-
Mountain areas 377
• The ‘ideal world’ of mountain areas isnow threatened by
socio-economic shifts,increasing tourism and traffic impacts,and
changes in land use. In the Acces-sion Countries more mountain
areasmust be expected to become endangered through rapid economic
develop-ment.
• Environmental and social damage hasalready occurred or must be
anticipatedin mountain areas through significantchanges in
precipitation patterns, speciesand habitats distribution, changes
inrunoff rates, and water pollution, loss ofsoils and increase of
man-made naturalhazards.
• Present EU policies often exhibit incon-sistency with respect
to mountain areasand do not take adequate account oftheir special
requirements.
3.15. Mountain areas
1. Mountains – the undervalued ecological backbone of Europe
Mountains provide vital resources for thewhole of Europe (Figure
3.15.1): for exam-ple, high runoff rates, and the storage
anddistribution of freshwater over time andspace make mountains a
major source forEurope’s water supplies.
Mountain areas are important part of theecological jewellery of
Europe, providingaesthetic and recreational landscapes,
highbiodiversity of species and habitats embed-ded in sustainable
land use systems. Extend-ing through different altitudinal
zonesmountains have a wide variety of habitats,including – in the
remotest regions inEurope – the last retreat for animals withlarge
habitats. The extreme physical condi-tions make mountains a fragile
environment,where natural phenomena, often increasedby man-made
land uses or misbehavior,interfere with human activities and
thencause natural hazards.
Despite their remoteness, mountains sufferfrom direct and
indirect pressures on theirnatural resources, many of which
areinterlinked, whose key factors are difficult toidentify.
Population change results fromdeclining agriculture and few
profitableincome opportunities, furthering the trend
The top of the mountain is only part of the story. Mountain
areas are systems of interlinkedvalleys, ridges and peaks. The
phenomena of mountains is also a matter of altitude and
slope.Diverse geology, geography and climate characterize European
mountains. Despite theirperceived remoteness, mountains offer an
important dimension to rural, urban and coastal areas.
Source: EEA processing
1456
Appenines
The Alps
3404
1000 km 2000 km
1700-1800
1600-1800; 2400
2000-2200
2914
4807
BavarianForest
max. altitude (m)
length
Pyrenees
Figure 3.15.2Overview of main features of some Europeanmountain
ranges
Population
Focus of Mountains
GDP
Water resources
Nature protection
Recreation
HazardPrevention
Landscape
Area20
40
60
0
80
100
Figure 3.15.1Important Mountain Features in the Europeancontext
illustrated by a qualitative estimation
Source: EEA
of land abandonment. Transport networks,for which mountains
constitute a barrier,tend to fragment the land, while tourism
isboth attracted by and damaging to mountainlandscapes.
Mountain Areas vary significantly through-out Europe (Box
3.15.1). Sometimes theseare isolated small mountains, often they
arehuge mountain massifs stretching overhundreds of kilometers, and
providing anecological backbone to much of the conti-nent. For ther
purposes of this chaptermountain areas are defined to
includelocations above 1 000m sea level (Figure3.15.2), as well as
all areas having a slopegreater than 5 degrees, but excluding
areaswith a surface area less than 100 squarekilometers.
-
Environmental issues378
Box 3.15.1 A glance over the thousands ofEuropean summits
In Europe mountains are found in thegeomorphological zones of
the Fenno-Scandinavian Shield and the central and southernEuropean
highlands. The eastern and centralEurope Accession Countries will
add newmountain areas to the EU nearly the size ofAustria, for
instance the Bohemian Forest,Carpathian Mountains and Rhodopes.
Although much of the available information onthe mountain
environment relates to the Alps,Europe has a great variety of
mountain regions,from Scandinavia to Mt. Etna in Sicily, and
fromthe vast Spanish sierras to the densely woodedCarpathians
(Figure 3.14.3 & 3.15.4).
40
60
0
20
80
100
And
orr
aM
ona
co
Arm
enia
Liec
hten
stei
n
Geo
rgia
Turk
ey
Switz
erla
nd
Alb
ania
Aus
tria
FYR
OM
Bo
snia
& H
erze
go
vina
No
rway
Gre
ece
Ital
y
Slo
veni
a
Aze
rbai
jan
Icel
and
Serb
ia M
ont
eneg
roSp
ain
Bul
gar
ia
Slo
vak
Rep
ublic
Cyp
rus
Ro
man
ia
Cro
atia
Fran
ce
Port
ugal
Uni
ted
Kin
gd
om
Swed
en
Cze
ch R
epub
lic
San
Mar
ino
Rus
sian
Fed
erat
ion
Ukr
aine
Ger
man
y
Irela
nd
Pola
nd
% A
rea
that
is m
oun
tain
EU countriesAccession countriesOther European countries
Talking of mountains means 14% of the EU and 11% of theAccession
Countries’ land area. Only few EU countries donot have mountainous
areas such as the Netherlands,Denmark and Belgium; others such as
Austria and Bulgaria,have a high proportion of mountain
areas.Source: EEA
Mediterranean24.9%
Continental6.9%
Boreal0.4%
Black Sea6.2% Atlantic
5.5% Arctic4.0%
Anatolian22.6%
Steppic0.1%
Pannonian2.3%
Alpine27.0%
Distribution over biogeographic regions shows thatmountains in
the Mediterranean and Anatolian regions are inabout the same
abundance as in the Alpine region.Source: EEA
Figure 3.15.4 Biogeographic regions of European mountains
Figure 3.15.3 Mountain areas share in European countries
-
Mountain areas 379
Adapting the DPSIR framework to the special needs of spatial
issues, some relevant relationsin mountain areas may be highlighted
by this simplified model. In general every policy actionshould bear
in mind the network of direct and indirect interactions which is
affected by therelevant policy.
Source: EEA
Drivers/Pressures
Population
Traffic
Changes in land use
Tourism and recreation
Natural hazards
Soil
Natural heritage
Water resources
State/Impact
Response
definition of newurban-mountain
relation
management ofcatchment areas
guidelines forsustainable
tourism
protection ofspecies andlandscapes
new taskstourism
agro-environmentrenewable energy
forestry
road pricing
Figure 3.15.5Interactions in mountain areasMountains are widely
recognized as impor-tant and sensitive ecosystems, but
littleprogress has been made in developingcomprehensive policies,
particularly at EUlevel, to build upon the good intentions setout
in mountain charters. Although Euro-pean policies were first
applied to mountainsin the 1970s (under the Less Favored Area,LFA,
framework) and mountain areas arenow subject to numerous EU,
national andregional policies, there remains a lack ofcoordination
between measures at differentlevels relating to various
sectors.
Mountains are probably the most prominentexamples where
multifunctional land useshave partly still survived, but are now at
risk.For mountain areas it is crucial to adopt acomprehensive,
spatially integrated policywhich is able to reflect and support
themultifunctionality which has been thesustainable concept in
mountains for manygenerations.
2. How can the environment of remote mountains be
threatened?
Fragile environmental conditions havebrought about highly
adapted and sophisti-cated land uses. Demographic and
economicchanges (and particularly the growth oftourism) have
complex effects which call forholistic responses (Figure
3.15.5).
2.1. What makes population, traffic, tourism and land use change
the main driving forces and pressures in mountains?
2.1.1. Population is outmigrating and overageingMany mountain
areas have declining andageing populations due to outmigration
ofworkers, the use of residences as secondhomes, and inward
migration of pensioners.Loss of population might reduce the
capabi-lity for upkeeping the landscape and meansan additional
burden for suburban areas intowhich people are moving. Mountains
alsobecome subject of exploitation as a naturalresource for urban
consumption from low-land regions. There are at least 38 cities
above250 000 inhabitants close to mountain rangesin the EU and
Accession Countries, such asMilan, Geneva, Birmingham, Rome,
Granadaand Thessaloniki (Map 3.15.1).
Population density varies considerably withaltitude, so that
some mountain areas areextremely sparsely populated, and
compara-ble to Arctic regions, while the denselyinhabited valleys
have similarities with
lowland regions. In 1990 the vertical distri-bution of total
alpine population concen-trated 93% below 1 000 m above sea
level(a.s.l.), 53% below 500 m a.s.l., and only 7%above 1 000 m
(Bätzing, 1997). Anotheraspect of population density is a
significantvariation with seasonal or daily peaks, i.e.summer and
winter tourism inside moun-tains, international holidays or short
week-end trips from surrounding city dwellers.
The shift and migration within mountaincountries can be
illustrated by some Alpinecountries. In the period from 1870 to
1990the Alps experienced a total populationincrease from 7 million
up to 11 millionpeople, but the proportion living in moun-tain
areas dropped from 7.4% to 5.8%.
Population changes are connected tochanges of employment
opportunities andstructures. The shift from a traditional
multi-functional and multi-sectoral way of living ofmountain people
to external employmentand enterprises is, besides
insufficientinfrastructure, a main reason for populationchanges.
