Mountain areas 377

• The ‘ideal world’ of mountain areas isnow threatened by socio-economic shifts,increasing tourism and traffic impacts,and changes in land use. In the Acces-sion Countries more mountain areasmust be expected to become endangered through rapid economic develop-ment.

• Environmental and social damage hasalready occurred or must be anticipatedin mountain areas through significantchanges in precipitation patterns, speciesand habitats distribution, changes inrunoff rates, and water pollution, loss ofsoils and increase of man-made naturalhazards.

• Present EU policies often exhibit incon-sistency with respect to mountain areasand do not take adequate account oftheir special requirements.

3.15. Mountain areas

1. Mountains – the undervalued ecological backbone of Europe

Mountains provide vital resources for thewhole of Europe (Figure 3.15.1): for exam-ple, high runoff rates, and the storage anddistribution of freshwater over time andspace make mountains a major source forEurope’s water supplies.

Mountain areas are important part of theecological jewellery of Europe, providingaesthetic and recreational landscapes, highbiodiversity of species and habitats embed-ded in sustainable land use systems. Extend-ing through different altitudinal zonesmountains have a wide variety of habitats,including – in the remotest regions inEurope – the last retreat for animals withlarge habitats. The extreme physical condi-tions make mountains a fragile environment,where natural phenomena, often increasedby man-made land uses or misbehavior,interfere with human activities and thencause natural hazards.

Despite their remoteness, mountains sufferfrom direct and indirect pressures on theirnatural resources, many of which areinterlinked, whose key factors are difficult toidentify. Population change results fromdeclining agriculture and few profitableincome opportunities, furthering the trend

The top of the mountain is only part of the story. Mountain areas are systems of interlinkedvalleys, ridges and peaks. The phenomena of mountains is also a matter of altitude and slope.Diverse geology, geography and climate characterize European mountains. Despite theirperceived remoteness, mountains offer an important dimension to rural, urban and coastal areas.

Source: EEA processing

1456

Appenines

The Alps

3404

1000 km 2000 km

1700-1800

1600-1800; 2400

2000-2200

2914

4807

BavarianForest

max. altitude (m)

length

Pyrenees

Figure 3.15.2Overview of main features of some Europeanmountain ranges

Population

Focus of Mountains

GDP

Water resources

Nature protection

Recreation

HazardPrevention

Landscape

Area20

40

60

0

80

100

Figure 3.15.1Important Mountain Features in the Europeancontext illustrated by a qualitative estimation

Source: EEA

of land abandonment. Transport networks,for which mountains constitute a barrier,tend to fragment the land, while tourism isboth attracted by and damaging to mountainlandscapes.

Mountain Areas vary significantly through-out Europe (Box 3.15.1). Sometimes theseare isolated small mountains, often they arehuge mountain massifs stretching overhundreds of kilometers, and providing anecological backbone to much of the conti-nent. For ther purposes of this chaptermountain areas are defined to includelocations above 1 000m sea level (Figure3.15.2), as well as all areas having a slopegreater than 5 degrees, but excluding areaswith a surface area less than 100 squarekilometers.

Environmental issues378

Box 3.15.1 A glance over the thousands ofEuropean summits

In Europe mountains are found in thegeomorphological zones of the Fenno-Scandinavian Shield and the central and southernEuropean highlands. The eastern and centralEurope Accession Countries will add newmountain areas to the EU nearly the size ofAustria, for instance the Bohemian Forest,Carpathian Mountains and Rhodopes.

Although much of the available information onthe mountain environment relates to the Alps,Europe has a great variety of mountain regions,from Scandinavia to Mt. Etna in Sicily, and fromthe vast Spanish sierras to the densely woodedCarpathians (Figure 3.14.3 & 3.15.4).

40

60

0

20

80

100

And

orr

aM

ona

co

Arm

enia

Liec

hten

stei

n

Geo

rgia

Turk

ey

Switz

erla

nd

Alb

ania

Aus

tria

FYR

OM

Bo

snia

& H

erze

go

vina

No

rway

Gre

ece

Ital

y

Slo

veni

a

Aze

rbai

jan

Icel

and

Serb

ia M

ont

eneg

roSp

ain

Bul

gar

ia

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

Cyp

rus

Ro

man

ia

Cro

atia

Fran

ce

Port

ugal

Uni

ted

Kin

gd

om

Swed

en

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

San

Mar

ino

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

Ukr

aine

Ger

man

y

Irela

nd

Pola

nd

% A

rea

that

is m

oun

tain

EU countriesAccession countriesOther European countries

Talking of mountains means 14% of the EU and 11% of theAccession Countries’ land area. Only few EU countries donot have mountainous areas such as the Netherlands,Denmark and Belgium; others such as Austria and Bulgaria,have a high proportion of mountain areas.Source: EEA

Mediterranean24.9%

Continental6.9%

Boreal0.4%

Black Sea6.2% Atlantic

5.5% Arctic4.0%

Anatolian22.6%

Steppic0.1%

Pannonian2.3%

Alpine27.0%

Distribution over biogeographic regions shows thatmountains in the Mediterranean and Anatolian regions are inabout the same abundance as in the Alpine region.Source: EEA

Figure 3.15.4 Biogeographic regions of European mountains

Figure 3.15.3 Mountain areas share in European countries

Mountain areas 379

Adapting the DPSIR framework to the special needs of spatial issues, some relevant relationsin mountain areas may be highlighted by this simplified model. In general every policy actionshould bear in mind the network of direct and indirect interactions which is affected by therelevant policy.

Source: EEA

Drivers/Pressures

Population

Traffic

Changes in land use

Tourism and recreation

Natural hazards

Soil

Natural heritage

Water resources

State/Impact

Response

definition of newurban-mountain

relation

management ofcatchment areas

guidelines forsustainable

tourism

protection ofspecies andlandscapes

new taskstourism

agro-environmentrenewable energy

forestry

road pricing

Figure 3.15.5Interactions in mountain areasMountains are widely recognized as impor-tant and sensitive ecosystems, but littleprogress has been made in developingcomprehensive policies, particularly at EUlevel, to build upon the good intentions setout in mountain charters. Although Euro-pean policies were first applied to mountainsin the 1970s (under the Less Favored Area,LFA, framework) and mountain areas arenow subject to numerous EU, national andregional policies, there remains a lack ofcoordination between measures at differentlevels relating to various sectors.

Mountains are probably the most prominentexamples where multifunctional land useshave partly still survived, but are now at risk.For mountain areas it is crucial to adopt acomprehensive, spatially integrated policywhich is able to reflect and support themultifunctionality which has been thesustainable concept in mountains for manygenerations.

2. How can the environment of remote mountains be threatened?

Fragile environmental conditions havebrought about highly adapted and sophisti-cated land uses. Demographic and economicchanges (and particularly the growth oftourism) have complex effects which call forholistic responses (Figure 3.15.5).

2.1. What makes population, traffic, tourism and land use change the main driving forces and pressures in mountains?

2.1.1. Population is outmigrating and overageingMany mountain areas have declining andageing populations due to outmigration ofworkers, the use of residences as secondhomes, and inward migration of pensioners.Loss of population might reduce the capabi-lity for upkeeping the landscape and meansan additional burden for suburban areas intowhich people are moving. Mountains alsobecome subject of exploitation as a naturalresource for urban consumption from low-land regions. There are at least 38 cities above250 000 inhabitants close to mountain rangesin the EU and Accession Countries, such asMilan, Geneva, Birmingham, Rome, Granadaand Thessaloniki (Map 3.15.1).

Population density varies considerably withaltitude, so that some mountain areas areextremely sparsely populated, and compara-ble to Arctic regions, while the denselyinhabited valleys have similarities with

lowland regions. In 1990 the vertical distri-bution of total alpine population concen-trated 93% below 1 000 m above sea level(a.s.l.), 53% below 500 m a.s.l., and only 7%above 1 000 m (Bätzing, 1997). Anotheraspect of population density is a significantvariation with seasonal or daily peaks, i.e.summer and winter tourism inside moun-tains, international holidays or short week-end trips from surrounding city dwellers.

The shift and migration within mountaincountries can be illustrated by some Alpinecountries. In the period from 1870 to 1990the Alps experienced a total populationincrease from 7 million up to 11 millionpeople, but the proportion living in moun-tain areas dropped from 7.4% to 5.8%.

