National Academies Press: OpenBook

Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas (1996)

Chapter: 3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions

« Previous: 2 Biodiversity Conservation in the Participating Countries
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

III
BIOSPHERE RESERVES AND NATURAL CONDITIONS IN CENTRAL EUROPEAN BORDER REGIONS

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

BIALOWIEZA NATIONAL PARK AND BIOSPHERE RESERVES

Czeslaw Okolow

Bialowiewa National Park

Vjacheslav Vasilievich Semakov

State National Park Belovezhskaja

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

Bialowieza Primeval Forest today encompasses 150,000 hectares on both sides of the Polish and Belarusian border. The Polish (western) part covers 62,500 ha, and the Belarusian (eastern) part, 87,500 ha. Over the course of time, the Forest has developed mature stands of undisturbed origin, a unique phenomen in this European lowland zone of deciduous and mixed forests. These stands developed naturally, practically free of human influence. Local soil and climatic conditions have guided the development of the stands' multi-species and multi-aged structures. The stands also have characteristic spatial distribution and a zonal character of vegetation specific to the post-glacial plains of this part of Europe. These factors have ensured the "biodiversity" of the Forest. Following are some data on the biodiversity:

Flora:

Species

Fauna;

Species

Vascular plants

> 1000

Mammals

62

Bryophytes

> 250

Birds

237

Lichens

334

breeding permanently or irregularly

167

Fungi

> 3000

Reptiles

7

mushrooms

450

Amphibians

12

Myxomycetes

> 80

Fishes

24

Aerophytic algae

156

Insects

> 9000

 

 

butterflies and lepidopterous

> 1050

 

 

beetles

> 2000

 

 

hymenopterous

> 3000

 

 

dragonflies

23

 

 

Snails and other gastropods

61

 

 

Spiders

> 200

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

Because the knowledge of many systematic groups is far from satisfactory, the above data are changed annually based on the results of current investigations. It should be noted that many rare species of Poland and Belarus are found only in Bialowieza Primeval Forest. Just as there are rare or threatened species through the world which are relics of natural habitats, such is the case with primeval forests. One example of such a species is the largest mammal in Europe, the European bison. The ecology of Bialowieza Primeval Forest and the lack of natural ecological barriers or isolation have resulted to many endemic flora and fauna species. But the unusual biodiversity of this ecosystems is exemplified by the fact that over 100 species of cryptogamous plants and invertebrates were first discovered here. In the Polish part of Bialowieza Forest, 25 natural plant communities (16 forest and brushwood, 9 non-forest), 51 seminatural plant communities, and 30 synantropic communities are known.

The extent of the biodiversity in this unique forest ecosystem is still unknown. For example, a study of only one forest section (144 ha) noted nearly 2000 species of cryptogamous plants, and this investigation, due to a lack of taxonomists, was restricted to certain chosen groups. The forest community of Tilio-Carpinetum, in which 425 species of Chalcid-wasps were found, provides another example. The process of differentiation and diversification still continues. The long-term influence of special habitat conditions provide niche characteristics and local ecotypes consisting of several organisms, such as trees like the Norway spruce. Daily investigations of butterflies found local races or subspecies characterized with larger size and darker colorations than those in populations outside forest.

STATE OF PRESERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF ECOSYSTEMS

Polish Part

The Bialowieza National Park, the oldest national park in Poland, was created in 1921 and encompasses 5,446 ha. The main focus of the park is the Strict Nature Preserve, which comprises 4,747 ha. Other components of the national park are the Palace Park (49 ha), the European Bison Breeding Centre (276 ha), and the buffer zone between the Strict Preserve and the surrounding farmland. However, even the largest portion of the park is not big enough to safeguard all the types of flora, fauna, and vegetation indigenous the Polish part of the forest. The Strict Nature Preserve does not, for example, contain a number of the forest communities common to the western part of the forest such as the cowberry pine forest (Vaccinio vitisideae Pinetum). Similarly, it has not been possible to reserve the necessary habitat for large predators. According to a recent study, an adult male lynx in the Bialowieza Forest inhabits a range between 10,000 and 20,000 ha.

In the managed part (54,255 ha) of the forest, which occupies the remainder of the Polish part of the forest, there are 13 complementary nature reserves covering

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

2,364 ha, including a Permanent soil Plot (485 ha) (Fig. 1). There are also over 800 individual trees, mainly oaks, which are protected as monuments of nature. Seed stands are another form of protection. However, forests designated for recreation did not guarantee the necessary ecological protection. In the managed forest surrounding the national park, changes are taking place at an increasing rate. A water storage reservoir built at Narew river on the northern edge of the forest (3200 ha) threatens the national park. Another serious threat is air pollution, which not only comes from distant sources, but also from nearby heating installations which use low quality black coal and which are located sometimes less than 1 km from the Strict Nature Preservation.

FIGURE 1 Bialowieza Primeval Forest. Categories of Protection and Land Use: 1. Strict Preserve, 2. Partial Preserve, 3. Buffer Zone of Strict Preserve of BNP, 4. Managed Forests, 5. Intensive Tourism and Recreation, 6. Traditional Farmland and Cattle Breeding

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

Since 1977, Bialowieza National Park has been designated as a biosphere reserve. However, it contains only the core zone without other zones with different levels of protection and human activity. In 1979 it was designated as the only natural World Heritage Site in Poland.

Belarussian Part

In the eastern part of the Bialowieza Forest, a ''zapovedenik" (the Strict Nature Preseve) was established after the war. Later, in 1957, a hunting and nature protection unit was set up to serve primarily as a hunting ground for officials. In 1991 it was designated a national park. The park consists of 87,500 ha, of which 15,600 ha are under strict protection, 57,000 ha are partially protected, and 11,300 ha are designated for public tourism and recreation. There is also a zone of traditional farmland and cattle breeding (3,900 ha). A buffer zone of 82,000 ha surrounds the park.

Today, the National Park "Belovezhskaja Pushha" is the only one in the Belarussian forest complex with mature stands (52 percent of the stands are over 100 years old). There are 48 species of plants listed in the Red Data Book (25 percent) and 82 species of animals. The only natural population of silver fir in Belarus is in this Forest, along with the largest herd of free-roaming European bison. In December, 1992, part of the park was joined with the World Heritage Site in Poland to create a unique international European environmental site. In 1993, UNESCO designated it a biosphere reserve. In a survey of the threats to the Belarussian biodiversity, it is necessary to mention the density of the red deer population. These and other game animals have had a negative influence on the structure of the stand. In addition, a 2-meter high fence along the national border serves as an artificial barrier for most of these animals as well as for the European bison.

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

The following factors cause Bialowieza Primeval Forest to be a special research:

  • The exceptional natural state of the ecosystems, which have been altered only minimally by human activity;

  • The strict protection of large areas (especially in Bialowieza National Park), which allow the possibility to conduct long-term investigations on permanent study plots;

  • The presence in this Forest of complex zones which have varying levels of protection and human activity. Such zones include strict reservations, partial reservations, managed forests, forests designated for public tourism and recreation, and traditional farmland;

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
  • The biodiversity and genetic materials as well as numerous rare and endangered species of plants, fungi, and animals which are often relics of primeval forests;

  • The exceptional biogeographical setting within the natural distribution range of numerous species of plants, animals, and types of vegetation; and

  • The existing wealth of printed materials and documentation of the various studies conducted over almost a century.

Publications on Bialowieza Primeval Forest include the four volumes of "Bibliography of Bialowieza Forest" (Karpinski J. J., Okolow C. 1967, Okolow C. 1976, 1983, 1991); the fifth volume of this bibliography is now at press. There is also an bibliography of the Belarusian part of the Forest (Koval'kov M. P. et all 1985). There are over 3,900 publications which present the results of various original investigations conducted in Bialowieza Forest. (Over 1,600 include the Bialowieza National Park).

Polish Part

Thanks to the creation of Bialowieza National Park in 1921, today there are five scientific institutions in surrounding villages: the Department of Natural Forests, the Forestry Research Institute, Bialowieza Geobotanical Station of Warsaw University, the Mammals Research Institute of the Polish Academy of Science, the Laboratory of Plant Population Demography of the Polish Academy of Science's Institute of Botany, and the Workshop of Ecology and Protection of Natural Habitats. Bialowieza National Park also has its own small research unit. In addition to the local research organizations, scientific institutes from all over the country carry out projects at the National Park. The Scientific Council of Bialowieza National Park (an advisory body for park authorities) coordinates all investigations in the park. Changes in stands free from human impact are investigated at numerous long-term research sites, the oldest of which date from 1936. Editors of scientific papers such as "Acta Theriologica", "Phytocoenosis", and "Parki Narodowe i Rezerwaty Przyrody" (National Parks and Nature Reserves) are in Bialowieza, where the results of the studies are published. Such papers are also presented during numerous seminars carried out in the park. Finally, Bialowieza National Park is the editor of European Bison Pedigree Book.

Belarussian Part

The national park "Belovezhskaja Pushha" has its own research division which conducts research on topics such as climatology, flora, vegetation, and zoology, with special attention to select groups of insects, birds, mammals and European bison. Investigations of the forest structure are carried out at permanent research sites, the oldest of which have existed for nearly 50 years. Until now, external scientific institutes were not engaged in research in the National Park. However,

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

interest in this unique research environment is growing, and if more funding becomes available, the number of institutes conducting research in the park will be increase.

All investigations are accomplished under the coordination of the Scientific Council. In addition to the different research projects conducted in the park, the annual "Nature Chronicle" contains numerous systematic data concerning the course of phenology and other natural phenomena such as numbers of game and predatory animals or oak acorn crops. Employees of the national park participate in conferences and seminars where they present investigation results. The national park "Belovezhskaja Pushha" publishes its own periodical paper. Between 1958 and 1976, it issued a periodical called "Belovezhskaja PushhaIssle dovanija," which, since 1977, has been published under the name ''Zapovedniki Belorussii Issledovanija." Its contents include materials from all protected territories in Belarus.

TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION

The oldest area of cooperation is associated with the breeding of European bison. In 1961, the first Polish-Soviet conference on this subject took place, with subsequent conferences in 1963, 1967, and 1971. Irregular meetings have also been held without closer practical cooperation. Today, the situation is different. Directors of both national parks are officially members of the Scientific Councils of the park on either side of the border. Thanks to the support from GEF, a unified investigation was begun of air pollution and the impact of pollution on chosen indicator plants. Wide-ranging research on the genetics of native tree species was also begun, and the genetic bank was established. Traditionally, work has been coordinated on the ecology, biology, and physiology of the European bison. The year 1993 marked the beginning of the cooperative investigation using telemetry of the migration and range of wolves and lynxes. Signed in 1993, a protocol of cooperation for the park dictated that the park's employees can visit either part and participate in scientific conferences organized in Bialowieza or Kamieniuki. Employees can cross the state borders in the forest without an official border pass. Currently, the Academies of Sciences in both countries are trying to set up an international ecological institute located in Bialowieza Primeval Forest.

Management and protective measures on both side of the border must be coordinated in order to allow the development of cooperation in the field of protection and investigation in Bialowieza Forest. It is necessary to find uniform methods of scientific investigation which enable researchers to compare results obtained in both parts of the forest. It is especially important to prepare a unified classification of vegetation. Because both countries currently use completely different geobotanical methods, the results of the work (vegetation maps) cannot be compared. Another problem vital to practical cooperation is the communication between management authorities of both parks. (Today, the only fail-safe method

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

of communication is telex. Other methods, for example, by telephone, take too much time and are not reliable.)

REFERENCES

Koval'kov M.P., Baljuk S.S., and Budnicheanko N.I. 1985 Bialowieza Primeval Forest. An Annotative Bibliography of Homeland Literature (1835-1983) ed. V.I. Parfenov, Minsk (Russian).

Karpinski J.J., Okolow C. 1967 Bibliography of the Bialowieza Forest (up to the end of 1966), Warsaw. (Polish with English and Russian summary).


Okolow C. 1976, 1983, 1991. Bibliography of the Bialowieza Forest. Bialowieza, Part II. 1967-1972, Part III. 1973 1980, Part IV. 1981 1985. (Polish with English and Russian summary).