This means in general terms a shift
-
Environmental issues380
Urban centres
Mountain zone
Roads
> 500 000 inhabitants
Urban centresaround the Alps
0 100 km
200 000 – 500 000
100 000 – 200 000
Marseille
Genova
Torino
Milano
Lyon
München
StuttgartWien
Graz
Ljubljana
Trieste
VeneziaPadovaVerona
Bologna
FirenzeNiceGrasse
Toulon
Grenoble
Bern
ZürichDijon
NancyKarlsruhe
Strasbourg
Mulhouse
Augsburg Bratislava
Golfedu Lion
Ligur ianSea
Adriatic Sea
Golfodi Venezia
6o 8o 10o 12o 14o 16o
6o4o 8o 10o 12o 14o 16o
44o
46o
48o
44o
46o
48o
Map 3.15.1Urban settlements around
mountains; the example ofthe Alps
Source: EEA, GISCO –Eurostat
from the primary to the tertiary sector. Thistrend has special
significance in mountainareas, where often traditional and
sustain-able activities are substituted by pure eco-nomically
orientated activities. For exampleformerly multi-skilled mountain
peopleworking in agriculture, forestry, pastoralismor dairy farming
are now employed in thetourist business or industry. Thus
agriculturealone is no longer an economic pillar formountain
towns.
These changes in employment may behighlighted by the area of
Aletsch in Switzer-land. Here the primary sector dropped fromabout
70% in 1950 to 12% in 1980, touristaccommodation increased from
about 65beds in 1940 up to 7 250 beds in the 1980s.About 900 local
residents now cater forabout 700 000 overnight stays per
year(Messerli, 1989).
2.1.2. Tourism and recreation in mountains: a double-edged
swordPromoted as an economic incentive forremote areas, tourism has
in some mountainregions evolved monostructured,
vulnerableeconomies, and generated pressures on theenvironment.
Notwithstanding the vogue for‘green tourism’, intensive,
environmentallythreatening tourism continues to develop; asimilar
trend can also be expected in Acces-
sion Countries. Tourism and recreationfacilities exert pressure
on the environmentthrough land-use development and in-creased road
traffic. Additionally, manyoutdoor sports affect the more
undisturbedand nearly inaccessible areas such as gorgesor rock
faces (Garcia-Ruiz, Lasanta-Martinez,1993; Lichtenberger,
1979).
The economic importance of mountaintourism is illustrated by a
Greek study whichestimated that the recreational value ofmountain
areas is 10 times greater than thevalue of forest timber (Vakrou,
1998 quotedin EOMF, 1998).
Tourism development varies considerably. Inthe Alps, for
instance, only 10% of all Alpinecommunes have large
monostructuredtourist infrastructure and 40% have notourism
(Bätzing, 1997), and since the mid-1980s figures for tourism have
been stagnat-ing or decreasing in some Alpine regions,after several
decades of steady growth(Elsasser/Frösch/Finsterle, 1990;
Bätzing,1990; Romano, 1995). Nevertheless, thereare plans for
further tourist facilities, such asski runs in the Pyrenees and
developmentsto cater for new recreation activities, particu-larly
in the Accession Countries wheretourism is important as a source of
foreignexchange.
-
Mountain areas 381
0 10 15 20 255
Austria
France
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Spain
Greece
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
010152025 5million km2
Existing roadPlanned road
Existing railwayPlanned railway
Average of total roadsAverage of total railway
million km2
Figure 3.15.6Trans-European Network (roads and railways)
inmountainous countries
Here an index of meters of road/railway per km2 of mountain area
shows where increases ofinfrastructure and changes of modal split
exist and are planned.
Source: EEA, European Commission (TEN)
2.1.3. Traffic networks are governed by needs outside
mountainsTransport infrastructure development (Figure3.15.6) has
often facilitated outmigration orcommuting to urban centres and
increasedtransit and tourist traffic, particularly daytourism in
the catchment areas of big cities.
For instance nearly 150 million people a yearare crossing the
Alps, 83% by road and 17%by railway (Figure 3.15.7). A rapid
increasein long-distance traffic crossing the Alps isexpected at a
rate of 100% for freight and50% for passenger transport within the
next20 years (European Commission, 1994;CIPRA, 1998).
Traffic network impacts are concentrated invalleys where people
live. It is therefore notsurprising that two-thirds of the Alps’
popula-tion suffers from traffic noise. In Tyrol 87% ofhigh ozone
levels are caused by traffic and inthe 1980s lead concentration in
mother’s milkclose to the Brenner motorway exceededother regions by
seven times (Rhomberg,1998). Other traffic-caused impacts
arefragmentation of untouched areas, deteriora-tion of recreation
areas, and socio-economic,double-edged effects such as better
accessibi-lity to mountains or changing competitionbetween
mountains and lowlands. Whiletransport network density is higher in
theAlps than in other European mountainranges, rapid increases may
be expected forAccession Countries’ mountains.
There have been calls in mountain areas forbetter integration of
transport and compen-sation for environmental disbenefits,
andprotests by local populations have resulted inhighway blockades,
for example on theBrenner Pass (between Austria and Italy) orthe
1994 plebiscite in Switzerland on freighttransport.
2.1.4. The sustainability of land uses is set at riskMountain
agriculture has responded toeconomic pressures in two ways (Box
3.15.2).One reaction is intensification, in the valleysand on high
mountain pastures and goodaccessible slopes shifting from
extensivemeadows to intensively grazed pastures. Theother is
extensification in terms of abandon-ment or afforestation. Both
these changescause a significant decline in biodiversity androot
density. Land abandonment will inducesnow gliding, changes in water
storagecapacity and water transport in soils, theonset of soil
podzolisation and a potentiallyhigher frequency of natural
hazards(Cernusca et al., 1996, Höller et al., 1998).
Forest areas extend through natural re-growth on abandoned
farmland or afforesta-tion (Figure 3.15.8). Forests are, of
course,often the main natural land cover in moun-tains. Depending
on the new forest type,local conditions and existing
biotopes,changes may positively or adversely affectspecies
diversity, landscape attractiveness andtourism.
In the eastern and central European coun-tries, changes are
driven in particular by thetransition towards a market economy.
Mill
ion
net
tonn
es
RoadRail
50
40
30
20
10
01970 1996
60
70
80
90
100The trend of freighttransport per year throughthe inner
Alpine arch,between Mont Cenis/Fréjusand Brenner shows
anoverproportional shifttowards road transport.
Source: CIPRA
Figure 3.15.7Freight transport in the Alps (1970-1996)
-
Environmental issues382
Box 3.15.2 Evolution and change of land use in the Alps (after
Bätzing, 1990)
Main features in the Swiss Alps as derived from Messerli
(1989)
4000 B.C. Transhumance starts(migrating shepherds).
Roman and German mountainagriculture.
Walser and Schwaighof economy.
14th/15th century Forest degradation throughclear-cutting and
overuse; increaseof rock falls and avalanches.
16th/17th century Boom time of cheese and cattle Population
increase causesproduction; wealthy overgrazing and degradation
ofcommunes. pastures.
19th century Start of some industrialisation Forest degradation
through clear-for use of charcoal and hydropower cutting for
industry (charcoal),in eastern Alps; collapse of grazing in forests
and overuse;traditional, multi-functional land use. increase of
floods.
20th century From 1920 beginning of tourism Tourism, ski tourism
in particular;in belle-epoque hotels; from 1950s forest degradation
through airbroad tourism trend. emissions; land set-aside;
cause
increasing erosion.
Generally Alpine land-use systems followedprinciples which
maintained a sustainable culturallandscape and probably achieved in
modernterms ‘sustainable development’. Guidelinesincluded careful
site selection, examination of thesuitability for land uses, and a
high proportion ofland restoration and maintenance,
requiringresponsibility and high human labour input.
Certain environmentally relevant measures weredefined, such as
forest protection to prevent rockfalls and avalanches (e.g. in
Andermatt,Switzerland, 1397); definition of number and typeof
livestock for pastures at different altitudes andlimitation to
areas available for winter fodder inthe valleys. Permanent
restoration such ascollecting rocks from pastures, removal of
forestregrowth, seeding of open soil patches andfertilizing were
practised.
Over time different, highly adapted land-usesystems slowly
evolved the Swiss Alps, under theharsh and hostile conditions of
the mountain
environment, in which land mismanagement canhave disastrous
consequences.
Similar systems are reported also for thePyrénées, Vosges, Black
Forest, ScandinavianMountains and Dinaric Alps.
The traditional knowledge of land management,still a living
example of sustainable development,is rarely taken seriously, more
appreciated as atouristic attraction and at risk of
disappearing;for economic reasons, intensive land uses, suchas mass
tourism, do not favour sustainabledevelopment.
In future it seems likely that polarisation withinmountain areas
between very intensivelydeveloped, economically prosperous
regionsand remote, marginalised ones will continue.Certainly there
are some promising attemptsto promote new, multi-functional
land-usemodels, but it remains questionable whetherthese will
succeed as widespread solutions.
Pastures are enlarged by the cutting ofsubalpine forests and
shrubs, notably inAlbania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia,Slovakia and
the Ukraine. Hunting tourismcauses the overgrazing of some forests
bydeer (Price, 1995).
