Policy Assessment
[pic]
Rapid Policy Assessment
for the Alps Ecoregion
Prepared by Olivia Bina
September 2000
WWF Alpine Programme
Contents
1. Introduction 5
1.1 The Scope of the Project 5
1.2 Structure of the Report 5
2. The “Biodiversity” Policy Scene 6
2.1 Defining the study area 6
2.2 Overview 6
2.3 Review of selected Instruments - a) International instruments 11
2.3.1 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 11
2.3.2 Ecological networks - focus on the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS) 14
2.3.3 European Landscape Convention 19
2.4 Review of selected Instruments- b)European Union Instruments 20
2.4.1 The Natura 2000 Network 20
2.4.2 European Community Biodiversity Strategy 21
2.4.3 The European LIFE Regulation 22
2.5 Conclusions 24
3. Convention on the Protection of the Alps 26
3.1 Introduction 26
3.2 The Protocols 27
3.2.1 Catalogue of Alpine Data Sources 29
3.3 CIPRA’s Role and Action Plan 29
3.4 Problems and Obstacles 30
3.5 Conclusions and Future Outlook 31
4. The “Sectoral” Policy Scene 33
4.1 Defining the study area 33
4.2 Funding mechanisms for regional development 35
4.2.1 The Structural Funds and other mechanisms 35
4.2.2 Development funds for the Alps and other mountain regions 36
4.2.3 The Funds and Natura 2000 37
4.2.4 Community Initiatives – INTERREG III 37
4.2.5 European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) 40
4.2.6 Conclusions - problems and opportunities 40
4.3 Agriculture, Rural Development and Forestry 41
4.3.1 Introduction 41
4.3.2 The European Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) and the Rural Development Regulation 42
4.3.3 Conclusions - Problems and Opportunities 44
4.3.4 Forestry 46
4.4 Transport 48
4.4.1 Introduction 48
4.4.2 Some key initiatives and opportunities for action 51
4.4.3 Conclusions - Problems and opportunities 53
4.5 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Issues 54
4.5.1 Introduction 54
4.5.2 Research 56
4.5.3 Conclusions 57
5. Identification of Needs and Possible Way Forward 59
5.1 Needs and Opportunities - Concluding Remarks 58
5.2 Other areas of possible research 61
5.3 Some forthcoming events: 62
ACRONYMS…………………………………………………………………………………………….63
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………………...64
DOCUMENT SOURCES AND GENERAL INFORMATION FROM THE WEB………………..66
ANNEX 1 Contacts……………………………………………………………………………………..67
ANNEX 2 List of Potential Alpine-CDS Organisations…………………………………………….70
ANNEX 3 Infra-Eco Network Europe (IENE)……………………………………………………….80
ANNEX 4 Interreg II – Examples in Alpine Region………………………………………………...98
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to the following experts, who have provided comments and important sources of information for this study:
Martin Price, Peter Oggier, Annalie Bambour, Sandra Jen, Helen Zitzewitz, Andreas Grüsse, Jean-François Drevet, Christian Hey, Riccardo Priore, Gianluca Silvestrini, Marguerite Trocmé.
1. Introduction
1.1 The Scope of the Project
The Policy assessment (PO) is intended to provide an initial overview of the legal and policy framework, which is of relevance to the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in the Alpine region. It should lead to a broad identification and analysis of policies and legislation[1] which:
Protect and enhance biodiversity;
Negatively affect biodiversity; and
Deserve or require further assessment in order to fully understand their impact and effectiveness.
The study therefore distinguishes between two broad categories of international, European and national policies and legislation:
“Biodiversity” policies - designed to make a direct positive contribution to the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity, and
“Sectoral” policies - economic and sectoral policies refer to the way governments define, regulate and implement measures in key economic areas such as agriculture or transport. Depending on the weight given to biodiversity and environmental considerations during the development of a sectoral policy, the resulting policy may lead to a negative impact and pressure, or it can benefit (mainly indirectly) biodiversity conservation.[2]
The PO is designed to contribute to a wider analysis, which includes a biodiversity assessment and a socio-economic assessment. Its analysis of the current policy context provides WWF with an overview of key themes and opportunities for future action, which will feed into discussions on the future Alpine Programme, on WWF’s priorities and its potential role in the region.
1.2 Structure of the Report
The Report is divided into five main sections:
Section 1 - Introduction
Section 2 - The Biodiversity policy scene
Section 3 - The Convention on the Protection of the Alps
Section 4 - The Sectoral policy scene
Section 5 - Identification of needs for policy strengthening or change.
The Alpine Convention has been treated as a separate section since it relates to both nature conservation and sectoral policies.
2.The “Biodiversity” Policy Scene
2.1 Defining the study area
The Biodiversity assessment (Grabherr et al. 2000) has identified a series of pressures affecting biodiversity in the Alps through the:
Impoverishment and loss of habitats;
Habitat fragmentation; and
Decreasing animal and plant populations and loss of species.
The assessment recommends focusing conservation efforts around the protection and restoration of remaining large wilderness areas.
The choice of relevant policies and regulations for the Policy assessment had to reflect the above problems and priorities identified in the Biodiversity assessment. This was achieved through the definition of the following criteria of relevance:
1) Positive contribution to the integrity of wilderness areas (large natural areas);
2) Restoration of wilderness areas (large natural areas);
3) Protection and enhancement of Protected Areas;
4) Conservation of large carnivores;
5) Conservation of other species;
6) Contribution to the protection of ecological processes (e.g. migrations, water cycle, climate change).
The next sections will focus on international and European policies and regulations addressing these criteria. They will include legislative instruments for biodiversity conservation and policy frameworks for nature conservation where principles, approaches and actions are proposed in an international context, for example, the Council of Europe.
2.2 Overview
Since the early 1970s there has been a wide range of policy frameworks and legal instruments for the conservation of species, habitats and landscapes. More recently, there has been a move to encompass sustainability in nature conservation policy, for example in the case of the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (see below). This is considered very important for mountain areas such as the Alpine region, which often require a complex range of measures and functions to maintain their ecological, social and economic balance.
The instruments considered particularly relevant to this study, and in relation to the biodiversity criteria presented above, are summarised in Table 2.1.
The next Sections present a brief introduction and analysis of the state of implementation of the main biodiversity policies and regulations. Where possible, comments are made on their effectiveness in reaching their original objectives to date, on some of the difficulties encountered, and the challenges that still need to be met in order to ensure that the policy or international convention can achieve its objectives. The analysis is based on existing literature and a number of telephone interviews.
Section 2.3 looks in detail at some international instruments, and Section 2.4 analyses European Union instruments.
Table 2.1 Overview of International Legal Instruments and Policy Frameworks relevant to Biodiversity Conservation in the Alpine Region
|Title |Details: (1) |Main Objective(s) |Six Biodiversity criteria (2) for policy relevance |
| |Co-ordinating body |-brief summary- |D= policy has direct relevance |
| |Year adopted (in force) | |I = policy has indirect relevance |
| |Geographic scope | | |
| | | |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |6 |
|CITES – Washington Convention | a) UNEP/CITES b) 1973 (1975) |“Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora” | | | |D |D | |
| |c) Global |Parties ban commercial international trade in an agreed list of endangered species | | | | | | |
| | |Parties regulate and monitor trade in other species that might become endangered | | | | | | |
|European Regulation on Wildlife | a)European Commission |Although the EU is not a Part to the Convention, it has fully implemented it through| | | |D |D | |
|Trade and the Implementation of |b)1997 (1997) |its Regulations (no. 338/97 and 939/97) | | | | | | |
|CITES | | | | | | | | |
|Bonn Convention |UNEP |“ Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals” |I |I | |D |D |D |
| |1979 (1983) |provides framework for migratory species and their habitats by means of strict | | | | | | |
| |Global |protection and international agreements | | | | | | |
| | |Parties to work together to provide strict protection for endangered migratory | | | | | | |
| | |species listed in Appendix I to the Convention | | | | | | |
| | |Parties to conclude multilateral agreements for the conservation and management of | | | | | | |
| | |migratory species listed in Appendix II | | | | | | |
| | |Parties to undertake co-operative research activities. | | | | | | |
|Bern Convention | a)Council of Europe |“Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats” |I |I | |D |D |D |
| |b)1979 (1982) |To protect flora and fauna and their habitats | | | | | | |
|(see also Emerald Network and |c)Council of Europe |Parties to promote international co-operation in their conservation efforts | | | | | | |
|Habitats Directive, below) | |Parties to take all appropriate measures to ensure conservation of habitats, and to | | | | | | |
| | |integrate such measures in their planning and development policies, and pollution | | | | | | |
| | |control | | | | | | |
|Birds Directive | a)European Commission |Imposes strict legal obligations on EU MSs: |D |D |D | |D |D |
| |b)1979 (1981) |to maintain populations of naturally occurring wild birds at levels corresponding to| | | | | | |
| |c)EU |ecological requirements | | | | | | |
| | |to take special measures to conserve the habitat of certain listed threatened | | | | | | |
| | |species through designation of Special Protection Areas | | | | | | |
| | |to regulate trade in birds | | | | | | |
| | |to limit hunting and prohibit certain methods of capture and killing | | | | | | |
|Convention on Biological | a)United Nations |To conserve biological diversity |D |D |D |D |D |D |
|Diversity |b)1992 |To promote the sustainable use of biodiversity components and | | | | | | |
| |c)Global |the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilisation of | | | | | | |
| | |genetic resources. | | | | | | |
|Habitats Directive | a)European Commission |To establish a common framework for the EU territory for the conservation of |D |D |D |D |D |D |
|(Natura 2000) |b)1992 |animals, plants and natural habitats | | | | | | |
| |c)EU |To create a network of designated Special Areas of Conservation (Natura 2000) to | | | | | | |
|(see also Birds Directive, above)| |maintain or restore, at favourable conservation status, natural habitats and species| | | | | | |
| | |of Community interest (Annexes I & II). | | | | | | |
|LIFE Regulation | a)European Commission |To provide financial support for the implementation of the EC Birds and Habitats |I |I |I |I |I |I |
| |b)2000 |Directives in 3 areas of action: nature, environment and third countries | | | | | | |
| |c)EU |LIFE-Nature supports action to maintain and restore habitats and species listed in | | | | | | |
| | |both Directives. | | | | | | |
|European Community Biodiversity | a)European Commission |To anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of significant reduction or loss of |D |D |D |D |D |D |
|Strategy |b)1998 |biodiversity at the source | | | | | | |
| |c)EU |Sets objectives for sectors and policy areas | | | | | | |
| | |Aims to develop action plans for selected sectors/policy areas. | | | | | | |
|Pan-European Biological and | a)Council of Europe and UNEP |To reinforce the implementation of existing international conventions and national |D |D |D |D |D |D |
|Landscape Diversity Strategy |b)1995 |legislation on biodiversity and landscape, and identify additional actions that need| | | | | | |
| |c)Pan-European |to be taken over the next two decades | | | | | | |
| | |To provide a framework to promote a consistent approach and common objectives for | | | | | | |
| | |national and regional action to implement the Convention on Biological | | | | | | |
|Emerald Network | a)Council of Europe |Bern Convention Resolution no. 3 of 1996 |D |D |D |D |D |D |
| |b)1996 |To set up a network which would include the Areas of Special Conservation Interest | | | | | | |
| |c)Council of Europe |designated following Recommendation No.16, 1997 | | | | | | |
| | |To complement the EU Natura 2000 network, focusing on the CEE region. | | | | | | |
|Parks for Life | a)IUCN |To ensure adequate, effective and well-managed network of protected areas in Europe |D |D |D |D |D |D |
| |b)1994/5 |To conserve the full landscape and biological diversity of the continent. | | | | | | |
| |c)Europe | | | | | | | |
|European Landscape Convention. | a)Congress of local and regional |To promote landscape protection, management and planning |I | |I | | | |
| |authorities, Council of Europe |To organise European co-operation on landscape issues | | | | | | |
| |b)1997 (2000 in Florence?) |Parties will recognise landscapes in law | | | | | | |
| |c)Council of Europe |Parties will establish and implement landscape policies aimed at their protection, | | | | | | |
| | |management and planning | | | | | | |
| | |Parties will integrate landscape into regional and town planning policies. | | | | | | |
(1) = The main source for this column was ECNC 1998.
(2) = The six criteria are:
1) Positive contribution to the integrity of wilderness areas (large natural areas);
2) Restoration of wilderness areas (large natural areas);
3) Protection and enhancement of Protected Areas;
4) Conservation of large carnivores;
5) Conservation of other species;
6) Contribution to the protection of ecological processes (e.g. migrations, water, climate change).
2.3 Review of selected Instruments - a) International instruments
2.3.1 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
The Convention is considered one of the most significant recent developments in international law and international relations. The CBD aims to conserve biological diversity, promote the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilisation of genetic resources (). The Convention therefore presents many synergies with other biodiversity-related conventions, and information on this can be found at the following web site: .
All countries within the Alpine region have ratified the Convention. Indeed, all Member States and the European Commission itself are contracting parties to the CBD and thus, are required to implement all 42 articles. By developing their strategies and action plans they are contributing to the objectives of the convention, particularly for Articles 6 and 8 which require parties to:
develop national strategies, plans or programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity or adapt for this purpose existing strategies, plans or programmes which shall reflect, inter alia, the measures set out in the Convention relevant to the contracting party concerned; and
integrate as far as possible and as appropriate, the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity into relevant sectoral or cross-sectoral plans, programmes and policies.
Article 26 requires each contracting party to present reports on measures which it has taken for the implementation of the Convention, and their effectiveness in meeting the objectives of this convention. All Member states have submitted their first national report and these are available at the CBD website. Several countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, UK) have also developed their own sites on behalf of the Clearing House Mechanism (CHM).
With reference to the Alpine region, progress to date, in terms of the development of strategies and/or action plans, as well as reporting to the Conference of the Parties, is summarised in Table 2.2 below. In general, all Member states have reported to the CBD. However, in terms of biodiversity strategies or action plans, the progress of MSs varies significantly. Some countries have had a strategy or action plan from 1994-5, whilst many others produced their first action plan in 1997-98, and a remaining few still have to produce their first national strategy or action plan.
Table 2.2 Progress in the implementation of the CBD in the Alpine Region (INCOMPLETE)
|Country |National Clearing House Mechanism - |Strategy/action plan and report(s) to the |
| |Web site |Conference of the Parties |
|Austria | Implementation Strategy for the |
| |.gv.at/umweltsituation/biodiv/intro.htm |Convention on Biological Diversity year @ |
| | |First Austrian National Report on the Convention |
| | |on Biological Diversity |
|Slovenia | |UN CBD - National Report of the Republic of |
| | |Slovenia, 1997 |
|France |no national web site in September 2000 (some information from the | |
| |general CBD site: ) | |
|Switzerland | |report 1998 |
|Germany | | |
|Italy | | |
In 1996 the European Environment Agency (EEA) published a study on progress in the implementation of the CBD in its member countries: “The UN Convention on Biological Diversity - Follow-up in EEA Member Countries 1996” (EEA 1997). Key findings included:
The survey found the main challenge for signatories to the Convention was to turn plans into effective action, and showed that many Member Countries appeared to have problems in achieving this, thus slowing down the process.
Examples of good practice which have been demonstrated in a few countries (Finland and The Netherlands) should act as guidance for others.
A key question, which has implications for the effectiveness of the CBD, was whether the Convention had actually changed policies and actions at the national level, or would these have happened without the Convention? The survey at this early stage of implementation of the CBD could not answer this question.
The survey also showed that MSs were focusing efforts in the following sectors: environment, agriculture, forestry and fisheries and aquaculture, which were perceived to have the greatest priority for conservation.[3]
Box 2.1 Example of what can be found in one of the national websites of the Alpine region: The Swiss Clearing House Mechanism
|The Swiss Clearing House Mechanism |
| |
| |
|The Swiss CHM Biodiversity website is divided into the following main headings: |
|Switzerland at a Glance |Goals |
|Geography |Guidelines and principles of action |
|Short Geographical Introduction |Objectives at the national level |
|Climate | |
|Geology and Hydrology |Monitoring biological diversity in Switzerland |
|Alps | |
|Landscape |International efforts |
| |Conventions and international processes |
|Biogeography and Biotopes |Development cooperation |
|The Swiss biogeography and biotopes |Trans-boundary collaboration |
|Switzerland's biological diversity | |
| |Topics |
|Land use |Research and higher education |
| | |
|Current Problems |Services |
| |Objects |
|Red Lists |Institutions |
|Introduction to the Red Lists |Events (administered by the Swiss Biodiversity Forum) |
|Red Lists for Flora and Fauna |Publications |
| |Research projects (administered by the Swiss Biodiversity Forum) |
|Thematic maps | |
|Forest areas (114 KB) |Current |
|Wetlands (103 KB) |Latest updates |
|Amphibia / Ramsar sites / Waterfowl reserves (104 KB) |Current news: national and international |
| |Events: national and international |
|National Action Plan / International Efforts |Press articles: Neue Zürcher Zeitung / Le Temps |
|Legislation |Link of the month |
|Introduction to Swiss Federalism | |
|Swiss Environmental Laws |CHM International |
|Text of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) |Concept and Legislation |
|Other Conventions signed and ratified by Switzerland concerning |International Links |
|Biodiversity |International News. |
| | |
|National Report of Switzerland for the Convention on Biological | |
|Diversity | |
2.3.2 Ecological networks - focus on the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS)
Introduction
The need to maintain large natural areas and ecological processes is a priority for biodiversity conservation, and has prompted the development of ecological networks. These usually consist of core areas, corridors, buffer zones and habitat restoration areas. European initiatives related to this theme include:
The Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS);
European Habitats Directive and Natura 2000 (see Section 2.4.1);
The Emerald Network of Areas of Special Conservation Interest (supports the Bern Convention and complements the Natura 2000 Network outside the EU);
IUCN’s Parks for Life.
The conservation of large unfragmented areas is also a clear priority for the Alpine region (Grabherr G. et al. 2000). It is therefore important to note that, despite the range of European initiatives listed above, a large part of such areas is still unprotected: only 4.2% of the Alps are covered by national parks (EEA 1999).
This section focuses on the Pan-European Strategy (PEBLDS) for its combined emphasis on biodiversity and landscapes which is critical to the Alpine region’s future, as well as to many other areas of Europe. Indeed the emphasis on landscapes is recognised by European institutions to be increasingly important for nature conservation. This is reflected in the work of the EEA and in the EU’s programmes such as the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) and in Agenda 2000 (see Section 4.2).
The Pan-European Strategy and the Alps
PEBLDS is part of the “Environment for Europe” ministerial process organised within the framework of the UNECE, and was endorsed at the conference in Sofia, Bulgaria, in 1995. It is the only pan-European policy framework on biodiversity that covers the entire European region, and has the advantage of not limiting itself to the EU15, an important factor when considering the Alpine eco-region.
Although it was endorsed in high-level international meetings, PEBLDS is not a legal instrument. It provides a vision and a framework to promote a consistent approach and common objectives for national and regional action to implement the CBD, and other existing initiatives, as well as filling gaps where such initiatives are not being implemented to their full potential. The legal basis for the Strategy’s implementation is in existing instruments such as the CBD, the Bern, Bonn and Ramsar Conventions, the Habitats and Birds EC Directives and national legislation.
PEBLDS is co-ordinated by a joint secretariat of the Council of Europe and UNEP. It focuses on a 20-year period and a series of five-year action plans. The 1996-2000 Plan has 12 themes co-ordinated by international organisations. Theme 10 is on “Mountain Ecosystems” and focuses on the integration of mountains in the pan-European ecological network, the establishment of sustainable practice for afforestation, mountain farming and recreation, the potential application of the Alpine Convention for the Balkan, Carpathians and Caucasus regions, and the establishment and strengthening of transfrontier protected areas.
Progress to date
The year 2000 has seen a turning point in the Pan European Strategy. At the 4th meeting of the PEBLDS Council at Riga (in March) progress reports of the 12 Action Themes of the previous Plan were presented (CoE and UNEP 2000a), followed by a discussion of the draft new five-year Action Plan for 2001-2005 (CoE and UNEP 2000b).
The implementation of the Strategy has focused around its main Themes. Theme 10 is the most directly relevant to the Alpine region, but by no means the only one (e.g. see also Themes 1,2, 4, 8 and 9).[4] The progress report on Theme 10 presented at Riga revealed that the amount of work and results obtained since the launch of the Strategy have been clearly hampered by a lack of funds and delays in contract negotiations. Real progress could only be achieved on two out of the ten activities for the Mountain Ecosystems:
Activity 10.5 minimisation of ecological impacts of recreational activities
Activity 10.6 potential application of the mechanisms such as the Alpine Convention and its protocols and observation systems to other mountain ranges.
These are reviewed below.
Activity 10.5 - Access and conservation strategies for climbing areas
In 1996 IUCN was given the responsibility, in collaboration with UIAA, to implement Activity 10.5. This led to a survey of existing restrictions on access for environmental reasons and a seminar, organised by UIAA and IUCN in May 1998, to address the topic of access and conservation strategies in climbing areas. It focused on maintaining the freedom of access to mountains and cliffs, and the need to balance this freedom against the need to protect the mountain environment from the effects of climbing. The trigger for this initiative was the PEBLDS itself and the feeling by UIAA members that, due to the wording in the Strategy, its objectives could potentially threaten the freedom to climb in Europe (UIAA and IUCN 1998).
The Seminar highlighted a clear need for further scientific research to assess the impact of recreational activities. To date, research has focused on the impacts of climbing on a particular species (e.g. bird species) without extending to how such activities interfere with other species. The impacts mentioned include: loss of biodiversity, massive or intrusive changes to the landscape, climate change and pollution, overuse of sensitive areas (UIAA and IUCN 1998).
The main outcome of the meeting was a set of proposed Guidelines on how to achieve the optimum balance between the freedom of access and the need for conservation in European and sub-Alpine climbing areas. A pamphlet summarising the Guidelines was produced and distributed by UIAA and IUCN. Although formulated primarily for rock climbing on crags and cliffs, the Guidelines may have general application in the Alpine zone.
