Towards an ecological network for the Carpathians

The Carpathian Biodiversity Information System (CBIS) and the proposal for an ecological network for the eastern part of the Carpathians are the two main outcomes of the project funded by the BBI Matra program of the Dutch government. This brochure presents information on how the CBIS was designed, and how the data stored can be retrieved and used. It also clarifies how the CBIS data were used to design the ecological network and, last but not least, it offers recommendations for the use of the proposed ecological network in supporting sustainable developmentin the Carpathians. Due to funding restrictions, the project focused on three east Carpathian countries: Romania, Serbia and Ukraine, which together host the largest area of the Carpathians (Fig. 2). Geographically, the Eastern Carpathians also include parts of the Carpathians located in Poland and Slovakia. Data collection in the Western Carpathians (Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia and Hungary) will be completed by 2010 and is funded by a parallel project

Use of satellite images for broad-scale modelling of conservation areas for wolves in the Carpathian Mountains, central Europe

This study analysed the spatial structure of the Carpathian Mountains, in Central Europe, considering it a unit that extends across national boundaries, and assessing the suitability of areas were wolves could be conserved. Physical characteristics of the area were extracted from NOAA-AVHRR NDVI. A set of 9 images from different periods of the year was used to parameterise the phenological variability of the area. Digital maps of road networks, human settlements and a DEM were integrated in a GIS. Locations of wolf presence were used to extract “optimal” environmental characteristics that served as reference for estimating the degree of suitability over the whole area. Results show that most of the Carpathian Mountains are highly suitable for the wolf and that highly suitable areas are actually inhabited by the present population of wolf. These are also the area most phenologically stable

Patterns and correlates of claims for brown bear damage on a continental scale

Wildlife damage to human property threatens human-wildlife coexistence. Conflicts arising from wildlife damage in intensively managed landscapes often undermine conservation efforts, making damage mitigation and compensation of special concern for wildlife conservation. However, the mechanisms underlying the occurrence of damage and claims at large scales are still poorly understood. Here, we investigated the patterns of damage caused by brown bears Ursus arctos and its ecological and socio-economic correlates at a continental scale. We compiled information about compensation schemes across 26 countries in Europe in 2005-2012 and analysed the variation in the number of compensated claims in relation to (i) bear abundance, (ii) forest availability, (iii) human land use, (iv) management practices and (v) indicators of economic wealth. Most European countries have a posteriori compensation schemes based on damage verification, which, in many cases, have operated for more than 30 years. On average, over 3200 claims of bear damage were compensated annually in Europe. The majority of claims were for damage to livestock (59%), distributed throughout the bear range, followed by damage to apiaries (21%) and agriculture (17%), mainly in Mediterranean and eastern European countries. The mean number of compensated claims per bear and year ranged from 0·1 in Estonia to 8·5 in Norway. This variation was not only due to the differences in compensation schemes; damage claims were less numerous in areas with supplementary feeding and with a high proportion of agricultural land. However, observed variation in compensated damage was not related to bear abundance. Synthesis and applications. Compensation schemes, management practices and human land use influence the number of claims for brown bear damage, while bear abundance does not. Policies that ignore this complexity and focus on a single factor, such as bear population size, may not be effective in reducing claims. To be effective, policies should be based on integrative schemes that prioritize damage prevention and make it a condition of payment of compensation that preventive measures are applied. Such integrative schemes should focus mitigation efforts in areas or populations where damage claims are more likely to occur. Similar studies using different species and continents might further improve our understanding of conflicts arising from wildlife damage

Capital stranding cascades: The impact of decarbonisation on productive asset utilisation

This article develops a novel methodological framework to investigate the exposure of eco- nomic systems to the risk of physical capital stranding. Combining Input-Output (IO) and network theory, we define measures to identify both the sectors likely to trigger relevant capital stranding cascades and those most exposed to capital stranding risk. We show how, in a sample of ten European countries, mining is among the sectors with the highest external asset strand- ing multipliers. The sectors most affected by capital stranding triggered by decarbonisation include electricity and gas; coke and refined petroleum products; basic metals; and transporta- tion. From these sectors, stranding would frequently cascade down to chemicals; metal products; motor vehicles water and waste services; wholesale and retail trade; and public administration. Finally, we provide an estimate for the lower-bound amount of assets at risk of transition-related stranding, which is in the range of 0.6-8.2% of the overall productive capital stock for our sample of countries, mainly concentrated in the electricity and gas sector, manufacturing, and mining. These results confirm the systemic relevance of transition-related risks on European societies.Series: Ecological Economic Paper

Large-scale transformation of socio-economic institutions - comparative case studies on CEECs: interim report

The general idea is to follow the Varieties-of-Capitalism literature on generating indicators on the economic systems actually implemented. However, this literature mostly concentrates on the enterprise (or micro) level in traditional OECD countries, categorizing countries between the extremes: liberal market economies and controlled market economies. It largely neglects the role of the government spending, the transition of former socialist countries and developing countries, and the political process behind the choice of an economic system. We broaden the perspective by combining the Varieties-of-Capitalism with the Worlds-of-Welfare-States literature in order to provide a comprehensive view on government activities in transition. With the perspective of our contribution to WWWforEurope, we concentrate especially on social welfare, innovation systems, macro stability, and, of course, how these aspects work together (or not) and are explained by the political background. We will a cluster analysis for OECD and European transition countries and comparative country studies on Slovakia and Hungary. These countries are of special relevance because they represent extreme cases (Slovakia: significant switch in transition path towards star performer, Hungary: muddling towards problem case). One part of the comparative work concentrates on the comparison of Slovakia with other new EU members that also face to challenge of state building after dissolution of one or the other sort (Czech Rep. and the Baltics). The other part of the comparative work concentrates on Hungary in comparison with the other EU-CEECs. A broad based comparison will most likely be possible on available data only. The possibility for deeper qualitative comparisons will have to be determined during the project. The comparative components will focus on the macroeconomic background (Slovakia) and the welfare state (Hungary) respectively. Cluster analysis (initially forseen for MS25) and comparative country studies allows us to draw conclusions for the EU by providing a first comparison of the position of CEECs with respect to the “old” EU members, most interestingly the southern crisis countries that are often categorized into a form called mixed market economies with sometimes contradicting institutional set ups. Do CEECs converge towards prototype models or do they (still) constitute own models

Biodiversity As An Ecological Safety Condition. The European Dimension

The main purpose of the paper is to indicate the theoretical bases of biodiversity protection from the perspective of the natural and economic sciences, and to describe the diversity of biodiversity protection levels in the EU states. A specific aim is to indicate the forms and instruments of nature conservation involved in biodiversity protection, and to carry out an overview of established nature conservation programmes in selected EU countries. In order to accomplish such a complex aim, this article presents an overview of literature found in the natural, economic and legal sciences and popular magazines presenting scientific research within the field of biodiversity. Then a comparative analysis is presented based on the statistical data coming from various international statistics resources (OECD, EUROSTAT, EEA)