Four Highlights from Natura 2000 Forests NGO Recommendations on Management Four Highlights from Natura 2000 Forests: NGO Recommendations on Management

Four Highlights from Natura 2000 Forests NGO recommendations on management Four Highlights from Natura 2000 Forests: NGO recommendations on management

Authors and contributors: Wilderness and non-intervention management | Stefan Avramov, Bulgarian Biodiversity Foundation, and Pawel Pawlaczyk, Naturalists Club Poland Management for deadwood retention | Pawel Pawlaczyk and Monika Kotulak, Naturalists Club Poland Light forests | Matthias Dolek, Butterfly Conservation Europe, and Zoltán Ilonczai, Bükki National Park Directorate Ecological coherence | Tamás Papp and Csaba Domokos, Milvus Group, and Andriy-Taras Bashta, Animal Research and Protection Association “Fauna” Four Highlights from Natura 2000 Forests Editor | Ildikó Arany NGO recommendations on management Proofreading | Judit Herman Layout | Kristina Vilimaite Editor responsible | Ágnes Zólyomi Photo on the cover page | Piotr Lewandowski

CEEweb for Biodiversity is an international network ofnon-governmental organizations in Central and Eastern Europe. The mission of the network is the conservation of biodiversity through the promotion of sustainable development.

CEEweb for Biodiversity This publication is supported Széher út 40. by the European Commission. H-1021 Budapest, Hungary The donor is not responsible Tel.: (+36 1) 398-0135 for the expressed views Fax: (+36 1) 398-0136 and the use ofthe information www.ceeweb.org made available.

2013 Table of contents

Introduction ...... 4

Wilderness and non-intervention management ....6

Management for deadwood retention...... 22

Light forests ...... 34

Ecological coherence ...... 42

Recommendations and conclusions...... 50

References ...... 54

2 3 3 support the implementation ofthis target and action along with the Strategy’s other provisions, such as the Biogeographic Process where forestry management is a highlighted issue or the preparation of the Guidance on the management offorests in Natura 2000. Introduction However, it is often unclear for planners and managers alike how the above provisions should be integrated into actual management practice. Therefore, it is crucial to share experience and knowledge In 2010 forests and other wooded land covered 177.8 million on different forest management options and their role in achieving hectares which is more than 40% ofthe EU’s land area. This number favourable conservation status of forests. It is also crucial to enhance has been growing throughout the last twenty years. The majority cooperation between countries and stakeholders. These are some ofwooded land is covered by semi-natural forests or woody ofthe goals expected from the ongoing EU processes. plantations, whereas around 20.4 million hectares (equivalent to 13% ofthe total area) offorests were in protected areas in the EU in With this brochure NGOs wish to contribute to this knowledge by 2010.1 European forests are among the most important ecosystems sharing their field-based experiences. We have decided to highlight providing necessary services for Europe’s citizens, including a four selected issues offorest management and to provide a list number or provisioning, cultural, supporting and regulating services. ofgood examples. These issues are relevant across most biogeographical regions and forest habitat types and are important Despite their growing area European forests are exposed to for achieving favourable conservation status of Natura 2000 forest a number ofpressures such as climate change, habitat fragmentation, habitats and the target species they host. Non-intervention invasive alien species or the intensification offorest management. management is one ofthe management options for all zonal climax At the same time resilience and adaptation capacity offorests to forests with large coverage across Europe, especially those in the these pressures depends on their biodiversity and ecological Boreal and Alpine regions. Ecological coherence is key to ensuring coherence. This was already recognized by the EU’s 2006 Forest forest resilience against climate change and other environmental Action Plan which states maintaining and enhancing forest pressures, and important for emblematic species such as large biodiversity as one ofits aims.2 Maintaining biodiversity, sustaining carnivores. Management for deadwood retention is a rather technical 4 ecological health and functioning in forests depends largely on their modification of current practices with significant benefits for 5 5 management. This was acknowledged by the EU Biodiversity Strategy structural and biological diversity ofthe forest. In the context of this to 2020 by adoptingits Target 3: Increase the contribution of brochure light forests are created and sustained by management agriculture and forestry to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity and practice which opens the canopy and allows light to penetrate to the its Action 12: Integrate biodiversity measures in forest management understorey thus enabling a diverse mosaic offorest and grassland plans.3 These plans should include important measures such as patches and favouring traditional land use practices at the same time. maintaining optimal levels of deadwood, preserving wilderness areas, applying ecosystem-based measures to increase the resilience We especially invite forest planners and managers, land use offorests against fires and adopting specific measures developed for planners, conservation professionals and other interested readers Natura 2000 forest sites. There are several ongoing EU processes to to explore, learn and disseminate our findings. Wilderness and non-intervention management

According to the definition given in the EU Guidelines on Wilderness in Natura 2000,4 a wilderness is an area governed by natural processes. It is composed ofnative habitats and species, and large enough for the effective ecological functioning ofnatural processes. It is unmodified or only slightly modified and without intrusive or extractive human activity, settlements, infrastructure or visual disturbance. Wilderness areas are typically national parks or reserves Above: The Three-toed Woodpecker ofIUCN category I covering thousands ofhectares and with a history occurs only in old-growth forests of strict protection. The term ‘wild area’ is used for sites (…) where Right: The highest spruce tree only some ofthe wilderness qualities are found, where the ofBulgaria is in the non-intervention conservation objectives aim at achieving only part ofthe wilderness forest of Parangalitsa reserve, qualities, or where the objective is to fully restore natural processes Rila Mountains and features with the aim to extend the wilderness core zone. Wild areas can have various statuses, for example core zones ofnationally protected or Natura 2000 sites or entire smaller nature reserves under strict protection. Wild areas do not necessarily have a long between minimum intervention and non-intervention along which history ofbeing undisturbed but they need to have the potential the level ofintervention decreases even in case ofnaturally of restoring and sustaining natural processes. occurring disturbances (e.g. bark beetles or forest fires). 6 7 7 Wilderness and wild areas are generally subject to non-intervention Natural dynamics enabled by non-intervention management: all kinds ofhuman intervention are avoided that could Natural structural and functional diversity is a precondition have negative effects. (Exceptions are scientific investigation and in for maintenance ofhigh biodiversity in forests. There are different some cases guided tourism.) In other cases a minimum intervention5 levels and scales ofnatural ecosystem dynamics. In case offorests approach is applied which limits active management to non- it varies from small-scale gap dynamics (as in lowland beech forests) extractive and preventive measures such as eradication ofinvasive through “stand development phases” dynamics (as typical for alien species, maintaining touristic paths, etc. While in each case the montane mixed forests) to the large-scale disturbance dynamics guiding principle is to enable natural processes, there is a continuum (as in typical montane spruce forests). All manifestations of these dynamics should be accepted in wilderness and wild areas as Applicability manifestations of the natural processes maintaining the ecosystem. Even if natural processes are seemingly destructive for the forest Non-intervention management areas significantly contribute stands (as massive wind throws or bark beetle outbreaks), non- to the favourable conservation status ofa large set ofhabitat types, intervention is often a good strategy and may bring along especially primary habitats and dynamic complexes of habitats as conservation benefits. Non-intervention is often less destructive well as the species they host. Examples ofhabitats that benefit from for forest-related biodiversity than active intervention against non-intervention management can be found in all habitat groups the outbreaks; and forest recovery by natural succession is usually under Annex I to the Habitats Directive from aquatic to terrestrial and faster and cheaper than by artificial planting. A network of large non- from closed canopy forests to open grasslands, dunes, peatlands intervention areas contributes to the ecological coherence or rocky habitats. Non-intervention management, however, is not ofhabitats and strengthens their resilience and adaptation capacity appropriate for semi-natural habitats which have evolved as a result to climate change and other external pressures. ofhuman management and land use when their existence depends on human intervention. Conservation benefits Although non-intervention management is normally used for As visualized by the Wilderness Quality Index maps6 of EEA, the best-preserved and primary natural habitats, this approach may the highestvalues ofwilderness qualityin Europe maybe found in the be in some cases also useful for habitat restoration. There is a lot of Alpine and Boreal biogeographical regions. According to experience conservation evidence (especially for forests) when natural from Central and Eastern Europe, national parks and reserves under processes restored natural structure and even species composition non-intervention management often host the best-preserved natural better and cheaper (although normally not faster) than active forests and are hot-spots of forest-related biodiversity which can be restoration measures, and important negative impacts of restoration

Wilderness and non-intervention management considered as reference for other management options. Some species, measures were avoided by “restoration by natural processes”. considered as primeval forest relicts, can be found exclusively Especially natural stand vertical and spatial composition and 8 or almost exclusively there. It is the only possible measure for the deadwood resources can be restored by such non-intervention. 9 9 protection of priority species related to old-growth forests, such as The non-intervention approach must always be considered on a site- beetles Rhysodes sulcatus or Boros schneideri. Also some bird species specific, case-by-case basis. When planning for non-intervention prefer these areas, such as the UralOwl (Strix uralensis), management ofa certain site, it is necessary to involve and get the Tengmalm’s Owl (Aegolius funereus), the White-backed consent from all stakeholders. Several factors have to be considered Woodpecker (Dendrocopos leucotos) and the Three-toed Woodpecker carefully, e.g. sufficient size and zonation, presence of invasive (Picoides tridactylus). Non-intervention supports the structural and species, legal provisions, potential conflicts and socio-economic functional diversity offorests including a sufficient amount of benefits generated by introducing non-intervention management. deadwood, the importance ofwhich is discussed in a separate chapter. Example 1: Non-intervention management of forests in Bulgaria

Similarly to the European experience, Bulgarian national parks and reserves under non-intervention are the best-preserved parts of the Bulgarian Natura 2000 network. In the Bulgarian protected areas there is a long tradition ofnon-intervention management. The country has three national parks which are IUCN category II (total surface of193 047.9 hectares), 55 reserves which are IUCN category I (total surface 77 083.9 hectares) and many protected sites with non- intervention management. There is also a wide network ofnon- intervention areas throughout the network of Bulgarian Nature parks which are IUCN category V.

