Društvo za opazovanje in preučevanje ptic prvi prejemnik državne nagrade Rada Smerduja

GOVSI Podkast: Društvo za opazovanje in preučevanje ptic prvi prejemnik državne nagrade Rada Smerduja 

V novi epizodi GOVSI podkasta je voditelj Zoran Potič imel ob sebi sogovornici, ki prihajata iz javnega in nevladnega sektorja: direktorico Direktorata za naravo na Ministrstvu za naravne vire in prostor dr. Katarino Groznik Zeiler in predsednico Društva za opazovanje in proučevanje ptic Slovenije (DOPPS). Povod za pogovor je bila namreč podelitev nove državne nagrade, nagrade Radeta Smerduja, ki za prispevek k razvoju stroke na področju ohranjanja narave in k ohranjanju narave. 

Društvo za opazovanje in proučevanje ptic Slovenije je ena večjih nevladnih organizacij na področju varstva narave in okolja v Sloveniji in član globalne organizacije BirdLife International. Društvo je s svojim delovanjem prispevalo k izvedbi konkretnih aktivnosti na terenu, ki so potrjeno že izboljšale stanje vrst ptic in njihovih življenjskih okolij, s tem pa tudi širše stanje naravnih vrednot in biotske raznovrstnosti. Sodelovali so pri ustanovitvi treh zavarovanih območij in predstavljajo središče razvoja stroke na področju varstva ptic in širše naravovarstvene stroke pri nas.

Nagrada je poimenovana po biologu in naravovarstvenik Rado Smerdu (1949 – 1984), ki je s svojim delom pomembno prispeval k oblikovanju metod varstva narave ter k izdaji Inventarja najpomembnejše naravne dediščine leta 1976. Eden njegovih ključnih strokovnih prispevkov je predstavitev in preskus metode vrednotenja naravne dediščine na Planinskem polju. Sodeloval je pri nastajanju strokovnih revij in posnel več filmov z naravoslovno, jamarsko in naravovarstveno vsebino. 

Vabljeni k poslušanju in tudi ogledu. 

[ENGLISH VERSION]  

GOVSI Podkast: Society for the observation and study of birds, the first recipient of the Rada Smerduja state award 

In the new episode of the GOVSI podcast, host Zoran Potič had interlocutors with him from the public and non-governmental sectors: the director of the Directorate for Nature at the Ministry of Natural Resources and Space, dr. Katarina Groznik Zeiler and president of the Society for the Observation and Study of Birds of Slovenia (DOPPS). The reason for the conversation was the awarding of a new state award, the Radet Smerdu award.

The first recipient of the award is the Society for Observation and Study of Birds of Slovenia (BirdLife Slovenia (DOPPS)), one of the largest non-governmental organisations specialising in nature and environmental conservation in Slovenia and a member of the global organisation BirdLife. Through its activities, the association has contributed to the implementation of concrete activities in the field, which have already been confirmed to improve the condition of bird species and their living environments, and thus also the wider condition of natural values ​​and biodiversity. They participated in the establishment of three protected areas and represent the center of professional development in the field of bird protection and the broader nature conservation profession in our country.

The award is named after the biologist and conservationist Rado Smerd (1949 – 1984), who with his work made a significant contribution to the creation of nature conservation methods and to the publication of the Inventory of the Most Important Natural Heritage in 1976. One of his key professional contributions is the presentation and testing of the natural heritage valuation method in Planinské polje. He participated in the creation of professional magazines and made several films with natural history, caving and nature conservation content. 

You are invited to watch and listen.

Transcript

 Vladni podkast Goovsi

Voditelj Zoran Potič: Pozdravljeni v novem podkastu Govsi v produkciji Urada za komuniciranje. Tokrat tudi z vami Zoran Potič. Tokrat bo tekla beseda o nečem lepšem, zelenem, kot je tole naše ozadje tukaj. Zato smo v goste tokrat povabili dve sogovornici. Prva je dr. Katarina Groznik Zalar, direktorica Direktorata za naravo, in druga dr. Tanja Šumrada, predsednica Društva za opazovanje in proučevanje ptic. 

Pozdravljeni. 

Voditelj: Lep pozdrav obema. Skupno točko obeh sogovornic, namreč na eni strani imamo predstavnico države, vlade, na drugi strani predstavnico civilne družbe. Njuna skupna točka in tudi tokratnega pogovora je noviteta na področju narave. To je državna nagrada za najvišje dosežke pri ohranjanju narave in pri razvoju stroke na tem področju. Namreč, to nagrado so poimenovali po priznanem slovenskem biologu in naravovarstveniku Radu Smerduju. Bi me zanimalo, kdo je bil sploh Rado Smerdu. Namreč, če bi se danes sprehodili po ulicah Ljubljane ali Maribora in bi vprašali ljudi, kdo je bil ta gospod, verjetno ne bi dobili nekega odgovora. 

dr. Katarina Groznik Zalar: Verjetno res ne. Rado Smerdu je bil izjemen strokovnjak, bil je biolog in naravovarstvenik, pa tudi jamar. Bil je izjemno pomemben sodelavec Zavoda za spomeniško varstvo in to v 70. in 80. letih. Žal se je pa relativno mlad ponesrečil. Pri 35 letih je imel nesrečo ob terenskem delu, ampak očitno je v tem kratkem času pustil tak pečat, da ko se je leta 1999 sprejemal izjemno širok zakon o ohranjanju narave, je v tem zakonu tudi predlog, da se podeljuje nagrado na področju ohranjanja narave in da se jo poimenuje prav po njem. 

Voditelj: To je v bistvu precej star zakon. Nagrada je pa mlada, sveža, nova in v bistvu eden od uspehov tvojega mandata na Direktoratu za naravo, če se ne motim, če imam prave podatke. 

dr. Groznik Zalar: Tako je. V bistvu imamo Direktorat za naravo, odkar se je vzpostavilo Ministrstvo za naravne vire in prostor in ob tem, ko smo postali direktorat, je tudi zavedanje raslo, da je treba to področje razvijati tako po strokovni strani kot tudi, kar se tiče ozaveščanja. Pobudo za podelitev nagrade smo dobili od zunaj. Smo pa s svojimi sodelavci potem zadevo vzeli resno, ker gre za pozitivno zgodbo in mislim, da tudi na področju ohranjanja narave, kjer potrebujemo korenite spremembe na boljše, rabimo tudi pozitivne zgodbe. 

