8.4.4 Sufficiency of the protected areas network Table 23 demonstrates that in comparison with the total surface covered by habitats of different mire site types, the area of respective protected mires varies by site types from 42% to 81%. Thus, mire habitats are protected in Estonia much more sufficiently than habitats of some grasslands or forests. Here we are obliged to the efforts of the late Professor V. Masing, E. Kask and several other active fighters for mire protection. We can also admit the high global assessment values of the already protected mires, which means that the network of the Estonian protected areas has been established deliberately.
TABLE 23. Surface and percentage of protected and unprotected mire areas with high global assessment value. Habitat site type
Type code
Total surface of areas within protected areas
Surface of protected areas with high conservation value
Surface of unprotected areas with high conservation value
ha
%
ha
% of all protected areas
ha
Poor fens
3.1.1.1
9,888
50
7,168
72
1,963
Rich fens
3.1.1.2
12,360
64
11,266
91
2,752
Minerotrophic quagmires
3.1.1.3
960
59
838
87
331
Floodplain fens
3.1.1.4
1,656
52
1,200
72
338
Mixotrophic grass mires
3.12.1
27,359
81
24,970
91
2,052
Mixotrophic quagmires
3.1.2.2
2,792
76
2,769
99
453
Spring Fens
3.1.3.1
432
55
403
93
300
Heath moors
3.2.1.1
487
42
452
93
146
Bogs
3.2.2
115,453
76
103,856
90
10,911
1,711,387
–
152,922
–
19,246
Total
Nevertheless, for every mire site type there were discovered some additional areas with high conservation value addition of which to the existing network of protected areas should be solved in the nearest future. Thorough assessment and case-by-case analysis of those areas was beyond the framework of the present project. In most cases, it depends on the representativity of each area, as well as on the abundance and quality of neighbouring habitats forming valuable habitat complexes. Moreover, some mires are protected only partially at present.
8.4.5 Sufficiency of the Natura 2000 network Estimates of mire areas within the Sites of Community Importance have been previously assessed by the Estonian Ministry of the Environment (K. Möller, pers. comm.). For the majority of the habitat types, their estimates of the total surface differ noticeably from the results of the present survey but percentages of inclusion of areas into the SCIs coincide pretty well for the majority of the habitat types (Table 24). The only exceptions are types 7160 (Fennoscandian mineral-rich springs and springfens) and 7230 (alkaline fens) for which the earlier estimates of protectedness have been remarkably overestimated. (Habitat type 7150 is probably interpreted in different ways (see Chapter 8.2.4) and therefore the calculations cannot be compared; habitat type 7120 is of no importance in the Estonian conditions). ESTONIAN MIRES: INVENTORY OF HABITATS
138