Combined Report – Slovakia 2016

Posted by

Arch Network programme – Slovakia 2016

Our trip to Slovakia in May 2016 was part of the EU-funded programme, Erasmus+, and was organised by Archnetwork, a Scottish NGO whose role is to promote learning and development in natural and cultural heritage between Scotland and other European countries. Our entertaining and knowledgeable guide, driver and companion throughout the trip was Miro Knežo, the director of Krajina, a small organisation working in eco-tourism and cultural exchange.

SECTION ONE: WILDLIFE AND BIODIVERSITY

A vibrant landscape   Nicky Langridge-Smith

The lush Slovakian countryside, significantly further south than Scotland, was already well into spring when we arrived. The scale and diversity of the country’s immense forests, broken up by distinctly rural villages and rich meadows carpeted with wild flowers, stood out in vibrant contrast to the bare hillsides interspersed with uniform conifer plantations that dominate much of the uplands of Scotland.

 

Slovakia is a landlocked country, with a population of 5.5 million contained within a landmass two-thirds the size of Scotland. It is rich in biodiversity, with an estimated, 40,000 species of plants and animals (Scotland’s figure 60,000 species includes 40,000 marine species). Slovakian wildlife includes 36 per cent of the mammal species, 9 per cent of reptiles and 23 per cent of amphibians that occur in Europe.

 

Of those 40,000 species found in Slovakia, around 20 per cent appear on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List. The major threats to these species include habitat loss, fragmentation and degradations as a result of agriculture and forestry as well as increased pressure from hunting and trapping. A full list of the species identified on our trip is included at the end of this report but some of the notable appearances included a golden oriole (Oriolus oriolus), red-backed shrike (Lanius collurio) as well as a marsh harrier (Circus aeruginosus) and a lesser spotted eagle (Aquila pomarina).

 

Slovakia is home to a sizeable population of large predators including brown bears (Ursus arctos), wolves (Canis lupis) and Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx). Our group was desperate to catch a glimpse of one of these impressive mammals but – to the relief of our hosts and guides ­– we were to be disappointed. We did, however, see evidence of their presence. On our day out with Robin Rigg in the Low Tatras National Park (Národný Park Nízke Tatry) we saw lots of prints and scat that we were delighted to identify as those of a brown bear.

Figure 1: Measuring up – female brown bear print

 

We also spotted a wild boar spa destination (a mud pool alongside a rub tree), tree bark with ring markings of a greater spotted woodpecker activity and the large rectangular cavities that reveal the presence of the black woodpecker.

Figure 2: Black woodpecker markings

 

In terms of plant life, the diversity of species – including many endemic species, is extensive. We were there at a good time to see many of the flowers, although we were too late to see the pulsatilla, their presence revealed by their feathery, nodding seed heads. Two biogeographic zones are represented in Slovakia, the Alpine and Pannonian – so we saw some steppe species, like yellow pheasant’s eye (Adonis vernalis) alongside the endemic alpine, Carpathian snowbell (Soldanella karpatska).

 

There are nine National Parks in Slovakia and we were lucky enough to visit six, each showing different characteristics of enlightened land management, from the tourist-focused Slovak Paradise with its vertical 100-metre ladders and stomach-churning via ferrata, to the vast primeval beech forests of Poloniny on the north eastern border, to the storm-damaged conifer forests of the High Tatras.

 

We were overwhelmed by the abundance of plants and flowers, not least in the National Park of Slovensky Kras where we guided by the wonderful Laszlo Gordon, a kind of Ray Mears. A ranger here for 50 years, he knows every square metre and showed us intriguing specimens such as the bird’s nest orchid, (Neottia nidus-avis) and the not-yet flowering lesser butterfly orchid (Platanthera bifolia). The bird’s nest orchid is a plant with no chlorophyll which gains its energy purely from a symbiotic relationship with a host mycorrhizal fungi present in the soil. We also spotted several endemic alpine plants such as alpine aster, (Aster alpinus). And as we returned from the viewing point high above a spectacular gorge, a peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) flew in to land above our heads almost as if Laszlo had pre-arranged its visit.

 

Figure 3: Bird’s nest orchid

 

Figure 4: Slovensky Kras

 

Apex predators   Nathan McLaughlan

 

Three of Europe’s remaining large predators – brown bear (Ursus arctos), wolf (Canis lupus) and lynx (Lynx lynx) retain strong populations in Slovakia, benefitting from high quality habitat and the ability to move freely across national borders.  In Scotland, each of these large carnivores has been brought to extinction through both persecution and habitat loss, a familiar tale across large areas of Europe. 

 

Whilst numbers of these predators has gone up and down over the centuries, there has always been apex predators in the region and farming practices have adapted to cope with this pressure. 

