Alpine Protected Areas and their contribution to the Alpine ecological network

// Yann KOHLER //

Alpine Network of Protected Areas ALPARC, Chambéry, France

Today the Alps are a largely protected area. Even al-lowing for the fact that protection of the natural en-vironment is not the main vocation of a large number of these areas, the area of national parks and natural reserves that is specifically set aside for safeguarding biodiversity is considerable (seven percent of the Alpine Convention area). However, despite these efforts, bio-diversity is continuing to decline. The main reasons in these mountain areas, as in the rest of Europe, are the destruction of natural habitats and the deterioration of cultural landscapes associated with the fragmentation of areas vital to fauna and flora (Jaeger et al., 2005), phe-nomena that manifest themselves mainly outside the protected areas.

Maintenance of biodiversity depends, therefore, not only on the preservation of natural habitats (areas that support the largest number of animal and plant spe-cies) and traditional practices, but also on the intersti-tial areas that allow biological exchanges between these habitats. It is therefore important to respect the natural dynamics of the area as a whole (Burel, Baudry, 1999).

The traditional concept of an ecological network rep-resents a system made up of core areas or zones – in general, protected areas – that guarantee the resources necessary for the survival of the species that it supports.

In an ideal situation, these core areas are surrounded by buffer zones, creating a transitional area that limits the influence of neighbouring zones and minimises negative marginal effects. These different zones are connected with one another by linking elements such as ecological corridors or stepping stones that allow the movement of individual animals as well as genetic mixing within the network (Illustration of classic eco-logical network).

Since each species has different requirements with regard to the types of links it uses, it is not possible to define a single corridor as being a definitive migration path between different biotopes. Instead the needs of priority species and specific problems related to the local situation must be evaluated and addressed in an appropriate manner. This explains the dynamic char-acter of these connecting structures, which implies a

certain reversibility of spatial planning. It is not a ques-tion of creating other static conservaques-tion elements like the core areas of the network (classic protection areas such as parks or reserves) but more of providing solu-tions adapted to local problems (Bennet, 1999). This is even more important considering the fact that the major drivers of biodiversity decline are in fact situated outside protected areas.

In the context of ecological networks, this means that it is important not to simply concentrate environmental measures along the borders of fields or hedges, or on fallow land, but rather to encourage working practices that are sustainable and respectful of the environment over the area as a whole. To ensure that ecological interconnections function correctly, the concept of ecological networks thus provides for the conservation of core areas of substantial size, stepping stones with similar characteristics to the core areas, and corridors, combined with a more thoughtful use of the area. Dis-cussions and measures undertaken around the theme of ecological connectivity give rise to a completely new perception of practices to protect the natural environ-ment: the place and role of protected areas within their region are being redefined, placing them in a wider territorial context.

2.2.1 Alpine Protected Areas as key elements

Based on these findings, the role of protected areas has been defined in an Alpine context placing them in the heart of Pilot Regions. In concert these areas should bolster the Alpine Ecological Network.

These Pilot Regions are composed of several protected areas and other zones situated between and around these areas. This constellation represents a major challenge for these protected areas, because they find themselves confronted with unknown situations, forc-ing them to “take an interest in” areas situated beyond their administrative boundaries and to work together with new partners, in other words to change from a static approach to one based on dynamic exchanges.

Among these new partners are the different actors

1

4 2

5 3

The implementation of habitat improvement measures for the Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) in the Hoher Tauern National Park demonstrates the possibilities of inter-disciplinary co-operation between forestry, agriculture, hunting and nature conservation.

of the region concerned, such as farmers, hunters, plan-ners and developers, to name but a few.

Protected areas thus take on a new role within their region: they are no longer seen as and no longer act as

“nature islands”, but are instead integrated into a more global approach. The 2006 law concerning national, regional and marine parks in France is evidence of this, in that it introduces the notion of “ecological solidarity”

between the heart of the parks and their surrounding areas. Until now, the effects of protected areas on their neighbouring region have been perceived primarily in economic terms, with the emphasis on financial spin-offs and the added value generated by the presence of a protected area in the region (for example Jungmeier et al 2006; Job 2003). The “Alpine Pilot Region approach”

provides these areas with a new constructive role in a programme for planning and organising the region.

This approach also endows the protected areas with a new role at an Alps wide scale based on the vision of an Alpine ecological network.

The role of protected areas is therefore twofold: First, the extensive protected areas form indispensable core areas within the ecological networks (Kohler and Plass-mann 2004), and, secondly these areas provide possibili-ties for “testing” and acquiring experience on setting up ecological networks in the Alps. Among the personnel of protected areas are geographers, biologists and other experienced naturalists with a very good knowledge of the terrain, the species and the special issues in the area.

They also possess important communication skills. In addition, the protected areas administrations are part-ners known to and recognised by the local actors and therefore provide the ideal link in transmitting, discuss-ing and developdiscuss-ing such projects in their region. Finally, according to several international and European agree-ments and guidelines, they are obliged to ensure the spatial and functional integration of the protected area into its surroundings (for example Natura 2000).

Nevertheless, these roles have limits, and it is often very difficult for protected area managers to initiate and support a planning and implementation proc-ess in territories beyond the protected area itself. It is evident that protected area managers have no direct decision competence for areas outside the protected areas’ official boundaries, even though, as core zones, protected areas constitute a fundamental element of the ecological network of a certain region. The park manager needs political support and official legiti-misation to participate actively and as an initiating organisation within the process. Such legitimisation is particularly important for protected areas featuring a Pilot Region for connectivity in the Alps. Legitimisa-tion has to be conferred by the competent administra-tive organ in accordance with the political systems of the individual Alpine countries (federal or centralised systems).

