Part II - Harmonisation and Improvement of Information on European Protected Forest Areas - International Dimension 109

COST Action E27 Protected Forest Areas in Europe - Analysis and Harmonisation (PROFOR) Results, Conclusions and Recommendations

Suggestions for Clarifying Protected Forest Area (PFA) Categories for Reporting Purposes

KRIS VANDEKERKHOVE 1, G EORG FRANK 2, J ARI PARVIAINEN 3, WINFRIED BÜCKING 4, D ECLAN LITTLE 5 (eds) based on the discussions in Working Group 2 of the COST Action E27

1Institute for Forestry and Game Management, Geraardsbergen, Germany 2Federal Research and Training Centre for Forests, Natural Hazards and Landscape, Vienna, Austria 3Finnish Forest Research Institute (Metla), Joensuu Research Centre, Joensuu, Finland 4Forest Research Institute of Baden Württemberg, Freiburg, Germany 5The TreeCouncil of Ireland, Woodlands of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland

Acknowledgements

The following experts have produced substantial contributions to this chapter: Ales Poljanec, Slovenia; Bernhard Schwarzl, Austria; Bruno Stadler, Switzer- land, Cara Doyle, Ireland; Christoph Wildburger,Austria; Declan Little, Ireland; Dimitar Dimitrov, Bulgaria; Dominique Richard, EEA, European Topic Centre on Nature Protection and Biodiversity, Paris; Flemming Rune, Denmark; Georg Frank, Austria; Gheorghe Marin, Romania; Gordon Patterson, United Kingdom; Hermann Ellenberg, Germany; Jadwiga Sienkiewicz, Poland; Jari Parviainen, Finland; Jean-Marc Brézard, France; Juan Uriol Batuecas, Spain; Kare Venn, Norway; Katrine Hahn, Denmark; Kris Vandekerk- hove, Belgium; Kyriacos Kyriacou, Cyprus; Malgorzata Buszko-Briggs, MCPFE, Liaison Unit Warsaw; Mitko Karadelev, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; Olgirda Belova, Lithuania; Paulo Godinho, Portugal; Pavel Cudlin, Czech Republic; Rauno Väisänen, Finland; Sander Wijdeven, The Nether- lands; Satnislaw Niemtur, Poland; Sune Sohlberg, Sweden; Theocharis Zagas, Greece; Tomá_ Vr_ka, Czech Republic; Vittorio Tosi, Italy; Vivian Krist Photo: traditional hay-making in the buffer zone of Piatra Craiului National Park, Johannsen, Denmark; Winfried Bücking, Romania (Photo courtesy of Kris Vandekerkhove) Germany. 110 COST Action E27 - Protected Forest Areas in Europe - Analysis and Harmonisation (PROFOR): Results,Conclusions and Recommendations

1. General remarks conservation value of sites. Hence, a particular Class may include a wide range of forest types, with different degrees of naturalness (i.e. from pristine This paper is based on the comparison of official stati- virgin forests to plantations) and varying biodiver- stics and results derived from the questionnaire circu- sity quality. lated among the COST-Action E27 delegates, discus- • Both classification systems (i.e. definitions, restric- sion ensued in COST-working group 2 ‘Harmonisa- tions, etc.) are unlikely to be altered; they are inter- tion and improvement of information on European nationally endorsed and widely accepted. Protected Forest Areas – international dimension’. This resulted in a number of suggestions designed to However, clarification and guidelines on the criteria improve the quality and comparability of the statistics that are used are required, when they are used for that are derived from the two internationally endorsed official PFA reporting purposes, in order to prevent systems for Protected (Forest) Areas, i.e. ongoing discrepancies in interpretation. This paper • The Protected Area Management Categories of attempts to provide guidance for more accurate (IUCN, 1994), used (amongst others) in FRA 2000 interpretation thereby ensuring more harmonised • The MCPFE-Assessment Guidelines for PFA deve- assessments and reporting of PFAs, and in order to loped by the Vienna Liaison Unit of the Ministerial avoid current anomalies as a result of differences in Conference on the protection of Forests in Europe interpretation. (MCPFE, 2003). The result of this work has been compiled in this paper. 2. Suggestions for the clarification of the Two COST Action E27-technical papers were also reporting on statistics of PFAs in produced, which were designed to provide direct Europe when using IUCN-Categories input to the IUCN and MCPFE processes. The tech- on Protected Areas nical paper relevant to the IUCN-classification system (Vandekerkhove (ed), 2004) was sent to the agency contracted by IUCN (i.e. Equilibrium) to produce a In this chapter, input from the country experts on the guidance paper on the use of IUCN Protected Area applicatio n of the Protected Area Management Cate- Categories for Forest Protected Areas’ in the context of gories developed by the International Union for the IUCN project -‘Speaking a Common Language’ Conservation of Nature (IUCN, 1994) for the repor- (Dudley & Phillips, 2006). The COST Action E27 ting of statistics on PFAs is outlined. The primary technical paper with analysis and recommendations objective is to provide better, more harmonised on reported figures and assessment guidelines for the international statistics on PFAs. reporting of PFAs using the MCPFE framework (Vandekerkhove et al. (eds.), 2005) was sent directly to the MCPFE Liaison Unit in Warsaw. After further 2.1. Summary of the main results editing and consultation, it accompanied the questi- from the questionnaire onnaires for the MCPFE 2007 status assessment of Europe’s forests, as an official MCPFE Information • Of the 23 questionnaires received, only 3 countries Document (Frank & Parviainen, 2006). reported data for all 6 IUCN-Categories. In most European countries, only 2 or 3 Categories occur, Before proceeding further, some important prelimi- and often none if the Categories are interpreted in nary remarks are necessary: their strictest sense. • Both the IUCN system of Management Categories • In general, many Protected Area types don’t really and the MCPFE Assessment Guidelines are consi- comply with any Category, and are often allocated dered in the context of classification of protection to one general Category (i.e. Category IV). management intentions. It does not necessarily • Categories II and IV were the most commonly reflect the activities that are actually performed, reported, together with Category I (although some allowed or tolerated in practise. correspondents were a bit reluctant to use Cate- • Both classify management objectives and restric- gory I, as it is not very clear how strictly its criteria tions. They don’t evaluate the actual quality and should be interpreted). Part II - Harmonisation and Improvement of Information on European Protected Forest Areas - International Dimension 111

• 18 of the 23 correspondents stated that the IUCN- • Some activities such as hunting, fishing and rein- classification of Management Categories is too deer husbandry predominate as diagnostic charac- strict and confusing for correct implementation in teristics of the IUCN Categories, even though they their country. Almost all representatives (i.e. 20 of often have a marginal (or even positive) effect on 23) had a lot of difficulty with the meaning of the ecosystem. In many cases, the current manage- Category VI. Most delegates did not know how to ment may well allow for classification in Categories deal with this Category at all. Moreover, some with stricter management criteria (Category I or suggested that all the forest in their country - II), but due to the presence of reindeer husbandry which is managed in a close-to-nature, sustainable or ‘subsistence hunting’ (e.g. for Saami people) or manner - could fit comfortably into this ‘open access to public’, they must be assigned to Category. other Categories, e.g. all the Protected Areas in • Most correspondents were uneasy regarding the Northern Finland are classified in Category VI categorisation of PFAs with specific local protec- because of reindeer husbandry. Consequently, tion regimes. The following problems were Category VI includes a wide array of very different commonly mentioned: national types of Protected Areas ranging from • There was much uncertainty regarding the size strict nature reserves and national parks to requirements for Protected Areas. The IUCN- protected peatlands and wilderness areas. guidelines state that a Protected Area should be • Most correspondents concluded that the IUCN ‘large enough for the functional development of classification system appears to have been deve- the ecosystem’ (IUCN, 1994). However, no loped for continents and countries where large minimum area is imposed or suggested by areas of pristine or natural landscape still persist. IUCN. The system is more suitable for very large • Protective forests don’t fit into the classification Protected Areas and does not readily allow for the system at all; in some countries, they are assigned to assessment of small scale Protected Areas. It is too IUCN Category VI, although they do not comply coarse for smaller areas, where due to the presence specifically with its definition and criteria. In other of population pressure, human impact is a factor in countries, they are simply not reported at all. spite of protection measures and restrictions. Some • In many countries, numerous management guide- of the IUCN- categories are therefore of limited lines and restrictions for conservation purposes are use in Europe. applied or even imposed in multifunctional forests. • Moreover, the classification system is very much Some countries include such areas in Category VI, subject to variable interpretation, and causes a lot whilst others exclude them from the reported data. of confusion: the differences between different • The IUCN classification system does not take into Categories are not always very clear. consideration the zoning of Protected Areas, resul- ting in different parts of individual PFAs fitting into more than one Category. The guidelines 2.2. Recommendations for additional guidelines (IUCN, 1994) suggest assigning sites to the Cate- for better application of IUCN Categories gory that corresponds with the largest proportion in European PFA reporting processes of the site. On the other hand, the Interpretation guidelines for Europe (Europarc & IUCN, 2000) 2.2.1. General recommendations state that where ‘Multiple Classifications’ occur, the The IUCN Protected Area Management Categories areas belonging to different Categories should be were not specifically developed for the purpose of ‘identified separately for accounting and reporting reporting statistics on PFAs in Europe, but to assist purposes’. This contradiction should be removed, governments and others in designating protection as it has important consequences on the reported areas for terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. figures (e.g. : up to half of the ‘non-intervention’ Clarification and an interpretative guide are area in a country may be covered by National Parks required if this classification system is to be used for core areas, which should, in total, be reported in statistical purposes. Simply extrapolating the existent Category V). Categories to the protection regimes in European • There is uncertainty regarding the legal status for countries is not possible, and results in the produc- inclusion in the network, because of the expression tion of very vague datasets that cannot be used with ‘or other effective means’ in the general definition. confidence for comparative purposes. 112 COST Action E27 - Protected Forest Areas in Europe - Analysis and Harmonisation (PROFOR): Results,Conclusions and Recommendations

Much of the potential confusion about what is or is not a Forest Protected Areas can be avoided if the hierarchical nature of the definition is stressed, and the system applied sequentially. In short, the Categories are only applied if the area in question already meets the definition of a Protected Area. The process of assignment should begin with the IUCN definition of a Protected Area and then be further refined by reference to the IUCN Categories:

Does the area meet the IUCN definition of a Protected Area?

No Yes

Not a protected area IF SO: assign to one of the IUCN Categories

It follows that any area that appears to fit into one of the Categories based on a consideration of its management practices alone, but which does not meet the general definition of a Protected Area, should not to be considered as Protected Area as defined by IUCN.