 

In eastern and central Slovakia grazing from sheep and cattle is fairly common, but flocks have shepherds in close attendance, with guard dogs.  The absence of fences or walls in grazing areas means shepherds have to keep a close eye on their flocks, and this, along with the practice of keeping animals indoors during winter, offers a degree of protection from predators. 

 

As a result losses to lynx are very low, and considered to be insignificant.  Similarly, wolves were considered less of an issue, with the main conflict being from bears.  Compensation payments for livestock losses to each of these species have been available since 2003. It should be noted that whilst we spoke to a range of individuals across different areas of the country and in varying roles, none of them were sheep farmers.  So whilst these opinions are valid they may not be entirely representative. 

 

That bears provide the main source of conflict is unsurprising.  They are the largest and most conspicuous predator, they are omnivores that raid beehives and orchards, and, according to recent studies, the most numerous large carnivore in Slovakia. 

The most recent estimates, based on work done by our guide Robin Rigg, show the bear population as between 1000 and 1500 individualsThis has recovered from 20-60 individuals in 1932 due to a 30 year hunting moratorium. This is compared to the estimated 250 lynx and 400-500 wolves. Wolves were heavily persecuted during the 19th and 20th centuries throughout central Europe, through organised hunting. Wolves, lynx and bear are on Annex iv of the European Habitats Directive, so have been protected in Slovakia since 2003.  

 

Bears and wolves can both polarise opinion in Slovakia, in much the same way that White-tailed eagles do in Scotland.  The arguments for and against their presence are well known.

 

Robin Rigg, co-founder of the Slovakian Wildlife Society that works to reduce conflict between people and wildlife, noted that people living in areas with large carnivores were more likely to have a negative view compared to those from urban areas.

 

Figure 4: The group with Robin Rigg

One issue that has become especially contentious is the legal hunting of bears and wolves. The Slovakian Government issues special licenses to allow hunters to shoot both species under restricted conditions. The aim of these licenses is partly to stabilise the population and partly to ensure public protection. For bears, a maximum quota of ten per cent is set, representing the estimated annual population. Previously this was based on crude estimates and it is only as a result of Robin Rigg’s population studies that more accurate estimates have been produced. In recent years, hunters have failed to reach the quota set, blaming restrictions, such as the ban on shooting bears between December 15 and June 1, and the prohibition of shooting bears over 100 kg, which tend to be older and less likely to cause a public nuisance.

This failure to reach maximum quotas may have contributed to the growth in the bear population, now calculated at between 1,000 and 1,500. Mainstream conservationists insist that the restrictions should remain, while more radical conservationists believe that as protected species, all hunting of bears and wolves should cease. There is a ban on the hunting of lynx, which partly reflects the fact that there is widespread public tolerance of the species, as they cause little harm to livestock and are so elusive as to be almost invisible. Bears, on the other hand, are a naturally inquisitive animal and regularly come down into settlements to forage for food (sometimes baited by tourist businesses), while wolves are perceived, especially by shepherds, as a menace to livestock.

Despite the presence of such an impressive array of species, ecotourism is still relatively underdeveloped in Slovakia. The recent crisis in the Eurozone has decimated the wider tourist industry, but as that recovers, and as ecotourism begins to bring tangible economic benefits, this conflict is likely to develop.

* See Appendix for a full list of species observed by the group.

SECTION 2: FORESTRY, GRAZING AND HUNTING

Forestry management   Suzanne Dolby

Forty one per cent of Slovakia’s land area is forested. Around 40 per cent of forested land is owned by the state, with the remaining 60 per cent spread across various forms of ownership, including cooperatives (see next section), individuals, municipal communities and churches. Private ownership of forestry tends to be confined to extremely small areas, averaging less than three hectares. There is, however, a presumption against fragmentation of forestry, and it is prohibited to divide a forest into an area of less than 0.5 ha.

 As well as being of high ecological value, forestry in Slovakia generates income, creates jobs, provides ecosystem services, and supports communities. Management of forests is subject to 10-year management plans, which are periodically updated and amended. The same policies, regulations and legislation supporting sustainable forest management are applicable to all categories of forest owners (state, private, communities etc.)

 Across Slovakia as a whole, the most abundant tree species is beech (30 per cent of woodland cover), followed by Norway spruce (26 per cent). Around 60 per cent of the total cover is natural forest, which has undergone some intervention, and therefore in Scotland would be classed as ancient semi-natural woodland. The remainder is plantation woodland (approximately 35 per cent).

