Europes ecological backbone.pdf

EEA Report No 6/2010 

Europe's ecological backbone: 

recognising the true value of our mountains 

ISSN 1725-9177

EEA Report No 6/2010 

Europe's ecological backbone: 

recognising the true value of our mountains

Cover design: EEA 

Cover photo © Catalina Munteanu 

Left photo © iStockphoto 

Right photo © Martin Price 

Layout: Pia Schmidt/EEA 

Copyright notice 

© EEA, Copenhagen, 2010 

Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated. 

Information about the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa 

server (www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Union, 2010 

ISBN 978-92-9213-108-1 

ISSN 1725-9177 

DOI 10.2800/43450 

© EEA, Copenhagen, 2010 

Environmental production 

This publication is printed according to high environmental standards. 

Printed by Schultz Grafisk 

— Environmental Management Certificate: ISO 14001 

— IQNet – The International Certification Network DS/EN ISO 14001:2004 

— Quality Certificate: ISO 9001: 2000 

— EMAS Registration. Licence no. DK – 000235 

— Ecolabelling with the Nordic Swan, licence no. 541 176 

Paper 

RePrint — 90 gsm. 

CyclusOffset — 250 gsm. 

Both paper qualities are recycled paper and have obtained the ecolabel Nordic Swan. 

Printed in Denmark 

REG.NO. DK-000244 

European Environment Agency 

Kongens Nytorv 6 

1050 Copenhagen K 

Denmark 

Tel.: +45 33 36 71 00 

Fax: +45 33 36 71 99 

Web: eea.europa.eu 

Enquiries: eea.europa.eu/enquiries

Contents 

Contents 

Acknowledgements..................................................................................................... 5 

Executive summary..................................................................................................... 9 

Introduction and background..................................................................................... 9 

Mountain people: status and trends............................................................................ 9 

Mountain economies and accessibility.........................................................................10 

Ecosystem services from Europe's mountains..............................................................10 

Climate change and Europe's mountains.....................................................................10 

The water towers of Europe......................................................................................10 

Land cover and uses................................................................................................11 

Biodiversity............................................................................................................11 

Protected areas.......................................................................................................11 

Integrated approaches to understanding mountain regions............................................12 

1 Introduction and background............................................................................... 13 

1.1 Introduction and objectives................................................................................13 

1.2 The legislative and policy framework for Europe's mountain areas...........................15 

1.3 Definitions of mountain areas.............................................................................24 

1.4 Scales and scope of analysis..............................................................................32 

2 Mountain people: status and trends..................................................................... 34 

2.1 Population numbers and density.........................................................................34 

2.2 Trends in population density..............................................................................38 

3 Mountain economies and accessibility.................................................................. 45 

3.1 Economic structures.........................................................................................45 

3.2 Economic density and accessibility......................................................................45 

4 Ecosystem services from Europe's mountains...................................................... 60 

4.1 The importance of mountain ecosystem services...................................................61 

4.2 Trends in mountain ecosystem services...............................................................71 

4.3 Mountains, ecosystem services and the future......................................................71 

5 Climate change and Europe's mountains.............................................................. 74 

5.1 Changes in climate across Europe.......................................................................74 

5.2 Changes in climate in European mountains..........................................................77 

5.3 Research needs................................................................................................84 

6 The water towers of Europe................................................................................. 85 

6.1 Water towers — mountain hydrology ..................................................................85 

6.2 Hydropower and hydromorphology.....................................................................94 

6.3 Water quality...................................................................................................96 

6.4 Floods...........................................................................................................101 

6.5 Climate change and impact on water temperature and ice cover ..........................102 

6.6 Climate change impacts on water availability......................................................104 

6.7 Future challenges and opportunities .................................................................107 

Europe's ecological backbone: recognising the true value of our mountains 

3

Contents 

7 Land cover and uses........................................................................................... 110 

7.1 Dominant landscape types...............................................................................111 

7.2 Land cover in mountain areas..........................................................................112 

7.3 Land cover changes in mountain massifs and countries........................................117 

7.4 European designations of land uses in mountain areas........................................132 

8 Biodiversity........................................................................................................ 142 

8.1 Mountain species and habitats linked to the EU Habitats Directive.........................143 

8.2 Birds and their habitats...................................................................................150 

8.3 Impacts of climate change...............................................................................152 

9 Protected areas.................................................................................................. 161 

9.1 Natura 2000 sites...........................................................................................164 

9.2 Nationally designated areas.............................................................................174 

9.3 Connectivity and adaptation to climate change...................................................184 

10 Integrated approaches to understanding mountain regions............................... 187 

10.1 Mountains and rurality....................................................................................187 

10.2 Natural and environmental assets of mountain areas...........................................190 

10.3 Mountains and wilderness................................................................................192 

References.............................................................................................................. 202 

Appendix 1 Mountain species in the Habitats Directive........................................... 237 

Appendix 2 Mountain habitat types in the Habitats Directive.................................. 244 

4 Europe's ecological backbone: recognising the true value of our mountains

Acknowledgements 


This report was coordinated and compiled by 

Martin F. Price (Centre for Mountain Studies, Perth 

College UHI), with technical assistance from Ryan 

Glass, within the scope of activities of the European 

Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information 

(ETC-LUSI) in 2008–2010 and the European Topic 

Centre on Biological Diversity (ETC-BD) in 2010. 

Guidance, support and review were provided by 

Agnieszka Romanowicz, Ronan Uhel and Branislav 

Olah, as Task Managers at the EEA, and further 

assistance and feedback were provided by other 

EEA staff: Elena Cebrian Calvo, Philippe Crouzet, 

Gorm Dige, Ybele Hoogeveen, Stéphane Isoard, Ana 

Sousa, Rania Spyridopoulou, and Hans Vos. Further 

input to the scope and structure of the report were 

provided by a group of experts, who met twice, on 

29 April 2008 and 26 March 2009. The EEA wishes 

to acknowledge and thank them, as well as all those 

who provided case studies and reviewed chapters, 

for their valuable input. 

ETC-LUSI project consortium 

Alterra, the Netherlands 

Gerard Hazeu, Marta Pérez-Soba and Laure Roupioz. 

Danube Delta National Institute, Romania 

Marian Mierla and Iulian Nichersu. 

Umweltbundesamt, Austria 

Gebhard Banko and Andreas Bartel. 

Universitat Autonòma de Barcelona, Spain 

Juan Arévalo and Andreas Littkopf. 

Expert group 

Astrid Bjoernsen (Mountain Research Initiative); 

Anders Brun (Norwegian Forest and Landscape 

Institute); 

Jean-Michel Courades (European Commission – 

DG Agriculture); 

Carmen de Jong (Institut de la Montagne); 

Nicolas Evrard (Association Européenne des Elus de 

Montagne); 

Erik Gloersen (Spatial Foresight); 

Gregory Greenwood (Mountain Research Initiative); 

Regula Imhoff (Alpine Convention); 

Robert Jandl (Austrian Federal Office & Research 

Centre for Forests); 

Laszlo Nagy (University of Vienna); 

Alexia Rouby (Euromontana); 

Pier Carlo Sandei (UNEP); 

Kristiina Urpalainen (Euromontana); 

Antonella Zona (European Commission — 

DG Agriculture). 

Authors by chapter 

Chapter 1 Introduction and background 

Martin Price (Centre for Mountain Studies, Perth 

College UHI, the United Kingdom). 

Section 1.2: The legislative and policy framework for 

Europe's mountain areas 

Calum Macleod (Centre for Mountain Studies, Perth 


Section 1.3: Definitions of mountain areas 



Gebhard Banko (Umweltbundesamt, Austria). 

Boxes 1.1–1.3: Calum Macleod (Centre for Mountain 

Studies, Perth College UHI, the United Kingdom). 

Box 1.4: Matthias Jurek, Giacomo Luciani (EURAC 

Expert Team/Interim Secretariat of the Carpathian 

Convention, Vienna, Austria). 


5


Box 1.5: Maja Vasilijevic (Transboundary 

Conservation Specialist Group, IUCN World 

Commission on Protected Areas, Croatia). 

Reviewer: Frank Gaskell (Integritas, the United 

Kingdom). 

Sections 1.3.4 to 1.3.5 are largely based on Price, 

M.F., Lysenko I. & Gloersen E., 2004. La délimitation 

des montagnes européennes/Delineating Europe's 

mountains. Revue de Geographie Alpine/Journal of 

Alpine Research 92(2): 61–86, with permission. 

Chapter 2 Mountain populations: status and 

trends 

Section 2.1: Population numbers and density 

Marian Mierla (Danube Delta National Institute, 

Romania); 



Data from the LandScanTM Global Population 

Database were used under licensing by Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory. 

Section 2.2: Trends in population density 

Laure Roupioz, Marta Pérez-Soba (Alterra, the 

Netherlands). 

Data from the Gridded Population of the World 

Version 3 (GPWv3) were provided by the Center for 

International Earth Science Information Network 

(CIESIN), Columbia University; and Centro 

Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT). 

Box 2.1: Dimitris Kaliampakos, Stella 

Giannakopoulou (National Technical University of 

Athens, Greece). 

Chapter 3 Mountain economies and 

accessibility 

Section 3.1: Economic structure 



Section 3.2: Economic density and accessibility 

Laure Roupioz, Marta Pérez-Soba (Alterra, the 

Netherlands). 

Section 3.2.1: Ten-T corridors 

Juan Arévalo (Universitat Autonòma de Barcelona, 

Spain); 


Romania). 

Box 3.1: Jean-Pierre Biber (European Forum on 

Nature Conservation and Pastoralism, France). 

Box 3.2: Frédéric Bonhoure, (Mission Montagne, 

Conseil régional Rhône-Alpes, France). 

Box 3.3: Stefan Marzelli (Ifuplan, Germany). 

Box 3.4: Núria Blanes, Jaume Fons, Alejandro 

Simón and Juan Arévalo (ETC-LUSI – Universitat 

Autònoma de Barcelona); Reviewers: Roman Ortner, 

EAA (Environment Agency Austria) and Colin 

Nugent, EEA (European Environment Agency). 

Chapter 4 The provision of ecosystem services 

from Europe's mountains 

John Haslett (University of Salzburg, Austria). 

Box 4.1: John Haslett (University of Salzburg, 

Austria). 

Box 4.2: Costel Bucur (Maramures Mountains Nature 

Park, Romania). 

Box 4.3: Ché Elkin, Harald Bugmann (Department of 

Environmental Sciences, ETH Zurich, Switzerland). 

Box 4.4: Nigel Dudley (Equilibrium Research, the 

United Kingdom). 

Chapter 5 Climate change and Europe's 

mountains 

John Coll (National University of Ireland, Maynooth, 

Ireland). 

Box 5.1: Christer Jonasson, Terry Callaghan (Abisko 

Scientific Research Station, Sweden). 

Box 5.2: Gerhard Smiatek, Harald Kunstmann 

(Institute for Meteorology and Climate Research, 

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany). 

Box 5.3: Marco Conedera, Gianni Boris Pezzatti 

(Swiss Federal Research Institute, Switzerland). 



Chapter 6 

Sue Baggett; 

Peter Kristensen (EEA). 

Box 6.1: Sue Baggett. 

The water towers of Europe 

Box 6.2: Wilfried Haeberli, Michael Zemp 

(Geography Department, University of Zurich, 

Switzerland). 

Box 6.3: Mihael Brenčič (Faculty of Natural Sciences 

and Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia 

and Geological Survey of Slovenia), Walter Poltnig 

(Institute of Water Resources Management, 

Hydrogeology and Geophysics, Joanneum Research 

Forschungsgesellschaft m.b.H., Austria). 

Box 6.4: Sue Baggett. 

Box 6.5: Johan Törnblom, Per Angelstam (School for 

Forest Engineers, Swedish University of Agricultural 

Sciences, Sweden). 

Box 6.6: Josef Krecek (Department of Hydrology, 

Czech Technical University in Prague, Czech 

Republic). 

Box 6.7: Per Angelstam, Marine Elbakidze (School for 

Forest Engineers, Swedish University of Agricultural 

Sciences, Sweden), Johan Törnblom (Department 

of Physical Geography, Ivan Franko National 

University, Ukraine). 

Reviewer: Daniel Viviroli (Institute of Geography, 

University of Berne, Switzerland). 

Chapter 7 Land covers and uses in mountain 

areas 

Martin Price (Centre for Mountain Studies, 

Perth College UHI, the United Kingdom), with 

contributions as follows: 

Section 7.1: Dominant landscape types 


Spain). 

Section 7.2: Land covers in mountain areas 


Spain). 

Section 7.3: Land cover changes in mountain massifs and 

countries 

Gerard Hazeu, Laure Roupioz, and Marta 

Pérez‐Soba (Alterra, the Netherlands). 

Section 7.4.1: Less Favoured Areas 

Gebhard Banko, Andreas Bartel (Umweltbundesamt, 

Austria). 

Section 7.4.2: High Nature Value farmland 



Section 7.4.3: Overlap of LFA and HNV farmland in 

mountain areas 

Gebhard Banko, Andreas Bartel (Umweltbundesamt, 

Austria). 

Box 7.1: Patrick Hostert (Geography Department, 

Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Germany), Jacek 

Kozak, Dominik Kaim, Katarzyna Ostapowicz 

(Institute of Geography and Spatial Management, 

Jagiellonian University, Poland), Tobias Kuemmerle 

(Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, 

University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA), Daniel 

Mueller (Leibniz Institute of Agricultural 

Development in Central and Eastern Europe 

(IAMO), Germany). 

Box 7.2: Arantzazu Ugarte, Eider Arrieta (IKT, 

Spain). 

Box 7.3: Stefan Marzelli, Florian Lintzmeyer (ifuplan, 

Germany). 

Box 7.4: Karl Benediktsson (Department of 

Geography and Tourism, University of Iceland). 

Box 7.5: Robert Kanka (Institute of Landscape 

Ecology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Slovakia). 

Box 7.6: Yildiray Lise (United Nations Development 

Programme Turkey Office), Melike Hemmami, 

Murat Ataol (Doğa Derneği – Nature Association, 

Turkey). 

Box 7.7: Lois Mansfield (University of Cumbria, the 

United Kingdom). 


7


Chapter 8 

Mountain biodiversity 




Section 8.1: Mountain species and habitats linked to the 

EU Habitats Directive 

Ľuboš Halada, Peter Gajdoš, Július Oszlányi 

(Institute of Landscape Ecology, Slovak Academy of 

Sciences, Slovakia). 

Section 8.3: Impacts of climate change 

John Coll (National University of Ireland, Maynooth, 

Ireland). 

Box 8.1: Borut Stumberger, Martin Schneider-Jacoby 

(EuroNatur, Germany). 

Box 8.2: Christoph Kueffer (Institute of Integrative 

Biology, ETH Zurich, Switzerland) with 

contributions from the Mountain Invasion Research 

Network (MIREN) Consortium: Jake Alexander, 

Hansjörg Dietz, Keith McDougall, Andreas Gigon, 

Sylvia Haider, and Tim Seipel. 

Box 8.3: Harald Pauli, Michael Gottfried, Georg 

Grabherr (Department of Conservation Biology, 

Vegetation and Landscape Ecology, University 

of Vienna, Austria) and partners from the 

GLORIA‐Europe Network. 

Box 8.4: Ulf Molau (Department of Plant and 

Environmental Sciences, University of Gothenburg, 

Sweden). 

Reviewers: Douglas Evans (European Topic Centre 

on Biological Diversity), Ian Burfield (BirdLife 

International), Des Thompson (Scottish Natural 

Heritage). 

Chapter 9 Protected areas in Europe's 

mountains 






Section 9.2: Nationally-designated areas 


Romania). 

Box 9.1: Tomasz Pezold, Lee Dudley (IUCN 

Programme Office for South-Eastern Europe, Serbia). 

Box 9.2: Bjørn P. Kaltenborn (Norwegian Institute for 

Nature Research, Norway). 

Box 9.3: Branislav Olah (EEA). 

Box 9.4: Oguz Kurdoglu (Artvin Coruh University, 

Faculty of Forestry), Yildiray Lise (United Nations 

Development Programme Turkey Office). 

Box 9.5: Miquel Rafa, Josep M. Mallarach 

(Foundation Caixa Catalunya, Spain). 

Reviewers: Douglas Evans, Brian McSharry 

(European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity), 

Stig Johansson, Vice-Chair (Pan-Europe),World 

Commission on Protected Areas, IUCN), Patrizia 

Rossi (Deputy Vice-chair, Mountains, World 

Commission on Protected Areas, IUCN). 

Chapter 10 Integrated approaches to 

understanding mountain regions 

Section 10.1: Mountains and rurality 

Laure Roupioz, Marta Pérez-Soba (Alterra, 

the Netherlands). 

Section 10.2: Natural and environmental assets of 


Stefan Kleeschulte, Manuel Löhnertz (Geoville 

Environmental Services sarl, Luxembourg). 

Section 10.3: Mountains and wilderness 

Stephen Carver (Wildland Research Institute, 

University of Leeds, the United Kingdom). 

Section 9.1: Natura 2000 sites 


Executive summary 


Introduction and background 

Europe's mountain areas have social, economic 

and environmental capital of significance for 

the entire continent. This importance has been 

recognised since the late 19th century through 

national legislation; since the 1970s through regional 

structures for cooperation; and since the 1990s 

through regional legal instruments for the Alps 

and Carpathians. The European Union (EU) first 

recognised the specific characteristics of mountain 

areas in 1975 through the designation of Less 

Favoured Areas (LFAs). During the last decade, 

EU cohesion policy and the Treaty of Lisbon have 

both focused specifically on mountains. 

A wide range of policies, from numerous 

sectors and levels of governance, influence the 

management of Europe's mountains. The key 

EU policy domains address agriculture and rural 

development, forestry, regional and cohesion 

policy, and nature conservation and biodiversity, 

although numerous other relevant and interacting 

policy domains exist. Some European countries 

have enacted specific legislation areas addressing 

their mountainous regions; others address them 

through sectoral or multisectoral approaches. There 

are also two regional agreements for the Alps and 

the Carpathians. Given the range and complexity of 

these various policies, there is a need to understand 

their interactions in order to formulate effective 

policy responses to contribute to sustainable 

development. 

Europe's mountains have been delineated in various 

ways, for example: 

• for the purposes of national and EU policies, 

particularly regarding agriculture and, more 

recently, territorial cohesion; 

• for the purposes of regional conventions; 

• for the purposes of studies commissioned by the 

European Commission in 2004 and the present 

EEA report. 

The present report delineates Europe's mountain 

areas according to topography and altitude criteria, 

based on data from digital elevation models. For 

the purposes of this study, 36 % of Europe's area 

is defined as mountainous, including 29 % of the 

EU‐27. Massifs also served as a unit of analysis and 

15 were defined. 

This report is based on a highly variable evidence 

base. For certain variables, comprehensive 

datasets are only available for EU Member States. 

Comprehensive Europe-wide datasets are only 

available for a few variable and topics, often only 

for one point in time. To help overcome these data 

gaps, many issues are illustrated through regional, 

national or sub-national case studies. 

Mountain people: status and trends 

Mountain areas often have low population densities 

because much of their area is unsuitable for human 

habitation. Densities in valleys may, however, be 

as high as in lowland areas. In total, 118 million 

people live in Europe's mountains (17 % of Europe's 

population), including 33 million in Turkey. In the 

EU, 63 million people (13 % of the population) live 

in mountain areas. 

Ten European countries have at least half of 

their population living in mountains: Andorra, 

Liechtenstein, Monte Carlo, Switzerland, the 

Faroes, San Marino, the former Yugoslav Republic 

of Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia 

and Austria. The highest population densities are 

found in very small states: Andorra, Liechtenstein, 

Monte Carlo, and San Marino. Except for such small 

countries, population densities in the mountain 

parts of countries are always less than outside the 

mountains. 

Economic and political changes have influenced 

mountain populations significantly. From 1990 to 

2005, population density across Europe's mountains 

as a whole increased considerably, although at the 

level of both massifs and countries, there were both 

increases and decreases. The differences cannot 

easily be clustered in north-south, west-east or 

other terms, such as formerly socialist or not. In 


9


general, population trends in mountain areas were 

similar to those in the country as a whole. In Poland, 

Serbia, Slovenia and Switzerland, however, relative 

population increases were higher in mountain areas. 

In Finland, Italy, Portugal and Sweden, they were 

lower there. 

Mountain economies and accessibility 

The economic structures in Europe's mountains 

vary greatly and many have changed rapidly in 

recent years, especially in new EU Member States. 

While the primary (natural resource) sector remains 

important for cultural identity and as a source of 

employment, especially in southern and eastern 

Europe, the tertiary (service) sector is the greatest 

source of employment in the mountains of all 

EU Member States except the Czech Republic and 

Romania, as well as in Norway and Switzerland. 

There is high heterogeneity in economic density 

within and between massifs, deriving both from 

internal national differences and the proximity of 

major urban centres. Generally, mountain areas are 

less accessible than non-mountain areas but there is 

great variability within both massifs and countries. 

One EU initiative to decrease such disparities is the 

Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T). The 

massifs whose populations are most influenced are 

in the more densely populated parts of Europe: the 

Alps, Pyrenees, French/Swiss middle mountains; 

and Iberian mountains. 

Ecosystem services from Europe's 

mountains 

Europe's mountains provide a wide range of 

ecosystem services, although these vary greatly 

at all spatial scales. Provisioning services come 

from agricultural and forestry systems; natural 

ecosystems; and rivers, which provide water 

and hydroelectricity. Regulating services relate 

particularly to climate, air quality, water flow, 

and the minimisation of natural hazards. Cultural 

services are associated with tourism, recreation, 

aesthetics, protected areas and locations of religious 

importance. Services of increasing importance 

relate particularly to water regulation, protection 

against natural hazards, tourism, recreation, and 

forests. It is important to recognise that mountain 

ecosystems are highly multifunctional. Because the 

benefits of services accrue to both mountain and 

lowland populations, maximising highland-lowland 

complementarities is important to all. However, 

trade-offs may often have to be made. 

Climate change and Europe's mountains 

The climate of Europe's mountains has changed over 

the past century, with temperatures and snowlines 

both rising. Changes in precipitation have varied 

regionally. The availability of climatic data varies 

greatly between regions, with the longest records 

and most dense recording networks in the Alps, 

followed by the Carpathians and the mountains of 

the British Isles and Scandinavia. The availability of 

such data, as well as the technical challenges of using 

climate models — especially for regions with complex 

topography — mean that predicting future climates is 

uncertain. 

It is likely that temperatures will continue to increase, 

especially at higher altitudes, and that summer 

precipitation and wind speeds will increase in 

northern Europe and decrease in southern Europe. 

In the Alps and Pyrenees, snow fall and snow cover 

decreased during the last century and these trends 

are predicted to continue. The lower elevation of 

permafrost is likely to rise by several hundred metres. 

All these changes will significantly affect diverse 

ecosystem services and economies across Europe. 


Europe's mountains are 'water towers', providing 

disproportionate amounts of runoff in comparison 

to lowland areas and, hence, diverse ecosystem 

services at all spatial scales. Changes in land use, 

hydropower development, and climate change may 

all affect the provision of these services. 

Mountains are major sources of hydropower. 

Most potential sites in the Alps, and many in other 

massifs, have been developed. The associated 

reservoirs and dams affect both hydrological and 

ecological systems. Water quality has improved in 

mountain lakes, rivers and streams following the 

implementation of policies to decrease water and air 

pollution from diverse sources. 

Floods, often originating in mountain areas, are the 

most common natural disaster in Europe, leading to 

widespread impacts. The number of reported flood 

events has risen for various reasons, including better 

reporting, and changes in land-use and climate. Most 

of the damage is caused by a few severe events. Better 

flood protection requires not only structural changes 

along river systems but also better monitoring, 

prediction, coordination and information exchange. 

The temperature of mountain lakes, rivers and 

streams has increased in recent decades. This trend, 



together with receding glaciers, seasonal changes 

in runoff and more frequent and severe floods, will 

lead to significant changes in water availability, 

with impacts on both human and natural systems. 

Conflicts between sectors are likely to increase. 

All of these changes imply a greater need for 

more effective processes and policies to address 

uncertainty. 

Land cover and uses 

The land cover of Europe's mountains largely reflects 

complex interaction of cultural factors over very long 

timescales. Forests cover 41 % of the total mountain 

area — over half of the Carpathians, central European 

middle mountains, Balkans/South-east Europe, Alps, 

and Pyrenees — and are the dominant land cover 

except in the Nordic mountains. Three land-cover 

types each cover just under one sixth of Europe's total 

mountain area: 

• pasture and mosaic farmland, especially in 

central and south-eastern Europe; 

• natural grassland, heath and sclerophyllous 

vegetation, especially in the Nordic mountains, 

Turkey, and the Iberian mountains; 

• largely unvegetated open space, especially in the 

Nordic mountains and Turkey. Arable land is 

most common in southern Europe. 

From 1990 to 2006, the greatest changes in land 

cover were in the central European middle 

mountains, the Iberian mountains and the Pyrenees. 

Overall, the dominant change was forest creation 

and management. In new EU Member States, 

changes in types of farming were also important, 

especially from 1990 to 2000. 

In total, 69 % of the mountain area of the EU-25 

has been designated as Least Favoured Area under 

Article 18 (mountains) of the LFA regulation, 

although none in Hungary, Ireland or the United 

Kingdom. A further 23 % is designated under 

Articles 16, 19 and 20. High Nature Value (HNV) 

farmland covers 33 % of the total mountain area 

of the EU — almost double the proportion for the 

EU as a whole. LFA and HNV designations overlap 

considerably: only 5 % of the area designated as 

HNV is not designated under LFA. 

Biodiversity 

Most European biodiversity hotspots are in 

mountain areas. Among the 1 148 species listed 

in Annexes II and IV of the Habitats Directive, 

181 are exclusively or almost exclusively linked to 

mountains, 130 are mainly found in mountains and 

38 occur in mountains but mainly outside them. 

These include 180 endemic species found only in 

one country, including 74 found only in Spain. Of 

the 214 mountain species restricted to a particular 

biogeographic region, 114 are endemic to the 

Mediterranean, 51 to the Macaronesian region and 

42 to the Alpine region. 

Of the 231 habitat types listed in Annex I to the 

Habitats Directive, 42 are exclusively or almost 

exclusively linked to mountains and 91 also occur 

in mountain areas. Almost half of these are forests. 

Only one habitat group — temperate heath and 

scrub — has most of its habitat types in mountains. 

The majority of natural grassland habitat types are 

also found in mountains. For mountain habitat types 

as a whole, 21 % are assessed as having a favourable 

status, 28 % an unfavourable-inadequate status, 

32 % an unfavourable-bad status, and 18 %, mainly 

in Spain, as unknown. In most countries except for 

Ireland and the United Kingdom, the proportion of 

habitat types with a favourable status is higher in 

the mountains than outside them. 

Mountain areas provide favourable habitats for 

many bird species but can also be significant barriers 

to migration. The Eurasian high-montane (alpine) 

biome is one of the five biome types containing 

species that are seldom found elsewhere. Based on 

the existing classification of habitats for birds and 

available data it is difficult to present information 

about the status of mountain birds and their 

habitats. 

Climate change has already caused treelines to 

shift upwards and will affect biota both directly 

and indirectly. For plants and other species with 

restricted mobility, upslope migration is a limited 

option. Europe's mountain flora will therefore 

undergo major changes, with increased growing 

seasons, earlier phenology and upwards shifts 

of species distributions. Such changes will be 

influenced by inter-specific interactions and land 

uses. It is likely that many species will become 

extinct. 

Protected areas 

For centuries, specific parts of Europe's mountains 

have been protected to ensure continued provision 

of ecosystem services. Of the total area designated 

as Natura 2000 sites, 43 % is in mountain areas, 

compared to 29 % for the EU as a whole. These sites 

cover 14 % of the mountain area of the EU. 


11


Among all Europe's massifs, the Iberian mountains 

have the greatest proportion of their area in Natura 

2000 sites. Nationally, Slovenia has the greatest 

proportion of its mountain area in these sites, 

followed by Slovakia, Spain and Bulgaria. In general, 

countries with a high proportion of their area in 

mountains have an even greater proportion of their 

Natura sites in mountains. 

Between 1990 and 2000, artificial and agricultural 

land cover changed less in Natura 2000 sites than 

outside them. This was generally also true for 

forests. In the EU as a whole, Natura 2000 sites 

cover a smaller proportion of mountain land than 

HNV farmland, although the relative proportions 

vary considerably across massifs and countries. 

In total 15 % of Europe's total mountain area 

lies within sites that countries have designated 

for conservation (nationally designated areas, 

NDAs). The highest proportions are in the small 

massifs of central Europe. Among larger massifs, 

proportions are particularly high in the Alps and the 

Nordic mountains. In most EU Member States, the 

proportion of mountain land within NDAs is higher 

than that within Natura 2000 sites. The extent to 

which these national and EU designations overlap 

varies considerably. 

Integrated approaches to understanding 

mountain regions 

Three typologies are presented to provide greater 

understanding of interactions between human 

populations and their environments. Most of 

Europe's mountain areas are 'deep rural', with 

low economic density and accessibility. In all 

countries with a significant mountain area, deep 

rural zones account for a greater proportion of the 

mountains than of other regions. However, some 

countries, especially Alpine countries, have high 

proportions of rural and even peri-urban areas in 

their mountains. 

In EU Member States, mountains account for 

a greater proportion of a country's natural and 

environmental assets than non-mountainous areas. 

In terms of wilderness, the greatest proportion and 

area in Europe is found in the Nordic mountains. 

Elsewhere, only Spain has more than 10 000 km 2 of 

mountain wilderness. 



1 Introduction and background 

1.1 Introduction and objectives 

Mountains are the 'undervalued ecological backbone 

of Europe' (EEA, 1999), providing essential 

ecosystem services and important marketed goods 

and services. They provide opportunities for 

Europe and have significant social, economic and 

environmental capital at the European scale. While 

the exploitation of the mineral deposits and forests 

of Europe's mountains has a centuries-old history, 

formal recognition of the importance of mountains 

as sources of ecosystem services began in the 19th 

century when individual states first gave specific 

status to their mountain areas in national laws. 

The first such laws in various Alpine countries 

underlined the need for protective forests to ensure 

reliable flows of water and minimise risks of floods 

(Farrell et al., 2000). From the second decade of the 

20th century, states also began to recognise the high 

biodiversity and landscape values of specific parts 

of their mountains through designation as national 

parks: from 1909 in Sweden; from the 1910s in Spain 

and Switzerland; the 1920s in Italy; and the 1930s 

in Bulgaria, Greece, Poland, and Romania (IUCN, 

1992). Since the Second World War, these and other 

areas with attractive landscapes and opportunities 

for recreation have increasingly become focal points 

for tourism, and tourism is now one of the major 

economic sectors in the European mountains. 

Nevertheless, more traditional economic activities 

have continued, and the importance of maintaining 

economically-active populations in mountain 

areas has been increasingly recognised in national 

legislation, with particular attention being paid to 

support for agriculture and the provision of services 

and infrastructure. Such legislation dates from 

the 1920s in Switzerland (Rudaz, 2005). In Italy, 

mountains were identified in the 1946 Constitution 

as requiring specific statutory advantages (Castelein 

et al., 2006), which led to targeted legislation from 

the 1950s. Comparable legislation also followed 

from the 1960s in Austria and France (European 

Commission, 2004b). 

The Alpine countries were also the first to develop 

transnational approaches to mountain regions, with 

the foundation of the International Commission 

for the Protection of Alpine Regions in 1952. At 

a subregional scale, working communities were 

established for different parts of the Alps from 1972 

to 1982, and subsequently in the Pyrenees in 1983 and 

the Jura in 1985 (Price, 1999). All of these initiatives 

recognised the reality that, while mountains often 

form frontiers between states, these frontiers often 

divide landscapes and ecosystems. However, people, 

other species, pollution, and water often cross these 

frontiers so that cooperation to address joint issues is 

essential. At a wider scale, the European Economic 

Commission published a Directive on mountain 

and hill-farming in less-favoured areas in 1975. This 

was the first European document to recognise that 

specific resources needed to be directed to agriculture 

in mountain areas, particularly because of physical 

constraints. A European perspective on mountain 

issues was also taken by the Council of Europe in 

1978, when the European Conference of Ministers 

responsible for Regional Planning organised a 

seminar on 'Pressures and regional planning 

problems in mountain regions'. 

The attention given to mountain areas increased 

significantly from the early 1990s, both in Europe 

and globally (Castelein et al., 2006; Price, 1998). 

The Alpine Convention was signed by the Alpine 

states and the European Community, and the 

(European) Association of Elected Representatives 

from Mountain Areas (AEM) was established in 1991. 

In 1992, mountains achieved recognition in the 

global arena, with the inclusion of a specific chapter 

in 'Agenda 21', the plan of action endorsed at the 

UN Conference on Environment and Development 

in Rio de Janeiro. Chapter 13 of this document is 

entitled 'Managing Fragile Ecosystems: Sustainable 

Mountain Development' and it placed mountains 

in the context of sustainable development on 

an equal footing with climate change, tropical 

deforestation, desertification and similar issues 

(Price, 1998). At the global scale, mountains have 

been specifically considered in the UN Framework 

Convention on Climate Change, in a Programme of 

Work for Mountain Diversity under the Convention 

on Biological Diversity (2004), in the Millennium 

Ecosystem Assessment (Körner and Ohsawa, 2005), 

and through the designation of the year 2002 as the 


13


International Year of Mountains. During this year, 

the World Summit on Sustainable Development 

adopted a Plan of Implementation in which 

paragraph 42 is specifically devoted to mountains. 

At the same meeting, the Mountain Partnership 

was created as a 'voluntary alliance of partners 

dedicated to improving the lives of mountain 

people and protecting mountain environments 

around the world' (www.mountainpartnership. 

org). European activities are coordinated through 

the Environmental Reference Centre at the 

Vienna Office of the United Nations Environment 

Programme (UNEP). 

One outcome of Chapter 13 of 'Agenda 21' is 

a series of intergovernmental consultations on 

sustainable mountain development. The two 

European sessions took place in 1996 and involved 

21 states and the European Commission (Backmeroff 

et al., 1997). These meetings took place in a wider 

context, as exemplified by other meetings in the 

1990s, including: the 3rd European conference 

on mountain regions, organised by the Council 

of Europe's European Congress of Local and 

Regional Authorities in 1994 (Council of Europe, 

1995); the international conference on 'Europe's 

mountains: new cooperation for sustainable 

development', organised by Euromontana in 1995 

(Euromontana, 1995) which led to its establishment 

as a legal association in 1996 and a consultation of 

non‐governmental organisations (NGOs), including 

both a detailed questionnaire on sustainable 

mountain development and an international 

meeting with participants from 24 countries, in 

1996 (Price, 2003), which led to the creation of 

the European Mountain Forum in 1998. All of 

these initiatives showed that mountains were of 

increasing importance to local, regional and national 

authorities, European institutions, and NGOs 

throughout the 1990s. 

By the year 2000, mountains were a particular 

theme of regional policy within the European 

Commission (2001b), and the Second Report 

on Economic and Social Cohesion (European 

Commission, 2001b) specifically identified them 

as regions with 'permanent natural handicaps' 

in. In this context, the European Commission's 

Directorate-General for Regional Policy 

commissioned a report on the mountain areas 

of all current member states of the EU in which 

Norway and Switzerland were also included. 

The resulting document (European Commission, 

2004b) was the first comprehensive overview of the 

mountains of these countries. However, it showed 

that detailed information relating specifically to 

mountain areas was unavailable for very many 

themes. A similar conclusion was drawn at the 

MONTESPON seminar in 2006 (Swiss Federal Office 

for Spatial Development, 2006). This situation limits 

possibilities to make informed statements about 

these areas and compare situations both within 

and between different countries. Nevertheless, in 

the context of territorial cohesion and relevant laws 

and policies, it is necessary to identify common 

issues, starting with land use and including social 

structure of mountain regions, that recognise the 

complex linkages between human presence and 

environmental characteristics, past and present. 

Since 2004, there has been a considerable increase 

in the availability of European-level data which 

can be analysed to present an overview of the 

current situation in the continent's mountain areas. 

The objective of the present report is to provide a 

comprehensive integrated assessment of the current 

status of and trends relating to the environment 

and sustainable development of the mountains of 

Europe, in order to provide the information needed 

for the development and implementation of relevant 

policies. Within the limits of available data and 

information, this report aims to: 

• be Europe-wide and based on quantitative 

data of as high a spatial resolution as possible. 

It builds particularly on the EEA Land and 

Ecosystem Accounts (LEAC) framework for the 

assessment of land-use changes and associated 

environmental concerns (Haines-Young and 

Weber, 2006) which are complemented by 

qualitative data and case studies where data 

are lacking at the European scale to illustrate 

specific issues; 

• be as integrated as possible in that it not only 

considers changes with regard to specific issues 

but also the relationships between them; 

• be based around the principle of environmental 

sustainability, which requires an integrated 

ecosystem-based approach relating to narratives 

of what affects what (interactions) in order to 

understand what policies are or are not working, 

where and why; 

• consider relationships and independencies 

between mountain areas and their resources 

and the wider European context; not only by 

analysis of states, trends and interactions within 

the mountains, but also their wider linkages and 

implications both between different mountain 

areas (e.g. connectivity) and between mountain 

areas and lowlands; and 

• provide results at a spatial scale that is 

meaningful and relevant for the development 

and implementation of policies at appropriate 

levels. 



1.2 The legislative and policy 

framework for Europe's mountain 

areas 

The key public policy challenge facing mountain 

areas lies in safeguarding their environment as the 

'ecological backbone of Europe' (EEA, 1999), whilst 

also enhancing their economic competitiveness 

and social cohesion; the essence of sustainable 

development. Inevitably, this is a complex process, 

given the diverse, multi-level and multi-faceted 

public policy environment in which Europe's 

mountain areas are located. The aim of this section 

is to provide an overview of this policy environment 

by examining relevant policy frameworks at 

different scales of governance and highlighting 

key debates that shape the continuing evolution 

of public policy as it relates to Europe's mountain 

areas. 

1.2.1 European mountain policies in context 

There is no single, sectorally and territorially 

integrated policy framework for Europe's 

mountains. Instead, policy processes unfold at 

various scales of governance from the top down and 

from the bottom up. Thus, globally, mountain areas 

are the subject of a specific chapter in 'Agenda 21' 

and subject to the protocols of a variety of 

international conventions with an environmental or 

conservation focus; for example, the UN Convention 

on Biological Diversity. 

At the pan-European level, a draft European 

convention on mountain regions was discussed and 

developed by various structures within the Council 

of Europe during the 1990s. However, in 2000, while 

the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities 

(CLRAE) adopted a recommendation supporting 

this document, the Committee of Ministers decided 

not to approve it. Thus, the only formally approved 

pan-European document that specifically addresses 

integrated approaches for mountain regions is 

resolution 136 of the CLRAE in 2002 on 'A new 

political project for Europe's mountains: turning 

disinherited mountain areas into a resource' 

(Déjeant-Pons, 2004). With specific regard to 

mountain forests, in 1990, the Ministerial Conference 

on the Protection of Forests in Europe adopted 

Resolution S4 on 'Adapting the management of 

mountain forests to new environmental conditions' 

which has led to the publication of two overview 

documents (Buttoud et al., 2000, Zingari and Doro, 

2006). 

As mountain areas comprise a significant proportion 

of Europe's area, and include both rural and urban 

areas, almost all legal instruments deriving from 

the Council of Europe and European Ministerial 

Conferences apply in one way or another to 

mountain areas. This is also true at the spatial scales 

of the European Union (EU), individual states, and 

sub-national entities such as provinces and regions. 

Nevertheless, certain legal instruments do apply 

specifically to mountain areas, or are particularly 

relevant to them; and it is these instruments that are 

the focus of this section. Such instruments are also 

addressed in Chapter 8 of the European Commission 

(2004b) report, Castelein et al. (2006), Treves et al. 

(2002, and the website of the Policy and Law 

Initiative of the Mountain Partnership (Mountain 

Partnership, 2008). 

At the EU level, measures relating to agriculture, 

rural and regional development and nature 

conservation are important in shaping policy 

interventions within Member States although 

comparatively few of these are specifically targeted at 

mountain areas. However, it should be noted that the 

conclusions of the informal Ministerial meeting on 

'The Specificity of Mountain Areas in the European 

Union', in Taormina, Italy on 14–15 November 2003 

stated that the specificity of mountain areas should 

be, in principle, recognised in the EU, as well as in 

the framework of existing agreements on cooperation 

in European mountain areas. This was taken further 

in the Treaty of Lisbon in which Article 131 modifies 

Article 158 of the Treaty on European Union (now 

article 174 of the consolidated version of the Treaty 

on the Functioning of the European Union: EU, 

2008), stating that 'particular attention shall be paid 

to rural areas, areas affected by industrial transition, 

and regions which suffer from severe and permanent 

natural or demographic handicaps such as the 

northernmost regions with very low population 

density and island, cross-border and mountain 

regions.' 

Within Member States themselves, distinctive 

policy approaches have evolved over time reflecting 

specific priorities and preferences as regards the 

development and implementation of policies 

impacting upon their mountain areas. As Dax (2008) 

notes: 

[T]he majority of European countries dispose of mountain 

policies only implicitly: in general, these are mainly 

sectoral policies with specific adaptations. From the 

perspective of many public and private actors, they are 

also often essentially overlapping with rural or regional 

policies. 

The European Commission (EC, 2004b) study of 

mountain areas in Europe arrived at broadly the 


15


same conclusion. It identified four different types of 

countries in relation to their approach to mountain 

policies: 

• countries where no mountain policies can be 

identified due to the absence of mountains. 

These include Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, 

Lithuania, Malta and the Netherlands; 

• countries where mountain policies/measures 

are sectoral and in which agriculture is the 

dominant sector. These include Ireland, 

Hungary, Portugal and Slovakia; 

• countries where mountain policies are 

addressed to multi-sectoral development 

including agriculture, public infrastructure/ 

services, training, regional development and 

environment. These include Germany, Spain and 

Austria; 

• countries where mountain policies are 

addressed to overall development through the 

consolidation of sectoral policies and the passing 

of specific mountain legislation and provision of 

specific mountain funds. These include France 

and Italy (EC, 2004b). 

The concepts of diversity and subsidiarity are 

also important to consider in assessing the 

fragmented policy terrain of mountain areas. As 

noted in Chapter 3, Europe's mountain areas share 

common characteristics in terms of the existence of 

'permanent natural handicaps' contributing to low 

economic density and relatively low accessibility. Yet 

in other crucial respects — for example, regarding 

environmental conditions, socioeconomic profile, 

and structural disparities — they exhibit significant 

diversity. Given these differing circumstances, the 

idea of a 'one size fits all' mountain policy is as 

unfeasible as it is undesirable. Moreover, the concept 

of subsidiarity — whereby decisions are taken as 

closely as possible to the citizen — is important in 

determining the competences and reach of EU policy 

in relation to the policy of Member States, and this 

extends to various policy sectors (such as forestry 

and tourism) as they relate to mountain areas. 

1.2.2 Territorial cohesion and place-based 

mountain development 

Both policy-makers and stakeholders need to 

manage a number of strategic issues in seeking 

to enhance sustainable development of mountain 

areas. These include: 

• safeguarding the natural resources of mountain 

areas in ways that will sustain their vital 

ecosystem functions; 

• addressing permanent natural handicaps to 

sustainable development linked to topographic 

and climatic barriers to economic activity and/or 

peripherality; 

• tackling socioeconomic structural factors relating 

to demography, production and growth, labour 

market dynamics and accessibility that impede 

economic development and social cohesion. 

Ongoing debate at the EU level regarding the scope 

and dimensions of territorial cohesion and the idea 

of a paradigm shift in rural development policy 

both have implications for evolving mountain policy 

approaches to address these strategic issues. 

The European Commission has articulated the 

goal of territorial cohesion as being 'to encourage 

the harmonious and sustainable development 

of all territories by building on their territorial 

characteristics and resources' (EC, 2009a). 

Although it rules out linking territorial cohesion 

to geographical features that may influence 

development, the Commission confirmed support 

for the three basic elements proposed to achieve this 

goal: 

• concentration (achieving critical mass while 

addressing negative externalities); 

• connection (reinforcing the importance of 

efficient connections of lagging areas with 

growth centres through infrastructure and access 

to services); 

• cooperation (working together across 

administrative boundaries to achieve synergies). 

More broadly, the Organisation for Economic 

Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2006) 

has characterised an evolving approach to rural 

development, which it terms the 'new rural 

paradigm'. The key features of this approach 

include: 

• rural competitiveness driven by local assets 

and resources, rather than relying only on 

agriculture; 

• broadly based rural economies encompassing 

tourism, manufacturing and ICT; 

• investment rather than subsidy; and 

• the involvement of different levels of 

government and various local stakeholders. 

The themes of territorial cohesion and place-based 

development, with their emphasis on maximising 

economic, social and environmental returns on 

local assets (natural and otherwise), are highly 

relevant to existing and potential policies and 

programmes relating to mountain areas in Europe. 



A combination of climatic factors and structural 

disparities has exacerbated the marginalisation 

of mountain agriculture in some areas, leading 

to land abandonment with its attendant negative 

impacts for biodiversity, soil quality and landscape 

values, as discussed in Chapter 7 (EC, 2009b). 

Therefore, one important strand in the mountain 

development debate concerns how mountain 

farmers, in particular, can be paid for the ecosystem 

services that their agricultural practices (such as 

those relating to pastoralism and the seasonal 

movement of people with their livestock over 

relatively short distances, typically to higher 

pastures in summer and to lower valleys in winter) 

generate (Chapter 4). Closely related to this is 

the issue of how mountain communities should 

be compensated for the use of energy sources 

located in mountainous areas and how to optimise 

related market opportunities (Euromontana, 2010). 

A further related issue concerns the extent to which 

high-quality products (including food and crafts) 

directly relating to mountain assets and production 

processes can be turned to the competitive 

advantage of mountain producers by reflecting 

their added value in price (Robinson, 2009; Pasca 

et al., 2009). 

All these strands of debate on mountain 

development implicitly recognise the 

multifunctional dimensions of agriculture and 

forestry in mountain regions. There is further 

explicit recognition that harnessing these 

multifunctional dimensions and linking them to 

other sectors, such as tourism and recreation, can 

provide significant motors for the sustainable 

development of Europe's mountain areas. 

A plethora of policy frameworks, institutional 

arrangements and instruments exist at various 

spatial levels. They address elements of the 

sustainable development of mountain areas, 

either specifically and exclusively or, more 

commonly, implicitly as one element of broader 

policy initiatives. The next three sections provide 

an overview of these at the EU national and 

sub‐national, and regional levels. 

1.2.3 Policy frameworks and instruments: 

the European Union 

The policy competences with regard to agriculture, 

rural development, regional development and 

cohesion, and nature conservation within the 

EU have considerable influence on sustainable 

development of Europe's mountain areas, not only 

within Member States but also, to some extent, in 

other countries — as they harmonise their policies 

with those of the EU, for operational reasons and/or 

as a prelude to eventual membership. 

Common Agricultural Policy and rural development 

There is no specific overall EU mountain agriculture 

policy. Instead, interventions that shape the 

agricultural and related sectors within Europe's 

mountain areas mainly occur under the auspices of 

the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and, within 

that, the Rural Development Policy. Following 

CAP reform in 2003, its first pillar was redesigned 

to provide basic income support to farmers 

engaged in food production in response to market 

demand. Mountain farmers may be recipients 

of such support, although the low production 

levels of mountain agriculture place them at some 

disadvantage in this respect. 

Pillar two of the CAP, the Rural Development 

Policy, was subject to reform in 2005, resulting 

in an increasingly strategic and administratively 

simplified approach to rural development, which 

focuses on the following three core objectives 

(EC, 2008): 

• improving the competitiveness of agriculture 

and forestry; 

• supporting land management and improving 

the environment; 

• improving the quality of life and encouraging 

diversification of economic activities. 

Support for rural development in 2007–2013 is 

provided through the European Agricultural Fund 

for Rural Development (EAFRD), which allocates 

funding to Member States through a variety of 

measures organised as follows: 

• Axis 1 — Improving the competitiveness of the 

agriculture and forestry sector; 

• Axis 2 — Improving the environment and the 

countryside through land management; 

• Axis 3 — Improving the quality of life in 

rural areas and encouraging diversification of 

economic activity. 

In addition, a fourth 'LEADER axis' supports 

individual projects designed and implemented by 

local partnerships to address specific local problems. 

EU rural development measures have been targeted 

specifically at mountain regions since 1975 when 

a 'Mountain and Less Favoured Area' (LFA) 

(Directive 75/268 OJ No L128 of 19.05.1975 measure 

was introduced (see Chapter 7.4.1). This scheme, 

which is currently Measure 211 of Axis 2 of the 

Rural Development Policy, remains the key policy 


17


instrument for supporting mountain areas. Other 

measures in the Rural Development Policy may also 

be used by Member States to support activities in 

mountain areas as part of the general application 

of such measures. In addition to this wide-ranging 

approach, the Directorate-General for Agriculture 

and Rural Development suggests that there is also a 

general strategic trend of Member States supporting 

mountain farm/mountain rural diversification and 

the development of the forestry sector. Sixty Rural 

Development Programmes (RDPs) for 2007–2013 

cover mountain areas, and a number of these 

implement measures that specifically address the 

situations of these areas (by assigning priority, 

awarding higher grants or defining specific actions). 

The implementation of these measures in relation to 

mountain areas is as follows (EC, 2009b): 

• Measure 211 (Natural Handicap Payments in 

mountain areas) used in 60 RDPs; 

• Measure 214 (Agri-Environment payments) used 

in 35 RDPs; 

• Measure 121 (Modernisation of agricultural 

holdings) used in 27 RDPs; 

• Measure 112 (Setting up of young farmers) used 

in 21 RDPs; 

• Measure 311 (Diversification into 

non‐agricultural activities) used in 19 RDPs; 

• Measure 122 (Improvement of the economic 

value of forest) used in 17 RDPs; 

• Measure 125 (Improving agriculture and forestry 

infrastructure) used in 16 RDPs; 

• Measure 221 (First afforestation of agricultural 

land) used in 15 RDPs. 

The concept of High Nature Value (HNV) farming, 

in which low-intensity farming has a vital role in 

European biodiversity conservation (Baldock, et al., 

1993), is highly relevant to mountain areas given 

the prevalence of such an approach in these areas 

(Section 7.4.2). Indeed, the EU Member States have 

committed themselves to three distinct actions 

regarding HNV farming (Beaufoy, 2008): 

• identifying HNV farming; 

• supporting and maintaining HNV farming, 

particularly through RDPs; 

• monitoring changes to the area of land covered 

by HNV farming, and to the nature values 

associated with HNV farming, as part of 

Member States' monitoring of RDPs. 

The European Commission appears confident 

that the existing policy framework is sufficiently 

comprehensive to enable agriculture in mountain 

areas to meet the various developmental challenges 

confronting the sector. However, it has expressed 

concern that understanding of problems, constraints, 

strategic priorities, approaches and methods of 

supporting mountain areas within the EU vary 

significantly within and between Member States 

(EC, 2009b). This suggests that there is potential 

for some Member States to more comprehensively 

analyse the developmental challenges and 

opportunities relating to agriculture in their mountain 

areas and recalibrate their application of RDP 

measures accordingly. 

Forestry 

The role of the EU in relation to forestry policy is 

limited by the subsidiarity principle and designed 

mainly to add value to national forest policies and 

programmes. This is done by: 

• monitoring and possibly reporting on the state of 

EU forests; 

• anticipating global trends and drawing Member 

States' attention to emerging challenges; and 

• proposing and possibly coordinating or 

supporting options for early action at EU scale 

(EC, 2010a). 

Despite the paramount importance of subsidiarity 

in shaping forestry policy within Member States, 

a strategic forestry policy framework does exist at 

EU level, together with specific policy instruments 

linking that framework to national and regional 

forestry policy contexts. The Forestry Strategy for 

the EU sets out sustainable forest management and 

multi-functionality as common principles of EU 

forestry (Council Resolution OJ 1999/C 56/01). The 

EU Forest Action Plan (2007–2011) sets out a coherent 

framework for forest-related activities at Community 

level and provides an instrument for coordinating 

Community initiatives within the forest policies of 

Member States. Its objectives include: 

• improving long‐term competiveness; 

• improving and protecting the environment; 

• contributing to a better quality of life; 

• fostering communication and coordination. 

These instruments, together with the Communication 

on Innovation and Sustainable Forest-based 

Industries (COM (2008) 113) reflect the 

multi‐functionality of forests and resonate with the 

Lisbon and Gothenburg strategies of competitiveness 

and sustainable development. The need to manage 

the socioeconomic and environmental impacts of 

climate change in forests is addressed in a Green 

Paper titled On forest protection and information in the 

EU: preparing forests for climate change (EC, 2010a), 

which is linked to the framework of key actions 

contained in the EU Forest Action Plan (2007–2011) 



(EC, 2007b). Other EU policies and instruments 

impact upon the forestry sector within Member 

States and are linked to key actions contained in the 

Action Plan. These include the Natura 2000 network 

(discussed in more detail in Chapters 8 and 9); EU 

climate policy (COM (2007)2/COM (2005) 35) and the 

Directive on promotion of energy from renewable 

resources (Directive 2009/28/EC). 

Regional and cohesion policy 

As noted in Section 1.2.3, a number of the European 

Commission's reports on economic and social 

cohesion specifically mentioned mountains among 

other areas with 'permanent natural handicaps', and 

this was again recognised in the Treaty of Lisbon. In 

general, regional and cohesion policy impacts upon 

Europe's mountain areas within the broader context 

of reducing economic and social disparities between 

regions across the EU and increasing the solidarity 

of EU citizens. The policy has three objectives: 

convergence; regional competitiveness and 

employment; and European territorial cooperation. 

These are implemented through the policy 

instruments of the European Regional Development 

Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF) 

and the Cohesion Fund. Member States are able 

to target interventions on mountain areas that fall 

within the eligibility criteria associated with each 

of these objectives; often within the broader scope 

of their regional development strategies in relation 

to the 'convergence' and 'regional competitiveness 

and employment' objectives. However, the 

'European territorial cooperation' objective includes 

programmes specifically aimed at mountain regions. 

The convergence objective involves funding 

EU regions with GDP per capita of less than 75 % 

of the EU average — and also certain regions, some 

of which are mountainous, with an average GDP 

that is slightly above the 75 % threshold due to the 

statistical effect of EU enlargement — to support 

the modernisation and diversification of economic 

structures and to safeguard or create sustainable 

jobs. ERDF and/or ESF measures address a wide 

range of areas including research and development, 

risk management, education, energy, environment, 

tourism and culture. Additionally, the Cohesion 

Fund supports Member States whose Gross 

National Income (GNI) is 90 % per inhabitant of 

the Community average. This fund focuses on 

developing trans-European transport networks and 

projects that can demonstrate clear environmental 

benefits, for example relating to energy efficiency, 

renewable energy use and transportation. 

The regional competitiveness and employment 

objective uses ERDF to support development 

programmes helping regions promote economic 

change through innovation and promotion of the 

knowledge society, environmental protection and 

improvement of accessibility. ESF support is applied 

to create more and better jobs through workforce 

adaptation and human resources investment. 

One example is given in Box 1.1. The territorial 

Box 1.1 The Midi-Pyrénées Operational Programme 

The Midi-Pyrénées Operational Programme is funded through the ERDF and has the following priorities: 

Priority 1 

Priority 2 

Priority 3 

Priority 4 

Priority 5 

Priority 6 

Priority 7 

Enhance the research potential of competitiveness poles and regional networks of excellence 

and modernise the higher education structures attached to them; 

Develop competitiveness among businesses by means of a support policy focusing on aid for 

projects, innovation and raising the level of professionalism; 

Preserve and enhance the environmental capital of the Midi-Pyrénées; 

Boost the development of the Pyrenees via a balanced and sustainable inter-regional policy; 

Improve accessibility, attractiveness and local transport; 

Support urban projects on social cohesion and multi-modality; 

Technical assistance. 

Under the programme, the Ecovars project, undertaken by the Pyrenean Botanical Conservatory, was 

awarded EUR 47 580 to protect mountainous terrain from erosion and improve the local environment. 

This was done by replanting seeds at newly developed ski resorts and on the sides of newly built roads to 

protect and improve the Pyrenees by restoring its verdant alpine grasslands (EC, 2010a). 

Source: 

Calum Macleod (Centre for Mountain Studies, Perth College UHI, the United Kingdom). 


19


cooperation objective also uses ERDF to support 

cross-border cooperation through joint local and 

regional initiatives, trans-national cooperation in 

pursuit of integrated territorial development, and 

interregional cooperation and exchange of experience. 

Some, such as the Alpine Space Programme (Box 

1.2), specifically concern mountain areas; others, 

such as the Northern Periphery Programme, include 

mountain areas, but are not specific to them. 

Nature conservation and biodiversity 

The Natura 2000 network of nature protection 

areas represents the main policy mechanism for 

nature conservation and biodiversity at EU level 

(Section 9.1). It aims to protect the most valuable and 

threatened species and habitats in Europe through 

designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) 

by Member States under the 1992 Habitats Directive 

(92/43/EEC) (EC, 1992) and Special Protection Areas 

(SPAs) under the 1979 Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) 

(EC, 1979). The network also fulfils a Community 

obligation under the UN Convention on Biological 

Diversity. 

The process of designating Natura 2000 network 

sites remains incomplete in a number of Member 

States, particularly those that have recently joined 

the EU. Nevertheless, it represents an important 

horizontal and vertical driver for sustainable 

development in the EU. This is because the network 

of Natura 2000 sites requires that development 

activities supported by EU instruments relating 

to agricultural, rural and regional policy meet the 

legislative requirements of the Habitats and Birds 

Directives, which underpin that network. 

The challenge for policy-makers and other 

stakeholders is to ensure that the conservation 

objectives of Natura 2000 can be balanced with and 

used to reinforce wider economic development 

and social cohesion objectives. This challenge is 

particularly significant in relation to Europe's 

mountain areas given that, as shown in Section 9.1, 

43 % of all EU‐27 Natura 2000 sites are located in 

mountain massifs. 

Wilderness 

Considering the large proportion of Europe's 

wilderness in mountain areas (Section 10.3), the 

management of Europe's wilderness areas has 

significant implications for policy in relation to 

mountain regions. In February 2009, with an 

overwhelming majority the European Parliament 

passed a resolution calling for increased protection 

of wilderness areas in Europe. Subsequently in 

2009, the Czech Presidency and the European 

Commission hosted a conference in Prague 

organised by the Wild Europe partnership on the 

theme of 'Wilderness and Large Natural Habitat 

Areas in Europe'. Over 240 delegates helped draft an 

agreement to further promote a coordinated strategy 

to protect and restore Europe's wilderness and wild 

areas. This includes the following elements: 

• agreeing the definition and location of wild and 

nearly wild areas; 

Box 1.2 The Alpine Space Programme 

The Alpine Space Programme is an example of a transnational cooperation programme with a mountain 

area focus funded under this objective. The programme involves cooperation between Germany, France, 

Italy, Austria and Slovenia (with participation from Liechtenstein and Switzerland) and aims to enhance the 

competitiveness and attractiveness of the programme area by developing projects to meet the following 

four priorities: 

• competitiveness and attractiveness of the alpine space; 

• accessibility and connectivity; 

• environment and risk prevention; 

• technical assistance. 

The programme anticipates over 150 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and research and 

technological development (R&TD) centres, 30 environmental authorities and non‐governmental 

organisations (NGOs), and 10 transport authorities/mobility operators are expected to be involved in 

and benefit from the project activities. Results of the programme will be measured in terms of enterprise 

creation, employment rates, pollution levels, levels of environmental awareness and public investment 

generated (Alpine Space Programme, 2010). 

Source: 




• determining the contribution that such areas can 

make to halting biodiversity loss and supporting 

Natura 2000; 

• recommendations for improved protection of 

such areas, within the existing legal framework; 

• review of opportunities for restoration of large 

natural habitat areas; 

• proposals for more effective support for such 

restoration; 

• identifying best practice examples for 

non‐intervention and restoration management; 

• defining the value of low-impact economic, 

social and environmental benefits from wild 

areas. 

Detailed outcomes from the Prague conference 

published in the agreement include a commitment 

to: 

• compile a Register of Wilderness using 

existing databases, such as the EEA and 

World Database of Protected Areas (IUCN 

and UNEP-WCMC, 2010), identifying in 

tandem with appropriate interested parties the 

remaining areas of wilderness and wildlands, 

the threats and opportunities related to these, 

and their economic values, with practical 

recommendations for action; and 

• complete the mapping wilderness and wildland 

areas in Europe, involving appropriate 

definitional and habitat criteria and level of scale 

to effectively support plans for protecting and 

monitoring such areas. 

Other policies and initiatives 

In addition to these five major policy areas of 

particular importance to mountain regions, there are 

many others, including: 

• water: the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) 

(EC, 2000a), given that Europe's mountains are 

the sources of most of the continent's rivers; 

• climate change; the Strategy on climate 

change: the way ahead for 2020 and beyond 

(COM(2007)2) (EC, 2007a); 

• environmental impact assessment and strategic 

environmental assessment: respectively, 

Directives 85/337/EEC (EC, 1985) (as amended by 

97/11/EC [EC, 1997]) and 2001/42/EC (EC, 2001a); 

• sustainable development: European Sustainable 

Development Strategy 2006 (10917/06) (EC, 2006). 

Given the importance of Europe's mountains 

not only for mountain people, but as the source 

of many goods and services, both marketed 

and non‐marketed — and the large range of 

interacting policies, with many possibilities for 

synergy, complementarity and contradiction 

— there have been calls for both a plan for the 

sustainable development of the EU's mountain 

regions (Committee on Agriculture and Rural 

Development, 2001) and for a 'full-scale 

Community regulatory and financial strategy' for 

mountain areas (Economic and Social Committee, 

2002). In late 2006, the President of the European 

Commission indicated that he was in favour of 

the preparation of a Green Paper on future policy 

towards mountainous regions. However, this 

process has not proceeded. 

1.2.4 Policy frameworks and instruments: national 

and sub-national 

National legislation specifically targeted at 

mountain areas remains at an embryonic stage 

of development (Castelein et al., 2006). To date, 

only six European countries — France, Greece, 

Italy, Romania, Switzerland and Ukraine — 

have mountain legislation in place; a bill for the 

development of mountain regions has also been 

drafted for Bulgaria, but has not been passed 

by the Parliament. There are several common 

characteristics in terms of developing and 

implementing such laws amongst these countries, 

including: 

• a focus on promoting the socioeconomic 

development of mountain communities whilst 

simultaneously protecting the mountain 

environment, thereby framing policy within 

a sustainability perspective. For example, 

Article 1 of France's Mountain Act (Act 85-30 of 

1985) stipulates that the policy must meet the 

environmental, social and economic needs of 

mountain communities whilst preserving and 

renewing their cultures; 

• altitude as the main criterion for defining 

'mountain' areas but with legislation also 

incorporating other criteria such as scarcity 

of arable lands (included in the Ukrainian 

legal definition of 'mountain settlements') 

and gradient of slopes (included in Romanian 

legislation defining mountain towns) and a wide 

range of other topographic and socioeconomic 

features; 

• the establishment of institutions with special 

responsibilities for mountain development. For 

example, in Italy, Acts 1102 (1971) and 142 (1990) 

create and regulate 'Mountain Communities': 

decentralised and autonomous local bodies with 

a specific mandate to promote the development 

of their mountain areas; 

• the promotion of economic activities in 

mountain zones through a range of policy 


21


instruments including special funds, loans, 

subsidies and labelling schemes. For example, 

in Switzerland, Federal Act 901.1, 1997, on Aid 

to Investment in Mountain Regions, established 

a special federal fund to support infrastructure 

development in mountain regions. In France, 

Act 85–30 awards a special label to local products 

(usually crafts) from mountain areas as a quality 

guarantee and to promote local production; 

• the pursuit of social objectives, especially in 

relation to improving infrastructure, education, 

health and other services. For example, Romania's 

Mountain Act of 2004 contains measures to 

promote mountain agriculture via on-farm 

training courses; 

• protection of mountain environments, mainly 

through statutory provision for forest, soil and 

water resource conservation in mountain regions. 

For example, Italy's Mountain Act of 1994 

contains specific provisions relating to mountain 

forest management, and France's Mountain Act 

of 2005 authorises mountain municipalities to 

use municipal tax revenues to fund soil erosion 

prevention schemes (Castelein et al., 2006). 

In contrast, there are many countries with 

mountains for which no mountain policies can be 

identified (EC, 2004b). These include: 

• countries with very few or low mountains, 

where development policies are typically 

included in rural policies (for example, Belgium, 

Ireland and Luxembourg) or regional plans (for 

example, Poland); 

• countries that are largely mountainous (for 

example, Greece, Norway and Slovenia) and 

mountain policy is effectively the same as 

general development policy. 

In other countries, mountain policies are either 

sectoral or multi-sectoral (EC, 2004b). The first 

type principally comprises countries with middle 

mountains and new EU Member States. Most 

frequently, these policies are directed at the 

agricultural sector through LFA policies, and are 

often linked to environmental, rural development 

and tourism policies. The second type comprises 

countries where mountain policies are addressed 

to multi-sectoral development, beginning with 

mountain agriculture but also including other 

economic sectors (especially tourism), public 

infrastructure or services, and environment. Sectoral 

policies with specific adaptations address issues 

such as education, training, land use, regional 

development and spatial planning. Three federal 

countries — Austria, Germany and Spain — fit 

into this group; implementation is mainly at the 

provincial level. Austria has a relatively integrated 

policy with long‐standing initiatives (1960 for 

agriculture, 1975 for global development). 

There are also examples of sub-national 

arrangements within Europe, which mirror some 

of the characteristics identified at the national level 

above, including the High Mountain Law of the 

Province of Catalunya (Spain: Box 1.3) and the law 

for the Apuseni Mountains (Romania). 

Box 1.3 Mountain policy in Catalonia, Spain 

The Catalan Government passed its Mountain Act in 1983. The objectives of the Act include: to provide 

financial resources to ensure that living standards for inhabitants of mountain areas match the standards 

of citizens elsewhere in Catalonia; improving infrastructure provision in mountain areas; encouraging 

sustainable demography patterns in mountain areas; ensuring the sustainable development of mountain 

areas with reference to their historical, cultural and artistic heritage, preservation of environment and 

ecosystems and economic development priorities (particularly in relation to tourism, recreation and sport); 

and, creation of specific mountain agencies at district level. 

Policy instruments for putting the objectives of the Act into practice include: 

• the Mountain Regional Plan, designed as a comprehensive 5-year economic development plan which 

coordinates activities and investments of agencies of the government in each of the mountain counties; 

• pluri-municipal zoning programmes of complementary actions aimed at resolving issues arising from 

mountain areas' geographical and socio-economic conditions; 

• initiatives to offset social and economic imbalances in comparison to other areas of Catalonia, aimed at 

the agriculture sector. 

Source: 




1.2.5 Policy frameworks and instruments: regional 

The Convention on the Protection of the Alps 

(Alpine Convention, 2005) and the Framework 

Convention on the Protection and Sustainable 

Development of the Carpathians (the Carpathian 

Convention) are the only two legally binding 

regional agreements specifically relating to 

mountain chains (Castelein et al., 2006). 

The Alpine Convention was adopted in 1991 and 

ratified by all nine of its signatories — Austria, 

France, the European Community, Germany, Italy, 

Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Slovenia and Monaco — 

by 1995. It provides for the protection and sustainable 

development of the Alps as a regional ecosystem 

with each of the signatories agreeing to develop a 

comprehensive policy in support of that objective. 

This policy is underpinned by the principles of 

prevention, 'polluter pays', and cooperation. As a 

framework convention, its application is through 

thematic protocols. Those on the following 

themes have been signed and ratified by most 

contracting parties: spatial planning and sustainable 

development; conservation of nature and landscape 

protection; mountain farming; mountain forests; 

tourism; energy; soil conservation; transport; and 

solution of litigation. Italy and Switzerland have 

still to ratify any of the protocols, and the European 

Union has yet to ratify five. There is a common 

understanding shared by the contracting parties not 

to elaborate further protocols, although important 

topics such as population and culture, and air 

pollution, are not covered in the nine protocols signed 

to date. For several years, the Alpine Convention has 

preferred to work with declarations and action plans, 

which, unlike protocols, are not legally binding. 

In 2003, a Permanent Secretariat was established 

in Innsbruck, Austria, with a scientific office at the 

European Academy in Bolzano/Bozen, Italy (Alpine 

Convention, 2010). Two other structures have also 

developed as outcomes of the Convention: the Alpine 

Network of Protected Areas (ALPARC, 2010) and 

Alliance in the Alps (2010) an association of over 

250 communities from all of the Alpine countries that 

'strive to develop their alpine living environment 

in a sustainable way'. The Multi-Annual Work 

Programme 2005–2010 for the convention (Permanent 

Secretariat of the Alpine Convention, 2005) addressed 

the following key topics: 

• mobility, accessibility, transit traffic; 

• society, culture identity; 

• tourism, leisure, sports; 

• nature, agriculture and forestry, cultural 

landscape. 

Each of these topics covers issues articulated in 

several protocols. Priority was given to issues that: 

firstly had a particular need for joint action; secondly, 

highlighted the interaction of different aspects of 

sustainable development; thirdly, were specific to the 

Alps; and fourthly, were likely to strengthen the sense 

of community in the Alps. 

The Framework Convention on the Protection 

and Sustainable Development of the Carpathians 

(Carpathian Framework Convention, 2010) was 

signed in 2003 by the Czech Republic, Hungary, 

Poland, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovak 

Republic and Ukraine. Its general objectives are to 

'pursue a comprehensive policy and cooperate for 

the protection and sustainable development of the 

Carpathians with a view to together improving 

quality of life, strengthening local economies and 

communities, and conservation of natural values 

and cultural heritage'. Following ratification by all 

countries, it came into force across the region in 

March 2008. The Convention foresees the adoption 

of specific protocols in different sectors; to date, a 

protocol on Conservation and Sustainable Use of 

Biological and Landscape Diversity (Biodiversity 

Protocol) has been adopted and will soon come 

into force. The Protocol on Sustainable Forest 

Management will be finalised soon, ready for 

approval by the Third Conference of the Parties to the 

Carpathian Convention in 2011. Pursuant to Article 4 

of the Convention, the Carpathian Network of 

Protected Areas was established by the first meeting 

of the Conference of the Parties to the Carpathian 

Convention in December 2006 in Kyiv, Ukraine, as 

'a thematic network of cooperation of mountain 

protected areas in the Carpathian Region'. The United 

Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Vienna 

office serves as Interim Secretariat of the Convention. 

It supports its implementation and coordinates 

the thematic working groups established for the 

elaboration and implementation of the protocols and 

also promotes projects aiming at implementing the 

Convention (Box 1.4). 

In addition to these two existing conventions, there 

have been initiatives to create others for two other 

mountain regions. In 2003, the presidents of Andorra 

and the regions in France and Spain that comprise 

the Working Community of the Pyrenees issued a 

declaration calling for a Convention of the Pyrenees 

following the model of the Alpine Convention 

(Treves et al., 2002). There is a long history of 

trans‐national cooperation in this region, with 

projects including the development of an interactive 

statistical atlas of the Pyrenees (CTP, 2010) There 

have also been initial discussions regarding a 

convention for the mountains of southeastern 


23


Box 1.4 The Carpathian Space 

One project coordinated by The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Vienna office in its capacity 

as Interim Secretariat of the Carpathian Convention is the Carpathian Project (EU, 2010) under the Interreg 

IIIC Central European Adriatic Danubian South-Eastern European Space (CADSES) programme. This 

recognises that the Carpathian area may be defined in different ways. In addition to the mountain area, as 

defined for this report, most of the services serving the mountain population are located at the foot of the 

mountains. Beyond this is the wider region, including the NUTS 3 (in Ukraine NUTS 2) level administrative 

units to which the mountainous areas belong. Most statistical data and analyses — for example, in the 

Carpathians Environment Outlook 2007 (UNEP, 2007) — refer to these latter units. For the purposes of 

the analysis and strategy building in the region, this wider region has been delineated as the Carpathian 

programme area, or Carpathian Space. Its area is significantly greater (470000 km 2 ) than that of the 

Carpathian mountains (190 000 km 2 ). Visions and strategies in the Carpathian Area (VASICA) (Borsa et al., 

2009) is the first transnational spatial development document for the entire Carpathian Space and a core 

output of the Carpathian Project, representing a solid basis for future development of a comprehensive 

strategy for the Carpathian Space. One of the overall objectives of such a Carpathian Strategy is to ensure 

that sustainable development priorities of the Carpathian Space are fully included within and addressed by 

the future EU Danube Region Strategy and related high-level EU processes and programmes. 

Source: 

Matthias Jurek (United Nations Environment Programme, Vienna, Austria). 

Europe (Balkans), also supported by the UNEP 

Vienna office. In this context, to strengthen 

cooperation among the countries of the Dinaric Arc 

and Balkans, UNEP is leading the DABEO (Dinaric 

Arc and Balkans Environmental Outlook) process, 

aimed at elaborating an integrated environmental 

analysis of the region. 

A further set of initiatives includes those linking 

protected areas across countries (Box 1.5; Section 9.3). 

1.2.6 Conclusions 

The sustainable development of Europe's mountain 

areas is dependent upon a complex web of public 

policies interacting, to a greater or lesser extent, 

at various scales ranging from the supra-national 

to the local. At the EU level, measures contained 

in the CAP, as they relate especially to the rural 

development component, are designed to enhance 

agricultural and forestry competitiveness, support 

land management and environmental improvement, 

and improve quality of life and the diversification 

of economic activities. Enhanced competitiveness 

leading to greater economic and social cohesion is 

also the overarching goal of regional policy. The 

direction of travel for both of these policy areas 

is towards the type of multi-sectoral, place-based 

development promoted in the OECD's 'new rural 

paradigm' (OECD, 2006) and towards promoting 

greater territorial cohesion within the EU based on 

concentration, connection and cooperation. This has 

important implications for mountain areas in terms 

of focusing policy attention and interventions on 

maximising opportunities to foster cross‐sectoral 

linkages that can deliver on the economic, 

environmental and social components of sustainable 

development. In this respect, continuing to explore 

how multi-functional agriculture and forestry can 

contribute to economic diversification in mountain 

areas, whether through renewable energy supply, 

the provision of high-quality mountain products and 

services, or the provision of environmental public 

goods, represents a policy priority. More broadly, 

there are also important policy issues to consider 

regarding provision of transportation networks in 

mountain areas and their impacts upon accessibility 

and sustainability. 

At the macro-regional, national and sub-national 

levels, a significant amount of political capital has 

been invested in developing policy frameworks 

and instruments designed to address the economic, 

environmental and social challenges associated 

with mountain development. There remains a need 

to evaluate the impact of these frameworks and 

interventions on the sustainability of mountain 

areas and disseminate findings widely, to aid the 

development of effective policy responses to ensure 

the sustainability of Europe's mountain areas and 

beyond. 

1.3 Definitions of mountain areas 

An evidence-based approach to decision- and 

policy-making requires agreement on the area 

for which such decisions and policies are being 



Box 1.5 Dinaric Arc Initiative — a framework for sustainable development and conservation of 

the Dinaric Alps 

The Dinaric Alps form the backbone of one of the most ecologically diverse regions in Europe, stretching 

from Italy through Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Albania, with an 

area of approximately 100 000 km 2 . Famous for its karstic geology, this is one of the most undisturbed 

mountain areas of Europe, hosting large and almost unspoilt forests as well as healthy populations of large 

carnivores such as bear, lynx, wolf and golden jackal. Within the Mediterranean basin, the eastern Adriatic 

area of the Dinaric Alps is the most water-rich area in terms of freshwater ecosystems. 

This area has a rich and diverse cultural heritage, and a complex political history intertwined with recent 

conflicts and instability, in which the building of trust among nations needed to be re-established and 

improved. Small states and thus many borders, often along mountain ridges, call for transboundary 

cooperation to ensure the protection of the region's highly valued ecosystems, as well as cultural diversity. 

The Dinaric Arc Initiative (DAI) was established to facilitate dialogue between governments, NGOs and 

other relevant partners in the region, with the goal to promote favourable conditions for safeguarding the 

region's rich biological and cultural diversity. 

The initiators of the DAI were WWF, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and United 

Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation's (UNESCO) Regional Bureau for Science and 

Culture in Europe (BRESCE), which created an informal partnership in late 2004, and commenced a rapidly 

expanding initiative with important positive impacts in the region. The DAI now also includes United Nations 

Development Programme (UNDP), the Council of Europe, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United 

Nations (FAO), UNEP, European Nature Heritage Fund (EuroNatur), Netherlands Development Organisation 

(SNV), Regional Environmental Center (REC) and European Centre for Nature Conservation (ECNC). These 

institutions chose to cooperate for the benefit of the region, adding value to each others' work by dealing 

with issues from different perspectives. 

Starting with simple activities such as organising a capacity-building seminar for NGOs working in the 

Dinaric Alps to improve their communication and networking in protected areas (2005, led by IUCN), 

the DAI encouraged the development of a territorial plan for the Lake Skadar area between Montenegro 

and Albania (led by UNESCO BRESCE), which showed the way to designation of a protected area on 

the Albanian side. Other projects are being implemented. FAO has led on a project on the sustainable 

development of the Dinaric karst poljes in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, supporting rural 

development and integrated territorial management. IUCN has worked to develop a network of eco‐villages 

in Montenegro, Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. WWF started a large project 'Protected Areas for a 

Living Planet — Dinaric Arc ecoregion', focusing on the implementation of the Programme of Work on 

Protected Areas of the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). The most recent project — Environment for 

People in the Dinaric Arc — is being implemented by IUCN, WWF and SNV to enhance local livelihoods and 

strengthen transboundary cooperation in six mountainous pilot sites. 

At the 9th Conference of the Parties to the CBD in Bonn, Germany in 2008, the governments of Albania, 

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia signed a joint statement towards 

enhanced transboundary cooperation to safeguard natural and cultural values of the Dinaric region. This 

moved the governments closer to a vision of creating an ecological network of protected areas through 

the enlargement of nine existing protected areas and plans to create 13 new ones. It also represents an 

excellent basis for lasting regional cooperation in the region where geopolitical circumstances in the past 

led to the deterioration of mutual collaboration. The DAI partners will continue to develop innovative and 

effective approaches in facilitating dialogue among countries in the region, supporting governments and 

civil societies, empowering local communities, favouring the growth of national and local economies, and 

supporting sustainable management of resources and the preservation of biological and cultural diversity. 

Source: 

Maja Vasilijevic (Transboundary Conservation Specialist Group, IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, Croatia). 


25


made. With respect to mountains this is not 

a simple process. While there is widespread 

agreement that the summits of high mountains are 

indeed mountains, there are contrasting opinions 

regarding both the difference between mountains 

and hills and, particularly, the lower extent of 

these topographical features of the landscape. In 

addition, as discussed below, delimitations do 

not necessarily use only topographical criteria; in 

particular, they may also be related to land use, 

such as for agriculture. More generally, specific 

mountain areas may also be linked to cultural 

identity (Granet-Abisset, 2004). 

1.3.1 European and national definitions 

Various definitions of mountain areas have been 

developed for the implementation of national and 

European policies. For the EU, Article 50 of Council 

Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, on support for rural 

development by the European Agricultural Fund 

for Rural Development, includes the following 

definition of mountains, which is substantially 

similar to the definitions in the instruments it 

superseded: 

'2. In order to be eligible for payments provided 

for in Article 36(a)(i) mountain areas shall be 

characterised by a considerable limitation of the 

possibilities for using the land and an appreciable 

increase in the cost of working it due to: 

(a) the existence, because of altitude, of very 

difficult climatic conditions, the effect of which is 

substantially to shorten the growing season; 

(b) at a lower altitude, the presence over the 

greater part of the area in question of slopes 

too steep for the use of machinery or requiring 

the use of very expensive special equipment, or 

a combination of these two factors, where the 

handicap resulting from each taken separately is 

less acute but the combination of the two gives 

rise to an equivalent handicap. 

Areas north of the 62nd parallel and certain 

adjacent areas shall be regarded as mountain 

areas.' 

In line with the principles of subsidiarity, 

EU Member States defined minimum altitudes 

and, in some cases slopes, to which these policy 

instruments applied (Table 1.1). However, in 2001, 

the Committee on Agriculture of the European 

Parliament took a more general view of mountain 

regions within the EU as: 'administratively distinct 

regions with over 50 % of the utilised agricultural 

area situated over 600 metres at least (if necessary 

with a higher limit up to 1 000 metres above sea 

level, depending on a specific number of days 

without frost) and with a shortened growing 

season… and also regions where the average degree 

of slope is over 20 %' (European Parliament, 2001). 

The criteria in Table 1.1 show a decrease in the 

altitude threshold from south to north. This is 

primarily because such limits have largely been 

defined to identify areas to receive subsidies 

because of limits on agricultural productivity. Thus, 

this trend reflects the shorter growing season at 

higher latitudes. A comparable disadvantage is the 

reason why all land north of the 62nd parallel was 

included in the definition following the accession on 

Finland and Sweden to the EU, in recognition of the 

similarities between the constraints on agriculture in 

mountain and subarctic climates. In other countries, 

the agricultural mountain region covers 57 % of 

Bosnia and Herzegovina; mountains occupy 66 % 

of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 

(Price, 2000); and about two-thirds of Switzerland is 

defined as 'mountain' according to the 1974 federal 

law on investment in mountain regions (Castelein 

et al., 2006). In summary, a considerable proportion 

of Europe has been designated as 'mountain' for 

various policies, largely in the context of agriculture. 

However, there is no consistency in the definitions. 

1.3.2 Regional definitions 

Two other definitions of mountain areas adopted for 

policy purposes appear in maps prepared to identify 

the extent of application of regional conventions. For 

the Alps, there is a map (Map 1.1) which is an annex 

to the Alpine Convention. According to this, the 

Alps include Monaco, but not the transport corridor 

directly to its north — a reflection of the difficult 

debate over transport corridors in the Alps which 

meant that the transport protocol to the Convention 

was one of the last to be negotiated (Price, 1999). For 

practical work, a preliminary list of municipalities 

(LAU 2) is used. For the Carpathians, following an 

exhaustive analysis of possible delimitations (Ruffini 

et al., 2006), a specific boundary was used for the 

Carpathians Environmental Outlook 2007 (UNEP, 

2007) (Map 1.2), though this boundary has not 

been formally agreed by all signatory states of the 

Carpathians Framework Convention. 

1.3.3 The need for a consistent delineation of 

European mountain areas 

In 1988, the Economic and Social Committee of the 

European Communities stated that 'an upland area 

[is] a physical, environmental, socio-economic and 



Table 1.1 

Criteria for definition of mountain area in European countries 

State Minimum elevation Other criteria 

Albania 

650 m 

Austria 700 m Also above 500 m if slope > 20 % 

Belgium 

300 m 

Bulgaria 600m Also > 200 m altitudinal difference/km 2 ; or slope > 12 ° 

Croatia 

650 m 

Cyprus 800 m Also above 500 m if average slope 15 % 

Czech Republic 

France 

700 m 

700 m (generally) 

600 m (Vosges) 

Slope > 20 % over > 80 % of area 

800 m (Mediterranean) 

Germany 700 m Climatic difficulties 

Greece 800 m Also 600 m if slope > 16 %; 

Below 600 m if slope > 20 % 

Hungary 600 m Also above 400 m if average slope > 10 %; or average slope 

>20 % 

Italy 600 m Altitudinal difference > 600 m 

Norway 600 m 

Poland 350 m Or > 12 ° for at least 50 % of agricultural land in a municipality 

Romania 600 m Also on slopes > 20 ° 

Slovakia 600 m Also above 500 m on slopes > 7 °; or average slope > 12 ° 

Slovenia 700 m Aalso above 500 m if more than half the farmland is on slopes of 

> 15 %; or slope > 20 % 

Portugal 700 m (north of the Tejo river) Slope > 25 % 

800 m (south of the Tejo river) 

Spain 1 000 m Slope > 20 % 

Elevation gain 400 m 

Ukraine 400 m Also relating to scarcity of agricultural land and climatic conditions 

Sources: Castelein et al. (2006); national reports for European Commission (2004b); European Observatory of Mountain Forests 

(2000); Price (2000). 

Map 1.1 

The Alps, as defined for application of the Alpine Convention 

Strasbourg 

GERMANY 

Munich 

Linz 

Vienna 

Bratislava 

The Alps, as defined for 

application of the Alpine 

Convention 

Dijon 

Bern 

Basel 

Zurich 

Vaduz 

LIECHTENSTEIN 

Innsbruck 

Salzburg 

AUSTRIA 

Graz 

Alpine region 

Lausanne 

Geneva 

Lyon 

SWITZER- 

LAND 

Milan 

Trento 

Venice 

Klagenfurt 

Ljubljana 

Zagreb 

SLOVENIA 

Trieste 

CROATIA 

Rijeka 

Turin 

FRANCE 

Genova 

ITALY 

Bologna 

Monaco Ville 

Marseille 

0 100 200 300 km 

Florence 

San Marino 

Ancona 

Source: Alpine Convention, Austria. 


27


Map 1.2 The Carpathians, as defined for the Carpathians Environment Outlook 2007 

The Carpathian Mountains 

and their sub-units 

m 

2000 

National border 

KEO extent 

Sub-units internal 

border 

Settlements 

> 500 000 citizens 

250 000 – 500 000 

1500 

1250 

1000 

750 

500 

200 

100 

50 

0 

0 50 100 200 Km 

Source: Carpathians Environment Outlook 2007. Provided courtesy of UNEP/DEWA-Europe and UNEP/GRID-Warsaw. 

cultural region in which the disadvantages deriving 

from altitude and other natural factors must be 

considered in conjunction with socio-economic 

constraints, spatial imbalance and environmental 

decay' (Economic and Social Committee, 1988: 1). 

The Committee estimated that upland areas covered 

around 28 % of Community territory inhabited by 

about 8.5 % of the population. While this report 

did not provide a map of such 'upland areas', it is 

notable because the key issues which it identified 

went well beyond those related to agricultural 

production. 

In the new century, a major emphasis of the work 

of the European Commission has been on social, 

economic, and territorial cohesion. In this, the 

Commission recognised three, often overlapping, 

types of region whose 'permanent natural 

handicaps' limit their potential for development 

in specific ways: mountain areas, territories with 

a low population density, and island territories. 

The Second Report on Economic and Social 

Cohesion (European Commission, 2001b: 35) noted 

that 'Mountainous areas represent geographical 

barriers… While some mountainous areas are 

economically viable and integrated into the rest of 

the EU economy, most have problems, as witnessed 

by the fact that more than 95 % of them (in terms 

of land area) are eligible for assistance under 

Objectives 1 or 2 of the Structural Funds'. The Third 

Cohesion Report (European Commission, 2004a: 31) 

noted that 'mountain areas are more dependent 

on agriculture than other areas particularly in the 

accession countries, but also in the EU-15. Although 

a number of mountainous areas are located close to 

economic centres and large markets, because of the 



terrain, transport costs tend to be high and many 

agricultural activities unsuitable. Unemployment 

tends to be higher in mountain areas which are the 

most peripheral.' 

The Fourth Cohesion Report (European 

Commission, 2007c: 57) placed less of an emphasis 

on the 'handicaps' of mountain areas, stating that 

'Although most mountain areas share common 

features such as sensitive ecosystems, pressure from 

human settlement and problems of accessibility, 

they are in fact extremely diverse in terms of 

socio‐economic trends and economic performance… 

Similarly, traditional activities have tended to 

decline in some areas, while tourism has expanded, 

promoting economic development and providing 

job opportunities to the younger generation 

which was no longer obliged to leave in search of 

employment. In other mountain areas, however, 

productivity and employment have remained 

low and have shown little tendency in recent 

years to catch up. With economic development, 

however, pressure on the ecosystem of these 

regions has increased posing new threats to the 

environment. Mountain areas are also threatened 

by international road traffic, calling for solutions 

linking rail crossings to the road network. New 

opportunities may also be provided by modern 

telecommunications infrastructure, which — 

though slow to be installed largely because of the 

geographical features — can help to overcome many 

problems of accessibility which these regions face.' 

The need for special attention to mountain areas was 

formally recognised in article 174 of the consolidated 

version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 

European Union, which states that 'particular 

attention shall be paid to rural areas, areas affected 

by industrial transition, and regions which suffer 

from severe and permanent natural or demographic 

handicaps such as the northernmost regions with 

very low population density and island, crossborder 

and mountain regions' (European Union, 

2008). 

In an expanding EU and in an increasingly complex 

continent the drive towards social and economic 

cohesion means that future policies for mountain 

areas should be based on thorough understanding 

of the social, economic, and environmental situation 

and the degree of success of past and current 

policies which directly or indirectly affect these 

areas. In this context, the European Commission's 

Directorate-General for Regional Policy (DG 

Regio) has recognised the need for statistical data 

to allow comparisons of the situation in mountain 

areas with national and European references and 

benchmarking the current situation for evaluation 

of the success of future policies. Consequently, 

DG Regio commissioned a study to provide an 

in-depth analysis of the mountain areas of all 

states that are now members of the EU: Norway 

and Switzerland joined the study at their own 

expense. The first objective of this study (European 

Commission, 2004b) was to develop a common 

delineation of the mountain areas of the 29 countries 

of the study area. 

1.3.4 The delineation of European mountain areas 

using digital elevation models 

The point of departure for the study was the global 

delimitation prepared by Kapos et al. (2000), using 

the GTOPO30 global digital elevation model (DEM) 

developed by the US Geological Survey. This study 

records the altitude of every square kilometre of 

the Earth's land surface in a database which was 

used to derive a detailed typology of mountains 

based on not only altitude, but also slope and terrain 

roughness (local elevation range, LER). Kapos 

et al. (2000) iteratively combined parameters from 

GTOPO30 to develop such a typology, starting from 

first principles and in consultation with scientists, 

policy-makers, and mountaineers. First, 2 500 m, 

the threshold above which human physiology is 

affected by oxygen depletion, was defined as a limit 

above which all environments would be considered 

'mountain'. Second, they considered that at middle 

elevations, some slope was necessary for terrain to 

be defined as 'mountain', and that slopes should 

be steeper at lower elevations. Finally, the LER was 

evaluated for a 7 km radius around each target cell 

to include low-elevation mountains. If the LER was 

at least 300 m, the cell was defined as 'mountain'. 

According to this typology, 35.8 million km 2 (24 % of 

global land area) was classified as mountainous. 

This work gave an area of nearly 1.7 million km 2 of 

mountains for the continent of Europe as far east 

and south as the Balkans and Carpathians, but not 

including the mountains of Turkey and Russia, or the 

Caucasus. However, while this global delineation is 

based on altitude and slope and has proved broadly 

acceptable to many international organisations and 

the scientific community, it does not include areas 

with marked topography at altitudes below 300 m. 

As mountains extend down to sea level in several 

parts of Europe, including the Iberian Peninsula, the 

British Isles, Greece, and Fennoscandia, a European 

delineation required a revision of the criteria of Kapos 

et al. (2000). Various combinations of altitude and 

topography and different ways of calculating the 

topographic element were tested. In addition, in a 

similar way to the inclusion of areas north of 62 °N 

in the definition of LFA mountain areas, DG Regio 


29


required the definition of not only mountain areas 

identified by their topographic characteristics, but 

also subarctic areas that are climatically equivalent. 

Consequently, an index based on average monthly 

minimum and maximum temperature data was 

used to identify mountain-like climates (European 

Commission, 2004b). 

Sixteen combinations of criteria were produced to 

test different thresholds for altitude, climate, and 

topography. Their advantages and disadvantages 

were discussed with representatives of the European 

Commission and European organisations concerned 

with mountain issues, as well as national experts 

in the study team. The principal advance over the 

method used by Kapos et al. (2000) was the addition 

of a class of mountains below 300m. This identifies 

areas with strong local contrasts in relief, such as the 

Scottish and Norwegian fjords and Mediterranean 

coastal mountain areas. The best approach to 

including such landscapes was to calculate the 

standard deviation of elevations between each 

point of the DEM and the eight cardinal points 

surrounding it. If this is greater than 50 m, the 

landscape is sufficiently rough to be considered as 

'mountain' despite the low altitude. For altitudes 

above 300 m, the following criteria were used: 

• between 300 m and 1 000 m, areas which either 

meet the previously mentioned criterion or 

where altitudes encountered within a radius of 

7 km vary by 300 meters or more are considered 

mountainous. 

• between 1 000 m and 1 500 m, all areas which 

meet any of the previously mentioned criteria 

are considered mountainous. In addition to this, 

areas where the maximum slope between each 

point (to which value is assigned to) and the 

8 cardinal points surrounding it is 5 ° or more 

are also considered mountainous. 

• between 1 500 m and 2 500 m, in addition to all 

previous criteria, areas where the maximum 

slope between each point (to which value 

is assigned to) and the 8 cardinal points 

surrounding it is 2 ° or more are also considered 

mountainous. 

• above 2 500 m, all areas are considered 

mountain. 

1.3.5 The delineation of European mountain areas 

for the present study 

For the present study, a very similar delineation 

was used, excluding the climatic criteria for areas 

north of 62 °N. Two further adjustments were 

made. First, isolated mountainous areas of less than 

10 km 2 were not considered so as to create more 

continuous areas and considering that topographic 

constraints play a greater role when they extend 

over a certain area. Second, non‐mountainous areas 

of less than 10 km 2 within mountain massifs were 

included. In the interests of a common approach 

across a topographically-complex continent it is 

recognised that this methodology leads to two 

counter-intuitive results. First, large high, but very 

low relief areas such as glaciated high plateaux and 

ice caps in the Nordic countries (predominantly 

Norway and Iceland) are not classed as mountains. 

However, given the aims of this study the exclusion 

of these areas is acceptable because these areas are 

uninhabited and, in the case of ice caps, have no 

human land uses and very limited biodiversity. 

Second, portions of steep river valleys in lowland 

areas are included, particularly in Sweden (due to 

postglacial uplift) and along the Danube (due to 

significant erosion). However, these linear features 

are easily identified and, in the next stage of 

analysis, easily excluded. 

The distribution of mountain areas across the 

countries of Europe is shown in Table 1.2. 

A further European level mountain data set was 

created for analysis, dividing the mountain area 

into massifs (or groups of massifs), as shown in 

Map 1.3. In all cases, the boundaries of massifs 

were drawn along the boundaries of NUTS 3 

areas. Two of these massifs — the Alps and the 

Carpathians — are effectively those identified in 

relation to their respective conventions (cf. Maps 1.1 

and 1.2). Similarly, the boundaries of the Pyrenees 

are generally agreed, for instance by the Working 

Community for the Pyrenees. The designation of 

the other massifs recognised the purpose of the 

subsequent analyses, and particularly the objective of 

addressing the outcomes of policy implementation. 

1.3.6 Biogeographic delineation of European 

mountains 

In addition to the delineations of mountains relative 

to agricultural productivity, the application of 

regional conventions, and topographic criteria, 

the European territory has been divided into nine 

biogeographic regions (Roekaerts, 2002) to quantify 

and report on various aspects of biodiversity with 

regard to the application of both the Habitats 

Directive and the Emerald network under the Bern 

Convention, particularly on numbers and trends in 

species, habitats, and protected areas. One of these is 

the Alpine biogeographic region, which covers 8.6 % 

of European territory (Sundseth, 2009). As shown 

in Map 1.4, this overlaps to a significant extent with 

the Carpathians, Alps and Nordic mountains, and 



Table 1.2 

Mountain areas across the countries of Europe 

Country National area (km²) Mountain area (km²) Mountain area % 

European Union 

Austria 83 929 61 960 74 

Belgium 30 663 1 340 4 

Bulgaria 110 797 54 057 49 

Cyprus 9 248 4 259 46 

Czech Republic 78 866 25 668 33 

Denmark 43 360 

Estonia 45 330 

Finland 337 797 5 031 1 

France 549 169 137 524 25 

Germany 357 678 57 764 16 

Greece 132 021 94 886 72 

Hungary 93 018 4 755 5 

Ireland 70 177 10 096 14 

Italy 301 424 181 150 60 

Latvia 64 603 

Lithuania 64 892 

Luxembourg 2 596 212 8 

Malta 316 35 11 

Netherlands 37 357 

Poland 311 894 16 308 5 

Portugal 92 187 34 980 38 

Romania 237 948 90 094 38 

Slovakia 49 026 29 454 60 

Slovenia 20 274 15 378 76 

Spain 505 964 274 613 54 

Sweden 449 445 92 275 21 

United Kingdom 244 722 60 689 25 

European Union 4 231 683 1 247 773 29 

Non‐European Union 

Albania 28 531 23 002 81 

Andorra 465 465 100 

Bosnia And Herzegovina 51 275 40 379 79 

Croatia 56 634 22 512 40 

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 25 153 22 695 90 

Iceland 102 907 67 413 66 

Liechtenstein 161 161 100 

Moldova 33 924 1 132 3 

Montenegro 14 148 13 267 94 

Norway 323 453 252 112 78 

Serbia 88 428 47 035 53 

Switzerland 41 288 38 806 94 

Turkey 780 120 605 062 78 

Ukraine 592 135 21 662 4 

Europe 6 672 759 2 409 601 36 

Source: Mountain massif delineation as defined for this study, country borders from EEAMapdata_5210_v2_3EEA16722I. 


31


Map 1.3 

Mountain massifs 

-30° 

-20° 

-10° 

0° 

10° 

20° 

30° 

40° 

50° 

60° 

70° 


Alps 

Carpathian mountains 

Apennines 

60° 

50° 

French/Swiss middle 

mountain 

Central Europe 

Middle mountain 1 * 

Central Europe 

Middle mountain 2 ** 

Pyrenees 

Iberian mountains 

50° 

Western Mediterranean 

islands 


islands 

Turkey 

40° 

Balkan/Southeast 

Europe 

British isles 

Nordic mountains 

Atlantic islands 

40° 

0 500 1000 1500 Km 

0° 

10° 

20° 

30° 

40° 

Note: 

* = Belgium and Germany; ** = the Czech Republic, Austria and Germany. 

to a lesser extent in the Balkans/South-east Europe 

and Pyrenees, as well as the Apennines, where 

only the very highest parts are included. However, 

there is no overlap for other mountain areas, 

including the French/Swiss and Central European 

middle mountains, the Iberian mountains, or the 

mountains of Turkey, the British Isles, Iceland, and 

the Mediterranean islands. 

