NATURE CONSERVATION ZA[TITA PRIRODE UDK: Br/No 69/1-2 2019. 15-32

BEECH FORESTS AS WORLD HERITAGE IN ASPECT TO THE NEXT EXTENSION OF THE ANCIENT AND PRIMEVAL BEECH FORESTS OF THE CARPATHIANS AND OTHER REGIONS OF EUROPE WORLD HERITAGE SITE

Ivana Jovanović, Aleksandar Dragišić, Dragana Ostojić, Biljana Krsteski

Institute for Nature Conservation of Serbia, Dr Ivana Ribara 91, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract: Beech forests were first protected under Извод: Букове шуме су првобитно заштићене the World Heritage Convention in 2007 as the Primeval 2007. године као добро светске баштине Нетакнуте Beech Forests of the Carpathians (Slovakia and Ukraine). букове шуме Карпата (Словачка и Украјина). Након After two latter extensions in 2011 and 2017, the Natu- два наредна проширења, 2011. и 2017. године, ово ral World Heritage site is currently named the Ancient добро светске природне баштине тренутно носи and Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Oth- назив Древне и нетакнуте букове шуме Карпата и er Regions of Europe (Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgar- других региона Европе (Албанија, Аустрија, Белгија, ia, Croatia, Germany, Italy, Romania, Slovakia, Slove- Бугарска, Хрватска, Немачка, Италија, Румунија, nia, Spain and Ukraine) and consists of 78 component Словачка, Словенија, Шпанија и Украјина) и сас- parts in 12 European countries. It aims to ensure the тоји се од 78 компоненти у 12 европских земаља, а preservation of beech gene pool, ecosystem and spe- са циљем да се очува генетички диверзитет букве, cies diversity of beech forests, their future renewal and специјски и екосистемски диверзитет букових expansion, in regard to the development and use pres- шума, њихова будућа обнова и ширење у односу sures they encounter and the biodiversity they support. на развојне и експлоатационе притиске са којима Additionally, this World Heritage site aims to depict the су букове шуме суочене и на биодиверзитет који beech expansion after the last Ice Age, spreading over a одржавају. Додатно, ово добро светске природне large percent of the continent to form one of the most баштине има за циљ да представи експанзију букве significant forest ecosystems in Europe. The third ex- након последњег леденог доба, када је ова врста зау- tension nomination has been developed in 2020 and зела велики део континента, градећи најзначајније proposes the inscription of additional 30 component шумске екосистеме у Европи. Трећом номинацијом parts, a considerable step towards the complete over- проширења овог добра, припремљеном током 2019. all picture of post-glacial beech re-colonization process године, предлаже се уписивање додатних 30 компо- and beech ecosystem diversity across Europe. With this ненти, што представља значајан корак ка компле- extension 8 additional European countries would join тирању опште слике пост-глацијалне колонизације this property, including the Republic of Serbia. The букве и диверзитета букових шума широм Евро- extended property would consist of over 100 compo- пе. Овим проширењем се добру светске природне nent parts in 20 European countries, a pan-European баштине придружује још 8 европских држава, међу network of protected areas with joint protection and којима је и Република Србија. Проширено добро би management goals to represent a platform for policy се састојало од преко 100 компоненти у 20 европ- making and knowledge exchange. This paper presents ских земаља, као паневропска мрежа заштићених the genesis of this extremely complex World Heritage подручја са заједничким циљевима заштите и упра- property and the work done to expand it over the pro- вљања, али и као платформа за развој политика и tected beech forests in Serbia, in preparation of the first размену знања. У раду се представља настанак овог Natural World Heritage nomination for the Republic of веома комплексног добра светске баштине и актив- Serbia. ности на његовом проширењу на заштићене букове шуме у Србији у оквиру припрема прве номинације Key words: Natural World Heritage, beech for- природне баштине за Републику Србију. ests, Republic of Serbia, nomination, UNESCO. Кључне речи: светска природна баштина, буко- ве шуме, Република Србија, номинација, UNESCO.

15 Ivana Jovanović, Aleksandar Dragišić, Dragana Ostojić, Biljana Krsteski

INTRODUCTION opment pressures for centuries, i.e. the expansion of settlements, infrastructure and agricultural land, as Why protect beech forests? well as the forest utilization (Knapp & Fichtner, 2011; European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) is a decidu- Vološčuk, 2013a; Sabatini et al. 2018; Commarmot ous tree species endemic to Europe, therefore the et al., 2013; Rugani et al. 2013; Bengtsson et al. 2000). beech forests are exclusively European vegetation type Beech forests that escaped clearance in front of agri- (Vološčuk et al., 2013). With almost pan-European culture, settlements or infrastructure, are largely man- distribution, beech forests represent one of the most aged for timber production, as beech ranks high in significant forest types of the northern hemisphere terms of wood quality. The beech forest management Temperate Broadleaf Forest Biome (Vološčuk, 2013a; aimed for timber production, however, has far-reach- Karadžić, 2018). Total area of the beech dominated ing effects on the forest structure and biodiversity forests in Europe is estimated at approximately 15 (Lonsdale et al. 2008; Winter, 2012). Mha, excluding the Caucasian Mts, with the largest forested areas in the south-eastern European moun- Forest management in Europe tains, Carpathians, Dinaric and Balkan Mountains, Due to the high human population densities, tem- as well as in the central and southern Germany and perate broadleaved forests in Europe have been trans- France (Brunet et al. 2010; Vološčuk, 2013b). formed by human activities to a larger extent than Beech originated in the Tertiary Epoch and, hav- any other forest biome (Brunet et al., 2010; Knapp & ing survived the alternating glacials of the Quaternary Fichtner, 2011; Vološčuk et al. 2013). Period in refuge areas of the southern and south- First forest order prescribing the management in eastern Europe, entered the expansion phase after the all forested areas of south-central Europe was passed last Ice Age with high ecological competitiveness, to in the second half of XVIII century by Maria Theresa. colonize the continent over a wide spectrum of habi- It was in force up to the year 1852, when the first Aus- tats (Vološčuk, 2013a, 2014; Magri et al., 2006; Knapp trian forest act was passed, prohibiting clearing and & Fichtner, 2011). However, beech is best adapted reduction of forests and prescribing the basic meas- to humid climate, thriving in regions without a pro- ures for sustainable forest management, added that nounced dry season, with mild winters and humid special forest units for its implementation were organ- summers, which makes it most abundant broad- ized (Hahn & Fanta, 2001). leaved tree species in Central Europe and in mountain Compared to the XVIII century forestry, which regions of Southern Europe (Karadžić, 2018; Rugani focused on ways of ensuring natural regeneration or et al. 2013; Knapp & Fichtner, 2011). selective cuttings in shelterwood systems, the middle As one of the main tree species building up for- XIX century forestry strongly favored the economic est ecosystems in Europe (Vološčuk, 2014; Rugani approach to attaining the maximum forest rent. The et al. 2013), beech deeply influences the internal forest creation of pure, even-aged conifer stands, fast-grow- climate by its dense foliage and canopy shape, signifi- ing and providing high-quality wood, replaced the cantly reducing the amount of light reaching the inte- mixed broadleaf stands, area regulation and balanced rior of beech forests (Karadžić, 2018), conditioning distribution of age classes. A definite rotation length the soil formation, regeneration cycles, food chains striving for a constant maximum annual yield became and supporting specific biodiversity (Vološčuk, 2014). the canon of forest management (Agnoletti et al. 2009; Beech forests are among the most valuable terrestrial Britz, 2015). Most of the traditional silvicultural treat- ecosystems in Europe, as they support a significant ments focused on timber production have consider- part of European biodiversity (Knapp & Fichtner, ably shortened forest development cycle, up to only 2011; Vološčuk et al. 2013). It is estimated that up to 10–40% of the potential lifespan of tree species, thus 10,000 species of animal live in beech forests (Britz, originating homogenous, even-aged stands which lack 2015; Vološčuk et al. 2013). the typical structural attributes of old forests (Barbati If left undisturbed, the landscape of the temperate et al. 2012). Europe would be dominated by beech forests as the In managed forests, deadwood occurs mainly as climax ecosystem. However, beech forests today only a logging waste and stumps, whereas large logs and cover a fraction of their potential natural distribution snags are rare. Surveys from several European coun- area (Commarmot et al., 2013; Britz, 2015; Knapp & ties have shown that the average dead wood volume Fichtner, 2011; Vološčuk et al. 2013; Ibisch, 2014). The in present day production forests is less than 10 m3/ natural beech forests are scarce in Europe, accounting ha. The amount of deadwood in unmanaged forests for only 2.8% of the European forests (Russian Fed- is 10-20 times higher than in managed, production eration excluded), having been exposed to the devel- forests (Christensen et al. 2005). It should be noted

16 Beech Forests as World Heritage in aspect to the next extension of the Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe World Heritage site that only 5% of European forests include trees older forests to accommodate the ecologically-based forest than 140 years, while area covered with old-growth management (Diaci, 1999; Willim et al. 2019; Chris- forests in Europe is estimated to be approximately 3 tensen et al. 2005; Vandekerkhove et al. 2009; Rugani Mha, mostly located in Sweden and Finland, as well as et al. 2013; Bengtsson et al. 2000). in the mountains of central and eastern Europe, most Undisturbed beech forests are characterized notably the Carpathian Mountains (EEA, 2016). by the uneven age structure, representing all beech development phases, from seedlings to the very old, Beech forests management senescent trees. Clear vertical diversification leads to Shelterwood forest management system was domi- the gap dynamics regeneration, where the mortality of nant way of beech forest utilization in most Europe- canopy trees is a prerequisite for the regeneration of an countries from XIX through most of XX century beech (Wirth et al. 2009; Glatthorn et al. 2018). Since (Brunet et al., 2010; Hahn & Fanta, 2001; Knapp & beech is a shade-tolerant tree species, groups of seed- Fichtner, 2011). Shelterwood management involves lings can establish under small canopy openings and the thinning of forest canopy after a mast year to persist for longer periods of time, sustaining them- establish a dense natural regeneration, after which selves only on scarce, moving sun flecks, even after the remaining seed trees are cut, resulting in single- canopy gaps are closed (Rugani et al. 2013). layered and even-aged stands, with small amount of Along with the significant amounts of dead wood, dead wood and small capacity of harboring beech for- both standing and in soil, the gap dynamics generates est related biodiversity. a complex, multi-layered stand structure of undis- In contrast, beech forests managed with selec- turbed beech forests, with natural species composition tive, single stem or group harvest systems retain the and ecological processes (Europarc-España, 2017; multi-layered and multi-aged stand structure, but this Christensen et al. 2005 Rugani et al. 2013; Glatthorn type of forest management also significantly reduces et al., 2018). Deadwood is an important component the amount of dead wood by removing the old and in the functioning of forest ecosystems, as it plays senescent trees, negatively effecting the forest depend- an important role in biogeochemical cycles, trophic ent biodiversity (Brunet et al., 2010; Christensen chains, natural regeneration, and is an important ele- et al. 2005). Nonetheless, the selective harvest is often ment in carbon storage, as well as in providing key referred to as close-to-nature forestry, nature-based for- niches for many species (Vandekerkhove et al. 2009; estry, near-natural forestry, continuous cover forestry, Harmon et al. 1986). multi-aged forestry, green-tree retention, nature-ori- The importance of preserving these forests for ented silviculture, naturalistic silviculture or ecological biodiversity conservation is well recognized (Barbati silviculture (Matović et al. 2019). et al., 2012; EEA, 2016), as they are vital for biodiver- The most biodiversity damaging forest manage- sity dependent on the undisturbed forest characteris- ment system is a clear-cut system (EEA, 2016; Hahn tics, which includes many of the rare and threatened & Fanta, 2001). Extensive clear-cutting produces a species (Kirchmeir & Kovarovics, 2016a; Sabatini et al. rapid shift in structure and loss of habitat, while tree 2018). The scarcity of such forests implies that related extraction involves the use of large, heavy machinery biodiversity has become threatened (Bengtsson et al. that causes damage to the soil, vegetation and other 2000), which has accounted for these forests to become features, all of which is decidedly damaging to overall one of the key issues in the conservation policies of biodiversity (Hahn & Fanta, 2001). the European Union (Europarc-España, 2017; Knapp Beech forests with no or low human impact, & Fichtner, 2011). Old-growth forests are considered although rare in Europe, can still be found locally and as "reference stands" for each forest type, including in most cases are related to the extreme inaccessibility the beech forests, regarding the Habitats Directive and remoteness of their habitats (Europarc-España, and the Natura 2000 network. Moreover, they provide 2017; Sabatini et al. 2018; Britz, 2015; Commarmot the forestry criteria to achieve conservation objectives et al., 2013). Most of these undisturbed beech forests of species or habitats, especially in protected areas have survived in mountainous areas, mainly in the (Europarc-España, 2017; Sabatini et al. 2018). geographic regions of the Carpathians, the Balkans It can be argued that under such conservation and the Alps (Commarmot et al., 2013). policies and tendencies of the EU, the initiative arose Since nature protection and close-to-nature forest to create a Pan-European internationally protected management are gaining more recognition in Europe, area which would include “the best of the last” (IUCN the awareness of the significance of such undisturbed 2007; IUCN 2011) fragmented remnants of the undis- forests as reference sites has arisen, for they provide turbed, natural and close-to-natural beech forest eco- insight into the structure and development of natural systems (Knapp & Fichtner, 2011). The beech forest