Large swathes of Slovakian forestry are of international importance because of their rarity and high ecological value. This includes substantial areas of primeval or ‘pristine’ forest (in Scotland known as ‘ancient woodlands’) which account for approximately 5 per cent of total cover. These are almost free from human interference and have a profound impact on the ecosystem, suppressing strong winds, humidify the air, preventing erosion, locking in carbon, and providing habitats for an abundance of rare and threatened plant and animal species.

 

Carpathian Primeval Beech Forest

On our first full day in the country we visited the Bukovské (Beech) Hills in the Poloniny National Park in north east Slovakia, where Slovakia meets Poland and Ukraine. We hiked up to the summit of Riaba Skala, a viewpoint 1100 metres above sea level that reveals an epic landscape of rolling hills covered with European beech (Fagus sylvatica) and European silver fir (Abies Alba) stretching out before us in all directions. This is the Carpathian Primeval Beech Forest, which together with German Beech Forests makes up a Unesco World Heritage Site, designated in 2007.

 

Figure 5&6: Taking in the view at the top of Grouse Cliff

Poloniny and other National Parks are divided into ‘zones’ which are subject to different management prescriptions, based on ecological value. Forest management is forbidden in the most highly protected areas; these are left to natural processes. The area of Poloniny we visited is the only part of the Carpathian Primeval Beech Forest where the public are allowed access.

In other zones within Poloniny and other national parks, logging is allowed. Companies tender for contracts on state-owned areas, but commercial forestry in the National Parks is rigorously regulated.

Other important forest biotopes, some in Natura 2000 conservation areas of European significance, include:

  • Maple-beech montane forest (Acer pseudoplatanus, Fagus sylvatica)
  • Lime-maple rubble forest (Acer pseudoplatanus, Acer platanoides, Tilia cordata, Tilia platyphyllos & Fraxinus excelsior).
  • Bottomland willow-poplar & alder forest (Alnus incana, Picea abies, Salix fragilis and Salix purpurea).
  • Relict calcicolous pine & larch forests (Pinus sylvestris & Larix decidua)
  • Spruce forests (Picea abies & Sorbus acuparia)
  • Fir-spruce (Abies alba & Picea abies)

Other broadleaves that are found in different parts of the forest include seven native species of oak, four elms and four ash species, as well as yew, hornbeam, hazel and birch.

Destruction in the High Tatras

The High Tatras, where species composition is typically Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris), European larch (Larix decidua) and Norway spruce (Picea abies), seemed like a familiar landscape – a feeling reinforced by the drizzle and low-hanging clouds on the day we visited.

 

Figure 7: The High Tatras forest

Here, in the Tatra National Park, the state forest service manages around 40,000 ha for non-commercial objectives, instead focusing on conservation.

Zone ‘A’ – the most undisturbed area of the National Park comprises approximately 25 per cent of the area, and is managed with minimum intervention. The remainder of the forest is actively managed primarily to promote stand stability and forest health. Selective thinning is permitted in order to create more open, windfirm stands. Some planting takes place to promote soil stabilisation and to prevent colonisation by plants such as grasses that aggravate allergies, although natural tree regeneration is preferred. While commercial timber production is not a management objective (see Section 3-Management of national parks), the felled timber is extracted and marketed, with profits fed back into the National Park to be used for conservation and footpath maintenance. Whilst this is a useful source of income it does not cover all the costs and also requires government funding.

Clear-felling, still practised widely in Scotland, is now the least favoured logging method in Slovakia. Instead, most areas are managed as continuous cover forestry (CCF), with selective thinning or strip felling, which has significantly less visual impact on the landscape. The extraction of timber is usually carried out by horse, skidder or skyline. It is rare for felling to take place in an area large enough and accessible enough to warrant a forwarder machine, as is commonly used to extract timber in Scottish forestry.

Creating species diversity for forest resilience is a challenge in National Parks, as permitted species are limited to those that naturally occur, similar to PAWS in Scotland (Planted ancient woodland sites). In these protected areas, seeds must be sourced from the same geographic area in which the trees are to be planted, with a strict maximum 200m tolerance. Experimental planting of sycamore, beech and fir species, which are not native to the national park zone, has been permitted for study purposes, and the success/effects monitored.

In many areas, natural regeneration has resulted in very evident two-storied stands. In order to promote structural diversity even further, forest management includes a combination of planting, natural regeneration, small areas of tree removal and brash bundling. This helps to create a mosaic effect, which contributes to the creation of a more diverse stand.

In spite of high levels of protection and sensitive forest management, Slovakian forests have not escaped affliction by pests, diseases and extreme weather events. In 2004, a storm caused unprecedented losses of 5.3 million cubic metres, (around 30 thousand ha of forest), with as much 2 million cubic metres (12 thousand ha) damaged within the Tatra National Park alone. Since 2004, other storms have caused significant damages, but none as devastating.