Population changes are connected tochanges of employment opportunities andstructures. The shift from a traditional multi-functional and multi-sectoral way of living ofmountain people to external employmentand enterprises is, besides insufficientinfrastructure, a main reason for populationchanges. This means in general terms a shift

Environmental issues380

Urban centres

Mountain zone

Roads

> 500 000 inhabitants

Urban centresaround the Alps

0 100 km

200 000 – 500 000

100 000 – 200 000

Marseille

Genova

Torino

Milano

Lyon

München

StuttgartWien

Graz

Ljubljana

Trieste

VeneziaPadovaVerona

Bologna

FirenzeNiceGrasse

Toulon

Grenoble

Bern

ZürichDijon

NancyKarlsruhe

Strasbourg

Mulhouse

Augsburg Bratislava

Golfedu Lion

Ligur ianSea

Adriatic Sea

Golfodi Venezia

6o 8o 10o 12o 14o 16o

6o4o 8o 10o 12o 14o 16o

44o

46o

48o

44o

46o

48o

Map 3.15.1Urban settlements around

mountains; the example ofthe Alps

Source: EEA, GISCO –Eurostat

from the primary to the tertiary sector. Thistrend has special significance in mountainareas, where often traditional and sustain-able activities are substituted by pure eco-nomically orientated activities. For exampleformerly multi-skilled mountain peopleworking in agriculture, forestry, pastoralismor dairy farming are now employed in thetourist business or industry. Thus agriculturealone is no longer an economic pillar formountain towns.

These changes in employment may behighlighted by the area of Aletsch in Switzer-land. Here the primary sector dropped fromabout 70% in 1950 to 12% in 1980, touristaccommodation increased from about 65beds in 1940 up to 7 250 beds in the 1980s.About 900 local residents now cater forabout 700 000 overnight stays per year(Messerli, 1989).

2.1.2. Tourism and recreation in mountains: a double-edged swordPromoted as an economic incentive forremote areas, tourism has in some mountainregions evolved monostructured, vulnerableeconomies, and generated pressures on theenvironment. Notwithstanding the vogue for‘green tourism’, intensive, environmentallythreatening tourism continues to develop; asimilar trend can also be expected in Acces-

sion Countries. Tourism and recreationfacilities exert pressure on the environmentthrough land-use development and in-creased road traffic. Additionally, manyoutdoor sports affect the more undisturbedand nearly inaccessible areas such as gorgesor rock faces (Garcia-Ruiz, Lasanta-Martinez,1993; Lichtenberger, 1979).

The economic importance of mountaintourism is illustrated by a Greek study whichestimated that the recreational value ofmountain areas is 10 times greater than thevalue of forest timber (Vakrou, 1998 quotedin EOMF, 1998).

Tourism development varies considerably. Inthe Alps, for instance, only 10% of all Alpinecommunes have large monostructuredtourist infrastructure and 40% have notourism (Bätzing, 1997), and since the mid-1980s figures for tourism have been stagnat-ing or decreasing in some Alpine regions,after several decades of steady growth(Elsasser/Frösch/Finsterle, 1990; Bätzing,1990; Romano, 1995). Nevertheless, thereare plans for further tourist facilities, such asski runs in the Pyrenees and developmentsto cater for new recreation activities, particu-larly in the Accession Countries wheretourism is important as a source of foreignexchange.

Mountain areas 381

0 10 15 20 255

Austria

France

Germany

Ireland

Italy

Portugal

Spain

Greece

Sweden

Switzerland

United Kingdom

010152025 5million km2

Existing roadPlanned road

Existing railwayPlanned railway

Average of total roadsAverage of total railway

million km2

Figure 3.15.6Trans-European Network (roads and railways) inmountainous countries

Here an index of meters of road/railway per km2 of mountain area shows where increases ofinfrastructure and changes of modal split exist and are planned.

Source: EEA, European Commission (TEN)

2.1.3. Traffic networks are governed by needs outside mountainsTransport infrastructure development (Figure3.15.6) has often facilitated outmigration orcommuting to urban centres and increasedtransit and tourist traffic, particularly daytourism in the catchment areas of big cities.

For instance nearly 150 million people a yearare crossing the Alps, 83% by road and 17%by railway (Figure 3.15.7). A rapid increasein long-distance traffic crossing the Alps isexpected at a rate of 100% for freight and50% for passenger transport within the next20 years (European Commission, 1994;CIPRA, 1998).

Traffic network impacts are concentrated invalleys where people live. It is therefore notsurprising that two-thirds of the Alps’ popula-tion suffers from traffic noise. In Tyrol 87% ofhigh ozone levels are caused by traffic and inthe 1980s lead concentration in mother’s milkclose to the Brenner motorway exceededother regions by seven times (Rhomberg,1998). Other traffic-caused impacts arefragmentation of untouched areas, deteriora-tion of recreation areas, and socio-economic,double-edged effects such as better accessibi-lity to mountains or changing competitionbetween mountains and lowlands. Whiletransport network density is higher in theAlps than in other European mountainranges, rapid increases may be expected forAccession Countries’ mountains.

There have been calls in mountain areas forbetter integration of transport and compen-sation for environmental disbenefits, andprotests by local populations have resulted inhighway blockades, for example on theBrenner Pass (between Austria and Italy) orthe 1994 plebiscite in Switzerland on freighttransport.

2.1.4. The sustainability of land uses is set at riskMountain agriculture has responded toeconomic pressures in two ways (Box 3.15.2).One reaction is intensification, in the valleysand on high mountain pastures and goodaccessible slopes shifting from extensivemeadows to intensively grazed pastures. Theother is extensification in terms of abandon-ment or afforestation. Both these changescause a significant decline in biodiversity androot density. Land abandonment will inducesnow gliding, changes in water storagecapacity and water transport in soils, theonset of soil podzolisation and a potentiallyhigher frequency of natural hazards(Cernusca et al., 1996, Höller et al., 1998).

Forest areas extend through natural re-growth on abandoned farmland or afforesta-tion (Figure 3.15.8). Forests are, of course,often the main natural land cover in moun-tains. Depending on the new forest type,local conditions and existing biotopes,changes may positively or adversely affectspecies diversity, landscape attractiveness andtourism.

In the eastern and central European coun-tries, changes are driven in particular by thetransition towards a market economy.

Mill

ion

net

tonn

es

RoadRail

50

40

30

20

10

01970 1996

60

70

80

90

100The trend of freighttransport per year throughthe inner Alpine arch,between Mont Cenis/Fréjusand Brenner shows anoverproportional shifttowards road transport.

Source: CIPRA

Figure 3.15.7Freight transport in the Alps (1970-1996)

Environmental issues382

Box 3.15.2 Evolution and change of land use in the Alps (after Bätzing, 1990)

Main features in the Swiss Alps as derived from Messerli (1989)

4000 B.C. Transhumance starts(migrating shepherds).

Roman and German mountainagriculture.

Walser and Schwaighof economy.

14th/15th century Forest degradation throughclear-cutting and overuse; increaseof rock falls and avalanches.

16th/17th century Boom time of cheese and cattle Population increase causesproduction; wealthy overgrazing and degradation ofcommunes. pastures.

19th century Start of some industrialisation Forest degradation through clear-for use of charcoal and hydropower cutting for industry (charcoal),in eastern Alps; collapse of grazing in forests and overuse;traditional, multi-functional land use. increase of floods.

20th century From 1920 beginning of tourism Tourism, ski tourism in particular;in belle-epoque hotels; from 1950s forest degradation through airbroad tourism trend. emissions; land set-aside; cause

increasing erosion.

Generally Alpine land-use systems followedprinciples which maintained a sustainable culturallandscape and probably achieved in modernterms ‘sustainable development’. Guidelinesincluded careful site selection, examination of thesuitability for land uses, and a high proportion ofland restoration and maintenance, requiringresponsibility and high human labour input.

Certain environmentally relevant measures weredefined, such as forest protection to prevent rockfalls and avalanches (e.g. in Andermatt,Switzerland, 1397); definition of number and typeof livestock for pastures at different altitudes andlimitation to areas available for winter fodder inthe valleys. Permanent restoration such ascollecting rocks from pastures, removal of forestregrowth, seeding of open soil patches andfertilizing were practised.

Over time different, highly adapted land-usesystems slowly evolved the Swiss Alps, under theharsh and hostile conditions of the mountain

environment, in which land mismanagement canhave disastrous consequences.

Similar systems are reported also for thePyrénées, Vosges, Black Forest, ScandinavianMountains and Dinaric Alps.

The traditional knowledge of land management,still a living example of sustainable development,is rarely taken seriously, more appreciated as atouristic attraction and at risk of disappearing;for economic reasons, intensive land uses, suchas mass tourism, do not favour sustainabledevelopment.

In future it seems likely that polarisation withinmountain areas between very intensivelydeveloped, economically prosperous regionsand remote, marginalised ones will continue.Certainly there are some promising attemptsto promote new, multi-functional land-usemodels, but it remains questionable whetherthese will succeed as widespread solutions.

Pastures are enlarged by the cutting ofsubalpine forests and shrubs, notably inAlbania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia,Slovakia and the Ukraine. Hunting tourismcauses the overgrazing of some forests bydeer (Price, 1995).