2.2. The environmental state of sensitive mountain areas is a
valuable indicator for the whole of Europe
2.2.1. Mountains are the first to be hit by climate changeThe
prospect of climate change (see Chap-ter 3.1) has significant
implications formountain environments. There are likely to
be also indirect effects on human populati-ons and ecosystems in
adjacent plains,particularly arid and semi-arid regions
withirrigated agriculture dependent on watersupplied from mountain
areas (Price/Barry,1997). For Swiss mountains an
acceleratedstructural change in mountain farming isexpected with
threats to the survival of smallmountain communities, due to
comparativedisadvantages of mountains relative to valleys(Jeker,
1996; Flückiger, 1996). But effects ofclimate change depend on
interaction withother factors and can be worsened or easedby human
action. The extent of environmen-tal and economic damage will
depend onthe resilience of mountain landscapes to
-
Mountain areas 383
0% of land surface
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
UnitedKingdom
Ireland
Greece
Portugal
Spain
Italy
France
Austria
Germany
In non-mountain areasIn mountain areas
Figure 3.15.8Forest shares inside and outside mountains
Source: EEA and FAO data
3600
2800
2000
1200
400
3600
2800
2000
1200
400
Alti
tud
e (m
)A
ltitu
de
(m)
Evergreen oaks
Deciduous oaks and hornbeam
Beech and fir
Sub-alpine conifers
Alpine meadows
Hilly
Hilly
Montane Sub-alpine AlpineNival
Mediterranean MontaneSub-alpine
Alpine
It must be assumed that each vegetation belt would be replaced
by the neighboring zonebelow, except for some fragmented areas in
the Pyrenees and the Alps (i.e. Mont Blanc).Source: Guisan et al.
(eds.), 1995
Figure 3.15.9Climate change: vegetation can be forcedupwards in
higher altitudinal belts
buffer the expected extreme weather events.This can be achieved
through good land-scape maintenance such as through moun-tain
forestry and pastoralism (Breiling/Charamza/Skage, 1997).
Mountain areas represent within a relativelysmall area different
climatic belts linked toaltitude, and are therefore highly
sensitive toany climate change (Figure 3.15.9). With ananticipated
global warming of about 2-3°C by2100, higher-altitude ecosystems
probablywould suffer the greatest impact of globalwarming through
eliminating the entirealpine belt, including the nival zone.
Animpoverishment of (present endemic)species and biotope
fragmentation would bethe result of this process.
Temperatureincreases and changes in precipitationpatterns would
cause changes in snow coverand water reserves, soil instability
throughreduction of permafrost soils, and alsoinfluence the
frequency of natural pheno-mena such as mudflows, floods or
droughts(Guisan et al., 1995; Ruberti, 1994; Dubost/Zingari).
Variation of precipitation patterns and watersupply might
influence agriculture or stockbreeding through changes of
suitablepasture or fodder for grazing animals.
Changes in snow cover and snow durationmay have severe effects
on winter tourism.Also without a real change, climate variabi-lity
will have serious effects (Breiling/Charamza/Skage, 1997). One
study predictsthat in Switzerland the number of economi-cally
viable ski resorts and ski lifts will de-cline by 67% to 44%
(Abegg/Elsasser, 1996).About 3% to 4.5% of Austrian GNP dependson
winter tourism: it is estimated that about10% of Austrian winter
tourist revenues aredirectly lost by a warming of 1.5 degreeCelsius
(Breiling, 1994) – and that indirectlosses are three times higher.
On the otherhand, regions at higher altitudes with bettersnow
conditions may experience an increaseof winter tourism, leading to
economicdisparities, uncontrolled development andincreasing
environmental damage (Breiling/Charamza/Skage, 1997).
In the Fennoscandian Mountains, thepotential alpine zones in
Norway might bereduced to a quarter of their present size,followed
by endangering of, or strongcompetition between animal species
(e.g.lemming, red fox, arctic fox), due to thereduction of their
current habitats. In theSouthwestern Alps, a progressive decrease
in
-
Environmental issues384
0km2
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Ordesa / Monte Perdido, ES
Grisons, CH*
Berchtesgaden, DE
Kalkhochalpen, AT
Ammergebirge, DE
Abruzzo, IT
Vinamala, ES
Salzachtal, AT
Mercantour, FR
Gran Paradiso, IT
Ecrins, FR
Padjelanta, SE
Käsivarsi, FI
Sjaunja, SE
Kaldoaivi, FI
Hardangervidda, NO
Vindelfjälten, SE
* transfrontier park with Stelvio, Italy
Figure 3.15.10 Range in size of protected mountain areas
Sizes of selected unfragmented protected areas in different
countries of alpinebiogeographical region (IUCN categories I-IV
serving primarily nature conservation functions,WCMC and Common
Database on Designated Areas, EEA).
Source: EEA
precipitation is expected with steppe-likevegetation patterns.
In general, the Mediter-ranean climate might spread further
north-ward and upward endangering Alpine plantcommunities and
causing extinction of someEuropean tree species in the Central
Alps(Guisan et al., 1995; Ruberti, 1994; Dubost/Zingari).
2.2.2. Mountains provide an interwoven natural and cultural
heritageLarge unfragmented areas are an importantbut steadily
declining resource, and, whilesome of these areas enjoy legal
protection,there are considerable differences betweenregions
(Figure 3.15.10).
Five of the largest unfragmented (andprotected) areas are
located at the peripheryof the EU, such as in Scandinavia
wherepressure from population, land use andtraffic is relatively
low, while protected areasin Middle-Europe (Alps, Middle
Mountains)
are generally smaller. Unfragmented sensi-tive areas are often
still unprotected (na-tional parks cover only 4.2% of the
Alps;CIPRA, 1998). The Accession Countries atpresent have large
unfragmented areas.
Besides their importance for conservation ofwildlife and
biodiversity, large unfragmentedareas offer non-material values
such as areasof silence, low emissions of pollutants, naturalbeauty
and wilderness perception. Europeanmountains may be considered as
an ecologi-cal ‘green’ network offering migrationcorridors and
guidelines over long distances.
The number of areas in the Alps above 1 500km² not touched by
major transport infra-structure dropped from 31 to 14 between1963
and 1993 (CIPRA, 1998) implying theloss of characteristic species
and of speciesrequiring large areas to survive (see alsoChapter
3.11). On the other hand, thesetting-aside and abandonment of land
mayin some areas lead to growth of unfragmen-ted areas, as reported
from some FrenchAlpine valleys, although land abandonmentcan harm
biodiversity.
Human impacts have often created newecological conditions in
mountain areas,contributing not only to the diversity oflandscape
character but also generatingecosystems which house a high
speciesdiversity. In the Pyrénées 30% of the landbelow 1 600 m
above sea level was cultivatedin the last century (Garcia-Ruiz;
Lasanta-Martinez, 1993), while approximately 70% ofthe Alpine
region is influenced by humanland use (CIPRA, 1998). Besides
humanimpacts on natural or semi-natural land-scapes (e.g. lowering
timberline in moun-tains), different land use practices created
agreat variety of cultural landscapes adaptedto existing physical
conditions in mountains.Landscapes such as terraces, alpine
pastures,Coltura Promiscua in the Appennines and inPortugal,
hedge-dominated landscapes suchas the ‘Egartenlandschaft’ in the
BavarianAlps or Chestnut woods in the southern Alpsand Cévennes
have arisen, giving a distinc-tive character to regions or local
areas.
Cultural landscapes in mountains can bekept stable only by
continuous farmingsuited to local conditions. They are decliningdue
to worsening economic farming condi-tions, becoming more a subject
of govern-ment maintenance than of private enter-prise, but are
discovered by tourism as arelevant resource. Especially
endangeredlandscapes are traditional extensive livestock
-
Mountain areas 385
Agr
icul
ture
inm
ount
ain
area
sSe
mi-n
atur
al a
reas
in
mou
ntai
n ar
eas
Agr
icul
ture
inno
n-m
ount
ain
area
s
Sem
i-nat
ural
are
as in
non-
mou
ntai
n ar
eas
01-20%21-40%41-60%60-80%
01-20%21-40%41-60%61-80%
BulgariaCzech Republic
HungaryPoland
RomaniaSlovak Republic
Accession countries
AustriaBelgium
DenmarkFrance
Germany
IrelandItaly
LuxembourgNetherlands
PortugalSpain
Greece
EU countries
AndorraSan Marino
Other countries
Figure 3.15.11Illustration of land-use intensity in
mountains
Relation of agricultural andsemi-natural areas insideand outside
mountains,considering the relevantarea.
Source: EEA
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Eur
op
e
Eur
op
ean
Uni
on
Gre
ece*
Alp
s
Car
pat
hian
s
Mt.
Oly
mp
us
Num
ber
of s
pec
ies/
1000
Mountain regions* Endemics of Alpine Region only
Pyre
nees
vascularplant species
endemic vascularplant species
Figure 3.15.12Number of vascular plant species in
Europeanmountains
Mountains are inhabited bya remarkable proportion ofEuropean
species of vascularplants. Endemic plantspecies in mountains can
beestimated for only the fivemountain ranges in thefigure to make
up about30% to 42% of the vascularplants occurring only inEurope
(depending on theestimated number of these).Here one has to
considerthat mountain ranges in totalcover only 14% of Europe.
Source: Stanners &Bourdeau, 1995; Ozenda,1988; Blandin,
1992
farming systems (Petit et al., 1998) e.g. alpineand subalpine
pastures, arctic and alpinedwarf shrubs, or transhumant grazing,
whichdisappeared completely in the Pyrénées(Garcia-Ruiz;
Lasanta-Martinez, 1993).