Non-intervention management on at least 10% ofthe area offorest habitats in Natura 2000 is already a legally adopted requirement within Natura 2000 network in Bulgaria. They are crucial for saving forest biodiversity in Natura 2000 and achieving the favorable status Map ofthe Central Balkan National Park, SCI and SPA; old-growth beech forest of the forest habitats. in the Central Balkan National Park; White-backed Woodpecker. SCI&SPA Central Balkan BG0000494 Examples: Wilderness and non-intervention... Central Balkan SCI&SPA BG0000494 overlaps with the National Park About 28% ofthe site’s territory (20 019 hectares) belong to 10 ofthe same name. It covers 72 021.07 hectares ofwooded and 9 reserves where all human activities are forbidden except for 1111 treeless areas in the middle ofStara Planina Mountain. The site is scientific investigations and crossing the reserves on marked famous for the best-preserved old-growth beech forests in Bulgaria. footpaths. The whole surface ofthe site is public state property. There are more than 25 000 hectares ofbeech forests aged between The NationalParkis IUCN category II. It is also PAN Parkcertified 100 and 300 years. They are mainly Asperulo-Fagetum forests (9130) and 21 019 hectares (29.57% oftotal area) ofits territory is declared and Moesian Beech forests (91W0) but there are also Luzulo-Fagetum as wilderness area. Outside the wilderness area almost all forest (9110) and Cephalanthero-Fagion beech forests (9150). activities are forbidden except small quantities offuel wood harvesting by the local population from coppices and plantations. Hunting is totally forbidden on the territory ofthe whole park. The park protects important Bulgarian populations of the Brown Bear (Ursus arctos), the Wolf (Canis lupus), the Balkan Chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra balcanica) and other mammals. Non-intervention managed forests in the Park are one ofthe most important Bulgarian stronghold for the White-backed Woodpecker (Dendrocopos leucotos), the Pygmy Owl (Glaucidium passerinum), the Hasel Grouse (Bonasa bonasia), the Tengmalm’s Owl (Aegolius funereus), the Semicollared Flycatcher (Ficedula semitorquata), the UralOwl (Strix uralensis), the Black Woodpecker (Dryocopus martius) and many other bird species.

SPA Slavyanka BG0002078, SCI Middle Pirin-Alibotush BG0001028 and Alibotush reserve

SPA Slavyanka protects the most important parts of Slavyanka Map ofSPA Slavyanka, SCI Middle Pirin-Alibotush and Alibotush reserve Mountain in Bulgaria. It covers 19 433 hectares. The majority of the lands and forests belong to the state (57%) and municipalities Non-intervention managed forests ofthe reserve are an important (34%), only 9% is private property. The SPA Slavyanka BG0002078 Bulgarian stronghold for the White-backed Woodpecker partially overlaps with SCI Middle Pirin-Alibotush BG0001028. (Dendrocopos leucotos), the Pygmy owl (Glaucidium passerinum), SCI Middle Pirin-Alibotush BG0001028 protects Natura 2000 habitats the Hasel Grouse (Bonasa bonasia), the Tengmalm’s Owl (Aegolius in South Pirin and Slavyanka Mountains. It covers 68 934 hectares. funereus), the Semicollared Flycatcher (Ficedulase mitorquata) and

Examples: Wilderness and non-intervention... It includes two reserves: Alibotush (1 638 hectares) and Orelyak many other bird species. The unmanaged forests ofthe reserve (785.1 hectares). Both reserves are public state property and are are home ofthe densest Bulgarian Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) 12 managed by the Bulgarian Ministry ofEnvironment and Waters. 1313 population.

Alibotush reserve covers 8.4% ofthe surface ofthe SPA SCI Middle Pirin-Alibotush BG0001028 is outside ofthe reserves (1 638 hectares). It protects the most important old-growth High oro- Alibotush and Orelyak and it is managed by the state forest company. Mediterranean pine forests 95A0 in the region. All human activities 10% ofthe Natura 2000 forests habitats in this site should be are strictly forbidden except for scientific investigations and crossing declared as non-intervention forests according the new guidance on the reserve using marked footpaths. The reserve is a territory management ofthe forests in Natura 2000 in Bulgaria. of Brown Bears (Ursus arctos). Itis inhabited bywolves (Canis lupus) and the Balkan Chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra balcanica). Example 2: Non-intervention management of forests in Poland

Białowieża Great Forest, Poland

Białowieża Great Forest is probably the most famous Polish forest, located in north-eastern Poland (Continental biogeographical region) on the Polish-Byelorussian border. This big forest complex (1 500 km2 from which ca 630 km2 is presently in Poland) was used as royal game area and was not intensively managed for centuries. The forest is composed ofa mosaic ofmixed oak-hornbeam forests (9170 habitat), alluvial alder forests (91E0), bog birch, pine and spruce forests (91D0 habitat), bog alder forests and spruce-pine forests (non Natura 2000 habitats). In the beginning of Non intervention oak-hornbeam forest in Bialowieza Forest, Poland the 20th century the idea to create the forest reserve emerged. In 1923 itwas implemented bythe designation ofca 45 km2 of the best-preserved forest area in the centre ofBiałowieża Great 2000 species like Cucujus cinnaberinus, Rhysodes sulcatus, Forest as non-intervention zone. This was subsequently named Osmoderma eremita, Boros schneideri, Buprestis splendens, Mesosa Białowieża National Park.7 myops, Pytho colvensis and Phryganophilous ruficolis – for most of This core area ofthe present Białowieża National Park now has them this is the most important Natura 2000 site in Poland. The non- almost 100 years tradition of non-intervention management, and is

Examples: Wilderness and non-intervention... intervention approach has also created a unique opportunity to study commonly understood as the best-preserved lowland oak-hornbeam forest ecology because the ecological processes and ecological 14 forest in Europe, the reference for forest dynamics and ecology of relationships are still natural here.8 1515 this habitat. There is wide scientific evidence ofbiodiversity, forest The non-intervention zone in Białowieża Forest is also an important ecology and forest dynamics ofthis site. This is probably the most reference for natural composition, dynamics and status ofnatural often examined forest in Poland. The results clearly show that non- intervention is crucial for forest biodiversity. For a lot of species, habitats. Spontaneous ecological processes were released here, especially small animals like insects and cryptogamous plants including succession and fluctuation in forest stands. As a result (mosses, lichens, fungi), this is the only place in Poland where they ofbark beetle outbreaks the occurrence ofspruce has been reduced are presently noted. Biodiversity is very rich, with a long list of Red creating extensive deadwood-rich areas in a place offormer spruce List species finding refugia here. This zone is also crucial for Natura forests. In the mixed oak-hornbeam forests there are fluctuations in stands composition with expansion oflime and hornbeam and reduction ofpine, spruce and oak. There are various regimes ofnatural disturbances: form small-scale gap dynamics to the most extensive collapse of spruce stands and subsequent regeneration. These processes should be considered as part ofnatural dynamics ofnatural habitats, and are assessed as part of“favourable structure and function” ofthem.