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

THE TATRA NATIONAL PARK AND TRANSBOUNDARY BIOSPHERE RESERVE

Zbigniew Krzan

Tatra National Park

The 217 km2 Tatra National Park (TNP), created in 1954, is now one of the largest of the 19 national parks in Poland. To the east, south, and west, TNP adjoins the Slovak Tatra Park, which is located across the border. The city of Zakopane and the Podhale region lie close to the northern park border. The lowest point of the park is 850 m above sea level, and the highest point, Mount Rysy, is 2,499 m above sea level.

The eastern part of the TPN, the "High Tatras," is predominantly composed of crystalline rocks (granite) and has a typical high-mountain glacial landscape with pointed peaks and a large number of lakes. The largest lake is Morskie Oko, which covers 35 ha, while Wielki Staw Polski is the deepest, with a depth to 79 m. The "Western Tatras" are mostly composed of limestones and dolomites and have typical karstic relief with underground streams and about 500 caves. The zonation of plant communities is clearly visible in TNP and is closely related to altitude. The lower slopes are dominated by mixed forests which are structurally and ecologically diverse. Tree species include beech, silver fir, spruce, sycamore and many other woody plants. In addition, the area has secondary spruce forests, artificial stands vulnerable to disease, infestations of insects, and other problems associated with monocultures. Growing higher up, from about 1,250 meters above sea level, are coniferous stands of spruce and arolla pine. Most of this upper forest is natural or seminatural. Above the timber line (at about 1,500 m above sea level), these forests gradually merge with a zone dominated by dwarf mountain pine. In turn, towards the tops of the ridges and peaks, the dwarf mountain pine is replaced by alpine grassland and arctic-alpine communities associated with bare rock and scree. The area has many plant and animal species, including Tatra or Carpathian endemics, glacial relicts, and many endangered or rare species.

The Tatra National Park is accessible for tourism, recreational skiing, and other sports. There is a well-developed and permanently-marked trail system for summer hiking, which has a total length of about 250 km and various levels of difficulty, ranging from typical walking paths to routes for experienced alpine climbers only. Park regulations permit tourists to walk on marked routes only, and

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

a fee is collected for entering the park. The developed tourist infrastructure is present in the town of Zakopane and nearby villages. The mountains themselves have a system of hostels and lodges which are open year-round, while the Park borders have parking areas, viewpoints, and restaurants. Both a cable car and chair lifts to Kasprowy Wierch summit allow those with different levels of expertise to participate in recreational skiing. There is also well-developed infrastructure for competitive skiing just inside the border of the park, with ski jumps, slalom slopes, down-hill runs, and cross-country areas. There are also designated areas for mountain climbing, with training centers and camping sites at various elevations.

The Park has a visitor center and a program for ecological education. The center introduces visitors to the environment of the Tatras, the history of its protection, and current nature conservation problems through both permanent and temporary exhibitions, videos, and occasional lectures and slide presentations. The visitor center is surrounded by a garden which, by simulating the Tatra plant zones, allows educational activities to be organized for schoolchildren and interested groups of specialists. The guide center also provides information and sells publications concerning the mountain environment.

Acting through four main departments (Forest Management, the Research Station and Museum, Touristic and Nature Protection, and Administration), the National Park Authority works towards the elimination or reduction of human activities, such as tourism and air and water pollution, which are likely to cause conflict with nature conservation.

To achieve effective protection of TNP and its wildlife, it is essential that modern conservation legislation be in place. In 1991, a new state law on nature was passed which places the park management in a better position to negotiate with individuals and organizations concerned primarily with economic gain from activities in the park. The new law also enables TNP to exert influence over economic activities and development in areas next to the Park which could have an impact on the Park itself. In addition to effective legislation, a long-term management plan is needed which incorporates detailed plans for different habitats and threatened species or features. Plans for various aspects of management have already been drawn up, while others are still in preparation. To manage the National Park effectively, these different plans must be integrated in a single general strategy for the Park. Such a strategy, entitled a "Protection Plan for the Tatra National Park," is now in preparation.

Finally, the Polish and Slovak Tatra National Parks have been approved as an International Biosphere Reserve within UNESCO's MAB Program (figure 1). The idea of establishing a Biosphere Reserve in the Tatra Mountains originated in the 1980s in the National Park Councils of both the Polish and Slovak areas of the mountains. Groups of experts began to work on a concept for a future Biosphere Reserve covering both National Parks. Park areas which are most valuable and least transformed by man have been included in the core zone of the Reserve, while surrounding areas constitute a buffer zone. Zonation became the subject of numerous consultations and negotiations aimed at obtaining a single, dense core

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

numerous consultations and negotiations aimed at obtaining a single, dense core representing all the ecosystems which are most valuable and most characteristic of the Tatra Mountains. The Biosphere Reserve also has a transitional and cultural zone which includes traditionally developed areas. The Tatras are known for an unusually colorful folklore which is still active. The folklore is unique to the four cultural regions surrounding the Tatra Mountains: Podhale, Spisz, Orawa, and Liptow.

The joint work has resulted in a designated Biosphere Reserve covering 145,600 hectares, of which about 20,000 hectares are in Poland. One third of the area is within the core zone. This is a homogenous area, with a similar history of exploration, protection, and development on both sides of the border. The bilateral MAB Biosphere Reserve is the reward of the nearly two centuries of the endeavors of generations of Poles and Slovaks to attain the most efficient protection of the exceptionally valuable features of these unique mountains.

The Biosphere Reserve concept not only incorporates enhanced protection for the most sensitive areas in Park (where human activity should be strictly limited), but also encourages the conservation of cultural landscapes and traditions, such as pastoralism and sustainable forestry. Biosphere Reserve status has not precluded tourism, sport and recreation, which in fact continue. The concept of the international Polish-Slovak Biosphere Reserve should help to ensure harmonious coexistence between the local community and the protected wildlife and wilderness quality of the Tatra Mountains, as well provide a good example of effective cooperation between Poland and Slovakia in the field of nature conservation.

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

FIGURE 1 Zonation of the Tatra Transfrontier Biosphere Reserve: 1) State Border, 2) Towns, 3) Core Zone, 4) Buffer Zones, 5) Transition Zone

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

PROBLEMS OF NATURAL DIVERSITY PROTECTION IN THE TATRA NATIONAL PARK AND BIOSPHERE RESERVE

Zbigniew Krzan, Pawel Skawinski, and Marek Kot

Tatra National Park and Biosphere Reserve

Like the rest of Poland, the Tatra Mountains lie in the temperate climatic zone. This means that forests constituted their natural primordial vegetation cover. However, the high-mountain character of the area has ensured that the Tatras have considerably greater natural diversity than other regions of the country. The geological structure, relief, climate, and water relations in this area have influenced the richness of a specific vegetation and fauna. The high natural diversity of the Tatras has been a product of both natural variation and changes brought about by centuries of human intervention with nature in the area.

NATURAL DIVERSITY

The current geological structure of the Tatras is the result of long-lasting development. Acid, decay-resistant metamorphic and crystalline rocks constitute the core of the mountains. On the north side, this crystalline core is overlain by folded sedimentary rocks from the Mesozoic Era. These strata are composed mainly of limestones, dolomites, sandstones, and shales, which create a mosaic of very varied lithology. This lithological diversity has found its reflection in the diversity of soils developed on the substratum of these rocks.

Residual fragments of Pliocene relief do remain in the Tatras, but the dominant relief was established in the Pliestocene as a result of the actions of glaciers. The lower sections of glaciated valleys were modified by fluvioglacial waters, while small unglaciated valleys were the result of the action of fluvial processes. Areas built from carbonate rocks exhibit karstic relief, with typical phenomena such as karstic springs, caves, and karst microrelief. This relief is currently being modified by contemporary morphogenetic processes (Kotarba, 1992) (Figure 1).

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

FIGURE 1 Geomorphological and Orographical Sketch of the Polish Tatra Mountains: 1. Crystalline Rocks Prevailing; 2. Sedimentary Rocks (mainly limestones) Prevailing; 3. Flysch Rocks; 4. Ridges; 5. Borders of the Country (after M. Klimaszewski and L. Starkel, 1972)

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

The climate of the Tatras is the result of the situation of the latitudinal mountain chains within the Carpathian are of central Europe. The mountains are located in the transitional zone between two types of climate (the polar-marine and the continental), and this has favored the creation and maintenance of higher biodiversity. In turn, the significant elevation of the Tatras is an important factor which differentiates mean annual temperatures along an altitudinal gradient and which results in the separation of altitudinal climatic belts. The great variety of landscapes gives rise to varied mesoclimatic conditions and the wide and mosaic-like variation in microclimatic conditions which are of overriding importance for biodiversity (Niedzwiedz, 1992).

The Tatras are characterized by a diversity of hydrographic phenomena, including permanent and periodically flowing streams, springs, underground flows, ultraoligotrophic high mountain lakes, and a smaller number of dystrophic lakes. The waters of the Tatras show typical features of mountain areas, including low temperatures, streams with high levels of oxygen, and lakes that are nutrient-poor and icebound for long periods of time. Simultaneously, however, variable climatic conditions and quality of the substrate have given rise to the great natural variations in the conditions for aquatic organisms in the different basins. The lakes of the Tatras are mostly isolated from one another, and this is a factor explaining the occurrence in them of rare communities of aquatic organisms.

As a consequence of the diversity of the abiotic environment, the Tatras are also highly varied floristically and faunistically. Altitudinal zonation is the most characteristic feature of the vegetation (Figure 2). The lower parts have lower montane mixed forest with a significant degree of biodiversity. Beech, fir, spruce, sycamore, and other species of trees grow in such areas, as well as a rich understory. Also occurring in this zone are the secondary stands, monocultures of spruce which remain as a result of the past industrial exploitation of the forests. Higher up, above 1250 meters above sea level, is the spruce-dominated upper montane forest. Stone pipes sometimes also occur in this belt. The majority of these forests are of natural character.

A belt of dwarf mountain pine occurs above the timberline in the Tatras (at altitudes of around 1550 m a.s.l.). Extending above this is a zone of alpine grassland meadows, and farther above this, arctic-alpine communities associated with summital zone of bare rock and scree. Plants occurring in the Tatra National Park include those encountered in the lowlands as well as typically montane species adapted to life in the difficult climatic and soil conditions (Mirek & Piekos-Mirkowa, 1992).

Good conditions for a considerable number of animal species are created by the variations in vegetational environments and by the limited degree to which these have been degraded. Occurring here are animals once widespread throughout the country but later restricted by man to less accessible terrain. Examples of these are predators like bears, wolves, lynxes, and golden eagles, as well as numerous species restricted to high-mountain areas, of which the most

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

FIGURE 2 Zonality in the Tatras

notable are the chamois and the alpine marmot. The natural faunistic richness of the Tatras is exceptional by international standards (Glowacinski & Makomaska-Juchiewicz, 1992).

SECONDARY DIFFERENTIATION

The natural diversity of the Tatras has undergone far-reaching modifications as a result of diverse human activities. Some of these have resulted in increased biodiversity, while others have impoverished nature in the Tatras in a significant way. While human management of the lands that are now Poland has been continuing for over 15,000 years, its influence in the Tatra Mountains was not clearly felt until the thirteenth century, when settlers bent on developing pastoral life appeared at the foot of the mountains. Settlement took place at least half a century after that in the Polish lowlands. Significant settlement and shepherding were only in evidence in the area from the sixteenth century onwards. However, grazing thereafter constituted the main form of economic utilization until as recently as 1960 to 1980, when gradual limitation occurred as a consequence of

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

the purchase of the alpine meadows from private hands and the increasingly uneconomic nature of this type of management. Pastoral life in the Tatras is now carried on in a limited way as a cultural activity.

The most important effect of grazing on nature in the area was the felling and burning of forests to enlarge grazing areas. The grazing of sheep led to penetration of the Tatras from the piedmont (at 900 m) to the zone of mountain meadows at 2300 m. In woodland clearings, grass was fertilized naturally, cut, and taken down to the villages at the foot of the mountains, where it served as winter fodder. This activity lasted for several centuries and resulted in the creation in clearings of seminatural communities with light-demanding vegetation requiring a fertile substrate. Floristic and faunistic components entered the clearings from meadows, herb communities, light alder woods, and lichenaceous grasslands. It is probable that some components of the flora (for example, the crocus) were brought in by shepherds but are now totally adapted to life in the Tatras. This type of management undoubtedly led to the destruction of forest vegetation, but on the other had, it also had a colossal impact in enriching the floristic and faunistic biodiversity of the area. It is true that the natural timberline has been lowered along 70 percent of its length (in some places, even by 300 m) and that the area of the belt of dwarf mountain pine has been reduced by about 30 percent. However, it is also true that possibilities have a the same time been afforded for the development of floristically-rich grassland communities.

