Mountain areas 377

3.15. Mountain areas

• The ‘ideal world’ of mountain areas is Important Mountain Features in the European
now threatened by socio-economic shifts, context illustrated by a qualitative estimation
Figure 3.15.1
increasing tourism and traffic impacts,
and changes in land use. In the Acces- Source: EEA
sion Countries more mountain areas Focus of Mountains
must be expected to become endange Population
red through rapid economic develop- 100

ment. Landscape 80 GDP

60
• Environmental and social damage has
40
already occurred or must be anticipated
20
in mountain areas through significant Hazard Area
0
changes in precipitation patterns, species Prevention
and habitats distribution, changes in
runoff rates, and water pollution, loss of
soils and increase of man-made natural
Recreation Water resources
hazards.
• Present EU policies often exhibit incon- Nature protection
sistency with respect to mountain areas
and do not take adequate account of
their special requirements. Overview of main features of some European
mountain ranges
Figure 3.15.2

1. Mountains – the undervalued ecological max. altitude (m)

backbone of Europe 4807

The Alps 1600-1800; 2400

length
Appenines 2914
Mountains provide vital resources for the Pyrenees 3404 1700-1800
whole of Europe (Figure 3.15.1): for exam- Bavarian
Forest 1456 2000-2200
ple, high runoff rates, and the storage and
1000 km 2000 km
distribution of freshwater over time and
space make mountains a major source for
Europe’s water supplies. The top of the mountain is only part of the story. Mountain areas are systems of interlinked
valleys, ridges and peaks. The phenomena of mountains is also a matter of altitude and slope.
Diverse geology, geography and climate characterize European mountains. Despite their
Mountain areas are important part of the perceived remoteness, mountains offer an important dimension to rural, urban and coastal areas.
ecological jewellery of Europe, providing
aesthetic and recreational landscapes, high Source: EEA processing
biodiversity of species and habitats embed-
ded in sustainable land use systems. Extend- of land abandonment. Transport networks,
ing through different altitudinal zones for which mountains constitute a barrier,
mountains have a wide variety of habitats, tend to fragment the land, while tourism is
including – in the remotest regions in both attracted by and damaging to mountain
Europe – the last retreat for animals with landscapes.
large habitats. The extreme physical condi-
tions make mountains a fragile environment, Mountain Areas vary significantly through-
where natural phenomena, often increased out Europe (Box 3.15.1). Sometimes these
by man-made land uses or misbehavior, are isolated small mountains, often they are
interfere with human activities and then huge mountain massifs stretching over
cause natural hazards. hundreds of kilometers, and providing an
ecological backbone to much of the conti-
Despite their remoteness, mountains suffer nent. For ther purposes of this chapter
from direct and indirect pressures on their mountain areas are defined to include
natural resources, many of which are locations above 1 000m sea level (Figure
interlinked, whose key factors are difficult to 3.15.2), as well as all areas having a slope
identify. Population change results from greater than 5 degrees, but excluding areas
declining agriculture and few profitable with a surface area less than 100 square
income opportunities, furthering the trend kilometers.
378 Environmental issues

Figure 3.15.3 Mountain areas share in European countries

100

EU countries
Accession countries
Other European countries
80

% Area that is mountain

60

40

20

0
Liechtenstein
Russian Federation
Czech Republic

Slovak Republic

Greece

Serbia Montenegro
United Kingdom
France

Iceland
Slovenia

Austria

Switzerland

Armenia

Turkey
Albania

Azerbaijan
Poland
Germany

Bosnia & Herzegovina

Georgia

Andorra

FYROM

Spain
Bulgaria

Sweden

Ukraine
Romania

Italy

Portugal

Ireland
San Marino
Monaco

Cyprus
Norway

Croatia

Talking of mountains means 14% of the EU and 11% of the

Figure 3.15.4 Biogeographic regions of European mountains
Accession Countries’ land area. Only few EU countries do
not have mountainous areas such as the Netherlands,
Denmark and Belgium; others such as Austria and Bulgaria,
have a high proportion of mountain areas.
Steppic Source: EEA
0.1%
Pannonian
2.3% Box 3.15.1 A glance over the thousands of
European summits
Alpine
Mediterranean 27.0% In Europe mountains are found in the
24.9% geomorphological zones of the Fenno-
Scandinavian Shield and the central and southern
European highlands. The eastern and central
Europe Accession Countries will add new
mountain areas to the EU nearly the size of
Austria, for instance the Bohemian Forest,
Carpathian Mountains and Rhodopes.

Continental Although much of the available information on

6.9% the mountain environment relates to the Alps,
Boreal Europe has a great variety of mountain regions,
0.4% from Scandinavia to Mt. Etna in Sicily, and from
Anatolian the vast Spanish sierras to the densely wooded
Black Sea 22.6%
6.2% Carpathians (Figure 3.14.3 & 3.15.4).
Atlantic
5.5% Arctic
4.0% Distribution over biogeographic regions shows that
mountains in the Mediterranean and Anatolian regions are in
about the same abundance as in the Alpine region.
Source: EEA
 Mountain areas 379

Mountains are widely recognized as impor- Interactions in mountain areas Figure 3.15.5
tant and sensitive ecosystems, but little
progress has been made in developing
comprehensive policies, particularly at EU
level, to build upon the good intentions set
out in mountain charters. Although Euro- Drivers/ State/Impact
pean policies were first applied to mountains Pressures
in the 1970s (under the Less Favored Area,
Population Water resources
LFA, framework) and mountain areas are
now subject to numerous EU, national and
Traffic Natural heritage
regional policies, there remains a lack of
coordination between measures at different Tourism and recreation Soil
levels relating to various sectors.
Changes in land use Natural hazards
Mountains are probably the most prominent
examples where multifunctional land uses
have partly still survived, but are now at risk. Response
For mountain areas it is crucial to adopt a road pricing
comprehensive, spatially integrated policy
which is able to reflect and support the guidelines for definition of new management of
sustainable urban-mountain catchment areas
multifunctionality which has been the tourism relation
sustainable concept in mountains for many
generations. new tasks protection of
tourism species and
agro-environment landscapes
renewable energy
forestry
2. How can the environment of remote
mountains be threatened?

Fragile environmental conditions have Adapting the DPSIR framework to the special needs of spatial issues, some relevant relations
in mountain areas may be highlighted by this simplified model. In general every policy action
brought about highly adapted and sophisti- should bear in mind the network of direct and indirect interactions which is affected by the
cated land uses. Demographic and economic relevant policy.
changes (and particularly the growth of
Source: EEA
tourism) have complex effects which call for
holistic responses (Figure 3.15.5).
lowland regions. In 1990 the vertical distri-
2.1. What makes population, traffic, tourism bution of total alpine population concen-
and land use change the main driving forces trated 93% below 1 000 m above sea level
and pressures in mountains? (a.s.l.), 53% below 500 m a.s.l., and only 7%
above 1 000 m (Bätzing, 1997). Another
2.1.1. Population is outmigrating and overageing aspect of population density is a significant
Many mountain areas have declining and variation with seasonal or daily peaks, i.e.
ageing populations due to outmigration of summer and winter tourism inside moun-
workers, the use of residences as second tains, international holidays or short week-
homes, and inward migration of pensioners. end trips from surrounding city dwellers.
Loss of population might reduce the capabi-
lity for upkeeping the landscape and means The shift and migration within mountain
an additional burden for suburban areas into countries can be illustrated by some Alpine
which people are moving. Mountains also countries. In the period from 1870 to 1990
become subject of exploitation as a natural the Alps experienced a total population
resource for urban consumption from low- increase from 7 million up to 11 million
land regions. There are at least 38 cities above people, but the proportion living in moun-
250 000 inhabitants close to mountain ranges tain areas dropped from 7.4% to 5.8%.
in the EU and Accession Countries, such as
Milan, Geneva, Birmingham, Rome, Granada Population changes are connected to
and Thessaloniki (Map 3.15.1). changes of employment opportunities and
structures. The shift from a traditional multi-
Population density varies considerably with functional and multi-sectoral way of living of
altitude, so that some mountain areas are mountain people to external employment
extremely sparsely populated, and compara- and enterprises is, besides insufficient
ble to Arctic regions, while the densely infrastructure, a main reason for population
inhabited valleys have similarities with changes. This means in general terms a shift
380 Environmental issues

o o o o o o o
Urban centres 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
around the Alps Karlsruhe Stuttgart
Nancy Wien Bratislava
0 100 km Augsburg
Strasbourg München o
o 48
48
Urban centres