2.2. The environmental state of sensitive mountain areas is a valuable indicator for the whole of Europe

2.2.1. Mountains are the first to be hit by climate changeThe prospect of climate change (see Chap-ter 3.1) has significant implications formountain environments. There are likely to

be also indirect effects on human populati-ons and ecosystems in adjacent plains,particularly arid and semi-arid regions withirrigated agriculture dependent on watersupplied from mountain areas (Price/Barry,1997). For Swiss mountains an acceleratedstructural change in mountain farming isexpected with threats to the survival of smallmountain communities, due to comparativedisadvantages of mountains relative to valleys(Jeker, 1996; Flückiger, 1996). But effects ofclimate change depend on interaction withother factors and can be worsened or easedby human action. The extent of environmen-tal and economic damage will depend onthe resilience of mountain landscapes to

Mountain areas 383

0% of land surface

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

UnitedKingdom

Ireland

Greece

Portugal

Spain

Italy

France

Austria

Germany

In non-mountain areasIn mountain areas

Figure 3.15.8Forest shares inside and outside mountains

Source: EEA and FAO data

3600

2800

2000

1200

400

3600

2800

2000

1200

400

Alti

tud

e (m

)A

ltitu

de

(m)

Evergreen oaks

Deciduous oaks and hornbeam

Beech and fir

Sub-alpine conifers

Alpine meadows

Hilly

Hilly

Montane Sub-alpine AlpineNival

Mediterranean MontaneSub-alpine

Alpine

It must be assumed that each vegetation belt would be replaced by the neighboring zonebelow, except for some fragmented areas in the Pyrenees and the Alps (i.e. Mont Blanc).Source: Guisan et al. (eds.), 1995

Figure 3.15.9Climate change: vegetation can be forcedupwards in higher altitudinal belts

buffer the expected extreme weather events.This can be achieved through good land-scape maintenance such as through moun-tain forestry and pastoralism (Breiling/Charamza/Skage, 1997).

Mountain areas represent within a relativelysmall area different climatic belts linked toaltitude, and are therefore highly sensitive toany climate change (Figure 3.15.9). With ananticipated global warming of about 2-3°C by2100, higher-altitude ecosystems probablywould suffer the greatest impact of globalwarming through eliminating the entirealpine belt, including the nival zone. Animpoverishment of (present endemic)species and biotope fragmentation would bethe result of this process. Temperatureincreases and changes in precipitationpatterns would cause changes in snow coverand water reserves, soil instability throughreduction of permafrost soils, and alsoinfluence the frequency of natural pheno-mena such as mudflows, floods or droughts(Guisan et al., 1995; Ruberti, 1994; Dubost/Zingari).

Variation of precipitation patterns and watersupply might influence agriculture or stockbreeding through changes of suitablepasture or fodder for grazing animals.

Changes in snow cover and snow durationmay have severe effects on winter tourism.Also without a real change, climate variabi-lity will have serious effects (Breiling/Charamza/Skage, 1997). One study predictsthat in Switzerland the number of economi-cally viable ski resorts and ski lifts will de-cline by 67% to 44% (Abegg/Elsasser, 1996).About 3% to 4.5% of Austrian GNP dependson winter tourism: it is estimated that about10% of Austrian winter tourist revenues aredirectly lost by a warming of 1.5 degreeCelsius (Breiling, 1994) – and that indirectlosses are three times higher. On the otherhand, regions at higher altitudes with bettersnow conditions may experience an increaseof winter tourism, leading to economicdisparities, uncontrolled development andincreasing environmental damage (Breiling/Charamza/Skage, 1997).

In the Fennoscandian Mountains, thepotential alpine zones in Norway might bereduced to a quarter of their present size,followed by endangering of, or strongcompetition between animal species (e.g.lemming, red fox, arctic fox), due to thereduction of their current habitats. In theSouthwestern Alps, a progressive decrease in

Environmental issues384

0km2

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Ordesa / Monte Perdido, ES

Grisons, CH*

Berchtesgaden, DE

Kalkhochalpen, AT

Ammergebirge, DE

Abruzzo, IT

Vinamala, ES

Salzachtal, AT

Mercantour, FR

Gran Paradiso, IT

Ecrins, FR

Padjelanta, SE

Käsivarsi, FI

Sjaunja, SE

Kaldoaivi, FI

Hardangervidda, NO

Vindelfjälten, SE

* transfrontier park with Stelvio, Italy

Figure 3.15.10 Range in size of protected mountain areas

Sizes of selected unfragmented protected areas in different countries of alpinebiogeographical region (IUCN categories I-IV serving primarily nature conservation functions,WCMC and Common Database on Designated Areas, EEA).

Source: EEA

precipitation is expected with steppe-likevegetation patterns. In general, the Mediter-ranean climate might spread further north-ward and upward endangering Alpine plantcommunities and causing extinction of someEuropean tree species in the Central Alps(Guisan et al., 1995; Ruberti, 1994; Dubost/Zingari).

2.2.2. Mountains provide an interwoven natural and cultural heritageLarge unfragmented areas are an importantbut steadily declining resource, and, whilesome of these areas enjoy legal protection,there are considerable differences betweenregions (Figure 3.15.10).

Five of the largest unfragmented (andprotected) areas are located at the peripheryof the EU, such as in Scandinavia wherepressure from population, land use andtraffic is relatively low, while protected areasin Middle-Europe (Alps, Middle Mountains)

are generally smaller. Unfragmented sensi-tive areas are often still unprotected (na-tional parks cover only 4.2% of the Alps;CIPRA, 1998). The Accession Countries atpresent have large unfragmented areas.

Besides their importance for conservation ofwildlife and biodiversity, large unfragmentedareas offer non-material values such as areasof silence, low emissions of pollutants, naturalbeauty and wilderness perception. Europeanmountains may be considered as an ecologi-cal ‘green’ network offering migrationcorridors and guidelines over long distances.

The number of areas in the Alps above 1 500km² not touched by major transport infra-structure dropped from 31 to 14 between1963 and 1993 (CIPRA, 1998) implying theloss of characteristic species and of speciesrequiring large areas to survive (see alsoChapter 3.11). On the other hand, thesetting-aside and abandonment of land mayin some areas lead to growth of unfragmen-ted areas, as reported from some FrenchAlpine valleys, although land abandonmentcan harm biodiversity.

Human impacts have often created newecological conditions in mountain areas,contributing not only to the diversity oflandscape character but also generatingecosystems which house a high speciesdiversity. In the Pyrénées 30% of the landbelow 1 600 m above sea level was cultivatedin the last century (Garcia-Ruiz; Lasanta-Martinez, 1993), while approximately 70% ofthe Alpine region is influenced by humanland use (CIPRA, 1998). Besides humanimpacts on natural or semi-natural land-scapes (e.g. lowering timberline in moun-tains), different land use practices created agreat variety of cultural landscapes adaptedto existing physical conditions in mountains.Landscapes such as terraces, alpine pastures,Coltura Promiscua in the Appennines and inPortugal, hedge-dominated landscapes suchas the ‘Egartenlandschaft’ in the BavarianAlps or Chestnut woods in the southern Alpsand Cévennes have arisen, giving a distinc-tive character to regions or local areas.

Cultural landscapes in mountains can bekept stable only by continuous farmingsuited to local conditions. They are decliningdue to worsening economic farming condi-tions, becoming more a subject of govern-ment maintenance than of private enter-prise, but are discovered by tourism as arelevant resource. Especially endangeredlandscapes are traditional extensive livestock

Mountain areas 385

Agr

icul

ture

inm

ount

ain

area

sSe

mi-n

atur

al a

reas

in

mou

ntai

n ar

eas

Agr

icul

ture

inno

n-m

ount

ain

area

s

Sem

i-nat

ural

are

as in

non-

mou

ntai

n ar

eas

01-20%21-40%41-60%60-80%

01-20%21-40%41-60%61-80%

BulgariaCzech Republic

HungaryPoland

RomaniaSlovak Republic

Accession countries

AustriaBelgium

DenmarkFrance

Germany

IrelandItaly

LuxembourgNetherlands

PortugalSpain

Greece

EU countries

AndorraSan Marino

Other countries

Figure 3.15.11Illustration of land-use intensity in mountains

Relation of agricultural andsemi-natural areas insideand outside mountains,considering the relevantarea.

Source: EEA

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Eur

op

e

Eur

op

ean

Uni

on

Gre

ece*

Alp

s

Car

pat

hian

s

Mt.

Oly

mp

us

Num

ber

of s

pec

ies/

1000

Mountain regions* Endemics of Alpine Region only

Pyre

nees

vascularplant species

endemic vascularplant species

Figure 3.15.12Number of vascular plant species in Europeanmountains

Mountains are inhabited bya remarkable proportion ofEuropean species of vascularplants. Endemic plantspecies in mountains can beestimated for only the fivemountain ranges in thefigure to make up about30% to 42% of the vascularplants occurring only inEurope (depending on theestimated number of these).Here one has to considerthat mountain ranges in totalcover only 14% of Europe.

Source: Stanners &Bourdeau, 1995; Ozenda,1988; Blandin, 1992

farming systems (Petit et al., 1998) e.g. alpineand subalpine pastures, arctic and alpinedwarf shrubs, or transhumant grazing, whichdisappeared completely in the Pyrénées(Garcia-Ruiz; Lasanta-Martinez, 1993).

