BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN THE UNITED STATES
Robert C. Szaro and William T. Sexton
U.S. Forest Service
One of today's most pressing environmental issues is the conservation of biodiversity (Szaro and Johnston 1994). The challenge is for nations, government agencies, organizations, and individuals to protect and enhance biodiversity while continuing to meet people's needs for natural resources. This challenge exists from local to global scales. If not met, future generations will live in a biologically impoverished world and perhaps one that is less capable of producing desired resources as well. Conserving biodiversity involves restoring, protecting, conserving, or enhancing the variety of life in an area so that the abundances and distributions of species and communities provide for continued existence and normal ecological functioning, including adaptation and extinction (Szaro 1994a). This does not mean all things must occur in all areas, but that all things must be cared for at some appropriate geographic scale.
THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
The United States has a long history of and commitment to environmental protection, with some of the World's most comprehensive and advanced programs for controlling pollution, protecting public lands, and enforcing environmental laws. The growth of this commitment reflects the settlement of the United States.
Prior to European immigration, several million native Americans lived in what is now the United States, harvesting fish and wildlife, planting, irrigating, clearing land with fire, and collecting vegetation for a wide variety of uses (West 1992). They had communities, roads in some cases, domesticated animals and a wide range of cultures, beliefs, and languages. Relative to the present, the total number of people was low. They had very limited technology with which to modify their environment, primarily fire. As today, these people depended on and used natural resources.
The early colonists who settled in the United States from the 1600's to 1800 had quite a different view of their landscape. In relation to Europe, the land was
enormous and covered throughout with dense forests. Forests and other wildlands were viewed as an enemy. The landscape was covered with a foreboding wilderness filled with dangers. Those who ventured into this wilderness, fought back nature, and created civilization, were considered folk heroes and pioneers. It is quite clear from the literature, art, and records available that public perception was dominated by the view that forests were endless and constituted a barrier to survival, settlement, and growth. It was considered a laudable undertaking to clear and burn forests. Resources were viewed as limitless, and human impact on the landscape was deemed progress.
In the 1800's the focus in the United States was on expansion, settlement, and economic profits derived from resource exploitation and land disposal (West 1992). By the middle of the century railroads had spanned the country. Travel by river boats, wagons, horse, and foot travel had accessed the furtherest reaches of the American landscape. Huge amounts of land had been cleared for towns, farming, and ranching. Widespread land abuse by speculators and large companies was common. Damage to lakes and streams, loss of vast acres of forest, and disappearing wildlife were common. By the 1850's nearly 180 million acres of government territory were transferred to railroads in exchange for laying track in unsettled areas. The land disposal interests of the federal government was epitomized by the passage in 1862 of the Homestead Act. The general public attitude was still that resources were limitless and should be exploited for economic growth. Wilderness the enemy was replaced by wilderness the economic opportunity. The census of 1890 declared the closing of the American frontier. In the view of the United States government, the country was finally settled.
The period of the late 1800's and early 1900's has frequently been called the "Golden Age of Conservation" in the United States (West 1992). Public attention and government action focused on the widespread abuses that had occurred in the previous era. As a result of public debate over these issues, a new set of social, cultural, and economic values evolved across American society. This resulted in a variety of conservation oriented efforts, including in 1872 the establishment of Yellowstone National Park, the first in the world; the establishment of the Forest Reserves in 1891, putting in place most of the federal forest land that exists today; and the establishment of the National Park Service in 1916. A few examples of resource legislation that were associated with changing social and political views include: The Game and Wild Birds Preservation and Disposition Act of 1900; The American Antiquities Act of 1906 protecting cultural resources; The Alaska Game Preservation Act of 1908; and the Migratory Bird Act of 1918. Clearly American society had established a new and quite different set of values related to public lands and resource management, and it adopted a new paradigm of what constituted a reasonable, prudent approach to land management. This conservation paradigm was embodied by the concept of wise use.
The parallel with our present situation is quite striking. The age of conservation was ushered in with great controversy surrounding public lands and resources, whether there should be a public domain, where should it be, how much
should there be of it, and what should it be used for. The major issues of that time still sound very familiar; Alaska, migratory birds, planting trees, the effect of catastrophic wildfires, the role and mission of the Park Service and Forest Service, concern for our cultural heritage, and the long-term sustainability of natural resources.
From the 1940's through the mid 1980's, the American view and interest in public domain natural resources shifted to efficient production in the context of national needs and economic growth. Beginning with World War II, public lands were "expected" to provide critical elements for the war effort. Wood, minerals, and red meat were a significant part of the national effort and played a major role in economic development following the war. Land management agency programs and budgets were built around market valued outputs and products. In the minds of many, "multiple use" became synonymous with commodity production of wood fiber, metals, and grazing, with a secondary concern for other values.
There were however, some very strong signals during the latter part of this period that signaled yet another change in our society's view of the environment. These included: The Wilderness Act of 1964; The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; The Endangered Species Act of 1972; The Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974; The National Forest Management Act of 1976; the first Earth Day in 1971; and Rachel Carson's 1972 book Silent Spring. And on top of the social and legislative activity there was an enormous amount of litigation in the 1970's and 80's related to environmental interests. Like the turn of the last century, our time experienced a great deal of social and political debate about the future of our nations natural resources.
By the mid 1980's perspectives on resource management and the conservation of biodiversity in the United States shifted dramatically to one of increasing concern. This mirrored changing global concern for conserving biodiversity with its profound implications for how we manage natural resources (Crow 1989). At the roots of this concern were a recognition of accelerating losses of species, increasing rates of deforestation and soil erosion, and shifting global climate due to the cumulative impacts of human activities. The United States and the World focused on environmental issues. In the United States, Edward O. Wilson led the charge by bringing national attention to biodiversity. His leadership led to a National Forum on Biodiversity that was held in Washington, D.C. in September 1986 (Wilson and Peter 1988). Biodiversity became the central issue for global conservation. Efforts to develop the framework Convention on Biological Diversity were launched by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in May 1989 when the Governing Council of the UNEP unanimously adopted a resolution introduced by the United States to begin negotiations on an international convention to conserve biological diversity. This was one of several parallel efforts leading up to the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development (UNCED) that was held in June of 1992 at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil that included the negotiations for conventions on climate change and biological diversity, principles on global deforestation, and various declarations, initiatives,
and agendas for UNCED itself (including AGENDA 21). The meeting had a tremendously ambitious goal: to make environmental concerns a central issue in international relations (Raeburn, 1992).
THE CURRENT CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK
With this historical background, it is easy to see that the United States has a long history of environmental protection, with some of the World's most comprehensive and advanced programs for controlling pollution, protecting public lands and enforcing environmental laws. The first 100 years of conservation tradition has resulted in an evolving framework to help manage and conserve biological resources in the United States for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations that consists of:
Reducing habitat loss by using land and water more productively and efficiently, implementing programs to reduce wetland conversion, and purchasing sensitive and threatened areas.
Establishing specially protected areas or habitats on about 10% of the U.S. land mass, about 225 million acres including wilderness, research natural areas, and special botanical areas.
Special consideration of plant and animal communities in the remaining 20% of the U.S. land mass owned by the U.S. government, about 450 million acres.
Restoring degraded habitat and controlling non-native species on public and private lands, and creating man-made habitats.
Laws and policies to conserve individual, or groups of, fish, wildlife, and plant species.
Statutes, regulations, and policies, which by reducing pollution of soil, water and air, help reduce stress on biodiversity.
Ex-situ measures to conserve species and preserve germplasm in zoos, botanical gardens, and other off-site locations.
State and local government programs, sometimes in partnerships with the U.S. government.
Involvement of private parties and landowners, on their own, and in cooperation with public authorities.
International programs to conserve biodiversity including improving the productivity of agriculture and forestry in developing nations, regulating ocean fisheries within a 200 mile limit, and supporting CITES and bans on whaling.
Cooperative programs with Canada, Mexico and Central American nations to conserve habitats for migratory species that spend part of their lifecycles in the United States.
Broad basic and applied research programs focused on the management and conservation of biological resources.
DEVELOPING AN ECOLOGICAL APPROACH
Clearly every effort should be made to conserve biodiversity (Szaro and Shapiro 1990; Szaro 1994a, b). The conservation of biodiversity encompasses genetic diversity of species populations, richness of species in biological communities, processes whereby species interact with one another and with physical attributes within ecological systems, and the abundance of species, communities, and ecosystems at large geographic scales (Harrington et al, 1990). Current programs to protect, maintain, and enhance populations of particular species contribute to the welfare of components of biodiversity, but they can only deal with a relatively small portion of the ever expanding list of threatened and endangered species (Miller 1994; Reid et al. 1992).
It is easy to understand why threatened and endangered species have received the focus of attention. Many are large, easily observable, and often-times aesthetically pleasing. This has resulted in most efforts at restoration and rehabilitation being directed towards endangered as well as harvested species (Bridgewater et al. 1994). Yet, threatened and endangered species represent only one aspect of a larger issue: conservation of the full variety of life, from genetic variation in species populations to the richness of ecosystems in the biosphere (Salwasser 1990). The best way to minimize species loss is to maintain the integrity of ecosystem function. The important questions therefore concern the kinds of biodiversity that are significant to ecosystem functioning. To best focus our efforts we need to establish how much (or how little) redundancy there is in the biological composition of ecosystems. Functional groups with little or no redundancy warrant priority conservation effort (Walker 1992). It is axiomatic that conservation of biodiversity cannot succeed through "crisis management" of an ever expanding number of endangered species. The best time to restore or sustain a species or ecosystem is when it is still common. And for certain species and biological communities, the pressing concern is perpetuation or enhancement of the genetic variation that provides for long-term productivity, resistance to stress, and adaptability to change. A biologically diverse forest holds a greater variety of potential resource options for a longer period of time than a less diverse forest. It is more likely to be able to respond to environmental stresses and adapt to a rapidly changing climate. And it may be far less costly in the long run to sustain a rich variety of species and biological communities operating under largely natural ecological processes than to resort to the heroic efforts now being employed to recover California condors (Gymnogyps californianus), peregrine falcons (Falco pereginus), and grizzly bears (Ursus horribilis). Resource managers know from experience that access to resources is greater and less costly when forests and rangelands are sufficiently healthy and diverse.
However, endangered species are fundamental indicators of environmental disturbance. Since extinction is a process, not a simple event, the recognition that a species is endangered is little more than a snapshot of a moving vehicle. Attempts at therapy most often address symptoms rather than causes. We have failed to communicate successfully why rehabilitation and restoration beyond the narrow focus of the endangered and harvested are essential. The environmental variables which affect the health and welfare of all the flora and fauna also affect people: water and air quality, recycling of organic and inorganic substances, microclimate, etc. Loss of biodiversity means loss of ecological services and options for the future. The cost of replacing ecological services, already great, will increase to staggering proportions. The real and potential wealth represented by conserved biodiversity cannot be replaced (Bridgewater et al. 1994).
The tough choices posed in the spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) case in the Pacific Northwest of the United States typify many future issues as the conservation of forest biodiversity becomes a higher social priority (Thomas et al. 1990). Regardless of the eventual outcome of this issue, there is an important lesson to be learned: Conserving biodiversity will not be cheap or non-controversial. Federal land management agencies in the United States have increasingly come under fire over management decisions that appear to decrease biodiversity. The dispute over the spotted owl and old-growth forests is the most visible example of how tough it is to blend the conservation of biodiversity with other uses and values of public resources. It illustrates the reality of "no free lunch" in resource allocations. Even though parks, reserves, set-asides, and easements are critical components in the mix for the conservation of biodiversity they will become more difficult to come by and ultimately will require an expansion beyond the "reserve mentality" (Brussard et al. 1992). Multiple-use of public lands is deeply ingrained. Somehow we have to come up with management prescriptions for our public lands that will allow both consumptive and non-consumptive uses but will do so in such a way that no net loss of native species will occur.