1.4 Scales and scope of analysis 

The evidence on which this integrated assessment 

is based is highly variable, with many information 

gaps. Comprehensive Europe-wide data sets of 

sufficiently detailed spatial resolution are currently 

available for only relatively few variables and topics 

and, in most cases, these are only for one point 

in time. For a few variables (e.g. population, land 

cover), data from two or more years are available, 

allowing trends to be identified and evaluated. 

For certain variables, comprehensive data sets 

are only available for the Member States of the 

European Union and; in some cases, only for the 

15 States before enlargement in 2004. Specifically 

for biodiversity data, some analyses only address 

the Alpine biogeographic region, as described in 

Section 1.3.6 above. For some regions, notably the 

Alps (e.g. Tappeiner et al., 2008), the Carpathians 

(e.g. UNEP, 2007) and the Pyrenees (e.g. http://atlas. 

ctp.org/site_fr/index_fr.php?lang=fr), the depth 

of usable information is greater than for Europe 

as a whole. For many regions, data are partial or 

only available at a relatively low level of spatial 

resolution. Consequently, throughout the report, 

many issues are illustrated through regional, 

national, or sub-national case studies provided 

by experts in their fields. As far as possible, 

these represent situations from across Europe's 

mountains. 

Given the constraints in the availability of data 

and resources, the following chapters are of two 

types. Some — Chapters 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, and 10 — are 

principally based on analyses undertaken for this 

report. The other chapters are primarily based on 

literature reviews. The approach taken is to consider 

first the human systems of Europe's mountains: 

populations (Chapter 2), economies and accessibility 

(Chapter 3). Chapter 4 introduces the concept 



Map 1.4 

Biogeographic regions of Europe, with overlay of mountain area as defined for the 

present study 

-30° 

-20° 

-10° 

0° 

10° 

20° 

30° 

40° 

50° 

60° 

70° 

Biogeographic regions 

with overlay of mountain 

area 

Mountains 

60° 

50° 

50° 

Biogeographic region 

Alpine 

Anatolian 

Arctic 

Atlantic 

Black Sea 

Boreal 

Continental 

Macaronesia 

Mediterranean 

Pannonian 

Steppic 

Outside data coverage 

40° 

40° 

0 500 1000 1500 Km 

0° 

10° 

20° 

30° 

40° 

of ecosystem services, stressing key interactions 

between human systems and other parts of the 

biosphere. Chapter 5 considers climate change, 

given the major challenges that it poses to all aspects 

of the mountain biosphere and the other systems to 

which they provide ecosystem services. Considering 

that the provision of water is probably predominant 

among these services, this is the subject of Chapter 6. 

The three following chapters are linked, and 

address different elements of mountain ecosystems: 

land covers and uses (Chapter 7); biodiversity 

(Chapter 8); and protected areas (Chapter 9). 

Chapter 10 presents three integrated approaches 

to understanding mountain regions, and the 

concluding chapter discusses public policies relating 

to these regions. 


33


2 Mountain people: status and trends 

Human populations, whether resident in mountain 

areas, living near to them, or visiting as tourists, are 

major forces of environmental change in mountain 

areas. They are also influenced by environmental 

changes at all spatial and temporal scales. Mountain 

areas are often regarded as having low population 

densities. Although this may be true with regard to 

arithmetic density across an entire mountain region, 

a large proportion of the area is often unsuitable 

for human habitation for reasons of altitude, slope, 

exposure to natural hazards, or unsuitable substrate 

(rock, permafrost or ice), so the actual densities in 

the valleys where most mountain people live can be 

as high as in lowland areas. Such a 'physiological 

density' (Grötzbach and Stadel, 1997) may be more 

relevant for the people concerned and their impacts 

on their environment. 

This chapter presents data on the numbers and 

density of Europe's mountain populations; 

and changes in the density of populations. The 

compilation of consistent demographic data 

across a large number of states is very challenging, 

as noted in the most recent report on Europe's 

mountains (European Commission, 2004). This 

also presents data and maps from the limited 

number of countries for which data were available, 

regarding depopulation, outmigration and the 

age structure of mountain populations, which 

represent linked key factors in economic and social 

trends. Rates of depopulation for the period 1991 

to 2001 were generally higher in mountain than 

lowland areas; equally, many areas had experienced 

population growth, especially in many parts of 

the Alps. Outmigration was also generally higher 

from mountain areas except in France or Romania. 

Age structures (proportion of population below 

15 and over 60) were highly variable at all spatial 

scales. Overall, this report concluded that 'very 

different process of demographic change are 

taking place in different parts of the European 

mountains' (European Commission, 2004: 87). 

Similar statements can also be made for the massifs 

for which data at a high spatial resolution are 

available, notably the Alps (Tappeiner et al., 2008) 

and the Pyrenees (http://atlas.ctp.org/site_fr/index_ 

fr.php?lang=fr). 

2.1 Population numbers and density 

The population data estimates for 2008 in the 

globally consistent Landscan data set, indicate 

that 118.4 million people live in the mountains 

of Europe: 17.1 % of the continent's population 

(Table 2.1). The Landscan data set is compiled on a 

30' x 30' latitude/longitude grid, with census counts 

(at sub‐national level) apportioned to each grid 

cell based on likelihood coefficients derived from 

proximity to roads, slope, land cover, night-time 

lights, and other information (Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, 2010). It should be noted that, for most 

countries, the figures in Table 2.1 are lower than those 

presented in European Commission (2004), as this 

reported the populations in mountain municipalities, 

i.e. municipalities with at least 50 % of their area in 

mountain areas as defined in a similar way to this 

study. However, within these municipalities, many 

people often live on flatter land at lower altitudes and 

are therefore not included in the data in Table 2.1. 

Mountain populations vary greatly at the national 

level. Turkey has by far the greatest mountain 

population at 33.4 million. This is more than twice 

the mountain population of the next highest, Italy 

(14.0 million). The three countries with the next 

largest mountain populations are also EU Member 

States: Spain (10.1 million), Germany (7.4 million) 

and France (6.5 million). Together, these four states 

account for 60 % of the mountain population of 

the EU‐27. The EU Member States of Romania 

(4.6 million) and Austria (4.0 million) are also 

among the ten countries with the largest mountain 

population; as well as the non‐EU countries in this 

study — Turkey, Switzerland (6.3 million), Serbia 

and Montenegro (3.2 million), and Bosnia and 

Herzegovina (2.7 million). 

Certain groups of countries stand out as having 

particularly high proportions of the total population 

living in mountain areas. Of these ten countries have 

at least half their population living in mountain 

areas: is found in Andorra, in the Pyrenees (100 %); 

Liechtenstein (99 %), Monte Carlo (89 %) and 

Switzerland (81 %) in the Alps; the Faroes (82 %) 

and San Marino, in the Apennines (72 %); the 

34 

Europe's ecological backbone: recognising the true value of our mountains


Table 2.1 

Population number and density in and outside mountains, and at national level, for 

all European states, 2008 

Total 

population in 

Massifs 

% of total 

population in 

massifs 

Population 

density in 

massifs 

(per km 2 ) 

Population 

density outside 

massifs (per km 2 ) 

National 

population 

density 

(per km 2 ) 

Austria 3 978 149 48.4 64.2 192.9 97.9 

Belgium 65 698 0.6 49 352.6 339.3 

Bulgaria 2 565 509 35.9 47.5 80.8 64.5 

Cyprus 51 894 6.6 12.2 146.9 84.9 

Czech Republic 2 137 409 20.9 83.3 151.9 129.6 

Denmark 0 0 0 125.2 125.2 

Estonia 0 0 0 28.7 28.7 

Finland 2 443 0.1 0.5 15.6 15.4 

France 6 454 677 10.4 46.9 134.6 112.7 

Germany 7 403 687 9.0 128.2 249.8 230.2 

Greece 2 612 508 24.8 27.5 213.2 79.8 

Hungary 293 163 2.9 61.7 109.2 106.8 

Ireland 115 924 2.8 11.5 66.7 58.7 

Italy 14 023 306 24.4 77.4 361.5 190.7 

Lithuania 0 0 0 55 55.0 

Luxembourg 20 488 4.2 96.6 195.3 187.2 

Latvia 0 0 0 34.8 34.8 

Malta 11 846 3.1 341.5 1 323.8 1 215.9 

Netherlands 0 0 0 445.5 445.5 

Poland 1 986 144 5.2 121.8 123.5 123.4 

Portugal 2 173 407 20.6 62.1 146.5 114.5 

Romania 4 553 602 20.6 50.5 119.1 93.1 

Slovakia 2 111 904 38.7 71.7 170.9 111.3 

Slovenia 1 010 649 50.6 65.7 201.7 98.6 

Spain 10 066 698 25.2 36.7 129.2 79.0 

Sweden 78 549 0.9 0.9 24.6 19.8 

United Kingdom 1 345 968 2.2 22.2 322 247.7 

EU‐27 63 063 622 13 50.3 137.8 112.5 

Albania 1 416 416 39.8 61.6 387 124.6 

Andorra 82 627 100 177.8 0 177.8 

Bosnia and 

Herzegovina 2 670 714 58.3 66.1 175 89.3 

Belarus 0 0 0 222 222.0 

Croatia 585 222 13.2 26.0 112.6 78.2 

Faroe Islands 27 651 82 26.3 20.2 24.9 

Gibraltar 7 319 34.9 1 653.9 10 254.9 3 643.9 

Iceland 25 875 8.9 0.4 7.4 2.8 

Liechtenstein 33 985 99 211.7 0 213.7 

Former Yugoslav 

Republic of Macedonia 1 369 141 66.6 60.3 279.3 81.7 

Moldova 146 685 3.4 129.6 126.3 126.4 

Monte Carlo 25 696 88.8 15 131.9 238 992.1 16 906.0 

Norway 1 305 841 29.6 5.2 43.6 13.7 

San Marino 20 901 71.9 430.5 623.5 471.5 

Serbia and Montenegro 3 169 008 32.0 52.6 159.2 96.5 

Switzerland 6 169 388 81.1 159.0 579.6 184.3 


35


Table 2.1 

Population number and density in and outside mountains, and at national level, for 

all European states, 2008 (cont.) 

Total 

population in 

Massifs 

% of total 

population in 

massifs 

Population 

density in 

massifs 

(per km 2 ) 

Population 

density outside 

massifs (per km 2 ) 

National 

population 

density 

(per km 2 ) 

Turkey 33 394 686 46.9 55.2 216.2 91.3 

Ukraine 1 065 171 2.3 49.2 77.6 76.5 

Vatican 211 25.6 573.9 1 267.7 968.1 

Non‐EU 51 516 537 25.2 44.5 127.6 86.8 

Europe 114 580 159 16.6 47.6 134.9 103.4 

former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (66.6 %) 

and Bosnia and Herzegovina (58.3 %) in southern 

Europe and Slovenia (50.6 %) and Austria (48.4 %) 

in the Alps. Turkey also has a high proportion of its 

population in mountain areas — 46.9 %. At the other 

end of the spectrum, the United Kingdom (2.2 %), 

Ukraine (2.3 %) and Poland (5.2 %) are countries with 

a mountain population of more than 1 million where 

this represents a particularly low proportion of total 

population. Thus, when comparing different parts 

of Europe, while only 13 % of the total population of 

the EU‐27 lives in mountain areas, over a third of the 

population in the candidate and potential candidate 

countries of south-eastern Europe live in mountain 

areas — 44 % including Turkey, 38 % without Turkey. 

The highest population densities in mountain 

areas are found in small states, most of which also 

have high proportions of their population living in 

the mountains, notably Monte Carlo — the most 

densely populated state in Europe — as well as San 

Marino, Liechtenstein and Andorra. Except for such 

small countries, mountainous parts of countries are 

always less densely populated than the lowlands. 

Nevertheless , the difference is not very large for 

some countries with mountain populations of over 

a million: Poland (122 people/km²) in mountain 

areas; 123 in lowlands), Ukraine (49; 77), Bulgaria 

(47; 81), and Croatia (52; 95). Of those countries with 

mountain populations of over a million, Switzerland 

has the highest population density in its mountains: 

159 people/km²). The only other countries with large 

mountain populations and mountain population 

densities greater than 100 people/km² are Germany 

(128) and Poland (122). The countries with the 

lowest mountain population densities are all Nordic 

countries: Iceland (0.4 people/km²), Finland (0.5), 

Sweden (0.6) and Norway (5.2). 

Many of the analyses in this report refer to 

populations in the massifs presented in Map 1.3. 

Table 2.2 presents the populations of each massif, 

and Map 2.1 shows how the populations of these 

massifs are distributed between their constituent 

countries. 

The massif with the largest population is Turkey. 

The massif with the next largest population is 

the Balkans/South-east Europe, with 22 % of its 

population in Serbia and Montenegro, 18 % in 

Bosnia and Herzegovina, 17 % in Bulgaria, 15 % 

in Greece, 10 % in Albania, and 9 % in the former 

Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The population of 

the Alps is slightly smaller, with 30 % in Italy, 26 % 

in Austria, and 18 % in France and in Switzerland. 

Almost half of the population of the Carpathians 

(45 %) is in Romania; with Slovakia (22 %), 

Poland (14 %), and Ukraine (10 %). In the Iberian 

mountains, 79 % of the population is in Spain, 

which also includes 81 % of the population of the 

Pyrenees and 78 % of the population of the Atlantic 

Islands. The population of the French/Swiss middle 

mountains (Map 1.3) are almost evenly divided 

between Switzerland (51 %) and France (49 %). 

Most of the population of the Central European 

middle mountains 1 (Map 1.3) is in Germany (97 %). 

In the neighbouring Central European middle 

mountains 2 (Map 1.3), proportions are similar in 

the Czech Republic (41 %) and Germany (38 %). 

In the mountains of the British Isles, most of the 

population is in the United Kingdom (90 %). Of 

the population of the Nordic mountains 92 % is 

in Norway. The majority of the population of the 

western Mediterranean islands is in Italy (Sardinia 

72 %). As shown in Figure 2.1, the density of 

population varies considerably across the massifs, 

being particularly high in the central European 

middle mountains and Atlantic islands. Conversely, 

population densities are particularly low in the 

mountains of the British Isles and, especially, the 

Nordic mountains — the most sparsely populated 

parts of sparsely-populated countries. 



Table 2.2 Population of mountain massifs, 2008 

Massif 

Population 

Alps 14 037 794 

Apennines 9 436 724 

Atlantic islands 1 000 181 

Balkans/South-east Europe 14 636 605 

British Isles 1 489 543 

Carpathians 9 966 351 

Central European middle mountains 1 (Belgium and Germany) 5 164 949 

Central European middle mountains 2 (the Czech Republic, Austria and Germany) 4 203 715 

Eastern Mediterranean islands 462 311 

French/Swiss middle mountains 7 069 632 

Iberian mountains 9 155 253 

Nordic mountains 1 412 708 

Pyrenees 2 503 926 

Turkey 33 394 686 

Western Mediterranean islands 645 781 

Source: LandScan TM Global Population Database. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Available at www.ornl.gov/landscan/. 

Mountain massif delineation as defined for this study. 

Map 2.1 National population in mountain massifs, 2008 

National population in 

mountain massifs, 2008 

Number of inhabitants 

(millions) 

< 0.1 

0.1–0.5 

0.5–1 

1–2.5 

2.5–5 

5–7.5 

7.5–10 

10–20 

20–30 

> 30 

Canary Is. 

Azores Is. 

Madeira Is. 

0 500 1000 2000 Km 




37


Figure 2.1 Population density in mountain massifs, 2008 

Number of people/km 2 

150 

140 

130 

120 

110 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Alps 

Apennines 


Balkans/South-east Europe 

British Isles 

Carpathians 

Central European middle mountains 1 * 

Central European middle mountains 2 ** 

Eastern Mediterranean islands 

French/Swiss middle mountains 



Pyrenees 

Turkey 

Western Mediterranean islands 

Note: 




2.2 Trends in population density 

For centuries, economic and political changes, often 

involving wars and forced changes of population in 

their aftermath, have had major influences on the 

mountain populations of Europe, as exemplified 

by the case of Greece (Box 2.1). In recent decades, 

significant economic and political changes, 

particularly in the former socialist countries, have 

interacted with longer-term factors of demographic 

change to result in populations described in 

Section 2.1. Changes in population for the mountains 

of most of the EU‐27, Norway and Switzerland, 

derived from national data, have previously been 

presented and discussed in European Commission 

(2004). This section presents changes in population 

density in the period from 1990 to 2005, using the 

Gridded Population of the World dataset (version 3) 

(Balk and Yetman, 2004). This is a globally consistent 

dataset, at a resolution of 2.5 arc minutes, based on 

the national censuses conducted around the year 

2000 and in earlier years, and also includes estimates 

for the year 2005. 

Table 2.6 and Figure 2.2 present annual changes 

in population density by massif for the periods 

1990–2000 and 2000 to 2005. Overall, there was a 

considerable increase in population density across 

Europe's mountains, although the patterns differ 

between the massifs. The differences cannot be 

described easily either by geographic location 

or by former political status. Population density 

increased in both time periods in the Alps, French/ 

Swiss middle mountain, Nordic mountains, and 

the mountains of the British Isles, Turkey and 

western Mediterranean islands. Population density 

decreased in both time periods, in the Apennines, 

Atlantic islands and Central European middle 

mountains 2. 

In the other massifs patterns differ between the 

two periods. In the Balkans — South-east Europe 

and Carpathians, population densities decreased 

from 1990 to 2000 and increased from 2000–2005. 

However, the latest increase in the Balkans did 

not compensate for the previous decrease (see last 

column of Table 2.6). The opposite occurred in the 

Central European middle mountains 1, Eastern 



Box 2.1 Population shifts in the mountains of Greece 

While relics of ancient settlements can be found in many of the mountains in Greece, their population 

first increased markedly from the 15th to the 19th Centuries, while the Ottoman Empire was dominant. 

To control the mainland and the coastline, the Ottomans preferred to settle urban centres. Consequently, 

the Greeks, searching for protection and safety, moved to the mountains creating small settlements that 

evolved into well organised villages. 

The Ottoman Empire also developed inland European commercial routes as part of their strategy to 

compete with Venice that dominate the seas as the world commercial power of the Thus, Greek highlanders 

were employed to travel through the almost pathless mountains, and many Greek villages gained special 

privileges and a certain level of independence. Greek merchants from these villages travelled all over 

Europe and elsewhere. These villages reached their peak of development in the 18th century, and continued 

to evolve until the mid-20th Century, though at a lower rate., Four successive shocks then hit mountainous 

Greece. The first was World War II, which took place mainly in the mountains as the main theatre of 

operations and of the Greek Resistance. As a result mountain communities suffered many environmental 

and economic losses. 

Massive depopulation followed in the post-war years due to the Civil War (1946–1949), followed by 

emigration and mass urbanisation. During the Civil War, almost 800 000 mountain people were forced 

to move to the lowlands in order to cut off supplies to the combatants (Louloudis, 2007). The former 

inhabitants were able to return to their places of origin from 1950 onwards but very few chose to abandon 

their way of life for a second time. After the War, poverty and unemployment led many thousands to search 

for a better life, both in urban centres and abroad. The mountainous population of North Greece alone was 

reduced by 23 % from 1940 to 1951 (Table 2.3). 

Table 2.3 Population fluctuations (%) in mountainous areas of North Greece, 1940–2001 

Years 1940–1951 1951–1961 1961–1971 1971–1981 1981–1991 1991–2001 1940–2001 

Epirus – 26.59 – 3.05 – 25.77 7.11 – 10.91 + 14.70 – 42.17 

West Macedonia – 18.65 0.25 – 14.07 7.77 – 0.39 

Central Macedonia – 33.00 11.85 – 27.05 – 15.23 12.45 

+ 16.40 – 15.78 

East Macedonia – 36.25 0.82 – 23.37 – 10.48 – 7.35 + 0.22 – 50.05 

and Thrace 

North Greece – 22.90 0.43 – 18.17 4.98 – 2.00 + 16.31 – 24.17 

During this decade, Epirus, the most mountainous Greek region, lost almost 30 % of its population, and 

other mountainous regions — East Macedonia-Thrace, Central Macedonia and West Macedonia — lost 

36 %, 33 % and 19 % of their population respectively (Karanikolas et al., 2002). From 1951 to 1961, some 

regions experienced a small population increase: e.g. 12 % in Central Macedonia (Table 2.4). 

Table 2.4 Mountain population of peripheral areas and North Greece, 1940–2001 

Year 1940 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 

Epirus 110 484 81 111 78 636 58 374 62 527 55 708 63 893 

West Macedonia 292 217 237 708 238 307 204 771 20 676 219 811 West and 

Central Macedonia 41 249 27 636 30 912 22 549 19 114 21 494 Central 

280 813 

East Macedonia and 31 254 19 925 20 089 15 395 13 781 12 768 15 610 

Thrace 

North Greece 475 204 366 380 367 944 301 089 316 098 309 781 360 316 

The 1960s were a decade of mass urbanisation. The two main urban centres, Athens and Thessaloniki, 

attracted the majority. Already impoverished mountain villages again lost their inhabitants, especially the 

young. Older people remained behind, unwilling to give up the familiar way of life. In the early 1980s, 

mountainous Greece appeared poor and devastated compared to the vivid and rapidly developing urban 

centres. Overall, the population of Greece living in mountain areas decreased from 12 % in 1971 to 

9 % in 2001 (Table 2.5). Epirus and Macedonia, the most mountainous peripheral areas, were severely 

depopulated, losing half of their population. 


39


Box 2.1 Population shifts in the mountains of Greece (cont.) 

Table 2.5 Population fluctuations in Greece, 1951–2001 

Year 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 

Population 

Semi mountainous areas 1 341 850 

1 781 689 2 085 961 2 236 351 2 318 717 

(total Greece) 

No 

Mountainous areas 

1 069 470 1 047 894 941 586 939 843 935 585 

available 

(total Greece) 

data 

% of national population 

14 12 10 9 9 

in mountainous areas 

Depopulation of mountain regions continued throughout the 1980s (1981–1991), though at a lower 

rate. Populations have increased from 1991 to 2001 (Matsouka and Adamakopoulos, 2007), mainly 

due to internal migration and a growing interest in mountain areas. People have seemed to rediscover 

mountains, attracted by their unspoiled nature and the quality of life they offer. Tourism has been linked 

to the restoration of old buildings and the construction of new ones in mountain villages. During the last 

decade, a significant number of migrants (7 % of the total Greek population) moved to the mountainous 

regions, forming a population injection for many depopulated villages. Job opportunities in building, road 

construction and cattle-breeding keep immigrants in the mountains, preventing many schools from closing 

down and revitalising the villages. 

Source: 

Dimitris Kaliampakos and Stella Giannakopoulou (National Technical University of Athens, Greece). 

Mediterranean islands, Iberian mountains and 

Pyrenees. Overall, the net changes in population 

density for the entire period 1990–2005 varied 

considerably between the massifs. 

Changes in population density were not only 

different between the different massifs but there 

were also differences by country within the same 

massif (Table 2.7). At the national level, there 

is a consistently increasing trend in mountain 

population density in s is the British Isles, the 

Pyrenees, the eastern Mediterranean islands and 

Central European middle mountains 1. However, 

for the other massifs, trends varied between 

countries. In the Balkans/South-east Europe, 

densities increased considerably in Croatia and the 

former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, decreased 

considerably in Albania, Bulgaria and Romania, 

and changed little in Greece and Slovenia. In the 

Carpathians, densities decreased except in Poland 

and Slovakia. In Poland and Slovakia, this reflects 

the fact that the mountain area as defined for this 

report includes basins between mountains where the 

populations of smaller towns and cities increased, 

whereas, the population density in the other 

mountains of Poland (Central European middle 

mountains 2) decreased. A comparable pattern 

is evident for Germany, where the density in the 

middle mountains decreased, but the density in 

the Alps increased. Similarly population densities 

in the Italian Alps increased in contrast to a 

decreasing trend in other parts of Italy including the 

Apennines and Sardinia (western Mediterranean 

islands). Densities increased in all French and 

Spanish mountains, the two other countries whose 

mountains are divided between a number of 

massifs. 

A key issue here is the extent to which the changes 

in massifs, and parts of massifs, reflect national 

trends. To help resolve this question, population 

density changes inside and outside the mountain 

massifs per country are shown in Table 2.8. In 

general, the trends in population density observed 

in the mountains are consistent with the trends 

observed in the rest of the country. However, in 

Switzerland, Finland, Poland, Portugal, Serbia, 

Sweden and Slovenia the trends in mountain 

areas are the opposite of those in the rest of their 

respective countries. The population density 

increased outside the mountains and decreased 

inside the sparsely-populated mountains of 

Finland and Sweden; a similar pattern was shown 

in Portugal and Italy, but the changes are smaller. 



Table 2.6 

Population density change for the time periods 1990–2000, 2000–2005 and 

1990–2005 (inhabitants per km 2 and in % per massif) 

Increase of 

inhab/km 2 

1990–2000 2000–2005 1990–2005 

% of 

density 

increase 

Increase of 

inhab/km 2 

% of 

density 

increase 

Increase of 

inhab/km 2 

% of 

density 

increase 

Alps 3.08 3.7 % 1.16 1.3 % 4.28 5.1 % 

Apennines – 1.23 – 1.0 % – 0.37 – 0.3 % – 1.59 – 1.4 % 

Atlantic islands – 21.90 – 6.6 % – 22.14 – 7.2 % – 44.10 – 13.3 % 

Balkan/South-east Europe – 2.29 – 3.0 % 0.90 1.2 % – 1.37 – 1.8 % 

British Isles 1.39 2.6 % 0.87 1.6 % 2.31 4.3 % 

Carpathians – 0.72 – 0.9 % 0.82 1.1 % 0.07 0.1 % 

Central European middle 

mountains 1 * 4.72 2.3 % – 0.15 – 0.1 % 4.66 2.3 % 


mountains 2 ** – 2.64 – 2.4 % – 1.62 – 1.5 % – 4.31 – 3.9 % 

Eastern Mediterranean 

islands 2.31 5.6 % – 1.10 – 2.5 % 1.26 3.0 % 


mountains 1.91 2.2 % 0.37 0.4 % 2.36 2.7 % 

Iberian mountains 1.16 2.5 % – 1.35 – 2.9 % – 0.17 – 0.4 % 

Nordic mountains 0.13 2.1 % 0.02 0.4 % 0.16 2.6 % 

Pyrenees 1.96 3.4 % – 0.55 – 0.9 % 1.42 2.5 % 

Turkey 10.09 16.2 % 2.39 3.3 % 12.55 20.1 % 


islands 0.80 1.9 % 0.32 0.8 % 1.17 2.8 % 

All massifs 4.5 7.2 % 2.1 3.1 % 6.6 10.6 % 

Note: * = Belgium and Germany; ** = the Czech Republic, Austria and Germany. 

Source: Gridded Population of the World Version 3 (GPWv3), CIESIN. 

In contrast, in Switzerland, Poland, Serbia and 

Slovenia, the population density decreased outside 

the mountains and increased in the mountains. 

As both Switzerland and Poland have densities of 

over 100 inhabitants/km 2 in their mountains, these 

changes represent quite large population increases. 


41


Figure 2.2 Annual population density change (%) per massif for the time periods 1990–2000 

and 2000–2005 

Alps 

Apennines 



British Isles 

Carpathians 


mountains 1 * 


mountains 2 ** 





Pyrenees 

Turkey 


– 2.5 – 2.0 – 1.5 – 1.0 – 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 % 

Percentage of population density changes per year between 1990 and 2000 

Percentage of population density changes per year between 2000 and 2005 

Note: 





Table 2.7 Population density change (%) per massif and per country between 1990 and 2005 

Massif Country % 2005–1990 

Alps Austria 4.1 % 

Switzerland 1.7 % 

Germany 8.1 % 

France 13.8 % 

Hungary – 3.5 % 

Italy 2.1 % 

Slovenia 0.5 % 

Apennines Italy – 1.4 % 

Atlantic islands Portugal – 13.4 % 

Balkans/South-east Europe Albania – 12.1 % 

Bosnia – 5.9 % 

Bulgaria – 14.8 % 

Greece 0.9 % 

Croatia 11.0 % 


Montenegro 6.0 % 

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 7.9 % 

Romania – 8.0 % 

Serbia 5.9 % 

Slovenia 1.3 % 

British Isles Ireland 12.8 % 

United Kingdom 3.7 % 

Carpathians Czech Republic – 2.2 % 


Moldova – 3.7 % 

Poland 4.4 % 

Romania – 4.4 % 

Serbia – 5.4 % 

Slovakia 11.8 % 

Ukraine – 0.8 % 

Central European middle mountains 1 

(Belgium and Germany) 

Central European middle mountains 2 

(The Czech Republic, Austria and Germany) 

Belgium 10.6 % 

Germany 2.2 % 

Luxembourg 17.3 % 

Austria 3.8 % 

Czech Republic – 0.8 % 

Germany – 8.1 % 

Poland – 6.3 % 

Eastern Mediterranean islands Cyprus 19.2 % 

Greece 0.4 % 

French/Swiss middle mountains Belgium – 3.0 % 

Switzerland 2.8 % 

France 2.5 % 

Iberian mountains Spain 0.4 % 

Portugal – 3.7 % 

Nordic mountains Finland – 24.1 % 

Iceland 5.4 % 

Norway 3.8 % 

Sweden – 14.6 % 

Pyrenees Spain 0.9 % 

France 1.8 % 

Turkey Turkey 19.2 % 

Western Mediterranean islands Spain 23.7 % 

France 7.5 % 

Italy – 2.4 % 

Malta 11.6 % 

Note: 

Increases are marked in white and decreases in blue. 



43


Table 2.8 

Population density change (%) per country, within and outside mountain massifs, 

between 1990 and 2005 

Percentage of population density 

change between 1990-2005 

within mountains 

Percentage of population density 

change between 1990-2005 

outside mountains 

Austria 4.1 % 2.4 % 

Belgium 10.3 % 3.4 % 

Bulgaria – 14.8 % – 16.7 % 

Croatia 11.1 % 11.1 % 

Cyprus 19.3 % 19.9 % 

Czech Republic – 1.0 % – 2.3 % 

Finland – 24.0 % 3.3 % 

France 7.2 % 6.3 % 

Germany 0.8 % 0.4 % 

Greece 0.7 % 9.5 % 

Hungary – 6.3 % – 5.0 % 

Iceland 5.6 % 19.6 % 

Ireland 12.7 % 16.9 % 

Italy – 0.5 % 1.3 % 

Luxembourg 17.3 % 20.8 % 

Former Yugoslav Republic of 

Macedonia 7.9 % 7.5 % 

Malta 11.6 % 9.0 % 

Moldova – 3.2 % – 2.0 % 

Montenegro 6.0 % 5.5 % 

Norway 3.7 % 11.2 % 

Poland 1.1 % – 1.2 % 

Portugal – 4.5 % 0.9 % 

Romania – 4.5 % – 2.9 % 

Serbia 5.9 % – 2.8 % 

Slovakia 11.8 % 7.4 % 

Slovenia 1.2 % – 3.9 % 

Spain 0.7 % 3.6 % 

Sweden – 14.5 % 0.2 % 

Switzerland 2.5 % – 2.0 % 

Turkey 20.1 % 37.9 % 

Ukraine – 0.8 % – 8.3 % 

United Kingdom 3.7 % 6.8 % 

All Europe 10.6 % 7.5 % 

Note: 

Contrasting trends are highlighted in italics, increases are marked in white and decreases in blue. 




3 Mountain economies and accessibility 

3.1 Economic structures 

There is a great diversity in economic structures 

across the mountains of Europe (Map 3.1), and many 

of these have been changing rapidly in recent years, 

especially in the new Member States (UNEP, 2007). 

The cultural identity and external image of many 

mountain areas remains tied to the primary sector 

(i.e. agriculture and forestry) and cultural landscapes 

are very important elements of the attractiveness 

of mountain areas for tourism. Today, the primary 

sector remains particularly important as a source of 

employment in southern and Eastern Europe, but 

is often experiencing significant internal change 

as the result of factors such as land reform and 

abandonment in areas further from settlements, and 

intensification nearer to settlements (see Chapter 7 

and Box 3.1). However, the tertiary sector is the 

greatest source of employment in the mountains of 

all members of the EU‐27 as well as Switzerland and 

Norway, except for the Czech Republic (European 

Commission, 2004) and Romania (UNEP, 2007). 

The public sector accounts for a particularly high 

proportion of this employment in the mountains of 

the Nordic countries and the French Alps (Borsdorf, 

2008). A number of mountain areas have had 

relatively high employment in the secondary sector 

for decades or longer, usually due to the availability 

of specific geological and energy resources and also, 

historically, of labour in the form of agricultural 

workers in winter (Box 3.2). 

3.2 Economic density and accessibility 

Previous work on the mountains of Europe, 

including all states that are now members of the EU, 

states of the former Yugoslavia, Albania, Moldova, 

Norway and Switzerland (Copus and Price 2002), 

has focused on the interactions between economic 

performance (in terms of GDP per capita) and 

peripherality (as defined by Schurmann and Talaat, 

2000). This work used data at the NUTS 3 level and 

suggested that economic performance declined with 

increasing peripherality for NUTS 3 regions with 

at least 40 % of their area defined as mountainous, 

but that the impact of the presence of mountains 

'is very entangled with that of peripherality, and 

can be improved by the presence of a large town 

or city' (Copus and Price, 2002: 33). The authors 

also concluded that 'NUTS 3 geography is clearly 

inadequate for such as exercise' (Copus and Price, 

2002) because most NUTS 3 regions are large in 

area and have both mountain and lowland areas, 

usually with most of the population and economic 

activity in the latter. This conclusion has been borne 

out by subsequent analysis, for example for the Alps 

(Tappeiner et al., 2008). 

For the present report, economic performance is 

expressed in terms of economic density, defined 

as the income generated per square kilometre 

(EUR km 2 ). This can be considered as an integrative 

indicator of economic power and population density, 

which has been used to rank countries by their 

level of development (Gallup et al., 1999). Economic 

density is defined in terms of GDP PPP (i.e. domestic 

product (GDP) at purchasing power parity (PPP) 

per capita, the value of all final goods and services 

produced within a nation in a given year divided by 

the average (or mid-year population for the same 

year) per capita, and is derived from CLC and EEA 

population density map. This work could only be 

done for the EU‐27. 

Accessibility through transportation and 

communication networks is a significant determinant 

of access of people to markets and other services. 

Accessibility is frequently used as a proxy for urban 

influence in rural areas; its converse is peripherality, 

as examined for Europe's mountain areas in 

European Commission (2004). A time‐cost model was 

used, based on the cost-distance algorithms (ESRI 

2006), to avoid interference with the economic density 

dataset and to use a comparable spatial unit and 

resolution. This approach calculates, for each square 

kilometre in Europe, the travel time to the nearest 

destination of interest given the transportation 

network. Since cities and towns of different sizes offer 

different opportunities and facilities, the travel time 

was calculated separately to towns and cities of more 

than 25 000, 60 000, 100 000, 250 000, 500 000 and 

750 000 inhabitants. The final measure of accessibility 

is based on the average time‐cost to these different 


45


Map 3.1 

Classification of massifs according to the over- or under-representation of 

economic sectors 

Canary Is. 

Guadeloupe Martinique Réunion 

Guyane (F) 

Classification of massifs 

according to the overor 

under-representation 

of employment in 

agriculture, manufacturing 

and services 

Manufacturing 

over-represented 

Azores Is. 

Madeira Is. 

Agriculture 

overrepresented 

European average: 

- Agriculture 4 % 

- Manufacturing 26 % 

- Services 70 % 

Study area 

Missing data 

Services 

overrepresented 

© Eurogeographics, GISCO, NCRD, ESRI Romania for the administrative boundaries 

Software: Philcarto 3.1 - http://perso.club-internet.fr/philgeo 

0 500 Km 

Note: 

This map is from European Commission (2004), which addressed a different study area and defined massifs differently, 

especially in Sweden and Norway (see Section 1.2.4). Values estimated from data at NUTS 3 level for Czech Republic, Poland 

and Spain. 

city sizes. As result of the inclusion of the larger cities 

within all the travel time maps, the weight of the 

larger agglomerations is larger than the small towns. 

Therefore the average travel time represents the 

relative importance of the different city sizes for the 

surrounding rural areas. Travel times are calculated 

based on a friction surface that includes different 

road types, railroads and frequently used ferry 

connections. Each road type was assigned an average 

travel speed derived from commonly observed 

speeds relative to road type. The network maps do 

not include minor roads and paths so an off-road 

speed is assumed that is slightly higher than would 

be realistic were no minor roads present. The off-road 

speed was decreased in regions with steep slopes. 

Again, these calculations were confined to the EU‐27. 

Table 3.1 shows the distribution of the economic 

density and accessibility for the various massifs 

and illustrates the high heterogeneity in economic 

density both within and between massifs. Economic 

density, in particular, probably derives mainly 

from differences in economic conditions between 

countries. The central European mountains in 

Belgium and Germany and the French/Swiss 

middle mountains have the highest average 

economic densities, whereas, the Carpathians and 

Balkans/South-east Europe have the lowest values. 

In certain cases, high economic density results from 

the location of important urban conglomerations 

close to the mountain massif borders, when in the 

economic density raster, some pixels located in or 



Box 3.1 The changing economic importance of pastoralism in the Causses, France 

The Causses are high limestone plateaux at the western end of the French Massif Central. The steppe‐like 

habitat is mainly a consequence of deforestation by the first people living there in the early Neolithic, 

6 000 years ago. These were chiefly pastoralists keeping sheep, at a time when most people were hunters 

and gatherers, but goats and sheep had already been domesticated (Brisebarre, 1996). With the onset 

of a warmer climate 4000 years ago, livestock breeding became more important. Transhumance — the 

seasonal migration of herds between lowland areas to the mountains — from the lowlands of Languedoc to 

the Causses and the upper Cévennes also became a necessity because of the lack of pasture in the plains 

during summer. 

Between the Middle Ages and the French revolution (16th to 18th centuries), much of the land and the 

buildings of the southerly Causse de Blandas belonged to two noble families. The rest of the land was 

owned by lesser noble families (Durand-Tullou, 1995). From the early 19th century, the land was bought 

by industrialists, bankers, lawyers and notaries. After 1850, farmers started to buy the land they had 

been farming, partly because the landowners had left the region and were no longer interested in these 

properties, partly because they had enough money to buy the land. 

The now famous Roquefort cheese, legally protected since 1666, was the first to be given the Appellation 

d'Origine Contrôlée, in 1925. The pastoral economy on the Causse de Blandas was mainly dependent on the 

Roquefort cheese factories. The farmers delivered the sheep milk to a few collecting points, whence it was 

collected by lorry and taken to Roquefort. Industrialisation of cheese production started in the 20th century. 

The shepherds were expected to produce more and more efficiently. This required more modern sheep 

sheds and expensive infrastructure; many small shepherds could not afford these and ceased operation. 

In 1950, there were 80 farms, with resident full-time farmer son the 10 000 hectares of the Causse de 

Blandas: 75 % were smaller than 10 ha, 15% between 10 and 50 ha, and only 8 % larger than 50 ha. The 

discrepancy between the hard life on the Causse and perceived opportunities in the cities led to a dramatic 

exodus, which was accelerated because older farmers were not able or willing to adapt to more modern 

ways of farming. By the 1990s, only 20 farms remained. Today, the few remaining farmers who live on their 

farms each utilise several hundreds of hectares of land, having bought abandoned properties or parts of 

them (partly with EU subsidies) or by renting land, mainly from retired farmers. They can also, again partly 

thanks to EU aid, buy larger machines that allow them to do the work of the former shepherds in keeping 

the pastures free from encroachment by scrub and fertilising the soil mechanically. 

Some farmers have started to diversify their businesses during the past two decades. New farmers arrived 

in the 'back to nature' movement and started to farm with partly new ideas and introduced cattle (of the 

Aubrac type, a tough animal from the Lozère), llamas, donkeys, and goats. Small producers now produce 

cattle meat, goat cheese and meat, and sheep cheese for sale in local markets, to shops in surrounding 

settlements and to restaurants. Others started bed and breakfasts, horse riding (on the estates or as tours 

of up to a week), donkey tours, or sell firewood. Thus, from being largely dependent on Roquefort, farmers 

have diversified considerably. This was probably the only way to maintain the local farming economy, and 

also helped to preserve pastoralism in a region that was originally shaped mainly by pastoralists. 

Before humans came to the Causses, much of the land was forested. The very extensive pastoralism that 

has been going on for thousands of years has very slowly built the steppe like landscape we find now. The 

diversity of plants and animals is impressive, including species listed on the birds and habitats directives 

of the EU. Thus it can be said that the pastoralism on the Causses is a High Nature Value (HNV) farming 

system: see Section 7.4.2. 

Source: 

Jean-Pierre Biber (European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism, France). 

around cities present extremely GDP high values. 

Because of the broad boundaries of the massifs, 

some cities or pixels at the edge of cities are included 

within certain massifs. Thus, they are taken into 

account in the analysis and can distort the average, 

for example in the Alps around Milano and Torino 

and some cities in Germany. In other cases, cities are 

within the massif, e.g. Genoa is completely included 

in the Apennines (Map 3.2). 

Maps 3.3 and 3.4 compare the economic density 

and accessibility of mountain and lowland areas. 


47


Box 3.2 The transformation of the industrial sector in mountain areas 

From the late 19th century, various industries based themselves in mountain areas due to the abundance 

of hydroelectric power and geological resources (minerals, coal etc.), as well as the availability of farm 

workers in winter. For instance, the Massif du Jura became, and remains, home to clock-making, the toy 

industry and spectacle manufacturing. The metal and chemical industries gravitated towards particularly 

advantageous alpine valleys. Other examples include textiles in the Vosges, paper manufacture in the 

Pyrenees, and timber in many mountain regions. 

In the early 21st century, the industrial fabric of mountain areas is becoming increasingly fragile, because 

of their remoteness from development clusters, the diversification of energy sources and delocalisation 

to sites in the plains or with cheaper labour (Borsdorf, 2008). This has had repercussions on employment 

and local economies in the mountains. The progressive decline had, and still has, traumatic effects on 

local communities, but industrial employment has not disappeared from the mountains. In France, 30 % 

of employees in mountain areas work in industry. A total of 20 000 industrial firms, with over 27 000 jobs, 

are active in the parts of the Alps, Jura and Massif Central in the Rhône Alpes region. In this region, and 

elsewhere in Europe's mountains, mountain people have been forced to adapt to change and to find new foci 

for development. One solution has been to exploit the abundant snow, or 'white gold', through winter tourism, 

though climate change means that this may not be a reliable long‐term strategy (Chapter 5). Traditional 

industries have also been gradually replaced by activities with a high added value such as microelectronics 

and nanotechnology, mechanics, plastic manufacturing, alpine equipment (ski lifts, winter sports and 

mountaineering equipment), and renewable energy. However, some firms and sectors remain fragile as they 

are subcontractors dependent on the dictates of major contractors and international competition. 

The future would seem to lie in innovation through research, diversification and quality niche products 

'made in the Mountains of Europe' but it is also crucial to integrate companies in an attractive local 

environment offering excellent services. Within the context of sustainable development, keys to success 

include a focus on all forms of innovation (technical, organisational, and human); banking on high‐tech, 

quality products, protection of the environment, diversification, and networking (creating clusters or 

competitiveness centres); and territorial cooperation at different scales, including cross-border and 

trans‐regional initiatives (Euromontana, 2008). 

Mountain areas benefit from industrial experience combined with a wealth of know-how and competent 

resource and training centres; it is essential to use existing structures and respect the industrial heritage. 

This existing potential must be the starting point for the redevelopment and diversification of the activities 

of an area. For example, Styria in Austria, home to metallurgy, has left steel working and mineral mining 

behind to join a high-tech era while remaining true to its history and traditions. Similarly, companies 

working in the field of natural hazard management and specialist equipment manufacture have transferred 

their know-how and skills in acrobatic work to the construction industry. The highly specific assets of 

mountain areas, such as water and renewable energies, forest and timber provide potential openings for 

future development without disrupting the natural balance. 

Source: 

Mission Montagne (Conseil régional Rhône-Alpes, France). 

As can be seen in Map 3.3, the economic density in 

mountain massifs is generally low to medium, so the 

dominant colour goes from green (low) to yellow 

(medium) in the massifs. In the United Kingdom, the 

only parts with low economic density correspond 

clearly to the mountain areas. However, higher 

economic densities are observed in the central 

European and French/Swiss middle mountains. This 

can be partly explained by the location of part of the 

area in Switzerland, a country with a high economic 

density. Similarly, in the Apennines, the narrow 

shape of Italy results in a shorter distance between 

the mountains and the valleys where most cities are 

located. Indeed, the higher values are located at the 

edges of the massifs. This finding corresponds to the 

results presented in European Commission (2004) 

with respect to population densities: the highest 

densities are within 10 km of the edge of massifs. 

Most mountain areas are less accessible than 

lowland areas (Table 3.1, Map 3.4). The most 

accessible massifs are the Central European 

mountains and the French/Swiss middle mountains, 

and around the main cities of the other countries. 



Table 3.1 

Summary of economic density and accessibility indicators values per massif 

Massif Economic density (kEuro) Accessibility (minutes) 

Average STD Average STD 

Alps 2 083 10 216 146 35.3 

Apennines 1 718 9 393 136 31.8 

Atlantic islands No data No data 157 28.4 

Balkans/South-east Europe 209 2 680 151 26.8 

British Isles 580 5 436 155 34.4 

Carpathians 203 1 412 148 23.7 

Central European middle mountains 1 * 3 981 14 069 110 26. 

Central European middle mountains 2 ** 1 242 4 544 129 26.6 

Eastern Mediterranean islands 469 2 080 169 15.3 

French/Swiss middle mountains 2 565 9 655 132 39 

Iberian mountains 524 6 542 156 26.6 

Nordic mountains 388 3 642 178 9.8 

Pyrenees 882 11 303 156 30.5 

Western Mediterranean islands 515 3 353 155 21 

Note: 

STD = standard deviation. 


Map 3.2 

Examples of areas with high GDP density values included in mountain massifs in 

Italy and Germany 

0 50 100 150 Km 0 50 100 150 Km 

Examples of areas with high GDP density values included in mountain massifs in Germany (left) and Italy (right) 

GDP density < 100 000 KEuro outside mountains 

GDP density < 100 000 KEuro inside mountains 

GDP density > 100 000 KEuro inside and outside mountains 

National boundary 

Massif boundary 


49


Map 3.3 

Economic density in the EU‐27 and in mountain areas 

-30° 

-20° 

-10° 

0° 

10° 

20° 

30° 

40° 

50° 

60° 

-30° 

-20° 

-10° 

0° 

10° 

20° 

30° 

40° 

50° 

60° 

60° 

60° 

60° 

60° 

50° 

50° 

50° 

50° 

40° 

40° 

40° 

40° 

0 500 0° 1000 150010° 

km 

20° 

30° 

0 500 1000 1500 km 

0° 

10° 

20° 

30° 

Economic density in Europe and in mountain areas 

Economic density (KEuro) 

3 213 790 

0 

Map 3.4 

Accessibility in the EU‐27 and in mountain areas 

-30° 

-20° 

-10° 

0° 

10° 

20° 

30° 

40° 

50° 

60° 

-30° 

-20° 

-10° 

0° 

10° 

20° 

30° 

40° 

50° 

60° 

60° 

60° 

60° 

60° 

50° 

50° 

50° 

50° 

40° 

40° 

40° 

40° 

0 500 0° 1000 150010° 

km 

20° 

30° 

0 500 0° 1000 150010° 

km 

20° 

30° 

Accessibility in Europe and in mountain areas 

190 

Accessibility (minutes) 

0 



Figure 3.1, in which the massifs are sorted from 

the most to the least accessible, also shows how the 

variability of accessibility varies between massifs. 

For example, while the British Isles and western 

Mediterranean islands have the same average 

accessibility, there is a much greater variation in 

accessibility (difference between 25th and 75th 

percentiles) and there are as greater number of 

less accessible areas in the British Isles, which is 

not surprising given their greater spatial extent. 

A similar comparison can be made for the Alps and 

the Carpathians: the Carpathians massif is more 

accessible, as it contains proportionally fewer remote 

areas. Further detail on the Alps is provided in 

Box 3.3. 

As noted above, the results shown in Maps 3.3 and 

3.4 are linked to the geographical characteristics of 

the massif. In Italy and Germany, the mountain areas 

are never far from big cities, thus they are more 

accessible. In Switzerland, almost the entire country 

is considered as part of a mountain massif. The 

northern part of the country is the most populated 

and most accessible mountain area in Europe. 

The least accessible mountains are the Nordic 

mountains. 

Overall, a comparison of Maps 3.3 and 3.4 shows 

that accessibility is less heterogeneous than is 

economic density in mountain areas, indicating 

that low accessibility is a common feature of 

them. However, the broad areas selected for the 

delineation of some of the massifs leads to the 

inclusion of some high valleys, e.g. in Switzerland or 

Italy which do not present the same characteristics, 

thus introducing some bias to the results. Copus and 

Price (2002) and European Commission (2004b) also 

came to similar conclusions, which also correspond 

with the statement in the Fourth Cohesion Report 

that mountain areas are 'extremely diverse in terms 

of socio economic trends and economic performance' 

(European Commission, 2007). 

Figure 3.1 Box plots representing the accessibility in minutes per massif 

0 

50 


100 

150 

200 




Apennines 

Alps 

Carpathians 


British Isles 

Western Mediterranian islands 


Pyrenees 


Eastern Mediterranian mountains 


Note: 


The green bars show values between the 25th and 75th percentiles. The white space in the green bars is the median (not the 

mean as shown in Table 3.1). 


51


Box 3.3 Transport and accessibility in the Alpine region 

The Alps differ from other European mountain ranges by being situated between some of Europe's most 

productive industrial countries. They contain areas with strong economies, high population densities, and 

high intensities of tourism. These are pre-conditions for high levels of passenger and freight transport as 

well as commuting. Consequently, and as a result of EU market integration, transport volumes have risen 

continuously in recent decades and many Alpine citizens feel harmed, particularly by road transport, and 

perceive any further extension of transport as a disadvantage rather than as an increase of accessibility. 

Transport 

Road and rail are the dominant modes of transport for both passengers and freight. After freight transport 

by road nearly doubled over the previous decade (BAV, UVEK 2008), there was stagnation in 2008 in both 

road and rail freight transport. In general, road freight transport has increased to a significantly greater 

degree than rail freight transport (Figure 3.2), now accounting for about 75 % of the freight crossing the 

Alps, and dominating in most countries: e.g. 86 % road, 14 % rail in France; 69 % road, 31 % rail in 

Austria. The relationship is the opposite in Switzerland, which has a different transport policy: 36 % road, 

64 % rail (Cross Alpine Freight Transport survey, 2004; Survey in Alpine Convention 2007). 

The Transport Protocol of the Alpine Convention (AC) defines two categories of transport: 

• Intra-Alpine transport, whose origin and destination lies within the Alpine space, or transport whose 

destination or origin lies within the Alpine space; 

• Trans-Alpine transport, whose origin and destination lies outside the Alpine space. 

It appears likely that the exchange of goods between North and South and linkages between central 

European countries and Mediterranean ports mean that trans-Alpine transport is significant. However, clear 

analyses are not easy, as origin and destination data of counted trucks are aggregated at administrative 

units (NUTS 2) which are broader than the AC area. Origin and destination data of the Cross Alpine Freight 

Transport (CAFT) surveys suggest that, of all 

Alpine crossing road transport movements, about 

Figure 3.2 

Million tonnes 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

107.3 

55.7 

Alpine-crossing transport total 

volumes 1999–2008 for the 

Alpine Arc C (Alpine crossings 

from Ventimiglia in the west to 

Wechsel in the east) 

128.2 

63.2 

208.9 205.8 

69.6 67.8 

1999 2004 2007 2008 

19% neither originate nor end in a region that are 

at least partly within the AC area. About 33 % of 

transport movements take place between regions 

that are at least partly within the AC perimeter, 

and about 47 % are between partly AC regions and 

non‐AC regions (Alpine Convention, 2007). 

Accessibility 

Although the Alps may be perceived intuitively as 

a region of low accessibility in terms of transport, 

in reality the accessibility of the region by road and 

rail differs remarkably, between high accessibility 

at the fringes of the mountain ranges (particularly 

in the catchment areas of large agglomerations) 

and the main valleys, and lower accessibility in 

the centre of mountain ranges (Alpine Convention 

2007). An analysis of road accessibility indicates 

that about 58 % of all Alpine municipalities are 

less than 14 km away from the next major road 

or motorway, while about 28 % are at a distance 

greater than 20 km (Tappeiner et al., 2008: 

Map 3.5). 

Road 

Rail 

Source: Alpinfo, 2008. 



Box 3.3 Transport and accessibility in the Alpine region (cont.) 

Map 3.5 

Road distance to nearest motorway or major road on base of LAU2-units 

(municipalities) 

F R A N C E 

Genève 

!( 

Annecy 

!( 

!. 

Lyon 

Chambéry 

!( 

Grenoble 

!( 

Lausanne 

!( 

S W I T Z E R - 

L A N D 

Sion 

!( 

!( 

Bern 

!( 

Aosta 

!( Thun 

Torino 

!. 

Luzern 

!( 

L I E C H T E N - 

S T E I N 

Zürich 

!( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

Bregenz 

Lugano !( 

Bergamo 

!( 

!( !. 

Brescia 

Novara Milano 

!( 

Vaduz 

Chur 

G E R M A N Y 

!( 

Augsburg 

!( 

Kempten 

!( 

Verona 

Trento 

!( 

München 

!. 

!( 

Innsbruck 

Bolzano/ 

!( Bozen 

Belluno 

Venezia 

!( 

!( 

Padova 

!( 

Steyr 

!( 

!( Salzburg 

Leoben 

!( 

!( Graz 

Klagenfurt 

Villach 

Maribor 

!( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

Jesenice 

!( Nova 

Udine !( 

Gorica 

!( 

Trieste 

A U S T R I A 

!( 

Ljubljana 

S L O V E N I A 

Wien 

!. 

Gap 

!( 

!( 

Cuneo 

Genova 

!( 

I T A L Y 

!( 

Avignon 

!( 

!( 

Nice 

Marseille 

!. 

Draguignan 

0 50 100 Km 

Institute for 

Alpine Environment 

Road distance to nearest motorway or major road 

Road distance (km) ≤ 5 > 5–15 > 15–25 > 25–35 > 35 

≤ 2 > 2–8 > 8–14 > 14–20 > 20 

Source: Tappeiner et al., 2008. 

Accessibility in the Alps in 1995 was calculated at 3.67 million people within three hours travelling time 

(Pfefferkorn et al., 2005, in CIPRA 2007). Assuming that the planned large railway tunnel projects 

are completed by 2020, accessibility will rise to an average of 9 million people within three hours, 

corresponding to the highest values in 1995. Even the most remote municipalities will reach the average 

values of 1995. 

Options for future transport development 

In the long term, a transformation of the transport system will be needed to achieve the transport 

objectives of the Alpine Convention (i.e. polluter-pays principle, modal shift) and to comply with the 

objectives of sustainable development. General principles which may contribute to a comprehensive bundle 

of measures include: 


53


Box 3.3 Transport and accessibility in the Alpine region (cont.) 

• strategic measures, such as stronger integration of transport issues into spatial policies; 

• regulatory measures, such as a system of ecopoints for limiting heavy goods vehicles transiting through 

Austria, as proposed by Tirol; or speed limits, as on the Inntal-motorway, which depend on the real-time 

emissions along the motorway; 

• infrastructure measures, such as the large EU projects (Lyon-Torino, Brenner base tunnel) and projects 

of the Swiss NEAT (St. Gotthard, Lötschberg base tunnel) currently under construction or realised to 

improve transalpine railway connections; 

• economic measures, such as internalisation of external transport costs for end consumers, to foster 

changes in mobility behaviour and market choices. One recent approach is the Alpine Crossing Exchange 

which aims to transfer transalpine freight transport from road to rail by issuing tradable transit rights for 

road freight traffic. 

Source: 

Stefan Marzelli (Ifuplan, Germany). 

Similar conclusions can be drawn from Table 3.2, 

which shows national averages (and standard 

deviations) of economic density and accessibility. 

Standard deviations are very high for economic 

density, particularly in view of the extreme values 

of some pixels quoted previously, so no conclusion 

can be drawn. Standard deviations of accessibility 

are much lower (see also Figure 3.3) and it is, 

therefore, appropriate to compare averages inside 

and outside mountains, even though these may not 

be statistically significant. Again, there is a clear 

general trend in that average accessibility is either 

Figure 3.3 Mean and standard deviation of accessibility within and outside mountains per 

country 

Minutes 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Mean accessibility within mountains 

Mean accessibility outside mountains 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 


Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 



Table 3.2 

Summary of average values and standard deviations (STD) for economic density 

and accessibility indicators per country 

Country Economic density (KEuro) Accessibility (minutes) 

Inside mountains Outside mountains Inside mountains Outside mountains 

Average STD Average STD Average STD Average STD 

Austria 1 655 8 707 5 148 34 362 145 32 104 37 

Belgium 909 2 767 8 785 37 522 105 23 76 35 

Bulgaria 119 1 270 159 1 402 138 32 135 26 

Cyprus 412 923 2 003 4 522 171 12 161 20 

Czech Republic 516 2 147 1 022 5 506 128 26 112 32 

Denmark No mountain 4 092 23 798 No mountain 137 28 

Estonia No mountain 161 2089 No mountain 159 25 

Finland 8 27 417 4 516 180 0 168 20 

France 1 083 7 046 3 155 34 497 144 34 129 32 

Germany 3 614 12 647 6 323 23 190 117 29 102 33 

Greece 394 4 436 2 612 21 906 161 23 140 33 

Hungary 651 4 733 649 5 962 128 31 130 28 

Ireland 374 4 039 1 845 13 327 165 26 154 32 

Italy 1 795 9 848 7 622 29 882 142 33 105 35 

Latvia No mountain 149 2 276 No mountain 152 34 

Lithuania No mountain 208 1472 No mountain 142 30 

Luxembourg 5 692 16 294 8 840 30 390 127 9 121 12 

Malta 3 135 8 204 14 917 28 059 111 12 114 42 

Netherlands No mountain 12 611 32 999 No mountain 97 30 

Poland 502 2 010 690 5407 135 28 123 31 

Portugal 687 3 545 1 814 13 155 163 23 154 31 

Romania 102 784 236 2 321 150 24 129 29 

Slovakia 275 1 438 811 4 159 148 16 128 24 

Slovenia 780 2 871 1 949 6 755 121 27 114 30 

Spain 578 8 014 2 123 21 647 155 28 141 35 

Sweden 30 260 668 6 648 179 3 165 24 

United Kingdom 614 5 637 8 562 39 900 153 36 104 46 

lower or similar within mountains than outside 

mountains. Countries where the difference is most 

marked include Austria, Belgium, Greece, Italy 

and, particularly, the United Kingdom. Countries 

where the difference is least include Bulgaria, 

Hungary, Portugal, and Slovenia. Considering 

countries with a significant mountain area, the 

most accessible mountains are in Germany, 

Slovenia, the Czech Republic, and Bulgaria; and 

those with the least accessible mountains are 

Sweden, Cyprus, Ireland, Portugal, and Greece. 

There is no clear geographical or historical pattern 

to accessibility. 

3.2.1 TEN-T corridors 

Mountain areas have very often been regarded 

as barriers to communication for those who live 

in adjacent lowland areas. According to national 

priorities, and frequently for military or strategic 

reasons, particularly in the states along the former 

'Iron Curtain', road and rail access was developed 

from the lowlands into mountainous border areas, 

but not across borders. With the expansion of the 

European Union, European policy makers have 

decided to establish a single, multimodal network 

integrating land, sea and air transport networks. 

The aim of the Trans-European transport network 

(TEN-T) is to allow goods and people to circulate 

quickly and easily between Member States and 

to assure international connections, and is a key 

element in the Lisbon strategy for competitiveness 

and employment in Europe (http://ec.europa.eu/ 

transport/infrastructure/index_en.htm). While 

the development of the TEN-T clearly contributes 

to economic and social cohesion at the European 

scale, it also creates disparities in accessibility 

within mountain regions and, like all types 

of transport infrastructure, may be linked to 

environmental impacts such as noise, pollution, 

and fragmentation of habitat and ecological 

connectivity. A number of studies have been done 

to evaluate these impacts in the mountains of 

the EU‐27. 


55


A significant number of TEN-T corridors cross 

mountain massifs (Map 3.6). This infrastructure 

covers a very small proportion of the area of 

a massif: greater than 1 % only in the Central 

European middle mountains (1.3 %). However, 

the environmental impacts of this infrastructure 

extends well beyond its physical limits and the 

proportion of each massif directly affected by 

this infrastructure varies considerably, as shown 

in Figure 3.4, which uses data from the GISCO 

database, 'Transport v1 (2005) TEN Links', which 

records the location of roads, railways and 

ferries. The database includes no relevant data 

for Albania, Andorra, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 

and Kosovo under UNSCR 1244/99, the former 

Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, or 

Turkey. The percentage of mountain area affected 

by infrastructure is based on analysis of the 1 km 

buffers around the infrastructure recorded in this 

database. Massifs whose area is most influenced are 

either in or adjacent to highly‐populated areas: the 

Central European middle mountains 1, the Alps, and 

the French/Swiss middle mountains. The proportion 

is considerably higher in Central European middle 

mountains 1 than 2, probably reflecting the two 

regions' different histories, with investment in the 

latter being more recent, since the expansion of 

the EU. The Pyrenees and the Apennines also have 

relatively high proportions. The relative extent is 

low in the Balkans/South-east Europe (where some 

countries are not included) and the Carpathians, 

which include countries that have only recently 

joined the EU, or have yet to join, as well as in the 

sparsely-populated mountains of the British Isles 

and the Nordic countries. The low values for the 

various islands reflect their distance from major 

Map 3.6 

Location of TEN-T corridors crossing mountain massifs 

-30° 

-20° 

-10° 

0° 

10° 

20° 

30° 

40° 

50° 

60° 

Trans-European transport 

network (TEN-T) corridors 

in mountain massifs 

Infrastructure 

60° 

Massifs 

60° 

50° 

50° 

40° 

40° 

-20° 

Canary Is. 

-30° Azores Is. 

30° 

40° 

30° 

30° 

0° 

Madeira -30° Is. 

10° 

0 500 1000 1500 Km 

20° 

30° 



transport networks and major centres of population 

and industry. 

From these data, it was possible to calculate the 

proportion of the mountain population influenced 

by TEN-T infrastructure. Impacts may be positive 

(e.g. increased access to services, opportunities 

for commuting) and negative (e.g. noise (Box 3.4), 

pollution). The relative importance of these impacts 

changes with distance from the infrastructure. 

Accordingly, analyses were made of the proportion 

of population living within one, five and ten km of 

the infrastructure for both massifs and countries 

(Table 3.3). This approach gives rather different 

results to those presented in Table 3.1, which 

presents accessibility based on the average time‐cost 

Figure 3.4 Proportion of mountain massifs affected by TEN-T infrastructure 


Alps 



Pyrenees 

Apennines 



British Isles 



Carpathians 



% 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

Note: 


Table 3.3 

Percentage of population near to TEN-T corridors within mountain massifs 

Mountain Massif TEN-t 1 km TEN-t 5 km TEN-t 10 km 

Alps 36.9 61.8 74.7 

Apennines 24.8 52.5 65.1 

Atlantic islands 24.7 55.0 61.0 

Balkans/South-east Europe 10.7 23.0 28.6 

British Isles 17.8 42.2 70.3 

Carpathians 16.8 33.4 44.2 

Central European middle mountains 1 * 21.0 49.8 69.7 

Central European middle mountains 2 ** 19.4 44.1 66.0 

Eastern Mediterranean islands 13.0 29.2 40.9 

French/Swiss middle mountains 33.6 61.2 77.2 

Iberian mountains 30.3 57.7 74.4 

Nordic mountains 27.6 52.4 59.9 

Pyrenees 30.1 62.2 78.8 

Western Mediterranean islands 13.8 29.1 42.1 

Note: 



57


Box 3.4 Noise in the mountains of Austria 

One of the principal impacts of transport infrastructure on human populations — as well as on wildlife 

— is that of noise along transport corridors. The relationship between environmental noise and public 

health has emerged as a key issue in environmental legislation and policy, as exposure to high levels of 

noise, particularly for long periods of time and at night causes detrimental health effects. In 2002, the 

European Commission introduced the Environmental Noise Directive (END: Directive 2002/49 EC relating 

to the assessment and management of environmental noise). Although this is a step forward in improving 

knowledge of the situation of noise, limitations remain due to data comparability, delays and inconsistencies 

with reporting. 

To evaluate differences in noise exposure within and outside mountain areas, the example of Austria has 

been used, as the necessary data are available. Noise contour maps of major roads and of major railways 

have been used to estimate the potential population exposed to certain levels of noise inside and outside 

mountain areas, using two main indicators, L den 

(day, evening and night) and L night 

for roads with more 

than 6 million vehicles per year and railways with more than 60 000 train passages per year (Figure 3.5). 

Population data were derived from a population density grid developed by the Joint Research Centre and 

scaled by the total number of reported people, excluding agglomerations. About 458 000 people (5.7 % 

of the national population) are potentially exposed to a long-term average level above 55 dB Lden due to 

road traffic inside mountain areas. The impact of railways is less pronounced, with about 208 000 people 

exposed to the same long-term average level. However, at night, 188 000 people are potentially exposed 

to levels above above 50 dB Lnight inside mountain areas due to road traffic, while 209 000 people are 

exposed to railway noise. 

Figure 3.5 

Percentage of population exposed to noise within and outside mountain areas in 

Austria due to major roads and major railways with more than 6 mio vehicles or 

60 000 train passages per year (excluding Vienna) 

Percentage of population exposed to noise inside and outside mountain areas (excluding Vienna) 

Major roads L den 

4 

Major roads L night 

3 

Major railways L 2 

den 

% 

Major railways L night 

1 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 

Outside mountain areas 

Within mountain areas 

Just under half of Austria's population lives in mountain areas in Austria; yet the proportion of people 

exposed in mountain areas is higher than outside mountain areas. However, other roads not considered in 

the END may still have a significant impact, which could imply that more people are exposed to damaging 

levels of transport noise. However, for primary prevention of adverse health effects, the World Health 

Organization (2009) recommends that people should not be exposed to night noise levels greater than 

40 dB of L night 

,outside. This would imply that many more people may be exposed to possibly damaging 

levels of night time noise than can be currently assessed by the present END reporting requirements. 

Further development of an effective policy on noise for Europe, as well as full and effective implementation 

of noise action plans, particularly at night, should be aimed to reduce the scale of exposure to high noise 

levels and protect areas where the noise quality is found to be good. In addition, further research and 

effective policy are essential to ensure that the impact of noise on wildlife is not adversely affected by the 

same sources that affect people. 

Source: 

Núria Blanes, Jaume Fons, Alejandro Simón and Juan Arévalo, ETCLUSI — UAB (European Topic Centre on Land Use 

and Spatial Information, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona). 



to different city sizes. Table 3.3 shows that the 

proportions of population closest to these transport 

corridors are highest in the Alps, French/Swiss 

middle mountains, Iberian mountains and 

Pyrenees. However the rank order varies with 

distance, reflecting different population densities: 

the greatest proportion of the population in the 

Alps is within 1 km; the greatest proportion of 

the population in the Pyrenees is within 5 km and 

10 km. The importance of population density is 

shown particularly for the Nordic mountains: where 

the rank decreases markedly from 1 km (5th) to 

5 km (7th) to 10 km (10th). For these five massifs, 

as well as the Apennines and the Atlantic islands, 

at least half of the population lives within 5 km 

of the corridors. For the British Isles and Central 

European middle mountains 1 and 2, at least half 

of the population lives within 10 km. However, less 

than half of the population lives within 10 km of the 

corridors in the eastern and western Mediterranean 

islands and the Carpathians. In the eastern and 

western Mediterranean islands this presumably 

because of the sparseness of the population and, 

for the Carpathians, at least partly because of the 

limited infrastructure. The proportions for the 

Balkans/South-east Europe massif are always the 

lowest, which may not accurately reflect the density 

of infrastructure and its relation to population 

because data were not available for five countries in 

this region. 


59

Ecosystem services from Europe's mountains 

4 Ecosystem services from Europe's 

mountains 

Ecosystem services (ES) are the 'benefits that 

humans recognise as obtained from ecosystems 

that support, directly or indirectly, their survival 

and quality of life' (Harrington et al., in press, 

expanded from MA, 2003) and mountain ecosystems 

provide a multitude of these essential services 

to humankind across Europe and globally. The 

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), the most 

comprehensive global examination of the state 

of the world's ecosystems and the services they 

provide, defined four major categories of services: 

provisioning, regulating and cultural services that 

directly benefit people, and the supporting services 

needed to maintain the direct services (MA 2005a). 

Provisioning services are products obtained from 

ecosystems (e.g. food, water, timber), regulating 

services are benefits obtained from regulation 

of ecosystem processes (e.g. water purification, 

pollination), cultural services are non‐material 

benefits obtained from ecosystems (e.g. recreation, 

aesthetic experiences) and supporting services are 

services necessary for the provision of all other 

ecosystem services (e.g. soil formation, nutrient 

cycling). However, while the first three of these 

categories are uncontroversial and generally 

accepted, there is considerable controversy over the 

validity and usefulness of supporting services. The 

uncertainties come from two directions. First, there 

is no simple dividing line between what constitutes 

regulating and supporting services, so some workers 

prefer to pool these together. Second, the opinion 

of many ecologists is that supporting services are 

not services at all, but ecosystem processes and 

properties which are an integral part of ecosystem 

functions that happen independently of human 

benefit or valuation. This chapter follows the 

most updated service classification provided by 

the MA (Carpenter et al., 2009) for provisioning, 

regulating and cultural services, without referring 

to ecosystem processes as supporting services. It 

is based particularly on the most recent appraisal 

of the status and trends of ecosystem services in 

Europe as documented by the RUBICODE project 

(www.rubicode.net), funded by the European 

Commission as a 6th Framework Coordination 

Action Project, and by the scientific publications 

resulting from that project. 

Chapter 24 of the MA (Körner et al., 2005) assessed 

the conditions and trends associated with mountain 

biota and their ecosystem services at the global 

scale, treating regulating and supporting services 

together. The authors of this chapter highlight the 

exceptionally high multifunctionality of mountains 

(see also Messerli and Ives, 1997). Thus mountains 

provide a disproportionately large number of 

ecosystem services to many human communities. 

A key issue here is that the service beneficiaries — 

the humans affected positively by the provision 

of a particular service (see Harrington et al., in 

press) — include not only the local residents of the 

mountains, but also people inhabiting the lowlands. 

Mountain ecosystems can only continue to provide 

all these services in a rapidly changing world if 

such multifunctionality is taken into account in their 

management. However, to manage for multiple 

ecosystem services we must first identify, quantify 

and value the full suite of services provided by 

mountains. The remainder of this chapter is an 

account of the present state of the art. 

The wide spectrum of mountain ecosystem services 

arises from a diverse range of 'ecosystem providers' 

within mountain ecosystems. Ecosystem service 

providers (ESPs) are the component populations, 

communities, functional groups of organisms, 

interaction networks or habitat types that provide 

ecosystem services (Luck et al., 2009, adapted from 

Kremen, 2005). The ESP approach is paralleled 

by a similar concept, that of the service providing 

unit (SPU): the collection of individuals of a given 

species and their characteristics necessary to 

deliver an ecosystem service at the desired level 

(Luck et al., 2009, adapted from Luck et al., 2003). 

This also allows for negative influences and the 

necessity for trade-offs within ecosystems by 

recognising the concept of the ecosystem service 

antagoniser: an organism, species, functional 

group, population, community, or trait attributes 

thereof, which disrupts the provision of ecosystem 

services and the functional relationships between 

them and ESPs (Harrington et al., in press). 

Although originally developed independently, 

these two approaches have now been brought 

together, so that ESP and SPU should represent 

60 



a continuum of service providers across various 

organisational levels. The advantages of this 

are two-fold, both linking the appropriate 

organisational levels for a given service or group 

of services and accentuating the need to quantify 

the provider characteristics required to deliver 

an ecosystem service in the light of beneficiary 

demand and ecosystem dynamics (Luck et al., 

2009). 

Consideration of the provision of ecosystem 

services at levels to satisfy beneficiary demand 

infers that some sort of value must be placed on 

each service (Box 4.1). Quantification is necessary 

to determine the relative importance of the services 

to those that benefit. It also exposes situations 

of conflicting interest and trade-offs in service 

provision and demand by different stakeholders. 

Thus, valuation of ecosystem services aims to 

inform better decision-making, ensuring that 

policy appraisals fully take into account costs and 

benefits to the natural environment. However, 

valuing ecosystem services in monetary terms is 

often difficult and controversial, particularly for 

many regulatory services and ecosystem processes 

for which the direct benefits to people are not clear 

(Wainger et al., 2010). Some argue that a monetary 

framework helps to shift context from 'nature free' 

to 'nature valuable', and can enhance the efficiency 

of policy. Others feel that it is inappropriate, 

unethical or dangerous, shifting focus from real 

ecological changes to monetary changes, and from 

sustainability constraints to trade-offs (RUBICODE, 

2008). It is important to bear in mind that these 

methods are merely tools for aiding thinking and 

decision-making, and that the ecosystem services 

approach does not necessarily or logically entail 

the monetary approach. However, the ways we 

identify and categorise ecosystem services are 

not value‐free, nor are they independent of the 

social and economic organisation of societies 

(RUBICODE, 2008). 

There are also non‐economic approaches to valuing 

ecosystem services, which involve the use of 

deliberative techniques to explore public opinion or 

make decisions, such as citizens' juries and citizens' 

panels. In these, participants are asked to consider 

different arguments and come to a reasoned 

conclusion about the best way forward. Such 

deliberative techniques are often used where the 

issue is more complex, for instance where competing 

interests have to be balanced or in other situations 

where there is no easy answer (e.g. stakeholder 

involvement in transport policy in the Peak District 

National Park in England as analysed by Connelly 

and Richardson, 2009). 

In addition, values are themselves dynamic: they 

change with time and over different temporal and 

spatial scales, reflecting changes in the perceived 

importance of services to the different beneficiaries. 

To place the issue of value dynamics in the MA 

terminology, the temporal dimension of social 

benefits derived from ecosystem services varies 

from direct, short‐ to medium-term benefits 

(provisioning) to indirect, medium- to long‐term 

benefits (regulating), to direct, long‐term benefits 

(cultural), to indirect, long‐ to very long‐term 

benefits (ecosystem processes and properties). The 

last category of long‐ to very long‐term benefits 

is what some researchers would prefer to call 

ecological benefits in contrast to the short- to 

medium-term socio-economic benefits (e.g. Skourtos 

et al., in press). Box 4.1 provides further information 

on the problems of valuation and some of the 

different terminologies that have been applied in 

relation to mountain ecosystems and resources. 

Building on the work of the MA (2005b) the 

RUBICODE project addressed all these issues using 

a more detailed classification of ecosystem types and 

confining attention to Europe. Within the project, as 

in the MA, mountain ecosystems were considered as 

a separate ecosystem category. They are inherently 

different to other areas because of their altitudinal 

variations, complex topography and associated 

habitat mosaics, atmospheric influences and because 

gravity links higher areas to places below. They 

are also areas of particularly high biodiversity 

(e.g. Körner and Spehn 2002; Nagy et al., 2003, 

Nagy and Grabherr 2009) and cover a considerable 

proportion of Europe, as discussed in Chapter 1. 

4.1 The importance of mountain 

ecosystem services 

Within the RUBICODE project, the relative 

importance of services provided by mountain 

ecosystems was ranked into four categories 

(Table 4.1): key contribution; some contribution; 

no contribution; and contribution poorly known 

(Harrison et al., 2010). The last category helps to 

distinguish where the ranking was based solely on 

expert opinion (obtained from project workshops 

and an e-conference, see Harrison et al., 2010); the 

other rankings were supported by evidence from the 

literature. 

The evidence represents Europe as a whole, 

acknowledging that the ranking can differ 

considerably across European mountain regions. 

Moreover, the ranking is based solely on service 

supply and does not consider who benefits from the 


61


Box 4.1 Valuing nature: ecosystem services, public goods and externalities 

The reason we have to value nature and ecosystem services is choice. In a world of finite (natural) 

resources, we have to choose among competing uses of these resources and, if necessary, make trade‐offs. 

The criteria for choice can be manifold: economic, moral, cultural, aesthetic, ecological, etc. By the act 

of choosing we inevitably produce rankings, that is, (relative) values. Economic values for ecosystem 

services are based on human preferences and quantified on the basis of the intensity of these preferences. 

The intensity of preferences is expressed in the amount of money an individual is willing to pay in order 

to enjoy a certain level of service provision or the amount of money an individual is willing to accept as 

compensation in order to tolerate a certain level of loss in the provision of ecosystem services. 

In valuing a resource such as an ecosystem, the total economic value can be broken down into use value 

and non‐use value. Use value involves some interaction with the resource, either directly or indirectly. 

Indirect use value derives from regulating services provided by the ecosystem: for example, the removal of 

nutrients to provide cleaner water to those downstream, or the prevention of downstream flooding. Direct 

use value, on the other hand, involves interaction with the ecosystem functions themselves. It may be 

the consumption of goods such as the harvesting of fish or game animals, or it may be the consumption 

of services such as some recreational and educational activities. Non‐use value is associated with benefits 

derived simply from the knowledge that a resource, such as an individual species or an entire ecosystem, 

is maintained. Non‐use value is closely linked to ethical concerns and can be split into three basic 

components, although these may overlap depending upon exact definitions: Existence value can be derived 

simply from the satisfaction of knowing that some feature of the environment continues to exist, whether 

or not this might also benefit others. Bequest value is associated with the knowledge that a resource will be 

passed on to descendants to maintain the opportunity for them to enjoy it in the future. Philanthropic value 

is associated with the satisfaction from ensuring resources are available to contemporaries of the current 

generation. 

Finally, some values may be entirely disassociated with the concept of choice (or trade-off). These are 

intrinsic values (as opposed to instrumental values where the option of a trade-off exists) and may be given 

to items or beings that are to be preserved on their own right, irrespective of them serving any user‐specified 

goals, objectives or conditions, or that are so important for life itself, that no trade-off is tolerable. 

All the above explanation summarises the definitions and context of valuation of ES for all major ecosystem 

types in Europe as refined and adopted by the RUBICODE project and consistent with the MA (Harrington 

et al., in press). However, there are other, parallel terminologies and definitions presently in use in the 

literature that specifically address mountain ecosystems and their resources. These are exemplified in a 

report by Robinson (2007), who refers to externalities, which he defines as 'side effects of an economic 

activity such as agriculture'. Externalities directly affect the production or consumption conditions of 

economic actors and hence are external to the market: they cannot be bought and sold as they are not 

priced. If a market for an externality is created, it is transferred, or 'valorised' to become internalised and 

given monetary value as part of the economic market, and economic activity may increased in positive 

externalities. For example, a cultural mountain landscape created by traditional agricultural practices is 

valorised when images of the landscape are used to market local dairy products or honey. Distinction is 

made between positive (e.g. flood prevention) and negative (e.g. causing floods) externalities resulting 

from economic activities. Many externalities are also public goods: things that do not have a price as 

nobody can be excluded from its consumption (Cornes and Sandler, 1996). In economic terms, public goods 

are determined by their excludability (to what extent is it possible to prevent someone from benefiting 

from the resource?) and rivalry (do people compete for using the resource?). Thus clean air is supposed 

to represent a 'pure' public good because everyone has access to it, although this is not true for smog in 

towns or cities in mountain valleys, particularly during winter temperature inversions, e.g. Innsbruck in 

Austria (Schicker and Seibert, 2009).Water is a less pure public good because some people can be excluded 

by building dams or diverting water courses, although, this too is a naive view that does not consider 

drought situations, even in mountains. Rivalry simply refers to competition between people for the amount, 

or quality of a particular resource which must be limited in some way, which is the very basis of valuation 

as discussed here. 

These descriptions, although they give some general notions of the issues at hand, are mostly too imprecise 

in the present context: They are not well suited to dealing with the mix of socio-economics, ecosystems 

and ecosystem processes and indeed can lead to confusion. Thus ecosystem services and the 'ecosystem 

approach' to valuation, as developed by RUBICODE and adopted here, is to be advocated as a clear means 



Box 4.1 Valuing nature: ecosystem services, public goods and externalities (cont.) 

of understanding and communication across the disciplines (Harrington et al., in press). The approach and 

terminology has been put forward as consistent with the principles and workings of the CBD and MA, which 

are both familiar to and well accepted by policy makers (Harrington et al., in press). However, it is not the 

intention here, to attempt to map this typology onto those used by others. In this new and developing 

area of work, there are still gaps in knowledge that need to be addressed (Anton et al., in press) and 

terminologies will continue to evolve (Harrington et al., in press). 

Source: 

John Haslett (University of Salzburg, Austria). 

service (including highland-lowland interactions), 

cost-benefit ratios of service protection, threats to 

the service, or the availability of human-derived 

alternatives to service production. 

It may be seen from Table 4.1 that, for all the 

ecosystem services considered, mountain 

ecosystems are thought to give either a key or at 

least some contribution to service provision, or 

the contribution is poorly known. In other words, 

the 'no contribution' column is blank throughout; 

there is no service on the list for which mountain 

ecosystems were identified as of no relevance. This 

gives further emphasis to the multifunctionality of 

European mountains as noted above. 

Table 4.1 

Qualitative ranking of importance for services within European mountain 

ecosystems, as revealed by the RUBICODE Project 

MA category 

Ecosystem service 

Key 

contribution 

Some 

contribution 

No 

contribution 

Provisioning services Food and fibre X 

Timber/fuel/energy 

X 

Freshwater 

X 

Ornamental resources 

X 

Biochemicals/natural medicines X X 

Genetic resources X X 

Regulating services Pollination X X 

Seed dispersal X X 

Pest regulation X X 

Disease regulation X X 

Invasion resistance 

X 

Climate regulation 

X 

Air quality regulation 

X 

Erosion regulation 

X 

Natural hazard regulation 

X 

Water flow regulation 

X 

Water purification/waste treatment X X 

Cultural services Spiritual and religious values X 

Education and inspiration 

X 

Recreation and ecotourism 

X 

Cultural heritage 

X 

Aesthetic values 

X 

Sense of place 

X 

Poorly 

known 

Note: 

If no documented evidence exists to support key/some contribution then this is indicated by an additional 'X' in the 'poorly 

known' column. 

Source: Extracted from Harrison et al., 2010. 


63


4.1.1 Provisioning services 

In Europe, although food is primarily produced in 

intensively managed agro-ecosystems, traditional 

extensive agricultural practices in European 

mountains continue to provide foods (such as dairy 

products, meat and honey), and more intensive 

agriculture is also practised on fertile valley floors 

(e.g. in the Alps; Staub et al., 2002). Furthermore, 

wild populations of animals and plants are 

harvested to provide foods, such as game, fish, 

berries and mushrooms. All these food products are 

particularly important to local communities for their 

own consumption and for marketing further afield. 

Some mountain areas are a source of wool fibre from 

grazed sheep, but many fibres are now imported 

from outside the EU. 

Mountain forests are major providers of timber 

and wood fuel, globally (Körner et al., 2005) and 

in European mountains such as the Alps (Ciais 

et al., 2008, Stöhr 2009) and Carpathians (Box 4.2). 

Recently, wood pellets have become a significant 

alternative fuel source for domestic and industrial 

use in some countries (e.g. Saracoglu and Gunduz, 

2009). A further source of energy comes from the 

many mountain rivers in Europe that are dammed 

for hydropower generation and hence make a 

key contribution to energy supply (WCD, 2000; 

Euromontana 2010). Hydropower generation 

continues to increase in Europe (Lehner et al., 2009), 

influenced by an increasing trade in green energy. 

The provision of freshwater is also a key 

contribution from mountain ecosystems. Abiotic 

characteristics of mountain ecosystems provide 

this service. Thus mountains act a water pump by 

pulling moisture from rising air masses, which 

they collect in their watersheds and then store and 

distribute, thus acting as 'water towers' (Viviroli 

et al., 2007; see Chapter 6). Mountain animal and 

plant biodiversity, on the other hand, often only 

contribute indirectly to provision of fresh water 

, as aquatic animals and plants account more for 

regulating services (e.g. preventing deterioration 

of water quality or supporting rehabilitation of 

freshwater resources). 

Ornamental resources provided by mountain 

ecosystems include hunting trophies of game 

animals such as deer, chamois and some fish, which 

are still cherished in some communities, both in 

the mountains and further afield. This may be 

acceptable as long as the species concerned are not 

threatened. Also, many plant species are ornamental 

in gardens and parks, such as alpine species 

(e.g. edelweiss, numerous alpine cushion plants). 

However, relative to other provisioning services, 

ornamental resources are not highly important. 

Indeed, changes in attitudes and trade regulations 

across Europe and globally (e.g. the CITES 

Convention, www.cites.org) mean that demand for 

some ornamental resources has declined, such as 

displays of rare butterflies, birds and mammals, and 

this is to be welcomed. 

The contribution of European mountain ecosystems 

to the provision of biochemical and natural 

medicines is poorly studied, although mountains are 

known to be a source of medicinal plants (e.g. arnica 

and many others: Planta Europa and Council of 

Europe 2002). 

Genetic resources are considered as being of key 

importance in mountain ecosystems. Globally, 

mountains include the original genotypes of many 

crop species, including wheat, which originated in 

Turkey (Özkan et al., 2002). However, knowledge is 

limited on the full potential of genetic resources and 

many are still unrecognised or untapped. Mountains 

are known to be not only rich in species, but also rich 

in genetic variability within plant species (Till-Bottraud 

and Gaudeul, 2002) and within and between insect 

species, such as Large Blue butterflies (Maculinea arion) 

(Als et al., 2004; Thomas and Settele 2004). 

4.1.2 Regulating services 

Pollination is certainly of some importance in 

mountain ecosystems because a large proportion of 

alpine herbs depend heavily on sexual reproduction 

(Forbis, 2003) and recruitment of alpine vascular 

plant flora is dependent on a sufficiently abundant 

and diverse pollinator community (Körner, 

1999). However, other alpine plant species are 

wind‐pollinated or are spread vegetatively. On 

the other hand, pollination services are thought to 

provide a key contribution to forest ecosystems and 

to semi‐natural grasslands across Europe in general; 

the actual importance in mountain ecosystems 

remains poorly known. In order to sustain the 

abundance and diversity of insect pollinators, 

preservation or restoration of semi‐natural habitats, 

including flower-rich grasslands, forest edges and 

forest gaps are essential. 

Seed dispersal is a service with some contribution 

coming from mountain ecosystems, though this is 

based primarily on expert opinion (Harrison et al., 

2010). The service may be of particular relevance in 

mountain forests, where birds and mammals can act 

as seed vectors for berry- or nut-producing trees and 

shrubs (e.g. rowan tree regeneration in subalpine 

spruce forests, Zywiec and Ledwon, 2008). 



Box 4.2 Ecosystem services and the local economy in Maramures Mountains Nature Park, Romania 

The Maramures Mountains Nature Park (MMNP) was established in 2005, becoming the largest park in 

Romania and the second largest protected area in the country, with an area of 133 000 ha. Because of 

the restrictions imposed and the psychological impact on the people living within the park boundaries, the 

park administration decided to assess the total value of ecosystem services in the area. The assessment 

also addressed the potential for this region and its inhabitants to build a lively local economy by taking 

advantage of recently developed market mechanisms to protect natural resources, such as payments 

for ecosystem services. Thus, the study provided a key starting point to educate local institutions, 

organisations, and practitioners, as well as the community living in and around the park, about the 

contributions of ecosystem services to local and global economies. 

The project proceeded in five steps: 1) characterisation of the study area; 2) identification of ecosystem 

services; 3) selection of key ecosystem services (KES); 4) assessment of economic values for KES and 

other services; 5) assessment of the potential to capture these economic benefits through payments for 

ecosystem services to local communities. The approach is summarised in the scheme below, within which, 

it should be emphasised that stage 2 can be participatory and stage 4 should be participatory. 

Figure 4.1 

Assessment of ecosystem services: process 

1. Case study 

definition 

(ecology, 

socioeconomics, 

culture, history) 

2. Analysis of 

local and 

non-local 

costs/benefits: 

Who benefits 

from what goods 

and services 

locally, 

regionally, 

globally 

3. Selection of 

key ecosystem 

services: 

What services 

are crucial for 

local 

implementations 

of trading 

schemes or 

policy design? 

4. Outreach 

and creative 

economy: 

involve 

government 

offices, build a 

network of 

creative 

businesses, 

education 

It can be participatory 

It should be participatory 

The assessment focused on ecosystem services 

provided by forests, hayfields and alpine 

pasturelands. The forests cover 90 000 ha, 

more than half of which are still owned by the 

state. The study focused mostly on the following 

ecosystem services provide by forests: regulation 

of hydrological flows, soil erosion control, 

water supply, habitats for biodiversity, carbon 

sequestration, recreation, timber, non‐timber 

forest products, food production (hunting, 

gathering, fishing), medicinal resources (drugs and 

pharmaceuticals), and cultural/artistic activities. 

The study showed that timber and non‐timber 

forest products have an annual value of 

173 USD/ha. Forest services that were evaluated 

were: carbon sequestration (28.5 USD/ha/yr); water 

flow regulation (208.7 USD/ha/yr) and soil erosion 

Photo: 

© Costel Bucur 

Some ecosystem services provided by forest 

ecosystems in Maramures Mountains Nature Park, 

Romania. 

control (3.3 USD/ha/yr), totalling 240.5 USD/ha/yr. A comparison shows that the services provided by forest 

ecosystems have a greater value than the forest products coming from them. In an area where logging is 

a way of life, it is quite difficult to explain the real value of the environment. Nevertheless, due to the high 

demand for forest products, particularly timber, the study highlights the large responsibility of the new owners 

of the forests for their proper management and can be used by the park administration to raise awareness 

and to encourage sustainable use of resources based on scientific basis. 

Source: 

Costel Bucur (Maramures Mountains Nature Park, Romania). 


65


Although mountains appear to present a clear 

physical barrier to many organisms, their role in 

invasion resistance remains poorly known. New 

research will be necessary to clarify how the spread 

of invasive alien plant and animal species is affected 

by mountain ecosystems. Similarly, the physical 

conditions and topography in mountains may act to 

influence pest and disease regulation, for example, 

fox distribution patterns and the potential for 

spread of rabies in the Bavarian Alps (Berberich and 

d´Oleire-Oltmanns, 1989; and see Haslett, 1990) or 

ticks carrying Lyme disease in the Northern Italian 

Alps (Rizzoli et al., 2002). However, there are few 

studies on the dynamics of other such organisms in 

European mountains. 

European mountains make a key contribution to 

both climate regulation and closely associated 

with this, air quality regulation. Large mountain 

forests play an important role in the global carbon 

cycle and contribute to climate regulation through 

the long‐term storage of carbon in forest soils and 

woody biomass (e.g. Ciais et al., 2008). However, 

there remain many unknowns about the net carbon 

balance of European forests, which may differ 

considerably in their ability to act as net carbon 

sinks, depending on management intensity and 

policy (Ciais et al., 2008). Articles 3.3 (mandatory 

afforestation, reforestation and deforestation) 

and 3.4 (optional forest management strategies 

for carbon sequestration) of the Kyoto Protocol 

recognise that forest management can influence 

the carbon balance. In Europe, 17 countries 

with large expanses of forest have elected forest 

management under Article 3.4 (see Nabuurs et al., 

2008). Semi‐natural grasslands and heathlands and 

shrub lands in mountains make some contribution 

to regulating the climate, but biomass production 

and carbon sequestration tends to be modest due to 

nitrogen and phosphorus limitation (Niklaus and 

Körner, 2004). 

Air quality regulation is a key service provision 

in mountains as they extract water from the rising 

air masses passing over them; this feeds back to 

regulate the regional climate, and the air mixing is 

important to air quality regulation. The effects of 

mountain (or other) forests on air quality outside the 

tropics are not fully understood (Körner et al., 2005). 

Mountain agriculture can provide a negative service 

to air quality regulation due to emissions of nitrogen 

oxides (NO X 

) if soils on valley floors are intensively 

cultivated, which increases tropospheric ozone 

(Tilman et al., 2002), ammonia (NH 3 

) from livestock 

farming and manure applications, and pesticide drift 

which can result in the long‐distance atmospheric 

transport of pesticides (EEA, 1995). 

Regulation of erosion and natural hazards is of key 

importance in mountain ecosystems. Due to their 

topography and often slow-forming, fragile soils, 

high mountain landscapes are especially vulnerable 

to irreversible physical changes precipitated by 

human activities. The instability of upslope areas has 

a multitude of detrimental effects on human welfare 

even in the lowlands, including, for example, 

floods or mudslides (Hewitt, 1997). The only means 

of securing upslope stability is intact mountain 

vegetation (Körner, 2002; Quétier et al., 2007), which 

is likely to be threatened especially by climate 

warming (Grabherr, 2003; Nagy and Grabherr, 2009) 

(see Box 4.3). 

Mountains are very important in regulating 

water flow, as discussed in Chapter 6. They store 

water in glaciers, snowpacks, soil, vegetation and 

underground aquifers, and regulate water flow by 

modulating the run-off regime and groundwater 

seepage. Mountain ecosystems are also important 

for water purification. Results from study of moss 

mats in arctic systems (Jones et al., 2002) indicate 

that the alpine moss flora, which is especially 

threatened by climate warming and nitrogen 

deposition, may be particularly important for 

providing this service. 

4.1.3 Cultural services 

Mountains provide many cultural services. They 

may have spiritual or religious values for local 

inhabitants and/or serve as places of pilgrimage 

(Bernbaum, 1997; Price et al., 1997). However, 

religious values in mountains are not considered 

key in Europe although they can vary by location. 

For example, many monasteries in Greece and 

Spain are in mountain regions, while Croagh Patrick 

Mountain in Ireland is a place of pilgrimage and 

religious tourism. Humans have inhabited and used 

mountains for so long that traditional mountain 

ways of life and the landscape mosaics that have 

been created result in a strong sense of place and 

cultural heritage (Messerli and Ives, 1997; Körner 

et al., 2005). The Alps and other European mountains 

serve as focal points of international tourism 

(Godde et al., 2000), to the extent that it is now often 

detrimental and even destroys those services that 

originally attracted visitors (e.g. winter sports such 

as skiing (Wipf et al., 2005), climbing (Hanemann, 

2000), and walking and biking). With ever‐increasing 

demand across Europe, identification and 

conservation of the species and landscape features 

most relevant to such services are essential for 

promoting sustainable mountain ecotourism. 

For example, mountain rivers and lakes play a 

significant role in various kinds of recreational 



Box 4.3 Impact of climate change on ecosystem services in the Valais, Switzerland 

The Rhone valley and the side valleys of the Valais have steep slopes and strong climatic gradients, and are the 

driest part of Switzerland (Figure 4.2) (Rebetez and Dobbertin, 2004). While native vegetation is adapted to 

low water conditions, water availability critically influences ecosystem state and the provisioning of ecosystem 

goods and services. 

During the 20th century, the region's economy changed from mainly agriculture-oriented to more industry 

and particularly service-oriented. However, in the main valley, and at lower elevations, agriculture and wine 

production are still widely practiced (indicated with A in Figure 4.2). Forests dominate at higher elevations and 

in the side valleys, providing a range of ecosystem services, particularly protection from gravitational hazards 

(rockfall in the summer and avalanches in the winter), maintenance of biodiversity, maintenance of recreation/ 

aesthetic value and, to a lesser degree, timber production (indicated with B and C in Figure 4.2). Tourism has 

been the major source of revenue in these parts of the Valais for 20–30 years. 

Future climate projections suggest that the region will become warmer, with less summer and more winter 

precipitation. Thus, drought, principally at low elevations, would substantially increase during summer; and the 

frequency of extremely dry and hot summers would increase (Lindner et al., 2010; Rebetez et al., 2006). 

Figure 4.2 

The Valais 

A A A 

B 

C 

Note: 

The main Rhone Valley runs through the centre of the region, with industry and agriculture mainly at lowers elevations 

(A). The impacts of increased temperature and drought on ecosystem services are predicted to be most pronounced in 

the main valley. Side valleys commonly have steep slopes and are dominated by forests that often provide protection 

from rock fall and avalanches (e.g. the Saas-Valley, B). Traditionally, grazing and high-elevation agriculture have been 

practiced at higher elevations. However, as the intensity of these activities has decreased over the past century, parts 

of these high-elevation areas are being reclaimed by forest (C). 

Source: © Atlas of Switzerland 2004. 


67


Box 4.3 Impact of climate change on ecosystem services in the Valais, Switzerland (cont.) 

Figure 4.3 

Valais forest state for lower elevation areas 

Current A 

Current B 

Biomass (t/ha) 


300 

300 

250 

Tilia platyphyllos 

Sorbus aria 

250 


Sorbus aria 

200 

Acer platanoides 

Acer campestre 

200 



Quercus pubescens 


150 

Acer 

pseudoplantanus 

Pinus sylvestris 

150 

Acer 



100 

Pinus mugo 

Pinus cembra 

100 

Pinus mugo 

Pinus cembra 

Picea abies 

Picea abies 

50 

0 

640 

760 


880 

1000 

1120 

1240 

Elevation m a.s.l. 

Future A 

1360 

1480 

1600 

1720 

1840 

1960 

2080 

2200 

2320 

Larix decidua 

Abies alba 

2440 

2560 

2680 

50 

0 

660 

800 


940 

1080 

1220 

1360 

1500 

1640 

1780 

1920 

2060 

2200 


Future B 

Larix decidua 

Abies alba 

2340 

2480 

2620 

300 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Note: 

640 

750 

860 

970 

1080 

1190 

1300 

1410 



Sorbus aria 




Acer 



Pinus mugo 

Pinus cembra 

Picea abies 

Larix decidua 

Abies alba 

1520 

1630 

1740 

1850 

1960 

2070 

2180 

2290 

2400 

2510 

2620 

2730 


Sorbus aria 




Acer 



Pinus mugo 

Pinus cembra 

Picea abies 

Larix decidua 

Abies alba 

(A, corresponding to A in Figure 4.2) and higher elevation areas (B, corresponding to B in Figure 4.2) under current 

and future climatic conditions. The forest state was derived using the stochastic forest simulation model LandClim. 

Simulation results represent both the direct impact of climate on forest growth and the indirect impact of increased 

forest fire disturbances (the expected increase in the virulence of forest pathogens is not included). Local temperature 

and precipitation data from 1900 to 2000 were used to simulate forest state under current climatic conditions.Future 

climate data was based on a regional downscaling of the B2 climatic scenario from the third IPCC report. The future 

forest state is shown for the year 2100. 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

660 

800 

940 

1080 

1220 

1360 

1500 


1640 

1780 

1920 

2060 

2200 

2340 

2480 

2620 



Box 4.3 Impact of climate change on ecosystem services in the Valais, Switzerland (cont.) 