In order to assess forest recovery from storm damage, different interventions have been applied to experimental sub-divisions of the windblown area one managed, another left to natural processes, a further section that was destroyed by fire, and an area that was left undisturbed by the storm. The effects of these treatments are being monitored and the results will inform future interventions.

Figure: Damage from the 2004 windstorm in 2004

Tree pests are a fundamental cause of tree mortality. As in Scotland, the large pine weevil (Hylobius abietis) can decimate young crops, particularly young plantation trees, with an 80 per cent mortality rate. Because the national park is part of an important water catchment, no chemical treatments for weeds, pests and diseases are permitted within its boundaries. Whilst measures to protect water quality exist in Scotland, chemical treatments would still be allowed within drinking water catchment areas under regulation.

The greatest threat to mature stands is the eight-toothed European spruce bark beetle (Ips typographus) which feeds on the cambium of living trees, and depends on fallen timber for breeding material. In the Tatra National Park, the bark beetle outbreaks have heavily increased since the 2004 storm, and have caused massive losses ever since. The volume of fallen timber, combined with increasing temperatures, has led to an explosion in the bark beetle population.

Figure 8: Bark beetle damage

Perhaps ironically, the implementation of control measures for the bark beetle is obstructed by legislation that prohibits the processing of deadwood to protect nature and landscape. State and private forest owners are trying to bring about change which would allow some management – such as de-barking fallen trees – but this is currently being met by opposition from the government department responsible and from conservationists.

Hunting and grazing    Alan McCombes

Slovakia’s extensively forested uplands, where trees grow high on the mountain slopes, are at least partly the product of historically lower grazing pressures on the land.

Cattle densities in Scotland and Slovakia are broadly similar but there is a startling disparity in sheep and deer densities. In Slovakia there are 23.2 sheep and goats per square kilometre; in Scotland, there are 83.5 (overwhelmingly sheep). And while combined red and roe deer density in Slovakia is 3 per sq. km, the figure in Scotland is 10. Although deer numbers are lower than either sheep or cattle, they cause far more damage on woodland because of their nutritional preferences and their wide range.

The familiar sight in Scotland of red deer roaming in vast herds across bare hillsides is unknown in Slovakia. During our visit we saw only two red deer, in the forests of the Low Tatras, and were struck by the sheer size of the animals. They are more elusive and substantially larger in Slovakia because they live, and thrive, in their natural woodland habitat – in contrast to Scotland where red deer have been forced to adapt to the open hillside.

 

Figure 9: Tree covered hillside in the Low Tatras   

Hunting has a different traditional basis in Slovakia because landowners do not have the exclusive shooting rights on their property. Instead the land is divided into around 1800 hunting grounds covering 90 per cent of the land mass (only urban land, waterways and protected areas are exempt), each administered by a local hunting club affiliated to the national Slovak Hunters’ Chambers.

Hunting is strictly regulated. All prospective hunters are required to undergo a rigorous year-long programme of practical training run by village hunting clubs. This is followed by a further year of theory, culminating in examinations in animal biology, first aid, hunting rules and ethics, and psychometric testing. In Scotland, the only requirement for hunting is a firearms certificate. Hunting data is rigorously recorded in Slovakia and held by the local hunting clubs. The information includes date, times, locations, and the numbers and species of animals shot. Failure to produce records can result in severe penalties and criminal liability.

Hunting is less elitist in Slovakia. Village clubs pay landowners 50 cents (half a euro) per hectare for each hunting expedition, they and members of the clubs participate free of charge (although they will pay around 35 euros for each animal compared to around 750 euros for a stag in Scotland). There is also a smaller VIP/tourist hunting sector in Slovakia which is expensive and has more in common with the model of deer stalking prevalent in Scotland. This appears to be on the margins rather than at the heart of hunting culture. The larger numbers of hunters help keep herbivore numbers in check. In Slovakia around a quarter of the deer population is shot each year, while in Scotland the figure is less than one tenth. This in turn flows from the desire of many sporting landowners in Scotland to retain high stag numbers for the benefit of guests and clients.

Hunting is not run primarily as a commercial business. Under 2009 legislation, hunting is legally defined as “a set of activities focused on sustainable, rational, systematic hunting management and the use of wildlife and the natural resources as a natural wealth and a part of natural ecosystems; it is a part of the cultural heritage, and the environmental protection.”

 

SECTION THREE: PEOPLE AND NATURE

Communities and land ownership   Emily Wilkins

North Eastern Slovakia has some common geographical and economic features with the West Highlands of Scotland. A remote, mountainous region covering upwards of 10,000 km2, it lies on the eastern edge of the European Union and in parts is over 300 miles distant from the capital Bratislava. Like the West Highlands, it has an ageing population, with many of the younger generation forced to leave home to find work.