Mountains also house a large number ofecosystems, species and genetic variety. Theyhave the highest concentration of habitats ofmost significance for conservation in the EU(Zingari, 1994), with almost 25% of habitatsof European interest – of 169 habitat types(defined in Annex I of the Habitats Direc-tive), 42 occur only in mountain areas(Hopkins, 1998). Natural and semi-naturalhabitats cover a large percentage of Europe’smountain area, while intensive agricultureaccounts for only a small proportion (Figure3.15.11). In Accession Countries, coverage ofsemi-natural and natural habitats in mountainregions is generally lower than in the EU.

Although biological diversity increased inthe last century in Europe, this trend hasbeen reversed in recent years, due tochanges in traditional land use: in the Alps atremendous reduction of species and habi-tats use is reported (Brugger and Messerli inZingari/Dubost, 1996).

Mountain areas in particular have become aretreat for species originally distributed inlarger areas such as brown bears, wolves, lynxand wild reindeer. The re-immigration ofbears since the 1970s from southern Sloveniainto the Alps has been confirmed anddemonstrates the eligibility of mountains asinterlinking ecological networks. Eight ofthe 35 mammal species listed under the EUHabitat Directive occur predominantly orentirely in mountains (Hopkins, 1998) –information concerning species diversity inmountain areas is mainly available for higherplants (Figure 3.15.12) and mammals.Isolation of populations during ice ages hascaused evolution of endemic species, whenspecies were pushed back on areas free ofglaciation. For this reason some Europeanmountain ranges (mainly Mediterraneanmountains which remained free of glacia-tion) form centres of plant endemism. Theyhost (predominantly or completely) two-thirds of the continent’s flora (Ozenda, 1994cit. in Dubost, Zingari).

As mentioned in Chapter 3.11 the mainte-nance of genetic resources is important inmany respects; reduction of gene pools maybe a risk for the future, in view of adaptationpossibilities to future environmentalchanges. The loss of genetic diversity by

Environmental issues386

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

mm

Alp

s

Eur

op

e(e

xclu

din

g A

lps)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

% F

low

Rho

ne Po

80

90

100

Rhi

ne(S

wis

s se

ctio

n)

Runoff

Evaporation

Precipitation

Lowland flow

Mountain river flow

In the Alps precipitation ishigher and evaporation is

lower than in the average ofEurope. Therefore the Alps

produce higher runoff rates.As a result, small mountain

areas are responsible for anoverproportional flow of

rivers in lowlands as shownfor the rivers Rhône, Po and

Rhine

Source: EEA; MountainAgenda, 1998

Figure 3.15.13 Importance of the Alps for the water flow inEurope

disturbance of gene pools also occurs inmountains, such as with the chamois subspe-cies cartusiana of the French Alps hybridingwith the common, introduced chamoissubspecies rupicapra, or hybriding betweenwild and domesticated reindeer in Norway.

2.2.3. Mountains are the watertowers of the lowlandsThe water resources of mountains cover themost vital functions of mountain and lowlandpeople (Figure 3.15.13). Notable functionsare the provision of high-quality freshwater,irrigation water for food production, theeconomic value of hydropower generation,and water supply for natural wetlands inplains. But these benefits of mountain watersare threatened by degradation of waterquantity and quality, and discontinuity of flow.The growing demand for water, mainly ineastern and southern European countries, asshown in Chapter 3.5, will make the preserva-tion of these functions of paramount impor-tance in future.

Mountain height enables water to flow to fardistant areas and to serve as a source evenfor semi-arid areas, while seasonal differ-ences in the flow regime of rivers are attenu-ated by the temporal distribution of moun-tain water. The rainfall in high mountainsmay be stored in ice, snow or mountainlakes; for instance in Switzerland 136 km3 ofrainfall are stored in lakes and reservoirs and74 km3 in glaciers – five times the total

annual outflow from Switzerland (MountainAgenda, 1998). In spring and summer thedischarge of mountain rivers supplementsthe earlier high flows of the lowland sectionwhich occur in winter and autumn.

Relatively unpolluted rivers, in terms ofchemical and biological quality, generally aresituated in catchments in mountainous andforested regions where the populationdensity is low. Lakes in mountains alsorepresent some of the least nutrient-pollutedfreshwater in Europe. However, high-altitudelakes are known to be subject to acidification(Stanners, Bourdeau, 1995).

Pollution of mountain rivers occurs throughwaste-water discharge, or water abstraction.Other impacts work indirectly such asaccelerated surface runoff caused by surfacesealing for infrastructure, soil changesthrough land-use abandonment, less waterstorage through deforestation or air-pollu-tion induced forest damages. Natural ex-treme rainfalls then become extreme strongrunoffs, which are linked to natural hazardsdiscussed later in this chapter. But higherrunoff rates do not only change the quantitybut also may worsen the quality of water bydiluting sediments and eroded soil.

Runoff rates are also affected by riverchannelisation for flood control of towns orprotection of farmland in valleys, dammingfor water storage or hydroenergy generation.The change in water flow will be followed byalterations in physical, chemical and biologi-cal parameters, such as sediment discharge,bank erosion and reduced or altered bio-diversity of riparian zones, for example if fishspawning areas are destroyed. The effects ofthese changes on the hydrological systemcall for a common watershed managementframework for mountains and lowlands.

From a technical viewpoint mountain valleysare well suited for hydro-energy and water-storage reservoirs because of their steepgradient and ‘natural’ damming in thevalley, which reduces construction require-ments; however, there is often a noticeableenvironmental cost (Figure 3.15.14).

Reservoir construction involves the loss offarmland, changes in natural habitats andlandscape, a rise in groundwater levels and achange in microclimate. The river will turninto a hybrid between river and lake and theenvironmental conditions such as current,nutrients and light will change. Environmen-tal problems of reservoirs include contami-

Mountain areas 387

0natural rivers as % of all river sections

Austria

France

Italy

Alps

Switzerland

Germany

Slovenia

5 10 15 20

Figure 3.15.14Natural sections in Alpine rivers

According to the criteria ofpristine water quality and anearly untouched river flow,the example of Alpine rivershighlight the loss of naturalsections. Only 10% of Alpinerivers, which is about 900km, may be regarded asnatural rivers, mainly due tothe absence of hydropower.The ecological quality ofriver courses depends –among other things – on thediversity of river beds andminimum flow.

Source: Fabrice, Dubost,1992

nation, eutrophication, difficulties of faunamigration, sediment trapping, water-levelvariations and a loss of biological biodiversity(Kristensen, Hansen, 1994); Leonard,Crouzet, 1998). Assessments by the Euro-pean Topic Centre for Inland Waters suggestthat reservoir construction in Europe isstagnant after a period of strong increasemainly in southern European countries.

2.2.4. Soils in mountains – demanding multi- functionalityIn mountains soils at higher elevations arequite different in terms of temporal develop-ment, stability, and thickness of topsoil fromsoils in lowlands (see also Chapter 3.6).These features make soils in mountainsmore sensitive to degradation and requirespecific adapted land-use patterns which areoften met by the traditional silvo-agro-pastoral land uses.

The development of soils in high mountainsshows certain characteristics different fromlowland soils:

• soils develop more slowly because oflower temperatures, a short vegetationperiod and frequent interruption byerosion; consequently soils are not highlyevolved types, such as lithosols, rankersand rendzinas which often consist ofonly a shallow soil layer covering thegeological substrata; soil types oftenoccur according to elevation belts;

• shallow soils allow land use mainly asgrassland or forestry;

• soil generation, predominantly byphysical processes, causes the so-called‘catenas’ phenomenon in mountains,featuring different kinds of soils accord-ing to the gradient (Ozenda, 1988).Different geological layers and ice-agesubstrates serve as parent material forsoil generation, which produces complexmosaics of different soils on a singlemountain slope (Ellenberg, 1982,Ozenda, 1988). These features contri-bute to the considerable diversity ofmountain ecosystems;

• in humid climates leaching of nutrientsinto lower soil layers is frequent wherethe nutrients are no longer accessible forvegetation; in the alpine and sub-alpinebelt grazing, cutting and constant inputof natural fertilizers balances the naturalphenomenon of podzol-evolution(Messerli, 1989).

Mountain soils are mainly affected by degra-dation through erosion and (on acid parent

material) through acidification and pollu-tion (Stanners, Bourdeau, 1995). Mountainsoils are highly sensitive to erosion becauseof the shallowness of soil layers, the longtime frame for their development (up to4 000 years for mature soil) and the risks ofnatural hazards due to increasing soil ero-sion. As shown in the potential risk map inthe Dobris report, mountain areas present alarge proportion of the potential high-riskareas in Spain, Portugal, Greece and Italy(Stanners, Bourdeau, 1995). In areas withnon-calcareous bedrock and abundantconiferous forests or alpine shrubs, soils aremore exposed to natural acidification andare thus particularly susceptible to artificialacidification.

