Guide on the development of green infrastructure in the Carpathians

Guide on the development of green infrastructure in the Carpathians

Publisher: UNEP/GRID-Warsaw Centre in the structure of the National Foundation for Environmental Protection Team of authors: UNEP/GRID-Warsaw Centre: Piotr Mikołajczyk PhD, Monika Szewczyk PhD, Zbigniew Szkop PhD, Anna Adamowicz, Monika Ankudowicz, Daniel Starczewski External experts: Hanna Hrehorowicz-Gaber ArchEngD, Monika Sadowska Cover photo: Krzysztof Haase (Instagram: @magiafotografii_krzysztofhaase / Facebook: Magia Fotografii Krzysztof Haase) Photos with unmarked authorship included in the publication come from the resources of commercial agencies and have been obtained by the Publisher under appropriate licenses. Graphic design: Maria Łepkowska – UNEP/GRID-Warsaw Centre Typesetting and printing: Czek.it, Bielsko-Biała Printed on environment-friendly paper. This publication was prepared and published as part of the LIFE16 GIE/PL/000648 project Entitled Green-Go! Local initiatives for deployment of green infrastructure within Natura 2000 sites in the Carpathians, implemented by the UNEP/GRID-Warsaw Centre (in the structure of the National Foundation for Environmental Protection), co-fi- nanced by the European Union under the LIFE Programme and by the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management. http://en.zielonainfrastruktura.karpatylacza.pl © UNEP/GRID-Warsaw Centre, 2021

Guide on the development of green infrastructure in the Carpathians



Table of Contents I. GREEN AND BLUE INFRASTRUCTURE – INTRODUCTION. .......................................................................06 I.1 Basic information................................................................................................................07 I.2 Role and importance to nature .....................................................................................................14 I.3 Role in shaping the landscape ...............................................................................................18 I.4 Socio-economic benefits...... ................................................................................................21 II. DEVELOPMENT OF GREEN AND BLUE INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE CARPATHIANS ......................................30 II.1 Diagnosis of conditions ..........................................................................................................31 II.1.1 General characteristics and diagnosis of the space and landscape in the Polish part of the Carpathians..31 II.1.2 Threats to the natural space of the Carpathians ....................................................................................50 II.2 Human activity...... .............................................................................................................53 II.2.1 Agriculture ...................................................................................................................................................54 II.2.2 Forestry ...................................................................................................................................................63 II.2.3 Water management ...............................................................................................................................72 II.2.4 Nature conservation. .....................................................................................................................................81 II.2.5 Spatial planning................................................................................................................................90 II.2.6 Tourism ....................................................................................................................................................102 II.2.7 In one’s own garden.................................................................................................................................112 III. LOCAL INITIATIVES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF GREEN AND BLUE INFRASTRUCTURE ...........................120 III.1 Step by step ........................................................................................................................121 III.2 The range of opportunities and good practices........................................................................128 III.3 The legal environment and strategic documents.............................................................................174 III.4 Implementing bodies – partnerships. ......................................................................................183 III.5 Geoinformation tools and spatial data resources..................................................................188 ABOUT THE PROJECT....... ...................................................................................................................196 3



Foreword Dear Readers, It is my pleasure to present you with this guide on the development of green and blue infrastructure. It is one of the main final results of the LIFE Project entitled Green-Go! Local initiatives for deployment of green infrastructure in Natura 2000 sites in the Carpathians, which was carried out by the UNEP/ GRID-Warsaw Centre in the period from September 2017 to December 2021. The main objectives of our project – reflected in the publication – were to promote the awareness of green and blue infrastructure in the Polish part of the Carpathians. What is it and what does it consist of? What is its role, functions and significance – both for nature and for man? What benefits does it bring us and why is it worth investing in it? How to take care of it, shape it properly and use it wisely? How much does it affect the unique natural and landscape values of the region – so important for the sustainable development of the Carpathian municipalities as well as for their inhabitants? How to use its socio-economic and cultural potential, connected with the respect for the heritage of ancestors who had been using the land here for centuries in a traditional and extensive way? In a broader sense, this publication deals with the Carpathian space – not only within Natura 2000 areas, which could be suggested by the formal title of the project, but also the space outside and between those areas, extending throughout the whole territory of the Polish part of the Carpathians, in all 200 Carpathian municipalities located within the scope of application of the framework Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Carpathians, to which Poland has been a Party since 2006. It diagnoses its current state, describes the main threats, as well as the ways in which individual forms of human activity – more or less directly – affect it. Finally, it will offer you some suggestions, guidelines and good practices related to the protection and development of green infrastructure. I kindly invite you to read this guide and I hope that it will prove useful in your actions under- taken in order to safeguard our common asset: the Carpathian space – not only in Poland (to which the publication directly relates) but also across the whole Carpathians. Maria Andrzejewska Director General UNEP/GRID-Warsaw Centre 5

Green and blue infrastructure – Introduction

I.1 Basic information The term “infrastructure” is usually synonymous with large, man-made structures and facil- ities: roads, railways, bridges, buildings or industrial facilities. Its natural equivalent is green infrastructure, which can be imagined as a “natural skeleton” of space. The official EU definition, set out in Green Infrastructure (GI) – Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital (COM (2013) 249) provides that green infrastructure is a “strategically planned network of natural and semi-natural areas with other environmental features designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services. It incorporates green spaces (or blue, if aquatic ecosystems are concerned) and other physical features in terrestrial (including coastal) and marine areas. On land, GI is present in both rural and urban settings”. Based on the above definition, green (and blue) infrastructure can be described as follows: ◆ it includes both natural elements (structures), i.e. those created exclusively or largely by the forces of nature, and semi-natural elements (structures), which are the combined result of natural processes and (extensive) human activity; ◆ it comprises elements related to both the terrestrial and the aquatic environment (blue infrastructure), along with other related environmental features, e.g. a suitable habitat; ◆ it exists both in and outside cities, i.e. in rural areas; ◆ not only appropriate diversity, size and condition of its elements are important, but also their spatial arrangement; 7

Graphics: MAD Multimedia / UNEP/GRID-Warsaw Centre ◆ from a nature-based point of view, green infrastructure elements can be regarded as ecosystems, or at least parts of ecosystems and, on a large scale, as groups of ecosystems. Green infrastructure elements themselves are refuges and habitats (“home”) of species, as well as important ecological corridors connecting those nature refuges. Therefore, an important role of the green infrastructure elements is to ensure ecological connectivity and proper quality of the natural space; ◆ green and blue infrastructure should be properly planned, designed, protected, strengthened and shaped, bearing in mind its potential to provide us with multiple benefits – ecosystem services, and its key role in the landscape. The purpose and essence of shaping the green infrastructure is to combine the welfare of nature, being the source and “provider” of ecosystem services, with the benefit for humans, i.e. the “customers” and recipients of ecosystem services. Green infrastructure can be analysed and examined on various spatial scales: from local, through regional, up to the scale covering entire continents. On a supra-local (regional, conti- nental) scale, green infrastructure is made up of large-area ecosystems (groups, complexes of ecosystems), such as: ◆ forest areas (natural forests, commercial forests cultivated in a sustainable manner); ◆ little-transformed lake areas, large rivers (including river valleys), river basins; 8

◆ wetlands, flood plains, sea coastlines; ◆ entire mountain ranges or massifs (including the Carpathians); ◆ extensively farmed areas (e.g. meadow and pasture areas), making up, along with other elements, a valuable natural, mosaic-like, traditional agricultural landscape. These areas can either be included in protected areas such as national parks, landscape parks, nature reserves, Natura 2000 refuges, or can be located between those areas. The latter is important to ensure good “networking” of biodiversity refuges and to “fill gaps” in nature and landscape protection. The local scale is of most interest for the purposes of this publication: it comprises elements of green and blue infrastructure present in the close surroundings, making up the local landscape observed by humans, or those elements that are capable of being analysed and shaped more directly, e.g. under local spatial planning procedures or land use. The elements of green and blue infrastructure that can be observed on the local scale, grouped into a dozen or so basic categories, are presented below. Forests. Photo: Krzysztof Haase 9