Voditelj: Koga je zbral ta odbor, ki je izbiral? 

dr. Groznik Zalar: Odbor je izbral Društvo za opazovanje in proučevanje ptic Slovenije, in sicer ker je bilo tako iz njihove kandidature, predlagala jih je sicer druga organizacija, če se ne motim, Umanotera. Iz njihove kandidature je bilo razvidno, da so res izjemno prispevali k razvoju področja ohranjanja narave, saj je tudi ostalih devet kandidatov. V bistvu, če si član odbora, imaš kar malce težavo, ker najrajši bi vsem podelil nagrado. Ampak potem smo seveda si kot odbor zastavili določene kriterije in društvo, krajše DOPPS, je soglasno, vsi člani odbora, ki so bili na tem zasedanju odbora, so se odločili, da so najprimernejši kandidat tokratne prve podelitve. 

Voditelj: Kaj to pomeni za vas, Tanja Šumrada, kot predsednico društva DOPPS, kaj pomeni takšna nagrada za vas? 

dr. Tanja Šumrada: Lep pozdrav tudi v mojem imenu. Najprej najlepša hvala ministrstvu in moram reči tudi vsem ostalim kandidatom, ki so bili predlagani. Jaz mislim, da je vseh preostalih devet kandidatur prav tako zelo zglednih organizacij, posameznikov, ki se trudijo, ki želijo bodisi direktno na terenu prispevati z naravovarstvenimi akcijami bodisi v smislu ozaveščanja javnosti, ker oba dela sta ključna pri ohranjanju biodiverzitete. Zdaj nam seveda pomeni ta nagrada predvsem ali pa meni osebno priznanje vsem sodelavcem, prostovoljcem na društvu, tudi vsem našim starejšim članom, ker DOPPS je bil ustanovljen leta 1979. Tako da je že ima neko zgodovino, tako da to nagrado jemljem predvsem kot potrditev dela društva v preteklosti. Društvo DOPPS ima, kot si sama rekla, neko dolgo tradicijo in v vsem tem času, vseh desetletjih, se je razvilo v eno resno organizacijo. 

Voditelj: Lahko malo opišeš? Verjetno neka širša javnost tega ne pozna najbolje, ampak recimo zame je zanimiv podatek, da ima društvo 30 profesionalnih sodelavcev. To pomeni zaposlenih? 

dr. Šumrada: Tako. 

Voditelj: Kako se to financira? Koliko je prostovoljnih sodelavcev, kako je razvejana vaša mreža? Verjetno je tudi to pretehtalo, ta resnost, organiziranost, vztrajnost in vsa ta desetletja, pretehtalo pri tem, da vam je pripadla ta čast, da ste dobili prvo to nagrado za varovanje narave. 

dr. Šumrada: Zdaj DOPPS je, kot rečeno, je bil ustanovljen leta 1979 in to je v bistvu, takrat je bil glavni kontekst, v katerem je društvo nastalo, torej miselnost takratnih prvih ustanovnih članov je bila, da se ustanovi organizacija, ki bo pripomogla oziroma ki bo vodila sistematično mednarodno primerljivo zbiranje podatkov o pticah in pa tudi njihovo znanstveno interpretacijo. To je bil tisti kontekst, tista skupna ideja in to je nek tak duh, ki vodi društvo tudi še danes. Se pravi, vsa stališča, vse aktivnosti in ključne, temeljne aktivnosti temeljijo na zbiranju podatkov, na razvoju stroke, tudi znanstvenem, raziskovalnem udejstvovanju. Društvo je med drugim tudi raziskovalna organizacija, torej ima svojo raziskovalno skupino in objavlja v mednarodnih znanstvenih revijah. In to je nekako tisto vodilo. Ker seveda, če veš, kje ptice so, torej, prva ideja je bila, da res dobro raziščemo, kje v Sloveniji ptice so, v kakšnem stanju so, katere imajo težave, katere ne in zakaj. Ker to je pa seveda potem osnova za to, da lahko ukrepamo. Ker torej varstvo narave mora temeljiti na podatkih, na dejstvih in to je naše vodilo še naprej. Drugače ja, društvo ima danes 30 zaposlenih, sodelavcev, profesionalnih različnih profilov, nekaj biologov pa tudi precej širše. Imamo tri pisarne, več kot 200, 230 mislim, da je uradna številka, ampak verjetno je še več aktivnih prostovoljcev. Večinoma so to ljudje, ki pomagajo pri popisih ptic, se pravi so različno usposobljeni, od takih čisto preprostih popisov do zahtevnejših popisov, teh najbolj, kjer je recimo skupina tam 30, 40 izurjenih popisovalcev, ki lahko delajo te najtežje popise v Sloveniji in pa imamo seveda tudi 1100 članov. 

Voditelj: Kaj to pomeni? Najtežji popis? Kako si lahko predstavljamo, kaj je to? Plezanje po kakšnih previsih, da prideš do ptic, kakšne redke ptice? 

dr. Šumrada: Tudi to, ampak ja, zdaj popisi ptic v Sloveniji potekajo na različne načine. Se pravi eni popisi so taki, da spremljamo ciljno posamezne vrste. Recimo že 25 let potekajo popisi bele štorklje, torej načeloma za vsa štorkljina gnezda v Sloveniji vemo, kje so. Vsako leto tudi te lokacije naši popisovalci popišejo in tukaj tudi poteka tesno sodelovanje z domačini in skrbniki gnezd, ki beležijo potem, kaj se z gnezdom dogaja, tako da v bistvu vemo zelo natančno, kaj se recimo s to vrsto dogaja. Torej, to je recimo tak primer teh ciljnih tovrstnih popisov. Zdaj najzahtevnejši popisi so pa tisti, je recimo popis ptic kmetijske krajine. Namreč, ptice v teh kmetijskih ekosistemih so najbolj ogrožene v Sloveniji, tudi najbolj številčne. Torej njihova številčnost je najbolj upadla, se zmanjšala. To so pa najtežji popisi. Se pravi, to pomeni, da, če si predstavljate zjutraj ob šestih ali še prej včasih torej začnemo s popisom. Dvokilometrski odsek. Po njem počasi hodimo in popišemo vse ptice, ki jih vidimo in slišimo. In to je, če si malo predstavljate, recimo v gozdu in podobno, kjer je bogata zvočna slika ptic, da si predstavljajte, kot da bi poskušal po zvoku prešteti vse inštrumente v orkestru in določati, koliko jih je in kateri so. Zato seveda potrebuje človek nekaj let usposabljanja. 

