Ensuring the conservation function of Biosphere Reserves

in mountain areas in Europe

Katarzyna Wicher1

Introduction

Article 5(a) of the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves

(WNBR), states that the core area(s) of a BR should be “legally constituted and devoted to

long-term protection, according to the conservation objectives of the biosphere reserve”;

Article 5(b) states that there should be “a buffer zone or zones clearly identified and

surrounding or contiguous to the core areas, where only activities compatible with the

conservation objectives can take place”.

Recent experience at the MAB-ICC regarding both proposed BRs and periodic

reviews of existing BRs has identified core areas that are not entirely surrounded by buffer

zone or transition area, particularly in mountain areas; over half the members of the WNBR

are in mountain areas. This led to the question as to the number of BRs in which such

a situation can be observed and if it affects the conservation objectives. In order to make a

first step to answering this question, zonation data from BRs located in European mountain

areas were collected and reviewed (Phase 1). A second step (phase 2) considered certain

MBs in more detail.

Phase 1

Procedure/Method

Using an existing database, 105 BRs in mountain areas in Europe (in 22 countries) were

identified. For these, the availability of zonation data was checked on both Biosphere Smart

and the websites of the BRs.

Missing zonation data were collected from MAB Secretariat in Paris and directly from the

BRs. We have contacted 38 BRs from 18 countries and obtained data from 18 of them (shape

files or images of zonation).

1 The project was undertaken while on an Erasmus+ Student Placement at the Centre for Mountain Studies,

Perth College, University of the Highlands & Islands, supervised by Prof. Martin Price, Chair of the UK MAB

Committee and Chairholder, UNESCO Chair in Sustainable Mountain Development.

2

The core areas of the BRs were reviewed in relation to zonation (buffer zone and

transition area). Afterwards, the BRs were classified in the following categories (fig. 1):

1) core areas are not on the edge of an BR;

2) core areas which are on the edge of the BR are adjacent to another protected area:

there is no border with an unprotected core area, or single segments are shorter than 1

km;

3) core areas on the edge of a BR are adjacent to unprotected areas, with single segments

of border being longer than 1 km.

If a core area was adjacent to another protected area, the IUCN category of protection was

checked. Information concerning location and category of other protected areas were based in

the Common Database of Designated Areas (CDDA).

In addition, the location of ‘unprotected’ core areas was compared with country borders

and mountain ridges. Where such a core area is along a high mountain ridge, its height was

checked.

Finally, BRs in which a core area borders directly with a transition area were identified

(single segments of border with transition area longer than 1 km).

For 79 BRs, the following statistics were calculated in Arc GIS:

area of zone area, buffer zone and transition area;

% of area of each zone;

minimum and maximum area of patch in each zone;

number of patches of each zone;

length of edge between core area and transition area;

length of edge between core area and other protected area;

length of edge between core area and unprotected area.

For the BRs for which only images of zonation were available, the lengths of edges were

calculated based on visual investigation.

Using the resulting data, three tables were created:

1) a table presenting the BRs by country and categories of BR mentioned above (Table

1);

2) a table presenting statistics mentioned above (available as spreadsheet);

3) a table presenting number of segments of a core area’s edges with transition

area/other protected area/unprotected area in division for intervals 0-1 km/1-5 km/5-

10 km/10-20 km/ > 20 km (available as spreadsheet).

3

BRs in mountain

areas in Europe

Y

N

Does a core area

border directly with

a transition area?

Is a single segment

of border with transition

area longer

than 1 km?

Is a single segment

of border with

unprotected area longer

than 1 km?

Is the core area

along a national

border?

Is the core area

along a mountain

ridge?

Yes No

Fig

ure 1. M

ethodology. For diamonds w

ith ‘N’, the evaluation

stops; for those with ‘Y

’, further evaluation is needed

N N

N

N

N Y Y

Is a core area on the

edge of the BR?

Is the edge

adjacent to

unprotected area?

Is buffer zone between

a core area and outer

boundary of the BR narrow?

Is the land on the

other site

unprotected?

