A. J.F.M. van Opstal The Pan European Ecological Network · 2006. 9. 4. · A. J.F.M. van Opstal...

A. J.F.M. van Opstal The Pan European Ecological Network

Abstract

Since the early 90-ties the establishment of a European ecological network has become a priority topicwithin the European Union and within the Council of Europe.

In this paper the aims and criteria of the existing European Nature conservation instruments are ana-lysed. It appears that the Pan-European Ecological Network (PEEN) is the best device for a strong, co-herent European Ecological Network as PEEN covers not only core areas, but also corridors, buffer-zo-nes and nature development areas, which other networks in general do not.

It appears that naturalness and biodiversity are considered as central concepts in international natureconservation instruments.

In this paper naturalness is defined in terms of intensity of human influence in ecological processes inecosystems, biodiversity is defined in terms of distribution and threat of species and ecosystems.

Aiming at the conservation of ecosystems and species that are of European importance, ecological cri-teria for the selection of sites as core areas of a Pan-European Ecological Network are formulated.

Based on these criteria an initial map of the major regions in Europe where core-area’s could be esta-blished is presented.

Keywords: Pan-European Ecological Network; Network-architecture; Criteria; Core areas.


Landschaftsplanung.NET - Ausgabe 2001 1

1. Introduction

1.1 Scope of this paper

The Pan-European Biological and Lands-cape Diversity Strategy is an inititativeof the Council of Europe. The Strategyseeks to conserve ecosystems, habitats,species, their genetic diversity andlandscapes of European importancethrough the development of the Pan-Eu-ropean Ecological Network (PEEN) wi-thin ten years (Council of Europe, UNEP& European Centre for Nature Conserva-tion, 1996). The Pan European Ecologi-cal Network presents an enormous andinspiring task of ecological planningwhich will influence other European andNational physical planning processes.

In this paper there will be made an ana-lysis of the scope of international instru-ments, and of the criteria used in inter-national instruments for the designationof core areas, if appropriate.

Concluding this paper, considerationsare formulated which should enable thediscussion on the “architecture” of PanEuropean Ecological Network. The paperresults in ecological criteria for core-areas, corridors, bufferzones and naturedevelopment zones and in an initial mapof major regions of Europe where core-areas should be established.

As far as the author knows this is thefirst paper that gives a full analysis ofthe criteria used in important, existingEuropean Ecological instruments andthe first that gives an explicit discussionon the architectural principles thatshould underlie the Pan-European Ecolo-gical Network.

Central concepts in this paper are: eco-systems, species, naturalness and biodi-versity. An ecosystem is defined as a dy-namic complex of plant, animal andmicro-organism communities and theirnon-living environment interacting as afunctional unit (Convention on Biologi-cal Diversity, 1992 article 2). Natural-ness is defined in terms of intensity ofhuman influence in ecological processesin ecosystems: it denotes to areas wherehuman influence is absent or very li-mited, and where natural processes(erosion, sedimentation, fragmentation,deposition by water, wind, ice or gra-zing by wild wandering herds of naturalor dedomesticated grazers) are predo-minant

Biological diversity is defined as the va-riability among living organisms from allsources including, inter alia, terrestrial,marine and other aquatic ecosystemsand the ecological complexes of whichthey are part; this includes diversity wi-thin species, between species and ofecosystems (Convention on BiologicalDiversity, 1992; article 2).

The criteria that are defined are restric-ted to the ecological domain. This paperdoes not try to cope with political, so-cietal or practical aspects. This has beendone to make a sharp discussion on cri-teria possible. It does not mean thatthese aspects are not important.

1.2 Objectives of the Pan EuropeanBiological and Landscape Diver-sity Strategy

The Pan European Biological and Lands-cape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS) seeksto conserve, protect or maintain ecosy-stems, habitats, species, their geneticdiversity, and landscapes of Europeanimportance through the development ofthe Pan European Ecological Networkwithin 10 years.

The Pan European Ecological Networkwill contribute to achieving the main go-als of the Strategy by ensuring that a fullrange of ecosystems, habitats, speciesand their genetic diversity, and lands-capes of European importance are con-served; habitats are large enough to gi-ve species a favourable conservationstatus; there are sufficient opportuni-ties for the dispersal and migration ofspecies; damaged elements of the keysystems are restored and the systemsare buffered from potential threats.

The Pan-European Ecological Network isaimed to maintain and enhance the con-servation and coherence of natural andsemi-natural ecosystems and naturalprocesses of European importance,paying particular attention to characte-ristic threatened and endangered spe-cies, bearing in mind the intercontinen-tal setting and relationships (Council ofEurope, UNEP & European Centre for Na-ture Conservation, 1996).

In other words, the Pan-European Ecolo-gical Network has, by creating a Euro-pean ecological network, the followingobjectives:

• to maintain characteristic ecosy-stems and species across their natu-

ral ranges, • to support ecological processes

across Europe,

• to restore in a sufficient degree na-tural ecosystems and processes,

• to conserve semi-natural and otherecosystems, especially where theseare indispensable as subtitutes fornatural habitats,

• to adopt sustainability as a guidingprinciple for decisions and actions.

(After: Bennett (ed.) 1994)

Various existing international instru-ments already provide the identificationand conservation of areas and species ofEuropean or global significance. Theseinclude the Bern Convention, the Euro-pean Union Habitats and Birds Directive,the Ramsar Convention, the Bonn Con-vention, and the Fourth Protocol of theBarcelona Convention. The full and ef-fective implementation of these instru-ments, and particularly the establish-ment of Natura 2000 under the HabitatsDirective (European Union), and theEmerald Network under the Bern Con-vention (wider European), is of vital im-portance in building the Pan EuropeanEcological Network, since these instru-ments provide the conservation of manyvaluable sites for nature-conservation inEurope. The physical realisation of PEENshould be based on existing inititativesand European directives.

2. Analysis: International In-struments and ecologicalNetworks in Europe

2.1 Introduction: some internationalinstruments and their scope

The international instruments aiming ona European level at the protection of si-tes are analysed. As this paper concen-trates on ecological aspects, legal and/or political aspects are only shortly men-tioned, just to give the reader an im-pression of these aspects of the instru-ments. The analysis in table 1 gives so-me characteristics of international in-struments as international character,scope, network elements and legal basis(source: Delbaere, 1998 and 1999).

The criteria are worked out in the follo-wing way:

1. character: what kind of internatio-

The Pan European Ecological Network A. J.F.M. van Opstal

2 Landschaftsplanung.NET - Ausgabe 2001

nal body supports and promotes thenetwork;

2. scope: what kind of biological ele-ments are subject of the internatio-nal instrument;

3. geographical delimitation: whichpart of Europe is covered;

4. legal basis: how strong is the protec-tion the network can get: is it forexample legally binding for memberstates, or is it “only” an intention, aStrategy?

It appears that PEEN is supported by avery large number of signing states andother international bodies.