Voditelj: Ampak zakaj so pomembni ti popisi ptic? Kaj nam pove stanje na področju števila določenih vrst ptic v okoljih? Kakšen indikator je to pri razumevanju stanja v naravi? Mogoče vprašanje za obe. Zakaj je to tako pomembna dejavnost, vredna podpore in tako naprej? 

Dr. Groznik Zalar: Ja, področje ohranjanja narave je profesionalno področje in pri svojih odločitvah in ukrepih mora temeljiti na podatkih. In ptice že kar dolgo časa veljajo za izjemno dobre indikatorske vrste, ki so neke vrste res pokazatelj, v kakšnem stanju imaš te svoje naravne ekosisteme ali pa tudi antropogeno malo spremenjene ekosisteme, kot so kmetijski, kar je prej Tanja omenila. Tako da recimo kvalitetni podatki o pticah, ki se pojavljajo na določenih območjih, so bili ključni, ko smo določali območja Natura 2000 v Sloveniji. 

Voditelj: Kaj nam pove, kakšno je recimo stanje narave v trenutku glede na počutje, stanje in število ptičev, ki jih zabeležite v Sloveniji? Kako podnebne spremembe ali pa ta podnebna kriza vpliva na to dejavnost? 

dr. Šumrada: Tako kot je Katarina povedala, ptice so že od nekdaj en tak indikator. Ljudje so jih uporabljali za to, da so spremljali, kaj se z naravo dogaja. Samo predstavljajte si recimo, ko se vrnejo ptice selivke, je to naznanjalo, da prihaja pomlad, ko so odhajale, tudi. In tudi recimo zanimivo je, da v preteklosti recimo prvi znaki in še danes recimo prvi znaki, včasih, da gre nekaj v okolju hudo narobe, recimo z vidika kemikalij, pogosto pridejo preko ptic. Se pravi, da so recimo določene populacije naenkrat začele res opazno se zmanjševati. Zakaj ravno ptice? To je velikokrat potem tudi v javnosti, zdaj pa ne vem, ne more biti industrijska cona zaradi nekega ptiča. Ptice so krovni organizmi, ki imajo to srečo, bom rekla, da so tudi zelo priljubljene živali, kar pomeni, da se z njimi ukvarja veliko število ljudi. Se pravi, veliko ljudi je, ki so pripravljeni posvečati svoj čas temu, da zbirajo podatke o njih. Se pravi, da imamo podporo ljudi, usposobljenih ljudi, ki pomagajo zbirati podatke. In to je tudi razlog, zakaj so imele v naravovarstvu že zelo zgodaj, tudi v Evropski uniji, poseben status. Imamo direktivo o pticah, ki je bila sprejeta že v 70. letih. Torej, to je. Zakaj ravno ptice? Ravno zaradi tega, ker so med najbolj raziskanimi organizmi na planetu in imamo dolgoletne podatke, ki so ključni, če hočemo recimo razumeti, kaj se dogaja, tako kot ste omenili vpliv podnebnih sprememb na naravo. Potrebujemo dolgoletne nize podatkov, kjer imamo neko standardizirano, mednarodno primerljivo metodologijo. Recimo en primer, da si boste predstavljali, v čem je recimo, kaj to pomeni? Eden od pomembnih monitoringov v Sloveniji je monitoring ptic kmetijske krajine, ki sem ga že omenila, poteka v Sloveniji od leta 2008. V Evropi, v nekaterih državah pa tudi že več desetletij. Prej so začeli in ta monitoring nam kaže, da je stanje ptic v teh ekosistemih zelo slabo. Na primer vemo, da v teh dobrih 15 letih je bil upad recimo travniških vrst gnezdilk, torej teh, ki so najbolj ogrožene, za okrog 40 odstotkov. Se pravi, gre za res velik upad številčnosti. 

Voditelj: Čemu to pripisujete v društvu ali pa na ministrstvu, direktoratu, kaj je posledica tega? Recimo na drugi strani poslušamo, da se Slovenija zarašča, da kmetijstvo je v težavah, bi pričakoval, da bi imele ptice več prostora za gnezdenje, recimo travniški ptiči. Zdaj, kaj se dogaja, se da to razvozlati? 

Dr. Groznik Zalar: Biodiverzitetna kriza je kriza, ki je pravzaprav po nekaterih raziskavah dejansko še večja kot podnebna kriza, vendar je v javnosti bistveno slabše poznana. Če pogledate te znanstvene primerjalne študije, kažejo, da biodiverzitetna kriza, ki pravzaprav šele prihaja oziroma ena taka podstat vseh težav, ki jih vidimo tudi v kontekstu podnebnih sprememb, torej, to je problem, ki pravzaprav še prihaja. Ampak ključna skupna točka je na globalni ravni, pa tudi v Evropski uniji so te primarne gospodarske dejavnosti, torej gozdarstvo, kmetijstvo, ribištvo, te vplivajo. In najlažje je to razložiti s tem, da v bistvu je kmetijstvo enostavno, recimo v Evropi, zaradi potreb pridelave hrane, pa tudi drugih surovin, je zavzelo res veliko prostora in s tem, ko zavzame neka dejavnost veliko prostora, odvzame vire drugim živalim in jih imajo manj. Zdaj imajo pa te ptice, ki so specializirane za kmetijske ekosisteme, tudi to težavo, da potrebujejo tako odprto, ekstenzivno rabljeno tradicionalno krajino in jim ne ustreza tudi to, da se recimo krajna zarašča. Se pravi, za te ptice, lahko jim rečemo, da so indikator nekega tradicionalnega slovenskega podeželja. In ko to izginja, izginjajo tudi ptice, ki so z njim povezane. Seveda, to tradicionalno kmetijstvo je v upadu. To vemo. Površine v kmetijstvu se povečujejo. To je pač kmetijska politika v to usmerjena. Tudi gospodarsko gledano je tako. 

Voditelj: Katarina, ti si omenjala Naturo 2000. Če gledamo tako aktualno, strokovno, zdaj nekdo, ki površno spremlja razpravo v slovenski javnosti, je Natura 2000 postala problem, ker omejuje raznorazne aktivnosti na različnih področjih. Kaj se to dogaja? Si direktorica direktorata za naravo in verjetno v direktnem konfliktu z različnimi interesi. 

