report: 1-30. 2001. wwf project team of the alps ecoregion. · 2013. 4. 8. · report: 1-30. 2001....

Arduino, S., Baumüller, A., Calegari, D., and Mörschel, F. Alps Ecoregion - Final Reconnaissance Report: 1-30. 2001. WWF project team of the Alps ecoregion.

Keywords: 78Eur/activity/agriculture/Alpine region/Alps/biodiversity/communication/community/ conservation/conservation status/corridor/corridors/cultural landscape/demography/development/ diversity/Ecoregion/ecosystem/education/Emerald/forest/forestry/fragmentation/habitat/human activity/human impact/impact/landscape/large carnivores/Malme/monitoring/Natura 2000/network/ plants/policy/region/stakeholder/survey/threats/tourism/urban/value/vision/WWF

Abstract: At the end of 1999 an Alpine Programme was initiated by WWF Austria, Germany, Italy and Switzerland to explore the feasibility of adopting the ecoregional conservation (ERC) approach in the Alps. ERC is a philosophy and methodology of intervention recommended for ecoregions identified through the Global 200 campaign of WWF. The Alps are amongst the 12 priority ecoregions of Europe and the Middle East as they represent a fine example of a particular habitat type, namely the European-Mediterranean Montane Mixed Forests. Furthermore, they were identified as a world hotspot for plant diversity, and their conservation status based on the direct impact of human activities is considered critical or endangered. By adopting ERC for the Alps, the Alpine WWF NOs join several other ERC initiatives on the planet and shift toward integrated, large-scale, long-term conservation. The principles of ERC and the benefits to WWF of adopting it are briefly described. ERC includes an initial phase, the Reconnaissance, aimed at assessing the status of the ecoregion's biodiversity and the threats to it, as well as the opportunities for conservation. This document provides an overview of the activities undertaken during the Reconnaissance Phase and of the results obtained; it also briefly outlines the way forward. Three rapid assessments were undertaken of the biodiversity, socio-economic and policy components. The biodiversity study highlights the outstanding biodiversity value of the Alps (animal and plant species and communities), identifies cultural landscapes as an important component of the Alps ecosystem, analyzes several threats, all leading to fragmentation and loss of habitats and of populations of animals and plants, and suggests priority for action. The socioeconomic assessment analyzes the human impact on the Alps, addressing the demography, the strict link between settlements within the Alps and urban areas on the fringe, and the main types and patterns of development and human activities: tourism, transportation, agriculture, forestry, and water use. Suggestions for priority actions are made. It is clear that the Alps are a heavily used region, with trends towards intensification of anthropogenic pressure. Finally, the policy assessment clarifies the most important policy levels in the Alps, starting from the community level, and provides an overview of the EU and international policies that directly or indirectly influence biodiversity in the Alps. Thus, the biodiversity and sectoral policies are considered, as well as the opportunities for funding of conservation work by government (EU) donors. Besides these rapid assessments, a survey of the Alpine stakeholders and their sphere of operation was also undertaken, highlighting their complexity and therefore the need to design an appropriate strategy for their involvement. A brief summary of the achievements of the Reconnaissance Phase follows, accompanied by results and lessons learned. The conclusion is, the Alpine WWF NOs will continue ERC work in the Alps, will maintain the current internal structure with minor changes, will push for more resources and a higher profile of ERC work in Europe, will rely more on the resources made available through the WWF Network, will involve key stakeholders early in the Post-Reconnaissance Phase, will work on four priority themes. Finally, the way forward is briefly outlined. The next steps for the ERC process are the development of a biodiversity vision and - strictly linked to one another - the stakeholders' involvement, then the development of a conservation programme and a monitoring & evaluation programme, both paralleled by a communication campaign. For on-the-ground activities (priority themes), work will continue on large carnivores and Natura 2000 & Emerald (ongoing), and will begin on education and pristine areas & corridors (new). Detailed workplans and strategies will be developed in early Post-Reconnaissance Phase.

ALPS ECOREGION Final Reconnaissance Report

© A. Vorauer

June 2001

Alps Ecoregion: Final Reconnaissance Report June 2001

This report was prepared by the Project Team of the Alps ecoregion (Serena Arduino, Andreas Baumüller, Doris Calegari, Frank Mörschel), with significant assistance from Hermann Sonntag, Holger Spiegel and Lilla Konczos, thanks also to the comments of Gerald Dick, Isabella Pratesi and Andreas Weissen.

In particular, the following people were mainly responsible for specific sections: Serena Arduino for the ERC process Andreas Baumüller for the priority themes Doris Calegari and Frank Mörschel for the ecoregion description and the summaries of the assessments Lilla Konczos for the stakeholders’ survey.

The following consultants and their teams compiled the three rapid assessments described in this report: Georg Grabherr (biodiversity assessment) Werner Bätzing (socioeconomic assessment, including the most important policy levels) Olivia Bina (policy assessment).

The following people kindly reviewed previous drafts of this report: Andreas Götz, director of the International Commission for the Protection of the Alps (CIPRA) Guido Plassmann, director of the Network of Alpine Protected Areas Thomas Scheurer, director of the International Scientific Committee on Research in the Alps Doreen Robinson, Ecoregional Conservation Strategies Unit (ECSU), WWF US.

While their contributions improved the report, potential remaining inaccuracies are not their responsibility.

A warning: to keep the ideas of the consultants separate from the rest, it was decided to have a general description of the ecoregion (ch. 2) distinct from the section on the results of the three assessments (ch. 3). As a consequence, the reader may find some repetitions.


i

Table of Contents

List of acronyms iii

Executive summary iv

PART I – RECONNAISSANCE PHASE

1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Target of this report 1 1.2 Principles of ecoregional conservation 1 1.3 Ecoregional conservation work in the Alps 3 1.4 The Reconnaissance Phase 4

2. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE ALPS ECOREGION 5

3. SUMMARY OF THE MAIN FINDINGS OF THE RAPID ASSESSMENTS 8 3.1 Rapid biodiversity assessment 8 3.1.1 Plant diversity 8 3.1.2 Animal diversity 9 3.1.3 Habitat diversity, community diversity 10 3.1.4 Landscape diversity 10 3.1.5 Human use and impacts – the ecological perspective 10 3.1.6 Conclusions and recommendations 11

3.2 Rapid socio-economic assessment 12 3.2.1 Conclusions and recommendations 14

3.3 Rapid policy assessment 14 3.3.1 Most important policy (decision-making) levels in the Alps 14 3.3.2 Alpine Convention 15 3.3.3 Biodiversity policies 15 3.3.4 Sectoral policies 16 3.3.5 Conclusions 16

4. SUMMARY OF THE STAKEHOLDERS’ SURVEY 17 4.1 Objectives 17 4.2 Status of the survey and summary of findings 18

5. SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS DURING THE RECONNAISSANCE PHASE 18 5.1 Structure and administration 18 5.2 Contacts and synergies 18 5.3 Assessments 19 5.4 Priority themes 19

6. SUMMARY OF RESULTS FROM THE RECONNAISSANCE PHASE 19 6.1 Biodiversity 19 6.2 Socioeconomic 19


ii

6.3 Policy 20 6.4 Stakeholders’ involvement 20 6.5 Funding 20 6.6 Overall conclusion of the Reconnaissance Phase 20

7. LESSONS LEARNED 20

8. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 21

PART II – WAY FORWARD

9. GOAL OF THE ALPINE PROGRAMME 22

10. ECOREGIONAL CONSERVATION PROCESS 22 10.1 Biodiversity vision and stakeholders’ involvement 22 10.2 Conservation programme and monitoring & evaluation 23

11. PRIORITY THEMES 23 11.1 Large carnivores 24 11.2 Natura 2000 and Emerald Network 24 11.3 Education 25 11.4 Pristine areas and corridors 25

12. BUDGET ARRANGEMENTS AND FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES 25

APPENDICES

I. Internal structure of the WWF ERC team during the Reconnaissance Phase 27 II. Detailed description of the stakeholders’ survey 28


iii

LIST OF ACRONYMS

A Austria AC Alpine Coordinator (ERC coordinator) CC Country Coordinator CH Switzerland CHF Swiss Franc CIPRA International Commission for the Protection of the Alps D Germany ECSU Ecoregional Conservation Strategies Unit (WWF-US) EPO European Policy Office (WWF) ERC Ecoregional Conservation F France FL Liechtenstein I Italy LC Large carnivore LCIE Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe LHI Large Herbivore Initiative MC Monaco NGO Non government organization NO National Organization (WWF) SC Steering Committee SL Slovenia TDP Target Driven Programme US United States (of America) USD US Dollar


iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At the end of 1999 an Alpine Programme was initiated by WWF Austria, Germany, Italy and Switzerland to explore the feasibility of adopting the ecoregional conservation (ERC) approach in the Alps. ERC is a philosophy and methodology of intervention recommended for ecoregions identified through the Global 200 campaign of WWF. The Alps are amongst the 12 priority ecoregions of Europe and the Middle East as they represent a fine example of a particular habitat type, namely the European-Mediterranean Montane Mixed Forests. Furthermore, they were identified as a world hotspot for plant diversity, and their conservation status based on the direct impact of human activities is considered critical or endangered. By adopting ERC for the Alps, the Alpine WWF NOs join several other ERC initiatives on the planet and shift toward integrated, large-scale, long-term conservation. The principles of ERC and the benefits to WWF of adopting it are briefly described.

