UNESCO World Heritage Property "Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe", SOC Report 2018

bmnt.gv.at

Directorate III/6 National Parks, Nature Conservation and Species Protection

Mag. Viktoria Hasler Dr. Mechtild Rössler Sachbearbeiterin

Director [email protected] UNESCO World Heritage Centre +43 1 71100 611401 7, place de Fontenoy Fax +43 1 513 16 790 75352 PARIS 07 SP Stubenbastei 5, 1010 Vienna FRANCE

Geschäftszahl: BMNT-LE.1.5.3/0049-III/6/2018

UNESCO World Heritage property "Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe", SOC Report 2018

Dear Madam,

With reference to the WH Committee Decision 41 COM 8B.7, requesting a report on the implementation of the committee´s recommendations by 1 Dec. 2018, the State Party of Austria submits this report in the attachment. The report is drafted in accordance with the 12 State Parties of Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Italy, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Ukraine.

Please also see the attached document with the “Letters of Authorization” by the States Parties mentioned.

30. November 2018 Für die Bundesministerin: Mag. Viktoria Hasler

2 Attachments

Electronically processed

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

State Party Report on the State of Conservation of the Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe

submitted by Austria on behalf of the States Parties

Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Italy, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Ukraine

Reference Number: 1133ter

in response to World Heritage Committee Decision WHC 41 COM 8B.7

[for submission by 1 December 2018]

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

Table of contents

1 Glossary ...... 3 2 Executive summary of the report ...... 6 3 Response to the Decision of the World Heritage Committee ...... 7 3.1 Decision on enlargement, buffer zones and connectivity (6) ...... 7 3.1.1 Enlargement of component parts ...... 9 3.1.2 Connectivity ...... 11 3.1.3 Buffer zones (State of Conservation) ...... 33 3.1.4 Extension ...... 33 3.2 Decision on funding (7) ...... 35 3.3 Decision on appropriate buffer zone management (8) ...... 38 3.3.1 Monitoring of threats ...... 38 3.3.2 Management of buffer zones ...... 55 3.4 Other current conservation issues identified by the States Parties which may have an impact on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value ...... 63 3.5 In conformity with Paragraph 172 of the Operation Guidelines, describe any potential major restorations, alterations and/or new construction(s) intended within the property, the buffer zone(s) and/or corridors or other areas, where such developments may affect the Outstanding Universal Value of the property, including authenticity and integrity...... 69 3.6 Public access to the state of conservation report ...... 70 3.7 Signature of the submitting authority ...... 71 4 Annex ...... 72 4.1 References ...... 72 4.2 Protection regime of buffer zone for each component part/cluster ...... 74

Imprint:

Editors: Kirchmeir, H., Kovarovics, A., Coordination Office – E. C.O. Institute of Ecology

Authors: Hanns Kirchmeir, Anna Kovarovics, Marcus Waldherr, Pierre Ibisch, Andrej Sovinc

With contributions from experts on international and national level

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

1 Glossary We found different use and definitions of forest and forest-related terms. To ensure a common understanding of the forest-specific terms in this report we would like to provide the following definitions. The definitions are based on those used in the indicative definitions taken from the Report of the ad hoc technical expert group on forest biological diversity of the Convention on Biological Diversity (https://www.cbd.int/forest/definitions.shtml).

Table 1: Glossary of the report

Term Definition Source

Forest The group considers the FAO definition of a forest as the basic one CBD (FAO, 1998; FRA 2000), but acknowledge that many other useful definitions of "forest" exist in published form. The fact that "forest" has been defined in many ways is a reflection of the diversity of forests and forest ecosystems in the world and of the diversity of human approaches to forests. In this document, a forest is a land area of more than 0.5 ha, with a tree canopy cover of more than 10%, which is not primarily under agricultural or other specific non-forest land use. In the case of young forests or regions where tree growth is climatically suppressed, the trees should be capable of reaching a height of 5 m in situ, and of meeting the canopy cover requirement.

Forest biome This reflects the ecological and physiognomic characteristics of the CBD vegetation and broadly corresponds to climatic regions of the Earth. In this document, it is used in reference to boreal, temperate and tropical forest biomes.

Forest type Within biomes, a forest type is a group of forest ecosystems of CBD generally similar composition that can be readily differentiated from other such groups by their tree and undercanopy species composition, productivity and/or crown closure.

Forest ecosystem A forest ecosystem can be defined at a range of scales. It is a dynamic CBD complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their abiotic environment interacting as a functional unit, where trees are a key component of the system. Humans, with their cultural, economic and environmental needs are an integral part of many forest ecosystems.

Primary forest = A primary forest is a forest that has never been logged and has CBD developed following natural disturbances and under natural Primeval forest processes, regardless of its age. It is referred to "direct human disturbance" as the intentional clearing of forest by any means (including fire) to manage or alter them for human use. (We follow this

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

more strict definition and do not include managed forest on sites of continuous forest cover).

Secondary forest A secondary forest is a forest that has been logged and has recovered CBD naturally or artificially. Not all secondary forests provide the same value to sustaining biological diversity, or goods and services, as did primary forest in the same location. In Europe, secondary forest is forest land where there has been a period of complete clearance by humans with or without a period of conversion to another land use. Forest cover has regenerated naturally or artificially through planting.

Old growth forest Old growth forest stands are stands in primary or secondary forests CBD that have developed the structures and species normally associated with old primary forest of that type have sufficiently accumulated to act as a forest ecosystem distinct from any younger age class.

Natural forest A forest composed of indigenous trees and not classified as forest FAO plantation.

Mature forest In this report we use the term for managed forests in the age class of 80+ yrs. Tree height is close to the maximum, but as distinguished from old growth forest many natural structural elements (dead wood, canopy gaps, different age classes or development phases) might be missing.

Plantation forest A plantation forest may be afforested land or a secondary forest CBD established by planting or direct seeding. A gradient exists among plantation forests from even-aged, single species monocultures of exotic species with a fibre production objective to mixed species, native to the site with both fibre and biodiversity objectives. This gradient will probably also reflect the capability of the plantation forest to maintain "normal" local biological diversity.

Degraded forest A degraded forest is a secondary forest that has lost, through human CBD activities, the structure, function, species composition or productivity normally associated with a natural forest type expected on that site. Hence, a degraded forest delivers a reduced supply of goods and services from the given site and maintains only limited biological diversity. Biological diversity of degraded forests includes many non- tree components, which may dominate in the undercanopy vegetation.

Reforestation Reforestation is the re-growth of forests after a temporary (< 10 CBD years.) condition with less than 10% canopy cover due to human- induced or natural perturbations (FAO, FRA 2000).

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

Afforestation Afforestation is the conversion from other land uses into forest, or the CBD increase of canopy cover to the 10% defined threshold for forest (FAO, FRA 2000).

Forest Forest fragmentation refers to any process that results in the CBD fragmentation conversion of formerly continuous forest into patches of forest separated by non-forested lands.

Habitat loss Habitat loss, used with reference to an individual species, is the CBD permanent conversion of former (forest) habitat to an area where that species can no longer exist, be it still forested or not.

Forest species A forest species is a species that forms part of a forest ecosystem or is CBD dependent on a forest for part or all of its day-to-day living requirements or for its reproductive requirements. Therefore, an animal species may be considered a forest species even if it does not live most of its life in a forest.

Native species A native species is one which naturally exists at a given location or in a CBD particular ecosystem, i.e. it has not been moved there by humans.

Endemic species An endemic species is a native species restricted to a particular CBD geographic region owing to factors such as isolation or in response to soil or climatic conditions.

Alien species An alien species is a species, sub-species or member of a lower taxon CBD that has been introduced outside its normal past and present distribution; the definition includes the gametes, seeds, eggs, propagules or any other part of such species that might survive and subsequently reproduce (GISP, 2001).

Invasive alien An invasive alien species is an alien species which becomes established CBD species in natural or semi-natural ecosystems or habitats. It is an agent of change and threatens native biological diversity (IUCN, 2000).

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

2 Executive summary of the report This State of Conservation Report is submitted by Austria and was prepared by the States Parties Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Italy, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Ukraine as requested by UNESCO in their decision WHC 41 COM 8B.7. Each chapter of the report deals with and discusses different requests and questions raised in the former mentioned decision.

For answering and discussing the stated issues, a questionnaire was developed and an online survey was implemented, questioning experts from all participating States Parties and component parts. With this basis and a comprehensive literature research, this report was prepared and discussed within the network of beech forest experts throughout Europe.

In the decision (WHC 41 COM 8B.7), the sizes of the smallest component parts (e.g. in the Sonian Forest) were mentioned critically and the possible enlargement of this site was requested. Belgium already reacted on this request and conducted a study regarding the implementation of green bridges throughout the component cluster.

The issue of connectivity between the single component parts, especially within one protected area was discussed in the decision (WHC 41 COM 8B.7) of UNESCO. In this report, all component cluster (more than one component part within one protected area) are summarized and each individual situation is discussed. All component cluster show high connectivity between their component parts. To ensure this, it is considered to designate some parts of the buffer zone to this specific connective function. In some cases, corridors may be created or stepping stones placed within the existing buffer zones in the future. Also, the connectivity between neighbouring component clusters (e.g. Kalkalpen and Dürrenstein in Austria) is discussed. However, connectivity throughout Europe is desirable and will be supported by the existing component parts but is far beyond the scope of the management of this UNESCO World Heritage property.

Also, the protection status of the existing buffer zones was explored during the preparation of this report. It reflects different approaches and very specific situations. For these different circumstances, a proposal was developed introducing different types of buffer zones with different functions.

As a further step towards a finite series of component parts another extension nomination is planned for 2020. The current status and possible candidates are introduced in this report.

The funding of the individual component parts and the coordination project, co-funded by the European Union and the Austrian Federal Ministry for Sustainability and Tourism, are presented in the report as well.

Also, the threats as defined in the Threat Classification Scheme of IUCN have been investigated and discussed with all component parts and clusters.

Finally, all currently discussed and/or reported conservation issues as well as possible current developments in/around the existing component parts are reported.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

3 Response to the Decision of the World Heritage Committee

The following chapters address questions and requests raised by UNESCO in their Decision 41 COM 8B.7 paragraph by paragraph. The paragraph discussed is quoted at the beginning of the relevant chapters; the answers and arguments follow this citation.

The following methods have been used to elaborate these answers and arguments:

• an expert online questionnaire worked out according to the requests raised in the said Decision of UNESCO, • an academic analysis of the answers collected, • a systematic literature search considering the latest scientific findings and • international beech forest expert discussions.

This report shows the current situation within the World Heritage property and the future management of the component parts and their buffer zones. 3.1 Decision on enlargement, buffer zones and connectivity (6)

Decision 41 COM 8B.7 (6.): “Requests the States Parties to consider the future enlargement of components in consultation with IUCN and the World Heritage Centre, to at least the established minimum size of 50 ha, and to strengthen the protection level within buffer zones and the improvement of ecological connectivity especially between component parts, and further recommends interested States Parties to ensure that component parts included in any future extensions exceed minimum requirements to fully meet integrity, protection and management requirements;

For developing effective responses and solutions to the requests, the coordination office is designing a systematic methodological approach that will allow for assessing and monitoring the threats as well as the effectiveness of buffer zones. A first short-term step towards this assessment was an online questionnaire to which the States Parties provided their feedback online. In the future, remote sensing-based data will be used to verify and amend the appraisals put forward by the States Parties.

Topics of the questionnaire The questionnaire addresses the following topics:

• Threats to the property • Protection status of the component parts / cluster and surrounding territories • Funding of the property

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

Who was proposed to answer the questionnaire? The questionnaire was answered by national experts or teams of experts familiar with the situation of component parts or clusters. These experts had access to maps of the protected area systems and to reports / statistics on the funding situation in each of the component parts / clusters.

