towards the network of mountain protected areas in the balkans and the dinaric arc

8/7/2019 Towards the Network of Mountain Protected Areas in the Balkans and the Dinaric Arc

1/96

THE BALKANS AND THE DINARIC ARC

TOWARDS THE NETWORK OF

MOUNTAIN PROTECTED AREAS IN


2/96

TOWARDS THE NETWORK OF MOUNTAIN PROTECTED AREAS IN

THE BALKANS AND THE DINARIC ARC


3/96

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

INTRODUCTION 7

PART 1. PROTECTED AREA NETWORKS 11

1.1. Benefits of protected area networking 11

1.2. Alpine experience: the Alpine Network of Protected Areas 121.3. Carpathian experience: the Carpathian Network of Protected Areas (CNPA) 16

PART 2. POTENTIAL FOR ESTABLISHING

THE MOUNTAIN PROTECTED AREA NETWORK IN SEE 29

2.1. Ecological network in the South Eastern Europe 29

2.2. Potential partners of the sub-regional network of mountain protected areasin the Balkans / Dinaric Arc 33

2.3. Comparison of conditions for protected area networks in the Alps,

Carpathians and Balkans / Dinaric Arc 362.4. Recommendations on the proposed network of protected areas

in the Balkans / Dinaric Arc 41

PART 3. INITIATIVES FOR ESTABLISHING THE MOUNTAIN

PROTECTED AREA NETWORK IN SEE 45

3.1. ENVSEC sub-regional workshop Enhancing TransboundaryBiodiversity in Mountains of South Eastern Europe 45

3.2. ENVSEC sub-regional meeting Transboundary Cooperation of Mountain Protected Areas

in South Eastern Europe: Towards the Dinaric Arc and Balkan Network of MountainProtected Areas 46

3.3. ENVSEC workshop Priorities for common actions in transboundary areas in focus 48

3.4. ENVSEC workshop Mountain Protected Area Network in the Balkans and the Dinaric Arc 51

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 UNEP Vienna / Network of mountain protected areas in the Balkans and the Dinaric Arc


4/96

MAIN SOURCES OF INFORMATION 54

List of Tables 55

List of Maps 55

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 56

ANNEX 1. Tentative list of large scale protected areas in the Balkans / Dinaric Arc. 58ANNEX 2. Report of the ENVSEC sub-regional meeting in 2009. 64

ANNEX 3. Agenda of the ENVSEC sub-regional meeting in 2009. 76

ANNEX 4. List of participants of the ENVSEC sub-regional meeting in 2009. 78

ANNEX 5. ENVSEC workshop handout - potential fields and benefits of transboundary cooperation. 84

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 93

3


5/96

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The programme of work on mountain biological diversity under the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD) recommends establishing regional and transboundary collaboration, and coop-erative agreements for mountain ranges1, as well as establishing and strengthening adequate,effective national and regional networks of mountain protected areas2.

Neighbouring States, which often have different levels of technical expertise, knowledge, ca-pacity and financial resources, can benefit by combining their respective strengths through trans-

boundary co-operation3

. Protected area networks allow for a more effective and harmonised man-agement of the shared natural heritage, habitats and species as well as for joint preservation andpromotion of cultural values of the region.

Protected area networks are usually established on the legal basis of either global or regionalMultilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), such as the Alpine or Carpathian Conventions.The possible MEA for the South-Eastern European region is still in the early phase of its develop-ment. But the consultations on the potential for protected area networking in the Balkans and theDinaric Arc should not remain suspended until the opening of the official negotiation procedureson the possible Balkan Convention. The sooner the managers of the protected areas in the SEE

region recognize the added values of acting as a network, identify potential benefits and oppor-tunities, consult this idea with their supervisory bodies and colleagues, and jointly manage to findthe way to cooperate under such network the better designed network and the stronger thecooperation could be in the future.

Since 2005, UNEP is coordinating the project entitled Improving regional cooperation for riskmanagement from pollution hotspots as well as the transboundary management of shared naturalresources supported by the Austrian Development Agency (ADA) and the Canadian Develop-ment Agency (CIDA), in the framework of the Environment and Security (ENVSEC) Initiative.

UNEP is also providing the Interim Secretariat of the Carpathian Convention, contributing tothe international Mountain Partnership and to the Environment for Europe process. In that contextand as a partner of the Alpine Convention and the Convention on Biological Diversity, with whichit signed a Memorandum of Cooperation, UNEP is sharing experience and supporting mountainprotected areas and regional development in other mountain regions of the world.

1 Goal 2.3., CBD programme of work on mountain biological diversity.

2 Action 1.2.5., CBD programme of work on mountain biological diversity.

3 IUCN Draft Code for Transboundary Protected Areas in Times of Peace and Armed Con flict [in:]

Sandwith, T., Shine, C., Hamilton, L. and Sheppard, D. (2001). Transboundary Protected Areasfor Peace and Co-operation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.



6/96

The following report by UNEP Vienna Office

Briefly summarises potential benefits of acting as a protected area network,

Describes the experience on the development of protected area networks in the mountain rang-es directly neighbouring the Balkan / Dinaric region in the Alps and in the Carpathians,

Provides a brief overview of the ecological network in particular countries of the South Eastern

Europe, Describes possible criteria for selection of the potential partners of the sub-regional network

of mountain protected areas in the Balkans and the Dinaric Arc and provides their tentativecontact list,

Compares conditions for protected area network initiatives in the Alps, Carpathians and theBalkans,

Includes recommendations on the necessary first steps towards the proposed network,

Presents initiatives undertaken under ENVSEC-SEE with the objective to share the Alpine and

Carpathian experience, promote and consult the idea for establishing a network of mountainprotected areas in the Balkans and the Dinaric Arc with the possible stakeholders, and bringthis issue to the attention of nature conservation authorities and political decision-makers.

5EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


7/96

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Map 1: Mountains in the Dinaric Arc and Balkan Region.

Wik

ipediaCommons;UNEPGRID


8/96

Europe, and in particular its Balkan region ischaracterised by many borders that cut acrossecosystems and areas of high natural values,often dividing the continent along natural barri-ers like mountain ranges. Border areas are oftenthe most favoured regions in biodiversity terms,partly as a result of their peripheral location or

political factors banning in the past the develop-ment of areas adjacent to political borders.

However, natural areas shared by neigh-bouring countries are not only a commontreasure, but also a common responsibility.Ecological problems occurring in border areascannot be solved by one country alone, and re-quire transboundary and regional cooperation.

The programme of work on mountain biolog-ical diversity under the Convention on Biologi-cal Diversity (CBD) recommends establishingregional and transboundary collaboration, andcooperative agreements for mountain ranges4,as well as establishing and strengthening ade-quate, effective national and regional networksof mountain protected areas5. Furthermore, theCBD work programme on mountains calls toestablish regional and transboundary collabo-

ration and the establishment of cooperativeagreements for mountain ranges.

The CBD programme of work on protectedareas recommends to strengthen existingand establish new TBPAs (transboundaryprotected areas) to enhance conservation ofbiological diversity, implement the ecosystem

approach, and improve international coopera-tion, and in particular to enter into dialogue toestablish, where appropriate, new TBPAs withadjacent Parties and countries, bearing in mindthe ecosystem approach and the importance ofecological networks.

Since 2005, UNEP is coordinating the projectentitled Improving regional cooperation for riskmanagement from pollution hotspots as wellas the transboundary management of sharednatural resources supported by the AustrianDevelopment Agency (ADA) and the CanadianDevelopment Agency (CIDA), in the frameworkof the Environment and Security (ENVSEC) Ini-tiative, which is a partnership between the Unit-ed Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),

the United Nations Development Programme(UNDP), the Organisation of Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the United NationsEconomic Commission for Europe (UNECE),the Regional Environmental Center for Centraland Eastern Europe (REC) and the associatedNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

UNEP under the ENVSEC initiative pro-motes raising awareness on the common re-

sponsibility for the border regions, thus pro-viding for the greater European integration innature protection and translating the commonEuropean vision into practice.

As the first step, a rapid regional assessmentof the general state-of-environment, as wellas managerial problems experienced by the

INTRODUCTION

4 Goal 2.3., CBD programme of work on mountain biological diversity.5 Action 1.2.5., CBD programme of work on mountain biological diversity.

7INTRODUCTION


9/96

administrative bodies responsible for the pro-tected areas management was carried out in2005-2006, based on country-specific reports.

The resulting regional report EnhancingTransboundary Biodiversity Management inSouth Eastern Europe provides an overviewof the biological diversity, protected area sys-tem, legal and policy framework, existing andplanned institutional structures for nature pro-tection, threats to biological diversity, examplesof transboundary cooperation as well as socio-economic factors, and recommendations for

actions to be taken in particular countries of theregion and for the region as a whole.

During the first regional workshop on En-hancing Transboundary Biodiversity in Moun-tains of South Eastern Europe held in Podgor-ica (Montenegro) in June 2006 representativesof the Governments of the region jointly iden-tified eight potential transboundary protectedareas, and selected three of them as priority

areas in focus, perceived as most urgent fromthe biodiversity point of view.