Table 1. Description of green infrastructure elements on the local scale Name Definition Description / Characteristic features Field / Composition margins Strips of unploughed A strip of unploughed (unused) land between crop areas, land between fields covered by herbaceous vegetation, possibly with single Meadows (arable land) shrubs or trees. and pastures Meadows and pastures, Fallow land: post-agricultural land left without any human Wetlands as well as fallow land; in interference for more than two years. Depending on the Clumps of cities: urban meadows resting time, covered by herbaceous vegetation: segetal trees (crop weeds) or ruderal (grasses and perennials) or with Very wet non-forest are- young shrubs and trees present: blackberry, willow, birch, as, peat bogs, swamps aspen, pine, etc. Small clumps of trees (or trees and shrubs) Meadows and pastures in permanent use, not included in crop rotation for a period of at least five years. Covered by herbaceous vegetation, with a predominance or high pro- portion of grasses. Unused – with young shrubs and trees present (e.g. willow). This category includes natural me- adows occurring where, due to the ecological conditions, no type of forest can develop, i.e. in a high mountain zone above the dwarf pine, in some peat bogs, on some riverside meadows, as well as meadows that have been created as a result of human activity and require extensive cultivation: regular mowing or grazing, and sometimes also fertilisation. Very wet areas, permanently or periodically flooded with water. Small clumps of trees (or trees mixed with shrubs) in an agricultural space, present on arable land, meadows, near watercourses and water reservoirs. In built-up areas: trees and shrubs growing near places of worship, small squares etc. This category does not include plant nurseries. Field margins Meadows and pastures. Photo: Krzysztof Haase 10

Clumps of Small clumps of shrubs A small clump of shrubs (without any trees) in an agricul- shrubs (without trees) tural space, present on arable land, meadows, near water- courses and water reservoirs. In built-up areas: trees and Rows of trees Single and double rows shrubs growing near places of worship, small squares, etc. of trees This category does not include the cultivation of flowers, herbs or fruit, or plant nurseries. Rows of Hedges, thickets shrubs Single or double rows of trees in an agricultural space, present on arable land, meadows, near watercourses and Orchards and Old-type fruit orchards water reservoirs, and near roads and in built-up areas. allotments Single or double rows of shrubs in an agricultural space, Forests and   present on arable land, meadows, near watercourses and parks water reservoirs and in built-up areas. Water bodies   Old-type fruit orchards with slow-growing trees; allot- ments in larger cities. Rivers and   streams   Small-area forests, manor and palace parks. In cities: parks, squares. Also greenery near churches or cemeteries. Ditches and canals Water bodies of various sizes and origin: of natural origin (lakes, oxbow lakes, natural ponds) and of anthropogenic Crossings for Artificially built origin (pools, ponds and artificial reservoirs). animals and terrestrial and aquatic fish passes “ecological links”. Rivers and streams. along water- courses Drainage canals and ditches periodically or permanently filled with water. Animal crossings: structures enabling free migration of terrestrial organisms: both overpasses and underpasses of various sizes. Fish passes: structures enabling free migration of orga- nisms in the current of the watercourse with thresholds, steps, weirs, dams, culverts, etc. or along heavily transfor- med (concreted) sections of rivers. Wetlands. Photo: Piotr Mikołajczyk Rivers and streams. Photo: Krzystof Haase 11

Rows of shrubs Woodlands. Photo: Krzysztof Haase Orchards. Photo: Musikuhli, pixabay Regardless of the spatial scale, the key to the functioning of green infrastructure is that its individual elements do not appear as dispersed, individual objects, but form a spatially cohesive system, shaped in a considerate manner. The development of green and blue infrastructure is closely related to proper spatial management. Even in the Carpathian region, with such rich nature and landscape, measures are needed to shape the green infrastructure, including both the preservation of the existing elements and the creation of new ones. There are many tools at the disposal of local authorities, other institutions and private land- owners, enabling the proper shaping of green infrastructure, so as to use its potential in the most effective way and take advantage of solutions based on processes occurring in nature. For example, private land users have at their disposal a number of instruments provided for under the Rural Development Programme. The municipalities can also establish protected areas and 12

Water bodies. Photo: Krzysztof Haase Animal crossings Fish passes objects: natural monuments, ecological sites or nature and landscape areas and documentation sites in order to preserve the most valuable local elements of green infrastructure. In the case of the municipalities, spatial planning and an integrated approach to land manage- ment play an extremely important role. Planning documents specify the intended use of the site and the methods of its management, and therefore their provisions have an impact on the formation of the spatial structure of the landscape. Land development, taking into account the need to maintain the existing, and create new, green infrastructure, contributes to the preservation of the value of the natural and cultural landscape which makes the Carpathian region unique. More detailed descriptions relating to various aspects and methods of shaping the green and blue infrastructure can be found in further parts of this guide. 13

I.2 Role and importance to nature BIODIVERSITY OF THE CARPATHIANS The richness of a given area in species is the result of many factors. These include geographical location, climate and terrain, among others. Owing to the variability of geographical and climatic conditions, some parts of our globe are extremely rich in species, and others less so. Mountain areas make up approximately 30% of the terrestrial Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA). Mountain areas are considered to be the local centres of biodiversity, due to both the huge diversity of ecological niches and the presence of many endemic species. It is acknowledged that every isolated mountain range has its own characteristic type of vegetation. In the Carpathians, like in all mountains, the climatic conditions change with the increase in altitude above sea level: the temperature decreases, the precipitation increases, the duration of snow cover changes, the strength of wind and the sunlight intensity increase. A natu- ral consequence of these changes is the occurrence of successive vegetation levels, each of which has its own characteristic plant communities and species that make it distinctive. In the Carpathian flora, there are approximately 500 mountain species which cannot be found in the lowlands. In Poland, the largest numbers of such species are present in the Tatras, followed by the Babia Góra massif. Some of the species are endemic plants, i.e. specific only to a given area and not present anywhere else. Most of the endemic Carpathian species can be found among plants, e.g. the Tatra scurvy-grass (Cochlearia tatrae) or the wallflower (Erysimum pieninicum), and among invertebrates, e.g. the Carpathian longhorned beetle (Pseudogaurotina excellens) or Allogamus starmachi caddis fly. Only in the Carpathians can we also find such species as brown bear, the Tatra marmot, chamois or the Tatra vole. 14

In the Polish part of the Carpathians, nearly half (approximately 48%) of the area is covered by Graphics: MAD Multimedia / UNEP/GRID-Warsaw Centre forest. Meadows, grasslands and other non-forest ecosystems account for approximately 6%, whereas about 32% are areas associated with extensive farming. Only about 14% are heavily transformed areas. Some of the forests are natural forests; these are usually forests located in the least accessible areas that resisted the pressure of agriculture, and in the post-war years were covered by various forms of nature conservation, such as parts of the natural stands in the Magura National Park. The terrain and climatic conditions were the main factors determining the form of settlement and the land use methods. As a result of the pastoral economy which developed over many centuries, many semi-natural habitats have developed, such as: xerothermic grasslands, Nardus grasslands, ryegrass meadows, gladioli and bentgrass mountain glades, wet thistle meadows or bog-springs, greatly enriching the biodiversity of the Carpathians. The result is a unique landscape with high density and diversity of green and blue infrastructure elements. The diversity of habitats, their mosaic-like layout and the accompanying ecotone zones (i.e. transitional zones: often clear boundaries between different types of ecosystems) create favourable conditions for many species to thrive. In order to preserve the biodiversity of the Carpathians, it is necessary to preserve and protect both natural and semi-natural habitats, including not only their proper condition, but also the size of individual parts (patches) and their proper spatial arrangement, ensuring proper ecological connectivity. Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly difficult, and the green infrastructure in the Polish part of the Carpathians is also under strong pressure (Chapter II.1.2 contains a description of the main threats to the natural space of the Carpathians). 15