Changes to ecosystem services will be driven directly by shifts in forest structure due to the influence of 

climate change on growth and competition of forest species, and indirectly through climate-driven shifts in 

forest disturbances such as wind throw, fire, and pathogens (Schumacher and Bugmann, 2006). The region's 

steep climatic gradients will strongly influence both the direct and indirect effects of climate change. At 

lower elevations (< 800 m) the predicted increase in the incidence of droughts will result in species shifts, 

e.g. Quercus sp. becoming more important in the forest, with a decrease in the total forest biomass (indicated 

with A in Figures 4.2 and 4.3). At intermediate elevations (800–1 400 m), more drought-resistant species 

would move to higher elevations, with Picea abies becoming less abundant (indicated with B in Figures 4.2 

and 4.3). At the highest elevations (1 400–2 300 m), the increased temperature would allow total forest 

biomass to increase, and possibly allow the tree line to move upwards (indicated with C in Figure 4.2 and B in 

Figure 4.3). 

Climate-induced increases in the frequency and intensity of forest disturbances would have a significant impact 

on ecosystem services. Future increases in summer temperature and a possible increase in strong foehn 

winds would increase fire risk (Schumacher et al., 2006). While fires, especially larger fires, have historically 

been more likely at lower elevations, climate change driven shifts in fire risk would have the largest impact 

at intermediate elevations where drought has the largest impact on fire occurrence (Zumbrunnen et al., 

2009). Regional warming and higher summer temperatures would also increase the damage caused by 

forest pathogens such as pine wood nematodes, bark beetles and fungal agents (Wermelinger et al., 2008). 

A regional dieback of Pinus sylvestris, which began in the 1990s, has been attributed to regional warming that 

bolstered pathogen populations while simultaneously making trees more susceptible due to increased drought 

stress (Wermelinger et al., 2008; Dobbertin et al., 2004; Dobbertin and Rigling, 2006). 

The impact of these direct and indirect climate factors on ecosystem services will be region- and 

elevation‐specific. As the valleys are steep and the area is quite heavily populated, protection from 

gravitational hazards is a primary ecosystem service provided by forests. Pathogen-induced mortality of 

species such as Pinus sylvestris, in combination with the predicted decrease in forest biomass at lower 

elevations (indicated with A in Figure 4.3), would lead to a reduction in the protective function of lower 

elevation forest. At higher elevations, climate change induced increases in forest biomass will increase the 

forests' protective function. Increased temperature may also allow the tree line to shift upwards, providing 

further protection; however, this will be influenced more by land-use practices (e.g. the abandonment of 

high-elevation pastures) than by direct climate change effects. 

The impact of climate change on biodiversity and recreation will similarly be elevation-dependent. At low 

elevations, increased drought would lower total forest biomass and shift the species composition towards more 

drought-tolerant species. These combined effects will likely decrease both forest diversity and the diversity 

of organisms that rely on the forest system. Conversely, at high, and to a lesser degree at intermediate, 

elevations, climate change is predicted to increase both forest biomass and tree diversity (indicated with B 

in Figure 4.3). The dynamics of how forests change from their current state to one where drought-resistant 

species are more dominant will be a key factor that influences ecosystem services in the region. 

Source: 

Ché Elkin and Harald Bugmann (Department of Environmental Sciences, ETH Zurich, Switzerland). 

activities, such as bathing, rafting, canoeing, angling, 

hiking, photography or wildlife viewing. In general, 

the near-natural and most diverse sections of rivers 

in their upper reaches within mountain regions are 

more attractive to people due to their high aesthetic 

value coupled with a sense of wilderness. 

Species diversity in mountains, with many 

endemic or charismatic animals and plants (Nagy 

et al., 2003: Chapter 8), together with spectacular 

landscapes, many with a significant cultural 

component deriving from centuries or even 

millennia of human use, are of strong aesthetic 

value. The associated National Parks, UNESCO 

Biosphere Reserves and other protected areas in 

mountains (Chapter 9) provide a structured setting 

for ecotourism involving the full spectrum of 

ecosystem types occurring in these environments 

and also have an important role in education and 

awareness (e.g. Harmon and Worboys 2004, IUCN 

2009). As noted in Box 4.4, they also provide many 

other ecosystem services. 


69


Box 4.4 Mountain ecosystem services in European protected areas 

Europe's mountain protected areas are increasingly recognised not only for their biodiversity but also for their 

wider social and environmental values, contributing to the delivery of ecosystem services (Stolton and Dudley, 

2010; Chapter 9). The earliest objective of ecosystem management in European mountains was usually to 

prevent disasters from landslides, avalanches or flooding and dates from seven centuries ago when Swiss 

communes first began to protect key forests. The Swiss government estimates that forests managed for 

their protective function in the Alps are worth USD 2–3.5 billion per year (International Strategy for Disaster 

Reduction, 2004). National parks such as Triglav in Slovenia and Hohe Tauern in Austria explicitly recognise 

the value of such services in their management plans. In Spain, 500 years of regular flooding in Malaga has 

been stemmed by reforesting part of the catchment above the city and incorporating this into Montes de 

Malaga Natural Park. The floodplain value of the Dyfi valley, draining the mountains of the Snowdonia National 

Park in Wales was one reason for its recognition in 2009 as a biosphere reserve by UNESCO. 

As noted in Chapter 6, forested catchments provide consistently higher quality water and mountains function 

as water towers, providing hydropower and irrigation. In Bulgaria, Sofia relies for much of its water on two 

mountain protected areas — the Rila and Vitosha National Parks. Particularly important is the Bistrishko 

Branishte Biosphere Reserve, a high mountain peat bog within Vitosha National Park. Other examples are 

given in Table 4.2. 

Table 4.2 

Protected areas in mountains supplying water to major European cities 

City 

Vienna, Austria 

Barcelona, Spain 

Madrid, Spain 

Istanbul, Turkey 

Protected area 

Donau-Auen National Park (10 000 ha) 

Sierra del Cadí-Moixeró (41 342 ha) 

Paraje Natural de Pedraforca (1 671 ha) 

Natural Park of Peñalara (15 000 ha) 

Regional Park Cuenca Alta del Manzanares (46 323 ha) 

WWF is lobbying for forests important for supplying water to be included in protected areas 

Mountains also maintain food security through farming, particularly of economically-valuable local breeds 

and crop varieties. Protected landscapes can serve as models of sustainable production; for example, organic 

agriculture has been recognised as a particularly useful option within the Mount Etna National Park in Sicily 

and the Sneznik Regional Park in Slovenia (Stolton et al., 2000). Protected areas also help to conserve 

agrobiodiversity for crop breeding. This is particularly important in far eastern Europe, where the loss of 

crop wild relatives (CWR) is a focus for conservation in, for example, Munzur Vadisi National Park, Turkey. 

Important CWR also occur in other mountains; for example, Sumava National Park in the Czech Republic has 

been studied as a source of wild fruit tree relatives for crop breeding, and Montseny National Park in Spain 

conserves several wild Prunus species. 

More recently, the potential for mountain ecosystems to help mitigate and adapt to climate change has 

been recognised. European biomes store 100 gigatonnes of carbon (UNEP World Conservation Monitoring 

Centre, 2008) and forest and peat restoration can recover historical carbon losses. Management choices can 

increase sequestration. For example, replacement of monocultures with indigenous tree species in Kroknose 

and Sumava National Parks in the Czech Republic is expected to sequester 1.6 million tonnes of carbon over 

15 years (World Resources Institute, 2007). Conversion of uneconomic upland farming to carbon storage and 

forest management is now being considered for British national parks such as the Cairngorms, Peak District, 

and Brecon Beacons. 

Ecosystem services also have economic and cultural benefits. Tourism is the largest source of income in 

many mountain areas containing protected areas. In Scotland, the Cairngorms National Park receives 

around 1.4 million visitors a year, each spending on average GBP 69 (EUR 80) a day on accommodation, 

food, transport and entertainment. Tourism is often connected to the cultural and spiritual values of 

mountains, which are linked to ecosystem services; for example, several monasteries actively manage 

their lands for conservation, as in Rila National Park in Bulgaria and Montserrat National Park in Spain. An 

understanding of ecosystem values from mountains may create major changes in management priorities 

in the near future, as exercises such as The Economics and Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) project 

(European Communities, 2008) draw increased attention to the value of natural ecosystems. 

Source: 

Nigel Dudley (Equilibrium Research, the United Kingdom). 



4.2 Trends in mountain ecosystem 

services 

Trends in the human use and status of services 

in Europe provided by ecosystems are shown 

in Table 4.3. Trends are divided into increasing, 

decreasing, or mixed for human use and enhanced, 

degraded or mixed for status using the same 

definitions as the MA (2005a). The MA identified 

trends for a single time frame from 1950 to 2000, 

although if the trend had changed within that time 

frame the most recent trend was indicated (MA 

2005a). Analysis of the information for Europe 

from the literature review and expert opinion of 

the RUBICODE project revealed that opposing 

trends were often exhibited in the distant to the 

recent past in the different major ecosystem types. 

Hence, trends were divided into two time periods: 

1950 to 1990 and 1990 to present. The evidence 

presented represents Europe as a whole, although 

if trends differ across European regions this is 

entered as 'mixed' in Table 4.3 and described below. 

The availability of evidence varied considerably 

between services. Very little direct evidence from 

the literature was found for trends in services in 

mountain semi‐natural ecosystems, and trends were 

mainly based on expert interpretation of proxies 

such as changes in habitat area or condition across 

Europe (Harrison et al., 2010). 

There are great variations in the human use and 

status of different services between mountain regions 

in Europe. For example, considerable regional 

differences arise in peoples' attitudes, values and 

available resources between Western Europe and 

post-socialist Europe (e.g. Svajda 2008; Szabo et al., 

2008). Thus, spatio-temporal trends are mixed, with 

little distinction between pre- and post‐1990 periods. 

However, there are a few important services that may 

be exceptions to this and appear to exhibit overall 

patterns. Demand for timber from mountain forests 

in Europe has been vast over the last centuries, and 

remains so today (Ciais et al., 2008; Gimmi et al., 

2009; Stöhr, 2009). The MA reports that there has 

been an overall expansion of natural forest area of 

1.2 % in the temperate regions of the world between 

1990 and 2000, mainly as a result of increasing 

forest cover in the mountainous countries of 

Europe (Körner et al. 2005). Similarly, as human 

demands for clean freshwater continue to increase, 

mountains remain central to the provision of this 

pivotal resource (Körner et al. 2005). The need for 

the sustainable delivery of water from mountains 

is now appreciated, and water regulation not only 

for human consumption but also to meet industrial 

needs and energy provision has generally been 

enhanced. 

Recreation and ecotourism have increased 

dramatically over the last half century. The 

industry is complex, involving both foreign and 

domestic visitors. The widespread increases 

in service use may be attributed to a range of 

factors, from attractiveness of the region and 

improved accessibility to the characteristics of 

the tourists themselves and the expansion of 

the range of leisure activities (Price et al., 1997). 

Increases in recreation and tourism have been 

responsible, to varying extents, for parallel and 

necessary increases in regulating services on 

mountains that deal with natural hazard regulation 

(e.g. avalanches, landslides, floods) and general 

erosion regulation. A last group of ecosystem 

services that appears to show a trend, this time in a 

negative direction, is that provided by pollinators. 

Though there is little or no documentation 

specifically for European mountain ecosystems, 

the recent global decline, which includes Europe, 

of wild and managed pollinator species, involving 

both wild and crop plant species in all types of 

environments (e.g. FAO, 2008) implies a seriously 

degraded status of pollination services in recent 

years. The importance of this trend is not to be 

underestimated, as pollination services regulate 

and are essential for the provision of many of the 

other services in mountain ecosystems. 

4.3 Mountains, ecosystem services and 

the future 

This chapter demonstrates that European mountains 

and their ecosystems provide many important 

services from each of the main MA categories, 

underlining the characteristically very high 

multifunctionality of these systems. Importantly, 

services in each category are included that make 

specific contributions to lowland as well as highland 

beneficiaries. Indeed, the MA stresses the major 

social and economic consequences of highlandlowland 

links, observing that, while people and 

industries in the lowlands tend to invest to harness 

highland opportunities largely for their own benefit, 

maximising highland-lowland complementarities 

is crucial to both communities. People making 

their living in mountains need linkages to 

lowland markets, while lowland inhabitants 

rely on mountain people to serve as stewards for 

maintaining the provision of mountain ecosystem 

services (Körner et al., 2005). 

However, it is important to stress that it is not 

only the economic trade-offs among the relevant 

beneficiaries. It is also essential to consider the 

biological side, including the need to maintain 


71


and protect ecosystem service providers (ESPs) and 

the full spectrum of biodiversity and ecosystem 

function and integrity (Harrison et al., 2010; Haslett 

et al., 2010), recognising the dynamic nature of 

ecosystems and present conditions of environmental 

change. Here again, trade-offs between the 

biological ESPs are unavoidable, as a provider for 

one ecosystem service may antagonise a service by 

another. For example, complex vegetation provides 

slope stability (Körner, 2002), but management 

to maintain this runs contrary to the creation and 

management of smooth ski slopes (Wipf et al., 

2005). These different roles then affect the levels 

of service provision to the beneficiaries. Given 

the complex relationships between ecosystem 

providers and human beneficiaries, a balance of 

cost-benefit trade-offs is required for conservation 

and production that is associated with different land 

management options (Luck et al., 2009). To this end, 

a new conceptual framework has been developed 

to assess the impacts of drivers of environmental 

change on provision of ecosystem service and 

societal responses, to enable them to be managed 

and protected more effectively. The framework, 

known as FESP (Framework for Ecosystem Service 

Provision), is based on an interpretation of the 

widely-used Drivers-Pressures-State-Impact- 

Response (DPSIR) framework and is set within 

the context of entire social-ecological systems (see 

Rounsevell et al., in press, for a full account). The 

value of such a common framework lies in making 

the comparison across competing services accessible 

and clear as well as highlighting the conflicts and 

trade-offs between both multiple ecosystem services 

and also multiple service beneficiaries. 

The FESP approach also illustrates the need to 

consider biodiversity conservation and ecosystem 

services together. This is contrary to traditional 

nature conservation philosophy, which was 

undertaken solely for the moral, ethical, or aesthetic 

reasons that are equivalent to the 'cultural services' 

Table 4.3 

Ecosystem services in the EU 

Ecosystems Agro 

Forests Grasslands Heath and Wetlands Lakes and rivers 

Services 

ecosystems 

scrubs 

Provisioning 

Crops/timber ↓ ↑ ↓ 

Livestock ↓ = = = ↓ 

Wild foods = ↓ ↓ = 

Wood fuel = = 

Capture fisheries = = 

Aquaculture ↓ ↓ 

Genetic = ↓ ↓ = = 

Fresh water ↓ ↑ ↑ 

Regulating 

Pollination ↑ ↓ = 

Climate regulation ↑ = = = 

Pest regulation ↑ = 

Erosion regulation = = = 

Water regulation = ↑ ↑ = 

Water purification = = 

Hazard regulation = = 

Cultural 

Recreation ↑ = ↓ ↑ ↑ = 

Aesthetic ↑ = = = ↑ = 

Status for period 1990–present 

Degraded 

Mixed 

Enhanced 

Unknown 

Not applicable 

Trend between periods 

↑ Positive change between the periods 1950–1990 and 1990 to present 

↓ 

= 

Negative change between the periods 1950–1990 and 1990 to present 

No change between the two periods 

Note: 

Ecosystem services still degrading. Most of the ecosystem services in Europe are judged to be 'degraded' — no longer able to 

deliver the optimal quality and quantity of basic services such as crop pollination, clean air and water, and control of floods or 

erosion (RUBICODE project 2006–2009; marine ecosystems not included). 



of the MA. There is now a recognised strong 

interplay between conservation and economics in 

the other MA service groups (i.e. provisioning and 

regulating services). This means that managing 

habitats to protect service provision, while at 

the same time meeting the needs of biodiversity 

conservation may provide a 'value-added' strategy 

to complement and support existing biodiversity 

conservation (Harrison et al., 2010; Haslett et al., 

2010). In addition, strategies to conserve ecosystem 

service provision involve a range of types and sizes 

of target units, from single populations to functional 

groups to entire species assemblages and habitat 

complexes at the landscape level, as well as how 

they change in space and time. Thus the approach is 

intrinsically dynamic, particularly as the target units 

are not always spatially fixed: service provision 

must follow environmental change and there is 

a need to be able to deal with projected changes. 

This is particularly true for Europe's mountains as 

habitats and species shift altitudes and run out of 

suitable climate space in the future (Section 8.3). 

A framework was developed within RUBICODE to 

bring together the relationships between present 

conservation approaches, wider societal needs, 

the provision of ecosystem services and dynamic 

ecosystems (Haslett et al., 2010). The framework 

involves the integration of appropriate policy and 

management for service provision in different 

sectors with ecosystem sustainability and integrity 

so as to provide biodiversity conservation within 

the framework of a Social-Ecological System, as 

with FESP. Such conservation strategies must also 

encompass management for sustainable ecosystem 

services, whilst still maintaining ecosystem 

integrity. This then reflects, and may influence, 

changing societal needs. The framework operates 

as a continuous, iterative process with dynamic 

and adaptive properties. However, it is of utmost 

importance that management for the protection of 

sustainable service provision be closely linked to 

existing conservation strategies and policy in all 

appropriate places and at all scales of organisation. 

This ensures that services whose provision will be 

antagonistic to conservation interests or to other 

services do not have severe detrimental effects on 

biodiversity. While ecosystem service provision 

has begun to creep into some aspects of European 

Conservation Strategy (e.g. Haslett, 2007), the whole 

will require a focus on governance and institutions 

and increased communication and integration across 

the different sectors, from agriculture and forestry to 

industry, transport and recreation. 

The implications of these new developments for 

mountain ecosystem management, sustainable 

ecosystem service provision and biodiversity 

conservation are considerable. The potential of 

adopting the ecosystem services approach in the 

conservation of the mountains and uplands of 

the United Kingdom has already been clearly 

acknowledged and is addressed in some detail by 

Bonn et al. (2009). A more general commentary on 

the use of ecosystem services within the Ecosystem 

Approach to biodiversity conservation of the 

Convention on Biodiversity (CBD), but specifically 

addressing the UK situation is provided by 

Haines‐Young and Potschin (2008). Now, new 

frameworks, that were not available to these 

authors, exist, but they have yet to be applied, 

tested and refined in mountain (and other) 

situations. This is one of the important next logical 

steps in this rapidly developing field. 


73


5 Climate change and Europe's 

mountains 

Europe's mountains stretch from the Arctic 

through the temperate and into the subtropical 

climatic zone of the Northern hemisphere, as well 

as from maritime to continental environments. As 

such, they encompass a wide range of bioclimatic 

zones. Across these very diverse mountains, local 

climatic and other environmental controls vary 

enormously as their effects are superimposed upon 

macro‐scale factors influencing mountain climates, 

such as continentality and latitude. Recognising 

the sensitivity of mountain environments and the 

potential vulnerabilities of these environments 

to climate change, the scientific community 

has increased research on global change in 

mountain regions including the possible impacts 

of anthropogenic climate change (Becker and 

Bugmann, 2001; Huber et al., 2005; EEA, 2009). This 

chapter presents recent observed changes in the 

climate of Europe's mountains and likely changes 

during this century. The likely impacts of these 

changes on glacier, hydrological and ecological 

systems are presented in Box 6.2 and Sections 6.5, 

6.6, and 8.3, respectively. 

5.1 Changes in climate across Europe 

The availability of climatic data across Europe's 

mountain regions is highly variable in both space 

and time, with particularly high spatial density and 

length of record in the Alps, and lower densities 

and lengths of record in other mountain regions 

(Price and Barry, 1997). Consequently — and also 

because the spatial resolution of Global Climate 

Models (GCMs) generally does not permit detailed 

prediction of climates of regions such as mountains, 

and relatively few studies using statistical 

downscaling methods or regional climate models 

have considered mountain areas — this introductory 

section mainly presents data for Europe as a whole, 

rather than mountains specifically, to provide a 

context for the following sections. 

5.1.1 Observed changes in climate 

Observations of increases in global average air 

and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of 

snow and ice, and rising sea level are unequivocal 

evidence of warming of the climate system globally. 

Direct observations and proxy records indicate 

that historical and recent changes in climate in 

many mountain regions are at least comparable 

with, and locally may be greater than, those 

observed in the adjacent lowlands. Global mean 

temperature has increased by 0.8 °C compared 

with pre-industrial times for land and oceans, and 

by 1.0 °C for land alone (EEA, 2008). Most of the 

observed increase in global average temperatures 

is very likely due to increases in anthropogenic 

greenhouse gas concentrations (Albritton et al., 

2001). During the 20th century, most of Europe 

experienced increases in average annual surface 

temperature (average increase 0.8 °C), with more 

warming in winter than in summer (IPPC, 2007). 

European warming has been greater than the global 

average, with more pronounced warming in the 

southwest, the northeast, and mountain areas. As 

the observed trend in western Europe over the past 

decade appears stronger than simulated by GCMs, 

climate change projections probably underestimate 

the effects of anthropogenic climate change (van 

Oldenborgh et al., 2009). 

5.1.2 Projected regional changes 

Landmasses are expected to warm more than the 

oceans, and northern, middle and high latitudes 

more than the tropics (Giorgi, 2005, 2006; Stendel 

et al., 2008; Kitoh and Mukano, 2009; Lean and 

Rind, 2009). Warming in the atmosphere is also 

expected to be more pronounced at progressively 

higher elevations in the troposphere, along a 

latitudinal gradient from the northern mid-latitudes 

to approximately 30 °S, with a maximum above 

the tropics and sub-tropics (Albritton et al., 2001). 

Many European mountain regions are situated in 

these high-latitude zones of anticipated enhanced 

warming. 

Projections from GCMs generally show increased 

precipitation at high latitudes (Frei et al., 2003). With 

more precipitation falling as rain rather than snow 

in a warmed atmosphere, soil moisture in northern 

areas in winter would increase, while in summer, 

74 



simulations suggest a general tendency towards 

mid-latitude soil drying (Christensen, 2001). Despite 

possible reductions in average summer precipitation 

over much of Europe, precipitation amounts 

exceeding the 95th percentile are very likely in 

many areas, thus episodes of severe flooding may 

become more frequent despite the general trend 

towards drier summer conditions (Christensen and 

Christensen, 2002; Christensen, 2004; Pal et al., 2004; 

Frei et al., 2006). 

The details of outputs from different models vary, 

and so ensemble-based approaches have been 

used to bring together outputs from a range of 

models. In such an approach using outputs from 

20 GCMs for three of the emission scenarios of 

the Inter‐Governmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC), the Mediterranean, northeast and northwest 

Europe are identified, in this order, as warming 

hot spots (Giorgi, 2006), albeit with regional and 

seasonal variations in the pattern and amplitude of 

warming (Giorgi and Lionello, 2008; Faggian and 

Giorgi, 2009; Brankovic et al., 2010). 

Most climate change studies for mountain areas 

rely on simulations of the future climate using 

statistical downscaling models (SDMs) or regional 

climate models (RCMs) forced by boundary data 

from GCMs. Table 5.1 lists RCM-based studies for 

different European regions, some of which evaluate 

model performance in mountainous areas. RCMs 

also project rising temperatures for Europe until the 

end of the 21st century, with an accelerated increase 

in the second half of the century. However, for many 

regions, there are substantial differences between 

the RCM surface temperature and precipitation 

simulations, depending on the driving GCM. There 

is no clear correlation of differences with regions, 

but the driving GCM has a dominant effect on 

temperature during spring, winter, and autumn, 

which seems to be larger than the effect of the 

specific RCM (Christensen and Christensen, 2007). 

For precipitation, the driving model seems to be 

relatively most important in spring and summer 

(Christensen and Christensen, 2007; Déqué et al., 

2007). Despite the complex local character of 

simulated summertime change in RCMs, the 

larger‐scale pattern shows a gradient from increases 

in Northern Scandinavia to decreases in the 

Mediterranean region (Frei et al., 2006; Schmidli 

et al., 2007). In contrast, increases in wintertime 

precipitation primarily north of 45 °N are a robust 

feature of RCM projections over Europe, with 

decreases over the Mediterranean (Frei et al., 2006; 

Schmidli et al., 2007; Haugen and Iversen, 2008). 

Overall, therefore, there is likely to be an increase 

in precipitation in the north and a decrease in the 

south, with all models agreeing in the north, and 

12 out of 16 models agreeing in the south (van der 

Linden and Mitchell, 2009). 

The previous paragraphs refer to changes in mean 

values. However, for both ecological and human 

systems, changes in extremes may be far more 

important (Box 5.1). With regard to temperatures, 

biases in maximum temperatures during summer, 

and minimum temperatures during winter, 

tend to be larger at the extremes than in the 

mean values (Beniston et al., 2007; Hanson et al., 

2007). RCMs generally underestimate maximum 

temperatures during summer in northern Europe 

and overestimate them in eastern Europe (Frei 

et al., 2006). In winter, minimum temperatures are 

overestimated over most of Europe. The spread 

between the models is generally also larger at the 

tails of the probability distributions (Frei et al., 

2006). With regard to precipitation, simulated 

change in extremes from various RCMs shows a 

seasonally-distinct pattern (Frei et al., 2006; Jacob 

et al., 2007; Koffi and Koffi, 2008). In winter, land 

north of about 45 °N would experience an increase 

in multi-year return values, and the Mediterranean 

region would experience small changes, with a 

general tendency towards decreases (Hanson et al., 

Table 5.1 

Recent literature, RCM projections and evaluations for European mountain regions 

Year Author Literature type Type of study Region addressed 

2003 Frei et al. Journal paper RCM evaluation European Alps 

2006 Schmidli et al. Journal paper Downscaling methods comparison European Alps 

2007 Coll Unpublished PhD thesis RCM evaluation Scottish Highlands 

2007 Schmidli et al. Journal paper Downscaling methods comparison European Alps 

2008 Lopez-Moreno et al. Journal paper RCM inter-comparison Pyrenees 

2008 Noguez-Bravo et al. Journal paper GCM projections Mediterranean mountains 

2009 Smiatek et al. Journal paper RCM inter-comparison European Alps 


75


2007). The increase in wintertime precipitation 

extremes is a robust feature in RCM projections 

over Europe, whereas the character of change for 

summer is more complex (Beniston et al., 2007; 

Christensen and Christensen, 2007; Déqué et al., 

2007; Schmidli et al., 2007; Lopez-Moreno et al., 

2008). The larger-scale pattern shows a gradient 

from increases in northern Scandinavia to decreases 

in the Mediterranean region which is fairly similar 

between models. Addressing uncertainty in 

scenarios of summer precipitation extremes is a 

research priority (Frei et al., 2006). 

Box 5.1 Climate change and extreme events in the mountains of northern Sweden 

Climate warming in the Swedish sub-Arctic since 2000 has reached a level where the current warming 

has exceeded that of the late 1930s and early 1940s and, significantly, has crossed the 0 °C mean annual 

temperature threshold that causes many cryospheric and ecological impacts. The accelerating trend 

of temperature increase has driven trends in snow thickness, loss of lake ice, increases in active layer 

thickness, and changes in tree line location and plant community structure. Changes in the climate are 

associated with reduced temperature variability at the seasonal scale, particularly a loss of cold winters 

and cool summers, and an increase in extreme precipitation events that decrease the stability of mountain 

slopes and cause infrastructure failure. Both mean annual precipitation and extreme precipitation events 

have increased, especially the number of days with more than 20 mm precipitation. 

Even more important from a landscape change perspective, the 'extremes of the extremes' have also 

increased. Except from one extreme precipitation event in the 1920s, these extremes have reached 

higher and higher levels, with increasing daily maxima up to 60 mm. Several of the geomorphological and 

hydrological impacts of these extreme events are well known in the Abisko area, where both a railroad 

and a road pass close to mountain slopes. The extreme precipitation events have caused disturbances for 

traffic; the latest extreme precipitation event, on 20 July 2004, triggered a number of debris flows and 

landslides and, for the first time in this area, badly damaged a road bridge. Parts of the road-bank were 

eroded and transported away by the running water, and it was only because of an attentive driver that 

severe car accidents were avoided. The trajectory of increasing extremes of extremes over time renders 

the planning, building and meteorological concept of 'return frequency' of extreme events obsolete, as each 

new extreme has not been experienced earlier in the instrumental record. Planning adaptation to climate 

change therefore requires the formulation of new concepts and building guidelines. 

Not only precipitation affects and causes changes in these landscapes; extreme temperature events are 

also occurring more frequently in winter. Experimental studies and findings from observations following 

natural events show that short winter warming events can cause major damage to plant communities 

even at the landscape scale. In such an event in December 2007, the temperature rose to 7 °C within a 

few days, resulting in more or less complete loss of the snow cover and hence exposure of the vegetation 

when low temperatures returned. After a short period of no or little snow cover, the temperature fell and, a 

few days later, the vegetation was again covered by snow. This single warming event, about 10 days long, 

caused substantial impacts to the vegetation cover. In the following summer, satellite-derived Normalised 

Differential Vegetation Index (NDVI) showed damage of dwarf shrubs over almost 15 000 km². Field 

studies in the affected areas showed that the frequency of dead roots of the dominant shrub, Emperum 

hermaphroditum, increased up to 16-fold, resulting in almost 90 % less summer growth compared with 

undamaged areas. Similarly, field experiments using infra-red heating lamps and soil warming cables 

to simulate extreme temperature events have shown that single-day snow-free conditions followed by 

freezing result in c. 20 times greater frequency of dead roots and almost 50 % less shoot growth of 

E. hermaphroditum and near complete absence of berry production in Vaccinium myrtillus. 

These events are of major concern both for conservation — as animals such as lemmings that depend on 

continuous snow cover decline, resulting in loss of predators such as the snowy owl and arctic fox — and 

for the reindeer-herding Sami, as damaged vegetation needs to be replaced by alternative pastures or 

expensive supplementary food pellets. 

Source: 

Christer Jonasson and Terry Callaghan (Abisko Scientific Research Station, Sweden). 



5.2 Changes in climate in European 

mountains 

5.2.1 Long‐term trends in climatic variables 

Evidence of recent climate change comes from 

observations at high-altitude sites across the globe, 

with observed changes including increased winter 

rainfall and rainfall intensity (Groisman et al., 2005; 

Malby et al., 2007) and temperatures increasing 

more rapidly than at lowland sites, particularly 

through increases in minimum (nocturnal) 

temperatures (Bradley et al., 2006). However, 

evidence of altitude-based differences in warming 

is not equivocal (Pepin and Seidel, 2005). Actual 

and potential responses in cryospheric variables 

include: a rise in the snowline; a shorter duration of 

snow cover (Martin and Etchevers, 2005); changes 

in avalanche frequency and characteristics; glacier 

recession (Haeberli, 2005; Box 6.2); break-out of 

ice-dammed lakes; warming of perennially-frozen 

ground; and, thawing of ground ice (Barry, 2002; 

Harris et al., 2003; Harris, 2005). 

As noted above, the availability of climate data is 

greatest for the Alps (EEA, 2009). A compilation 

of 87 temperature records, with documentary and 

narrative reports and gridded reconstructions, some 

dating back to 1500, shows that 1994, 2001, 2002 and 

2003 were the warmest years in the record (Casty 

et al., 2005). Over the past 250 years, in the Greater 

Alpine Region (GAR): 

• there has been an overall annual temperature 

increase of ~ 2.0 °C from the late 19th to early 

21st century; 

• following a decrease in temperature from 

1790 to 1890, 20th century warming was more 

pronounced in summer than in winter; 

• during the past 25 years, winters and summers 

have warmed at comparable rates, leading to 

an annual mean temperature increase of 1.2 °C, 

an increase unprecedented in the instrumental 

record (Zebisch et al., 2008). 

While temperature changes have followed similar 

patterns across the Alps (Figure 5.1), trends at the 

Figure 5.1 Change in temperature for the Greater Alpine Region, 1760–2007: Single years 

and 20-year smoothed mean series 

Note: 

Single years (thin lines) and 20-year smoothed means (bold lines). All values relative to 1851–2000 averages, summer and 

winter half-years (first row), annual means and annual range (second row). 

Source: ZAMG-HISTALP database (version 2008, including the recent Early Instrumental (EI) period correction (Böhm et al., 2009). 


77


sub-regional scale are different for precipitation 

(EEA, 2009; Figure 5.2). Over the past two centuries, 

there has been a trend of increasing precipitation 

in the north-west Alps (eastern France, northern 

Switzerland, southern Germany, western Austria) and 

a decreasing precipitation in the south-east (Slovenia, 

Croatia, Hungary, south-east Austria, Bosnia and 

Herzegovina) (Auer et al., 2005). 

The frequency of temperatures exceeding the 

freezing point during the winter season in eastern 

Switzerland has more than doubled during periods 

of high North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) index, 

compared to periods with low index values, thereby 

increasing the chances of early snowmelt. Despite 

strong inter‐annual variability, overall trends in snow 

cover have not changed much, as the rate of warming 

during the 20th century is modest in relation to future 

projections (Beniston, 2006). However, the upper 

tens of metres of permafrost warmed by 0.5 °C to 

0.8 °C during the 20th century (Gruber et al., 2004), 

especially at higher altitudes, with accompanying 

thickening of the seasonal active layer (Harris et al., 

2009). 

After the Alps, the longest records and most dense 

networks are in parts of the Carpathians, the 

mountains of the British Isles, and the mountains 

of Scandinavia (Price and Barry, 1997). Changes 

have also been observed for areas of the more 

maritime UK uplands, including evidence of more 

rapid warming (Holden and Adamson, 2002) and 

marked precipitation changes (Barnett et al., 2006; 

Fowler and Kilsby, 2007; Maraun et al., 2008). In 

the Carpathians, annual temperature variability 

increased from 1962 to 2000 (e.g. from 0.3 °C to 0.5 °C 

in the Bucegi Mountains; from 0.5 °C to 0.7 °C in the 

Semenic Mountains; and, from 0.8 °C to 0.9 °C in 

the southern Carpathians and Apuseni Mountains 

(Ionita and Boroneant, 2005; Micu, 2009)). At other 

Carpathian locations, winter temperature increases of 

~ 3 °C characterised the end of the 1961–2003 period 

compared to the long‐term average (Micu and Micu, 

2008; Micu, 2009). 

Central European station data for 1901–1990 and 

1951–1990 indicate that mountain stations show only 

small changes of the diurnal temperature range from 

1901 to 1990, while low-lying stations in the western 

Alps show a significant decrease in the diurnal 

temperature range, caused by a strong increase 

in the minimum temperature. For 1951–1990, the 

diurnal temperature range decreased at the western 

low-lying stations, mainly in spring, but remained 

roughly constant at the mountain stations (Weber 

et al., 1997). Proxy measures elsewhere in European 

mountain regions also offer evidence of recent 

changes. For example: 

• Borehole monitoring of permafrost temperatures 

showed that relief and aspect led to greater 

variability between Swiss and Italian Alpine 

Figure 5.2 Annual precipitation series (left graph) and annual cloudiness series (right graph) 

for the northwest (NW) and southeast (SE) Alps 

Note: 

All values relative to 1901–2000 averages. Single years (thin lines) and 10-year smoothed means (bold lines). 

Source: ZAMG-HISTALP database (Auer et al., 2007). 



boreholes than between those in Scandinavia 

and Svalbard. However, 15 years of thermal 

data from the 58 m-deep Murtèl–Corvatsch 

permafrost borehole in Switzerland, drilled in 

ice-rich rock debris, showed an overall warming 

trend, with high-amplitude inter-annual 

fluctuations reflecting early winter snow cover 

fluctuations more strongly than air temperatures 

(Harris et al., 2003). 

• In upland lakes, spring temperature trends were 

highest in Finland; summer trends were weak 

everywhere; autumn trends were strongest in 

the west, in the Pyrenees and western Alps; 

while winter trends varied markedly, being high 

in the Pyrenees and Alps, low in Scotland and 

Norway and negative in Finland (Thompson 

et al., 2009). 

5.2.2 Climate change scenarios 

A number of studies (Giorgi et al., 1994; Beniston 

and Rebetez, 1996; Fyfe and Flato, 1999) suggest 

that the highest mountainous areas are expected 

to experience the most intense increases in 

temperature. If this occurs, the impact of climate 

warming could be enhanced due to the high 

dependence of surrounding regions on the water 

resources provided by the mountains (Beniston, 

2003, 2006); this could be particularly important in 

river basins where snow and glaciers play a major 

part in regulating seasonal hydrological cycles 

(Barnett et al., 2006); this is discussed further in 

Chapter 6. 

Figure 5.3 presents predicted seasonal changes in 

precipitation and temperature in the Alps up to 

the end of the 21st century. By 2071–2100, summers 

in Europe's southern mountains are projected to 

warm by 5–6 °C (Räisänen et al., 2004; Christensen 

and Christensen, 2007), in the Alps by up to 5 °C 

(Smiatek et al., 2009; van der Linden and Mitchell, 

2009; Box 5.2) and in the north by 3–5 °C. A similar 

latitudinal contrast is projected for 21st century 

precipitation, with northern mountains experiencing 

increases of 20–50 %, and decreases of ~ 25–50 % in 

southern ranges, associated with a north-eastward 

extension of the summer mean Atlantic subtropical 

high pressure system. In summer, most RCMs 

simulate a strong decrease in mean precipitation for 

the Alps (Frei et al., 2003, 2006; Schmidli et al., 2007; 

Smiatek et al., 2009), a pattern also found for the 

Pyrenees (Lopez-Moreno et al., 2008). One significant 

outcome may be an increased frequency of lightning 

fires (Box 5.3). Mean net shortwave length radiation 

is projected to increase by around 10 watts per 

square metre (W/m 2 ) over much of Europe during 

the summer (Lenderink et al., 2007). Another climatic 

element strongly affected by circulation change is 

wind speed. In general, summer wind speeds are 

projected to decrease in southern Europe but to 

increase in the north (Räisänen et al., 2004), as the 

Atlantic storm track shifts polewards (Bengtsson 

et al., 2006). 

Winters are also projected to warm, with a 

geographically consistent pattern of 4–5 °C increases 

in mean winter temperature in Europe's eastern 

mountains, but increases of 1–3 °C in western, more 

maritime, settings (Christensen and Christensen, 

2007; Räisänen et al., 2004). All scenarios agree 

on a general increase in winter precipitation in 

northern and central Europe, and a decrease 

to the south of the Alps. However, large local 

changes in precipitation are projected for parts 

of Norway and the Alps, where the pronounced 

topography makes any change in precipitation 

pattern very sensitive to wind direction. A number 

of scenarios indicate a distinct wintertime increase 

in storm track density over the British Isles and 

across into Western Europe, but a decrease in the 

Mediterranean (Bengtsson et al., 2006). However, 

while the basic dynamics governing shifts in the 

strength and path of the mid-latitude storm track are 

well understood, the ability of models to reproduce 

these is limited. As it is unclear which, if any, climate 

model is capable of satisfactory projections, there is 

considerable uncertainty about the future behaviour 

of storm tracks in the north-east Atlantic (Woolf and 

Coll, 2007). 

5.2.3 Changes in snow cover and permafrost 

Both temperature and precipitation increases to date 

have impacted mountain snowpacks simultaneously 

on a global scale. However, the nature of the impact 

is strongly dependent on geographic location, 

latitude, and elevation, among other factors 

(Stewart, 2009). In general, snow cover throughout 

the Alps decreased throughout the 20th century, in 

particular since the 1980s and during the latter part 

of the century (Stewart, 2009), and continues to do so 

(EEA, 2009). 

Climate models suggest that future snowfall in 

the Alps could be reduced by 3 % in the winter, 

with altitudes above 1 500 m experiencing a loss 

of approximately 20 % up to the late 21st century 

(EEA, 2009); other results suggest that snow below 

500 m could almost disappear completely (Jacob 

et al., 2007). The duration of snow cover is expected 

to decrease by several weeks for each projected °C 

of temperature increase in the Alps, with the 

greatest sensitivity in the middle altitude bands 

(575–1 373 m) in winter and spring (Hantel et al., 


79


Figure 5.3 Seasonal changes in precipitation and temperature until the end of the 

21st century, according to CLM Scenario A1B 

Source: EEA, 2009. 

2000; Wielke et al., 2004; Martin and Etchevers, 2005). 

Keller et al. (2005) report an average decrease of a 

month in the modelled snowmelt for Alpine rock 

and sward habitats in response to a 4 °C increase in 

mean temperature. According to model projections 

following different greenhouse gas emission 

scenarios, the thickness and duration of snowpack 

in the Pyrenees will decrease dramatically over the 

next century, especially in the central and eastern 

areas of the Spanish Pyrenees (Lopez-Moreno et al., 

2008). The magnitude of these impacts will follow 

a marked altitudinal gradient. The maximum 



Box 5.2 Future climate in the Greater Alpine Area 

Over the past century, the mean temperature in the Alps increased by 1.1 °C. GCMs indicate that, by 2100, 

the temperature of the Alpine region, relative to the period 1980–1999, may increase by up to 5 °C (IPCC, 

2007), and that summer precipitation will decrease significantly. Analysis of monthly mean values from 

six GCMs using the A1B emission scenario for the Greater Alpine Area for 2071–2100 showed increases in 

temperature of 3.4 °C in winter and 4.3 °C in summer relative to 1961–1990. On average, these models show 

that precipitation will increase by 10 % in winter and decrease by 30 % in summer (Smiatek et al., 2009). 

Several statistical and dynamic downscaling approaches have been applied to derive highly resolved climate 

change information for the Alpine region. While the regional models reproduce spatial precipitation patterns 

and the annual cycle in complex terrain, there are still large biases in precipitation when compared with 

observations. In the PRUDENCE project (Christensen and Christensen, 2007), an ensemble of 25 RCMs, mostly 

run with a horizontal resolution of 0.5 °C in a time slice experiment using the A2 scenario, showed a mean 

increase in the seasonal mean temperature in the Alps of 3.53 °C in winter and 5.04 °C in summer, compared 

to the 1961–1990 mean. The relative seasonal mean precipitation change was + 20 % in winter and – 26 % 

in summer. Schmidli et al. (2007) evaluated six statistical and three dynamical downscaling models, and found 

a strong decrease in mean precipitation for the entire Alpine region in summer for 2071–2100; a substantial 

reduction in the frequency of wet days in summer resulted in a large increase (50–100 %) in the maximum 

length of dry spells. Most models also simulate an 

increase in precipitation intensity on wet days in 

summer and in the 90 % quantile of precipitation on 

wet days in winter, compared to 1961–1990. Some 

models indicate increased precipitation intensity 

in summer, despite the strong decrease in mean 

precipitation. 

Figure 5.4 shows the simulated changes in 

temperature and various precipitation statistics as 

simulated by two RCMs — HIRHAM (Christensen and 

Christensen, 2007) and RegCM (Gao et al., 2006) — 

driven with boundary forcings from the HadAM3 GCM, 

and also the transient CCLM (Rockel et al., 2008) 

RCM, driven with boundary data from the ECHAM5 

GCM as evaluated by Smiatek et al. (2009). For the 

Alpine region, the RCM models simulate a winter 

temperature increase for 2071–2100 of 2 °C to over 

3 °C and, in summer, of almost 5 °C compared to 

1960–1990. Summer precipitation decreased up to 

29 %, with a substantial increase in the maximum 

length of dry spells. For winter, all models indicate a 

precipitation increase, with more wet days and strong 

precipitation events. In particular regions, however, 

the RCMs simulate much greater differences: an 

increase of more than 30 % in winter and a decrease 

of almost 40 % in summer. 

Figure 5.4 

a) Precipitation ratio 

1.6 

b) 

1.4 

1.2 

1.0 

0.8 

0.6 

Simulated change in precipitation 

(2071–2100 to 1961–1990) 

and temperature (2071–2100 

to 1961–1990) statistics in 

the Greater Alpine Area in (a) 

winter and (b) summer for four 

Regional Climate Models 

0.4 

MEA-P FRE-1 FRE-15 Q90 XCCD MEA-T 

Precipitation ratio 

1.6 

1.4 

1.2 

1.0 

Temperature difference (K) 

6 

Temperature difference (K) 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

5 

4 

3 

The analysis of the regional climate simulations 

shows that results based on different regional 

models, different driving global models, and different 

emission scenarios show similar trends — but that 

these differ in the magnitude of the expected climate 

change signal. Nevertheless, there are still large 

biases in the reproduction of the current climate, and 

therefore substantial uncertainties in the magnitude 

of expected climate change. 

Source: 

Gerhard Smiatek and Harald Kunstmann 

(Institute for Meteorology and Climate Research, 

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany). 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

Note: 

MEA-P FRE-1 FRE-15 Q90 XCCD MEA-T 

CLM A1B 

HIRHAM A2 

CLM REGCM B2 

CLM REGCM A2 

Statistics: MEAP: mean climatological precipitation, 

FRE-1: frequency (ratio) of wet-days with 

precipitation > 1 mm, FRE-15: frequency (ratio) 

of days with precipitation > 15 mm, Q90: 90 % 

quantile of the distribution function on wet days, 

XCCD: maximum number of consecutive dry days, 

MEA-T: mean climatological temperature. 

2 

1 

0 


81


Box 5.3 Lightning-induced fires in the Alpine region 

In most forest ecosystems, lightning is the only natural source of ignition (Pyne et al., 1996). As well as 

factors such as fuel (type, moisture, density and depth) and topography, the frequency and distribution 

of lightning-caused forest fires greatly depend on weather (drought or lack of precipitation, frequency 

and type of the thunderstorms and of the associated lightning discharges, and ventilation). This makes 

lightning-fires of particular relevance for assessing the possible impact of climate change (Street, 1989; 

Flannigan and van Wagner, 1991; Balling et al., 1992; Weber and Stocks, 1998). 

In Europe, most lightning-induced forest fires take place in the southern boreal forests of Fennoscandia 

(Granström, 1993; Larjavaara et al., 2005) and in the mountain regions from the Iberian Peninsula 

(Vasquez and Moreno, 1998; Galán et al., 2002) to the Western and Central Alps (Conedera et al., 2006). 

Lightning-caused forest fires may occur between May and October, but most events (90 % or more) take 

place during the warm summer months of June to August, with some differences due to the different 

elevation, expositions and start of the warm season (Granström, 1993; Wotton and Martell, 2005; Conedera 

et al., 2006). In general, lightning causes fires in coniferous forests located on steep slopes at high 

elevations. Such fires are often started by an underground ignition that may keep smouldering locally for 

days and weeks resulting in small-size burned areas (Conedera et al., 2006). 

Given their natural origin, the frequency and extent of lightning-ignited fires depend strongly on seasonal 

weather conditions; data for the southern slope of the Swiss Alps show an increase with drought indices. In 

the Swiss Alps, the inter-annual variability in fire frequency and burnt area is high, with no clear increasing 

trend (Figure 5.5). 

Figure 5.5 

Annual variability in lightning-induced fire frequency (dots) and burnt area (bars) 

in the Swiss Alps 

Number of fires 

50 

Burnt area (ha) 

200 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Source: Swissfire database. 

1980 

1981 

1982 

1983 

1984 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1991 

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

82 Europe's ecological backbone: recognising the true value of our mountains 

160 

120 

80 

40 

0


Box 5.3 Lightning-induced fires in the Alpine region (cont.) 

The relative importance of lightning-caused fires, however, increased in recent decades (Figure 5.6). In 

the period from May to October, the proportion of lightning fires changed from an average of 20.3 % in 

the 1980s to 29.1 % in the 1990s, and 41.1 % in the 2000s (Figure 5.6), highlighting the difficulty of 

preventing the ignition of fires of natural origin. In addition, in drought-summer years such as 1983–1984, 

1990 and 2003, lightning fires are more likely to turn from underground into surface or crown fires, causing 

a significant increase in the burned area (Figure 5.5). 

From a management point of view, lightning-induced fires occur mostly in remote locations and burn 

underground (Conedera et al., 2006), making detection and suppression activities more difficult. When 

intense lightning activity occurs following a drought, lightning-ignited fires aggregate in both time and 

space, which may put a strain on the initial attack by the fire brigades and thus lead to longer and more 

difficult fire fighting campaigns (Podur et al., 2003; Wotton and Martell, 2005). 

As climate change may lead to an increased frequency of hot and dry summers (Schär et al., 2004), these 

results suggest that, in the future, lightning-induced fires may assume a significant ecological role and have 

a higher economic impact in the Alps, as suggested by Schumacher (2004). 

Source: 

Marco Conedera and Gianni Boris Pezzatti (Swiss Federal Research Institute, Switzerland). 

Figure 5.6 

Yearly relative frequency of lightning-induced fires with respect to total number of 

fires in the summer period (June to September) in the Swiss Alps 

% 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Source: Swissfire database. 

1980 

1981 

1982 

1983 

1984 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1991 

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 


83


accumulated snow water equivalent may decrease 

by up to 78 %, and the season with snow cover may 

be reduced by up to 70 % at 1 500 m (Lopez-Moreno 

et al., 2009). However, the magnitude of the impacts 

decreases rapidly with increasing altitude, with 

snowpack characteristics projected to remain largely 

similar in the highest sectors (Lopez-Moreno et al., 

2009). Stewart (2009) summarises work examining 

observed and projected changes in snow cover and 

snowmelt-derived streamflow for the European Alps 

and European mid-elevation mountain ranges. 

The lower elevation of permafrost is likely to rise by 

several hundred metres. Rising temperatures and 

melting permafrost will destabilise mountain walls 

and increase the frequency of rock falls, threatening 

mountain valleys (Gruber et al., 2004; Harris et al., 

2009; Keiler et al., 2010). In northern Europe, lowland 

permafrost will eventually disappear (Haeberli 

and Burns, 2002). Changes in snowpack and glacial 

extent (Box 6.2) may also alter the likelihood of 

snow and ice avalanches, depending on the complex 

interactions of surface geometry, precipitation and 

temperature (Martin et al., 2001; Haeberli and Burns, 

2002). 

5.3 Research needs 

5.3.1 Instrumental data and monitoring networks 

Although some climatic information for mountain 

regions can be obtained from radiosonde 

measurements, significant differences between 

radiosonde and mountain surface data have 

been observed (e.g. Seidel and Free, 2003). This 

emphasises the need for paired station monitoring 

networks at lowland and mountain locations (Barry, 

2008) and, while there have been encouraging 

developments in expanding the instrumental data 

provision for the Alps, an expanded monitoring 

network across Europe's mountain regions is 

needed (Schär and Frei, 2005; Bjornsen Gurung 

et al., 2009; Smiatek et al., 2009). This scarcity of 

instrumental data in many mountainous regions 

also hampers the performance assessment of 

outputs from this and subsequent generations of 

RCMs; measures to address these data gaps could 

include the incorporation of more mountain areas in 

the integrated monitoring and observation system 

mooted for Europe (EEA, 2008). 

5.3.2 Sources of uncertainty in climate change 

projections 

Projections of climate change are subject to a high 

degree of uncertainty (Jones, 2000), as a consequence 

of both aleatory ('unknowable' knowledge) and 

epistemic ('incomplete' knowledge) uncertainty 

(Hulme and Carter, 1999; Oberkampf et al., 2002; 

Foley, 2010); at least some of which relates to 

knowledge gaps in the understanding of the climate 

system (Albritton et al., 2001; EEA, 2008). Adding to 

these, the accuracy of GCM performance in areas of 

complex terrain and the subsequent cascade through 

RCMs introduces a further tier of uncertainty. 

5.3.3 Climate modelling challenges 

Even with the evolution of ever more complex and 

sophisticated GCMs, issues remain concerning 

their robustness (Chase et al., 2004), and their 

reproduction of the detail of regional climates 

remains limited (Zorita and von Storch, 1999; 

Gonzalez-Rouco et al., 2000; Jones and Reid, 

2001; Bonsal and Prowse, 2006; Connolley and 

Bracegirdle, 2007; Perkins and Pitman, 2009). For 

regions of heterogeneous terrain, such as mountains, 

RCMs provide more credible information on 

changes in climates than GCMs. However, 

since each RCM is constrained by the boundary 

conditions of the GCM used to drive it, uncertainties 

in GCM predictions are effectively cascaded (Carter 

and Hulme, 1999; Frei et al., 2003; Jenkins and Lowe, 

2003; Saelthun and Barkved, 2003; Déqué et al., 2007; 

Jacob et al., 2007). 

An additional limitation of using RCM outputs in 

mountain regions relates to the fact that the true 

roughness of mountain terrain is represented by 

a smoothed surface in models. Consequently, the 

elevation of specific sites is poorly represented and 

the observed climate is not accurately reproduced 

(Coll et al., 2005; Engen-Skaugen, 2007; Beldring et al., 

2008). Overall therefore, local controls on climate in 

mountain regions are not adequately captured by 

current GCMs and RCMs, and the best resolution of 

50 x 50 km remains inadequate for impact assessment 

(EEA, 2008), particularly in mountainous areas. 

Finally, for both GCMs and RCMs, even if models 

improve in performance in simulating current 

climate, this may not be a reliable indicator of their 

performance for predicting future climate. 



6 The water towers of Europe 

Mountains are the 'water towers' of Europe. They 

provide both vital sources of fresh water and areas 

for its accumulation and storage in the form of 

rivers, lakes, reservoirs, glaciers and seasonal ice or 

snow. Water originating from the mountains is an 

essential natural resource (Figure 6.1) for a number 

of economic, environmental and social reasons: 

for the production of hydropower; for businesses 

and livelihoods within mountain regions and 

within adjacent lowlands; and for their valuable 

ecosystems. Consequently, not only the quantity but 

also the quality of mountain water is important. 

Hydrological systems in mountain areas are also 

under threat from climate change, which may alter 

patterns of precipitation, snow cover (Chapter 5) and 

glacier formation, with further effects downstream. 

Broad projections include more frequent droughts 

in summer, floods and landslides in winter, and 

higher inter-annual variability of precipitation 

(EEA, 2009a). Climate change will therefore have 

significant impacts on the availability of mountain 

water in terms of both total seasonal flows and water 

quality. 

6.1 Water towers — mountain 

hydrology 

The term 'water tower', in the context of hydrology, 

signifies an elevated area of land that supplies 

disproportional runoff in comparison to the adjacent 

Figure 6.1 Various dimensions of mountain and water use, modelling and management 

Remote sensing: 

Integrative environmental 

monitoring, validation 

Glaciology: 

Snow- and 

ice modelling 

Tourism: 

Water use and 

water conflicts 

Meteorology: 

Mesoskale modelling, 

atmosphere 

Human dimensions: 

Water use, conflicts, 

market, regulation 

Vegetation: 

Modelling of the 

natural vegetation 

Hydrology: 

Evapotranspiration, 

lateral flows, 

percolation, runoff 

Land use: 

Farming and 

forestry 

Water management: 

Surface water, water quality, 

resevoir management, groundwater, 

water supply 

Source: Glowa_Danube www.glowa-danube.de/frameset.htm. 


85


lowland areas (Viviroli et al., 2007). The phrase 

conveys the importance of a particular mountain 

area for the capture, retention, distribution and 

discharge of freshwater and the multiple functions it 

supports, including its utilisation in the surrounding 

lowlands (Figure 6.2). In Europe, water is generally 

provided by mountains at a time when precipitation 

and runoff are limited in the lowlands, and water 

demands are at their highest, especially during the 

typically low precipitation period of late summer. 

Mountains therefore 'play a distinct supportive role 

with regard to overall discharge and their natural 

storage mechanism benefits many river systems 

throughout Europe' (EEA 2009a, p. 30). The concept 

of a water tower is, however, relative, as the extent 

of disproportionality also depends on the location 

of a mountain and the functions it provides (Viviroli 

et al., 2007). 

Mountain climates are governed by four major 

geographical factors: continentality, latitude, altitude 

and topography (Barry, 2008). Europe's mountains 

vary greatly in all of these factors, as noted in 

Chapters 1 and 5. The average river flow within 

Europe is 450 mm per year, ranging from 50 mm 

per year in arid areas such as southern Spain to over 

1 500 mm in areas facing the Atlantic and in the 

Alps (EEA, 2009b). The Alps, for example, provide 

a disproportionately high contribution to the total 

discharge of four major rivers: the Danube, Rhine, 

Po and Rhone (Figure 6.4 and Table 6.1) which flow 

from the region (Weingartner et al., 2007). Box 6.1 

provides further detail on the hydrology of four 

major European mountain regions, and Box 6.2 

provides further detail on glaciers, which are vital 

elements of the water cycle, especially in the Alps 

and the Scandes. 

Figure 6.2 Conceptual diagram of a water tower 

Increasing 

precipitation with 

elevation 

More snow than 

rain with elevation 

Increased storage of 

snow with elevation 

(the water bank effect) 

Increasing good 

water quality with 

elevation 

Decreasing ET with 

increasing elevation 

Snowmelt acts like a drip 

irrigation system, 

infiltrating subsurface 

reservoirs 

Source: www.icpdr.org/icpdr-files/14181. 



Box 6.1 The hydrology of four major European mountain regions 

The Alps 

The Alps are located in an area of extremely high humidity owing to their close proximity to the 

northern and western Atlantic Ocean, to the Mediterranean sea to the south, and due to the influence of 

predominantly westerly winds. Their hydrological importance is also due to the considerable amounts of 

meltwater from snow and ice originating from them during the summer months (Viviroli and Weingartner, 

2004). Almost two-thirds of the Central European perennial surface ice cover is located in the Alps, with the 

Aletsch Glacier being the largest valley glacier (Box 6.2). Many large and well-known European lakes are 

located in the Alps including Lake Constance, Lac Leman (Lake Geneva) and Lago Maggiore. 

Most of Europe's major rivers have their headwaters in the Alps and their discharge is transported via 

river systems to lower-lying areas. Hence, the water system of the Alps is very important not only for the 

countries of this mountain range but also for large parts of Europe (EEA, 2009a). The four main rivers 

draining the Alps (Rhine, Rhône, Po and upper Danube) contribute a remarkably high amount of water 

(Table 6.1), supplying up to 2–6 times more water than might be expected on the basis of catchment 

size alone (Viviroli and Weingartner, 2004). The importance of the Alps in relation to water resources is 

primarily based on enhanced precipitation as rainfall generally increases with altitude. A large proportion 

of the precipitation falls as snow at higher altitudes, and may form glaciers, which are key features of 

the hydrology of the Alps. Lower temperatures, shorter growth seasons and more shallow soils at higher 

elevations also result in lower evapo-transpiration rates, causing a positive water balance in the mountains. 

The Alpine rivers vary significantly in annual mean discharge per area, partly due to the positions of the 

monitoring stations, but mostly because of climatic conditions and water usage (EEA, 2009a). In the 

future, the combined effects of droughts and increased water consumption in the Alps could cause water 

supply problems throughout Europe. Future climate change is projected to lead to a shift from summer 

precipitation to winter precipitation and — together with an earlier and reduced snow melt due to lower 

storage of winter precipitation as snow, as well as less glacial melt water — will lead to an essential 

decrease in summer run-off all over the Alps (EEA, 2009a). 

Pyrenees 

The Pyrenees are the water towers for southwest France and northern Spain, particularly the basins of 

the Ebro and Garonne. The western and central part of the range receives a much greater amount of 

precipitation than the eastern part, due to moisture-laden air coming from the Bay of Biscay. The region 

is typically divided into three climatic zones: the Atlantic (or Western); the Central; and the Eastern 

Pyrenees. Precipitation falls predominantly during winter in areas adjacent to the Atlantic, and during 

spring and autumn in the Mediterranean regions, with extensive and thick snow cover from December 

to April in areas over 1 500 m above mean sea level, with a longer duration of snow cover at higher 

altitudes and in shaded areas (García-Ruiz et al., 1986; López-Moreno and Nogués-Bravo, 2005). Snow 

melt is vital for the ecological and socio-economic well-being of the region and is a major contributor to 

the amount of runoff and its seasonal distribution, playing a leading role within Pyrenean river basin water 

management in the semi-arid and highly populated Ebro valley (López-Moreno and García-Ruiz 2004; 

López and Justribó, 2010). The Ebro River receives 50–60 % of its discharge from the Pyrenees, although 

only 30 % of its catchment is in the mountains (López and Justribó, 2010). There are currently 41 glaciers 

in the Pyrenees, all centrally‐located within one 100 km stretch of the range and covering a total area of 

approximately 8.1 km 2 (Serrat and Ventura, 1993). These glaciers are small: the largest, Glaciar de Aneto, 

is only 1.32 km², while half are 0.1 km² or less in area. All glaciated peaks are higher than 3 000 m — but 

not all peaks that reach this height have glaciers — and, unlike the glaciers in the Alps, they do not descend 

far down into the valleys (Serrat and Ventura, 1993). The melting of glaciers in the Pyrenees is much more 

advanced than in the Alps (Box 6.2). In contrast to the Alps, there are no very large lakes in the region. 

However, there are numerous smaller lakes, such as those in the Aigüestortes in the Alta Ribagorza region. 

Scandinavian mountains 

The distance from the top of the Scandes range to the ocean is greatest on the Swedish side, where a 

dozen roughly parallel drainages run from the mountains into the Gulf of Bothnia. Most of the rivers at the 

northern end of the range are above the Arctic Circle, while those at the southern end flow into the ocean 

at about 60 °N. The region does not have large topographic relief, but the rivers have a number of steep 

rapids interspersed with lower-gradient segments. Mean annual precipitation is 500–1 000 mm, much of 

which falls as snow. The timing and level of runoff is variable and dependent on river location: the northern 

rivers have low winter flows with rapid snowmelt and intense flooding during spring to early summer; rivers 

draining into the central eastern coastal area have less intense spring floods; while rivers in the far south 


87


Box 6.1 The hydrology of four major European mountain regions (cont.) 

have a more even annual discharge pattern (Nilsson, 1999; Wohl, 2006, p. 225–226). The last Norwegian 

glacier inventory of 1988 recorded 1 627 glaciers covering a total area of 2 609 km², with an estimated 

volume of 164 km 3 (Nesje et al., 2008). Since 2000, all observed glaciers have experienced a mass deficit, 

with an annual frontal retreat of over 100 m mainly due to high summer temperatures (Andréassen et al., 

2005; Nesje et al., 2008). In Norway, 15 % of utilised runoff originates from glacier basins and 98 % of 

their electricity is generated by hydropower (Andréassen et al., 2005). 

Carpathians 

The headwaters of several major rivers originate in the Carpathians. Most of the range is located in the 

middle and the lower parts of the Danube River Basin, with the remainder in the Dniester, Vistula and Oder 

basins. North of Vienna, the Outer Carpathian Depressions are drained by the upper courses of the Morava 

and Odra rivers. Approximately 90 % of the rivers which drain from the Carpathians flow into the Black 

Sea. Many, such as the Vah, Tisza and its tributaries lie within the Danube River Basin. To the east, the 

main river flowing into the Black Sea is the Dniester, while the northerly rivers — the Vistula and Oder — 

flow into the Baltic Sea. Numerous lakes are situated in cirques and glacial valleys within the high mountain 

zone. The largest glacial lakes are in the North-western Carpathians, where Quaternary glaciers were most 

prominent. The Eastern and Southern Carpathians contain over 200 glacial lakes, mostly in the Retezat 

(Bucura, Zănoaga) and Făgăraş Mountains. Many water storage reservoirs are found on rivers, such as the 

Bistriţa, Argeş and Olt in Romania, the San in Poland and the Osana in Slovakia; the largest on the Danube 

is the Iron Gate Dam between Romania and Serbia (UNEP, 2007a). Pressure to develop the Carpathians has 

increased during the last two decades giving rise to a number of key environmental concerns which include 

harmful mining technologies and the development of the agricultural sector without further impacts (WWF, 

2008). 

Source: 

Sue Baggett (Independent Consultant, the United Kingdom). 

Box 6.2 The uncertain future of European glaciers 

Glacier observations have been internationally coordinated since 1894. Despite its limitations, the 

compilation and free exchange of standardised glacier information for more than a century constitutes 

an invaluable treasure of global environmental monitoring and a key element with respect to scientific 

knowledge and public awareness of climate change. In the first decades, reported observations primarily 

concerned changes in glacier length as well as a few pioneer studies of glacier accumulation and melt at 

individual points. In the 1940s, glacier mass balance measurements were initiated. The extraordinary 

density and continuity of data about changes of glaciers in the Alps and Scandinavia thus constituted the 

backbone of the international glacier monitoring during its historical development (Haeberli, 1998). Glacier 

inventories based on aerial photographs and satellite images, together with digital terrain information, 

have opened new perspectives for documenting the distribution and ongoing changes of glaciers and ice 

caps. Computer models combining data from observed time series with glacier inventory information 

make it possible to look at changes of large numbers of glaciers over entire mountain regions. Information 

on glacier changes is available from regularly issued reports (WGMS 2008a; WGMS 2009; and earlier 

volumes). Standardised data on glacier changes and distribution are available through the Global Terrestrial 

Network for Glaciers (www.gtn-g.org). Recent overviews are provided by Haeberli et al. (2007), UNEP 

(2007b), WGMS (2008b), and Zemp et al. (2009). 

Glacier distribution and available datasets in Europe 

In the second half of the 20th century, European glaciers and ice caps with a total surface area of 

approximately 6 000 km 2 existed in Scandinavia (about 3 000 km 2 ), the Alps (slightly less than 3 000 km 2 ), 

and the Pyrenees (12 km 2 ) (WGMS, 1989). A few small glaciers and glacierets are also found in, for 

example, the Apennines and the mountains of Slovenia, Poland and Albania. Locations of long-term mass 

balance observations are shown in Map 6.1. 



Box 6.2 The uncertain future of European glaciers (cont.) 

Most of the ice on the Scandinavian Peninsula is in southern Norway, with some glaciers and ice caps in 

northern Norway and the Swedish Kebnekaise mountains. Annual front variation measurements began 

in Norway and Sweden in the late 19th century. Several glaciers have been observed on a regular basis 

for over a century; over 60 Scandinavian front variation series are available. Storglaciären in Sweden 

(see photo later in this box) provides the longest existing mass balance record for an entire glacier, 

with continuous seasonal measurements since 1946. Mass balance measurements in Norway started 

at Storbreen (Jotunheimen) in 1949. Overall mass balance measurements have been reported from 

39 glaciers, with eight continuous series since 1970. 

The densely populated Alps, in which the Grosser Aletschgletscher is the longest, have the greatest number 

of length change and mass balance measurements, with many long-term data series. Annual observations 

of glacier front variations started in the second half of the 19th century in Austria, Switzerland, France, 

and Italy; there are now more than 680 data series, distributed over the entire Alpine mountain range. 

Mass balance measurements started in 1949; corresponding data are available for 43 glaciers, with 

10 continuous series since 1968. 

Some smaller glaciers are found in the Maladeta massif of the Pyrenees. There are two glaciers in the 

Pyrenees with length change data, one starting in the 1980s and a second one covering the 20th century, 

though with a few observation points. Mass balance measurements started in 1992 on the Maladeta Glacier. 

European glacier changes — past and future 

Scandinavian glaciers and ice caps probably disappeared in the early/mid Holocéne, approximately 

10 000 years ago (Nesje et al., 2008) and then reformed, with most reaching their maximum extent in 

the mid-18th century (Grove, 2004). Subsequently, following minor retreat with small frontal oscillations 

until the late 19th century, these glaciers experienced a general recession during the 20th century with 

intermittent periods of re-advances around 1910 and 1930, in the second half of the 1970s, and around 

1990; the last advance stopped at the beginning of the 21st century (Dowdeswell et al., 1997; Hagen 

et al., 2003; Grove, 2004; Andréassen et al., 2005) (Figure 6.3). Since 2001, all monitored glaciers have 

experienced a distinct mass deficit. With a scenario of a 2.3 °C summer temperature increase and a 16 % 

winter precipitation increase, 98 % of the Norwegian glaciers could disappear by the year 2100, involving a 

34 % decrease in total glacier surface area (Nesje et al. 2008). 

In the Alps, most glaciers reached their Little Ice Age (LIA) maximum towards the mid-19th century (Gross, 

1987; Maisch et al., 2000; Grove, 2004). Front variations show a general trend of retreat over the past 

150 years with intermittent re-advances in the 1890s, 1920s, and 1970s–1980s (Patzelt, 1985; Pelfini and 

Smiraglia, 1988; Zemp et al., 2007). The Alpine glacier cover is estimated to have diminished by about 

35 % from 1850 to the 1970s, and another 22 % by 2000 (Paul et al., 2004; Zemp et al., 2007). Mass 

balance measurements show accelerated ice loss after 1980 (Vincent, 2002; Huss et al. 2008) culminating 

in an annual loss of 5–10 % of the remaining ice volume in the extraordinarily warm year of 2003 

(Zemp et al., 2005). Combining data from mass balance studies and glacier inventories with digital terrain 

information and climate scenarios from ensemble calculations with regional climate models (RCMs) shows 

that 75 % of the glacier area still existing in 1970–1990 is likely to disappear if summer air temperature 

increases by 2.5 °C (Zemp et al., 2006). This loss appears to be almost independent of the scenario range 

in precipitation changes and might become reality during the first half the 21st Century (OcCC, 2007). 

In the Pyrenees, the LIA maximum extent of most glaciers was around the mid 19th century (Grove, 2004). 

Since then, about two-thirds of the ice cover was lost in the Pyrenees, with a marked glacier shrinking after 

1980 (Chueca et al., 2005). 

Perspectives on impacts 

As their glaciers vanish, European mountains lose a strong symbol of intact human-environment relations 

and a particular attractiveness for tourism. The recent retreat has often been associated with an increase 

in debris cover and glacier lake development. Such new lakes are fascinating, constitute an interesting 

new potential for hydropower production, and replace some of the landscape attractiveness lost as glaciers 

disappear. However, they constitute a growing hazard for flood waves and far-reaching debris flows caused 

by moraine breaching or by rockfall from deglaciated slopes or slopes containing degrading permafrost 

(Haeberli and Hohmann 2008; Frey et al., 2010). 


89



As a consequence, remedial actions have been needed at several locations in the Alps. Hydropower 

production from high-altitude reservoirs, of growing importance for covering short-term peak demands in 

the expanding European network, will also have to be fundamentally re-thought, with a view to storing 

more water in winter, and releasing it in summer — the opposite of current practice. 

The most serious impact of vanishing mountain glaciers undoubtedly concerns the water cycle. The 

seasonality of runoff is likely to strongly change due to the combined effects of less snow storage in winter, 

earlier snowmelt in spring, and decreasing glacier melt. The lack of water during extended future droughts 

caused by changing snow and ice cover in high mountain ranges has the potential to seriously affect 

economies and livelihoods in general. Problems during the warm or dry season include decreased resources 

on the supply side, with longer-lasting discharge minima and low flow periods in rivers, lower lake and 

groundwater levels, higher water temperatures, perturbed aquatic systems and less power production, 

as well as increasing needs on the demand side, for water for a growing population, urbanisation, 

industrialisation, irrigation, power production and fire fighting (e.g. Middelkoop et al., 2001; Watson and 

Haeberli, 2004; OcCC 2007). 

Map 6.1 

Glacier distribution in Europe 

0° 

10° E 

20° E 

Mass balance 

observation 

80° N 80° N 

X 

Region 

X 

Spitsberger 

G 

Inland Scandinavia 

" 

Coastal Scandinavia 

70° N 70° N 

# 

European Alps 

G 

" 

" " G G 

" 

60° N 60° N 

! Pyrenees 

Elevation 

> 1 000 m asl 

50° N 50° N 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

0° 

! 

10° E 

20° E 

Note: 

The map shows the distribution of glaciers and ice caps as well as the locations of the available long-term mass 

balance observations labeled according to their region. These are Austre Brøggerbreen (NO) and Midtre Lovénbreen 

(NO) for Spitsbergen; Gråsubreen (NO), Hellstugubreen (NO), Storbreen (NO) and Storglaciären (SE) for Inland 

Scandinavia; Ålfotbreen (NO), Engabreen (NO), Hardangerjøkulen (NO) and Nigardsbreen (NO) for Coastal 

Scandinavia; Hintereisferner (AT), Kesselwandferner (AT), Sonnblickkees (AT), Gries (CH), Silvretta (CH), Saint Sorlin 

(FR), Sarennes (FR) and Caresèr (IT) for the European Alps; and Maladeta (ES) for the Pyrenees. 

Source: Glacier data from WGMS, boundaries of glaciers and countries from ESRI data and maps, elevation data from 

GTOPO30 by US Geological Survey. 




The combined effect of lower water supplies and increasing demands holds a potential for conflict. Together 

with higher air temperatures, increased evaporation and changing snow conditions, the vanishing of 

mountain glaciers could dramatically sharpen fundamentally important questions: who owns water and who 

will decide on the priorities of its use? 

Source: 

Wilfried Haeberli and Michael Zemp (Geography Department, University of Zurich, Switzerland). 

Figure 6.3 

Glacier mass balance of European 

regions, 1967–2008 

Cumulative mass balance (mm we) 

20 000 

15 000 

10 000 

5 000 

0 

Photo: 

© T. Koblet, University of Zurich 

Storglaciären, Sweden (September 2008). 

– 5 000 

– 10 000 

– 15 000 

– 20 000 

– 25 000 

1967 1977 1987 1997 2007 

European Alps 

Pyrenees 

Spitsbergen 

Inland Scandinavia 

Coastal Scandinavia 

Note: 

The figure shows cumulative mass balance of 

long-term monitoring programs averaged for the 

six European regions. The corresponding glaciers 

and regions are shown in Map 6.1. 

Source: Glacier data from WGMS. 

6.1.1 Water use in mountain regions and lowlands 

Mountain water is a vital resource for a number of 

economic, environmental and social reasons, both 

within mountain areas and downstream. It supports 

and provides ecosystem services to the following 

sectors (EEA, 2009a): 

• Agriculture 

The agricultural sector is one of the main 

water users in Europe, using 24 % of the total 

abstracted water from 1997 to 2005 (EEA, 2009a). 

Irrigation is concentrated in southern Europe 

(EEA, 2009a) with some countries growing 

water-intensive crops. Cotton growing in Greece, 

for example, requires 20 000 litres of flood water 

per kilogram of harvested product; in Andalusia, 

Spain, nearly 300 000 ha of land used for olive 

production are irrigated in the Guadalquivir 

river basin (EEA, 2009b). Most of this water 

originates in mountain areas. 

• Biodiversity 

As noted in Chapter 8, the availability of water 

is a key factor influencing the distribution 

of species and habitats, particularly those 


91


Figure 6.4 Annual water balance of Europe, showing the dominant influence of the Alps in 

producing runoff 

Alps 

Europe 

excluding the Alps 

E 

480 

P 

1460 

R 

980 

E 

510 

P 

780 

R 

270 

P Precipitation (mm) 

E Evaporation (mm) 

R Runoff (mm) 

Source: Liniger et al., 1998. 

Table 6.1 

Contribution of the Alps to total discharge of the four major Alpine rivers 

Rhine Rhone Po Danube 

Mean contribution of the Alps to total discharge (%) 34 41 53 25 

Areal proportion of total Alpine region (%) 15 23 35 10 

Disproportional influence of the Alpine region 2.3 1.8 1.5 2.6 

Source: Weingartner et al., 2007. 

associated with water bodies, flowing water, 

and wetlands. Habitat loss, fragmentation, 

changes in agricultural practice, pollution and 

shifts in water regimes due to climate change, 

are the most significant reasons for loss of 

biodiversity. 

• Energy 

The use of hydropower varies across countries. 

The European Environment Agency (EEA) states 

that: In the Alps, installed hydropower capacity 

ranges from more than 400 MW in Germany and 

Slovenia, to more than 2 900 MW in France, Italy 

and Austria and over 11 000 MW in Switzerland 

(CIPRA, 2001). Hydropower is especially important 

for supplying peak demands (CIPRA, 2001; BFE, 

2007a). The water demand of the energy sector is high 

and generally exceeds the demand of other industrial 

sectors (Létard et al., 2004) (EEA, 2009a). 

Mountains are also major sources of hydropower 

in other countries, including Belgium, Greece, 

Norway, Romania and Sweden (European 

Commission, 2004). This issue is discussed 

further in Section 6.2. Water originating from 

mountain areas is also vital for cooling other 

types of power stations in many parts of Europe, 

given that 26.5 % of existing power stations in 

Europe are located in mountain areas (European 

Commission, 2004). During the 20th century, the 

number and size of reservoirs rapidly increased 

(EEA, 2009b). 

• Forestry 

As noted in Chapter 7, forests cover around 41 % 

of the area of Europe's mountains. Tree growth 



and the health of forests are crucially dependent 

not only on temperature, but also on the amount 

and distribution of precipitation. While forests 

fulfil a number of different functions, with 

regard to drinking water, the filtration functions 

of forests are important for securing water 

quality (EEA, 2009a). 

• Households 

Household use accounts for 60–80 % of the 

public water supply across Europe (EEA, 2009a, 

p. 49). Depending on the region, drinking 

water is obtained to a varying extent from 

groundwater (Box 6.3), bank filtration, surface 

water (mostly artificial dams), lakes and springs. 

In contrast, drinking water in remote mountain 

areas usually comes from private wells. 

• Industry 

Water consumption varies greatly between 

industries, although there is very little specific 

information available (Flörke and Alcamo, 2004). 

For example, in the Rhone basin 6 % of the water 

abstracted is used for industrial purposes while 

in river basins in northern Italy the figure is 20 % 

(DG Environment, 2007; EEA 2009a, p59). 

Box 6.3 Transboundary groundwater in the Karavanke/Karawanken 

The Karavanke (in Slovenian) or Karawanken (in German) mountain range lies along the border between 

Austria, Italy and Slovenia. It is a young mountain range which is still developing, lying along the boundary 

between two continental plates: the large European plate to the north and the smaller Adriatic plate to the 

south. The thrusting of the Adriatic plate over the European one has resulted in large lateral displacements 

and the folding of sediments previously deposited in the space between the plates. Much of the Karavanke 

is built of karstified limestone and dolomite, with underlying paleozoic schists. Precipitation infiltrates 

into fissures and bedding planes in the karstified rocks, so surface runoff is negligible, and groundwater 

discharges at large point sources. 

The border along the Karavanke is also an orographic divide, with surface water from the south flowing into 

the Sava and partly also the Drava, and from the north into the Drava. About 3 600 springs occur on both 

sides of the Austrian-Slovenian border; most have a small discharge. Some very large springs flowing from 

the karst aquifer — in the area of Peca in the east and Košuta in the centre of the range — have a recharge 

area extending across the state border. The outflow from some of these springs is up to several hundred 

litres per second. In addition, many small springs occur in areas whose rocks have a low permeability, e.g. 

the area of Zgornje Jezersko and Bad Eisenkappel, where mineral waters with a high CO 2 

concentration and 

distinctive geochemistry are found. 

With the opening of borders and the membership of both Slovenia and Austria in the European Union, this 

area, which had previously been sharply divided, became unified and open to development. Numerous 

plans for tourist developments, especially ski resorts, were prepared. However, such developments must 

be harmonised with natural conditions, and recognise that the groundwater is of very high quality and high 

yield; conditions that derive partly from the present settlement situation and relatively poor communication 

network. At present, larger settlements are supplied with drinking water from both sides of the border. 

The existence of transboundary aquifers, large springs used for drinking water supply, and large potential 

water reserves stimulated the authorities in both countries to support hydrogeological investigations in 

the Karavanke through the bilateral 'Drava Water Management Commission'. As a result, in 2005, Austria 

and Slovenia recognised their common transboundary groundwater body, and started to jointly solve 

questions related to groundwater management. Five distinctive transboundary karstic aquifers with proved 

transboundary flow were defined. 

To date, no detailed investigation has been carried out on the influence of climate change on the water 

balance of the Karavanke. There are some indications of changes in the precipitation and snowpack regime 

and their influence on the outflow from the region. However, as the available volume of water is relatively 

large, and only part of the reserves is used, no problems with water supply are envisaged in the near 

future. 

Source: 

Mihael Brenčič (Faculty of Natural Sciences and Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia and Geological Survey 

of Slovenia), Walter Poltnig (Institute of Water Resources Management, Hydrogeology and Geophysics, Joanneum 

Research Forschungsgesellschaft m.b.H., Austria). 


93


• Navigation 

The share of freight transport performance 

on inland waterways in 2006 was 12 % in 

Germany, and approximately 3 % in France and 

Austria (Eurostat, 2008). Transportation via the 

Rhine in Switzerland during 2006 accounted 

for approximately 9 % of the country's annual 

external trade (Port of Switzerland, 2007). As 

mountain rivers are at the upstream end of 

these waterways, mountain runoff is critical, 

especially during low flow periods in summer. 

• Tourism and snow-making 

Many European mountains are popular holiday 

destinations. In the Alps, for instance, there 

are more than 600 ski resorts and 10 000 ski 

installations, 85 % of which are in France, 

Switzerland, Austria and Italy (EEA, 2009a). 

A total of 41.8 million tourist overnight stays 

were recorded in 2006 in the Austrian Province 

of Tyrol; 52 % of these were from December 

to March (Vanham et al., 2008). Reliable snow 

coverage is a requirement of winter sports and, 

in recent years, the production of technical 

snow has become an important issue in most 

ski areas worldwide and is likely to increase 

due to climate change (OECD, 2007). Expanding 

communities and the temporary influx of 

tourists also put extra pressure on potable 

water supplies; these impacts are limited both 

seasonally and spatially. 

6.1.2 Pressures and impacts 

Steep slopes, frequent torrential rainfalls, 

and pressures such as unsustainable forestry, 

overgrazing, loss of traditional agriculture, land 

abandonment and fires are most abundant in 

mountain areas. In addition to overgrazing due to 

increased livestock and clear cutting, recent causes 

of soil erosion and compaction include tourism and 

sporting and recreational activities (walking, skiing, 

mountain bikes, off-road vehicles, etc.). Indirectly, 

soil erosion may cause contamination of surfaceand 

ground‐water. Deposits of eroded materials in 

riverbeds, lakes and water reservoirs might increase 

flood risks and can damage infrastructures such 

as roads, railways and power lines (EEA, 1999a, 

p. 386). 

The long tradition of utilising the energy potential 

of water has culminated in considerable changes 

within the natural environment of mountainous 

regions, such as the Alps. In the future, the 

combined effects of droughts and increased water 

consumption in the Alps and other mountain ranges 

could cause water supply problems throughout 

Europe; these are likely to be exacerbated by climate 

change (see Section 6.6). 

6.2 Hydropower and hydromorphology 

6.2.1 Overview of hydropower in European 

mountain regions 

From a purely technical point of view, due to their 

steep gradients and natural potential for dam sites, 

mountain valleys are well suited for generating 

energy through hydropower and storage of water 

in reservoirs while keeping costs low. However, as 

discussed below, this is often comes at an observable 

environmental cost (EEA, 1999a). Approximately 

84 % of the electricity generated from renewable 

energy sources in the EU‐15 and 19 % of total 

electricity production in Europe is generated by 

hydropower, with small hydropower plants (up to 

10 MW) contributing about 2 % of the total electricity 

generated (ESHA, 2005). Hydropower plants play a 

key role in the European power grid as their output 

can also be used to complement other renewable but 

intermittent energy sources, such as solar and wind, 

when they are not available (Fette et al., 2007). The 

majority of suitable sites in the Alps have already 

been developed, as shown in Map 6.2 for Austria, 

and export electricity across the European grid 

and, while hydro-electric generation capabilities 

have developed in other European mountain 

regions (Figure 6.5), many potential sites remain 

(EEA, 1999a). 

The contribution of hydropower to energy 

supplies varies considerably among countries, 

ranging from 0 % to 99 %, with varying shares 

between different types of hydropower plants 

(Lehner et al., 2005). Based on the criteria of the 

International Commission of Large Dams (ICOLD), 

there are currently around 7,000 large dams 

(i.e. dams higher than 15 metres or a reservoir 

with a capacity greater than 3 hm 3 ) in Europe. The 

following countries have the largest number of 

reservoirs: Spain (approximately 1 200), Turkey 

(approximately 610), Italy (approximately 570), 

France (approximately 550), the United Kingdom 

(approximately 500), Norway (approximately 

360) and Sweden (approximately 190). A large 

proportion of these are in mountain areas, though 

precise figures are not available, and many 

European countries also have numerous smaller 

dammed lakes. 'The principle of '20/20/20 by 2020' 

(a 20 % increase in energy efficiency, a 20 % cut in 

greenhouse gases and a 20 % share of renewables in 

total EU energy consumption, all by the year 2020), 

is likely to put further pressure on water resources 



Map 6.2 

Hydropower plants in Austria 

CZECH REPUBLIC 

Hydropower plants in 

Austria 

Danube 

Storage power plant 

GERMANY 

Danube 

SLOVAKIA 

Storage power plant 

under construction 

Run-of-river plant > 5 MW 

Salzach 

Run-of-river plant under 

construction 

Inn 

Enns 

Mur 

HUNGARY 

Joint venture power 

generating plant 

VERBUND-Austrian Hydro 

Power AG 

Verbund participation 

SWITZERLAND 

ITALY 

Drau 

SLOVENIA 

Source: Based on Verbund AG. 

Figure 6.5 Hydropower in Europe: technically exploitable capacity and actual generation in 

2005 

TWh/year 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Turkey 

Norway 

Technically exploitable capacity Actual generation in 2005 

Source: World Energy Council, Survey of Energy Resources 2007. 

Italy 

Sweden 

France 

Austria 

Spain 

Iceland 

Switzerland 

Romania 

Portugal 

Germany 

Ukraine 

Bosnia and Herzegovina 

Finland 

Serbia 

Greece 

Bulgaria 

Albania 

Poland 

Slovenia 

Croatia 

Hungary 

Slovakia 


Republic of Macedonia 

Latvia 



Lithuania 

Belarus 

Moldova 

Ireland 

Netherlands 

Luxembourg 

Faroe Islands 

Estonia 

Denmark 

Belgium 


95


in the attempt to increase the share of renewable 

energy in the form of hydropower' (Alpine 

Convention, 2009, p. 154). 

6.2.2 Impact of reservoirs and hydropower on 

hydromorphology 

Despite the economic costs of production being 

relatively low, the environmental costs of reservoir 

construction are often very high and include 

sediment discharge, bank erosion, and changes in 

riparian biological diversity, difficulties of fauna 

migration, changes in microclimate, reservoir 

eutrophication, loss of farmland, changes in natural 

habitats and landscape, a rise in groundwater 

levels and contamination (EEA, 1999a; EEA, 2010). 

Rivers are transformed into a hybrid, neither a river 

nor a lake, changing environmental conditions 

such as currents, nutrients and light (Kristensen 

and Hansen, 1994; EEA, 1999a; EEA, 1999b). While 

it is has long been recognised that dams obstruct 

migration patterns of fish and other organisms, 

new research suggests that they also affect water 

temperature and the build up of silt downstream, 

and that short-term peaks of water flow negatively 

impact on fish and their habitats (Fette et al., 2007). 

The disconnection of wetlands or natural floodplains 

and water abstraction alter the hydrological and 

biological make-up and structure of a river; retained 

sediment upstream may mean problems for the 

supply of drinking water and increased erosion, 

causing damage to infrastructure, while increased 

sediment downstream may mean that material has 

to be brought in to help stabilise an eroded river bed 

(Kondolf, 1998; ICPDR, 2010). Most European rivers 

are already heavily affected by dams and reservoirs 

and most of the suitable stretches have already 

been used. However, there are still many plans 

and studies for new dams, reservoirs and small 

hydropower projects, which may conflict with the 

objectives of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) 

of achieving good ecological status (see Chapter 11). 

The Danube, for example, is highly regulated along 

over 80 % of its length; cut off from its floodplains, 

the frequency and duration of flooding events has 

changed, and its former floodplains are ecologically 

degraded (ICPDR, 2010). However, there are plans 

to build dams on the Bavarian Danube, the Sava, 

and the Drava along the Croatian-Hungarian 

border. On the Drava, the Novo Virje dam (planned 

capacity: 121 MW) would break up the still largely 

pristine 370 km stretch of river along the Mura and 

Drava between the Austrian border and the Danube 

(ICPDR 2010). 

Increasing recognition of the environmental 

and social issues related to the construction and 

operation of hydropower facilities underlines the 

need for constructive debate on possible water 

allocation under scenarios of reduced or altered 

future river flows. Given the significant role 

of hydropower, Europe's present capacity and 

future potential for hydroelectricity generation 

and its mid- and long-term prospects require an 

assessment of the possible impacts of climate and 

water use changes on regional discharge regimes 

and hydroelectricity production. This will be 

critically important for the sustainable management 

of Europe's water resources (Lehner et al., 2005). 

Furthermore, the measures taken to ensure 'good 

practice' within hydropower schemes are also 

site‐dependent, i.e. the same measure can be in 

different circumstances either 'restoration' or 

'mitigation' (SedNet, 2006, p. 9). 

6.3 Water quality 

While some water bodies are still subject to excessive 

nutrient inputs or contamination, water quality in 

European lakes and rivers has been substantially 

improved in recent decades due to major wastewater 

treatment efforts. About 20 years ago, phosphorus 

inputs to water bodies were mainly due to the 

lack of adequate wastewater treatment facilities. 

The expansion of treatment works, moving the 

pollution downstream from lakes, and the ban on 

phosphates in detergents (e.g. introduced in 1986 

in Switzerland) has led to a substantial reduction 

of phosphorus concentrations in watercourses and 

lakes (Figure 6.6). However, levels of organic micro 

pollutants such as endocrine disruptors, biocides 

and pharmaceuticals are increasing (Schärer, 2009). 

Large deep lakes, which are mainly in mountain 

areas and are crucial for the supply of water in 

several European regions, are mostly glacial in 

origin and retain their own unique characteristics in 

comparison to other water bodies (see also Box 6.4). 

The catchment as a whole needs to be included 

in the management of these lakes to attain or 

maintain good ecological status (Eurolakes, 2004). 

For example, due to accumulative anthropogenic 

pressures, the water quality and ecology of Lac 

du Bourget in France have become increasingly 

threatened, particularly from eutrophication; 

recognition of these problems has led to a 

15‐year catchment plan to help manage the lake 

more sustainably (Eurolakes, 2004). Few, if any, 

European mountain lake ecosystems are pristine, 

with nearly all contaminated in some way by 

atmospherically‐transported pollutants, and in 



Box 6.4 Large old lakes in southeast Europe 

Most of Europe's lakes were formed during or after the last glaciations; however, there are a few very 

old lakes, including: Lake Ohrid, on the mountainous border between south-western Former Yugoslav 

Republic of Macedonia and eastern Albania; and the two lakes within the Prespa basin, shared by Greece, 

Albania and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Located within mountain ridges, they were formed 

probably 3–5 million years ago by earthquakes that fractured the landscape, often creating very deep 

lake bowls. Because these lakes are so old, and the mountains isolated them from other waters, a unique 

collection of plants and animals have evolved in them. While some of these species of plants and animals 

were common millions of years ago, these 'relicts' or living fossils have virtually disappeared from other 

European lakes. 

During the last 50–100 years, the populations within the catchments of the old lakes have markedly 

increased. The population in the Lake Ohrid catchment, for example, is five or six times larger now than 

at the end of World War II (EEA, 2003). In the past 15 years, a significant decline of the level of Lake 

Prespa has been observed, causing environmental and water resources management concerns. Population 

growth and development have impacted the old lakes in many ways and they are threatened by human 

activities such as: tourism development; water diversion resulting in lowering of water levels; damming for 

hydropower; and pollution from agriculture, waste water and mining — particularly near the sites of the 

old chromium, iron, nickel and coal mines outside Pogradec (EEA, 2003). Wastewater often receives limited 

treatment and is discharged, resulting in eutrophication and microbiological pollution. The lakes are also 

affected by agricultural activities such as the use of fertilisers and pesticides in the catchments which also 

results in pollution. 

The common problems of Lake Ohrid encouraged the governments of Albania and the former Yugoslav 

Republic of Macedonia to come together and sign an agreement on 20 November 1996 to begin the Lake 

Ohrid Conservation Project. It has four components: institutional strengthening; monitoring; participatory 

watershed management; and public awareness and participation. Its objective is to conserve and protect 

the natural resources and biodiversity of Lake Ohrid by developing and supporting effective cooperation 

between Albania and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for the joint environmental management 

of the watershed. 

Source: 

Sue Baggett (Independent Consultant, the United Kingdom). 

Figure 6.6 Phosphorous levels in the water 

of large mountain lakes in 

Switzerland 

Total phosphorus in micrograms 

per liter (annual averages) 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 

Genfersee 

Bodensee 

Hallwilersee 

Zugersee 

Source: Federal Office for Statistics, Switzerland. 

some cases a level of contamination sufficiently 

high to have caused significant ecological change 

'due to remaining threats from increased nitrogen 

deposition, trace metals and continual organic 

pollutant bioaccumulation' (Battarbee et al., 2009). 

A number of land-use activities also directly or 

indirectly affect the quality of mountain water; 

the history of changes in land use and streams in 

Switzerland is representative of many mountainous 

regions in Europe (Wohl, 2006). While atmospheric 

deposition has been and continues to be a major 

pressure on upland water quality, increasing 

concern has been voiced recently regarding the 

effect of changes in upland use; for example, 

the impacts of agriculturally-derived diffuse 

pollution (Stevens et al., 2008), overgrazing 

and plantation forestry practices (Emmett and 

Ferrier, 2004). Highland streams are generally 

clearer than lowland streams. For example, in 

the United Kingdom, concentrations of nitrate 

and orthophosphate in upland rivers are 3 to 

10 times lower than lowland arable and pasture 


97


Box 6.5 Carpathian streams as a reference for defining ecological integrity and the EU Water 

Framework Directive 

The conservation and restoration of aquatic ecosystems require biodiversity assessment methods and 

ecological performance targets derived from agreed policies. First, there is a need to evaluate the 

usefulness of indicators in assessing gradients from reference conditions for ecosystem functionality to 

anthropogenically-disturbed sites (e.g. Degerman et al., 2004). Second, the functionality of indicators 

should be evaluated with respect to how the results from monitoring could be communicated to, and 

used, by different societal actors (Törnblom and Angelstam, 2008). The landscapes of the Carpathians, 

spanning a steep gradient of land-use intensity, offer unique opportunities to evaluate such methods. This 

ecoregion has a great variation in the environmental history of forest and agricultural ecosystems among 

its countries, thus providing a suite of unique landscape-scale experiments. Landscape composition, 

riparian vegetation and instream habitat characteristics with stream macroinvertebrate assemblage 

structure were compared in 25 catchments located in Poland, Ukraine and Romania (Törnblom, 2008). 

This macroinvertebrate based methods have been in use for assessing biological quality of streams for at 

least four decades and are well documented. 

First, the use of three types of data — data at higher taxonomic levels, species-level data, and abundance 

data — for assessing macroinvertebrate species richness in second and third order streams was 

evaluated. The number of families was a reliable indicator of species richness within Ephemeroptera, 

Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT), suggesting that analyses focusing on this taxonomic level could offer 

a cost-efficient alternative to species-level assessments. Species richness of Trichoptera was strongly 

correlated to species richness in Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera, and thus representative of the EPT group 

as a whole, whereas species richness in Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera did not perform as well. Taxa 

richness in EPT was generally positively related to forest cover in the catchments and negatively related 

to the proportion of agricultural land. Loss and fragmentation of forests were major threats to ecological 

integrity. 

Second, the abundance and numbers of taxa of Plecoptera were compared with forest proportions in the 

catchments and logistic regression was used to identify thresholds associated to forest proportion as a 

surrogate for catchment integrity. Plecoptera abundance and Plecoptera taxa richness were positively 

correlated both to each other and to forest proportion, but negatively correlated to catchment area, 

inorganic carbon, alkalinity and conductivity. Abundance gave a higher rate of correct classification 

of catchments with a high forest proportion than did taxa richness. Considering this, and because 

non‐experts find counting Plecoptera individuals easier than recognising different Plecoptera taxa, 

abundance was chosen as an indicator. This dose-response study of habitat characteristics and Plecoptera 

abundance indicates that this group is an effective bioindicator in headwater catchments for predicting 

the ecological status of headwater streams. A decrease of the forest proportion of catchments below 

79 % will reduce or affect Plecoptera abundance and taxa richness in second-order streams. 

Further studies are required to validate these results in other regions and to develop methods to 

effectively communicate the requirements of indicator taxa to managers and other stakeholders in rivers 

and streams. Assuring that ecological indicators have a high communication value, and collaborative 

spatial planning using an integrated landscape approach for restoring ecological integrity in impaired 

streams to whole catchments are key challenges to be solved. However, there is a mismatch between 

the need for such systematic planning and reality: monitoring programs and performance targets for 

assessment need to be in place, and supported by tools for adaptive governance and management 

towards ecological integrity by both formal and informal organisations. In addition to hierarchical 

planning, participatory approaches that include relevant actors and stakeholders and that enhance 

communication and collaboration are needed. Applied interdisciplinary research is also required in 

order to operationalise 'good ecological status' and 'ecological integrity', and to understand how local 

and regional governance arrangements can deliver good ecological status as prescribed by the Water 

Framework Directive (WFD). 

Source: 

Johan Törnblom and Per Angelstam (School for Forest Engineers, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden). 



rivers (DEFRA, 2010). Upland waters also play a 

vital role in the dilution of pollutant discharges 

downstream (Stevens et al., 2008). Reliable methods 

for monitoring the quality of mountain waters are 

essential (Box 6.5). 

6.3.1 Long-range transportation and acidification 

Since the recent widespread decline of sulphate 

concentrations in lakes and streams (see Box 6.6), 

nitrate concentrations have assumed greater 

importance as an acidifying anion. Within the 

monitoring sites of the International Cooperative 

Programme on Assessment and Monitoring of 

Acidification of Rivers and Lakes (ICP), no major 

trends in nitrate concentrations are evident at 

present (NIVA, 2008). While there is no evidence of 

widespread decline of NO 3 

in alpine areas, recovery 

may be delayed by a re-acidification effect, as it 

is leached from soils to surface water; this may be 

further exacerbated by climate change (Rogora 

et al., 2008). A study of long-term trends of N-NO 3 

concentrations in 10 rivers draining the forested 

catchments of Piedmont of northwest Italy and the 

Swiss Canton of Ticino show that warm periods 

were normally followed by an increase of N-NO 3 

in 

the river water as mineralisation and nitrification of 

the soil were enhanced (Rogora, 2007). 