From the fifteenth century onwards, industry joined settlement and shepherding as one of the human activities in the Tatra Mountains. The area's forests were the raw material base for this expansion, which was to embrace mining, steel making, and the timber industry. The exploitation of trees was mainly concentrated in the more easily accessible, multi-species stands of the lower montane forest, where faster-growing spruce was increasingly introduced.

Industry in the mountains gradually ceased to be a viable economic proposition, and as the associated activities ended, the transformation of forests also ceased. Nevertheless, the effects of several centuries of industry can still be seen in the form of widespread deforestation and the considerable area of artificial monocultures of spruce which occupy rich mixed-forest habitats alien to them. The result of this has been the drastic impoverishment of the floristic and faunistic diversity of large areas of the Tatras, and, as a further consequence, the now clear sensitization of this impoverished lower montane forest to the action of destructive factors, especially the most dangerous, air pollution (Mirek, 1992). The issues presented here are only two of the many and are cited to illustrate the different effects of human activities on nature.

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

THE PROBLEMS OF PROTECTING BIODIVERSITY IN THE TATRAS

The first activity for the protection of biodiversity should be the definition of the scope and limits of the natural diversity which is to be subject to protection. Protection should not extend to everything which provides secondary enrichment of nature int he Tatras, but neither should all the artificially induced phenomena of elevated diversity be eliminated. The questions which arise are therefore which particular facets of diversity should be protected, and in which regions. Whatever the answers, they will always be arbitrary, but they should at least result from scientific analysis of the problems.

The clearings in the Tatras provide an excellent example. On one hand, they serve biodiversity in an outstanding way, but on the other, they are formations that have arisen artificially as a consequence of the past economic utilization of the mountains. Should they then be left to be eliminated naturally, or should they be protected via human intervention in natural processes? And if the choice is made to protect them, then what is the motive? Is it merely for biodiversification? Other protected areas are witnessing the elimination of so-called ''weeds," exotic species of trees and shrubs, and of their animal equivalents introduced by man. This is done in spite of the fact that these weeds enrich biodiversity. Perhaps a reason for the protection of the clearings should be the fact that they were created a long time ago. In these circumstances, there arises a question as to the age limits for features of biodiversity that are to be protected. Is it to be 10, 100, or 300 years, and if one rather than another, then why? Finally, a reason for protecting the clearings might be their landscape and economic functions. But in this case, why not also extend and utilize them?

Sometimes the need to increase natural diversity in the Tatras does not create such controversies. An example here might be replacing artificial forestry monocultures with more natural mixed forest. It is, after all, clear that the latter will be more appropriate to the habitat, will show greater natural stability, and will in addition be more attractive in terms of landscape.

However, questions arise here, too, albeit ones of a technical nature concerning the way in which the reconstruction is to be achieved. Should the work involve the intensive forestry associated with the gathering of seeds and the cultivation, introduction, nursing, and protection of seedlings and saplings? Or should it happen via a longer route, leaving spontaneous natural processes to take their own course? In the latter case, it is necessary to be aware of the fact that the return to the natural state will take an unusually long time, will involve different successional stages, and will necessitate the protection of all natural factors and influences, including those destructive to the forest like windthrow, disease, and infestations of insects. So in this case, the area will need to be embraced by strict protection, with all the consequences that this has.

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

A PLAN OF PROTECTION

As in other protected areas, the protection of the natural diversity of the Tatrzanski National Park raises many questions and concerns and not-easily-resolved dilemmas: what to protect, why to protect, and how to protect? Such decisions, however well founded on solid scientific bases, will always be arbitrary in the end, and the goals should be made more precise in a protective plan. TNP is now preparing its own plan of this kind and will define therein the particular natural objects in the Park for which the main aim of protection will be to preserve natural diversity. For each of these objects, there must be a strictly defined and concrete aim for active protection, as well as definitions of the types and scope of the steps to be taken to achieve this aim. The introduction for realization of the plan of protection should be followed by active protective measures which must be subject to constant control in the form of monitoring observations. The plan itself must be modified continually in relation to the effects of the measures applied.

CONCLUSIONS

  • The current natural differentiation of the Tatra Mountains is the result of natural biodiversity and human activities over long periods of time.

  • The high natural biodiversity is an expression of the unusually complex geological structure, the varied relief, the specifics of the climate, the multiplicity of aquatic phenomena, and the richness of the vegetation cover and fauna.

  • Human influences on nature in the Tatras have had various effects on biodiversity. Some, like shepherding, enriched the area's vegetation and fauna, while others (for example, industry) had a decisive effect in limiting the diversity of nature.

  • The protection of the biodiversity of nature requires the making of arbitrary decisions to define the particular objects which should receive such protection, as well as precise definitions of the aims of protection and the ways in which this is to be realized.

  • The active protection of biodiversity in the Tatras will be one of the basic elements of the plan for the protection of TPN. As they are implemented, the aims and principles outlined in this plan must be subject to continuous control in the form of an extensive system for the monitoring of nature. In the light of the effects of the actions outlined, the protective plan must then be subject to periodic updating and modification.

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

REFERENCES

Glowacinski, Z., Makomska-Juchiewicz, M., 1992, Fauna of the Tatra Mountains. Mountain Research and Development, 12(2), pp. 175-191


Kotarba, A., 1992, National Environment and Landform Dynamics of the Tatra Mountains. Mountain Research and Development, 12(2), pp. 105-129


Niedzwiedz, T., 1992, Climate of the Tatra Mountains. Mountain Research and Development, 12 (2), pp. 131-146


Mirek, Z., Piekos-Mirkowa, H., 1992, Flora and Vegetation of the Polish Tatra Mountains. Mountain Research and Development, 12(2), pp. 147-173

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

THE FUNCTIONING OF THE GEOECOLOGICAL SYSTEM OF THE TATRA MOUNTAINS

Adam Kotarba

Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization

Polish Academy of Sciences

The massif of the Tatra Mountains meets most of the conditions needed to qualify it as a high-mountain area. Therefore, it may be recognized as the only such area in Central Europe besides the Alps (Troll 1972). The high-mountain character of the natural environment of the Tatras is defined by the following: hypsometry (relative altitudes, and the length and inclination of slopes); geomorphology (classic glacial relief with the group of forms created by mountain glaciers); climate (altitudinal differentiation of climatic parameters); and flora (altitudinal zonation of the natural vegetation) (Fig. 1).

The Tatras differ from classic alpine ecosystems in the incomplete development of the nival altitudinal zone. However, a seminival zone representing a variety within the nival type does exist, and it occurs in mountains lacking the appropriate geomorphological conditions for the development of snowfields and glaciers (Hess 1965). The seminival or bare rock zone is peculiar to the Tatra Mountains, occurring in neither the highest glaciated mountains of Europe, nor the mountain massif elsewhere in the Carpathian-Balkan arc but lower than the Tatras (Pawlowska 1962). It is also difficult to separate the subnival altitudinal zone, which lies between the snowline and the alpine zone identified by the range of the more or less complete cover of soil and vegetation (the "high alpine zone" in the Alps.) From the geoecological point of view, the features characteristic of this zone are present in the Tatras in an altitudinal belt slightly above and slightly below the orographic boundary of the snowline, which occurs at an altitude of 2150 to 2300 m above sea level. This zone is characterized by the presence of frost debris and contemporarily-developing structural soils. Floristically, this corresponds to the zone of open pioneer vegetation.

The feature identifying the Tatras most closely with the Alps is a well-developed zone of alpine meadows. However, this zone does not occur immediately above the treeline, but rather is separated by the zone of dwarf mountain pine, which is again a feature unique to the Tatras.

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

FIGURE 1 The Natural Environment of the Tatra Mountains

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

Although relatively small in comparison with Europe's other high mountains, the Tatra Massif nevertheless represents a significant climatic barrier to masses of air penetrating from the north. A consequential characteristic feature of these mountains is therefore the high annual, monthly, and daily rainfall totals (with the last particularly evident in summer). There is a considerable difference in the amounts of atmospheric precipitation reaching the northern and southern slopes of the Tatras. The maximum annual totals—on the order of 1600 to 1900 mm of precipitation per year—are noted on the slopes with a northern exposure and at altitudes of between 1400 and 2000 m above sea level. (Niedzwiedz 1992). The greatest daily fall of summer rain was 300 mm, noted at Hala Gasiennicowa in the High Tatras on June 30, 1973. However, daily falls exceed 200 mm about once in 50 years and reach or exceed 85 mm every two years at the altitude of the treeline (Cebulak 1983). The action on the substrate of elements of the climate (heat, precipitation, snow cover, and wind) leads to its destabilization and a reduction in its resistance to the destructive processes widely understood as erosional. Particular geoecological belts of the mountains differ in the geomorphic processes controlled by the climate, vegetation cover, geological and soil conditions, and in the ways in which they are affected by these conditions.

Consideration of the intensity, duration, and vertical differentiation of processes occurring in the Tatras allows one to determine whether the processes are altitude-related or not. Additionally, consideration of these factors permits recognition of processes of short duration and high intensity that create relief, as well as recognition of processes acting continuously but with moderate or weak intensity. Altitude-related processes limited to the geoecological zones above the timberline include frost creep, free and bound solifluction, a group of nivational processes, and deflational/aeolian processes. Processes not related to altitude, or those which may occur at all geoecological altitudinal belts of the Tatras, include physical weathering and rockfalls, chemical denudation, slope wash, and linear/fluvial erosion, soil creep, and talus creep.

The geomorphological activity of avalanches and debris flows is possible in two or three altitudinal zone, especially in those above the timberline. The range of influence of the high-mountain morphogenetic system is presented in Fig. 2. Detailed research into the course and intensity of contemporary geomorphic processes in the Tatras shows that the different geoecological zones are vulnerable to differing extents to their destructive or constructive action (Kotarba 1976). Geomorphic processes of high intensity create micro- and mesoforms within slopes and valley bottoms. Falls of debris, avalanches of snow and earth, and rockfalls transform scree slopes. These falls can create either erosional troughs, depressions, and niches, or they can create hummocks, levees, and accumulation tongues. These forms are created in the course of a few minutes and may change the relief of a slope so significantly that it may alter local topographic conditions.

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

FIGURE 2

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

The morphological consequences of the action of these fall processes remain visible to the naked eye for hundreds of years. Their ages may be defined with the aid of lichenometric dating (Kotarba 1989). Many of the forms created by these high-energy processes originated in the period of the Little Ice Age, especially during its decline in the first half of the 19th century, when a clear deterioration in the climate was observed generally around the world. At this time in the Alps and other glaciated mountains of the world, the largest advances of glaciers in the last 10,000 years were observed. In the Tatras, however, the effects were restricted to intensified alluviation of the high-mountain slopes, which manifested itself through frequent and high-energy geomorphic processes of the debris-flow, avalanche, and rockfall types. Processes of these kinds have been clearly limited for much of the 20th century. However, a tendency towards the renewed enhancement of the alluviation of debris slopes has been noticed in the last 15 to 20 years (Kotarba & Stromguist 1984; Kotarba 1989).

Table 1 presents the main processes leading to the transformation of Tatra debris slopes in the different climatic and altitudinal zones. An index of the activeness of processes, based on long-term measurements of their intensity, shows clear vertical differentiation. The highest values are attained in the section between 1550 and 1850 m above sea level, which is in the very cool climatic zone and which coincides with the cover of dwarf mountain pine. Similar, but somewhat lower, values were calculated for the zone at an altitude between 1850 and 2200 m above sea level in the cold zone with alpine meadows. This indicates that the area of the Tatras located directly above the timberline is particularly threatened by natural geomorphic processes which produce significant transformations in the geoecological system. Thus, it is especially important to realize that the earliest and clearest environmental impacts of changing global trends in climatic indices will be visible in borderline landscape/altitudinal zones, particularly in the timberline zone. The fact that intensified alluviation has been noted in the last 15 to 20 years in areas of the northern slopes of the Tatras above the timberline may thus be a signal that such changes are occurring in the mountains of the temperate zone (Kotarba & Stomguist 1984).