With the objective to foster transboundarycooperation in the SEE region UNEP devel-oped methodological guidance for designingtransboundary protected areas, and in cooper-ation with the local experts from the SEE coun-tries carried out feasibility studies for the des-ignation of the three priority areas in focus:

Durmitor - Tara Canyon - Sutjeska, Prokletije /Bjeshkt e Nemuna Mountains, and Sharr / arPlanina - Deat - Mt. Korab as transboundaryprotected areas.

On 29 May 2008 in Bonn, at the Big Winfor Dinaric Arc high-level event held during the9. Conference of the Parties to the Conventionon Biological Diversity (CBD COP9), the repre-sentatives of the Governments signed a jointstatement recognizing that Transboundary co-

operation between the Dinaric Arc countries inthe implementation of the Programme of Workon Protected Areas, with the aim to create wellmanaged, and ecologically representative pro-tected area network, is the key to safeguardthe Dinaric Arc eco-regions exceptional natu-ral and cultural values. Simultaneously, theGovernments declared their national prioritiesin delivering on the CBD Programme of Workon Protected Areas in the Dinaric Arc.

It should be noted here that the national pri-orities declared in May 2008 during CBD COP9

are well matching the outcomes of the ENVSEC-SEE workshop organized by UNEP in June2006, and provide for developing transbound-ary cooperation in the priority areas in focusselected during this first sub-regional meeting.

UNEP is also providing the Interim Secre-tariat of the Carpathian Convention, contribut-ing to the international Mountain Partnershipand to the Environment for Europe process.

In that context and as a partner of the AlpineConvention and the Convention on BiologicalDiversity, with which it signed a Memorandumof Cooperation, UNEP is sharing experienceand supporting mountain protected areas andregional development in other mountain re-gions of the world.

In June 2009 within the framework of theENVSEC-SEE Initiative UNEP organized the

second sub-regional meeting on Transbound-ary Cooperation of Mountain Protected Areasin South Eastern Europe: Towards the DinaricArc and Balkan Network of Mountain ProtectedAreas with the objective to initiate discussionand facilitate future consultations on the poten-tial for establishing a regional network of pro-tected areas in the Balkan / Dinaric Arc region.



10/96

The overall objective of this report is toshare the experience on the development ofprotected area networks in the Alps and in theCarpathians with the South Eastern Europeanprotected area managers, and inspire them forsimilar collaborative efforts.

Basing on the lessons learned in the Alps andin the Carpathians - partners aiming to developthe future network of mountain protected areas,e.g. in the Balkans and the Dinaric Arc or anyother mountain region could design their networkin the most appropriate way, adjusted accord-

ingly to their national administrative frameworks,operational capacities and local conditions. Lastbut not least, the analysis of different aspects ofprotected area networking and the comparisonof the progress achieved so far in the Alps andin the Carpathian Mts. should help them to avoidmistakes made by the others.

9INTRODUCTION


11/96

Mountain landscape in the Alps

Z.Niewiad

omski


12/96

Large mountain ranges of Europe like theAlps, Carpathians or the Dinaric and BalkanMountains run across a number of countries,irrespective of political borders. All abovemountain regions harbour enormous biodiver-

sity values of the common European and glo-bal importance.

However, natural areas shared by neighbour-ing countries are not only a common treasure,but also a common responsibility. In order toapply the eco-regional approach and effective-ly implement nature protection at the scale ofthe whole region involved countries adopt re-gional Multilateral Environmental Agreements

(MEAs) aimed at regional and transboundarycooperation in this respect.

Protected area networks usually result fromconcluding either global or regional MEAs.When several countries with different languag-es, cultures and capacities are brought togeth-er to work on a common topic as complex asenvironment or nature conservation, it is diffi-cult to coordinate common projects without es-

tablishing a functional structure such as a net-work. Protected area networks allow for a moreeffective and harmonised management of theshared natural heritage, habitats and speciesas well as for joint preservation and promotionof cultural values of the region.

The use of common environmental stand-ards, harmonisation of approaches, moni-toring and research methodologies, largelyfacilitated by acting as a network allows for

sharing research results and data on biodi-versity, and for development of the commondatabases, mapping of habitats and speciesdistribution.

Common databases and inventories jointlydeveloped by the network members allow en-suring data compatibility, developing commonstrategies and planning common biodiversitymanagement and restoration plans, conser-vation work programmes, research and moni-toring projects; implementing joint actions toprotect or strengthen biological diversity onthe level of species and habitats.

The network of protected areas allows ex-change of information, transfer of know-howand experience, resulting in capacity buildingof member protected area personnel involvedin cooperation by e.g. participating in thecommon thematic working groups or semi-nars, thus largely facilitates development ofskills for the management of natural assetsand protected areas.

Furthermore, the network can largely con-tribute to raising the technical capacity ofparticular member areas, allow combiningskills and sharing e.g. expensive equipmentor hardware.

As emphasised by the International Unionfor Conservation of Nature (IUCN): Neigh-bouring States, which often have differentlevels of technical expertise, knowledge, ca-pacity and financial resources, can benefit by

1.1. Benefits of protected area networking

PART 1. PROTECTED AREA NETWORKS

11PART 1. PROTECTED AREA NETWORKS


13/96

combining their respective strengths throughtransboundary co-operation. 6.

Acting as a regional network of protected ar-eas provides for a greater lobbying strength topromote the idea of nature protection as well asof transboundary cooperation. Common publicrelations work based on the common commu-nication strategy for the whole network is moreeffective and convincing than undertaken by asingle individual protected area administration,and provides for raising public awareness andsupport for nature protection.

The network allows for building transnationalawareness on the importance of protectingnatural values and cultural assets of particu-lar network member areas, and of the wholeregion. By operating at the eco-regional level,networks of protected areas also advance theobjectives of Natura 2000 and of the Pan Euro-pean Ecological Network.

By acting as a network member protected ar-eas gain additional tools to promote their touristand recreational potential, which allows for mar-keting of tourist services well beyond the bordersof their countries, at the regional and Europeanscale. Similarly, the network may serve for bet-

ter marketing and promotion of local agriculturalproducts and handicrafts, e.g. common labellingand marketing of organic food products, at theregional and European scale.

Protected area networks help to representthe interests of their members and of the wholeregion towards national and European authori-ties, and international organisations. Acting asnetwork helps to build the common regional iden-tity. Operational networks are also a proof of thereadiness and ability to cooperate with the neigh-bouring countries of the region with great political

visibility. Networking provides for the greater Eu-ropean integration in nature protection and trans-lating the common European vision into practice.

Last but not least, operating as a networkincreases the credibility of common fundrais-ing initiatives to attract international donorsand assistance, and allows to cumulate therequired critical mass (minimum threshold) ofown contribution (both cash and in-kind) from

numerous project partners, necessary for gen-erating much biggerfinancial support, from e.g.Interreg financial instruments or EU structuralfunds. Thus, networking largely facilitates jointfundraising for e.g. conservation or sustainabledevelopment projects.

6 IUCN Draft Code for Transboundary Protected Areas in Times of Peace and Armed Con flict [in:] Sandwith, T.,

Shine, C., Hamilton, L. and Sheppard, D. (2001). Transboundary Protected Areas for Peace and Co-operation.IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

1.2. Alpine experience: the Alpine Network of Protected Areas

Establishment of the Alpine Network of Pro-tected Areas (ALPARC) was the first officialgovernment initiative for the implementation ofthe Alpine Convention (Salzburg, 1991), in par-ticular its thematic Protocol on nature conser-vation and landscape planning. ALPARC wasestablished in 1995 by the by the first Interna-

tional Conference of Alpine Protected Areas,and is a federation of all protected areas in theAlps, including protected areas of the eight Al-pine countries: Austria, France, Germany, Italy,the Principality of Monaco, the Principality ofLiechtenstein, Slovenia and Switzerland.



14/96

The member protected areas represent dif-ferent legal protective categories, and include13 national parks, 59 regional parks or protect-ed landscape areas, 268 nature reserves withthe area exceeding 100 ha, eight biospherereserves (therefore 348 protected areas of thesize over 100 ha) and numerous other pro-tected areas in the Alpine region. The totalarea of ALPARC member protected areas en-compasses around 15 % to 20 % of the Alpineterritory. Cooperation under the framework ofthe ALPARC network involves around 2000protected area managers and rangers, as well

as more than 100 partner scientifi

c institutions.

The highest governing body of the AlpineNetwork is the General Assembly convened

each second year and bringing together repre-sentatives of the majority of large-scale alpineprotected areas.

The ALPARC International Steering Commit-tee composed of representatives of protectedareas from all Alpine countries proposes com-mon actions and projects to the General As-sembly, decides on international work priorities,and defines short term tasks of the network.The ALPARC National Steering Committeespropose projects at national level and prioritiesfor international co-operation, and facilitate na-

tional co-operation between protected areas.The operational structure of the network in-cludes the ALPARC coordination unit and alsonational and regional coordinators.