ERC includes an initial phase, the Reconnaissance, aimed at assessing the status of the ecoregion’s biodiversity and the threats to it, as well as the opportunities for conservation. This document provides an overview of the activities undertaken during the Reconnaissance Phase and of the results obtained; it also briefly outlines the way forward.

Three rapid assessments were undertaken of the biodiversity, socio-economic and policy components. The biodiversity study highlights the outstanding biodiversity value of the Alps (animal and plant species and communities), identifies cultural landscapes as an important component of the Alps ecosystem, analyzes several threats, all leading to fragmentation and loss of habitats and of populations of animals and plants, and suggests priority for action. The socio-economic assessment analyzes the human impact on the Alps, addressing the demography, the strict link between settlements within the Alps and urban areas on the fringe, and the main types and patterns of development and human activities: tourism, transportation, agriculture, forestry, and water use. Suggestions for priority actions are made. It is clear that the Alps are a heavily used region, with trends towards intensification of anthropogenic pressure. Finally, the policy assessment clarifies the most important policy levels in the Alps, starting from the community level, and provides an overview of the EU and international policies that directly or indirectly influence biodiversity in the Alps. Thus, the biodiversity and sectoral policies are considered, as well as the opportunities for funding of conservation work by government (EU) donors. Besides these rapid assessments, a survey of the Alpine stakeholders and their sphere of operation was also undertaken, highlighting their complexity and therefore the need to design an appropriate strategy for their involvement.

A brief summary of the achievements of the Reconnaissance Phase follows, accompanied by results and lessons learned. The conclusion is, the Alpine WWF NOs will continue ERC work in the Alps, will maintain the current internal structure with minor changes, will push for more resources and a higher profile of ERC work in Europe, will rely more on the resources made available through the WWF Network, will involve key stakeholders early in the Post-Reconnaissance Phase, will work on four priority themes.

Finally, the way forward is briefly outlined. The next steps for the ERC process are the development of a biodiversity vision and – strictly linked to one another - the stakeholders’ involvement, then the development of a conservation programme and a monitoring & evaluation programme, both paralleled by a communication campaign. For on-the-ground activities (priority themes), work will continue on large carnivores and Natura 2000 & Emerald (ongoing), and will begin on education and pristine areas & corridors (new). Detailed workplans and strategies will be developed in early Post-Reconnaissance Phase.


1

PART I - RECONNAISSANCE PHASE

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Target of this report

This Final Reconnaissance Report is a working document meant for internal circulation only: it does not present all the details and the context needed for an external audience not familiar with the Alpine Programme or ERC. Thus, the targets of this report are: the Country Coordinators and the Steering Committee of the Alpine Programme, the coordinators and staff of projects linked to the Alps, the ERC network, the WWF network, and generally the people who will be involved in the programme in the near future (as background information).

1.2 Principles of ecoregional conservation1

In 1996 WWF launched the Global 200 Initiative, which identified 238 regions worldwide representing outstanding examples of the Earth’s ecosystems. By conserving these 238 ecoregions, we will be able to preserve the majority of biodiversity on the planet including the broadest variety of species and the ecological and evolutionary processes that maintain the web of life.”2. An ecoregion is an ecosystem covering a relatively large area of land (or water) and containing a geographically distinct assemblage of natural communities. Three principal innovations characterize the Global 200 Initiative:

it is comprehensive in scope, encompassing all major habitat types it is representative in its final selection, including the most outstanding examples for each major habitat type it uses ecoregions as the unit of scale for comparison and analysis.

This EcoRegional Conservation (ERC) approach is the strategic response for the conservation challenge many ecoregions face. ERC was officially adopted by the WWF Network as the philosophy and methodology of intervention in ecoregions. It provides a framework to align conservation priorities identified at ecoregional scale with global as well as local conservation priorities. The fundamental goals of biodiversity conservation followed by ERC are:

representation of all distinct natural communities within conservation landscapes and protected area networks maintain ecological and evolutionary processes that create and sustain biodiversity maintain viable populations of species maintain large blocks of intact areas resilient to natural and anthropogenic disturbances as well as long-term changes prevent the introduction of invasive species and eradicate or control established invasive species

1 This section draws extensively from A Workbook for Conducting Biological Assessments and Developing Biodiversity Visions for Ecoregion-Based Conservation. Conservation Science Programme, November 2000.

2 From The Global 200: Blueprint for a Living Planet. World Wildlife Fund, September 2000.


2

These goals translate into the following minimum conservation targets:

representation of distinct biogeographic subregions, communities, habitats and species assemblages conservation of large expanses of intact habitats and intact biotas conservation of keystone ecosystems, habitats, species or phenomena (at ecoregional scale) conservation of large-scale ecological phenomena (e.g., migrations) conservation of species of special concern (e.g., if required by specific threats).

The cornerstone of ERC is a biodiversity vision, which summarizes the goals and targets for the ecoregion. This is both a definition of what the ecoregion should look like in the long-term (10, 20, or 50 years), and a yardstick against which success can be measured. It includes a vision map, as well as goals and targets that cannot be shown on a map (supportive policy, environmental education, strengthening of the civil society, etc.).

While the biodiversity vision is elaborated at the scale of the ecoregion, the conservation actions can occur at a variety of scales (local, national, ecoregional) as long as they collectively contribute to the achievement of ecoregion scale conservation.

Fig 1: Approaches to Biodiversity Conservation

ERC is based on the following key principles:

It is science-based, which highlights the importance of the contribution of the scientific community and leads to defensible evaluations. It requires large spatial and long temporal scales, which provide a broad context for local and short-term activities. It considers the socio-economic component

of the ecoregion in order to identify the necessary tradeoffs to development, socio-political and cultural lifestyles and livelihood that need to be made to ensure conservation of priority biodiversity areas. It entails the involvement of many parties, recognizing the importance of partnership and cooperation. It assumes adaptation through learning, allowing changes in direction when warranted by the emerging situation.

Approaches to BiodiversityConservation

Eff

ectiv

enes

s

Effort & Scale

Do Nothing

Business as Usual

Visionary

Realistic / Idiotic


3

1.3 Ecoregional conservation work in the Alps

The Alps (Fig. 2 and 3) have been selected as one of the 238 ecoregions of outstanding global importance for biodiversity conservation. Furthermore, the Alps are one of the 12 priority ecoregions selected by WWF’s Europe and Middle East Programme. The conservation status of the Alps is considered critical or endangered, based on the direct impact of human activities3. The ecoregion is threatened as a result of extensive habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation and has experienced loss of species. Urgent conservation action on the scale of the entire ecoregion is needed.

Fig 2: The Alps and the eight Alpine countries.

Within the Alps, WWF is present in Austria, France, Germany, Italy and Switzerland and for decades it has undertaken activities in this area. These activities have ranged from the protection of biodiversity to the improvement of the socio-economic conditions of the local communities, covering topics as diverse as transportation, tourism, forestry, and protection of species and spaces. These activities, however – like those of most organizations active in the Alps – have mainly been at the national level and only rarely at the scale of the whole Alpine range.

However, due to the critical conservation status of the ecoregion, WWF saw the need for a strategic response to scale up conservation efforts. The WWF national organizations of the Alpine countries have therefore decided to operate at the Alpine level and to initiate a formal Alpine Programme. This is an effort to coordinate WWF activities in the Alps while developing a long-term vision with the important parties involved and preserving the region’s ecological integrity for future generations.

3 Conservation status represents an estimate of the ability of an ecoregion to maintain viable species populations, to sustain ecological processes, and to be responsive to short- and long-term environmental changes (from The Global 200 Ecoregions: A User’s Guide).

Alpine countries: A Austria F France D Germany I Italy FL Liechtenstein MC Monaco SLO Slovenia CH Switzerland


4

Alps

Fig. 3: The Alps (part of ecoregion No.77) among other Global 200 ecoregions in Europe. (From: The Global 200: Blueprint for a Living Planet. WWF, September 2000).

The Alps will benefit manifold from the ERC approach. The ecoregional approach will be ecosystem-based and consequently trans-national, will have long-term objectives, will be multi-disciplinary, will involve the relevant interested parties and will foster partnerships with other actors. Thus, all initiatives that will be undertaken at the scale of the entire mountain range will make sense ecologically, not interrupted by political or administrative boundaries. By using a multi-disciplinary approach where natural sciences are integrated with the human component, solutions will be tailored to the reality found on the ground. The involvement of the interested parties will provide a broader pool of potential solutions, and the development of partnerships will guarantee that resources are used efficiently capitalizing on the experiences already made and without duplication of efforts. Finally, ERC is an excellent tool to plan and implement activities locally in the field keeping in mind both local and global priorities.

