1ucN1 wcPA Parks for Life

ransboundary Protected Areas

.~.. ,fo!"E.~"OnrT'Mi'°li IUCN t'I a'lC Famltj A"fa·~ EUROPARC The Wo~d eo...,mtlon Union ICP..t.ilC• ol AJ'it'".t. Federation

Robert Brunner in collaboration with the EUROPARC Federation {FNNPE) and the World Commission on Protected Areas (\/I/CPA) of the VVorld Conservation Union (IUCN)

Parks for Life: Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe

Published in 1999 by the IUCNIWCPA "Parks for Life" Coordination Office, Hajdrihova 28, Sl-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia; an imprint of Tiskarstvo Peklaj, Ljubljana.

Editor: Andrej Sovinc Front Cover Photo: Tatra National Park (Transboundary Protected Area Poland/Slovak Republic; A. Sovinc)

Study prepared at the request of the Federal Ministry of Environment, Youth and Family Affairs - Republic of Austria.

CIP - Katalozni zapis o publikaciji Narodna in univerzitetna knjiZn.ica, Ljubljana 502.4(4) BRUNNER, Robert Transboundary protected areas in Europe I [Robert Brunner in collaboration with the EUROPARC Federation (FNNPE) and the World CoJJIIDission on Protected Areas (WCPA) of the World Conservation Union (IUCN) I. - Ljubljana : IllcN/WCPA "Parks for life" Coordination Office, 1999 Avtor naveden v kolofonu 1. Gl. stv. nasl. 104344064

Robert Brunner, in collaboration with the EUROPARC Federation (FNNPE) and the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) of the World Conservation Union (IUCN)

Parks for Life: Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe

Study prepared at the request of the Federal Ministry of Environment, Youth and Family Affairs - Republic of Austria

Final Report

Ljubljana, November 1999 The author and contributors to this publication, members of the IUCN/WCPA and EUROPARC Federation, would like to thank the Federal Ministry of Environment, Youth and Family Affairs - Republic of Austria for the support in the preparation of this publication. Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

FOREWORD result, several protected areas have been destroyed. Our hope now is that In 1994 Parks for life - the WCPA ac­ greater cross-border co-operation can tion plan for Europe has defined 30 pri­ be used to rebuild relationships, for the ority projects, which could cover the benefit of people and to help conserve requirements of tools and instruments nature. This study is a particularly for the authorities, protected area timely contribution to the process of managers, and environmentalists. rebuilding peace in our continent. Transboundary co-operation was one ofthese themes. We gratefully acknowledge the assis­ tance of the Austrian Federal Ministry Arbitrary national boundaries do not of Environment, Youth and Family Af­ define the extent of landscapes and fairs. We are grateful too for assistance ecosystems worthy of protection. They from the EUROPARC Federation and do, however, influence the quality of from the various protected area ad­ nature conservation because this is ministrations, without whom this study affected by differences between na­ would not have been possible. tional legislation on different sides of the border. While Robert Brunner states in this re­ port that not every protected area could This study analyses the situation of be included, this does not detract from protected areas across the boundaries the value of the study. However, of European States, lists successes WCPA would like to improve the data­ and shortcomings, and gives valuable base of cross-border co-operation in advice as to how co-operation between protected areas. We therefore appeal protected areas can be improved and to all protected area administrations, enhanced. and all organisations involved in nature conservation, to inform the author of The first such effort in cross border co­ this study of any new cross-border operation began in 1932 between Po­ schemes for co-operation in conserva­ land and Slovakia: Today some 200 tion and to draw his attention to places European protected areas adjoin pro­ where such co-operation is desirable. tected areas in neighbouring European The updated results will be made states and this number is constantly available over the Internet. increasing. Through this study, IUCN's World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) wishes to raise standards in the management of cross-border parks and encourage more such co­ A. Phillips, operation. The author, Robert Brunner, WCPAChair has proposed certain minimum re­ quirements that ought to be fulfilled by all transboundary protected areas. Naturally, this does not exclude more extended, detailed agreements. M. Zupancic-Vicar, WCPA Regional Vice-chair In South East Europe, recent conflicts have put a considerable strain on in­ ternational relations. Some neighbours have even become enemies, and bQundaries have been redrawn. As a Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

SUMMARY pean Action Plan of the IUCN: "Parks for Life". Austria has extensive expe­ Purpose rience in the area of international co­ operation between protected areas. Transboundary protected area coop­ The Neusiedler See - Seewinkel, and eration is an important precondition for Thayatal national parks are two im­ the preservation of comprehensive portant protected areas cooperating and complex ecosystems of the closely with their partners. The recom­ mendations prepared which are to be larg~t size possible. Most activities discussed by WCPA are for this rea­ in field of nature conservation are the son of significance for nature conser­ restricted to individual countries or re­ vation in Austria. gions. However, natural environments are not, limited to borders. This is es­ pecially true in Europe with its many Facts small countries and thus a proportion­ ately high number of borders which Borders are always barriers that have are exactly those regions of great eco­ to be overcome. Different languages logical diversity-mountain ranges, riv­ and cultures, different political systems ers, continental lakes, ­ and socioeconomic conditions may which form borders. The conservation separate individuals living on each side of such natural sites is necessary on of these borders. C. SHINE of the both sides of the border, and in­ IUCN Commission for Environmental cludes, if possible, a coordinated sys­ Law has clearly shown the effect that tem of conservation. borders can have on protected areas and how to overcome them, at least at local levels, through cooperation. The For many years, EUROPARC and creation of protected areas extend­ IUCN have exerted numerous efforts to promote transboundary protected ar­ ing, "free of borders", into two eas and to coordinate international co­ countries, will still remain an "eco­ operation. This study is aimed at col­ logic;;il utopia" for some time to come. lecting and utilising present experience with transboundary protected areas, This study would not have been possi­ and analysing existing models of trans­ ble without the cooperation of a num­ boundary cooperation. ber of experts from the protected area administrations, who enabled us to In order to achieve a high standard of obtain data by providing us with infor­ cooperatiof1"'8cross borders, minimum mation, documents, photos and by fill­ standards as well as international ing out the questionnaire. criteria and guidelines for trans­ boundary protected areas should be Seven reports on practical experience defined. Similar to IUCN criteria for with transboundary cooperation, four protected areas, and as- guidelines for case studies and 79 questionnaires the implementation of transboundary were used for this study. ln this con­ protected areas, they should ensure text, it seems that despite many con­ high quality cooperation. tacts and common projects, regular cooperation guaranteed by con­ By supporting this study, the Austrian tracts between protected areas is Federal Ministry of Environment, not yet the norm. Youth and Family Affair~ has made an important contribution to the Euro- Common monitoring of protected areas

2 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

on both sides of the borders under must be placed on such protected common administration still meets with area systems. refusal today. Cooperation is particu­ larly intense when it does not involve In collaboration with neighboring coun­ actual implementation, for example, for tries, it is important to plan, from the the exchange of staff. A satisfadory very start, the location of protected solution is still far from being reached areas near borders. The same is true for important tasks such as jointly for cultural landscapes which should be prepared management plans. developed in a way that natural re­ sources are used carefully and ex­ However, the questionnaire has also ploited in a sustainable manner. With shown that there are still many cases regard to this point, the conservation of of closed borders and borders under natural and cultural landscapes is only high surveillance. development of at a preliminary stage. the regions is thus hindered and the habitat of the fauna is restricted. The competent authorities should pro­ vide the principal conditions for trans­ Results boundary cooperation. To achieve sat­ isfactory results, it is necessary ·to de­ This study concludes with recommen­ fine minimum standards and criteria dations for future transboundary for such cooperation in the framework cooperation between the European of legal agreements. Planning is not protected areas. Not only should it the only concern, but also continued guarantee efficient cooperation in the monitoring of the protected areas. area of nature conservation, but it also aims at providing an essential con­ We live in an age where ratings are tribution for the promotion of border important For this reason it is advis­ regions and improved relations be­ able to highlight successful cooperation tween countries and their inhabitants. between protected areas by giving awards. The setting up of a large-scale net­ work of protected· areas has gained Countries are urged to preserve pre­ increasing importance. The Pyrenees cious habitats in border regions are a good example as well as the through appropriate conservation plans and concepts for the Drau and strategies. To this effect, final recom­ Mur river systems. Such networks and mendations have been elaborated for corridors can make an important con­ the future designation of protected tribution to guaranteeing biodiversity areas, emphasising the need for a and the habitats of far migratory spe­ transboundary guarantee of valuable cies. In the Mure, more importance natural sites.

3 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)



1.1 Purpose 6

1.1.1 Parks for Life - Action Plan for Protected Areas in Europe 6 1.1.2 Project 22- Support to Transboundary Protected Areas 6 1.2 Objective of the study 7 1.3 Working Group 7

1.4 Organisation 8

2. TERMS AND DEFINITIONS 9 2.1 Borders 9 2.2 Transboundary Protected Areas 10 2.3 Transboundary Cooperation 10 3. INVENTORY 12

3.1 Transboundary cooperation in protected areas: a survey of literature 12 3.2 Transboundary cooperation in Europe 14 3.2.1 Example 1 - Mount Blanc: an international protected area 15 3.2.2 Example 2-Nature conservation at the Balkans 16 3.2.3 Example 3 - Bialowieza National Park: 50 years of efforts for transboundary cooperation 17

3.2.4 Example 4- Biosphere reserve, the North - the 17 3.2.5 Example 5 - Drau and Mur: multilateral cooperation for the conservation of a river ecosystem 18

3.2.6 Example 6 - The Green Belt of Fennoscandia- transboundary cooperaion between Finland, Norway and Russia 19

3.2.7 Example 7- the Hohe Tauern National Park: the organisation of national cooperation 20

3.3 Case study of transboundary cooperation in Europe 21 3.3.1 Case Study 1: the Pyrenee National Park- the Ordesa-Monte Perdido National Park 21

3.3.2 Case Study 2: thia German-Luxembourg Nature Park 23 3.3.3 Case study 3: the Saxonian Switzerland National Park - Protected Landscape Area of Labske piskovce 25

4 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

3.3.4 Case study 4: the Strandja National Park- Protected Area in Turkey 27 3.4 Guidelines for Transboundary Protected Area Cooperation 28 3.4.1 IUCN Guidelines for Transboundary Protected Areas at the Global Conference " - A Vital Force for Peace" 1988 28

3.4.2 Recommendations from the Conference on "Biodiversity Conservation in Border Regions in Europe in 1995" 31

3.4.3 Recommendations from the Transborder Protected Area Cooperation Workshop in Australia 1995 31

4. SURVEY OF TRANSBOUNDARY PROTECTED AREA COOPERATION 33 4.1 Data collection 33 4.1.1 Statistics of the Protected Areas 33 4.1.2 Survey 34 4.2 Evaluation of the Survey 35 4.3 Summary of the Most Important Outcomes 42 5. RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THE REVISED VERSION OF THE GUIDELINES ON TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION 43 5.1 Guidelines for Transboundary Protected Area Cooperation 43 5.2 Guidelines for the designation of Transboundary protected areas 47 5.2.1 Transboundary cooperation to safeguard peace 47 5.2.2 Transboundary cooperation in Mountainous Regions 48 5.2.3 Transboundary cooperation in marine areas 48 5.2.4 Transboundary cooperation in the River Ecosystems 49 5.3 Examples for Future Transboundary Protected Area Cooperation 49 5.3.1 Protected Areas for the assurance of good neighbourly relations 49 5.3.2 Protected Areas in the Mountains 49 5.3.3 Marine Protected Areas 49 5.3.4 Conservation of River Ecosystems 50 6. ANNEXES 6.1 List of areas with transboundary cooperation 51 6.2 List of countries 73 6.3 Questionnaire 74 6.4 Recommendations - the IUCN/WCPA European RegionalWo.rking Session 77 6.5 Bibliography 82 6.6 Table of Protected Areas 88 Illustrations 131

5 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

1. INTRODUCTION an important task in the implementation of protected areas in Europe is to as­ cribe importance to all categories of 1.1 Purpose protected areas within the entire sys­ tem in order to guarantee the conser­ 1.1.1 Parks for Life- Action Plan for vation of the most important natural protected areas in Europe and cultural landscapes. This in turn prevents detrimental competition Since 1994, the "Action Plan- Parks for among the more "attractive· categories. Life" prepared by the World Conserva­ The protection required for our habitats tion Union (IUCN) in collaboration with . and the life-sustaining structures can the EUROPARC Federation (formerly only be guaranteed when all categories FNNPE) has been published in a num­ are integrated in a balanced relation­ ber of countries in Europe and is rec­ ship to each other, adapted to the ognised as a guideline for the con­ structures of the individual countries. It servation of natural and cultural land­ was actually in Central Europe, where, scapes. In this manner, a long over­ over the past few years, the creation of due, all-European approach to issues national parks was an important objec­ related to protected areas should be tive of the conservation policy, inde­ promoted. In some regions of the con­ pendent of whether the conservation tinent, . national parks, nature reserves targets and measures corresponded to as well as protected landscapes make international criteria for national parks. up an impressive network, however, in However, other categories of protected other regions they are a long way away areas were often neglected. from meeting the very demanding re­ quirements necessary for the conser­ For the implementation of the "Action vation of natural and cultural land­ Plan for Europe", thirty projects have scapes with regard to management been identified for preparation in the and size. Cooperation in these areas, future and will provide an important ba­ particul<=trly beyond the European Union sis for conservation work. This requires borders is currently insufficient. Until the active cooperation and financial now, EUROPARC has been working support of all European countries. towards such cooperation, throughout Europe. 1.1.2 Project 22- Support to Trans- boundary Protected Areas Sustainable conservation of natural and cultural landscapes can only be The objective of Project 22 of this "Ac­ achieved through: tion Plan" is to help safeguard interna­ public awareness of its importance tional cooperation and its continued in individual countries as well as at development among protected areas. the European level a guarantee of global conservation Transboundary protected area coop­ organisation o'f the areas in accor­ eration is an important precondition for dance with conservation objectives the preservation of comprehensive and and their administration and defi­ complex ecosystems of the largest size nition under legally binding terms possible. Such cooperation has already the integration cf the areas into a existed for a long time between many comprehensive system in which all protected area administrations. It categories of protected areas have should not be forgotten that such co­ their place. operation is often based on good per­ According to EUROPARC and IUCN, sonal contacts and often dependent on

6 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report) individual persons. cooperation across borders, minimum standards as well as international cri­ Most activities in the field of nature teria and guidelines for transboundary conservation are restricted to individual protected areas should be defined. countries or regions. However, natural Similar to IUCN criteria for protected environments are not limited to bor­ areas, they should guarantee high ders. This is especially true in Europe quality cooperation as guidelines for with its many small countries and thus the implementation of transboundary a proµortionately high number of bor­ protected areas. ders which are exactly those regions of great' ecological diversity-mountain For the first time in 1988, an attempt ranges, rivers, continental lakes, wet­ was made to assess the importance of lands- which form borders. The con­ transboundary protected areas for in­ servation of such natural sites is nec­ ternational understanding and the as­ essary on both sides of the border, surance of good neighbourly relations and includes, if µossible, a coordinated in the framework of the Global Confer­ system of conservation. ence on Tourism in Vancouver. One result of this conference was the This project mainly concentrates on preparation of the first set of guidelines habitats in . border areas separating for transboundary·cooperation. previously different political systems in Europe (the former " Curtain" In the European Action Plan "Parks for countries). as these areas are the very Life", the need to examine, review and ones that are endangered today due to broaden these basic guidelines was (economic) development. mentioned and defined as a priority project within the context of the pre­ For many years, EUROPARC and vailing circumstances in Europe. IUCN have exerted numerous efforts to promote transboundary protected ar­ By supporting this study, the Austrian eas and to coordinate international co­ Federal Ministry of Environment, operation. Throughout recent years, Youth and Family Affairs has made an the development of the idea of "Parks important contribution to the European for Peace" has continued to develop as Action Plan of the _IUCN "Parks for a means of protecting valuable natural Life". Austria has extensive experience sites in conflict situations. in the area of international protected area cooperation. 1 The Neusiedler See This study is aimed at collecting and - Seewinkel, and Thayatal National utilising present experience with trans­ Parks established in the Fall of 1997 boundary protected areas, and ana­ are two important protected area~ co­ lysing existing models of transboundary operating closely with their partners. cooperation. This is applicable for Likewise, the proposed Kalkhochalpen boundaries between countries as well National Park and the Berchtesgaden as within countries, where the National Park would also constitute a division of responsibility requires co­ transboundary project for nature con­ ordination at the national level as well servation. as agreed measures.

1 In May 1997, the Austrian Federal Ministry of 1.2 Objective of the study Environment, Youth and Family Affairs or­ ganised a conference on the topic of "(lnter)­ In order to achieve a high standard of national Nature Conservation."

7 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

1997 in Sellin, Rugen). In addition, Presently, many other protected areas there were numerous written commu­ in Austria situated along borders, al­ nications and telephone contacts be­ ready have transboundary cooperation tween the working group members on projects-such as the areas of Ram­ specific points. sar; March and Inn or the Geschrie­ benstein Nature Park, or are preparing 1.4 Organisation them such as in the case of the plan­ ning of protected areas in the south­ This study commences with a definition east limestone or in the area of of borders and transboundary pro­ Lainsitz-Trebon located between tected areas. They are described in Lower Austria and the . chapter two. In this context, the dis­ tinction between transboundary pro­ For this reason, the guidelines and tected areas and transboundary coop­ minimum standards elaborated in this eration is examined. study with regard to international co­ operation in nature reserves are also a Chapter three contains the inventory set of important instruments for pro­ which is derived from a survey of avail­ tected area administrations in Austria. able literature, a description of existing cooperation between European pro­ 1.3 Working Group tected areas, experience gained in this context and the case studies carried The entire job was accompanied by an out in the framework of these projects. international working group which in­ The analysis of the currently available cluded: recommendations concerning trans­ boundary cooperation are included in Marija Zupancic-Vicar (Slovenia), Vice­ the inventory. Chair of the WCPA for Europe, IUCN representative; For this study, the experience of pro­ Marie-Octile Guth (), Director of tected area administrations in the field the Mercantour National Park, for the of transboundary cooperation was col­ EUROPARC Federation; lected by means of a questionnaire. Following her appointment· to the The assessment of this questionnaire French Ministry of Environment, as of is included in chapter 4 and provides October 1997, Patricia Rossi (Italy), the basis for the recommendations. Director of the Parco Regionale della Alpi Marittime, represented Guidelines and standards for coopera­ EUROPARC. tion between protected areas are pre­ Dr. Jan Cerovsky (Czech Republic), sented in chapter five. As in the case ECOPOINT Foundation, member of of the IUCN criteria for protected areas WCPA; expert for transboundary co­ they should be understood to be broad operation in particular for Eastern outlines for the assurance of high qual­ Europe; ity transboundary cooperation. They Mag. Viktoria Hasler (Austria), Federal will provide the basis for further discus­ Ministry of Environment, as represen­ sions within the WCPA. tative of the sponsor. The sixth chapter is an overview of fu­ The Working Group discussed the ture cooperation. In this section rec­ project during the period from 20 to 22 ommendations are formulated to de­ June 1997 in Mallersbach, Austria and termine where in Europe protected ar­ at the European Regional Conference eas of a transboundary magnitude are of IUCN/WCPA (8 - 13 November possible and necessary.

8 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

BLASCHKE notes, • ... the river as the boundary of a country is a contradiction 2. TERMSAND in itself, as a river links the territory that it drains. River basins are natural areas DEFINITIONS for settlements ... ." This is all the more true, as river basins are also natural Borders are also barriers that must be area units. overcome. Different languages and cultural groups, different political sys­ However, borders do not only separate tems, economic and social circum­ political systems and countries. De­ stances can separate people who live centralised administration in many on different sides of a border. This European countries has lead to a more section describes the effects of borders extensive division of responsibility and on ecosystems and how they can be has resulted in more difficulties in the overcome through cooperation. designation of extensive protected ar­ eas beyond internal borders. 2.1 Borders Nevertheless, the location of borders is According to K BLASCHKE borders in of no insignificant importance for the a geographical and political sense, conservation of our ecosystems. In­ separate habitats of similar categories deed, many European and non-Euro­ such as natural areas, climate zones, pean protected areas are located in settlement zones, territories, economic border regions where there are moun­ 2 zones, linguistic areas ... . Whereas po­ tain ranges or rivers, which although litical borders-although they are par­ they are natural regional units, form tially being eliminated today-are visible borders in a geographical sense clearly defined and (for the most part) and rendering access difficult. They fixed by treaties, the borders of natural lack large economic centres with large areas3 are unclear, fluid, and depend­ land requirements and dense trans­ ent on the background of the observer. portation networks. Thus, certain categories of habitats do not necessarily coincide with geologi­ In addition, for many years the "Iron cal-morphological areas, limestone Curtain", the rigid border between the Alps are a subcategory of the Alp area, world superpower blocs, was an im­ climatic zones overlap various natural pediment to economic development area units. and a settlement policy along the bor­ ders throughout Europe. Development was concentrated on respective eco­ nomic and social centres; meanwhile Only in rare cases do political borders the areas on both sides of the East­ correspond to natural borders. West Border located in the heart of Europe were relegated for decades to peripheral areas with few chAnces of 2 K. BLASCHKE (1969), "Environmental Plan­ development Despite many ~upport ning and Border Formation in Saxonian His­ tory. In: Factors Determining Borders in programmes (grants for border territo­ History" Hannover Quotation by F. HEIGL ries, border zone areas etc.) these re­ (1978) gions lost a large proportion of their 3 In this context, it is worth noting the fact that population due to migration. in the first century B.C., Silvanus, was not only considered to be the god of the , The peripheral location, the low density but also the god of political borders. of the habitat and the lack of de-

9 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

velopment pressures created, at the same time, optimal preconditions for At the same time, the national (in­ the preservation of the greatest possi­ ternational) border constitutes lhe bor­ ble ecological diversity in many areas. der of the influence area of national (regional) legislation and thus the po­ In this regard, A. FESTETICS (1990)4 tential influence area of the responsible writes: "The valuable natural potential, protected area administration in accor­ left intact, and life-friendly, outweighs dance with its responsibilities. and offers the only chance to form a Also in the case whereby the ecosys­ network of nature reserves at the tem or the natural area is protected to European level... and this not only ap­ a large-scale on both sides of a border, plies to the prohibited zone of former legal requirements for conservation, East which, on the average, management and administration of the is 1,346 km long and 5 km wide for a area differ in accordance with the re­ total surface of 673, 000 ha." spective national legislation. (ill.2)

2.2 Transboundary Protected In this case, problems regarding Areas agreements, duplication of work and higher financial expenditures may oc­ A number of attempts have been made cur because of two separate authori­ to define transboundary protected ar­ ties. eas. McNEIL (1990) summarised the essential objectives and advantages of 2.3 Transboundary Coopera­ transboundary protected areas: 5 tion

a reduction in political tensions Only, regular cooperation would im­ and/or the guarantee of peace prove the situation (ill. 3). This model of the efficient management of natural cooperation is currently the most wide­ resources and the environment spread. an improvement in the economic As will be demonstrated, the legal situation of a region framework for cooperation, the sub­ the safeguarding and guarantee of jects treated jointly and the frequency cultural values and occasionally, of contacts vary greatly. Quite often, · the protection of the population of the quality of cooperation is dependent the border regions on good personal contacts and suffers Protected areas at national borders or from personnel changes in administra­ at interstate borders - in the case of tions. federal states - do not necessarily have their equivalent in the neighbouring ter­ The mechanisms presented for con­ ritory. Different protection objectives or sultation lead to more easily crossed an uncoordinated designation, over borders. This form of cooperation can time, of protected areas along common not be taken for granted in every region borders lead to what, C. SHINE has of Europe and is often the first, difficult qualified as the legal status of border step towards the rapprochement of two protected areas (ill. 1) countries.

4 In : OKOLOGISCHE BAUSTEINE (Environ­ The responsibility of an initial theoreti­ mental Building Blocks), 1990, Munich 5 cal approach falls to the national sov­ definitions further elaborated according to C. ereignty of the given protected area. SHINE (1997) (ill. 4 ).

10 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

In this case, national borders with all of eral transboundary protected areas) the resulting consequences are pushed forming separate administrative units back to the borders of the protected and as each one of them can exist areas. Management and monitoring are autonomously-at least from a legal carried out in accordance with common and administrative point of view, it is guidelines and legal provistons under a more accurate to speak of trans­ joint administration. The protection of boundary cooperation in protected ar­ the Antarctic best corresponds to these eas rather than transboundary pro­ objectives-in this case several na­ tected areas. tional authorities share common objec­ tives. L. HAMIL TON (1996) has arrived at a similar conclusion in his results from One of the few exceptions is the Da­ the workshop concerning protected nube Auen National Park in Austria, area cooperation, particularly in which was only established in 1996, mountainous regions. and extends over the provincial terri­ tory of Vienna and Lower Austria. In this case, a joint administration was established, the legal framework (laws and decrees) is identical in meaning; management plans are to be estab­ lished in accordance with uniform cri­ teria. In any case, in addition to the administration of the national park, the forestry administration has a strong and legally based co-determination right.

