REFLECTING BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION NEEDS IN FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
22-23 October 2009, Purkersdorf, Austria
Forests play a significant role in NATURA 2000 network, as they constitute to almost one third of its total area. Considering this, we must face the challenge of developing proper management plans, taking into account the wellbeing of species, habitats and general biodiversity. There is already a growing collection of examples of forested sites management, presenting a variety of approaches - from good practices to several cases that demonstrate apparent lack of consideration for nature.
The main goal of Forest Task Force 2009 Annual Workshop was to identify main problems of forest management in forested NATURA 2000 areas, learn about ‘good practices’ that are already implemented on the ground as well as examine opportunities to implement such practices elsewhere.
The workshop, held in Purkersdorf (Austria), was hosted by the Österreichische Bundesforste (ÖBf - Austrian Federal Forests) and Birdlife Austria, who are gratefully acknowledged.
BirdLife’s European Forest Task Force expresses its greatest thanks to the contributors:
Harald Schaich, Institute for Landscape Management, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg: Forest conservation beyond legal minimum standards - On the road to an incentive-based conservation strategy
Andrzej Bobiec, Rzeszów University, Faculty of Agroecology: European forests and Natura 2000 - sustainable, functional?
Gabor Wichmann, Birdlife Austria and Gerald Plattner, ÖBf: The cooperation between ÖBf and BirdLife Austria – together for nature conservation
Vanya Ratarova, Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds: Management of beech forests in Bulgaria
Katalin Mázsa, Institute of Ecology and Botany of HAS: Importance of none intervention areas - Strict forest reserves as natural reference and study sites
Costas Papaconstantinou, Hellenic Ornithological Society: Natural regeneration – the best post fire management for birds (part 1, part 2)
Pavol Polak, DAPHNE (Institute of Applied Ecology): Case study from Slovakia – management of the Natura 2000 sites in Tatry and Nízke Tatry Mts. after the windstorm 2004
Marcus Walsh, Innofor Finland Ltd: Continuous Cover Forestry as an aid to biodiversity conservation in Boreal commercial forests
Robert Knysak, FSC Poland: Forest Certification in Baltic states: standards, auditing practices, effects.
Summary
The workshop began with the introduction to general conditions of forest conservation in Central Europe, followed by proposed set of criteria of good forestry practice. We identified most probable conflicts between ecosystem services of forests and economy. It was concluded that the concept of multifunctionality is not realistic to some point in forestry and it cannot be implemented without necessary political regulation. This conclusion was supported by the next presentation, providing with realistic overview of limitations in forest management sustainability. The overview of NATURA 2000 status quo revealed lack of capacity of N2K to secure proper conservation of several sites, being treated by regular forestry practices. It was concluded that Natura 2000 should be reinforced by a strong preservation component. Besides species and habitats the chief conservation target in forest protected areas should become natural processes involving natural disturbances.
The next session was devoted to several good forestry practices and their implementation. In the beginning the hosts presented guidelines for implementation of bird protection in forests on the basis of cooperation between Österreichische Bundesforste and Birdlife Austria. The presented case included the concept of ‘biodiversity islands’ and their importance for forest specialists. The project was supported by long-term scientific research. It was stressed that the implementation of science-based sustainable management practices requires time (control loops). The next presentation concerned new management guidelines of beech forests in the case of Bulgaria, pointing out advantages of this new approach (i.e. establishement of none intervention areas) as well as several weak points (uncertain status of excluded areas, no guarancy to keep them as set-aside forever). The presentation from Hungary focused on such none-intervention zones, underlining their importance as reference areas and refugia maintaining old-growth characteristics. It was noticed that such areas provide unique opportunity for spontaneous forest regeneration and transition – the topic that was dealt with during next two presentations. Case study from Greece (the natural regeneration after massive forest fires) brought forward the most important message that stood behind the whole seminar: the nature has a potential to replant itself. It should be supported by wise and reasonable management when necessary, but the initial principle within NATURA 2000 sites should be to give priority to natural processes. Such approach is also justified from the economic point of view. On the contrary, the next case study from Slovakia (management of the NATURA 2000 sites after the windstorm) provided an example of unsustainable approach to large scale disturbances, revealing the long history of infringements within NATURA 2000 in Tatras, yet unsolved. Finally, the example from Scandinavia examined the possibilities to use continuous cover forestry as an aid to biodiversity conservation in boreal commercial forests. Several advantages of CCF vs. ‘clearcut approach’ were presented. The most important conclusion was that CCF could be applied on appr. 50% of forest area, providing necessary buffer zone for small set-aside areas, such as Woodland Key Habitats. However, this approach cannot replace strictly protected core zones. The session was closed by presentation of different forest certification schemes and their impact on forest biodiversity. It was stated that certification can have positive effect of forest condition. The efficiency of this incentive requires the participation of NGOs as watch dogs, keeping the pressure on the whole process. However, it should be always remembered that the lack of independence of certification bodies can corrupt the whole process, as it has happened on several occasions.
Presentations were supplemented by group exercises exploring following problems:
- existing and potential ‘biodiversity friendly’ management measures in main types of European forests: opportunities and obstacles
- selected target species for conservation in main types of European forests and their habitat requirements: how to achieve favourable habitat conditions by means of available and potential forest management tools?
Conclusion
On the basis of presented evidences discussion it was concluded that:
- Forestry is NOT sustainable by definition. Multifunctional approach cannot be successfully implemented without sufficient legal regulation.
- Establishing of NATURA 2000 area on particular forest sites will not guarantee its favourable conservation status if not followed by substantial change in forestry approach. The initial principle should be to allow for natural processes. NATURA 2000 should become more process and decision oriented, and involve a strong wilderness component.
- Establishment of sufficient amount of set-aside areas of diferent size is a necessary condition of maintaining favourable status of NATURA 2000 sites: strict protection is irreplaceable; sustainable forestry is complementary.
- In case of disturbances, allowing for natural regeneration, is beneficial not only for the ecosystem, but also efficient from the economic point of view.