Map 2. Alpine Network of Protected Areas.

ALPARC



15/96

The ALPARC coordination unit was initiallyhosted by the French government, and sup-ported by the French Ministry of Ecology andSustainable Development, the French Delega-tion for Territorial Planning and Regional Ac-tions (DATAR) and the regions Rhne-Alpesand Provence-Cte dAzur. For many yearsthe ALPARC coordination unit was adminis-tratively linked to the Ecrins National Park inthe French Alps.

The ALPARC coordination unit is tasked with:

Facilitation of communication within

the network, information exchange anddissemination,

Continuous updating of databasesand websites,

Logistic and scientific meetings preparation,

Assistance in developing and implementa-tion of common programs,

Assistance in raising funds for commonactivities, in particular EU funding,

Facilitating the involvement of localpopulations and the general public.

The multilingual team of the ALPARC coordi-nation unit provides the following services: con-tinuous updating of databases and websites,dissemination of information to partners andrelevant stakeholders, logistical, thematic andscientific preparation for meetings, assistancein the implementation of international programs

and projects, and facilitating the involvement oflocal populations and the general public.

Most recently the ALPARC coordination unitbecame part of the Permanent Secretariat ofthe Alpine Convention, under the name TaskForce Protected Areas, with the headquartersin Chambry ( France).

The Alpine Network operates in four lan-guages (French, German, Italian, Slovenian)

and in English, facilitating communication be-tween protected areas in different regions.

ALPARC has also undertaken the task ofcontributing to the establishment of protectedarea networks beyond the Alpine region, bysharing experience and communicating withother European mountain ranges such as theCarpathians and the Pyrenees. In November2002 ALPARC co-organised the first meetingof the European mountain protected areas inChambry.

The four priority fields of activity of the AlpineNetwork of Protected Areas (ALPARC) are asfollows:

Protection and management of the protectedareas of the Alps and their natural resources,habitats and species, taking into considera-tion international conventions and directives,in particular those regulating the implemen-tation of the NATURA 2000 Network;

Development of controlled tourism compat-

ible with the conservation of natural and cul-tural heritage, and the local economic devel-opment;

Support for mountain agriculture and forestrycontributing to biodiversity conservation;

Awareness raising, information and educa-tion of the local population and the generalpublic on the significance of natural and cul-tural heritage in the Alps as well as the im-portance of its conservation, and the actionsconducted.

The above tasks are accomplished by:

Communicating the activities of the pro-tected areas in the network and to the gen-eral public through a common website in fivelanguages (www.alparc.org), newsletters,bulletin; and publishing results of commonresearch and monitoring activities in informa-tion sheets, dossiers, leaflets and brochuresin four Alpine languages;



16/96

Organising seminars, conferences and work-shops (more than 100 conference and work-shops were held so far) for protected areamanagers aimed at finding solutions for com-

mon management problems; Cooperation in 15 common thematic working

groups which address specific topics (e.g.habitats, Alpine flora, mountain forests, pas-tures, raptors, large carnivores, large ungu-lates, bearded vulture, sustainable tourism,water issues, Alpine cultures, communica-tion and public relations) and are tasked withfinding solutions for common managementor research problems, and developing com-

mon management and monitoring methodsand tools;

Capacity building by organising staff ex-changes between protected areas, exchang-es between the various alpine regions, studyvisits and field trips, and coordinating com-mon training for the staff of Alpine protectedareas;

Promoting common methods, tools and

forms for nature monitoring and data collec-tion and comparison (e.g. harmonisation ofwildlife censusing methods for chamois andthe royal eagle);

Raising public awareness on nature pro-tection issues, in particular by working withthe media, organising common events andtransalpine exhibits (e.g. the travelling Al-pine exposition), publishing common in-formation materials; as well as by involving

local stakeholders in managing protectedareas, in particular in the context of localand regional sustainable development, thusraising their acceptance of and support forprotected areas;

Coordinating common projects (e.g. on spe-cies reintroduction or monitoring), undertak-en by several protected areas under twinningor partnership agreements, supported by theEU financial mechanisms.

The recently launched ECONNECT (Im-proving Ecological Connectivity in the Alps)project implemented under the Alpine SpaceProgramme established in the framework of theInterreg IVB aims at creating a transnationalecological network in the Alps by improving andrestoring the ecological corridors in six pilot Al-pine regions. This involves identifying barriers tothe movement of various groups of species andformulating recommendations for such barriersto be eliminated. Another task is to compare thelegal basis for ecological networks and to makeimprovements where possible. The project in-

volves 16 partners from all the countries of theAlps. ECONNECT has a three-year project du-ration period and a budget of 3.2 million.

To summarise - ALPARC

Reinforces international cooperation on pro-tection of the Alps and sustainable develop-ment, and contributes to the implementationof the NATURA 2000 Network concept;

Harmonises activities in different types of

protected areas and facilitates establishingspatial linkages between neighbouring pro-tected areas by ecological corridors, with theobjective to reach the ecological continuumin the Alps;

Provides for an intensive experience ex-change between Alpine protected areas indifferent fields of science and protected areamanagement, also through supporting andfacilitating the activities of 15 thematic work-

ing groups and organising some 20 thematicconferences and workshops per year;

Allows common communication of the alpineprotected areas - between protected areasand for the general public;

Allows participation of local players in inter-national activities.



17/96

As one of the largest European mountainranges, together with the Alps and the BalkanMountains, the Carpathians form an ecologicalbridge between Western, Central, Eastern andSouth-Eastern Europe, allowing migrationsof animal populations and genetic exchange.Slightly bigger in terms of the territory than theAlps - the Carpathians cover some 209000square kilometres, which is almost exactly the

total area (207903 sq. km) of the ENVSEC-SEE project region.

The history of transboundary cooperation onprotected areas in the Carpathians dates backto 1924 when the Governments of Czechoslo-vakia and Poland decided on designation of abilateral Nature Park in Pieniny Mountains. Es-tablished in 1932 it became the first transbound-ary protected area in Europe. The Worlds first

UNESCO-MaB trilateral transboundary Bio-sphere Reserve was also designated in the Car-pathians the East Carpathians BR involvingPoland, the Slovak Republic and Ukraine (since1992 bilateral, since 1998 trilateral BR).

Depending on the country and its nationallegislation, there is a wide range of protectedarea designations in the Carpathians, e.g. na-tional park, national nature park, nature park,

national nature reserve, strict nature reserve,nature reserve, landscape park, regional land-scape park or protected landscape area, tomention only the most common ones, usuallyestablished on larger areas. Some of them arealso bearing international designations like theUNESCO-MaB Biosphere Reserve or the Ram-sar site. Since the accession offive Carpathian

countries into the European Community manyprotected areas in the Carpathian mountainsbecame part of the Natura 2000 network.

The protected area system in the Carpathi-ans includes more than 460 protected areasbigger in size than 100 hectares supplementedby countless smaller protected areas, sites andnatural monuments. The above number includes

135 protected areas exceeding the size of 1000hectares, and such cover some 27000 7 squarekilometres of the Carpathians, which is roughlytwice the size of Montenegro, more than the ter-ritory of the FYR of Macedonia, or not muchless than the territory of Albania.

It is worth mentioning here, that as for 2010there are eleven transboundary protected areacomplexes in the Carpathians where either the

protected areas or their officially designatedexternal buffer zones are adjacent across thestate border of two or more countries, thus pro-viding for the ecological continuity and connec-tivity on the local scale. Such geographicallydefined transboundary complexes of protectedareas in the Carpathians encompass up tonine adjacent protected areas, and six out ofthese eleven complexes exceed 1000 squarekilometres in size.

The first attempt towards establishing a net-work protected areas in the Carpathians datesback to 1991, when the Association of Car-pathian National Parks and Protected Areas(ACANAP) was registered with the headquar-ters in Tatransk Lomnica (Slovakia), by theinitiative and under the leadership of Prof. Ivan

1.3. Carpathian experience:the Carpathian Network of Protected Areas (CNPA)

7 Database of CNPA large-scale protected areas. [in:] ANPA (2004) Towards a Carpathian Networkof Protected Areas Final Report, Alpine Network of Protected Areas, Gap, France.