1.4 The Reconnaissance Phase

The first step of the ERC process is to conduct a Reconnaissance Phase, whose results are summarized in this report. Within the Reconnaissance Phase, rapid assessments on the biodiversity and socio-economic factors relevant to the ecoregion should give an overview of the status of the ecoregion and provide a basis to decide whether to continue with ERC work.


5

In the Alps, the Reconnaissance Phase was conducted internally by WWF, involving the four WWF NOs of Austria, Germany, Italy and Switzerland; for the time being France has been an observer and an active participants only on specific activities such as large carnivores and Natura 2000. This phase took just over a year (November 1999-December 2000), and cost approximately 270,000 CHF (about 178,000 Euro), contributed by the participating WWF national organizations4.

Both a Project Team and a Steering Committee were involved in the Reconnaissance Phase of the Alps, as well as the coordinators of other Alps-related projects; these were all WWF personnel. The project team included an overall ERC coordinator and one country coordinator from each participating country; the Steering Committee included one representative of the senior staff from each NO (for a detailed description of the internal structure, please refer to Appendix I). All staff was involved in ERC only part-time.

During the Reconnaissance Phase three rapid assessments were conducted of the biodiversity, the socio-economic aspect and the policy scene of the Alps (which included also a survey of the current knowledge and knowledge gaps). Furthermore, threats to biodiversity were analyzed as well as opportunities for conservation and priorities for action. A survey of institutions and organizations active in the Alps was undertaken.

2 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE ALPS ECOREGION

Ecoregion Name: European-Mediterranean Montane Mixed Forests / Alps Conifer and Mixed Forests

Major Habitat Type: Temperate Coniferous and Mixed Forests Ecoregion Number: Part of #77 Ecoregion Boundaries: Alpine region as defined by the Alpine Convention (Fig. 4).

The Alps are situated between latitudes 44° and 48° N and longitudes 5° and 16° E, forming an arc of 1200 km in length from Nice to Vienna. The ecoregion boundaries as defined by the Alpine Convention cover 191,000 km2, belonging to (from west to east) France, Monaco, Italy, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Germany, Austria and Slovenia. The area contribution of these states to the ecoregion are summarized in Tab. 1. The elevation of the highest peak, Mont Blanc, is 4807m.

Table 1: Area contribution of the Alpine countries to the Alps

Country Area of country (km2)

Area of country in the Alps (km2)

Area of country in the Alps (%)

Country contribution to the overall Alpine Convention area (%)

Austria 83,850 54,339 64.8 28.5 Italy 301,000 52,653 17.5 27.6 France 544,000 40,900 7.5 21.4 Switzerland 41,000 24,900 60.3 13.1 Germany 357,000 11,152 3.1 5.8 Slovenia 20,250 6,767 33.4 3.5 Liechtenstein 160 160 100.0 0.08 Monaco 2 2 100.0 0.001

4 The Reconnaissance Phase in the Alps was done with relatively limited human and financial resources. For comparison: some ecoregions had a start-up budget of 1 million USD and were therefore able to undertake grand initiatives since the beginning.


6

The Alps are an interzonal mountain system, situated between the temporal life zone of central Europe, with deciduous forests as potential natural vegetation, and the Mediterranean life zone, with evergreen forests of sclerophyllous tree. The ecological patterns are not only determined by the abiotic environmental factors, but also reflect historical impacts such as the Pleistocene glaciations and the human influence since Neolithic times.

Fig. 4: Boundaries of the Alps ecoregion, defined as the area of application of the Alpine Convention (F=France, MC=Monaco, I=Italy, CH=Switzerland, FL=Liechtenstein, D=Germany, A=Austria, SL=Slovenia). (Adapted from 1. Rapporto sullo stato delle Alpi. CIPRA-International Commission for the Protection of the Alps. Edizioni CDA, Torino, 1998, 470 pp.).

Dynamic processes, such as avalanches, rock falls, föhn-storms and periodic flooding of mountain streams are distinctive for this ecoregion. The natural processes are important because they continuously create new habitats for plants and animals and therefore represent a driving force for biological diversity. However, avalanches, rock falls and flooding are often devastating for humans and provide a challenge for the coexistence of nature and people.


7

The Alps represent one of the most important biodiversity hot spots in Western Europe. Over 30,000 animal and 13,000 plant species (including mosses, liverworts5, lichens and fungi) occur in the Alps. The Alps have an estimated vascular plant flora of 4,500 species, which represent 39% of the European flora; of these, about 400 are endemic6. The Alps were recognized as a globally important region not only by the Global 200 initiative, but also by two other global biodiversity analyses: that of the centres of plant diversity (an analysis conducted by IUCN and WWF) and the sites of the Ramsar Convention. About 15% of the Alps’ land area has protected status (national and regional parks, nature reserves, etc.).

The richness of the Alpine ecoregion is based on pristine areas (areas with no or very limited human influence) on one hand and the cultural landscape on the other hand. Although the Alps are heavily inhabited and used for agriculture, forestry, industry, tourism and transportation, pristine areas can still be found throughout the ecoregion (for a land cover map, see Fig. 5).

The Alps are Europe’s most important water reservoir: even the Rhone, Rhine and Po rivers, with their large basins mostly located outside of the Alps, originate in the Alpine region. About 90% of the Alpine rivers have lost their natural state.

Fig. 5. Land cover map of the Alps (from PELCOM).

The Alps are possibly the most developed mountain system in the world. Habitat fragmentation and loss of endangered habitats and species are the major threats to the rich biodiversity of the Alps.

5 Any mosslike bryophyte of the class Hepaticae, growing chiefly on damp ground, rocks or tree trunks. 6 Belonging exclusively or confined to a particular place.


8

Population development: The total human population in the Alps amounts to about 13 million distributed over approximately 6100 communities. Since 1970 the population growth for the Alps as a whole has been significantly above the European average. However, this population growth is very uneven. The population increases almost exclusively in the very accessible settlements in the main valleys and decreases in the remote side valleys: the Alps between urbanization and desertion. Sixty-six percent of the Alpine population lives in urban areas. Because most jobs are located in big cities, most communities show commuting towards outer-Alpine urban areas. Due to a high cultural diversity with many different languages within the Alps and a strong orientation towards the dominating outer-Alpine cities, there exists no general Alpine identification of the people living in the Alps, but often a strong local identification.

Tourism: 60 million people visit the Alps every year; 11% of the world tourism takes place here, totaling 37 billion CHF in annual revenues (over 24.3 billion Euro).

Energy/hydropower:

in 1993, energy production from Alpine hydroelectric power plants was 96 x 109 KWh (I.S.). Water usage is heavily controlled by outer-Alpine forces.

Transport/traffic:

in 1996, 85 million tons of goods were transported through the Alps, 61% on roads and 39% on railways. Since 1970 transport on road has increased by 1071%! The road network includes 4,000 km of national highways, 6,000 km of international highways, 16,000 km of primary roads and 80,000 km of secondary roads; 54 million motor vehicles cross the Alps every year.

The increasing distance between home and work locations, the increasing interconnection within the Alpine economy, and the increasing interlocking of Alpine towns with outer-Alpine cities, have resulted over the last years in a strong growing “domestic traffic” with a volume about 10 times that of transit traffic.

Due to the unique combination of biodiversity features, cultural landscapes, human activities and serious pressures, the governments of the Alpine countries and of the European Union have developed an Alpine Convention and several thematic protocols. These policy tools are aimed at protecting the natural and socioeconomic value of the Alps and ensuring sustainable development. They were signed by almost all the parties and now await ratification and implementation.

3 SUMMARY OF THE MAIN FINDINGS OF THE RAPID ASSESSMENTS

3.1 Rapid biodiversity assessment7

3.1.1 Plant diversity

About 4500 species of vascular plants are found in the Alps (39% of the European flora), of which about one-sixth is restricted to high altitudes. The major part of the Alps is influenced by a cold temperate climate characterized by sufficient precipitation during the warm periods, and winters cold enough to induce winter dormancy in vegetation.

Up to 400 species can be regarded as endemic to the Alps. The contribution of endemic plants to the diversity of the flora and fauna increases with increasing elevation, whereas the overall diversity

7 This section is the summary of the report by Prof. Dr. Georg Grabherr and his team (Biodiversity Assessment for the Alps Ecoregion, 2000) and it presents their results and opinions.


9

decreases with increasing elevation. Mosses (ca. 800), liverworts (ca. 300), lichens (ca. 2500) and fungi (>5000 species) contribute to the overall floristic diversity. The most threatened species are those restricted to specific habitats in the densely-settled valleys (synanthropic flora, wetland species, steppe flora). Lichens have suffered significantly from air pollution.

3.1.2 Animal diversity

About 80 mammal

species occur within the Alps, most of them small like bats, shrews, mice and voles (this figure includes those which only "touch" the Alps marginally). Though all of the typical mammals still exist in the Alps, many of their populations - large carnivores in particular - have been reduced in size and/or fragmented into small remaining subpopulations, or may suffer from increasing disturbance by tourism, expanding settlements and urbanization .