Yet the population density is more than 15 times higher: the Presov administrative region, which covers most of north eastern Slovakia, has a density of 91 per km2, while areas like Lochaber, Wester Ross, and Skye and Lochalsh have around 5 per km2. Nationally, the rural population of Slovakia comprises 46 per cent of the total, compared to 17 per cent in Scotland.

The Carpathians were always a peripheral and underdeveloped part of every state that ruled the area. The comparatively undeveloped economy meant people were left to conduct their own lives, retaining specific cultural and linguistic characteristics and a more ‘peasant-based’, rural economy. A strong connection with the landscape is evident with shepherds keeping a watchful eye on sheep flocks. Many are registered hunters, and most households appear to tend their own vegetable gardens. The country gives the impression of being much closer to nature than Scotland.

The pattern of land ownership is vastly different. For a large part of Slovakia’s recent history, roughly 1948 to 1989, it was part of Communist Czechoslovakia, where large areas of land were nationalised. In agricultural areas, these were converted into large collective farms, while in some of the mountain areas, national parks were declared.

In 1991, after the separation of Slovakia from the Czech Republic, the Restitution Law allowed original owners to claim back land that had been taken over by the state, or alternatively to be awarded compensation for the loss of their property. The process was complicated due to lack of records and competing claims. This tangle of confusion means that the legal ownership of around 15 per cent of woodland remains “unidentified”.

In some areas land was subdivided when passed onto each successive generation, leading to a distinctive landscape pattern of small strips across the hillside. As a result, land sales, or even the establishment of infrastructure such as cycle tracks can become a complicated business due to the multiplicity of small landowners. Due to a falling rural population many of these strips are now abandoned and left uncultivated with forest beginning to recolonise.

 New legislation tries to help with consolidation of small land parcels, and unions of farmers have been established for the purpose of applying for grants and organising grazing on abandoned land. Scottish crofting communities can face similar challenges, although often the land here suffers more from overgrazing than undergrazing.

The state owns half of all land in Slovakia’s national parks, and retains mineral and game rights over private land in these protected areas. There is also a history of community ownership which can be traced back to the eighteenth century when Austro-Hungarian Empress Maria Theresa issued a special decree on land ownership. The legislation, further developed in the late nineteenth century, enshrines a system of indivisible village ownership of forests and pasture land, which survives to this day under the management of almost 3,000 local ‘urbariats’ – the Slovak equivalent of community land trusts.

Under the urbar system, villages own and manage woodlands, in line with a national 10-year plan to ensure the protection, rational use and continual improvement of the forests. Each urbar is required to employ at least one professional forester to ensure woodlands are properly managed in line with public objectives. Profits generated are distributed among local shareholders. From the Scottish standpoint, it was interesting to discover that the exciting new idea of community land ownership has functioned in Slovakia for 250 years!

Management of national parks    Christian Christodoulou-Davies & Jane Filshill

The history of national parks in Slovakia stretches back to 1949 with the creation of the Tatra National Park. This was followed by a continual expansion of protected areas, with at least one new national park designated every decade (apart from the 1950s). In Scotland, the first national park was not established until 2002.

 Table 1: A brief comparison of the size and history of national parks across our home and host countries. For context it is worth noting that Slovakia is significantly smaller than Scotland accordingly NP’s as a percentage of total area covered in each country does not differ greatly (6.5% and 8.2% respectively).

 

Figure 10: Rafting on the Dunajec river in Pieniny National Park, High Tatras in the background

 

Within these national parks, a zoning and buffer system offers varying levels of protection to special places, wildlife and forests. Under Slovakian law, a designated nature reserve must contain at least 1000ha of important habitat that has not been generally affected by human activities.

Having designated an area the state nature regulatory body can then either totally or partially restrict public access if it is necessary to protect the area. This strict management regime follows guidelines used by the UNESCO biosphere reserves, which specifies three zones: the core area, the buffer zone and, the transition zone (though some national parks, such as the Tatra National Park, have five zones).

 Core areas within Slovakian national parks adhere to the IUCN guidelines for protected area categories 1a (strict nature reserves) and 1b (wilderness areas). That means restrictions on public access in some areas, such as exclusion zones or rules obliging visitors stick to marked trails. In some areas, no human interference is allowed.

 This more strict approach has obvious advantages for species and habitat conservation. But as the percentage private ownership of land increases, it looks likely that the Slovakian model will come under greater pressure.

Scotland with its more manged landscape has little to compare with the deep, heavily protected primeval forests of Slovakia, but could still benefit from prohibited zones. It also has popular access laws, and a traditional culture which is hostile to restrictions on where people are allowed to venture.