Mountains also house a large number ofecosystems, species and
genetic variety. Theyhave the highest concentration of habitats
ofmost significance for conservation in the EU(Zingari, 1994), with
almost 25% of habitatsof European interest – of 169 habitat
types(defined in Annex I of the Habitats Direc-tive), 42 occur only
in mountain areas(Hopkins, 1998). Natural and semi-naturalhabitats
cover a large percentage of Europe’smountain area, while intensive
agricultureaccounts for only a small proportion (Figure3.15.11). In
Accession Countries, coverage ofsemi-natural and natural habitats
in mountainregions is generally lower than in the EU.
Although biological diversity increased inthe last century in
Europe, this trend hasbeen reversed in recent years, due tochanges
in traditional land use: in the Alps atremendous reduction of
species and habi-tats use is reported (Brugger and Messerli
inZingari/Dubost, 1996).
Mountain areas in particular have become aretreat for species
originally distributed inlarger areas such as brown bears, wolves,
lynxand wild reindeer. The re-immigration ofbears since the 1970s
from southern Sloveniainto the Alps has been confirmed
anddemonstrates the eligibility of mountains asinterlinking
ecological networks. Eight ofthe 35 mammal species listed under the
EUHabitat Directive occur predominantly orentirely in mountains
(Hopkins, 1998) –information concerning species diversity
inmountain areas is mainly available for higherplants (Figure
3.15.12) and mammals.Isolation of populations during ice ages
hascaused evolution of endemic species, whenspecies were pushed
back on areas free ofglaciation. For this reason some
Europeanmountain ranges (mainly Mediterraneanmountains which
remained free of glacia-tion) form centres of plant endemism.
Theyhost (predominantly or completely) two-thirds of the
continent’s flora (Ozenda, 1994cit. in Dubost, Zingari).
As mentioned in Chapter 3.11 the mainte-nance of genetic
resources is important inmany respects; reduction of gene pools
maybe a risk for the future, in view of adaptationpossibilities to
future environmentalchanges. The loss of genetic diversity by
-
Environmental issues386
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
mm
Alp
s
Eur
op
e(e
xclu
din
g A
lps)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
% F
low
Rho
ne Po
80
90
100
Rhi
ne(S
wis
s se
ctio
n)
Runoff
Evaporation
Precipitation
Lowland flow
Mountain river flow
In the Alps precipitation ishigher and evaporation is
lower than in the average ofEurope. Therefore the Alps
produce higher runoff rates.As a result, small mountain
areas are responsible for anoverproportional flow of
rivers in lowlands as shownfor the rivers Rhône, Po and
Rhine
Source: EEA; MountainAgenda, 1998
Figure 3.15.13 Importance of the Alps for the water flow
inEurope
disturbance of gene pools also occurs inmountains, such as with
the chamois subspe-cies cartusiana of the French Alps hybridingwith
the common, introduced chamoissubspecies rupicapra, or hybriding
betweenwild and domesticated reindeer in Norway.
2.2.3. Mountains are the watertowers of the lowlandsThe water
resources of mountains cover themost vital functions of mountain
and lowlandpeople (Figure 3.15.13). Notable functionsare the
provision of high-quality freshwater,irrigation water for food
production, theeconomic value of hydropower generation,and water
supply for natural wetlands inplains. But these benefits of
mountain watersare threatened by degradation of waterquantity and
quality, and discontinuity of flow.The growing demand for water,
mainly ineastern and southern European countries, asshown in
Chapter 3.5, will make the preserva-tion of these functions of
paramount impor-tance in future.
Mountain height enables water to flow to fardistant areas and to
serve as a source evenfor semi-arid areas, while seasonal
differ-ences in the flow regime of rivers are attenu-ated by the
temporal distribution of moun-tain water. The rainfall in high
mountainsmay be stored in ice, snow or mountainlakes; for instance
in Switzerland 136 km3 ofrainfall are stored in lakes and
reservoirs and74 km3 in glaciers – five times the total
annual outflow from Switzerland (MountainAgenda, 1998). In
spring and summer thedischarge of mountain rivers supplementsthe
earlier high flows of the lowland sectionwhich occur in winter and
autumn.
Relatively unpolluted rivers, in terms ofchemical and biological
quality, generally aresituated in catchments in mountainous
andforested regions where the populationdensity is low. Lakes in
mountains alsorepresent some of the least
nutrient-pollutedfreshwater in Europe. However, high-altitudelakes
are known to be subject to acidification(Stanners, Bourdeau,
1995).
Pollution of mountain rivers occurs throughwaste-water
discharge, or water abstraction.Other impacts work indirectly such
asaccelerated surface runoff caused by surfacesealing for
infrastructure, soil changesthrough land-use abandonment, less
waterstorage through deforestation or air-pollu-tion induced forest
damages. Natural ex-treme rainfalls then become extreme
strongrunoffs, which are linked to natural hazardsdiscussed later
in this chapter. But higherrunoff rates do not only change the
quantitybut also may worsen the quality of water bydiluting
sediments and eroded soil.
Runoff rates are also affected by riverchannelisation for flood
control of towns orprotection of farmland in valleys, dammingfor
water storage or hydroenergy generation.The change in water flow
will be followed byalterations in physical, chemical and
biologi-cal parameters, such as sediment discharge,bank erosion and
reduced or altered bio-diversity of riparian zones, for example if
fishspawning areas are destroyed. The effects ofthese changes on
the hydrological systemcall for a common watershed
managementframework for mountains and lowlands.
From a technical viewpoint mountain valleysare well suited for
hydro-energy and water-storage reservoirs because of their
steepgradient and ‘natural’ damming in thevalley, which reduces
construction require-ments; however, there is often a
noticeableenvironmental cost (Figure 3.15.14).
Reservoir construction involves the loss offarmland, changes in
natural habitats andlandscape, a rise in groundwater levels and
achange in microclimate. The river will turninto a hybrid between
river and lake and theenvironmental conditions such as
current,nutrients and light will change. Environmen-tal problems of
reservoirs include contami-
-
Mountain areas 387
0natural rivers as % of all river sections
Austria
France
Italy
Alps
Switzerland
Germany
Slovenia
5 10 15 20
Figure 3.15.14Natural sections in Alpine rivers
According to the criteria ofpristine water quality and anearly
untouched river flow,the example of Alpine rivershighlight the loss
of naturalsections. Only 10% of Alpinerivers, which is about 900km,
may be regarded asnatural rivers, mainly due tothe absence of
hydropower.The ecological quality ofriver courses depends –among
other things – on thediversity of river beds andminimum flow.
Source: Fabrice, Dubost,1992
nation, eutrophication, difficulties of faunamigration, sediment
trapping, water-levelvariations and a loss of biological
biodiversity(Kristensen, Hansen, 1994); Leonard,Crouzet, 1998).
Assessments by the Euro-pean Topic Centre for Inland Waters
suggestthat reservoir construction in Europe isstagnant after a
period of strong increasemainly in southern European countries.
2.2.4. Soils in mountains – demanding multi- functionalityIn
mountains soils at higher elevations arequite different in terms of
temporal develop-ment, stability, and thickness of topsoil
fromsoils in lowlands (see also Chapter 3.6).These features make
soils in mountainsmore sensitive to degradation and requirespecific
adapted land-use patterns which areoften met by the traditional
silvo-agro-pastoral land uses.
The development of soils in high mountainsshows certain
characteristics different fromlowland soils:
• soils develop more slowly because oflower temperatures, a
short vegetationperiod and frequent interruption byerosion;
consequently soils are not highlyevolved types, such as lithosols,
rankersand rendzinas which often consist ofonly a shallow soil
layer covering thegeological substrata; soil types oftenoccur
according to elevation belts;
• shallow soils allow land use mainly asgrassland or
forestry;
• soil generation, predominantly byphysical processes, causes
the so-called‘catenas’ phenomenon in mountains,featuring different
kinds of soils accord-ing to the gradient (Ozenda, 1988).Different
geological layers and ice-agesubstrates serve as parent material
forsoil generation, which produces complexmosaics of different
soils on a singlemountain slope (Ellenberg, 1982,Ozenda, 1988).
These features contri-bute to the considerable diversity ofmountain
ecosystems;
• in humid climates leaching of nutrientsinto lower soil layers
is frequent wherethe nutrients are no longer accessible
forvegetation; in the alpine and sub-alpinebelt grazing, cutting
and constant inputof natural fertilizers balances the
naturalphenomenon of podzol-evolution(Messerli, 1989).
Mountain soils are mainly affected by degra-dation through
erosion and (on acid parent
material) through acidification and pollu-tion (Stanners,
Bourdeau, 1995). Mountainsoils are highly sensitive to erosion
becauseof the shallowness of soil layers, the longtime frame for
their development (up to4 000 years for mature soil) and the risks
ofnatural hazards due to increasing soil ero-sion. As shown in the
potential risk map inthe Dobris report, mountain areas present
alarge proportion of the potential high-riskareas in Spain,
Portugal, Greece and Italy(Stanners, Bourdeau, 1995). In areas
withnon-calcareous bedrock and abundantconiferous forests or alpine
shrubs, soils aremore exposed to natural acidification andare thus
particularly susceptible to artificialacidification.