An additional study has just been published by IUCN (Hanemann 2000) looking at the sustainable management of climbing areas in Europe. This is actually related to PEBLDS Activity 10.6 discussed below. The main issues raised are summarised below:
There are over 1.6 million people actively involved in climbing in Europe, and rock climbing is growing steadily in popularity leading to an increase in international climbing tourism (and related travelling between countries);
In general, international climbing tourism originates in western and central European countries (D, CH, GB, NL) and is directed mainly towards southern Europe(I, SLO, E, F);
Most climbing areas are subject to conservation-related restrictions, but this is not always the main underlying reason for the limitation;
Changes in the level of access to climbing sites has an impact on alternative locations, leading to overcrowding and increased private traffic;
The tension between climbing activities and the objectives of Natura 2000 is a “source of confusion for climbing associations”;
The power of media and other technical means to affect climbing management is often underestimated in southern Europe;
It is essential to pursue the sustainable management of climbing areas in the spirit of Agenda 21, involving a large range of stakeholders in defining the concept of harmless climbing and setting up a follow-up process to ensure long term practice of sport climbing which will not harm the environment and will benefit society;
The IUCN report concludes with a set of legal, environmental, organisational, sport ethics, research, economic and social objectives. It also includes a list of recommendations for the implementation of these objectives (Hanemann 2000).
Activity 10.6 - Some key issues on co-operation in the Alps
As part of the Action Theme 10 of the Pan-European Strategy (PEBLDS) the IUCN has funded a study on co-operation in mountain ranges, including a review and assessment of existing mechanisms for inter-governmental co-operation in the Alps. The study was led by Martin Price, and the results were published in a document by IUCN (Price 1999).
Amongst the key reasons for the increasing attention to trans-frontier co-operation in the Alps, Price points out:
the rediscovery of regional identities;
the strengthening of regional institutions;
the increasing relevance of subsidiarity in relation to the implementation of EU policies;
the “division” of ecosystems by the high Alpine ridges which often coincide with administrative boundaries, making it difficult to manage environmental resources and biodiversity; and
the relevance of climate change in the Alpine region, and the inherent trans-boundary nature of its impacts (e.g. survival and distribution of species, interaction between species and land-uses, see also Section 4.5).
This resurgence of regionalism takes many forms: networks of individuals, communities, and NGOs, to the establishment of formal structures (e.g. working communities like the Alpen Adria) and conventions.[5] The single most important initiative for cooperation in the Alps is the Alpine Convention (see Section 3). The research for Activity 10.6 has resulted in a number of important lessons. The following were considered particularly relevant to inform any future initiative of WWF in the Alps:
Awareness of the appropriate level of partnership within and between governments.
25. The experience of the three main working communities in the Alps[6] supports the role of the regional governments with a significant part of their territory in the Alps: they have clear common interests, and are often the ones who will implement initiatives in any key areas (including environmental protection).
26. The experience of the Alpine Convention shows that the involvement of national level governments is crucial, especially if initiatives require the force of international law for ratification and implementation. A result of this is that much of the funding will come from central government sources.
Flexibility
28. There seems to be benefits in a flexible structure for cooperation, especially in terms of setting and reviewing priorities.
Stakeholder involvement
30. Experience from Switzerland and Austria shows that involving a large range of stakeholders in formulating priorities for the implementation of the Alpine Convention is very valuable in order to define strategies for the conservation of biological and landscape diversity, and for sustainable development.
Multi-lingual approach
32. Experience shows that there is a real need for translation of documents in all main languages. This has substantial cost implications.
33. The experience of the working communities shows that the language of the chair is usually the primary language for the resulting documents.
Finally, the IUCN report concludes that “The success of the Strategy in mountain regions will be based on the integration of its emphases on finding a balance between the conservation of biological and landscape diversity and ensuring the economic and cultural future of mountain populations. To a large extent... this will be done through contributions to initiatives which are already ongoing or planned” (Price 1999). Whilst, the Progress Report presented at Riga (CoE and UNEP 2000a) adds that “the greatest need is for a broad regional-scale consultation which could be very appropriately supported by the Council”.
The New Action Plan 2001-2005 and its relevance for WWF and the Alps
This appears to address some of the weaknesses of the first plan which was perhaps too ambitious in the range of activities which it aimed to cover. The main elements of relevance to the Alps are (CoE and UNEP 2000b):
Enhanced co-operation between PEBLDS and relevant international processes, especially the CBD. This would help to focus on a biodiversity strategy in the Alps;
Further integration of biological and landscape diversity considerations into sectoral policies. This places an emphasis on conservation outside protected areas (as well as inside) and may be an important opportunity for co-ordinated action in the Alpine region, perhaps focusing on a number of priority sectors such as agriculture, tourism and transport/climate change;
36. Planned actions include the preparation of recommendations for sectoral integration in agriculture, at European and national levels (major conference on Agriculture and Environment in 2003);
37. A contribution to the future rural development solutions for Europe; integration of economic and land use sectors (forestry, tourism, transport);
Capacity building for conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in CEECs;
Establishment of the Pan-European Ecological Network (PEEN). There is a potentially strong link between this priority and the emphasis on the need to strengthen protection of remaining large natural areas, together with the need to develop better mechanisms for collaboration across international (and regional) borders in the Alps;
Provision of information, enhancement of communication and raising awareness on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity; and
Review, assessment, monitoring, reporting and funding.
3 European Landscape Convention
The European Landscape Convention is an initiative of the Council of Europe (CoE). The recognition that much of the Alpine region is characterised by semi-natural and cultural landscapes shaped by man’s economic and cultural activities, and the fact that an important part of biodiversity depends on these landscapes and related habitats (e.g. extensive agriculture patterns) makes this new Convention potentially very relevant.
The text of the Convention, prepared by the CoE, will be presented for signatures and adoption at a meeting of Ministers responsible for landscape issues, which is due to take place in Florence, in October 2000. It is therefore early days for an assessment of effectiveness and this section looks at some of the promising aspects of the Convention which are particularly relevant to a wide concept of biodiversity protection in the Alps.
The origins of the Convention relate to three main moments (CoE 2000b):
The 1994 Resolution 256 of the Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe which called on its succeeding body (the Council of Europe’s Congress of Local and Regional Authorities - CLRAE) “to draw up, on the basis of the Mediterranean Landscape Charter…, a framework convention on the management and protection of the natural and cultural landscape of Europe as a whole”;
In 1995 the Landscape chapter in the EU’s Environment Agency’s “Europe’s Environment: the Dobrís assessment”, concludes hoping that the CoE would take the lead in drawing up a European convention on rural landscapes;
IUCN’s Parks for Life also advocates an international convention on rural landscape protection in Europe, involving the CoE.
The Convention defines landscape as: “an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors” (Convention, Article 1). It calls for landscape to become a mainstream political concern “since it plays an important role in the well being of Europeans who are no longer prepared to tolerate the alteration of their surroundings by technical and economic developments in which they have no say” (CoE 2000b). It provides a legal instrument exclusively dedicated to landscape, which can support international co-operation. Indeed, the Convention recognises the need for transboundary measures.
The aim is to reinforce local and regional identity and distinctiveness, which may help to promote sustainable development of the area concerned. There is a recognition of the need to strike a balance between preserving the natural and cultural heritage as a reflection of European identity and diversity, and using it as an economic resource capable of generating employment in the context of the boom in sustainable tourism (Preamble to the Convention, CoE 2000a).
2.4 Review of selected Instruments- b)European Union Instruments
2.4.1 The Natura 2000 Network
Natura 2000 is a network of sites designated under two European Directives (92/43/EEC and 79/409/EEC).
The 1992 Directive (known in short as the Habitats Directive) aims to conserve fauna, flora and natural habitats of EU importance. The fundamental purpose of this directive is to establish a network of protected areas throughout the Community designed to maintain both the distribution and the abundance of threatened species and habitats, both terrestrial and marine. The network of Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) is called Natura 2000, and will include Special Protection Areas (SPAs) of the 1979 Directive (known n short as Birds Directive). Criteria for selection include priority habitats and species, as identified in the Annexes to the 1992 Habitats Directive.
The distribution, by biogeographical regions, of habitats and species listed in the Habitats Directive shows that the Alpine region makes a very important contribution to EU’s biodiversity. It includes 100 listed habitats and 165 listed species (EC 2000a).
In the EU Alpine region mountain areas contain 16% of the sites of community interest (SCIs), while the region area covers only 9% of the EU. The likelihood that these SCIs will be selected as special conservation areas (SACs) is very high. The proposed sites in the Alps tend to meet the criteria of a) strong relationship to migration routes, b) being part of an ecosystem on both sides of EU frontiers (i.e. belonging to two Member States), and c) the presence of a high number of annex I habitats and annex II species (see: Habitats Directive).
This likely high proportion of future SACs should be eventually reflected in national and regional policies (EEA 1999).
Key Aspects for Consideration
It is not possible to summarise in this report the overall effectiveness of the Directives, however, the following is a list of key aspects for consideration:
Site Designation of SPAs - An important test for the Birds Directive is to establish whether the network of designated SPAs is adequate for its protection requirements and overall objectives. The coherence of the network of areas is analysed in the three year reports by the Commission. In the most recent one published this year (EC 2000b), which however refers to the years 1993-95, it is stated that by the end of 1995 only five countries had designated more than half of the Important Bird Areas[7] within their territory, and that “major efforts” were still needed in most MSs .
Site Designation Natura 2000 - WWF Austria has produced a “gap analysis” of the progress of Natura 2000 in all EU MSs. This reveals that the designation of sites is only “half way there”, confirming the results of the EC report mentioned in the previous point.[8]
Site Designation and the Structural Funds - The European Commission has taken a clear stance against those MSs which fail to designate sites for Natura 2000 and wish to obtain EU funding through the Structural Funds (see also Section 4.2). Since the start of negotiations for the new round of Funds (2000-2006) the Commission has informed MSs that it will block the Funds in areas where insufficient sites have been proposed for the implementation of the Habitat Directive.
Site Management - The emphasis is slowly moving from site designation towards ensuring adequate site management. MSs have just begun to address this fundamental aspect of the network.
Using European Structural Funds for Natura 2000 - The year 2000 is crucial for the definition and approval of programmes for the use of Structural Funds. The Directorate General Environment has (DG ENV) has emphasised, in collaboration with DG Regional Development (DG REGIO), that measures favourable for Natura 2000 sites should be integrated as early as possible into the regional and rural development programmes. Experience from the past funding period (1994-99) shows that the range of possibilities can cover contracts with farmers and foresters, or projects aimed at the commercial and tourist promotion of local products. Further help can be found by looking at the results of LIFE projects (see Section 2.4.3).
The role of WWF-European Policy Office (EPO) - The EPO focuses on the following areas in relation to Natura 2000:
20. site designation (including lobbying for a link with Structural Funds);
21. site management (just started), especially looking at the integration of conservation objectives in agriculture, forestry and freshwater practices;
22. information and raising awareness on Natura 2000 and all other aspects of the Habitat Directive (this includes addressing problems like the tension between designation and the rights of farmers); and
23. environmental liability.
2 European Community Biodiversity Strategy
This section focuses on the principal non-legislative biodiversity initiative of the EU. Section 4 will look at the extensive range of non-biodiversity specific policies which can have significant positive and negative impacts on the conservation objectives of the Alpine region.
The Community Biodiversity Strategy (COM(98) 42 final) was adopted in 1998. It provides a framework for developing Community policies and instruments in order to comply with the CBD. Its aim is “to anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of significant reduction or loss of biodiversity at the source” (EC 1998).
The Strategy emphasises the relations with other sectors and policy areas:
42. The conservation of natural resources;
43. Agriculture;
44. Fisheries;
45. Regional policies and spatial planning;
46. Development and economic co-operation;
47. Forests; and
48. Energy and Transport.
Action plans were envisaged for the first five sectors in the above list. To date, the Commission services have produced specific strategies for conservation of natural resources, agriculture and fisheries.
Box 2.2a A forthcoming review of EC and MSs strategies commissioned by DG Environment
The Commission has presented a call for tenders for a:
Study on Complementarity in the Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity by the European Community and its Member States (closing date for proposals: September 2000).
The key objectives of the study are to assist in progressing the implementation of the CBD in the Community and to help in identifying further actions required to achieve the objectives of the CBD in the EU by answering the following specific questions:
How are both the objectives set in the Community Biodiversity Strategy and the Community Measures identified in the first EC report to COP4 addressed in each Member State’s own National Biodiversity Strategy?
What are the main gaps between the Community and the Member States’ strategic frameworks?
How are the Community measures described in the first EC report to COP4 addressed in each member state’s own report?
What is the state of play in the implementation of these Community measures at the Member State’s level?
This may provide further useful information for the countries in the Alpine region. The contact person at DG Environment is Carlos Martin Novella.
3 The European LIFE Regulation
Introduction
On 17.07.2000, the European Parliament and the Council adopted the Regulation 1655/2000/EC concerning the financial instrument for the environment (LIFE). This Regulation is the new legal basis for the third step of the LIFE instrument, from 2000 to 2004. LIFE consists of three thematic components: LIFE-Nature, LIFE-Environment and LIFE-third countries. Most of the financial instruments of the European Union have an element directly or indirectly concerning the environment, but LIFE is the only instrument, which specifically supports the development and implementation of Community environment policy. [9]
The scope of LIFE is summarised below (EC 2000d):
The general objective of LIFE is to contribute to the implementation, updating and development of Community environment policy and of environmental legislation, in particular regarding the integration of the environment into other policies, and to sustainable development[10] in the Community.
LIFE is a financial instrument for three major areas of action: Nature Environment, and Third Countries. While all three areas aim to improve the environment, each has its specific priorities.
51. LIFE-Nature relates to actions aimed at the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora of EU interest.
52. LIFE-Environment relates to innovative demonstration actions for economic activities and local authorities as well as preparatory actions to support community legislation and policies.
53. LIFE-Third Countries relates to technical assistance to third countries bordering the Mediterranean and Baltic Seas.
Box 2.2b describes LIFE Environment and Nature in greater detail.
Box 2.2b LIFE Environment and Nature
LIFE Nature
Within the meaning of LIFE, the nature conservation actions are those "required to maintain or restore the natural habitats and the population of species of wild fauna and flora at a favourable status". In practice, LIFE-Nature must contribute to the implementation of the "Birds" (79/409/EEC) and "Habitats" (92/43/EEC) Community directives and, in particular, to the establishment of the European network of protected areas - NATURA 2000 - aiming at the on-site management and conservation of the most valuable fauna and flora species and habitats in the Union. LIFE Nature is a budget line that can enable new management techniques to be tested and will often promote strong integration at local level between nature conservation activities and other sectoral initiatives, as well as create networks of experts. Thus, although it is a very small source of funding compared with the Common Agriculture Policy, for example, it is considered effective in triggering more substantial investments.
LIFE-Environment
LIFE-Environment finances innovative pilot and demonstration actions aimed at:
the integration of environmental considerations into land use development and planning, including in urban and coastal areas
the promotion of the sustainable management of groundwater and surface water
the minimisation of environmental impact of economic activities
the prevention, recycling and sound management of waste streams
the reduction of the environmental impact of products.
LIFE-Environment finances also Preparatory Actions, aiming at the development of new or revised Community environmental policies.
The new round of funding - an opportunity
For the period 2000 – 2004, LIFE has a total proposed budget of 640 million Euro, 47% of which is earmarked for LIFE-Environment projects in the European Union. Both branches of LIFE may provide an additional source of funding for research in the Alps. In terms of the LIFE Nature budget, 15% in 1996 and 25% in 1997 was dedicated to finance projects in mountain areas, with a focus on large carnivore species protection (brown bear and wolf, for more information, and a copy of reports, please visit the web site: ).
2.5 Conclusions
Section 2 has focused on the biodiversity policy scene. Of the various key policy areas and legal instruments listed in Table 2.1, the following seem to have the greatest potential relevance to the issues raised by Grabherr et al (2000):
European Birds and Habitats Directives
UN Convention on Biological Diversity
European Community Biodiversity Strategy
The Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy
The Emerald Network
Parks for Life.
The review of some of these key policies has revealed a number of problems and urgent needs, but also several opportunities, including likely priorities for future action by WWF.
In terms of problems and needs, the following main areas can be highlighted:
Problem: The percentage of the Alps’ surface area which is protected is still very low (the EEA calculated a mere 4.2% in 1999). The three-year report on the Birds Directive concludes that “major efforts” are still needed, and that only half Mss have designated more than 50% of their IBAs. Similar conclusions and figures are quoted in a more recent WWF Austria review of Natura 2000.
66. Need: to speed up the designation of Natura 2000 and of the PEEN network under PEBLDS.
67. Opportunity/priority: The link between Structural Funds and Natura 2000 is significant for two aspects: the need to designate sites has a certain effect as condition for the release of funding, and in addition, the new programme have the potential to provide resources for conservation objectives. WWF EPO activities should be noted.
68. Need: to turn the Biodiversity Plans (from the European, national and local levels) into effective actions. More emphasis on good practice with a focus on mountain/Alpine regions.
69. Opportunity/priority: The new Action Plan for PEBLDS (2001-2005) seems particularly relevant to some of the needs and problems highlighted above. in particular for its emphasis on increased cooperation with the CBD process, increased integration of biodiversity and landscape in economic sectors, and its focus on PEEN.
Problem: Lack of funding, for example for initiatives such as Theme 10 of the PEBLDS action plan.
71. Need: more funding.
72. Opportunity/priority: Structural Funds, Interreg III and LIFE.
Problem: There is still a lack of understanding of the impacts of tourism on biodiversity (most work to date has focused on a few typical species).
74. Need: further scientific research on impacts such as loss of biodiversity, massive or intrusive changes to the landscape, climate change and pollution, overuse of sensitive areas.
Problem: Despite several new policy initiatives, especially for networks of protected areas, the Alpine region still lacks coordination in key areas such as protection.
76. Opportunity/priority: If WWF chooses to co-ordinate a number of initiatives (both strictly related to biodiversity, and also relating to specific sectors, see Section 4), it should bear in mind: the need for an appropriate level of partnership within and between governments, the need for flexibility in setting and reviewing priorities, the need to involve a wide range of stakeholders and the need to adopt a multilingual approach.
In this regard, the latest progress report on PEBLDS (Theme 10) highlights the need for “a broad regional-scale consultation” to ensure the Strategy’s success in the Alps. This may provide opportunities for synergies and collaboration.
Opportunity/priority: The increasing focus on landscape as well as nature and biodiversity offers a wider framework for action and a strengthening of the identity and distinctiveness of the Alps . If WWF were to judge that this is a useful area to focus on, the Landscape Convention and PEBLDS may help in promoting the context for international cooperation.
Opportunity/priority: The wide range of ecological networks being “built” in the region offers an important policy response to the three main pressures identified in the Biodiversity Assessment of Grabherr et al, 2000 (see Section 2.1).
Need/priority: There is a need to balance the need for conservation (Natura 2000 etc) and the freedom of access to the more sensitive areas (e.g. climbing activities).
Opportunity/priority: To support the objectives and recommendations of IUCN: its recent report on climbing provides a set of legal, environmental, organisational, sport ethics, research, economic and social objectives. It also includes a list of recommendations for the implementation of these objectives.
Opportunity/priority: To increase the attention to trans-frontier cooperation in the Alps.
3. Convention on the Protection of the Alps
3.1 Introduction
This section is devoted to the Alpine Convention: the only international initiative which is entirely focused on the region’s characteristics and needs, and which looks at both conservation and development issues, providing and important reference point for the future WWF initiative, both for its strengths and for the difficulties it is encountering.
The Alpine Convention was first conceived in 1952, when CIPRA was founded. It was finally signed in 1991 by Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Slovenia (1993), the Principality of Monaco (1994) and the European Community.[11] It’s objective is the conservation and protection of the alpine region and its sustainable development.[12]
The Convention recognises the special natural and cultural diversity of the Alps and states that “[they are] an economic, cultural, recreational and living environment in the heart of Europe, shared by numerous peoples and countries” (Convention’s Preamble). At the heart of the Convention lies the realisation of the need to address the tension between economic and ecological needs: “[the] economic interests to be reconciled with ecological requirements” (Convention’s Preamble).
One of the Convention’s major contributions is to foster co-operation between the Alpine states and to strengthen the awareness of the Alps as a region with its own identity.
Table 3.1 The Framework Convention (Alpine Convention)
| |Signature |Publication |Ratification has been deposited |Date of entry into |
| | | | |force |
|A |07.11.91 |Bundesgesetzblatt Nr.477/1995 vom 21.07.1995 |08.02.94 |06.03.95 |
|CH |07.11.91 |. |28.01.99 |28.04.99 |
|D |07.11.91 |Bundesgesetzblatt Teil II Nr.46/1994 vom |05.12.94 |06.03.95 |
| | |8.10.1994 | | |
|F |07.11.91 |Journal officiel Nr.95 1270 vom 7.12.1995 |15.01.96 |15.04.96 |
|FL |07.11.91 |Liechtensteinisches Landesgesetzblatt |28.07.94 |06.03.95 |
| | |1995/Nr.186 | | |
|I |07.11.91 |. |.27.12.99 |27.03.00 |
|MC |20.12.94 |. |. |. |
|SLO |29.03.93 |Uradni list Republike Slovenije (Mednarodne |22.05.95 |22.08.95 |
| | |pogodbe) Nr.19/Beilage Nr.5 vom 31.3.1995 | | |
|EU |07.11.91 |Gazzetta ufficiale della Comunità Europea | |14.04.98 |
| | |n° L61/31-36 de 2.3.1996 | | |
Source:
European outline convention on mountain regions
In Recommendation 75 (2000) on the draft European outline convention on mountain regions (Council of Europe’s CLRAE), the local and regional authorities of mountain regions are calling for this type of international legal instrument to ensure, as part of an overall policy on sustainable spatial development, the necessary conditions for promoting the socio-economic development of mountain populations while respecting their environment (CLRAE 2000).
The proposed convention should be considered as a framework convention. It is intended to be complementary to the Alpine Convention, and aims to provide an overall framework for similar initiatives focusing on mountain areas throughout Europe.[13]
3.2 The Protocols
The Convention (Article 2) calls for the Parties to agree on protocols which provide details on how to implement the Convention and include greater policy content compared to the Convention text. To date, eight Protocols have been prepared and signed (see Table 3.2), and another one on Transport is finally ready (for details on this, please see Section 4.4).
The importance of protocols is highlighted by Price (1999): “ the existence of signed protocols is a measure of the success of implementation”. Nonetheless, existing protocols need to be harmonised, both between Protocols, and with national and European legislation. There are also problems which the language used and the translations. Seven Protocols were finally harmonised this year. This will enable each country to proceed with ratification. However, lack of political will and difficult negotiations, together with the absence of a Permanent Secretariat to push forward progress and implementation, have been a major obstacle to date.