17 Ivana Jovanović, Aleksandar Dragišić, Dragana Ostojić, Biljana Krsteski protection initiative lead to the inscription of Euro- Each State Party to the World Heritage Conven- pean beech forests on the Natural World Heritage list, tion is entitled to nominate a property on its territory as well as to three extension nominations so far, with to be protected under the Convention and inscribed the goal to synchronize management policies across on the World Heritage List. State Parties need to sub- the European countries, assuring the survival of these mit to the World Heritage Committee an inventory of forest types, which are characteristic for Europe and properties on their territory which are suitable for the globally significant (Vološčuk, 2013a). inscription, the inventory being referred to as a Tenta- tive List. A property cannot be nominated by a State World Heritage – the Convention and the Party unless it was first inscribed on the Tentative List UNESCO Programme (UNESCO, 2017; https://whc.unesco.org/en/tenta- tivelists/). No less than one year after this inscription The Convention Concerning the Protection of the the State Party can submit the nomination dossier to World Cultural and Natural Heritage, known as the the World Heritage Centre, which then forwards it to World Heritage Convention (furthermore referred to the corresponding Advisory Bodies of the World Her- as the Convention), is one of the most ratified inter- itage Committee: ICCROM (International Centre for national agreements, with 193 signatory countries. the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cul- Created in 1972, the mission of the Convention is to tural Property), ICOMOS (International Council on identify and protect the world's natural and cultural Monuments and Sites) and IUCN (International Union heritage considered to be of Outstanding Universal for Conservation of Nature). Value, which is so exceptional as to transcend national A nominated Cultural Heritage will be evalu- boundaries and to be of common importance for pre- ated by ICCROM and ICOMOS, Natural Heritage by sent and future generations of all humanity. As such, IUCN, while mixed properties will be evaluated by all the permanent protection of this heritage is of the of the Advisory Bodies. After a nominated property highest importance to the international community as is independently evaluated by the Advisory Bodies, a whole (UNESCO, 2017; IUCN, 2006). they respectively provide the World Heritage Com- In order to provide better insight and presenta- mittee with the evaluation and their recommendation tion of World Heritage sites, a World Heritage List regarding the inscription decision, which is to be vot- was established, listing the sites under two categories: ed on by the World Heritage Committee on the annual Cultural and Natural World Heritage. So far, 1092 sites Sessions of the World Heritage Committee (UNESCO, in 167 countries of the world have been listed, 845 of 2017; https://whc.unesco.org/en/faq/9/). which are Cultural Heritage sites, while only 209 are The success for inscriptions of natural and mixed Natural Heritage sites and 38 are mixed sites including World Heritage properties has ranged between 20% both natural and cultural world heritage (https://whc. and 80% of the submitted nominations per year since unesco.org/en/list/). the begging of the implementation of the Convention. Within its World Heritage Programme, the UNE- In recent decades, the average number of nomina- SCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cul- tions has risen, but the rate of inscription has fallen tural Organization) facilities the protection of cultural to approximately 30 to 50% per year, partly due to the and natural heritage sites on behalf of the internation- fact that many of the most iconic natural properties al community. UNESCO World Heritage Center in have been inscribed in the early years of the Conven- Paris, established in 1992, is the main focal point and tion, which is reflected in the high rate of inscription coordinator within UNESCO for all matters related to at this time. However, there is a noticeable trend of the Convention (https://whc.unesco.org/). However, stricter application of the Operational Guidelines over the implementation of the Convention is entrusted time by the World Heritage Committee and by IUCN to the World Heritage Committee, which decides on as its Advisory Body on Natural Heritage (Badman whether a property is inscribed on the World Herit- et al., 2008). age List, examines reports on the state of conservation of inscribed properties and requests State Parties to Outstanding Universal Value take actions when properties are not being properly managed. The World Heritage Committee consists of The World Heritage Committee sets the precise representatives from 21 State Parties and holds yearly criteria for the inscription of properties on the World sessions. Even though Committee member's term of Heritage List, as well as the requirements for their office is 6 years, most State Parties choose it voluntari- nomination and the future management and report- ly to be only 4 years, in order to give other State Parties ing, all provided by the document entitled Operational an opportunity to take part in the Committee (https:// Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage whc.unesco.org/en/committee/). Convention, which is frequently revised by the Com-

18 Beech Forests as World Heritage in aspect to the next extension of the Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe World Heritage site mittee as to reflect the new concepts, knowledge or Even though there is no official form of a man- experiences, last updated in 2017 (UNESCO, 2017; agement plan set by UNESCO (Kruse et al., 2009), https://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/). it is a necessary tool to achieve that the World Her- To be inscribed on the World Heritage list, a prop- itage properties are managed in a way to ensure that erty must meet one or more of the 10 Outstanding their OUV, including the conditions of integrity and/ Universal Value criteria, of which I-VI apply to cultural or authenticity, is sustained or enhanced over time and VI-X to natural heritage. A nominated property (UNESCO, 2017; IUCN, 2006). As there are still many must also meet certain conditions of integrity (cultural State Parties of the World Heritage Convention which and natural properties) and/or authenticity (cultural do not have the instrument of a management plan in properties only). Natural sites nominated individually their national nature protection legislative, a proof of a or serially, besides meeting one or more OUV crite- functioning management system needs to be provided ria (VI-X), need to meet the stringent requirements of in the obligatory management chapter of a nomination integrity (UNESCO, 2017; IUCN, 2006). dossier, along with the land ownership information IUCN (2006) suggests the following principles in and means of implementing the protective measures understanding the concept of Outstanding Universal (Kruse et al., 2009). Value (further on: OUV) of the Natural World Herit- For the management of a transnational property, age: the establishment of a joint management committee or • Outstanding: properties should be exception- similar body to oversee the management of the whole al: World Heritage Convention sets out to define the of a trans-boundary property is recommended (UNE- geography of the superlative – the most outstanding SCO, 2017; Kruse et al., 2009). Common elements of an natural and cultural places on Earth; effective management system of a complex WH prop- • Universal: as the scope of the Convention is erty include a shared understanding of the property global, so the inscribed properties should hold the sig- by all the stakeholders, their involvement in planning, nificance to all people of the world; properties cannot implementation, monitoring, evaluation and feedback be considered from a national or regional perspective; cycles, as well as the allocation of necessary resources, • Value: what makes a property outstanding and capacity-building in an accountable and transparent universal is its ‘value’, the defined worth of a property management system (Vološčuk et al. 2013). in terms of its global importance, based on a set of clear standards or criteria. The inscription of European beech forests A Natural World Heritage must have adequately on the World Heritage list delineated boundaries to incorporate all the attributes The first effort to nominate European beech -for which convey the OUV and to ensure the integrity and/ ests as Natural World Heritage (hereinafter referred to or authenticity of the property. The boundaries should as NWH) occurred in 2003, when Slovakia nominated include sufficient areas immediately adjacent to the a serial natural property consisting of undisturbed, area of OUV in order to protect the property's heritage complex beech forests in the Carpathian Mountains, values from direct effect of human encroachments and near the Ukraine border (IUCN, 2007). However, this impacts of resource use outside of the nominated area nomination was not discussed at the 28th Session of the (UNESCO, 2017). World Heritage Committee, at the request of the State For all the natural properties, bio-physical pro- Party, i.e. Slovakia (WHC, 2004), following the IUCN cesses and landform features should be relatively intact. recommendation for a joint nomination by the State However, it is recognized that no area is totally pristine Parties of Slovakia and Ukraine as the only efficient and that all-natural areas are in a dynamic state, and to approach at conservation of these bordering Carpathi- some extent involve contact with people. Human activ- an forests (IUCN, 2007; WHC, 2007). ities, including those of traditional societies and local On January 31st 2006, the State Parties of Slova- communities, may be consistent with the OUV if they kia and Ukraine have jointly submitted the nomina- are ecologically sustainable. Additionally, a nominated tion concerning the protection of remnant primeval property must have an adequate protection and man- beech forests in the Carpathians as Natural Heritage agement system in place to ensure its safeguarding, (Anonymous, 2006; IUCN, 2007; WHC, 2007). At its including appropriate legal, boundary and buffer zone 31st Session, the World Heritage Committee (hereinaf- provisions and a management plan or system ensur- ter referred to as WHC) adopted in 2007 the Decision ing that the uses supported by the property are eco- 31 COM 8B.16, inscribing these undisturbed beech logically and culturally sustainable (UNESCO, 2017; forest ecosystems on the World Heritage list as the Pri- IUCN, 2006). meval Beech Forests of the Carpathians (Slovakia and

