A Perspective on Ecological Corridor for Maintaining Healthy Ecological Processes in the Caucasus

Abstract

Unless changes in the current “island spatial structure” of protected area systems are thought over, it is quite likely that protected areas will fail in fulfilling their objectives. This is because they will not be able to respond well just by themselves to threats such as a rapid change of climate, increment in habitat destruction and fragmentation due to population growth, etc. Hence, governments have committed not just to further increasing protected area territories but also to create networks of protected areas, which should be integrated into the wider landscape.
This approach to biodiversity conservation has been widely recognized by conservationists and scientists. Many approaches for planning and managing conservation of biodiversity at a regional and landscape levels have been developed to fulfill this recommendation (e.g., Natura 2000, Emerald Network, etc.); and corridors have been recognized as a key element in all of them. Nevertheless, use of corridors has been much contested, even among members of the same group who called for them. Hence, the purpose of this paper was to outline a perspective on ecological corridors based on current understanding on this conservation measure.
Its conceptualization was driven by the goal of developing a measure that could serve to conserve biodiversity patterns and processes in the Caucasus.

Full text

523
5th Symposium
Conference Volume for Research in Protected Areas pages 523 - 526
10 to 12 June 2013, Mittersill
A Perspective on Ecological Corridor for Maintaining Healthy Ecological
Processes in the Caucasus
Cristian S. Montalvo Mancheno, Giorgi Nakhutsrishvili & Nugzar Zazanashvili
Abstract
Unless changes in the current “island spatial structure” of protected area systems are thought over, it is quite
likely that protected areas will fail in fulfilling their objectives. This is because they will not be able to respond well
just by themselves to threats such as a rapid change of climate, increment in habitat destruction and
fragmentation due to population growth, etc. Hence, governments have committed not just to further increasing
protected area territories but also to create networks of protected areas, which should be integrated into the wider
landscape.
This approach to biodiversity conservation has been widely recognized by conservationists and scientists. Many
approaches for planning and managing conservation of biodiversity at a regional and landscape levels have been
developed to fulfill this recommendation (e.g., Natura 2000, Emerald Network, etc.); and corridors have been
recognized as a key element in all of them. Nevertheless, use of corridors has been much contested, even among
members of the same group who called for them. Hence, the purpose of this paper was to outline a perspective on
ecological corridors based on current understanding on this conservation measure.
Its conceptualization was driven by the goal of developing a measure that could serve to conserve biodiversity
patterns and processes in the Caucasus.
Keywords
Caucasus, protected areas, ecological corridors, landscape planning
Introduction
The Caucasus is distinguished by its uniqueness and high level of biodiversity. However, biodiversity of the
Caucasus region is under strong human impact, which poses a threat not only to species but also to ecological
processes. For example, tree line vegetation has been strongly degraded and lowered (at an average of 200–400
m.) in the Central part of the Greater Caucasus because of long-term overgrazing, tree cutting, etc.
(NAKHUTSRISHVILI 1999). As a result, the Caucasus region was identified as one of the 34 Earth’s biologically
richest and most endangered biodiversity hotspots (ZAZANASHVILI et al. 2004).
There is a long tradition of nature conservation in the Caucasus. The first strict nature reserve in the region was
created in 1912 in Lagodekhi gorge on the south-eastern slopes of the Greater Caucasus. Strict protection was the
approach used during Soviet time. For instance, after the collapse of the Soviet Union the protected areas system
of Georgia consisted poorly of 15 strict nature reserves, which covered 2.4 per cent of the country. Fortunately and
thanks to support from international organization (e.g., World Wildlife Fund - WWF and German Bank for
Reconstruction and Development - KfW), more comprehensive protected area systems have been developing in
the countries of the Caucasus.
In the Caucasus, conservation efforts have been driven by the Ecological Conservation Plan since 2001. This
strategic document recognized the importance of establishing ecological networks to ensure the conservation of
Caucasus’ biodiversity. Its development has primarily focused on ensuring that high valuable biodiversity areas
are well conserved by improving the management of existing protected areas (PAs), setting aside new PAs and
restoring deteriorated habitats (MONTALVO MANCHENO 2012). Although the implementation of these activities has
been successful for the past 12 years and has also considered more urgent and complex conservation issues (e.g.,
developing a strategic document for responding to impacts of global climate change on forests in the Southern
Caucasus (ZAZANASHVILI et al. 2011)), all components of an ecological network still need to be thought through for
the Caucasus. Hence, ecological corridor has been put forward as the next conservation measure that needs to be
developed.
A perspective on ecological corridor for the Caucasus
Driven by the goal of developing a conservation measure that will help conserve biodiversity patterns and
processes, we believe that the purpose of ecological corridors for the Caucasus must be to maintain or increase
connectivity. In order to achieve this, planning and design of ecological corridors must be at a landscape level and
considered the different structural components of an ecological network.
©Hohe Tauern National Park; download unter www.biologiezentrum.at