There are significant changes in the relief of the Tatras at altitudes between 1550 and 1850 m above sea level. In the Slovak part, the debris flow tracks are as long as 2 km (Nemook 1982). Janacik (1971) described a catastrophic debris flow which occurred in the Osobota Group of the Western Tatras in July 1970. This flow shifted a 21,675 m3 mass of debris. According to Midriak (1984), the greatest volume of debris ever transported in Tatra debris flow tracks was 25,000 m3. However, in the last decade, large debris flows have occurred with increasing frequency in an area above the timberline around the Research Station of the Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization of the Polish Academy of Sciences, which is located at Hala Gasienicowa in the High Tatra. Masses of debris of 5000 m3 each were eroded and displaced along the routes of several debris flow tracks created during this period. These amounts are small in comparison with those in the Alps, where a single catastrophic debris flow may involve the

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

TABLE 1 Dominant Morphogenetic Processes on Basal Debris Slope Forms in the Polish Tatra Mountains

Present-day activity in vertical climate zones

Principal factor

Principal transfer process

Principle slope form

temperate cool 900-1100

cool 11001550

very cool 1550-1850

temperate cold 1850- 2200

cold 2200-2663

Gravity

falling, rolling, bouncing, sliding

rockfall talus

+

++

+++

+++

?

Snow

 

snow avalanching slow-moving snow sliding on snow surface

avalanche talus

-

-

+

-

++

no information

++

+++

++

++

++

Snow and water Snow meltwater Rain storm

water

slush avalanching ephemeral stream flow rainwash, debris flow

alluvial talus

-

+

+

-

+

+

++

++

+++

+

+++

+

-

+

+

Interstitial ice

internally induced mass movement of debris, creep

rock glaciers

 

 

-

-

 

Freeze-thaw changes

creep frost creep, sliding

block slope debros- mantled slope

-

+

-

++

++

+++

+

+++

+

++

 

 

Activity index:

4

7

19

17

9

Process: - inactive, + weak, ++ strong, +++ very strong

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
displacement of 500,000 m3 of scree. Nevertheless, these phenomena play a very significant role in the small area of the Tatras.

These data indicate that the greatest threats to the geoecological system of the Tatras are posed to the interior of the mountains in the area above the treeline. The threats decrease towards the highest summits of the Tatras as well as towards the foot of the mountains. Increased anthropogenic pollution and the acidification of precipitation (Kot 1992) weaken the stability of Tatra ecosystems and may lead to faster degradation of the geoecological system in the near future.

REFERENCES

Cebulak E., 1983. Maximum Daily Rainfalls in the Tatra Mountains and Podhale Basin. Zesz. Nuk. UJ, Prace geogr. 57, 337-343.


Hess, M., 1965. Pietra Klimatyczne w Polskich Karpatach Zachodnich. Zesz. Nauk. UJ, Prace geogr. 11.267 p.


Janacik, P. 1971. Niektore poznatky z inventarizacneho vyskumu v chranenej krajinej oblasti Mala Fatra. Geogr. casop. 23: 2, 186-191.


Kot., M., 1992. Recent Changes of Surface Waters Chemistry in the Granitic Part of the Tatra National Park - Poland. Acid Rain Research report No. 19/1992. Norwegian Institute for Water Research NIVA, Oslo.

Kotarba A., 1976. Wspolczesne modelowanie weglanowych stokow wysokogorskich. Prace geogr. IGiPZ PAN, 120, 128 p.

Kotarba, A., 1989. On the Age of Debris Flows in the Tatra Mountains. Studia Geomorph. Carpatho-Balcanica 23, 139-152.

Kotarba A., Kaszowski L., Krzemien K., 1987. High-Mountain Denudational System of the Polish Tatra Mountains. Geogr. Studia Special Issue 3, Inst. Geogr. and Spatial Org. PAS, 106 p.

Kotarba A., Stromguist L., 1984. Transport, Sorting and Deposition Processes of Alpine Debris Slope Deposits in the Polish Tatra Mountains. Geogr. Annaler 66A, 4, 285-294.


Midriak R., 1984. Debris Flows and their Occurrence in the Czechoslovak Carpathians, Studia Geomorph. Carpatho-Balcanica 18, 135-149.


Nemcok A., 1982. Zosuvy v Slovenskych Karpatoch, VEDA, Bratislava.

Niedzwiedz T., 1992. Climate of the Tatra Mountains. Mountain Research and Development 12: 2, 131-146.


Pawlowska S., 1962. Plant World of the Tatras. Tatrzanski Park Narodowy, Krakow, 187-239. (in Polish).


Troll C., 1972. Geoecology and World-Wide Differentiation of High-Mountain Ecosystems. In: Geoecology of the High Mountain Regions of Eurasia. Proc. Symp. IGU Commission of High Altitude Geoecology, November 1969. Mainz. 1-16

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

VYCHODNE KARPATY/EAST CARPATHIAN BIOSPHERE RESERVE

Zuzana Guziova

Slovak Ministry of the Environment

INTRODUCTION

Situated in eastern Slovakia at the junction of the boundaries of Slovakia, Poland, and Ukraine, the Vychodne Karpaty/East Carpathians Biosphere Reserve is part of the tri-national Eastern Carpathians Biosphere Reserve. The area, being part of the Eastern Carpathians, coincides ecologically with the important transition between the Western and Eastern Carpathian ecosystems. This unique geographical position distinguishes the area in Slovakia, which is mostly within the Western Carpathian ecosystems.

Although the area only became a Biosphere Reserve (BR) in 1992, nature conservation dates back to 1906, when the Stuzica reserve was founded near the current border with Poland and Ukraine. Between that time and 1977, several other nature reserves were established, primarily to protect the well-preserved fragments of Eastern Carpathian virgin forests. More complete protection was granted to the area in 1977 when it became a Protected Landscape Area (PLA) of 96,910 ha under the national Nature Conservation Law.

The Biosphere Reserve coincides with the eastern part of the PLA and covers 40,601 ha. In accordance with the Biosphere Reserve concept, the area is further divided into three zones. Each zone falls under a different management regime that corresponds with the natural values of the zones. The core area, covering 2,643 ha, has seven separate parts which represent the best preserved natural ecosystems of beech and fir-and-beech forests, as well as of mountain meadows. The buffer zone of 14,373 ha comprises mostly forest land where stands generally have appropriate species composition, but where spatial and age structure reflect inappropriate management practices in the past. The second buffer zone of 23,585 ha is the largest zone. It differs from the others in having agricultural and forest land, which is used intensively, as well as permanently settled villages.

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

MANAGEMENT

The Biosphere Reserve is managed by the Administration of the Eastern Carpathians PLA, which is based in Humennne. Under the supervision of the Director, specialists coordinate the management of natural resources within the territory. They help prepare silvicultural and agricultural management plans for enterprises active in the territory of the reserve. The Administration also proposes new Nature Reserves, Protected Sites, and gene pool plots on the basis of scientific recommendations. For rare and endangered plant and animal species, the Administration prepares specific conservation strategies based on the knowledge of population biology. Conservation volunteers from several local NGOs assist the Administration with necessary conservation measures, such as mowing mountain meadows to minimize both direct and indirect risks to species and their biotopes.

The state environmental authorities have overall jurisdiction in the activities and management of the Eastern Carpathians PLA/BR. They verify and provide legal support for the scientific recommendations and proposals submitted by the Administration.

VALUABLE NATURAL FEATURES

The bedrock of the Eastern Carpathian BR is formed almost entirely from flysch rocks of the Dukla Unit of the Upper Cretaceous period and Palaeocene. Sandstone and shale create a complex of strata more than 5,000 m deep. Most of the slopes of the area are covered by deluvial clay and clay-sand loams and talus deposits.

The region has typical smooth flysch relief. The eastern part of the Reserve is in the Bukovske Vrchy Hills. The border ridge with Poland, the highest point of the Reserve, dominates the landscape at altitudes between 797 and 1,208 m. From the main east-west ridge, several smaller mountain ridges stretch southward (separated by the valleys of the Ruske, Runina, Nova Sedlica, and Ulic rivers). The lowest point of the Biosphere Reserve, at 200 m, is in the Ulic Valley, where the Ulicka Riverflows out of Slovakia. The western part of the BR is within the Laborecke Highlands at 600 to 800 m. Their relief reflects their relatively late development and the resistance and structure of their bedrock.

Cambisols and luvisols on flysch sandstone are dominant in the Eastern Carpathians BR. Below 700 m, they are base saturated, while at higher elevations, they are unsaturated and loamy to clay-loamy. Brown and illimeric soils prevail on the agricultural land at lower altitudes.

Since the flysch rocks weather rapidly, and erosion, especially by water, endangers the soils. The mean potential soil loss in the BR is 32.7 m3 per hectare per year. Landslides are common, particularly on slopes with clay bedrock. The weathering products of flysh bedrock tend to swell in wet conditions and subsequently slide.

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

The Polish border ridge is the European watershed between the Baltic and Black Seas. The Slovak section of the Eastern Carpathians BR is drained by the fan-shaped Ulicka, Ublianka Zbojsky Potok, Cirocha, and Udava basins, whose streams feed into the Bodrog river. The region has very low accumulation capacity despite the abundance of woodland. The Starina reservoir was constructed on the Cirocha river in 1987 to accumulate and permit the use of surface waters. The reservoir has a volume of 60 mil m3 and supplies drinking water to the largest towns of Eastern Slovakia.

The climate reflects the diversity of the relief. Three zones of the Slovak climatic classification can be recognized. The warm zone, with a mean annual temperature of 7 to 8 degrees celsius and mean annual precipitation of 800 mm, is found in the lowest parts of the Cirocha and Ublianka Valleys. The moderately warm zone extends from 400 to 800 m and has a mean annual temperature of 5 degrees celsius and a mean annual precipitation of 900 mm. The highest parts of the region are in the cold zone and have a mean annual temperature of 4 to 5 degrees celsius and a mean annual precipitation above 1000 mm. Highest temperatures usually occur in July, when the maximum mean temperatures range from 20.2 to 24.2 degrees celsius. The coldest month is January, when minimum temperatures fall between -8.6 and -8.2 degrees celsius.

The flora of the Eastern Carpathians Biosphere Reserve is species-rich and biogeographically outstanding. The Bukovske Vrchy Hills form the botanical frontier between the Eastern and Western Carpathians; several Eastern Carpathian endemics reach their western limits in the BR. Other species such as the flax (Linum trigynum) and traveller's joy (Clematis vitalba) reach their northern limits here. Other notable species are medium nipplewort (Lapsana intermedia) and Hacquetia epipactis from the northwest. A detailed inventory of vascular plants has identified over 1,000 species in the Slovak section of the Biosphere Reserve. The known occurrence of 800 species of fungi, more than 300 bryophytes, and more than 100 lichens further illustrates the floristic wealth of the reserve.

Forests are the most common type of vegetation, covering almost 80 percent of the area. The meaning of the name Bukovske Vrchy—the Beech Hills—reflects the dominance of the beech (Fagus sylvatica) within the stands. Other species enrich the composition of the Biosphere Reserve forests based on their ecological tolerance of soil and weather conditions. Accordingly, the lowest parts of the reserve include oaks (Quercus robur, Quercus petraea) and hornbeam (Carpinus betulus ) along with limes (Tilia platyphylla, T. cordata) and maples (Acer platanoides and A. campestre.) Fir (Abies alba) occurs in higher and wetter locations. Valuable deciduous trees, such as Scotch elm (Ulmus montana), ash (Fraxinus excelsior) and sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus ), grow in sites with more humus on talus. Maple-beech forests at the highest elevations (between 1,000 and 1,190 m) are affected by negative ridge phenomena.

Non-forest communities are mostly secondary and arose due to cattle grazing. The most significant are ''poloninas," or grasslands at the timberline, which are species-rich and representative formations of the Eastern Carpathian mountains.

