Biodiversity - European ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
04 Biodiversity
Biodiversity
4 Biodiversity
Source: Lichens, Sweden © Ybele Hoogeveen
Key messages
• Biodiversity decline and the loss of ecosystem • The general biodiversity trend on agricultural
services continue to be a major concern in the land is negative despite agricultural policies
pan-European region. The target of halting being increasingly geared towards biodiversity
biodiversity loss by 2010 will not be achieved conservation. The area of agricultural land in
without additional efforts. use has decreased and management of the
remaining areas has intensified. Identification
• The main pressures on biodiversity continue to of high nature value farmland by 2006, a
be urban sprawl, infrastructure development, target of the Kiev Resolution, has not been
acidification, eutrophication, desertification, fully completed. The proportion of these areas
overexploitation, and intensification of under favourable management cannot yet be
agriculture and land abandonment. Climate assessed.
change is increasingly recognised as a serious
threat, particularly to coastal, arctic and alpine • The number of invasive alien species in the
habitats and species. pan-European region continues to increase.
Although the problem is recognised in most
• More than 700 European species are currently countries and strategic action is being taken,
under threat. 43 % of European bird species the efficiency of control measures needs to
have an unfavourable conservation status. be increased by better monitoring and early
warning systems.
• There has been significant progress in creating
ecological networks, particularly with the • There are major data gaps on species, habitats
Pan‑European Ecological Network and the and related landscape parameters. There
Natura 2000 network, which now covers about has been progress in developing headline
17 % of the total EU-25 land area. However, indicators for evaluating the 2010 target, but
there is little information on the conservation adequate funding for the long-term monitoring
status of these networks. needed has not yet been forthcoming.
• National forest plans that link sustainable forest • Participation and awareness of biodiversity
management with an ecosystem approach are issues is growing and the Kiev Resolution
being implemented. The annual harvest of target of implementing Communication,
wood remains well below its annual increment, Education and Public Awareness (CEPA)
and primary forests (those hardly affected by programmes in half the pan-European
human activity) make up about a quarter of countries by 2010 seems achievable.
the total forest area. However, illegal logging
and human‑induced forest fires are a growing
problem, particularly in EECCA and SEE.
176 EUROPE'S ENVIRONMENT | THE FOURTH ASSESSMENT
Biodiversity
4.1 The commitment: halting Environment Strategy. This is comparable to
biodiversity loss by 2010 the Sixth Environment Action Programme and
addresses a range of governance aspects, such as
The loss of biological diversity and its components environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedures
(genes (1), species, habitats and ecosystems) is an and compensatory mechanisms for biodiversity loss,
issue of global concern. It is inextricably linked to as well as funding and the creation of ecological
the degradation of ecosystem services, the natural networks of protected areas (UNECE, 2003b).
production capacity and regulating processes that
are essential for the sustainable use of the earth's An initiative, Streamlining European 2010
resources and, ultimately, human well‑being. Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI), was taken in
Evidence is growing that these services are under 2004 to develop biodiversity indicators for the
great pressure due to human-induced climate pan‑European region. Its aim is to provide proper
change and the over exploitation of natural feedback on policy achievements and on progress
resources (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, towards the 2010 target. SEBI is a cooperation
2005). between several international institutes, coordinated
by the European Environment Agency. This chapter
The UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), largely builds on the indicator framework developed
adopted in 1992, marked the political recognition by SEBI.
of biodiversity loss as a serious problem, and
the start of global action. Several thematic work The next section provides an overview of the
programmes have been initiated under the CBD, current status and trends of species, ecosystems
focusing on the biodiversity of marine and coastal and habitats and the main threats to biodiversity.
areas, agriculture, forests, inland waters, dry and The remaining sections examine progress on the
sub-humid lands, and mountains. In addition, a main lines of policy action set out in the Kiev
number of cross-cutting issues, such as invasive Resolution: spatial measures to create ecological
alien species, awareness-raising, and indicator networks; the integration of biodiversity concerns
development, are being tackled. The target of halting into agriculture and forestry; coordinated action
the loss of biodiversity by 2010 was an EU initiative, against invasive alien species; biodiversity indicators
first adopted in the 2001 EU Strategy for Sustainable and monitoring; and public awareness. The focus
Development and later incorporated into the EU's is mainly on terrestrial ecosystems, as the marine
Sixth Environment Action Programme (2002). and coastal environment is dealt with in Chapter 5.
Subsequently, the CBD (2002) and the World Summit Funding issues are not covered.
on Sustainable Development (2002) largely endorsed
this at the global level, agreeing on a 'significant
reduction' of the current rate of biodiversity loss by 4.2 The case: Europe's
2010. threatened biodiversity
At the pan‑European level, the framework for action 4.2.1 Biodiversity distribution and
is the Kiev Resolution on Biodiversity, endorsed trends
by the European environment ministers. In order
to halt biodiversity decline by 2010, key targets Biodiversity assessments require an explicit
have been adopted regarding a pan‑European geographical scale and reference situation as well
ecological network, agriculture and biodiversity, as appropriate units of measurement (species,
forests and biodiversity, invasive alien species, habitats, ecosystems). The relation between local
financing, monitoring and indicators, and public species richness and biodiversity value is not
participation and awareness (see Box 4.1). For straightforward. Habitats or ecosystems may be
the EECCA countries, the implementation of naturally species-poor, but nevertheless contribute
the targets falls within the scope of the EECCA substantially to overall biodiversity at a higher
(1) Genetic diversity is not dealt with in this chapter.
EUROPE'S ENVIRONMENT | THE FOURTH ASSESSMENT 177
Biodiversity
Box 4.1 The Kiev Resolution on Biodiversity
Main aim: halt the loss of biological diversity at Invasive alien species
all levels by 2010, mainly through achieving the • By 2008, the pan‑European Strategy on
following key targets: Invasive Alien Species developed under the Bern
Convention, fully compatible with the Guiding
Pan-European Ecological Network Principles of the Convention on Biological
Diversity, will be implemented by at least half
• By 2006, the Pan‑European Ecological Network of the countries of the pan‑European region
(core areas, restoration areas, corridors and through their respective biodiversity strategies
buffer zones, as appropriate) in all states of and action plans.
the pan‑European region will be identified and
reflected on coherent indicative European maps,
as a European contribution towards a global Financing biodiversity*
ecological network. • By 2008, there will be substantially increased
• By 2008, all core areas of the Pan‑European public and private financial investments in
Ecological Network will be adequately conserved integrated biodiversity activities in Europe,
and the Pan-European Ecological Network will via partnerships with the finance and business
give guidance to all major national, regional and sectors, that have resulted in new investment
international land use and planning policies as opportunities and facilities as outlined by the
well as to the operations of relevant economic European Biodiversity Resourcing Initiative,
and financial sectors. taking into account the special needs of the
countries of central and eastern Europe, the
Caucasus and Central Asia.