524
When thinking about connectivity, we concur with KROSBY et al. (2010) that it refers to management actions that
facilitate or enhance the flow of organisms and ecological processes. Based on this understanding, we assume that
connectivity is an attribute of an entire landscape that is influence by the spatial arrangement of different physical
elements and the features associated with their layout in a landscape, and by the behavioral responses of species
and processes to those elements in the landscape (i.e., structural component and functional component,
respectively). Although both definitions are the main functional aspects of the landscapes (JONGMAN et al. 2004),
it does not necessarily mean that conserving structural connectivity ensures functional connectivity (TISCHENDORF
& FAHRIG 2000). Nevertheless, we agree with CHETKIEWICZ et al. (2006) that using biodiversity patterns as
surrogates for biodiversity processes seems like a reasonable mapping approach to design a suitable conservation
measure (i.e., ecological corridor) in an area where uncertainty exists.
In the Caucasus, a regional approach was firstly used to identify important areas where urgent conservation
actions are needed. Nevertheless, conservation efforts have reached a tipping point where more detailed
information is necessary to ensure persistence of biodiversity (MONTALVO MANCHENO 2012). Consequently,
landscape has been thought of as the scale for developing ecological corridors.
Landscape was selected as planning level because it represents a kilometers-wide cluster of repeated spatial
elements (i.e., a mosaic)–including local ecosystems and land uses–that manifests an ecological unity (FORMAN
1995). As a mosaic, our perspective on ecological corridor goes away from the artificial dichotomy of habitat and
non-habitat (CHETKIEWICZ et al. 2006; MCINTYRE & HOBBS 1999). Instead, planning of ecological corridors is
perceived as a spectrum of habitats occupied by organism and where ecological processes can persist. This
perception is supported by FISCHER & LINDENMAYER (2007), who stated that even though landscape connectivity is
a human perception of connectedness, it might translate into habitat connectivity, and it tends to positively
facilitate some ecological processes. Movement–not restricted to animals but extended to processes (e.g.,
pollination)–also happens in a mosaic of habitats with different levels of suitability (MCINTYRE & BARRETT 1992).
Therefore, we agree with MCINTYRE & HOBBS (1999) that a particular landscape should be analyzed along a
continuum of its alteration, in which destruction defines the state of landscape and modification describes the
state of lasting habitat.
All the discussed above about the purpose of ecological corridors and the landscape planning approach needed
shows that our perspective on ecological corridors for the Caucasus have to include the habitat function in
addition to the movement function, as argued by BERGÉS et al. (2011). In addition, this constant shifting mosaic of
habitats with varying suitability will require a range of management actions. Hence, to keep a guiding picture
when planning ecological corridors, we adopt the structural configuration of ecological networks proposed by
BENNETT & JO MULONGOY (2006) (i.e., core areas, different types of connectivity mechanisms, buffer zones, and
sustainable-use areas) but add rehabilitation areas, as another management action to be considered.
Because in our perspective on ecological corridors host a varying degree of human use related to biodiversity,
which in turn affects biodiversity patterns and processes (HANSEN & DEFRIES 2007; MCINTYRE & HOBBS 1999), we
agree with VAN DER WINDT & SWART (2008) that the so-called social robustness comes to play an important role
when planning and designing large-scale conservation measures. Therefore, socio-economic and land-use pattern
analyses have to be carried out in the whole extend of any ecological corridor to ensure that efforts to conserve
biodiversity patterns and processes does not compete with but supports local population needs and desires.
Discussion and Conclusion
Even a hard preservation such as Aldo Leopold recognized that the sole action of keeping PAs free of development
is not enough for achieving conservation of biodiversity. In the Caucasus, PAs has significantly increased since
2001, which concur with KROSBY et al. (2010) recommendation that establishing and strengthening PAs should be
the first conservation action before developing large-scale efforts to maintain or increase landscape connectivity.
Moreover, decision and policy makers from the Caucasus perceive that there is no more space for setting aside
new territories under legal protection. Hence, in our perspective on ecological corridors we have embraced that it
is not and will not be possible to set aside new PAs for all natural lands.
Based on this understanding, efforts and resources have to be allocated to maintain least modified habitat (i.e.,
existing natural corridors) rather than to restore degraded territories (BERGÉS et al. 2011; MCINTYRE & HOBBS
1999). This approach could be applied in the Caucasus because although the forming Soviet planning system has
contributed to the serve degradation of certain areas in Eastern Europe, it has at the same time helped conserve
others (JONGMAN et al. 2004).
The success of our perspective on ecological corridors, as for any large-scale conservation effort, has to do a lot
with its implementation. This implies to carry out a processes where the whole spectrum of stakeholders (i.e.,
from policy makers at national levels to local farmers) are actively involved. We believe that this can be achieved
in the region, because the transitional process facing Eastern European countries has not just resulted in
challenges, but also in opportunities for changes within states’ functioning at the economic, institutional,
legislative and administrative levels (JONGMAN et al. 2004).
Even in a complete favorable environment, implementation needs a logic structure. Hence, when implementing
ecological corridors, it will be essential to frame the whole process. There exists various theoretical frameworks,
but based on the success in a similar topic and biome there are two that stand out: Ecological Sustainable Land
Management (KNIGHT & COWLING 2003) and Adaptive Collaborative Management (PRABHU et al. 2007). Likewise,
there is an ongoing work, leaded by IUCN Environmental Law Centre and Global Programme on Protected Areas,
for advancing connectivity conservation through law; and therefore, their lessons learned and expertise should be
©Hohe Tauern National Park; download unter www.biologiezentrum.at