Table 3.2 Signature and ratification of Protocols (1994-98)
| |
|signed |
|signed |
|signed |
|signed |
|signed |
|signed |
|signed |
|signed |20.12.94 |20.12.94 |20.12.94 |
| |Narrow |Tape |Island | |Impoverishment |Decreasing |Fragmentatio|
| |corrido|corrido|patches| |and loss of |species |n |
| |rs |rs | | |habitats |populations | |
|Agriculture |Yes |Yes? | |Alpine farming abandonment |Yes– also loss | | |
| | | | | |of cultural | | |
| | | | | |habitat | | |
| |Yes | | |Introduction of industrial agriculture leads to |Yes |Yes |Yes |
| | | | |the replacement of meadows and pastures. More | | | |
| | | | |access roads. Manure is being used on natural | | | |
| | | | |grasslands. | | | |
|Forestry |Yes? |Yes | |Forest clearing. |Yes |Yes | |
|Transport |Yes |Yes |Yes |Emissions contribute to global warming. |Yes | | |
| |Yes |Yes | |Transport infrastructure fragments habitat and |Yes |Yes |Yes |
| | | | |interrupts corridors. | | | |
|Climate Change |Yes |Yes |Yes |Climate change and global warming |Yes |Yes | |
|Urbanisation |Yes |Yes? | |Interruption and misuse of sites and migration | |Yes |Yes |
| | | | |corridors. | | | |
| | | | |Site disturbance and over-exploitation of sites | | | |
| | | | |close to tourist centres. | | | |
|Energy |Yes | | |Power plants for electricity production lead to |Yes |Yes |Yes |
| | | | |barriers along most large rivers, interrupting | | | |
| | | | |migration and changing the hydrology. | | | |
|Tourism | |Yes | |Cable cars and skiing areas can interrupt these |Yes | |Yes |
| | | | |corridors, particularly forest belts. Snow | | | |
| | | | |mobiles disturb wildlife. | | | |
|Leisure/tourism| |Yes |Yes |Hunting | |Yes | |
Notes:
* = This distinction between ecologically relevant landscapes is based on the work of Prof. Georg Grabherr et al. “The Alps’ Biodiversity Assessment” (2000): “Ecological relevant patterns at the landscape level appear when viewing the Alps from above. Three general types can be distinguished: 1. The deep main valleys (= zone below 800m) representing narrow corridors; 2. The tape-like corridors of the mountain forests (=zone between 800 –2000m), and 3. The island-like patches of the areas above tree line”.
4.2 Funding mechanisms for regional development
4.2.1 The Structural Funds and other mechanisms
Article 158 of the EU Treaty states that, in order to strengthen its economic and social cohesion, the Community shall aim at reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least-favoured regions or islands, including rural areas. Article 159 provides for that action to be supported through the Structural Funds, as well as the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the other existing financial instruments.
In 1999 the Council of the European Union approved a Council Regulation (No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999) laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds. Article 1 presents their “Objectives”:[16]
“Community action through the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the other existing financial instruments shall support the achievement of the general objectives set out in Articles 158 and 160 of the Treaty. The Structural Funds, the EIB and the other existing financial
instruments shall each contribute in appropriate fashion to the attainment of the following three
priority objectives:
1. promoting the development and structural adjustment of regions whose development is
lagging behind, hereinafter referred to as "Objective 1”;
2. supporting the economic and social conversion of areas facing structural difficulties, hereinafter
referred to as "Objective 2”;
3. supporting the adaptation and modernisation of policies and systems of education, training and
employment, hereinafter referred to as "Objective 3”. This objective shall provide financial assistance outside the regions covered by Objective 1 and provide a policy frame of reference for all measures to promote human resources in a national territory without prejudice to the specific features of each region.
In pursuing these objectives, the Community shall contribute to the harmonious, balanced and
sustainable development of economic activities, the development of employment and human resources, the protection and improvement of the environment, and the elimination of inequalities, and the promotion of equality between men and women”.
Structural Funds therefore support the European Regional Policy. They account for approximately one third of the total EU budget, and it is through these funds that the EU also participates in the development of the mountain regions (see specific examples below). In countries which are part of the Alpine area, the Funds support projects implemented in regions that are “lagging behind” (Objective 1 regions) and those that are in the process of “conversion” (Objective 2 regions).
A summary of the objectives of the different types of Structural Funds is provided in Box 4.1. The EU also assists mountain areas through community initiatives for rural development ad cross border/ transnational co-operation (e.g. Interreg III). Finally, the agri-environment measures in the context of rural and agricultural policies are also highly relevant to mountain areas. These are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Box 4.1 Introduction to the Structural Funds Priority Objectives for 2000-2006
The main Funds of relevance to the Alpine Region are:
The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
The ERDF was set up in 1975 to provide financial support to regional development programmes targeted at the most disadvantaged regions. Its aim is to help reduce socio-economic imbalances between regions of the Union. In the period 2000-06, the ERDF grants financial assistance under the Structural Funds' two regional objectives (1 and 2).
The European Social Fund (ESF)
Established in 1960, the ESF is the main instrument of Community social policy. In the period 2000-06, it provides financial assistance for vocational training, retraining and job creation schemes under Objective 3 as well as for projects under Objectives 1 and 2 of the Structural Funds. ESF assistance is targeted particularly at unemployed youth, the long-term unemployed, and socially disadvantaged groups and women.
The European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guidance Section
The EAGGF is the financial instrument for rural development policy, the second pillar of the common agricultural policy. It finances development in rural areas throughout the European Union. The EAGGF is divided into two sections: the Guidance Section supports rural development measures in Objective 1 areas, while the Guarantee Section operates in the other areas.
2 Development funds for the Alps and other mountain regions
The Commission highlights eight different approaches to its provision of financial support in mountain areas (EC 2000c):
Investing in innovation and quality
Past example: Lavender re-launch plan in the southern Alps (1994-99 Objective 5b programme. Contact: email michel.krausz@wanadoo.fr);
Acquiring increasingly specialised skills
Past example: Diversification for farmers in Bavaria: from phyto to hippotherapy (1994-99 Objective 5b programme. Contact: );
Developing tourism within limits
Past example: Highland Walking Festival, Scotland (Leader II programme. Contact: email: ruareidh@netcomuk.co.uk);
Building the necessary infrastructure
Past example: A regeneration project both to allow tourism development and to attract small and medium-sized business (1994-99 Objective 1 programme. Contact: );
Taking the path to sustainable development
Past example: Training sheepdogs for reindeer farming in Lapland (1994-99 Objective 6 programme. Contact email: nils-erik.skaltj@sametinget.se);
Supporting dynamic local development
Past example: Support for the traditional spectacles industry between Belluno and the Upper Jura (Leader project. Contact email: gal@)
Drawing on a supra-regional reality
Past example: Providing essential public and private services to rural mountain regions through a postal service telematics network- job offers, libraries, bank transactions etc. (Structural Funds Article 10 pilot project. Contact );
Opening to the East.
Past example: Launch and expansion of berry-farming in the region between Austria and Slovenia (Interreg IIA. Contact Mr Johan Richer tel. 00 43 31 5724 46).
Most of these can be relevant to the objective of biodiversity conservation in the Alps. Some will provide a direct contribution to the objective, others will be more indirect in their effect, especially by addressing sectoral and social problems some of the above approaches may promote alternative activities which will reduce the rate of abandonment of certain mountain communities.
3 The Funds and Natura 2000
An important development has taken place during the new round of funds (2000-2006). The Commission has finally taken a clear stance in relation to the link between the use of Regional Policy funds and the need to comply with EU nature conservation legislation, and most notably with the development and protection of Natura 2000. On the one hand, this is meant as a reminder by the Commission, whereby delay in site designation can have negative effects on a MS’s ability to obtain funding. On the other hand, the clear link with Natura 2000 should open an important opportunity to influence the next funding programmes in the Alpine region so that they make a maximum positive contribution to the achievement of Natura 2000 objectives (both in terms of protection and enhancement).
Indeed, WWF-EPO is now seeking to link Structural Funds to site management. It also aims to screen proposals for the 2000-2006 Structural Funds Programmes to check whether they may be a potential threat to Natura 2000 sites.
WWF Austria has already completed such screening in relation to the rural development programmes.[17]
4 Community Initiatives – INTERREG III
Interreg is a European Community Instrument which provides financial support to initiatives amongst regions in the EU. It’s focus on cross-border cooperation makes it particularly relevant to the Alpine area.
The main aim of the new Interreg programme (Interreg III) remains to strengthen cross-border cooperation to promote balanced development and European integration. The new initiative takes forward Interreg II measures and adds to them cooperation between non-adjacent regions. Strengthening this type of action is all the more important given that the European Union is in the process of enlargement, which will increase its number of internal borders by progressively moving its external borders towards the East.
For the period 2000-2006, Interreg III has a budget of 4,875 million euro (1999 prices). The Interreg III initiative receives co-financing from the Commission and the Member States. The ERDF contribution will not exceed 75% of the total programme cost in Objective 1 regions and 50% in Objective 2 regions, which are the most common type in the Alpine area.
The Commission has proposed a financial allocation per Member State. It is based primarily on population rates in the internal border areas of the EU, ultra-peripheral regions or border areas with Central and Eastern European countries. Between 50% and 80% of the national envelopes must be allocated to cross-border cooperation and 6% to interregional cooperation.
Indicative allocation per Member State (million euro - 1999 prices):
|Country |Interreg III |
|D |737 |
|F |397 |
|I |426 |
|A |183 |
|EUR15 |4875 |
Four Alpine countries will receive a total of 1182 Mill. euros.
Third countries taking part in Interreg III initiatives may lead to financial assistance for their cooperation from the PHARE programme, national PHARE, ISPA and SAPARD programmes. In addition, loans from the European Investment Bank (EIB) may also be available. Depending on the requirements, proposals submitted under Interreg III may receive Commission funding for technical assistance in designing, financing and implementing initiatives.
The three main areas of interest for Interreg are:
Strand A: cross-border cooperation
Strand B: transnational cooperation
Strand C: interregional cooperation.
Strands A and B are described in more detail in the Boxes below. Annex 4 presents a series of examples in Alpine regions, based on the previous initiative - Interreg II. These examples give a flavour of the type of projects supported in these regions, and the potential benefits which they can bring to biodiversity and sustainable development.
CIPRA has highlighted the importance of Interreg IIIB, recognising its potential as funding source for the implementation of the Convention.
Box 4.2 Interreg 2000-2006: Cross-border cooperation
Cross-border cooperation between adjacent regions aims to develop cross-border social and economic centres through common development strategies.
Eligible areas
Eligible areas See the map of regions and areas where Interreg III A projects may be developed Areas eligible under Interreg III strand A are:·
All NUTS III areas situated along the internal and external land borders of the European Union
Certain NUTS III maritime areas.
In some cases, NUTS III areas adjacent to the areas mentioned above may also be eligible for funding. This is also true for areas which are not classed as NUTS III, but which are enclosed within a region with NUTS III areas that lie along a border or in a region where such areas adjoin others running along the borders. In both cases, eligibility for funding is granted, provided they do not account for more than 20% of the total spending for the Interreg programme concerned.
Priorities for action which may be relevant to WWF’s Alpine Programme
Measures for environmental protection, improving energy efficiency and renewable energy sources;
Increasing human and institutional potential for cross-border cooperation.
Box 4.3 Interreg 2000-2006: Transnational cooperation
Transnational cooperation between national, regional and local authorities aims to promote better integration within the Union through the formation of large groups of European regions. It also promotes sustainable and balanced development within the Union and better integration between the 15 Member States and candidate countries and other neighbouring countries.
Within strand B, particular emphasis is placed on ultra-peripheral regions and island regions. It also provides opportunities for promoting cooperation between groups of regions facing common problems, such as mountainous areas.
Eligible areas
The EU as a whole and its neighbouring regions are eligible for transnational cooperation support. In order to draw up programmes, regional groups have been set up on the basis of the areas covered by 1994-1999 Interreg II C programmes (spatial planning) and pilot projects run within the framework of spatial planning under article 10 of the former ERDF regulation for 1994-1999. The following map shows the area in the Alps:
Priorities for action which may be relevant to WWF’s Alpine Programme
Drawing up regional development strategies at transnational level, including cooperation between towns or urban areas and rural areas;
Promoting protection of the environment and natural resources.
5 European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP)
Following ten years of study and discussion, the EU15 and the Commission adopted a European Spatial Development Perspective in 1999.[18] This promotes a common approach to regional planning which is particularly useful for mountain regions, as these are directly affected by three major fields of action under ESDP:
polycentric spatial development and a new relationship between cities and the countryside;
equivalent access to infrastructure and know-how;
prudent management of nature and farming.
However, ESDP remains a “lame duck” in terms of the level of impact it can have on Member States, since there is no legal framework within which the EC can impose actions for spatial planning. Nonetheless, the Perspective has triggered a wide range of studies and an increasing opportunity for debate and awareness raising of the very important spatial implications of the main EU policy areas (agriculture, regional development and transport) and of eco-regions like that of the Alps. The benefits of this slow move towards some sectoral integration should not be underestimated. [19]
6 Conclusions - problems and opportunities
The Problems
The European funding mechanisms for regional development have historically produced very mixed results in terms of environmental and sustainability objectives (Bina, Cuff and Lake, 1997). Thus, EC financial support in mountain areas can have a negative impact, for example through the funding of large infrastructure projects (in the energy, transport or tourism sectors, as well as in agriculture and forestry) within or in proximity of sensitive areas and protected areas.
Opportunities and/or priorities
The programmes for Objective 1 and 2 regions are being finalised in the next few months. An assessment of their likely impacts and contributions to biodiversity objectives for the Alps should be done as soon as possible, before single projects are selected and given the go ahead. The EC Regulations for Structural Funds call for a strategic assessment of environmental implications, this may provide a good starting point.
The increasingly explicit link between Natura 2000 and the Structural Funds is raising the need for progress on designation, and the opportunity top use funds to contribute to the objectives of Natura 2000. It is important to establish whether such a link has been effective during the negotiations for the programmes and have influenced the content of such documents. WWF-EPO is working on these issues.
Also according to CIPRA, the next Interreg programme seems to offer important opportunities for the implementation of the Alpine Convention. Depending on WWF’s future priorities for the area, Interreg III may provide financial support through initiatives relating to any of these categories:
105. Measures for environmental protection, improving energy efficiency and renewable energy sources;
106. Increasing human and institutional potential for cross-border cooperation.
107. Drawing up regional development strategies at transnational level, including cooperation between towns or urban areas and rural areas;
108. Promoting protection of the environment and natural resources.
4.3 Agriculture, Rural Development and Forestry
4.3.1 Introduction
Mountain areas have witnessed a slow shift from primary to tertiary sectors. This has very significant implications for the Alps, which have seen traditional and sustainable activities being substituted by pure economically oriented activities (e.g. people once working in a combination of agriculture, pastoralism, and dairy farming, are now likely to be employed in the tourist business or industry).
“Agriculture alone is no longer an economic pillar for mountain areas” (EEA 1999).
Economic pressures have led to two trends in Alpine agriculture:
1. In valleys, high mountain pastures, and good accessible slopes, it has led to intensification.
2. In other areas it has led to extensification in terms of abandonment or afforestation (partly the inevitable result of abandonment).
Both trends can lead to a significant decline in biodiversity (EEA 1999), especially where they lead to a loss of meadows between 600 and 2000-2400 meters above sea level. The setting-aside and abandonment of land may in some areas lead to growth of unfragmented areas, as reported from some French Alpine valleys, although land abandonment can harm biodiversity (see Biodiversity assessment).
The European Common Agriculture Policy contributes in varying degrees to both trends, but it also has the potential to stop and even reverse them depending on how its policies are interpreted and implemented by Alpine Member States. It is therefore an important policy area for this study.
2 The European Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) and the Rural Development Regulation
Introduction and key changes to the CAP during the 1990s
The CAP is the most important Common Policy and a central element of the EU’s institutional and financial support systems. The influence it has on rural areas in all EU countries makes it a major factor in nature protection. The 1992 reform of the CAP introduced, amongst others, a combination of environmental policies with agricultural market and income policies in a mutually beneficial way. These agri-environment measures, as they are now known, have been very successful in providing direct support to nature protection.
In 1998 the Commission launched Agenda 2000, a strategy for strengthening growth, competitiveness and employment, and for extending the Union’s borders through enlargement to the East. In terms of the CAP, it reinforces the target of agri-environmental policy as the main strategy for integrating environment into the CAP and broader rural development.[20] The general orientation is that farmers should observe a minimum level of environmental practice as part-and-parcel of the support regimes, but that any additional environmental service, beyond the basic level of good agricultural practice and respecting environmental law, should be paid for by society through the agri-environment programmes (EC 1999b).
For the purpose of nature conservation the EU agriculture policy can be roughly divided into two main areas:
Rural Development and Agri-environment focus
The promotion of direct environmental benefits is a major objective in the new CAP, especially in the context of rural development. This provides a number of opportunities for maximising the biodiversity objectives in those areas receiving CAP assistance.
Market-based regimes
However, the vast majority of CAP funding is still directed to market based regimes (direct payment to farmers) which can be very damaging for biodiversity conservation, unless clear environmental conditions are being attached.
Indeed, the work by WWF-EPO is focused on these two dimensions (see below). Some of the most important initiatives under the first dimension “Rural development and agri-environment focus” are discussed below.
The new Rural Development Regulation
The new Rural Development Regulation may offer some positive support in moving towards more sustainable agriculture practices and overall contribution to biodiversity. Its rural development programmes are the new pillar in the CAP (see Box 4.4). Agenda 2000 has increased the focus on rural development issues and has called for a regional development concept tailored to specific regional circumstances and needs. It therefore leaves the choice of measures to Member States such as the Alpine States, which can tailor programmes to meet environmental and sustainable development objectives for their rural areas.
Box 4.4 The New Regulation 1257/99
Agenda 2000 introduces a comprehensive rural development policy which recognises the multifunctional nature of agriculture and which promotes measures to support the broader rural economy. Measures have been brought together in one regulation which aims to con-tribute to the regeneration of rural areas and the promotion of diversification. Agenda 2000 seeks to strengthen the environmental pro-visions of the CAP and to integrate them in a more systematic way into a broader policy for rural development.
The Agenda 2000 package has streamlined rural development measures by bringing them together in one regulation. Council Regulation 1257/99 provides a range of measures from which each Member State will draw up a rural development plan. The programming process foresees the participation of social partners at regional and local level in the design, implementation and follow-up of programmes.
The regulation includes the accompanying measures, (agri-environmental measures, the early retirement scheme for farmers and afforestation schemes) which will continue to be financed wholly by the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF. This will now also be the case for compensatory allowances in Less-Favoured Areas. Agri-environmental measures are the only compulsory element of the programme. Member States may also make direct payments conditional on compliance with environmental targets ("cross-compliance"). Payments may be reduced or cancelled in the case of non-compliance and Member States may then redirect funds thus released to finance agri-environmental or rural development measures.
Source: EC 2000e
The list of eligible measures highlights biodiversity:
Provisions to retain high nature value environments which are under threat;
Provisions to maintain environmentally beneficial low-intensity pastures;
Environmental capital works such as conservation measures dealing with habitat restoration and re-creation, and water level management investments.
The greater attention to rural development, as opposed to the focus on a single sector such as agriculture seems particularly important for the Alpine region’s need for multi-function solutions. Rural development plans are being finalised this year by Mss at national and/or regional levels. WWF Austria has evaluated the Austrian proposals and has found that a number of measures could have posed significant threats to biodiversity (e.g. road forests), rather than benefits. This is an important reminder that policy directions, even when reasonably defined, will not necessarily be interpreted in the most positive way for biodiversity.
“Potential” opportunities
The main areas of funding which can address the key problems of agriculture trends in the Alps mentioned in Section 4.3.1 are:
Agri-environmental measures
These apply under rural programmes. These offer financial incentives to farmers who, on a voluntary and contractual basis, provide environmental services or improve environmental soundness of farming practices, making them compatible with environmental protection, the landscape and its features, natural resources, the soil and genetic resources. The premia paid are based on costs incurred and income forgone; they may also include a limited incentive element.
Measures in Less favoured Areas (LFAs)
These are particularly relevant to the Alps, since they have been designed to target the specific problems of areas such as mountain areas. They aim to assure continued farming and the maintenance of a viable rural community, to preserve the landscape and to promote the continuation of sustainable farming. The compensatory allowances which assist farmers in LFAs, previously based on the headage count of individual holdings, will be calculated on an area basis in the future. This improves the relative competitiveness of less intensive livestock farming. In addition, a specific provision foresees that payments may cover costs of complying with obligations under environmental legislation.
WWF-EPO had published an influential document on the nature conservation value of LFAs in 1996.[21] The document, entitled: “Nature of Farming” is still considered a very relevant source of information and guidance, particularly since LFAs are still a focus of attention under the new EC Rural Development Regulation.
Thus, if MSs in the Alpine region make the most of the beneficial measures allowed under the new Regulation, rural plans could lead to sustainable management of agriculture land, balanced rural economies and direct benefits to biodiversity. However, as shown by the Austrian example, and by the overall history of CAP, the benefits will depend to a large extent on the interpretation given to the rules by EU Alpine countries. This in turn will reflect the country’s understanding of sustainable rural development. For this reason, WWF-EPO has initiated a three year programme on this issue (see below).
3 Conclusions - Problems and Opportunities
The Problems
A study commissioned by the European Commission (DG ENV) on the integration of the environment in mountain agriculture has highlighted the following problems:
Small and multi-functional farms do not receive sufficient aid to compensate for natural handicaps;
Agri-environment measures may delay adverse developments and repair some damage, but it is highly unlikely that the production-oriented systems can be reoriented; and
Other agricultural measures are not focused on environmental benefits (Euromontana in EEA 1999).
Agriculture has also significant impacts on the quantity and quality of water resources in the Alpine region. The OECD organised a workshop on the “Sustainable Management of Water in Agriculture: Issues and Policies” (Athens, 1998). The Case Studies on Italy and Switzerland highlight the importance of the Alps in terms of water resources, and look at the effectiveness of policy solutions to agriculture’s impacts on water quality.[22]
Finally, the new round of rural developments plans will need to be carefully monitored to ensure that no damaging measures have been proposed, and to seek the maximum benefit for a sustainable rural economy and for biodiversity.
Some Opportunities and Priorities
According to CIPRA (see web site) the challenge ahead can be compared to a substantial disruption of the order and habits which have been a characteristic of the Alpine areas for generations. One of the ways forward is to switch the role of farmers from producers to providers of a service (the maintenance of landscape characteristics). Such a change would inevitably require major efforts on several fronts, including re-direction of funding, training, awareness raising, greater collaboration between government administrations with responsibility for agriculture and environmental protection, but also between farmers and NGOs.
CIPRA suggests that a medium-term approach to mountain agriculture could be based on two fronts:
the provision of high quality products, and
the protection of the landscape.