What was the spatial unit to be described? The questionnaire was completed for each component part / cluster. As in the Nomination Dossier of the last extension, the components within one management unit in charge of the property (in many cases the protected area management responsible for the site) were the unit(s) to be assessed in the questionnaire. In the case of component clusters (e.g. Central Balkan NP, Kalkalpen NP, Sonian Forest …), the answers in the questionnaire cover more than one component part. This approach was chosen to reduce complexity and effort in the query, as threats and protection status in one cluster are fairly homogeneous and the funding source for multiple component parts within the same management unit is typically the same.

The questions on the protection status had to be answered for each component part / cluster, their buffer zones and surrounding areas (300 m around the buffer zones). For each zone (component part, buffer zone, surrounding), the percentage for each category of protection regime was indicated.

Methodology The following questions were answered:

• What are the relevant threats for beech forests as the part of the serial World Heritage property and how can management, and especially buffer zone design, effectively respond to these threats? Clarification of this question is requested in the COM41 Decision as well as in the comments of IUCN to the Statement of OUV. • How are the component parts/clusters and their buffer zones embedded into different zones of land use regulation? This “site configuration” is needed to understand the buffer zone design and the connectivity between component parts within a cluster. • Is there a sustainable funding source for the site management to ensure effective management of the property?

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

3.1.1 Enlargement of component parts 3.1.1.1 Analysis of the current situation Out of the 78 component parts, only four are less than 50 ha in size. These four component parts are part of the component cluster Sonian Forest in Belgium.

Figure 1: Map of component cluster Sonian Forest

Table 2: Component parts in Sonian Forest component cluster

Area Name of component part (ha) 8 Forest Reserve “Joseph Zwaenepoel” 187,35 9 Grippensdelle A 24,12 10 Grippensdelle B 37,38 11 Réserve forestière du Ticton A 13,98 12 Réserve forestière du Ticton B 6,50

The cluster consists of five component parts. All of them are strict forest reserves embedded into a forest ecosystem which is managed under different protected area categories in the three regions (Brussels, Flanders, Wallonia). Within the buffer zone, Brussels and Flanders have additionally delimited set-aside-zones where no forest management interventions are undertaken. The forest as a whole, component parts and buffer zones are FSC (Brussels and Flanders) or PEFC (Wallonia) labelled. Taking into account the forest management in the buffer zones, the decision was made in the 9

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

nomination process to put a strict buffer zone of 50 m with protective function around the forest reserve. Forest intervention in this strict buffer zone is strictly limited to security measures.

In the northern part of the Sonian Forest, at a distance of 1.3 km from the large Joseph Zwaenepoel reserve, the component parts number 9 and 10 (Grippensdelle A & B) are separated by a road. The road is of such small size that it enables trees from each side of the road to be in touch with their crowns. Brussels has conducted a feasibility study to construct a green bridge (ecoduct) as an ecological corridor between the two component parts. Remedying defragmentation through the construction of a green bridge is an explicit objective in the new draft management plan. The formal decision on the construction of this green bridge will be taken by the next regional government after the elections in May 2019. The draft management plan foresees a zone of 20 ha of old beech stands adjacent to part 10 as a strict buffer zone, which means that only safety interventions will take place there over the next 24 years. This means, in practice, that this zone could be considered an enlargement. However, the formal and political process for enlargement has not been planned by now, as Brussels focuses on the draft management plan in the first place. The approval of the draft management plan by the government is planned before May 2019.

In the southern part of the Sonian Forest, component parts 11 and 12 (Réserve forestière du Ticton A & B) would need significant enlargement to reach the 50 ha benchmark. A study on a possible future extension is currently being conducted in cooperation with scientists of the Walloon Département. Since creating a qualitative connection between component parts 11 and 12 is hardly possible due to the presence and current occupation of constructions between the two sites, the proposal for enlargement will focus on one of the two parts. A political decision is expected to be taken in 2019.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

3.1.2 Connectivity This chapter deals with the question of connectivity, mainly between component parts (situated within one protected area). Interconnectivity between component parts/clusters located in one and the same country (in most cases) or even Europe-wide by far exceeds the scope of the management of the World Heritage property of the Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe. Nevertheless all types of connectivity will be mentioned and discussed below.

3.1.2.1 Analysis of the current situation The connectivity of component parts was analysed on three levels:

1. Connectivity of component parts within component cluster 2. Connectivity between neighbouring component clusters 3. Connectivity across all component clusters (throughout the property)

Connectivity of component parts within component clusters A component cluster comprises a protected area management unit managing more than one component part. There are 14 component clusters with 47 component parts in nine States Parties.

In the case of smaller component parts (< 300 ha), the connectivity within a component cluster is of high priority. The connectivity between the component parts will help increase resilience when one component part suffers disturbances and recolonization of species from the other component part is needed, or to increase habitat size, especially of vertebrates, to ensure genetic viability of the population.

Table 3: Component cluster of the property

Size of States smallest Number of component Connected by Component cluster Party component parts buffer zone part (ha) AT Kalkalpen 265 4 Yes BE Sonian Forest 7 5 Yes BG Central Balkan 591 9 No ES Hayedos de Picos de Europa 110 2 Yes ES Hayedos de Navarra 64 2 Yes ES Hayedos de Ayllon 72 2 Yes HR Paklenica National Park 791 2 No Abruzzo, Lazio & Molise National IT 5 No Park 105 RO Domogled - Valea Cernei 1104 3 Yes RO Cozia 1103 2 Yes RO Groșii Țibleșului 136 2 Yes SK Poloniny National Park 69 3 No 2x2 are UA Synevyr 4 261 connected1 UA Zacharovanyi Krai 94 2 Yes

1 Always two of the four component parts are connected. 11

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

The current connectivity patterns in each of the component clusters were analysed and are described in the next chapter. It was checked whether or not the component parts are connected by a buffer zone and whether or not there is a connecting corridor by mature beech forest. Where distances between the component parts are noted in the text, they have been measured from the border of the component part to the border of the closest neighbouring component part. Additionally, the current management regime of the buffer zone is described.

Analysis of each component cluster

The component parts of the Kalkalpen National Park are located in the Northern Limestone Alps of Austria and represent a cluster with four component parts (265-2946 ha of size) embedded in a buffer zone of 14,243 ha. The buffer zone is subject to a strict protection regime. Only small alpine pasturelands of the buffer zone are under permanent management. On small, spruce-dominated areas close to the border of the National Park, phytosanitary management is possible. This management regime enables good connectivity across the buffer zone.

Figure 2: The four component parts of the Kalkalpen National Park are connected by buffer zones under strict protection regime.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

The situation of the Sonian Forest has been described in the section above (3.1.1 Enlargement of component parts). The Sonian Forest is located close to the city of Brussels. There are five component parts of different size (6.5; 14; 24; 37 and 187 ha) which are embedded in a continuous buffer zone of 4,651 ha.

A green bridge has been built in 2018 to enhance the connectivity between component part 8 and the southern component parts 11 and 12 (see Figure 1). A green bridge built in 2012 enhances the connection between the central zone (component part 8) and the northern part (component part 9). An additional green bridge connecting component parts 8 and 9 is considered as well as future enlargements of other sites. A network of stepping stones with old growth forest structures is established in the buffer zone to ensure connectivity between all five component parts.

Figure 3: The five component parts of the Sonian Forest are connected by a buffer zone under sustainable management regime.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

Figure 4: Saving dead wood and ‘biotope-trees’ (dots) to increase connectivity is included in the management plan of the Sonian Forest.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

The Central Balkan National Park covers the area of a 60 km long mountain ridge, the nine component parts and buffer zones are located in a strict protection zone. The component parts are between 591 and 2,466 ha large. Except for two component parts in the east section of the park, the buffer zones are not connected with each other. Depending on the size of their component parts, the buffer zones cover between 290 and 2,577 ha. The component parts and their buffer zones are interlinked by the “Human limited impact (HLI)” zone of the National Park. “The Human limited impact zone comprises territories adjacent to the Reserve zone, which are strictly protected and because of their location and qualities could reduce the anthropogenic pressure on the reserves; these also serve as biological corridors between individual reserve territories to form an unabridged, non-fragmented territory, preserving the natural ecological processes, habitats and species”. (Management Plan of the Central Balkan National Park 2016-2025) The only thing that distinguishes HLI zone from the Reserve zone is the possibility for carrying out maintenance and restoration forest activities in some of the forest communities in case of need. As the protection status of this zone is very strict, connectivity between the component parts is ensured on the long term.

Figure 5: World heritage zoning and Human limited impact zone in the Central Balkan National Park.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

The two component parts of the Hayedos de Picos de Europa National Park have a size of 214 ha and 110 ha and are located at a distance of 7 km from each other. They are separated by natural alpine landscapes, subalpine beech forests and semi-natural subalpine pasture habitats. The buffer zone, with a size of 14,000 ha, consists of large mature beech forest habitats. Connectivity between the two component parts is ensured by the protection status of a national park (IUCN II) of the buffer zone.

Figure 6: Current zoning of Hayedos de Picos de Europa National Park component cluster.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

The Hayedos de Navarra in the Lizardoia and Aztaparreta Integrated Reserve is a large protected area complex along the main ridge of the Pyrenees. The two component parts of 64 and 171 ha are connected by a buffer zone of 24,000 ha. The buffer zone consists of sub-alpine mature beech forests, sub-alpine and alpine grasslands and habitats with scattered vegetation. In the buffer zone, a variety of management options is considered. Some parts of the reserve are without human use while other areas are with a sustainable forest management, but this forest management follows the principles of nature conservation as the whole area is legally declared as SAC (Natura 2000 Special Areas of Conservation). The high proportion of natural beech forests in the buffer zone and the absence of intensive forest management enable good connectivity over a distance of 25 km between the two component parts.

Figure 7: Current zoning of Hayedos de Navarra component cluster.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

The Hayedos de Ayllon in the Sierra del Rincon Biosphere Reserve consists of two small beech forests (256 ha, 72 ha). The distance between the two component parts is 16 km. The exceptional value of these two sites is their location in an Iberian-Mediterranean dry climate and being the best-preserved examples of this eco-type. Beech forests in this sub-region naturally occur only as small patches in the landscapes of dry ridges with oak forests, shrub lands or open landscapes. Under the given climate conditions, there has never been a continuous beech forest cover connecting the two component parts. So, a certain degree of isolation is natural. The buffer zone connecting the two component parts is located in the buffer zone of a biosphere reserve and a nature park and is designated as a Natura 2000 site. It is dominated by natural or seminatural habitats; no intensive agriculture or settlements are present. It is important for the management of the buffer zone to maintain the beech forest patches as stepping stones.

Figure 8: Current zoning of Hayedos de Ayllon component cluster.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

The component cluster of Paklenica National Park is located in the southern section of the Velebit mountain ridge in the Croatian coastal region. It consists of two component parts with buffer zones, which are not connected to each other. The two component parts have a size of 791 and 1241 ha with buffer zones of 395 and 414 ha. Between the two component parts there is a rock ridge where forest never appeared and which was therefore not included in the buffer zone. As this section is located within the boundaries of the National Park, the States Party of Croatia considers integrating this connecting section into the buffer zone to link the two component parts (see Figure 9).

Figure 9: Current zoning of Paklenica National Park component cluster. The red circle indicates the area where buffer zones might be connected.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

The component cluster of Abruzzo, Lazio & Molise National Park north of Rome in Italy consists of five component parts (105-325 ha). Two of them are located in the same buffer zone (752 ha). 80 % of the buffer zones in this cluster are under strict protection, in 20 % limited use of resources is allowed. All four separated buffer zones are located inside the National Park where only restricted forest use is permitted. The maximum distance between the component parts is 10 km. They are embedded within natural beech forest ecosystems with limited economic use, so good connectivity between the component parts is available.

