3. People

Prehistoric humans were active in the Bohemian Forest foothills as far back as 12,000 years ago. Celtic practise of gold panning in the basin of the Otava River in the period 300–50 BC must also be linked with the necessity to cut down the surrounding forests. However, neither of these activities significantly affected the uppermost areas of the Bohemian Forest, i.e., areas hosting the mountain spruce forests [12]. The earliest signs of settlement in the vast forest along the Czech-Bavarian border can be found in the eighth to ninth centuries, when Benedictine monks from Nieder Altaich Abbey (founded in 741) were assigned administration of the so-called Northern Forest. Czech rulers soon realised that the extensive and difficult-to-traverse boundary forests were useful as a natural defence of the kingdom. Therefore, for strategic reasons, a significant part of the Bohemian Forest was retained in the possession of the Crown (part of the territory is still called 'Královský hvozd' [The Royal Forest]), as the king wished to have a direct control of the colonisation process by creating settlements for defending gateways to the country [13]. Mass real settlement expanded in the lower parts of the Bohemian Forest only during the High Middle Ages, i.e., from the fourteenth century, with the development of gold and iron ore mining. It can be assumed that during this period there appeared places surrounded by concentrated deforestation activities. However, the forests in higher elevations survived without serious human impact for centuries. In addition to surface settlement, the Bohemian Forest has been, since prehistoric times, affected by historical routes —pathways along which settlements emerged, trails leading along the river valleys via mountain passes and along hillsides. Settlements were founded around inns and comprised all necessary requirements. Any significant impact as regards the highest part of the Bohemian Forest thus only occurred in modern times, with the boom in glass, iron and timber industries dating from the sixteenth to seventeenth century, when the main settlements in the upper part of the Bohemian Forest (Kvilda, Prášily, Walhäuser, etc.) were founded. The development of glassworks was the actual factor stimulating the settlement of difficult-to-access areas, then unsuitable for any other economic use. In particular, glass production in the Bohemian Forest heavily decimated beech forests. Beech ash was used to create pearl ash (potassium carbonate), necessary for the manufacture of glass, while beech wood was also good for making charcoal. Both of these were possible to obtain even in places that were relatively remote and difficult to access for timber transportation. Sites, where remains of local wood-burning fireplaces were found, include the cirque of Plešné Lake, in the altitude of about 1250 m. At that time, the mountain spruce forests at the highest altitudes were affected only by selective logging and some forest cattle grazing [12]. The most intensive use of forests in the highest parts of the Bohemian Forest began in the early nineteenth century, with adapting certain mountain rivers for shipping timber and construction of two navigation canals that enabled timber to be transported from the mixed mountain forests, or some spruce stands, to lower altitudes for sale. Economic exploitation further altered the natural structure of mountain forests in the Bohemian Forest and accelerated the development of spruce plantations, especially at lower altitudes, where these replaced the native mixed deciduous forests. To speed up the growth of spruce in waterlogged areas, people built networks of drainage channels. Many peat bogs and wetlands were drained up to cultivate the landscape. Local people often dug the peat and used it as a litter for cattle or for home isolation. However, one should not imagine that humans logged just any forest in the area. In the middle of the nineteenth century, approximately 25% of forests in what is now the Šumava National Park were still classified as primeval forest [3].

[4] and subsequent salvage logging at the end of the nineteenth century. However, now these forests have a natural character [5]. Recently, an extensive bark beetle outbreak occurred in the 1990s and then especially following the windstorm Kyrill during 2007–2012. About 700 thou-

Bark beetle outbreaks are a key issue in the management of the area, leading to a debate about the appropriate management of bark beetle. Spruce trees are an important habitat in the BFNP & ŠNP, supporting red list species. Broadly, two management approaches are suggested in the management of bark beetle: (1) intervention—includes trap trees, insecticides and salvage cutting [7]; this is practiced in the majority of BFNP & ŠNP, with appropriate intervention in perimeter areas. (2) Non-intervention—no management intervention in forests affected by bark beetle; practiced in non-intervention areas of BFNP & ŠNP (also with appropriate intervention in perimeter areas).