It is not without reason, that C. SHINE characterises this "ideal situation" of a uniform territorial administration of a transboundary protected area, as an ecological utopia. Although this ideal case is desirable, it is not yet realisable in Europe under current political and administrative circumstances. As will be demonstrated, joint administrations of protected areas are currently re­ fused by the majority. 6

However, a preliminary stage of this ideal· situation of cooperation, institu­ tionalised to the broadest extent pos­ sible has been achieved in some pro­ tected areas (ill. 3) But as this coop­ eration includes two protected areas (and possibly even several in multilat-

6 Cf. the analysis of the questionnaire in Chapter 4

11 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

3. INVENTORY protected areas in 65 countries throughout the world, including 23 in Europe. Already at that time, it was The first transboundary national park was established between the USA and stressed that our continent had a high potential for the creation of new trans­ Canada in 1932; in the same year, fol­ lowed the establishment of the first bi­ boundary protected areas, because of lateral protected area in Europe with the small-scale size of European coun­ tries. Pleniny (Poland and Slovakia) which is also a national park today. Trans­ In 1994, "Parks for Life", the Action boundary cooperation has increased proportionately in relation to the num­ Plan for Europe of the IUCN has al­ ber of protected areas. ready enumerated 42 transboundary protected areas in Europe. The poten­ However, cooperation is not always tial has not yet been exhausted. free from problems. In particular in Not all of the conclusions drawn con­ some eastern and southeastern Euro­ pean countries, political reticence, his­ cerning "Parks on the Borderline" can torical separation lines and social ten­ be directly applied to the situation in Europe. The importance of a coordi­ sions must be overcome. For this rea­ son, the experiences of adm.inistrators nated management effort for a careful and the on-site administrations of the joint utilisation of natural resources is indisputable. Also the contribution of protected areas are important to be peacekeeping measures to harmony able to more easily comprehend the difficulties hindering open cooperation. amongst peoples in the sensitive bor­ der regions of Europe can not be un­ derestimated, particularly in times of T.he third section begins with an analy­ political tensions in certain regions of sis of studies and research available. This is followed by a presentation of our continent. It will be difficult to pre­ the experiences of protected area ad­ serve large stretches of unpopulated territories in a Europe characterised by minist~a.tions and nature conservancy a relatively densely populated border authorities at the national-level, which region. were assembled on the occasion of the European regional conference of The different levels of development of IUCN/WC.PA (1997). Subsequently, countries are particularly obvious at the case studies, analysed for the needs of this study, are presented. border and lead to additional ex­ ploitation pressures (lower land prices, Finally, guidelines existing to date, for better possibilities of exploiting natural resources through cheaper labour and transboundary cooperation were sum­ less rigorous legal provisions, currency marised and critically assessed. needs of the reform countries, and the need to catch up in the area of infra­ 3.1 Transboundary coopera­ structure, for example in the construc­ tion in protected areas : a tion of transport links. survey of literature In a study in the framework of the For the study "Parks on the Borderline" FNNPE (now the EUROPARC), at the first global conference on tour­ BURELL (1988) analysed the situation ism entitled "Tourism - A Vital Force of past cooperation of transboundary for Peace" in 1988 in Vancouver, the protected areas in Europe. The IUCN examined 70 transboundary sources did not specifically list the

12 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe {final report) names of the regions studied, but cooperation, this was followed by the noted that: declaration in 1932 of the two pro­ tected areas as international Peace four transboundary protected areas Parks. But it was not until the early 70s (eight nature and national parks) (LIEFF and LUSK, 1990), that these cooperate under a legal basis (co­ concrete measures lead to efficient co­ operation agreements, international operation. treaties) in four other areas, there is exten­ Cooperation also requires a similar or a sive cooperation however without joint view of specific problems of pro­ any legal framework tected areas in European regions. The in two areas with four parks, there varying historical backgrounds of pro­ was limited cooperation concerning tected areas and - possibly also differ­ some specific subjects ent legal definitions of protection objec­ in four parks, there was no coop­ tives can make cooperation difficult. eration with adjoining protected ar­ eas. BURELL admitted that-at least in 1988-good personal relations were As BURELL notes, the reason for this, the best basis for cooperation across could be that there was not one single borders. In such cases, even bureau­ protected area in Europe which was cratic structures are easier to over­ originally planned as a transboundary come. BURELL is critical of the differ­ protected area. However, long before ent organisational structures in pro­ the establishment of transboundary tected areas along borders, due to for national parks, Poland and the former example, different authorities (private Czechoslovakia were engaged in in­ properties-state-owned properties) or tensive negotiations for bilateral pro­ different provisions concerning protec­ tected areas, based on the 1924 Pro­ tion (different obligations and interdic­ tocol of Cracow which recommended tions on both sides of the border). the designation of protected areas in the border area, citing the cooperation In August, 1932, the Pieniny nature re­ between Canada and the USA as a serve (today a national park) between model (JANOTA, 1988). Slovakia and Poland, was created as the first transboundary protected area The first transboundary national park, in Europe. Waterton Lakes in Canada and the Glacier National Park in Montana The Slovakian National park, Hohe (USA) which became the first interna­ Tatra was granted protection status in tional protected area, was known as a 1954, but it required another six years "Peace Park". Also this excellent ex­ for the Polish part of the T atra ample of transboundary cooperation (JANOTA, 1988). Cooperation between began in the form of two separate pro­ the Polish and Slovakian territorial ad­ tected areas. Waterton (Canada) was ministrations includes the conservation granted protection status as a forest and promotion of nature through joint reserve in 1895 and was declared a observation of damage incidents as national park in 1.911 .. One year earlier, well as visitor orientation. the Glacier National Park (USA) was Due to the separation of the Czech established. Republic from· Slovakia in 1993, the An idea which dates back to 1931, was national boundaries of protected areas the establishment of an international suddenly became international bounda­ peace movement and the promotion of ries of transboundary nature reserves.

13 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

A bilateral agreement was signed for tional parks where probably coopera­ the establishment of a biosphere re­ tion currently functions at best. serve in the White Carpathians (JONGEPIER, 1995). Good CO· However, transboundary protected ar­ operation already exists here, at the eas are not only located between scientific level. countries. Even protected area cross­ ings over regional borders within a The National Park in Saxonian Swit­ country require administrative rules, in zerland and the adjoining Labske the case whereby governments at the piskovce protected area on the Czech­ regional level, rather than at the na­ German border7 (7) are examples of tional level, are responsible for ad­ transboundary cooperation between ministering the protected areas. different categories of protected areas. HENTSCHEL and STEIN (1996) con­ Transboundary protected area coop­ sider that the institutionalisation of co­ eration can be very diversified: often operation on a legal basis is an im­ informal contacts of a personal nature­ portant criteria for the successful man­ and personal commitment- are the agement of protected areas. Both starting point for cooperation that only maintain cooperation is only successful partially results in legally-based agree­ if the protected area categories are the ments. same on both sides of the border and their designation has been coordinated That does not mean a priori that insti­ over time. tutionalised cooperation is better or more efficient, but rather that it is eas­ D. MIHALIC & M. SYROTEUK from the ier to impose decisions taken jointly Glacier-Waterton international Peace when they are based on cooperative Park, consider that what is important in agreements. cooperation across borders. is the joint and thus efficient, application of meas­ In any case harmonisation problems ures for the conservation of our natural can occur. They can arise, for exam­ environment. To this effect, the objec­ ple, from circumstances whereby tives in all parts of transboundary pro­ neighbouring protected areas are in­ tected areas must be defined in a ho­ cluded in different categories of con­ mogenous manner. servation due to the respective regional legal statutes and/or the specification 3.2 Transboundary coopera­ of conservation regulations are not tion in Europe harmonised over time. Such problems of harmonisation can concern zoning, territory monitoring, or conservation Natural areas and ecosystems are not provisions, among others. If the speci­ restricted to man-made borders, like wise far migratory movements of spe­ fication of protected areas has not cies require an extensive habitat and been coordinated over time, then the the crossing of borders. In order to en­ protected area specified subsequently sure sufficient conservation for habi­ is obliged to adapt its regulations to those of the site already in existence. tats, it is necessary to have similar fauna and flora on both sides of the An agreed procedure over time would borders. This holds true for all catego­ have in some cases, probably lead to ries of protected areas, not just for na- better regulations and results.

7 At the European Regional IUCN/ cf. the case study in this chapter, as well WCPA Conference held in Sellin,

14 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

ROgen, Germany, participants from all over Europe reported on their expe­ 3.2.1 Example 1 - Mount Blanc: an riences in transboundary cooperation in international protected area8 Europe, during a workshop. Contrary to Africa, North America and This knowledge gained directly from Asia, where the highest mountains practical work is very important assis­ (Kilimanjaro, Mt. McKinley, Mt. Everest) tance in the elaboration of practice­ have been declared protection sites, oriented guidelines for protected area high quality protection of this trilateral cooperation. mountain range is lacking with the ex­ ception of a protected landscape area The following examples were selected in France. to demonstrate international coopera­ tion involving different territorial cate­ There is a considerable strain on this gories, levels of work and political cir­ mountain region. Millions of tourists cumstances. spend their summer or winter holidays in this region and approximately 2,200 Example 1, the Mont Blanc protected lorries pass through the Mont Blanc area demonstrates a case of joint tunnel everj day on the average, re­ transboundary planning, example 2, sulting in air and water pollution. the presentation of protected areas in the Balkans, a case where nature con­ With the idea of a protected area in the servancy work is carried out under dif­ Mont Blanc region, the obvious con­ ficult basic political conditions. flicting interests between nature con­ servation and economic projects par­ Example 3, the Bialowieza National ticularly winter sports and the de­ Park at the Polish-Byelorussia border, velopment of tourism rose to the sur­ is a description of the situation in re­ face. Nowadays, the International form countries of Eastern Europe Committee for the Protection of Mont where nature conservation activities Blanc, no longer pursues the objective suffer because of economic circum­ of a national park, which according to stances, whereas example 4 is an il­ public opinion, would involve a protec­ lustration of nature parks (North Vos­ tion status, which could hinder ariy de­ ges-the ) which form velopment. However, it is important to a transboundary biosphere reserve that have an international protection status crosses over borders. with the participation of all three neigh­ bouring.countries. Example 5 is concerned with a multi­ lateral river-ecosystem along Drau and Mur shared by five countries, example 6 includes a cluster of protected areas at the Finnish-Russian border, which are important for the conservation of natural in Scandinavia.

Example 7 represents the special case of the Hohe Tauern national park which 8 The documents were provided by demonstrates the decision-making DOMINIQUE RAMBAUD, Centre Interna­ structure of a protected area within a tional pour la Conservation des Montagnes, country with shared political responsi­ France. (International Centre for the Conser­ vation of Mountains). bility.

15 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in E:urope (final report)

10 The requirements have already been at the border with Bulgaria , the Prok­ specified: letije National Park mountain range which was to have been established in the protected area should be in­ 1998 and joined to the protected area ternational in Montenegro and Albania, and the it should be sufficiently large ( ap­ Skadar Lake, and even the national prox. 3,200 km2 )and subdivided park at Skadar Lake for which currently into zones with different levels of there is no equivalent conservation site protection in Albania. protection provisions, already in existence, should be improved Included in the protected areas be­ the local population should be in­ tween the former Yugoslavian Repub­ volved in the development of the lics are the Shar mountain ranges with area. the neighbouring Mavrovo National Park in the former Yugoslavian Re­ The working group "Espace Mount public of Macedonia; the Durmitor Na­ Blanc" (the Mont Blanc area) has tional Park adjoining the Sutjeska Na­ stipulated four points to be imple­ tional Park in Bosnia-Herzegovina; the mented: Tara National Park with the future Drina National Park in Bosnia-Herze­ management of a particularly sen­ govina, as well as the Upper Danube sitive ecosystem basin, an integral part of a large wet­ promotion of "green" tourism land complex represented in Croatia by strengthening and renewal of the Kopacki rit protected area. mountain solving the transportation problem The intensity of cooperation between the areas mentioned varies: 3.2.2 Example 2 - Nature conserva­ tion at the Balkans9 There was little or no cooperation with Albania concerning the Skadar Lake11 Joint protected areas of the countries, which is also the Ramsar territory, the originating out of the former Yugosla­ Durmitor National Park and the pro­ via, have been recently added to the posed national park of the Prokletije transboundary protected areas that mountains. Here, there were initial Yugoslavia shares with several neigh­ contacts between experts from both bouring countries. countries in 1994, but without any con­ crete results to date. Among the first ones: the Selevenj Formal and official contacts exist be­ (with the adjoin­ tween the Derdap National Park, the ing border area, which is a part of the Tara National Park and the protected 12 Kiskunsag National Park in Hungary), areas in the Danube basin and the the Derdap National Park which adjoins respective neighbouring regions. a nature reserve in Rumania, the re­ cently designated protected nature re­ serve of the Balkan mountain range 10 This protected area is also designated as a Peace Park in Bulgaria. 11 According to information from Albania, in­ formal and unofficial contacts exist among 9 The documents were provided by JASMINKA NGOs MILOSEVIC of Yugoslavia. 12 cf. example 5 (section 3.2.5)

16 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

Cooperation with Hungary which has in 1961.The principal theme was safe­ existed for more than 20 years, was guarding the habitat of the European strengthened in 1994 through an offi­ bison. Until 1981, contacts were espe­ cial protocol. The protected areas are cially limited to the scientific level, but monitored in accordance with a joint these were broken off until 1990 be­ management plan, negotiations are cause of the political situation in Po­ currently in process to facilitate border­ land. crossings in protected areas. Since 1990, each Park Director is a Cooperation with Hungary is a model member of the scientific advisory coun­ for the protected landscape area of the cil for the other protected area; in 1991, Balkan mountains which is to become a cooperation treaty was concluded at a biosphere reserve. An inter-state co­ the ministerial level. operation agreement was concluded with Bulgaria in 1995. Concerning the The situation on-site is still unsatis­ Shar mountain range, scheduled to be­ factory. A two-meter high fence serves come a national park as of 1998, a as a border and represents an insur­ protocol was signed concerning coop­ mountable obstacle for the European eration with the former Yugoslavian bison as well as an ecological barrier Republic of Macedonia. between the two protected areas.

3.2.3 Example 3 - Bialowieza Na­ Today cooperation functions at the sci­ tional Park: 50 years of efforts entific level, exhibitions are exchanged for transboundary coopera­ and information material is jointly pro­ tion13 duced. In any case, this cooperation is especially based on the good personal The virgin forest zone of Bialowieza contacts between the two Directors. covers an area of 150,000 ha. In ac­ Any change in personnel could render cordance with the decisions of the cooperation more difficult. Yalta Conference, this forest was di­ vided between Poland (62,500 ha.) and 3.2.4 Example 4- Biosphere­ the Soviet Union (currently Byelo­ reserve, the North Vosges­ russia) with 87,500 ha. the Palatinate Forest: An ex­ perience in transboundary Since 1991, this part constitutes Be­ cooperation14 lovezhskaya Pushha, the first Byelo­ russia National Park. Both North Vosges (ca. 120,000 ha.) and the Palatinate forest Nature Parks The 10, 502 hectares of the Polish part (ca. 180,000 ha.) were the forerunners form a national park, and the other land of this transboundary biosphere re­ surface is being used for sustainable serve. In 1996, the political represen­ forestry in line with nature conservation tatives of the region decided that the objectives. Although, initial contacts establishment of a biosphere reserve were established between the two was the most important task of the neighbouring protected areas as early transboundary cooperation. as 1946, close cooperation only began Transboundary activities include regu-

13 The documents were provided by 14 The documents were provided by ROLAND CZESLAW OKOLOW, National Park at Bia­ STEIN, Germany and EMANUEL THIRY, lowieza, Poland. France

17 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protectec;l Areas in Europe (final report) lar meetings of scientific bodies of both 3.2.5 Example 5 - Drau and Mur: protected areas and intensive contacts multilateral cooperation for the con­ of personnel. The main goals are: servation of a river-ecosystem 15

the promotion of sustainable eco­ The Drau and Mur river system forms tourism to improve the income level one of the largest and unspoilt river of the region landscapes, which exists in Central the promotion of sustainable agri­ Europe. It stretches from the Austrian­ culture including biological farming Slovenian Mur-Auen alluvial forests and direct commercialisation until the mouth of the Drau and ex­ environmental watching (GIS, en­ tends into five countries: Austria, Slo­ dangered species ... ); venia, Croatia, Hungary and Yugosla­ the establishment of adequate in­ via. stitutions for joint environmental training and awareness-building Upstream from Bares, the Drau alters its course a number of times between Although a high level of cooperation Croatia and Hungary. The resolution of has been reached and both parties the Hungarian government, to change were also represented in the decision­ the alluvial forests on the Danube and making committee of the other party as the Drau into a national park, was an well as the fact that public relations important decision for the conservation work was pursued jointly, there were of this ecosystem. nonetheless also problems: The Mur which is partially formed along the language barrier is the main the national border between Hungary obstacle to cooperation and Croatia as well as Croatia and the different administrative struc­ Slovenia, often alters its course be­ tures obstruct prompt decision­ cause of its slight slope. In Slovenia, making this landscape should be protected by the populations of the border re­ a regional park. Finally, Austria also gions have a problem of cultural has a part of the Mur, which forms the identity, furthermore, recent his­ state border with Slovenia in the pro­ torical events have brought on ad­ tected landscape area of the alluvial ditional burdens forests of the Mur. demanding developmental pro­ grams can be very burdensome for Already for a number of years now, those concerned, for this reason, there have been plans to use the lower first of all, the necessary structures reaches of the Drau for the production for cooperation must be created of hydro-electrical energy. Studies transboundary cooperation almost conducted along the Danube in Aus- always generates conflict situa­ tions, thus the· intervention of trained coordinators from both par­ ties is required.

Experience shows that cooperation functions best when both partners are equally matched, occupy similar rank­ 15 ing positions in their respective coun­ The documents were provided by MARTIN tries and possess similar levels of in­ SCHNEIDER-JACOBY . (EURONATUR), Germany fluence.

18 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final (eport) tria 16 as well as the consequences re­ Only in some cases, are there equiva­ sulting from the construction of a hy­ lents to these protected areas on the dro-electrical power plant at Gabcik Russian side. ova have clearly demonstrated that the with the resulting side effects Discussions were held with the Nature would constitute an obstacle to the dy­ Conservation Academy of , Ger­ namism necessary for the conservation many on the establishment of a "Green of alluvial forests. Here, this case in­ Belt Fennoskandia". The results of the volves solving a multilateral conflict of 1997 workshop were the following: interest. the presentation of all protected Granting the status of a high level pro­ . areas along the Russia border with tected area for the entire riverceco­ Finland and Norwal° system complex from Austria to the the realization that this territory mouth of the Drau is not only a chal­ ·belongs to .~he outstanding natural lenge in nature conservation for the European Heritage and that some five bordering countries, but also for all areas satisfy the criteria of the of Central Europe. Apart from the com­ Convention for the World Heritage prehensive strict conservation of parts the conclusion that the nomination of regions, a sustainable use of natural as a natural World Heritage only resources should be facilitated, iii the represents a part of the long proc­ form of a biosphere reserve within the ess for nature conservation and framework of UNESCO criteria. sustainable development the recognition, that as a World 3.2.6 Example 6 - The Green Belt of Heritage, the region of theGreen ·F~nnoscandia- transboundary Belt would benefit in social, eco­ cooperation between Finland, nomical and ecological ways. Norway and Russia 19 This Green Belt region also meets re­ To the north of Finland at the borders quirements for the establishment of with Norway and Russia, today there clusters or networks of protected areas already exists a dense and diversified of different categories and corridors in protected arE!a system, which also cor­ order to minimise threats to biodiversity responds to existing or proposed pro­ and to ensure enough space for far mi­ 21 tected areas in the neighbouring coun­ gratory species. tries. Further along the border between Finland and Russia up until the Finnish gulf there are a number of small pro­ tected areas of different categories

16 The Danube Auen National Park (1991 ), Report of the hydraulic engineering plan­ ning group- of alluvial forests, Vi­ enna 20 One such map (a coloured copy) and the 19 The documents including the map on the accompanying protocol was prepared and following page were provided by RAUNO then made available by the Naturschutz­ VAISANEN, Finland, other documents were akademie (The Academy of Nature Con­ provided by the NATURSCHUTZ­ servation), Vilm AKADEMIE VILM, Germany 21 CEROVSKY, ed. (1996)

19 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

3.2.7 Example 7- the Hohe Tauern Directors for consultations and con­ National Park: the organisa­ sists of managers of the three National tion of national cooperation Park Administrations (the National Park Directors) and a representative of the In Austria, nature conservation comes Federal Ministry. This committee meets under the responsibility of the prov­ 4 to 6 times a year. Its tasks are to ad­ inces. The Hohe Tauern National Park, vise the National Park Council and to which is located in the three provinces coordinate regional activities of the na­ of Carinthia, Salzburg and Tyrol comes tional parks. Its responsibilities are laid 24 under the jurisdiction of three different down per standing order . The Board provincial legislation. The Republic of of Directors can take decisions, inde­ Austria contributes approximately 50 % pendently, up to a specified financial of the entire costs of the National Park ceiling. through the Federal Ministry of Envi­ ronment, Youth and Family Affairs. The The affairs of the National Park Council financing and the Federal Govern­ are managed by the Secretariat of the ment's right to co-determination have National Park Council and include the 22 been fixed by a State treaty of 1994 . preparation, coordination and ap­ This treaty stipulates the competent plication of resolutions; the organisa­ committee ·for the co-ordination of the tion, coordination and carrying out of trans boundary and joint tasks. scientific and ecological studies which exceed the regional level and the The National Park Council consists of preparation and implementation of the the Federal Ministry of Environment, annual programme of the National Park Youth and Family Affairs as well as Council - and in conjunction with the members of the provincial government Board of Directors- the preparation of from the three provinces concerned long-term developmental programmes with national park matters. Every two aimed at obtaining international recog­ years, the chairmanship changes nition of this National Park. hands among the provincial represen­ tatives. The tasks of the National Park A scientific advisory council was set up Council include representation of the to provide specialised scientific advice national parks externally, the coordi­ to the Committee. A research concept nation of plans and measures with was determined on 31 January 1997. cross-boundary impact, the harmoni­ sation of conservation objectives, pro­ A decision-making council including motion programmes and public rela­ participants of the three provinces con­ tions work, as well as the co-ordination cerned was also established at the na­ of scientific projects. Its activities are tional level. The board of trustees of meetings are held annually. the National Park includes members of the respective provinciiijl administra­ The National Park Council may have tions, representatives of the munici­ recourse to the National Park Board of palities qnd landowners as well as rep­ resentatives of the National Park ad 22 Agreement in accordance with Article 15, " B-VG" between the Federal Government and the provinces of Carinthia, Salzburg and Tyrol concerning cooperation in matters of the protection and promotion of the Hohe 24 Standing order of the National Park Board of Tauern National Park, the Civil Code of the Directors for the Hohe Tauern National Province. 178/1994 Park, concluded on 31 January 1997.

20 Robert Brunner Ttansboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report) ministration. Members of the advisory council include: interest group repre­ 3.3.1 Case Stud)'. 1: the Pyrenee Na­ 26 sentatives, representatives of the mu­ tional Park - Ordesa-Monte nicipality, and landowners. In addition, Perdido National Park27 scientific advisory councils will be es­ tablished at the regional level. The Pyrenee National Park was estab­ lished in 1967, the Spanish Ordesa/ The three regional park administrations Monte Perdido National Park has al­ assure the monitoring of the three parts ready existed since 1918. Both national of this National Park which have a to­ 2 parks together have a total area of tal area of 1, 787 km forming the larg­ 60,000 ha., 45,700 ha. on the French est transnational protected area unit in side, 15,600 ha. in Spain. Both national Europe. parks were awarded the European di­ ploma of the Council of Europe, the 3.3 Case study of trans­ Ordesa National Park will probably boundary cooperation in soon be added to the natural World Europe Heritage list of UNESCO.

The working group which supervised Although the Pyrenees form a geologi­ this project proposed during its meeting cal and morphological unit, the moun­ tain range presents a difficult boundary of June, 1997, that four case studies be prepared in order to document ex­ for visitors to overcome. For this rea­ periences regarding transboundary son, there is very little tourism, across borders. Many tourists on their way to protected area cooperation. In this Lourdes, make a stop at the world fa­ context and in view of the various ob­ jectives set, the following trans­ mous Gavarnie circus. Although, their boundary protected areas were se­ stay in the National Park area is short, lected: this flow of visitors, constitutes a con­ siderable local strain, especially for the 1. Cooperation between national Gavemie Circus. On the whole, the parks: National Pyrenee Park has approxi­ Example area: the Pyrenee Na­ mately 1.5 million visitors and the Ordesa National Park has approxi­ tional Park (F)- the Ordesa- Monte Perdido National Park- (E) mately 500,000 visitors. 2. Cooperation between Nature Parks: Since the establishment of the French Pyrenee National Park, cooperation Example area: the German-Lux­ between the administrations has func­ embourg Nature Park (the Nature Park of Luxembourg -the South tioned very well-- on a friendly and Nature Park) collegial basis; since the enlargement 3. Cooperation between protected ar­ of the Ordesa National Park in 1982 eas of different categories: both protected areas share a 15 km. long common border. The national Example area: the Saxonian Swit­ parks are, however, only one part of a zerland National Park (D) - Labske

piskovce protected landscape (CZ) 26 4. Neighbouring protected areas with· The survey in the Pyrenee National Park was undertaken with the support of TRI BOT out any co-operation: LASPIERE. Example area: the Strandja Na­ ZI The survey at Ordesa National Park - tional Park (BG) - protected areas Mount Perdido was undertaken with the (TR). support of LUIS MARQUINA MURLANCH.

