Suchergebnisse

After regaining independence in 1918, the Polish state, apart from the necessity of building a state apparatus, was forced to fight for its borders and then for their recognition on the international arena. Another extremely important task of Polish diplomacy was the issue of creating a system of alliances that would give Poland and the newly revived states of the subregion security guarantees. To this end, in the first years after the end of the war, Warsaw intensively sought to create a permanent form of political and military cooperation within the Central and Eastern Europe subregion and the Baltic Sea. In Warsaw, on March 17, 1922, an agreement was signed by Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Finland, which in the far-reaching plans of the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs was to be a step towards establishing the so-called of the Baltic Union. The problem, however, was that in Finland at the time, the tendency to strengthen cooperation with the Scandinavian countries and the desire to adopt a policy of neutrality played a large role. Lithuania, however, was not willing to further strengthen relations with Poland, with which it remained in conflict after the occupation of Vilnius in April 1919 by the troops of General Lucjan Żeligowski. The fact that Vilnius was captured by Polish troops aroused waves of criticism in Western Europe towards Warsaw. The opportunity to improve the image came in January 1923, when Lithuania removed the French garrison and annexed the so-called Klaipeda country. Warsaw's balanced and calm reaction to Lithuanian moves was positively assessed by the Western powers. Although none of the concepts of building an alliance capable of opposing Soviet Russia and thus ensuring the security of itself and its allies has not been implemented, their analysis today allows us to put forward the thesis that the fate of this part of Europe has never been indifferent to Poland and it has always been associated with security of the entire subregion, as evidenced by the current political and military commitment in the form of battalion battle groups under the NATO initiative known as enhanced forward presence (eFP). ; Państwo polskie po odzyskaniu niepodległości w 1918 r. poza koniecznością budowania aparatu państwowego zmuszone zostało do walki o swoje granice a następnie o ich uznanie na arenie międzynarodowej. Kolejnym niezwykle istotnym zadaniem dyplomacji polskiej stała się kwestia stworzenia systemu sojuszy, które dałyby Polsce i nowo odrodzonym państwom subregionu gwarancje bezpieczeństwa. W tym celu Warszawa w pierwszych latach po zakończeniu wojny intensywnie zabiegała o stworzenie stałej formy współpracy polityczno-militarnej w obrębie subregionu Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej oraz Morza Bałtyckiego. W Warszawie 17 marca 1922 r. doszło do podpisania przez Polskę, Łotwę, Litwę, Estonię i Finlandię układu, który w dalekosiężnych planach polskiego MSZ miał być krokiem ku powołaniu do życia tzw. związku bałtyckiego. Problem polegał jednak na tym, że w Finlandii w tym czasie dużą role odgrywały tendencje zacieśnienia współpracy z państwami skandynawskimi oraz chęć obrania polityki neutralności. Litwa zaś nie była skłonna do dalszego zacieśniania relacji z Polską, z którą pozostawała w konflikcie po zajęciu Wilna w kwietniu 1919 r. przez oddziały gen. Lucjana Żeligowskiego. Fakt ten wzbudził w Europie Zachodniej fale krytyki względem Warszawy. Okazja do poprawy wizerunku nadarzyła się w styczniu 1923 r, kiedy to Litwa usunęła garnizon francuski i dokonała aneksji tzw. Kraju Kłajpedy. Wyważona i spokojna reakcja Warszawy na posunięcia Litwinów została pozytywnie oceniona przez mocarstwa zachodnie. Chociaż żadna z koncepcji zbudowania sojuszu zdolnego przeciwstawić się Rosji Radzieckiej a tym samym zapewnić bezpieczeństwo sobie oraz sojusznikom, nie została zrealizowana, jednak ich analiza pozwala nam dzisiaj wysunąć tezę, że losy tej części Europy nigdy nie były Polsce obojętne i zawsze wiązały się one z bezpieczeństwem całego subregionu, czego dowodem jest obecne zaangażowanie polityczne i militarne w postaci batalionowych grup bojowych w ramach inicjatywy NATO znanej, jako wzmocniona Wysunięta Obecność (ang. enhanced Forward Presence – eFP). ; Після відновлення незалежності в 1918 році польська держава, крім необхідності побудови державного апарату, була змушена боротися за свої кордони, а потім і за їх визнання на міжнародній арені. Ще одним надзвичайно важливим завданням польської дипломатії було питання створення системи союзів, яка би дала Польщі та нововідродженим державам гарантії безпеки субрегіону. Із цією метою у перші