The new CAP regime can potentially contribute to this. However, much will need to be done to monitor progress and influence plans through constructive suggestions. The main Policy Priorities for Agriculture at WWF-EPO can contribute to this. The following areas are likely to be relevant to agriculture in the Alps, and they are currently a priority for action by the EPO:
1) Promoting the benefits - focus on rural development
119. Rural Development and the new EC Regulation
EPO is working on a three-year project on “The nature of rural development”. This looks at institutions in ten countries (including Switzerland) with an aim to understand how people who currently work in rural areas actually perceive “rural development”
120. Learning from examples
This area of work has just started. The aim is to look at rural development in different regions of Europe (north, south and central). The final choice of regions has not been made, and EPO is looking for partners to develop the project. The Alpine region could be a candidate example.
121. Promoting ex-ante evaluations of Rural Development Plans
WWF Austria has developed a methodology for the evaluation of rural development plans. WWF-PO aims to promote this method widely during the funding period 2000-2006.
122. Draft principles for Rural Development
A “vision poster” should be developed in the coming years, taking into account the results of the various initiatives mentioned above.
2) Avoiding the negative impacts of CAP
123. Focus on cross-compliance
A Conference on this subject is due to take place in October 2000, in Madrid. The Conference is being supported by DG Environment and will involve Ministries of Agriculture and Environment, amongst others.
124. WTO issues - Agriculture and Trade
Although a paper was produced in 1999 (“Agriculture and Trade”) there are currently insufficient resources to focus on this area.
The overall aim of these activities is to provide WWF with sufficient information and a clear position on “what is sustainable rural development”, in order to influence the shape of the next CAP. CAP’s revision is scheduled to start after 1993. A campaign is also due to start, promoting the two broad areas and approaches presented above.[23]
4 Forestry
The priority areas of work of WWF-EPO in relation to forestry policy
This Section concentrates on the priority objectives for action identified by WWF-EPO at the European level, with a focus on those which are relevant to the Alps:
Focus on the adequate representation of forest habitats in protected areas (see Section 2).
Sustainable management of forests.
This area essentially relates to the work on the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) which WWF has been supporting for many years. FSC Certification is now applied to several forests in the Alps (e.g. Italy, Austria, Switzerland and Germany).
There is some concern about the proposal for a Pan-European Forestry Certification (PEFC) which focuses on the needs and objectives of the forest industry and forest owners, giving less importance to biodiversity and participation of stakeholders, which is instead the characteristic of FSC (see Box 4.5).
Box 4.5 The Forest Stewardship Council
FSC is an independent, non-profit, non-governmental organisation. It is an association of Members founded by a diverse group of representatives from environmental and social groups, the timber trade and forestry profession, manufacturers and retailers, indigenous people's organisations, community forestry groups and forest product certification organisations from around the world. Membership is open to all who share its aims and objectives.
It provides an umbrella organisation and structure within which qualified independent certifiers can operate according to clear guidelines and using agreed standards covering social, environmental and economic aspects of forest management drawn up by professionals in forestry as well as in ecology and in rural and social development.
Once certified, timber and timber-based products originating from that forest or woodland are eligible to carry the FSC Trademark, thus identifying the products as coming from FSC certified forests. Only products which are so certified are legally authorised to carry the FSC Trademark.
FSC therefore provides an incentive in the marketplace for good forestry practice.
The Ministerial Conferences on the Protection of Forests in Europe
The “Ministerial Conferences” is an ongoing initiative for co-operation between around 40 European countries to address common threats and opportunities related to forests and forestry. This process is constituted by a chain of political level conferences and mechanisms for the follow-up work (see Box 4.6 for more detail). WWF-EPO has been involved in the development of this Ministerial Process since its early stages (visit also: minconf-).
An important aspect of this activity, which has relevance to the Alps is the attempt to link the activities which result from the Ministerial Process with rural development, and in particular, the EC Rural Development Regulation. This has been “pioneered” in Austria by the national WWF offices and has significant results. An analysis of the proposed rural development programme in the light of sustainable forestry objectives has shown that approximately 10% of the measures were potentially very threatening to conservation (these included forestry roads etc.).[24]
The link between forestry and rural development was strengthened at the Third Ministerial Conference in Lisbon, in 1998. The first “Lisbon resolution” involves the further development of the human resources by intensifying the dialogue with public, by encouraging education and training systems for forestry workers and managers and also by enhancing the involvement of women in forest related activities. It gives also more weight to the promotion and best use of wood and non-wood products as well as services from forest (e.g. using forests for recreational activities), focusing especially on new opportunities and techniques. All this has to be considered in context with rural development and in co-operation with other sectors such as agriculture, tourism, environment, energy and industry.
Box 4.6 The Ministerial Conferences on the Protection of Forests in Europe
The Aim
The "Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe" is an ongoing initiative for co-operation between around 40 European countries to address common threats and opportunities related to forests and forestry. This process is constituted by a chain of political level conferences and mechanisms for the follow-up work. The signatory states and the European Community are responsible for the national and regional implementation of the decisions taken at the conferences. The discussion and work between the conferences is called the "Pan-European Process", which is characterised by a dynamic joint approach with a strong political commitment.
Progress to date
The current Pan-European Process after the Lisbon Conference (1998) is aimed to develop a comprehensive work programme considering all resolutions as well as to put into action the "Work-Programme on the Conservation and Enhancement of Biological and Landscape Diversity". The Pan-European Process on the Protection of Forests should guarantee the continuity of the co-operation between all participants.
So far the Pan-European Process has made a remarkable effort in assuring a sound and consistent progress in forest management issues. Despite the countries' specific characteristics and diverse ownership patterns in Europe, the dialogue has been intense and has revealed the broad variety of situations in the different countries by reporting of national experiences. Therefore the Pan-European Process is an example for a cross-boundary communication throughout a whole continent and can serve as a model of a pan-European co-operative approach.
Using the commitments as a common framework, national initiatives have been established to improve sustainable forest management, thus an important basis for regional co-operation in Europe is provided. In addition, the Pan-European Process has extended the field of forestry related issues and influenced forest policies in Europe and will continue to do so. The perspective view for the European forests in the 21 century includes therefore the various social, economic, environmental and cultural capacities of forests and will centre on the question what forestry or the forest sector and respectively mankind can contribute to it.
The EU and Forestry
The Council Resolution of 15 December 1998 on a forestry strategy for the European Union (1999/C 56/01) has been heavily criticised by NGOs in general and WWF-EPO. It fails to mention biodiversity, and is perceived as a weak document since the Commission has no financial or human resources to ensure its implementation.
For this reasons, WWF-EPO has chosen not to pursue this EC policy document and has given priority to the other areas of work mentioned above.
Other problems related to forestry
The CAP has also supported afforestation measures leading to the creation of new forest and the improvement of existing forests. The above mentioned study (commissioned by the European Commission) has highlighted two main problems linked to the implementation of forestry measures: a common disregard for the choice of trees species and the impacts on soil, water, landscape and biodiversity (Euromontana 1998 in EEA 1999).
Another EU-funded study on forestry in the context of rural development has found that insufficient implementation of forest legislation is another crucial problem of mountain forest management (Koch and Rasmussen 1998 in EEA1999).
4.4 Transport
4.4.1 Introduction
Transport is a source of major problems in the Alps: noise, fragmentation of natural areas, deterioration of recreation areas, and socio-economic effects linked to better accessibility which can benefit lowlands, to mention but a few.
“The number of areas in the Alps above 1500 km2 not touched by major transport infrastructure dropped from 31 to 14 between 1963 and 1993…implying the loss of characteristic species and of species requiring large areas to survive” (EEA 1999 quoting CIPRA).
The need for better integration of transport and environment remains highly felt by local populations as well as Governments having to deal with increasing freight transport and the transport implications of future accession of Central and Eastern European countries to the EU.
Ultimately, the most sustainable solution requires a reduction in transport demand, and such a reduction is high on the agenda of NGOs active in the region.
Transport and Tourism in the Alps
“Nearly 150 million people a year are crossing the Alps, 83% by road and 17% by railway… A rapid increase in long-distance traffic crossing the Alps is expected at a rate of 100% for freight and 50% for passenger transport within the next 20 years” (EEA 1999).
Accessibility of mountains at a high elevation is often a pre-requisite for tourism developments. The development of road infrastructure in once-remote areas leads to fragmentation of habitats, increased noise, air pollution (see Box 4.7) and landscape impacts. The latter are further aggravated by secondary developments such as parking areas, petrol and repair stations.
Box 4.7 Effect of transalpine traffic on air pollution
Abstract from the Alpeninitiative study “Effect of transalpine traffic on air pollution in Alpine valleys”, 1999
Transalpine freight traffic has more than tripled during the last 25 years and now amounts to almost 160 mio tons a year. The part of road transport has now reached two thirds of the total of transported goods. Moreover freight transport concentrates on a few alpine passes. Due to the high traffic levels on the road the air pollution exceeds legal limit values over large regions. Meteorological conditions in the Alps and the fact that winds mainly blow along the valleys aggravate the situation even further.
A comparison of the Swiss plains and the Gotthard or Brenner transit routes reveal an interesting result. It shows that the air-borne pollution caused by one vehicle is three times higher along the Gotthard transit route than it is in the Swiss plains. This is mainly due to the special meteorological conditions in the Alps which are characterised by the following factors:
In periods of strong cooling by radiation such as the night or wintertime thermal inversions are formed in Alpine valleys. During these periods of inverted temperature profiles the whole valley bottom is characterised by high concentrations of pollutants (e.g. NOx and PM10).
During summer days the Alps act as a pump for the air from Alpine valleys situated at 2000-4000 m above sea-level. The pollutants of the Alpine valleys are transferred into the troposphere where they cause an input of acid and contribute to a wide-ranging ozone pollution.
The external costs of transport in the Alps amount to SFr. 4000.- per capita and year and are thus four times higher than the costs in other parts of Switzerland.
From an air pollution point of view the Alps therefore have to be considered a sensitive area.
Meteorological conditions not only influence the concentration of pollutants in space, the time of the emission of the pollutants also plays a very significant role. The pollution caused by a vehicle is
1. more than two times higher in winter than it is during the summer and
2. six times higher during the night than it is during the day. From the point of view of air pollution a night-time ban for traffic is therefore highly recommended.
Source: ().
The need to contain further infrastructure provision in the Alps
The Transport Protocol of the Alpine Convention was finally harmonised in April 2000. The outcome of years of discussions has led to an important result for the future of transportation in the region, which is suffering from high environmental impacts caused by traffic and related infrastructure. Article 11 , relating to road transport, states that the Parties will restrain themselves (in Italian: “si astengono”) from building new roads for trans-Alpine transit purposes. Furthermore, it dictates restrictions for the building of roads for intra-Alpine traffic, providing an important legal framework for infrastructure development.
Box 4.8 The Objectives of the Transport Protocol
Art. 1
Objectives
1) The contracting parties are committed to implementing a sustainable transport policy whose objectives are:
a) to reduce the negative consequences and risks of Alpine and transalpine traffic to a level of sustainability for man, fauna and flora and their habitat, by transferring a significant portion of freight to railroads, building adequate infrastructures and creating market-based incentives;
b) to contribute to the sustainable development of the living space and the economic activities - the very basis for the existence of the Alpine population - through an integrated transport policy agreed upon by all parties and covering all means of transportation;
c) to decrease the impact impairing the role and the resources of the Alpine territory, as well as the conservation of its natural and cultural landscapes - whose importance goes beyond its geographical boundaries;
d) to ensure Alpine and transalpine transport, improving the effectiveness and efficiency of transport systems and encouraging those more environmentally friendly (the least polluting, least costly, and with the least waste of resources);
e) to ensure fair competition among the different players.
2) The contracting parties are committed to developing the transport sector according to the precautionary principle.
Source:
The clear requirement in the Protocol comes at a time when the political support for a tight regulation of new infrastructure and a switch from road to rail for freight is somewhat weakened (see for example Box 4.9).
Box 4.9 The example of Switzerland - a delicate balance which risks being lost
Article 36.6 of the Swiss Constitution includes two clear objectives for the protection of the Alps in the context of transportation (Alpeninitiative 2000):
All transalpine freight traffic through Switzerland has to be transferred from road to rail within ten years (i.e. 2004);
The capacity of transit roads in the Swiss Alps must not be increased.
The Government has to implement this requirement through laws and specific measures. A law on transit roads (STVG) has already been approved. However, there has been very little progress in terms of transferring traffic from road to rail (Alpeninitiative 2000), and there is a fear that the political momentum behind the early success to reduce road transport has now been replaced by a renewed interest to further increase road capacity (Marcus 2000).
However, the future of the Protocol is still uncertain. Italy has expressed reservations and the next Alpine Conference of Ministers (due in Lucerne in October 2000) is likely to have a major impact on the Protocol and on the future of the whole Convention. CIPRA hopes that the States will sign the Protocol and proceed with ratification of this and other Protocols which have already been signed (see Section 3).
2 Some key initiatives and opportunities for action
Transport and biodiversity - research and practical experience
Infra Eco network Europe (IENE) is a European network of experts and institutions involved in the phenomena of habitat fragmentation caused by the development and use of main networks of infrastructure (roads, waterways, railways). IENE promotes cooperation and exchange of knowledge between the sectors environment and infrastructure both on national and European levels. This objective follows the provisions of the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy.
The general goal of IENE is to promote a safe and sustainable pan-European transport infrastructure through recommending measures and planning procedures to conserve biodiversity and reduce vehicular accidents and fauna casualties. The negative impacts produced on biodiversity by the networks of motorways, railways and waterways are: loss of habitats, fauna casualties, barrier effect, disturbance (noise and light) and local pollution. IENE disseminates the results of various research results and gives practical solutions to reduce impacts during the construction, use and maintenance of linear transportation infrastructure.
IENE therefore promotes research in a variety of areas of major interest for biodiversity conservation in the Alpine region. Examples include:
Transport’s impacts on the “connectivity” for big game species: the road network, big game distribution, migration routes, obstacles (settlements, railways, roads) and wildlife corridors. IENE Austria
Habitat fragmentation and the impacts on biodiversity. IENE France
Studies on roads, habitat fragmentation and wildlife. IENE Germany
Development of a handbook on linear infrastructure and habitat fragmentation. IENE Italy
Switzerland’s wildlife corridors. And: modelling of the landscape dynamics and its habitat function for wildlife – a tool for land-use planning based on fauna needs. IENE Switzerland.
Details of these and other projects and activities, including contacts for the IENE members of Austria, Italy, France, Switzerland and Germany, are provided in Annex 3.
IENE and a research programme: COST 341
The most significant initiative of IENE to date is a COST action which aims to produce
a State of the Art on habitat fragmentation at European level, and
a European Handbook on Defragmentation and a database.
IENE will be the forum for implementing the COST products (e.g. the practical results given in the new European Handbook on Defragmentation), enhancing the information flow between countries, institutions and members, pushing the COST action by giving new countries the opportunity to enter the action via IENE, fund raising for further actions and improving the public awareness.
COST 341 will be responsible for building up a database which will contain up-to-date information about existing literature, on going research projects and photos. The database will be finished in autumn 2002. At the moment 11 countries are participating. These are: Austria, Belgium, Czech republic, Denmark, Hungary, The Netherlands, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom.
The research has already produced a set of State-of-the-Art national studies for the participating countries, which follow the same structure (for more information, visit Documents):
an assessment of all sources of habitat fragmentation (i.e. not only transport);
mitigation;
compensation;
legislation;
an analysis of the external costs of traffic.
For example, the Swiss study has highlighted a number of dangerous trends. It identified a concentration of fragmentation phenomena in the valley floors, and further fragmentation caused by leisure infrastructure at higher altitudes, both with impacts for human communities and biodiversity. The increasing traffic in the Gottardo and Brennero areas is highlighted as a source of major concern, worsened by the recent opening up of corridors to 40 ton lorries (previously forbidden in Switzerland) through bilateral agreements.
The Swiss based organisation Pronatura has recently produced an overview of fauna passages in Switzerland, including an analysis of what it would cost to improve passages to ensure more effective conservation results.[25]
Pricing policies
“Green Paper - Towards Fair and Efficient Pricing in Transport” is the short title for a Communication of the European Commission (COM(1995)691) which highlights the urgent need to reflect all costs, including environmental ones, of each transport mode. The experience of Austria, where a reduction in infrastructure charges to comply with EU legislation was followed by a 16% increase in freight traffic in 1996 (EEA 1999), is a clear reminder of the importance of this policy aspect for the Alpine region.
The Swiss Government funded study looking at how people travel in Switzerland was published in August 2000 (National Research Programme, visit ). It found that a high proportion of traffic is related to leisure and that this is a central problem for transport policy makers. It predicts continued growth in traffic volume, which it says threatens agreed targets for improving fuel efficiency and cutting carbon dioxide emissions. The study recommends new parking taxes in areas used by tourists to cover external costs of motoring and stronger promotion of public transport.
Pricing policy for transport remains an absolute priority for the Alps as well as other parts of the EU. The Commission’s Green Paper was followed by a White Paper entitled “Fair Payment for Infrastructure Use : A phased approach to a common transport infrastructure charging framework in the EU”. This Paper was proposes more specific measures. With a view to making more effective use of the modes of transport in the EU, to encourage a sustainable transport system and to provide incentives for appropriate investment in trans-European networks, the Commission is now proposing a comprehensive plan for charging the costs incurred by infrastructure operators. It proposes the introduction of charging systems on the 'user pays' principle.
The European Parliament (Committee on Transport and Tourism) discussed the White Paper in its Report no. A4-0111/99. Paragraph 9 of this report points out that, taking regional circumstances and regional economic development into account, costs should be calculated on the basis of the route followed, the level of pollution caused by the mode of transport (i.e. in relation to its efficiency), the timing of the journey and the mode of transport used, and that in sensitive regions higher charges should be imposed.
This point has important implications for the Alpine region. More information on progress in this area should be sought from the Alpine Initiative ().
Trans-European Networks - an opportunity to change direction
The very nature of Trans-European Networks (TENs) suggests that infrastructure is being increased and improved to promote mobility, both within the EU and, in the future between theEU15 and new accession countries. The position of the Alpine arch makes it particularly vulnerable to this increase (e.g. routes such as: Rome-Milan-Zurich-Munich; Milan-Venice-Vienna-Budapest-Kiev; Bologna-Milan-Lyon etc.).
The next few months up to December 2000 will be crucial in shaping the future of the TEN and its relation to the environment. The Commission is currently assessing the need for a revision of the Council Decision of 1996 which set out guidelines for the TENs. Such revision is likely to concentrate on the following medium-term priorities (Mayet 2000), most of which seem to be relevant to the Alps:
Transport bottlenecks (especially cross-border connections) and the need to use EU funds to improve coordination between Member States;
Freight and rail - develop a European dedicated network or at least a network which gives priority to freight. A priority issue for transport in the Alps;
Connection to ports and airports for freight;
Geographical barriers (Alps, Pyrenees and outermost regions);
Preparing for enlargement - creating or enhancing links with the borders to accession countries. This could also have important implications for the Alpine region.
3 Conclusions - Problems and opportunities
Transport is a source of major problems in the Alps: noise, contribution to climate change, fragmentation of natural areas, deterioration of recreation areas, and socio-economic effects linked to better accessibility to mention but a few. The sensitivity of the area and the economic, political and social importance which is often attached to the transport sector have made it the focus of a number of policy and research initiatives.
If habitat fragmentation, disturbance in protected areas due to traffic, and the threats to habitats and species from climate change become a focus of WWF’s Alpine Strategy, then there are a number of areas on which it will need to focus:
Problems, opportunities and/or priorities
Alpine Convention’s Transport Protocol
Consider supporting the Alpine Convention’s Transport Protocol, and particularly Article 11 on the ban to further road construction.
Access, tourism and disturbance
Consider the relevance of the environmental implications of increasing demand for accessibility at high altitudes linked to tourist activities.
Habitat fragmentation and transport
Review the results of the research carried out by IENE and the COST 341 project, with an aim to: 1) identify solutions for fragmentation caused by transport infrastructure, 2) explore implications of research findings for the further development of wildlife corridors in the context of Natura 2000 and PEBLDS.
Pricing for sensitive areas
Explore the benefits and obstacles linked to the European Parliament’s call for adjusting transport pricing to reflect that traffic is affecting sensitive areas, thereby justifying a higher charge.
Climate Change
For Climate Change, see Section 4.5.
4.5 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Issues
4.5.1 Introduction
Most economic activities and related sectoral policies contribute to raising the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHG), which in turn contribute to global warming. In the Alps this could lead to significant changes in the eco-region’s seasonal climatic patters, which in turn can influence the distribution of ecosystems and species.
More than 170 countries have ratified the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), including all signatories to the Alpine Convention.
Impacts in the Alpine region may be significant, and may include water stresses, upward migration of alpine plants, increase in exotic species and extinction of alpine animal and plant species (see the Biodiversity assessment and EEA 1999). Ultimately, changes in temperatures and overall climatic conditions (e.g. rainfall patterns) may pose one of the most significant challenges to conservation in the eco-region, exacerbating existing conflicts between environmental and socio-economic concerns (Beniston 1999).
For example, studies in Switzerland suggest that the number of economically viable ski resorts and ski lifts will decline by 67% to 44%; in Austria 3-4.5% of GNP depends on winter tourism: about 10% of winter tourism revenues are estimated to be lost directly as a result of a warming of 1.5 degree Celsius (EEA 1999).
The clear relevance of climate change issues for the Alpine region should be discussed bearing in mind the fact that the driving forces and sources of GHG emissions may be tackled almost anywhere in Europe, or indeed in the world. Depending on which sector is targeted for action, it may be more beneficial to address it within or outside the geographical boundaries of the Alpine region.
A very wide range of sectoral policies may contribute to address greenhouse gas emissions leading to global warming. The effects of climate change depend on interactions between many factors and can be worsened or eased by human intervention. Table 4.2 summarises the main sectors responsible and the type of measures which should be considered to reduce negative impacts. It also provides examples of some measures taken in countries within the Alpine region ad by the EU as a whole.
The European Environment Agency (EEA 1999) has calculated that in the EU the main contributors to CO2 emissions are, in order or magnitude: the energy sector (32%), transport (24%) and industry (23%). In Central and Eastern Europe energy supply and industry make a relatively larger contribution than in the EU, with transport in third position. Nonetheless, being the fastest-growing sector in the EU (with emissions increasing to 22% above the 1990 level in 2000), transport is likely to attract the greatest attention in the Alpine region, since it also causes other significant impacts to nature conservation (see the biodiversity assessment and Section 4.4).
