THETHE STATUSSTATUS OFOF THETHE CARPATHIANSCARPATHIANS

A report developed as a part of The Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative November 2001 Map 2

The Carpathian Ecoregion

The Carpathian mountains are The Carpathian Ecoregion demonstrate the true value of this Europe's largest mountain range Initiative is a partnership of more region; a value that must not be lost and a natural treasure of global than 50 organisations committed for the future. significance. From alpine regions, to promoting conservation and to vast tracts of natural forest and sustainable development in the This document draws rolling meadows grazed by cattle Carpathians. Launched in 1999 together data gathered in the and sheep, they support a wealth by the conservation organisation Carpathian ecoregion between of natural diversity which is un- WWF, the Initiative has support at all July 1999 and September 2001. paralleled in Europe; and a rich levels, from local community groups cultural heritage reflecting centuries to the World Bank and UN agencies. Detailed scientific reports and of human settlement and history. As a result of an intensive two-year interactive maps are available Yet in a time of profound social and data gathering process (illustrated by on the attached CD-ROM. political change, this region now maps throughout this document), it is faces unprecedented challenges. now possible for the first time to Cover photos © Popp & Hackner / WWF-A Contents 3

Contents

Foreword by HRH the Duke of Edinburgh 4

Introduction The Carpathians : the green backbone of Central and Eastern Europe 5 The Carpathians : a region of change 6 The Carpathian challenge : facing the future in a changing region 8

The Carpathian The Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative : a sustainable future 9 Ecoregion Initiative The Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative in action : how does it work? 11 Achievements of the Initiative : for environment, economy and society 13 High-level commitment for the Carpathians: the Carpathian-Danube Summit 14

Protecting the Carpathians 15

Geology of the Carpathians 16

Biodiversity of the Carpathians A. Plants and habitats in the Carpathians The Carpathian forests : a unique resource 17 Open and semi-natural habitats : historical landscapes under threat 19 The plants of the Carpathians : unique, rich and threatened 20 B. Animals of the Carpathians The carnivores: Europe's greatest population 21 Large herbivores, small carnivores : other Carpathian mammals 23 The birds of the Carpathians 24 Amphibians and reptiles of the Carpathians 25 Invertebrates of the Carpathians 25 C. Rivers and waters of the Carpathians 26

Socio-economic issues in the A. Rural economies : past, present and future Carpathians Agriculture Agriculture and changing economies : shaping the land 28 Agriculture today : changing systems, changing land 30 Looking to the future : diversifying local incomes 31 Forestry Forestry and biodiversity : a sustainable harvest? 32 Controlling forestry in the Carpathians 33 The Forest Stewardship Council in the Carpathians 34

B. Development pressures : rural and urban Tourism in the Carpathians 35 Industry and water management in the Carpathians 36 Transport in the Carpathians 38

C. Joining the EU : the policy context Nature conservation in the European Union 40 Agriculture and rural development policies 41 Water management : integrating systems, reaching across boundaries 41

Conclusions Challenges and opportunities in the Carpathian Ecoregion 42 A Vision for the Carpathians 44 Achieving the vision : bottom-up and top-down 46 Bibliography 48 Appendices 50 Foreword 4 © M. Rautarki/WWF-UK

WWF has identified the Danube In April 2001, Presidents and Delta and the Carpathian Ministers from countries in Central Mountains as two of the ’Global and Eastern Europe, came together 200,’ the most significant natural in Bucharest to announce their areas left on this planet and there- support for the conservation of the fore vital priorities for the worldwide natural environment in the Danube conservation effort. The Carpathian river basin and the Carpathian Mountains extend some 1500 km Mountain region and to give across seven countries and are the prominence to the findings of the second largest chain of mountains Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative. in Europe. They support Europe´s largest remaining area of virgin ’The Status of the Carpathians’ forest, many endemic species of draws together all the relevant data plants and significant populations collected by this Initiative. This great of brown bears, wolves and lynx. body of evidence proves the true conservation value of this vast In 1999, WWF brought together region and I hope it will become the representatives from directly ’blueprint ’ for a comprehensive interested groups in the region to effort to ensure the long-term form the Carpathian Ecoregion survival of the Carpathian Initiative, which now includes 50 Ecoregion. organisations. Over a period of two years a team of experts collected biodiversity and social data about the whole Carpathian region, which HRH The Duke of identified 30 ´Priority Areas´ for Edinburgh conservation. © B. and C. Promberger Introduction 5

THE CARPATHIANS: the green backbone of Central and Eastern Europe

Over the last 100 years, humans have had a profound impact on Europe's natural environment. Deforestation, intensification of farming practices, draining of wet- lands, urbanisation - these and many other factors have altered the landscape almost beyond recog- nition, damaging forests, meadows and rivers. In such an environment, one region remains where tradition- al landscapes and natural forests still flourish - a region where people © Popp & Hackner /WWF-A have lived for more than 2000 years. Yet this region now faces a challenge like never before; how to 1350 metres above sea level), the Glacial lakes are just one of survive in the modern world whilst continent's largest remaining natural the many natural habitats found still retaining the values of the old. mountain beech and beech/ fir in the high, rocky mountains of the Carpathians. forest ecosystems and the largest Covering an area of 209 256 area of virgin forest left in Europe. square kilometres (equivalent to Together with semi-natural habitats nearly five times the size of Switzer- such as montane pastures and hay land) the Carpathian mountains meadows, which are the result of in Carpathian forests. Threatened extend over seven European centuries of traditional management bird species, including the Imperial countries; from Romania in the of the land, the Carpathians harbour eagle, Ural owl and the Corncrake south, through Ukraine, Poland, a richness of natural diversity that is have also found a sanctuary here. Slovakia and Hungary to the Czech unsurpassed in Europe. No less than For centuries, the Carpathians have Republic and Austria in the north. one-third of all European vascular provided a home to diverse nation- Crossing the largest area of any plant species can be found in this alities and ethnic groups - people mountain chain in Europe, this region - 3988 plant species, 481 of separated by different languages, unique region is home to a wide which are found only in the dialects and traditions, but bound array of wildlife, diverse nationalities Carpathians. The mountains form a together by a highland way of life and a rich cultural heritage. ’bridge’ between Europe's northern and a sense of shared hardships. forests and those in the south and The Carpathians have a turbulent The natural diversity supported by west, and as such are a vital corri- history, yet it is only now that the the Carpathians is of vital impor- dor for the dispersal of plants and region faces severe threat. In the tance for Europe. On a continent animals throughout Europe. aftermath of the fall of Communism, where 56% of forest cover has been profound political changes are lost and only 2% of the remaining The Carpathians are most celeb- occurring - economic development, natural forest is protected, the rated as the last region in Europe to social upheaval and accession to Carpathians support Europe's most support viable populations of the EU present this region with extensive tracts of montane forest Europe's greatest mammals. Brown major challenges; and major (between the heights of 950 and bear, wolf and lynx can all be found opportunities for the future. Introduction 6

The Carpathians: a region of change

In the past ten years, Central and Traditional dress is still worn Eastern Europe has experienced for celebrations and special political changes as dramatic as occasions in the Carpathian highlands. The dress reflects anywhere in the world. But change the particular ’mountain-based is nothing new in the region. The consciousness’ which draws the Carpathians' position in Europe has people of the region together. made them a historical ’melting pot’ for different tribes, ethnic groups and nationalities. This has produced a rich and original culture with a broad

awareness in the region of ’common © B.Prokupek Carpathian roots’ and distinct age. Long-term changes can be highland traditions. seen in the vegetation record which indicate that, even at this 2nd - 16th Century A brief history of the time, man was harvesting some Waves of migrating and colonising Carpathians wood from the region. The name for people moved through the the Carpathians comes from the Carpathian region - Romans, Pre-history ancient ’Geto-Dacian tribes’ Goths, Avars, Slavs and Magyars In some parts of the Carpathians, (’Karpat-Heros’ in Greek) which (Hungarians) to name but a few. In there are archaeological records of inhabited the South Carpathians the 16th Century, Walachs and man's influence from the Mesolithic nearly 2000 years ago. Ruthenians (inhabitants of the South and Eastern Carpathians) migrated north, having a major impact on the culture of the mountain communities, that can still be seen across the region today.

19th - 20th Century By the turn of the 19th Century, the vast majority of the Carpathians belonged to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. After the collapse of the Empire at the end of World War I, the boundaries were redrawn with a structure similar to that which we know today.

In the Carpathian foothills traditional land management techniques have created a landscape that is distinctive for the region. © Popp & Hackner / WWF-A Introduction 7

Post World War II : the Communist era With the support of the USSR, Communist governments gained power in all of the Carpathian countries except Austria.

1989 : the fall of Communism A wave of events, starting in Poland and including the ’velvet revolution’ © A. Zedrosser / WWF-A in Czechoslovakia caused the end of the Communist regimes. Since then, changes have been rapid - re- The Carpathian region has The many architectural privatisation of state-owned land, undergone many changes. If traditions in the Carpathians reflect the diverse history of the dramatic alterations in rural systems we are to secure sustainable region. Ornate building designs and incomes, the introduction of economic benefits for the in Maramures and Orava, market systems and recession are peoples of the region whilst severe architectural traditions just a few of the changes which conserving the unique diver- on the Ukrainian/ Polish border; have buffeted the region. sity of the Carpathians's bio- castles, churches and houses all logical and cultural heritage, reflect a rich cultural heritage. 200? : integration with then now is the time to face Western Europe the coming challenges and Five countries of the region (Czech create a Republic, Slovak Republic, Hungary, VISION FOR THE FUTURE. Poland and Romania) are ’accession countries’ - that is, they have joined a process to become members of the European Union in the coming years. The application of EU subsidies and regulations in the accession countries will have major impacts on land-use, which will have both positive and negative implications for the environment. Production-oriented subsidies and increasing economic growth elsewhere in Europe have resulted in land degradation and the loss of biodiversity. With increasing integration with Western Europe, can the high natural value of the Carpathians be protected? © D. Miletich / WWF - A Introduction 8

The Carpathian challenge: facing the future in a changing region

Traditional lifestyles: For traditional rural lifestyles and lands- centuries, the Carpathians have capes persisted. It is only now that the shaped the lives of the diverse threats facing the Carpathian region peoples who live there. The region have become urgent. The challenge now provides home to an estimated is to take advantage of the many 16 to 18 million people, living in opportunities arising in the coming many different environments - from years, without losing the great natural © B. Pambour / WWF-A / BIDS traditional villages to urban centres value of the region. such as Brasov and Kosice. The social, economic and cultural Challenges facing The Communist system created pollution structure of highland communities the Carpathian ’black spots’ especially is deeply intertwined with landscape today: the landscape. Several thousand years of human habitation have Radical chang: The transition to a More barriers means more created traditional landscapes of market economy, development of problems: Major new road a tremendous value for nature. civil society, increasing integration programmes, crossing and dividing with Western Europe and accession the Carpathians, are being planned. The influence of Communism: to the EU mean profound changes Until now, animals have been able In the decades after World War II for rural landscapes. Unemployment to cross the region relatively freely. great emphasis was placed on pro- and poverty have accelerated rural More fences and more roads, unless duction and exploitation of natural decline in many areas. Traditional planned with nature in mind, could resources, resulting in extreme forms of forestry and agriculture are isolate and fragment populations of localised environmental damage; being replaced by more intensive migrating animals. chemical waste from mining con- methods. taminated soils and air pollutants Gaining the from factories damaged forests. Land reform: Land seized by capacity to act: Extensive damage to trees in areas the State during the Communist like Beskidy illustrate the continuing era is being returned to private It is little more than a decade since effects of these policies today. hands. This is resulting in a highly Communism in Central and Eastern fragmented land-ownership structure Europe ended; yet environmental Yet despite these ’black spots,’ and is encouraging short-term forms and political change had proceeded conversely the land was also of exploitation, such as excessive rapidly in that time. The legacy of protected from heavy development logging, heavy grazing at high Communist systems and attitudes, pressure. Whilst in Western Europe altitudes and cropping on unstable based on political centralisation and farming systems were intensified in slopes. a ’top-down’ control system, have response to EU subsidies and exacerbated problems by disem- market pressure, under Communism New development: With powering individuals from controlling changes in the agricultural system increasing outside investment change. Civil society, people and were by no means universal. The coming into the region, political the environment must be put at the policy of ’collectivisation’ of land decentralisation and planning forefront of the many decisions to was not always effectively systems unable to cope with the be made if these changes are going implemented; particularly in new demands, the chances of in- to work for the environment and for marginal areas like the Carpathians, appropriate development are high. the people of the region. The Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative 9

THE CARPATHIAN ECOREGION INITIATIVE: a sustainable future

In 1999, the conservation The Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative is a unique international organisation WWF realised that a partnership achieving conservation of nature in the major international effort would be Carpathian mountains and at the same time, supporting needed if the rich wildlife and culture local economy and culture for the lasting benefit of people of the Carpathians were to survive living in the heart of Europe. Facilitated by WWF, more than into the future. In response to this challenge, the Carpathian Ecoregion 50 organisations from seven countries are working together Initiative was launched, with the aim to make this vision reality. of steering the region's future dev- elopment in a sustainable direction.

The Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative is a new approach to development Innovative approach Built on the idea of maximising stake- planning; one that brings people for people and the holder participation, the Initiative together in Central and Eastern environment consists of an international partner- Europe to secure conservation and ship - an alliance of governments, sustainable development across the The unique approach of the Non-Governmental Organisations seven countries of the Carpathians. Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative can (NGOs), academic institutions, local It aims to work with the many be summarised in three words: communities, intergovernmental opportunities that exist and are present- participatory; large-scale; and agencies, donors and businesses. ly emerging in the region as it goes visionary. It is based in part on enlisting local through a period of rapid change. people in caring for and maintaining the region's special qualities, whilst also ensuring local people benefit. 50+ partners from the region Partnerships at the national and inter- are working together under the national level mean the Initiative can umbrella of the Carpathian influence major policy decisions and Ecoregion Initiative secure the highest level political sup- port and funding. The approach goes beyond mere participation but aims to foster co-ownership of the process at the local and national level. Gaining this broad societal support and building on the emerging civil society is essential for the Initiative to achieve its aims.

Participants discuss techniques at a workshop. The Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative is bringing together stakeholders from seven countries in order to

© S. Holt achieve its aims. The Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative 10

The Initiative is unique in its large- 50 years, given likely development Ecoregion conservation is about seeing scale ecoregional approach. An trends? What will be lost and what the bigger picture. Conservation efforts ecoregion is a large unit of land can done to prevent this? Together in the past have shown that simply with a characteristic set of species, the Initiative has agreed a long-term conserving individual sites and species communities, dynamics and en- vision for conserving, and working is not sufficient; a broader approach is vironmental conditions. By working in harmony with, the region's natural necessary if accelerating global bio- across the entire natural unit of the environment (see p.44). But at the diversity losses are to be stemmed. Carpathians, the Initiative unites same time it is a vision which The Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative people, development and conser- facilitates development in order to provides a framework to co-ordinate vation efforts across political and achieve material benefits for local and supplement the host of projects social boundaries. It is only by people. Never before has a project taking place in the region. working on this scale, the scale that of this magnitude been attempted nature and natural processes use, in the Carpathians. The Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative is that it can succeed in its aims of part of an ambitious global vision to achieving nature conservation and It considers the influence of social, sustain life on the planet: WWF's sustainable development in the economic and biological factors, Global 200. The Global 200 aims to Carpathians. emphasising the fact that the conserve the most outstanding eco- Carpathians are a cultural land- systems in the world, by identifying the The Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative scape, where people live and work top 200+ ecoregions, representing is visionary in that it aims to and nature and culture are strongly every major habitat in the world. The positively influence the development intertwined. Future activities must Carpathians have been identified as of the region over the next 50+ take account of this and ensure one of these regions. By conserving years. It asks the question: what will both people and the environment the Global 200, conservation of the this region look like in 10, 20, even benefit. broadest range of the world's species and the most endangered wildlife, as well as ecological and evolutionary processes, can be achieved. Approaches to Biodiversity Conservation

Visionary Idiocy?

Business as Usual In the past, conservation efforts have often concentrated on small-scale and immediate actions (’business as usual’). Do nothing Ecoregion conservation uses a ’visionary approach’; thinking long-term and large-scale and Effectiveness seeking strong political and grassroots support for conserva- tion activities. It should also be Effort & Scale remembered that what may seem ’idiotic’ now may be achievable in the future! The Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative 11

The Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative in action: how does it work?

Reconnaissance Urgent Need (Information gathering) and Action

Biological Socio-Economic Assessment Assessment

Vision

Carpathian-Danube Heads of State Summit (April 2001) Building partnerships

Conservation and Action Plans

Implementation and Monitoring

The plan being undertaken in Reconnaissance: a quick, Vision: long-term goals for the Carpathians comprises multidisciplinary review of the conservation and sustainable four distinct elements: region was undertaken in the development have been agreed second half of 1999. by the partners (see p.44).

Detailed Assessments: a 1.5 year Action Plans: a comprehensive data gathering exercise involving strategy to be implemented by the teams of local experts in each country Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative and identified the key stakeholders, others. Medium-term 15 year assessed the status of biodiversity and objectives working towards the the important social and economic Carpathian vision have been factors affecting it, and highlighted established. Detailed five and ten the key challenges and opportunities year actions will be developed affecting the region. during 2002. The Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative 12

Steering Group

Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative Coordination

Slovakia The Carpathian Ecoregion Intiative Team Romania Ukraine Regional Coordination Each country team consists Biodiversity Socio- of a Country Co-ordinator Economics responsible for building up a

GIS Sustainable national network of experts from Development biodiversity, socio-economic, Poland Austria GIS (Geographical Information Communications Systems) and communication backgrounds. In addition, a sustainable development team Czech works to develop local model Hungary Republic strategies for linking conservation and development.

Working together : socio-economic workshops held in transport. For each sector data was from data gathering 2000 identified developed strategies collected on selected Carpathian- to vision mapping for data gathering, and identified wide social and economic indicators data ’sectors’: (see Appendix B).

