Current status of Alpine ecological networks
2.4 Strategic elements and landscape visions of current Alpine ecological networks
2.4.2 Different solutions for different situations
From the green bridge to an overarching connec-tivity concept for Alpine biodiversity, solutions depend on the scale and on the specific regional or local situation. The Alps contain a diverse mosaic of habitats exhibiting various levels of multiple human impacts. The trend in land use may lead to further fragmentation of ecosystems and habitats. For ex-ample, today large carnivores (lynx, wolf and bear) with high territorial requirements inhabit only a few separated islands (patches) of suitable environ-ment (ANDEL et al. 2010). These small areas are further threatened by policies that are unfavourable for these species.
Non-fragmented areas Non-fragmented areas
Early stage
Transformation stage Advanced stage Core area
Areas above 2,000 me-tres above sea level
Alpine Protected Areas Alpine Protected Areas
Major city Major river Water bodies Alpine Convention perimeter National border
1
4 2
5 3
// Map 5: Non-fragmented areas and protected areas in the Alps
In order to identify solutions for the three landscape types of ecological connectivity described above, the following elements should be considered:
1. Landscape fragmentation due to urban sprawl and rapidly progressing road construction and river engineering entails a number of negative impacts, such as barrier effects, causing a loss of natural connectivity between individual populations of the fauna (SEILER, 2002). These phenomena are linked to an increasingly intensive use of the ag-ricultural land in the densely populated valleys of the Alps and contribute to the first category of landscape and situation specified above (Ecological Intervention Areas).
Solutions to overcome fragmentation in these areas are usually not highly very visible and can be more or less technical. For all new construction and long-term land use strategies, landscape plan-ning should integrate solutions to overcome frag-mentation. At a minimum, this could include tun-nels, bridges and water channels for the involved species. Costs for these basic measures must be included when calculating the budgets for all new projects, and special programmes must be devel-oped to capitalise on pre-existing infrastructure (= Ecological Intervention Areas).
2. Nevertheless, with regard to ecological connectivity and functioning ecosystems, the Alps are still rich in fairly intact landscapes. These intact areas need to be identified at an Alps-wide scale, and a coher-ent landscape planning concept for the whole Al-pine area should be developed in cooperation with all Alpine states and members of the contracting
River renaturalisation on the Coisetan River, France
Non-fragmented areas Non-fragmented areas
Early stage
Transformation stage Advanced stage Core area
Areas above 2,000 me-tres above sea level
Alpine Protected Areas Alpine Protected Areas
Major city Major river Water bodies Alpine Convention perimeter National border
1
4 2
5 3
Source: ALPARC, WWF, ISCAR, CIPRA for non-fragmented areas; data from different national and regional authorities and protected areas managements for delimitations of Alpine Protected Areas (> 100 hectare) ; Permanent Secretariat of the Al-pine Convention for the AlAl-pine Convention perimeter; © Euro Geographics EuroGlobalMap opendata (original product is free-ly available) for rivers, lakes, built-up areas and localities; European Environmental Agency/SRTM for the digital elevation model;
© EuroGeographics for the administrative boundaries. Note: This map makes no claim to be exhaustive. Design: Dominik Cremer-Schulte, ALPARC-Alpine Network of Protected Areas.
> 5,000 2,000–5,000 750–2,000 400–750 150–400 50–150 5–50
< 5
Population density (inhab./km2) Alpine Protected Areas Nature reserve
National park – Core area National park – Buffer area (Regional) Nature park UNESCO Biosphere Reserve UNESCO World Heritage Site
Major city Major river Water bodies
Alpine Convention perimeter National border
1
4 2
5 3
// Map 6: Population density and Alpine protected areas
Intact diverse landscapes, as pictured here in this valley in South Tyrol, still remain in different parts of the Alps.
They need to be identified at an Alps-wide scale in order to include them in a coherent landscape planning con-cept for the whole Alpine area.
parties of the convention (Monaco, France, Swit-zerland, Liechtenstein, Austria, Germany, Italy and Slovenia).
While specific measures for the protection of such sites and areas may not be essential in the majority of situations, it is, nonetheless, necessary to improve knowledge and understanding of these habitats and ecosystems and to appreciate the species, needs for migration potential. A land management plan for each of such sites would help to insure a long-term conservation process of connectivity by including economic, social and cultural features of the site.