In 2004, with the Polish accession to the EU, the entire Białowieża Forest was designated as Natura 2000 site Puszcza Białowieska PLC200004 (compact bird & habitats site, SPA & SCI). The pilot management plan was prepared in 2004 and the plan of conservation measures was prepared in 2012. Both plans confirmed non-intervention approach as an appropriate way also for conservation ofthe crucial Natura 2000 values in this particular forest complex.9 Natural regeneration ofspruce and rowan in the non intervention zone in Gorce Mts, after bark beetle outbreak The non-intervention approach is currently being expanded. In 1996 the nationalparkwas enlarged to ca 100 km2 and – after some discussions – non-intervention approach was subsequently Gorce Mountains, Poland expanded to the majorityofthe area. In 2003 another 85 km2 were

Examples: Wilderness and non-intervention... designated as nature reserve “Natural Forests of Białowieża” with In Gorce National Park (southern Poland, Gorce mountain range 16 non-intervention predominating. In 2012 – although the national of the Carpathians, Alpine biogeographic region; Natura 2000 bird 1717 park was not enlarged –the new forest management plan for the Special Protection Area Gorce PLB120001, as well as part ofbigger Białowieża Forest assumed a non-intervention approach for Site of Community Importance Ostoja Gorczanska PLH120018) non- intervention management approach is applied to almost all >100-year-old forest stands, i.e. for the next 240 km2. 5 000 hectares of7 030 hectares ofthe nationalpark. 3 600 hectares Thus presently ca 440 km2 of forest is under non-intervention are formally designed as “strictly protected as continuous core management. zone”. Another 1 000 hectares are under non-intervention management without a formal “strict protection” status. These management decisions have helped to create an important wilderness area for mountain forests in the Polish Carpathians. Non-intervention management was found very suitable for forest carnivores, destroying of Bombina variegata reproduction pools, ecosystems10 in the site. In Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests (habitat risk of destroying tree holes and other microbiotopes crucial code 9130) it is followed by high biodiversity and natural values of for biodiversity) were avoided by the non-intervention approach. forests. In the habitat ‘Acidophilous Picea forests ofthe montane to Naturally regenerated areas are very suitable for the Capercaillie. alpine levels (Vaccinio-Piceetea)’ (habitat code 9410) even in case The Golden Eagle (Aquilla chrysatetos), the Lynx (Lynx lynx) and ofbark beetle or sawfly outbreak it seems to be the best possible the Brown Bear (Ursus arctos) also seem to prefer the non- choice. intervention zone and return to Gorce Mountains.

The Gorce case provides evidence for the conservation advantages In higher mountains bark beetle outbreaks should be considered of different bark beetle outbreak strategies. The pressure of bark as part ofnatural disturbance regime typical for the habitat beetles (Ips typographus) on the spruce forests in Gorce Mountains ‘Acidophilous Picea forests ofthe montane to alpine levels (Vaccinio- is permanent with an important outbreak period between 2006 and Piceetea)’ (habitat code 9410). In lower locations, in mixed 2010. Only 52% ofspruce trees survived the 1997–2011 period. spruce-fir-beech forests non-intervention management involves Generally a non-intervention approach was applied while in some natural fluctuation of species abundances, but still maintains areas active protection (removing infected trees and artificial the habitat in terms ofits typical species composition. In the upper regeneration) was used. The original spruce stand was destroyed zone offorests spruce stays dominant. These changes should be either by bark beetles or by tree cutting as a measure against bark considered as natural regeneration and fluctuation and should be beetles. Active protection in fact did not slow the process down. assessed as being in line with Natura 2000 objectives. On non-intervention areas, however, vivid tree regeneration started: Example 3: Non-intervention management in German succession with birch and rowan as well as spruce. The outbreak National Parks episode did not destroy the forest cover or the spruce forest

Examples: Wilderness and non-intervention... permanently; it caused only a “deep fluctuation” in the forest One ofthe assumptions ofthe German Biodiversity Strategy is: structure. Ifdead trees are not removed, montane spruce forests 18 “By the year 2020, throughout 2% ofGermany’s territory, Mother 1919 regenerate rather easily after disturbance over a large area. Nature is once again able to develop undisturbed in accordance with Biodiversity definitely benefits from the non-intervention strategy. her own laws, and areas ofwilderness are able to evolve”. Accordingly The Three-toed Woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus), the Capercaillie to this assumption the non-intervention approach is widely used in (Tetrao urogallus), the Pygmy Owl (Glaucidium passerinum) find forests in German national parks and other protected areas. perfect biotopes in the dead, partially-dead and regenerating spruce forests. The Gorce Mountains have also become a unique tourist area In the montane spruce forests the strategy to not fight against bark with “wilderness impression” as the impression of“massive tree- beetle outbreaks is widely applied as such outbreaks are considered cutting in a protected area” was avoided. A lot ofnegative impacts a part ofthe natural disturbance regime. The most well-known ofcutting and transporting oftrees (disturbance ofbirds and large example is probably the Bayerische Wald national park (Natura 2000 Bayerischer Wald National Park DE6946301 (SPA&SCI))11 where this approach is applied on thousands ofhectares on which the spruce stands. Although the spruce was destroyed by bark beetle, it now regenerates vividly. This creates a positive contrast with the adjacent areas in Šumava NationalParkon the Czech side ofthe border where the forests were destroyed by the fight against bark beetle much more than by bark beetle itself. Nevertheless, the same approach is also applied in other national parks. In Harz National Park (Natura 2000 sites Nationalpark Harz DE4129302 (SCI) & 4229402 (SPA)), the Quitschenberg study area provides knowledge on the ecological results: although many ofthe spruce trees are destroyed by the bark beetle, there is intensive regeneration ofrowan and birch which seem to be the succession phase before spruce forest recovery. In fact, it is the process ofre-naturalization ofthe spruce forests of Even such artificial pine stands are sometimes treated by non-intervention, the High Harz: a natural transition ofthe former cultivated forest to achieving conservation benefits the forest with a much more natural structure. There is even scientific evidence for spruce forest regeneration after bark beetle Even in the strongly transformed, artificial forests the idea “Let nature outbreaks showing that “doing nothing”, as happened in the German be nature” is the guidingprinciple in mostofGerman nationalparks. national parks, is in many cases the best conservation strategy.12 In Müritz National Park (northern Germany, Continental biogeographic The non-intervention approach is predominantly used for deciduous region; Natura 2000 site Seen, Moore und Wälder Des Müritz gebiete forests in German national parks and nature reserves, especially DE2543301 (SCI) & Müritz-Seenland und Neustrelitzer DE2642401 for beech forests, as the best way to maintain natural features (SPA)) –also an artificialpine forests plantation –in 1998 the forest ofthe forest structure and biodiversity, or to restore these structures was split into three categories regardless ofits condition. Category A

Examples: Wilderness and non-intervention... in formerly managed forests. The most famous are the beech forests included deciduous trees, older coniferous forests and the forests 20 in the Hainich, Kellerwald-Edersee, Jasmund and Müritz national which developed by themselves on the former military training 2121 parks (Continental biogeographic region, respective Natura 2000 ground. Management was stopped here in 1998. Category B included sites: Hainich DE4828301 (SCI & SPA), Kellerwald DE4819301 (SCI)& forests which were treated between 1998 and 2008, e.g. middle-aged DE4920401, (SPA); Jasmund DE1447302 (SCI); Serrahn DE2645301 coniferous forests. These forests now belong to category A and are (SCI) & Wald- und Seenlandschaft Lieps-Serrahn DE2645402 (SPA)), also no longer treated. Category C included younger coniferous trees designated, as example ofnatural Central European beech forests which willcontinue to be cleared until2018. By then forest treatment with typical biodiversity and natural features, as a UNESCO World in the Müritz NationalParkshould be completed and itis assumed that Natural Heritage site.13 The most important reasons justifying non-intervention will be the only approach used in the future.14 the designation were the non-intervention approach and naturalness The potential influence ofthis assumption on biodiversity is still of the structure. discussed.15 Management for deadwood retention

Why is deadwood crucial in forests?

By deadwood we mean standingtrees (snag), trees broken by a storm or the fall of another tree (volis), laying logs, dead branches, down dead trees with only one extremity touchingthe ground and coarse woody debris (portion ofdecayed trunks).16 There is a sayingthat “the dead tree is more alive than the livingtree”. Itis also said that this lifecycle stage in forests is necessary for the continuation of a healthy ecosystem. When we consider biodiversity richness created by cinnaberinus, Rhysodes sultactus, Limoniscus violaceus) also in the deadwood, these sayings are actually already proven scientific fact. Habitat Directive Annexes. Besides animals, plants also benefit from deadwood as habitat e.g. bryophytes. In Białowieża Forest, Deadwood is a source ofa number offorest ecosystem services. in a 100-hectare compartment 75 species ofmoss and 24 species The most important is creating habitat for other organisms such as ofliverworts were found, most ofthem related to deadwood. Last but carnivores (place for hunting and digging), smaller mammals, not least, fungi are the most visible element on decayingwood. rodents, bats (magazines for seeds, hiding and reproduction places), Dead trunks often playthe role ofa cradle for new generation of reptiles and amphibians (place for hiding, hibernation in winter, forests, providing seedlings with a perfect habitat with great amounts resting, feeding or reproduction) and, most obviously, birds. Nearly ofwater and allkinds ofbiogenic substances. In the forests of Babia halfofforest bird species occurring in Austria, for example, Góra NationalParkin Poland 50% ofnew generation ofthe Norway are classified as vulnerable or nearly-threatened according 22 Spruce was found on deadwood covering only 5% ofthe surface! 2323 to the Austrian Red List. These species can be found in a wide range The comprehensive review ofbiodiversity in deadwood was published ofhabitats; however, most are especially adapted to specific by Bobiec at al.18 and recently by Stockland, Siitonen and Jonsson.19 “old-growth conditions” that have become very rare in commercial forests.17 Woodpeckers are good examples. The biggest group Deadwood in the forest is definitely crucial for maintaining forest benefiting from deadwood is invertebrates (mostly insects). Only in biodiversity. For Natura 2000 habitats maintaining the full variety of Central Europe there are about 1 500 species ofsaproxylic beetles. habitat-related biodiversity is one ofthe objectives: to achieve and Deadwood-dependent beetles are a crucial part offorest biodiversity maintain favourable conservation status, the deadwood resources and almost all ofthese species are strongly threatened; most of them are one ofthe crucial features considered among “structure and are included in the Red Lists, and some (Osmoderma eremita, Cucujus function” of the forest. Deadwood in the forest provides several cultural ecosystem services and >10 cm mean diameter (lying), or >10 cm diameter at breast too such as improving the quality ofthe landscape, attracting tourism height (standing). In some countries, according to the local forestry and education as well as providing spiritual values such as feeling tradition, the diameter threshold of7 cm is applied. Stumps of the ofremoteness, being in the wild and a general closeness to nature. fallen trees are normally not taken into consideration. As for regulating services deadwood is also a great magazine of There are two possible approaches of considering particular water and humidity, creating a specific microclimate. It also helps elements: (a) count what is inside the plot; (b) count what originates water retention by slowing down water flow on the surface and from the plot (have original roots inside the plot). The second in the ground. The same happens on steep slopes vulnerable to soil approach is a bit more difficult in practical application but gives erosion: deadwood stops avalanches and soil movement. Deadwood the additional possibility to assess the variation ofelement size. accumulates not only water but also great amounts oforganic matter, biogens, carbon, nitrogen and other elements.

