27.07.2014 Views

IUCN WCPA, Fundaciò Territori i Paisatge INTERNATIONAL ...

IUCN WCPA, Fundaciò Territori i Paisatge INTERNATIONAL ...

IUCN WCPA, Fundaciò Territori i Paisatge INTERNATIONAL ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

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

<strong>IUCN</strong> <strong>WCPA</strong>, Fundaciò <strong>Territori</strong> i <strong>Paisatge</strong><br />

<strong>INTERNATIONAL</strong> CONFERENCE ON MOUNTAIN CORRIDORS<br />

Pyrenees, Spain, 24-27 October 2005<br />

ALPS AND APENNINES, A BRIDGE BETWEEN EUROPE AND THE<br />

MEDITERRANEAN<br />

Roberto Gambino, Bernardino Romano<br />

SUMMARY<br />

The paper refers to the projects and programs concerning the Apennines for their connectivity<br />

conservation, in the frame of the European Ecological Network. Special attention is given to:<br />

- the role that the Apennines, together with the Alpine system, can play as a naturalcultural<br />

bridge between the Central Europe and the Mediterranean basin;<br />

- the double interest of important wilderness spaces, in the context of extraordinary cultural<br />

landscapes;<br />

- the need for connectivity strategies largely exceeding the protected areas system, in order<br />

to reduce the fragmentation processes and strengthen the environmental continuity within<br />

the whole territory.<br />

1 ALPS AND APENNINES IN THE EURO-MEDITERRANEAN CONTEXT<br />

1.1 The Apennines’ system<br />

The Apennines are one of the most important mountain systems of Europe. The Apennines<br />

system is the 5 th in size, with a surface area of 4.818.459 ha and length of over 1500 km, from<br />

the Alps in North Italy to the Sicily (the surface area is comparable with the ones relating to<br />

other 20 mountain systems, measured by homogenous criteria on 1997).<br />

Scandinavian Alps<br />

Pennine Chain<br />

Cantabrian M.<br />

Pyrenees<br />

Iberian System<br />

Sierra Morena<br />

Baltic M.<br />

Massiccio Centrale<br />

Alps<br />

Apennines<br />

Giura<br />

Selva Nera<br />

Bohemian Forest<br />

Carpathians M.<br />

Transylvania Alps<br />

Balcans<br />

Rodope<br />

Albania Alps<br />

Dinaric Alps.<br />

Pinto<br />

Systems Area (ha) n. Area (ha)<br />

18.525.077<br />

1.209.588<br />

4.215.232<br />

3.127440<br />

5.751.426<br />

1.659.413<br />

2.394.665<br />

4.108.326<br />

18.279.850<br />

4.818.459<br />

1.000.049<br />

930.969<br />

2.681.150<br />

7.293.138<br />

2.472.104<br />

1.886.544<br />

2.722.095<br />

3.683.345<br />

4.147.065<br />

1.652.677<br />

22<br />

3<br />

10<br />

10<br />

8<br />

5<br />

13<br />

4<br />

62<br />

26<br />

1<br />

1<br />

15<br />

14<br />

2<br />

3<br />

3<br />

8<br />

11<br />

6<br />

1.739.805<br />

419.600<br />

291.868<br />

210.816<br />

176.498<br />

525.254<br />

773.844<br />

801.057<br />

1.735.108<br />

1.247.132<br />

62.088<br />

85.710<br />

1.343.773<br />

343.938<br />

114.500<br />

37.206<br />

54.050<br />

151.508<br />

159.071<br />

37.062<br />

Parks<br />

%(a)<br />

9%<br />

35%<br />

7%<br />

7%<br />

3%<br />

32%<br />

32%<br />

19%<br />

10%<br />

26%<br />

6%<br />

9%<br />

50%<br />

5%<br />

5%<br />

2%<br />

2%<br />

4%<br />

4%<br />

2%<br />

av. Area<br />

79.082<br />

139.867<br />

29.187<br />

21.082<br />

22.062<br />

105.051<br />

59.526<br />

200.264<br />

29.953<br />

47.967<br />

62.088<br />

85.710<br />

89.585<br />

24.567<br />

57.250<br />

12.402<br />

18.017<br />

18.939<br />

14.461<br />

6.177<br />

Total<br />

92.558.612 246 10.309.891 11% 41.910<br />

Other systems<br />

53 3.874.709<br />

73.108<br />

Total 299 14.184.600 47.440<br />

Table 1 – Natural parks (Natural and regional) in European mountain system (Ced-PPn, 1997)


0,3500<br />

0,3000<br />

0,2500<br />

0,2000<br />

0,1500<br />

0,1000<br />

0,0500<br />

0,0000<br />

Dolomites landscape<br />

Plateau landscape in mountain areas<br />

Granitic mountains<br />

Glacial landscape<br />

Isolated rock relief<br />

Volcanic mountains<br />

Isolated hills landscape<br />

Lake belts<br />

Lavic flats<br />

Heteorogeneus hill landscape with top plateau<br />

Small islands<br />

Porphyritic mountains<br />

Wetlands<br />

Metamorphic hills<br />

Volcanic mountain block<br />

Coastal isolated relief<br />

Mountain valley<br />

Intermountain plateau<br />

Granitic hills<br />

Intermountain basin<br />

River plateau<br />

Dolomitic mountains<br />

Heteorogeneus hill landscape<br />

Terrigenous relief<br />

Carbonatic hills<br />

Metamorphic mountains<br />

Terrigenous hill landscape with top plateau<br />

Carbonatic mountains<br />

Terrigenous mountains<br />

Piedmountain hills<br />

Clayey hills<br />

Volcanic plateau and hills<br />

Carbonatic plateau<br />

Terrigenous hills<br />

Bottom valley plateau<br />

Coastal plateau<br />

Open plateau<br />

Figure 1 - Distribution of the urban density in relation to the typologies of the national landscape units<br />

The Apennines chain is the 4 th in Protected Areas’ coverage, hosting 26 national and regional<br />

parks with a surface of 1.247.132 ha. The chain constitutes the backbone of the whole Italian<br />

peninsula, which extends from North to South into the Mediterranean Sea, and stretches<br />

between the Tyrrhenian and the Adriatic coasts. In the North, it joins the Alpine system, with<br />

which the Apennines form a prominent structure – sort of a big T - between Central Europe<br />

and the Mediterranean basin, hosting most of the highest European mountains, including<br />

Mont Blanc, 4807 m. However, while the Alpine system belongs to 7 different countries<br />

(Italy, France, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Liechtenstein, Slovenia), the Apennines are<br />

located entirely in Italy.<br />

The Apennines present an extraordinary set of resources, both natural and cultural. They are<br />

the “Mediterranean” mountains par excellence, crossing the entire peninsula at almost 8<br />

different degrees of latitudinal variation. Moving away from the Alps, the Apennine range<br />

acquires increasingly “peripheral” features southwards, compared with the continental<br />

development hubs, and a growing centrality vis-à-vis the Mediterranean basin. In ecological<br />

terms, a crucial factor is the intersection of different bioclimatic regions, which produces a<br />

very high biodiversity. In cultural terms, it’s enough to recall the richness of the historic<br />

processes related to the multiple flows of civilisation that, over the centuries, crossed the<br />

Italian territory, and also consider their tangible and intangible sediments. Nevertheless, the<br />

relevant natural and cultural heritage characterising the Apennines is still largely unexploited<br />

and even unknown or underestimated, with the exception of a limited number of celebrated<br />

centres, places and landscapes.<br />

What are the Apennines? How can they be geographically defined? The question is not easily<br />

answered. As every mountain system, this one may be defined in many different ways,<br />

depending on the goals one wishes to reach. In order to the launch of “system policies”<br />

relating to the main parts of the national territory, it would be useful to make reference to<br />

some suggestions emerging from the National Structural Programmes (Ministry of<br />

Environment, Deliberazione CIPE 1998) and the environmental legislation (L.426/1998). One<br />

of the programmes concerns just the Apennines system and subsequent studies promoted by<br />

the Ministry of Environment’s attempt to define it, providing a number of data about it<br />

