Report - central2013.eu · Report Gaps in ecological networks ... Authors: Dr. Marco Neubert, Sylvi...

Report

Gaps in ecological networks

Project title: Transnational Ecological Networks in Central Europe – TransEcoNet

Work package: Eco-topologies – inventory of ecological networks (WP3)

Action: Gaps in ecological networks (3.3)

Output: Detection of gaps (3.3.1), Selection of hot spots (3.3.2), Evaluation of hot

spots (3.3.3) and Strategies of management (3.3.4)

Responsible: Leibniz Institute of Ecological and Regional Development

Dr. Marco Neubert

Weberplatz 1, D-01217 Dresden, Germany

Telephone: ++49 (0)351/46 79-274

Telefax: ++49 (0)351/46 79-212

E-Mail: [email protected]

Internet: http://www.ioer.de

Authors: Dr. Marco Neubert, Sylvi Bianchin, Dr. Ralf-Uwe Syrbe, Claudia

Stöcker (maps)

Date of issue: 08 November 2010

This project is implemented through the CENTRAL EUROPE Programme co-financed by the ERDF

http://www.ioer.de/

Report: Gaps in ecological networks

2

Contents

List of figures ..................................................................................................................................... 3

List of tables ...................................................................................................................................... 6

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 7

2 Designation of potential ecological corridors ............................................................................. 7

2.1 Potential ecological corridors for wetland habitats and mountainous habitats ....................... 7

2.1.1 Methodology for wetland habitats .................................................................................... 7

2.1.2 Methodology for mountainous habitats ............................................................................ 8

2.2.3 Resulting map of the designation of potential ecological corridors for wetland habitats and mountainous habitats .................................................................................. 9

2.2 Potential ecological corridors for woodland habitats ........................................................... 10

2.2.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 10

2.2.2 Resulting map of the designation of potential ecological corridors for woodland habitats .......................................................................................................................... 11

2.3 Potential ecological corridors for open landscape areas of natural or semi-natural vegetation .......................................................................................................................... 12

2.3.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 12

2.3.2 Resulting map of the designation of potential ecological corridors for open landscape habitats ......................................................................................................... 14

2.4. Designation of potential corridors of protected areas .......................................................... 15

2.4.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 15

2.4.2 Resulting map of the designation of potential corridors for protected areas ................... 16

3 Gap analysis ........................................................................................................................... 17

3.1 Methodology for the gap analysis – identification and prioritisation of gaps ........................ 17

3.2 Results of the gap analysis ................................................................................................ 27

3.3 Tasks for the project partners within the respective project regions .................................... 36

3.4 Results of the detailed gap analysis in the Project Regions ................................................ 37

3.4.1 Transboundary issues ................................................................................................... 37

3.4.2 Landcover type analysis ................................................................................................ 40

3.4.3 Correlation between gap size and the level of priority .................................................... 43

3.4.4 Connectivity analysis ..................................................................................................... 43

3.4.5 Analysis and description of hotspots .............................................................................. 47

3.4.6 Visualisation of Hotspots ............................................................................................... 50

3.4.7 European, national and regional planning of biotope corridors (interlinked systems of biotopes) and the correlation with the gaps identified by TransEcoNet ...................... 53

3.5 Combination of the results of the transnational ecological network initiative analysis (output action 3.2) and the gap analysis (output action 3.3) ............................................... 57

3.6 Possible management strategies, existing implementations (best practise examples) and subsidies ..................................................................................................................... 59

3.6.1 Management strategies ................................................................................................. 59

3.6.2 Existing implementations ............................................................................................... 61

3.6.3 Subsidies ....................................................................................................................... 66

References ...................................................................................................................................... 70

Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................................... 71


3

List of figures

Figure 1: Map of potential ecological corridors for wetland and mountainous habitats ................... 9

Figure 2: Schema of the buffering procedure for the designation of woodland corridors .............. 10

Figure 3: Map of potential ecological corridors for woodland habitats .......................................... 11

Figure 4: Schema of the buffering procedure for the designation of open landscape areas of

natural or semi-natural vegetation type corridors .......................................................... 13

Figure 5: Map of potential ecological corridors for open landscape areas of natural or

semi-natural vegetation ................................................................................................ 14

Figure 6: Map of existing ecological networks and potential corridors of protected areas ............ 16

Figure 7: Key steps in a protected area gap analysis (Dudley and Parish 2006) .......................... 18

Figure 8: Methodology of the gap analysis .................................................................................. 19

Figure 9: Combination of existing and potential habitat corridors and existing and potential

corridors of protected areas .......................................................................................... 20

Figure 10: Distribution of the combination of existing and potential habitat corridors and

existing and potential corridors of protected areas within the WP3 search areas

and the Project Regions (based on the percentage of area; for the definition of

classes see table 4) ...................................................................................................... 21

Figure 11: Distribution of the location inside or outside the existing network of protected

areas and potential corridors of protected areas within the WP3 search areas

and within the project regions (based on the percentage of area) ................................. 22

Figure 12: Occurrence of threatened species (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals)

species numbers (left) and categories (right) ................................................................ 26

Figure 13: Overview Map – Gap analysis and levels of priority ...................................................... 28

Figure 14: Gap analysis and priorities within the Northern Project Region ..................................... 29

Figure 15: Gap analysis and priorities within the Central Project Region North and Central

Project Region South .................................................................................................... 30

Figure 16: Gap analysis and priorities within the Southern Project Region .................................... 31

Figure 17: Statistics of the gap analysis – distribution of gaps (percentage of area) in the

WP3 search area and the project regions ..................................................................... 32

Figure 18: Statistics of the gap analysis – distribution of priority levels (percentage of area)

in the WP3 search area and the project regions (the highest priority level is only

situated in the WP3 search area (0.03 %) and the Central Project Region North

(0.02 %) ........................................................................................................................ 33

Figure 19: Statistics of the gap analysis – distribution of gap types by landcover

(percentage of area) in the WP3 search area and the project regions .......................... 33

Figure 20: Distribution of different sizes of gaps according to the area in the WP3 search

area and the project regions ......................................................................................... 34

Figure 21: Number of gaps (right) and percentage of area (left) according to priority levels

and sizes in the WP3 search area (highest priority 0.07 % of area and 0.08 %

of number of gaps) ....................................................................................................... 35

Figure 22: Distances from the gap to the nearest protected area for the Project Regions .............. 36


4

Figure 23: Results of the analysis of the borderline for all Project Regions .................................... 37

Figure 24: Results of the identification of transboundary and unilateral gaps concerning

the gap itself (polygon) for all Project Regions .............................................................. 38

Figure 25: Map of the transboundary analysis in all project regions ............................................... 39

Figure 26: Woodland gaps and levels of priority for all project regions........................................... 40

Figure 27: Open landscape gaps and levels of priority for all project regions ................................. 40

Figure 28: Water gaps and levels of priority for all project regions ................................................. 41

Figure 29: Map of the landcover type of the gaps in all project regions .......................................... 42

Figure 30: Correlation between gap size and the level of priority for all Project Regions ............... 43

Figure 31: Gaps adjacent to existing protected areas (enlargements) ........................................... 44

Figure 32: Gaps in the vicinity of 5000 m to existing protected areas (stepping stones) ................ 44

Figure 33: Gaps which are more than 5000 m away from existing protected areas

(satellites) ..................................................................................................................... 45

Figure 34: Map of the connectivity of gaps to the nearest protected area in all project

regions ......................................................................................................................... 46

Figure 35: Distribution of hot spot areas in all project regions by area ........................................... 47

Figure 36: Hot spots according to their size for all project regions in % ......................................... 48

Figure 37: Map of the hotspots in all project regions ...................................................................... 49

Figure 38: Visualisation of Hotspot gap in the Project Region North (map) .................................... 50

Figure 39: Visualisation of Hotspot gap in the Project Region North (google maps) ....................... 51

Figure 40: Visualisation of a transboundary gap in the Project Region North

(topographic map) ........................................................................................................ 52