How to assess deadwood resources? (a) counting what is Deadwood provides relevant habitat for thousands of European in the plot forest organisms, several ofwhich are threatened. Data on deadwood can be collected at relatively low cost in national forest inventories and the indicator is reported by countries according to agreed definitions. Therefore deadwood volume was selected as one ofthe crucial indicators ofsustainability offorest management as one ofthe 25 Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators monitored by the European Environmental Agency.20

There are different methodologies but most are based on the detailed counting ofdeadwood on sampling plots, which is then Management for deadwood retention extrapolated to the whole forest area. Sampling plots may be random 24 points or a regular network ofpoints covering the forest area (b) counting what originates 2525 in which circle or square plots are designated. In Polish studies, from the plot for example, a regular network of0.05 circle hectare (12.62 m radius) plots was used. Because deadwood volume in the forest is highly variable, normally at least 20 to 40 plots are necessary to get reliable assessment for the assessment unit. Using more plots allows for assessment and comparison of resources for internal units, as nature reserves and managed forests, particular Natura 2000 habitats in the site, etc. Only coarse deadwood elements are counted. EEA recommends the counting ofonly elements with >2 m in length Howmuch deadwood should there be in the forest? In the typical managed European lowland forests the deadwood amount is usually 1–10 m3/hectare which is definitely not enough The reference should be the “natural” amount: For the natural forests for forest biodiversity. It is a bit more in the mountains where ofEurope, amount >50-100 m3/hectare is typical, with the recorded there are some difficult-to-access places. The amounts maximum up to 250m3/hectare, in single cases even up to of 20–40 m3/hectare were recorded in some managed forests 500 m3/hectare.21 The typical amounts are higher in the temperate (for example Carpathians, Poland) which means such amount is still zone (UK, centralEurope, Alps, allmountains), a bit lower in boreal possible to achieve even under normal forest management. forests and significantly lower in the Mediterranean. Such amounts are Not only the quantity, but also the quality ofdeadwood is important. achievable in non-intervention zones, nature reserves, national parks The biggest elements are normally more valuable for biodiversity etc. in which the targetdefinitelyshould be “as much as possible and (some species do not explore small pieces, requiring for example as given by the natural processes”. The crucial conservation question 40 cm as minimum dead log diameter). Maintaining the variation is “How much is enough?” for maintaining biodiversity. There are ofdeadwood form (standing vs. lying, broken vs. uprooted, etc.) some scientific research and reviews on this issue. In Scandinavian is important because some related species have very specific forests it was assessed22 that full deadwood-related biodiversity demands. Continuity of different decay stages is necessary needs at least some forest parts with >100 m3/hectare, the less- because most of related species prefer a particular stage. demanding xylobionthic species need still 20 m3/hectare; resources with <20 m3/hectare are not useful for biodiversity. In German oak- How to restore and protect deadwood? beech forests it was assessed23 that 40 m3/hectare is necessary for the favourable status ofxylobionthic biodiversity. The Polish guidance To allow for deadwood retention dead trees obviously should not for birds habitat assessment24 estimates that one pair ofthe White- be removed from the forests. Butitmaynotbe enough: trees musthave backed Woodpecker (Dendrocopos leucotos) needs, for favourable the opportunityto age and die. Notonlydead, butalso dyingtrees must not be removed, which is sometimes in conflict with the foresters wish status, approximately 100 hectare offorest with >50 m3/hectare “to fight against forest pests”. In order to become deadwood, especially deadwood, and one pair ofthe Three-toed Woodpecker (Picoides coarse deadwood (which is crucialfor biodiversity) trees must also have tridactylus) needs approximately 200 hectares with >35 m3/hectare

Management for deadwood retention an opportunity to age. In a long-term perspective, retention ofgroups deadwood. There are a lot ofsimilar estimations, with similar results. oftrees (5–10% ofeach stand) saved untouched in the forestduring 26 The most comprehensive European review by Müller and Bütler25 provides allforest cuttings, and then saved tillnaturaldeath and decay is a way 2727 the values critical for biodiversity (different groups ofdeadwood-related to restore and sustain deadwood resources. Normally, natural processes of tree aging and dieback in central European forests can provide plants and animals) with ranges of10–80 m3/hectare for boreal and 0.2–2 m3/hectare ofdeadwood yearly. In cases ofinsect or fungi-caused lowland forests and 10–150 m3/hectare for mixed-montane forests, stand diebackitis more, which from the pointofviewofbiodiversity with peakvalues of20–30 m3/hectare for boreal coniferous forests, is notnecessarilya naturaldisaster, butmayalso be a deadwood 30–40 m3/hectare for mixed montane forests, and 30–50 m3/hectare restoration opportunity. In some protected sites fast restoration of for lowland oak-beech forests. With the above average uneven spatial deadwood resources is sometimes achieved by implementing distribution (includingislands with huge amounts ofdeadwood) is better conservation measures such as cuttingthe trees and abandoning them for the biodiversity than the homogenous distribution. on the ground. Microhabitats

Although rather coarse woody debris (dead logs, trunks or their fragments) are considered under the name of’deadwood’, small ’microdeadwood’ structures on living trees (such as cavities, dead branches, scars, cracks, etc.) are also important for forest biodiversity. The number of such structures per forest hectare may be a useful indicator for monitoring.26 In natural forests thousands ofsuch structures per hectare are typical. In managed forests their number is dramatically reduced. In order to save forest biodiversity the amount ofsuch structures must be restored. For this all trees with such structures must be consistently saved.

Photos above: A fallen tree serves as a microhabitat in Bialowieza National Park DeadwoodManagement for deadwood retention 28 2929