Figure 10: Current zoning of Abruzzo, Lazio & Molise National Park component cluster.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

The Domogled - Valea Cernei National Park is one of the largest component clusters. The three component parts (1,104; 3,517 and 5,111 ha) make up almost 10,000 ha and the buffer zone is more than 50,000 ha of size. The buffer zone comprises natural beech forest, sustainably managed, of mainly mature beech forests on both sides of the valley. Although the buffer zone of the World Heritage components is designated as a national park, the buffer zone is managed. The component cluster and the buffer zone are designated as a national park, almost the entire forests (that represent about 75% of the total national park area) being natural beech forests. The large size of the component parts (all of them more than 1000 ha) ensures integrity through all ecological forest development phases and processes inside each component part. As the area of the buffer zone is very large, it is unlikely that the connectivity between component parts will be limited by management impacts within the next decades. To ensure connectivity on the long term, corridors with specific connective function can be established inside the existing buffer zone (not with other protected areas).

Figure 11: The three component parts in Domogled - Valea Cernei National Park are embedded in a large forest area.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

The cluster of Cozia National Park is located in the southern part of the Carpathians. The two component parts are 1,103 to 2,286 ha large and are embedded in a buffer zone of 2,409 ha. The two component parts are very close to each other and are only separated by the river Olt and a road. The distance between the component parts is only 300 m. The road does not add significant effect to the natural barrier of the river.

Figure 12: Current zoning of Cozia National Park component cluster.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

The Groșii Țibleșului Forest Protection Zone component cluster in the norther part of the Carpathians in Romania consists of two component parts with a distance of 1.5 km between them. The forest area in the buffer zone was formerly intensively managed. Several large shelterwood cuttings (5-40 ha) from the time before World Heritage designation left a high amount of immature young beech forest stands in the buffer zone. Therefore, it is of importance to designate guidelines for the management of the buffer zones, to ensure adequate transition areas with a connective function between the two component parts of 211 and 136 ha in size. A corridor of mature beech forest has been left at the upper part of the ridge to connect the two components. The area is surrounded by natural forests.

Figure 13: Current zoning of Groșii Țibleșului Forest Protection Zone component cluster.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

The three component parts of the Poloniny National Park in the Eastern Carpathians in Slovakia are currently being re-designed, so the site configuration will change. In the existing designation, the buffer zones of the three component parts are not interlinked, although all of them are located inside the Poloniny National Park (IUCN category V). The landscape is rich in beech forests and the economic forest management is of various intensity. It can be expected that forestry intervention will not lead to a loss of connectivity within the next decades, if the forest management will not be intensified.

Figure 14: Current zoning of Poloniny National Park component cluster.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

The component cluster of Synevyr National Park consists of two complexes located at a distance of 6 km distance from each other. Each complex consists of two component parts linked by the buffer zone. The southern complex is directly adjacent to the Uholka-Shyrokyi Luh component part of the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve (CBR) in Ukraine, which connects the two component parts. In the northern complex, a buffer zone corridor of 2 km length connects the two component parts. A subalpine forest zone connects the northern complex with the southern Synevyr-CBR complex. This corridor is part of the Synevyr National Nature Part. The integration of a corridor function on the level of the management plan could ensure connectivity on the long term.

Figure 15: Current zoning of Synevyr National Nature Park component cluster.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

The Zacharovanyi Krai National Nature Park in the northern part of the Carpathians in Ukraine is a component cluster that consists of a large component part (1,164 ha) and a smaller component part (94 ha) at a distance of 800 m from each other. They are connected by a buffer zone. The buffer zone is built by continuous beech forest complexes of different development stages. Connectivity across the 800 m gap is in place and will be ensured by adequate management on the long term.

Figure 16: Current zoning of Zacharovanyi Krai National Nature Park component cluster.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

Summary on the connectivity inside clusters Connectivity established by mature beech forest is limited in the Hayedos de Ayllon, as the beech forest in this landscape is naturally limited to small patches due the current climate conditions. Only in the Groșii Țibleșului Forest Protection Zone, the connectivity by mature beech forest might be limited by historic and future forest management activities. Therefore, the preservation of mature beech forest stands along a corridor inside the existing buffer zone should be promoted with local stakeholders and the area management and should be included in a planning document as soon as possible.

Those areas with connective function within the existing buffer zones should be spatially defined within the next three years (no rezonations, only subzoning of functions). For these connective corridors an adapted management concept is needed if they are not under strict protection. The corridor management can either focus on increasing natural structures (see below in the definition of the connective function of buffer zones page 33) on the whole corridor or on a system of stepping- stone habitats along the corridor.

Connectivity between neighbouring component clusters Large parts of Europe would naturally be covered by beech forests. However, not all component parts are located within this large territory of a more or less connected potential beech forest matrix but are isolated extra-zonal component parts outside the zonal beech forest distribution. These component parts or clusters are characterised by their isolation. This is true for the following component parts/clusters:

• Spain: Hayedos de Ayllón • Italy: Sasso Fratino, Cozzo Ferriero, Monte Cimino, Monte Raschio • Ukraine: Satanіvska Dacha, Roztochya

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

Figure 17: Location of the component parts/clusters within the potential natural beech forest distribution (Bohn et al 2004).

Connecting neighbouring component parts/clusters is a long-term objective but is generally not within the competence of the protected area managements of the component parts.

There are ongoing activities to increase connectivity to the neighbouring beech forest habitats in the Sonian Forest of Belgium and between Kalkalpen National Park and Wilderness Area Dürrenstein in Austria.

Between the two Austrian component clusters, the initiative “Netzwerk Naturwald” was launched including the Gesäuse National Park (IUCN category II) as well. A corridor was established and, in the meantime, three stepping-stone forest reserves have been established (two inside the corridor, one outside). There are ongoing initiatives to find an agreement with the land owner to expand the Wilderness Area Dürrenstein for another 2-3,000 ha on the south-west edge of the component part, which would also reduce the distance to the next stepping-stone habitat as well as to the Gesäuse National Park.

With the establishment of the stepping stones and in case an extension is successful, the distance of 32 km between the two component parts can be reduced to subsections at a distance of no more than 12 km.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

Figure 18: Stepping stone forest reserves and potential extension along the corridor between Kalkalpen and Dürrenstein.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

In the Sonian Forest in Belgium, the plan “Pine Marten” supports the interconnection of the Sonian Forest to other forest complexes. It is included into the HORIZON+ project of urban planning.

Figure 19: ‘Pine Marten’ interconnection plan between Sonian Forest and surrounding forest habitats.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

We see the enhancement of connectivity between neighbouring World Heritage clusters closely linked to the activities at the European level and will discuss further steps in this section.

Connectivity across all component clusters The map in Figure 20 shows the Euclidian distance between the component parts already listed (blue dots) as well as potential candidate sites from the Vienna Shortlist which are not inscribed at the moment (green dots). In the background of the map the potential beech forest distribution derived from the map of Natural Vegetation of Europe (Bohn et al. 2004) is shown in orange colour while the current beech forest distribution is displayed in green. One can see that the three component clusters of the Pyrenees and Iberian peninsula are quite remote in relation to the other component clusters.

Figure 20: Euclidian distance between existing component parts (blue) and potential candidates (Vienna Shortlist; green).

Interconnectivity between the 41 protected areas hosting the 78 component parts is far beyond the scope of the management of the World Heritage property of the Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe.

Nevertheless a corridor development on this scale would not only add benefits to the connectivity between the World Heritage component parts but would contribute to many other aspects of nature conservation in Europe. So this vision can only be a long-term planning and development process.

As integrity of the component parts is ensured at the moment and connectivity might receive greater attention in the upcoming decades, there is no need for immediate action of developing connectivity along the European beech forest corridors.

As discussed above, not all sites need to be connected with each other, as they are naturally isolated. Developing ecological corridors in the highly populated European landscape is an important task. The 31

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

management of the World Heritage of Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe will support this process within their resources.

Time schedule of implementation To increase connectivity, as requested by the WHC in Decision 41 COM 8B.7, the following road map is proposed (and will be discussed/agreed on at the next JMC Meeting in May 2019):

• Ensure connectivity of component parts within the same cluster (2019-2025) o All management units with component cluster analyse the connectivity between component parts and come up with a draft corridor or stepping-stone map until the end of 2019. o Stepping-stone habitats or corridors are spatially planned, and suitable protection or management is in place with the aim that the corridors are in function. This phase should be finished by the end of 2025. • Connectivity between neighbouring component parts/clusters (2019-2030) o All management units will analyse potential corridors or stepping stones towards the neighbouring component parts or other protected areas with significant beech forest habitats (2019-2021). o A technical Master Plan on ecological corridors with the neighbouring component parts/clusters for each beech forest region will be developed until 2025. o According to the Master Plan, implementation programmes should be developed on national or regional level with realistic target setting until 2030. • Connectivity across Europe (2019-2050) o A technical analysis of potential corridors and existing protected areas with beech forest on the basis of current and potential beech forest distribution will be developed until the end of 2020. o The potential of the Natura 2000 network and other protected areas to support such a corridor network will be analysed until the end of 2020. o Awareness raising on the importance of such corridors will be actively done by the protected area management authorities, the involved ministries and experts on several levels (local, national, international). o As such a network needs support from other States Parties as well, an international working group under the umbrella of IUCN WCPA would be appreciated.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

3.1.3 Buffer zones (State of Conservation) The analysis of the current situation of the protection regime and the proposal of the future management regime is described in chapter 3.3.2 on page 55.

3.1.4 Extension The framework of future extension is provided by the result of the Trans-European screening process, which ended up in the Vienna Shortlist. This list may only be extended by sites which add significant value to the Outstanding Universal Value of the property and have not been part of or rejected by the screening process because of limited access to the information or changes in the status of protection.

Table 4: Potential extension candidates from the Vienna Shortlist.

States Party Site name

Bosnia-Herzegovina Perucica

Bosnia-Herzegovina Janj Forest Reserve

Greece Chaidou Rhodope

Greece Frakto Rhodope

Greece Olympos NP

Greece Pindos NP

Macedonia Dlaboka Reka

Montenegro Biogradska Gora

Poland Bieszczady

Serbia Fruska Gora

Sweden Söderasen

Switzerland Bettlachstock-Hasenmatt

Switzerland Valle di Lodano

United Kingdom New Forest

Sites from the Crimean Peninsula and from Kosovo have been removed from the current list.

A re-screening is going on in France and the Czech Republic to make sure that no sites that would add value to the World Heritage are missing in the list.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

To coordinate the process towards another extension of the World Heritage Site and to manage timely submission of the required Tentative Lists (until 1 February 2019), two meetings were held, a timetable was prepared and some guidelines for the zonation of the future component parts and the preparation of the nomination dossier were drafted.

Meeting in Bahrain With an international meeting held during the COM42 in Bahrain in 2018, the next extension process of the “Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe” was launched. All States Parties listed in the Vienna Shortlist were invited to take part in this extension. At the meeting the next extension and E.C.O. as coordination office were introduced to the candidates. After the meeting, a deadline was set until the end of September for each States Party to communicate whether it intends to be part of the extension.

Timetable for nomination process According to the requirements set out in the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention by UNESCO, and in coordination with the contracting authority, a timetable for the next extension was prepared, showing all important steps and milestones of the process.

Conference in Vienna In August 2018 a conference was held in Vienna, bringing together representatives of the existing World Heritage Site, the possible candidates of the next extension, IUCN and UNESCO. The conference was intended to start a direct discussion between representatives of the World Heritage Site on the one hand and the two most important organizations regarding World Heritage issues, UNESCO and IUCN, on the other hand. At this meeting 80 participants from 16 States Parties discussed the future of the World Heritage Site and its most important issues such as minimum sizes and buffer zone management.

Guideline on zoning and management To support the extension candidates in the zonation and the management of the future component parts, a guideline is prepared and will be further developed according to the requirements of UNESCO and IUCN and taking into account the latest relevant scientific evidence.

