7. Benefits and challenges

individual rangers, joint courses serve to foster personal acquaintances and understanding of the history and culture of the neighbouring country. In addition, a reference manual with the most important facts and information on both national parks was prepared in the form

• Successful reintroduction of the Ural owl: 25 years of experience have shown that efforts to re-introduce the Ural owl were boosted considerably, thanks to the decision to initiate similar projects not only in the ŠNP, but also in the adjacent forested areas of Austria. This is a basic prerequisite for guaranteeing the development of a sustainable population of

• Restoration of anthropogenically disturbed habitats: An artificial drainage channel in the area of a valuable peat bog extending across the state border was returned to nature in

• Junior ranger programmes, international youth camps and Czech-German youth forum: Several times young people from the national park region were given the oppor-

• Natura 2000 management planning: BFNP & ŠNP are part of a uniform natural landscape that disregards any political boundaries. Measures to protect endangered and rare habitats and species should ideally be designed on a large-scale basis and in this case, in a cross-border fashion. With this in mind, both national park authorities have been successfully working together on a project promoted by the EU (INTERREG III A) to establish Natura 2000 management plans that include cross-border coordination. Within the frame of this project, a bilingual brochure entitled 'Europas Wildes Herz–Divoké Srdce Evropy'

• Research & LTER & Silva Gabreta journal: Both NPs are long-term ecological research sites (LTER). There is a long tradition of research and monitoring in the Bohemian Forest. The first forest nature reserve was declared as early as in 1858 to study natural forest development. Long-term databases of ecological data are available (though not all of them computerised). National parks serve as extremely attractive control areas for ecosystem research, especially for scientific long-term monitoring, because they represent permanently protected ecosystems in a process of near-natural development [24]. A transboundary longterm research platform is now being prepared, which should cover most of transboundary ecological and sociological research activities conducted in the region. The most successful recent common research projects include GPS lynx and deer telemetry. Currently, several new transboundary INTERREG projects have been launched, such as (1) biodiversity on the elevation gradient, (2) effect of climatic change on local water regime and (3) effects of forest structure changes on viability of grouse (capercaillie, black grouse, hazel grouse) populations. Results of the regional research are being published in the Silva Gabreta, a peer-reviewed

• Project 'Europe's Wild Heart': In 2009, both parks agreed on common management guidelines for a transboundary wilderness area called 'Europe's Wild Heart' [25]. Guidelines for uniform management of the united core zone (present project area of 13,060 ha),

tunity to explore the BFNP & ŠNP as part of a cross-border camping programme.

this owl species through an International Management Programme.

the core zone of both national parks in summer 2005.

(Europe's Wild Heart) was published in September 2007 [1].

journal jointly published since 1996.

of a joint bilingual ranger handbook.

48 National Parks - Management and Conservation

There exist two serious political problems in the Šumava NP, compared with the situation in the Bavarian Forest NP. First, unlike BFNP in Germany, ŠNP never received full political support from the Czech government. This is well illustrated by the fact that there have been as many as 11 directors of ŠNP over a period of 25 years! In contrast, there have been only three directors of the Bavarian Forest NP over the nearly 50 years of its history. Thus the position of the Czech directors is likely to have been untenable. In consequence, both the vision and long-term strategy for the Šumava NP remain uncertain and unclear, whereas its budget has largely depended on the sale of timber.

Second, as a result of heavy lobbying by private owners and foresters, the Czech Parliament approved direct restitution of all the former municipal forests in national parks, which resulted in the Šumava NP losing control over 9.2% of its area (Šumava NP Authority 2013—management plan). Although the new owners are receiving financial compensation for bark beetle damage, they are becoming increasingly vocal about the 'unjust bark beetle control' in surrounding NP forests. Unfortunately, these municipalities manage their forests in a way that does not conform to nature conservation standards [27]. Currently, they are arguing that their forests should not be included in the nature zone or even in the NP.

One of the biggest challenges for both NPs has been the acceptance of natural disturbances (windstorms followed by bark beetle outbreaks), which significantly affected spruce forests in this area. While the Bavarian politicians supported the BFNP managers to follow their NP's motto 'Let Nature be Nature' and intensively supported non-intervention management as an appropriate management in the national park, the same situation has almost threatened the existence of the ŠNP. Since the very beginning of the ŠNP, decisions about its management have been bogged down in never-ending discussions about whether bark beetle infestations should be controlled, or whether a strict 'non-intervention' policy should be adopted. After the Kyrill windstorm (January 2007), the Czech politicians allowed salvage logging in the core zones and only the public blockade and protests of NGOs, scientists, and international conservation community stopped this. Some local representatives and lobbing groups also tried to open the ŠNP area for different development activities (e.g., ski resorts and new accommodation facilities in the core zone, privatisation of state properties, etc.).