Above: a broken tree would become a microhabitat

Top left: Buxbaumia viridis, AnnexII moss, growing on deadwood logs „Biodiversity tree" – examples of different microhabitats on the single tree, most of them are „microdeadwood” elements 30 Examples: Management for deadwood retention oefehdawo,epcal ntesras alyzone valley streams’ s the and in approach especially Cre stage. deadwood, non-intervention early fresh a an more with in reserves trees dead nature more require they because there, eoigdrn eetyas hsi niprattra fo threat important o an is This intensification of years. recent s indicator decay an during first is removing the which elem forests absent, stable managed the almost the not is relic In a past, be the only management. in may present sa forests management not is managed intensive in less situation of the deadwood Ho of that forests. shows amount managed huge of assessment parts detailed some more in a also but reserves nature viridisBuxbaumia species: insect listed schneideri Boros sulcatus, 2000 Rhysodes cinnaberinus, Natura following the of Euplectus frivaldszkyi lepidopterus, Eurythyrea Lacon austriaca, Sternogrossa, forests: primeval of aigteeterls oaiiswti h niePoland entire the spe List within Red of localities lot last a their e.g. there ext forests, with having beech of correlated are biodiversity resources rich deadwood good better. Generally, much needs conservation biodiversity meets which nevninmngmn,teaon a obe c 0m 60 (ca doubled has n of amount years the 20 man management, about after Polish intervention reserves other with nature in comparison Nevertheless, in forests. high very is which average an cinnaberinus oet,93)wsasse sapoiaey3 m 30 approximately as assessed was 9130) forests, ouei h ec oet hbtttype (habitat deadwood forests The beech reserves. the nature in few a volume with dominated forests are beech PLH180013 managed Ostoj by Slonne sites Gory 2000 and Natura PLH1800012 Poland, Przemyska of Foothills Carpathian the Poland In Foothill, Przemyśl and Mountains Slonne and oo schneideriBoros h pce r itiue o nyi present in only not distributed are species The . ahuiagaii,Apdsmlnrs Peltis melanurus, Tachyusida Ampedus gracilis, n tes,adtebgetPls populations Polish biggest the and others), and aua20 osraintargets conservation 2000 Natura , Asperulo-Fagetum 3 n moss and /hectare: Cucujus e baudii, dea (relicts deadwood f is some cies, 3 a beech /hectare) r ating s remely Cucujus e The fe. aving n of ent tage wever, on- aged t hsi i oetcmlx(a100km 000 1 (ca complex forest big a Poland is Park, This National Drawa measur and Forest forests conservation Great managed site Drawa the 2000 in Natura also as side) necessary each still on are stream the from m (30 sculcatusRhysodes oetNtr 00Gr Slonne Gory 2000 Natura forest ssmlfe,addawo ouei eue oa average an to reduced is m volume structure 2.5 age of deadwood trans and management: also forest are simplified, of is forests years beech 300 the former beech of of the Most by areas 9130). significant code f contains (habitat previous still by which (Con transformed management strongly Poland Uroc region), north-western in Importance biogeographic Community PLH320046) of Site Drawskiej 2000 Puszczy Natura as designated a30hcae fbehfrssi h ainlpr n2000. in park national the in expand forests was beech of approach hectares 300 decreas na non-intervention ca the strongly the Under intervention discussions 1990. of many in intensity Park the compl National the status Drawa park with pa as core (together rivers) bigger and designated much A lakes was years. forests act 100 beech ca without the last of almost the Hale) saved during was (Heilige forest management Radecin beech of reserve nature hectares) 40 as (ca fragment small a 3 hcae eetees ntecnrlpr ftecomplex the of part central the in Nevertheless, /hectare. , uuu cinnaberinusCucujus 2 and rmwih74km 744 which from oo schneideriBoros dadafter and ed orest ive sthere. es forests formed dto ed tinental 2 xof ex nrlcCarpathian relic in tional is zyska , rt 31 31 31 The conservation status assessment and biodiversity survey in 2013 showed the following:27

Radecin reserve, after ca 100 years of non-intervention with ca 67 m3/hectare deadwood is definitely a biodiversity hot-spot, important not only on the local, but also on the regional and Beech forest in Drawa Great Forest, Poland. Leftto right: after ca 100 years ofnon nationalscale. In the whole 1 000 km2 forest complex Radecin intervention: biodiversity hot-spot; after 15 years of non intervention: biodiversity reserve is the crucial habitat ofthe Hermit Beetle (Osmoderma recovering; managed beech forest: poor with biodiversity eremite), hosting >80% ofthe local beetle population on 0.05% ofthe local oak-beech forest area. The site, although very small, deadwood and broken trees) are almost absent here and the is hosting a long list ofRed List beetles with primeval forest average amount ofdeadwood is 2.5 m3/hectare. Nevertheless, relicts as Stenagostus rombeus, Platycis cosnardi, Triplax elongata ifa single element ofdeadwood exists, it is usually used by rare and Kiklioacalles navieresi. The same is true forother species. The biodiversity regeneration potential in the forest biodiversity components: the site is an extremely important hot- complex is probably maintained by the existence ofsuch refugia spot also for rare and endangered species ofepiphytic mosses, as Radecin reserve. lichens and fungi. Some species have the only regional (north-western Polish) localities there. The local conservation In the new management plan, which is in preparation in 2013, status of the habitat Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests (9130) was the non-intervention approach will be extended for the whole beech assessed as perfect, with all structures and functions typical for and oakforest area in the Drawa NationalPark(ca 1 800 hectares) beech forest present. There is a natural ‘small-scale’ disturbance as probably the best way to the restoration ofthis habitat’s original regime offorest dynamics. This is based on small canopy gaps biodiversity. For the managed forests around the national park some after death or breaking of single trees, resulting mosaic other conservation measures will be proposed such as saving of oak-beech stands of different development phases. the retention tree biogroupes, small biodiversity refuges and no-take belts along the streams, rivers and lake banks (micro non- The beech forests have become significantly more valuable Examples: Management for deadwood retention intervention areas covering 5–10% ofthe managed forest area). after 10 to 20 years ofnon-intervention management. Nevertheless, although the state ownership of almost all forests 32 Ca 30 m3/hectare of deadwood was accumulated. 3333 creates a good opportunity to improve conservation status, and the There is evident and significant expansion ofsome species scientific justification of the conservation needs seems to be strong, typical for natural forests in these stands. The biodiversity the opposition ofstate foresters against each change ofthe usual ofbeetles and fungi, even after so short a time, is 2–3 times management is significant and the final solutions are still discussed. higher than in the adjacent commercial beech forests. The Drawa beech forests are also designated as Lasy Puszczy The beech forests outside the national park, for which and Drawa PLB320016 Special Protection Area for birds. The non- “management as usual” was applied till now, are biodiversity intervention approach creates a perfect habitat for most of forest poor, although they still have the potential to restore their birds protected here, such as woodpeckers, the Red-breasted original biodiversity. Key structural elements (old trees, Flycatcher, the Eagle Owl, the Black Stork and others. Light Forests

A light forest is characterized by sparse stands oftrees so sunshine penetrates the forest down to the ground level over large parts ofthe day. As a result there is a well-developed grass and herb layer. Additionally, there is a layer ofshrubs and young trees; this may be sparse or rather dense. All layers (including mature trees) are influenced by direct sunshine, which makes these forests unique habitats. As this main feature oflight forests is neither reflected by phyto-sociological units nor by habitats ofthe Habitats Directive, light forests may belong to several ofthe units ofthese classification systems.

Importance for biodiversity

Light forests and their importance for biodiversity are well-known from Central and North-Western Europe. Several publications summarize clear results supporting this.28 In light forests unique habitat conditions are found which harbour large numbers of specialized species not found elsewhere. Examples include 34 xylobiontic (saproxylic) beetles, butterflies, moths and ants. These 3535 are usually forest-dwelling species which need the combination of some typical forest features with sunshine and warm conditions. It is most obvious with xylobiontic beetles which need wood oftheir host tree under warm and sunny conditions for their reproduction. Light Books. Studies ofbutterflies and ants produced similar results. forests are species-rich and rich in species ofregional and national Moreover, in all groups large numbers ofendangered and specialized Red Data books. A study in Germany, for example, revealed more species were included. Light forests present clearly a unique habitat than 400 species ofxylobiontic beetles and almost 300 species quality that harbours a good proportion ofEuropean biodiversity. ofmoths including a high percentage ofspecies listed in Red Data Management options

Light forests may be formed by natural dynamics (e.g. river dynamics, pest outbreaks, grazing of ungulates), abiotic conditions (e.g. steep slopes, surplus or lack ofwater, local late frosts) and human influences. This brochure focuses on the last option. Human influences are mainly different land use practices which have to be supported and maintained adequately to preserve the specific biodiversity of light forests. Two important traditional land use practices that maintain light forests are coppicing and forest grazing. These kinds oftraditional management systems are often labeled as “not sustainable”, as their productivity oftimber may be low, but they may produce some secondary forest and agricultural products and, most importantly, unique habitats.

Even under normal forestry, patches oflight forest may be integrated Boloria euphrosyne, in the economic system, e.g. along forest roads, at forest edges a butterfly species of light forests or along rivers as part ofan ecological management. Light forests supplement strategies that highlight the importance of old-growth forests. Both strategies are important and are beneficial for contrasting sets of species. Both strategies form habitats that

Light forests harbour large numbers ofendangered and specialized parts of European biodiversity. 36 Coppicing with standards, few years 3737 after the cut of firewood

Zygaena osterodensis is a brightly coloured and day-flying species of light forests, which systematically belongs to the micro-moths Example 1: Coppice with Standards in Bavaria, Germany

The Bavarian Conservation Programme for Forests started the project ‘action plan for light-penetrated forests’ with open canopies, e.g. managed as coppice with standards. The action plan was established by the Bavarian Environmental Protection Agency (Bayerisches Landesamt für Umwelt, LfU), Augsburg. The aim ofthe action plan was to identify the habitat requirements of rare and endangered species of the studied light-penetrated forests (coppice with standards) and to establish a standard procedure to detect and conserve these species and their habitats. Coppice with standards, after cutting the undergrowth for fire-wood. Thin twigs are The steps ofspecies action plan: visible, which remain on the site.