21 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report) diversified conservation strategy in the Pyrenees. Both national parks are interesting models which are to be recommended More than 160 protected areas have because of the involvement of their re­ been identified in the Pyrenee region, spective partners in decision-making especially along the central zone. In bodies. As the French regulation addition to national parks, nature stipulates the granting of one seat on parks, nature reserves, biosphere re­ the Board of Directors as well as one serves, coastal protected areas, pro­ vote, to a representative of the Spanish tected habitat areas, natural monu­ national park appointed by the French ments, special classified protected ar­ Minister of the Environment, it is, in eas and hunting reserves have been particular, an example to be followed. established. The three national parks - This Board of Directors is the political further to the East is the Aigues Tortes­ supervisory body which includes the Estany Sant Maurici-are the espe­ competent Parisian Ministers (as rep­ cially protected core zones of a large­ resentatives of the State administra· scale protected area system. 28 tion) and local authorities as well as regional political representatives (ap­ In 1988, a Charter of Coopera­ prox. a total of 50 members). The tion/Carta de cooperacfon29 was Board meets twice annually. signed to provide the framework for cooperation. This charter defines: At the Spanish "Patronato", the equivalency of the French Board, a common objectives (conservation French representative may participate of the natural area, visitor informa­ in meetings, but his/her functions are tion, contributions for regional de­ limited to an advisory capacity and thus velopment); he/she has less influence than his/her procedures for the implementation Spanish counterpart. of common objectives the implementation of concrete In addition to transboundary coopera­ measures tion, an unresolved issue is how to in­ clude the other existing protected ar­ The Spanish national park already has eas within the framework of the joint a management plan; on the French work of the national parks. In Spain, side, it should be finished by 1997 tak­ due to the current distribution of re­ ing into consideration the preliminary sponsibility, the influence of national conditions of the Spanish national park parks is rather limited. However, the administration. One of the joint meas­ situation could change with planned ures is the limiting of access possibili­ modifications regarding competence for ties at the border, to enable fewer visi­ the conservation of nature in Spain. In tors to enter directly into the core zone the interest of global conservation of of the national park. On the Spanish this landscape area and in view of the side, in the high season of July and fact that it is desirable that the different August when there are approx. categories of areas be incorporated 400,000 visitors, parking capacity has into a comprehensive system, as called been restricted to a maximum of 450 for by IUCN/WCPA automobiles, since 1987.

28 cf. map - ill. 12 29 The Ordesa and Monte Perdido National Park and the National Park of the Pyrenees

22 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

for pedestrian seeking relaxation and 33 3.3.2 Case Study 2: the German­ the development of areas for hikers . Luxembourg Nature Park (the Na­ ture Park of Luxembourg -the South In accordance with Article 4, a com­ Eifel Nature Park)31 mission was constituted as a common body, to which each party to the treaty The South Eifel Nature Park, the Ger­ delegates four members. This com­ man part of the German-Luxembourg mission submits proposals concerning nature park was established in 1958 future organisation of the nature park and is the third oldest nature park in and the coordination of mutual meas­ terms of the Federal Republic. During ures to the governments of both coun­ the period from 1958 - 1971, the area tries. It meets twice annually. The or­ of the nature park was progressively gans of the union are the Board of Di­ 2 enlarged to 431 km . In 1963, five rectors, the assembly of members and years later, at the initiative of the or­ the working committee. ganisation for the conservation of na­ ture, the German-Luxembourg nature The European Diploma awarded by the park was established as the first trans­ Council of Europe, points to the suc­ boundary nature park in Western cess of the work carried out. The di­ Europe. The part belonging to Luxem­ ploma was awarded for the first time in bourg amounts to 359 km2 out of a to­ 1973 to a large relaxation zone and 2 tal of 791 km · important holiday place, and this award has been renewed continuously ever The administrator is the association of since. the German-Luxembourg nature park According to the definition presented which is composed of the South Eifel 34 Nature Park association and the Lux­ by H. BURGER , nature parks are embourg section of the European As­ "large cultural landscapes, areas of ex­ sociation for Eifel and the Ardennes. ceptional aesthetic attraction, a result of the interaction between man and Cooperation between both states con­ nature. They provide man with an area cerning the affairs of the nature parks for relaxation and are preserved thanks have been fixed through a State treaty, to careful land-use as well as land­ concluded on February, 1965, between scape conservation measures. The the states of Rhineland and Palatinate preservation of historical places as well 32 and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg . as folklore and regional art traditions count among the objectives for the In accordance with Article 2 of this conservation of nature parks." In this State treaty, the contracting parties are context, nature park administrators are committed to preserving the character also striving to represent such an area of the landscape in this region and to as a system of interconnection be­ promoting its quality as a place of rec­ tween nature and utilisation by man, reation. Article 2 (2) expresses agree­ which has evolved over centuries, has ment to ease the crossing of borders been subject to constant changes as a

31 The survey was carried out with the support of ROBY LENERTZ, GEORGES THEIS (both from Luxembourg) and HANS-BERND KANZLER, Germany. 33 The border control between Germany and 32 Law Gazette and Decree for the Rhineland­ Luxembourg was stopped 10 years ago. Pfalz, No. 7/1965 dated 24 February 1965 34 In: National Park 76 (3) 92. Grafenau

23 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

habitat, economic centre and relaxation environment. area. The nature park lies in the immediate However, there are also significant vicinity of the German-Belgian Hohes differences between both parts of the Venn-North Eifel Nature Park. Coop­ nature park. The association of the eration between both parks concerning South Eifel Nature Parks presently has coordination of objectives, measures 60 employees as well as a budget of and public relations work is recom­ nearly 2.4 million ECUs. For this rea­ mended. son, the association also represents an important economic factor in the re­ gion. The part of the nature park in Luxembourg is striving to reach a comparable position on the economic market. Such efforts may be demon­ strated by current initiatives in quality tourism, the preservation of family farms and the guarantee of income from farming, an improvement in re­ gional infrastructure and the promotion of the conservation of nature and the environment. Joint activities concern:

the establishment of transboundary educational including the establishment of bridges at borders for pedestrians and cy­ clists. the creation of joint cultural and nature discovery itineraries joint planning of transboundary nature res.erves within nature parks joint production of video films and maps of trails Nature and environmental infor­ mation signs concerning the scen­ ery of nature parks focused on the problems '6~.'.'tourism and the con­ servation of the natural and cultural heritage';.

Hov.:ever, real transboundary tourism is still relatively restricted, in the view of the South Eifel Nature Park admini­ stration, this is especially because of the lack of a marketing concept. The number of visitors is about one million tourists, However, there are no or only very few negative effects on the natural

24 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

3.3.3 Case study 3: the Saxonian fields regarding the prevention of air Switzerland35 National Park­ pollution, the protection of water, land the Protected Landscape Area as well as nature, and the conservation of Labske piskovce36 of landscapes including the protection of forests." The objective among oth­ The Saxonian Switzerland National ers, is "the protection, conservation 2 Park (93 km > is embedded in ca. and development of diversity in keep­ 275km 2 of the large Saxonina Swit­ ing with to the site of the animal and zerland Protected Landscape Area plant species, their communities and and directly borders on the Czech Lab­ their habitat" (art. 1 (2) c). ske piskovce Protected Landscape 2 Area (ca. 97 km ). For some time now, The provision of article 3 is also im­ there has been a concept for the es­ portant for the development of both na­ tablishment of a Czech National Park in tional parks, "The contracting parties, the - mountains, how­ determine by common agreement, ever, the relevant parliamentary reso­ zones specially classified for the pro­ lution has never materialised due to tection of the environment and land­ basic political conditions. scapes in border regions ... "

The concept of the Czech national park Much has been done in recent years has already been coordinated with the for the improvement of transboundary existing German national park. The cooperation. It should not be over future administration of the national looked that, both protected areas share park can build on the good trans­ a 66 km. long common border, of which boundary cooperation already in exis­ 23 km. constitute the border of a na­ tence and bilateral planning. A part of tional park. To improve information for the Labske piskovce protected land­ visitors, border crossings have been scape area will become a national facilitated and signs along trails are park, the rest of the territory will remain provided in two languages. Scientific a protected landscape area with a monitoring was carried out at the same sustainable use and will continue to time and under the same basic condi­ form a transition or buffer zone of the tions39, cooperation functions at all lev­ national park. els of the administration, nonetheless, communication problems were not in­ In October, 1996, a cooperation significant. For this reason, the national agreement in the area of environmental park administration in Konigstein has conservation was signed between plans to conduct language classes for 38 Germany and the Czech Republic . its staff this winter. Article 2 calls for "the parties to the agreement to cooperate especially in The headquarters of the German na­ tional park administration is to be transferred to , where a 35 The survey was carried out with the support of JURGEN STEIN, Saxonian Switzerland National Park. 36 The survey was carried out with the support of WERNER HENTSCHEL, Labske piskovce Nature Reserve. 38 In October, 1996, an agreement concerning cooperation in the area of environmental 39 J. CEROVSKY finds that different, national protection was signed between Germany classification systems always presents and the Czech Republic. problems. (personal communication, 1997).

25 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report) common information centre will be cooperation in the conservation of opened. This centre will also provide nature. Relevant agreements are information to Czech visitors in their necessary at the governmental national language. Presently, several level. hundred thousand people visit the Transboundary cooperation is only German national park annually (more feasible if partners of the same exact figures were not available); two rank are involved. It implies har­ to three million people were registered monisation of the categories of in the Czech protected landscape area protected areas, their size, as well with a larger proportion of German as a timetable for the establishment tourists, while at the Saxonian, Swit­ and development of transboundary zerland National Park, only about 1O % protected areas. of the visitors are Czech citizens. - Transboundary cooperation re­ quires communication in one lan­ One should not loose sight of the fact guage. That is why, the knowledge that, despite the good personal coop­ of the language of the area of the eration between both directors of the partner must be encouraged. National Parks and the Czech pro­ Transboundary cooperation must tected landscape area, there are still be concerned with the entire spec­ weaknesses in transboundary coop­ trum of tasks and must be imple­ eration which can be reduced through mentation-oriented. Preparation the establishment of a Czech national and evaluation of joint work sched­ park. The competence of the respec­ ules are recommended. tive administrations varies, handicap­ Cooperation should exceed the ping the execution of decisions; con­ usual tasks and also concern per­ cerning the financial means of both sonnel, technical and financial protected areas, a comparison is not means. Transboundary areas even possible. This also has an effect should strive to obtain private as­ on personnel and the equipment of sistance and international grants. both administrations. A joint budget for Transboundary transboundary tasks would seem to be should not necessarily lead to the warranted. opening of border-crossings in the core zone of the protected areas. At a conference held in Chribska, the Transboundary protected areas Czech Republic, 40 the directors of both should not only be satisfied with protected area administrations consid­ uniting the natural area, but also ered the following to be required ur­ both nations. The promotion of gently: good friendly contacts is required of all staff in the transboundary pro­ Transboundary cooperation in the tected areas. conservation of nature should not be dictated from "top to down" by higher authorities, rather it must be embedded in the protected areas themselves and developed gradu­ ally. There must be a political will and political support for transboundary

4-0 vide CEROVSKY ed. (1996)

26 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

3.3.4 Case study 4- the Strandja Na­ this subject. 42 tional Park - Protected Area in Turkey In 1998, two meetings at high govern­ mental levels are planned with Turkey, The Strandja National Park in the most at which cooperation in the Strandja southeast part of Bulgaria was classi­ mountains will be discussed. The pro­ fied as a protected area of category V. tected areas both sides of the border Out of the entire area (116, 136 ha.), are to be visited during excursions. 4.6 % fall in the nature reserve areas of However, as of October 1997, the category I A, 4.4 % of the protected ar­ meetings had not been officially con­ eas of category V and 0.2 % concern firmed. historical sites. This area has little importance for in­ The National Park extends from the ternational tourism, the few tourists in Black Sea to the highest peak of the ·Turkey on, illlternational highway routes, Strandja, the Gradisheto (710 m). Most are seldom interested in the services. of the area (60 %) lies between 200 This area is primarily of interest to sci­ and 600 m. above sea level, only 2 '% entists, ornithQlogists, ·and · conserva­ is over 600 m. high. tion adrvists ~s well as for hunting.

The two municipalities in the national The Ropotamo territory with an area of park have a population of approxi­ 10,600 hectart:i.11 is an internationally mately 10,000 people who are distrib­ well-known huritii;ig area located in the uted amongst 20 communities. The north of the Nati9nal Park. About 1o % Malko Tarnovo international border of the territory is strictly protected and cros'sing into Tur!

27 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report) me". The following objectives have 3.4 Guidelines for Trans­ been achieved: boundary Protected Area The preparation of guidelines for Cooperation the establishment of management plans for the Strandja National Park On many occasions, the IUCN has Coordination and assistance to all dealt with the issue of transboundary institutions committed to the Na­ protected area cooperation in confer­ tional Park project. ences and publications, in 1988, guide­ Exchange of information with all of lines for transboundary cooperation the other protected areas in this between national parks were also pro­ area, in particular with the Ro­ vided, for the first time. In Europe, J. potamo territory CEROVSKY (1995, 1996) has been The production of information ma­ especially working towards further de­ terial velopment of such cooperation and in The establishment of a museum of particular taking into consideration East history and nature in the Strandja European countries in this regard. National Park in Malko Tarnovo. L. HAMIL TON (1996, 1997 and in coll. The Ropotamo territory was also in­ with J. THORSELL 1996) in his capac­ cluded in this international cooperation ity as an expert for protected areas in programme. The following recommen­ mountainous regions, has voiced his dations have been made: the estab­ opinion on transboundary cooperation lishment of a Ropotamo Regional Park in these areas. HAMIL TON has gath­ also incorporating the adjoining pro­ ered a multitude of practical experience tected area and a marine zone and the in transboundary cooperation, which establishment of a centre to dissemi­ should be taken into consideration in nate information about this natural area general criteria and guidelines. in order to strengthen understanding for the conservation of the area. In the following, the current recom­ mendations are listed and commented. The Strandja National Park and the This provides the basis for a proposal Turkish Strandja mountains have good for the revised and newly prepared chances of becoming one of the largest recommendations in chapter five. transboundary protected areas. But considerable work is still necessary in 3.4.1 Promoting Effective Manage­ this regard. As a first step, contacts ment of Transfrontier Parks with Turkey must be improved. Cur­ and Reserve Guidelines, pre­ rently, the relationship between both sented at the First Global countries is considered to have nor­ Conference on Tourism - A malised. However, transboundary co­ Vital Force for Peace (Van­ operation requires more than norma­ couver, Canada, October lacy. 1988)

Management of large natural areas is a complex process involving scientifi­ cally-~ased selection of key habitats, establishment of, objectives, definition of management steps required to attain the objectives, implementing action, monitoring results and feeding adjust-

28 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

ments back into the management sys­ tential additions and boundary ad­ tem. Managers usually regard their justments should be available to business of managing a park within na­ display the gaps. tional frontiers as difficult enough with­ out adding the complication of the co­ c) Formulate cooperative agreements operative effort required when dealing for integrated management of the with international frontiers. Although border park areas. Once border there are practical pressures and limits parks are recognised as areas of to what can be accomplished, the con­ special importance by govern­ servation benefits and political advan­ ments, the agencies concerned tages of border parks are worth the should develop a set of detailed extra effort. Without political and measures for cooperative man­ managerial commitment, border parks agement. This may involve ensur­ have no better hope of success than ing that management plans pre­ any other, but the very fact that these pared for each side are consistent, areas do meet on a border may be a that a working-level consultative contributory factor in ensuring that committee is established, law en­ commitment. forcement regulations are harmo­ nised, and other mechanisms are The following guidelines, prepared first designed to foster neighbourly re­ in draft and discussed at the First lations. As the sovereignty question Global Conference on Tourism - A Vi­ can often be a sensitive one, care tal Force for Peace (Vancouver, Can­ must be taken to avoid the infer­ ada, October 1988), are proposed to ence that such agreements imply promote effective management of relinquishing control over national transfrontier reserves: territory. Private associations (NGOs) should be encouraged to a) Review existing protected natural initiate action where government areas along the border of the na­ 'officialdom' is slow to act. tion. Each country should possess an c) Identify practical management ac­ inventory of shared natural sites tivities in border parks to facilitate along their frontiers such as wa­ more effective conservation. terfalls and mountain complexes Day-to-day concerns of the border and be aware of cross-border park field manger include law en­ movements of migratory species, forcement, search and rescue, bor­ tourism patterns and other trans­ der crossing points, indigenous boundary interactions populations, fire prevention, wildlife disease and re-introductions b) Examine potential border areas to among others. Close liaison with complement the existing protected park staff in the adjoining country is area system. necessary to address all of these Ideally, the boundaries of trans­ types of activities. Regular staff ex­ frontier parks are coincident and changes and compatible com­ incorporate the main ecological munication systems are two means values of the border area. More that are in operation in some border commonly, however, selection has parks. Special allowances to facili­ been based on other criteria and tate and accommodate sustainable boundaries either do not match up activities of resident human popu­ or do not include all the key bio­ lations should be given careful at­ physical elements. A map of po- tention.

29 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report}

jointly inscribed (Kluane and d) Design joint visitor use facilities and Wrangell-St Elias in the United programmes. States and Canada, and Mt. Nimba Trans-frontier parks can benefit in Guinea and Ivory Cost). In the from joint tourism marketing efforts spirit of the Convention, countries and also ensure that certain facili­ are encouraged to nominate their ties and publications can be shares adjacent reserves and consider and are complementary. Acting to­ joint nominations of others. Interna­ gether, border park administrations tional biosphere reserves and can better influence the location of Ramsar sites should be similarly and access to visitor facilities and pursued. development of areas adjacent to the parks themselves, thereby en­ The recommendations concerning hancing their role in regional devel­ transboundary cooperation from 1988 opment. Public education pro­ were essentially elaborated from im­ grammes can emphasise the sym­ portant governmental regulations and bolic message that international agreements [(a), c), g)]. They give the peace parks should represent. impression of international cooperation dictated and controlled from above [b)], e) Formulate cooperative research where the on-site administrations only programmes and share results. have an executive function. The guide­ Cost-savings and sharing of re­ lines were very formalistic concerning search results are potential benefits several points [g), c)]. of cooperative border park man­ agement. Clearances for customs The emphasis on the need to take into permits and exchange of bona fide consideration international agreements specimens con often be facilitated (whereby the World Cultural Heritage between adjoining park agencies. has been mentioned twice) and tourism marketing (for example visitor facilities f) Build on bilateral and international and training programmes) are clearly agreements related to boundary influenced from the objectives of the cooperation. World Tourism Conference in the Some countries have established framework of the guidelines presented special legal and administrative (a), e), g), h)]. commissions to deal with boundary questions (such as cross-border Only once was mention made of the poaching) and to promote good re­ regional development of the sur­ lations. The protected area agency roundings [e))), the local population should be familiar with these as was not at all included with the excep­ well as articles of international con­ tion of their activities concerning sus­ servation conventions that encour­ tainable regional development. age such cooperation (e.g. the World Heritage, Wetlands and Mi­ The guidelines were published in vol­ gratory Species Conventions). ume I of the IUCN Protected Area Pro­ gramme Series, with limited distribu­ h) Prepare joint nominations of border tion, and not well-known in professional parks meriting inclusion on the circles. World Heritage List. There are cur­ rently 16 natural World Heritage properties found along international boundaries. Only two of these were

30 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

3.4.2 Recommendations from the strations and the population at the Conference on "Biodiversity border zone Conservation in Border Re­ better exploitation across borders gions in Europe in 1995" of the transboundary information system ·At an international conference entitled the support of partnership pro­ "Biodiversity Conservation in Border grammes between transboundary Regions in Europe• which was held in protected areas in different regions the White Carpathians, the following of Europe recommendations were adopted: 46 These recommendations, which are the promotion of common under­ partially based on the 1988 guidelines, standing concerning language, take into consideration the· experience culture, history and science across of the protected area administrations. borders. Among others, they are dependant on the recognition of the importance of a wide dissemination of information Non-Governmental Organisations and public relations work aimed at in­ NGOs) and the media for trans­ creasing the awareness of the local boundary cooperation population of the importance of trans­ expediting more quickly, agree­ boundary copperation and improving ments at the state or federal level communication with the latter. It was the development of transboundary generally recommended that coopera­ measures at a regional level which tion at different levels be strengthene9, include biodiversity conservation such as for example, by entering ihto but also economic and cultural partnership$ with .other transboundary considerations. prote(;ted areas or. by creating local as­ international conventions as a sociations for the ·promotion of trans­ means of promoting cooperation bouri'tlary cooperation. · the preparation of joint training in environmental awareness and pub­ 3.4.3 Recommendations of the lic relations work on both sides of Transborder Protected Area the border. Cooperation" Workshop in · the support of sustainable tourism Australia 199547 which includes the local population and takes into consideration re­ The efforts of L. HAMIL TON regarding gional peculiarities. protected landscape cooperation in the establishment of local associa­ mountainous regions {1996; 1996 in tions for the support of trans­ coll. with J. THORSELL; 1997) were boundary cooperation and the de­ cited repeatedly. According to velopment of additional sources of HAMIL TON, important elements of co­ income, in order to improve inter­ operation and thus the basis for gen­ national cooperation. eral guidelines include the following: the dissemination, to the widest extent possible, of information con­ a common subject which staff and cerning successful examples of regional population can identify with transboundary cooperation. the establishment of common sub­ improvement in communication jects in the joint production of between protected area admini- maps, publications, etc. as a basis

48 quoted by J. CEROVSKY (1996) 47 printed in HAMILTON et al.

31 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

for a common marketing activity tional agreements and awards transboundary excursions organ­ cooperation with Non-Govern­ ised jointly . mental Organisations (NGOs) from re.gular meetings, seminars, and both sides courses for an exchange of experi­ provision of ample information to ence to improve understanding at political decision-makers of all all administrative levels countries or regions concerned joint scientific research and moni­ the participation of municipalities toring for a better and more eco­ concerned in decision-making nomical collection of comparable agreement at the national.· level data concerning the area between the competent govern­ harmonised or jointly elaborated ments or authorities in support of management plans transboundary cooperation international agreements concern­ ing mutual support particularly in These proposals are primarily based hazardous situations or the pre­ on the experience of practical every­ vention of illegal measures in pro­ day work and take into consideration tected areas the most important points regarding the the appointment of a body for the 1988 Guidelines as well as the de­ handling of all issues of common mands formulated in 1995. An addi­ interest with the assistance· of ail tional, noteworthy contribution made by protected area administrations HAMILTON was to illustrate all de­ - the long-term appointment of a mands with positive examples taken full-time coordinator from real life. cooperation in issues of interna-

32 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

4. SURVEY OF TRANS­ culties were encountered con cerning data collection in certain eastern and BOUNDARY PRO­ south-eastern European countries. TECTED AREA CO­ It was even rnore difficult to collect data OPERATION about proposed protected areas and future transboundary cooperation. In For this study, in coordination with the 48 the case where administrations had not Working Group , a survey was carried yet been established, the responsible out of all those protected areas where planning authorities were contacted. transboundary cooperation exists, is The information available was pre­ assumed or has been proposed. The sented in the following table. The in­ outcome of the survey, especially con­ formation was taken into consideration cerning the quality, deficiencies and in the assessment, if the documents scope of cooperation should be taken available were found to be qualitatively into consideration in the recommenda­ satisfactory and planning was at an tions and guidelines for future trans- advanced stage. boundary cooperation. · The results were saved in an address 4.1 Data collection database, the most important contents are provided in the table of trans­ As proposed by the EUROPARC Fed­ boundary protected areas in the annex. eration and the WCPA, not only should transboundary cooperation between In Europe, 198 protected areas form 89 national parks be surveyed, but also transboundary natural area units with other protected area categories and protected areas along borders or in cultural landscapes (for example the close proximity. These 198 sites in­ biosphere reserves, Ramsar areas) clude 158 existing protected areas and should be included. 40 in the planning stages. (Out of these 40, 13 are adjoined to existing pro­ 4.1.1 Statistics of the protected tected areas. The remaining 27 units areas out of the 40, constitute 9 bilateral pro­ posed protected areas with trans­ As a first step, the official services in boundary cooperation ( 18 individual charge of nature conservation and the areas) and 3 trilateral proposed pro­ protected areas in European countries tected areas with transboundary coop­ (ministries, nature conservation serv­ eration (9 individual areas)). ices, environmental organisms etc.) were contacted and requested to pro­ vide the list of protected areas at country borders (or the proximity thereof) and the addresses of contact persons. Further sources of information were members of the WCPAJ IUCN, protected area administrations and available literature especially reports from relevant conferences. Sortie diffi-

48 Cf. Section 1.3

33 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

Table 1: Transboundary protected arei:is and cooperation in Europe*)

Cooperation Bilateral Trilateral Multilateral Total

Exists with existing or Number of coopera- 61 15 1 77 orooosed orotected areas lions Exists with existing or Number of individual 122 45 4 171 orooosed orotected areas reoions Planned with proposed Number of coopera- 9 3 0 12 orotected areas lions Planned with propo-sed Number of individual 18 9 0 27 orctected areas reoions

*) Cooperations are in normal print, proposed cooperations in italic

with the international working group. All Seventy-seven cases out of the 89 administrations and authorities in Ger­ transboundary protected areas involve man speaking countries received a cases of cooperation with either an German version of the questionnaire, existing protected area or a proposed all of· the others received an English protected area, at the minimum, with translation of the questionnaire.

After a second request for the ques­ the planning work at already an ad­ tionnaires to be returned, a good return vanced stage. rate was reached.