To fully implement ecoregion con- Biodiversity : Vascular plants, plant A key workshop held in the Slovakian servation, it is important that all the communities, large carnivores, other Carpathians (February 2001) brought stakeholders have a say in what is mammals, birds, amphibians and together the Initiative's partners along happening in their region and what reptiles, invertebrates, fish and rivers. with additional national experts and they would like to see happen in the For each sector general biodiversity international consultants to agree and future. To facilitate this, the Initiative information and data on focal map the Carpathian vision. In the set up multi-disciplinary teams in species were collected. Focal species participatory workshop, GIS technology each country (see diagram above). were selected according to the was used to analyse the massive following criteria: species endemic Carpathian data sets that had been Agreement on the actions of the to the Carpathians, threats to or collected, along with CORINE and ESRI Initiative has been achieved through significance of species on a regional databases (see Appendix C). The resul- a series of participatory meetings: or global scale (see Appendix A). ting series of maps were checked 25 international workshops have against local expert opinion to produce been organised by the Initiative Socio-economics : Agriculture, the series of ’Vision Maps’ which are since it started. Biodiversity and industry, forestry, tourism, water, presented in this document (see p.45). The Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative 13

Achievements of the Initiative: for environment, economy and society

The 50 partner organisations of the Initiative have achieved success in a wide range of activities, from action at the local community scale through to securing high level inter- national commitment for the whole ecoregion. © N. Gerstyl Visionary planning and action Lobbying for the development conflict areas, allowing Carpathians ◗ Key stakeholders from seven assessment of the relevancy of the countries brought together to agree conflicts on a Carpathian scale. ◗ Series of Carpathian reports pub- long-term goals for conservation ◗ First steps towards designing lished e.g. ’Independent NGO and sustainable development. conservation landscapes in the Evaluation of SAPARD;’ ’Status of ◗ First overall view of the Carpathians. the Carnivores in the Carpathian Carpathians: identification of the ◗ Agreement on themes for a Ecoregion.’ key habitats, species and processes detailed Action Plan for the region. ◗ Comprehensive range of communi- along with the socio-economic ◗ Work towards a pan-Carpathian cation materials developed to bring factors affecting them. Large Carnivore conservation and international attention to the signifi- ◗ 30 ’Priority Areas for Biodiversity’ management plan. cance of, and opportunities for, this identified across the region. vulnerable region. ◗ Vision maps identifying future Working with local (see www.carpathians.org). people for sustainable ◗ High profile media and lobbying development events e.g. WWF's EU Accession Week. ◗ Four Model Project Areas, demon- strating the benefits of combining sustainable development and conservation on a local scale. ◗ Community funding mechanisms, bringing together and supporting diverse micro projects to form a coherent force for sustainable development. ◗ Small Grants programmes, fun- ding local cross-border development projects in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic and Ukraine. ◗ Work with local communities to identify win-win situations where environment and people benefit. © S. Holt The Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative 14

High-level commitment for the Carpathians: the Carpathian-Danube Heads of State Summit – Bucharest, April/ May 2001

The activities of the Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative formed a major part of the Summit on Environment and Sustainable Development in the Carpathian and Danube Region, which took place between April 29 - 30, 2001 and was co-hosted by the Romanian government and WWF. Attended by nine Heads of State and high level officials from five other countries, the conference was co-chaired by the President of Romania and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh. Eight Environment

Ministers as well as high-level rep- © R. Irvine/WWF - DCPO resentatives from the World Bank, UNECE, UNDP, UNEP, European Commission, EU-Presidency, Stability Pact and OECD also participated in Heads of State and high level A legal instrument for the Summit and the preceding representatives pledged their the Carpathians support for conservation of the Meeting of Ministers. Carpathian region at the Summit - a major step which Crucially for the future of the Through this Summit, national and must be built upon. Carpathian region, a proposal was international efforts in conservation made by the Ukrainian delegation and sustainable development of to the region. Funders such as UNEP, for a Convention for the the Carpathian region and Danube EU, UNECE, World Bank, EBRD and Carpathians - a legal mechanism River entered a new phase of co- UNDP expressed their willingness to which will support the regional pro- ordination and co-operation. The support projects in the region. In this tection and sustainable development work of the Carpathian Ecoregion context, the Carpathian Ecoregion of the Carpathian region. Learning Initiative was presented and a Initiative is lobbying for the develop- from the experience of the Alpine ’Declaration on Environment and ment of a Pan-Carpathian funding Convention (the only Convention Sustainable Development’ in the mechanism. dedicated to the protection of Carpathian-Danube region was mountains currently in effect), a adopted by 14 Heads of State or Following on from the Summit, legal mechanism for conservation their representatives. This document the Romanian National Forest and sustainable development of pledges the countries to regional Administration made a major the Carpathians is being developed co-operation on the issues of envi- commitment to certifying one million in the context of the 2002 United ronment and sustainable develop- hectares of forest according to the Nations ’International Year of the ment. principles of the Forest Stewardship Mountains.’ Facilitated by UNEP, Council (FSC). This is an extremely with WWF as a partner in the Attended by over 400 participants significant step forward for the process, negotiations on the and 380 journalists, the Summit forests of the Carpathian region mechanism have now begun also brought international attention (see p. 34 for details). between the Carpathian countries. Protecting the Carpathians 15

PROTECTING THE CARPATHIANS

Conservation of the land through protected areas has a long and dis- tinguished history in the Carpathian region. The first Protected Areas were established as early as 1895 in ’Dobrocsky primeval forest’ and ’Salkovsky les’ forest, in what is now the Slovak Republic. In the West Carpathians, a system of Protected Areas was established after World War I and in 1932 Europe's first ever ’transboundary’ national park © Popp & Hackner / WWF-A was established at Pieniny on the Polish-Slovak border. (which covers 55% of the The beautiful Tatra In the present day Carpathians, Carpathians) only two National Mountains, situated in northern Slovakia and Poland, there are seven National Parks in Parks have any full-time staff are protected through three the Slovak Republic, six in Poland, (Retezat and Piatra Craiului). Many National Parks as well as being three in Hungary, five National Parks of the protected areas in the country an internationally recognised and one reserve in Ukraine and 12 are known as ’paper parks;’ that is, Biosphere Reserve. National Parks in Romania. In they are protected on paper but in addition there are also a myriad of reality the protection legislation is smaller reserves, including 13 not effectively implemented. have a potential for large-scale Protected Landscape Areas and damaging effects, particularly in more than 580 Reserves in the In the wake of the changes in 1989, the context of increasing market Slovak Republic, and three Protected all the Carpathian countries went pressures. For example, the prop- Landscape Areas in the Czech through a review of national legisla- osed Winter Olympic games at the Republic. tion, including nature conservation Tatra National Park and Biosphere and land-use related legislation, Reserve has the potential for pro- The Protected Area network is and in many cases new protected found impacts on biodiversity. In the denser and more effectively areas were established. The context of change and development implemented in the north-west of the transition period caused some pressures facing this region, the Carpathians than the south-east; in problems as political powers shifted present protected area system is not the Slovak Republic, for example, and management styles changed. sufficient to protect the valuable which has only 17% of the biodiversity of the Carpathians. Carpathian land area, there are Despite this, only 16% of the land of presently seven effectively protected the Carpathian region is currently National Parks. In the Czech under some form of large-scale pro- Note : Detailed information Republic, almost all of its tection. The areas also do not on the Protected Areas of Carpathian territory is protected provide universal protection; factors the Carpathians is also through ’Protected Landscape Areas’ such as illegal hunting and forest available in the attached (Beskidy, the White Carpathians and felling remain a significant problem. CD-ROM Palava). In comparison, in Romania Human influences such as tourism Geology 16

GEOLOGY OF THE CARPATHIANS

Formed during the early Tertiary The mountain landscape period, the Carpathians are relative- was formed by millions ly ’young’ mountains. With altitudes of years of rock movement, erosion and glacial varying from 300 to 2655 metres processes. above sea level, they are also of moderate height for a mountain system; only 5% of the Carpathians extends beyond the tree line. © Radu Mot

The highest peak is Gerlach in The mountains are composed Slovakia, which at 2665 metres is a mainly of sequences of sandy rocks, part of the Tatras on the Slovak- known as ’flysch formations,’ formed Polish border, one of the most beau- of layers of alternating sandstone tiful and famous parts of the region. and shale. Other parts of the The Tatras are situated in the West Carpathians are formed of lime- Carpathians (covering the Slovak stone, or, as in the case of the Republic, Poland, Hungary and the Tatras, magmatic rock such as Czech Republic). The two other granite. While the region's valleys regions in the Carpathian arch are owe their creation to rivers, former the Eastern Carpathians (covering glaciers have carved out beautiful the Slovak Republic, Poland, lakes at the highest points - there Ukraine and Romania) and the are 110 such lakes in the High Southern Carpathians (entirely in Tatras alone. © Popp & Hackner / WWF-A Romania).

Carpathian facts and figures:

Total area 209 256 km2

Dimensions 1500 km long, up to 350 km wide

Highest peak 2665m, Gerlach in High Tatras, Slovakia Carpathian countries Romania (55%), Slovakia (17%), Ukraine (11%), Poland (% of Carpathians) (10%), Hungary (4%), Czech Republic (3%), Austria (<1%)

Vistula, Dnister, Prut, Aluta and numerous Danube tributaries Source of major rivers (e.g. Tisza, Vag) Key wildlife 8000 brown bears, 4000 wolves, 3000 lynx

Geology Carpathian Flysh, with small areas of limestone and granite

Population ca. 16-18 million

Main economic sectors Agriculture, forestry, tourism, local industry, mineral exploitation

Area under protection 16% is under some form of protection Biodiversity 17

BIODIVERSITY OF THE CARPATHIANS

The term ’biodiversity’ - short for vide a vital link between the Probably the most important of these biological diversity - describes the northern and southern forests of in the European context are the richness and variety of the natural Europe, allowing species like Brown natural Carpathian forests. More world, from the diversity of habitats bear and the wolf to migrate and than half of the Carpathians are such as forests and meadows, to re-populate unoccupied territories. covered by forest. Crucially, on a plants and animal populations, even continent where less than 10% of down to the genetic diversity found Although the region cannot compete forest cover is even semi-natural, within those populations. with tropical countries in terms of a high proportion of these forests wealth of flora and fauna, the remain in their natural state, un- The Carpathians' position as a diversity of habitats also emphasise altered by any human interference. bridge linking the north and south the extraordinary value of its territory Open and semi-natural habitats of Europe and a refuge for species with regard to biodiversity. From the also support an incredible richness during the ice-age has also had a rolling patchwork landscape of and diversity of plant and animal huge impact on its biodiversity over the White Carpathians, with its species. According to some the centuries. As a result, the region orchards, fields, forests and flowe- estimates, nearly half the species supports an incredibly high natural ring meadows, to the alpine zone diversity of the Carpathians is diversity of species, with many end- high in the Retezat mountains, the dependent on human activity for its emics (species that are unique to the region supports an enormous survival. region). Today, the mountains pro- diversity of habitats.

A. PLANTS AND HABITATS The Carpathian forests: a unique resource

In Western Europe, large areas of unsurpassed in Europe, an untold some of the last ancient beech stands truly natural forest which display number of insect species as well as remaining in Europe (see box). natural forest dynamics are by now more than 40 varieties of shrubs almost completely unknown. and trees are just a few of the Presently, it is estimated that nearly species harboured there. 300 000 hectares of such forests exist in the Carpathians - including Forest cover is distributed unequally the largest tracts of virgin forests in between the Carpathian countries - Europe. from 29.5% cover in Hungary to almost 60% in Romania. Virgin From low mountain oak forests, forests (those whose development has through beech - oak mixtures to not been influenced by man) are beech, beech - conifer mixtures to found throughout the Carpathians, conifer woodland, the forests show generally at higher elevations, where an incredible natural diversity, shel- they have escaped the depredations tering a large number of plant and of the human population. The animal species. The elusive lynx, a Carpathians also harbour 20 000 wolf and bear population that is hectares of primary beech forest - © G. Zimmert / WWF-A Biodiversity 18

Threats and opportunities: protecting the Carpathian forests

Despite the fact that about 225 virgin forests with areas larger than ten hectares have been identified across the Carpathian Mountains, many of them do not enjoy adequate protection. A variety of factors, such as poor management, pollution, tourism, over- Area of Virgin Forests in hectares hunting, grazing or illegal felling represent serious threats.

Perhaps the greatest challenge lies in consequences of the ’restitution pro- cess;’ the return of land seized in the 1940s to their original owners (see p. 32) In order to conserve this valuable resource for the future, it is nature reserves. A concerted effort is Forest cover and amount of vital that the virgin forests are mapped needed in the near future if the virgin untouched ’virgin’ forests in different orographical units and recorded; something which has not forests of the Carpathians are to be of the Carpathians. yet been achieved for forests outside conserved for future generations.

Community case study - Beech forests in the Carpathians

The Carpathian beech forests are of Ukraine meet. woodpecker and Eagle owl, all of immense importance for European which are identified as endangered nature. Along with the oak (Quercus A cool climate species, beech forests throughout large parts of their ran- spp.), the beech (Fagus sylvatica generally need a slightly humid ges in Europe. spp.) historically dominated Central environment and relatively mild and Western European forests, winter climate. In the Carpathians, Beech are very vulnerable to impacts covering 80 - 90 % of the continent's the beech stratum is found from 600 from clear-cutting as they are what is land area. Intense pressure from to 1200 or 1300 metres above sea known as a ’shadow species’ - that humans has now reduced the forest level, on the northern slopes of the is, the saplings regenerate better cover to a mere fraction of what it Southern Carpathians (in the under the cover of larger, older was. The Carpathians now support montane regions). The beech is trees. If an area is clear-cut it is the last remaining stands of montane associated with different species at therefore very difficult for the forest primary beech forest, covering a different levels - the oak (Quercus to regenerate. With this in mind, it is total of about 20 000 hectares. spp.) up to 900 metres and fir (Abies imperative that the Carpathian Europe's largest area of montane alba) up to 1300 metres. The forest beech forest is adequately protected beech forest is found in the Eastern harbours about 100 bird species, for the future. Carpathians, where the borders of including the Pied flycatcher, Red- Poland, the Slovak Republic and breasted flycatcher, White-backed Biodiversity 19

Open and semi-natural habitats: historical landscapes under threat

It is not just the forests which support valuable biodiversity - just under a third of the Carpathians are covered by open and semi-natural habitats, predominantly grassland. Though they cover a smaller area than the forests, these habitats show a massive diversity. Of the 133 habitat types identified by the Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative, no less than 76% are open habitats, many created by the activities of man over the centuries.

Open habitats include the calcare- © V. Stanova / Daphne ous grasslands, fens maintained by traditional farming methods and the valuable and rare ’poloniny’ mea- plant communities such as those Traditional farming methods dows. Poloniny meadows support a found on the gentle summer have shaped the landscape wide diversity of species including pastures of the Beskidy region; the of the Carpathians and created a unique pattern the globally threatened Corncrake grazing meadows in the valleys and of habitats, supporting a (Crex crex), the Tatra pine vole mountain foothills; and the semi- diverse variety of plant (Piytmyus tatricus); and invertebrates open bush-meadow habitats created and animal species. such as the High mountain bumble- from grazing livestock in the forests. bee (Bombus pyrenaeus). Occurring Romania, changing lifestyles pose a naturally at high altitudes, this Natural open habitats above the threat to their future in the unique grassland was also partly tree line are very limited in the Western Carpathians. A reduction formed by human activity, where Carpathians, the subalpine and in agricultural subsidies, increasing grazing cattle have destroyed the alpine zones showing a typical economic costs and the transfer to dwarf pine vegetation and forests. ’stepping stone’ pattern through the a market economy has caused the Grasslands such as the calcareous high altitude parts of the region. abandonment of less productive or mountain grasslands in Slovensky They are, however, very important, barely accessible grasslands. As a Raj National Park in the Slovak supporting an unusually high result, a trend towards forest Republic are also incredibly rich in number of endemic species. communities is occurring and the species. In this example, the ’small- majority of this unique ecosystem is scale’ species diversity is one of the Changes in management: being degraded. A lack of local highest in the world, reaching a the future of open interest in managing the land and maximum of 75 species per metre habitats in the additional intense pressure from the squared. Carpathians state forestry administration for large-scale afforestation of Over the generations, traditional Whilst the extensive pastoral culture meadows, means that the open shepherding systems in the which supports these habitats is landscapes of the Western Carpathians have created open still a vital part of life in Ukraine and Carpathians are fast disappearing. Biodiversity 20

The plants of the Carpathians: unique, rich and threatened

Occurrence of endemic plants in orographical units The Carpathians are situated on the of the Carpathians north-eastern tip of the mountain system of south and central Europe. This is of great significance for the flora and fauna of the Carpathian region - in the Pleistocene geological age (about one to two million years ago), a massive expanse of ice (known as the ’Fenno-Scandinavian Ice Sheet’) stretched from what is now Scandinavia to the northern foothills of the Western Carpathians. During this period mountain ranges like the Carpathians were the only refuges for plants and animals, and the descen- an incredibly rich plant species environment, the Carpathians con- dants of these species can still be diversity. Beautiful species such as the tinue to link the mountain forests, pro- found in the Carpathians today. The East Carpathian lilac (Syringa viding a link between north and south Carpathians also functioned as a josikaea) and Pieniny's chrysanthemum Europe. This allows the plant and ’bridge’ for the mountain species of (Dendranthema zawadzkii) are among animal species, which otherwise would southern Europe and the tundra and the numerous plants found only in the be genetically isolated, to migrate. taiga species of the north. Carpathians. With climate change and increasing threats from human activity, this may As a result, the Carpathians support Today, in Europe's fragmented natural prove to be vital to their survival.