Table 4.2 Greenhouse gases and climate change - Examples of measures and policies at European and Member State level
|Type of sector and policy |General measures to |Examples of measures and policies for|EU measures and policies for Climate Change |
|area |address climate change |climate change in selected countries |in relation to key economic sectors |
| |in relation to key |of the Alpine region | |
| |economic sectors | | |
|General Climate Change |Monitoring mechanisms |· |Monitoring mechanism for CO2 and other |
|policies/measures |for greenhouse gas | |greenhouse gases (Decision 93/389/EEC; and |
| |emissions | |amendment COM(98) 108) – to monitor progress |
| | | |towards the target of stabilisation of |
| | | |Community Co2 and other greenhouse gas |
| | | |emissions. |
| | |· |Strategy paper for reducing methane emissions|
| | | |(COM(96)557) – provides and overview of |
| | | |potential measures. |
| |Measures in response to |· Austria - Energy/CO2 tax |Communication towards an EU Post-Kyoto |
| |the Kyoto protocol |implemented |Strategy (COM(98)353) – overview of potential|
| | |· |measures in the light of Kyoto. |
| | |· |Council Conclusions on targets for Member |
| | | |States on GHG emission reductions (1998) – |
| | | |new burden/target sharing of Member States. |
|Energy efficiency/energy |Measures to improve |· Austria – promotion of CHP and |Towards a strategy for the rational use of |
|technologies |energy efficiency |renewable energy |energy (COM(98)246) – overview of possible |
| |Power generation - |· France – demand side management |measures and policies to improve efficiency. |
| |Promotion of combined |· Germany – voluntary commitment on | |
| |heat and power (CHP) |improved energy efficiency, |See also Industry |
| | |legislation on the sale of | |
| | |electricity generated from renewables| |
| | |to the grid | |
| | |· Italy – efficiency improvement, | |
| | |increasing use of renewables | |
| |Promotion of R&D for |· |JOULE/THERMIE programme 1995-98 (Decision |
| |environmentally friendly| |94/806/EEC). |
| |and efficient energy | | |
| |technologies and | | |
| |renewable energy | | |
|Transport |Modal shift away from |· France – more energy-efficient |Trans-European Networks (Council Decision |
| |road-based travel to |transport |1996) – may promote a modal shift away from |
| |more environmentally |· Germany – energy-efficient |road transport. |
| |friendly modes |transportation policy | |
| | |· Italy – traffic control and | |
| | |rationalisation of urban mobility | |
| |Reduce transport demand |· | |
| |Promote public transport|· | |
| |Technical solutions to |· |Commission and European automobile industry |
| |reduce emissions | |have reach an agreement which commits |
| | | |industry to reduce to reduce CO2 emissions |
| | | |from new passenger cars to 140 g/km by 2008. |
|Industry |Integrated Pollution |· Germany – voluntary measures, |Directive 96/61/EC requires improvement of |
| |Prevention and Control |improving energy efficiency |energy efficiency in industrial (IPPC) |
| |(IPPC) |· Italy – increased use of natural |installations. |
| | |gas | |
| |Combined Heat and Power |· |Directive on large Combustion Plants |
| |(CHP) | |(88/609/EEC) and proposal for revision 1998 –|
| | | |revision requires operators need to |
| | | |investigate the feasibility of CHP |
|Waste |Reduce emissions from |· |Proposal for a Directive on landfill which |
| |landfill | |would require operators to install a control |
| | | |system for landfill gas. |
|Agriculture and forestry |Carbon sinks |· France – increasing carbon forest |Regulation 2080/92/EEC – on Community aid |
| | |sequestration |schemes for forestry measures in agriculture.|
Sources: adapted from the EEA 1999.
5 Research
Universities and research government bodies of countries parties to the Alpine Convention have invested in a number of medium and long-term research projects to establish the nature and degree of climate change impacts on the Alpine area.
A Symposium on Global Changes and Protected Areas (1999) offers a good overview of specific research projects in Switzerland, Italy, Austria, Germany and France.[26] These include issues such as:
• Thermal variations of mountain permafrost in the Swiss Alps;
• Experiments on glacier forelands in the Central Alps, Austria;
• Impact of climate change on the water balance of forest stands,
• Microclimatic gradients controlling alpine plant distribution patterns.
For other sources see the Alpine CDS (see above, and Annex 2).
The extent of negative impacts will depend on the resilience of mountain landscapes to buffer the expected extreme changes. Good landscape maintenance through mountain forestry and pastoralism may contribute to contain the risk (EEA 1999).
Although a lot of the attention has been focusing around the reduction of greenhouse emissions by key sectors such as transport and energy, some research is now focusing also on what to do if climate change takes place despite efforts to contain it, i.e. what adaptation strategy should be used? The Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) in the United Kingdom, has recently launched an innovative study looking at adaptation strategies for key sectors, including nature conservation. The summary document states:
“Changes in climate will increasingly present risks to people, property and natural resources… Some form of carefully planned adaptation will be required. However, scientists and policy makers still do not have a full assessment of the implications of climate change and how it is going to affect the way we live and work. The challenge is to understand:
35. the nature and scale of climate risks;
36. where we need to take active steps or to capitalise on opportunities” (ERM 2000).
The study concluded with a list of “no regrets” actions which took a precautionary approach. It looked at initial costs to implement the adaptation measures for key areas such as nature conservation, which -for designated sites- included: relying on natural migration processes, a facilitated colonisation process involving removal of barriers to natural ecological processes, and wholesale recreation or restoration of habitats which are under serious threat.
6 Conclusions
Climate change issues are the subject of substantial political attention, resulting in a number of policy initiatives for different sectors. In general, the sector where countries have obtained the least success has been transport, where the increasing demand has neutralised all attempts to reduce its contributions to overall emissions of GHGs.
If climate change is identified as a key area for the future Alpine Strategy of WWF, the two different approaches shown in research would also be options for WWF:
Target a specific sector which is a major contributor to climate change (such as energy and transport) and define priorities and measures for reducing its GHG emissions; or
Focus on specific habitats, species or protected areas which are considered most at risk from climate change and understand the nature, extent and urgency of the impacts; or
Consider the opportunity of promoting a climate adaptation strategy (like the one in the UK) for the protected areas and large remaining wilderness areas in the Alpine region.
5. Identification of Needs and Possible Way Forward
5.1 Needs and Opportunities - Concluding Remarks
Many key sectoral policy areas are undergoing significant changes and are in the process of being implemented through national and regional programmes. This is particularly true for all EU funding mechanisms (Structural Funds and CAP related funds), and for these it is difficult to conclude on their future performance in terms of biodiversity protection and conservation.
However, the study provides an overview of the key areas of policy making which may either pose a threat to conservation in the Alps, or provide an opportunity for protection and enhancement of biodiversity. WWF, including the EPO office in Brussels, is a key player in the area of these major EU policies, and the previous sections have highlighted the current priorities for actions identified centrally but which may also be relevant for the Alpine region, thus offering an opportunity for synergies.
Amongst the key messages from the wide range of policies reviewed (both biodiversity and sectoral ones) the following points are worth highlighting:
Problems and needs
Political will and vertical collaboration, from local to international scales
The Alpine Region has a clear international instrument focused on the regions’ natural and economic characteristics. Nonetheless, its effectiveness has been limited by lack of clear political will and collaboration. There is a need for strong local, regional, national and international cooperation if future strategies are to succeed in this region.
The need for an integrated and comprehensive mountain policy
In general, although mountains are now subject to numerous EU, national and regional policies, there remains a lack of coordination between measures at different levels relating to various sectors. Thus there is a need for holistic responses. The sparse population, relatively low economy, underestimated natural values, complexity and transnational nature of the Alpine region are a significant obstacle to an integrated and comprehensive mountain policy.
EU policies often exhibit inconsistency with respect to mountain areas and do not take adequate account of their special requirements: “Mountains are widely recognised as important sensitive ecosystems, but little progress has been made in developing comprehensive policies, particularly at EU level, to build upon the good intentions set out in mountain charters” (EEA 1999).
Multifunctionality
Multifunctionality remains a key objective to achieve a sustainability in the Alpine region. This leads to a need for a comprehensive, spatially integrated policy which is able to reflect and support a multifunctional system (EEA 1999).
Wide stakeholder involvement
It is important to catalyse the interest and involvement of national governments and of the EU in implementation of the Alpine Convention. However, it is also clear that in the past, progress on biodiversity and sectoral initiatives has been hampered by lack of ownership at local and regional levels, and other stakeholders. A number of successful initiatives are now appearing. These should be analysed as good practice examples.
Opportunities
The way forward for the definition of an Alpine strategy will have to take into account the biodiversity, social and economic trends, including specific problems and solutions highlighted in the two complementary assessments commissioned by WWF to Grabherr et al, and Bätzing (2000).
Figure 5.1 shows the interactions between driving forces, pressures, state/impact and responses needed. This may provide a conceptual framework for pulling together the different assessments done to date for WWF’s work in the Alps and to help develop the future WWF Strategy for the area. The focus on pressures, state and responses is based on the PSR indicators model of the OECD.
In terms of possible responses, the following is a list of possible alternative approaches, which WWF could consider to take as part of its activity for the conservation of biodiversity in the Alps. Unless otherwise stated, it is proposed that the initiatives should be taken at international, European and national level:
|General category |Example |
|Measures for the integration of biodiversity|Identify and promote specific measures for the integration of biodiversity and |
| |sustainability concerns in agriculture and forestry, transport, energy, tourism, and |
| |funding for regional development |
|Improve implementation and enforcement |of legislation |
| |of reporting requirements |
| |etc. |
|Enhance co-operation |“Vertically” between authorities at international and national levels |
| |“Horizontally” between authorities dealing with different sectoral policies (e.g. |
| |transport, tourism and land-use planning) |
|Strengthen sanctions |For non-compliance with environment legislation in … |
| |Link sanctions to EU funding availability |
| |etc. |
|Awareness-raising and information |Prepare targeted information on the implications of the key sectors on biodiversity in |
| |the medium and long term, spelling out clear and realistic objectives and initiatives |
| |Promote an improvement in access to information on biodiversity trends in the whole |
| |Region |
Consideration should also be given to the need and opportunity to promote greater efforts in:
Training administrative staff of sectoral institutions at national and regional level to strengthen their understanding of the biodiversity implications of their work, and their ability to assess such implications in a systematic and transparent way;
Lobbying for the provision of sufficient and adequate resources:
Professional experts in biodiversity,
Data and information sources on biodiversity status and trends,
Financial resources for evaluations and monitoring.
Sectoral statements of contribution to Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (at national and/or regional levels). Where such strategies are in place, sectoral administrations should provide a regular statement (e.g. Every two years) of the progress in integrating biodiversity objectives in their respective area, and the success and difficulties encountered in doing so.
Figure 5.1 From Pressures to Solutions - a potential framework for discussions leading to prioritisation of elements for a WWF strategy for the Alps
5.2 Other areas of possible research
A number of additional areas have been highlighted during the review of policy areas in the Alps, these included:
The Alps role in Europe’s water flow
Water resources of mountains cover vital functions such as the provision of high-quality freshwater, irrigation water for food production, the economic value of hydropower generation, and water supply for natural wetlands in plains. Growing demand for water, mainly in eastern and southern Europe is likely to affect the Alps, and should make the preservation of these functions a priority.[27]
Consider also the implications for the Alps of the proposed Water Framework Directive (COM(97)49) and the impacts of human intervention in the hydrological cycles of the Alpine biogeographical region (damns, reservoirs).[28]
Does ESDP have a role in the design of policies for the management of Alpine trans-national watersheds?
Land-use planning for natural hazard prevention and soil protection
Risk assessment and land-use planning are vital instruments in mountain areas. Issues which could be explored include: the debate in favour of natural solutions (e.g. natural vegetation) to artificial devices in the protection from natural hazards; a risk-reducing agriculture and forestry combination inspired by the typical multi-functional land-use systems of the Alps; ecological adaptation of land-use management through sustainability assessments of agro-forestry practices.
Does ESDP have a role in the design of policies for Alpine trans-national risk-prevention?
Economically-based policy approaches to conservation and sustainable use of resources
There is an array of policy measures which are being tested and promoted with the aim of balancing socio-economic and environmental needs of ecologically sensitive areas. For example: fees for the entrance to parks and buffer zones; fees for hunting and fishing; fees for tour operating, for climbing peaks and for the use of roads and passes.
EU funded Research in mountain areas
During the period 1994-1998 the EU has invested 852 million Euros for environment and climate research. Several projects are directly or indirectly related to the Alpine region and their conclusions should be explored. These include: ECOMONT - on land-use impacts, ARTER – on arctic-alpine ecosystems, MOLAR - on remote mountain lakes, FOREST – on timberline, AASER - on the effects of climate change on alpine and arctic streams. The European Commission, DG Research should provide contacts for the project leaders, and summaries of their main results.
5.3 Some forthcoming events:
The signing of the European Landscape Convention in October 2000
6th Alpine Conference in Lucerne, October 2000
Conference on the Implementation of the Alpine Convention, organised by CIPRA Germany and others in Schleching (23-25 November 2000, for information Tel 00 49 8682 8963).
Year 2002 - declared International Year of the Mountains by the General Assembly of the United Nations
Acronyms
|CAP |Common Agriculture Policy |
|CBD |Convention on Biological Diversity |
|CIPRA |The International Commission for the Protection of the Alps |
|CITES |Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna |
|CLRAE |Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, Council of Europe |
|DG ENV |Directorate General Environment, European Commission |
|EC |European Commission |
|ECO |Eco – la rivista dell’Iniziativa per le Alpi |
|EEA |European Environment Agency |
|ESDP |European Spatial Development Perspective |
|EU |European Union |
|EU15 |European Union’s Fifteen Member States |
|GHG |Greenhouse gases |
|IBAs |Important Bird Areas, a BirdLife International category |
|IPPC |Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control |
|LFA |Less Favoured Areas |
|MSs |Member States of the European Union |
|NATLAN |NATure/LANd Cover Information package, EEA |
|PEBLDS |Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy |
|UNECE |United Nations Economic Commission for Europe |
|UNFCCC |United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change |
|WWF-EPO |WWF European Policy Office, Brussels |
|WTO |World Tourism Organisation |
References
Alpeninitiative (2000)
Beniston M. (1999) Impacts of Climate Change on Mountain Regions. From
Bina O., Cuff J. and Lake R. (1997) EU Cohesion and the Environment - a vision for 2000 and beyond. BirdLife International, Brussels.
CLRAE (2000) Recommendation 75 on the draft European outline convention on mountain regions, Strasbourg, 23-25 May 2000.
CoE and UNEP (2000a) Progress Reports of the 12 Action Themes of the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy. Riga March 2000.
CoE and UNEP (2000b) Second Five-Year Action Plan 2001-2005 Draft Document. Riga March 2000.
Council of Europe - CoE (2000a) European Landscape Convention, Provisional edition for Florence, October 2000.
Council of Europe - CoE (2000b) European Landscape Convention - Explanatory Note, Provisional edition for Florence, October 2000.
Council of Europe - CoE (2000c) Recommendation 75 (2000) on the drat European outline convention on mountain regions. Seventh Session, Strasbourg May 2000.
EC (1998) First Report on the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity by the European Community.
EC (1998b) Partnership for Integration: A Strategy for Integrating Environment into EU Policies, Cardiff, June 1998.
EC (1999a) Structural Actions 2000-2006 Commentary and Regulations
EC (1999b) Communication from the Commission: Directions towards sustainable agriculture. COM(1999) 22 final.
EC (2000a) Natura 2000 Newsletter. 11 April 2000.
EC (2000b) Report from the Commission on the application of Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds. Update for 1993-95 (COM(2000) 180 final), Brussels.
EC (2000c) Structural Policies and European Territory - The Mountains
EC (2000d) Application guide for financial support from the EC financial instrument for the environment.
EC (2000e) The Common Agricultural Policy - 1999 Review. DG for Agriculture
ECO (2000) Monte Bianco: nuove soluzioni invece di nuove strade. Eco no.58, May 2000 (Eco – la rivista dell’Iniziativa per le Alpi)
EEA (1995) The Dobris Assessment – Europe’s State of the Environment
EEA (1997) The UN Convention on Biological Diversity - Follow-up in EEA Member Countries 1996. A report by L. S. Anderson, C.E. Davies and D. Moss of the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology.
EEA (1999) The State of the Environment.
ERM (2000) Potential UK adaptation Strategies for Climate Change. A report to DETR, UK.
Grabherr G. et al. (2000) The Alps’ Biodiversity Assessment. A report for WWF, September 2000.
Hanemann B (2000) Cooperation in the European Mountains: The sustainable management of climbing areas in Europe. A report for IUCN.
IUCN (1994) Parks for Life: Action for Protected Areas in Europe.
Lowe P. (1992) Preface: Montagne d’Europe et Communauté Européenne. Revue de Géographie Alpine, LXXX(4) pp.8-19.
Marcus Maibach(2000) Personal comment.
Mayet R (2000) Discussion Paper: The Trans-European Network in the field of Transport, Environmental Aspects and Prospects of Development. A paper presented at the EFIEA-European Forum on Environmental Impact Assessment- workshop in London, September 2000.
Price M.F.(1999) Cooperation in the European Mountains 1: The Alps. Environmental Research Series 12. IUCN European Regional Office.
UIAA and IUCN (1998) Access and Conservation Strategies for Climbing Areas - Report of a joint UIAA-IUCN Seminar, Barcelona, 2-4 May 1998.