18/96

TBPANo

PANo

Country Protected area(PA) name

Categoryinternationaldesignations

PAsize in ha

TBPAsize in ha

11 CZ Bil Karpaty PLA / BR 71 291

114 8102 SK Biele Karpaty PLA 43 519

23 CZ Beskydy PLA 117 319

160 2884 SK Kysuce (western part) PLA 42 969

3

5 SK Kysuce (eastern part) PLA 24 682

134 2776 PL ywiecki LP 35 870

7 PL Babiogrski NP / BR 3 392

8 SK Horn Orava PLA 70 333

49 PL Tatrzaski NP / BR 21 164

94 89510 SK Tatransky NP / BR 73 731

5

11 PL Pieniski NP 2 346

60 48912 SK Pieninsky NP 3 750

13 PL Popradzki LP 54 393

6

14 PL Magurski NP 19 962

*279 373

15 SK Vchodn Karpaty PLA 25 307

16 PL Jaliski LP 20 911

17 PL Ciniasko-Wetliski LP / BR 51 146

18 PL Doliny Sanu LP / BR 33 480

19 PL Bieszczady NP / BR, ED 29 202

20 SK Poloniny NP / BR, ED ** 29 805

21 UA Uzhansky NNP / BR 39 15922 UA Nadsyansky RLP / BR 19 428

Table 1. Transboundary complexes of adjacent protected areas in the Carpathian Mountains.

* With /**without the Poloniny NP buffer zone of 10 973 ha also included into the trilateral East Carpathians BR.

Abbreviations used:

For names of countries: CZ = Czech Republic, H = Hungary, PL = Poland, RO = Romania,

SK = Slovak Republic, UA = Ukraine. For PA categories / legal status: NP = National Park,

NNP = National Nature Park, NtrP = Nature Park, NNR = National Nature Reserve,

LP = Landscape Park, RLP = Regional Landscape Park, PLA = Protected Landscape Area.For PA international designations: BR = UNESCO MaB Biosphere Reserve, ED = European Diploma holder.

Table continued on page 18



19/96

Volouk, the former director of the Tatra Na-tional Park in the Slovak Republic.

According to the statutes for the Associa-

tion, the goal of this organisation was to bringtogether administrations of national parks, re-serves and other protected areas to develop onprinciples of common interest of nature protec-tion of Carpathian Mountains. ACANAP organ-ised several thematic scientific conferences onCarpathian nature, published the first interdis-ciplinary description of protected areas of theCarpathians8, and the CARPATHI bulletin,communicating conservation and research ac-

tivities undertaken in the Carpathian region.

However, due to the legal status of theACANAP association this non-governmentalorganisation could receive no financial supportfrom the side of the Governments responsible

for the member protected areas, while no othersources like the current EU support funds (e.g.Interreg) were available in early 1990s.

Therefore, funding for planned Pan-Car-pathian activities was limited to small amountscoming from member fees paid by several Car-pathian protected areas, and support from oth-er sources, like the Slovak National UNESCO-MaB Committee, the Ecological Society of theSlovak Academy of Sciences and Tatra Nation-al Park administration.

Due to the limited capacities - ACANAP ac-

tivities were also limited, mainly to promotingscientific cooperation, by organising annual sci-entific conferences and several common pub-lications on the Carpathian protected areas.The UNESCO-MaB report 9 published in 2003stated: Although several people mentioned

TBPANo

PANo

Country Protected area(PA) name

Categoryinternationaldesignations

PAsize in ha

TBPAsize in ha

723 PL Gr Sonnych LP 51 392

121 89024 PL Pogrza Przemyskiego LP 61 862

25 UA Verchniodnistrovske Beskidy RLP 8 636

8 26 H Aggteleki NP / BR 20 169 54 78027 SK Slovensk Kras NP / BR 34 611

928 H Karancs-Medves PLA 6 709

23 48029 SK Cerov vrchovina PLA 16 771

10

30 H Duna Ipoly NP 30 688

30 90931 SK Kovacovske kopce(northern part) NNR 221

1132 RO Portile de Fier NtrP 128 160

191 76833 SRB Djerdap NP 63 608

Table 1 (continued). Transboundary complexes of adjacent protected areas in the Carpathian Mountains.

8 Volouk, I., (ed.) (1999) National Parks and Biosphere Reserves in Carpathians -

The Last Nature Paradises. ACANAP Tatransk Lomnica

9 UNESCO. (2003). Jardin.M., Fall, J., Thiry, E. .Five Transboundary Biosphere Reserves in Europe.Biosphere Reserves Technical Notes. UNESCO, Paris.



20/96

this organisation as a positive contributor to co-operation in the area, it is unclear whether thisis still operating..

Thus, a lesson to be learned by the initia-tors of any other future protected area networksis that the major disadvantage of the ACANAPis/was its legal status, providing for no finan-cial support from the side of the Governments,which resulted in missing capacity to networkpark administrations.

Another important step towards networking

in the Carpathians was the Carpathian Ecore-gion Initiative (CEI, currently CERI) launchedin 1999 as an informal international consor-tium of more than 50 partners (governmental,non-governmental, funding, scientific and aca-demic organisations) from six countries of theCarpathian region, facilitated by WWF Interna-tional, with the common CEI Vision aiming toachieve the conservation of nature in the glo-bally important Carpathian mountains and, at

the same time, supporting local economy andculture for the lasting benefit of the people liv-ing in the heart of Europe.

The Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative was thefirst common project focusing on the whole Car-pathian region. Its activities included commonstudies and inventories of regions resources,natural values and economy; establishing com-mon GIS databases, The CEI published the

Status of the Carpathians report providing theoverall view on the Carpathian region and theCarpathian List of Endangered Species, aswell as seventeen theme reports and severalsmaller fact-sheets on the Carpathians, in Eng-lish and in Carpathian languages.

Furthermore, the CEI identified thirty priorityareas for biodiversity conservation in the Car-pathians encompassing some 15.6 per centof the Carpathian Mountains area, basing on

outcomes of common biodiversity assessmenton the eco-regional scale which resulted indeveloping a vision for future protected areasin the Carpathians.

On the motion of the CEI the Carpathian-Danube Summit was convened in 2001 in Bu-charest, attended by nine Heads of State andhigh level officials from five other countries,Ministers of Environment from eight countries,and high-level representatives of e.g. the WorldBank, UNECE, UNDP, UNEP and the Euro-pean Commission, as well as NGOs from the

Carpathian and Danube regions.

The Summit adopted a Declaration on Envi-ronment and Sustainable Development in theCarpathian-Danube region, giving green lightfor the proposed regional multilateral agree-ment focusing on the Carpathians.

Also in 2001 the idea of establishing a net-work of protected areas in the Carpathians as

the potentially official inter-governmental ini-tiative had been raised for the first time at themeeting held by the Alpine Network of Protect-ed Areas with the participation of invited Car-pathian protected area managers from Poland,the Slovak Republic and Romania in October2001 in Gran Paradiso National Park (Italy).

As the follow up of the Carpathian-DanubeSummit, aware of the fact that efforts to protect,

maintain and sustainable manage the natural re-sources of the Carpathians cannot be achievedby one country alone and require regional coop-eration, and of the added value of transbound-ary cooperation in achieving ecological coher-ence; furthermore recognizing the experiencegained in the framework of the Convention onthe Protection of the Alps (Salzburg, 1991) as asuccessful model for the protection of the envi-ronment and sustainable development of moun-tain regions, providing a sound basis for new



21/96

partnership initiatives and further strengtheningof cooperation between Alpine and Carpathianstates - seven Carpathian countries decided toconclude a regional environmental agreementfocusing on the Carpathians.

The official negotiation process facilitated byUNEP-ROE took only six months (from Octo-ber 2002 to March 2003). Already at the FifthMinisterial Conference Environment for Eu-rope (Kyiv, May 2003) seven Carpathian coun-tries (the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland,Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, the Slovak

Republic and Ukraine) adopted the FrameworkConvention on the Protection and SustainableDevelopment of the Carpathians (further as theCarpathian Convention), signed and later rati-fied by all seven Carpathian countries.

The Carpathian Convention provides the le-gal framework for international cooperation andmulti-sectoral policy coordination, a platform forimplementing joint strategies for nature protec-tion and sustainable development in the Car-pathians, and a forum for dialogue between allstakeholders involved. UNEP-ROE has beenrequested to act as the interim Secretariat of theCarpathian Convention (ISCC).

In the course of official negotiations on thefuture regional agreement the Carpathiancountries recognized the experience of the

successful Alpine Network of Protected Areasestablished under the framework of the AlpineConvention and decided to follow this pattern ofgood practice.

Map 3. Priority Areas for Biodiversity Conservation in the Carpathians.

CEI



22/96

The text of the Framework Convention con-tains an explicit commitment of the Parties toestablish and support the future CarpathianNetwork of Protected Areas:

Carpathian Convention, Article 4 (5): TheParties shall cooperate in developing an ecolog-ical network in the Carpathians, as a constituentpart of the Pan-European Ecological Network,in establishing and supporting a CarpathianNetwork of Protected Areas, as well as enhanceconservation and sustainable management inthe areas outside of protected areas.

In 2003 the Carpathian Network of ProtectedAreas Partnership Steering Committee wasofficially established, composed of representa-tives nominated by relevant Ministries of all Car-pathian countries. This Committee met in June2003 in Berchtesgaden (Germany) and adoptedits internal rules of procedure. Later the Com-mittee launched the first common activities (e.g.the survey among the Carpathian protected ar-

eas investigating expectations of the future net-work members).

