IUCN WCPA, Fundaciò Territori i Paisatge

IUCN WCPA, Fundaciò Territori i Paisatge
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MOUNTAIN CORRIDORS
Pyrenees, Spain, 24-27 October 2005
ALPS AND APENNINES, A BRIDGE
MEDITERRANEAN
Roberto Gambino, Bernardino Romano
BETWEEN
EUROPE
AND
THE
SUMMARY
The paper refers to the projects and programs concerning the Apennines for their connectivity
conservation, in the frame of the European Ecological Network. Special attention is given to:
- the role that the Apennines, together with the Alpine system, can play as a naturalcultural bridge between the Central Europe and the Mediterranean basin;
- the double interest of important wilderness spaces, in the context of extraordinary cultural
landscapes;
- the need for connectivity strategies largely exceeding the protected areas system, in order
to reduce the fragmentation processes and strengthen the environmental continuity within
the whole territory.
1 ALPS AND APENNINES IN THE EURO-MEDITERRANEAN CONTEXT
1.1 The Apennines’ system
The Apennines are one of the most important mountain systems of Europe. The Apennines
system is the 5th in size, with a surface area of 4.818.459 ha and length of over 1500 km, from
the Alps in North Italy to the Sicily (the surface area is comparable with the ones relating to
other 20 mountain systems, measured by homogenous criteria on 1997).
Systems
Area (ha)
n.
Area (ha)
Parks
%(a)
av. Area
Scandinavian Alps
Pennine Chain
Cantabrian M.
Pyrenees
Iberian System
Sierra Morena
Baltic M.
Massiccio Centrale
Alps
Apennines
Giura
Selva Nera
Bohemian Forest
Carpathians M.
Transylvania Alps
Balcans
Rodope
Albania Alps
Dinaric Alps.
Pinto
18.525.077
1.209.588
4.215.232
3.127440
5.751.426
1.659.413
2.394.665
4.108.326
18.279.850
4.818.459
1.000.049
930.969
2.681.150
7.293.138
2.472.104
1.886.544
2.722.095
3.683.345
4.147.065
1.652.677
22
3
10
10
8
5
13
4
62
26
1
1
15
14
2
3
3
8
11
6
1.739.805
419.600
291.868
210.816
176.498
525.254
773.844
801.057
1.735.108
1.247.132
62.088
85.710
1.343.773
343.938
114.500
37.206
54.050
151.508
159.071
37.062
9%
35%
7%
7%
3%
32%
32%
19%
10%
26%
6%
9%
50%
5%
5%
2%
2%
4%
4%
2%
79.082
139.867
29.187
21.082
22.062
105.051
59.526
200.264
29.953
47.967
62.088
85.710
89.585
24.567
57.250
12.402
18.017
18.939
14.461
6.177
Total
Other systems
Total
92.558.612
246
53
299
10.309.891
3.874.709
14.184.600
11%
41.910
73.108
47.440
Table 1 – Natural parks (Natural and regional) in European mountain system (Ced-PPn, 1997)
0,3500
0,3000
0,2500
0,2000
0,1500
0,1000
0,0500
Open plateau
Coastal plateau
Terrigenous hills
Bottom valley plateau
Carbonatic plateau
Clayey hills
Volcanic plateau and hills
Piedmountain hills
Carbonatic mountains
Terrigenous mountains
Terrigenous hill landscape with top plateau
Carbonatic hills
Metamorphic mountains
Terrigenous relief
Heteorogeneus hill landscape
River plateau
Dolomitic mountains
Granitic hills
Intermountain basin
Mountain valley
Intermountain plateau
Coastal isolated relief
Volcanic mountain block
Wetlands
Metamorphic hills
Small islands
Porphyritic mountains
Lavic flats
Heteorogeneus hill landscape with top plateau
Lake belts
Volcanic mountains
Isolated hills landscape
Glacial landscape
Isolated rock relief
Granitic mountains
Dolomites landscape
Plateau landscape in mountain areas
0,0000
Figure 1 - Distribution of the urban density in relation to the typologies of the national landscape units
The Apennines chain is the 4th in Protected Areas’ coverage, hosting 26 national and regional
parks with a surface of 1.247.132 ha. The chain constitutes the backbone of the whole Italian
peninsula, which extends from North to South into the Mediterranean Sea, and stretches
between the Tyrrhenian and the Adriatic coasts. In the North, it joins the Alpine system, with
which the Apennines form a prominent structure – sort of a big T - between Central Europe
and the Mediterranean basin, hosting most of the highest European mountains, including
Mont Blanc, 4807 m. However, while the Alpine system belongs to 7 different countries
(Italy, France, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Liechtenstein, Slovenia), the Apennines are
located entirely in Italy.
The Apennines present an extraordinary set of resources, both natural and cultural. They are
the “Mediterranean” mountains par excellence, crossing the entire peninsula at almost 8
different degrees of latitudinal variation. Moving away from the Alps, the Apennine range
acquires increasingly “peripheral” features southwards, compared with the continental
development hubs, and a growing centrality vis-à-vis the Mediterranean basin. In ecological
terms, a crucial factor is the intersection of different bioclimatic regions, which produces a
very high biodiversity. In cultural terms, it’s enough to recall the richness of the historic
processes related to the multiple flows of civilisation that, over the centuries, crossed the
Italian territory, and also consider their tangible and intangible sediments. Nevertheless, the
relevant natural and cultural heritage characterising the Apennines is still largely unexploited
and even unknown or underestimated, with the exception of a limited number of celebrated
centres, places and landscapes.
What are the Apennines? How can they be geographically defined? The question is not easily
answered. As every mountain system, this one may be defined in many different ways,
depending on the goals one wishes to reach. In order to the launch of “system policies”
relating to the main parts of the national territory, it would be useful to make reference to
some suggestions emerging from the National Structural Programmes (Ministry of
Environment, Deliberazione CIPE 1998) and the environmental legislation (L.426/1998). One
of the programmes concerns just the Apennines system and subsequent studies promoted by
the Ministry of Environment’s attempt to define it, providing a number of data about it
(Gambino, R., 2003).
Following this interpretation, the Apennines system may be considered as a part of the Italian
territory. This part, including the proper mountain range, has a surface of 9.371.147 ha and
homes over ten million inhabitants, distributed in 2,165 municipalities, 48 provinces and 15
regions, giving room to a great variety of economic activities, part of which are still rooted in
the traditional productive cultures.
