th century village laws. We analyzed the habitat types, ecosystem services and sustainable management types on which village laws had focused. Methods Székelys had self-governed communities formed mostly of “noble peasants”. Land-use was dominated by commons and regulated by village laws framed by the whole community. Seventy-two archival laws from 52 villages, resulting in 898 regulations, were analyzed using the DPSIR framework. Explicit and implicit information about the contemporary ecological knowledge of Székelys was extracted. We distinguished between responses that limited use and supported regeneration and those that protected produced/available ecosystem services and ensured their fair distribution. Results Most regulations referred to forests (674), arable lands (562), meadows (448) and pastures (134). Székelys regulated the proportion of arable land, pasture and forest areas consciously in order to maximize long-term exploitation of ecosystem services. The inner territory was protected against overuse by relocating certain uses to the outer territory. Competition for ecosystem services was demonstrated by conflicts of pressure-related (mostly personal) and response-related (mostly communal) driving forces. Felling of trees (oaks), grazing of forests, meadows and fallows, masting, use of wild apple/pear trees and fishing were strictly regulated. Cutting of leaf-fodder, grazing of green crops, burning of forest litter and the polluting of streams were prohibited. Marketing by villagers and inviting outsiders to use the ecosystem services were strictly regulated, and mostly prohibited. Székelys recognized at least 71 folk habitat types, understood ecological regeneration and degradation processes, the history of their landscape and the management possibilities of ecosystem services. Some aspects of LEEK were so well known within Székely communities that they were not made explicit in village laws, others remained implicit because they were not related to regulations. Conclusions Based on explicit and implicit information, we argue that Székelys possessed detailed knowledge of the local ecological system. Moreover the world’s first known explicit mention of ecosystem services (“Benefits that are provided by Nature for free”) originated from this region from 1786.