Management 'intervention' does not always appear to be effective—Grodzki et al. [7] found no significant differences between tree mortality in intervention and non-intervention management areas and the outbreaks in both intervention and non-intervention areas ceased approximately at the same time. Bark beetle outbreaks are a natural phenomenon, but they have been exacerbated by the non-native spruce monocultures that currently exist in BFNP & ŠNP (see Section 3). Non-intervention management results in a more varied vegetation structure and therefore has significant benefits for biodiversity and greater resilience in the longer term [6, 8, 9]. Proponents of intervention may argue for 'one-off' felling to achieve bark beetle management, but in practice this would be a regular sequence of interventions equating to a managed forest

It is worth noting recent developments on bark beetle management in Austria, where a recent paper provides guidance on how to deal with bark beetles outbreaks in Austrian national parks and wilderness areas [2]. The proposed management approach will not compromise the non-intervention philosophy in the core zone of these areas, while at the same time providing sufficient protection to surrounding landowners and their managed forests. It is based on a zonation model, which foresees a bark beetle control zone of varying width around the nonintervention zones of the protected areas [2]. It now enjoys a broad support of Austrian

Similarly, in BFNP & ŠNP, parts of forests were left without interventions, while salvage logging was applied in other areas. It turns out that the effect of salvage logging on vegetation was greater than that of the bark beetle outbreak itself [4, 11]. Bark beetles, together with wind disturbances, were recognised as the main biodiversity drivers in the forests of this region [8].

Prehistoric humans were active in the Bohemian Forest foothills as far back as 12,000 years ago. Celtic practise of gold panning in the basin of the Otava River in the period 300–50 BC must also be linked with the necessity to cut down the surrounding forests. However, neither of these activities significantly affected the uppermost areas of the Bohemian Forest, i.e., areas

conservationists and forest management authorities alike [10].

sands of trees were uprooted by Kyrill in 2007 [6].

38 National Parks - Management and Conservation

environment [2].

3. People

Human needs and technical capabilities were on the rise and the stretch of virgin forest in the Bohemian Forest dwindled century after century. Once again, it was strategic purposes, although largely for reasons of power, which eventually saved a part of Bohemian Forest's natural beauty. The Iron Curtain, which in the second half of the twentieth century divided Europe for many decades, proved tragic for thousands of human lives, but the natural heritage of the Bohemian Forest benefitted from it. After 1945, most of the original residents were displaced from the Czech part of the Bohemian Forest and many villages in the frontier area were abandoned, often even intentionally destroyed. Some other villages were resettled with newcomers that had no experience of living in a mountainous region, were vetted and subsidised to live in this frontier zone during the socialist era [14]. The number of residents more or less remained the same between 1950 and 1990. The displacement of residents, strictly regulated access and very limited management in the landscape of the boundary zone created excellent conditions for the unhindered development of the area. Before the establishment of the Šumava NP, the local economy was based mainly on extensive forestry and agriculture, whereas tourism suffered, because the area consisted of both a frontier zone and closed military training areas. Also the situation on the Bavarian side of the border was hard during the Iron Curtain years. The young generation escaped to the cities, the region suffered economically and was gradually depopulated.

The Bavarian Forest NP was established as the first national park in Germany in area between the Lusen Mt. and Grosse Rachel Mt., Lower Bavaria, on 7 October 1970, then measuring 13,300 ha. Since its expansion on 1 August 1997, it has covered an area of 24,250 hectares. Villages are not part of the BFNP. Zonation is used as a useful tool for management of the BFNP. In accordance with the IUCN rules after appropriate transitional periods, at least three quarters of the surface should be managed in accordance with the primary purpose of protection. In view of this, the following zones with different management purposes are distin-

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

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

41

1. Natural zone: where natural processes have priority and no human interventions are

2. Development zone: subdivided into three sub-areas (2a, 2b, 2c)—this zone covers 17.61% of the total area of the BFNP and—step by step—more and more forests are being left to

3. Marginal/buffer areas: covering 22.07% of the total surface area, which allow long-term

4. Recreation zone (only 1.68% of the total surface area): this zone secures the function of

effective forest protection measures in order to protect neighbouring forests;

guished in the BFNP (Figure 2) [16]:

develop naturally here;

Figure 2. Zonation of the Bavarian Forest National Park.

visitor facilities.

planned—it covers 58.64% of the BFNP total area;

#### 4. The Bavarian Forest NP

Back in the 1960s, there was a fierce argument between nature conservationists and the tourism industry concerning the future use of the Rachel-Lusen area in the Bavarian Forest. Some argued that new ski runs and lifts in the hitherto unspoilt forested region would bring more visitors and secure incomes. The alternative was creation of a national park, a very old idea dating back to the beginning of the twentieth century. At the end of the 1930s, plans for a Bohemian Forest National Park first began to take shape, whereby the bigger part of the valuable area is on the Czech side of the border. The effort to put the area under protection by the Reich Office for Nature Conservation was stopped abruptly in 1943 in the chaos of the Second World War. On June 11, 1969, the Parliament of the Bavarian state decided unanimously to establish a national park in the Bavarian Forest. Further design and organisation of this first German national park, which was officially opened on 7th October 1970, found its scientific basis in the so-called 'Haber Analysis' of 1968 [15], which described the ecosystem conditions in the new national park [16].