> 500 000 inhabitants Mulhouse

Zürich
200 000 – 500 000 Dijon
100 000 – 200 000 Graz
Bern
Mountain zone

Roads
o
o
46
46 Ljubljana

Lyon Trieste
Map 3.15.1 Venezia
Urban settlements around Milano Verona Padova
Grenoble Golfo
mountains; the example of
the Alps Torino di Venezia
Bologna
Source: EEA, GISCO – o
44
Eurostat 44
o Genova

Ad
Nice Firenze

ri a
Grasse Ligurian cS

ti
Marseille Sea ea
Golfe Toulon
du Lion o o o o o o
6 8 10 12 14 16

from the primary to the tertiary sector. This sion Countries. Tourism and recreation
trend has special significance in mountain facilities exert pressure on the environment
areas, where often traditional and sustain- through land-use development and in-
able activities are substituted by pure eco- creased road traffic. Additionally, many
nomically orientated activities. For example outdoor sports affect the more undisturbed
formerly multi-skilled mountain people and nearly inaccessible areas such as gorges
working in agriculture, forestry, pastoralism or rock faces (Garcia-Ruiz, Lasanta-Martinez,
or dairy farming are now employed in the 1993; Lichtenberger, 1979).
tourist business or industry. Thus agriculture
alone is no longer an economic pillar for The economic importance of mountain
mountain towns. tourism is illustrated by a Greek study which
estimated that the recreational value of
These changes in employment may be mountain areas is 10 times greater than the
highlighted by the area of Aletsch in Switzer- value of forest timber (Vakrou, 1998 quoted
land. Here the primary sector dropped from in EOMF, 1998).
about 70% in 1950 to 12% in 1980, tourist
accommodation increased from about 65 Tourism development varies considerably. In
beds in 1940 up to 7 250 beds in the 1980s. the Alps, for instance, only 10% of all Alpine
About 900 local residents now cater for communes have large monostructured
about 700 000 overnight stays per year tourist infrastructure and 40% have no
(Messerli, 1989). tourism (Bätzing, 1997), and since the mid-
1980s figures for tourism have been stagnat-
2.1.2. Tourism and recreation in mountains: a ing or decreasing in some Alpine regions,
double-edged sword after several decades of steady growth
Promoted as an economic incentive for (Elsasser/Frösch/Finsterle, 1990; Bätzing,
remote areas, tourism has in some mountain 1990; Romano, 1995). Nevertheless, there
regions evolved monostructured, vulnerable are plans for further tourist facilities, such as
economies, and generated pressures on the ski runs in the Pyrenees and developments
environment. Notwithstanding the vogue for to cater for new recreation activities, particu-
‘green tourism’, intensive, environmentally larly in the Accession Countries where
threatening tourism continues to develop; a tourism is important as a source of foreign
similar trend can also be expected in Acces- exchange.
 Mountain areas 381

2.1.3. Traffic networks are governed by needs Trans-European Network (roads and railways) in
Figure 3.15.6
outside mountains mountainous countries
Transport infrastructure development (Figure
3.15.6) has often facilitated outmigration or
commuting to urban centres and increased million km2 million km2
transit and tourist traffic, particularly day 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25
tourism in the catchment areas of big cities. Austria
France
For instance nearly 150 million people a year Germany
are crossing the Alps, 83% by road and 17% Greece
by railway (Figure 3.15.7). A rapid increase Ireland
in long-distance traffic crossing the Alps is
Italy
expected at a rate of 100% for freight and
Portugal
50% for passenger transport within the next
Spain
20 years (European Commission, 1994;
CIPRA, 1998). Sweden
Switzerland
Traffic network impacts are concentrated in United Kingdom
valleys where people live. It is therefore not Existing railway Existing road
surprising that two-thirds of the Alps’ popula- Planned railway Planned road
tion suffers from traffic noise. In Tyrol 87% of Average of total railway Average of total roads
high ozone levels are caused by traffic and in
the 1980s lead concentration in mother’s milk Here an index of meters of road/railway per km2 of mountain area shows where increases of
close to the Brenner motorway exceeded infrastructure and changes of modal split exist and are planned.
other regions by seven times (Rhomberg,
Source: EEA, European Commission (TEN)
1998). Other traffic-caused impacts are
fragmentation of untouched areas, deteriora-
tion of recreation areas, and socio-economic, Forest areas extend through natural re-
double-edged effects such as better accessibi- growth on abandoned farmland or afforesta-
lity to mountains or changing competition tion (Figure 3.15.8). Forests are, of course,
between mountains and lowlands. While often the main natural land cover in moun-
transport network density is higher in the tains. Depending on the new forest type,
Alps than in other European mountain local conditions and existing biotopes,
ranges, rapid increases may be expected for changes may positively or adversely affect
Accession Countries’ mountains. species diversity, landscape attractiveness and
tourism.
There have been calls in mountain areas for
better integration of transport and compen- In the eastern and central European coun-
sation for environmental disbenefits, and tries, changes are driven in particular by the
protests by local populations have resulted in transition towards a market economy.
highway blockades, for example on the
Brenner Pass (between Austria and Italy) or
the 1994 plebiscite in Switzerland on freight Freight transport in the Alps (1970-1996) Figure 3.15.7
transport.
The trend of freight
2.1.4. The sustainability of land uses is set at risk 100 transport per year through
Mountain agriculture has responded to 90
the inner Alpine arch,
economic pressures in two ways (Box 3.15.2). between Mont Cenis/Fréjus
80 and Brenner shows an
One reaction is intensification, in the valleys overproportional shift
Million net tonnes

and on high mountain pastures and good 70

towards road transport.
accessible slopes shifting from extensive 60
Source: CIPRA
meadows to intensively grazed pastures. The 50
other is extensification in terms of abandon- 40
ment or afforestation. Both these changes
30
cause a significant decline in biodiversity and
20
root density. Land abandonment will induce
snow gliding, changes in water storage 10

capacity and water transport in soils, the 0

1970 1996
onset of soil podzolisation and a potentially
Road
higher frequency of natural hazards Rail
(Cernusca et al., 1996, Höller et al., 1998).
382 Environmental issues

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

Over time different, highly adapted land-use environment, in which land mismanagement can
systems slowly evolved the Swiss Alps, under the have disastrous consequences.
harsh and hostile conditions of the mountain

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

4000 B.C. Transhumance starts

(migrating shepherds).

Roman and German mountain

agriculture.

Walser and Schwaighof economy.

14th/15th century Forest degradation through

clear-cutting and overuse; increase
of rock falls and avalanches.

16th/17th century Boom time of cheese and cattle Population increase causes
production; wealthy overgrazing and degradation of
communes. 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 air
broad tourism trend. emissions; land set-aside; cause
increasing erosion.

Generally Alpine land-use systems followed Similar systems are reported also for the
principles which maintained a sustainable cultural Pyrénées, Vosges, Black Forest, Scandinavian
landscape and probably achieved in modern Mountains and Dinaric Alps.
terms ‘sustainable development’. Guidelines
included careful site selection, examination of the The traditional knowledge of land management,
suitability for land uses, and a high proportion of still a living example of sustainable development,
land restoration and maintenance, requiring is rarely taken seriously, more appreciated as a
responsibility and high human labour input. touristic attraction and at risk of disappearing;
for economic reasons, intensive land uses, such
Certain environmentally relevant measures were as mass tourism, do not favour sustainable
defined, such as forest protection to prevent rock development.
falls and avalanches (e.g. in Andermatt,
Switzerland, 1397); definition of number and type In future it seems likely that polarisation within
of livestock for pastures at different altitudes and mountain areas between very intensively
limitation to areas available for winter fodder in developed, economically prosperous regions
the valleys. Permanent restoration such as and remote, marginalised ones will continue.
collecting rocks from pastures, removal of forest Certainly there are some promising attempts
regrowth, seeding of open soil patches and to promote new, multi-functional land-use
fertilizing were practised. models, but it remains questionable whether
these will succeed as widespread solutions.