Graphics: MAD Multimedia / UNEP/GRID-Warsaw Centre The availability and exploitation of remote and vulnerable ecosystems is increasing, which may lead to their complete degradation. Despite the fact that most Carpathian areas are covered by various forms of nature conservation, valuable nature areas are becoming increasingly fragmented and isolated from one another by spaces hostile to the species inhabiting them. In this situation, it is becoming extremely important to enhance green infrastructure. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION Green infrastructure is a concept functioning on a national, regional and local scale. All its elements are relatively easy to identify (see Chapter I.1). It is a kind of a „natural skeleton of space”, enabling ecosystems to be protected and ecological connectivity between them to be ensured, while bringing measurable benefits to society. To work effectively, it should constitute a strategically planned and properly managed network of natural and semi-natural areas, managed in a way that is designed not only to provide a wide range of ecosystem services, which are the basis for a high quality of life and well-being of the inhabitants of a given area, but also play a protective role in biodiversity. The role of green infrastructure in nature, regardless of the scale, is twofold. On the one hand, its elements are ecological corridors enabling free migration and spread of wild plants and animals. Thanks to them, migrations of large mammals, as well as many other species, are possible, for example between the nesting sites and feeding grounds. Secondly, the elements of green infrastructure are in themselves the habitat and home of many valuable species of flora and fauna, i.e. ecosystems in which important natural processes can occur in a relatively undisturbed way. On a continental scale, the Carpathian Elements are the largest natural ecological corridor in Central Europe, providing an ecological link connecting the entire continent. Extensive 16

forest areas: natural or sustainably cultivated, sparsely populated mountain massifs, lightly Graphics: MAD Multimedia / regulated rivers, lakes, wetlands, etc., make up the green and blue infrastructure – a natural UNEP/GRID-Warsaw Centre „network” – covering large areas. Only relatively small, most valuable parts of this network can be covered by legal protection, whether in the form of national parks or within the boundaries of Natura 2000 refuges. Unfortunately, even the existing network of protected areas does not always provide the ecological connectivity necessary for species migration. The problem is the space between these areas. Even if this space contains national or regional ecological corridors – which are de facto also elements of green infrastructure – they do not fulfil their role well, as they currently have a weak legal basis (see Chapter III.3). Therefore, it is becoming extremely important to maintain continuity between individual natural habitat islands that are the refuges of species, and to prevent their fragmentation, so that the ecological quality of the space located outside and between protected areas can constitute a properly functioning ecological corridor. Locally, in a space more heavily transformed by humans – in agricultural and urban areas – the role of an ecological network can be fulfilled by a spatially cohesive mosaic of habitats, consisting of such elements as midfield woodlots, field margins, meadows and pastures, coppices, home gardens, old orchards and cemeteries, parks and green areas, as well as rivers, streams and wetlands. Flowering field margins or clumps of wild vegetation are thriftily used – as a shelter or source of food – by birds, pollinators, beetles, amphibians, reptiles or rodents. Mid-field ponds are the habitat of many species of invertebrates, as well as the breeding site of fish, amphibians and birds associated with the aquatic environment. We must remember that even small natural elements of the landscape, which often do not attract our attention, can contribute to the preservation of high biodiversity and act as refuges and ecological corridors for many valuable and beneficial wild species. 17

Photo: Krzysztof Haase I.3 Role in shaping the landscape The main factor that – usually subconsciously — affects our perception and assessment of a place or even an entire region is its landscape, which can be defined here as the space surrounding us, perceived by the human eye, and shaped as a result of both natural factors (forces of nature) and anthropogenic factors, i.e. those resulting from human activity. Such a landscape is called a cultural landscape. Aesthetic experiences and positive emotions that a beautiful landscape evokes also have a very specific and practical meaning. We often use them as the basis on which we choose our holiday destination or even the place where we live. Landscape values can translate directly into a given area’s being visited by a larger number of tourists, who – by using the services and infrastructure dedicated to them – provide a source of income for the local population. Unique landscape values are therefore a valuable capital on which a solid foundation for local and regional development can be built. In this sense, the landscape has a very specific, practical financial dimension, which may affect the development of the area concerned and which economists are able to measure, using the hedonic valuation method, for example. It has a huge hidden potential for the development of local services, often directly or indirectly related to tourism, as probably the most important sector and form of economic activity directly and largely dependent on the landscape values (see Chapter II.2.6 of this publication devoted to tourism). As mentioned above, the cultural landscape contains natural elements, as well as the products of human activity. A particularly important element of the cultural landscape is, of course, greenery. Greenery in the space around us is a common and timeless asset. In addition to its aesthetic values, it fulfils health functions, and is also the basis of our well-being, creat- 18

ing a favourable bioclimate. We like coming back to a beautiful, green, friendly environment in which we feel good. Green and blue infrastructure therefore plays a key role in shaping the landscape, is an integral part of the landscape, and significantly enhances its value and worth, in both aesthetic and economic terms. It is easy to identify, in any space, the elements of green infrastructure listed in Chapter I.1, i.e. various types of forests, trees and shrubs, as well as open spaces: fields, meadows and wastelands, and also various other smaller forms, such as gardens, orchards, field margins, single and double rows of trees, hedges or even individual (solitary) trees occurring in the landscape. They are complemented by the elements of blue infrastructure: rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands. Fig. 1. Cultural landscape of the Wiśnicko-Lipnickie Foothills. At the top – elements of green infrastructure showing the impact of human activity: mosaic-like agricultural landscape; at the bottom: the rural cultural landscape with a view of the castle in Nowy Wiśnicz, perceived as equally harmonious, without any significant spatial dissonances. Source: Hanna Hrehorowicz-Gaber, own study 19

Photo: Krzysztof Haase A cultural landscape is not just a static, „frozen in time” image of the spatial layout of its individual components. It is also an expression of mutual relations and interdependencies between the natural environment and cultural heritage, a record of the traces of – often centuries-old – human activity. The spatial relations between cultural and environmental elements and their mutual proportions indicate whether it is a transitional, agricultural, urban, or industrial landscape. Most of the mountain and foothill landscapes are transitional landscapes where, among the elements still retaining a high degree of naturality, a clear human influence can also be observed in the form of previously established artificial forest crops, agricultural crops or their traces, infrastructure, sometimes buildings or traditional development layouts. A feature of the cultural landscape is its regional distinctiveness, which distinguishes a given region from others and strongly affects its status as a tourist attraction. Compared to other regions, the Carpathians are an area with extraordinary, unique landscape values, arising from natural conditions (terrain, climate, soil), the resulting forms of land use, and other social (including demographic), historical or political factors (for more on the history of space formation in the Carpathians and its current status see Chapter II.1.1). The overwhelming majority of modern Carpathian landscapes still retain the attributes most valuable to tourists, as a beautiful mosaic of forests, fields and meadows, mid-field trees, cultivated fields, rivers and streams. This is a huge opportunity for the development of the local communities of the Carpathians. 20

Photo: Krzysztof Haase I.4 Socio-economic benefits The natural world, both animate and inanimate, is a source of goods and benefits necessary for human life. We are able to estimate the potential to provide them, type, range (scope), quality and quantity... as well as their value in financial terms. Such a purely utilitarian, „commercial” approach is often criticized by those who rightly recognize that the natural world is a „non-commercial” timeless asset, a value in itself, which should not be part of economic analysis. However, economic analyses have an important place and advantage: they provide concrete, measurable arguments for the protection of natural resources. A „reward” for caring for nature – or a „punishment” (a „heavy fine”) for its destruction expressed in numbers is often illustrative and convincing. It can effectively motivate pro-environmental decisions and actions. It can duly, reliably, multidimensionally assess all the advantages and disadvantages of planned investments, give a municipality a push towards a more favourable direction of development in the long run. It promotes understanding that instead of juxtaposing nature and humans, for example by assuming a „what is more important: humans or some flowers, birds or butterflies” approach, it is in our best interest to make allowance for and act to protect „flowers, birds and butterflies” and a harmonious coexistence with the natural world (of which we are a part). WHAT IS NATURAL CAPITAL Many people associate the concept of capital with economics. In fact, the term has been used by economists since the dawn of economics as a science. Economists define capital as a resource that people find useful and thus can use in economic processes. The first prominent economists living at the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries, such as T. Malthus or D. Ricardo, already noted that natural capital, which was referred to as „land” was one of the types of capital. However, 21