These differences are reflected in the philosophy of Scotland’s national parks, whose statutory aims of national parks are:

  • To conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area;
  • To promote sustainable use of the natural resources of the area;
  • To promote understanding and enjoyment (including enjoyment in the form of recreation) of the special qualities of the area by the public;
  • To promote sustainable economic and social development of the area’s communities.

 

From the outset national parks in Scotland were founded on the basis of the cultural as well as the natural heritage. Accordingly the closest IUCN category for Scotland’s national parks would be category 2, with its more lenient attitude to human presence, tourist infrastructure and economic activity.

 

However, the impending introduction of ‘Your Park’ byelaws into a further four zones of Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park (following the bye-laws introduced in East Loch Lomond) may indicate at least a small step in the direction of the more controlled environment seen in Slovakia.

 Slovakia appears to have a greater reverence for nature, and a preparedness to accept rules legislated by the state. Across the six national parks we visited, there was a striking absence of litter, even in areas with high visitor numbers. This suggests a higher level of nature education. We found a strong and well-established sense of local community within each of the places we visited, something that Scotland is making progress towards.

 Slovakian rules are simple and straightforward. “It is strictly prohibited to destroy the environment of national parks by polluting it with garbage, unnecessary noise, to damage, destroy or pick protected plants, hunt or disturb protected animals or make campfires.

  Whatever the merits of the zoning policy, it is clear that Slovakia has an impressive range of beautiful national parks. The idea of creating new national parks is currently a hot topic in Scotland, driven by organisations such as the ‘Scottish Campaign for National Parks. However at a time when budgets are already being reduced for the two existing national parks, it looks an unlikely prospect, certainly for the foreseeable future. If and when the funding situation improves in the future, it may be that any new national parks proposed will be on a smaller, Slovakian scale.

Yet that can pose its own challenges. In Slovakia, there appears to be a lower level of cooperation than exists between Scotland’s two national parks. Due partly to their different locations – one situated adjacent to the heavily populated central belt , the other in a more remote setting – Scotland’s two national parks face their own distinctive management challenges. However, they both serve the same purpose and work together in partnership – a model has that has worked well in Scotland with the support of the Scottish Government.

 The Slovakian national park system in contrast feels a bit more disjointed. There is also a feeling from people on the ground that they need greater funding to survive and thrive into the future. In the meantime, conservation bodies such as the Slovakian Wildlife Trust rely upon the European Union rather than the Slovakian state to fund specific projects.

 

 

Cross-border challenges    Krysia Campbell & Jane Filshill

 

The Carpathian Mountains form a great 1,500km arc across Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe, crossing state boundaries and reaching into seven separate countries. Of the six national parks we visited, all lie in the Carpathians. Four of Slovakia’s national parks adjoin national parks in three neighbouring countries.

 

Slovakian Gorali raft guide

Slovakian Gorali raft guide

Figure 12: Slovakian Gorali raft guide on the Dunajec River which at points separates Slovakia and Poland. The Three Crowns in the background

 The first pioneering attempt to plan for transboundary national parks by Czechoslovakia and Poland in the 1920s was eventually realised in 1932, when Poland’s Pieniny national park was co-planned alongside the Slovak Pieniny natural reserve. Today, both the Polish and Slovakian Pieniny national parks straddle the Dunajec River, which for 27 kilometres forms the Slovakian-Polish border. We travelled along a stretch of this on rafts operated by ‘Gorali’ boatmen. The Goralis are a trans-boundary population, a Carpathian-Slavic highlander group spread across the Slovakian and Polish Carpathians 

Although shared responsibility for national parks is a laudable principle, divided management can create difficulties. Access laws, for example, are inconsistent across national borders; the High Tatra mountain-tops are out of bounds to all except mountaineering clubs for several months of the year in Slovakia, but not in Poland.

 IUCN guidelines for Trans Boundary Conservation Areas (TBCA) sets out the following benefits of cross-border cooperation:

  • Enable greater ecological integrity and contribute to the long-term survival of species;
  • Contribute to securing the survival of migratory species;
  • Have the potential to generate substantial socio-cultural and economic benefits; and
  • Can result in multiple benefits through establishment of enhanced cooperation in management.

The national parks do have regular liaison meetings with their counterparts in neighbouring countries, but cooperation appears limited. There is, however, an interesting transboundary project now underway, exploring the close ties between the towns of Nowy Targ (‘New Market’, Poland) and Kežmarok ( the ’Cheese market’, Slovakia). It recognises long-standing social, economic and cultural patterns across the mountain range, and emphasises that mountains do not act solely as a barrier. Among other aims, the project will prepare audio-visual guides (in three languages) outlining the strong historic and economic connections between the interlinked towns and communities in the Pieniny region.