Large carnivores

(brown bear, wolf, lynx) are slowly repopulating small parts of the Alps. Besides direct human persecution, the limited availability of areas free of direct disturbance, together with the interruption of migration corridors, is one of the key factors limiting the establishment of viable populations. Large herbivores

(i.e., red deer, roe deer, fallow deer, chaomois, ibex), on the other hand, are widely distributed and occupy much of their potential habitats in the Alps. However, migration routes from summer to winter pastures (and vice versa) have been interrupted or disturbed by roads and settlements. Among the other groups, bats deserve special attention, as many species have lost appropriate habitats or habitat quality has decreased significantly.

Edelweiss (Leontopodium alpinum), for most people the symbol of the Alps, even if this plant has immigrated from Asia (A. Vorauer).

About 200 breeding bird

species are registered in the Alps, while at least as many species winter in the Alps, migrate through the Alps (importance of large lakes around the fringe of the Alps as stepping stones for seasonal bird migration!), or occur occasionally. There are no endemic bird species, but for some species their Alpic (= occuring in Alps as geographic unit) population is the largest. Similar to large mammals, birds which are considered to be in competition with man have suffered most from direct interference (e.g., golden eagle, peregrine falcon, bearded vulture).

Twenty-one species of amphibians

are Alpic, one of them endemic (Salamandra lanzai). Most are severely threatened by habitat destruction. Fifteen species of reptiles

have been recorded in the Alps. Their habitat, mostly dry rocky areas, is less endangered than that of the amphibians.

About 80 fish

species live in Alpine lakes and rivers. Besides water pollution, the introduction of exotic species in lakes must be considered the potentially most disastrous impact of man onto Alpic


10

biota. In addition, building dams for power plants and cutting off flooding areas threaten river fish fauna.

Completely insufficient is our knowledge about Alpic invertebrates, though some groups like butterflies or dragonflies are comparatively well known and show high biodiversity value. Invertebrate diversity overrules that of vertebrates at least by a factor of twenty, possibly more. About one third of the species are considered as threatened, mainly due to habitat loss and loss of habitat quality.

3.1.3 Habitat diversity, community diversity

Species diversity is related to habitat diversity. The loss of sufficiently represented small habitats is probably one of the major causes for the steady decline of biodiversity in the cultural landscapes.

Most habitats may be occupied by several types of plant communities, depending on slope, elevation, bedrock material etc.: a rough estimate is about 900 plant communities in the Alps. About one quarter of the community diversity is man-made and can only be maintained by specific kinds of land use, especially the many types of mountain meadows.

3.1.4 Landscape diversity

The mountains as landscape units can be ecologically classified as follows:

(1) calcareous rock mountains: chains, needle-like forms or plateau-mountains with huge karst areas; (2) equivalent siliceous rock mountains excluding karst; (3) glacier mountains: large, predominantly siliceous mountain systems; (4) siliceous highland: intermediate altitude and hilly appearance, occasionally with solitary glaciers; (5) grass mountains of "soft" materials with pyramid-shaped forms.

Three main landscape patterns can be classified:

The main valleys (below 800m), which represent narrow corridors. They have always been important migration corridors and provided a variety of specific habitats, which have been significantly reduced (e.g. river beds, mires, steppes). The tape-like corridors of the mountain forests ( 800-2000m), which are still in a relatively natural state in spite of human influence since prehistoric times. The island-like patches of areas above tree line, surrounded by a "sea of forest".

3.1.5 Human use and impacts – the ecological perspective

Traditional agriculture since early times and the type of development since after World War II, have created specific cultural landscapes.

Alpine farming. Traditional Alpine farming has undergone a radical change during the last 50 years, leading to abandonment of settlements in the south, and industrial farming in the north. Both brought a decrease in species and community diversity and a severe threat, especially to Alpine pastures and mountain meadows, making them disappear or transform into "green deserts".

Tourism. Besides trampling or disturbing animal life in subalpine forests, the most severe direct impact of tourism is the bulldozing of forests to build ski runs. The worst indirect effect is motor traffic.


11

Air pollution and related effects. Up to half of the forests of the Alps show suboptimal vitality, which is partially a consequence of air pollution. Pollutants are transported to the Alps from industrial centres far away (acid rain) or are the results of motor traffic and increasing settlements in the valleys.

Climate change. The greenhouse effect may affect the Alps in different ways. The most significant effects of warming may be the extinction of summit plants and changes in the species composition of the Alpine plant communities.

Hunting. Man has influenced natural wildlife substantially, shooting "competitors" like brown bear, lynx and bearded vulture to, or close to, extinction. Of the formerly widespread ibex, only a small herd survived in the Gran Paradiso area; its reintroduction in recent times is an impressive success. On the other hand, hunters have always tried to maintain good numbers of ungulates (roe deer, red deer and chamois), which in some regions is a problem for the regeneration of subalpine forests.

3.1.6 Conclusions and recommendations

There is no other high mountain system in the world whose biodiversity is so well known, but synoptic attempts for the Alps as a whole are not available. A thorough study of all available data may take at least two years of intensive work. Nature conservation is well advanced too, but laws in the Alpine countries are different, and the executive bodies are differently structured.

The major threat to wildlife is general fragmentation and loss of habitats (small ones in particular) and populations.

Over-exploitation: many species are suffering from a decrease in their population, as the quality and size of their habitats have been reduced. This is especially true for valley bottoms, large rivers and mountain forest belts. On the other hand, Alpine ecosystems still hold a high degree of naturalness, which has to be conserved.

The two faces of agriculture: industrial (intensive) agricultural practices replace mountain meadows and pastures with “green, highly fertilized deserts”; at the same time about one quarter of our community diversity depends on sustainable (extensive) agriculture. Thus, agriculture can be both positive to biodiversity (when it is extensive) or negative (when it is intensive). Abandonment of agricultural land leads to the loss of biodiversity on one hand, and the reappearance of forests on the other hand. Supporting organic farming with special focus on the maintenance of mountain meadows and pastures is urgently needed.

Probably in the worst situation is the fish fauna. The introduction of exotic fish species in mountain rivers has reduced the autochthonous populations. Electric power plants interrupt migration passways, and produce frequent flooding which decrease the biomass of benthos fauna. Water pollution has made large rivers unsuitable for sensitive fish species. River damming has destroyed the integrity of the river systems, including side arms and backwaters. A conservation strategy for the large Alpine rivers (e.g., Rhine, Rhone, Danube and Po) and wetland should be developed and implemented.

The following recommendations are given (in order of importance):

Conserve the high degree of naturalness of the Alps Maintain typical mountain meadows and pastures and support organic farming Develop an Alpine fish strategy Conserve and restore Alpine wetlands


12

Raise awareness of people for “their mountains” Raise the profile of invertebrates which are mostly threatened by habitat loss Develop an Alpine GIS-biodiversity database.

3.2 Rapid socio-economic assessment8

Heterogeneity of the Alps: The Alps are shared by 8 states (see Ch. 2 above, Brief description of the alps ecoregion). People living in the Alps present a multitude of different cultures and languages and are lacking a general sense of identification with the entire Alpine region. Socio-economic trends are regionally very different, so there are generally no homogenous regions within the Alps that could be treated the same. The community level should be selected to address socio-economic issues.

Development. The main Alpine valleys that are easily accessible underwent industrial development between 1848 and the 1970s and reached a peak in 1970-75. Starting in 1980 the Alpine-wide industry collapsed. During a transition stage between 1955 and 1980, mass tourism started to develop but also stagnated with the cease of industry in the 1980s. The importance of agriculture as economic factor started to decrease already beginning in 1970. The only exceptions to these general trends are the Slovenian Alps, where decentralized industrialization occurred until 1989, and the “Mur-Mürz” area in Austria, where the largest heavy industry was developed until 1989.

Demography. As a whole, in the Alps the population is growing, especially in easily accessible areas in the western Alps (Wallis, Savoy, Provence) and the western part of the eastern Alps (Vorarlberg, Tyrol, Carinthia, Bavaria, South-Tyrol, Liechtenstein). Nevertheless, depopulation occurs in the southwestern and southern Alps (Drôme, Piedmont, Liguria, Friuli, Slovenian Alps), where the remaining population concentrates in easily accessible valleys. Thus, generally, broad and easily accessible valleys are the focus of human population growth and have therefore already lost most of their biodiversity value. Beside this form of development, only some settlements heavily dependent on tourism occur like islands in the mountains.

There is a difference between population growth and the growth of housing areas. Due to an increasing demand for housing space per person, the housing area increases more than the overall population, even in regions with general depopulation.

Settlements:

Most people in the Alps live in cities (58%) and the majority of working places are found there (66%). A few cities within the Alps (inner-Alpine agglomerations) are growing along the broad valleys in a linear pattern. They are well connected to large cities outside the Alps and have the tendency to become suburbs of these outside metropolitan cities. Due to the concentration of working places in the inner-Alpine cities, many people are forced to commute (1/3 of the Alpine communities are dominated by commuting). Additionally, metropolitan cities outside the Alps (outer-Alpine agglomerations – Munich, Vienna, Zurich, Milan) are sprawling into the Alps (18.5% of Alpine people live in these metropolitan suburbs on the fringe of the Alps). Both tendencies lead to a dominating influence of outside cities on Alpine issues. The majority of Alpine communities lie below 1000m. A few cities occur in the higher mountains and grow in a circular pattern. These are tourism centers, most of them growing constantly.