The biological recovery of surface water bodies 

is attained when their chemical composition can 

sustain acid-sensitive species. The relationship 

between their acid neutralising capacity (ANC) and 

biological response is a robust indicator of the effect 

of water quality on populations of key freshwater 

species, such as the brown trout (NIVA, 2008). Signs 

of recovery of invertebrates in the Scandinavian 

countries, the United Kingdom and the Czech 

Republic are evident and well-documented, but 

improvements in water quality in the most acidified 

sites in central Europe have yet to reach a level which 

allows widespread biological effects to be detected 

(NIVA, 2008). Dynamic modelling of surface water 

chemistry indicates that, under current legislation, 

adverse biological effects associated with acidification 

will continue to be a significant problem in the 

Tatra mountains in Slovakia, Italian Alps, southern 

Pennines in the United Kingdom, southern Norway, 

and southern Sweden (NIVA, 2008). 

In the Alps, the consequences of acid precipitation 

may be exacerbated by the fact that precipitation 

increases with altitude, and thus the deposition 

of hydrogen ions increases strongly with height. 

Since the concentration of basic anions and cations 

in precipitation is rather uniform over central 

Europe, the Alps receive as much acid deposition 

as other areas because of the orographic controls on 

precipitation, although they are not a major source 

of sulphate-based pollutants (Beniston, 2006). 

A key question is whether current protocols and 

directives, when fully implemented, will lead to 

a more complete recovery to the 'good ecological 

status' required by the WFD (Battarbee, 2004; 

Battarbee et al., 2009). 

The successful management of rivers for water 

quality requires scientific knowledge presented as 

well-grounded ecological principles in a format that 

is easily accessible and usable by water managers, 

linked to a political agenda and funding for their 

implementation. The nursing and sustaining of 

political commitment usually necessitate increased 

communication and education across disciplines 

and spatial scales, and between scientists, managers, 

and stakeholders to facilitate an integrated view 

of freshwater resources... (Nilsson and Malm 

Renöfält, 2008, p. 10). 

6.3.2 Impacts of mining 

Acid drainage is the single greatest environmental 

challenge in the mining sector and the industry's 

primary source of long-term pollution. It often 

becomes more acute after a mine is closed due 

to 'groundwater rebound'. The problem of acid 

drainage is visible at both active and abandoned 

mine sites. Capturing mine waters within 

mountainous areas is further complicated by the 

fact that chances of dispersal are greater due to 

gravity, geological structure and morphology. 

Water management in mining is both costly and 

a major environmental concern. While some 

mines are still active in Europe (e.g. Sweden has 

substantial base metal, gold and iron ore deposits 

that are still actively mined and developed), most 

ore fields are now abandoned, and the emphasis 

has shifted to the control of their environmental 

impact and remediation, including their effect on 

water quality (Wolkersdorfer and Bowell, 2005). The 

WFD applies to mining only in the generic sense. 

The mining industry's lack of concern regarding 

their environmental impact in the past is well 

documented; while many modern mines are obliged 

to pay more attention to their effluent and liquid 

discharge, accidents do happen (Fox, 1997). 

After the mining accidents in Aznalcollar, Spain 

(April 1998) and Baia Mare, Romania (January 

2000), the European Commission formed the Baia 

Mare Task Force (March 2000) to put together an 

action plan (Amezaga and Kroll, 2005). In their 


99


Box 6.6 Impact of the acid atmospheric deposition and commercial forest practices in protected 

watersheds of the Jizera Mountains (Czech Republic) 

The Jizera mountains are part of the 'Black Triangle' — the epicentre of acidity in Europe. The native tree 

species are mainly Common beech (Fagus sylvatica), Norway spruce (Picea abies) and Common silver fir 

(Abies alba). In the 18th and 19th centuries, native stands were converted to spruce plantations, which 

now comprise almost 90 % of the local forests. 

The control of forests in the Jizera Mountains began in the early Middle Ages, with the protection of the 

state border and an emphasis on maintaining populations of game animals. In 1902–2009, after several 

catastrophic floods, reservoirs were constructed to protect lowland cities against flooding. In the second 

half of the 20th century, the system of drinking water supply was developed. To support water and 

soil conservation, the 'Protected Headwater Area of the Jizera Mountains' was proclaimed by the Czech 

Government in 1978. Environmental watershed practices included limits to clear-cutting, peatland drainage, 

and heavy mechanisation. 

The slow weathering bedrock and pure podzolic soils have a small buffering capacity. In the 1970s and 

1980s, the forests of the headwater catchments declined as a consequence of the acid atmospheric load 

(sulphate) and commercial forestry practices: spruce plantations of low stability were extensively clear‐cut, 

using wheeled tractors, and both the control of insect epidemics and reforestation were ineffective. Both 

runoff and the water quality in watercourses and reservoirs deteriorated. Without pollution or acid rain, 

most lakes and streams would have had a pH near 6.5. In surface waters, extremely low pH (pH 4–5) and, 

consequently, high levels of toxic metals (aluminium, 1–2 mg/l) led to the extinction of fish and drastically 

reduced zooplankton, phytoplankton, and benthic fauna. The response to defoliation and the die‐back 

of spruce plantations was an extended harvest. The network of skid-roads — and the related length 

of drainage — increased from 1.3 km/km 2 to 4.7 km/km 2 , and the infiltration capacity of affected soils 

decreased from 150 m/hour to 40 mm/hour. With the drop in evapotranspiration, the annual water yield 

increased by 108 mm, but the direct (fast) runoff intensified from 50 % to 70 % of the annual runoff. The 

erosion of soil increased from 0.01 mm/year to 1.34 mm/year, and almost 30 % of the eroded volume of 

sediment was lost in runoff. 

In the 1990s, the first signs of recovery in surface waters appeared, resulting from: decreased air pollution 

(approximately 40 % of SO 2 

levels measured in the mid-1980s); a significantly reduced leaf area of forest 

canopies after the harvesting of spruce plantations (leaf area index dropped from 18.0 to 3.5); and, partly, 

by liming some reservoirs and watersheds. Traditional forestry practices — skidding timber by horses or 

cables, respecting riparian zones, seasonal skidding, and manual reforestation — have also contributed 

to the stabilisation of mountain catchments. Mean annual pH values increased to 5–6, and aluminium 

concentrations dropped to 0.2–0.5 mg/l. As some physical and chemical parameters in surface waters 

improved, fish were reintroduced: brook char (Salvelinus fontinalis, an acid-tolerant species) and brown 

trout (Salmo trutta morpha fario), which is native to the region. In the late 1990s, the population of char 

survived and reproduced, while brown trout starved in the headwaters. There is a relatively long delay 

between the drop in the atmospheric load and progress in the biota. Environmental indicators show a delay 

of almost 10 years, and the composition of algal mats and fish populations in surface waters take even 

longer to respond to the environmental changes. 

Acid atmospheric deposition in forests rises with canopy density (total leaf area) and height (related 

to roughness, and wind turbulence). Consequently, the clear-cutting of spruce plantations led to some 

positive impacts on the recharge of water supplies. In addition, beech stands which, in comparison to 

spruce plantations, have less canopy (particularly in the dormant season when the SO 2 

concentration in the 

atmosphere is higher) and a higher buffer capacity provide higher yields of water, which is of better quality; 

and base flow is higher, while direct flood flow is lower. In a long-term perspective, water quality might be 

improved by planting stands whose species composition is nearer to that of native forests — and which 

might be less endangered by climate change than spruce forests. The negative impact of forest practices 

on soil erosion, sedimentation and contamination of surface waters, observed in the 1980s, can also be 

avoided by alternative techniques: skidding timber using horses or cables, and respecting riparian buffer 

zones. 

Source: 

Josef Krecek (Department of Hydrology, Czech Technical University in Prague, Czech Republic). 



environmental assessment of the Tisza river basin 

(TRB), UNEP (2004) warned of the environmental 

risks from flooding and industrial pollution of rivers 

within the basin, particularly heavy metal pollution 

originating from the mining and metal processing 

industries located upstream in northern Romania. 

The TRB assessment specifically noted: pollution 

by heavy metals with a high rate of toxicity at small 

concentrations (e.g. lead and cadmium) affecting 

natural fishery resources in the Romanian area of 

the TRB; destruction of planktonic and benthonic 

biocenoses in a 24 km stretch of the Abrudel River 

due to persistent pollution with highly acidic 

mine wastewater containing heavy metals; and 

the destruction of resident aquatic species by 

wastewater along a 10 km section of the Ampoi 

River downstream from the Zlatna industrial plant. 

A long-term recommendation by UNEP (2004) 

was that an integrated sustainable development 

strategy for the management of land and water 

should be agreed upon by the countries sharing 

the TRB, with the support of both their national 

governments and international communities. 

The acquisition of in‐depth knowledge and 

information regarding natural processes and human 

ecology within a mountain region, along with the 

biological relationships with montane habitats, is 

key to preventing mining catastrophes if further 

environmental damage is to be avoided (Fox, 1997). 

6.4 Floods 

Despite considerable variation between different 

mountain areas, they all have complex topography. 

Their orographic features include some of the 

sharpest gradients coupled with rapid changes in 

climate, vegetation and hydrology due to altered 

elevation over comparatively short horizontal 

distances (Whiteman, 2000). Due to their topography, 

mountain regions are more flood-prone (EEA, 1999a). 

Flood types include large-scale river floods, flash 

floods, ice-jam, and floods due to snow melt; inland 

river floods are predominantly linked to prolonged 

bouts of rain, heavy precipitation events or snowmelt. 

River floods are the most common natural disaster in 

Europe, sometimes resulting in widespread damage 

to infrastructure, huge economic and production 

losses, loss of life especially in the case of flash floods, 

displacement of people, and can be damage to human 

health and the environment (EEA, 2008). 

6.4.1 Overview of recent flood damage and costs 

The occurrence of river flow maxima doubled in 

Europe between 1981 and 2000 when compared to 

1961 and 1980; since 1990, 259 major river floods have 

been reported in Europe, 165 since 2000 (EEA, 2008). 

However, whether this can be regarded as a trend 

is not certain, as periods with few floods alternate 

with periods with frequent floods over long periods 

(Schmocker-Fackel and Naef, 2010). The rise in the 

number of reported flood events over recent decades 

is also due both to better reporting and to land‐use 

changes (EEA, 2008). For example, Swiss flood 

damage data collected between 1972 and 2007 reveal 

that most of the damage was caused by a few severe 

events: six single flood events in 1978, 1987, 1993, 

1999, 2000 and 2005 each caused damage costing 

more than EUR 350 million, contributing to 56 % of 

the total sum (Hilker et al., 2009). The proportion of 

the total estimated damage (EUR 8 billion) caused 

by the different processes in the investigated 

period are shown in Figure 6.7. While 89 % of the 

costs (EUR 7.11 billion) were due to floods and 

inundations, debris flows elicited only about 4 % 

(EUR 340 million), landslides 6 % (EUR 520 million) 

and rockfalls less than 1 % (EUR 15 million) of 

the total costs (Hilker et al., 2009). Heavy rains in 

the Carpathian Mountains at the end of July 2008 

caused rivers in Ukraine, Moldova and Romania to 

flood towns and villages, submerging homes and 

displacing tens of thousands of people. The direct 

damages exceeded EUR 1 billion (WHO, 2008a, b). 

6.4.2 Flood protection 

Riparian wetlands are useful for their ability to 

not only reduce nutrient loading in rivers but also 

to provide flood protection (Nilsson and Malm 

Renöfält, 2008). In the case of the Danube, for 

example, where over 80 % of former floodplains 

have been lost during the last 150 years, significant 

flood protection and other ecosystem services 

could be regained by their enhancement and 

restoration (WWF, 2008). In the Rhine basin, the 

best protection against flooding is to make space 

for the river to flood certain areas, in order to 

protect others from being flooded (Scholz, 2007). 

Setting aside certain areas for flooding could thus 

both protect valuable land and reduce the risk of 

pollutants being washed out in the water (Nilsson 

and Malm Renöfält, 2008). 

The need for flood protection within the major 

floodplains of northern Europe has generally 

received a higher level of attention than protection 

against water scarcity and droughts. Transboundary 

cooperation and handling of cross-boundary 

issues between different states has taken place in 

a number of flood protection schemes, e.g. (i) The 

Flood Early Warning System for the River Rhine 

(FEWS-Rhine), developed by a Swiss-Dutch-German 

consortium in close coordination with Germany 


101


Figure 6.7 Annual and cumulative cost of damage caused by floods/inundation, debris 

flows, landslides and rockfalls for 1972 to 2007, as well as the total costs of the 

six major flood events indicated by short horizontal lines and date 

Annual cost of damage (million EUR) 

Cumulative cost of damage (million EUR) 

2 000 

10 000 

1 800 

____ 

21–22 August 

9 000 

1 600 

8 000 

1 400 

7 000 

1 200 

6 000 

1 000 

5 000 

800 

600 

7–8 August 

____ 

24–25 August ____ 

4 000 

3 000 

400 

200 

0 

Note: 

1972 

1973 

1974 

Cumulative cost 

1975 

1976 

1977 

1978 

1979 

1980 

Annual cost caused by: 

1981 

1982 

1983 

1984 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1988 

1989 

24 September ____ 

11–15/20–22 May 

Flood/inundation 

1990 

1991 

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 

1996 

Debris flow 

Landslide Rockfall (since 2002) 

____ ____ 14–15 October 

The p-value for the total cost of damage is 0.29, which indicates there is no statistically significant trend in the data. 

Source: Hilker et al., 2009, p. 916. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2 000 

1 000 

0 

and the Netherlands, enabling flood forecasts and 

warnings for the Rhine, its tributaries and for the 

major Swiss lakes within the basin; (ii) on the highly 

modified river Rhône which has many diversions, 

reservoirs and power plants, a forecasting and flood 

management system (MINERVE) is being developed 

(EEA, 2007). In such schemes, accurate prediction 

and monitoring of water coming from upstream 

mountain catchments, as well as better coordination 

and information exchange, are essential. 

6.5 Climate change and impact on water 

temperature and ice cover 

6.5.1 Increasing water temperature in rivers 

Generally, there is a strong correlation between air 

and water temperature (EEA, 2008). In addition 

to climate warming, flow regulation and cooling 

water from thermal power plants increase river 

temperature in larger rivers, while deforestation 

can have a strong impact on the heat balance of 

smaller streams. The surface temperatures of some 

major rivers have increased by 1–3 °C over the past 

century; shorter time series of 30 to 50 years show 

increases of 0.05–0.8 °C per decade. It is projected 

that climate change will result in increases in 

river temperature of 50 % to 70 % of projected air 

temperatures (EEA, 2008). 

6.5.2 Implications of increasing lake temperature 

For Northern European lakes, the most important 

climatic effects which have been experienced are the 

increased length of ice-free periods (Weyhenmeyer 

et al., 1999; 2005). For Western European lakes, 

increased winter rainfall (George et al., 2004) and 



changes to the frequency of calm summer days are 

more significant (George et al., 2007; George, 2010). 

Annual mean deepwater (hypolimnetic) 

temperature data spanning 20 to 50 years, taken 

from 12 deep lakes across Europe, show a 'high 

degree of coherence among lakes, particularly 

within geographic regions', with temperatures 

varying between years but increasing consistently 

in all lakes by about 0.1–0.2 °C per decade (Dokulil 

et al., 2006) (Figure 6.8). However, there are 

two exceptions, both of which are remote, less 

wind‐exposed alpine valley lakes: '[i]n four of the 

deepest lakes, the climate signal fades with depth. 

The projected hypolimnetic temperature increase 

of approximately 1 °C in 100 years seems small. 

Effects on mixing conditions, thermal stability, 

or the replenishment of oxygen to deep waters 

result in accumulation of nutrients, which in turn 

will affect the trophic status and the food web' 

(Dokulil et al., 2006, p. 2787). Since 1950, water 

temperatures in some rivers and lake surface 

waters in Switzerland have increased by more 

than 2 °C (BUWAL, 2004; Hari et al., 2006). In the 

large lakes in the Alps, the water temperature 

has generally increased by 0.1–0.3 °C per decade 

(EEA, 2008): Lake Maggiore and other large Italian 

lakes (Ambrosetti and Barbanti, 1999), Lake Zürich 

Figure 6.8 Time series and regression lines for annual average deepwater temperatures 

7 

A) Windermere NB 

B) Lake Geneva 

C) Zürichsee 

D) Walensee 

6 

5 

4 

3 

year 

Q1 

100m 

200m 

300m 

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1985 1990 1995 2000 1985 1990 1995 2000 

60m 

100m 

130m 

60m 

100m 

140m 

Hypolimnetic temperature ( o C) 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

E) Lake Constance F) Ammersee G) Lake Vänern H) Lake Vättern 

100m 

60m 

60m 

200m 

70m 

250m 

80m 

50m 

70m 

115m 

1970 1980 1990 2000 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 

I) Hallstätter See 

J) Traunsee 

K) Mondsee 

L) Attersee 

5 

80m 

100m 

120m 

40m 

50m 

60m 

100m 

120m 

160m 

100m 

140m 

190m 

4 

1970 1980 1990 

2000 

1970 1980 

1990 2000 

1970 1980 

1990 2000 1970 1980 

1990 2000 

Note: 

(A) Windermere North Basin 60 m and the first 10-week period (Q1), (B) Lake Geneva, (C) Zürichsee, (D) Walensee, (E) 

Lake Constance, (F) Ammersee, (G) Lake Vänern, (H) Lake Vättern, (I) Hallstättersee, (J) Traunsee, (K) Mondsee, and (L) 

Attersee for the depths indicated . T-increase in all lakes was 0.1–0.2 °C/decade. 

Source: Dokulil et al., 2006. 


103


(Livingstone, 2003), Lake Constance and Lake 

Geneva (Anneville et al., 2005). Similarly, studies 

of ice cover information on 11 Swiss lakes over the 

last century, show that ice cover has significantly 

reduced in the past 40 years, especially during 

the past two decades; this trend is more evident 

in lakes that rarely freeze as opposed to lakes that 

freeze more frequently (Franssen and Scherrer, 

2008). With climate change, more stable vertical 

stratification and higher surface and deep water 

temperatures are predicted (EEA, 2008). 

6.5.3 Ecological impacts of higher water 

temperature 

Ecological impacts of higher water temperatures 

have been studied in rivers and lakes (EEA, 2008). 

Increased thermal stability in lakes has led to 

increased anoxic conditions. Larger refugee zones 

for visually-oriented fish predators due to higher 

thermal stability influence the population density 

of invertebrate predators in a lake, an illustration 

of how climate change can affect the pelagic food 

web. Earlier algal blooms are predicted. In rivers, 

increased water temperatures: reduce the available 

habitat for cold-water species such as brown trout, 

which may be replaced by more thermophilic 

species; increase the incidence of temperaturedependent 

illnesses; threaten scarce invertebrate 

water species; and lead to oxygen depletion. 

Future water quality degradation may not only 

be due to expected climate change but is also 

likely to be due to new agricultural and industrial 

development. Due to limited data and the highly 

varied nature of climate over uplands, few studies 

have quantified the potential impact of climate 

change on water quality (Stevens et al., 2008). 

However, expected changes that could result in 

failure to reach water quality standards include: 

increased water temperature and reduced dissolved 

oxygen; decreased dilution capacity of receiving 

waters; increased erosion and diffuse pollution; 

photoactivation of toxic substances; metabolic rate 

change of organisms; augmented eutrophication; 

and greater prevalence of algal blooms (Wilby, 

2004; Wilby et al., 2006). Insufficient water during 

periods of low flow could also severely limit water 

abstraction in the uplands (Stevens et al., 2008). The 

frequency of catastrophic hydrological extremes 

could increase, alternating between drought and 

rapid runoff with downstream flooding. The 

extremity of water flows could further lead to soil 

erosion, landslips and sedimentation, while changes 

in soil quality could in turn reduce water quality 

and lead to the gradual and pervasive degradation 

of rivers (EEA, 2009a). 

6.6 Climate change impacts on water 

availability 

As water is intricately linked to climate through a 

number of connections and feedback cycles, any 

alterations within the climate system will initiate 

changes in the hydrological cycle (EEA, 2008). 

Increased glacier retreat (Box 6.2) and permafrost 

degradation, as well as changes in precipitation and 

decreases in the depth and length of snow cover 

(Stewart, 2009; EEA 2009a) have been observed in 

many mountain areas in Europe. In the southern 

Alps, groundwater levels in some regions have 

dropped by 25 % over the past 100 years (Harum 

et al., 2001). Projected changes in precipitation have 

been described in Section 5.2.2. 

Slight changes in the mean annual temperature 

may coincide with dramatic changes on an hourly, 

daily or even monthly basis, which is the time 

frame relevant for natural hazards, permafrost 

degradation and many other developments. Changes 

in the temperature and precipitation patterns have 

various consequences on a mountain environment, 

for example, snow cover reduction, glacier retreat, 

thawing of permafrost, vegetation shifts. Global 

warming might change the river discharge patterns 

including an increase in the frequency and intensity 

of floods and droughts... (ClimchAlp, 2008). 

Regional climate scenarios suggest that, by 

2050, there will be an increase in mean winter 

precipitation of 8 % compared to 1990 to the north 

of the Alps, and 11 % to the south of the Alps, with 

respective decreases of 17 % and 19 % in summer. 

The impact on the hydrological cycle in the Central 

Plateau and in the very south of Switzerland will be 

marked: 

...small and medium water-courses will dry up more 

frequently and natural replenishment of groundwater 

will decrease accordingly. Apart from changes to 

the average precipitation rate, increased intensity of 

storms and reduced snowfall and snow cover duration 

are expected in the coming decades...The warming 

trend and changing precipitation patterns are 

expected to have significant effects on ecosystems... 

Switzerland intends to include adaptation in its 

future climate legislation, in parallel with efforts 

aimed at greenhouse gas emissions reductions... 

(FOEN, 2009). 

6.6.1 Changes in glacier and snow storage 

Glaciers are important for water storage and 

accumulation, however, due to increasing 

temperatures and extended dry periods, it 



appears that their ability to fulfil this function is 

diminishing. Glacier mass balance has responded 

very sensitively and negatively to warming since the 

end of the European 'Little Ice Age' in the mid-19th 

century (Haeberli and Beniston, 1998; Box 6.2). The 

shrinking of glaciers, permafrost and snow cover 

(Section 5.2.3), changes in precipitation patterns 

and increasing temperatures will severely change 

alpine habitats and thus influence the ecosystem 

services they provide (Beniston, 2006; EEA, 

2009a). 'In snow‐dominated regions, such as the 

Alps, Scandinavia and the Baltic, the fall in winter 

retention as snow, earlier snowmelt and reduced 

summer precipitation will reduce river flows in 

summer (Andréasson et al., 2004; Jasper et al., 2004; 

Barnett et al., 2005), when demand is typically 

highest' (EEA, 2008, p. 95). 

While climate change is one reason it is not the 

only one, for example, for the use of snow-making 

facilities in ski resorts, as technically produced 

snow is the most used adaptation strategy for 

extraordinarily warm winter seasons (Vanham et al., 

2008). Snowmaking is a short- to medium-term 

adaptation strategy not only for high-altitude ski 

resorts, but also for financially strong year-round 

destinations at lower elevations, such as Kitzbühel, 

Austria (altitude 762–1 995 m) (Steiger and Meyer, 

2008). The natural altitudinally-dependent snow line 

is losing its relevance for Austrian ski lift operators, 

where 59 % of the ski area is covered by artificial 

snowmaking due to trends in tourism, prestige, 

and competitive advantage; 'despite the fact that 

snowmaking is limited by climatological factors, 

ski lift operators trust in technical improvements 

and believe the future will not be as menacing as 

assumed by recent climate change impact studies' 

(Vanham et al., 2008, p. 292). 

6.6.2 Changes in seasonality of river runoff 

There is some indication that annual river flow 

and the seasonality of river flow in Europe during 

the twentieth century was influenced by climate 

change (Figure 6.9). Climate change is projected 

to lead to strong changes in yearly and seasonal 

water availability across Europe (Beniston, 2006). 

A rising trend in annual flows within northern 

parts of Europe (with increases mainly in winter) 

and a decreasing trend in southern parts of Europe 

are evident (EEA, 2009b). Seasonal changes in 

river flows are also projected. For example, higher 

temperatures will push the snow limit in northern 

Europe and in mountainous regions upwards, and 

reduce the proportion of precipitation falling as 

snow. This would result in a marked drop in winter 

retention and higher winter run-off in northern 

European and Alpine rivers such as the Rhine, 

Rhône and Danube. The behaviour of winter snow 

pack is a key variable which controls the numerous 

components of the hydrological cycle that contribute 

to the timing and amount of alpine river discharge 

during the snow-melt season (Beniston, 2006). As 

a result of the declining snow reservoir, earlier 

snow melt and a general decrease in summer 

precipitation, longer periods of low river flow may 

be observed in late summer and early autumn in 

many parts of Europe. 

Hisdal et al. (2001) maintain that there is no evidence 

that river flow droughts have generally increased 

in frequency or severity over Europe in the last few 

decades. Nor is there conclusive proof of a general 

increase in summer dryness in Europe over the 

past 50 years due to reduced summer moisture 

availability (van der Schrier et al., 2006). While there 

is no general trend across Europe, however, there 

have been distinct regional differences (EEA, 2008), 

particularly in Spain, the eastern edge of Europe 

and many parts of the United Kingdom, where 

more severe river flow droughts have been observed 

(Hisdal et al., 2001). Yet in the latter, there is no 

evidence of a significant increase in the frequency of 

low river flows (Hanneford and Marsh, 2006). 

Climate change projections predict a shift from 

summer precipitation to winter precipitation, earlier 

and reduced snow melt due to lower storage of 

winter precipitation as snow and less glacial melt 

water, leading to an overall decrease in summer 

runoff in the Alps (EEA, 2009a, Chapter 5). The 

sectors that are likely to be most affected are: 

agriculture (increased demand for irrigation); 

energy (reduced hydropower potential and 

availability of cooling water); health (reduced 

water quality); recreation (water-related tourism); 

fisheries; navigation; and biodiversity (EEA, 2007). 

The dominant impacts by region are: flooding in 

central Europe; hydropower, health and ecosystems 

in northern Europe; and water scarcity in southern 

Europe (EEA, 2007). Climate change is also likely to 

exacerbate conflicts between drinking water supply, 

energy production, agriculture and artificial snow 

production (EEA, 2009a). 

6.6.3 Impacts of heatwaves 

The heatwave conditions experienced during 2003 

accord with climate change projections for Central 

Europe for summers in the second half of the 

21st century (Alcamo et al., 2007). During this heat 

wave, the NADUF stations downstream from Swiss 

lakes observed variations in oxygen content levels 

that had never been seen before, even during the 


105


Figure 6.9 Relative change in river flows between scenario (2071–2100) and reference period 

(1961–1990) (a) annual river flow and (b) seasonal river flow of three large 

European rivers 

(a) (b) Projected river flow 2071–2100 

(green line) and the observed river 

flow 1961–1990 (orange line) 

60° 

50° 

-30° 

-20° 

-10° 

0° 

10° 

20° 

30° 

40° 

50° 

60° 

60° 

50° 

m 3 /s 

1 000 

900 

800 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

0 

Rhone (Chancy) 

90 180 270 360 

Calender day 

40° 

m 3 /s 

12 000 

Danube (Ceatal Izmail) 

40° 

0 500 0° 1000 1500 km 10° 

20° 

30° 

8 000 

Relative change in annual river flow (map) and 

change in seasonal river flow of three large European 

rivers between scenario (2071–2100) and reference 

period (1961–1990) (graph) 

Change in % 

+ 40 

+ 20 

+ 10 

+ 5 

– 5 

– 10 

– 20 

– 40 

Reduction Increase 

Observed river flow 1961–1990 

Projected river flow 2071–2100 

4 000 

0 

m 3 /s 

800 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

0 

90 180 270 360 

Calender day 

Guadiana (Pulo do Lobo) 

90 180 270 360 

Calender day 

Source: EEA/JRC/WHO, 2008. 



drought year of 1976. This effect is accentuated by 

slow-flowing river water, which does not maintain 

a balanced exchange with atmospheric oxygen 

(Spreafico and Weingartner, 2005). Heatwaves 

since 2003 have dried up several springs in Savoy, 

threatening cattle farming productivity in the 

region (de Jong et al., 2008). Whereas local water 

supply from springs was formerly sufficient for 

local populations, some regions of Savoy are now 

primarily experiencing water demand problems, 

exacerbated by a combination of supply limitation 

due to community expansion, influx of tourists and 

climate change impacts (EEA, 2009a). 

6.7 Future challenges and opportunities 

It is globally recognised that sustainable and 

appropriate solutions for water resources must 

jointly consider both mountain regions and the 

lowland regions, which are dependent on their good 

management. The contrasting conditions upstream 

and downstream need to be addressed, as well as 

the different demands of rural and urban areas and 

sectors such as agriculture, industry and domestic 

supply (Mountain Agenda, 2000). Climate change 

may worsen current water resource issues and lead 

to increased risk of conflicts between users both 

in the Alpine region (particularly the south) and 

outside the Alps where the incidence of droughts 

is likely to increase (EEA, 2009a). The International 

Commission for the Protection of the Rhine and 

International Commission for the Protection of 

the Danube River are critical in this regard. Recent 

extreme events, such as the heatwave of 2003, 

have 'raised national and community awareness 

of the need to develop adaptation strategies' (EEA, 

2009a). Human pressures are at the point where 

the aquatic systems of the continent can no longer 

be viewed as being controlled by natural processes 

only (Meybeck, 2003). Consequently, future 

management of river systems should consider longterm 

anthropogenic impacts on the hydrological 

system, such as river damming, large-scale water 

transfers and expanding irrigation, as these all 

result in a general decrease of river flow quantities, 

coupled with increasing water quality problems 

(Weingartner et al., 2007). 

and active communication is fundamental when 

addressing uncertainty, requiring substantial 

cooperation between scientists, policy-makers 

and stakeholders. Forthcoming challenges include 

how to embed climate change adaptation into the 

management of water resources. Despite remaining 

uncertainties regarding the extent of changes to 

precipitation levels in specific locations, enough is 

known to start taking action (EEA, 2009a). 

So far, only a few countries have overall national 

policy frameworks in place on climate change 

adaptation. In the water sector, initiatives include: 

long-term planning and policy-oriented research; 

institutional development; technical investments; 

spatial planning and regulatory measures; flood 

defence and management in response to observed 

trends; coastal defence; and management of water 

scarcity. Management plans need to consider 

existing or potential conflict over water resources 

and their usage in relation to rivers and lakes both 

upstream and downstream, and conflicts in the 

same place among different users or over time 

between uses (e.g. between fishing and recreation, 

or biodiversity) (Kennedy et al., 2009). Consequently, 

appropriate and timely inclusion of relevant 

stakeholders is an important consideration. 

Basin-wide scenarios and projections of water 

resource availability are useful tools for identifying 

potential future conflicts and supporting joint 

decision-making (EEA, 2009a; Gooch and Stålnacke, 

2010; Box 6.7). Unfortunately, knowledge transfer 

from national to regional level is often disconnected, 

and improvements need to be made to regional 

adaptation processes, as the sharing of information 


107


Box 6.7 Mountain rivers in northern Sweden as a natural resource — the need for an integrated 

landscape approach 

Running from the Scandinavian Mountains to the Baltic Sea, northern Sweden's rivers were modified to 

transport wood from the late 19th century, and later regulated to produce electricity. Four sub-catchments 

have been set aside as National Rivers for conservation. However, EU and national policies supported by 

state subsidies have revived interest for hydroelectric energy production. At the same time, nature-based 

tourism based on sport fishing and wilderness values is encouraged. 

The catchment of the River Ångermanälven (32 000 km²), and its sub-catchment River Vojmån 

(3 500 km²) in Vilhelmina municipality, provide a good example of the challenge of implementing the policy 

statements of ecological sustainability and stakeholder participation in, for example, the Water Framework 

Directive and the European Landscape Convention (Angelstam et al., 2009). These policy visions are 

consistent with the idea of a riverine landscape (e.g. Leuven and Poudevigne 2002; Selman, 2006), in 

which a catchment is regarded as an integrated social-ecological system with biophysical, socio-cultural and 

perceived dimensions. The state company Vattenfall planned to divert around 80 % of the water from one 

large mountain valley (River Vojmån) to another to generate more electricity. This plan led to a local debate 

and a referendum which stopped the river diversion. 

The ecological system 

Northern rivers are characterised by seasonally-dynamic flow patterns, with low flows during winter, high 

flows during spring snowmelt, and irregular summer and autumn peaks due to rainfall. As terrestrial 

biological production along the stream is often high, forests supply the stream channel with leaf litter and 

large amounts of dead wood that provide nutrients and morphological structure to the stream. At the 

catchment scale, fire-driven boreal forest dynamics make pH values fluctuate, increasing after fires and 

decreasing during the course of natural succession. Human fish harvests in the past were low, allowing for 

viable populations of migrating brown trout of large size, compared to today's rather small-sized brown 

trout. The diversion of water from the River Vojmån was expected to lead to a decline of over 76 % in the 

annual flow volume, and with a flow dynamic over the year deviating from the natural state less than from 

its current regulated state (Figure 6.10). 

Figure 6.10 

Flow volume (cubic m/s) 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Natural (1909–1948) and 

recent (1949–2007) flows 

for the River Vojmån, and 

flow according to the plans 

for diverting water from its 

catchment 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

April 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

1909–1948 1949–2007 Diversion 

Source: Data from the Vojmån feasibility study. 

The social system 

A common proposal to encourage sustainable 

development is to include diverse stakeholders 

in governance (e.g. Sabatier et al., 2005). 

According to the state company Vattenfall, the 

River Vojmån diversion plan was an attempt 

towards a participatory approach that aimed to 

include local stakeholders. Because of the heated 

debate that emerged, Vilhelmina municipality felt 

that a referendum to support the decision was 

needed. A 'yes' would result in starting the process 

of implementing the river diversion plan, and a 

'no'would result in closing the project. However, 

there were clear inequities, and the consultation 

processes initiated by Vattenfall was not perceived 

as participatory. The 'no' side won the referendum 

in November 2008, with 53 % of the votes. 

Implementation of sustainability and 

sustainable development? 

An important strength of the referendum 

process was that all actors really cared about 

the ecosystem, and had a strong sense of place 

(Thellbro, 2006). Both sides were convinced that 

their arguments and suggested actions would 

improve the fishery and thus support Vilhelmina 

municipality's development as a recreation and 



Box 6.7 Mountain rivers in northern Sweden as a natural resource — the need for an integrated 

landscape approach (cont.) 

tourism destination. Table 6.2 presents an overview of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats 

concerning the opportunity to implement the vision of ecological sustainability as a natural resource value 

in the catchment. 

Table 6.2 

Overview of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats 

Strengths 

The ecological system 

The Vojmån sub-catchment within the 

large Ångermanälven catchment is the 

least impacted by human activity in central 

Sweden. 

The social system 

Internet was used for communication and 

debate; a local weekly magazine distributed to 

all households was used for announcements, 

the regional newspaper was used for debate. 

Weaknesses 

More than a century of stream alteration 

for log driving and water regulation, and 

cumulative effects in the terrestrial system, 

have had negative effects on local salmonid 

fish populations. 

Very technical discussion about the aquatic 

system, and very limited understanding of 

cumulative effects at the scales of the river 

channel, the riparian zone, and the entire 

catchment. 

Opportunities 

The upper half of the catchment is 

ecologically intact; growing international 

knowledge about thresholds for assessing 

ecological sustainability, and about 

ecosystem restoration. 

A local population with a strong cultural and 

social capital supporting local development. 

Threats 

Lack of funding for restoration and 

communication of international knowledge 

about reference landscapes for ecosystem 

restoration. 

Limited understanding of the role of life modes 

and full-time employment in businesses and 

public sector vs part-time and self-employment 

in the process from use of landscape goods and 

services to landscape values. 

The need for collaboration and social learning 

Although the democratic process was active, knowledge about the ecosystem was limited and there 

were no legitimate governance arrangements with an overview of how, where, and when different actors 

benefit from mountain rivers. This controversy illustrates that, to implement the European Landscape 

Convention and the EU Water Framework Directive, an integrated landscape approach is needed including 

(1) knowledge production about the natural ecology of rivers and catchments, and the engineering of 

ecosystem restoration, and (2) collaborative learning about development based on the use of non‐tangible 

landscape values as complements to traditional goods and ecosystem services. This requires the 

combination of applied natural and human science analytical approaches to work in practice with policy, 

governance, management and assessment of linked social-ecological systems (Angelstam et al., 2009). 

Source: 

Per Angelstam and Marine Elbakidze (School for Forest Engineers, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 

Sweden), Johan Törnblom (Department of Physical Geography, Ivan Franko National University, Ukraine). 


109


7 Land cover and uses 

The current landscapes and land cover of 

Europe's mountain areas reflect major variations 

in biophysical characteristics and historical and 

recent land uses. A first set of biophysical factors 

that drive landscapes and land covers are those 

that derive from the highly diverse geology and 

geological histories of different parts of Europe 

(Ollier and Pain, 2000). There have been three 

major phases of mountain building in Europe: the 

Caledonian, approximately 500 million years ago 

during the Precambrian, and now represented by 

the Scandes (Norway and Sweden) and much of 

the Scottish Highlands; the Hercynian, during the 

younger Paleozoic (approximately 355 290 million 

years ago), which created the middle mountains 

running from the Massif Central to the Sudetes 

along the Czech/Polish border; and the youngest, 

most rugged mountains whose formation started 

in the Alpine era, starting about 65 million years 

ago and including the Alps, Apennines, Balkans, 

Carpathians, Dinaric Alps, the Pyrenees and other 

Spanish mountains, and the mountains of southeast 

Europe and Turkey. Some Hercynian mountains 

were also involved in the Alpine folding; for 

example, parts of the Carpathians, Corsica and 

Sardinia. In addition to the mountains deriving from 

these three major orogenies (structural deformation 

of the Earth's crust due to the engagement of 

tectonic plates), there are also more recent volcanic 

mountains in Europe, particularly in Iceland and 

Italy. The Caledonian and Alpine mountains, as 

well as the highest parts and north-facing slopes of 

the Hercynian mountains, were further modified 

by ice during the last glaciation. A second set of 

factors that define land cover derive from the great 

contrasts in climate from the north to south — from 

Arctic to Mediterranean — and from west to east: 

generally, from oceanic to continental. Within any 

one mountain range, these broad factors are further 

influenced by regional and local topography; 

examples include the dry central Alps and, at 

smaller scales, the ranges of microclimates resulting 

from variations in altitude, slope and aspect. 

Variation at such smaller scales is particularly 

important with regard to biodiversity, discussed in 

Chapter 8. In addition, as discussed in Chapter 8, 

changes in climate since the glacial period have also 

influenced the subsequent distribution of species in 

all of Europe's mountains as it has been possible for 

species to move upwards and northwards as the ice 

retreated. 

While geology, geological and glacial histories, 

and climate have shaped the topography and 

influence the types of vegetation that can live on 

Europe's mountains, their current land cover also 

reflect the activities of people — and their grazing 

animals — in these mountains. The mountains of 

the Mediterranean have been used by people for 

over four millennia (McNeill, 1992), initially with 

agriculture on upland plateaus in Turkey and 

probably some summer grazing more widely. From 

about 500 BC to AD 500, significant deforestation, and 

subsequent erosion, took place in the Mediterranean 

mountains. The outcomes of this period are reflected 

in today's vegetation. In other parts of Europe, 

people gradually moved into the mountains as the 

climate improved, first to graze their animals in 

summer (often using fire to clear higher vegetation 

and improve grazing) and then, where possible, to 

grow crops. Equally, mountain forests were cut down 

for local or regional use and, depending on demand 

and possibilities of access, for export. In more recent 

centuries, large-scale political, economic and social 

changes — most recently those following the end of 

the socialist era around the beginning of the 1990s — 

have had profound effects on land cover. In summary, 

the land cover of Europe's mountains comprises 

largely cultural landscapes, reflecting a series of 

complex and interacting factors over the timescales of 

both geological and human history. 

The main sources of data used to describe 

current and recent land covers are the Corine 

(CO‐oRdination of Information on the Environment) 

Land Cover (CLC) datasets for 1990, 2000 and 2006. 

These datasets have been derived from satellite 

images; 44 different land-cover classes have been 

identified (Heymann et al., 1994; Bossard et al., 

2000; Feranec et al., 2007; Buttner et al., 2004). The 

European coverage of CLC2000 includes more 

countries than CLC1990 and therefore land-cover 

changes (5 ha MMU — Minimal Mapping Unit) 

are not available for all countries participating in 

110 



CLC2000. It should be noted that, unfortunately, the 

CLC2006 dataset does not include data for Greece, 

Switzerland or the United Kingdom, so in this 

chapter and in all other sections of this report where 

2006 data are presented or used for comparison, 

these countries are not included. 

7.1 Dominant landscape types 

To provide an overall evaluation of the 

characteristics of the landscapes of Europe's 

mountain areas, Maps 7.1 and 7.2 present, first, 

dominant landscape types for all of Europe, and 

second, the landscape types within massifs only. 

These maps have been produced from a spatial 

modeling technique based on the CLC2006 dataset 

and the CORILIS (CORIne LISage) approach to 

Mapping (Páramo and Arévalo, 2008). A 10 km 

smoothing radius has been applied to five 

aggregated CLC classes: urban/artificial, intensive 

agriculture, pastures/mosaics, forests, and 

semi‐natural/natural land. The dominant character 

has been assigned according to the rankings of the 

CORILIS values in each cell. 

A comparison of Maps 7.1 and 7.2 clearly shows 

that the mountains of the Nordic countries contain 

the majority of the open semi-natural or natural 

landscapes of these countries, and that much of 

the remainder of the landscape is a composite 

landscape (with high proportions of non-vegetated 

land). Such open landscapes also cover an 

important proportion of mountains in other parts 

of Europe, including the Iberian Peninsula and 

Turkey. These latter areas also have considerable 

proportions of forested landscape, as do most 

other mountain ranges outside northern Europe. 

Artificially dominated landscapes are almost 

exclusively outside mountains, though many 

extend to their margins; as noted in European 

Commission (2004), the flat land immediately 

adjacent to mountain areas is some of the most 

densely populated in Europe. Similarly, in some 

parts of Europe, such as Spain and the mainland 

of Italy, there is a clear boundary at the edge of 

the mountains between intensive agriculture on 

the plains and forest and other landscape types in 

the mountains. However, this is not as clear-cut in 

other parts of Europe. 

Map 7.1 Dominant landscape types in Europe, 2006 

-30° 

-20° 

-10° 

0° 

10° 

20° 

30° 

40° 

50° 

60° 

70° 

Dominant landscape type 

in Europe, 2006 

Artificial dominance 

60° 

Dispersed urban areas 

Broad pattern intensive 

agriculture 

Rural mosaic and 

pasture landscape 

Forest landscape 

Open semi–natural or 

natural landscape 

Composite landscape 

No data 

50° 

50° 

Outside data 

coverage 

40° 

40° 

0 500 0° 1000 150010° 

km 

20° 

30° 

40° 


111


Map 7.2 Dominant landscape types in mountain areas of Europe, 2006 

-30° 

-20° 

-10° 

0° 

10° 

20° 

30° 

40° 

50° 

60° 

70° 

Dominant landscape 

types of mountain areas 

in Europe, 2006 

Artificial dominance 

Dispersed urban areas 

Broad pattern intensive 

agriculture 

Rural mosaic and 

pasture landscape 

Forest landscape 

Open semi–natural or 

natural landscape 

Composite landscape 

Massifs 

No data 

60° 

50° 

50° 

Outside data 

coverage 

40° 

40° 

0 500 0° 1000 150010° 

km 

20° 

30° 

40° 

7.2 Land cover in mountain areas 

In order to present and analyse land covers at the 

European, massif and national levels, the 44 CLC 

land-cover classes in the CLC2006 dataset have been 

grouped into eight broader classes (Figure 7.1 and 

Table 7.1). At the scale of massifs, the proportions 

of different land-cover types vary considerably 

in different parts of Europe. Again, it should be 

noted that values for the Alps do not include data 

for Switzerland; those for the Balkans/South-east 

Europe do not include Greece; and those for the 

British Isles do not include the United Kingdom. 

These missing data probably do not significantly 

affect the conclusions presented below for the two 

former massifs; since the majority of the mountains 

of the British Isles are in the United Kingdom, this 

massif is not further discussed here. Overall, the 

dominance of forests is clear in that they cover 41 % 

of the total area of Europe's mountains. Taking 

the European mountains as a whole, the greatest 

proportions of forests are in the mountains of 

Turkey (21 %), the Balkans/South-east Europe (16 %) 

and the Nordic mountains (14 %). At the scale of 

individual massifs (Table 7.1), there are particularly 

high proportions of forests in the Carpathians 

(62 %), the central European middle mountains (1: 

60 %; 2: 51 %), the Balkans/South-east Europe (59 %), 

and the Alps and Pyrenees (both 52 %). There is 

only one large massif where forests are not the most 

widespread land-cover type: the Nordic mountains, 

where forests occupy 31 % of the area, but open 

space with little or no vegetation covers 34 %. 

Looking at Europe as a whole, after forests, three 

land-cover types occur at similar frequencies: 

pastures and mosaic farmland (16 %), natural 

grassland, heathland and sclerophylous vegetation 

(15 %), and open space with little or no vegetation 

(14 %). The largest area of pastures and mosaic 

farmland is in the mountains of Turkey (31 %), 

followed by the Balkans/South-east Europe 

(15 %) and the Carpathians, French/Swiss middle 

mountains and the Alps (7–8 %), and, at the scale 

of individual massifs, there are particularly high 

proportions in the French/Swiss middle mountains 

(38 %), the central European middle mountains 

(2: 27 %; 1: 21 %), the Balkans/South-east Europe 

(22 %), and the Carpathians (21 %). For natural 

grassland, heathland and sclerophylous vegetation, 

in Europe as a whole, the greatest area is found 

in the Nordic mountains (mainly grassland and 



heathland: 29 %), followed by the mountains of 

Turkey (26 %) and the Iberian mountains (18 %). 

At the scale of individual massifs, there are 

particularly high proportions in the Atlantic islands 

(49 %), the western and eastern Mediterranean 

islands (38 %, 24 %), the Nordic mountains 

(23 %) and the Iberian mountains (22 %). The 

greatest proportions of open space with little or 

no vegetation are found in the Nordic mountains 

(47 % for Europe as a whole, 34 % within the 

massif) and the mountains of Turkey (39 % for 

Europe as a whole, 20 % within the massif); for 

the former, this includes a significant proportion 

of ice‐ and rock-covered land; while for the latter, 

this is mainly land above the tree line. Finally, 

arable land covers 10 % of Europe's mountains; the 

greatest areas are to the south, in Turkey (42 %), 

the Iberian mountains (20 %), and the Apennines 

(13 %), which also has the greatest proportion at 

the level of the massif (27 %). 

Proportions of land-cover classes in mountain areas 

are given for each country (Figures 7.2 and 7.3). In 

nearly all countries with any significant mountain 

area, forests are clearly the most frequent land 

cover, with proportions above 50 % in 17 countries; 

the highest being 78 % in Hungary, 67 % in Slovenia 

and Montenegro, 65 % in Croatia, and 64 % in 

Slovakia and Belgium. This not the case, however, 

for Norway and, particularly, Iceland, where open 

space with little or no vegetation is most frequent 

(37 %, 56 %, respectively) whilst the other Nordic 

countries of Finland and Sweden are also notable 

because they have very small proportions of 

pastures and mosaic farmland. It is also notable 

that, while forests cover the greatest area of the 

mountains of Turkey, the proportion (30 %) is 

the lowest of all countries with any significant 

mountain area, and four other land-cover types 

all have values from 14 to 20 %. A further general 

relationship is that pastures and mosaic farmland 

is the second most frequent land-cover type in 

most countries with the notable exceptions of the 

Nordic countries and Turkey, mentioned above, 

as well as the Mediterranean countries of Albania, 

Cyprus and Spain, where the proportion of natural 

grassland/heathland/sclerophylous vegetation is 

higher (24–28 % compared to 14–17 %) and Italy, 

where the proportion of arable land is higher 

(19 % compared to 15 %). It can also be seen that 

proportions of pastures and mosaic farmland and 

of arable land are also rather similar in Poland 

(22 %, 21 %, respectively). 

regard to the proportions of national area within 

different land‐cover classes. However, when the 

proportions of each land‐cover class distributed 

across European mountains as a whole is compared 

(Figures 7.4 and 7.5), different patterns emerge. 

Most marked is the fact that most of the artificial 

surfaces in Europe's mountain areas are within 

EU Member States, particularly Italy (12 %), 

Romania (11 %), and France (10 %). Outside the 

EU, only Turkey has a high proportion of the 

European mountain land within this class: 18 %. 

Within the EU, both Spain and Italy are notable 

for high proportions of arable land/permanent 

crops, forests, and natural grassland/heathland/ 

sclerophylous vegetation: 20 %, 12 %, and 19 %; 

and 15 %, 9 %, and 7 %, respectively. Again, Turkey 

has particularly high proportions of land in these 

three classes: 42 %, 20 %, and 26 % respectively. 

In the EU, Spain has a large proportion (13 %) of 

pastures and mosaic farmland, as does France 

(10 %); and, outside the EU, Turkey (31 %). Within 

the vegetated class, particularly high proportions 

of wetlands are found in individual countries. 

Over half of Europe's mountain wetlands are in 

Norway (51 %), and high proportions are also 

found in Sweden (18 %) and Ireland (16 %). Over 

half of the area of water bodies is in the two Nordic 

countries of Norway (35 %) and Sweden (23 %); a 

further 19 % is in Turkey. Finally, the importance 

of largely unvegetated open space in non-EU 

countries is marked: two Nordic countries, Norway 

and Iceland, have 31 % and 12 % respectively, and 

Turkey 39 %. Overall, most of these countries are, 

not surprisingly, those with large mountain areas; 

and, given the fact that Turkey's mountain area is 

so much larger than that of any other country, it 

is equally unsurprising that this one country has 

more than 20 % of the total area within five of the 

eight classes, and only less than 17 % for one class: 

wetlands (5 %). 

A comparison of Figures 7.2 and 7.3 does not 

show particularly marked differences between 

the EU‐27 and other European countries with 


113


Table 7.1 Distribution of Corine land‐cover classes in massifs (ha), 2006 

Massif 1 

Artificial 

surfaces 

% 2A 

Arable 

land and 

permanent 

crops 

% 2B 

Pastures 

and mosaic 

farmland 

% 3A 

Forests and 

transitional 

woodland 

shrub 

% 3B 

Natural 

grassland, 

heathland 

and sclerophylous 

vegetation 

% 3C 

Open 

space with 

little or no 

vegetation 

% 4 

Wetlands 

% 5 % 

Water 

bodies 

Alps 527 413 3.2 571 920 3.4 2 427 726 14.5 8 733 123 52.3 2 361 275 14.1 1 976 618 11.8 26 361 0.2 88 239 0.5 

Apennines 233 729 2.1 3 058 711 27.4 1 869 947 16.8 4 854 203 43.5 949 579 8.5 171 676 1.5 1 094 0.0 22 866 0.2 

Atlantic islands 21 443 4.0 101 706 19.0 22 538 4.2 90 675 16.9 263 373 49.2 35 868 6.7 0.0 59 0.0 

Balkans/South-east 

Europe 

383 041 1.6 1 112 343 4.8 5 241 562 22.4 13 900 510 59.4 2 147 167 9.2 461 469 2.0 12 975 0.1 155 371 0.7 

British Isles 3 851 0.4 7 872 0.8 240 435 23.6 183 905 18.0 98 630 9.7 22 127 2.2 451 363 44.3 11 736 1.2 

Carpathians 544 770 3.9 1 372 629 9.9 2 850 312 20.5 8 645 546 62.3 378 291 2.7 33 143 0.2 6 843 0.0 54 283 0.4 

Central European 208 587 5.5 489 568 12.9 800 373 21.0 2 274 674 59.7 18 784 0.5 161 0.0 2 922 0.1 14 122 0.4 

middle mountains 

1 * 

Central European 199 568 4.4 758 619 16.7 1 213 579 26.8 2 315 736 51.0 25 969 0.6 413 0.0 6 562 0.1 16 254 0.4 


2 ** 

Eastern 

14 163 3.3 65 014 15.3 60 380 14.2 175 806 41.4 102 988 24.2 5 653 1.3 0.0 705 0.2 

Mediterranean 

islands 

French/Swiss 


185 847 2.7 312 913 4.5 2 618 833 37.6 3 346 023 48.1 445 466 6.4 13 157 0.2 7 249 0.1 28 388 0.4 

Iberian mountains 259 694 1.0 4 524 320 17.2 4 769 102 18.2 9 896 805 37.7 5 700 232 21.7 976 352 3.7 4 723 0.0 126 065 0.5 

Lakes 2 562 0.9 9 899 3.4 9 953 3.4 7 062 2.4 6 619 2.3 5 729 2.0 3 291 1.1 247 860 84.6 

Nordic mountains 105 713 0.3 164 371 0.4 779 569 1.9 12 989 340 31.4 9 319 801 22.5 14 136 721 34.2 2 184 786 5.3 1 690 946 4.1 

Pyrenees 74 280 1.4 484 470 8.9 704 452 12.9 2 819 885 51.6 1 036 048 19.0 320 477 5.9 337 0.0 21 464 0.4 

Turkey 602 821 1.0 9 673 408 16.1 10 790 899 17.9 18 308 099 30.4 8 530 922 14.2 11 825 431 19.6 126 123 0.2 329 159 0.5 

Western 

32 716 1.4 191 701 8.0 349 836 14.6 771 147 32.2 922 419 38.5 125 380 5.2 247 0.0 4 674 0.2 

Mediterranean 

islands 

All massifs 3 400 198 1.6 22 899 464 10.5 34 749 496 15.9 89 312 539 40.9 32 307 563 14.8 30 110 375 13.8 2 834 876 1.3 2 812 191 1.3 

Note: 


Source: European Environment Agency: CLC2006 and CLC classes according to the LEAC methodology (http://www.eea.europa.eu/ 

data-and-maps/data/land-cover-accounts-leac-based-on-corine-land-cover-changes-database-1990-2000 [accessed 8 July 

2010]). 



Figure 7.1 Distribution of Corine land‐cover classes in massifs (ha), 2006 

Area in hectares 

20 000 000 

18 000 000 

16 000 000 

14 000 000 

12 000 000 

10 000 000 

8 000 000 

6 000 000 

4 000 000 

2 000 000 

0 

Alps 

Apennines 



British Isles 

Carpathians 






Lakes 


Pyrenees 

Turkey 


1 Artificial surfaces 2A Arable land and permanent crops 2B Pastures and mosaic farmland 

3A Forests and transitional woodland shrub 3B Natural grassland, heathland, sclerophylous vegetation 

3C Open space with little or no vegetation 4 Wetlands 5 Water bodies 

Note: 


Figure 7.2 Land cover classes in the mountain area of each country as a proportion of 

national area: EU‐27 Member States with mountain areas 

% 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 


Finland 

France 

Germany 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 





115



national area: other countries 

% 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Albania 


Croatia 

Iceland 

Liechtenstein 

Kosovo 



Montenegro 

Norway 

Serbia 

Turkey 





the area of each class for all European mountains: EU‐27 Member States with 


% 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 


Finland 

France 

Germany 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 






Figure 7.5 Land cover classes in the mountain area of each country as a proportion of the 

area of each class for all European mountains: other countries 

% 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Albania 


Croatia 

Iceland 

Liechtenstein 

Kosovo 



Montenegro 

Norway 

Serbia 

Turkey 




7.3 Land cover changes in mountain 

massifs and countries 

The distribution of land cover presented in the 

previous section may be regarded as a snapshot 

in the middle of the first decade of our century, 

following changes over previous centuries and 

millennia. To evaluate changes over the past two 

decades, the CLC datasets for 1990, 2000 and 2006 

were used. At the first level, the five main land‐cover 

categories are: artificial surfaces, agricultural areas, 

forests and semi-natural areas, wetlands, and water 

bodies. Between these, nine land‐cover flows (LCFs) 

have been defined: 

• lcf1: Urban land management 

• LCF2: Urban residential sprawl 

• LCF3: Sprawl of economic sites and 

infrastructures 

• LCF4: Agriculture internal conversions 

• LCF5: Conversion from forested & natural land 

to agriculture 

• LCF6: Withdrawal of farming 

• LCF7: Forest creation and management 

• LCF8: Water body creation and management 

• LCF9: Changes of land cover due to natural and 

multiple causes 

Table 7.2 shows both the availability of data and 

percentage changes in land cover for the massifs 

from 1990 to 2000 and from 2000 to 2006. Notably, 

changes in the mountains of the British Isles cannot 

be analysed for either period; nor can changes 

in the Nordic mountains or the mountains of 

Turkey for 1990 to 2000. The value of evaluations 

of changes in the eastern Mediterranean islands 

is also limited by the lack of data for Greece in 

the CLC2006 dataset. In addition, it is important 

to note that the actual time period between the 

1990 and 2000 datasets differs from one country to 

another. For 2000–2006, the time elapsed is more 

regular across countries, always being five or six 

years except for Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 

and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. 

As shown in Table 7.2, and taking into 

consideration the caveats mentioned above, the 

massifs undergoing the largest changes between 

1990 and 2000 were the central European middle 

mountains 2 (6.33 %), the Iberian mountains 

(5.38 %), western Mediterranean islands (3.04 %) 

and the Pyrenees (2.98 %). There are similar trends 

for 2000–2006, i.e. the largest changes are observed 

in the Iberian mountains (2.55 %), central European 

middle mountains 2 (1.44 %) and the Pyrenees 

(1.11 %). Tables 7.3 and 7.4 provide more detail 

regarding the relative contribution of the different 

LCFs to these overall changes in land cover, 

and examples are presented for the Carpathians 

(Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine) in Box 7.1 and the 

Basque Country, Spain, in Box 7.2. 


117


Table 7.2 

Changes 1990–2000 and 2000–2006 (% of the first year), by massif 

Massif Changes 1990–2000 Changes 2000–2006 

% no % changes % no data % changes 

data 

Alps 13 0.87 13 0.31 

Apennines 0 1.04 0 0.57 

Atlantic islands 34 0.35 34 0.45 

Balkans/South-east Europe 29 0.82 26 0.52 

British Isles 86 3.19 86 0.55 

Carpathians 14 2.14 14 0.82 

Central European middle mountains 1 * 0.6 2.00 0.6 0.48 

Central European middle mountains 2 ** 0 6.33 0 1.44 

Eastern Mediterranean islands 25 1.18 76 0.85 

French/Swiss middle mountains 13 1.14 13 0.46 

Iberian mountains 0 5.38 0 2.55 

Nordic mountains 100 – 0 0.68 

Pyrenees 0.4 2.98 0.4 1.11 

Turkey 100 – 0 0.35 

Western Mediterranean islands 0 3.04 0 0.71 

Note: 


No data means that parts of the mountain massif are not covered by CLC data in one or both years. 

Source: Based on EEA datasets (CLC1990–2000–2006). www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/corine-land-cover-1990-2000; 

www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/corine-land-cover-2000-2006. 

Table 7.3 Contribution of each land‐cover flow to the total change between 1990 and 2000 

per massif (in %) 

Massif LCF1 LCF2 LCF3 LCF4 LCF5 LCF6 LCF7 LCF8 LCF9 

Alps 0.46 7.03 3.98 3.09 1.57 4.73 64.94 0.13 14.07 

Apennines 0.26 7.66 4.11 11.11 5.24 19.51 46.05 0.85 5.20 

Atlantic islands 0.00 34.94 9.16 14.87 33.19 0.21 7.63 0.00 0.00 

Balkans/South-east Europe 0.24 0.68 6.49 5.87 3.37 1.22 70.29 1.32 10.52 

British Isles 0.07 0.34 0.38 2.20 0.59 1.54 94.62 0.00 0.25 

Carpathians 0.06 0.53 0.63 14.05 3.03 8.55 71.91 0.62 0.61 


mountains 1 * 0.52 7.13 7.63 32.53 0.39 0.74 50.78 0.02 0.27 


mountains 2 ** 0.42 1.12 1.63 64.53 0.68 1.37 29.99 0.08 0.17 


islands 0.01 0.48 5.49 9.65 21.09 0.10 42.43 0.30 20.45 


mountains 0.30 3.29 4.16 2.41 5.58 1.71 81.18 0.23 1.14 

Iberian mountains 0.19 1.47 2.33 10.65 9.49 4.42 60.36 1.21 9.89 

Pyrenees 0.21 1.51 2.73 5.39 0.95 2.93 60.18 0.56 25.53 


islands 0.17 6.10 1.64 2.01 3.14 41.56 18.93 0.05 26.40 

All massifs 0.22 2.02 2.64 14.25 5.53 5.25 61.13 0.78 8.18 

Note: 


Source: Based on EEA datasets (CLC1990–2000). www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/corine-land-cover-1990-2000. 



Table 7.4 Contribution of each land‐cover flow to the total amount of change between 2000 

and 2006 per massif (in %) 

Massif LCF1 LCF2 LCF3 LCF4 LCF5 LCF6 LCF7 LCF8 LCF9 

Alps 0.46 3.59 10.52 0.18 0.49 0.25 58.70 0.06 25.77 

Apennines 0.79 2.67 5.58 3.10 3.54 1.50 77.08 1.23 4.51 

Atlantic islands 2.39 32.09 18.93 5.80 1.68 0.00 14.18 0.00 24.93 

Balkans/South-east Europe 0.46 4.62 5.67 6.80 2.73 3.13 71.34 1.46 3.78 

British Isles 0.04 0.74 0.58 0.58 0.08 5.36 92.62 0.00 0.00 

Carpathians 0.25 0.83 1.94 8.17 0.50 3.15 85.12 0.05 0.00 


mountains 1 * 2.96 6.54 5.78 1.90 1.00 0.19 81.52 0.04 0.06 


mountains 2 ** 1.12 0.99 4.99 40.25 2.57 2.39 46.60 0.88 0.22 


islands 0.51 18.99 7.05 0.04 11.68 0.00 60.64 0.00 1.10 


mountains 2.10 6.69 8.17 0.53 0.85 0.19 78.06 0.19 3.22 

Iberian mountains 0.91 0.61 5.16 7.27 6.12 1.07 65.10 0.16 13.60 

Nordic mountains 0.02 0.25 2.26 0.02 0.08 0.01 90.02 0.26 7.07 

Pyrenees 1.22 1.26 5.26 7.97 0.69 0.18 38.91 1.01 43.51 

Turkey 2.24 1.02 9.78 5.14 5.34 0.73 66.64 5.22 3.89 


islands 0.32 1.52 1.91 0.20 2.69 1.30 39.43 2.78 49.85 

All massifs 0.86 1.59 5.23 6.28 3.53 1.26 70.45 0.97 9.83 

Note: 


Source: Based on EEA datasets (CLC2000–2006). www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/corine-land-cover-2000-2006. 

Overall, 'forest creation and management' (LCF7) 

was the dominant land‐cover flow during both time 

periods (Figure 7.7) and was more pronounced in 

2000–2006. For the massifs for which a comparison 

is possible, the rates were considerably higher in 

1990–2000 in the Pyrenees and slightly higher in 

the Alps and French–Swiss middle mountains, 

while the converse was true for 2000–2006 

particularly in the Apennines, Carpathians and 

central European middle mountains and less so in 

the Iberian mountains. However, in the relatively 

little-forested mountains of the Atlantic islands, 

'urban residential sprawl' (LCF2) was the dominant 

change in both periods, which is probably related 

to the impact of the tourism sector. In addition, a 

significant 'conversion from forested and natural 

land to agriculture' (LCF5) was observed in 

1990–2000, which could be a consequence of more 

human activity. In the mountains of the western 

Mediterranean islands 'withdrawal of farming' 

(LCF6) was the major change in 1990–2000, but not 

in 2000–2006. A further massif where LCF7 was 

not the dominant change in 1990–2006 was the 

central European middle mountains 2: 'agricultural 

internal conversion' (LCF4) was the dominant 

change, and second in importance in 2000–2006, 

as discussed in Section 7.3.1 with regard to the 

Czech Republic. This flow was also important in 

central European middle mountains 1 in 1990–2000. 

The same analysis was performed at country level 

(Table 7.6), although in this case the changes were 

calculated on an annual basis in order to avoid the 

effect of time difference in data delivery. 


119


Box 7.1 Land use and land-cover change in the Carpathians after 1989 

After the political transformation of 1989, land-use and land-cover changes (LUCC) accelerated in central 

and eastern Europe, due particularly to profound changes in agriculture, improvements in the welfare of 

societies, growth in the tertiary sector, and rural to urban migration (Turnock, 2003). While local‐scale 

studies are important for understanding fine-scale patterns and drivers of LUCC, regional‐scale and 

cross‐national studies often capture a broader range in the variability of underlying drivers, linking 

differences in land dynamics to differences in socioeconomics and policies. The variety of paths to 

market‐oriented economies among Carpathian countries offers unique opportunities to isolate particular 

drivers of LUCC and better understand their relative importance (Hostert et al., 2008; Kuemmerle et al., 

2007, 2008). 

At the local scale, two types of LUCC were widespread (Kozak, 2009; Kuemmerle et al., 2008), especially 

in the post-socialist period: abandonment of agricultural land leading to shrub encroachment and forest 

expansion; and increase of built-up areas, both around urban centres and in rural areas. These changes 

were studied in two communes in Poland (Szczawnica — 88 km 2 , Niedźwiedź — 74 km 2 ) using a time 

series of air photographs (1977–2003; Dec et al., submitted). Both communes have similar environmental 

conditions (elevation from 400 to 1 200 m) and population (currently approximately 7 000 inhabitants). 

However, as Szczawnica has been a spa since the 19th century and an important tourism centre, the 

employment structures differ. Also, agricultural areas partially abandoned after World War II were 

designated for large-scale sheep grazing between the 1950s and 1980s (Kaim, 2009). 

In both communes, forested, abandoned and built-up areas have increased, and agricultural land has 

decreased. The higher dynamics of LUCC occurred mostly below 700 m, due to a striking increase of builtup 

areas; above 700 m, agricultural land abandonment and forest expansion dominated. These trends, 

related mostly to the declining importance of agriculture and major shifts in the employment structure, 

have been persistent in the Polish Carpathians for at least a century, as the forest transition began in 

the late 19th century (Kozak, 2010). The resulting landscape changes are well documented by visual 

comparisons of archive and contemporary photographs (see below). 

At the regional scale, analysis of multi-temporal satellite images of approximately 18 000 km2 in the border 

region of Poland, Slovakia and Ukraine revealed widespread land-use change after 1989, with rates and 

spatial patterns differing markedly between regions and countries. Up to 15–20 % of the cropland used in 

socialist times was abandoned after the system change in all countries (Figure 7.9), probably as a response 

to the decreasing profitability of agriculture. Topography, accessibility of farmland, land-use patterns, as 

well as land ownership regimes during socialism and land reforms after 1989, strongly determined the 

spatial pattern of abandonment. For example, cropland abandonment rates in Poland were twice as high on 

previously collectivised land than in areas that remained private throughout socialism (Kuemmerle et al., 

2008; Kuemmerle et al., 2009b). 

Photo: 

Courtesy and permission for the archive photograph: Pieniny National Park, Poland. 

Landscape changes in Szczawnica as documented by the archive (left: beginning of the 20th century) and right: 

contemporary) photographs, 2009. 



Box 7.1 Land use and land-cover change in the Carpathians after 1989 (cont.) 

While the extent of forests in the Carpathians has not changed dramatically since the fall of the Iron 

Curtain, disturbance rates in forest ecosystems have varied between regions due to differences in forest 

management policies, privatisation strategies, nature protection regimes, land-use legacies, and air 

pollution effects (Hostert et al., 2008; Kuemmerle et al., 2007, 2009c; Main et al., 2009). Although forest 

disturbance rates often increased immediately after the system change in all countries, harvesting was 

more widespread and forests were more fragmented in Slovakia and Ukraine than in Poland. As with 

land abandonment, ownership regimes were important in determining forest harvesting patterns. Forest 

disturbance rates in Poland were five times higher in private than in public forests (Figure 7.6). 

Figure 7.6 

Differences in forest disturbance rates among ownership regimes in Poland (a); 

clear-cut in the Ukrainian Carpathians (b); abandonment rates in the Polish, 

Slovak and Ukrainian parts of the study area (c); forest expansion on former 

cropland in the Polish Carpathians (d) 

(a) 

(b) 

Yearly disturbance rate (%) 

0.5 

0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0.0 

Before 1988 1988–1994 1994–2000 

Bieszczady National Park Private forest 

State forest 

Photo: 

T. Kuemmerle 

(c) 

(d) 

Abandonment rate (%) 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Poland Slovakia Ukraine 

Photo: 

T. Kuemmerle 

Abandoned farmland 

Afforestation 


121


Box 7.1 Land use and land-cover change in the Carpathians after 1989 (cont.) 

Yet, changes in ownership did not necessarily result in large-scale harvesting (Kuemmerle et al., 2007, 

2009b, c). The effectiveness of nature conservation policies also differed. For instance, forest harvesting 

rates dropped in Slovakia after protected areas were designated, whereas protected areas were less 

effective in Ukraine and much harvesting occurred just before designation. Illegal logging, widespread 

during the early transition years when institutions transformed and law enforcement was weak, persists in 

some regions (for example, Ukraine), often because of loopholes in forest legislation (Kuemmerle et al., 

2007, 2009a). 

These local- and regional-scale studies underpin the importance of land-use related research across spatial 

and temporal scales, to avoid missing important socioeconomic processes that often drive environmental 

change in mountains. Cross-border studies further deepen understanding of policies and institutions 

influencing land-use and land‐cover change. Ultimately, the combination of physiographic, socioeconomic 

and institutional analyses is an important step towards integrated mountain research with a focus on land 

system science (Turner et al., 2008). 

Source: 

Patrick Hostert (Geography Department, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Germany), Jacek Kozak, Dominik Kaim and 

Katarzyna Ostapowicz (Institute of Geography and Spatial Management, Jagiellonian University, Poland), Tobias 

Kuemmerle (Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA), Daniel Mueller (Leibniz 

Institute of Agricultural Development in central and eastern Europe (IAMO), Germany). 

Box 7.2 Changes in the land cover of the Basque Country, Spain 

Most of the Basque Country is rural, with 85 % of the municipalities classified as mountainous; a situation 

that generates both limitations and potential. This rural space has a characteristic appearance: 55 % is 

covered by forest and 30 % by agriculture, with diverse crops. Natura 2000 sites cover 20.3 % of the 

area. With a population of 2 137 691 in an area of 7 224 km 2 , this non-metropolitan region has one of the 

highest population densities (296 inhabitants/km 2 ) in the European Union, following transformations over 

the past decade. This population lives and works in only about one third of the region, in a wide littoral strip 

and in the valleys, because the rest is too mountainous. 

The Basque Country used to be organised around central cities, industrial zones and rural centres with 

clearly defined functions. This structure has evolved towards a 'city-region' or 'dispersed city', as the limits 

of the centres have become blurred, and functions and activities have been dispersed. Everyday activities 

now happen in a rural/urban continuum, with no defined limits between rural and urban. 

Changes in land use in the period 1966 to 2005 are shown in Table 7.5. The Basque Country is situated in 

the economic corridor of the European communications network, connecting the Iberian Peninsula with the 

rest of Europe. This strategic location involves more urbanisation and infrastructure: in the last 10 years, 

these areas have increased by 20.6 % to the detriment of agricultural land. This exponential development 

is principally due to an increase in economic activities, especially large commercial surfaces and business 

and industrial areas. The Basque Country also has one of the highest proportions of artificial surfaces in 

Spain: 5.62 % of in 2005, compared to 2.22 % for the country as a whole. Speculation in the construction 

industry and the development of low density residential areas are also important factors. In the near future, 

these trends will deepen as new highways and high-speed trains are constructed. 

The usable agriculture area decreased by 5.85 %: a loss of approximately 14 000 ha. Most of this land, 

mainly in the valleys, has become industrial and urban zones, communication infrastructure, or forests. 

The primary sector is in a delicate situation: in recent decades, factors such as the low profitability of 

farms, changes in lifestyle and high prices for agricultural land (appropriate for other uses) have caused 

abandonment and meant that younger generations no longer take over farms. Agricultural activity is 

unappealing when urban areas offer employment relatively close to farms. Consequently, many rural areas 

have a residential rather than productive function; or agricultural production becomes a complement to 

jobs that have nothing to do with it; and there is considerable part-time agriculture. Nevertheless, urban 

people value local products and are conscious of their importance in terms of identity and landscape. 

The challenges are particularly to adapt the productive and distribution sector to emerging demands, 

i.e. producing sustainable quality products and selling them by short-cycle marketing. 



Box 7.2 Changes in the land cover of the Basque Country, Spain (cont.) 

The forest area increased by 1.7 % from 1996 to 2005. Deciduous forest increased while coniferous 

cover decreased slightly; they respectively account for 50.5 % and 49.5 % of the forested area. On the 

Cantabrian slope, forests are mainly private short-cycle plantations of Pinus radiata, managed by final 

felling and subsequent reforestation. However, strong international competition and the effects of gales in 

Aquitania have caused a reduction in foreign demand for Basque forest products and have aggravated the 

crisis in forestry. This is reflected in decreases in logging and the economic value of forests. Challenges to 

the current productive model include: the rough topography, which limits mechanisation; lack of economic 

viability due to high labour costs to obtain quality wood; extreme specialisation of production; small 

landholdings; absence of generational takeover; and associated risks such as loss of soil and disease. 

Source: Arantzazu Ugarte and Eider Arrieta (IKT, Spain). 

Table 7.5 Evolution of land uses in the Basque Country, Spain, 1996–2005 

Land uses Year Area (ha) Change % 

Usable agricultural area 

1996 

2005 

234 246 

220 523 

5.85 % ↓↓ 

Forest 

1996 

2005 

390 005 

396 701 

1.70 % ↑ 

Urban and infrastructure 

1996 

2005 

33 701 

40 642 

20.60 % ↑↑↑ 

Unproductive 

1996 

2005 

66 069 

64 571 

2.27 % ↓ 

Total 

1996 

2005 

724 021 

722 437 

Note: 

Unproductive: brush, marshes, water, rocks, etc. 

Source: Environmental and Territorial Planning Department of the Basque Government. 


123


Figure 7.7 Average contribution of each 

land‐cover flow to the total 

amount of change in the periods 

1990–2000 and 2000–2006 in 

European mountain massifs 

Urban land management 

Urban residential sprawl 

Sprawl of economic sites and 

infrastructure 

Agricultural internal conversions 

Conversion from forested and 

natural land to agriculture 

Withdrawal of farming 

Forests creation and 

management 

Water bodies creation and 

management 

Changes of land cover due to 

natural and multiple causes 

% 

0 20 40 60 80 

1990–2000 2000–2006 

In Table 7.6, the countries with the highest percentage 

of land‐cover changes in mountain areas (ranging 

from 0.3 % to 1.3 %) for the two time periods have 

been highlighted in grey and are discussed in 

Section 7.3.1. Detailed analysis of the changes in 

mountains at country level, differentiating between 

Member States of the former EU‐15 and new Member 

States of the EU‐27, is presented in Figures 7.8 and 7.9. 

'Forest creation and management' and 'agricultural 

internal conversion' were the two main changes 

in the EU‐15 and the new EU‐27 Member States in 

both periods. Rates of the former were similar for 

both sets of Member States in both periods, but 

higher in the EU‐15 in 1990–2000 and for the new 

Member States in 2000–2006. However, reflecting the 

differing social, economic and political trends, the 

changes in 'agricultural internal conversion' were 

considerably larger in the new Member States — 

especially in 1990–2000. 

7.3.1 Assessment of potential drivers of land‐cover 

changes at country level 

The drivers of land-use change vary considerably 

at all spatial scales. Box 7.3 discusses these drivers 

Table 7.6 Annual changes in land cover (%) 

in the mountains of each country: 

1990–2000 and 2000–2006 

Country 

Annual 

change 

1990–2000 

Annual 

change 

2000–2006 

Albania – 0.12 

Austria 0.03 0.09 

Belgium 0.43 0.37 

Bosnia and Herzegovina – 0.12 

Bulgaria 0.09 0.07 

Croatia 0.07 0.17 

Cyprus – 0.58 

Czech Republic 1.29 0.44 

Finland – 0.03 

France 0.13 0.08 

Germany 0.19 0.07 

Greece 0.19 – 

Hungary 0.59 0.33 

Iceland – 0.06 

Ireland 0.69 0.65 

Italy 0.14 0.07 

Luxembourg 0.04 0.07 


Republic of Macedonia – 0.14 

Malta 0.09 0.00 

Montenegro – 0.04 

Norway – 0.09 

Poland 0.10 0.08 

Portugal 0.86 1.84 

Romania 0.20 0.09 

Serbia – 0.05 

Slovakia 0.64 0.32 

Slovenia 0.02 0.02 

Spain 0.30 0.25 

Sweden – 0.27 

Turkey – 0.06 

United Kingdom 0.27 – 

Note: 

Countries with the highest percentage of land-cover 

change are maked in grey. 

Source: Based on EEA datasets (CLC1990–2000–2006). 

www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/corine-landcover-1990-2000 

and 

www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/corine-landcover-2000-2006. 

for the Alps, and Box 7.4 presents the specific 

example of the mountains of Iceland. To assess the 

potential drivers of land‐cover changes at country 

level, the six countries with the highest proportions 

of land‐cover changes for the two time periods 

(Table 7.6) were selected. These countries are in 



Figure 7.8 Distribution of land-cover changes in mountain massifs of EU‐15 Member States 

(excluding Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Sweden) and the new EU‐27 Member 

States (excluding Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) in 1990–2000 



Sprawl of economic sites and infrastructures 


Conversion from forested and natural land to agriculture 


Forests creation and management 

Water bodies creation and management 

Changes of land cover due to natural and multiple causes 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 % 

EU-15 Member States (excl. Netherlands, Denmark, Finland and Sweden) 

New EU-27 Member States (excl. Cyprus, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia) 

Figure 7.9 Distribution of land-cover changes in mountain massifs of EU‐15 

Member States (excluding Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Sweden) and the new 

EU‐27 Member States (excluding Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) in 2000–2006 



Sprawl of economic sites and infrastructures 




Forests creation and management 

Water bodies creation and management 


0 20 40 60 80 

% 

EU-15 Member States (excl. Netherlands, Denmark, Greece and the United Kingdom) 

New EU-27 Member States (excl. Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia) 

various parts of Europe, and include both EU‐15 

Member States (Belgium, Ireland, Portugal) and new 

EU‐27 Member States (Czech Republic, Hungary, 

Slovakia). Figures 7.11 and 7.12 show the observed 

changes in land‐cover flows. 

In both time periods, 'forest creation and 

management' is the most important land‐cover 

flow, observed in all the countries except the 

Czech Republic, where 'agricultural internal land 

conversion' was most important. The first period, 

1990–2000, was more heterogeneous, with a greater 

diversity of land‐cover flows, than the second, 

when 'forest creation and management' increased 

in all countries — and became the only flow in the 

mountains of Belgium. While 'agricultural internal 


125


Box 7.3 Land resource management and driving forces across the Alps 

Compared to surrounding lowlands, the area for permanent settlement in mountain areas is limited 

by steep slopes, altitude, soil productivity for agriculture, and natural hazards — as well as climate 

extremes. In the Alps, characterised by intensive land use in the valleys related to agriculture, tourism, 

and industrial activities and highly populated areas, land-use conflicts are pronounced and land is a 

scarce resource. 

While the spatial planning authorities in the Alpine states define the permanent settlement area in 

different ways, the challenge that the proportion of land available for economic use is less than in 

the lowlands prevails across the Alps. On average, about 17 % of the area identified under the Alpine 

Convention can be considered as appropriate for permanent settlement (Tappeiner et al., 2008). While 

some municipalities have a permanent settlement area of less than 1 %, in others it is almost 100 %; 

about 16 % of municipalities have more than 50 % of their territory as permanent settlement area. Along 

the main ridge of the Alps, the proportion is lower than in the pre-Alpine foothills and the large valleys 

(Map 7.3). Population densities in some places, such as the areas around Grenoble or Annecy or around 

Lake Como, correspond to those of agglomerations such as Berlin, Munich or Vienna. 

Map 7.3 

Permanent settlement area within the Alpine Convention area 

!. 

Lyon 

F R A N C E 

Lausanne 

!( 

Genève 

!( 

Annecy 

!( 

Chambéry 

!( 

Grenoble 

!( 

S W I T Z E R - 

L A N D 

Sion 

!( 

!( 

Bern 

!( 

Aosta 

!( Thun 

Torino 

!. 

Luzern 

!( 

L I E C H T E N - 

S T E I N 

Zürich 

!( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

Bregenz 

Lugano !( 

Bergamo 

!( 

!( !. 

Brescia 

Novara Milano 

!( 

Vaduz 

Chur 

G E R M A N Y 

!( 

Augsburg 

!( 

Kempten 

!( 

Verona 

Trento 

!( 

München 

!. 

!( 

Innsbruck 

Bolzano/ 

!( Bozen 

Belluno 

Venezia 

!( 

!( 

Padova 

!( 

Wien 

A U S T R I A 

!. 

Steyr 

!( 

!( Salzburg 

Leoben 

!( 

!( Graz 

Klagenfurt 

Villach 

Maribor 

!( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

Jesenice 

!( Nova 

Udine !( 

Gorica 

!( 

Trieste 

!( 

Ljubljana 

S L O V E N I A 

Gap 

!( 

!( 

Cuneo 

Genova 

!( 

I T A L Y 

: 

: 

( 

!( 

Avignon 

!( 

!( 

Nice 

Marseille 

!. 

Draguignan 

0 50 100 Km 

Institute for 

Alpine Environment 

Permanent settlement area within the Alpine Convention area 

Available settlement area per municipal area (%) 

≤ 6.1 > 6.1–13.5 > 13.5–23.9 > 23.9–43.6 > 43.6 

Source: Tappeiner et al., 2008. 



Box 7.3 Land resource management and driving forces across the Alps (cont.) 

Available land becomes a shrinking resource even if land is not lost but converted from agricultural and 

forest land into built-up areas. In the German part of the Alpine Convention area, the area of settlement 

and transport increased by 20 % from 1992 to 2004. In the Austrian Alpine Convention area, built up land 

increased by about 30 000 ha from 1995 to 2004. In Switzerland, developed land increased by 6 664 ha 

(16 %) in the period between the census in 1979/1985 to 1992/1997 (UBA, 2004). 

Driving forces for land resources 

What are the main driving forces for this remarkable change of land use? Two opposing general trends can be 

observed: first, the abandonment of traditional agricultural areas and their related settlements in favour of 

easier job opportunities in services or industry; second, the concentration of economic power, labour markets 

and public services in the easily accessible core towns of the Alps. There are many single drivers, which 

may be summarised within six categories: socioeconomic and technological change; individual preferences; 

infrastructure policies and subsidies; spatial planning; municipal budgets and financing; and land prices and 

availability of brownfield sites (Hofmeister, 2005). 

Each driver is embedded in different, mutually overlaying and complex cause effect relationships. Examples 

include the competition between municipalities for commercial investors and related tax revenues, higher 

private living standards combined with decreasing household sizes demanding an increase of residential 

area, or the functional separation of residential and working places. The latter causes growing work-related 

mobility and thus a demand for more land for transport infrastructure, triggering processes of sub- and 

peri-urbanisation. Cultural backgrounds and national differences in social security systems also play a part, 

as owner-occupied homes are the most common means of providing for private retirement (Helbrecht and 

Behring, 2002). Because of their natural assets and relatively easy accessibility in the middle of Europe, 

certain regions of the Alps have become destinations of European amenity migration. This phenomenon 

appears particularly in municipalities offering good accessibility, outstanding natural assets and a high level 

of services. Amenity migration is driven by soft locational factors such as landscape qualities and recreation 

opportunities, as well as improved commuting possibilities, which are attractive for retirees, qualified 

employees and service businesses alike. 

How could land resources be managed in a better way? 

By signing the Spatial Planning and Soil Protection Protocols to the Alpine Convention, its Contracting Parties 

have acknowledged that the increase in land take needs to be slowed down. The implementation of such 

a sustainable land resource policy requires adequate instruments. In the Alpine countries, instruments 

exist at different levels and in different categories (Figure 7.10); about 110 instruments influence land 

resource management at the regional scale (Marzelli et al., 2008; DIAMONT, 2008). Policy options include 

urban development concepts, incentives to mobilise inner-urban plots for construction, regional pools for 

commercial areas and the rezoning of residential land for agriculture. Overall, challenges for sustainable 

land development in the Alps include an integrated view of settlement and traffic infrastructure policy, cost 

transparency between densified and dispersed settlement structures, and a strengthening of municipal 

planning responsibilities at the regional level. 

Figure 7.10 

Main categories of instruments for land resource management 

European level 

National level 

Federal state level 

Regional level 

Civil society, 

industry, SME 

and other 

interest groups, 

and their 

representations, 

consumers 

(Sub) Municipal level 

Laws 

and 

regulations 

Spatial 

planning 

instruments 

Economic 

burdens and 

incentives 

Voluntary 

approaches 

and 

agreements 

Information 

and 

research 

Source: Stefan Marzelli and Florian Lintzmeyer (Ifuplan, Germany). 


127


Box 7.4 Land-use pressures and planning in the central highlands of Iceland 

Iceland's highland interior is uninhabited. Nevertheless, socioeconomic pressures are rapidly changing 

the character of this mountainous region. The central highlands are increasingly the subject of conflicting 

economic interests and divergent visions of nature. Historically, they were important as grazing 

commons for sheep farming communities in the lowlands — a form of land use that continues. Each 

rural municipality adjacent to the highlands controlled a slice of territory extending into the centre, in 

some places without a clear border. The municipality was responsible for managing the common grazing 

lands and gathering the sheep in autumn. Many individual farms also claimed parts of the territory. The 

ownership pattern was thus quite complicated. Under legislation passed in 1998 to clarify ownership, the 

national government would assume ownership wherever documented evidence could not substantiate 

private tenure. This led to a lengthy legal procedure, which continues. To move from rather ad hoc 

land-use decisions and a lack of coherent planning, in 1999, a general plan was approved for the region, 

and a permanent committee was set up to develop and administer it. The committee must deal with 

several municipalities, landowners and other involved stakeholders. Farmers, power companies, tourism 

operators, recreational users and conservationists all have a stake in the area. With increased diversity 

in land use, planning becomes more complex. 

The origins of recreational travel in the highlands can be traced to new transport technology — jeeps and 

other four-wheel-drive vehicles introduced after World War II (Huijbens and Benediktsson, 2007). The 

development of the 'superjeep' in the 1980s led to greatly increased traffic in the region, which is now 

crisscrossed by vehicle tracks. The recent addition of quad bikes has added to the problem of off-road 

driving, in some places causing serious damage to vegetation. The massive increase in international 

tourist arrivals in Iceland in recent years has also affected the highlands. Certain destinations have 

become very popular and crowded in summer (Sæþórsdóttir, 2010). Trampling by hikers is a problem in 

several areas with highly erodible volcanic soils and delicate mossy vegetation. 

Hydropower infrastructure has been expanding since the 1960s. Dams, reservoirs, large power stations, 

high-voltage transmission lines and service roads have changed the appearance of large tracts in the 

mountains of southwest Iceland. The construction of the Blanda power station in North Iceland caused 

the flooding of a large area and led to conflicts with farmers. Most controversial has been the building 

of Europe's highest dam at Kárahnjúkar in northeast Iceland in the early 2000s, and the corresponding 

radical changes to the natural landscapes of this remote highland area (Benediktsson, 2007). This led 

to a severe clash between conservationists and proponents of power-intensive industrialisation. In an 

attempt to resolve such conflicts, a 'Master Plan for Hydro and Geothermal Resources in Iceland' has 

been in preparation since 1999. Its backbone is a multi-criteria numerical assessment and ranking 

of all major potential sites for energy development in the country. Technical and economic feasibility, 

socioeconomic impacts, and impacts on tourism, recreation, farming, and the natural and cultural 

heritage are evaluated. Much effort has been put into developing methods for some of these complex 

tasks (cf. Thórhallsdóttir, 2007). 

Partly in response to the controversies surrounding hydropower development, ideas of new protected 

areas in the central highlands gained ground during the 1990s. This led to the designation in 2008 of 

Vatnajökull National Park (Map 7.4), which covers 13 600 km 2 and is Europe's largest national park. 

Conservation planning for the park is under way. Rural communities adjacent to the park want to make 

the most of the opportunities for tourism provided by the park designation, but this has to be carefully 

balanced against conservation of ecosystems and landscapes in the planning process. 

In early 2010, Iceland's planning legislation is under review by Parliament. The bill under discussion 

includes a provision for a countrywide coordination of the diverse sectoral plans and policies that affect land 

use. The need for careful planning in the central highland area is emphasised. If the bill is passed, this may 

create conditions for more orderly decisions about the uses of this vast and precious region. 

Source: 

Karl Benediktsson (Department of Geography and Tourism, University of Iceland). 



Box 7.4 Land-use pressures and planning in the central highlands of Iceland (cont.) 

Map 7.4 

National parks and nature reserves in Iceland 

National parks and nature 

reserves in Iceland 

Ísafjörður 

Sauðárkrókur 

Akureyri 

Húsavík 

Elevation (m) 

> 400 > 1 000 

glacier 

Egilsstaðir 

National park 

Nature reserve 

Major road 

Summer track 

Borgarnes 

Akranes 

Reykjavík 

Keflavík 

Selfoss 

0 50 100km 

town 

summer track 

major road 

Source: Map by Karl Benediktsson, based on data from the National Land Survey of Iceland and the Environment Agency of 

Iceland. 

Table 7.7 

Distribution of the land-cover flow 'forest creation and management' among more 

detailed land‐cover flow categories (changes in %) 

Total forest creation and 

management (LCF7) 

Afforestation (LCF72) 

and conversion from 

transitional woodland to 

forest (LCF71) 

Recent felling and 

transition (LCF74) 

1990–2000 2000–2006 1990–2000 2000–2006 1990–2000 2000–2006 

Belgium 96.8 100 52 43 36 57 

Czech Republic 31.2 40 18 31 13 7 

Hungary 70.1 85.4 39 7 29 66 

Ireland 59.5 67.7 29 28 30 44 

Portugal 69.2 80.8 29 13 37 64 

Slovakia 61.8 86.4 28 14 32 75 

Source: Based on EEA datasets (CLC1990–2000). 

CLC2006 and CLC classes according to the LEAC methodology (http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/land-coveraccounts-leac-based-on-corine-land-cover-changes-database-1990-2000 

[accessed 8 July 2010]). 

www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/corine-land-cover-1990-2000; www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/corineland-cover-2000-2006. 


129


Figure 7.11 

Contribution of each land-cover flow to the total change per year in mountains 

(100 %) between 1990 and 2000 for six selected countries 

Slovakia 

Portugal 

Ireland 

Hungary 


Belgium 

% 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Urban land management Urban residential sprawl Sprawl of economic sites and infrastructure 


Agricultural internal conversion 

Withdrawal of farming Forests creation and management Water bodies creation and management 


Figure 7.12 

Contribution of each land-cover flow to the total change per year in mountains 

(100 %) between 2000 and 2006 for six selected countries 

Slovakia 

Portugal 

Ireland 

Hungary 


Belgium 

% 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Urban land management Urban residential sprawl Sprawl of economic sites and infrastructure 


Agricultural internal conversion 

Withdrawal of farming Forests creation and management Water bodies creation and management 


conversion' remained important in the Czech 

Republic in 2000–2006, it decreased from more than 

20 % to less than 7 % in both Hungary and Slovakia. 

In order to understand the mechanisms behind these 

land‐cover flows, further detailed analysis was done 

for the most common land‐cover flows, including 

the use of additional data to explain the observed 

patterns. 

With regard to forest creation and management, 

Table 7.7 shows the distribution of the land‐cover 

flow 'forest creation and management' among more 

detailed land‐cover flow categories. Between 1990 

and 2000, the flows in Belgium, Czech Republic 

and Hungary were mostly due to 'afforestation and 

conversion from transitional woodland to forest, 

followed by 'recent felling and transition'. The latter 

category is more important in Ireland, Portugal and 

Slovakia. Between 2000 and 2006, 'recent felling 

and transition' became most important for all the 

selected countries except the Czech Republic. 

'Agricultural internal conversion' took place mainly 

in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia. In 

the Czech Republic, most of the change was due to 

the extension of set-aside fallow land and pasture, 



as large parcels were converted from cropland 

to grassland. In Hungary, the same process of 

conversion was dominant between 1990 and 2000, 

but from 2000 to 2006, there was a wider range of 

processes. For Slovakia, there is not one particular 

change trend. 'Change of land cover due to natural 

and multiple causes' are the main flows in both 

Ireland and Portugal in both time periods. Most of 

these flows were semi-natural rotation, i.e. rotation 

between dry semi-natural and natural land‐cover 

types of CLC. In Portugal, there was also some 

natural colonisation of land previously used for 

human activities, as well as forest and shrub fires. 

From this analysis, the six countries can be grouped 

according to the land‐cover changes observed. In 

Belgium, the dominance of 'forest creation and 

management' can be explained by national and 

regional policy. Mountains occupy a relatively 

small part (4.4 %) of the national area and are not 

the subject of any particular policy. The small area 

of the mountains, their low altitude (max. 694 m) 

and the absence of significant disadvantages in 

regard to the rural areas as a whole do not justify 

a differentiated policy initiative. Forestry is 

significantly more developed in the mountains than 

elsewhere in Belgium. In addition to producing 

wood, they are an essential asset for tourism, which 

represents the main economic activity of the area. 

In the Czech Republic, the changes in land cover 

derive from the employment structure in mountain 

areas, with a high proportion of employment in 

the primary sector, and the implementation of 

programmes for agriculture development in the 

Box 7.5 The abandonment of vineyards in Slovakia 

Agricultural areas are declining in many parts of the former socialist countries, often because socioeconomic 

and political changes make agriculture less profitable. The decreased profitability of viniculture and 

viticulture after 1989 represents a striking and negative phenomenon affecting a relatively large area of 

Slovakia. 

The south slopes of the mountains, and partly also the lowlands, provide good conditions for the cultivation 

of a broad spectrum of grape varieties. Vitis vinifera, the common grape vine, has been grown in Slovakia 

since Roman times, with the first written accounts from the early 9th century. In the 16th and 17th century, 

all viticultural towns became free royal towns. The golden age of viticulture was the 18th century, with 

approximately 57 000 ha of vineyards in the current area of Slovakia in 1720: almost three times more 

than today. In the second half of the 19th century, fungal disease affected production severely. After the 

revolution in 1948, forced collectivism of agriculture brought the end of business enterprises. Each village 

established a farmers' association, and the Slovak viticultural cooperative society became the State Vine 

Factory as monopoly producer of wine. In the 1970s, Slovakia was changed by land reclamation, with a 

focus on quantity rather than quality. 

After the Velvet revolution in 1989, the viticultural area was on the edge of self-sufficiency. The long-term 

process of restitution meant that many estates did not have an owner. At present, there are 22 000 ha 

of registered vineyards, of which 16 000 ha are managed and only 12 000 ha are productive; down 

from 19 000 ha in 1997, of which approximately 40 % were more than 20 years old. Current technology 

means that many of these vineyards will be uprooted; thousands of hectares have been abandoned. They 

are also economically uncompetitive in comparison to those in countries such as Australia, New Zealand, 

South Africa, Chile and Argentina, which have multiplied their production and export of wines to European 

Union. In addition, there are subsidies of EUR 7 000/ha for uprooting and abandoning vineyards, to 

decrease the overproduction of unsalable wine in the European Union. Finally, many owners — often the 

grandchildren of former wine producers, who have no interest in work in vineyards — are waiting for 

the reclassification of vineyards as building land, a trend strongly supported by developers. At the same 

time, EUR 3–5 million/year is allocated to Slovakia for the development of products, restructuring and 

conversion of vineyards, investment in companies and crops insurance: all essential contributions to the 

modernisation of viniculture and viticulture in Slovakia. 

The effects of the abandonment of vineyards on biodiversity is significant, with is secondary succession 

heading towards several successional stages — for example, continental deciduous thickets (Prunion 

spinosae de Soó 1951) to climax forests, mainly oak hornbeam forests (Carici pilosae—Carpinion Issler 

1931), which are found where vineyards abandoned in the 19th or the early 20th century. 

Source: 

Robert Kanka (Institute of Landscape Ecology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Slovakia). 


131


country before its accession to the European Union. 

Forest harvesting is a major activity in mountain 

areas, as is tourism. For Ireland and Portugal, the 

importance of land‐cover change due to 'natural 

and multiple causes' can be linked to the fact that, 

of these six countries, the mountains of these two 

countries are the least accessible (see Table 3.2). 

The mountains of Portugal have also experienced 

depopulation (Table 2.8), which could be linked to 

the natural colonisation of land previously used for 

human activities, as well as to forest fires. Finally, in 

Hungary and Slovakia, the contribution of 'agriculture 

internal conversion', especially between 1990 and 

2000, was linked to changes in the importance of the 

agricultural sector in mountain areas as well as the 

implementation of national and European agriculture 

plans (Box 7.5). However, other driving forces behind 

the trends are likely to have been rather different, 

given that the mountain population of Hungary 

decreased in this period, while that of Slovakia grew 

(Table 2.8). 

7.4 European designations of land uses 

in mountain areas 

As discussed in Chapter 1, the only policy 

instrument that has focused specifically on 

mountain areas at the scale of the European 

Union has been Article 18 of the LFA regulation. 

However, mountain land uses also have other 

particular characteristics recognised under other 

articles of the Rural Development Regulation 

(Council Regulation EC No 1257/1999) as well 

as through the concept of High Nature Value 

farmland. This section presents the distribution of 

land defined under in these ways and compares 

them. 

7.4.1 Less Favoured Areas 

The Rural Development Regulation (Council 

Regulation EC No 1257/1999) not only recognises 

mountain land under Article 18, but also 

land within three other categories: areas with 

environmental restrictions (Article 16); areas in 

danger of abandonment of land use (Article 19); 

and areas with specific handicaps (Article 20). 

