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

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.72596

Zdenka Křenová and Pavel Kindlmann

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter Zdenka Křenová and Pavel Kindlmann

Common Responsibility for Future

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72596 Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

#### Abstract

**References**

2007

Zagreb. 2014

978-953-51-0697-5

Krka; 2006

NN 143/08, Zagreb, 2008

34 National Parks - Management and Conservation

Starigrad-Paklenica. 2004;**2**:147-150

simpozij "Zaštita prirode u 21 vijeku". Žabljak. 2011

Croatia's National Protected Area System, Zagreb. 2014

Zagreb: Šumarski fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu; 2010

I. Quantifying and Valuing Non-marketed Ecosystem Services. 2014

[1] Radović J, editor. Pregled stanja biološke i krajobrazne raznolikosti Hrvatske sa strategi-

[2] Strategija i akcijski plan zaštite biološke i krajobrazne raznolikosti Republike Hrvatske.

[4] WCPA. Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas – Guidelines for Planning and Management.

[7] Izvješće o stanju prirode u R. Hrvatskoj 2008-2012, Ministarstvo zaštite okoliša i prirode,

[8] Martinić I. 55. obljetnica NP Paklenica – kako osigurati održivost i vitalnost funkcioniranja u svjetlu naglasaka V. svjetskog kongresa nacionalnih parkova. Paklenički zbornik,

[9] Martinić I. Perspektive razvoja sustava zaštićenih područja u Hrvatskoj. Zbornik radova

[10] Martinić I, Sladonja B, Zahtila E. Development prospects of the protected areas system in Croatia. In: Sladonja B, editor. Protected Area Management. Rijeka: InTech; 2012. ISBN

[11] UNDP. PRODOC PIMS 4731 Project – Institutional and Financial Sustainability of

[12] EFI. What science can tell us 5. In: The Provision of Forest Ecosystem Services. Vol.

[13] Martinić I. Upravljanje zaštićenim područjima prirode – planiranje, razvoj i održivost.

[15] Marguš D, editor. Simpozij Rijeka Krka i Nacionalni park "Krka": prirodna i kulturna

[16] Marguš D, editor. Nacionalni Park Krka – prirodoslovni vodič. Šibenik: Nacionalni Park

[17] Nacionalni Park Krka. Zbornik radova sa simpozija Rijeka Krka i Nacionalni park

[19] Legović T, editor. Prihvatni kapacitet okoliša za posjetitelje nacionalnog parka "Krka".

"Krka": prirodna i kulturna baština, zaštita i održivi razvitak. Šibenik; 2007 [18] Nacionalni Park Krka. Plan upravljanja "Nacionalnog parka Krka", Šibenik. 2006

Zagreb: Institut Ruđer Bošković. Izvješće o provedbi projekta; 2013

[14] Marguš D. Bibliografija radova o rijeci Krki. Šibenik: Nacionalni Park Krka; 1994

baština, zaštita i održivi razvitak. Šibenik: Nacionalni Park Krka; 2005

[3] Strategija održivog razvitka Republike Hrvatske. MRRŠVG RH, Zagreb, 2009

[5] IUCN. World Parks Congress Durban – Kongresni Materijali, Durban. 2003

[6] IUCN. Promise of Sydney – Preporuke IUCN World Parks Congress, Sydney. 2014

jom i akcijskim planovima zaštite. DUZPO, Zagreb, 1999

The Bavarian Forest National Park (BFNP) and Šumava National Park (ŠNP), established in 1969 and 1991, respectively, are located between Prague and Munich. Their long common border accents the transboundary issue regarding nature conservation, ecological corridors and connectivity. Plans to protect this large forest landscape, dating back to the early twentieth century, were never implemented due to the two World Wars and Iron Curtain. Initially, there were many joint activities. Many common projects (e.g., joint information centre, transboundary public transport system, GPS lynx and deer telemetry) were conducted. Both sides have learned a lot during these 25 years of cooperation. The main obstacles in cooperation are economic differences between the regions, language barriers and different policies and laws. There is only one common ecosystem of mountain forests, common populations of lynx, capercaillie or bark beetle, and the 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.