Figure 1: Illustration of the hierarchy involved between the over-arching definition and Categories of Protected Areas in the IUCN guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. (taken from Dudley & Phillips, 2006)

2.2.2. Stressing the hierarchy between the IUCN and objective should be excluded from reporting definition on Protected Areas and the procedures on PFAs. This principle is clearly illu- Management Categories strated Fig. 1 (Dudley & Phillips, 2006) . It is imp ortant to stress as a prerequisite that all sites If this prerequisite had been clearly stressed to the should comply with the over-arching IUCN defini- responsible national authorities at the outset of the tion on Protected Areas, inherent in Categories I-VI. TBFRA 2000 reporting process, this would have No site can be considered to be a Protected Area removed a lot of confusion, and would almost unless it meets the over-arching definition which is certainly have produced better, more comparable defined as: an ar ea of land and/or sea especially dedi- data. cated to the protection and maintenance of biological The working group also endorses a strict interpre- diversity, and of natural and associated cultural tation of the overriding definition, i.e. forests (and in resources, and managed through legal or other effective the wider sense all Protected Areas) reported in means. IUCN-Categories should always have conservation Using this definition, IUCN further classifies and enhancement of biodiversity/natural values as Protected Areas into six Management Categories, the primary goal. This should be guaranteed through ranging from strictly protected nature reserves to legally binding, long term commitments, linked to areas that combine biodiversity protection with a national nature conservation programmes. range of other functions, such as resource manage- Hence, it should be emphasised at the outset that ment and the protection of traditional human multifunctional forests should not be included in cultures. reporting statistics, even if nature conservation is of According to IUCN all forests that don’t have equal importance to other functions over the whole biodiversity conservation as their primary function area, or even the main function in some parts of the Part II - Harmonisation and Improvement of Information on European Protected Forest Areas - International Dimension 113 area (key biotopes, etc.) as they do not comply with In many countries conservation objectives are also the over-arching definition of IUCN Protected Areas. encouraged through protective ownership, (e.g. Multifunctional forestry means that all functions are conservation trusts or state and local authorities), equally important, with primary objectives to be conservation management grant schemes, manage- fulfilled, which vary depending on location within the ment plans for designated sites, etc. It should be forest area. In some parts, an economic function will clarified whether these should be included as ‘legal or predominate, in others the recreational function, etc., other effective means’. and in specific areas (i.e. vulnerable sites, rare and key Regarding the ‘legal basis’ for inclusion in the biotopes), the conservation function will pertain, reporting process, MCPFE Assessment Guidelines ensuring that these key-biotopes will receive adequate (see below) appear stricter than the IUCN system. management. This may involve non-intervention (i.e. Management plans alone are not considered to patches of swamp forest), or a specific management provide sufficient ‘legal basis’ for inclusion, as they regime such as mowing or grazing in patches of are only an implementation tool toward the conser- heathland within the forest. These key biotopes and vation objective. Inclusion of management plans can their management are an integral part of multi- only occur if they are associated with an explicit, functional forestry, and should not be ‘segregated’ for legally binding designation. the purposes of reporting in PFAs statistics. A similar situation arises with forests where grant Consequently, areas set aside under specific certifi- schemes and other state incentives that focus on cation programmes (i.e. FSC - min 5% of the area) conservation and enhancement of biodiversity are are not compatible with the over-arching definition applicable, provided an agreed management plan is set by IUCN. Certification programmes are voluntary implemented. Although they can be very effective in and can be revoked at any time; they don’t require any addressing biodiversity management requirements, long-term commitment and therefore don’t comply they are essentially voluntary in the sense that owners with the overall requirement of ‘protected through are often not compelled to carry out every action legal or other effective means’. Moreover, they are an stated in the management plan if they decide not to. integral part of multifunctional forest management Therefore it would be useful for IUCN to produce which qualify as a requirement of the certification a document that clearly defines the criteria that must body as ‘good forest practice’. be fulfilled in order to comply with ‘legal or other effective means’. 2.2.3. Remarks relevant to the IUCN definition of a Protected Area 2.2.4. Definition of size criteria for ‘minimal area’ The working group expresses concern that the IUCN In the IUCN system it is stated that ‘ the areas should definition of a Protected Area looses some of its power be large enough to allow the ecosystem to fully develop’ and focus by including ‘associated cultural resources’, (IUCN, 1994). However, no guideline size criteria are as this leaves it open to wide interpretation, resulting provided as to the minimal area that should be consi- in the inclusion of all kinds of multi-functional and dered. Potentially, every country may have its own other site uses (be they traditional or otherwise). interpretation of what this lower limit should be. The most important aspect to highlight is that it is This lower limit may not be absolute but dependent quite unclear as to what should be included as ‘legal or on local/ regional features or even site conditions. other effective means .’ It follows that ‘other means’ need Moreover, in densely populated areas, where valu- to be indefinite and stipulated in official documents able natural sites comprise small fragmented relics, (i.e. management plans, etc.). However, most manage- there is little choice as to what the size of a protected ment plans have a timeframe of 10-20 years, after site should be. The absence of clear guidelines on which management practices and even management ‘minimum size criteria’ for sites is reported to be a objectives may be altered or modified. Moreover, major cause of unc ertainty on the inclusion of management plans are commonly considered to be certain national protection categories (e.g. strict ‘supporting technical documents’ that provide forest reserves in many European countries appa- guidance to management though may not necessarily rently fulfil all other requirements of Category I, but include clear and enforceable commitments. are often smaller that 50 ha). 114 COST Action E27 - Protected Forest Areas in Europe - Analysis and Harmonisation (PROFOR): Results,Conclusions and Recommendations

2.3. Using the UNECE/FAO definition of forest assignment is on the basis of the management objec- in combination with the IUCN definition tive, including levels of protection, restrictions on of Protected Area to produce reliable and use, etc. The classification is thus made disregarding comparable statistics on PFAs in Europe the actual ecological value of sites, or the effective- ness of implemented management objectives. This The UNECE/FAO definition of a ‘forest’ (FAO, 1998) was also clearly outlined in the WCPA guidance is quite simple and straightforward : paper (Dudley & Phillips, 2006). ‘ This means that ‘Land with tree crown cover (or equivalent stocking candidate Protected Areas are assigned an IUCN Cate- level) of more than 10 percent and area of more than gory according to the purposes set out in legislation, 0.5 ha. The trees should be able to reach a minimum management plans or other means. They are naither height of 5 m at maturity in situ. It may consist either determined according to the governance and manage- of closed forest formations where trees of various storeys ment arrangements nor the ownership of land and and undergrowth cover a high proportion of the water. Nor is the assignment a statement of the effecti- ground, or open forest formations with a continuous veness of the management of the Protected Area. This vegetation cover in which tree crown cover exceeds 10 rule applies to Forest Protected Areas just as much as to per cent. Young natural stands and all plantations esta- any other kind of Protected Area.’ blished for forestry purposes which have yet to reach a There are no compelling arguments to exclude crown density of 10 percent or tree height of 5 m are certain types of forest from the reported data if the included under forest, as are areas normally forming management intention is nature conservation. If a part of the forest area which are temporarily unstocked plantation is included in an IUCN Protected Area as a result of human intervention or natural causes but (i.e. as it fulfils the basic requirements of a Protected which are expected to revert to forest.’ Area), it should consequently be reported in the statistics. This definition may be criticised as inadequate for When a forest (be it a natural forest or a planta- the purposes of biodiversity reporting since it doesn’t tion) is managed for management objectives other make any difference between natural forest and plan- than biological diversity, it should be excluded from tation, but the criteria have considerable merit since: the statistics of IUCN Protected Areas at the outset. • they are universal and widely accepted within the Hence, any debate on excluding it afterwards when Int ernational forestry community finalising statistics on forests will not arise. • they are very simple and unambiguous: although In some cases, protected areas may include a mino- not always easy to measure, the criteria are clear rity of areas where other primary functions pertain and are not open to interpretation: 10% coverage; (i.e. built up areas, roads, patches of arable land or 0,5 ha; 20 m wide are universal measures. forests that provide firewood for local communities). Excluding them from the total area would result in In order to avoid any further confusion a strict and the area being broken up. Although they may have a straightforward approach is recommended. The low biological value, and be managed for other reported figures should be the simple intersect purposes, patches within Protected Areas should not between boundaries of the officially Protected Area be subtracted when delineating boundaries and regimes, and the area of ‘forest’ defined according to reporting on the size of PAs, as they are considered FAO-definition (see also Chapter 6.2 of this volume). crucial to the ‘integrity’ of the site. Therefore, a consi- The working group rejects firmly the suggestion of a stent approach should be adopted for forest stands posteriori exclusion or inclusion of certain forests with other primary functions and/or low biological based on qualitative criteria or specific local objec- value that are inside Protected Areas. tives, as suggested in the WCPA Best Practice Another argument for adopting the straightfor- guidance paper on f orests and Protected Areas ward approach recommended is the feasibility and (Dudley & Phillips, 2006).1 practicality of same. Even if the restrictions within The Working Group stresses the importance of a the current system are clarified and refined further in fundamental principle in the development and appli- order to avoid divergent interpretation, it will be cation of the classification system, namely that difficult to produce reliable data. For some countries

1 In this document it is suggested to exclude planted forests that are managed for production which are present within the boundaries of a site that complies with the over-arching definition. Part II - Harmonisation and Improvement of Information on European Protected Forest Areas - International Dimension 115 the most basic overlay of ‘forest’ with ‘Protected Area’ Issues requiring clarification causes problems due to the lack of detailed informa- • What is the minimum area required? tion. As many countries don’t have detailed statistics All over Europe there are many Strict Forest of the different classes of naturalness to be found in Reserves, which often represent the majority of their Protected Areas, more complex and selective non-intervention forests of the countries overlays will prove to be impossible or unreliable. concerned. Their management objectives are in The production of detailed information as line with the IUCN Guidelines for Category Ia described should be a component of a separate (IUCN, 1994), but they are often small. In most assessment of the ‘status’ of Protected Areas. More European countries, especially Central and detailed assessments of the status of forests within Western European countries, these strict reserves PAs will be possible when these datasets are available have an area of approximately 30 – 300 ha; in some for the total area. cases, especially in fragmented landscapes, they may be less than 30 ha. The Guidance for selection states that the ‘area should be large enough to 2.4 Recommendations for the specific IUCN ensure integrity of its ecosystems and to accom- Protected Area Management Categories plish the management objectives for which it is protected’ (IUCN, 1994). The paper on Interpreta- Category Ia - Strict Nature Reserve: tion and Application of the IUCN Management Protected Area managed mainly for science Categories for Protected Areas in Europe states that ‘the strictly protected research areas are generally Definition not large enough to ensure the integrity of its An area of land and/or sea possessing some outstanding ecosystems (most of them are smaller than 2000 or representative ecosystems, geological or physiological ha)’ (Europarc & IUCN, 2000). However, it is not features and/or species, available primarily for scien- clear whether this size limit is an absolute require- tific research and/or environmental monitoring ment for inclusion. If this is the case virtually no sites in Europe comply with Category Ia. The only Objectives of Management Category that caters for smaller areas is Category • to preserve habitats, ecosystems and species in as III : natural monuments. However this Category undisturbed a state as possible; appears to be focused on individual features rather • to maintain genetic resources in a dynamic and than ecosystems. evolutionary state; • What possibility is there to intervene in cases of • to maintain established ecological processes; disturbance which may cause major catastrophes • to safeguard structural landscape features or rock outside the PA (e.g. fire, insect outbreak)? exposures; In man y European countries exceptional interven- • to secure examples of the natural environment for tions are possible in order to prevent catastrophic scientific studies, environmental monitoring and events outside the area emanating from within. education, including baseline areas from which all However, such interventions may only be autho- avoidable access is excluded; rised by the relevant authorities on a case-by-case • to minimise disturbance by careful planning and basis. Interventions inside the area may occur if all execution of research and other approved activities; and alternative solutions prove ineffective, e.g. inter- • to limit public access. vention failure in the buffer zone adjacent the PFA. Are these exceptional interventions acceptable in Guidance for Selection Category Ia or can intervention only occur in • The area should be large enough to ensure the inte- buffer zones surrounding it (which may belong to grity of its ecosystems and to accomplish the manage- another Category)? ment objectives for which it is protected. • Do ‘future natural forests’ (i.e. previously managed • The area should be significantly free of direct human or man-made forests that are left to develop freely) intervention and capable of remaining so. comply with this Category? They are certainly not • The conservation of the area’s biodiversity should be ‘examples of the natural environment’. However, achievable through protection and not require natural development and succession can be moni- substantial active management or habitat manipula- tored in these areas. Should it be mandatory to tion (c.f. Category IV). elaborate on whether these are areas of native 116 COST Action E27 - Protected Forest Areas in Europe - Analysis and Harmonisation (PROFOR): Results,Conclusions and Recommendations