Ambiti e sub-ambiti
1. ALPS
1.1 Alpi Occidentali
1.2 Alpi Orientali
2. PIANURA PADANA
3. APENNINES AND PENINSULA
3.1 Appennino settentrionale
3.2 Appennino centrale
3.3 Appennino meridionale
3.4 Appennino calabro-siculo
Appennino montano
3.5 Fascia tirrenica
3.6 Fascia adriatica centrale
3.7 Fascia adriatica-ionica
4. ISLANDS
4.1 Isole Sicilia
4.2 Isole Sardegna
4.3 Isole Minori
ITALY
5. COAST (overlay belt)
Area
(ha)
% on
Italy
Population
1991
% on
Italy
Population
2001*
4.437.164
1.358.464
3.078.700
19.075.595
N°
municipa
lities
1.693
664
1.029
2.491
5.169.905
1.768.488
3.401.417
5.325.981
17,20
5,90
11,30
17,70
4.395.812
1.374.668
3.021.144
19.196.953
7,60
2,40
5,20
33,20
15.311.313
2.176.036
3.013.276
2.164.951
2.016.884
9.371.147
3.048.856
882.908
2.008.402
50,90
7,20
10,00
7,20
6,70
31,20
10,10
2,90
6,70
28.577.484
2.846.308
2.421.370
2.024.687
3.368.772
10.661.137
11.625.778
2.098.390
4.192.179
4.260.994
1.802.326
2.385.378
73.290
14,20
6,00
7,90
0,20
30.089.839
4.202.832
% on
Italy
N°
provinces
20,90
8,20
12,70
30,70
22
7
15
31
49,50
4,90
4,20
3,50
5,80
18,50
20,10
3,60
7,30
27.566.467
2.716.309
2.332.747
1.925.372
3.169.955
10.144.383
11.180.841
2.141.267
4.099.976
3.307
466
626
538
535
2.165
602
295
245
40,80
5,80
7,70
6,60
6,60
26,70
7,40
3,60
3,00
59
21
16
9
7
48
15
8
6
5.572.488
3.765.586
1.645.550
161.352
9,70
6,50
2,80
0,30
5.226.342
3.480.558
1.585.415
160.369
612
207
373
32
7,60
2,60
4,60
0,40
24
8
4
12
100,00
57.742.737
100,00
56.305.568
8.103
100,00
98
14,00
17.250.695
29,90
16.068.137
639
7,90
53
* Draft data ISTAT 2001
Table 2 - Inahabitants and surfaces by “main sub-national systems” (CED-PPN source ISTAT 1991 and 2001)
Agriculture, forestry and grazing have, since prehistory, shaped local cultures and landscapes,
and, still now, they cover the main part of the territory. The mountain territories of the range
are closely tied with the plains along the Tyrrhenian and the Adriatic coasts, which, in the last
decades, have generally experienced important economic development and a significant
population growth, related in many cases to the tourism development. However, the local
communities of the mountain territories generally received a very poor profit from such
developments and have been subjected to a diffused and pervasive process of decline, in
demographic, economic, social and cultural terms. A massive, unexpected and epochal
process of abandonment took place in a large part of the mountain territories. In turn, this
process had and is still having important environmental consequences, such as de-stabilisation
of soil and ecosystems, loss of biodiversity in previously cultivated areas, alteration of many
cultural landscapes, loss of a diffused cultural heritage. In many cases, these effects are
intertwined with the effects of tourism, urban sprawl and infrastructural diffusion, producing
an acceleration of environmental degradation. The result is a growing fragmentation of
ecosystems, a progressive loss of habitats and precious natural and cultural resources and a
diffused environmental degradation. These phenomena are particularly intensive on flat
internal areas sited among the mountain groups. As shown in the Figure 2, the urban areas in
Italy are concentrated (over 57% of the total) mainly in particular landscape units, as bottom
valley plateau, coastal plateau and open plateau.
Figure 2 - Urban pattern in an internal area of the Alps
1200
160,00
Urban areas
People density
140,00
URBAN AREAS (ha)
120,00
800
100,00
600
80,00
60,00
400
40,00
PEOPLE DENSITY (inhabit./ha)
1000
200
20,00
0
0,00
1891
1951
2001
Figure 3 - Typical relationship diagrams between urban areas increasing and people density decreasing in a flat
italian area.
Figure 4 - Mountain Areas in Europe and main structural lines in Italy (“Big T” - Alps and Apennines) (CedPpn: Europa, 1999; Italia, 2001)
In the last century, mainly in the flat areas, the urban areas are greatly increased, while the
density of people is decreasing. Figure 4 shows these phenomena within the municipal border
(Conegliano Veneto) in the flat area of Veneto region, one of the Italian regions in which the
urban sprawl is particularly evident.
Environmental protection and social and economic concerns are, therefore, strictly linked to
the Apennines’ system. However, the answer of the political system to such problems has
still remained inadequate. One of the most significant policies concerns the Protected Areas
(PAs). The Apennines’ system hosts nearly half of the Italian PAs, with a total coverage of
over 1.512.000 ha, i.e. 16% of the total territory’s surface. If we also consider the sites of
European interest according to the UE directives (SCIs), excluding overlapping areas,
coverage raises up to over 2.210.000 ha, i.e. 24% of the total territory. This share is just about
double that of the European mountain systems average. A large part of this coverage is
constituted by National parks (n. 10) and Regional Parks (n. 36), which cover together 15% of
the total, with a great variety of environments and landscapes.
National Parks *
n
ha
247.853
81.721
166.132
%
ha
5
5
5
Regional Parks
n
ha
30
12
18
556.457
80.369
476.088
%
ha
11
5
14
Natural reserves **
n
ha
%
ha
17
3.874
0,1
2
15
3.874
0,1
Regional reserves**
n
ha
%
ha
68
11.436
0,2
25
2.087
0,1
43
9.349
0,3
Other areas**
n
ha
57
4
53
4.670
2.945
1.725
%
ha
0,1
0,2
0,1
Total
n
ha
% ha
% on tot
176
45
131
824.290
167.122
657.168
16
9
19
25
5
20
1. ALPS
1.1 Alpi Occidentali
1.2 Alpi Orientali
4
2
2
2. PIANURA PADANA
-
-
-
34
351.718
7
15
3.912
0,1
77
17.331
0,3
5
247
0,0
131
373.208
7
11
3. APENNIES AND PENINSULA
13
988.340
6
63
728.995
5
109
46.743
0,3
106
105.734
0,7
46
36.276
0,2
337
1.906.088
12
58
3.1 Appennino settentrionale
3.2 Appennino centrale
3.3 Appennino meridionale
3.4 Appennino calabro-siculo
tot Appennino montano
2
4
2
2
10
40.286
345.150
373.613
91.207
850.256
2
11
17
5
9
18
11
4
3
36
120.808
174.426
119.427
183.623
598.284
6
6
6
9
6
20
17
9
13
59
4.167
5.059
469
4.378
14.073
0,2
0,2
0,0
0,2
0,2
11
19
5
12
47
5.337
22.754
2.197
12.248
42.536
0,2
0,8
0,1
0,6
0,5
9
5
2
16
5.453
1.661
105
7.219
0,3
0,1
0,0
0,1
60
56
22
30
168
176.051
549.050
495.811
291.456
1.512.368
8
18
23
14
16
5
17
15
9
46
3.5 Fascia tirrenica
3.6 Fascia adriatica centrale
3.7 Fascia adriatica-ionica
tot. terre peninsulari
2
1
3
16.966
121.118
138.084
1
6
2
22
2
3
27
116.013
7.521
7.177
130.711
4
1
0
2
30
2
18
50
22.916
1.820
7.934
32.670
0,8
0,2
0,4
0,5
53
5
1
59
61.596
1.102
500
63.198
2,0
0,1
0,0
1,1
28
2
30
27.467
1.590
29.057
0,9
0,1
0,5
135
9
25
169
244.958
10.443
138.319
393.720
8
1
7
7
7
0
4
12
4. ISLANDS
4.1 Isole Sicilia
4.2 Isole Sardegna
4.3 Isole Minori
4
104.513
6.700
174
1,5
3,2
0,1
2,6
128
174
61.866
57.071
2.913
1.882
9
2
49
46
1
2
128
6.700
0,0
0,2
9
2
0
0
-
2
76.335
28.178
2
3
38
2
1
3
0,0
0,0
-
66
46
13
7
173.381
57.071
86.076
30.234
4
3
4
41
5
2
3
1
ITALY
21
1.340.706
4
129
1.643.870
5
143
54.703
0,2
300
196.367
0,7
117
41.321
0,1
710
3.276.967
11
100
5. COAST (overlay belt)
8
422.151
10
28
297.403
7
52
30.737
0,7
64
58.145
1,4
25
7.537
0,2
177
815.973
19
25
* In the sum the National Parks are not shared among the relative regions
** The area of the reserves is relative just to the surfaces within national and regional parks
Table 3 - Number, surface, percentage of Protected Areas (APc) by categories and by “main sub-national
systems”
PAs*
SPAs**
SCIs**
UE
Italy
APE mountains
No.