Agriculture and biodiversity
• By 2006, the identification, using agreed
common criteria, of all high nature value Biodiversity monitoring and indicators
areas in agricultural ecosystems in the • By 2008, a coherent European programme on
pan‑European region will be complete. By 2008, biodiversity monitoring and reporting, facilitated
a substantial proportion of these areas will be by the European Biodiversity Monitoring and
under biodiversity-sensitive management by Indicator Framework, will be operational in
using appropriate mechanisms such as rural the pan-European region, in support of nature
development instruments, agri-environmental and biodiversity policies, including by 2006
programmes and organic agriculture, to inter an agreed core set of biodiversity indicators
alia support their economic and ecological developed with the active participation of the
viability. relevant stakeholders.
• By 2008, financial subsidy and incentive
schemes for agriculture in the pan‑European Public participation and awareness
region will take the conservation and sustainable
• By 2008, at least half of the countries in
use of biodiversity into consideration.
the pan-European region are implementing
national 'communication, education and public
Forests and biodiversity awareness' action plans, in line with the
• By 2008, contribute to the implementation CBD's Global Initiative on Communication,
in the pan‑European region of the Forest Education and Public Awareness, in order to
Biodiversity Expanded Programme of Work of communicate biodiversity and landscape policies
the Convention on Biological Diversity through, and to increase multi-stakeholder participation,
inter alia: particularly indigenous and local communities, in
their implementation.
– implementation of the objectives and
activities of the Framework for Co-operation
between the Ministerial Conference on the
Protection of Forests in Europe and the
Environment for Europe/Pan-European
Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy;
– national forest programmes according to
the MCPFE Approach to National Forest
Programmes in Europe (adopted at the
Vienna Conference in April 2003); Note: * = Not dealt with in this chapter.
– application of the ecosystem approach. Source: UNECE, 2003a.
178 EUROPE'S ENVIRONMENT | THE FOURTH ASSESSMENT
Biodiversity
level (Hoogeveen et al., 2001). Several approaches monk seal, which are on the brink of extinction as
to setting conservation priorities have been the result of habitat destruction, degradation and
suggested (Brooks et al., 2006; Davis et al., 1994, 1997; fragmentation as well as disturbance (Palomo and
Anderson, 2002; Anderson et al., 2005; Van Swaay Gisbert, 2002; Ward, 2005; MOm/Hellenic Society
and Warren, 2003; Heath et al., 2000). Particularly for the Study and Protection of the Monk Seal, 2006;
relevant for assessing Europe's contribution UNEP/MAP, RAC/SPA, 2003). Of European bird
to global biodiversity are the biodiversity hot species, 43 % have an unfavourable conservation
spots as identified by Conservation International status (Birdlife International, 2004). Subsequent red
(Mittermeier et al., 2005, see Box. 4.2) and the global lists reveal that the overall status of European and
species red lists (IUCN, 2006a). In the absence Central Asian birds deteriorated between 1994 and
of quantitative data for habitats and ecosystems 2004 (see Figure 4.2). Only the Caucasus shows a
(particularly in the EECCA and SEE regions) this (minor) increase. The situation for freshwater fish is
assessment builds mainly on species. Red lists even more critical (Map 4.1). In the Mediterranean
of endangered species are a tool for assessing region 56 % of the 252 endemic freshwater fish
biodiversity trends (Butchart et al., 2004, 2005). are threatened with extinction and seven species
Common species in the wider countryside, however, are now extinct. Pollution, water extraction and
are also covered to obtain a general indication of the droughts are considered to be the main threats.
sustainability of land use. Case studies are used to Other major threats are posed by invasive species
highlight particular issues, especially in biodiversity and the construction of dams (Smith and Darwall,
hot spots. 2005).
According to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Figure 4.3 shows that, of the more common bird
Species (IUCN, 2006a), 16 119 plant and animal species, forest and particularly farmland birds
species are threatened at the global level, 729 of them have declined. The initial steep decline of farmland
occurring in Europe. Mammals and birds account for birds is associated with increasing agricultural
the highest numbers of vulnerable and endangered specialisation and intensity in some areas, and
species (see Figure 4.1). Critically endangered large-scale marginalisation and land abandonment
mammals are the Iberian lynx and the Mediterranean in others. The falling trend has levelled off since
Figure 4.1 Globally threatened terrestrial vertebrates in the pan-European region
Number of globally threatened species
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
s s s es s s s es s s s es
an rd al til an rd al til an rd al til
ibi Bi m p ibi Bi m p ibi Bi m p
ph Mam Re ph Mam Re ph Mam Re
Am Am Am
EECCA WCE SEE
Red List categories: Vulnerable Endangered Critically endangered
Source: IUCN, 2006a.
EUROPE'S ENVIRONMENT | THE FOURTH ASSESSMENT 179
Biodiversity
the late 1980s, partly because of stabilising inputs the modernisation of its agriculture with resulting
of nutrient and pesticides in the EU‑15 and partly large-scale habitat loss and degradation. At the other
because of drastically lower inputs in EU‑10 as extreme, huge undisturbed areas remain in what is
a result of political reforms and the resulting known as the 'Great Euro‑Asian Nature Backbone',
economic crisis in the agricultural sector. Renewed ranging from the vast forests in Russia and Siberia
agricultural intensification in the eastern regions, in the north to the mountains, steppes and deserts of
combined with further land abandonment Central Asia in the southeast.
throughout Europe, is expected to lead to further
decline. Figure 4.4 shows changes in land cover that have
occurred in WCE between 1990 and 2000. A large
part of this region has effectively become urban in
4.2.2 Land-cover change character, with massive sprawl around the existing
urban centres in much of lowland Europe, and
One of the general factors underlying the above along the coasts. In many places agriculture has
trends is land-cover change, the dynamics of which been marginalised as an economic activity, often
vary greatly across Europe. WCE has experienced with resulting land abandonment. Elsewhere new
rapid urbanisation, infrastructure development and areas may be taken into production, but on average
Map 4.1 Distribution of freshwater fish in the pan-European region
-30° -20° -10° 0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90°
Share of globally
threatened species
in native freshwater
fish
40° %
60°
0–7
8–15
16–30
31–44
50°
Number of species
30° 0–25
26–50
51–100
40°
101–344
0 500 1000 1500 Km
0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° Introduced species
-30° -10° 10° 30° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90° -30° -10° 10° 30° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90°
%
0–11
60°
40°
60°
40° 12–20
21–29
30–69
50° 50°
30° 30°
Outside report
40° 40°
0 500 1000 1500 Km
coverage
0 500 1000 1500 Km
0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50°
Source: EEA-ETC/BD, 2006.
180 EUROPE'S ENVIRONMENT | THE FOURTH ASSESSMENTBiodiversity
Box 4.2 'Biodiversity hot spots' in the pan‑European region
'Biodiversity hot spots' as identified by Conservation biodiversity in this region. The majority of remaining
International are regions with more than intact habitats are in the higher mountain regions.