Pastures are enlarged by the cutting of be also indirect effects on human populati-
subalpine forests and shrubs, notably in ons and ecosystems in adjacent plains,
Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia, particularly arid and semi-arid regions with
Slovakia and the Ukraine. Hunting tourism irrigated agriculture dependent on water
causes the overgrazing of some forests by supplied from mountain areas (Price/Barry,
deer (Price, 1995). 1997). For Swiss mountains an accelerated
structural change in mountain farming is
2.2. The environmental state of sensitive expected with threats to the survival of small
mountain areas is a valuable indicator for mountain communities, due to comparative
the whole of Europe disadvantages of mountains relative to valleys
(Jeker, 1996; Flückiger, 1996). But effects of
2.2.1. Mountains are the first to be hit by climate climate change depend on interaction with
change other factors and can be worsened or eased
The prospect of climate change (see Chap- by human action. The extent of environmen-
ter 3.1) has significant implications for tal and economic damage will depend on
mountain environments. There are likely to the resilience of mountain landscapes to
 Mountain areas 383

buffer the expected extreme weather events. Forest shares inside and outside mountains Figure 3.15.8
This can be achieved through good land-
scape maintenance such as through moun-
tain forestry and pastoralism (Breiling/ United
Charamza/Skage, 1997). Kingdom In non-mountain areas
In mountain areas
Ireland
Mountain areas represent within a relatively
small area different climatic belts linked to Greece
altitude, and are therefore highly sensitive to
any climate change (Figure 3.15.9). With an Portugal
anticipated global warming of about 2-3°C by
2100, higher-altitude ecosystems probably Spain
would suffer the greatest impact of global
warming through eliminating the entire Italy
alpine belt, including the nival zone. An
impoverishment of (present endemic) France
species and biotope fragmentation would be
Austria
the result of this process. Temperature
increases and changes in precipitation
Germany
patterns would cause changes in snow cover
and water reserves, soil instability through 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
reduction of permafrost soils, and also % of land surface
influence the frequency of natural pheno- Source: EEA and FAO data

mena such as mudflows, floods or droughts

(Guisan et al., 1995; Ruberti, 1994; Dubost/ Climate change: vegetation can be forced
upwards in higher altitudinal belts
Figure 3.15.9
Zingari).

Variation of precipitation patterns and water

supply might influence agriculture or stock
breeding through changes of suitable 3600
pasture or fodder for grazing animals.
2800
Altitude (m)

Changes in snow cover and snow duration

may have severe effects on winter tourism. 2000
Also without a real change, climate variabi-
lity will have serious effects (Breiling/ 1200
Charamza/Skage, 1997). One study predicts
that in Switzerland the number of economi- 400
cally viable ski resorts and ski lifts will de-
Hilly Montane Sub-alpine Alpine Nival
cline by 67% to 44% (Abegg/Elsasser, 1996).
About 3% to 4.5% of Austrian GNP depends
on winter tourism: it is estimated that about 3600
10% of Austrian winter tourist revenues are
Altitude (m)

directly lost by a warming of 1.5 degree 2800

Celsius (Breiling, 1994) – and that indirect
losses are three times higher. On the other 2000
hand, regions at higher altitudes with better
snow conditions may experience an increase 1200
of winter tourism, leading to economic
disparities, uncontrolled development and 400
increasing environmental damage (Breiling/
Charamza/Skage, 1997). Mediterranean Hilly Montane Alpine
Sub-alpine
Alpine meadows
In the Fennoscandian Mountains, the
Sub-alpine conifers
potential alpine zones in Norway might be
Beech and fir
reduced to a quarter of their present size,
followed by endangering of, or strong Deciduous oaks and hornbeam

competition between animal species (e.g. Evergreen oaks

lemming, red fox, arctic fox), due to the

It must be assumed that each vegetation belt would be replaced by the neighboring zone
reduction of their current habitats. In the below, except for some fragmented areas in the Pyrenees and the Alps (i.e. Mont Blanc).
Southwestern Alps, a progressive decrease in Source: Guisan et al. (eds.), 1995
384 Environmental issues

precipitation is expected with steppe-like are generally smaller. Unfragmented sensi-

vegetation patterns. In general, the Mediter- tive areas are often still unprotected (na-
ranean climate might spread further north- tional parks cover only 4.2% of the Alps;
ward and upward endangering Alpine plant CIPRA, 1998). The Accession Countries at
communities and causing extinction of some present have large unfragmented areas.
European tree species in the Central Alps
(Guisan et al., 1995; Ruberti, 1994; Dubost/ Besides their importance for conservation of
Zingari). wildlife and biodiversity, large unfragmented
areas offer non-material values such as areas
2.2.2. Mountains provide an interwoven natural of silence, low emissions of pollutants, natural
and cultural heritage beauty and wilderness perception. European
Large unfragmented areas are an important mountains may be considered as an ecologi-
but steadily declining resource, and, while cal ‘green’ network offering migration
some of these areas enjoy legal protection, corridors and guidelines over long distances.
there are considerable differences between
regions (Figure 3.15.10). The number of areas in the Alps above 1 500
km² not touched by major transport infra-
Five of the largest unfragmented (and structure dropped from 31 to 14 between
protected) areas are located at the periphery 1963 and 1993 (CIPRA, 1998) implying the
of the EU, such as in Scandinavia where loss of characteristic species and of species
pressure from population, land use and requiring large areas to survive (see also
traffic is relatively low, while protected areas Chapter 3.11). On the other hand, the
in Middle-Europe (Alps, Middle Mountains) setting-aside and abandonment of land may
in some areas lead to growth of unfragmen-
ted areas, as reported from some French
Figure 3.15.10 Range in size of protected mountain areas Alpine valleys, although land abandonment
can harm biodiversity.

Human impacts have often created new

Ordesa / Monte Perdido, ES ecological conditions in mountain areas,
Grisons, CH*
contributing not only to the diversity of
landscape character but also generating
Berchtesgaden, DE ecosystems which house a high species
Kalkhochalpen, AT diversity. In the Pyrénées 30% of the land
below 1 600 m above sea level was cultivated
Ammergebirge, DE
in the last century (Garcia-Ruiz; Lasanta-
Abruzzo, IT Martinez, 1993), while approximately 70% of
Vinamala, ES
the Alpine region is influenced by human
land use (CIPRA, 1998). Besides human
Salzachtal, AT impacts on natural or semi-natural land-
Mercantour, FR scapes (e.g. lowering timberline in moun-
tains), different land use practices created a
Gran Paradiso, IT
great variety of cultural landscapes adapted
Ecrins, FR to existing physical conditions in mountains.
Landscapes such as terraces, alpine pastures,
Padjelanta, SE
Coltura Promiscua in the Appennines and in
Käsivarsi, FI Portugal, hedge-dominated landscapes such
Sjaunja, SE as the ‘Egartenlandschaft’ in the Bavarian
Alps or Chestnut woods in the southern Alps
Kaldoaivi, FI and Cévennes have arisen, giving a distinc-
Hardangervidda, NO tive character to regions or local areas.
Vindelfjälten, SE
Cultural landscapes in mountains can be
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 kept stable only by continuous farming
km2 suited to local conditions. They are declining
* transfrontier park with Stelvio, Italy
due to worsening economic farming condi-
tions, becoming more a subject of govern-
Sizes of selected unfragmented protected areas in different countries of alpine ment maintenance than of private enter-
biogeographical region (IUCN categories I-IV serving primarily nature conservation functions, prise, but are discovered by tourism as a
WCMC and Common Database on Designated Areas, EEA).
relevant resource. Especially endangered
Source: EEA landscapes are traditional extensive livestock
 Mountain areas 385

farming systems (Petit et al., 1998) e.g. alpine Illustration of land-use intensity in mountains Figure 3.15.11
and subalpine pastures, arctic and alpine
dwarf shrubs, or transhumant grazing, which
Relation of agricultural and
disappeared completely in the Pyrénées
semi-natural areas inside
(Garcia-Ruiz; Lasanta-Martinez, 1993). and outside mountains,

are in
in

as
-m tura eas
tain reas
are reas
considering the relevant

nonmi-na in ar
area.