At the second meeting held in October 2003in Smolenice (the Slovak Republic) the CNPAmission, goals and functions were drafted andother common activities (list and the commonGIS map of Carpathian protected areas, andthe ANPA technical report 10) were considered.

The Steering Committee agreed that the co-operation within the CNPA is most likely to oc-cur between active protected areas, i.e. those,which have their own staff, or a responsibleadministrative body, which can represent them;and that each partner protected area should belarger in size than 100 ha.

Two options for the structure of the futureCNPA were considered. One option was tohave a central and independent ManagementUnit, which would be located in one of the Car-pathian countries, working in close collaborationwith National Coordinators and directly with pro-tected areas of the CNPA.

The other proposal was that the operationalstructure should be based on decentralisedManagement Unit/s, possibly several offices lo-cated in different Carpathian countries, workingin collaboration with the National Coordinators.

The Management Unit/s would facilitate com-munication and networking and report on CNPAissues to the Interim Secretariat in Vienna.

The third meeting held in May 2004 in Zako-pane (Poland) was the last preparatory meetingwhere e.g. the recommendations to the Car-pathian Convention Intergovernmental Commit-tee on the official establishment of the networkwere drafted.

The preparatory work towards the establish-ment of the CNPA was facilitated by UNEP andsupported by the Alpine countries, in particularGermany, France, Principality of Monaco, butalso Norway and organisations such as AL-PARC remaining the key partner of the CNPA,as well as the private business sector.

Pursuant to Article 4 on conservation and

sustainable use of biological and landscape di-versity of the Carpathian Convention - the FirstConference of the Parties (COP1) to the Car-pathian Convention held in Kyiv in December2006 officially established the Carpathian Net-work of Protected Areas (CNPA) and the CNPASteering Committee, serviced by the interimSecretariat.

10 Towards a Carpathian Network of Protected Areas. Final report. ANPA, June 2004.



23/96

Decision COP1/4 (12): The Conference ofthe Parties decides to establish the CarpathianNetwork of Protected Areas, constituting a the-matic network of cooperation of mountain pro-tected areas in the Carpathian region, and todesignate one CNPA Focal Point in each Partyto start up and encourage cooperation in themanagement of protected Areas within and be-tween the Carpathian countries.

Decision COP1/4 (13): The Conferenceof the Parties decides to establish the CNPASteering Committee composed of the CNPA

Focal Points of each country.

Decision COP1/4 (15): The Conference ofthe Parties requests the interim Secretariat toservice the CNPA and its Steering Committee,and to coordinate the activities of the CNPA withthe other bodies of the Carpathian Convention(the Working Group on conservation and sus-tainable use of biological and landscape diver-sity and the Conference of the Parties), pending

the establishment of a Permanent Secretariat ofthe Carpathian Convention.

Soon after COP1, in January 2007 the CNPASteering Committee met in Vienna (Austria) anddrafted the Terms of Reference for the CNPA(further CNPA ToRs). Mr. Mircea Vergheletfrom Romania was elected as an informal chairto represent the CNPA SC in the ALPARC meet-ings as an observer.

The CNPA ToRs were prepared in consulta-tion between the CNPA Steering Committeeand the Carpathian Convention Working Groupon conservation and sustainable use of biologi-cal and landscape diversity (further as the CCBiodiversity Working Group).

In October 2007 the Carpathian ConventionBureau adopted CNPA ToRs, thus providingthe legal basis for the network. The CNPA shall

report to the Carpathian Convention Imple-mentation Committee through the Secretariat,which means that the CNPA is therefore madeaccountable for achieving the goals set up forthis network under the Carpathian Convention.

The CNPA ToRs provide the legal mandatefor the network and its member protectedareas to contribute to and be involved in im-plementation of the first thematic Protocol tothe Framework Convention - the Protocol onConservation and Sustainable Use of Biologi-cal and Landscape Diversity, as well as other

relevant future Protocols to the FrameworkCarpathian Convention.

The CNPA ToRs define the goals of the net-work and list possible activities to be includedin the CNPA work programme. Pursuant to theCNPA ToRs this network aims to contribute tothe protection and sustainable development ofthe Carpathians, and in particular to accom-plishing goals listed in Article 4 of the Conven-

tion, and supporting the work and activities ofthe Working Group on the conservation of bio-logical and landscape diversity of the Carpathi-an Convention. CNPA shall contribute to andbe involved in implementation of the thematicProtocols to the Framework Convention.

Resulting from the CNPA ToRs, the goals ofthe CNPA are as follows:

Promotion of cooperation on protection,restoration of nature and sustainable useof natural and cultural resources of the Car-pathians;

Promotion of sustainable livelihoods andsustainable development of the Carpathians;

Implementation of the relevant provisions ofthe Protocol on Conservation and SustainableUse of Biological and Landscape Diversity;

Implementation of decisions and recom-mendations undertaken by the bodies estab-



24/96

lished under the Carpathian Convention aswell as of other applicable relevant interna-tional legal instruments.

The CNPA ToRs adopted by the CarpathianConvention Bureau provide also official guide-lines for the future work programme and activi-ties of the network, which may include:

Communication within the network;

Coordination of common activities andprojects undertaken by the network;

Capacity building of the member protectedareas and of the network;

Common fundraising from external sourcesfor activities of the network;

Exchange of experience, skills, knowledgeand data among network members, includ-ing through the CNPA working groups;

Support for the activities of common themat-ic working groups established under the Car-pathian Convention Implementation Commit-tee and common communication actions;

Raising ecological awareness and promotingtrans-boundary cooperation and sustainabledevelopment;

Making recommendations on expansion ofthe existing and/or creation of new protectedareas;

Preparing reports, opinions and recommenda-tions for the CC Biodiversity Working Group,for further submission to the Conference of

the Parties and the relevant bodies estab-lished under the Carpathian Convention;

Liaising and cooperating with other bodiesestablished under the Carpathian Conven-tion as well as with other relevant internation-al, regional and national organisations underthe guidance of the CNPA Steering Commit-tee and coordination of the CC BiodiversityWorking Group, thus building upon the vastexperience and knowledge available.

To summarise - the CNPA as a regional the-matic network of cooperation of mountain pro-tected areas in the Carpathians shall contrib-ute to the protection of nature and sustainableuse of natural and cultural resources of theCarpathians within the framework of the Car-pathian Convention, enhance the capacity ofthe CNPA members to achieve their statutoryobjectives and cooperate within this Network,facilitate and support the common work of pro-tected areas being members of the CNPA. TheCNPA shall contribute to the implementation ofthe Carpathian Convention in close coopera-

tion with the bodies of the Convention, e.g. theCarpathian Convention Biodiversity WorkingGroup or the Carpathian Convention Imple-mentation Committee. Moreover, the Networkshall encourage cooperation between the Car-pathian protected areas, designated as mem-bers of the CNPA, and with protected area net-works of other regions.

Later the CNPA Steering Committee met

twice, in November 2007 in Budapest (Hun-gary) and in April 2008 in Sibiu (Romania) todiscuss organisational issues and the plannedfirst Protected Area Conference. ALPARC incooperation with the CNPA Steering Commit-tee designed and prepared the website for theCNPA and published a multilingual promotionalbrochure on the CNPA.

The Second Conference of the Parties

(COP2) to the Carpathian Convention held inBucharest in June 2008 adopted the first the-matic Protocol to the Framework Convention -the Protocol on Conservation and SustainableUse of Biological and Landscape Diversity (Bu-charest, Romania, 19 June 2008) and encour-aged Parties, pending the ratification and entryinto force of the Protocol, whenever possible tostart its implementation.



25/96

The text of the Protocol contains an explicitcommitment of the Parties to support and facili-tate cooperation under the CNPA:

Carpathian Convention, Protocol on Conser-vation and Sustainable Use of Biological andLandscape Diversity, Article 14 (1): The Parties

shall support and facilitate cooperation underthe Carpathian Network of Protected Areas es-tablished by the Conference of the Parties andencourage the protected area administrations totake part in the cooperation within this Network.

COP2 requested the CNPA Steering Com-mittee to further discuss and elaborate theproposal for a permanent arrangement for theCNPA taking into account results of the Pro-tected Areas Conference and requested the

interim Secretariat in cooperation with CNPASteering Committee, with the support of theALPARC and Task Force of Protected Areasof the Alpine Convention Secretariat and incollaboration with the other CNPA partners, toprepare a Work Plan and Medium Term Strat-egy for CNPA, and invited the Protected Areas

Conference to consider and provide inputs tothese documents.

At its fourth meeting held in June 2008 in Bu-charest the CNPA Steering Committee decidedon the logo for the CNPA and on establishingthe CNPA Unit to facilitate further cooperationwithin the network on an interim basis untilthe decision on the proposal for a permanentCNPA arrangement to be taken by COP3. Fur-thermore the meeting agreed upon the pro-

Map 4. The Carpathian Network of Protected Areas.

CNPA



26/96

cedure of elaborating proposals of the CNPAMedium Term Strategy and Work Plan for 2009that shall be presented to the Protected AreasConference.