Guideline on the texts and documents needed for the nomination dossier To give an overview on the effort required for a successful extension nomination, a guideline was prepared showing all texts, documents and other data that have to be provided in the course of the nomination process. The guideline is based on the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention of UNESCO and the experiences made in the course of the last nomination process.

Technical Meeting Klagenfurt To inform future candidates about the current state of the extension nomination process and to discuss the provided timetable and guidelines, a technical meeting was held in Klagenfurt, Austria, on October 30th. All interested extension candidates were invited to join the coordination team and to discuss the further steps towards the next nomination process.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

3.2 Decision on funding (7)

Decision 41 COM 8B.7 (7.): “Also requests the States Parties to ensure that committed funding arrangements are able to safeguard consistent site management at the component level as well as coordinated management across the transnational serial property;”

Analysis of current situation - international coordination: The Austrian Ministry for Sustainability and Tourism funded a two-year coordination project with a volume of EUR 0.6 million. The project supports the development of required documents, analyses and examples for the two Austrian component clusters as well as the dissemination of results and the coordination of joint activities. A no-cost extension is possible until the end of the first quarter of 2020. Several States Parties (Belgium, Germany, Spain) have announced their willingness to take over the coordination activities for later periods (2-3 years each). The option of a permanent secretary is still discussed, different funding options have to be considered.

Analysis of current situation on component part/cluster level: To have comparable data across all management units, questions on the current status of funding were included into the online questionnaire. The following questions had to be answered by the national experts:

• Are there specific budget components in the available budget specifically addressed to World Heritage related activities (0, 1, 2, or more than 2) • If yes, what is the percentage of these components in relation to the total budget? (1%,5%, 10% ….90%, 100%) • Questions on specific field of funding • Available budget for travelling to international meetings • Available budget for information materials and public awareness raising activities (focus on World Heritage related issues) • Available budget for arranging local stakeholder meetings • Available budget for research and monitoring (ecosystem, human impacts...) • Available budget to finance management related studies • Available budget to support sustainable regional development activities (e.g. tourism, handcrafts …) • Source of budget (multiple answers possible): o budget available by regular annual funding mechanism o project based budget available (limited to project period) o sponsorship from private person or companies o contribution/donation by international organisations Specific budget components for WH related activities 18 management units reported that they have at least one budget component specifically addressing World Heritage-specific activities, while another 16 management units answered that they do not have specific budget components. However, most component parts are managed by protected area

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

management authorities which do have budget lines. In many cases these existing budget lines are not adapted to the new status of a World Heritage but at the same time many of the management activities have not changed significantly compared to the previous management objectives.

Nevertheless most of the management units responsible for the component parts do have budget lines for the following activities:

• Information and awareness raising • Management related studies • Research and monitoring • Stakeholder meetings • Sustainable regional development • Travel budget

For the rating of the specific fields of funding the following classes were given in the questionnaire:

cat Value n.d. No data available 1 less than € 100 2 € 100 - € 1,000 3 € 1,000 - € 5,000 4 € 5,000 - € 25,000 5 more than € 25,000

The detailed answers on the specific fields of funding can be found in Table 52.

The highest budgets are available in the categories “Information and awareness raising” and “Research and monitoring”, while those for “Stakeholder meetings” and “Travel budget” are lowest.

The absolute values of the budget lines vary greatly among European regions. However, as in most cases the services costs for the activities vary accordingly, these differences might be compensated and an effective output can be expected. Only in the case of the travel costs, a similar cost level for international travels has to be expected for all Europe. Low travel budgets limit possibilities to participate in international meetings, which are needed to allow joint management and knowledge exchange.

Table 5: Details on the funding situation specific for activities linked to the World Heritage management issues (n.d. = no data).

Sustain- Information Manage- Research Stake- able Component part / and ment Travel ID and holder regional cluster awareness related budget Monitoring meetings develop- studies raising ment AL01 Rrajca n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. AL04 Lumi i gashit n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. AT01 Kalkalpen 3 4 3 3 4 2 AT02 Dürrenstein 4 4 5 3 5 4

2 In the case of Slovenia the numbers shown in the table are limited to specific budget lines provided for World Heritage purposes only and do not reflect the overall budget available for each activity. 36

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

BE01 Sonian Forest 5 5 5 4 5 4 BG02 Central Balkan 3 3 3 3 1 3 DE01 Jasmund 4 2 3 2 2 3 DE02 Serrahn 4 1 1 1 3 3 DE03 Grumsin 5 4 4 2 3 2 DE04 Hainich 4 3 4 3 4 2 DE05 Kellerwald 4 4 4 2 1 3 Hayedos de Picos ES03 de Europa n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. ES04 Hayedos de Navarra n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. Hayedos de Ayllón - ES05 La Mancha 3 2 3 2 3 2 Hayedos de Ayllón - ES05 Madrid 5 3 5 3 4 1 Paklenica National HR01 Park 3 4 4 2 3 3 Hajdučki i Rožanski HR06 kukovi 3 3 4 2 2 3 IT01 Foresta Umbra 4 5 4 2 3 3 IT02 Sasso Fratino 5 1 5 1 1 1 IT06 Cozzo Ferriero 1 3 3 1 1 1 IT07 Monte Cimino 2 2 2 2 2 1 IT08 Monte Raschio 3 2 2 1 2 1 Abruzzo, Lazio & IT16 Molise National Park 3 4 4 3 3 3 Codrul Secular RO01 Slătioara 3 1 1 1 3 2 RO02 Codrul Secular Șinca 1 1 4 1 1 1 Cheile Nerei- RO03 Beușnița 1 1 2 1 1 1 RO09 Cozia 2 1 1 2 2 1 RO11 Groșii Țibleșului 1 1 1 1 1 2 RO12 Izvoarele Nerei 2 4 1 2 2 1 RO20 Strâmbu Băiuț 2 1 1 1 1 2 Domogled - Valea RO21 Cernei 2 1 4 2 2 1 SI03 Snežnik-Ždrocle 1 1 1 1 1 1 SI05 Krokar 1 1 1 1 1 1 National Park SK01 Poloniny 3 1 3 2 2 3 SK02 Vihorlat 3 1 3 2 2 3 UA01 Zacharovanyi Krai 1 1 1 2 1 1 UA02 Gorgany 3 3 3 3 3 3 UA03 Satanіvska Dacha 2 2 1 4 1 2 UA04 Roztochya 1 1 2 1 1 1 UA05 Synevyr 2 2 1 4 1 3 Carpathian UA19 Biosphere Reserve 2 1 4 1 3 2 Uzhanski national UA20 nature park 2 1 2 1 3 1

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

3.3 Decision on appropriate buffer zone management (8)

Decision 41 COM 8B.7 (8.): “Further requests that special emphasis shall be given to appropriate buffer zone management in order to support undisturbed natural processes with special emphasis on dead and decaying wood, including ongoing monitoring of threats and risks, making effective use of the expertise and institutional capacity in management of the property;” The buffer zone functions will be described in chapter 3.3.2 on page 55. The appropriate buffer zone management has to be developed in line with these functions. For the protection buffer zones, the protective function is closely related to the threats that should be buffered. This is why first an analysis of threats is carried out and then the management recommendations are developed.

3.3.1 Monitoring of threats 3.3.1.1 Methodology All threats mentioned and described below refer to the property (component parts/cluster). Where they refer to other zones (e.g. buffer zones, surrounding areas), this is mentioned in the text.

The first analysis is based on the results of the online questionnaire on current and future threats to the property (see “Topics of the questionnaire”, page 7). Experts from protected area management estimated the current and future impact of the threats (see page 40) on the beech forest ecosystem in the respective component part/cluster. The threats comply with the IUCNs Threats Classification Scheme (Version 3.2), which is closely related to the list of factors affecting the World Heritage that provides a standard list of threats/factors affecting the Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage.

The threats were rated for the current situation (in 2018) and for the potential future situation (in 2050) according to the following rating scale:

• 0 = Threat is not relevant (e.g. will not affect the component part/cluster or has no negative known impact on the beech forest ecosystem) • 1 = Threat has low relevance (e.g. affects only small parts of the component part/cluster < 10% or is very unlikely to happen (low estimated frequency) and has only low impact on the beech forest ecosystem) • 2 = Threat has medium relevance (e.g. affects significant parts of the component part/cluster (> 10%) OR is medium likely to happen (medium estimated frequency) BUT has only low impact on the beech forest ecosystem) • 3 = Threat has high relevance (e.g. affects significant parts of the component part/cluster (> 10%) OR is likely to happen (high estimated frequency) AND has high impact on the beech forest ecosystem)

This rating includes the impacts of each threat according to WH paper 23 “[…] Impacts of threats are knock-on problems that result (e.g. for forests, an impact could be soil erosion or loss of connectivity between forest fragments […]”

This estimation takes into account that the threat impacts are synonymous with stresses to the beech forest ecosystems which reduce the functionality and adaptive capacity of the ecosystem as a whole. 38

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

For this reason, the results from a vulnerability assessment on the situation of old growth beech forests (Beech Forest Network of Europe, 2015) regarding current and potential risks (including stresses to beech forest ecosystems, related threats and contributing factors) were taken into consideration for the estimation of the relevance of a specific threat for buffer zone design and management.

The approach of assessing threats by expert inquiry has limitations: Inquiries of different protected- area experts lead to individual biases, which means that the assessment relies on a subjective rating of the relevance of threats.

The ongoing coordination project (2017-2020) uses a more systematic approach to assess threats. It applies the same classification matrix to each component part and investigates threats considering Google Earth images and data on tree cover loss (Hansen et al. 2013) displayed on Global Forest Watch for selected component parts/clusters.

3.3.1.2 Results of threat analysis Experts from 39 out of 41 protected areas participated in the online questionnaire, which covers 72 of 78 component parts3 as well as all relevant beech forest regions except the Baltic region.

Table 6 indicates the results of the questionnaire regarding the number of protected areas considering specific threats and the ranking of their relevance. The results for the ranking of the current situation and the future potential are additionally visualized in Figure 21 and Figure 22.

3 No data from Albania Lumi i gashit, Strictly Protected Area and Rrajca, National Park Shebenic-Jablanica, (Albania) included. 39

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

Table 6: Number of protected areas considering specific threats as currently and/or potentially relevant (low, medium, high) for the respective component part/cluster.