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

Grasses and rushes such as Nardus stricta, Deschampsia caespitosa, and Luzula luzuloides distinguish the poloninas, but they also include species recognized as Dacian migroelement (Campanula abietina, Aconitum lasiocarpum, Dianthus compactus). Since grazing has ended on the poloninas, the expansion of Calamagrostis arundinacea has lessened the richness of species. This loss of human-induced biodiversity is a specific management problem of the Biosphere Reserve.

Subdominant Anthoxantum odoratum and Agrostis tenuis characterize the meadows and pastures of low and middle elevations respectively. Non-forest communities are also represented by specific vegetation of wet meadows and springs which is of great nature conservation importance.

The zoological value of the region is also high. A unique range of animal species and communities reflects the geographical location at the junction of the Eastern and Western Carpathians. So far, about 1,400 animal species have been found, including more than 1,100 species of invertebrates. Invertebrates include representatives of almost all the principal systematic groups. Among invertebrates, the class of insects, with about 950 species, is the best represented. Populations of vertebrates were influenced in later years by the degree of disturbance of particular ecosystems. Of special note is the presence of large predators, including lynx and bear. Small carnivores such as wild cat and badger are abundant. Red and roe deer populations are too high and create specific management problems with respect to the regeneration of some tree species, especially fir. In recent year, the rare ungulates Bison bonasus and Alces alces have occasionally been observed. Several species occurring in the Biosphere Reserve can be traced to early stages of the development of the Carpathian fauna. For example, Dicellophilus carniolensis is a Tertiary relic, while Duvalius subterraneus, Sicista betulina, Picoides tridactylus, Turdus torquatus, and Sorex alpinus are glacial relics.

There are many endemics of the West Carpathians: Chromatoiulus sylvaticus, Agardia bielzii, Helicigona faustina, Trechus pulpani, Nebria fuscipes , and triturus montandoni. However, the East Carpathian endemics Leptoilus byconyensis stuzicensis, Polydesmus polonicus, Carpathica calophana, Stenus obscuripes and Deltomerus carpathicus are also present. Several species previously unknown to science have been discovered in the territory, such as Tachydromia carpathica and Lioides nitida sedlicensis.

The botanical and zoological importance of the Biosphere Reserve is further emphasized by the fact that 23 of its vascular plants are protected by law. Another 22 are seriously endangered, 33 very endangered, 52 endangered, and 86 rare in Slovakia. Similarly, a total of 27 species of invertebrate and 148 vertebrates found in the region are protected by law. The peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus ) is even included in the IUCN Red Data Book. The most valuable biotopes or best preserved ecosystems have been recognized as Nature Reserves or Protected Sites with strict protection regimes. These cover 1,384 ha or 3.4 percent of the area.

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

PEOPLE AND AREA

The region of the Eastern Carpathian Biosphere Reserve was settled in the Early Stone Age. The next wave of colonization occurred in the late 14th century when Ruthenian pastoral-agrarian people arrived. This was the beginning of the Wallachian colonization, a period which lasted until the 17th century. The Wallachian colonization was responsible for the essential landscape features of the region, including the basic settlement pattern and the botanical heritage of the poloninas.

Currently, more than 3,000 (3,721 in 1991) permanent inhabitants live in 10 villages in the eastern part of the area. Seven villages in the western part were evacuated during the construction of the Starina reservoir. The economic and cultural center of the region is the town of Ulic (1,200 inhabitants).

Most of the local people work in forestry. Although more than half of the forests are privately owned, they are all still managed by state enterprises. Of the total area of forest, some 23,334 ha serve chiefly for timber production, while 1,178 ha, mostly on steep slopes, are designated for protection against soil erosion. The remaining 7,391 ha include areas such as the fragments of the virgin forests, which are most important for nature conservation. These last "special use forests" also include forests in the sanitary zone around the Starina reservoir.

Agricultural land covers 6,480 ha. The climate dictates that agricultural activities are based primarily on the production of crops for fodder. Wheat, rye, barley, and oats are also cultivated, and the traditional crop is buckwheat.

The cultivation of private village plots over many generations has resulted in a mosaic of little fields and meadows that give the landscape a unique pattern. Agricultural enterprises remain active in the area but are in decline as a result of the re-privatization process in Slovakia.

Tradition and the production of crops dominantly for fodder were primary reasons that farmers bred cattle and sheep on the Biosphere Reserve. The Starina Reservoir and its sanitary zone have limited agricultural activities. Large pastures are now abandoned, as they become overgrown, biodiversity decreases.

Tourism and sports in the territory have been limited, but could, if developed, play an important role as a future source of income for local inhabitants.

The Eastern Carpathian Biosphere Reserve has not only preserved fragments of natural ecosystems, but also the biodiversity resulting from human activities. It therefore deserves to be a part of the international network of Biosphere Reserves and, as such, should be protected for future generations. Its future conservation and development should be parallel to the protection and development of the entire area of the tri-national Polish-Slovak-Ukraine reserve. This approach emphasizes the global importance of the region.

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

REFERENCES

Guziova, Z. and Bural, M. 1994. Vychodne Karpaty/East Carpathians Biosphere Reserve. In: Biosphere Reserve on the Crossroads of Central Europe, EMPORA Publishing house, Prague.

Guziova, Z. et al. 1992. Proposal for Poloniny National Park. Manuscript.

Guziova, Z. et al. 1992. Nomination of the Eastern Carpathians Biosphere Reserve. Manuscript.


Voloscuk, I. et al. 1988. Vychodne Karpaty- chranena krajinna oblast. Priroda, Bratislava.

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

BIESZCZADY NATIONAL PARK

Zbigniew Niewiadomski

Bieszczady National Park

The Bieszczady National Park covers 27,064 ha in the south-east corner of Poland, where the borders of Poland, Ukraine and Slovakia meet. The National Board for the National Parks of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources, and Forestry administers Bieszczady National Park, which was created on August 4, 1973.

The present borders of the Park should not be considered final. Many believe that the Park should be expanded to include the entire Upper San Valley and some forest complexes located to the north and west of the present boundary. Factors which support the enlargement of the Park include a sparse population in the area (low by Polish standards at 4 people per km2), the low usage of the land, the unprofitability of the forest-agriculture economic model in Bieszczady, and the wide state ownership of the forested and post-agricultural areas adjoining the Park. Consequently, the Park desires a final area of about 41,000 ha.

The development of the Bieszczady region is expected to include the gradual professional re-orientation of the population towards the tourism industry. Tourist villages should grow in the immediate vicinity of the Park and extensive areas of the San Valley should be devoted to hiking, horseback riding, and cycling, as well as to fishing, nature photography, and ecological education. The protection of the natural resources of the Bieszczady may thus gain allies in the local population, who will earn incomes by servicing the tourists visiting the National Park and the Eastern Carpathians International Biosphere Reserve (IBR).

It was initially proposed 20 years ago that an internationally protected area be established in Bieszczady, but the political situation at the time did not favor implementation. In 1990, however, at the UNESCO MAB Conference in Kiev, the Polish party proposed the creation of a Biosphere Reserve in the Eastern Carpathians under the UNESCO Man and Biosphere Program. The Ministers of Environmental Protection of the three countries accepted the proposal and signed an agreement in Ustrzyki Dolne in 1991. Preparations to apply the project began immediately. The proposal gained official backing from the UNESCO MAB Headquarters in 1992 for the Polish and Slovak parts and in 1993 for the Ukrainian part.

The total area of the Eastern Carpathians IBR is about 164,000 ha, of which 66 percent (108,725 ha) is in Poland, 24.7 percent (40,601 ha) is in Slovakia, and

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

8.9 percent (approximately 14,600 ha) is in Ukraine. The Polish section includes the National Park, as well as the San Valley and Cisna-Wetlina Landscape Parks, which were created in 1992 and which cover 36,635 and 46,025 ha respectively. The Slovak section includes a part of the "Vychodne Karpaty" CHKO (Area of Protected Landscape), which to be upgraded to the status of a national park under the name "Poloniny" National Park. On the Ukrainian side, the IBR currently includes the Stuzyca Nature Reserve. It is also possible that the Ukrainian sector could implement the planned Nadsanie Landscape Park, a move that would allow for extensive protection of the drainage basin of the Upper San River on both sides of the border.

The concept of the Biosphere Reserve is founded upon the idea of a zonal system of protected land. In this system, the most naturally valuable core zone is subject to strict protection, while the surrounding buffer zone is partially protected. In the outermost transition zone, attempts are made to minimize the negative impacts of human activities. In Poland, the core and buffer zones are both within the boundaries of Biesczadzki National Park, while the surrounding transition zone is administered separately.

The Eastern Carpathians IBR was created to promote cooperation in the protection and rational use of the natural resources of the Bieszczady Mountains, in scientific research, and in monitoring the environment and ecological education. In addition, the IBR seeks to strengthen the links between the people of the Eastern Carpathians through cooperation and the joint protection of cultural heritage. The Carpathian forests play a significant role in water protection, and hence in the agriculture and industry of central European countries. The IBR is also an important element within the officially recognized European region of the Eastern Carpathians, which was established by Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine, and Hungary.

Poland's Bieszczadzki National Park is dominated (84 percent cover) by forests. Beech forest is the major type, constituting 80 percent, with a mixture of fir and sycamore. The natural, and sometimes even primordial, character of these stands is unique in Europe. Also unique, at least from the Polish point of view, are the floristically-rich alpine pastures and meadows which the Park protects. The area's raised bogs are also of interest. The geographical location of the Park ensures the occurrence of species from both the Western and Eastern Carpathians, resulting in the wealth of the flora. In Poland, 57 rare species of plants are protected, with 12 of these being classified as endangered in the country as a whole. The fauna is also of interest; the Park preserves all of the original mammalian predators, including the brown bear (Ursus arctos), wolf (Canis lupus), lynx (Felis lynx ), wild cat (F. silvestris), and otter (Lutra lutra). The majority of the original group of large herbivores can also be found in the Park: European bison (Bison bonasus) and red deer (Cervus elaphus). The red deer, in its Carpathian form, is the most magnificent to be found in Europe. Rare birds are also well represented in the Park, with notable species including golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), lesser spotted and spotted eagles (A. pomarina, A, clanga), short-toed eagle (Circaetus gallicus), eagle owl (Bubo bubo), and Ural owl (Strix uralensis).

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

Bieszczady National Park is divided into zones that are under strict or partial protection. Strict protection covers 18,536 ha, which, as of December 1991, represents 44 percent of the total area of this type found within all Poland's National Parks. This attests to the unique value of the Park's natural resources on the Polish scale. The areas under strict protection fall within six legally recognized Strict Nature Reserves. All human activities are excluded from these areas, with the goal of observing natural ecological processes and maintaining nature without disturbing it through protective measures. Activities are thus restricted to scientific research that will not cause changes in nature, and sightseeing is only allowed from marked tourist paths and nature trails.

Strict Nature Reserves located outside the Park, in the transition zone of the Biosphere Reserve, should enjoy the same status as the core zone. However, this would require their surroundings to be secured with a buffer zone.

Zones under partial protection, which cover 8,528 ha of the Park, act as buffer zones for the areas under strict protection. These buffer zones protect against the negative effects of human activities, particularly those resulting from traffic along communication routes and the anthropogenic influence of inhabited areas. Human intervention, tourism, and recreation are permitted in partially protected areas. Scientists also conduct research and collect plant and animal samples in these zones. However, the fundamental activity in the partially protected zones is the active protection of natural resources with the goal of returning the environment as closely as possible to its natural state. This is achieved through the restructuring of forest stands, regulation of animal populations, intervention in the species composition of plant communities, the nursing and cultivation of desirable elements, and the elimination of elements alien to the native biocoenoses. The Protective Plan for Bieszczadzki National Park, which will facilitate such protective actions, is now being drawn up. This Plan is expected to provide model solutions for other National Parks in Poland.

Attempts to use the mountain valleys for large-scale agriculture considerably damaged the Bieszczady area. Extensive areas in the San Valley and in Wolosate were cleared and drained in order to "recultivate" the land for cattle breeding and other agricultural industries. However, drainage reduced the land's retentiveness and often partially destroyed the raised bogs unique to the area. Agricultural activity also damaged the alluvial ecosystems and belts of trees along watercourses, which represent natural ecological corridors for flora and fauna. The inclusion of these areas within the National Park stopped such environmentally unfriendly processes, and work is now beginning to restore the level of retentiveness and the ecosystems which have been destroyed.