роки після закінчення війни Варшава посилено прагнула створити постійну форму політичного та військового співробітництва в межах субрегіону Центрально-Східної Європи та Балтійського моря. У Варшаві 17 березня 1922 р. Польща, Латвія, Литва, Естонія та Фінляндія навіть підписали угоду, яка в далекосяжних планах польського Міністерства закордонних справ повинна стати кроком до створення т. зв. Балтійського союзу. Однак проблема полягала в тому, що в той час у Фінляндії велику роль відігравала тенденція до зміцнення співпраці зі скандинавськими країнами та бажання прийняти політику нейтралітету. Литва, однак, не бажала надалі зміцнювати відносини з Польщею, з якою вона залишалася в конфлікті після окупації Вільнюса у квітні 1919 р. військами генерала Лучана Желіговського. Цей факт викликав хвилі критики щодо Варшави у Західній Європі. Можливість покращити імідж з'явилася у січні 1923 року, коли Литва усунула французький гарнізон та анексувала т. зв. Клайпедський край. Урівноважена та спокійна реакція Варшави на литовські кроки була позитивно оцінена західними державами. Хоча жодна з концепцій побудови альянсу, здатного протистояти Радянській Росії і таким чином запевнити безпеку собі та своїм союзникам, не була втілена в життя, однак їх аналіз сьогодні дозволяє висунути тезу про те, що доля цієї частини Європи ніколи не була байдужою для Польщі. Вона завжди була пов'язана з безпекою усього субрегіону, про що свідчить нинішня політична та військова прихильність у формі бойових груп батальйонів як частини ініціативи НАТО, як посилена Розширена Присутність.

Knowledge and valuation of ecosystem services are important components for reaching the governmental goals for improving the natural environments. Recreational fishing has more than one million practitioners nationwide.Knowledge about the fishers and their catches increases the ability to assess whether the ecosystem services are retained. In addition, it gives means for evaluating the actions for the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of oceans, lakes and rivers. Knowledge of recreational fishing is also needed in order to follow up the details in its environmental objectives relating to outdoor recreation, tourism industry and the governmental goals in the open-air policy. The EU's common fisheries policy, the Swedish environmental policy and Swedish fisheries policy all emphasize that ecosystem-based management should be implemented. Thus, there are needs for knowledge of the ecosystems which are exploited by humans. Fish populations are important components of aquatic ecosystems, and are affected by the surrounding environment, while they themselves affect the structures of the aquatic food-webs. Fishes often have regulatory functions in the ecosystems, and thereby contribute to valuable ecosystem services in addition to the more obvious services as providing food and recreation for humans. Mostly issues regarding the impacts of fishing-related activities on fish populations have been focused on commercial fishing. A widespread and intensive commercial fishing may lead to the depletion of stocks or, at worst, a collapse of the fish populations; the fish population reaching such low levels that recovery may be difficult. In recent years the knowledge of the impact of recreational fishing on aquatic systems has increased, but still the effects of recreational fishing on ecosystem are relatively poorly studied, compared to commercial fisheries. For many, it may be difficult to accept that recreational fishing may affect fish populations; each fisher/angler favour just their own fisheries without bearing in mind that although the small influence from each individual fisherman may be small, it will be significant when many fishermen harvest from the same stock. Recreational fishing and its effects on the aquatic ecosystems are often neglected in fisheries science, mainly due to the lack of data to estimate recreational fishing harvest with a sufficient resolution to calculate the effort and landings of recreational fisheries. In this report, we try to give an overall picture of the fish species needing increased knowledge in order to get an estimate of harvest in recreational fisheries and thereby the effect on fish populations. Furthermore, we also try to give a picture of international studies and finally to give examples of methods concerning how and to what extent one may conduct studies in Sweden. Our proposal is largely based on combining different surveys in specific areas that we believe can be used to scale-up the results. We suggest data collation of recreational fishing is concentrated to areas with public waters, because in other water bodies