1 500 endemic species and more than 70 % habitat
loss in historic times (the baseline varies between
Mountains of Central Asia: Ecosystems range
regions, but typically lies several centuries back). The
from glaciers to desert, and contain ancestors of
identified biodiversity hot spots in the pan‑European
domestic fruit varieties. The region is also home to
region are listed below.
a rich variety of ungulates, including the threatened
argali wild sheep. Main threats to biodiversity
The Mediterranean basin: This region has more reported in the region are expansion of settlements
than four times as many vascular plant species and infrastructure development as well as mining,
than the rest of Europe. It is also the home of the overgrazing, poaching, water abstraction and
critically endangered Iberian lynx and Mediterranean drainage.
monk seal. Main threats are: urbanisation and
tourism, in particular on the coasts, forest fire,
Irano-Anatolian region: This region forms a
land abandonment, intensification of agriculture
natural barrier between the Mediterranean basin and
and forestry, water abstraction and pollution, and,
the dry plateaus of western Asia. It is a centre of
increasingly, desertification.
wild relatives of crops such as wheat, rye, oats, seed
and forage legumes and fruits. The main threats are
The Caucasus: Its deserts, savannas, arid development of irrigation schemes for agriculture and
woodlands and forests contain about 6 400 vascular associated infrastructure such as dams, overgrazing,
plant species, a quarter of which are endemic. overharvesting of woody plants for fuelwood,
Illegal logging, overgrazing, poaching, overfishing, and mining. The region boasts four endemic and
infrastructure development; and pollution of rivers threatened viper species.
and wetlands are reported as the main threats to
-40° -30° -20° -10° 0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90°
Hot spots of biodiversity
60°
40°
Hot spot regions
Number of plant species
by region
50°
Total number
of species
Endemics
30°
1 500 species
(hot spot lower limit)
40°
Outside report
coverage
20°
30°
Canary Is. Azores Is. Cabo Verde Is.
-30°
30°
Madeira Is.
-30° 0 500 1000 1500 Km
10°
-10° 0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50°
Taxonomic group Number of species (% endemics in brackets)
Mediterranean basin Caucasus Mountains of Central Asia Irano-Anatolian region
Plants 22 500 (52) 6 400 (25) 5 500 (28) 6 000 (42)
Mammals 226 (11) 131 (14) 143 (4) 142 (7)
Birds 489 (5) 378 (0.3) 489 (0) 362 (0)
Reptiles 230 (34) 86 (23) 59 (2) 116 (10)
Amphibians 79 (34) 17 (18) 7 (57) 18 (11)
Freshwater fish 216 (29) 127 (9) 27 (19) 90 (33)
Sources: Mittermeier et al., 2005; Médail and Quézel, 1997; WWF Caucasus, 2004; Blondel and Aronson, 1999; Troumbis et al., 2000.
EUROPE'S ENVIRONMENT | THE FOURTH ASSESSMENT 181Biodiversity
Figure 4.2 Red List Index for birds the loss caused by land abandonment outweighs
this. The utilised agricultural area in WCE decreased
Red List Index of species survival by 2.5 % between 1990 and 2000 (EEA, 2006a). No
0.94 comparable land accounts are available for EECCA
0.93 and SEE.
0.92
0.91 Another prominent phenomenon (see Figure 4.5) is
0.90 the increase in forest cover of about 8 000–9 000 km2
0.89 per year since 1990. This expansion has primarily
0.88 happened in the EU and EFTA, mainly due to
0.87 decreasing grazing pressure and spontaneous
0.86 re‑growth, and afforestation on abandoned
20 4
04
20 4
04
94
04
20 4
04
20 4
04
agricultural land. The largest increase in forest area
9
9
9
9
19
19
19
20
19
19
EFTA-4 EU-25 Caucasus E Europe SE Europe within the past five years is reported for southern
WCE EECCA SEE
European countries (Spain, Italy, France, Portugal,
Note: The RLI for European birds based on pan‑European Greece and Bulgaria) (UNECE/FAO, 2005a). In
extinction risk uses information from the Birds in Europe
database (Tucker and Heath 1994; BirdLife International,
the Mediterranean region and parts of the steppic
2004) to measure the projected overall regional extinction biogeographic region, afforestation programmes
risk of sets of species, and to track changes in this risk. It
is based on the proportion of species in each category on are being used as one of the tools to combat land
the regional Red List, and changes in this proportion over
time resulting from genuine improvement or deterioration
degradation, combined with the prevention of, inter
in the status of individual species. An RLI value of 1 (one) alia, forest fires (EEA, 2005).
equates to all species being categorised as Least Concern
at the European level, while an RLI value of 0 (zero)
indicates that all species are extinct in Europe.
Sources: BirdLife International/IUCN (unpublished data, 2006).
Sample sizes: EU‑25 (460), EFTA4 (317), EECCA (427), E
4.2.3 Specific threats
Europe (397), the Caucasus (313), SEE (390). No data for
Andorra, Monaco and San Marino.
Urbanisation and infrastructure
In WCE the pressure of urbanisation and transport
on biodiversity is highest in the densely populated
Figure 4.3 Trends in common birds (selected
countries) lowland areas and coastal zones (EEA, 2006b,c).
Gas and oil pipeline construction is causing habitat
Population index (1980 = 100) fragmentation and degradation in the Caucasus
140 (GRID Tbilisi, 2002). In Central Asia urbanisation
120 Progress
has led to loss and fragmentation of the fragile
since sand‑desert ecosystems in Turkmenistan (Chemonics
100 Kiev
International Inc., 2000). The impact of urbanisation
80 and infrastructure in SEE is biggest in Romania,
60 Bulgaria and Turkey, where grasslands and steppes
40 are affected. The steppe ecosystems in Turkey are
particularly threatened by road and dam construction
20
(CBD, 1999) (see also Chapter 5, Marine and coastal
0
environment).
00
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
02
20
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
EBCC/RSPB/BirdLife/Statistics Netherlands Agricultural intensification and land
Other common birds (n = 25) abandonment
Common forest birds (n = 33)
The agricultural pressures on biodiversity are
Common farmland birds (n = 19)
diverse and differ markedly between regions.
Note: Based on data from: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Intensification in terms of fertiliser inputs,
Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden,
United Kingdom, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Czech Republic, specialisation, and scale enlargement generally
Hungary, Norway and Switzerland.
decreases biodiversity (Donald et al., 2001). The
Source: EBCC, 2005.
most intensive farm systems in WCE have thus
182 EUROPE'S ENVIRONMENT | THE FOURTH ASSESSMENTBiodiversity
Figure 4.4 Main land-cover changes from 1990–2000
Changes in coverage of EUNIS 10 main habitat types from 1990 to 2000
Habitat categories (change in ha)
Mire, bog and fen habitats (– 107 044)
Heathland, scrub and tundra (– 298 108)
Coastal habitats (– 3 231)
Inland unvegetated or sparsely vegetated (– 42 197)
Cultivated, agriculture, horticulture (– 801 538)
Grassland (– 223 555)
Marine habitats (– 6 580)
Woodland and forest (603 421)
Inland surface water (99 513)
Constructed, industrial, artificial habitats (779 362)
–4 –2 0 2 4 6
% change
Note: Coverage: EU‑25 excluding Finland, Sweden, Cyprus, Malta.