19 Ivana Jovanović, Aleksandar Dragišić, Dragana Ostojić, Biljana Krsteski

Ukraine), under Criterion IX (WHC, 2007; UNESCO, beech forests, whereas the German components put 2017). Criterion IX requires properties to “be outstand- the emphasis on the postglacial continental-wide ing examples representing significant on-going ecological expansion of beech forests. The first extension was a and biological processes in the evolution and develop- major step towards a comprehensive outlook on the ment of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine OUV of this WH property as the outstanding series ecosystems and communities of plants and animals”. of undisturbed European beech forests to effectively Properties nominated under criterion IX must be of preserve these unique forest ecosystems in Europe for “sufficient size and to contain the necessary elements to future generations, while adopting the need to depict demonstrate the key aspects of processes that are essen- a broader picture was aimed at presenting the still tial for the long-term conservation of the ecosystems and ongoing beech postglacial expansion process (Kirch- the biological diversity they contain”, as the condition meir & Kovarovics, 2016a). To fully represent the his- of integrity (UNESCO, 2017; IUCN, 2006; Badman tory and evolution of the beech forests, the property et al., 2008). would need the inclusion of different regions of Europe Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians property the beech has reached in its continental-wide spread was inscribed as a transnational serial property of 10 (Vološčuk, I. 2013a, Vološčuk et al. 2013), considering components in Slovakia (4) and Ukraine (6), the com- that the beech forests differ amongst phytogeographic ponent parts of which represent outstanding examples zones, forming distinctive forest types of characteristic of undisturbed and complex pure-stand beech for- species composition, spatial structure, dynamics and ests, exhibiting the most complete and comprehensive overall diversity – including the genetic diversity of ecological patterns and processes across a variety of beech, as differing adaptations on abiotic conditions, environmental conditions (WHC, 2007). Protection the altitude, topography and macroclimate, as well as of these primeval beech forests as World Heritage the nutrient and water availability (Vološčuk, I. 2013b). was aimed at conserving beech forest ecosystems for In the extension decision the WHC “commends future generations by protecting valuable genetic pull the States Parties of Ukraine, Slovakia and Germany for of European beech and the beech forest communities. their on-going commitment to ensure a comprehensive In June 2011 at the 35th Session held in Paris, the approach to conserving the primeval and ancient beech WHC adopted the Decision 35 COM 8B.13, approv- forests of Europe and for their exploration of the poten- ing the first extension of the Primeval Beech Forests tial for the World Heritage Convention to further these of the Carpathians (Slovakia and Ukraine) to include efforts by cooperating with the support of IUCN and the the Ancient Beech Forests of Germany, thus becoming World Heritage Centre, with other interested States Par- the Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and the ties towards a finite serial transnational nomination in Ancient Beech Forests of Germany (Slovakia, Ukraine order to assure the protection of this unique forest ecosys- and Germany), inscribed under Criterion IX as a trans- tem” (WHC, 2011). Following this recommendation, national serial property consisting of 15 components the German Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature – 6 in Ukraine, 4 in Slovakia and 5 in Germany (WHC, Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB) 2011). launched a Research and Development Project titled The extension nomination was prompted by the European World Heritage Beech Forests, with the goal IUCN evaluation of the Primeval Beech Forests of of “defining the scope of a possible finite European exten- the Carpathians (Slovakia and Ukraine) nomination, sion nomination to the existing trilateral World Herit- pointing out that the nominated property was not rep- age property” (Ibisch, 2014). The project was com- resentative of all types of beech forests and that Ger- missioned by the German Federal Agency for Nature many had some significant old-growth beech forests Conservation (BfN) and implemented by the Centre which may extend the coverage of European beech for Econics and Ecosystem Management (CEEM) at forests on the World Heritage List (IUCN, 2007; Britz the Eberswalde University for Sustainable Develop- et al. 2009). The added old-growth beech forests ment (HNEE). allowed the WH property to better represent European The screening process lasted over two years and beech forests, their history and evolution, considering provided in 2014 the first comprehensive overview of that Germany is the heartland of their distribution, ancient and primeval beech forests in Europe, which with about one-fourth of the beech natural range (Britz listed 126 sites (Ibisch, 2014), later to be known as et al. 2009; Vološčuk et al. 2013). the Longlist. Based on the inscription criteria, the 64 The German nomination clearly shifted the focus suitable extension sites formed the so-called Vienna of the OUV within the Criterion IX: the initial nomi- Shortlist, setting groundwork for the next extension nation considered the component parts in the Car- nominations (Kirchmeir & Kovarovics, 2016). Other pathians to best represent the natural, undisturbed significant project results included the delineation

20 Beech Forests as World Heritage in aspect to the next extension of the Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe World Heritage site of the 12 European Beech Forest Regions (Figure 1), influence on the process, making certain that a solid which was referenced in the future extension nomina- nomination proposal with high inscription chance was tions of the property. elaborated in 2020. To aid the preparation of the nomi- State Parties hosting at least one of the sites on nation dossier, the Coordination Office has prepared Vienna Shortlist were invited to participate in the the Nomination Handbook, where all the zonation and upcoming extension nomination, resulting in an description concepts were elaborated to reach a com- assembly of 11 countries: Albania, Austria, Belgium, mon understanding of the inscription criteria. Bulgaria, Croatia, Italy, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Roma- The State Parties have assigned the Focal Points nia and Ukraine. Poland subsequently decided to with- for the nomination process to coordinate the 2020ENP draw from the nomination, which ultimately included activities and tasks in their respective countries, which 10 European countries and 63 component parts in 32 were invited by the Coordination Office to attend protected areas (Kirchmeir & Kovarovics, 2016). The four technical meetings during the preparation of the extension was inscribed on the World Heritage List by 2020ENP, in Klagenfurt (October 2018), Bern (May the Decision 41 COM 8B. 7 of the WHC, which has 2019), Belgrade (September 2019) and Vienna (Janu- again considered future extensions of the property ary 2020). The meetings have had an important role in towards a finite component composition based on the the nomination preparation, as the application of the scientific criteria, such as were used in the Screening inscription criteria and selected component parts were Study 2012-2014 (WHC, 2011). discussed in detail, providing the experts with a clear After two extensions, the World Heritage site is notion on how to proceed further with the nomination currently named the Ancient and Primeval Beech For- tasks. ests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe This nomination needed to better represent beech (further on: AP BF CORE), which consists of 78 com- forests across Europe and to close some significant ponent parts1 in 43 protected areas and covers 92023.14 distribution gaps, in order to represent all beech for- ha in 12 European countries: Albania, Austria, Bel- est regions and protect the last remnants of ancient gium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Italy, Romania, Slo- and primeval European beech forests over a full scope vakia, Slovenia, Spain and Ukraine. In Table 1 we have of environmental conditions. Most notable gaps were compiled all the basic data of all currently inscribed AP in the Balkan Peninsula, as well as in the far-western BF CORE component parts, segregated in line with the European territories (Figure 2). nomination they were inscribed in, in order to provide better understanding of this extremely complex NWH Inclusion of the Republic of Serbia in the property which has been developing for almost two Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests of the decades under the World Heritage Convention. Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe World Heritage site Results and Discussion The Republic of Serbia has appointed the Insti- At the initiative of the Swiss Confederation, the tute for Nature Conservation of Serbia (further on: preparation of another serial transnational AP BF the Institute) to prepare the nomination on the tech- CORE extension nomination was underway in 2018. nical level and the Ministry of Environmental Protec- Ultimately, the following 10 countries took part in tion to guide the process on the national level. Serbian the extension nomination: Bosnia and Herzegovina, National Commission for UNESCO within the Minis- Czech Republic, France, Italy, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia, try of Foreign Affairs was involved in the nomination Switzerland, North Macedonia and Montenegro. The process as well. The dossier was signed by the UNE- nomination bearer, the Swiss Confederation, delivered SCO ambassador of the Republic of Serbia, appointed the extension nomination dossier to the World Herit- by the Serbian Government. age Centre in January 2020. Table 2 presents the nomi- To prepare the nomination dossier, the Institute nated component parts of the 2020 Extension Nomi- has collaborated with the managers of the nominated nation Proposal (further on: 2020ENP), compiled with protected areas, as well as with the Institute for Nature the corresponding data on the sizes of the core and the Conservation of Vojvodina Province, as nomination buffer zone and the protected area they belong to. includes component parts on the territory of Vojvo- From 2019 on, the nomination dossier prepara- dina Province of the Republic of Serbia. All the men- tion was guided by the E.C.O Institute for Ecology tioned stakeholders were invited to participate in the from Klagenfurt, Austria (further on: the Coordina- technical meeting held in Belgrade and co-organized tion Office), which experience in preparing the pre- by the Institute in September 2019. vious extension of the property has had the major

1 A technical error should be noted in the Decision 41COM 8B.7. on the latest extension inscription, where it states that the newly formed property includes 77 components (WHC, 2017). The complete list is provided in Table 1. 21 Ivana Jovanović, Aleksandar Dragišić, Dragana Ostojić, Biljana Krsteski