Figure 41: Visualisation of a transboundary gap in the Project Region North (google

maps) ........................................................................................................................... 52

Figure 42: Map of the overlay of gaps identified by TransEcoNet with European, national

and regional network plans (interlinked system of biotopes), Northern Project

Region .......................................................................................................................... 54


and regional network plans (interlinked system of biotopes), Central Project

Region North ................................................................................................................ 54


and regional network plans (interlinked system of biotopes), Central Project

Region South ................................................................................................................ 55


and regional network plans (interlinked system of biotopes), Southern Project

Region .......................................................................................................................... 56

Figure 46: Statistic results of the overlay of gaps identified by TransEcoNet with European,

national and regional network plans (interlinked system of biotopes) for all Project

Regions ........................................................................................................................ 57

Figure 47: Overlay of the transnational ecological network initiatives and the identified gaps

(names of initiatives) ..................................................................................................... 58


5

Figure 48: Overlay of the transnational ecological network initiatives and the identified

gaps (target species) .................................................................................................... 59

Figure 49: Map of existing plans for the enlargement of protected areas or new designation

of protected areas and alteration of protection status.................................................... 62

Figure 50: Map of protected areas present state, Central Project Region South ............................ 63

Figure 51: Map of protected areas and plans, Central Project Region South ................................. 63

Figure 52: Map of protected areas present state, Northern Project Region .................................... 64

Figure 53: Map of protected areas and plans, Northern Project Region ......................................... 64

Figure 54: Map of protected areas present state, Southern Project Region ................................... 65

Figure 55: Map of protected areas and plans, Southern Project Region ........................................ 65


6

List of tables

Table 1: Wetland types and CORINE land cover codes................................................................ 7

Table 2: Woodland types and CORINE land cover codes ........................................................... 10

Table 3: Open landscape areas of natural or semi-natural vegetation types and CORINE land cover codes .......................................................................................................... 12

Table 4: Attribute assignment for the combination of the potential habitat corridors and the potential corridor of protected areas ............................................................................. 19

Table 5: CORINE land cover codes, with a predominantly oligohemerobe and two mesohemerobe (231 and 243) hemeroby indexes and their descriptions, which were chosen as gaps .................................................................................................... 23

Table 6: Class, name and IUCN red list category of threatened amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals in Europe used in the prioritisation process (according to data availability) .................................................................................................................... 24

Table 7: Prioritisation process of the gap analysis ...................................................................... 27

Table 8: Distribution of different sizes of gap in the WP3 search area and the project regions according to the number of gaps ...................................................................... 34

Table 9: Distribution of numbers of gaps according to priority levels and sizes in the WP3 search area .......................................................................................................... 35

Table 10: Grant programs to support nature conservation and landscape protection in the Czech Republic....................................................................................................... 66


7

1 Introduction

After analysing the connectivity of the ecological network (output 3.1) and defining potential

ecological corridors (wetlands, woodlands and open landscape areas (section 2) different gaps

could be detected. These gaps can be either within a potential corridor of protected areas or outside

the network of protected areas.

2 Designation of potential ecological corridors

For the designation of potential ecological corridors the current land use of the area was not

considered, this was done in later step during the gap analysis where hemeroby indexes were

applied to distinguish the gaps.

2.1 Potential ecological corridors for wetland habitats and mountainous habitats

2.1.1 Methodology for wetland habitats

Data base: River and water network CORINE land cover data Existing transnational and national network plans Ramsar sites

Selection of relevant river and water corridors

Selection of all wetland types from the CORINE land cover data set (table 1)

Table 1: Wetland types and CORINE land cover codes

CORINE land cover code Wetland type

411 Inland marshes

412 Peat bogs

511 Water courses

512 Water bodies

522 Estuaries

Selection of relevant river corridors according to:

- Existing European planning (see annex 1 of report “Inventory of ecological networks”):

Austria, Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine (PEEN (Pan-European Ecological Networks ) for Central and Eastern Europe)

Italy, Croatia, Slovenia (Connectivity Alps-lowland, „Platform Ecological Network“ of the Alpine Conference – First Meeting 03/2007)

Germany, Austria (Indicative draft map of PEEN for Western Europe)

- Existing national planning (see annex 1 of report “Inventory of ecological networks”):

Germany (German Habitat Corridor Network, BfN, date: 2004)

Poland (Polska National Ecological Network)


8

Hungary (Selection of already existing digital data of ecological important areas along rivers)

Slovenia (Selection of already existing digital data of ecological important areas along rivers)

- Course of the river to Ramsar sites or in the vicinity of Ramsar sites

Buffering of the selected rivers, lakes and CORINE land cover classes by 2000 m

For all buffers (wetlands, woodlands, open landscape areas and protected areas) we used a buffer

distance of 2000 m. This distance has been selected according to PAN (2006) and Bastian and

Schreiber (1999) because a large number of species is able to bridge gaps between habitats,

smaller than 4000 m (2 x 2000 m).

2.1.2 Methodology for mountainous habitats

Data base: Digital surface model

Existing transnational and national network plans

Analysis of ridges (using the software Landserf, a free GIS tool which is available at

http://www.soi.city.ac.uk/~jwo/landserf/)

Selection of relevant ridges (>400 m above sea level)

Identification of the main ridges and other/lower ridges

Buffering the lines by 2000 m (main ridges) resp. 1000 m (other ridges)


9

2.2.3 Resulting map of the designation of potential ecological corridors for wetland habitats and

mountainous habitats

Figure 1: Map of potential ecological corridors for wetland and mountainous habitats


10

2.2 Potential ecological corridors for woodland habitats

2.2.1 Methodology

Selection of all woodland types from the CORINE land cover data set (table 2)

Table 2: Woodland types and CORINE land cover codes

CORINE land cover code Woodland type

324 transitional woodland-shrub

311 broad-leaved forest

312 coniferous forest

313 mixed forest

Buffering all woodland types with an outer or positive buffer (buffer distance: 2000 m),

Buffering the results of the first buffer process with an inner or negative polygon buffer (buffer

distance: -2000 m) - according to Haenel (2007),

Woodlands which are less than 4000 m apart from each other are connected via a potential

corridor created by the buffering procedure (figure 2).

Figure 2: Schema of the buffering procedure for the designation of woodland corridors


11

2.2.2 Resulting map of the designation of potential ecological corridors for woodland habitats

Figure 3: Map of potential ecological corridors for woodland habitats


12

2.3 Potential ecological corridors for open landscape areas of natural or semi-natural

vegetation

2.3.1 Methodology

Selection of all open landscape areas of natural vegetation types from the CORINE land cover

data set (table 3)

We included two mesohemerobe land use classes (231 and 243) because it may contain valuable

areas with specific species assemblage for example mountain meadows and open landscape of

complex structured fields and hedgerows.

Table 3: Open landscape areas of natural or semi-natural vegetation types and CORINE land cover codes

CORINE land cover code Open landscape areas of natural or semi-natural vegetation types

231 Pastures

243 Land principally occupied by agriculture, with significant areas of natural vegetation

321 Natural grassland

322 Moors and heathlands

331 Beaches, dunes, sands

332 Bare rocks

333 Sparsely vegetated areas

334 Burnt areas

412 Peat bogs

421 Salt marshes

Buffering all open landscape areas of natural or semi-natural vegetation types with an outer or

positive buffer (buffer distance: 2000 m),



Open landscape areas which are less than 4000 m apart from each other are connected via a

potential corridor created by the buffering procedure (figure 4).

http://www.dict.cc/englisch-deutsch/landscape+of+fields+and+hedgerows.html



13

Figure 4: Schema of the buffering procedure for the designation of open landscape areas of natural or semi-natural vegetation type corridors


14

2.3.2 Resulting map of the designation of potential ecological corridors for open landscape habitats

Figure 5: Map of potential ecological corridors for open landscape areas of natural or semi-natural vegetation


15

2.4. Designation of potential corridors of protected areas

2.4.1 Methodology

For the designation of potential corridors for protected areas the same methodology as for the

potential ecological corridors for woodlands and open landscape areas of natural or semi-natural

vegetation was applied (see sections 2.3 and 2.4).