525
kept in mind when seeking to incorporate ecological corridor and connectivity conservation into the legislation of
the countries in the Caucasus region
We believe that acknowledging shortcomings/limitations of our perspective on ecological corridors is also
important, because it will help us keep in mind that there is space for improvement. In other words, we
acknowledge that our perspective is not the final answer to long-term conservation of biodiversity in the Caucasus
or anywhere else.
Like similar conservation measures, our perspective will not be able to encompass all ecological processes
functioning in the pilot area because its limits are based on a human perception of unity (i.e., landscape). Lack of
information will become an important barrier to overcome in the Caucasus. Information for all species does not
exist, and for those species that information does exist, mainly large mammals and some threatened species,
either its reliability is questionable (e.g., species distribution points) or it is outdated (e.g., pasture conditions).
There are no studies on the biological and evolutionary processes in the pilot area or even for the Caucasus region.
Likewise, land-use patterns and socio-economic data are outdated and even in some cases hard to access due to
bureaucratic procedures. These constraints highlight the importance of having a truly participatory process for
designing and setting on the ground ecological corridors in the Caucasus.
For us, an ecological corridor is not just a measure that can help ensure persistence of biodiversity, which has
been acknowledged as an important aspect for achieving long-term conservation and has proved to be even more
challenging under any climate change scenery, but also a strategy that could help balance the need between
natural resource use and conservation. The challenge will be to keep ecosystems’ rates, scales and intensities of
change within historic ranges in a world increasingly dominated by human activities. Our perspective is the first
attempt of such effort in the Caucasus. Therefore, our perspective on ecological corridors needs to be piloted, and
like similar conservation measures implemented in other parts of the world it will have to be evaluated during and
after implementation. This will allow us to gain insight on the planning process for developing similar
conservation measure in the Caucasus region, primarily, but maybe also be useful for other regions.
Reference
BENNETT, G. & K. JO MULONGOY 2006. Review of experience with ecological networks, corridors and buffer zones. Montreal.
BERGÉS, L., ROCHE, P. & C. AVON 2011. Establishment of a national ecological network to conserve biodiversity: Pros and cons of
ecological corridor. Sciences Eaux & Territires 3: 34-39.
CHETKIEWICZ, C.-L. B., ST. CLAIR, C. C. & M. S. BOYCE 2006. Corridors for conservation: Integrating pattern and process. Annual Review of
Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 37: 317-342.
FISCHER, J. & D. B. LINDENMAYER 2007. Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: A system. Gobla Ecology and Biogeography