For example, a strategy to maximize species diversity at the local level does not necessarily add to regional diversity. In fact, oftentimes in our hast to "enhance" habitats for wildlife we have emphasized "edge" preferring species at the expense of "area" sensitive ones and consequently may have even decreased regional diversity. It is important to realize that principles that apply at smaller scales of time and space do not necessarily apply to longer time periods and larger spatial scales (Crow 1989). Long-term maintenance of species and their genetic variation will require cooperative efforts across entire landscapes (Miller 1994). This is consistent with the growing scientific sentiment that biodiversity should be dealt with at the scale of habitats or ecosystems rather than species (Hunter et al. 1988). If context is ignored in conservation decisions and the surrounding landscape changes radically in pattern and structure, patch content too will be altered by edge effects and other external influences (Noss 1994). For example, landscape connectivity is a direct consequence of the abundance of suitable habitat, its spatial patterning in the landscape, and the organism's scale of resource
utilization (Pearson et al. 1994). Moreover, the scale and scope of conservation has been too restricted and steps must be taken to incorporate the benefits of biodiversity and the use of biological resources into local, regional, national, and international economies (Miller 1994, WRI/IUCN/UNEP 1992). The maintenance of biodiversity requires attention to a wider array of components in determining management options as well as the management of larger landscape units.
SUSTAINING THE ENVIRONMENT INTO THE NEXT CENTURY
The demands and expectations placed on biological resources are high and widely varied, calling for new approaches that go beyond merely reacting to resource crises and concerns (Szaro 1993a; Szaro and Salwasser 1991). New approaches must incorporate fundamental shifts in the scale and scope of conservation practice (Miller 1994). These include the shift of focus from the more traditional single species and stand level management approach to management of communities and ecosystems (Reynolds et al. 1992).
The United States is moving forward with an ecosystem management approach, one that is scientifically sound, ecologically based and totally integrated. Common sense dictates that this approach, one that considers the sum of the parts rather than each resource in isolation, is the proper and practical way to head. It uses as its foundation principles derived from conservation biology theory for conserving biodiversity and maintaining ecological systems (Soulé and Wilcox 1980; Soulé 1986, 1987; Salwasser et al. 1994). These principles include:
Recover and conserve formally listed threatened or endangered species.
Provide for viable populations of native plant and animals species.
Maintain a viable network of native biological communities and ecosystems.
Maintain structural diversity.
Sustain genetic diversity.
Produce and conserve resources needed by people.
Protect ecosystem integrity soils, waters, biota and ecological processes.
Restore and renew degraded ecosystems.
Ecosystem management responds to a significant shift in social values, scientific understanding and land management interests from that of the past. Ecosystem management is an identifying name tag for a new and evolving approach to land management. For practical purposes it is generally synonymous with sustainable development, sustainable management, sustainable forestry and a number of other terms being used to identify an ecological approach to land and resource management. Ecosystem management is a goal-driven approach to restoring and sustaining healthy ecosystems and their functions and values. It is
based on a collaboratively developed vision of desired future ecosystem conditions that integrates ecological, economic, and social factors affecting a management unit defined by ecological, not political boundaries. Its goal is to restore and maintain the health, sustainability, and biodiversity of ecosystems while supporting communities and their economic base.
There are four basic operating tenets that provide an "umbrella" for an ecosystem management approach. Under this umbrella are a number of components which are all driven or related in some degree to participation, collaboration, using the best science, and following an ecological approach. These tenets are:
Partnerships: Sharing responsibility for land management is fundamental. Ecosystems cross boundaries, making the need for cooperation, coordination, and partnerships a must for managing the entire ecosystem.
Participation: Get people involved in all aspects of public resource decision-making so that managers will know their needs and views. It is essential to use a highly participatory process, from beginning to end, before deciding on a course of action by involving all those interested in formulating alternatives, evaluating those alternatives, and describing the process used to select one. The focus should be on desired end results, future ecological and social conditions, and the land use classes and management actions that will best attain them.
Scientific Knowledge: Use the best scientific information and most appropriate technologies available to understand the range of choices of actions and the consequences of each. Integrate information and technology, such as ecological classifications, inventories, data management systems, and predictive models, and use them routinely in landscapescale analyses and conservation strategies. This includes strengthening teamwork between researchers and resource managers to improve the scientific basis of ecosystem management (See Soulé and Kohm 1989; Solbrig 1991; Szaro 1994b).
Ecological Approach: In the simplest terms, this means looking at many factors across a broad landscape, using several scales, addressing linkages between landscape elements and ecological processes, and a number of other activities. The science of ecology will be applied to multiple-use management, recognizing that people are part of the ecosystems we manage. Landscapes should be used as the basic unit for planning and managing ecosystems to meet specific objectives, both desired future ecological conditions and desired economic and social goals, while reconciling conflicts between competing uses and values.
Evolving from these four principles are a set of methods and tools that compose the basic elements of any ecosystem management approach. The following represent key elements of such an approach:
Address activities and information across several geographic scales. For aquatic information, use a range of nested watersheds; for terrestrial information use, the levels described in Ecoregions of the United States.
Select scales/boundaries appropriate for highly mobile species.
Adopt means to deal with the complexity that comes with using multiple scales and multiple boundaries across scales for organizing and using information necessary for sound analyses.
Conduct information collection, analyses, and planning across administrative and jurisdiction borders to coincide with useful ecological boundaries.
Address biotic information across levels of biological organization (cell, organism, population, community, ecosystem, landscape, biome, biosphere).
Develop and use methods to recognize and address patterns and change over time and space for key elements at multiple scales.
Define major disturbance factors and their range of historic variation.
Develop common approaches to ecological classification.
Develop, seek out, utilize, and transfer the very best available scientific knowledge.
Conduct analyses over large geographic areas that encompass smaller project areas.
Cooperatively develop desired conditions.
Address effects at the project level and at least at one scale above and below.
Develop approaches to share information across many borders, including integrated resource inventories and information provided for national uses.
Develop decision support technologies and methods to support the complexities of ecosystem management. Build recognition of uncertainty into those processes, including the fact that most questions will probably never be answered and major mistakes can take a long time to heal.
Integrate information and technology, such as ecological classifications, inventories, data management systems, and predictive models, and use them routinely in landscapescale analyses and conservation strategies.
Develop information about a variety of species habitat needs.
Develop information about ecological processes, including the carbon cycle, nutrient cycle, hydrologic cycle, succession, biological diversity, population dynamics.
Develop knowledge of linkages within and between systems and processes.
Work within the scope of natural processes that shape landscape and ecosystem conditions.
Develop knowledge about the human dimensions of ecosystem management.
Use highly participatory process from basic data collection through monitoring and involve all the publics that want to be included.
Seek and form as many partnerships as possible with federal, state, local, and other organizations in doing ecosystem management.
Use an adaptive management process as an integral part of monitoring and evaluation.
Focus on end results, desired future ecological and social conditions, and the land use classes and management actions that will best attain them.
Develop, monitor, and evaluate vital signs of ecosystem health.
These are some of the key tools and methods that must be in place to support ecosystem management. There should be independent and unique decisions on individual projects and plans, but there should be a general approach towards an ecosystem management process. Many of the tools and methods noted require sharing and cooperation across administrative boundaries. Much of the information needed at each unit to conduct ecosystem management, especially information at the higher geographic scales, is useful to many units and many other organizations also interested in ecosystem management.
The global focus on issues related to the conservation of biodiversity will continue to increase, and it will highlight serious and complex problems not likely to be easily resolved. A broad understanding of the significance of managing of biological resources currently exists in the United States across the social and political spectrum. In fact, most areas of the United States and levels of government have experienced first hand the difficulty of understanding and managing species or ecosystems that have been put in jeopardy.
The national paradigm of acceptable land management in the United States and provisions for associated values have changed dramatically over the last 200 years. Social, cultural, economic, and environmental views and values have continued to adjust based on perceptions of scarcity, national security and development, scientific understanding, and the desired condition for the country's health and well being. This has required dramatically different responses from all levels of government, economic sectors, educational systems, and non-governmental organizations.
The current framework for conservation of biodiversity has evolved as a mix of related individual laws and regulations over the last 125 years. The majority of these were put in place within the last 30 years, with a variety of relationships to federal, state or private lands. Specific direction for conservation of biodiversity resources in the United States remains primarily aimed at federal lands and agencies. Designation of a particular species as Threatened or Endangered creates responsibilities and constraints for all ownerships, public and private. Improving scientific awareness and shifting societal values and priorities have resulted in a new approach to managing lands and resources. This approach is focused on looking at large systems and landscapes, as opposed to the individual component parts. The term used to describe this philosophy and approach on public lands in the United States is ecosystem management. The fundamental focus of ecosystem management is on the maintenance of biodiversity.
Public lands and resources will continue to be a focal point for diversive opinions, interests, and values. Ecosystem management will not remove controversy. It is an approach that is based on using the very best information in a very professional manner to determine the ''sustainable" decision space. The selection of alternatives will continue to be a mix of resource, social, cultural, and political interests. The key is to apply ecosystem management in a manner that provides the very best information upon which to examine sustainable options and make decisions.
Old management paradigms are difficult to shed, but only new, dynamic efforts on a landscape scale are likely to succeed in conserving biodiversity (Szaro 1994). The question of effects of a diversity mandate on other resource uses must be viewed from both a shortand long-term perspective. There will be trade-offs and commodity production may decline in the short-term, but in the long-term these trade-offs will result in gains in sustained productivity while maintaining biodiversity with its complete range of ecological processes. Ecosystem-level management of ecological systems is going to require innovative approaches to planning, monitoring, coordination, and administration. Future conservation at larger scales will always be confounded by the potentially large number of political authorities that conduct land management practices on watershed, basin, or even landscape scales (Knopf and Scott 1990). A "new" paradigm is needed, one that balances all uses in the management process and looks beyond the immediate benefits. Or maybe simply the implementation of an older vision described by Aldo Leopold:
"The practice of conservation must spring from a conviction of what is ethically and aesthetically right, as well as what is economically expedient. A thing is right only when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the community, and the community includes the soil, waters, fauna, and flora, as well as people."
Interest and concern within the United States regarding the conservation of biodiversity continues to affect social debate and political change. Institutional actions to protect, preserve, enhance, and maintain biodiversity build on a framework of existing legislation and regulation to ensure viable populations remain in that category. This is being accomplished by shifting management orientation to large landscapes and focusing on sustaining historic patterns, ranges, composition and function of ecosystems. For resources currently recognized as threatened, the extreme measures necessary to protect biodiversity have heightened national awareness to the trade-offs involved in short-term crises management versus sound, long-term landscape management. National attention toward conservation of biodiversity, both in the United States and abroad, continues to improve the institutional frameworks through which sustainable management strategies can be implemented.
Bridgewater, P., D.W. Walton, and J.R. Busby. 1994. Creating Policy on Landscape Diversity. In Szaro, R.C. and D.W. Johnston (Eds.) Biodiversity in Managed Landscapes. Oxford University Press (In press).
Brussard, P.F., D.D. Murphy, and R.F. Noss. 1992. Strategy and Tactics for Conserving Biological Diversity in the United States. Conservation Biology 6: 157-159.