Steep slopes, frequent torrential rainfalls,and pressures such
as unsustainable forestry,overgrazing, loss of traditional
agriculture,land abandonment and fires are mostabundant in mountain
areas. In addition toovergrazing due to increased livestock
andclear cutting, recent causes of soil erosionand compaction
include tourism and sport-ing and recreational activities
(walking,skiing, mountain bikes, off-road vehicles,etc.).
Indirectly, soil erosion may causecontamination of surface- and
ground-water.Deposits of eroded materials in riverbeds,lakes and
water reservoirs might increaseflood risks and can damage
infrastructuressuch as roads, railways and powerlines.
2.2.5. Living with risks – natural hazards in mountainsThe
extreme environment makes mountainareas prone to natural phenomena
such aslandslides (Table 3.15.1), rockfalls, mudslides,avalanches,
floods and earthquakes (see alsoChapter 3.8). The stability of the
slopes is often
-
Environmental issues388
Area affected Frequency Events Victims / Costs
Switzerland: Bristen, Obwalden, 12 landslides; mudflows;
rockslides; rockfalls; injured: 8;Villeneuve, Tessin, Glarus,
severe storms; heavy rains; hail;Grisons, Vaud, Ticino, Fribourg,
> 71.7 M euro;Tödi, Randa, Lärch forest destroyed;
roads, railroads buried/blocked; housesflooded; cars damaged;
power anddrinkingwater supply interrupted.
France: Salle-les-Alpes, Dieulefit, 3 landslides; rockfalls;
heavy rains; severe injured: 2Briancon storm;
roads and railroads buried; houses,cars damaged.
Liechtenstein: Triesen 1 mudslide; severe storm; 50 houses 2.3 M
euroaffected, roads closed.
Austria: Braz, Stubachtal, Lienz 3 landslides; rockfall; heavy
rains; severe deaths: 3storm;
injured: 17riverbanks burst; bridge destroyed,Intercity
derailed; houses destroyed.
Germany: Breitachklamm, 4 landslides; rockfall; slow rock
flow;Garmisch-Partenkirchen;Bayrischzell, Glottertal Glotter River
blocked; bank burst;
trees downed;
roads blocked; houses flooded;power failure.
Norway: Finneidfjord 1 mudslide; houses destroyed; roads deaths:
2severly damaged.
Italy: Cortina d’Ampezzo, 6 landslides; mudslides; heavy
rainstorm; deaths: 6Piedmont, Alto Adige; Milan; flash floods; high
wind speeds; hail;Sorrento, Darfo di Boario, injured: 22Campania,
Caserta, Salerno, losses to lemon and olive plantationsAvellino,
Sarno,Quindici, Siano roads, railroads damaged/blocked;
hundreds of houses, cars damaged;train derailed; valleys
isolated; touristcamp isolated.
Italy: Umbria, Le Marche, 1 earthquake; houses and Franziskus
deaths: 164Folino, Assisi, Colfiorito basilica damaged. (feared
135
more);
injured: 215
homeless:40 000
130.4 M euro
Spain: Gijón 1 landslide, heavy rain.
Source: Munich Re, NatCatService, 1998; Schweizerische
Rückversicherung, 1998
Table 3.15.1 Landslide disasters 1995 - 1998
modified by human activity through distur-bance of vegetation
(deforestation,overgrazing) and groundwater conditions orthe
construction of infrastructure (seeCamparia case study, Chapter
3.8). The factorswhich increase soil erosion (see above), mayalso
increase the risk of land slides.
Nine out of ten earthquake disasters inEurope occur partly or
wholly in mountain
areas, and often in Mediterranean and sub-Mediterranean climatic
regimes. Earth-quakes and floods are predominant (60%)but the
number and proportion of disastersidentified with landslide and
avalancheappear much greater (Hewitt, 1997; Moun-tain Agenda,
1992).
Since 1970 the reported number of naturaland man-made disasters
has increased due to
-
Mountain areas 389
Figure 3.15.15Burnt areas in mountains
0% of burnt area
50 100
Greece
Portugal
Spain
Italy
France
in mountain areas in non-mountain areas
Of the total burnt areas in acountry, mountains areaffected by
about 15-39%.The portion of burnt areamust be estimated higher
incountries with largermountain areas.
Source: EEA
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Mo
unta
inp
eop
le
NG
OS
Loca
lo
rgan
isat
ions
Reg
ions
Stat
e
Eur
op
ean
Inst
itutio
ns
Uni
ted
Nat
ions
FAO
Oth
er
At present
In the future
% re
spo
nses
Figure 3.15.16NGOs’ perception of present policies on
mountainissues in Europe
Source: Mountain Agenda,1997
better information and higher concentra-tions of population and
economic activity inindustrial countries (Schweizerische
Rück-versicherung, 1998). For a general overviewsee Chapter
3.8.
In the Mediterranean region, forest fireshave the largest
potential for altering theecosystem. Every year, some 45 000
forestfires break out in Europe – most of themcaused by humans.
Many fires are lightedillegally but intentionally to gain sites
forgrazing livestock, construction or touristfacilities. The
anticipated climate changemight affect natural-fire frequency,
spreadand their devastating effects (EuropeanCommission, 1997a;
Ghazi et al., 1997). Thearea affected by fires has seen a
downwardtrend, however in Spain and Portugal firesseize large areas
(Figure 3.15.15).
Major road and rail tunnels, high bridgesand dams are
concentrated in the moun-tains, and are prone to widespread,
frequentand financially expensive damage. Expan-sion of tourism in
mountain villages hasspread accommodation and infrastructureinto
risk areas; tragic proof was given in early1999, when several big
avalanches in theAlps caused death and destruction in skiresorts.
Technical mitigation measures inturn affect the natural
environment. Thesenatural phenomena also create new environ-mental
habitats but, by changing the land-scape, they mainly have social
and economiceffects on humans.
3. Are mountains areas of marginal interest for Europe?
Several sectoral policies, particularly in thefields of
agriculture, regions and natureconservation cover mountain areas.
However,the sparse population, low economy, underes-timated natural
values, confounding complex-ity and transnational situation of
manyEuropean mountain area make them re-garded politically as
marginal areas in termsof an integrated, comprehensive
mountainpolicy (Figure 3.15.16 and Box 3.15.3). Forthese reasons
integrated policy approachessuch as the framework of Agenda 2000
andEuropean spatial policy, as started with theEuropean Spatial
Development Perspective(ESDP) might be keys to integrated
mountainpolicy – which is a vital need to be developed.
3.1. Could spatial policy integrate mountain issues?A European
spatial policy is arising, yet twodifferent approaches still may be
observed:
one focusing on certain mountain ranges asEuropean regions,
particularly the Alps, theother defining mountain areas as a
certainspatial category directed at a Europeanmountain policy
(Bätzing, 1997).
The regional study areas introduced inEU2000+ (European
Commission, 1994),such as the Alpine Arc, are a remarkable
steptowards a spatial analysis. However, signifi-cant disparities
remain inside the regionsconsidered, in the Alpine Arc in
particular,and do not recognize the special situation ofmountain
areas.
In the ESDP (European Commission, 1997b)mountain areas are
characterized as unpro-tected and environmentally sensitive
areas.Several mountain ranges are ‘trans-nationalareas’ which are
geographically continuous,transcending national borders. These
inparticular require a European spatial policy,in terms of
watershed management, risk
-
Environmental issues390
prevention, preservation of biological andlandscape diversity,
and recreation.
The most relevant EU policies for mountainsare listed in Table
3.15.2 and have beenintroduced in Chapter 3.13. Some
measuresoverlap, others appear contradictory. A firststep towards
assessment has been done in theEuropean Commission study
‘Integration ofenvironmental concerns in mountain agricul-ture’
(Euromontana, 1998). Some exampleswill be highlighted below, with
reference todrivers and environmental problems.
3.2. Pressures of today need to be mitigated
3.2.1. Mountain crossing traffic will further increaseDue to
increasing traffic flow more EU-corridors certainly will cross
mountains (e.g.transalpine link Rome-Milan-Zurich/Mu-nich;
Madrid-Barcelona-Rhone Valley; Milan-Venice-Vienna-Budapest-Kiev;
Bologna-Milan-Lyon; Madrid-Bordeaux-Toulouse)
(European Commission, 1997b); the samewill apply in the
Accession Countries(Carpathian, Rhodope or Balkan) as identi-fied
in 1996.
Modal split can be sensitive to relative costs,which may in turn
be modified by roadpricing. This is illustrated by experience
inAustria, where a reduction in infrastructurecharges to comply
with EU legislation wasfollowed by a 16% increase in freight
trafficin 1995 (Weissen, 1996). In contrast, as aresult of the
Alpine convention’s trafficprotocol, 70% of all goods in transit
throughSwitzerland are transported by rail and themaximum weight
for road transport islimited to 28 tonnes per truck (which islower
than in other Alpine countries).
3.2.2. Mountain tourism has learnt but a turnaround is
difficultThe harmful effects of intensive tourismhave led to
restrictions for sport and for
Mountains are subject to various types of policymeasures (figure
3.15.17). Policy approaches maypropose a general mountain policy,
may targetcertain mountain ranges, may affect mountainsdirectly
without distinguishing between differentmountain areas, or may have
purely incidentaleffects on mountain areas.