As shown in Table 7.8 and Map 7.5, 69 % of the 

mountain area of the EU (excluding Bulgaria and 

Romania, where Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) 

have not been defined) is classified under Article 

18. There are significant differences between 

countries. None of the mountainous areas of 

Hungary, Ireland or the United Kingdom are 

classified under Article 18. There are also three 

Map 7.5 

Area classified under LFA Article 18 and mountain area 

-30° 

-20° 

-10° 

0° 

10° 

20° 

30° 

40° 

50° 

60° 

70° 

Areas classified under 

Less Favoured Areas 

(LFA) Article 18 and 

mountain area 

60° 

LFA (Art. 18) and 

mountains 

Partially LFA (Art. 18) 

and mountains 

Not LFA (Art. 18), but 

mountains 

50° 

No LFA data 

Outside data 

coverage 

50° 

40° 

40° 

0 500 1000 1500 km 

0° 

10° 

20° 

30° 

40° 



other countries where a relatively low proportion 

of their mountain area is classified under Article 

18: Germany (25 %), Cyprus (34 %) and Poland 

(37 %). In Germany, these areas are principally 

those outside Bavaria and Baden‐Württemberg. 

In Cyprus, it should be noted that the LFA is only 

in the part of the island that is within the EU, and 

therefore does not include the mountains in the 

northeast, which are within the 'Turkish Republic 

of Northern Cyprus'. In Poland, the primary reason 

appears to be that only higher-altitude areas are 

defined under Article 18. Conversely, 42 % of the 

area classified under this Article is outside the area 

defined as mountain. A large proportion of this 

(30 % of the area) is within Sweden and Finland, 

deriving from the agreement made on accession 

that areas north of 62 °N would be classified as 

'mountain areas' under Article 18. Other countries 

where a large proportion of the national area 

classified under Article 18 is outside the mountain 

area are Czech Republic (31 %), Germany (25 %) 

and Portugal (25 %). 

While only 69 % of the mountain area of the EU 

(excluding Bulgaria and Romania) is classified 

under Article 18, a further 23 % of this area is 

classified under Articles 16, 19 and 20, bringing the 

overall percentage of the area to 92 % (Table 7.9). 

As shown in Table 7.9, in terms of area, the lack 

of mountain land classified under Article 18 LFA 

in Hungary, Ireland, and the United Kingdom is 

compensated by classification under the other 

Articles; thus, 52 % of the mountain area of 

Hungary, and 98 % of the mountain area of Ireland 

and the United Kingdom is classified as LFA 

under Articles 16, 19, or 20. Comparable patterns 

are found in the other three Member States with 

a relatively small proportion of their mountain 

area classified under Article 18; thus 42 % of the 

mountain area of Cyprus (all of the area within the 

EU part of Cyprus), 53 % of the mountain area of 

Poland, and 68 % of the mountain area of Germany 

is classified as LFA under Articles 16, 19, or 20. It 

should, however, be noted that very significant 

areas of all EU Member States — not only in 

mountain areas — are classified as LFA under one 

of these four articles (Map 7.6). Conversely, some 

74 000 km 2 of mountain area (6 % of the total for 

Europe) is not included under any of these articles. 

These mountains are generally at lower elevations, 

particularly in Spain (34 014 km 2 : 12.3 % of 

mountain area), Italy (13 024 km 2 : 7.2 %, especially 

in Sicily), and France (8 434 km 2 : 6.1 %, especially 

in Provence), as well as Germany (3 888 km²: 

6.7 %, especially in the Harz), Greece (3 229 km 2 : 

3.4 %, especially in Attiki), the Czech Republic 

(2 650 km 2 : 10.3 %) and Hungary (2 264 km 2 : 

47.6 %) (Map 7.7). 

7.4.2 High Nature Value farmland 

The High Nature Value (HNV) farming concept 

was established in the early 1990s and describes 

those types of farming activity and farmland 

that, because of their characteristics, can be 

expected to support high levels of biodiversity 

or species and habitats of conservation concern. 

The EU and its Member States have committed 

themselves to supporting and maintaining 

HNV farming, especially through Rural 

Development Programmes (RDPs) (Beaufoy, 

2008; see Section 1.2.3). The HNV approach has 

also been applied outside the EU; for example, 

in Turkey (Box 7.6). The dominant characteristic 

of HNV farming is its low intensity and a 

significant presence of semi-natural vegetation. 

A high diversity of land cover (mosaic) under 

low‐intensity farming may enable significant 

levels of biodiversity to survive, especially if 

there is a high density of features providing 

ecological niches. However, a high diversity of 

such land cover alone does not indicate HNV 

farming. Typical HNV farmland areas are 

extensively grazed uplands, Alpine meadows and 

pasture, steppic areas in eastern and southern 

Europe, and dehesas and montados in Spain and 

Portugal. Certain more intensively farmed HNV 

areas in lowland Western Europe can also host 

concentrations of species of particular conservation 

interest, such as migratory waterfowl (IEEP, 2007). 

Because of these characteristics, there is a widely 

acknowledged need for measures to prevent the 

loss of HNV farmland, and therefore, an HNV 

farmlands dataset has been created to fill the 

gap in pan‐European data on distribution and 

conservation status of HNV farmland in order to 

take adequate conservation measures (Paracchini 

et al., 2008). The dataset used here combines: 

• the result of the selection of specific CLC2000 

classes in combination with Farm Accountancy 

Data Network (FADN) data/national datasets; 

• the reselection of CLC2000 classes in selected 

Natura 2000 sites; 


Important Bird areas; 


primary butterfly areas. 

These layers were upscaled to a resolution of 1 km 

and combined to create the total HNV dataset with 


133


Table 7.8 

National areas (in ha) classified under LFA Article 18 (mountains/hills) in both 

mountain and non-mountain areas, as defined for this study 

Article 18 — 

mountains and 

hills Mountains No mountains LFA 

Country P T No LFA P T No LFA Sub-total 

mountains 

Sub-total 

no 

mountains 

Country 

area 

P+T % of 

mountain 

area under 

LFA 

Austria 1 515 55 162 5 278 391 2 628 18 947 61 955 21 966 59 696 83 921 91 % 5 % 

% of LFA 

outside 

mountains 

Belgium 1 340 29 321 1 340 29 321 30 662 

Cyprus 1 433 2 827 15 4 975 4 260 4 990 1 448 9 250 34 % 1 % 

Czech Republic 2 978 11 939 10 750 2 823 3 802 46 567 25 667 53 192 21 542 78 859 58 % 31 % 

Denmark 43 360 – 43 360 – 43 360 

Estonia 45 330 – 45 330 – 45 330 

Finland 5 028 3 1 541 258 137 73 073 5 031 332 751 264 706 337 782 100 % 98 % 

France 115 040 22 490 11 815 399 831 137 530 411 646 126 855 549 176 84 % 9 % 

Germany 6 786 7 676 43 299 4 071 702 295 133 57 761 299 906 19 235 357 667 25 % 25 % 

Greece 44 848 41 582 8 451 16 571 2 677 17 885 94 881 37 133 105 678 132 014 91 % 18 % 

Hungary 4 754 88 262 4 754 88 262 93 018 

Ireland 10 096 60 083 10 096 60 083 70 179 

Italy 14 594 117 442 49 167 10 163 2 765 107 357 181 203 120 285 144 964 301 488 73 % 9 % 

Latvia 64 602 – 64 602 – 64 602 

Lithuania 64 891 – 64 891 – 64 891 

Luxembourg 212 2 384 212 2 384 – 2 596 

Malta 35 281 35 281 – 316 

Netherlands 37 356 – 37 356 – 37 356 

Poland 757 5 236 10 314 2 333 295 248 16 307 295 583 6 328 311 890 37 % 5 % 

Portugal 28 437 6 543 38 9 676 47 495 34 980 57 209 38 151 92 189 81 % 25 % 

Slovakia 361 21 219 7 877 624 18 948 29 457 19 572 22 204 49 029 73 % 3 % 

Slovenia 6 214 8 957 206 3 024 309 1 560 15 377 4 893 18 504 20 270 99 % 18 % 

Spain 3 407 174 377 96 830 724 22 188 208 437 274 614 231 349 200 696 505 963 65 % 11 % 

Sweden 205 91 956 114 12 033 199 154 145 981 92 275 357 168 303 348 449 443 100 % 70 % 

United Kingdom 60 952 184 559 60 952 184 559 – 245 511 0 % 

Europe 81 665 685 484 341 538 51 381 514 825 2 301 866 1 108 687 2 868 072 1 333 355 3 976 762 69 % 42 % 

Europe * 81 460 588 500 280 469 37 807 57 534 1 898 253 950 429 1 993 594 765 301 2 944 026 70 % 12 % 

Note: 

P: partial community is eligible for LFA funding; T: total community is eligible for LFA funding; No LFA: communities are not 

eligible for LFA funding. * = excl. the United Kingdom, Sweden and Finland. 

Source: LFA: EUROSTAT GISCO download service. However the data represents the LFA 2001–2006, excluding Romania and Bulgaria. 

Download: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/gisco/geodata/reference file: LFA_03M_2001_SH.zip 

[accessed July 2010]. 



Table 7.9 

National areas (in ha) classified under LFA Article 16, 18, 19. 20 in both mountain 

and non-mountain areas, as defined for this study 

All LFA articles 

(16, 18, 19, 

20) Mountains No mountains LFA 

Country P T No LFA P T No LFA Sub-total 

mountains 

Subtotal 

no 

mountains 

Country 

area 

P+T % of 

mountain 

area under 

LFA 

% of LFA 

outside 

mountains 

Austria 2 442 58 599 914 2 522 7 508 11 936 61 955 21 966 71 071 83 921 99 % 14 % 

Belgium 116 1 224 – 11 730 6 408 11 184 1 340 29 322 19 478 30 662 100 % 93 % 

Cyprus 3 246 1 014 1 093 3 897 4 260 4 990 4 339 9 250 76 % 25 % 

Czech Republic 4 647 18 370 2 650 6 424 20 140 26 628 25 667 53 192 49 581 78 859 90 % 54 % 

Denmark 3 888 373 39 099 – 43 360 4 261 43 360 100 % 

Estonia 29 830 12 091 3 409 – 45 330 41 921 45 330 100 % 

Finland 5 028 3 2 590 319 671 10 490 5 031 332 751 327 289 337 782 100 % 98 % 

France 217 128 879 8 434 789 159 795 251 062 137 530 411 646 289 680 549 176 94 % 55 % 

Germany 14 388 39 485 3 888 64 581 130 301 105 024 57 761 299 906 248 755 357 667 93 % 78 % 

Greece 47 165 44 487 3 229 23 288 6 348 7 497 94 881 37 133 121 288 132 014 97 % 24 % 

Hungary 2 486 4 2 264 28 999 20 59 245 4 754 88 264 31 509 93 018 52 % 92 % 

Ireland 1 296 8 645 155 11 540 36 622 11 921 10 096 60 083 58 103 70 179 98 % 83 % 

Italy 23 539 144 640 13 024 19 799 19 470 81 016 181 203 120 285 207 448 301 488 93 % 19 % 

Latvia 44 762 14 311 5 529 – 64 602 59 073 64 602 100 % 

Lithuania 32 609 26 995 5 287 – 64 891 59 604 64 891 100 % 

Luxembourg 42 170 – 225 2 105 54 212 2 384 2 542 2 596 100 % 92 % 

Malta 35 – 275 6 35 281 310 316 100 % 89 % 

Netherlands 19 501 1 17 854 – 37 356 19 502 37 356 100 % 

Poland 6 373 8 310 1 624 94 972 111 814 88 797 16 307 295 583 221 469 311 890 90 % 93 % 

Portugal 33 599 1 381 38 41 703 15 468 34 980 57 209 75 340 92 189 96 % 55 % 

Slovakia 960 28 048 449 2 734 9 352 7 486 29 457 19 572 41 094 49 029 98 % 29 % 

Slovenia 6 214 9 106 57 3 529 643 721 15 377 4 893 19 492 20 270 100 % 21 % 

Spain 3 407 237 193 34 014 724 155 381 75 244 274 614 231 349 396 705 505 963 88 % 39 % 

Sweden 291 91 974 10 74 143 263 361 19 664 92 275 357 168 429 769 449 443 100 % 79 % 

United Kingdom 14 902 44 996 1 054 44 819 34 355 105 385 60 952 184 559 139 072 245 511 98 % 57 % 

Europe 128 485 906 038 74 164 524 036 1 380 136 963 903 1 108 687 2 868 075 2 938 695 3 976 762 93 % 65 % 

Europe * 113 075 640 189 64 666 404 285 922 625 587 792 817 930 1 914 702 2 080 174 2 732 632 92 % 64 % 

Note: 

P: partial community is eligible for LFA funding; T: total community is eligible for LFA funding; No LFA: communities are not 

eligible for LFA funding. * = excl. the United Kingdom, Sweden and Finland. 

Source: LFA: EUROSTAT GISCO download service. However the data represents the LFA 2001–2006, excluding Romania and Bulgaria. 

Download: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/gisco/geodata/reference file: LFA_03M_2001_SH.zip 



135


Map 7.6 

Area classified under LFA Articles 16, 18, 19 and 20 and mountain area 

-30° 

-20° 

-10° 

0° 

10° 

20° 

30° 

40° 

50° 

60° 

70° 

Areas classified under 

Less Favoured Areas (LFA) 

Articles 16, 18, 19 or 20 

and mountain area 

LFA and mountains 

60° 

Partially LFA and 

mountains 

Not LFA, but mountains 

50° 

LFA, but not mountains 

Partially LFA, but not 

mountains 

No LFA data 

Outside data coverage 

50° 

40° 

40° 

0 500 1000 1500 km 

0° 

10° 

20° 

30° 

40° 

Map 7.7 Mountain areas not classified under LFA Articles 16, 18, 19 or 20 

-30° 

-20° 

-10° 

0° 

10° 

20° 

30° 

40° 

50° 

60° 

70° 

Mountain areas not 

classified under Less 

Favoured Areas (LFA) 

Articles 16, 18, 19 or 20 

Not LFA (16, 18, 19, 

20), but mountains 

60° 

LFA and mountains 

No LFA data 

50° 

Outside data 

coverage 

50° 

40° 

40° 

0 500 1000 1500 km 

0° 

10° 

20° 

30° 

40° 



Box 7.6 Identifying HNV farmland types in Turkey 

Turkey's rich biodiversity has been vital in the development of agriculture, horticulture and animal 

husbandry over more than 10 000 years (Lise and Stolton, 2010). Approximately half (53 %) of country's 

area is used for crop and livestock production. While the share of agriculture in total GDP has been 

declining each year (for example, from 26.1 % in 1980 to 9.2 % in 2006), almost a third of the Turkish 

population are involved in agriculture. The High Nature Value (HNV) farming concept is highly relevant due 

to the long history of traditional agriculture. This results in many important semi-natural habitats and large 

areas of low intensity agriculture, which provide key habitats for wildlife. 

Following the typology developed by the EEA and UNEP (2004), a typology of HNV farming systems in 

Turkey was developed within the 'Supporting the Development of a National Agri-environment Programme 

for Turkey' project, implemented in 2006–2008 by the Bugday Association for Supporting Ecological Living 

and the Avalon Foundation (Redman and Hemmami, 2008). The main types are: 

• extensive crop production (predominantly HNV Type 2 farmland — mix of semi-natural vegetation and 

low intensity cropland) with crop rotations using mainly local cultivars of cereals, pulses and forage 

crops in dry land areas combined with extensive livestock grazing; 

• extensive livestock production (predominantly HNV Type 1 farmland — 100 % semi-natural) with 

highland mixed farming systems (rangeland grazing with meadows and forage crops used for hay, and 

some cropping); and with alpine farming systems (grazing on alpine pastures with meadows for hay), 

with some traditional mountain pastoralism; 

• extensive forest farming (predominantly HNV Type 1 and Type 2 farmland) with mixed farming 

systems (rangeland grazing with meadows and forage crops used for hay, and some cropping) 

(see photo below); extensive livestock grazing with no cropping; and traditional mountain pastoralism. 

An HNV map of Turkey was developed through three stages of mapping: 1) land use and current 

agricultural practices; 2) Mapping of key biodiversity areas and biodiversity values from the national 

database for vascular plants, birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, butterflies, freshwater fish and 

dragonflies; 3) local breeds of cattle, sheep and goats. The map was finalised using CLC data, and 

shows that 25.9 million ha of Turkey (33.3 % of the total area) is classified as HNV farmland, of which 

66.7 % (17.2 million ha) is in the mountains (Map 7.8). These areas require specific natural resource and 

agriculture management systems and new incentive schemes. 

Source: 

Yildiray Lise (United Nations Development Programme Turkey Office); Melike Hemmami, Murat Ataol and 

Doğa Derneği (Nature Association, Turkey). 

Photo: 

© Yildiray Lise 

Extensive mixed farming systems, associated with 

villages in the lowland areas, dominated by livestock 

(cattle and sheep) in Küre Mountains National Park, 

Turkey. 


137


Box 7.6 Identifying HNV farmland types in Turkey (cont.) 

Map 7.8 

High Nature Value farmland in the mountains of Turkey, defined as areas above 

750 m 

0 100 200 KM 

High Nature Value (HNV) farmland in the mountains of Turkey, defined as areas above 750 m 

Mountains 

HNV farmland 

the rule that the maximum value of the four is 

retained. 

HNV farmland covers approximately 17 % of the 

area of the EU‐27 as a whole. However, in the 

mountains of these Member States — excluding 

the Nordic mountains, where there is very little 

arable or pasture land in the mountains of Finland 

and Sweden (Figure 7.2) — the proportion is 

almost double: 32.8 %. Table 7.10 shows the 

distribution at the massif level. The greatest 

area of HNV farmland in mountains is in the 

Iberian mountains, and the second greatest area 

is in the mountains of the Balkans/South-east 

Europe; in both of these massifs, the proportion 

is just slightly less than 40 %. Other massifs with 

particularly high proportions are the mountains of 

the British Isles (56.8 %: Box 7.7), the eastern and 

western Mediterranean islands (54.9 %, 53.6 %), 

the French/Swiss middle mountains (35.4 %), 

and the Pyrenees (30.0 %). Apart from the Nordic 

mountains, the lowest proportions are found in 

the central European middle mountains 1 and 2. 

One explanation may be that these are lower 

mountains, which are largely forested and have 

been more intensively managed; this conclusion 

merits further investigation. 

7.4.3 Overlap of LFA and HNV farmland in 


As noted in Chapter 1, a major challenge for the 

development and implementation of policies for 

Europe's mountain areas relates to the overlap 

between designations that were, at least originally, 

developed with different aims. The two types 

of designations presented in this section are a 

case in point: LFAs have a history dating back 

to the mid-1970s for the purposes of supporting 

agricultural production, while the concept of 

HNV farmland emerged in the early 1990s and, 

while addressing particular modes of agricultural 

production, has a strong emphasis on management 



Box 7.7 HNV farmland in the mountains of England 

Mountain areas in England support extensive livestock production, with sheep moving seasonally between 

agriculturally improved, semi-improved and higher altitude unimproved land, and beef cattle staying on the 

lower slopes or around the farm. Historically, cattle were more prevalent, but were replaced gradually by 

sheep as wool became more profitable (Dark, 2004; Williamson, 2002) and, more recently, due particularly 

to changes in agricultural subsidies (Winter et al., 1998). Generations of farmers have adapted to and 

manipulated this environment, leading to over 70 recognised vegetation communities (Backshall et al., 

2001), which are synonymous with this High Nature Value (HNV) landscape supported by other land 

management such as sporting estates. 

A typical upland farm has three distinctive land types, each with specific habitats (Figure 7.13). In the 

valley bottom lie the inbye fields demarcated with dry stone walls and formerly cut in late summer to 

provide winter fodder. With the advent of silage production, many of these hay meadows have disappeared; 

they are now one of the rarest semi-natural habitats (JNCC, 2007). Whilst silage is nutritionally far more 

beneficial for livestock, the grassland is impoverished through increased soil nutrient status, drainage 

and re-seeding; as a result, populations of passerines and waders in the Pennines have declined sharply 

(Fuller et al., 2002). Further up the valley sides are the semi-improved intakes, supporting a range of wet 

grassland and flush communities, and used by farmers for grazing in winter or when stock need to be closer 

to the farm (for example, at lambing time). Increasing economic pressure on farm businesses has led to 

many intakes being improved, losing their ecological richness. 

Open fell covers the highest land. These extensive areas are in sole ownership but, historically, each farmer 

had grazing rights in a system of communal land management (Aitchison and Gadsden, 1992). Over 

time, the sheep have developed an inherent behavioural ability to stay on specific grazing areas without 

active shepherding. This instinct is passed from mother to lambs as long as an intergenerational flock is 

maintained, gathered from time to time for animal welfare or sale. A particularly widespread habitat is 

heather moorland; a mosaic of grassland, dwarf shrub heath (DSH) and bogs, with some internationally 

rare communities, such as Calluna vulgaris — Ulex gallii dry heath, designated as SACs. For agriculture, 

these habitats provide little grazing, so stocking densities are kept low. These low rates and related sporting 

estate management have perpetuated heather moorland until quite recently. The introduction of headage 

payments nationally (1947 to 1974) and the subsequent LFA Directive (1975 to 2001) encouraged many 

farmers to overstock and overgraze, impoverishing ecological diversity, replacing DSH with less ecologically 

desirable communities, or triggering extensive soil erosion (Bardgett et al., 1995). 

Policy change towards agri-environment grants and then Agenda 2000 modulation away from production 

has encouraged the de-stocking of many farms. Coupled with dwindling labour, lower stocking has become 

problematic as sheep spread further, requiring complex and costly gathering. Lower rates have also led to 

undergrazing and the spread of less palatable coarse grasses and Pteridium aquilinium, lowering ecological 

interest. To maintain and enhance these unique HNV upland farmlands requires that financial reward goes 

beyond the current system of profit-foregone, including recognition of the ecosystem services provided. 

Source: 

Lois Mansfield (University of Cumbria, the United Kingdom). 

Figure 7.13 High Nature Value farming landscape in the mountains of northern England 

Dry stone wall 

A Typical Cumbrian Hill Farm 

Moorland/ 

common land 

unenclosed 

land 

Fell wall 

Intake 

Inbye 

enclosed land 

Main farm buildings 


139


Table 7.10 Total area and proportion of massif areas covered by HNV farmland, indicating 

countries not included in HNV dataset 

Massif area 

covered by 

HNV (km 2 ) 

% of massif 

area covered 

by HNV 

Countries without HNV 

designation 

Alps 41 655 24.9 Switzerland 

Apennines 27 556 24.7 

Atlantic islands – – Portuguese and Spanish islands 

Balkans/South-east Europe 56 633 38.5 Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 

Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic 

of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia 

British Isles 40 211 56.8 Faroe Islands 

Carpathians 29 631 21.4 Moldova, Ukraine 

Central European middle mountains 1 * 4 632 12.2 

Central European middle mountains 2 ** 9 444 20.8 

Eastern Mediterranean islands 9 531 54.9 

French/Swiss middle mountains 24 656 35.4 Switzerland 

Iberian mountains 102 382 39.0 

Nordic mountains 363 0.4 Iceland, Norway 

Pyrenees 16 379 30.0 Andorra 

Western Mediterranean islands 12 885 53.6 

Total (without Nordic countries) 375 596 32.8 

Note: 


Source: Based on JRC datasets (HNV). 

Table 7.11 Overlaps of HNV and LFA designations in mountain areas 

Within LFA Outside LFA Total area Total HNV area HNV inside 

Country Total area HNV area 

mountains 

Total HNV area 

without LFA (%) 

area 

Austria 61 033 19 198 911 222 61 944 19 420 1.1 

Belgium 1 336 301 1 0 1 337 302 0.0 

Cyprus 3 242 1 402 1 010 472 4 252 1 873 25.2 

Czech Republic 22 983 4 961 2 638 196 25 622 5 156 3.8 

Finland 5 010 17 3 0 5 013 17 1.0 

France 128 988 44 367 8 399 1 488 137 387 45 854 3.2 

Germany 53 736 7 159 3 867 150 57 603 7 309 2.1 

Greece 91 531 44 674 3 218 1 148 94 749 45 822 2.5 

Hungary 2 480 363 2 255 270 4 735 633 42.6 

Ireland 9 865 5 599 154 38 10 019 5 638 0.7 

Italy 168 019 45 701 12 967 2 797 180 986 48 498 5.8 

Luxembourg 209 10 0 0 209 10 0.0 

Malta 34 9 0 0 34 9 0.0 

Poland 14 673 2 596 1 621 265 16 294 2 861 9.3 

Portugal 30 816 9 881 1 328 263 32 144 10 145 2.6 

Slovakia 28 974 4 138 446 25 29 419 4,163 0.6 

Slovenia 15 306 3 968 58 19 15 364 3 988 0.5 

Spain 235 759 93 080 33 157 10 518 268 916 103 599 10.2 

Sweden 92 058 218 9 0 92 067 218 0.0 

United Kingdom 59 705 34 352 1 047 166 60 751 34 518 0.5 

Total 1 025 757 321 995 140 407 18 038 1 166 165 340 033 5.3 

Sources: LFA: EUROSTAT GISCO download service. However the data represents the LFA 2001–2006, excluding Romania and Bulgaria. 

Download: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/gisco/geodata/reference file: LFA_03M_2001_SH.zip [accessed 

July 2010]. HNV: EEA-JRC Project on High Nature Value farmland, 100 x 100 m HNV data, delivery May 2008. Paracchini et al., 

2008. 



Map 7.9 

Overlaps of HNV farmland and LFA designations in Spain 

-10° 

0° 

Overlaps of HNV farmland 

and LFA designations in 

Spain 

HNV areas and mountains 

HNV and mountain, 

not LFA 

HNV in mountain 

and LFA 

LFA and mountains, but 

not HNV 

Mountains and LFA, 

not HNV 

Mountains, but not 

LFA, not HNV 

40° 

40° 

0 100 200 400 km 

0° 

for the conservation of biodiversity. As shown in 

Table 7.11, across the mountain areas of the EU‐27, 

there is a very large overlap between HNV and LFA 

(Articles 16, 18, 19, 20) and HNV: only just over 5 % 

of the area of HNV farmland within mountains is 

not covered by any LFA scheme. In one country, 

Hungary, nearly half of the HNV in its mountain 

area is not within an LFA designation. However, 

this is also a country with a small mountain area, 

and the lowest proportion of its mountain area 

under LFA designation. In Cyprus, another country 

with a relatively small mountain area, just over 

a quarter of the mountain area is neither HNV 

farmland nor under LFA designation; a large part 

of this is in northern Cyprus. Of countries with a 

significant mountain area, 10.2 % of Spain is HNV 

farmland but not designated as LFA; most of this is 

at lower altitudes, as can be seen from a comparison 

between Maps 7.7 and 7.9. A similar situation may 

be found in Poland (9.3 %) and Italy (5.8 %). 


141

Biodiversity 

8 Biodiversity 

At the global scale, mountains are centres 

of biodiversity. For instance, of the 25 global 

hotspots identified by Conservation International 

(Mittermeier et al., 2005), all but two are entirely or 

partly mountainous. Two of these hotspots — the 

Mediterranean Basin and the Irano-Anatolian — 

include mountains in southern and south-eastern 

Europe. Similarly, within Europe, most hotspots of 

plant, bird and mammal diversity are in mountain 

areas (Map 8.1). A number of factors interact to 

cause these high levels of biodiversity (Körner, 

2002). These include the compression of thermal and 

climatic zones over relatively short distances, steep 

slopes, the diversity of aspects, variations in geology 

and soils, and the fragmentation of mountain 

terrain. In addition, many mountain areas are 

isolated from one another either in terms of distance 

or because of unsuitable habitats — at least since 

the end of the last Ice Age, or because of significant 

anthropogenic modification of lowland ecosystems 

— so that species have evolved separately; a major 

reason for the high levels of endemism in many 

mountains. Species endemism often increases 

with altitude (Nagy and Grabherr, 2009; Schmitt, 

2009). Within mountain areas themselves, centuries 

or millennia of human intervention, particularly 

through burning and grazing, have also been 

important for maintaining populations of many 

species and particular habitats in spatially diverse 

cultural landscapes. 

In the mountains of Europe, while some 

publications have considered all mountain 

ecosystems (for example, Ozenda, 2000), a major 

focus of research attention has been on the 

biodiversity of the alpine life zone, i.e. land 

above the tree line, which covers about 3 % of the 

continent's area, ranging from approximately1 % 

of the area of the mountains of Corsica to 40 % of 

the area of the Italian Alps (Nagy et al., 2003b). 

Although limited in its extent, and often including 

significant proportions of unvegetated rock, 

snow and ice, this life zone includes about 20 % 

of Europe's plant species (Väre et al., 2003),with 

numbers of vascular plants decreasing from south 

to north and numbers of cryptogams (bryophytes 

and macrolichens) showing the opposite trend 

(Virtanen et al., 2003). The diversity of the alpine 

life zone is further increased by its fauna (Nagy 

et al., 2003a). For this life zone, our knowledge of 

the distribution of certain vertebrates, especially 

certain groups of birds, is quite good, though 

basic questions such as the variable(s) that govern 

presence or absence often remain unanswered 

(Thompson, 2003); overall knowledge of 

invertebrates is patchy, though groups such as the 

Lepidoptera, Coleoptera and Arenaea are better 

documented (Brandmayr et al., 2003). Nevertheless, 

while the alpine life zone includes a significant 

proportion of the total biodiversity of Europe's 

mountain areas, it is smaller than the alpine 

biogeographic zone described in Section 1.3.6; 

and the number of both plant and animal species 

decreases with altitude (Körner, 2002; Nagy and 

Grabherr, 2009). Thus, overall, the wide range 

of mountain habitats — alpine, forested, grazed, 

mown, burned, cultivated, and wet — includes a 

significantly larger number of species. 

Within the European Union, the primary policy 

instruments aimed at the conservation of 

biodiversity are the Birds Directive (European 

Commission, 1979) and Habitats Directive (EC, 1992) 

(see Chapter 1). Birds are considered in Section 8.2; 

the following section is drawn mainly from 

reports under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive, 

which requires Member States to report on its 

implementation every six years. The most recent 

reporting period covers the period 2001–2006 

(EC, 2009); consequently, reports for this period 

are a primary source for this chapter. However, 

this means that much of the available analysis is 

restricted to the mountains of EU Member States 

— with the exception of Bulgaria and Romania, 

as they only joined the EU in 2007 — and that 

Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and the countries 

in the Balkans that are not Member States of the 

EU are not considered. Apart from this work, the 

most comprehensive source of information on 

biodiversity in mountain areas — though almost 

entirely in the alpine life zone — is Nagy et al. 

(2003), which resulted from the Alpine Biodiversity 

Network (ALPNET), sponsored by the European 

Science Foundation. 

142 


Biodiversity 

Map 8.1 

Hotspots of plant, bird and mammal diversity based on species richness and 

narrow endemism 

-30° 

-20° 

-10° 

0° 

10° 

20° 

30° 

40° 

50° 

60° 

Hotspots of plant, bird 

and mammal diversity 

based on species richness 

and narrow endemism 

60° 

Richness 

60° 

Richness and narrow 

endemism 

Narrow endemism 

50° 

50° 

40° 

40° 

-20° 

Canary Is. Is. 

Azores Is. 

-30° 

30° 

40° 

30° 

30° 

0° 

Madeira is. 

10° 

0 20° 500 1000 30° 1500 km 

Source: Williams et al., 1998, updated according to Médail and Quézel, 1999. 

8.1 Mountain species and habitats 

linked to the EU Habitats Directive 

The EU Habitats Directive has a number of Annexes. 

For the purpose of this report, three are of particular 

relevance. Annex I lists 'natural habitat types 

of Community interest' that '(i) are in danger of 

disappearance in their natural range; or (ii) have 

a small natural range following their regression 

or by reason of their intrinsically restricted area; 

or (iii) present outstanding examples of typical 

characteristics of one or more of the nine following 

biogeographical regions: Alpine, Atlantic, Black Sea, 

Boreal, Continental, Macaronesian, Mediterranean, 

Pannonian and Steppic' (Sundseth and Creed, 2008). 

The directive also identifies 'Species of Community 

interest', which may be designated as endangered, 

vulnerable, rare or 'endemic and requiring 

particular attention by reason of the specific nature 

of their habitat and/or the potential impact of their 

exploitation on their habitat and/or the potential 

impact of their exploitation on their conservation 

status' (EC, 1992). These species are listed in Annex 

II (for those requiring designation of special areas 

of conservation), Annex IV (for species in need 

of strict protection), and Annex V (with regard to 

species taken from the wild). This section presents 

an analysis of the mountain habitats and species 

listed in Annexes I, II and IV of the Habitats 

Directive. 


143

Biodiversity 

The geographic scope of the analysis is the mainland 

of Europe, islands geographically belonging to 

Europe (including Svalbard, Iceland, Azores, 

Canary Islands, Madeira and the islands in the 

Mediterranean Sea, including Cyprus). In general, 

an altitudinal threshold of 800–1 000 m was used to 

identify mountain species in temperate and southern 

Europe; though in the north, especially in the boreal 

zone, the limit is significantly lower. Consequently, 

lower areas within the mountain massifs generally 

used for analysis in this report are not included. 

In addition, it should be noted that these massifs 

are not used as a unit of analysis; rather, the 

biogeographical zones described in Section 1.3.6 are 

used for certain parts of the analysis. 

For species, four categories of species linked to 

mountain ecosystems were assigned: 

• mountain species: species exclusively or almost 

exclusively linked to mountains; 

• predominantly mountain species ('mainly 

mountain'): species distributed in mountains, 

but living in lower altitudes as well; 

• predominantly not mountain ('facultatively 

mountain'): species distributed mainly outside 

mountains, but occasionally occurred in 

mountains as well; 

• non-mountain species: species not occurring in 

mountains. 

For habitat types, three categories were assigned: 

• mountain habitats: exclusively or almost 

exclusively distributed in mountains; 

• partially mountain habitats: habitat types 

distributed both inside and outside mountains; 

• non-mountain habitats: habitat types distributed 

exclusively or almost exclusively outside 

mountains. 

The distribution maps and reports delivered by 

EU-25 Member States with Article 17 reports in 

2007 (Eionet, 2007) were key sources of information 

for this analysis. These were complemented by 

published literature, which represented the main 

source of information about species, habitats and 

distribution; the most important publications are 

included in the references. As Internet sources also 

contributed to decisions regarding the classification 

of individual species, the main websites used are 

also listed in the references. For certain species and 

habitats, information was not sufficient to classify 

them with full certainty; these were classified 

with more coarse information. The assignment 

of individual species of the Habitat Directive 

Annex II and Annex IV to the above-mentioned 

categories (first 3 categories, non-mountain species 

not included) is in Appendix 1, habitat types in 

Appendix II. Nomenclature is according to the 

Annexes of the Habitat Directive. 

8.1.1 Distribution of species 

The analysis includes all of the 1 148 taxi listed in 

Annex II and Annex IV of the Habitats Directive 

(version 1.1.2007) and covered five taxonomic 

groups of animals (invertebrates, amphibians, 

reptiles, freshwater lampreys and fish, and 

mammals) and three taxonomic groups of plants 

(mosses and liverworts, ferns, and flowering 

plants). The classification of individual taxa is 

in Appendix 1. Table 8.1 presents a statistical 

summary of results for individual taxonomical 

groups of organisms, in terms of the numbers of the 

Habitat Directive organisms classified in the three 

categories of mountain species mentioned above. 

The taxonomical group with the highest number 

of exclusively mountain species was flowering 

plants; this group is also the most abundant in the 

Annexes of the Habitats Directive. 

Table 8.1 

Number of species of different taxonomical groups classified in three categories of 

mountain species 

Mountain 

species 

Mainly 

mountain 

Facultatively 

mountain 

Fish 

Invertebrates 

Amphibians 

Reptiles Mammals Mosses 

and 

liverworts 

Ferns 

Flowering 

plants 

15 9 5 4 8 6 134 181 

8 2 14 6 9 11 3 77 130 

0 0 0 1 1 2 3 31 38 

Total 


Biodiversity 

Considering the high rates of endemism in mountain 

species, a further stage of analysis was a review of 

endemism of the 'mountain species' of the Habitat 

Directive in relation to countries, biogeographical 

regions used by the Habitat Directive, mountain 

ranges, islands and some regions of Europe. This 

review contains all of the three above-mentioned 

groups of mountain species. Table 8.2 shows the 

mountain species with a distribution limited to the 

territory of one country. The highest number of 

species — of which most are flowering plants — is 

in Spain; Portugal, Italy and Greece also have quite 

high numbers. 

Table 8.3 shows the number of mountain species in 

individual taxonomical groups that are restricted 

by their distribution to a particular biogeographic 

region. There are 214 of these species: 114 of 

them endemic to the Mediterranean, 51 to the 

Macaronesian, and 42 to the Alpine biogeographic 

region. 

Table 8.4 summarises the endemism of mountain 

species in individual mountain areas, some of 

which coincide reasonably well with the massifs 

used elsewhere in the report, while others represent 

sub‐sets of these (for example, the Bohemian range 

is within central European middle mountains 2; the 

Dinaric mountains are part of the Balkans/South‐east 

Europe). With regard to the island mountains, the 

Azores, Madeira and Canary Islands are in the 

Atlantic islands; the Balearic Islands, Corsica and 

Sardinia are in the western Mediterranean; Sicily is 

included with the Apennines; Crete with the Aegean 

islands and Cyprus with the eastern Mediterranean 

islands. The Iberian mountains have the greatest 

level of endemism; as noted above, Spain is the 

country with the most endemic species — levels in 

the Canary Islands are also high — and similarly, 

the majority of endemic species in Portugal are 

on Madeira and the Azores. The mountains of the 

Balkans/South-east Europe also have high levels of 

endemism, followed by the Alps and Carpathians. 

Table 8.2 

Number of mountain species endemic to one country 

Country 

Fish 


and 

liverworts 

Ferns 

Flowering 

plants 

Austria 1 1 

Cyprus 13 13 

Czech Republic 2 2 

France 2 1 2 5 

Greece 1 20 21 

Italy 1 1 7 17 26 

Portugal 1 1 28 30 

Romania 1 2 3 

Sweden 1 1 

Slovakia 1 3 4 

Spain 2 1 1 70 74 

Total 4 2 10 1 1 1 2 159 180 

Total 

Table 8.3 

Number of mountain species endemic to each biogeographic region 

Biogeographic 

region 

Fish 

Invertebrates 

Amphibians 

Invertebrates 

Amphibians 


and 

liverworts 

Ferns 

Flowering 

plants 

Alpine 4 1 2 5 2 28 42 

Atlantic 2 2 

Continental 5 5 

Macaronesian 1 1 49 51 

Mediterranean 4 10 3 1 1 95 114 

Two or more 

14 11 8 6 12 17 4 63 135 

regions 

Total 23 11 19 11 18 19 6 242 349 

Total 


145

Biodiversity 

Recognising that not all endemic species are 

included within Annexes II and IV of the Habitats 

Directive, these figures can be compared to those 

of Väre et al. (2003), who found the highest number 

of endemics and narrow-range taxa in the Alps and 

the Pyrenees, with high numbers also in the Balkan 

mountains, Crete and the Sierra Nevada, as well 

as in the Massif Central, Corsica and the central 

Apennines. 

8.1.2 Distribution of habitats 

Of the 231 habitat types listed in the Annex I of 

the Habitat Directive (version 1.1.2007), 42 can be 

considered as mountain habitats — i.e. habitats 

exclusively or almost exclusively distributed in 

mountains. A further 91 habitat types occur in both 

mountain and non-mountain areas, and 98 are nonmountain 

habitats. The results are summarised in 

Table 8.5 and Figure 8.1, and there is a classification 

of individual habitat types in Appendix 2. 

Considering habitats found in mountain areas 

(i.e. mountain and both mountain and nonmountain), 

some key points may be drawn from 

these results. First, almost half (46 %) of these 

135 habitat types are forests, which corresponds 

with the high proportion of this habitat in 

Europe's mountains. This includes one habitat 

group that is only found in mountains (temperate 

mountainous coniferous forests) and another 

that is predominantly found in mountains 

(Mediterranean and Macaronesian mountainous 

coniferous forests). Second, there is only one 

habitat group — temperate heath and scrub —with 

most of its habitat types in mountains. Those that 

are restricted to mountains are the widespread 

alpine and boreal heaths and sub-arctic Salix spp. 

scrub and others that are more restricted to the 

mountains of central Europe (Mugo-Rhododendrum 

hirsuti), the Mediterranean mountains (endemic 

oro‐Mediterranean heaths with gorse), and the 

Rhodope mountains of Bulgaria (Potentilla fruticosa 

Table 8.4 

Number of mountain species endemic to mountain ranges, mountain regions and 

islands 

Area 

Invertebrates 

Mountain ranges 

Fish Amphibians Reptiles Mammals Mosses and 

liverworts 

Ferns 

Flowering 

plants 

Pyrenees 1 1 5 7 

Alps 3 1 1 1 18 24 

Apennines 2 3 5 

Bohemian range 4 4 

Carpathians 1 2 3 1 11 18 

Mountain regions 

Iberian 2 2 2 2 56 64 

Scandes 1 2 8 11 

Dinaric 6 6 

Balkan 1 1 1 1 20 24 

Island mountains 

Aegean 1 1 2 

Azores 1 9 10 

Canary Islands 30 30 

Balearic 1 3 4 

Corsica, Sardinia 2 1 7 1 3 14 

Madeira 1 11 12 

Sicily 1 2 3 

Crete 5 5 

Cyprus 13 13 

Total 10 4 15 5 7 4 3 208 256 

Total 


Biodiversity 

Table 8.5 

Number of mountain habitat types in individual habitat groups: 'Both' represents 

habitats occurring in both mountain and non-mountain areas 

Habitat type Mountain Both Non-mountain 

1. Coastal and halophytic habitats 0 0 28 

11. Open sea and tidal areas 8 

12. Sea cliffs and shingle or stony beaches 5 

13. Atlantic and continental salt marshes and salt meadows 4 

14. Mediterranean and thermo-Atlantic salt marshes and salt meadows 3 

15. Salt and gypsum inland steppes 3 

16. Boreal Baltic archipelago, coastal and landupheaval areas 5 

2. Coastal sand dunes and inland dunes 0 0 21 

21. Sea dunes of the Atlantic, North Sea and Baltic coasts 10 

22. Sea dunes of the Mediterranean coast 7 

23. Inland dunes, old and decalcified 4 

3. Freshwater habitats 3 8 8 

31. Standing water 5 5 

32. Running water 3 3 3 

4. Temperate heath and scrub 5 4 3 

5. Sclerophyllous scrub (matorral) 1 6 6 

51. Sub-Mediterranean and temperate scrub 1 2 1 

52. Mediterranean arborescent matorral 2 1 

53. Thermo-Mediterranean and pre-steppe brush 1 2 

54. Phrygana 1 2 

6. Natural and semi-natural grassland formations 8 11 12 

61. Natural grasslands 5 3 1 

62. Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies 1 4 7 

63. Sclerophillous grazed forests (dehesas) 1 

64. Semi-natural tall-herb humid meadows 1 4 1 

65. Mesophile grasslands 1 2 

7. Raised bogs and mires and fens 2 10 0 

71. Sphagnum acid bogs 6 

72. Calcareous fens 1 3 

73. Boreal mires 1 1 

8. Rocky habitats and caves 4 9 1 

81. Scree 3 3 

82. Rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation 4 

83. Other rocky habitats 1 2 1 

9. Forests 19 43 19 

90. Forests of boreal Europe 1 6 1 

91. Forests of temperate Europe 5 20 12 

92. Mediterranean deciduous forests 3 8 2 

93. Mediterranean sclerophyllous forests 6 4 

94. Temperate mountainous coniferous forests 3 

95. Mediterranean and Macaronesian mountainous coniferous forests 7 3 

Total 42 91 98 


147

Biodiversity 

Figure 8.1 Number of mountain habitat types in individual groups of habitats 

Number of types 

50 

45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

1. Coastal and 

halophytic 

habitats 

2. Coastal 

sand dunes 

and 

inland 

dunes 

3. Freshwater 

habitats 

4. Temperate 

heath and 

scrub 

5. Schlerphyllous 

scrub 

(matorral) 

6. Natural 

and seminatural 

grassland 

formations 

7. Raised bogs 

and mires 

and fens 

8. Rocky 

habitats 

and caves 

9. Forest 

Mountain Both mountain and non-mountain Non-mountain 

thickets). Third, at the level of habitat types, in 

addition to the two forest habitat types mentioned 

above and screes, the majority of natural grassland 

habitat types are found only in mountains. Two 

of these are widespread (alpine and sub-alpine 

calcareous grasslands; siliceous alpine and boreal 

grasslands) and others are more restricted: siliceous 

Pyrenean Festuca eskia grasslands; Oro-Iberian 

Festuca indigesta grasslands (Iberian mountains); 

and Macaronesian mesophile grasslands. 

8.1.3 Status of habitats 

As part of the reporting process under Article 17 

of the Habitats Directive, Member States have to 

report on the conservation status of habitats listed 

in Annex I of the Directive. A common assessment 

method has been developed for this purpose (EC, 

2005). The outcomes of this method are assessments 

as to whether the status of a habitat is favourable, 

unfavourable–inadequate, unfavourable–bad, or 

unknown. It should be noted that, for the EU as a 

whole, 13 % of habitat assessments were reported 

by Member States as unknown, particularly for 

the countries of southern Europe (EC, 2009). The 

data used for the analysis below are at a resolution 

of 10 km x 10 km; the value for each grid cell 

expresses the occurrence of the habitat within 

that cell. Using these data, the quantification 

of values for conservation status followed the 

method of the European Topic Centre on Biological 

Diversity (2008) to identify habitats, in sequence, 

as: 'Unfavourable — bad' (U2); 'Favourable' 

(FV); 'Unknown' (XX); or 'Unfavourable — 

inadequate (U1). 

Table 8.6 presents the numbers of habitat types in 

each massif classified according to these criteria, 

and Figure 8.2 presents these data as proportions. 

Overall, 21 % of habitats are assessed as being 

in favourable status, 28 % are in unfavourable– 

inadequate status, 32 % are in unfavourable–bad 

status, and 18 % are unknown. As noted previously, 

the majority of the latter are in Spain (Iberian 

mountains, Pyrenees); since the status of 90 % 

of the habitat types in the Iberian mountains is 

unknown, this massif is not discussed further here. 

In Figure 8.2, the massifs are ordered from left to 

right in terms of the proportion of habitat types in 

favourable status. Within this category, proportions 

range from 56 % in the Apennines to almost 0 % in 

the mountains of the British Isles. There is no clear 

geographical pattern to these findings. While the 

proportions of habitat types in favourable status 

shown in Figure 8.2 may appear low, it should be 

recognised that one of the criteria for being listed 

on Annex I was threat or historical decline, so 

that it would be expected that most habitats and 

species would to be in an unfavourable status; 

these results also need to be seen in the national 

context. As shown in Figure 8.3, in most countries, 

the proportion of habitat types in favourable status 

is higher within mountains than outside them, 

sometime by a very significant margin in countries 

with large mountain areas (for example, Austria, 

Greece, Italy) and those with small mountain areas 

(for example, Finland, Sweden, Poland). The only 

countries for which this trend does not hold true 

are in the British Isles: Ireland and the United 

Kingdom. 


Biodiversity 

Table 8.6 

Numbers of habitat types in each massif classified by conservation status 

FV U1 U2 XX Total 

Apennines 47 26 3 8 84 

Balkans/South-east Europe 32 27 23 1 83 

Atlantic islands 11 12 7 1 31 

Nordic mountains 22 13 27 2 64 

Central European middle mountains 1 * 16 18 12 2 48 

Eastern Mediterranean islands 13 18 6 8 45 

Carpathians 10 21 18 2 51 

Alps 14 37 35 7 93 

French/Swiss middle mountains 11 22 37 7 77 

Western Mediterranean islands 7 17 14 15 53 

Central European middle mountains 2 ** 4 15 32 51 

Pyrenees 3 19 30 36 88 

British Isles 1 7 52 4 64 

Iberian mountains 6 3 77 86 

Total mountains 191 258 299 170 918 

Note: 


FV = Favourable, U1 = Unfavourable — inadequate, U2 = Unfavourable — bad, XX = Unknown. 

Figure 8.2 Proportions of habitat types in each massif classified by conservation status 

% 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Apennines 






Carpathians 

Alps 




Unknown Unfavourable — bad Unfavourable — inadequate Favourable 

Pyrenees 

British Isles 


Note: 



149

Biodiversity 

Figure 8.3 Habitats in favourable conservation status in EU Member States, inside and outside 


% 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Austria 

Belgium 

Inside 

Cyprus 


Outside 

Germany 

Spain 

Finland 

France 


Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Poland 

Portugal 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

8.2 Birds and their habitats 

Mountain areas provide important habitats for 

many bird species. Mountain ranges can also be 

significant bottlenecks to migration (Heath and 

Evans, 2000), which is a key issue as populations of 

long-distance migrants are 'declining alarmingly' 

(BirdLife International., 2004b; Sanderson et al., 

2006); their water bodies and associated wetland 

and grassland ecosystems are critical resting sites 

(Box 8.1). Under Article 12 of the Birds Directive, 

EU Member States are required to report on its 

implementation on a three-yearly basis. However, 

the most recent period for which reports have 

been consolidated is 1999–2001 (EC, 2006), and 

relatively few species with distributions primarily in 

mountain areas are listed in its Annex I as in danger 

of extinction, rare, vulnerable to specific changes 

in their habitat or requiring particular attention for 

reasons of the specific nature of their habitat. The 

relatively small number of mountain species listed 

in Annex I may be one reason that knowledge about 

them is often particularly lacking; it has also been 

suggested that there is a greater interest in mammals 

than in birds in alpine regions (Thompson, 2003). 

Complementing the Birds Directive, under which 

Special Protection Areas (SPAs) have been identified, 

BirdLife International has prepared an inventory 

of Important Bird Areas (IBAs) using comparable 

scientific criteria. The total area of IBAs is greater 

than that of SPAs; the latter cover only 44 % of the 

total area of IBAs (BirdLife International, 2010). 

The identification of IBAs is based around habitats 

(Tucker and Evans, 1997; Heath et al., 2000). Of 

these, a small number can be unequivocally 

identified as occurring in mountain areas. Tucker 

and Evans (1997) distinguish four such habitat 

types within broader habitats: 

• boreal and temperate forests: montane forests 

(widely distributed across different mountain 

areas); 

• agricultural and grassland habitats: montane 

grassland (widespread in the Alps, Carpathians 

and Pyrenees and mountain ranges to their 

south, including in Turkey); 

• tundra, mires, and moorland: boreal montane 

(almost all in the Nordic mountains), moorland 

dominated by Calluna (at lower altitudes in the 

mountains of Norway, and covering much of 

the mountains of the British Isles). 


Biodiversity 

Box 8.1 Karst poljes in the Dinarides and their significance for water bird conservation 

The Dinaric Karst is the most extensive, continuous karst area in Europe (Gams, 1974). This huge 

mountain fringe from Slovenia to Albania, approximately 800 km long and up to 150 km wide, is 

interspersed by extensive depressions or karst poljes. They are often covered by wetlands and extensive 

periodically flooded grasslands, which harbour significant resting sites and nesting habitats for water and 

grassland birds (cf. Valvasor, 1689; Reiser, 1896, 1939; Kmecl and Rizner, 1993; Polak, 1993, 2000). 

They are of great conservation value for both European bird populations and western Palearctic migrants 

(Schneider‐Jacoby et al., 2006; Stumberger et al., 2008). 

As the seasonality, duration and extent of flooding 

limit land use, large areas of the karst poljes are 

traditionally used as temperate grassland. The 

occurrence and numbers of the water birds depends 

on the flooding (Schneider-Jacoby, 1993, 2005). 

There are at least 139 karst poljes, of which 44 are 

classified as dry, 48 as rarely inundated, and 47 as 

frequently flooded. With a total area of 3 056 km 2 , 

the surface area varies from 0.2 to 408 km 2 . 

Seasonal flooding occurs on about 2 745 km 2 

(90 %) of the total area of the karst poljes, but only 

1 547 km 2 (51 %) are regularly flooded for longer 

periods. 

Two billion birds from Eurasia winter in the Sahel, 

the transition zone between the Sahara desert and 

the Sudanian savannas (Zwart et al., 2009). During 

migration to their winter quarters and back to their 

Photo: 

© Peter Sackl 

Migrating spoonbills in front of the Prokletije Massif, 

Bojana-Buna Delta, Albania. 

breeding areas, many cross large areas unsuitable for resting, such as the Sahara and the Mediterranean 

Sea. Some species, such as common cranes (Grus grus), use discrete migration corridors; others, such as 

Eurasian spoonbills (Platalea leucorodia) use traditional resting sites in narrow front migration (Berthold, 

2000). For trans-Mediterranean migrants that cross the central Mediterranean (Schneider-Jacoby, 2008), 

the mountain ridges and dry highlands of the Dinaric Karst represent a considerable additional barrier after 

the sea and the desert. During the return passage after crossing the Adriatic Sea, suitable resting sites are 

rare along the mostly rocky shore (Smit, 1986; Stipčević, 1997) and 80 % are heavily impacted (Willinger 

and Stumberger, 2009); the karst poljes offer vital resting sites. 

Studies of bird migration on periodically flooded karst poljes — Cerkniško polje in Slovenia (Kmecl and 

Rizner, 1993) and the largest polje, Livanjsko polje, Bosnia and Herzegovina (Stumberger et al., 2008) — 

and analyses of ringing data indicate that the Dinaric Karst is frequented by populations from central and 

northeastern Europe and migrants from western and northwestern Siberia. The karst poljes are key resting 

sites along major migration routes (Scott and 

Rose, 1996), for the Western Siberian/Black Sea– 

Mediterranean populations of ducks, geese, swans 

and waders. Current estimates of the population 

trends of water birds that migrate through the 

Dinaric Karst, mostly in SW–SSW directions, indicate 

long-term declines for 33 species (Table 8.1). 

Some species that use the Adriatic flyway, such 

as slender‐billed curlew (Numenius tenuirostris), 

are already on the brink of extinction (Wetland 

International, 2006). The significance of the karst 

poljes for bird migration and the conservation of 

Eurasian water birds has been largely overlooked, as 

bird hunting seems to be a major impact and large 

concentrations of resting birds are lacking in most 

poljes (Schneider-Jacoby, 2008; Schneider-Jacoby 

and Spangenberg, 2009; Stumberger et al., 2009). 

Photo: 

© Borut Stumberger 

Livanjsko polje, Bosnia and Herzegovina, during 

winter floods 2009. 

Source: 

Borut Stumberger and Martin Schneider-Jacoby 

(EuroNatur, Germany). 


151

Biodiversity 

For each habitat type, further information is 

provided on ecological characteristics; values, 

roles and land uses; and influencing political 

and socioeconomic factors. Similarly, various 

requirements are listed for individual priority 

species. With regard to conservation status, for the 

boreal montane and moorland habitats, statements 

relate only to the broader habitats, so it is generally 

not possible to be more specific about the status 

of, and threats to, these species specifically in 

mountain areas. For the other two habitat types, 

priority birds, all with unfavourable conservation 

status, are listed, together with threats. There 

are 46 priority species in montane forests, with 

an increase in the species richness of breeding 

priority birds from west to east, with the highest 

numbers in Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia; 

and also in France. Over a 20-year timeframe, 

widespread threats to these forests (affecting at 

least 10 % of the total habitat type) were judged 

to be inappropriate forest management and 

overgrazing; regional threats (1–10 % of the total 

habitat type) were logging, habitat fragmentation, 

air pollution and severe or frequent fires. In 

montane grassland, there are 33 priority species, 

of which a third are dependent on this habitat type 

in Europe. Comparably, widespread threats were 

high stocking levels, recreation, and atmospheric 

nutrient pollution; regional threats were land 

abandonment and reductions in livestock carcasses. 

There has been further research on a number of 

these threats, such as the impact of ski areas on 

high-altitude bird communities (Rolando et al., 

2007; Lowen, 2009); as well as the more recent 

threat posed by wind farms (for example, Bright 

et al., 2008). In 2004, BirdLife International (2004a) 

identified 13 montane grassland species that had 

an unfavourable conservation status and therefore 

qualified as Species of European Conservation 

Concern. Of these, populations of three were 

declining, populations of seven were stable, and 

the status for three was unknown. 

A habitat-based approach was also taken by Heath 

et al. (2000) in their comprehensive evaluation 

of all IBAs in Europe. One of the levels of 

analysis considered sites with biome-restricted 

species, i.e. sites 'known or thought to hold a 

significant assemblage of species whose breeding 

distributions are largely or wholly restricted to 

one biome' (Heath et al., 2000, p. 11). There are five 

of these, including the 'Eurasian high-montane 

(alpine) biome', with 10 species restricted to this 

biome, which includes 14 IBAs in Switzerland, 

12 in Italy, five in both Greece and Spain, two in 

the former Yugoslavia, and one in each of Bulgaria, 

France, Germany, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, and 

Turkey. Most of the analysis within this volume 

is for habitat types, but only one of these is 

unequivocally mountainous: alpine/sub-alpine/ 

boreal grassland, which is present in 7 % (263) 

of the 3 619 IBAs at the time. More recent work 

(Huntley et al., 2007) recognises biogeographical 

elements in Europe's avifauna, grouping species 

according to the overall similarity of their recorded 

breeding distributions recorded in 50 x 50 km grid 

squares. However, none of the 19 elements can 

unequivocally be compared to mountain areas; 

and Huntley et al. (2007) note that one of the two 

groups whose geographical distribution could 

not be modelled using this approach comprised 

species whose distributions were restricted to 

areas of very high relief, given the relatively 

coarse resolution of both distribution data and 

climatic data (cf. Section 5.2). In summary, 

while information is available regarding the 

distribution of, and threat to, priority bird species 

and the habitats of IBAs, and of the distribution 

of bird species in general (for example, BirdLife 

International, 2004a), further work needs to be 

done to evaluate both distributions and threats 

specifically in Europe's mountain areas. 

8.3 Impacts of climate change 

Mountain species and habitats are subject to many 

stresses and vulnerabilities due to anthropogenic 

factors, including land-use practices and changes, 

freshwater abstraction, tourism and recreation, 

infrastructure development, the introduction 

and expansion of alien species (Box 8.2), and air 

and water pollution (Huber et al., 2005; Nagy 

and Grabherr, 2009; Price, 2008). Increased 

concentrations of atmospheric CO 2 

, the primary 

cause of climate change, may eventually have 

significant impacts on alpine plant biodiversity 

because of species' differential responses (Körner, 

2005). The likely changes in the climate of Europe's 

mountains, outlined in Chapter 5, will influence 

their biota both directly and indirectly, for instance 

through changes in the availability of water, 

as discussed in Chapter 6. For vegetation, the 

two main climatic drivers are temperature and 

precipitation. More emphasis is usually placed on 

temperature because, as discussed in Chapter 5, 

there is more consistency in prediction. Various 

model-based studies of changes in vegetation have 

been undertaken, often with temperature as the 

sole driving factor (Nagy and Grabherr, 2009). 

However, precipitation is also an important factor, 

and observed changes in precipitation in the Alps 

have already been associated with changes in 

vegetation (Cannone et al., 2007). 


Biodiversity 

Box 8.2 Alien plants in the Alps: status and future invasion risks 

Alien (or non-native) species occur outside their native range only because of human-mediated dispersal. 

Among them, invasive alien species are those which spread rapidly in their new range and may have a 

negative impact on native biodiversity or lead to other economic costs. In the Alps, some 450 to 500 

alien vascular plant species have been recorded (Aeschimann et al., 2004): approximately 10 % of the 

total flora of the Alps (Aeschimann et al., 2004) and 15 % to 20 % of all alien plant species recorded in 

Europe (Pysek et al., 2008). However, the number of recorded alien plants is increasing rapidly in Europe 

(Pysek et al., 2008) and probably also in the Alps. Most alien plant species in the Alps occur only at low 

elevations. A comprehensive survey along roadsides in the Swiss mountains showed that only about 90 out 

of 155 recorded alien plants were found above 1000 m, approximately 50 species above 1 500 m, and 

approximately 10 species above 2 000 m (see photo below); and that species that are more abundant and/or 

present for a longer time in lowlands tend to reach higher elevations (Becker et al., 2005). Among the major 

invasive plant species of the European lowlands (Wittenberg, 2005), 23 occur in the montane zone, of which 

nine reach the subalpine zone (Table 8.7). At higher elevations, none of these species is known to have a 

strong negative impact on biodiversity or other human values. 

The relative resistance of mountain ecosystems to plant invasions may be transient in the light of ongoing 

global change (Pauchard et al., 2009). The paucity of alien species in mountains is partially related to the 

historic introduction process. Alien species were introduced to the lowlands and had to survive in lowland 

climates and habitats before they could spread to higher elevations. This low-altitude filter effect (Becker 

et al., 2005) limited alien species found at higher elevations to climatically broadly adapted species 

that can occur across the complete altitudinal range (MIREN [Mountain Invasion Research Network], 

unpublished data). Increasingly, however, alien plants are directly introduced from one high elevation 

region to another, especially through the horticultural plant trade. These alien mountain specialists are 

pre-adapted to high‐elevation climates and are expected to pose a greater invasion risk in mountains. The 

relative resistance of mountain ecosystems to plant invasions may also weaken in the future through other 

global change processes, in particular climate change and the expansion of anthropogenic disturbances. 

Invasive plants from lower elevations (Table 8.7) may move to higher elevations in a warming climate, and 

anthropogenic disturbances generally facilitate plant invasions. 

Prevention is considered the most cost-efficient management strategy against the threats posed by invasive 

species. Globally, the Alps are one of few eco-regions not yet badly affected by plant invasions, but this 

may change. Now is thus the time to act to prevent future invasions: probable invasive species should be 

identified, and their transportation regulated. Species that have proven problematic in other mountain areas 

are particularly likely to become invasive, and MIREN (2010) has developed an online database of invasive 

plant species in mountains worldwide. However, most species currently listed in the database are native 

to Europe and thus, based on past invasions, only few potentially invasive alien species can be predicted 

for the Alps (Table 8.7). A threat may rather be 

expected from future introductions from novel 

source areas (for example, the very species‐rich 

mountain region of Yunnan in China). 

The establishment of ecological corridors will 

probably not increase the risk of the unassisted 

spread of most alien plants, because they mainly 

spread in anthropogenic habitats and through 

human movements. However, alien species can be 

transported accidentally between protected areas 

of an ecological network by tourists or natural 

area managers. Codes of conduct on the cleaning 

of clothes, tools and machines before entering 

natural areas may reduce the risk of spreading 

alien species. Networks of institutions and experts 

associated with ecological corridors represent an 

important institutional capacity for coordinating 

monitoring and control of these species. 

Source: 

Christoph Kueffer (Institute of Integrative Biology, 

ETH Zurich, Switzerland) with contributions from 

Jake Alexander, Hansjörg Dietz, Keith McDougall, 

Andreas Gigon, Sylvia Haider and Tim Seipel 

(MIREN). 

Photo: 

Lupinus polyphyllus, native to western North 

America, reaches the subalpine zone in the 

European Alps where it occasionally forms 

monospecific stands. 

The picture shows the species next to the Furka 

pass road in Switzerland at about 2 100 m above 

sea level. 


153

Biodiversity 

Box 8.2 Alien plants in the Alps: status and future invasion risks (cont.) 

Table 8.7 

Potentially invasive plants of higher elevations in the European Alps 

Genus Species Family Elevation 

Acacia dealbata ( 1 ) Fabaceae colline ( 12 ) 

Ambrosia artemisiifolia (*) Asteraceae colline ( 12 ) 

Artemisia verlotiorum (*) Asteraceae montane 

Buddleja davidii (*) Buddlejaceae montane 

Bunias orientalis (*) Brassicaceae montane 

Caragana arborescens Fabaceae no data 

Conyza canadensis (*) Asteraceae subalpine 

Elodea canadensis ( 2 ,*) Hydrocharitaceae subalpine 

Epilobium ciliatum (*) Onagraceae montane 

Erigeron annuus (*) Asteraceae montane 

Fagopyrum esculentum Polygonaceae montane 

Fagopyrum tataricum ( 3 ) Polygonaceae subalpine 

Heracleum mantegazzianum ( 4 ,*) Apiaceae subalpine 

Hordeum jubatum Poaceae montane 

Impatiens glandulifera ( 5 ,*) Balsaminaceae montane 

Impatiens parviflora (*) Balsaminaceae subalpine 

Juncus tenuis (*) Juncaceae subalpine 

Lupinus polyphyllus (*) Fabaceae subalpine 

Matricaria discoidea (*) Asteraceae subalpine 

Mimulus guttatus (*) Scrophulariaceae montane 

Papaver croceum ( 6 ) Papaveraceae alpine 

Pinus strobus ( 7 ) Pinaceae montane 

Polygonum nepalense ( 8 ) Polygonaceae montane 

Polygonum polystachyum (*) Polygonaceae colline ( 12 ) 

Prunus laurocerasus (*) Rosaceae montane 

Reynoutria ( 9 ) japonica (*) Polygonaceae montane 

Reynoutria ( 9 ) sachalinensis (*) Polygonaceae subalpine 

Robinia pseudoacacia (*) Fabaceae montane 

Sedum spurium ( 10 ,*) Crassulaceae montane 

Senecio inaequidens (*) Asteraceae montane 

Senecio rupestris (*) Asteraceae alpine 

Solidago canadensis ( 11 ,*) Asteraceae montane 

Solidago gigantea ( 12 ,*) Asteraceae montane 

Note: The table includes species that are recognised invaders in a European country (Wittenberg, 2005; DAISIE, 2010) 

and occur in the montane zone or higher in the European Alps (Aeschimann et al., 2004); and species that are, on a 

species or genus level, invasive in mountains outside of Europe (MIREN, 2010). Priority invasive species in Europe are 

indicated in bold. 

(*) Listed as an invasive species for lowland areas in Europe (Wittenberg, 2005); ( 1 ) a subspecies subalpina has been 

described in Australia; ( 2 ) aquatic plant; ( 3 ) synonym: Polygonum tataricum, ( 4 ) and other alien Heracleum species; 

( 5 ) syn: Impatiens taprobanica; ( 6 ) syn: Papaver nudicaule; ( 7 ) and other alien Pinus species; ( 8 ) syn: Persicaria 

nepalensis; ( 9 ) syn: Fallopia; ( 10 ) syn: Phedimus spurious; ( 11 ) syn: Solidago altissima; ( 11 ) syn: Solidago serotina; 

( 12 ) experts believe the species has the potential to reach higher elevations. 


Biodiversity 

Research in Austria, Norway and Switzerland has 

shown increasing numbers of plant species on 

many summits (Parolo and Rossi, 2008), and the 

Global Observation Research Initiative in Alpine 

Environments (GLORIA: Box 8.3) has been designed 

to monitor this process. A likely impact of climate 

change is upslope migration of vegetation climatic 

belts, generally — but not always — leading to a 

decrease in their area, and the loss of the coldest 

climatic zones at the summits. Migration of habitats 

around mountains to a different aspect may also 

be possible. Yet migration is typically severely 

restricted as a spatial response in mountain areas 

because of their topography and, often, both the 

availability of suitable soils and past and present 

land uses (Theurillat and Guisan, 2001). Thus 

upslope migration will probably result in the 

contraction and fragmentation of populations of 

plants and fauna in present montane, alpine and 

nival belts. 

Box 8.3 Climate change and Europe's alpine plant diversity: the GLORIA long-term 

observation network 

Biota living in high mountain environments, i.e. the alpine area from the tree line ecotone upwards and 

the nival zone above the closed dwarf alpine vegetation (Nagy and Grabherr, 2009), are exposed to and 

governed by low-temperature conditions and should respond sensitively to climate warming. There is 

growing evidence of increased plant species richness at alpine and nival observation sites resulting from 

upwards range expansions induced by warming (for example, Grabherr et al., 1994; Klanderud and Birks, 

2003; Britton et al., 2009). An acceleration of this process during the exceptionally warm years of the past 

decades has been found by Walther et al. (2005) in the Swiss Alps. Concurrently, enhanced tree growth at 

the tree-line ecotone and the encroachment of trees into the alpine zone has been documented (Moiseev 

and Shiyatov, 2003; Kullman and Öberg, 2009). 

Model studies show diverging projections, ranging from potential species losses of around 60 % in some 

European mountain regions within this century, based on coarse grid cells across Europe (Thuiller et al., 

2005) to fine-scaled approaches resulting in a persistence of up to 100 % of habitats of high mountain 

species in a regional case study in one of the highest parts of the Alps in Valais, Switzerland (Randin et al., 

2009). Other local-scale models project severe contractions of the habitats of nival species (Schrankogel, 

Tyrol, Austria: Gottfried et al., 1999) and of the alpine zone in an outer and lower mountain range where 

many endemic species dwell (northeast Alps), with a temperature increase of + 2 °C (Dirnböck et al., 

2003). However, some subalpine to alpine biota, such as Pinus mugo communities, might be very resilient 

and could delay invasion of new competitors from lower elevations (Dullinger et al., 2004). 

The diverging model predictions on the fate of alpine biodiversity reflect different spatial and temporal 

scales and resolutions, different interpretations, but particularly gaps in knowledge about the potential of 

species to keep pace with climate warming. Systematic, coordinated, and long-term monitoring approaches 

that endeavour to fill this gap have only recently been implemented. One successful monitoring approach is 

the Global Observation Research Initiative in Alpine Environments (GLORIA), which began in Europe at the 

turn of the millennium through the EU FP-5 project GLORIA-Europe in 18 mountain regions (Grabherr et al., 

2001). The observation network now includes sites on five continents, with permanent monitoring sites in 

more than 75 mountain regions (GLORIA, 2010a) and continues to expand. 

In terms of both comparability and cost, the basic approach of GLORIA focuses on summit areas as being 

easily locatable sites for resurveys that enclose all aspects within a small area. On summits, shading effects 

from neighbouring land features are minimised and, due to the absence of escape routes, they may act 

as climate warming traps for cold-adapted species with weak competitive abilities. Four such summit sites 

are established along an altitudinal gradient in each region from the tree-line ecotone to the uppermost 

vegetated zone available (Pauli et al., 2004). On each summit site, all vascular plant species (cryptogams 

optional, dependent on the availability of experts) are recorded at spatial scales ranging from the entire 

summit area (within the uppermost 10 m of vertical distance), the 10 m x 10 m level, down to 1 m x 1 m 

and 0.1 m x 0.1 m levels. Dependent on the plot size, species abundance, species cover using a line‐point 

method, visual cover estimation, and fine-scaled species frequency are recorded (GLORIA, 2010b). 

Continuous measurements of soil temperature at 10 cm below the surface at the four cardinal directions on 

each summit are used to compare changes in temperature and snow regimes. Resurveys are to be made 

at intervals of 5 to 10 years. A higher recording frequency would risk enhanced damage caused by the 

observers and be of limited importance, as most alpine plants are long-lived and slow-growing. 


155

Biodiversity 


observation network (cont.) 

Data from the European GLORIA sites show pronounced differences in vascular plant species richness, 

ranging from 14 species (Cairngorms, Scotland) to around 200 (southern Alps, Dolomites, Italy) per 

GLORIA target region (species of all four summits pooled). While the greatest species richness is in the 

calcareous Alps, the Mediterranean mountains have the highest percentage of endemic species (Figure 8.4). 

The proportion of endemics in Mediterranean mountains such as the Majella (central Apennines; (Stanisci 

et al., 2005) and the Sierra Nevada (Spain) increases with altitude; most of the locally distributed species 

are restricted to high elevations (Pauli et al., 2003). With regard to species threatened by extinction, 

Mediterranean mountains appear to be particularly vulnerable. The marginal mountain ranges of the Alps, 

hosting alpine refugia of locally restricted plants (Essl et al., 2009) may be in a similar situation. 

In 17 out of the 18 GLORIA-Europe target regions (Figure 8.4) resurveys were conducted seven years 

after setting the baseline. Data from 2001 and 2008 are being used to develop a Europe-wide indicator for 

the impacts of climate change on alpine plant diversity in cooperation with the European Topic Centre of 

Biological Diversity and the European Environment Agency. This may already be sensitive enough to detect 

shifts of species composition in relation to the thermal preferences. 

While warming-induced extinction process in Europe's mountains are not yet expected to be discernible 

within the short period of seven years, observations at Schrankogel indicate a range contraction of the most 

cryophilic plant species (Pauli et al., 2007). At the alpine–nival ecotone, several pioneer species of alpine 

grassland were increasing in cover, while all of the true nival species declined over 10 years (Figure 8.5). 

Source: 

Harald Pauli, Michael Gottfried and Georg Grabherr (Department of Conservation Biology, Vegetation and Landscape 

Ecology, University of Vienna, Austria) and partners from the GLORIA-Europe Network. 

Figure 8.4 

The GLORIA target regions in Europe 

Zackenberg, 

E-Greenland 

Tröllaskagi, 

Iceland 

67 

NODOV 

131 

SELAT 

72 

RUPUR 

Streymoy , 

Faroe Islands 

137 

198 

ITADO 

174 

ATHSW 

75 

RUSUR 

14 

CHVAL 

UKCAI 

65 

116 

ESCPY 

79 

FRAME 

MS 

169 

SKCTA 

46 

ROCRO 

115 

GECAK 

ITNAP 

79 

ESSNE 

27 

FRCRI 

93 

ITCAM 

70 

GRLEO 

The GLORIA target regions in Europe 

GLORIA-Europe target region (setup in 2001) 

More recent target region (setup between 2003 and 2009) 

MS: GLORIA Master Site Schrankogel (Tyrol, Austria) 

991 taxa (spp. and subspp.) 

248 taxa endemic s.l. 

99 taxa endemic s.str. 


Biodiversity 


observation network (cont.) 

Vascular plant species richness (total and endemic species; data pooled from four summit sites per region) 

is shown for the initial 18 GLORIA-Europe regions. Colours indicating the proportion of endemic species 

(endemics in the wider sense, light blue; in the strict sense, dark blue) correspond with the homochromatic 

distribution areas around a particular region. 

Figure 8.5 

The high-elevation GLORIA master site Mount Schrankogel (Tyrol, Austria) 

Note: 

The alpine–nival ecotone (approximately 2 900–3 200 m) is the transition zone between the upper alpine grassland 

zone and the rock-, scree- and snow-dominated nival zone, where vegetation disintegrates into open plant 

assemblages. Data from 362 permanent plots across the ecotone showed significant differential cover changes of 

20 species (out of a total of 59) in relation to their vertical distribution ranges (blue: increase in cover, orange: 

decrease in cover). 

Source: Pauli et al., 2007. 

During the present century, it is likely that Europe's 

mountain flora will undergo major changes due 

to climate change (Theurillat and Guisan, 2001; 

Walther, 2004). Change in snow-cover duration 

and growing season length should have much 

more pronounced effects than direct effects of 

temperature changes on metabolism (Grace et al., 

2002; Körner et al., 2003). Overall trends are towards 

increased growing season, earlier phenology and 

shifts of species distributions towards higher 

elevations (Kullman, 2002; Körner et al., 2003; 

Egli et al., 2004; Sandvik et al., 2004; Walther, 2004; 

Casalegno et al., 2010). Similar shifts in elevation 

are also documented for animal species (Hughes, 

2000). However, the spatial scale of modelling 

can strongly influence the predicted persistence 

of suitable habitats (Trivedi et al., 2008; Randin 

et al., 2009). Recent phenological work in the Alps 

suggests a stronger advance of flowering phases at 

high altitudes, with a tendency towards a stronger 

altitudinal response in the northern than in the 

southern Alps (Ziello et al., 2009). 


157

Biodiversity 

The pattern of succession and change in upland 

forest ecosystems with climate change could also 

be driven by changes to the frequency and intensity 

of the natural fire cycle. In the period from May to 

October, the proportion of lightning fires changed 

from an average of 20.3 % in the 1980s to 29.1 % in 

the 1990s, and 41.1 % in the 2000s for areas of the 

Swiss Alps (Box 5.3). As climate change may lead 

to an increased frequency of hot and dry summers 

(Schär et al., 2004), these results suggest that, in 

the future, lightning-induced fires may assume 

a significant ecological role and have a higher 

economic impact in the Alps. 

Many northern hemisphere tree lines have shifted 

upwards (Rosenzweig et al., 2007), and it is predicted 

that the eventual shift may be several hundred 

metres (Badeck et al., 2004). There is evidence that 

this process has already begun in Scandinavia 

(Kullman, 2002; Box 8.4), the Ural Mountains 

(Shiyatov et al., 2005), West Carpathians (Mindas 

et al., 2000) and the Mediterranean (Peñuelas 

and Boada, 2003; Camarero and Gutiérrez, 2004; 

Jump et al., 2007). In the Alps and Carpathians, 

the potential area of broadleaved tree species is 

expected to increase relative to conifers (Lexer et al., 

2002; Skvarenina, et al., 2004). In the Montseny 

Mountains in Spain, the distributions of Quercus ilex 

and Fagus sylvatica have already shifted towards 

higher elevations during recent decades (Peñuelas 

et al., 2007). The tree line will also rise where 

suitable microsites become available as a result 

of decreased tree mortality and increased growth 

and reproduction where temperature is currently 

limiting. For example, upward movement of tree 

lines dominated by Picea abies and Pinus cembra in 

the Alps has already been observed. However, tree 

lines are sensitive not only to changes in climate 

but also to changes in land use, which may either 

offset or amplify climatic effects (Gehrig-Fasel et al., 

2007). In particular, the level of grazing by both 

wild and domestic herbivores is a significant factor 

(Hofgaard, 1997; Stutzer, 2000). 

Overall, mountain ecosystems are among the 

most threatened in Europe (Schröter et al., 2005). 

This relates not only to direct impacts of changing 

climate, often compounded by changes in land use, 

but also, especially for birds, to indirect impacts. 

For example, changes in the availability of key food 

species may affect the abundance of insectivorous 

birds, such as golden plover (Pluvialis apricaria), as 

suggested by research based on recent temperature 

trends and climate modelling (Pearce-Higgins 

et al., 2009). Their main prey species, tipulids, are 

also important prey for a wide range of species, 

particularly other waders (Buchanan et al., 2006), 

whose populations would be similarly affected. 

For both flora and fauna, high-latitude and -altitude 

countries are likely to have a greater proportion of 

species colonising suitable climatic areas than the 

remaining European countries where more species 

are expected to lose suitable climate space. Therefore 

high-latitude and -altitude countries may gain 

species at the expense of the loss of cold-adapted 

species, some of which are narrow endemics 

(Araújo, 2009). Measures to ensure the long-term 

survival of populations of species affected by climate 

change are considered in Section 9.3. 

The possible combination of these types of 

changes, together with the effect of abandonment 

of traditional alpine pastures, will restrict the 

alpine zone to higher elevations (Guisan and 

Theurillat, 2001; Grace et al., 2002; Dirnböck et al., 

2003; Dullinger et al., 2004), severely threatening 

nival flora (Gottfried et al., 2002). The composition 

and structure of alpine and nival communities are 

very likely to change (Guisan and Theurillat, 2000; 

Walther, 2004). Local plant species losses of up to 

62 % are projected for Mediterranean and Lusitanian 

mountains by the 2080s under the A1 scenario 

(Thuiller et al., 2005). 


Biodiversity 

Box 8.4 Recent changes of vegetation pattern in the mountains of northern Sweden 

Arctic and subarctic alpine landscapes are currently undergoing substantial changes in plant community 

structure, mainly due to increasing temperatures and a prolonged snow-free season. Observed changes 

include advancing tree lines, increasing shrub cover in the treeless tundra, and the decreasing area 

of long-lasting snowbeds (Björk and Molau, 2007; Huntley et al., 2000; Kullman, 2002; Sturm et al., 

2001; Sundqvist et al., 2008). Recent synthesis efforts within the circumpolar ITEX (International Tundra 

Experiment) network emphasise a shift in dominance among species as the main short-term (3–5 years) 

response to experimental warming; species turnover requires longer-term exposure to a shifting climate 

regime (Walker et al., 2006). 

The basic ITEX research programme includes moderate warming of experimental plots employing open-top 

chambers to enhance surface temperature by 1–3 °C (ITEX, 2010). A number of variables (for example, 

plant community structure, cover, growth and phenology) have been assessed at intervals from one to 

several years in experimental plots and their associated non-manipulated controls. Time series of at least 

10 years are now available for vegetation at most of the approximately 20 ITEX sites in the arctic and 

alpine tundra around the world. 

The Swedish ITEX site was established at Latnjajaure Field Station in the mountains of northernmost 

Swedish Lapland (68 ° 21' N, 18° 30' E) in May 1992 (see photo below). The site is in the mid alpine zone 

at 1 000 m and has a floristic composition typical of the low Arctic. From 1992 to 2009, the annual mean 

air temperature increased significantly at about 0.1 °C/year (Björk et al., 2007; Figure 8.6). Studies 

have both been at the landscape level and have focused on typical subarctic–alpine plant communities; 

for example, dry and mesic heaths and meadows, wet sedge communities, tussock tundra, moderate 

snowbeds, and calcareous cliff ecosystems. The results are consistent across ecosystems, with an increase 

in boreal species that tend to gradually out-compete alpine species. Forerunners of an advancing tree line 

are established as ≤ 30-yr-old treelets of mountain birch (Betula tortuosa) at altitudes up to 500 m above 

the current forest line at 700 m (Sundqvist et al., 2008). The highest outpost trees, some < 1.5 m tall and 

anticipated to reach fertility and seed production within a few decades, are on cliff ledges with a favorable 

microclimate, protected against winter grazing by hares. The advancing mountain birch is accompanied by 

other boreal plant species; for example, blueberry (Vaccinium myrtillus), lingonberry (V. vitis-idaea) and 

the grass Dechampsia flexuosa. An increase in shrubby willows (Salix spp.) has been observed in moist 

meadows, tussock tundra, and snowbed meadows. In the tussock tundra dominated by Arctic cottongrass 

(Eriophorum vaginatum), the cover of lingonberry increased by about 100 % in the experimental warming 

and 50 % in the control plots over a 12-year period, concurrent with degrading permafrost (Molau, 

in press). 

These changes in alpine vegetation pattern are in 

good accordance with changes observed in recent 

decades in the southern Scandes in mid‐Sweden 

(Kullman, 2002), especially with regard to the 

altitudinal advance of mountain birch and other 

boreal species. The increase in shrub cover 

(Jägerbrand et al., 2009) parallels observations from 

low-arctic Alaska (cf. Sturm et al., 2001). Few plant 

species have been recorded as new to Latnjajaure 

as a result of climatic warming — apart from the 

sub-alpine willow Salix phylicifolia, established 

as saplings in snowbed meadows during the past 

decade. 

Photo: 

© Ulf Molau 

Latnjajaure Field Station, Sweden. Viewed from 

the south-west. Open-top chambers in a dry-death 

ecosystem and a point-frame for sampling are seen 

in the foreground (photo taken 7 August 2008). 


159

Biodiversity 

Box 8.4 Recent changes of vegetation pattern in the mountains of northern Sweden (cont.) 

Overall, monitoring of vegetation structure, species composition and species-specific performance in 

the ITEX network provides a reliable forecast that may assist in modelling future vegetation in alpine 

landscapes under climate warming, with associated changes in physiognomy and species richness. Aims 

and targets for the programme of work on mountain biodiversity under the UN Convention on Biological 

Diversity (CBD, 2010) are far from being reached as outlined in agreed protocols and in situ conservation of 

specialist alpine plant species may become increasingly hard to achieve. 

Source: 

Ulf Molau (Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Sweden). 

Figure 8.6 

Annual mean air temperature (dots and regression line) and thawing degree days 

(TDD; bar plot) 

Annual mean temperature (°C) 

0.0 

TDD (°C) 

1 600 

– 1.0 

– 2.0 

r 2 =0.584 

p = 0.001 

1 400 

1 200 

1 000 

– 3.0 

800 

– 4.0 

– 5.0 

600 

400 

200 

– 6.0 

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

0 

Note: i.e. temperature sum > 0 °C, from May to September at Latnjajaure, northern Sweden, 1993–2008. 

Source: Modified from Björk et al., 2007. 



9 Protected areas 

The history of protected areas in the mountains 

of Europe goes back many centuries. For forests, 

reasons for protection include spiritual and 

religious motivations; hunting, with areas reserved 

from the medieval period by noblemen and 

royalty; and limiting the risks of natural hazards, 

with the first protective forests being declared 

by communes in Switzerland from the late 

13th century (Price, 1988; Welzholz and Johann, 

2007). Such designations recognised cultural, 

provisioning and regulating ecosystem services 

provided by mountain areas (see Chapter 4). From 

the 19th century, the protection by nation‐states 

of specific areas of land specifically for their 

environmental qualities — often in supposedly 

'pristine' environments that were actually cultural 

landscapes — began with the designation of 

Yellowstone National Park in the USA. Around the 

world, most of the first national parks were created 

in mountain areas; in Europe, the first were in 

Sweden, where six of the eight national parks 

designated in 1909 are in mountain areas. The 

International Union for the Conservation of Nature 

(IUCN) defines a protected area as 'A clearly 

defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated 

and managed, through legal or other effective 

means, to achieve the long-term conservation of 

nature with associated ecosystem services and 

cultural values' (Dudley, 2008). Thus, as noted 

by Stolton and Dudley (2010), most protected 

areas are managed — and increasingly so — to 

provide multiple ecosystem services to diverse 

communities. Protected areas recognised by the 

IUCN now cover 12.9 % of the Earth's land surface 

(IUCN and UNEP-WCMC, 2010). In addition, 

considerable areas of mountain forest ecosystems, 

in Europe and elsewhere, continue to be protected 

specifically to ensure the provision of the 

regulating services they provide, but not explicitly 

for conservation objectives; such areas are not 

considered further in this chapter. 

The most recent evaluation of the coverage of 

protected areas, as defined by the IUCN, in 

mountains showed that, in 2005, the proportion of 

the global mountain area within protected areas 

was 11.4 %, slightly higher than the proportion 

in non-mountain areas (11.0 %) (Kollmair et al., 

2005). In Europe, protected areas in mountains 

have been designated by institutions at levels 

from the sub-national to the global; the latter 

include World Heritage Sites, biosphere reserves, 

and sites designated under the Convention on 

Wetlands (Ramsar Convention). Given the fact 

that mountains often form the boundaries between 

many European countries — including much of the 

European Green Belt, which spans approximately 

13 000 km of the former Iron Curtain from the 

Barents Sea in the north to the Adriatic and 

Black Seas in the south (Terry et al., 2006) — their 

ecosystems have often been protected because of 

their military importance. Even when they are not 

along national frontiers, many mountain areas 

have also been — and continue to be — used for 

military purposes. In both cases, such situations 

present particular opportunities and challenges as 

political conditions change (Boxes 9.1 and 9.2). 

This chapter focuses on protected areas designated 

at the national scale and under the Habitats and 

Birds Directives of the European Union (see 

Chapter 1). At the national level, while the primary 

purpose of many designations is to conserve 

biodiversity at the levels of ecosystems, habitats 

and species, other designations have a greater 

focus on the maintenance of specific landscapes 

or sustainable development. Consequently, these 

nationally designated areas correspond to the 

wide range of the categories recognised by the 

IUCN, from strict nature reserves (category Ia) 

to 'protected areas with sustainable use of 

natural resources' (category VI) (Dudley, 2008). 

As discussed in Section 9.2.2, much of the land 

designated within the Natura 2000 network as 

Special Protection Areas under the Birds Directive 

and as Special Areas of Conservation under the 

Habitats Directive is also designated by national 

authorities. However, these Directives focus on a 

narrower range of ecosystem services: specifically, 

their aim is to assure the long-term survival of 

Europe's most valuable and threatened species and 

habitats, as discussed in Chapter 8. 


161


Box 9.1 Sharr Mountains — towards a transboundary ecological corridor 

The south-western Balkan Peninsula is a hotspot of biodiversity. The high mountains have an outstanding 

richness of diversity of plant species, and are one of the last retreats of large European carnivores, such 

as bear, wolf and lynx. The border areas were strictly guarded for decades; some sections were among the 

most divisive barriers in history. They now represent some of Europe's last sites with intact natural flora 

and fauna. 

The Sharr Mountains extend from southern Kosovo* and the northwestern part of the former Yugoslav 

Republic of Macedonia to northeastern Albania. The mountain system is about 80 km long and 10 to 30 km 

wide. It includes several high peaks (the highest, Titov Vrv, is 2 747 m) and extends to Korab Mountain 

(2 764 m) in the southwest and continues along the border between Albania and the former Yugoslav 

Republic of Macedonia as the Dešat/Deshat mountain range. The European Green Belt (Terry et al., 

2006) is important in this context, as an existing ecological backbone. This was partly achieved through 

the restrictive border controls of the recent past, which were probably stricter than anywhere else along 

the former Iron Curtain. In addition, the mountainous nature of the terrain contributed to biodiversity 

protection. The key to future protection is to protect the existing ecological infrastructure and landscape, 

particularly for large carnivores, and to ensure that mutually agreed management and development plans 

are applied across the now open boundaries. 

The first attempts to protect the natural values in the region started in the former Yugoslav Republic of 

Macedonia (then in Yugoslavia) with the proclamation of Mavrovo National Park in 1949. With an area of 

73 088 ha, it is the country's largest national park, bordering both Albania and Kosovo. The first National 

Park in the Sharr Mountains was established in Kosovo (then in Yugoslavia) in 1986. The Park covers 

approximately 39 000 ha; its boundaries are artificial, both on the border with the former Yugoslav Republic 

of Macedonia and along the boundary between two municipalities within Kosovo. Although Albania has 

made significant progress in recent years in developing a system of protected areas, the establishment of a 

protected area along the border with Kosovo and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia remains at the 

planning and development stage. 

After years of uncoordinated actions related to nature conservation across the borders, prospects for 

the future are promising. The government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has announced 

that a national park protecting the Sharr Mountains and their outstanding biodiversity will be proclaimed 

in 2010, adjacent to Mavrovo National Park. It will cover approximately 48 000 ha and extend the area 

already legally protected in Kosovo. Another important initiative in the former Yugoslav Republic of 

Macedonia aimed at the improved coherence of protected area systems in the transboundary context is the 

establishment of Jablanica National Park. Once proclaimed, in cooperation with Albanian counterparts, the 

Park would constitute another transboundary mountain area in the region in the Jablanica-Mali e Shebenikut 

Mountains. Although the Park in Kosovo is facing numerous problems related to management, financing 

and external pressures on the environment, it is an important base for sustainable development in a region 

affected by poverty, high unemployment and emigration. A process heading towards enlargement of the 

existing Park in the municipality of Dragash/Dragaš has started and is broadly supported by multi‐ethnic 

local communities. In Albania, the Government has prepared a proposal to designate a 'Korabi Protected 

Landscape' covering over 30 000 ha bordering Kosovo and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The 

legal proclamation of the area is foreseen for 2012. 

If all the proposed initiatives related to the establishment of a transboundary 'Sharr/Šar Planina — Korab 

— Deshat/Dešat' protected area in Albania, Kosovo and Macedonia are implemented, the area could 

cover over 250,000 ha and become one of the largest protected areas in Europe. Together with adjacent 

Mavrovo and Jablanica National Parks in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and protected areas 

to be established in the triangle between Montenegro, Albania and Kosovo, enhancing the protection of 

the Dinaric Alps, this region will become the biggest functional, legally protected ecological corridor in the 

European mountains. 

* The name Kosovo has been used to refer to the territory under the United Nations Interim Administration 

Mission in Kosovo, established in 1999 by the UN Security Council resolution 1244. 

Source: 

Tomasz Pezold and Lee Dudley (IUCN Programme Office for South-Eastern Europe, Serbia). 



Box 9.2 Reconstructing a protected area — the restoration of the Hjerkinn firing range in 

Dovre-Sunndalsfjella, Norway 

In 2002, Dovre National Park in southern Norway was expanded into the much larger Dovre-Sunndalsfjella 

National Park. The former park had coexisted with a controversial neighbour for decades. Since the 1920s, 

the Hjerkinn military firing range had been used for extensive military field training. In 1999, the Norwegian 

Parliament decided to establish a new firing range in a less vulnerable area and that military activities should 

be phased out in 2005–2008. The ultimate goal is to restore the areas used for military activities to a nearnatural 

condition and include them in a larger complex of conservation areas in the Dovre Mountains. 

The restoration of the firing range is by far the largest, most complex, and costly ecological restoration 

project initiated in Norway, and probably rivals any restoration project in mountain regions globally. The 

firing range covers 165 km 2 of high alpine terrain. Large technical firing facilities, including around 100 

buildings and up to 90 km of roads, will be removed, and a number of large mass deposits reshaped 

to blend into the terrain. The total cost of the project is not yet known, but is likely to be at least 

EUR100 million. In phase 1, from 2006–2012, at a cost of approximately EUR40 million, most of the 

buildings and firing facilities will be removed. Restorative actions such as replanting and building up seed 

banks are already under way, partly building on a pilot project in 2002 when 2.2 km of road was removed 

and experiments with species and restoration techniques were undertaken. In phase 2, from 2013–2020, 

most of the roads will be removed. The cost of phase 2 has not yet been calculated. 

The project is driven by an ambitious objective. It is intended to lead to increased conservation values, 

and land to be incorporated in the surrounding protected areas will be restored to as 'natural' a condition 

as possible. A project of this size and complexity raises a series of practical and scientific challenges. 

Large volumes of gravel, rocks and soil need to be relocated and fitted to the terrain. Vegetation needs 

to be grown from seed or transplanted from areas adjacent to roads and sites. Often, large plots need to 

be fertilised to establish plant cover within a reasonable time in an otherwise cold and harsh mountain 

environment. There are also challenges associated with human security, scientific approaches and 

public values. The firing range has been bombarded for 80 years and the entire area has to be searched 

and cleared manually of undetonated explosives before restoration. The roads transect a multitude of 

vegetation and terrain types, and different techniques have been used to construct them. Some stretches 

are homogenous, allowing the same restoration techniques for hundreds of metres; along other sections, 

techniques must be adapted to much shorter stretches. Furthermore, alpine environments have nutrientpoor 

soils and low temperatures, so regrowth is very slow. No exotic plants and seeds can be introduced, so 

all restoration must rely on indigenous species and processes. 

Researchers are faced with interesting questions. 'Naturalness' has potentially very different meanings to 

scientists and other stakeholders such as recreational groups, the tourism industry, or local communities. 

Restoration ecologists need to identify what is 

scientifically feasible. How can one realistically, 

within the available budget and time frame, ensure 

a reasonable level of ecological functions; and 

what ecological condition is a relevant comparison? 

These evaluations must also be aligned with public 

perceptions of what constitutes 'naturalness' — a 

largely aesthetic issue. The goal of bringing the 

area back to more or less its 'original' condition also 

entails negotiation between interest groups about 

the baseline condition: does 'naturalness' exclude 

any signs of former human activities in an area 

that is partly seen as a cultural landscape by local 

communities; or can added conservation value be 

interpreted as increasing the future value for tourism 

and hence an argument for keeping some roads for 

better access? Ultimately, this project may contribute 

to an important discussion of what we call restored 

environments and how they are valued. 

Source: 

Bjørn P. Kaltenborn (Norwegian Institute for Nature 

Research, Norway). 

Photo: 

© Bjørn P. Kaltenborn (Norwegian Institute for 

Nature Research, Norway). 

This sign in Dovre-Sunndalsfjella National Park 

contains information about the environmental 

history and attributes of the area as well as 

recreational opportunities. A major objective of the 

restoration is to open up the area for more public 

access and provide new recreational opportunities. 


163


9.1 Natura 2000 sites 

The issues addressed in this section are the relative 

proportions of Natura 2000 sites within and outside 

mountains at the level of massifs and at the national 

level, the habitat types within these sites, changes in 

land‐cover classes in these sites, and overlaps with 

High Nature Value farmland. The analyses are based 

on data held by the EEA. 

9.1.1 Distribution 

To characterise the distribution of Natura 2000 sites 

across the massifs, the following variables were 

analysed: 

• percentage of the area of each massif covered by 

Natura 2000 sites; 

• percentage of the total area covered by Natura 

2000 sites in Europe per massif; 

• percentage of the total area covered by Natura 

2000 sites in mountains per massif. 

The results are shown in Figure 9.1. From this, the 

following conclusions can be derived: 

• of the total area occupied by Natura 2000 sites 

in the EU‐27, 43 % is in mountain areas, a 

considerably greater proportion than the 29 % of 

the EU covered by mountain areas (Table 1.2); 

• Natura 2000 sites cover 14.6 % of the mountain 

area of the EU‐27; 

• the proportion of the area within Natura 2000 

sites in specific massifs varies considerably; 

• the massifs with the highest proportion of their 

area within Natura 2000 sites are the Atlantic 

islands (41 %), the Pyrenees (35 %), the Iberian 

mountains (34 %) and the eastern Mediterranean 

islands (32 %); 

• the massifs with the lowest proportion of 

their area within Natura 2000 sites all include 

considerable proportions of their area within 

non-EU Member States: the Nordic mountains 

(9 %) which include the non-EU Member States 

of Iceland and Norway; Balkans/South-east 

Europe (13 %), which include many non‐EU 

Member States; the French/Swiss middle 

mountains (15 %), which include a considerable 

area in Switzerland; 

• among massifs that are predominantly within 

EU Member States, the massif with the lowest 

Figure 9.1 Distribution of the area of Natura 2000 sites in mountain massifs 

% 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Alps 

Apennines 


Balkan/South-east Europe 

British isles 

Carpathian 

Central European 

middle mountains 1 * 


middle mountains 2 ** 


French/Swiss 

Iberian 


Pyrenees 


Total 

% of the total massif area covered by N2000 sites 

% of the total N2000 area in Europe per massif 

% of the total N2000 area in mountains per massif 

Note: 




proportion of its area in Natura 2000 sites is the 

British Isles (16 %); 

• of all the massifs in the EU‐27 the Iberian 

mountains have the highest proportion of their 

area within Natura 2000 sites. 

Map 9.1 shows the distribution of Natura 2000 sites 

in mountains across Europe, and Table 9.1 shows 

the area of Natura 2000 sites in mountains for each 

EU‐27 Member State and massif. Considering the 

larger massifs and specific countries, the following 

conclusions may be noted with regard to high 

proportions of area within Natura 2000 sites: 

• the massifs with the highest proportion of their 

area within Natura 2000 sites are on the Iberian 

Peninsula: the Iberian mountains (34 %) and 

the Pyrenees (35 %); these are mainly in Spain, 

which has 19 % of its national area within these 

sites — it should also be noted that, overall, 

Spain has the third highest proportion of its 

national area in Natura 2000 sites (26 %); 

• Slovenia has the largest proportion (29 %) 

of its mountain area within Natura 2000 

sites, with slightly more in the Alps than the 

Balkans/South-east Europe massif; overall, 

it should also be noted that Slovenia has the 

highest proportion of its national area in 

Natura 2000 sites (36 %); 

• Slovakia has the second highest proportion 

(23 %) of its mountain area within Natura 

2000 sites; again, this is a country with a high 

proportion of its national area in Natura 2000 

sites (29 %); 

• Bulgaria also has a high proportion (19 %) of its 

mountain area within Natura 2000 sites; this is 

another country with a high proportion of its 

national area in Natura 2000 sites (29 %). 