First Serbian Tentative List submission Nevertheless, the minimal size threshold of 50 ha was (2018) set by the WHC in the Decision 41 COM 8B.7 (WHC, 2017), which required an overall revision of the Ser- State Parties hosting the suitable sites for the bian component parts selection. next extension of AP BF CORE World Heritage site according to the Vienna Shortlist were invited in late Second Serbian Tentative List submission 2017 to add the extension components on their UNE- (2019) SCO World Heritage Tentative Lists, as the first step towards the nomination. The deadline for submission Klagenfurt technical meeting of late 2018 was the of all documents to the World Heritage Centre to be kick-off meeting of the nomination dossier prepara- considered by the WHC in the following year was set tion process led by the Coordination Office. The meet- at the 1st of February (UNESCO, 2017). Despite the ing had revealed that the most of components on the short deadline, on the 28th of January 2018, the Repub- Serbian Tentative List did not compile with the 50 ha lic of Serbia added the components intended for the minimum size criteria, requiring their withdrawal next AP BF CORE extension to its Tentative List. from the Tentative List and the composing of a new st Only four countries, Montenegro, Poland, Serbia and Tentative List Submission Form by the 1 of February Switzerland, added the extension components to their 2019. For the participating State Parties which had not respective Tentative Lists in 2018. submitted the extension components on their Tenta- The Institute prepared the first set of compo- tive Lists in 2018, the Klagenfurt technical meeting nents which included 11 Forest Reserves selected was the starting point of the entire nomination pro- on the basis of their naturalness and the diversity of cess. beech forest communities, including several relict and All countries participating in the later nomina- endemic species and/or plant communities (Table 3). tion had submitted their extension components on The objective at the time was to represent the diversity the Tentative List by the deadline, with coordinated of the ancient and primeval beech forests in Serbia, contents of the Tentative List Submission Forms in focused on the Moesian region, as the dominant beech regard to the common nomination ahead. As of 2019, region of the country. The oldest and predominantly the World Heritage Committee regards a joint effort pure-stand beech forests under the strict protection of the following ten State Parties to further extend the were selected, including some of the first protected existing NWH property of AP BF CORE: Bosnia and areas in Serbia, the oldest one being the Strict Nature Herzegovina, Czech Republic, France, Italy, Montene- Reserve Zeleničje, established in 1948. The long- gro, North Macedonia, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia and lasting strict protection has provided undisturbed Switzerland, out of which eight State Parties were not development resulting in some of the oldest preserved represented in the existing NWH property. forests in Serbia in general. With exceptional site According to the conclusions drawn from the diversity, the selected components from Serbia would meeting in Klagenfurt, the Institute further stud- greatly improve the representation of the development ied other strictly protected beech forests in Serbia to history of beech forests of the Balkan Peninsula, in the revise component selection for the upcoming exten- context of OUV of this property, as well as they would sion of the AP BF CORE World Heritage site. Eight represent a significant addition considering the role of Level I Protection Regime (further on: Lvl I PR) locali- the Balkan Peninsula in the historical and the contem- ties within three Serbian national parks – Fruška gora, porary beech forest development, maintaining some Tara and Kopaonik, were included on the Serbian of the oldest beech forest ecosystems in Europe. Tentative List on the 31st of January 2019. Having in mind that at this point the Coordina- Beech forests of Fruška gora NP in Vojvodina tion Office was not yet contracted by the Swiss Con- Province of Serbia have been selected as the only federation to guide the nomination process on tech- suitable component in the whole Pannonian BFR for nical level, while lacking the time to research and future extension of AP BF CORE. The inclusion of the comprehend all the inscription criteria, the selection ancient beech forests within the two Lvl I PR locali- of the components entered on Serbian Tentative List ties of Fruška gora NP, Papratski do and Ravne, would in 2018 was not in line with some of the criteria set first represent the Pannonian BFR within the future by previous extensions. Most notable weakness of the extended property which was regarded as significant first selection of components added onto Serbian Ten- additional value of these ancient forests. tative List were the small sizes of the components, with The representation of the Moesian-Balkanic BFR the smallest one being just 0.45 ha of size (Table 3). was much improved by the revised selection of six However, these are not small, isolated forested islands, component parts from central Serbia, the two Lvl I PR but are incorporated into continuous forest cover. localities of Tara NP, Zvezda and Klisura Rače, and the 22 Beech Forests as World Heritage in aspect to the next extension of the Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe World Heritage site four Lvl I PR localities of Kopaonik NP: Kozje stene, ik NP: Kozje stene. Components from Tara NP and Duboka, Metođe and Jelak. Within the existing prop- Fruška gora NP form component clusters, with two erty the Moesian-Balkanic BFR was underrepresented component parts embedded in a mutual buffer zone, by two components in north Albania and one cluster while Kozje stene component represents a single com- component of nine component parts on the Central ponent within Kopaonik NP. Balkan massif in Bulgaria, considering that the vari- All the component parts are protected by the ability of beech forest communities within the BFR Law on National Parks (“Official Gazette of RS”, depends on the differences in the species pool, geo- No. 84/2015), Law on Nature Protection (“Official logical bedrock diversity, soil types, altitudinal zones, Gazette of RS”, No. 36/09; 88/2010; 91/2010, 14/2016 etc. All the localities include primeval beech forests in and 95/2018) and the Decree on Protection Regimes and around deep river gorges or canyons, as habitats (“Official Gazette of RS”, No. 31/2012) and belong of strong refugial character reflected in the presence to the ecologically important areas of the ecological of endemic and relict species and/or relict communi- network of the Republic of Serbia, which also include ties, emphasizing the refugial characteristics of Balkan Important Bird Areas (IBA), Prime Butterfly Areas Peninsula during the Ice Ages, reflected the evolution (PBA), Important Plant Areas (IPA) and Emerald net- history and the diversity of the beech forests. work sites, as set by the Decree on Ecological Network (“Official Gazette of RS”, No. 102/2010), all referenced The nominated components from Serbia in Table 4. The zonation design which followed the elabo- By the Law on Nature Protection (Official rated guidelines of management requirements has Gazette of RS, No. 36/09; 88/2010; 91/2010, 14/2016 revealed that not all of the selected component parts and 95/2018) and the Decree on Protection Regimes from Kopaonik NP could be nominated, although (Official Gazette of RS, No. 31/2012), Level I Protec- hosting scientifically valuable primeval beech forests, tion Regime of protected areas in Serbia prohibits all on accounts of the surrounding winter sports infra- uses of natural resources, any kind of construction structure in Kopaonik NP. and all human activities, except for scientific research, Winter tourism is the most significant human monitoring of natural processes, controlled visits for influence in Kopaonik NP, as the major winter sports educational and cultural purposes, implementation center in Serbia is located around the highest peak of necessary protective measures in case of natural (Pančić’s Peak, 2017 m a.s.l.) in the southern part of disasters or diseases and maintenance of significant the Park, spreading over 800 ha, with 25 ski-lifts, 62 objects (e.g. electric transmission lines). All visits km of Alpine skiing routes and 15 km of Nordic ski- must be conducted in consultation with the manag- ing routes. Around this ski-resort grew an urbanized ers to assure that the visitors compile with regulations, area called Suvo Rudište, with over 10.500 accommo- not to step away from the paths or trails, not to disturb dation units (Milovanović, 2019). Skiing activities on or collect any organism and to leave no trace behind. Kopaonik Mt. date back to 1930’s, while the ski-center Management goal in Level I Protection Regime is to dates back to 1964, when the first ski-lift was opened preserve natural ecosystems and their natural dynam- (https://www.skijanje.rs/istorija/istorija-skijanja-u- ics undisturbed. If necessary, minimal interventions srbiji/pocetci-skijanja-na-kopaoniku/). It should be can be undertaken, but no wood is to be extracted, noted that almost all ski related infrastructure is con- except if it can be expected to lead to a disease spread centrated around this area, while the rest of the Park and further forest ecosystem damage. The managers remains unaffected. can only apply sanitary measures after acquiring the The buffer zone of the components located within permit from the Ministry of Environmental Protec- Duboka and Brzećka river gorges in the SE part of the tion on the basis of the expert opinions of the Institute Park, Duboka, Metođe and Jelak, would inevitably be for Nature Conservation of Serbia or the Institute for exposed to the negative impact of Kopaonik ski-center Nature Conservation of Vojvodina Province, depend- development. Since we could not guarantee the ade- ing on the location of the protected area in regard to quate management requirements in the buffer zone, the administrative division of the country. it was necessary to exclude these localities from the All national parks in Serbia are protected by final nomination of components from the Republic of the Law on National Parks (“Official Gazette of RS”, Serbia. No. 84/2015) and their management is entrusted to The final five nominated component parts include the public enterprises, namely for the three relevant two Lvl I PR localities of Fruška gora NP, Papratski do National Parks: PE “Nacionalni park Kopaonik”, PE and Ravne, two Lvl I PR localities of Tara NP, Zvezda “Nacionalni park Tara” and PE “Nacionalni park and Klisura Rače, and one Lvl I PR locality of Kopaon- Fruška gora”. National Parks are managed according

23 Ivana Jovanović, Aleksandar Dragišić, Dragana Ostojić, Biljana Krsteski to the ten-year management plans and annual man- distinctive combinations of environmental factors, agement programs, developed in accordance with including the climate, elevation belts and bedrock the Institute for Nature Conservation of Serbia or the types. Institute for Nature Conservation of Vojvodina Prov- The 2020 extension nomination proposes the ince and approved by the Ministry of Environmental inscription of additional 30 component parts and Protection. boundary modification of the 7 already inscribed component parts, aiming to better represent the OUV CONCLUSION of the property, as well as to improve the integrity and protection of the existing property. In regard to Widely distributed in Europe, beech forests are the component type, 16 single components are nomi- one of world’s most unique ecosystems, accounting for nated along with 8 component clusters. The nomina- a significant part of the northern hemisphere Temper- tion proposal concerns a total of 37 component parts ate Broadleaf Forest Biome Vološčuk et al. 2014). The located within 24 protected areas in 10 European phenomenon of a single tree species dominating forest countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Czech Republic, vegetation over a major part of the entire continent is France, Italy, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, unique to Europe (Knapp & Fichtner 2011). The post- Serbia, Slovakia and Switzerland. The 30 newly nomi- glacial forest development of beech, forests and their nated component parts will contribute to the existing spread throughout Europe is an outstanding example property with 15,986.96 ha. The nominated compo- of continent-wide development of terrestrial eco- nent parts represent 9 Beech Forest Regions: Pyrena- systems and communities (Knapp & Fichtner, 2011; ic-Iberian, Central Mediterranean, Illyric, Moesian- Magri et al., 2006). Considering the past, present and Balkanic, Subantlantic-Hercynic, Alpic, Carpathian, future development pressures on natural forest eco- Atlantic and Pannonic, the latter not yet represented. systems in Europe, preserving of ancient and primeval By this extension, the current inscribed serial beech forests is regarded as a globally important task. transnational NWH property consisting of 78 compo- Initiative to represent and preserve the beech nent parts will be extended to a total of 108 compo- forest ecosystems by the World Heritage Convention nent parts from 20 countries within 61 protected are- for future generations led to the establishment of the as, across 11 out of 12 Beech Forest Regions in Europe, complex serial, transnational World Heritage proper- to better show the postglacial expansion process of ty, which has been developing for more than 15 years, beech and to demonstrate the development history of since the initial Slovakia’s proposal in 2003 and has European beech forest ecosystems through the series included four World Heritage nominations so far, out of the most natural beech forest sites in 10 European of which two extension nominations. The third exten- countries. Furthermore, the nominated components sion nomination was prepared in 2019 and submitted achieve a more complete picture of the continental on 28th of January 2020, in order to complete the pic- character, diversity and biogeographical distribu- ture on continental-wide proglacial spread and diver- tion of beech forests, by adding new attributes to the sity of the European beech forests. existing property, increasing the integrity of the prop- The Outstanding Universal Value of the European erty and closing some distribution and diversity gaps. beech forests is in their unique history and evolution Namely, Serbian components will greatly improve the as a prominent example of the ongoing re-coloniza- beech forest representation within two Beech Forest tion and development of terrestrial ecosystems after Regions, the Pannonian and the Moesian-Balkanic. the last glacial period, due to the combination of post- World Heritage property concerning the preserva- glacial climate changes and the extreme competitive- tion of beech forests across 20 European countries will ness, incredible ecological adaptability and distinct life provide a solid platform for policy making, knowledge strategy of the European beech, causing it to spread exchange and joint management activities, including throughout Europe covering wide areas in a broad research and monitoring opportunities across all the array of different beech forest types (Britz et al. 2009). inscribed components and corridor development. Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests of the Car- The common goal of preserving the World Heritage pathians and Other Regions of Europe World Heritage property will result in a combined effort and foster a site is aimed to reflect the post-glacial development close international collaboration on all levels, includ- process of the beech and to preserve the diversity of ing management, scientific research and governance, beech forest communities across Europe, consider- collaborating towards a common goal of management ing that the beech forms different forest communi- harmonization across different nature protection sys- ties, according to the species pull available in different tems and practices. floristic regions of Europe, while occupying various

24 Beech Forests as World Heritage in aspect to the next extension of the Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe World Heritage site

TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1: The components comprising the Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe Natural World Heritage site (Britz et al. 2009; Kirchmeir & Kovarovics, 2016)

Core Buffer No. State Party Component part Protected Area zone size zone size (ha) (ha) 1 Ukraine Stuzhytsia-Uzhok Uzhansky National Nature Park 2 532 3 615 2 Ukraine Kuziy-Trybushany 1 369,6 3 163,4 3 Ukraine Maramarosh 2 243,6 6 230,4 4 Ukraine Chornohora Carpathian Biosphere Reserve 2 476,8 12 925 5 Ukraine Svydovets 3 030,5 5 639,5 6 Ukraine Uholka-Shyrokyi Luh 11 860 3 301 Slovak 7 Vihorlat Vihorlat Protected Landscape Area 2 578 2 413 Republic