The remaining twelve cases are con­ It was not possible to obtain contact cerned with planning, their implemen­ addresses for all of the competent ad­ tation can not yet be projected. In the ministrations in the case of all pro­ table in the annex, the twelve cases of tected areas. In 22 areas ( 11.1 % ) proposed transboundary cooperation which are still in the planning stages, with their total of 27 individual regions there is not yet an administration, in 11 are highlighted in grey. cases (5.6 %), no address could be found. Therefore, 165 protected area The 77 cases of protected area coop­ administrations or the next higher eration include 61 bilateral cases of authority received a questionnaire. cooperation ( 122 units), 15 trilateral cases (45 units) and one case of mul­ Five out of the 91 questionnaires re­ tilateral cooperation involving four pro­ turned (52 %) were concerned with tected units. pure planning projects, and thus they were not exploitable, four question­ 4.1.2 Survey naires were returned because they were not deliverable, in three cases the Subsequently, all of the administrations information was not made available on 49 were sent a questionnaire , Which was data protection grounds and the prepared in collaboration amount of work involved in filling out the questionnaire. Therefore, 79 ques­ 49 The questionnaire is contained in the An­ tionnaires were available for analysis. nex. Jointly with the seven case studies, 86

34 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report) out of the 171 protected areas could be Concerning the evaluation of coopera­ included in the analysis. (50.3 %). tion (question 4) and future recom­ mendations (question 9), all of ques­ The situation improves even further, if tionnaires have been analysed (n =86, one assumes that transboundary co­ in the ideal case) in order to clearly re­ operation can be assessed in the case cord the estimate of the subjectivity whereby at least one partner involved variance. in the transboundary cooperation work, returned the questionnaire. In this case Area cateoories (out of a total of 77), 56 transboundary units or 72. 7 % could be analysed. 142 (83 %), out of 171areas were clas­ sified accorqing to IUCN category 4.2 Evaluation of the Survey criteria (afoas which were not classi fied includ~ protected areas which are Not all questions of the questionnaire too small, baVe .only been established were answered in all cases. For this in recent years or are in the planning reason, the respective size of the ref­ stage.) erence group (the number of replies) was provided. ·The reference group was 56 in the ideal case. Concerning the evaluation of the survey, in all cases of two or more protected areas cooperating across borders, the ques­ tionnaires were compared and a plau­ sible reply was chosen each time. In the ideal case, the replies were similar, however, the replies often differed where they did not involve quantifiable estimates.

35 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

Table 2: Protected areas according to category

Category I 12 7.0% Category II 58 33.9% Category Ill 1 0.6% Category IV 12 7.0% CategoryV 59 34.5% Non-categorised 29 17.0 % Total 171 100%

36 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

Duration of cooperation. in percentages.

On the average, transboundary coop­ The legal framework was handled eration has existed for almost 14 years jointly on a regular basis in 13.6 % of (n =37). the cases, from time to time in 30.3 % of the cases, whereas in 56.1 % of the Type and form of cooperation cases, this subject was not handled jointly to any extent. In general, the In 27 cases or 52.9 %, cooperation handling of legal issues was under­ was based on written agreements stood as the concern of the respective (n=51), these agreements range from countries (states). No less than 59.4 % governmental resolutions to bilateral are reported to be satisfied with this agreements at the level of protected situation. areas. Regular contacts were only made about the harmonisation of manage­ Concerning the form of cooperation, ment plans in 11.5 % of the cases, there was a choice between four pos­ about guidelines in 11. 5 % of the sibilities, multiple choices were al­ cases, whereas only 6.1 % work regu­ lowed. 49 protected areas answered larly on joint management plans. Con­ (n=49). Cooperation is legally based in sultations were held on an irregular ba­ 20 cases or 40.8 %; institutionalised in sis about harmonisation in 32. 7 % of 25 cases (51.8); informal in 30 cases the cases, about common standards in (61.2 %), and based on personal 25 % and about joint management and/or private contacts in 24 cases or plans in 10.2 % of the cases. 49.0%. In contrast, 55.8 % of the cases had not undertaken any harmonisation ef­ forts, 63.5 % do not have any common guidelines, 83. 7 % do not have any Frequency of contacts joint management plans. However, 60 % respectively are satisfied with the situation of the harmonisation of man­ The question concerning, the fre­ agement plans or common guidelines. quency of contacts was answered in 45 The lack of cooperation in the prepara­ cases. Two or 4.4 % of the protected tion of joint management plans was areas did not have any contacts with only found to be unsatisfactory in 64.7 the adjoining protected area, contacts % of the cases. were regular in 20 cases (44.4 %), and on demand in 16 cases (almost 35.6 There is hardly any regular cooperation %). The remaining administrations only in the implementation of management had irregular contacts (7 cases or 15.6 measures. Although most European %). protected areas have a high proportion of forests, fl"Qular cooperci~iqn con­ Frequency and quality of cooperation in cerning fPrlil~ts issues was only re­ the area of responsibility of the pro­ ported in 4.9 % of the cases (29.5 % tected area administrations reported occasionally), and concerning agriculture, cooperation was reported Not all of the points related to this to be on a regular basis in 1.6 % of the question were answered by all of the cases and occasionally in 17.5 % of the administrations. Due to population dif­ cases. his is the situation, although ferences, this assessment was shown cultural landscapes or biosphere re-

37 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report) serves were included in the survey. of the cases. This is seen as unsatis­ Concerning game regulation, 12.3 % factory in 60.0 or 71.4 % of the cases. cooperate on a regular basis and no 8. 1 % deal with administrative tasks less than 26.3 % of the cases on an regularly, 4.8 % occasionally, and 87.1 occasional basis. %- never. 53 % are satisfied.

The situation concerning the manage­ Education and training of staff is car­ ment of wild animals and plants is ried out on a regular basis in only 7.8 somewhat better. In 11.1 % of the % of the cases, occasionally for 35.9 % c~ses, measures are implemented and never in 56.3 % of the cases. jointly on a regular basis while on an However, regular exchange of staff occasional basis for as high as 49.2 % was reported in 10.9 % of the cases, of the cases. Concerning scientific occasionally in 32.8 % of the cases and monitoring, 19 % have regular contacts non-existent in 56.3 % of the cases. and 39.7 % have occasional contacts. However, 39.3 % or 58.1 % are satis­ fied. Conversely, that means that there are no contacts for forestry in 65.6 % of the Research and scientific work are cases, for agriculture in 81.0 % of the clearly an interesting area for joint cases, for game regulation in 61.4 % of work. In 16.9 % of the cases, this oc­ the cases, for the management of wild curs on a regular basis, in 58.5 % of animals and plants in 39.7 % of the the cases- occasionally and never in cases and for scientific monitoring in only 24.6 % of the cases. 62 % found 41.3 % of the cases. this to be sufficient. Information, bro­ chures and publications are prepared The level of dissatisfaction with this jointly on a regular basis in 12.3 % of cooperation is proportional: 55.2 % for the cases; occasionally in 66.2 % of forestry; 71.4 % for agriculture; 65.5 % the cases and never in 21.5 % of the for game regulation; 53. 7 % for man­ cases. The level of satisfaction in this agement of wild animals and plants; case is 58.5 %. and 55.0 % for scientific monitoring. There are personal contacts on a Visitor infrastructure was only jointly regular basis in 38.2 % of the cases, managed in 8.2 % of the cases, occa­ occasionally in 54.4 % of the cases and sionally in 27.9 % of the cases (not at never in only 7.4 % of the cases. In all in 63.9 % of the cases). 55.6 % contrast, the administrations cooperate considered this to be unsatisfactory. with the local population in the neigh­ Joint visitor information including bouring region on a regular basis in guided tours are reported to occur on a only 7.8 % of the cases, occasionally in regular basis in 19.7 % of the cases, 43.8 % of the cases and never in 48.4 occasionally in 45.5 % of the cases and % of the cases. 45.4 % of the cases not at all in 34.8 % of the cases. This found this to be Sll!tisff!ctory. situation was reported to be satisfac­ tory for 64.9 % of the cases. Concerning iflttrnational a~reements and conventions (eg. joint efforts for Joint management and a joint budget recognition of European diplomas and are not subjects discussed. Reguli;ir about issues related to the convention consultations on these subjects were for protected species etc.) contact was only carried out in a few cases (7.9 or made on a regular basis in 16.4 % of 3.2 %); occasionally in 15.9 or 9.7 % of the cases, occasionally in 39.3 % of the cases and never in 76.2 or 87.1 % the cases and never in 44.3 % of the

38 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report) cases, 55.6 % reported to be satisfied 22.2 % reply with a no and 11 .1 % did with this situation. not know.

Possibility of free interchange across the border

Open borders are a characteristic of good ,neighbourly cooperation. For wild animals, the free interchange across the border is an indispensable condi­ tion for transboundary protected areas. The border situation also characterises the neighbourly relationship between the two countries.

The border of the respective countries are open in 31.9 % of the cases (n=47), controlled in 40.4 % of the cases and closed in 27.7 % of the cases. There is however the possibility for tourists to cross over the border into protected areas or into areas near protected areas in 69.4 % (n = 49) of the cases. Incidentally, the average share of visitors who visit the protected areas including transboundary ones, are almost 1O % of the entire number of visitors.

In any case, 17.8 % of all protected ar­ eas still contain obstacles (n = 45) which prevent a free interchange of wild animals, by way of fences, fortifi­ cations, etc. This portion seems in re­ ality to be small, but is however, not satisfactory.

Proposals for guidelines for trans­ boundarv cooperation

Regarding this item, in light of their ex­ perience, it is essential that administra­ tions make it known which points should be imperatively included in guidelines for transboundary coopera­ tion. Possible answers are "YES", "NO", and "DON'T KNOW". 66. 7 % consider harmonisation of pro­ tected area categories as necessary,

39 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

Table 3: Intensity and quality of cooperation between the protected areas

Reply Satisfaction

yes partly ' no Satisfied Not satisfied

Legislation 13,6 30,3 56,1 59,4 40,6 ' -1~~~1: Harmonisation 11,5 32,7 55,8 60,0 40,0

Common guidelines 11,5 25,0 63,5 60,0 40,0

Joint plans 6,1 10,2 83,7 35,3 64,7 ll~W~ll~~~lli!i: Forestry 4,9 29,5 65,6 44,8 55,2

Agriculture 1,6 17,5 81,0 28,6 71,4

Game regulation 12,3 26,3 61,4 34,5 65,5 Management of wild 11,1 49,2 39,7 46,3 53,7 soecies Monitoring 19,0 39,7 41,3 45,0 55,0 a1~M1111:111111111:11 Infrastructure 8,2 27,9 63,9 44,4 55,6

Visitor information 19,7 45,5 34,8 64,9 35,2 ~~~~~~~;m~::':.1.,1:11 Joint management 7,9 15,9 76,2 40,0 60,0

Finance 3,2 9,7 87,1 28,6 71,4

Joint administration 8,1 4,8 87,1 46,7 53,3

Training of personnel 7,8 35,9 56,3 39,3 60,7

Exchange of staff 10,9 32,8 56,3 58,1 41.~

Scientific research 16,9 58,5 24,6 62,8 37,2

Written information 12,3 66,2 21,5 58,5 41,5

Personal contacts 38,2 54,4 7,4 76,6 23,4 Cooperation with 7,8 43,8 48,4 45,4 54,6 locals International 16,4 55,6 Conventions 39,3 44,3 44,4

40 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

Table 4: Contents of Guidelines for Transboundary Cooperation

Approval Content of guidelines yes no did not know Harmonisation of protected 66,7 22,2 11,1 area categories

Joint management plans 78,8 10,6 10,6

Joint administration 11,6 62,3 26,1

Education and training of 87,1 1,4 11,4 staff

Exchange of staff 83,3 2,8 13,9

Minimum cooperation 69,1 16,2 14,7 standards Official cooperation 75,4 7,2 17,4 agreements

Transboundary tourism 79,8 7,2 13,0

Common language 38,5 33,8 27,7

The approval for joint management 75.4 % expect recommendations of the plans was higher with 78 %. Only 10.6 official agreements concerning trans­ % were of a different opinion, or no boundary communication, 72.2 % are opinion. against this, while 17.4 did not express an opinion. Joint administration was reported as inconceivable. Only 11.6 % wanted a According to the opinion of 79.8 %, recommendation in this area, 62.3 % transboundary tourism should be taken were against and 26.1 % did not have into consideration, 7.2 % did not see any opinion. the purpose, while 13 % did not have Transboundary exchanges and joint an opinion. training of staff is recommended by 83.3 % or 87.1 %, 2.8%or1.4 % do Speaking a common language is im­ not need this, 13.9 % or 11.4 % do not portant for 38.5 %, not important for have an opinion. 33.8 %, and 27.7 % did not have an opinion. Also the definition of minimum stan­ dards of transboundary cooperation was classified as important, 69.1 % said yes, 16.2 % said no, and 14.7 % did not have an opinion.

41 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

approve). In these agreements 4.3 Summary of the Most Im­ . . ' portant Outcomes50 minimum standards for satisfactory cooperation should be established (69 approve). The evaluation of the survey and % analyses undertaken in the study of the Protected area categories should cases may be summarised as follows: be adjusted on both sides of the border (67 % approve), in other the expression "transboundary words, national parks should border pmtected area· does not reflect the on national parks, etc. r~al situation. Because of legisla­ tion and sovereignty of individual Management plans should be countries, transboundary protected jointly prepared (79 % approve). areas are composed of two or sev­ Their implementation should also eral parts. A large majority reject be executed in accordance with the principle of joint administration common guidelines. (only 12 % approve). For this rea­ son, cooperation across country Exchange of staff is a precondition borders would best be expressed for the joint development of entire by the expression 'transboundary areas (83 % approve). protected area coooperation". Transboundary tourism in protected Cooperation should result in written areas should be promoted (80 agreements between the highest % approve). competent authorities (75 %

50 A list of the conclusions were presented and discussed by the author of workshop 3 at the IUCN/WCPA Regional Conference in Sellin (Rugen).

42 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

5. RECOMMENDATIONS landscape area. CONCERNING THE RE­ • The conservation of the vast re­ VISED VERSION OF gions of the border area must be THE GUIDELINES ON strengthened in order to safeguard this. natural area on the long-term TRANS BOUNDARY and to encourage natural develop­ COOPERATION ment of the habitat to the largest extent possible. Likewise, high The important outcome of the study is value must be placed on the sus­ a proposal for the revised version of tainable use of natural resources in guidelines and recommendations for order to safeguard the living condi­ transboundary cooperation between tions of the population of the vast neighbouring protected areas in natural regions of border areas. and cultural landscapes with special consideration of the European situa­ • In recognition of the fact that natural tion. areas do not end at the border, in the future, importance should be In the final document produced by the given to cooperative work beyond participants of workshop 3 at the borders. IUCN/WCPA regional conference for Europe, they have recommended that • Today, by definition, transboundary these guidelines, following approval, protected areas fail because of ap­ should be made available through the plication of different basic legal IUCN/WCPA to all government conditions, different administrative authorities, protected area administra­ structures in the neighbouring tions and interested organisations to countries or simply due to language ensure the widest possible distribution problems. The inter-state compe­ of the guidelines and the recommenda­ tence of the administrations in­ tions. volved was in any case not re­ stricted due to cooperation. For this 5.1 Guidelines for Trans­ reason, it is recommended that the boundary Protected Area expression "transboundary pro­ tected area cooperation" be used Cooperation rather than the expression "trans­ boundary protected areas". Preamble • In line with transboundary coopera­ • Borders of natural areas and eco­ tion, the understanding of the his­ systems are not identical with politi­ tory, culture and the language of cal borders of countries or regions. the region across the border should Above all, natural borders such as also be encouraged · mountain crests or the river course form landscape and ecological • State sovereignty will not be re­ functional units. Border areas often stricted by transboundary coopera­ lie in "the shadow of development" tion. of urban concentrations where de­ velopment pressures are few. For this reason, the border area repre­ sents to a great extent, a valuable and an environmentally untouched

43 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

necessary measures. At the same Recommendations Concerning Trans­ time, it is recommended that the boundarv Protected Area Cooperation relevant conservation objectives General Recommendations and measures be harmonised within the framework of national • The Governments or competent legislation. authorities of the given countries should give high priority to the • With regard to bordering protected designation of protected areas to areas, the possibility of designating enable the conservation of valuable an equivalent protected area in the natural and cultural landscapes in neighbouring country should be border areas, especially in regions verified. located in the periphery with negli­ gible development pressures but • During the phase for the designa­ also with few developmental op­ tion of protected areas, the coun­ portunities. To this effect, all prcr tries should guarantee that the ad­ tected area categories should be ministrations, the competent considered to be of equal impor­ authorities, the· concerned com­ tance. munes and regions cooperate con­ cerning all measures for the con­ • The competent authorities of the servation of these natural and cul­ individual States in collaboration tural landscapes. The local popula­ with the competent authorities of tion and the NGOs should be inte­ neighbouring . countries should grated as early as the preparatory jointly establish an inventory of work and later during the imple­ natural and cultural landscapes mentation stage. which are being protected or others worthy of conservation, located Agreements along a common border. These in­ ventories should be checked at • Transboundary protected area co­ regular intervals. operation should result in basic written agreements which should • A mid or long-term objective that be concluded between the highest should be aimed at is the estab­ competent authorities of the coun­ lishment of networks, clusters or tries involved. corridors of environmentally valu­ able and protection worthy natural • These agreements must be evalu­ areas in order to minimise losses in ated at regular intervals in light of biodiversity especially for far mi­ experience gained and revised if gratory species. necessary.

• As of the preparatory phase for the • Minimum standards and criteria for designation of new protected areas transboundary cooperation should along the borders, the competent be defined in the agreements. In authorities of the neighbouring particular, they should establish, countries should be contacted, in the form and the objectives of the order to check the possibility of cooperation, the subjects to be designating protected areas or handled jointly as well as the sub­ valuable cultural landscapes along ject matter for the best possible both sides of the border, at the administration of the protected ar- same time, and to introduce the 44 Robert Brunner T ransboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

eas, the frequency of cooperation area categories. Attention should and procedures in case of litiga­ be paid to internal divisions (zoning) tion. of the neighbouring protected ar­ eas. In this context, the neighbour­ • the agreements should also fix the ing areas should be treated as a reciprocal participation of the other natural area unit. Therefore, for ex­ party in protected area committees ample, a protected area can be during the implementation of identified in one country as a buffer measures as well as regarding as­ or transitional zone and for a highly sistance and intervention in case of valuable protected area in the disasters. neighbouring country.

• The countries involved are com­ " Cooperation between two or more mitted to removing all obstacles in neighbouring protected areas, the protected areas with a common should take into consideration the national border, which limit the free existence of all protected areas and interchange of wild animals. Border conservation measures in a broader crossings must also be facilitated domain. In this way, comprehensive for visitors of protected areas, with~ integrated conservation can reach a out any formalities. larger area.

• Joint representation in associations General Administration and organisations with international activities and participation in inter­ • In addition to existing administra­ national programmes and conven­ tions in individual protected areas, a tions should be fixed by agreement. common committee for the handling of all matters of transboundary co­ • Cooperation should be facilitated operation should be established through the appointment of a full­ and should meet several times a time coordinator year, at regular intervals.

Protected areas • At least one member of the admini­ stration of a protected area should • For the joint development of the have one seat and one vote in all of protected areas, a model is to be the decision-making organs in the prepared which describes the im­ other protected area. In this way, portance of the protected areas, the flow of information and the pos­ defines the objectives and tasks sibility of mutual influence should be and includes proposals for future guaranteed. cooperation. Common subjects re­ inforce staff motivation and encour­ • The financial means necessary for age the identification of the staff the execution of transboundary and the local population with the tasks must be obtained and made project. available by both sides. In this re­ gard, the varying levels of economic • Conservation objectives and meas­ strength of the countries shall be ures in neighbouring protected ar­ taken into consideration. The ad­ eas should be harmonised. For ex­ ministration of a budget for trans­ ample, this can occur through the boundary tasks necessitates a designation of similar protected common management body. This budget can also be endowed with

45 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

special funds (eg. EU funds for co­ and to be binding. operation between EU countries or non-EU member countries). • In protected landscapes (cultural landscapes), sustainable use of • Communication problems resulting natural resources must be under­ from different languages can hinder taken in accordance with jointly transboundary cooperation. In each prepared objectives. This also ap­ protected area administration at plies to the joint marketing of local least one staff member should have products. a good command of the language of the neighbouring countries, and " Transboundary protected area co­ several other staff members should operation must also take trans­ have at least an elementary knowl­ boundary tourism into considera­ edge of the language in question. tion. The visitor infrastructure offer, Additional training to improve lan­ guided tours and written documents guage capability should be encour­ should be prepared jointly and aged. should also describe the neigh­ bouring protected area. Signposts, • Education and training of staff information boards, brochures and should be offered in a joint pro­ maps should also be produced gramme, at least in part. This in the language of the neighbouring should enable a similar level of countries (and whenever possible professional training on both sides, also in a widely known international a targeted training of experts and languages). similar quality of work. An exchange of staff can enable a better utilisa­ • Scientific research should, when­ tion of the experience of the other ever there is mutual interest, be side. Such staff exchanges should carried out at the same time, and also include all specialised areas. under the same basic conditions.

Protected Area Management Communication and Public Relations

• Essential for cooperation in the • The necessary communication be­ monitoring of nature areas are tween partner areas and the nec­ jointly prepared management plans. essary technical equipment should Midcterm objectives of the man­ be guaranteed. Communication agement of natural areas, appro­ with the local population can be priate measures and a timetable for achieved through appropriate me­ implementation are laid down in dia, various events and public these plans. These management presentations of successful joint plans include measures which are projects. to be implemented in parts of areas and others that are to be achieved • Publications, information materials jointty. and media materials should be jointly produced, and always trans­ • The implementation of the neces­ lated into the language of the part­ sary measures must be coordi­ ner country. nated at the practical and time level. For this purpose, joint, annual • The acceptance of protected areas work programmes with timetables should be improved through appro- and budgets are to be prepared

46 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

priate and regular informatio~ to the population and all relevant internal • Regional identity, communication and regional decision-making bod­ between both countries and the ies. awareness of the important tasks across the border for cultural and • Visitor orientation and environ­ natural landscapes should be pro­ mental education should improve moted through regular trans­ the understanding of the need for boundary activities in collaboration cooperation between protected ar­ with the protected area administra­ eas. The necessary concepts tion, the concerned municipality and should be jointly elaborated and the local population. implemented on both sides. 5.2 Guidelines for the desig­ • Successful efforts in the area of nation of transboundary transboundary cooperation should protected areas be given recognition through the awarding of a rating still to be worked out. There are many reasons that trans­ boundary protected areas should be Region designated or transboundary _co~pera­ tion is recommended. The obiect1ve of the international nature conservancy • The population of the border region policy, like in the past, is to cr~ate the should be included in joint devel­ largest possible, comprehensive net­ opment. This applies to decision­ work of protected areas in order to makers in the area of politics and conserve the most valuable natural ar­ economics as well as the local eas. However, there are still weakness, population. which can be solved by identifying new protected areas or in assess~ng the • Jn cultural landscapes more consid­ function of those that already exist. eration should be given to the in­ tensification of contacts with the 5.2.1 Transboundary cooperation neighbouring regions, safeguarding to safeguard peace of traditions, the assurance of the basis of life and a careful use of re­ Presently, neither a war nor an armed sources. conflict is raging throughout Europe, however experience from recent years • Protected areas of high quality can has shown that a conflict can break out become a factor for regional devel­ between individual countries aL any opment and especially promote time. tourism due to their positive image. In this context, careful development Although cooperation betwe1m West­ based on sustainable tourism takes ern Europe and the Refonn 001.mtries priority. The advantages that large improved ;qjfer the fall of the "lro~ Cur­ and diversified protected ~f~f!S on tain" it is important.not to loose sight of both sides of the border or large the that a clearly defined borderline spacious cultural landscapes can f~ct crosses Europe which separates offer, should be used for the benefit countries with different economic of joint advertising strategies. strengths and economic developm~nt These should not be in conflict with levels as well as considerable social nature conservancy objectives. differences.

47 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

For this very reason, the idea of putting Guidelines transboundary cooperation to service in guaranteeing stability and peace is also " Mountainous regions are regarded in the interest of Europe. The im­ as part of large natural landscapes, provement of contacts between ad­ which satisfy the function of biologi­ ministrations and local populations cal networks and corridors. In order near the protected areas can make a to ensure this function, it is neces­ contribution in this area. sary to preserve large unspoilt, and little developed areas and to protect Guidelines them in the long term.

The Governments of the countries • It is also necessary to designate should intensify contacts with neigh­ protected areas in mountainous re­ bouring countries through the designa­ gions to guarantee natural re­ tion of protected areas and the promo­ sources (eg. drinking water supply) tion of mutual cooperation, thus im­ proving relations with the population in 5.2.3 Transboundary cooperation in the border region or normalising ten­ marine areas sions where they exist. Marine protected areas are a part of • The governments should also guar­ the most sensitive ecosystems which antee that natural areas be guar­ will become more endangered due to anteed in a lasting way, through pollution of the seas and the intensive appropriate conventions and exploitation of the coastal areas (tour­ agreements, and in no case should ism, mineral resources, shipping) re­ they be used for military purposes. sulting in regularly reoccurring disas­ ters. • Border fences, barriers and other obstacles should be removed in the A considerable amount of catching up interest of good neighbourly rela­ is required here. All countries with an tions. access to the sea are urged to make the guarantee of marine habitats to be 5.2.2 Transboundary Cooperation an important objective for nature con­ in Mountainous Regions servancy.

Mountainous regions have long been Guidelines an important refuge for fauna and flore as they are sparsely inhabited due to • The governments of countries" with low settlement density, inaccessible an access to the sea, should guar­ and have hard living conditions. How­ antee the protection of this sensitive ever, the growing development of the ecosystem, through the designation mountain through highway construction of large marine protected areas. For and tourism infrastructure represents a this purpose, cooperation between threat for large natural areas. two or several marine countries should also be strived for. At the same time, mountainous regions are important in preserving the basics • The concerned countries should required for sustaining life, for example ensure that the development of the for guaranteeing the provision of water coastal areas and their use for eco- for large regions.