woodland or otherwise? In conclusion, this is • The area should contain significant ecological, geolo- perceived as a qualitative criterion. gical, physiogeographic, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic or historic value. Clarification sought from consultants employed by • The area should offer outstanding opportunities for IUCN confirmed that this Category is certainly solitude, enjoyed once the area has been reached, by intended for large undisturbed areas, where no inter- simple, quiet, non-polluting and non-intrusive vention is allowed (i.e. extremely strict criteria). This means of travel (i.e. non-motorised). Category was not developed for Europe but Sout- • The area should be of sufficient size to make practical hern Asia, North America and South America. such preservation and use. However, in the current revision process, IUCN will This Category was also developed with large wilderness look at extending this Category to allow strict Euro- areas in North America in mind, and is only relevant in pean reserves to be included. (Nigel Dudley, pers. Europe for very large National Parks in Nordic regions. comm.). This is in line with the statement in the interpretation guidelines for Europe (Europarc & Issues requiring clarification: IUCN, 2000): ‘in Europe, Categories Ia/Ib, III and VI (Europarc & IUCN, 2000) confirm this interpretation especially are under-represented relative to other but state that Wilderness may include areas exploited regions (…) It is desirable therefore to encourage the for a limited period in the past, without the natural wider use of these Categories in particular. di versity of habitats and species being significantly altered, and which have been returned to natural CATEGORY Ib - Wilderness Area: succession. Former military areas that are left unma- Protected Area managed mainly for wilderness naged might fit in, provided they are of considerable protection size. This new approach is currently under review, as this may require a change in the definition of this Cate- Definition gory (Nigel Dudley (pers. comm.). A new definition Large area of unmodified or slightly modified land, will need further clarification of terms (i.e. limited and/or sea, retaining its natural character and influ- period, significantly altered, considerable size) to ensure ence, without permanent or significant habitation, unambiguous assignment of sites to this Category. which is p rotected and managed so as to preserve its natural condition. CATEGORY II - National Park: Objectives of Management Protected Area managed mainly for ecosystem • to ensure that future generations have the opportu- protection and recreation nity to experience understanding and enjoyment of areas that ha ve been largely undisturbed by human Definition action over a long period of time; Natural area of land and/or sea, designated to (a) • to maintain the essential natural attributes and protect the ecological integrity of one or more ecosy- qualities of the environment over the long term; stems for present and future generations, (b) exclude • to provide for public access at levels and of a type exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of which will serve best the physical and spiritual well- designation of the area and (c) provide a foundation being of visitors and maintain the wilderness qualities for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and of the area for present and future generations; and visitor opportunities, all of which must be environmen- • to enable indigenous human communities living at tally and culturally compatible. low density and in balance with the available resources to maintain their lifestyle. Objectives of Management • to protect natural and scenic areas of national and Guidance for Selection international significance for spiritual, scientific, • The area should possess high natural quality, be educational, recreational or tourist purposes; governed primarily by the forces of nature, with • to perpetuate, in as natural a state as possible, repre- human disturbance substantially absent, and be sentative examples of physiographic regions, biotic likely to continue to display those attributes if communities, genetic resources, and species, to managed as proposed. provide ecological stability and diversity; Part II - Harmonisation and Improvement of Information on European Protected Forest Areas - International Dimension 117

• to manage visitor use for inspirational, educational, revolution (1750), human impact has been no cultural and recreational purposes at a level which will greater than that of any other native species, and has maintain the area in a natural or near natural state; not affected the ecosystem’s structure (IUCN, 1994). • to eliminate and thereafter prevent exploitation or However, the European guidelines (Europarc & occupation inimical to the purposes of designation; IUCN, 2000) also suggest that the term should also • to maintain respect for the ecological, geomorpho- apply to areas where land use has ceased and natural logic, sacred or aesthetic attributes which warranted succession is now underway. designation; and Furthermore, a clear definition or explanation is • to take into account the needs of indigenous people, needed of what is understood or meant by ‘subsi- including subsistence resource use, in so far as these stence use by indigenous people’. will not adversely affect the other objectives of In the interests of clarity, a guidance paper from management. IUCN should include a glossary of all key terms that are currently open to interpretation. Guidance for Selection • The area should contain a representative sample of major natural regions, features or scenery, where CATEGORY III - Natural Monument: plant and animal species, habitats and geomorpholo- Protected Area managed mainly for conservation gical sites are of special spiritual, scientific, educa- of specific natural features tional, recreational and tourist significance. • The area should be large enough to contain one or Definition more e ntire ecosystems not materially altered by • Area containing one, or more, specific natural or current human occupation or exploitation. natural/cultural feature which is of outstanding or unique value because of its inherent rarity, represen- The IUCN consultants confirmed that many tative or aesthetic qualities or cultural significance. National Parks in Europe do not meet the standards • Objectives of Management of Category II and should be included in Category • to protect or preserve in perpetuity specific outstan- IV or V. For example, managing invasive species will ding natural features because of their natural signifi- put suc h areas into Category IV, unless restoration cance, unique or representational quality, and/or management is clearly limited in time and extent spiritual connotations; (Europarc & IUCN, 2000). • to an extent consistent with the foregoing objective, to Category II excludes exploitation or occupation as provide opportunities for research, education, inter- it is inimical to the objectives of the designation. pretation and public appreciation; Exploitation is excluded if it upsets the natural • to eliminate and thereafter prevent exploitation or balance of the ecosystem. Traditional practices, e.g. oc cupation inimical to the purpose of designation; and hunting /fishing by indigenous people, are allowed. • to deliver to any resident population such benefits as As a consequence of the requirements of this Cate- are consistent with the other objectives of management. gory, i.e. ‘natural’ state of the site, and the exclusion of active management for conservation, very few sites Guidance for Selection in Europe comply. Only some of the larger ‘core • The ar ea should contain one or more features of areas’ or some national parks and reserves in Nordic outstanding significance (appropriate natural features countries fulfil the requirements. include spectacular waterfalls, caves, craters, fossil beds, sand dunes and marine features, along with Issues requiring clarification: unique or representative fauna and flora; associated The IUCN should make it very clear that there is not cultural features might include cave dwellings, cliff-top a hierarchy within the classification system. To this forts, archaeological sites, or natural sites which have end both positive and negative examples should be heritage significance to indigenous peoples). included for each Category. In other words a national • The area should be large enough to protect the integrity park that complies with Categories IV or V may be of the feature and its immediately related surroundings. more relevant in certain countries, but is not less This Category is the smallest Category in terms of area. valuable than a site that is in Category II. Remarkable/veteran trees may be included (although The term ‘natural’ needs further clarification. It is they have a limited lifespan). Man-made artefacts/ defined as ‘ecosystems where, since the industrial monuments are normally excluded. The Category 118 COST Action E27 - Protected Forest Areas in Europe - Analysis and Harmonisation (PROFOR): Results,Conclusions and Recommendations includes spiritual sites, which may be small but very environment where these require specific human important, e.g. rag/prayer trees. This Category was manipulation for optimum management; developed to protect these areas by including them in • to facilitate scientific research and environmental larger areas thereby helping to increase biodiversity. monitoring as primary activities associated with Examples of areas that should be included are water- sustainable resource management; falls, caves, craters sea cliffs and Karst landscapes. • to develop limited areas for public education and appreciation of the characteristics of the habitats Issues requiring clarification concerned and of the work of wildlife management; It should be clearly acknowledged if man-made • to eliminate and thereafter prevent exploitation or ‘semi-natural’ aspects can be included. For example, occupation inimical to the purposes of designation; specific landscape features that are the result of long- and time human land-use such as Karst areas, remarkable • to deliver such benefits to people living within the trees that were planted or pollarded/pruned over designated area as are consistent with the other objec- time, patches of ancient coppice with standards, or tives of management. wood pasture. If man-made elements can be included, it should Guidance for Selection be clear to what extent the required degree of natu- • The area should play an important role in the protec- ralness should be, e.g. in respect of patches of old tion of nature and the survival of species, (incorpora- semi-natural woodland or wood pasture. Many of ting, as appropriate, breeding areas, wetlands, coral these could fit either here or in Category IV depen- reefs, estuaries, grasslands, forests or spawning areas, ding on the naturalness data provided. including marine feeding beds). (Dudley & Phillips, 2006) state that ‘harvesting is • The area should be one where the protection of the not an appropriate form of management in Catego- habitat is essential to the well-being of nationally or ries I-III’. Does this imply that sites or parts thereof locally-important flora, or to resident or migratory that require human interventions on a regular basis, fauna. or where regular restoration works occur, should be • Conservation of these habitats and species should excluded? Examples of such sites are: depend upon active intervention by the management • Karst and Cliff areas that require regular removal authority, if necessary through habitat manipulation of (native or exotic) invasive shrubs and trees. (c.f. Category Ia). • Regular removal or coppicing of trees and shrubs • The size of the area should depend on the habitat in order to conserve or improve views on scenic requirements of the species to be protected and may hilltops, castles, ruins and waterfalls range from relatively small to very extensive. • Restoration of Karst-areas or Land dune areas by removal of pine plantations This Cat egory is quite broad hence it may include • Old pollard trees that require regular tending and virtually all Protected Areas in many European coun- pruning tries, from ‘minimal intervention areas’ to intensive active management, with some economic revenue such as hay, timber, etc. as side products. Most of the CA TEGORY IV - Habitat/Species Management Area: PFAs in Europe are included in this Category. This Protected Area managed mainly for conservation Category is probably the clearest one, although through management intervention problems arise when management activities result in marketable ‘economic goods’. Definition Area of land and/or sea subject to active intervention Issues requiring clarification: for management purposes so as to ensure the mainten- In order to avoid confusion with Categories I and II, ance of habitats and/or to meet the requirements of it should be made clear what timeframe is acceptable specific species. for restoration works, or to what extent exceptional interventions (in case of catastrophes) or minimum Objectives of Management interventions (such as the periodic removal of seed- • to secure and maintain the habitat conditions neces- lings of invasive species) are allowed in Categories I sary to protect significant species, groups of species, & II. Depending on the strictness of these guidelines, biotic communities or physical features of the more PFAs may be classified in Category IV, I or II. Part II - Harmonisation and Improvement of Information on European Protected Forest Areas - International Dimension 119