Culture, nature and tourism    Krysia Campbell

 

As in Scotland, there is a strong understanding that landscapes and places are shaped by a combination of culture and nature. Overall, however, management of the cultural and natural heritage, including research, monitoring and pubic engagement, are undertaken separately and cultural attributes are seen as ‘subservient’ to natural heritage objectives.

In some areas – for example, the poloniny grasslands (alpine and sub-alpine pastures) – it is clearly recognised that traditional land management has directly led to the creation of what appears to be a ‘natural’ habitat. But, perhaps because of the legacy of past political structures and the more recent flux in land ownership, there does not seem to be any serious emphasis on encouraging communities to engage with their environment and local landscape. National Park designations have always tended to be ‘top-down’ and strongly identified with state land management that traditionally focuses on forestry.

The exhibition viewed in the visitor centre of the Vysoke Tatry (High Tatras) National Park did include information on the region’s cultural heritage, although natural heritage content predominated. The cultural heritage element of the exhibition outlines how the Tatras grew in popularity during the nineteenth century because of its healthy alpine mountain air, opportunities for outdoor activity and scenic value. Little context, however, is given to the more recent population increase. The accompanying tourist facilities and changes in land management are all putting pressure on the montane environment.

These pressures were further elaborated by Peter Fleischer of the Slovakian Forestry Service. Commercial and private interests in the High Tatras have intensified since 1989. Consequently, hotel complexes, ski resorts and other tourist infrastructure have spread into previously unsettled areas. This development pressure, alongside rural depopulation, is changing traditional land management. As settlements expand and the local economy rests more on tourism, agricultural holdings have become vacant and areas of pasture abandoned.

Conflicting land management objectives inevitably lead to tension. On the one side, an ‘open’ letter from 55 scientists warns that the development of tourist facilities in the national parks is leading to substantial loss of biological diversity and disruption of natural processes, especially threatening the High Tatras’ natural forests. From the other side, private commercial landowners and investors, whose main interests are to generate profit from their land, complain at the absence of any formal system to compensate them for reduced commercial opportunities.

Scotland must also be aware of the pressures that our natural environment and landscapes may face if tourism and economic gains are set too firmly at the forefront of our planning aims. The gradual erosion of landscape and habitat quality will also occur where local economic drivers lead to changes in land management, unless landscape objectives are clearly understood, set out and agreed.

Yet tourism is a lifeblood industry for Slovakia. As a landlocked country, it lacks beaches and seaside resorts, but thanks to its natural beauty and amazing wildlife, tourism supports, directly and indirectly, 136,000 jobs – almost 6 per cent of the total. Ecotourism in particular may well become a major growth sector in the future.

One intriguing difference in visitor management, especially where nature protection is strongly regulated, is the more laissez faire attitude to health and safety, with the emphasis firmly placed on allowing people to assume personal responsibility for their own actions. In Slovensky Raj (Slovak Paradise) National park, much of the infrastructure that has been built to allow people access into a labyrinth of precipitous gorges and canyons would be forbidden in the UK on health and safety grounds. The park charges an entry fee to fund mountain rescue services for those who get themselves in difficulty.

 

 

Figures 13&14: Slovensky Raj via ferrata

 

The UK’s ‘Visitor Safety in the Countryside’ guidance does suggest zoning areas to allow for different levels of responsibility expected from landowners or visitors, but even so it is unlikely that our culture would allow the adventurous via ferrata type trails found in the Slovensky Raj, without insisting upon many more safety features. For the record, despite some jangling nerves, the entire group completed the expedition to the summit!

 

Conclusion    Nathan McLaughlan

 Slovakia is facing both great opportunities and challenges. The natural wealth was clear to see during our trip, but there is clearly a drive for development, especially in the High Tatras. Managing this conflict between modern economic development and preserving the traditional culture and environment will be increasingly difficult. Climate change is already starting to impact the forests of the High Tatras national park and will present a different set of challenges.

There is certainly a lot that we can learn from Slovakia. The ‘progressive’ land ownership and game management evident in the country is something Scotland could look to for ideas. The woodlands are highly valued as a national resource and great emphasis is placed on managing them appropriately. With reduced persecution and increased conservation efforts, farming methods can adapt to deal with conflicts from increased predator populations without losing their traditions.

There is a willingness to learn and try new approaches to address new problems, for example experimenting with deadwood management in order to avoid the need for chemicals when treating bark beetle is forward thinking. Slovakia has also led the way in cross border working, having a number of well-established national parks and projects that cross various international boundaries.

