Nicola Arndt und Matthias Pohl - Neobiota

strategically-planned network of protected areas (Econet) for the Caucasus should incorporate strict
nature reserves, national parks, and other areas of high conservation value (IUCN categories I and II)
as large core areas or nodes, and use sanctuaries, protected forests, and other multiple-use areas (IUCN
categories IV-VI) as stepping zones and corridors between the nodes (IUCN 1994).
3 Concept and methods
The Map of Natural Vegetation of Europe (BOHN et al. 2000/2003) depicts the basic ecosystem
diversity of the Caucasus region. A preliminary small-scale spatial analysis of the vegetation
formations and sub-formations/mapping units (as integrated components of the main ecosystems) in
connection with the existing protected areas distribution creates the necessary stage for strategic
planning of the regional Econet.
For analytical work cartographic information on geography of the Caucasus protected areas at
different scales, and of varying quality and exactness has been used. For Georgia the most correct
information compiled from the large-scale topographic maps has been incorporated with support of
WWF Caucasus Programme Office. For Armenia information has been gathered from the National
Report on Biodiversity (BALOYAN & SHASHIKYAN 1999), while for Azerbaijan, data were derived
from the NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PLAN (1998). The information for the Russian
Federation is less exact, and has been compiled from different sources (SOKOLOY & SIROECHKOVSKI
1990; MAIN DEPARTMENT FOR GEODESY AND CARTOGRAPHY 1994, etc.; on Map 1 only Alania
National Park is not reflected, information about which is not available). Due to the cartographic
background conditions the estimated analysis error can be up to 8-10 %.
However, finding the results of the analyses interesting, we allowed ourselves to present the
preliminary analyses.
For each formation the percent included in protected areas was calculated as an index value.
All cartographic information was elaborated by using GIS MapInfo 5.5.
4 Brief analysis
The Caucasus portion of the Map’s Sheet 9 (BOHN et al. 2000/2003) includes 17 formations (A-D,
F-H, K-P, R-U) and 67 mapping units.
For the analysis of representation of different types in the system of protected areas, an index value of
5 % of the area of a given formation/unit under protection was considered to be the minimum. If less
than 5 % of a given formation/unit is protected this is considered insufficient for conservation
purposes. Applying this criterion it becomes clear, that out of 17 formations, nine are not sufficiently
represented (Map 2). This index is critical for 24 of the 67 units. One formation and 26 units are not
represented in protected areas at all (Table 1).
Especially alarming are the indicators for the formations G and U. This latter, which is distinguished
by its unique biodiversity and highly significant wildlife migration/corridor function, is threatened
with extinction and calls for urgent measures for conservation. The conditions of formation H are no
less alarming, where the unique, globally significant, relict Colchic and Hyrcanian mixed oak forests
are concentrated. In the lowlands such forest types have in fact already been totally eliminated. Urgent
measures should be taken for conservation of their remnants in the sub-montane zones.
Conservation indicators are not balanced even in those formations whose average index is relatively
253