Yes

Yes Yes No

No

No

4

Table 1. Countries by category of BR

Country

Core areas

are not on

the edge of

BR

Core areas on

the edge of the

BR adjacent to

another

protected area

Core areas

border with

unprotected

areas

Core areas

border

directly with

transition

area

Number of BRs

AUSTRIA 1 1 1 2 3

BULGARIA 0 0 0 0 13

CROATIA 1 0 0 0 1

CZECH

REPUBLIC 2 2 1 5 5 (1 transboundary BR)

FRANCE 4 1 2 6 7 (2 transboundary BRs)

GERMANY 2 1 2 5 5 (1 transboundary BR)

GREECE 0 1 1 1 2

HUNGARY 1 0 0 0 1

ISRAEL 0 1 1 0 2

ITALY 2 1 0 2 5 (1 transboundary BR)

MONTENEGRO 0 0 0 0 1

POLAND 2 2 0 4 4 (3 transboundary BRs)

PORTUGAL 4 0 1 1 5 (1 transboundary BR)

ROMANIA 0 0 0 0 2

SERBIA 1 0 0 1 1

SLOVAKIA 1 3 0 4 4 (2 transboundary BRs)

SLOVENIA 1 0 2 3 3

SPAIN 21 4 15 18 40 (1 transboundary BR)

SWITZERLAND 0 0 2 0 2

TURKEY 0 0 1 0 1

UKRAINE 2 0 0 1 2 (1 transboundary BR)

UNITED

KINGDOM 1 1 0 0 2

5

Findings

Among the considered BRs there are (Figure 2):

42 BRs in category 1 (core areas are not on the edge of the BR);

15 BRs in category 2 (core areas at the edge of the BR are adjacent to another

protected area): in most cases, the core area borders with a Natura 2000 site, another

BR, or a protected area of IUCN category V;

27 BRs in category 3 (core areas on the edge of the BR adjacent to unprotected areas).

16 BRs2 do not have three zones. For 5 BRs

3, zonation data were not available.

For 2 BRs4, there is a core area with an unprotected area on the other side of a national

border. For 4 BRs5, there is an ‘unprotected’ core area situated along a mountain ridge.

Figure 2. Percentage of BRs by category

2 Beinn Eighe BR (UK) has only a core area; Gorge of Samaria BR (Greece) has only a core area; Cuenca Alta

del Río Manzanares BR (Spain) does not have a transition area; BRs in Bulgaria have only a core area;

3 Somma-Vesuvio and Miglio d'Oro BR (Italy), Tuscan Islands BR (Italy), Tara River Basin BR (Montenegro),

Pietrosul Mare BR (Romania), Pietrosul Mare BR (Romania);

4 Julian Alps BR (Slovenia), Kozjensko and Obsotelje BR (Slovenia);

5 Grosses Walsertal BR (Austria) – 1200-1600 m.a.s.l. (length of ‘unprotected border’ – 11.5 km in 3 segments),

Vallee du Fango BR (France) – about 1000 m.a.s.l. (1.3 km), Julian Alps BR (Slovenia) – about 2000 m.a.s.l.

(17 km), Entlebuch BR (Switzerland) – 1600-2300 m.a.s.l. (3.4 km);

40%

14%

15%

26%

5%

core areas are not on the

edge of an BR

core areas on the edge of

the BR are adjacent to

another protected area

BR does not have three

zones

core areas on the edge of a

BR are adjacent to

unprotected areas

zonation data were not

available

6

In 6 BRs, there is a very narrow (even only 20-100 m) buffer zone between a core area

and the outer boundary of the BR. But only in 2 BRs (Los Ancares Leoneses BR and Los

Argüellos BR, both in Spain) is the land on the other side of the boundary unprotected.

In 10 BRs, there are segments longer than 10 km where the edge of a core area is adjacent

to an unprotected area:

Cuenca Alta del Rio Manzares in Spain;

Julian Alps in Slovenia;

Kozjansko and Obsotelje in Slovenia;

Las Dehesas de Sierra Morena in Spain;

Mount Carmel in Israel;

Os Ancares Lucenses y Montes de Cervantes, Navia y Becerrea in Spain;

Parc Suisse in Switzerland;

Río Eo, Oscos y Terras de Buron in Spain;

Redes in Spain;

Sierra Nevada in Spain.