PhGortao:pKhirczsy:szMtAofDHMaulatsiemedia / UNEP/GRID-Warsaw Centre that type of capital has long been interpreted very narrowly, as non-renewable and renewa- ble natural resources, including in particular land areas, agricultural products and material goods and raw materials obtained from exploitation of deposits. Over the following centuries, theories of natural capital so construed were developed on the basis of economics, but they did not exceed the narrow concept of „land management”. It is true that new approaches to that issue emerged, but they were not at the centre of interest of economics, which included other elements of nature among the so-called free goods, namely those that, since they are not produced, divided or consumed, should not be identified in economic calculation. Over time, with the increase of human impact on the environment and deterioration of ecosys- tems, it was observed that such an approach to natural capital was incorrect. It became clear that the state of the natural environment determined the amount of goods and services it delivers, and thus the welfare of people. Today, natural capital is usually interpreted much more broadly than it was in the past. As before, that capital encompasses non-renewable and renewable natural resources, but the role of those resources in the creation and proper functioning of ecosystems is much more strongly emphasized. In turn, the value of natural capital itself is more often estimated in the context of the services provided by ecosystems for production and consumption. Thus, at present, in simplified terms, natural capi- tal may be defined as the totality of animate and inanimate natural resources that can be a source of (tangible and intangible) services for humans. Renewable resources include, for example, forests and other ecosystems and genetic resourc- es – namely components of biodiversity, living elements of the environment. Non-renewable resources include, for example, minerals (inani- mate components). Natural capital is something which we should draw on prudently: „enjoy the benefits”, „reap the dividend”, „use interest” – while ensuring that the „base capital” itself is not strained. WHAT ARE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES The goods and benefits provided to humans by ecosystems, subject to assessments and economic valuation, are called ecosystem services. From a human point of view, the ability to provide ecosystem services is one of the key functions of green infrastructure. After all, its 22

ecosystem services Graphics: MAD Multimedia / UNEP/GRID-Warsaw Centre provisioning regulating cultural elements are nothing else than ecosystems or at least fragments of ecosystems – their state and condition translate directly into the potential to deliver ecosystem services. Today, most people do not dispute the assumption that the benefits that humans achieve through the contemplation of landscapes full of greenery or through the purification of air by trees are very real. Moreover, they can be assigned economic value, just like all other compo- nents of welfare. Although many people refuse to value things that are considered priceless, in reality such value is assigned to them by the choices we make. This is how ecosystem services should be perceived – as benefits that can be attributed to economic values. However, before attempting to value the services provided by individual ecosystems, it is first worth identifying those services. The first attempt to identify the services provided by ecosystems was made at the end of the last century by Robert Costanza and his team. In a famous paper published in the prestigious journal Nature in 1997, he analysed the global valuation results of ecosystem services divided into 17 types of benefits that ecosystems deliver. The current classification of ecosystem services is included in the CICES (Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services) list, the use of which is recommended in the European Union. The current version of CICES 5.11 contains as many as 90 items, divided into two categories: services provided by the biotic environment and those provided by the abiotic environment. Each of those categories is then divided into three types of services: provisioning, regulating and cultural. 23

Provisioning services include the production of food and the supply of a variety of raw materials and materials, such as wood, water, renewable energy and medicinal substances. Regulating services include, among others, water and air purification, regulating the circulation of elements, preventing erosion and improving soil quality, shaping the climate, pollinating plants or preventing natural disasters such as droughts, floods or landslides. Fig. 1. Regulating services. Graphics: MAD Multimedia / UNEP/GRID-Warsaw Centre Cultural services serve to meet our non-material needs: both those related to leisure and recreation, as well as educational, scientific or even aesthetic, artistic and spiritual, resulting from communing with the natural world and a beautiful landscape. As part of the analysis of ecosystem services, the following main elements (stages) can be distinguished: a) assessment of ecosystems (type, condition, potential to provide services); b) assessment of services (which services, in what volume they are delivered); c) valuation of services (calculation of the value of services provided in monetary units). Of course, the above-mentioned analyses require expert knowledge, the use of appropriate methodology, the use of a relevant set of indicators. This is done by a special expert work- ing group on MAES (Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystem Services). Reliable, detailed data on a specific site (ecosystem) are also required. Only then can the available economic and econometric methods be reliably used in order to obtain a reliable result for valuation purposes. 24

WHY VALUE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Graphics: MAD Multimedia / UNEP/GRID-Warsaw Centre We already know what ecosystem services are, that they affect people’s welfare and that they have a measurable economic value. Modern economics has methods in place that allow it to be estimated. First, it is worth answering the question what the knowledge of that value actually gives us. Knowledge of the economic value of ecosystem services can be extremely important for decision-makers managing space, including areas of natural value. It is worth ensuring that the decisions, such as the amount of public expenditure incurred for the maintenance or conservation of environmentally attractive areas (green and blue infrastructure) or plans to enlarge protected areas, are also supported by an economic analysis that will indicate how best to manage them so that they bring maximum benefits for society. The desirability of studying the economic value of ecosystem services also stems from a legit- imate belief that, as mentioned above, environmental destruction can often be stopped by the force of economic arguments, without resorting to decency, fashion for ecology or ethics. Economic arguments are usually treated as less subjective or controversial, and thus are more effective than others. HOW TO VALUE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Knowing that the valuation of ecosystem services can be an effective tool for improving the quality of plan- ning, implementing development strategies, prevent- ing environmental destruction and raising ecological awareness of society, one can ponder the method of such a valuation. Modern economics recognizes that value as a basic economic category is expressed in market prices. It is a derivative of the usefulness of goods, namely the benefits that consumers derive as a result of consumption of a particular good (improvement of welfare). It follows that, in line with that approach, nothing that does not serve to satis- fy human needs has value. Economists emphasize, however, that the total economic value of a selected good consists of both its value in use and non-use value, e.g. satisfaction with the fact that a species of animals exists, even if we never see it with our own eyes. 25

Graphics: MAD Multimedia / UNEP/GRID-Warsaw Centre Economic values are often well reflected by their market price. Sometimes, however, a market for given goods or services does not exist, as is the case with many environmental goods and ecosystem services, and therefore, there are also no market prices on which to base their value. Economists, however, have dealt with that problem by developing two types of methods, indirect and direct ones for valuing non-market goods. Indirect methods calculate economic values by studying so-called substitute markets, where people sell and buy goods that are complementary to the one we are interested in. The so-called travel cost method is an example of that approach. Although the visual amenities of naturally attractive areas are not subject to market exchange, the costs related to traveling to a particular place are. That method is very simple: the value of a given place for visitors is evidenced by the price paid for traveling there. According to the economic theory, if visitors are willing to bear the cost of travel, they must benefit from being there. Therefore, it is a specific price for the purchase of a service consisting in enjoying the visual amenities of that area. Direct methods, in turn, refer to a hypothetical market in which a given good could be bought and sold; economists, therefore, ask people directly how much they would be willing to pay for what they do not have. The so-called conditional valuation method is an example of such an approach. Certain goods – such as the protection of an endangered species – cannot be easily linked to any real market. Then there is nothing else but to simply ask how much someone would be willing to pay for a specific good (here: a chance of survival of an endangered species). 26

NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS According to the EU definition, nature-based solutions introduce elements and processes occurring in nature and in untransformed landscape into cities and other land and water areas managed by man. It is possible to find many examples of „leaving things to nature” outside cities (e.g. small-scale retention in the upper parts of the catchment area done by beavers), but it is most often cities that are a training ground for their application. The urban environment is a heavily transformed, heavily built-up and invested area, with a large share of concreted degraded post-industrial areas, etc. Bringing nature into cities (or conservation of already existing areas and natural elements in cities) is therefore of great importance, primarily in the context of: ◆ adaptation to climate change (shading, reduction of heat islands, regulation of local climate), ◆ water management (rainwater retention, including during heavy rains), ◆ air purification, ◆ protection against noise, ◆ rest, health, recreation, bioclimate, mental well-being, as well as interpersonal relationships. The following criteria should be met by nature-based solutions: ◆ cost-effective (economically efficient), ◆ concurrently providing environmental (improvement of the urban environment), economic (increase in the value of real estate, savings on energy costs, etc.) and social (involvement, participation, etc.) benefits, ◆ supporting adaptation to climate change, ◆ adapted to local conditions, ◆ resource-efficient. Nature-based solutions are a valuable ally of technological solutions, often able to effectively replace them. In many cases, nature can do “for free and much better” what humans would find very difficult or costly to do using tools and technological solutions. 27