Both Natura 2000 and PEEN aim at a vastnetwork, encompassing all kinds of eco-systems, but Natura 2000 is, at the mo-ment, geographically more limited, as itcovers only the EU. The Emerald net-work should be the complemntary partof the Natura 2000 network in the Bern-signing countries outside the EU.

PEEN is the only instrument covering thewhole of Europe. It is clear that Natura2000 has a very strong legal basis asPEEN is only a Strategy, although sup-ported by a vast number of countriesand international Institutions.

2.2 Criteria used in internationalinstruments and/or ecologicalnetworks

In this paragraph there will be made ananalysis of the criteria used in interna-tional instruments for the designation ofcore areas, if appropriate.

As first, existing international instru-ments are analysed. Important aspectsas what is the biological object of the in-strument, and what are the criteria usedfor the selection of sites for EuropeanEcological networks are analysed. As itappeared that lists of priority speciesare used for the selection of core areas

TABLE 1: COPE OF INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS ON THE EUROPEAN LEVEL AIMING AT THE PROTECTION OF SITES AND/OR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ECOLOGICAL NETWORKS.

Name of international instrument

Name of ecologi-cal netork:

1. Character: 2. Scope: 3. Geographicaldelimitation:

4. Legal basis:

Convention on Wetlands(1971)

- International wetlands includ-ing natural, semi-natural and artifi-

cial waters

Global Legally binding for contracting parties

Biogenetic reserves(1976)

- Council of Europe natural or near-natural habitats or

ecosystems

Europe Ministerial resolu-tions

Pan European Biological and Landscape Diversity

Strategy(P.E.B.L.D.S.)

(1995)

Pan EuropeanEcological Network

Council of Europe & UNEP

natural and semi-natural ecosys-tems, habitats ,

species and land-scapes that are of European impor-

tance

Europe Strategy

E.U. Birds Directive(1979)

Natura 2000 European Com-mission

all species of nat-urally occurring birds in Europe

all species of natu-rally occuring birds

in Europe

European Union territory

Legally binding for EU member States

E.U. Habitats Directive(1992)

Natura 2000 European Com-mission

natural habitats and wild fauna and

flora. (including semi-natural

habitats)

European Union territory

Legally binding for EU member States

BernConvention

(1979)

Emerald Network Council of Europe natural habitats and wild fauna and

flora

Europe Recommendation of the standing

committee of the Bern convention

Helsinki Convention(1974, 1992)

- HelsinkiCommission:Internationalconvention

natural habitats and biological

diversity; ecologi-cal processes

(in the Baltic Sea Area)

Baltic Sea region Legally binding for contracting parties

Barcelona Convention(1976/1995) and Geneva/Barcelona

Protocol(1982/1995)

- International con-vention

representative and/or endan-

gered ecosystems of adequate size to maintain their bio-

diversity (in the Mediterranean

region)

Mediterranean sea region

Legally binding for contracting



it was necessary to analyse the criteriaused in international instruments for theevaluation of the conservation status ofspecies in Europe. These aspects whereanalysed in a separate study from whichthe results are cited (table 3 and 4,from: Siepel et. al., 2001).

Table 2: the scope of international in-struments aiming at the protection ofsites and of the evaluation of these in-struments.

The following criteria are used for theevaluation of the scope of internationalinstruments:

1. Does the instrument cover all typesof ecosystems, for example bothaquatic and terrestric?

2. And in particular, as PEBLDS focuses

on natural and semi-natural ecosy-stems: is this distinction made inthe aims of the instrument?

3. Do the criteria used for the selec-tion of priority species cover alltaxonomic categories?

4. Do the criteria used for the selec-tion of priority species cover allthreatened (cf IUCN) species?

5. Do the criteria used for the selec-tion of priority species cover allendemic species

As we have no data on the threat of Eu-ropean ecosystems and no data on thedegree of endemism of ecosystems, the-re are no criteria formulated for the co-verage of ecosystems in these instru-ments.

6. Does the instrument aims at the

establishment of a full network,including core-areas, corridors,nature-development areas and buf-ferzones?

It is important that all kinds of ecosy-stems are covered in a Pan EuropeanEcological Network, and that emphasisis been laid on both natural and semi-na-tural ecosystems. It appears that onlyPEEN, Natura 2000 and Emerald fulfilthese conditions (criterion 1 and 2).

As it appears that he criteria used in theconventions of Bonn, Bern, the HabitatsDirective and the Birds Directive for theidentification of core-areas are based onexplicit priority species, these criteriaare to be analysed in detail. The criteria3, 4 and 5 are introduced to evaluatethis. It appears (Siepel et. al., 2001, inpress) that the priority-species lists of

TABLE 2: EVALUATION OF INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS ON THE EUROPEAN LEVEL

Name of inter-national instru-ment

Criterion 1:

all types of ecosy-stems?

Criterion 2:

both natural and semi-naturalecosystems??

Criterion 3:

all taxonomic groups?

Criterion 4:

all threatenedspecies?

Criterion 5:

all endemic spe-cies?

Criterion 6:

full network including core-area’s, etc.?

Convention on Wetlands

- - - - - Core areas: protected wet-land areas

Biogenetic reserves

+ - - - - Core areas;

(the importance of interconnec-tivity is acknowledged)

Pan European Ecological Network

(PEEN)

+ + + + + Core area’s, cor-ridors, buffer-zones and restoration areas.

Natura 2000

(E.U. Birds Directive and HabitatsDirective)

+ + + - - Core areas

Emerald Net-work

(Bern Conven-tion)

+ + + - - Core areas

(the importance of interconnectiv-ity is acknowl-edged)

Helsinki Con-vention

- - - - - Core areas

Barcelona Con-vention

- - - - - Core areas: a sys-tem of Coastal and Marine Baltic Sea Protected areas;

under certain cir-cumstances: buff-erzones.



both the Habitat Directive and of theBern Convention do not cover all ende-mic species and/or all species that occuron the IUCN Red Lists. In conclusion:there are a lot of species for which Eu-rope is unique from a global point ofview, or which are globally threatenedthat are not on any EU- or European le-gal priority list. In principle PEEN makessuch an exhaustive list possible.

There appear to be large differences inthe network elements: most of the in-struments aim only at core areas. Onlythe Pan European Ecological Networkconcentrates on both core areas, corri-dors and bufferzones, and gives the pos-sibility for nature-development areas.So, as regards the possibilities for thecreation of an adequate functioningecological network, PEEN seems to deli-ver the best possibilities. But, as regardsthe legal basis, Natura 2000 and theEmerald Network are much stronger.

2.3 Conclusions

From a legal point of view the Natura2000 network has the strongest basis.

Not all international instruments areadequate for the realisation of afunctioning ecological network on a Eu-ropean scale. The Pan European Ecologi-cal Network has, technically spoken, thebroadest scope because it covers not on-ly network elements as core areas, butalso network elements as corridors andbufferzones which are lacking in almostall other international conventions. Es-pecially the element of connectivity inPEEN is of great potential ecological im-

portance.