1. Identifying ecological requirements of endangered species in coppice with standards The action plan has been successful in defining conservation needs

2. Generating a list ofimportant habitat types and priorities and translating them into measures to improve the situation in the forest. An extremely light canopy cover of5–30% 3. Identification of indicator species in parts ofthe forest plays a key role for specific biodiversity; some 4. Development ofa standard procedure for rapid evaluation additional structures such as nectar sources, shrub diversity and of individual forests distribution, gaps, old trees, etc. add to habitat quality. 5. Application ofthe standard procedure A close cooperation with the forest users was established so that Examples: Light forests future developments in the forests will happen in accordance with With the emphasis ofconservation efforts to forests used as coppice conservation authorities. As a result ofthe action plan a financial 38 with standards, a type offorest use was chosen which has declined 3939 support tool within the Bavarian Support Programme for Nature atan immense rate in Bavaria. In contrastto this decline in Bavaria Conservation by Contract for forests (Vertragsnaturschutz-Programm (and elsewhere), efforts have been undertaken to re-establish Wald, abbreviated to ‘VNP Wald’) was developed and is applied now. coppice with standards, e.g. in southwest Germany near Freiburg, It helps to maintain coppicing and strengthens the contact and the conservation value ofthis forest type has been recognized. of villagers with conservation authorities and forestry. In some cases As an ancient form offorest use with traditional regulations, (e.g. coppice with standards in the “Steigerwald” region) close coppice with standards also attracts interest in its historical contacts and joint willingness to overcome difficulties together and sociological value.29 already form a new pride oflocal people in species richness and occurrence ofrare species in their forests. Example 2: Forest grazing in Bükki National Park, Hungary

Grazed forests in Hungary were developed by traditional agriculture typically on foothills and slopes originally covered with zonal forests. Solitary trees do not form a closed canopy, allowing for the development of light-penetrated patches with dense herbaceous vegetation between the trees. These grassland patches are sustained by grazing. This system allows for a longer grazing period throughout the year because unlike open grasslands, these grassland patches, being protected by the shades oftrees, are less vulnerable to the summer droughts, staying fresh and green until much later.

Managed for centuries, grazed forests have developed a unique community of closed forest species coexisting with species of open grazed habitats and those now rare species which have been connected to traditional agriculture. Traditionally-grazed forests

consist ofold trees and thus provide habitats to rare beetle species Grazed ‘Hidegkút-laposa’ forest in Bükki National Park (Osmoderma eremita, Cucujus cinnabarinus). The combination ofold

trees and grazing animals favour the bird Hoopoe (Upupa epops). The grazing forest ‘Hidegkút-laposa’ consists of Turkish Oaks The habitat is preferred by grassland species too, such as the Suslik (Quercus cerris) and Sessile Oaks (Quercus petraea) which are more

Examples: Light forests (Spermophilus citellus), several species of scarab beetles than a hundred years old. The traditional management had been (Scarabaeidae) feeding on dung, the larvae ofwhich serves as prey 40 abandoned for decades resulting in succession ofshrubs and Turkish 4141 ofrare species ofrove beetles (Staphylinidae). Once the extensive Oaks overgrowing grassland patches. Habitat restoration has been grazing is abandoned, the grazed forest – having been created and performed on more than 200 hectares so far including an initial maintained by management – undergoes natural succession cutting ofthe young trees and shrubs and supporting the recovering ofshrubs and trees. Within a few decades the habitat turns into herb layer with regular mowing. After strengthening the herb layer closed canopy zonal forest, losing a significant part ofits biodiversity grazing with Hungarian Grey Cattle was reintroduced in 2005 with along with the cultural heritage ofa management system practiced 60 animals (to be increased to approximately 100). Management is for centuries. This process, adverse from a conservation point implemented by a local farmer under the supervision ofthe National ofview, can be reversed by habitat restoration and by maintaining Park Directorate. Information about the site is available on the traditional management systems. website ofthe Bükki National Park Directorate and upon request.30 Ecological coherence

In the context ofthe Nature Directives and at the scale ofthe whole Natura 2000 network coherence is achieved when the full range of variation in valued features is represented; replication of specific features occurs at different sites over a wide geographic area; dispersal, migration and genetic exchange ofindividuals is possible between relevant sites; all critical areas for rare, highly-threatened and endemic species are included; and the network is resilient to disturbance or damage caused by natural and anthropogenic factors.31

Management for coherence

Aiming for ecological coherence involves protection of species and habitats ofEuropean importance within designated sites and outside, in the wider landscape. The quality ofcurrent sites can be improved by increasing the number or size ofsites, improving habitat management and reducing pressures originating from the wider environment by designating buffer zones. In the wider landscape 42 it is necessary to ensure ecological connectivity between sites. 4343 Aiming for connectivity ofthe landscape can have slightly different interpretations within Europe. In the highly fragmented landscapes of Central and Western Europe mostly the network approach is applied which enhances connections between sites by defining core areas and physical corridors or ‘stepping stones’.32 for wild fauna and flora. Such features are those which, by virtue of This is reflected in Article 10 ofthe Habitats Directive,33 provisioning their linear and continuous structure (such as rivers with their banks or that Member States shall endeavour to improve the ecological the traditional systems for marking field boundaries) or their function coherence ofNatura 2000 by maintaining, and where appropriate as stepping stones (such as ponds or small woods), are essential for the developing, features ofthe landscape which are ofmajor importance migration, dispersal and genetic exchange ofwild species. In Europe the network approach is applied through the Pan-European Example 1: Realizing trans-boundary ecological Ecological Network (PEEN),34 as part ofthe Pan-European Biological connectivity in the Ukrainian Carpathians43 and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS) and the Natura 2000 network at EU scale. At regional, trans-boundary, national and local This example shows a design-led process for establishing trans- scales there are many examples for ecological corridors and boundary ecological corridors intended to meet specific networks throughout Europe. Regarding Central and Eastern Europe, conservation goals through habitat suitability modeling, defining CEEweb published the study Assessing Green Infrastructure functionally-linked habitat patches and identifying management Elements in the Visegrad Countries.35 strategies. The purpose ofthe project was the development of practices for the establishment of trilateral trans-boundary Enhancing ecological coherence is one ofthe goals ofthe ecological corridors for large mammals in two pilot exercises EU Biodiversity Strategy,36 envisaging in its Target 2 ecosystems connecting Skoilivski Beskydy National Park and Vyzhnytskyi and their services to be maintained and enhanced by establishing National Park in Ukraine with the nearest protected areas in Poland green infrastructure and restoring at least 15% ofdegraded (East Carpathian Biosphere Reserve) and Romania (Muntii Rodnei NP ecosystems by 2020. In 2013 the European Commission adopted its or Vanatori NP) in order to enhance existing policy instrument Green Infrastructure Strategy37 to promote the deployment ofgreen and their implementation. Actions carried out by the project were infrastructure in the EU in urban and rural areas. Forthe help of the following.44 planners and managers, the related guidance is already available: Organize a kick-off meeting with key stakeholders on wildlife, Guidance on the maintenance oflandscape connectivity features protected areas, land use and spatial planning from all three ofmajor importance for wild flora and fauna38 sides ofthe border. Note by DG Environment Towards Better Environmental Options Elaborate a work plan.

Ecological coherence for Flood risk management39 Delineate a study area. 44 Natural Water Retention Measures40 4545 Identify reference species (The Brown Bear, the European Bison, Guidance on Integrating Climate Change and Biodiversity the Wild Cat and the Lynx). into Environmental Impact Assessment41 Identify habitat requirement parameters of reference species Guide to Multi-Benefit Cohesion Policy Investments in Nature (through expert assessment) to be used for modeling and Green Infrastructure42 and mapping ofcorridors. Develop a model producing GIS (ArcGIS) habitat preference maps ofthe reference species based on their identified habitat requirements, using a landscape classification method provided by the Humboldt University ofBerlin.

Collect field and literature data for inputs into the model.

Elaborate corridor scenarios using GIS (Corridor Designer) with GIS layers on habitat preference, settlement, infrastructure, land use, land status and ownership.

Acquire additional information from consultations with relevant government agencies and other stakeholders.

Review established corridor scenarios.

Agree on location offinal corridors during a meeting with experts and stakeholders. Map of the trilateral trans-boundary ecological corridor Identify corridor units, each characterized by specific land use and ownership issues requiring a specific management strategy. instruments such as Memorandum ofUnderstanding, funding Elaborate needs and conditions for each unit to achieve mechanisms, management plans, ecological infrastructure design a sustainable ”conductivity” regime for wildlife, including:

Examples: Ecological coherence and fundraising. - new “steppingstone” protected areas, 46 Evaluate carried-out measures and determine a strategy 4747 - memoranda ofunderstandingwith land users/owners, to complete the ecological corridors, including a follow-up. - specialor adapted infrastructure, Compile policy recommendations and lessons learned and share - compensation mechanisms. them with policymakers concerned. Estimate costs for the establishment and implementation of these regimes.

Establish corridors and implement their management by local competent authorities, land users, owners and managers through Example 2: Protecting movement corridor of large carnivores between Continental and Alpine SCIs by involving NGOs in local planning in Romania

This example shows how quantitative evaluation ofspecies moving through a landscape can be used to assist landscape development planning at local and regional scales with the aim ofsecuring connectivity between populations or important localities of that particular species.

