18.05.2014 Views

Europes ecological backbone.pdf

Europes ecological backbone.pdf

Europes ecological backbone.pdf

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Protected areas<br />

Figure 9.9 Distribution of the 'semi-natural<br />

dry grasslands and scrubland<br />

facies' (62) Annex I Habitat<br />

across the massifs<br />

5 %<br />

1 %<br />

14 %<br />

7 %<br />

14 %<br />

5 % 2 %<br />

1 %<br />

7 %<br />

16 %<br />

4 %<br />

2 %<br />

Alps<br />

Apennines<br />

Balkands/South-east Europe<br />

British Isles<br />

Carpathians<br />

Central European middle mountains 1 *<br />

Central European middle mountains 2 **<br />

Eastern Mediterranean islands<br />

French/Swiss middle mountains<br />

Iberian mountains<br />

Nordic mountains<br />

Pyrenees<br />

Western Mediterranean islands<br />

22 %<br />

outside 51.4 %); or the British Isles (inside 3.1 %,<br />

outside 13.6 %) where a large proportion of the<br />

forests were planted in the 20th century.<br />

An analysis of changes in land cover between<br />

1990 and 2000 was done for two countries that<br />

were covered in both CLC1990 and CLC2000:<br />

the Czech Republic and Germany (Figures 9.10<br />

and 9.11). As noted in Section 7.3.1, the changes in<br />

the Czech Republic from 1990 to 2000 were greater<br />

than in any other EU Member State and were<br />

particularly in the category of 'agricultural internal<br />

land conversion'. The changes inside and outside<br />

Natura 2000 areas showed similar directions, with<br />

the largest changes in agricultural land, i.e. a 4 %<br />

decrease in arable land and permanent crops<br />

(class 2A) and a 4 % increase in pastures and<br />

mosaic farmland (class 2B). Overall, changes in<br />

Germany were much smaller. However, degrees<br />

of change were markedly different inside and<br />

outside Natura 2000 sites for artificial surfaces<br />

(class 1), which decreased in Natura 2000 sites,<br />

but increased outside them; and for pastures and<br />

mosaic farmland (class 2B), where the rate of<br />

increase in Natura 2000 sites was more than twice<br />

that outside them. A general conclusion is that<br />

the changes observed in 10 years are quite small,<br />

and that analysis over a longer time period — as<br />

represented, for instance for Slovakia's biosphere<br />

reserves in Box 9.3 — and in more detail (for<br />

example, Mücher et al., 2006) is needed to assess<br />

trends and evaluate the effect of policies.<br />

Note:<br />

* = Belgium and Germany;<br />

** = the Czech Republic, Austria and Germany.<br />

9.1.5 Overlaps between Natura 2000 and High<br />

Nature Value farmland<br />

though in the latter the proportion outside Natura<br />

2000 sites is quite high (18.6 % in 2000).<br />

As might be expected from the findings on land<br />

cover (Section 7.2) and habitat types (Section 9.1.3),<br />

class 3A1 (standing forests) was the dominant<br />

land‐cover group in mountains, covering 44.9 %<br />

of the total area of Natura 2000 sites in mountains<br />

and 37.5 % outside these sites. The highest<br />

proportions are in the Natura 2000 sites of central<br />

and south‐eastern Europe, with values over 50 %<br />

also in sites in the French/Swiss middle mountains<br />

and the Apennines. However, this group is poorly<br />

represented in the British Isles (3.1 % in Natura 2000<br />

sites in 2000), which also has the lowest proportion<br />

outside these sites after the massifs of the eastern<br />

Mediterranean islands. While the proportion of this<br />

land‐cover group is generally higher within Natura<br />

2000 sites than outside them, this was not true for<br />

the Nordic mountains (inside 34.5 %, outside 43.7 %)<br />

which are largely forested; the Alps (inside 41.1 %,<br />

As noted in Section 7.4.2, High Nature Value (HNV)<br />

farmland covers 17 % of the area of the mountains<br />

of the EU‐27 as a whole, and 33 % if the mountains<br />

of Finland and Sweden, where there is very little<br />

arable or pasture land, are excluded. It should also<br />

be noted that the presence of Natura 2000 sites is<br />

one of the criteria for designating HNV farmland.<br />

Nevertheless, considering that different policies<br />

often apply to these two designations, one deriving<br />

from EU legislation (Natura 2000 sites) and the<br />

other relating to modes of agricultural production<br />

through the Rural Development Programme (HNV<br />

farmland) , a comparison of the areas covered by<br />

the two designations may be useful to inform policy<br />

development and implementation (EEA, 2004). The<br />

assessment of overlaps between Natura 2000 sites<br />

and HNV farmlands per massif is summarised in<br />

Table 9.5. As HNV data refer only to EU Member<br />

States, only the areas covered by these data were<br />

considered when calculating the percentages shown.<br />

Europe's <strong>ecological</strong> <strong>backbone</strong>: recognising the true value of our mountains<br />

173

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!