Sources: EEA, 2005; EUNIS database.
land abandonment and intensification (EEA,
Figure 4.5 Change in annual forest area between
1990 and 2005 2004b; Baldock et al., 1995). More details on the
agriculture‑related pressures on biodiversity are
Km2/year given in Section 4.4.
9 000
8 000
Desertification
7 000
6 000 Desertification is the process of land degradation in
5 000 arid, semi-arid and dry semi-humid areas, resulting
4 000 from unsustainable land use in combination
3 000
2 000
with climatic factors. Drainage, overgrazing and
1 000 irrigation may all lead to soil erosion, salinisation,
0 lowered productivity and vegetation loss. It is a
– 1 000 serious problem in the Caucasian states and Central
– 2 000
WCE SEE Caucasus Central Eastern Asia, for example in the Shiraki, Eldari, Iori, Taribani
Asia Europe and Natbeuri valleys in Georgia (IUCN, 2006b).
1990–2000 EECCA
In Armenia a 1.9 % increase in eroded area was
2000–2005 observed between 1980 and 2000, and in Azerbaijan
Source: UNECE/FAO, 2005a. 3.6 million ha are currently subject to erosion (GRID
Tblisi, 2002; Azerbaijan National Academy of
resulted in highly productive monocultures with Sciences, 2004).
very low biodiversity. At the other end of the scale
are the species rich traditional farming systems, Natural expansion of deserts is observed in several
predominantly found in peripheral (southern areas in Tajikistan, but in the mountains this could
and eastern) regions. They have low stocking be seen as desertification as it is mainly due to
densities, little or no chemical inputs, and labour the intensive use of natural resources resulting
intensive management, such as shepherding. In in degradation of the environment (Novikov and
socio-economic terms these extensive farming Safarov, 2003). Two thirds of Kazakhstan's territory
systems are under pressure and subject to both is affected by different degrees of desertification
EUROPE'S ENVIRONMENT | THE FOURTH ASSESSMENT 183Biodiversity
(UNCCD, 2002). In eastern and south-eastern Europe, radioactivity than before the accident — particularly
desertification is mainly restricted to Bulgaria, Turkey high 137Cs concentrations are found in mushrooms,
and especially Romania (Ministry of Environment berries and game. These high levels are expected to
and Water Management of Romania, 2005) (see continue for several decades due to the persistent
Section 2.4, Soil). recycling of radiocaesium in forest ecosystems
(IAEA, 2006).
Acidification and eutrophication
Nitrogen and sulphur emissions, either to the Forest fires
air or directly to soil and water bodies, can cause Apart from immediate damage to people, wildlife
acidification and eutrophication of ecosystems. In and habitats, forest fires can result in erosion
2004 more than 23 % of trees assessed in 31 countries and insect outbreaks, water and air transfer of
were classified as damaged as a result of acidification, combustion products and a release of the carbon
although defoliation varies greatly between species stored by trees to the atmosphere (Riera and
and regions. While defoliation of several main species Mogas, 2004). Very large fires, as reported from
has increased since 1990, defoliation of Scots pine is Russia, can transform the forest environment for
now clearly lower than in the mid 1990s (UNECE, centuries (FAO/ECE/ILO, 2004). The magnitude
2005). In the vicinity of the copper nickel complexes and geographical distribution of human-induced
in Norilsk (Taimyr Peninsula) and Monchegorsk forest fires will be dealt with in Section 4.4.
(Kola Peninsula), acidification has destroyed
vegetation over hundreds of square kilometres (State Illegal logging/wildlife trade
Committee of Russian Federation for Environment Many species are illegally hunted and traded.
Protection, 1997; Ministry of Natural Resources of Quantitative data is limited, but the problem
Russian Federation, 2002). appears to be most prominent in the southern
and eastern regions (see Box 4.3). Illegal logging
Serious pressures on forest and freshwater accounts for more than 50 % of the wood harvested
ecosystems are also reported from Ukraine (UNECE, in the far-eastern parts of the Russian Federation
2001b), Croatia (Ministry of Environmental and in the Caucasus. The occurrence and impact of
Protection and Physical Planning of Croatia, 2000) illegal logging will be dealt with in Section 4.4.
and Albania. In Bulgaria soils representing 56 %
of the territory of the country have been acidified Invasive alien species
as a result of excessive fertiliser use (Ministry In the course of time, many species have been
of Environment and Water of Bulgaria, 2001). introduced into Europe, either on purpose or
Ecosystems in more than 70 % (in area) of WCE accidentally. Many of them have become invasive,
are affected by eutrophication. This damage level successfully outcompeting native species and
is expected to decline only slightly by 2020 (EEA, affecting habitats. This is increasingly regarded as a
2005). In the other regions the problem is less major threat to biodiversity. For the pan-European
prominent, but eutrophication of aquatic ecosystems region, 121 species are now listed as 'worst
and associated algal blooms are also reported in SEE invasives'. Their impact and the policy responses
(Vardaka et al., 2005; Ministry of Environment and will be dealt with in Section 4.5 (see also Chapter 5,
Physical Planning of the Republic of Macedonia, Marine and coastal environment).
2003; Ministry of Environment and Water
Management of Romania, 2005). During recent years Climate change
the environmental conditions in the Black Sea have Climate change is an overarching pressure that
improved slightly (UNECE, 2001b) (see Chapter 5, may aggravate many of the threats discussed
Marine and coastal environment). above. It is expected to become the main driver of
biodiversity loss in the future, affecting physiology
Radioactive contamination (e.g. primary production), phenology (i.e. the
Twenty years after the Chernobyl disaster, about growth cycle of plants and animals) and species
6 million ha of forests in the north of Ukraine distribution (Ciais et al., 2005; Thomas et al., 2004).
and southern Belarus still have higher levels of In the past four decades the start of the growing
184 EUROPE'S ENVIRONMENT | THE FOURTH ASSESSMENTBiodiversity
Box 4.3 Endangered species: the saiga antelope and the snow leopard
The saiga antelope (Saiga tatarica) occurs in steppic The snow leopard (Uncia uncia), occurring in the
grasslands and semi-arid deserts in Central Asia and mountains of Central Asia, has declined throughout
is classified as 'critically endangered' at global level. its range and is globally classified as 'endangered'.