Inscribed 2007 Inscribed Slovak National Nature Reserve Stužica 8 Stužica – Bukovské Vrchy 2 950 11 300 Republic within Poloniny National Park Slovak National Nature Reserve Rožok 9 Rožok 67,1 41,4 Republic within Poloniny National Park Slovak National Nature Reserve Havešová 10 Havešová 171,3 63,99 Republic within Poloniny National Park 11 Germany Jasmund Jasmund National Park 492,5 2 510,5 12 Germany Serrahn Müritz National Park 268,1 2 568 Schorfheide-Chorin Biosphere 13 Germany Grumsin 590,1 274,3 Reserve 14 Germany Hainich Hainich National Park 1 573,4 4 085,4 Extended 2011 15 Germany Kellerwald Kellerwald-Edersee National Park 1 467,1 4 271,4 16 Zacharovanyi Krai - Velykyi Dil Zacharovanyi Krai National Nature 1 164,16 Ukraine 1 275,44 17 Zacharovanyi Krai - Irshavka Park 93,97 18 Ukraine Synevyr – Vilshany 454,31 253,85 19 Ukraine Synevyr – Strymba 260,65 191,14 Synevyr National Nature Park 20 Ukraine Synevyr – Kvasovets 561,62 333,63 21 Ukraine Synevyr – Darvaika 1 588,46 312,32 Podilski Tovtry National Nature 22 Ukraine Satanіvska Dacha 212,01 559,37 Park 23 Ukraine Roztochya Roztochya Nature Reserve 384,81 598,21 24 Ukraine Gorgany Gorgany Nature Reserve 753,48 4 637,59 Hayedos de Picos de Europa - 25 213,65 Cuesta Fría Spain Picos de Europa National Park 14 253 Hayedos de Picos de Europa - Canal 26 109,58 de Asotin 27 Hayedos de Navarra – Lizardoia Lizardoia Strict Reserve 63,97 24 494, Spain Extended 2017 28 Hayedos de Navarra – Aztaparreta Aztaparreta Strict Reserve 171,06 52 29 Hayedos de Ayllón - Tejera Negra Hayedo Tejera Negra Natural Park 255,52 Spain Hayedos de Ayllón - Montejo de la 13 880,86 30 Sierra del Rincon Biosphere Reserve 71,79 Sierra 31 Slovenia Snežnik-Ždrocle Snežnik-Ždrocle Forest Reserve 720,24 128,80 32 Slovenia Krokar Krokar Forest Reserve 74,50 47,90 Strictly protected area in Forest Management Plans & part of N2k 33 Romania Strîmbu Băiuț 598,14 713,09 site Codrii Seculari de la Strâmbu- Băiuț (ROSCI0285) Semenic-Cheile Carasului National 34 Romania Izvoarele Nerei 4 677,21 2 494,83 Park 35 Groșii Țibleșului - Preluci Strictly protected areas in Forest 135,82 Romania 563,57 36 Groșii Țibleșului - Izvorul Șurii Management Plans 210,55 Domogled-Valea Cernei - Ciucevele 37 Romania 1 104.27 Cernei Domogled-Valea Cernei - Iauna Domogled-Valea Cernei National 38 Romania 3 517,36 51 46251,28 Craiovei Park Domogled-Valea Cernei – Coronini- 39 Romania 5 110,63 Bedina 40 Romania Cozia - Lotrisor 1 103,30 Cozia National Park 2 408,83 41 Romania Cozia - Masivul Cozia 2 285,86 Codrul Secular Slătioara Forest 42 Romania Codrul Secular Slătioara Reserve & Natura 2000 site Rarău- 609,12 429,43 Giumalău (ROSCI0212) Strictly protected areas in Forest 43 Romania Codrul secular Șinca 338,24 445,76 Management Plans Cheile Nerei-Beusnita National Park & Natura 2000 sites Cheile Nerei 44 Romania Cheile Nerei-Beușnița 4 292,27 5 959,87 (ROSCI0031) and Beusnita (ROSPA0020) Sasso Fratino Strict Reserve in 45 Italy Sasso Fratino 781,43 6 936,64 Foreste Casentinesi National Park Monte Raschio Strict Reserve in 46 Italy Monte Raschio Regional Natural Park of Bracciano- 73,73 54,75 Martignano Natural Monument of the Lazio 47 Italy Monte Cimino 57,54 87,96 Region Foresta Umbra Strict Nature Reserve 48 Italy Foresta Umbra 182,23 1 752,54 in Gargano National Park Cozzo Ferriero Strict Reserve in 49 Italy Cozzo Ferriero 95,74 482,61 Pollino National Park

nded 20 17 Abruzzo, Lazio & Molise - Val 50 Italy 325,03 700,95 Fondillo Exte Abruzzo, Lazio & Molise - Coppo 51 Italy 194,49 446,62 del Principe Abruzzo, Lazio & Molise - Coppo Abruzzo, Lazio & Molise National 52 Italy 104,71 415,51 del Morto Park Abruzzo, Lazio & Molise - Selva 53 Italy 192,70 Moricento 751,61 Abruzzo, Lazio & Molise - Valle 54 Italy 119,70 Cervara Paklenica National Park - 55 Croatia 790,74 395,35 Oglavinovac-Javornik Paklenica National Park Paklenica National Park - Suva 56 Croatia 1 241,04 414,76 draga-Klimenta Strict Reserve Hajdučki and 57 Croatia Hajdučki i Rožanski kukovi Rožanski Kukovi within Northern 1 289,11 9 869,25 Velebit National Park. 58 Bulgaria Central Balkan - Sokolna Reserve 824,90 780,55 Bulgaria Central Balkan - Peeshti skali 59 1 049,10 968,14 Reserve Bulgaria Central Balkan - Severen Dzhendem 60 926,37 1 066,47 Reserve Bulgaria Central Balkan - Dzhendema 61 1 774,12 2 576,63 Reserve Strict Reserves within Central Balkan National Park 62 Bulgaria Central Balkan - Stara reka Reserve 591,20 1 480,04 63 Bulgaria Central Balkan - Steneto Reserve 2 466,10 1 762,01 Bulgaria Central Balkan - Kozya stena 64 644,43 289,82 Reserve 65 Bulgaria Central Balkan - Tsarichina Reserve 1 485,81 1 945,99 66 Bulgaria Central Balkan - Boatin Reserve 1 226,88 851,22 Sonian Forest - Forest Reserve Strict Forest Reserve “Joseph 67 Belgium 187,34 “Joseph Zwaenepoel” Zwaenepoel” 68 Belgium Sonian Forest – Grippensdelle A 24,11 69 Belgium Sonian Forest - Grippensdelle B 37,38 Strict Forest Reserves within Sonian 4 650,86 Sonian Forest - Réserve forestière forest Protected Landscape, 70 Belgium 13,98 du Ticton A Natura2000 sites BE1000001 and Sonian Forest - Réserve forestière BE2400008 71 Belgium 6,50 du Ticton B 72 Austria Kalkalpen - Wilder Graben 1 149,75 73 Austria Kalkalpen - Urlach Kalkalpen National Park and 264,82 14 197,24 74 Austria Kalkalpen - Bodinggraben Natura2000 site AT3111000 890,89 75 Austria Kalkalpen - Hintergebirge 2 946,20 76 Austria Dürrenstein Wilderness Area Dürrenstein 1 867,45 1 545,05 77 Albania Rrajca Shebenik-Jabllanica National Park 2 129,45 2 569,75 78 Albania Lumi i Gashit Strict Nature Reserves Gashi River 1 261,52 8 977,48 Core Buffer No. State Party Component part Protected Area zone size zone size (ha) (ha) 1 Ukraine Stuzhytsia-Uzhok Uzhansky National Nature Park 2 532 3 615 2 Ukraine Kuziy-Trybushany 1 369,6 3 163,4 3 Ukraine Maramarosh 2 243,6 6 230,4 4 Ukraine Chornohora Carpathian Biosphere Reserve 2 476,8 12 925 5 Ukraine Svydovets 3 030,5 5 639,5 6 Ukraine Uholka-Shyrokyi Luh 11 860 3 301 Slovak 7 Vihorlat Vihorlat Protected Landscape Area 2 578 2 413 Republic

Inscribed 2007 Inscribed Slovak National Nature Reserve Stužica 8 Stužica – Bukovské Vrchy 2 950 11 300 Republic within Poloniny National Park Slovak National Nature Reserve Rožok 9 Rožok 67,1 41,4 Republic within Poloniny National Park Slovak National Nature Reserve Havešová 10 Havešová 171,3 63,99 Republic within Poloniny National Park 11 Germany Jasmund Jasmund National Park 492,5 2 510,5 12 Germany Serrahn Müritz National Park 268,1 2 568 Schorfheide-Chorin Biosphere 13 Germany Grumsin 590,1 274,3 Reserve 14 Germany Hainich Hainich National Park 1 573,4 4 085,4 Extended 2011 15 Germany Kellerwald Kellerwald-Edersee National Park 1 467,1 4 271,4 16 Zacharovanyi Krai - Velykyi Dil Zacharovanyi Krai National Nature 1 164,16 Ukraine 1 275,44 17 Zacharovanyi Krai - Irshavka Park 93,97 18 Ukraine Synevyr – Vilshany 454,31 253,85 19 Ukraine Synevyr – Strymba 260,65 191,14 Synevyr National Nature Park 20 Ukraine Synevyr – Kvasovets 561,62 333,63 21 Ukraine Synevyr – Darvaika 1 588,46 312,32 Podilski Tovtry National Nature 22 Ukraine Satanіvska Dacha 212,01 559,37 Park 23 Ukraine Roztochya Roztochya Nature Reserve 384,81 598,21 24 Ukraine Gorgany Gorgany Nature Reserve 753,48 4 637,59 Hayedos de Picos de Europa - 25 213,65 Cuesta Fría Spain Picos de Europa National Park 14 253 Hayedos de Picos de Europa - Canal 26 109,58 de Asotin 27 Hayedos de Navarra – Lizardoia Lizardoia Strict Reserve 63,97 24 494, Spain Extended 2017 28 Hayedos de Navarra – Aztaparreta Aztaparreta Strict Reserve 171,06 52 29 Hayedos de Ayllón - Tejera Negra Hayedo Tejera Negra Natural Park 255,52 Spain Hayedos de Ayllón - Montejo de la 13 880,86 30 Sierra del Rincon Biosphere Reserve 71,79 Sierra 31 Slovenia Snežnik-Ždrocle Snežnik-Ždrocle Forest Reserve 720,24 128,80 32 Slovenia Krokar Krokar Forest Reserve 74,50 47,90 Strictly protected area in Forest Management Plans & part of N2k 33 Romania Strîmbu Băiuț 598,14 713,09 site Codrii Seculari de la Strâmbu- Băiuț (ROSCI0285) Semenic-Cheile Carasului National 34 Romania Izvoarele Nerei 4 677,21 2 494,83 Park Ivana Jovanović, Aleksandar Dragišić, Dragana Ostojić, Biljana Krsteski 35 Groșii Țibleșului - Preluci Strictly protected areas in Forest 135,82 Romania 563,57 36 Groșii Țibleșului - Izvorul Șurii Management Plans 210,55 Domogled-Valea Cernei - Ciucevele 37 Romania 1 104.27 Cernei Domogled-Valea Cernei - Iauna Domogled-Valea Cernei National 38 Romania 3 517,36 51 461,28 Craiovei Park Domogled-Valea Cernei – Coronini- 39 Romania 5 110,63 Bedina 40 Romania Cozia - Lotrisor 1 103,30 Cozia National Park 2 408,83 41 Romania Cozia - Masivul Cozia 2 285,86 Codrul Secular Slătioara Forest 42 Romania Codrul Secular Slătioara Reserve & Natura 2000 site Rarău- 609,12 429,43 Giumalău (ROSCI0212) Strictly protected areas in Forest 43 Romania Codrul secular Șinca 338,24 445,76 Management Plans Cheile Nerei-Beusnita National Park & Natura 2000 sites Cheile Nerei 44 Romania Cheile Nerei-Beușnița 4 292,27 5 959,87 (ROSCI0031) and Beusnita (ROSPA0020) Sasso Fratino Strict Reserve in 45 Italy Sasso Fratino 781,43 6 936,64 Foreste Casentinesi National Park Monte Raschio Strict Reserve in 46 Italy Monte Raschio Regional Natural Park of Bracciano- 73,73 54,75 Martignano Natural Monument of the Lazio 47 Italy Monte Cimino 57,54 87,96 Region Foresta Umbra Strict Nature Reserve 48 Italy Foresta Umbra 182,23 1 752,54 in Gargano National Park Cozzo Ferriero Strict Reserve in 49 Italy Cozzo Ferriero 95,74 482,61 Pollino National Park

