Total Economic Value (TEV) of ecosystem services
4.7 Alpine Pilot Regions for ecological connectivity
4.7.4 Results in Pilot Regions
2
5 3
the single initiatives is necessary, as long as they all stick to the overall goal and agree on the shared vision for the Alps. This is an obligation mandated by the Platform Ecological Network of the Alpine Convention as well as in the frame of the larger international Alpine projects on the topic (such as ECONNECT or greenAlps).
4.7.3 Governance of Pilot Regions
The governance of the Pilot region is an important issue that has been addressed in very different ways. As already stated, the notion of a protected area’s adminis-tration acting outside the boundaries of its territory on such a subject is new to the protected areas’ managers as well as to the stakeholders, and depending on the local situation, is not always the best solution. It may be successful as in the Berchtesgaden-Salzburg Pilot Region, where the National Park had the chance to be closely involved in the spatial planning processes and could support the strong consideration of connectivity aspects in the planning tools. In other regions like the Rhaetian Triangle, the Swiss National Park, the admin-istrations that initially promoted the issue then handed it over to a local foundation, insuring governance pro-cedures closer to the local stakeholders.
The activities of the Pilot Region can also support re-gional tendencies to find alternative ways of cooperat-ing in this field as well as others. The idea of creatcooperat-ing transboundary Biosphere Reserves as one answer to the governance challenge in Pilot Regions is currently being analysed in Austria and at the Italian-Slovenian border. This represents an option that not only facili-tates the cooperation across borders but would also create an additional link between different sectors and give the opportunity to place ecological connectivity as a transversal working subject for all topics treated in the frame of such a regional cooperation.
4.7.4 Results in Pilot Regions
The range of results achieved in Pilot Regions is as broad as the dynamics of the single regions are diverse.
It goes from small scale specific actions like the instal-lation of signal ball on aerial cables in skiing areas to prevent bird collisions in a sensitive area in the South-western Alps Pilot Region, through the restoration and preservation of the six main biological corridors in the Gresivaudan valley (French Department Isère), to strategic planning actions such as the Transboundary region Berchtesgaden – Salzburg. The origins of the
// Map 13: Pilot Regions for ecological connectivity and types of implemented measures
Types of measures for ecological connectivity
Habitat management Stakeholder participation Agriculture
Ski resorts Spatial planning Awareness raising Tourism
Major city Major river Water bodies
Alpine Convention perimeter National border
Official Pilot Regions for Ecological Connectivity
Pilot Region
1
4 2
5 3
Source: ALPARC work based on data from different national and regional authorities and protected area managements for Pilot Region of Ecological Connectivity perimeters; Permanent Secretariat of the Alpine Convention for the Alpine Convention perim-eter; ©EuroGeographics EuroGlobalMap opendata (Original product is freely available) for rivers, lakes, built-up areas and locali-ties; ©EuroGeographics for the administrative boundaries, European Environmental Agency/SRTM for the digital elevation model.
Design: Dominik Cremer-Schulte, ALPARC-Alpine Network of Protected Areas.
Types of measures for ecological connectivity
Habitat management Stakeholder participation Agriculture
Ski resorts Spatial planning Awareness raising Tourism
Major city Major river Water bodies
Alpine Convention perimeter National border
Official Pilot Regions for Ecological Connectivity
Pilot Region
1
4 2
5 3
funds for these activities (project linked, specific public funds, private donors, and more) as well as the range of involved partners and the range of consequences are highly heterogeneous and illustrate the need for the Pilot Regions to be able to rely upon solutions and approaches tailored to their specific needs.
The Alpine Pilot Regions have proven their capacity to allow important contribution to the implementa-tion of a coherent ecological connectivity approach thought the Alps. The degree of activity is not ho-mogeneous among all Pilot Regions and depends
// Figure 23: Concept of a transboundary ecological network of protected areas
Source: from Kohler & Plassmann 2004
considerably on external drivers like available funds (due to projects or specific allocations). In general, they have contributed significantly to promotion of the topic in their region and are a basis for future work. The Alpine Arc will not be entirely covered by Pilot Regions, and this approach needs to be comple-mented by others, as described in chapter 2.2, but they are key driving elements on the path to creating the pan-Alpine ecological network.