(Gambino, R., 2003).<br />

Following this interpretation, the Apennines system may be considered as a part of the Italian<br />

territory. This part, including the proper mountain range, has a surface of 9.371.147 ha and


homes over ten million inhabitants, distributed in 2,165 municipalities, 48 provinces and 15<br />

regions, giving room to a great variety of economic activities, part of which are still rooted in<br />

the traditional productive cultures.<br />

Ambiti e sub-ambiti<br />

Area<br />

(ha)<br />

% on<br />

Italy<br />

Population<br />

1991<br />

% on<br />

Italy<br />

Population<br />

2001*<br />

N°<br />

municipa<br />

lities<br />

% on<br />

Italy<br />

N°<br />

provinces<br />

1. ALPS 5.169.905 17,20 4.395.812 7,60 4.437.164 1.693 20,90 22<br />

1.1 Alpi Occidentali 1.768.488 5,90 1.374.668 2,40 1.358.464 664 8,20 7<br />

1.2 Alpi Orientali 3.401.417 11,30 3.021.144 5,20 3.078.700 1.029 12,70 15<br />

2. PIANURA PADANA 5.325.981 17,70 19.196.953 33,20 19.075.595 2.491 30,70 31<br />

3. APENNINES AND PENINSULA 15.311.313 50,90 28.577.484 49,50 27.566.467 3.307 40,80 59<br />

3.1 Appennino settentrionale 2.176.036 7,20 2.846.308 4,90 2.716.309 466 5,80 21<br />

3.2 Appennino centrale 3.013.276 10,00 2.421.370 4,20 2.332.747 626 7,70 16<br />

3.3 Appennino meridionale 2.164.951 7,20 2.024.687 3,50 1.925.372 538 6,60 9<br />

3.4 Appennino calabro-siculo 2.016.884 6,70 3.368.772 5,80 3.169.955 535 6,60 7<br />

Appennino montano 9.371.147 31,20 10.661.137 18,50 10.144.383 2.165 26,70 48<br />

3.5 Fascia tirrenica 3.048.856 10,10 11.625.778 20,10 11.180.841 602 7,40 15<br />

3.6 Fascia adriatica centrale 882.908 2,90 2.098.390 3,60 2.141.267 295 3,60 8<br />

3.7 Fascia adriatica-ionica 2.008.402 6,70 4.192.179 7,30 4.099.976 245 3,00 6<br />

4. ISLANDS 4.260.994 14,20 5.572.488 9,70 5.226.342 612 7,60 24<br />

4.1 Isole Sicilia 1.802.326 6,00 3.765.586 6,50 3.480.558 207 2,60 8<br />

4.2 Isole Sardegna 2.385.378 7,90 1.645.550 2,80 1.585.415 373 4,60 4<br />

4.3 Isole Minori 73.290 0,20 161.352 0,30 160.369 32 0,40 12<br />

ITALY 30.089.839 100,00 57.742.737 100,00 56.305.568 8.103 100,00 98<br />

5. COAST (overlay belt) 4.202.832 14,00 17.250.695 29,90 16.068.137 639 7,90 53<br />

* Draft data ISTAT 2001<br />

Table 2 - Inahabitants and surfaces by “main sub-national systems” (CED-PPN source ISTAT 1991 and 2001)<br />

Agriculture, forestry and grazing have, since prehistory, shaped local cultures and landscapes,<br />

and, still now, they cover the main part of the territory. The mountain territories of the range<br />

are closely tied with the plains along the Tyrrhenian and the Adriatic coasts, which, in the last<br />

decades, have generally experienced important economic development and a significant<br />

population growth, related in many cases to the tourism development. However, the local<br />

communities of the mountain territories generally received a very poor profit from such<br />

developments and have been subjected to a diffused and pervasive process of decline, in<br />

demographic, economic, social and cultural terms. A massive, unexpected and epochal<br />

process of abandonment took place in a large part of the mountain territories. In turn, this<br />

process had and is still having important environmental consequences, such as de-stabilisation<br />

of soil and ecosystems, loss of biodiversity in previously cultivated areas, alteration of many<br />

cultural landscapes, loss of a diffused cultural heritage. In many cases, these effects are<br />

intertwined with the effects of tourism, urban sprawl and infrastructural diffusion, producing<br />

an acceleration of environmental degradation. The result is a growing fragmentation of<br />

ecosystems, a progressive loss of habitats and precious natural and cultural resources and a<br />

diffused environmental degradation. These phenomena are particularly intensive on flat<br />

internal areas sited among the mountain groups. As shown in the Figure 2, the urban areas in<br />

Italy are concentrated (over 57% of the total) mainly in particular landscape units, as bottom<br />

valley plateau, coastal plateau and open plateau.


Figure 2 - Urban pattern in an internal area of the Alps<br />

1200<br />

1000<br />

Urban areas<br />

People density<br />

160,00<br />

140,00<br />

URBAN AREAS (ha)<br />

800<br />

600<br />

400<br />

200<br />

120,00<br />

100,00<br />

80,00<br />

60,00<br />

40,00<br />

20,00<br />

PEOPLE DENSITY (inhabit./ha)<br />

0<br />

1891 1951 2001<br />

0,00<br />

Figure 3 - Typical relationship diagrams between urban areas increasing and people density decreasing in a flat<br />

italian area.<br />

Figure 4 - Mountain Areas in Europe and main structural lines in Italy (“Big T” - Alps and Apennines) (Ced-<br />

Ppn: Europa, 1999; Italia, 2001)<br />

In the last century, mainly in the flat areas, the urban areas are greatly increased, while the<br />

density of people is decreasing. Figure 4 shows these phenomena within the municipal border<br />

(Conegliano Veneto) in the flat area of Veneto region, one of the Italian regions in which the<br />

urban sprawl is particularly evident.


Environmental protection and social and economic concerns are, therefore, strictly linked to<br />

the Apennines’ system. However, the answer of the political system to such problems has<br />

still remained inadequate. One of the most significant policies concerns the Protected Areas<br />

(PAs). The Apennines’ system hosts nearly half of the Italian PAs, with a total coverage of<br />

over 1.512.000 ha, i.e. 16% of the total territory’s surface. If we also consider the sites of<br />

European interest according to the UE directives (SCIs), excluding overlapping areas,<br />

coverage raises up to over 2.210.000 ha, i.e. 24% of the total territory. This share is just about<br />

double that of the European mountain systems average. A large part of this coverage is<br />

constituted by National parks (n. 10) and Regional Parks (n. 36), which cover together 15% of<br />

the total, with a great variety of environments and landscapes.<br />

National Parks * Regional Parks Natural reserves ** Regional reserves** Other areas** Total<br />

n ha % n ha % n ha % n ha % n ha % n ha % ha % on tot<br />

ha<br />

ha<br />

ha<br />

ha<br />

ha<br />

1. ALPS 4 247.853 5 30 556.457 11 17 3.874 0,1 68 11.436 0,2 57 4.670 0,1 176 824.290 16 25<br />

1.1 Alpi Occidentali 2 81.721 5 12 80.369 5 2 - - 25 2.087 0,1 4 2.945 0,2 45 167.122 9 5<br />

1.2 Alpi Orientali 2 166.132 5 18 476.088 14 15 3.874 0,1 43 9.349 0,3 53 1.725 0,1 131 657.168 19 20<br />

2. PIANURA PADANA - - - 34 351.718 7 15 3.912 0,1 77 17.331 0,3 5 247 0,0 131 373.208 7 11<br />

3. APENNIES AND PENINSULA 13 988.340 6 63 728.995 5 109 46.743 0,3 106 105.734 0,7 46 36.276 0,2 337 1.906.088 12 58<br />

3.1 Appennino settentrionale 2 40.286 2 18 120.808 6 20 4.167 0,2 11 5.337 0,2 9 5.453 0,3 60 176.051 8 5<br />

3.2 Appennino centrale 4 345.150 11 11 174.426 6 17 5.059 0,2 19 22.754 0,8 5 1.661 0,1 56 549.050 18 17<br />

3.3 Appennino meridionale 2 373.613 17 4 119.427 6 9 469 0,0 5 2.197 0,1 2 105 0,0 22 495.811 23 15<br />

3.4 Appennino calabro-siculo 2 91.207 5 3 183.623 9 13 4.378 0,2 12 12.248 0,6 - - - 30 291.456 14 9<br />

tot Appennino montano 10 850.256 9 36 598.284 6 59 14.073 0,2 47 42.536 0,5 16 7.219 0,1 168 1.512.368 16 46<br />

3.5 Fascia tirrenica 2 16.966 1 22 116.013 4 30 22.916 0,8 53 61.596 2,0 28 27.467 0,9 135 244.958 8 7<br />

3.6 Fascia adriatica centrale - - - 2 7.521 1 2 1.820 0,2 5 1.102 0,1 - - - 9 10.443 1 0<br />

3.7 Fascia adriatica-ionica 1 121.118 6 3 7.177 0 18 7.934 0,4 1 500 0,0 2 1.590 0,1 25 138.319 7 4<br />

tot. terre peninsulari 3 138.084 2 27 130.711 2 50 32.670 0,5 59 63.198 1,1 30 29.057 0,5 169 393.720 7 12<br />