Case Study - The Slovak laurel : an ancient witness under threat

According to ancient Greek legend, even arisen. Of the 481 endemic fungi and environmental change. the nymph Daphne was chased by plant species in the Carpathians, a the god Apollo until she hid by tiny proportion (about 20) are of Where will Daphne arbuscula hide changing herself into a beautiful such extreme scientific value, once her habitat has been destroyed bush with sweet smelling flowers. ’witnesses’ of the formation of the by man? This vital question is being The result is the Slovak laurel mountains. posed by the Slovak conservation (Daphne arbuscula Celak), an ever- organisation ’Daphne’ (named after green dwarf shrub with bright coral- Morphologically and genetically, the the famous plant) - one of the key red shoots. It is found only in a very species is therefore very isolated partners of the Carpathian small region of the Western from other plants in the region, and Ecoregion Initiative. Carpathians in the Slovak Republic. extremely sensitive to environmental destruction and climate change. The Slovak laurel is an ancient end- Though protected by national and emic species - one of the very few international law, the Slovak laurel is that evolved about 25 million years highly threatened - by trampling ago, before the Carpathians had from tourists, collectors, attack by © Daphne Institute of Applied Ecology Biodiversity 21

B. THE ANIMALS OF THE CARPATHIANS The carnivores: Europe's greatest population

The Carpathians' role as a refuge for large carnivores is perhaps one of the most important aspects of its biodiversity. As the last area in Europe to support viable pop- ulations of large carnivores, harbouring perhaps 10 to 20 times more individuals than the Alps, the significance of this can hardly be overestimated. © B. and C. Promberger

About 8000 Brown bears (Ursus arc- those of the west and south-west - Exterminated in nearly all tos), 4000 wolves (Canis lupus), are the main source for large carni- Western and Central European 3000 lynx (Lynx lynx) and numerous vores in Europe and probably countries, the Grey wolf is found in significant numbers in the wildcats still roam the Carpathian the only corridor for genetic Romanian Carpathians. region. In fact, almost a complete exchange for the its wolf megafauna (set of large mammals) populations (see box). coherent blocks of habitat and survives in the region, with only the abundant prey in order to survive. extinct auroch (an ancient species of Why is the Carpathian region so On a continent where more than cow) and tarpan (a forest horse) unique? Elsewhere in Europe, 40% of mammals are under threat missing from the ecosystem. The Protected Areas are often too small of extinction the population of Carpathian forests - the vital link to support populations of large carnivores in the Carpathians are of between the forests of the north and predators, which require large, immeasurable value.

Case Study - The wolf : bridging the gap

The Carpathians are the last shaped the lives of highland atically reduced their numbers; only remaining stronghold in Europe for communities for centuries. Yet the the remoteness of the mountains the Grey wolf (Canis lupus). In wolf's role as a hunter still brings saved them from further decline. As total, the wolf population amounts them into conflict with local this unique population attracts to more than 4000 individuals people. As shepherds in some increasing international attention, (45% of Europe's population) and parts of the region respond to a awareness of the need to conserve the Carpathians provide the only drop in rural incomes by increasing the wolf is growing in Central and link between Europe's northern and livestock numbers, this can only Eastern Europe. southern populations. increase.

Wolves play an essential role in the The strong tradition of hunting ’For the average citizen life of the region, controlling num- wolves in the region continues of our country, it is hard to realise the reasons why the wolf bers of prey species like Red deer today and protective legislation should be protected.’ and acting as an ’indicator’ for the remains somewhat contradictory. presence of these species. Hunting In the 1950s and 60s, an ’anti- Polish conservation the wolf and protecting sheep has wolf’ campaign in Romania dram- NGO ’WOLF’ Biodiversity 22

Conserving large carnivores: towards a Pan-Carpathian Conservation and Management Strategy

In parts of the Carpathians, numbers Gathering and communicating of some carnivore species (notably information on the distribution and behaviour of large the Brown bear and wolf populations carnivores is essential if they in Romania) are flourishing. Despite are to be protected. this, it is important to ensure that they are effectively protected; many are still game species and even amongst those that are protected, the conservation of large carnivores, poaching is often a significant reaching across artificial political problem. In the context of threats boundaries. At the moment a species © P. Weimann / WWF - A posed to property and even lives, protected in one country may be attitudes amongst local people are heavily hunted just across the border. often negative. The validity of their ◗ Support for research projects concerns needs to be recognised; The development of a Pan- examining the ecology and popu- between 1990 and 1999 18 people Carpathian Conservation and lation dynamics of the carnivores; were killed in incidents involving Management Strategy is therefore a priority should be given to ’trans- bears in Romania alone. necessity. The Carpathian Ecoregion boundary’ projects; population Initiative is calling for : dynamics need to be monitored It is therefore crucial to base con- on a regional level; servation of the large carnivores on ◗ Region-wide censuses of ◗ Development of compensation the vital role they play in the life of carnivore species using compatible schemes to mitigate the effect of the region and their importance on a methodologies, to gain an accurate conflict with large carnivores for local European and even global scale. picture of populations; communities and reduce poaching (a Threats, such as those arising from ◗ Development and adoption of significant factor in carnivore the development of road networks National Management Plans for the mortality); which divide up and fragment large- Carpathian carnivores; ◗ Support for field projects which scale habitats and migration routes, ◗ The clarification of legislation demonstrate the considerable must be assessed (see p. 38). protecting large carnivores, with the positive economic benefits available involvement of NGOs who are from the large carnivores, for In such a context, conservation needs presently working towards this aim; example through eco-tourism. to be based on sound scientific knowledge of these populations. With this in mind, the Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative has undertaken an assessment of the status of large carnivores in the region, using information from a wide range of sources: national authorities, scien- tific and government institutions, scientists and NGOs.

The study particularly highlighted the need to use a regional approach in © H. Kretschmer / WWF - A Biodiversity 23

Large herbivores, small carnivores: other Carpathian mammals

The charismatic carnivores are not threaten the survival of mammal the only mammal species sheltered species; the Carpathian Ecoregion by the Carpathians. Other pop- Initiative identifying 68 of them as ulations include a reintroduced bison rare, endangered or extinct. Major population; a strictly protected threats include habitat loss, connec- population of chamois; marmots, ted with development encroaching beavers, down to tiny species like the up the mountain valleys, and forestry © H. Pum / WWF - A Alpine shrew. These species are not, practices which involve clear-cuts Scattered populations of the however, evenly distributed along the and the planting of spruce mono- rare alpine chamois exist in Carpathian range; some, for exam- cultures. Habitat fragmentation, due the Romanian Carpathians, the ple the chamois (Rupicapra rupica- to increasing density and develop- High Tatras of Poland and the pra) and the Tatra pine vole (Pitymys ment of the road and railway Slovak Republic. tatricus), are only able to survive in system, seems to be the main specific high montane habitats and obstacle to gene exchange between the region, which could provide therefore exist in isolated patches populations; locally, massive the basis of a joint conservation scattered throughout the region. poaching is also a problem for action plan. Amongst other effects, Others are dependent on different many species. this would harmonise the legal status habitats; for instance the beaver of particular species (currently often (Castor fiber) is restricted to regions The most important and urgent subject to completely different legis- where is has access to water and requirement for the protection and lation in neighbouring countries), woody vegetation. sustainable management of those and impose a united approach to species is the introduction of an their protection and management As with large carnivore species, information exchange and monit- over the whole home range of a human influence continues to oring system for all the countries of population, irrespective of adminis- trative borders.

Case study - Introducing the past : the European bison

Descended from the great Long- Bieszczady Mountains (about 160 horned bison, which went extinct in individuals) and the Ukrainian Europe at the same time as the Carpathians (about 220). Despite Woolly mammoth, Rhinoceros and being under strict protection, separate, Cave bear, the European bison is a isolated herds are threatened by relict of ancient times. Historically, the inbreeding and further loss of gene- European bison ranged throughout tic variability; fragmentation of habi- Europe - intense hunting pressure has tats blocking natural gene exchange reduced this to only 30 populations in among herds. Whilst the bison the wild. The Carpathian population, population in the Carpathians is much reintroduced after being eradicated to be valued, its present restricted 200 years ago, is the only one in- numbers do not guarantee the future habiting Europe's mountains. Small viability of the population. herds now range across the Polish © H. Pum / WWF - A Biodiversity 24

The birds of the Carpathians

The diverse habitats in the here also include the Alpine accentor Carpathians support a wide variety (Prunella collaris) and Wallcreeper of bird species, using the region for (Tichodroma muraria). nesting, migrating and wintering. Overall, more than 300 species are But it is not only the forests and found here, a region which has been mountains which provide a valuable described as a ’birdwatchers' para- habitat for birds; the Corncrake dise.’ The dense deciduous and (Crex crex), a species which has been © W. Scherzinger / WWF - A mixed forests provide a home for in steep and continuing population species such as the White-backed decline in Western Europe for the last 20% of the European population woodpecker (Dendorocopos 20 years, is found in significant of the Ural Owl (Strix uralensis) is leucotos), Black stork (Ciconia nigra) numbers in the Carpathian agri- found in the Carpathians. and Ural owl (Strix uralensis). The cultural meadows. Land management numbers supported highlight the real practices provide many other species Threats to Carpathian bird species importance of the region - 30% of with habitat for nesting and foraging come mainly from habitat destruction the entire European population of the and agricultural and improved grass- and forest management practices, White-backed woodpecker (threate- land habitats support an important which have a particular impact on ned throughout large parts of its number of rare bird species. They are, species sensitive to disturbance (such range in Europe); 20 - 45% of the as a consequence, vulnerable to as Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) and European population of the globally many pressures resulting from the some eagles) or species dependent threatened Imperial eagle (Aquila intensification of agriculture; increases on old growth forests such as the heliaca) and 40% of the European in pesticides and fertiliser use, habitat White-backed woodpecker. ’Bird population of the Lesser spotted fragmentation, removal of field boun- crime,’ including nest robbery by fal- eagle (Aquila pomarina) to name but daries, increasing grazing pressure coners is also very significant in some a few. Typical mountain species found and the spread of monocultures. areas for birds of prey. Data available on nest robbery since 1965 in the Occurrence of 8 focal Bird Slovak Republic show that almost species (Aquela promarina, Crex crex, Dendrocopos 1000 chicks were stolen from nests by leucotos, Monticola sxatilis, falconers during this period. However, Strix uralensis, Tetrao measures can be implemented to urogallus and Tichodroma counteract this; guarding of nests muraria) in the by volunteers since 1990 resulted in Carpathians. decrease of stolen chicks and eggs by 70%.

Top predators, such as birds of prey, are especially vulnerable to the effects of pollution as certain pollutants are gathered in the food chain and build up in their systems. Larger bird species are also threatened by elec- tricity poles, which annually result in the death of thousands of birds. Biodiversity 25

Amphibians and reptiles of the Carpathians

Amphibians are found mainly in the forested regions of the Carpathians, developing in small streams and seasonal water reserves. The beech forests harbour the endemic newt species Carpathians' newt (Triturus © A. Vorauer / WWF - A montandini) as well as the Alpine newt (Triturus alpestris). More are found only in the lower altitudes Carpathians' newt (Triturus common species such as the Moor and foothills of the Carpathians, in montandini) frog (Rana arvalis) are also found in open or semi-open vegetation. The the region. Amphibians are threat- Carpathians harbour species such snake - the third longest in Europe - ened by activities such as water as the critically endangered inhabits sun-exposed landscapes regulation and flood prevention, Aesculapian snake (Elaphe longissi- such as forest margins, rocky slopes which deprive them of their habitat. ma), found on the south and west and orchards. As warm-weather animals, reptiles slopes of the Carpathians. This Invertebrates of the Carpathians

The importance of invertebrates of these are specific to certain influenced by environmental is easily ignored, yet they make an regions - in the Polish Carpathians change; for instance the Long horn enormous contribution to the alone (a very small part of the beetle (Rosalia alpina), which makes region's diversity; there are 35 - mountain range), there are an its habitat in decaying beech trees, 40 000 species of insects in the estimated 200 unique insect is only to be found in natural forests. Carpathians. A significant number species. These species are also

Case study - The Apollo butterfly : a lesson in restoration

The rehabilitation of the population of captive breeding. Co-operation from the Apollo Butterfly (Parnassius apollo) the Slovak part of the Park was in the Pieniny Mountains of Poland is initiated in 1994 and local people, seen as a key example in the conser- students, teachers and national park vation and restoration of invertebrates. rangers have learnt from the lessons At the beginning of the 1990s, this of its conservation in a community- beautiful white butterfly existed in the based monitoring programme. There Carpathian mountains in only a few is much to learn from - the isolated isolated populations - the result of a population of 20 butterflies in the 60-year persistent population decline. park has grown to more than 1000 individuals in linked populations. A ten-year restoration programme, This is a true example of the success- launched in Pieniny National Park in ful conservation of an invertebrate 1991, has involved restoration of the species. butterfly habitat, research and © H. Glader / WWF - A Biodiversity 26

C. RIVERS AND WATERS OF THE CARPATHIANS

With a dense river network sup- porting a wide diversity of mammal, fish, invertebrate, plant and micro- bial species, beautiful glacial lakes in the highland regions and an annual rainfall that is twice as high as in the surrounding region, the aquatic environment of the Carpathians is of great importance for European nature and people.

© Popp & Hackner / WWF-A Perhaps most importantly, the Carpathians are also a major provide clean drinking water. Major In the High Tatras region in the source of freshwater; as much as rivers are sourced here - the Vistula Western Carpathians there are one third of the water outflow of starts its journey of more than a more than 110 glacial lakes, formed millions of years ago. the Vistula river originates from the thousand kilometres in these moun- Carpathians and the region is the tains, the Olt river originates in the source of more than 80% of Eastern Carpathians, and the Romania's water reserves (excluding forested Carpathians of Ukraine ments. Internationally classified as the Danube). As an important major provide a source for the Siret, to ’vulnerable to extinction,’ this freshwater reserve the Carpathians name but a few. charismatic river carnivore is a common sight in nearly all the It is, however, the smaller rivers Carpathian countries and found in The Carpathians as a source which provide much of the densities as high as one per 10 to of freshwater. Ultimately, 90% Carpathians' aquatic biodiversity. 15 km of shore line in Ukraine. of Carpathian waters flow into the Black Sea and 10% flow Whilst the lowland rivers, such as Species like the Brown trout into the Baltic. the river Vah, have in many cases (Salmo trutta f. fario) and the Lake been straightened, trout (Salmo trutto f. lacustris), also regulated and con- indicators of clean water, are only trolled, the smaller found in the upper sections of water courses remain Carpathian rivers and streams. mostly in their natural state - the small More than 100 fish and lamprey Carpathian rivers are species live in the Carpathian rivers, amongst the cleanest of which 10 are considered to be in Europe. One of the endemic. The Carpathian lamprey most well-known (Eudontomyzon danfordi) is found inhabitants of the only in tributaries of the Tisza and Carpathian rivers is Timis rivers. The Asprete the otter (Lutra lutra) - (Romanichtys valsanicola) is also vir- a species which is only tually extinct in its native Romania, found in clear, unpol- except in the Valsan, a Carpathian luted water environ- tributary of the Arges. Biodiversity 27

Occurrence of focal fish species in the orographical units of the Carpathians overlapped by river network.

Freshwater reserves, both permanent and economic activities in the ’In conserving Europe's major and temporary, also provide a Carpathians, such as deforestation rivers, it is vital that we consider haven for other wildlife in the on the mountain slopes, necessarily the interaction between catch- Carpathians. For instance, in influence the natural value of the ment areas and rivers. About Duna-Ipoly National Park in rivers that flow out of the region. 20% of the waters of the Hungary, small temporary alpine Clear-cutting of forest highlands Carpathians enter the Danube, lakes, permanent marshes and cannot be ruled out as a major so in seeking to conserve the water-storage lakes play a very factor in lowland flooding. Attention Danube we must also consider important role in waterfowl migra- must be paid to the conservation of management practices in the tion. During the autumn and spring Carpathian rivers and lakes for their Carpathian Ecoregion .’ migration, huge masses of birds use unique biodiversity as well as their the lakes as stepping stones in an vital importance to the people of Philip Weller, Director WWF ’ecological corridor.’ the region. International ’Danube-Carpathian Programme.’ There are some 450 lakes in the Carpathians, mainly of very small size; their total surface area is barely 1.5 square miles. In the high mountains of Fagaras, Retezat, the Eastern Carpathians and the High Tatras, the beautiful glacial lakes can be found.

The rivers and waters of the Carpathians demonstrate the importance of taking an integrated approach to conservation. As a vital catchment area, both conservation © P. Weimann / WWF - A Socio-economic issues 28

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES IN THE CARPATHIANS

The challenge facing the Carpathian region is a daunting one: how to increase material livelihoods of the population - in terms of develop- ment and quality of life - whilst at the same time conserving and sustainably managing the rich bio- diversity and cultural heritage of the region. This document does not provide simple answers to this problem, but it delivers examples of possible solutions, using the basic © Popp & Hackner / WWF-A premise that socio-economic deve- lopment and nature conservation do A. RURAL ECONOMIES: not need to be opposing forces. Rather, each should be the under- PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE pinning foundation of the other. Agriculture: shaping the land

Human use of the natural resources of the Carpathians has a long From the high alpine meadows agricultural soil is more fertile; history. The following pages present grazed by cattle and sheep, down to higher up in the mountains, pastoral some of the key trends, and offer the narrow field strips in the valleys, farming has traditionally pre- some encouraging examples which agriculture and shepherding have dominated. point the way towards a future shaped the landscape of the mutually beneficial relationship Carpathians. Historically, mount- The ancient methods of farming and between economic development ain shepherding has been one of managing the landscape, though and conservation. the most important elements of Carpathian culture; creating typical landscape features such as the ’Seen from the above, sheepfolds, stockyards and the Carpathian mountain numerous paths beaten down by range reminds me of a herds of animals. Man's impact on question mark...The question the landscape through farming can mark seems to ask: what is be detected as early as the 4th and the life in this region of the 5th Centuries, when Prehistoric forests world like? How do we were affected by livestock preserve its unique values? grazing high up in the mountains. What do we do for the This led to an increase in soil erosion future?’ - a phenomenon which continues to this day and is a particular problem -HE Rudolf Schuster, President of in steeply sloping regions. Severe Slovak Republic; Bucharest, May deforestation has been experienced

2001 in the Carpathian foothills, where the © A. Zedrosser / WWF - A Socio-economic issues 29

buffeted by political and social change - for instance with a growth in human settlements in the Middle Ages - have survived for genera- tions. More recently, sweeping chan- ges were introduced to rural econo- mies in the wake of World War II. Communist governments favoured ’collectivisation’ of agriculture, either into huge state farms of more than a 1000 hectares, or ’co-operative © D. Mccairley farms’ where resources were managed jointly. The centralised systems valued industrialisation support for the agricultural sector ’A country that has and production and provided also collapsed. The removal of mountains with forests and subsidies for more intensive agri- agricultural subsidies, introduction grasslands is a fortunate culture: use of fertilisers, ploughing of competition through free market country. of meadows and drainage reforms and resulting recession in of wetlands. Carpathian countries has caused a massive reduction in agricultural If this country also has Despite this massive upheaval, as employment. For example, in mountain farmers, it is a marginal area, the Carpathians Hungary the share of GDP at- twice as fortunate.’ avoided the worst of the effects: tributed to agriculture dropped from economically, they were not seen 12% in 1990 to 5% in 1998 whilst ’Romanian Carpathians’ to be worth the level of investment the number of people employed in Summit publication (Romanian required, and logistically, resettling the sector shrank from 955 000 to Ministry of Agriculture, Food people who lived in remote 288 000. and Forests, 2001) mountain villages was difficult. Private ownership remained the rule rather than the exception in the Carpathians; in Poland particularly, little or no collectivisation occurred. In many ways, this ’benign neglect’ preserved marginal rural areas from the agricultural intensification which was devastating the nature of many other parts of Europe. It should be noted, however, that experience of the Communist system varied significantly from country to country.