There are important differences in thecriteria used for the selection of priorityspecies and ecosystems and in the appli-cation of those criteria. By consequencethere are large differences in the crite-ria used for the designation of sites ascore areas. There is a strong need forcoherent, encompassing criteria.

For the selection of species of Europeanimportance from a solid nature-conser-vation point of view the UN Red Databook of globally threatened plants andanimals in Europe (1991), the IUCN RedList of threatened Animals (Baillie andGroombridge, 1996) and the IUCN RedList of threatened plants (Walter andGillett, 1998) deliver a sound and solidstarting point. There is an urgent needfor the compilation of a list of so-called“target-species” for the Pan EuropeanEcological Network, target species beingdefined as species of European im-portance, covering species that are en-demic in or highly characteristic for Eu-rope, and/or species that occur in Euro-pe but whose survival in the near futureis threatened on a global level, and/orspecies for which European legislationimposes its signatory states specificmeasures.

3. Naturalness, biodiversityand threat as criteria forthe selection of speciesand ecosystems of Euro-pean importance

3.1 Naturalness

“Natural and semi-natural habitats ofEuropean importance such as coastal zo-nes, marine areas, wetlands, forests,mountain areas and grasslands, are un-der threat; so are many wild plant andanimal species. The most obvious issuesare changes in land use, and reductionin area of natural and semi-natural ha-bitats, with their resulting fragmenta-tion.” (Council of Europe, UNEP andECNC, 1996.)

From this quotation it is clear that theconcept of naturalness or wilderness hasbecome a leading theme in nature con-servation. Natural ecosystems and natu-ral processes are seen as the best way topreserve biodiversity.

The rationale for this is that undistur-bed, natural ecosystems are the bestguarantee for preserving biodiversity,richness of species, richness of ecosy-stems, endemic species, threatenedspecies, resource species, flag-ship spe-cies, and other natural values (Sobolevet.al., 1995).

The preservation of natural ecosystemswith as less human influence and mana-gement as possible is in a lot of cases avery efficient way to maintain the biolo-gical diversity and to protect species.Natural processes such as sedimentati-on, erosion, aquifer recharge / dischar-ge, hillslope processes, inundation, andgrazing can have a diversifying effect onnature and should be allowed as much aspossible.

Moreover, undisturbed ecosystems (“na-tural” ecosystems) have a large natureconservation value in itself: they makeit possible to watch nature in its purestform, and permit scientific research onspecies and processes that are rapidlydiminishing.

It is important to state that areas where(semi)natural ecosystems occur on a lar-ger scale are rare in western Europe,and that they only occur on a wider sca-le in the Alps, the Pyrenees, and especi-ally in Northern-Eastern Europe.



The following division of ecosystems ac-cording to their degree of human influ-ence is suggested in PEEN:

• natural and almost natural ecosy-stems,

• semi-natural or semi-natural ecosy-stems.

In natural and almost natural ecosy-stems the actual and historical role ofman in the functioning of the ecosystemis nil or almost nil. The functioning ofthe ecosystem is unaltered and has notbeen influenced by man. Species com-position and species numbers are unin-fluenced, not by exploitation, not by ga-me-hunting, even not in an indirect way:for example by changing watercourse.Geomorphological , ecological and bio-logical processes are almost undisturbedby man, large predators can fulfil theirlife-cycle. In this category also fall thealmost natural ecosystems, in which theecosystems are only very marginal ex-ploited by man, thus where the naturalprocesses are only to a very limited ex-tent influenced by man.

Examples are the highest parts of themountains, undisturbed parts of seas,lakes, rivers, tundra’s, raised bogs, andprimeval natural forest-ecosystems.

In semi-natural ecosystems the speciescomposition is unaltered by man. Thereare no species introduced or planted byman. Soil- and water-management areunaltered, but man has to a limited ex-tend influenced the natural processes,for example by taking over the role ofnatural grazing through extensive mo-wing or by taking over the role of greatpredators by fishing in great waters. Thenatural patterns of energy flow, primaryproduction, matter cycling and competi-tion between species are altered in sucha sense that man has taken over the roleof natural grazers, predators, or in sucha sense that man has influenced thenumber and the role of natural grazersand/or predators.

These ecosystems do occur also in natu-ral situations, but then they are limitedto areas where natural grazing, erosionby rivers or streams, (etc.) reverse thenatural succession to earlier stages, orprevent the natural succession. Theseecosystems are rather complex (diffe-rent tropic levels are still present) andcan be very rich in species numbers, ifthe human use has been stable for many

years.

Almost all ecosystems resulting from“traditional “ forms of agricultural landuse as steppes, puszta’s and woodedmeadows fall in this category. In thesesituations there is a high degree of sus-tainable use. Sustainable use means theuse of an organism, ecosystem or otherrenewable resource at a rate within itscapacity for renewal.

3.2 Biodiversity

The concept of biodiversity is a centralconcept in both the Convention on Bio-logical Diversity and the Pan EuropeanBiological and Landscape Diversity Stra-tegy, as well as in a lot of other interna-tional conventions.

Biological diversity is defined as :

the variability among living organismsfrom all sources including, inter alia,terrestrial, marine and other aquaticecosystems and the ecological comple-xes of which they are part; this includesdiversity within species, between spe-cies and of ecosystems (Article 2 of theConvention on Biological Diversity).

This definition encompasses : “the tota-lity of genes, species and ecosystems ina region” including those maintainingthe genetic diversity of traditional va-rieties and races, excluding the manipu-lated genome.

The natural value of a region can be highif the region holds a significant percen-tage of the world population of a givenecosystem and / or species in a specificpart of the life-cycle or within the totallife-cycle.

It is useful to look at the role of Europein maintaining biodiversity: there are alot of species and ecosystems which areendemic in, or characteristic for Euro-pe: species or ecosystems that only oc-cur in Europe (so they are endemic onany scale) or for which Europe holds a si-gnificant part of the world population.

In this way the criterion: European valuecan be defined, all in order to make surethat PEEN gives in the most effectiveway a solid contribution to the conserva-tion and development of ecosystems andspecies in Europe that are of Europeanimportance, and that need conservationmeasures.

Endemism refers to species (or ecosy-stems) that only occur in specific bio-geographical (sub)regions or parts ofbiogeographical regions. We can saythat a species has a greater value in theEuropean context if it is endemic in Eu-rope.

The nature conservation value lies in thecombination of the rarity of the species(rarity: a given frequency of occurence(or less) of a certain species or ecosy-stem in a given biogeographical region),and the very restricted area where thespecies occurs. It is obvious that a spe-cies that is endemic to a very restrictedarea, has very high conservation valuedue to its limited area of occurrence, aswell as such a species will extremelyvulnerable.