Document Sources and General Information from the Web
(@ September 2000)
See also Annex 1 - List of Useful Contacts
|Document / subject area - EU REGIONAL POLICY |Web page |
|Agenda 2000 - European Union | |
|Member States information on regional development funds | |
|INTERREG III | |
|European Spatial Development Perspective - final document | |
|Document / subject area - BIODIVERSITY |Web page |
|INTERREG Guidelines for 2000 |
| |_en.doc |
|Alpine-CDS | |
|Convention on Biological Diversity | |
|Convention on Biological Diversity - clearing house (all the| |
|strategies etc.) | |
|EEA study on the Convention on Biological Diversity in MSs | |
|(1996) | |
|Landscape Convention (CoE) | |
|Bern Convention and related material | |
|Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy | |
|(PEBLDS) | |
|Various, incl. PEBLDS | |
|Document / subject area - CLIMATE CHANGE |Web page |
|Global Changes and Protected Areas Symposium - Received | |
|Abstracts’99 | |
|Document / subject area - FORESTRY |Web page |
|COUNCIL RESOLUTION of 15 December 1998 on a forestry | |
|strategy for the European Union (1999/C 56/01) | |
Annex 1
List of Useful Contacts
September 2000
|Topic |Name |Organization |Contacts |Web |
|Alps-Various |Andreas Götz |CIPRA |Tel. 00423 237 4030 | |
| | | | | |
|Alps-Various | |Euromontana | | |
|Alps-Various | |UIIA (International Mountaineering and | | |
| | |Climbing Federation) | | |
|Alps-Various | |IUCN | | |
|Climate change | |Greenpeace | | |
|Transport |Peter OGGIER |Infra-Eco Network | | |
|Transport |Margaret TROCME’ |Swiss Ministry of the Environment - BUWAL| | |
| | |(on fragmentation effects) | | |
|Transport | |Alpeninitiative | | |
|Transport | |Greenpeace Switzerland | |. |
|Various - France | |FNE (France) | | |
|Various -mountain |Ronan UHEL |European Environment Agency |Tel. 0045 33 36 71 | |
|regions | | |30 | |
|Various EU policies |Christian HEY |European Environmental Bureau |Tel. 00322 289 1090 |.eeb |
|Agriculture/rural |Annalie BAMBOUR |WWF European Policy Office |Tel. 00322 7400 922 | |
|development | | | | |
|Agriculture/rural |Mike Hammel |European Commission - DG Environment |Tel. 00322 296 1509 | |
|development | | |or 296 8671 | |
|Natura 2000 |Sandra JEN |WWF European Policy Office |Tel. 00322 743 8800 | |
|Natura 2000 |Christoph WALDER |WWF Austria |Tel. 0043 1 4881 | |
| | |(produced a gap analysis report for all |7252 | |
| | |EU) | | |
|Forestry |Helen ZITZEWITZ |WWF European Policy Office |Tel. 00322 743 8808 | |
|Forestry |LIAISON UNIT VIENNA |Ministerial Conferences on the Protection|Tel.: +43-1-7107702 | |
| | |of Forests in Europe | | |
|Forestry | |FERN - Brussels |Tel. 00322 742 2436 | |
|Landscape |Riccardo PRIORE |Council of Europe - Landscape Convention |Tel. 0033 3 8841 | |
|Mountains | |and outline conv. on mountain regions |2833 | |
| | | |riccardo.priore@coe.| |
| | | |int | |
|Biodiversity |Eladio |Council of Europe - Bern Convention |Tel. 0033 3 8841 | |
| |FERNANDEZ-GALIANO | |2259 | |
|Biodiversity |Gianluca SILVESTRINI|Council of Europe - PEBLDS |Tel. 0033 3 8841 | |
| | | |3559 | |
|Biodiversity |Graham DRUCKER |European Centre for Nature Conservation | | |
|Structural Funds |Sandra JEN |WWF European Policy Office |Tel. 00322 743 8800 | |
|Structural Funds |Jean-Francois DREVET|European Commission - DG Regions |Tel. 00322 299 6337 | |
| | | |or 295 6909 | |
|INTERREG III |Mr PULSON |European Commission - DG Regions |Tel. 00 322 299 1111| |
|Eur. Spatial |Nicola DEMICHELIS |European Commission - DG Regions |Tel. 00 322 299 1111| |
|Development | | | | |
|Perspective | | | | |
Annex 2
List of Potential Alpine-CDS Organisations
Provisional List of Organisations that could be covered by Alpine-CDS
|A |
|ACI (Airports Council International), |
|AFI (Alpenforschunginstitute GmbH), |
|Alliance dans les Alpes, |
|AlpenBüro, |
|Alpenforum, |
|Arge Alp, |
|Association Européenne des Elus de la Montagne, |
| |
|B top of page |
|Bellerive Foundation, |
|Bureau of Transportation Statistics, |
|BUWAL. |
|SWIS (Swiss Wildlife Information Service) |
|CSCF (Swiss Center of Cartography of the Fauna), |
|C top of page |
|CEH (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology), |
|Institute of Freshwater Ecology |
|IH (Institute of Hydrology) |
|FRIEND (Flow Regimes from International Experimental Network Data) |
|Euraqua (European Network of Freshwater Organisations) |
|CEMAGREF, |
|Euraqua (European Network of Freshwater Organisations) |
|CEMAGREF Montpellier |
|LCT (Laboratoire de Télédétection) |
|CEMAGREF Grenoble (Mountain, natural risks, …) |
|EPM (Division Ecosystèmes et paysage montagnards) |
|PCE (Division Protection Contre les Erosions) |
|Division nivologie |
|AMM (Division Agriculture et Milieux Montagnards) |
|DTM (Division Développement des Territoires Montagnards) |
|PPF (Division Protection Phytosanitaire de la Forêt) |
|CEMAGREF Lyon |
|FRIEND (Flow Regimes from International Experimental and Network Data), |
|, |
| |
|Centro di Ecologia Alpina, ) |
|CEPS (Centre for Socio-Economic Research), |
|CIPRA (Commission Internationale pour la Protection des Alpes), |
|Community of European Railways, |
|Conservatoire et Jardin Botaniques de Genève, |
|D top of page |
|Danish Polar Center, dpc.dk |
|E top of page |
|EAE (European Agency for Environment), |
|E2RC (The European Environmental Reference Centre) |
|ETC/LC (European Topics Center on Land Cover), |
|ETC/CDS Leading Organisation, |
|Ecologic, Centre for International and European Environmental Research |
|EFI (European Forest Institute), |
|EPE (European Partners for the Environment), |
|EWA (European Water Alliance), |
|EPFL (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne), epfl.ch |
|Département "Génie de l’Environnement" |
|Département de Geologie |
|CEAT (Communauté Environnement Aménagement du Territoire) |
|EAWAG (Eidgenössische Anstalt für Wasserversorgung Abwasserreinigung und Gewässerschutz–ETHZ) |
|IGW (Institute for Aquatic Sciences and Water Pollution – ETHZ) |
|ERCOMER (European Research Centre on Migration and Ethnic Relations), |
|ESA (European Space Agency), esa.int |
|ESF (European Science Foundation), , |
|Espace Mont-Blanc, |
|ETHZ (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich), ethz.ch |
|Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, |
| |
|IHW (Institute of Hydromechanics and Water Resources Management), |
| |
|Institute of Land Improvement and Water Management, |
| |
|Institute of Transportation, Highway- and Railway-Engineering, |
| |
|VAW (Laboratory of Hydraulics,Hydrology and Glaciology), |
|Department of Earth Sciences, |
|IMP (Institute of Mineralogy and Petrography), |
|Institute of Geology, |
|Institute of Geophysics, |
|Institute for Isotope Geology and Mineral Resources, |
| |
|Laboratory of Crystallography, |
|Department of Agriculture and Food Science |
|Institute for Agricultural Economics, |
|Department of Geodetic Sciences, |
|Institute of Cartography, |
|IGP (Institute of Geodesy and Photogrammetry), , |
|, , |
|Geodesy and Geodynamics Lab, |
|Department of Environmental Sciences, |
|EAWAG (Eidgenössische Anstalt für Wasserversorgung Abwasserreinigung und Gewässerschutz – ETHZ), |
| |
|IGW (Institute for Aquatic Sciences and Water Pollution – ETHZ) |
|Euraqua (European Network of Freshwater Organisations) |
|Institute for Geobotany - Ruebel Foundation, |
|Institute for Geography, |
|Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, |
|LAPETH (Laboratory for Atmospheric Sciences), |
|Climate Dynamics and Numerical Modelling Group, |
|Departement of Forest and Wood Sciences, |
|Euraqua, |
|Euromontana, |
|European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research |
|European Commission |
|DG VI «Agriculture», |
|DG XI «Environnement, sécurité nucléaire et protection civile», |
| |
|DG XII.«Recherche», |
|Eurowater, |
|DG XVI «EU-Regional Policy», |
|EWA (European Water Alliance), |
|JRC (Centre commun de recherches), |
|EI (Institut de l'environnement) (Ispra), |
|Coordination Unit of SOIA (System for Observation of and Information on the Alps) "The Alpine |
|Observatory", , soia.int |
|Réseau Alpin des Espaces Protégés, |
|SAI (The Space Applications Institute) (Ispra), sai.jrc.it |
|EGEO (Environment and Geo-Information Unit), |
|EuroStat, |
|European Railway Research Institute |
|EWPCA (The European Water Pollution Control Association), |
|F top of page |
|Fédération Européenne des Communes Forestières |
|G top of page |
|Grenoble Pôle Européen Universitaire et scientifique |
|University of Grenoble (Joseph Fourier) |
|Unité de Formation et de Recherche de Biologie |
|CBA (Centre de Biologie Alpine), |
|IGA (Institut de Géographie Alpine), |
|Cartotheque, |
|LAMA (Laboratoire de la Montagne Alpine) |
|Réseau Alpin des Espaces Protégés, |
|Institut Dolomieu - Géologie Minéralogie, |
| |
|BPA (Laboratoire de Biologie des Populations d’Altitude) |
|LEA (Laboratoire Ecosystemes Alpines), |
|University of Grenoble (Pierre Mendès France) |
|CDPA (Centre de Documentation de la Phéhistoire Alpine), |
| |
|CDTM (Centre de Droit du Tourisme et de la Montagne), |
| |
|I top of page |
|IAWQ (International Association on Water Quality), |
|Icalpe (International Centre for Alpine Environments), |
|ICSU (International Council of Scientific Unions), |
|ISSS (International Society of Soil Science), |
|IUAES (International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences) |
|IUCr (International Union of Crystallography), |
|IUGG (International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics), |
|IAMAS (International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences), |
|IAHS (International Association of Hydrological Sciences), |
|WDC (World Data Center), |
|IEA (International Energy Agency), |
|IIASA (International Institute for Applied System Analysis), |
|ILO (International Labour Organisation), |
|Initiative des Alpes, |
|International Statistical Institute, Geographic Scope: Worldwide |
|IOPI (International Organization for Plant Information), |
|IRF (International Road Federation), |
|ISAFA, Italy, |
|ITE (Initiative Transports Europe), ITE |
|IUCN (International Union for Conservation of the Nature), |
|ECNC (European Center for Nature Conservation) |
|EMF (European Mountain Forum), |
|WCPA (World Commission on Protected Area) |
|IUFRO (International Union of Forestry Research Organizations), |
|, |
|J top of page |
|Joanneum Research Institute of Digital Image Processing |
|M top of page |
|Mountain Wilderness International |
|Mountain Wilderness Suisse, Suisse, |
|N top of page |
|NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), |
|NIVA (Norwegian Institute for Water Research), |
|NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), |
|O top of page |
|OECD |
|OECD Statistics, |
|ECMT (European Conference of Ministers of Transport), |
|OFS (Office Fédéral de la Statistique), |
|Office Fédéral de Topographie, |
|OML (Observatoire Mont Blanc Léman), |
|P top of page |
|PIK (Postdam Institute for Climate Impact) |
|IGBP (The International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme), |
|PRB (Population Reference Bureau / Popnet), |
|Pronatura, |
|CSCF (Swiss Center of Cartography of the Fauna), |
|S top of page |
|SAB (Schweizerische Arbeitsgemeinschaft für die Berggebiete), |
|SAC (Club alpin suisse), |
|SAS (Swiss Academy of Sciences), |
|Proclim, |
|SDC (Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation), |
|EMF (European Mountain Forum) |
|SNF (Swiss National Science Foundation), |
|SSC (Swedish Space Corporation), |
|MDC (Environmental Satellite Center), |
|ETC/LC (European Topics Center on Land Cover), |
|Swiss National Park, |
|U top of page |
|UIRR (The International Union of Combined Rail-Road Transport), |
|United Nations, |
|UNCHS (United Nations Centre for Human Settlements), |
|UN Development and Demographic Trends, gopher://gopher.11/ungophers/popin/wdtrends |
|UN/ECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, |
|UN/ECE Statistical Division |
|UN/ECE TIMBER COMMITTEE, |
|UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), |
|UNEP (Regional Office for Europe), unep.ch |
|DEIA&EW – Geneva (Division of Environmental Information, Assessment and Early Warning) |
|GRID (Global Resources Information Database) - Geneva, grid.unep.ch/gridhome.html |
|GRID Arendal, |
|GCOS (Global Climate Observing System), |
|Infoterra, |
|UNESCO, |
|Natural Sciences Sector, |
|IHP (International Hydrological Programme), |
|FRIEND (Flow Regimes from International Experimental and Network Data), |
|, |
| |
|WGMS (World Glacier Monitoring Service) |
|Publications and Documents Unit |
|WHC (World Heritage Center) |
|GCOS (Global Climate Observing System) |
|UNFAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations), |
|FAOSTAT, |
|UNICEF Statistical Profiles of Countries, |
|WHO (World Health Organisation) |
|WHO Regional Office for Europe (EURO), who.dk |
|WMO (World Meteorological Organization), |
|GCOS (Global Climate Observing System), |
|University of Basel, unibas.ch |
|Department of Botany, unibas.ch/boetschoen |
|University of Berne, unibe.ch |
|Department of geography, |
|Geomorphological Processes and Natural Hazard Assessment |
|Group for Hydrology |
|Remote Sensing Research Group, |
|Geographie Humaine, |
|University of Bristol (Institute for Learning and Research Technology), |
|University of Colorado |
|INSTAAR (Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research), |
|University of Edinburgh, |
|Department of Geography |
|University of Essex |
|Department of Sociology |
|University of Fribourg, unifr.ch |
|Department of Geography, unifr.ch/iguf/welcome.html |
|Biogeography Research Team |
|Geomorphology and landscape Research Team |
|University of Geneva, unige.ch |
|CUEH (Centre Universitaire d’Ecologie Humaine), University of Geneva, |
|Faculté des Sciences, |
|Section de Biologie |
|Departement d’anthropologie et d’ecologie |
|Laboratoire d'Ecologie et de Biologie Aquatique, University of Geneva, |
| |
|Section des Sciences de la terre, |
|Departement de geologie et paleontologie, |
|Departement de mineralogie, |
|Hazards and geological risks, |
|Institut Forel, |
|Faculte sciences economiques et sociales, |
|Departement de geographie, unige.ch/ses/geo/ |
|University of Innsbruck, Austria, |
|Institut fur Geophysik und Meteorologie, |
|Research Institute for Alpine Agriculture and Forestry, Austria, |
| |
|University of Lausanne, unil.ch |
|Sciences Faculty, |
|Earth Sciences, |
|University of Manchester |
|School of Geography |
|University of Michigan |
|Documents Center, |
|University of Neuchatel, unine.ch |
|Faculté des Sciences, |
|IGUN (Institut de geologie), |
|CHYN (Centre of Hydrogeology at the Geological Institute in Neuchâtel), |
|GEA (geochemistry, sedimentology and mineralogy), |
|CSCF (Swiss Center of Cartography of the Fauna), |
|University of Oxford |
|School of Geography |
|ECU (Environmental Change Unit), |
|University of Technology of Loughborough |
|University of Zurich, |
|Sciences Faculty |
|Department of Zoology |
|Swiss Wildlife, |
|IFU (Institut fur Umweltwissenschaften), |
|Geographisches Institut, |
|Physical Geography (Physische Geographie), |
|WGMS (World Glacier Monitoring Service), , |
| |
|Economic Geography (Wirtschaftsgeographie), |
|Remote Sensing and Natural Resources (Fernerkundung), |
|Remote Sensing Applications (Angewandte Fernerkundung), |
|Spatial Data Handling (Geographische Informationsverarbeitung), |
| |
|USGS (United States Geological Survey), |
|GLIMS (Global Land Ice Measurements from Space), |
|W top of page |
|World Bank Data Archive, |
|World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Information Officer, World Conservation, Monitoring Centre, |
|http:// .uk |
|WRI (World Resources Institute), |
|WSL (Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research), Davos, |
|EAWAG (Eidgenössische Anstalt für Wasserversorgung Abwasserreinigung und Gewässerschutz – ETHZ) |
|IGW (Institute for Aquatic Sciences and Water Pollution – ETHZ) |
|Euraqua (European Network of Freshwater Organisations) |
|ENA (Institut Fédéral pour l’Etude de la Neige et des Avalanches) |
|Research Department Forest, |
|Landscape Research Department, |
|Natural Hazards Research Department, |
|CENAT (Swiss Natural Hazards Competence Centre), , |
| |
|WTO (World Tourism Organization ), |
|WWF (World Wildlife Fund), |
|Living Planet, |
|Climate Change, |
|Forest for Life, |
Annex 3
Infra-Eco Network: List of Current Projects
1. Austria
Habitat fragmentation due to transportation infrastructure in Austria.
Current research, problems, guidelines, and publications - a short overview.
Friedrich H. Völk, Irene Glitzner and Andreas Zedrosser, Department of Wildlife Biology and Game Management, Universitaet für Bodenkultur Wien (Univ. of Agricultural Sciences), Peter Jordan Strasse 76/9, A - 1190 Vienna, E-mail: voelk@edv1.boku.ac.at
1. Splitting of competence and responsibility
For governmental authorities in Austria, it is difficult to realize their general responsibility for habitat fragmentation caused by transportation infrastructure, because competences of ministries are quite split (different competences for streets, railways, waterways, and environment). Concerning COST 341, no joint financing could be found for preparing the national report. It is easier to succeed with special demands in single projects (even with high money requirements) than to obtain a (small) common budget of federal and provincial institutions.
2. Recent initiatives
Recently, the ministry for economic affairs took the initiative and is financing two studies to assess the current situation concerning wildlife and trunk roads in Austria (e.g. KYEK 1998, VÖLK and GLITZNER 1998; short information about large carnivores and ungulates will be presented). An Austrian working group has developed a guideline "game protection" (Forschungsgesellschaft für das Verkehrs- und Strassenwesen, 1997). Besides some data about fences and reflectors, it determined basic standards for wildlife passageways (non-compulsory recommendations). Actually another working group is developing a guideline concerning roads and protection of amphibians.
3. Environmental Impact Assessment
Environmental Impact Assessment is obligatory in Austria since 1994, but only for greater projects (details see VÖLK 1998, report of IENE meeting Brig/CH). Information about this procedure is available e.g. in UMWELTBUNDESAMT (Guideline 1994 and Checklist 1998).
4. Forests as "wildlife corridors"
The Austrian Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs recently defined the "Design of the road network in the Danube-European region with special reference to Austria's role as a business location" to adapt the Austrian road network to a Pan-European solution (BUNDESMINISTERIUM FÜR WIRTSCHAFTLICHE ANGELEGENHEITEN, BUNDESSTRASSENVERWALTUNG 1999). So we know that the highest proportion of road planning probably will be in eastern Austria.
In this region, there are large areas without greater forests. But we have only little knowledge about traditional and potential migration routes of big game between these forest-"islands". More and better data about wildlife corridors are necessary. As a first step of analysis, we produced a map surrounding the forests with a buffer zone of 500 m (see map, yellow zone). If the distances between forests are higher than one kilometre (showing already white zones), we argue that "connectivity" for many big game species is not very good, even if there are no additional barriers, e.g. by settlements, railways and streets. Based on this map, we will select and analyse corridors with shortest distances between forests to identify actual and potential game corridors. Aim of this study is to preserve and - if necessary - to restore potential migration corridors in and through Austria.
Some reports and maps about game distribution (ungulates) and migration routes (large carnivores) enable us to determine still existing main corridors for big game (ONDERSCHEKA et al. 1993, GRUBER 1994, STEINER 1995, HOLZMANN 1995, PFEIFER/ASTE 1996, ZEDROSSER 1996, RAUER/GUTLEB 1997). Andreas ZEDROSSER subsequently will give an overview about large carnivores and Irene GLITZNER will present preliminary results about red deer. Interpretation of these data and information allow us to localize the most important areas, where barriers due to transportation infrastructure has to stay "permeable" (see VÖLK/GLITZNER 1998 and our poster-presentations at this meeting). Outside of the alpine region forested migration corridors became already rare. Especially for north-south migrations (e.g. between bavarian/czech/ Slovakian forests and the Austrian alpine region), cover possibilities for big game when crossing the extended Austrian farmlands is very poor (see map: white areas). And we will try to prioritise, where linkages between forests have to be restored or improved (by afforestations, hedges, wind breaks, etc.; see map) for ensuring also big game mobility.
One of the most delicate questions is: What will be enough permeability of barriers for larger terrestrial game species? How many passageways are necessary between isolated game habitat islands? If there would remain only one connection for such game between separated subpopulations (e.g. a wide bridge situated in a forest, or at least with good cover possibilities on both sides) - is that enough, or do we need more? Suggestions concerning these targets are very welcome!
5. Reports, publications, guidelines in Austria
ARBEITSGEMEINSCHAFT BRAUNB?R LIFE (Hrsg.), 1997: Managementplan für Braunbären in Österreich. Wildbiologische Gesellschaft München e.V. 157 pp.
BUNDESMINISTERIUM FÜR UMWELT, JUGEND UND FAMILIE, 1994: UVE-Leitfaden. Eine Information zur Umweltverträglichkeitserklärung. Wien.
BUNDESMINISTERIUM FÜR WIRTSCHAFTLICHE ANGELEGENHEITEN, BUNDESSTRASSENVERWALTUNG (ed.), 1999: GSD - Die Gestaltung des Strassennetzes im Donaueuropäischen Raum unter besonderer Beachtung des Wirtschaftsstandortes Österreich. 34 pp.
CORSI, F., SINIBALDI, I., BOITANI, L., 1998: Large carnivores conservation areas in Europe: a summary of the Final Report. Istituto Ecologia Applicata and WWF. Roma. 28pp + maps.
FORSCHUNGSGESELLSCHAFT FÜR DAS VERKEHRS- UND STRASSENWESEN (Hrsg.), 1997: Richtlinie Strassenplanung RVS 3.01 - Umweltschutz, Wildschutz. 9 pp.
GLITZNER, I., GROSSAUER, F., RAMSKOGLER, K., 1998: Wildbiologische Begutachtung B 78 Obdacher Strasse Abschnitt Zeltweg - Weisskirchen. Auftrag der Steiermärkischen Landesregierung Fachabteilung 2 a. 42 pp.
GRUBER, F., 1994: Die Veränderung von Rotwild- und Gamswildverbreitung und der Abschusstendenzen von 1983 - 1993. Forstschutz aktuell Nr. 15 (September 1994), FBVA-Wien: 6 - 9.
HOLZMANN, H., 1995: Leithagebirge - Donauauen - Karpathen. St. Hubertus, Heft 4: 12 - 14.
KYEK, M., 1998a: Prioritätenreihung der Amphibienwanderstrecken an Bundesstrassen, Schnellstrassen und Autobahnen: Endbericht. Bericht im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für wirtschaftliche Angelegenheiten: 105 pp. + Datenband.
KYEK, M., 1998b: Amphibienschutz an Strassen - Empfehlungen für den Strassenbau unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Neubaus von Strassen. Bericht im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für wirtschaftliche Angelegenheiten. 32 pp.
ONDERSCHEKA, K., REIMOSER, F., VÖLK, F., 1993: Wildäkologische Raumplanung für das Land Salzburg und Richtlinien für das Schalenwildmanagement. Grundlagenstudie im Auftrag der Salzburger Landesregierung. Forschungsinstitut für Wildtierkunde und ökologie der VeterinŠrmedizinischen Universität Wien. 277 pp + annex.
PFEIFER, M., ASTE, C., 1996: Zerschnittene Lebensräume. Barrierewirkung von Autobahnen und Schnellstrassen für Wildtiere, Leitart Rotwild. Politikum. Josef Krainer Haus Schriften 16 (70): 63 -68.
POZAREK, W., 1996: Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung in Österreich. Vorgangsweise und Methodik am Beispiel Hochleistungsstrecke. Forschungsarbeiten aus dem Eisenbahnwesen, Band 8. Bundesministerium für äffentliche Wirtschaft und Verkehr. Wien. 75 pp.
RAUER, G., GUTLEB, B., 1997: Der Braunbär in Österreich. Umweltbundesamt Wien. Monographien, Band 88. Wien. 64 pp.
STEINER, E., 1995: Die Rückkehr des Elches (Alces alces L.) nach Österreich - Chronologie der Ereignisse. Stapfia 37: 255-267.
UMWELTBUNDESAMT (ed.), 1994: UVE-Leitfaden. Eine Information zur Umweltverträglichkeitserklärung für Projektwerber, Planer und die interessierte Öffentlichkeit. Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Jugend und Familie. Wien. 85 pp.
UMWELTBUNDESAMT (ed.), 1998: CHECKLISTE für Umweltverträglichkeitserklärungen. Berichte Nr. BE 127. Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Jugend und Familie. Wien. 17 pp.
VÖLK, F., 1998: Infrastructure and game: The Austrian situation. In: INFRA ECO NETWORK EUROPE (1998): 4th IENE meeting, Brig, Switzerland (22 - 26 April 1998). Report of the meeting. Presentations of the participants. Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management, Road and Hydraulic Engineering Division, The Netherlands: 61-63.
VÖLK, F., GLITZNER, I., 1998: Kostenreduktion bei Grünbrücken durch rationellen Einsatz. 1. Zwischenbericht. Auftrag des Österreichischen Bundesministeriums für wirtschaftliche Angelegenheiten. 31 pp.
VÖLK, F., GLITZNER, I., 1998 (in press): Assessment of barrier effects on red deer due to motorways in Austria. First steps at assessing the permeability of 1990 km fenced motorways. In: Routes et Faune Sauvage. 3èmes rencontres (30 septembre - 2 octobre 1998), Strasbourg. (1 p. Résumé and 3 pp. notice)
VÖLK, F., GLITZNER, I., ZEILER, H., REISS-ENZ, V., 1998: Wildwechsel trotz gezäunter Autobahnen. Österreichs Weidwerk, Heft 1: 14 - 16.
ZEDROSSER, A., 1996: Der Wolf (Canis lupus) in Österreich. Historische Entwicklung und Zukunftsaussichten. Forschungsinstitut WWF Österreich. Studie 25. Wien. 38 pp.
2. France
INPUT FROM THE 3rd MEETING «ROADS AND WILDLIFE, 30 Sept to 2 Oct 1998 - Council of Europe - Strasbourg - France
Jean Carsignol - CETE de l'Est, 1, Boulevard Solidarité, BP 5230, F-5707 Metz cedex 03 France
Virginie Bernardon-Billon - SETRA, F-46, Avenue Aristide Briand, BP 100, 92223 Bagneux Cedex France
State-of-the-art
The erosion of biodiversity, due mainly too human activities, has given rise to a mobilization of scientific research, because the habitat fragmentation process is considered as a possible cause of the extinction crisis looming ahead.
Habitat fragmentation results in:
- a reduction in areas available for use by organisms,
- an increase in the distances between their habitats,
- the disappearance of landscape elements conducive to dispersion (corridors),
- the existence of barriers such as roads and canals.
Fragmentation results in a cascade of impacts on local populations: loss of specific biodiversity, population deficit, extinction risk in the absence of rescue effects normally generated by migratory movements.
Conservation biology seeks to study these phenomena and the implementation of restoration, management and rehabilitation strategies.