48 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe {final report)

nomic purposes do not have any ence gained and reports provided by negative effects on the marine eco­ the staff of protected area administra­ systems. tions, a model proposal for the desig­ nation of protected areas has been 5.2.4 Transboundary Cooperation prepared. in the River Ecosystems 5.3.1 Protected Areas for the as­ River systems form a vital habitat and surance of good neighbourly can ensure the function of ecological relations corridors. However, they are increas­ ingly strained due to multiple exploita­ Dense networks of protected areas tion (water supply and draining canals along the former "Iron Curtain" eg. The for waste water disposal, shipping, Green Belt of Fennoskandia, with spe­ fishing, etc. The draining of cial attention to the formation of clus­ zones, measures taken to prevent ters and corridors. flooding as well as water regulation threaten this ecosystem as much as Protected areas between the countries built to produce hydro-electrical derived from the former Yugoslavia energy. and bordering countries such as the Balkan mountains, a protected areas Guidelines along the Albanian border, protected area along borders with Bosnia­ • The protection of water courses and Herzegovina and Croatia. river ecosystems requires extensive cooperation, the measures adopted Protected areas between the countries by the upper lying countries have derived from the former Soviet Union far reaching effects on the entire and neighbouring countries, for exam­ river systems. For this reason, all ple, the Baltic countries, Byelorussia, measures are to be examined to Ukraine and Poland. determine what effects they may have on the river system, the lower 5.3.2 Protected Areas in the Moun­ lying countries and the surrounding tains landscape and ecosystems. Protection of mountain complexes • The function of corridors which as­ which are increasingly endangered due sure the river ecosystems for mi­ to highway construction and tourism gratory species should be taken development such as in Mont Blanc, into consideration in the exploitation the region of the Alps. of water bodies.

Measures for safeguarding cultural 5.3 Examples for Future landscapes in mountainous areas, Transboundary Protected which are endangered due to the de­ cline in agriculture in high-altitudes Area Cooperation such as the Alpine mountain areas

In addition to existing protected areas, 5.3.3 Marine Protected Areas proposed protected areas which are at different stages of implementation have Protection of coastal areas confronted been included in the survey for the with intensive development or exploita- needs of the study. Due to the experi-

49 Robert Br1Jnner Transboundary Protected Areas in E1Jrope (final report) tion of natural resources, for example, 5.3.4 Protection of River Ecosys­ cooperation between Denmark, Ger­ tems many and the Netherlands in , the coastal areas and the Baltic Protection of large river landscapes Sea. also with regard to their function as corridors and as important elements of Marine · protected areas such as be­ large wetland areas, such as the Elbe, tween Sardinia and Corsica in the Ae­ the , the Drau-Mur river system, gean Sea, in the Black Sea. the part of the Danube which is down­ The connection of land-based pro­ stream from Austria. tected areas to marine protected areas, such as surrounding islands. Protection of lakes, such as Skoder Lake and Ohrid Lake, lakes in Finland and the neighbouring area of Karelia.

50 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)


6.1 List of areas with transboundary cooperation

This section provides an overview of all 89 transboundary cooperations. To date, twelve proposed areas for cooperation are highlighted in grey.

Each of the 198 partial areas only appears once. The criteria for listing the countries is the German designation of the countries in alphabetical order, in the order of the regions as well as within the columns of the tables. The classification is made in accordance with the alphabetical order of the country.

The comments of the protected area administrations are provided.

51 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

Transboundary Proteeted Area Cooperations in Europe Transboundary Cooperation - Area 1

National Park Prespa Lake (Albania) AL01 National Park Prespa Lake (Greece) GR02 National Park Galichica - Lake Ohrid MA02 (Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia)

Comments: Cooperation mainly between NGO's, official contacts are scarce. Growing problems due to the pollution of Ohrid-Lake Joint management plan needed Proposed Biosphere Reserve

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 2

National Park Thethl (Albania) AL02 Proposed National Park Prokletije Mountains (Yugoslavia) YU06

Comments: No official administration in Yugoslavia, recently no.cooperation due to political reasons NGO's and nature organisations are willing to cooperate

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 3

Strict Nature Reserve Skhoder Lake (Albania) AL03 National Park Skadar Lake (Yugoslavia) YU05

Comments: recently no official cooperation due to political reasons

jf't:tnsboundary Cooperation - Area 4

·Bf~~J.>,s.EldNature Park De Zoom-Kalmthout (Belgium) B01 f'fllposed Nature Park De Zoom·Kalmthout (Netherlands) . NL01 .· •. ·. ,, : .·· .

52 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 5

Nature Park Hautes Fagnes - Venn - Eifel Belgium-Germany (Belgium) B 02 Nature Park Hautes Fagnes - Venn - Eifel Belgium-Germany (Germany) D 06

Comments: Cooperation lasts 27 years, improvements proposed good example for intensified transborder cooperation in Europe Common projects supported by EU Coordination of management, PR, staff training, and regular meetings

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 6

Nature Park Plaines de l'Escaut (Belgium) B03 Nature Park Scarpe-Escaut (France) F 04

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 7

Nature Park Vallee de l'Attert - Haute Sure (Belgium) B04 Nature Park Haute Sure - Vallee de I' Attert (Luxemburg) L02

Comments: Transboundary Cooperation named by the authorities in Belgium; recently no proposal in Luxemburg

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 8

National Park Sutjeska (Bosnia - Hercegowina) BiH 01 National Park Durmitor (Yugoslavia) YU 03

Comments: Recently no cooperation

53 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 9

Proposed National Park Drina (Bosnia - Hercegovina) BiH 02 National Park Tara (Yugoslavia) YU08

Comments: Protected area proposed in a bilateral agreement, recently no cooperation

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 1O

Strict Nature Reserve Rhodopes (Bulgaria) BG01 Protected Area Virgin Forest of Central Rhodopes (Greece) GR03

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 11

National Park Strandja and Protected Area Ropotamo (Bulgaria) BG02 Strict Nature Reserve (Turkey) TR01

Comments: Case study, cf. 3.3

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 12

Proposed Protected Lan~scape Area Balkan Mountains (Bulgaria) BG 03 Protected Landscape Area Balkan Mountains (Yugoslavia) · VU 07

Comments: Agreement signed 1995 Proposed Biosphere Reserve In Bulgaria named Peace-Park Cf. 3.2

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 13

Trilateral Protected Area Wadden Sea.(Danmark) DK01 Trilateral Protected Area Wadden Sea (Germany) D 14 Trilateral Protected Area Wadden Sea (Netherlands) NL03


54 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

Deficiencies and conflicts in hunting, zoning, exploitation of gas and oil, extraction of minerals

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 14

Froslev (Danmark) DK02 Jardelunder Moor (Germany) D 17

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 15

Niehus-Krusa-Tunneldal (Danmark) DK03 Niehuus Krusa Tunneldal (Germany) D 18

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 16

National Park Bayerischer Wald, Nature Park Bayerischer Wald (Germany) D 01 National Park Sumava, Protected Landscape Area Sumava (Czech Republik) CZ04

Comments: Differences in the application of international criterias I Main objectives preservation of forest ecosystem and wildlife management Czech administration would prefer an institutional agreement on transborder cooperation

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 17

National Park Berchtesgaden (Germany) D 02 Strict Nature Reserve (Proposed National Park) Kalkhochalpen (Austria) A 11

Comments: The recent land use ,guarantees the preservation of this ecosystem Due to financial and personal situation recently no transboundary area or cooperation

55 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 18

National Park Odertal (Germany) 003 Landscape Park Dolina Dolney Odry (Poland) PL01

Comments: no ar:iticipation of yearly working programs and finances but joint management regular staff exchange working groups for transborder nature protection and regional planning

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 19

National Park Sachsische Schweiz (Germany) 004 Protected Landscape Area Labske piskovce (Czech Republik) CZ10

Comments: Case study; cf. 3.3

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 20

Nature Park Germany-Netherlands Maas-Schwalm-Mette (Germany) 005 Nature Park Germany-Netherlands Maas-Schwalm-Mette (Netherlands) NL02

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 21

Nature Park Luxemburg-Germany (Nature Park SOdeifel) (Germany) D 07 Nature Park Luxemburg-Germany (Nature Park SOdeifel) (Luxemburg) L 01

Comments: Case Study, cf. 3.3

56 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 22

Nature Park Pfalzerwald (Germany) D 08 Nature Park Vosges du Nord (France) F05

Comments: Cf. 3.2

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 23

Proposed Nature Park (Germany) 009 National Park Wolinski (Poland) PL 11

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 24

Proposed Protected Area (Biosphere Reserve} Bayerischer Wald, Sohmerwald, Sumava (Germany) . . D 10 Proposed Protected Area (Biosphere Reserve) Bayerischer Wald, Bohmerwald, Sumava (Austria) A 05 Proposed Protected Area (Biosphere Reserve) Region narodniho parku Bavarsky les, Bohmerwald, Sumava (Czech Republik) CZ 05 comments: Firts ideas and proposals worked out by NGO's Recently no follow-up

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 25 f>ropos~d Protected Area Ecosystem Salzach Auen (Germany) D 11 e'roposed Protected Area Ecosystem Salzach Auen (Austria) A 06 comments: Oiffererit cat7gories of protected areas on both sides of the border.but no common managmentcir joint development

57 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 26

Proposed Protected Landscape Zittauer Gebirge (Germany) D 12 Protected Landscape Luzicke Hory (Czech Republik) CZ 11

Comments: lmprovemet of relations and communication, regional agreements and common · legeslation proposed

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 27

Strict Nature Reserve Unterer Inn (Germany) D 13 Strict Nature Reserve Unterer Inn (Austria) A 12

Comments: Bilateral information on nature protection and regional planning Harmonisation of legislation for the protected area necessary

~t~p~if~~ture Park N~iBe (Germany) D 15 . Ptqf)(j,~~ctNature Park N1sa (Poland) PL 13

Transboundary Cooperation -Area 29

Strict Nature Reserve "Bodensee'', including Strict Nature Reserve Wollmatinger Ried - Gnadensee-Untersee, Mettnau, Hornspitze, Untersee-Ende Ohingen (Germany) D 16 Waterfowl and Migrating Birds Protected Area Ermatinger Becken - Stein am Rhein (Untersee) (Switzerland) CH 03

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 30

Nature Monument Dojran Ez. (Lake) (Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia) MA 01 Strict Nature Reserve Doya Lake (Greece) GR 01

58 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 31

National Park Mavrovo (Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia) MA 03 National Park Shara Mountains (Yugoslavia) YU 04

Comments: Protocol! on transborder cooperation signed National Park to be established in 1998 Joint management plan proposed

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 32

Strict Nature Reserve Wetland Area Area Nigula (Eestonia) EE01 Strict Nature Reserve Northern Complex Vidzeme (Latvia} LET01

Comments: Protocoll on transborder cooperation signed by ministries, local authorities and NGOs Deficiencies in legislation Communication rather poor

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 33

National Park ltainen Suomenlathi (Finland) SF01 Nature Reserve Finnish Gulf (Russia) RUS08

ITransboundary Cooperation - Area 34

National Park Lemmenjoki, Pyorisjarvi, Pulju and Hammastunturi Wilderness Area (Finland) SF 02 National Park Ovre Anarjokka (Norway) N 01

Comments: Cooperation to be improved Information exchange has been started

59 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 35

National Park Oulanka, Strict Nature Reserve Sukerijarvi (Finland) SF 03 National Park Paanajarvi, Proposed Sieppiuntury Uplands Regional Park (Russia) RUS 01

Comments: Srict border hampers the cooperation Infrastructure and telekommunication in Russia underdeveloped

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 36

National Park Urho Kekkonen (Finland) SF04 Strict Nature Reserve Laplandskiy (Rus.sia) RUS10

Comments: Different protected area categories, scientific research area in Russia

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 37

Strict Nature Reserve Malla (Finland) SF05 : Proposed National Park Treriksroysa (Noiway) N 08 Proposed Protected Area Palsta (Sweden) s 06

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 38

Strict Nature Reserve Elimussalo, Lentua, lso-Palonen and Maariansarkat, Juortanansalo-Lapinsue Mire Protected Area, Ulvinsalo Strict Nature Reserve (Finland) SF 06 Strict Nature Reserve Kostumuksha (Russia) RUS 09

Comments: Joint scientificsesearch, public relation, visitor facilities and education on environment Border crossing still restricted (also for staff)

60 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 39

Wilderness Area Kasivarsi (Finland) SF07 National Park Reisa, Protected Landscape Raisdoutterhaldl, Proposed National Park Guoatteloubbal (Norway) NOS

Comments: Contacts concerned mainly on information exchange (wildlife, plants, ..... ) lmprpvment of international contacts ongoing, yearly meetings Language knowledge is the main problem .International hiking route

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 40

Wilderness Area Vatsari (Finland) SF08 National Park Pasvik, Strict Nature Reserve Pasvik (Norway) N03 Strict Nature Reserve Pasvik Zapovednik (Proposed I Protected Landscape Pasoskiy) (Russia) RUS02

Comments: Bilateral agreementfor the protection of the environment Yearly meeting and excursions Transborder contacts with the locals rather poor

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 41

National Park Le Mercantour (France) F 01 Nature Park Alpi Marittime (Italy) I 03

Comments: Numerous joint activities, e.g. reintroduction of species Charta on transboundary cooperation Joint scientific research Bilingual information, exchange of personell

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 42

National Park Les Pyrenees (France) F02 National Park Ordesa/Monte Perdido (Spain) E 01

Comments: Case study, cf. 3.3

61 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 43

National Park Vanoise (France) F03 National Park Gran Paradiso (Italy) I 01

Comments: Cooperation on the basis of the International Alpine Convention

Pl'()~ N~honaf Park~ouc~ de Bonif~¢10 (France) . . . ·.· ... ·... · ~l'(JWsed t-lattonat Par~ d'ell.A.rchlpelago della M~ddalena (Italy) ·• --/i r-- ,, ', -:·-:g-:,_~:-ii-j'.i:~--'::<:::<2:1.- -'"'. - ,, ., - ;-~;\,_ - c;; :·: .>~ . \

Tl'ansboundary Coope~tlon - Area 45

Pro~Protected .Area Mont Blanc (France) F07 ·· Pmp~~rotected Area Mont Blanc (Italy) . . 105 Prop()$84.:frotected Area Mont Blanc ($witzetland) · CH02 ,. - - '"">' -, -- - '~-- '

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 46

National Park Stelvio (Italy) I 02 Schweizer Nationalpark (Switzerland) CH 01

Comments: Fruitful informal cooperation. Different management categories affect the management

I 07 SL006

62 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 48

National Park Derdap (Yugoslavia) YU01 Strict Nature Reserve Cazanele (Rumanien) R002

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 49

Strict Natu~ Reserve Selevenj sands (Yugoslavia) YU02 Kiskunsag National Park (Hungary) H 05

Comments: Cooperation for 20 years Official protocol! on cooperation signed by the ministries New regulations for border crossings proposed

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 50

Strict Nature Reserve Upper Danube Basin (Yugoslavia) YU09 Nature Park Kopacki rit (Croatia) HR01 National Park Duna-.Drava (Hungary) H02

Comments: Recently no official administration in Croatia Political tensions

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 51

National Park Risniak (Croatia) HR02 Proposed Regional Nature Park Nostranjski (Slovenia) SL005 Proposed Nature Park Koveski (Slovenia) SL002

63 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 52

Proposed Protected Landscape Area Repas (Biosphere Reserve) Mur-Drau and Strict Nature Reserve Veleki Pazut (Mouth of Drau-Mur) (Croatia) HR03 Protected landscape Mur (Proposed Biosphere Reserve) (Austria) A 10 Mura Protected landscape (Hungary) H06 landscape Park Mura-Drava (Slovenia) Sl004

Comments: Part of a large complex ecosystem of two large rivers Area endangered by proposed hydroelectric power plants Projects based on INTERREG II contracts between Slovenia and Austria Cf. 3.2

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 53

National Park Kursiu nerija (Lithuania) LIT01 National Park Kurshskaja kosa (Russia) RUS03

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 54

Regional Parks Veisejai and Meteliai (Lithuania) LIT02 Strict Nature Reserve Sopockinskij (Belarus) BR04 National Park Wigry (Poland) PL14

Comments: International cooperation intended Distance between Lithuanian and Polish protected areas about 30 to 40 km Diffrencies in legislation should be diminuished

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 55

Regional Park Vystytis (Lithuania) llT03 landscape Park Suwalki (Poland) PL 15 Strict Nature Reserve Vishtynetsky (Russia) RUS 11

64 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 56

National Park Ovre Dividalen (Norway) N02 Proposed Tawavuoma National Park (Sweden) S05

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 57

National Park Rago, Proposed National Park Tysfjord Hellemobotn (Norway) N 04 Laponian Area: National Parks Sarek, Padjelante, Stora Sjofallet, Muddus; Strict Nature Reserve Sjaunja, Stubba (Sweden) S 03

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 58

National Parks Femundsmarka, Gutulia (Norway) N 06 Strict Nature Reserve Rogens, Strict Nature Reserve Langfjallet (Proposed National Park Rogen-Langfjallet) {Sweden) S 01

Comments: Enlargement of the Norwegian Park proposed (zoning will be worked out later)

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 59

Proposed National Park Sjordalen-lsdalen {Norway) N 07 National Parks Vadvetjakka, Abisko, Proposed National Park Kirunafjallen (Sweden) S 04

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 60

Protected Area Svalbard (Norway) N 09 Proposed·Strict Nature Reserve Zemlja Fransa-losifa {Russia) RUS06

65 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 61

Strict Nature Reserve Lundsneset (Norway) N 10 National Park Tresticklan (Sweden) S02

Comments: There are proposed projects on visitor facilities (INTERREG II), but recently not ·carried Personal contacts

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 62

Landscape Protected Area Donau-March and International Ramsar Management March-Thaya-(Morava-Dyje)-Region (Austria) A 01 Landscape Protected Area Palava and International Ramsar Management Morava-Dyje-Region (Czech Republik) SK 01 Protected Area Zahorie and International Ramsar Management Morava·Dyje-Region (Slovakia) CZ 01

Comments: Cooperation in different projects, supported by the EU (LIFE, PHARE,INTERREG); transborder cooperation especially water management of the Morava River; RAMSAR site with sustainable land use programms

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 63

National Park Neusiedler See-Seewinkel (Austria) A02 National Park Ferto to (Hungary) H 03

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 64

Nature Park Geschriebenstein (Austria) A03 Nature Park lrottko (Hungary) H04

Comments: Agreement on transborder Cooperation Main goals is joint development of eco-tourism in the border region Cooperation has just started, no expierencies

66 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 66

Proposed Strict Nature Reserve Lainsitzniederung (Austria) A 07 Protected Area Trebonsko (Czech Republik) CZ 13

Comments: Coordinated nature conservation exchange of information; ecological education Future cooperation should mainly deal with floodplain management and protection Official cooperation should start as soon as the nature reserve Lainsitzniederung is established I

Pf~posed tlilateraler Nature Park Raab-Orseg-Goricko (Austria) . AOS . Prop09ed trUateraler Nature Park Raab-Orseg~Goricko (Hungary) · H07 Proposed trilateraler Nature Park Raab-Orseg-Goricko (Slovenia) SL007 · ·- - i -- - > ":--' - - - -·------/,- -,,

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 68

$trict Nature Reserve (Proposed National Park) Thayatal (Austria) A 13 Nation.al Park Podyji (Czech Republik) CZ03

Comments: National Park in Austria will be effective from 01.01.2000 Improvement of transborder cooperation and efficient management expected Feasibility study in Austria work~d out in cooperation with the Czech National Park

67 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 69

Landscape Park Zywiecki (Poland) PL02 Protected Landscape Beskidy (Czech Republik) CZ06 Protected Landscape Kysuce (Slovakia) SK08

Comments: Improvement of management of wild animals and plants, monitoring and visitor management necessary informal cooperation fulfils the needs better than legal agreements on cooperation

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 70

National Park Sabia Gora (Poland) PL03 Protected Landscape Horna Orava (Slovakia) SK07

Comments: Joint management plans for natural resources and visitors guidance Monitoring of environmental impacts

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 71

National Park Bialowieza (Poland) PL04 National Park Belovezhskaya Pushcha (Belarus) BR01

Comments: Cf. 3.2 Limited interchange of wildlife due to a border fence

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 72

National Park Gory Stolowe (Poland) PL05 Protected Landscape Broumovsko (Czech Republik) CZ08 Protected Landscape Orlicke Hory (Czech Republik) CZ12

Comments: Cooperation should be based on bilateral agreements

68 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 73

National Park Karkonosze (Poland) PL06 National Park Krkonose (Czech Republik) CZ02 Protected landscape Iser Mountains (Czech Republik) CZ09

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 74

National Park Pieniny (Poland) PL07 National Park Pieninsky (Slovakia) SK02

Transbound~ry Cooperation - Area 75

National Park Poleski (Poland) PL08 Protected Management Area Vygonoschanske (Belarus) BR03 I National Park Shatsk (Ukraine) UKR03

Comments: Only exchange of information, design of protection methods, scientific research

J Transboundary Cooperation - Area 76

J National Park Rozotzczanski (Poland) PL09 Protected Landscape Roztochya (Ukraine) UKR08

Comments: Agreements on cooperation Enlargement of protected areas proposed Cooperation in transborder ecotourism proposed

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 77

National Park Tatrzansky (Poland) PL10 National Park Tatra (TANAP) (Slovakia) SK03

Comments: Cooperation deals mainly on current nature protection problems More cooperation in the Carpathian National Parks Association demanded Information exchange, excursions and monitoring

69 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

Cooperation in visitors and access control

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 78

National Park Bieszczady, Landscape Parks Cisna-Wetlina and San River (Poland) PL 12 Protected Landscape Vychodne Karpaty (Slovakia) SK 11 National Park Karpatsky (Ukraine) UKR02

Comments: Administrations in the different parts play different roles New cooperation agreement should be signed Development of common guidelines for nature protection Dismantling of military operational systems "Green gates Program" has been developed by NGOs

I Transboundary Cooperation - Area 79

Landscape Parks Mierzeja Wislana ( Spit) and Wzniesienie Elblaskie (Poland) PL 16 Strict Nature Reserve Vislinskaya Kosa (Vistula Spit) (Russia) RUS 12

Comments: No official agreements Agreement on transborder tourism needed

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 80

National Park Peneda Geres (Portugal) p 01 Nature Park Baixa-Lima-Serra do Xeres (Spain) E03

Comments: Agreement signed Joint projects to be qarried out in future Personell exchange Joint visitor infrastructure and coordinated pl~nning

70 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe {final report)

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 81

Strict Nature Reserve (Reserva Natural) da Ria Formosa (Portugal) P 02 Strict Nature Reserve (Reserva Natural) da Sapal de Castro Marim e Vila Real de Sto. Antonio (Portugal) P 03 Natural landscape Marismos de Isla Christina (Spain) E 02

Comments: Cooperation in personell exchange, human resources and equipment

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 82

Biosphere Reserve Danube Delta (Rumi:inien) R001 Biosphere Reserve Danube Delta (Ukraine) UKR01

. Transboundary Cooperation - Area 83

Proposed Protected Area. Ker~h Peninsula (Russia) RUS.04 Proposed Protected Area Tainan Peninsula (Ukraine) UKR05

. . .

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 84

/;' Propo1;1ecf Protected Area Stepp (Belgorod - Kharkov - Region) '~~ia) · " RUS 05 Pro(l6Sed Regional Landscape Park (National Park) Pechenizke Pol~ {Ukraine} UKR 06

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 85

Strict Nature Reserve (Zapovednik) Bryanskiy les (Russia) RUS07 Protected Area Starogutovskiy and Stara Huta (Ukraine) UKR07

71 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 86

Protected Area Cerova vrchovina (Slovakia) SK04 Protected Area Karancs-Madves (Hungary) H08

Comments: Cooperation agreements yearly renewed Joint management plans and joint nature resources management necessary

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 87

Protected Landscape Biele Karpaty (Slovakia) SK06 Protected Landscape Bile Karpaty (Czech Republik) CZ07

Comments: Contacts should be intensified Structure of the administration hampers the cooperation


Transboundary Cooperation - Area 88

Protected LandscapeSlovensky kras (Proposed National Park) (Slovakia) SK 10 National Park Aggtelek (Hungary) H 01

Comments: Lack of cooperation is a big problem for natural resources and visitor management Joint monitoring programs should be organised Personal and financial support to be improved Equal position of both area administrations necessary

Transboundary Cooperation - Area 89

Strict Nature Reserve Polessky (Ukraine) UKR04 National Park Pripiatsky (Belarus) BR02

Comments: no common border (40 km distance) and recently no cooperation due to organisational and financial problems

72 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe {final report)

6.2 list of Countries

German/Allmand English/Anglais French/Francais

Albanien Albania Albanie Belgien Belgium Belgique Bosnie-Herzegowina Bosnia and Hercegovina Bosnie-Herzegovine Bulgarien Bulgaria Bulgaria Danemark Denmark Danemark Deutsch land Germany Allemagne Estland Estonia Estonia Finnland Finland Finlande Frankreich France France FrOhere jugoslawische Former Yugoslavian ex-Republique yougoslave Republik Mazedonien Republic of Macedonia de Macedoine Griechenland Greece Grece ltalien Italy ltalie Jugoslawien Yugoslavia Yougoslavie Kroatien Croatia Croatie Lettland Latvia Lettonie Litauen Lithuania Lituanie Luxemburg Luxembourg Luxembourg Niederlande Netherlands Pays-Bas Norwegen Norway Norvege Osterreich Austria Autriche Polen Poland Pologne Portugal Purtugal Portugal Schweden Sweden Suede Schweiz Switzerland Suisse Slowakei Slovakia Slovaquie Slowenien Slovenia Slovenia Spanien Spain Espagne Rumanien Romania Roumanie Russland Russian Federation Federation de Russie Tschechische Republik Czech Republic Republique tcheque TOrkei Turkey Turquie Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine Ungarn Hungary Hongrie Weir:!.russland Belarus Belarus

73 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

6.3 Questionnaire: Transboundarv Protected Areas in Europe 1. Description of the (proposed) protected area Name of the protected area in English Name in native language ______

Category according to national legislation ------­ Category according to WCN management categories ------­ Others (European diploma, Natura 2000, Biosphere reserve .... ) ------­ Geographical location: Province, Country, etc. ------Geographical coordinates: Longitude ______Latitude______Zoning, according to legislation or management plan: Total area------km2 Soecification (core zone etc.) area Ckm2l I. 2. 3. 4. 5. Administration: public D private/commercialD private/non-commercial D others D Year of establishment of the protected area Type of establishment (legal act: law, order ... ) established by ------2. Description of the adjoining (proposed) protected area1 Name of the adjoining protected area in English------­ Name in native language ------Location (State, Province, ..... ) ------Category: national ------international (IUCN) ------3. Transborder cooperation Length of common border (approx.) in total: _____ km Where do the protected areas meet: core zone ____ km buffer zone ____km Number of border crossing points within the area: for vehicles: for pedestrians: ___ Cooperation is: established D (since __ ); intended D (when __ ); none D (why: next line) Why: LanguageO finances D different goals D others: ...... If none, do you think a transborder cooperation would improve the protection of the area? yes D no D Type of cooperation: legal basedO institutionalD informal D Private/personal D Is there any written agreement concerning the transboundary cooperation: yes D no D Form of agreement: ______

Comments on the type of cooperation (use separate sheet if necessary) ------

1 If more than one adjoining protected area exists please fill in a second questionnaire Frequency of contacts: regularly 0 on demand 0 irregular 0 Road-distance of the on-site-administration offices: approx. ___ km 4. Fields and quality of cooperation: Frequency Quality Regularly time to time uoue satisfying dissatisfying Legal framework. legislation ...... 0...... 0...... 0 ...... 0 ...... 0 ...... Common Management

~~:~:a~~~e~e.nt.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'..'...... '.'..'..'.'..'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.§.'..'.'.'.''.'.'.'.'.''.'.'.'.8.'.''.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.""""""""g""""" ·"""""·8.'.'.'. ... '..'.'.'.'.'..'."'.8'.'.'.'.'.''.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.·. Administration ...... JJ...... 0 ...... 0 ...... 0 ...... 0 ...... - Education and training of staff ...... 0 ...... 0 ...... D ...... 0 ...... 0 ......