The BFNP was the first protected forest in Central Europe, affected on a large scale by the bark beetle outbreak following several wind throws [17]. Since the 1980s, the park has served as a pilot study area for Central Europe, from which management guidelines have been developed for commercial forests and strictly protected areas with a 'benign neglect strategy' [18]. Periodic windstorms and bark beetle outbreaks have been recognised as a natural phenomenon affecting this forest region for centuries. Scientists reported strong natural regeneration of mountain spruce forests affected by bark beetle over the past several decades [19]. As a result of its consistent implementation of the principle 'Let nature be nature', the Bavarian Forest NP has been recognised internationally by the Council of Europe (with the European Diploma) and the IUCN (World Conservation Union) as a Category II National Park. In accordance with International Nature Conservation Quality Standards, the park has to guarantee that those priority management aims, which target an undisturbed development of nature, are implemented on at least 75% of the park's territory. The Bavarian Forest NP was established as the first national park in Germany in area between the Lusen Mt. and Grosse Rachel Mt., Lower Bavaria, on 7 October 1970, then measuring 13,300 ha. Since its expansion on 1 August 1997, it has covered an area of 24,250 hectares. Villages are not part of the BFNP. Zonation is used as a useful tool for management of the BFNP. In accordance with the IUCN rules after appropriate transitional periods, at least three quarters of the surface should be managed in accordance with the primary purpose of protection. In view of this, the following zones with different management purposes are distinguished in the BFNP (Figure 2) [16]:

natural beauty. The Iron Curtain, which in the second half of the twentieth century divided Europe for many decades, proved tragic for thousands of human lives, but the natural heritage of the Bohemian Forest benefitted from it. After 1945, most of the original residents were displaced from the Czech part of the Bohemian Forest and many villages in the frontier area were abandoned, often even intentionally destroyed. Some other villages were resettled with newcomers that had no experience of living in a mountainous region, were vetted and subsidised to live in this frontier zone during the socialist era [14]. The number of residents more or less remained the same between 1950 and 1990. The displacement of residents, strictly regulated access and very limited management in the landscape of the boundary zone created excellent conditions for the unhindered development of the area. Before the establishment of the Šumava NP, the local economy was based mainly on extensive forestry and agriculture, whereas tourism suffered, because the area consisted of both a frontier zone and closed military training areas. Also the situation on the Bavarian side of the border was hard during the Iron Curtain years. The young generation escaped to the cities, the region suffered eco-

Back in the 1960s, there was a fierce argument between nature conservationists and the tourism industry concerning the future use of the Rachel-Lusen area in the Bavarian Forest. Some argued that new ski runs and lifts in the hitherto unspoilt forested region would bring more visitors and secure incomes. The alternative was creation of a national park, a very old idea dating back to the beginning of the twentieth century. At the end of the 1930s, plans for a Bohemian Forest National Park first began to take shape, whereby the bigger part of the valuable area is on the Czech side of the border. The effort to put the area under protection by the Reich Office for Nature Conservation was stopped abruptly in 1943 in the chaos of the Second World War. On June 11, 1969, the Parliament of the Bavarian state decided unanimously to establish a national park in the Bavarian Forest. Further design and organisation of this first German national park, which was officially opened on 7th October 1970, found its scientific basis in the so-called 'Haber Analysis' of 1968 [15], which described the ecosystem conditions in the new national park [16]. The BFNP was the first protected forest in Central Europe, affected on a large scale by the bark beetle outbreak following several wind throws [17]. Since the 1980s, the park has served as a pilot study area for Central Europe, from which management guidelines have been developed for commercial forests and strictly protected areas with a 'benign neglect strategy' [18]. Periodic windstorms and bark beetle outbreaks have been recognised as a natural phenomenon affecting this forest region for centuries. Scientists reported strong natural regeneration of mountain spruce forests affected by bark beetle over the past several decades [19]. As a result of its consistent implementation of the principle 'Let nature be nature', the Bavarian Forest NP has been recognised internationally by the Council of Europe (with the European Diploma) and the IUCN (World Conservation Union) as a Category II National Park. In accordance with International Nature Conservation Quality Standards, the park has to guarantee that those priority management aims, which target an undisturbed development of nature, are implemented on at least 75% of the park's territory.

nomically and was gradually depopulated.