Author details

References

Sciences. 2014;4(1):5-29

vation. 2008;141:1525-1535

Lesprojekt; 1988. p. 50

Forest Science. 2006;63:55-61

3001

21.9.2007; Trento, Italy. Vol. 2007. p. 50

Zdenka Křenová1,2,3\* and Pavel Kindlmann1,2

\*Address all correspondence to: zd.krenova@gmail.com

1 Global Change Research Centre AS CR, Brno, Czech Republic 2 Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

Grafenau/Vimperk (in German and Czech): Natura 2000; 2007

3 Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, České Budějovice, Czech Republic

[1] Hußlein M, Kiener H. Natura 2000 – Europas Wildes Herz/Divoké Srdce Evropy.

Transboundary Cooperation: The Best Way to Share Common Responsibility for Future

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72596

51

[2] Dickie I, Whiteley G, Kindlmann P, Křenová Z, Bláha J. An outline of economic impacts of management options for Šumava National Park. European Journal of Environmental

[3] Svoboda M, Wild J. Historical reconstruction of the disturbance regime in a mountain spruce forest landscape. In: Lingua E, Marzano R, editors. Natural Hazards and Natural Disturbances in Mountain Forests – Challenges and Opportunities for Silviculture; 18–

[4] Jonášová M, Prach K. The influence of bark beetles outbreak vs. salvage logging on ground layer vegetation in central European mountain spruce forests. Biological Conser-

[5] Jelínek J. Větrná a kůrovcová kalamita na Šumavě z let 1868 až 1878 [Wind- and barkbeetle calamity in the Bohemian Forest from 1868 to 1878] [thesis]. Brandýs nad Labem:

[6] Kindlmann P, Matějka K, Doležal P. Lesy Šumavy, lýkožrout a Ochrana přírody. [Forests of Šumava, Bark Beetle and Nature Protection. In Czech]. Karolinum: Praha; 2012. p. 325

[7] Grodzki W, Jakuš R, Lajzová E, Sitková Z, Maczka T, Škvarenina J. Effects of intensive versus no management strategies during an outbreak of the bark beetle Ips typographus (L.) (Col.: Curculionidae, Scolytinae) in the Tatra Mts. In Poland and Slovakia. Annals of

[8] Müller JB, Bußler H, Goßner H. The European spruce bark beetle Ips typographus in a national park: From pest to keystone species. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2008;17:2979-

[9] Bláha J, Romportl D, Křenová Z. Can Natura 2000 mapping be used to zone the Šumava

National Park. European Journal of Environmental Sciences. 2013;3:57-64

Even during the 'bad' post-Kyrill period, transboundary cooperation and sharing of experience between BFNP and ŠNP were very important and supported conservation targets in the region. Indeed, even when the principles of nature conservation in the Šumava NP have been eroded and the ŠNP Authority has not been very open to transboundary projects, the Bavarian Forest NP has guarded the national park's mission. The BFNP representatives have always behaved very correctly and never entered national affairs. Instead, they transparently declared their conservation principles. It was a very important support for the Czech NGOs, scientists and general public, acting for the Šumava NP. This principle stance of the transboundary partner has buffered some development activities and management proposals threatening the Šumava NP. Recently, a new Nature Conservation Act has been adopted in the Czech Republic and the hope is that this new legislation will prevent similar excesses and will support stability in the ŠNP.

Both the Czech and the Bavarian sides have learned a lot during these 25 years of cooperation, including various lessons they received from both nature and human symbiosis/communication. There are many positive results indicating the strengths of and showing broad benefits from the existence of the transboundary area. These include Natura 2000 sites and their management, understanding the importance of the cross-border perspective of nature protection and research, joint work of rangers, junior ranger programme and environmental education. National park employees, local partners, NGOs, trainees, and volunteers of both countries are involved in many joint activities, including professional projects and various cultural events.

The main obstacles in cooperation of transboundary partners are economic differences between the regions, language barriers, and different policies and laws. Unfortunately, the management strategy of the ŠNP is not yet stable and political turbulence and development pressures are seriously threatening the ŠNP and the transboundary cooperation.

In good years, transboundary cooperation catalyses good things. Projects are better if they are conducted together with partners. Ideas are smarter when prepared with friends. In this region with long and uneasy history, cooperation is very important. There is only one common ecosystem of mountain forests, common populations of lynx, capercaillie or bark beetle in the Bohemian Forest and partners have to learn, how to share their common responsibility for the future. Step by step, the transboundary cooperation is improving, which is very important in good years but maybe even more important in bad years. The principle stance of the transboundary partner can buffer threatening in the neighbouring national park and support recovery when the crisis is over.