23.596
962
168
Area (ha)
56.919.122
3.320.210
1.512.368
No.
11.519
2.328
864
Area (ha)
41.303.700
4.179.096
1.414.228
No.
2.663
337
73
Area (ha)
17.320.000
1.706.913
663.791
*National and Regional Parks, Reserves, Protected Landscape and Natural Monuments (CED-PPN 1999). **EU Nature 2000 Program
Table 4 - Number and surface area of Protected areas (PAs*), Site of Community Importance (SCIs**) and
Special Protection Areas (SPAs**) in the 15 EU Member states, in Italy and in Apennines system (APE)
It is noteworthy that, according to Italian laws, authorities managing parks include the “park
communities”, which represent all the Municipalities that are totally or partially comprised in
the parks’ perimeters. Taking into account the areas relating to the park communities, we can
estimate that over one third of the total territory, and an even larger share of the total
population, is already directly influenced by park management. Despite these figures, we
must acknowledge that park policies are not adequate to ensure an effective protection of the
global Apennines’ environment and, moreover, the desired diffusion of the benefits “beyond
the boundaries” (as it was stated by the IUCN Durban World Parks Congress, 2003). One of
the main reasons is due to the fact that the whole system is too fragmented and insufficiently
coordinated, both in physical and political terms. In physical terms, we recognize that there is
a lack of connectivity even in the PAs set, which are generally separated from each other. In
political terms, we must recall that public action, for the most part, still lies in the hands of
many local powers (15 regions, 48 provinces, 2,165 municipalities, 46 park authorities and so
on), which are often jealous of their autonomy. Hence, the need for a project based on a
connectivity strategy.
Furthermore, it is worthy of noting that both environmental and economic concerns must be
faced with policies which cannot be confined in one sector of the public administration or
even in the mountain territories of the Apennines. Therefore, focusing our attention on the
above sub-region and on the territorial policies proposed for it, we should be aware that such
policies have to be considered open to the interregional context and, as far as possible,
integrated in it.
Figure 5 - Protected areas in Europe (Ced-Ppn: Europa, 1999; Italia, 2001)
Figure 6 – Protected areas and SCIs (Sites of European Interest) in Italy
1.2 Alps and Apennines, a bridge between Central Europe and the Mediterranean.
As it has been noted, the Apennines – owing to their size, their geographical position, and
their bio-cultural richness and diversity – must play a relevant role in the European context.
As other prominent mountain systems, they are one of the main structures forming the
European Environmental Network. In the international panorama, mountain systems
generally resemble concentration places for Protected Areas; in Europe, the share of the total
territorial surface covered by PAs within mountain systems is nearly three times as high as in
other territories. Furthermore, mountain PAs are generally included in large chains of natural
(glaciers, rocky lands and other desert areas) or semi-natural spaces with high biopermeability, such as forests, steppes, pasturelands and so on, without relevant anthropic
pressures or barriers. Of course, this is also one of the reasons that can explain the structural
relevance of mountains in shaping the landscapes of the concerned countries. Such
considerations are particularly true for the Apennines, as we’ll see in the next chapters.
Nonetheless, to fully understand their role, we must enlarge our scope, and consider on one
hand the relationship to the Mediterranean basin, and, on the other, the relationship to Central
Europe. The first point brings our attention to the longitudinal dimension of the range, which
expands to just the core of the basin, setting up important ecological, economic and cultural
relations with its Southern side, which have been well proven through the centuries.
Particularly, for the nature conservation policies, its role can be strategic wherein Europe must
extend to the Mediterranean basin. Even in merely quantitative terms, figures concerning the
PAs, both in European and non-European countries facing the Mediterranean, allow us to
imagine the relevance of this extension.
Since 1975, these links were taken into account in the Mediterranean Action Plan. Then, in
the 1995 review (MAP II), environmental protection aims mention responsibilities of
European coastal countries - it is also sufficient to think of the pollutants discharged by them with regard to sustainable development objectives. In a joint effort to restore environmental
balance, the role of European countries, especially Spain, France and Italy, is decisive, both
for the environmental pressures they generate, and for the responses they could provide.
Among these, it is important to take into consideration the PAs, which are scarce in most
countries of the southern arch and relatively numerous in European countries. According to
1997 IUCN figures - the only ones available for all Mediterranean countries - 91% of PAs in
Mediterranean countries are located in Europe, and mainly found in the three aforementioned
countries. Although it is foreseeable that the contribution to nature conservation from
emerging countries will grow significantly in the years to come, the key role of European
countries, and especially the Apennine range with its previously described enviable features,
is extremely clear. More specific environmental contributions may be identified with regard to
various linkages, such as bird migration routes, especially for flows between Central Africa
and Northern Europe via the Tyrrhenian coast and islands, the flows between Spain and
eastern Africa via smaller islands and the flows between the Red Sea and Europe via the
Balkan coastline, which also concern some nodes along the Adriatic coast. Moreover, the
contribution of the Apennine range could significantly increase involving the inland
waterway network, as foreseen by the European Ecological Network, and enhancing the
intricate system of transverse linkages connecting the mountains to the sea on both sides, that
is linkages that also have important historical, functional and cultural relations. In fact, it is in
this more complex and significant version that the Apennines rangemay be seen as a large
greenway, a green belt unwinding along the peninsula and linking Europe to the
Mediterranean.
Figure 7 – Configuration of bird migration flows in the Mediterranean basin (Ced-Ppn: Europa, 1999; Italia,
2001)
Albania
Bosnia-Erz.