4. ISLANDS 4 104.513 2 2 6.700 0 2 174 0,0 49 61.866 1,5 9 128 0,0 66 173.381 4 5<br />

4.1 Isole Sicilia - - - 46 57.071 3,2 - 46 57.071 3 2<br />

4.2 Isole Sardegna 1 76.335 3 2 6.700 0 - 1 2.913 0,1 9 128 0,0 13 86.076 4 3<br />

4.3 Isole Minori 3 28.178 38 - 2 174 0,2 2 1.882 2,6 - 7 30.234 41 1<br />

ITALY 21 1.340.706 4 129 1.643.870 5 143 54.703 0,2 300 196.367 0,7 117 41.321 0,1 710 3.276.967 11 100<br />

5. COAST (overlay belt) 8 422.151 10 28 297.403 7 52 30.737 0,7 64 58.145 1,4 25 7.537 0,2 177 815.973 19 25<br />

* In the sum the National Parks are not shared among the relative regions<br />

** The area of the reserves is relative just to the surfaces within national and regional parks<br />

Table 3 - Number, surface, percentage of Protected Areas (APc) by categories and by “main sub-national<br />

systems”<br />

UE<br />

Italy<br />

APE mountains<br />

PAs*<br />

SCIs**<br />

SPAs**<br />

No. Area (ha) No. Area (ha) No. Area (ha)<br />

23.596 56.919.122 11.519 41.303.700 2.663 17.320.000<br />

962<br />

3.320.210 2.328 4.179.096 337 1.706.913<br />

168<br />

1.512.368 864 1.414.228<br />

73<br />

663.791<br />

*National and Regional Parks, Reserves, Protected Landscape and Natural Monuments (CED-PPN 1999). **EU Nature 2000 Program<br />

Table 4 - Number and surface area of Protected areas (PAs*), Site of Community Importance (SCIs**) and<br />

Special Protection Areas (SPAs**) in the 15 EU Member states, in Italy and in Apennines system (APE)<br />

It is noteworthy that, according to Italian laws, authorities managing parks include the “park<br />

communities”, which represent all the Municipalities that are totally or partially comprised in<br />

the parks’ perimeters. Taking into account the areas relating to the park communities, we can<br />

estimate that over one third of the total territory, and an even larger share of the total<br />

population, is already directly influenced by park management. Despite these figures, we<br />

must acknowledge that park policies are not adequate to ensure an effective protection of the<br />

global Apennines’ environment and, moreover, the desired diffusion of the benefits “beyond<br />

the boundaries” (as it was stated by the <strong>IUCN</strong> Durban World Parks Congress, 2003). One of<br />

the main reasons is due to the fact that the whole system is too fragmented and insufficiently<br />

coordinated, both in physical and political terms. In physical terms, we recognize that there is<br />

a lack of connectivity even in the PAs set, which are generally separated from each other. In


political terms, we must recall that public action, for the most part, still lies in the hands of<br />

many local powers (15 regions, 48 provinces, 2,165 municipalities, 46 park authorities and so<br />

on), which are often jealous of their autonomy. Hence, the need for a project based on a<br />

connectivity strategy.<br />

Furthermore, it is worthy of noting that both environmental and economic concerns must be<br />

faced with policies which cannot be confined in one sector of the public administration or<br />

even in the mountain territories of the Apennines. Therefore, focusing our attention on the<br />

above sub-region and on the territorial policies proposed for it, we should be aware that such<br />

policies have to be considered open to the interregional context and, as far as possible,<br />

integrated in it.<br />

Figure 5 - Protected areas in Europe (Ced-Ppn: Europa, 1999; Italia, 2001)<br />

Figure 6 – Protected areas and SCIs (Sites of European Interest) in Italy


1.2 Alps and Apennines, a bridge between Central Europe and the Mediterranean.<br />

As it has been noted, the Apennines – owing to their size, their geographical position, and<br />

their bio-cultural richness and diversity – must play a relevant role in the European context.<br />

As other prominent mountain systems, they are one of the main structures forming the<br />

European Environmental Network. In the international panorama, mountain systems<br />

generally resemble concentration places for Protected Areas; in Europe, the share of the total<br />

territorial surface covered by PAs within mountain systems is nearly three times as high as in<br />

other territories. Furthermore, mountain PAs are generally included in large chains of natural<br />

(glaciers, rocky lands and other desert areas) or semi-natural spaces with high biopermeability,<br />

such as forests, steppes, pasturelands and so on, without relevant anthropic<br />

pressures or barriers. Of course, this is also one of the reasons that can explain the structural<br />

relevance of mountains in shaping the landscapes of the concerned countries. Such<br />

considerations are particularly true for the Apennines, as we’ll see in the next chapters.<br />

Nonetheless, to fully understand their role, we must enlarge our scope, and consider on one<br />

hand the relationship to the Mediterranean basin, and, on the other, the relationship to Central<br />

Europe. The first point brings our attention to the longitudinal dimension of the range, which<br />

expands to just the core of the basin, setting up important ecological, economic and cultural<br />

relations with its Southern side, which have been well proven through the centuries.<br />

Particularly, for the nature conservation policies, its role can be strategic wherein Europe must<br />

extend to the Mediterranean basin. Even in merely quantitative terms, figures concerning the<br />

PAs, both in European and non-European countries facing the Mediterranean, allow us to<br />

imagine the relevance of this extension.<br />

Since 1975, these links were taken into account in the Mediterranean Action Plan. Then, in<br />

the 1995 review (MAP II), environmental protection aims mention responsibilities of<br />

European coastal countries - it is also sufficient to think of the pollutants discharged by them -<br />

with regard to sustainable development objectives. In a joint effort to restore environmental<br />

balance, the role of European countries, especially Spain, France and Italy, is decisive, both<br />

for the environmental pressures they generate, and for the responses they could provide.<br />

Among these, it is important to take into consideration the PAs, which are scarce in most<br />

countries of the southern arch and relatively numerous in European countries. According to<br />

1997 <strong>IUCN</strong> figures - the only ones available for all Mediterranean countries - 91% of PAs in<br />

Mediterranean countries are located in Europe, and mainly found in the three aforementioned<br />

countries. Although it is foreseeable that the contribution to nature conservation from<br />

emerging countries will grow significantly in the years to come, the key role of European<br />

countries, and especially the Apennine range with its previously described enviable features,<br />

is extremely clear. More specific environmental contributions may be identified with regard to<br />

various linkages, such as bird migration routes, especially for flows between Central Africa<br />

and Northern Europe via the Tyrrhenian coast and islands, the flows between Spain and<br />

eastern Africa via smaller islands and the flows between the Red Sea and Europe via the<br />

Balkan coastline, which also concern some nodes along the Adriatic coast. Moreover, the<br />

contribution of the Apennine range could significantly increase involving the inland<br />

waterway network, as foreseen by the European Ecological Network, and enhancing the<br />

intricate system of transverse linkages connecting the mountains to the sea on both sides, that<br />

is linkages that also have important historical, functional and cultural relations. In fact, it is in<br />

this more complex and significant version that the Apennines rangemay be seen as a large<br />

greenway, a green belt unwinding along the peninsula and linking Europe to the<br />

Mediterranean.