There are 47 BRs where a core area borders directly with a transition area. 11 BRs have

segments longer than 10 km where core areas and transition areas are adjacent:

Bassin de la Dordogne in France;

Berchtesgadener Land in Germany;

East Carpathian in Poland/Slovakia/Ukraine;

Julian Alps in Slovenia;

Kozjansko and Obsotelje in Slovenia;

Krivoklátsko in the Czech Republic;

Lanzarote in Spain;

Luberon-Lure in France;

Os Ancares Lucenses y Montes de Cervantes, Navia y Becerrea in Spain;

Slovensky Kras in Slovakia;

Vallée du Fango in France.

In 9 BRs, the number of patches of each zone is very high (more than 100 patches) and

the minimum patch area is small. That means that these zones are highly fragmented. In some

cases, this may result from the quality of shape files.

7

With regard to relative surface area occupied by each zone, the transition area is the

largest component in the majority of the BRs (55%). For 38%, the buffer zone(s) is/are the

most extensive, and in 7% of the BRs (5 BRs) the core area occupies most of the BR’s area.

Phase 2

An enquiry requesting more detailed information regarding potential areas of concern was

sent to 12 BRs6 from 5 countries. These BRs encompass the various issues: ‘unprotected

border’ of a core area (11 BRs), a core area bordering directly with a transition area (4 BRs),

a core area situated along a mountain ridge (3 BRs), narrow buffer zone (1 BR). The 7 BRs

listed below responded to the enquiry:

East Carpathians in Poland/Slovakia/Ukraine;

Entlebuch in Switzerland;

Grosses Walsertal in Austria;

Os Ancares Lucenses y Montes de Cervantes, Navia y Becerrea in Spain;

Parc Suisse in Switzerland;

Redes in Spain;

Sierra Nevada in Spain.

The key issues and the summaries of the responses to the enquiry are provided below.

East Carpathians (Poland/Slovakia/Ukraine)

Along 18 km of the national border between Slovakia and Poland, core areas in Slovakia

are adjacent to a transition area in Poland. There are also three segments (lengths of 10 km;

12 km; 13 km) in Poland where core areas border directly with a transition area along the

Bieszczady National Park border, as the core areas in the Polish part of the BR are designed

on the basis of the National Park strict protection zones.

According to the authorities responsible for the Polish part of the BR, the designation of

a buffer zone surrounding the core areas requires consultation with the National Forests

administration, or would take away part of a core area, which would be not acceptable. The

6 Austria: Grosses Walsertal BR; Poland: East Carpathian BR; Slovenia: Julian Alps BR and Kozjansko and

Obsotelje BR; Spain: Cuenca Alta del Rio Manzares BR, Las Dehesas de Sierra Morena BR, Los Argüellos BR,

Os Ancares Lucenses y Montes de Cervantes, Navia y Becerrea BR, Redes BR, Sierra Nevada BR and

Switzerland: Entlebuch BR, Parc Suisse BR. For maps of these BRs showing key issues, please see Appendix.

8

conservation objectives of the core areas are not in danger, since the transition area consists

of areas designated as: a protective buffer zone of the National Park (“otulina”), a Protected

Landscape area (Cisniansko-Wetlinski Park Krajobrazowy and Park Krajobrazowy Doliny

Sanu), Natura 2000 (‘Bieszczady’), and the Polish Promotional Forest Complex (LeWny

Kompleks Promocyjny “Lasy Bieszczadzkie”). Finally, while the arrangement of zones is

important, equally essential are the area of a core area and the length of its border. In the case

of forest ecosystems, a core area should be larger than 100 ha to ensure the function of

protecting natural processes. Core areas which are long and narrow are not desirable, because

impact of outer areas is significant.

Entlebuch (Switzerland)

The core area of the Entlebuch BR is on the edge of the BR. More than 4 km is situated

along a mountain ridge; 3 km is along the boundary of a municipality.

Since the area of concern is situated above ca. 1700 m.a.s.l., this is a wilderness area with

no agricultural land use. Moreover, an area to the south of a mountain ridge to which the core

area is adjacent is very rough and steep. Therefore, there is no hunting (even though it is

allowed) and only one hiking path goes through the area. A short part of the edge of the core

area is a border with the Swiss Game Reserve ‘Augstmatthorn’, where hunting is strictly

prohibited and no winter sport activities are allowed. In conclusion, any negative impact is

expected in the potential areas of concern.