Croazia
Francia
Grecia
Italia
Macedonia
Portogallo
Slovenia
Spagna
Yugoslavia
tot MED EU
National Parks
Regional Parks
Protected Landscapes
Reserves
Natural Monument and other
TOT
n
%sup
sup (ha)
n
%sup
sup (ha)
n
%sup
sup (ha)
n
%sup
sup (ha)
n
%sup
sup (ha)
n
sup (ha)
% sup
6
0,80%
23.000
18
2,51%
72.055
1
0,05%
1.370
18
2,51%
72.055
0
0,00%
0
43
168.480
5,86%
2
0,40%
20.625
2
0,08%
4.000
3
0,00%
197
8
0,05%
2.519
0
0,00%
0
15
27.341
0,53%
7
1,24%
70.163
6
4,60%
260.243
7
0,20%
11.095
7
0,49%
27.434
0
0,00%
0
27
368.935
6,53%
6
0,65%
352.598
35
9,51%
5.172.376
0
0,00%
0 1.058
1,43%
778.855
0
0,00%
0 1.099
6.303.829
11,59%
11
2,19%
288.742
0
0,00%
0
19
0,25%
33.067
662
15,79%
2.083.575
10
0,11%
14.685
702
2.420.069
18,34%
21
4,45%
1.340.706
131
5,50%
1.658.966
0
0,00%
0
484
1,37%
412.490
341
0,18%
52.756
977
3.464.918
11,50%
3
4,21%
108.338
3
0,09%
2.338
0
0,00%
0
2
0,11%
2.730
39
2,21%
56.850
47
170.256
6,62%
1
0,76%
70.290
11
5,80%
533.690
3
0,03%
2.374
8
0,64%
58.951
7
0,00%
0
30
665.305
7,23%
1
4,14%
83.807
1
0,02%
416
36
2,98%
60.289
0
0,00%
0
0
0,00%
0
38
144.512
7,14%
11
0,44%
222.324
104
5,04%
2.550.759
88
0,53%
270.329
152
0,19%
96.441
119
0,09%
47.760
474
3.187.613
6,30%
9
2,33%
237.673
20
0,49%
50.380
0
0,00%
0
7
0,34%
34.603
0
0,00%
0
36
322.656
3,16%
78
1,52%
2.822.980
347
5,53%
10.281.519
157
0,20%
378.721 2.476
1,94%
3.603.346
529
0,09%
170.498 3.488
17.243.914
9,28%
Algeria
Egitto
Israele
Libano
Libia
Marocco
Tunisia
Turchia
tot MED AA
10
1
1
1
3
2
6
21
45
0,12%
0,06%
0,41%
0,34%
0,03%
0,15%
0,29%
0,59%
0,15%
282.592
61.500
8.400
3.500
51.000
69.800
44.417
446.264
967.473
8
11
14
1
3
5
4
4
0,07%
0,01%
TOT MED
tot EU
Mountain
Apennines *
2001
123
269
10
0,45%
2,0%
9,0%
3.790.453
9.953.761
850.256
351
445
36
1,23%
3,5%
6,4%
51.624
51.624
0
0
0
10.333.143
157
17.296.202 9.289
598.284
0
6, 3%
378.721
31.441.790
41
83
0,04%
0,73%
14,78%
0,05%
0,07%
0,54%
0,00%
1,04%
0,35%
86866
731700
299.435
500
122000
246103
785031
2.271.635
0
0
0
2.559
20.193
106
0,70%
2,3%
0,6%
5.874.981
11.563.232
57.483
529
2.283
16
0
0,0%
0,1%
170.498
240.819
7.219
18
12
15
2
6
7
6
66
132
3.620
32.479
168
369.458
793.200
307.835
4.000
173.000
315.903
44.417
1.282.919
3.290.732
0,16%
0,79%
15,20%
0,38%
0,10%
0,69%
0,29%
1,70%
0,50%
20.536.646
70.495.804
1.512.368
2,44%
14,1%
16,1%
* In this system are considered the protected Areas and the Municipalities sited in the Apennines area defined as following
Table 5 - Protected Areas in the Mediterranean Countries (data CED-PPN 1999 for EU, data IUCN 1997 for
MED)
Such considerations bring us to the second relationship, with the Alpine system, which, at its
western tip, is connected with the Apennines without any apparent discontinuity. Alps and
Apennines together form a great structure (a “big T”) connecting Central Europe to the
Mediterranean basin. In geomorphologic, environmental, historical, cultural and economic
terms, the Alpine system is a real threshold of Central Europe towards the South. Over the
centuries, this enormous natural monument, hosting the tallest mountains of Europe, has been
a focal crossroads for trades, economic and cultural flows among different and distant cultures
and political formations. As the Apennines system, the Alps may also be conceived as an
essential component of the European Ecological Network. However, unlike the Apennines,
their relevance is already well recognised in European documents, programmes and
agreements. Since 1991, a large agreement, involving the seven Alpine states – the Alpine
Convention – has provided a framework for policies aimed at sustainable development and
enhancement of the entire system. The Convention takes into account a large range of
strategies, concerning:
- Land planning and sustainable development
- Nature and landscape conservation
- Mountain agriculture
- Mountain forestry
- Land conservation
- Tourism and recreational activities
- Energy
- Transport
- Resolution of conflicts
- Air quality
- Hydro economy
- People and culture
- Waste economy
Despite of the fact that the implementation protocols have not yet been ratified by all of the
involved parties, the Convention constitutes an important attempt of an integrated approach to
management and planning of a vast territorial system. It marks the difference between the
Alpine system and the Apennines, where, to date, no formal and compelling agreement is in
force. Nevertheless, if we compare the Alpine Convention protocols with the strategies
designed for the Apennines, we can easily perceive the amount of synergies and
complementarities that a joint consideration of both systems could possibly achieve.
2 THE APE PROJECT: RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES
2.1 Initiatives, motivations and goals.
In the second half of the ‘90s some environmental associations and regional administrations
launched a project – “Appennino Parco d’Europa” (APE) – in order to cross such negative
processes and to promote the enhancement of the entire system within the European context.
The initiative was later taken up by the National Government, and in 2000 the Interministerial Committee for Economic Planning (CIPE) approved the APE Project as an Action
Programme, wherein integrating a set of aims:
• nature conservation, combining the needs for protection with the needs for development
and the growth of employment;
• conservation of the specificity of settlement systems through the protection, recovery and
enhancement of building, cultural and religious heritage scattered throughout the territory;
• sustainable tourism;
• conservation and rural development;
• promotion of quality produce in the agro-industrial sector;
• conservation and development of home-made and agro-industrial produce;
• upgrading of the services network.
According to the CIPE decision, a number of pilot projects concerning local areas or issues of
particular interest were selected and funded. Meanwhile, the CIPE guidelines were defined in
a large research promoted by the Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation Service,
conducted by an extensive group of researchers drawn from 8 Universities supported by a
number of outside experts and organisations (Gambino,R., 2003). The research enlightened
such aims require synergies, complementarities and cooperation among a wide set of subjects
and operators. Of course, this exigence is emphasised by the size of the project that involves a
great number of public administrations and numerous agencies, operators and stakeholders.
This is, in fact, a crucial problem of the APE project: how can we receive unitary effort for its
purpose, while strengthening, at the same time, the autonomy and self-confidence of the local
powers. In order to deal with the dilemma, some words can be evocated, which have a
growing impact on the present environmental discourse: co-management, connectivity,
linkages, system policies and so on. These words are, in fact, at the very centre of the “shift in
focus” in conservation policies that characterized both the IUCN Parks Congress in Durban,
2003, and the Conservation Congress in Bangkok, 2004.
2.2 What linkages?
Recently IUCN has drawn our attention to the complex meaning of linkages, underlining the
urgency to “forge enduring linkages” in three directions: through history, across geography
and among peoples. This last subject, in particular, is quite important in the context of recent
international programs relative to Ecoregional Approach (WWF, 2004). The APE project
seems to be an excellent ground for testing these meanings.
A) Linkages through history. “Using the past to shape the future” is one of the major
challenges of the project. None of the strategies designed could be viable or even intelligible
without making reference to the past. The natural and cultural settlement is not only the basis
of the complex system of values that the project aims to enhance and valorise, but is also the
root of the opportunities we can gain for pursuing its strategies. This observation may seem
trivial – every ecological evolution depends on past processes – but it assumes a special
relevance in the case of the Apennines. First of all, we may observe that their desired
integration into the Euro-Mediterranean context, and particularly the creation of new visions
and images must be based on the disclosure of its historic role in the complex system of
economic and cultural relations between Europe and other Mediterranean countries; and it
creates a problem, because the Apennines have never had a unitary history. Secondly, the
deepness of past acculturation processes makes it particularly difficult to deal with the natural
dynamics without considering their singularities: each ecosystem is generally an instable
result of complex processes of human manipulation and requires a “historically sensible”
management approach. Their future depends on their past. Lastly, strengthening of the
environmental role of local communities could be successful only if it is rooted in their past,
as recalled by the identity narrations, traditional celebrations, myths and memories as well as
by material sediments. In other words, conservation should be, in our case, very different
from the mere protection of the existing state, it requires a management approach aware of the
past and projected for the future.