Figure 7 – Configuration of bird migration flows in the Mediterranean basin (Ced-Ppn: Europa, 1999; Italia,<br />

2001)<br />

National Parks Regional Parks Protected Landscapes Reserves Natural Monument and other TOT<br />

n %sup sup (ha) n %sup sup (ha) n %sup sup (ha) n %sup sup (ha) n %sup sup (ha) n sup (ha) % sup<br />

Albania 6 0,80% 23.000 18 2,51% 72.055 1 0,05% 1.370 18 2,51% 72.055 0 0,00% 0 43 168.480 5,86%<br />

Bosnia-Erz. 2 0,40% 20.625 2 0,08% 4.000 3 0,00% 197 8 0,05% 2.519 0 0,00% 0 15 27.341 0,53%<br />

Croazia 7 1,24% 70.163 6 4,60% 260.243 7 0,20% 11.095 7 0,49% 27.434 0 0,00% 0 27 368.935 6,53%<br />

Francia 6 0,65% 352.598 35 9,51% 5.172.376 0 0,00% 0 1.058 1,43% 778.855 0 0,00% 0 1.099 6.303.829 11,59%<br />

Grecia 11 2,19% 288.742 0 0,00% 0 19 0,25% 33.067 662 15,79% 2.083.575 10 0,11% 14.685 702 2.420.069 18,34%<br />

Italia 21 4,45% 1.340.706 131 5,50% 1.658.966 0 0,00% 0 484 1,37% 412.490 341 0,18% 52.756 977 3.464.918 11,50%<br />

Macedonia 3 4,21% 108.338 3 0,09% 2.338 0 0,00% 0 2 0,11% 2.730 39 2,21% 56.850 47 170.256 6,62%<br />

Portogallo 1 0,76% 70.290 11 5,80% 533.690 3 0,03% 2.374 8 0,64% 58.951 7 0,00% 0 30 665.305 7,23%<br />

Slovenia 1 4,14% 83.807 1 0,02% 416 36 2,98% 60.289 0 0,00% 0 0 0,00% 0 38 144.512 7,14%<br />

Spagna 11 0,44% 222.324 104 5,04% 2.550.759 88 0,53% 270.329 152 0,19% 96.441 119 0,09% 47.760 474 3.187.613 6,30%<br />

Yugoslavia 9 2,33% 237.673 20 0,49% 50.380 0 0,00% 0 7 0,34% 34.603 0 0,00% 0 36 322.656 3,16%<br />

tot MED EU 78 1,52% 2.822.980 347 5,53% 10.281.519 157 0,20% 378.721 2.476 1,94% 3.603.346 529 0,09% 170.498 3.488 17.243.914 9,28%<br />

Algeria 10 0,12% 282.592 8 0,04% 86866 18 369.458 0,16%<br />

Egitto 1 0,06% 61.500 11 0,73% 731700 12 793.200 0,79%<br />

Israele 1 0,41% 8.400 14 14,78% 299.435 15 307.835 15,20%<br />

Libano 1 0,34% 3.500 1 0,05% 500 2 4.000 0,38%<br />

Libia 3 0,03% 51.000 3 0,07% 122000 6 173.000 0,10%<br />

Marocco 2 0,15% 69.800 5 0,54% 246103 7 315.903 0,69%<br />

Tunisia 6 0,29% 44.417 0,00% 6 44.417 0,29%<br />

Turchia 21 0,59% 446.264 4 0,07% 51.624 41 1,04% 785031 66 1.282.919 1,70%<br />

tot MED AA 45 0,15% 967.473 4 0,01% 51.624 0 0 0 83 0,35% 2.271.635 0 0 0 132 3.290.732 0,50%<br />

TOT MED 123 0,45% 3.790.453 351 1,23% 10.333.143 157 0 378.721 2.559 0,70% 5.874.981 529 0 170.498 3.620 20.536.646 2,44%<br />

tot EU 269 2,0% 9.953.761 445 3,5% 17.296.202 9.289 6, 3% 31.441.790 20.193 2,3% 11.563.232 2.283 0,0% 240.819 32.479 70.495.804 14,1%<br />

Mountain<br />

Apennines *<br />

2001<br />

10 9,0% 850.256 36 6,4% 598.284 106 0,6% 57.483 16 0,1% 7.219 168 1.512.368 16,1%<br />

* In this system are considered the protected Areas and the Municipalities sited in the Apennines area defined as following<br />

Table 5 - Protected Areas in the Mediterranean Countries (data CED-PPN 1999 for EU, data <strong>IUCN</strong> 1997 for<br />

MED)<br />

Such considerations bring us to the second relationship, with the Alpine system, which, at its<br />

western tip, is connected with the Apennines without any apparent discontinuity. Alps and<br />

Apennines together form a great structure (a “big T”) connecting Central Europe to the<br />

Mediterranean basin. In geomorphologic, environmental, historical, cultural and economic<br />

terms, the Alpine system is a real threshold of Central Europe towards the South. Over the<br />

centuries, this enormous natural monument, hosting the tallest mountains of Europe, has been<br />

a focal crossroads for trades, economic and cultural flows among different and distant cultures<br />

and political formations. As the Apennines system, the Alps may also be conceived as an<br />

essential component of the European Ecological Network. However, unlike the Apennines,<br />

their relevance is already well recognised in European documents, programmes and<br />

agreements. Since 1991, a large agreement, involving the seven Alpine states – the Alpine<br />

Convention – has provided a framework for policies aimed at sustainable development and


enhancement of the entire system. The Convention takes into account a large range of<br />

strategies, concerning:<br />

- Land planning and sustainable development<br />

- Nature and landscape conservation<br />

- Mountain agriculture<br />

- Mountain forestry<br />

- Land conservation<br />

- Tourism and recreational activities<br />

- Energy<br />

- Transport<br />

- Resolution of conflicts<br />

- Air quality<br />

- Hydro economy<br />

- People and culture<br />

- Waste economy<br />

Despite of the fact that the implementation protocols have not yet been ratified by all of the<br />

involved parties, the Convention constitutes an important attempt of an integrated approach to<br />

management and planning of a vast territorial system. It marks the difference between the<br />

Alpine system and the Apennines, where, to date, no formal and compelling agreement is in<br />

force. Nevertheless, if we compare the Alpine Convention protocols with the strategies<br />

designed for the Apennines, we can easily perceive the amount of synergies and<br />

complementarities that a joint consideration of both systems could possibly achieve.<br />

2 THE APE PROJECT: RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES<br />

2.1 Initiatives, motivations and goals.<br />

In the second half of the ‘90s some environmental associations and regional administrations<br />

launched a project – “Appennino Parco d’Europa” (APE) – in order to cross such negative<br />

processes and to promote the enhancement of the entire system within the European context.<br />

The initiative was later taken up by the National Government, and in 2000 the Interministerial<br />

Committee for Economic Planning (CIPE) approved the APE Project as an Action<br />

Programme, wherein integrating a set of aims:<br />

• nature conservation, combining the needs for protection with the needs for development<br />

and the growth of employment;<br />

• conservation of the specificity of settlement systems through the protection, recovery and<br />

enhancement of building, cultural and religious heritage scattered throughout the territory;<br />

• sustainable tourism;<br />

• conservation and rural development;<br />

• promotion of quality produce in the agro-industrial sector;<br />

• conservation and development of home-made and agro-industrial produce;<br />

• upgrading of the services network.<br />

According to the CIPE decision, a number of pilot projects concerning local areas or issues of<br />

particular interest were selected and funded. Meanwhile, the CIPE guidelines were defined in<br />

a large research promoted by the Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation Service,<br />

conducted by an extensive group of researchers drawn from 8 Universities supported by a<br />

number of outside experts and organisations (Gambino,R., 2003). The research enlightened<br />

such aims require synergies, complementarities and cooperation among a wide set of subjects<br />

and operators. Of course, this exigence is emphasised by the size of the project that involves a<br />

great number of public administrations and numerous agencies, operators and stakeholders.


This is, in fact, a crucial problem of the APE project: how can we receive unitary effort for its<br />

purpose, while strengthening, at the same time, the autonomy and self-confidence of the local<br />

powers. In order to deal with the dilemma, some words can be evocated, which have a<br />

growing impact on the present environmental discourse: co-management, connectivity,<br />

linkages, system policies and so on. These words are, in fact, at the very centre of the “shift in<br />

focus” in conservation policies that characterized both the <strong>IUCN</strong> Parks Congress in Durban,<br />

2003, and the Conservation Congress in Bangkok, 2004.<br />

2.2 What linkages?<br />

Recently <strong>IUCN</strong> has drawn our attention to the complex meaning of linkages, underlining the<br />

urgency to “forge enduring linkages” in three directions: through history, across geography<br />

and among peoples. This last subject, in particular, is quite important in the context of recent<br />

international programs relative to Ecoregional Approach (WWF, 2004). The APE project<br />

seems to be an excellent ground for testing these meanings.<br />

A) Linkages through history. “Using the past to shape the future” is one of the major<br />

challenges of the project. None of the strategies designed could be viable or even intelligible<br />

without making reference to the past. The natural and cultural settlement is not only the basis<br />

of the complex system of values that the project aims to enhance and valorise, but is also the<br />

root of the opportunities we can gain for pursuing its strategies. This observation may seem<br />

trivial – every ecological evolution depends on past processes – but it assumes a special<br />

relevance in the case of the Apennines. First of all, we may observe that their desired<br />

integration into the Euro-Mediterranean context, and particularly the creation of new visions<br />

and images must be based on the disclosure of its historic role in the complex system of<br />

economic and cultural relations between Europe and other Mediterranean countries; and it<br />

creates a problem, because the Apennines have never had a unitary history. Secondly, the<br />

deepness of past acculturation processes makes it particularly difficult to deal with the natural<br />

dynamics without considering their singularities: each ecosystem is generally an instable<br />

result of complex processes of human manipulation and requires a “historically sensible”<br />

management approach. Their future depends on their past. Lastly, strengthening of the<br />

environmental role of local communities could be successful only if it is rooted in their past,<br />

as recalled by the identity narrations, traditional celebrations, myths and memories as well as<br />

by material sediments. In other words, conservation should be, in our case, very different<br />

from the mere protection of the existing state, it requires a management approach aware of the<br />

past and projected for the future.<br />

Figure 8 (a,b) – Historical landscapes and centres in Apennines<br />

B) Linkages across geography. Building bridges across the territories is another major<br />

challenge of the project. APE has two main concerns: linking the Apennines system, as a


whole, with the Euro-Mediterranean context, and networking natural and cultural resources<br />

into the system. The first concern is the project’s key strategy and is based on the idea that the<br />