In addition to increasing economic utilization, the development of the settlements and roads (especially the Bieszczady "ringroad") crossing the most naturally valuable areas enabled motorized tourism to invade Bieszczady. The number of tourists to Bieszczady rose from only about 1500 in 1953 to around 3 million visitors per year just twenty years later (a small National Park was established in 1973). However, the trend of tourism is now changing again due to

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

society's reduced affluence. Specialized mountain tourism, which is less harmful to the Park, is taking the place of mass tourism, and the number of tourists visiting the Park annually has fallen to around 350,000. The Park intends to stimulate the development of tourist villages in the surrounding area. This strategy promotes the use of the Lake Solinski area for vacationing and recreation as well as the establishment of camping sites along the Park boundaries. These tourist villages will create a barrier system which will restrain and dissipate the influence exerted by tourists upon the areas most valuable from the point of view of nature conservation.

Ecotourism, or the linkage of walking or hiking with ecological education and wildlife photography, is continuing to grow in popularity. The Park intends to develop ski racing and mountain tourism by foot and horseback. Plans also include a network of ecological education points around the Park and IBR. The Park is working on a camp ground in Wetlina with the goal of reducing the number of stays within the Park itself. An unfavorable factor at present is the lack of a visitor center linked to the regional tourist information network.

In addition to all this, the Park is working with the Polish Tourist and Country lovers Society (PTTK) to conserve the network of marked tourist trails and to install shelters along them. Litter left by tourists must also be removed. A network of parking lots furnished with rest rooms will be built, and traffic and parking will gradually be limited in order to reduce the negative effects of traffic along the section of the Bieszczady ring road which passes through the Park. This project is being financed by the European Union.

Many tourists enjoy the research farm for East Carpathian ponies in the Park, and when they pass through Ustrzyki Dolne, they discover that the Park's Natural History Museum is one of the most attractive in any of the Polish National Parks. A further tourist attraction is Poland's oldest narrow-gauge mountain railway, which began operating almost a century ago. If Poland, Slovakia, and Ukraine sign an agreement on a tourist convention for the Eastern Carpathians Biosphere Reserve, the Park would attract international interest. In fact, potential border crossing points within the IBR have already been selected, but will be limited to tourists on foot, horseback, or bicycle. Encouraging motorized traffic would hinder the nature conservation in this unique European protected area.

The Park's main goal of protecting nature would be an impossible task without the cooperation of economically or socially active entities in the area. Such groups include the State Forests and the local authorities, as well as school children, local inhabitants, ecological and tourist organizations, and admirers of the Bieszczady Mountains throughout Poland. In turn, it is critical that the Park's representatives help design economic plans and the spatial management of the Bieszczady region. Volunteer groups also assist the Park constructively. Examples of valuable volunteer work include the "Clean Mountains" campaign run by young students and the activities of the Mounted Nature Conservation Guard in Przemysl. Volunteers have also cooperated to conserve and renovate cemeteries, an important element of the region's heritage.

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

The Park has taken steps to create a network of ecological education points for tourists, local people, and young students. As a sanctuary for nature in the Bieszczady Mountains, the Park may thus become a major center in Poland for the promotion of ecological knowledge and nature conservation. Brochures, information booklets, and guides also serve to advance popular knowledge about nature. The Scientific Research Institute of the Eastern Carpathians International Biosphere Reserve, created in 1993 in Wolosaty, facilitates scientific research within the Reserve and helps organize conferences. An IBR cooperation center is also to be established nearby in 1995. In turn, one of four International Ecological Institutes to be created in Poland is planned for Ustrzyki Dolne.

The most time consuming and costly undertaking in the Park is providing a sewage treatment system to all the settlements and buildings. This project is supported financially the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management, and its completion will ensure that all water running within the Park is of Class I purity. A further step will be to eliminate local sources of air pollution through changes in the heating systems of buildings.

The park personnel are divided into two categories. One group consists of permanent employees whose payroll is included in the State budget and who work for the Park Service, in administration, and in the museum. Employees of a self-financing auxiliary holding comprise the other group of employees. Their tasks include active conservation in the zone under partial protection as well as the rebuilding and renovation of the tourist infrastructure.

In conclusion, the most important concerns for the park management are the following:

  • BNP on its own is neither entitled to nor able to undertake the activities of the Biosphere Reserve, mainly due to constraints on financial and human resources. The Park budget does not cover the costs of cooperation with Biosphere Reserve partners. BNP therefore needs the cooperation and commitment from other bodies involved in the Biosphere Reserve, such as the State Forest administration. The support of local communities is also needed.

  • It is crucial for the long-term planning of conservation activities that the state continues ownership of both forest and post-agricultural land in the vicinity of strictly protected areas within the borders of the Biosphere Reserve. State ownership can prevent unrestrained development in areas of high natural value and allows for possible enlargement of the National Park in the future.

  • The implementation of the International Biosphere Reserve project will be subject to legal problems, such as the lack of a coordinating structure legally entitled to conduct activities. There are also many legal gaps and a lack of regulation connected with basic activities, such as traffic control

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

on the public roads crossing the National Park or cross-border radio communication.

  • The Park lacks qualified personnel to carry on interpretative and educational activities, and it also lacks cooperation on the international scale for Biosphere Reserve purposes. At the same time, the Park faces the continued loss not only of conservation specialists, but also of foresters and rangers. Wages are extremely low compared with those in the State Forest administration. The remote location and difficult living conditions, combined with housing problems and low wages, cannot attract the necessary specialists.

  • The Park lacks technical monitoring and telecommunication equipment.

  • The National Park will be subject to increasing stress from visitors due to new border crossings in the Biosphere Reserve and to the attractiveness of tourism in protected areas. Financial support from the European Commission provides for part of the protective action. However, the Park still lacks funds to control the flow of tourists (e.g., through a visitor center or entrance points) or for environmental education facilities. The plan to replace part of the road across the Biosphere Reserve with a more nature-friendly forest train (to be acquired from the State Forest administration in 1995) is as yet without financing.

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

KARKONOSZE NATIONAL PARK AND KARKONOSZE/ KRKONOSE BILATERAL BIOSPHERE RESERVE

Maria Goczol-Gontarek

Karkonosze National Park & Biosphere Reserve

The Karkonosze/Krkonose Bilateral Biosphere Reserve is located within the Karkonosze, the highest range of the Sudety Mountains, on either side of the Polish-Czech border. It is easy to understand why the Karkonosze are also called the Giant Mountains if one looks at them from the foothills or from the Jelenia Gora Basin.

Geologically, the Karkonosze are old mountains, with the Polish side being composed mostly of granite. Post-glacial cirques date back to the Quaternary period, during which glaciations influenced the present landscape. Vast flat areas on the ridge are also a characteristic feature of the landscape, as are numerous rock groupings.

The climate of the Karkonosze is both cool and very wet; rain and snowfall at higher altitudes reach 2000 mm per year, and snow depths may exceed 10 m. High rainfall combines with the many springs to create numerous streams and waterfalls, as well as a few oligotrophic lakes and peatbogs. Peatbogs are characteristic of the Karkonosze and occur on both the flat surfaces on summits and on slopes.

Five well-developed vegetational zones can be distinguished in the Karkonosze. However, the cool, humid climate and low elevation of the massif determine that zones occur at lower altitudes than in other mountain ranges of Central Europe, for example, at altitudes 300 to 400 m lower than in the Tatras.

Much of the foothill zone is urban, industrial, and agricultural. The lower forest zone grows to 1000 m above sea level and is dominated by natural communities of mountain beech and Sudetic beech. However, the most of the beech was cut for industrial use and were replaced with Norway spruce, whose natural area of occurrence is restricted to a narrow belt at altitudes between 1000 to 1250 m above sea level.

Above the forest is the sub-alpine zone, which is the most valuable and richest zone with the highest diversity of vegetation. Sudetic dwarf mountain pine (Pinetum mughi Sudeticum) constitutes the dominant sub-alpine community.

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

Smaller communities are composed of deciduous sub-alpine brushwood, relic brushwood with Silesian willow (Salix silesiaca) and downy willow (S. lapponum). The most colorful are the herb communities. Numerous wet areas influence the landscape and vegetation of the sub-alpine zone. The sub-alpine peatbogs, located at the summits of the Karkonosze, are unique to the mountain ranges in Central Europe and include many post-glacial relic plants.

The alpine zone occurs on the highest peaks, Sniezka and Wielki Szyszak. The flora of the Karkonosze includes 1250 taxa of vascular plants, while the Polish part includes 700 such species as well as 450 species of Bryophyta, 400 species of Lichenes, and 80 species of Myxophyta. Among them are many rare plants, glacial relics, and endemics. Examples of endemics are the basalt saxifraga (Saxifraga Moschata ssp. basaltica ) and the Karkonosze Bellflower (Campanula bohemica), while glacial relics include cloudberry (Rubus chamemorus), northern twinflower (Linnea borealis), downy willow (Salix lapponum), Sudety lousewort (Pedicularis sudetica), and Arctic saxifrage (Saxifraga nivalis).

The fauna of the Karkonosze mostly includes common lowland species. Endemic and relic taxa are restricted to a few species of invertebrates. Mountain vertebrates include brown trout (Salmo trutta), alpine newt (Triturus alpestris), and birds such as alpine accentor (Prunella collaris), water pipit (Anthus spinoletta), redpoll (Carduelis flammea ), ring ouzel (Turdus torquatus), capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus), black grouse (Tetrao tetrix), and nutcracker (Nucifraga caryocatactes ). About 100 bird species nest in the Polish part of the Biosphere Reserve, and there are 40 species of mammals, including the mouflon (Ovis musimon), which was introduced at the beginning of the twentieth century, and numerous bat species. For 200 years, there have been no large predators other than the fox in the Karkonosze Mountains.

The settlements in the foothills of the Karkonosze have existed since at least the ninth century. People began to penetrate the mountains in the Middle Ages primarily to seek gold and precious gems. Traces of their activities can be found even today, with old adits or signs cut into rocks. Mining, glass making, and weaving later became important industries, and deforestation connected with industry and settlement occurred over much of the area. The natural beech and mixed forests were replaced by Norway spruce forests at this time.

The first buildings in the mountains date back to the seventeenth century. At lower altitudes, there were villages of shepherds. There were huts for hunters, guards, and shepherds at higher altitudes near the main road. A chapel was built on the top of Sniezka, and the headwaters of the Elbe were consecrated. Subsequently, the number of pilgrims coming to the Karkonosze increased. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, tourism grew quickly and tourism became the main source of income for the area's inhabitants. The Karkonosze Union (Riesengebirge Verein) was founded in 1880, and at the beginning of the twentieth century, the first activities aimed at the protection of nature in the Karkonosze were initiated: the designation of nature reserves and nature monuments.

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

Vallons, Italians, Frenchmen, Germans, Czechs, and Poles have all shown an interest in the abiotic nature of the Karkonosze. Schenckfeldt (1600) and Volkmann (1720) made mining and geological observations. K. V. Raumerthe published the first geological map of the area in 1813, and Berg (1919-36) prepared subsequent maps. The turn of the nineteenth century saw many scientists, including Partsch, analyze post-glacial structures and elaborate ideas on glaciation in the Karkonosze. Scientists from Wroclaw are continuing studies of the area's geology, geomorphology, and glaciation. The first meteorological observations were made on the top of Sniezka as early as 1824 (10-year seasonal measurements of temperature and air pressure). Systematic observation has continued since 1880, and the top of Sniezka now has an operational meteorological station of the Institute of Meteorology and Water Management (IMGW), which cooperates with the European network of meteorological stations. At the end of the nineteenth century, more stations were founded and some remain in operation to this day. In recent years, these stations have collected data on air, soil, and water pollution, as well as meteorological details.

Doctors looking for healing plants organized the first botanic expeditions to the Karkonosze. The first descriptions were made as early as the sixteenth century (Matioli 1563; Sebitz 1582; Schwenkfeldt 1601). In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, many botanists and collectors studied the flora of Karkonosze (Fiek 1881; Schube 1903), and extensive descriptions were published at the beginning of the twentieth century (Pax 1927; Limprich 1930). After the Second World War, Tolpa, Szweykowski, Madalski, and Fabiszewski conducted floristic and geobotanic research, while W. and A. Matuszkiewicz made extensive studies of plant communities.