Grafika: MAD Multimedia / Centrum UNEP/GRID-Warszawa 28

SUMMARY Reaping the benefits of the natural world is associated with the necessity to preserve it in the best possible condition, which entails expenditure on conservation, restoration, protection against degradation. Thereby, the potential of ecosystems to deliver services, their scope (range), intensity and quality will be as high as possible. Not only can the valuation of ecosys- tem services have a positive impact on the quality of future strategies planning and prevent environmental destruction, but it can also help change society’s approach to the environment, raising its environmental awareness, attitudes and support for pro-environmental activities. It makes us aware of and proves the fact that it is worth incurring costs for the protection and rehabilitation of ecosystems. Occasionally giving up investments promising a quick short-term profit, but harming nature – and therefore, in the long run, also humans. Accepting a reduction of the supply function in favour of strengthening other categories of services. Ultimately, the balance of green profits in relation to inputs, losses and costs will often be clearly beneficial. Green and blue infrastructure are important elements of natural capital – not only (as mentioned in Chapter I.1) on a large scale, but also „at your fingertips”, in our close surroundings. In practice, elements of green infrastructure can be considered ecosystems, fragments of ecosystems or (on a large scale) groups or aggregations of ecosystems. The proper design of green infrastructure is also conducive to the diversity of ecosystems and maintaining them in good condition. It will ensure that their potential to provide economic and social benefits can be fully exploited. Investing in green and blue infrastructure simply pays off! 29

Development of green and blue infrastructure in the Carpathians

Photo: Krzysztof Haase II.1 Diagnosis of conditions II.1.1 General characteristics and diagnosis of the space and landscape in the Polish part of the Carpathians Mountain areas are generally characterized by very dynamic landscape changes. This can be observed particularly in areas with a large variation in altitude, where every manifestation of human activity is visible from many (viewing) points, even those located at a great distance from one another. Mountain areas are generally characterized by very dynamic landscape changes. This can be observed particularly in areas with a large variation in altitude, where every manifestation of human activity is visible from many (viewing) points, even those located at a great distance from one another. As a result, cultural landscapes in the Carpathians are very diverse. There are highly indus- trialised urban landscapes and rural agricultural landscapes here, as well as those that are only slightly transformed. Unfortunately, signs of landscape devastation can be observed increasingly frequently, resulting from anthropogenic processes which have largely limited the impact of natural phenomena and processes on the landscape formation. 31

The landscape is a testimony to the environmental, economic, social, political and cultural changes over time. The Carpathian space is also a record of many conditions, which – inter- twined with one another – contributed to the characteristic features of this beautiful region. Generally speaking, this space is undergoing constant transformations, and one of the main causative factors visible in the landscape is the form (method) of land use, i.e. both the current form and the effects of its historical changes. In the history of the Polish Carpathians, there have been a number of clear, diverse trends for changes in the landscape of rural areas, linked to the population and economic changes taking place at that time in the entire region. The current cultural landscape of the Carpathians evolved, of course, from the primeval, natural landscape, formed by nature itself (now a great rarity), which has changed over time under human influence. The growing population and the socio-economic processes occurring in the Carpathian region were reflected in changes in the functional and spatial structure of the landscape. Typical features of the traditional cultural landscape of the Polish Carpathians are residential buildings located in the valleys, set against a scenic backdrop of a diverse mosaic of fields, meadows and forests. Over time, natural and semi-natural areas were increasingly giving way to urbanised structures. On the other hand, with the progressing industrialisation and mobility of the population, there has been a very strong trend of depopulation of rural areas, driven by job opportunities and more comfortable living conditions in towns and cities. In the Polish Carpathians, as a result of the depopulation of mountainous rural areas and the change in the way of living, the former traditional land management and use were abandoned. First, this affected the areas with the least favourable land management conditions, i.e. those located at the highest altitudes and on steep slopes. These areas quickly succumbed to the natural, secondary succession of vegetation, and only sporadically can the traces of the bygone farming activity be seen: overgrown grazing glades, fruit orchards hidden in the undergrowth, agricultural terraces, etc. Aside from the economic reasons, some villages have also completely vanished due to socio-po- litical reasons. As a result of war hostilities and ethnic cleansing, there were changes in the population structure in the Carpathian region. Political decisions were particularly severe for the Rusyn population who, in the aftermath of Operation Vistula carried out in 1947-1950, had to abandon their homes. As a result, a significant part of the Lemko settlements disappeared from the landscape forever. The history of the place is evidenced only by house foundations, covered by vegetation over time, the remains of orchards, the layout of paths, sometimes a symbol. At the same time, some of the dwellings were repopulated with settlers who did not have the skills for farming in difficult mountain conditions. Along with the advancing civilization, one of the main and most characteristic forms of farming in the Carpathians was also unfortunately gradually disappearing: the mow and graze farming, once very widespread due to the migration of the Wallachian tribes engaged in transhumant pastoralism, to whom we owe, for example, the unique richness of nature and landscape of the Carpathian meadows developed on the montane glades. Their abandonment leads to a natural 32

succession of vegetation (gradual overgrowing) of open areas, changing the landscape and causing a decrease in biodiversity and the impoverishment of the unique green infrastructure of the Carpathians.. Fig. 1. The lack of traditional use of grazing glades reduces the biodiversity of the once lush Carpathian meadows and grasslands, and also causes their gradual overgrowing, impoverishing the landscape. Source: Hanna Hrehorowicz-Gaber, own study. The development of settlements in the Carpathian lands was caused, in the first instance, by environmental factors. The terrain determined the morphology of settlements, which were located predominantly in the valleys of rivers and streams. The relief of the terrain determined the settlement layouts, taking into account the local topography, which is still very much visible today. In the lower parts of the Carpathians, in the foothills and valleys, settlements 33

Photo: Barbara Dąbek developed first. The foothills provided more space for development, e.g. by using larger river terraces or gentle slopes, which is why they were exposed to stronger anthropogenic pressures, losing their original settlement structure as a result. Over the years, numerous settlements were created, which – depending on the type of location – also determined the arrangement of fields in the space and the layout of the land. The greatest activity in terms of town and village settlements occurred in the 12th–14th centuries, when settlements appeared first under German, and then under Polish law (the so-called Środa Śląska law) and, which was characteristic of the Carpathians (especially in the eastern part), under Wallachian law. The active urbanization of these areas slowed down towards the end of the 16th century. The process of settling the foothills and mountain areas stretched over a long period of time. Starting from the migra- tions of peoples until the 17th century, this process increased in harmony with the landscape, combining forms of farming with the natural environment. Before World War II, there were already many small towns in the area, which lost their municipal rights in the post-war period. Currently, there are over 50 town and cities in the Polish part of the Carpathians, of which the three largest – Bielsko-Biała, Nowy Sącz and Przemyśl – are medium-sized cities, while the others are smaller towns. Spatial changes in the 20th century consisted mainly in increasing the density of the existing settlement network, with a tendency to expand developments into rural areas. This process is particularly evident around larger cities or in areas that are accessible more quickly and easily from large urban agglomerations of Silesia or Cracow. The 19th century had a significant impact on the transformations of the Carpathian landscape. During the first partition of Poland, the Carpathian region, along with south-eastern Poland, came under the rule of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The 19th century was also a period of 34

intensive industrialization. The clear beginning of the industrialization of the Polish Carpathians was marked by the activities of the Habsburgs, who owned a large part of the Beskidy area at the time. Under the Austro-Hungarian rule, geological works were initiated to explore for deposits for the mining and metallurgical industries. Over time, many of the Beskidy valleys were taken over by the Industrial Revolution, which changed their landscape forever. Iron foundries, forges, machine factories, limestone plants, sawmills, breweries and distilleries, sugar factories and spinning mills were created in those valleys. Valuable mixed natural forests in the Carpathians were largely cut down for industrial purposes, and in their place monocultures of fast-growing spruce were planted. The effects of misguided decisions made over 200 years ago are now clearly visible in the panoramic views of the Beskidy Mountains. The post-war evolution of the landscape revealed errors in spatial planning, disturbing the aesthetics and harmony of the environment. Subsequent political decisions deepened the spatial chaos, introducing ‘off-the-shelf’ buildings whose form was foreign to the Carpathians (cube-shaped houses) and promoting aesthetics that degraded the landscape attributes of the space. The second half of the 20th century was also a period of development of spa tourism, which was marked in the space by many out-of-scale buildings. Nowadays, that space is a playing field for investors, and only initiatives that educate and support the protection of the Carpathian space will make it possible to preserve the common good. Fig. 2. Wysowa-Zdrój – the view is dominated by the „Beskid” spa resort following a questionable renovation, in dissonance with the landscape. Source: Hanna Hrehorowicz-Gaber, own materials. 35