oun l a
ain al a
as
as
Mountains also house a large number of

Se ounta in
Sem in aren
i

-m ure
unt ure

unt tur
ecosystems, species and genetic variety. They Source: EEA

mo i-na

non ricult
mo ricult
a
have the highest concentration of habitats of

Ag
Ag
most significance for conservation in the EU EU countries
(Zingari, 1994), with almost 25% of habitats Austria
of European interest – of 169 habitat types Belgium
(defined in Annex I of the Habitats Direc- Denmark
tive), 42 occur only in mountain areas France
(Hopkins, 1998). Natural and semi-natural Germany
habitats cover a large percentage of Europe’s Greece
mountain area, while intensive agriculture Ireland
Italy
accounts for only a small proportion (Figure
Luxembourg
3.15.11). In Accession Countries, coverage of
Netherlands
semi-natural and natural habitats in mountain
Portugal
regions is generally lower than in the EU.
Spain
Accession countries
Although biological diversity increased in Bulgaria
the last century in Europe, this trend has Czech Republic
been reversed in recent years, due to Hungary
changes in traditional land use: in the Alps a Poland
tremendous reduction of species and habi- Romania
tats use is reported (Brugger and Messerli in Slovak Republic
Zingari/Dubost, 1996). Other countries
Andorra
Mountain areas in particular have become a San Marino
retreat for species originally distributed in 0 0
larger areas such as brown bears, wolves, lynx 1-20% 1-20%
21-40% 21-40%
and wild reindeer. The re-immigration of 41-60% 41-60%
bears since the 1970s from southern Slovenia 60-80% 61-80%
into the Alps has been confirmed and
demonstrates the eligibility of mountains as
interlinking ecological networks. Eight of
the 35 mammal species listed under the EU
Habitat Directive occur predominantly or
entirely in mountains (Hopkins, 1998) – Number of vascular plant species in European
Figure 3.15.12
information concerning species diversity in mountains
mountain areas is mainly available for higher
plants (Figure 3.15.12) and mammals. Mountains are inhabited by
Isolation of populations during ice ages has a remarkable proportion of
14
caused evolution of endemic species, when European species of vascular
Number of species/1000

vascular plants. Endemic plant

species were pushed back on areas free of 12 plant species
species in mountains can be
glaciation. For this reason some European 10 endemic vascular estimated for only the five
plant species
mountain ranges (mainly Mediterranean 8 mountain ranges in the
figure to make up about
mountains which remained free of glacia- 6 30% to 42% of the vascular
tion) form centres of plant endemism. They plants occurring only in
4
host (predominantly or completely) two- Europe (depending on the
2 estimated number of these).
thirds of the continent’s flora (Ozenda, 1994 Here one has to consider
cit. in Dubost, Zingari). 0
that mountain ranges in total
Alps
Europe

Greece*

Carpathians
European Union

Mt. Olympus
Pyrenees

cover only 14% of Europe.

As mentioned in Chapter 3.11 the mainte- Source: Stanners &
nance of genetic resources is important in Bourdeau, 1995; Ozenda,
many respects; reduction of gene pools may 1988; Blandin, 1992
be a risk for the future, in view of adaptation
possibilities to future environmental Mountain regions
* Endemics of Alpine Region only
changes. The loss of genetic diversity by
386 Environmental issues

disturbance of gene pools also occurs in annual outflow from Switzerland (Mountain
mountains, such as with the chamois subspe- Agenda, 1998). In spring and summer the
cies cartusiana of the French Alps hybriding discharge of mountain rivers supplements
with the common, introduced chamois the earlier high flows of the lowland section
subspecies rupicapra, or hybriding between which occur in winter and autumn.
wild and domesticated reindeer in Norway.
Relatively unpolluted rivers, in terms of
2.2.3. Mountains are the watertowers of the chemical and biological quality, generally are
lowlands situated in catchments in mountainous and
The water resources of mountains cover the forested regions where the population
most vital functions of mountain and lowland density is low. Lakes in mountains also
people (Figure 3.15.13). Notable functions represent some of the least nutrient-polluted
are the provision of high-quality freshwater, freshwater in Europe. However, high-altitude
irrigation water for food production, the lakes are known to be subject to acidification
economic value of hydropower generation, (Stanners, Bourdeau, 1995).
and water supply for natural wetlands in
plains. But these benefits of mountain waters Pollution of mountain rivers occurs through
are threatened by degradation of water waste-water discharge, or water abstraction.
quantity and quality, and discontinuity of flow. Other impacts work indirectly such as
The growing demand for water, mainly in accelerated surface runoff caused by surface
eastern and southern European countries, as sealing for infrastructure, soil changes
shown in Chapter 3.5, will make the preserva- through land-use abandonment, less water
tion of these functions of paramount impor- storage through deforestation or air-pollu-
tance in future. tion induced forest damages. Natural ex-
treme rainfalls then become extreme strong
Mountain height enables water to flow to far runoffs, which are linked to natural hazards
distant areas and to serve as a source even discussed later in this chapter. But higher
for semi-arid areas, while seasonal differ- runoff rates do not only change the quantity
ences in the flow regime of rivers are attenu- but also may worsen the quality of water by
ated by the temporal distribution of moun- diluting sediments and eroded soil.
tain water. The rainfall in high mountains
may be stored in ice, snow or mountain Runoff rates are also affected by river
lakes; for instance in Switzerland 136 km3 of channelisation for flood control of towns or
rainfall are stored in lakes and reservoirs and protection of farmland in valleys, damming
74 km3 in glaciers – five times the total for water storage or hydroenergy generation.
The change in water flow will be followed by
alterations in physical, chemical and biologi-
Importance of the Alps for the water flow in
cal parameters, such as sediment discharge,
Figure 3.15.13 bank erosion and reduced or altered bio-
Europe
diversity of riparian zones, for example if fish
spawning areas are destroyed. The effects of
In the Alps precipitation is
higher and evaporation is 100 these changes on the hydrological system
lower than in the average of 90 call for a common watershed management
Europe. Therefore the Alps framework for mountains and lowlands.
produce higher runoff rates. 80
As a result, small mountain
70
areas are responsible for an From a technical viewpoint mountain valleys
overproportional flow of 3500 60 are well suited for hydro-energy and water-
rivers in lowlands as shown
% Flow

3000 50 storage reservoirs because of their steep

for the rivers Rhône, Po and
Rhine 2500 40 gradient and ‘natural’ damming in the
2000 30
valley, which reduces construction require-
Source: EEA; Mountain
mm

Agenda, 1998
ments; however, there is often a noticeable
1500 20
environmental cost (Figure 3.15.14).
1000 10
500 0 Reservoir construction involves the loss of
Rhine
(Swiss section)
Rhone

Po

0 farmland, changes in natural habitats and

Alps

(excluding Alps)
Europe

landscape, a rise in groundwater levels and a

change in microclimate. The river will turn
into a hybrid between river and lake and the
Runoff
Evaporation Lowland flow environmental conditions such as current,
Precipitation Mountain river flow nutrients and light will change. Environmen-
tal problems of reservoirs include contami-
 Mountain areas 387

nation, eutrophication, difficulties of fauna Natural sections in Alpine rivers Figure 3.15.14
migration, sediment trapping, water-level
variations and a loss of biological biodiversity
According to the criteria of
(Kristensen, Hansen, 1994); Leonard,
pristine water quality and a
Crouzet, 1998). Assessments by the Euro- Slovenia nearly untouched river flow,
pean Topic Centre for Inland Waters suggest the example of Alpine rivers
that reservoir construction in Europe is Germany highlight the loss of natural
sections. Only 10% of Alpine
stagnant after a period of strong increase Switzerland rivers, which is about 900
mainly in southern European countries. km, may be regarded as
France natural rivers, mainly due to
the absence of hydropower.
2.2.4. Soils in mountains – demanding multi- Italy The ecological quality of
functionality Austria
river courses depends –
among other things – on the
In mountains soils at higher elevations are
diversity of river beds and
quite different in terms of temporal develop- Alps
minimum flow.
ment, stability, and thickness of topsoil from 0 5 10 15 20
Source: Fabrice, Dubost,
soils in lowlands (see also Chapter 3.6). natural rivers as % of all river sections 1992
These features make soils in mountains
more sensitive to degradation and require
specific adapted land-use patterns which are
often met by the traditional silvo-agro- material) through acidification and pollu-
pastoral land uses. tion (Stanners, Bourdeau, 1995). Mountain
soils are highly sensitive to erosion because
The development of soils in high mountains of the shallowness of soil layers, the long
shows certain characteristics different from time frame for their development (up to
lowland soils: 4 000 years for mature soil) and the risks of
natural hazards due to increasing soil ero-
• soils develop more slowly because of sion. As shown in the potential risk map in
lower temperatures, a short vegetation the Dobris report, mountain areas present a
period and frequent interruption by large proportion of the potential high-risk
erosion; consequently soils are not highly areas in Spain, Portugal, Greece and Italy
evolved types, such as lithosols, rankers (Stanners, Bourdeau, 1995). In areas with
and rendzinas which often consist of non-calcareous bedrock and abundant
only a shallow soil layer covering the coniferous forests or alpine shrubs, soils are
geological substrata; soil types often more exposed to natural acidification and
occur according to elevation belts; are thus particularly susceptible to artificial
• shallow soils allow land use mainly as acidification.
grassland or forestry;
• soil generation, predominantly by Steep slopes, frequent torrential rainfalls,
physical processes, causes the so-called and pressures such as unsustainable forestry,
‘catenas’ phenomenon in mountains, overgrazing, loss of traditional agriculture,
featuring different kinds of soils accord- land abandonment and fires are most
ing to the gradient (Ozenda, 1988). abundant in mountain areas. In addition to
Different geological layers and ice-age overgrazing due to increased livestock and
substrates serve as parent material for clear cutting, recent causes of soil erosion
soil generation, which produces complex and compaction include tourism and sport-
mosaics of different soils on a single ing and recreational activities (walking,
mountain slope (Ellenberg, 1982, skiing, mountain bikes, off-road vehicles,
Ozenda, 1988). These features contri- etc.). Indirectly, soil erosion may cause
bute to the considerable diversity of contamination of surface- and ground-water.
mountain ecosystems; Deposits of eroded materials in riverbeds,
• in humid climates leaching of nutrients lakes and water reservoirs might increase
into lower soil layers is frequent where flood risks and can damage infrastructures
the nutrients are no longer accessible for such as roads, railways and powerlines.
vegetation; in the alpine and sub-alpine
belt grazing, cutting and constant input 2.2.5. Living with risks – natural hazards in
of natural fertilizers balances the natural mountains
phenomenon of podzol-evolution The extreme environment makes mountain
(Messerli, 1989). areas prone to natural phenomena such as
landslides (Table 3.15.1), rockfalls, mudslides,
Mountain soils are mainly affected by degra- avalanches, floods and earthquakes (see also
dation through erosion and (on acid parent Chapter 3.8). The stability of the slopes is often
388 Environmental issues