In the aftermath of the fall of

Communism in the early 1990s, © Popp & Hackner / WWF-A Socio-economic issues 30

Agriculture today: changing systems, changing land

Responses to changing systems and increased poverty, and the impact this has on Carpathian nature, involve many different, often contra- dictory, patterns. A massive decline in rural incomes has raised the spectre of rural depopulation; migration of young people from rural areas in search of work,

ageing of the rural population and © Dominika Zareba decline of the traditional lifestyle in the Carpathians. Land abandon- ment undoubtedly poses one of the areas, and increased conflict with subsequent increases in soil erosion. greatest threats to biodiversity, as the carnivores of the forest. scrub takes over the traditional Perhaps more than any other sector, pattern of biodiversity-rich mountain Privatisation of land which was agriculture links the natural environ- pastures. Conversely, in some seized as State property after 1945 ment to economics and politics. regions of the Romanian highlands also has the potential to cause Increasing integration and inter- farmers have increased the numbers considerable damage to agricultural national trade is likely to encourage of sheep they graze in the high- lands. As with the restitution of a ’production-oriented’ mentality as lands, as alternative forms of forested land, poverty encourages farmers in Central and Eastern income in their villages have faded activities which maximise short-term Europe are forced to compete with away. This has lead to over-grazing monetary gain above all else; for the intensive farms of Western of the mountain pastures, reducing example it has led to an increase in Europe. EU subsidies, as they stand the unique biodiversity of these cropping on unstable slopes with at the moment, favour large comp- anies and intensive farming methods which have resulted in a dramatic decline in biodiversity in Western Europe.

Despite current problems with the agricultural sector, most people in the rural Carpathians still make their living from farming, though in a few areas this is now being supplemen- ted by new sectors such as tourism. Distribution of arable fields in the Carpathians. Covering such a vast region, it is often difficult to generalise about the effects of changes to political and economic systems. What is clear, however, is that the agricultural sector remains a vital part of life in the Carpathians. Socio-economic issues 31

Looking to the future: diversifying local incomes

At present ’environmentally friendly’ land-use systems in the Carpathians are limited to only a few percent of the agricultural area, but they have considerable potential. For example, in the White Carpathians on the border of the Czech and Slovak Republics, 15 000 hectares (37%) of agricultural land is managed accor- ding to organic principles, one of © Petr Francan the greatest concentrations in either country. and important for maintaining mea- produced and marketed juices, dry dow ecosystems, have given way to fruit, marmalade and other products, As with many other parts of the competition from New Zealand. made from 250 varieties of fruit. region, the White Carpathians have felt the impact of increasing deve- In response to this, a broad coalition These initiatives, however, do not lopment and market competition; of NGOs, local communities, only exist by themselves; they are cheaper, mass-produced and farmers, business-people, and a part of a wider sustainable deve- chemically-treated imports of government bodies in the White lopment strategy, which collectively products such as fruit have under- Carpathians are developing and provides a strong impetus for eco- mined demand for local produce. marketing traditional crafts and nomic development in the region As a result, local residents have less goods made from local produce. and a model for the rest of the incentive to care for their orchards, These initiatives are strengthening Carpathians. The Carpathian and native species are disappearing. the local economy; creating an Ecoregion Initiative is actively In addition, sheep, once a central economic rationale for preserving promoting this model for community feature of life in the northern the area's natural and cultural sustainable development in the reaches of the White Carpathians heritage. The association has rest of the region.

’Marketing of local products, based on natural and cultural heritage of the region, means support for the local people who farm the sheep, mow the meadows or plant new orchards. Trademark Traditions of White Carpathians helps us to support sustainable care for the landscape in the White Carpathians.’

Radim Machu, Czech NGO

© Jozef Majsky ’Veronika’(2001) Socio-economic issues 32

Forestry and biodiversity: a sustainable harvest?

Wood harvesting and exploitation species ’monocultures’. The of the forests in the Carpathians resulting forests are less stable than have a long history. In the Western natural forests, offer poorer habitat Carpathians, parts of the forest were for native species and are more cut down by the Romans in order to vulnerable to natural hazards such build fortified settlements on their as disease and storms. northern borders. From the 9th to 14th Centuries, fire was used to clear State or local areas of forest for village settle- ownership: the issue ments, greatly increasing man's of forest restitution impact on the forest. th For the latter part of the 20 Century, © WWF - UK It was not until the railway age in Carpathian forests were owned and the 19th Century, however, that the managed by the State. The bias Carpathian forests were opened up towards production under most cases by now been destroyed. to commercial exploitation. During Communism meant that these forests Perhaps more importantly, more this period, large areas of forest were generally over-exploited, with than fifty years of alienation from were clear-cut and reseeded, often the effects accentuated by waste in private property have cut the ’emo- with seed from foreign sources, harvesting and in timber processing. tional ties’ of owners with their land which differ from native species. and resulted in a loss of basic skills Even when indigenous species, such Forest exploitation in the Carpathian and knowledge about how to man- as spruce, were used, the forests region, however, has never caused age forests. Under pressure from were frequently replanted in single- the same extent of damage that has increasing rural poverty and lacking been observed in Western Europe. the skills for forest management, the Under the Communist system, the temptation for the ’new’ owners is to co-ordinated, centrally managed quickly clear the section of forest in system had advantages in terms of order to make a rapid economic forest management; advantages gain. which are now being lost as State owned forests are returned to their The challenge is therefore to original owners in the process of encourage good - and particularly ’restitution.’ This procedure, only a co-ordinated - forest management small part of a wider process of amongst the new forest owners, to privatisation, has major implications educate and provide them the for the future of Carpathian forests. capacity to implement good prac- Restitution, propelled by political tices. For example, in Romania, the rather than ecological imperatives, National Forest Administration is poses a challenge for the future of attempting to persuade owners to nature conservation in the adopt good forest management. Carpathians. Whereas small- and ’Private owner associations,’ have medium-sized forest properties used been set up as a useful mechanism to be a part of the pattern of rural for encouraging co-ordinated

© Popp & Hackner / WWF-A areas, this traditional pattern has in management. Socio-economic issues 33

Controlling forestry in the Carpathians

In the context of a weak legislative structure, conservation and control measures are not easily implemen- ted. Problems arise from a lack of resources or from corruption; just because regulations are created, does not mean that they will be enforced. Authorities promoting nature conservation and the sustainable use of forests therefore lack the capacity to act; through lack of financial resources, issues of corruption, or the inability to tackle © WWF - UK cultural issues. reserve established in the Cergov ’The point is not to keep For example, forests - both privately Mountains to preserve natural forest people from making a living. and publicly owned - are often growth. WOLF aims to set aside Certain parts, those with ’leased out’ to companies. In theory, one-fifth of all forests for non-timber particularly valuable natural companies are obliged to seek producing functions, including features, like the present special permits and conform to buffers for streams and springs, reserves, must be set aside. management rules in order to har- whilst selectively logging the rest of But in other areas, we can find vest wood. However, the permits are the forest. Their forest management a compromise of how to use only valid for one year, and technique corresponds to inter- the land without destroying it.’ companies seeking to extend the national conservation treaties signed arrangement have been able to use by the Slovak Republic. Yet Rastislav Micanik, ’WOLF’, in their close contacts with state forest according to national law, the fine ’Felling our Future’ (Beckmann, agencies in order to negotiate was justified. 2001). easier deals.

As awareness of the ecological A value of forests grows, conflict is created between the demands of ’traditional forestry,’ which sees forests as a resource for wood harvesting, and the ’holistic’ view of forests as living entities with diverse functions - biodiversity, production of soil, stabilising water regimes and landscapes to name but a few. This political tug-of-war is well illustrated by the case of the Slovak NGO ’WOLF,’ which in the year 2000 was fined for failing to cut wood on a © B. Prokupek Socio-economic issues 34

The Forest Stewardship Council in the Carpathians

As awareness grows in Western Benefits from the forest Indigenous peoples' rights Europe of the value of managing ’Forest management shall encourage ’The legal and customary rights of forests for the future and not just the the efficient use of the forest's multiple indigenous peoples to own, use and present, mechanisms to achieve this products and services to ensure manage their lands, territories, and are also being developed. One such economic viability and a wide range of resources shall be recognised and example – the most successful to environmental and social benefits’ respected.’ date – is the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), an alliance between Environmental impact The FSC aims to promote responsible forest owners, the timber industry ’Forest management shall conserve forestry that respects ecological and and social and environmental biological diversity and its associated social values, whilst promoting an eco- groups. Founded in 1993, the FSC values, water resources, soils, and nomically viable trading system. Forests aims to promote ’environmentally unique and fragile ecosystems and which are managed according to FSC appropriate, socially beneficial and landscapes, and, by so doing, main- criteria are ’certified’ by FSC accredited economically viable management of tain the ecological functions and the companies and the wood products from the world’s forests.’ integrity of the forest.’ the forest are sold under the FSC label.

This international non-governmental Management plan A ’Chain of Custody’ process traces the organisation has more than 440 ’A management plan - appropriate to route of the wood products from forest members from 55 different coun- the scale and intensity of the operations to consumer, confirming that only those tries. The FSC has adopted ten - shall be written, implemented, and wood products from certified forests are global principles and criteria for kept up to date. The long term objec- sold under the FSC label. Almost 25 responsible forest management, tives of management, and the means of million hectares of forest in 45 countries examples of which are: achieving them, shall be clearly stated.’ have been certified by FSC since its foundation; a global success story driven FSC in the Carpathians : by consumer concern with the rate of Romania announces forest certification forest destruction world-wide, and faith in the FSC label.

The Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative This is a very significant step forward has promoted the growth of the FSC and a positive sign for Romania's in Eastern Europe through the pro- forest, which covers more than 6 vision of information and setting up million hectares of land. As inter- of national working groups to deve- national wood trading companies lop standards for sustainable forest increasingly turn their attention

management. In a recent towards Eastern Europe, FSC FSC Trademark @ 1996 announcement, the Romanian provides a route by which Romanian Forest Stewardship Council A.C. National Forest Administration forests of the Carpathians can be FSC-SECR-0039 announced a commitment to harvested sustainably, responsibly certifying 1 million hectares and with the long-term survival of The FSC Logo identifies forests of forest according to FSC natural resources in mind. which have been certified in criteria within the next two accordance with the rules of the years. Forest Stewardship Council. Socio-economic issues 35

B. DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES : RURAL AND URBAN Tourism in the Carpathians

The grandeur of the Carpathian mountains, their high natural value Number of tourists visiting the Carpathian mountains and the potential for recreational annually activities such as hiking, have encouraged increasing numbers of tourists to visit the area. In the Carpathian region, tourism thus rep- resents both a significant challenge to the ecological integrity of ’hot- spot’ areas like the High Tatras, and an important opportunity for future rural development in the region.

The Communist era saw a conside- rable expansion in international tourism, largely based on arrivals from other Socialist countries on subsidised State holidays. When the undergoing a significant shift as it The Carpathian region has Communist system collapsed this responds to market forces and gro- various ’hot-spot’ areas for market disappeared and a sharp wing demand from international tourism which attract the vast majority of tourists visiting decline in tourism occurred. Only a tourists from the West. Instead of the the region. few of the most important areas, tightly controlled ’top-down’ system such as Beskidy in the Czech of Communism, where most tourists Republic and the High Tatras in arrived on state-sponsored group Slovakia, continued to attract tou- holidays, more individual tourists are rists in the early 1990s. now arriving, looking for smaller Carpathians are demonstrating the hotels and good quality services. benefits that can be achieved for The Carpathian countries generally Analysis of more recent trends in both local people and their environ- saw a massive rise in visits from the Carpathians showed that inter- ment. One such example is the foreign visitors after the fall of national arrivals have now stabi- Amber Trail Greenway Programme, Communism; with tourism traffic lised, but the time spent in the an international project which from Western to Central and Eastern region by individual tourists is promotes cultural preservation and European countries increasing from increasing. nature conservation by fostering about 20 million in 1980 to 34 potentially environmentally-friendly million in 1990, but falling again to Sustainable tourism: activities such as eco-tourism, 27 million in 1992. Most of this a future for rural marketing local products and raising tourism, however, was to non- development local grassroots initiatives, along the Carpathian destinations; visitors to heritage trail from Krakow in Poland the Carpathians remained relatively Sustainable tourism has an enor- to Budapest in Hungary. Projects low, except to a few hotspot mous potential to bring together include a cycle trail along the route, destinations. nature conservation and rural a fair demonstrating local and org- development. Small-scale anic products, and a wolf-tracking Tourism in the Carpathians is now community projects throughout the initiative in the Beskidy Mountains. Socio-economic issues 36

Industry and water management

Industrialisation first came to the Carpathian region with the expan- sion of the Prussian and Habsburg empires in the 18th Century and expanded dramatically in the 19th Century. At this time the Carpathians were exploited for coal and metal mining (for instance in regions of the Banat Carpathians in Romania) and for minerals (Dashava in Ukraine and Ploiesti in Romania). Carpathian valleys, such as the Vah valley in Slovakia, were also heavily developed for industries such as wood processing.

It was in the latter half of the 20th Century, however, that industry came to have the strongest effect on the areas,’ with high levels of unemploy- Distribution of mining and natural environment of the ment, environmental degradation manufacture sites and their Carpathians. The emphasis on and pollution from industry. These influence on nature represented by a ’zone of influence’ around central production promoted under areas are more evident in the north- the site. Communist systems was often to the west Carpathian region where the detriment of the natural environ- concentration of factories was grea- the Ministry of Agriculture controls ment; as a result, air and water pol- ter; however, the collapse of industry maintenance of the rivers, whilst lution have become major problems took place over the whole conservation of water and water in parts of the region. Forests of Carpathian range. For instance, in ecosystems is controlled by the incredible natural value, such as Zarnesti, a town in Central Romania, Ministry of Environment. Greater the upper montane forests in the most of the factories have closed in coordination at the Ministerial level Beskidy Mountains in the Western the last ten years, with the result that is needed if this problem is to be Carpathians, have been badly affec- 50% of the active population is now adequately tackled. ted by sulphur emissions from near- not working. by factories. Acid rain originating Despite these problems, it must be from factory pollution (both from Pollution in Carpathian rivers from recognised that much of the within and outside the Carpathian industrial sources continues to be a Carpathian river system remains region) continues to be a problem. problem; legislation of the accession relatively pristine - small Carpathian countries draws step by step closer rivers are amongst the cleanest in After the Communist systems ended to the principles of water manage- Europe. Accidents such as the Baia there was a dramatic decrease in ment set by the EU, though at Mare spill in Romania (see box) industrial production, with the result varying rates. One recurring point to the continuing threat posed that there has been a reduction in problem is that jurisdictions in water to these rivers by industrial activities, emissions of pollutants. Many former management are not always clear - and the need to implement industrial areas are now ’crisis for instance, in the Czech Republic legislation to protect them. Socio-economic issues 37

Case study - The Tisza cyanide spill : counting the cost

On 30th January, 2000, at the Baia Mare reprocessing plant in Romania, a dam encircling a tailings lagoon broke under pressure from rain and melted snow. About 100 000 cubic metres of water, contaminated with cyanide and heavy metals, was released into the river Tisza and other rivers in the Danube system. After the spill, a toxic ’plume’ of cyanide pollu- ted water floated down the river. © T. Kocsis Over 1200 tonnes of dead fish were hauled from the waters; other water and future investment, have lingered report of the BMTF warned that high life such as plankton were completely longer. In response to the spill at Baia risk sites with the potential to cause eradicated in some regions. Mare, the Baia Mare Task Force the same devastation, exist in many (BMTF), an international initiative parts of the region, and elsewhere in Thankfully, the largely natural river including the United Nations, Europe. This time the river system was system showed a remarkable Hungarian and Romanian able to recover; calling for increased recovery. Social and economic Governments and WWF, was set up safety standards, the report warned impacts, including those to sectors by the European Commission to that ’next time we may not be so such as fisheries, tourism, industry inspect the affected region. The lucky.’