Mainly due to poaching, its numbers have declined The population in Kyrgyzstan, once the second largest
from over one million in 1993 to less than 200 000 in in the world, has declined by 50–80 %. Illegal trade
2000. In Turkmenistan only 2 000 animals remain of in fur and bones is an incentive for poaching and
a population of 15 000 to 20 000 in the 1970s–1980s. snow leopards are also occasionally killed by owners
However, substantial conservation efforts, including of livestock. However, the main cause of decline of
hunting bans and penalties for illegal trade, have the snow leopard is the depletion of its prey through
been taken by Central Asian countries. In Kazakhstan illegal hunting.
the saiga antelope has again increased by 10–15 %
per year to a current level of 45 000 to 50 000. The
Russian population, estimated at 5 000 to 25 000, Sources: IUCN 2001, 2006a; CITES Secreteriat, 2006; CMS
appears stable. Secretariat, 2006; Dexel, 2002.
season in Europe, as observed in herbs, shrubs, et al., 2002; Parmesan and Yohe, 2003). Plant
trees, birds, butterflies and amphibians, has species richness in north-western Europe has
advanced by an average of 10 days (Menzel et al., increased over the past 30 years, warmth-tolerant
2006; Parmesan and Yohe, 2003; Both et al., 2004). and generalist species becoming more frequent
The longer growing season also affects the annual (Tamis et al., 2005; Preston et al., 2002; Often and
carbon uptake of plants and thereby the net carbon Stabbeorp, 2003). In many mountainous regions,
exchange of the biosphere (Churkina et al., 2005). tree-lines have moved up, pushing alpine species
further upwards (Inter-agency Commission of
The observed northward latitude and upward the Russian Federation on Climate Change, 2002;
altitude shift in the distribution ranges of various Grabherr et al., 2002; Grace et al., 2002; Dullinger
species is attributed to climate change (e.g. Walther et al., 2004). Likewise, endemic species in the arctic,
such as lichens and mosses, have been replaced by
Box 4.4 The impacts of climate change on the alpine ecosystems of Armenia
Mountain ecosystems are vulnerable to climate
change. Historical, archeological, paleobotanic and above sea level. In the above climate change
palynologic data show that significant changes in scenario the reduction of the alpine belt area is
the ecosystems of Armenia have occurred in the projected to be about 22 %. Alpine meadows and
last three millennia, related to global warming and carpets in particular will be reduced, but alpine
a drier climate. During this period the forest areas vegetation will be relatively well preserved in rocky
have shrunk significantly, the semi-desert and areas, stone screes and placers on the highest
steppe vegetation belts have expanded, and the mountain ridges and peaks. Endemic and rare
Alpine vegetation belt has shrunk. plant species growing on lower mountain ridges
(Komarov's caraway, Pallace's immortelle, Caucasian
rododendron, Physoptichis caspica, etc.) are more
Estimates of future vulnerability are based on the vulnerable.
IPCC scenario of an increase of the air temperature
by 2 °C and a reduction of atmospheric precipitation
by 10 % for the republic as a whole. Specially
developed computer models are used to analyse the
vulnerability of natural ecosystems in Armenia.
Source: Ministry of Nature Protection of the Republic of
Armenia, 1998; First national communication of the
The present area of alpine vegetation is about Republic of Armenia under the UNFCC.
2 200 km, located between 2 800 and 4 095 m http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/armnc1e.pdf.
EUROPE'S ENVIRONMENT | THE FOURTH ASSESSMENT 185Biodiversity
invading generalist species (Molau and Alatalo, Climate change will also aggravate the problem
1998; ACIA, 2004). of human-induced forest fires (see section below).
Projections show a considerable increase in the
Modelling studies show the potential for significant extent and frequency of fires, for example, in
disruption of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems the Iberian peninsula and Russia (ACIA, 2004),
by climate change (IPCC, 2001). The impacts affecting ecosystem composition in favour of
will to a large extent depend on the migration fast‑growing species.
capacity of species in relation to landscape
structure as well as their ability to cope with The main threats to biodiversity in Europe are
increasing climate extremes. All available scenarios summarised in Table 4.1.
highlight the vulnerability of arctic, mountain and
Mediterranean ecosystems (Brooker and Young,
2005; Schröter et al., 2005; EEA, 2005; see also 4.3 Providing a backbone:
Box 4.4). In Scotland and Wales, for example, a 1 °C ecological networks
annual temperature increase is expected to reduce
the distribution of arctic alpine ecosystems by 90 % 4.3.1 Pan‑European Ecological
(Ellis and Good, 2005). By 2100, more than 35 % of Network
plant species in northern countries may be invasive,
and 25 % of the plant species in Romania, Bulgaria, The Pan-European Ecological Network (PEEN) is
Iberian countries and some other Mediterranean a non-binding conceptual framework which aims
countries may have disappeared (Bakkeness et al., to enhance ecological connectivity across Europe
2006). by promoting synergies between nature policies,
land-use planning and rural and urban development
Table 4.1 Summary of main threats to biodiversity
Threat WCE EECCA SEE
Caucasus Central Asia Eastern Europe
Climate change ** *** *** ** **
Urbanisation/
infrastructure *** * * ** **
Agricultural
intensification ** * ** ** **
Land
abandonment ** * ** ***
Desertification * ** *** * **
Acidification * *** *
Eutrophication *** * * ** **
Radioactive
contamination **
Forest fires * ** **
Illegal logging ** * ** ***
Illegal hunting/
wildlife trade *** *** *
Invasive alien
species
** * * ** **
Note: The number of stars indicates the importance.
186 EUROPE'S ENVIRONMENT | THE FOURTH ASSESSMENTBiodiversity
at all scales (Council of Europe, 2003a). In the areas. Some countries and regions have chosen to
Kiev Resolution on Biodiversity the European integrate ecological networks into nature policy law
environment ministers committed to identifying (Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Germany, the
the core areas, corridors and buffer zones of Russian Federation, the Flemish region of Belgium),
the PEEN by 2006 and bringing the core areas while others have integrated these concepts into
under favourable management by 2008 (see also spatial planning legislation (Switzerland, Lithuania,
Section 4.1). Estonia, France). In other countries, the national
ecological network is supported by a non‑binding
So far only the core areas of the PEEN have been governmental strategy (the Netherlands,
formally designated as protected areas, for example Luxembourg, Kyrgyzstan) (Bonnin, 2004).
Ramsar sites, World Heritage sites, Biosphere
reserves, Biogenetic reserves, and Natura 2000 Regional transboundary initiatives such as the
sites. The designation of Emerald sites is in a pilot Alpine Network of Protected Areas (Réseau Alpin,
phase (see also the following sections). Large sites 2004), the Lower Danube Green Corridor (WWF,
protected under national regulations for nature 2003), the European Green Belt (IUCN, 2006c),
protection can also be considered as core areas of Econet for Central Asia (GEF/UNEP/WWF, 2006)
the PEEN. The effective implementation of corridors and the initiative for Central Asia (see Box 4.5) are
and buffer zones will require a combination of also major contributions to the PEEN.