Mountains have been directly addressed in fewpolicy documents.
On a global scale mountainshave been recognised by Article 13 of
Agenda 21as highly sensitive ecosystems and an importantsource of
natural resources. On the European scalethe inter-governmental
consultation on sustainablemountain development 1996 recommended
theneed to work towards an integrated policyframework for
sustainable mountain development,environmentally sustainable
mountain action plansand programmes as well as more
sustainablesectoral policies and the assessment of impacts
ofexisting national and European policies. AllEuropean mountains
have been covered by theEuropean charter of mountain areas (1994)
to beelaborated into a European Convention ofMountain Areas. The
charter covers almost everypolitical sector which affects mountains
andrequires a ‘comprehensive spatial policy’ formountain areas.
For the Pyrenees, a special charter has beenadopted, and efforts
are beginning towards thedevelopment of charters in the Carpathians
andCaucasus. Underlying the Charter for the Protectionof the
Pyrenees (CIAPP, 1995) are three keyobjectives: to protect the
environment, to allowaccess for visitors and to support
environmentallysustainable economic development. Much
furtherdetailed is the framework of the Alpine Conventionsigned in
1991 by Germany, France, Italy,Lichtenstein, Monaco, Austria,
Switzerland, Sloveniaand the EU. Since 1990 several protocols
whichdefine the principles for different sectors have beendrawn up,
signed, or are under discussion. Nonehave yet been ratified.
Box 3.15.3 How does policy deal with mountains?
VERTICAL
global
general mountain
unspecific mountain
specific valley / summit
certain mountain range
European
national
SECTORALeconomy
traffic regional agriculture
local
GEOGRAPHICAL
regional
nature conservation
Figure 3.15.17 Mountain policies in a mountain system
Multi-dimensional ways in which policies affect mountainscan be
illustrated by a ‘policy coordinated system’. Thereis a hierarchy
of policy from global to local level (y-axis),sectors of policy
from economy to nature conservation (x-axis) and a geography from
general mountain policy tospecific valleys (z-axis).
Source: EEA processing
-
Mountain areas 391
D = Mountains directly addressed; I = Mountains indirectly
addressed
Popula- Traffic Tourism Land use Natural Soil Water Hazardtion
change heritage preven-
tion
Environment Policy
Birds Directive 79/409/EEC D D I
Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC D D
Biodiversity Strategy COM 1998 (42)
Community Directive on EIA , Dir. 85/337/EEC; I I I I I
Proposal for a directive for strategic impact assessmentof
certain plans and programmes (COM(96)511 ofDecember 1996) I I I I I
I I
Proposal for a framework directiveon water (COM(97)49 of
February 1997) I
LIFE II Nature Regulation 1404/96 (OJL 181 of 20.07.96) D
Nitrates Directive 91/676/EEC I
COM(97)88 I I
Regional Policy
Cohesion Fund D
INTERREG II D D D
REGIS II
PHARE, TACIS I I I I
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP):Accompanying measures
Agri-environmental measures Reg. 2078/92 I I I I I
Forestry measures Reg. 2080/92 I I I I I
CAP: Structural measures
Rural development, LFA Reg. 950/97 I I I I I
Genetic resources, Reg. 1467/94 I
Agricultural labels, Reg. 2081/92 and 2082/92 I I I
Improving the efficiency of agriculturalstructures, Reg. 2328/91
I I I I
Improving conditions for marketing and processingagricultural
products, Reg. 866/90 am. By Reg. 3669/93 I I I I I
LEADER II I I I
Objectives 1 + 5b, including ERDF and EAGGF I I I
CAP: Other measures
Organic production of agricultural productsand indications
referring thereto onagricultural products and foodstuffs, Reg.
2092/91 I I I I
COM(96) 366 Council Regulation supplementingReg. 2092/91 I I I
I
Source: EEA, European Commission
Examples of how EU policy measures cover relevent mountaín
issues as recognised in this chapter Table 3.15.2
-
Environmental issues392
50
40
30
20
10
0
Alp
s
Ap
pen
ines
Bo
hem
ian
Fore
st
Pyre
nees
Scan
din
avia
nm
oun
tain
sSo
uthe
ast
Eur
op
ean
mo
unta
ins
% E
U IN
TER
RE
G
Region
0%
Tourism projects have beensupported in the Pyrenees
and Bohemian Massif inparticular. About 45% of
Interreg budget in mountainprojects have been spent on
projects to achievesustainable tourism.
Source: EuropeanCommission
Figure 3.15.18 EU support for mountain tourism
further development in sensitive zones, and– more positively –
stimulated developmentof sustainable tourism. Over half of
thebudget of the Community action plan tosupport tourism is
earmarked for sustainabletourism projects (Figure 3.15.18). In
Spain,the Cohesion Fund programme includesreduction of harmful
tourism effects innational parks, while the development
ofnon-intensive tourism in the Aragon regionhas been co-financed
under the StructuralFund 5b objectives.
3.2.3. Regarding land use changes, mainly from agricultureLand
use changes and mountain agricultureare targeted by different
measures in theCommon Agricultural Policy (CAP) such asthe
Accompanying measures (agri-environ-ment, forestry) and Structural
measures(rural development, objectives 1 + 5b,LEADER, etc.) and the
regional policy, suchas INTERREG II (Figure 3.15.19). A recentstudy
of existing EU policies (Euromontana,1998) has concluded that small
and multi-functional farms do not receive sufficient aidto
compensate for natural handicaps, thatagri-environment measures may
delayadverse developments and repair somedamage but it is ‘highly
unlikely’ that theproduction-oriented systems can bereoriented, and
that other agriculturalmeasures are not focused on
environmentalbenefits. The time-scale for significant policychanges
has also been expressed as a majorconcern of English
nature-conservationgroups.
Under the Less Favored Areas Regulationabout 20% of the total
Utilized AgriculturalArea (UAA) is supported as less favoured
mountain areas in the EU. These mountainareas are individually
and heterogeneouslydefined by the Member States. It is reportedthat
agricultural income in mountain LFAslies 45% below the EU-average,
but hasincreased slightly in the period 1987-1993 by0.7%, while
decreasing in other regions.Most of French mountain areas and
someSpanish and Italian areas are above this EU-average income,
while the situation is wors-ening in nearly all areas of Greece
andPortugal (European Commission, 1997c).
Agricultural labels of origin may play asupportive role in
encouraging farmingactivities which contribute to
maintainingfragile ecosystems like mountains. The‘fromages d’alpage
et d’estives’ are well-knownexamples of specific products linked
totraditional practices.
Land use changes are also induced by thegravitation of urban
agglomerations, and abalance is needed in the
urban-mountainrelationship. Therefore the general call in theESDP
(European Commission, 1997b) for anew definition of the rural-urban
relationshiphas a particular focus on mountain areas;options
include the balance between citiesand country, diversification of
rural areas,conservation and creative management ofcultural
landscapes. The benefits of anattractive, environmentally healthy
hinterlandhave been recognised by cities but compensa-tion patterns
for the provision of this steward-ship are not developed. The
example ofMunich shows that the high recreation valuesof lakes and
mountains have helped the cityto become a highly desired location
for high-technology industry.
3.2.4. Forestry and renewable energiesMountain areas are highly
suitable forrenewable energy generation such as windand
hydroelectric energy, which could offeradditional, sustainable
revenues for moun-tain economies. However, strong oppositioncan be
expected to further hydro-powersta-tions (CIAPP, 1995).
Abundant forest wood, as a renewableresource, offers another
option of renewableenergy use for mountains. An example is
thedevelopment of a low-pollution heatingsystem fueled with
forestry output in theHaut-Jura, France, financed by the LEADERfund
(European Commission, 1997d).
Under afforestation measures, as supportedby the CAP, and due to
the 1994-97 nationalplans, 700 000 ha of new forest will be
-
Mountain areas 393
Appenines0.5%
Bohemian Forest0.5%
1.9%Scandinavia
0.1%
Southeast Europe10.1%
non-mountain areas82.1%
Alps4.7%
Pyrenees
Figure 3.15.19Interreg programme in mountains
Within the INTERREGprogramme with a totalbudget of 585 M euro in
theperiod 1994-1999 (about17% of which goes tomountain areas)
severalmeasures are applied, with asignificant focus in south-east
European countries.Here one should considerthat about half of EU
borderareas lie in mountains.
Source: EuropeanCommission, DG XVI, 1997
created and 300 000 ha of forest will beimproved in the EU
(European Commission,1997c). This implementation, however,
oftendisregards the choice of tree species and theimpacts on soil,
water, landscape andbiodiversity, and so it has not necessarilybeen
environmentally beneficial(Euromontana, 1998). Within objective
1and 5b, development of forest functions interms of erosion
limitation, water protectionand tourism promotion are
supported.
Natural recolonisation is on average higherin mountains than
nationwide averages. InFrance recolonisation in mountains in
thepast decade has been 50% above the na-tional average (EOMF,
1998).