Dr. Groznik Zalar: Hvala za to vprašanje. Ohranjanje narave je res eno zanimivo področje. Zanimivo v tem smislu, da v Sloveniji na načelni ravni smo zelo vsi hitro za naravo. Tudi naš znak je I Feel Slovenia je zelen. Tukaj imamo zeleno ozadje. Skratka, na načelni ravni ima večina ljudi rada naravo, rada ohranjeno naravo. Ko pa pridemo do konkretnih odločitev, je pa žal tako, da imajo pa kratkoročni interesi, včasih zelo ozki interesi, so močnejši v tem tehtanju, kako bomo dele Slovenije recimo razvijali. Tako da to, kar je Tanja prej omenila, ta upad ptic, ki se jih spremlja v okviru indeksa kmetijske krajine, to je nekaj takega, ko ti mora zasvetiti rdeča lučka in moraš iskati ukrepe, kako bi to zaustavil. In menim, tako kot poznam delo Društva za opazovanje in proučevanje ptic, da njihova vrlina je ne samo, da popisujejo ptice, opazujejo, ampak so se tudi že pred leti začeli zavzemati za konkretne aktivnosti izboljšav stanja ekosistemov. To je pa nekaj, s čimer se tudi mi ukvarjamo, tako da v bistvu pri tem tudi sodelujemo na nekaterih konkretnih primerih. Ali preko različnih projektov ali pa celo pri upravljanju. Naj na primer omenim naravni rezervat Škocjanski zatok. Tam je bila včasih deponija pristanišča Koper. Ampak še vedno, ker je imela mokriščni značaj, ker so se tam srečevale sladke in slane vode, se je pa videlo, da je tudi izjemno pomembno območje za ptice. In smo tukaj tudi od društva dobivali pobude, naj država nekaj naredi, in mislim, da imamo zdaj tam primer dobre prakse, kjer smo uspeli zgledno urediti ta sicer manjši del, ampak pomemben del za ptice. 

Voditelj: In tukaj imamo primer dobre prakse, pravite, sodelovanja vladne in nevladne strani. Kako bi pa na splošno ocenili sodelovanje vlade, vladnih služb, direktoratov, ministrstev z nevladnimi organizacijami na področju varstva narave? Teh je kar nekaj, a je v vseh primerih tako zgledno? 

Dr. Groznik Zalar: Področje ohranjanja narave sem že omenila, da je kompleksno, tudi izjemno zahtevno in veliko možnosti je še za izboljšave. Ampak glavno je, če si želimo izboljšati ohranjanje narave, pa tudi izboljšati stanje naše biotske raznovrstnosti, kot je prej Tanja omenila, gre za izjemno globalno krizo, ki, če ne bomo res nekaj korenito spremenili, ne bo dobro tudi za ljudi. Tako da v bistvu bomo morali izboljševati delo na tem področju z različnih vidikov. In en del te zgodbe je, da morajo vsi resorji vlade recimo vzeti to področje tudi za svoje, ga vključevati v svoje predpise, v svoje programske dokumente. Drugo je pa, da tudi družba v čim večji meri vzame ohranjanje narave za svoje. Šele potem bomo lahko uspešni. Če je to samo delo, recimo direktorata na ministrstvu, Zavoda za varstvo narave, upravljavcev zavarovanih območij, to je premalo. Enostavno ne uspemo teh negativnih vplivov ustavljati dovolj močno, da bi imeli več zgodb o uspehu. Skratka, povzetek bi lahko bil, da država sama, brez sodelovanja z nevladnimi organizacijami, državljani, ne more veliko storiti pri varovanju narave. 

Voditelj: Me pa zanima tvoj pogled, Tanja, kako ti vidiš sodelovanje? Tvoje društvo z ostalimi nevladnimi organizacijami s tega področja in v razmerju do vlade? Kakšno je? In mogoče še poveš, kakšno je sodelovanje z industrijo, s podjetji, ki izvajajo konkretne projekte, elektro in tako naprej. Elektro podjetja. Nevladni vidik me zanima. 

Dr. Šumrada: Kar več različnih vprašanj si združil, ampak bom poskusila. 

Voditelj:Bom poskusil te spomniti na vsako področje. 