National park – Core area National park – Buffer zone Nature park
Nature reserve
UNESCO Bioshere Reserve
Protected landscape area Linear connection element Measure for ecological connectivity
State border Water border Settlements
1
4 2
5 3
You have many years of experience with proc-esses of forest and wildlife management and wildlife focused spatial planning in multi-use landscapes. How can spatial planning and wild-life management be used to conserve or re-establish ecological networks?
The WESP-method (Wildlife Ecological Spatial Planning), a conception of spatial planning and integral management of wildlife and their habi-tats was initially developed and applied for wild ungulate species in Austria’s province Vorarlberg and continuous parts of adjoining countries (Duchy of Liechtenstein, Switzerland), as well as the province of Salzburg. Planning is sys-tematically subdivided into: (a) large scale basic planning (countrywide); (b) detailed regional planning; and (c) international coordination of measures. The main aims of WESP are protec-tion and connecprotec-tion of wildlife habitats and the avoidance of wildlife damage to forests by achieving better distribution of ungulate game and lessening negative land-use impacts. The planning criteria and management principles include optimising and co-ordinating diverse forms of land use towards sustainable use of
natural resources in an ecologically and socio-eco-nomically acceptable fashion, and solving conflicts at a local level interactively with all interest groups concerned. This method can also be used as a basis to establish suitable corridor areas between sub-populations across country borders, particularly for wide roaming wild mammals such as ungulates and large predators.
What influence do different approaches to wildlife management have on ecological connectivity?
Can you think of any examples where wildlife management favours connectivity?
In the Alps very different traditions and legal regu-lations dealing with wildlife according to country and region exist. Because of that, considerable problems for population connectivity can result for some species. A harmonisation of management measures particularly along the border areas of neighbouring countries is necessary. The “Raetikon”
project of Vorarlberg (Austria), Grisons (Switzer-land), and Liechtenstein gives a good example for such a cooperation to promote connectivity.
Do you see a connection between human/wildlife conflicts and ecological connectivity?
Yes. An example: where the habitat connectivity is lost and “dead ends” for ungulate migration are caused (with animals staying longer in these areas than before), the risk for game damage to the forest veg-etation by intensive twig browsing and bark peeling is in general much higher. This is in particular problem-atic in Alpine forests with protection function against avalanches, rock fall, floodwaters, and more.
What is most important for avoiding human wildlife conflicts?
We need a more holistic approach in wildlife management, “integral” instead of the tradition-ally “sectorial” management – and this on a large enough scale for the Alpine region, across national borders. This means better teamwork between Interview with
// Friedrich REIMOSER //
Research Institute of Wildlife Ecology, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria
Box 8: Ecological connectivity in mixed-use landscapes
1
4 2
5 3
foresters, farmers, hunters, outdoor recreationists, conservationists, experts for traffic infrastructure and spatial planning, and public authorities. All these interest groups should consider wildlife as a sensitive, complexly influenced site factor in an ecological and economic context. Also the
different legal regulations, sectorial for the land users that have consequences for wildlife, habitat quality and habitat connectivity should be har-monised in a more holistic way to avoid human wildlife conflicts. Otherwise the conflicts are often system immanent and hardly to solve.
1
4 2
5 3
Forests have an important function in ecologi-cal networks. Why is it important what type of forest management is used? How do different management approaches influence ecological connectivity?
In general, nature conservation in forest man-agement follows two main approaches: a regation or an integration approach. In a seg-regation approach, one part of the entire forest area is allocated for nature conservation as a protected forest area. Biodiversity preservation is thus limited mainly to designated areas, while other management objectives are maximised in the remaining larger forest areas. Protected areas are therefore the main tool for the protection of forest biodiversity in this approach. Usually this approach is seen as less complementary with na-ture conservation, as in most cases biodiversity decreases in larger (unprotected) parts of forest area and ecological connectivity between desig-nated areas is hindered. In contrast, an integra-tive approach takes into account ecological, so-cial and economic aspects of forest management and therefore enables biodiversity preservation and ecological connectivity to a significant extent in the entire forest area. Therefore, the integrative approach is much more challenging and complex.