8 This section is the summary of the report by Prof. Werner Bätzing (Socio-Economic Assessment for the Alps Ecoregion, Part I: Current Socio-Economic Development in the Alpine Region, 2000) and it presents his results and opinions.


13

Innsbruck - most people in the Alps live in cities (A. Vorauer)

Tourism

is the only economic sector that is not decreasing overall. Even though only 10% of all communities are dominated by tourism, these make up 20% of the Alpine land area. Currently there are about 300 ski areas throughout the Alps with a trend towards larger operations (mass tourism). A new phase of development of large tourism facilities is expected.

Transportation. Traffic is a major problem in the Alpine region, as the mountain range presents a natural barrier especially to transit traffic. Nearly 150 million people cross the Alps every year, 83% by road and only 17% by rail. Of these, transit traffic by cars covers 70 billion km/year, whereas trucks cover 1.3 billion km/year. Within the next 20 years transit traffic is expected to increase by 100% for freight and by 50% for passenger transport. Transit traffic is concentrated in a few main valleys. Additionally, inner Alpine traffic is increasing due to more commuting to larger cities, and already causes more traffic than transit (cars: 70 billion km/year, trucks: 4-6 billion km/year). Tourism also causes a high amount of traffic throughout the Alps, especially to remote areas. Between 1963 and 1993, the number of areas in the Alps larger than 1500 km2 not touched by major transport infrastructure decreased from 31 to 14.

Agriculture

is the most important type of land use. In broad valleys intensive agriculture is increasingly applied. The mostly forested mountain slopes are not used for agriculture. In the high mountains extensive animal husbandry dominates. Many alpine pastures are abandoned, which often leads to loss of biodiversity due to the natural reforestation of meadows. Traditional, labour-intensive farming may die out as the older generation disappears, and organic farming cannot replace traditional farming. Large herbivores may only be a limited solution to try to preserve alpine meadows. In the inner Alpine dry zones, vegetables, fruits and wine are cultivated intensively.

Forestry

is the second most important land use due to the large land coverage of forests. Forests are used throughout the Alps, but special care is taken to maintain forests as protection against avalanches and rock slides. In these forests, natural dynamic is excluded to maintain their protective function. In the eastern part of the eastern Alps forests are very homogeneous/monotonous due to historic use.

Water. The use of water for drinking, watering crops and generating hydroelectric power has important consequences for biodiversity in the Alps. The Alps are the most important water storage in Europe and in that function they are heavily influenced by outside interests. Construction of dams in small streams and rivers, as well as degradation of riparian areas along rivers cause large problems to biodiversity.


14

3.2.1 Conclusions and recommendations

Although some issues can be at the same positive and negative for biodiversity, and it is therefore not always easy to distinguish between threats and opportunities, the consultant’s report suggested that the most important threats to Alpine biodiversity are (in order of importance): 1) Urbanization of valleys / traffic; 2) agriculture / disappearance of traditional farming; 3) depopulation.

The most important opportunities are (in order of importance): 1) local emotional identification with the Alps (within the Alps and outside); 2) existence of traditional farming; 3) position of Alps in the center of Europe.

To address biodiversity issues in different regions, WWF should consider the needs of the people in these areas. It is therefore suggested to work on different problems in different regions, and to support / reinforce local products. Examples of regional projects are: conservation of traditional domestic animal races (e.g, sheep); cultivation of autochthonous varieties of fruit and vegetables (e.g., grapes, apples, pears); conservation of the last wild Alpine rivers; support to wildlife populations; production and marketing of high quality products; prevention or mitigation of new large ski resorts; centralization of development and prevention of further habitat fragmentation.

3.3 Rapid policy assessment9

3.3.1 Most important policy (decision-making) levels in the Alps

Generally, Alpine countries are dominated by strong sectoral policies (economy, energy, defense, etc.) and have only weak integrative policies. However, in the long term it will be important to bring biodiversity conservation into integrative policies. Austria, Switzerland, Italy and partly also Germany (Bavaria) have integrated “mountain area policies” (“Berggebietspolitik”) which are very important for biodiversity conservation.

The lowest political organization level throughout the Alps is the local community, which is often very independent. Local contacts between community politicians and development industry often lead to excessive habitat loss and fragmentation due to unrestricted building development.

In Germany all questions regarding the Alps and Alpine policy are under the jurisdiction of Bavaria. Besides local communities, there are three planning regions in the Bavarian Alps that are also the basis for implementing the Alpine Convention.

Austria

was among the strongest supporters of the Alpine Convention and is the state that best represents Alpine interests within the EU. Planning regions and “Bundesländer” are the most important levels besides communities.

Switzerland

established planning regions to support mountain areas (“IHG-Regionen”). These planning regions harbor the most experience in regional development. “Kantone” have the greatest possibilities to frame their regional development independently.

Italy

has historically had a centralistic structure, with the Alps playing only a minor role in national politics. The state is still responsible for major sectoral policies (e.g. traffic). Local communities are often very small, so that the “Comunità Montana” is the next political level of importance after

9 Section 3.3.1 is the summary of Werner Bätzing’s study (Part II: The Most Important Integrative Policy Levels in the Alpine Region, 2000). Sections 3.3.2-3.3.5 are the summary of the report by Olivia Bina (Policy Assessment for the Alps Ecoregion, 2000) and present her results and opinions.


15

communities. The “Comunità Montana” is the administrative unit for the Italian “mountain area policy” and an important level to address biodiversity conservation. Additionally, the “regioni” are also very important to address biodiversity conservation as well as sectoral policies. On a national level, the union of mountain communities (“UNCEM”) lobbies intensively for Italian mountain regions.

France

is also organized very centrally. Communities in the Alps are very small. “Départments” are

the next larger political unit with competence. The French Alps are part of two regions (“Région”) that are focussed in areas outside the Alps. Only recently have mountain communities been combined into two “massifs”: “Alpes du Nord” and “Alpes du Sud”. The effectiveness of this new political level remains to be seen.

Slovenia is in the process of restructuring political levels, so no current overview is possible.

3.3.2 Alpine Convention

The Alpine Convention is the only international initiative entirely focussed on the Alpine region, which considers both conservation and development issues. All states (MC, F, I, CH, FL, D, A, SL) plus the European Union are members. The Convention (framework treaty) was signed in 1991 and entered into force in 1995. Details on how to implement the Convention are stated in protocols, of which 8 have been developed so far, most of them signed by all parties. Problems faced by the Alpine Convention are: lack of political will for implementation, insufficient consultation (e.g., between national and local governments), and lack of a permanent secretariat. NGOs have played a major role in pushing the Convention by mobilizing local communities and national governments.

3.3.3 Biodiversity policies

There are several international policies regarding the conservation of biodiversity with direct relations to the Alps.

The Convention of Biodiversity (CBD)

was ratified by all Alpine countries. It is highly relevant for the conservation of biodiversity as well as for the sustainable use of its components, but its implementation is weak or lacking.

The Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS)

is not limited to EU countries (it therefore includes Switzerland) and provides a vision and a framework to promote a consistent approach for the implementation of the CBD. The legal basis of PEBLDS is the CBD, the Bern, Bonn and Ramsar Conventions, the Habitats and Birds Directives as well as national legislation. Lack of funds prohibits advances of PEBLDS in the Alps. Some relevant activities for the Alps according to the new action plan (2001-2005) are:

enhance cooperation with international processes (e.g. CBD) to help focus on a biodiversity strategy for the Alps capacity building for conservation establishment of the Pan-European Ecological Network (PEEN) provision of information, enhancement of communication, awareness raising assessment, monitoring.

The European Landscape Convention

was up to signatures in October 2000. It provides a legal instrument exclusively dedicated to landscapes and recognizes the need for transboundary measures.


16

Natura 2000: The Alpine region is a separate biogeographic unit with 100 habitats and 165 species listed. The Habitats and Bird Directives leading to the Natura 2000 Network are very important instruments for EU countries. The main leverage to force member countries to implement the Directives are the EU structural funds. This leverage might also be used to promote management of Natura 2000 sites. In countries that are not members of the EU, similar activities based on the Bern Convention are running under the title “Emerald”.

The European Community Biodiversity Strategy

provides a framework for EU-Community policies and instruments to comply with the CBD.

The European LIFE Regulation

is a very important funding instrument for nature conservation within the EU.

3.3.4 Sectoral Policies

Agriculture: the EU Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) has the highest influence on agriculture and nature conservation. Of the two main areas of CAP, the “rural development and agro-environment focus” can have positive effects on nature conservation, whereas the “market based regimes” can have negative impacts. Agro-environmental measures offer farmers financial incentives for the provision of environmental services. Farmers in mountain areas can be supported by “measures in less favoured areas” by receiving compensatory allowances based on the area worked on. This area of work is strongly pursued by the WWF-EPO.

Forestry: the main focus on forest policy should be through Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). In the EU, the Common Agriculture Policy supports forestation and improvement of existing forests but disregards the choice of tree species and the impacts on soil, water, landscape and biodiversity.