Dr. Šumrada: Zdaj mogoče ena stvar, kjer bom začela kritično do sektorja varstva narave na splošno, tako nevladnega kot vladnega, tudi raziskovalnega. Jaz mislim, da seveda varstvo narave, zdaj če pogledamo recimo na ravni Evropske unije ali pa tudi Slovenije, kaj smo v preteklih desetletjih dosegli oziroma so starejši kolegi dosegli, sigurno nekaj uspehov je. Se pravi, ključna stvar, na primer, je bila omejitev lova na določene vrste, okrepitev zakonodajnega varstva, pravnega varstva vrst. In danes to vidimo na primer v okrevanju številnih, recimo večjih vrst sesalcev, ujed in podobno, ki so v preteklosti recimo bile v Evropi izredno ogrožene in danes vidimo vračanje pravzaprav. In seveda s tem povezane tudi nove konflikte, ampak recimo vračanje določenih vrst, ki v preteklosti so bile že na robu tega, da pravzaprav izginejo popolnoma. Torej, to je recimo nek uspeh varstva narave. Druga stvar, mislim, ki je zelo uspešna tako v Sloveniji kot v tujini, in tukaj je treba povedati, je sigurno DOPPS igral pomembno vlogo v državi, je ohranjanje, je v bistvu območno varstvo, predvsem mokrišč, bi rekla, mokrišča, torej manjša mokrišča, kot je na primer Škocjanski zatok. To varstvo, torej ciljno upravljanje manjših območij z namenom, da se tam po eni strani seveda omogoči okrevanje ogroženih vrst, po drugi strani pa tudi seveda, da se preizkuša neke nove rešitve z vidika upravljanja za naprej. Se pravi, recimo ena pomembna stvar, ki prihaja, je, ki je jasno, da bo potrebno narediti, je tudi seveda obnova narave. In tu gre za področje, ki je izjemno zahtevno. Potrebuješ veliko znanja, izkušenj in to lahko pridobiš samo s tem, če sam upravljaš s takšnimi habitati. In v društvu npr. trenutno upravljamo s tremi naravnimi rezervati. Vsak rezervat ima svojo zgodbo. Katarina je že omenila Škocjanski zatok. Ta je najstarejši. Bil je pravzaprav razglašen praktično zelo hitro po osamosvojitvi Slovenije in je res zgleden primer obnovljenega mokrišča, pravzaprav zelo celovito. Z njim danes upravlja DOPPS. Je pa to zgodba, ki je trajala skoraj 20 let obnov, pridobivanja evropskih sredstev in tako naprej. Drug primer, recimo, si omenil primer sodelovanja z gospodarstvom, recimo so Ormoške lagune, to je najmlajši DOPPS-ov rezervat, torej pri Ormožu, severovzhod države. To je bil prvi primer, kolikor jaz vem, v Sloveniji, da je gospodarska družba v bistvu podarila zemljišča, šlo je za 55 hektarjev zemljišč, nevladni organizaciji v last z zavezo, da se to območje uredi in odpre za javnost in posveti dolgoročnemu varstvu ohranjanja mokrišč. Se pravi, tudi recimo primer območnega varstva. Kje pa nismo bili uspešni kot varstvo narave in tukaj bo treba iti naprej, pa je sigurno integracija v zahtevnejša vprašanja, recimo kmetijstvo je tak primer, prehranski sistemi. Se pravi, kako izven nekih ciljnih ukrepov za varstvo določenih vrst ali pa izven, recimo nekega rezervatnega varstva, kako integrirati varstvo narave v vse družbene pore. Tukaj smo pa še zelo na začetku, tako z vidika stroke, raziskav. Torej ta družboslovni vidik varstva narave, kot tudi bi rekla samega učinka, ki ga imamo v javnosti. In seveda s tem pride potem tudi sodelovanje z gospodarstvom, ki, moram reči, na društvu je uspešno. Bi ga lahko ocenila. Kadar se društvo oglasi, kot recimo v smislu nasprotovanja določenim posegom v naravo, je to ponavadi zelo utemeljeno, mislim vedno utemeljeno. Se pravi, gre ponavadi za velike posege na neka območja, kjer je res očitno, da gre za presežene, za neke prekomerne vplive, na katere pa, če ocenimo, da je potrebno opozoriti javnost oz. jo tako ali drugače angažirati, ker gre velikokrat tudi za družbene odločitve. Po drugi strani pa imamo tudi veliko sodelovanja pozitivnega, recimo meni osebno področje energetike. Ravno začenjamo z enim skupnim projektom z določenimi podjetji. Elektro Primorska konkretno, s katerimi smo imeli kar bogato zgodovino tudi na področju Volovje rebri smo bili na nasprotnih bregovih. Danes delamo skupaj. 

Voditelj: Bili ste na sodiščih, če se ne motim. 

Dr. Šumrada: Ja, tudi med drugim je bilo. To je bila pač zgodba, ki ima dolg rep, ampak danes je pa to, se mi zdi, smo se premaknili korak naprej in iščemo v bistvu sinergije, ker varstvo narave mora potekati v sinergijah. Kar se tiče sodelovanja med nevladnim sektorjem in državo. To je vedno za nevladnike tako malo nehvaležno vprašanje. Ampak je pa treba mogoče opozoriti tukaj predvsem na to, se pravi generalno zgledno, smo tudi zadovoljni s podporo. So pa področja, kjer sigurno bi bile potrebne izboljšave. Predvsem bi tukaj izpostavila pridobivanje evropskih sredstev podpora pri tem, ker konkretno na področju varstva narave so projekti tisti, ki imajo dolgoletno izkazano v bistvu zelo pozitivne učinke za slovensko naravovarstvo. In tukaj je ta delež podpore s strani države, ker tukaj ne gre za 100-odstotno sofinancirane projekte, ga je zelo težko pridobiti. Na društvu tukaj veliko sodelujemo z gospodarstvom, pridobimo tudi iz gospodarstva sofinanciranje velikokrat, vendar brez dodatne podpore države ne gre. In to je za nas recimo ključnega pomena in velikokrat pogrešamo kot pomemben podstat za to, da lahko v bistvu neke nove ideje prinašamo in preizkušamo v Sloveniji. Ima pa seveda to širšo korist tudi seveda z vidika zaposlitev in tako naprej, ne samo pri nas, ampak tudi širše pri partnerjih. 

Voditelj: Katarina, kaj lahko pričakujemo? Kar je omenjala Tanja. Novi projekti, novi izzivi. Imate na ministrstvu, na direktoratu verjetno en tak pregled, kaj vse lahko pričakujemo? 

Dr. Groznik Zalar: Ja, kar se nas tiče, lahko pričakujete, da bomo še naprej zelo proaktivno iskali rešitve, recimo področje ohranjanja narave. Če bi se mi zanašali samo na proračunska sredstva, bi imeli in pokazati še manj zgodb o uspehu in primerov, kjer nam je v Sloveniji z organizacijami in posamezniki uspelo izboljšati ene zadeve. Mi se zavedamo pomena projektov. Tanja je omenila LIFE projekte. Tukaj imamo še druge projektne vire. Recimo mi smo v prejšnji finančni perspektivi podprli 11 Natura kohezijskih projektov. Mislim, da je DOPPS bil tudi partner vsaj v enem. Možnost imamo tudi pridobiti tako imenovane sistemske LIFE projekte. Enega imamo v teku, ki se imenuje okrepljeno upravljanje Nature 2000 v Sloveniji. Skratka, poskušamo te vrzeli, ki se jih zavedamo, v bistvu nekako izpolniti in izboljševati. In mogoče, če se vrnemo spet k Radu Smerduju. On je bil predlagan s strani njegovih sodelavcev, če se ne motim, je bil Stane Peterlin tisti, ki je predlagal, da se nagrada poimenuje po njem. Prav zato, ker se je zavedal, kako izjemno pomembno je skupinsko delo in dobro sodelovanje. Poznan je bil pa tudi po tem, da je bil izjemno strpen, kar je spet zelo pomembno. Pa naj gre za sodelovanje vladne ali pa nevladne scene ali pa strokovnjakov z različnih področij. Hkrati ga je odlikovala tudi odločnost, kar pa tudi rabiš, kot si omenil na začetku. Pogosto nas vidijo kot tiste, ki zaviramo razvoj, in v bistvu moraš, kadar se postaviš po robu kakšnim razvojnim predlogom, kakšnim pobudam za posege v prostor, moraš znati dobro utemeljiti, zakaj. In moraš biti pri tem tudi odločen. Hkrati pa, tudi če želiš izboljšati sodelovanje, recimo s področjem kmetijstva, gozdarstva, urejanja voda in še z drugimi področji, Skratka, moraš pa tudi se znati pogovarjati, razumeti drug drugega, se poslušati. In moje mnenje je, da odločitve, ki se jih sprejme na način, da se upošteva zadržke ohranjanja narave, pa tudi predloge, kako pa se kaj da narediti na še sprejemljiv način, da to so tudi na dolgi rok najboljše odločitve za vse nas. Recimo, omenjali smo podnebno krizo. Biodiverzitetna kriza je s podnebno krizo izjemno pomembna. Če imamo ekosisteme, ki so v dobrem stanju ohranjenosti, to pomeni, da so raznovrstni, se tudi boljše prilagajajo. 