A lack of definition and/or examples for this Cate- resident populations and to the development of gory may lead to difficulties in interpretation, especi- public support for the environmental protection of ally when management aims to conserve certain such areas; and natural values linked to ancient management techni- • to bring benefits to, and to contribute to the welfare ques, (such as wood pasture or coppice with stan- of, the local community through the provision of dards) or where typical forestry techniques of stand natural products (such as forest and fisheries transformation occur. Hence, the actual management products) and services (such as clean water or income may be very similar or even identical to some of the derived from sustainable forms of tourism). practices carried out in multifunctional forests. In order to prevent the wrongful inclusion of Guidance for Selection multifunctional forests, the relationship to the over- • The area should possess a landscape and/or coastal riding general definition should be clearly stated. The and island seascape of high scenic quality, with management objective is the basic determinant here; diverse associated habitats, flora and fauna along all management is carried out in order to fulfil clearly with manifestations of unique or traditional land- predefined nature conservation goals. use patterns and social organisations as evidenced in In order to fulfil these goals, some marketable human settlements and local customs, livelihoods, goods may be produced (e.g. wood, meat, hay, etc.), and beliefs. as a means to this end, but they should not be the • The area should provide opportunities for public primary objective. enjoyment through recreation and tourism within its normal lifestyle and economic activities

IUCN Category V - Protected Landscape/Seascape: For this and the next Category there is a thin line Protected Area managed mainly for between ‘conservation area’ and sustainable multi- landscape/seascape conservation and recreation functional use of natural resources. IUCN acknowledges that misuse of this Category is Definition common (IUCN, 1994). • Area of land, with coast and sea as appropriate, where It is suggested that in Europe it is virtually always, the interaction of people and nature over time has the regional nature parks, nature parks, regional produced an area of distinct character with significant parks as well as many national parks which belong in aesthetic, ecological and/or cultural value, and often this Category (Europarc & IUCN, 2000). It should be with high biological diversity. Safeguarding the inte- clearly emphasised that they do comply ‘as long as grity of this traditional interaction is vital to the protec- they adhere to the IUCN definition of a Protected tion, maintenance and evolution of such an area. Area’. • Objectives of Management Areas have been incorrectly classified to Category • to maintain the harmonious interaction of nature V even though they do not meet this basic IUCN and culture through the protection of landscape definition of a Protected Area. and/or seascape and the continuation of traditional land uses, building practices and social and cultural Issues requiring clarification manifestations; Nature conservation or landscape protection • to support lifestyles and economic activities which are in The d efinition of Category V causes considerable harmony with nature and the preservation of the social confusion, as there is a contradiction with the over- and cultural fabric of the communities concerned; arching general definition. The definition of Cate- • to maintain the diversity of landscape and habitat, gory V is ‘an area managed mainly for landscape and of associated species and ecosystems; conservation or recreation’ while the over-arching • to eliminate where necessary, and thereafter prevent, definition states that the area should be ‘especially land uses and activities which are inappropriate in dedicated to the protection and maintenance of scale and/or character; biological diversity (…)’. What is the primary • to provide opportunities for public enjoyment function of this Category, biodiversity or landscape through recreation and tourism appropriate in type protection? and scale to the essential qualities of the areas; In order to address this contradiction, the working • to encourage scientific and educational activities group sug gest that for a Category V site emphasis be which will contribute to the long term well-being of placed on the requirement that it be ‘officially 120 COST Action E27 - Protected Forest Areas in Europe - Analysis and Harmonisation (PROFOR): Results,Conclusions and Recommendations protected with the primary objective being conserva- CATEGORY VI - Managed Resource Protected Area: tion of biodiversity’, and that the way to realise this Protected Area managed mainly for the sustai- conservation goal is through the conservation of the nable use of natural ecosystems current landscape configuration. The hypothesis in this case is that historic management of the site has Definition led to a landscape with important conservation • Area containing predominantly unmodified natural values, which should be maintained through the systems, managed to ensure long term protection and continuation of traditional use patterns. This clearly maintenance of biological diversity, while providing differs from the MCPFE Category 2 (see below) at the same time a sustainable flow of natural where the main management requirement is the products and services to meet community needs. protection of the landscape, primarily for aesthetic • Objectives of Management and/or cultural reasons, without a specific primary • to protect and maintain the biological diversity and conservation objective (although these sites may also other natural values of the area in the long term; have important biological values). • to promote sound management practices for sustai- Indeed, when clarifying Categories V and VI (and nable production purposes; in fact all Categories), a lot of confusion could be • to protect the natural resource base from being alie- avoided by excluding any reference to its current nated for other land-use purposes that would be naturalness status. The biological value, or natural- detrimental to the area’s biological diversity; and ness of a site is no basis for inclusion or exclusion of • to contribute to regional and national development. sites in IUCN Protected Area Management Catego- ries; indeed some multi-functional forests will have Guidance for Selection much higher biological values than many of the • The area should be at least two-thirds in a natural IUCN-classified sites. condition, although it may also contain limited areas of modified ecosystems; large commercial plantations The European guidelines (Europarc & IUCN, 2000) would not be appropriate for inclusion. state that ‘In order to fulfil the management objec- • The area should be large enough to absorb sustai- tives, a significant part of this type of area should nable resource uses without detriment to its overall primarily be manag ed for conservation purposes. long-term natural values. The inclusion of many areas depends on how strictly the prerequisite ‘a significant part of this type of area This Category was designed for vast natural areas should primarily be managed for conservation with limited human pressure (i.e. Amazon and purposes’ is interpreted. What % area is significant Congo Basin) and does not apply readily to the Euro- and the term ‘primarily’ requires quantification (i.e. pean Continent. Zoning is extremely important in do both strict nature reserve and multifunctional these areas. This Category recognises the importance forest with nature protection or conservation of a of cultural and social values and allows native specific species as the primary objective comply?). communities to be sustained via exploitation of In many countries initiatives are taken in certain natural resources, e.g. rubber tapping is permitted in rural areas (i.e. sometimes called ‘national park’ or the Protected Forest Area (Nigel Dudley, pers. ‘regional park’ or ‘natural park’) where the promo- comm.) Further advice on category VI suggests that tion of a sustainable combination of recreation and ‘large commercial plantations are not to be included multifunctional use of the landscape is the objective, and a management authority must be in place’ with specific conservation aspects and goals (IUCN, 1994). included, even though it is not always the primary The areas to which it might apply most readily in objective. Depending on the answers received, the Europe include some parts of Scandinavia, including total area in this Category will vary greatly (from tens those inhabited by the Saami p eople (Europarc & of thousands of ha to 0 ha). IUCN, 2000). For the purposes of PFA statistics, all COST Action E27 correspondents reported that this Category was very problematic. It is very unclear what should be included. Do semi-natural forests managed under close-to-nature silvicultural systems, or forests in EU designated areas (under the Habitats Directive) Part II - Harmonisation and Improvement of Information on European Protected Forest Areas - International Dimension 121 comply? What about silvi-pastoral systems in the functional forest management (i.e. outside the scope Mediterranean basin, providing subsistence to local of classification). This is especially difficult for sites communities in a landscape that has been signifi- that are undergoing a transformation process from cantly altered by man in ancient times but remained an artificial to a more natural forest where the ulti- relatively unaltered since? mate objective is to install a Protected Area.