Figure 8 (a,b) – Historical landscapes and centres in Apennines
B) Linkages across geography. Building bridges across the territories is another major
challenge of the project. APE has two main concerns: linking the Apennines system, as a
whole, with the Euro-Mediterranean context, and networking natural and cultural resources
into the system. The first concern is the project’s key strategy and is based on the idea that the
Apennines may be conceived as a long bridge between Europe and the Mediterranean. In the
next paragraph we’ll understand better that this concept raises many hard problems, such as
the relationship between Europe’s environmental policies and the Mediterranean’s ones, the
“corporate identity” of the Apennines, political subjects of the desired compact planning, and
so on. The second concern has, of course, a particular importance in relation to the richness of
cultural and ecological differentiation processes, which took place in the past within the
Apennines and the subsequent landscape and biological diversity. An enormous variety of
places, habitats, natural and cultural resources, and local cultures are to be connected if we
want to increase the effectiveness of protection measures, to improve the public enjoyment of
the territorial heritage, to enrich and diversify the chances of sustainable tourism. However,
paradoxically, it is just such variety that makes it difficult for each network policy to widen
the range of the involved actors and to sharpen the complexity of the governance processes. In
fact, networking places and resources is not a mere matter of physical connectivity, it means
scaling up of regulation systems, coordination of local efforts and start-up of new forms of
cooperative management.
Figure 9 – One of the main forest lines of environmental continuity in Apennines
C) Linkages among peoples. Therefore, one of the project’s unavoidable missions would be to
move throughout society. Its aims cannot be achieved with a top-down process, based on a
national approach neither can they function with a bottom-up process, based on a mere local
approach. In order to promote the local responsibility and creativity, , while obtaining the
advantages of system policies that concern the entire mountain range, or relevant parts of it.
both approaches must be mixed. Strengthening local systems is an essential step in the
implementation route of the project, as well as co-operation from administration bodies at
every level (Provinces and Regions with the National Government). The partial success of
some of the Pilot Projects funded over the last years in the framework of the national
programs for APE have shown the importance of alliances and agreements among a large set
of actors, on a regional or inter-regional basis. Nevertheless, effective sharing of goals,
visions and strategies requires a wide range of public actions in the sector of territorial
management and regional planning, as well as in the communication, representation,
education and policy formation fields. Of course, it is not a matter of a mere consensus
building, but also of a truly co-operative strategy making up where composition of the
different interests aims not only to reduce conflicts an mitigating contrasts, but also to
increase the “added value” of the project. It requires new styles and tools of planning, where
social communication should play a central role. First of all, an arena within which an “
inclusive ” discussion can take place. Given the extraordinary bio-cultural diversity found
within the whole system, we need an inter-cultural communication approach: speaking a
common language is one of the pre-requisites. This is very difficult to achieve with the
present legislative, administrative, social and political context – whithin which Italy has
known over the last years important pushes towards decentralisation – but some experiences,
for instance the corporate projects for local “Agenda 21”, referring to the Rio Convention,
1992, demonstrate it could be possible.
2.3 A double interest: wilderness and cultural landscape
a) Cultural landscapes. Cultural heritage is diffused all over Italy in forms that are different
from, but at the same time interconnected to, the environmental structure. This fact is more
comprehensible when thinking of an extensive group of national and regional Parks in the
central Apennines (Sibillini, Laga Gran Sasso, Sirente-Velino, Majella), a protected territory
with an area of 500.000 hectares, where there are about 100.000 inhabitants among many
historical centres, with different economic and demographic dynamics (Romano, B., 1995).
As a component of landscape enrichment and quality, on one hand cultural heritage offers
added value to the territory. This is particularly true when cultural heritage evidences the
historical value of a certain anthropisation that enabled conservation of nature. On the other
hand, cultural heritage constitutes an intrusion for environmental structure, for example when
it leads to intensive tourism that disturbs the ecological context. Clearly, almost the entire
Italian landscape, like a great portion of the European landscape, has been shaped and deeply
marked by man.
Up until 50 years ago, landscape changes in the Alps and Apennines caused directly by
human interventions did not upset the environment, whereas today changes can bring about
major disruptions. These changes are not only artificial, but can also be spontaneous. It is not
certain, however, whether they can positively influence the natural environment.
From here, a scientific debate arises; it relates to the uncultivated agricultural areas that once
made up the Italian cultural landscape and are now abandoned. Having lost their productive
importance and not retaining a natural value, these areas need to find a new identity and to
discover a role to bring them back to their traditional use, which is often no longer
sustainable, that is to say, unless policies are applied within areas of peculiar interest.
Spontaneous reforestation is recurrent here, but not always pleasant, especially in the early
stage, without any human control. This type of re-naturalised cultural landscape might be
important for ecological restoration of the mountain landscape.
Cultural heritage, furthermore, counts for more than just the cultural landscape, including
other components of historical importance and visual value, such as historical centres, isolated
monuments and ancient paths.
Together with these cultural patterns we can uncover real natural structure, which allowed for
the presence of different wild species of international conservation value. This natural
structure has been defined from some national research programs by means of the Biopermeability concept (Romano, B., 1999).
b) Biopermeability and wilderness. Biopermeability regards the complex geography of natural
territories. The biopermeability condition involves lands that are not interested by intensive
human use, as urbanisation and industrial agriculture.
In a cultural landscape, the study of biopermeability has to be addressed by considering the
link between natural and cultural areas. The latter retain those species able to adapt to the
anthropic environment, while the former retains a greater variety of species, including those
unable to adapt, that is, the most threatened ones.
In the first instance, the environmental continuity structure, deriving from the configuration of
biopermeability areas, rests on urban components and land use activities. In the second, the
ecological network rests on biological and natural components. Biopermeability and
environmental continuity structures, however, do not always coincide with ecological network
structure.
Analysis of the national environmental structure in Italy, moreover, brings into evidence the
lack of interest for natural aspects by past planning systems. Having often been confined to
administrative borders and to national strategies, the planning system has been unable to
conceive geographic, morphologic and environmental continuity of large scale ecosystem
units, such as the Alps and the Apennines.
It is, nevertheless, true that since the 70s national instruments like the Mountain Map
(Ministero dell'Agricoltura e Foreste, 1976) already allowed visualisation of the levels of
geographical continuity in the natural and semi-natural areas of Italian uplands, and the
effects that infrastructures and urbanisation have caused to the environment. Reading such
instruments by means of GIS allows to outline an almost continuous configuration of areas
with at least a minimum level of biopermeability, overlaid on the infrastructure network that
interrupts the Apennine continuity in a dozen macro-zones. In some national research
programs, these zones are called Units of Environmental Cohesion (UEC) (Filpa, A. and
Romano, B., 2003; APAT, 2003). Within these, it is still possible to obtain efficient ecoconnections, that is, if ecological conditions are supported by sound economic and technical
efforts.
It is generally recognised that Protected Areas that do not fit within the environmental
continuity structure, do not offer positive results in the long term. This fact is particularly
evident in a country like Italy, where the largest park doesn’t reach 200,000 hectares and the
average size is about 6.000 hectares: too small for the medium home range of many wildlife
species. Another paradox in the country is the presence of endangered species, such as the
following for which the scientific literature identifies very large home ranges: Brown Bear
(7.000-10.000 ha), the Apennine Wolf (7.000-20.000 hectares) and the Royal Eagle (10.00016.000 hectares for a couple). In this context, strategies for environmental continuity must
expand onto a wider landscape where there is a presence of marginal areas, like degraded and
uncultivated lands that, in turn, can assume strategic importance.