In July 2008 the Parties officially designatedtheir protected areas being members of theCNPA, basing on country-by-country autodes-ignation rule: the Governments decided whichprotected area categories and which protectedareas (depending on the geographical scopeof the Carpathian Convention in each country)they designate as members of the network.

This formal step allowed convening the firstProtected Areas Conference held on 23-24September 2008 in Poiana Brasov (Romania),with the financial support of the WWF DanubeCarpathian Programme. As the follow up of theconference the CNPA currently develops itsMedium Term Strategy and Work Plan for thecoming years.

The CNPA and its member protected areasshall contribute to the work of different con-sultative and coordinative bodies as well asexpert and/or scientific teams, both in-countryand common (international), to be establishedunder the Carpathian Convention for the imple-mentation of the Protocol on Conservation andSustainable Use of Biological and LandscapeDiversity (further as Biodiversity Protocol), aswell as other relevant future Protocols to the

Framework Carpathian Convention.

By the end of 2009 the Biodiversity Protocolwas ratified by the four Carpathian countries:the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland andUkraine. Thus, pursuant to the Rules of Pro-cedure adopted by COP1, this first thematicProtocol to the Framework Convention cameinto force on 28 April 2010. Romania ratifiedthe Biodiversity Protocol in July 2010, whilethe ratification procedure in the remaining two

Carpathian countries is in progress. There-fore, the Biodiversity Protocol can already beimplemented, as encouraged by COP2, by theabove mentioned five Parties to the CarpathianConvention, within their territories.

However, launching common activities at thebroader eco-regional scale would still requirethe adoption of a Strategic Action Plan for itsimplementation in cooperation between theParties. Furthermore, other possible thematicProtocols to the Carpathian Convention (e.g.on sustainable forestry, sustainable agriculture

and rural development, sustainable tourism,spatial planning, water/river basin manage-ment) are, as for 2010, not yet available. Lastbut not least, funding available for the CNPAactivities is still limited.

Nevertheless, this time the protected areanetwork in the Carpathians was established asa governmentally driven, officially supportedinitiative and not a non-governmental organisa-

tion or association, like in the case of ACANAP.

Since 2001 the activities towards establish-ing the CNPA are supported by UNEP, ALPARC(Task Force of Protected Areas of the AlpineConvention Secretariat) and the Governmentsof the Alpine countries.

ALPARC in cooperation with the CNPA Steer-ing Committee designed and prepared the web-

site for the CNPA (www.carpathianparks.org)and published several reports and brochuresresulting from cooperation between the Alpineand Carpathian protected areas. Soon after theaccession of the first four Carpathian countriesto the European Community in 2004 a commonconference on Natura 2000 and Emerald imple-mentation in the Alps and the Carpathians washeld in Neukirchen (Austria).



27/96

In 2005 and 2006 two common Alpine-Car-pathian workshops were organized: on inte-grated management of protected areas (inMala Fatra NP, Slovakia, June 2006) and onmanagement of tourism and sustainable devel-opment in protected areas (in Piatra CraiuluiNP, Romania, July 2006). In July 2009 the Al-pine-Carpathian colloquium Large carnivores:management, research and public relationstrategies of the protected areas was held inNizke Tatry National Park, Slovakia.

The first common project undertaken with

the objective to accomplish the goals of theCarpathian Convention was the CarpathianProject of the total value of 4.260.000, im-plemented between 2005 and 2008 in cooper-ation between 18 partners from ten countries,where UNEP - Vienna ISCC was the projectLead Partner. The Carpathian Project focusedon establishing basic data platform, facilitatinggeneral strategic process for developing inte-grative policies, guidelines and instruments;

promoting education and awareness raising aswell as the transfer of experiences.

In 2009 UNEP Vienna ISCC prepared theproposal for the next common project with thefocus on integrated management of biologi-cal and landscape diversity for sustainable re-gional development and ecological connectivityin the Carpathians. The objectives of the pro-posed project include:

Enhancing the integrated management ofnatural assets and protected areas in theCarpathians

Improving the harmonization of managementplans aiming at common standards for pro-tection and sustainable use of habitats andspecies

Fostering ecological connectivity in line withthe requirements of NATURA 2000 and the

Pan-European Ecological Network

Encouraging and supporting cooperativeagreements for the management of protect-ed areas in border regions

Developing and promoting compatible biodi-versity indicators and monitoring system, andregional inventories of species and habitats

Promoting sustainable regional developmentbased on the economic value of areas withhigh biodiversity, and increasing awarenesson the importance of integrated manage-ment of the natural assets of the Carpathiansas a development factor

Promoting an intensive knowledge transfer

to stakeholders at all levels and with othermountain regions (Alps, Balkans / Dinaric Arc)

It is important to note that several activitiesplanned under this project could enhance thefurther development of the ecological networkin the Carpathians in the strategic fields of inter-vention defined by the recently adopted Biodi-versity Protocol of the Carpathian Convention,by e.g. improving the continuity and connectivi-

ty of natural and semi-natural habitats (Article 9of the Biodiversity Protocol) as well as enhanc-ing conservation and sustainable managementin the areas outside of protected areas in theCarpathians (Article 15), and harmonisationand coordination of measures undertaken inborder areas (Article 16). Planned activities in-clude also support for the development of theCarpathian Network of Protected Areas andtransnational Regional Wetland Centre.

On the other hand, the involvement of theCNPA member areas under the proposedproject would be indispensable for the imple-mentation of activities aimed at e.g. the col-lection of data and identification of areas withmost endangered habitats and/or species,delineating mainstays and priority connectingcorridors of species, and the development ofthe Carpathian Red List of Habitats and theCarpathian Red List of Species.



28/96

The future cooperation of CNPA with theother mountain regions of Europe should allowfor networking between networks, thus facili-tating interregional cooperation of protected ar-eas throughout Europe. It should be noted herethat one of the protected areas within the scopeof the ENVSEC-SEE programme, Djerdap Na-tional Park in Serbia, located in the southern-most part of the Carpathian mountain rangeat the state border with Romania, is already aCNPA member area, which could possibly pro-vide for a linkage between the two protectedarea networks - the existing Carpathian net-

work and the possible future Balkan network.

Map 5. ALPARC and CNPA networks.

ALPARC



29/96

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX

SutjeskaNationalPark.

Mt. Magli (2386 m) - the highest peak of Bosnia andHerzegovina located at the state border with Montenegro.


30/96

PART 2. POTENTIAL FOR ESTABLISHINGTHE MOUNTAIN PROTECTED AREA NETWORK IN SEE

tional Park (77458 ha), part of the plannedtransboundary area Prokletije/Bjeshkt eNemuna Mountains, expected to incorporatethree already existing protected areas on theAlbanian side (National Park Thethi, Na-

tional Park Lugina e Valbones and a StrictNature Reserve Lumi i Gashit of the totalarea of 13630) is planned for 2010-2011. Thedesignation of Korabi Protected Landscape(31360.54 ha) in the planned transboundaryarea of Sharr/ar Planina - Korab - Deshat/Deat is planned for 2012.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

As for 2009 the protected area system ofBosnia and Herzegovina encompassed al-most 50567 ha (which accounted for some0.99 per cent of the countrys territory), and in-cluded three national parks Kozara (3375 ha),Sutjeska (17250 ha) and Una (19800 ha); twonature parks Blidinje and Hutovo Blato (theonly Ramsar site designated in Bosnia andHerzegovina), five strict nature reserves, threemanaged nature reserves, 29 special reserves

(six geological, 22 botanical and one ornitho-logical), 16 nature landscape reserves, a largenumber of natural monuments, and seven me-morial nature monuments. It has to be notedthat the above protected area categories aresometimes overlapping, as e.g. the Strict Na-

The three countries of the ENVSEC-SEEregion where new protected areas were des-ignated since the previous regional assess-ment done by UNEP11 are Albania, Bosnia andHerzegovina, and Serbia. For the purposes of

this report, aimed at protected area networkingin the Balkans and the Dinaric Arc, protectedarea systems of the two countries remainingout of the geographical scope of the currentENVSEC-SEE project area are additionallydescribed below Bulgaria and Croatia, bothneighbouring and sharing mountain rangeswith the ENVSEC-SEE countries.

Albania

As for June 2009 the protected area systemof Albania covered 36156912 ha (which ac-counts for some 12.58 per cent of the coun-trys territory). Large-scale protected areas inAlbania include 14 national parks (of the totalarea of 176584 ha), managed nature reserves(82530 ha) and protected landscapes (95884ha), while some 200 nature monuments sup-plement the ecological network of Albania.

By the end of the year 2020 protected areasin Albania are expected to cover 588817 ha,thus the share of protected areas in countrysterritory is expected to increase to some 20.48per cent. The designation of the new Alps Na-

2.1. Ecological network in the South Eastern Europe

11 Enhancing Transboundary Biodiversity Management in South Eastern Europe

(2006) Niewiadomski, Z. (Ed.). Report prepared under the Environment and Security Initiative. UNEP Vienna.