Issues requiring clarification Category VI was developed for ‘natural systems’ and requires at least two-thirds of the area to be ‘in a 3. Analyses and suggestions from COST- natural condition’.It is unclear how strict this require- Action E27 regarding clarification on ment should be interpreted as there are virtually no the use of the MCPFE Assessment ‘natural systems’ left in Europe. Indeed, in Europe Guidelines for Protected and Protective there is a continuous gradient from artificial mono- Forest and Other Wooded Land in cultures to even aged and semi-natural and near-to- Europe natural forests to small patches of undisturbed natural forest. Clear instructions are needed in order to clarify the degree of human interference that is acceptable for In this chapter, input from the COST Action E27 a forest to be considered to be ‘in natural condition’. country experts is provided on the use of the MCPFE- Moreover, this again is an evaluation of ‘current Assessment Guidelines for PFAs, developed by the condition and quality’,not of management intentions. Vienna Liaison Unit of the Ministerial Conference on The Working group suggests that in order to prevent the P rotection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE, 2003a) in misuse of Category VI, it is important to stress that a the context of generating more harmonised interna- Category VI site is always connected to other Manage- tional statistics on PFAs. Many of the suggestions of ment Categories, i.e. Categories I-IV,together forming the working group were addressed in the MCPFE one functional entity, in which the area classed in Information Document (Frank & Parviainen, 2006) Categories I-IV cover at least 2/3 of the whole entity. that a ccompanied the questionnaires of the MCPFE In this regard, areas in Europe such as buffer areas of 2007 assessment on the status of Europe’s forests. Sumava national park or Bayerischer Wald national park where large areas of planted spruce stands are included in the core as well as in the buffer zone of the 3.1. Analyses park can be assigned to Category VI. In addition, the size of area required to support As stated previously, the MCPFE Assessment Guide- sustainable uses without loss of natural values is not lines were generally better appreciated by Cost Action easy to determine; a strict interpretation would infer E27 count ry representatives for reporting on PFAs, as that European fragmented forest remnants are highly it is better adapted to the European situation, and was un-natural and would need to be linked together to specifically developed for reporting purposes. increase naturalness before they could be included. Most correspondents stated that the MCPFE clas- Correspondents suggest to clearly, define and sification system addressed - in a more precise and explain what is required here. If this is not addressed, well-balanced way - the different protection regimes this Category will be widely misinterpreted, leading in their country. For most correspondents, it was to unreliable and incomparable datasets. easier to assign the different national protection cate- As currently defined, countries where the majority gories to the MCPFE Classes. of the forests have semi-natural status co-incident Although very few countries reported data for all with sustainable management plans (cf Nordic coun- Classes, most Classes are represented in the majority tries) interpret this Category widely, and include all of countries. Class 1.1 was most problematic; their forests, rendering it nonsensical. although many c ountries reported figures for this This Category is also the only one where it is clearly Class, it was clearly stated that, if interpreted in the stated that revenue and resources can be obtained strictest manner, Class 1.1 does not occur anywhere from the forest. It should be very clearly defined in Europe (i.e. in 10 out of 11 replies). when ‘harvest’ or ‘exploitation’ is considered part of a Explicit designation in the context of the MCPFE conservation strategy (i.e. Category VI). It should be Assessment Guidelines comprises both designations clearly demarcated from sustainable multi- defining forest and other wooded land within fixed 122 COST Action E27 - Protected Forest Areas in Europe - Analysis and Harmonisation (PROFOR): Results,Conclusions and Recommendations geographical boundaries delineating a specific area as order to be assigned according to the MCPFE Assess- well as designations defining forest and other wooded ment Guidelines: 2 land not within fixed geographical boundaries, but as • Existence of legal basis specific forest types or vertical and horizontal zones in • Long term commitment (minimum 20 years) the landscape. This ‘zonal delineation’ was only rele- • Explicit designation for the protection of biodiversity, vant to a few countries and depended very much on landscapes and specific natural elements or protective how it was interpreted. For these countries however, functions of forest and other wooded land “Explicit they are considered a very valuable tool to report designation” in the context of these guidelines specific PFAs (e.g. Protection of Quercus rotundifolia comprises both: – forests in Portugal, or Birch forests in Norway). - Designations defining forest and other wooded None of the Cost correspondents reported land within fixed geographical boundaries delinea- problems regarding the assignment of the national ting a specific area PFAs to any one of the Classes in particular. - Designations defining forest and other wooded However, as with the IUCN-Categories, some coun- land not within fixed geographical boundaries, but tries encountered problems with areas where conser- as specific forest types or vertical and horizontal vation actions/management restrictions within zones in the landscape” commercial forestry (i.e. multifunctional forests; Data on forest and other wooded land according to Natura 2000-sites) pertain. these two designation types should be distinguished in For protection regimes without a strict legal basis the reporting. (i.e. protective ownership, voluntary programmes, etc.) MCPFE encourages reporting of these, though sepa- Issues requiring clarification rate from the official data on legally designated PFAs. 1. It should be made clear that al l of the general principles need to be fulfilled in order to comply (and not only one or some of them). Also, as for 3.2 Issues requiring improvement and the IUCN Categories, the strict hierarchy clarification of the classification system in between the ‘general principles’ and the Classes order to produce more harmonised datasets of protection and protective forest should be on PFAs in Europe clearly stressed. Only sites that comply with the ‘general principles’ are eligible for classification As the MCPFE assessment guidelines are specifically in one of the subordinate Classes. developed for the European situation, most corre- 2. A clear criterion on ‘Minimal size’ for all Classes spondents found it easier to assign the different is required, or alternatively, if none is considered national protection categories to MCPFE Classes. necessary, this should be made clear (see also However, as outlined in the previous chapter, this has definition of ‘forest’). produced a false feeling of ‘certainty’, as the reported 3. There is confusion on the strictness of the term figures are almost as divergent as for TBFRA 2000. ‘legal basis’; all management regimes/plans and Indeed, as previously stated, correspondents some- restrictions in forests are directly or indirectly times felt quite unsure when filling in the data; just like linked to forest or nature conservation legislation, in TBFRA, they concluded that even minor differences hence very wide interpretation is possible. Also in interpretation can lead to hugely divergent datasets. the strictness of an ‘explicit designation’ is open to Therefore, more clarification is needed regarding the interpretation. In particular, it is unclear different Classes and harmonisation of reported data how management plans comply within this is necessary in order to render them comparable. context.

3.2.1. General principles: strictness of the ‘legally The working group suggests clarification of the binding’ status of the site ‘general principles’ as follows: All protected/protective areas must have a legal and General principles permanent status of protection (i.e. governmental “Protected and protective forest and other wooded land decree under nature conservation Acts, laws or have to comply with the following general principles in statutes, forestry Acts, laws or statutes), or official

2 MCPFE Assessment Guidelines for Protected and Protective Forest and Other Wooded Land in Europe, MCPFE (2003) Part II - Harmonisation and Improvement of Information on European Protected Forest Areas - International Dimension 123 written contracts between state authorities and forest addition, the owner may break the contract if he or owners. The single Protected Area (name) or groups she decides to do so. of areas (protected habitats) should be mentioned in • Key-biotopes and conservation zones delineated the national/regional legal documents. Other means within the framework of forest certification for protection should be considered as voluntary programmes; these are not linked to long term contributions toward protection. commitments and legally binding Acts; moreover, A management plan is a prerequisite for any site to they are considered part of multifunctional be included in national PFA datasets, but is not suffi- management required for certification. If certifica- cient to be recognised as an ‘explicit designation’ on tion is revoked, there is no obligation on the owner its own. Management plans are considered to be to continue with previously agreed management technical executive documents. They must be linked commitments. to a higher level of commitment, i.e. an Act or • Areas of conservation and/or areas of protective contract, underpinning this management plan and forest delineated only in management plans. referring explicitly to the area in question. Management plans are considered to be technical By including both positive and negative examples executive documents. They provide guidance to in an additional technical guideline, much of this the manager but are quite flexible in their applica- confusion could be avoided. Some specific examples tion. In some countries however, they may be are suggested by the WG: le gally binding, and are thus legal instruments, but most have too short a timeframe. If such delinea- Examples of what should be included: tions in management plans are not linked to long • All ‘conservation areas’ sensu stricto : these are sites term contracts or legal Acts that are specifically that have an official and permanent ( ad infinitum ) made to ensure that the main management objec- status of protection (i.e. nature reserve, national tives are met, they can only be considered to be park, etc.) ‘voluntary initiatives’ by local managers or admini- • Also included are: strations. - Private nature reserves, recognised by the state: • Forest areas within the boundaries of national or recognition is by official legal status (e.g. ‘recog- international ‘official’ networks (e.g. Natura 2000, nised nature reserve’) connected to an explicit National Ecological Network, etc.). In some coun- legal instrument or document of recognition tries Natura 2000 sites coincide with national (i.e. Act, ministerial decision). This recognition is protection categories (national parks, reserves, linked in contract format with management etc.). In such cases these sites should be included in commitments for time periods of at least 20 national PFA datasets. However, in many coun- years tries, Natura 2000-status does not impose a - Areas that are explicitly and legally designated, primary management objective for protection or for example ‘a forest with protective forest desi- protective forest, but allows the continuation of gnation. These must have received explicit desi- multifunctional and economic management, as gnation through a specific Act or Ministerial long as it does not contravene the conservation Decision. In this context, a management plan objectives set out in the Birds and Habitats Direc- alone is not considered to be sufficiently explicit. tives. Therefore, Natura 2000 sites do not fulfil the basic requirements of the general principles and Examples of what should not be included: conditions, and hence should be excluded from the • All forms of ‘voluntary’ conservation and protec- reporting procedure, even if extra restrictions are tion initiatives, (e.g. protected ownership, sites imposed on the owner for conservation of biodi- owned or ‘leased’ for extended periods by private versity or protective criteria. Individual sites that or state nature conservation bodies, but with no are also p rotected under national legislation for ‘official’ protection status), incentive programmes nature or landscape conservation can be assigned. for biodiversity/groundwater protection, etc. (e.g. Since management activities in these individual areas of forest subject to forest biodiversity conser- sites may vary from ‘free development without any vation grant schemes). These are generally short- intervention’ to ‘intensive restoration measures’, term contracts that often lack binding commit- the categorisation according to the specific Classes ments on the owner or follow up measures to must be decided f or each individual site using the ensure binding conditions are implemented. In normal assessment procedures. 124 COST Action E27 - Protected Forest Areas in Europe - Analysis and Harmonisation (PROFOR): Results,Conclusions and Recommendations