Table 3.15.1 Landslide disasters 1995 - 1998

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; houses

flooded; cars damaged; power and
drinkingwater supply interrupted.

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

Briancon storm;

roads and railroads buried; houses,

cars damaged.

Liechtenstein: Triesen 1 mudslide; severe storm; 50 houses 2.3 M euro

affected, roads closed.

Austria: Braz, Stubachtal, Lienz 3 landslides; rockfall; heavy rains; severe deaths: 3
storm;
injured: 17
riverbanks 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: 2

severly damaged.

Italy: Cortina d’Ampezzo, 6 landslides; mudslides; heavy rainstorm; deaths: 6

Piedmont, Alto Adige; Milan; flash floods; high wind speeds; hail;
Sorrento, Darfo di Boario, injured: 22
Campania, Caserta, Salerno, losses to lemon and olive plantations
Avellino, Sarno,
Quindici, Siano roads, railroads damaged/blocked;
hundreds of houses, cars damaged;
train derailed; valleys isolated; tourist
camp isolated.

Italy: Umbria, Le Marche, 1 earthquake; houses and Franziskus deaths: 164

Folino, 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

modified by human activity through distur- areas, and often in Mediterranean and sub-
bance of vegetation (deforestation, Mediterranean climatic regimes. Earth-
overgrazing) and groundwater conditions or quakes and floods are predominant (60%)
the construction of infrastructure (see but the number and proportion of disasters
Camparia case study, Chapter 3.8). The factors identified with landslide and avalanche
which increase soil erosion (see above), may appear much greater (Hewitt, 1997; Moun-
also increase the risk of land slides. tain Agenda, 1992).

Nine out of ten earthquake disasters in Since 1970 the reported number of natural
Europe occur partly or wholly in mountain and man-made disasters has increased due to
 Mountain areas 389

better information and higher concentra- Burnt areas in mountains Figure 3.15.15
tions of population and economic activity in
industrial countries (Schweizerische Rück-
Of the total burnt areas in a
versicherung, 1998). For a general overview country, mountains are
see Chapter 3.8. France
affected by about 15-39%.
The portion of burnt area
Portugal
must be estimated higher in
In the Mediterranean region, forest fires countries with larger
Spain
have the largest potential for altering the mountain areas.
ecosystem. Every year, some 45 000 forest Greece
Source: EEA
fires break out in Europe – most of them
Italy
caused by humans. Many fires are lighted
illegally but intentionally to gain sites for 0 50 100
grazing livestock, construction or tourist % of burnt area
facilities. The anticipated climate change
in mountain areas in non-mountain areas
might affect natural-fire frequency, spread
and their devastating effects (European
Commission, 1997a; Ghazi et al., 1997). The
area affected by fires has seen a downward NGOs’ perception of present policies on mountain
trend, however in Spain and Portugal fires Figure 3.15.16
issues in Europe
seize large areas (Figure 3.15.15).
Source: Mountain Agenda,
Major road and rail tunnels, high bridges 1997
and dams are concentrated in the moun- 80
tains, and are prone to widespread, frequent 70 At present

and financially expensive damage. Expan- 60 In the future

% responses

sion of tourism in mountain villages has 50

40
spread accommodation and infrastructure
30
into risk areas; tragic proof was given in early
20
1999, when several big avalanches in the
10
Alps caused death and destruction in ski
0
organisations

European
Institutions
United Nations
Regions

State

FAO

Other
Local

resorts. Technical mitigation measures in

Mountain
people

NGOS

turn affect the natural environment. These

natural phenomena also create new environ-
mental habitats but, by changing the land-
scape, they mainly have social and economic
effects on humans.

3. Are mountains areas of marginal one focusing on certain mountain ranges as

interest for Europe? European regions, particularly the Alps, the
other defining mountain areas as a certain
Several sectoral policies, particularly in the spatial category directed at a European
fields of agriculture, regions and nature mountain policy (Bätzing, 1997).
conservation cover mountain areas. However,
the sparse population, low economy, underes- The regional study areas introduced in
timated natural values, confounding complex- EU2000+ (European Commission, 1994),
ity and transnational situation of many such as the Alpine Arc, are a remarkable step
European mountain area make them re- towards a spatial analysis. However, signifi-
garded politically as marginal areas in terms cant disparities remain inside the regions
of an integrated, comprehensive mountain considered, in the Alpine Arc in particular,
policy (Figure 3.15.16 and Box 3.15.3). For and do not recognize the special situation of
these reasons integrated policy approaches mountain areas.
such as the framework of Agenda 2000 and
European spatial policy, as started with the In the ESDP (European Commission, 1997b)
European Spatial Development Perspective mountain areas are characterized as unpro-
(ESDP) might be keys to integrated mountain tected and environmentally sensitive areas.
policy – which is a vital need to be developed. Several mountain ranges are ‘trans-national
areas’ which are geographically continuous,
3.1. Could spatial policy integrate mountain issues? transcending national borders. These in
A European spatial policy is arising, yet two particular require a European spatial policy,
different approaches still may be observed: in terms of watershed management, risk
390 Environmental issues

Box 3.15.3 How does policy deal with mountains?

Figure 3.15.17 Mountain policies in a mountain system
Mountains are subject to various types of policy
measures (figure 3.15.17). Policy approaches may
propose a general mountain policy, may target
certain mountain ranges, may affect mountains
VERTICAL
directly without distinguishing between different
mountain areas, or may have purely incidental
effects on mountain areas.
global specific valley / summit
Mountains have been directly addressed in few
policy documents. On a global scale mountains
certain mountain range have been recognised by Article 13 of Agenda 21
European as highly sensitive ecosystems and an important
source of natural resources. On the European scale
economy nature conservation the inter-governmental consultation on sustainable
SECTORAL mountain development 1996 recommended the
traffic regional agriculture
need to work towards an integrated policy
general mountain framework for sustainable mountain development,
national environmentally sustainable mountain action plans
unspecific mountain
and programmes as well as more sustainable
regional sectoral policies and the assessment of impacts of
existing national and European policies. All
GEOGRAPHICAL European mountains have been covered by the
European charter of mountain areas (1994) to be
local elaborated into a European Convention of
Mountain Areas. The charter covers almost every
political sector which affects mountains and
requires a ‘comprehensive spatial policy’ for
Multi-dimensional ways in which policies affect mountains mountain areas.
can be illustrated by a ‘policy coordinated system’. There
is a hierarchy of policy from global to local level (y-axis), For the Pyrenees, a special charter has been
sectors of policy from economy to nature conservation (x- adopted, and efforts are beginning towards the
axis) and a geography from general mountain policy to development of charters in the Carpathians and
specific valleys (z-axis). Caucasus. Underlying the Charter for the Protection
of the Pyrenees (CIAPP, 1995) are three key
Source: EEA processing objectives: to protect the environment, to allow
access for visitors and to support environmentally
sustainable economic development. Much further
detailed is the framework of the Alpine Convention
signed in 1991 by Germany, France, Italy,
Lichtenstein, Monaco, Austria, Switzerland, Slovenia
and the EU. Since 1990 several protocols which
define the principles for different sectors have been
drawn up, signed, or are under discussion. None
have yet been ratified.