Voditelj: So bolj odporni. 

Dr. Šumrada: Tako. Hkrati so bolj odporni. Ti ekosistemi, ki so v boljšem stanju ohranjenosti, tudi zadržujejo več ogljika. Skratka, to je win win situacija, če nekako iščeš rešitve, ki so dobre za eno in za drugo krizo. 

Voditelj: Okej, Tanja, Katarina, mislim, da nam je čas potekel. Jaz bi ta pogovor seveda nadaljeval, ampak mislim, da je bilo odlično in najlepša hvala za udeležbo, za zanimiv pogovor in do naslednjič. 

Dr. Groznik Zalar: Hvala. 

Dr. Šumrada: Hvala lepa. 
 

Government's podcast GOVSI. 

Host Zoran Potič: This is Govsi podcast from the communication office's production. With you I'm also Zoran Potič. This time we will talk about something nicer, greener, as is our background. We invited here two speakers. Dr. Katarina Groznik Zeiler, the manager of the Directorate of Nature. And Dr. Tanja Šumrada, the president of the Birdwatching Association (DOPPS). 

Both guests: Hello. 

Host: Hello to both of you. Your common ground ... We have a representative of the government and a representative of the civil society. Their common ground is a novelty in the field of nature. It is a national award for the highest achievements in nature conservation and development of the profession in this field. The award was named after the established Slovenian biologist and environmentalist Rado Smerdu. I'm interested who was actually Rado Smerdu. If we walk today on the streets of Ljubljana or Maribor and ask people, who was this gentleman, they probably wouldn't know. 

dr. Katarina Groznik Zalar: Probably they wouldn't. Rado Smerdu was an outstanding expert, a biologist, environmentalist and a caver as well. He was an important coworker of the Institute of Monument Protection in the 70s and 80s. Unfortunately, he had an accident, when he was relatively young. When he was 35 years old, he had an accident in the fieldwork. But in this short time he has made such a mark that when in 1999 a very broad Nature Conservation Act was being adopted, there was a proposition in this Act to award the prize in the field of nature conservation and to name it after him. 

Host: The Act is quite old, but the award is new and one of the successes of your tenure in the Directorate of nature. If I'm not mistaken. 

dr. Katarina Groznik Zalar: It's true. We have a Directorate of nature, since there is the Ministry of Natural Resources and Space. When we became a directorate, the awareness grew that this field has to be developed professionally and in promoting awareness as well. We have been given the initiative to award the prize from the outside. My coworkers and me took it seriously, because it's a positive story and I believe that in the field of nature conservation, where we need changes for the better, we also need positive stories. 

Host: Who was chosen by the board? 

dr. Groznik Zalar: The board chose the Birdwatching Association of Slovenia. They were nominated by another organization, Montera, if I'm not mistaken, but from their nomination it was evident that they have greatly contributed to nature conservation. Like the other nine candidates as well. As a member of the board you have a problem, because you would like to award everybody. But then we set certain criteria and the Association, in short DOPPS, was unanimously chosen on the meeting as the most appropriate candidate of the first award ceremony. 

Host: What does this mean for you Tanja Šumrada? As a president of the Association DOPPS? What does this award mean to you? 

dr. Tanja Šumrada: Good afternoon from me too. Firstly, I would like to thank the Ministry. I have to say to all the other candidates who were nominated. All nine candidates are very exemplary organizations or individuals who are trying, they are contributing in the field with the nature conservation actions or in the sense of raising awareness. Both parts are key for preserving biodiversity. To us or to me personally, this award means mainly recognition for all coworkers and volunteers in Association and all our older members. DOPPS was established in 1979 and it has some history. I look at this award primarily as a validation of the Association's work in the past. Yes, the Association DOPPS, as you've said it, has a long tradition. And in all these decades it has developed in a serious organization. 

Host: Can you describe it? The general public might not know it, but I find it interesting that the Association has 30 professional coworkers. What does it mean? Are they employed? 

Dr. Šumrada: Yes. 

Host: How it is financed? How many volunteers is there? How extensive is your network? Probably it was also important. The seriousness, organisation, tenacity and all these decades. It was probably important that you were given the first award of Rado Smerdu for nature conservation. 

Dr. Šumrada: DOPPS was founded in 1979. Then, the main context to form the Association... The mindset of the founding members was to found an organization which will contribute or will systematically lead an internationally comparable data collection on birds. And scientific interpretation as well. This was a common idea and a spirit that still guides the Association. All perspectives and activities and the main activities are based on data collection, on the development of the profession and scientific, research activity. Among other things, it has its a research group and it publishes in the international scientific magazines. This was our direction, because if you know, where the birds are... The first idea was to make a research, where are the birds, in what state are they, which of them have problems and why. This is a foundation to take action. Nature conservation has to be founded on facts and this is our guide. The Association has 30 employees, professional coworkers of various types. There are a few biologists and a lot broader types. We have three offices and probably more than 200 active volunteers. They are mostly people who help with inventory of birds. They have different capabilities. From simple lists to more complex ones. There is a group of 30-40 really skilful registrars who can do the most difficult inventories in Slovenia. And we have also 1100 members. 

Host:What does the most difficult inventory mean? How can we conceive it? Does it mean climbing on cliffs to see a rare bird? 