For designated forests with no fixed boundaries, it mountain birch forest in Norway, etc.). It is debate- should be clear that ‘management plans’, or ‘general able, however, how much these reported Classes guidelines for forest management’ are not sufficient comply with the general principles as sites outside ‘on their own’ to warrant inclusion, but are an inte- officially designated areas’ are sometimes reported gral part of good sustainable forest management: here. Divergent interpretation and reporting is inevi- • national forest Acts may impose restrictions on the table if the general principles are not strictly applied. choice of tree species or harvesting methods (e.g. clearfelling) along streams, in watershed areas or Issues requiring clarification on slopes greater than 30° There are differences in the interpretation of how • national legislation may forbid the exploitation of explicit the main management objective should be, certain forest types (e.g. birch forest at the timber e.g. in Sweden and Norway similar regimes exist for line, etc.). protective mountain birch areas. Norway did report these areas, however, Sweden did not as their desi- However, conservation or protective function objec- gnation is not sufficiently explicit for conservation or tives linked to these guidelines are not enough on protective functions. Therefore, it should be clearly their own to qualify for inclusion. stated that the prerequisites for inclusion are as strict Many of the situations mentioned above do as for MCPFE types ‘within fixed boundaries-desi- however comply with ‘voluntary contributions’ as gnations’.The only difference is that the demarcation mentioned in the assessment guidelines, and can be of the area is not made on a map, but in a descriptive reported separately, i.e. way, referring to specific forest types or vertical and “In addition to the regimes complying with these horizontal zones in the landscape. principles, the MCPFE takes account of protected and protective forest and other wooded land based on 3.2.3. Definition of ‘Forest’ to be used in data voluntary contributions without legal basis. As far as collection possible, these forests and other wooded lands should be Some Protected Areas include both forest and open assigned to the same Classes as used for the legally areas; to date, it is unclear what land cover should be based regimes. However, data on these forests and other reported. The working group suggests a strict and wooded lands should be compiled separately”. straig htforward approach; the reported figures should The working group presumes that this ‘strict’ and be the simple intersect between boundaries of the offi- ‘exclusive’ segregated approach will almost certainly cially Protected Area and protective regimes, and the produce more comparable data. area of ‘forest’. In this regard, common definitions of However, this doesn’t confer any ‘valuation’ judge- ‘forest ’ and ‘other wooded land’ are also required, in ment as a result of sites being included or excluded; order to produce comparable data. The UNECE/FAO as in IUCN, so me excluded sites or types of protec- definitions of a ‘forest’ and ‘other wooded land’ (FAO, tion may have a much higher impact or effectiveness 1998) provide straightforward criteria, but is quite regarding the conservation of biodiversity in forests general, (i.e. crown cover > 10%; >5m high for forest compared to sites that are included. >5m for other wooded land, area > 0,5 ha, width > 20m; land predominantly used for agricultural prac- 3.2.2. MCPFE designations ‘not within fixed tices is excluded). Individual country definitions and boundaries’: forest types or national statistics on PFAs can be much more restric- vertical/horizontal zones tive. At national level some land cover areas that Explicit designation in the context of the ‘general comply with the FAO definition are not considered as principles’ of the Assessment guidelines includes forest sensu stricto (e.g. mires and heathlands with both designations within fixed geographical bounda- dispersed trees, non-productive forest such as dwarf ries and designations that are not within fixed boun- birch stands at the timberline). daries but are specific forest types or vertical and horizontal zones in the landscape. Suggestion of the WG: Some countries did not include any forest in this It is suggested that a common definition of forest rather ‘vague’ Class while other countries did find (preferably the FAO-definition) is used by all coun- this a very useful type (e.g. Cork and Rotundifolia tries. If this is considered unrealistic (because it oak stands in Portugal, Ancient Semi-Natural Wood- would impose new procedures in the calculation of lands outside designated areas in the UK, protective national statistics) the country correspondents that Part II - Harmonisation and Improvement of Information on European Protected Forest Areas - International Dimension 125 use alternative definitions should state what defini- the ecological complexes of which they are part; this tion of ‘forest’ and ‘other wooded land’ was used in 0includes diversity within species, between species and the production of their national statistics on PFAs, of ecosystems. and provide an estimation of the potential difference Conservation of biodiversity in forests may include if the FAO definition were used. the conservation of rare genetic resources, protection Results will also depend on how the data is sourced, of species and ecosystems, but also of natural e.g. satellite data vs. terrestrial surveys. Methodology processes. should also be reported by country correspondents. It is clear that all aspects of biodiversity cannot be However, in order to achieve comparable data, a fulfilled to their full extent in the same place at the common use of definition and level of detail in the same time. The enhancement of one aspect may lead calculation and acquisition of the data is required. to a decrease of another, e.g. choosing the option of non-intervention in forests will in the long run lead 3.2.4. Clarification on activities allowed and to a more natural and richer ecosystem, but may lead management restrictions that apply in the to a temporary decrease in species richness. assessment guidelines It should also be clear that there is no value ranking With respect to the activities allowed and restrictions order between Classes 1.1 to 1.3: these Classes are that apply to the different Classes, discussions within complementary (i.e. both strict and managed the working group concluded that it is virtually Protected Areas are required for the conservation of impossible to apply general standards and criteria for biodiversity). the whole of Europe for certain activities, as their impact is completely different depending on where they are applied, e.g. commercial berry and MCPFE 1.1: mushroom picking is allowed in National Parks in No Active Intervention Finland, but has no negative impact on the site, as the areas are remote and the intensity of exploitation Guidelines is minimal. In Central, Western and Southern • the main management objective is biodiversity Europe however, commercial mushroom and berry • no active, direct human intervention is taking place picking can be a significant problem, and is often • activities o ther than limited public access and non- restricted, even in multifunctional forests. destruc tive research non-detrimental to the manage- Therefore, instead of trying to formulate general ment objective are prevented in the Protected Area standards, this paper will only highlight the topics that need clarification or which are open to multiple Issues requiring clarification interpretations. Suggestions are made based on specific examples. No ac tive direct human intervention : From the replies of country correspondents, the conclusion is drawn that - when interpreted in its MCPFE Class 1: strictest sense - there are no areas in Europe that Main Management Objective ”Biodiversity” comply with this Class. This is because there must always be the possibility of intervention where emer- Issues requiring clarification gencies occur. This conclusion is also in accordance with the COST E 4 report on Strict forest reserves in A further explanatory introduction to MCPFE Europe (Parviainen et al, 2000). Class 1 is suggested : It is therefore suggested that a specific addendum The main management objective is the conservation be added to the technical interpretation of Class 1.1: and further enhancement of Biodiversity, in all its In Class 1.1 the main objective is the safeguarding of different aspects as defined in the universally natural processes to their full extent. This means that endorsed definition of Biodiversity, formulated in no intervention should take place, even if this might the Convention on Biological Diversity (Anon., cause temporal decline of certain species or habitats, 1992): due to natural fluctuations or natural calamities (i.e. “Biological diversity” means the variability among fire, inundation, etc.). However, exceptional inter- living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, ventions may be necessary, and therefore allowed in terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and order to prevent catastrophic events outside the area 126 COST Action E27 - Protected Forest Areas in Europe - Analysis and Harmonisation (PROFOR): Results,Conclusions and Recommendations emanating from within. Such interventions may be the temporary or permanent removal of logs (i.e. for authorised by the relevant authorities only on a case- incubation); cutting or carving of trees for the place- by-case basis. Interventions inside Class 1.1 areas ment of trapping devices, ‘fogging’ of tree crowns, may only occur if all alternative solutions prove inef- tree ring analysis may require boring or felling of fective, e.g. intervention failure in the buffer zone sample trees, soil studies may imply boring and adjacent the PFA. This excludes intervention to removal of soil samples; digging of ‘profile pits’,etc. prevent or change spontaneous development in the reserve, even if these might cause a collapse of the The following points are suggested: area itself. (e.g. curative intervention to combat Permissible activities include scientific sampling in ‘biotic disruptions’,especially pest outbreaks).’ so far as it does not adversely impact the populations of sampled organisms: Limited public access: • the numbers of sampled individuals fall within the The impact of access restrictions can vary greatly range of natural population fluctuations, e.g. depending on local access regimes applied in diffe- invertebrate inventories using trap devices or rent countries. If interpreted as ‘only access on foot collection of seeds for scientific purpose - not as a on existent public tracks’, this excludes many of the seed supply/seed resource; mushroom picking for ‘strict reserves’ in countries where a ‘right to roam’ identification, not for consumption, etc. exists. However, in other countries this would • The sampling methods only disturb the site to a impose no additional restrictions where, in very limited extent; removal of soil samples, public forests, access is also limited to existing public making bore-holes, temporary removal of logs, etc. tracks. All other interventions that have a more permanent Also, the impact of ‘public access’ on the site is very effect on the site are not permitted, i.e. felling or much dependent on: killing of trees, permanent removal or relocation of • local public pressure (remote, sparsely populated logs, digging of soil profile-pits, sampling methods area vs. densely populated area) requiring the use of pesticides (e.g. fogging), etc. • vulnerability of the site to human disruption (trampling, fire risk, etc.) Examples of sites in Class 1.1: Therefore, it is almost impossible to formulate • most ‘core-areas’ of national parks fit into this Class standard guidelines on access restrictions. • ‘scientific reserves’ for the study of spontaneous It should be clearly stated that the recreational forest dynamics (Naturwaldreservat, Bannwald, function is secondary to the scientific and conser- Réserve intégrale, integraal bosreservaat, riserva vation function; public access is not completely naturale integrale, etc.) restricted, but can only be allowed in so far as it does not in any way contravene the main biodiver- sity objective (spontaneous development) of the MCPFE 1.2: site. “Minimum Intervention” This may imply : - access on a limited number of existent pathways Guidelines (or even a ‘right to roam’ in remote, less vulne- • the main management objective is biodiversity rable sites), • human intervention is limited to a minimum - no ‘safety measures’ (e.g. felling of dangerous trees • activities other than listed below are prevented in the along tracks) or ‘public promotion’ of the area; Protected Area: - minimal maintenance of the access paths is - ungulate/game control permissible (e.g. removal of logs off pathways - control of diseases/insect outbreaks* into the forest). - public access - fire intervention Non-destructive scientific research: - non-destructive research, non-detrimental to the It should be defined to what extent scientific activity management objective is considered as not having an adverse impact on - subsistence resource use ** natural processes: * in case of expected large disease/insect outbreaks control e.g. surveys of saproxylic invertebrates may require measures using biological methods are allowed provided that no capture (and killing) of large numbers of individuals, other adequate control possibilities in buffer zone are feasible. Part II - Harmonisation and Improvement of Information on European Protected Forest Areas - International Dimension 127

** subsistence use to cover the needs of indigenous people and local i.e. isolated, natural broadleaf-remnants, i.e. Juni- communities, in so far as it will not adversely affect the objectives perus thurifera forest, etc.). of management. As in Class 1.1, Class 1.2 also focuses on the Ungulate/ game control: conservation of natural dynamics. However, Additional specific guidance on this topic is sugge- contrary to Class 1.1, intervention is allowed and the sted: In areas where no natural control of game main objective is the safeguarding of natural populations exist (due to the disappearance of large processes but not necessarily to their full extent. predators, the provision of alternative anthropogenic This Class is indeed relevant to many of the small food sources such as winter feeding of game, etc.), PFAs in Europe; they are very much influenced by populations of game within Protected Areas may rise developments outside the site, and may require to a level that is detrimental to the site or its natural continual intervention in order to mitigate negative dynamics. In such cases, game control/culling is influences from outside the reserve, that may cause allowed in order to keep the population in balance unnatural imbalances within the PFA. with the ecosystem. Game control measures, however, are exclusively focused on maintaining the Issues requiring clarification biodiversity objectives of the site.

Basic principle of interventions in Class 1.2: Public access: A limited list of allowable interventions is given, but Additional specific guidance on this topic is needed with no guidance about the basic principle behind as it is open to wide interpretation. The following any o f these possible intervention operations. Inter- explanatory note is suggested: vention is allowed and justified to the extent that it is The rules for public access are, in principle, iden- required to mitigate unnatural imbalances or nega- tical to Class 1.1: public access is allowed in so far as tive external influences. They are therefore limited to it does ‘not adversely affect the objectives’. However, the minimum necessary. The intervention opera- in Class 1.2 ‘minimum intervention’ sites, activities tions applied do not disrupt but support natural ‘encouraging’ access to the site are sometimes dynamics, and are therefore by definition, small scale compatible and acceptable: in nature. • guided tours, ecotourism and educational tours, etc. Pest control: • guided trails on public footpaths; Further clarification is suggested; follow-up activities In this context, tracks can be maintained and ‘safety such as monitoring the populations of individual felling’ of dangerous trees adjacent to frequently used species are also allowed (e.g. pheromone and tree tracks may be carried out. Mass events, sports and traps), as well as small scale ‘curative’ measures mot orised recreation, are not allowed as they are detri- (debarking of infested trees in situ) excluding the use mental or cause too much disturbance to the site. of pesticides. However, the removal of old/dead trees is not in line with the principle management objec- Subsistence resource use (indigenous people and tive and is therefore should be avoided. local communities): It is suggested that some examples are included that Fire intervention: illustrate regional differentiation in the implementa- Following clarification is suggested: an active fire tion of permissible activities: control programme is allowed, not only to prevent • Reindeer husbandry, subsistence hunting and fire- calamities outside the PFA, but also to protect the wood collection by Saami-people in Northern vegetation inside a PFA. Active fire control measures Scandinavia are allowed in Class 1.2 sites; the allow for the extinction of fires that spread into the impact of these activities is so small that it is consi- reserve. Preventive measures are normally excluded dered non- detrimental, and hence, do not signifi- from the PFA, i.e. no active removal of ‘fuel’, mori- cantly adversely affect the primary objectives. bund or dead trees. Fire prevention tracks should • Shelter hut facilities (with firewood) in remote preferably be located in the buffer zone of the areas in Alpine and Nordic regions should be reserve. They are allowed inside the reserve only in allowed in this Class. exceptional situations, such as extremely rare and fire •Commercial and non-commercial collections of sensitive sites (especially in the Mediterranean area, berries and mushrooms by indigenous and local 128 COST Action E27 - Protected Forest Areas in Europe - Analysis and Harmonisation (PROFOR): Results,Conclusions and Recommendations