Selection of all protected areas,

Buffering all protected areas with an outer or positive buffer (buffer distance: 2000 m),



Protected areas which are less than 4000 m apart from each other are connected via a potential

corridor created by the buffering procedure.


16

2.4.2 Resulting map of the designation of potential corridors for protected areas

Figure 6: Map of existing ecological networks and potential corridors of protected areas


17

3 Gap analysis

3.1 Methodology for the gap analysis – identification and prioritisation of gaps

Often protected areas are too small to allow for the persistence of viable population of species.

Connecting networks of protected areas may increase species‟ persistence, therefore the need to

recover endangered species and rare habitat types has driven the demand for habitat connectivity.

One of the solutions is to maintain and restore habitats that will provide connections between

protected areas (Hilty et al. 2006). For that reason our gap analysis focuses on connecting

protected areas via potential habitat corridors and potential corridors of protected areas. Corridors

are understood as any space identifiable by species using it that facilitates the movement of animals

or plants over time between two or more patches of otherwise disjunct habitats (Lidicker 1999).

A gap analysis is a method to identify biodiversity (i.e. species, ecosystems and ecological

processes) not adequately conserved within a protected area network (understood in WP3 as

ecological network). Within the TransEcoNet project we define gaps as areas with high natural

value (oligotroph and selected mesohemerobe land use types) according to Dudley and Parish

(2006). The aim is to include valuable areas into the ecological network through the enlargement of

protected areas and the protection of stepping stones and therefore to improve the connectivity.

Because most of the relevant areas concerns less productive areas it should be easier to extensify

these areas and incorporate them into the ecological network as a crucial part for increasing the

connectivity.

The gap analysis is usually applied to fairly large areas, because this allows decisions about

conservation to be made with the best available information and on the basis of ecological rather

than political boundaries (Dudley & Parish 2006). Dudley and Parish (2006) define six key steps in a

protected area gap analysis (figure 7).


18

Figure 7: Key steps in a protected area gap analysis (Dudley and Parish 2006)

In our gap analysis we followed these key steps (figure 8), but we used easily accessible data on

ecosystems (CORINE land cover data set classified through a hemeroby index which we used as a

proxy for not available data on ecosystems respectively biodiversity for the WP3 search area) as

well as worldwide accessible species data (IUCN database). We combined a corridor/habitat

approach (identification of existing and potential habitat corridors) with a species number approach

(occurrence of threatened species – mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians) for the prioritisation

process.

Identify focal biodiversity and set key targets (1)

Evaluate and map the occurrence and

status of biodiversity (2)

Analyse and map the occurrence and

status of protected areas (3)

Use the information to identify gaps (4)

Prioritise gaps to be filled (5)

Agree on a strategy

and take action (6)


19

Figure 8: Methodology of the gap analysis

In a first step we identified three different potential habitat corridors (wetlands, woodlands and open

landscape areas of natural and semi-natural vegetation) and potential corridors for protected areas.

The corridors were identified on an unspecified species approach using CORINE land cover data

considering different land use types (ecosystems). The potential corridor of mountainous habitats

was excluded from the further analysis because it does not represent a specific type of ecosystem

and it is almost congruent with the other corridors. For further information about the designation of

potential habitat corridors see chapter 2 (methodology for the designation of potential habitat

corridors). Thereafter the three possible ecological corridors and the potential corridor of protected

areas have been combined and labelled with attributes according to table 4.

Table 4: Attribute assignment for the combination of the potential habitat corridors and the potential corridor of protected areas

Existing network and potential corridors of

protected areas

Potential habitat corridors

Single corridor Overlay of two corridors

Overlay of three corridors

Outside protected areas and outside the corridor of ecological networks of protected areas

1 2 3

Within the corridor of the ecological network of protected areas

11 22 33

Within the ecological network of protected areas

111 222 333


20

Figure 9: Combination of existing and potential habitat corridors and existing and potential corridors of protected areas


21

The map in Figure 9 shows the combination of existing and potential habitat corridors and existing and potential corridors of protected areas in the TransEcoNet search area. Figures 10 and 11 illustrate the area statistics of the distribution within the WP3 search area as well as within the respective project regions according to the different combinations of corridors and the location inside or outside of the existing network of protected areas and potential corridors of protected areas.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

WP3 search area PR North PR Central North PR Central South PR South

1

2

3

11

22

33

111

222

333

Figure 10: Distribution of the combination of existing and potential habitat corridors and existing and potential corridors of protected areas within the WP3 search areas and the Project Regions (based on the percentage of area; for the definition of classes see table 4)


22

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

WP3 search area

PR North PR Central North

PR Central South

PR South

Habitat corridors outside protected areas and outside the potential corridor of protected areas

Habitat corridors within the potential corridor of protected areas

Habitat corridors within the existing network of protected areas

Figure 11: Distribution of the location inside or outside the existing network of protected areas and potential corridors of protected areas within the WP3 search areas and within the project regions (based on the percentage of area)

Areas which are already within the ecological network of protected areas (attributes 111, 222, 333)

were excluded from the further analysis because we assume that these areas are already well

protected, managed and monitored closely to conserve biodiversity. Of course this might not be true

for all protected areas in the investigated area. But in this analysis we are looking for ecological

gaps (missing corridors between protected areas) rather than for management gaps. Figure 11

shows that depending on the region between 38 % (WP3 search area) and 67 % (Project Region

North) of the area of potential habitat corridors are already under protection.

For the determination of gaps all land use classes from the CORINE land cover data set with an

oligohemerobe hemeroby index (close to natural) and two selected land use classes with an

mesohemerobe hemeroby index (semi-natural) according to Steinhardt et al. (1999) where chosen

(table 5).


23

Table 5: CORINE land cover codes, with a predominantly oligohemerobe and two mesohemerobe (231 and 243) hemeroby indexes and their descriptions, which were chosen as gaps

CORINE land cover code

Description

231 Pastures

243 Land principally occupied by agriculture, with significant areas

of natural vegetation

321 Natural grasslands

322 Moors and heathland

331 Beaches, dunes, sands

332 Bare rocks

333 Sparsely vegetated areas

334 Burnt areas

335 Glaciers and perpetual snow

411 Inland marshes

412 Peat bogs

421 Salt marshes

422 Salines

423 Intertidal flats

511 Water courses

512 Water bodies

521 Coastal lagoons

522 Estuaries

324 Sclerophyllous vegetation

311 Transitional woodland-shrub

312 Broad-leaved forest

313 Coniferous forest

324 Mixed forest

We included two mesohemerobe land use classes (231 and 243) because it concerns valuable

areas with specific species assemblage for example mountain meadows and open landscape of

complex structured fields and hedgerows.

After this selection procedure the determined possible gaps were combined with the available data of the occurrence of threatened species (IUCN 2009). Shape files and metadata can be downloaded under:

for amphibians: http://www.iucnredlist.org/initiatives/amphibians/description/download-gis-data;

for reptiles: http://www.iucnredlist.org/spatial-data/REPTILES.zip;

for birds: contact BirdLife International http://www.birdlife.org/index.html;

for mammals: http://www.iucnredlist.org/initiatives/mammals/description/download-gis-data.



http://www.iucnredlist.org/initiatives/amphibians/description/download-gis-data

http://www.iucnredlist.org/spatial-data/REPTILES.zip

http://www.birdlife.org/index.html

http://www.iucnredlist.org/initiatives/mammals/description/download-gis-data


24

Thereafter according to the European Red List of amphibians (Temple and Cox 2009), reptiles (Cox

and Temple 2009), birds (BirdLife International 2010) and mammals (Temple and Terry 2007) the

designated gaps were prioritised. Only species with the threatened categories „critically‟,

„endangered‟ or „vulnerable‟ were considered (table 5). Figure 12 shows the distribution of these

threatened species (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) in the WP3 search area and the

determination of three categories of species occurrences.