12 Source of information: Nature Protection Policies Directorate, Ministry of Environment,Forests and Water Administration of Albania, June 2009.

29PART 2. POTENTIAL FOR ESTABLISHING THE MOUNTAIN PROTECTED AREA NETWORK IN SEE


31/96

ture Reserve Peruica is located within theborders of Sutjeska National Park. Nationalpark Una designated in May 2008 in the Una-Sana canton is the first national park of theFederation of Bosnia and Herzegovina andthird one in the country, encompassing over 39per cent of areas currently protected in Bosniaand Herzegovina.

According to the statements made duringCBD COP9 the new protected areas to bedesignated in Bosnia and Herzegovina are na-tional park Bjelasnica Igman, nature park Ja-

horina, and protected areas in Prenj - Cabulja- Cvrsnica - Vran area. Existing national parksKozara and Sutjeska are to be enlarged. Thespatial plan for the Republic of Srpska propos-es designation of some 15 to 20 per cent ofthe RS territory as protected areas, of differentlegal and protective management categories.According to the most recent proposals de-veloped by the scientists the area of SutjeskaNational Park (currently 17250 ha ) shall be

extended by some 8331 ha (including some3500 hectares of the Tara river canyon) toreach the size of some 25581 ha, which wouldthen again make Sutjeska the largest protectedarea not only in the Republic of Srpska but inthe whole country.

Bulgaria

As for 2006 the protected area system of

Bulgaria encompassed 583038 ha (whichaccounted for some 5.26 per cent of thecountrys territory). The system included 55reserves (50697 ha in total), three nationalparks (as much as 193048 ha in total), 359natural landmarks (17987 ha), 35 man-aged reserves (4452 ha), ten nature parks(264787 ha) and 402 protected sites (52067

ha). Many areas in Bulgaria are holders ofinternational designations like the UNESCO-MaB Biosphere Reserve (17 areas in 1996).There were two parallel proposals consideredby the Ministry of Environment and Water fordesignation of the Nature Park Eastern Rho-dopes with an area of about 200000 ha andthe Nature Park Western Rhodopes with anarea of about 800000 ha.

Croatia

As for 2006 the protected area system of

Croatia encompassed 512480 ha13

(which ac-counted for some 9.05 per cent of the countrysterritory). The system included 444 protectedareas in total, of various legal protective catego-ries: two strict nature reserves (2395.35 ha in to-tal), eight national parks (93181.48 ha), ten na-ture parks (305864.38 ha), 79 special reserves(28796.5 ha), 103 natural monuments (761.79ha), 69 important landscapes (71467.08 ha), 38forest parks (9051.95 ha) and 135 horticultural

monuments (961.82 ha). Two protected areas(Plitvice Lakes National Park and Velebit Moun-tain Nature Park) in Croatia are designated asUNESCO-MaB Biosphere Reserves, while fourother areas are listed as Ramsar sites.

Five out of eight national parks and six outof ten nature parks of Croatia cover mountainareas. These are: Krka National Park (10900ha), Northern Velebit National Park (10900

ha), Paklenica National Park (9600 ha),Plitvice Lakes National Park (29482 ha), Risn-jak National Park (6400), Biokovo Nature Park(19550 ha), Medvednica Nature Park (22826ha), Papuk Nature Park (33600 ha), Uka Na-ture Park (16000 ha), Velebit Mountain NaturePark (200000 ha) and umberak-Samoborskogorje (33300 ha).

13 Source: Biodiversity of Croatia (2006). State Institute for Nature Protection,Ministry of Culture Republic of Croatia. Zagreb.



32/96

Planned new protected areas in Croatia in-cluded proposed nature parks in Lastovo Ar-chipelago, and in Neretva Delta (Ramsar site,11500 ha).

The Former YugoslavRepublic of Macedonia

The protected area system of the Former Yu-goslav Republic of Macedonia in 2006 included77 areas covering an area of 188154 ha (whichaccounts for 7.32 per cent of the countrys terri-tory), of the following categories: national park,

strict natural reserve, natural monument, land-scape with special natural characteristics, andarea outside nature reserves containing certainplant and animal species.

The system includes three national parks(NP Galiica covering 22750 ha, NP Mavrovo73088 ha and NP Pelister 12500 ha) togetherencompassing 108338 ha (thus 4.21 per centof the country area), four strict nature reserves

together encompassing 12855 ha, 53 natu-ral monuments covering together the area of61978 ha, three areas classified as landscapewith special natural characteristics covering to-gether 2338 ha, plus 14 areas located outsidenature reserves and designated for protectionof certain plant and animal species covering to-gether 2645 ha.

The current Spatial Plan of the Former Yu-

goslav Republic of Macedonia (2004-2020)anticipates the increase in the share of pro-tected areas up to some twelve per cent ofthe country area. One of the proposed newprotected areas in the Former Yugoslav Re-public of Macedonia is the planned nationalpark encompassing ar Planina mountainrange at the border with Kosovo - UN admin-istered territory under UN Security Councilresolution 1244.

Montenegro

In August 2009 the protected area system ofMontenegro encompassed some 124788 ha(which accounts for some 9.03 per cent of thecountrys territory), and included five nationalparks: Biogradska Gora (5400 ha), Durmi-tor (33895 ha), Loven (6400 ha), Prokletije(16038 ha) and Skadar Lake (40000 ha); 43natural monuments (7733 ha in total), four ar-eas of exceptional natural values (322.5 ha intotal), as well as the Kotor-Risan Bay (15000ha) protected by the municipal law.

The Durmitor National Park is part of theUNESCO-MaB Tara River Basin BiosphereReserve (182889 ha, designated in 1976) andtogether with the Tara river canyon was in 1980inscribed on the UNESCO list of World Herit-age Sites (WHS). Kotor-Risan Bay was desig-nated as the WHS already in 1979, while theNational Park Biogradska Gora has been nomi-nated for inclusion on this list. The Skadar Lake

National Park was in 1995 included on the Listof Wetlands of International Importance espe-cially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar list).

During CBD COP9 in 2008 the Governmentof Montenegro committed itself to establish thenational park in Prokletije Mountains (desig-nated in August 2009) and several marine/coastal protected areas (islands Katici, StariUlcinj and Platamuni).

The current Spatial Plan of Montenegro until2020 developed in 2008 proposes the desig-nation of several new mountain protected areas:Orjen National Park (19000 ha), Bio-Magli-Volujak Regional Park (7200 ha); Ljubinja Re-gional Park (7800 ha); Sinjavina and aranciRegional Park (42400 ha); Komovi RegionalPark (21000 ha), Rumija Regional Park (12200ha), and Turjak and Hajla Regional Park (14600ha). Furthermore, the above mentioned Plan



33/96

proposes the extension of the Durmitor NationalPark by some 20000 ha towards the state bor-der with Bosnia and Herzegovina. Therefore,according to the above Spatial Plan, the totalsize of large scale protected areas in the moun-tains of Montenegro would increase from thecurrent 61733 ha by additional 149162 ha toreach the total number of 210895 ha.

In result, the protected area system of Mon-tenegro could encompass the total area ofsome 319645 ha which would be as much assome 23.14 per cent of the countrys terrestrial

territory (without the planned marine/coastalprotected areas).

Serbia

In 2006 the protected area system of Serbiaencompassed over 6.6 per cent of the coun-trys territory and included five national parksof the total area of 158986.36 ha: Djerdap(63608.45 ha), Fruska Gora (25393 ha), Ko-

paonik (11809,91 ha), ar planina (39000 hain Kosovo - UN administered territory underUN Security Council resolution 1244) and Tara(19175 ha), and 19 regional parks of nature.Nature reserves in Serbia encompass some83024.1 ha, and include 59 nature reserves(where only six nature reserves exceed thesize of 100 ha) and 20 special nature reserves(usually bigger areas, up to several thousandhectares). The protected area system of Serbia

is supplemented by 17 protected landscapes,43 cultural-historical landscapes, and over 320nature monuments.

The Stara Planina Nature Park with the areaof 142219.54 ha14 is currently the largest pro-tected area within the scope of the ENVSEC-SEE project. The Golija Nature Park (the sec-

ond largest nature park in Serbia, 75183 ha)is bearing the UNESCO-MaB designation asthe Golija Studenica Biosphere Reserve. Oth-er larger mountain nature parks of Serbia areSuva Planina Nature Park (located to SW fromStara Planina, approx. 21354 ha), SievakaKlisura Nature Park (located to NW from SuvaPlanina, 7746 ha), and Vrake Planine (lo-cated at the state border with Romania, 4177ha). Furthermore, the two new protected ar-eas designated in Serbia in 2008/2009 are theNature Park Mokra Gora and Protected Land-scape Zaovine, in the proposed transbound-

ary protected area Tara Drina.