Steep slopes, frequent torrential rainfalls,and pressures such as unsustainable forestry,overgrazing, loss of traditional agriculture,land abandonment and fires are mostabundant in mountain areas. In addition toovergrazing due to increased livestock andclear cutting, recent causes of soil erosionand compaction include tourism and sport-ing and recreational activities (walking,skiing, mountain bikes, off-road vehicles,etc.). Indirectly, soil erosion may causecontamination of surface- and ground-water.Deposits of eroded materials in riverbeds,lakes and water reservoirs might increaseflood risks and can damage infrastructuressuch as roads, railways and powerlines.

2.2.5. Living with risks – natural hazards in mountainsThe extreme environment makes mountainareas prone to natural phenomena such aslandslides (Table 3.15.1), rockfalls, mudslides,avalanches, floods and earthquakes (see alsoChapter 3.8). The stability of the slopes is often

Environmental issues388

Area affected Frequency Events Victims / Costs

Switzerland: Bristen, Obwalden, 12 landslides; mudflows; rockslides; rockfalls; injured: 8;Villeneuve, Tessin, Glarus, severe storms; heavy rains; hail;Grisons, Vaud, Ticino, Fribourg, > 71.7 M euro;Tödi, Randa, Lärch forest destroyed;

roads, railroads buried/blocked; housesflooded; cars damaged; power anddrinkingwater supply interrupted.

France: Salle-les-Alpes, Dieulefit, 3 landslides; rockfalls; heavy rains; severe injured: 2Briancon storm;

roads and railroads buried; houses,cars damaged.

Liechtenstein: Triesen 1 mudslide; severe storm; 50 houses 2.3 M euroaffected, roads closed.

Austria: Braz, Stubachtal, Lienz 3 landslides; rockfall; heavy rains; severe deaths: 3storm;

injured: 17riverbanks burst; bridge destroyed,Intercity derailed; houses destroyed.

Germany: Breitachklamm, 4 landslides; rockfall; slow rock flow;Garmisch-Partenkirchen;Bayrischzell, Glottertal Glotter River blocked; bank burst;

trees downed;

roads blocked; houses flooded;power failure.

Norway: Finneidfjord 1 mudslide; houses destroyed; roads deaths: 2severly damaged.

Italy: Cortina d’Ampezzo, 6 landslides; mudslides; heavy rainstorm; deaths: 6Piedmont, Alto Adige; Milan; flash floods; high wind speeds; hail;Sorrento, Darfo di Boario, injured: 22Campania, Caserta, Salerno, losses to lemon and olive plantationsAvellino, Sarno,Quindici, Siano roads, railroads damaged/blocked;

hundreds of houses, cars damaged;train derailed; valleys isolated; touristcamp isolated.

Italy: Umbria, Le Marche, 1 earthquake; houses and Franziskus deaths: 164Folino, Assisi, Colfiorito basilica damaged. (feared 135

more);

injured: 215

homeless:40 000

130.4 M euro

Spain: Gijón 1 landslide, heavy rain.

Source: Munich Re, NatCatService, 1998; Schweizerische Rückversicherung, 1998

Table 3.15.1 Landslide disasters 1995 - 1998

modified by human activity through distur-bance of vegetation (deforestation,overgrazing) and groundwater conditions orthe construction of infrastructure (seeCamparia case study, Chapter 3.8). The factorswhich increase soil erosion (see above), mayalso increase the risk of land slides.

Nine out of ten earthquake disasters inEurope occur partly or wholly in mountain

areas, and often in Mediterranean and sub-Mediterranean climatic regimes. Earth-quakes and floods are predominant (60%)but the number and proportion of disastersidentified with landslide and avalancheappear much greater (Hewitt, 1997; Moun-tain Agenda, 1992).

Since 1970 the reported number of naturaland man-made disasters has increased due to

Mountain areas 389

Figure 3.15.15Burnt areas in mountains

0% of burnt area

50 100

Greece

Portugal

Spain

Italy

France

in mountain areas in non-mountain areas

Of the total burnt areas in acountry, mountains areaffected by about 15-39%.The portion of burnt areamust be estimated higher incountries with largermountain areas.

Source: EEA

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Mo

unta

inp

eop

le

NG

OS

Loca

lo

rgan

isat

ions

Reg

ions

Stat

e

Eur

op

ean

Inst

itutio

ns

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

FAO

Oth

er

At present

In the future

% re

spo

nses

Figure 3.15.16NGOs’ perception of present policies on mountainissues in Europe

Source: Mountain Agenda,1997

better information and higher concentra-tions of population and economic activity inindustrial countries (Schweizerische Rück-versicherung, 1998). For a general overviewsee Chapter 3.8.

In the Mediterranean region, forest fireshave the largest potential for altering theecosystem. Every year, some 45 000 forestfires break out in Europe – most of themcaused by humans. Many fires are lightedillegally but intentionally to gain sites forgrazing livestock, construction or touristfacilities. The anticipated climate changemight affect natural-fire frequency, spreadand their devastating effects (EuropeanCommission, 1997a; Ghazi et al., 1997). Thearea affected by fires has seen a downwardtrend, however in Spain and Portugal firesseize large areas (Figure 3.15.15).

Major road and rail tunnels, high bridgesand dams are concentrated in the moun-tains, and are prone to widespread, frequentand financially expensive damage. Expan-sion of tourism in mountain villages hasspread accommodation and infrastructureinto risk areas; tragic proof was given in early1999, when several big avalanches in theAlps caused death and destruction in skiresorts. Technical mitigation measures inturn affect the natural environment. Thesenatural phenomena also create new environ-mental habitats but, by changing the land-scape, they mainly have social and economiceffects on humans.

3. Are mountains areas of marginal interest for Europe?

Several sectoral policies, particularly in thefields of agriculture, regions and natureconservation cover mountain areas. However,the sparse population, low economy, underes-timated natural values, confounding complex-ity and transnational situation of manyEuropean mountain area make them re-garded politically as marginal areas in termsof an integrated, comprehensive mountainpolicy (Figure 3.15.16 and Box 3.15.3). Forthese reasons integrated policy approachessuch as the framework of Agenda 2000 andEuropean spatial policy, as started with theEuropean Spatial Development Perspective(ESDP) might be keys to integrated mountainpolicy – which is a vital need to be developed.

3.1. Could spatial policy integrate mountain issues?A European spatial policy is arising, yet twodifferent approaches still may be observed:

one focusing on certain mountain ranges asEuropean regions, particularly the Alps, theother defining mountain areas as a certainspatial category directed at a Europeanmountain policy (Bätzing, 1997).

The regional study areas introduced inEU2000+ (European Commission, 1994),such as the Alpine Arc, are a remarkable steptowards a spatial analysis. However, signifi-cant disparities remain inside the regionsconsidered, in the Alpine Arc in particular,and do not recognize the special situation ofmountain areas.

In the ESDP (European Commission, 1997b)mountain areas are characterized as unpro-tected and environmentally sensitive areas.Several mountain ranges are ‘trans-nationalareas’ which are geographically continuous,transcending national borders. These inparticular require a European spatial policy,in terms of watershed management, risk

Environmental issues390

prevention, preservation of biological andlandscape diversity, and recreation.

The most relevant EU policies for mountainsare listed in Table 3.15.2 and have beenintroduced in Chapter 3.13. Some measuresoverlap, others appear contradictory. A firststep towards assessment has been done in theEuropean Commission study ‘Integration ofenvironmental concerns in mountain agricul-ture’ (Euromontana, 1998). Some exampleswill be highlighted below, with reference todrivers and environmental problems.

3.2. Pressures of today need to be mitigated

3.2.1. Mountain crossing traffic will further increaseDue to increasing traffic flow more EU-corridors certainly will cross mountains (e.g.transalpine link Rome-Milan-Zurich/Mu-nich; Madrid-Barcelona-Rhone Valley; Milan-Venice-Vienna-Budapest-Kiev; Bologna-Milan-Lyon; Madrid-Bordeaux-Toulouse)

(European Commission, 1997b); the samewill apply in the Accession Countries(Carpathian, Rhodope or Balkan) as identi-fied in 1996.

Modal split can be sensitive to relative costs,which may in turn be modified by roadpricing. This is illustrated by experience inAustria, where a reduction in infrastructurecharges to comply with EU legislation wasfollowed by a 16% increase in freight trafficin 1995 (Weissen, 1996). In contrast, as aresult of the Alpine convention’s trafficprotocol, 70% of all goods in transit throughSwitzerland are transported by rail and themaximum weight for road transport islimited to 28 tonnes per truck (which islower than in other Alpine countries).

3.2.2. Mountain tourism has learnt but a turnaround is difficultThe harmful effects of intensive tourismhave led to restrictions for sport and for

Mountains are subject to various types of policymeasures (figure 3.15.17). Policy approaches maypropose a general mountain policy, may targetcertain mountain ranges, may affect mountainsdirectly without distinguishing between differentmountain areas, or may have purely incidentaleffects on mountain areas.