Table 6: Class, name and IUCN Red List category of threatened amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals in Europe used in the prioritisation process (according to data availability)

Class and Name IUCN Red List categories

Amphibians

Olm (Proteus anguinus) vulnerable

Italian agile frog (Rana latastei) vulnerable

Reptiles

Orsini‟s viper (Vipera ursinii) vulnerable

Birds

Balearic shearwater (Puffinus mauretanicus) critically

Saker falcon (Falco cherrug) endangered

Aquatic warbler (Acrocephalus paludicola) vulnerable

Eastern imperial eagle (Aquila heliaca) vulnerable

Great bustard (Otis tarda) vulnerable

Greater spotted eagle (Aquila clanga) vulnerable

Lesser kestrel (Falco naumanni) vulnerable

Mammals

Steppe polecat (Mustela eversmanii) endangered

Bechstein‟s myotis (Myotis bechsteinii) vulnerable

European bison (Bison bonasus) vulnerable

European souslik (Spermophilus citellus) vulnerable

Long-fingered bat (Myotis capaccinii) vulnerable

Mediterranean horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus euryale) vulnerable

Mountain long-eared bat (Plecotus macrobullaris) vulnerable

Sverzov‟s birch mouse (Sicista subtilis) vulnerable

Western barbastelle (Barbastella barbastellus) vulnerable

Amphibians


25

Olm (Proteus anguinus) vulnerable

Italian Agile Frog (Rana latastei) vulnerable

Reptiles

Orsini‟s Viper (Vipera ursinii) vulnerable

Birds

Balearic Shearwater (Puffinus mauretanicus) critically

Saker Falcon (Falco cherrug) endangered

Aquatic Warbler (Acrocephalus paludicola) vulnerable

Eastern Imperial Eagle (Aquila heliaca) vulnerable

Great Bustard (Otis tarda) vulnerable

Greater Spotted Eagle (Aquila clanga) vulnerable

Lesser Kestrel (Falco naumanni) vulnerable

Mammals

Steppe polecat (Mustela eversmanii) endangered

Bechstein‟s myotis (Myotis bechsteinii) vulnerable

European Bison (Bison bonasus) vulnerable

European souslik (Spermophilus citellus) vulnerable

Long-fingered bat (Myotis capaccinii) vulnerable

Mediterranean horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus euryale) vulnerable

Mountain long-eared bat (Plecotus macrobullaris) vulnerable

Sverzov‟s birch mouse (Sicista subtilis) vulnerable

Western barbastelle (Barbastella barbastellus) vulnerable


26

Figure 12: Occurrence of threatened species (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) species numbers (left) and categories (right)

Table 6 shows the prioritisation process which is an important part of the gap analysis. In total five

different prioritisation classes were defined (very low priority, low priority, medium priority, high

priority and very high priority) according to the type of gap and the number of occurrences of

threatened species. The assessment is based on a simple additive method, which means the gap

with the highest rank (gap within the overlay of three corridors within the corridor of the ecological

network of protected areas) and the highest number of threatened species have the highest priority

(very high priority). Although the location of either inside or outside the potential corridor of

protected areas was of a higher importance than the number of overlaying corridors.


27

Table 7: Prioritisation process of the gap analysis

Type of gaps listed by rank Category of threatened species

occurrence

High

(7-8 species)

medium

(4-6 species)

low

(1-3 species)

Gap within the overlay of three corridors within the corridor of the ecological network of protected areas

Very high priority

High priority High priority

Gap within the overlay of two corridors within the corridor of the ecological network of protected areas

High priority High priority Medium priority

Gap within single corridor within the corridor of the ecological network of protected areas

High priority Medium priority

Medium priority

Gap within the overlay of three corridors outside protected areas and outside the corridor of ecological network of protected areas

Medium priority

Medium priority

Low priority

Gap within the overlay of two corridors outside protected areas and outside the corridor of ecological network of protected areas

Medium priority

Low priority Low priority

Gap within single corridor outside protected areas and outside the corridor of ecological network of protected areas

Low priority Low priority Very low priority

3.2 Results of the gap analysis

A limitation to the size of the gap was set by 10,000 m2. Single gaps below this threshold were

deleted to exclude sliver polygons from the further analysis.

Figure 13 shows the results of the gap analysis for the WP 3 search area and figures 14 to 16 show

the situation in each project region.


28

Figure 13: Overview Map – Gap analysis and levels of priority


29

Figure 14: Gap analysis and priorities within the Northern Project Region


30

Figure 15: Gap analysis and priorities within the Central Project Region North and Central Project Region South


31

Figure 16: Gap analysis and priorities within the Southern Project Region


32

Figures 17, 18 and 19 show the distribution of gaps, their priorities and the associated type within the WP3 search area and the project regions.

As shown in figure 17, only between 12 % and 30 % of the WP3 search area and the four project

regions is considered as gaps (according to the definition of gaps in TransEcoNet page 17) therefore it is a great possibility to reach a considerable improvement of the connectivity of protected areas with little effort (enlargement of existing protected areas and protection of stepping stones).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

WP3 search area


PR Central South

PR South

Gaps detected in TransEcoNet

Protected areas

Areas with less nature value

Figure 17: Statistics of the gap analysis – distribution of gaps (percentage of area) in the WP3 search area and the project regions


33

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

WP3 search

area

PR North PR Central

North

PR Central

South

PR South

Highest priority

High priority

Medium priority

Low priority

Very low priority

Figure 18: Statistics of the gap analysis – distribution of priority levels (percentage of area) in the WP3 search area and the project regions (the highest priority level is only situated in the WP3 search area (0.03 %) and the Central Project Region North (0.02 %)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

WP3 search area


PR Central South

PR South

woodland

water

open landscape areas

Figure 19: Statistics of the gap analysis – distribution of gap types by landcover (percentage of area) in the WP3 search area and the project regions


34

As tables 8 and 9 show most of the gaps (around 95 % to 98 %) are less than 5 km² and in the WP3

search area the smaller gaps have a higher level of priority (figures 20 and 21). Normally, small

gaps as well as gaps with a high priority should be prioritised. The former could maybe be closed

with less effort whereas the latter are of high importance due to their location and the number of

existing endangered or valuable species. But the feasibility of linking the parts of the ecological

network highly depends on current land use, existing plans or political decisions. This can only be

analysed in detail by local experts within the project regions.

Table 8: Distribution of different sizes of gap in the WP3 search area and the project regions according to the number of gaps

Size of gap WP3 search area


PR Central South

PR South

Less than 5 km² 78883 3914 3160 963 2621

5 - 10 km² 1421 67 43 8 33

10 - 20 km² 656 19 32 4 17

20 - 30 km² 184 6 10 0 5

Above 30 km² 191 5 4 3 4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

WP3 search area


PR Central South

PR South

less than 5 skm

5-10 skm

10 - 20 skm

20-30 skm

above 30 skm

Figure 20: Distribution of different sizes of gaps according to the area in the WP3 search area and the project regions


35

Table 9: Distribution of numbers of gaps according to priority levels and sizes in the WP3 search area

Level of Priority

Size

less than 5 km²

5 - 10 km²

10 - 20 km² 20 - 30 km² above 30 km²

Sum

Highest priority 65 65

High Priority 12766 67 24 5 0 12862

Medium priority 19468 156 67 12 3 19706

Low priority 39852 982 408 104 125 41471

Lowest priority 6732 216 157 63 63 7231

Sum 78883 1421 656 184 191 81335

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

less than 5 skm

5-10 skm 10 - 20 skm 20-30 skm above 30 skm

Highest priority

High priority

Medium priority

Low priority

Very low priority

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

less than 5 skm 5-10 skm 10 - 20 skm 20-30 skm above 30 skm

Highest priority

High priority

Medium priority

Low priority

Very low priority

Figure 21: Number of gaps (right) and percentage of area (left) according to priority levels and sizes in the WP3 search area (highest priority 0.07 % of area and 0.08 % of number of gaps)

The result of the gap analysis is the definition, prioritisation and visualisation of gaps within the

existing and potential ecological network. This analysis should lead directly to the development of

one or more scenarios for the expansion of the protected area network (Dudley and Parish 2006).