Crow, T.R., 1989. Biological Diversity and Silvicultural Systems. Pages 180-185 in Proceedings of the National Silvicultural Workshop: Silvicultural Challenges and Opportunities in the 1990's. [Petersburg, Alaska, July 10-13, 1989] USDA Forest Service, Timber Management. Washington, D.C. 216 pp.
Harrington, C., D. Debell, M. Raphael, K. Aubry, A. Carey, R. Curtis, J. Lehmkuhl and R. Miller. 1990. Stand-level Information Needs Related to New Perspectives. Pacific Forest and Range Experiment Station, Olympia Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Olympia, Washington. 25 pp.
Hunter, M.L., JR., G.L. Jacobson, JR. and T. Webb. 1988. Paleoecology and the Coarsefilter approach to Maintaining Biological Diversity. Conservation Biology 2: 375-385.
Knopf, F.L. and M.L. Scott. 1990. Altered Flows and Created Landscapes in the Platte River Headwaters, 1890-1990. Pages 47-70 In J. Sweeney (Ed.), Management of Dynamic Ecosystems. North Cent. Sect., The Wildl. Soc., West Lafayette, Ind.
Miller, K.R. 1994. Conserving Biodiversity in Managed Landscapes. In Szaro, R.C. and D.W. Johnston (Eds.) Biodiversity in Managed Landscapes. Oxford University Press (In press).
Raeburn, P. 1992. The Convention on Biological Diversity: Landmark Earth Summit Pact Opens Uncertain New Era for Use and Exchange of Genetic Resources. Diversity 8: 47.
Reid, W., C. Barber, and K. Miller (Eds.). 1992. Global Biodiversity Strategy: Guidelines for Action to Save, Study, and Use Earth's Biotic Wealth Sustainably and Equitably. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.
Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, Jr., G. Goodwin, R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the Aouthwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM217. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 90 p.
Salwasser, H., J.A. Caplan, C.W. Cartwright, A.T. Doyle, W.B. Kessler, B.G. Marcot, and L. Stritch. 1994. Conserving Biological Diversity through Ecosystem Management. In Szaro, R.C. and D.W. Johnston (Eds.) Biodiversity in Managed Landscapes. Oxford University Press (In press).
Salwasser, H., 1990. Conserving Biological Diversity: A Perspective on Scope and Approaches. Forest Ecology and Management 35: 79-90.
Solbrig, O.T. (ed.). 1991. From Genes to Ecosystems: A Research Agenda for Biodiversity. International Union of Biological Scientists, Cambridge, MA.
Soulé, M. E. 1986. Conservation Biology and the Real World. In: Conservation Biology: the Science of Scarcity and Diversity, ed. M. E. Soulé, pp. 112. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Mass.
Soulé, M. E., ed. 1987. Viable Populations for Conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Soulé, M. E., and B. A. Wilcox (eds.). 1980. Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary Ecological Perspective. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Mass.
Soulé, M.E. and K.A. Kohm (Eds.). 1989. Research Priorities for Conservation Biology. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 97 pp.
Szaro, R.C. 1994a. Biodiversity Maintenance. In: A. Bisio and S.G. Boots (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Energy Technology and the Environment, First Edition. Wiley Interscience, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (In press).
Szaro, R. C. 1994b. Research Needs and Opportunities: The Response of Forest Biodiversity to Global Change . Pages 399-416 In T.J.B. Boyle and C.E.B. Boyle (Eds.) Biodiversity, Temperate Ecosystems and Global Change, [NATO Advanced Science Workshop, August 1519, 1993, Montebello, Canada] Springer Verlag, Berlin.
Szaro, R. C. 1993a. The Status of Forest Biodiversity in North America. J. Trop. For. Science 5: 173-200.
Szaro, R.C. and D.W. Johnston (Eds.). 1994. Biodiversity in Managed Landscapes. Oxford University Press (In press).
Szaro, R. C., and H. Salwasser. 1991. The Management Context for Conserving Biological Diversity. 10th World Forestry Congress [Paris, France, September 1991]. Revue Forestiere Francaise, Actes Proceedings 2: 530-535.
Szaro, R. and B. Shapiro. 1990. Conserving Our Heritage: America's Biodiversity. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Va. 16 p.
Thomas, J.W., E.D. Forsman, J.B. Lint, E.C. Meslow, B.R. Noon and J. Verner. 1990. A Conservation Strategy for the Northern Spotted Owl. Interagency Scientific Committee, Portland, OR. 427 p.
Walker, B.H. 1992. Biodiversity and Ecological Redundancy. Conservation Biology 6: 18-23.
West, T.L. 1992. Centennial Mini-histories of the Forest Service. USDA Forest Service FS518, Washington, D.C. 72 p.
Wilson, E.O. and E.M. Peter (Eds.). 1988. Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 521 pp.
A STRATEGY FOR BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION IN POLAND
National Foundation for Environmental Protection
The description of the strategy for the protection of biological diversity in Poland is quite a difficult task because, as somebody once explained to Napoleon: "first of all we don't have cannons." In other words, at the present time there is still no such document, there is not even an outline of it. In view of this, this paper will focus on other similar documents which are functioning in Poland; on the work carried out to date on the problems of biodiversity, including the National Case Study which has been prepared at the request of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and in accordance with UNEP guidelines; and lastly on the tasks that Poland faces, and the way in which it intends to deal with them.
Poland has a long and distinguished tradition in the fields of biology, ecology, and nature conservation. The inventories of flora and fauna is at an advanced stage, and the habitats of many potential and real plant communities are mapped (Andrzejewski and Weigle 1993). A network of protected areas has been created, and it covers a large area (Map 1). However, there are no unambiguous and forward-looking programs for the protection of the natural environment at the level of the country as a whole. The changes introduced in Poland a few years ago have had many effects. The much-criticized centralized social and economic planning has disappeared, and the economy has switched over to a system that is subordinated to the laws of the market. It is these factors that were supposed to determine the way in which the country developed. Although there is a Central Planning Office and although there has been a need for a national development plan, it is only now that a 3-year plan is being prepared. This is to be discussed widely and negotiated in the future. There are also no departmental development plans. All we have are directions of action which have been adopted by the government. So in this we have clear proof that Poland is in a period of transition.
The systemic and economic changes which are taking place create a need for new legal regulations. To date, the actions of the government administration have been aimed mainly at the preparation of the draft versions of legal acts. Work has recently been done on seven statutes in the Ministry of Environmental Protection alone. Four of these have been enacted by parliament, and two are closely linked to the protection of biodiversity: The Statute on Nature Conservation of October 16th 1991 and The Statute on Forests of September 28th 1992.
The need for a strategy for ecological development was realized some years ago and the Department of Environmental Protection started work on an appropriate policy in the late 1980s. A number of documents were produced in the course of this work. However, many of these focused mainly on the problems of environmental protection. These documents include: The National Program for the Protection of the Natural Environment to the year 2010, which came out in 1988; and The Ecological Policy of Poland (with several versions from 1990, 1992 and
1993). This document was debated in parliament. Slightly different in character was the Strategy for the Protection of Living Natural Resources in Poland, which was produced in 1991. This also restricted itself to fairly general assumptions.
Work on the system of protected areas was of great importance and was completed by statute. The aim was to create a system of ecologically continuous nodes and belts which will ensure the stable functioning of the separate elements which make it up, i.e., populations, ecosystems, etc., The concept of the Large-scale System of Protected Areas details the present state of nature conservation and the plans for the future (Kozlowski 1992). It is founded upon elements with different protective regimes, including: National Parks, Nature Reserves, Landscape Parks, Areas of Protected Landscape, the protective zones around spas, protected watersheds, and areas protecting groundwater. However, this is not yet a cohesive system, particularly when it comes to a reflection of the real spatial links between the different elements. Another concept, the Ecological System of Protected Areas, provides a theoretical basis for checking the system (Rozycka 1977). This is based on the assumption that it is necessary to maintain the spatial continuity of natural systems while allowing various forms of human management to coexist with them. Unfortunately, there is a lack of any logical sequence in these projects. Methods for delimiting the system are not defined very well, and there is no nationwide concept. Plans prepared by different authors in several of Poland's voivodeships (or provinces) do not add up to a coherent system.
It is planned that both of these concepts (as well as regional programs) will be used in Poland's element of the European Ecological Network (EECONET), which is now being set up. This idea is being promoted by International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and it includes the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. According to Liro (1994), its main aims are:
To preserve the full complement of habitats which are typical for a given biogeographic zone;
To protect the ecosystems and ecological landscapes which have been transformed least;
To protect areas which are outstanding in terms of their high diversity or the way in which they sustain endemic or threatened species; and
To protect those areas which make up the migration routes of animals at the European or Polish levels.
In recent last years some regional programs have been prepared. One of these, known as "The Green Lungs of Poland", is for the area of north-east Poland, which is exceptionally rich from the point of view of nature and which is not greatly contaminated. This area stands out from areas which are threatened ecologically, of which Poland has more than its fair share (Map 2). The principles for ecodevelopment are indicated by the assumptions of the regional policy for the Green
Lungs of Poland and the strategy for its spatial management (1992). Similar prerequisites underlie the pro-ecological strategy for the management of the Vistula River valley, which will cover more than half of the country (Kolodziejski 1993). The are also other existing programs, such as for the National Parks and for wetland areas, as well as projects for the drainage basins of individual rivers. These will not be discussed here because of their highly detailed nature.
It is important to take into account all of the above mentioned documents if attempts are to be made to formulate a strategy for protecting biodiversity.
The work done so far has mainly been focused on eliminating the sources of threat and on improving the natural environment. It was only as part of the wave of world-wide discussion preceding the signing of the Convention on Biodiversity that the significance of, and threats to, diversity were dealt with more broadly.
Along with a number of other countries, Poland was asked by UNEP to prepare a "Country Study on Benefits, Costs and Needs in Relation to the
Protection of Biological Diversity". Formulating these country studies was part of the process by which the text of the Convention was prepared and negotiated. In Poland, it was the first summary which combined knowledge of biological diversity with attempts at an economic assessment of its value (1991).
The National Foundation for Environmental Protection was recommended by the Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources, and Forestry to take on this task, which was far from easy on account of its multi-disciplinary character. This Foundation is one of the biggest and most dynamic NGOs in Poland. It has considerable experience in working on nature conservation, a wide range of coworkers from various fields, and good organizational and technical support. A National Biodiversity Unit was created specially for the purpose, and the best specialists were invited to join it. This set-up guaranteed access to most of the required information and also ensured that the project was undertaken at the highest level. An exceptionally short time was available for the preparation of the case study (in effect only 3 months). As a result, the work was done by a relatively small team.
In preparing the case study, the team restricted itself to data already in existence. The information system in Poland is not well-developed and so the hardest task was to locate the existing data. A list of potential sources was created and detailed questionnaires were prepared. The results obtained were in most cases exhaustive. Compilation of economic data was mainly carried out on the basis of methods given in the "Guidelines" from UNEP (1991). However, the use of these methods was limited by the lack of any experience in this matter. As a result, the authors of this section emphasized that the approach taken was far from perfect and accompanied by sizable errors. For example, it turned out that the level of Poland's financial need (UNEP 1992) was considerably lower than that obtained in Germany. This would seem to be impossible to anyone familiar with the realities of the situation. The low level of awareness in society led to sociological studies being confined to analysis of overall attitudes to nature conservation and environmental protection. Biodiversity as such was not emphasized. Professional surveys were carried out on a random sample of 984 people. These were augmented by simulations and analyses of the press. The election program of the different political parties were also evaluated.