Transport: it is a major problem in the Alps. The Infra Eco Network Europe (IENE) investigates the impacts of traffic on nature and develops measures to mediate this impact for biodiversity. The European Commission published two papers highlighting the need to reflect all costs (including environmental costs) in various transport modes and to impose differentiated pricing on these transports. The European Parliament suggested taking regional circumstances into account when pricing traffic, i.e. charging higher prices for traffic in sensitive regions. The Trans-European Network (TEN) promotes mobility and the increase of infrastructure and will have negative impacts on the Alpine biodiversity. The transport protocol of the Alpine Convention can be a starting point for a new, sustainable transport policy.

Climate Change: Climate change will have significant impacts on the Alps – for the environment as well as for economic activities (e.g. reduction of planned skiing areas). Most economic activities and related sectoral policies contribute to raising greenhouse gases. The driving forces and sources of greenhouse gases are mostly situated outside the Alps and should be tackled throughout Europe and the world. Within the EU, main contributions to CO2 emission are the energy sector (32%), transport (24%) and industry (23%). Of those, transport is likely to be the most relevant factor within the Alps.

3.3.5 Conclusions

There is a need to make the Alps an issue and lobby for it. WWF is already a key player in shaping EU policies, especially at EU-level (WWF-EPO). Here, work should be closely linked with that of


17

the EPO. The local and regional ownership of biodiversity conservation measures should be improved by involving stakeholders.

Key areas to focus on, with major effects on biodiversity, are the following land-use related policy sectors: land use/landscape convention, agriculture, rural development, forests and transport (especially related to pricing). The most important policy instruments for the EU are the funding mechanisms for land use. It is important to focus on the financial subsidies of agricultural and rural policies as they influence the status and landscape of the Alps.

There is a need for a coordinated Alpine policy (both vertically and horizontally), e.g. an integrated, comprehensive mountain policy to overcome the lack of coordination between the various mountain policies. Work has to be done at all levels, integrating them: local, regional, national and international.

The Alpine Convention should be strengthened, especially through the improvement of cooperation at all levels.

To increase protection of the Alps, Natura 2000 and the PEEN network under PEBLDS offer opportunities. There is still a lack of coordination within the Alps regarding key issues such as protection.

Funding opportunities via LIFE, the structural funds (which support European regional policy), INTERREG IIIB (which provides financial support to initiatives amongst regions in the EU and focuses on cross-border cooperation) and European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) should be explored.

There is a lack of understanding on the impact of tourism on biodiversity, which should be addressed via research.

There are other policy areas, which might bear important leverages for work in the Alps:

the new Water Framework Directive of the EU will have important consequences for the Alps because it plays an important role in Europe’s water flow natural hazard prevention and soil protection might encourage the adoption of natural solutions economic incentives (fees to enter national parks, fees for hunting, etc.) might be explored to enhance conservation and sustainable development the EU funds research relevant for the Alps (DG Research), which should be explored.

4 SUMMARY OF THE STAKEHOLDERS’ SURVEY

4.1 Objectives

During the Reconnaissance Phase a survey of the stakeholders in the Alps was undertaken. Its objectives were:

to create a database of experts and data holders, as sources of information and advice to list what activities are already being undertaken in the Alps and by whom, to define the most appropriate niche for WWF to inform and guide the next phases of the ERC process (especially for designing the stakeholders’ involvement process and the strategy for partnership building).


18

The survey thus aimed at collecting information on all important and potential stakeholders who are active or have any interests in the Alps, whether they have a positive, negative or neutral influence on biodiversity conservation.

For a detailed description of the stakeholders’ survey, please refer to Appendix II. For key partners, refer to 10.1 Biodiversity vision and stakeholders’ involvement. The full stakeholders’ database is available upon request.

4.2 Status of the survey and summary of findings

The draft survey available today is only preliminary and no thorough analysis has been performed, yet. Stakeholders are listed according to their sectors of operation: forestry, agriculture, tourism, education, research, transportation, energy, industry, sustainable development, etc. They are also divided by country, but not all countries have the same level of detail. In particular, as no ERC partners have been found yet in Slovenia and Monaco, there are still no entries for these countries.

Although the survey is still incomplete and lacks a common structure, it provides a general overview of the stakeholders’ scenery in the Alps. The resulting database already includes several hundreds entries, indicating that the stakeholder situation in the Alps is very complex and should be approached with care.

5 SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS DURING THE RECONNAISSANCE PHASE

5.1 Structure and administration

The internal structure was defined with the development of terms of reference for the team members, the designation of a steering committee and the search for contacts in France, Slovenia and Liechtenstein. A workplan was drafted, which paced the following activities. An informal financial mechanism was set up whereby the various NOs covered specific ecoregional costs according to their possibilities and interests. A few important documents were drafted to provide an initial working framework and clarify the scope of operations. In particular, a Statement of Intents was drafted in three languages and used for communication purposes, a PowerPoint presentation was produced on the Alps and the results of the assessments, and criteria for the selection of scientific partners were developed. Finally, two “libraries” were initiated: one with photos of the Alps, the other with general ERC documentation and examples from other ecoregions.

5.2 Contacts and synergies

Several contacts were initiated with parts of the WWF network and with external organizations to explore potential synergies. Internally, the link with the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE) was strengthened, while new links were created with the Ecoregional Conservation Strategies Unit (ECSU) of WWF-US, the European Spaces and Species Policy Team, the Large Herbivore Initiative (LHI), the WWF Environmental Policy Office (EPO), and other ERC coordinators. In addition, the Alps ecoregion was involved in the establishment of the network of the European and Middle East ecoregions. This is particularly significant, as the profile of ERC work in this region needs to be raised. Externally, a link was established with the International Commission for the Protection of the Alps (CIPRA), the Network of Alpine Protected Areas, the European Mountain Forum, Europarc, and various experts and researchers.


19

5.3 Assessments

Three rapid assessments (biodiversity, socioeconomic and policy) were prepared by experts to provide a basis for WWF’s decision about future involvement in the ecoregion (see Ch. 4, Summary of the main findings of the rapid assessments). A survey of the stakeholders was conducted (see Ch. 4, Summary of the stakeholders’ survey).

5.4 Priority themes

Parallel to the work on the ERC process (assessments, etc., see above), work continued on large carnivores

in the Alps. Besides the activities of the individual NOs, the LCIE has undertaken specific ecoregional studies, WWF-D has organized a media event on the Alpine LCs for EXPO 2000 in Hanover, and a joint LIFE project proposal was prepared and submitted to the EU. Even though the proposal was rejected, it marked the beginning of joint strategic planning between the involved Alpine NOs on an ecoregional scale. Work also continued on the Natura 2000 and Emerald Network

for the Alpine biogeographic region. A thorough Alpine report was completed, a major lobby effort was undertaken, and the preparation of a common transnational project is currently being discussed. Two new priority themes were identified: education

and pristine areas & corridors. Education activities are already being planned, aiming to raise the awareness of people for the outstanding biodiversity value of the Alps and to create a sense of belonging among the people living in the Alps. The second theme is currently being developed (see Part II, Ch.11, Priority themes) and a master thesis for an Alpine-wide “pristine quality map” is being initiated.

6 SUMMARY OF RESULTS FROM THE RECONNAISSANCE PHASE

The assessments provide a general overview of the status of biodiversity in the Alps and the main factors influencing biodiversity. They have helped to create a common basic understanding of the Alpine situation within the project team. The assessments are regarded as working documents, open to future modification based on additional scientific results and changing trends.

6.1 Biodiversity

The Alps are still a mountain system of great beauty and naturalness, hosting rich flora and fauna and with a relatively high number of pristine areas. Cultural landscapes, based on traditional farming and extensive agriculture, are characteristic of this area and responsible for part of the biodiversity present. Both natural environments and cultural landscapes, however, are seriously threatened and have already suffered impairment: it is therefore necessary to work on both levels.

6.2 Socioeconomic

Socioeconomic factors within the Alps are diverse and differ regionally, which implies the need for actions at both regional and local level. Generally, to conserve biodiversity, on one hand human impacts have to be prevented (e.g. habitat fragmentation) and on the other hand some human activities have to be encouraged (e.g. extensive agriculture). The large urban areas on the fringe of the Alps heavily influence the region. Because of very different socioeconomic factors, it is important to involve stakeholders and partners to develop a common vision for restoring the biodiversity of the Alpine ecoregion. WWF cannot do it alone.


20

6.3 Policy

Several regional, national and supranational policies influence the Alps’ biodiversity directly or indirectly. Therefore, the appropriate policy player to deal with depends on the specific issue at hand. The European Union is an important policy player, even though not all Alpine countries are EU members.

6.4 Stakeholders’ involvement

The involvement of stakeholders for ERC in the Alps is a complex issue, which requires cautiousness, sensitivity and professionalism. A stakeholders’ list is a good basis for the involvement but it is only the first step. As there are many stakeholders in the Alpine region, a selection of the most relevant and representative ones is necessary, together with the development of an appropriate involvement strategy. ERC itself is quite complex and to sell it to others we need to clearly describe the process and clarify the benefits. One important step of this effort will be the definition of WWF’s role.