Therefore, results together with management and measurement strategies should be

communicated to target groups (policy makers and to the public).

The linkage of already existing networks through the designated potential corridors of protected

areas by means of the extension of already protected areas is our first priority. Furthermore, the

existing protected areas should be preserved continually and their connectivity should be improved

further by establishing near-natural or protected corridors between insular areas. Suitable specific

actions and measures should be taken by nature conservation authorities to reach these aims and

to conserve biodiversity.


36

We defined three categories of gaps according to their distance to an existing protected area –

enlargement of protected areas (adjacent to existing protected areas), stepping stones (less than

5000 m) and satellites (above 5000 m). As you can see in figure 22 the results differ according to

the specific project region. Between 32 % and 70 % of the gaps are located directly adjacent to an

already existing protected area. Between 62 %and 29 % of the gaps are less than 5000 m away

from an existing protected area and only 6 % to 0.7 % are more than 5000 m away.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

PR North PR Central North PR Central South PR South

Enlargement (adjacent to existing protected areas)

Stepping stone (less than 5000 m)

Satellite (above 5000 m)

Figure 22: Distances from the gap to the nearest protected area for the Project Regions

3.3 Tasks for the project partners within the respective project regions

For more detailed management strategies and measures the gap analysis will be further analysed

within each project region of TransEcoNet. The involved project partners should analyse the

designated gaps more closely according to their size (less than 5 km², 5 - 10 km², 10 - 20 km², 20 -

30 km² and above 30 km²), the relationship between size and prioritisation level, the location

(transboundary or unilateral gaps) and possible management strategies and tangible measures. To

include the transboundary aspect in the analysis of the four project regions the method applied to

the transboundary connectedness of protected areas should be used (see methodology of

transboundary connectedness). In addition to the designation of gaps this allows to classify if the

gaps are either unilateral or transboundary which can be used as an additional information for the

prioritisation of measures.


37

3.4 Results of the detailed gap analysis in the Project Regions

A detailed gap analysis was accomplished to analyse and characterise the gaps in the four project

regions.

3.4.1 Transboundary issues

Two different methods concerning transboundary issues were applied. The first method was a

segmentation of the borderline into three categories:

transboundary gap (on both sides of the borderline)

unilateral gap (on one side of the borderline)

no gap (no gap along the borderline)

The results differ depending on the project region (figs. 23, 25). Most transboundary gaps were

detected in the Project Region South with nearly 15 % compared to less than 5 % in the Central

Project Region South.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


PR Central South

PR South

transboundary gap

gap unilateral

no gap

Figure 23: Results of the analysis of the borderline for all Project Regions

The second method applied was the identification of transboundary and unilateral gaps concerning

the gaps (polygons) itself. The same categories as in method one were used.

transboundary gap (polygons which are located across the borderline at any point)

unilateral gap (polygons which are adjacent the borderline at any point)

no transboundary gap (polygons which do not cross the borderline)


38

If a gap adjoins a border and also crosses the borderline, the gap is characterised as transboundary

gap only. Only between 1 % and 6 % were identified as transboundary gaps and between 6 % and

15 % as unilateral gaps (figs. 24, 25).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Northern PR PR Central North

PR Central South

Southern PR

transboundary gap

unilateral gap

no transboundary gap

Figure 24: Results of the identification of transboundary and unilateral gaps concerning the gap itself (polygon) for all Project Regions

The most transboundary gaps are located in the Project Region North, especially between Poland

and the Czech Republic followed by the Project Region South (figure 25).


39

Figure 25: Map of the transboundary analysis in all project regions


40

3.4.2 Landcover type analysis

The type of landcover and the level of priorities was analysed in all project regions. Most of the gaps

are either woodland (59 % to 71 %) or open landscape areas (24 % to 40 %) (fig. 19). Only a very

small percentage (0,3 % to 5 %) are water gaps.

The distribution of levels of priority shows that except for the highest priority all levels are

represented in all project regions and landcover types (figs. 26-28). The highest priority only occurs

in the Central Project Region North for woodland and open landscape areas. Figure 29 shows a

map of the landcover type of the gaps in all project regions.

0

200

400

600

800

1.000

1.200

1.400

1.600

1.800


skm

Woodland

Highest priority

High priority

Medium priority

Low priority

Very low priority

Figure 26: Woodland gaps and levels of priority for all project regions

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1.000


skm

Open landscape

Highest priority

High priority

Medium priority

Low priority

Very low priority

Figure 27: Open landscape gaps and levels of priority for all project regions


41

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


skm

Water

High priority

Medium priority

Low priority

Very low priority

Figure 28: Water gaps and levels of priority for all project regions


42

Figure 29: Map of the landcover type of the gaps in all project regions


43

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

< 5 skm

5-10 skm

10-20 skm

20 - 30 skm

> 30 skm

Northern PR

High priority

Medium priority

Low priority

Very low priority

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

< 5 skm

5-10 skm

10-20 skm

20 - 30 skm

> 30 skm

PR Central North

Highest priority

High priority

Medium priority

Low priority

Very low priority

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

< 5 skm

5-10 skm

10-20 skm

20 - 30 skm

> 30 skm

PR Central South

High priority

Medium priority

Low priority

Very low priority

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

< 5 skm 5-10 skm

10-20 skm

20 - 30 skm

> 30 skm

Southern PR

High priority

Medium priority

Low priority

Very low priority

3.4.3 Correlation between gap size and the level of priority

The correlation between the size of the gaps and their level of priority reveals that in all project

regions the situation is that the smaller the gaps the higher the level of priority (fig. 30).

Figure 30: Correlation between gap size and the level of priority for all Project Regions

3.4.4 Connectivity analysis

The aim of the connectivity analysis was the investigation of the connectedness of each gap to the

nearest already existing protected area. This was done with the help of the nearest neighbour index.

Most of the gaps are either enlargements to already existing protected areas (36 % to 71 %) or

stepping stones in the vicinity of 5000 m of existing protected areas (29 % to 62 %) (figs. 24, 31 and

32). Only a few gaps are satellites which means that they are more than 5000 m away from any

existing protected area (0.5 % to 4 %) (fig. 33).

The gaps adjacent to already existing protected areas are characterised by a higher level of priority

than stepping stones whereas stepping stones show a higher level of priority than satellites (fig. 31-

34).


44

Figure 31: Gaps adjacent to existing protected areas (enlargements)

Figure 32: Gaps in the vicinity of 5000 m to existing protected areas (stepping stones)


45

Figure 33: Gaps which are more than 5000 m away from existing protected areas (satellites)


46

Figure 34: Map of the connectivity of gaps to the nearest protected area in all project regions


47

3.4.5 Analysis and description of hotspots

The gaps with priority level 1 and 2 (highest and high priority) were defined as hot spots. Only in the

Central Project Region North gaps with the highest priority level (1) occur. In all other project

regions there are only gaps with priority level high (2) which are defined as hot spots. The Project

Region North has the lowest percentage of hot spot areas with only 4 % where as the Project

Region Central South reaches nearly 20 % (fig. 18). The largest area of hot spots is located in the

Project Region Central North with nearly 235 skm (fig. 35).

0

50

100

150

200

250


PR Central South

PR South

skm

Highest priority

High priority

Figure 35: Distribution of hot spot areas in all project regions by area

Nearly all hot spots are smaller than 5 skm (fig. 36). The highest number of hot spot gaps (807) are

located in the second largest Project Region Central North (12317 skm) and the lowest number

(360) occur in the smallest Project Region Central South (4204 skm). The hot spots for all project

regions are displayed in figure 37.