the land owner has sovereignty under the law. The focus areas we point out are those already having some data collection, both in terms of recreational fishing and environmental monitoring / stock assessment and where there are non-fishing protective areas nearby. Collection of data should not be made in all areas at every year; three areas are suggested to become intensive areas (data collection every year) and the remaining areas data collection will take place every three years - on a rolling schedule. The sampling methods we recommend are national survey (i.e. mail and telephone surveys), recording of catches in fishing tourism, voluntary catch registration of individual anglers, collection of data from fishing competitions, on-site inventory of fishing effort (e.g. count fetter and trailers), inventory of catch per effort (e.g. by creel-surveys) and fish tagging studies. For the west coast we propose one focus area, Älgöfjorden. At the coasts of Bohuslän County and the northern part of Halland County the fishing pressure is high for lobster and crab and therefore a focus area should be established in this area. We suggest that data are collected by on-site visits for inventorying fishing effort (counting numbers of pots / buoys / fishing people), combined with catch registration can return an estimates on catch per effort, and this can then be applied to a larger area. Another potential focus area is the area around Torhamn (Blekinge) which, for example, is popular area recreational fishing for pike. Torhamn is one of three national reference areas for coastal fish monitoring on the East Coast and has been monitored since 2002. It is also desirable to study aspects of fishing mortality in recreational fisheries. To our knowledge, there are no national studies that have explored the effects of catch-and-release in natural environments over long periods of time. The Bråviken Bay is a relatively limited and well-defined area having considered high recreational fishing pressure, but large time series from fish monitoring programmes are lacking. This site will give good opportunities for studying pike, pikeperch and to some extent also sea trout, data collection is suggested to take place every third year. An adjacent area is Kvädöfjärden having fish monitoring time series from 1989. Closely situated to Kvädöfjärden is Licknevarpefjärden where fishing has been prohibited since 1970. Additional areas that are of interest to follow up with some regularity are Asköfjärden, Gålö and / or Lagnö in the Stockholm archipelago. In the future it might be fruitful to shift data collection intensity between Torhamn in Blekinge and an area in Stockholm archipelago. Such decision should be based on factors like where the most practical solutions / contact network can be found. In the Gulf of Bothnia angling with nets, traps and similar gears are relatively widespread. We suggest that Långvind Bay in Gävleborg County, is an area for the study of recreational fishing in a relatively sparsely populated county and is most likely typical for large parts of the Gulf of Bothnia. Data collection is suggested to take place every year. As for the Gulf of Bothnia the recreational fishery in the Bothnian Bay are mainly targeting the whitefish, sea trout and, to some extent also perch. By monitoring the recreational fisheries in Kinnbäcksfjärden near Piteå, we hope to be able to describe the local recreational fishing patterns and then apply these values for catch per effort for most of the coastal strip of the Bothnian Bays. Recreational fishing is widespread in all of the five largest lakes in Sweden, and there is a need for data collection in all five. In Lake Vänern, Lake Vättern and Lake Mälaren there are fish monitoring data of good quality and regularity. However, in the two smallest lakes, Lake Hjälmaren and Lake Storsjön in Jämtland County, few test fishing areas and few studies regarding recreational fishing have been made. For Lake Vättern we suggest that data collection is done every year; especially the archipelago in the northern part of the lake will be an excellent area for the study of recreational fishing for pike. In the other four lakes we propose that data collection is made every third year. By studying recreational fishing - its practitioners, scope, gear-use, and harvest, it will be possible to achieve a more detailed view of how recreational fishing is done and how it varies along the Swedish coast and in the five largest lakes. Such knowledge is important for the managers of common fisheries resources and the monitoring of environmental status and evaluating the recreational goals established by the Swedish governments.