Apennines may be conceived as a long bridge between Europe and the Mediterranean. In the<br />

next paragraph we’ll understand better that this concept raises many hard problems, such as<br />

the relationship between Europe’s environmental policies and the Mediterranean’s ones, the<br />

“corporate identity” of the Apennines, political subjects of the desired compact planning, and<br />

so on. The second concern has, of course, a particular importance in relation to the richness of<br />

cultural and ecological differentiation processes, which took place in the past within the<br />

Apennines and the subsequent landscape and biological diversity. An enormous variety of<br />

places, habitats, natural and cultural resources, and local cultures are to be connected if we<br />

want to increase the effectiveness of protection measures, to improve the public enjoyment of<br />

the territorial heritage, to enrich and diversify the chances of sustainable tourism. However,<br />

paradoxically, it is just such variety that makes it difficult for each network policy to widen<br />

the range of the involved actors and to sharpen the complexity of the governance processes. In<br />

fact, networking places and resources is not a mere matter of physical connectivity, it means<br />

scaling up of regulation systems, coordination of local efforts and start-up of new forms of<br />

cooperative management.<br />

Figure 9 – One of the main forest lines of environmental continuity in Apennines<br />

C) Linkages among peoples. Therefore, one of the project’s unavoidable missions would be to<br />

move throughout society. Its aims cannot be achieved with a top-down process, based on a<br />

national approach neither can they function with a bottom-up process, based on a mere local<br />

approach. In order to promote the local responsibility and creativity, , while obtaining the<br />

advantages of system policies that concern the entire mountain range, or relevant parts of it.<br />

both approaches must be mixed. Strengthening local systems is an essential step in the<br />

implementation route of the project, as well as co-operation from administration bodies at<br />

every level (Provinces and Regions with the National Government). The partial success of<br />

some of the Pilot Projects funded over the last years in the framework of the national<br />

programs for APE have shown the importance of alliances and agreements among a large set<br />

of actors, on a regional or inter-regional basis. Nevertheless, effective sharing of goals,<br />

visions and strategies requires a wide range of public actions in the sector of territorial<br />

management and regional planning, as well as in the communication, representation,<br />

education and policy formation fields. Of course, it is not a matter of a mere consensus<br />

building, but also of a truly co-operative strategy making up where composition of the<br />

different interests aims not only to reduce conflicts an mitigating contrasts, but also to<br />

increase the “added value” of the project. It requires new styles and tools of planning, where<br />

social communication should play a central role. First of all, an arena within which an “<br />

inclusive ” discussion can take place. Given the extraordinary bio-cultural diversity found<br />

within the whole system, we need an inter-cultural communication approach: speaking a


common language is one of the pre-requisites. This is very difficult to achieve with the<br />

present legislative, administrative, social and political context – whithin which Italy has<br />

known over the last years important pushes towards decentralisation – but some experiences,<br />

for instance the corporate projects for local “Agenda 21”, referring to the Rio Convention,<br />

1992, demonstrate it could be possible.<br />

2.3 A double interest: wilderness and cultural landscape<br />

a) Cultural landscapes. Cultural heritage is diffused all over Italy in forms that are different<br />

from, but at the same time interconnected to, the environmental structure. This fact is more<br />

comprehensible when thinking of an extensive group of national and regional Parks in the<br />

central Apennines (Sibillini, Laga Gran Sasso, Sirente-Velino, Majella), a protected territory<br />

with an area of 500.000 hectares, where there are about 100.000 inhabitants among many<br />

historical centres, with different economic and demographic dynamics (Romano, B., 1995).<br />

As a component of landscape enrichment and quality, on one hand cultural heritage offers<br />

added value to the territory. This is particularly true when cultural heritage evidences the<br />

historical value of a certain anthropisation that enabled conservation of nature. On the other<br />

hand, cultural heritage constitutes an intrusion for environmental structure, for example when<br />

it leads to intensive tourism that disturbs the ecological context. Clearly, almost the entire<br />

Italian landscape, like a great portion of the European landscape, has been shaped and deeply<br />

marked by man.<br />

Up until 50 years ago, landscape changes in the Alps and Apennines caused directly by<br />

human interventions did not upset the environment, whereas today changes can bring about<br />

major disruptions. These changes are not only artificial, but can also be spontaneous. It is not<br />

certain, however, whether they can positively influence the natural environment.<br />

From here, a scientific debate arises; it relates to the uncultivated agricultural areas that once<br />

made up the Italian cultural landscape and are now abandoned. Having lost their productive<br />

importance and not retaining a natural value, these areas need to find a new identity and to<br />

discover a role to bring them back to their traditional use, which is often no longer<br />

sustainable, that is to say, unless policies are applied within areas of peculiar interest.<br />

Spontaneous reforestation is recurrent here, but not always pleasant, especially in the early<br />

stage, without any human control. This type of re-naturalised cultural landscape might be<br />

important for ecological restoration of the mountain landscape.<br />

Cultural heritage, furthermore, counts for more than just the cultural landscape, including<br />

other components of historical importance and visual value, such as historical centres, isolated<br />

monuments and ancient paths.<br />

Together with these cultural patterns we can uncover real natural structure, which allowed for<br />

the presence of different wild species of international conservation value. This natural<br />

structure has been defined from some national research programs by means of the Biopermeability<br />

concept (Romano, B., 1999).<br />

b) Biopermeability and wilderness. Biopermeability regards the complex geography of natural<br />

territories. The biopermeability condition involves lands that are not interested by intensive<br />

human use, as urbanisation and industrial agriculture.<br />

In a cultural landscape, the study of biopermeability has to be addressed by considering the<br />

link between natural and cultural areas. The latter retain those species able to adapt to the<br />

anthropic environment, while the former retains a greater variety of species, including those<br />

unable to adapt, that is, the most threatened ones.<br />

In the first instance, the environmental continuity structure, deriving from the configuration of<br />

biopermeability areas, rests on urban components and land use activities. In the second, the<br />

ecological network rests on biological and natural components. Biopermeability and


environmental continuity structures, however, do not always coincide with ecological network<br />

structure.<br />

Analysis of the national environmental structure in Italy, moreover, brings into evidence the<br />

lack of interest for natural aspects by past planning systems. Having often been confined to<br />

administrative borders and to national strategies, the planning system has been unable to<br />

conceive geographic, morphologic and environmental continuity of large scale ecosystem<br />

units, such as the Alps and the Apennines.<br />

It is, nevertheless, true that since the 70s national instruments like the Mountain Map<br />

(Ministero dell'Agricoltura e Foreste, 1976) already allowed visualisation of the levels of<br />

geographical continuity in the natural and semi-natural areas of Italian uplands, and the<br />

effects that infrastructures and urbanisation have caused to the environment. Reading such<br />

instruments by means of GIS allows to outline an almost continuous configuration of areas<br />

with at least a minimum level of biopermeability, overlaid on the infrastructure network that<br />

interrupts the Apennine continuity in a dozen macro-zones. In some national research<br />

programs, these zones are called Units of Environmental Cohesion (UEC) (Filpa, A. and<br />

Romano, B., 2003; APAT, 2003). Within these, it is still possible to obtain efficient ecoconnections,<br />

that is, if ecological conditions are supported by sound economic and technical<br />

efforts.<br />

It is generally recognised that Protected Areas that do not fit within the environmental<br />

continuity structure, do not offer positive results in the long term. This fact is particularly<br />

evident in a country like Italy, where the largest park doesn’t reach 200,000 hectares and the<br />

average size is about 6.000 hectares: too small for the medium home range of many wildlife<br />

species. Another paradox in the country is the presence of endangered species, such as the<br />

following for which the scientific literature identifies very large home ranges: Brown Bear<br />