Mountains have been directly addressed in fewpolicy documents. On a global scale mountainshave been recognised by Article 13 of Agenda 21as highly sensitive ecosystems and an importantsource of natural resources. On the European scalethe inter-governmental consultation on sustainablemountain development 1996 recommended theneed to work towards an integrated policyframework for sustainable mountain development,environmentally sustainable mountain action plansand programmes as well as more sustainablesectoral policies and the assessment of impacts ofexisting national and European policies. AllEuropean mountains have been covered by theEuropean charter of mountain areas (1994) to beelaborated into a European Convention ofMountain Areas. The charter covers almost everypolitical sector which affects mountains andrequires a ‘comprehensive spatial policy’ formountain areas.

For the Pyrenees, a special charter has beenadopted, and efforts are beginning towards thedevelopment of charters in the Carpathians andCaucasus. Underlying the Charter for the Protectionof the Pyrenees (CIAPP, 1995) are three keyobjectives: to protect the environment, to allowaccess for visitors and to support environmentallysustainable economic development. Much furtherdetailed is the framework of the Alpine Conventionsigned in 1991 by Germany, France, Italy,Lichtenstein, Monaco, Austria, Switzerland, Sloveniaand the EU. Since 1990 several protocols whichdefine the principles for different sectors have beendrawn up, signed, or are under discussion. Nonehave yet been ratified.

Box 3.15.3 How does policy deal with mountains?

VERTICAL

global

general mountain

unspecific mountain

specific valley / summit

certain mountain range

European

national

SECTORALeconomy

traffic regional agriculture

local

GEOGRAPHICAL

regional

nature conservation

Figure 3.15.17 Mountain policies in a mountain system

Multi-dimensional ways in which policies affect mountainscan be illustrated by a ‘policy coordinated system’. Thereis a hierarchy of policy from global to local level (y-axis),sectors of policy from economy to nature conservation (x-axis) and a geography from general mountain policy tospecific valleys (z-axis).

Source: EEA processing

Mountain areas 391

D = Mountains directly addressed; I = Mountains indirectly addressed

Popula- Traffic Tourism Land use Natural Soil Water Hazardtion change heritage preven-

tion

Environment Policy

Birds Directive 79/409/EEC D D I

Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC D D

Biodiversity Strategy COM 1998 (42)

Community Directive on EIA , Dir. 85/337/EEC; I I I I I

Proposal for a directive for strategic impact assessmentof certain plans and programmes (COM(96)511 ofDecember 1996) I I I I I I I

Proposal for a framework directiveon water (COM(97)49 of February 1997) I

LIFE II Nature Regulation 1404/96 (OJL 181 of 20.07.96) D

Nitrates Directive 91/676/EEC I

COM(97)88 I I

Regional Policy

Cohesion Fund D

INTERREG II D D D

REGIS II

PHARE, TACIS I I I I

Common Agricultural Policy (CAP):Accompanying measures

Agri-environmental measures Reg. 2078/92 I I I I I

Forestry measures Reg. 2080/92 I I I I I

CAP: Structural measures

Rural development, LFA Reg. 950/97 I I I I I

Genetic resources, Reg. 1467/94 I

Agricultural labels, Reg. 2081/92 and 2082/92 I I I

Improving the efficiency of agriculturalstructures, Reg. 2328/91 I I I I

Improving conditions for marketing and processingagricultural products, Reg. 866/90 am. By Reg. 3669/93 I I I I I

LEADER II I I I

Objectives 1 + 5b, including ERDF and EAGGF I I I

CAP: Other measures

Organic production of agricultural productsand indications referring thereto onagricultural products and foodstuffs, Reg. 2092/91 I I I I

COM(96) 366 Council Regulation supplementingReg. 2092/91 I I I I

Source: EEA, European Commission

Examples of how EU policy measures cover relevent mountaín issues as recognised in this chapter Table 3.15.2

Environmental issues392

50

40

30

20

10

0

Alp

s

Ap

pen

ines

Bo

hem

ian

Fore

st

Pyre

nees

Scan

din

avia

nm

oun

tain

sSo

uthe

ast

Eur

op

ean

mo

unta

ins

% E

U IN

TER

RE

G

Region

0%

Tourism projects have beensupported in the Pyrenees

and Bohemian Massif inparticular. About 45% of

Interreg budget in mountainprojects have been spent on

projects to achievesustainable tourism.

Source: EuropeanCommission

Figure 3.15.18 EU support for mountain tourism

further development in sensitive zones, and– more positively – stimulated developmentof sustainable tourism. Over half of thebudget of the Community action plan tosupport tourism is earmarked for sustainabletourism projects (Figure 3.15.18). In Spain,the Cohesion Fund programme includesreduction of harmful tourism effects innational parks, while the development ofnon-intensive tourism in the Aragon regionhas been co-financed under the StructuralFund 5b objectives.

3.2.3. Regarding land use changes, mainly from agricultureLand use changes and mountain agricultureare targeted by different measures in theCommon Agricultural Policy (CAP) such asthe Accompanying measures (agri-environ-ment, forestry) and Structural measures(rural development, objectives 1 + 5b,LEADER, etc.) and the regional policy, suchas INTERREG II (Figure 3.15.19). A recentstudy of existing EU policies (Euromontana,1998) has concluded that small and multi-functional farms do not receive sufficient aidto compensate for natural handicaps, thatagri-environment measures may delayadverse developments and repair somedamage but it is ‘highly unlikely’ that theproduction-oriented systems can bereoriented, and that other agriculturalmeasures are not focused on environmentalbenefits. The time-scale for significant policychanges has also been expressed as a majorconcern of English nature-conservationgroups.

Under the Less Favored Areas Regulationabout 20% of the total Utilized AgriculturalArea (UAA) is supported as less favoured

mountain areas in the EU. These mountainareas are individually and heterogeneouslydefined by the Member States. It is reportedthat agricultural income in mountain LFAslies 45% below the EU-average, but hasincreased slightly in the period 1987-1993 by0.7%, while decreasing in other regions.Most of French mountain areas and someSpanish and Italian areas are above this EU-average income, while the situation is wors-ening in nearly all areas of Greece andPortugal (European Commission, 1997c).

Agricultural labels of origin may play asupportive role in encouraging farmingactivities which contribute to maintainingfragile ecosystems like mountains. The‘fromages d’alpage et d’estives’ are well-knownexamples of specific products linked totraditional practices.

Land use changes are also induced by thegravitation of urban agglomerations, and abalance is needed in the urban-mountainrelationship. Therefore the general call in theESDP (European Commission, 1997b) for anew definition of the rural-urban relationshiphas a particular focus on mountain areas;options include the balance between citiesand country, diversification of rural areas,conservation and creative management ofcultural landscapes. The benefits of anattractive, environmentally healthy hinterlandhave been recognised by cities but compensa-tion patterns for the provision of this steward-ship are not developed. The example ofMunich shows that the high recreation valuesof lakes and mountains have helped the cityto become a highly desired location for high-technology industry.

3.2.4. Forestry and renewable energiesMountain areas are highly suitable forrenewable energy generation such as windand hydroelectric energy, which could offeradditional, sustainable revenues for moun-tain economies. However, strong oppositioncan be expected to further hydro-powersta-tions (CIAPP, 1995).

Abundant forest wood, as a renewableresource, offers another option of renewableenergy use for mountains. An example is thedevelopment of a low-pollution heatingsystem fueled with forestry output in theHaut-Jura, France, financed by the LEADERfund (European Commission, 1997d).

Under afforestation measures, as supportedby the CAP, and due to the 1994-97 nationalplans, 700 000 ha of new forest will be

Mountain areas 393

Appenines0.5%

Bohemian Forest0.5%

1.9%Scandinavia

0.1%

Southeast Europe10.1%

non-mountain areas82.1%

Alps4.7%

Pyrenees

Figure 3.15.19Interreg programme in mountains

Within the INTERREGprogramme with a totalbudget of 585 M euro in theperiod 1994-1999 (about17% of which goes tomountain areas) severalmeasures are applied, with asignificant focus in south-east European countries.Here one should considerthat about half of EU borderareas lie in mountains.

Source: EuropeanCommission, DG XVI, 1997

created and 300 000 ha of forest will beimproved in the EU (European Commission,1997c). This implementation, however, oftendisregards the choice of tree species and theimpacts on soil, water, landscape andbiodiversity, and so it has not necessarilybeen environmentally beneficial(Euromontana, 1998). Within objective 1and 5b, development of forest functions interms of erosion limitation, water protectionand tourism promotion are supported.

Natural recolonisation is on average higherin mountains than nationwide averages. InFrance recolonisation in mountains in thepast decade has been 50% above the na-tional average (EOMF, 1998).