An important part of the work was an attempt to discover the threats which are of greatest significance to Poland's natural riches. According to Gliwicz (1994), such analyses should be carried out at two levels. They should begin with the macro-factors which do (or which soon will) come into conflict with the assumptions underlying the conservation of biodiversity. Micro-factors should then be identified. These factors lead to a decline in particular populations, to the pauperization of ecosystems, and to particularly sharp effects at local level. The case study named several threats which were considered most serious at the national level. These were:
The poor state of the environment, and particularly the inappropriate management of water;
The poor state of Poland's forests, which is connected with long-term mismanagement of the resource as well as with a lack of any strategy in the department of forestry for changing the productive functions of forests;
Lack of control of the processes associated with changes in ownership and in society as a consequence of the changeover to a market economy; and
The lack of any vision for the spatial management of the country and its regions.
"The Polish Red Book" (1993) provides an example of the detailed analysis of micro-factors, and it deals with the species threatened with extinction. The threatened species and areas require that a specific approach be applied. The Polish case study does suggest certain solutions (Table 1).
TABLE 1 Areas and Species Particularly Important for the Retention of Biodiversity
1. Areas of particular value for biodiversity; of high endemism; habitats and valuable species; natural and little transformed forest and marsh ecosystems, rare plant communities, etc.
1. The sites of in situ protection; National Parks, reserves, Landscape Parks, protected zones
1. Retention in an intact state or raising of biodiversity values
2. All forest areas (productive forests and others outside protected areas)
2. Forests are the richest ecosystems of central Europe
2. A change in the function of forests from the productive to the environmental-creating
3. Marshes, peatlands, floodlands, river banks
3. "Museums of evolution", habitats of high biodiversity, rare in central Europe
3. The retention of unchanged water relations
4. Areas of traditional agricultural (northeast and east Poland)
4. Areas of high biological value in spite of many centuries of agricultural utilization
4. Economic development decreasing their biodiversity
5. The whole century
5. In Poland, the pollution of the environmental is the biggest threat to biodiversity
5. Rehabilitation of the environment: the purification of waters, air and soil
6. Rare and endangered species
6. The threat of extinction
6. Increasing populations
7. Endemic and relict species
7. Genetic uniqueness
7. The retention of viable population
8. Particularly invasive species, pathogens, pests
8. Eliminating other species, economic losses, treat to health
8. Reduction in numbers, whilst retaining viable populations
9. All other species
9. Components of biodiversity
9. Retention of the entire genetic diversity within a species: the retention of the species' geographical range so-far maintained
The initial aim of preparing the case study was to provide UNEP the material necessary for the text of the Convention to be negotiated. However, it was soon realized that the longer term aim was to prepare a cohesive policy for the protection and utilization of biological diversity in Poland which could be implemented at all possible levels. This concept is compatible with the UNEP approach (Fig. 1). But this task implies a long and laborious process, and the decision-makers do not yet understand this adequately. The process of ratification of the Convention is still at the preliminary stage and no full analysis has yet been made of Poland's obligations under it. The Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources, and Forestry has approached the Institute of Environmental Protection with a request that legal, scientific, and financial implications be defined and the consecutive tasks in this area set out. It is obvious that all resolutions of the Convention must find a place in any future strategy for the protection of biodiversity. The very wide scope makes it necessary for both the action plan and its implementation to take in a number of departments and institutions. A possible way to this is to adapt already existing documents.
There is no doubt that the preparation of the national case study and the subsequent signing of the Convention have raised interest in these issues. New research projects have appeared, including one on the preparation of the methodology for analysis of biodiversity on the basis of satellite photographs, as well as an attempt at working out ways in which an evaluation can be given regarding the benefits and costs of improving the quality of the environment and costs of nature protection. Work has begun on the creation of the appropriate databases, and a program for the monitoring of living natural resources has been established (Symonides, ed. 1993). A further consequence will also be the work in association with the ratification of the Convention by the Polish parliament and the resultant adaptation of various regulations and program. However, we hope that it may eventually lead to the preparation and implementation of program for the protection of biodiversity at the national and regional levels, as well as at the branch level (in forestry, agriculture, industry, planning, etc.).
The main obstacle to a multi-stage process for the preparation of a program of biodiversity conservation is the lack of uniformity and consistency in the actions of those responsible for this sphere, which in turn is a result of frequent political changes. Two years have passed since Poland signed the Convention, but it is only now that preparations are underway for the ratification procedure. Even the most well-prepared strategy will be nothing more than a document on the shelf if it is not followed by a detailed plan of action and by a guaranteeing of appropriate financing. It is therefore necessary to draw up a program whose points of reference will be at the level of the overall economic policy of the country as well as at specific levels. The weakness of Poland's information technology is also a serious hindrance. It emerged in the course of the preparation of the case study that various units lack knowledge of the work carried out elsewhere. This means that projects
There are other obstacles, too. The methodology of what is widely understood as ''work on nature" is generally known and tested, but the economic aspects will require a great deal more work. There is also a lack of coherence to legal regulations, but at least the work now in progress leaves room for hope that the problem will be solved before too long. Financial problems are a different matter. Documentation work is relatively cheap and money for it can be obtained from national or foreign sources. However, it is only to a very limited extent that particular projects have been put into effect. This may be exemplified by the financial constraints which have resulted in the closure of seed banks for old varieties of crop as well as collections of livestock which are unique on the world scale.
In summary, it can be seen from the above that Poland faces a large amount of work in connection with nature conservation that is based on the principles of the protection of biodiversity. We have to preserve the greatest possible diversity of life for future generations, but we must remember that we are mainly talking about quality rather than quantity. An example might be oligotrophic and dystrophic lakes which are disappearing in Poland. Species-poor they may be, but they are valuable in terms of the quality of this delicate system.
The Convention on Biodiversity is the first international document of this rank which has been prepared with nature in mind. It is important to realize what possibilities it creates and to act in accordance with its requirements by preparing a detailed National Program for the Protection of Biological Diversity, which will become the basis for a long-term policy for the functioning of the country.
It would seem that national case studies prepared at regular intervals (perhaps every five years) could constitute an ideal method by which to monitor the changes in biodiversity at the genetic, species and ecosystemic levels, as well as the costs, benefits and needs related to this. It would also make it possible to define the priorities in scientific research, and the scope of that research.
Andrzejewski, R, and Weigle, A. (eds.). Country Study on the Costs, Benefits, and Unmet Needs of Biological Diversity Conservation; National Foundation for Environmental Protection, Warsaw 1991 (Polish version - Polish Case Study of Biological Diversity; NFEP, Warsaw 1993)
Biodiversity Country Studies, Synthesis Report; UNEP, Nairobi, 1992
Gliwicz, J. Biodiversity Convention: Concept, Researches, Strategy, Manuscript; NFEP 1993
Guidelines for the Preparation of a Country Study on Costs, Benefits and Unmet Needs of Biological Diversity Conservation within the Framework of the Planned Convention on Biological Diversity; UNEP, May 1991
Guidelines for Country Studies on Biological Diversity; UNEP, Nairobi, May 1993
Kozlowski, S. The Protection of the Natural Landscape within the Concept of the Large-scale System of Protected Areas, in: "Selected Problems of landscape Ecology"; Department of Studies of the Agricultural and Forest Environment, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poznan 1992.
Kolodziejski, J. (eds.). Pro-ecological Strategy for Vistula Management, NFEP, Warsaw 1993
Liro, A. A Concept for the National Ecological Network ECONET-PL, Introduction to Project, manuscript; IUCN, Warsaw 1994.
Monitoring Animate Nature; NFEP, Warsaw 1993
The National Programme for the Protection of the Natural Environment to the year 2010; Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources, Warsaw 1988.
Rozycka, W. A Proposal for the Formation of an Ecological System of Protected Areas; Man and Environment 1/4 Warsaw 1977.
A Strategy for the Protection of Living Natural Resources in Poland; Department of Studies of the Agricultural and Forest Environment, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poznan 1991.
A Strategy for Spatial Management in the Functional Area "The Green Lungs of Poland"; Warsaw 1992.
PROBLEMS IN TRANSBOUNDARY PROTECTED AREAS IN UKRAINE
Institute of Ecology of the Carpathians
Ukrainian Academy of Sciences
Ukraine, according to size (603,700 km2), population (52 million), and industrial potential, is the second largest East European country. As it borders on seven countries, environmental cooperation, especially concerning biodiversity protection in transboundary regions, is a very important issue. The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), UNESCO, UNEP, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and other international organizations have also recognized the importance of this cooperation.
Ukraine is situated in three geographical zones: the steppe zone (40% of the territory), the forest-steppe zone (34%), and the broad-leaf forest zone (26%). Therefore the country is characterized by significant biodiversity. Its aborigen flora includes: 4523 vascular plants, about 800 species of bryophyta, 1000 species of lichens, and 4000 species of algae. A list of fungi and mixomicetes together would include about 15,000 species. The animal kingdom includes 694 species of vertebrates (101 mammals, 344 avifauna, 20 reptiles, 17 amphibians, and about 200 fish) (Markevich 1984; Holubec and Zaverucha 1987). In the biogeographical aspect, the most interesting parts of the country are the Ukrainian Carpathians (37,000 km2) and the Crimean mountains (7,000 km2). The flora of vascular plants in the Carpathians includes about 2120 species (92 endemic) and about 2400 species in the Crimea (240 endemic) (Stioko and Tashenkevich 1991; Rubcov 1978).
During the last thousand years, the large qualitative and quantitative changes took place in the structure of the natural vegetation and in the composition of flora and fauna. The area of forests decreased to one third. At present the forests cover only 14.2% of the area of Ukraine. During the last century, such vertebrates as Otis tetrax, Equus tarpan, Pteromus volans, Bos primigenius, Marmota alpina, Rupicapra rupicapra, and Bison bonasus (which was reintroduced 20 years ago) have disappeared. At present 430 vascular species (10% of the Ukrainian flora), 56 species of bryophyta, 53 species of lichens, 58 species of fungi, and more than 100 species and sub-species of animals are included in the Red Data Book of Ukraine.
The system of protected areas consists of 9 categories and includes 12 zapovidnyk (strict reserves) (130,000 ha total), 3 biosphere reserves (159,585 ha), 3 national parks (123,200 ha), 293 nature reserves (35,600 ha), and more than 3700 other protected areas. Their total area make up 1.4% of Ukraine's territory. There are plans to gradually enlarge the protected areas to cover 3-4% of the country.
Ukraine inherited from the totalitarian regime an unsatisfactory ecological situation in many parts of the country. The state of nature became even worse after the Chernobyl accident. More than 106,000 ha of forest have been damaged by radionuclides. From the Chernobyl zone, 140,000 people were evacuated. In 1986 the population in Ukraine living on a territory contaminated with cesium-137 (over 1 Ci per square m or 37 kBq per square km) was 1.6 million.
For the second time in Ukraine's history, mortality exceeds the birth-rate; the first was during the engineered Great Famine in 1933, whose victims numbered 7-8 million. Therefore, it is very important to collaborate with foreign countries to preserve and optimize the state of the environment.
Another important environmental issue is the protection of the basins of the transboundary rivers, such as: the Danube (whose delta is on the Romanian-Ukrainian border), the Tisza (with Hungary and Romania), the Latoritsa and Uzh (with Slovakia), the Dnister (with Moldova, Belarus, and Russia), the Prut (with Moldova and Romania), the West Bug (with Poland), and the Pripiat (also with Belarus). Presently there are only inter-state agreements on preserving the basins of the Dnieper, Tisza, West Bug, and Danube.