Photo: Krzysztof Haase ANALYSIS OF THE CONDITIONS FOR SHAPING THE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE CARPATHIANS As part of the LIFE project: Green-Go! Local initiatives for deployment of green infrastructure within Natura 2000 sites in the Carpathians, a GIS analysis of specific conditions for the deploy- ment of green infrastructure was conducted. It consisted of a detailed analysis of available materials and spatial and descriptive data resources concerning, in particular, land cover, nature protection and spatial development in the Polish part of the Carpathians. The analysis is primarily aimed at diagnosing the distribution of green infrastructure elements, and to identify places and areas where green infrastructure is particularly under the threat of degradation and the resulting loss of ecological connectivity (links between valuable natural areas), and also to identify the causes of this phenomenon. The assessment of threats takes into account both existing ecological barriers and the planned investment areas that may potentially affect the condition of green infrastructure. The analysis includes not only Natura 2000 areas (as the title of the project might suggest), but also areas located in between, which should be preserved to ensure proper functioning of the natural system of the Polish Carpathians. The detailed analysis concerned predom- inantly extensive agricultural areas – arable land, meadows and pastures, landscaped and unlandscaped greenery and partially built-up or forested areas. However, it does not include the assessment of anthropogenic ecosystems, strongly transformed by humans, in particular spoil dumps and tips, surface mining areas, transport areas and compact and loose built-up areas with a development area exceeding 50% of the designated area. The result of this work is a spatial database representing the conditions for deployment of green infrastructure and ecological connectivity in the Carpathians, with a particular emphasis on ecological barriers in the form of developments: both existing and proposed in the planning docu- ments drawn up by municipal authorities. The map of barriers makes it possible to identify connec- tivity hotspots and areas where the ecological functions should be strengthened by appropriate deployment of green infrastructure and where key natural and semi-natural ecosystems should be protected against development and investments causing fragmentation. The results of the analysis are presented on the geoportal as part of the Project website 36

(www.zielonainfrastruktura.karpatylacza.pl – the QR code can be found in the final part of this publication). On the website, the spatial data, in the form of a bundle of SHP files, are also available for download and for public use, free of charge. INPUT DATA The analysis was carried out on the basis of a number of spatial and descriptive data made available for the purposes of the Project by various administrative units with appropriate resources. Below is a brief description of these resources (as at the time of their use and analysis, i.e. between October 2017 and February 2018). Reference data: ◆ National Register of Boundaries (PRG) – database containing spatial data relating to the administrative division of Poland, in particular the boundaries of municipalities, poviats and voivodships, available on the website of the Main Geodetic and Cartographic Documentation Centre; ◆ Topographic Objects Database 10k (BDOT 10k) – database of topographic objects in a map scale of 1:10 000, originating from the resources of the Main Geodetic and Cartographic Documentation Centre, in particular selected layers concerning: ◆ land cover (PT) – selected land cover classes: PTLZ – forest and woodland areas, PTRK – shrub vegetation, PTUT – permanent crops, PTTR01 – grass vegetation, PTTR02 – crops on arable land, PTWP – surface waters, PTZB – buildings, PTGN01 and PTGN02 – scree and rocky areas; ◆ transport network (SK) – as regards the routes of existing national roads of the following classes: A (motorways), S (expressways), GP (highways); ◆ buildings (BUBD); ◆ natural objects (OIPR) – location of point and linear green infrastructure objects, in particular trees or groups of trees, clumps of shrubs, strips of shrubs and hedges, rows of trees, small forests; ◆ Digital Terrain Model 100 (NMT) – land terrain model with a grid interval of 100 m, originating from the National Geodetic and Cartographic Resource. Thematic data: ◆ Ecosystem type database – database representing the basic types of ecosystems in a scale of 1:50 000, determined in accordance with the EUNIS classification (level 2) and taking into 37

account the split of land cover into classes according to the Corine Land Cover database, with added detail owing to the use of thematic data on various components of the environment, commissioned by the Ministry of the Environment and prepared by UNEP/GRID-Warsaw Centre; ◆ Corine Land Cover 2012 (CLC) – a 1:50 000 scale land cover database, developed on the basis of satellite images under the Copernicus programme, made available by the Chief Inspectorate for Environmental Protection; ◆ Database of Natura 2000 sites, along with descriptive information on the status, methods of protection of and threats to protected species and habitats – spatial and descriptive data obtained from the Regional Directorates for Environmental Protection in Katowice, Cracow and Rzeszów; ◆ Boundaries of forms of nature protection – spatial data from the Central Register of Forms of Nature Protection maintained by the General Directorate for Environmental Protection; ◆ Ecological corridors – spatial data depicting the course of national and regional ecological (migration) corridors, obtained from the General Directorate for Environmental Protection (national corridors developed by the Institute of Mammal Biology of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Białowieża), the Regional Directorate for Environmental Protection in Cracow (regional corridors for the Małopolska Region), the Association for the Development and Promotion of the Podkarpacie region „Pro Carpathia” (regional corridors for the Podkar- packie Voivodship) and the Upper Silesia Nature Heritage Centre (regional corridors for the Silesian Voivodship); ◆ Forest Data Bank – data on the size and condition of forest resources managed by the State Forests in the area covered by the Regional Directorates of State Forests in Katowice, Cracow and Krosno, in particular forest divisions of the area type specified in the database as „forest stand”, supplementing information on the forest cover of the area; ◆ Map of the Hydrographic Division of Poland (MPHP10) – database of inland surface waters, developed in a scale of 1:10 000 and made available by the National Water Management Authority, constituting a geometric and descriptive representation of the elements of Poland’s hydrographic network; ◆ Municipal planning documents – studies of the conditions and directions of spatial devel- opment (SUiKZP), and in some cases also local spatial development plans (MPZP), covering the areas of entire municipalities, obtained directly from employees and via websites of the institutions or map portals offering the WMS service. In particular, we were interested in the location of sites designated for the development of residential and holiday buildings, services, industry and tourism, and the routing of planned national roads, marked in the graphic part constituting an annex to the planning document in a scale of 1:25 000 or above; 38

◆ High Resolution Layers (HRL) – raster layers resulting from the processing of highreso- lution satellite images under the Copernicus programme, made available by the Institute of Geodesy and Cartography (IGiK), containing forest and wooded areas and impermeable surfaces. All the data obtained were adjusted to the uniform National System of Geodetic Coordinates - PUWG 1992 (EPSG: 2180). For data relating to Natura 2000 sites, spatial data in *shp format were integrated with descriptive data in *dbf format. Owing to the specific nature of the software and the various GIS tools used for the analyses, some of the continuous data have been transformed into raster format. Raster files created as a result of the relevant processing have a resolution of 10 m. Analyses using raster data were performed as part of the assessment of the diversity of land cover forms and indicators of quantitative description of the landscape (landscape metrics) and land fragmentation. SPATIAL ANALYSES CARRIED OUT ArcGIS (specifically ArcMap version 10), QGIS (version 2.18.10) and Fragstats (version 4.2.1) were used to perform spatial analyses. Work stages: 1) diagnosis of the state of green infrastructure – assessment of dominant types of ecosys- tems in the Carpathians and land cover formation; analysis of the diversity of land cover and landscape forms using selected landscape metrics; 2) land fragmentation analysis – analysis of the distribution of the main ecological barriers in the form of buildings and national roads, as well as identification of key areas and existing ecological connections between them in the form of high greenery belts; 3) building density analysis – analysis of urban layouts and building development structure in terms of assessing the degree of its density and importance as ecological barriers; 4) planning documents analysis – assessment of the directions of transformations of the land use structure resulting from the development and investment plans of municipalities, recorded in the planning documents, in particular analysis of the use of land for various forms of building developments (potential future threat to green infrastructure and ecological connectivity). 39