- Brochures,i:~:n;; :;:::~~~

5. Feasibility of free interchange across the border Wildlife:------Tourifils: ______

State of the border:------

6. Visitors: Number of visitors per year (in total): in your protected area -----­ transfrontier Description of pressure of visitors and how are you dealing with this problem: ------

7. Deficiencies in transborder cooperation, conflicts (please use separate sheet if necessary)

75 8. Suggestions for improvement of transborder cooperation (use separate sheet if necessary)

9. Your personal recommendations for guidelines Which of the following aspects - in your opinion - should be considered in

"GUlDELINESFOR JRANSBOUNDARY PROTECTED AREAS": Yes No Unsure - Assimilation of the transborder protected areas categories ...... 1:1 ...... 0 ...... 0 ...... Joint management plans ...... 0 ...... 0 ...... 0 ...... Joint administration ...... 0 ...... 0...... 0 ...... Education and training of staff ...... 0...... 0...... 0 - Exchange of .staff ...... 0...... 0 D - Minimum standards oftransboundary cooperation ...... 0 ...... 0...... 0 ...... Official agreements about transboundary cooperation ...... 0 ...... 0 ...... 1:1 ...... - ~~':~~~~~:~;~ri-s~.::::: ::::: ::: : :::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::§::::::::::::::::::§::::: : ::::::::§::: ::: ::: ::: - Others:

10. Your personal remarks

Please name a person in your administration for further inquiries if necessary: Name: ...... Institution/Department: ...... Full address: ...... ZIP-Code/ Town: ...... Phone/FAX: ......

Please return this questionnaire by mail to: Robert Brunner, Kirchengasse 39/4/13, A-1070 Vienna or by FAX: ++43 1 522 86 96 Thank you for your contribution. Robert Brunner

76 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

6.4 Recommendations from the IUCN/WCPA European Regional Working Session





Report to the Plenary Session

Chair: Patrizia Rossi (Italy) Rapporteur: Jan Cerovsky (Czech Republic) Coordinator: Robert Brunner (Austria)

Sellin, November 12, 1997 3


The workshop was attended by 24 participants from I 3 European countries from conservation authorities, protected area administrations, national and international NGO's; including IUCN representatives, WWF, EUROPARC, EURONATUR. and CICM. All the participants were interested and actively involved in establishing and managing transboundary protected areas.

Objectives of the workshop:

• presentation of case studies and sharing experience from selected existing transboundary protected areas in Europe · • identification of key issues of transborder cooperation, advantages and disadvantages, problems and solutions . • recommendations for improved transboundary cooperation and suggestions for future action

Issues being addressed:

The whole workshop was oriented at the implementation of the Parks for. Life - Priority Project 22 - ,,Support to transfrontier protected areas". the main objective of which is to ,,encourage greater use of transfrontier protected areas in Europe and a greater degree of cooperation across frontiers with those that already exist".

The workshop was based on the activities of the Priority Project 22 - Task Force, headed by Robert Brunner (Austria) and supported by the Austrian Federal Ministry for the Environment. The results of the Project Coordinator's work up to now were used as the main background material for the. worl\shop · s considerations.

The Chair, Patrizia Rossi (Italy), suggested to concentrate specially on the following topics:

- types of frontier and transfrontier protected areas; - revising and updating IUCN-guidelines and their adaption to specific European situation; - remaining gaps and future proposals for action.

The workshop agenda

The theme of the workshop was introduced by the Chair Patrizia Rossi and an overview of transborder protected areas in Europe was providedby Robert Brunner. Eight reports on experience from existing transboundary cooperation were presented:

Nature protection on the Balkans (Jasminka Milosevic, Yugoslavia) The Bialowieza National Park (Czeslaw Okolow, Poland) Mont Blanc: towards an international protected area (Dominique Rambaud, France) The neighbouring Biosphere Reserves Vosges du Nord - Pfalzerwald (Emmanuel Thiry, France, and Roland Stein, Germany) The Bohemian-Saxonian Switzerland (Jan Cerovsky, Czech Republic) Drau and Mur river-ecosystem. a multilateral cooperation (Martin Schneider-Jacoby, Germany) National Park Hohe Tauem: trilateral cooperation on national level (Viktoria Hasler, Austria) The Green Belt of Fennoscandia (Rauno Vaisanen. Finland) 4

Each presentation was followed by a short discussion.

The afternoon session concentrated on the following issues:

Tran"sboundary cooperation as part of Parks for Life-Action Plan (Marija Zupancic-Vicar, Slovenia) The Peace Park Conference 1997: protecting nature during political and social conflicts (David Sheppard, IUCN) International criterias and minimum standards for transborder cooperation (Robert Brunner, Austria)

The workshop conclused with a general discussion, in which all participants took an active role.


Recommendations addressed to IUCN

Endorsement oftransboundary protected areas by the European Environment Minister Conference in Aarhus

It is necessary to achieve more political support for transboundary protected areas. IUCN should therefore promote the case of transboundary cooperation and tty to have it included on the agenda of the June 1998 European Environment Minister Conference.

Extended guidelines for transboundary area cooperation

Referring to the results of the research and to the outcomes of the workshop on transboundary protected areas in Europe IUCN should consider the revised and extended guidelines for transboundary protected area cooperation.

IUCN letters of recommendation

IUCN should inform protected area administrations and relevant national authorities about the results of the RU gen Conference with recommendations for strengthened transboundary cooperation.

Consideration of the idea of real international protected areas

After due consultation with the IUCN/Commission on Environmental Law, to raise the question of protected areas with a real international status at the Second World Conservation Congress. 5

Recommendations addressed to IUCN and EUROPARC

Publication ofthe study

The results of the research arising from the work of Robert Brunner should be published and distributed to all transborder protected area administrations and to all national authorities dealing with this subject.

Permanent working group

The work of the Parks for Life team on the Priority.Project 22 is to be continued even after the publication of the above results. A working group should be established consisting of leading specialists in the field to guide this work. The tasks of this working group should be as follows:

• Prepare guidebook for transboundary cooperation practice linked with relevant international guidelines, as appropiate • Collect agreements as examples for transboundary cooperation • Cooperation with the IUCN commission on evironmental law • Harmonise approaches to transboundary protected areas through developing suggestions for site specific solutions • Identify ten to twenty priority transboundary protected areas in Europe as pilot studies • Regularly evaluate transboundary proiected areas efforts • assessment of site-spefific issues relating to social and cultural dimensions concerning the active participation of the population

Recommendations addressed to EUROPARC

Theme of EUROPARC meeting

One of the next annual EURO PARC meetings should have transboundary protected areas as its main theme.

Workshop in PHARE countries

A special workshop for transboundary protected area managers should be organized within the EEE-program.

Recommendations addressed to the protected area administrations

Implementation of the guidelines

Trans border protected area administrations should consider the IUCN-guidelines on transborder protected area cooperation in their cooperative work. 6

·Refocus on cultural cooperation.

An important aspect of transboundary conservation activities is cooperation in the cultural field. This aspect should be reinforced.

Involvement oftlze local population

Encourage the inhabitants to an active involvement in the implementation of the protected area objectifs.

Other aspects than conservation

Within transboundary cooperation, political and socio-economical aspects play an important role and as such should be fully addressed.

Further recommendations

International certifications like European Diploma

A special award in recognition of excellent work in relation to trans boundary protected should be established.·

TV-Film ,,Nature without Frontiers"

The workshop expressed support to the project of Andreas Speich (Switzerland) to produce a TV-film on transboundary conservation areas. Financial assistance will be required.

Book on transboundary protected areas

To increase public awareness of the importance oftransboundary cooperation in nature conservation, a popular, attractive. and lavishly illustrated book on transboundary conservation areas should be published. Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

6.5 Bibliography

ANDRIENKO T.L. and STETSENKO M.P. (1996), Transboundary Protected Areas in Ukraine. In: Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe. Praha

BIBEL~IETHER H. and R. SCHREIBER Hg. (1990), Die Nationalparke in Europa. . Frankfurt

BLAKE G.H. (1997), The Geopolitics of Transboundary Cooperation: An Overview. Paper presented at the international conference .Parks for Peace••. Somerset West, near Cape Town, unpublished

BOARD OF POLISH NATIONAL PARKS (1996), National Parks in Poland. Warszawa-Bialwieza

BRUNNER R. (1997), Transboundary Cooperation in Europe: Progress and Possibi­ lities in Solving Environmental Problems and Social Conflicts. Paper presen­ ted at the international conference .Parks for Peace·· Somerset West, near Cape Town, unpublished


BULGARIAN-SWISS BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PROGRAMME (1997b), Strandja: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development. Sofia

BUNDESMINISTERIUM FOR UMWELT, JUGEND and FAMIUE (1997), Naturschutz [inter]national Internationale Naturschutzprojekte in Osterreich. Wien

BURELL T.H. (1988), Transfrontier Parks in Europe Vortrag anlaf,l,lich der EUROPARC-Tagung 1988

CEROVSKY J. (1996), Parks for Life Priority Project 22 'Support to Transfontier Areas' In: Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe. Praha

CEROVSKY J. Ed. (1996), Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe. Praha , . CEROVSKY J. (1997), Transfrontier Protected Areas Along the Former .Iron Curtain" in Europe. Paper presented at the international conference .Parks for Peace" Somerset West, near Cape Town, unpublished


CHRANENE UZEMIA PRIRODY SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY (1996), Mapa v miereke 1:500000. Bratislava

82 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

COUNCIL OF EUROPE (1995), Co-ordination of information on protected areas. Ministerial Conference Environment for Europe, Sofia 1995. Strasbourg DANISH NATIONAL FOREST AND NATURE AGENCY (n.d.), The Danish Contribu­ ti90 to a Trilateral Danish, German and Dutch Management Plan for the Wadden Sea Area. Copenhagen

DEUTS!91;1E NAil~NALPARKE (1991), In: Nationalpark - ~~ Nr 71, 2191. Grafenau

I . DEUJiS(!:HE NATURPARKE (1992), In: Nationalpark- Sonderausgabe. Nr 76, 3192. Grafenau DIREKTION DES NATIONALPARKES FERTO HANSAG (n.d.), l..andsohaftsscutz­ gebiet l

DIREKTORAT FOR NATURFORVALTNING (1996), Enare - Pasvik. Natur og folg i grenseland. Svanvik ·

ECOPOINT (1995); Transboundary Biodiversity Conservation. Selected Case Stu­ dies from Central Europe. Praha

EKOLOGIA BRATISLAVA (1992), National Parks and Protected Landscape Areas of Slovakia. Bratislava

EUROPEAN CENTER FOR NATURE CONSERVATION Hg. (1996), Aggtelek Natio­ nal Park Directorate. Budapest

EUROPEAN CENTER FOR NATURE CONSERVATION Hg. (1996), BOkk National Park Directorate. Budapest

EUROPEAN CENTER FOR NATURE CONSERVATION Hg. (1996), KOros-Maros Nature Conservation Directorate. Budapest ·

EUROPEAN CENTER FOR NATURE CONSERVATION Hg. (1996), Middle-Trans­ danubian Nature Conservation Directorate. Budapest

EUROPEAN CENTER FOR NATURE CONSERVATION Hg. (1996), Nationalpark­ direktion Hortobagy. Budapest .; EUROPEAN CENTER FOR NATURE CONSERVATION Hg. (1996), Nationalpark­ direktion Kiskunsag. Budapest

EUROPEAN CENTER FOR NATURE CONSERVATION, Hg. (1996), Nationalpatk­ direktion Donau-Drau. Budapest

FERTO HANSAG NEMZETI PARK (n.d.), Nationalperk FertO-Hansag. Sarrod

FINNLANDS NATIONALPARKS (1995), Hgg. vom Amt fOr Staatswalder. Helsinki

83 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

FLOUSEK J. (1996), Cooperatkin in BiodiversitY Conservation in the Czech and Polish Krkonose National Parks and Biosphere Reserve. In: Transborder Protected Area Cooperation. Canberra

HAMU.:TON L. and J. THORSELL (1996), Mountains Transborder Parks in Europe. ·In: Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe. Praha

HAMILTQl:-I L. et al. (1996), Transborder Protected Area Cooperation. canben'a

HAMllTQN L. (1997), Guidelines for Effective Transboundary CooperatiOn: ~ ·phy and Best P~. Paper prese$d at the international conference ·.Parks for Peace" Somerset West, near Cape Town, unpublished

HEIGL F. (1978), Ansatze einer Theorie der Grenze (= Schrifterueihe der Osterrei­ ch~n Gesellschaft filr Raumforschung und Raumptanung, Band 26). Wien

HENTSCHEL W. and J, STEIN (1996), Experience from the Bohemian-Saxonian Switzerland In: Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe. Praha

HUNGARIAN NATIONAL AUTHORITY FOR NATURE CONSERVATION Hg. (n.d.), Nature Conservation Management of Grasslands in Hungary. Budapest

INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (1994), Protected Areas in Poland. Warsaw

IUCN (1997), Parks for Peace• - International Conference on Transboundary Protec­ ted Areas as a Vehicle for International Co-operation. Conference Report. Draft of 17October1997. Gland (unpublished)

IUCN (1995), Best Practice for Conservation Planning in Rural Areas. Gland and ·Csmbridge

IUCN - COMMISSION ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PROTECTED AREAS (1994), Parks for Life: Action for Protected Areas in Europe. Gland and Cambridge

JANOTA, D. (1988), Tschechoslowakisch-polnische Nationalparks. Erfahrungen, Probleme und Aussichten am Beispiel des Nationalparks Hohe Tatra. Vortrag anlaBlich der EUROPARC-Tagung 1988

KASHEVAROV B. (1996), Comparative Analysis of Biodiversity in the Finnish-Rus­ sian .Friendship Nature Reserve. In: Transboundary Protected Areas in ·Europe. Praha

KELLEHER G. and R KENCHINGTON (1992), Guidelines for Establishing Marine Protected Areas. A Marine C6nservation and Development Report. IUCN, Gland

84 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

KREMSER H. (1996), Hohe Tauern National Park In: Transborder Protected Area Cooperation. Canberra

KULESHOVA l.V., ZABEUNA N.M. and ISAEVA-PETROVA LS. (1996). Trans­ boundary Protected Areas in Russia: The Present Situation and Prospects of ·Development. In: Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe. Praha

LE Mf;RC~TOUR PARC NATIONAL (n.d.), Aims of Research in a Tr8,0$bp1.mc;t,e.ry .Cooperation: Mercantour (France) -Alpi Marittime (Italy). Niee · · LE MERCANTOUR PARC NATIONAL (n.d.), Document de travail Charte .emre le .Pare national du Meroantour" et le .Parco naturale delle Alpi Maritime". Nice McNEELY J.A, J. HARRISON and P. DINGWALL (Ed.) (1994), Protecting Nature. Regional Reviews of Protected Areas. Gland and Cambridge

McNEIL R. (1990), International Parks for Peace• In: Parks on the Borderline: Experi­ ence in Transfontier Conservation. Gland and Cambridge

MIHALIC D. and M. SYROTEUK (1996), Waterton Glacier International Peace" Park. In: Transborder Protected Area Cooperation. Canberra

MILOSEVIC J. (1996). Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas in Serbia. In: Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe. Praha

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT OF THE CZECH REPUBLIK (1991), Frontier Parks in Czechoslovakia. Praha

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIK (1995), Nature Protection in Slovakia. Bratislava

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE SLOVAK REPUBUK (1994), Act No. 287/1994 on Nature and Landscape Protection. Bratislava

NATIONALPARK sACHSISCHE SCHWEIZ (1995), Nationalpark Sachsische Schweiz - Von der ldee zur Wirklichkeit. Sonderheft zur Eroffnung des Natio­ nalparks Sachsische Schweiz. Konigstein

NATIONALPARK SACHSISCHE SCHWEIZ (1994), Nationalpark Sachsische Schweiz - Nationalparkprogramm (= Heft 1 der Schriftenreihe des National­ parks Sachsische Schweiz). Konigstein

NATIONALPARKKOMMISSION DER IUCN (1994), Parke fµr ~~ff AktiC:>~plan fQr Schutzgebiete in Euro~. ql@i!jtr and Cambridge

OKOLOGISCHE BAUSTEINE (1990), In: Politische Okologie, Sondemeft 2. ~­ chen

85 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europa (final report)

OKOLOW C. (1994), Bialowieza National Park and Biosphere Reserve. In: Biodiver­ sity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Bieszczady-Tatry

OKOLOW C. (1995), Bialowieza National Park. In: Parki Narodowe i Rezerwaty Pr.zyrody. Tom. 14, Nr 1

OSTERREICHl~CHE RAUMORDNUNGSKONFERENZ Hg. (1988), Natul'!iChutz­ ~e Festlegungen in Osterreich. Wlell

POL;SKA AGENCJA PROMOCJI TURYSTYKI (1994), f\lfi.IQne~ in Polen. ·

POORE D. (Ed.) (1992), Guidelines for Mountain P1ofacted Areas(= IUCN Protected Areas Programme Series No 2). Gland and Caml:lridge

RIEBE H. (1996), Nationalpark and Landschaftsschutzgebiet SAchsische Schweiz. In: Jahrbuch des Vereins zum Schutz der Bergwelt e. V. MOnchen. MOnchen

ROSSI P. (1990), Rapport sur la Collaboration entre Pare Nature! de L'Argentera at Pare National du Mercantour. In: Parks on the Borderline: Experience in Transfontier Conservation. Gland and Csmbridge ·

ROSSI P. (1996), Argentera Nature Park: scientifif Research, Management and Transfrontier Cooperation. In: Parks, Vol 6 No 1, Newbury

ROSSI P. (1996), Maritime Alps/Mercantour Parks. In: Transborder Protected Area Cooperation.Canberra

SHINE C. (1997), Legal Mechanism to Strenghten and Safeguard Transboundary Protected Areas. Paper presented at the international conference .Parks for Peace" Somerset West, near Cape Town, unpublished

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (n.d.), The Laponian Area. A Swedish World Heritage Site. Stockholm · ·

THARKOV S. (1996), The Finnish-Russian Friendship Zapovednik: Legislative Basis. In: Transboundary Protected Areas in Europa. Praha

THORSELL J.W. Ed. (1990), Parks on the Borderline: Experience in Transfontier Conservation (= IUCN Protected Area Programme Series No 1). Gland and Cambridge ,

THORSELL J.W. and J. HARRISON (1990), Parks that Promote Peace": A Glflpal Inventory of Transfrontier Nature Reserves. In: Parks on the Borderline:''b­ perien~ in 'fl-ansfontier Conservation. Gland and 1)-mbridge

UMWELTBUNeESAMT (1996), Ziele, Probleme and Sbategien von Nationalparken . •Ergebnisse einer intemationalen Umfrage (=Monographien Bd. 77). Wien

86 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

VEREIN NATURPARK SODEIFEL (n.d.), LandSchaftsplan Naturpark SOdeifel, Be.. standsaufnahme und MaBnahmen VEREIN NATURPARK SODEIFEL and VEREINIGUNG DEUTSCH-l.UXEMBUR­ GISCHl;R NATuRPARK {n.d.), Naturpark SOdeifel and ~­ gischer Naturpark. hrel

WWF ITAUE-WWF FRANCE {1994), s· unir pour mieux ~ Paq ~!lLP< de la Vanoise et du Grand Paradis. Roma

87 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

6.5 Table of Protected Areas

This table is classified in alphabetical order according to the German designation of the countries. The neighbouring partial regions are assigned to each partial region. Each partial area is ordered according to the area along the border. As each partial area has been included, there are a total of 198 rows. In the case where two or several proposed protected areas form a transboundary unit, the are highlighted in grey. Numbering is not continous, as certain areas had to be removed during preparation.

In addition, the table contains contact addresses as well as comments

88 Directorate/ Zip-Code/ Tel: No. Name Country Contacte Town Address Fax: I Notes AL National Park Prespa Lake Albania Prof. Dr. Na sip Mecaj, Tirana Rruga Murat 00355 42 22 839 01 Academy of Science Toptani Nr. 11 00355 42 22 839

.. ALI National Park Thethi I Albania I Prof. Dr. Nasip Mecaj, Tirana Rruga Murat 00355 42 22 839 02 Academy of Science Toptani Nr. 12 00355 42 22 839 I ALI Strict Nature Reserve I Albania I Prof. Dr. Nasip Mecaj, Tirana Rruga Murat 00355 42 22 839 jProposed National Park 03 Skhor Lake Academy of Science Toptani Nr. 13 00355 42 22 839

Bl Nature Park Hautes Fagnesl Belgium Pare Nature I Haute IB-4950 Robertville ICentre Nature 0032 80 445 781 02 - Venn - Eitel Belgium- Fagnes, Mr. Norbert Botrange 0032 80 444 429 Germany Heukemes Bl Nature Park Plaines de IBelgium Address unknown or Mme Gerda Cuvelier, B- 03 l'Escaut 7603 Bon Secours, Rue des Sapins 10 0032 69 780 954 0032 69 776 607

Bl Nature Park Vallee de Belgium Pare nature! de Haute IB-6717 Attert Rue des Portiers I0032 63 242 770 Project In Luxemburg 04 l'Attert - Haute Sure Sure 2 unknown, only Belgium BiHI National Park Sutjeska Bosnia - BiH-71490 01 Herzegovina Tjentiste Bi HI Proposed National Park Bosnia­ No administration 02 Drina Herzegovina or offical planning

BG, Strict Nature Reservee Bulgaria 01 Rhodopen Ad Corresponding Area No. Corresponding Area I Country I Corresponding Area II Country II Ill !Country Ill - . -· .... ALI National Park 1-'respa LaKe 1 <.;reece National Park Galichica - FYR of 01 Lake Ohrid Macedonia

ALI Proposed National Park IYugoslavia 02 Prok/etije Mountains

ALI National Park Skadar Lake !Yugoslavia 03

Bl Nature Park Hautes Fagnes -I Germany 02 Venn - Eifel Belgium- Germany Bj Nature Park Scarpe,-Escaut I France 03

Bl Nature Park Haute Sure - Luxemburg 04 Vallee de I' Attert BiHj National Park Durmitor Yugoslavia 01 BiHj National Park Tara Yugoslavia 02

BGI Protected Area Virgin Forest IGreece 01 of Central Rhodopes Directorate/ Zip-Code/ Tel: No.I Name Country Contacte Town Address Fax: Notes BGINational Park Strandja and \Bulgaria MS. Zlatka Ormanova, I BG-1000 Sofia 38B Graf lgnatievl 00359 2 897 601 02 Protected Area Ropotamo Strandja Project ST. 00359 2 980 4 131 00359 2 832 580

OKI Trilateral Protected Area JDanmark JTorben Klein, National IDK-2100 JHaraldsgade 53 10045 39 47 28 01 !Wadden Sea Management 01 Wadden Sea Nature and Forest Kopenhagen Plan Agency, Nature Management Division

DK Froslev Bog Danmark Mr. Aksel Vogt, DK-6200 \ Skelbiikvej 2 02 Sonderjyllandsamt Aabenraa DK Niehus-Krusa-Tunneldal Danmark Mr. Ove Rasmussen DK-6330 Padberg IBov Kommune 03 D National Park Bayeri-scher JGermany JDir. Dr. Hans JD-94481 Grafenau J;reyungerstraBe I0049 8552 9600-0 01 Wald, Nature Park Bibelriether Bayerischer Wald ~I National Park Germany Dir. Dr. Hubert Zien D-83471 IDoktorberg 6 I0049 8652 968634 IJosef Seidenschwarz 02 Berchtesgaden Berchtesgaden 0049 8652 968640