(7.000-10.000 ha), the Apennine Wolf (7.000-20.000 hectares) and the Royal Eagle (10.000-<br />

16.000 hectares for a couple). In this context, strategies for environmental continuity must<br />

expand onto a wider landscape where there is a presence of marginal areas, like degraded and<br />

uncultivated lands that, in turn, can assume strategic importance.<br />

The concentric system of Protected Areas, in addition, has to confront the peripheral system,<br />

i.e. the ecological network. On this line, research on the planning of environmental networks<br />

has demonstrated how the PAs have different characteristics in relation to the national<br />

environmental continuity structure (Romano, B., 1999). As a matter of fact, territorial changes<br />

have brought about alterations to the national geographic condition that can be easily<br />

recognised on territorial maps.<br />

Furthermore, PAs in Italy do not always present environmental continuity within their<br />

territory. Some of them (e.g. Pollino Park) are internally fragmented, due to infrastructures or<br />

production activities, while others (e.g. Cilento-Vallo di Diano and Gargano Parks) cannot be<br />

linked with the surrounding ones as a result of macro-barriers. In a few cases, it is even<br />

difficult to connect two very close parks (e.g. Majella and Gran Sasso-Monti della Laga<br />

Parks), due to adverse morphology, intruding infrastructures and industrial areas.<br />

The study of the location of marginal natural areas, instead, has shown other directions for<br />

minimum resistance to the biologic movements (Boitani, L. et alii, 2002).<br />

From the above, it is evident that the Apennine parks play a fundamental role in assuring, via<br />

a sound environmental policy, the biocontinuity of the Italian mountains.<br />

3 CONNECTIVITY STRATEGIES AND MANAGEMENT<br />

3.1 Strategies of APE Project<br />

The above quoted research for the Environment Ministry, concluded in 2003, identified the<br />

following strategies for the implementation of the APE Project:


A) Integration of the Apennines system in the Euro-Mediterranean context:<br />

- build a new unitary image of the Apennines range,<br />

- integrate the PAs and other natural resources in the European Ecological<br />

Network and in the Euro-Mediterranean system for nature conservation;<br />

- improve the linkages of the Apennines system through the international<br />

transport networks, including the “sea highways”, while reducing adverse<br />

environmental impact of traffic.<br />

b) Networking of natural and cultural resources:<br />

- create an “environmental infrastructure” formed by parks and PAs, sites of<br />

European Community interest, wilderness areas and other natural resources<br />

linked by proper corridors or stepping stones;<br />

- support new management programmes for the abandoned areas, to ensure<br />

effective prevention of hydro geological risks, to reduce the land and soil<br />

wasting and pollution processes;<br />

- put into place special programmes for rehabilitation of rural areas and support<br />

to traditional forestry, agriculture and pasture;<br />

- implement plans and programmes for the conservation, management and<br />

enhancement of landscapes, according to the European Landscape Convention<br />

(Council of Europe, 2000);<br />

- create and protect enjoyment networks based on the recovery of historical<br />

roads, paths, trails, sheep tracks and so on, associated with communication<br />

programmes.<br />

c) Strengthening of local systems:<br />

- promote and support enhancement of the local milieu, their natural and cultural<br />

heritage, their social resources and their own management capacity;<br />

- strengthen and up-grade services and equipments so to ensure acceptable<br />

habitability of mountain territories (forming networked villages or “city of<br />

villages”);<br />

- reorganise the local transport systems in order to improve the accessibility for<br />

visitors and populations to services and civil opportunities, parks and natural<br />

and cultural resources, while reducing the impact of private motorised flows;<br />

- promote sustainable tourism and social enjoyment of natural and cultural<br />

resources in forms suited for local specificities, by means of interpretation and<br />

communication programmes.<br />

3.2 The elements for connectivity strategic planning<br />

In the preliminary recognition of biopermeability conditions in Italy, research analysis focuses<br />

on three macro-categories based on land use features: hydromorphology, agriculture and<br />

forestry and barriers. Macro-elements are indicated for each of them, determining not only the<br />

characters of the whole biopermeability but also the added aspects, which can be studied in<br />

detail in order to individuate eco-connectivity lines.<br />

These territorial categories also represent the objects, which have to be inserted in the<br />

planning instruments at different levels (national, regional, provincial and municipal), so to<br />

consider the environmental fragmentation issues of the land process control.<br />

3.2.1 Hydromorphology<br />

This macro-category is characterised by landforms and hydrological features, and has been<br />

divided into two macro-elements: morphology and hydrology.<br />

These factors represent “landscape heterogeneity” and share an environmental continuity<br />

structure in longitudinal and transversal direction with respect for the main geomorphologic<br />

lines of the Alps and Apennines.


In environmental capacity evaluation related to bio-movements, morphology is essential to<br />

verify the potential biocontinuity to which the presence of natural barriers or linkages has to<br />

be referred. Specifically, a study of the structure of surface soils can be carried out to establish<br />

the presence of landforms favourable for connections, or of other key elements for<br />

biodiversity quality (e.g. forests). Clear morphological lines, i.e. without many transversal<br />

obstacles, facilitate the movement of species. On the contrary, a more articulated morphology<br />

facilitates a very high level of biodiversity due to a variety in microclimate, cliffs and slope<br />

exposition. The morphological elements, nevertheless, are not suitable for a generic<br />

assessment of environmental capacity on a large scale. In fact, they require an assessment at a<br />

smaller scale, which allows for better consideration of ecological specifications and details.<br />

Rivers are certainly optimal linkages for the movement of species living both in the water and<br />

on the riparian land (Jongman, R., 1998). In the North-Central Apennines, river conditions,<br />

however, have radically changed and sound environmental quality can be found only in the<br />

uplands. Nevertheless, even here, in agricultural and urban areas, especially in water, the<br />

quality is dropped, and the rivers can lose their ecological values as a result of human impacts<br />

like engineering river works and quarry extractions.<br />

At the present, Italian rivers are sound ecological corridors only in those upper parts of their<br />

course where environmental quality reaches a reasonable level. Close to the coast, for<br />

example, rivers do not retain any connective function due to the numerous human barriers.<br />

With the high concentration of pollution, canalisation, urbanisation and delta degradation,<br />

rivers are actually barriers themselves. Therefore, hydrological elements, such as<br />

morphological ones, require single studies and small scale environmental capacity<br />

assessment, in order to define the possibility to be actively part of an ecological network.<br />

3.2.2 Agriculture and forestry<br />

This macro-category is characterised by land use types and has been divided into four macro<br />

elements: agricultural areas, uncultivated and degraded areas, forest areas and pastoral lands.<br />

Agricultural areas: Italian agricultural areas are generally ecologically unfriendly, because<br />

intensive agriculture, farmhouses, noise and illumination impoverish biodiversity. To add to<br />

this, there are barriers created by property fences, human movements and infrastructural<br />

networks (Jaarsma,C.,F., 1997). The level of biopermeability can be very low and<br />

consequently many of these areas are not suitable as ecological corridors. Despite this,<br />

however, a few uplands with extensive agriculture present a higher level of biodiversity and<br />

could already be used as ecological corridors.<br />

It is difficult to assign them a proper level of biopermeability, unless a detailed study is<br />

carried out. In large areas of agricultural land the eco-connectivity quality is poor, but it varies<br />

in other areas according to cultivation typology, field dimension and productive cycles<br />

alternation.<br />

If on one hand agricultural areas today are ecologically unfriendly, on the other hand they<br />

have potential to become a resource for species movements, losing their attribute of barriers<br />

and gaining that of connection. Their configuration is relevant for this new attribute. Long and<br />

narrow configurations, for example, present transversally high biopermeability and facilitate<br />

biological movement between nearby areas with a low degree of disturbance.<br />

Uncultivated and degraded areas: Uncultivated areas, with residual agricultural vegetation,<br />

present on average a good level of biopermeability, since they do not retain either occlusion to<br />

species movement or disturbance by human impact. The debate on marginal lands in Italy has<br />

often been based on the assumption that the lack of explicit and localised environmental<br />

quality could directly allow, without particular reflections, the urban use of these areas.<br />

Instead, these areas retain a particular importance as potential ecological linkages and, hence,<br />

can form a valuable element for an ecological network. Moreover, due to their low economic<br />

value, they constitute priority sites for environmental restoration and re-naturalisation.