TheIId.1ia.1g rFaigm. 3below shows the consecutive stages of the analysis carried out, along with a descrip- tion of the input data used. Ecosystems,  Housing dispersion Fragmentation Spatial planning Landscape Land Cover Input data [1:10 000]: Input data [1:25 000]: Input data [1:25 000]: • Buildings (Topograhic • Land cover, COPERNICUS data on  • 175 spatial planning Input data [1:50 000]: • Ecosystem Types Object  Database of PL) forest types, built‐up areas documents w/selected • Land Cover types (Topographic Object Database of  functional classes Analyses: Poland) Analyses: • Analysis of housing • Natural objects – trees, green belts Analyses: • Dominant ecosystem etc. • Analysis of areas density/dispersion • Transportation network types • Identification of areas with  allocated for  • Landscape diversity Analyses: investment /  high and  low level of  • Fragmentation of forest areas development indicators housing dispersion • Idetification of forest and open  • Assessment of land  • Land cover diversity reserves for housing areas fragmented by built‐up indicators areas and  line bariers (roads,  railways) • Identification of ecological connectivity hotspots Fig. 3. Diagram showing the analytical work performed. Prepared by UNEP/GRID-Warsaw Centre The spatial scope of the analyses covers the area of the Polish Carpathians, i.e. 200 municipalities located in the Śląskie, Małopolskie and Podkarpackie voivodships. The resolution of the analyses performed depends on the scale or accuracy of the input data. Analyses of land cover and fragmentation were performed with an accuracy corresponding to the scale of 1: 10 000, while the analyses of the planning documentation records were performed with an accuracy corresponding to the scale of 1: 25 000 or above, depending on the graphic material obtained. The analysis was also carried out at various levels of aggregation, i.e. in relation to the areas of voivodships and municipalities, and separated individual types of ecosystems. The analysis at the municipality level presents the general structure of the area and the conditions affecting the possibilities of deployment of green infrastructure through the diversity of land cover and the spatial policy of the municipality; the analysis broken down into individual ecosystems makes it possible to link the degree of land fragmentation to the characteristic features of a specific type of ecosystem. Diagnosis of the state of green infrastructure: diversity of ecosystem types, land cover forms and landscape In the Polish Carpathians, 35 out of 44 types of ecosystems prevalent in Poland have been iden- tified. Forest ecosystems dominate the surface, accounting for almost 48% of the Carpathians’ area; less than 1/3 of the area is occupied by ecosystems of farmland and other agricultural areas and built-up areas; a much smaller percentage of the Carpathians’ area is covered by strongly transformed anthropogenic ecosystems (less than 14%) and grassland and herbaceous ecosystems (almost 6%). The other types of ecosystems do not exceed 1% of the area; these 40

are: surface inland waters; peatland, swamp and bog ecosystems, moors, inland ecosystems devoid of vegetation and others. In all voivodships, the share of individual ecosystems is similar and reflects the trends evident in the Carpathians as a whole, as presented in the table below. The exception is the Śląskie voivodship, where the second most dominant type of ecosystems alongside forest areas are ecosystems strongly transformed by humans (cities, towns, transport and industrial areas), accounting for over 20% of the area. The distinguishing feature of the Małopolskie voivodship is the occurrence of scree, i.e. inland ecosystems devoid of vegetation or with scanty vegetation, linked to the high-mountain areas located in the southern part of the voivodship. . Table 1. Share of different types of ecosystems in the Carpathian voivodships [%]. Prepared by: UNEP/GRID-Warsaw Centre Ecosystem type Małopolskie Podkarpackie Śląskie Total Surface inland water ecosystems voivodship voivodship voivodship 0,22 0,42 0,05 0,29 Peatland, swamp and bog ecosystems 0,18 0,01 0,00 0,09 Grassland and herbaceous ecosystems 4,99 7,08 3,67 5,75 Moorland ecosystems 0,36 0,00 0,00 0,17 Forest and woodland ecosystems 42,51 51,62 55,16 47,57 0,00 0,00 0,13 Inland ecosystems devoid of vegetation 0,26 30,36 18,63 32,21 or with scanty vegetation 10,40 22,32 13,70 0,10 0,17 0,10 Ecosystems comprising farmland and 36,53 other agricultural land and built-up areas Heavily transformed anthropogenic 14,87 ecosystems Other ecosystems 0,08 41

The analysis of landscape diversity and land cover forms was carried out on the basis of selected land cover layers from the BDOT 10k database, supplemented with the State Forests’ data on forest areas. Land cover layers have been aggregated into 9 basic classes: ◆ forests (forest areas, coppices, woodland); ◆ shrub vegetation; ◆ arable land, grassland (meadows, pastures, mountain grazing areas); ◆ permanent crops (orchards, plantations, allotments, forest and ornamental plant nurseries); ◆ stagnant and flowing surface waters; ◆ scree and rocky areas; ◆ built-up areas; ◆ other anthropogenic areas (including, among others, transport areas, industrial areas, yards, workings and dumps, landfills). On the basis of the established land cover classes, using the Fragstats programme, the indica- tors relating to the landscape as a whole and to individual classes of land cover, both natural and semi-natural, as well as anthropogenic, were calculated. Among the many indicators available in the software, those that reflect the degree of diversity of the studied area or the degree of transformation of the ecosystems by humans were selected. The reference units for landscape metrics were the boundaries of municipalities (i.e. the indicators were calculated in aggregate for entire areas of municipalities, and therefore they should not be used to diagnose their internal diversity or considered on a local scale), while municipalities and ecosystems were used in order to distinguish between the land cover forms (class metrics). Owing to the continuous nature of the data and the requirements associated with the software, the analysis was performed using raster files with a resolution of 10 m. The share of different land cover classes in relation to the areas of municipalities varies great- ly. A high rate of forest cover occurs in the municipalities in the southern part of the Carpathians, with the largest share of forests observed in the south-eastern part of the Podkarpackie voivod- ship (Bieszczady). Towns and cities are dominated by buildings and other sites transformed by humans. Typically agricultural municipalities occur in the central parts of the voivodships. 42

Share of arable fields in municipality’s area Share of meadows/pastures in municipality’s area 0–12 5,6–16,9 12–24 16,9–28,1 24–35 28,1–39,4 35–47 39,4–50,7 47–59 50,7–61,9 4–22 22–39 Share of forests/woodlands in municipality’s area UdSzhiaałrteeorefnbóuwiltz-uabpuadreoawsainymchunwicpiopwalietyrz’scharneiagminy 39–56 55–74 0–4 74–91 4–8 8–12 12–20 20–33 Fig. 4. Diversification of land cover forms in the municipalities of the Polish part of the Carpathians (all indicators in %). Prepared by: UNEP/GRID-Warsaw Centre The assessment of the structure of a space based on the indicators of a quantitative descrip- tion of the landscape is complex and difficult to interpret. The calculated metrics have been selected to show the landscape in terms of its diversity and mosaic-like character. Low values of landscape indicators point to areas with low diversity and simple spatial layouts of land cover forms, but of course this is not always a clearly negative feature – vast areas of unbroken, homogeneous natural ecosystems can constitute stable areas of key importance to ecological connectivity. The most diverse in terms of structure is the Małopolskie voivodship, with the greatest fragmen- tation of land and, at the same time, the highest density and diversity of land cover patches, forming a mosaic of natural and semi-natural ecosystems. Lower indicators obtained for the Podkarpackie voivodship result primarily from more homogeneous spatial systems, e.g. a high degree of forestation. The relatively little transformation of the space by humans and the small share of anthropogenic land cover classes are conducive to maintaining the ecological connectivity of forest ecosystems, but pose a threat to valuable meadow ecosystems, which are under strong development pressure owing to the limited resources in terms of open spaces. The most transformed by humans is the Silesian voivodship, where many municipalities are dominated by land cover associated with buildings and vast areas used for agriculture. The division into municipalities clearly shows that the indicators regarding the density of the patches and edges are the lowest in the southern regions of the Carpathians, which is associated with greater homogeneity of land cover classes that are prevalent there, e.g. extensive swathes of forest. The differentiation indicators show that the most mosaic-like landscape occurs in municipalities located in the central part of the Polish Carpathians, where there is no single dominant class of land cover, but the shares of different forms of land cover are more similar to one another. 43