6.5 Funding

The EU offers several opportunities for funding ERC in the Alps (see LIFE, INTERREG, specific policies), but projects should be designed to also include Switzerland, Slovenia, Liechtenstein and Monaco, which are not EU member states. Other government and non-government donors should be explored, including those from the private sector. To tap these resources, WWF needs to form appropriate partnerships.

6.6 Overall conclusion of the Reconnaissance Phase

During the meeting of the project team and the steering committee on 5-6 October 2000 in Frankfurt, Germany, it was decided that it make sense to continue ecoregional work in the Alps. This is perfectly in line with the WWF European Programme strategy, which considers the Alps one of the priority ecoregions to focus on.

7 LESSONS LEARNED

The various NOs participated in the programme with different levels of involvement: from active participant (A, CH, I, D), to partners only for certain issues (F). While this lose structure may have caused some delays in the programme, the acceptance of varying degrees of readiness to participate allowed us to proceed with the work nonetheless. In that respect, one important decision was made: being able to contribute financially to ERC in the Alps is not a prerequisite for an NO to be an active member of the programme. Active participation in activities and decision-making is the key criterion. NOs will contribute when possible and with the resources they can afford given their other commitments.

The internal structure with an ERC coordinator, country coordinators, project coordinators and a steering committee has worked rather well for the initial phase of the programme, even though clearer roles and responsibilities for some of the parties should have been defined at the outset. To improve the integration between the project team and the steering committee, a SC chair was


21

designated responsible for consolidating the input of the SC and ensuring decisions are timely made.

More activities could have been undertaken if more time and resources had been devoted to ERC in the Alps. Nevertheless, considerable achievements were made which is a clear indication of how more far-reaching this programme could be if endowed with more means. In the future it is important to make ERC a priority and to resource it accordingly.

Raising the profile of ERC work is paramount to obtain political support and funding, both from within the WWF network and externally. For this purpose a network of European and Middle East ecoregions was created towards the end of the Reconnaissance Phase (November 2000).

Especially at the beginning of the Reconnaissance Phase there was some trial and error in the attempt to find the right direction because experience on ERC was very limited. In retrospect, more time should have been devoted at the outset to reading the available ERC material, consult the WWF network, and thus understand the process better. A more active involvement from the start of the ECSU of WWF-US would have been very helpful. In the future the project team intends to rely more on the resources made available through the network.

A relatively efficient communication mechanism was put in place, with few meetings, some conference calls and an extensive use of e-mail. However, more meetings and of longer duration would have been helpful and will be sought in the future, but given the scarce time allocated to the personnel involved this is unlikely to happen in the short term.

The overall ERC work would have benefit from a regularly updated and prioritized workplan and from more regular progress reports.

8 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Besides the people directly involved in the Alpine Programme (listed in Appendix I), the Project Team wishes to thank the following individuals for their assistance and support: Christoph Plutzar Christine Radler, Doreen Robinson, Sissi Samec, Herbert Schaupp, Sabine Siegrist, Magnus Sylven.


22

PART II – WAY FORWARD

9 GOAL OF THE ALPINE PROGRAMME

By deciding to continue with ERC work in the Alps, WWF has committed itself to following adaptively the ERC methodology, to devoting resources to these issues, and to seeking the partnership of others.

Two main lines of intervention were identified: the ERC process and the priority themes. Both lines are strongly linked and form, in an iterative process, the complete ERC work in the Alps.

The overall, working goal of WWF in this initial phase can be defined as follows:

WWF will contribute to the conservation of biodiversity in the Alps by creating a biodiversity vision with partners. A Conservation Action Plan will be developed based on this vision, considering the natural heritage of the Alps as well as the sustainable development of the region. The conservation of the Alpine biodiversity will be looked at from the biodiversity, socio-economic and policy viewpoint.

WWF’s short and medium term objectives and actions for the Alps are briefly summarized below under Ch. 10 Ecoregional conservation process and Ch. 11 Priority themes. Detailed and long-term goals, objectives and activities of WWF within the Alpine Programme will be defined after completion of the biodiversity vision and identification of WWF’s role.

10 ECOREGIONAL CONSERVATION PROCESS

10.1 Biodiversity vision and stakeholders’ involvement

The next important step in the ERC process after the Reconnaissance Phase is the development of a biodiversity vision, which will be the main focus of the process work in the short and medium term. “The biodiversity vision is the foundation on which stakeholders can build a conservation strategy for the ecoregion. It focuses the conservation planning effort (...) and it suggests priority for action.”10

Before initiating the vision process with external parties, it will be important to have the full participation and support of all the Alpine NOs as well as of the rest of the WWF network. All steps needed for this buy-in will be taken.

The development of a biodiversity vision for the Alps will be strictly linked to the stakeholders’ involvement strategy. The vision will be developed jointly with experts on the biodiversity of the region, experts on biodiversity conservation, and other stakeholders still to be defined.

It was agreed to organize the vision process jointly with two or three reputable Alpine-wide organizations interested in biodiversity conservation. As a consequence, the resulting vision will not be a WWF’s product but a shared, stronger position. To this purpose, three key partners were identified and approached: the International Commission for the Protection of the Alps (CIPRA

10 From: A workbook for conducting biological assessments and developing biodiversity visions for ecoregion-based conservation. Part I: Terrestrial ecoregions. Conservation Science Programme, November 2000, p.11.


23

International), the Network of the Alpine Protected Areas, and the International Scientific Committee on Research in the Alps (ICAS). A specific strategy for the involvement of other stakeholders will have to be developed. It is planned to contact parties interested in biodiversity conservation first. Other parties with a lesser interest in biodiversity will be contacted later.

In preparation for the vision process, GIS data gathering and analysis have already begun and will have to proceed for both the biodiversity and the socio-economic components. Future GIS activities will continue according to a format yet to be defined with the partners in the vision process. The experience of other ecoregions on the biodiversity vision (see for example the vision workshop of the Carpathians) will be a starting point for the Alps. In addition, the assistance of the WWF network will be sought (Ecoregional Conservation Strategies Unit, Conservation Science Programme of WWF-US), as the need for more consultation and assistance from within the network has already been identified (see Ch. 7 above, Lessons learned).

The involvement of Slovenia, Liechtenstein and Monaco for the vision process, other general ERC activities and the on-the-ground projects will be pursued.

10.2 Conservation programme and monitoring & evaluation

With a biodiversity vision in place, a conservation programme for the Alps will be developed which will outline the objectives, activities and targets needed to achieve the vision, by WWF and others. The conservation programme will integrate the targets and campaigns of the target driven programmes (TDPs) whenever possible, thus ensuring that ecoregional work will address the global conservation priorities. The conservation programme will also integrate the specific requirements of the WWF European Programme, such as the Footprint Reduction Strategies (Web of Life, Rules of the Game, Markets and Lifestyles).

The conservation programme will be accompanied by a monitoring & evaluation programme (M&E). This will provide up-to-date information on how well the targets are being achieved and will help to adapt the conservation programme as needed. An effort will be made to coordinate the M&E for the Alps with that of similar mountain ecoregions such as the Carpathians, for example by selecting a few common indicators, thus allowing comparisons among ecoregions.

11 PRIORITY THEMES

The importance for immediate joint activities on the ground was pointed out from the beginning of the Alpine Programme. The chosen priority themes are based on the following criteria:

Relevance for the entire Alpine region Previous expertise of WWF Short to medium term opportunity, or threat which needs to be addressed Relevance to the results of the Reconnaissance Phase.

The four selected priority themes are:

Large Carnivores Natura 2000 and Emerald Network Education Pristine areas & corridors.


24

There are other priority themes considered important in the assessment reports, such as transport and agriculture/preservation of old breeds. However, these can only be addressed if more financial and personnel resources become available. The current four priority themes reflect the need to develop Alpine-wide WWF activities and to have a short term conservation impact.

The following description will provide a short overview over WWF main goals and activities in the priority themes. The content of these themes is partly already worked out in more detail and will of course be adapted with the ongoing projects.

11.1 Large carnivores

WWF goal: to maintain and restore, in co-existence with people, viable populations of large carnivores as an integral part of the Alpine ecosystem.

Large Carnivores (lynx, wolf and brown bear) are wide-ranging species. Their effective conservation requires adequate protection throughout the whole Alpine range. The activities will be based on the conservation strategies of the European Large Carnivore Action Plans elaborated by the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE).

WWF activities Increase the acceptance of Large Carnivores by means of international awareness campaign Improve the migration of Large Carnivores into the Alps and within the Alps Protect adequate habitats and support international co-operation and monitoring.

11.2 Natura 2000 and Emerald Network

WWF goal: to build a sufficiently protected network of Natura 2000 and Emerald sites in the Alps (Web of Life) and to implement efficient monitoring and management activities in these sites.

The Fauna-Flora-Habitat Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora as well as the Birds Directive require EU Member States to nominate suitable Natura 2000 sites. The evaluation of the country’s nomination is undertaken through biogeographical seminars where WWF and other NGOs participate actively and have an important influence on the output. The decision-making process in the Alpine biogeographic region is currently under way – the time to act for WWF is now. Non EU Member States like Switzerland and Slovenia are invited by the Bern Convention to adopt the rather similar process Emerald.