Threats Current relevance Potential future relevance No. Low Medium High Low Medium High

1 Commercial & industrial areas 2 4 1

2 Housing & urban areas 3 1 5 2

3 Tourism & recreation areas 22 1 17 9

4 Agro-industry farming 2 3

5 Agro-industry grazing, ranching or farming 2 3

6 Agro-industry plantations 1 3

7 Nomadic grazing 5 6

8 Shifting agriculture 3 2 1

9 Small-holder farming 3 4

10 Small-holder grazing, ranching or farming 9 10

11 Small-holder plantations 2

12 Hydropower Plants 1 3

13 Mining & quarrying 4 5

14 Oil & gas drilling 2

15 Solarpower Plants 1

16 Windcraft 3

17 Roads & railroads 10 1 8 3

18 Utility & service lines 5 6

19 Fishing & harvesting aquatic resources 1 1

20 Gathering terrestrial plants 5 1 6

21 Hunting and collecting terrestrial animals 8 1 7 1

22 Logging & wood harvesting 8 3 6 4

23 Recreational activities 24 1 21 9

24 War, civil unrest & military exercises 1 3

25 Work & other activities 2 2

26 Abstraction of ground water 2 2

27 Abstraction of surface water 2 4

28 Abstraction of surface water (domestic use) 3 5

29 Dams (size unknown) 2

30 Increase in fire frequency/intensity 4 1 10 2

31 Large dams 1 2

32 Small dams 4 5 1

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

33 Suppression in fire frequency/intensity 2 1 4 1

34 Diseases of unknown cause 4 5 1 2

35 Introduced genetic material 4 2

36 Invasive non-native/alien species/disease, Named species 8 9 5

37 Invasive non-native species/diseases, Unspecified species 3 7 2 2

38 Problematic native species/diseases, Named species 8 12

39 Problematic native species/diseases, Unspecified species 1 7

40 Problematic species/diseases of unknown origin, Named 4 8 2 1 species

41 Problematic species/diseases of unknown origin, Unspecified 2 8 1 2 species

42 Viral/prion-induced diseases, Named "species" 3 7 1 2

43 Viral/prion-induced diseases, Unspecified species 2 9 1 2

44 Acid rain 12 16

45 Domestic & urban waste water, Run-off 1 4

46 Domestic & urban waste water, Sewage 2 4

47 Garbage & solid waste 6 6 2

48 Herbicides and pesticides 1 2

49 Industrial & military effluents, Oil spills 1 1

50 Industrial & military effluents, Seepage from mining 2 4

51 Light pollution 2 3

52 Noise pollution 4 5 1

53 Nutrient loads 1 2

54 Ozone 4 4

55 Smog 4 5

56 Soil erosion, sedimentation 6 8

57 Thermal pollution 1

58 Avalanches/landslides 3 5

59 Earthquakes/tsunamis 5

60 Volcanoes 1 1

61 Droughts 6 3 11 6 3

62 Habitat shifting & alteration 10 7 2 1

63 Storms & flooding 12 1 15 3 1

64 Temperature extremes 9 2 15 5 3

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

Number of protected areas indicating threat as relevant 0 5 10 15 20 25 Commercial & industrial areas

Tourism & recreation areas

Agro-industry grazing, ranching or farming

Nomadic grazing

Small-holder farming

Small-holder plantations

Mining & quarrying

Solarpower Plants

Roads & railroads

Fishing & harvesting aquatic resources

Hunting and collecting terrestrial animals

Recreational activities

Work & other activities low Abstraction of surface water medium Dams (size unknown)

Large dams

Suppression in fire frequency/intensity

Introduced genetic material

Invasive non-native_species/diseases, Unspecified…

Problematic native species/diseases, Unspecified…

Problematic species/diseases of unknown origin,…

Viral/prion-induced diseases, Unspec species

Domestic & urban waste water, Run-off

Garbage & solid waste

Industrial & military effluents, Oil spills

Light pollution

Nutrient loads

Smog

Thermal pollution

Earthquakes/tsunamis

Droughts

Storms & flooding

Figure 21: Ranking of relevance (low, medium, high) of all mentioned current threats. 42

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

Figure 22: Ranking of relevance (low, medium, high) of all mentioned potential future threats. 43

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

For further analysis, the threats were grouped into the following categories (according to IUCN Threats Classification System):

• Residential & commercial development (commercial & industrial areas, housing & urban areas, tourism & recreation areas) • Agriculture & aquaculture (agro-industry farming, agro-industry grazing, ranching or farming, agro-industry plantations, nomadic grazing, shifting agriculture, small-holder farming, small-holder grazing, ranching or farming, small-holder plantations) • Energy production and mining (Hydropower Plants, mining & quarrying, oil & gas drilling, Solarpower Plants, windcraft) • Transportation & service corridors (roads & railroads, utility & service lines) • Biological resource use (fishing & harvesting aquatic resources, gathering terrestrial plants, hunting & collecting terrestrial animals, logging & wood harvesting) • Human intrusions & disturbance (recreational activities, war, civil unrest & military exercises, work & other activities) • Natural system modifications (Abstraction of ground water, abstraction of surface water, abstraction of surface water (domestic use), dams (size unknown), increase in fire frequency/intensity, large dams, small dams, suppression in fire frequency/intensity) • Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseases (diseases of unknown cause, introduced genetic material, invasive non-native/alien species/diseases, Named species; invasive non-native species/diseases, Unnamed Species; problematic native species/diseases, Named species; problematic native species/diseases, Unnamed species; problematic species/diseases of unknown origin, Named species; problematic species/diseases of unknown origin, Unspecified species; viral/prion-introduced diseases, Named “species”; viral/prion-introduced diseases, Unspec species • Pollution (acid rain, domestic & urban waste water, Run-Off, domestic and urban waste water, Sewage, garbage & solid waste, herbicides and pesticides, industrial & military effluents, Oil spills, industrial & military effluents, Seepage…, light pollution, noise pollution, nutrient loads, ozone, smog, soil erosion, sedimentation, thermal pollution) • Geological events (avalanches/landslides, earthquakes/tsunamis, volcanoes) • Climate change & severe weather (droughts, habitat shifting & alteration, storms & flooding, temperature extremes)

As there are no permanent residents inside the property, we expect that all human-induced threats originate from outside. Only geological events can be regarded as threats that may originate from inside the property.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

Residential & commercial development

Figure 23: Number of protected areas rating the impact of current and potential future threats from residential and commercial development.

For more than half of the protected areas tourism and recreation areas are presently considered to be the main threat with a rather low relevance affecting only small parts of the component parts with little impact on the beech forest ecosystem. However, almost 25% of the protected areas estimate the potential future situation as medium relevant, more likely to happen and affecting significant parts of the component part - but still having little impact on the beech forests.

In general, the construction of infrastructure may have low influence on the extent to which the value of the property is affected, - as within the component parts non-intervention management is in place. Nevertheless it may cause severe stress to the forest ecosystem inside the property if it occurs in the buffer zone. Therefore, related activities should be avoided in the protective buffer zone and strictly limited in the development of buffer zones.

Agriculture & aquaculture

Figure 24: Number of protected areas rating the impact of current and potential future threats from agriculture.

Generally, threats related to agricultural development were rated with a low relevance for the current situation and only shifting agriculture was rated as medium relevant regarding the future expectation for one protected area (Podilski Tovtry National Nature Park, UA). Nomadic grazing and small-holder

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

grazing, ranching or farming were considered by almost 25% of the protected areas but only with low relevance regarding the current situation and future expectations.

Energy production & mining

Figure 25: Number of protected areas rating the impact of current and potential future threats from energy production and mining.

Threats related to energy production and mining are rated as being of low relevance only for individual protected areas presently as well as in the future.

Transportation & service corridors

Figure 26: Number of protected areas rating the impact of current and potential future threats from transportation and service corridors.

Especially roads and railroads were rated as being of low to medium relevance for the property in the future.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

Biological resource use

Figure 27: Number of protected areas rating the impact of current and potential future threats from biological resource use.

Logging and wood harvesting were rated as medium relevant in the future by Poloniny National Park, Vihorlat Protected Landscape Area, SK, Carpathian Biosphere Reserve, and Uzhanski National Nature Park, UA.

This threat has a very high impact on the forest ecosystem and is therefore considered as highly relevant for buffer zone design and management. Stresses caused by logging and wood harvesting include the reduction of structural diversity (horizontal/vertical) and biomass loss. Further stresses in this context are fragmentation/isolation of stands (reduced connectivity), soil degradation (erosion, landslides, decrease in cumulative water storage capacity, soil compaction) and changes in microclimatic conditions. As a result, the total ecosystem functionality is decreased and the adaptive capacity is reduced (reduced drought resilience, increased vulnerability to pests and diseases).

Human intrusions & disturbance

Figure 28: Number of protected areas rating the impact of current and potential future threats from human intrusion and disturbance.

More than half of the protected areas rated recreational activities as threats of low relevance (currently and future expectation). Additionally, almost 25% of the protected areas rated this threat as being of medium relevance in the future.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

Natural system modifications

Figure 29: Number of protected areas rating the impact of current and potential future threats from natural system modifications.

Natural system modifications were rated with low to medium relevance for the current situation and the potential future situation. The main threat is considered to be an increase in fire frequency and intensity in the future.

Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseases

Figure 30: Number of protected areas rating the impact of current and potential future threats from invasive and other problematic species, genes and diseases.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

Almost all threats within this group are rated as being of low relevance presently. However, at least one protected area rated them as medium or even highly relevant in the future. For more than 25% of the protected areas these threats are of (low, medium or high) relevance for the future (see Figure 30).

Pollution

Figure 31: Number of protected areas rating the impact of current and potential future threats from pollution.

Figure 31 indicates that the respective threats are rated as being of low relevance to the current situation, while few protected areas expect medium relevance for the future. The main threats currently occurring are acid rain, garbage and solid waste as well as soil erosion and sedimentation. Expected future threats rated as medium relevant would only have a minor impact on the forest ecosystems of the component parts.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

Geological events

Figure 32: Number of protected areas rating the impact of current and potential future threats from geological events.

This group of threats was generally rated as being of low relevance for the current situation and the future expectation (Figure 32).

Climate change & severe weather

Figure 33: Number of protected areas rating the impact of current and potential future threats from climate change and severe weather.

Threats related to climate change are rated as being of low to medium relevance to the current situation and of medium to high relevance regarding the future expectation and the potential impact on the forest ecosystems (Figure 33). It becomes evident that in particular droughts and temperature are expected to become more relevant in the future. Both threats were rated as highly relevant by protected areas situated in various beech forest regions (Sonian Forest, Gargano National Park, Wilderness Area Dürrenstein) and as medium relevant (Poloniny National Park, Monte Cimino, Vihorlat Protected Landscape Area, Biosphere Reserve of Sierra del Rincón, Paklenica National Park, Uzhanski National Nature Park).

The above-mentioned threats are also rated to cause the highest impact on the forest ecosystem and are considered as highly relevant for buffer zone design and management. Especially in the southern beech forest regions stresses related to drought (Jump et al., 2006) and increasing temperatures (Peñuelas & Boada, 2003) are already observed. Of course, these threats can hardly be avoided by a buffer zone, but their impacts on the forests in the component parts can be buffered by large areas of undisturbed functional forest ecosystems.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

3.3.1.3 Summary of threat analysis None of the threats was rated as having a high impact on the forests of the property regarding the current situation. Table 7 shows those threats that were rated as being of medium or high relevance for the current situation and/or the potential future situation.

Table 7: Number of protected areas considering specific threat as currently and/or potentially future relevant (medium, high) for the respective component part/cluster

No. Threat Current relevance Potential future relevance medium high medium high 1 Commercial & industrial areas 1 2 Housing & urban areas 1 2 3 Tourism & recreation areas 1 9 4 Shifting agriculture 1 5 Roads & railroads 1 3 6 Gathering terrestrial plants 1 7 Hunting and collecting terrestrial animals 1 1 8 Logging & wood harvesting 3 4 9 Recreational activities 1 9 10 Increase in fire frequency/intensity 1 2 11 Small dams 1 12 Suppression in fire frequency/intensity 1 1 13 Diseases of unknown cause 1 2 14 Introduced genetic material 2 Invasive non-native/alien species/disease, 5 15 Named species Invasive non-native_species/diseases, 2 2 16 Unspecified species Problematic species/diseases of unknown 2 1 17 origin, Named species Problematic species/diseases of unknown 1 2 18 origin, Unspecified species Viral/prion-induced diseases, Named "species" 1 2 19 (dis 20 Viral/prion-induced diseases, Unspec species 1 2 21 Garbage & solid waste 2 22 Noise pollution 1 23 Droughts 3 6 3 24 Habitat shifting & alteration 2 1 25 Storms & flooding 1 3 1 26 Temperature extremes 2 5 3

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

For the management of the property it is important to understand in which way these threats might influence the OUV:

Infrastructure development The construction of infrastructure – here, mainly tourism and recreation areas were considered as medium relevant by nine protected areas – will lead to direct destruction of those parts of the forest ecosystem that need to be cleared for construction. In addition to the constructed building, usually some roads and a certain area for manipulation during construction are needed. As the component parts themselves are subject to a strict protection regime, it is unlikely that this direct disturbance will happen inside component parts.