Analysis of green infrastructure fragmentation On the basis of selected classes of land cover and natural objects, an assessment of land fragmentation was carried out in terms of the distribution of buildings, the occurrence of extensive open areas devoid of green structures, and the presence of barriers in the form of infrastructure elements, in particular class A, S and GP national roads. Owing to the lack of vector data on the volume of vehicle traffic, this parameter was not taken into account when selecting roads that might constitute a significant environmental barrier. To perform the analysis, data from the BDOT 10k database on buildings and forests were used, with the information on the forest cover of the area supplemented by data from the Forest Data Bank. The fragmentation analysis by means of the fuzzy logic method made it possible to identify sites that can be defined as key areas of green infrastructure, retaining a high potential to perform the ecological connectivity function, and sites characterized by a high degree of isolation, associated with the occurrence of ecological barriers and a small share of green infrastructure connecting the key areas. The result of the analysis enabled the assessment of the degree of fragmentation of greenery on agricultural land and the places where ecological routes were disrupted by buildings or highways. By taking into account the small elements of green infrastructure, such as rows of trees, shrubs and hedges, it was possible to analyse the structure of greenery on a local scale, taking into account even small natural objects. Owing to the non-inclusion of surface water areas in the analysis, layers representing the water network should be additionally displayed to enable the results of the analysis to be interpreted. Woodlands core Woodlands buffer Open agricultural areas Buidl-up areas buffer Buidl-up areas core Fig. 5. The result of the analysis of the shaping of green infrastructure and its fragmentation in the Polish part of the Carpathians. Prepared by: UNEP/GRID-Warsaw Centre The figures show examples of different shaping of green infrastructure and its fragmentation in the Carpathians. Areas marked in green on the maps are forests or elements of high greenery elements in the form of tree belts or individual trees, with open agricultural areas marked in yellow, while built-up areas are marked in pink. Linear elements superimposed on the maps are class A, S and GP roads. 44

a) formation of greenery lines and the occurrence of tree b) disruption of the ecological connectivity by an expressway clusters in open agricultural areas c) development pressure in natural areas – a phenomenon d) high greenery systems creating local nature connections particularly evident in heavily forested municipalities Fig. 6. Examples of interpretation of the fragmentation analysis results. Prepared by: UNEP/GRID-Warsaw Centre. Legend same as in Fig. 5 As part of the fragmentation analysis, a transformation was also carried out, which resulted in an image of impermeable surfaces – mainly buildings and asphalt roads – located more than 500 m above sea level. The resulting layer of the analysis – unfortunately, its spatial resolution makes it suitable for consideration at the regional rather than local level – shows places where humans are transforming natural ecosystems for their needs related to, among others, the modernisation of tourist routes or the development of forest roads for the transport of timber in ever higher parts of the mountains. Development density analysis Owing to the fact that the basic barrier to ecological connectivity is development, an important aspect of assessing the degree of investment in the land is development density. According to the definition set out in Article 4 point 29 of the Act on the Protection of Agricultural and Forest Land (Journal of Laws of 1995, No. 16, item 78, as amended), compact developments are defined as a „grouping of not less than five buildings, with the exception of buildings performing a purely commercial function, where the greatest distance between adjacent objects does not exceed 100 m”. Using the definition quoted above and the buildings layer from the BDOT 10k database, areas forming compact (dense) and loose (dispersed) development structures were generated 45

for the area covering the Polish part of the Carpathians. Dense (compact) development structures, located mainly in valleys and along roads, were identified mainly in the Silesian voivodship, in the western part of the Małopolskie voivodship and in the central part of the Podkarpackie voivodship. The remaining areas, despite the quite high density of buildings, are characterized by the occurrence of dispersed developments, climbing higher and higher up the slopes and mountain tops, which negatively affect the landscape values of the area and increase human impact on natural and semi-natural ecosys- tems, weakening the green infrastructure, disrupting local structures of the nature network and ecological connectivity. The figure below shows examples of development structures identified in the Carpathians. Fig. 7. Examples of development structures identified in the Carpathians (left: condensed; right: dispersed). Source: UNEP/GRID- -Warsaw Centre Taking into account the databases used in the analysis and their current status, it should be noted that built-up areas may be underestimated since the development process in the southern part of Poland has been intensifying in recent years, which is not reflected in the data from the BDOT 10k database. In addition, on the basis of the database, it is not possible to verify clearly whether the commercial buildings excluded from the analysis are really exclusively commercial or whether they have been converted for residential or tourist use, which is a common process in many regions of the Carpathians. Despite the expected underestimation, the obtained results show the trends and directions of development of the Carpathian space, which systematically cause the degradation of green infrastructure, the loss of ecological connectivity between areas of natural value and of the unique landscape attributes of the region. An additional analysis of the building permits (the so-called “decision on development condi- tions”) and the decisions determining the location of public-purpose projects for a selected area in the Polish Carpathians made it possible to conclude that in many Carpathian municipalities, there is a problem with the dispersion of development due to the lack of local master plans, and with permits being issued for construction projects located outside compact development areas, leading to the degradation of the space and its natural and landscape values in favour of anthropogenic transformations covering ever more extensive areas. 46

Fig. 8. Examples of planning permission decisions issued outside the compact development areas. Prepared by: UNEP/GRID-Warsaw Centre Analysis of planning documents From the point of view of maintaining the green infrastructure in good condition, an important issue is the content of the planning documents in relation to the development plans for the municipality and areas designated for development, which will potentially constitute the main ecological barriers. Out of 200 Carpathian municipalities (scope of application of the Carpathian Convention), 175 planning documents adopted at the municipality level were analysed (166 studies of conditions and directions of spatial development and 9 local spatial plans covering the entire municipality). For the other municipalities, no analysis was carried out due to the unavailability (at that time, i.e. at the turn of 2017 and 2018) of the relevant document in an electronic form or due to the low quality of the graphic part attached as an annex to the document. The acquired documents were very diverse in terms of their content, quality of the graphic part or current status. Out of the 175 documents, as many as 52 applicable studies and one local plan were adopted under the Act on Spatial Planning of 1994. Such studies may not be relevant to the actual situation in the field where, under the above-mentioned “development conditions” decisions, various types of investment projects have been developed in recent years, which do not reflect in any way the provisions of the plan from over 20 years ago. The varying provisions on the designation of land for various purposes have been standard- ized and aggregated into several key classes relevant in the context of the shaping of green infrastructure and generating barriers to ecological connectivity. The focus was primarily on areas designated for various types of development, located in areas of ecosystems other than the already existing compact or loose developments (which may mean attempts aimed at less transformed areas). The ecosystems related to development were not analysed, assuming that these areas will continue to be developed in the investment direction (they are already „lost” to green infrastructure anyway). The following table shows the land designation classes that were included in the acquisition of data from the study. 47

Table 2. Land designation classes obtained from the drawings included in the planning documents. Prepared by: UNEP/GRID-Warsaw Centre Class Designation in the planning document M M, U Single-family housing, multi-family housing, residential, guesthouse and holiday develop- M, P ments and other areas related to residential development Mixed residential and services development areas, multifunctional zones, local development areas and others Mixed residential and industrial development areas, commercial areas and others At Services development areas P Industrial, commercial and artisan development areas and other areas related to industrial developments P, U Mixed industrial and services development areas RU Agriculture support areas UT Tourism services areas, including sports and recreation services areas KD Areas designated for proposed (major) highways By comparing data on the existing developments against the BDOT 10k database and the data obtained from the planning documents concerning areas designated for development, the area of land constituting a development reserve was estimated (potentially, because in reality the land designated for development will not be 100% developed). These are places where buildings will probably be developed in the future, occupying new agricultural or forest areas, in accord- ance with the municipality’s spatial planning policy. The analysis shows which municipalities tend to concentrate the developments in strictly defined areas, allowing for increased building density in the existing towns or for their reasonable development, and which designate vast areas for potential investment without taking into account natural conditions and landscape values, as well as infrastructure and financial capabilities. Owing to the acquisition of data from the planning documents and the analysis performed, it is possible to identify places at a high risk of fragmentation due to investment development and changes in the land use structure. In all three voivodships, the allocation of extensive areas for development was observed, which in the future may significantly affect the disruption of ecological routes. The scale of the phenomenon by reference to the area of the voivodships is around a dozen thousand hectares of land designated for a change of use. The attractiveness of the region to tourism causes 48