Thus, for all four countries, a high area of 

Natura 2000 sites within mountains is closely linked 

to the fact that these countries have a significant 

proportion of their national area within Natura 2000 

sites. 

Map 9.1 

Distribution of Natura 2000 sites in mountains across Europe 

-30° 

-20° 

-10° 

0° 

10° 

20° 

30° 

40° 

50° 

60° 

70° 

Distribution of Natura 

2000 sites in mountains 

across Europe 

Natura 2000 sites 

60° 


Alps 

Apennines 


50° 

Balkans/ 

South-east Europe 

British Isles 

Carpathians 

50° 



1 * 



2 ** 

40° 

Eastern 

Mediterranean 

islands 

40° 


mountains 



Pyrenees 

-20° 

30° 

Canary Is. 

30° 

Azores Is. 

-30° 

40° 

30° 

Turkey 

Western 

Mediterranean 

islands 

0° 

Madeira Is. 

10° 

20° 

0 500 30° 1000 1500 km 

Note: 



165


Table 9.1 

Area of Natura 2000 (N2000) sites within mountains for each EU‐27 Member State 

and massif (km 2 ) 

Area Natura 

2000 mountain 

(% of country 

area) 

Western 

Mediterranean 

islands 

Pyrenees 

Nordic 

mountains 

Iberian 

mountains 

French/ 

Swiss middle 

mountains 

Eastern 

Mediterranean 

islands 

Central 

European middle 


Central 

European middle 

mountains 1 * 

Carpathian 

mountains 

British Isles 

Balkans/Southeast 

Europe 


Apennines 

Alps 

Area of Natura 

2000 

(% of the 

country area) 

Austria 12 307 (15 %) 8 497 9 529 (11 %) 

Belgium 3 900 (13 %) 286 19 305 (1 %) 

Bulgaria 31 927 (29 %) 21 254 21 254 (19 %) 

Cyprus 1 003 (11 %) 950 950 (10 %) 

Czech 

10 532 (13 %) 1 647 5 827 7 474 (9 %) 

Republic 

Denmark 3 863 (9 %) 0 (0 %) 

Estonia 7 921 (17 %) 0 (0 %) 

Finland 48 791 (14 %) 4 285 4 285 (1 %) 

France 68 170 (12 %) 9 723 11 12 492 6 512 1 138 29 876 (5 %) 

Germany 48 882 (14 %) 2 107 8 522 1 637 0.2 12 266 (3 %) 

Greece 25 056 (19 %) 16 062 4 538 20 600 (16 %) 

Hungary 19 916 (21 %) 90 192 3 161 3 443 (4 %) 

Ireland 4 484 (6 %) 1 861 1 861 (3 %) 

Italy 57 337 (19 %) 14 920 27 890 67 3 387 46 264 (15 %) 

Latvia 7 135 (11 %) 0 (0 %) 

Lithuania 7 373 (11 %) 0 (0 %) 

Luxembourg 456 (18 %) 49 49 (2 %) 

Malta 38 (12 %) 16 16 (5 %) 

Netherlands 5 785 (15 %) 0 (0 %) 

Poland 51 703 (17 %) 4 931 1 488 6 419 (2 %) 

Portugal 18 861 (20 %) 534 8 275 8 809 (10 %) 

Romania 30 903 (13 %) 1 053 19 155 20 208 (8 %) 

Slovakia 14 116 (29 %) 11 162 11 162 (23 %) 

Slovenia 7 203 (36 %) 2 605 3 343 5 948 (29 %) 

Spain 133 662 (26 %) 2 780 81 571 12 939 455 97 745 (19 %) 

Sweden 56 406 (13 %) 32 425 32 425 (7 %) 

United 

17 013 (7 %) 9 338 2 9 340 (4 %) 

Kingdom 

4 996 

(21 %) 

19 451 

(35 %) 

36 710 

(9 %) 

89 848 

(34 %) 

12 511 

(15 %) 

5 488 

(32 %) 

9 984 

(22 %) 

8 868 

(23 %) 

40 056 

(25 %) 

11 199 

(16 %) 

41 971 

(13 %) 

3 314 

(41 %) 

27 890 

(25 %) 

Total 37 942 

(20 %) 

Note: 


The last row gives the surface area and percentage for each massif. The last column gives the surface area and percentage 

for each EU‐27 Member State. Empty cells mean 0 km 2 . 



In terms of proportion of national mountain area 

within Natura 2000 sites, the next highest ranking 

countries are Greece (16 %) and Italy (15 %); these 

proportions are similar to the national proportion 

(19 %) of their territory in Natura 2000 sites. 

9.1.2 Relative area of Natura 2000 sites within and 


In order to assess the representation of Natura 

2000 sites inside mountain massifs, Figure 9.2 

compares the percentage of sites located inside 

and outside mountains for each country, as well 

Figure 9.2 National percentage of area 

covered by Natura 2000 sites 

inside and outside mountains by 

country, and of area covered by 

mountains 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 


Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 


% 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Percentage of the country covered by mountains 

Percentage of the Natura 2000 sites of the country 

located inside mountains 

Percentage of the Natura 2000 sites of the country 

located outside mountains 

as the proportion of the national area covered by 

mountains (Table 1.2). 

From Figure 9.2, it is clear that the proportion of 

the total area of Natura 2000 sites in mountains is 

very high in a number of countries: Cyprus (95 %), 

Slovenia (83 %), Greece (82 %), Italy (81 %), Slovakia 

(79 %), Austria (78 %), Spain (73 %) and Czech 

Republic (71 %). Only five countries have less than 

20 % of the total area of Natura 2000 in mountains: 

Belgium (8 %), Finland (9 %), Luxembourg (11 %), 

Poland (12 %) and Hungary (17 %). For the majority 

of the first group (apart from Cyprus), mountains 

cover at least half of their national area, from 54 % 

in Spain to 74 % in Austria. Conversely, for all of 

the second group, mountains cover less than 10 % 

of their national area. To provide a further basis 

for comparison, a ratio relating the percentage 

of the national area covered by mountains to the 

percentage of the area of Natura 2000 sites located 

inside mountains was computed. Countries with a 

ratio < 1.5 (i.e. the percentage of Natura 2000 sites 

located inside mountains is less than 50 % larger than 

the percentage of mountain coverage) were regarded 

as having a good proportion of Natura 2000 sites in 

mountainous areas. These countries were Austria, 

Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, 

Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain. Most of these countries 

are those that have mountains covering at least half 

their national area, with the exception of Luxembourg 

(8 %), Portugal (38 %) and Bulgaria (49 %). Countries 

with a ratio > 1.5 (i.e. the percentage of Natura 2000 

sites located inside mountains is more than 50 % 

larger than the percentage of mountain coverage) 

were regarded as having an over-representation 

of Natura 2000 sites in mountainous areas. These 

countries were Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, 

Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Malta, 

Poland, Romania, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 

In none of these countries do mountains cover more 

than half of their area; the highest proportions are 

in Cyprus (46 %), Romania (38 %), and the Czech 

Republic (33 %). Finally, in every country with 

mountains, the proportion of the area within Natura 

2000 sites was greater than the proportion of the 

area covered by mountains; the smallest ratios were 

1.05 (Austria) and 1.14 (Greece). Overall, these 

figures show the relative importance of the habitat 

types of mountain areas across the European Union 

with regard to the conservation of biodiversity, 

whatever the proportion of the national area within 

mountains. 

9.1.3 Habitat types 

To gain a deeper understanding of the habitat 

types represented within Natura 2000 sites across 


167


the mountains of the EU, an analysis was made of 

the relative area of Annex I habitat types within 

each Natura 2000 site. The available data only 

record the presence and area of a particular habitat 

within each site, but not the geographical location 

of the area of the habitat; thus it was not possible 

to make a comparative spatial analysis of the area 

covered by each habitat type across Natura 2000 

sites. Table 9.2 shows the total number of Annex I 

habitats and the total number of different habitat 

types for each massif. The list of habitat types 

is available in Appendix 2. This is therefore an 

analysis of the frequency with which a habitat 

type occurs, not its relative area. From this 

information, it is possible to gain some insight into 

the distribution of each habitat type. The last row 

of Table 9.2 shows the number of Annex I habitat 

types for each massif. This information shows 

that the Iberian mountains, Balkans/South-east 

Europe, Alps, Apennines, Pyrenees and western 

Mediterranean islands massifs contain almost 

every habitat type (27–30 out of 33 types), while 

the central European, Nordic, Atlantic islands and 

Carpathian massifs have the fewest habitat types 

(16–19 types). 

Figures 9.3 to 9.9 illustrate the relative distribution 

of a number of habitat types across the massifs. 

Eight habitat types are found in every massif. Some 

of these are particularly linked to mountains, such 

as the rocky habitats and caves (habitat types 81, 82, 

83) shown in Figure 9.3. These are predominantly 

found in the Alps (21 %), the central European 

middle mountains 1 and 2 (16 %) and the Iberian 

mountains (13 %) and are also the most frequent 

habitat type in the Natura 2000 sites of the Atlantic 

islands. As noted in Chapter 7, forests are the 

predominant land cover in most European massifs, 

and the 'forests of temperate Europe' habitat type 

(91) is also found in all massifs. Figure 9.4 shows 

that this is most frequently found in the Alps (20 %) 

and the central European middle mountains 2 

(18 %). This is the most frequent habitat type in the 

Natura 2000 sites of seven massifs. The two habitat 

types specifically named as 'mountainous' are also 

both forest, but are limited in their distribution. 

'Temperate mountainous coniferous forests' (94) 

are found predominantly in the Alps (54 %), as 

well as in the Carpathians (13 %) and central 

European middle mountains 2 (12 %) (Figure 9.5). 

'Mediterranean and Macaronesian mountainous 

coniferous forests' (95) are more evenly distributed, 

with 30 % in the Iberian mountains and 10–16 % 

in the Alps, Apennines, Atlantic islands, Balkans/ 

South-east Europe, and the Pyrenees (Figure 9.6). 

'Mediterranean deciduous forests' (92) are the most 

frequent habitat type in mountain Natura 2000 sites 

in the Iberian mountains. 'Forests of boreal Europe' 

(90) are only found in the Nordic mountains, where 

they are the most frequent habitat type in Natura 

2000 sites. 

With regard to lower stature habitat types, 

'temperate heath and scrub' (40) is found in all 

massifs, with the highest frequency in the Iberian 

mountains (24 %) and the Alps (18 %) (Figure 9.7). 

This is the most frequent habitat type in the British 

Isles, which have relatively little forested area. The 

high frequency of this habitat type contrasts with 

'thermo‐Mediterranean and pre-steppe brush' (53), 

which is also predominantly found in the Iberian 

mountains (35 %) and the Apennines (31 %), but is 

confined to only eight massifs in the southern part 

of Europe (Figure 9.8). Another frequently occurring 

habitat type is 'semi-natural dry grasslands and 

scrubland facies' (62), which is the most frequent 

type in the Apennines (22 %), and is also found 

particularly in the Alps (16 %), Central European 

middle mountains 1 (14 %) and Iberian mountains 

(14 %) (Figure 9.9). 

9.1.4 Changes in land use 

As noted in Section 8.1.3, one of the principal aims 

of the Habitats Directive is to maintain habitats 

within Natura 2000 sites in favourable conservation 

status. An analysis of specific changes between types 

of land use can therefore be useful in assessing the 

effects of designation and the impacts on this status. 

Tables 9.3 and 9.4 show data for 1990 and 2000 for 

four land‐cover classes (see Section 7.2) between 

which changes in land use might have particular 

impacts on conservation status: 

• 1: Artificial surfaces; 

• 2A: Arable land and permanent crops; 

• 2B: Pastures and mosaic farmland; 

• 3A1: Standing forests. 

While these tables show the distribution of the 

different land‐cover groups in all massifs for 1990 

and 2000, it should be noted that not all the area 

of each massif is taken into account because no 

land‐cover data are available for some parts of 

certain massifs. Particularly significant among these 

data gaps are the lack of 1990 and 2000 data for 

Switzerland (Alps, French/Swiss middle mountains), 

the islands of Portugal (Atlantic islands), Iceland 

and Norway (Nordic mountains). In addition, no 

data were available for 1990 for Finland and Sweden 

(Nordic mountains), the United Kingdom (British 

Isles) or for Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 

and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 

(Balkans/South-east Europe). 



Table 9.2 

Total number of Annex I habitat types per massif 

Habitat types 

Alps 

Apennines 


Balkans/ 


British Isles 

Carpathian mountains 




middle mountains2 ** 


islands 


mountains. 



Pyrenees 


islands 

11 13 69 23 38 41 47 3 73 14 54 

12 12 83 70 29 38 46 2 68 1 10 68 

13 4 21 13 26 7 5 2 14 6 69 9 10 

14 1 34 11 23 5 18 136 19 29 

15 2 8 5 7 126 18 12 

16 1 

21 17 10 27 25 33 2 47 4 29 

22 3 28 11 1 18 28 3 43 

23 2 1 4 3 2 

31 320 205 11 60 89 58 178 119 23 94 264 125 73 40 

32 373 232 7 99 22 99 352 179 55 115 248 130 134 15 

40 424 182 94 79 155 143 157 99 9 112 547 98 169 34 

51 85 229 23 25 59 141 27 102 102 96 8 

52 59 132 58 35 15 311 69 59 

53 15 262 113 11 40 295 7 101 

54 3 32 37 80 2 3 30 

61 440 183 11 60 55 159 128 70 60 271 65 103 6 

62 584 797 157 83 264 493 242 37 185 509 32 182 57 

63 8 64 1 3 146 19 

64 606 265 15 89 50 212 445 247 14 155 399 43 143 24 

65 450 103 60 7 253 526 281 138 128 35 104 

71 328 37 9 14 128 106 128 146 111 117 154 51 1 

72 434 129 13 39 80 139 146 61 1 67 148 70 92 14 

73 103 

81 427 169 49 48 113 201 120 25 81 169 52 105 9 

82 536 432 33 145 83 186 306 218 61 140 456 65 180 59 

83 231 100 119 106 26 123 136 69 47 65 139 14 101 40 

90 295 

91 738 355 4 215 134 436 704 373 5 237 381 121 205 13 

92 166 662 21 141 11 72 23 624 155 62 

93 71 433 105 55 71 22 492 143 110 

94 388 5 19 97 31 91 20 3 76 

95 84 129 95 79 2 46 5 234 78 31 

Total 29 29 18 30 20 19 17 16 22 25 30 17 28 27 

Note: 


The last row gives the total number of different Annex I habitat types present in the massif. Empty cells indicate the absence 

of the habitat type in the massif. The habitat type description corresponding to the habitat code can be found in Appendix 2. 


169


Figure 9.3 Distribution of the 'rocky habitats 

and caves' (8 is an aggregation 

of 81, 82 and 83) Annex I Habitat 

across the massifs 

Figure 9.4 Distribution of the 'forests of 

temperate Europe' (91) Annex I 

Habitat across the massifs 

2 % 

7 % 2 % 

21 % 

3 % 

0.3 % 

5 % 

20 % 

10 % 

13 % 

5 % 

12 % 

2 % 

3 % 

7 % 

5 % 

3 % 

11 % 7 % 

Alps 

Apennines 


Balkands/South-east Europe 

British Isles 

Carpathians 







Pyrenees 


6 % 

0.1 % 

10 % 

18 % 

11 % 

Alps 

Apennines 



British Isles 

Carpathians 







Pyrenees 


9 % 

0.1 % 

5 % 

3 % 

Note: 

* = Belgium and Germany; 

** = the Czech Republic, Austria and Germany. 

Note: 



In both 1990 and 2000, the proportion of group 1 

(artificial surfaces) is less than 1 % of the area of 

Natura 2000 sites within mountains in all the massifs 

except for central European mountains 2. Overall, 

this land‐cover group is most frequent in the central 

European middle mountains 1, and in all massifs the 

proportion is significantly less within Natura 2000 

sites than outside them. 

Classes 2A (arable land and permanent crops) 

and 2B (pastures and mosaic farmland) are also 

more frequent outside Natura 2000 sites than 

inside them. The proportions of 2A are particularly 

high in the Apennines, with 10.8 % of the area 

of Natura 2000 sites in both 1990 and 2000 (and 

32.2 % outside, the second highest proportion 

after the Atlantic islands, 35.8 %). Particularly high 

proportions are also found in the Natura 2000 

sites of the central European middle mountains 2 

(7.5 % in 2000) and the Iberian mountains (6.9 % 

in 2000). The lowest proportions are in the Nordic 

mountains, British Isles and Alps, both within and 

outside Natura 2000 sites. 

Class 2B is most frequent in the Natura 2000 sites 

of the French/Swiss middle mountains (France 

only: 22.9 % in 2000), where the highest proportion 

outside Natura 2000 sites (39.1 %) is also found. 

High proportions are also found in the Natura 2000 

sites of the central European middle mountains 1 

and 2 (15.9 % and 17.9 %, respectively, in 2000). 

Again, the lowest proportions in Natura 2000 sites 

are in the Nordic mountains and the British Isles; 



Figure 9.5 Distribution of the 'temperate 

mountainous coniferous forests' 

(94) Annex I Habitat across the 

massifs 

Figure 9.6 Distribution of the 'Mediterranean 

and Macaronesian mountainous 

coniferous forests' (95) Annex I 


0.4 % 

3 % 

10 % 

10 % 

4 % 

11 % 

12 % 

16 % 

4 % 

54 % 

30 % 

12 % 

Note: 

13 % 

3 % 

1 % 

Alps 

Apennines 


Carpathians 





Pyrenees 



1 % 

10 % 

6 % 0 % 

Alps 

Apennines 



Carpathians 




Pyrenees 


Table 9.3 

Distribution of the land‐cover classes within and outside Natura 2000 sites in each 

mountain massif in 1990 (% of total massif area, excluding surface without data) 

Massif Land cover classes 1990 

1 2A 2B 3A1 

Inside 

N2000 

Outside 

N2000 

Inside 

N2000 

Outside 

N2000 

Inside 

N2000 

Outside 

N2000 

Inside 

N2000 

Outside 

N2000 

Alps 0.41 3.38 1.13 4.05 4.93 17.46 40.75 51.03 

Apennines 0.48 2.42 10.84 32.35 8.60 19.03 50.69 33.47 

Atlantic islands 0.18 4.86 3.98 35.79 2.35 7.14 27.84 4.55 

Balkans/South-east Europe 0.62 1.69 3.43 8.01 10.26 21.64 53.52 39.92 

British Isles 0.01 0.25 0.00 0.68 2.52 27.90 3.10 11.62 

Carpathian mountains 0.88 5.24 2.74 12.69 10.14 25.45 74.48 50.49 


mountains 1 * 

0.58 6.27 4.83 15.77 15.75 22.64 75.07 54.10 



1.20 4.79 10.88 25.05 14.61 24.25 61.27 43.39 

Eastern Mediterranean islands 0.18 0.97 4.33 20.83 9.41 21.74 10.35 5.54 

French/Swiss middle mountains 0.67 2.86 3.24 6.01 22.91 39.15 52.40 44.20 

Iberian mountains 0.16 0.79 6.91 22.77 10.23 22.03 32.89 20.01 

Nordic mountains No data No data No data No data No data No data No data No data 

Pyrenees 0.20 1.59 1.95 12.91 4.51 17.45 47.46 40.66 

Western Mediterranean islands 0.26 1.35 3.60 9.63 5.90 17.54 29.43 26.13 

Total 0.45 2.58 4.95 14.47 9.67 22.35 47.17 38.11 

Note: 



171


Figure 9.7 Distribution of the 'temperate 

heath and scrub' (40) Annex I 


4 % 

7 % 1 % 

18 % 

Figure 9.8 Distribution of the 'thermo- 

Mediterranean and pre-steppe 

brush' (53) Annex I Habitat 


12 % 

2 % 

1 % 

24 % 

8 % 

31 % 

4 % 

Alps 

5 % 

0.4 % 

4 % 

Apennines 


7 % 


British Isles 

Carpathians 

6 % 


7 % 






Pyrenees 


3 % 

35 % 

13 % 

5 % 1 % 

Alps 

Apennines 





Pyrenees 


Note: 



Table 9.4 

Distribution of land‐cover classes within and outside Natura 2000 sites in each 

mountain massif in 2000 (% of total massif area, excluding surface without data) 

Massif Land cover classes 2000 

1 2A 2B 3A1 

Inside 

N2000 

Outside 

N2000 

Inside 

N2000 

Outside 

N2000 

Inside 

N2000 

Outside 

N2000 

Inside 

N2000 

Outside 

N2000 

Alps 0.42 3.51 1.13 4.03 4.91 17.35 41.09 51.38 

Apennines 0.50 2.58 10.84 32.21 8.54 18.86 50.91 33.75 

Atlantic islands 0.18 5.37 4.02 35.81 2.35 7.12 27.78 4.54 

Balkans/South-east Europe 0.64 1.51 3.45 6.48 10.26 22.36 53.57 40.44 

British Isles 0.05 0.87 0.03 0.73 3.85 18.60 3.14 13.59 

Carpathian mountains 0.88 5.26 2.62 12.46 10.11 25.54 74.64 50.34 


mountains 1 * 

0.61 6.62 4.62 15.39 15.93 22.69 74.93 53.84 



1.21 4.93 7.53 21.11 17.91 28.01 60.76 43.79 

Eastern Mediterranean islands 0.34 1.68 4.13 20.38 8.14 20.71 21.19 9.64 

French/Swiss middle mountains 0.69 2.95 3.26 6.02 22.92 39.11 52.56 44.13 

Iberian mountains 0.21 1.05 6.93 22.76 10.30 22.20 33.23 19.88 

Nordic mountains 0.02 0.21 0.01 0.32 0.03 0.33 34.53 43.67 

Pyrenees 0.24 1.76 1.94 12.88 4.48 17.30 47.49 39.72 

Western Mediterranean islands 0.31 1.62 3.47 9.17 5.67 16.61 29.25 26.12 

Total 0.42 2.36 4.19 11.91 8.59 21.03 44.89 37.48 

Note: 




Figure 9.9 Distribution of the 'semi-natural 

dry grasslands and scrubland 

facies' (62) Annex I Habitat 


5 % 

1 % 

14 % 

7 % 

14 % 

5 % 2 % 

1 % 

7 % 

16 % 

4 % 

2 % 

Alps 

Apennines 


British Isles 

Carpathians 







Pyrenees 


22 % 

outside 51.4 %); or the British Isles (inside 3.1 %, 

outside 13.6 %) where a large proportion of the 

forests were planted in the 20th century. 

An analysis of changes in land cover between 

1990 and 2000 was done for two countries that 

were covered in both CLC1990 and CLC2000: 

the Czech Republic and Germany (Figures 9.10 

and 9.11). As noted in Section 7.3.1, the changes in 

the Czech Republic from 1990 to 2000 were greater 

than in any other EU Member State and were 

particularly in the category of 'agricultural internal 

land conversion'. The changes inside and outside 

Natura 2000 areas showed similar directions, with 

the largest changes in agricultural land, i.e. a 4 % 

decrease in arable land and permanent crops 

(class 2A) and a 4 % increase in pastures and 

mosaic farmland (class 2B). Overall, changes in 

Germany were much smaller. However, degrees 

of change were markedly different inside and 

outside Natura 2000 sites for artificial surfaces 

(class 1), which decreased in Natura 2000 sites, 

but increased outside them; and for pastures and 

mosaic farmland (class 2B), where the rate of 

increase in Natura 2000 sites was more than twice 

that outside them. A general conclusion is that 

the changes observed in 10 years are quite small, 

and that analysis over a longer time period — as 

represented, for instance for Slovakia's biosphere 

reserves in Box 9.3 — and in more detail (for 

example, Mücher et al., 2006) is needed to assess 

trends and evaluate the effect of policies. 

Note: 



9.1.5 Overlaps between Natura 2000 and High 

Nature Value farmland 

though in the latter the proportion outside Natura 

2000 sites is quite high (18.6 % in 2000). 

As might be expected from the findings on land 

cover (Section 7.2) and habitat types (Section 9.1.3), 

class 3A1 (standing forests) was the dominant 

land‐cover group in mountains, covering 44.9 % 

of the total area of Natura 2000 sites in mountains 

and 37.5 % outside these sites. The highest 

proportions are in the Natura 2000 sites of central 

and south‐eastern Europe, with values over 50 % 

also in sites in the French/Swiss middle mountains 

and the Apennines. However, this group is poorly 

represented in the British Isles (3.1 % in Natura 2000 

sites in 2000), which also has the lowest proportion 

outside these sites after the massifs of the eastern 

Mediterranean islands. While the proportion of this 

land‐cover group is generally higher within Natura 

2000 sites than outside them, this was not true for 

the Nordic mountains (inside 34.5 %, outside 43.7 %) 

which are largely forested; the Alps (inside 41.1 %, 

As noted in Section 7.4.2, High Nature Value (HNV) 

farmland covers 17 % of the area of the mountains 

of the EU‐27 as a whole, and 33 % if the mountains 

of Finland and Sweden, where there is very little 

arable or pasture land, are excluded. It should also 

be noted that the presence of Natura 2000 sites is 

one of the criteria for designating HNV farmland. 

Nevertheless, considering that different policies 

often apply to these two designations, one deriving 

from EU legislation (Natura 2000 sites) and the 

other relating to modes of agricultural production 

through the Rural Development Programme (HNV 

farmland) , a comparison of the areas covered by 

the two designations may be useful to inform policy 

development and implementation (EEA, 2004). The 

assessment of overlaps between Natura 2000 sites 

and HNV farmlands per massif is summarised in 

Table 9.5. As HNV data refer only to EU Member 

States, only the areas covered by these data were 

considered when calculating the percentages shown. 


173


Figure 9.10 Changes in land covers inside and 

outside Natura 2000 sites in the 

Czech Republic from 1990 to 2000 

Figure 9.11 Changes in land covers inside 

and outside Natura 2000 sites in 

Germany from 1990 to 2000 

% 

5.0 

4.0 

3.0 

2.0 

1.0 

0.0 

% 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

– 0.2 

– 1.0 

– 2.0 

– 0.4 

– 0.6 

– 3.0 

– 0.8 

– 4.0 

– 5.0 

Class 1 Class 2A Class 2B Class 3A1 No pressure 

Inside Natura 2000 Outside Natura 2000 

– 1.0 

Class 1 Class 2A Class 2B Class 3A1 No pressure 

Inside Natura 2000 Outside Natura 2000 

Note: 

'No pressure' groups all land‐cover classes except for 

the four shown, as these were judged to have little 

influence on biodiversity. 

Note: 

'No pressure' groups all land‐cover classes except for 

the four shown, as these were judged to have little 

influence on biodiversity. 

For the mountains of the EU‐27 as a whole, the 

proportion of the area covered by HNV farmland 

is greater than that covered by Natura 2000 sites. 

However, at the level of massifs, the difference in 

proportion varies considerably. In three massifs 

(central European middle mountains 1, Carpathians, 

Pyrenees), the area of Natura 2000 sites is greater than 

the area of HNV farmland. In two others (Apennines, 

central European middle mountains 2), it is similar. 

In all others, HNV covers a greater area than Natura 

2000 sites; the greatest difference is in the British Isles. 

In terms of overlap between the two designations, 

although Natura 2000 data were used to produce the 

HNV dataset, so that the two datasets are correlated, 

the proportions of HNV farmland in any massif that 

is also with Natura 2000 sites are quite similar. The 

proportions are highest in the southern massifs of 

the Iberian mountains, the Pyrenees and the eastern 

Mediterranean islands, and lowest in the French/ 

Swiss middle mountains (all in France). 

The same data are presented at country level in 

Figure 9.12. This shows that the countries with the 

highest percentage of HNV farmland overlapped 

by Natura 2000 sites are those with less than 10 % of 

national areas within mountains, for instance Malta, 

Luxembourg and Finland. In a number of other 

countries, such as Slovakia, Portugal, Spain and 

Bulgaria, the proportion is over a third. There are 

only four countries where the proportion of HNV 

overlapped by Natura 2000 sites is greater outside 

mountains than inside them: Belgium, France, 

United Kingdom and Germany, in decreasing order 

of difference. If one considers that designation of 

HNV farmlands within Natura 2000 sites provide a 

greater level of habitat protection — which might be 

expected, because habitats within Natura 2000 sites 

should be maintained in a favourable conservation 

status — a low percentage of overlap may imply 

a potential risk of loss of HNV areas and thus a 

threat for biodiversity. From this point of view, 

HNV farmland in countries with a lower percentage 

of HNV farmland overlapped by Natura 2000 

sites could be at greater risk; such as Cyprus and 

Belgium with a percentage below 10 %. All of these 

findings certainly relate to national differences in the 

designation of both HNV farmland and Natura 2000 

sites, but may be used to inform future policy. 

9.2 Nationally designated areas 

As noted in the introduction to this chapter, all 

European states have designated protected areas — 

with a very wide range of objectives — under their 

own legislation. In some countries, protected areas 



Box 9.3 Land use development and nature conservation problems in Slovak biosphere reserves 

The aim of biosphere reserves (BRs) within UNESCO's Man and Biosphere programme is to reconcile 

biodiversity conservation, economic and social development and local cultural values through the 

sustainable use of landscapes and their resources (UNESCO, 2008). There are four BRs in Slovakia, all in 

mountain areas: Poľana; Tatry and Slovak Karst (both bilateral BRs, with Poland and Hungary respectively); 

and East Carpathians (a trilateral BR with Poland and Ukraine). The Slovak Karst and Tatry BRs extend from 

basin slopes up to karst plateaus (Slovak Karst) or periglacial high mountain landscapes (Tatry). Though 

their natural assets are different, their land-use development has been quite similar. The adjacent basins, 

settled in prehistoric and medieval times, were used mainly for crop production and grazing that strongly 

affected nearby forests. The areas of the Poľana and the East Carpathians BRs were colonised in the late 

16th to 17th centuries, influencing the traditional land use, with smaller villages in narrow valleys with 

numerous forest pastures and subsistence based mainly on sheep and cattle grazing. 

Until the first half of the 20th century, land use in all four BRs was quite stable and similar, based mainly 

on agriculture and forestry. Subsequently, urbanisation, agricultural collectivisation, and the development 

of industry and transport were predominantly in more suitable lowlands or basins where land use 

intensification prevailed. In higher and remote locations, extensification took place (Olah et al., 2006). The 

few exceptions were in areas where land use was affected by new socioeconomic phenomena, such as the 

development of tourism centres in the Tatry BR, and the construction of dams and forced emigration in 

the East Carpathians BR (Map 9.2). The end of the 20th century and the first decade of this century were 

characterised by the rapid acceleration of land-use changes mainly because of socioeconomic changes, but 

also because of more frequent climate events. 

Land use extensification, or even total abandonment, of these agricultural landscapes results from 

unprofitable management and changing social preferences. Most mountain grasslands are secondary 

vegetation formations whose continuity demands a certain amount of subsidiary energy through human 

activities. The economic regression of the 1990s, combined with negative demographic trends — emigration 

to larger towns and the rupture of peasants' links to their land due to 40 years of collectivised property 

— has led to land abandonment and secondary succession. Between 1949 and 2003, two-thirds of the 

grasslands in Poľana BR were overgrown (Gallayová, 2008). This natural process can lead to the loss of 

specialised species whose existence depends on specific management practices, as in the East Carpathians 

(Ružičková et al., 2001). Decreases in biodiversity not only mean that the objectives of Natura 2000 are not 

achieved, but also cause significant loss of cultural landscapes, their scenery and traditional character (Olah 

and Boltižiar, 2009), especially in such extensively used sub-mountain and mountain cultural landscapes 

with HNV farmland. Land use intensification — either more intense management (forest monocultures 

or clearcutting) or urbanisation — also significantly alters or even completely destroys natural assets in 

protected areas. While forestry intensification affects almost all Slovak mountain BRs, the development of 

tourism centres and sport infrastructure mainly affects Tatry BR. 

Relatively new phenomena affecting land use in the mountains of Slovakia are natural disasters: strong 

winds and heavy rain. These have caused wind destruction in forests, resulting in significant economic loss. 

While many consider these disasters to be a serious 

recent problem, analysis of historical maps shows 

that they have occurred several times in the same 

areas (Olah et al., 2009). About 12 500 ha of forests 

were destroyed in Tatry BR after a wind storm in 

2004, and are now a site of conflict between nature 

conservation (leaving part of the area to natural 

afforestation), forestry (fast clearing of the area and 

artificial reforestation), and tourism interests (using 

open space for new tourism infrastructure). 

Source: 

Branislav Olah (EEA). 

Photo: 

© Martin Boltižiar 

Wind destruction area in the Tatry Biosphere 

Reserve, Slovakia. 


175


Box 9.3 Land use development and nature conservation problems in Slovak biosphere reserves 

(cont.) 

Map 9.2 

Vanishing open landscape in the East Carpathians Biosphere Reserve, Slovakia 

Slovak Republic 

1949 

Tatry 

Polana 

Slovak Karst 

East 

Carpathians 

0 90 180 360 Km 

1987 

2003 

0 10 20 Km 

Land use 

Urbanised area 

Agricultural mosaic 

Shrub 

Construction area 

Grassland 

Forest 

Water 



Table 9.5 

Percentage overlap between HNV farmland and Natura 2000 sites in each massif 

Massif 

Coverage HNV 

farmland per massif 

Coverage Natura 

2000 per massif 

Km 2 % Km 2 % 

% of HNV 

farmland 

overlapped by 

Natura 2000 

per massif 

Alps 41 655 24.9 37 997 19.7 21.7 

Apennines 27 556 24.7 27 966 25.0 27.8 

Atlantic islands – – – – – 

Balkans/South-east Europe 56 633 38.5 42 072 13.3 26.8 

British Isles 40 211 56.8 11 249 15.5 22.2 

Carpathians 29 631 21.4 40 123 24.9 20.9 

Central European middle mountains 1 * 4 632 12.2 8 824 23.0 26.7 

Central European middle mountains 2 ** 9 444 20.8 9 928 21.9 23.3 

Eastern Mediterranean islands 9 531 54.9 5 510 31.6 33.2 

French/Swiss middle mountains 24 656 35.4 12 573 15.4 16.7 

Iberian mountains 102 382 39.0 89 872 34.2 38.9 

Nordic mountains 363 0.4 36 706 8.8 18.4 

Pyrenees 16 379 30.0 19 400 35.2 35.6 

Western Mediterranean islands 12 885 53.6 5011 20.8 20.2 

Total (without Nordic mountains) 375 595 34.3 310 525 23.3 26.2 

Note: 


The Nordic mountains are not included in the average value in the last row because the HNV dataset includes only 23 % of 

the area of the massif, and the coverage is close to 0 %. 

are also designated by sub-national authorities. 

The European inventory of these sites is held in 

the national module of the Common Database on 

Designated Areas (CDDA), maintained by the EEA 

and based on data submitted by national authorities 

— which may or may not include data relating to 

sub-national designations. This section presents 

the distribution of the nationally designated areas 

(NDAs) within massifs and countries, and compares 

the relative areas of NDAs both within and outside 

mountain areas in the EU‐27, and also in relation to 

Natura 2000 sites. 

9.2.1 Distribution 

To characterise the distribution of NDAs across the 

massifs, the following variables were analysed: 

• percentage of the area of each massif covered 

by NDAs; 

• percentage of the total area covered by NDAs 

in Europe per massif; 

• percentage of the total area covered by NDAs 

in mountains per massif. 

As the CDDA database does not include data 

for NDAs in the EU Member States of Ireland, 

Luxembourg and Poland, and the non-EU countries 

of Andorra, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the 

former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Moldova 

and Ukraine, these countries are excluded from all 

analyses in this section. 

The results are shown in Figure 9.13. From this, the 

following conclusions can be derived: 

• Across Europe as a whole, 43.5 % 

• of the total area of nationally designated areas 

is within mountain massifs; 

• NDAs occupy 15.1 % of the total mountain area 

of Europe, a greater percentage than the global 

average of 11.4 % (Kollmair et al., 2005); 

• The proportion of the area within NDAs varies 

considerably between massifs; 

• The middle mountains of central Europe 

(1: 74 %; 2: 40 %) have the highest proportions 

of their area in NDAs, far higher than the 

proportion in Natura 2000 sites (23, 22 % 

respectively); 

• Four other massifs also have over a quarter 

of their area in NDAs: French/Swiss middle 

mountains (34 %); Atlantic islands (31 %, much 

lower than the relative area of Natura 2000 sites); 

eastern Mediterranean islands (26 %); British 

Isles (25 %); 

• Only Turkey has less than 10 % of its mountain 

area in NDAs (2.6 %: Box 9.4) ; 

• The Nordic mountains have the highest number 

of nationally designated areas at the European 

scale (10 %), followed by the Alps (5.6 %). 


177


Figure 9.12 Percentage of HNV farmland 

overlapped by Natura 2000 sites 

inside and outside mountains at 

country level, and the mountain 

area of the country 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 


Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 


% 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 

Percentage of the country covered by HNV farmlands 

% of the HNV overlapped by Natura 2000 

inside mountains 

% of the HNV overlapped by Natura 2000 


Map 9.3 shows the distribution of nationally 

designated areas in mountains across Europe for 

all countries for which data are available in the 

CDDA database (and can therefore be compared 

with Figure 9.4), and Tables 9.6 and 9.7 show the 

area of these sites per country and massif (compare 

Table 9.1). The following key conclusions may be 

drawn: 

• the massifs with the highest proportion of 

their area in nationally designated areas are 

the relatively small central European middle 

mountains (1: 74 %; 2: 40 %) and the French/Swiss 

middle mountains (36 %); proportions that are far 

higher than those for Natura 2000 sites in these 

massifs; 

• among the larger mountain massifs, the Alps 

have the largest proportion of their area in 

NDAs (24 %), including Austria's mountain 

area and France's mountain area; the proportion 

in EU Member States (24 %) is higher than for 

Natura 2000 sites (20 %); 

• among the larger mountain massifs, the Nordic 

mountains rank second with respect to area 

within NDAs (20 %), including the mountain 

areas of Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Finland; in 

Island the proportion has recently been increased 

significantly by the designation of Vatnajökull 

National Park (Box 7.4); 

• other large massifs have far less of their area in 

nationally designated areas; third and fourth 

in rank are the Carpathians (15 %, including 

mountain areas in Slovakia and Romania) and 

the Iberian mountains (14 %, including Spain's 

and Portugal's mountain areas); for both of these 

massifs, the proportion of the area within NDAs 

is significantly less than for Natura 2000 sites 

(25 % and 34 %, respectively); 

• considering Europe as a whole, four countries 

account for nearly half of the total mountain 

area within nationally designated areas: France; 

Germany, Norway and Spain; 

• after Finland, the countries with the highest 

proportion of their national mountain area 

in nationally designated areas are Hungary, 

another country with a small mountain area, and 

Lichtenstein, which is entirely mountainous; 

• the countries with the next largest proportions 

of their mountain area in nationally designated 

areas are all countries with a considerable 

mountain area: Spain, Romania, Sweden, France, 

the United Kingdom and Austria). 

9.2.2 Relative area of nationally-designated areas 

within and outside mountains in the EU‐27, 

and in relation to Natura 2000 sites 

In order to assess the representation of NDAs inside 

mountain massifs within the EU‐27, Figure 9.14 

compares the percentage of sites located inside 

and outside mountains for each country, as well 

as the proportion of the national area covered by 

mountains (cf. Table 1.2). Unfortunately, no data 

were available for Ireland or Poland. Figure 9.14 

shows that the proportion of the total area of NDAs 

in mountains is very high in a number of countries: 

Cyprus (93 %), Slovakia (91 %), Austria (89 %), Italy 

(87 %), Bulgaria (84 %), Greece (81 %), Spain (80 %) 

and Slovenia (73 %). These are the same mountainous 

countries with a similarly large proportion of their 



Figure 9.13 Distribution of nationally designated areas in mountain massifs 

% 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Alps 

Apennines 



% of the total massif area 

covered by NDAs 

British Isles 

Carpathians 


mountains 1 * 


islands 



% of the total area of NDAs 

in Europe per massif 



mountains 


Pyrenees 

% of the total area 

of NDAs per massif 

Turkey 


islands 

Total 

Note: 


Map 9.3 

Distribution of nationally designated areas in mountain areas 

-30° 

-20° 

-10° 

0° 

10° 

20° 

30° 

40° 

50° 

60° 

70° 

Distribution of nationally 

designated areas (NDA) 

Nationally designated 

areas 


60° 

Alps 

Apennines 

50° 


Balkans/ 


British Isles 

Carpathians 

50° 




middle mountains 2 ** 

40° 

Eastern 

Mediterranean islands 


mountains 


40° 


Pyrenees 

Turkey 

-20° 

Canary Is. 

Azores Is. 

-30° 

30° 

Western 

Mediterranean islands 

30° 

40° 

30° 

0° 

Madeira Is. 

10° 

20° 

0 500 30° 1000 1500 km 40° 

Note: 


NDAs in the mountains of Andorra, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ireland, Luxembourg, the former Yugoslav Republic of 

Macedonia, Moldova, Poland and Ukraine are not shown as data are unavailable. 


179


Box 9.4 Kaçkar Mountains National Park, Turkey 

Kaçkar Mountains National Park, located in the Caucasus global hotspot (one of the 34 determined by 

Conservation International) was designated in 1994. It is a Key Biodiversity Area and the sixth largest 

national park in Turkey, with an area of 51 550 ha (Eken et al., 2006). The park has high geologic, 

geomorphologic and biodiversity value, and the unique historical, architectural and cultural features 

characteristic of northeastern Turkey. 

Three peaks are higher than 3 000 m, and glaciers still remain. There are 79 glacial lakes larger than 

0.5 ha, nine main glacial valleys with average length of 7 km, cirques and moraines (Kurdoglu, 2002). 

Forest, alpine and subalpine, riverine and lake are the main ecosystems. High mountain forests and 

natural old forests (4 603 ha) are of particular conservation value; this is the only place in Turkey where 

rhododendron species can be observed at 3 000 m. The park hosts 661 species, 72 subspecies and 

23 varieties of plants, of which 54 are endemic and seven are endangered (Anonymous, 2007). The 

national park is rich in fauna, with grey wolf, brown bear, wild boar, red fox, roe deer, mountain goat, deer, 

golden jackal, Caucasian black grouse, Caucasian salamander and rare butterfly species. There are also 

149 invertebrate taxa (six endemic species) and 10 amphibian, 28 reptile, 14 freshwater fish, 69 bird and 

60 mammal species (Anonymous, 2007). 

The park also has unique architectural features, with the best examples of houses, grazing traditions, 

festivals and handicrafts in the region, as well as many old stone bridges, castles, churches, monasteries 

and mosques from different periods and civilisations (Acar et al., 2006). There are more than 1 084 houses 

inside the park, in seven villages, and more than 30 yayla (grazing settlements: see photo below). The 

number of villagers decreased from 712 in 1980 to 384 in 1990, and 286 in 2000; projections suggest a 

decrease to 228 in the next 30 years (Anonymous, 2007). Grazing now has only traditional values rather 

than economic values, as before. In recent decades, as the site has become one of the main tourist 

attractions of northeastern Turkey, the main income source is now tourism. Tourist pressures are high 

during the short summer season, and the number of legal protection statuses within the site creates 

management problems. Other key problems for management and conservation are road construction, 

illegal utilisation of forests and wildlife, environmental pollution, an increased number of concrete buildings 

and lack of sufficient staff and equipment (Kurdoglu et al., 2004). To address these issues, the Kaçkar 

Mountains Management Plan was approved in 2008 and is now being implemented. 

Source: Oguz Kurdoglu (Artvin Coruh University, Faculty of Forestry), Yildiray Lise (United Nations Development Programme 

Turkey Office). 

Photo: 

© Oguz Kurdoglu 

Avusor Yayla, Kaçkar Mountains National Park, Turkey. 



Table 9.6 

Area of nationally designated areas (NDAs) within mountains in EU Member States, 

by massif (km 2 ) 

NDA mountain % of 

country area 


islands 

Turkey 

Pyrenees 




mountains 


islands 

Central middle 



mountains 1 * 

Carpathians 

British Isles 


Europe 


Apennines 

Alps 

NDA % of the 

country area 

Austria 23 16 754 0 0 0 0 0 0 676 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 

Belgium 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Bulgaria 3 0 0 0 2 505 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 

Cyprus 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 718 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 

Czech Republic 16 0 0 0 0 0 1 848 0 6 781 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 

Denmark 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Estonia 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Finland 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 816 0 0 0 1 

France 15 13 739 0 0 0 0 0 166 0 0 25 203 0 0 4 092 0 3 625 9 

Germany 42 2 613 0 0 0 0 0 28 087 10 670 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 

Greece 13 0 0 0 12 547 0 0 0 0 1 733 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 

Hungary 9 85 0 0 94 0 2 003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No 

data 

Ireland No 

data 

Italy 10 6 486 18 149 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 890 8 

Lithuania 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No 

data 

Luxembourg No 

data 

Latvia 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Malta 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 5 

Netherlands 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No 

data 

Poland No 

data 

Portugal 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 268 0 0 0 0 5 

Romania 7 0 0 0 1 360 0 9 410 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 

Spain 9 0 0 2 571 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 271 0 3 681 0 20 7 

Slovakia 23 0 0 0 0 0 10 353 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 

Slovenia 12 1 076 0 0 689 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 

Sweden 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 773 0 0 0 7 

United Kingdom 13 0 0 0 0 18 225 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 

NDA % for each 

24 16 31 12 26 17 74 40 26 36 14 36 14 3 19 

massif: EU‐27 only 

Note: 

The first column gives the percentage of the national area designated within NDAs. The last column gives the percentage 

of the national area of each EU Member State in NDAs in mountain areas. The last row gives the percentage of each massif 

designated within NDAs within EU Member States. 



181


Table 9.7 

Area of nationally designated areas within mountains in countries outside the 

European Union, by massif (km 2 ) 

NDA mountain % of 

country area 


islands 

Turkey 

Pyrenees 




mountains 


islands 




mountains1 * 

Carpathians 

British Isles 


Europe 


Apennines 

Alps 

NDA % of the country 

area 

Albania No data No data 

Andorra No data No data 

Bosnia and Herzegovina No data No data 

Croatia 8.2 3 607 6.4 

No data No data 



Iceland 11.1 8 723 8.0 

Liechtenstein 42.5 68 42.5 

Moldova No data No data 

Serbia and Montenegro 10.3 8 681 8.5 

Norway 14.4 40 110 12.4 

Switzerland 23.4 6 637 95 2 456 22.9 

Turkey 2.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 518 0 2 

Ukraine No data 4 No data 

25 16 32 9 25 15 74 40 26 34 14 20 14 3 19 

Totals for massifs 

including EU‐27 and 

other countries 

Note: 

The first column gives the percentage of the national area designated within NDAs. The last column gives the percentage of 

the national area in NDAs in mountain areas. The last row gives the percentage of each massif designated within NDAs. 




Natura 2000 sites in their mountain area; in most 

cases the area of NDAs is greater, though this 

is not the case for Cyprus, Slovenia and Greece, 

where Natura 2000 sites cover 95 %, 83 % and 

82 %, respectively. Of the countries with data, two 

countries, both with small mountain areas, have less 

than 20 % of the total area of NDAs in mountains: 

Belgium (2 %) and Finland (12 %). As with Natura 

2000 sites, the ratio relating the percentage of 

the national area covered by mountains to the 

percentage of the area of NDAs inside mountains 

was computed. Countries with a ratio < 1.5 (i.e. the 

percentage of NDAs located inside mountains is less 

than 50 % larger than the percentage of mountain 

coverage) were regarded as having good proportion 

of NDAs in mountainous areas. These countries 

were Austria, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Slovenia and 

Spain. Most of these countries are those that have 

mountains covering at least half their national 

area, with the exception of Belgium, which is also 

the only one of these countries with a ratio of < 1.5 

for Natura 2000 sites. All other countries had a 

ratio > 1.5 (i.e. the percentage of Natura 2000 sites 

located inside mountains is more than 50 % larger 

than the percentage of mountain coverage), i.e. an 

over‐representation of NDAs in mountainous 

areas. Of these countries, the only ones in which 

mountains cover a high proportion of the national 

area are Slovakia (60 %), Bulgaria (49 %), Cyprus 

(46 %) and Romania and Portugal (38 %). As for 

Natura 2000 sites, ratios were particularly high 

for Finland (8.3), Hungary (5.2), and Sweden (2.8), 

showing the high relative importance of mountain 

ecosystems for biodiversity conservation at both 

national and European scales in these relatively 

non-mountainous countries. Two further reasons 

may be that the mountain areas of these countries, 

in particular, have been least subject to pressure 

to use land for other purposes such as agriculture; 

and hence have also often become state lands or 

'common property' allowing for easy designation 

in comparison to areas under more intensive land 

use, often under private ownership. Finally, in every 

country with mountains except for Belgium (ratio 

0.44) and Slovenia (0.96), the proportion of area 

within NDAs was greater than proportion covered 

by mountains; as for Natura 2000 sites, ratios were 

also low for Greece (1.13) and Austria (1.21). 

National policies for the management of NDAs 

do not necessarily have the same objectives as 

those defined in the Habitats and Birds Directives; 

although management of any Natura 2000 site 

must comply with this European legislation. It 

is consequently of value to compare the extent 

to which designations under national and 

EU legislation overlap. As can be seen from 

Figure 9.15, the proportions to which NDAs and 

Natura 2000 sites overlap in mountain areas vary 

considerably: 100 % in this graph is the total area 

covered by NDAs, Natura 2000 sites, or both. As 

data are lacking for either NDAs, Natura 2000 

sites, or both for Austria, Ireland, Poland and the 

United Kingdom, these countries are not included. 

The greatest overlap — at least 50 % — is in four 

countries where mountains cover a rather small 

proportion of the national area: Finland (87 %), 

Sweden (72 %), Malta (70 %), and Hungary (56 %). 

These are rather small areas in terms of extent, but 

clearly of significant importance at the European 

Figure 9.14 EU‐27: Percentage of area 

covered by nationally designated 

areas inside and outside 

mountains by country, also 

indicating the percentage of 

the national area covered by 

mountains 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 


Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 


% 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

% of country with mountains % of CDDA in mountains 

% CDDA outside mountains 


183


scale. Overlaps are also high in countries with 

quite a high proportion of mountain area: Slovakia 

(49 %), the Czech Republic (46 %), and Portugal 

(41 %). Three countries have a particularly high 

proportion of their mountain protected area 

within NDAs: Germany (68 %), Cyprus (66 %) 

and France (52 %). This suggests a relatively low 

dependence on EU legislation for the conservation 

of biodiversity. Conversely, seven have a particularly 

high proportion of their mountain protected area 

only within Natura 2000 sites, which suggests a 

high dependence on EU legislation for biodiversity 

conservation: Luxembourg (99 %), Bulgaria (90 %), 

Slovenia (72 %), Spain (63 %), Romania (58 %), 

Portugal (54 %), and Greece (53 %). There are no 

clear patterns in these relationships; undoubtedly 

to some extent they reflect national differences in 

the process of submitting sites for inclusion in the 

Natura 2000 network. 

9.3 Connectivity and adaptation to 

climate change 

Despite the considerable proportion of Europe's 

mountains that is within both nationally 

designated protected areas and the Natura 2000 

network, there is increasing recognition that site 

designation alone may not be adequate to maintain 

viable populations of many mountain species 

and functional habitats, given the interacting 

challenges of land-use change and climate change. 

As noted in Section 8.3, many mountain species 

may be at particular risk because of limited 

habitats and barriers to movement, and most 

protected areas in mountains are projected to 

lose suitable conditions for species rather than 

gain (Araújo, 2009). In addition, the maintenance 

of functioning ecosystems is essential if they 

are to continue to provide ecosystem services. 

Such issues have been recognised through the 

development of a range of bioregional concepts 

such as the ecosystem approach, as adopted by the 

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 2000), 

connectivity conservation (Worboys et al., 2010) 

and, in European Union, fragmentation (EEA, 

2010) and green infrastructure (Sundseth and 

Sylwester, 2009). 

Mountain areas have been a particular focus of 

such approaches both globally (Worboys et al., 

2010; CBD, 2004) and in Europe, with initiatives 

in the Alps (Kohler and Heinrichs, 2009) and to 

adjacent mountain massifs (Box 9.5), the Apennines 

(Romano, 2010), Carpathians (Zingstra et al., 

2009), various mountain ranges in southeast 

Europe, including the Sharr mountains (Box 9.1), 

Figure 9.15 Proportion of national mountain 

protected area within nationally 

designated areas, Natura 2000 

sites, or both 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 


Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Italy 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

% 

0 50 100 

Only NDA 

Both Natura 2000 and NDA 

Only Natura 2000 

mountains in Bulgaria and Romania (BirdLife 

European Forest Task Force, 2009) and the wider 

mountains around the Mediterranean (Regato and 

Salman, 2008). The importance of, and progress 

with, such initiatives was recognised as a result 

of the In-depth Review of the Implementation 

of the CBD Programme of Work on Protected 

Areas (CBD, 2010). Nevertheless, a wide range 

of challenges have been recognised, particularly 



the need for clear frameworks for management 

(Worboys and Lockwood, 2010), effective process 

management involving the very wide range 

of stakeholders (Bennett, 2009) and long‐term 

commitment, including monitoring to assess 

the implementation of such approaches as a 

part of adaptive management (Price, 2008). In 

addition to connectivity initiatives, two other 

types of approach are necessary to promote the 

conservation of species under climate change 

(Araújo, 2009). The first type comprises stationary 

refugia, or range retention areas, where species 

are most likely to survive despite climate changes. 

The second type comprises displaced refugia, 

where species can find suitable habitats after they 

have been displaced from their original location 

by climate change. These are typically at the 

leading edge of species ranges, so that bioclimatic 

envelope models can be used to identify them. 

Both types can be found in some mountain ranges, 

deep valleys, and other areas with steep climate 

gradients where certain types of climate that 

become regionally restricted with climate change 

can persist. Such approaches are key elements 

in adapting to the impacts of climate change on 

biodiversity and ensuring the long-term delivery 

of ecosystem services from Europe's mountains 

but, as noted more generally with regard to climate 

Box 9.5 Cantabrian mountains-Pyrenees-Massif Central-Western Alps Initiative 

The purpose of this conservation initiative is to rebuild the ecological linkages between four major western 

European mountain ranges: the Cantabrian Mountains, the Pyrenees, the Massif Central, and the Alps (Map 

9.4). The maximum length of the Initiative is about 1 300 km; the total area is 161 780 km²; and linkages 

between mountain ranges include 19 000 km². The area includes parts of six countries (Andorra, France, 

Italy, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland), and 24 different administrative units, of which over half have 

full political responsibilities concerning land-use planning, agriculture, forestry and nature conservation 

(Mallarach et al., 2010). 

These mountain ranges have exceptional scenic 

and ecological values. They include little-disturbed 

landscapes, being the last stronghold for flagship 

species such as brown bear (Ursus arctos), chamois 

(Rupicapra rupicapra and R. pyrenaica), ibex 

(Capra ibex), lammergeier (Gypaetus barbatus) and 

capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus). Wildlife is significant 

at both global and regional scales, with numerous 

endemic and relict species. The cultural heritage is 

also rich, including a variety of cultural landscapes, 

with thousands of prehistoric and historic sites, 

some of them World Heritage Sites. Intangible 

cultural heritage is also rich, with nine languages, 

including Basque, Europe's oldest living language. 

Population is concentrated among and around the 

mountain ranges. The economy combines pastoral, 

forest and craft activities with either mass tourism 

related to ski resorts and second homes, or more 

sustainable ecotourism. 

Map 9.4 

Mountain ranges involved in the 

Cantabrian mountains-Pyrenees- 

Alps Initiative 

Within the mountain ranges, threats include: rural depopulation linked to the abandonment of traditional 

agricultural landscapes, expansion of forests and cultural impoverishment; the fact that, despite difficult 

economic viability, large ski resorts have major impacts, and some are expanding; and urban sprawl linked 

to mountain recreation, creating environmental degradation and local population disturbances in a number 

of valleys. Between the mountain ranges, threats include: road and railway networks fragmenting the 

landscape; irrigation infrastructure, intensive agricultural uses, and forestry plantations transforming the 

remaining semi-natural habitats; and artificial areas expanding through urban and industrial development, 

creating new barriers for wildlife. In addition, climate change is having noticeable impacts on some of the 

most fragile species and communities, especially in the highest alpine ecosystems. 


185


Box 9.5 Cantabrian mountains-Pyrenees-Massif Central-Western Alps Initiative (cont.) 

There are also positive trends. Protected areas 

have significantly increased, due to Natura 2000, 

and now cover about 38 % of the Initiative area. 

However, the heterogeneity of legal protection 

categories, weak integration of sectoral policies, 

and insufficient international cooperation undermine 

conservation effectiveness. Forest expansion, 

cropland reduction, and rural depopulation are 

increasing ecological permeability for forest species, 

including large mammals. Ungulate reintroduction, 

restocking, and population growth provide the 

necessary prey for large carnivore recovery, 

which is already taking place, for example the 

spontaneous expansion of wolf and lynx populations 

and the recovery of the Cantabrian brown bear. 

Map 9.5 

Existing and proposed protected 

areas within the Cantabrian 

mountains-Pyrenees-Massif 

Central-Western Alps Initiative 

To identify the geographical scope of the Initiative 

and its ecological viability, a GIS-based analysis 

was undertaken: 1) delimitation of the mountain 

ranges and linkages among them; 2) analysis of 

fragmentation processes and man-made barriers 

both within the mountain ranges and between 

them, identifying critical points; 3) analysis of the 

distribution of the existing protected areas coverage 

(Map 9.5); 4) a SWOT analysis. The Initiative has 

been led by Caixa Catalunya Savings Bank, through 

its Social Work Foundation, under the auspices of 

Existing and proposed protected areas (PA) within the 

Cantabrian Mountains-Pyrenees-Alps Initiative 

Existing PAs Natura 2000 

the Council of Europe, with support from the IUCN, Europarc Federation, Eurosite, European Commission 

DG XI, and Spanish regional and provincial governments. Since 2005, several regional and provincial 

governments have adopted ecological connectivity strategies or consistent regional land-use plans, 

including sound systems of ecological corridors. 

Lessons learned include: the power of 'thinking big', based on bioregional and ecosystem criteria, 

overcoming proposals limited by political and administrative barriers; the capabilities of civil society and 

private organisations to promote and lead international initiatives followed by both public powers and 

private organisations, when key international organisations provide support; the need for a wide multi-scale 

and multi-sectoral approach, aimed towards all sectors that may have an impact on ecological connectivity, 

avoiding a narrow conservation biology focus. The Initiative provides a framework for promoting new and 

stronger cooperation projects at both national and international levels, aimed toward rebuilding a 'green 

infrastructure' of continental significance. 

Source: 

Miquel Rafa and Josep M. Mallarach (Foundation Caixa Catalunya, Spain). 

change and protected areas, they must take a 

long-term view. This needs to include integrated 

management of the wider landscapes including 

protected areas (as for example, in the many 

biosphere reserves in mountains areas), supported 

by better integration across sectors. At the policy 

level, adaptation to climate change may imply 

more flexible planning mechanisms for classifying, 

reclassifying and declassifying protected-area 

networks, and updating the species and habitats 

classified under the Birds and Habitats Directives 

(Araújo, 2009). 


Integrated approaches to understanding mountain regions 

10 Integrated approaches to 

understanding mountain regions 

All of the different demographic, socioeconomic, 

and environmental factors described in the previous 

chapters interact in complex ways to influence 

both human populations and the environments 

on which they depend in various ways. A number 

of typologies have been developed to in order to 

provide a greater understanding of such interactions 

and provide spatial and 'visual' frameworks 

for scientific analysis and communication to 

policy‐makers and local stakeholders. For instance, 

the European Commission (EC, 2004) developed 

a typology of social and economic capital based 

on three sets of criteria: population development, 

population density and access to markets. However, 

this typology did not consider all the mountain 

regions addressed in the present report. Below, 

we present three typologies that do consider the 

majority of these mountains and are based on more 

recent data and analyses, each linked to providing a 

better evidence base for specific EU policies. 

10.1 Mountains and rurality 

The FARO-EU (Foresight Analysis of Rural areas 

Of Europe) project was a three-year (2007–2010) 

specific targeted research project funded through the 

European Commission's 6th Framework Programme 

(FARO-EU, 2009). The project aimed to answer the 

following questions: what are major trends and 

driving forces affecting rural regions; at which 

scales do they operate; which of these processes are 

amenable to change through rural development 

policies and where; and how might rural policies 

to take account of these processes? One of the key 

outcomes of the project was the FARO-EU rural 

typology (Eupen et al., in press), the main role of 

which is to provide a flexible spatial framework that 

helps systemise the heterogeneous European rural 

context and link the different steps of the FARO-EU 

conceptual framework. Recently, the typology has 

been described and compared in an overview of 

five recent European stratifications and typologies 

that illustrate the most up-to-date methods for 

classifying the European environment, including 

their limitations and challenges (Hazeu et al., 2010). 

The resulting framework enables the determination 

of which rural areas and situations are comparable 

and the degree of generalisation that is possible. The 

typology consists of homogenous units (1 km 2 grid) 

and has two dimensions which represent: 

• biogeographical differences (altitude and 

climate) based on the Environmental 

Stratification of Europe (EnS) (Metzger et al., 

2005; Jongman et al., 2006); 

• socio-economic differences (accessibility and 

economic density). 

Accessibility (in time) is chosen because it is 

important to distinguish between 'accessible 

rural' areas and 'remote rural' areas in terms of 

relational space, the definition being in terms of 

accessibility rather than geographical location. The 

economic density dimension is selected to deal with 

major differences in level of economic power and 

population density, which has been used to rank 

countries by their level of development (Gallup 

et al., 1999), which in turn determines the capacity 

to compete or take advantage of new opportunities. 

These two dimensions were addressed in more 

detail with regard to mountain areas in Chapter 3. 

Table 10.1 shows the economic density and 

accessibility thresholds used to classify the 

12 environmental zones (ENZs) into three classes, 

i.e. low, average and high. The statistical analysis 

of combining and clustering the socioeconomic 

dimensions per environmental zone, results in nine 

classes ranging from low to high accessibility and 

economic density (see Figure 10.1), which were 

grouped into three rural types: peri-urban, rural and 

deep rural (see Figure 10.2). 

The distribution of FARO-EU rural classes is 

shown in map form in Map 10.1 and for individual 

countries in Table 10.2, comparing mountain and 

non-mountain areas. 

According to the FARO-EU topology, most of 

Europe's mountain areas are classified as deep rural, 

i.e. they have both a low economic density and a 

low accessibility. The countries with the highest 

proportion of deep rural in their mountains are 


187


Table 10.1 

Economic density and accessibility thresholds per environmental zone (ENZ) 

Environmental zone Economic density (thousand EUR) Accessibility (minutes) 

Low Average High Low Average High 

Atlantic central < 395 395–2 001 > 2 001 > 80 45–80 < 45 

Atlantic north < 234 234–1 450 > 450 > 85 55–85 < 55 

Lusitanian < 175 175–772 > 772 > 90 55–90 < 55 

Mediterranean north < 99 99–630 > 630 > 90 60–90 < 60 

Continental < 98 98–585 > 585 > 95 65–95 < 65 

Mediterranean south < 97 97–536 > 536 > 100 65–100 < 65 

Mediterranean mountains < 68 68–423 > 423 > 95 70–95 < 70 

Alpine south < 53 53–303 > 303 > 100 70–100 < 70 

Nemoral < 47 47–263 > 263 > 100 70–100 < 70 

Boreal < 44 44–170 > 170 > 105 80–105 < 80 

Pannonian < 34 34–157 > 157 > 120 85–120 < 85 

Alpine north < 0.5 0.5–77 > 77 > 115 100–115 < 100 

Figure 10.1 Classifying rural areas: nine 

classes resulting from the 

combination of economic density 

and accessibility within each 

environmental zone 

Figure 10.2 Classification of the nine classes 

into three rural types: periurban, 

rural and deep rural 

Environmental zone 

Environmental zone 


Low Average High 



Rural 

Deep rural 

Deep rural 

Rural 

Rural 

Deep rural 

Peri-urban 

Rural 

Rural 



Economic density (kEuro) 

Source: Eupen et al., in press. 

Source: Eupen et al., in press. 

Economic density (kEuro) 

Finland (100 %), Sweden (98 %), Ireland (94 %), 

Slovakia, the United Kingdom (84 %) and Romania 

(82 %). In all countries with any significant mountain 

area, the proportion of deep rural is greater within 

the mountains than outside, even though this 

may not be apparent from Map 10.1. However, 

some European mountain areas have also higher 

proportions of the other two classes. For example, 

there is a high proportion of rural in the mountains 

of Germany (64 %), Slovenia (60 %), Italy (56 %), 

and Austria (54 %), for the reasons mentioned 

previously. In Switzerland, a considerable 

proportion of the country — particularly the highly 

populated Mittelland, the most accessible mountain 



Map 10.1 

Distribution of FARO-EU rural classes across Europe and massifs 

-30° 

-20° 

-10° 

0° 

10° 

20° 

30° 

40° 

50° 

60° 

-30° 

-20° 

-10° 

0° 

10° 

20° 

30° 

40° 

50° 

60° 

60° 

60° 

60° 

60° 

50° 

50° 

50° 

50° 

40° 

40° 

40° 

40° 

0 500 

0° 

1000 1500 km 

10° 

20° 

30° 

0 500 

0° 

1000 1500 km 

10° 

20° 

30° 

Distribution of FARO-EU (Foresight Analysis of Rural areas Of Europe) rural classes across Europe and mountains 

Peri–urban Rural Deep rural Urban 

area in Europe — is classified as peri-urban (and 

even urban). Peri-urban, and even some urban areas 

are also found along the edge of the Alps, and even 

in inner-Alpine valleys. Thus, 29 % of the mountains 

of Slovenia are peri-urban, 20 % in Germany, 14 % 

in Italy, and 10 % in Austria — particularly in the 

Alps, but also (often with small urban areas) in other 

mountain ranges such as the Apennines of Italy, the 

lower mountains of Germany; and also in the Massif 

Central of France. 

policies covering the whole massif. In addition, 

they show the need for further research to analyse 

the potential functional interactions between these 

spaces. 

In conclusion, the high spatial-resolution FARO-EU 

typology allows the first consistent overview at the 

pan-European level of the great heterogeneity and 

diversity of Europe's mountain areas. It reveals that 

deep-rural regions and wilderness (as described in 

Section 10.3) coexist with dynamic urban areas over 

relatively short distances. This is consistent with the 

conclusion of the European Commission (EC, 2004), 

which showed the great variation in demographic 

and socioeconomic variables. Both studies indicate 

the need to implement different and targeted policy 

instruments to these 'mountainous spaces' within 

the same mountain massif rather than uniform 


189


Table 10.2 Distribution of the FARO-EU classes inside and outside the mountain massifs per 

country 

Country Peri-urban Rural Deep rural 

Inside 

mountains 

Outside 

mountains 

Inside 

mountains 

Outside 

mountains 

Inside 

mountains 

Outside 

mountains 

Austria 10.4 % 44.2 % 53.8 % 40.0 % 34.3 % 11.2 % 

Belgium 11.2 % 33.6 % 60.2 % 43.7 % 27.1 % 9.5 % 

Bulgaria 0.9 % 1.8 % 17.2 % 27.8 % 80.5 % 66.3 % 

Cyprus No data No data No data No data No data No data 

Czech Republic 6.0 % 8.2 % 50.1 % 53.3 % 42.5 % 35.6 % 

Denmark No mountains 7.1 % No mountains 62.3 % No mountains 26.4 % 

Estonia No mountains 1.0 % No mountains 18.7 % No mountains 79.3 % 

Finland 0.0 % 3.1 % 0.1 % 23.4 % 99.9 % 72.6 % 

France 8.0 % 8.8 % 41.1 % 38.3 % 50.0 % 49.7 % 

Germany 20.1 % 26.4 % 63.8 % 56.8 % 13.7 % 11.5 % 

Greece 1.4 % 9.6 % 24.5 % 55.8 % 73.8 % 31.7 % 

Hungary 6.1 % 9.1 % 43.9 % 54.1 % 48.6 % 33.5 % 

Ireland 0.6 % 1.6 % 5.1 % 15.9 % 94.2 % 81.3 % 

Italy 14.4 % 53.0 % 55.8 % 36.7 % 29.0 % 4.8 % 

Latvia No mountains 0.6 % No mountains 20.5 % No mountains 78.2 % 

Lithuania No mountains 1.4 % No mountains 52.2 % No mountains 44.9 % 

Luxembourg 2.8 % 9.1 % 84.3 % 79.7 % 9.2 % 6.2 % 

Malta 26.9 % 32.1 % 61.5 % 28.1 % 7.7 % 9.0 % 

Netherlands No mountains 28.4 % No mountains 57.7 % No mountains 4.6 % 

Poland 9.7 % 3.5 % 40.9 % 48.2 % 48.2 % 46.6 % 

Portugal 3.6 % 8.4 % 21.8 % 26.2 % 74.3 % 63.4 % 

Romania 0.7 % 2.4 % 15.0 % 36.2 % 82.5 % 57.3 % 

Slovakia 0.6 % 7.8 % 14.8 % 48.6 % 83.6 % 38.9 % 

Slovenia 29.4 % 41.2 % 59.9 % 51.1 % 10.1 % 4.5 % 

Spain 3.9 % 10.4 % 27.2 % 38.5 % 68.6 % 49.5 % 

Sweden 0.0 % 4.6 % 1.5 % 27.6 % 98.4 % 66.8 % 

United Kingdom 2.6 % 17.3 % 13.4 % 48.6 % 83.5 % 27.0 % 

10.2 Natural and environmental assets of 


The Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion (EC, 2008) 

has noted the need to coordinate and integrate 

different policy actions for specific territories that 

are functionally defined. One way of doing this 

is to develop 'new geographies' that support the 

identity of such territories through the identification 

of particular assets. One such set is represented 

by natural and environmental assets; described in 

the context of spatial planning by the European 

Commission (EC, 1999) as 'characteristics of 

ecosystems and other natural areas — their relative 

importance, sensitivity, size and rarity … (to) supply 

a basis for the assessment of related functions of 

different natural assets across Europe'. This section 

describes the characterisation of regions according 

to the set of assets listed in Table 10.3. These were 

selected from a wider range of possible assets 

because 1) data were available for all EU‐27 Member 

States; 2) they were not significantly correlated with 

each other. 

All the data sets were re-sampled to 10 x 10 km grid 

cells, and standardised to five classes, as shown in 

Table 10.4, and assumed to represent a gradient of 

assets for each cell. Scores were attributed to each 

class as follows: 

• very low assets: average > – 1.5 standard 

deviations: score = 1 

• low assets: average – 0.5 to – 1.5 standard 


• average assets: average +/– 0.5 standard 


• high assets: average + 0.5 to 1.5 standard 




Table 10.3 Natural and environmental assets used for characterisation 

Dataset Description Source 

Rural typologies Economic density and accessibility FARO-EU project (see above) 

High Nature Value 

Presence of HNV farmlands Paracchini et al. (2008) 

farmlands 

Proximity to natural areas Proximity to natural areas (Natura 2000, CLC 

semi-natural classes, water) 

Air quality 

Inverse distance weighted availability of natural 

areas on an area of 10 km radius, expressed as 

percentage of the theoretical maximum 

PM 10 

emissions 

µg/m 3 for the year 2004 

Annex to Green Paper on Territorial 

Cohesion : European Commission 

(EC, 2008) 

AirBase 4.0 data (EEA, 2010a) 

EEA Fast Track Service 

Precursor on Land 

Monitoring — Degree of soil 

sealing 100 m 

Extrapolation of measured values to surface 

areas 

Percentage of sealed (artificial) area per grid 

cell 

EEA data service (EEA, 2010b) 

• very high assets: average > 1.5 standard 


The input data are classified according to their 

inherent differences, without a subjective rating 

of 'good' or 'bad'. For example, areas in northern 

Scandinavia with a low proportion of farmland also 

score low with regard to HNV farmland, but this 

does not mean that these areas have few natural 

assets. 

Maps 10.2 and 10.3 present the natural and 

environmental assets for the EU‐27, and mountain 

massifs within these countries, respectively. Even 

in Map 10.2 it can be seen that mountain massifs 

generally stand out; but it should also be noted 

that there are significant areas with high levels of 

natural and environmental assets in other parts of 

the EU‐27, including much of Sweden, Finland and 

Estonia. 

Table 10.5 permits a comparison of the relative 

proportions of natural and environmental assets 

across the massifs, though considering only the parts 

within EU Member States. As can be seen in column 2 

(data for class 0), large areas in the Nordic mountains 

(Norway) and the Balkans/South-east Europe are 

not considered and are not discussed further below; 

no results are shown for Turkey. The massifs that 

have very high assets (class 5) over particularly high 

proportions of their area are those of the British 

Isles (59 %), western Mediterranean islands (25 %) 

and Iberian mountains (22 %). Many more massifs 

have high assets (class 4) over particularly high 

proportions of their area: Pyrenees (44 %), Iberian 

mountains (31 %), Alps (29 %), French/Swiss middle 

Table 10.4 Thresholds for the definition of classes of natural and environmental assets 

Class 1 2 3 4 5 

Asset level Very low Low Average High Very high 

Score 1 3 6 10 15 

Rural typologies Urban Peri-urban – Rural Deep rural 

High Nature Value 

0 0–25 25–50 50–75 75–100 

farmland (%) 

Proximity to 

0–4 4–34 34–65 65–95 95–100 

natural areas (%) 

Air quality (PM 10 

> 56 50–64 30–49 20–29 0–19 

emissions, µg/m 3 ) 

Degree of soil 

sealing (%) 

51–100 37–51 23–37 9–23 0–9 


191


Map 10.2 

Natural and environmental assets for the EU‐27 

-30° 

-20° 

-10° 

0° 

10° 

20° 

30° 

40° 

50° 

60° 

Natural and environmental 

assets for the EU-27 

60° 

60° 

Class 1 

Class 2 

Class 3 

Class 4 

Class 5 

Environmental assets 

Outside data 

coverage 

50° 

50° 

40° 

40° 

0 500 

0° 

1000 1500 km 

10° 

20° 

30° 

mountains (only France: 28 %) and Carpathians 

(21 %). The dominant class for most massifs, however, 

is that of average assets (class 3), which covers 

more than a third of the area of five massifs: central 

European middle mountains 2 (60 %), Carpathians 

(57 %), Apennines (54 %), central European middle 

mountains 1 (51 %), French/Swiss middle mountains 

(France only: 42 %). In the class of low assets (class 2), 

particularly high proportions are only found in the 

central European middle mountains (1: 44 %, 2: 33 %) 

and the Apennines (31 %). 

In order to provide a greater detail of analysis, 

Figure 10.3 shows the percentages of the national 

area of the EU‐27 Member States with any 

significant mountain area (i.e. excluding Estonia, 

Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and the Netherlands) 

across the five classes, comparing mountain and 

non-mountain areas. A clear conclusion from 

these graphs is that, in every country, the profile 

of natural and environmental assets, as defined 

here, is higher in mountain areas than outside 

mountains. 

10.3 Mountains and wilderness 

In February 2009, the European Parliament passed 

a Resolution — with a majority of 538 votes in 

favour and only 19 votes against — calling for 

increased protection of wilderness areas in Europe. 

Three months later, the Czech Presidency and 

the European Commission hosted a conference in 

Prague organised by the Wild Europe partnership 

on 'Wilderness and Large Natural Habitat Areas 

in Europe'. Over 240 delegates helped draft an 

agreement to further promote a coordinated 

strategy to protect and restore Europe's wilderness 



Map 10.3 

Natural and environmental assets for mountain areas of the EU‐27 

-30° 

-20° 

-10° 

0° 

10° 

20° 

30° 

40° 

50° 

60° 

Natural and environmental 

assets for mountain areas 

of the EU-27 

60° 

60° 

Class 1 

Class 2 

Class 3 

Class 4 

Class 5 

Environmental assets 

Mountains 

Outside data 

coverage 

50° 

50° 

40° 

40° 

0 500 1000 1500 km 

0° 

10° 

20° 

30° 

and wild areas (Coleman and Aykroyd, 2009), see 

also Chapter 1). This section details the current 

status of mapping wilderness across Europe as 

part of this programme and discusses the extent to 

which wilderness is represented within Europe's 

mountain areas. 

10.3.1 Defining wilderness 

Wilderness is just one extreme along a continuum 

of human modification of the natural environment 

from the 'paved to the primeval' (Nash, 1982), 

and may be seen as a relative condition dictated 

by the degree of naturalness and lack of human 

influence and intrusion. It is possible to identify 

and map the wilderness continuum for Europe 

using GIS methods that take different perceptions of 

wilderness and associated definitions into account 

(Carver, 1996; Carver and Fritz, 1999). 

Most definitions of wilderness stress the natural 

state of the environment, the absence of human 

habitation and the lack of other human related 

influences and impacts (for example, Leopold, 

1921; US Congress, 1964; Hendee et al., 1990). The 

definition used at the Prague conference is that wild 

areas 'refer generally to large areas of existing or 

potential natural habitat, recognising the desirability 

of progressing over time through increased stages 

of naturalness — via restoration of native vegetation 

and a moving towards natural rather than built 

infrastructure'. 

There are relatively few areas of Europe where true 

wilderness can be found, at least in the sense of 

the IUCN Classification of Protected Areas (IUCN, 

1994) that refers to large areas that are untouched 

by human activities (Dudley, 2008). Thousands of 

years of human activity, from early settlement and 


193


Table 10.5 Natural and environmental assets of mountain massifs (km 2 ) 

Class 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total (km²) 

Alps 28 636 4 530 22 429 60 284 55 937 21 000 192 816 

Apennines 2 195 3 073 34 374 60 685 9 635 1 700 111 663 

Atlantic islands 8 177 0 0 0 0 0 8 177 

Balkans/South-east Europe 176 368 1 394 10 607 61 597 48 703 17 251 315 919 

British Isles 3 812 506 2 129 10 225 12 719 42 709 72 100 

Carpathians 20 891 1 266 11 510 92 281 34 268 780 160 996 

Central European middle mountains 1 * 7 1 916 16 691 19 440 230 0 38 285 

Central European middle mountains 2 ** 0 686 15 063 27 036 2 348 200 45 332 

Eastern Mediterranean islands 8 225 63 918 3 273 3 404 1 483 17 367 

French/Swiss middle mountains 9 801 1 041 6 146 34 017 22 941 7 763 81 710 

Iberian mountains 2 067 3 135 23 435 94 174 82 726 57 099 262 637 

Nordic mountains 310 494 0 10 691 54 920 50 696 416 811 

Pyrenees 120 583 3 470 17 070 24 001 9 814 55 058 

Western Mediterranean islands 2 611 92 1 223 4 700 9 372 6 046 24 044 

Total 573 403 18 285 148 006 485 474 361 205 216 539 

Note: 


forest clearance for agriculture to the urbanisation 

and industrialisation of the 19th and 20th centuries 

has created a rich and varied, but highly modified 

landscape mosaic across much of the continent. 

However, wilderness conditions can be seen in 

certain high-latitude and high-altitude areas, such 

as parts of Scandinavia and the mountains of central 

and southern Europe. In addition, smaller, more 

fragmented wildland areas can be found over a 

range of intermediate landscapes across the whole 

of Europe where the original natural ecological 

conditions have only been slightly modified by 

grazing, forestry, recreation or isolated human 

developments. 

10.3.2 Mapping the wilderness continuum in Europe 

GIS can be a valuable tool for wilderness 

management (Lesslie, 1993; Carroll and Hinrichsen, 

1993; Ouren et al., 1994), particularly for mapping, 

monitoring and analysis. The Australian Heritage 

Commission (AHC) used GIS to successfully 

identify wilderness areas for their National 

Wilderness Inventory on the basis of four attributes: 

remoteness from settlement, remoteness from 

access, apparent naturalness and biophysical 

naturalness (Lesslie, 1994; Miller, 1995). Minimum 

indicator thresholds were applied to exclude areas 

that did not meet minimum levels of remoteness 

and naturalness, thus making an absolute distinction 

between wilderness and non-wilderness land use. 

A more open-ended approach is adopted here, 

using a less deterministic approach. This is more 

appropriate for Europe because of the need to be 

able to identify both large core wilderness areas and 

the smaller, more fragmented pattern of wildlands 

across the rest of the continent. On this basis, a more 

flexible definition of the wilderness continuum 

based on quantifiable indices and values is required 

in order to effectively map the environmental 

characteristics of an area that pertain to wilderness. 

Thus it is more appropriate to evaluate several 

wilderness criteria or attributes by considering their 

different levels of importance. This is achieved by 

using a multi-criteria evaluation (MCE) approach to 

investigate a large number of geographical locations 

in the light of multiple and often conflicting criteria 

and wilderness values (Janssen and Rietveld, 1990; 

Carver, 1991; Eastman et al., 1993). MCE methods 

allow continuous datasets, describing a range of 

wilderness attributes and conditions, to be combined 

in a way that best utilises the full range of the data 

and allows user weights to be applied as a way of 

describing the relative importance of each input 

layer. In doing so, it is possible to generate maps 

that show the spatial variability and geographical 

patterns in wilderness quality across Europe. 



Figure 10.3 Proportion of area of classes of natural and environmental assets within 

mountains (above) and outside mountains (below) in EU Member States with 

mountains 

class 5 

class 4 

100 

80 

60 

class 2 

class 3 

40 

20 

class 1 

0 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 


Germany 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Ireland 

Italy 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 


class 5 

class 4 

100 

class 3 

80 

60 

class 2 

40 

20 

class 1 

0 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 


Germany 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Ireland 

Italy 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 



195


Wilderness attribute maps are combined using a 

simple weighted linear summation MCE model as 

follows: 

I 

= 

sum 

∑ j( ) 

W w e ij 

j= 

n 

where: 

W sum = position on wilderness continuum 

w j = j th user-specified attribute weight 

e ij = standardised score 

n = number of attributes 

Other, more complex, MCE algorithms exist 

(Carver, 1991), but the weighted linear summation 

model has the advantages of simplicity and 

transparency. By applying different attribute maps 

and weights, different continuum maps can be 

produced reflecting different model and policy 

requirements. 

A reconnaissance-level wilderness map was 

produced for the Prague conference in May 2009. 

Map 10.4 is an updated version of this map using 

more up-to-date information supplied by the EEA, 

and has been developed using established methods 

of combining wilderness attributes as GIS data 

layers based on MCE techniques (Voogd, 1983; 

Carver, 1991; Fritz et al., 2000; Carver et al., 2002). 

The wilderness attributes used to inform the 

production of Map 10.4 were each mapped 

individually using the best available spatial datasets 

and are as follows: 

• Population density: data were derived from the 

Landscan global dataset (ORNL, 2010) see also 

Chapter 3. Population density is used here as an 

indicator of likely population pressure on the 

landscape; 

• Road density: derived from the Digital Chart 

of the World (DCW). This is the United States 

Defense Mapping Agency's (DMA) Operational 

Navigation Chart (ONC) 1:1 000 000 scale paper 

map series (DCW, 1992). While this dataset is 

not the most current, it has the advantage of 

being consistent across all European states. 

Road density was calculated using a 25 km 

radius kernel density filter and is used here as 

an indicator of not just road density, but also 

the likelihood of encountering other human 

structures such as bridges, dams, power lines, 

etc., as these are most often found alongside the 

road network; 

• Rail density: derived from the DCW, calculated 

using a 25 km radius kernel density filter 

and used here, as with road density, as an 

indicator of the density of the transportation 

infrastructure and associated human artefacts; 

• Distance from nearest road and railway line: 

individually derived from the DCW as separate 

attributes. Linear distance to the nearest road 

link and railway line are used as indicators of 

local remoteness and a proxy for likely visual 

influence on the landscape from modern human 

artefacts; 

• Naturalness of land cover: derived by 

reclassifying Corine land cover 2000 data (see 

Chapter 7) into a series of five naturalness 

classes. The 2000 dataset was used because, 

unlike the 2006 dataset, it includes data for all 

countries in Europe. The naturalness of land 

cover is used as an indicator of the likely level 

of human disturbance of natural ecosystem 

function and vegetation patterns; 

• Terrain ruggedness: derived from NASA's 

Shuttle Radar Telemetry Mission (SRTM) digital 

elevation model data at a resolution of 250 m. 

The Topographic Ruggedness Index (TRI) (Riley 

et al., 1999; Evans, 2004) was used to describe the 

difference in elevation between adjacent cells of 

a digital elevation grid. Terrain ruggedness is 

used here as a likely indicator of difficulty of the 

terrain and associated inaccessibility as well as 

an indicator of scenic grandeur. 

10.3.3 Wilderness in Europe's mountain areas 

Numerous permutations of the above wilderness 

attributes are possible and can be combined using 

MCE using any number of weighting schemes 

to reflect particular desired outcomes or policies. 

The map shown in Map 10.4 is based on a simple 

equal‐weighted combination of population density, 

road density, distance from nearest road, naturalness 

of land cover and terrain ruggedness. The top 10 % 

wildest areas are defined on a simple equal area 

percentile basis and highlighted in blue. Comparing 

the resulting map against the distribution of 

mountain massifs (Map 10.5) demonstrates a high 

degree of correlation in the general pattern of the 

core wild areas. This is perhaps unsurprising given 

the inclusion of ruggedness, which is normally 

associated with mountainous landscapes. The 

alternative wilderness continuum map (Map 10.6) 

leaves out ruggedness and therefore may be more 

discriminating in its identification of wilderness 

mountain landscapes, but the underlying pattern of 

core high latitude and high-altitude areas remains, 

together with the more fragmented pattern of 

wildland areas dispersed across the remainder of 

Europe. 

The differences between Maps 10.5 and 10.6 appear 

mainly in the local detail in that the wilderness 



Map 10.4 

Wilderness Quality Index (including terrain ruggedness) for Europe 

-30° 

-20° 

-10° 

0° 

10° 

20° 

30° 

40° 

50° 

60° 

Wilderness Quality Index 

(including terrain 

ruggedness) for Europe 

60° 

High 

60° 

Low 

50° 

50° 

40° 

40° 

0 500 

0° 

1000 1500 km 

10° 

20° 

30° 

continuum map in Map 10.6 (which excludes terrain 

ruggedness criteria) becomes more fragmented. This 

has the result of similarly fragmenting the top 10 % 

wildest areas in this map, making them appear to 

cover a larger area when viewed at this broad scale. 

In addition, the removal of the ruggedness variable 

leads to a number of lowland areas in Finland being 

included among the top 10 % wildest areas. 

As the Wilderness Quality Index is a continuum, 

the most appropriate way to compare the extent 

of wilderness in different massifs and countries 

is with respect to the top 10 % wildest areas 

(referred to below as wilderness). Figure 10.4 

shows wilderness areas relative to total area of 

each massif, and Figure 10.5 shows the wilderness 

areas as a percentage of the area of each massif. 

Clearly, the Nordic mountains contain by far the 

largest proportion (28 %) and area of wilderness of 

all mountain areas in Europe. While the total areas 

of wilderness are smaller in other massifs, there are 

notable proportions in other massifs including the 

Pyrenees (12 %), eastern Mediterranean islands and 

Alps (9 %), and British Isles (8 %). These patterns 

are comparable at the national scale (Figures 10.6 

and 10.7). It is only in the Nordic countries 

that wilderness covers both very large areas of 

mountain land and quite high proportions of 

national mountain area (Norway 62 946 km 2 , 25 % 

of national mountain area; Sweden 30 180 km 2 , 

33 %; Iceland 23 070 km 2 , 34 %); the only other 

country with more than 10 000 km² of wilderness 

is Spain (15 639 km 2 , 6 %). Nevertheless, what 

is also clear from Figures 10.6 and 10.7 is that, 

with the sole exception of Finland, wilderness 

is predominantly in mountain areas, even if the 

proportion of national mountain area that it covers 

is less than 10 % — except for the three previously 

mentioned Nordic countries as well as Hungary 

(18 %), Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina (both 

12 %), Slovenia (11 %), Ireland and Croatia (both 

10 %). 


197


Map 10.5 

Wilderness Quality Index (including terrain ruggedness) for Europe, showing 

massifs and top 10 % wildest areas 

-30° 

-20° 

-10° 

0° 

10° 

20° 

30° 

40° 

50° 

60° 


(including terrain 


60° 

High 

60° 

Low 

Massifs 

Top 10 % wildest 

areas 

50° 

50° 

40° 

40° 

0 500 

0° 

1000 1500 km 

10° 

20° 

30° 



Map 10.6 

Wilderness Quality Index (excluding terrain ruggedness) for Europe, showing 

massifs and top 10 % wildest areas 

-30° 

-20° 

-10° 

0° 

10° 

20° 

30° 

40° 

50° 

60° 


(excluding terrain 


60° 

High 

60° 

Low 

Massifs 

Top 10 % wildest 

areas 

50° 

50° 

40° 

40° 

0 500 

0° 

1000 1500 km 

10° 

20° 

30° 


199


Figure 10.4 Massifs: comparison of area and area of top 10 % wildest areas (wilderness) 

km 2 

450 000 

400 000 

350 000 

300 000 

250 000 

200 000 

150 000 

100 000 

50 000 

0 

Alps 

Appennines 


Massif area 

British Isles 

Carpathians 

Central European middle mountains * 

Wilderness area 

Central European middle mountains ** 





Pyrenees 


Note: 


Figure 10.5 Massifs: area of top 10 % wildest areas (wilderness) as a proportion of total 

massif area 

% 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Alps 

Appennines 


British Isles 

Carpathians 

Central European middle mountains * 

Wilderness area as percentage of massif area 

Central European middle mountains ** 





Pyrenees 


Note: 




Figure 10.6 EU‐27 Member States: wild mountains (top 10 % wildest areas, or wilderness, in 

mountains) as proportion of all wilderness in countries and of national mountain 

area 

% 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 


Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 


Wild mountains as percentage of total wilderness 

Wild mountains as percentage of mountainous area 

Figure 10.7 Non-EU‐27 countries: wild mountains (top 10 % wildest areas, or wilderness, in 

mountains) as proportion of all wilderness in countries and of national mountain 

area 

% 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Albania 

Bosnia 

Croatia 

Iceland 



Norway 

Switzerland 

Yugoslavia 

Wild mountains as percentage of total wilderness 

Wild mountains as percentage of mountainous area 


201

References 

References 

Chapter 1 

Alliance in the Alps, 2010. Website home page, 

www.alpenallianz.org [accessed July 2010]. 

ALPARC, 2010. Alpine Network of Protected Areas 

website home page, www.alparc.org [accessed July 

2010]. 

Alpine Convention, 2005. The multi-annual work 

programme of the Alpine conference: 2005–2010. 

Permanent Secretariat of the Alpine Convention, 

Innsbruck. 

Alpine Convention, 2010. Website home page, 

www.alpconv.org [accessed July 2010]. 

Alpine Space Programme, 2010.Website home page, 

www.alpine-space.eu/ [accessed July, 2010]. 

Backmeroff, C.; Chemini C. and La Spada, P. (eds.), 

1997. European Intergovernmental Consultation on 

Sustainable Mountain Development. Proceedings of the 

Final Trento Session. Provincia Autonoma di Trento, 

Trento. 

Baldock, D.; Beaufoy, G. and Clark, J., 1993. 

Nature conservation and new directions in the 

Common Agricultural Policy. Institute for European 

Environmental Policy, London. 

Beaufoy, G., 2008. HNV farming — explaining 

the concept and interpreting EU and national 

policy commitments. European Forum on Nature 

Conservation and Pastoralism, Stratford-upon-Avon. 

Borsa, M.; Chifelea, C.; Egerer, H.; Gal, Z.; 

Glowacki, W.; Halas, M.; Hopfgartner, V.; Illes, I.; 

Niewiadomski, Z.; Ptacek, P. and Wiederwald, D., 

2009. VASICA: Visions and Strategies in the Carpathian 

Area. Protection and sustainable spatial development 

of the Carpathians in a transnational framework. 

Carpathian Project, Vienna. 

Buttoud, G.; Brun, F.; Gluck, P.; Price, M.F.; 

Schonenburger, W. and Zingari, P.C., 2000. White 

Book 2000 on mountain forests in Europe. European 

Observatory of Mountain Forests, Saint Jean 

d'Arvey. 

Carpathian Framework Convention, 2010. The 

convention on the protection and sustainable development 

of the Carpathians, www.carpathianconvention.org 


Castelein, A.; Dinh, T.T.V.; Mekouar, M.A. and 

Villeneuve, A., 2006. Mountains and the law: Emerging 

trends. Legislative study 75, Rev.1. FAO, Rome. 

Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, 

2001. Report on 25 years' application of Community 

legislation for hill and mountain farming. Document 

A5-0277/2001. European Parliament, Strasbourg. 

Communauté de Travail des Pyrénées, 2010. 

Working Community of the Pyrenees, Atlas 

statistique des Pyrénées, http://atlas.ctp.org/site_fr/ 

index_fr.php?lang=fr in French, Spanish, Catalan 

and Basque[accessed July 2010]. 

Council of Europe, 1995. 3rd European Conference of 

Mountain Regions. Council of Europe, Strasbourg. 

Dax, T., 2008. The role of mountain regions in territorial 

cohesion: a contribution to the discussion on the Green Paper 

on territorial cohesion. Euromontana, Brussels. p. 35. 

Dejeant-Pons, M., 2004. 'L'action du Conseil 

de l'Europe: les principles directeurs pour le 

développement territorial durable du continent 

Européen de la CEMAT et les regions de montagne'. 

In: Treves, T., Pineschi, L. and Fodella, A. (eds), 

Sustainable development of mountain areas: legal 

perspectives beyond Rio and Johannesburg. Giuffre, 

Milan, pp. 249–261. 

Economic and Social Committee, 1988. A Policy for 

Upland Areas. Press, Information and Publications 

Division, European Communities, Brussels. 

Economic and Social Committee, 2002. Opinion of 

the Economic and Social Committee on the future of 

upland areas in the EU. ECO/90. European Parliament, 

Brussels. 

202 


References 

EEA, 1999. Environment in the European Union at the 

turn of the century. European Environment Agency, 

Copenhagen. 

Euromontana, 1995. Montagnes d'Europe: nouvelles 

coopérations pour un développement durable. 

Euromontana, Paris. 

Euromontana, 2010. Energy in mountain regions. a 

strategy. Euromontana, Brussels. 

European Commission, 1979. Council Directive 

79/409/EEC, 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild 

birds. European Commission, Brussels. 

European Commission, 1985. Council Directive 

85/337/EEC, 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the 

effects of certain public and private projects on the 

environment, European Commission, Brussels. 

European Commission, 1992. Council Directive 92/43/ 

EEC, 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural 

habitats and of wild fauna and flora. European 

Commission, Brussels. 

European Commission 1997, Council Directive 97/11/ 

EC, 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC 

on the assessment of the effects of certain public 

and private projects on the environment, European 


European Commission, 2000a. Council Directive 

2000/60/EC, 23 October 2000 on integrated 

river basin management for Europe. European 


European Commission, 2000b. Structural policies 

and European territory: The mountains. Office for 

Official Publications of the European Communities, 

Luxembourg. 

European Commission, 2001a. Council Directive 

2001/42/EC, 27 June 2001: Strategic Environmental 

Assessment. European Commission, Brussels. 

European Commission, 2001b. Unity, solidarity, 

diversity for Europe, its people and its territory. Second 

Report on Economic and Social Cohesion. European 


European Commission, 2004a. A new partnership for 

cohesion. European Commission, Brussels. 

European Commission, 2004b. Mountain areas in 

Europe: Analysis of mountain areas in EU Member 

states, Acceding and other European countries. 

Directorate-General for Regional Policy, European 


European Commission, 2006. Council Document No 

10917/06: Review of the EU Sustainable Development 

Strategy (EU SDS). European Commission, Brussels. 

European Commission, 2007a. Limiting global climate 

change to 2 degrees Celsius: the way ahead for 2020 

and beyond, COM(2007)2, European Commission, 

Brussels. 

European Commission, 2007b. EU forest action plan. 

European Commission, Brussels. 

European Commission, 2007c. Growing regions, 

growing Europe. Fourth Report on Economic and Social 

Cohesion. European Commission, Brussels. 

European Commission, 2008. EU Rural Development 

Policy 2007–2013: fact sheet. Directorate General for 

Agriculture and Rural Development, European 


European Commission, 2009a. Sixth progress report on 

economic and social cohesion. European Commission, 

Brussels, p. 11. 

European Commission, 2009b. Peak performance: 

new insights into mountain farming in the European 

Union. Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural 

Development, European Commission, Brussels. 

European Commission, 2010a. On forest protection 

and information in the EU: preparing forests for climate 

change. European Commission, Brussels. 

European Commission, 2010b. Natural resources come 

to mountain rescue, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_ 

policy/projects/stories/details_new.cfm?pay=FR&the 

=72&sto=1775&lan=7&region=656&obj=ALL&per=2 

&defL=en [accessed July 2010]. 

European Observatory of Mountain Forests, 2000. 

White Book 2000 on Mountain Forest in Europe. 

Agriculture Directorate General, European 


European Parliament, 2001. Draft report on 25 years 

of application of Community legislation for hill and 

mountain farming (2000/2222(INI)). Committee on 

Agriculture and Rural Development, European 

Parliament, Strasbourg. 

European Union, 2008. Consolidated version of the 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

2008/C 115/01. European Union, Brussels. 


203

References 

European Union, 2010. Protection and sustainable 

development of the Carpathians in a transnational 

framework, www.carpathianproject.eu [accessed 

July 2010]. 

Farrell, E.P.; Fuhrer, E.; Ryan, R.; Anderson, F.; 

Huttl, R. and Piussi, P. 2000. European forest 

ecosystems: building the future on the legacy of the 

past. Forest Ecology and Management 132: 5–20. 

Granet-Abisset, A-M., 2004. Alpine memory and 

European construction. Revue de Geographie Alpine/ 

Journal of Alpine Research 92: 49–60. 

Haines-Young, R. and Weber, J-L., 2006. Land 

accounts for Europe 1990–2000: Towards integrated 

land and ecosystem accounting. European 

Environment Agency, Copenhagen. 

IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of 

Nature), 1992. Protected areas of the world: A review of 

national systems, Volume 2: Palearctic. IUCN, Gland 

and Cambridge. 

IUCN (International Union for Conservation 

of Nature) and UNEP-WCMC (United Nations 

Environment Programme — World Conservation 

Monitoring Centre), 2010. The World Database on 

Protected Areas (WDPA): Annual Release. WDPA, 

Cambridge. 