The level of biodiversity in uncultivated and degraded areas varies from site to site and<br />

necessitates a detailed examination of their physical, ecological and structural characteristics.<br />

The aspects that can be considered in biodiversity assessment are the typology of previous<br />

land use, period of abandonment, vegetation, altitude, slope exposition, surface morphology<br />

and specific local factors.<br />

Forest areas. Forest areas present generally high ecological values for many animal species,<br />

due to the spread of refuges and hiding places, as well as to the limited human disturbance. A<br />

high level of biodiversity can be found in this macro-element. However, more thorough<br />

research is needed to identify differences with regards to various parameters and indicators<br />

(e.g. forest texture, species diversity, past and present levels of human use, local<br />

morphological structure, disturbance factors). This further evaluation should present a wide<br />

spectrum of biopermeability levels, which is very important in order to identify the main lines<br />

of environmental continuity.<br />

Pastoral lands. Pastoral lands are generally a macro-element with an acceptable level of<br />

biodiversity to enhance environmental continuity. The condition of vegetation diversity here<br />

is often better than in uncultivated or degraded lands, though in pastoral lands the disturbance<br />

due to human activities is higher. Detailed studies on pastoral lands can also permit for the<br />

different potential eco-functions to be verified. The elements at stake, aside from the<br />

morphological ones that condition all types of biopermeability, are the phytological characters<br />

of pasture, the husbandry weight and swath frequency.<br />

3.2.3. Urban barriers<br />

The methodology proposed for the analysis of barriers to biopermeability can be divided into<br />

two steps, which corresponds to different scales of knowledge and procedure. The first is<br />

planning consideration and evaluation on a large scale, or at least the regional one. The<br />

second comprises procedure, design and intervention of specific projects, involving both<br />

public and private institutions; it clearly influences infrastructural policies and requirements<br />

for project realisation and transport directions. This macro-category is divided into three<br />

macro-elements: the urban system, big complex barriers and simple barriers.<br />

3.2.3.1 The urban system<br />

Urban areas are barriers that cause a total occlusion to eco-connectivity. Here, environmental<br />

artificiality, disturbance levels and physical obstacles to biological movements are very high.<br />

The spatial pattern of settlements plays a crucial role in the definition of environmental<br />

fragmentation. A linear settlement has a higher impact on environmental fragmentation than a<br />

concentric, compact one. The first kind of settlement has longer infrastructures and wider<br />

spread of illumination, noise and movements than the second kind.<br />

Possible ecological continuity lines have to be found in those urban elements that present a<br />

minimum level of nature and connection, e.g. continuous green areas, rivers and riversides<br />

(Little, C.,E.,1990).<br />

The characteristics of an urban system in relation to biocontinuity can be pointed out through<br />

the use of sound indicators of links between urban areas and the countryside. These indicators<br />

are related to distribution figures, density, continuity and urbanisation characters and,<br />

moreover, must consider the relationships among the different land uses in the environmental<br />

system. The goal is to determine, by means of proper parameters, the presence of the real<br />

environmental continuity condition of single areas, through monitoring of barriers and causes<br />

of environmental fragmentation.<br />

The following indicators can be used (Battisti, C., and Romano, B., 2005):<br />

• density of urbanisation;<br />

• dispersion of the urbanisation (related to road network density);<br />

• spatial characters of settlement organisation;<br />

• infrastructural fragmentation;


• agricultural fragmentation (forms of agricultural spaces, compactness and dispersion<br />

coefficients).<br />

• bio-ecological characteristics as species richness, species isolation, species abundance.<br />

Figure 10 – Large urban areas in intermountain basin<br />

3.2.3.2 Big complex barriers<br />

Big complex barriers can be linear or compact. The latter in Italy are represented mainly by<br />

agricultural and productive settlements, which cause high disturbance to eco-connectivity and<br />

present a low level of biopermeability. Big complex barriers of a linear type are the multiple<br />

infrastructures, as a combination of highway, railway and road on the same line (Spellerberg,<br />

I., F., 1998). This linear type of barrier is very common in Italy and constitutes, with its<br />

physical boundaries, a total obstruction to environmental continuity. The eco-connection is<br />

here possible only when the infrastructures transit in a gallery or a viaduct. Because of their<br />

high impact on the territory, it is important to take into account these elements from the early<br />

stage of the research.<br />

In the case of long tunnels, the infrastructure does not produce disturbance. Though, viaducts<br />

and bridges on the other hand allow transversal passage of species, but cause relevant noise<br />

and vibrations. Past research has shown that generally ungulates remain 500 meters away<br />

from these viaducts (Dutch Ministry of Transport, 1996). For each single case, the amount of<br />

disturbance should be assessed, considering the length and the heght of viaducts and bridges,<br />

and the general characteristics of the main infrastructure.<br />

Evaluation of big complex barriers, in sum, can show limited areas in Italy where<br />

environmental continuity can be developed or restored. Due to the complexity and high cost<br />

of the work, the low social awareness of its necessity and, consequently, political reluctance<br />

to approve it, a more difficult task is the opening of artificial ecological passages through the<br />

multiple infrastructures.<br />

Figure 11 (a,b) – Different kinds of infrastrutctural barriers. On the right (b) the barrier effect is increased from<br />

high traffic flow and linked phenomena, as noise and air pollution.


3.2.3.3 Simple barriers<br />

These sort of barriers do not represent a rigid obstruction to environmental continuity. This is<br />

demonstrated by a big number of wildlife road casualties, especially small mammals, reptiles<br />

and amphibians. Traffic and noise are the main disturbance elements that condition the<br />

fragmentation degree related to the simple barrier, such as a road with only one carriageway.<br />

In the case of viaducts and tunnels, the above considerations are also valid. For the analysis of<br />

simple barriers, however, it is necessary to verify whether other elements of environmental<br />

fragmentation are present. In Italy, good examples are the little upland roads, where several<br />

conditions of physical occlusion to eco-connectivity may occur, e.g. sustaining walls on road<br />

curves and slopes. In this type of barriers, monthly and hourly traffic flows can be recorded.<br />

This allows for the association of temporal data on wildlife movements and on disturbance<br />

levels in order to evaluate the real needs of defragmentation works.<br />

Other types of simple barriers are high and low-tension lines and rural roads systems. The<br />

latter are typical of intensive agricultural areas, where the disturbance factors are related to<br />

agricultural activity (see section before).<br />

Figure 12 (a,b,c,d) – Some victims of road barriers: green lizard(a), fox (b), porcupine (c), dormouse (d)<br />

Figure 13 – Environmental Cohesion Units and new national road system foreseen by Italian government<br />

(Planeco 2003)


4. CONCLUSIONS<br />

On large scale modelling, it is possible to draw up the design of the Italian environmental<br />

continuity, which is characterised by the dominant role of the Alps and Apennines, by their<br />

significant buffer zones and other dispersed residual natural areas. This continuity is,<br />

however, often only apparent, as a result of the numerous mentioned barriers, especially<br />

infrastructures and urban areas, which in Italy, as in most European countries, are historically<br />

diffused.<br />

However, a topic that requires further research, is the relationship between environmental<br />

continuity structure and the ecological network, when they are specifically conceived for the<br />

protection of single threatened species. A first type of complexity concerns the interaction<br />

between the environmental continuity system, with reference to human components, and the<br />

design of ecological networks, with reference to the biological components. A second type of<br />

complexity concerns the problem of maintenance, and eventually restoration, of those<br />

conditions of environmental continuity that are needed for any policy of habitat<br />

defragmentation.<br />

In order to deal with these complexities we must consider planning on different levels as a<br />

process. Wherein, this brings about a new debate on the planning hierarchy. Interventions on<br />

natural habitat defragmentation can be seen, for instance, in different solutions, such as<br />

contiguity among green spaces, soil re-naturalisation, infrastructural by-pass and local<br />

agricultural policy orientation. In Italy, these interventions can be successfully managed only<br />

at the local level. Yet, at this level the strategic configurations of environmental continuity<br />

are neither evident, nor assessable, while, in fact, they are at the national and regional levels.<br />

Therefore, the policies at the national and regional level could have great influence on the<br />

management of interventions at lower levels.<br />

One of the answers that current research in Italy should indeed provide concerns the problem<br />

of relations among different levels, legislations, and management tools in ecological<br />

networks. In Italy, accordingly, the bridge between the studies, researches and the legislation<br />

becomes imperative. In this context, the system of environmental continuity could become a<br />

reference for any territorial transformation planning.<br />

Studies carried out at the national level (Gambino, R. and Romano, B., 2004) show that the<br />

environmental fragmentation process is still active and that the establishment of Protected<br />