Dams and leading to a considerable loss of hydroelectric power agricultural land and forest as well as some relocation of villages. A There is a higher density of dams in significant example is damage to the the north-west of the Carpathians Retezat mountains following the Raul than in the south. Dams have been Mare-Retezat hydropower scheme. built in the Carpathian region to Despite these effects, however, dams provide flood control, water supply remain relatively limited in the and some limited hydropower. The Carpathian rivers compared to prodigious demands for energy those in Western Europe - in many under the Communist central Carpathian rivers natural processes, planning system meant that the so important for living diversity, development of hydroelectric power have been allowed to continue

© M. Gunther / BIOS stations was highly favoured, unhampered. Socio-economic issues 38

Transport in the Carpathians

With increasing development, trade and integration with Western Europe, the increase in traffic in the Carpath- ian region over the last few years looks set to continue. The develop-

ment of transport networks is a high Communication priority in all the Carpathian countries corridors crossing and seen as immensely important for the Carpathians the economy of the region. ’damage limitation’ is often the best Present communication According to research carried out by option, for example tunnels and over- corridors, whilst fragmenting the the Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative, passes which will allow migrating ecoregion, do not appear to overlay any of the ’priority ’communication corridors’ (roads and animals to pass through. It should areas for biodiversity’ identified railways) fragment the ecoregion into also be remembered that minor roads by the Carpathian Ecoregion four basic units. Roads disturb the built through the forest can in some Initiative (see p.45). Planned migration patterns of animals and have cases be beneficial for conservation, road developments, however, the potential for dramatic effects on as better access to the timber must be observed carefully. populations such as the wolf, who rely resource allows the use of more on the Carpathians as a migration environmentally friendly harvesting route to southern Europe. If the ’bridge’ techniques and prevents erosion of of these amazing sites. In assessing concept of the Carpathian region is forest tracks. impacts to biodiversity, Environmental disrupted, much of its ecological value Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures may be lost. Roads are also often Yet it should also not be forgotten that must be followed; alternatives must accompanied by other barriers; for major road building plans have the be proposed and assessed; and example electric power cables. Every potential for huge impacts on the ideally a Strategic Environmental year hundreds, and quite possibly Carpathians' biodiversity. An example Assessment (SEA) should be carried thousands, of birds are killed by power is the proposed Madrid to Kiev Trans- out for transport network planning in cables and lines. The construction of a European Network (TEN) Highway, the region as a whole. huge gas pipe-line is also planned, funded by the EU, which would cross crossing from Russia to the Slovak the Carpathians. In assessing the impacts of roads, it Republic, which is likely to cut the is also essential to consider the ’tight- Carpathians near the Dukla pass. A balance must therefore be struck. ness of the barrier’ to migration; that All proposed transport development is, the traffic load that will be carried A blanket opposition to road-building projects must be carefully designed in by the road. In this context, railways and development is inappropriate in order not to have a negative impact can be seen as less ’tight’ barriers the context of the increasing on the unique Carpathian natural and therefore have a smaller impact development of Central and Eastern diversity. Roads must not be allowed on migration patterns. Future European countries. With rapid to pass through or significantly impact challenges from this sector must economic development and increas- upon sites of major importance to also be considered; at present, the ing trade and integration with the EU, biodiversity. It is here that the Carpathians are not impacted by air development of a transport infrastruc- Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative's transport. With an increase in tourism ture is seen as essential in the ’mapping’ approach can be used to and development, this may become a Carpathian region. Lobbying for identify possible threats to the future major issue in the future. Policy context 39

C. JOINING THE EU: THE POLICY CONTEXT

Entry into the European Union offers both challenges and opportunities for biodiversity and the rural economies of the Carpathian region. This process - known as ’accession’ - requires countries to plan the transposition of European Union legislation into their national policy. This offers opportuni- ties in the form of new, harmonised legislative frameworks, policies and especially funding instruments, which can be used to support both rural live- © R. Irvine / WWF - DCPO lihoods and biodiversity conservation. Conversely, implementation of some particular compliance to environmen- A representative from the European legislation, particularly the tal legislation is not proceeding at the European Commission was Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), same rate throughout the region. The amongst those discussing the future of the Carpathians at the combined with accelerating develop- Czech Republic and Hungary have Carpathian-Danube Summit, ment pressures, pose a significant already agreed a timeline for trans- April 2001. threat to the future of Carpathian posing the environmental legislation; nature. Poland, the Slovak Republic and in particular Romania are further behind It must therefore be expected that in The challenge is therefore to guide in the process. Ukraine, though it is the future the eastern boundary of the new developments and shape future co-operating in certain fields and EU in Poland and the Slovak Republic patterns of investment and land-use in bound by international agreements will divide the Carpathians by political a way which utilises natural capital and conventions such as the Danube borders - a development which is like- without undermining or destroying it. River Protection Convention, has not ly to complicate and limit cross- However, the accession process and in applied for EU membership. border ecoregion and rural develop- ment activities.

Specifically, there are three policy sectors of prime importance for the Carpathians: nature conservation; agriculture and rural development; and water management.

Major road developments cut through landscape and fragment wildlife habitats. It is vital that the needs of conservation are taken into account as the countries of the Carpathian region become more closely integrated with the © D.Miletich / WWF-A European Union. Policy context 40

Nature conservation in the European Union

The ’Natura 2000’ network of Protected Areas, based on the European Community's Birds and Habitats Directives, is the key legislation tool for protecting nature within the European Union. This network of sites is based on the premise of conserving natural diver- sity at the European level, as well as promoting activities which will

sustainably use the natural resour- © V. Stanova / Daphne ces of the region. Mechanisms such as the EU LIFE Programme provide funding for activities, for example Selection of Natura 2000 sites is Valuable natural habitats in the the extensification of agricultural based on the protection of habitats Carpathians will be included practices, agri-environment and species judged as being of within the European Union 'Natura 2000' network of programmes and rural tourism in European importance. It is vital that Protected Areas. and around protected sites. the identification of these habitats and species in the Carpathians The European Union has identified follows a sound scientific approach six ’biogeographical’ regions from and is made in consultation with the Alpine to the tiny Macronesian all the organisations which have islands, within which Natura 2000 expertise, to ensure that the sites are selected. The research Directive covers the entire range showcased in this publication - of species and habitats in the showing the Carpathians as a Carpathians that requires distinct geographical territory, with protection. high numbers of unique species not found anywhere else in Europe - NGOs in the Carpathians often indicates that there is a strong case have very well developed scientific for designating the Carpathians as capacity, expertise and knowledge. a separate biogeographical region However, there is evidence that within the Natura 2000 process. NGOs have not been significantly This would overcome many involved in this process at the potential problems by allowing national level, often lacking access © P. Meindl / WWF - A countries joining the EU to plan to the appropriate information. This together, making joint decisions failure to engage a broader over scientific methodologies and spectrum of interests seems short- EU agricultural policies have had a devastating effect on approaches. So far, no decision of sighted. It ignores rich sources of the nature of Western Europe. this sort has been made, and the information and experience which It is crucial that Carpathian Carpathians are provisionally being will also be essential if successful agriculture is not subject to treated as a part of the Alpine protection of these vital sites is to the same pressure of biogeographical region. be achieved. ’production at all costs.’ Policy context 41

Agriculture and rural development policies

Reform and restructuring of the agricultural sector and rural economy in the Carpathians is a complex, economically necessary, and socially sensitive process - particularly in the context of processes like EU accession and global processes such © Popp & Hackner / WWF-A as the negotiations of the World Trade Organisation. The challenge to rural areas - but more money, more The European Union Water protect the social fabric of rural areas integration with other sectors Framework Directive is the first from social upheaval and economic (including nature conservation) and European-wide regulation for sustainable use of water. hardship is great, as is the need to more public participation is needed avoid the costly and damaging in planning the programmes. A sepa- mistakes of production-oriented rate Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative importance for the Carpathian subsidies as witnessed throughout report (see bibliography) presents mountains. the present day EU. the rather worrying results of a multi- country SAPARD analysis which With a focus on achieving ’good At the same time, environmental as suggests this opportunity is in ecological status’ of waters, the imple- well as social and economic benefits danger of being missed. mentation of the Directive requires need to be promoted - in short, what appropriate management of water is needed is an integrated policy for Water management: catchment areas - the challenge for sustainable regional development. integrating systems, all concerned is therefore to meaning- With agriculture the mainstay of the reaching across fully connect nature conservation, rural economy in the Carpathians, boundaries agricultural, forest and other sector implementation of agricultural sub- planning and management to the sidies which reward production and Natural dynamics and ecological wider issue of water quality. intensification are likely to have processes extend beyond political large and negative effects upon borders. Management of natural With the involvement of all the biodiversity. resources and nature conservation Carpathian countries (including therefore also need to reach across Ukraine) and a structure which The whole process of transformation boundaries. This is particularly true for legally obliges public participation in into EU Member States must there- water resources management and is the process, the Water Framework fore be seen in the context of reform reflected in the European Directive represents a significant of the CAP and of supporting Commission's new ’Water Framework opportunity. The Carpathian Eco- subsidies and policies attached to the Directive.’ This innovative new system, region Initiative intends to broaden process of accession. The ’Special currently under implementation, this debate, assisting in supporting Accession Programme for Agriculture attempts to achieve ’integrated river public involvement, working with and Rural Development’ (SAPARD) is basin management’ across governmental and NGO partners one such financial support measure, international boundaries, integrating throughout the region to contribute to aiming to support rural development land-use policies and water manage- the achievement of good ecological in countries preparing to join the EU. ment programmes into a coherent status for all Carpathian waters - This mechanism has a real potential whole. As a vital source of freshwater including the Tisza, Odra, Vistula and to assist with targeted measures in in Europe, this process is of great Danube rivers. Conclusion 42

CONCLUSION: Challenges and opportunities in the Carpathian Ecoregion

The Carpathian region is undergoing a period of radical social, economic and political change. The origins of these changes range from the local to the global; from changing attitudes and increasing poverty in rural highland communities to the negotiations of the World Trade Organisation. In this context, the challenges for conservation are considerable - and sometimes un- predictable. Varying across the region, trends are often contradictory; yet, in order to find effective solutions, it is vital © Popp & Hackner / WWF-A to see them in a regional context to guide development along a Eco-tourism offers opportunities Introduction of a sustainable route, to protect and value for increasing rural incomes in market economy and the unique natural assets of this area the Carpathians increase in in the context of a changing world. development Initiatives like the Forest Stewardship EU integration Council are of particular importance The removal of the centrally-con- in guiding development in a way that The accession of Carpathian coun- trolled, top-down Communist system values, rather than degrades, this tries to the EU; integration with the affects all aspects of Carpathian life - unique natural area. ’Natura 2000’ system of Protected from the negotiations of business Areas and transposition of policy down to the price of an apple. Decline in rural such as the EU Water Framework Development pressures, experienced economies Directive offer considerable potential most strongly in the north-west of the for nature conservation in the region, are also increasing at an Combined with increasing opportuni- Carpathian region. Initiatives such unparalleled rate. ties for young people in the towns and as the SAPARD fund could poten- the spread of ’consumer culture,’ tially finance a rural reconnaissance An extension of the transport infra- Carpathian rural areas are threatened - so long as it is targeted effectively, structure; a growth in tourism; in trade by out-migration and the ageing of with sufficient involvement of stake- and attention from international the local populations. These effects holders at a local level. At the business; these will have a massive are most strongly felt in the south-east moment this involvement is not effect on the life of the Carpathians. of the Carpathians, where poverty is taking place. Legislation, particularly But they should not be viewed as greatest and investment is lowest. The the Common Agricultural Policy, purely ’negative’ from a conservation challenge is to find ways to diversify poses a significant threat to biodi- perspective; any approach to conser- rural incomes in the context of sust- versity. Reform is a necessity in order vation must recognise the universal ainable development. Initiatives invol- for the accession process to take demand for growth and higher living ving eco-tourism and the promotion place. Whilst accession to the EU standards in all the countries involved. of local products and heritage offer cuts down barriers, it also creates The money flooding into the region hope for the future of Carpathian them; the Ukrainian Carpathians will has great potential. The challenge is rural economies. still be outside the expanded EU and Conclusion 43

therefore to a certain extent isolated. The loss of private property in the latter part of the 20th Century and Restitution and the imposition of a ’top-down’ culture that growth in civil society saw nearly all decisions as the purview of the state has eroded the notion that Attitudes are changing in the Carpath- one could or even should care for the ians. The structures and culture of civil land. Yet, ultimately, the growth in civil society is developing; land, long society and increased involvement state-owned, is being returned to with the land can only be positive, private hands. Evidence so far has both for natural resources and for the shown that there are considerable people of the region. dangers in the process: clear-felling of forest, fragmentation of animal Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative habitats as new owners ’mark off’ partners come together to learn their land and a decline in co-ordina- about a local conservation ted land management are just a few. initiative. © E. Samec

Local action: a force for change

In the context of the growing civil heritage to boost the local economy, areas: the White Carpathians on the society, a number of innovative initi- whilst at the same time preserving Czech-Slovak border; Babia Gora/ atives are springing up to counter their environment and the rich social Hora on the Polish-Slovak border; rural decline at the local scale. These fabric of their towns and villages. Piatra Craiului in central Romania; projects demonstrate the enormous and the East Carpathians. The benefits that can be achieved when One emerging success story is taking Initiative is also promoting this local people come together to plan a place in the East Carpathians, a approach in other 'Priority Areas' such sustainable future for their community. remote and often neglected area on as Retezat National Park in central the Polish-Slovak-Ukrainian border (a Romania. The Environmental Partnership for Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative model Central Europe (EPCE), one of the key project area). The EPCE-organised partners of the Carpathian Ecoregion 'Time for the Carpathians' initiative has Initiative, has been a catalyst for many injected a new sense of hope into ’The point of stewardship of these projects: organising work- local communities on all three sides of is that you can't save any area, shops where local people can discuss the border. Following the establish- any land, if you exclude from their ideas; following this up with ment of a small grants competition, it people and their activities. advice, funding and partnership- local partners are working together to Nature is best protected not building; and making connections develop 'Greenway' trails linking the by nature conservation between the diverse projects so that three countries - a real tool for authorities but by the people who live on it.’ together they form a strong force for encouraging tourism and marketing local development. The individual ventures. Similar projects are being Andrea Viceníkova, Daphne Institute projects focus on one thing: people nurtured in all four of the Carpathian of Applied Ecology; quoted from utilising their natural and cultural Ecoregion Initiative's model project 'Caring for the Land' (EPCE, 2000). A vision for the Carpathians 44

A Vision for the Carpathians

Through a two and a half year ◗ Strengthen institutional ecoregion planning process, the development Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative has The structures and organisations not only identified the most conserving Carpathian nature need to The vision statement: important biological features of maintain or increase ’the capacity to the Carpathians, it has also gained act.’ In order to achieve this, legis- Our vision is to achieve a clear picture of the threats to the lation protecting Carpathian nature the long-term conservation region and their root causes. This is must be harmonised and streng- the first and only overall view of the thened, programmes need to be of the unique nature in Carpathians. adequately financed and stakeholders the globally important at all levels need to be co-operatively Carpathian mountains Based on the information gathered involved in the processes of nature through this process, the partners of conservation. and, at the same time, the Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative support the economy and have agreed on a short statement, ◗ Develop a Carpathian culture for the lasting representing their shared vision for ecological network benefit of people through the region (see box). The protective area network should be strengthened to ensure that the international partnership. This short statement has been biodiversity of the Carpathians is expanded to a longer sign-up vision effectively conserved, and restored statement to which more than 100 where appropriate. The network organisations have committed them- should support viable populations of selves (see Appendix D). As a result species and maintain natural pro- of the data-gathering process, a cesses and evolutionary phenomena; range of maps displaying bio- perhaps most importantly, manage- diversity and socio-economic data ment of the network should be enhan- The next stage : has also been developed. Most ced and integrated with the conserva- developing the Pan- important are the two maps identify- tion of the region as a whole. Carpathian Conservation ing the Carpathian Ecoregion and Action Plan Initiative's ’Priority Areas’ for ◗ Generate sustainable economic conservation (see opposing page). benefits for the people in the The Action Plan is a comprehensive region strategy which will need to be But how is the vision to be As the Carpathian countries adapt implemented by the Carpathian achieved? The Carpathian Eco- to a more market-oriented system, it Ecoregion Initiative, its partner region Initiative's mission can be is vital that sustainable use of the organisations and other stake- split into three overarching themes, region's rich natural resources is holders, if conservation and sust- or medium-term aims: promoted in a way that will benefit ainable development is to be the people of the region. Initiatives achieved in the region. The next such as eco-tourism programmes, stage is the development of detailed renewable energy use and the five and ten year actions, which will marketing of local products should be be developed in 2002, with specific developed to provide a truly objectives, milestones and indicators sustainable future for the region. for each of the components. A vision for the Carpathians 45

Priority Areas for Conservation : showing what success looks like

This map identifies the Carpathian prioritising conservation effort. The coming years. As scientific study Ecoregion Initiative ’Priority Areas for areas constitute 15% of the total of the region continues, the list of Conservation;’ the most important area of the Carpathians and will priority sites will be continually large-scale wildlife sites in the form the focus of the Carpathian revised and updated. Carpathians and a major target for Ecoregion Initiative's action in the

A comparison between the existing Areas' form 43% of the existing do not have any large-scale Protected Areas network and the protected areas network of 26,178 protection under the existing Priority Areas identifies what work km2. However, two thirds of the area network. needs to be done. The 'Priority of priority sites (22,179 km2) Conclusions 46

Achieving the vision: bottom-up and top-down

High Level For nature conservation to be effec- tively implemented in the Carpathians, actions have to be taken High level political work on all scales from the local to the global. The activities of the e.g Summit Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative aim to foster action for nature conservation Carpathian Convention on all levels of decision-making and facilitate co-operation in order to achieve change. The Carpathian