There are several spatially-dispersed population systems:
- populations similar in size with the same extinction probabilities (Levins 1969),
- a source population sustaining satellite populations liable to extinction (Boorman and Levitt's "core-satellite" model, 1973,
- the archipelago model between sub-populations of the same size,
- metapopulations in desequilibrium through a lack of colonization,
- hybrid systems associating several of the previous models,
- source/sink systems.
These systems do not have the same biological meaning. A better knowledge of the way they work will provide an answer to some basic questions:
- What is the minimum area required for a metapopulation persisting?
- What are the effects necessary for the survival of a metapopulation (MVP concept - Minimum Viable Population)?
- What are the effects necessary to maintain genetic variability?
- What species - grouped into metapopulations - offer the greatest resistance (or susceptibility) to different degrees of fragmentation?
- For the same surface area, is a single large habitat better than several small habitats (SLOSS problematics - Single Large Or Several Small)?
Models are being introduced, which will soon enable the future of species and communities to be predicted with reference to different space pattern scenarios (c.f. G. Pain) and there is no lack of practical space redevelopment solutions (G. Désiré and Ph. Clergeau on corridors, C. Cibien on barriers, G. Pain on landscape ecology, C. Verheyden on biodiversity and the ecological functioning of green motorway ancillaries).
Debate on SLOSS and MVP, the construction of a sound theory on metapopulations and debate on sustainable development must not be a pretext for inaction (precautionary principle).
It is now an accepted fact that a study of the functioning of ecological systems integrates two basic parameters: habitat heterogeneity and temporal dynamics (space-time). Thus over the past ten years, the concept of landscape ecology has gradually become an essential consideration in the study on management, conservation and restoration of spaces and species.
At the landscape level, corridors, their characteristics (width, spatial connections) and biological processes (barrier effects, source habitat, sink, etc.) are more interesting than concepts of status or heritage value. These parameters are increasingly being successfully studied in impact studies and are assuming as much importance as habitat density or quality.
In road projects, this discipline justifies development choices or guides protection measures in cases where the lack of an emblematic species shows the limits of the conventional heritage approach. This promising new approach is being successfully used on projects such as the A84 "Estuaries" motorway, the A4 ecological restoration of the Saverne Pass, the RN 83 Colmar-Sélestat link. It implies the use of an overall planning logic over the longer term (sustainable development) and forms a natural part of the entire road project consultation procedure, which is consistent with the principles of continuity and progressivity.
In these analysis systems, the viability of animal populations depends on the extent of the favourable habitats and their spatial and temporal organization, without losing sight of the fact that the home range of an individual includes functional areas of different types:
- feeding grounds (ungulate food patches, hunting grounds)
- breeding grounds
- growing areas (ponds for amphibians)
- wintering grounds
Movements (seasonal or daily migrations) enable zoological groups to reach favourable functional areas but these groups do not all necessarily use the same movement strategies. Amphibians migrate in order to:
- look for wintering sites
- look for breeding sites
- migrate towards growing habitats
- colonize new sites
Amphibians usually group themselves into metapopulations and form small clusters of breeding stock dispersed in expanses of water. The small numbers are offset by immigration movements (which support a momentary population depression) or dispersion-habitat recolonization movements. This system may be disturbed by infrastructure-generated fragmentation as regards the biological cycle (need to maintain habitats that are favourable in terms of quality and surface area) and the way it works (need to maintain migration and dispersion possibilities). The infrastructure may prevent movement (barrier) and act as a population sink for species in movement when a heavily trafficked road results in high mortality.
Research has shown that movements of tailed amphibians are guided both by the magnetic field and by chemical stimulants (olfactory guidance). This orientation system requires a straight pathway and shows that connexity can only be ensured or restored by a corridor of hedges or ditches, as is the case with mammals or insects. In order to develop remedial measures for the imposed disruption in connexity between habitats, the ethological characteristics of amphibians must be taken into account.
The consequences of their orientation methods require the following measures:
- The most efficient connection between the pond and the terrestrial habitat must be the shortest straight path
- Large toad tunnels are inefficient (too long)
- To enable them to get their bearings by olfactory stimulation, large diameters or cross-sections must be the objective.
The special ethology of batrachians challenges the universal character of the corridor and works in favour of other connexity models such as the permeable habitat sector.
The fragmentation of populations may also have a genetic impact. Reductions in numbers of a population cause a reduction in the diversity of its constituent genotypes. When the new populations derive from a small number of individuals, genetic diversity is very limited. Populations lose local adaptive traits and may even have to overcome a general deficiency in the quality of individuals. The recent development of genome analysis methods opens up new prospects in this field of investigation, particularly with the work of Hartl who indicates that in the Vosges, there is a genetic differentiation of the distinct population of deer separated by the A4 motorway. Genomic recombinations due to the practice of selective screening are exacerbated here by the motorway barrier. The consequences of habitat fragmentation are complex and may have contradictory effects on the genetic structure of populations. For instance, the metapopulation system is conducive to genetic variability and guarantees polymorphism. But conversely, if the introduction of a genotype formed by a specific selection system is dispersed in a different environment, it may result in local maladjustment.
Measures in favour of wildlife - a practical assessment
In France, the procedures of March 1996 are the result of 20 years' experience of road project impact studies (enriched with input from European directives and ecological observatories). State commitments are a mark of the will to carry through the measures contemplated in the impact studies. The monitoring and assessment procedure should improve know-how (experience feedback). But the result as regards wildlife is ill-defined and the environmental studies are slow and lack ambition and precision. Avoidance strategies are not priority considerations in cost-benefit analyses. Fragmentation effects do not take into account induced effects (destruction during land consolidation). Reduction measures mainly target ungulates with a high sociological value (hunting) but whose populations are not threatened. Second is the group of amphibians and there is also a recent tendency for ad hoc (but not generalized) measures in favour of some groups (bats) or species (hedgehogs, tortoises, owls, otters). Some changes are becoming apparent but logic requires development input to be primarily targeted at abundant populations whereas it is precisely the poorly represented metapopulations that are most at risk of extinction. In this logic, considerable efforts are being made in favour of large wildlife (census updating of passages in 1990) with facilities of unequal value but some interesting achievements (c.f. further ahead).
The Ministry of the Environment, by implementing service schemes, the Act on land use planning and sustainable development and the Natura 2000 network, is seeking to modify excessively sectoral approaches by giving priority to more general debate in which the territory and natural spaces are assets for economic development.
Through the collective service scheme for natural and rural spaces, the State is defining its guidelines and adjusting its own policies based on principles laid down by the scientific community:
- principle of ecological continuity
- principle of conservation of major geographic units free from perturbations (having an economic value for health, recreation, etc.)
- principle of multifunctionality of spaces and territories
- precautionary principle providing economic management of space
- principle of sustainable development which imposes a long term vision and monitoring instruments (trend indicators).
The Natura 2000 networks (European initiative) integrate these same factors of habitat continuity and population exchanges. Recent trends are gaining ground. Their success will depend on many parameters: a social and political will to solve problems, know-how, motivation of the people in charge of implementing them. In this field, France is lagging behind compared with Dutch or Swiss practices developed during the seminar.
Role of green motorway ancillaries.
For a long time, steps have been taken at intervals to improve the ecological value of ancillaries. ASF* and CNRS** have made a three-year ecological appraisal of the functioning of ancillaries by comparing them with the transited landscapes on three sites belonging to three different biogeographic fields. The study concerns invertebrates and land vertebrates (reptiles, amphibians, birds, mammals).
The main results are as follows:
- Diversity is greater in green ancillaries than in the transited environments (for the same surface area, there are more animal species in the green ancillaries than elsewhere except for birds),
- populations in the two compartments are never the same: 68% of the species are found in both compartments,
- seasonal variations in abundance are generally synchronous in the two compartments but rarely have the same amplitude (the rights-of-way are more stable),
- there are exchanges between the different compartments.
This original research is to be paralleled with studies conducted by the National Hunting Agency on free movement areas of deer throughout the country. 1005 free movement areas have been recorded. The identified tracks show that country-wide, 6% of the tracks can no longer be used by the deer. Deer movements are threatened in 185 areas (1/8th of the areas concerned). Over the short term, exchanges will be difficult in 27 further areas (mostly because of motorways).
This national approach to fragmentation - on this scale - is a first (with the study of calm areas). It should lead to concrete proposals for conservation measures and the restoration of deer movement areas, and then it will be extended to other species (landscape defragmentation programme).
The sociologists' view
The status of the wild animal is worthy of mention. The same animal can be considered harmful and then be classified as a "protected species" (temporal variability of legal status). The status of the wild animal may also vary according to the society (deer are wild game in France, reindeer are animals domesticated by the Lapps). And what about the "wildness" of the animals that are to be "guided" towards the specific, reserved passages, along an appropriate route, lured by feeding and "attractive plant" arrangements, and sometimes unknowingly filmed. A sociologist will wonder whether we are forming a "new wild animal" generated by a long technical development. From the ethological angle, does an animal that has learned to use the passage stay the same? Doesn't the passage change the very nature of the animal, which becomes the product of incentive teaching (and what can be said of a deer that balks at using the passage?).
Human sciences are examining the change in nature of the wild animal, the possibility of manipulating its behaviour....
Specific facilities
Axial highways disturb the territories of bats, whether for returning to their summering or wintering areas or for moving nearer a hunting ground. The most tangible dangers are the segmentation of territories, mortality, disturbance (jobsite, maintenance of works hosting bat roosting sites).
Collisions chiefly occur in September and October. The Cher Département (county) has 16 species of bats, 11 of which are concerned by road mortalities but in varying degrees accounting for 15% of the total county-wide road toll.
Compared with other species, not many steps have been taken to provide amenities for bats and those that have, are too recent to assess their efficiency. However the following measures are recommended:
- avoid fragmenting plant corridors (hedges); restore some or all of them (bats rely on plant structures to travel),
- make green ancillaries less attractive to insects (bats are strictly insectivorous),
- avoid lighting, give preference to sodium lamps and position them as high as possible. Bats use waterways as transit routes and hunting grounds. Encourage them to pass under bridges rather than over them (risk of collisions with vehicles) by cutting back riverine vegetation,
- bats will readily use underpasses to cross motorways or green bridges (tree-covered overpasses),
I. high plant structures right at the roadside induce bats to climb high enough to avoid collisions.
Terrapins and tortoises do not escape fragmentation effects and collisions (particularly when they are looking for laying or dispersion grounds).
Various solutions are proposed in USA and Australia to reduce mortality and restore crossings. The sole French experience (A57) concerns the Hermann's tortoise and consists in the following operations:
- install a buried fine-mesh fence
- capture and move the tortoises found within the right-of-way (some 300), mark them and put them back into their natural surroundings
- install two "tortoise tunnels" to reconnect the territory segments.
All in all, few animals are run over (efficiency of the fencing) but few animals use the tunnels. Access to the passages is very difficult and too long for their small cross-section, with the result that tortoises will only use a covered underpass that reconnects a public way.
The otter often travels long distances along waterways. The home range of an adult may be several tens of kilometres long; the young wander far and wide and take a long time to find a free territory; the recolonizing movements begun in several regions of France are causing otters to colonize new sectors, thereby incurring mortality risks when the animals have to leave the run of the river to cross the road.
New steps are being taken to restore the free movement of otters (the Atlantic seaboard, the Massif Central). Whatever their design, facilities for otters are regularly used to preserve the animals from risks and extend their distribution areas. Such facilities are relatively cheap but need to be well-adapted to the habits of the species.
Amphibians. To curb the death rate of frogs, the Départment 68 (Haut Rhin) has been pursuing two complementary lines of action since 1970:
- setting up temporary protective nets on 18 sites
- building toad tunnels - this département was the first to install this type of structure in 1983 in a difficult mountain area. Today there are three such structures in the département and the scheme is well advanced, making the Haut Rhin the best equipped département.
At regular points (3 sections) some roads are temporarily closed to traffic.
All these measures saved the lives of 48,000 individuals in 1998. This success is the result of volunteer work. These operations to protect amphibians are helping to raise public awareness of the need to respect natural wetlands.
3. Germany
Habitat fragmentation and roads in Germany- current situation and perspectives
Bertram Georgii, Munic Wildlife Society, Linderhof 2, D-82488 Ettal
From an ecological point of view there are two very different aspects of traffic routes (roads, railway lines, waterways):
They may have important functions as habitats and corridors, which allow animals to invade areas formerly not inhabited by such species (that's the potential positive effect).
On the other hand, roads (more than railway lines) may be severe barriers, which are insurmountable for a lot of species, or they demand high road kill rates (that are the negative effect).
This review focuses on the second kind of impacts especially the degree of habitat fragmentation by traffic routes in Germany, the future road planning and recent research on how to mitigate the impacts.
The German transport infrastructure network
The current net of traffic routes of the Federal Republic of Germany comprises some 226.810 km of roads, 40.800 km of railway lines and 7.339 km of waterways (data from 1997, 1995 and 1997 respectively).
In the case of the roads, this corresponds to 173.890 km in the western and 52.670 km in the eastern federal states (Fig.1 left section). In relation to the size of the different federal states this means 0,70 km and 0,49 km roads per square kilometre in the western and the eastern part of Germany respectively (Fig.1 right section). As may be seen from the figure especially in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Sachsen-Anhalt, Brandenburg and Thüringen - these are all states of the former German Democratic Republic - the road density is rather low.
Taking into account the fact that the area over which significant ecological impacts (noise, pollution, human disturbances etc.) extend outward from a road covers at least a 300 m wide band on both sides of roads (Reck & Kaule 1992) an estimated 38 % (some 136.000 km2) of the German land area is directly affected by roads.
The "Undissected Areas" approach
Looking at these statistics the degree of habitat fragmentation is expected to differ between the western and the eastern part of Germany too. To show this, since 1979 some twenty large-scale analyses had been carried out to evaluate the number of so-called undissected low traffic areas (unzerschnittene verkehrsarme Räume, UZV; e.g. Lassen 1990, Grau 1998). Most of them concerned individual federal states of Western Germany only. And all of these investigations have used indirect methods of measuring the degree of fragmentation (e.g. inquiries, literature surveys). The problem is that they differ in the basic data and in the assessment scales by which they evaluate the intensity of fragmentation impact or the extension of unfragmented areas. Thus the results often are not comparable.
After the reunion of Western and Eastern Germany, the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (Bundesamt für Naturschutz, BfN) attempted anew to evaluate all "Undissected low traffic areas > 100 km2" (UZV-Räume > 100 km2) using rather simple but uniform criteria for the whole of Germany. The basic aspects they regarded to have a dissecting impact were as follows:
all roads with more than 1000 motor vehicles per 24 hours;
all railways (single- as well as double-track ones) and
all waters which claim more than half of an otherwise undissected area >100 km2.
The result is shown in Fig.2. When considering railway lines, as well as all asphalted roads and motorways there is a sum total of 343 unfragmented areas > 100 km2. Most of these areas lie in four federal states namely Bayern, Niedersachsen, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Brandenburg (Fig.2 left section). When relating the number of the large unfragmented patches to the total area of each federal state, those of the former German Democratic Republic show a mean density of undissected areas more than double as high as that of the western federal states (Fig.1. right section). The most outstanding states in this sense are Brandenburg and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. The results are already present in a GIS-based but not yet published map. With this map the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation tried to develop a topical database for a sustainable protection of bio-diversity and landscape in all kinds of future road or railway planning in Germany.
The Federal Traffic Infrastructure Plan
In 1992 the Federal Ministry of Transport came up with the so-called Federal Traffic Infrastructure Plan (Bundesverkehrswegeplan, BVWP; see also Federal Ministry of Transport 1998). It shows the demand for motor- and highways, railway lines and waterways from an economic perspective, covering a planning period of two decades. Main objectives were the completion of the existing traffic routes and a better connection between the "old" and "new" states of Germany following its unification ("German Unity Transport Projects"). But also the opening of the borders to the East and the ambitions of the "trans-European transport network" (TEN) are important aspects for the extension of the traffic infrastructure.
Especially in the case of the states of the former German Democratic Republic this implies lots of new roads. Therefore it is to be feared that just those parts of Germany where the largest unfragmented areas concentrate as for example in Brandenburg or Mecklenburg-Vorpommern will become dissected in unforeseeable dimensions when this plan is realised. In the case of the roads alone, some 2.200 km of new motorways and 5.200 km of new highways with some 1.000 and 1.500 km respectively in the eastern part of the republic, are planned.
Although the Federal Traffic Infrastructure Plan points out that the planned road, rail and waterway projects have to be ecologically compatible, it's to be supposed that the economic objectives are the more important ones (Bundesminister für Verkehr 1993). So the ecological risk analysis is only a cursory and qualitatively descriptive assessment on a large-scale basis, and is limited to new road projects with a length of more than 10 km (Hoppenstedt & Preising 1993, Gühnemann et al. 1998). Nevertheless the ecological assessment must show that the prospected traffic routes will provide an ecologically acceptable and relatively conflict free alignment, where any remaining inconvenience may possibly be compensated. Otherwise the specific conditions for the further planning have to be altered, the extent of a project or its priority will be downgraded or - rarely - the project even will be withdrawn.
Studies on roads, habitat fragmentation and wildlife
In the last decade three noteworthy studies have been carried out in Germany concerning the impacts of habitat fragmentation or roads on wild animals and the possibilities to minimize them.
In 1994 the Federal Ministry for Education and Research started a multi-approach investigation about the importance of unfragmented habitats with low human disturbances for a variety of species especially those which need large areas (Landesamt für Umwelt und Natur Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (1996). Species studied were otter (Lutra lutra), badger (Meles meles), crane (Grus grus), white-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla), lesser spotted eagle (Aquila pomarina), marsh harrier (Circus aeruginosus) and even the river-lamprey (Lampetra planeri). To evaluate the impacts of habitat fragmentation essential aspects of the studies were habitat evaluation analyses, home range and activity patterns, habitat and food selection, dispersal, the impacts of human disturbances especially those deriving from roads, traffic density and animal road kills or the importance of dissectional effects on population genetics.
The studies were carried out mainly in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and the isle of Rügen but they are still not fully analysed and therefore not yet published. For the otter for instance the results show that he is less limited by patch size than by the traffic on roads and especially roads with high traffic during dusk, night and dawn. On the other hand, the findings for the white-tailed eagle show an obvious concentration of nest sites in unfragmented and little disturbed landscape patches.
The second study dealt with the minimisation of the separating effects of roads by river crossings or bridge openings (Kneitz & Oerter 1997). It was initiated by the Ministry of Transport in Bonn. The basic idea was that intersections of roads with rivers might be potential underpasses for wildlife because streams and their adjacent vegetation structures act as guiding lines and migrational corridors for many animals. During two years Kneitz and his co-workers studied a wide variety of animal species such as ground beetles, grasshoppers, dragonflies, caddisflies, stoneflies, mayflies, the macrozoobenthos as well as small mammals, game and birds at a total of 20 river crossings.
In all of the invertebrate groups species were found which used the underpasses, especially those with natural riverbeds and banks. But they also showed reduced numbers of species and individuals compared with the surroundings. This was due to the specific micro-climatic conditions, the non-local substrate, the lack of vegetation and the different vegetation structure, or even artificial embankments beneath the crossings and bridges. Furthermore, the macrozoobenthic species react above all on reduced light conditions. Most small mammals used the underpasses as habitat corridors with a species-specific intensity. The same is true for the larger game species with the exception of narrow "box-passages". In the case of birds, behavioural changes influenced by the bridge structures, such as direction reversal or alteration of flight paths, were observed.
The third study was a six year investigation of the bio-ecological effectiveness of wildlife overpasses or "green bridges" over roads and railway lines (Pfister et al. 1997; see also the contribution of V.Keller at this meeting). It was initiated by the Ministry of Transport in Bonn and the ministries of Transport, of the Environment and of Rural areas, Nutrition, Agriculture and Forests of Baden-Württemberg. The investigations were conducted by the Swiss Ornithological Institute which commissioned some further specialists to study individual groups of animals as, for example, large mammals, mice, dormice, amphibians, ground beetles, grasshoppers and even birds. The investigation comprised some just built green bridges over the new highway B31 near Lake Constance, and a comparative investigation of 12 overpasses in Germany, Holland, France and Switzerland.
At the centre of the investigations was the question as to which species of animals use green bridges, and how often. Thus with a few exceptions, the species studied used at least the wider green bridges. Small mammals and invertebrates can use overpasses effectively when species-specific habitat elements are present on the bridges, and these elements are joined to the corresponding habitats outside the road area, that is to say when the green bridges are formed as habitat corridors. Because wet habitats are difficult to establish on overpasses green bridges are hardly used by species having an affinity for water like e.g. amphibians.
Otherwise, for large mammals, the width and location of a green bridge appears to be more critical than its design or the substrate and vegetation. Green bridges less than 20 m in width were used not as frequently as wide structures. In particular, ungulates and the European hare reacted very sensitively to narrow bridges. Additionally, red deer (Cervus elaphus), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), wild boar (Sus scrofa), European hare (Lepus europaeus), badger (Meles meles) as well as red fox (Vulpes vulpes) used the green bridges as feeding areas too.
Summarising the results of the Kneitz and Pfister studies, the fragmentation effects of roads and railway lines may be minimised by the described underpasses and green bridges. Therefore, perforating roads and railway lines to diminish the barrier effects makes good ecological sense. The precondition is that under- and overpasses are optimally positioned, dimensioned and designed, in other words, they have to correspond to the natural environment as much as possible.
The target species of such buildings can essentially be all species, which are significantly affected by the barrier effect of the respective road or railway line. Among these both, species which are particularly threatened in the local situation or species which have important migration routes there have priority when planning a passage. Moreover the buildings should be part of a general "permeability concept", i.e. a concept the aim of which is to connect habitats not only on a regional but also on a large-scale level.
4. Italy
Link to the web site of IENE in Italy
On-going activities of I.E.N.E. Italy
Prof. S. Malcevschi - EIA Commission Ministry f Environment. Dott.ssa M. Belvisi - ANPA. Dott.ssa S. Ceppi - University of Pavia
During last year I.E.N.E. Italy has carried out several activities mainly focused on:
Construction on data-base and evaluation of first results
Realisation of an Handbook about "linear infrastructures and habitat fragmentation"
Initiatives on ecological network
Dissemination of information about IENE initiative through a page on a scientific review (the last four issues) "ACER (specialised review on natural rehabilitation
Construction of Web site IENE dedicated.
Construction of data-base
Italy is collecting all the available data about the habitat fragmentation in order to produce a database that will contain useful information and referees on this matter. Until now we are handing out questionnaires in all the meetings and the conferences connected with this that have given in this fieldwork, and we are processing all the data. In the following a summary of this results are presented.