So these endemic species have a veryhigh conservation value, and are poten-tially threatened because of the combi-nation of their low numbers and the re-

Photo 1: Example of a natural ecosystem: mountain lake

Photo 2: Example of a semi-natural ecosystem:dry mountain grassland with Arnica mon-tana



stricted area where they occur. The UN(1991) identifies several thousands ofthreatened single country endemic high-er plants in Europe. Many islands are,due to isolation over a long period, richin endemic species, for example Kreta,Corse. On the continent isolated moun-tain regions can be considered as islandsituations, e.g. parts of the Pyrenees orparts of the Balkans.

It is important to note that a species (oran ecosystem) can be endemic on regio-nal, national or European level: somespecies are restricted to very small partsof, for example, Crete. So such a speciesis endemic on the European, the natio-nal and the regional level. In this paperwe only use the criterion: endemic on aEuropean level.

3.3 Threat

Threat is understood as the unfavoura-ble conservation situation of a species orecosystem (the overall negative trend ofspecies or ecosystems) related to the re-cognised causes of that unfavourableconservation status. In general, threat isdefined on a global scale. It is suggestedto consider threat on a global scale be-cause:

• it emphasises the contribution thatEurope can deliver to the conserva-tion of species from a global point ofview: the motivation for underta-king these conservation actions isnot only from an european but alsofrom a global point of view useful.

• for practical reasons: both dataavailability and criteria already inuse reflect threat on a global andnot on an European scale. If it is ne-cessary to evaluate the degree ofthreat on a European scale a lot ofnew work has to be done whichmight take years.

• for reasons of coherence with other,widely accepted criteria: the IUCNcriteria (IUCN, 1994, Bailly andGroombridge, 1996, Walter and Gil-lett, 1998) refer to global threat,just as for example Tucker andHeath (1994).

• finally for political reasons: the de-finition of threat on a global scale iscommonly accepted, see for examp-le Recommendation no. 48 of theStanding Committee of the Bern-Convention which speaks about the

conservation of European globallythreatened birds (Council of Europe,1996 and 1997).

3.4 Other criteria: species with aspecial role in nature-conserva-tion

Some species have a special role in theecosystem where they occur (e.g. asstructuring the ecosystem by grazing,building dams, or a key-role in litter-de-composing, etcetera) or have a specialeconomic, social or cultural value. Spe-cies can have a specific nature conserva-tion value from a educative point ofview too, they are called flag-ship spe-cies.

“The concepts of indicator, flagship andkeystone species are also important.The presence of indicator-species is auseful measure of good wetland quality.Flagship-species have high symbolic va-lue in the conservation movement whe-reas keystone-species play vital ecologi-cal roles. The recognition of the im-portant ecological role of keystone spe-cies, which are often abundant and wi-despread, and the need for their conser-vation, is perhaps foreign to the tradi-tional conservation ethic, but deserveserious consideration. Wetlands with si-gnificant populations of indicator,flagship and/or keystone species wouldmerit consideration as sites of interna-tional importance.” (Convention onWetlands)

Some species are especially favoured bya good functioning ecological networkon a European scale, for example spe-cies that are highly sensitive to frag-mentation on a European level. By ad-ding this category of species the net-work-design is directed in an adequate,problem solution direction, as well asthat a good parameter is created for te-sting whether the network is ecological-ly functioning.

All these categories can be consideredas specific, extra categories for the sel-ection of core areas.

3.5 Criteria for priority species and -ecosystems.

Table 3 defines the criteria “natural-ness” and “biodiversity” (operationali-sed in distribution and threat) in orderto select ecosystems and species thatare of European importance.

4. Criteria for core areas

It is suggested to select all sites whereone or more ecosystems or species occurthat are of European importance as coreareas of the Pan European EcologicalNetwork.

4.1 Selection of sites as core areasbased on ecosystems of Euro-pean importance

Criterion 1: all sites covering natural oralmost natural ecosystems, should bepart of PEEN.

Argumentation: undisturbed naturalecosystems and processes are that rareand important for species, ecosystemsand processes in Europe that it is wisethat all these areas are part of PEEN.

This category will encompass no verylarge areas, is expected, as these speci-fic areas without any human are rare. InWestern Europe these kind of areas arealmost non-existent. In Central and Ea-stern Europe, especially in the northernparts these areas are sometimes in largeareas present. They all cover very highnatural values. Often these areas areextremely important for natural valuesall over Europe. These ecosystems havea high biodiversity, or they form the na-tural niches of very specific species,that are allmost all very rare or threate-ned.

Criterion 2: all sites, covering semi-na-tural ecosystems that are endemic in Eu-rope should be part of PEEN.

Argumentation: this category is, even ifprotected in nature-reserves, under se-vere threat. The area in Europe is lowand is rapidly declining, especially in theWestern European countries. Possibili-ties of restoring these natural values arelow, and the last remaining remnantscan serve as important gene-pools. Thiscategory will be - in area- the largestpart of PEEN. A very large number of the“classic “ natural reserves, establishedfor the protection of (inter)nationalendangered ecosystems and species willfall in this category.

These ecosystem-types form essentialparts of man-made landscapes, so theyare also very important from a culturalpoint of view.

Criterion 3: all sites, covering semi-na-



tural ecosystems which are characteri-stic for Europe and as a type threatenedon a global level should be part of PEEN.

Argumentation: this category does notreach large areas in Europe, especiallynot in Western Europe. From a globalpoint of view it is logical to give theseecosystemtypes a special protection.

Especially in the Central and Eastern Eu-ropean Countries there are larger areasof these type of areas. It seems not ne-cessary to put all the areas in Europe,covering semi-natural ecosystems underPEEN. Only the areas covering endemictypes and the areas covering characteri-stic, threatened types are importantenough to be designated as core-area ofPEEN. Another argument is that this re-striction to threatened characteristicsemi-natural ecosystems only will helpto limit the total coverage of the terri-tory of PEEN to a certain % of the terri-tory of a nation.

4.2 Selection of sites as core-areasbased on species of Europeanimportance

Criterion 1: all sites where populationsoccur of species that are endemic inEurope should be part of PEEN.

Argumentation: this considers severalthousands of species that are endemic inEurope, and that are not only of high na-tural-conservation value in itself butthat also indicate natural ecosystemsand natural ecological processes so thatit is wise that all these areas are part ofPEEN.

Criterion 2 : all sites where populationsoccur of species that are characteristicfor Europe and that are threatened onthe European level, should be part ofPEEN.

Argumentation: this concerns severalhundreds of species that are characteri-stic for Europe and that are threatenedon a global scale. Protection of these si-tes delivers a sound contribution to thePan European Ecological Network.

4.3 Selection of sites as core-areasbased on flag-ship species

Criterion 3: all sites where populationsoccur of flag-ship species should be partof PEEN.

Argumentation: the concept of flag-ship

species has been proven to be very use-ful for raising societal and political in-terest.