nded 20 17 Abruzzo, Lazio & Molise - Val 50 Italy 325,03 700,95 Fondillo Exte Abruzzo, Lazio & Molise - Coppo 51 Italy 194,49 446,62 del Principe Abruzzo, Lazio & Molise - Coppo Abruzzo, Lazio & Molise National 52 Italy 104,71 415,51 del Morto Park Abruzzo, Lazio & Molise - Selva 53 Italy 192,70 Moricento 751,61 Abruzzo, Lazio & Molise - Valle 54 Italy 119,70 Cervara Paklenica National Park - 55 Croatia 790,74 395,35 Oglavinovac-Javornik Paklenica National Park Paklenica National Park - Suva 56 Croatia 1 241,04 414,76 draga-Klimenta Strict Reserve Hajdučki and 57 Croatia Hajdučki i Rožanski kukovi Rožanski Kukovi within Northern 1 289,11 9 869,25 Velebit National Park. 58 Bulgaria Central Balkan - Sokolna Reserve 824,90 780,55 Bulgaria Central Balkan - Peeshti skali 59 1 049,10 968,14 Reserve Bulgaria Central Balkan - Severen Dzhendem 60 926,37 1 066,47 Reserve Bulgaria Central Balkan - Dzhendema 61 1 774,12 2 576,63 Reserve Strict Reserves within Central Balkan National Park 62 Bulgaria Central Balkan - Stara reka Reserve 591,20 1 480,04 63 Bulgaria Central Balkan - Steneto Reserve 2 466,10 1 762,01 Bulgaria Central Balkan - Kozya stena 64 644,43 289,82 Reserve 65 Bulgaria Central Balkan - Tsarichina Reserve 1 485,81 1 945,99 66 Bulgaria Central Balkan - Boatin Reserve 1 226,88 851,22 Sonian Forest - Forest Reserve Strict Forest Reserve “Joseph 67 Belgium 187,34 “Joseph Zwaenepoel” Zwaenepoel” 68 Belgium Sonian Forest – Grippensdelle A 24,11 69 Belgium Sonian Forest - Grippensdelle B 37,38 Strict Forest Reserves within Sonian 4 650,86 Sonian Forest - Réserve forestière forest Protected Landscape, 70 Belgium 13,98 26 du Ticton A Natura2000 sites BE1000001 and Sonian Forest - Réserve forestière BE2400008 71 Belgium 6,50 du Ticton B 72 Austria Kalkalpen - Wilder Graben 1 149,75 73 Austria Kalkalpen - Urlach Kalkalpen National Park and 264,82 14 197,24 74 Austria Kalkalpen - Bodinggraben Natura2000 site AT3111000 890,89 75 Austria Kalkalpen - Hintergebirge 2 946,20 76 Austria Dürrenstein Wilderness Area Dürrenstein 1 867,45 1 545,05 77 Albania Rrajca Shebenik-Jabllanica National Park 2 129,45 2 569,75 78 Albania Lumi i Gashit Strict Nature Reserves Gashi River 1 261,52 8 977,48 Core Buffer No. State Party Component part Protected Area zone size zone size (ha) (ha) 1 Ukraine Stuzhytsia-Uzhok Uzhansky National Nature Park 2 532 3 615 2 Ukraine Kuziy-Trybushany 1 369,6 3 163,4 3 Ukraine Maramarosh 2 243,6 6 230,4 4 Ukraine Chornohora Carpathian Biosphere Reserve 2 476,8 12 925 5 Ukraine Svydovets 3 030,5 5 639,5 6 Ukraine Uholka-Shyrokyi Luh 11 860 3 301 Slovak 7 Vihorlat Vihorlat Protected Landscape Area 2 578 2 413 Republic

Inscribed 2007 Inscribed Slovak National Nature Reserve Stužica 8 Stužica – Bukovské Vrchy 2 950 11 300 Republic within Poloniny National Park Slovak National Nature Reserve Rožok 9 Rožok 67,1 41,4 Republic within Poloniny National Park Slovak National Nature Reserve Havešová 10 Havešová 171,3 63,99 Republic within Poloniny National Park 11 Germany Jasmund Jasmund National Park 492,5 2 510,5 12 Germany Serrahn Müritz National Park 268,1 2 568 Schorfheide-Chorin Biosphere 13 Germany Grumsin 590,1 274,3 Reserve 14 Germany Hainich Hainich National Park 1 573,4 4 085,4 Extended 2011 15 Germany Kellerwald Kellerwald-Edersee National Park 1 467,1 4 271,4 16 Zacharovanyi Krai - Velykyi Dil Zacharovanyi Krai National Nature 1 164,16 Ukraine 1 275,44 17 Zacharovanyi Krai - Irshavka Park 93,97 18 Ukraine Synevyr – Vilshany 454,31 253,85 19 Ukraine Synevyr – Strymba 260,65 191,14 Synevyr National Nature Park 20 Ukraine Synevyr – Kvasovets 561,62 333,63 21 Ukraine Synevyr – Darvaika 1 588,46 312,32 Podilski Tovtry National Nature 22 Ukraine Satanіvska Dacha 212,01 559,37 Park 23 Ukraine Roztochya Roztochya Nature Reserve 384,81 598,21 24 Ukraine Gorgany Gorgany Nature Reserve 753,48 4 637,59 Hayedos de Picos de Europa - 25 213,65 Cuesta Fría Spain Picos de Europa National Park 14 253 Hayedos de Picos de Europa - Canal 26 109,58 de Asotin 27 Hayedos de Navarra – Lizardoia Lizardoia Strict Reserve 63,97 24 494, Spain Extended 2017 28 Hayedos de Navarra – Aztaparreta Aztaparreta Strict Reserve 171,06 52 29 Hayedos de Ayllón - Tejera Negra Hayedo Tejera Negra Natural Park 255,52 Spain Hayedos de Ayllón - Montejo de la 13 880,86 30 Sierra del Rincon Biosphere Reserve 71,79 Sierra 31 Slovenia Snežnik-Ždrocle Snežnik-Ždrocle Forest Reserve 720,24 128,80 32 Slovenia Krokar Krokar Forest Reserve 74,50 47,90 Strictly protected area in Forest Management Plans & part of N2k 33 Romania Strîmbu Băiuț 598,14 713,09 site Codrii Seculari de la Strâmbu- Băiuț (ROSCI0285) Semenic-Cheile Carasului National 34 Romania Izvoarele Nerei 4 677,21 2 494,83 Park 35 Groșii Țibleșului - Preluci Strictly protected areas in Forest 135,82 Romania 563,57 36 Groșii Țibleșului - Izvorul Șurii Management Plans 210,55 Domogled-Valea Cernei - Ciucevele 37 Romania 1 104.27 Cernei Domogled-Valea Cernei - Iauna Domogled-Valea Cernei National 38 Romania 3 517,36 51 461,28 Craiovei Park Domogled-Valea Cernei – Coronini- 39 Romania 5 110,63 Bedina 40 Romania Cozia - Lotrisor 1 103,30 Cozia National Park 2 408,83 41 Romania Cozia - Masivul Cozia 2 285,86 Codrul Secular Slătioara Forest 42 Romania Codrul Secular Slătioara Reserve & Natura 2000 site Rarău- 609,12 429,43 Giumalău (ROSCI0212) Strictly protected areas in Forest 43 Romania Codrul secular Șinca 338,24 445,76 Management Plans Cheile Nerei-Beusnita National Park & Natura 2000 sites Cheile Nerei 44 Romania Cheile Nerei-Beușnița 4 292,27 5 959,87 (ROSCI0031) and Beusnita (ROSPA0020) Sasso Fratino Strict Reserve in 45 Italy Sasso Fratino 781,43 6 936,64 Foreste Casentinesi National Park Monte Raschio Strict Reserve in 46 Italy Monte Raschio Regional Natural Park of Bracciano- 73,73 54,75 Martignano Natural Monument of the Lazio 47 Italy Monte Cimino 57,54 87,96 Region Foresta Umbra Strict Nature Reserve 48 Italy Foresta Umbra 182,23 1 752,54 in Gargano National Park Cozzo Ferriero Strict Reserve in 49 Italy Cozzo Ferriero 95,74 482,61 Pollino National Park