communities are permissible in the Northern subsequently allow the forest to develop unma- Scandinavian PFAs within this Class. Due to the naged. An intervention is considered to be ‘Large inherent very low recreation pressure, these activi- scale restoration’ when it clearly and visually inter- ties are not considered to have a significant adverse feres with natural dynamics or succession of the effect on the primary objectives. ecosystem. While this ‘transformation/transition • Applying the same philosophy, similar activities phase’ is in progress, the PFA complies with Class should be forbidden in densely populated areas: 1.3 (active intervention). - firewood collection by ‘local communities’ in Transformation activities (which classifies areas into Central and Southern Europe may well have a Class 1.3) include: negative impact on the natural dynamics of sites. • Large scale intervention in order to remove popula- - sheep and goat grazing in the Mediterranean and tions of invasive, exotic species present in the area Alpine regions; these are generally detrimental to (Robinia pseudoacacia or Prunus serotina removal Protected Areas, and seriously affect the natural campaign, removal of mature rhododendron-bushes, dynamics and species composition. girdling or cutting of exotic tree or shrub species, etc.) - large-scale commercial picking of berries and • The conversion of plantations towards natural mushrooms in Eastern, Central, Southern and stands Western Europe. • Removal of conifer plantations in native broadleaf However, some of these activities may be in line with woodlands) the management objectives of Class 1.3, and hence • Conversion of coppice to high forest permissible in such sites. • Conversion of even-aged high forest to a more di verse species, structure and age class regime Possibility for the extension of the allowed activities • Active restoration of natural vegetation, natural to cyclic elimination of invasive exotic species : water regimes (subsequent to previous drainage). Cyclical intervention to allow for the removal of Once the transformation or ‘primary installation exotic species is a common practice in many reserves works’ are performed, a minimum intervention in Europe that are left to develop freely. This specific regime can be imposed with periodic control and situation is not catered for in the Assessment Guide- small scale intervention. Subsequently, the site may lines. When the current guidelines are followed, they be reclassified into Class 1.2. are t o be allocated to Class 1.3, although they are much more in line with the principle of Class 1.2. Examples of sites in Class 1.2: The principle of cyclical intervention for the removal • National parks in Northern Finland; no forest of invasive exotic species is very similar to pest and operations are allowed, but reindeer husbandry game control, activities that are allowed in Class 1.2. and subsistence use by Saami people are allowed; Therefore, it is suggested to extend the allowable free right to roam activities to include ‘control of invasive exotic • ‘Minimum intervention’ forest and nature reserves species’. Further clarification is suggested as follows. in the UK, Ireland, Belgium, and The Netherlands; Where there is a presence of invasive, exotic species, no further forest operations allowed and sponta- intervention is allowed, where such species are neous development only. However, small scale known to cause serious disruption to natural interventions to remove invasive exotic species processes if left uncontrolled (i.e. small scale inter- such as Rhododendron ponticum, Prunus serotina , ventions - cyclical control): etc., are undertaken in order to prevent their • elimination of seedlings of Prunus serotina, Rhodo- spread over the entire area and disrupt natural dendron ponticum, Quercus rubra, Robinia pseudo- processes and/ or suppress indigenous species acacia, Acer negundo, Pseudotsuga menziesii, Ailan- regeneration. Also, the control of sika-deer and thus altissima, etc. grey squirrel is allowed in Ireland and the UK • control of Muskrat, Grey squirrel, Sika deer, • ‘strict reserves’ in Central Europe where game Racoon, Pine Wilt Nematode, etc. control is currently allowed, in order to prevent However, sites where larger scale restoration and overstocking by game, thereby disturbing the transformation operations are performed are not natural regeneration of palatable species. included in Class 1.2. This applies even where • Some National Parks in Spain (like Sierra Nevada intervention is considered a short term, isolated National Par k) the Spanish classification term is activity required to improve the situation and “Parque Nacional”, i.e. natural areas, with limited Part II - Harmonisation and Improvement of Information on European Protected Forest Areas - International Dimension 129

human exploitation, which are protected due to may be included (i.e. with defined borders - or where the beauty of their landscapes, the representative- a specific forest association occurs which has no fixed ness of their ecosystems and the uniqueness of geographic boundaries). their flora. They have ecological, aesthetic, educa- Active management is consequently performed tional and scientific values whose conservation solely as a function of this objective. Management deserves special attention. One of the main may produce marketable goods as by-products, management programs in Sierra Nevada deals with which may result in commercially viable or loss- the prevention and extinction of forest fires. As a making activities. However, the production of consequence, one of the main objectives of the marketable goods should never be the primary goal, Ordnance Plan is ‘Defending the natural space but rather a subsidiary or secondary objective as a against forest fires’. result of management to achieve the primary ‘biodi- versity’ objective. Active management will primarily be focused on two key aspects: MCPFE 1.3: • restoration management: “Conservation Through Active Management” Many Protected Areas have been drastically altered by man over past centuries and may need a long Guidelines term restoration programme to be restored. This • the main management objective is biodiversity may include transformation of plantations to • a management regime with active interventions natural forest stands, restoration of natural direc ted to achieve the specific conservation goal of groundwater regimes, removal of stands the Protected Area is taking place comprised of invasive exotic species (e.g. Rhodo- • any resource extraction, harvesting, silvicultural dendron, Prunus serotina, Robinia ) etc. This resto- measures detrimental to the management objective ration programme normally has a limited timef- as well as other activities negatively affecting the rame (i.e. 10-20 years). Thereafter, non-interven- conservation goal are prevented in the Protected Area tion management, minimum-intervention or There is a lot of confusion surrounding the inclusion continual active intervention for biotope or species of protected forests where even limited commercial conservation are all possible. extraction of timber (or other financial revenue from • active management for specific biotopes or species hay, meat, etc.) occurs. The guidelines on manage- conservation: ment regime may lead to a wide spectrum of inter- In many Protected Areas, active management is pretation ranging from ‘pure conservation manage- performed in order to conserve or restore specific ment’ to ‘good multifunctional forest practice with biotopes and associated species. Management special attention to biodiversity’. On the other hand, oft en consists of ancient management regimes that management in Class 1.3 sites may involve similar are no longer commercially viable and are there- techniques as in multifunctional forests. fore dying out. Consequently, the cessation of management endangers species associated with Issues requiring clarification these ancient management regimes. It is suggested that additional specific guidance on this topic be provided in an explanatory note: The Examples o f activities that fulfil the requirements key element is that all sites in Class 1.3 should of ancient management regimes: comply with the primary management objective of • Prescribed burning and ‘slash and burn’ as a ‘biodiversity’ and especially to the general principles: specific measure for the protection of threatened • Existence of a legal basis species, as performed in Koli National Park (FIN) • Long term commitment (minimum 20 years) • Coppice and coppice with standards management • Explicit legal designation for the protection of performed or reinstalled for the conservation of biodiversity rare butterflies and vegetation, in nature reserves in The primary objective (conservation of biodiversity) the UK, Belgium, Germany, etc. should be clearly stated via the conservation status of • Transformation of neglected even-aged semi the site, which should have a legal basis, with a long natural woodlands (previously coppice-with-stan- term commitment linked to an explicit designation. dards) to optimise species and structural diversity Therefore, only ‘officially designated Protected Areas’ (IRL) 130 COST Action E27 - Protected Forest Areas in Europe - Analysis and Harmonisation (PROFOR): Results,Conclusions and Recommendations