5. Criteria for corridors,nature-development areasand bufferzones

The ecological function of the corridors,development-zones and buffer zones isderived of the goals, the compositionand the situation of the specific core-areas of PEEN. So the corridors (etc.)should in a direct or indirect way contri-bute to the protection and developmentof species and ecosystems that are ofEuropean importance.

The designation and location of corri-dors, developmentzones and buffer zo-nes should be directly derived from thegoals and functions of PEEN and of thecore areas.

In this way there is a certain hierarchicalrelationship and sequence in activitiesbetween the establishment of core are-as and of the other three elements ofPEEN.

5.1 Corridors

Corridors should be established accor-ding to the following criterion:

• corridors should contribute (director indirect, on a medium term or ona longer term) to the protection orthe ecological functioning of ecosy-stems or species of European im-portance.

This means that the designation and lo-cation of ecological corridors should beprimarily determined by the ecologicalrequirements of the threatened speciesand ecosystems. The location of corri-dors will be related to the projectedfunctioning of specific core-areas. Infact, a lot of core-areas can act as cor-ridors for specific species.

Table 3: Criteria for the selection of ecosystems and species that are of European importance:

Ecosystems of European importance: Species of European importance:

all natural ecosystems -

all semi-natural ecosystems that are endemic in Europe

all species that are endemic in Europe

all semi-natural ecosystems that are characteristic for Europe and globally threatened

all species that are both characteristic for Europe and globally threatened

- all flag-species

Table 4: Criteria for the selection of sites as core areas based on ecosystems and/or species of Europeanimportance.

Ecosystems: Species:

all sites covering natural ecosystems

all sites covering species that are endemic in Europe

all sites covering semi-natural ecosystems that are endemic in Europe

all sites covering species that are both characteristic for Europe and globally threatened

all sites covering semi-natural ecosystems that are both characteristic for Europe and globally threatened

all sites covering flag-ship species



Many surviving areas of the natural habi-tats of species are too small to hold apopulation at a surviving level. Corridorscan help such species with the expansi-on of these species in their natural habi-tats or into areas within their naturalrange currently not yet occupied or nolonger occupied.

Many populations are fragmented andisolated. To avoid extinction a good eco-logical integration of the (meta-)popula-tion is necessary. Corridors can fulfillthese needs.

In practice the following aspects are im-portant:

• the actual or historical presence ofspecies dispersion

• the actual or historical presence ofspecies migration

• the actual, historical or proposedpresence of (mid- or longer term)movements of individuals

Ecological corridors of European signifi-cance are for example:

• pan-European bird migration routes

• river corridors

• historical corridors of plant-sprea-ding through mountain bridges, alo-ng warm river valleys, and throughmountain ranges

Ecological corridors can be landscapestructures of various size, shape and ha-bitat composition that maintain, esta-blish or re-establish natural landscapeconnectivity, supporting the favourableconservation status of species and habi-tats for which core-areas have been de-signated.

Corridors can be, according to theirstructure: continous or interrupted orstepping stones.

Corridors can contribute to maintainspecies numbers, increase population si-ze, prevent in-breeding and encouragingthe retention of genetic variation. Theycan lead to increased foraging areas forwide ranging species, and provide refu-gia in case of large distances between(sub-) populations.

Potential disadvantages are: spread of

predators, introduction of species withhigh competive value, disease, exoticspecies, weeds, insect pests, and candisrupt local adaptations or (sub)species(Jongman and Troumbis, 1996).

Certain matters need to be addressed,however. For certain species it is hardlyknown what kind of ecological corridor,if any, is needed. There is also a shorta-ge of data on critical dimensions or di-stances, so often we do not know howecological corridors can be established(Opschoor and Gleichman, in: Bennett,1994).

It may be advisable to define differentsets of criteria for corridors, dependingon the projected functioning of the cor-ridors, for example for linear ecosy-stems, functioning as corridors,and forsites functioning as stepping stones,etcetera. It will be clear that this mat-ter needs further research. In generalwe should not define the criteria for cor-ridors very sharp. What the corridors docontribute to PEEN is defined here abo-ve, while it will be left to the differentnations to establish the corridors on themost appropriate way.

5.2 Nature-development-areas

Nature-development-areas should beestablished regarding the following cri-teria:

• development-areas should contribu-te (direct or indirect, on a mid termor on a longer term) to the protec-tion or the ecological functioning ofecosystems or species of Europeanimportance.

• development-areas should have thepotential to become core areas orcorridors.

• there is higher priority for nature-restoratian in situations where othernetwork components do not adequa-tely cover the needs of ecosystemsand species of European im-portance.

In practice the following aspects can beused for the determination of develop-ment-areas:

• areas containing threatened ecosy-stems or species, but not fulfillingthe core area criteria because offragmentation of ecosystems, or

other causes• areas with high potential natural va-

lues that are geomorphologically orecologically intact but that are to acertain degree disrupted or polluted

• other areas with high potential na-tural values

• disrupted parts of core areas

• disrupted parts of corridors

• buffer zones which require rehabili-tation

5.3 Criteria for buffer zones

Buffer zones should be established ac-cording to the following criteria:

Buffer zones should contribute (directlyor indirectly, on a mid term or on a lon-ger term) to the protection or the ecolo-gical functioning of ecosystems or spe-cies of European importance.

Buffer zones are strongly related to exi-sting core areas.A buffer zone addressesa specific need for a particular core areawith particular conservation objectives.

• In a sense, buffer zones are core-area-specific.

• Buffer areas are primarily esta-blished for a clearly precised rea-son: they are mostly established forimmediate protection of an adja-cent core area with specific and ur-gent problems which are (partly)solved by the establishing of thebuffer zone. Examples are spraydrift, nutrient enrichment, activi-ties on adjacent lands.

• Buffer zones can be established formitigation purposes as well: puttingup barriers, to provide immediateprotection.

• Buffer zones can be established formanagement purposes too: to affectdirectly the ecological conditions inthe adjacent core area (water level,drainage), or to make the desiredarea management possible (extragrazing land to make extensive gra-zing possible)

And last, buffer zones can be esta-blished to avoid possible threats.



6. Indicative map of PanEuropeancore Core Areas

6.1 Sources

The indicative map is based on the follo-wing sources:

• an indicative map of regions in Euro-pe where on a large scale naturaland semi-natural ecosystems do oc-cur, based on landcover, derivedfrom satellite-images and nationalinventories (in: Opstal, A. van,2000).

• the distribution map of narrow en-demics in Europe (Williams et. al. inDelbaere et. al., 1998). This mapdoes not covers the whole of Europebecause of a lack of data (E.g. indi-cative core-area’s in Turkey and theformerly USSR-states are missing onthis map).

6.2 Introduction to the indicativemap

It appears that, considering naturalnessand endemism as important criteria forthe identification of core-areas, thesecore-areas are concentrated in the Me-diterranean region, (especially the is-lands and the mountainous regions), thePyrenees, the Alps and other mountai-nous regions, and the utmost northernregions of Europe (taiga’s and tundra’s).