Keywords: transboundary cooperation, non-intervention management, wilderness, Natura 2000, conservation targets and police, governance

#### 1. Introduction

The Bavarian Forest and Šumava National Parks (BFNP & ŠNP) are located between Prague (Czech Republic) and Munich (Bavaria, Germany), approximately 180 km from each of these two capitals (Figure 1). The parks have a fairly long common border, which accents the transboundary issue regarding nature conservation, ecological corridors and connectivity. Plans to protect this large forest landscape date back to the early twentieth century, though

© 2018 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and eproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

by roads and free of larger settlements. The Bavarian Forest National Park (Germany) and the Šumava National Park (Czech Republic), located in the centre of this area, with their highest peaks Mt. Rachel (1453 m) and Plechý (1379 m), respectively, represent a densely wooded landscape of great beauty, comprising crystal clear mountain streams, unspoiled marshlands,

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

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

37

This forest, called Silva Gabreta, is unique because of its almost natural condition and size. It is the last remnant of the 'Hercynian Forest of the Romans' and, looking back, the territory has always been associated with deep forest. The historical presence of the Celtic Boii tribe in the Czech Basin is hinted in the original Germanic name for the mountain range—Böhmerwald (probably 'the forest of Boii'), as well as in the medieval Latin name Silva Bohemica (from Chronica Boëmorum/The Chronicle of Bohemians by Cosmas of Prague, etc.). Any written Czech reference to 'Šumava', which is based on the ancient Slavic 'šuma' [shuma], also indicating forest or dense woodland and still in use (in Croatian, for example), can only be found

In summary, 'Böhmerwald' (Bohemian Forest in English) is used as the name of this transboundary region. Designations 'Bayerischer Wald' (Bavarian Forest in English) and 'Šumava' named the national parks, founded on the Bavarian and Czech sides of the border. Because of the partly nationally sensitive issue, only the country-specific names have been used.

The Bohemian Forest is home and refuge for many endangered species of plants and animals. A stable population of lynx (Lynx lynx) is living in the region and observations of wolves (Canis lupus) became more and more frequent recently. There are many elements of the northern boreal forest, and capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus), Ural owl (Strix uralensis), three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus) and other species have an important south-western outpost in the middle of the broad-leaved forest that dominates this part of the continent. In an area of more than 90,000 ha, BFNP & ŠNP today protect a representative example of the Central European

Both national parks form the largest terrestrial Natura 2000 sites in both countries. They are a significant part of the Natura 2000 network, which was established to protect the most endangered habitats and species in Europe, as defined in the 1992 Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC and 1979 Birds Directive 79/409/EEC and 2009/147/EC. More than 25 Natura 2000 habitats have been recorded in this area [1], the following ones being most important: 9410 mountain spruce forests (ass. Piceion excelsae); 7110 peat bogs (ass. Leiko-Scheuchzerion palustris); 91D0 bog woodlands (ass. Dicrano-Pinion); 6230 mountain Nardus meadows (ass. Nardo-Agrostis tenuis).

Bark beetle (Ips typographus) is the main pest species in any spruce forest. Bark beetles attack mature trees and infestation results in death of the tree [2]. Bark beetle outbreaks are therefore a natural feature of spruce forests in BFNP & ŠNP. Based on historical evidence, large-bark beetle outbreaks occurred many times in the past in this area [3]. The spruce trees we see here now originated partly after a wind disturbance, which was followed by a bark beetle outbreak

highlands and an important part of Europe's natural and cultural heritage.

mires and bog woodlands, and abandoned mountain pastures at higher elevations.

from as late as the seventeenth century.

2.1. Natura 2000

2.2. Bark beetle: spruce forests story

Figure 1. Map showing locations of the Bavarian Forest NP, Germany, and the Šumava NP, the Czech Republic.

they were never implemented, due to the two World Wars and then due to the Iron Curtain, which separated the political power blocs and the human and natural environment of Europe for half a century, from 1945 to 1990.

The management aims for the national parks have not yet been clarified in all aspects. When the Bavarian Parliament voted unanimously to establish the Bavarian Forest National Park (BFNP) in 1969, the first one in Germany, it was thought that this project would probably generate an urgently needed income for the local population through creation of new jobs and support of tourism in this poor region lining the Iron Curtain. Similar reasoning also stimulated the establishment of the Šumava NP (ŠNP) in 1991, immediately after the fall of the Iron Curtain. There is a proverb, however, saying that when the two are planning the same thing, it does not have to be the same.

In this chapter, we are summarising several decades' experiences of management of these two national parks with very similar natural conditions and some social differences. We stress the importance and benefits of transboundary cooperation, which can bring people together and in addition —improve people's relationship to nature.