On the other hand increasing forest cover inmountains is
becoming a conflict in someregions, where people dislike and
thereforeoppose the afforestation scheme, such as inthe uplands of
Navarra, Lorraine, Venice(Zingari, 1998). Their concerns include
thesafeguarding of open farmland and theprotection of bird biotopes
or an alreadydensely afforestated landscape (Cammarata,1997). In a
recent study it was stated that theconcerns of zonal afforestation
plans, such asthe selection of locally adapted tree species,have
not been met and impacts on soil, waterand biotopes must be
expected (Euromon-tana, 1998).
A cornerstone of forest policy is resolutionS4 of the Strasbourg
Conference ‘Adaptingthe management of mountain forests to
newenvironmental conditions’ which was adop-ted by 25 countries in
1990 and the EUForestry Strategy recently adopted whichstresses
problems of specific regions, includ-ing mountain regions. The
challenge isimportant as in most countries mountainforest
management suffers from the insuffi-cient implementation of forest
legislation(Koch, Rasmussen, 1998).
3.2.5. Nature conservation policyThe general evolution of nature
conserva-tion policy today focuses more on sustain-able development
(see Chapter 3.11) andmarks an important step towards the
multi-functionality concept of mountain areas.
The Pan-European Biological and Land-scape Diversity Strategy
(PEBLDS) hasdedicated in its action plan the entire ‘actiontheme
10’ on mountain ecosystems. Thisfocuses on integration of mountains
in thepan-European ecological network, establish-ment of
sustainable practice for afforesta-
tion, mountain farming and recreation, thepotential application
of multilateral agree-ment of the Alpine Convention for theBalkan
Carpathians and Caucasus regionsand the establishment and
strengthening oftransfrontier protected areas (Council ofEurope et
al., 1996).
The progress in implementation of theHabitat Directive, as
described in Chapter3.6, is shown by the example of the EUAlpine
region where mountain areascontain 16% of the number of sites
ofconservation interest (SCIs), while theregion area covers only 9%
of the EU. Inthe second stage of the selection of specialareas of
conservation (SAC) many moun-tain areas may be expected to be
chosenfavorably. Mountains frequently meet thecriteria of
relationship to migration routesor as part of an ecosystem on both
sides ofEU frontiers and of a high number ofannex I habitats and
annex II species. Thusmountains as most extensive areas
willprobably receive an over proportionalpercentage of protected
areas which shouldbe reflected in national and local
policies(Hopkins, 1998).
The Commission instrument for natureconservation LIFE financed
about 15% ofthe 1996 and 25% of the 1997 nature budgetin mountain
areas with a focus on largecarnivore species protection
(EuropeanCommission, 1997d) (Figure 3.15.20).
-
Environmental issues394
25
20
15
10
5
01996
30
35
40
45
50
1997
habitats21%
otherspecies
3%
brown bearand wolf
76%
habitats70%
otherspecies
10%
brown bearand wolf
20%
EU contribution to LIFENATURE projects inmountain areas
EU contribution to LIFENATURE projects inother areas
Figure 3.15.20 LIFE Nature support in mountains
About 75% of the 1996 and20% of the 1997 EU-LIFE-funding in
mountain areas
was spent for conservationof the brown bear and wolf;
about 3% was spent forconservation of other
species.
Source: EuropeanCommission, 1997
3.2.6. Natural phenomena can not be excluded
Direct protection from natural hazards isrecognised to be far
more efficiently pro-vided by mountain forests with a
highproportion of natural vegetation than byartificial devices.
Switzerland providedeloquent figures for the role of
protection,said to be worth up to SFR 3 billion (1.8billion euros)
per year to local communities(EOMF, 1998). A risk-reducing
agriculture-forestry combination which might findexamples in former
multi-functional land-use systems may claim to be one of the
mostefficient and – in terms of cost-benefit ratio –most successful
approaches (Messerli, 1989).
As pointed out in Chapter 3.8 only fivecountries in the EU
provide land-use plan-ning criteria for hazard prevention and
fivecountries still have not developed hazardarrangements at all.
It must be stronglyemphasised that for mountain areas
riskassessment and land-use planning are vitalinstruments for
hazard identification,avoidance and mitigation.
For soil protection also, the concept ofmulti-functionality,
implemented by inte-grated land use planning, has been recom-mended
for policy action. This shouldinclude ecological adaptation of
land-usemanagement by using suitability/vulnerabil-
ity assessments of soil, agro-forestry practices,adjusted
stocking levels, rotation farmingsystems, and measures against
forest fires.Results from the Swiss MAB-research pro-gramme confirm
that the best soil protectionin mountains is constant,
ecologicallyadapted agriculture (Messerli, 1989).
3.3. In which direction is policy heading?The most comprehensive
changes formountains can be expected from the ap-praisal of EU
Regional development plans,the attention on rural development
pro-grammes as a new pillar in the CAP and thepromotion of direct
environmental benefits(European Commission, 1998). It has
beenannounced that the Structural Funds budgetwill be increased to
about one-third of theCommunity budget which will make thefunds a
powerful instrument (EuropeanCommission, 1997b).
It can be assumed that while new regionalobjectives will be
added through the needsin the Accession Countries, this will
requirecuts in expenditure on present objectives. Itis necessary to
assess to what extent this willaffect mountain areas in the EU.
In the ESDP further fields of work have beendistinguished which
significantly meet theneed for better analysis of mountain areas
inparticular, such as the development ofindicators, criteria and a
typology of areas,which could complement the efforts ofregional
development in Agenda 2000.
New, economically based policy approachesfor balancing the
stewardship of mountainareas for lowlands have been proposed bythe
Mountain Agenda and include, forinstance, fees for the entrance to
parks andbuffer zones, for hunting and fishing, fortour operating,
for climbing peaks and forusing roads and passes.
3.4. What could policy-makers require for evolving mountain
policy?First there is a general need to recognisemountains as a
distinct area and to evolveobjective criteria for area definition.
Thisgoes hand in hand with the identification ofindicators for
sustainable land use.
Furthermore better baseline information fordecision-maker is
necessary. This includesmonitoring of mountain
environmentalconditions. Identification of mountainresearch needs
the interaction of differentdisciplines and the integration of
traditional,long-term experience of local people.
-
Mountain areas 395
Box 3.15.4 EU research programmes related to mountain issues
The EU has invested about 7.1% (852 M euro) of the 1994-1998
researchbudget for environment and climate under which the AMBIENTE
programmedeals with hazard prevention (Ruberti, 1994), the ECOMONT
project withland-use impacts, and the ARTERI project with
arctic-alpine ecosystems.Other mountain-related research is the
MOLAR project on remote mountainlakes, on timberline (FOREST),
effects of climate change on alpine and arcticstreams (AASER), and
desertification in Mediterranean mountains (MEDALUS,MEDIMONT). From
other budgets such as the Cohesion Fund, forest-firecombat projects
in Greece have been financed and about 105 M euro hasbeen committed
to desertification projects in southern Mediterraneancountries.
Implementation of such policies could be carried out by
riskexposure plans (PER) as in the French 1985 mountain law or the
risk zones inthe Bavarian forest function plans. Erosion and
natural hazards areinvestigated in the EROSLOPE, NEWTECH,
FLOODAWARE, SAME projects.
To sufficiently compensate the long-termconservation of natural
resources, the goodsand services offered by mountain regionsand
people need to be identified and evalu-ated. Methods are needed to
calculate thecosts of maintenance and protection andhow to
distribute the revenues. Once estab-lished periodic re-evaluations
should beplanned due to changing ecological andeconomic situations
(Mountain Agenda,1997).
ReferencesAbegg, B., Elsasser, H. 1996. ‘Klimarisiken
austouristischer Sicht’ in Programmleitung NFP 31(Hrsg.):
‘Klimarisiken – Herausforderung für dieSchweizer Wirtschaft’, pp.
115–126. vdfHochschulverlag, ETH Zürich.
Bätzing, W. 1990. ‘Die aktuelle Siedlungsentwicklungan der
Höhengrenze der Ökumene im Alpenraum aufdem Hintergrund des
Übergangs von der Agrar- zurFreizeitgesellschaft’ in
Siedlungsforschung.Archäologie – Geschichte – Geographie. Vol. 8.
Eds:K. Fehn et al., pp. 165-200.
Bätzing, W. 1997. Kleines Alpen-Lexikon. Munich,Beck’sche
Reihe.
Blandin, P., 1992. La Nature en Europe, Bordas, Paris.
Breiling, M. 1994. Climate Variability: The impact onthe
National economy, the Alpine environments ofAustria and the need
for local action. paperpresented at conference Snow and Climate,
Geneva,September 1994.
Breiling, M., Charamza, P., Skage, O. 1997. Klima-sensibilität
österreichischer Bezirke mit besondererBerücksichtigung des
Wintertourismus. Rapport 97:1Institut für Landschaftsplanung,
Universität Alnarp,Schweden. Forschungsauftrag des
ÖsterreichischenBundesministeriums für Wirtschaftliche
Angelegen-heiten und des Österreichischen Bundesministeriumsfür
Umwelt.
Cammarata, A. 1997. ‘CAP Working Notes Agricultureand
Environment’. European Commission.Directorate-General for
Agriculture. Brussels.
Cernusca, A. et. al. 1996. ‘ECOMONT Ecologicaleffects of land
use changes on European terrestrialmountain ecosystems’ in
Pirineos. Jaca, pp. 145-172.