Dr. Šumrada: Yes. This as well. Inventories of birds are done in different ways. In some of them we are following certain species. For example, the inventory of white stork is taking place for 25 years. We know, where all stork's nests are. And our registrars list all these locations every year. Here, we closely cooperate with the locals, the nest keepers, who are recording what is going on with the nest. We know what is going on with this species very well. This is a case of targeted inventories of one species. The most difficult inventories of the farmland birds, because birds in agricultural ecosystems are the most endangered and their population has declined the most, it has shrunken. These inventories are the most difficult. This means, at six a.m. or even before that we start with the inventory on the 2 kilometres section. We slowly move on it and record all birds that we see and hear. If you want to visualize it, in the forest or in similar environment, where there are many sounds of birds, it is something like you would try to list all the instruments in the orchestra just by sound and define, how many are there and which ones. We need a few years of training for this. 

Host: But why are these inventories of birds so important? What does the number of certain species say? What does this say about understanding the state of nature? Maybe this is a question for both. Why is this such an important activity, worthy of support? 

Dr. Groznik Zalar: The area of nature conservation is a professional field and the decisions and measures have to be founded on data. The birds have been for quite a long time regarded as very good indicator species. Some bird species are excellent indicators of the status of natural ecosystems or even anthropogenically changed ecosystems, such as agricultural ecosystems, which Tanja mentioned. So, quality data on birds that appear in certain areas were crucial when we were defining Natura 2000 sites in Slovenia. 

Host: So, what can we discern about the current state of nature given the status and the number of birds recorded in Slovenia? How does climate change or the climate crisis affect this activity? 

Dr. Šumrada: Like Katarina said, birds have always been an indicator. People have used them as a means to monitor changes in nature. For instance, the return of migratory birds indicated that spring is coming, and the same for when they were leaving. Interestingly, in the past, and actually still today, the first signs that something is going terribly wrong in the environment, in terms of chemicals, for example, often came through birds, such as certain bird populations suddenly beginning to decline noticeably. So, why birds? The public often sees this as: "Ah, we can't have an industrial area here because of some bird." Birds are umbrella organisms that have the good fortune, so to speak, of also being very popular animals, which means that a large number of people work with them. There are many people who are prepared to dedicate their time to collecting data on birds. So, we have "citizen science", meaning the support of qualified people who help us collect data. That is why, very early on, birds have held a special status in nature conservation, in the EU as well. We have the Birds directive, which was adopted in the 1970s. So, why birds? Because they are among the most well-researched organisms on the planet. We have these long-running data, which are crucial. If, for instance, we want to understand the impact of climate change on nature, as you said, we need a long-running series of data with a standardised internationally comparable methodology. For example, to illustrate what this means, one of the more important monitorings in Slovenia is the monitoring of farmland birds. Slovenia has been conducting it since 2008. Some European countries started even decades earlier. This monitoring shows that the status of birds in these ecosystems is very poor. For instance, we know that in the past 15 years, the population of grassland bird species, which are most endangered, has declined by approximately 40 %. So, these are truly large population declines. 

Host: What do you ascribe this to at the Society, the Ministry or the Directorate? What are the consequences? Namely, on the other hand, we hear that Slovenia is being overgrown and that agriculture is in trouble. One would expect that animals and birds would have more space to nest in, grassland birds, for example. So, what is going on? Can we figure this out? 

Dr. Groznik Zalar: Yes, of course. The biodiversity crisis is, according to some research, actually even bigger than the climate crisis, but it is significantly less known by the public. Comparative scientific studies show that the biodiversity crisis, which is actually only just coming, is a foundational issue that can also be seen in the context of climate change. This is a problem that actually has yet to come. The key common element affecting this, both at the global level and at the EU level, are mainly primary economic activities, forestry, agriculture and fishing. This is most easily explained by the fact that, in Europe, due to the needs of producing food and other raw materials, agriculture has taken up truly a lot of space. When an activity takes up a lot of space, it takes away resources from animals, which are left with less. Farmland specialist bird species have also got the problem that they require an open, extensively used traditional landscape. The landscape being overgrown is a detriment to them. We can say that these birds are an indicator of the traditional Slovenian countryside. As it disappears, so too do the birds associated with it. Of course, traditional agriculture is in decline. Farm areas are expanding, as agricultural policy is oriented towards. Yes, economically speaking as well. 

Host: Katarina, you mentioned Natura 2000. If we tackle this technically, for one who only follows the Slovenian public debate superficially, Natura 2000 has become a problem, as it limits all kinds of activities in various fields. What is going on here? You are the director of the Directorate for Nature, which is probably in a direct conflict of various interests. 

Dr. Groznik Zalar: Yes, thank you for this question. Nature conservation is a very interesting field, interesting in the sense that, in Slovenia, we are all, in principle, pro-nature. Our "ifeelsLOVEnia" logo is green, our background here is green ... So, in principle, most people love nature, they love preserved nature. Unfortunately, when it comes to concrete decisions, short-term interests, and sometimes very narrow interests, are stronger when it comes to weighing how to develop parts of Slovenia. What Tanja mentioned earlier, the decline of birds, monitored within the Farmland Bird Index, is something that should set off red flags and we need to find measures on how to stop it. As I am familiar with the work of the DOPPS, their virtue is not only that they observe and conduct a census of birds, but also that, for years, they have been advocating concrete activities to improve the state of ecosystems, which is what we are engaged in as well, and we also cooperate in certain cases. Either through various projects or the management of, for instance, the Škocjanski Zatok nature reserve, which is where the landfill of the Koper seaport used to be. Because it still had wetland characteristics, as it was the point where fresh and salt water met, it was also a very important area for birds. We got initiatives from the Society for the state to do something, and I believe that that is now a case of good practice. We managed to do an exemplary job of fixing up this small, but important area for birds. 

Host: This is a case of good practice, the cooperation of the government and an NGO, but how would you generally assess the cooperation of the government, directorates and ministries with NGOs in the field of nature conservation? There are quite a few. Is it always this exemplary? 

Dr. Groznik Zalar: Like I said before, the field of nature conservation is complex and very challenging. There is still room for improvement. If we want to improve our biodiversity as Tanja mentioned, the crisis is worldwide. If we don't change, there will soon be consequences for people too. We'll have to improve in different aspects and a part of the story is that all branches of government must absorb this field. The society needs to focus on nature conservation, only then can we be successful. For example the work of the directorate, the Institute for Nature Conservation ... That's not enough. We can't contain all the negative effects to have more successful stories. To sum up, the country without the help of NGOs and citizens can't do much about nature conservation. 