On this map, in the more temperate we-stern European and central Europeanparts are no core-area’s identified, sothese are left blank. This is because inthese regions there do not occur, on thescale of the map, larger, mappablearea’s that have a highly natural charac-ter or where there occur endemic spe-cies in vaste areas. These blank areashowever contain ecosystems and speciesof European importance, more or lessscattered in smaller patches or isolated.Also, the potentials for nature develop-ment of these blank areas can be great.

The mapped regions refer on a Europeanscale to regions where there occur natu-ral and/or semi-natural ecosystemsand/or narrow endemics. However, thisdoes not mean that in regions that arenot indicated on the map there do notoccur ecosystems or species of Europeanimportance. As in western- and middleEurope (semi-)natural ecosystems arevery scattered, or occur only in small

areas, they have been left out. Also aremissing, because the essential informa-tion is lacking, all major area’s wherecharacteristic species or flag-ship spe-cies occur.

As the primary sources on which the mapis based, concentrate on terrestial spe-cies and -ecosystems, the map is not va-lid for the Atlantic ocean, the North seaand the Mediterranean sea.

Corridors, bufferzones and nature-de-velopment areas are missing on thismap: the identification of these networkelements can only be achieved afterthat the core-areas are identified.

Finally, the indicated areas are not “pu-re” core areas: within the designatedareas there are farmlands, roads, villa-ges, and/or regions influenced by fore-stry-activities. The indicated areasshould be seen as “search-areas for coreareas”.

7. General conclusions

7.1 European Instruments

The Pan European Ecological Network is,from a strict ecological point of view,the best international instrument forthe designation of an European ecologi-cal network, as it covers not only corearea’s, but also corridors and bufferzo-nes and gives opportunities for naturedevelopment zones. But the legalstrenght is, at the moment, not verystrong.

PEEN has strong potentials, but to reali-se these potentials it will be necessarythat a strong cooperation between thepolitical institutions and the administra-tive organisations will be realised. Fur-thermore, the existing legal instrumentshave a too narrow base, from a nature-conservation point of view. If the PanEuropean Ecological Network will be ba-

Map 1: Indicative map of major areas in Europe where, based on the criteria as presented in this paper,core areas for the Pan European Ecological Network could be established.

Sources: Williams et.al. in Delbaere 1998, Pelcom 1999, personal communications, adapted by the author.



sed on the existing EU and European in-struments, the resulting network willbe, so may be expected, not cover se-veral hundreds of species that are glo-bally threatened or endemic in Europe.

For the designation of PEEN it is neces-sary that there is consensus on explicitcriteria for the selection of species andecosystems that are of European im-portance. There is an urgent need forthe compilation of a good list of “target-species” for the Pan European Ecologi-cal Network. Once there is agreementthat such a list of species of Europeanimportance should cover not only the le-gally designated species but also theother globally threatened species andthe endemic species, such a list can becompiled. If this list will be accepted asa basic tool for the identification of coreareas, it will become possible to realisean evenly balanced Pan European Ecolo-gical Network. As regards the ecosystemapproach, at this moment we do not ha-ve scientifical based insight in the de-gree of threat and/or of endemism ofecosystems. Only a few countries havesuch surveys (Switzerland, Germany). Itwill be necessary to realise in the co-ming years such a European survey, ba-sed on or related with the EUNIS habi-tat-classification. It is hoped that theDutch inititative for a European Databa-se of vegetation-analysis will providethe necessary dates for this survey.

The large differences that have been de-monstrated between the different Euro-pean instruments are a very strong argu-ment for unifying criteria for the Pan Eu-ropean Ecological Network. It is theopinion of the author that the in this pa-per presented criteria, defining natural-ness and biodiversity, will provide thenecessary unifying criteria for PEEN. Ba-sed on naturalness and biodiversity, thelogic for the architecture of the Pan Eu-ropean Ecological Network is formula-ted. Biodiversity is operationalised interms of distribution and, (using theIUCN- criteria) threat. Naturalness isoperationalised in terms of degree ofhuman influence in ecosystems.

7.2 Sketch-map of PEEN

Criteria are formulated for the selectionof sites as core-areas, based on speciesand ecosystems that are of European im-portance. Corridors, nature develop-ment areas and bufferzones are derivedof the aims of the core-area’s. Applica-tion of the suggested criteria results in a

first sketch map of the major area’s inEurope where core-area’s should be de-signated. In these area’s there do occur,in a large density, endemic species,and/or natural and semi-natural ecosy-stems. These area’s do occur in the me-diterranean regions, in the mountain re-gions, in the steppe regions and in thenorthern parts of Europe.

7.3 The process of establishing thenetwork

Establishing of a national part of PEEN isonly possible if there is solid informationabout the distribution and the nature-conservation status of the ecosystemsand the species in the area. Besides thistype of information, there will be alsoinformation needed on soil types, hydro-logy, potential natural vegetation, etce-tera.

It is obvious that an iterative processbetween the national ecologists, natio-nal policy-makers, NGO’s, internationalorganisations and the coordinating Se-cretariat is very necessary. A balancebetween the systematic approach, theneeds of the different ecosystems andspecies and the political opportunitiesshould be reached.

When a start is been made of the desi-gnation of core areas, we should startwith the existing strict nature reserveswith high conservational value, and lookat the following items: size (the optimalsize represents a surface large enoughfor the entire food-chain, ensuring a fullrange of plants animals and ecosystems)and spatial configuration (as regardssoil, hydrology and management), ho-mogenity of the internal structure of thecore area, spatial suitability (as regardsfunctions of adjacent areas).

When selecting the core areas, thefunctions currently allocated to them inthe land-use planning process have to betaken into account. In some cases (in ca-ses that the core areas are primarily de-signated for the semi-natural values) co-re areas may have to a certain extentother functions than only nature conser-vation, such as forestry, fisheries, cer-tain forms of recreation or of agricul-ture. We can call these activities: secon-dary activities. It is wise to make precie-se lists which ecosystems can support towhat degree which kind of these secon-dary activities.

Drawing border lines of core ares should

be based on a as complete as possibleunderstanding of the ecological needs ofthe ecosystems for which the core areasare designated, for example for groundwater dependent ecosystems the hydro-logical relations have to be considered.Sometimes buffer zones are urgent: in-filtration areas for ground water-depen-dent ecosystems are most often neces-sary.

Combination of functions will sometimeslead to win-win situations: seepage are-as for which the infiltration areas are al-ready well protected natural areas canbe considered as areas with high poten-tial for nature development.

Those areas that offer realistic pro-spects for the development of naturalvalues of European value can be incor-porated into the ecological network.“Realistic” is to be understood in a midterm: 10-20 years, and realistic from anoptimistic, mid-term (10-20 years) fi-nancial and political point of view.