prevention, preservation of biological and (European Commission, 1997b); the same

landscape diversity, and recreation. will apply in the Accession Countries
(Carpathian, Rhodope or Balkan) as identi-
The most relevant EU policies for mountains fied in 1996.
are listed in Table 3.15.2 and have been
introduced in Chapter 3.13. Some measures Modal split can be sensitive to relative costs,
overlap, others appear contradictory. A first which may in turn be modified by road
step towards assessment has been done in the pricing. This is illustrated by experience in
European Commission study ‘Integration of Austria, where a reduction in infrastructure
environmental concerns in mountain agricul- charges to comply with EU legislation was
ture’ (Euromontana, 1998). Some examples followed by a 16% increase in freight traffic
will be highlighted below, with reference to in 1995 (Weissen, 1996). In contrast, as a
drivers and environmental problems. result of the Alpine convention’s traffic
protocol, 70% of all goods in transit through
3.2. Pressures of today need to be mitigated Switzerland are transported by rail and the
maximum weight for road transport is
3.2.1. Mountain crossing traffic will further increase limited to 28 tonnes per truck (which is
Due to increasing traffic flow more EU- lower than in other Alpine countries).
corridors certainly will cross mountains (e.g.
transalpine link Rome-Milan-Zurich/Mu- 3.2.2. Mountain tourism has learnt but a
nich; Madrid-Barcelona-Rhone Valley; Milan- turnaround is difficult
Venice-Vienna-Budapest-Kiev; Bologna- The harmful effects of intensive tourism
Milan-Lyon; Madrid-Bordeaux-Toulouse) have led to restrictions for sport and for
 Mountain areas 391

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

D = Mountains directly addressed; I = Mountains indirectly addressed

Popula- Traffic Tourism Land use Natural Soil Water Hazard

tion 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 assessment

of certain plans and programmes (COM(96)511 of
December 1996) I I I I I I I

Proposal for a framework directive

on 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 agricultural

structures, Reg. 2328/91 I I I I

Improving conditions for marketing and processing

agricultural 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 products

and indications referring thereto on
agricultural products and foodstuffs, Reg. 2092/91 I I I I

COM(96) 366 Council Regulation supplementing

Reg. 2092/91 I I I I

Source: EEA, European Commission

392 Environmental issues

further development in sensitive zones, and mountain areas in the EU. These mountain
– more positively – stimulated development areas are individually and heterogeneously
of sustainable tourism. Over half of the defined by the Member States. It is reported
budget of the Community action plan to that agricultural income in mountain LFAs
support tourism is earmarked for sustainable lies 45% below the EU-average, but has
tourism projects (Figure 3.15.18). In Spain, increased slightly in the period 1987-1993 by
the Cohesion Fund programme includes 0.7%, while decreasing in other regions.
reduction of harmful tourism effects in Most of French mountain areas and some
national parks, while the development of Spanish and Italian areas are above this EU-
non-intensive tourism in the Aragon region average income, while the situation is wors-
has been co-financed under the Structural ening in nearly all areas of Greece and
Fund 5b objectives. Portugal (European Commission, 1997c).

3.2.3. Regarding land use changes, mainly from Agricultural labels of origin may play a
agriculture supportive role in encouraging farming
Land use changes and mountain agriculture activities which contribute to maintaining
are targeted by different measures in the fragile ecosystems like mountains. The
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) such as ‘fromages d’alpage et d’estives’ are well-known
the Accompanying measures (agri-environ- examples of specific products linked to
ment, forestry) and Structural measures traditional practices.
(rural development, objectives 1 + 5b,
LEADER, etc.) and the regional policy, such Land use changes are also induced by the
as INTERREG II (Figure 3.15.19). A recent gravitation of urban agglomerations, and a
study of existing EU policies (Euromontana, balance is needed in the urban-mountain
1998) has concluded that small and multi- relationship. Therefore the general call in the
functional farms do not receive sufficient aid ESDP (European Commission, 1997b) for a
to compensate for natural handicaps, that new definition of the rural-urban relationship
agri-environment measures may delay has a particular focus on mountain areas;
adverse developments and repair some options include the balance between cities
damage but it is ‘highly unlikely’ that the and country, diversification of rural areas,
production-oriented systems can be conservation and creative management of
reoriented, and that other agricultural cultural landscapes. The benefits of an
measures are not focused on environmental attractive, environmentally healthy hinterland
benefits. The time-scale for significant policy have been recognised by cities but compensa-
changes has also been expressed as a major tion patterns for the provision of this steward-
concern of English nature-conservation ship are not developed. The example of
groups. Munich shows that the high recreation values
of lakes and mountains have helped the city
Under the Less Favored Areas Regulation to become a highly desired location for high-
about 20% of the total Utilized Agricultural technology industry.
Area (UAA) is supported as less favoured
3.2.4. Forestry and renewable energies
Mountain areas are highly suitable for
renewable energy generation such as wind
Figure 3.15.18 EU support for mountain tourism and hydroelectric energy, which could offer
additional, sustainable revenues for moun-
Tourism projects have been
tain economies. However, strong opposition
supported in the Pyrenees 50 can be expected to further hydro-powersta-
and Bohemian Massif in tions (CIAPP, 1995).
particular. About 45% of 40
% EU INTERREG

Interreg budget in mountain

projects have been spent on 30 Abundant forest wood, as a renewable
projects to achieve resource, offers another option of renewable
sustainable tourism. 20
energy use for mountains. An example is the
Source: European 10 development of a low-pollution heating
Commission 0% system fueled with forestry output in the
0
Haut-Jura, France, financed by the LEADER
Bohemian
Forest
Appenines

Scandinavian

Southeast
Alps

mountains

European
mountains
Pyrenees

fund (European Commission, 1997d).

Under afforestation measures, as supported

Region
by the CAP, and due to the 1994-97 national
plans, 700 000 ha of new forest will be
 Mountain areas 393

created and 300 000 ha of forest will be Interreg programme in mountains Figure 3.15.19
improved in the EU (European Commission,
1997c). This implementation, however, often
disregards the choice of tree species and the
impacts on soil, water, landscape and Bohemian Forest
Appenines 0.5%
biodiversity, and so it has not necessarily 0.5% Pyrenees
been environmentally beneficial Alps 1.9%
(Euromontana, 1998). Within objective 1 4.7% Scandinavia
0.1%
and 5b, development of forest functions in
terms of erosion limitation, water protection
and tourism promotion are supported. Southeast Europe
10.1%

Natural recolonisation is on average higher

in mountains than nationwide averages. In
France recolonisation in mountains in the
past decade has been 50% above the na-
tional average (EOMF, 1998).