16: 265-280.
FORMAN, R. T. T. 1995. Land mosaics: The ecology of landscapes and regions. New York.
HANSEN, A. J., & R. DEFRIES 2007. Ecological mechanisms linking protected areas to surrounding lands. Ecological Applications 17(4):
974-988.
JONGMAN, R. H. G., KÜLVIK, M., & I. KRISTIANSEN 2004. European ecological networks and greenways. Landscape and Urban Planning
68: 305-319.
KNIGHT, A. T., & R. M. COWLING 2003. Conserving South Africa’s ‘Lost’ Biome: A framework for securing effective regional conservation
planning in the Subtropical Thicket Biome (No. 44). Port Elizabeth.
KROSBY, M., TEWKSBURY, J., HADDAD, N. M. & J. HOEKSTRA 2010. Ecological connectivity for a changing climate. Conservation Biology
24(6): 1686-1689.
MCINTYRE, S. & G. W. BARRETT 1992. Habitat variegation: An alternative to fragmentation. Conservation Biology 6(1): 146-147.
MCINTYRE, S. & R. HOBBS 1999. A framework for conceptualizing human effects on landscape and its relevance to management and
research models. Conservation Biology 13(6): 1282-1292.
MONTALVO MANCHENO, C. 2012. Development of an ecological network approach in the Caucasus. The Circle 3: 28-31.
NAKHUTSRISHVILI, G. 1999. Vegetation of Georgia. Camerino.
PRABHU, R., MCDOUGALL, C. & R. FISHER 2007. Adaptive collaborative management: A conceptual model. In: FISHER, R., PRABHU, R. &
MCDOUGALL, C. (eds.), Adaptive collaborative management of community forests in Asia: Experiences from Nepal, Indonesia and the
Philippines: 16-49. Bogor.
TISCHENDORF, L. & L. FAHRIG 2000. On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90(1): 7-19.
VAN DER WINDT, H. J. & J. A. A. SWART 2008. Ecological corridors, connecting science and politics: The case of the Green River in the
Netherlands. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 124-132.
ZAZANASHVILI, N., GAVASHELISHVILI, L., MONTALVO MANCHENO, C., BERUCHASHVILI, G., HEIDELBERG, A., NEUNER, J., SCHULZKE, R. & M.
GARFORTH (eds.) 2011. Strategic guidelines for responding to impacts of global climate change on forests in the Southern Caucasus.
Available at: http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/forest_strategy_for_south_caucasus_1.pdf (accessed: 26/03/2013).
ZAZANASHVILI, N., SANADIRADZE, G., BUKHNIKASHVILI, A., KANDAUROV, A., & D. TARKHNISHVILI 2004. Caucasus. In: MITTERMAIER, R. A.,
GIL, P. G., M. H. C.G., PILGRIM, J. J., BROOKS, T., MITTERMAIER, C. G., LAMOREUX, J. & G. A. B. D. FONSECA (eds.), Hotspots Revisited:
Earth’s biologically richest and most endangered terrestrial ecoregions: 148-152. Mexico City.
Contact
Cristian S. Montalvo Mancheno1, 2
cmontalvo@wwfcaucasus.org
Giorgi Nakhutsrishvili1
nakgeorg@gmail.com
Nugzar Zazanashvili1, 2
nzazanashvili@wwfcaucasus.org
1 Ilia State University
Kakutsa Cholokashvili Ave 3/5
Tbilisi 0162
Georgia
2 WWF-Caucasus Programme Office
Aleksidze St. 11
Tbilisi 0193
Georgia
©Hohe Tauern National Park; download unter www.biologiezentrum.at

526
©Hohe Tauern National Park; download unter www.biologiezentrum.at