CIAPP Conseil International Associatif pour laProtection des
Pyrenees, 1995, Charter for theprotection of the Pyrenees. English
Summary.
CIPRA, Internationale Alpenschutz-Kommission, ed.1998. 1.
Alpenreport. Daten, Fakten, Probleme,Lösungsansätze. Berne,
Stuttgart, Vienna, Paul HauptVerlag.
Council of Europe, UNEP, ECNC,1996. The Pan-European Biological
and Landscape Diversity Strategy(PEBLDS).
Dubost, M., Zingari, P.C.,no date, Impact of ClimateChange on
European Mountain Development.
Ellenberg, H. 1982. Vegetation Mitteleuropas mit denAlpen.
Stuttgart, Eugen Ulmer Verlag, pp. 989.
Elsasser, H., Frösch, R., Finsterle, M. 1990. ‘Sättigungin
Fremdenverkehrsgebieten’ in DISP, Dokumente undInformationen zur
Schweizerischen Orts-, Regional-und Landesplanung Vol. 26, No 100.
Zurich, pp. 33-41.
EOMF, European Observatory of Mountain Forests1998. The
Sustainable future of Mountain Forests inEurope – Facts and
Figures. Contribution by theEuropean Observatory of Mountain
Forests to thestrengthening, development and follow-up ofResolution
S4.
Euromontana, 1998, The integration of environmentalconcerns in
mountain agriculture. Summary. Study forthe European Commission
Directorate General XI,Environment, Safety and Civil
Protection.
European Commission, 1994. Europe 2000+.Cooperation for European
territorial development.Office for Official Publications of the
EuropeanCommunities, Luxembourg.
European Commission, 1997a, The threat of naturaldisasters. What
is Europe doing? Climate and NaturalHazards Unit (DG XII/D-2).
CG-09-97-381-EN,European Commission, Brussels.
European Commission, 1997b. European spatialdevelopment
perspective. First official draft.Presented at the informal meeting
of Ministersresponsible for spatial planning of the member statesof
the European Union. Noordwijk, 9-10 June 1997.Office for Official
Publications of the EuropeanCommunities, Luxembourg.
European Commission, 1997c. CAP 2000 Workingdocument. Rural
Developments. Ed: DirectorateGeneral VI.
European Commission,1997d, Agenda 21 The firstfive years. Office
for Official Publications of theEuropean Communties,
Luxembourg.
European Commission, Directorate General XI, 1997,Life Nature
96., European Commission, Brussels.
European Commission, Directorate General XI, 1997,Life Nature
97., European Commission. Brussels.
European Commission, 1998. Partnership forIntegration: A
strategy for Integration Environmentinto EU-Policies, Cardiff, June
1998
European Commission, DG XVI, 1998,
http://www.inforegio.org/wbpro/prord/reg_prog/pay_them/themes/cip1/thci_all.htm
EEA. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen
-
Environmental issues396
Fabrice, M., Dubost M.,1992. Die letzten naturnahenAlpenflüsse.
Kleine Schriften 11/92. CIPRA (ed.).Vaduz.
Flückiger, S. 1996. ‘Klimarisiken aus landwirtschaft-licher
Sicht’ in Programmleitung NFP 31 (Hrsg.):‘Klimarisiken –
Herausforderung für die SchweizerWirtschaft’, pp. 105-114. vdf
Hochschulverlag, ETHZürich.
Garcia-Ruiz, J., Lasanta-Martinez, T. 1993. ‘Land-useconflicts
as a result of land-use change in the centralSpanish Pyrenees: A
review’ in Mountain Researchand Development Vol. 13, No 3, pp.
295-304.
Ghazi, A. et al., eds. 1997. Highlights of results fromnatural
hazards research projects. Climate and NaturalHazards Unit (DG
XII/D-2). European Commission.Brussels.
Guisan, A. et al., eds. 1995. Potential EcologicalImpacts of
Climate Change in the Alps andFennoscandian Mountains. Geneva.
Hewitt, K. 1997. ‘Risk and disasters in mountain lands’in
Mountains of the World. A Global Priority. Eds: B.Messerli; J.D.
Ives.
Höller, P. et al. 1998. ‘Effects of land use changes onsnow
gliding processes’ in Poster Alpenforum
1998.Garmisch-Partenkirchen.
Hopkins, J. 1998. ‘Achiving the aims of the EChabitats
directive: links with reform of agriculturalpolicies in mountain
areas’ in Mountain livestockfarming and EU policy development.
Proceedings ofthe fifth European forum on nature conservation
andpastoralism. Valle d’Aosta, Italy. Eds: A. Poole et al.,pp.
117-125.
Jeker, R. 1996. ‘Thesen zur Bedeutung vonKlimarisiken für die
Schweizer Wirtschaft’ inProgrammleitung NFP 31 (Hrsg.):
‘Klimarisiken –Herausforderung für die Schweizer Wirtschaft’ pp.
9-24. vdf Hochschulverlag, ETH Zürich.
Koch, N.E., Rasmussen, J.N., 1998. Forestry in theContext of
Rural Development. Final Report of COSTAction E3.Danish Forest and
Landscape ResearchInstitute. Hörsholm. European Commission,
Brussels.
Kristensen, P., Hansen, H.O., 1994. European Riversand Lakes.
Assessment of their Environmental State.
Leonard J., Crouzet P., 1998. Lakes and Reservoirs inthe EEA
Area Final Draft, Report No PO 23/97-
Lichtenberger, E. 1979. ‘Die Sukzession von derAgrar- zur
Freizeitgesellschaft in den HochgebirgenEuropas’ in Innsbrucker
Geographische Studien, Band5. Fragen geographischer Forschung.
Innsbruck, pp.401-436.
Messerli, P. 1989. Mensch und Natur im alpinenLebensraum
Risiken, Chancen, Perspektiven. ZentraleErkenntnisse aus dem
schweizerischen MAB-Programm. Berne, Stuttgart, Paul Haupt
Verlag.
Mountain Agenda 1997. Mountains of the World:Challenges for the
21st Century. Berne, Paul HauptVerlag.
Mountain Agenda, ed. 1992. An Appeal for theMountains. Institute
of Geography, University ofBerne, Switzerland.
Mountain Agenda,1998. Mountains of the World:Water Towers for
the 21st Century. P.Haupt. Bern
Munich Re 1998. NatCatSERVICE. Munich,
MünchenerRückversicherungs-AG.
Ozenda, P. 1988. Die Vegetation der Alpen imeuropäischen
Gebirgsraum.
Ozenda, P. 1994. Végétation du Continent Européen.Lausanne,
Delachaux et Niestlé, pp. 271.
Petit, S. et al. 1998. MIRABEL – Models for integratedreview and
assessment of biodiversity in EuropeanLandscapes. Overview of
Methods and Summary ofModel Outputs.
Price, M.,1995. Wirtschaft und Umwelt der Bergge-biete von
Zentral- und Osteuropa. in: Euromontana(ed.), 1995: Berggebiete
Europas, neue Zusammen-arbeit für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung.
Durch dieEuromontana organisierte internationale Konferenz inKrakau
(Polen) 4-6 September 1995. p. 49-57.
Price, M.F., Barry, R.G. 1997. ‘Climate change’ inMountains of
the World. A Global Priority. Eds: B.Messerli, J.D. Ives.
Rhomberg, K. 1998. ‘Vorfahrt für unsere Gesundheit –Ärzte gegen
die Verkehrslawine’ in 1. Alpenreport.Daten, Fakten, Probleme,
Lösungsansätze. Ed: CIPRA,pp. 356-358.
Romano, B. 1995. ‘National Parks policy and moun-tain
depopulation: A case study in the Abruzzo regionof the Central
Apennines, Italy’ in Mountain Researchand Development Vol. 15, No
2, pp. 121-132.
Ruberti, A. 1994. Facteurs climatiques et risquesnaturels du
système territorial alpin. Ed: EuropeanCommission, Brussels.
Schweizerische Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft, ed.1998.
Copy-editing: SIGMA, No 3/1998.Naturkatastrophen und Grossschäden
1997:Ausserordentlich wenig teure Schäden. Zurich.
Stanners, D., Bourdeau, P. 1995. Europe’sEnvironment. The Dobris
Assessment. Ed: EuropeanEnvironment Agency (EEA). Copenhagen,
EarthscanPublications.
TTETN The Trans-European Transport Network
1998.http://eurotext.ulst.ac.uk/policy/transport/networks/ttetn/TTETN008.htm#A29
Vakrou, A. 1998. ‘Policy measures to ensure andpromote forestry
in mountain areas of Greece’, COSTE3, draft paper.
Weissen, A. 1996. ‘Specific Alpine Problems:Transport’ in Green
Paper on the Alps: The Alps –Touchstone for Europe. Eds. M. Pils;
P. Glauser; D.Siegrist.
Zingari, P.C. 1994. Trends in European MountainBiodiversity.
Proposal for a European ScienceFoundation Scientific Network.
Zingari, P.C. 1998. Personal Communication.
Zingari, P.C., Dubost, M. 1996 Research forSustainable Mountain
Development Series, Vol. 4:European mountain biodiversity and
sustainabledevelopment.