Areas, though numerous, is not enough to stop such a trend. Instead, the answer can be found<br />

on a large scale and through long-term policies, which would be able to control interventions<br />

on infrastructure development, urban expansion and natural area consumption, in order to<br />

conserve at least the present biocontinuity conditions.<br />

In Italy, as in other European countries, research concerning species-specific ecological<br />

networks with indication of home range and ecological corridors is still limited to restricted<br />

areas and a long time must pass before knowledge will be able to support a large and effective<br />

connectivity strategy. Maintenance of environmental continuity conditions, where possible,<br />

can clearly represent a key prerequisite of the planning system in order to retain, within and<br />

outside protected areas, ecologically sound programming inputs.<br />

As it is possible to read in some of the final documents from the Durban Parks Congress,<br />

2003, : “… mountain local systems are in many cases, grace to their deep-rooted integrity,<br />

cohesion and even their seclusion, a fundamental bulwark of resistance against the<br />

increasing global pushes driving to homologation and loss of diversity (in biological,<br />

landscape and cultural terms)”.<br />

To date in Italy at different scales, there is a lack of ecological data useful for the design of<br />

ecological networks. At the same time, there is also a gap among the scientific, social and<br />

political communities on the knowledge of environmental continuity and ecological needs of


species and habitats. Nevertheless, it is necessary to prevent urban processes that are heavily<br />

increasing the fragmentation territory conditions.<br />

To add to this, natural and cultural elements are tightly interconnected here and, thus, difficult<br />

to be considered separately. Planning actions, dealing with both natural and cultural aspects,<br />

could directly contribute to de-fragmentation process by the use of available information,<br />

even if ecological data are not extremely precise. Moreover, whilst ecological research<br />

proceeds and through the study of territory characteristics in terms of habitat distribution, core<br />

areas and ecological corridors, it is important that planning, in particular on the small scale,<br />

uses some precautions to avoid land fragmentation.<br />

These precautions can be related to the following contents of planning:<br />

- Spatial distribution of new urban areas, controlling the large interruptions to the local<br />

environmental continuity;<br />

- Control of building typologies, avoiding the use of low-density typologies that have a large<br />

impact on the territory;<br />

- Control of new road projects, inserting the environmental de-fragmentation elements of<br />

general type;<br />

- Control of urban green areas, maintaining the physical connection among them and the other<br />

natural and semi-natural green areas surrounding the urban area;<br />

- Consideration of all information derived by bio-ecological data on the available scale.<br />

- Implementation of Protected Areas planning instruments, using “branched structure zones”<br />

instead of “concentric structure zones” and inserting the indication for linkages with<br />

surrounded natural and semi natural areas. In regards to this subject, we may refer to a<br />

document from Durban Congress: “The Mountain Protected Areas” experiences (<strong>IUCN</strong>,<br />

2005) that suggests a broader interpretation of the Outcome 1, concerning the achievement of<br />

a global system of PAs linked to the surrounding landscapes and seascapes. Of course, this<br />

outcome plays a crucial role for the general objective of disseminating benefits of protected<br />

areas policies beyond their boundaries. If we want a fair sharing of costs and benefits<br />

associated to such policies within and outside PAs boundaries, then a central issues is the<br />

integration of their protection into wider policies and plans covering the surrounding<br />

regions”.<br />

A very important contribution in this direction can be offered by landscape policies, as<br />

demonstrated by initiatives such as the APE project in Italy, the Parcs Naturels Regionaux of<br />

France, the National Parks of the UK and the biosphere reserves of Spain. In Italy, the<br />

European Landscape Convention (Council of Europe, 2000) has already stimulated a number<br />

of initiatives aimed at improving the effectiveness of protection and enhancement of<br />

landscape. Plans and programs for these goals have explicitly been considered among the<br />

strategies envisaged by the APE Project, as we have seen in the previous chapters. Such<br />

strategies are perfectly consistent with the outcomes of <strong>IUCN</strong> World Conservation Congress,<br />

Bangkok, 2004, particularly with the Motion CGR3.RES050 on “A Landscape/Seascape<br />

Approach to Conservation”. This motion “urges <strong>IUCN</strong> to play a much greater active role in<br />

assisting <strong>IUCN</strong> members to draw full benefits from landscape/seascape approach by:<br />

• clarifying and articulating what the “landscape/seascape approach” entails and<br />

developing/diffusing examples of relevant policies, plans, methods and tools;<br />

• promoting exchanges or experiences and networking about <strong>IUCN</strong> members and<br />

partners that have developed and implemented policies and practices inspired by the<br />

landscape/seascape approach;<br />

• reviewing lessons learned and potential for improvement, in particular with regard to<br />

landscapes/ seascapes crucial for biodiversity conservation and sustainable<br />

livelihoods;<br />

• adopting a formal statement about the approach, including advice on governance<br />

mechanisms that help integrate protected areas and other forms of conservation within<br />

the landscape/ seascape;


• advocating the landscape/seascape approach in national and international policies,<br />

supporting trans-boundary co-operation and fostering the development of national and<br />

international enabling frameworks.”<br />

With the help of landscapes policies, it should be possible at a general planning level to<br />

support de-fragmentation conditions in large territories with ancient human influence, such<br />

the Apennines system. Based on more ecological information of home range geography and<br />

spatial relations of interesting species, it will also be possible to support the specific planning<br />

of connectivity networks. This is one of the main contributions that the connectivity strategy<br />

planning can offer for the improvement of environmental qualities and sustainable<br />

development of a large eco-regional system, such as the Apennines mountain corridor.<br />

CITATIONS<br />

AA.VV., 2003, Gestione delle aree di collegamento ecologico funzionale, Manuali e linee<br />

guida, n.26, APAT, Roma.<br />

Battisti, C., Romano, B. 2005, Eco-biogeographical and urban parameters of diversity, area,<br />

isolation, disturbance: application in land planning instruments, Abstracts of Stelvio Seventy<br />

Congress, 8-11 September 2005, p. 13.<br />

Boitani, L., Falcucci, A., Maiorano, L., Montemaggiori, A. 2002, Rete Ecologica Nazionale,<br />

Il ruolo delle aree protette nella conservazione dei Vertebrati, Ministero dell’Ambiente,<br />

DCN, Roma.<br />

Council of Europe 2000, European Landscape Convention, Florence.<br />

Dutch Ministry of Transport 1996, Defragmentation, Ministry of Transport, The Hague.<br />

Filpa A, Romano B. (Eds.) 2003, Pianificazione e reti ecologiche, Planeco, p. 300, Gangemi<br />

Ed., Roma.<br />

Gambino, R. (Ed.) 2003, APE, Appennino Parco d’Europa, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della<br />

Tutela del <strong>Territori</strong>o, Alinea Ed., Firenze.<br />

Gambino, R., Romano B. 2004, <strong>Territori</strong>al strategies and environmental continuity in<br />

mountain systems, the case of the Apennines (Italy), in: Harmon D., Worboys G. (Eds),<br />

Managing Mountain Protected Areas: challenges and responses for the 21 st Century, <strong>IUCN</strong>,<br />

Andromeda Ed.<br />

<strong>IUCN</strong> 2005, Benefits Beyond Boundaries. Proceedings of the V th <strong>IUCN</strong> World Parks<br />

Congress, <strong>IUCN</strong>, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, p.292.<br />

Jaarsma, C.,F. 1997, Approaches for the planning of rural road networks according to<br />

sustainable land use planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 39: 47-54.<br />

Jongman R.H.G. 1998, Rivers: key elements in European ecological networks, in: Nienhuis<br />

P.H., Leuven R.S.E.W. and Ragas A.M.J., New concepts for sustainable management of river<br />

basin. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, pp. 53-66.<br />

Little, C.,E. 1990, Greenways for America, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.<br />

Ministero Agricoltura e Foreste 1976, Carta della Montagna, Geotecneco, Pesaro<br />

Ministero dell’Ambiente 1998, Rapporto interinale del tavolo settoriale Rete Ecologica,<br />

Programmazione dei fondi strutturali 2000-2006, Deliberazione CIPE 1998.<br />

Romano, B. 1995, National park policy and mountain depopulation:. A case study in the<br />

Abruzzo region of the Central Apennines, Italy, Mountain Research and Development, vol.15,<br />

n.2, pp. 121-132, University of California, Davis U.S.A.<br />

Romano, B. 1999, Environmental continuity in planning, Urbanistica, 112: 156-160.<br />

Spellerberg, I., F., 1998 Ecological effects of roads and traffic: a literature review. Global<br />

Ecology and Biogeography Letters, 7 (5): 317-333.<br />

WWF 2004, Global 200: proteggere le ecoregioni, tutelare la biodiversità, MIUR, Roma.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!