To achieve the vision, work is being Ecoregion Initiative undertaken at the international, Approach - linking regional, national and local levels, in order to: strengthen institutional top-down/ bottom-up capacity, develop the Carpathian ecological network and promote sustainable development in the Working together with region, whilst ensuring that these grass-roots organisations actions are interlinked, from the local to the international level (see dia- and local people gram). Listed below are some exam- ples of the work being under-taken to address these three themes: Low Level At the international level: the Carpathians. Ecoregion Initiative is working to guide development down sustainable ◗ As a part of the Carpathian ◗ For the accession countries in the routes and ensure that local com- Ecoregion Initiative's commitment Carpathian region, transposition of munities benefit. An example of this is to strengthening international frame- the EU's ’Natura 2000’ Protected its promotion of sustainable forestry works, the Carpathian-Danube Areas network offers a significant according to the standards of the FSC Summit in Bucharest was used as opportunity for nature conservation. (Forest Stewardship Council). a forum to raise the profile of the The Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative Carpathians. In the resulting will lobby to ensure that the 'Priority At the regional level: ’Declaration on Environment and Areas for biodiversity conservation' Sustainable Development in the are included in the regions to be ◗ Following on from the Carpathian- Carpathian-Danube region,’ Heads protected by this mechanism. Danube Summit, a new legal frame- of State in the region declared their work (Convention/Charter) is being willingness to co-operate and ◗ As the Carpathian region increas- developed for the region. This will promote environmental protection ingly attracts investment from inter- strengthen legislation protecting the and sustainable development in national business, the Carpathian Carpathians; secure environmentally- Conclusions 47

friendly natural resource-use; and national legislation with respect to examples of good practice for the increase regional co-operation nature conservation, through future. It is only when people at a between the governments. The promoting flexible co-operation, local level gain the capacity to act Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative is strengthening environmental-friendly and control change that true working closely with the United legislation and enhancing trans- sustainable development can be Nations Environment Programme parent governmental procedures. A achieved. (UNEP), who are leading this work. particular problem which needs to Alongside this, the Initiative is be tackled is lack of co-ordination ◗ Local park administrations can working with large donors to create between Environmental and other only be effective if there are ade- a large-scale pan-Carpathian Ministries within governments. quate finances and resources funding mechanism. A donors available. The Carpathian conference will be held in the near ◗ A major aim of the Initiative is to Ecoregion Initiative is seeking to future in order to develop this. attract funding to existing National secure direct funding in order to Park networks and promote effective ensure appropriate management ◗ The Carpathian Ecoregion management of parks through of protected areas. Initiative is promoting the creation education and capacity-building. of new protected areas in their iden- Projects funded by the World Bank ◗ The Carpathian Ecoregion tified 'Priority Areas' for biodiversity and GEF (Global Environment Initiative is supporting local projects conservation, as well as increased Facility) are already improving which demonstrate the economic co-ordination between those already management in selected parks and benefits of conservation and sust- existing, in order to create a true working to create a management ainable development (e.g. Carpathian network of Protected model for all the National Parks community-led eco-tourism pro- Areas. As part of this, the Initiative is of Romania. jects), through funding and publicity identifying potential ecological via its extensive communication net- corridors linking the 'Priority Areas' ◗ It is imperative that countries of work. The Carpathian Large and giving special emphasis to the Carpathian region create Carnivore Project in Romania is one transboundary protected areas. national strategies for sustainable such example. Here, the Initiative is development, for example sustain- working with the local inhabitants, ◗ The Carpathian Ecoregion able tourism development. At the the town council and the protected Initiative is facilitating regional and national level, the Carpathian area administration to set up a local cross-border co-operation on Ecoregion Initiative is lobbying for conservation and development fund. sustainable development issues the development of such strategies. Promotion of such initiatives that e.g. through support and promotion facilitate co-operation between of cross-border model project areas At the local level: national parks and local communi- such as the White Carpathians on ties is a fundamental part of the the Czech-Slovak border. It is also ◗ The Carpathian Ecoregion Initia- Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative's lobbying for a legal framework for tive is building on the emerging civil strategy at the local level. co-operation. society in the Carpathian countries by strengthening local NGOs and At the national level: structures for community involve- For further information, ment. Initiatives such as the model see our website : ◗ The Carpathian Ecoregion project areas and community Initiative is seeking to strengthen funding mechanisms seek to provide www.carpathians.org Bibliography 48

Bibliography

Reports from the Carpathian ◗* Okarma,H. Dovhanych,Y. Findo, ◗ Witkowski, Z., Adamski, P. and Ecoregion Initiative : S., Ionescu O., Koubek P., Szemethy Solarz, S. 2000. The Carpathian L. 2000. Status of Carnivores in the Biodiversity Assessment – ◗* Avis, *C., Beckmann, A., Cierna, Carpathians (Brown Bear, Wolf, reconnaissance phase. Unpubl. M., Gheorghe, C., Elod, R., Potozky, Lynx, Otter). Unpubl. Report. Report. L. 2001. Results of an Independent NGO Evaluation of SAPARD : ◗* Perzanowski, K. 2001. Report of *These reports can be National Plans and Processes in Mammal Co-ordinator. Unpubl. downloaded from the attached Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania Report. CD-ROM and Slovakia. WWF Danube- Carpathian Programme : Vienna. ◗ Serafin, R., Sendzimir, J., Biderman, A., Ruzicka, T., Zareba, ◗* Bennett, G. 2000. The D. 2000. Processes to Promote Factsheets produced by Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative : Sustainable Development and its the Carpathian Ecoregion Reconnaissance Report. Unpubl. Links to Biodiversity. Unpubl. Report. Initiative : Report. ◗* Stanova, V. 2001. The Holt S. 2000. The Carpathian ◗* Biderman, A. W., Luszczek, M. Carpathian Ecoregion Iniatiative : Ecoregion Initiative 2001. A Socio-Economic Review on Plant Communities Report. Unpubl. the Sector of Transport in the Report. Holt S. 2000. The Carpathian Carpathian Ecoregion. Unpubl. Mountains Report. ◗* Suprenko, O. 2001. Agriculture in the Carpathian Ecoregion. Holt S. 2000. Ecoregion ◗* Forejtnikova, M. and Kralova, H. Unpubl. Report. Conservation in the 2000. Carpathian Ecoregion Carpathians Initiative – Water : final report. ◗ Tasenkovich, L. 2001. The Unpubl. Report. Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative : Beckmann A. 2001. Model Project Report of Vascular Plants Sector Co- Area: The White Carpathians ◗* Kingma, J. 2001. Stakeholders in ordinator. Biodiversity in the Carpathian Nieiadomski Z., Zareba D., Holt S. Mountains – an overview of ◗* Turnock, D. 2000. Assessment of 2001. Model Project Area: Stakeholders in the Carpathian area Socio-Economic Issues in the The East Carpathians of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Carpathians : Reconnaissance Ukraine. Unpubl. Report. Phase. Unpubl. Report. Promberger C. and Holt S. 2001. Model Project Area: The ◗* Kluvankova-Oravska, T. 2000. ◗* Turnock, D. 2001. The Carpathian Large Carnivore Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative : Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative : Project Sectoral Report on Tourism. Unpubl. Socio-economic Perspectives. Report. Unpubl Report. Factsheets can be downloaded ◗ Mosbach, J. and Webster, R. ◗ Voloscuk, I. 2000. Carpathian from the Carpathian Ecoregion 2001. The Carpathians : Kingdom Report on Protected Areas. Unpubl Initiative website of the Carnivores. WWF Danube- Report. http://www.carpathians.org Carpathian Programme : Vienna. Bibliography 49

Other publications Programme. Unpubl. Leaflet. Websites EPCE. 2000. Caring for the Land: a Stanners, D. and Bourdeau, P. Decade of Promoting Landscape 1995. Europe’s Environment : The Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative Stewardship in Central and Eastern Dobris Assessment. website. Europe. Stare Mesto: Czech http://www.carpathians.org Republic. Voloscuk, I. 1999. The National Parks and Biosphere Reserves in Carpathian Foundation website. European Commission PHARE Carpathians: the Last Nature http://www.carpathianfoundas- Programme. 1999. Conservation Paradises. Association of the tion.org/ and Sustainable Management in Carpathian National Parks and Central and Eastern European Biosphere Reserves : Slovak Forest Stewardship Council website. Countries. PHARE Environment Republic. http://www.fscoax.org Consortium: Brussels. Tourist information: the Carpathian WWF. 1999. A Workbook for Mountains. Conducting Biological Assessments http://www.kappa.ro/travel/car and Developing Biodiversity Visions pati/eindex.html for Ecoregion-based Conservation. WWF: USA. UNEP – WCMC. 2000. European Forests and Protected Areas : Gap WWF. 2000. WWF Agenda for Analysis. Accession: the 'new' European http://www.unep- Union. WWF: Budapest. wcmc.org/forest/eu_gap/back- ground.htm Grimmett, R.F.A. and Jones, T.A. 1989. Important Bird Areas in World Resources Institute. 1996. Europe. ICPB World Resources 1996-7 : A Guide to the Global Environment – 9. Mitchell-Jones, AJ, Amori, G., Forests and Land Cover. Bogdanowicz, W, Krystufek, B., http://www.wri.org/wri/wr-96- Reilnders, P., Spityenberger, F., 97/lc_txt2.html Stubbe, M., Thissen, J., Vohralik, V. and Zima, J. 1999. The Atlas of WWF website. European Mammals. Academic http://www.panda.org Press: London.

Nowicki, P. (Ed.) 1998. The Green Backbone of Central and Eastern Europe – Conference Proceedings, Cracow, 25 – 27 February 1998. European Centre for Nature Conservation: Cracow. Polish Environmental Foundation. 2000. Amber Trail Greenway Appendices Contents 50

Appendices

A. Focal species of the Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative.51

A.1 Large carnivore species 51

A.2 Other mammal species 51

A.3 Bird species 52

A.4 Amphibians and reptile species 55

A.5 Invertebrate species 56

B. Methodology and approach for activities of the socio-economic working group 59

C. Methodology used in developing the GIS database 60

D. Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative Sign-up Vision Statement 63

E. Contact details for Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative partners 64 Focal species 51

A : Focal Species of the Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative

A.1 : Large carnivore poaching and habitat fragmentation; Chamois species not cons-idered threatened in (Rupicapra rupicapra) Slovakia. The only ungulate species occurring in the alpine zone of the highest part Wolf (Canis lupus) Wildcat (Felis sylvestris) of the Carpathians – High Tatras on The second largest carnivore in Found in Europe, throughout Africa Polish and Slovak side. Its presence in Europe, after the brown bear and and south-west, south and central the ecoregion is limited to that range the polar bear. The species has a Asia. Present in deciduous forests. only. This species is under strict pro- large distribution area and lives in An opportunistic feeder. Some tection in both countries. Chamois a variety of habitats, and has a evidence of cross-breeding makes belonging to different subspecies remarkably high phenotypic vari- research into this species more occur in other European mountain ation. Mainly concentrated in the difficult. ranges (e.g. Alps, Pyrenees, and Romanian Carpathians (3000 indivi- Apennines). It is very sensitive to duals); also present in Poland (250), A.2 : Other mammal human related disturbance and the Slovakia (300 - 450), Ukraine (350) species loss of natural refuges. The popula- with a few in Czech republic and tion in the Tatras remains without any Hungary. Threatened by poaching European bison contact with other populations and and habitat destruction. (Bison bonasus) therefore is highly threatened by The largest wild representative of inbreeding. Total numbers estimated Eurasian Lynx (Lynx lynx) Bovidae family within the ecoregion. at present are about 200 individuals, The Eurasian lynx is the largest of The Carpathians are the only with a decline occurring for a number the six lynx species. It has a short mountain range in Europe hosting its of years. body, long legs and large feet. Pelt free ranging population. This species colour varies within and between was reintroduced to the Carpathians Beaver (Castor fiber) different parts of the species’ wide after being eradicated about 200 The largest European rodent. range. There are an estimated 1500 years ago. Total population numbers Reintroduced to the Carpathian eco- lynx in Romania, 400 – 500 in are estimated for about 160 in region after its extinction several Slovakia, 300 in Ukraine and 10 – Bieszczady Mountains, Poland hundred years ago. At present it 20 in Czech Republic and Hungary. and about 220 in Ukrainian mostly occurs on the northern slopes Threatened by poaching and frag- Carpathians. In both countries the of the range. Its numbers in the mentation of habitat. species is under strict protection. Carpathians do not exceed several Separate, isolated herds are threat- hundred individuals. The species is Brown bear (Ursus arctos) ened by inbreeding and further loss under legal protection in all countries The most widespread bear in the of genetic variability. Habitat frag- of the region. It is fairly common in world, occurring in Europe, Asia, and mentation is the main obstacle for the lowlands of Central and north- North America. Brown bears have a natural gene exchange among herds. eastern Europe, especially in massive head with a short nose, Due to its habitat and spatial require- Scandinavia. Threatened by poaching rounded inconspicuous ears, small ments this species may serve as an and requiring careful nuisance con- eyes, short tail, and a heavily built umbrella species for other endange- trol. The species is important for the body with a prominent shoulder red animals. Its present numbers do maintenance of biodiversity due to its hump. 5500 individuals in Romania, not guarantee the viability of a free ability for active habitat transform- 1000 in Slovakia, scattered in other ranging population. ation and creation of ecological nich- Carpathian countries. Threatened by es for other animal and plant species. Focal species 52

Otter (Lutra lutra) for local changes in environment were observed in Magurski National The largest predatory mammal in quality and for monitoring condi- Park in Poland (Beskid Niski) - 2.1 European aquatic ecosystems. This tions for bats in the whole eco- pairs/10 km2. species is recovering after a serious region. It is very sensitive to human population decline; now fairly related disturbance. Imperial eagle common in all non-polluted water- (Aquila heliaca) courses. However it is still listed as Alpine shrew A more typical species for steppe rare or endangered in the national (Sorex alpinus) habitats than mountains; neverthe- Red Data Books of the Carpathian A rare insectivore occurring along less, in Europe it nests typically in ecoregion. Its numbers are difficult the Carpathian range. It may serve the low and warmer mountains of to assess but at present seem to as a sensitive indicator species. the Carpathians (Male Karpaty, assure further viability of the popula- Povazsky Inovec, Tribec, Slovakian tion. An important species for the Tatra pine vole Karst, etc.). The European popul- dynamics of beaver ponds. May (Pitymys tatricus) ation is estimated to hold between serve as an indicator of quality of Endemic species, with occurrence 180 - 350 breeding pairs. A consid- riparian ecosystems. Main threats for limited to very small part of the erable part of Europe's population the species are habitat loss western Carpathians. Its population breeds in the Carpathian the area - connected with water pollution numbers and trends are unknown. 20 - 45% (most of the pairs nest in and poaching. Romania and Slovakia). A subject of bird crime and human persecution. Marmot (Marmota marmota) A.3 : Bird species A large rodent, in the Carpathians Golden eagle occurring only in the alpine zone of (Aquila chrysaetos) the Tatras. Its population numbers Lesser spotted eagle Nests in all the major mountains do not exceed 200 individuals. (Aquila pomarina) in Europe (Pyrenees, Alps, northern Strictly protected in Poland and Typical of lowlands, wetlands and mountains) and in boreal zones, but Slovakia. Much larger populations cultural steppes (Poland, also in lowlands. Its European popu- of this species inhabit the Alps and Byelorussia, Ukraine, Baltics). lation numbers around 5400 pairs; Pyrenees. In the Carpathians the Despite this, Romania holds some in the Carpathians there are 160 - endemic species is threatened by 20% of the European population of 200 pairs. The species is valued population decline, perhaps the Lesser spotted eagle, mainly also for falconry, and is therefore connected with isolation and in- breeding in mountain beech and the subject of ’bird crime’ (at least breeding. Sudden loss or further coniferous forests. In Hungary and 14 pairs were robbed in Slovakia disturbance of its natural habitat Romania the species is rare below in 2000). In Central and Eastern may cause the eradication of this 300 m. It is a typical bird of prey in Europe its typical range of species from the region. Numbers these habitats. The population in distribution lies in the Carpathians. are very sensitive to poaching. Europe consists of 7500 pairs. Part of the population (about 1500 Saker (Falco cherrug) Lesser horseshoe bat pairs) lives in the mountains and the Typical for steppes, agricultural (Rhinolophus hipposideros) Carpathians represent a very impor- land or pastures; rarely nests in Probably the only bat occurring all tant region of its distribution (about forests. It is typical of open land- over the Carpathians. It therefore 40% of European population)! scapes. Usually does not nest in may serve as an indicator species Quite high densities of this eagle the mountains although several Focal species 53

examples are known from the lower populations in most of the Europe. The only Romanian popu- Carpathians (Male Karpaty, Carpathian countries is typical for lation (50 000) seems to be stable Slovakian Karst, Slanske Mountains, this game bird. It is no longer hun- due to low level of hunting and Povazsky Inovec, etc.). It is a subject ted in the Czech Republic and inaccessibility of its habitats. In the of bird crime (very valued for Hungary. A drastic decline since the Moravian Carpathians it only nests falconry). From conservation and middle of the 1990s is reported in Javorniky and Moravsko-slezske bio-indication point of views it is from Aggtelek-karst in Hungary, Beskydy (numbers: 5 - 10 males). It a very important bird of prey. Most probably due to the population is extinct from Hungary. Very of the Slovak population nests in growth of wild boar. sensitive to human disturbance. The artificial man-made nests. There are species is hunted in all countries also pairs in the lower Morava River Black grouse where it occurs, except the Czech valley (Czech Republic) near Palava, (Tetrao tetrix) Republic and Poland. nesting in artificial nests. About 18 - A typical species of mountain 30% of European population nests peat bogs and wet meadows with Corncrake (Crex crex) in the Carpathians, but the main Palearctic distribution range; it also In the past, common in lowlands, distribution range lies in the Asian nests also in the Alps. It is a typical but recently it has become a typical steppes. game bird, showing a rapid decline species of highland meadows, of population numbers since the threatened by agricultural practices. Peregrine falcon beginning of the 20th century. The (Falco peregrinus) population in Central and Eastern Dotterel In most cases it nests in rocky cliffs. Europe is undergoing serious (Charadrius morinellus) From this point of view it is a char- decline. In the Carpathians, it Not a typical Carpathian species. A acteristic species for the Carpathian is extinct from the Moravian very rare glacial relict in Europe, mountains. It is important from bio- Carpathians, Hungary and the nesting in alpine zones. In the indication (prey consists of small Ukrainian Carpathians. It is very Carpathians found only in the and medium size bird species) and sensitive to human disturbance. highest elevations of the Romanian conservation point of views. It is a The species is not hunted in any Carpathians - Muntii Cindrel and in subject of bird crime. After serious Carpathian country (though it is the Polish Tatra Mountains. decline in 1960s through 1980s, hunted in non-Carpathian regions the population is increasing of the Czech Republic), and in Pygmy owl although it is still very endangered. Slovakia the Ministry of Environment (Glaucidium passerinum) The estimated number of pairs in can exceptionally give permission A boreal ’taiga’ species, also found Europe is 5800. The Carpathians for hunting. in mountain coniferous forests. In hold a population of about 40 - 50 Europe the distribution range is pairs. As a nesting species, it is still Capercaillie mainly in Sweden, Norway, Finland, absent in the Moravian Carpathians. (Tetrao urogallus) and Northern Russia. A characteris- Palearctic distribution range; nests tic owl of the Carpathians. Hazel grouse also in the Alps. A characteristic (Bonasa bonasia) large species of grouse for the Ural owl (Strix uralensis) A typical species of taiga but char- Carpathians, and a very good bio- Typical for mountain forests and acteristic mountain grouse for the indicator. Capercaillie is a typical boreal ’taiga’. As a top predator it is Carpathians, relatively common. game bird that has been rapidly a good indicator of ecosystem Nevertheless, a decreasing trend of decreasing in numbers in all of balance. The Ural owl is sensitive to Focal species 54