There will be large differences in theamount of purely natural, pristine eco-systems in the different parts of Europe.There will also be large differences inthe coverage of data and the availabilityof the data needed. Therefore it is sug-gested to use the criteria for a good andunifiyng concept of PEEN, but to givethe countries a rather large freedom inthe application, all in good communica-tion with the Board of Experts.

It is advised to be very firm in the tar-gets of the ecological network, so to beambitious in the criteria for the coreareas, and in the delimitation of the co-re areas, and to give more flexibility tothe final delineation of nature develop-ment-areas, buffer-zones and corridors.

Its is logical from both an societal andpolitical point of view that there will acertain balance in the territorial cover-age of PEEN in the Northern-, Central-and West European, and MeditterraneanEuropean countries.

7.4 Coordination and monitoring ofPEEN

The establishment of a coordinating me-chanism has already been put forward atthe Eeconet conference in 1993 in Maas-tricht (Bennet, 1994). Such coordinationhas to focus on monitoring the progress,the effectivity and the coherence ofPEEN and coordinating actions:



• realises cooperation between thedifferent international instrumentsand institutions that aim the protec-tion of European Nature

• in particular: strenghtens the co-operation between PEEN, Natura2000 and the Emerald Network

• support and facilitate the differentcountries with the designation andimplementation of their part of thePEEN, watching over the way theunifying criteria are used, and loo-king over the tension between atone hand the necessary unity in cri-teria and on the other hand the fle-xibility necessary from a political orsocietal point of view

• watch over the right balance bet-ween the long term ecological tar-gets and the shorter term requiredtargets and actions

• measure progress, (yearly reports)

• monitor the effectiveness of PEEN

• support fund-raising

• disperse information

• coordinate research programmes

• facilitate trans-border establish-ment of PEEN

The Committee of Experts of the Pan Eu-ropean Ecological Network, under thePan European Biological and LandscapeDiversity Strategy with the EuropeanCentre for Nature Conservation in Til-burg as secretariat acts as a coordinati-

on mechanism.

7.5 Cooperation between PEEN,Natura 2000 and Emerald

In comparison to Natura 2000 and theEmerald Network, PEEN has some ad-vantages and some disadvantages: PEENhas important extra features that Natu-ra 2000 doesn’t has, as corridors, buf-ferzones and nature development areas.Also, PEEN can be based on a much wi-der group of species that need specialprotection. On the other hand, Natura2000 is much stronger as it is based on aEU directive and on explicit administra-tive procedures.

A strong cooperation is needed betweenNatura 2000, Emerald Network and PEENin order to get a functioning ecologicalnetwork, covering all the species thatneed special protection measures andgiving opportunities to species for rege-neration, migration and/or dispersal.

7.6 Research projects: target-spe-cies and priority habitats

There is a great amount of taxonomical,(syn)chorological, autecological, syn-ecological and experimental researchneeded to make correct decisions possi-ble on matters as:

• how to protect core areas,

• how to designate corridors and forwhich species (-groups),

• how to realise adequate buffering ofcore areas and

• how to restore natural values. Examples of these questions are:

how large should a core area be for thelong-term survival of a certain species?

• which population-size of a certainspecies is needed in order to remainviable?

• which kind of connectivity or isolati-on is required for a certain species? and ( especially in core areas cover-ing natural and semi-natural ecosy-stems)

• which mosaic patterns of ecosy-stems can meet the necessary requi-rements of the various species andecosystems?

Besides this kind of ecological research,there are large gaps in our knowledge ofsociological and planning aspects of aproject such as PEEN. In the followingproject proposals only the very essentialresearch necessary to give the Pan Euro-pean Ecological Network a sound basefrom a nature-conservation point ofview is described.

Project 1: List of target species for thePan European Ecological Network.

Based on the UNEP Red Data Book, the1997 IUCN Red List of Treatened Plants,the existing appendices of Bern, Habi-tats Directive (etc.), and the criteriasuggested in this report there should bemade: a final and official list of Euro-pean priority species (target species).

Target-species are defined as “speciesof European importance”: species thatare endemic in or highly characteristicfor Europe, and/or species that occur inEurope but whose survival in the nearfuture is threatened on a global level,and/or species for which European legis-lation imposes its signatory states speci-fic measures.

Within the Committee of Experts of thePan European Ecological Network(PEEN), the idea of defining and iden-tifying target species for PEEN has gai-ned an increasing support. These targetspecies can be used for the identificati-on of core-area’s of PEEN.



Project 2: List of target ecosystem-ty-pes for the Pan European EcologicalNetwork

This project aims at quantifying the“state of the art” of the different ecosy-stemtypes.

Based on the Corine-biotope system ansystematic inventory of the conservati-on status of the ecosystemtypes of Euro-pe should be made. The degree and sca-le of endemism of the ecosystemtypesshould be mapped (This includes alsothe extension of the CORINE Biotopesclassification-system to Central and Ea-stern Europe as is already ongoing).

An inventory of the abundancy, declineand threat of ecosystemtypes on a glo-bal level should be completed.

Based on these two inventorys and thecriteria suggested in this report a finaland official list of European priority eco-system-types. (PEEN- ecosystemtypeslist) should be made.

8. Bibliography

Anonymous, 1992. Convention on Biolo-gical Diversity.

Baillie, J. and B. Groombridge, 1996.1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened Ani-mals. Cambridge/ Gland, Switzerland

Bennett, G. (editor), 1994. ConservingEurope’s Natural Heritage. Towards aEuropean Ecological Network (London,Dordrecht/Boston)

Council of Europe, UNEP & EuropeanCentre for Nature Conservation, 1996.The Pan European Biological and Lands-cape Diversity Strategy, a vision for Eu-rope’s natural heritage. Strasbourg/Til-burg.

Council of Europe, 1996. Criteria for li-sting species in the appendices of theConvention on the conservation of Euro-pean Wildlife and Natural Habitats. Dis-cussion paper. Secretariat Memorandumprepared by the Directorate of Environ-ment and Local Authorities.

Council of Europe, 1997. Criteria for li-sting species in the appendices I and II ofthe Convention on the conservation ofEuropean Wildlife and Natural Habitats.Draft recommendation. Secretariat Me-morandum prepared by the Directorateof Environment and Local Authorities.

Delbaere, B. 1998. Facts and figures onEurope’s biodiversity. State and trends1998-1999. ECNC, Tilburg.

Delbaere, B. 1999. Nature conservationsites designated in application of inter-national instruments at pan-Europeanlevel. Nature and Environment, no 95.Council of Europe Publishing, Stras-bourg.

Duquet, M. 1993. Glossaire d’EcologieFondamentale. (Nathan, Paris)

ETC, 1998. Biodiversity in Europe (draftreport).

IUCN Species survival Commission 1994.IUCN Red List Categories. Approved bythe 40 th meeting of the IUCN Council,Gland, Switzerland

Jongman, R.H.G. 1995. Nature conser-vation planning in Europe: developingecological networks.