The first zoological research primarily concerned the vertebrates. Descriptions of the fish of the Karkonosze were published at the beginning of nineteenth century (Weigel 1806; Kaluza 1815; Gloger 1833), and the next publications appeared at the beginning of the twentieth century (Lubosch 1902; Arndt 1923 and 1925; Pax 1921 and 1925). Ornithological research also began in the nineteenth century (Schneider 1892; Friedrich 1908; Mayhoff 1923; Martini 1926), with detailed studies being made by Dyrcz in the 1960s. Nineteenth-century papers on game mammals, rodents, and bats were published by Gloger, and a work on rodents and insectivore was published in 1973 (Chudoba, Haitlinger, Huminski). The 1980s and 1990s have seen extensive studies on bats and on some groups of invertebrates such as insects, arachnids, and molluscs. Entomologists from Poznan are currently studying several groups of insects and arachnids. Scientists from the University of Poznan and the Forestry Research Institute (IBL) in Warsaw, Wroclaw, and Krakowas have extensively researched forest management, reforestation, and forest ecology as the health of the forest has declined in recent decades. For 3 years, an extensive, interdisciplinary research project entitled ''The Ecosystems of the Karkonosze Under the Circumstances of Ecological Stress" has been continued by scientists from the University of Wroclaw and from the Institute of Ecology of the Polish Academy of Sciences.

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

In 1994 Karkonosze National Park organized a science conference entitled "Geoecological Problems of the Karkonosze." This conference followed one which took place in 1991, when 50 papers were presented by scientists from Wroclaw, Poznan, Warsaw, Katowice, Krakow, Olsztyn, and the Czech Republic. This year, scientists from research institutes in Poland and the Czech Republic will present 70 papers based on the results of their latest research.

In 1959, Poland's Karkonosze National Park was established on an area of 5,500 ha. In turn, the Czech Krkonose National Park was established in 1963 on an area of 40,000 ha. In 1992, the Karkonosze/Krkonose Bilateral Biosphere Reserve was established, comprising the area of both parks. The most valuable portions of the Parks, including over 10,000 ha in the sub-alpine and alpine zones, are under strict protection and constitute the core zone of the Biosphere Reserve. The Polish part of the Reserve has core and buffer zones only, while the Czech side has all three zones: core, buffer, and transition. The Polish and Czech sides are now working together to prepare a common action plan for the Reserve and to determine the ways in which the two sides may communicate better. Karkonosze National Park is going to prepare a plan for nature conservation in the Park, which should outline the main goals of the Park's existence.

The Karkonosze mountains can be considered a single unit, so the Polish and Czech sides face similar problems which may be categorized into two main groups. The first of these is the deterioration of the health of the environment. Both natural and anthropogenic factors threaten the nature of Karkonosze. Natural factors include the difficult climatic conditions (cold and wind) and pests. Anthropogenic factors include historic forestry practices (the common replacement of natural mixed forest by spruce monocultures in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries) and air pollution (generated mostly by the "Black Triangle," but also by local industry). In the last few years, the situation has improved as the level of pollution has decreased, and the health of the forest has improved distinctly. Karkonosze National Park obtains the seedlings necessary for reforestation from its own nurseries, and work has begun on the reconstruction of the lower mountain forest. The Czech and Polish parts are participating in a common project for reforestation in the Karkonosze mountains.

Tourism is responsible for the second category of problems. Between 8 and 11 million tourists visit the Biosphere Reserve annually (2 to 3 million on the Polish side and 6 to 8 million on the Czech side). The network of tourist routes is well-developed, extending to about 200 km on the Polish side and more than 1000 km on the Czech side. The National Park has numerous shelters, ski lifts, and ski-roads as well as two chair lifts on the Polish side and one on the Czech side. New problems have appeared recently, as local authorities become more active with the changes taking place in Poland. Over the last few years, tourist organizations increasingly have been pressuring the Polish part, with many groups suggesting that more areas of the Park should be opened up for skiing. New methods of communication are still developing and settlements are being founded.

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

THE HYDROGRAPHIC SYSTEM OF POLAND WITH EMPHASIS ON BORDER REGIONS

Roman Soja

Institute of Geography and Spatial Organizations

Polish Academy of Sciences

Polish territory is hydrographically self-contained to an exceptional degree for Continental Europe. The term "hydrographic self-containment" means that an area (in this case, Poland) is characterized by concordance between national borders or the boundaries of administrative units and the courses taken by the divides separating drainage basins. The fact that the majority of rivers in Poland both begin and end on Polish territory signifies hydrographic self-containment. Thus, only 10 percent of the area drained by the Vistula and the Oder, Poland's two greatest rivers, lies outside the borders of Poland. Poland is also isolated hydrologically from neighboring marine basins; water across more than 99% of the country drains into the Baltic Sea, while that on only 1% is directed to the North Sea and Black Sea.

Poland's western border follows the courses of the Rivers Oder and Nysa Luzycka, but the drainage basins of the two rivers are extremely asymmetrical. The division with neighboring basins lies only 10 to 20 kilometers or less inside German territory. The Oder originates in a highly industrialized area of the Czech Republic near Poland's southern border. The Czech steel, chemical, and coal industries pollute the waters of the Oder, so that the Oder and Nysa Luzycka are little more than effluents with exceptional loads of toxic substances by the time they reach the Polish border. In addition, oil-derived substances poison the Oder and its small tributary, the Olza, several times annually. In Poland these pollutants are collected from the surface along the border sections, thus protecting the further course of the river. These unilateral actions cause disagreement regarding who should bear the cost of removing the pollutants, and successive signed agreements on this matter have failed.

A second problem along a section of the southern border is the pollution of the River Poprad, a river which originates in the Slovak part of the Tatra Mountains. The problem of the high level of pollution in this river is compounded by the fact that the Poprad is a tributary of the Dunajec. The Dunajec has the greatest water

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

resources of any river in the Polish Carpathians. The water of the Poprad degrades the water quality of the Dunajec. These two cases (the Oder and the Poprad) constitute the only problems along the southern section of the Polish border with which the divide coincides.

A long section of the eastern border conforms to the courses of the rivers San and Bug. There are no significant problems with inflows of pollution from Ukraine within the drainage basin of the San. In fact, the water of this river's upper course is of natural chemical composition, which is a rare phenomenon in Poland. In contrast, the Bug, whose middle section forms the border with Ukraine, is one of Poland's more polluted rivers. Human activity and unfavorable natural conditions both cause problems. The Bug has a continental type of hydrological regime in which the flow increases considerably as snow melts in March and April, followed by months of consistently low flows. Effluents from the Ukrainian coal and food processing industries contaminate the Bug. The most catastrophic situation arises in autumn, when the sugar beet campaign begins and large quantities of waste water from sugar beet factories pour into the river.

There are many post-glacial lakes in northeastern Poland. The rich water resources of this area are lightly polluted, and water flows via small rivers to the Neman River into Lithuania and Russia.

Most conflicts regarding rivers flowing along the Polish border or into Poland regard water pollution. The Oder and Nysa Luzycka do not reach any norm for water purity at any point along their entire lengths; the water is beyond classification. To rectify this problem, both Poland and the Czech Republic must comply with management norms for water and effluents, and this is not likely to happen in the foreseeable future. The most significant progress has been in the regulation of pollution in the Poprad, as construction of a sewage works in Slovakia has begun. However, more extensive water management in the Poprad's drainage basin has been deferred since it would primarily benefit Poland. Although the Ukrainian side of the Bug's drainage basin is poorly managed, contemporary socio-economic changes should limit or stop the exploitation of hard coal, which would obviously help eliminate the discharge of the most burdensome effluents. Particular attention should be paid to maintaining, if not improving, the current state of purity of the upper San River in the Bieszczady National Park. This will only be possible through strict compliance to an agreement with Ukraine.

Poland's changing relief, and, later, human activities led to its hydrographic shape. In the glacial period, great rivers with latitudinal courses took the meltwaters of the Scandinavian ice sheet westward to the North Sea. The retreat of the ice sheet and the emergence of a river network resulted in a natural connection between the drainage basins of the Vistula and the Dnieper. The flat, marshy area in Belarus and Ukraine, known as Polesie, acted as a bifurcation area in the spring. Some waters of Polesie headed for the Dnieper and subsequently for the Black Sea, while others reached the Vistula via the Bug's tributaries. This natural link only disappeared in the nineteenth century, when the drainage of the marshes and bogs of Polesie began. The land became drier, spring meltwaters flowed away

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

increasingly quickly, and a further fall in the low autumnal flow of the Bug signified the depletion of water resources.

Originally, there was no natural link between the drainage basins of the Oder and Vistula, or between those of the Oder and German rivers. The nineteenth century canals which formed artificial connections are of limited scope and are largely inactive today. The flows in the canals linking the Oder with German rivers are sustained with water from Polish territory.

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

TRANSBOUNDARY NATURAL SYSTEMS IN EASTERN POLAND AND A PROPOSAL FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STRATEGY

Bozena Degorska

Institute of Spatial Organization

Polish Academy of Sciences

Of all Poland's border areas, the one characterized by the greatest degree of geoecological diversification falls along the eastern edge of the country. This system of 11 physico-geographical transboundary regions of sub-provincial rank indicates the diversity of physico-geographical conditions and the valuable features of the landscape. In comparison, the western border crosses four physico-geographical regions and the southern border crosses six (Kondracki 1978). Notable types of landscape found along the eastern border include the following: coastal areas, the lakeland belt, the lowland belt, bog areas, uplands, foothills and mountains, and the valleys of the greater rivers.

Cooperation currently developing between Poland and Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Kaliningrad District of the Russian Federation, and Slovakia has opened the chance to carry out research in the eastern border zone. Agreements are also now possible on the protection and management of the environment in this area. Ecology agreements have led to work on the monitoring of border waters and on the creation of transboundary structures for the protection of nature. The latter are exemplified by the Eastern Carpathian International Biosphere Reserve between Poland and Slovakia and by the Bialowieza Biosphere Reserve between Poland and Belarus. Such strategies are indispensable since the boundaries of natural units cross national borders.

Certain transboundary systems are open and are characterized by the most intensive exchanges of matter and energy with the surroundings (R. Chorley & B. Kennedy 1971). Included among the most dynamic natural elements are watercourses, which have become the major carriers of environmental pollution since industrialization began.

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

FIGURE 1 Direction of the Riverflow in the Cross-Boundary Rivers 1. Drainage basin of Vistula river; 2. Drainage basin of Vistula Lagoon; 3. Drainage basin of Neman; 4. Drainage basin of Dniepr; 5. Drainage basin of Dniestr; 6. Drainage basin of Danube; 7. Major water divide; 8. Water divide of 1 rank; 9. State border; 10. Direction of riverflow

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

The water quality of the rivers in the eastern border zone is unsatisfactory. Data from the State Environmental Protection Inspectorate show that in 1991 the quality of water in the larger rivers did not meet the statutory norms for physico-chemical and biological criteria. Waters of Quality Class III were only noted along short sections (3.7% of the Bug river, 3.2% of the Wieprz, 11.7% of the Wislok, 14% of the Elk, and 36% of the Pasleka). The best Class I water was restricted to the Biebrza and some lengths of the Suprasl. The high degree of pollution of the Bug is of particular concern since its drainage basin should meet the requirements of a protected drainage basin.

Familiarity with the flow and boundaries of a drainage basin is necessary in order to recognize the geographical environment, especially for cases involving spatial planning, environmental protection, and ecology. Figure 1 schematically presents the flow of surface water in the eastern border zone. One can see that this zone lies within the drainage basins of two seas: the Baltic Sea (with drainage via the Vistula or Neman Rivers, or the Vistula Lagoon) and the Black Sea (with drainage via the Dnieper, Dniester or Danube).

In order to distinguish transboundary ecological areas, analysis of physico-geographical features of the environment may be combined with an assessment of the ecological situation. In this way, the rank of transboundary ecological areas, dominant categories of protection, and areas of conflict may be identified.