• Cutting and mowing of forest tracks and glades for MCPFE Class 2: the conservation of rare light-demanding species Main Management Objective: ”Protection of in nature reserves in the UK, Belgium, Nether- Landscape and Specific Natural Elements” lands, etc • mowing of mixed larch-spruce forests to create Guidelines specific open agro-forestry systems of “Lärch- • interventions are clearly directed to achieve the Wiesen” in alpine regions for conservation of light management goals landscape diversity, cultural, demanding species (Austria, Germany, Italy and aesthetic, spiritual and historical values, recreation, Switzerland) specific natural elements • Removal and control of invasive exotic species e.g. • the use of forest resources is restricted Rhododendron sps. in Ireland • a clear long-term commitment and an explicit desi- • Forest grazing (wood pasture) created or main- gnation as specific protection regime, defining a tained in order to keep a specific open woodland limited area is existing mosaic and the diversity (i.e. fungi, plants, birds, • activities negatively affecting characteristics of land- etc.) associated with it, as performed in nature scapes or/and specific natural elements mentioned reserves in the Netherlands and Belgium, the New are prevented in the Protected Area Forest National park (UK), the Borkener Paradis This Class is less strictly defined as previous Classes, nature reserve (Germany), etc. and appears to cover a wider range of forest manage- ment regimes. This Class was almost certainly envi- Examples of sites that should not be included in saged, bearing in mind the type of conservation Class 1.3: ap plied in ‘regional parks’,‘natural parks’ etc: i.e. sites • Coppice and coppice with standards management of important scenic beauty that have received an offi- systems in multifunctional forests where a speci- cial status of protection. Management objectives are fied conservation status does not exist. a delicate balance between commercial activities • Species protection programmes in the context of (agriculture, forestry) and conservation of landscape regular forest management (outside specified with specific elements of historic and natural value. conservation sites); the conservation of rare and It often involves incentives for conservation and vulnerable biotopes or specific species is consi- restoration and for the promotion of compatible dered an important aspect of sustainable multi- types of recreation. functional forest practice. It has a very important Countries may however be tempted to interpret it as contribution to the overall conservation of species broadly as possible to include all semi-natural woods and habitats, but should not be included in the outside officially designated ‘conservation areas’ reporting of PFAs. (class 1). Moreover, the specific aspects of ‘landscape •Transformation of man-made forests to natural protection’ are not always clearly defined; all forests forest stands as part of a management objective in have, to a certain extent, an important function in local, regional or national forest strategies (i.e. ‘shaping’ and conserving the landscape. The simple aimed at more stable or more ‘attractive’ forests) or conservation of forest against deforestation could in in the context of a local management plan. this sense be considered as an important protective • Forest grazing as a commercial activity, even when measure toward landscape conservation. in harmony with forest and conservation goals, but As shown in the figure 1 and 2 in chapter 3.3, this outside explicitly designated Protected Areas appears to be the Class that causes the most confu- (e.g. Pig and Cattle grazing in Dehesa- sion: differences in interpretation may lead to the landscapes outside Protected Areas in Spain and inclusion or exclusion of vast proportions of the Portugal). forest area. Natura 2000 sites do not au tomatically fulfil the requirements of Class 1.3. If Natura 2000 sites Issues requiring clarification comply with the General Principles stated in Annex 2 Additional technical guidelines are suggested which of MCPFE Resolution 4, the affiliation to Classes 1.1, emphasise that only sites that comply with the 1.2, 1.3 or 2 of each individual site should be general principles should be included, i.e. forests examined on a case by case basis. within the boundaries of specifically designated Part II - Harmonisation and Improvement of Information on European Protected Forest Areas - International Dimension 131 protected landscapes, and designated in law. Conse- Examples of sites that fulfil the requirements: quently, the site should be managed for landscape • forest within most European ‘National Parks’ (that protection/conservation. All other functions are comply with IUCN Category V, and not with Cate- subordinate to the conservation and development of gory II), Regional parks, Regional natural parks, the aesthetic, socio-cultural or historical values of the Natural parks, landscape, of which the forest is an integral and • forests within official ‘protected landscapes’ or essential component. ‘protected natural monuments’ Commercial forestry is still possible in some of these sites, as long as it complies with the primary objective of landscape protection. Regulations within MCPFE 3 Class 3: protected landscapes may therefore include impor- Main management objective ‘protective functions’ tant restrictions on forest management (e.g. construction of forest roads, tree species composi- tion, harvesting methods, use of clearfelling, etc.), or Guidelines even forbid the continuation of specified commercial • management is clearly directed to protect soil and its forestry activities. In most cases however, the conti- properties or water quality and quantity or other nuation of regular multifunctional forestry opera- forest ecosystem functions, or to protect infrastructure tions is possible in protected landscapes, as long as it and managed natural resources against natural does not contravene the landscape conservation hazards goals. It remains unclear how the guideline ‘the use • Forests and other wooded lands are explicitly desi- of forest resources is restricted’ is to be interpreted. Is gnated to fulfil p rotective functions in management it an absolute requirement that management restric- plans or other legally authorised equivalents tions are imposed and if so, how important should • any operation negatively affecting soil or water or the these restrictions be. ability to protect other ecosystem functions, or the The addition ‘and specific natural elements’ also ability to protect infrastructure and managed natural requires further elaboration. It is very unclear what is resources against natural hazards is prevented meant. Because of the similarity of terminology, it Protective forests are essentially beyond the scope of could be assumed that this coincides with the defini- this aspects of classification. They are not covered in tion of an IUCN Protected Area Management Cate- the IUCN Protected Area Management Categories gory III: ‘natural monument’: features of outstanding and are not PFAs as such. In the MCPFE State of significance (appropriate natural features include spec- Europe’s Forests (MCPFE, 2003b) they are also tacular waterfalls, caves, craters, fossil beds, sand dunes reported separately. and marine features, along with unique or representa- In the annex to the Vienna Declaration however, tive fauna and flora; associated cultural features might they are incorporated in the ‘Assessment Guidelines include cave dwellings, cliff-top forts, archaeological for Protected and Protective Forests in Europe’ sites, or natural sites which have heritage significance to (MCPFE, 2003a). Hence, the issue of protective indigenous peoples. However, other interpretations forests in the context of MCPFE assessment were are also possible. In its current formulation, it has covered in the work of COST Action E27. already been interpreted as ‘key biotopes in commer- cial or certified forests’ or ‘habitats of the Habitat Issues requiring clarification directive’ and even ‘all natural and semi-natural The wording ‘with respect to management plans’ is forests that receive a close-to-nature or traditional rather confusing and almost certainly contradicts the management’.All of these are or can be regulated in a general principles, where an explicit designation is legally binding long term commitment. required. Management plans are considered to be In particular, the situation vis avis Natura 2000 technical executive supporting documents and are sites must be clarified in this context: habitats (that not considered to be sufficient on their own, especi- comply with the Habitats Directive) may indeed be ally as they may not provide guarantees toward a considered as ‘specific natural elements’ and there are long-term commitment. long term legally binding commitments for all sites Only forests that are specifically designated as that are officially designated as ‘Special Area of ‘protective forests’ for the protection of soil cover, Conservation’ with fixed geographical boundaries. and forests in watershed protection areas, should be 132 COST Action E27 - Protected Forest Areas in Europe - Analysis and Harmonisation (PROFOR): Results,Conclusions and Recommendations

included. These areas have all been explicitly desi- FAO, 1998: FRA 2000 Terms and Definitions, Forest Resource gnated and involve long-term commitments. Assessment Programme Working Paper number 1, Rome. Officially designated protective forests always FAO, 2001: Global Forest Resources Assessment – Main Report. require an extra, specific explicit designation. Refe- FAO Forestry Paper 140, FAO Forestry department – rence can be made in a management plan, but is Rome; www.fao.org/forestry/site/7949/en given additional status via this explicit designation, FAO, 2006: Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005. Progress which is the only way it can be officially recognised as towards sustainable forest management. FAO Forestry ‘protective forest’. Paper 147, 320 pp. FAO – Rome. FRANK, G., LATHAM, J., LITTLE, D., PARVIAINEN, J., Examples of sites that fulfil the requirements: SCHUCK, A., VANDEKERKHOVE, K., 2005: Analysis of • Forests within the borders of official ‘protective Protected Forest Areas in Europe - Provisional Results of forests’, explicitly designated by means of a Mini- COST Action E27 PROFOR. In: Commarmot, B.; Hamor, sterial Act, law or decree. Specific restrictions on F. D. (eds): Natural Forests in the Temperate Zone of Europe. Values and Utilisation. Conference 13-17 October tree felling or clearfell size may also be imposed. 2003, Mukachevo, Ukraine. Proceedings. Birmensdorf, • Forests within the borders of state-endorsed Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL; Rakhiv, Carpathian watershed areas; specific restrictions on tree Biosphere Reserve. 377-386. species composition or the use of herbicides may FRANK, G. & PARVIAINEN, J., 2006: MCPFE Information be imposed. Document on Data Collection and Compiling the Statis- tics on Protected and Protective Forest and Other Examples of sites that do not fulfil the requirements: Wooded Land in Europe. Warsaw. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, Liaison Unit Protective zones identified in the context of a Warsaw. management plan; these have not been endorsed at a higher (i.e. national or International) level and are IUCN, 1994: Guidelines for Protected Area Management Cate- gories. Gland, Switzerland, Commission on National therefore not considered to be explicit enough. Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA), World Conservation Forests managed under specific management Union (IUCN) and Cambridge, UK, UNEP World regimes, imposed through forest administration Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC). IUCN, directives, e.g. where forests border streams (i.e. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.261pp. buffer zones - no plantation of conifers allowed LATHAM, J., FRANK, G., FAHY, O., KIRBY, K, MILLER, H. & within defined areas adjacent streams; no clearfelling STIVEN, R. (eds), 2005: Cost Action E27 Protected Forest allowed, etc.): these designations are not explicit Areas in Europe – Analysis and Harmonisation enough, rather they are considered as regulations for (PROFOR): reports of signatory States. BFW – Vienna. ‘good forest practice’. MCPFE, 2003a: Annex 2 to Vienna resolution 4 - MCPFE- Assessment guidelines for protected and protective forest and other wooded land in Europe. IN : Fourth Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe – References Conference Proceedings, 28-30 April 2003, Vienna, Austria. ANON., 1992: Convention on Biological diversity. Adopted at MCPFE, 2003b: State of Europe’s Forests 2003. The MCPFE the United Nations 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Report on Sustainable Forest Management in Europe. http://www.biodiv.org/convention/convention.shtml Jointly prepared by the MCPFE Liaison Unit Vienna and DUDLEY, N. & STOLTON, S., 2003: Biological diversity, tree UN-ECE/FAO. species composition and environmental protection in PARVIANEN, J., KASSIOUMIS, K., BÜCKING, W., regional FRA-2000. Geneva Timber and Forest Discus- HOCHBICHLER, E., PÄIVINEN, R., LITTLE, D. ,2000: sion paper 33. UN-ECE and FAO, Rome. COST Action E4: Forest Reserves Research Network. DUDLEY, N. & PHILLIPS, A., 2006: Forests and Protected Missions, Goals, Linkages, Recommendations and Part- Areas: Guidance on the use of the IUCN Protected Area ners. Final Report. Joensuu, Finland. In: European management Categories. WCPA Best Practice Protected Commission (ed.): COST Action E 4. Forest Reserves Area Guidelines Series No. 12 - IUCN, Gland, Switzerland Research Network. 377 pp. Luxemburg. ISBN 92-894- and Cambridge, UK. 58pp. 0155-9. EUROPARC & IUCN, 2000: Guidelines for Protected Area PARVIAINEN, J., FRANK, G., 2003: Protected forests in Europe. Management Categories Interpretation and Application approaches harmonising the definitions for international of the IUCN Management Categories for Protected Areas comparison and forest policy making. Journal of Environ- in Europe, second corrected version. mental Management 67 (2003): 27-36. Part II - Harmonisation and Improvement of Information on European Protected Forest Areas - International Dimension 133

PARVIAINEN J., BÜCKING W., VANDEKERKHOVE K., Authors: Mr. Kris VANDEKERKHOVE PÄIVINEN R. & SCHUCK A., 2000: Strict Forest Institute for Forestry and Game Management Reserves in Europe: efforts to enhance biodiversity and Gaverstraat 4 research on forests left for free development in Europe B-9500 Geraardsbergen (EU-COST-action E4) Forestry 73/1, 107-118. E-Mail: [email protected] VANDEKERKHOVE K. (ed), 2004: COST Action E27 Protected Forest Areas in Europe - Comments by the members of Dr. Georg FRANK COST-action E27 – Working Group 2 on the draft paper Federal Research and Training Centre for Forests, ‘Forest Protected Areas and the IUCN Protected Area Natural Hazards and Landscape Management Categories - Additional guidance on the use Hauptstraße 7 of IUCN Protected Area Categories for Forest Protected A-1140 Vienna Areas’. E-Mail: [email protected] VANDEKERKHOVE K., FRANK G. & LITTLE D., 2005: COST Action E27 Protected Forest Areas in Europe - Working Dr. Jari PARVIAINEN Group 2: ‘Harmonisation and improvement of informa- Finnish Forest Research Institute (Metla), tion on European Protected Forest Areas – international Joensuu Research Centre dimension’.Technical paper. P.O. Box 94 Reported data and assessment guidelines in the framework of FIN-801001 Joensuu the MCPFE reporting procedure on Protected Forest E-Mail: [email protected] Areas: results and recommendations of COST-action E27, WG2. Dr. Winfried BÜCKING UN-ECE/FAO, 2000: Forest Resources of Europe, CIS, North Forest Research Institute of Baden Württemberg America, Australia, Japan and New Zealand (industrial- Wohnhaldestraße 4 ized temperate/boreal countries). Main Report. UN- D-79100 Freiburg ECE/FAO Contribution to the Global Forest Resources E-Mail: [email protected] Assessment 2000. Geneva Timber and Forest study Papers, No. 17. 445 pp. New York and Geneva. Dr. Declan LITTLE UN-ECE/FAO, 2005: Joint FAO/ECE Working Party on Forest The TreeCouncil of Ireland Economics and Statistics. Document 27th session March Woodlands of Ireland 22-24 2005. Guidance of work area 2: Forest Resources Cabinteely House, The Park, Caninteely Assessment and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Manage- 18 Dublin ment in the Region. Geneva. 11 pp. E-Mail: [email protected]