Landscape and Urban Planning 32 (1995)169-183. Jongman, R.H.G., and A.Y.Troumbis 1996. The wider Landscape forNature Conservation: ecological corri-dors and buffer zones. MN2.7 Sub Pro-ject report. ECNC for the ETC/NC. (EEA,Copenhagen)

Opstal, A.J.F.M. van 2000. (second edi-tion). The architecture of the Pan Euro-pean Ecological Network: criteria for co-re-areas, corridors, bufferzones and na-ture-development zones. Wageningen/Tilburg. Stra-Rep 99-3.

Sobolev, E.A., Shvarts, E.A., Kreinlin,M.L., Mokievski, V.O. and V.A. Zubakin1995. Russia´s protected areas: a surveyand identification of development pro-blems. Biodiversity and Conservation,4, p. 964-983 (1995).

Tucker, G.M. & M. Heath 1994. Birds inEurope. Their conservation status. Withforeword by J.P. Ribaut, Head of the En-vironment Conservation and Manange-ment Division, Council of Europe, Stras-bourg.

United Nations 1991. European Red Listof globally threatened animals andplants and recommendations on its ap-plication as adopted by the EconomicCommission for Europe at its forty-sixthsession (1991) by decision D (46), NewYork.

Walter, K.S. and H.J. Gillett 1998. 1997IUCN Red List of Threatened Plants.Cambridge/Gland, Switzerland.

Further information on the web:

Websites:

European Centre for Nature Conserva-tion: http://www.ecnc.nl(full information on general back-grounds of PEEN and PEBLDS

Council of Europe:http://www.coe.int;

International Union for the Conservati-on of Species:http://www.iucn.org(with on-line databases on threatenedspecies)

European Topic Centre: via EuropeanEnvironmental Agency:http://www.eea.eu.int (with on-line Eunis habitat classification

Photo 3: Target species for the Pan European Eco-logical Network: Maculinea telejus.threatened in Europe and protected un-der the Bern convention.

Photo 4: Target-ecosystemtype for the Pan Euro-pean Ecological Network: mesotrophicmoist semi-natural grassland. threate-ned in Europe and protected under theHabitat-directive.



database).

European Union:http://europa.eu.int(with on line EU legal texts)

Further reading:

The Architecture of the Pan-EuropeanEcological Network: Suggestions for con-cept and criteria. By A. van Opstal, se-cond edition, 2000.(With summaries in French and Russian;in summer 2001 available in Japanesetranslation)

Some comments received:

“Extremely relevant. The report provesthat Western and East-European expertshave common views on Econet develop-ment.” (V. Moshkalo, director IUCN-CISoffice, Moscow)“This is really an exhaustive overview ofwhat already has been and still can bedone at several levels within the frame-work of PEEN. The co-operation beingthe basis of this huge work, the result isa great hope for a further implementati-on, aiming at consolidated achieve-ments.” (M. Dejeant-Pons, head of theEnvironment and Sustainable Develop-ment Division, DG IV, Council of Europe,Strasbourg)

“Excellent basis for a good and construc-tive work”. (Prof.Dr. L. Miklos, UNESCOChair of Environmental Awareness, Bra-tislava)

Mapping the Pan European EcologicalNetwork.

The ideas developed in this publicationand in the report mentioned above aretaken further in the coming years. Inclose cooperation with the Committeeof Experts for the Pan European Ecologi-cal Network (Council of Europe) therewill be a project carried out in 2000 and2001 that will identify, using the ideas

and criteria suggested in the reportmentioned above, core areas, corridors,bufferzones and nature-developmentzones in Eastern Europe (non ECE coun-tries). In this project, with the ECNC inthe lead, a large number of institutesfrom different nations cooperate. Theproject is funded by different nations.

Important Butterfly Areas.

In 2000 and 2001 the Dutch ButterflyConservation will produce, in close co-operation with the British Butterfly Con-servation and with a large number of in-stitutes from different nations a reportcontaining an overview of the PrimeButterfly Areas in Europe. The results ofthis report will be used for the realisati-on of the Pan European Ecological Net-work.

Target-species for the Pan EuropeanEcological Network.

In 2001 and 2002 a group of internatio-nal Institutes will produce a CD-Romcontaining all the target-species of thePan European Ecological Network. TheCD-Rom will provide information ona.o.: legal status of species, conservati-on status of species, habitat-prefe-rences and remarks on nature-manage-ment.

Also by the author on the Pan EuropeanEcological Network:

Corridors of the Pan European EcologicalNetwork.By: Foppen, R.P.B., I.M. Bouwma,J.T.R.Kalkhoven, J.Dirksen and A.J.F.M.van Opstal 2000 Joint publication on behalf of the Com-mittee of Experts of the Pan EuropeanEcological Network by Alterra, ECNCand EC-LNV. Wageningen/Tilburg.(Also available in French).

Endemic and characteristic plants in Eu-rope, part 1: Northern plants.

By: Opstal, A.J.F.M. van, T.Brandwijk,L. van Duuren and J.H.J. Schaminée2000. Joint publication by EC-LNV, CBS and Al-terra.

Forthcoming publications:

Protection of species: a comparison ofthe Habitat-directive, the UN Red List ofthreatened species and the IUCN Reddata books.By: Siepel, H., A.J.F.M. van Opstal andE. Weeda 2001. Joint publication by Alterra and EC-LNV.

Information:

Drs. A. van OpstalNational Reference Centre for NatureConservationP.O. Box 306700 AA Wageningen, Netherlandse-mail:[email protected]

This paper is initiated by ECNC on behalfof the Committee of Experts of the PanEuropean Ecological Network. In theWorkprogramme developed by the Com-mittee of Experts of the Pan EuropeanEcological Network at its first meetingon 3-4 July 1997 the development of aset of criteria for core-areas, corridors,bufferzones and development areas wasgiven high priority.

The author wishes to express his gratitu-de to the Committee of Experts of thePan European Ecological Network of thePan European Biological and LandscapeDiversity Strategy, to his colleaguesfrom the National Reference Centre forNature Conservation, the ECNC and Al-terra for their generous and very helpfulcomments. This publication representsthe opinion of the author.



Herausgeber und Redaktion:Dr. B. DemuthDipl.-Ing. Rainer Fünkner

Kontakt:E-Mail: [email protected]

Tel.: 030 / 39831 - 896Fax: 030 / 39731 - 898

Redaktionsanschrift:Landschaftsplanung.NET- Redaktion -B. DemuthRingbahnstraße 710711 Berlin

Grafik, Layout und technischeUmsetzung:cultconcept Berlin

A. J.F.M. van Opstal The Pan European Ecological Network · 2006. 9. 4. · A. J.F.M. van Opstal...

Documents

Transcript of A. J.F.M. van Opstal The Pan European Ecological Network · 2006. 9. 4. · A. J.F.M. van Opstal...