In the zone under analysis, the following major transboundary ecological areas should be included:

  • Bieszczady Mountains, the border area between Poland, Slovakia, and Ukraine;

  • Roztocze area, on the border region between Poland and Ukraine;

  • The drainage basin of the Bug River, on the borders of Poland, Ukraine, and Belarus;

  • Bialowieza Primeval Forest, on the border between Poland and Belarus;

  • Mazurian/Lithuanian Lakeland, by the border between Poland and Lithuania;

  • Vistual Lagoon, on the border area between Poland and the Kaliningrad District of the Russian Federation; and

  • Romincka Forest, on the border area between Poland and the Kaliningrad District of the Russian Federation.

The spatial aspects of these transboundary ecological areas have been categorized on the supranational, national, regional, and local scales.

  • The supranational (international) scale has units which include natural links of European rank. These are:

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
  • the Bieszczady Mountains, as a unit of the Eastern Carpathians representing part of the whole Carpathian system; and

  • the Mazurian/Lithuanian Lakeland, which is continuous (via the Pomeranian Lakeland) with the Mecklenburg Lakeland.

  • The national scale has areas including links at the level of neighboring countries. These are:

    • the Vistula Lagoon;

    • the drainage basin of the River Bug; and

    • Roztocze.

  • The regional scale includes units having links which embrace border regions. These are:

    • the Bialowieza Primeval Forest (Puszcza Bialowieska). However, Bialowieza Forest should be considered on the national scale according to the highest value of natural forest ecosystems; and

    • the Romincka Forest (Puszcza Romincka).

  • The delimitation of transboundary ecological areas at the local level requires research along the border belt with depths down to about 20 km. It may be anticipated that this will result in the delineation of transboundary reserves or areas of ecological use.

In the future, geoecological research on various spatial scales may provide a basis for the elaboration within spatial management plans of different scales of a system of transboundary protected areas for countries bordering Poland. It is to this end that natural research modeled on Polish methods has been conducted across the border in Ukraine.

If transboundary ecological areas are classified on the basis of the dominant categories of environmental protection, additional studies must be conducted in some regions. However, as a general rule, the delimited areas may be classified in the following way (Fig. 2) into areas of strict or partial protection.

  • Areas with a predominance of strict protection include:

    • the Bialowieza Primeval Forest; and

    • the Bieszczady Mountains.

  • Areas with a predominance of partial protection include:

    • the Mazurian/Lithuanian Lakeland;

    • the Vistula Lagoon;

    • Roztocze;

    • the Romincka Primeval Forest (Puszcza Romincka);

    • the Augustowska Primeval Forest; and

    • the Podlasie Gap of the Bug River.

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

FIGURE 2 Classification of Transboundary Ecological Areas and Protection of the Natural Environment in the Eastern Polish Border Regions

Biosphere Reserves

MAB (a) - International Biosphere Reserve Bialowieza

MAB (b) - International Biosphere Reserve Eastern Carpathian Mountains

MAB (c) - Biosphere Reserve Lœuknajno Lake Wetland reserve of international importance

A-Luknajno Lake

National Parks (according to Denisiuk 1994, status for 1/1/1993)

I - Wigry; II - Bialowieza; III - Polesie; IV - Roztocze; V - Bieszczady.

Landscape Parks (according to Z. Denisiuk 1994, status for 1/1/1993, updated for Olsztyn voivodeship) 1 - Vistula Sand Bar; 2 - Elblag Rise; 3 - Ilawa Lakeland; 4 - Dylewskie Hills; 5 - Mazurian Landscape; Park; 6 - Suwalki Landscape Park; 7 - Knyszyn Primeval Forest; 8 - Narew Landscape Park; 9 - Leczynsko-Wlodawskie Lakeland; 10 - Sobibor Landscape Park; 11 - Chelm Landscape Park; 12 Strzelce Landscape Park; 13 - Szczebrzeszyn Landscape Park; 14 Krasnobrod Landscape Park; 15 Solska Pimeval Forest; 16 - Southern Roztocze Landscape Park; 17 - Przemysl Foothills; 18 - Slonne Mountains; 19 - San River Valley Landscape Park; 20 - Cisniansko-Wetlinski Landscape Park; 21 Jaslo Landscape Park

In addition, two areas of conflict deserve special attention. The first of these concerns the Vistula Lagoon transboundary ecological area, where the problem of environmental contamination is acutely manifested. Both valuable biocenoses and environmental features around which tourism could develop lie in need of protection. This region has been selected by the State Environmental Protection Inspectorate as one of Poland's 27 areas which are threatened ecologically (GUS, 1993).

The second conflict area is the drainage basin of the Bug River. The greatest water pollution occurs here because of multiple sources of contamination located in Ukraine, Belarus, and Poland. In fact, the area is a protected drainage basin where water quality of Class I or II is demanded.

Efforts should be made to raise the water quality in the border river and in the entire drainage basin of the Bug as well as in the Vistula Lagoon through the construction of sewage treatment plants within the boundaries of their catchment basins. It will probably be difficult to solve the ecological problems in these regions because of huge expenses and the need for international solutions.

The synthetic interpretation above has been prepared on the basis of this author's study of the ecological problems along Poland's eastern border (Degorska, 1992; 1993a; 1993b). The greatest difficulties were encountered in the compilation of material on the pollution of the environment in the areas bordering Poland and in cataloging an up-to-date inventory of protected areas.

This paper is part of an extensive program of research entitled, "A Basis for the Development of Poland's Western and Eastern Border Areas." This research is

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

based at the Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization of the Polish Academy of Sciences, located in Warsaw, and is supervised by Professor A. Stasiak. The research embraces the nine most eastern voivodeships (provinces) of Poland (the voivodeships of Elblag, Olsztyn, Suwalki, Bialystok, Biala Podlaska, Chelm, Zamosc, Przemysl and Krosno) as well as four voivodeships in western Poland (Szczecin, Gorzow Wielkopolski, Zielona Gora, and Jelenia Gora). In total, these voivodeships cover approximately 96,700 km2. Within the scope of the work being carried out are issues relating to demography, settlement, transport, agriculture, ecology, trade, and tourism. Scientific cooperation with Germany, Ukraine, Belarus, and the Russian Federation has prompted international seminars and a number of field excursions which have enabled researchers to familiarize themselves with international factors of these issues. The results of the research have been included in bulletins of the Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization of the Polish Academy of Sciences entitled, ''A Basis for the Development of Poland's Western and Eastern Border Areas".

REFERENCES

Chorley R., Kennedy B., 1971, Physical Geography: A System Approach, London


Degorska B., 1992, Modele strukturalno-funkcjonalne w transgranicznych systemach przyrodniczych (w:) Edukacja ekologiczna i ochrona srodowiska na pograniczach, red. K. Wojciechowski, TWWP, Lublin

Degorska B., 1993a, Problematyka ekologiczna wschodniego pogranicza Polski (w:) Podstawy rozwoju zachodnich i wschodnich obszarow przygranicznych Polski, Biuletyn Nr 2, IGiPZPAN, Warszawa

Degorska B., 1993b, Problematyka pogranicza polsko-ukrainskiego (w:) Podtswy rozwoju zachodnich i wschodnich obszarow przygranicznych Polski, Biuletyn Nr 3, IGiPZ PAN, Warszawa


Kondracki J., 1978, Geografia fizyczna Polski, PWN, Warszawa, Ochrona Srodowiska, 1992, GUS, Warszawa

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

NEW MAPS ON THE USE OF AND THREATS TO THE ENVIRONMENT IN CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN EUROPE

Joanna Plit

Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization

Polish Academy of Sciences

New environmental maps of Central and Southern Europe have been created by an international group of cartographers in Vienna. Cartographic considerations have made it necessary to divide the subject of "Use of the Environment and Resultant Problems" into two parts and, hence, into two maps. Map A ("Use of the Environment") shows resource use, while Map B ("Environmental Problems") is devoted to ecological problems.

The map scale of 1:3,000,000 required a high degree of generalization. The density of information required that some characteristics be omitted even though they were well documented and could otherwise have been included.

Problems can be identified according to the impairment of the environment (qualitatively) or of natural resources (qualitatively or quantitatively). Impairment is determined by the extent to which components of the natural world have been changed and by the relative ability of these components to continue to function socio-economically.

An international collective under the auspices of COMECON charted the environmental situation from the Elbe to the Urals and to the south as far as the Balkans. The result was a two-sheet, 1:2,500,000 map. The collective agreed upon all the data, often negotiating the course of divisions. In 1992, the Austrian Institute of East and South-East European Studies in Vienna edited the maps of the Atlas of Eastern and Southeastern Europe.

The Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization of the Polish Academy of Sciences acknowledges the cooperation of a number of scientists. Tatjana Nefedova (Soviet Union), the editor-in-chief for the manuscripts, was responsible for coordinating the various national contributions. Oldrich Mikulik (Czechoslovakia), Laszlo Bassa (Hungary), and Joanna Plit (Poland) formed the editorial team with Tatjana Nefedova. National data and manuscripts were compiled by D. Doncev, M. Ilieva, M. Jordanova ans St. Veley (all three from

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

Bulgaria), K. Kabelacova, A. Vaishar (both from Czechoslovakia), G. Schonfeleder (Germany), M. Spes (Yugoslavia), L. Bassa (Hungary), E. Tomasi (Austria), J. Plit (Poland), E. Zavoianu (Romania), T. Nefedova and I. Volkova (both from Soviet Union).

On map A, color was used to indicate the intensity of environmental usage. An appropriate key was employed. Factors which were considered in calculating the index of usage included the structure of land use and per-hectare yield of the basic agricultural crops (cereals, potatoes, and hay), the number of adult livestock per hectare, the size of cuts in forests (in cubic meters per hectare), and the consumption of mineral fertilizers per hectare of agricultural land. Larger complexes of forest, marshes, and wilderness were also shown, as were protected areas such as Nature Reserves, Landscape Parks, and National Parks. Symbols indicated mines and nuclear power stations, and original summary bar graphs for each of the larger industrial centers showed environmental danger posed by various industrial branches. A delicate hachure in the background denoted the main tourist areas.

It was accepted from the beginning that the intensity of use would be presented by administrative units, although units could be divided into parts (for example, in the case of the clear dichotomy of the Carpathian voivodeship (provinces) in Poland). Various authors used this principle freely.

Map B illustrates the ecological problems caused by pollution as well as the exploitation and degradation of the natural environment. Different colors indicate where the air has been contaminated with compounds of sulphur, and the hachure reveals the level of soil degradation, groundwater deficits, deforestation, and degradation of forests through air pollution. Finally, lines indicate the pollution level of the main rivers and lakes and of the coastline zone. Points mark the principal polluters and the larger dumps of industrial waste. Ecological disaster areas are shown, as is the area contaminated after the explosion at Chernobyl (although this name is not to be found on the map).

The maps and text describe an environmental situation which reflects the problems between 1985 and 1989. It must be hoped that the political and economic upheaval in the former socialist countries, especially the events of 1989 and 1990, will improve the attitudes of politicians and the general public toward the environment. A focus on the poor environmental situation has already led some countries to take action, while in other countries only discussions are in progress.

The condition of Poland's environment was at its worst in the late 1980s. However, the situation is slowly improving as a result of the systematic steps taken to protect the environment. Some of these protective measures include the installation of sewage works, changes in production technologies, and closures of the most burdensome factories.

The international nature of environmental problems is made clear by the National Parks of the Bieszczady and Tatra Mountains. The fact that the Carpathians are protected by the Slovak, Ukrainian, and Polish people does not

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×

prevent threats to the natural environment from pollution. This problem is presented in the extract from Map B (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1 Pollution Map of the Carpathian Region

Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 154
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 155
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 156
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 157
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 158
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 159
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 160
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 161
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 162
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 163
Suggested Citation:"3 Biosphere Reserves and Natural Conditions in Central European Border Regions." National Research Council. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5370.
×
Page 164
Next: 4 Wildlife and Tourist Management in Transboundary Protected Areas »
Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $50.00 Buy Ebook | $39.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Recognizing the increasing rate of species loss on a global scale and that neither pollution nor ecosystems respects political boundaries, cooperation on many different levels is required to conserve biodiversity. This volume uses four protected areas that Poland shares with its neighbors as case studies to explore opportunities to integrate science and management in transboundary protected areas in Central Europe for the conservation of biodiversity. Specific topics include biodiversity conservation theories and strategies, problems of wildlife management, and impacts of tourism and recreational use on protected areas.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!