nature conservation policies, sustainable forestry
and agriculture, as well as restoration measures, As part of the Ecoregional Conservation Plan for the
within a transboundary approach (Brunner, 2002; Caucasus, endorsed during the Caucasian countries'
Bennett, 2004; Kuijken, 2003; Council of Europe, Ministerial Conference in March 2006, a map of
2003b). priority conservation areas (PCA) and corridors
in the Caucasus ecoregion has been prepared by
Based on guidelines set up by the Committee of
Experts for the PEEN (Council of Europe, 2000)
indicative maps of the PEEN have been drawn up Figure 4.6 Area coverage of nationally protected areas
by NGOs and research institutes for south‑eastern in EECCA and SEE countries, 2005
Europe (Biró et al., 2006) and central and eastern
Europe (Bouwma, et al., 2002) (see Map 4.2). A map Serbia and Montenegro
Romania
is currently being developed for western Europe. FYR of Macedonia
The establishment of the PEEN is supported by Croatia
Bulgaria
legal provisions and instruments under various Bosnia and Herzegovina
conventions and international agreements Albania
(Bennett, 2002; Bonnin, 2004), including the Ramsar Georgia
Azerbaijan
Convention, the Bonn Convention, the Man and the Armenia
Biosphere (MAB) Biosphere Reserves Programme, Uzbekistan
Turkmenistan
the Bern Convention, the Alpine Convention and Taijikistan
especially the Carpathian Convention, which Kyrgyzstan
explicitly refers to the need for a Carpathian Kazakhstan
Ukraine
ecological network as a integral part of the PEEN. Republic of Moldova
At the national level, European and Central Asian Belarus
Russian Federation
countries contribute to the PEEN through their own
0 5 10 15 20
system of protected areas. The share of protected
Land territory (%)
areas in the EECCA and SEE countries is shown in
Figure 4.6. Sources: CDDA, 2006 (Serbia and Montenegro, Romania, Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Croatia, Bulgaria,
Bosnia and Herzgovina, Albania); GEF/UNEP/WWF, 2006
(Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Taijikistan, Kyrgyzstan,
In addition to their policy on protected areas, a Kazakhstan); WWF, 2006 (Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia).
growing number of countries are considering Russian Ministry of Natural Resources, 2006 (Russia);
Ministry of Natural Resources and protection of the
the need to ensure connectivity between core Environment of Belarus, 2006 (Belarus).
EUROPE'S ENVIRONMENT | THE FOURTH ASSESSMENT 187Biodiversity
WWF, as a guideline for future action towards an comprised 20 862 sites under the Habitats Directive,
ecological network in this region. The Natura 2000 including 1 248 marine sites (12.2 % of the land
network will be the EU's main contribution to the area of the EU is covered) and 4 617 sites under the
PEEN (see section below). Birds Directive, including 484 marine sites (9.9 %
of the land area of the EU is covered, see Map 4.3).
Combined, the Habitats Directive and Birds Directive
4.3.2 Natura 2000 sites cover about 17 % of the total EU land area.
Article 10 of the Habitats Directive also refers to
The Natura 2000 Network comprises Special ecological coherence, although it does not mention
Protection Areas (SPAs) under the Birds Directive corridors specifically or make them mandatory.
and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) under the
Habitats Directive (European Commission 1996–2006, The European Commission Communication
2005). In December 2006, the Natura 2000 network Halting the Loss of Biodiversity by 2010 and beyond —
Map 4.2 Indicative map of the Pan‑European Ecological Network for central and eastern Europe
Pan-European Ecological
Network for central and
eastern Europe
Very large area: 5
times or larger than
the critical size for
the most demanding
species
Large area: 1–5
times the critical size.
Enlargement or
connection by
corridors desirable
Suboptimal size.
Enlargement and/or
connection to other
areas highly desirable
Major parts are
cultivated
Internationally
designated or
acknowledged
areas/sites
Corridor for forest
habitat
Outside report
coverage
0
0 250
250 500 750 1000
1000 Km
Source: Bouwma et al., 2002.
188 EUROPE'S ENVIRONMENT | THE FOURTH ASSESSMENTBiodiversity
Box 4.5 Transboundary initiatives on protected areas in Central Asia
Initiated by WWF-Central Asia, a framework for past three years: 600 000 ha in Kazakhstan and
the creation of a coherent ecological network in 200 000 ha in Kyrgyzstan.
Central Asia was approved in 2006 by the Central
Asian Intergovernmental Sustainable Development
Commission. The initiative has stimulated the
establishment of new protected areas over the Source: GEF/UNEP/WWF, 2006.
40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90°
Econet of Central Asia
RUSSIAN
FEDERATION Core area
50°
50° Corridor
Buffer zone
Outside report
coverage
KAZAKHSTAN
UZBEKISTAN 40°
40° AZER- KYRGYZSTAN
BAIJAN
TURKMENISTAN CHINA
TAJIKISTAN
IRAN
0 500 1000 Km AFGANISTAN
50° 60° 70° 80°
Sustaining Ecosystem Services for Human Well-Being their land territory, followed by Portugal, Greece,
(European Commission, 2006) calls for Member Estonia, Hungary, and Luxembourg, ranging from
States to reinforce the coherence and connectivity 10 % to 17 % of their territories. As for the marine
of the Natura 2000 network. It also highlights environment, Germany makes by far the largest
the need to restore biodiversity and ecosystem contribution (Figure 4.7b).
services in non‑protected rural areas of the EU.
Compliance with these objectives is the key to the The degree to which countries are considered to have
implementation of the PEEN within the EU. fulfilled their obligations with regard to site proposals
under the Habitats Directive is assessed through the
In terms of percentage of their territory covered, Sufficiency Index (SI). Among the EU‑15, Denmark,
Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain make the highest the Netherlands and Belgium have completely
contribution under the Birds Directive — 18–25 % fulfilled their obligations (SI 100 %), followed closely
of the land territory — closely followed by by Germany, Greece and Italy, while Finland is still
Hungary, Cyprus, Estonia and the Netherlands. 32 % off target. Among the EU‑10, Malta fulfilled
Germany, Denmark, Poland, Estonia, Finland and 92 % of its obligation; followed by Latvia, 90 %;
the Netherlands make a significant contribution to Hungary, 87 %; and Estonia, 85 % (see Figure 4.8).
the marine part (Figure 4.7a). Slovenia and Spain
make the highest contribution under the Habitats A consistent scheme for monitoring the
Directive with 32 % and 23 %, respectively, of conservation status of Natura 2000 sites is being
EUROPE'S ENVIRONMENT | THE FOURTH ASSESSMENT 189Biodiversity
developed (see also Section 4.6). A preliminary almost 900 species and 220 habitats covered by the
survey of 20 species and eight habitats under Birds and Habitats Directives is not yet possible.
the Birds and Habitats Directives revealed a
'favourable' conservation status in only 6 % of the
sample. Loggerhead turtles in the Mediterranean, 4.3.3 Emerald network
brown bears in Austria and the Eurasian lynx
in the Alps (European Habitats Forum, 2006) The Emerald network, initiated under the Bern
were considered among the 12 species with Convention on the Conservation of European
a 'bad' conservation status.This small and Wildlife and Natural Habitats, aims to extend
non‑representative sample does not allow a common approach to the designation and
any extrapolation, and unfortunately general management of protected areas, equivalent to
assessment of the conservation status of the Natura 2000, to non-EU countries in Europe and
Map 4.3 Distribution of Natura 2000 sites across EU Member States
-30° -20° -10° 0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60°
Distribution of Natura
2000 sites across EU-25
Natura 2000 sites
Outside report
60°
coverage
60°
50°
50°
40°
40°
-30°
Azores Is.