On the other hand increasing forest cover in non-mountain areas

mountains is becoming a conflict in some 82.1%

regions, where people dislike and therefore

oppose the afforestation scheme, such as in
the uplands of Navarra, Lorraine, Venice
(Zingari, 1998). Their concerns include the
safeguarding of open farmland and the
protection of bird biotopes or an already
densely afforestated landscape (Cammarata, tion, mountain farming and recreation, the Within the INTERREG
programme with a total
1997). In a recent study it was stated that the potential application of multilateral agree- budget of 585 M euro in the
concerns of zonal afforestation plans, such as ment of the Alpine Convention for the period 1994-1999 (about
the selection of locally adapted tree species, Balkan Carpathians and Caucasus regions 17% of which goes to
mountain areas) several
have not been met and impacts on soil, water and the establishment and strengthening of measures are applied, with a
and biotopes must be expected (Euromon- transfrontier protected areas (Council of significant focus in south-
tana, 1998). Europe et al., 1996). east European countries.
Here one should consider
that about half of EU border
A cornerstone of forest policy is resolution The progress in implementation of the areas lie in mountains.
S4 of the Strasbourg Conference ‘Adapting Habitat Directive, as described in Chapter
Source: European
the management of mountain forests to new 3.6, is shown by the example of the EU Commission, DG XVI, 1997
environmental conditions’ which was adop- Alpine region where mountain areas
ted by 25 countries in 1990 and the EU contain 16% of the number of sites of
Forestry Strategy recently adopted which conservation interest (SCIs), while the
stresses problems of specific regions, includ- region area covers only 9% of the EU. In
ing mountain regions. The challenge is the second stage of the selection of special
important as in most countries mountain areas of conservation (SAC) many moun-
forest management suffers from the insuffi- tain areas may be expected to be chosen
cient implementation of forest legislation favorably. Mountains frequently meet the
(Koch, Rasmussen, 1998). criteria of relationship to migration routes
or as part of an ecosystem on both sides of
3.2.5. Nature conservation policy EU frontiers and of a high number of
The general evolution of nature conserva- annex I habitats and annex II species. Thus
tion policy today focuses more on sustain- mountains as most extensive areas will
able development (see Chapter 3.11) and probably receive an over proportional
marks an important step towards the multi- percentage of protected areas which should
functionality concept of mountain areas. be reflected in national and local policies
(Hopkins, 1998).
The Pan-European Biological and Land-
scape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS) has The Commission instrument for nature
dedicated in its action plan the entire ‘action conservation LIFE financed about 15% of
theme 10’ on mountain ecosystems. This the 1996 and 25% of the 1997 nature budget
focuses on integration of mountains in the in mountain areas with a focus on large
pan-European ecological network, establish- carnivore species protection (European
ment of sustainable practice for afforesta- Commission, 1997d) (Figure 3.15.20).
394 Environmental issues

Figure 3.15.20 LIFE Nature support in mountains ity assessments of soil, agro-forestry practices,
adjusted stocking levels, rotation farming
systems, and measures against forest fires.
Results from the Swiss MAB-research pro-
50 gramme confirm that the best soil protection
45
in mountains is constant, ecologically
adapted agriculture (Messerli, 1989).
40
35 3.3. In which direction is policy heading?
EU contribution to LIFE
30 NATURE projects in The most comprehensive changes for
mountain areas
25 mountains can be expected from the ap-
EU contribution to LIFE
20 NATURE projects in praisal of EU Regional development plans,
other areas the attention on rural development pro-
15
grammes as a new pillar in the CAP and the
10
promotion of direct environmental benefits
5 (European Commission, 1998). It has been
0 announced that the Structural Funds budget
1996 1997 will be increased to about one-third of the
brown bear Community budget which will make the
habitats and wolf
21% 20% funds a powerful instrument (European
other
other
Commission, 1997b).
species
3% species
10%
It can be assumed that while new regional
brown bear habitats objectives will be added through the needs
and wolf 70% in the Accession Countries, this will require
76%
cuts in expenditure on present objectives. It
is necessary to assess to what extent this will
affect mountain areas in the EU.
About 75% of the 1996 and 3.2.6. Natural phenomena can not be excluded
20% of the 1997 EU-LIFE- In the ESDP further fields of work have been
funding in mountain areas
was spent for conservation
Direct protection from natural hazards is distinguished which significantly meet the
of the brown bear and wolf; recognised to be far more efficiently pro- need for better analysis of mountain areas in
about 3% was spent for vided by mountain forests with a high particular, such as the development of
conservation of other
species.
proportion of natural vegetation than by indicators, criteria and a typology of areas,
artificial devices. Switzerland provided which could complement the efforts of
Source: European eloquent figures for the role of protection, regional development in Agenda 2000.
Commission, 1997
said to be worth up to SFR 3 billion (1.8
billion euros) per year to local communities New, economically based policy approaches
(EOMF, 1998). A risk-reducing agriculture- for balancing the stewardship of mountain
forestry combination which might find areas for lowlands have been proposed by
examples in former multi-functional land- the Mountain Agenda and include, for
use systems may claim to be one of the most instance, fees for the entrance to parks and
efficient and – in terms of cost-benefit ratio – buffer zones, for hunting and fishing, for
most successful approaches (Messerli, 1989). tour operating, for climbing peaks and for
using roads and passes.
As pointed out in Chapter 3.8 only five
countries in the EU provide land-use plan- 3.4. What could policy-makers require for
ning criteria for hazard prevention and five evolving mountain policy?
countries still have not developed hazard First there is a general need to recognise
arrangements at all. It must be strongly mountains as a distinct area and to evolve
emphasised that for mountain areas risk objective criteria for area definition. This
assessment and land-use planning are vital goes hand in hand with the identification of
instruments for hazard identification, indicators for sustainable land use.
avoidance and mitigation.
Furthermore better baseline information for
For soil protection also, the concept of decision-maker is necessary. This includes
multi-functionality, implemented by inte- monitoring of mountain environmental
grated land use planning, has been recom- conditions. Identification of mountain
mended for policy action. This should research needs the interaction of different
include ecological adaptation of land-use disciplines and the integration of traditional,
management by using suitability/vulnerabil- long-term experience of local people.
 Mountain areas 395

To sufficiently compensate the long-term

conservation of natural resources, the goods Box 3.15.4 EU research programmes related to mountain issues
and services offered by mountain regions The EU has invested about 7.1% (852 M euro) of the 1994-1998 research
and people need to be identified and evalu- budget for environment and climate under which the AMBIENTE programme
ated. Methods are needed to calculate the deals with hazard prevention (Ruberti, 1994), the ECOMONT project with
land-use impacts, and the ARTERI project with arctic-alpine ecosystems.
costs of maintenance and protection and Other mountain-related research is the MOLAR project on remote mountain
how to distribute the revenues. Once estab- lakes, on timberline (FOREST), effects of climate change on alpine and arctic
lished periodic re-evaluations should be streams (AASER), and desertification in Mediterranean mountains (MEDALUS,
MEDIMONT). From other budgets such as the Cohesion Fund, forest-fire
planned due to changing ecological and combat projects in Greece have been financed and about 105 M euro has
economic situations (Mountain Agenda, been committed to desertification projects in southern Mediterranean
1997). countries. Implementation of such policies could be carried out by risk
exposure plans (PER) as in the French 1985 mountain law or the risk zones in
the Bavarian forest function plans. Erosion and natural hazards are
investigated in the EROSLOPE, NEWTECH, FLOODAWARE, SAME projects.

References
Abegg, B., Elsasser, H. 1996. ‘Klimarisiken aus Elsasser, H., Frösch, R., Finsterle, M. 1990. ‘Sättigung
touristischer Sicht’ in Programmleitung NFP 31 in Fremdenverkehrsgebieten’ in DISP, Dokumente und
(Hrsg.): ‘Klimarisiken – Herausforderung für die Informationen zur Schweizerischen Orts-, Regional-
Schweizer Wirtschaft’, pp. 115–126. vdf und Landesplanung Vol. 26, No 100. Zurich, pp. 33-
Hochschulverlag, ETH Zürich. 41.

Bätzing, W. 1990. ‘Die aktuelle Siedlungsentwicklung EOMF, European Observatory of Mountain Forests
an der Höhengrenze der Ökumene im Alpenraum auf 1998. The Sustainable future of Mountain Forests in
dem Hintergrund des Übergangs von der Agrar- zur Europe – Facts and Figures. Contribution by the
Freizeitgesellschaft’ in Siedlungsforschung. European Observatory of Mountain Forests to the
Archäologie – Geschichte – Geographie. Vol. 8. Eds: strengthening, development and follow-up of
K. Fehn et al., pp. 165-200. Resolution S4.

Bätzing, W. 1997. Kleines Alpen-Lexikon. Munich, Euromontana, 1998, The integration of environmental
Beck’sche Reihe. concerns in mountain agriculture. Summary. Study for
the European Commission Directorate General XI,
Blandin, P., 1992. La Nature en Europe, Bordas, Paris. Environment, Safety and Civil Protection.