Host: What is your take on that, Tanja? How do you cooperate with other NGOs and with the government? And maybe if you can tell how do you cooperate with other companies that carry out such projects? I'm interested in the NGO view. 

Dr. Šumrada: These are several different questions, but I will try. 

Host: I'll try to remind you as we go. 

Dr. Šumrada: Let me start with the criticism of the nature conservation sector in general, both NGO and governmental, as well as research. If we look at nature conservation at the European Union level, or even Slovenia... What we have achieved in the past decades. Or our older colleagues have achieved. There certainly are some successes. The key thing, for example, was the restriction of hunting of certain species, the strengthening of legislative protection of species. Today we see this, for example, in the recovery of many larger mammal species, birds of prey and so on, which in the past were extremely endangered in Europe. Today we see the return of... Of course, there are new conflicts related to that as well, but the return of certain species which in the past were on the verge of disappearing completely. That's a success of the nature conservation. The other thing, which is very successful both in Slovenia and abroad, and it has to be said, DOPPS has certainly played an important role in our country, is the regional protection, especially of wetlands. Smaller wetlands, such as Škocjanski Zatok, for example. The targeted management of smaller areas in order to, on the one hand, allow the recovery of endangered species, and, on the other hand, to try out some new solutions in terms of management for the future. An important thing that is to come, which is clearly going to have to be done, is nature restoration or renaturation. This is extremely demanding, you need a lot of knowledge and experience. You can only get that by managing such habitats. Our organisation currently manages three nature reserves, each one has its own story. Katarina mentioned Škocjanski Zatok, which is the oldest. It was declared very quickly after the Slovenian independence. It's an exemplary case of a very comprehensively restored wetland. Today it's managed by DOPPS. But it took almost 20 years of restoration, obtaining European funds and so on. You mentioned an example of cooperation with the economy. Ormož Basins is the youngest DOPPS reserve near Ormož in the north-east of the country. This was the first case in Slovenia, as far as I know, of a company donating land, namely 55 hectares of land, to an NGO with the commitment to restore the area, open it up to the public and dedicate it to the long-term wetland conservation. This is an example of area conservation. What we have not been successful at, in terms of nature conservation, and we will have to go further, is certainly integration into more complex issues. Agriculture is such an example, food systems. How to go beyond targeted measures for the protection of certain species, beyond reserve protection, how to integrate nature protection into all the pores of society. Here we are still very much at the beginning, both in terms of the profession, research, so the social science aspect of nature protection, as well as the effect we have on the public. Of course, this entails the cooperation with the economy. I have to say our organisation is quite successful at that. When the organisation speaks out, in terms of opposing certain interventions in nature, it's always justified. It is usually a case of major interventions in certain areas where it is really obvious that there are excessive impacts, which we consider it necessary to draw the public's attention to or to engage them in one way or another, because these are often social decisions. On the other hand, a lot of cooperation is positive, you mentioned the energy sector. We are just starting a joint LIFE project with certain companies. Specifically Elektro Primorska, with whom we have quite a rich history. We were on opposite sides regarding Volovja Reber. Today we are working together. This went to court, if I'm not mistaken. Yes, among other things. This story dragged on for quite some time. But I think we've taken a step forward and we're looking for synergies. Nature protection must take place in synergies. As far as cooperation between the NGO sector and the state, it's always a bit of a thankless question for NGOs, but it is perhaps worth pointing out... In general, it's exemplary, we're happy with the support. But I would say there are areas that need to be improved. I would point out in particular the obtaining of European funds, and the support for that. Specifically in the field of nature conservation, the LIFE projects have shown very positive effects on Slovenian nature conservation. The share of support from the state, because these are not a 100% financed projects, is very difficult to obtain. The organisation cooperates a lot with the economy, we often obtain funds from the economy, but we need the additional support from the state. This is crucial for us and we often miss it. It's an important foundation so that we can bring and test some new ideas in Slovenia. This has a wider benefit in terms of employment and so on. Not only with us, but also more broadly with our partners. 

Host: Katarina, what can we expect? Tanja mentioned new projects, new challenges. The ministry, the directorate probably has an overview. What can we expect? 

Dr. Groznik Zalar: You can expect us to continue to be very proactive in our search for solutions. In the field of nature conservation, if we were to rely on the budget, we would have even fewer success stories to show and fewer examples of where we have managed to improve things in Slovenia with organisations and individuals. We are aware of the importance of projects. Tanja mentioned LIFE projects, we have other project resources. In the previous financial perspective, we supported 11 Natura cohesion projects. I think DOPPS was a partner in at least one of them. We have the possibility to get the so-called systemic LIFE projects. One is ongoing, the Enhanced Management of Natura 2000 in Slovenia. We are trying to fill and improve the gaps that we are aware of. If we go back to Rado Smerdu, his colleagues, if I am not mistaken, it was Stane Peterlin who proposed the prize be named after him, precisely because he was aware of the importance of teamwork and good cooperation. He was also known for being extremely tolerant, which is again very important, whether it is governmental or non-governmental cooperation, or experts in different fields. One of his virtues was determination, which is what you need when, as you said at the beginning, we are often seen as holding back development. When you are standing in the way of a development proposal, a spatial development initiative, you have to be able to justify why, and you have to be decisive. But if you want to improve cooperation with, say, agriculture, forestry, water management, and other areas, you have to be able to have a conversation, understand each other, listen to each other. In my opinion, the decisions that take into account the reservations of nature conservation, but also suggestions as to how something can be done in an acceptable way, are also the best decisions for all of us in the long term. For example, we mentioned the climate crisis. The biodiversity crisis is extremely important for the climate crisis. If we have ecosystems that are in a good state of conservation, meaning that they are also diverse, they are better able to adapt to these changes. 

Host: More resilient. 

Dr. Šumrada: The ecosystems that are in a better state of conservation also hold more carbon. In short, it's a win-win situation if we're looking for solutions that are good for both crises. 

Host: Tanja, Katarina, I think we've run out of time. I would love to continue this conversation, I think it was great. Thank you very much for coming and for an interesting conversation. Until next time. 

Dr. Groznik Zalar: Thank you. 

Dr. Šumrada: Thank you very much.