Grosses Walsertal (Austria)

There are three core areas which are not entirely surrounded by a buffer zone or other

protected area. The borders of core areas adjacent to an ‘unprotected area’ have lengths of

about 11.5 km (3 segments: 1.2 km, 2.7 km and 7.3 km). These core areas are situated along a

mountain ridge.

There is no negative impact expected in the potential areas of concern, since no land

use of the adjacent high mountain areas exists. Heli-skiing could be a potential conflict but

helicopters are obliged by a legal regulation to land sufficiently far from the core areas.

Routes where ski-touring is allowed are strictly declared.

9

Os Ancares Lucenses e Montes de Cervantes, Navia e Becerrea (Spain)

The core area of the BR borders with an ‘unprotected area’ (two segments of 6 and 17

km), and with a transition area (segment of 10 km). Partially, the core area is outside the

Ancares-Courel Natura 2000 area, which covers most of the BR.

Two years ago, a study regarding zonation of the BR was undertaken. According to

the study, reclassification of zonation situated outside the Protected Natural Spaces is needed.

An extension of the BR was proposed to coincide with boundaries of the Becerrea

municipality. This would allow designation of a buffer zone around the areas of concern and

the expansion of the transition area.

Parc Suisse (Switzerland)

The core areas of the BR are on the edge of the BR and are situated next to a mountain

ridge. For about 5.5 km, the core areas border with ‘unprotected area’. For the remaining 67

km, core areas are adjacent to a Protected Landscape of the Swiss Confederation (BLN) and a

Protected Landscape of the canton Grison. Other legal regulations ensure that the countryside

around the Parc Suisse BR is treated with care and that the BR is not negatively affected.

One subalpine and alpine area which borders directly with the core areas is uninhabited

terrain, extensively and sustainably used by agriculture and forestry. According to the Parc

Suisse BR, there is no threat for the conservation objectives and no negative impact is

expected in the future. To quote: ‘It would obviously be appreciated if the respective

communities agreed to the establishment of a buffer zone to the biosphere reserve Val

Müstair Parc Naziunal. However, this should not occur at all cost, as it would be wrong to

shift the focus of conservation measures onto the area in question and thus away from far

more valuable and more endangered habitats at lower altitudes within the Engadin (mainly

the sunny slope between Lavin and Martina). Of course, it would make most sense to

incorporate all these areas into the biosphere reserve. However, this option is currently not

feasible politically.’

Redes (Spain)

In the Redes BR, there are two segments (with lengths of 11 km and 2.5 km) of the core

area bordering directly with an ‘unprotected area’ along the Redes Nature Park border.

10

The area adjacent to the Redes BR is undeveloped mountain territory and activities

undertaken in the area are subject to regulations. Therefore, there is no risk for the

conservation objectives.

Sierra Nevada (Spain)

The core area of the Sierra Nevada BR borders with ‘unprotected land’ for 24.7 km. The

limits of the core area of the BR coincide with the area of the Sierra Nevada National Park.

The core area of the National Park is divided into four sub-zones: Reserve Zone (R),

Restricted Use Zone (UR), Moderate Use Zone (UM) and Special Use Zone (UE). The core

area which is a potential area of concern is designed as ‘Restricted Use’ so there is not any

‘Reserve Zone’ located on the edge of the BR.

There is no urban development in the external area adjacent to the core zone. Agriculture

and forestry use is sustainable. Also, hunting is regulated by Technical Plans, having identical

criteria to those applying in Buffer Zone and Transition Areas of the BR. The BR has stated:

‘Even though from a conceptual point of view it would be desirable that the Core Zone

would not be in contact to unprotected external areas, the reality of the study area in Sierra

Nevada indicates that:

There are not significant environmental impacts at the adjacent area to the Biosphere

Reserve.

The general legal regime of protection (forestry legislation, environmental impact

assessment legislation, land management planning legislation) guarantees enough juridical

support.

There are no threats jeopardising the Biosphere Reserve objectives.’

11

Overall conclusions of the study

In 40% of the BRs, a core area is not located on the edge of BR; in 14% of the BRs a

core area borders with other protected land.

In 26% of the BRs a core area borders with an unprotected area. In 10 BRs, the length

of ‘unprotected border’ is greater than 10 km.