In practice both models encompass many vari-ants that combine elements of each approach, and they both include protected forest areas.
Concerning biodiversity and ecological connec-tivity in densely populated areas such as Central Europe and also in its mountain regions, an
integrative approach that includes nature based forest management and spatially well distributed networks of protected forest areas seems to be most appropriate.
You have concrete experience with the estab-lishment of an ecological network between Triglav National Park in Slovenia and the Pre-alpi Giulie Nature Park across the border in Italy. Are there differences in how forests are managed on different sides of the border? If so, what are the main differences, and how might they affect biodiversity?
The idea for cooperation between both pro-tected areas, the Triglav National Park (TNP) and the Nature Park Prealpi Giulie (NPPG), started in 1996, first as collaboration in the field of promotion and cultural heritage protec - tion. Both parks are members of the Europarc Federation and are part of the Alpine Pro-tected Areas Network. After application for a transboundary certification in 2007, they were designated as the Europarc's "Julian Alps Trans-boundary Ecoregion" in 2009 and thus became the first transboundary parks with Europarc certification among Alpine Protected Areas. The importance of the area for ecological connectiv-ity and biodiversconnectiv-ity conservation was further recognised by the Alpine Convention, which, at the XII Alpine Conference in Torino in 2014, nominated both parks as official Transboundary Pilot Regions for ecological connectivity. This official nomination strengthened already exist-ing close and fruitful cooperation between both protected areas, provided a legal framework for common joint activities in both parks and
Box 1:
Box 9: Restructuring forest to enhance biodiversity
Interview with
// Ales POLJANEC //
University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
1
4 2
5 3
contributed to the implementation of the Alpine Convention in both countries.
In both protected areas, forest management is based on sustainable and multi-objective princi-ples and is, due to the protection regime and harsh natural conditions, practiced only to a limited extent. Forest management in both parks follows close to nature management principles and is seen as a part of the biodiversity management of the protected area. Timber production is mainly limited to the buffer zone and is more intensive in TNP than in NPPG, where the extraction of timber is an important management objective for a lim-ited number of forest owners. In the core protec-tion zone, nature conservaprotec-tion management ob-jectives prevail. Management plans are prepared in both areas. In TNP forest management plans (FMP) are provided by the Slovenia Forest Service and are not limited only to protected areas, but cover the entire forest area in Slovenia (regardless of owner-ship). The plans are approved by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food, and the formal in-fluence of the municipalities and the Institute for Nature Conservation of the Republic of Slovenia is legally mandated. In NPPG the plans are prepared by municipalities in agreement with the park au-thority and differ from FMP outside the protected area. FMP in both sites include rules and projects that aim to preserve and enrich biodiversity (for example guidelines for natural regeneration, measures to improve forest structure and species composition, special measures to improve bio-diversity, guidelines for encroachments in forest space, spatiotemporal limitations of forest man-agement, recreation and more) that are adapted to the different management regimes. The FMP's in Slovenia are also considered as management plans for Natura 2000 forest habitat sites. In NPPG, on
the other hand, separate spatial plans are prepared for Natura 2000 sites, and FMP's are strictly and coherently connected with the park management plans.