The SCI Dealurile Târnavei Mici–Biches (ROSCI0297) was designated as one ofthe most important Natura 2000 sites from the Continental bioregion in Romania for the protection oflarge carnivores (mainly that ofthe Brown Bear and the Wolf). For the long-term persistence ofthe two species in the site, itis essentialthatthe site maintains A Brown bear wearinga radio a functional ecological connection to the neighboring mountainous collar near the town ofSovata, area, most notably to the SCI Călimani-Gurghiu (ROSCI0019, part of Romania Romania’s Eastern Carpathians) located in the Alpine biogeographical region.

At the meeting point ofthe two areas there is a popular resort

(the SPA town ofSovata) which is in continuous expansion. The urban area ofSovata town Ecological coherence: Examplestii To preserve functional connectivity between the two sites, during and the movement 48 the revision ofthe Resettlement Plans ofthe localities Sovata and of collared bears 4949 Eremitu, the NGO Milvus Group (the responsible body for the administration ofSCI Târnavei Mici–Biches) asked for the most crucial movement corridors to be excluded from the Resettlement Plans. Arguments were based on concrete telemetry data from that specific area coming from brown bears fitted with GPS-GSM collars (VECTRONIC Aerospace, model GPS Pro Light 4) in 2013 in the frame ofa project implemented by the Milvus Group.45 The planned urban area ofSovata town, adjusted to Brown Bear movements Recommendations and conclusions

In line with the provisions ofthe Habitats Directive, management Non-intervention management provides, in most cases, important ofNatura 2000 sites should contribute to achieving the Favourable conservation advantages as well as societal benefits such as Conservation Status ofthe listed habitats across the biogeographic tourism and other cultural ecosystem services. Therefore, region and at nationallevel. This is a rather wide scale which has for natural habitats and especially for natural forest habitats, non- to be downscaled to site level by setting specific conservation intervention management should be always considered as one objectives for each site through the management planning process. ofthe management options. Application ofthe non-intervention approach should be decided locally at site level, taking into The so-identified individual conservation objectives must be consideration ecological, social and economical requirements. achieved by daily management practices. This brochure aims In case ofsites which are designated for nature conservation as to provide cases for planners and managers as inspiring examples a priority and where there are no conservation advantages which may help define particular management options in relation ofintervention and active management, non-intervention should be to the conservation objectives oftheir forest sites. Recommendations a priority option (such as in national parks, nature reserves along the four highlighted issues can be summarized as below: and otherprotected areas ofIUCN categoryI and II).

Although non-intervention management is most relevant for 50 1. Wilderness and non-intervention management 5151 the best-preserved primary natural habitats, this approach may Manifestations of natural ecosystem dynamics should be also be in some cases useful for habitat restoration. In many considered as part of the Favourable Conservation Status cases, natural processes can restore natural structure and even ofnatural habitats (including most offorest habitats) at the species composition offorests, in a better and cheaper (although biogeographic region scale. For achieving and maintaining FCS, normally not faster) way than active restoration measures. at least part ofthe habitat resources should be managed by natural processes. This is necessary for maintaining at least 2. Management for deadwood retention examples ofnatural dynamics typical for the habitat type Deadwood should be clearly expressed as an important (including natural disturbances) and in most cases it is useful structural feature of forest habitats necessary for maintaining for maintaining the full spectrum of habitat-related biodiversity. the habitat-related biodiversity and as element of “structure Intro... Deadwood 52 Recommendations and conclusions Intro... .Lgtforest Light 3. .Eooia coherence Ecological 4. onciiycnb civdb euigteoealpressu overall the reducing landsca by regions achieved these be In bu can intact pressure. connectivity relatively larg increasing still are are under there which coming Europe areas Eastern natural South and coherent Eastern Northern, In adueo fseiso aiaso ih oet r tl p still are forests light of habitats perfo or still species if maintained communities or be local use if must land grazing especially fore forest supported, and Traditional and timber coppicing as challenging. much such produce economically uses not be do undergrow may they thus herb-rich if fore and even and that forests, grass- accepted and valuable be gaps are to many has trees, It species, few of species. with numbers specialized large only also European of not but habitats harbouring important biodiversity extremely are forests Light orsoedawo n edodrltdbiodiversity. opportuni an but deadwood-related and case disaster some natural deadwood in a restore least to at considered change be to which not pests need a forest should is towards There attitude necessary. the “microdeadwood” also is providing production. trees microhabitats all deadwood of coarse developm saving the future Consistent and saving ensuring for trees and old trees trees of future dying of group trees and and dead trees uprooted actual broken, the retention also leaving but only site not resources the requires deadwood forest sufficient the in maintaining and Restoring considering thresholds. account ecol into scientifically-based deadwood taken the of be tar quality must a set and To requirements quantity habitats. of sufficient forest part of be achieving objectives suffi should deadwood conservation maintaining of the or quality Restoring and distribution deadwood. quantity spatial of not the quality also the estimating but out, and amount carried average assessment be the should only detailed sites resources 2000 deadwood Natura of In function”. and are t mthis rm resent. e for get sts ogical pe st cient on res er s ty ent th rcse yofrn hi ainladlclexperiences th local to and contribute national to their ready are offering goals they by other and processes among knowledge proce aiming, such EU process share recent to kn welcome biogeographic this NGOs the make as to audience. such crucial wider is oft a It for level, local language. available and national national vast in at is available There knowledge and forest borders. of experience national case of in across reaching recommended always obje landscapes is a conservation as of well site-management as and level harmonization site fo at Cross-border and borders. sector stakeholders other conservation a and the important agriculture between Another cooperation ec good recommended. the the is including provide, they options, services socio-economi management of review different of a opp benefits Therefore, economic livelihood. provide w local often along and al benefits, measures, is It conservation conservation explored. obvious that be must highlight to new mechanisms important and funding s improved be innovative mechanisms, must and funding schemes, existing of need forest-environmental implementation a Uptake the is measures. allows there these cases which of all framework in that economic an emphasize for to important is It h osrainga hr st rtc xsigpatterns ecosystems. existing large protect of to is coherence there environment. of goal wider their conservation The improving through wildlife on oety ra,wtr n idvriyprotection agric enhancement. biodiversity and and resilience, water, and development, urban, prevention regional forestry, as disaster invo such change, approach areas climate policy integrated key an of ecosystems number requires a scale Protecting been areas. landscape have network the ne at core issues the create in and management sign site addressed that connections fundamental ensure enhance to before to order sites diverted in not this, is consider funding avoided. to possibly important are is valuable It and biodiversity strategy of processes development ecosystem concentrations with region’s the conflicts that guide so to is network the of 46 nteecsstegoal the cases these In 47 owledge . ot and costs c ctives amount cross t their ith osystem ortunities nonly en ulture, pc is spect c as uch so , restry, ificant ese sses ed lving w 53 53 53 Deadwood on wildlife through improving their wider environment. The conservation goal there is to protect existing patterns of coherence of large ecosystems.46 In these cases the goal ofthe network is to guide the region’s development strategy so that conflicts with ecosystem processes and valuable concentrations of biodiversity are possibly avoided.47 It is important to consider this, in order to ensure that significant funding is not diverted to enhance connections and create new sites before fundamental site management issues have been addressed in the core network areas. Protecting ecosystems at the landscape scale requires an integrated approach involving a number ofkey policy areas such as regional development, climate change, disaster prevention and resilience, agriculture, forestry, urban, water, and biodiversity protection and enhancement.

Itis importantto emphasize thatin allcases there is a need for an economic framework which allows the implementation ofthese measures. Uptake ofexisting funding mechanisms, such as forest-environmental schemes, must be improved and new and innovative funding mechanisms must be explored. It is also important to highlight that conservation measures, along with their obvious conservation benefits, often provide economic opportunities and local livelihood. Therefore, a review of socio-economic costs and benefits of different management options, including the ecosystem services they provide, is recommended. Another important aspect is the good cooperation between the conservation sector and forestry, agriculture and other stakeholders at site level as well as across borders. Cross-border harmonization of conservation objectives and site-management is always recommended in case offorested landscapes reaching across national borders. There is vast amount ofexperience and knowledge at national and local level, often only available in national language. It is crucial to make this knowledge available for a wider audience. NGOs welcome recent EU processes such as the biogeographic process aiming, among other goals, to share such knowledge and they are ready to contribute to these processes by offering their national and local experiences.