The most important tasks regarding these transboundary rivers are: normalization of a hydrological regime; water purity protection; biodiversity protection in aquatic and river corridor ecosystems; and joint organization of hydromonitoring. The most important socio-economic tasks are the rational use of the local recreation potential in the border river zones and development of ecotourism and water-sports.
Common preservation of valuable landscapes, ecosystems, and biological resources is a very important task in such transboundary biogeographical regions as Polissya, Roztocha, and the Carpathians.
Polissya is situated on the territory of Ukraine, Belarus, and Poland. It is significant in the international TELMA program as a large swamp region. Shatsk National Park (32,500 ha) was organized in 1983 in the Ukrainian part of Polissya in order to preserve natural forests (Pinetum sylvestris, Querceto roboris-Pinetum, Alnetum glutinosae, and Piceetum abietis relictum), bogs, and lake ecosystems. There are 22 lakes covering 64.2 km2.
On the territory of this national park, the flora of vascular plants includes about 800 species, 60 of them rare (including Cares davalliana Sm., C. ubrosa Host., Cipripedium calceolus L., Drosera anglica Huds., D. intermedia Hayne, Oxycoccus microcarpus Turcz. ex Rupr., and Salvinia natans L.) (Stioko, Jashchenko, and Zhizhin 1986). The lakes and bogs of the national parks have ecological significance for waterfowl, wading birds, and migratory birds.
On the Polish side of the border, not far from the Ukrainian Szatsky National Park, is the Polesie National Park (4,813 ha). Scientific cooperation may be developed with the active commitment of both neighboring parks.
Based on the geomorphological and ecological aspects, Roztocha is an important cross-border region as well. Its relatively low hills (max. 400m) form the eastern part of the European watershed between the Baltic and Black Sea basins. Some tree species growing in this region (i.e., Quercus petraea Liebl., Fagus sylvatica L., Abies alba Mill.) are on the eastern boundary of their areas. A list of the vascular plants in the Ukrainian part of the Roztocha would include more than 910 species; 120 of these are rare, such as: Acorus calamus L., Allium montanum F.W. Schmidt, Andromeda polifolia L., Aster amellus L., Carex davalliana Smith, C. humilis Leys., Cimicifuga europea Schipcz., Drosera anglica Huds., Hottonia palustris L., Melittis sarmatica Klok., Salix myrtilloides L., S.rosmarinifolia L., Salvinia natans (L.) All., and Saxifraga hirculus L.
Ukrainian zapovidnik Roztocha was organized in this region for the preservation of natural forests (Pinetum sylvestris, Quercetun petraeae, Carpineto-Quercetun roboris, Fagetum sylvaticas, and Fageto-Pinetum sylvaticae), bogs, rare plants, and animals. On this strict reserve there are 756 species of vascular plants, 182 species musci, and 23 species hepaticae (Soroka 1990; Danilkiv and Soroka 1989). The area of the zapovidnyk, which used to be 2084 ha, has been enlarged to 9000 ha.
Rotztochansky National Park (7,811 ha) is situated in Poland near the Ukrainian Roztocha Nature zapovidnik. Scientific cooperation should be developed by both neighboring protected areas.
It is absolutely necessary to widen international ecological cooperation in the Carpathians. This giant mountain system (with an area of 381,000 km2, longitude 1300 km) (Kondracki 1989) includes more than 50 peaks over 2000 m a.s.l. It is situated on the territory of 6 countries, and approximately 25 million people are connected by the mountain ecosystems ecologically and economically.
The Carpathians are characterized by considerable biological diversity due to various geological, geomorphological, and climatic conditions. There are about 2700 species of vascular plants of this territory (representing nearly 25% of European flora) (Stioko and Tashenkevich 1993). The list of endemic plants includes more than 240 species which need special protection.
At present eleven biosphere reserves (414,811 ha) and a broad net of various categories of protected territories are organized in the Carpathians for preserving unique and valuable landscapes, ecosystems, and biological diversity.
There are a few transboundary regions in the Carpathians where common ecological investigations are carried out and must be continued in the future. Maramorosh cristalline massif (Pop Ivan, 1940m), which is situated on the Ukrainian-Romanian border, is one of them. Virgin forests (Fagetum, Acereto-Fagetum, Fageto-Abieto-Piceetum, Piceetum abietis), dwarf-shrub ecosystems (Pinetum mugi, Dushekietum viridis, Juniperetum sibirici), and sub-alpine and alpine meadows (polonina) cover a considerable area. Czech
botantists A. Zlatnik (1938) and M. Deyl (1940) investigated the forests, soil, and climate on the Ukrainian part of Pop Ivan before World War II. The explorer of the Slovak Tatra National Park (Dr. I. Voloshchuk) recently repeated the investigations of the structure of the virgin forest by using the same plots of Prof. Zlatnik. The Ukrainian part of Pop Ivan is included in the Carpathian biosphere reserve. It is necessary to organize a bilateral Ukrainian-Romanian biosphere reserve for the protection and continual monitoring of the valuable virgin ecosystems of the Maramarosh massif.
Primary flood forests (Populetum nigrae, Salicetum albae, Fraxinetum excelsioris), which have significant value for water protection, grow in the Tisza basin on the Ukrainian-Hungarian border. For the common investigation of the coenoic structure and the estimate of the hydrological role of the coastal forest ecosystems, the establishment of a common flood-forest protected area is urgently needed.
Useful ecological collaboration between Ukrainian, Polish, and Slovak botantists takes place in Ost Beskidien. The East Carpathian Biosphere Reserve was created in 1993 on the basis of the Polish national and landscape parks (108,924 ha) and the Slovak East Carpathian protected landscape (40,601 ha). The Ukrainian Ministry of Nature Conservation is now ready to join the Ukrainian landscape reserve Stuzhitsa (14,665 ha) to this biosphere reserve. It would be the first trilateral biosphere reserve in the world.
The common characteristics of the East Carpathian Biosphere Reserve is given in special publications (Denisiuk and Stojko 1992, 1993). Therefore only the Ukrainian part will be described.
The history of the Stuzhitsa reserve is very long. The Hungarian forest ministry first appreciated the scientific importance of the virgin Beskids forest just before World War I. The first forest reserve in the East Carpathians, "Stuzhitsa," was established in 1912 on an area of 331.8 ha. Due to Czech Professor A. Zlatnik, the preserved area was enlarged to 560 ha in 1932. The basic forest investigations in this area have been carried out by Prof. Zlatnik (Hadach et al 1991). In 1974 Ukraine established a 2592 ha state landscape reservation on the Stuzhitsa massif. Its area was increased to 14,665 ha in 1992 for the organization of the trilateral biosphere reserve.
The climatic conditions in the Beskidiens in the late holozen period was optimal for development of beech zonales forests. Average temperature in the highlands (400-1267 m) is 7-5.3 C, and atmosphere precipitation is 900-1250 mm. Under these favorable ecological conditions, beech formed a wide vegetation belt from 400 to 1260 m a.s.l.
In the lower part of the Stuzhitsa massif on the terrace of the floods, Petasito albae-Alnetum incanae occur. Cirsietum rivularis, ChaerophylloPetasitetum albi and Equiseto palustris-Caricetum remotae grow in wet places.
Dentario glandulosae-Fagetum and Galio odoratae-Fagetum have developed in the middle altitudes of the edaphic conditions most suitable for beech. There are
fragmentary phytocoenoses Carici brisoides-Fagetum and Allio ursini-Fagetum in the humid localities.
On the slopes with southern exposure, Carici pilosae-Fagetum and Festuco altissimae-Fagetum associations are situated. The sourthern rocky slopes are occupied by the Lunario-Aceretum pseudoplatanae and Mercurialidoso-Acereto-Fagetum phytocoenoses.
Fagus sylvatica L., Acer pseudoplatanus L., and Sorbus aucuparia L. form the shrub biomorpha on the upper timber-line 1200-1260 m high. Myrtillo-Acereto-Fagetum (humilae) and Myrtillo-Sorbeto-Fagetum (humilae) are very rare in the Carpathians. The main reasons of the depressed growth of these trees are not severe climatic conditions, but the influence of strong winds.
The sub-alpine belt of Stuzhitsa is small. It is worth noting that here is the western border of Dushekia viridis, which is absent in the Slovak Beskidy. The following herbaceous phytocoenoses are spread though the sub-alpine belt: Nardetum strictae, Athyrietum alpestre, Rumicetum alpini, Vaccinietum myrtilli, Calamagrostidetum arundinaceae, and Poaetum chaixii (fragmentary). Some rare plants grow here, such as Scorzonera rosea Waldst. et Kit., Melampyrum herbichii Woloszcz., Lilium martagon L., Anemone narcissiflora L., Tozzia carpatica Woloszcz., Orchis laxiflora Lam., and Veratrum album L.
The Stuzhitsa massif is important for the rare populations of animals. Such rare vertebrates as Ursus ursus, Rus scrofa, Felix lynx, F. sylvestris, Martes martes, Carnis lupus, Cervus elaphus, Mustela erminea, Meles meles, Sciurus vulgaris carpathicus, Sorex alpinus, and Neomys fodiens live here. More than 100 species of birds can be found here. The list of rare birds include Aquila chrysaetos, A. pomarina, Bubo bubo, Strix uralensis marcroura, Prunella modularis, P. collaris, Ciconia nigra, etc. From the rare herpetofauna and amphibians, there are Triturus montadoni, Lacerta agilis, Salamandra salamandra, Vipera berus, Rana dalmatica, etc.
In the composition of flora in Stuzhitsa massif, nemoral species predominate. From a floristic, geologic, and geomorphic point of view, Stinka ridge, which is 800 - 1000 m and situated on the Ukrainian-Slovak border, is the most interesting. On the rocky southern slope, such rare species are Saxifraga paniculata Mill., Jovibarba preissiana (Domin) Omelcz. et Chopik, Ranunculus oreophyllus Bieb., Pedicularis hacquetii Graff, and Festuca saxatilis Shur are located. Also, some thermophyle species grow here, such as Sedum annuum L., Veronica collina Wallr., and Melittis melissophyllum L. Over 20 rare and threatened species from this area have been included in the Ukrainian Red Data Book. Ukrainian, Czech, and Slovak botantists have proposed organizing a common Slovak-Ukrainian Stinka botanical reserve on about 200 ha. (Note: An investigation of the flora has been carried out in cooperation with the following Czech, Slovak, and Ukrainian botanists: E. Hadach, I. Terrai, L. Tasenkevitch, and M. Bural).
It is known that biosphere reserves have multi-functional importance. With regards to this idea, it is necessary to note that the Lemki, a Ukrainian ethnic group, live in the Beskidien mountains. In the village of Topolia (in the Slovak part of the
biosphere reserve), the famous Ukrainian writer Alexander Dukhnovits was born. There are many cultural monuments (wooden churches, old cemetaries, wood-and-stone crosses, old wooden houses, etc.) on the territory of the biosphere reserve. Therefore the implementation of the trilateral biosphere reserve will strengthen the Lemki's and other Carpathian mountain traditions and customs. The protected area should give a chance for preserving not only natural but also the rich cultural heritage for the three nations which are closely connected by history and the environment. The rise of ecological measures in the territory of the biosphere reserve also will lead to economic achievements and thus to the prosperity of the local people.
Danilkiv, I.S. and Soroka, M.I., Mokhopodibni derzhavnoho zapovidnika "Roztochia", Lviv, 1989, p. 167 (in Ukrainian).
Denisiuk, Z. and Stoiko, S., "O powolanie Medzynarodowego Rezerwatu Biosfery 'Beskidy Wschodnie' w Karpatach," Chronmy przyrode ojczysta, R. XLVIII, 1992, Krakow, pp. 14-39 (in Polish).