Can ary Is.
30° 40°
30°
30°
Madeira
-30° Is. 0 500 1000 1500 Km
0° 10° 20° 30°
Source: EEA-ETC/BD, December 2006.
190 EUROPE'S ENVIRONMENT | THE FOURTH ASSESSMENTBiodiversity
Figure 4.7 Proportion of national land territory and marine surface area protected under the Birds and Habitats
Directives
a: Designated as Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under the Birds Directive
35 18 000
16 000
30
14 000
25
12 000
20
10 000
15 8 000
6 000
10
4 000
5
2 000
0 0
ria m (1) blic any ark nia ain nd nce ece ary nd aly nia urg via lta nds nd gal en nia kia om
st giu s u to Sp inla Fra e g la It ua bo La
t Ma la la u ed ove ova d
Au Bel pru Rep erm en Es
m
Gr Hun Ire ith em er Po Port Sw ng
y G D
F
L x t h Sl Sl Ki
C c h u N e e d
e L it
Cz Un
Land territory (%) Marine area (km²)
b: Proposed as Sites of Community Interest (SCIs) under the Habitats Directive
35 20 000
18 000
30
16 000
25 14 000
12 000
20
10 000
15
8 000
10 6 000
4 000
5
2 000
0 0
ria m 1) lic any ark nia ain and nce ece ary and taly nia urg tvia alta nds and gal den nia kia om
st giu s ( ub m sto Sp inl Fra e g l I a bo
La M erla Po
l a
rtu we love lov ingd
Au Bel pru Rep erm en E F Gr Hun Ire hu Po S
Cy ch G D Lit xem et
h S S
d
K
e L u N e
Cz it
Un
Land territory (%) Marine area (km²)
Note: (1) = The area of the Member State and the % corresponds to the area of Cyprus where the Community acquis applies at present,
according to Protocol 10 of the Accession Treaty of Cyprus.
Source: EEA-ETC/BD, December 2006.
EUROPE'S ENVIRONMENT | THE FOURTH ASSESSMENT 191Biodiversity
Figure 4.8 Sufficiency of Member State proposals for designating sites under the Habitats Directive
%
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Be ds
k
m
y
e
m ly
g
n
lta
m
Fr n
ce
ia
Po ia
Ir al
d
Es ry
a
ia
Fi ia
Cz Lith d
Re ia
Cy c
Po s
nd
i
u
ar
an
ec
ni
ur
an
an
ai
e
n
bl
a
tv
r
ug
en
ak
n
iu
do
ga
an
pr
ed
la
d Ma
st
rla
It
Sp
to
ua
m
bo
pu
re
m
el
nl
La
lg
ov
ov
rt
ng
Au
un
Sw
en
he
G
er
Sl
Sl
Ki
H
D
G
xe
et
h
N
Lu
ec
te
ni
U
EU-15 EU-10
Source: EEA-ETC/BD, January 2007.
northern Africa (Council of Europe, 1999). Pilot 4.4 Achieving sustainable use:
projects have been implemented in the 12 new EU forestry and agriculture
Member States before they joined the EU, Norway,
Switzerland, Iceland, western Balkans, Turkey, 4.4.1 Ecosystem services
the Republic of Moldova, the Russian Federation,
Ukraine, Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan and The stability of ecosystems and the services they
two African countries (Burkina Faso and Senegal). provide depend to a large extent on their biodiversity
The purpose of these pilot projects is to identify, for and the complex interactions between species and
further protection, Areas of Special Conservation their environment. Human-induced disturbances
Interest (ASCIs), containing the species and habitats may affect the dynamics within ecosystems and lead
listed in Resolutions No. 4 and 6 of the Standing to irreversible damage. The majority of the ecosystem
Committee to the Bern Convention and Annexes I services that support life on Earth are being degraded
and II of the Habitats Directive. or used unsustainably (Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (MA), 2005). In its analysis, the MA
As a continuation of the initial pilot projects, distinguishes between provisioning services (food,
important further work has been carried out freshwater, roundwood, fuelwood etc.), regulating
in six south eastern European countries under services (climate, disease and water regulation) and
a Community Assistance for Reconstruction, cultural services (non-material benefits).
Development and Stabilisation (CARDS) regional
programme, resulting in more than 80 % of ASCIs One aspect of sustainable use is the exploitation
being identified in each country (Map 4.4). of local resources and their (global) significance.
Food production, for example, seems warranted
The Emerald initiative has been very useful for the at the European scale, but is in fact vulnerable and
EU-12 countries in preparing their contribution to associated with major impacts on the environment.
the Natura 2000 network before accession. From a Worldwide, only 14 animal species and four plant
pan-European perspective, the initiative should help species (wheat, maize, rice and potato) account
stimulate the completion of national networks of for 90 % of our food (EEA, 2006a). In large parts of
protected areas in other European countries. Europe, increasingly intensive food production and
192 EUROPE'S ENVIRONMENT | THE FOURTH ASSESSMENTBiodiversity
Map 4.4 Proposed ASCIs under the Emerald process, in the western Balkans area (Albania, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Croatia, FYR of Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro)
15° 20°
Proposed areas of
conservation interest
H U N G A R Y
under the Emerald
process, West Balkan
SL O V E N I A R O M A N I A 45°
Areas of conservation
Za g re b
C R O A T I A Capitals
Be l gr a de
45°
B O S N I A -
H E R Z E G O V I N A
S E R B I A
Sa r a je vo
BULGARIA
M O N T E -
N E G R O
Po d go r ic a
Sk o pj e
FYR of
MACEDONIA
I T A L Y
Tir ana
AL B A N I A
40°
G R E E C E
0
40° 100 15° 200 300 Km 20°
Source: EEA-ETC/BD, December 2006, unpublished.