On the other hand increasing forest cover inmountains is becoming a conflict in someregions, where people dislike and thereforeoppose the afforestation scheme, such as inthe uplands of Navarra, Lorraine, Venice(Zingari, 1998). Their concerns include thesafeguarding of open farmland and theprotection of bird biotopes or an alreadydensely afforestated landscape (Cammarata,1997). In a recent study it was stated that theconcerns of zonal afforestation plans, such asthe selection of locally adapted tree species,have not been met and impacts on soil, waterand biotopes must be expected (Euromon-tana, 1998).

A cornerstone of forest policy is resolutionS4 of the Strasbourg Conference ‘Adaptingthe management of mountain forests to newenvironmental conditions’ which was adop-ted by 25 countries in 1990 and the EUForestry Strategy recently adopted whichstresses problems of specific regions, includ-ing mountain regions. The challenge isimportant as in most countries mountainforest management suffers from the insuffi-cient implementation of forest legislation(Koch, Rasmussen, 1998).

3.2.5. Nature conservation policyThe general evolution of nature conserva-tion policy today focuses more on sustain-able development (see Chapter 3.11) andmarks an important step towards the multi-functionality concept of mountain areas.

The Pan-European Biological and Land-scape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS) hasdedicated in its action plan the entire ‘actiontheme 10’ on mountain ecosystems. Thisfocuses on integration of mountains in thepan-European ecological network, establish-ment of sustainable practice for afforesta-

tion, mountain farming and recreation, thepotential application of multilateral agree-ment of the Alpine Convention for theBalkan Carpathians and Caucasus regionsand the establishment and strengthening oftransfrontier protected areas (Council ofEurope et al., 1996).

The progress in implementation of theHabitat Directive, as described in Chapter3.6, is shown by the example of the EUAlpine region where mountain areascontain 16% of the number of sites ofconservation interest (SCIs), while theregion area covers only 9% of the EU. Inthe second stage of the selection of specialareas of conservation (SAC) many moun-tain areas may be expected to be chosenfavorably. Mountains frequently meet thecriteria of relationship to migration routesor as part of an ecosystem on both sides ofEU frontiers and of a high number ofannex I habitats and annex II species. Thusmountains as most extensive areas willprobably receive an over proportionalpercentage of protected areas which shouldbe reflected in national and local policies(Hopkins, 1998).

The Commission instrument for natureconservation LIFE financed about 15% ofthe 1996 and 25% of the 1997 nature budgetin mountain areas with a focus on largecarnivore species protection (EuropeanCommission, 1997d) (Figure 3.15.20).

Environmental issues394

25

20

15

10

5

01996

30

35

40

45

50

1997

habitats21%

otherspecies

3%

brown bearand wolf

76%

habitats70%

otherspecies

10%

brown bearand wolf

20%

EU contribution to LIFENATURE projects inmountain areas

EU contribution to LIFENATURE projects inother areas

Figure 3.15.20 LIFE Nature support in mountains

About 75% of the 1996 and20% of the 1997 EU-LIFE-funding in mountain areas

was spent for conservationof the brown bear and wolf;

about 3% was spent forconservation of other

species.

Source: EuropeanCommission, 1997

3.2.6. Natural phenomena can not be excluded

Direct protection from natural hazards isrecognised to be far more efficiently pro-vided by mountain forests with a highproportion of natural vegetation than byartificial devices. Switzerland providedeloquent figures for the role of protection,said to be worth up to SFR 3 billion (1.8billion euros) per year to local communities(EOMF, 1998). A risk-reducing agriculture-forestry combination which might findexamples in former multi-functional land-use systems may claim to be one of the mostefficient and – in terms of cost-benefit ratio –most successful approaches (Messerli, 1989).

As pointed out in Chapter 3.8 only fivecountries in the EU provide land-use plan-ning criteria for hazard prevention and fivecountries still have not developed hazardarrangements at all. It must be stronglyemphasised that for mountain areas riskassessment and land-use planning are vitalinstruments for hazard identification,avoidance and mitigation.

For soil protection also, the concept ofmulti-functionality, implemented by inte-grated land use planning, has been recom-mended for policy action. This shouldinclude ecological adaptation of land-usemanagement by using suitability/vulnerabil-

ity assessments of soil, agro-forestry practices,adjusted stocking levels, rotation farmingsystems, and measures against forest fires.Results from the Swiss MAB-research pro-gramme confirm that the best soil protectionin mountains is constant, ecologicallyadapted agriculture (Messerli, 1989).

3.3. In which direction is policy heading?The most comprehensive changes formountains can be expected from the ap-praisal of EU Regional development plans,the attention on rural development pro-grammes as a new pillar in the CAP and thepromotion of direct environmental benefits(European Commission, 1998). It has beenannounced that the Structural Funds budgetwill be increased to about one-third of theCommunity budget which will make thefunds a powerful instrument (EuropeanCommission, 1997b).

It can be assumed that while new regionalobjectives will be added through the needsin the Accession Countries, this will requirecuts in expenditure on present objectives. Itis necessary to assess to what extent this willaffect mountain areas in the EU.

In the ESDP further fields of work have beendistinguished which significantly meet theneed for better analysis of mountain areas inparticular, such as the development ofindicators, criteria and a typology of areas,which could complement the efforts ofregional development in Agenda 2000.

New, economically based policy approachesfor balancing the stewardship of mountainareas for lowlands have been proposed bythe Mountain Agenda and include, forinstance, fees for the entrance to parks andbuffer zones, for hunting and fishing, fortour operating, for climbing peaks and forusing roads and passes.

3.4. What could policy-makers require for evolving mountain policy?First there is a general need to recognisemountains as a distinct area and to evolveobjective criteria for area definition. Thisgoes hand in hand with the identification ofindicators for sustainable land use.

Furthermore better baseline information fordecision-maker is necessary. This includesmonitoring of mountain environmentalconditions. Identification of mountainresearch needs the interaction of differentdisciplines and the integration of traditional,long-term experience of local people.

Mountain areas 395

Box 3.15.4 EU research programmes related to mountain issues

The EU has invested about 7.1% (852 M euro) of the 1994-1998 researchbudget for environment and climate under which the AMBIENTE programmedeals with hazard prevention (Ruberti, 1994), the ECOMONT project withland-use impacts, and the ARTERI project with arctic-alpine ecosystems.Other mountain-related research is the MOLAR project on remote mountainlakes, on timberline (FOREST), effects of climate change on alpine and arcticstreams (AASER), and desertification in Mediterranean mountains (MEDALUS,MEDIMONT). From other budgets such as the Cohesion Fund, forest-firecombat projects in Greece have been financed and about 105 M euro hasbeen committed to desertification projects in southern Mediterraneancountries. Implementation of such policies could be carried out by riskexposure plans (PER) as in the French 1985 mountain law or the risk zones inthe Bavarian forest function plans. Erosion and natural hazards areinvestigated in the EROSLOPE, NEWTECH, FLOODAWARE, SAME projects.

To sufficiently compensate the long-termconservation of natural resources, the goodsand services offered by mountain regionsand people need to be identified and evalu-ated. Methods are needed to calculate thecosts of maintenance and protection andhow to distribute the revenues. Once estab-lished periodic re-evaluations should beplanned due to changing ecological andeconomic situations (Mountain Agenda,1997).

ReferencesAbegg, B., Elsasser, H. 1996. ‘Klimarisiken austouristischer Sicht’ in Programmleitung NFP 31(Hrsg.): ‘Klimarisiken – Herausforderung für dieSchweizer Wirtschaft’, pp. 115–126. vdfHochschulverlag, ETH Zürich.

Bätzing, W. 1990. ‘Die aktuelle Siedlungsentwicklungan der Höhengrenze der Ökumene im Alpenraum aufdem Hintergrund des Übergangs von der Agrar- zurFreizeitgesellschaft’ in Siedlungsforschung.Archäologie – Geschichte – Geographie. Vol. 8. Eds:K. Fehn et al., pp. 165-200.

Bätzing, W. 1997. Kleines Alpen-Lexikon. Munich,Beck’sche Reihe.

Blandin, P., 1992. La Nature en Europe, Bordas, Paris.

Breiling, M. 1994. Climate Variability: The impact onthe National economy, the Alpine environments ofAustria and the need for local action. paperpresented at conference Snow and Climate, Geneva,September 1994.

Breiling, M., Charamza, P., Skage, O. 1997. Klima-sensibilität österreichischer Bezirke mit besondererBerücksichtigung des Wintertourismus. Rapport 97:1Institut für Landschaftsplanung, Universität Alnarp,Schweden. Forschungsauftrag des ÖsterreichischenBundesministeriums für Wirtschaftliche Angelegen-heiten und des Österreichischen Bundesministeriumsfür Umwelt.

Cammarata, A. 1997. ‘CAP Working Notes Agricultureand Environment’. European Commission.Directorate-General for Agriculture. Brussels.

Cernusca, A. et. al. 1996. ‘ECOMONT Ecologicaleffects of land use changes on European terrestrialmountain ecosystems’ in Pirineos. Jaca, pp. 145-172.