In 45% of the BRs, a core area borders directly with a transition area. In 11 BRs, the

length of segments where a core area is adjacent to a transition area is greater than 10

km.

Of the 7 BRs which provided a response to the request about the potential areas of concerns:

6 BRs do not expect any negative impact on core areas;

in 1 BR, there is a plan to extend the BR, in particular: expansion of a buffer zone and

a transition area;

5 BRs pointed that other legal regulations regarding an area adjacent to core areas

allow protection of the conservation objectives;

the zonation of 2 BRs is related to certain administrative circumstances. In the case of

the East Carpathian BR, core areas border directly with a transition area along a

national border and a national park border. In the case of the Entlebuch BR, the core

area is adjacent to ‘unprotected land’ along a municipal boundary;

2 BRs pointed out that establishment of a buffer zone cannot occur at any cost, e.g. at

the expanse of a core area, and can result in political and social difficulties.

Issues which were mentioned in the answers to justify that the core areas without a buffer

zone are not in danger are:

existence of other protected areas, and other legal regulations;

no agricultural use of a surrounding area, or sustainable agricultural use;

sustainable forestry use;

hunting restrictions;

location of an area at a high altitude;

an uninhabited area, or no urban development.

12

Recommendations

The restricted amount of time for the study has not permitted the analysis of zonation in

terms of different types of protected environment (e.g., rivers, marshes) or topography (e.g.,

mountain ridges, rivers).

Future studies regarding the effect of zonation of BRs on ensuring the conservation

function of BRs should also consider national legal regulations concerning protection of the

environment. Additional attention could be paid to the BRs in which buffer zone, or transition

area is very fragmented. Advantage could also be taken of data available on national

geoportals or other European resources. For instance, any significant changes in land

coverage between core area and bordered unprotected area can be investigated. Moreover,

location of a core area which has ‘unprotected edge’ should be considered in a relation to

topographic relief.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Prof. Martin Price for his supervision and help, and Dr. Peter Dogse

from the MAB Secretariat and Dr. Cipriano Marin of BiosphereSmart for their input to the

project and their support. I am also grateful to the many authorities responsible for BRs who

provided data or maps and responded to the enquiry.

13

Appendix: Maps of the BRs selected for the detailed analysis:

1. Cuenca Alta del Rio Manzares BR in Spain

2. East Carpathian BR in Poland/Slovakia/Ukraine

3. Entlebuch BR in Switzerland

4. Grosses Walsertal BR in Austria

5. Julian Alps BR in Slovenia

6. Kozjansko and Obsotelje BR in Slovenia

7. Las Dehesas de Sierra Morena BR in Spain

8. Los Argüellos BR in Spain

9. Os Ancares Lucenses y Montes de Cervantes, Navia y Becerrea BR in Spain

10. Parc Suisse BR in Switzerland

11. Redes BR in Spain

12. Sierra Nevada BR in Spain

Legend:

Protected areas are based on The Common Database on Designated Areas (CDDA).

Ia

Ib

II

III

IV

V

VI

NA

BR Zonation

Natura 2000

Habitat Directive

Protected Area - IUCN Category

Transition Area

Buffer Zone

Core Area

Birds Directive

14

6 km segment

where the core

area is adjacent

to an ‘unprotected land’

15 km

1.

15

Bieszczady National Park border (10 km; 12 km and 13 km)

National border (18km)

2.

16

A municipal border (3 km); a mountain ridge

above 2000 m.a.s.l.

3.

17

A mountain ridge 1400-

2300 m.a.s.l. (7.3 km)

A mountain ridge 2200-

2600 m.a.s.l. (2.7 km)

A mountain ridge above 2400 m.a.s.l. (1.2 km)

4.

18

A national border; a mountain ridge above 2000

m.a.s.l. (16.5 km)

88 km

5.

19

A national border (47 km)

6.

75 km

20

20 km

13 km

7.

21

Buffer zone width: 100 m

8.

22

11 km; Nature 2000 border

18.5 km and 6.6 km; Nature 2000

border

9.

23

10.

5.5

km

24

5 km; the Redes Nature Park border

A mountain ridge above 1800 m.a.s.l. (2.5 km)

11.

A mountain ridge above 1000 m.a.s.l. (11 km)

25

24.7 km; also border of the Sierra Nevada National Park

12.