During this first step of the enquiry following results came out: 61% of operators are involved in the public sector and 43% work in the private sector (see. Fig. 1)
Most of operators used to work on locals and regional projects, less on European projects. The National level, which includes for example highways and high-speed railways, involved 20 % of the peoples (see Fig. 2).
Fields of principals interests (see Fig. 3) more relevant for all operators are:
filter ecosystems along infrastructure
hedges along filter ecosystem
hedges and row of plants
viaducts and ecoducts for fauna
Study and research and project managing, together, are principal field of activities.
Less interest is dedicated to implementing programmes and project realisation.
We can outlines
- Habitat fragmentation study in the latium area and in the Mediterranean area for amphibian and reptiles " (Marco Bologna, Università degli studi "Roma Tre");
Planning of interventions of restoration of landscape for a new high speed railway Milano-Bologna and planning of environmental and acoustic mitigation measures for linear infrastructure (Barbara Vizzini, Aquater spa);
Report of European community project Ecos Ouverture on the "Cintura verde metropolitana" (Battisti Corrado, Provincia di Roma)
Ministry of Industry and tourism project –"Tourism valorisation project of Po river ( province of Lodi"(Giovanna Fontana, Landscape Studio Association)
Principal reports produced consider planning formulation (32%) thematic maps (21%) or divulgations articles (see fig. 4)
About on-going production (see fig. 5) we can find handbook and guidelines (16%) and scientific publication, planning formulation (38%) %) e thematic maps (19%).
Handbook about "linear infrastructures and habitat fragmentation"
I.E.N.E. Italy, in co-operation with the Italian Environmental Ministry – Environmental Impact Assessment Service (Ministero dell’Ambiente – Servizio Valutazione di Impatto Ambientale) is realising a handbook about "Infrastructures and habitat fragmentation".
The steering committee is working in order to involve experts in this fieldwork, NGO’s, and to collect the most interesting experiences in big and small areas with the co-operation of local administrators. This handbook will be available before the end of 1999, and will be spread to all the organisations, public administration and private subjects involved in the habitat fragmentation. It will be a handbook useful for planners and for technicians that will meet the problem of the realisation of infrastructures with the need of the fauna movements.
The handbook will contains the following topics:
LINEAR INFRASTRUCTURES AND HABITAT FRAGMENTATION
THE PROBLEM OF HABITAT FRAGMENTATION
1.1 Species, habitat, environmental components
1.2 Habitat, ecosystem, landscape, territory
1.3 Habitat fragmentation
1.4 Habitat fragmentation and human population
2. LINEAR INFRASTRUCTURES
2.1 Linear infrastructures
2.2 The impacts of linear infrastructures on ecological continuity
2.3 Traditional kinds of fauna passages
3. TECHNICAL SOLUTION FOR FAUNA PASSAGE
The hoofed mammals
Other mammals
3.2 The birds
3.3 The reptiles
3.4 The amphibians
3.5 The fishes and the water ecosystem
3.6 Terrestrial Invertebrates
3.7 The plants
4. ECOLOGICAL CROSSING AND SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT
4.1 The Ecological networks
4.2 Targets of land use
4.3 Ecological networks and infrastructural networks
4.4 Technical integrated solutions
5.PRACTICABILITY ASPECTS
5.1 The management of ecological permeability
5.2 The costs
5.3 The monitoring
6.CONCLUSIONS
Enclosures: Case of study
ANPA initiatives on ecological networks
Programme presented on Brig meeting last year was structured into lines of activity founded essentially on the involvement of local organisation like Environmental Agencies in order to observe eleven study cases, located all around the national territory. Results deriving from these studies started in the 1998, represent a starting point for definition of methodological proposal actually practicable.
Four programmes are scheduled for next two years:
First, starting at present, provides for a joined study among ANPA, regional and provincial environmental Agencies and other subjects for planning methodologies of monitoring of the ecological networks. The second, to start in this year intends to carry out a study of feasibility whose aim is to constitute a prototype of informative system specifically conceived as a support of the planning choices which consider the safeguard of ecosystem and landscape values. The third, planned for a next year, has as its purpose to achieve a first definition of protocols for the interventions of renaturation and restoration of natural structures and landscape. The last programme will be the conclusive transposition into guidelines of the whole work carried out during the execution of the plan. The purpose is to create a first official reference for improving ecologically the instrument of territory's management.
5. Switzerland
On-going projects in Switzerland
Peter Oggier, University of Bern, Zoological Institute, Baltzerstrasse 3, CH-3012 Bern, E-mail: oggier@zos.unibe.ch
1."Modeling of the landscape dynamics and its habitat function for wildlife. A tool for land-use planning based on fauna needs. Case study : the European hare (Lepus europaeus) in Switzerland".
Responsible: Corinne Gilliéron. Beginning: November 1998
Thesis research project at the Laboratory of Ecosystem Management (GECOS) of the Swiss Institute of Technology - Lausanne (EPFL), in collaboration with the Swiss Ornithological Institute of Sempach.
We will develop a model that simulates the spatio-temporal changes of the habitat function of the agricultural landscape on the swiss Plateau for the European hare (Lepus europaeus). The goal of this research project is to propose a decision aid tool for landscape management, which allows to evaluate the effects of human intervention on this ecosystem, like new transportation infrastructure, urban development, social development, rural land improvement projects, changes in agricultural policies or practices. Why the European hare? First because the hare's population has dramatically decreased in Europe and second because it is a good indicator of the quality of an agricultural landscape.
The research will be accomplished in three steps:
Analysis of the habitat function of the landscape for the European hare on three experimental sites on the swiss Plateau. The landscape will be described as the hare would see it. This will be done on basis of aerial black and white photographs and with help of field verifications and GIS.
Development of a model that simulates the dynamics of this landscape. Temporal series of photographs from 1950 to now will be described and analysed as in the first step and also with help of topographic maps. The results of these analyses, stored on a GIS, will be used as base for the development of the model. It is foreseen to use an already existing model of landscape dynamics based on the Cellular Automata techniques (CA). As they were developed in other conditions, for other landscapes, scales and time periods, they will need to be adapted. We are now testing three of them which were developed in France, Canada and the USA. What is a Cellular Automata? A CA is a discrete system (in time, space and state), using simple evolution rules to reproduce complex behaviour. In practice, a regular grid is overlaid on the landscape and each cell changes its state at each time step, following transition rules that include human driving forces, natural evolution and neighbourhood effects.
Development of a decision aid tool for landscape management. The predictive aspect of the model will be developed by applying the model to practical cases and different management scenarios. The last step will be to offer a user friendly interface.
2. A concept that takes the whole fauna into consideration at the time of the planning and the exploitation of transportation networks.
S. Schneider, Groupe d'étude Faune-Trafic, (LAVOC-ECONAT-ECOTEC-INSECTA-S. Müller)
The transport network will constitute soon a coherent and complete whole. Displacements of fauna take place in corridors also forming a network that enters in conflict in many places with the first one. The technical means, for lack of the financial means, allow today to take measures that limit the inherent risks to the superposition of networks, and this without trouble for people and the wild animals. A better knowledge of the way of life and needs of fauna should allow to optimise the cost of constructions like wildlife passage or fences. Before building a passage, it is necessary to choose a suitable site and then to verify its long-term efficiency.
During the survey of a new infrastructure of transport, difficulties often appear essentially because of a lack of understanding between the engineer and the biologist. Mistakes in the conception of the mitigation measures lead to disruptions of the natural environment. Exaggerated environment requirements may imperil the pursuit of the survey and the realization of transport routes qualified of indispensable.
Sometimes, after some years, wildlife passages are not used by fauna any more, either due to modifications of the fitting out, or by a lack of follow-up and maintenance. The objectives of this survey are to establish a concept that takes the whole fauna into consideration at the time of the planning and the exploitation of transportation networks.
3. Switzerland's wildlife corridors
Contact: Dr. Otto Holzgang, Swiss Ornithological Institute, CH ñ 6204 Sempach, Switzerland. Phone: ++41 41 462 97 00, Fax: ++41 41 462 97 10, email: holzgang@orninst.ch
Roads, railway lines and settlements fragment habitats of wild animals. In addition, many traditional migration trails between habitats have been interrupted by the construction of fenced highways, forcing the animals to use small and sometimes artificially determined corridors for their movements. The aim of this study was to localise existing or interrupted natural axes of dispersal and migration, to detect wildlife corridors and bottlenecks, and to suggest measures to improve today’s situation.
We used the following three sources of information: (a) Temporal and spatial analyses of hunting statistics mark the distribution of wild animals. (b) The cantonal wildlife services and/or hunters were interviewed on the area of distribution and movements of roe deer, chamois, wild boar, red deer and alpine ibex, following a specific questionnaire. (c) A Geographic Information System (GIS) was used to model the permeability of the landscape. Because many wild animals use forests for their movements, the model was based mainly on forests and buffer zones, but information on protected areas was also included.
Our study led to a map giving an overview of the natural axes of dispersal and migration between habitats in Switzerland. Wildlife corridors were localised and their condition was described. They were classified by their importance into corridors of national or regional importance. The number of localised corridors of national importance totals 303, of which 84 (28%) are still intact, 179 (59%) are slightly to heavily disturbed, and 40 (13%) are interrupted. 68 corridors of national importance need purpose-built constructions as for example green bridges or wildlife passages. The situation is not satisfactory at all: at four locations, constructions are already in use, at three locations under construction and at six locations planned.
To increase in future the landscape's permeability for wildlife, further efforts are required: The localised corridors and movement axes have to be taken into account in land use planning. Purpose-built constructions have to be demanded at heavily disturbed or interrupted corridor locations. Because the constructions are expensive, measures have to be realised stepwise according to a plan taking costs, success, priority a.s.o. into account. Although we used data of large mammals for this study, small mammals and even invertebrates will also profit on long terms by open corridors.
4. External Costs of Traffic in the Wildlife and Landscape Ecology Sector
Contact: Guido Masé, ÖKOSKOP AG, Allmend 1, P.O. Box 102, CH-4460 Gelterkinden, Switzerland. Phone: ++41 61 985 44 60, Fax: ++41 61 985 44 28, email: oekoskop@oekoskop
Traffic causes damage in landscape, ecosystem functioning and biodiversity. The disruption of ecological functions affects not only nature itself but also the basis of human life and economy, e.g. water quality, natural resources and biological pest control. These costs are usually not recognized and certainly not paid for by various users of traffic systems. So far, some studies concerning the costs of the impact on humans and human health have been conducted. To fill a gap, a preliminary study (1998) and now a major study (in progress) are trying to establish an estimate of the minimal costs that traffic causes in the wildlife and landscape ecology sectors.
First a framework has been developed to categorize the effects of traffic. The categories are as follows: air, climate, water, soil, wildlife and landscape, noise and light. Subcategories include effects of infrastructure, buildings and maintenance and operation of traffic itself, direct and indirect. These effects have been established and weighed with the help of literature and experts. The relevant effects for which a good database and calculation models exist, have been selected as a basis for the main study. They should cover 60% to 80% of the dimension of all the effects of traffic.
The Swiss landscape of around 1950 forms the comparative standard of a semi natural landscape with very limited influence from traffic infrastructure (setting aside effects of globally trading goods and organisms). Against this, the changes brought by traffic systems (especially roads and railway lines) up to 1998 will be measured. The next step will be to establish the proper method to calculate these changes for different areas of Switzerland (Plateau, Jura, Alps) and for varied land use (forested, cultivated and urban areas). This requires a pilot study. Random samples will help to establish the extent of this change. The measures will be habitat loss, loss of habitat quality and fragmentation of habitats. This will allow formulation of mitigating and compensating measures like underpasses and restoration of agricultural land away from large traffic systems to semi natural ecosystems. Foreseeably, the main method of calculating the costs of traffic will be to establish the costs of these measures in the areas tested and apply them to the whole of Switzerland with regard to the different characteristics of areas. The major study will be completed in the year 2000. We are very interested in contacts regarding this issue.
Annex 4
Interreg II - Examples in Alpine Regions
|Note to the reader: |
| |
|This information was taken from the EC web site: |
| |
| |
|The sections of text which are highlighted in bold are based on the author’s emphasis, and do not reflect |
|the original version from the web. |
| |
|INTERREG II |
|Italy / Switzerland |
| |
|Outline of Programme - Sheet N° 94.00.10.014 (1996) |
|The European Commission has approved an operational programme under the Community Initiative INTERREG II |
|designed to develop cross-border cooperation between Italy and Switzerland and to promote economic |
|development and growth. The programme covers border areas in the regions of Lombardia, Valle d’Aosta, |
|Piemonte and in the province of Bolzano. These areas tend to be sparsely populated, with a significant |
|level of employment in the agricultural sector, but a much lower employment rate in other sectors which |
|are largely subject to seasonal variations. |
| |
|The Community part-financing will amount to about 38% of the total investment, the remainder being |
|provided by national and regional authorities (54%) and by the private sector (8%). This Community finance|
|is being provided by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Agricultural Guidance |
|and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guidance Section. |
| |
|The main schemes covered by this programme are: |
| |
|- the economic promotion and growth through cross-border cooperation between enterprises and institutions |
|and improvement of infrastructure; |
| |
|- to develop resources and production in the sectors of agriculture, forestry and fishing and to conserve |
|fish (in lakes); |
| |
|- management, preservation and development of the natural, historical and cultural heritage to promote |
|tourism. |
| |
| |
|This programme forms part of the implementation of the Community's INTERREG II initiative, a set of |
|measures designed to promote cross-border cooperation, to help regions overcome problems arising from |
|their comparatively isolated locations, to fill gaps in energy networks, and to provide interconnections |
|with wider European networks. |
| |
| |
| |
|Contact this address for the complete programme text or for further information on the programme: |
|Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri |
|Dipartimento per il coordinamento delle Politiche Comunitarie |
|Via del Giardino Theodoli, 66 |
|I - 00186 Roma |
|Tel: +39 6 67.79.53.55 |
|Fax: +39 6 67.79.53.26 |
| |
| |
|INTERREG II C - France / Italy |
|Spatial planning and combating drought |
| |
|Outline of Programme - Sheet N° 97.00.10.012 (1998) |
|The European Commission has approved a Community Initiative programme intended to prevent flooding in the |
|Mediterranean regions of France (Languedoc-Roussillon, Rhône-Alpes, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur and |
|Corsica) and Italy (Val d'Aosta, Piemonte, Liguria) thanks to improved equipment and the exchange of |
|information. Although they will not be receiving Community funds under the programme, the Spanish |
|authorities will be associated with the work. |
| |
|Community part-financing amounts to 35.63% of the total investment, with the remainder of the expenditure |
|being borne by the French and Italian national governments and the local authorities. Community financing |
|will be from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). |
| |
|The programme comprises the following subprogrammes : |
| |
|- Flood management and spatial planning to facilitate the implementation of flood protection measures, the|
|spread of information among the local population, the design of a method enabling the local authorities to|
|perceive and assume responsibility for the risk, and the improvement of weather forecasting tools. |
| |
|- Risk prevention by means of a better joint approach to forecasting. In view of the importance of |
|measuring precipitation on the ground and the flow rate of rivers in evaluating the risks in real time, |
|there is a need to develop an observation network making it possible for neighbouring regions to exchange |
|comparable measurements, and to reinforce the area's hydrometeorological system to this end (rainfall and |
|hydrometric stations, completion of the Mediterranean Arc's radar cover). |
| |
|Contact this address for the complete programme text or for further information on the programme: |
|Monsieur Michel Lorne |
|Préfecture de la Région Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur |
|Bd Paul Peytral |
|F- 13282 Marseille Cedex 20 |
|Tel: +33 4 91 15 62 74 |
|Fax: +33 4 91 15 61 90 |
| |
|Monsieur De Venere |
|Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri |
|Dipartimento per i Servizi Tecnici Nazionali |
|Via Curtatone 3 |
|I-00185 Roma |
|Tel:+39/6/44 44 25 15 |
|Fax:+39/6 44 44 24 36 |
|Web: |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|INTERREG II |
|Italy / Austria |
| |
|Outline of Programme - Sheet N° 94.00.10.040 (1997) |
|The European Commission has approved an operational programme under the Community Initiative INTERREG II |
|designed to develop cross-border co-operation between Italy and Austria and to promote economic |
|development and growth. The area is eligible under Objective 5b and is mainly mountainous - the |
|ecologically sensitive Alps - with a population of 2,144,000 which is decreasing in the border areas. |
|There is a strong agricultural sector, businesses are mainly small and micro-enterprises in handicrafts |
|which have difficulties in accessing capital and there is a largely seasonal employment pattern. |
| |
|The Community part-financing will amount to 43.2% of the total investment, the remainder being provided by|
|national and regional authorities(43.8%) and by the private sector (13%). This Community finance is being |
|provided by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund and the Guidance |
|Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF). |
| |
|The main schemes covered by this programme are: |
| |
|- exploitation and promotion of the common historical and cultural heritage of the border regions |
|concerned; |
|- reducing the problems inherent in the use of different languages, administrative procedures and legal |
|systems on the two sides of the border; |
|- co-operation aimed at safeguarding the environment; |
|- development of the transborder agricultural and forest co-operation, safeguarding of flora and fauna; |
|- valorisation of tourism; |
|- development of favourable conditions for SMEs; |
|- actions for professional training; |
|- technical assistance. |
| |
| |
|Contact this address for the complete programme text or for further information on the programme: |
|Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri |
|Dipartimento per il coordinamento delle Politiche Communitarie |
|Via del Giardino Theodoli, 66 |
|I - 00186 Roma |
|Tel: +39 6 67.79.53.55 |
|Fax: +39 6 67.79.53.26 |
| |
|Dipl. Ing. M. Bruckmoser |
|Bundeskanzleramt |
|Sektion IV |
|Hohenstaufengasse 3 |
|A - 1010 Wien |
|Tel: +43 222 531 15-2910 |
|Fax: +43 222 531 15-4120 |
-----------------------
[1] The rest of the report will refer to “policies” for brevity however this is effectively intended to include policies, legislation and international conventions, as well as any action plan or vision of significant interest to the PO.
[2] The words biodiversity and sectoral are put in inverted commas since they can only cover a part of the types of policies analysed. The two terms are used for convenience.
[3] The European Community Strategy (see Section 2.4.2) has focused on similar sectors since 1998.
[4] The Themes refer to: 1) Establishing the Pan-European Ecological Network; 2) Integration of biological and landscape diversity considerations into sectors; 4) Conservation of landscapes; 8) Grassland ecosystems; and 9) Forest ecosystems. For a detailed overview of all Themes visit the web site: .
[5] See also an initiative launched in 1996 by CIPRA called: La rete dei Comuni - Alleanza nelle Alpi, which aimed to implement the Alpine Convention’s objectives at the municipal level (see web site: ).
[6] The three communities are: ARGE ALP (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Alpenlander established in 1972) in the central Alps, Alpen-Adria(established in 1978) in the eastern Alps, and COTRAO (Communaute` de Travail des Alpes Occidentales (established in 1982) in the western Alps.
[7] The Important Bird Areas (IBAs) is a complete survey prepared with financial support of the European Commission and published in 1989 (Grimmet R.F.A. and T.A. Jones “Important Bird Areas in Europe”). It provides a valuable scientific basis for MSs to identify SPAs under the Birds Directive.
[8] Personal comment by Sandra Jen, of the WWF-EPO office. For more information on the WWF Austria report, contact Christoph Walder, WWF Austria.
[9] For more information visit the web site:
[10] Sustainable development is meant in its three environmental, economic and social dimensions.
[11] Council Decision of 26 February 1996 concerning the conclusion of the Convention on the protection of the Alps (96/191/EC). See
[12] Sources of detailed information quoted by Martin Price (1999):
A summary of the history, status and implications of the convention and its protocols in all Alpine key languages was published in 1998 by the Government of Slovenia, Ministry of the Environment and Physical Planning, by V.K. PlaninŠic.
The CIPRA web site () provides the text of the convention and its protocols, and information on current activities.
Considerable information on the implementation of the Alpine Convention can be found for example in the reports on status of implementation regularly produced by the Austrian Alpine Club.
[13] Personal comment by Riccardo Priore (September 2000), of the Council of Europe.
[14] See web site:
[15] The Alpine Conference includes Environment Ministries of the Alpine countries and of the EU.
[16] The full text of the Regulation can be found at the following web site:
[17] For more information, please contact WWF Austria, Simon Lughofer.
[18] Visit the web site:
[19] For more information, please contact the Council for the Protection of Rural England (), a UK NGO which is following the development of ESDP on behalf of the European Environmental Bureau.
[20] For more information, visit the web site:
[21] Copies of the document may be obtained by WWF-EPO, Brussels.
[22] See in particular the Swiss case study: “Switzerland: Swiss agri-environmental policy and water quality” p.203 of the OECD report from the Athens Workshop.
[23] For ore information, please contact Annalie Bambour at WWF-EPO, Brussels.
[24] Helen Zitzewitz, WWF-EPO (September 2000), personal comment.
[25] To obtain further details, please contact Pronatura on Tel. 00 421 61 317 9191.
[26] See .
[27] See for example: Mountain agenda (1998) Mountains of the World: Water Towers for the 21st century. P. Haupt. Bern
[28] European Topic Centre on Inland waters (1996) Human Interventions in the Hydrological Cycle – Topic Report 13/96. From:
-----------------------
WWF’s CONSERVATION & BIODIVERSITY
OBJECTIVES / PRIORITIES for the ALPS
e.g.
Positive contribution to the integrity and/or restoration of wilderness areas (large natural areas);
Protection and enhancement of Protected Areas;
Conservation of large carnivores and other species; etc.
STATE
Biodiversity
Large Natural Areas
Protected Areas
Landscape
Water
Soil
Natural Hazards
PRESSURES
Agriculture
Tourism and recreation
Transport and Climate Change
Urbanization and concentration
Forestry
Energy and hydropower
RESPONSES
WWF Direct action
WWF to support other NGOs actions
WWF to influence national, European and international Governments and institutions
DIRECT
BIODIVERSITY RESPONSES
INDIRECT/
SECTORAL RESPONSES
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
consumers (inhabitants and visitors )
decision-makers
administrations
“managers” (farmers, foresters, urbanists, architects, engineers etc.)
NGOs
scientific community
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- bobby thompson thompson and lawyer in court in cleveland
- vocational assessment worksheet wa
- social security administration ssa
- policy assessment
- cchp outreach team intake camden coalition
- human factors and employment issues related to the use of
- 1 social security administration
- administrative law outline
- child adolescent diagnostic
Related searches
- product development policy example
- public policy essay
- financial management nonprofit policy sa
- whole life insurance policy benefits
- cash management policy nonprofit
- navy ta policy 2019
- examples of public policy issues
- examples of public policy papers
- public policy essay topics
- public policy paper topics
- why study public policy essay
- curriculum policy development