D National Park Odertal Germany Romuald Buryn D-16294 Bootsweg 1, 0049 3332 25 47-0 03 Schwedt/Oder Postbox 1337 0049 3332 25 4 7 33 D National Park Siichsische Germany Dir. Dr. JGrgen Stein D-01824 Schandauer 0049 35021 68229 04 Schweiz Konigstein StraBe 36 0049 35021 68446 D Nature Park Germany- Germany Zweckverband Nature D-417 4 7 Viersen Rathausmarkt 3 05 Netherlands Maas- Park Maas-Schwalm- Schwalm-Mette Mette DI Nature Park Hautes Fagnes Germany Verein Nature Park ID-52076 Aachen IMonschauerstr. 06 - Venn - Eifel Belgium- Nordeifel 12 Germany DI Nature Park Luxemburg- Germany Deutsch-Luxemburg. D-54666 lrrel Auf Omesen 2 0049 6525 7928 07 Germany (Nature Park Nature Park, Dr. H.B. SGdeifel) Kanzler Ad Corresponding Area No. Corresponding Area I Country I Corresponding Area II Country II Ill !Country Ill BGf Strict Nature Reserve Turkey 02

DKITrilateral Protected Area Germany Trilateral Protected Area Netherlands 01 Wadden Sea Wadden Sea

DK/ Jardelunder Moor Germany 02 DK/ Niehuus Krusa Tunneldal Germany 03 DI National Park Sumava, Czech 01 Protected Landscape Republic Sumava DI Strict Nature Reserve Austria o'z (Proposed National Park) Kalkhochalpen DI Landscape Park Dolina Poland 03 Dolney Odry ' DI Protected Landscape Czech 04 Labske plskovce Republic DI Nature Park Germany- Netherlands 05 Netherlands Maas-Schwalm­ Mette DJ Nature Park Hautes Fagnes -/Belgium 06 Venn - Eitel Belgium- Germany DI Nature Park Luxemburg- Luxemburg 07 Germany (Nature Park SOdeifel) Directorate/ Zip-Code/ Tel: No.I Name Country Contacte Town Address Fax: Notes DI Nature Park Pfalzerwald Germany Biosphere Reserve D-67466 Franz Hartmann 0049 6325 9552 0 08 Nature Park Lambrecht/Pfalz Stral>e 9 0049 6325 9552 19 Ptalzerwald e. V. DI Proposed Nature Park Germany Nature Park Usedom, I D-17 419 Gothenweg 1 0049 38378 31913 or LandesNational Parkamt 09 Usedom Frau Stock Korswandt 0049 38378 31913 Mecklenburg-Vorpommem, D-17192 Speck; Schlol>; 0049 3991 631-0; 0049 3991 631 105 Biosphere Reserve Odermilndungsgebiet

DI Proposed Protected IGermany INo administration 12 Landscape Area Zittauer I or offical planning Gebirge D Strict Nature Reserve I Germany I Regierung von ID-84023 Landshut Ramsar-Gebiet; INTERREG II 13 Unterer Inn Niederbayern, Abt 8, Programme for sustainable c/o Herr Kretz Tourism D Trilateral Protected Area Germany Dr. Fritz Dietrich D-53048 Bonn Postbox 12 I0049 22 8305-2620 Ior Gemeinsames Sekretariat 14 Wadden Sea Bundesministerium fOr 06 29 filr Zusammenarbeit zum Umwelt Schutz des Wattenmeeres; D-26382 Wilhelmshaven, VirchowstraBe 1 0049 4421 9108-0 0049 4421 9108-30 Ad Corresponding Area No. Corresponding Area I Country I Corresponding Area II Country II Ill ICountry Ill D Nature Park Vosges du Nord France 08

DI National Park Wolinski Poland 09

DJ Protected Landscape Czech 12 Luzicke Hory Republic

DJ Strict Nature Reserve Austria 13 Unterer Inn

DJTrilateral Protected Area Danmark Trilateral Protected Area Netherlands 14 Wadden Sea Wadden Sea Directorate/ Zip-Code/ Tel: No.I Name Country Contacte Town Address Fax: Notes

D 161 Strict Nature Reserve I Germany No administration cooperation with NGOs "Bodensee", including Strict or offical planning Nature Reserves Wollmatinger Ried - Gnadensee-Untersee, Mettnau, Hornspitze, Untersee-Ende Ohingen

D 171 Jardelunder Moor Germany Ministerium f. Umwelt. ID- .... Kiel Flensburger Natur and Forsten, StraBe 7 Hr. Rolf Winkler D 181 Niehus-Krusa-Tunneldal Germany Umweltministerium, ID- .... Kiel Hr. Volker Petersen MAI Nature Monument Dojran I FYR of 01 Ez. (Lake) Macedonia MAI National Park Galichica - I FYR of eng. Naume Razmoskil MAC-96000 Ohrid 00389 96 22 091 02 Lake Ohrid Macedonia MAI National Park Mavrovo FYR of eng. Kuzman MAC-91256 00389 94 89 019 both National Parks do not 03 Macedonia Ugrinovski Mavrovi Anovi have a common border, but they are situated in close neighbourhood EE Strict Nature Reserve Estonia Estonian Fund for EE-2400 Tartu POB 245 00372 7 428 443 Planning by Estonian Fund for 01 Wetland Area Nigula Nature 00372 7 428 166 Nature SF National Park ltainen Finland Forest and Park SF-01301 Vantaa PO Box94 00358 9 85 78 41 Eastern Gulf of Finland 01 Suomenlathi Service - South Coast Park Area Ad I / / I /Corresponding Area No. Corresponding Area I Country I Corresponding Area II Country II Ill ICountry Ill

D 161 Protected Area for Water Switzerland and migrating Birds Ermatinger Becken - Stein am Rhein (Untersee)

D 171 Froslev Bog Danmark

D 181 Niehuus Krusa Tunneldal Danmark

MAI Strict Nature Reserve Doya IGreece 01 Lake MA/National Park Prespa Lake !Albania National Park Prespa Lake IGreece 02 MAI National Park Shara Yugoslavia 03 Mountains

EEi Strict Nature Reserve ILatvia 01 Northern Complex .Vidzeme SFI Strict Nature Reserve Finnish! Russian 01 Gulf Federation Directorate/ Zip-Code/ Tel: No. Name Country Contacte Town Address Fax: Notes SF National Park Lemmenjoki, Finland Forest and Park SF-99801 lvalo PO Box 36 00358 16 66 26 48 02 Pyiirisjarvi, Pulju and Service-Northern Hammastunturi Wilderness Lapland District for Area Wilderness Management SF National Park Oulanka, Finland Forest and Park SF-93600 Torangintaiva\ 2 00358 8 852 3241 03 Strict Nature Reserve Service Kuusamo 00358 8 852 2422 Sukerijarvi SF National Park Urho Finland Urho Kekkonen SF-99690 Vuotso 00358 16 626 303 04 Kekkonen National Park 00358 16 626 255 SF Strict Nature Reserve Malla Finland Forest Research SF-01301 Vantaa POBox18 05 Institute SF Strict Nature Reservee Finland Finnish Forest and SF-88900 Kuhmo TOnO\a 00355 986 esso 11 e Finnish-Russian Friendship 06 Ellmussalo, Lentua, lso- Park Service, Kalnuu 00358 986 6530 444 Strict Nature Reserve Palonen and Park Area Maariansarkat, Juortanansalo-Lapinsue Mire Protected Area, Ulvinsalo Strict Nature Reserve

SF Wilderness Area Kasivarsi Finland Forest and Park SF-99400 00358 16 533 070 07 Service-Northern Enontekio 00358 16 533 072 Lapland District for Wilderness Management

SF Wilderness Area Vatsari Finland Forest and Park SF-99801 \vale PO Box 36 00358 16 68 77 26 08 Service-Northern 00358 16 66 26 48 Lapland District for Wilderness Management

F National Park Le France Dir. Marie-Odile Guth F-06006 Nice 23 Rue d'ltalie 0033 4 93 16 78 88 01 Mercantour Cedex 1 0033 4 93 88 79 05 Ad Corresponding Area No. Corresponding Area I Country I Corresponding Area II Country II Ill Country Ill SF National Park Ovre Norway 02 Anarjokka

SF National Park Paanajarvi, Russian 03 Proposed Sieppiuntury Federation Uplands Regional Park SF Strict Nature Reserve Russian 04 Laplandskiy Federation SF Proposed National Park Norway Proposed Protected Area Sweden 05 Treriksroysa Pafsta SF Strict Nature Reserve Russian 06 Kostumuksha Federation

SF National Park Reisa , Norway 07 Protected Landscape Area Raisdoutterhaldi, Proposed National Park Guoatteloubbal SF National Park Pasvik, Strict Norway Strict Nature Reserve Pasvik Russian 08 Nature Reserve Pasvik Zapovednik (Proposed Federation Protected Landscape Area Pasoskiy)

F Nature Park Alpi Marittime Italy 01 Directorate/ Zip-Code/ Tel: No. Name Country Contacte Town Address Fax: INotes F National Park Les Pyrenees France Mr. D. Tribot Laspiere F-65000 Tarbes 59 Route de Pau 0033 5 62 44 36 60, 02 0033 5 62 44 36 70 F National Park Vanoise France Dir. Emmanuel de F-73007 135 rue du 0033 4 79 62 30 54 03 Guill eh on Chambery Cedex Docteur Julliand 0033 4 79 96 3718 F Nature Park Plaine Scarpe France Direction du Pare F-59230 St. 357 rue Notre 0033 3 27 19 1970 04 et de l'Escaut Nature!, M. Jean-Luc Amand les Eaux pame d'Amour 0033 3 27 19 1971 Beghin Fl Nature Park Vosges du IFrance Direction du Pare I F-67290 La Petite I Maison du Pare; I 0033 3 88 70 46 55 05 Nord Nature!, M. Marc Pierre BP 24 0033 3 88 70 41 04 Hoffsess


GRI National Park and Ramsar IGreece Coop. NP Pelister? Ramsar 02 Site Prespa Lake Site GRI Protected Area Virgin I Greece 03 Forest of Central Rhodopes

11 National Park Gran ·•Italy Dir. Luciano Rota 1-10123 Torino Via della Rocca 0039 11 835 839 01 Paradiso 47 0039118121305

11 National Park Stelvio Italy Consorzio Parco 11-39020 Glums I IRathausplatz 1 0039 473 830 430 or M. Walter Frigo, Via Monte 02 Nazionale dello Stelvio Glorenza 0039 473 830 510 Braulio 56, 1-233032 Bormlo

II Nature Park Alpi Marittime I Italy Dir, D.essa Patrizia 1-12010 Valdieri ICorso D.L. 0039 171 97397' 03 Rossi Bianco 5 0039 171 97542 Ad Corresponding Area No. Corresponding Area I Country I Corresponding Area II Country II Ill ICountry Ill F National Park Ordesa/Monte Spain ' 02 Perdido Fl National Park Gran Paradiso IItaly 03 Fl Nature Park Plaines de Belgium 04 l'Escaut

Fl Nature Park Pfalzerwald Germany 05

GR\ Nature Monument Dojran FYR of 01 Ez. (Lake) Macedonia GRINational Park Prespa Lake IAlbania National Park Galichica - FYR of 02 Lake Ohrid Macedonia GRj Strict Nature Reservee I Bulgaria 03 Rhodopen

IJ National Park Vanoise I France 01

Ii National Park Switzerland I Switzerland 02

Ii National Park Le Mercantour I France 03 Directorate/ Zip-Code/ Tel: No.I Name Country Contacte Town Address Fax: Notes

YUi National Park Derdap National Park Djerdap,IYU-19220 Donji 00381 30 86 788 01 Dipl.lng. Mihajlo Hadzi~ Milanovac 00381, 30 86 877 Pavlovic YU, Strict Nature Reserve Yugoslavia Ms. Jasminka YU-11070 Novi Ill bulevar 106 00381.11 142 165 02 Selevenj sands Milosevic, Institute for Beograd 00381 11 142 281 Nature Protection YUi National Park Durmitor Yugoslavia Mr. Milenko Stjepovic YU-84 220 Zabljakjul. Jovana Cvijica 1003818361 346 03 bb YUi National Park Shara Yugoslavia Sar Planina National YU-28236 Strpce­ 00381 290 70 238 Both National Parks do not 04 Mountains Park Brezovica have a common border, but they are situated in close neighbourhood YUi National Park Skadar Lake !Yugoslavia National Park YU-81 000 Trg Bozane 00381 81 634 639 05 Skardasko jezero, Mr. IPodgorica Vucinic bb 00381 81 634 621 Milar Jaukovic YUi Proposed National Park Yugoslavia No administration 06 Prokletije Mountains or offical planning

Topalovica 3 Ad I I I I ICorresponding Area No. Corresponding Area I Country I Corresponding Area II Country II Ill !Country Ill

YUi Strict Nature Reserve Romania 01 Cazanele

YUi Protected Area Karas er Hungary 02

YUi National Park Sutjeska Bosnia - 03 Herzegovina YUi National Park Mavrovo FYR of 04 Macedonia

YU, Strict Nature Reserve Skhor !Albania 05 Lake

YUi National Park Thethi Albania 06 Directorate/ Zip-Code/ Tel: No. Name Country Contacte Town Address Fax: Notes YU Strict Nature Reserve Yugoslavia Ms. Jasminka YU-11070 Novi Ill bulevar 106 00381 11 142 165 See also: Proposed 09 Upper Danube Basin Milosevic, Institute for Beograd 00381 11 142 281 Protected Area Mura-Drava Nature Protection (Austria, Croatia, Hungary, Slovenia) HR Nature Park Kopacki rit Croatia Mr. Joszef Mikuska, HR-31000 Osijek Lorenca Jegera 2 00385 31 311188 ..see also: Proposed 01 Pedagoski fakultet 00385 31 126 757 Protected Area Mura-Drava Osijek (Austria, Croatia, Hungary, Slovenia) HR National Park Risnjak Croatia Mr. Ivan Malnar HR-51370 Crni Bijela vodica 48 00385 51 836 133 02 Lug 00385 51 836 116 HR Proposed Protected Croatia Mr. Radenko Dezelic, HR-41000 Zagreb llica 44/11 00385 1 432 022 03 Landscape Repas Drzavna uprava i 00385 1 431 515 (Biosphere Reserve) Mura- prirodne bastine Drava and Nature Reserve Veleki Pazut (Mouth of Drava and Mura)

LET Strict Nature Reserve Latvia Estonian Fund for EE-2400 Tartu POB245 00372 7 428 443 Planung durch Estonian Fund 01 Northern Complex Vidzeme Nature 00372 7 428 166 for Nature

LIT National Park Kursiu nerija Lithuania Neringa Municipality LIT-5800 Klaipeda Ligonines G.t 01 LIT Regional Parks Veisejai Lithuania Vitas Marazas LIT-4560 Lazdijai Vilniaus 55 Proposed transboundary 02 and Meteliai Protected Area Augustow- Druskininkai

LIT Regional Park Vystytis Lithuania Romas Bevelicius, LIT-Marijampole Vilkaviskio g. 71 00370 8242 43 532 03 Marijampoles misku uredija L Nature Park Luxemburg- Luxemburg Dr. Jean Friedrich L-1345 Luxemburg 16 Rue Frere 00352 220 131 01 Germany (Nature Park Clemenf 00352 523 560 SOdeifel) Ad Corresponding Area No. Corresponding Area I Country I Corresponding Area II Country II Ill Country Ill YU Nature Park Kopacki rit Croatia National Park Duna-Drava Hungary 09

HR National Park Duna-Drava Hungary Strict Nature Reserve Upper Yugoslavia 01 Danube Basin

HR Proposed Regional Nature Slovenia Proposed Nature Park Slovenia 02 Park Nostranjski Koveski HR Protected Landscape Area Austria Mura Protected Landscape Hungary Landscape Park Mura-Drava Slovenia 03 Mura (Proposed Biosphere Area Reserve)

LET Proposed transboundary Estonia 01 Strict Nature Reserve Wetland Area Nigula LIT National Park Kurshskaja Russian 01 kosa Federation LIT Strict Nature Reserve Belarus National Park Wigry Poland 02 Sopockinskij

LIT Landscape Park Suwalki Poland Strict Nature Reserve Russian 03 Vishtynetsky Federation

L Nature Park Luxemburg- Germany 01 Germany (Nature Park SOdeifel) Directorate/ Zip-Code/ Tel: No.I Name Country Contacte Town Address Fax: Notes L/ Nature Park Haute Sure - ILuxemburg No administra-tion Projekt in Luxemburg 02 Vallee de I' Attert or offical planning unknown, nur Belgium 1r111~11~1111i1~~i~11111~~lh NLI Nature Park Germany- Netherlands ISekretariat der I D-40000 SchwannstraBe 3 0049 211 456 65 30 02 Netherlands Maas­ beratenden Kommis- DOsseldorf 30 0049 211 456 63 88 Schwalm-Mette sion fOr den Grenz- park, Herr Dr. Seelig; Ministerium f. Umwelt

NL, Trilateral Protected Area Netherlands Henri Kool Mi. I NL-2500 Den IPostbus 20401 /0031 70 37 93 660 03 Wadden Sea Landbouw, Haag Natuurbeheer en Visserij NI National Park Ovre 'Norway Fylkesmannen i N-9800 Vatso Statens hus 10047 78 950 300 01 Anarjokka Finnmark 0047 78 951 930

NI National Park Ovre Norway Fylkesmannen i Troms I N-9005 Tromso IPostboks 595 0047 77 64 20 00 02 Dividalen NI National Park Pasvik, Strict INorway Fylkesmannen i N-9800 Vatso Statens hus 0047 78 950 300 03 Nature Reserve Pasvik Finnmark 0047 78 951 930

NI National Park Rago, Norway Fylkesmannen i N-8002 Bodo Moloveien 10 0047 75 531 580 04 Proposed National Park Nordland 0047 75 531 680 Tysfjord Hellemobotn

NI National Park Reisa , INorway Fylkesmannen i Troms I N-9005 Tromso IPostboks 595 0047 77 64 20 00 05 Protected Landscape Area 0047 77 64 22 39 Raisdoutterhaldi, Proposed National Park Guoatteloubbal Ad Corresponding Area No. Corresponding Area I Country I Corresponding Area II Country II Ill ICountry Ill N Strict Nature Reserve Sweden 06 Rogens, Strict Nature Reserve Langfjallet (Proposed National Park Rogen-Langfjallet)

NJ National Parks Vadvetjakka, I Sweden 07 Abisko, Proposed National Park Kirunafjallen

NI Strict Nature Reserve Malla I Finland Proposed Protected Area Sweden 08 Palsta NI Proposed Strict Nature Russian 09 Reserve Zemlja Fransa­ Federation /osifa NI National Park Tresticklan Sweden 10 Al Protected Landscape Area ICzech Protected Area Zahorie and ISlovakia 01 Palava and International Republic International Ramsar Ramsar Management March Management March-Thaya­ Thaya-(Morava'Dyje)-Region (Morava-Dyje)-Region

Al National Park Feria to Hungary 02 Al Nature Park lrottko Hungary 03 Directorate/ Zip-Code/ Tel: No.I Name ··country Contacte Town Address Fax: , .Notes

Al Protected Landscape Area Austria EURONATUR, Dr. A-8020 Graz Brockmanng. 53 0043 316 817 908 or Amt der Stmk. Landes- 10 Mura (Proposed Biosphere Uwe Kozina 0043 316 817 911 regierung, Rechtsabt.6, Reserve) HR DI Dietiinde Mlaker, A-8020 Graz, Karmellterpl. 2 0043 316 877-0 0043 316 877 43 14

Al Strict Nature Reserve Austria Amt der Salzburger iA-5020 Salzburg POB 527 0043 662 8042-5503 11 (Proposed National Park) Landesregierung, 0043 662 8042 5505 Kalkhochalpen Naturschutzabt., Mag. J. Fischer-Colbrie l . Strict Nature Reserve IAustria 1or. Anita Matzinger, A-4020 Linz Promenade 33 0043 732 7720-1 877 Ramser-Site; INTERREG II- 121 Unterer Inn AmtderOO 0043 732 7720-1899 Programme for sustainable Landesregierung, tourism, or Naturschutzabteilung Dr. Josef Elsner, Otto Klinlg lnstiM tor angewandte Okologie, Dorf an der Enns 69a, A-4431 Haidershofen 0043 7252 37175 Ad I I ICorresponding Area No. Corresponding Area II Country II Ill

Al Proposed Protected ICroatia Mura Protected Landscape IHungary Landscape Park Mura-Drava ISlovenia 10 Landscape Repas Area (Biosphere Reserve) Mura- Drava and Strict Nature Reserve Ve/eki Pazut (Mouth of Drava-Mura)

Al National Park Germany 11 Berchtesgaden

A 121 Strict Nature Reserve Germany Unterer Inn Directorate/ Zip-Code/ Tel: No. Name Country Contacte Town Address Fax: Notes A Strict Nature Reserve Austria Amt der NO A-3100 St. Pollen Landhausplatz 1 0043 27 42 200 4243 13 (Proposed National Park) Landesregierung, Abt. Thayatal RU5 PL Landscape Park Dolina Poland Dr. Blandyna PL-74100 Grylino Armii Krajowej 36 0048 91 150 139 01 Dolney Odry Migdalska PL Landscape Park Zywiecki Poland Zywiecki Park PL-34 300 Zywiec ul. Krasinskiego , 0048 33 61 78 25 02 Krajobrazowy 13 0048 33 61 78 25 PL National Park Babia Gora Poland Ing, Jacek Wizimirski PL-34-223 Zawoja 0048 33 775 110 03 ' 0048 33 775 110 PL National Park Bialowieza Poland Dr. Czeslaw Okolow PL-17-230 Park Palacowy 5 0048 835 123 06 Biosphere Reserve 04 Bialowieza 0048 835 123 23 - PL National Park Gory Stolowe Poland Mgr Ing, Janusz PL-57-350 ul. Sloneczna 31 0048 7 4 661 436 Proposed bilateral Biosphere 05 Korybo Kudowa Zdroj Reserve PL National Park Karkonosze Poland Mgr inz, Ryszard PL-58 570 Jelenia ul. Chalubin- 0048 75 53726 Biosphere Reserve 06 Machala Gora skiego 23 PL National Park Pieniny Poland Ing, Andrzej PL-34 450 ul. Jagiellonska 0048 1872 3090 07 Szczocarz Kroscienko 107 0048 1872 3090 f'L National Park Poleski Poland Poleski National Park, PL-22-234 ul. Chelmska 7 0048 82 571 30 71 Proposed National Park West 08 Mr. Zbigniew Urszulin 0048 82 571 30 03 Polissya Karbowski PL National Park Poland Roztocze Park PL-22-470 ul. Plazowa 2 0048 84 872 066 Proposed Biosphere 09 Rozotzczanski Narodowy Zwierzyniec 0048 84 872 070 Reserve, Proposed National Park PL National Park Tatrzansky Poland Mr. Zbigniew Krzan, PL-34-500 ul. 0048 165 635 79 10 Taira National Park Zakopane Chalubinskiego 0048 165 632 03 Office 42A PL National Park Wolinski Poland National Park Wolinski PL-72 510 ul. 0048 97 32 80 357 Proposed Biosphere Reserve 11 Miedzyzdroje Niedpodleglosci 0048 97 32 80 357 Odermandungsgebiet (Nature Park Usedom)

PL National Park Bieszczady, Poland Wojomir PL-38-714 0048 13 469 81 91 Biosphere Reserve 12 Landscape Parks Cisna- Wojciechowski Ustrzyki Gome Wetlina and San River Valley Ad Corresponding Area No. Corresponding Area I Country I Corresponding Area II Country II Ill Country Ill A National Park Podyji Czech 13 Republic . PL National Park Odertal Germany 01 PL Protected Landscape Area Czech Protected Landscape Area Slovakia 02 Beskidy Republic Kysuce PL Protected Landscape Area Slovakia 03 Homa Orava PL National Park Belovezhskaya Belarus 04 Pushcha PL Protected Landscape Area Czech Protected Landscape Area Czech 05 Broumovsko Republic Orlicke Hory Republic PL National Park Krkonose Czech Protected Landscape Area Czech 06 Republic Iser Mountains Republic PL National Park Pieninsky Slovakia 07 PL Protected Area mit Belarus National Park Shatsk Ukraine 08 Management Vygonoschanske PL Protected Landscape Area Ukraine 09 Roztochya

PL National Park Tatra (TANAP) Slovakia 10

PL Proposed Nature Park Germany 11 Usedom

PL Protected Landscape Area Slovakia National Park Karpatsky Ukraine 12 Vychodne Karpaty Directorate/ Zip-Code/ Tel: No.I Name Country Contacte Town Address Fax: Notes

PLI National Park Wigry I Poland I Zdzislaw ~zkiruc IPL-16 400 SuwalkilKrzywe 82 I 0048 4887 66 63 22 I Proposed transboundary 14 Protected Area Augustow- Druskininkai I I PL Landscape Park Suwalki Poland lgnacy Jesionowski PL 16 426 Malesowizna I0048 48 887 62 620 15 Pawlo.wka Turtul PL Landscape Parks Mierzeja Poland Andrzej Kotlinski, PL-82 300 Elblag ul. Wojska 0048 55 33 29 77 Proposed Protected Area 16 Wislana (Vistula Spit) and Zarzad Parkow Polskiego 1 Za/ew Wis/any (Vistula Wzniesienie Elblaskie Krajobrazwych Lagoon)

P National Park Peneda Portugal Dir. Eng. Paulo Castro P-4 700 Braga Quinta das 00351 53 61 31 69 or 00351 53 264 72 01 Geres Parretas-Rodovia

P Strict Nature Reserve Portugal Direction P-8700 Faro 100351 69 704 134 02 (Reserva Natural) da Ria 00351 89 704 165 Formosa

Pl Strict Nature Reserve I Portugal !Centro de IP-8950 Castro ICastelo da Vila 100351 81 421 41 03 (Reserva Natural) da Sapal lnterpretacao Marim de Castro Marim e Vila Real de Sto. Antonio