48

Figure 36: Hot spots according to their size for all project regions in %


49

Figure 37: Map of the hotspots in all project regions


50

3.4.6 Visualisation of Hotspots

Some important hotspot and transboundary gaps in the Project Region North are illustrated in figures 38 to 41.

Figure 38: Visualisation of Hotspot gap in the Project Region North (map)


51

Figure 39: Visualisation of Hotspot gap in the Project Region North (google maps)

The characteristics of this hotspot gap (figures 38 and 39) are: unilateral gap along the Czech-

German border, mixed woodland and open landscape areas, size of 5 skm and 10 skm,

enlargement to the already existing protected area protected landscape area “Osterzgebirge” und

protected landscape area “Bohemian Switzerland”.


52

Figure 40: Visualisation of a transboundary gap in the Project Region North (topographic map)

Figure 41: Visualisation of a transboundary gap in the Project Region North (google maps)


53

The characteristics of this transboundary gap (figures 40 and 41) are: transboundary across the Polish-Czech border, woodland area, size 20 to 30 skm, stepping stone (less than 5000 m away from the next protected area) and enlargements to already existing protected areas.

3.4.7 European, national and regional planning of biotope corridors (interlinked systems of biotopes)

and the correlation with the gaps identified by TransEcoNet

For the correlation of gaps identified by TransEcoNet with the plans for biotope corridors the gaps

were overlaid with existing network plans (European, national and regional).

The following datasets were used:

European biotope corridors: EECONET

National biotope corridors: TSES - Czech Republic

EECONET - Czech Republic

ECONET - Poland

TSES - Slovakia

Habitatnetzwerk - Austria

Nemzeti Ökologiai Halozat (NOH) - Hungary

Regional biotope corridors: search area for biotope corridors in Saxony

For Slovenia no network plans were considered, because the important ecological areas of Slovenia

were already included within the network of protected areas.

We defined four categories:

TransEcoNet gaps corresponding with European, national and regional network plans

TransEcoNet gaps not corresponding with European, national and regional network plans

(only TransEcoNet gaps localised)

Corridors only identified by European, national and regional network plans (no TransEcoNet

gaps defined)

Network of protected areas

The correlations are displayed for each project region in figures 42-45 followed by a statistical

analysis (fig. 46).


54

Figure 42: Map of the overlay of gaps identified by TransEcoNet with European, national and regional network plans (interlinked system of biotopes), Northern Project Region

Figure 43: Map of the overlay of gaps identified by TransEcoNet with European, national and regional network plans (interlinked system of biotopes), Central Project Region North


55

Figure 44: Map of the overlay of gaps identified by TransEcoNet with European, national and regional network plans (interlinked system of biotopes), Central Project Region South


56

Figure 45: Map of the overlay of gaps identified by TransEcoNet with European, national and regional network plans (interlinked system of biotopes), Southern Project Region


57

Figure 46: Statistic results of the overlay of gaps identified by TransEcoNet with European, national and regional network plans (interlinked system of biotopes) for all Project Regions

The overlay of gaps identified by TransEcoNet with European, national and regional network plans

is different in every project region because of various statuses of existing networks plans (fig. 46).

For example no network plans exist in Slovenia whereas two different network plans are available

for the Czech Republic (EECONECT and TSES). The least corresponding TransEcoNet gaps with

network plans are situated in the Southern Project Region, only 2.4 %, because of no network plans

for Slovenia and this region of Austria. In all other Project Regions the percentage of gaps which

corresponded with network plans is between 10.5 and 12.6 %.

3.5 Combination of the results of the transnational ecological network initiative analysis

(output activity 3.2) and the gap analysis (output activity 3.3)

The results of the transnational network initiative analysis (activity 3.2) and the results of the gap

analysis (activity 3.3) were combined to create maps (figures 47 and 48) which illustrate the

overlays. Most initiatives are located in the Alps, the Carpathians and around the lake Neusiedl.


58

Figure 47: Overlay of the transnational ecological network initiatives and the identified gaps (names of initiatives)


59

Figure 48: Overlay of the transnational ecological network initiatives and the identified gaps (target species)

3.6 Possible management strategies, existing implementations (best practise examples)

and subsidies

3.6.1 Management strategies

Before one is able to define specific management strategies the clear designation of protected

areas, buffer zones and ecological corridors is necessary. The focus should be more on maintaining

and enhancing the functional connectivity rather than the structural connectedness (Taylor et. al

2006) and improving the size and quality of core habitats and stepping stones (Kettunen et al.

2007). Overall management strategies for the gaps are the conservation, management and creation

of enlargements or new protected areas. Unfortunately this is not possible in most of the cases

therefore the elimination or prohibition of intensification of land use should be one of the foremost

strategies to conserve areas with high natural value currently not adequately protected within the

network of protected areas and protect them from deterioration. Other important strategies are:

Implementation of necessary measures to prevent deterioration of high nature value areas

Extensification of land use (pastures, meadows and agriculture);

Landscape conservation and preservation of an open landscape with animals (e.g. sheep,

goats and cows);

Managed mowing of pastures, meadows and roadside verges;


60

Species-rich seeding on agricultural fields to provide a source of food and cover for wild

fauna;

Promotion of organic farming, extensive agriculture and the reduction or targeted use of fertiliser, pesticides and herbicides in agriculture;

Maintaining and creating of agricultural field margins;

Creation of forest reserves and the conservation of riparian and other natural forests;

Forests conversion to natural woodlands regarding to their location;

Use of indigenous seeds and plants;

Maintenance and creation of old-growth and deadwood islands and the conservation of specific individual trees (nest and hollow trees, trees with rotten sections or fungal infections, or bizarre trees);

Preservation and reintroduction of traditional farming methods (e.g. sheep grazing);

Preservation and establishment of structurally rich forest edges;

Preservation, maintenance and replanting of landscape structures such as hedges, tree

rows, small woodlands, individual trees, dry stone walls, rock fragment piles, mixed

orchards, and wetlands;

Use of existing infrastructure and avoidance of the extension and new construction of

fragmenting elements;

Encouragement of unpaved paths, as they mostly have a lower barrier effect;

Green bridges/wildlife crossings and underpasses for small animals;

Creation of riparian strips and woodlands;

Maintenance and restoration of rivers, lakes and wetlands;

Creation of fish passes and other fish migration aids;

Controlling invasive species and creation of quiet zones for species (e.g. breeding zones);

Consideration of central elements of ecological networks in spatial planning;

Raising awareness and involving local stakeholders,

Informing local stakeholders about possible subsidy programs;

Monitoring of measurements and the control of efficiency of measures.

The list of management strategies (Kohler and Heinrichs 2009) is based on the detailed list of

management strategies for ecological networks in the Alps developed within the projects

ECONNECT, (www.econnectproject.eu), ALPARC (Alpine Network of Protected Areas,

www.alparc.org), ISCAR (International Scientific Committee on Research in the Alps, www.iscar-

alpineresearch.org), the European Alpine Programme of the World Wide Fund for Nature

(http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/alps) and CIPRA (Commission Internationale

pour la Protection des Alpes, www.cipra.org). A comprehensive description (factsheets) of these

management strategies is available for download under www.alpine-ecological-network.org.

Involving all key stakeholders from an early stage (White et al. 2005) as well as coordinating the

management strategies across borders should be an important goal. In the Project Region North a

first meeting with responsible authorities (Saxon State Ministry of the Environment and Agriculture,

Saxon State Office for Environment, Agriculture and Geology, Czech Agency for Nature

Conservation and Landscape Protection, Czech Ministry of Agriculture) was held in June 2010. The

main focus of the meeting was the discussion of how to apply and implement the outputs of WP3

within national and regional planning strategies. The attendees of the meeting acknowledged the

http://www.econnectproject.eu/

http://www.alparc.org/

http://www.alparc.org/

http://www.iscar-alpineresearch.org/

http://www.iscar-alpineresearch.org/

http://www.cipra.org/


61

results of WP3 and discussed further strategies for the closer investigation of the gaps within WP5.

