The challenges and opportunities of transboundary cooperation through the lens of the East Carpathians Biosphere Reserve

Abstract

ABSTRACT. A significant challenge of our time is conserving biological diversity while maintaining economic development and cultural values. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization has established biosphere reserves within its Man and the Biosphere program as a model means for accomplishing this very challenge. The East Carpathians Biosphere Reserve (ECBR), spreading across Poland, Slovakia, and Ukraine, represents a large social-ecological system (SES) that has been protected under the biosphere reserve designation since 1998. We have explored its successes and failures in improving human livelihoods while safeguarding its ecosystems. The SES framework, which includes governance system, actors, resources, and external influences, was used as a frame of analysis. The outcomes of this protected area have been mixed; its creation led to national and international collaboration, yet some actor groups remain excluded. Implementation of protocols arising from the Carpathian Convention has been slow, while deforestation, hunting, erosion, temperature extremes, and changes in species behavior remain significant threats but have also been factors in ecological adaptation. The loss of cultural links and traditional knowledge has also been significant. Nevertheless, this remains a highly biodiverse area. Political barriers and institutional blockages will have to be removed to ensure this reserve fulfills its role as a model region for international collaboration and capacity building. These insights drawn from the ECBR demonstrate that biosphere reserves are indeed learning sites for sustainable development and that this case is exemplary in illustrating the challenges, but more importantly, the opportunities that arise when ensuring parallel care and respect for people and ecosystems through the model of transboundary protected areas around the world.

A review of the social-ecological systems framework: applications, methods, modifications, and challenges

“…Partelow 2015, Partelow and Boda 2015, Guevara et al 2016, Oviedo and Bursztyn 2016, Blythe et al 2017, London et al 2017, Nakandakari et al 2017, Partelow et al 2018a) and forestry (Fleischman et al 2010, Oberlack et al 2015, Davenport et al 2016. However, use of the framework has expanded beyond those resource-use sectors to general food production systems (Marshall 2015), aquaculture systems (Partelow et al 2018b), terrestrial conservation and rangeland management (Falk et al 2012, Risvoll et al 2014, Baur and Binder 2015, Addison and Greiner 2016, Taggart-Hodge and Schoon 2016, Yandle et al 2016, Guariguata et al 2017, watershed management (Madrigal et al 2011, Bal et al 2011, Nagendra and Ostrom 2014, Villamayor-Tomas et al 2014, Bennett and Gosnell 2015, Naiga et al 2015, Silva et al 2015, Falk et al 2016, Hileman et al 2016, marine conservation and marine ecosystem management (Cinner et al 2012, Schlüter et al 2013, Stevenson and Tissot 2014, Ban et al 2015, 2017, Williams and Tai 2016, coastal development (Kanwar et al 2016, Schlüter et al 2019, energy systems …”

World Heritage Beech Forests and Regional Socio-Economic Policy at the Slovak-Ukrainian Border

“…Although the East Carpathian Biosphere Reserve was established approximately 20 years ago, only limited data currently exists regarding the impact of the reserve on the local economy. More exhaustive studies have been conducted on fauna or flora of the region but few socioeconomic or cultural observations can be found [11]. At the beginning of their conservation history, both regions were so-called landscape protected areas, enjoying a lower intensity of legislative protection than national parks.…”

“…From a historical perspective, clear differences in population dynamics, land ownership, land use and conservancy guided by national legislation exist in the ECBR transboundary region [11]. These differences lead to many complications impacting cooperation among stakeholders, state authorities, and communities in the Poloniny region [11][12][13][14][15][16]. Bihun et al [16] described cooperation among affected stakeholders as fragmentary, poorly planned and uncoordinated over the last 10 years, mainly in Ukraine's protected areas.…”

Trans-Boundary Edge Effects in the Western Carpathians: The Influence of Hunting on Large Carnivore Occupancy

“…Additionally, killing terrestrial animals has been recognized as one of the most significant threat in a Carpathian transboundary protected area spreading across Poland, Slovakia, and Ukraine [82]. A new management plan for wolves in Slovakia has been recently approved and contains more strict rules in terms of killing wolves, e.g.…”