However, infrastructure development has indirect effects which may affect the property even in cases where the activity is performed outside the component parts. The following indirect influences have to be considered:

• Impact on the microclimate of neighbouring forest stands • Emissions of gas, chemicals, noise and light • Introduction of foreign species and pests

The impact on the microclimate was addressed in several scientific papers. A review is summarized in Table 8.

Table 8: Overview on selected papers dealing with microclimatic edge effect of forest ecosystems.

Paper Spatial microclimatic impact Forest ecosystem Davies-Colley et al. 2000: up to 50 m into the forest Native broadleaf rainforest, New Zealand Didham & Ewers 2014 Vertical impact (experimental Temperate rainforest, New setup 16m inside the forest) Zealand Spittlehouse et al. 2004 No significant impact of openings Spruce-fire forest, British of less than one tree height in Columbia diameter; Jemali et al. 2017 Temperature effect up to 50m, Tropical forest Malaysia Relative humidity 40-60m Gehlahusen et al 2000 Microclimatic effects disappear in Oak-Acer mixed forest, Illinoi, US 40-80m. Exotic species mainly in the first 25m. Matlack 1993 Microclimatic effects up to 50m South-eastern Pennsylvania and from the edge. northern Delaware, US

The results of the papers listed in Table 8 show impacts of openings on the microclimate up to 50 (average) into the forest. The depth of impact depends on the orientation of the forest edge. At the sun and wind exposed edges (in Europe mainly south and west) the impact is larger than on the opposite edges. Low impact is measured on the north-exposed edges. Spittlehause et al. (2004) measured the impact of openings of different sizes on the microclimate. They documented that openings of less than one tree height in diameter have no significant impact on the microclimate.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

Based on these results, a minimum distance of artificial openings larger than the height of one tree in diameter should be at over 50m from the property border to avoid negative long-term effects on the forest stands inside the property.

Especially alongside roads, railroads and industrial sites there is an increased risk of emissions of gas, chemicals, noise and light. Depending on the geomorphological situation and wind directions, the risk has different effective distances. The factor most difficult to assess is spatial distribution of air pollution. There is a short-distance buffer effect on dust and air pollution alongside roads, but in Europe we are facing far-distance distribution of air pollutants as well, which cannot be managed by buffer zones.

Transport infrastructures like roads and railroads are known as corridors of foreign species and pests. They were considered to have a medium to high impact on the forests inside the property in the future by several protected areas participating in the online survey. Depending on the individual ecology of invasive species and pests a buffer zone can help to increase protection. Only few of the invasive species known in Europe today have the capacity to alter beech forest ecosystems significantly. Pests like fungi affecting the beech tree itself pose the highest risk. The risk of invasive pathogens and species might change radically due to climate change.

Extraction of natural resources These threats include logging, grazing, agricultural use, and the collection of non-timber products like mushrooms, berries and herbs.

Logging, grazing and agricultural use (meadows, cropfields) are not permitted inside the property. In the existing buffer zones of the component parts these activities should be avoided depending on their impacts on the microclimate as described above (distance min. 50m of openings larger than one tree height).

Impacts of logging and grazing could be of relevance over large distances if they occur on steep slopes above the component parts. Depending on the geomorphological situation, impacts due to anthropogenic increase in water run-off, sedimentation or increased intensity of natural hazards (e.g. avalanches) can be observed up to several hundreds of meters. The reduction of forest cover by human activities (clear cuts, removal of forest for grazing purposes) above component parts should be avoided.

Grazing under the canopy can be applied up to the border of the property as long as grazing intensity will not lead to a reduced crown cover in the buffer zone. In this case a fence is inevitable to avoid grazing inside the component area.

Grazing inside the component part can have a negative impact on the natural regeneration of tree species and should be avoided. Accidental, non-permanent grazing (every year) unlikely to have a negative impact on the long-term processes of the forest due to browsing.

There is a risk of that invasive species transportation by livestock, which can hardly be assessed empirically by now and which is expected to increase in the future due to global change.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

Recreation & Tourism Recreation and tourism will usually have little impact on forest infrastructure as long as no infrastructures are constructed. Small hiking paths will have low impact on microclimate and the overall surface disturbed by trampling is insignificant. Depending on the steepness of the slope and precipitation, erosion may be a problem, but negative impacts can be reduced by counter measures like the appropriate selection of routes and water run-off management. Under the current conditions the use of hiking paths inside the component parts is considered not to have a negative impact on the integrity and the OUV.

Climate change Many experts expect climate-change induced negative effects on beech forest ecosystems. They find it very difficult to anticipate which effects will be relevant and to estimate their impact on the OUV. The following impacts are likely to occur:

Increase in mean temperatures and higher frequency of extended heatwaves and/or decrease of precipitation might lead to water shortage and droughts. This can directly influence beech survival rates and regeneration or indirectly due to the invasion of neobiota, diseases and pests (HOUSTON 1994 (a,b); JUNG 2009; del RIO et al. 2018; GEßLER et al. 2007).

Climate change cannot be directly influenced significantly, but locally and regionally the buffer and cooling capacity will depend on the wider landscape quality. Large forested landscapes can help reduce maximum temperatures and fluctuations as well as wind speed and evapotranspiration. It is of equal importance to manage the water retention capacity of the forest ecosystems within and around the component parts. This can be done by appropriate strategies of landscape conservation and the sustainable development function of the buffer zone and surrounding landscapes.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

3.3.2 Management of buffer zones The Operational Guidelines of UNESCO refer to the issue of buffer zones as follows:

- Wherever necessary for the proper protection of the property, an adequate buffer zone must be provided. - For the purposes of effective protection of the nominated property, a buffer zone is an area surrounding the nominated property, which has complementary legal and/or customary restrictions placed on its use and development to give an added layer of protection to the property. This should include the immediate setting of the nominated property, important views and other areas or attributes that are functionally important as a support to the property and its protection. The area constituting the buffer zone should be determined in each case through appropriate mechanisms. Details on the size, characteristics and authorized uses of a buffer zone, as well as a map indicating the precise boundaries of the property and its buffer zone must be provided in the nomination. - A clear explanation of how the buffer zone protects the property against specific threat and how this will be monitored must also be provided. - Where no buffer zone is proposed, the nomination must include a statement as to why a buffer zone is not required.

Feedback from IUCN on the extension 2016-2017 The evaluation report on the extension nomination (submitted in January 2016) stressed the importance of an effective buffer zone configuration. It is underlined that next to a variety of environmental conditions, maintaining ecological patterns and processes for European Beech requires a configuration where components are ecologically viable, well-buffered and connected. The different configuration of buffer zones was seen as inconsistent and the size of buffer zones as insufficient in some cases.

3.3.2.1 Analysis of the current state of buffer zone design and management The ratio between property and buffer zone has been increased by the extensions (see Table 9). In the first inscription, the ratio between property and buffer zone was 1:1.7 while in the extension 2017 it was 1:3.4. This is caused by the smaller and more fragmented component parts in the western part of Europe. To draw a complete picture of the postglacial expansion (core criterium of the OUV), it was inevitable to integrate the best examples from the other beech forest regions outside the Carpathians. Due to the more intense land use and forest management in other beech forest regions, only smaller sites of primeval or ancient beech forests have been available to be integrated into the World Heritage property. In several cases, more than one of these last fragments were located in the same protected area and are connected by larger buffer zones. Sometimes the component parts are strict forest reserves embedded in a protected area of less strict protection status (equivalent to IUCN category V). The largest buffer zones are found in component part clusters and are needed to connect several component parts inside the cluster or to ensure integrity of smaller component parts.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

Table 9: Ratio between property and buffer zone.

Year of inscription property (ha) buffer (ha) ratio buffer zone/property 2007 27,0584 46,604 172% 2011 4,393 13,804 314% 2017 58,689 203,348 346% Total 90,140 263,756 293%

For the assessment of the protection regime in the online questionnaire, the following categories were given:

• Strictly protected, no intervention (research and/or recreation possible, e.g. IUCN I, IUCN II) • Limited protection, no commercial use but phytosanitary cuttings possible • Protected with regulated sustainable use (e.g. IUCN V, Natura 2000) • No protection, private property • No protection, public property (e.g. State or communal land) • Other (please specify)

The assessment was made by the States Parties for each component part/cluster. The detailed results per component part/cluster can be found in the annex.

4 All areas taken from map data (GIS). Therefore, there is a difference to the areas from nomination tables caused by the difference in the Slovak component part. 56

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

Figure 34: Protection status within the buffer zones (see details in the annex for each component part/cluster).

All buffer zones are covered by a protection status (no unprotected areas are given). 52% of the buffer zones are managed under the protection regime “Protected with regulated sustainable use”. Another 38% are “Strictly protected” or under “Limited protection” (only phytosanitary cuttings allowed). For 10%, the information was not available at the time of reporting.

As the different functions of the buffer zone (protective, connective, landscape conservation and sustainable use, see next chapter) have not been spatially determined by now, it is not possible to cross-check management regime and functions. The category “Protected with regulated sustainable use” has huge variability in the intensity of the forest management applied. Proposals to come up with a common regulation in this category can be found in the next chapter on “Proposal for buffer zone design and management”. Recommended regulations for different land use in the different zones are given in Table 10 (p. 60).

3.3.2.2 Proposal for buffer zone design and management For the further development of the existing sites in the World Heritage as well as for the design of new sites for further extension the States Parties consider improving the buffer zone system and separate different functions and management concepts to spatially differentiated buffer zone sub-units.

The following explanations and design of buffer zones are the basis for discussion with IUCN/UNESCO as well as with all involved States Parties and should be considered as proposals and suggestions for further discussions.

According to Oliver Martin & Giovanna Patti (World Heritage paper 25, 2009, p. 52) buffer zones can have multiple functions:

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

1. Protection of values of the protected area (including the OUV) 2. Maximize the connectivity of WH property with other natural lands 3. Integrate WH property with landscape scale conservation and sustainable use

Not all functions have to be realised in each component part. Obligatory is the protective function, which has to be implemented for all component parts.

As the buffer zones must have “complementary legal and/or customary restrictions” to protect the property, it is proposed to set the buffer zone inside the borders of the protected area where the component/component cluster is located. This enables the management unit to guarantee appropriate buffer zone management for the protection of the component/component cluster and its buffer zone in long terms and ensures the potential of development of the nominated area.

To provide the different functions, the buffer zones need different management. To avoid confusion, it is proposed to separate two different categories of buffer zones (see detailed description below):

1. Protection buffer zone 2. Development buffer zone

While the protection buffer zone serves the protective and connective function, the development buffer zone serves the landscape conservation and sustainable development function.

As different managements need to be applied, these buffer zones need separate zonation and clear delineation in the field, so rangers, managers and foresters can realise the borders of each zone in the field.

The effectiveness of the buffer zone management shall be regularly assessed. The corresponding evaluation shall inform required adaptations.

3.3.2.3 Protection buffer zone The protective and connective functions are performed by this buffer zone category.

Protective function The protective function is closely related to the threats currently or potentially affecting the component part. The analysis of threats shows that not all of them can be avoided or reduced by buffer zones. Climatic change or negative impact through human-introduced emissions are beyond the protective function of buffer zones. However, buffer zones and adequate management of these buffer zones can mitigate negative impact caused by human land use practice in adjacent areas. If the component parts are close to agricultural lands, buffer zones can protect from the impact of pesticides or fertilisers. In cases where the property is bordering economically managed forests, the most likely negative impact on the property is caused by forest activities leading to a significant reduction of the canopy of adjacent forest stands of the property. Clear-cuts and shelterwood cutting may cause these reductions of the canopy, which has impacts on the microclimatic regime in a forest stand. The opening of the canopy of adjacent stands leads to a change in light regime, microclimate and wind exposure. This might have direct negative impacts on trees inside the property by sunburn, wind throws or unnatural changes in regeneration and herbal plant layer. To protect the beech forests in the component parts from these negative, man-made influences, a minimum buffer zone of 50 m has to

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

be established towards economically managed forests. To protect from other threats, larger buffer zones might be needed.