nded 20 17 Abruzzo, Lazio & Molise - Val 50 Italy 325,03 700,95 Fondillo Exte Abruzzo, Lazio & Molise - Coppo 51 Italy 194,49 446,62 del Principe Abruzzo, Lazio & Molise - Coppo Abruzzo, Lazio & Molise National 52 Italy 104,71 415,51 del Morto Park Abruzzo, Lazio & Molise - Selva 53 Italy 192,70 Moricento 751,61 Abruzzo, Lazio & Molise - Valle 54 Italy 119,70 Cervara Paklenica National Park - 55 Croatia 790,74 395,35 Oglavinovac-Javornik Paklenica National Park Paklenica National Park - Suva 56 Croatia 1 241,04 414,76 draga-Klimenta Strict Reserve Hajdučki and 57 Croatia Hajdučki i Rožanski kukovi Rožanski Kukovi within Northern 1 289,11 9 869,25 Velebit National Park. 58 Bulgaria Central Balkan - Sokolna Reserve 824,90 780,55 Bulgaria Central Balkan - Peeshti skali 59 1 049,10 968,14 Reserve Bulgaria Central Balkan - Severen Dzhendem 60 926,37 1 066,47 Reserve Bulgaria Central Balkan - Dzhendema 61 1 774,12 2 576,63 Reserve Strict Reserves within Central Balkan National Park 62 Bulgaria Central Balkan - Stara reka Reserve 591,20 1 480,04 63 Bulgaria Central Balkan - Steneto Reserve 2 466,10 1 762,01 Bulgaria Central Balkan - Kozya stena 64 644,43 289,82 ReserveBeech Forests as World Heritage in aspect to the next extension of the Ancient and Primeval 65 Bulgaria Central BalkanBeech - Tsarichina Forests Reserve of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe1 485,81 World Heritage1 945,99 site 66 Bulgaria Central Balkan - Boatin Reserve 1 226,88 851,22 Sonian Forest - Forest Reserve Strict Forest Reserve “Joseph 67 Belgium 187,34 “Joseph Zwaenepoel” Zwaenepoel” 68 Belgium Sonian Forest – Grippensdelle A 24,11 69 Belgium Sonian Forest - Grippensdelle B 37,38 Strict Forest Reserves within Sonian 4 650,86 Sonian Forest - Réserve forestière forest Protected Landscape, 70 Belgium 13,98 du Ticton A Natura2000 sites BE1000001 and Sonian Forest - Réserve forestière BE2400008 71 Belgium 6,50 du Ticton B 72 Austria Kalkalpen - Wilder Graben 1 149,75 73 Austria Kalkalpen - Urlach Kalkalpen National Park and 264,82 14 197,24 74 Austria Kalkalpen - Bodinggraben Natura2000 site AT3111000 890,89 75 Austria Kalkalpen - Hintergebirge 2 946,20 76 Austria Dürrenstein Wilderness Area Dürrenstein 1 867,45 1 545,05 77 Albania Rrajca Shebenik-Jabllanica National Park 2 129,45 2 569,75 78 Albania Lumi i Gashit Strict Nature Reserves Gashi River 1 261,52 8 977,48

Table 2: The components nominated as the 3rd extension of the Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests of the Car- pathians and Other Regions of Europe Natural World Heritage site (Kirchmeir & Kovarovics, 2020)

Buffer Core zone No. State Party Component part Protected Area zone size size (ha) (ha) Bosnia and 1 Prašuma Janj Prašuma Janj Strict Nature Reserve 295,04 380,74 Herzegovina Czech Jizerské hory National Nature 2 Jizera Mountains 444,81 2 330,40 Republic Reserve 3 France Aigoual Aigoual Biological Strict Reserve 75.03 90.11 4 France Chapitre Chapitre Biological Strict Reserve 371.30 41.65 5 France Chizé Component 1 North-West 93.69 Chizé Biological Strict Reserve 571.92 6 France Chizé Component 2 South 62.43 Fontainebleau Biological Strict 7 France Fontainebleau 248.48 152.20 Reserve Grand Ventron National Nature 8 France Grand Ventron 257.09 1 397.58 Reserve 9 France Massane Massane National Nature Reserve 121.49 1 551.33 Py-Pas de Rotja National Nature 10 France Py-Pas de Rotja 246.03 4 049.87 Reserve Sainte-Baume Biological Strict 11 France Sainte-Baume 128.63 215.11 Reserve Saint-Pé-de-Bigorre Biological 12 France Saint-Pé-de-Bigorre 924.71 296.87 Strict Reserve 13 Italy Cozzo Ferriero* 95.75 Pollino National Park 2 851.83 14 Italy Pollinello 477.94 15 Italy Falascone* 254.30 Foresta Umbra Strict Nature Reserve 3 486.29 16 Italy Pavari-Sfilzi 667.13 Italy Valle Infernale Strict Nature 17 Valle Infernale 320.79 2 191.36 Reserve 18 Montenegro Biogradska Gora 1 390.81 Biogradska Gora National Park 3,632.82 19 Montenegro Biogradska Gora 2 1 913.48 North 20 Dlaboka Reka Mavrovo National Park 193.27 234.70 Macedonia Border Ridge and Gorna Solinka 21 Poland 1 506.05 valley 22 Poland Polonina Wetlinska and Smerek Bieszczady National Park 1 178.03 24 330.52 23 Poland Terebowiec stream valley 201.00 24 Poland Wolosatka stream valley 586.66 25 Serbia Fruška gora - Papratski do 65.36 Fruška gora National Park 847.86 26 Serbia Fruška gora - Ravne 93.43 27 Serbia Kopaonik - Kozje stene Kopaonik National Park 451.47 959.8927 28 Serbia Tara - Zvezda 1 873.67 Tara National Park 4 091.99 29 Serbia Tara - Rača 215.94 30 Slovakia Havešová Primeval Forest* 167.88 6 474,84 31 Slovakia Rožok* 74.37 1 138,89 Poloniny National Park 32 Slovakia Stužica - Bukovské Vrchy* 1 742.47 5 694,84 33 Slovakia Udava* 448.17 822,34 34 Slovakia Kyjovský prales 289.39 104.46 Vihorlat Protected Landscape Area 35 Slovakia Vihorlat* 1 559.41 847.54 Bettlachstock–Hasenmatt Natural 36 Switzerland Forêt de la Bettlachstock 195.43 1 094.16 Forest Reserve Valli di Lodano, Busai and Soladino 37 Switzerland Busai and Soladino Forest Reserves 806.78 2 330.74 Forest Reserves

Buffer Core zone No. State Party Component part Protected Area zone size size (ha) (ha) Bosnia and 1 Prašuma Janj Prašuma Janj Strict Nature Reserve 295,04 380,74 Herzegovina Czech Jizerské hory National Nature 2 Jizera Mountains 444,81 2 330,40 Republic Reserve 3 France Aigoual Aigoual Biological Strict Reserve 75.03 90.11 4 France Chapitre Chapitre Biological Strict Reserve 371.30 41.65 5 France Chizé Component 1 North-West 93.69 Chizé Biological Strict Reserve 571.92 6 France Chizé Component 2 South 62.43 Fontainebleau Biological Strict 7 France Fontainebleau 248.48 152.20 Reserve Grand Ventron National Nature 8 France Grand Ventron 257.09 1 397.58 Reserve 9 France Massane Massane National Nature Reserve 121.49 1 551.33 Py-Pas de Rotja National Nature 10 France Py-Pas de Rotja 246.03 4 049.87 Reserve Sainte-Baume Biological Strict 11 France Sainte-Baume 128.63 215.11 Reserve Saint-Pé-de-Bigorre Biological 12 France Saint-Pé-de-Bigorre 924.71 296.87 Strict Reserve 13 Italy Cozzo Ferriero* 95.75 Pollino National Park 2 851.83 14 Italy Pollinello 477.94 15 Italy Falascone* 254.30 Foresta Umbra Strict Nature Reserve 3 486.29 16 Italy Pavari-Sfilzi 667.13 Italy Valle Infernale Strict Nature 17 Valle Infernale 320.79 2 191.36 Reserve 18 Montenegro Biogradska Gora 1 390.81 Biogradska Gora National Park 3,632.82 19 Montenegro Biogradska Gora 2 1 913.48 North 20 Dlaboka Reka Mavrovo National Park 193.27 234.70 Macedonia Border Ridge and Gorna Solinka 21 Poland 1 506.05 valley 22 Poland Polonina Wetlinska and Smerek Bieszczady National Park 1 178.03 24 330.52 Ivana23 Jovanović,Poland AleksandarTerebo Dragišić,wiec stream Dragana valley Ostojić, Biljana Krsteski 201.00 24 Poland Wolosatka stream valley 586.66 25 Serbia Fruška gora - Papratski do 65.36 Fruška gora National Park 847.86 26 Serbia Fruška gora - Ravne 93.43 27 Serbia Kopaonik - Kozje stene Kopaonik National Park 451.47 959.89 28 Serbia Tara - Zvezda 1 873.67 Tara National Park 4 091.99 29 Serbia Tara - Rača 215.94 30 Slovakia Havešová Primeval Forest* 167.88 6 474,84 31 Slovakia Rožok* 74.37 1 138,89 Poloniny National Park 32 Slovakia Stužica - Bukovské Vrchy* 1 742.47 5 694,84 33 Slovakia Udava* 448.17 822,34 34 Slovakia Kyjovský prales 289.39 104.46 Vihorlat Protected Landscape Area 35 Slovakia Vihorlat* 1 559.41 847.54 Bettlachstock–Hasenmatt Natural 36 Switzerland Forêt de la Bettlachstock 195.43 1 094.16 Forest Reserve Valli di Lodano, Busai and Soladino 37 Switzerland Busai and Soladino Forest Reserves 806.78 2 330.74 Forest Reserves * boundary modification

Table 3: Forest reserves formerly included on Serbian Tentative list as extension components of the 3rd exten- sion of the Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe Natural World Heritage site

Protection Name of the PA Beech Forest Associations Size Date Fagetum moesiacae serbicum (Fagetum moesiaceae Strict Nature Reserve Kukavica 1980 montanum typicum, Fagetum moesiae nudum – pauperum, 75.76 ha Luzulo-fagetum moesiacae) Fagetum moesiacae montanum, Lauroceraso-Fagetum Strict Nature Reserve Zeleničje 1948 41.70 ha (with Prunus laurocerasus) General Nature Reserve 1957 Fagetum moesiacae montanum 37.43 ha Vinatovača Strict Nature Reserve Golema 1981 Luzulo-fagetum moesiacae 34.60 ha Reka Strict Nature Reserve Vrh Željina Fagetum moesiaceae montanum, Fagetum moesiacae 1985 20.00 ha – Pločka čuka subalpnum

Strict Nature Reserve Felješana 1903,1950 Fagetum montanum asperulosum typicum 15.28 ha

Strict Nature Reserve Busovata 1975 Fagetum moesiacae montanum 15.86 ha General Nature Reserve 1950 Fagetum moesiacae montanum 6.00 ha Danilova kosa Taxo-Fagetum moesiacae Special Nature Reserve Mala 1961 (with Taxus baccata, Ruscus hypoglossum, Acer 6.30 ha Jasenova Glava heldreichii) Strict Nature Reserve Iznad 1968 Ilici-Fagetum montanum (with Ilex aquifolium) 0,80 ha Tatalije Strict Nature Reserve Zelenika 1968 Ilici-Fagetum montanum (with Ilex aquifolium) 0,45 ha

28 Beech Forests as World Heritage in aspect to the next extension of the Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe World Heritage site

Table 4: Nominated components from Serbia in the 3rd extension of the Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe Natural World Heritage site

Figure 1: The 12 Beech Forest Regions in Europe, as defined by the 2012 Screening Study (Ibisch, 2014)

29 Ivana Jovanović, Aleksandar Dragišić, Dragana Ostojić, Biljana Krsteski

Figure 2: Spatial distribution of the inscribed components and the nominated components as the 3rd exten- sion of the Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe Natural World Heritage site (Kirchmeir & Kovarovics, 2020)