habitat alteration and fragment- Eastern Europe. Declining all over its European population occurs in the ation. The Carpathians hold about breeding range, about 40% of its Carpathians, with the highest 20% of its European population. European population occur in the concentration in Romania. The Carpathian population is stable Carpathian Ecoregion. It is a good or increasing in some countries bioindicator of habitat alteration, as Rock thrush (Hungary, Romania). The Carpathian well as pollution. (Monticola saxatilis) population may be underestimated More characteristic of (especially for Romania) as it is hard White-backed Mediterranean mountains but nests to observe. Population density in woodpecker also in the Carpathians (High Tatras, Magurski National Park in Poland (Dendrocopos leucotos) Velka Fatra, Muntii Retezatului, and (Beskid Niski) was 4.96 pairs/ 10 A typical representative of wood- limestone rocks elsewhere in the km2. The population in this national peckers in mountain beech forest Carpathians, etc.), the northernmost park comprises about 20% of the and alder forest in the Carpathians. range of its distribution. Recently this total Polish population. It also occurs The White-backed woodpecker is species has rapidly declined in all very densely (appr. 4 pairs/ 10 threatened by habitat alteration and areas of its range. This species is sq.km2) in the Bieszczady Mts., Gory habitat fragmentation. The very important from a conservation Sanocko-Turczanskie, Beskid Sadecki Carpathians hold about 30% of its point of view and is a characteristic and the Gorce Mts. It is an expan- European population (the majority and threatened bird species of the ding species in the North Carpathian in Romania). Carpathians. The Rock thrush is region but disappearing for example extinct in the Moravian Carpathians. in the Mazurian region, north-east Three-toed woodpecker Only 520 - 550 pairs nest in the Poland. (Picoides tridactylus) Carpathians. In Central Europe this is a glacial Tengmalm's owl relict typical for boreal ’taiga,’ Alpine accentor (Aegolius funereus) where it is relatively common. A (Prunella collaris) A species with a Circumpolar distri- characteristic species of mountain A typical alpine species nesting in bution range, found mostly in ’taiga’ coniferous forests of the Carpath- the highest mountains within the and mountain beech forests. The ians, which represent a very Carpathian Ecoregion (Muntii European strongholds in Europe are important distribution range of this Retezatului, High Tatras, Velka Fatra, in Sweden and Finland. In the species in Central and Eastern etc.). The Alpine accentor is extinct Carpathians it is a relict species; with Europe (total of 4660 - 5340 pairs). from the Moravian Carpathians and increasing numbers or a stable it is missing in the Hungarian population in all Carpathian Water pipit Carpathians. countries. In the Ukrainian (Anthus spinoletta) Carpathians the species is not well A species of alpine and sub-alpine Red-breasted flycatcher investigated, data about its distribu- habitats; this is a typical boreal and (Ficedula parva) tion is very poor and total number of mountain bird confined to the alpine A typical species of old deciduous pairs might be underestimated. regions of the higher mountains of forests, especially beech forests of Europe and Asia. In the higher elevation; the Palearctic Grey-headed woodpecker Carpathians, the Water pipit is not range of distribution. Its distribution (Picus canus) present in Hungary and only one in Europe is mostly confined to the A typical species of deciduous and pair nests in the Moravian Carpathians and Balkans, and in mixed forests, distributed mainly in Carpathians. Around 20% of the the East to the Ural Mountains, Focal species 55

Caucasus and Northern Iran. It has A.4 : Amphibians and inhabits humid, shaded slopes in been continuously spreading reptiles deciduous forest. It reproduces in towards the west since the 19th small water systems near springs on Century. wet meadows. The majority of time Aesculapian snake is spent under stones, woods and Collared flycatcher (Elaphe longissima) leaves. Because of its endemism it is (Ficedula albicollis) The longest Carpathian snake with a not mentioned in the Habitats direc- A breeding species of deciduous maximum length of 2 m. Head pro- tive, but it is protected by the Bern (mainly beech and hornbeam) longed, elliptical, eye with round convention (Annex 2). In most forests of the Carpathians. Its pupil and brownish iris. Body Carpathian countries it is protected European distribution is mainly relatively slender, smooth, in old as an endangered species. confined to the Carpathian region, specimens slightly keeled. Back from although it breeds mostly in lowland olive to blackish, belly whitish, yell- Green lizard areas. Missing from Northern and low to cream. This species mostly (Lacerta viridis) Western Europe, the European inhabits variable landscapes Has a maximum length of 40 cm. population is in decline. The exposed to sun, forest margins, Males are a brilliant green with Carpathians hold a large portion rocky bushy slopes, forest clearings, black flecks. Females are brown with of the European population. The vineyards, orchards, old walls etc. two to four longitudinal lines along European population is estimated Although mostly terrestrial, it climbs their backs. Found between 125 – to hold 480 000 pairs. In the well. Hibernates in rocky crevices, in 600 metres in the Carpathians. Carpathians the population is rodent burrows, manure, cellars of There is an isolated population in estimated at 338 400 - 417 400 ruins etc. In most countries in the north Germany and the Austrian pairs. Due to species habitat requi- Carpathian region it is classified as Alps. Tends to be confined to wine- rements, this estimation is probably a critically endangered species. It is cultivating regions; problems include too high. protected by the EU Habitats lack of landscape diversity, shortage Directive (Annex 4) and the Bern of prey species, and agricultural Wallcreeper Convention (Annex 2). chemicals. (Tichodroma muraria) A typical species of the highest Carpathian newt Moor frog (Rena arvalis) European and Asian mountains (Triturus montandonii) A rare brown frog found in winter (Pyrenees, Alps, Balkans), so it is A small newt species, reaching a and summer above 300 m in not only typical for the Carpathians, length of 10 cm (usually smaller). northern Europe. Shrinking habitat but characteristic for high eleva- The head is relatively flat and wide, in Lower Austria. Threats include tions in the Carpathians and rocky with three grooves. Back varies from water regulation which limits food habitats (e.g. Mala Fatra, High sand yellow to dark brown, some- supplies, introduction of fish, and Tatras, Muntii Retezatului, Muntii times greenish. The belly is always filling in of ponds. Bucegi, etc). The Wallcreeper is uniformly yellow to orange. Tail has missing in the Czech Republic pale streaks on the sides, with the Fire-bellied toad (regularly observed during migra- lower edge orange with black spots. (Bombina variagata) tion in Palava), Hungary (observed This newt is a Carpathian A blue toad with a yellow belly. during migration), and Ukraine. faunistic element, distributed in the Distribution in mid- and southern Carpathian system and extending Europe 170 – 1468 m. Found in into neighbouring mountain areas. It sunny, shallow ponds with limited Focal species 56

vegetation and in small, slow- Fitzingeria platyura flowing rivers. Threats include A.5 : Invertebrates Systematic position: Annelida, draining of meadows and filling in Clitellata, Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae of ponds for agriculture. Protected (earthworm). under the Habitats directive (II/IV) Bielzia coerulans General distribution: Mountain and Bern Convention (II). No pro- Systematic position: Mollusca, earthworm distributed around the tection under CITES or IUCN. Gastropoda, Pulmonata, Limacidae Pannonian lowland (circumpannoni- (naked snail). an distribution). European tree frog General distribution: Description: Found mainly in (Hyla arborea) Subendemic, Carpathians, Eastern mountain forests (both zones) in A small, (35-80mm) bright green Sudety Mts, north of the Carpathians soils where it digs deep corridors. frog with large eyes, and fine grabb- (Polish Jura). One of the largest and rarest earth- bing hands. Black line along dorsal Description: Naked snail, living in worm species. Sensitive to soil pollu- and ventral side. Distributed widely medium (mesoalpine) horizontal tion; distribution limited to the least in central and southern Europe bet- zones in the Carpathians. Recorded destroyed fragments of the ween 140 - 1620m. Prefers warm in mountain forest zones (lower - Carpathians. weather and still water. Threats mixed and upper-spruce zone) and include artificial chemicals and the in the dwarf pine (higher zone) in Branchinecta paludosa draining of wetlands. Protected localities rich in humus and Systematic position: Arthropoda, under Habitats directive (IV) Bern decaying wood. Not found in Crustacea, Branchiopoda, Convention (II). IUCN low-risk. cultivated forests because of wood Anostraca, Branchinectidae (pond export and a lack of humid areas crustacean). Swamp turtle (Emys orbi- rich in humus. General distribution: Circumpolar cularis) arctic-alpine species, mainly in A medium sized turtle. Head Helix lutescens northern tundra, also in the high depressed, pointed, neck relatively Systematic position: Mollusca, mountain small lakes. long. Shell flattened, smooth and Gastropoda, Basommatophora, Description: Species lives in small oval; coloured black, brownish to Helicidae (snail). ponds that freeze over in winter. A olive, often with yellow or whitish General distribution: relict population in the Tatra Mts, spots and stripes forming a radial Subendemic, Daco-Carpathian restricted to two ponds, was probably pattern on the plate. A mostly aqua- (amphicarpathian) distribution. exterminated as an effect of gradu- tic species. Typical for wetlands. This Found only in the highlands ally increased winter temperatures. turtle is an exception; it is not very surrounding the Carpathians and typical for the Carpathians, but lower mountain chains (ranges) in Nesticus fodinarum because the lowland habitats are the Carpathians. Found on both Systematic position: Arthropoda, mostly destroyed, can be found in sides of the middle part of the Chelicerata, Arachnida, Aranea, submountainous wet habitats. Carpathian arch. Nesticidae (spider). Protected under the Habitats Description: Kserothermophilous; General distribution: Endemic to directive (II and IV), Bern living in open habitats such as the Southern Carpathians. Convention (II) and under CITES. steppe or forest-steppe, particularly Description: Mountain cave on calcareous soils. Since the turn species, known only from a few of 19th Century its geographical dis- caves. Predator. Threatened by tribution has been diminishing. tourism and speleology. Focal species 57

Clubiona alpicola General distribution: Palearctic, Alps, the Western and Eastern Systematic position: Arthropoda, Oriental and Ethiopian distribution, Carpathians. Chelicerata, Arachnida, Aranea, characteristic for forest – steppe Description: High mountain spe- Clubionidae (spider). zone of the old world. cies, known only from few isolated General distribution: North Description: In the Carpathians localities on high montane meadows pannonian high-mountain species this is the only Mantis species. It (alpine meadows). Since the 19th Description: Found only in the occurs in isolated, small localities, Century, a gradual decrease has alpine zone of higher massifs. limited by climatic and orographic been recorded, as a presumed result Predator. Threatened by mass conditions. of collecting and mass tourism. tourism in the higher parts of the Carpathians. Tibicina haematodes Carabus planicollis Systematic position: Arthropoda, Systematic position: Arthropoda, Lithobius biunguiculatus Eutracheata, Insecta, Homoptera, Eutracheata, Insecta, Coleoptera Systematic position: Arthropoda, Auchenorhyncha, Cicadidae carabidae (carabid beetle). Eutracheata, Chilopoda, (cicada). General distribution: Endemic to Anamorpha, Lithobiidae (chilopod) General distribution: the Southern Carpathians. General distribution: Endemic to Mediterranean species. Description: Recorded in isolated the Carpathians. Description: Living in the forest- localities, mainly above the forest Description: Epigeic predator in steppe zone. Representative of an zone. Threatened by mass tourism. montane forests, particularly in uncommon group of cicadas in the decaying wood. Threatened by Carpathians. In the Carpathian Carillia excellens forest management practices. foothills it is at the most northern Systematic position: Arthropoda, end of its geographical distribution. Eutracheata, Insecta, Coleoptera Cordulegaster boltonii In regression. cerembycidae (long horn beetles). Systematic position: Arthropoda, General distribution: Endemic to Eutracheata, Insecta, Odonata, Libelloides macaronius the Carpathians. Anisoptera, Cordulegastridae (dra- Systematic position: Arthropoda, Description: Monophagous xylopha- gonfly). Eutracheata, Insecta, Neuroptera, ge, feeding on Lonicera nigra (shrub) General distribution: South-East Ascalaphidae. in the mountain forest zones. One of European species, recorded in General distribution: Ponto (East the rarest species in Central Europe. Southern parts of the Carpathians. Mediterranean) - Altai (mountains) Threatened by forestry practices. Description: This species lives in distribution, the inner part of the mountain streams and ponds, in the Carpathian arch. Rosalia alpina lower mountain zone (mixed forests, Description: Forest-steppe zone, Systematic position: Arthropoda, and forest-steppe). Rapidly disap- xerotermophilous, in regression. The Eutracheata, Insecta, Coleoptera pears in lower parts of its distribu- species reaches its northern limit in Cerembycidae (long horn beetles). tion, with some refuges, particularly the inner part of the Carpathian arch. General distribution: Western in the Carpathians. Palearctic but very local. Carabus fabricii Description: Occurring mainly in Mantis religiosa Systematic position: Arthropoda, old decaying beeches. In the Systematic position: Arthropoda, Eutracheata, Insecta, Coleoptera Carpathians decreasing due to Eutracheata, Insecta, Mantodea, carabidae (carabid beetle). elimination of old decaying trees Mantidae (preying mantis). General distribution: The Eastern and collection of specimens. Focal species 58

Bombus pyrenaeus General distribution: Distributed species of the Palearctic. In compa- Systematic position: Arthropoda, in the Western Palearctic, but mainly rison with other species of this Eutracheata, Insecta, Hymenoptera, in isolated populations in the genus, E. sudetica is intermediate in Aculeata, Apidae (bumblebee). mountains. terms of vertical distribution. It lives General distribution: High moun- Description: In Europe the species in and above the forest zone on tain European species. occurs in the mountains. In the mountain glades and alpine Description: Meadows and glades in Carpathians it is found on xerother- meadows. In many localities it is upper forest zone and in alpine mea- mic meadows on southern slopes. decreasing due to collection of dows. In the Carpathians restricted to The larvae live on the stonecrop specimens and mass tourism. top zones of the highest peaks. (Sedum sp.). One of the most Threatened by mass summer tourism. rapidly diminishing butterfly species Glacies canaliculata in Europe. Threatened by forest schwingenschussi Annitella chomiacensis succession and collection of Systematic position: Arthropoda, Systematic position: Arthropoda, specimens. Eutracheata, Insecta, Lepidoptera, Eutracheata, Insecta, Trichoptera, Geometridae (moth). Limnephilidae (caddis fly). Erebia sudetica General distribution: Eualpine General distribution: An Eastern Systematic position: Arthropoda, (= high montane) Carpathian Carpathian endemic species. Eutracheata, Insecta, Lepidoptera, endemic with uneven distribution in Description: Lives in streams, Nymphalidae (butterfly). the Western and Southern mainly in the forest zones. Outside General distribution: Distribution Carpathians. Occurs in swards of nature reserves, the species is of the species is not very well alpine meadows and even higher threatened by timber drifting studied yet. While some orthodox zones. in streams. taxonomists suggest that the species Description: Biology poorly known. occurs exclusively in the Sudety Mts, Threatened by mass tourism. Parnassius apollo the others claim that it is Systematic position: Arthropoda, a ’montane European species.’ Eutracheata, Insecta, Lepidoptera, Description: Genus Erebia com- Papilionidae (butterfly). prises montane and high montane Socio-economic Methodology 59

B : Methodology and Approach for Activities of the Socio-Economic Working Group

Objectives persons for each country were there- available mapped sources of socio- The overall objectives of the Socio- fore responsible for: economic information, was integ- Economic Group were outlined in ◗ Collection of requested sectoral rated into the overall GIS system by the ’Working Strategy for Phase II’ information (national) and data for the GIS co-ordinators - Daphne in as ensuring adequate collation of each priority sector, and provision to Bratislava - in advance of the works- necessary socio-economic data in other contact persons; and hop in Smolenice in February 2001. order to: ◗ Collation of six country sectoral information and data from other The key indicators for each sector 1. Identify threats to biodiversity; contact persons and incorporation were as follows: 2. Identify and develop opportunities into a pan-Carpathian sectoral for conservation of biodiversity and report. ◗ Agriculture: Composite of % land- sustainable development; cover used for agriculture plus 3. Contribute to the development of Priority Sectors fertilizer use (kg/ha); an appropriate conservation strate- In this way, a pan-Carpathian ◗ Transport: Mapped network of gy; and ’capacity’ was developed for each roads and railways (current and 4. Aid decision-making regarding sector, with one country or proposed) plus indication of usage EU accession. organisation collecting and storing (cars per hour or other weighting); and analysing all available informa- ◗ Industry: Mapped location of Activities tion on a particular sector. The industrial complexes; To achieve these objectives, three sectors and countries responsible ◗ Water management: Mapped main studies or information initiati- were as follows: database on water quality classifica- ves were carried out: ◗ Agriculture: Ukraine tion of river stretches; ◗ Transport: Poland ◗ Tourism: Mapped real data on ◗ Collection of sectoral, pan- ◗ Industry: Hungary annual overnight ’bed-nights’ per Carpathian, socio-economic data; ◗ Water management: Czech km; ◗ Stakeholder Analysis Study; and Republic ◗ Forestry: Proportion of illegal ◗ Evaluation of SAPARD national ◗ Tourism: Slovakia cutting as % of total. plans and processes. ◗ Forestry: Romania It proved impossible to gather all For overall data collection and ana- Approach information to a comparable stan- lysis a small network was created of The main focus for the enormous dard for each sector and for each interested individuals and organisa- task of data gathering was to pro- country. Shortage of time, limitation tions in each country, with each vide usable and mappable informa- in human and financial resources country taking responsibility for an tion for developing the Carpathian available for this activity, and diffi- identified priority sector for the Conservation and Action Plan. Thus, culties in accessing some types of whole Carpathian region. The work ’key indicators’ were developed for data were all constraints to the was co-ordinated by an informally each sector in order to narrow down gathering of a complete picture. appointed ’Regional Co-ordinator the data needed and yet still provide for ’Socio-Economics’, a staff meaningful and useful information member of the WWF Danube- for analysis of threats and the GIS Carpathian Programme based in work on identifying priority areas for Budapest (Policy Officer: Charlie conservation. All mappable inform- Avis). Socio-economic contact ation, plus any other readily GIS database 60