Such a land management plan allows an adaptive management and governance of resilience that must not be limited to individual elements of an ecological network (corridors, core zones), but
> 5,000 2,000–5,000 750–2,000 400–750 150–400 50–150 5–50
< 5
Population density (inhab./km2) Alpine Protected Areas Nature reserve
National park – Core area National park – Buffer area (Regional) Nature park UNESCO Biosphere Reserve UNESCO World Heritage Site
Major city Major river Water bodies
Alpine Convention perimeter National border
1
4 2
5 3
Source: Data from different national and regional authorities and protected area managements for delimitations of Alpine Protected Areas (> 100 hectare); Eurostat, EFGS for the population grid information (2011); Permanent Secretariat of the Alpine Convention for the Alpine Convention perimeter; © Euro Geographics EuroGlobalMap opendata (original product is freely available) for rivers, lakes, built-up areas and localities; European Environmental Agency/SRTM for the digital eleva-tion model; © EuroGeographics for the administrative boundaries. Note: This map makes no claim to be exhaustive. Design:
Dominik Cremer-Schulte, ALPARC-Alpine Network of Protected Areas.
Nature reserve (Regional) Nature park National park – Core area
Alpine Protected Areas Land cover
Urban Agricultural Forests Scrub land Open spaces Wetlands Water bodies
Alpine Convention perimeter National border
1
4 2
5 3
// Map 7: Land use and Alpine Protected Areas must necessarily be applied to the entire territory
(landscape matrix) and across all sectors of society, while enabling non-exclusive, multi-functional spaces for sustainable economic and recreational activities of Alpine communities (modified after ECONNECT Vision in “implementation recom-mendations”, 2011).
This is a more passively oriented approach that takes into account the needs of ecological connectivity in a conservation policy designed to accommodate many sorts of anthropogenic activity while creating tailored infrastructure in an area that still retains considerable surfaces of non-fragmented landscapes (is equal to Ecological Conservation areas).
The map 7 overlaying Alpine land use (Corine Data) and existing protected areas of all categories allows an approximate identification of areas in the Alps included in this category.
3. The third situation demonstrates a more active ap-proach by identifying regions where ecological con-nectivity could be achieved for important spaces by utilising existing core areas (often protected areas) or stepping stones (biotopes, natural spaces) and insuring functional links between them. In the Alps, such valuable regions can be identified by evaluating their geographical distribution, protection status (for example IUCN category), and footprints at different altitudes in order to establish larger interconnected areas that better accommodate the habitat and mi-gration requirements of relevant species. National parks and nature reserves are of particular interest here, but a series of well-protected nature parks could also be considered in this context. The Natura 2000 network could, in many cases, contribute as well, but only when the selected site does not com-pletely overlap with another already protected area, as is currently the case in almost two thirds of the surface area of Natura 2000 sites in the Alps.
A large non-fragmented area could be established in this context by increasing some protected areas in order to create a common border with a neighbouring protected area. Some examples exist in the Alps where this strategy has already been deployed. Another solution is to target eco-logical corridors by linking elements or in some cases by tailoring management measures of the land (agriculture, tourism, energy production). In other situations, the ‘creation’ of non-fragmented
Nature reserve (Regional) Nature park National park – Core area
Alpine Protected Areas Land cover
Urban Agricultural Forests Scrub land Open spaces Wetlands Water bodies
Alpine Convention perimeter National border
1
4 2
5 3
Source: Data from different national and regional authorities and protected area managements for delimitations of Alpine Pro-tected Areas (> 100 hectare); CORINE Land Cover European seamless vector database CLC12 (final product with partial valida-tion) for land cover; Permanent Secretariat of the Alpine Convention for the Alpine Convention perimeter; © Euro Geograph-ics EuroGlobalMap opendata (original product is freely available) for rivers, lakes, built-up areas and localities; European Envi-ronmental Agency/SRTM for the digital elevation model; © EuroGeographics for the administrative boundaries. Note: This map makes no claim to be exhaustive. Design: Dominik Cremer-Schulte, ALPARC-Alpine Network of Protected Areas.
// Map 7: Land use and Alpine Protected Areas
Areas with strict protection status
Altitude
Nature reserve
National park – Core area Regional park (Italy)
Zones above 1,000 metres above sea level Zones above 2,000 metres above sea level Zones above 2,500 metres above sea level
Major city Major river Water bodies
Alpine Convention perimeter National border
1
4 2
5 3
// Map 8: Areas with strict protection status and altitudinal level
spaces can make a conservation concept of spaces in between protected areas possible, thereby in-suring a long term evolution of well-functioning ecosystems. In any case, active procedures are required in these situations in order to capitalise on the existing potential (which is equal to Eco-logical Potential areas). The map number 8 shows the protected areas of the Alps with a relatively strong protection status (IUCN I, II, IV).
Those areas together with some Natura 2000 sites, which can be found at all altitudinal levels, could be a solid foundation for the definition of Ecologi-cal Potential areas (see map 9).