Another meeting is planned for early September 2010 to discuss further strategies for raising the

awareness and planning strategies for poorly connected protected areas in the Northern Project

Region. People involved should be local planning authorities as well as nature conservation

organisations.

Further meetings with responsible authorities to communicate the results of WP3 within the other

project regions should be organised by the involved Project Partners.

Because of the use of a common and comparable database European and national datasets (large

scale datasets) were used for the analyses within WP3. Therefore the results of the gap analysis

only give an overview of possible locations of gaps. These gaps have to be further investigated and

distinguished with the help of local biodiversity data (possible in WP5) before specific local

management strategies can be applied for improving the connectivity of the network of protected

areas.

3.6.2 Known existing implementations

Examples for new protected areas and the alteration of protection statues are illustrated in figure 49

to 53.

In the Czech Republic some new protected areas are planned for example: the new NP

Krivoklatsko (from the central part of the protected landscape area Krivoklatsko), enlargement of

protected landscape area Kokorinsko, establisment of new protected landscape areas Doupovske

hory (close to Karlsbad) and Soutok (at the trilateral border point CZ-SK-AT). Some small areas are

proposed as well, maybe with higher probability of success: national nature reserve Rolavska

rasliniste (incl. Gross und Klein Kranichsee on the border with Saxony), national nature monument

Jestrebske slatiny (south-east from Ceska Lipa) and some others. In the area of the Bohemian

Switzerland plans for including parts of the protected landscape areas into the national park exists

(figures 52 and 53). The recently established national natural reserve - Elbe Valley is illustrated in

map 53.

The area of the Lake Neusiedl is planned to be upgraded to a biosphere reserve and the Natura

2000 area Parndorfer Platte should be enlarged.

Other plans which could not be visualised by now include the new Natura 2000 site designated in

the upper part of River Mura near Gornja Radgona (Slovenia) where the river is located at the

border to Austria. The area will be designated for both EU directives, Council Directive 92/43/EEC

(21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora) and Council

Directive 79/409/EEC (2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds). The river is already protected

by Natura 2000 on the Austrian side of the border.

A lot of new protected areas and alteration of protection statues can be found in Hungary.

The maps in figure 49 show an overview of new protected areas or areas of altered protection

status in the project regions. Figures 50-55 show details for the Northern Project Region, the

Central Project Region South and the Southern Project Region.


62

Figure 49: Map of existing plans for the enlargement of protected areas or new designation of protected areas and alteration of protection status


63

Figure 50: Map of protected areas present state, Central Project Region South

Figure 51: Map of protected areas and plans, Central Project Region South


64

Figure 52: Map of protected areas present state, Northern Project Region

Figure 53: Map of protected areas, plans and recent establishments, Northern Project Region – the shown enlargement of the National Park Bohemian Switzerland is planned based on scientific expertise and has no legally binding effect


65

Figure 54: Map of protected areas present state, Southern Project Region

Figure 55: Map of protected areas and plans, Southern Project Region


66

The Czech Republic is the only Country in our study area which implements the concept of

ecological networks (TSES). The Territorial System of Ecological Stability (TSES) started in the

80ties and is implemented through the creation of bio-centres, bio-corridors and intersecting

elements of different levels (local, regional and supra-regional). Beside the three levels of TSES

there is also a provincional/biospherical level or rather significance. This type of TSES has core

areas larger than 10 000 ha and only several bilateral regions in the Czech Republic fulfil this

criteria: the provisional significance can be assigned to the Dyje valley in the National Park Podyji

and to the reservation Prameny Úpy in the National Park Krkonoše. The biospehrical significance

can be assigned to the National Nature Reserve Modravské slatě together with the core area in the

Bavarian National Park.

For the implementation of the TSES both national and private funding is used. The national fund

resources include landscape care programme, funds for complex land consolidation, programme of

revitalisation of river network or Rural Development Programme. Since 2007 also programmes from

the EU can be used - in this case it is Operational Programme Environment. The implementation is

realised in the local communities in close cooperation with the local stakeholders.

The implementation rate differs widely around the Czech Republic. Unfortunately no statistic is

available to show how much of the corridors and bio-centres have been implemented. A study from

2005 which mapped implementation of the TSES funded by Landscape care Programme within

regions during 1997-2004 (Lacina 2005, 2008) reveals that the majority of the elements were

implemented in Moravia and also in the eastern and southern Bohemia on both local and regional

level. Examples are: regional bio-centre in Vodňany (southern Bohemia), supra-regional bio-corridor

in Ostrov u Lanškrouna (eastern Bohemia) and the regional bio-centre in Tvarožná (southern

Moravia).

Unfortunately the implementation is not always successful in terms of fulfilling the ecological

functions the networks were designed for.

Slovakia also has the planning for TSES but did not implement any measures so far.

Every country designs and implements their own network system mostly without considering

neighbouring countries. For the realisation of transboundary networks the responsibilities have to be

on an European level for example with an ecological networks framework directive according to the

European water framework directive. As long as no plans for ecological networks on European level

exist, the connection and management of corridors across borders is not more than a vision.

3.6.3 Subsidies

The countries involved have different grant programs to support the extensification of land use and

support nature conservation. For example the financial instruments supporting nature conservation

and landscape protection in the Czech Republic (Tab. 10).

Table 10: Grant programs to support nature conservation and landscape protection in the Czech Republic.

Programmes supported by funds from the EU

National programmes

Operational program Environment is divided into eight priority axes. The main sources for nature conservation and landscape protection are

Landscape care programme aims at the maintenance and improvement of biodiversity. It focuses on implementation of small scale


67

included in the axis 6 and in some parts of axes 1 (1.1.1 and 1.3.2) and 7. The management and guarantees are provided by Ministry of Environment, the executing organ is the State fund of the environment of the Czech Republic.

management and can be divided into three sub-programmes:

a. sub-programme for implementation of measures resulting from management plans of special protected areas and their buffer zones, and for NATURA 2000 sites (PPK - Protected Areas)

b. sub-programme for improvement of preserved natural and cultural heritage (PPK - free landscape)

c. sub-programme for securing care for vulnerable and handicapped animals (PPK - Handicaps)

LIFE + supports projects focusing on nature conservation and landscape protection in the EU; it is open for the period 2007-2013.

Support of rehabilitation of natural landscape functions. This programme supports investment and non-investment projects that perform adaptation measures mitigating the impacts of climate change on water, forest and non-forest ecosystems. It enables Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection of the Czech Republic as well as administrations of national parks to carry out actions arising from management plans for special protected areas, recommended actions for bird areas, rescue programmes and management programmes for specially protected species of flora and fauna. It is also used to finance monitoring and supporting materials. There are several sub-programmes ranging from provision of obligations of nature protection authorities in relation to special protected areas through adaptation measures to mitigate climate change impacts on ecosystems to securing background materials for improving natural environment and for landscape monitoring programmes.

Regional operational programmes for NUTS II regions focus on enhancement of life conditions in settlements and rural areas especially through better educational, social and healthcare infrastructure as well as through the improving of the environment.

Sub-programme Management of state property in specially protected areas includes processing of management plans as well as forest management plans for special protected areas and their buffer zones, maintenance of technical objects serving for protection purposes, measures designed to eliminate past negative actions or adverse effects in the protected areas and measures ensuring the existence of localities for which the protected areas were declared.

Operational program Fisheries for the period 2007-2013 contributes to the nature conservation and landscape protection mainly with axis 2 Aquaculture that tries to maintain fish production with the environmentally friendly means and to enhance conditions for fish breeding and water quality.

Contributions to the forest management are dedicated e.g. to restoration of forests damaged by pollutions, ecological and environmentally friendly technologies, support to reduce damage caused by pests etc.