Denisiuk, Z. and Stoiko, S., "International Polish-Slovak-Ukrainian Biosphere Reserve 'Eastern Carpathians", Ukrainian Botanical Journal, vol. 50, no. 3, 1993, pp. 96-113.
Deyl, M., Plants, Soil, and Climate of Pop Ivan: Synecological Study from Carpathian Ukraine, Opera bot. cechica, Prague, 1940, p. 290.
Hadach, E., Mikhalik, S., Shimon, T., Stoiko, S., Tasenkevich, L., and Dihoru, G., "Spisok endemichnikh roslin Karpat," Zapovidni ekosystemi Karpat, Lviv, Svit, 1991, pp. 223-234 (in Ukrainian).
Holubec, M.A. and Zaverucha B.V., "Sovremennoe sostoanie genofonda flory," Geneticheskie Resursy Rastenij i Zhivotnikh Ukrainskoj SSR, Sbornik nauch. statej. Kiev, 1987, pp. 9-23 (in Ukrainian).
Kondracki J., Karpaty, Wydanie drugie, Warsaw, 1989, p. 260 (in Polish).
Markevich, O.P., "Tvarini," Ukrainian Rad. Encyclopedia, vol. 11, Kiev, 1984, pp. 53-58 (in Ukrainian).
Rubcov, N.I., Rastitelnij mir Krima, Simferopol, Tavria, 1978, p. 128 (in Russian).
Soroka, M.I., Sudinni rosliny derzhavnoho zapovidnika "Roztochia", Lviv, 1990, p. 274 (in Ukrainian).
Stoiko, S.M., Jashchenko P.T., and Zhizhin M.P., Shatskij prirodnij nacionalnij park, Lviv, Kameniar, 1986, p. 44 (in Ukrianian).
Stoiko, S.M. and Tasenkevich, L.A., "Phlanzengeographische Stellung und Schutz von Flora und Vegetation der Ukrainischen Karpaten", Verhandlung-Zool.-Bot. Ges., Osterreich, 1991, pp. 165-177.
Stoiko, S.M. and Tasenkevich, L.A., "Some Species of Endemism in the Ukrainian Carpathians", Fragmenta Floristica et Geobotanica, 2 (1), 1993, pp. 343-353.
Zlatnik, A., Prozkum prirozenych lesu na Podkarpatske Rusi, Dil prvni, Vegetace a stanoviste reservace Stuzica, Javornik a Pop Ivan, Prague, 1938, p. 244 (in Czech).
BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION STRATEGY IN THE REPUBLIC OF BELARUS
Belarus GEF Forest Biodiversity Protection Project
The Republic of Belarus is situated in a temperate zone which is divided into two sub zones: temperate broad-leaf and temperate coniferous. Belarus has an area of 20 million ha and population of 10.3 million. Critical ecological problems have arisen in Belarus from the economic pressures and the effects of socialized production. Numerous large-scale industrial enterprises (mineral fertilizer plants, synthetic fibers, plastics and resin factories, oil processing, and automobile plants) are situated on the territory. About 1,500,000 tons per year of toxic industrial waste enter the atmosphere from stationary sources alone; in addition, motor transport produces almost the same amount of pollution. The state of the environment is also aggravated by transboundary pollutants transported to Belarus by prevailing western winds.
The Republic of Belarus has 8.1 million ha of forests, which is approximately 35% of its land area. Regarding the country's biodiversity, botanists have registered nearly 1,600 species of higher plants, 58 species of fish, and 286 species of birds. The territory of the Republic is also inhabited by 47 species of mammals. Intensive anthropogenic modifications of natural complexes and an ever increasing consumption of natural and, particularly, biological resources has led to extensive quantitative and qualitative degradation of the environment. These modifications are clearly revealed by the large reduction or extinction of many rare animals and plants. The conservation of biological diversity of animals and plants is therefore an acute problem. The necessity of preserving the flora and fauna, biological diversity, and purity of gene pool became greater after the Chernobyl disaster (April, 1986), which contaminated a fifth of Belarus' territory and severely damaged the region's flora and fauna.
Among the many aspects of this urgent problem of biodiversity conservation, it is necessary to note the following:
Ethical: Man as Homo sapiens should not tolerate the complete extinction of any species of living organisms that appeared on the Earth as a result of evolutionary processes;
Aesthetic: Domesticated and tamed animals and ornamental plants are a source of cultural and spiritual human needs, and prevailing (background) species add a specific touch to the landscapes, enhancing their natural beauty;
Ecological: Every living organism represents an element of complicated ecological systems, having many functional links (including trophic links as well) with other elements. Population extinction of any organism in the ecosystems can cause significant adverse and irreversible ecological modifications;
Biological (scientific): Every species is a stage in the progressive evolutionary development of biota, an indicator of complicated historical processes of biosphere development. Biological changes are also induced by various anthropogenic impacts, which is of great importance for paleogeographic reconstructions, determination of modern tendencies, and forecasting of probable local, regional, and biosphere modifications;
Pragmatic (practical): Every biological species is an actual or potential source of various resources, initial material for selection work, and carrier of specific gene pool with encoded positive characteristics and traits.
Preservation of biodiversity should be carried out on the basis of three approaches: 1) species (preservation of separate species and their populations); 2) coenotic (preservation of animal and plant communities); and 3) ecosystem (preservation by means of creation and activity of Nature Reserve areas). All these approaches are well applied in Belarus. Overall, 182 species of animals, 180 plants, 17 fungi, and 17 species of lichens are presently taken under official protection and listed in the Red Data Book. Sixty separate rare and age-old trees or their groups are designated memorials of nature. Coenotic and ecosystem approaches of biodiversity preservation have been used in the development of the General Plan of Protected Territories. There are now three Nature Reserves (Berezinsky Biosphere Reserve, Pripyatsky Landscape Hydrological Reserve, and Polessky Radio Ecological Reserve), one National Park (Belovezhskaya Pushcha), 340 memorials of nature (Botanical Parks, places with unique plantations, and some places with rare plants), and 72 State Protected Areas (botanical, biological, hydrological, zoological, landscape, forest, lake, hunting, cranberry, and memorial). Additional National Parks are planned. The total area of Protected Territories is about 6% of Belarus. These areas contain 68% of the flora of the country.
Natural ecosystems are regarded as an ecological counterbalance to the anthropogenic landscape, for example, the agricultural and urbanization processes. Protection of a definite number of such ecosystems is an obligatory condition for potential self-renewal and balanced development of an overall nature-anthropogenic system. The protection of the region's natural ecosystems it is an important, yet difficult, task.
All Nature Reserve territories in Belarus they are the property of the State. This has created both positive and negative aspects. On the positive side, it is easy to carry out general nature protection activities. On the negative side, there are a large number of territories, but the financial resources are insufficient to adequately manage these resources.
Preservation of biodiversity should be promoted by:
Protection of all types of ecosystems as separate natural complexes;
Protected territories should create their own mechanisms for the maintenance of their ecological balance in all regions or in all concrete ecosystem (lake, meadow, wetland, etc.); and
The amalgamation of all protected areas into a united and uninterrupted territorial system, which will ensure the protection of the most typical landscape elements of Belarus. Application of the ''migratory channels" principle to main forest tracts and river valleys will guarantee the protection of ecological links of the typical aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and their gene pool in three Belarus biogeographical zones (northern Belarusian Lakeland, central, southern Belarusian Polessye) (Fig. 1).
These problems cross the borders of Belarus. One of the main points of the World Nature Protection Strategy is the inclusion of all biogeographic provinces into a nature reserves network, for instance, Biosphere Reserves. European nature reserve territories should be linked by the international network of "migratory channels" (Fig. 2). This network must consist of the region's most valuable and typical natural objects and also disturbed ecosystems for the purpose of their restoration. Belarus' nature reserves should be connected with nature reserves of all the bordering countries (Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Ukraine, and Russua) by "migratory channels," and through them, with all protected areas of Europe.
Within the bounds of the global network of protected representative territories, Belarus' protected territories are typical elements of natural ecosystems of the temperate zone of the Northern Hemisphere and are situated inside of a zone with intensive development of industry and agriculture. The network of nature reserves in Belarus is very diverse and corresponds to present requirements. The state's legislation strengthens and protects these territories. However, there are many difficulties in biodiversity preservation, which are accounted for by following reasons:
Political instability in Belarus;
Economical difficulties, which result in poor technical and financial resources dedicated to the nature reserves;
Poor public information and educational programs on nature protection;
Absence of developed ecological tourist network and services; and
BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION PROJECT FOR THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC
Zuzana Guziova and Peter Straka
Slovak Ministry of the Environment
WHAT IS BIODIVERSITY?
Biodiversity is the variability of all forms of life on Earth at the ecosystem, species, and intra-species levels. The term became frequently used in connection with preparations for the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. Biodiversity protection involves a set of activities oriented towards the preservation life on Earth in all its forms. It is not the "classic" nature protection oriented only towards free-living animals, wild plants, and communities in which the above species occur, for it is also concerned with so-called economic species and their breeds or cultivars, as well as micro-organisms.
Today, as we approach the 21st century, biodiversity protection is understood to be one of the key topics of environmental protection. This is also illustrated by the fact that this subject is addressed in the special Convention on Biological Diversity presented for signing at the aforementioned Rio conference.
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF)
Biodiversity protection is one of the four areas of interest of the so-called Global Environment Facility, an international program announced at the beginning of the 1990s with a view to financing and providing expert support to "developing" countries seeking to resolve global environmental problems. Besides biodiversity protection, the GEF is concerned with protecting the ozone layer, protecting international waters, and global warming. The Global Environment Trust Fund, also known as the Core Fund, is the part of GEF which awards grants, mainly to governments, for the implementation of national projects addressing the four aforementioned topics. The funds are administered by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (The World Bank).
The GEF and Slovakia
Slovakia became a GEF beneficiary country in autumn 1993. An agreement concerning a Global Environment Trust Fund grant was signed in Washington, D.C. on September 16, 1993, by the World Bank and the Slovak Republic as represented by the Ministry of the Environment. The $2.3 million grant is designated for the Biodiversity Protection Project, one of five similar projects operating in Central and Eastern Europe (the others are in Poland, the Czech Republic, Belarus, and Ukraine).
The agreement came into force on October 20, 1993, after the Ministry of the Environment established a GEF Biodiversity Protection Office to administer the project, in accordance with the requirements of the agreement.
The Goals and Orientation of the Project
The goals of the project are to strengthen biodiversity protection in Slovakia and support international cooperation in the area. At the center of the project are activities which are innovative in Slovakia with regard to environmental protection practices and which will have a long-term impact if successful. A further important aspect of the project is institution building in the form of improved technical equipment and communications possibilities in selected nature protection institutions, as well as professional and language training for their employees.
The Implementation of the Project
The project is divided thematically into three relatively independent programs (biodiversity protection, institutional support, and conservation), which are to be put into practice through projects concerned with applied research, studies, strategies, practical protection, and the purchase of technical equipment. The implementation teams of these projects and the suppliers of equipment and devices are chosen on the basis of bids, the character of which is determined by the type of project and/or supply involved. The topics of the projects are bound by the above-mentioned international agreement, as are their budgets.