 Each of us has learned a great deal during this course. We would like to express our sincere thanks to each of the guides, who each gave us a different insight into Slovakia and lessons that can be adopted and adapted to our own situations. We would especially like to thank Libby at Archnetwork for arranging the course and Miro at Krajina for looking after us so well during our stay.

 

 

 

APPENDIX – Vertebrate species List

 Vertebrate Species List:

  • Fire Salamander          Salamandra salamandra
  • Common Frog         Rana temporaria
  • Pool Frog            Pelophylax lessonae
  • European Green Toad      Bufo viridis
  •  Adder               Vipera berus
  • Viviparous (Common) Lizard   Lacerta vivipara
  •  

 

  • Red squirrel            Scirus vulgaris
  • Common Shrew         Sorex araneus
  • Roe deer            Capreolus capreolus
  • Red deer            Cervus elaphus
  •  

 

  • White stork            Ciconia ciconia   
  • Black Stork            Ciconia nigra
  • Mallard            Anas platyrhynchos
  • Buzzard            Buteo buteo
  • Marsh Harrier          Circus aeruginosus
  • Kestrel            Falco tinniculus
  • Peregrine falcon         Falco peregrinus
  • Lesser spotted eagle      Aquila pomarina
  • Corncrake            Crex crex
  • Lapwing            Vanellus vanellus
  • Black-headed gull         Larus ridibundus
  • Wood pigeon            Columba palumbus
  • Golden Oriole         Oriolus oriolus
  • Cuckoo            Cuculus canorus
  • Green woodpecker         Picus viridis
  • Greater spotted woodpecker   Dendrocopos major
  • Swift               Apus apus
  • Swallow            Hirundo rustica
  • House marten         Delichon urbica
  • Pied wagtail            Motacilla alba
  • Grey Wagtail            Motacilla cinerea
  • Dipper            Cinclus cinclus
  • Wren               Troglodytes troglodytes
  • Dunnock            Prunella modularis
  • Robin               Erithacus rubecula
  • Black Redstart         Phoenicurus ochruros
  • Redstart            Phoenicurus phoenicurus
  • Blackbird            Turdus merula
  • Mistle thrush            Turdus viscivorus
  • Fieldfare            Turdus pilaris
  • Blackcap            Sylvia atricapilla
  • Wood warbler         Phylloscopus sibilatrix
  • Chiff chaff            Phylloscopus collybita
  • Willow warbler         Phylloscopus trochilus
  • Great tit            Parus major
  • Coal tit            Parus ater
  • Jay               Garrulus glandarius
  • Red-backed shrike         Lanius collurio
  • Magpie            Pica pica
  • Jackdaw            Corvus monedula
  • Raven               Corvus corax
  • Starling            Sturnus vulgaris
  • House sparrow         Passer domesticus
  • Chaffinch            Fringilla coelebs
  • Goldfinch            Carduelis carduelis
  • Rosefinch            Carpodacus erythrinus
  • Serin               Serinus serinus
  • Crossbill            Loxia curvirostra
  • Yellowhammer         Emberiza citronella
  •  

 

Notable Invertebrates

 

Molluscs

Carpathian blue slug         Bielzia coerulans

 

Lepidoptera

Tau emperor               Aglia tau

 

Orthoptera

Field cricket               Gryllus campestris

 

Hemiptera: Heteroptera

Forest shield bug            Pentatoma rufipes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<td class="-C" style="width: 76 buy levitra online with prescription.3pt; background-color: #ffffff;”>

 

National Parks of Slovakia

 

National Parks of Scotland

Established

Name

Area (km2)

 

Established

Name

Area (km2)

1949

Tatra NP

738

2002

Loch Lomond and The Trossachs NP

1865

1967

Pieniny NP

38

 

2003

Cairngorms NP

4528

1978

Low Tatras NP

728

 

 

 

 

1988

Mala Fatra NP

226

 

 

 

 

1988

Slovak Paradise NP

198

 

 

 

 

1997

Poloniny NP

298

 

 

 

 

1998

Muranska planina NP

203

 

 

 

 

2002

Vel’ka Fatra NP

404

 

 

 

 

2002

Slovak Karst NP

346

 

 

 

 

 

Total:

3179

 

 

Total:

6393

Recent Posts

Introduction and Finnish Forestry Overview Over two-thirds of Finland is forest cover. This expanse of forest cover may be one of the reasons most of the population seems to be well connected to nature, because most people live within reach of nature. Not only do people live near nature, but many are able to own a small piece of it as much of the forested area is owned by private persons. Accessibility is also important because many people are able to use the forest, even if they do not own any forests themselves. Subject to certain rules and regulations, people are able to use the forest and the wildlife within it as a renewable resource for wood products, hunting and foraging. Above all, most Finnish people strongly value the link between being in nature and good health.

Loading…