Operational programme Prague – Competitiveness supports among others projects

National programmes of the Ministry of Agriculture in the water resort support actions in


68

enhancing environment (priority axis 2). the public interest, especially flood prevention, removal of flood damage and reconstruction of ponds. They also support non-productive functions of ponds.

Rural development programme contributes to the improving of the rural areas of the Czech Republic. It is based on the sustainable development, enhancement of the environment and reduction of negative influence of the intensive agriculture. Measures relevant for nature conservation and landscape protection are included in axes II (improvement of environment and landscape) and III (life quality in rural areas and diversification of rural economy).

Rehabilitation of areas affected by floods in 2009 was declared within the programme Revitalization of river systems. It includes restoration of natural functions of water courses, biodiversity restoration, renewal of sewage treatment plants damaged by flash floods, restoring ecological stability and water retention capacity of the landscape, removing the effects of soil contamination and stabilization and geological survey of land and rock slides.

Agro-environmental programmes belong to the programmes of Ministry of Agriculture and are dedicated to protection and restoration of the environment in agricultural areas. The main goals are to avoid accelerated water runoff, reduce soil erosion, promote ecological stability of the landscape and preserve and enhance natural diversity of the agricultural land. The goals are implemented through several measures, such as extensification of production on arable land, reduction of artificial inputs (pesticides, fertilizers), introduction of organic and integrated farming systems, maintenance of abandoned agricultural or forest land, access for the public to agricultural land etc.

Apart from these programmes that are financed directly by ministries or regional authorities, there

are also programmes that are financed/co-financed by the State fund of the environment of the

Czech Republic. For the year 2010 following programmes were declared:

Programme to promote purchasing of the land in special protected areas, their protection

zones and significant landscape elements – the aim is to ensure effective protection of nature in

the most valuable areas through the ownership of professional bodies.

Programme to support municipalities located in the areas of national parks – the aim is to

compensate for losses of the restricted economic development of the municipalities. The supported

areas include environmental education, maintenance and construction of visitor infrastructure,

removal of illegal waste dumps, revitalization of residential green, waste water treatment, promotion

of energy self-sufficiency and co-financing of selected projects from Operational programme

Environment.

Programme to support water monitoring – is intended to support the development of methods for

monitoring water status and detection of water status in monitored profiles, including collection and

transportation of samples.

Programme to support non-productive plant species diversity and conservation of genetic

resources – the aim is to enhance the diversity of residential and landscape green with the

emphasis on preservation of unique genetic material of indigenous endangered and culturally


69

significant non-productive plants and to increase public awareness about the importance of this

issue.

Programme to support municipalities in which territory a state of emergency was declared

due to floods – the goal is to renew water infrastructure and its proper functions.

Environmental contracting are implemented in Austria and Germany (Vertragsnaturschutz) and Agri-Environmental Programmes are implemented in Austria (ÖPUL), Slovenia (Kmetijsko Okoljski Program) and Germany / Saxony (umweltgerechte Landwirtschaft). Saxony also provides subsidies for the conversion of forests. LIFE also founds projects in Austria (Great Bustard) and in Slovenia.


70

References

Bastian, O.; Schreiber, K-F. (1999): Analyse und ökologische Bewertung der Landschaft. 2. überarbeitete Auflage, Spektrum Akademischer Verlag GmbH Heidelberg Berlin, 564 p.

BirdLife International (2010): Spatial data of threatened bird species and list of threatened bird species in Europe. http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/index.html, downloaded on 19 Mar 2010

Cox, N.A. and Temple, H.J. (2009): European Red List of Reptiles. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/redlist/index_en.htm)

Dudley, N., Parish, J. (2006): Closing the Gap. Creating Ecologically Representative Protected Area Systems: A Guide to Conducting the Gap Assessments of Protected Area Systems for the Convention on Biological Diversity. Technical Series no. 24. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada. (http://www.cbd.int/doc/book.aspx?id=22752)

IUCN (2009): IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - Spatial Data Download. Version 2009.2., http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/spatial-data, downloaded on 19 Feb 2010

Haenel, K. (2007): Methodische Grundlagen zur Bewahrung und Wiederherstellung großräumiger funktionsfähiger ökologischer Beziehungen in der räumlichen Umweltplanung. Lebensraumnetzwerke für Deutschland. Dissertation, Uni Kassel, 380 S.

Hilty, J. A.; Lidicker Jr., W. Z.; Merenlender, A. M. (2006): Corridor ecology: the science and practice of linking landscapes for biodiversity conservation. ISLAND Press Washington – Covelo – London

Kohler, Y., Heinrichs, A. K. (2009) The Continuum Project Catalogue of possible measures to improve ecological connectivity in the Alps. www.alpine-ecological-network.org/images/stories/eMeasureCatalogueContinuum.pdf, downloaded on 29 Jul 2010

Kettunen, M, Terry, A., Tucker, G. & Jones A. (2007): Guidance on the maintenance of landscape features of major importance for wild flora and fauna - Guidance on the implementation of Article 3 of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) and Article 10 of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussels, 114 pp. & Annexes.

Lacina, D., 2005: Zmapování realizace opatření Programu péče o krajinu ve vazbě na realizaci ÚSES podle jednotlivých krajů, AOPK Brno, 190 pp.

Lacina, D., 2008: Realizace opatření programu péče o krajinu ve vazbě na realizaci ÚSES v krajích, In Dreslerová, J. (ed): Venkovská krajina 2008, pp. 66-71.

Lidicker, W.Z., Jr. (1999). Responses of mammals to habitat edges: An overview. Landscape Ecology 14, pp. 333-343.

PAN Planungsbüro für angewandten Naturschutz GmbH (2006): Übersicht zur Abschätzung von maximalen Entfernungen zwischen Biotoptypen für Tierpopulationen in Bayern. – Stand: Dezember 2006, http:/www.pan-gmbh.com/dload/TabEntfernungen.pdf.

Taylor, P. D., Fahrig, L. & With, K. A. (2006): Landscape connectivity: a return to the basics. In R. K.

Crooks, and M. Sanjayan, editors. Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, pp. 29-34.

Temple, H.J. and Cox, N.A. (2009). European Red List of Amphibians. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/index.html

http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/spatial-data


71

(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/redlist/index_en.htm)

Temple, H.J. and Terry, A. (Compilers) (2007): The Status and Distribution of European Mammals. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/redlist/index_en.htm)

Steinhardt, U.; Herzog, F.; Lausch, A.; Müller, E.; Lehmann, S. (1999): Hemeroby index for landscape monitoring and evaluation. – In: Pykh, Y.A., Hyatt, D.E., Lenz, R.J. (eds): Environmental Indices – System Analysis Approach. Oxford, EOLSS Publ., pp. 237-254.

White, A.T., P.M. Aliño, and A.T. Meneses. 2005. Creating and Managing Marine Protected Areas in the Philippines. Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest Project, Coastal Conservation and Education Foundation, Inc. and University of the Philippines Marine Science Institute, Cebu City, Philippines. 83 p. downloaded at http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/management/pdfs/js_mentor_networks_mod2_curr.pdf

Acknowledgement

We thank all Project Partners involved in WP3 for their contributions and useful comments:

Anke Hahn (LP), Kamil Witkos (LP), Christine Wessollek (LP), Roselina Rashid (LP), Christa

Renetzeder (PP05), Martin Prinz (PP05), Werner Lazowski (PP06), Géza Király (PP09), Hana

Skokanova (PP12), Daniela Ribeiro (PP14), Gregor Torkar (PP14), Andraž čarni (PP14), Ondřej

Vítek (Associated Institution - Czech Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection

Agentura ochrany přírody a krajiny ČR)

http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/management/pdfs/js_mentor_networks_mod2_curr.pdf

Report - central2013.eu · Report Gaps in ecological networks ... Authors: Dr. Marco Neubert, Sylvi...

Documents

Transcript of Report - central2013.eu · Report Gaps in ecological networks ... Authors: Dr. Marco Neubert, Sylvi...