The project is focused on three protected areas in Slovakia: Tatra National Park (Tatransky narodny park - TANAP), the Protected Landscape Area (Chranena krajinna oblast - CHKO) of the East Carpathians, and the Protected Landscape Area (Chranena krajinna oblast - CHKO) of Zahorie, the floodplain area of the Morava River. The common feature of all these areas is that they are situated on frontiers and are included among the "Ecological Bricks of our Common European Home." Besides their protection category under Law No. 1/1995 of the Code of Law on State Nature Protection, they also have international statutory protection. The TANAP and part of the East Carpathians CHKO are Biosphere Reserves within the framework of the UNESCO Man and Biosphere Program, while the inundation area of the Morava River is a wetland of international importance
monitored under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance as Waterfowl Habitats.
THE BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION PROGRAM
This program supports various kinds of activities which are important for protection in-situ and ex-situ from the planning stage through implementation. A management plan will be elaborated for the East Carpathians CHKO, which will also contain a design for an efficient management model for this territory from the standpoint of biodiversity protection. The elaboration of a Conservation Strategy for the International Biosphere Reserve of the Eastern Carpathians will also be an element of the planning activities and will set out the main goals and principles for the protection of this area of international importance. Besides planning, practical problems of managing key ecosystems will also be addressed and resolved. Particular emphasis will be placed on forests, meadows, and above all alpine meadows. The question of preventing erosion is of key importance in biodiversity protection in the East Carpathians because of the area's flysch geological basement. As a consequence, some project activities will be directed towards reconstructing tree stands on slopes and technical steps to slow outlets.
Addressing this task involves preparing the methodology and verification procedures through a convenient demonstration project, as well as designing the management, legal, and economic tools needed to regulate the number of visitors to an acceptable level.
Establishing the Foundation for the Protection of Diversity in the East Carpathians
The beginning of the 1990s saw the resumption of cooperation along the Slovak-Polish-Ukrainian border. In accordance with an Agreement on cooperation signed by the ministers responsible for nature protection, proposals were signed to link the above frontier territories to form Biosphere Reserves. In 1992, the International Coordination Council of the Man and Biosphere Program approved the proposals, and an international Biosphere Reserve was created. The establishment of the foundation will create conditions for bringing together the financial means to promote activities directed towards biodiversity protection in the East Carpathians. The foundation will be registered in Switzerland and governed by a 14-member Board of Trustees. The initial capital of the foundation will be provided by a contribution from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and a contribution from the GEF.
INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT PROGRAM
The institutional support program aims to improve the situation regarding technical equipment and communications for the administrations of the protected areas lying at the heart of the project. The administrations will be equipped with high-performance computers, which will enable them to elaborate a territorial information system (GIS) based on the Arc/Info systems, which will be an aid to daily management, modeling, and planning. Local communications between field staff and the administrations will be facilitated by providing radio-communications systems. The connection of the administrations to the SANET (INTERNET) system provides more efficient communications with the GEF Biodiversity Protection Office and above all ensures direct communications between administration staff and foreign scientific institutions, universities, and partner protection organizations. This connections also allows on-line databases to be accessed.
The programs also include improving the professional skills of state nature protection staff through participation in courses and visits at home and abroad and through support for foreign language study.
Within the framework of this program, a field station will be built at Nova Sedlica for the CHKO East Carpathians. This station will also serve as a tourist information center.
A special part of the institutional support program, and of the project as a whole, is the Small Grants Program for non-governmental nature conservation organizations in Slovakia. From the standpoint of the utilization of financial resources, this is the only part of the project that is "open" in the sense of not being limited territorially.
The program in TANAP will concentrate on improving conditions for collecting and preserving seed and seedling material from forest species by purchasing a drier for seed extraction from cones, cooling boxes for storing seeds, and air-conditioning for greenhouses. Research and monitoring capacities are also included in the project, including telemetric monitoring of critically endangered species, mapping and monitoring of the karst environment, and monitoring of the occurrence and deposition of heavy metals in animal tissues (by analysis of feathers and bones).
The goal in the inundation area of the Morava River will be to renaturalize selected side branches of the river and to draw up regulations for the appropriate management of the alluvial forests in the area. This will include the conversion of poplar monocultures into stands with a species composition corresponding to local conditions. Forest regeneration will be the key question to address.
The mapping of biotopes will be carried out concurrently. Methods and intensities of meadow management will be determined, and work will be done to transform arable land into meadows corresponding to site conditions. The only acceptable methods will be those which are suitable for the protection of meadow biodiversity and which also take into account the need to protect nesting birds.
European pond terrapins (Emys orbicularis) taken from a population living in northern Hungary will be bred and reintroduced within the framework of the program on ex-situ protection.
Attention will also be paid to restoring functions in selected water corridors.
THE CONSERVATION PROGRAM
Sustainable Development Strategies
A development strategy will be elaborated for each area involved in the project. The strategies will be oriented not only towards the protected areas themselves, but also towards their "zones of influence," i.e., areas connected with the Park or Protected Landscape Area (CHKO) on the basis of economic or other activities and ecological relations. Essential in the preparation of strategies will be an evaluation of current influences (including economic influences) on the use of the area, as well as an assessment of influences on regional biodiversity protection and on the local inhabitants. The next step will be to identify alternative uses of the area and evaluate their long-term economic and ecological effects. A change of heart among local communities regarding the value of regional biodiversity (or at least the beginning of such a change) can only be achieved by involving the public in the process. This should contribute to an improved understanding of the importance of biodiversity and the advantages of alternative ways of using it.
The Carrying Capacity
A very important task in planning and management is to determine the carrying capacity of an area, i.e., the acceptable number of visitors to protected areas or parts of them from the standpoint of the ecological impact, protection of local culture, and protection of the tourist him/herself.
The Small Grants Program
The small grants program is designed to catalyze and promote activities among non-governmental organizations oriented towards nature protection, alternative and traditional relations between man and society and nature, the sustainable utilization of natural resources, and the prevention of damage to elements of nature. The small grants (up to a maximum of $7,000) will be awarded by the Small Grants Board on the basis of their evaluation of proposals submitted. Besides the topical orientation of the project, the evaluation will also consider the degree of innovation in the approach taken to solve the problem, the territorial importance of the topic, and the level of public participation. The organizational capabilities of the NGO in relation to the project submitted represent a further important criterion. Preference is given to practically-oriented projects which involve significant public participation, which help to raise awareness of the need
for and means of biodiversity protection, and which ensure sustainable development. The duration of a grant-supported project may not exceed 12 months.
The current Biodiversity Protection Project is being conducted within the so-called "pilot phase" of the GEF. It should therefore terminate in June 1996. The GEF enters its second phase in autumn 1996, if the Core Fund is replenished. The second phase of the GEF will be even more closely connected with the subsequent process of the UN Conference on the Environment and Development. In the area of biodiversity protection, it will be oriented towards supporting countries in meeting their obligations under the Convention on biodiversity and above all in preparing their national biodiversity protection strategies. We believe that Slovakia will be successful in its application for a grant in this phase as well. Nevertheless, winning the grant is not in itself the goal. Rather, the primary goal is (and always will be) to contribute to the protection and preservation one of the Slovakia's greatest treasures—its nature.
PRESERVATION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY IN TRANSBOUNDARY PROTECTED AREAS OF BELARUS AND POLAND
Institute of Experimental Botany
Belarusian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Zoology
Belarusian Academy of Sciences
Belovezhskaya Pushcha, with its centuries of complicated history, will be of the greatest concern here. Whatever that history may be from the standpoint of politics, Belovezhskaya Pushcha can be regarded as an element which has united the intention of people not only to use natural resources, but also to conserve them.
RETROSPECTIVE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF BELOVEZHSKAYA PUSHCHA
Belovezhskaya Pushcha is a unique complex with protected forests and diverse plants and animals, and it is a source of national pride for both the Belarusian and Polish people. It has acquired world fame for the conservation of wild flora and fauna (primarily in large forest massifs), as well as for numerous studies conducted by many researchers from different countries to determine the ways in which natural ecosystems function. Knowledge of the relationships involved is of very great importance if the trends in human-induced transformations of landscapes are to be estimated. Belovezhskaya Pushcha has contributed much to the restoration of the European bison, a unique animal species in the area. It is one of the most representative protected areas with regard to the biological diversity of plants and animals in the forest zone of Europe. For this reason, a very careful and ecologically-justified approach to solving the problems of conservation in this unique natural complex is required.
Increasing importance is being attached to the use of Belovezhskaya Pushcha as a natural reference standard against which to assess rising human pressure on the natural environment as a result of industrial development, drainage activities, intensive farming, enhanced recreational pressure, transport, and other economic loads.
Belovezhskaya Pushcha was declared a national nature reserve as far back as 1939. However, the reserve was transformed into a State Hunting Reserve in 1957. As time has passed (and especially in recent decades), it has become clear that the status and activity of the hunting reserve is inconsistent with the main role of Belovezhskaya Pushcha as a model and reserve of nature and that substantial degradation of this natural complex has occurred as a result.
Contrary to scientific recommendations and the requirement of a hunting reserve project, the Belovezhskaya Pushcha area supports a high density of hooved game (wild boar, red and roe deer), which is maintained by supplementary feeding and which consequently depletes natural food sources, eliminates undergrowth, and changes the tree stand structure in a harmful way. As a result, natural regeneration has stopped, forests, rivers, plants, and animals are losing their model value, and the integrity and functioning of the natural ecosystems have been disturbed.
Data from studies conducted by the Research Department of Belovezhskaya Pushcha since 1948 have emphasized that wild ungulates were the essential determinants of forest regeneration in Belovezhskaya Pushcha. In the period 1948 to 1950, the relatively low density of hooved animals (10 wild boar, 9 roe deer and 7 red deer per 1000 hectares) ensured that the composition of the natural undergrowth did not differ much from that of the maternal tree stand, while the incidences of damaged trees were just over 1% for pine and birch and 9% for hornbeam and oak trees, with almost no damage to spruce trees being noted. In contrast, the results obtained in the period 1972 to 1992, when ungulate density was substantially greater (24 red deer, 11 roe deer and 16 wild boars per 1000 hectares), indicated that even spruce trees were used by the animals for feed. Between 1% and 5% of the spruce trees 0.5 to 2.5 meters high were damaged, as were of 20-30% of the birch trees, 50-80% of the pine trees, and 60-90% of the oak and hornbeam trees. Similarly, while up to 5000 understory oak trees per hectare were recorded under the oak wood canopies in the 1950s, this count in 32 test plots fell to as little as 100 to 400 per hectare in 11 plots in the 1970s. About 60% of the trees were damaged by ungulates. Meanwhile, two experimental plots within a metal fence had oak regrowth with 15,000 to 20,000 trees per hectare.
The threat to bison populations posed by a high incidence of disease is another causes of great anxiety. A total of 27 bison died in the period 1982 to 1987, and 45 were culled. This figure includes 15 animals with eye disease and 21 with lesions of the external genitals. No careful investigations of the causes of the diseases have been made. There are cases of farm stock grazing and herding.
To the detriment of plant and animal biodiversity, the core was transferred in 1982 from the center of Pushcha to its periphery, located next to drained land. This relocation has decreased the scientific and practical value of the data on the state of natural complexes obtained under the Chronicle of Nature Program.
The uniqueness of Belovezhskaya Pushcha and the dangerous ecological situation faced by it led to discussions of the possibility of a more reasonable proportioning of the conservation and economic functions. Lengthy discussions included a proposal from leading Belarusian scientists that the State Hunting Reserve (SHR) be reorganized into a reserve enjoying the highest form of protection available in the former Soviet Union. In the end, however, the SHR was transformed into a State National Park (SNP), a designation which leaves all the problems of biodiversity conservation unresolved.