References

1 Eurostat. Forestryin the EU and the 12 see for example Jonašova M., Prah K. 19 Comprehensive review: Stockland J. forests. European Journal of Forest world. A statistical portrait. 2004. Central-European mountain N., Siitonen J., Jonsson B. G. 2012. Research 129, 6. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/ spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) forests: Biodiversity in dead wood. 26 Winter S., Möller G. Ch. 2008. cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-31-11-137/ regeneration of tree species after a Cambridge University Press, p. 509. Microhabitats in lowland beech EN/KS-31-11-137-EN.PDF bark beetle outbreak. Ecological 20 http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and- forests as monitoring tool for nature 2 COM(2006)302. Engineering 23 (2004) 15–27. maps/indicators/forest-deadwood/ conservation. Forest Ecology and 3 COM(2011)244. For the list ofother relevant 21 Christensen M., Hahn, K. Mountford Management 255 (2008) 1251–1261. 4 Guidance on the managementof studies see www.ceeweb.org/ E.P., Odor P., Standovar T., 27 Drawa NationalParkand Natura 2000 wilderness and wild areas in Natura 4highlights-references Rozenbergar D., Diaci J., Wijdeven P., Uroczyska Puszczy Drawskiej 2000, European Union, 2013 13 Nomination dossier ofthe „Ancient Meyer P., Winter S., Vrska T., PLH320046 conservation measures 5 The term was used bythe Ministerial Beech Forests ofGermany as 2005. Dead wood in European beech plan. Scientific background. Conference on the Protection of extension ofthe World Natural (Fagus sylvatica) forest reserves. Manuscript in Drawa National Park. Forests in Europe (MCPFE) Heritage” “Primeval Beech Forests of Forest Ecology and Management 210, 28 see for example Schmidl, J. &Bussler, 6 http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and- the Carpathians”. Nomination Dossier 267–282. H. (2008): Xylobiontic beetle guild maps/figures/wilderness-quality- to the Inscription to the World and Hahn K., Christensen M. 2004. Dead composition and diversity driven by index Heritage List. http://weltnaturerbe- wood in European forest reserves – a forest canopy structure and 7 OkołówCz., Karaś M., BołbotA. (eds.) buchenwaelder.de/ reference for forest management. EFI management. In: Floren, A. and 2009. Białowieża National Park. Know 14 Müritz National Park management Proceedings 51: 181–191. Schmidl, J. (eds.): Canopy Arthropod it, understand it, protect it. plan. http://www.mueritz- 22 Ranus T., FahrigL. 2006. Targets for Research in Central Europe: Basic and Białowieża NP, p. 237 nationalpark.de maintenance ofdead wood for applied studies from the high 8 Faliński J. B. 1986. Vegetation 15 Lupp G., Konold W., Bastian O. 2012. biodiversity conservation based on frontier. Bioform, Nürnberg, pp. dynamics in temperate lowland Landscape management and extinction thresholds. Scandinavian 299–324. primeval forests. Geobotany 8. Dr W. landscape changes towards more Journal ofForest Research, 2006; 21: For the list ofother relevant Junk publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, naturalness and wilderness: Effects 201–208. studies see www.ceeweb.org/ Lancaster, p. 537 on scenic qualities –The case ofthe 23 Haase V., Topp W., Zach P. 1998. 4highlights-references 9 OkołówCz., Karaś M., BołbotA. (eds.) Müritz National Park in Germany. Eichen-Totholz im Wirtschaftswald 29 Bärnthol, R. (2003): Nieder- und 2009, op. cit. Journal for Nature Conservation 21, als Lebensraum für xylobionte Mittelwald in Franken. 10 see for example Loch J. 1991. 1: 10–21. Insekten. Zeitschrift für Okologie und Waldwirtschaftsformen aus dem Regeneration of upper mountain 16 Gilg O. 2005. Old-growth Forests. Naturschutz 7: 137–153. Mittelalter. Fränkisches spruce forest stands destroyed by Characteristics, conservation and 24 Zawadzka D., Ciach M., Figarski T., Freilandmuseum, Bad Windsheim, p. Cephalcia falleni (Dalm.), such as monitoring. Habitat and species Kajtoch Ł., Rejt Ł. 2013. Materiały do 152. those on Mostownica mountain of management. Technical report no 74 wyznaczania i określania stanu 30 http://bnpi.hu/oldal/ Gorce National Park. Prądnik 4: bis. Reserves Naturelles de France. zachowania siedlisk ptasich w termeszetvedelmi-fenntartasi- 49–56. 17 Stachura-Skierczyńska, K., Walsh, M., obszarach specjalnej ochrony ptaków munkak-97.html For the list ofother relevant (eds.), 2010. Against the grain: Natura 2000. Polish General 31 Ecological Coherence Definitions in studies see www.ceeweb.org/ Improving the management of Directorate for Environment Policy and Practice – Final Report. Dr. 4highlights-references NATURA 2000 sites and other forests Protection, p. 260. Roger Catchpole, Aspen International. 11 Kiener H., Husslein M., Englmayer in the EU. BirdLife European Forest 25 Müller J., Bütler R. 2010. A review of 32 Lawton, J.H., Brotherton, P.N.M., K.H. (eds.) 2008. Natura 2000 Task Force. habitat thresholds for dead wood: a Brown, V.K., Elphick, C., Fitter, A.H., management im Nationalpark 18 Bobiec A., Gutowski J.M., Laudenslayer baseline for management Forshaw, J., Haddow, R.W., Hilborne, Bayerischer Wald. Wissenschaftliche W.F., Pawlaczyk P., Zub K. 2005. recommendations in European S., Leafe, R.N., Mace, G.M., Southgate, Reihe 17: 1–252. The afterlife of tree. WWF Poland. M.P., Sutherland, W.J., Tew, T.E., Kettunen of IEEP, together with Varley, J., Wynne, G.R. (2010). Making Jennifer McGuinn, Paola Banfi and Space for Nature: a review of Guillermo Hernández of Milieu. England’s wildlife sites and A Report for the European ecological network. Report to Defra. Commission. Brussels. 33 COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 92/43/EEC 43 BBI-MATRA PROJECT (supported by 34 Jongman, R.H.G., Bouwma, I., BBI-MATRA, Ministry of Agriculture, Griffioen, A., Jones-Walters, L., van Nature and Food Quality, The Doorn, A.M. (2011). The Pan European Netherlands. Ecological Network: PEEN. Landscape 44 Deodatus, F. & Protsenko, L. (eds.) Ecology, 26: 311–326. (2010). Creation of ecological 35 http://www.ceeweb.org/wp-content/ corridors in the Ukraine. A manual of uploads/2011/12/Assessing_Green_ stakeholder involvement and Infrastructure_Elements_in_the_ landscape-ecological modelling to Visegrad_Countries_updated.pdf connect protected areas, based on a 36 Our life insurance, our natural capital: pilot in the Carpathians. State Agency an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. for Protected Areas ofthe Ministry of COM(2011) 244 final Environmental Protection of Ukraine, 37 Green Infrastructure (GI) — Enhancing Alteburg & Wymenga Ecological Photos and drawings: Maps: Europe’s Natural Capital. COM(2013) Consultants, InterEcoCentre. Kyiv. Piotr Lewandowski | cover page Stefan Avramov | page 11, page 13 249 final 45 http://milvus.ro/en/brown-bear- Stefan Avramov | page 2, page 7 (right), Source ofmap on page 47: Deodatus 38 Kettunen, M., Terry, A., Tucker, G. & conservation-and-research- page 11 (right) F.B. and Protsenko L. (eds.) 2010. Jones, A. (2007). Guidance on the programme-in-a-model-area-in- maintenance of landscape features of romania Pawel Pawlaczyk | page 4, page 15, page Creation of ecological corridors in major importance for wild flora and 46 Ecological Coherence Definitions in 21, page 23, page 29 (bottom left), Ukraine. A manual on stakeholder fauna — Guidance on the Policy and Practice – Final Report. Dr. page 33 involvement and landscape-ecological implementation ofArticle 3 ofthe Roger Catchpole, Aspen International. Georgi Gerdzhikov | page 7 (left), page modelling to connect protected areas, Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) and 47 Bennett, G., Mulongoy, K.J. (2006). 11 (left) based on a pilot in the Carpathians. Article 10 ofthe Habitats Directive Review of Experience with Ecological Jan Loch | page 17 State Agency for Protected Areas of (92/43/EEC). Institute for European Networks, Corridors and Buffer

light Forests Magdalena Makles | page 28 the Ministry of Environmental Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussels, Zones. Secretariat of the Convention Rafal Zarzecki | page 29 (top left) Protection of Ukraine, Altenburg and 56 p. 114 &Annexes. on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Jacek Karczmarz | page 29 (right) Wymenga Ecological Consultants, 39 DG ENVD.1 (2011) 236452 Technical Series No. 23. Montreal. Lukasz Koba | page 31 (left) IntewrEcoCentre. Kyiv. 40 Science for Environmental Policy, Tomasz Olbrycht | page 31 (right) Csaba Domokos | page 49 thematic issue, May 2012. Büro Geyer und Dolek| page 35 (top), 41 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ eia/pdf/EIA Guidance.pdf page 37, page 39 42 IEEP and Milieu (2013). The Guide to Bükki NationalPark| page 41, page 35 Multi-Benefit Cohesion Policy (bottom) Investments in Nature and Green Constantin Jurcut | page 43 (top) Infrastructure. By Peter Hjerp, Patrick Paul Dwyer | page 43 (bottom) ten Brink, Keti Medarova-Bergstrom, Csaba Domokos | page 49 Leonardo Mazza and Marianne Ivan Cruz | page 50-51 Wilderness and non-intervention management

Management for deadwood retention

Light forests

Ecological coherence

CEEweb for Biodiversity is an international network of non-governmental organizations in Central and Eastern Europe. The mission ofthe network is the conservation of biodiversity through the promotion of sustainable development.