The concentric system of Protected Areas, in addition, has to confront the peripheral system,
i.e. the ecological network. On this line, research on the planning of environmental networks
has demonstrated how the PAs have different characteristics in relation to the national
environmental continuity structure (Romano, B., 1999). As a matter of fact, territorial changes
have brought about alterations to the national geographic condition that can be easily
recognised on territorial maps.
Furthermore, PAs in Italy do not always present environmental continuity within their
territory. Some of them (e.g. Pollino Park) are internally fragmented, due to infrastructures or
production activities, while others (e.g. Cilento-Vallo di Diano and Gargano Parks) cannot be
linked with the surrounding ones as a result of macro-barriers. In a few cases, it is even
difficult to connect two very close parks (e.g. Majella and Gran Sasso-Monti della Laga
Parks), due to adverse morphology, intruding infrastructures and industrial areas.
The study of the location of marginal natural areas, instead, has shown other directions for
minimum resistance to the biologic movements (Boitani, L. et alii, 2002).
From the above, it is evident that the Apennine parks play a fundamental role in assuring, via
a sound environmental policy, the biocontinuity of the Italian mountains.
3 CONNECTIVITY STRATEGIES AND MANAGEMENT
3.1 Strategies of APE Project
The above quoted research for the Environment Ministry, concluded in 2003, identified the
following strategies for the implementation of the APE Project:
A) Integration of the Apennines system in the Euro-Mediterranean context:
- build a new unitary image of the Apennines range,
- integrate the PAs and other natural resources in the European Ecological
Network and in the Euro-Mediterranean system for nature conservation;
- improve the linkages of the Apennines system through the international
transport networks, including the “sea highways”, while reducing adverse
environmental impact of traffic.
b) Networking of natural and cultural resources:
- create an “environmental infrastructure” formed by parks and PAs, sites of
European Community interest, wilderness areas and other natural resources
linked by proper corridors or stepping stones;
- support new management programmes for the abandoned areas, to ensure
effective prevention of hydro geological risks, to reduce the land and soil
wasting and pollution processes;
- put into place special programmes for rehabilitation of rural areas and support
to traditional forestry, agriculture and pasture;
- implement plans and programmes for the conservation, management and
enhancement of landscapes, according to the European Landscape Convention
(Council of Europe, 2000);
- create and protect enjoyment networks based on the recovery of historical
roads, paths, trails, sheep tracks and so on, associated with communication
programmes.
c) Strengthening of local systems:
- promote and support enhancement of the local milieu, their natural and cultural
heritage, their social resources and their own management capacity;
- strengthen and up-grade services and equipments so to ensure acceptable
habitability of mountain territories (forming networked villages or “city of
villages”);
- reorganise the local transport systems in order to improve the accessibility for
visitors and populations to services and civil opportunities, parks and natural
and cultural resources, while reducing the impact of private motorised flows;
- promote sustainable tourism and social enjoyment of natural and cultural
resources in forms suited for local specificities, by means of interpretation and
communication programmes.
3.2 The elements for connectivity strategic planning
In the preliminary recognition of biopermeability conditions in Italy, research analysis focuses
on three macro-categories based on land use features: hydromorphology, agriculture and
forestry and barriers. Macro-elements are indicated for each of them, determining not only the
characters of the whole biopermeability but also the added aspects, which can be studied in
detail in order to individuate eco-connectivity lines.
These territorial categories also represent the objects, which have to be inserted in the
planning instruments at different levels (national, regional, provincial and municipal), so to
consider the environmental fragmentation issues of the land process control.
3.2.1 Hydromorphology
This macro-category is characterised by landforms and hydrological features, and has been
divided into two macro-elements: morphology and hydrology.
These factors represent “landscape heterogeneity” and share an environmental continuity
structure in longitudinal and transversal direction with respect for the main geomorphologic
lines of the Alps and Apennines.
In environmental capacity evaluation related to bio-movements, morphology is essential to
verify the potential biocontinuity to which the presence of natural barriers or linkages has to
be referred. Specifically, a study of the structure of surface soils can be carried out to establish
the presence of landforms favourable for connections, or of other key elements for
biodiversity quality (e.g. forests). Clear morphological lines, i.e. without many transversal
obstacles, facilitate the movement of species. On the contrary, a more articulated morphology
facilitates a very high level of biodiversity due to a variety in microclimate, cliffs and slope
exposition. The morphological elements, nevertheless, are not suitable for a generic
assessment of environmental capacity on a large scale. In fact, they require an assessment at a
smaller scale, which allows for better consideration of ecological specifications and details.
Rivers are certainly optimal linkages for the movement of species living both in the water and
on the riparian land (Jongman, R., 1998). In the North-Central Apennines, river conditions,
however, have radically changed and sound environmental quality can be found only in the
uplands. Nevertheless, even here, in agricultural and urban areas, especially in water, the
quality is dropped, and the rivers can lose their ecological values as a result of human impacts
like engineering river works and quarry extractions.
At the present, Italian rivers are sound ecological corridors only in those upper parts of their
course where environmental quality reaches a reasonable level. Close to the coast, for
example, rivers do not retain any connective function due to the numerous human barriers.
With the high concentration of pollution, canalisation, urbanisation and delta degradation,
rivers are actually barriers themselves. Therefore, hydrological elements, such as
morphological ones, require single studies and small scale environmental capacity
assessment, in order to define the possibility to be actively part of an ecological network.
3.2.2 Agriculture and forestry
This macro-category is characterised by land use types and has been divided into four macro
elements: agricultural areas, uncultivated and degraded areas, forest areas and pastoral lands.
Agricultural areas: Italian agricultural areas are generally ecologically unfriendly, because
intensive agriculture, farmhouses, noise and illumination impoverish biodiversity. To add to
this, there are barriers created by property fences, human movements and infrastructural
networks (Jaarsma,C.,F., 1997). The level of biopermeability can be very low and
consequently many of these areas are not suitable as ecological corridors. Despite this,
however, a few uplands with extensive agriculture present a higher level of biodiversity and
could already be used as ecological corridors.
It is difficult to assign them a proper level of biopermeability, unless a detailed study is
carried out. In large areas of agricultural land the eco-connectivity quality is poor, but it varies
in other areas according to cultivation typology, field dimension and productive cycles
alternation.
If on one hand agricultural areas today are ecologically unfriendly, on the other hand they
have potential to become a resource for species movements, losing their attribute of barriers
and gaining that of connection. Their configuration is relevant for this new attribute. Long and
narrow configurations, for example, present transversally high biopermeability and facilitate
biological movement between nearby areas with a low degree of disturbance.
Uncultivated and degraded areas: Uncultivated areas, with residual agricultural vegetation,
present on average a good level of biopermeability, since they do not retain either occlusion to
species movement or disturbance by human impact. The debate on marginal lands in Italy has
often been based on the assumption that the lack of explicit and localised environmental
quality could directly allow, without particular reflections, the urban use of these areas.
Instead, these areas retain a particular importance as potential ecological linkages and, hence,
can form a valuable element for an ecological network. Moreover, due to their low economic
value, they constitute priority sites for environmental restoration and re-naturalisation.
The level of biodiversity in uncultivated and degraded areas varies from site to site and
necessitates a detailed examination of their physical, ecological and structural characteristics.
The aspects that can be considered in biodiversity assessment are the typology of previous
land use, period of abandonment, vegetation, altitude, slope exposition, surface morphology
and specific local factors.