PROBLEMS OF OPTIMIZING THE PROTECTIVE REGIME IN BELOVEZHSKAYA PUSHCHA
Two sets of problems have to be addressed. On the one hand, it is necessary to heed the interests of residents, their traditional way of life, the potential for jobs, and the impossibility of relocating them beyond the protected area. On the other hand, there is an urgent need to preserve the natural state of the ecosystem. Such potentially conflicting interests force us to divide the area into several zones with different conservation regimes, in a manner that follows the principles set out for Biosphere Reserves.
Given the real situation and the necessity to give complete protection to the largest possible area, three zones have been identified within Belovezhskaya Pushcha State National Park: a core zone under absolute protection, a protected zone, and a buffer zone.
The area designated as the core (30% of the whole area) was identified on the basis of its having the highest diversity of natural complexes, the best-conserved primary forest, meadow, and water ecosystems, a diversity of forest types, aerial integrity, and sufficiently large size.
Areas with the farmsteads of residents and with land used traditionally in agriculture should be excluded from the core zone and placed within either the protected or buffer zones, depending on the intensity of their economic use. Any human intervention in the natural development and functioning of the biogeocenoses, except for arranging mineralized bands, firefighting activities, and research, is forbidden in the core zone.
The protected zone (about 60% of the total area) is the main part of the Reserve. Its regime is intermediate between that of the core and buffer zones. All activities carried out there are under the control of the Scientific Department and should be aimed solely at conserving disturbed natural complexes and increasing their stability, as well as restoring natural biogeocenoses. Activities in the protected zone are restricted to necessary, scientifically-justified human intervention in the ecosystems. All activities should promote the restoration of primary forest types
and the maintenance of animal populations at levels corresponding to the natural forage base.
The buffer zone has areas with the traditional extensive cultivation of crops in the vicinity of settlements and areas with the farmsteads of local residents, as well as forestry, drained land, arable land, and grassland.
One important problem is controlling the numbers of hooved game animals. It may be solved by culling or catching ungulates. The personnel of the reserve have accumulated extensive experience in hunting, and there are enough specialists, tools, and equipment to allow for the shooting and catching of large numbers of animals. Efficient methods exist for the live catching of wild boar, red and roe deer, and bison. In the winter of 1987, for example, 500 wild boar and red deer were caught for slaughter outside the Reserve.
Heavy culling of wild boar and red deer is necessary, while less intensive efforts are required for roe deer and elk. To solve the general problem, in view of the biological characteristics of each type of ungulate (reproduction, horns, etc.), it is suggested that animals be culled by different methods and on different dates (for more detail refer to ''Scientific Grounds of Controlling the Number of Wild Animals in Belovezhskaya Pushcha," approved by the Scientific Board of the Institute of Zoology, Academy of Sciences of Belarus).
Also recommended are activities for the conservation of bison, which derive from the Symposium on the Conservation of Bison in Belarus (1992). These recommendations can be presented briefly as follows:
To develop a state "Program of Conservation, Dissipation, and Management of Bison Resources in Belarus," which, apart from practical recommendations, should set out scientific grounds for the strategy and tactics of resolving bison-related problems in the next 10 to 15 years;
To expand the set of studies concerned with diseases of bison and the genetics of their population;
To create an experimental basis for research into the diseases of bison and develop efficient methods for their prevention and treatment;
To reduce the number of hooved game animals to the reasonable level recommended by the Institute of Zoology of the Academy of Sciences of Belarus; and
To develop the practice of establishing free herds of bisons in Belarus.
In following the approved recommendations, it was necessary for the Ministry of Forestry of the Republic of Belarus to establish a free herd of bison in Volozhin District, and this was done in the spring of 1994. The Ministry should continue to establish new herds as suitable land is found. It should also develop principles for selective culling in free herds, including limited hunting. To keep numbers at the most reasonable levels, the Ministry should also entrust the Commission for Bison
with the keeping of a Pedigree Book for the Beloveshzkii bison subspecies, in coordination with the International Pedigree Book of Bison in Warsaw.
THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR ACTIVITIES AIMED AT CONSERVING BIODIVERSITY IN BELOVEZHSKAYA PUSHCHA
All activities aimed at conserving the biodiversity of Belovezhskaya Pushcha should have an adequate scientific basis. At present, a wide range of studies is in progress under a World Bank Project entitled "Conservation of Biodiversity of Forests in Belovezhskaya Pushcha."
Simultaneously, a program of ecological research into the ecology of the biome of Belovezhskaya Pushcha is being developed under a joint project of the Academy of Sciences of Belarus and the Polish Academy of Sciences. Late April 1994 saw a meeting of the working group in Kamenyuki to coordinate this program and submit it for approval by the presidiums of the academies of sciences of Belarus and Poland. The main objectives, which are very important for the development of effective recommendations for conserving the biodiversity of Belovezhskaya Pushcha, are developing a dynamic model of the functioning of the Belovezhskaya Pushcha biome, including estimations of: a) biotic and abiotic components of the environment and their roles in the forest landscape; b) natural and human-induced changes in the vegetation cover, fauna, and ecosystems; c) the functioning of ecosystem components (populations of model species and plant and animal groups); d) the ecological basis of economic activities in the protected areas; and e) the present state and future dynamics of biological and landscape diversity, as well as strategies for their conservation.
To increase the effectiveness of studies carried out to estimate the state and dynamics of the biodiversity of Belovezhskaya Pushcha, it would seem useful to arrange periodic publications of collected papers, especially joint works.
In achieving the general aim of conserving the biodiversity of Belovezhskaya Pushcha as a transboundary protected area, the following strategic problems can be distinguished:
Interstate problems (the conservation and management of protected objects by the international community) should be resolved at the level of the governments of Belarus and Poland;
National problems (the perfection of the management structure and the optimization of the status of protected areas) should be handled by each party given the general aim of conserving biodiversity in forest landscapes;
Research-management and scientific problems (the development of joint research projects, the unification of research methodologies, and joint research which takes into consideration the characteristics of the Polish and Belarusian parts of Belovezhskaya Pushcha) should be resolved by cooperation between the national Academies and the Scientific Departments of the protected areas, with financial support from the states, academies, and international research foundations.
BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION IN COUNTRIES WITH ECONOMIES IN TRANSITION
Slovak Ministry of the Environment
Everyone on earth understands the outstanding cultural value of Egypt's Pyramids, but only a small number of people understand that the same applies to natural ecosystems. Furthermore, man can survive if the Pyramids are destroyed, but the degradation of natural ecosystems would result in the extinction of mankind. Not understanding this could have tragic consequences if not changed by the world's people.
The environmental conservation movement has existed for years on both the national and international levels. The most recent high-level environmental summit, the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development, fully reflected the complexity of the problems which development entails. Different interests of various groups were expressed during the meeting, ranging from a proclamatory approach on the needs of environmental conservation while maintaining harmful technologies and hesitant environmental policy to sincere expressions of interest in harmonizing development and conservation. The Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro also brought into everyday use the new term "biodiversity," a topic which at the same time became the subject of one of the most important environmental conventions ever written, the Convention on Biological Diversity. There is no doubt as to the need for this Convention, but many questions have arisen regarding how to put its recommendations into practice.
Biodiversity is by no means evenly distributed over the planet. Certain areas are naturally far richer than others, and natural richness has also been influenced by many years of exploiting natural resources in each particular area. Nevertheless, more or less pristine areas are still found on each continent, and they are important sources not only for actual and potential use, but also for biodiversity itself. These last remnants of natural ecosystems serve as the Earth's "safety net."
The protection of outstanding natural areas and endangered plant and animal species is necessary, but protection alone is not enough. The Convention has made
a step forward in dealing with the protection of all life forms, even those which have resulted from biotechnology. Such protection is organized differently from country to country, and very much depends on social and economic situations.
There is a formerly socialist group of countries in Central and Eastern Europe which are now known as countries with economies in transition. Decades of state ownership of land provided for the establishment of a relatively dense network of protected areas rich in endemic and relict species. The on-going transition of the economies within the region has given rise to specific problems to solve, particularly the privatization and re-privatization processes, which may involve dangers for biodiversity.
One of the legal successors of the former Czechoslovakia, the Slovak Republic, is a small Central European country with a forest cover of nearly 40% (of a total area of 49,035 square kilometers or 18,928 square miles). With more than 5 million inhabitants, it has a population density of 107 inhabitants per square kilometer.
Having 40 years of socialist history and associated economic problems, the country still has relatively well-preserved natural ecosystems, which is partially reflected in the fact that (as of January 1, 1993) areas protected by the national Nature Conservation Act (including their buffer zones) cover 27.03% of the country's territory. This is attributable to the long-lasting state nature conservation policy as well to relief/site conditions in the country. However, the changing ownership of land as a result of both privatization and re-privatization, combined with a lack of financial resources for environmental issues, now poses a great danger to the preserved natural ecosystems.
The aforementioned dense network of protected areas of various categories and types is one of the positive facts of history. On the other hand, this network has been established more on the basis of the knowledge and interests of individuals and interest groups than on complex analyses of valuable natural features and the need to protect them. This is a negative feature because the network is extensive and includes areas which do not require strong conservation control (and even areas with intensive economic activities). On the other hand, territories requiring intensive and strong protection lack not only human but also financial resources needed for effective protection.
Nature conservation was understood as the activity of a small group of people studying nature, taking care of outstanding natural phenomena, or completing endangered species lists. But this definition is too limited. Nature/biodiversity conservation can even play an important role in improving a country's economy if a reasonable balance between man and the environment is maintained.
Early in the 1990s, when ownership relations changed as a result of political changes throughout the region, this incorrect understanding of the role of nature/biodiversity protection within the national economy produced serious problems. A lack of economic analysis of the potential positive effects of nature conservation activities on the long-term prosperity of local areas or the country as a whole is combined with the effects of the interests of new or newly-restored
landowners, who are mostly oriented towards economic figures and often lack even the most basic knowledge of ecosystem processes.
Thus, improving the population's understanding of biodiversity and the role of biodiversity protection in broader circumstances must be a substantial element of biodiversity conservation (and a precondition, if it is to be effective). It must be made clear that protecting biodiversity means more than just maintaining the existing number of species within the respective ecosystems. Such an approach would result in conservation of the present state. Actions must be taken to protect biodiversity on all its three levels—genetic, species, and ecosystem—in order to preserve the sustainable production capability of ecosystems, which is the support mechanism for all life forms, including humans.
On the policy level, biodiversity protection strategies should include the following:
Canging economic criteria to reflect the effectiveness of the use of natural resources considering their regeneration capability;
Analyzing the effectiveness of alternative land uses from the long-term perspective (this is extremely important, especially in this region and in a period when new owners are making decisions on the future use of their land);
Determining the social and cultural value of species and ecosystems and including this information in economic analyses;
Changing legal and economic tools to stimulate ecologically-sound ways of using natural resources;
Promoting intensive biocentrically-oriented environmental education based on the idea that economic growth is part of a country's development and not its main goal;
Changing the common view that conservation activities are of interest to a small group of strange people and promoting the understanding that conservation is a modern and interdisciplinary applied science comprising not only biological knowledge, but also economic analyses and ethical principles;
Determining the carrying capacity of ecosystems, considering not only local site conditions, but also effects of global changes on carrying capacity;
Considering aspects of consumption as an inseparable part of population growth and integrating this into development strategies/prognoses;
Utilizing biodiversity prospecting, not only for consumption for commercial/industrial uses, but also in relation to its potential non-consumption use (the "soft" tourism industry); and
Analyzing the financial flows resulting from natural resource use and allocating these equally between development and conservation purposes at the local, regional, and national levels.