Kapos, V.; Rhind J.; Edwards, M.; Price, M.F. and 

Ravilious C., 2000. Developing a map of the world's 

mountain forests. In: Price, M.F. and Butt, N. (eds.), 

Forests in sustainable mountain development: A report 

for 2000. CAB International, Wallingford: 4–9. 

Körner, C. and Ohsawa, M. (eds.), 2005. Mountain 

systems. In: Hassan, R.; Scholes, R. and Ash, N. 

(eds.), Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current 

State and Trends, Volume 1. Island Press, Washington 

DC: 681–716. 

Mountain Partnership, 2008. Policy and law, 

www.mountainpartnership.org/initiatives/display. 

asp?id_init=3 [accessed July 2010]. 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 

Development, 2006. The new rural paradigm: policies 

and governance. OECD, Paris. 

Pasca, A.; Guitton, M. and Rouby, A., 2009. 

Designation of mountain quality food products in 

Europe: policy recommendations. Euromontana, 

Brussels. 

Price, M.F., 1998. Mountains: globally important 

ecosystems. Unasylva: 49 (195): 3–12. 

Price, M.F., 1999. Cooperation in the European 

mountains 1: The Alps. IUCN, Cambridge and Gland. 

Price, M.F. (ed.), 2000. Mountain regions east and south 

of the Adriatic Sea. SAB-Verlag, Brugg. 

Price, M.F., 2003. Sustainable mountain development 

in Europe. In: Mather, A. and Bryden, J. (eds.) 

Regional Sustainable Development Review: Europe, 

Encyclopedia of Life-Support Systems. EOLSS, Oxford. 

Robinson, R., 2009. Mountain development based on 

cultural and environmental assets: European case studies 

and proposals to guide Carpathian and Balkan pilot 

projects. Euromontana SARD-M report on positive 

externalities 2008–2009. Euromontana, Brussels. 

Roekaerts, M., 2002. The Biogeographical Regions Map 

of Europe: Basic principles of its creation and overview 

of its development. European Environment Agency, 

Copenhagen. 

Rudaz, G., 2005. Porter la voix de la montagne : 

Objectivation et différenciation du territoire par le 

Groupement de la population de montagne du Valais 

romand (1945–2004). Unpublished doctoral thesis, 

University of Geneva. 

Ruffini, F.V; Streifeneder, T. and Eiselt, B. (eds.), 

2006. Implementing an International Convention: 

An Approach for the Delimitation of the Carpathian 

Convention Area. European Academy, Bolzano. 

Sundseth, K., 2009. Natura 2000 in the Alpine Region. 

Office for Official Publications of the European 

Communities, Luxembourg. 

Swiss Federal Office for Spatial Development 

(ARE), 2006. MONTESPON: International Seminar on 

Mountainous Areas in Europe: Synthesis Report. ARE, 

Bern. 

Tappeiner, U.; Borsdorf, A. and Tasser, E. (eds.), 

2008. Alpenatlas/Atlas des Alpes/Atlante delle Alpi/ 

Atlas Alp/Mapping the Alps: Society – Economy – 

Environment. Spektrum, Heidelberg. 

Treves, T., Pineschi, L. and Fodella, A. (eds), 2002. 

Sustainable development of mountain areas. Giuffre, 

Milan. 

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), 

2007. Carpathians Environmental Outlook 2007. UNEP, 

Geneva. 


References 

Zingari, P.C. and Doro, C. (eds), 2006. 

Characterisation of mountain forests in Europe: 

improving the quality of information as a tool for 

communication, participation, negotiation and 

management. European Observatory of Mountain 

Forests, Saint Jean d'Arvey. 

Chapter 2 

Balk, D. and Yetman, G., 2004. The global distribution 

of population: Evaluating the gains in resolution 

refinement. Center for International Earth Science 

Information Network, Columbia University, New 

York. 

European Commission, 2004. Mountain areas in 


States, acceding and other European countries. Report 

2004: 1. Nordregio, Stockholm. 

Grötzbach, E. and Stadel, C., 1997. Mountain peoples 

and cultures. In: Messerli, B. and Ives, J.D. (eds.), 

Mountains of the World: A Global Priority. Parthenon, 

London and New York: 17–38. 

Karanikolas, N.; Lafazani, P.; Myridis, M. and 

Ramnalis, D., 2002. The depopulation of the Northern 

Greece mountainous settlements: Planning an 

“observatory” for the residential network vitiation 

of the Balkans. International Symposium under 

the auspices of the School of Architecture: 

Reconstruction of declining and destroyed areas of 

Europe. University Studio Press, Athens. 

Louloudis, L., 2007. The dynamics of local survival 

in the mountainous and semi mountainous areas. 

In: Efthimiopoulos, E. and Modinos, M. (eds.), 

Mountain space and forests. Ellinika Grammata and 

Inter-scientific Institute for Environmental Research, 

Athens: 101–127. 

Matsouka, P. and Adamakopoulos, T., 2007. Greek 

mountains: Environment – inhabitation - mountain 

tourism. In: Efthimiopoulos, E. and Modinos, M. 

(eds.), Mountain space and forests. Ellinika Grammata 

and Inter-scientific Institute for Environmental 

Research, Athens: 27–43. 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2010. LandScan TM 

Global Population Database. Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. www.ornl.gov/landscan/ 

[Accessed June 2010]. 




Environment. Heidelberg: Spektrum. 

Chapter 3 

Alpine Convention, 2007. Report on the State of the 

Alps. Alpine Signals – Special edition 1: Transport 

and Mobility in the Alps. Permanent Secretariat of 

the Alpine Convention, Innsbruck. 

BAV (Bundesamt für Verkehr) and UVEK 

(Eidgenössisches Departement für Umwelt, 

Verkehr und Kommunikation), 2008. Alpinfo 2008. 

Alpenquerender Güterverkehr auf Strasse und Schiene. 

BAV, Bern. 

Borsdorf, A., 2008. Public sector jobs. In: Tappeiner, 

U., Borsdorf, A. and Tasser, E. (eds.), Alpenatlas/ 

Atlas des Alpes/Atlante delle Alpi/Atlas Alp/Mapping 

the Alps: Society – Economy – Environment. Spektrum, 

Heidelberg: 184-5. 

Brisebarre, A.M. (ed.), 1978 (re-edited 1996). Bergers 

des Cévennes. Histoire et ethnographie du monde pastoral 

et de la transhumance en Cévennes. Berger-Levrault, 

Montpellier. 

CIPRA (Commission Internationale pour la 

Protection des Alpes), 2007. Wir Alpen! Menschen 

gestalten Zukunft. Alpenreport 3. Bonn, Stuttgart, 

Wien. 

Copus, A.K. and Price, M.F. 2002. A Preliminary 

Characterisation of the Mountain Areas of Europe. 

Euromontana, Brussels. 

Durand-Tullou, A., 1995. Evolution de la propriété 

sur le Causse de Blandas depuis la libération. In: 

Bonniol, J.L. and Saussol, A. (eds.), Grands Causses 

– nouveaux enjeux, nouveaux regards. Fédération pour 

la vie et la sauvegarde du pays des Grands Causses. 

Causses and Cévennes, Saint-Georges-de-Luençon: 

391–394. 

ESRI, 2006. ArcGIS 9.2. ESRI, Redlands, CA, US. 

Euromontana, 2010. Energy in mountain regions. a 

strategy. Euromontana, Brussels. 

European Commission, 2004. Mountain areas in 


states, Acceding and other European countries. 

Directorate-General for Regional Policy, European 



205

References 

European Commission, 2007. Growing regions, 

growing Europe. Fourth Report on Economic and Social 

Cohesion. European Commission, Brussels. p. 57. 

Gallup, J.L.; Scach, J.D. and Mellinger, A.D., 

1999. 'Geography and economic development'. 

International Regional Science Review 22, pp. 179–232. 

Pfefferkorn, W.; Egli, H.R. and Massarutto, A., 2005. 

Regional Development and Cultural Landscape Change 

in the Alps. The Challenge of Polarisation. Geographica 

Bernensia, Bern. 

Schürmann, C. and Talaat, A. 2000. Towards a 

European Peripherality Index. Report for General 

Directorate XVI Regional Policy of the European 

Commission. Institute for Spatial planning, 

Dortmund. 




Environment. Spektrum, Heidelberg. 


2007. Carpathians Environmental Outlook 2007. UNEP, 

Geneva. 

World Health Organisation, 2009. Night Noise 

Guidelines for Europe. WHO Publications, Regional 

Office for Europe, Copenhagen. 

Chapter 4 

Als, T.D.; Vila, R.; Kandul, N.P.; Nash, D.R.; Yen, 

S.H.; Hsu, Y.F.; Mignault, A.A.; Boomsma, J.J. and 

Pierce, N.E., 2004. The evolution of alternative 

parasitic life histories in large blue butterflies. Nature 

432: 386–390. 

Anton, C.; Young, F.; Harrison, P.A.; Musche, M.; 

Feld, C.K.; Harrington, R.; Haslett, J.R.; Pataki, G.; 

Rounsevell, M.D.A.; Souso, J.P.; Sykes, M.T.; van den 

Hove, S.; Watt, A. and Settele, J., in press. Ecosystem 

services and biodiversity conservation: knowledge 

gaps and roadmap for future research needs. 

Biodiversity and Conservation. 

Atlas of Switzerland 2 (2004) [1 DVD / 2 CD-ROM]: 

Atlas der Schweiz/Atlas de la Suisse/Atlante della 

Svizzera/Atlas of Switzerland 2. Wabern: Swiss Federal 

Office of Topography. 

Berberich, W.; d´Oleire-Oltmanns, W., 1989. Das 

Raum-Zeit-System des Rotfuches. Forschungsbericht 

17. Nationalpark Berchtesgaden. National Park 

Administration, Berchtesgaden. 

Bernbaum, E., 1997. The spiritual and cultural 

significance of mountains. In: Messerli, B. and Ives, 

J.D. (eds.), Mountains of the world: a global priority. 

Parthenon, London and New York, 39–60. 

Bonn, A.; Rebane, M. and Ried, C., 2009. Ecosystem 

services: a new rationale for conservation of upland 

environments. In: Bonn, C.; Allott, T.; Hubacek, K. 

and Stewart, J. (eds.), Drivers of Environmental Change 

in Uplands. Routledge, New York: 448–474. 

Carpenter, S.R.; Mooney, H.A.; Agard, J.; Capistrano, 

D.; DeFries, R.S.; Díaz, S.; Dietz, T.; Duraiappah, A.K.; 

Oteng-Yeboah, A.; Miguel Pereira, H.; Perrings, C.; 

Reid, W.V.; Sarukhan, J.; Scholes, R.J. and Whyte, A., 

2009. Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the 

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 

America 106: 1305–1312. 

Ciais, P.; Schelhaas, M.J.; Zaehle, S.; Piao, S.L.; 

Cescatti, A.; Liski, J.; Luyssaert, S.; Le-Maire, G.; 

Schulze, E.D.; Bouriaud, O.; Freibauer, A.; Valentini, 

R. and Nabuurs, G.J., 2008. Carbon accumulation in 

European forests. Nature Geoscience 1: 425–429. 

Connelly, S. and Richardson, T., 2009. Effective 

policy-making in the uplands, a case study in the 

Peak District National Park. In: Bonn, C.; Allott, 

T.; Hubacek, K. and Stewart, J. (eds.), Drivers of 

Environmental Change in Uplands. Routledge, New 

York: 376–392. 

Cornes, R. and Sandler, T., 1996. The Theory of 

Externalities, Public Goods, and Club Goods. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge. 

Dobbertin, M. and Rigling, A., 2006. Pine mistletoe 

(Viscum album ssp austriacum) contributes to Scots 

pine (Pinus sylvestris) mortality in the Rhone valley 

of Switzerland. Forest Pathology 36: 309–322. 

Dobbertin, M.; Mayer, P.,; Wohlgemuth, T.; 

Feldmeyer-Christe, E.; Graf, U.; Zimmerman, N.E.; 

Rigling, A., 2004. The decline of Pinus sylvestris L. forests 

in the swiss Rhone Valley - a result of drought stress? 

Tsukuba, Japan. 

EEA, 1995. Europe's environment: the Dobris assessment. 

Environmental Assessment Report. European 

Environmental Agency, Copenhagen. 

Euromontana, 2010. Energy in mountain regions. 

A strategy. Euromontana, Brussels. 


References 

European Communities, 2008. The Economics of 

Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB): An interim report. 

European Communities, Brussels. 

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation), 2008. 

A contribution to the International Initiative for the 

Conservation and Sustainable Use of Pollinators: rapid 

assessment of pollinators´ status. FAO Publishing, 

Rome. 

Forbis, A., 2003. Seedling demography in an alpine 

ecosystem. American Journal of Botany 90: 1197–1206. 

Gimmi, U.; Wolf, A.; Bürgi, M.; Scherstjanoi, M. and 

Bugmann, H., 2008. Quantifying disturbance effects 

on vegetation carbon pools in mountain forests 

based on historical data. Regional Environmental 

Change 9: 121–130. 

Godde, P.M.; Price, M.F. and Zimmermann, F.M. 

(eds.), 2000. Tourism and Development in Mountain 

Regions. CABI Publishing, Oxon. 

Grabherr, G., 2003. Overview: alpine vegetation 

dynamics and climate change – a synthesis of 

long-term studies and observations. In: Nagy, L.; 

Grabherr, G.; Körner, C. and Thompson, D.B.A. 

(eds.), Alpine biodiversity in Europe. Ecological Studies 

No. 167. Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg: 399–409. 

Haines-Young, R. and Potschin, M., 2008. England´s 

Terrestrial ecosystem services and the rationale for an 

ecosystem approach. Full technical report to Defra: 

project code NRO107. 

Hanemann, B., 2000. Cooperation in the European 

mountains 3: the sustainable management of climbing 

areas in Europe. Environmental Research Series 14. 

IUCN, Gland. 

Harmon, D. and Worboys, G.L. (eds.), 2004. 

Managing mountain protected areas: Challenges and 

responses for the 21 st Century. Andromeda Editrice, 

Colledara. 

Harrington, R.; Dawson, T.; Feld, C.; Haslett, J.R.; 

Kluvankova-Oravska, T.; Kontogianni, A.; Luck, 

G.; Rounsevell, M.; Samways, M.; Skourtos, M.; 

Settele, J.; Zobel, M. and Harrison, P.A., in press. 

Terminology used in the RUBICODE approach 

to biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity and 

Conservation. 

Harrison, P.A.; Vandewalle, M.; Sykes, M.T.; Berry, 

P.M.; Bugter, R.; de Bello, F.; Feld, C.K.; Grandin, U.; 

Harrington, R.; Haslett, J.R.; Jongman, R.H.G.; Luck, 

G.W.; da Silva, P.M.; Moora, M.; Settele, J.; Sousa, 

J.P. and Zobel, M., 2010. Identifying and prioritising 

services in European terrestrial and freshwater 

ecosystems. Biodiversity and Conservation doi: 10.1007/ 

s10531-010-9789-x. 

Haslett, J.R.; Berry, P.M.; Jongman, R.H.G.; Bela, G.; 

Samways, M.; Zobel, M.; Scholten, L. and Pataki, G., 

2010. Changing conservation strategies in Europe: 

a framework integrating ecosystem services and 

dynamics. Biodiversity and Conservation doi: 10.1007/ 

s10531-009-9743-y. 

Haslett, J.R., 2007. European Strategy for the 

Conservation of Invertebrates. Nature and 

Environment No. 145. Council of Europe Publishing, 

Strasbourg. 

Haslett, J.R., 1990. Geographic information systems: 

a new approach to habitat definition and the study 

of distributions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 5: 

214–218. 

Hewitt, K., 1997. Risk and disasters in mountain 

lands. In: Messerli, B. and Ives, J.D. (eds.), Mountains 

of the world: a global priority. Parthenon, London and 

New York: 371–408. 

International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, 2004. 

Living with Risk: A global review of disaster reduction 

initiatives. UN/ISDR, Geneva. 


of Nature), 2009. IUCN World Commission on 

Protected Areas. www.iucn.org/about/union/ 

commissions/wcpa/ [Accessed March 2009). 

Jones, M.L.M.; Oxley, E.R.B. and Ashenden, 

T.W., 2002. The influence of nitrogen deposition, 

competition and desiccation on growth and 

regeneration of Racomitrium lanuginosum (Hedw.) 

Brid. Environmental Pollution 120: 371–378. 

Körner, C., 1999. Alpine plant life. Springer, Berlin. 

Körner, C., 2002. Mountain biodiversity, its causes 

and function: an overview. In: Körner, C. and Spehn, 

E. (eds.), Mountain biodiversity: a global assessment. 

Parthenon, London and New York: 3–20. 

Körner, C. and Spehn, E.M. (eds.), 2002. Mountain 

biodiversity: a global assessment. Parthenon, London 

and New York. 

Körner, C.; Ohsawa, M.; Spehn, E.; Berge, E.; 

Bugmann, H.; Groombridge, B.; Hamilton, L.; 

Hofer, T.; Ives, J.; Jodha, N.; Messerli, B.; Pratt, J.; 

Price, M.; Reasoner, M.; Rodgers, A.; Thonell, J. and 


207

References 

Yoshino, M., 2005. Mountain systems. In: Hassan, 

R.; Scholes, R. and Ash, N. (eds.), Ecosystems and 

human well‐being: current state and trends, Volume 

1 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, 

Washington DC: 681–716. 

Kremen, C., 2005. Managing ecosystem services: 

what do we need to know about their ecology? 

Ecology Letters 8: 468–479. 

Lehner, B.; Czisch, G. and Vassolo, S., 2009. 

Europe's hydropower potential today and in the future. 

EuroWasser. www.usf.uni-kassel.de/usf/archiv/ 

dokumente/kwws/5/ ew_8_hydropower_low.pdf 

[Accessed February 2009). 

Lindner, M.; Maroschek, M.; Netherer, S.; Kremer, 

A.; Barbati, A.; Garcia-Gonzalo, J.; Seidl, R.; Delzon, 

S.; Corona, P.; Kolstro, M.; Lexer, M.J. and Marchetti, 

M., 2010. Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, 

and vulnerability of European forest ecosystems. 

Forest Ecology and Management 259: 698–709. 

Luck, G.W.; Harrington, R.; Harrison, P.A.; Kremen, 

C.; Berry, P.M.; Bugter, R.; Dawson, T.P.; de Bello, 

F.; Díaz, S.,; Feld, C.K.; Haslett, J.R.; Hering, D.; 

Kontogianni, A.; Lavorel, S.; Rounsevell, M.; 

Samways, M.J.,; Sandin, L.; Settele, J.; Sykes, M.T.; 

van den Hove, S.; Vandewalle, M. and Zobel, M., 

2009. Quantifying the contribution of organisms to 

the provision of ecosystem services. Bioscience 59: 

223–235. 

Luck, G.W.; Daily, G.C. and Ehrlich, P.R., 2003. 

Population diversity and ecosystem services. Trends 

in Ecology and Evolution 18: 331–336. 

MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2003. 

Ecosystems and human well-being. Island Press, 

Washington DC. 

MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 

2005a. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. 

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, 

Washington DC. 

MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005b. 

Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and 

trends. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island 

Press, Washington DC. 

Messerli, B. and Ives, J.D., 1997. Mountains of the 

world: a global priority. Parthenon, London and New 

York. 

Nabuurs, G.J.; Thürig, E.; Heidema, N.; Armolaitis, 

K.; Biber, P.; Cienciala, E.; Kaufmann, E.; Mäkipää, 

R.; Nilsen, P.; Petritsch, R.; Pristova, T.; Rock, J.; 

Schelhaas, M.J.; Sievanen, R.; Somogyi, Z. and Vallet, 

P., 2008. Hotspots of the European forests carbon 

cycle. Forest Ecology and Management 256: 194–200. 

Nagy, L. and Grabherr, G., 2009. The biology of alpine 

habitats. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 

Nagy, L.; Grabherr, G.; Körner, C. and Thompson, 

D.B.A. (eds.), (2003). Alpine biodiversity in Europe. 

Ecological Studies 167. Springer, Berlin 

Niklaus, P.A. and Körner, C., 2004. Synthesis of a 

six-year study of calcareous grassland responses to 

in situ CO 2 

enrichment. Ecological Monographs 74: 

491–511. 

Özkan, H.; Brandolini, A.; Schäfer-Pregl, R. and 

Salamini, F., 2002. AFLP Analysis of a Collection of 

Tetraploid Wheats Indicates the Origin of Emmer 

and Hard Wheat Domestication in Southeast Turkey. 

Molecular Biology and Evolution 19: 1797–1801. 

Planta Europa and Council of Europe, 2002. 

European Plant Conservation Strategy. Council of 

Europe, Strasbourg 

Price, M.F.; Moss, L.A.G. and Williams, P.W., 1997. 

Tourism and amenity migration. In: Messerli, B. 

and Ives, J.D. (eds.). Mountains of the world: a global 

priority. Parthenon, London and New York: 249–280. 

Quétier, F.; Thébault, A. and Lavorel, S., 2007. 

Linking vegetation and ecosystem response to 

complex past and present land use changes using 

plant traits and a multiple stable state framework. 

Ecological Monographs 77: 33–52. 

Rebetez, M. and Dobbertin, M., 2004. Climate 

change may already threaten Scots pine stands in 

the Swiss Alps. Theoretical and Applied Climatology 79: 

1–9. 

Rebetez, M.; Mayer, H.; Dupont, O.; Schindler, D.; 

Gartner, K.; Kropp, J.P. and Menzel, A., 2006. Heat 

and drought 2003 in Europe: a climate synthesis. 

Annals of Forest Science 63: 569–577. 

Rizzoli, A.; Merler, S.; Furlanello, C. and Genchi, 

C., 2002. Geographical information systems and 

bootstrap aggregation (bagging) of tree-based 

classifiers for lyme disease risk prediction in 

Trentino, Italian Alps. Journal of Medical Entomology 

39: 485–492. 

Robinson, R., 2007. Positive mountain externalities: 

Valorisation through policies and markets. Discussion 


References 

paper for the Third Meeting of the Adelboden 

Group. Richard Robinson Consulting, Fortrose. 

Rounsevell, M.D.A.; Dawson, T.P. and Harrison, 

P.A., in press. A conceptual framework to analyse 

the effects of environmental change on ecosystem 

services. Biodiversity and Conservation doi: 10.1007/ 

s10531-010-9838-5. 

RUBICODE, 2008. Workshop on Habitat Management 

and Conservation Policy - Strategies for a new dynamic 

approach focused on ecosystem service provision. Final 

report. Kranjska Gora, Slovenia, 29–30 April 2008. 

www.rubicode.net/rubicode/RUBICODE_Slovenian_ 

Workshop_Report.pdf [Accessed June 2010]. 

Saracoglu, N. and Gunduz, G., 2009. Wood pellets 

– tomorrow's fuel for Europe. Energy Sources A: 

Recovery, Utilization and Environmental Effects 31: 

1708–1718. 

Schicker, I. and Siebert, P., 2009. Simulation of 

meteorological conditions during a winter smog 

episode in the Inn valley. Meteorology and Atmospheric 

Physics 103: 211–222. 

Schumacher, S. and Bugmann, H., 2006. The 

relative importance of climatic effects, wildfires and 

management for future forest landscape dynamics in 

the Swiss Alps. Global Change Biology 12: 1435–1450. 

Schumacher, S.; Reineking, B.; Sibold, J. and 

Bugmann, H., 2006. Modeling the impact of 

climate and vegetation on fire regimes in mountain 

landscapes. Landscape Ecology 21: 539–554. 

Skourtos, M.; Kontogianni, A. and Harrison, P.A., 

2009. Reviewing the dynamics of ecosystem values 

and preferences. Biodiversity Conservation doi: 

10.1007/s10531-009-9722-3. 

Staub, R.; Buchgraber, U.; Dietrich, R.; Hilbert, A.; 

Kals, R.; Sladek, C.; Steininger, K. and Tappeiner, 

U., 2002. Données sur l'agriculture de montagne. In: 

CIPRA (ed.), 2e Rapport sur l'état des Alpes. CIPRA, 

Schaan: 155–175. 

Stöhr, D., 2009. Is there a future for mountain 

forestry? Alpine space – man and environment 7: 31–38. 

Stolton, S. and Dudley, N. (eds.), 2010. The arguments 

for protected areas. Earthscan, London. 

Stolton, S.; Geier, B. and McNeely, J.A., 2000. The 

Relationship between Nature Conservation, Biodiversity 

and Organic Agriculture. IFOAM, IUCN and WWF, 

Berlin. 

Svajda, J., 2008. Participatory conservation in a 

post‐communist context: the Tatra National Park and 

Biosphere Reserve, Slovakia. International Journal of 

Biodiversity Science and Management 4: 200–208. 

Szabo, E.A.; Lawrence, A.; Iusan, C. and Canney, S., 

2008. Participatory protected area management – a 

case study from Rodna Mountains National Park, 

Rumania. International Journal of Biodiversity Science 

and Management 4: 187–199. 

Thomas, J.A. and Settele, J., 2004. Evolutionary 

biology: butterfly mimics of ants. Nature 432: 283–284. 

Till-Bottraud, I. and Gaudeul, M., 2002. Intraspecific 

genetic diversity in alpine plants. In: Körner, C. and 

Spehn, E.M. (eds.), 2002. Mountain biodiversity: a 

global assessment. Parthenon, London and New York: 

23–34. 

Tilman, D.; Cassman, K.G.; Matson, P.A.; Naylor, R. 

and Polasky, S., 2002. Agricultural sustainability and 

intensive production practices. Nature 418: 671–677. 

UNEP-WCMC (United Nations Environment 

Programme World Conservation Monitoring 

Centre), 2008. State of the world's protected areas: an 

annual review of global conservation progress, UNEP- 

WCMC, Cambridge. 

Viviroli, D.; Dürr, H.H.; Messerli, B.; Meybeck, M. 

and Weingartner, R., 2007. Mountains of the world, 

water towers for humanity: typology, mapping, and 

global significance. Water Resources Research, 43. 

Wainger, L.A.; King, D.M.; Mack, R.N.; Price, E.W. 

and Maslin, T., 2010. Can the concept of ecosystem 

services be practically applied to improve natural 

resource management decisions? Ecological 

Economics 69: 978–987. 

WCD (World Commission on Dams), 2000. Dams 

and development: a new framework for decision making. 

The report of the World Commission on Dams. 

Earthscan Publications, London. 

Wermelinger, B., Rigling, A., Schneidermathis, D. 

and Dobbertin, M., 2008. Assessing the role of barkand 

wood-boring insects in the decline of Scots 

pine (Pinus sylvestris) in the Swiss Rhone valley. 

Ecological Entomology 33: 239–249. 

Wipf, S.; Rixen, C.; Fischer, M.; Schmid, B. and 

Stoeckli, V., 2005. Effects of ski piste preparation 

on alpine vegetation. Journal of Applied Ecology 42: 

306–36. 


209

References 

World Resources Institute, 2007. Database on 

carbon sequestration projects. www.wri.org/climate/ 

sequestration.cfm [accessed 15 August, 2007]. 

Zumbrunnen, T.; Bugmann, H.; Conedara, M. and 

Bürgi, M., 2009. Linking Forest Fire Regimes and 

Climate-A Historical Analysis in a Dry Inner Alpine 

Valley. Ecosystems 12: 73–86. 

Zywiec, M. and Ledwon, M., 2008. Spatial and 

temporal (Sorbus aucuparia L.) regeneration in West 

Carpathian subalpine spruce forest. Plant Ecology 

194: 283–291. 

Chapter 5 

Albritton, D.L.; Meira Filho, L.G.; Cubasch, U. , Dai, 

X.; Ding, Y.; Griggs, D.J.; Hewitson, B.; Houghton, 

J.T.; Isaksen, I.; Karl, T.; McFarland, M.; Meleshko, 

V.P.; Mitchell, J.F.B.; Noguer, M.; Nyenzi, B.S.; 

Oppenheimer, M.; Penner, J.E.; Pollonais, S.; Stocker, 

T. and Trenberth, K.E., 2001. 'Technical Summary 

of the Working Group I Report'. In: Houghton, J.T.; 

Ding, Y.; Griggs, D.J.; Noguer, M.; van der Linden, 

P.J.; Dai, X.; Maskell, K. and Johnson, C.A., (eds.). 

Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution 

of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report 

of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 21–83. 

Auer, I.; Bohm, R.; Jurkovic, A.; Lipa, W.; Orlik, A.; 

Potzmann, R.; Schoner, W.; Ungersbock, M.; Matulla, 

C.; Briffa, K.; Jones, P.; Efthymiadis, D.; Brunetti, 

M.; Nanni, T.; Maugeri, M.; Mercalli, L.; Mestre, O.; 

Moisselin, J.M.; Begert, M.; Muller-Westermeier, 

G.; Kveton, V.; Bochnicek, O., Stastny, P., Lapin, 

M.; Szalai, S.; Szentimrey, T.; Cegnar, T.; Dolinar, 

M.; Gajic-Capka, M.; Zaninovic, K.; Majstorovic, 

Z. and Nieplova, E., 2007. 'HISTALP — historical 

instrumental climatological surface time series of 

the Greater Alpine Region', International Journal of 

Climatology 27, pp. 17–46. 

Auer, I.; Bohm, R.; Jurkovic, A.; Orlik, A.; Potzmann, 

R.; Schoner, W.; Ungersbock, M.; Brunetti, M.; 

Nanni, T.; Maugeri, M.; Briffa, K.; Jones, P.; 

Efthymiadis, D.; Mestre, O.; Moisselin, J.M.; Begert, 

M.; Brazdil, R.; Bochnicek, O.; Cegnar, T.; Gajic- 

Capkaj, M.; Zaninovic, K.; Majstorovic, Z.; Szalai, 

S.; Szentimrey, T. and Mercalli, L, 2005. 'A new 

instrumental precipitation dataset for the greater 

alpine region for the period 1800–2002', International 

Journal of Climatology 25, pp. 139–166. 

Balling, R.C.; Meyer, G.A. and Wells, S.G., 1992. 

'Climate change in Yellowstone National Park: Is the 

drought-related risk of wildfires increasing?' Climate 

change 22, pp. 35–45. 

Barnett, C.; Hossell, J.; Perry, M.; Procter, C. 

and Hughes, G., 2006. Patterns of climate change 

across Scotland: Technical Report. SNIFFER Project 

CC03. Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for 

Environmental Research, Edinburgh. 

Barry, R.G., 2002. 'Mountain climate change and 

cryospheric responses: A review'. In: Berger, T. (ed.), 

Mountains of the World. Proceedings of the World 

Mountain Symposium 2001. Swiss Agency for 

Development and Cooperation, Bern. 

Barry, R.G., 2008. Mountain Weather and Climate. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

Becker, A. and Bugmann, H. (eds.), 2001. Global 

Change and Mountain Regions (The Mountain Research 

Initiative). International Geosphere–Biosphere 

Programme Report No 49, Stockholm. 

Beldring, S.; Engen-Skaugen, T.; Forland, E.J. and 

Roald, L.A., 2008. 'Climate change impacts on 

hydrological processes in Norway based on two 

methods for transferring regional climate model 

results to meteorological station sites', Tellus. 

Series A, Dynamic Meteorology and Oceanography 60, 

pp. 439–450. 

Bengtsson, L.; Hodges, K.I. and Roeckner, E., 2006. 

'Storm tracks and climate change', Journal of Climate 

19, 3518–3543. 

Beniston, M., 2003. 'Climatic change in mountain 

regions: a review of possible impacts', Climatic 

Change 59, 5–31. 

Beniston, M., 2006. 'Mountain weather and climate: a 

general overview and a focus on climatic changes in 

the Alps', Hydrobiologia 562, pp. 3–16. 

Beniston, M. and Rebetez, M., 1996. 'Regional 

behaviour of minimum temperatures in Switzerland 

for the period 1979–1993', Theoretical and Applied 

Climatology 53, 231–244. 

Beniston, M.; Stephenson, D.B.; Christensen, O.B.; 

Ferro, C.A.T.; Frei, C.; Goyette, S.; Halsnaes, K.; Holt, 

T.; Jylha, K.; Koffi, B.; Palutikof, J.; Scholl, R.; Semmler, 

T. and Woth, K., 2007. 'Future extreme events in 

European climate: an exploration of regional climate 

model projections', Climatic Change 81, 71–95. 

Bjornsen Gurung, A.; Bokwa, A.; Chemicki, W.; 

Elbakidze, M.; Hirschmugl, M.; Hostert, P.; Ibisch, P.; 


References 

Kozak, J.; Kuemmerle, T.; Matei, E.; Ostapowicz, K.; 

Pociask-Karteczka, J.; Schmidt, L.; van der Linden, S. 

and Zebisch, M., 2009. 'Global Change Research in 

the Carpathian Mountain Region', Mountain Research 

and Development 29, 282–288. 

Böhm, R.; Jones, P.D.; Hiebl, J.; Frank, D.; Brunetti, 

M. and Maugeri, M., 2009. 'The early instrumental 

warm-bias: a solution for long central European 

temperature series 1760–2007', Climatic Change 101, 

pp. 41–67. 

Bonsal, B.R. and Prowse, T.D., 2006. 'Regional 

assessment of GCM-simulated current climate 

over northern Canada', Arctic, Antarctic and Alpine 

Research 59, 115–128. 

Bradley, R.S.; Vuille, M.; Diaz, H.F. and Vergara, 

W., 2006. 'Threats to water supplies in the tropical 

Andes', Science 312, pp. 1755–1766. 

Brankovic, C.; Smec, L. and Patarcic, M., 2010. 'An 

assessment of global and regional climate change 

based on the EH5OM climate model ensemble', 

Climatic Change 98, pp. 21–49. 

Carter, T. and Hulme, M. 1999. Interim 

Characterizations of Regional Climate and 

Related Changes Up To 2100 Associated With The 

Provisional SRES Marker Emissions Scenarios: 

Guidance for the Lead Authors of the IPCC Working 

Group II Third Assessment Report (available online 

at: www.usgcrp.gov/ipcc/html/ecosystem.html). 

Casty, C.; Wanner, H.; Luterbacher, J.; Esper, J. and 

Böhm, R., 2005. 'Temperature and precipitation 

variability in the European Alps since 1500', 

International Journal of Climatology 25, pp. 1855–1880. 

Chase, T.N.; Pielke, R.A.; Herman, B. and Zeng, 

X., 2004. 'Likelihood of rapidly increasing surface 

temperatures unaccompanied by strong warming 

in the free trophosphere', Climate Research 25, 

pp. 185–190. 

Christensen, J.H., 2001. 'Major Characteristics of the 

Global Climate System and Global Climate Models'. 

In: Lange, M.A. (ed.), Integrated Regional Impact 

Studies in the European North. Institute for Geophysics, 

University of Munster, Munster, pp. 99–120. 

Christensen, J.H., 2004. Prediction of Regional 

Scenarios and Uncertainties for Defining European 

Climate Change Risks and Effects (PRUDENCE). 

Report No. EVK2-CT2001-00132, Danish 

Meteorological Institute, Copenhagen. 

Christensen, J.H. and Chistensen, O.B., 2002. 'Severe 

summertime flooding in Europe', Nature 421, p. 805. 

Christensen, J.H. and Christensen, O.B., 2007. 

'A summary of the PRUDENCE model projections 

of changes in European climate by the end of this 

century', Climatic Change 81, pp. 7–30. 

Coll, J., 2007. 'Local scale assessment of climate 

change and its impacts in the Highlands and 

Islands of Scotland', Unpublished PhD thesis, UHI 

Millennium Institute/The Open University. 

Coll, J.; Gibb, S.W. and Harrison, J., 2005. 'Modelling 

future climates in the Scottish Highlands — an 

approach integrating local climatic variables and 

regional climate model outputs'. In: Thompson, 

D.B.A.; Price, M.F. and Galbraith, C.A. (eds.), 

Mountains of Northern Europe: Conservation, 

Management, People and Nature. TSO, Edinburgh, pp. 

103–119. 

Conedera, M.; Cesti, G.; Pezzatti, G.B.; Zumbrunnen, 

T. and Spinedi, F., 2006. 'Lightning-induced fires in 

the Alpine region: An increasing problem'. In: Viegas, 

D.X. (ed.), V International Conference on Forest Fire 

Research. Figueira da Foz, Portugal, 27–30 November 

2006 (CD-ROM), ADAI/CEIF University of Coimbra, 

Portugal. 

Connolley, W.M. and Bracegirdle, T.J., 2007. 'An 

Antarctic assessment of IPCC AR4 coupled models', 

Geophysical Research Letters 34, L22505. 

Crane, W.J.B., 1982. 'Computing grassland and forest 

fire behaviour, relative humidity and drought index 

by pocket calculator', Australian Forestry 45, pp. 89–97. 

Deque, M.; Rowell, D.P.; Luthi, D.; Giorgi, F.; 

Christensen, J.H.; Rockel, B.; Jacob, D.; Kjellstrom, 

E.; de Castro, M. and van den Hurk, B., 2007. 'An 

intercomparison of regional climate simulations for 

Europe: assessing uncertainties in model projections', 


EEA, 2008. Impacts of Europe's changing climate — 2008 

indicator-based assessment. EEA Report No 4/2008, 

European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. 

EEA, 2009. Regional climate change and adaptation: The 

Alps facing the challenge of changing water resources. EEA 

Report No 8/2009, European Environment Agency, 

Copenhagen. 

Engen-Skaugen, T., 2007. 'Refinement of dynamically 

downscaled precipitation and temperature scenarios', 



211

References 

Faggian, P. and Giorgi, F., 2009. 'An analysis of 

global model projections over Italy, with particular 

attention to the Italian Greater Alpine Region 

(GAR)', Climatic Change 96, pp. 239–258. 

Flannigan, M.D. and van Wagner, C.E., 1991. 

'Climate change and wildfires in Canada', Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research 21, pp. 66–72. 

Foley, A.M., 2010. 'Uncertainty in regional 

climate modelling: A review', Progress in Physical 

Geography first published on August 23, 2010 

doi:10.1177/0309133310375654 . 

Fowler, H.J. and Kilsby, C.G., 2007. 'Using regional 

climate model data to simulate historical and future 

river flows in north west England', Climatic Change 

80, pp. 337–367. 

Frei, C.; Christensen, J.H.; Deque, M.; Jacob, D.; 

Jones, R.G. and Vidale P.L., 2003. 'Daily precipitation 

statistics in regional climate models: Evaluation and 

intercomparison for the European Alps', Journal of 

Geophysical Research 108, pp. 1–22. 

Frei, C.; Scholl, R.; Fukutome, S.; Schmidli, J. and 

Vidale, P.L., 2006. 'Future change of precipitation 

extremes in Europe: Intercomparison of scenarios 

from regional climate models', Journal of Geophysical 

Research-Atmospheres 111, D06105. 

Fyfe, J.C. and Flato, M., 1999. 'Enhanced climate 

change and its detection over the Rocky Mountains', 

Journal of Climate 12, pp. 230–243. 

Galán, M.; Castellnou, M.; Arilla, E.; Martinez, E.; 

Lleonart, S.; Larrañaga, A. and Lopez, M., 2002. 'Fire 

events on the NE Mediterranean coast of the Iberian 

Peninsula and lightning fires in Catalonia: Is there 

a significant fire regime?' In: Viegas, D.X. (ed.), IV 

International Conference on Forest Fire Research. Luso, 

Portugal (CD-ROM), Millpress, Rotterdam. 

Gao, X.; Pal, J.S. and Giorgi, F., 2006. 'Projected 

changes in mean and extreme precipitation over the 

Mediterranean region from a high resolution double 

nested RCM simulation', Geophysical Research Letters 

33, L03706. 

Giorgi, F., 2005. 'Climate Change prediction', Climatic 

Change 73, pp. 239–265. 

Giorgi, F., 2006. 'Climate change hot-spots', 


Giorgi, F.; Hurrell, J.W.; Marinucci, M.R. and 

Beniston, M., 1994. 'Elevation dependency of the 

surface climate change signal: A model study', 

Journal of Climate 10, pp. 288–296. 

Giorgi, F. and Lionello, P., 2008. 'Climate change 

projections for the Mediterranean region', Global and 

Planetary Change 63, pp. 90–104. 

Gonzalez-Rouco, J.F.; Heyen, H. and Valero, E., 

2000. 'Agreement between observed rainfall trends 

and climate change simulations in the southwest of 

Europe', Journal of Climate 13, pp. 3057–3065. 

Granström, A., 1993. 'Spatial and temporal variation 

in lightning ignitions in Sweden', Journal of Vegetation 

Science 4, pp. 737–744. 

Groisman, P.Y.; Knight, R.W.; Easterling, D.R. et al., 

2005. 'Trends in intense precipitation in the climate 

record', Journal of Climate 18, pp. 1326–1350. 

Gruber, S.; Hoelzle, M. and Haeberli, W. 2004. 

'Permafrost thaw and destabilization of Alpine rock 

walls in the hot summer of 2003'.Geophysical Research 

Letters, 31, L13504, doi: 10.1029/2006JF000547. 

Haeberli, W., 2005. 'Mountain glaciers in global 

climate-related observing systems'. In: Huber, U.M.; 

Bugmann, H. and Reasoner, M.A. (eds.), Global 

Change and Mountain Regions: An Overview of Current 

Knowledge. Springer, Dordrecht. 

Haeberli, W. and Burn, C.R. 2002. 'Natural hazards 

in forests: glacier and permafrost effects as related 

to climate change'. In: Sidle, R.C (ed.), Environmental 

Change and Geomorphic Hazards in Forests. IUFRO 

Research Series 9, CABI Publishing, Wallingford/ 

New York, pp. 167–202. 

Hanson, C.E.; Palutikof, J.P.; Livermore, M.T.J.; 

Barring, L.; Bindi, M.; Corte-Real, J, Durao, R, 

Giannakopoulos, C.; Good, P.; Holt, T.; Kundzewicz, 

Z.; Leckebusch, G.C.; Moriondo, M.; Radziejewski, 

M.; Santos, J.; Schlyter, P.; Schwarb, M.; Stjernquist, 

I. and Ulbrich, U., 2007. 'Modelling the impact of 

climate extremes: an overview of the MICE project', 


Hantel M.; Ehrendorfer, M.; and Haslinger, A., 

2000. 'Climate sensitivity of snow cover duration 

in Austria'. International Journal of Climatology, 20, 

pp. 615–640. 

Harris, C., 2005. 'Climate change, mountain 

permafrost degradation and geotechnical hazard'. 

In: Huber, U.M.; Bugmann, H. and Reasoner, M.A., 

(eds.), Global Change and Mountain Regions: An 

Overview of Current Knowledge. Springer, Dordrecht. 


References 

Harris, C.; Vonder Muhll, D.; Isaken, K.; Haeberli, 

W.; Ludvig Sollid, J.; King, L.; Holmlund, P.; Dramis, 

F.; Guglielmin, M. and Palacios, D., 2003. 'Warming 

permafrost in European mountains', Global and 

Planetary Change 39, pp. 215–225. 

Harris, C.; Arenson, L.U.; Christiansen, H.H.; 

Etzelmüller, B.; Frauenfelder, R.; Gruber, S.; 

Haeberli, W.; Hauck, C.; Hölzle, M.; Humlum, O.; 

Isaksen, K.; Kääb, A.; Kern-Lütschg, M.A.; Lehning, 

M.; Matsuoka, N.; Murton, J.B.; Nötzli, J.; Phillips, 

M.; Ross, N.; Seppälä, M.; Springman, S.M. and 

Vonder Mühll, D., 2009. 'Permafrost and climate 

in Europe: Monitoring and modelling thermal, 

geomorphological and geotechnical responses', 

Earth-Science Reviews 92, pp. 117–171. 

Haugen, J.E. and Iversen, T. 2008. 'Response in 

extremes of daily precipitation and wind from a 

downscaled multi-model ensemble of anthropogenic 

global climate change scenarios'. Tellus A 60, 

pp. 411–426. 

Holden, J. and Adamson, J.K., 2002. 'The Moor House 

long-term upland temperature record: new evidence 

of recent warming', Weather 57, pp. 119–127. 

Huber, U.M.; Bugmann, H.K.M. and Reasoner, M. 

A., 2005. Global Change and Mountain Regions: An 

Overview of Current Knowledge. Springer, Dordrecht. 

Hulme, M. and Carter, T.R., 1999. 'Representing 

uncertainty in climate change scenarios and impact 

studies'. In: Carter, T. (ed.). Representing uncertainty 

in climate change scenarios and impact studies. 

Proceedings of ECLAT–2 Workshop, 14–16 April, 

Helsinki. 

Ionita, M. and Boroneant, C., 2005. 'Assessment 

of some statistical climatic parameters for the 

present‐day climate at regional scale over Romania 

and future projections of climate change for the 

period 2010–2100'. EMS Annual Meeting Abstracts, 

Utrecht, Holland, 12–16 September, ISSN 1812–7053. 

IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science 

Basis. Summary for Policymakers. Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Secretariat, 

Geneva. 

Jacob, D.; Barring, L.; Christensen, O.B.; Christensen, 

J.H.; de Castro, M.; Deque, M.; Giorgi, F.; Hagemann, 

S.; Lenderink, G.; Rockel, B.; Sanchez, E.; Schar, C.; 

Seneviratne, S.I.; Somot, S.; van Ulden, A. and van 

den Hurk, B., 2007. 'An inter-comparison of regional 

climate models for Europe: model performance in 

present-day climate', Climatic Change 81, pp. 31–52. 

Jenkins, G. and Lowe, K., 2003. Handling uncertainties 

in the UKCIP02 scenarios of climate change. Hadley 

Centre technical note 44, Hadley Centre for Climate 

Change Research, Exeter. 

Jones, R.N., 2000. 'Managing uncertainty in climate 

change projections – issues for impact assessment'. 


Jones, P.D. and Reid, P.A., 2001. 'Assessing future 

changes in extreme precipitation over Britain using 

Regional Climate Model integrations', International 

Journal of Climatology 21, pp. 1337–1356. 

Keiler, M.; Knight, J. and Harrison, S., 2010. 'Climate 

change and geomorphological hazards in the eastern 

European Alps', Philosophical Transactions of the Royal 

Society A 368, pp. 2461–2479. 

Keller, F.; Goyette, S. and Beniston, M. 2005. 

'Sensitivity analysis of snow cover to climate change 

scenarios and their impact on plant habitats in 

alpine terrain'. Climatic Change 72:, pp. 299–319. 

Kitoh, A. and Mukano, T., 2009. 'Changes in Daily 

and Monthly Surface Air Temperature Variability by 

Multi-Model Global Warming Experiments', Journal 

of the Meteorological Society of Japan 87, pp. 513–524. 

Koffi, B. and Koffi, E., 2008. 'Heat waves across 

Europe by the end of the 21st century: multiregional 

climate simulations', Climate Research, 36, pp. 153–168. 

Larjavaara, M.; Kuuluvainen, T. and Hannu, H.R., 

2005. 'Spatial distribution of lightning-ignited forest 

fires in Finland', Forest Ecology and Management, 208, 

pp. 177–188. 

Lautenschlager, M.; Keuler, K.; Wunram, C.; 

Keup‐Thiel, E.; Schubert, M.; Will, A.; Rockel, B. 

and Boehm, U., 2009. Climate Simulation with CLM, 

Scenario A1B run no.1, Data Stream 3: European region 

MPI-M/MaD. World Data Center for Climate, doi: 

10.1594/WDCC/CLM_A1B_1_D3. 

Lean, J.L. and Rind, D.H., 2009. 'How will Earth's 

surface temperature change in future decades?' 


Lenderink, G.A.; van Ulden, B.; van den Hurk, 

B. and van Meijgaard, E., 2007. 'Summertime 

inter‐annual temperature variability in an ensemble 

of regional model simulations: analysis of the 

surface energy budget', Climate Change 81, 

pp. 233–247. 


213

References 

Lopez-Moreno, J.I.; Goyette, S. and Beniston, M., 

2008. 'Climate change prediction over complex 

areas: spatial variability of uncertainties and 

predictions over the Pyrenees from a set of regional 

climate models', International Journal of Climatology 

28, pp. 1535–1550. 

Lopez-Moreno, J.I.; Goyette, S. and Beniston, M. 

2009. 'Impact of climate change on snowpack in the 

Pyrenees: horizontal spatial variability and vertical 

gradients'. Journal of Hydrology 374, pp. 384–396. 

Malby, A.R.; Whyatt, J.D.; Timmis, R.; Wilby, R.L. 

and Orr, H.G., 2007. 'Forcing of orographic rainfall 

and rainshadow processes by climate change: 

analysis and implications in the English Lake 

District', Hydrological Processes 52, pp. 276–291. 

Maraun, D.; Osborn, T.J. and Gillett, N.P., 2008. 

'United Kingdom daily precipitation intensity: 

improved early data, error estimates and an update 

from 2000 to 2006', International Journal of Climatology 

28, 833–842. 

Martin, E. and Etchevers, P., 2005. 'Impact of climatic 

change on snow cover and snow hydrology in the 

French Alps'. In: Huber, U.M.; Bugmann, H. and 

Reasoner, M.A. (eds.), Global Change and Mountain 

Regions: An Overview of Current Knowledge. Springer, 

New York, pp. 235–242. 

Martin, E.; Giraud, G.; Lejeune, Y. and Boudart, 

G. 2001. 'Impact of climate change on avalanche 

hazard'. Annals of Glaciology, 32, pp. 163–167. 

Micu, D. and Micu, M., 2008. 'Winter temperature 

trends in Romanian Carpathians — A climate 

variability index', Annales of Western University, 

Geography Series XVI, pp. 141–159. 

Micu D., 2009. 'Snow pack in the Romanian 

Carpathians under changing climatic conditions', 

Meteorological and Atmospheric Physics 105, pp. 1–16. 

Oberkampf, W.L.; DeLand, S.M.; Rutherford, B.M.; 

Diegert, K.V. and Alvin, K.F., 2002. 'Error and 

uncertainty in modelling and simulation', Reliability 

Engineering and System Safety 75, pp. 333–357. 

Nogués-Bravo, D.; Araújo, M.B.; Romdal, T. and 

Rahbek, C. 2008. ' Scale effects and human impact 

on the elevational species richness gradients'. Nature 

453, p. 216. 

Pal, J.S.; Giorgi, F. and Bi, X., 2004. 'Consistency of 

recent European summer precipitation trends and 

extremes with future regional climate projections', 


Pepin, N.C. and Seidel, D.J., 2005. 'A global 

comparison of surface and free-air temperatures at 

high elevations', Journal of Geophysical Research 110, 

D03104. 

Perkins, S.E. and Pitman, A.J., 2009. 'Do weak AR4 

models bias projections of future climate changes 

over Australia?' Climatic Change 93, 527–558. 

Podur, J.; Martell, D.L. and Csillag, F., 2003. 'Spatial 

pattern of lightning-caused forest fires in Ontario, 

1976–1998', Ecological Modelling 164, pp. 1–20. 

Price, M.F. and Barry R.G., 1997. 'Climate change'. 

In: Messerli, B. and Ives, J.D. (eds.), Mountains of 

the World: A Global Priority. Parthenon, London and 

New York, pp. 409–445. 

Pyne, S.J.; Andrews, P.L. and Laven, R.D., 1996. 

Introduction to Wildland fire. John Wiley and Sons, 

New York. 

Räisänen, J.; Hansson, U.; Ullerstig, A.; Döscher, R.; 

Graham, L.P.; Jones, C.; Meier, H.E.M.; Samuelsson, 

P. and Willén, U., 2004. 'European climate in the late 

twenty-first century: regional simulations with two 

driving global models and two forcing scenarios', 

Climate Dynamics 22,13–31. 

Rockel, B.; Will, A. and Hense, A., 2008. 'The 

regional climate model COSMOCLM (CCLM)', 

Meteorologische Zeitschrift 17, 347–348. 

Saelthun, N.R. and Barkved, L.J., 2003. Climate 

Change Scenarios for the SCANNET Region. Report 

No. O-21083, Norwegian Institute for Water 

Research, Oslo. 

Schär, C. and Frei, C., 2005. 'Orographic 

precipitation and climate change'. In: Huber, U.M.; 

Bugmann, H. and Reasoner, M.A. (eds.), Global 

Change and Mountain Regions: An Overview of Current 

Knowledge. Springer, Dordrecht. 

Schär, C.; Vidale, P.L.; Lüthi, D.; Frei, C.; Häberli, C.; 

Liniger, M.A. and Appenzeller, C., 2004. 'The role 

of increasing temperature variability in European 

summer heatwaves', Nature 427, pp. 332–336. 

Schmidli, J.; Frei, C. and Vidale, P.L. 2006. 

'Downscaling from GC precipitation: A benchmark 

for dynamical and statistical downscaling methods', 

International Journal of Climatology 26, 679–689. 


References 

Schmidli, J.; Goodess, C.M.; Frei, C.; Haylock, 

M.R.; Hundecha, Y.; Ribalaygua, J. and Schmith, 

T., 2007. 'Statistical and dynamical downscaling 

of precipitation: An evaluation and comparison 

of scenarios for the European Alps', Journal of 

Geophysical Research 112, D04105. 

Schumacher, S., 2004. 'The role of large-scale 

disturbances and climate for the dynamics of the 

landscape in European Alps', PhD thesis no 15573, 

Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETHZ), Zurich. 

Seidel, D.J. and Free, M., 2003. 'Comparison of 

lower-tropospheric temperature climatologies and 

trends at low and high elevation radiosonde sites. 

Climatic Change 59, 53–74. 

Smiatek, G.H.; Kunstmann, R.; Knoche, R. and Marx, 

A., 2009. 'Precipitation and temperature statistics in 

high-resolution regional climate models: evaluation 

for the European Alps', Journal of Geophysical Research 

114, D19107. 

Stendel, M.; Christensen, J.H. and Petersen, D., 2008. 

'Arctic climate and climate change with a focus on 

Greenland', Advances in Ecological Research 40, 13–43. 

Stewart, I.T., 2009. 'Changes in snowpack and 

snowmelt runoff for key mountain regions', 

Hydrological Processes 23, pp. 78–94. 

Street, R.B., 1989. 'Climate Change and Forest Fires 

in Ontario', Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Fire 

and Forest Meteorology, April 17–21, Ottawa, Canada, 

pp. 177–182. 

Thompson, R.; Ventura, M. and Camarero, L., 

2009. 'On the climate and weather of mountain and 

sub arctic lakes in Europe and their susceptibility 

to future climate change', Freshwater Biology 54, 

pp. 2433–2451. 

van der Linden, P. and Mitchell, J.F.B., 2009. 

ENSEMBLES: Climate Change and its Impacts: 

Summary of research and results from the ENSEMBLES 

project. Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter. 

van Oldenborgh, G.J.; Drijfhout, S.; van Ulden, A.; 

Haarsma, R.; Sterl, A., Severijns, C.; Hazeleger, W. and 

Dijkstra, H., 2009. 'Western Europe is warming much 

faster than expected',Climate of the Past 5, pp. 1–12. 

Vasquez, A. and Moreno, J.M., 1998. 'Patterns of 

lightning- and people-caused fires in Peninsular 

Spain', International Journal of Wildland Fire 8, 

pp. 103–115. 

Weber, M.G. and Stocks, B.J., 1998. 'Forest fires 

and sustainability in the boreal forests of Canada', 

Ambio 27, pp. 545–550. 

Weber, R.O.; Talkner, P.; Auer, I.; Bohm, R.; Gajik- 

Capka, M.; Zaninovic, K.; Brazdil, R. and Fasko, 

P., 1997. '20th-Century changes of temperature in 

the mountain regions of Central Europe', Climatic 

Change 36, pp. 327–344. 

Wielke, L.-M.; Haimberger, L., and Hantel, M. 2004. 

'Snow cover duration in Switzerland compared to 

Austria'. Meteorologisch Zeitschrift, 13, pp. 13–17. 

Woolf, D. and Coll, J., 2007. 'Impacts of Climate 

Change on Storms and Waves'. In: Buckley, P.J., Dye, 

S.R. and Baxter, J.M. (eds.), Marine Climate Change 

Impacts Annual Report Card 2007. MCCIP, Lowestoft. 

Wotton, B.M. and Martell, D.L., 2005. 'A lightning 

fire occurrence model for Ontario', Canadian Journal 

of Forest Research 35, pp. 1389–1401. 

Zebisch, M.; Zimmerman, P.; Bohm, R.; Auer, I.; 

Matulla, C. and Schoner, W., 2008. 'Climate change 

in the Alps'. In: Regional climate change and adaptation. 

The Alps facing the challenge of changing water 

resources. EEA Report 8/2009, European Environment 

Agency, Copenhagen. 

Zorita, E. and von Storch, H., 1999. 'The analog 

method as a simple statistical downscaling 

technique: Comparison with more complicated 

methods', Journal of Climate 12, pp. 2474–2489. 

Chapter 6 

Alcamo, J.; Moreno, J.M.; Nováky, B.; Bindi, M.; 

Corobov, R.; Devoy, R.J.N.; Giannakopoulos, C.; 

Martin, E.; Olesen, J.E. and Shvidenko, A. 2007. 

Europe. In: M.L. Parry, Canziani, O.F.; Palutikof, 

J.P.; van der Linden P.J. and Hanson, (eds.). Climate 

Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. 

Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, the United Kingdom, pp. 541–580. 

Alpine Convention, 2009. Water and water 

management issues. Report on the state of the Alps. 

Alpine signals, Special Edition 2. Permanent 

Secretariat of the Alpine Convention, Innsbruck, 

Austria. http://www.alpconv.org/documents/ 

Permanent_Secretariat/web/RSAII/20090625_RSA_ 

II_long.pdf [Accessed June 2010]. 


215

References 

Ambrosetti, W. and Barbanti, L. 1999. 'Deep water 

warming in lakes: An indicator of climatic change'. 

Journal of Limnology 58, pp. 1–9. 

Amezaga, J.M. and Kroll, A., 2005. 'European 

Union Policies and Mine Water Management'. 

In: Wolkersdorfer, C. and Bowell, R. (eds.), 

Contemporary Reviews of Mine Water Studies in Europe. 

Mine Water and the Environment 24: Supplementary 

Material. Springer, Verlag, pp. 3–4. 

Andréassen, L.M.; Elvehøy, H.; Kjøllmoen, B.; 

Engeset, R.V. and Haakensen, N., 2005. 'Glacier mass 

balance and length variations in Norway', Annals of 

Glaciology 42: 317–325. 

Angelstam, P.; Törnblom, J.; Axelsson, R.; Elbakidze, 

M. and Andersson, K., 2009. 'The challenge of 

governing and managing a riverine landscape 

— towards integrative knowledge production'. 

In: Breuste, J., Kozova, M. and Finka, M., (eds.), 

European landscape in transformation: challenges for 

landscape ecology and management. European IALE 

Conference, pp. 256–259. 

Anneville, O.; Gammeter, S. and Straile, D. 2005. 

'Phosphorus decrease and climate variability: 

mediator of synchrony in phytoplankton changes 

among European peri-alpine lakes'. Freshwater 

Biology 50, pp. 1731–1746. 

Barnett, T.P; Ada, J.C and Lettenmaier, D.P., 2005. 

Potential impacts of a warming climate on water 

availability in snow-dominated regions. Nature 438, 

pp. 303–309. 

Barry, R.G., 2008. Mountain Weather and Climate. 

Third edition. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge. 

Battarbee, R., 2004. 'The acid rain-acid waters debate 

in the UK — a brief history'. In: Battarbee, R.W., 

Curtis, C.J. and Binney, H.A. (eds.), The future of 

Britain's upland waters. Proceedings of a meeting 

held on 21st April 2004. Environmental Change 

Research Centre, University College London. Ensis 

Publishing, London, pp. 2–7. 

Battarbee, R.W.; Kernan, M. and Rose, N., 2009. 

'Threatened and stressed mountain lakes of Europe: 

Assessment and progress', Aquatic Ecosystem Health 

& Management 12, pp. 118–128. 

Beniston, M., 2006. 'Mountain weather and climate: 

A general overview and a focus on climatic change 

in the Alps'. In: Lami, A. and Boggero, A. (eds.), 

'Ecology of High Altitude Aquatic Systems in the 

Alps', Hydrobiologia 562, pp. 3–16. 

BFE, 2007. Die Energieperspektiven 2035 – Band 4 

Exkurse. Bundesamt für Energie, Bern. 

BUWAL, 2004. Auswirkungen des Hitzesommers 

2003 auf die Gewässer. Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr. 

369. Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft, 

Bern-Ittigen. 

Chueca, J.; Julian, A.; Saz, M.A.; Creus, J. and 

Lopez, J.I., 2005. 'Responses to climatic changes 

since the Little Ice Age on Maladeta Glacier (Central 

Pyrenees)', Geomorphology, 68, pp. 167–182. 

CIPRA (Commission International pour la Protection 

des Alpes) (ed.), 2001. 2. Alpenreport. Daten, Fakten, 

Probleme, Lösungsansätze. Verlag Paul Haupt, Bern. 

ClimChAlp, 2008. Climate Change, Impacts and 

Adaptation Strategies in the Alpine Space. Strategic 

Interreg III B Alpine Space Project. The ClimChAlp 

Partnership, Schledorf. www.climchalp.org/images/ 

stories/documents-final_texts/climchalp_common_ 

strategic_paper_en.pdf [Accessed June 2010]. 

DEFRA, 2010. e-Digest statistics about: Inland water 

quality and use. Freshwater quality. Nutrients. www. 

defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/ 

inlwater/iwnutrient.htm [Accessed June 2010]. 

Degerman, E.; Sers, B.; Törnblom, J. and Angelstam, 

P., 2004. 'Large woody debris and brown trout 

in small forest streams — towards targets for 

assessment and management of riparian landscapes', 

Ecological Bulletins 51, pp. 233–239. 

de Jong, C.; Masure, P. and Barth, T., 2008. 

'Challenges of alpine catchment management under 

changing climatic and anthropogenic pressures'. 

In: Sànchez-Marrè, M.; Béjar, J.; Comas, J.; Rizzoli, 

A. and Guariso, G. (eds.), Integrating Sciences and 

Information Technology for Environmental Assessment 

and Decision Making. International Congress on 

Environmental Modelling and Software,4th Biennial 

Meeting of the International Environmental 

Modelling and Software Society (iEMSs). www. 

iemss.org/iemss2008/index.php?n=Main.Proceedings 


DG Environment, European Commission, 2007. 

Water scarcity and droughts. Second interim report, 

June 2007, Version no 1.0. 

Dokulil, M.T.; Jagsch, A.; George, G.D.; Anneville, 

O.; Jankowski, T.; Wahl, B.;, Lenhart, B.; Blenckner, 


References 

T. and Teubner, K., 2006. 'Twenty years of spatially 

coherent deepwater warming in lakes across Europe 

related to the North Atlantic Oscillation', Limnology 

and Oceanography 51, pp. 2787–2793. 

Dowdeswell, J.A.; Hagen, J.O.; Björnsson, H.; 

Glazovsky, A.F.; Harrison, W.D.; Holmlund, P.; Jania, 

J.; Koerner, R.M.; Lefauconnier, B.; Ommanney, 

C.S.L. and Thomas, R.H., 1997. 'The mass balance of 

circum‐Arctic glaciers and recent climate change', 

Quaternary Research 48, pp. 1–14. 

EEA, 1999a. Environment in the European Union at the 

turn of the century. Environmental Assessment Report 

No 2, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. 

EEA, 1999b. Lakes and Reservoirs in the EEA Area. 

Topic Report No 1/99. European Environment 


EEA, 2003. Europe's Environment: The third assessment. 

Environmental Assessment Report No 10, European 


EEA , 2007. Climate change and water adaptation issues. 

Technical Report No 2, European Environment 


EEA, 2008. Impacts of Europe's changing climate — 2008 

indicator based assessment. Report No 4/2008, European 


EEA, 2009a. Regional climate change and adaptation: 

The Alps facing the challenge of changing water resources. 

Report No 8, European Environment Agency, 

Copenhagen. 

EEA, 2009b. Water resources across Europe — 

confronting water scarcity and drought. Report No 2, 

EEA, Copenhagen. 

EEA, 2010. 10 Messages for 2010: Freshwater Ecosystems, 

European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. 

EEA/JRC (Joint Research Centre)/WHO (World 

Health Organisation), 2008. Impacts of Europe's 

Changing Climate – 2008 Indicator-based 

Assessment. Report no 4, European Environment 


Emmett, B. and Ferrier, B., 2004. 'Land-use change in 

upland catchments and effects on upland waters'. In: 

Battarbee, R.W., Curtis, C.J. and Binney, H.A. (eds.), 

The future of Britain's upland waters. Proceedings of 

a meeting held on 21st April 2004, Environmental 

Change Research Centre, University College London. 

Ensis Publishing, London, pp. 21–24. 

ESHA (European Small Hydropower Association), 

2005. 'State of the art of small hydropower in EU–25'. 

European Small Hydropower Association, Brussels. 

Eurolakes, 2004. Precious blue eyes — Europe's large 

deep lakes — Eurolakes Integrated Water Resource 

Management for Important Deep European Lakes and 

their Catchment Areas. Hydromod, Germany. 

European Commission, 2004. Mountain Areas in 

Europe: Analysis of mountain areas in EU member states, 

acceding and other European countries. Final report, 

Nordregio, Stockholm. 

Eurostat, 2008. Statistics in focus, transport, modal split 

in the inland transport of the EU. 35/2008, European 

Commision, Eurostat. 

Fette, M.; Weber, C.; Peter, A. and Wehrli, B., 2007. 

'Hydropower production and river rehabilitation: 

A case study on an Alpine river', Environmental 

Modelling and Assessment 12, pp. 257–267. 

Flörke, M. and Alcamo, J., 2004. European outlook 

on water use. Final Report EEA/RNC/03/007, Centre 

for Environmental Systems Research, University of 

Kassel, Germany. 

FOEN (Federal Office for the Environment (ed.), 

2009. Switzerland's Fifth National Communication 

under the UNFCCC. FOEN, Bern. 

Fox, D. J., 1997. 'Mining in mountains'. In: Messerli, 

B. and Ives, J.D. (eds.), Mountains of the world: a global 

priority. Parthenon, London and New York. 

Franssen, H.J.H. and Scherrer, S.C., 2008. 'Freezing of 

lakes on the Swiss Plateau in the period 1901–2006', 

International Journal of Climatology 28, pp. 421–433. 

Frey, H., Haeberli, W., Linsbauer, A., Huggel, C. and 

Paul, F., 2010. 'A multi level strategy for anticipating 

future glacier lake formation and associated 

hazard potentials', Natural Hazards and Earth System 

Science 10, pp. 339–352. 

García-Ruiz, J.M.; Puigdefábregas, J. and Creus, J. 

1986. 'La acumulación de nieve en el Pirineo central 

y su influencia hidrológica'. Pirineos 127, pp. 27–72. 

George, G. (ed.), 2010. The impact of climate change 

on European lakes. Aquatic Ecology Series. Springer, 

Verlag. 

George, G.; Hurley, M. and Hewitt, D., 2007. 

'The impact of climate change on the physical 


217

References 

characteristics of the larger lakes in the English Lake 

District', Freshwater Biology 52, pp. 1647–1666. 

George, D.G.; Maberly, S.C. and Hewitt, D.P., 

2004.'The influence of the North Atlantic Oscillation 

on the physics, chemistry and biology of four lakes 

in the English Lake District', Freshwater Biology 49, 

pp. 760–774. 

Gooch, G. and Stålnacke, P. (eds.), 2010. Science, 

policy and stakeholders in water management — an 

integrated approach to river basin management. 

Earthscan, London. 

Gross, G., 1987. 'Der Flächenverlust der Gletscher 

in Österreich 1850–1920–1969', Zeitschrift für 

Gletscherkunde und Glazialgeologie 23, pp. 131–141. 

Grove, J.M., 2004. Little Ice Ages: Ancient and modern. 

Vol. I + II, 2nd edition. Routledge, London and New 

York. 

Haeberli, W., 1998. Historical evolution and operational 

aspects of worldwide glacier monitoring. Into the second 

century of world glacier monitoring: prospects and 

strategies. UNESCO, Paris. 

Haeberli, W., 2003. Spuren des Hitzesommers 2003 

im Eis der Alpen. Submission to the Parliament of 

Switzerland, 30 September. 

Haeberli, W. and Beniston, M., 1998. 'Climate change 

and its impacts on glaciers and permafrost in the 

Alps', Ambio 27, pp. 258–265. 

Haeberli, W., 1998. Historical evolution and operational 

aspects of worldwide glacier monitoring. Into the second 

century of world glacier monitoring: prospects and 

strategies. UNESCO, Paris. 

Haeberli, W.; Hoelzle, M.; Paul, F. and Zemp, M., 

2007. 'Integrated monitoring of mountain glaciers 

as key indicators of global climate change: the 

European Alps', Annals of Glaciology 46, pp. 150–160. 

Haeberli, W. and Hohmann, R., 2008. 'Climate, 

glaciers and permafrost in the Swiss Alps 2050: 

scenarios, consequences and recommendations'. 

In: Kane, D.L. and Hinkel, K.M. (eds.). Ninth 

International Conference on Permafrost, Institute 

of Northern Engineering. University of Alaska 

Fairbanks, 1, pp. 607–612. 

Hagen, J.O.; Kohler, J.; Melvold, K. and Winther, 

J.G., 2003. 'Glaciers in Svalbard: mass balance, runoff 

and fresh water flux', Polar Research 22, pp. 145–159. 

Hanneford, J. and Marsh, T. 2006. 'An assessment of 

trends in UK runoff and low flows using a network 

of undisturbed catchments', International Journal of 

Climatology, 26, pp. 1237–1253. 

Hari, R.E.; Livingstone, D.M.; Siber, R.; Burkhardt- 

Holm, P. and Guttinger, H.., 2006. 'Consequences of 

climateic change for water temperature and brown 

trout populations in Alpine rivers and streams'. 

Global Change Biology 12, pp. 10–26. 

Harum, T.; Holler, C.; Saccon, P.; Entner, I. and 

Hofrichter, J., 2001. Abschätzung der nachhaltig 

nutzbaren Quellwasserdargebotes im alpinen 

Raum Österreichs. Wasserwirtschaftskataster. 

Bundesministerium für Land, Forstwirtschaft, 

Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Vienna. www. 

joanneum.at/index.php?id=382 [Accessed June 2010]. 

Hilker, N.; Badoux, A. and Hegg, C., 2009. 'The Swiss 

flood and landslide damage database 1972–2007', 

Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 9, 

pp. 913–925. 

Hisdal, H.; Stahl, K.; Tallaksen, L.M. and Demuth, S., 

2001. 'Have droughts in Europe become more severe 

or frequent?' International Journal of Climatology 21, 

pp. 317–333. 

Huss, M.; Bauder, A.; Funk, M. and Hock, R., 2008. 

'Determination of the seasonal mass balance of four 

Alpine glaciers since 1865', Journal of Geophysical 

Research 113, F01015. 

ICPDR (International Commission for the Protection 

of the Danube River), 2009. Danube river basin district 

management plan. Part A — Basin-wide overview. 

ICPDR, Vienna. 

ICPDR, 2010. Dams and structures. www.icpdr.org/ 

icpdr-pages/dams_structures.htm [Accessed June 

2010]. 

Jasper, K.; Calanca, P.; Gyalaistra, D. and Fuhrer, J., 

2004. 'Differential impacts on the hydrology of two 

Alpine rivers'. Climate research 26, pp. 113–125. 

Kennedy, K.; Simonovic, S.; Tejada-Guibert, A.; de 

França Doria, M. and Martin, J. L., 2009. IWRM 

implementation in basins, sub-basins and aquifers: 

state of the art review. International hydrological 

programme of UNESCO. WWDR3 Side publication 

series UNESCO, Paris. 

Kondolf, G. M., 1998. 'Hungry water: effects of dams 

and gravel mining on river channels', Environmental 

Management 21, pp. 533–551. 


References 

Kristensen, P. and Hansen, H.O., 1994. European 

Rivers and Lakes. Assessment of their Environmental 

State. Environmental Monograph 1. EEA, 

Copenhagen. 

Lehner, B.; Czisch, G. and Vassolo, S., 2005. 'The 

impact of global change on the hydropower 

potential of Europe: a model-based analysis', Energy 

Policy 33, pp. 839–855. 

Létard, V.; Flandre, H. and Lepeltier, S., 2004. La 

France et les français face à la canicule : les leçons d'une 

crise. Rapport d'information du Sénat 195, Février 

2004. 

Leuven, R.S.E.W. and Poudevigne, I., 2002. 'Riverine 

landscape dynamics and ecological risk assessment', 

Freshwater Biology 47, pp. 845–865. 

Liniger, H.P.; Weingartner, R. and Grosjean, M., 

1998. Mountains of the World: Water Towers for the 

21st Century. A Contribution to Global Freshwater 

Management. Mountain Agenda, Institute of 

Geography, University of Bern, Bern. 

Livingstone, D.M., 2003. 'Impact of secular climate 

change on the thermal structure of a large temperate 

central European lake'. Climatic Change 37, 

pp. 205–225. 

López, R. and Justribó, C., 2010. 'The hydrological 

significance of mountains: a regional case study, 

the Ebro River basin, northeast Iberian Peninsula', 

Hydrological Sciences Journal 55, pp. 223–233. 

López-Moreno, J.I. and García-Ruiz, J.M., 2004. 

'Influence of snow accumulation and snowmelt 

on streamflow in the Central Spanish Pyrenees'. 

Hydrological Sciences Journal 49, pp. 787–802.. 

López-Moreno, J.I. and Nogués-Bravo, D., 2005. 

'Interpolating local show depth data: an evaluation 

of methods'. Hydrological Processes, 19, pp. 3167–3176. 

Maisch, M.; Wipf, A.; Denneler, B.; Battaglia, J. and 

Benz, C., 2000. Die Gletscher der Schweizer Alpen. 

Gletscherhochstand 1850, Aktuelle Vergletscherung, 

Gletscherschwund Szenarien. Schlussbericht NFP31. 2. 

Auflage, VdF Hochschulverlag, Zürich. 

Meybeck, M., 2003. 'Global analysis of river systems: 

from Earth system controls to Anthropocene 

syndromes', Philosophical Transactions of the Royal 

Society: Biological Sciences 358, pp. 1935–1955. 

Schädler, B.; Schulla, J. and Wilke, K., 2001. 'Impact 

of Climate Change on Hydrological Regimes and 

Water Resources Management in the Rhine Basin', 


Mountain Agenda, 2000. Mountains of the world 

— mountain forests and sustainable development. 

Department of Geography, University of Bern, 

Switzerland. 

Nesje, A.; Bakke, J.; Dahl, S.O.; Lie, O. and 

Matthews, J.A., 2008. 'Norwegian mountain glaciers 

in the past, present and future', Global and Planetary 

Change 60, pp. 10–27. 

Nilsson, C. 1999. 'Rivers and streams'. Acta 

Phytogeographica Suecica, 84, pp. 135- 148. 

Nilsson, C. and Malm Renöfält, B., 2008. 'Linking 

flow regime and water quality in rivers: a challenge 

to adaptive catchment management', Ecology and 

Society 13, p. 18. 

NIVA (Norwegian Institute for Water Research), 

2008. ICP Waters — 20 year with monitoring effects of 

long-range transboundary air pollution on surface waters 

in Europe and North-America. NIVA, Norway. 

OcCC (L'Organe consultatif sur les changements 

climatiques), 2007. Klimaänderung und die Schweiz 

2050. Erwartete Auswirkungen auf Umwelt, Gesellschaft 

und Wirtschaft. OcCC, Bern. 

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 

Development), 2007. Climate Change in the European 

Alps — Adapting winter tourism and natural hazards 

management. OECD, Paris. 

Patzelt, G., 1985. 'The period of glacier advances in 

the Alps, 1965 to 1980', Zeitschrift für Gletscherkunde 

und Glazialgeologie 21, pp. 403–407. 

Paul, F.; Kääb, A.; Maisch, M.; Kellenberger, T.W. and 

Haeberli, W., 2004. ‚Rapid disintegration of Alpine 

glaciers observed with satellite data', Geophysical 

Research Letters 31, L21402. 

Pelfini, M. and Smiraglia, C., 1988. 'L'evoluzione 

recente del glacialismo sulle Alpi Italiani: strumenti 

e temi di ricerca', Bollettino della Societa Geografica 

Italiana 1–3, pp. 127–154. 

Port of Switzerland, 2007. Aussenhandelsverkehr der 

Schweiz in Tonnen. Port of Switzerland, Basel. 

Middelkoop, H.; Daamen, K.; Gellens, D.; Grabs, 

W.; Kwadijk, J.C.J.; Lang, H.; Parmet, B.W.A.H.; 


219

References 

Rogora, M., 2007. 'Synchronous trends in N-NO 3 

export from N-saturated river catchments in relation 

to climate', Biogeochemistry 86, pp. 251–268. 

Rogora, M.; Arese, C.; Balestrini, R. and Marchetto, 

A., 2008. 'Climate control on sulphate and nitrate in 

alpine streams of Northern Italy along a nitrogen 

saturation gradient', Hydrological Earth Systems 

Science 12, pp. 371–381. 

Sabatier, P.A.; Focht, W.; Lubell, M.; Trachtenberg, Z.; 

Vedlitz, A. and Matlock, M. (eds.), 2005. Swimming 

upstream — collaborative approaches to watershed 

management. The MIT Press, London. 

Schärer M., 2009. Evaluation of surface waters in 

Switzerland and Europe. EAWAG News 67e. www. 

eawag.ch/medien/publ/eanews/news_67/en67e_ 

schaerer.pdf [Accessed June 2010]. 

Schmocker-Fackel, P. and Naef, F., 2010. 'More 

frequent flooding? Changes in flood frequency in 

Switzerland since 1850', Journal of Hydrology 381, 

pp. 1–8. 

Scholz, M., 2007. 'Expert system outline for the 

classification of sustainable flood retention basins 

(SFRBs)', Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems 

24, pp. 193–209. 

SedNet, 2006. Good practice in managing the ecological 

impacts of hydropower schemes; flood protection works; 

and works designed to facilitate navigation under 

the Water Framework Directive. www.sednet.org/ 

download/061130_WFD_paper.pdf [Accessed June 

2010]. 

Selman, P. H., 2006. Planning at the landscape scale. 

Routledge, London and New York. 

Serrat, D., and Ventura, J., 1993. Glaciers of the 

Pyrenees, Spain and France'. In: Williams, R. Jr., and 

J. Ferrigno (eds.) Glaciers of Continental Europe: Satellite 

Image Atlas of Glaciers of the World, U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 1386-E, E49–E61. 

Spreafico, M. and Weingartner, R., 2005. The 

Hydrology of Switzerland. Federal Office for Water 

and Geology, Bern. 

Steiger, S. and Meyer, M., 2008. 'Snowmaking and 

climate change: future options for snow production 

in Tyrolean ski resorts', Mountain Research and 

Development 28, pp. 292–298.8 

Stevens, C.; Quinton, J.; Harriett, O.; Reynolds, B.; 

Deasy, C. and Armstrong, A., 2008. Understanding 

the contribution of grass uplands to water quality. Defra 

project WQ012 . DEFRA, the United Kingdom. 

Stewart, I.T., 2009. 'Changes in snowpack and 

snowmelt runoff for key mountain regions', 

Hydrological Processes 23, pp. 78–94. 

Thellbro, C., 2006. Local Natural Resource Dependency 

in a Swedish Boreal Municipality Context. Licentiate 

Thesis, Report No. 19. Swedish University of 

Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Resource 

Management and Geomatics. Umeå, Sweden. 

Törnblom, J., 2008. 'A landscape approach towards 

ecological integrity of catchments and streams', 

Doctoral Thesis 2008: 70. Acta Universitas 

Agriculturae Sueciae. 

Törnblom, J. and Angelstam, P., 2008. Assessment, 

planning and management of ecological sustainability 

in riverine landscapes: towards an integrated tool-box 

and adaptive governance. Proceedings from the VHU 

Conference on Science for Sustainable Development. 

Linköping, Sweden, 2007. 


2004. Rapid Environmental Assessment of the TiszaRiver 

Basin. UNEP, Geneva. 


2007a. Carpathians Environment Outlook 2007. 

UNEP/DEWA, Europe. 


2007b. Global outlook for ice & snow. UNEP/GRID, 

Arendal, Norway. 

van der Schrier, G.; Briffa, K.R.; Jones, P.D. and 

Osborn, T.J., 2006. 'Summer moisture availability 

across Europe', Journal of Climate 19, pp. 2818–2834. 

Vanham, D., Fleischhaker, E. and Rauch, W., 2008. 

‚Technical Note: Seasonality in alpine water resources 

management — a regional assessment', Hydrology and 

Earth Systems Science 12, pp. 91–100. 

Vincent, C., 2002. 'Influence of climate change 

over the 20th century on four French glacier mass 

balances', Journal of Geophysical Research 107, p. 4375. 

Viviroli, D.; Dürr, H.H.; Messerli, B.; Meybeck, M. 

and Weingartner, R., 2007. 'Mountains of the world, 

water towers for humanity: typology, mapping, 

and global significance', Water Resources Research 43, 

W07447. 


References 

Viviroli, D. and Weingartner, R., 2004. 'The 

hydrological significance of mountains — from 

regional to global scale', Hydrology and Earth System 

Sciences 8, pp. 1016–1029. 

Watson, R.T. and Haeberli, W., 2004. 'Environmental 

threats, mitigation strategies and high-mountain 

areas', Ambio Special Report 13, pp. 2–10. 

Weingartner, R.; Viviroli, D. and Schädler, B., 

2007. ‚Water resources in mountain regions: a 

methodological approach to assess the water 

balance in a highland-lowland-system', Hydrological 

Processes 21, pp. 578–585. 

Weyhenmeyer, G.A.; Blenckner, T. and Pettersson, 

K., 1999. 'Changes of the plankton spring outburst 

related to the North Atlantic Oscillation', Limnology 

and Oceanography 44, pp. 1788–1792. 

Weyhenmeyer, G.A.; Meili, M. and Livingstone, 

D.M., 2005. 'Systematic differences in the trend 

towards earlier ice-out on Swedish lakes along a 

latitudinal temperature gradient', Verhandlungen 

Internationale Vereinigung für Theoretische und 

Angewandte Limnologie, Vol 29, pp. 257–260. 

WGMS (World Glacier Monitoring Service), 1989. 

World glacier inventory — status 1988. 

IAHS(ICSI)/UNEP/UNESCO, Nairobi. 

WGMS (World Glacier Monitoring Service), 

2008a. Fluctuations of glaciers 2000–2005 (Vol. IX). 

ICSU(FAGS)/IUGG(IACS)/UNEP/UNESCO/WMO, 

World Glacier Monitoring Service, University of 

Zurich. 

WGMS (World Glacier Monitoring Service), 2008b. 

Global Glacier Changes: facts and figures. UNEP, World 

Glacier Monitoring Service, Zurich, Switzerland. 

WGMS (World Glacier Monitoring Service), 2009. 

Glacier Mass Balance Bulletin No. 10 (2006–2007). 

ICSU(WDS)/IUGG(IACS)/UNEP/UNESCO/ 

WMO, World Glacier Monitoring Service, Zurich, 

Switzerland: 96 pp. 

Whiteman, D., 2000. Mountain Meteorology. Oxford 

University Press, Oxford. 

World Health Organization, 2008a. Floods in Moldova, 

Romania and Ukraine (Summer 2008). www.euro. 

who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/emergencies/ 

disaster-preparedness-and-response/policy/ 

response/floods-2008 [Accessed June 2010]. 

World Health Organization, 2008b. Initial rapid 

assessment (IRA), 2–4 August 2008. www.euro.who. 

int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/emergencies/ 

disaster-preparedness-and-response/policy/ 

response/floods-2008/initial-rapid-assessment 


Wilby, R.L., 2004. 'Impacts of climate change on 

reference sites used for ecohydrological restoration 

and research', Ecohydrology and Hydrobiology 4, 

pp. 243–53. 

Wilby, R.L.; Orr, H.G.; Hedger, M.; Forrow, D. and 

Blackmore, M., 2006. 'Risks posed by climate change 

to delivery of Water Framework Directive objectives', 

Environmental International 32, pp. 1043–1055. 

Wohl, E., 2006. 'Human impacts to mountain streams', 

Geomorphology 79, pp. 217–248. 

Wolkersdorfer, C. and Bowell, R. (eds.), 2005. 

'Contemporary Reviews of Mine Water Studies 

in Europe', Mine Water and the Environment 24, 

Supplementary Material. Springer, Verlag. 

World Energy Council, 2007. 2007 Survey of Energy 

Resources. WEC, London. 

WWF (World Wildlife Fund), 2008. 20 years of change 

in the Danube-Carpathian region. WWF. 

Zemp, M.; Frauenfelder, R.; Haeberli, W. and Hoelzle, 

M., 2005. Worldwide glacier mass balance measurements: 

general trends and first results of the extraordinary year 

2003 in Central Europe. Data of Glaciological Studies 

(Materialy glyatsiologicheskih issledovanii), Moscow, 

pp. 3–12. 

Zemp, M.; Haeberli, W.; Hoelzle, M. and Paul, F., 

2006. 'Alpine glaciers to disappear within decades?' 


Zemp, M.; Hoelzle, M. and Haeberli, W., 2009. 'Six 

decades of glacier mass balance observations — a 

review of the worldwide monitoring network', Annals 

of Glaciology 50, pp. 101–111. 

Zemp, M.; Paul, F.; Hoelzle, M. and Haeberli, W., 

2007. 'Glacier fluctuations in the European Alps 

1850–2000: an overview and spatio-temporal analysis 

of available data'. In: Orlove, B., Wiegandt, E. and 

Luckman, B. (eds.), The darkening peaks: Glacial retreat 

in scientific and social context. University of California 

Press, California, pp. 152–167. 


221

References 

Chapter 7 

Aitchison, J. and Gadsden, G., 1992. 'Common land'. 

In: Howarth, W. and Rodgers, C.P. (eds), Agriculture, 

conservation and land use — law and policy issues for rural 

areas. University Press of Wales, Cardiff. 

Backshall, J.; Manley, J. and Rebane, M., 2001. 

The upland management handbook. English Nature, 

Peterborough. 

Bardgett, R.D.; Marsden, J.H. and Howard, D.C., 1995. 

'The extent and condition of heather in moorland 

in the uplands of England and Wales'. Biological 

Conservation 71, pp. 155–161. 

Beaufoy, G., 2008. HNV Farming — explaining 

the concept and interpreting EU and national policy 

commitments. European Forum on Nature 

Conservation, Stratford-upon-Avon. 

Benediktsson, K., 2007. 'Scenophobia and the aesthetic 

politics of landscape'. Geografiska Annaler B 89, pp. 

203–217. 

Bossard, M.; Feranec, J. and Otahel, J., 2000. Corine land 

cover technical guide — Addendum 2000. EEA Technical 

Report No 40. EEA, Copenhagen. 

Büttner, G.; Feranec, J.; Jaffrain, G.; Mari, L.; Maucha, 

G. and Soukup, T., 2004. 'The Corine Land Cover 2000 

Project'. In: R. Reuter, (ed.), EARSeL eProceedings 3, 

pp. 331–346. 

Dark, P., 2004. The environment of Britain in the first 

millennium AD. Gerald Duckworth and Co. Ltd., 

London. 

Dec, M.; Kasztz, Z.; Korzeniowska, K.; Podsada, A.; 

Sobczyszyn-Zmudz, S.; Wojtowicz, A.; Zimna, E. and 

Ostapowicz, K., submitted. 'Land use changes in three 

Carpathian communes (Niedzwiedz, Szczawnica, 

Trzciana) in the second part of 20th century'. Archiwum 

Fotogrametrii I Teledetekcji. 

DIAMONT (Data Infrastructure of the Alps — 

Mountain Orientated Network Technology), 2008. 

DIAMONT database, http://www.diamont-database. 

eu [accessed July 2010]. 

EEA/UNEP, 2004. High nature value farmland — 

characteristics, trends and policy challenges. EEA 

Report No 1/2004. European Environment Agency, 

Copenhagen/ United Nations Environment 

Programme Regional Office for Europe, Geneva. 

European Commission, 2004. Mountain areas in Europe: 

Analysis of mountain areas in EU Member states, Acceding 

and other European countries. Directorate-General for 

Regional Policy, European Commission, Brussels. 

Feranec, J., Hazeu, G., Christensen, S. and Jaffrain, G., 

2007. 'Corine land cover change detection in Europe 

(case studies of the Netherlands and Slovakia)'. Land 

Use Policy 24, pp. 234–247. 

Fuller, R.J.; Ward, W.; Hird, D. and Brown, A.F., 2002. 

'Declines of ground-nesting birds in two areas of 

upland farmland in the south Pennines of England'. 

Bird Study 49, pp. 146–152. 

Helbrecht, I. and Behring, K., 2002. Wohneigentum in 

Europa. Wüstenrot-Stiftung, Ludwigsburg. 

Heymann, Y., Steenmans, C.H., Croissille, G. and 

Bossard, M., 1994. CORINE land cover. Technical 

guide. Office for Official Publications European 

Communities, Luxembourg. 

Hofmeister, K., 2005. 'Flächensparende 

Siedlungsentwicklung in Alpenländern. 

Steuerungsmöglichkeit der Raumordnung auf 

kommunaler Ebene in Bayern, Tirol und Südtirol'. 

Würzburger Geographische Manuskripte 69. 

Hostert, P.; Kuemmerle, T.; Radeloff, V.C. and Müller, 

D., 2008. Post-socialist land-use and land-cover change 

in the Carpathian Mountains. International Human 

Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental 

Change, Update 2, pp. 70–73. IHDP, Bonn. 

Huijbens, E. and Benediktsson, K., 2007. 'Practising 

highland heterotopias: automobility in the interior of 

Iceland'. Mobilities 2, pp. 143–165. 

IEEP (Institute for European Environmental Policy), 

2007. HNV Indicators for Evaluation. Final report for DG 

Agriculture. Contract notice 2006-G4-04. 

JNCC (Joint Nature Conservation Committee), 2007. 

Upland hay meadows habitat action plan. www.ukbap. 

org.uk/ukplans.aspx?id=11 [accessed June 2010]. 

Kaim, D., 2009. 'Land-cover changes in Polish‒ 

Slovakian border regions: a case study of the Małe 

Pieniny Mts'. Przegląd Geograficzny 81, pp. 93–106. 

Kozak, J., 2009, 'Land use change in the northern 

Carpathians'. In: Jandl, R., Borsdorf, H., van Miegroet, 

R., Lackner, R. and Psenner, R. (eds), Global Change and 

Sustainable Development in Mountain Regions. Alpine 

Space — Man & Environment 7. Innsbruck University 

Press, Innsbruck, pp. 93–96. 


References 

Kozak, J., 2010. 'Forest cover changes and their 

drivers in the Polish Carpathian Mountains since 

1800'. In: Nagendra, H. and Southworth, J. (eds), 

Reforesting Landscapes Linking Pattern and Process, 

Landscape Series 10. Springer, Verlag, pp. 253–273. 

Kuemmerle, T.; Radeloff, V.C.; Perzanowski, K. and 

Hostert, P., 2006. 'Cross-border comparison of land 

cover and landscape pattern in eastern Europe using 

a hybrid classification technique'. Remote Sensing of 

Environment 103, pp. 449–464. 

Kuemmerle, T.; Hostert, P.; Radeloff, V.C.; 

Perzanowski K. and Kruhlov I., 2007. 'Post-socialist 

forest disturbance in the Carpathian border region 

of Poland, Slovakia, and Ukraine'. Ecological 

Applications 17, pp. 1279–1295. 

Kuemmerle, T.; Hostert, P.; Radeloff, V.C.; van der 

Linden, S.; Perzanowski, K. and Kruhlov, I., 2008. 

'Cross-border comparison of post-socialist farmland 

abandonment in the Carpathians'. Ecosystems 11, 

pp. 614–628. 

Kuemmerle, T.; Chaskovskyy, O.; Knorn, J.; Hostert, 

P.; Kruhlov, I.; Kozak, J. and Radeloff, V.C., 2009a. 

'Forest cover changes and illegal logging in the 

Ukrainian Carpathians 1988–2007'. Remote Sensing of 

Environment 113, pp. 1194–1207. 

Kuemmerle, T.; Hostert, P.; St-Louis, V. and Radeloff, 

V.C., 2009b. 'Using image texture to map field size 

in eastern Europe'. Journal of Land Use Science 4, 

pp. 85–107. 

Kuemmerle, T.; Kozak, J.; Radeloff, V.C. and Hostert, 

P., 2009c. 'Differences in forest disturbance rates 

among land ownership types in Poland during and 

after socialism'. Journal of Land Use Science 4, pp. 73–83. 

Lise, Y. and Stolton, S., 2010. 'Crop genetic diversity 

protection in Turkey'. In: Stolton, S. and Dudley, N. 

(eds), Arguments for protected areas: multiple benefits for 

conservation and use. Earthscan, London, pp. 70–72. 

Main-Knorn, M.; Hostert, P.; Kozak, J. and 

Kuemmerle, T., 2009. 'How pollution legacies and 

land use histories shape post-communist forest 

cover trends in the Western Carpathians'. Forest 

Ecology and Management 258, pp. 60–70. 

Marzelli, S.; Lintzmeyer, F. and Schwarz, C., 2008. 

Managing alpine land resources — approaches and 

instruments. Final Report DIAMONT Work Package 

9: Elaboration and Optimisation of Indicator 

Based and Qualitative Tools to Stimulate and Steer 

Regional Development. Ifuplan, Munich. 

McNeill, J.R., 1992. The mountains of the Mediterranean 

world: an environmental history. Cambridge University 

Press, Cambridge. 

Ollier, C. and Pain, C., 2000. The origin of mountains. 

Routledge, London and New York. 

Paracchini, M.L.; Petersen, J.E.; Hoogeveen, Y.; 

Bamps, C.; Burfield, I. and van Swaay, C., 2008. 

High Nature Value Farmland in Europe: an estimate 

of the distribution patterns on the basis of land cover 

and biodiversity data. JRC Scientific and Technical 

Reports. EUR 23480 EN. 

Páramo, F. and Arévalo, J., 2008. CORILIS 

methodology: smoothing of CORINE land cover data. 

Internal report. European Topic Centre for Land Use 

and Spatial Information, Barcelona. 

Redman, M. and Hemmami, M., 2008. 

Agri‐Environment Handbook for Turkey: Developing 

a National Agri-Environment Programme for Turkey. 

Avalon, Institute for European Environmental 

Policy, Buğday. Association for Supporting 

Ecological Living, and Ministry of Agriculture and 

Rural Affairs General Directorate of Agricultural 

Production and Development. 

Sæþórsdóttir, A.D., 2010. 'Planning nature tourism 

in Iceland based on tourist attitudes'. Tourism 

geographies 12, pp. 25–52. 

Tappeiner, U.; Borsdorf, A. and Tasser, E., 2008. 

Alpenatlas/Atlas des Alpes/Atlante delle Alpi/Atlas Alp/ 

Mapping the Alps: Society — Economy — Environment. 

Spektrum, Heidelberg. 

Thórhallsdóttir, T., 2007. 'Strategic planning at 

the national level: evaluating and ranking energy 

projects by environmental impact'. Environmental 

Impact Assessment Review 27, pp. 545–568. 

Turner, B.L. II, Lambin, E.F. and Reenberg, A., 

2007. 'The emergence of land change science for 

global environmental change and sustainability'. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, 

20666–20671. 

Turnock, D., 2003. The human geography of east central 

Europe. Routledge, London and New York. 

UBA (Umweltbundesamt), 2004. Die 

Veränderungen des Lebensraums Alpen 

dokumentieren. Indikatorensystem und Konzept für 

einen Alpenzustandsbericht. Abschlussbericht der 

Arbeitsgruppe „Umweltziele und Indikatoren“ der 

Alpenkonvention (3. Mandatsphase). UBA, Berlin. 


223

References 

Williamson, T., 2002. The transformation of rural 

England — farming and the landscape 1700 to 1870. 

University of Exeter Press, Exeter. 

Winter, M.; Gaskell, P.; Gasson, R. and Short, C., 

1998. The effects of the 1992 reform of the Common 

Agricultural Policy on the countryside of Great Britain. 

Final report, March Vol.2, main findings; CCX47(ii). 

Countryside Commission, Cheltenham. 

Chapter 8 

References for Section 8.1 (organised by type) 

CEC (Commission of the European Communities), 

2009. Report from the Commission to the Council 

and the European Parliament. Composite Report 

on the Conservation Status of Habitat Types and 

Species as required under Article 17 of the Habitats 

Directive. COM/2009/0358. 

Plants 

Bañares, Á.; Blanca, G.; Güemes J.; Moreno J.C. and 

Ortiz, S. (eds), 2004. Atlas y Libro Rojo de la Flora 

Vascular Amenazada de España. Dirección General de 

Conservación de la Naturaleza, Madrid. 

Council of Europe, 2007. Progress of the pilot 

projects programme in 2006/2007. Final Project 

Report, Norway. Group of Experts for the setting 

up of the Emerald Network of Areas of Special 

Conservation Interest. Council of Europe. 

Čušin, B. (ed.), 2004. Natura 2000 v Sloveniji. Rastline. 

Založba ZRC SAZU, Ljubljana. 

Käsermann, Ch. and Moser, D.M., 1999. Merkblätter 

Artenschutz. Blütenpflanzen und Farne. — Bundesamt 

für Umwelt. Wald und Landschaft, Bern. 

Kotiranta, H.; Uotila, P.; Sulkava, S. and Peltonen, 

S.-L. (eds), 1998. Red data book of east Fennoscandia. 

Ministry of Environment, Finnish Environment 

Institute and Botanical Museum, Finnish Museum of 

Natural History, Helsinki. 

Morgan, V. and Leon, Ch., 1992. Datasheets of flora 

species for revision of Appendix I. of the Bern Convention. 

Vol. II. Nature and environment 61, Council of 

Europe Publishing, Strasbourg. 



Vol. III. Nature and environment 62, Council of 




Vol. IV. Nature and environment 63, Council of 


Internet sources — plants 

APAT (Agency for Environmental Protection and 

Technical Services) (no date). (Red list Italy) www. 

apat.gov.it/Media/listerosseblu/PLAYER.html (in 

Italian) (Red list Italy) [accessed July 2010]. 

Eionet (European Environment Information and 

Observation Network), 2009. Article 17 website 

http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17 (Article 

17 website) [accessed July 2010]. 

IOPI (International Organisation for Plant 

Information), 2005. Global checklist, http://bgbm3. 

bgbm.fu-berlin.de/iopi/gpc/query.asp (IOPI Global 

checklist) [accessed July 2010]. 