Forest areas. Forest areas present generally high ecological values for many animal species,
due to the spread of refuges and hiding places, as well as to the limited human disturbance. A
high level of biodiversity can be found in this macro-element. However, more thorough
research is needed to identify differences with regards to various parameters and indicators
(e.g. forest texture, species diversity, past and present levels of human use, local
morphological structure, disturbance factors). This further evaluation should present a wide
spectrum of biopermeability levels, which is very important in order to identify the main lines
of environmental continuity.
Pastoral lands. Pastoral lands are generally a macro-element with an acceptable level of
biodiversity to enhance environmental continuity. The condition of vegetation diversity here
is often better than in uncultivated or degraded lands, though in pastoral lands the disturbance
due to human activities is higher. Detailed studies on pastoral lands can also permit for the
different potential eco-functions to be verified. The elements at stake, aside from the
morphological ones that condition all types of biopermeability, are the phytological characters
of pasture, the husbandry weight and swath frequency.
3.2.3. Urban barriers
The methodology proposed for the analysis of barriers to biopermeability can be divided into
two steps, which corresponds to different scales of knowledge and procedure. The first is
planning consideration and evaluation on a large scale, or at least the regional one. The
second comprises procedure, design and intervention of specific projects, involving both
public and private institutions; it clearly influences infrastructural policies and requirements
for project realisation and transport directions. This macro-category is divided into three
macro-elements: the urban system, big complex barriers and simple barriers.
3.2.3.1 The urban system
Urban areas are barriers that cause a total occlusion to eco-connectivity. Here, environmental
artificiality, disturbance levels and physical obstacles to biological movements are very high.
The spatial pattern of settlements plays a crucial role in the definition of environmental
fragmentation. A linear settlement has a higher impact on environmental fragmentation than a
concentric, compact one. The first kind of settlement has longer infrastructures and wider
spread of illumination, noise and movements than the second kind.
Possible ecological continuity lines have to be found in those urban elements that present a
minimum level of nature and connection, e.g. continuous green areas, rivers and riversides
(Little, C.,E.,1990).
The characteristics of an urban system in relation to biocontinuity can be pointed out through
the use of sound indicators of links between urban areas and the countryside. These indicators
are related to distribution figures, density, continuity and urbanisation characters and,
moreover, must consider the relationships among the different land uses in the environmental
system. The goal is to determine, by means of proper parameters, the presence of the real
environmental continuity condition of single areas, through monitoring of barriers and causes
of environmental fragmentation.
The following indicators can be used (Battisti, C., and Romano, B., 2005):
• density of urbanisation;
• dispersion of the urbanisation (related to road network density);
• spatial characters of settlement organisation;
• infrastructural fragmentation;
•
•
agricultural fragmentation (forms of agricultural spaces, compactness and dispersion
coefficients).
bio-ecological characteristics as species richness, species isolation, species abundance.
Figure 10 – Large urban areas in intermountain basin
3.2.3.2 Big complex barriers
Big complex barriers can be linear or compact. The latter in Italy are represented mainly by
agricultural and productive settlements, which cause high disturbance to eco-connectivity and
present a low level of biopermeability. Big complex barriers of a linear type are the multiple
infrastructures, as a combination of highway, railway and road on the same line (Spellerberg,
I., F., 1998). This linear type of barrier is very common in Italy and constitutes, with its
physical boundaries, a total obstruction to environmental continuity. The eco-connection is
here possible only when the infrastructures transit in a gallery or a viaduct. Because of their
high impact on the territory, it is important to take into account these elements from the early
stage of the research.
In the case of long tunnels, the infrastructure does not produce disturbance. Though, viaducts
and bridges on the other hand allow transversal passage of species, but cause relevant noise
and vibrations. Past research has shown that generally ungulates remain 500 meters away
from these viaducts (Dutch Ministry of Transport, 1996). For each single case, the amount of
disturbance should be assessed, considering the length and the heght of viaducts and bridges,
and the general characteristics of the main infrastructure.
Evaluation of big complex barriers, in sum, can show limited areas in Italy where
environmental continuity can be developed or restored. Due to the complexity and high cost
of the work, the low social awareness of its necessity and, consequently, political reluctance
to approve it, a more difficult task is the opening of artificial ecological passages through the
multiple infrastructures.
Figure 11 (a,b) – Different kinds of infrastrutctural barriers. On the right (b) the barrier effect is increased from
high traffic flow and linked phenomena, as noise and air pollution.
3.2.3.3 Simple barriers
These sort of barriers do not represent a rigid obstruction to environmental continuity. This is
demonstrated by a big number of wildlife road casualties, especially small mammals, reptiles
and amphibians. Traffic and noise are the main disturbance elements that condition the
fragmentation degree related to the simple barrier, such as a road with only one carriageway.
In the case of viaducts and tunnels, the above considerations are also valid. For the analysis of
simple barriers, however, it is necessary to verify whether other elements of environmental
fragmentation are present. In Italy, good examples are the little upland roads, where several
conditions of physical occlusion to eco-connectivity may occur, e.g. sustaining walls on road
curves and slopes. In this type of barriers, monthly and hourly traffic flows can be recorded.
This allows for the association of temporal data on wildlife movements and on disturbance
levels in order to evaluate the real needs of defragmentation works.
Other types of simple barriers are high and low-tension lines and rural roads systems. The
latter are typical of intensive agricultural areas, where the disturbance factors are related to
agricultural activity (see section before).
Figure 12 (a,b,c,d) – Some victims of road barriers: green lizard(a), fox (b), porcupine (c), dormouse (d)
Figure 13 – Environmental Cohesion Units and new national road system foreseen by Italian government
(Planeco 2003)
4. CONCLUSIONS
On large scale modelling, it is possible to draw up the design of the Italian environmental
continuity, which is characterised by the dominant role of the Alps and Apennines, by their
significant buffer zones and other dispersed residual natural areas. This continuity is,
however, often only apparent, as a result of the numerous mentioned barriers, especially
infrastructures and urban areas, which in Italy, as in most European countries, are historically
diffused.
However, a topic that requires further research, is the relationship between environmental
continuity structure and the ecological network, when they are specifically conceived for the
protection of single threatened species. A first type of complexity concerns the interaction
between the environmental continuity system, with reference to human components, and the
design of ecological networks, with reference to the biological components. A second type of
complexity concerns the problem of maintenance, and eventually restoration, of those
conditions of environmental continuity that are needed for any policy of habitat
defragmentation.
In order to deal with these complexities we must consider planning on different levels as a
process. Wherein, this brings about a new debate on the planning hierarchy. Interventions on
natural habitat defragmentation can be seen, for instance, in different solutions, such as
contiguity among green spaces, soil re-naturalisation, infrastructural by-pass and local
agricultural policy orientation. In Italy, these interventions can be successfully managed only
at the local level. Yet, at this level the strategic configurations of environmental continuity
are neither evident, nor assessable, while, in fact, they are at the national and regional levels.
Therefore, the policies at the national and regional level could have great influence on the
management of interventions at lower levels.
One of the answers that current research in Italy should indeed provide concerns the problem
of relations among different levels, legislations, and management tools in ecological
networks. In Italy, accordingly, the bridge between the studies, researches and the legislation
becomes imperative. In this context, the system of environmental continuity could become a
reference for any territorial transformation planning.
Studies carried out at the national level (Gambino, R. and Romano, B., 2004) show that the
environmental fragmentation process is still active and that the establishment of Protected
Areas, though numerous, is not enough to stop such a trend. Instead, the answer can be found
on a large scale and through long-term policies, which would be able to control interventions
on infrastructure development, urban expansion and natural area consumption, in order to
conserve at least the present biocontinuity conditions.