The management in the protection buffer zone must be limited to very small-scaled interventions. Single trees might be removed for phytosanitary purposes, if there is reasonable risk to neighbouring forests outside the World Heritage property. Gaps created by management must not exceed the size of the crown of an adult beech tree. Human activities must not bring the crown cover below the minimum of 80%.

A protective buffer zone can only be missing if no negative impacts are to be expected from adjacent areas. This may be the case if the border is located on the steep ridge of a mountain and if it is very unlikely that negative impacts will occur in the forest of the component part beyond the ridge. When a river/lake forms the border and there is no evidence of potential negative impacts across the river, protection buffer zones might not need to be established.

The geomorphology must be taken into consideration in the design of the protection buffer. Disturbances have a wider reach in the downhill direction of a slope (release of nutrients, human- induced avalanches caused by removing forest stands etc.). Therefore, the buffer zone on the uphill side of the property should be wider than on the downhill side.

Connective function In many of the existing component clusters, the buffer zone provides an important connective function. Since only the oldest and undisturbed forest stands within a protected area were selected for the component parts, several of these stands are connected by buffer zones. In many cases the buffer zone covers the entire protected area in which the components are located. It connects the beech forests with other ecosystems within the protected area.

It is recommended to designate specific corridors in the buffer zone connecting the component parts within a cluster or with other ancient or primeval beech forests in the neighbourhood of the component part. These corridors should contain (in descendent priority):

• Ancient and/or primeval beech forests • Managed beech forests • Other natural forests ecosystems • Other managed forests ecosystems • Natural landscapes (alpine, subalpine zone, natural grass/shrubland, rock and scree fields …)

Forest ecosystems in the connecting corridor shall be managed in such a way that natural forest structures are preserved or developed. This includes the regular distribution of dead wood (average > 10% of living stock volume), uneven-aged stands, natural gap structure or disturbance dynamic, natural regeneration of all tree species of the potential natural forest type). It is preferred to have the corridors under non-intervention management (game management might be needed). If this is not possible, the economic management must be limited to selective logging. The management should include a strategy to increase the entire biomass (living and dead) and it should enable the natural regeneration of tree species of the natural forest vegetation.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

3.3.2.4 Development buffer zone The development buffer zone provides the landscape conservation and sustainable use function. It is not obligatory for a component part to have a development buffer zone with sustainable use.

Examples of sustainable land use can only be developed in those buffer zones, that are not part of strictly protected reserves and are outside the protection buffer zone.

Besides the economic effect, this category of buffer zones should also protect the adjacent landscapes from negative developments which could have negative impacts on the OUV on the long term. This includes the development of settlements, industrial zones, tourism, recreation and traffic infrastructures, extraction of minerals or infrastructures of the energy sector (wind parks, dams, pipelines etc.) or the intensification of agricultural land use. It is recommended to integrate this buffer zone into the legal framework of spatial planning on the national and local level.

In a development buffer zone with landscape conservation and sustainable use function, only close- to-nature, sustainable forest management should be applied. The details of the regulations in this part of the buffer zone are still under discussion between the States Parties. The management need to ensure that the micro- and meso-climate in the component part forest is not disturbed by human activities outside the component part.

Table 10: Recommended management regulations for different zones

Land use Property (WH Protective buffer zone Development buffer component part) (protective and zone (landscape connective function) conservation and sustainable use) Agriculture fields not allowed not allowed small plots (<5%) can be included hay making, meadows not allowed not allowed small plots (<5%) can be included pastures, cattle grazing not allowed not allowed small plots (<5%) can be included Forestry sanitary cuts not allowed limited to single tree possible extraction cutting of firewood by locals (only not allowed not allowed possible dead or ill logs) sustainable forestry (selective not allowed not allowed possible logging, cuttings < 0.3 ha) clear cuts >0.3 ha, Shelterwood not allowed not allowed [no joint decision cuttings > 0.3 ha found by now] artificial restoration (regeneration) not allowed not allowed possible collecting mushrooms, berries, not allowed possible possible medical herbs security management along hiking not allowed possible possible trails (removal dead trees) Hunting and fishing

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

game management by protected reduced to minimum possible possible area management (as long as there is intervention no harm on OUV) Fishing (as long as there is no harm reduced to minimum possible possible on OUV) intervention Infrastructure cellular phone tower, electrical new constructions not possible possible power lines, pipelines allowed, maintenance of existing possible, but reduced to minimum intervention forest huts, shelters new constructions not possible possible allowed, existing ones shall be reclaimed in the mid term trails (hiking, riding, biking) possible possible possible border control infrastructure new constructions not possible possible allowed, maintenance of existing possible hunting infrastructure not allowed possible possible hotels, motels, guest houses, not allowed not allowed small sections can restaurants be included (<1%) industrial buildings not allowed not allowed new constructions not allowed, maintenance of existing possible forest roads new constructions not new constructions not possible allowed, maintenance allowed, maintenance of existing possible of existing possible public roads, railway new constructions not new constructions not small sections can allowed, existing ones allowed, maintenance be included (<1%) shall be reclaimed in the of existing possible mid term settlements not allowed not allowed possible ski slopes, cable cars, snow machines not allowed not allowed not allowed watch towers, look-outs new constructions not limited to small scale possible allowed, maintenance impact of existing possible Natural Hazard Management (water possible as long as possible as long as possible, as long as management, protection from natural processes in the natural processes in natural processes in avalanches, rock fall …) beech forest are not the beech forest of the beech forest of disturbed the component part the component part are not disturbed are not disturbed Scientific research a. destructive (e.g. removing trees not allowed possible possible for measures) b. not destructive possible possible possible Tourism and recreation expedition to caves possible possible possible extreme sports (paragliding, should be limited not allowed possible climbing, rafting)

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

hiking, riding, biking on terrain (not should be limited not allowed possible on trails) hiking, riding, biking on trails possible possible possible

Time schedule of implementation In the operational guideline, only two types of zones are defined: the component part and the buffer zone. The nomination of all sites was done according to this approach.

As IUCN requested an improvement of the site configuration and a coherent management regime, the States Parties propose to separate the buffer zone into a protection and a development zone. This needs negotiation with local stakeholders, land managers, local authorities and ministries to define the new outline of the zones and to adapt the management regime. If this proposal is adopted by the COM 42 advisory body in 2019, the redesign process can start in 2020 and last until 2025.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

3.4 Other current conservation issues identified by the States Parties which may have an impact on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value

3.4.1.1 Austria There is an initiative ongoing to enlarge the Wilderness Area of Dürrenstein to include another 3,000 ha at the Lassingbach Valley in Styria. It is the south and east facing slope of a mountain ridge that currently forms the border of the wilderness area. The area shows low human impact and is built by natural beech forest ecosystems showing high dynamic by avalanches. Because of inaccessibility, large areas of this territory have not been under economic forest management for the last 100 years. The area is directly connected to the existing World Heritage component part and would ensure connectivity to the direction of Gesäuse National Park and Kalkalpen National Park.

3.4.1.2 Belgium Currently no conservation issues are identified which may have an impact on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value. On the contrary different actions are undertaken in order to strengthen the property’s OUV.

For example, we will update the Structural Framework Document on today’s reality in order to enhance protection and defragmentation of the World Heritage component parts in the three regions, including spatial spread of recreational pressure on these sites. The Structural Framework Document for the Sonian Forest was elaborated and approved by the three Belgian regions, Brussels, Flanders and Walloon region, in 2008 in order to align and coordinate an overall vision on the management of the Sonian Forest. However, as the formal result of an ongoing effort to involve diverse public administrations and stakeholders in conducting an integrated and shared vision, it is not without meaning either:

- The implementation of the structural framework has been underpinned by a structure of public working groups covering different aspects and involving different stakeholders. - An important part of the framework has been realized on the terrain through different projects (e.g. LIFE OZON project focus on infrastructural defragmentation of the Sonian Forest in the three regions) - The framework document has been translated by each region in formal site management plans.

The actions mentioned under 2.1.1 are also relevant in this context.

3.4.1.3 Bulgaria According to the Management Plan (MP) of the Central Balkan National Park (2016 – 2025) livestock grazing on the territory of the park is allowed only in the treeless parts that fall within the multifunctional zone.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

The nominated WH Property component parts are entirely located in the reserve zone of the park in which, according to the specific national legislation (corresponding with IUCN Ia) and MP, all human activities are prohibited.

The buffer zone of the Bulgarian component includes the rest part of the reserves (not proposed for a World Heritage Property) in which the forests do not correspond to the nature of the nomination (i.e. these are forests dominated by species other than beech, as well as forests with traces of human interference in the past – prior to the designation of the reserves) as well as areas of the Human Limited Impact zone. According to the current MP of the CBNP the Human Limited Impact zone has a very strict regime, which does not allow any economic use of natural resources, including livestock grazing. The grazing in CBNP takes place entirely in the treeless territories of the multifunctional zone, which territories are not included in the buffer zone of the nominated property. According to Article 21, point 6, of the Protected Areas Act livestock grazing in forests of the national parks in Bulgaria is prohibited. The above-mentioned proves that livestock grazing in not an issue in the buffer zones of all component parts of the Central Balkan.

3.4.1.4 Croatia At the component cluster of Paklenica National Park some minor corrections of the boundaries of the two-component cluster and connection of buffer zone are suggested:

Rationale on the joint buffer zone Connectivity between the two components is ensured through the buffer zone which is a part of the National Park (IUCN II) and thus protected on national level. The National Park is managed in a way that natural processes are ensured and only minimal or no human intervention and restricted forest use is permitted (hiking trails maintenance). The previously disconnected buffer zones, separated by a rock ridge, are now connected with the inclusion of the ridge in the joint buffer zone. The buffer zone belongs to the wider area of the National Park, covering the 9500 ha in total. The Public Institution for the management of the National Park Paklenica has developed a management plan for the National Park and the habitats inside are managed accordingly. The buffer zone consists of habitats with chasmophytic vegetation, sub-alpine grasslands, and habitats with scattered vegetation. The whole area of the National Park and buffer zone respectively has been designated a Natura 2000 site important for species and habitat types. Beech forests within the National Park (which include the beech forests of the two component parts) are Natura 2000 target habitat for this site so the monitoring and management of the component parts is additionally ensured. The integral buffer zone provides better management which enables successful migration of the large mammals with special emphasis on the large carnivores as Natura 2000 target species for the area. The lack of intensive forest management enables good connectivity between the two component parts. The buffer zone, besides from being a part of the National Park and the Natura 2000 area, is also in the core area and buffer zone of a biosphere reserve.

Rationale on the minor changes of the property boundaries The improved precision of the zonation regarding beech stands was achieved after consulting the latest available maps, hence the proposed corrections were made.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

Additionally, a few technical corrections were made with the buffer zone of the component parts due to the fact that, on a larger scale, it was noticed that the buffer zone extended beyond the boundaries of the National Park, which, if not corrected, might have caused managing problems in the future. During the nomination process, spatial references used while creating borders of the property and the buffer zones differed from those used to create final maps, which resulted in the shift outside of the National Park. After considering the possible solutions for the corrections of the buffer zone location, it was placed to fit inside the National Park borders.

Also, the original areas of the component parts included settlements and the mountain hut in the central part of the National Park. In order to prevent possible complications with the management of the property, the area around the settlements and the mountain hut was excluded during the corrections of the component parts.