ROI Biosphere Reserve Danube I Romania I Danube Delta 1R- Tulcea I ~tr. 14 Noiembrle 01 Delta Biospherereserve Authority, Dir. Grigore Baboianu RO Strict Nature Reserve IRomania I 02 Cazanele RUS National Park Paanajarvi, Russian Paanajarvi National 186 667 I ul. Druzhby 31 1007 814 39 28 688 01 Proposed Sieppiuntury Federation Park Pjaozersky, Louchi 007 814 39 28 504 Uplands Regional Park District; Russia/Karella Ad I I I I ICorresponding Area No. Corresponding Area I Country I Corresponding Area II Country II Ill..,,.,..,.....,,,

PLI Strict Nature Reserve Belarus Regional Parks Veisejai and I Lithuania 14 Sopockinskij Meteliai

PLI Strict Nature Reserve Russian Regional Park Vystytis Lithuania 15 Vishtynetsky Federation PLI Strict Nature Reserve Russian 16 Vislinskaya Kosa (Vistula Federation Spit)

Pl Nature Park Baixa-Lima- Spain 01 Serra do Xeres

Pl Strict Nature Reserve IPortugal Natural Landscape Marismos ISpain 02 (Reserva Natural) da Sapal de Isla Christina de Castro Marim e Vila Real de Sta. Antonio PjStrict Nature Reserve IPortugal Natural Landscape Marismos ISpain 03 (Reserva Natural) da Ria de Isla Christina Formosa

ROI Biosphere Reserve Danube I Ukraine 01 Delta

ROJ National Park Derdap IYugoslavia 02 RUSI National Park Oulanka, I Finland 01 Strict Nature Reserve Sukerijarvi Directorate/ Zip-Code/ Tel: No.I Name Country Contacte Town Address Fax: Notes RUSI Strict Nature Reserve Russian Pasvik Zapovednik 184424 Rajakoski 02 Pasvik Zapovednik Federation

RUSI National Park Kurshskaja I Russian 238 535 Rybachy JZelenograd 0071150 28119 007 03 kosa Federation District, 1150 211 80 Kaliningrad

RUSI Proposed Strict Nature Russian No administration 06 ReseNe Zemlja Fransa- Federation or offical planning losifa I RUSI Strict Nature Reserve Russian Bryansky !es Strict 242 180 Suzemskiy I007 7083 53 232 92 07 (Zapovednik) Bryanskiy !es Federation Nature Reserve Bryanskaya oblast Region, St. Nerussa I I RUS Strict Nature Reserve Russian I IEastern Gulf of Finland 08 Finnish Gulf Federation

RUS Strict Nature Reserve Russian Kostumuksha Strict RUS-186 989 Priozernaje 2 007 814 594 3224 Finnish-Russian Friendship 09 Kostumuksha Federation Nature Reserve Kostomuksha, 007 814 594 3224 Strict Nature Reserve Karelia

RUSI Strict Nature Reserve Russian Director Sergei 184 280 Zeleny 8 007 815 36 222 67 Proposed National Park 10 Laplandskiy Federation Shestakov Monchegorsk 007 815 36 201 99 Laplandsky RUSI Strict Nature Reserve Russian Doc. Galina M. 235 041 ul. A. Nevskogo 007112436254

11 Vishtynetsky Federation Barinova, University of J Kaliningrad, 007112 46 5813 Kaliningrad Kaliningrad oblast Ad Corresponding Area No. Corresponding Area I Country I Corresponding Area II Country II Ill !Country Ill RUSjWilderness Area vatsan Finland National Park Pasvik, Strict INorway 02 Nature Reserve Pasvik

RUSI National Park Kursiu nerija ILithuania 03

RUSI Protected Area Svalbard INorway 06

RUSI Protected Area IUkraine 07 Starogutovskiy and Stara Hula RUSI National Park lt~inen Finland 08 Suomenlathi

RUSI Strict Nature Reservee Finland 09 Elimussalo, Lentua, lso­ Palonen and Maarian-sarkat, Juortanansalo-Lapinsue Mire Protected Area, Ulvinsalo Strict Nature Reserve

RUSI National Park Urho Finland 10 Kekkonen RUSI Regional Park Vystytis Lithuania Landscape Park Suwalki Poland 11 Directorate/ Zip-Code/ Tel: No. Name Country Contacte Town Address Fax: Notes RUS Strict Nature Reserve Russian Doc. Galina M. 235 041 ul. A. Nevskogo 007 112 43 62 54 Proposed Protected Area 12 Vislinskaya Kosa (Vistula Federation Barinova, University of Kaliningrad, 007 112 46 58 13 Za/ew Wis/any (Vistula Spit) Kaliningrad Kaliningrad oblast Lagoon) SI Strict Nature Reserve Sweden Lansstyrelsen i S-79184 Falun 0046 23 81 053 01 Regen, Strict Nature Kopparbegrs Ian, 0046 23 81 118 Reserve Langfjallet Nature Conservation (Proposed National Park Division, Mr. Hannes Rogen-Langfjallet) Melquist SI National Park Tresticklan Sweden Tresticklan National S-461 82 10046 521 270 170 02 Park, Administrative Vanersborg I 0046 521 270 196 Board SI Laponian Area: National Sweden Lansstyrelsens S-962 23 Box 105 0046 920 96200 World Heritage Site 03 Parks Sarek, Padjelante, fjallfOrvaltning Jokkmokk or Lenststryrelsen i Norbotten, Stora Sjofallet, Muddus; Miljovardsenheten; S-95186 Strict Nature Reserve Lui ea Sjaunja, Stubba SI National Parks Sweden Fjallenheten I S-960 40 Lanstyrelsen I 0046 920 96 000 04,Vadvetjakka, Abisko, Norbottens Ian Jokkmokk Norbottoens Ian 0046 971 126 28 Proposed National Park SJ Proposed National Park ISweden No administration Sweden has not named this 05 Tavvavuoma or offical planning area as a TBPA

SI Proposed Protected Area Sweden No administration not mentioned by Swedish 06(alsta or offical planning authorities (Source: Norway)

CHI National Park Switzerland Switzerland Dir. Dr. H. Haller CH-7530 Zernez National Park 0041818561378 01 Headquarter 0041 8185617 40 Zernez Ad I Corresponding Area No. Corresponding Area I Country I Corresponding Area II Country II Ill Icountry Ill RUS Landscape Parks Mierzeja Poland 12 Wislana (Vistula Spit) and Wzniesienie Elblaskie SI National Parks j Norway 01 Femundsmarka, Gutulia

SI Strict Nature Rese1ve Norway 02 Lundsneset

SI National Park Rago, Norway 03 Proposed National Park Tysfjord Hellemobotn

s1Proposed National Park Norway 04 Sjl!rdalen-lsdalen

Sj National Park Ovre Dividalen INorway 05

SJ Strict Nature Reserve Malla IFinland Proposed National Park Norway 06 Treriksroysa

CHj National Park Stelvio IItaly 01 Directorate/ Zip-Code/ Tel: No. Name Country Contacte Town Address Fax: Notes CH Protected Area for water Switzerland No administration cooperation on NGO level 03 and migrating birds or offical planning Ermatinger Becken - Stein am Rhein (Untersee)

SK Protected Area Zahorie and Slovakia Dusan Valachovic, SK-901 01 Vajanskeho 17 00421 703 72 27 35 01 International Ramsar Sprava CHKO Zahorie Malacky 00421 703 72 27 35 Management March-Thaya- (Morava-Dyje)-Region

SK National Park Pieninsky Slovakia Ing. Stefan Danko SK-059 60 00421 964 26 33 02 Cerveny Klastor SK National Park Tatra Slovakia Ing. Tomas Vancura, SK-059-60 Vila Tatry c. 154 00421 969 468 181 03 (TANAP) Sprava-Tanap-u Tatranska Lomnica 00421 969 467 581 SK Protected Area Cerova Slovakia CHKO Cerova SK-979 01 Svatoplukova 40 00421 866 23 032 04 vrchovina vrchovina Rimavska Sobota 00421 866 23 032 SK Protected Landscape Area Slovakia CHKO Biele Karpaty SK-914 41 Trencinnska 31 00421 831 5 983 87 06 Biele Karpaty Nemsova SK Protected Landscape Area Slovakia CHKO Homa Orava SK-029 01 Barnolakova 408 00421 846 522 466 07 Homa Orava Namestovo 00421 846 522 466 SK Protected Landscape Area Slovakia CHKO Kusyce SK-022 01 Cadca Kysucka casta 9 00421 824 215 34 08 Kysuce SK Protected Landscape Area Slovakia CHKO Slovensky Kras SK-049 51 Brzotin Biely Kastiel 00421 942 267 69 10 Slovensky kras (Proposed National Park) SK Protected Landscape Area Slovakia CHKO Vychodne SK-066 01 Lipova 19 00421 933 753 632 Biosphere Reserve Eastern 11 Vychodne Karpaty Karpaty, Dir. Jan Humenne 00421, 933 753 632 . Carpathians Terray SLO Proposed Nature Park Slovenia No administration 02 Koveski or offical planning Ad Corresponding Area No. Corresponding Area I Country I Corresponding Area II Country II Ill Country Iii CH Strict Nature Reserve Germany 03 "Bodensee", including Strict Nature Reserve Wollmatinger Ried - Gnadensee-Untersee, . Mettnau, Hornspitze, Untersee-Ende Ohingen

SK Protected Landscape Area Austria Protected Landscape Area Czech 01 Donau-March and Palava and International Republic International Ramsar Ramsar Management March- Management Morava-Dyje- Thaya-(Morava-Dyje)-Region Region

SK National Park Pieniny Poland 02 SK National Park Tatrzansky Poland 03 SK Protected Area Karancs- Hungary 04 Madves SK Protected Landscape Area Czech 06 Bile Karpaty Republic SK National Park Babia Gora Poland 07 SK Protected Landscape Area Czech Landscape Park Zywiecki Poland 08 Beskidy Republic SK National Park Aggtelek Hungary 10

SK National Park Bieszczady, Poland National Park Karpatsky Ukraine 11 Landscape Parks Cisna- Wetlina-San River Valley SLO National Park Risnjak Croatia Proposed Regional Nature Slovenia 02 Park Nostranjski Directorate/ Zip-Code/ Tel: No.I Name Country Contacte Town Address Fax: Notes

SLOI Landscape Park Mura- Slovenia Mr. Milan Vogrin, SL0-62312 Hotinja vas 164a or Prof. Janko Urbanek, 04 Drava DOPPS Orehova vas Zavod vaarstvo naravne in kulturne dediscine SL0-62000 Maribor, Slomskov trg 6 Mrs. Stanka Desnik Drustvo za varstvo okolja SLO- ..... Muraska Sobota

SLOI Proposed Regional Nature ISlovenia No administration Proposed Biosphere ReseNe 05 Park Nostranjski or offical planning

El National Park [Spain Dir. Adj. Luis MarquinalE-22071 Huesca Plaza de 0034 97 4 243 361 01 Ordesa/Monte Perdido Muralanch Cervantes 5 0034 97 4 242 725 EJ Natural Landscape [Spain E-41071 Sevilla Avda. Eritana 1 02 Marismos de Isla Christina

El Nature Park Baixa-Lima- [Spain J. Benito Reza E-32003 Lobios I Carretera de 0034 88 448 048 03 Serra do Xures Orense Portugal 0034 88 448 048 Ad Corresponding Area No. Corresponding Area 11 I Country II I111

SLOI Protected Landscap.e Area IAustria Proposed Protected ICroatia Mura Protected Landscape I Hungary 04 Mura (Proposed Biosphere Landscape Repas Area Reserve) (Biosphere Reserve) Mura- Drava and Strict Nature Reserve Veleki Pazut (Drava-Mura Maodung)

SLOI National Park Risnjak Croatia Proposed Nature Park Slovenia 05 Koveski

E\ National Park Les Pyrenees IFrance 01 El Strict Nature Reserve Portugal Strict Nature Reserve IPortugal 02 (Reserva Natural) da Ria (Reserva Natural) da Sapal Formosa de Castro Marim e Vila Real de Sta. Antonio E\ National Park Peneda Geres \Portugal 03 Directorate/ Zip-Code/ Tel: No. Name Country Contacte Town Address fax: INotes CZ Protected Landscape Area Czech Veronica, Dr. Jaroslav CZ-60 200 Brno Pranska 9 00420 5 4221 8354 01 Palava and International Republic Ungermann 00420 5 4221 0561 Ramsar Management Morava-Dyje-Region

CZ National Park Krkonose Czech Dir. Ing. Oldrich Labek CZ-543 11 00420 438 21011 Biosphere Reserve 02 Republic Vrchlabi 00420 438 23095 CZ National Park Podyji Czech Dir. Ing. Tomas CZ-69001 Znojmo Na vyhlidce 5 00420 624 226 722 03 Republic Rothrock! 00420 624 221 115 I CZI National Park Sumava, ICzech Dr. Frantisek Urban CZ-38 501 1. Maje 20 00420 339 23 298 IBiosphere Reserve 04 Protected Landscape Republic Vimperk Sumava

CZ Protected Landscape Area Czech Dr. Milan Skroff, CZ-75 661 Roznov Nadrazno c. 36 00420 651 555 92 06 Beskldy Republic CHKO Beskidy nad Radhostem 00420 651 574 07 CZ Protected Landscape Area Czech Jan W. Jongepier CZ-69 801 Veseli Bartolomejske 00420 631 322 545 07 Bile Karpaty Republic nad Moravou nam47 00420 631 322 545 CZ Protected Landscape Area Czech RNDr. Jan , CZ-54-954 Police Ledhujska 59 00420 44 7 94 696 · 1Proposed Bilateral Biosphere 08 Broumovsko Republic CHKO Broumovsko nad Metuji 00420 44 7 94 696 Res01ve CZ Protected Landscape Area Czech Ing. Pavel Vonicka, CZ-46 001 Liberec u. Jezu 10 09 Iser Mountains Republic CHKO Jizerske Hory CZ Protected Landscape Area Czech Ing. Werner ICZ-40 501 Decin IDlouha jizda 100420 412 26 349 10 Labske piskovce Republic Hentschel, CHKO 1257 00420 412 25 359 Labske piskovce cz1 Protected Landscape Area ICzech Mr. Pavel Kucirek ICZ-47 301 Novy Inam. Meru 109 11 Luzicke Hory (Lausitanian Republic Bor Mountains) Ad Corresponding Area No. Corresponding Area I Country I Corresponding Area II Country II Ill Icountry Ill CZI Protected Landscape Area IAustna Protected Area Zahorie and I Slovakia 01 Donau-March and International Ramsar International Ramsar Management March-Thaya­ Management Morava-Dyje- (Morava-Dyje)-Region Region CZ/ Protected Landscape Area Czech National Park Karkonosze Poland 02\ Iser Mountains Republic CZI Strict Nature Reserve Austria 03 (Proposed National Park) Thayatal cz1 National Park Bayerischer IGermany 04 Wald, Nature Park Bayerischer Wald

CZ/ Landscape Park Zywiecki Poland Protected Landscape Area I Slovakia 06 Kysuce CZ, Protected Landscape Area ISlovakia 07 Biele Karpaty CZI Protected Landscape Area Czech National Park Gory Stolowe IPoland 08 Orlicke Hory Republic CZ\ National Park Krkonose Czech National Park Karkonosze IPoland 09 Republic CZI National Park Sachsische Germany 10 Schweiz

CZI Proposed Protected Germany 11 Landscape Area Zillauer Gebirge Directorate/ Zip-Code/ ITel: No. Name Icountry Contacte Town ·Address Fax: !Notes CZ Protected Landscape Area ICzech Mr. Vaclav Kansky, CZ-51 601 Panska 79 12 Orlicke Hory Republic CHKO Orlicke hory Rychnow nad Kneznon CZI Protected Landscape Area Czech Ing. Josef Hlasek, CZ-37 901Trebon1valy 121 100420 721 248 I Biosphere Reserve, Ramsar 13 Trebonsko Republic CHKO Trebonsko Site

TR Strict Nature Reserve Turkey 01

UKR Biosphere Reserve Danube IUkraine 01 Delta UKR National Park Karpatsky Ukraine Karpatskij 295 800 ul Kraasnoje I IBiosphere Reserve 02 gosudastvennyj Zakarpatskaja plesso 77 zapovednik oblast gored Rachov UKR National Park Shatsk Ukraine 264 663 Swityaz Volhynian District 1Proposed National Park West 03 Pofissya UKR Strict Nature Reserve Ukraine Polessky Strict Nature Selezovka, Ovruch 00380 4148 34 288 04 Polessky Reserve Dir. Ghalina I. District, Zhytomir Bumar Region

UKRI Protected Area Ukraine National Academie of I GSP-252601 Kyiv I Tereshchenkivsk I 00380 44 225 3396 IProposed Biosphere Reserve 07 Starogutovskiy and Stara Science, c/o Tetjana a Str. 2 00380 44 513 1528 Huta Andrienko UKRI Protected Landscape Area Ukraine Yuri Zinke, 290 000 Lviv Doroshenko str. 00380 322 794 598 Proposed Biosphere 08 Roztochya Department of 41 00380 322 215 556 Reserve, Proposed National Geography, University Park of Lviv Ad Corresponding Area No. Corresponding Area I Country I Corresponding Area II Country II Ill !Country Ill -· -· - CZ\ Protected Landscape Area Ivzecn National Park Gory Stolowe IPoland 12 Broumovsko Republic

CZI Proposed Strict Nature IAustria 13 Reserve Lainsitzniederung

TRI National Park Strandja and IBulgaria 01 Protected Area Ropotamo

UKRIBiosphere Reserve Danube [Romania 01 Delta UKRI National Park Bieszczady, I Poland Protected Landscape Area ISlovakia 02 Landscape Parks Cisna- Vychodne Karpaty Wetlina and San River Valley

UKRI Protected Management Area IBelarus National Park Poleski Poland 03 Vygonoschanske UKRJ National Park Pripiatsky I Belarus 04

UKRI Strict Nature Reserve Russian 07 (Zapovednik) Bryanskiy les Federation

UKRjNational Park Roztozczanski I Poland 08 Directorate/ Zip-Code/ Tel: No. Name Country Contacte Town Address Fax: !Notes H National Park Aggte/ek Hungary National Park H-3758 Josvaf6 Tengerszem 0036 48 350 006 01 Aggtelek oldal 1 0036 48 343 029

H National Park Duna-Drava Hungary Mrs. Dr. l/diko lvanyi, H-7601 Pees Tettye ter 9 0036 72 213 263 See also: Proposed 02 Duna-Drava Nemzeti 0036 72 210-747 Protected Area Mura-Drava Park (Austria, Croatia, Hungary, Slovenia) H National Park Ferto to Hungary Ferto-Hansag National H-9435 Sarrod PF 4 0036 99 370 919 03 Park 0036 99 371 590 H Nature Park Jrottko Hungary Ferto-Hansag National H-9435 Sarrod PF4 0036 99 370 919 04 I Park 0036 99 371 590 H Protected Area Kores er Hungary Kiskunsag National H-6001 Liszt F. u. 19 05 Park Kecskemet H Mura Protected Landscape Hungary Balaton felvideki H-8200 Veszprem !Var u. 31 I0036 88 427 855 06 Area Nemzeti Park

H Protected Area Karancs- Hungary BGkk'National Park H-3304 Eger Sane u 6 0036 36 411 581 08 Madves Directorate 0036 36 412 7,91 BR National Park Belarus Vasi/ij Potapovicz BEL-223 063 pos. Brestskaja ob/ast 00375 1631 56103 01 Belovezhskaya Pushcha Zukov Kamenjuki, 00375 1631 21283 Kamienieckij Raj on I I I BRI National Park Pripiatsky I Belarus National Park Turov, Zhitkovichy I 100375 2353 51 302 02 Pripyatski, Dir. Dr. District, Gome/ 00375 2353 51 276 Anatolij V. Ug/yanets Region Ad Corresponding Area No. Corresponding Area I Country I Corresponding Area II Country II Ill !Country Ill HI Protected Landscape Area 1::;1ovaK1a 01 Slovensky kras (Proposed · National Park) HI Nature Park Kopacki rit Croatia Strict Nature Reserve Upper IYugoslavia 02 Danube Basin

HI National Park Neusiedler Austria 03 See-Seewinkel HI Nature Park Austria 04 Geschriebenstein HI Strict Nature Reserve Yugoslavia 05 Slevenj Sands H\ Proposed Protected I Croatia Protected Landscape Area I Austria Landscape Park Mura-Drava I Slovenia 06 Landscape Repas Mura, Proposed Biosphere (Biosphere Reserve) Mura- Reserve Mura-Drava Drava and Strict Nature

HI Protected Area Cerova Slovakia 08 vrchovina BRI National Park Bialowieza Poland 01

BR\ Strict Nature Reserve Ukraine 02 Polessky Directorate/ Zip-Code/ Tel: No. Name Country Contacte Town Address Fax: Notes BR Protected Management Belarus Proposed National Park West 03 Area Vygonoschanske Po/issjia

BR Strict Nature Reserve Belarus Dr. Valentin M. 220 050 Minsk Skoryna str. 4 00375 172 26 57 73 Proposed transboundary 04 Sopockinskij Yatsukhno, 00375 172 26 59 40 Protected Area Augustow- Belarussian State Druskininkai University Ad Correspondi"ng Area No. Corresponding Area I Country I Corresponding Area II Country II Ill Country Ill BR National Park Poleski Poland National Park Shatsk Ukraine 03

BR Regional Parks Veisejai and Lithuania National Park Wigry Poland 04 Meteliai

Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

• @• •


ill 1: The legal status of border protected areas (C. SHINE, 1997)


\ Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

CouNT4t y "

ill. 2: Legal problems associated with transboundary protected areas (C. SHINE, 1997)

132 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

(OUNTC'f ft

ill 3: Mechanisms for consultation, coordination or harmonisation. (C. SHINE, 1997)

133 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

COUNT~'f "

ill 4: National sovereignity versus ecological utopia. (C. SHINE, 1997)

134 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

Une proposition pour la prote,ction internationale

SI Miehe! dt Maurl&Mt' ., ·du Mont-Blanc

ilL 5: Proposal for the international protection of Mont Blanc (According to D. RAMBAUD, 1997)

Total area of the protected site: 3,360 km 2 Part in France: 1,520 km 2 Part in Italy: 1,460 km 2 Part in Switzerland: 380 km 2

135 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)



Ill. 6: Transfrontier protected areas in Yugoslavia (Source: J. MILOSEVIC, 1997)

136 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

Nagykaniza 0 Kaposvar 0 Nagytad 0 Pees \ 0 \ I I CAO

u Osijek groBriumiges Schutzgebiet Donau (Duna), Drau (Drava), Mur (Mura)·

111.7: The protected area at Mur and Drau 11

137 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

Die Drau Staustufen min Betrieb Cl geplont

g f5 SOkm ltalien




ill. 8: existing and planned dams on the Mur and the Drau11

138 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

...... * *... * EUROPA1~X1URERBE EURONATUR KOClllalW:r Sir. 22. D-7831 S bdolfull ™·(07732) 92 72 • 0 ~ (07732) 92 72 • 22

ill. 9: The Drau at the Croatian-Hungarian border in the planned Repas protected landscape area with a presentation of the effects of a hydro-electric power plant18

139 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

NORWAY • National Park • Strict Nature Reserve • Other Protected Area tfl Wilderness Area Urho~i ~ Planned National Park ~ Planned Protected area SomJ&p' ~ Planned Strict Nature Virrfei,,.7~/ Reserve Maltlo ._ / ~ l / Kutsa Kand~alsky . Oulanka\ -~- , , Sukerijii.rvi• P aj . . 6 aan irv1 Riisltunturi • \ ..., ~ RUSSIA eri . . Kalevala --Kostomukshsky Ystiivyydenf>ulsto '-' Ulvinsalo. ~'· '-'fulos

Patvinsuo. '·'· FINLAND · .\.... Koitajold Koivusuo ffe Petkeljirvi ~p· .i I i i i ~ ,,/ Lake~

ill. 10: Protected area at the Finnish border (Finnish Forest and Park Service, 1997)

140 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

.. Cl Cl !) c: .. ,Si "' E ""..u.. '::.c:"° ".. ~

l i·

...0 z i-= a: Ill j :::) cc I- ) l Ill (' t :I: \ 0 I' ~ :I: "" './

Ill. 11: The Hohe Tauern National Park25

141 :IJ er0 ..... I\) ::l. OJ -f 2 ~ ::J CD ::J "'O .., ....a CDn. a.CD I» @ I» ....::J ~ CD "'O '< @ ::J CD CD =;! (/) II> ::J 8 (/) er 0 c: ::Ia. - a""CJ ro II> (/) :.r m c:

-0a /Uol/Utlon: l'••.. I l'ALUIC•A· -1 CMt,,.,.lfltlo: Melll•- MOtlALES llllSAM· ,._,, o.._,_,.. ~ ::J --·IN- ~ ro -0 .a0 ...... i::.. I\) Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

BRUXEl..LH 230 Ian

MAINZ 200 kn

ill. 13: The German-Luxembourg nature park

143 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

Bad • Gotthuba

ill. 14: Saxonian Switzerland National Park and Labske piskovce, Protected Land­ scape Area37 (overview)

144 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

ill. 15: the Saxonian Switzerland National Park and Protected Landscape Area of Labske piskovce41

145 Robert Brunner Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe (final report)

::z::~ <'. t:J,.. ~ 0 z t:J,.. ~ ::z:: cD ..c:=4J <:( u ii:"" 0 4J t:J,.. 'fi ~ s ~ " ~ ·i ~ii ~~]jj Iz ) ITJD[l] I •

ill. 16 the Strandja Nature Park and National Park43

43 The Strandja Nature Park produced by the Bulgarian Forest Committee (Sofia), the regional Forest administration (Burgas), the Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement and Dubrava GmbH (Burgas).