#### 2. Nature

A chain of mountains rises along the Czech-Bavarian border in the heart of Europe. More than 2 million hectares of Bavarian and Bohemian forests have remained almost entirely unfragmented by roads and free of larger settlements. The Bavarian Forest National Park (Germany) and the Šumava National Park (Czech Republic), located in the centre of this area, with their highest peaks Mt. Rachel (1453 m) and Plechý (1379 m), respectively, represent a densely wooded landscape of great beauty, comprising crystal clear mountain streams, unspoiled marshlands, mires and bog woodlands, and abandoned mountain pastures at higher elevations.

This forest, called Silva Gabreta, is unique because of its almost natural condition and size. It is the last remnant of the 'Hercynian Forest of the Romans' and, looking back, the territory has always been associated with deep forest. The historical presence of the Celtic Boii tribe in the Czech Basin is hinted in the original Germanic name for the mountain range—Böhmerwald (probably 'the forest of Boii'), as well as in the medieval Latin name Silva Bohemica (from Chronica Boëmorum/The Chronicle of Bohemians by Cosmas of Prague, etc.). Any written Czech reference to 'Šumava', which is based on the ancient Slavic 'šuma' [shuma], also indicating forest or dense woodland and still in use (in Croatian, for example), can only be found from as late as the seventeenth century.

In summary, 'Böhmerwald' (Bohemian Forest in English) is used as the name of this transboundary region. Designations 'Bayerischer Wald' (Bavarian Forest in English) and 'Šumava' named the national parks, founded on the Bavarian and Czech sides of the border. Because of the partly nationally sensitive issue, only the country-specific names have been used.

The Bohemian Forest is home and refuge for many endangered species of plants and animals. A stable population of lynx (Lynx lynx) is living in the region and observations of wolves (Canis lupus) became more and more frequent recently. There are many elements of the northern boreal forest, and capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus), Ural owl (Strix uralensis), three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus) and other species have an important south-western outpost in the middle of the broad-leaved forest that dominates this part of the continent. In an area of more than 90,000 ha, BFNP & ŠNP today protect a representative example of the Central European highlands and an important part of Europe's natural and cultural heritage.

#### 2.1. Natura 2000

they were never implemented, due to the two World Wars and then due to the Iron Curtain, which separated the political power blocs and the human and natural environment of Europe

Figure 1. Map showing locations of the Bavarian Forest NP, Germany, and the Šumava NP, the Czech Republic.

The management aims for the national parks have not yet been clarified in all aspects. When the Bavarian Parliament voted unanimously to establish the Bavarian Forest National Park (BFNP) in 1969, the first one in Germany, it was thought that this project would probably generate an urgently needed income for the local population through creation of new jobs and support of tourism in this poor region lining the Iron Curtain. Similar reasoning also stimulated the establishment of the Šumava NP (ŠNP) in 1991, immediately after the fall of the Iron Curtain. There is a proverb, however, saying that when the two are planning the same thing, it does not have to be the same.

In this chapter, we are summarising several decades' experiences of management of these two national parks with very similar natural conditions and some social differences. We stress the importance and benefits of transboundary cooperation, which can bring people together and—

A chain of mountains rises along the Czech-Bavarian border in the heart of Europe. More than 2 million hectares of Bavarian and Bohemian forests have remained almost entirely unfragmented

for half a century, from 1945 to 1990.

36 National Parks - Management and Conservation

2. Nature

in addition —improve people's relationship to nature.

Both national parks form the largest terrestrial Natura 2000 sites in both countries. They are a significant part of the Natura 2000 network, which was established to protect the most endangered habitats and species in Europe, as defined in the 1992 Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC and 1979 Birds Directive 79/409/EEC and 2009/147/EC. More than 25 Natura 2000 habitats have been recorded in this area [1], the following ones being most important: 9410 mountain spruce forests (ass. Piceion excelsae); 7110 peat bogs (ass. Leiko-Scheuchzerion palustris); 91D0 bog woodlands (ass. Dicrano-Pinion); 6230 mountain Nardus meadows (ass. Nardo-Agrostis tenuis).

#### 2.2. Bark beetle: spruce forests story

Bark beetle (Ips typographus) is the main pest species in any spruce forest. Bark beetles attack mature trees and infestation results in death of the tree [2]. Bark beetle outbreaks are therefore a natural feature of spruce forests in BFNP & ŠNP. Based on historical evidence, large-bark beetle outbreaks occurred many times in the past in this area [3]. The spruce trees we see here now originated partly after a wind disturbance, which was followed by a bark beetle outbreak [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 thousands of trees were uprooted by Kyrill in 2007 [6].

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]. 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

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

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

39

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 environment [2].

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 conservationists and forest management authorities alike [10].

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].