Forest management in both parks provides important bases for biodiversity conservation and ecological con-nectivity. As forestry is not seen as a major problem concerning nature protection in either both park, not much transboundary cooperation in the field of forest management was practiced in past years, but coop-erative efforts were mainly focused on the following activities: general management (project application, international activities), nature conservation (species, habitats monitoring and management), education and public awareness (junior ranger programs, raising en-vironmental awareness, information, media), tourism (visitor management, tourism development), cultural heritage (local products and skills, sustainable activi-ties). Nevertheless, a connectivity principle has been used by both protected areas as well as project partners in some EU financed projects, such as ERA Eco Region (Interreg IIIA Slovenia – Austria), Palpis – Cross-border participative planning in areas of major naturalistic value in the Southern Julian Alps (Interreg IIIA Slov-enia – Italy), Climaparks – Monitoring and studying the effects of climate changes (Interreg IIIA Slovenia – Italy) and GreenAlps – Valorising connectivity and sustainable use of resources for successful ecosystem management policies in the Alps (Alpine space Pro-gram). As a Transboundary Pilot Region for ecologi-cal connectivity, management authorities of both protected areas are active within the project ForAdapt – Decision support toolkit FOR ADAPTive manage-ment of forest ecosystem services across borders in the face of climate change and economic scarcity in Europe led by the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU). Through the process of implementing the project, key transboundary manage-ment objectives have been identified with long-term
1
4 2
5 3
conservation and monitoring of wildlife species and their habitats. Further transboundary collaboration is recognised as a priority, especially in the elaboration of common transboundary management plans focusing on connectivity issues. Forests are the dominant natu-ral ecosystem in the area, and forestry will therefore have an important role.
When thinking of forest management, it is probably also important to think of non-forestry activities that take place in forests and that can affect biodiversity and ecological connectivity, such as recreational activities, wildlife management and more. How do these get considered in forest management planning?
In Slovenia as well as in most Central European coun-tries, the integrative approach in forest management is practiced where different management objectives can be realised by overlapping uses in the same forest area. Nature conservation is generally integrated in forest management, representing a principle to which management objectives should be subordinated. Pos-sible management alternatives are therefore reduced to more ecologically acceptable forms. In forests where forest management is primarily oriented towards na-ture conservation (for example forest reserves, protec-tive forests, national parks, Natura 2000 sites, and system restoration), biodiversity preservation and eco-logical connectivity can also be seen as an additional or special management objective.
To optimise all relevant objectives and reduce nega-tive effects on forest biodiversity and ecological con-nectivity, careful planning and monitoring are needed.
Within the management planning procedure the num-ber and hierarchy of management objectives are set through a participatory process and different sets of ac-tivities are elaborated to ensure sustainability of forests for selected uses. Important tools to prevent negative
effects of timber production and other forest-based activities on biodiversity are the spatial and tempo-ral coordination of forest activities, some additional limitations on forest use (such as the prohibition of activities during particular times of year), and some special measures such as leaving habitat trees and a certain amount of dead wood in the forests, creating key habitats, planting tree species with fruits that are important food sources for wildlife and more.
The careful assessment of acceptability of encroach-ments into forest areas is another important tool to prevent negative effects on ecological connectivity.
What would you say is the most important con-sideration if the goal is to maintain or re-create ecological connectivity?
The most important consideration to maintain and ensure biodiversity and ecological connectivity of larger forest areas (landscape, national level) is how to integrate nature conservation into regular man-agement practice. In the areas where biodiversity and ecological connectivity prevail, a management objective of close to nature forestry and a cogni-tive approach with constant monitoring, planning and evaluation of realised measures could be most appropriate. Beyond that, some specific measures are also important to improve habitat suitability for specific species. Usually these measures are not considered as a part of regular forest management, and therefore they should be, especially in private forests, well communicated and supported by dif-ferent financial instruments (for example state, EU).
In countries where nature-oriented forest manage-ment is regularly practiced, ensuring ecological connectivity and biodiversity in forest areas is gen-erally not problematic. More important is how the landscape is managed, where and to what extent encroachments into forest space will be allowed and how they will fragment the forest matrix. As some encroachments are necessary for the development of regions and even states (for example , infrastruc-ture), we cannot completely avoid them. In that case encroachments upon the natural landscape must be supported with special measures to re-create eco-logical connectivity (for example wildlife crossings, artificial corridors). It would be important that these measures are part of the investment project. These activities usually go beyond the forestry profession and must be coordinated intersectorally.