the resulting large scale monocultures have had a 4.4.2 Forestry
significant impact on biodiversity and its associated
regulating and cultural services. In addition, care Trends and pressures on biodiversity
has to be taken that the original gene pool from The forest area of Europe amounts to
which the cultivated species originate is maintained 10.3 million km2 (79 % of which is located in
(see Box 4.6). the Russian Federation). About one quarter is
considered as primary forest; that is, without clearly
Consumption in Europe can also have significant visible indications of human activities. Another
impacts on ecosystems elsewhere. This 'ecological 50 % is modified natural forests, with little human
footprint' is difficult to measure, but current estimates influence, and the rest heavily modified. In many
suggest that the area needed to provide essential parts of WCE the majority of forest consists of
ecosystem services to the European population plantations. The low degree of naturalness of these
exceeds Europe's surface by a factor of two (EEA, forests is reflected by their low share of deadwood,
2006a). an important indicator of forest biodiversity. Rough
estimates based on total biomass content suggest
The following sections explore sustainability issues that deadwood quantities in the Russian Federation
in more detail for two sectors that depend heavily are three times higher than in north-western Europe
on and affect biodiversity in Europe: forestry and (UNECE/FAO, 2005a). More comprehensive data
agriculture. will be available in the near future from country
EUROPE'S ENVIRONMENT | THE FOURTH ASSESSMENT 193Biodiversity
Box 4.6 Global centres of crop origin
Our major food crops have come mainly from high It was Nikolai Vavilov (1887–1943) who pioneered
mountain valleys, isolated from each other to a the study of the systematics of cultivated plants
large extent and with a very great habitat range. and the centres of origin of the world's crops. In
Europe and Central Asia contain three such centres: Transcaucasia and several countries then within the
Soviet Union, he discovered a wealth of strains of
cereals, forage grasses, root crops and vegetables,
Central Asia (Tadjikistan, Uzbekistan, etc.) is a as well as an extraordinary richness of local fruit
centre of the wild relatives of crops such as wheats, tree varieties 'surpassing many other countries in
rye and many herbaceous legumes, as well as the world'. By the 1930s, the Soviet Union had built
seed‑sown root crops and fruits, some 42 species. up an exceptionally complete collection of strains of
The Mediterranean basin is a centre of the wild the world's most important crops.
relatives of crops such as wheats, barleys, forage
plants, vegetables and fruits, especially spices and
ethereal oil plants, some 84 species. The challenge of safeguarding these reservoirs of
genes to ensure resistance to disease and pests,
Near East (including Transcaucasia, Iran and and many other qualities, is today more important
Turkmenistan) is a centre of the wild relatives of than ever.
crops such as wheats, rye, oats, seed and forage
legumes and fruits, some 83 species.
Sources: Bioversity Intenational; Vavilov, N. I., 1992.
Global centres of
crop origin
Crop origin
centres
Near East Central
Asia China
Mediterranean
India
Southern Mexico
and
Central America
Brazil
and
Peru, Paraguay Indo-Malaya
Ecuador,
Bolivia
Chile
0 3000 6000 Km
Source: N. Vavilov, 1949, Chronica Botanica Vol 13. Waltham, Massachusetts, adapted by Reid, Walter and Kenton Miller, 1989.
reporting to the Ministerial Conference on the Europe is 1.8 billion m3, more than half of which
Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE). is in the Russian Federation. About 180 million m3
of wood were harvested in the Russian Federation
The total growing stock in Europe is around during 2005, which is less than 20 % of its NAI. In
109 billion m3, of which 80 billion m3 are in the comparison, WCE harvests about 60 % of its NAI,
Russian Federation, about 19 billion m3 in WCE the SEE region and eastern Europe about one third,
and about 4.5 billion m3 in SEE (UNECE/FAO, the Central Asian region about one fifth, and the
2005a). The total net annual increment (NAI) in Caucasus about one eighth (UNECE/FAO, 2000).
194 EUROPE'S ENVIRONMENT | THE FOURTH ASSESSMENTBiodiversity
Industrial roundwood is the most important the Caucasus (FAO/ECE/ILO, 2003; FAO/ECE/
forest product. The amount harvested each year ILO, 2004), and reductions in forest fire service
has increased since 1990 in WCE, the Caucasus capacities in EECCA countries have added to the
and Central Asia, whereas it has declined by problem (Dimitrakopoulus and Mitsopoulus, 2006;
50 % in eastern Europe due to the crisis in the Goldammer, 2003; Goldammer, 2006). The summer
Russian forestry industry. Over the same period, of 2003 was one of the most severe fire seasons in
the harvesting of industrial roundwood has been southern Europe, particularly Portugal and France,
quite stable in the SEE (UNECE/FAO, 2005a). In all in recent decades (European Commission, 2004a).
UNECE scenarios, roundwood harvesting in WCE In the Balkan region, Croatia, Turkey, the Former
and eastern Europe appears to be sustainable, at Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Bulgaria
least for the next 15 years. UNECE does, however, were most exposed to forest fires during the period
identify a number of problems related to economic 1988–2004, with a strong peak in 2000 (Nikolov,
viability, institutional weakness in eastern Europe, 2006). Large forest areas in Kazakhstan were
shortcomings in governance and skills, and forest also affected (Goldammer, 2006), while official
fires (UNECE/FAO, 2005b). Russian Federation statistics report between 20 000
and 40 000 fires annually. Fires in Belarus and
In some regions fuelwood and non-wood Ukraine are more small-scale (Goldammer, 2006).
forest products (such as animal fodder, berries, The number of fires and the annual burnt area
mushrooms, nuts, seeds, cork, meat and skins) in northern and central Europe and in the Baltic
remain important for the rural population, especially countries has been rather stable during the past
in the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Balkans, and decade.
Turkey (UNECE/FAO, 2005a). Poverty may lead to
over-exploitation and impact on forest biodiversity, Policy responses
especially around human settlements (CAREC, Most countries in Europe have prepared or
2005). are in the process of preparing national forest
programmes according to the MCPFE guidelines
A special threat to forest biodiversity is illegal (MCPFE Vienna Resolution V1). Linkages between
logging, often rooted in poverty, but also stimulated an ecosystem approach and sustainable forest
by commercial incentives, and enhanced by flaws management have been successfully established
in forest legislation and its enforcement. Illegal and integrated into forest policy frameworks.
logging tends to be more frequent in private than The total area of forest formally designated for
in public forests, and may also occur in protected production and extraction of forest goods has
forests and forest reserves (Bouriaud and Niskanen, decreased over the past 15 years (most significantly
2003; Ottitsch et al., 2005). In some cases it is a in Sweden, Finland, Ukraine, Romania and
side effect of cross border conflicts. Illegal logging Belarus). National policies are increasingly geared
is most frequent in the Balkan region, the Baltic towards the development of services such as nature
countries, the Russian Federation, the Caucasus, conservation and recreation. The area of forest
Central Asia and in some central and eastern designated for the conservation of biodiversity
European countries (see Map 4.5). Definitions of has increased considerably in Spain, Italy,
illegal logging vary between organisations and the Kazakhstan and Croatia. There has been a slight
estimates of environmental NGOs tend to be higher overall decrease of forest with protective functions
than governmental and industry estimates (Ottitsch (soil, water) since 2000, with, nonetheless, strong
et al., 2005; CEPF, 2003/2004; Gunes and Elvan, 2005; increases in Albania, Estonia, Iceland, Lithuania
UN‑ECE/FAO, 2004; WWF, 2004, 2005a, 2005b; and the United Kingdom. The Caucasus shows a
IUCN and CCI RF, 2005; Illegal logging Info, 2006). negative trend for both protective and production
functions (UNECE/FAO, 2005a). Implementation
Changes in traditional land use and climate have of the Natura 2000 and Emerald networks, inside
increased the number, magnitude and frequency and outside the EU respectively has provided an
of forest fires in the Mediterranean and SEE important impetus for protecting the biodiversity
regions, the Russian Federation, Central Asia and of Europe's forests.
EUROPE'S ENVIRONMENT | THE FOURTH ASSESSMENT 195You can also read