In Italy, as in other European countries, research concerning species-specific ecological
networks with indication of home range and ecological corridors is still limited to restricted
areas and a long time must pass before knowledge will be able to support a large and effective
connectivity strategy. Maintenance of environmental continuity conditions, where possible,
can clearly represent a key prerequisite of the planning system in order to retain, within and
outside protected areas, ecologically sound programming inputs.
As it is possible to read in some of the final documents from the Durban Parks Congress,
2003, : “… mountain local systems are in many cases, grace to their deep-rooted integrity,
cohesion and even their seclusion, a fundamental bulwark of resistance against the
increasing global pushes driving to homologation and loss of diversity (in biological,
landscape and cultural terms)”.
To date in Italy at different scales, there is a lack of ecological data useful for the design of
ecological networks. At the same time, there is also a gap among the scientific, social and
political communities on the knowledge of environmental continuity and ecological needs of
species and habitats. Nevertheless, it is necessary to prevent urban processes that are heavily
increasing the fragmentation territory conditions.
To add to this, natural and cultural elements are tightly interconnected here and, thus, difficult
to be considered separately. Planning actions, dealing with both natural and cultural aspects,
could directly contribute to de-fragmentation process by the use of available information,
even if ecological data are not extremely precise. Moreover, whilst ecological research
proceeds and through the study of territory characteristics in terms of habitat distribution, core
areas and ecological corridors, it is important that planning, in particular on the small scale,
uses some precautions to avoid land fragmentation.
These precautions can be related to the following contents of planning:
- Spatial distribution of new urban areas, controlling the large interruptions to the local
environmental continuity;
- Control of building typologies, avoiding the use of low-density typologies that have a large
impact on the territory;
- Control of new road projects, inserting the environmental de-fragmentation elements of
general type;
- Control of urban green areas, maintaining the physical connection among them and the other
natural and semi-natural green areas surrounding the urban area;
- Consideration of all information derived by bio-ecological data on the available scale.
- Implementation of Protected Areas planning instruments, using “branched structure zones”
instead of “concentric structure zones” and inserting the indication for linkages with
surrounded natural and semi natural areas. In regards to this subject, we may refer to a
document from Durban Congress: “The Mountain Protected Areas” experiences (IUCN,
2005) that suggests a broader interpretation of the Outcome 1, concerning the achievement of
a global system of PAs linked to the surrounding landscapes and seascapes. Of course, this
outcome plays a crucial role for the general objective of disseminating benefits of protected
areas policies beyond their boundaries. If we want a fair sharing of costs and benefits
associated to such policies within and outside PAs boundaries, then a central issues is the
integration of their protection into wider policies and plans covering the surrounding
regions”.
A very important contribution in this direction can be offered by landscape policies, as
demonstrated by initiatives such as the APE project in Italy, the Parcs Naturels Regionaux of
France, the National Parks of the UK and the biosphere reserves of Spain. In Italy, the
European Landscape Convention (Council of Europe, 2000) has already stimulated a number
of initiatives aimed at improving the effectiveness of protection and enhancement of
landscape. Plans and programs for these goals have explicitly been considered among the
strategies envisaged by the APE Project, as we have seen in the previous chapters. Such
strategies are perfectly consistent with the outcomes of IUCN World Conservation Congress,
Bangkok, 2004, particularly with the Motion CGR3.RES050 on “A Landscape/Seascape
Approach to Conservation”. This motion “urges IUCN to play a much greater active role in
assisting IUCN members to draw full benefits from landscape/seascape approach by:
• clarifying and articulating what the “landscape/seascape approach” entails and
developing/diffusing examples of relevant policies, plans, methods and tools;
• promoting exchanges or experiences and networking about IUCN members and
partners that have developed and implemented policies and practices inspired by the
landscape/seascape approach;
• reviewing lessons learned and potential for improvement, in particular with regard to
landscapes/ seascapes crucial for biodiversity conservation and sustainable
livelihoods;
• adopting a formal statement about the approach, including advice on governance
mechanisms that help integrate protected areas and other forms of conservation within
the landscape/ seascape;
•
advocating the landscape/seascape approach in national and international policies,
supporting trans-boundary co-operation and fostering the development of national and
international enabling frameworks.”
With the help of landscapes policies, it should be possible at a general planning level to
support de-fragmentation conditions in large territories with ancient human influence, such
the Apennines system. Based on more ecological information of home range geography and
spatial relations of interesting species, it will also be possible to support the specific planning
of connectivity networks. This is one of the main contributions that the connectivity strategy
planning can offer for the improvement of environmental qualities and sustainable
development of a large eco-regional system, such as the Apennines mountain corridor.
CITATIONS
AA.VV., 2003, Gestione delle aree di collegamento ecologico funzionale, Manuali e linee
guida, n.26, APAT, Roma.
Battisti, C., Romano, B. 2005, Eco-biogeographical and urban parameters of diversity, area,
isolation, disturbance: application in land planning instruments, Abstracts of Stelvio Seventy
Congress, 8-11 September 2005, p. 13.
Boitani, L., Falcucci, A., Maiorano, L., Montemaggiori, A. 2002, Rete Ecologica Nazionale,
Il ruolo delle aree protette nella conservazione dei Vertebrati, Ministero dell’Ambiente,
DCN, Roma.
Council of Europe 2000, European Landscape Convention, Florence.
Dutch Ministry of Transport 1996, Defragmentation, Ministry of Transport, The Hague.
Filpa A, Romano B. (Eds.) 2003, Pianificazione e reti ecologiche, Planeco, p. 300, Gangemi
Ed., Roma.
Gambino, R. (Ed.) 2003, APE, Appennino Parco d’Europa, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della
Tutela del Territorio, Alinea Ed., Firenze.
Gambino, R., Romano B. 2004, Territorial strategies and environmental continuity in
mountain systems, the case of the Apennines (Italy), in: Harmon D., Worboys G. (Eds),
Managing Mountain Protected Areas: challenges and responses for the 21st Century, IUCN,
Andromeda Ed.
IUCN 2005, Benefits Beyond Boundaries. Proceedings of the Vth IUCN World Parks
Congress, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, p.292.
Jaarsma, C.,F. 1997, Approaches for the planning of rural road networks according to
sustainable land use planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 39: 47-54.
Jongman R.H.G. 1998, Rivers: key elements in European ecological networks, in: Nienhuis
P.H., Leuven R.S.E.W. and Ragas A.M.J., New concepts for sustainable management of river
basin. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, pp. 53-66.
Little, C.,E. 1990, Greenways for America, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Ministero Agricoltura e Foreste 1976, Carta della Montagna, Geotecneco, Pesaro
Ministero dell’Ambiente 1998, Rapporto interinale del tavolo settoriale Rete Ecologica,
Programmazione dei fondi strutturali 2000-2006, Deliberazione CIPE 1998.
Romano, B. 1995, National park policy and mountain depopulation:. A case study in the
Abruzzo region of the Central Apennines, Italy, Mountain Research and Development, vol.15,
n.2, pp. 121-132, University of California, Davis U.S.A.
Romano, B. 1999, Environmental continuity in planning, Urbanistica, 112: 156-160.
Spellerberg, I., F., 1998 Ecological effects of roads and traffic: a literature review. Global
Ecology and Biogeography Letters, 7 (5): 317-333.
WWF 2004, Global 200: proteggere le ecoregioni, tutelare la biodiversità, MIUR, Roma.