Currently legal competence for the landscape between protected areas is situated mainly within local, regional or national agencies and not with the protected area management authorities. Financial and human re-sources should be strengthened within these authori-ties to ensure the realisation of an ecological contin-uum over the long term. Park borders are generally too constrained to allow for fully functional ecosystems at a scale large enough to conserve biodiversity.

The importance of protected areas in discussions on these questions is undeniable. This can be seen in France, for example, where regional natural parks (PNR) were at the heart of a working group on the implementation of the national Green and Blue In-frastructure from its inception. The objective of the group is not only to reflect on the notions of ecologi-cal connectivity and their importance in a park area, but also to set up scientific pilot projects. It was in this way that the regional natural parks, in a document prepared in 2007 for their 40^th anniversary, undertook to “contribute to the national and European ecological network based on common reflection to determine a hierarchy of natural areas, their functions within the ecological network (corridors, buffer zones, core zones) and the heritage species” (translation). To do this, the

“Parks define, together with other administrative levels, structured and coherent territorial strategies to pro-tect the natural environment. They then try out these notions in landscape and spatial management protec-tion and planning tools” (translaprotec-tion) (Fédéraprotec-tion des Parcs Naturels Régionaux de France, 2007). The study and commitment in favour of ecological connectivity were thus written into the objectives of the charters of certain regional natural parks (the PNR Chartreuse, for

1

4 2

5 3

example). This has also been done by Queyras Regional Nature Park, which has placed this question at the centre of the discussion for the newly created transna-tional UNESCO biosphere reserve around Mount Viso, consisting of several parks and neighbouring protected areas also in Italy.

It is not only the natural parks, however, that are con-cerned by these questions by virtue of their objectives and special missions. Discussions on connectivity as-pects are also ongoing in other types of protected areas, such as the Berchtesgaden National Park in Germany (in the framework of the ETC projects ECONNECT, greenAlps or Recharge Green), the Swiss National Park (closely involved in local initiatives of ecological connectivity improvement with the foundation Pro Terra Engadina) and the Kalkalpen National Park (local Project on Connectivity of forest areas NetzwerkNatur-wald) to name just a few.

2.2.2 Beyond borders

Transboundary protected areas play an important role as dynamic elements in the landscape of protected areas. The examples of thematic cooperation in all type of thematic fields (knowledge exchange, communica-tion, and more) are numerous but also concern the direct day-to-day work with common monitoring pro-cedures, shared databases, joint management plans and other activities (staff exchange or research projects).

The international cooperation receives an additional significance when it is, as is the case for the French National Park Mercantour and the Italian Nature Park Alpi Marittime, formalised in an official cooperation convention. The protected areas contribute through their transboundary activities to the emergence and consolidation of a transboundary region.

Transboundary cooperation between protected areas offers linking spots for the Alpine ecological network.

Besides enhancing the exchange specific to the pro-tected areas themselves, these spots offer the possibility to study synergies between the different national, re-gional and local approaches for ecological connectivity conservation.

Sometimes this can be the starting point for large transboundary initiatives, as in the transboundary re-gion Berchtesgaden-Salzburg where the local analysis of transboundary connectivity has been extended to

the entire border region between Austria and Germany in cooperation with the regional administrations (Rapp and Haller 2015).

National borders are a challenge for cooperation, but regional and even municipality borders can also represent important political barriers capable of im-pact as important as the physical barriers. The project Netzwerk Naturwald in the Northern Limestone Alps region provides a first step in overcoming such internal barriers offering a platform for cooperation around a nature protection topic moderated by protected areas (National Park Kalkalpen as project leader), which is progressing successfully (Nitsch et al., 2015).

2.2.3 A homogenous representation over the Alpine arch

The map of the protected areas offers a good represen-tation of protected sites all over the Alpine arch (see map 1), many of them with their own administrations.

This illustrates the high potential for partners on the ground. Even considering their unequal altitudinal dis-tribution (see chapter 1), protected areas play an impor-tant role in biodiversity conservation, as illustrated by the fact that the priority conservation areas identified in 2002 (WWF 2002) match nearly exactly with existing protected areas.

In some areas of the Alps several protected areas are located close to one another forming larger patches of protected lands, as is the case in the eastern Alps with the Hohe Tauern National Park and the neighbouring Nature Parks in Tyrol and South Tyrol as well as the Nockberge Biosphere Park. Actions led by them in uni-son as a consortium, as is the fundamental spirit of the Pilot Region approach, have an impact on a large parts of the Alps.

The protected areas of the Alps, especially the in-habited areas such as the regional nature parks or biosphere reserves, are often considered as test and/

or model areas (Laslaz 2010), and models for new approaches to stakeholder cooperation in the field of biodiversity protection. Recognizing all positive examples, some of which are covered in this article, it is important to note that the cooperation among dif-ferent sectors in this field is still the exception rather than the rule. Furthermore, although the number of actors and groups involved in the initiatives is constantly growing, most cooperative efforts still originate from the “green” sector. Nonetheless, im-provement of this situation is at the heart of all Alpine nature conservation efforts.

1

4