Ministry of Environment and Rural and Marine, 

Spain, 2008. Red book, www.mma.es/secciones/ 

biodiversidad/inventarios/inb/flora_vascular/index. 

htm (in Spanish) [accessed July 2010]. 

Natura 2000 site France, 2010. www.natura2000.fr/ 

(in French) (Natura 2000 site France) [accessed July 

2010]. 

Natura 2000 site Portugal, no date. www.icn.pt/ 

psrn2000/fichas_valores_naturais.htm (in Portugese) 

(Natura 2000 site Portugal) [accessed July 2010]. 

Nordic flora, 2010. http://linnaeus.nrm.se/flora/ (in 

Swedish) (Nordic flora) [accessed July 2010]. 

Invertebrates 

Andersen, M., 1988. 'Mosskorpionen 

Anthrenochernes stellae Lohmander genfundet i 

Danmark'. Entomologiske Meddelelser 56, pp. 125–126. 

Askew, R.R., 1988. The Dragonflies of Europe. Harley 

Books, Colchester. 

Biström, O., 1995. 'Kartering av stor natebock, 

bladbaggen Macroplea pubipennis (Coleoptera: 

Chrysomelidae) i Esboviken, Finland'. Sahlbergia 2, 

pp. 113–116. 

Drogla, R. and Lippold, K., 1994. 'Neunachweise 

von Pseudoskorpionen in den neuen Bundesländern 

Deutschlands (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpiones)'. 

Arachnol. Mitt. 8, pp. 75–76. 


References 

Gärdenfors, U. and Wilander, P., 1995. 'Ecology 

and phoretic habits of Anthrenochernes stellae 

(Pseudoscorpionida, Chernetidae)'. Bulletin of the 

British Arachnological Society 10, pp. 28–30. 

Good, J.A. and Speight, C.D., 1996. Saproxylic 

invertebrates and their conservation throughout Europe. 

Council of Europe, Strasbourg T-PVS (96) 31, 

pp. 1–52. 

Heliovaara, K. and Väisänen, R., 1983. 

'Environmental changes and the flat bugs 

(Heteroptedra, Aralidae and Aneuridae): 

distribution and abundance in eastern 

Fennoscandia'. Ann.Entomol.Fenn. 49, pp. 103–109. 

Korshunov, Y. and Gorbunov, P., 1995. Dnevnye 

babochki aziatskoi chasti Rossii. Spravochnik. [Butterflies 

of the Asian part of Russia. a handbook]. Ural 

University Press, Ekaterinburg. 

Lundger, S., 2001. 'Skalbaggsfaunan in Blakolen — 

reservatet i Norrbotten'. Aargaang 20, pp. 97–105. 

Rafalski, J., 1967. 'Zaleszczotki. Pseudoscorpionidea'. 

Kat.Fauny polski 32, pp. 1–34. 

Rutanen, I., 1994. 'Xyletinus tremulicola (Coleoptera, 

Anobiidae) gound in Finland'. Entomologica 

Fennica 5, pp. 201–202. 

Škapec, L. (ed.), 1992. Červená kniha ohrožených a 

vzácnych druhu rostlin a živočichu ČSSR 3. Bezstavovce. 

Príroda, Bratislava. 

Sternberg, K. and Buchwald, R., 1999. Die Libellen 

Baden-Württembergs Band 1: Allgemeiner Teil 

Kleinlibellen (Zygoptera). Verlag Eugen Ulmer, 

Stuttgart. 

Tolman, T. and Lewington, R., 1997. Butterflies of 

Britain and Europe. Harper Collins Publishers. 

van Helsdingen, P.J.; Willemse, L. and Speight, 

M.C.D., 1996a. Background information on invertebrates 

of the Habitats Directive and the Bern Convention. Part 

I — Crustacea, Coleoptera and Lepidoptera. Nature and 

environment 79, Council of Europe. 

van Swaay, C.A.M., Warren, M.S. and Grill, A., 1997. 

Threatened butterflies in Europe — provisional report. 

De Vlinderstichting (Dutch Butterfly Conservation), 

Wageningen and British Butterfly Conservation, 

Wareham, the United Kingdom. 

van Swaay, C.A.M.; Warren, M.S., 1999. Red data 

book of European butterflies (Rhopalocera). Nature and 

Environment 99, Council of Europe Publishing, 

Strasbourg. 

Internet sources — Invertebrates 

Biomi (Personal website of Mikko Heikkinen), 2003. 

Threatened species of the city of Espoo (in Finnish), 

www.biomi.org/biology/threatened.html [accessed 

June 2010]. 

Distribution of Carabus menetriesi pacholei, no 

date. http://volny.cz/midge/carabus/menpach.htm 

[accessed June 2010]. 

Finnish Heteroptera, 2002. http://joyx.joensuu. 

fi/~pmartik/pages/Aradus_main.html (in Finnish) 

[accessed June 2010]. 

http://szmn.sbras.ru [accessed June 2010]. 

www2.emg.umu.se/projects/biginst/andersn/ 

blakolen.pdf [accessed June 2010]. 

www.lubi.edu.lv [accessed June 2010]. 

www.lwf.bayern.de [accessed Jun 2010]. 

www.noel.gv.at [accessed June 2010]. 

www.probertencyclopaedia.com [accessed June 

2010]. 

Fish and freshwater lamprey 

Banarescu, P.M., 1994. 'The present-day conservation 

status of the freshwater fish of Romania'. Ocrot. nat. 

med. ínconj. Bucuresti 38, pp. 5–20. 

Baruš, V. and Oliva, O., 1995. Fauna ČR a SR. Svazek 

28/1. Mihulovci a ryby (1). Academia, Nakladatelství 

Academie věd Česke Republiky, Praha. 

Baruš, V. and Oliva, O., 1995. Fauna ČR a SR. Svazek 

28/2. Mihulovci a ryby (2). Academia, Nakladatelství 

Academie věd Česke Republiky, Praha. 

Delling, B., 2002. 'Morphological distribution of 

the marble trout, Salmo marmoratus, in comparision 

of the marble trout, Salmo trutta, from river Otra, 

Norway'. Cybium 26, pp. 283–300. 

Karapetkova, M.; Živkov, M. and Alexandrova- 

Kelomanov, K., 1998. Freshwater fish in Bulgaria. 

In: Meine, C. (ed.), Bulgaria's biological diversity: 

conservation status and needs assessment. Volumes I and 

II. Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, D.C., 

pp. 347–375. 


225

References 

Lelek, A., 1987. The freshwater fishes of Europe. 

Vol.9. Threatened fishes of Europe. Aula-Verlag, 

Wiesenbade. 

Oliva, O.; Hrabě, S. and Lác, J., 1968. Stavovce 

Slovenska I. Ryby, obojživelníky a plazy. Vyd. SAV, 

Bratislava. 

Povž, M. and Sket, B., 1999. 'Osteichthyes 

(sladkovodne)'. In: Kryštufek, B. and Janžekovič, F. 

(eds), Ključ za določanje vretenčarjev Slovenije. DZS, 

Ljubljana, pp. 211–260. 

Vidic, J., 1992. Varstvo narave. Nature conservation 

17, Zavod Republike Slovenike za varstvo naravne i 

kulturne dediščine, Ljublana. 

Internet sources — Fish and freshwater lamprey 

Froese, R. and Pauly, D. (eds), 2010.FishBase, World 

Wide Web electronic publication, www.fishbase. 

org, version (05/2010) [accessed July 2010]. 

ICHTHYOS Italy, no date. www.ittiofauna.org/ (in 

Italian) [accessed July 2010]. 

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of 

Nature and Natural Resources), 2010. Red List of 

Threatened Species, www.iucnredlist.org [accessed 

July 2010]. 

JNCC (Joint Nature Conservation Committee), 

2010. www.jncc.gov.uk/ [accessed July 2010]. 

Amphibians 

Baruš, V. and Oliva, O., 1992. Obojživelníci- 

Amphibia. Academia, Praha. 

Gasc, J.-P.; Cabela, A.; Crnobrnja-Isailovic, J.; 

Dolmen, D.; Grossenbacher, K.; Haffner, P.; 

Lescure, J.; Martens, H.; Martínez Rica, J.P.; Maurin, 

H.; Oliveira, M.E.; Sofianidou, T.S.; Veith, M. and 

Zuiderwijk, A. (eds), 1997. Atlas of amphibians and 

reptiles in Europe. Societas Europaea Herpetoligica 

& Muséum National d´Histoire Narurelle (IEGB/ 

SPN), Paris. 

Nöllert, A. and Nöllert, Ch., 1992. Die Amphibien 

Europas: Bestimmung, Gefährdung, Schutz. Franckh- 

Kosmos, Stuttgart. 

Temple, H.J. and Cox, N.A., 2009. European red list 

of amphibians. Office for Official Publications of the 

European Communities, Luxembourg. 

Internet sources — Amphibians 

Amhibians and reptiles in Austria, 2010. www. 

herpetofauna.at (in German) [accessed July 2010]. 

AmphibiaWeb, 2010. Online system that provides 

access to information on amphibian declines, 

conservation, natural history, and taxonomy http:/ 

amphibiaweb.org [accessed July 2010]. 

Caudata.org, 2010. Newt and salamander portal, 

www.caudata.org [accessed July 2010]. 

Globalamphibians, 2009. www.globalamphibians. 

org [accessed July 2010]. 



Threatened Species, 2009, www.iucnredlist.org 


Salamanderland, no date. information on 

salamanders and newts, www.salamanderland.at 


Reptiles 

Baruš, V. et al., 1989. Červená kniha ohrožených 

a vzácných druhů rostlin a živočichů ČSFR 2. Kruhoústí, 

ryby, obojživelníci, plazi, savci. [Czechoslovak red data 

book]. Státní zemědělské nakladatelství, Praha. 

Cox, N.A. and Temple, H.J., 2009. European Red List 

of Reptiles. Office for Official Publications of the 


Diesener, G. et al., 1997. Obojživelníky a plazy. Ikar, 

a. s., Bratislava. 

Gasc, J.P. et al. (eds), 1997. Atlas of amphibians and 

reptiles in Europe. Societas Europaea Herpetologica 

and Muséum National d Histoire Naturelle 

(IEGB/SPN), Paris. 

Hodar, J.A.; Pleguezuelos, J.M. and Poveda, J.C., 

2000. 'Habitat selection of the common chameleon 

(Chamaeleo chamaeleon) (L.) in an area under 

development in southern Spain: implications for 

conservation'. Biological Conservation 94, pp. 63–68. 

Kryštufek, B. and Janžekovič, F., 1999. Ključ za 

določanje vretenčarjev Slovenije. DZS Ljubljana. 

Malkmus, R., 2004. Amphibians and reptiles of 

Portugal, Madeira and the Azores-Archipelago. ARG. 

Gantner Verlag KG, Ruggel. 


References 

Vences, M., Köhler, J., Ziegler, T. and Böhme W. 

(eds), 2006. Herpetologia Bonnensis II. Proceedings 

of the 13th Congress of the Societas Europaea 

Herpetologica, pp. 205–209. 

Internet sources — Reptiles 

Amphibians and reptiles of the Balkans, 2010. 

www.balcanica.cz [accessed July 2010]. 

Biodiversity in Pakistan, 2010. www. 

wildlifeofpakistan.com [accessed July 2010]. 




July 2010]. 

Nature and geography of Spain, 2010. www. 

iberianature.com [accessed July 2010]. 

Reptiles and amphibians of France, 2010. www. 

herpfrance.com (in French) [accessed July 2010]. 

Reptiles of Denmark, (2008). www.reptilia.dk 


Reptiles of Slovakia, 2009. www.plazyunas.com (in 

Slovakian) [accessed July 2010]. 

Mammals 

Albayrak, I. and Arslan, A., 2006. 'Contribution to 

the taxonomical and biological characteristics of 

Sciurus anomalus in Turkey (Mammalia: Rodentia)'. 

Turk. J. Zool. 30, pp. 111–116. 

Baruš, V. et al., 1989. Červená kniha ohrožených 

a vzácných druhů rostlin a živočichů ČSFR 2. Kruhoústí, 

ryby, obojživelníci, plazi, savci. [Czechoslovak red data 

book]. Státní zemědělské nakladatelství, Praha. 

Borghi, C. E.; Giannoni, S. M. and Martinez-Rica, 

J. P., 1994. 'Habitat segregation of three sympatric 

fossorial rodents in the Spanish Pyrenees'. Zeitschrift 

für Säugetierkunde 59, pp. 52–57. 

Feriancová-Masárová, Z. and Hanák, V., 1965. 

Stavovce Slovenska I. Cicavce. Vyd. SAV, Bratislava. 

Kryštufek, B. and Janžekovič, F., 1999. Ključ za 

določanje vretenčarjev Slovenije. DZS, Ljubljana. 

Kryštufek, B. and Vohralík, V., 2001. Mammals of 

Turkey and Cyprus. Science and Research Centre. 

Koper, Slovenia. 

Maran, T.; Macdonald, D.W.; Kruuk, H.; Sidorovich, 

V. and Rozhnov, V.V., 1998. 'The continuing decline 

of the European mink Mustela lutreola: evidence 

for the intraguild aggression hypothesis'. In: 

Dunstone, N. and Gorman, M. (eds, Behaviour 

and ecology of Riparian mammals. Symposia of the 

Zoological Society of London, based on papers from 

a conference held in London in 1995. 

Mitchell-Jones, A.J.; Amori, G.; Bogdanowicz, W.; 

Kryštufek, B.; Reijnders, P.J.H.; Spitzenberger, F.; 

Stubbem, M.; Thissen, J.B.M.; Vohralik, V. and Zima, 

J., 1999. The atlas of European mammals. Academic 

press, London. 

Paradis, E., 1995. 'Survival, immigration and habitat 

quality in the Mediterranean pine vole'. The Journal 

of Animal Ecology 64, pp. 579–591. 

Pauza, P., 1998. 'Bats of Lithuania: distribution, 

status and protection'. Mammal Rev. 28, pp. 53–67. 

Temple, H.J. and Terry, A. (eds), 2007. The status 

and distribution of European mammals. Office for 


Luxembourg. 

Internet sources — Mammals 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ 

conservation/species/redlist/index_en.htm [accessed 

June 2010]. 




July 2010]. 

References for the rest of chapter 8 

Aeschimann, D.; Lauber, K.; Moser, D.M.; Theurillat, 

J.-P., 2004. Flora Alpina. Haupt, Bern. 

Araújo, M.B., 2009. Protected areas and climate 

change in Europe. Report No. T-PVS/Inf 2009 10 

rev. Convention on the Conservation of European 

Wildlife and Natural Habitats, Strasbourg. 

Badeck, F.W.; Bondeau, A.; Bottcher, K.; Doktor, D.; 

Lucht, W.; Schaber, J. and Sitch, S., 2004. 'Responses 

of spring phenology to climate change'. New 

Phytologist 162, pp. 295–309. 

Becker, T.; Dietz, H.; Billeter, R.; Buschmann, H.; 

Edwards, P.J., 2005. Altitudinal distribution of alien 

plant species in the Swiss Alps. Perspectives in Plant 

Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 7, 173–183. 


227

References 

Berthold, P., 2000: Vogelzug. Wiessenschaftliche 

Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt. 

BirdLife International, 2004a. Birds in Europe: 

population estimates, trends, and conservation status. 

BirdLife International, Wageningen. 

BirdLife International, 2004b. Birds in the European 

Union: a status assessment. BirdLife International, 

Wageningen. 

BirdLife International, 2010. 2010 – Turning or 

Breaking Point for Europe's Wildlife? A report on EU 

progress towards halting biodiversity loss. Cambridge, 

UK: BirdLife International. [www.birdlife.org/eu/ 

pdfs/BirdLife2010AssessmentreportFINAL.pdf] 

Björk, R.G.; Hooshang, M.; Klemedtsson, L.; 

Lewis-Jonsson, L. and Molau, U., 2007. 'Long-term 

warming effects on root morphology characteristics, 

root biomass distribution, and microbial activity 

in two dry tundra plant communities in northern 

Sweden'. New Phytologist 176, pp. 862–873. 

Björk, R.G. and Molau, U., 2007. 'Ecology of alpine 

snowbeds and the impact of global change'. Arctic, 

Antarctic, and Alpine Research 39, pp. 34–43. 

Brandmayr, P.; Pizzolotto, R. and Scalercio, S., 2003. 

'Overview: invertebrate diversity in Europe's alpine 

regions'. In: Nagy, L.; Grabherr, G.; Körner, C. and 

Thompson, D.B.A. (eds), Alpine biodiversity in Europe. 

Springer, Berlin, pp. 233–237. 

Bright, J.; Langston, R.; Bullman, R.; Evans, R.; 

Gardner, S. and Pearce-Higgins, J., 2008. 'Map 

of bird sensitivities to wind farms in Scotland: a 

tool to aid planning and conservation'. Biological 

Conservation 141, pp. 2342–2356. 

Britton, A.J.; Beale, C.M.; Towers, W. and Hewison, 

R.L., 2009. Biodiversity gains and losses: Evidence 

for homogenisation of Scottish alpine vegetation. 

Biological Conservation 142(8): 1728–1739. 

Buchanan, G.M.; Grant, M.C.; Sanderson, R.A. and 

Pearce-Higgins, J.W., 2006. 'The contribution of 

invertebrate taxa to moorland bird diets and the 

potential implications of land-use management'. Ibis 

148, pp. 615–628. 

Camarero, J.J. and Gutiérrez, E., 2004. 'Pace and 

pattern of recent treeline dynamics response of 

ecotones to climatic variability in the Spanish 

Pyrenees'. Climatic Change 63, pp. 181–200. 

Cannone, N.; Sgorbati, S. and Guglielmin, M., 2007. 

'Unexpected impacts of climate change on alpine 

vegetation'. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 

5, pp. 360–364. 

Casalegno, S.; Amatulli, G.; Camia, A.; Nelson, A. 

and Pekkarinen, A., 2010. Vulnerability of Pinus 

cembra L. in the Alps and the Carpathian mountains 

under present and future climates. Forest Ecology and 

Management 259, pp. 750–761. 

CBD (UN Convention on Biological Diversity), 2010. 

Home page, www.cbd.int [accessed July 2010]. 

DASIE (Delivering Alien Invasive Species 

Inventories for Europe) 2010. www.europe-aliens. 

org [accessed July 2010]. 

Dirnböck, T.; Dullinger, S. and Grabherr, G., 2003. A 

regional impact assessment of climate and land-use 

change on alpine vegetation. Journal of Biogeography 

30, pp. 401–417. 

Dullinger, S.; Dirnbock, T. and Grabherr, G., 2004. 

'Modelling climate change-driven treeline shifts: 

relative effects of temperature increase, dispersal 

and invasibility'. Journal of Ecology 92, pp. 241–252. 

Egli, M.; Hitz, C.; Fitze, P. and Mirabella, A., 2004. 

'Experimental determination of climate change 

effects on above-ground and below-ground organic 

matter in alpine grasslands by translocation of soil 

cores'. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 167, 

pp. 457–470. 

Eionet (European Topic Centre on Biological 

Diversity), 2007. Article 17 technical, http:// 

biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17 [Accessed 

July 2010]. 

EC (European Commission), 1979. Council Directive 

79/409/EEC. 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild 

birds. 

EC (European Commission), 1992. Council Directive 

92/43/EEC. 21 May 1992 on the conservation of 

natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. 

EC (European Commission), 2005. Note to the 

Habitats Committee. Subject: Assessment, monitoring 

and reporting of conservation status — preparing 

the 2001–2007 report under Article 17 of the Habitats 

Directive (DocHab-04-03/03 rev.3). Directorate 

General Environment, European Commission. 

EC (European Commission), 2006. Report from the 

Commission on the Implementation of Directive 79/409/ 


References 

EEC on the conservation of wild birds. Part I Composite 

Report on Overall Progress Achieved — Update for 

1999–2001. 

EC (European Commission), 2009. Composite report 

on the conservation status of habitat types and species 

as required under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive. 

Commission of the European Communities, 

Brussels. 

Essl, F.; Staudinger, M.; Stohr, O.; Schratt- 

Ehrendorfer, L.; Rabitsch, W. and Niklfeld, H., 2009. 

Distribution patterns, range size and niche breadth 

of Austrian endemic plants. Biological Conservation 

142(11): 2547–2558. 

European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity, 2008. 

Article 17 Reporting — Habitats Directive, guidelines 

for assessing conservation status of habitats and species 

at the biogeographic level. Working Paper, European 

Topic Centre on Biological Diversity, Paris. 

Gams, I., 1974: Kras. Slovenska matica, Ljubljana. 

Gehrig-Fasel, J.; Guisan, A. and Zimmermann, N.E., 

2007. 'Tree line shifts in the Swiss Alps: climate 

change or land abandonment?' Journal of Vegetation 

Science 18, pp. 571–582. 

GLORIA (Global Observation Research Initiative in 

Alpine Environments), 2010a. GLORIA target regions, 

www.gloria.ac.at/?a=9 [accessed July 2010]. 

GLORIA (Global Observation Research Initiative 

in Alpine Environments), 2010b. The GLORIA field 

manual, www.gloria.ac.at/?a=20 [accessed July 2010]. 

Gottfried, M.; Pauli, H.; Reiter, K. and Grabherr, G., 

1999. A fine-scaled predictive model for changes 

in species distribution patterns of high mountain 

plants induced by climate warming. Diversity and 

Distributions 5: 241–251. 

Gottfried, M.; Pauli, H.; Reiter, K. and Grabherr, 

G., 2002. 'Potential effects of climate change on 

alpine and nival plants in the Alps'. In: Korner, 

C. and Spehn, E. (eds), Mountain biodiversity — a 

global assessment. Parthenon Publishing, Boca Raton, 

pp. 213–224. 

Grabherr, G.; Gottfried, M. and Pauli, H., 1994. 

Climate effects on mountain plants. Nature 

369(6480): 448–448. 

Grabherr, G.; Gottfried, M.; Hohenwallner, D.; 

Pauli, H. and Reiter, K., 2001. GLORIA–EUROPE: 

Report on the Kickoff Meeting, 25–29 April, Vienna. 

Mountain Research and Development 21(3): 294–295. 

Grace, J.; Berninger, F. and Nagy, L.; 2002. Impacts of 

Climate Change on the Tree Line. Annals of Botany 90, 

pp. 537–544. 

Guisan, A. and Theurillat, J.P., 2000. 'Equilibrium 

modeling of alpine plant distribution and climate 

change: how far can we go?' Phytocoenologia 30, 

pp. 353–384. 

Guisan A. and Theurillat, J.P., 2001. 'Assessing alpine 

plant vulnerability to climate change: a modeling 

perspective'. Integrated Assessment 1, pp .307–320. 

Heath, M.F.; Evans, M.I.; Hoccom, D.G.; Payne, 

A.J. and Peet, N.B. (eds), 2000. Important bird areas 

in Europe: priority sites for conservation. Volume 1: 

Northern Europe, Volume 2: Southern Europe. 

BirdLife International, Cambridge. 

Hofgaard, A., 1997. 'Inter-relationships between 

treeline position, species diversity, land use and 

climate change in the central Scandes Mountains of 

Norway'. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 6, pp. 

419–429. 

Huber, U.M.; Bugmann, H.K.M. and Reasoner, M. 

A., 2005. Global Change and Mountain Regions: An 

Overview of Current Knowledge. Springer, Dordrecht 

Hughes, L., 2000. Biological consequences of global 

warming: is the signal already apparent? Trends in 

Ecology and Evolution 15: 56–61. 

Huntley, B.; Baxter, R.; Bradshaw, R.H.W.; Cramer, 

W.; Dalen, L.; Dean, A.M.; Eronen, M.; Evans, S.P.; 

Hofgaard, A.; Hulme, P.E.; Hytteborn, H.; Molau, 

U.; Oksanen, L.; Olofsson, J.; Sælthun, N.-R.; Seppä, 

H.; Sjogersten, S.; Thomas, C.J.; Veneski, S. and 

Wookey, P., 2000. 'DART: dynamic response of the 

forest–tundra ecotone to environmental change'. In: 

Sutton, M.A.; Moreno, J.M.; Van der Putten, W.H. and 

Struwe, S. (eds), Terrestrial ecosystem research in Europe: 

successes, challenges and policy. European Commission, 

Luxemburg, EUR 19375, pp. 162–165. 

Huntley, B.; Green, R.E.; Collingham, Y.C. and Willis, 

S.G., 2007. A climatic atlas of European breeding birds. 

Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. 

ITEX (International Tundra Experiment), 2010. Home 

page, www.geog.ubc.ca/itex [accessed July 2010]. 

Jägerbrand, A.K.; Alatalo. J.M.; Chrimes, D. and 

Molau, U., 2009. 'Plant community responses to 5 


229

References 

years of simulated climate change in meadow and 

heath ecosystems at a subarctic–alpine site'. Oecologia 

161, pp. 601–610. 

Jump, A.S.; Hunt, J.M. and Penuelas, J., 2007. 'Climate 

relationships of growth and establishment across the 

altitudinal range of Fagus sylvatica in the Montseny 

Mountains, northeast Spain'. Ecoscience 14, 

pp. 507–518. 

Klanderud, K. and Birks, H.J.B. 2003. Recent 

increases in species richness and shifts in altitudinal 

distributions of Norwegian mountain plants. The 

Holocene 13(1): 1–6. 

Kmecl P. and Rizner K. 1993: Survey of the waterfowl 

and birds of prey of Lake Cerknica with the emphasis 

on their passage and wintering. Acrocephalus 14 

(56–57): 4–31. 

Körner, C., 2002. 'Mountain biodiversity, its causes 

and function: an overview'. In: Körner, C. and Spehn, 

E. (eds), Mountain biodiversity: a global assessment. 

Parthenon, New York, pp. 3–20. 

Körner, C.H.; Paulsen, J. and Pelaez-Riedl, S., 2003. 

'A bioclimatic characterisation of Europe's alpine 

areas'. In: Nagy, L.; Grabherr, G.; Körner, C. and 

Thompson, D.B.A. (eds), Alpine biodiversity in Europe. 

Springer, Berlin, pp. 13–28. 

Körner, C., 2005. 'The green cover of mountains in a 

changing environment'. In: Huber, U.M.; Bugmann, 

H.; Harald, K.M. and Reasoner, M.A. (eds), Global 

change and mountain regions. Springer, Dordrecht, 

pp. 367–375. 

Kullman, L., 2002. 'Rapid recent range-margin rise 

of tree and shrub species in the Swedish Scandes'. 

Journal of Ecology 90, pp. 68–77. 

Kullman, L. and Öberg, L. 2009. Post-Little Ice Age 

tree line rise and climate warming in the Swedish 

Scandes: a landscape ecological perspective. Journal of 

Ecology 97(3): 415–429. 

Lexer, M.J.; Hönninger, K. Scheifinger, H. Matulla, C. 

Groll, N. Kromp-Kolb, H. Schadauer, K. Starlinger, 

F. and Englisch, M., 2002. 'The sensitivity of Austrian 

forests to scenarios of climatic change: a large-scale 

risk assessment based on a modified gap model and 

forest inventory data'. Forest Ecology and Management 

162, pp. 53–72. 

Lowen, J., 2009. 'Downhill for montane conservation'. 

World BirdWatch, March 2009, pp. 23–25. 

Mindas, J.; Skvarenia, J.; Strelkova, J. and Priwitzer, 

T., 2000. 'Influence of climatic changes on Norway 

spruce occurrence in the West Carpathians'. Journal 

of Forest Science 46, pp. 249–259. 

MIREN (Mountain Invasion Research Network), 

2010. Global programme aimed at understanding 

the problem of plant invasions into mountain areas, 

www.miren.ethz.ch [accessed July 2010]. 

Mittermeier, R.A.; Robles, G.P.; Hoffman, M.; 

Pilgrim, J.; Brooks, T.; Goettsch Mittermeier, C.; 

Lamoureux, J. and da Fonseca, G.A.B., 2005. 

Hotspots revisited: Earth's biologically richest and 

most endangered terrestrial ecoregions. University of 

Chicago Press, Chicago. 

Moiseev, P.A. and Shiyatov, S.G., 2003. Vegetation 

dynamics at the treeline ecotone in the Ural 

highlands, Russia. In: Nagy, L.; Grabherr, G.; Körner, 

C. and Thompson, D.B.A. Alpine biodiversity in 

Europe - A Europe-wide assessment of biological richness 

and change. Springer, Berlin. 167: 423–435. 


D.B.A. (eds), 2003a. Alpine biodiversity in Europe. 

Springer, Berlin. 


D.B.A., 2003b. 'Alpine biodiversity in space and 

time: a synthesis'. In: Nagy, L.; Grabherr, G.; Körner, 

C. and Thompson, D.B.A. (eds), Alpine biodiversity in 

Europe. Springer, Berlin, pp. 453–464. 

Nagy, L. and Grabherr, G., 2009. The biology of alpine 

habitats. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 

Ozenda, P., 2002. Perspectives pour une géobiologie des 

montagnes. Presses polytechniques et universitaires 

romandes, Lausanne. 

Parolo, G. and Rossi, G., 2008. 'Upward migration of 

vascular plants following a climate warming trend 

in the Alps'. Basic and Applied Ecology 9, pp. 100–107. 

Pauchard, A.; Kueffer, C.; Dietz, H.; Daehler, C.C.; 

Alexander, J.; Edwards, P.J.; Arévalo, J.R.; Cavieres, 

L.; Guisan, A.; Haider, S.; Jakobs, G.; McDougall, 

K.; Millar, C.I., Naylor, B.J.; Parks, C.G.; Rew, L.J.; 

Seipel, T., 2009. Ain't no mountain high enough: 

Plant invasions reaching new elevations. Frontiers in 

Ecology and the Environment 7, 479–486. 

Pauli, H.; Gottfried, M.; Dirnböck, T., Dullinger, S. 

and Grabherr, G., 2003. Assessing the long-term 

dynamics of endemic plants at summit habitats. In: 



References 

D.B.A. Alpine biodiversity in Europe - a Europe-wide 

assessment of biological richness and change. Springer, 

Berlin: 195–207. 

Pauli, H.; Gottfried, M.; Hohenwallner, D.; Reiter, 

K.; Casale, R. and Grabherr, G., 2004. The GLORIA 

field manual — Multi-Summit approach. European 

Commission DG Research, EUR 21213, Office for 


European Commission, Luxembourg. 

Pauli, H.; Gottfried, M.; Reiter, K.; Klettner, C. and 

Grabherr, G., 2007. Signals of range expansions and 

contractions of vascular plants in the high Alps: 

observations (1994–2004) at the GLORIA master site 

Schrankogel, Tyrol, Austria. Global Change Biology 13 

(1): 147–156. 

Pearce-Higgins, J.W.; Dennis, P.; Whittingham, M.J. 

and Yalden, D.W., 2009. 'Impacts of climate on prey 

abundance account for fluctuations in a population 

of a northern wader at the southern edge of its range'. 

Global Change Biology 16, pp. 12–23. 

Peñuelas, J. and Boada, M., 2003. 'A global 

change‐induced biome shift in the Montseny 

mountains (NE Spain)'. Global Change Biology 9, 

pp. 131–140. 

Peñuelas, J.; Ogaya, R.; Boada, M. and Jump, A.S., 

2007. 'Migration, invasion and decline: changes in 

recruitment and forest structure in a warming-linked 

shift of European beech forest in Catalonia (NE 

Spain)'. Ecography 30, pp. 829–837. 

Polak, S., 1993. Breeders of Lake Cerknica and its 

vicinity. Acrocephalus 14 (56–57): 32–62. 

Polak, S., 2000. Mednarodno pomembna obmocja za 

ptice v Sloveniji; Important Bird Areas (IBA) in Slovenia. 

DOPPS, Monografija DOPPS st. 2, Ljubljana. 

Price, M.F., 2008. Maintaining mountain biodiversity 

in an era of climate change. In: Borsdorf, A.; Stötter, 

J. and Veulliet, E. (eds.), Managing Alpine Future. 

Proceedings of International Conference October 

15–17, 2007. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 

Vienna: 17–33. 

Pyšek, P.; Lambdon, P.W.; Arianoutsou, M.; Kühn, 

I.; Pino, J.; Winter, M., 2009. Alien Vascular Plants of 

Europe, In: Handbook of Alien Species in Europe. eds 

Hulme, P.E.; Nentwig, W.; Pyšek, P.; Vilà, M. 

pp. 43–61. Springer, Dordrecht. 

Randin, C.F.; Engler, R.; Normand, S.; Zappa, M.; 

Zimmerman, N.E.; Peraman, P.B.; Vittoz, P.; Thuiller, 

W. and Guisan, A., 2009. 'Climate change and plant 

distribution: local models predict high-elevation 

persistence'. Global Change Biology 15, pp. 1557–1569. 

Reiser, O. and Führer, 1896. Materialien zur einer Ornis 

balcanica. IV. Montenegro. Bos.-Herc. Landesmuseum 

in Sarajevo, Carl Gerolds Sohn, Wien. 

Reiser, O., 1939. Materialien zur einer Ornis balcanica. 

I. Bosnien und Herzegowina. Naturhistorisches 

Museum, Wien. 

Rolando, A.; Caprio, E.; Rinaldi, E. and Ellena, I., 

2007. 'The impact of high-altitude ski-runs on alpine 

grassland bird communities'. Journal of Applied Ecology 

44, pp. 210–219. 

Rosenzweig, C.; Casassa, G.; Karoly, D.J.; Imeson, 

A.; Liu C.; Menzel, A.; Rawlins S.; Root T.L.; 

Seguin, B. and Tryjanowski, P., 2007. 'Assessment 

of observed changes and responses in natural and 

managed systems'. In: Parry, M.L.; Canziani, O.F.; 

Palutikof, J.P.; van der Linden, P.J. and Hanson, 

C.E. (eds), Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation 

and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to 

the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, pp. 79–131. 

Sanderson, F.J.; Donald, P.F.; Pain, D.J.; Burfield, 

I.J.; van Bommel, F.P.J., 2006. Long-term population 

declines in Afro-Palearctic migrant birds. Biological 

Conservation 131: 93–105. 

Sandvik, S.M.; Heegaard, E.; Elven, R. and Vandvik, 

V., 2004. 'Responses of alpine snowbed vegetation to 

long-term experimental warming'. Ecoscience 11, 

pp. 150–159. 

Scott, D.A. and Rose, P.M., 1996. Atlas of Anatidae 

Populations in Africa and Western Eurasia. Wetlands 

International Publication No. 41, Wetlands 

International, Wageningen, The Netherlands. 

Schär, C.; Vidale, P.L.; Lüthi, D.; Frei, C.; Häberli, C.; 

Liniger, M.A. and Appenzeller, C., 2004. 'The role 

of increasing temperature variability in European 

summer heatwaves'. Nature 427, pp. 332–336. 

Schmitt, T., 2009. 'Biogeographical and evolutionary 

importance of European high mountain systems'. 

Frontiers in Zoology 6, p. 9. 

Schneider-Jacoby, M., 1993. Vögel als Indikatoren für 

das ökologische Potential der Saveauen und Möglichkeiten 

für deren Erhaltung. Dissertation an der Universität 


231

References 

Konstanz, erschienen 1995 im Naturerbe Verlag 

Jürgen Resch, Überlingen. 

Schneider-Jacoby, M., 2005. The Sava and Drava 

Flood Plains: Threatened Ecosystems of International 

Importance. Large Rivers Vol. 16, No 1 –2; Arch. 

Hydrobiol. Suppl. 158/1–2: 249–288. 

Schneider-Jacoby, M., 2008. How many birds migrate 

over the Adriatic Sea? Acrocephalus 29 (136): 1−3. 

Schneider-Jacoby, M. and Spangenberg, A., 2009. 

Bird Hunting at the Adriatic Flyway. Report in the Frame 

of the Project „Protection of Priority Wetlands for Bird 

Migration (Adriatic Flyway) in the Dinaric Arc Ecoregion 

through Integrated Site and River Basin Managment“. 

EuroNatur, Radolfzell. 

Schneider-Jacoby, M.; Rubinic, B.; Sackl, P. and 

Stumberger, B., 2006. A preliminary assessment of the 

ornithological importance of Livanjsko Polje (Cetina 

River Basin, Bosnia and Herzegovina). Acrocephalus 27 

(128–129): 45–57. 

Schröter, D.; Cramer, W.; Leemans, R.; Prentice, I.C.; 

Araújo, M.B.; Arnell, N.W.; Bondeau, A.; Bugmann, 

H.; Carter, T.R.; Gracia, C.A.; de la Vega-Leinert, A.C.; 

Erhard, M.; Ewert, F.; Glendining, M.; House, J.I.; 

Kankaanpää, S.; Klein, R.J.T.; Lavorell, S.; Linder, M.; 

Metzger, M.J., Meyer, J.; Mitchell, T.D.; Reginster, I.; 

Rounsevell, M.; Sabaté, S.; Sitch, S., Smith, B.; Smith, 

J.; Smith, P.; Sykes, M.T.; Thonicke K.; Thuiller, W.; 

Tuck, G.; Zaehle, S. and Zierl, B., 2005. 'Ecosystem 

service supply and vulnerability to global change in 

Europe'. Science 310, pp. 1333–1337. 

Shiyatov, S.G., Terentev, M.M. and Fomin, V.V., 

2005. 'Spatiotemporal dynamics of forest–tundra 

communities in the polar Urals'. Russian Journal of 

Ecology 36, pp. 69–75. 

Skvarenina, J.; Krizova, E. and Tomlain, J., 2004. 

'Impact of the climate change on the water balance 

of altitudinal vegetation stages in Slovakia'. Ekologia 

Bratislava 23, pp. 13–29. 

Smit, C. J., 1986. Waders along the Mediterranean. A 

Summary of Present Knowledge. In: Farina A. (ed.), First 

Conference on Birds Wintering in the Mediterranean 

Region. Suppl. Ric. Biol. Della Selvaggina 10, 297–317, 

Bologna. 

Stanisci, A.; Pelino, G. and Blasi, C., 2005. Vascular 

plant diversity and climate change in the alpine 

belt of the central Apennines (Italy). Biodiversity and 

Conservation 14(6): 1301–1318. 

Stipčević, M., 1997. A survey of spring wader 

migration on the wetlands of the Island of Pag, 

Croatia (March–May, 1990–1991). Wader Study 

Group Bull. 84: 26–32. 

Stumberger, B., Sackl, P., Dervovic, I., Knaus, 

P., Kitonic, D. and Schneider-Jacoby, M., 2009. 

Descriptions of bird hunting in some karst 

wetlands in Bosnia and Hercegovina. Bilten Nase 

Ptice 4–5(4–5): 97–114. Sarajevo. 

Stumberger, B., Schneider-Jacoby, M. and Gotovac, 

M., 2008. Livanjsko polje. Information Sheet on 

Ramsar Wetlands (RIS), Ramsar Convention, 

Gland. 

Sturm, M., McFadden, J.P., Liston, G.E., Chapin, 

F.S. III, Racine, C.H. and Holmgren, J., 2001. 

'Snow‐shrub interactions in arctic tundra: a 

hypothesis with climatic implications'. Journal of 

Climate 14, pp. 336–344. 

Stutzer, A., 2000. 'Forestline and treeline on 

Saualpe: a comparison of old and new pictures'. 

Forstwissenschaftliche Centralblatt 119, pp. 20–31. 

Sundseth, K. and Creed, P., 2008. Natura 2000: 

protecting Europe's biodiversity. Office for Official 

Publications of the European Communities, 

Luxembourg. 

Sundqvist, M.K.; Björk ,R.G. and Molau, U., 2008. 

'Establishment of boreal forest species in alpine 

dwarf-shrub heath in subarctic Sweden'. Plant 

Ecology & Diversity 1, pp. 67–75. 

Theurillat, J.P. and Guisan, A., 2001. 'Potential 

impact of climate change on vegetation in the 

European Alps: a review'. Climatic Change 50, 

pp. 77–109. 

Thompson, D.B.A., 2003. Overview: Alpine 

vertebrates — some challenges for research and 

conservation management. In: Nagy, L.; Grabherr, 

G.; Körner, C. and Thompson, D.B.A. (eds), Alpine 

biodiversity in Europe. Springer, Berlin, pp. 321–325. 

Thuiller, W.; Lavorel, S.; Araujo, M.B.; Sykes, M.T. 

and Prentice, I.C., 2005. 'Climate change threats to 

plant diversity in Europe'. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences 102, pp. 8245–8250. 

Trivedi, M.R.; Berry, P.M.; Morecroft, M.D. and 

Dawson, T.P., 2008. Spatial scale affects bioclimate 

model projections of climate change impacts on 

mountain plants. Global Change Biology 14, 

pp. 1089–1103. 


References 

Tucker, G.M. and Evans, M.I. (eds), 1997. Habitats 

for birds in Europe. a conservation strategy for the wider 

environment. BirdLife International, Cambridge. 

Väre, H.; Lampinen, R.; Humphries, C. and 

Williams, P., 2003. 'Taxonomic diversity of vascular 

plants in the European alpine areas'. In: Nagy, L.; 

Grabherr, G.; Körner, C. and Thompson, D.B.A. 

(eds), Alpine biodiversity in Europe. Springer, Berlin, 

pp. 133–148. 

Valvasor. J.W., 1689. Die Ehre des Herzogthums Krain. 

Band 1–4 (Buch I-XI). Leibach-Nürnberg. 

Virtanen, R.; Dirnböck, T.; Dullinger. S.; Grabherr, 

G.; Pauli, H.; Staudinger, M. and Villar, L., 2003. 

'Alpine biodiversity in space and time: a synthesis'. 

In: Nagy, L.; Grabherr, G.; Körner, C. and Thompson, 

D.B.A. (eds), Alpine biodiversity in Europe. Springer, 

Berlin, pp. 149–172. 

Walker, M.D.; Wahren, C.H.; Hollister, R.D.; Henry, 

G.H.R.; Ahlquist, L.E.; Bret-Harte, M.S.; Calef, 

M.P.; Callaghan, T.V.; Carroll, A.B.; Epstein, H.E.; 

Jónsdóttir, I.S.; Klein, J.A.; Magnússon, B.; Molau, 

U.; Oberbauer, S.F.; Robinson, C.H.; Shaver, G.R.; 

Suding, K.N.; Thompson, C.C.; Tolvanens, A.; 

Totland, Ø.; Turner, P.L.; Tweedie, C.E.; Webber, P.J. 

and Wookey, P.A., 2006. 'Plant community responses 

to experimental warming across the tundra biome'. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of the United States 

of America 103, pp. 1342–1346. 

Walther, G.R., 2004. 'Plants in a warmer world'. 

Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 

6, pp. 169–185. 

Walther, G.-R.; Beißner, S. and Burga, C.A., 2005. 

Trends in upward shift of alpine plants. Journal of 

Vegetation Science 16: 541–548. 

Wetland International, 2006: Waterbird Populations 

Estimates, Fourth edition. Wetlands International, 

Wageningen. 

Wittenberg, R., 2005. An inventory of alien species and 

their threat to biodiversity and economy in Switzerland. 

CABI Bioscience Switzerland Centre report to 

the Swiss Agency for Environment, Forests and 

Landscape, Bern. 

Willinger, G. and Stumberger, B., 2009: Lebensräume 

für Zugvögel verschwinden zusehends. EuroNatur 

3/2009: 12 – 15. 

Ziello, C.; Estrella, N.; Kostova, M.; Koch, E. 

and Menzel, A., 2009. 'Influence of altitude on 

phenology of selected plant species in the Alpine 

region (1971–2000)'. Climate Research 39, 

pp. 227–234. 

Zwarts, I.; Bijlsma, R.G.; van der Kamp, J. and 

Wymenga, E., 2009: Living at the Edge. KNNV 

Publishing, Zeist, NL. 

Chapter 9 

Acar, C.; Kurdoglu, B.C.; Kurdoglu, O. and Acar, 

H., 2006. 'Public Preferences for visual quality and 

management in the Kaçkar Mountains National 

Park (Turkey)'. International Journal of Sustainable 

Development and World Ecology 13, pp. 499–512. 

Anonymous. 2007. Long term development plan of 

Kaçkar Mountains National Park (in Turkish). Belda 

Ltd. Şti., Ankara. 

Araújo, M.B., 2009. 'Protected areas and climate 

change in Europe'. Report No. T-PVS/Inf (2009) 10 

rev. Convention on the Conservation of European 

Wildlife and Natural Habitats, Strasbourg. 

Bennett, G., 2009. 'Green infrastructure in Europe 

— past lessons/future challenges'. In: Sundseth, K. 

and Sylwester, A. (eds), Towards a green infrastructure 

for Europe: proceedings of the European Commission 

workshop, 25–26 March 2009. Ecosystems Ltd., 

Brussels, pp. 14–15. 

BirdLife European Forest Task Force, 2009. 

Bulgarian–Romanian Forest Mapping Project. 

Final report. http://www.forestmapping.net/ 

forestmapping/files/48/BRFM%20report_English_ 

low%20resolution.pdf [accessed June 2010]. 

CBD, 2004. Programme of work on protected areas. 

Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. 

CBD, 2010. In-depth review of the implementation 

of the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas. 

Recommendation to the Conference of Parties by 

the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and 

Technological Advice. Document UNEP/CBD/ 

SBSTTA/14/L.5. Convention on Biological Diversity, 

Montreal. 

CBD, 2000. Principles of the ecosystem approach. 

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 

Montreal. 

Dudley, N. (ed.), 2008. Guidelines for applying protected 

area management categories. IUCN, Gland.p. 8. 


233

References 

EEA/UNEP, 2004. High nature value farmland — 

characteristics, trends and policy challenges. EEA 

report No. 1/2004. European Environment Agency, 

Copenhagen/United Nations Environment 

Programme Regional Office for Europe, Geneva. 

EEA, 2010. EU 2010 Biodiversity Baseline. European 


Eken, G.; Bozdogan, M.; Isfendiyaroglu, S.; Kilic, D.T. 

and Lise, Y. (eds), 2006. Turkey's key biodiversity areas 

(2 volumes in Turkish). Doğa Derneği, Ankara. 

Gallayová, Z., 2008. Landscape analysis and the use of 

permanent grasslands in the Poľana Biosphere Reserve 

(in Slovak). TU, Zvolen. 


of Nature) and UNEP-WCMC (United Nations 

Environment Programme — World Conservation 

Monitoring Centre), 2010. The World Database on 

Protected Areas (WDPA): January 2010. UNEP-WCMC, 

Cambridge. 

Kohler, Y. and Heinrichs, A.K., 2009. The continuum 

project: catalogue of possible measures to increase ecological 

connectivity in the Alps. Alpine Network of Protected 

Areas, Chambery. 

Kollmair, M.; Guring, G.S.; Hurni, K. and Maselli, D., 

2005. 'Mountains: special places to be protected? An 

analysis of worldwide nature conservation efforts in 

mountains'. International Journal of Biodiversity Science 

and Management 1, pp. 181–190. 

Kurdoglu, O., 2002. Investigation of Kaçkar Mountains 

National Park and its near environs from the natural 

resources management point of view. Ph.D. Dissertation 

(in Turkish). Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon. 

Kurdoglu, O.; Kurdoglu, B.C. and Eminagaoglu, O., 

2004. 'Importance of Kaçkar Mountains National Park 

for natural and cultural assets protection and current 

threats' (in Turkish). Eastern Black Sea Forestry Research 

Directorate, Forestry Research Journal 21, pp. 134–150. 

Mallarach, J.M.; Rafa, M. and Sargatal, J., 2010. 

'Cantabrian Mountains — Pyrenees — Massif 

Central — Western Alps great mountain corridor'. 

In: Worboys, G.L.; Francis, W.L. and Lockwood, M.; 

Connectivity Conservation Management: A Global Guide. 

Earthscan, London, pp. 269–279. 

Mücher, S.; Gerard, F.; Olschofsky, K.; Hazeu, G.; 

Luque, S.; Pino, J.; Gregor, M.; Wachowicz, M.; 

Halada, L.; Tompo, E.; Kohler, R.; Petit, S.; Smith, G. 

and Kolar, J., 2006. 'Spatial impact of conservation 

sites (Natura 2000) on land cover changes'. In: 

Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop of the EARSeL SIG on 

Land Use and Land Cover. Center for Remote Sensing 

of Land Surfaces, Bonn, pp. 386–393. 

Olah, B. and Boltižiar, M., 2009. Land use changes 

within the Slovak biosphere reserves zones. Ekológia 

(Bratislava) 2, pp. 127–142. 

Olah, B.; Boltižiar, M. and Gallay, I., 2009. 

'Transformation of the Slovak cultural landscape 

since the 18th century and its recent trends'. Journal of 

Landscape Ecology 2, pp. 41–55. 

Olah, B.; Boltižiar, M. and Petrovič, F., 2006. 'Land use 

changes relation to georelief and distance in the East 

Carpathians Biosphere Reserve'. Ekológia (Bratislava) 

25, pp. 68–81. 

Price, M.F., 1988. 'The development of legislation and 

policies for the forests of the Swiss Alps'. Land Use 

Policy 5, pp. 314–328. 

Price, M.F., 2008. 'Maintaining mountain biodiversity 

in an era of climate change'. In: Borsdorf, A.; Stötter, 

J. and Veulliet, E. (eds), Managing alpine future. 

Proceedings of International Conference October 

15–17, 2007. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 

Vienna, pp. 17–33. 

Regato, P. and Salman, R., 2008. Mediterranean 

mountains in a changing world: guidelines for developing 

action plans. IUCN Centre for Mediterranean 

Cooperation, Malaga. 

Romano, B., 2010. 'The Apennines (European Alps to 

the Mediterranean)'. In: Worboys, G.L.; Francis, W.L. 

and Lockwood, M. (eds), Connectivity conservation 

management: A global guide. Earthscan, London, 

pp. 279–282. 

Ružičková, H.; Halada, Ľ.; David, S. and Gerhátová, 

K., 2001. 'Management of meadows in the Biosphere 

Reserve East Carpathians II. Results after 7 years'. 

Ekológia (Bratislava) 20: Supplement 3/2001, pp. 76–87. 

Stolton, S. and Dudley, N. (eds), 2010. Arguments for 

protected areas. Earthscan, London. 

Sundseth, K. and Sylwester, A. (eds), 2009. Towards 

a green infrastructure for Europe: proceedings of the 

European Commission workshop, 25–26 March 2009. 

Ecosystems Ltd., Brussels. 

Terry, A.; Ullrich, K. and Riecken, U., 2006. The green 

belt of Europe: from vision to reality. IUCN, Gland and 

Cambridge. 


References 

UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific 

and Cultural Organization), 2008. Madrid Action Plan 

for Biosphere Reserves (2008–2013). UNESCO, Paris. 

Welzholz, J.C. and Johann, E., 2007. 'The history 

of protected forest areas in Europe'. In: Frank, G.; 

Parviainen, J.; Vandekerhove, K.; Lathan, J.; Schuck, 

A. and Little, D. (eds), Cost Action E27: Protected 

Forest Areas in Europe — Analysis and Harmonisation 

(PROFOR): results, conclusions and recommendations. 

Federal Research and Training Centre for Forests, 

Natural Hazards and Landscape, Vienna, pp. 17–40. 

Worboys, G.L.; Francis, W.L. and Lockwood, M. 

(eds), 2010. Connectivity conservation management: a 

global guide. Earthscan, London. 

Zingstra, H.L.; Seffer, J.; Lasak, R.; Guttova, A.; 

Baltzer, M.; Bouwma, I.; Walters, L.J.; Smith, B.; 

Kitnaes, K.; Predoiu, G.E.; Prots, B. and Sekulic, G., 

2009. Towards an ecological network for the Carpathians. 

Wageningen International, Wageningen. 

Chapter 10 

Carroll, C. and Hinrichsen, D., 1993. 'Monitoring 

ecological responses in wilderness using geographic 

technologies'. In: International wilderness allocation, 

management and research: Proceedings of the 5th World 

Wilderness Congress, September 1993, Tromsø, 

Norway, pp. 304–308. 

Carver, S. and Fritz, S. 1999. 'Mapping remote 

areas using GIS'. In: Landscape character: perspectives 

on management and change. M. Usher, ed. Natural 

Heritage of Scotland Series, HMSO. 

Carver, S., 1991. 'Integrating multicriteria evaluation 

with GIS'. International Journal of Geographical 

Information Systems 5, pp. 321–339. 

Carver, S., 1996. 'Mapping the wilderness continuum 

using raster GIS'. In: Morain, S. and Lopex-Baros, S. 

(eds), Raster imagery in geographic information systems. 

OnWord Press, New Mexico, pp. 283–288. 

Carver, S.; Evans, A. and Fritz, S., 2002. 'Wilderness 

attribute mapping in the United Kingdom'. 

International Journal of Wilderness 8, pp. 24–29. 

Coleman, A. and Aykroyd, T., 2009. Proceedings of the 

conference on wilderness and large natural habitat areas 

in Europe. May 2009, Prague. 

DCW (Digital Chart of the World), 1992. DCW 

CD‐ROM. Environmental Systems Research 

Institute, Redlands, CA. 

Dudley, N. (ed.), 2008. Guidelines for applying 

protected area management categories. IUCN, Gland 

Eastman, J.R.; Kyem, P.K.A.; Toledano, J. and 

Weigen, J., 1993. GIS and decision making: explorations 

in geographic information systems technology. UNITAR, 

Geneva. 

EC (European Commission), 1999. Development of 

indicators reflecting criteria of spatial differentiation: final 

report on natural assets — environmental indicators. 

Study programme on European Spatial Planning, 

Nordregio. 

EC (European Commission), 2004. Mountain areas in 

Europe: analysis of mountain areas in EU Member states, 

acceding and other European countries. Directorate- 

General for Regional Policy, European Commission, 

Brussels. 

EC (European Commission), 2008. Commission Staff 

Working Document accompanying the Green Paper on 

territorial cohesion: turning territorial diversity into 

strength. Commission of the European Communities, 

Brussels. 

EEA (European Environment Agency), 2010a. 

AirBase — the European air quality database www. 

eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/airbase-theeuropean-air-quality-database-2 

[accessed July 

2010]. 

EEA (European Environment Agency), 2010b. EEA 

data service, EEA fast track service precursor on land 

monitoring — degree of soil sealing 100m, www.eea. 

europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/eea-fast-trackservice-precursor-on-land-monitoring-degree-ofsoil-sealing-100m-1 


Eupen, M. van, Metzger M.J.; Pérez-Soba M.; 

Verburg P.H.; Doorn, A. van and Bunce R.G.H., 2010. 

A Rural Typology for Strategic European Policies. 

(Manuscript submitted to Land Use Policy in March 

2010). 

FARO-EU (Foresight Analysis of Rural areas Of 

Europe), 2009. EU FP6 specific targeted research 

project – rural development, www.faro-eu.org 


Fritz, S.; See, L. and Carver, S., 2000. 'A fuzzy 

modelling approach to wild land mapping in 

Scotland'. In: Atkinson, P. and Martin, D. (eds), 


235

References 

Innovations in GIS 7. Taylor & Francis, London, 

pp. 219–230. 

Gallup, J.L.; Scach, J.D. and Mellinger, A.D., 

1999. 'Geography and economic development'. 

International Regional Science Review 22, pp. 179–232. 

Hazeu, G.W.; Metzger, M.J.; Mücher, C.A.; 

Perez‐Soba, M.; Renetzeder, Ch. and Andersen, E., 

2010. 'European environmental stratifications and 

typologies: an overview'. Agriculture, Ecosystems and 

Environment. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2010.01.009. 

Hendee, J.C.; Stankey, G.H. and Lucas, R.C., 1990. 

Wilderness management. Fulcrum Publishing, 

Colorado. 


of Nature), 1994. Guidelines for protected areas 

management categories. IUCN: Cambridge and Gland. 

Janssen, R. and Rietveld, P., 1990. 'Multicriteria 

analysis with GIS: an application to agricultural 

landuse in the Netherlands'. In: Scholten, H.J. and 

Stillwell, J.C.H. (eds), Geographical information systems 

for urban and regional planning. Kluwer, Dordrecht. 

Jongman, R.H.G.; Bunce, R.G.H.; Metzger, M.J.; 

Mücher, C.A.; Howard, D.C. and Mateus, V.L., 

2006. 'Objectives and applications of a statistical 

environmental stratification of Europe'. Landscape 

Ecology 21, pp. 409–419. 

Leopold, A., 1921. 'The wilderness and its place in 

forest recreational policy'. Journal of Forestry 19, pp. 

718–721. 

Lesslie, R., 1994. 'The National Wilderness 

Inventory: wilderness identification, assessment 

and monitoring in Australia'. International wilderness 

allocation, management and research: proceedings of the 

5th World Wilderness Congress, pp. 31–36. 

Metzger, M.J.; Bunce, R.G.H.; Jongman, R.H.G.; 

Mücher, C.A. and Watkins, J.W., 2005. 'A climatic 

stratification of the environment of Europe'. Global 

Ecology and Biogeography 14, pp. 549–563. 

Miller, J. 1995. 'Australian approaches to wilderness'. 

International Journal of Wilderness. 1(2), pp. 38–40. 

Nash, R., 1982. Wilderness and the American mind. 

Third Edition. Yale University Press, New Haven. 

ORNL (OakRidge National Laboratory), 2010. 

Landscan dataset, http://www.ornl.gov/sci/landscan/ 


Ouren, D.S.; Hummel, J.; Eley, M.; Sestak, M. 

and Riebau, A., 1994. 'Advanced technologies 

for wilderness monitoring and management'. 

Wilderness: the spirit lives: proceedings of the 6th 

National Wilderness Conference, pp. 61–64. 

Paracchini, M.L.; Petersen, J.-E.; Hoogeveen, Y.; 

Bamps, C.; Burfield, I. and van Swaay, C., 2008. 

High Nature Value Farmland in Europe: an estimate of 

the distribution patterns on the basis of land cover and 

biodiversity data. Report EUR 23480 EN, Institute 

for Environment and Sustainability, Joint Research 

Centre. Office for Official Publications of the 


Riley, S. J.; DeGloria, S.D. and R. Elliot (1999). 'A 

terrain ruggedness index that quantifies topographic 

heterogeneity'. Intermountain Journal of Sciences 5, 

pp. 23–27. 

U.S. Congress, 1964. U.S. Public Law 88–577. The 

Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964. 78 Stat. 890. 

Voogd, H., 1983.Multicriteria Evaluation for Urban and 

Regional Planning. Pion, London. 


Appendix 1 

Appendix 1 Mountain species in the 

Habitats Directive 

Species 

Annex 

Endemic to 

Category Habitat 

code ( a ) Species 

II* 

BGR C Other 

II IV ( c ) type 

( b ) 

( d ) ( e ) 

Invertebrates 

15678 Agriades glandon aquilo 1 P 

45 Baetica ustulata 1 1 P MED ES Sierra Nevada 

54 Callimorpha quadripunctaria 1 1 S 

61 Carabus olympiae 1 1 1 P ALP IT Alps 

91 Coenagrion hylas 1 P 

94 Coenonympha hero 1 P 

116 Discus guerinianus 1 1 P MAC PT Madeira 

123 Erebia calcaria 1 1 P ALP Alps 

125 Erebia christi 1 1 P ALP Alps 

128 Erebia sudetica 1 P 

143 Fabriciana elisa 1 P MED 

16141 Graellsia isabellae 1 P 

15679 Hesperia comma catena 1 S ALP 

191 Hyles hippophaes 1 S 

196459 Leptidea morsei 1 1 S 

274 Papilio alexanor 1 S 

Papilio alexanor alexanor 1 S 

278 Papilio hospiton 1 1 S MED 

284 Parnassius apollo 1 P 

301 Plebicula golgus 1 1 P MED ES Sierra Nevada 

196465 Polyommatus eroides 1 1 P 

305 Proserpinus proserpina 1 S 

196435 Pseudogaurotina excellens 1 1 1 P Carpathians 

Fish and lampreys 

497 Eudontomyzon danfordi 1 P 

Tisza and Timis 

rivers 

8670 Eudontomyzon mariae 1 P 

523 Lampetra planeri 1 P 

530 Lethenteron zanandreai 1 S 

554 Padogobius nigricans 1 P IT 

15116 Phoxinellus prespensis 1 S Prespa Lake 

10077 Romanichthys valsanicola 1 1 1 P RO 

587 Rutilus frisii meidingeri 1 P 

594 Sabanejewia aurata 1 P 

604 Salmo macrostigma 1 P 

606 Salmo marmoratus 1 P 

Amphibians 

635 Alytes muletensis 1 1 1 P foraging MED ES Mallorca 

669 Discoglossus montalentii 1 1 S foraging MED FR Corsica 

681 Euproctus asper 1 P Iberian 

682 Euproctus montanus 1 P MED FR Corsica 

683 Euproctus platycephalus 1 P MED IT Sardinia 

697 Hydromantes ambrosii 1 1 S foraging MED 

698 Hydromantes flavus 1 1 S foraging MED IT 

699 Hydromantes genei 1 1 S foraging MED IT 

700 Hydromantes imperialis 1 1 S foraging MED IT Sardinia 


237

Appendix 1 

Species 

Annex 

Endemic to 



II* 

BGR C Other 


( b ) 

( d ) ( e ) 

701 Hydromantes italicus 1 S foraging IT Apennine 

702 Hydromantes strinatii 1 1 S foraging 

703 Hydromantes supramontis 1 1 S foraging MED IT Sardinia 

650 Chioglossa lusitanica 1 1 S 

744 Mertensiella luschani 1 1 S MED 

780 Rana graeca 1 S foraging 

788 Salamandra atra 1 S foraging 

791 Salamandra lanzai 1 P ALP Alps 

794 Salamandrina terdigitata 1 1 S foraging IT Apennine 

822 Triturus karelinii 1 S foraging 

Reptiles 

653 Coluber caspius 1 S 

663 Coronella austriaca 1 S 

716 Lacerta bedriagae 1 O MED 

718 Lacerta bonnali 1 1 P ALP 

719 Lacerta danfordi 1 S 

723 Lacerta graeca 1 S MED GR 

725 Lacerta horvathi 1 P ALP 

726 Lacerta monticola 1 1 P 

730 Lacerta schreiberi 1 1 S Iberian 

803 Stellio stellio 1 P 

812 Testudo marginata 1 1 S MED 

Mammals 

1363 Barbastella barbastellus 1 1 S foraging 

11241 Bison bonasus 1 1 1 S 

1367 Canis lupus 1 1 1 S 

1368 Capra aegagrus 1 1 P 

1374 Capra pyrenaica pyrenaica 1 1 1 P ALP ES 

1393 Eptesicus nilssonii 1 S foraging 

1403 Felis silvestris 1 O 

1407 Galemys pyrenaicus 1 1 S 

1438 Lynx lynx 1 1 S 

1442 Lynx pardinus 1 1 1 S MED 

196482 Marmota marmota latirostris 1 1 1 P ALP High Tatras 

8350 Microtus tatricus 1 1 P ALP Carpathians 

1519 Pipistrellus savii 1 S foraging 

1553 Rupicapra pyrenaica ornata 1 1 1 P 

1555 Rupicapra rupicapra balcanica 1 1 P ALP Balcans 

17283 Rupicapra rupicapra tatrica 1 1 1 P ALP High Tatras 

1562 Sicista betulina 1 S 

1568 Ursus arctos 1 1 1 P 

Mosses and liverworts 

2290 Bruchia vogesiaca 1 1 O 

2318 Buxbaumia viridis 1 1 S 

2600 Cephalozia macounii 1 1 S 

2856 Cynodontium suecicum 1 1 S 

2995 Dicranum viride 1 1 S 

3029 Distichophyllum carinatum 1 1 P 

3998 Leucobryum glaucum 1 S 

4273 Mannia triandra 1 1 S 

4283 Marsupella profunda 1 1 1 S 

4352 Meesia longiseta 1 1 S 

196484 Ochyraea tatrensis 1 1 P ALP SK Carpathians 

4724 Orthothecium lapponicum 1 1 P 

4725 Orthotrichum rogeri 1 1 S 

4925 Plagiomnium drummondii 1 1 S 

5364 Riccia breidleri 1 1 P ALP Alps 


Appendix 1 

Species 

Annex 

Endemic to 



II* 

BGR C Other 


( b ) 

( d ) ( e ) 

5561 Scapania massalongi 1 1 P 

5866 Sphagnum pylaisii 1 1 O 

5968 Tayloria rudolphiana 1 1 P 

6072 Tortella rigens 1 1 S 

Ferns 

150141 Asplenium hemionitis 1 S 

150143 Asplenium jahandiezii 1 1 O MED FR Alps 

150279 Botrychium simplex 1 1 S 

150196 Culcita macrocarpa 1 1 S 

150213 Isoetes azorica 1 1 O MAC PT Azores 

150164 Woodwardia radicans 1 1 O 

Flowering plants 

150638 Abies nebrodensis 1 1 1 P MED IT Sicily 

165316 Adenophora lilifolia 1 1 O 

177335 Adonis distorta 1 1 P IT Appenines 

164609 Alyssum pyrenaicum 1 1 P ALP FR Pyrenees 

1801 Anagyris latifolia 1 1 1 S MAC ES Canary Islands 

178990 Androsace cylindrica 1 P ALP Pyrenees 

178909 Androsace pyrenaica 1 1 P ALP Pyrenees 

1864 Anthyllis lemanniana 1 1 P MAC PT Madeira 

177369 Aquilegia alpina 1 P Alps 

177258 Aquilegia bertolonii 1 1 P 

195501 Aquilegia pyrenaica ssp. cazorlensis 1 1 1 P MED ES 

9118 Arabis kennedyae 1 1 1 P MED CY Troodos 

163008 Arabis sadina 1 1 S MED PT 

163356 Arabis scopoliana 1 1 P ALP SI Dinaric 

194679 Arceuthobium azoricum 1 1 O MAC PT Azores 

166048 Arenaria humifusa 1 1 P 

166392 Arenaria nevadensis 1 1 1 P MED ES 

15746 Argyranthemum winterii 1 1 O MAC ES Canary Islands 

154156 Artemisia granatensis 1 1 1 P MED ES 

154315 Artemisia laciniata 1 1 1 S 

155497 Aster pyrenaeus 1 1 1 P Pyrenees 

2115 Aster sorrentinii 1 1 1 S MED IT Sicily 

2121 Astragalus aquilanus 1 1 1 P IT 

171197 Astragalus centralpinus 1 1 P 

15765 

Astragalus macrocarpus ssp. 

lefkarensis 1 1 1 O MED CY 

171244 Astragalus tremolsianus 1 1 P MED ES Sierra de Gador 

152348 Athamanta cortiana 1 1 P MED IT Alps 

185085 Atropa baetica 1 1 1 P MED 

2210 Bencomia brachystachya 1 1 1 S MAC ES Canary Islands 

2211 Bencomia sphaerocarpa 1 1 S MAC ES Canary Islands 

186350 Borderea chouardii 1 1 1 P MED ES Pyrenees 

9121 Brassica hilarionis 1 1 O MED CY 

164405 Brassica insularis 1 1 O MED 

163281 Braya linearis 1 1 P 

192156 Bromus grossus 1 1 O 

151439 Bupleurum capillare 1 1 1 S MED GR 

2312 Bupleurum handiense 1 1 O MAC ES Canary Islands 

2315 Bupleurum kakiskalae 1 1 1 P MED GR Crete 

191475 Calamagrostis chalybaea 1 1 S 

189456 Calypso bulbosa 1 1 S 

165248 Campanula bohemica 1 1 1 P CON Krkonose 

165188 Campanula gelida 1 1 1 P CON CZ Hrubý Jeseník 

165123 Campanula morettiana 1 S ALP IT Alps 

165056 Campanula sabatia 1 1 1 O IT 


239

Appendix 1 

Species 

Annex 

Endemic to 



II* 

BGR C Other 


( b ) 

( d ) ( e ) 

165027 Campanula serrata 1 1 1 P Carpathians 

164979 Campanula zoysii 1 1 P ALP Alps 

187842 Carex holostoma 1 1 P 

153956 Centaurea alba ssp. Princeps 1 1 1 P MED GR 

154886 Centaurea attica ssp. megarensis 1 1 1 S MED GR 

2522 Centaurea citricolor 1 1 1 S MED ES 

2530 Centaurea gadorensis 1 1 P MED ES Iberic 

154373 Centaurea lactiflora 1 1 1 S MED GR 

154488 Centaurea micrantha ssp. herminii 1 1 P PT 

2564 Centaurea pulvinata 1 1 P MED ES Iberic 

155572 Centaurea rothmalerana 1 1 P MED PT 

184869 Centranthus trinervis 1 1 P MED Corse, Sardinia 

166797 Cerastium dinaricum 1 1 P Dinaric 

2708 Cirsium latifolium 1 1 O MAC PT Madeira 

2720 Cistus chinamadensis 1 1 P MAC ES Canary Islands 

162876 Cochlearia tatrae 1 1 1 P ALP Tatra Mts 

164020 Coincya rupestris 1 1 1 P MED ES 

2758 Consolida samia 1 1 1 P MED GR 

2765 Convolvulus massonii 1 1 1 O MAC PT Madeira 

162878 Coronopus navasii 1 1 1 P MED ES 

2806 Crambe arborea 1 1 1 S MAC ES Canary Islands 

2808 Crambe laevigata 1 1 O MAC ES Canary Islands 

154703 Crepis crocifolia 1 1 1 P MED GR Pelloponesos 

2821 Crepis granatensis 1 1 P MED ES Iberian 

9282 Crocus cyprius 1 1 P MED CY 

186421 Crocus etruscus 1 S IT 

9283 Crocus hartmannianus 1 1 S MED CY 

196478 Cyclamen fatrense 1 1 1 P ALP SK Carpathians 

189484 Cypripedium calceolus 1 1 S 

316102 Dactylorhiza kalopissii 1 1 S Balkan 

184620 Daphne arbuscula 1 1 1 P ALP SK Carpathians 

9107 Delphinium caseyi 1 1 1 P MED CY 

2948 Dendriopoterium pulidoi 1 1 O MAC ES Canary Islands 

2960 Deschampsia maderensis 1 1 S MAC PT Madeira 

167427 Dianthus nitidus 1 1 1 P ALP 

163642 Draba cacuminum 1 1 P 

163219 Draba dorneri 1 1 P ALP RO Carpathians 

3084 Echium gentianoides 1 1 1 P MAC ES Canary Islands 

187643 Eleocharis carniolica 1 1 S 

169562 Erica scoparia ssp. azorica 1 1 S MAC PT Azores 

154037 Erigeron frigidus 1 1 P MED ES 

172626 Erodium astragaloides 1 1 1 P MED ES 

3180 Erodium paularense 1 1 P MED ES 

172623 Erodium rupicola 1 1 1 P MED ES 

151319 Eryngium alpinum 1 1 P 

152254 Eryngium viviparum 1 1 1 S 

3232 Euphorbia lambii 1 1 O MAC ES Canary Islands 

170157 Euphorbia nevadensis 1 P MED ES 

170067 Euphorbia stygiana 1 1 S MAC PT Azores 

184461 Euphrasia azorica 1 1 1 S MAC PT Azores 

3252 Euphrasia genargentea 1 1 1 P MED 

184206 Euphrasia grandiflora 1 1 S MAC PT Azores 

191810 Festuca elegans 1 1 S Iberian 

191561 Festuca henriquesii 1 1 P MED PT 

198853 Festuca summilusitana 1 1 P Iberian 

189110 Fritillaria drenovskii 1 P Balkan 

189117 Fritillaria gussichiae 1 S Balkan 


Appendix 1 

Species 

Annex 

Endemic to 



II* 

BGR C Other 


( b ) 

( d ) ( e ) 

182193 Galium sudeticum 1 1 1 P CON Krkonose 

182212 Galium viridiflorum 1 1 1 S MED ES 

169781 Genista holopetala 1 1 S 

172945 Gentiana ligustica 1 1 P 

3506 Geranium maderense 1 1 1 P MAC PT Madeira 

3521 Globularia ascanii 1 1 1 P MAC ES Canary Islands 

3526 Globularia sarcophylla 1 1 1 P MAC ES Canary Islands 

175206 Globularia stygia 1 1 1 P MED GR 

3543 Goodyera macrophylla 1 1 O MAC PT Madeira 

9302 Gymnigritella runei 1 1 P ALP SE 

3569 Helianthemum bystropogophyllum 1 1 1 P MAC ES Canary Islands 

158305 Helichrysum sibthorpii 1 P MED GR 

3642 Herniaria latifolia ssp. litardierei 1 1 1 P MED 

151254 Hladnikia pastinacifolia 1 1 S SI 

152290 Chaerophyllum azoricum 1 1 O MAC PT Azores 

2654 Chamaemeles coriacea 1 1 1 S MAC PT Madeira 

9260 Chionodoxa lochiae 1 1 1 P MED CY Troodos 

9261 Chionodoxa luciliae 1 P 

3755 Iberis arbuscula 1 1 1 P MED GR Aegean 

186604 Iris boissieri 1 P ATL PT Iberian 

3791 Isoplexis chalcantha 1 1 1 O MAC ES Canary Islands 

3792 Isoplexis isabelliana 1 1 P MAC ES Canary Islands 

172706 Jankaea heldreichii 1 S MED GR Mt Olymp 

164917 Jasione crispa ssp. serpentinica 1 1 P MED PT 

164052 Jonopsidium savianum 1 1 S MED 

156747 Jurinea fontqueri 1 1 1 P MED ES 

156751 Lactuca watsoniana 1 1 1 S MAC PT Azores 

157100 Lamyropsis microcephala 1 1 1 P MED IT Sardinia 

152142 Laserpitium longiradium 1 1 1 P MED ES 

156632 Leontodon boryi 1 1 P MED ES 

159135 Leontodon microcephalus 1 1 P MED ES 

185671 Leucojum nicaeense 1 1 S MED 

159920 Ligularia sibirica 1 1 O 

4027 Limonium dendroides 1 1 O MAC ES Canary Islands 

4060 Limonium sventenii 1 1 1 O MAC ES Canary Islands 

183719 Linaria tonzigii 1 1 P ALP IT Alps 

189943 Liparis loeselii 1 1 O 

162004 Lithodora nitida 1 1 1 P MED ES 

186195 Luzula arctica 1 1 P 

176028 Lythrum flexuosum 1 1 1 S MED ES 

184965 Mandragora officinarum 1 O MED 

174251 Micromeria taygetea 1 1 1 P MED GR 

167501 Moehringia fontqueri 1 P MED ES 

165493 Moehringia tommasinii 1 1 P 

165861 Moehringia villosa 1 1 P ALP SI Alps 

4433 Monanthes wildpretii 1 1 O MAC ES Canary Islands 

162668 Murbeckiella sousae 1 S MED PT 

4463 Musschia wollastonii 1 1 1 O MAC PT Madeira 

4478 Myrica rivas-martinezii 1 1 1 S MAC ES Canary Islands 

185527 Narcissus asturiensis 1 1 S Iberian 

185509 Narcissus cyclamineus 1 1 S Iberian 

185670 Narcissus nevadensis 1 1 1 P MED ES 

185677 Narcissus pseudonarcissus ssp. nobilis 1 1 S Iberian 

185760 Narcissus triandrus 1 S 

173600 Nepeta dirphya 1 1 S MED GR 

174797 Nepeta sphaciotica 1 1 1 P MED GR Crete 

183816 Odontites granatensis 1 1 P MED ES 


241

Appendix 1 

Species 

Annex 

Endemic to 



II* 

BGR C Other 


( b ) 

( d ) ( e ) 

198855 Onopordum carduelinum 1 1 1 P MAC ES Canary Islands 

9305 Ophrys kotschyi 1 1 1 S MED CY 

189706 Ophrys lunulata 1 1 1 S MED 

4683 Orchis scopulorum 1 P MAC PT Madeira 

174322 Origanum dictamnus 1 1 S MED GR Crete 

188505 Ornithogalum reverchonii 1 S MED 

175349 Paeonia cambessedesii 1 1 S MED ES Balearic 

175599 Papaver laestadianum 1 1 P ALP 

195549 Papaver radicatum ssp. hyperboreum 1 1 P ALP 

4801 Pericallis hadrosoma 1 1 1 P MAC ES Canary Islands 

165499 Petrocoptis grandiflora 1 1 S ES 

195082 Petrocoptis montsicciana 1 1 S ES 

195079 Petrocoptis pseudoviscosa 1 1 S ES 

9201 Phlomis brevibracteata 1 1 S MED CY 

9202 Phlomis cypria 1 1 O MED CY 

164848 Physoplexis comosa 1 S ALP Alps 

9218 Pinguicula crystallina 1 1 1 S MED 

176081 Pinguicula nevadensis 1 1 P MED ES 

189799 Platanthera obtusata ssp. oligantha 1 1 P 

193603 Poa granitica ssp. disparilis 1 1 P ALP RO Carpathians 

192439 Poa laxa 1 P 

192438 Poa riphaea 1 1 1 P CON CZ Hruby Jesenik 

180036 Potentilla delphinensis 1 1 P ALP FR 

179034 Primula apennina 1 1 1 P CON IT Appenines 

178867 Primula carniolica 1 1 S SI Dinaric 

179089 Primula glaucescens 1 P ALP IT Alps 

179081 Primula scandinavica 1 1 P Scandinavia 

179028 Primula spectabilis 1 P ALP IT Alps 

177071 Pulsatilla grandis 1 1 O 

176925 Pulsatilla slavica 1 1 1 P ALP Carpathians 

196481 Pulsatilla subslavica 1 1 1 S SK Carpathians 

172700 Ramonda serbica 1 S Balkan 

9111 Ranunculus kykkoensis 1 1 P MED CY Troodos 

176670 Ranunculus weyleri 1 1 1 S MED ES Mallorca 

169518 Rhododendron luteum 1 1 S 

173131 Ribes sardoum 1 1 1 P MED IT Sardinia 

5459 Sambucus palmensis 1 1 1 S MAC ES Canary Islands 

151605 Sanicula azorica 1 1 O MAC PT Azores 

161632 Santolina elegans 1 P MED ES 

5482 Santolina semidentata 1 1 S Iberian 

181427 Saxifraga florulenta 1 1 P ALP Alps 

181463 Saxifraga hirculus 1 1 S 

5532 Saxifraga portosanctana 1 P MAC PT Madeira 

181557 Saxifraga presolanensis 1 P ALP IT Alps 

181615 Saxifraga tombeanensis 1 1 S ALP IT Alps 

181620 Saxifraga valdensis 1 P ALP 

181622 Saxifraga vayredana 1 S MED ES 

169222 Scabiosa nitens 1 1 O MAC PT Azores 

9273 Scilla morrisii 1 1 1 S MED CY Troodos 

5667 Senecio caespitosus 1 P MED PT 

159710 Senecio elodes 1 1 1 P MED ES 

160018 Senecio nevadensis 1 1 P MED ES 

151041 Seseli intricatum 1 1 1 P MED ES 

9204 Sideritis cypria 1 1 S MED CY 

5732 Sideritis cystosiphon 1 1 1 O MAC ES Canary Islands 

5733 Sideritis discolor 1 1 1 S MAC ES Canary Islands 

5735 Sideritis infernalis 1 1 S MAC ES Canary Islands 


Appendix 1 

Species 

Annex 

Endemic to 



II* 

BGR C Other 


( b ) 

( d ) ( e ) 

174816 Sideritis javalambrensis 1 1 P MED ES 

165612 Silene furcata ssp. angustiflora 1 1 S 

195205 Silene mariana 1 1 O MED ES 

167606 Silene orphanidis 1 1 1 P MED GR Mt Athos 

162711 Sisymbrium supinum 1 1 S 

5808 Solanum lidii 1 1 1 O MAC ES Canary Islands 

162277 Solenanthus albanicus 1 1 P MED 

5822 Sorbus maderensis 1 1 S MAC PT Madeira 

190075 Spiranthes aestivalis 1 S 

160924 Stemmacantha cynaroides 1 1 P MAC ES Canary Islands 

193469 Stipa austroitalica 1 1 1 S MED IT 

192762 Stipa styriaca 1 1 1 P ALP AT 

5962 Tanacetum ptarmiciflorum 1 1 1 P MAC ES Canary Islands 

196440 Tephroseris longifolia ssp. moravica 1 1 S Carpathians 

184626 Thymelaea broterana 1 S Iberian 

184258 Tozzia carpathica 1 1 P 

170699 Trifolium saxatile 1 1 P ALP Alps 

193489 Trisetum subalpestre 1 1 P 

183320 Veronica micrantha 1 1 S ATL Iberian 

6235 Veronica oetaea 1 1 1 P MED GR 

185408 Viola athois 1 P MED GR 

185392 Viola cazorlensis 1 P MED ES 

185374 Viola delphinantha 1 1 P Balkan 

185320 Viola jaubertiana 1 1 S MED ES Mallorca 

185238 Viola rupestris ssp. relicta 1 1 P 

160691 Wagenitzia lancifolia 1 P MED GR Crete 

185165 Zelkova abelicea 1 1 P MED GR Crete 

Note: 

( a ) Code of species in EUNIS species database. 

( b ) Taxa listed in the Habitat Directive Annex II as priority species. 

( c ) 'P' refers to exclusively mountain species; 'S' refers to mainly mountain species; 'O' refers to facultative mountain species. 

( d ) Biogeographical regions: ALP — Alpine; ATL — Atlantic; CON — Continental; MAC — Macaronesian; MED — Mediterranean. 

( e ) Countries: AT — Austria; CY — Cyprus; CZ — Czech Republic; ES — Spain; FR — France; GR — Greece; IT — Italy; 

PT — Portugal; RO — Romania; SE — Sweden; SK — Slovakia. 


243

Appendix 2 

Appendix 2 Mountain habitat types in the 

Habitats Directive 

Code ( a ) Name Category ( b ) 

1 Coastal and halophytic habitats 

11 Open sea and tidal areas 

1110 Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time N 

1120 * Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae) N 

1130 Estuaries N 

1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide N 

1150 * Coastal lagoons N 

1160 Large shallow inlets and bays N 

1170 Reefs N 

1180 Submarine structures made by leaking gases N 

12 Sea cliffs and shingle or stony beaches 

1210 Annual vegetation of drift lines N 

1220 Perennial vegetation of stony banks N 

1230 Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic Coasts N 

1240 Vegetated sea cliffs of the Mediterranean coasts with endemic Limonium spp. N 

1250 Vegetated sea cliffs with endemic flora of the Macaronesian coasts N 

13 Atlantic and continental salt marshes and salt meadows 

1310 Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand N 

1320 Spartina swards (Spartinion maritimae) N 

1330 Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) N 

1340 * Inland salt meadows N 

14 Mediterranean and thermo-Atlantic salt marshes and salt meadows 

1410 Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi) N 

1420 Mediterranean and thermo-Atlantic halophilous scrubs (Sarcocornetea fruticosi) N 

1430 Halo-nitrophilous scrubs (Pegano-Salsoletea) N 

15 Salt and gypsum inland steppes 

1510 * Mediterranean salt steppes (Limonietalia) N 

1520 * Iberian gypsum vegetation (Gypsophiletalia) N 

1530 * Pannonic salt steppes and salt marshes N 

16 Boreal Baltic archipelago, coastal and landupheaval areas 

1610 Baltic esker islands with sandy, rocky and shingle beach vegetation and sublittoral vegetation N 

1620 Boreal Baltic islets and small islands N 

1630 * Boreal Baltic coastal meadows N 

1640 Boreal Baltic sandy beaches with perennial vegetation N 

1650 Boreal Baltic narrow inlets N 

2 Coastal sand dunes and inland dunes 

21 Sea dunes of the Atlantic, North Sea and Baltic coasts 

2110 Embryonic shifting dunes N 

2120 Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria ('white dunes') N 

2130 * Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (“grey dunes') N 

2140 * Decalcified fixed dunes with Empetrum nigrum N 

2150 * Atlantic decalcified fixed dunes (Calluno-Ulicetea) N 

2160 Dunes with Hippophaë rhamnoides N 

2170 Dunes with Salix repens ssp. argentea (Salicion arenariae) N 

2180 Wooded dunes of the Atlantic, Continental and Boreal region N 

2190 Humid dune slacks N 

21A0 Machairs (* in Ireland) N 

22 Sea dunes of the Mediterranean coast 

2210 Crucianellion maritimae fixed beach dunes N 

2220 Dunes with Euphorbia terracina N 

2230 Malcolmietalia dune grasslands N 

244 


Appendix 2 


2240 Brachypodietalia dune grasslands with annuals N 

2250 * Coastal dunes with Juniperus spp. N 

2260 Cisto-Lavenduletalia dune sclerophyllous scrubs N 

2270 * Wooded dunes with Pinus pinea and/or Pinus pinaster N 

23 Inland dunes, old and decalcified 

2310 Dry sand heaths with Calluna and Genista N 

2320 Dry sand heaths with Calluna and Empetrum nigrum N 

2330 Inland dunes with open Corynephorus and Agrostis grasslands N 

2340 * Pannonic inland dunes N 

3 Freshwater habitats 

31 Standing water 

3110 Oligotrophic waters containing very few minerals of sandy plains (Littorelletalia uniflorae) F 

3120 

Oligotrophic waters containing very few minerals generally on sandy soils of the West 

Mediterranean, with Isoetes spp. 

N 

3130 

Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea uniflorae 

and/or of the Isoëto-Nanojuncetea 

F 

3140 Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara spp. F 

3150 Natural eutrophic lakes with Magnopotamion or Hydrocharition — type vegetation F 

3160 Natural dystrophic lakes and ponds F 

3170 * Mediterranean temporary ponds N 

3180 * Turloughs N 

3190 Lakes of gypsum karst N 

31A0 * Transylvanian hot-spring lotus beds N 

32 Running water 

3210 Fennoscandian natural rivers F 

3220 Alpine rivers and the herbaceous vegetation along their banks M 

3230 Alpine rivers and their ligneous vegetation with Myricaria germanica M 

3240 Alpine rivers and their ligneous vegetation with Salix elaeagnos M 

3250 Constantly flowing Mediterranean rivers with Glaucium flavum N 

3260 

Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho- 

Batrachion vegetation 

F 

3270 Rivers with muddy banks with Chenopodion rubri p.p. and Bidention p.p. vegetation F 

3280 

Constantly flowing Mediterranean rivers with Paspalo-Agrostidion species and hanging 

curtains of Salix and Populus alba 

N 

3290 Intermittently flowing Mediterranean rivers of the Paspalo-Agrostidion N 

4 Temperate heath and scrub 

4010 Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix F 

4020 * Temperate Atlantic wet heaths with Erica ciliaris and Erica tetralix F 

4030 European dry heaths F 

4040 * Dry Atlantic coastal heaths with Erica vagans N 

4050 * Endemic macaronesian heaths F 

4060 Alpine and Boreal heaths M 

4070 * Bushes with Pinus mugo and Rhododendron hirsutum (Mugo-Rhododendretum hirsuti) M 

4080 Sub-Arctic Salix spp. Scrub M 

4090 Endemic oro-Mediterranean heaths with gorse M 

40A0 * Subcontinental peri-Pannonic scrub N 

40B0 Rhodope Potentilla fruticosa thickets M 

40C0 * Ponto-Sarmatic deciduous thickets N 

5 Sclerophyllous scrub (matorral) 

51 Sub-Mediterranean and temperate scrub 

5110 

Stable xerothermophilous formations with Buxus sempervirens on rock slopes 

(Berberidion p.p.) 

F 

5120 Mountain Cytisus purgans formations M 

5130 Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands F 

5140 * Cistus palhinhae formations on maritime wet heaths N 

52 Mediterranean arborescent matorral 

5210 Arborescent matorral with Juniperus spp. F 

5220 * Arborescent matorral with Zyziphus N 

5230 * Arborescent matorral with Laurus nobilis F 

53 Thermo-Mediterranean and pre-steppe brush 

5310 Laurus nobilis thickets F 


245

Appendix 2 


5320 Low formations of Euphorbia close to cliffs N 

5330 Thermo-Mediterranean and pre-desert scrub N 

54 Phrygana 

5410 West Mediterranean clifftop phryganas (Astragalo-Plantaginetum subulatae) N 

5420 Sarcopoterium spinosum phryganas N 

5430 Endemic phryganas of the Euphorbio-Verbascion F 

6 Natural and semi-natural grassland formations 

61 Natural grasslands 

6110 * Rupicolous calcareous or basophilic grasslands of the Alysso-Sedion albi F 

6120 * Xeric sand calcareous grasslands N 

6130 Calaminarian grasslands of the Violetalia calaminariae F 

6140 Siliceous Pyrenean Festuca eskia grasslands M 

6150 Siliceous alpine and boreal grasslands M 

6160 Oro-Iberian Festuca indigesta grasslands M 

6170 Alpine and subalpine calcareous grasslands M 

6180 Macaronesian mesophile grasslands M 

6190 Rupicolous pannonic grasslands (Stipo-Festucetalia pallentis) F 

62 Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies 

6210 

Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (Festuco- 

Brometalia) (* important orchid sites) 

F 

6220 * Pseudo-steppe with grasses and annuals of the Thero-Brachypodietea F 

6230 

* Species-rich Nardus grasslands, on silicious substrates in mountain areas (and 

submountain areas in Continental Europe) 

F 

6240 * Sub-Pannonic steppic grasslands N 

6250 * Pannonic loess steppic grasslands N 

6260 * Pannonic sand steppes N 

6270 * Fennoscandian lowland species-rich dry to mesic grasslands N 

6280 * Nordic alvar and precambrian calcareous flatrocks N 

62A0 Eastern sub-Mediterranean dry grasslands (Scorzoneratalia villosae) N 

62B0 * Serpentinophilous grassland of Cyprus F 

62C0 * Ponto-Sarmatic steppes N 

62D0 Oro-Moesian acidophilous grasslands M 

63 Sclerophillous grazed forests (dehesas) 

6310 Dehesas with evergreen Quercus spp. N 

64 Semi-natural tall-herb humid meadows 

6410 Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) F 

6420 Mediterranean tall humid grasslands of the Molinio-Holoschoenion F 

6430 Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels F 

6440 Alluvial meadows of river valleys of the Cnidion dubii N 

6450 Northern boreal alluvial meadows F 

6460 Peat grasslands of Troodos M 

65 Mesophile grasslands 

6510 Lowland hay meadows (Alopecurus pratensis, Sanguisorba officinalis) N 

6520 Mountain hay meadows M 

6530 * Fennoscandian wooded meadows N 

7 Raised bogs and mires and fens 

71 Sphagnum acid bogs 

7110 * Active raised bogs F 

7120 Degraded raised bogs still capable of natural regeneration F 

7130 Blanket bogs (* if active bog) F 

7140 Transition mires and quaking bogs F 

7150 Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion F 

7160 Fennoscandian mineral-rich springs and springfens F 

72 Calcareous fens 

7210 * Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae F 

7220 * Petrifying springs with tufa formation (Cratoneurion) F 

7230 Alkaline fens F 

7240 * Alpine pioneer formations of the Caricion bicoloris-atrofuscae M 

73 Boreal mires 

7310 * Aapa mires F 

7320 * Palsa mires M 


Appendix 2 


8 Rocky habitats and caves 

81 Scree 

8110 

Siliceous scree of the montane to snow levels (Androsacetalia alpinae and Galeopsietalia 

ladani) 

M 

8120 Calcareous and calcshist screes of the montane to alpine levels (Thlaspietea rotundifolii) M 

8130 Western Mediterranean and thermophilous scree F 

8140 Eastern Mediterranean screes M 

8150 Medio-European upland siliceous screes F 

8160 * Medio-European calcareous scree of hill and montane levels F 

82 Rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation 

8210 Calcareous rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation F 

8220 Siliceous rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation F 

8230 

Siliceous rock with pioneer vegetation of the Sedo-Scleranthion or of the Sedo albi- 

Veronicion dillenii 

F 

8240 * Limestone pavements F 

83 Other rocky habitats 

8310 Caves not open to the public F 

8320 Fields of lava and natural excavations F 

8330 Submerged or partially submerged sea caves N 

8340 Permanent glaciers M 

9 Forests 

90 Forests of Boreal Europe 

9010 * Western Taïga F 

9020 

* Fennoscandian hemiboreal natural old broad-leaved deciduous forests (Quercus, Tilia, Acer, 

Fraxinus or Ulmus) rich in epiphytes 

F 

9030 * Natural forests of primary succession stages of landupheaval coast N 

9040 Nordic subalpine/subarctic forests with Betula pubescens ssp. czerepanovii M 

9050 Fennoscandian herb-rich forests with Picea abies F 

9060 Coniferous forests on, or connected to, glaciofluvial eskers F 

9070 Fennoscandian wooded pastures F 

9080 * Fennoscandian deciduous swamp woods F 

91 Forests of Temperate Europe 

9110 Luzulo-Fagetum beech forests F 

9120 

Atlantic acidophilous beech forests with Ilex and sometimes also Taxus in the shrublayer 

(Quercion robori-petraeae or Ilici-Fagenion) 

F 

9130 Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests F 

9140 Medio-European subalpine beech woods with Acer and Rumex arifolius M 

9150 Medio-European limestone beech forests of the Cephalanthero-Fagion F 

9160 Sub-Atlantic and medio-European oak or oak-hornbeam forests of the Carpinion betuli F 

9170 Galio-Carpinetum oak-hornbeam forests F 

9180 * Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines F 

9190 Old acidophilous oak woods with Quercus robur on sandy plains N 

91A0 Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles F 

91B0 Thermophilous Fraxinus angustifolia woods F 

91C0 * Caledonian forest M 

91D0 * Bog woodland F 

91E0 

* Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, 

Salicion albae) 

F 

91F0 

Riparian mixed forests of Quercus robur, Ulmus laevis and Ulmus minor, Fraxinus excelsior or 

Fraxinus angustifolia, along the great rivers (Ulmenion minoris) 

F 

91G0 * Pannonic woods with Quercus petraea and Carpinus betulus N 

91H0 * Pannonian woods with Quercus pubescens N 

91I0 * Euro-Siberian steppic woods with Quercus spp. N 

91J0 * Taxus baccata woods of the British Isles N 

91K0 Illyrian Fagus sylvatica forests (Aremonio-Fagion) F 

91L0 Illyrian oak-hornbeam forests (Erythronio-Carpinion) F 

91M0 Pannonian-Balkanic turkey oak –sessile oak forests N 

91N0 * Pannonic inland sand dune thicket (Junipero-Populetum albae) N 

91P0 Holy Cross fir forest (Abietetum polonicum) F 

91Q0 Western Carpathian calcicolous Pinus sylvestris forests M 

91R0 Dinaric dolomite Scots pine forests (Genisto januensis-Pinetum) F 

91S0 * Western Pontic beech forests F 


247

Appendix 2 


91T0 Central European lichen Scots pine forests N 

91U0 Sarmatic steppe pine forest N 

91V0 Dacian Beech forests (Symphyto-Fagion) F 

91W0 Moesian beech forests M 

91X0 * Dobrogean beech forests N 

91Y0 Dacian oak & hornbeam forests N 

91Z0 Moesian silver lime woods N 

91AA * Eastern white oak woods F 

91BA Moesian silver fir forests M 

91CA Rhodopide and Balkan Range Scots pine forests F 

92 Mediterranean deciduous forests 

9210 * Apeninne beech forests with Taxus and Ilex F 

9220 * Apennine beech forests with Abies alba and beech forests with Abies nebrodensis F 

9230 Galicio-Portuguese oak woods with Quercus robur and Quercus pyrenaica F 

9240 Quercus faginea and Quercus canariensis Iberian woods F 

9250 Quercus trojana woods F 

9260 Castanea sativa woods F 

9270 Hellenic beech forests with Abies borisii-regis F 

9280 Quercus frainetto woods F 

9290 Cupressus forests (Acero-Cupression) M 

92A0 Salix alba and Populus alba galleries N 

92B0 

Riparian formations on intermittent Mediterranean water courses with Rhododendron 

ponticum, Salix and others 

N 

92C0 Platanus orientalis and Liquidambar orientalis woods (Platanion orientalis) M 

92D0 Southern riparian galleries and thickets (Nerio-Tamaricetea and Securinegion tinctoriae) M 

93 Mediterranean sclerophyllous forests 

9310 Aegean Quercus brachyphylla woods N 

9320 Olea and Ceratonia forests N 

9330 Quercus suber forests F 

9340 Quercus ilex and Quercus rotundifolia forests F 

9350 Quercus macrolepis forests N 

9360 * Macaronesian laurel forests (Laurus, Ocotea) F 

9370 * Palm groves of Phoenix N 

9380 Forests of Ilex aquifolium F 

9390 * Scrub and low forest vegetation with Quercus alnifolia F 

93A0 Woodlands with Quercus infectoria (Anagyro foetidae-Quercetum infectoriae) F 

94 Temperate mountainous coniferous forests 

9410 Acidophilous Picea forests of the montane to alpine levels (Vaccinio-Piceetea) M 

9420 Alpine Larix decidua and/or Pinus cembra forests M 

9430 Subalpine and montane Pinus uncinata forests (* if on gypsum or limestone) M 

95 Mediterranean and Macaronesian mountainous coniferous forests 

9510 * Southern Apennine Abies alba forests M 

9520 Abies pinsapo forests M 

9530 * (Sub-) Mediterranean pine forests with endemic black pines M 

9540 Mediterranean pine forests with endemic Mesogean pines F 

9550 Canarian endemic pine forests M 

9560 * Endemic forests with Juniperus spp. F 

9570 * Tetraclinis articulata forests F 

9580 * Mediterranean Taxus baccata woods M 

9590 * Cedrus brevifolia forests (Cedrosetum brevifoliae) M 

95A0 High oro-Mediterranean pine forests M 

Note: * Indicates a priority habitat. 

( a ) Habitat type code as used by the Annex I of the Habitats Directive. 

( b ) 'M' refers to mountain habitats (habitats exclusively or almost exclusively distributed in mountains); 'F' refers to partially 

mountain habitats (habitat types distributed both inside and outside mountains); 'N' refers to non-mountain habitats 

(habitat types distributed exclusively or almost exclusively outside mountains. 



Europe's ecological backbone: recognising the 

true value of our mountains 

2010 — 248 pp. — 21 x 29.7 cm 

ISBN 978-92-9213-108-1 

doi:10.2800/43450 

How to obtain EU publications 

Publications for sale: 

• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

• from your bookseller by quoting the title, the publisher and/or ISBN number; 

• by contacting one of our sales agents directly. You can obtain their contact details on the 

Internet (http://bookshop.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758. 

Free publications: 

• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

• at the European Commission’s representations or delegations. You can obtain their 

contact details on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.

TH-AL-10-006-EN-C 

doi:10.2800/43450 


Kongens Nytorv 6 

1050 Copenhagen K 

Denmark 

Tel.: +45 33 36 71 00 

Fax: +45 33 36 71 99 

Web: eea.europa.eu 

Enquiries: eea.europa.eu/enquiries

Europes ecological backbone.pdf

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?