CIAPP Conseil International Associatif pour laProtection des Pyrenees, 1995, Charter for theprotection of the Pyrenees. English Summary.

CIPRA, Internationale Alpenschutz-Kommission, ed.1998. 1. Alpenreport. Daten, Fakten, Probleme,Lösungsansätze. Berne, Stuttgart, Vienna, Paul HauptVerlag.

Council of Europe, UNEP, ECNC,1996. The Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy(PEBLDS).

Dubost, M., Zingari, P.C.,no date, Impact of ClimateChange on European Mountain Development.

Ellenberg, H. 1982. Vegetation Mitteleuropas mit denAlpen. Stuttgart, Eugen Ulmer Verlag, pp. 989.

Elsasser, H., Frösch, R., Finsterle, M. 1990. ‘Sättigungin Fremdenverkehrsgebieten’ in DISP, Dokumente undInformationen zur Schweizerischen Orts-, Regional-und Landesplanung Vol. 26, No 100. Zurich, pp. 33-41.

EOMF, European Observatory of Mountain Forests1998. The Sustainable future of Mountain Forests inEurope – Facts and Figures. Contribution by theEuropean Observatory of Mountain Forests to thestrengthening, development and follow-up ofResolution S4.

Euromontana, 1998, The integration of environmentalconcerns in mountain agriculture. Summary. Study forthe European Commission Directorate General XI,Environment, Safety and Civil Protection.

European Commission, 1994. Europe 2000+.Cooperation for European territorial development.Office for Official Publications of the EuropeanCommunities, Luxembourg.

European Commission, 1997a, The threat of naturaldisasters. What is Europe doing? Climate and NaturalHazards Unit (DG XII/D-2). CG-09-97-381-EN,European Commission, Brussels.

European Commission, 1997b. European spatialdevelopment perspective. First official draft.Presented at the informal meeting of Ministersresponsible for spatial planning of the member statesof the European Union. Noordwijk, 9-10 June 1997.Office for Official Publications of the EuropeanCommunities, Luxembourg.

European Commission, 1997c. CAP 2000 Workingdocument. Rural Developments. Ed: DirectorateGeneral VI.

European Commission,1997d, Agenda 21 The firstfive years. Office for Official Publications of theEuropean Communties, Luxembourg.

European Commission, Directorate General XI, 1997,Life Nature 96., European Commission, Brussels.

European Commission, Directorate General XI, 1997,Life Nature 97., European Commission. Brussels.

European Commission, 1998. Partnership forIntegration: A strategy for Integration Environmentinto EU-Policies, Cardiff, June 1998

European Commission, DG XVI, 1998, http://www.inforegio.org/wbpro/prord/reg_prog/pay_them/themes/cip1/thci_all.htm

EEA. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen

Environmental issues396

Fabrice, M., Dubost M.,1992. Die letzten naturnahenAlpenflüsse. Kleine Schriften 11/92. CIPRA (ed.).Vaduz.

Flückiger, S. 1996. ‘Klimarisiken aus landwirtschaft-licher Sicht’ in Programmleitung NFP 31 (Hrsg.):‘Klimarisiken – Herausforderung für die SchweizerWirtschaft’, pp. 105-114. vdf Hochschulverlag, ETHZürich.

Garcia-Ruiz, J., Lasanta-Martinez, T. 1993. ‘Land-useconflicts as a result of land-use change in the centralSpanish Pyrenees: A review’ in Mountain Researchand Development Vol. 13, No 3, pp. 295-304.

Ghazi, A. et al., eds. 1997. Highlights of results fromnatural hazards research projects. Climate and NaturalHazards Unit (DG XII/D-2). European Commission.Brussels.

Guisan, A. et al., eds. 1995. Potential EcologicalImpacts of Climate Change in the Alps andFennoscandian Mountains. Geneva.

Hewitt, K. 1997. ‘Risk and disasters in mountain lands’in Mountains of the World. A Global Priority. Eds: B.Messerli; J.D. Ives.

Höller, P. et al. 1998. ‘Effects of land use changes onsnow gliding processes’ in Poster Alpenforum 1998.Garmisch-Partenkirchen.

Hopkins, J. 1998. ‘Achiving the aims of the EChabitats directive: links with reform of agriculturalpolicies in mountain areas’ in Mountain livestockfarming and EU policy development. Proceedings ofthe fifth European forum on nature conservation andpastoralism. Valle d’Aosta, Italy. Eds: A. Poole et al.,pp. 117-125.

Jeker, R. 1996. ‘Thesen zur Bedeutung vonKlimarisiken für die Schweizer Wirtschaft’ inProgrammleitung NFP 31 (Hrsg.): ‘Klimarisiken –Herausforderung für die Schweizer Wirtschaft’ pp. 9-24. vdf Hochschulverlag, ETH Zürich.

Koch, N.E., Rasmussen, J.N., 1998. Forestry in theContext of Rural Development. Final Report of COSTAction E3.Danish Forest and Landscape ResearchInstitute. Hörsholm. European Commission, Brussels.

Kristensen, P., Hansen, H.O., 1994. European Riversand Lakes. Assessment of their Environmental State.

Leonard J., Crouzet P., 1998. Lakes and Reservoirs inthe EEA Area Final Draft, Report No PO 23/97-

Lichtenberger, E. 1979. ‘Die Sukzession von derAgrar- zur Freizeitgesellschaft in den HochgebirgenEuropas’ in Innsbrucker Geographische Studien, Band5. Fragen geographischer Forschung. Innsbruck, pp.401-436.

Messerli, P. 1989. Mensch und Natur im alpinenLebensraum Risiken, Chancen, Perspektiven. ZentraleErkenntnisse aus dem schweizerischen MAB-Programm. Berne, Stuttgart, Paul Haupt Verlag.

Mountain Agenda 1997. Mountains of the World:Challenges for the 21st Century. Berne, Paul HauptVerlag.

Mountain Agenda, ed. 1992. An Appeal for theMountains. Institute of Geography, University ofBerne, Switzerland.

Mountain Agenda,1998. Mountains of the World:Water Towers for the 21st Century. P.Haupt. Bern

Munich Re 1998. NatCatSERVICE. Munich, MünchenerRückversicherungs-AG.

Ozenda, P. 1988. Die Vegetation der Alpen imeuropäischen Gebirgsraum.

Ozenda, P. 1994. Végétation du Continent Européen.Lausanne, Delachaux et Niestlé, pp. 271.

Petit, S. et al. 1998. MIRABEL – Models for integratedreview and assessment of biodiversity in EuropeanLandscapes. Overview of Methods and Summary ofModel Outputs.

Price, M.,1995. Wirtschaft und Umwelt der Bergge-biete von Zentral- und Osteuropa. in: Euromontana(ed.), 1995: Berggebiete Europas, neue Zusammen-arbeit für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung. Durch dieEuromontana organisierte internationale Konferenz inKrakau (Polen) 4-6 September 1995. p. 49-57.

Price, M.F., Barry, R.G. 1997. ‘Climate change’ inMountains of the World. A Global Priority. Eds: B.Messerli, J.D. Ives.

Rhomberg, K. 1998. ‘Vorfahrt für unsere Gesundheit –Ärzte gegen die Verkehrslawine’ in 1. Alpenreport.Daten, Fakten, Probleme, Lösungsansätze. Ed: CIPRA,pp. 356-358.

Romano, B. 1995. ‘National Parks policy and moun-tain depopulation: A case study in the Abruzzo regionof the Central Apennines, Italy’ in Mountain Researchand Development Vol. 15, No 2, pp. 121-132.

Ruberti, A. 1994. Facteurs climatiques et risquesnaturels du système territorial alpin. Ed: EuropeanCommission, Brussels.

Schweizerische Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft, ed.1998. Copy-editing: SIGMA, No 3/1998.Naturkatastrophen und Grossschäden 1997:Ausserordentlich wenig teure Schäden. Zurich.

Stanners, D., Bourdeau, P. 1995. Europe’sEnvironment. The Dobris Assessment. Ed: EuropeanEnvironment Agency (EEA). Copenhagen, EarthscanPublications.

TTETN The Trans-European Transport Network 1998.http://eurotext.ulst.ac.uk/policy/transport/networks/ttetn/TTETN008.htm#A29

Vakrou, A. 1998. ‘Policy measures to ensure andpromote forestry in mountain areas of Greece’, COSTE3, draft paper.

Weissen, A. 1996. ‘Specific Alpine Problems:Transport’ in Green Paper on the Alps: The Alps –Touchstone for Europe. Eds. M. Pils; P. Glauser; D.Siegrist.

Zingari, P.C. 1994. Trends in European MountainBiodiversity. Proposal for a European ScienceFoundation Scientific Network.

Zingari, P.C. 1998. Personal Communication.

Zingari, P.C., Dubost, M. 1996 Research forSustainable Mountain Development Series, Vol. 4:European mountain biodiversity and sustainabledevelopment.