WWF activities: push a common Alpine Shadow List of officially missing Natura 2000/Emerald sites prevent deterioration of sites by raising public awareness on the importance of the sites for the whole Alpine ecoregion ensure the establishment of a network of partners to guarantee strong implementation of the Web of Life.


25

11.3 Education

WWF goal: to raise awareness of the uniqueness, fragility and diversity of the Alps and lead people to action.

As clearly stated in the socio-economic assessment, human activities are an important factor affecting biodiversity in the Alps. Thus, in order to conserve biodiversity it is paramount to change human attitudes and behaviour. The people living in the Alps lack Alpine identification. It is important to develop a sense of belonging so that they recognize that they are all part of the same ecosystem and can take responsibility for it. WWF has decided to begin from the children with the project “Kids for the Alps”.

WWF activities: launch a drawing competition among the children of the schools in the Alps, also on occasion of 2002 the International Year of Mountains establish a network of the children of the Alps develop a partnership with the Networks of Alpine Communities and of Alpine Protected Areas

11.4 Pristine areas and corridors

WWF goal: enhance the conservation of remaining corridors and pristine areas and their dynamic in the Alps.

The biodiversity assessment states that habitat loss and fragmentation are important issues in the Alps. Within Western Europe the Alps provide a high range of pristine areas with their natural dynamic. We are about to loose these last pristine areas throughout the Alps as there is an invasive trend of human land use. Too little attention has also been paid to the loss of well functioning corridors over the last decades. Species populations become isolated and increasingly vulnerable due to higher extinction risk. Pristine areas and corridors are an important complement to the Natura 2000 sites: Corridors are an unrenounceable tool to link the different sites of high biodiversity value among each other. Compared to the Natura 2000/Emerald sites that are chosen because of their species and habitats richness, pristine areas are chosen to ensure the integrity of ecological dynamic processes.

WWF activities: production of a map on pristine areas and corridors in the Alps including evaluation and discussion of the map with regional conservation stakeholders. realisation of pilot projects in model region to protect/restore important areas or corridors reduce the negative impact of development projects.

12 BUDGET ARRANGEMENTS AND FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES

For the time being, the administration costs for the Alpine Programme will continue to be covered by the participating NOs according to their financial ability and strategic priorities.

Priority themes are dependent on specific internal, external or mixed funding. Usually, internal funding is used as “seed money” for projects, with the understanding that complete, future funding will be sought from other sources.


26

A funding strategy will be developed, both for internal (WWF) and external (non-WWF) fundraising, covering government (EU etc.) and non-government sources. Currently, funding opportunities are being explored by the individual NOs of the Alps and by the network of European and Middle East ecoregions. Each individual NO will undertake fundraising activities at national level independently; however, when pursuing transnational corporate donors, the NOs have felt the need to coordinate their activities and will soon begin consultations. The EPO will be involved via the European ecoregional network for designing an appropriate strategy to access EU funds for ERC work. In the mean time, the Alpine Programme has compiled an overview of the budget lines available for ERC work and specific projects; and a project proposal on spatial planning is being developed for submission under the INTERREG IIIB budget line. Other government donors will be considered, also via the network.


27

Project Team ERC Coordinator 50%: Serena Arduino

Priority Themes 50%: Andreas Baumuller (since Oct 00)

Steering Committee (SC)

Chair: Andreas Weissen

CC Switzerland Doris Calegari (10%)

CC Germany Frank Morschel (10%)

CC Austria Andreas Baumüller (10%)

CC Italy Serena Arduino (10%)

Austria Gerald Dick

Bernhard Drumel

Germany Uwe Kievelitz

Italy Paolo Lombardi Isabella Pratesi

Switzerland Luca Vetterli (until Oct 2000)

Andreas Weissen (since Oct 2000)

A

PP

EN

DIX

I

Internal structure of the WW

F E

RC

team during the R

econnaissance Phase

Priority themes

Large Carnivores : Norbert Gerstl Natura 2000 : Christoph Walder Education : Sabine Siegrist Pristine Areas and Corridors : Andreas Baumüller

Consultants

Rapid Biodiversity Assessment: Georg Grabherr Rapid Socioeconomic Assessment: Werner Bätzing

Rapid Policy Assessment: Olivia Bina


28

APPENDIX II

Detailed description of the stakeholders’ survey

The core of the data comes from national surveys undertaken by or on behalf of the country coordinators (A, CH, I, D). The core data for F and FL were collected by the AC through interviews to local representatives: respectively Anne-Cécile Fouver of FRAPNA, and Regula Imhof of LGU. This core list was then integrated with the information included in the rapid BD, SE and PO assessments on one hand, and with information provided by the European Mountain Forum, CIPRA, CIAPM (International Committee of the Associations for the Protection of Mont-Blanc) and some individuals.

For each entry in the database, the following information was collected (or attempted to):

About the organization or individual:

- Name and type of institution or name of individual. - In case of an institution: name of contact person. - Address (including e-mail and homepage address).

About the activities:

- What kind of projects or activities is the given organization /individual involved in the Alps (forestry, energy, sustainable development, etc.)?

- In what areas of the Alps does the project take place? - With what partners does the organization/individual cooperate in the project? - Does the organization/individual have any activity plan or strategy for the future?

While the core data of the national surveys generally meet all of the above requirements, the later integrations usually do not.

The stakeholders’ list is in Excel 97 and is divided into three parts:

the first part contains data for all Alpine countries except Italy. Here the data on the national and international organizations are organized by country; the second part contains data for Italy (Italy followed a different format); the third part contains a list of organizations which should be further evaluated to assess their potential involvement in the Alps and role for ERC. Some of them are international centres based outside of the Alpine region but potentially able to influence the ecoregion.

The list can be queried according to the country or to main themes (forestry, agriculture, transportation, research, etc.).

The database includes several entries, divided by countries as follows: approximately 140 in CH, 120 in D, 40 in F, 15 in FL, 180 in A, and 50 in I; the third part of the list contains 73 organizations. However, many are double entries (different people working for the same organization, or an organization listed several times because devoted to different areas of interest); and – obviously - not all of them will have to be involved.

Country by country, here is an outline of positive and negative aspects of the national surveys.


29

Switzerland

Positives: The survey is quite comprehensive and varied: it contains data of NGOs, ministries and different institutes, as well as some media connections. A lot of organization s of the most important factors (forestry, agriculture, energy, etc.) can be found in the database.

Negatives: Ecoregional conservation usually focusses on involving farmers, local people and small or medium economic enterprises; this list, however, does not contain any information on these stakeholders, there are no data about small agricultural cooperatives, or farmers’ associations etc. There are no data, either, on hunting associations or industrial organizations, which may have negative effects on biodiversity.

Germany (note that the German entries were gathered only by means of an internet survey)

Positives: It is a very thorough survey of scientific/research institutions.

Negatives: It is mainly focussed on scientific institutions but not organizations devoted to applied activities (e.g., tourist associations, hunting associations, political institutes, transport organization s etc.).

France

Positives: The survey contains data on organizations active on the ground (e.g. national or international NGOs and networks, who probably have a wide range of connection with other organizations).

Negatives: There is a lack of data on research institutes, political level organizations (ministries, municipalities), hunting associations etc.

Liechtenstein

There is simply a list of organizations but no information about what they do.

Austria

Positives: It is the most comprehensive and varied survey: it contains political institutes of all levels, associations of hunters and farmers, national parks, NGOs, survey institutes.

Italy

Positives: It contains a lot of (national and international) “applied” organizations such as NGOs, umbrella organizations, etc. This is the survey that contains the most detailed information about the organizations (including their partnerships and network connections, as well as their communication tools).

Negatives: The survey should be integrated with more scientific organizations.


30

Slovenia

No survey has been conducted, yet: this gap will be addressed in the Post-Reconnaissance Phase.

Recommendations for the completion of the survey

Provided the completion of the stakeholders’ survey is deemed a priority, the recommended next steps for its completion are:

Correct all the negatives mentioned above. Add to all national surveys information on the activities and projects of the organizations listed, as well as their partners and network connections (as in the Italian list). Separate national and international organizations within the sectors of each country. Classify stakeholders according to their role (actors, oilers, blockers, observers, etc.; or positive, negative or neutral). Consider also the potentially negative and neutral stakeholders (e.g. hunting associations, industrial associations, ministries which may have negative influence on the Alps). Check and complete the data, especially from the EMF and CIPRA websites and from CIAPM, which do not meet the information requirements. During the further data collection, take into consideration the statements on stakeholders involvement made at the Frankfurt meeting, namely: Include among the key stakeholders the farmers, local experts and the people who live in the area (search for associations of trade, farmers, etc.) Need to build support at the community levels (research for political institutes at every level). Create new alliances between nature conservation and small/medium economic enterprises in the Alps (search for small/medium enterprises).

report: 1-30. 2001. wwf project team of the alps ecoregion. · 2013. 4. 8. · report: 1-30. 2001....

Documents