Breiling, M. 1994. Climate Variability: The impact on European Commission, 1994. Europe 2000+.
the National economy, the Alpine environments of Cooperation for European territorial development.
Austria and the need for local action. paper Office for Official Publications of the European
presented at conference Snow and Climate, Geneva, Communities, Luxembourg.
September 1994.
European Commission, 1997a, The threat of natural
Breiling, M., Charamza, P., Skage, O. 1997. Klima- disasters. What is Europe doing? Climate and Natural
sensibilität österreichischer Bezirke mit besonderer Hazards Unit (DG XII/D-2). CG-09-97-381-EN,
Berücksichtigung des Wintertourismus. Rapport 97:1 European Commission, Brussels.
Institut für Landschaftsplanung, Universität Alnarp,
Schweden. Forschungsauftrag des Österreichischen European Commission, 1997b. European spatial
Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaftliche Angelegen- development perspective. First official draft.
heiten und des Österreichischen Bundesministeriums Presented at the informal meeting of Ministers
für Umwelt. responsible for spatial planning of the member states
of the European Union. Noordwijk, 9-10 June 1997.
Cammarata, A. 1997. ‘CAP Working Notes Agriculture Office for Official Publications of the European
and Environment’. European Commission. Communities, Luxembourg.
Directorate-General for Agriculture. Brussels.
European Commission, 1997c. CAP 2000 Working
Cernusca, A. et. al. 1996. ‘ECOMONT Ecological document. Rural Developments. Ed: Directorate
effects of land use changes on European terrestrial General VI.
mountain ecosystems’ in Pirineos. Jaca, pp. 145-172.
European Commission,1997d, Agenda 21 The first
CIAPP Conseil International Associatif pour la five years. Office for Official Publications of the
Protection des Pyrenees, 1995, Charter for the European Communties, Luxembourg.
protection of the Pyrenees. English Summary.
European Commission, Directorate General XI, 1997,
CIPRA, Internationale Alpenschutz-Kommission, ed. Life Nature 96., European Commission, Brussels.
1998. 1. Alpenreport. Daten, Fakten, Probleme,
Lösungsansätze. Berne, Stuttgart, Vienna, Paul Haupt European Commission, Directorate General XI, 1997,
Verlag. Life Nature 97., European Commission. Brussels.

Council of Europe, UNEP, ECNC,1996. The Pan- European Commission, 1998. Partnership for
European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy Integration: A strategy for Integration Environment
(PEBLDS). into EU-Policies, Cardiff, June 1998

Dubost, M., Zingari, P.C.,no date, Impact of Climate European Commission, DG XVI, 1998, http://
Change on European Mountain Development. www.inforegio.org/wbpro/prord/reg_prog/pay_them/
themes/cip1/thci_all.htm
Ellenberg, H. 1982. Vegetation Mitteleuropas mit den
Alpen. Stuttgart, Eugen Ulmer Verlag, pp. 989. EEA. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen
396 Environmental issues

Fabrice, M., Dubost M.,1992. Die letzten naturnahen Ozenda, P. 1988. Die Vegetation der Alpen im
Alpenflüsse. Kleine Schriften 11/92. CIPRA (ed.). europäischen Gebirgsraum.
Vaduz.
Ozenda, P. 1994. Végétation du Continent Européen.
Flückiger, S. 1996. ‘Klimarisiken aus landwirtschaft- Lausanne, Delachaux et Niestlé, pp. 271.
licher Sicht’ in Programmleitung NFP 31 (Hrsg.):
‘Klimarisiken – Herausforderung für die Schweizer Petit, S. et al. 1998. MIRABEL – Models for integrated
Wirtschaft’, pp. 105-114. vdf Hochschulverlag, ETH review and assessment of biodiversity in European
Zürich. Landscapes. Overview of Methods and Summary of
Model Outputs.
Garcia-Ruiz, J., Lasanta-Martinez, T. 1993. ‘Land-use
conflicts as a result of land-use change in the central Price, M.,1995. Wirtschaft und Umwelt der Bergge-
Spanish Pyrenees: A review’ in Mountain Research biete von Zentral- und Osteuropa. in: Euromontana
and Development Vol. 13, No 3, pp. 295-304. (ed.), 1995: Berggebiete Europas, neue Zusammen-
arbeit für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung. Durch die
Ghazi, A. et al. , eds. 1997. Highlights of results from Euromontana organisierte internationale Konferenz in
natural hazards research projects. Climate and Natural Krakau (Polen) 4-6 September 1995. p. 49-57.
Hazards Unit (DG XII/D-2). European Commission.
Brussels. Price, M.F., Barry, R.G. 1997. ‘Climate change’ in
Mountains of the World. A Global Priority. Eds: B.
Guisan, A. et al. , eds. 1995. Potential Ecological Messerli, J.D. Ives.
Impacts of Climate Change in the Alps and
Fennoscandian Mountains. Geneva. Rhomberg, K. 1998. ‘Vorfahrt für unsere Gesundheit –
Ärzte gegen die Verkehrslawine’ in 1. Alpenreport.
Hewitt, K. 1997. ‘Risk and disasters in mountain lands’ Daten, Fakten, Probleme, Lösungsansätze. Ed: CIPRA,
in Mountains of the World. A Global Priority. Eds: B. pp. 356-358.
Messerli; J.D. Ives.
Romano, B. 1995. ‘National Parks policy and moun-
Höller, P. et al. 1998. ‘Effects of land use changes on tain depopulation: A case study in the Abruzzo region
snow gliding processes’ in Poster Alpenforum 1998. of the Central Apennines, Italy’ in Mountain Research
Garmisch-Partenkirchen. and Development Vol. 15, No 2, pp. 121-132.

Hopkins, J. 1998. ‘Achiving the aims of the EC Ruberti, A. 1994. Facteurs climatiques et risques
habitats directive: links with reform of agricultural naturels du système territorial alpin. Ed: European
policies in mountain areas’ in Mountain livestock Commission, Brussels.
farming and EU policy development. Proceedings of
the fifth European forum on nature conservation and Schweizerische Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft, ed.
pastoralism. Valle d’Aosta, Italy. Eds: A. Poole et al., 1998. Copy-editing: SIGMA, No 3/1998.
pp. 117-125. Naturkatastrophen und Grossschäden 1997:
Ausserordentlich wenig teure Schäden. Zurich.
Jeker, R. 1996. ‘Thesen zur Bedeutung von
Klimarisiken für die Schweizer Wirtschaft’ in Stanners, D., Bourdeau, P. 1995. Europe’s
Programmleitung NFP 31 (Hrsg.): ‘Klimarisiken – Environment. The Dobris Assessment. Ed: European
Herausforderung für die Schweizer Wirtschaft’ pp. 9- Environment Agency (EEA). Copenhagen, Earthscan
24. vdf Hochschulverlag, ETH Zürich. Publications.

Koch, N.E., Rasmussen, J.N., 1998. Forestry in the TTETN The Trans-European Transport Network 1998.
Context of Rural Development. Final Report of COST http://eurotext.ulst.ac.uk/policy/transport/networks/
Action E3.Danish Forest and Landscape Research ttetn/TTETN008.htm#A29
Institute. Hörsholm. European Commission, Brussels.
Vakrou, A. 1998. ‘Policy measures to ensure and
Kristensen, P., Hansen, H.O., 1994. European Rivers promote forestry in mountain areas of Greece’, COST
and Lakes. Assessment of their Environmental State. E3, draft paper.

Leonard J., Crouzet P., 1998. Lakes and Reservoirs in Weissen, A. 1996. ‘Specific Alpine Problems:
the EEA Area Final Draft, Report No PO 23/97- Transport’ in Green Paper on the Alps: The Alps –
Touchstone for Europe. Eds. M. Pils; P. Glauser; D.
Lichtenberger, E. 1979. ‘Die Sukzession von der Siegrist.
Agrar- zur Freizeitgesellschaft in den Hochgebirgen
Europas’ in Innsbrucker Geographische Studien, Band Zingari, P.C. 1994. Trends in European Mountain
5. Fragen geographischer Forschung. Innsbruck, pp. Biodiversity. Proposal for a European Science
401-436. Foundation Scientific Network.

Messerli, P. 1989. Mensch und Natur im alpinen Zingari, P.C. 1998. Personal Communication.
Lebensraum Risiken, Chancen, Perspektiven. Zentrale
Erkenntnisse aus dem schweizerischen MAB- Zingari, P.C., Dubost, M. 1996 Research for
Programm. Berne, Stuttgart, Paul Haupt Verlag. Sustainable Mountain Development Series, Vol. 4:
European mountain biodiversity and sustainable
Mountain Agenda 1997. Mountains of the World: development.
Challenges for the 21st Century. Berne, Paul Haupt
Verlag.

Mountain Agenda, ed. 1992. An Appeal for the

Mountains. Institute of Geography, University of
Berne, Switzerland.

Mountain Agenda,1998. Mountains of the World:

Water Towers for the 21st Century. P.Haupt. Bern

Munich Re 1998. NatCatSERVICE. Munich, Münchener

Rückversicherungs-AG.