4. The Bavarian Forest NP

40 National Parks - Management and Conservation


Figure 2. Zonation of the Bavarian Forest National Park.

Since the establishment of the national parks, tourism in the adjoining rural communities has developed from its modest beginnings to a supporting pillar of employment and income. According to the study by Job et al. [20], the BFNP is an important component of the regional economy. With 760,000 visitors per year, the BFNP is the region's most frequented attraction. As much as 67% of guests to the BFNP stay here overnight, the remaining 33% are day guests, local people and day trippers who come from their homes. The seasonal changes of these visitor numbers confirm the seasonal pattern of tourists in the region: most come in the summer and winter seasons and there are lower numbers in the off-peak months [21]. The highest numbers of visitors in the summer season are during July. The majority of the visitors come from Germany. Only 3.9% were foreigners, mainly from neighbouring countries, such as the Czech Republic, Austria or the Netherlands. The share of the tourism held in the BFNP provides the region with an occupation equivalent to 940 people and an additional 200 full-time jobs in the national park authority [20]. A comparison of the costs and benefits of the national park shows that the benefits definitely compensate for the costs that occur. The government spends 12 million Euro per year in the national park. This sum should, however, be seen alongside with the total number of jobs the park creates: 200 employees in the national park administration and 939 full time equivalents indirectly related to the national park—a total of 1139 jobs. Every Euro that the government invests in the national park is more than doubled by the amount spent in the park by its visitors [21].

and conservation was welcomed, particularly in the villages neglected for decades. However,

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

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

43

Long-lasting debates on the future of nature conservation in the Bohemian Forest are linked with discussions on zoning of the Šumava NP [22]. Unfortunately, the fact that zoning is just a very important tool of conservation, rather than a goal is currently not included in these discussions. The Article 4 of the Czech Government Regulation No. 163/1991 of March 20, 1991, which established the Šumava NP and set the conditions for its protection, states:

1. Methods and ways of protecting the national park are differentiated according to the division of the national park into three zones, defined according to the natural values.

2. Areas with the most important natural values in the national park are classified as Zone I

The aim was to preserve or restore natural ecosystem processes and limit human intervention into the natural environment to maintain this state. Since the establishment of the Šumava NP,

Initially, Šumava NP zonation mostly accepted the international concept of zoning as a basic tool for scaling the value and protection of the NP interior. Fifty-four units of Zone I (Figure 3a) included a mosaic of habitats and isolated occurrences of mires, habitats of the highest value, often surrounded by forests, which were partly affected by forestry in the past. Most of the best places, including natural reserves protected long before the establishment of the Šumava NP (e.g., Modravské slatě, Chalupská slať, Jezerní slať, Trojmezná) were included in Zone I. Many

In 1995, there was a change in the leadership of the national park, which brought about a change in the concept of NP management [22]. The size of Zone I was reduced and the original 54 units were further fragmented into 135 smaller ones (Figure 3b). The main reason was a strong desire for active management, mainly the logging of bark beetle-infested trees. The new definition of Zone I was based primarily on forest typology and this zone included large peat bogs and old forest fragments, which were supposed to be ecologically stable and highly resistant to natural disturbances (primarily bark beetles infestation). However, some units of Zone I were too small for natural processes. Also many valuable habitats, particularly smaller raised bogs and waterlogged spruce forests, were excluded from Zone I and transferred to

Since 1998, cutting of bark-beetle infected tress and cleaning of uprooted ones were allowed in many units of Zone I. This was strongly criticised by experts, representatives from NGOs and international organisations like IUCN and Ramsar Committee. In spring 2004, the Czech Minister of Environment ordered preparation of a new zonation following the international experts' recommendations. The new proposal included extension of Zone I to 39% of the Šumava NP area. Its main goals were respecting natural conditions and minimising negative effects associated with fragmentation of Zone I (Figure 3c). Unfortunately, negotiations with local communities and politicians were not successful and this zonation was not officially

this concept was implemented only in the initial years of the Šumava NP [14].

(strictly natural, particularly natural or slightly amended ecosystems).

its zonation has undergone significant changes, however (Figure 3).

of them were maintained without direct human intervention for decades.

Zone II, where then standard forestry practices were applied.

approved, despite many round-table discussions and public meetings.