Area of the component parts and buffer zone 1. Component part Suva Draga-Klimenta: 1241.18 ha (previously 1241.04 ha) 2. Component part Oglavinovac-Javornik: 790,85 ha (previously 790.74 ha) Buffer zone: 802,14 ha (previously 414.76 + 395.35ha)

Figure 35: Ccurrent zonation and proposed changes in the component cluster Paklenica National Park

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

3.4.1.5 Romania In Romania, at the beginning of 2018, an NGO reported logging in the “Izvoarele Nerei” component. The information proved to be false because no logged trees were found on the component site. In the buffer zone legal cuttings were made on three different plots, in accordance with the forest management plan. The result was communicated to UNESCO and IUCN by the Romanian Ministry of Waters and Forests, through official channels. These cuttings did not affect the OUV of the “Izvoarele Nerei” component.

In September, the Ministry of Waters and Forests reported a disaster produced by a wind storm on June 13th 2018 in the Lotrisor component of the Cozia cluster. About 4,500 cubic meters of fallen trees have recorded. The wind throw is part of natural processes in primeval forests and not a threat to the beech forest ecosystem.

Figure 36: Images from the Lotrisor component part after the wind storm. 66

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

A small proportion of the tree fell into the Lotrisor River. The river forms the border of the property. To ensure people's safety and avoid possible damage of the infrastructure in case of floods, approximately 25 trees (60 cubic meters, 1,4% of the total volume) have to be removed from the river until March 2019.

Figure 37: Image with trees fallen in the Lotrișor River.

3.4.1.6 Slovakia Following Decision 42 COM 7B.71 of the World Heritage Committee, Slovakia is currently preparing a significant boundary modification of existing Slovak components, in line with recommendations defined in the aforementioned Decision.

A proposal for boundary modification was prepared and consulted during joint World Heritage Centre/IUCN Advisory mission that was held in Slovakia from 16 to 19 October 2018. The proposal was elaborated as a result of numerous negotiations and consultations at both national and international level, with respect to the following objectives:

• to include to a maximum extent all primeval / ancient / valuable beech forests in the region of Poloniny National Park and Vihorlat Protected Landscape Area • to ensure adequate protection and management (possibility to guarantee and implement required protection and management, while respecting land owners’ rights) • to provide the property with a functional buffer zone (primarily protective function)

The main aim of the new proposal is to effectively resolve the current status which does not allow for adequate protection and management of the Slovak part of the property, considering the fact that areas indicated in tables do not correspond to designated protected areas, nor have they been indicated in the field. 67

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

The report from the Advisory mission is currently being elaborated by participating experts (C. Küpper on behalf of World Heritage Centre and R. Brunner on behalf of IUCN) and will be shared with all States Parties after its finalisation. Domestic negotiations are expected to be finalized in upcoming months, including approval of the proposal by the Government of the Slovak Republic and subsequent preparation of the re-nomination dossier. Submission of the re-nomination dossier will be coordinated with the next potential extension of the property, which is envisaged for February 2020.

3.4.1.7 Slovenia As has been mentioned in the nomination dossier Slovenia is considering legally protecting component parts, forest reserve Virgin Forest Krokar and forest reserve Snežnik – Ždrocle, also as nature reserves according to the Slovenian nature conservation legislation in order to even strengthen the protection and improve the management of the two World Heritage sites. The Institute for Nature Conservation of the Republic of Slovenia has prepared the proposal for the new nature reserves designations in 2018. The Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning of Republic Slovenia plans to start the formal process of nature reserves designation in 2019 and it is expected that, in 2020, this process will be accomplished and additional funding for the management will be provided. In this process of nature reserves designation the potential enlargement of the buffer zones in both component parts will be considered.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

3.5 In conformity with Paragraph 172 of the Operation Guidelines, describe any potential major restorations, alterations and/or new construction(s) intended within the property, the buffer zone(s) and/or corridors or other areas, where such developments may affect the Outstanding Universal Value of the property, including authenticity and integrity. 3.5.1.1 Belgium The update of the Structural Framework Document, which has been planned for coming years, will focus on the ecological connections of the Sonian Forest with its surroundings and on the concrete defragmentation measures tackling infrastructural barriers.

In Brussels, the two component parts 9 and 10 (Grippensdelle A & B) are separated by a road. Brussels has conducted a feasibility study to construct a green bridge as an ecological corridor between the two component parts and the defragmentation though the construction of a green bridge is explicit objective in the new draft management plan.

In Flanders a feasibility study is currently conducted by the road administration for the Brussels ring road including the construction of defragmentation measures like tunnelling the ring road and/or restoring natural valleys through the construction of viaducts.

3.5.1.2 Germany The envisaged Wind Power Project at the Mühlenberg is situated outside the component part “Kellerwald” (Germany) and outside the respective buffer zone (Kellerwald-Edersee National Park). The OUV of the World Heritage Site, respectively the beech forest ecosystem, is certainly not at a structural risk.

To which extent the OUV (i.e. the World Heritage biocenoses and their connectivity with the landscape) is affected by the proposal's impacts will be analysed in depth by experts in the planning process.

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

3.6 Public access to the state of conservation report [Note: this report will be uploaded for public access on the World Heritage Centre’s State of conservation Information System (http://whc.unesco.org/en/soc). Should your State Party request that the full report should not be uploaded, only the 1-page executive summary provided in point (1) above will be uploaded for public access]

Table 11: Indication of acknowledgement of public access to the report by the States Parties

Country agree to full public access refuse public access

Albania yes no Austria yes no Belgium yes no Bulgaria yes no Croatia yes no Germany yes no Italy yes no Romania yes no Slovakia yes no Slovenia yes no Spain yes no Ukraine yes no

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

3.7 Signature of the submitting authority

Federal Ministry for Sustainability and Tourism Republic of Austria

Viktoria Hasler

Deputy Director

Directorate III/6 – National Parks, Nature Conservation and Species Protection

Stubenbastei 5, 1010 Vienna

Vienna, 30 November 2018

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

4 Annex 4.1 References BOHN, U., GOLLUB, G., HETTWER, C., NEUHÄUSLOVA, Z., RAUS, T., SCHLÜTER, H. & WEBER, H. (eds.) 2004: Karte der natürlichen Vegetation Europas/Ma pof the Natural Vegetation of Europe, Maßstab/Scale 1: 2 500 000

CENTRAL BALKAN NATIONAL PARK 2016: Management plan of Central Balkan National Park 2016-2025. Approved with Decree № 195/24.03.2016 of the Council of Ministers

DAVIES-COLLEY, R. J., PAYNE, G. W. & VAN ELSWIJK M. 2000: Microclimate gradients across a forest edge. New Zealand Journal of Ecology

DIDHAM, R.K. & EWERS R.M. 2014: Edge Effects Disrupt Vertical Stratification of Microclimate in a Temperate Forest Canopy. Pacific Science

GEHLHAUSEN S.M., SCHWART M.W. & AUGSPURGER C.K. 2000: Vegetation and microclimatic edge effects in two mixed-mesophytic forest fragments. Plant Ecology

GEßLER, A., KEITEL, C., KREUZWIESER, J., MATYSSEK, R., SEILER, W. & RENNENBERG, H. 2007: Potential risks for European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in a changing climate

HANSEN, M. C. et al. 2013: High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change, Science, 15 Nov 2013: Vol. 342, Issue 6160

HOUSTON, D.R. 1994a. Temporal and spatial shift within the Nectria pathogen complex associated with beech bark disease ofFagus grandifolia. Can. J. For. Res.

HOUSTON, D.R. 1994b. Major new tree disease epidemics: beech bark disease. Annu. Rev.Phytopathol

JEMALI, N., MAJID, S., SULAIMAN M.S. & KAHAR S. 2017: Microclimate and vegetation edge effects of Jeli forest in Kelantan. Proceeding – 5th Kuala Lumpur International Agriculture, Forestry and Plantation, July 31 – August 1, 2017. Bandar Baru Bangi Selangor, Malaysia. ISBN 978-967-2072-08-9

JUMP, A.S., HUNT, J.M., PEÑUELAS, J., 2006. Rapid climate change-related growth decline at the southern range edge of Fagus sylvatica. Global Change Biology 12

JUNG, T. 2009: Beech decline in Central Europe driven by the interaction between Phytophthora infections and climatic extremes; (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1439- 0329.2008.00566.x)

LINDNER, M. & MAROSCHEK, M. & NETHERER, S. & KREMER, A. & BARBATI, A. & GARCIA-GONZALO, J. & SEIDL, R. & DELZON, S. & CORONA, P. & KOLSTRÖM, M. & LEXER, M. & MARCHETTI, M. 2010:. Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of European forest ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management

MATLACK, G. R. 1993: Microenvironment variation within and among forest edge sites in the eastern United States. Biol. Cons

PEÑUELAS, J., BOADA, M., 2003: A global change-induced biome shift in the Montseny mountains (NE Spain). Global Change Biology 9

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

PEÑUELAS, J., OGAYA, R., BOADA, M., JUMP, A.S., 2007: Migration, invasion and decline: changes in recruitment and forest structure in a warming-linked shift of European beech forest in Catalonia (NE Spain). Ecography 30

DEL RÍO, S., ÁLVAREZ-ESTEBAN, R., CANO, E., PINTO-GOMES, C.& PENAS, A. 2018: Potential impacts of climate change on habitat suitability of Fagus sylvatica L. forests in Spain, Plant Biosystems - An International Journal Dealing with all Aspects of Plant Biology, DOI: 10.1080/11263504.2018.1435572

SPITTLEHOUSE, D. L., ADAMS,R.L. and WINKLER, R.D. 2004: Forest, edge and opening microclimate at Sicamous Creek. B.C. Min. For., Res. Br., Victoria, B.C. Res. Rep

UNESCO 2008: Enhancing our Heritage Toolkit Assessing management effectiveness of natural World Heritage sites.

WORLD HERITAGE CENTER 2008: Enhancing our Heritage Toolkit, Assessing management effectiveness of natural, World Heritage papers 23.

WORLD HERITAGE CENTER 2008: World Heritage and Buffer Zones, World Heritage papers 25.

https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/threat-classification-scheme (26.11.2018) https://whc.unesco.org/en/factors/ (26.11.2018) https://www.globalforestwatch.org/ (26.11.2018)

COORDINATION OFFICE E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Lakeside B07 b, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria [email protected]

4.2 Protection regime of buffer zone for each component part/cluster

Table 12: Protection regime of buffer zones for each component part/cluster.

Protected with regulated Strictly Buffer sustainable use Limited protected, no Component Part / Cluster zone (ha) % protection % intervention % Lumi i gashit 8978 Rrajca 2570 Dürrenstein 1545 100 Kalkalpen 12238 100 Sonian Forest 4650 99 1 Central Balkan 11722 100 Hajdučki i Rožanski kukovi 9870 10 90 Paklenica National Park 810 52 48 Grumsin 275 100 Hainich 4088 100 Jasmund 2600 100 Kellerwald 4273 100 Serrahn 2568 100 Abruzzo, Lazio & Molise National Park 2316 20 80 Cozzo Ferriero 483 100 Foresta Umbra 1753 100 Monte Cimino 88 100 Monte Raschio 55 100 Sasso Fratino 6937 100 Cheile Nerei-Beușnița 5960 15 25 60 Codrul Secular Șinca 446 100 Codrul Secular Slătioara 429 100 Cozia 2409 100 Domogled - Valea Cernei 51465 60 40 Groșii Țibleșului 564 100 Izvoarele Nerei 2495 100 Strâmbu Băiuț 713 100 National Park Poloniny 9937 100 Vihorlat 1837 99 1 Krokar 48 100 Snežnik-Ždrocle 129 43 57 Hayedos de Ayllón - La Mancha 13882 100 Hayedos de Ayllón - Madrid 13882 100 Hayedos de Navarra 24495 100 Carpathian Biosphere Reserve 31217 85 15 Gorgany 4638 100 Satanіvska Dacha 559 100 Synevyr 1091 100 Uzhanski national nature park 3613 50 50 Zacharovanyi Krai 1276 100