Kosovo - UN administered territory un-der UN Security Council resolution 1244

In Kosovo - UN administered territory un-der UN Security Council resolution 1244 theprotected area system encompasses some46504.6 hectares (which accounts for 4.27per cent of the territory) and includes one

national park, eleven small-scale nature re-serves (covering together only 954.8 ha), 35nature monuments (covering together some4868 ha), two protected landscapes - theMirusha River Gorge and the Germia Moun-tains15 (together covering only 1681.8 ha)and two forest parks. Nature Monuments andProtected Landscapes are declared and man-aged by the local municipalities.

The Mali Sharr NP (Sharr Mountains NP) iscurrently the only national park, located in thesouthernmost part at the border of the FormerYugoslav Republic of Macedonia and covering39000 ha, which accounts for over 84 per centof the total acreage protected in Kosovo - UNadministered territory under UN Security Coun-cil resolution 1244. There are also proposals

14 Some sources defi

ne the area of Stara Planina Nature Park as 114332 ha15 According to USAID Kosovo Biodiversity Assessment of 2003



34/96

to extend the Mali Sharr National Park area tothe South, along the border of the Former Yu-goslav Republic of Macedonia and towards theborder of Albania.

Most recently the experts from Prishtina Uni-versity carried out assessment of natural val-ues of Bjeshkt e Nemuna Mountains and theMinistry of Environment and Spatial Planning

of Kosovo proposed the inclusion of Bjeshkte Nemuna Mountains National Park designa-tion procedure in the Legislative Strategy ofthe Government of Kosovo for 2010, whichcan provide for the designation of Bjeshkt eNemuna National Park (62398 ha). Moreover,according to the USAID report (2003) differentmunicipalities have submitted 150 new propos-als for natural monuments.

2.2. Potential partners of the sub-regional network ofmountain protected areas in the Balkans / Dinaric Arc

In order to initiate the establishment of thepossible sub-regional network of mountain pro-tected areas in the Balkans and the Dinaric Arcthe decision on selecting the group of most rel-evant partners capable to initiate activities to-wards networking, become the leaders of suchinitiative, and later involve other partners mustbe taken as the first step.

As for the geographical scope of the possible

sub-regional protected area network encom-passing the Balkans and the Dinaric Arc it isrecommended that in addition to the countriesand territories within the scope of the currentENVSEC-SEE project (Albania, Bosnia andHerzegovina, Kosovo - UN administered ter-ritory under UN Security Council resolution1244, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Mace-donia, Montenegro, Serbia) two other countriescould possibly join the initiative - Bulgaria and

Croatia, both neighbouring and sharing moun-tain ranges with the ENVSEC-SEE countries.The potential involvement of Slovenian part-ners should also be considered, no matter thatthe mountain protected areas of Slovenia arealready members of ALPARC.

The main stakeholders of the possible sub-regional network would be mountain protectedareas, thus it should be the protected area man-

agers to initiate consultations among partnerprotected areas, and with the other importantpotential supporters and partners in their coun-tries, such as relevant Ministries, supervisorygovernmental agencies responsible for protectedareas (e.g. the Public Enterprise National Parksof Montenegro) and scientific institutions (e.g. theInstitute for Nature Conservation of Serbia, theInstitute for Nature Protection in Podgorica, theInstitute for the Protection of the Cultural, Histori-

cal and Natural Heritage of Republic of Srpska).

For obvious reason, the first important crite-rion for the selection of potential partners forthe sub-regional network of mountain protectedareas is the location of a particular area in themountains.

Secondly, following the experience fromthe Alps and the Carpathians the coopera-

tion within the network is most likely to occurbetween protected areas which have their ownstaff and a responsible administrative body,which can represent them.

Thirdly, it is suggested that initially the pos-sible protected area network should beginfrom enhancing cooperation and experienceexchange between large-scale protected area,thus e.g. bigger in size than 1000 hectares.



35/96

Another criteria for selecting partners for theteam of leaders to initiate consultations onthe potential for networking protected areasin the Balkans and the Dinaric Arc could bethe mission of the administrative body repre-sented in such group, to be focused primarilyon nature protection.

This would initially further limit the number ofpartners to mainly representatives of e.g. na-tional park administrations (sometimes havingthe special legal status described in some SEEcountries as Public Enterprise National Park),

but should allow to bring together representa-tives of administrations and management bod-ies best motivated for launching cooperationthrough the network of protected areas.

Of course, the use of such criterion shouldnot exclude protected areas managed e.g. bythe municipal or state forest administrationsfrom the future activities of the network, suchcriterion should only serve for defining the pos-

sible composition of the core team initiatingthe cooperation. Furthermore, depending oncountry specifics, representatives of municipalor state forest administrations should in sev-eral cases be involved in this core team, e.g.in order to involve the managers of the StaraPlanina Nature Park in Serbia (managed by thePublic Enterprise Srbijaume), being currentlythe largest protected area within the scope ofthe ENVSEC-SEE project.

Last, but not least, the list of protected ar-eas to be involved in the activities of the pos-sible future sub-regional network of mountainprotected areas in the Balkans and the DinaricArc would grow with the designation of the cur-rently planned new protected areas, e.g. theAlps national park in Albania, national parkBjelasnica Igman in Bosnia and Herzegovina,

national park Bjeshkt e Nemuna on the Ko-sovo16 side of Prokletije mountains, nationalpark ar Planina in the Former Yugoslav Re-public of Macedonia and several mountain re-gional parks in Montenegro.

The administrations of these youngest mem-bers of the SEE protected area family couldlargely benefit from the experience of more ad-vanced colleagues. But, for obvious reasons,representatives of these not-yet-existing ad-ministrations cannot currently be consideredin the nearest future as potential members of

the team of leaders initiating the consultationson the possible sub-regional protected areanetwork. A similar reservation relates to theadministrations of the most recently designat-ed protected areas (e.g. Una National Park inBosnia and Herzegovina or Prokletije NationalPark in Montenegro) which should currently re-main focused on building their capacities to ac-complish their statutory objectives and makingtheir protected areas operational.

Should all the above criteria be applied themembers of the team of leaders expected toinitiate consultations on the potential for estab-lishment of a sub-regional network of mountainprotected areas in the Balkans and the DinaricArc could potentially recruit from among the rep-resentatives of two national parks in Bosnia andHerzegovina, three national parks and sevennature parks in Bulgaria, five national parks and

six nature parks in Croatia, three national parksin the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,three national parks in Montenegro, four na-tional parks and two nature parks in Serbia, andone national park in Kosovo - UN administeredterritory under UN Security Council resolution1244 (which will together make 36 protected ar-eas potentially contributing to the consultations,including 15 large-scale mountain protected ar-

16 Kosovo - UN administered territory under UN Security Council resolution 1244



36/96

eas within the scope of the current ENVSEC-SEE project, and eleven large-scale mountainprotected areas of Bulgaria and Croatia).

As for the potential representatives of theAlbanian mountain protected areas - the deci-sion which mountain protected area adminis-trations should become involved in this activityshould be left to the Nature Protection PoliciesDirectorate, Ministry of Environment, Forestsand Water Administration of Albania, as a focalpoint for communication in this respect.

The proposed tentative list of protected ar-eas which could possibly contribute to the for-mation of the team of leaders initiating con-sultations on the potential for establishment ofa sub-regional network of mountain protectedareas in the Balkans and the Dinaric Arc is pro-vided in Annex 1 to this report.

Within the geographical scope of the ENVSEC-SEE project area (like in the Alps or Carpathi-

ans) there is a wide range of different nationallegal designations for protected areas, e.g.national parks, nature parks, strict nature re-serves, resource reserves, special reserves,nature landscape reserves, managed naturereserves, nature monuments, sites of specialnatural character (serving for species protec-tion), memorial nature monuments, protectedlandscapes or protected seascapes.

It should be emphasised here that capacitiesof protected areas to become active membersand contributors to the possible sub-regionalnetwork of mountain protected areas in the Bal-kans and the Dinaric Arc are different amongthe countries of the South-Eastern Europeanregion, even among the group of protected ar-eas bearing apparently the same legal desig-nation of e.g. a national park.

Even though areas designated as nationalparks match the criteria for the IUCN CategoryII, it has to be stressed that the IUCN categori-sation system is mostly based on the ultimatepurpose of area designation. In fact the label ofa national park does not tell much about the setof its legal and operational arrangements. Dueto different national legislation national parks inparticular countries may have completely differ-ent legal powers, duties, functions, law enforce-ment tools, and operational capacities.

Secondly, depending on the location, nation-

al parks may have very different operationalcontext, to large extent influencing its manage-ment objectives and possibilities for implement-ing conservation measures. A park located ina remote and scarcely populated region (likee.g. national parks in Bulgaria designated out-side of populated areas) can operate in a verydifferent manner than the park surrounded by,or encompassing numerous communities andsettlements. Differences between the situation

in the Alps on one hand and in the Carpathiansor Balkans on the other is visible, partly result-ing from historical factors. For in

towards the network of mountain protected areas in the balkans and the dinaric arc

Documents