C : Methodology used in developing the GIS database

Co-ordination of GIS work was Phase A: Evaluation of socio- FSGAs). A rank (0-3) representing extended because of the necessity economic impacts on Focal the level of threat from each socio- of coordination of information flow Species Group Areas (FSGAs) economic factor was assigned to and data compatibility from both and prioritising of biodiversity each FSGA and the sum total of sectors: biodiversity and socio- importance and socio-economic threat ranks for each FSGA was cal- economic. Additionally the meth- impacts culated. odology was developed which fits with the data available. The Step 1. Working in groups, each country development of the process was Delineating Focal Species expert checked the results by based on a defined scientific metho- Group Areas (FSGAs) assessing whether each FSGA’s total dology, but at each stage decisions FSGAs represent the important threat rank related to the situation were checked against the expert areas for each biological sector on the ground e.g. was the FSGA opinion of participants from each group. Participants divided into four with the highest rank really the most country.The methodology was divi- biological sector groups (habitats; threatened area in reality? ded into 3 phases.: large carnivores and other Discrepancies between results and mammals; birds; amphibians and reality were expected because diffe- Phase A: reptiles) to delineate the FSGAs. rent socio-economic factors have a Evaluation of socio-economic Each sector developed their own different level of impact on each impacts on Focal Species Group criteria for selections. 48 FSGAs biological sector e.g a new road Areas (FSGAs) and prioritising were identified and delineated for crossing an FSGA can be conside- of biodiversity importance and habitats; 27 for plants; 15 for large red to be a potentially greater threat socio-economic impact on carnivores and other mammals; 10 to an important area for carnivores FSGAs for amphibians and reptiles and 6 than to an important area for fish. for birds. To deal with this, each biological Phase B: sector group assigned a weight Synthesis of biodiversity data Step 2. to each socio-economic factor based on FSGAs (incl. delinea- Evaluation of FSGAs according (on a scale of 1-5). tion of Biodiversity Important to threats Areas (BDIAs) and designing of In order to evaluate the threat posed This approach allowed the group to ecological corridors) to each FSGA by the identified take into consideration that not only socio-economic factors, partici- does each socio-economic factor Phase C: pants, working in biological sector poses a different level of threat to Synthesis of BDIAs and groups, overlaid each socio-econo- each FSGA, but also, by weighting threatened FSGAs mic map in turn on top of the deli- the threat ranks for each biological neated FSGA map. Using this sector group, we were able to method and also expert knowledge acknowledge that certain socio-eco- of the areas, an assessment was nomic factors result in a greater made of the level of threat impact on a particular biological posed to each FSGA by each group than others. The results from socio-economic sector (agriculture, each biological sector group were tourism, mining, manufacturing fed into the database and the resul- industry, road, rail plus any other ting maps produced by Daphne key threats identified for particular overnight. GIS database 61

Step 3. Ranking matrix of FSGA accor- Threat (sum of threat ranks) ding to biodiversity value and socio-economic impact low mediumhigh For each biological sector group, 123369 FSGAs were ranked according to Biodiversity FSGA 513426 biodiversity value (based on den- value no. Low 5 sity of data). The workshop split into ° Medium four groups to check rank values High (habitats; mammals; birds; amphibi- 4 ° ans; reptiles). The plants sector was 2 ° not analysed because of data limita- 1 ° tions. When the individual ranking 6 ° 3 was complete, the list of FSGAs for ° each biological sector was divided into three ranks based on whether they were considered to be of higher, diversity value-high threat zone and diversity map (habitats; birds; large medium or lower biodiversity value. sites located on the border of this mammals; amphibians/reptiles) was Similarly FSGAs were divided into zone were discussed in plenary. laid over the base map. To ensure a three levels on the basis of low, Differences of opinion over the most ‘true’ analysis of overall biodiversity medium or high threat level (using appropriate methodology were importance, it was agreed that it the earlier analysis of threats). The expressed but it was explained that may be necessary to weight each ranking matrix of each FSGA other hotspots of biodiversity value biological sector group (FSG). according to biodiversity value would show up in later analyses of Much discussion followed on suita- and socio-economic impact was the biodiversity data. ble weighting options, and the then drawn up (see example). validity of different scales was tested Phase B: Synthesis of biodiversi- against expert knowledge. A com- From this matrix, the high biodi- ty data based on Focal Species promise agreement was accepted versity value – high threats zone was Groups (incl. delineation of whereby habitats were given the identified and marked for each bio- Biodiversity Important Areas highest weight, followed by logical sector group (size of this zone (BDIAs) and designing of mammals, then birds, amphibians/ varied between groups). It was stated Corridors) reptiles and lastly plants (Note: that this zone identified the priority Step 1 & 2. quality of data was also a significant FSGAs, ie those areas that would be Weighting of importance of consideration in deciding on ranks). used for further steps in the visioning Focal Species Groups (FSGs) & It was argued the habitats weighting process (at this stage). To address a Computing of grid of biodiversi- should be higher because of the point made by HS about the impor- ty importance importance of this layer in finding tance of adding site integrity into the centres of Carpathian biodiversity analysis, the high biodiversity value- Next steps: and the good quality and coverage low threat zone was also identified. to compute the level of biodiversity of this data, while other groups such importance using all available biodi- as mammals would not be so useful Each group explained their rationale versity data (based on concentration in pin-pointing hotspots because for selecting the size of the high bio- of data). To this end, each bio- their FSGAs are so large. GIS database 62

Step 3. Threat (sum of threat ranks) Delineation of valuable biodi- versity areas: Biodiversity low medium High 123369 Important Areas (BDIAs) Biodiversity BDIAs 513426 The results of this stage were value no. checked against expert knowledge Low 5 ° and where necessary boundaries of Medium 4 ° the resulting BDIAs were adjusted. 2 ° Also used in this analysis were 1 ° 6 maps of large-scale protected ° High 3 areas (> 1000m2) and virgin forests ° (point position and number of forests only as data on the exact size of forest areas was not available at the workshop). was decided to prepare a proposal value, high threat zone was selected for new protected areas. It is based (in plenary) showing those hotspots Step 4 & 5. on the number of BDIAs that are requiring urgent action. Labelling of BDIAs (Output: currently not covered by any form of map of BDIAs) & Ranking of large-scale protection. BDIAs In total, 30 BDIAs were selected Phase C: Synthesis of BDIAs and and assigned names by national threatened FSGAs: experts. It was decided that for the Step 1. Vision Map, two categories of BDIA Overlaying the most threatened should be identified: ‘High value’ areas for each FSGA sector (rank=1) and ‘Very high value’ with the map of BDIAs (rank=2). Boundaries were further As with FSGAs (Phase A, Step 2), checked by national experts. level of threats posed to each BDIA was established (using a ranks 1-3, Step 6. low, medium, high threat). To save Designation of Ecological time, decisions were taken in plena- Corridors ry. The map of threatened FSGAs A small working group designed was laid over the BDIA map; the corridors, using the BDIA map resulting map was presented to superimposed with forest cover and the workshop. river layers. The following background maps were also used to Step 2: design appropriate routes: settle- Ranking matrix for BDIAs and ments; roads/rail; industrial areas; their threats large scale protected areas. The ranking matrix showing level of bio-diversity importance against New Protected Areas level of threat was produced (see As part of the Vision document, it example). As with FSGAs, the high Vision statement 63

D : Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative Sign-Up Vision Statement

The Carpathians are a natural velopment in the region. Our task is Improve understanding treasure of global importance. In to capitalise on these opportunities. by: terms of biodiversity and endemic ◗ providing the first overall view of species, the region is unique in The Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative the Carpathian ecoregion Europe. It harbours one of the is a unique international partnership ◗ identifying the key habitats, species continent´s most extensive tracts of committed to conserving the key assemblages and abundances, montane forests, including Europe´s ecosystem in the heart of Europe natural processes and the socio- largest remaining area of virgin and securing sustainable economic economic factors that affect biodi- forest. The Carpathians are the last and cultural benefits for the peoples versity European stronghold of large in the region. Co-ordinated by ◗ helping to share knowledge across mammals such as brown bear, wolf WWF, the alliance includes govern- borders in the region's common and lynx which have already been mental representatives from the interest. lost in most other parts of Europe. Carpathian countries, non-govern- In recognition of this international mental organisations, scientific and Work with local people importance, WWF has included the academic institutions, international to foster sustainable Carpathians in its ’Global 200’ list funders and independent experts. development by: of outstanding ecoregions. It is a ◗ promoting conservation-friendly treasure we cannot afford to lose. As Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative resource use across the region, partners, we are co-operating to including community-based projects In addition to the exceptional work through collaborative to demonstrate the benefits to local natural value of the Carpathians, ecoregional planning in order to people the region is also home to a rich conserve the Carpathian ecosystem ◗ supporting existing projects that cultural heritage. Shepherding and and secure sustainable economic build on and co-ordinate relevant forestry, beliefs and rituals, music and cultural benefits for the peoples initiatives in the region. and dance, architecture and art: all of the region. Specifically, through are a reflection of the long and collaboration with the local, regional Promote the initiative intensive relationship of the region's and international communities, we within Europe by: peoples with their environment. Like commit ourselves to: ◗ aiming to incorporate the the Carpathians' biodiversity, this Carpathian Ecoregion Initiatives´ centuries-old cultural heritage is Shape vision and objectives into European and also a treasure to be sustained. action by: national policies ◗ developing a Carpathian Vision ◗ working to ensure the adoption Both of these irreplaceable assets outlining long-term goals for bio- and implementation of the EU en- are under serious pressure. The diversity conservation and vironmental acquis in the accession transition to a market economy, sustainable development countries development of civil society, in- ◗ developing and actively supporting ◗ raising awareness of the initiative creasing integration with Western the implementation of a Carpathian with potential funders. Europe and EU accession mean Conservation Plan with the goal of profound changes. But the very conserving the region's natural same processes that are responsible resources. for this pressure also offer many opportunities to advance biodiversity conservation and sustainable de- Contacts 64

E: Contact Details for Participants in the Carpathians Ecoregion Initiative process

Co-ordination Communication Elisabeth Samec Suzie Holt Danube-Carpathian Programme, Danube-Carpathian Programme, WWF International (Vienna) WWF International (Vienna) Ottakringer Strasse 114 A-1160 Vienna A-1160 Vienna, Austria Ottakringer Strasse 114, Austria Tel: +43 1 488 17254 Tel: +43 1 488 17230 Fax: +43 1 488 17276 Fax: +43 1 488 17276 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Regional co-ordinators Sectoral co-ordinators Biodiversity Biodiversity Zbigniew Witkowski Amphibians and reptile Institute of Nature Conservation, Mojmir Vlasin Polish Academy of Sciences Veronica – Ecological Institute 31-120 Krakow, al. A.Mickiewicza 33, Tel: +42 0 5 422 1 8351 Poland Fax: +42 0 5 422 1 0561 Tel: +48 (12) 632 2221 Email: [email protected] Fax: +48 (12) 632 2432 Email: [email protected] Birds Tomas Ruzicka Socio-economics EPCE-Czech Charlie Avis Tel: +42 0 5 422 1 8350 Danube-Carpathian Programme, Budapest Fax: + 42 0 5 4222 1744 H-1124 Budapest Email: [email protected] Nemetvolgyi ut 78/b, Hungary Tel: +36 1 214 5554 Large carnivores/ Fax: +36 1 212 9353 herbivores Email: [email protected] Kajetan Perzanowski International Centre of Ecology, GIS Polish Academy of Sciences Jan Seffer Tel: +48 13 461 2251 Daphne – Centre for Applied Ecology Fax: +48 13 461 3203 Hanulova 5/d Email: [email protected] 844 40 Bratislava Slovakia Henryk Okarma Tel: +42 12 654 12 162 Institute of Nature Conservation, Fax: +42 12 654 12 133 Polish Academy of Sciences Email: [email protected] Tel: +48 12 421 0348 Fax: +48 12 421 0348 Sustainable development Email: [email protected] (Co-ordination) Jan Sendzimir IIASA (Vienna) Ovidiu Ionescu Tel: +43 (0)2236 807 255/456 ICAS Forest Research and Management Institute Fax: +43 (0)2236 807 466 / Carpathian Large Carnivore Project Email: [email protected] Tel: +40 68 413772 Fax: +40 68 115 338 (Project Director) Rafal Serafin Email: [email protected] Polish Environmental Partnership Foundation (EPCE) Tel: +48 124 22 5088 Fax: +48 124 29 4725 Email: [email protected] Contacts 65

Rivers /Fish Transport Andras Krolopp Andrzej Biderman CEEWEB EPCE-Poland Tel: +36 46 413 390 Tel: +48 124 225088 Fax: +36 46 508 700 Fax: +48 124 294725 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Insects Protected areas Jerzy Pawlowski Ivan Voloscuk Institute of Nature Conservation, Association of the Carpathian National Parks Polish Academy of Sciences And Wilderness Email: [email protected] Tel: +42 1 969446 7195 Fax: +42 1 9694467195 Forests Email: [email protected] Ioan Abrudan University of Brasov Tourism and recreation Tel: +40 93 533 512 Tatiana Kluvankova-Oravska Fax: + 40 69 475 902 Slovak Academy of Sciences Email: [email protected] Tel: +42 1 7 52495 300 Fax: +42 1 7 52495 029 Plant Communities Email: [email protected] Viera Stanova Daphne – Institute of Applied Ecology Agriculture Tel: +42 12 654 12 162 Oleh Suprunenko Fax: +42 12 654 12 133 Zakarpatya Institute of Agriculture Production Email: [email protected] Tel: +380 (3141)24053 Fax: + 380 (3132) 21613 Vascular plants Email: [email protected] Lydia Tasenkevich State Museum of Natural History Adviser National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine David Turnock Tel: +380 (322) 723120 University of Leicester, UK Fax: +380 (322) 742307 Tel: +44 116 252 3826 Email: Museum@ipm.lviv.ua Fax: +44 116 252 3854 Email: [email protected] Socio-economics Database Water and flood management Andreas Beckmann Database co-ordination Formerly EPCE-Czech Rastislav Lasak Tel: + 43 1 488 17 238 Daphne – Institute of Applied Ecology Fax: + 43 1 488 17 277 Tel: +42 12 654 12 162 Email: [email protected] Fax: +42 12 654 12 133 Email: [email protected] Industry/energy/mining Reka Elod Database design Budapest Technical University Pawel Adamski and Wojciech Solarz Regional Research Centre Institute of Nature Conservation Tel: +36 46 311 11/2809/5781 Polish Academy of Sciences Fax: +36 46 32825/20 340 5066 Tel: +48 12 6320549 Email: [email protected] Fax: +48 12 6320549 Email: [email protected] Logos 66

Logos of Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative Partners CD 67

Text : Robin Webster, Suzie Holt, Acknowledgements Zbigniew Witkowski for extensive help and Charlie Avis This work was a collaborative project and editorial assistance in drafting the report. The Design : Monika Sturm represents the culmination of work by author also wishes to thank the following Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative partners over individuals for comments and assistance with Disclaimer a two and a half year period (June 1999 - specific sections: Ioan Abrudan, Isabel Wolte, This document is a publication of the July 2001). It is based on materials provided Jasmine Bachmann, Erika Schneider, Andreas Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative. The views by a wide range of partners (too many to Beckmann, Viera Stanova, Tomas Ruzicka, expressed do not reflect the policy of any one name here) and in no way solely represents Rastislav Lasak, Lydia Tasenkovich, Graham member organisation, or the views of any the work of one person. Parts of the report Bennett, Kajetan Perzanowski, Pawel Adamski, one individual. Every effort has been made to were written by Suzie Holt and Charlie Avis of Vasyl Poknchereda, Yaraslov Dovhanych, ensure the accuracy of the information in this the WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme. Margaret de Fonblanque. The attached CD- report; however, if any innaccuracies can be Special thanks are due to the above- ROM and the maps for this report were deve- detected please contact the Carpathian mentioned as well as Elisabeth Samec, David loped by Rastislav Lasak and Jan Seffer of Ecoregion Initiative co-ordinator. Turnock, Jan Seffer, Wojciech Solarz and ’Daphne.’ The Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative is a unique international partnership achieving conservation of nature in the globally important Carpathian mountains and, at the same time, supporting local economy and culture for the lasting benefit of people living in the heart of Europe. Facilitated by WWF, more than 50 organisations from seven countries are working together to make this vision reality.

How to get involved For further information about the project, please contact: The Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative Co-ordinator: Danube-Carpathian Programme, WWF International Ottakringerstr. 114-116, • A-1160 Vienna, Austria Tel: +43/1/488 17-254 • Fax: +43/1/488 17-276 e-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.carpathians.org

Published by: WWF Text: Robin Webster, Suzie Holt, Charlie Avis Adviser. Elisabeth Samec Design: Monika Sturm