REFERENCES Agnoletti, M.& Dargavel, J. & Johann, E. (2009): His- Britz, H. & Dieckmann, O. & Engels, B. & Frede, A. & tory of forestry. In: V. Squire (ed.). The Role of Food, Geisel, T. & Großmann, M. & Kaiser, K. & Knapp, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries in Human Nu- H. D. & Luthardt, M.E. & Seuring, J. (eds.) (2009): trition – Vol. II. Eolss Publishers, Oxford pp. 1–28 Nomination of the “Ancient Beech Forests of Ger- Anonymous (2006): World Heritage nomination dos- many” as Extension to the World Natural Heritage sier: Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians, “Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians” (1133) 73p. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1133/documents - Nomination Dossier to the UNESCO for the In- Badman, T. & Bomhard, B. & Fincke, A. & Langley, J. scription on the World Heritage List, 161p. https:// & Rosabal, P. & Sheppard, D. (2008): Outstanding whc.unesco.org/document/155684 universal value: Standards for natural world herit- Britz, H. (eds.) (2015): Beech Forests – UNESCO World age. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 52pp. Natural Heritage - Protecting a unique ecosystem. Barbati, A. & Salvati, R. & Ferrari, B. & Di Santo, D. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Con- & Quatrini, A. & Portoghesi, L. & Travaglini, D. servation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB) & Iovino, F. & Nocentini, S. (2012): Assessing and Berlin, Germany. 39pp. promoting oldgrowthness of forest stands: lessons Brunet, J. & Fritz, Ö. & Richnau, G. (2010): Biodiver- from research in Italy. Plant Biosystems, 146 (1): sity in European beech forests - a review with rec- 167–174. ommendations for sustainable forest management. Bengtsson, J. & Nilsson, S. G. & Franc, A. & Menozzi, P. Ecological Bulletins 53. 77-94. (2000): Biodiversity, disturbances, ecosystem func- Christensen, M. & Hahn, K. & Mountford, E.P. & Odor, tion and management of European forests. Forest P. & Standovar, T. & Rozenbergar, D. & Diaci, J. & Ecology and Management 132: 39-50 pp. Wijdeven, S. & Meyer, P. & Winter, S. & Vrska, T.

30 Beech Forests as World Heritage in aspect to the next extension of the Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe World Heritage site

(2005): Dead wood in European beech (Fagus syl- IUCN (2017): World Heritage Nomination - IUCN vatica) forest reserves. Forest Ecology and Manage- Technical evaluation, Primeval Beech Forests of the ment 210: 267–282 pp. Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe (Albania, Commarmot, B. & Brändli, U.B. & Hamor, F. & Lavnyy, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Italy, Roma- V. (eds) (2013): Inventory of the Largest Prime- nia, Slovenia, Spain, Ukraine). Gland, Switzerland. val Beech Forest in Europe - a Swiss-Ukrainian http://whc.unesco.org/document/159695 Scientific Adventure. Birmensdorf, Swiss Federal Karadžić, B. (2018): Beech forests (order Fagetalia syl- Research Institute WSL; L’viv, Ukrainian National vaticae Pawlowski 1928) in Serbia. Botanica Serbica Forestry University; Rakhiv, Carpathian Biosphere 42 (1): 91-107. Reserve. 69 pp. Kirchmeir, H. & Kovarovics, A. (eds.) (2016): Nomi- Diaci, J. (eds.) (1999): Virgin forests and forest reserves nation Dossier „Primeval Beech Forests of the in Central and East European countries: history, Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe“ as ex- present status and future development. Proceed- tension to the existing Natural World Heritage Site ings of the invited lecturers’ reports presented at “Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and the COST E4 management committee and work- the Ancient Beech Forests of Germany” (1133bis). ing groups meeting in Ljubljana, Slovenia, 25-28th Klagenfurt, 409 p. http://whc.unesco.org/docu- April 1998. Department of Forestry and Renewable ment/151834 Forest Resources - Biotechnical Faculty in Ljubljana. Kirchmeir, H. & Kovarovics, A. (eds.) (2016a): Supple- EUROPARC-España (2017): Old-growth forests: char- mentary Information on the Nomination “Primeval acteristics and conservation value. Ed. Fundación Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Re- Fernando González Bernaldez, Madrid. gions of Europe” as extension to the existing Natu- Glatthorn, J. & Feldmann, E. & Tabaku, V. & Leusch- ral World Heritage Site “Primeval Beech Forests of ner, C. & Meyer, P. (2018): Classifying development the Carpathians and the Ancient Beech Forests of stages of primeval European beech forests: is clus- Germany” (1133bis). Klagenfurt, 41 p. tering a useful tool? BMC Ecology 18, Article No. Kirchmeir, H. & Kovarovics, A. (eds.) 2020: Nomina- 47 tion Dossier ‘Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests Hahn, K., & Fanta, J. (2001): Contemporary beech for- of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe’ est management in Europe: Working Report 1. Uni- as extension to the existing Natural World Heritage versity of Copenhagen Site (1133ter). Klagenfurt, 357p Harmon, M. & Franklin, J. & Swanson, F. & Sollins, P. & Knapp, H.D. & Fichtner, A. (eds.) (2011): Beech Forests Gregory, S. & Lattin, J. & Anderson, N. & Cline, S. - Joint Natural Heritage of Europe BfN-Skripten & Aumen, N. & Sedell, J.R. & Lienkaempeer, G. & 327. 197 pp. Cromack, K. (1986): Ecology of Coarse Woody De- Kruse, A. & Paulowitz, B. & Kruckenberg, H. (2009): bris in Temperate Ecosystems. Advances in Ecologi- Requirements for the management of protected ar- cal Research 15(C) 10.1016/S0065-2504(03)34002- eas according to the UNESCO world heritage con- 4. vention and IUCN categories, Tájökológiai Lapok 7 Ibisch, P. (2014): European World Heritage Beech For- (1): 209–227. ests. Research and Development project of German Lonsdale, D. & Pautasso, M. & Holdenrieder, O. (2008): Federal Agency for Nature Conservation - Final Wood-decaying fungi in the forest: conservation Project Report. Hochschule für nachhaltige En- needs and management options. – European Jour- twicklung Eberswalde (FH). Eberswalde, Germany. nal of Forest Research 127: 1–22. IUCN (2006): The world heritage list: Guidance and Magri, D. & Vendramin, G. G. & Comps, B. & Dupan- future priorities for identifying natural heritage loup, I. & Geburek, T. & Gömöry, D. & Latałowa, of potential outstanding universal value, IUCN- M. & Litt, T. & Paule, L. & Roure, J. M. & Tantau, I. Rep-2006-004, 28 p. & Van Der Knaap, W. O. & Petit, R. J. & De Beau- IUCN (2007): World Heritage Nomination - IUCN lieu, J. (2006): A new scenario for the Quaternary Technical evaluation, Primeval Beech Forests of the history of European beech populations: palaeobo- Carpathians (Slovakia, Ukraine). Gland, Switzer- tanical evidence and genetic consequences. New land. http://whc.unesco.org/document/151832 Phytologist, 171: 199-221. doi:10.1111/j.1469- IUCN (2011): World Heritage Nomination - IUCN 8137.2006.01740.x Technical evaluation, Ancient Beech Forests of Ger- Matović, B. & Koprivica, M. & Kisin, B. & Stojanović, many (Extension of Primeval Beech Forests of the D. & Kneginjić, I. & Stjepanović, S. (2019): Com- Carpathians, Slovakia and Ukraine). Gland, Swit- parison of Stand Structure in Managed and Virgin zerland. https://whc.unesco.org/document/151834

31 Ivana Jovanović, Aleksandar Dragišić, Dragana Ostojić, Biljana Krsteski

European Beech Forests in Serbia. Šumarski list, pathians (Slovakia and Ukraine). Christchurch, 1–2: 47–57. New Zealand https://whc.unesco.org/en/deci- Milovanović, B. (2019): Plan upravljanja Nacionalnog sions/1314 parka Kopaonik od 2019. do 2028. [Kopaonik Na- WHC - World Heritage Committee (2011): Decision tional Park management plan for the period 2019- 35 COM 8B.13. Primeval Beech Forests of the Car- 2028] JP NP Kopaonik, Kopaonik pathians and the Ancient Beech Forests of Germany Rugani, T. & Diaci, J. & Hladnik, D. (2013): Gap Dy- (Slovakia, Ukraine and Germany). Paris, UNESCO namics and Structure of Two Old-Growth Beech Headquarters https://whc.unesco.org/en/deci- Forest Remnants in Slovenia. PLoS ONE 8(1): sions/4284 e52641. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0052641 WHC - World Heritage Committee (2017): Decision Sabatini, F. & Burrascano, S. & Keeton, W. & Levers, 41COM 8B.7. Ancient and Primeval Beech For- C. & Lindner, M. & Pötzschner, F. & Verkerk, H. ests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Eu- & Bauhus, J. & Buchwald, E. & Chaskovsky, O. & rope (Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Debaive, N. & Horvath, F. & Garbarino, M. & Gri- Italy, Germany, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain, goriadis, N. & Lombardi, F. & Duarte, I. & Meyer, Ukraine). Krakow, Poland. http://whc.unesco.org/ P. & Midteng, R. & Mikac, S. & Kuemmerle, T. en/decisions/6879 (2018): Where are Europe’s last primary forests? Willim, K. & Stiers, M. & Annighöfer, P. & Ammer, C. Diversity and Distributions 24:1426–1439. 10.1111/ & Ehbrecht, M. & Kabal, M. & Stillhard, J. & Sei- ddi.12778. del, D. (2019): Assessing Understory Complexity UNESCO, 2017: Operational Guidelines for the Im- in Beech-dominated Forests in Central Europe— plementation of the World Heritage Convention. From Managed to Primary Forests. Sensors 19, Revised document adopted by WH Committee 1684. doi:10.3390/s19071684 Decision: 41 COM 11, https://whc.unesco.org/en/ Wirth, C. & Messier, C. & Bergeron, Y. & Frank, D. & guidelines/ Fankhanel, A. (2009): Old-Growth Forest Defini- Vandekerkhove, K. & De Keersmaeker, L. & Menke, N. tions: a Pragmatic View. In: Wirth et al. (eds.) Old & Meyer, P. & Verschelde, P. (2009): When nature Growth Forests, Ecological Studies 207, 11-33. takes over from man: Dead wood accumulation in Springer Verlag Berlin Heidelberg previously managed oak and beech woodlands in Winter, S. (2012): Forest naturalness assessment as a North-western and Central Europe. Forest Ecol- component of biodiversity monitoring and conser- ogy and Management 258: 425-435 pp. 10.1016/j. vation management, Forestry 85(2) 293–304. foreco.2009.01.055. Vološčuk, I. (2013a): From Research of the Carpathi- Legislation: an Beech Virgin Forests to the World heritage. 5th Law on Nature Protection (Official Gazette of RS, Symposium for Research in Protected Areas, 10 to No. 36/09; 88/2010; 91/2010, 14/2016 and 95/2018) 12 June 2013, Mittersill - Conference Volume, 789 Decree on Protection Regimes (Official Gazette of – 794. RS, No. 31/2012) Vološčuk, I. (2013b): Uniqueness, Authenticity and Decree on Ecological Network (Official Gazette of Integrity of the Primeval Beech Forests of the Car- RS, No. 102/2010) pathians as World Heritage Sites. Thaiszia - J. Bot. Law on National Parks (“Official Gazette of RS”, 23 (1): 23-30. No. 84/2015) Vološčuk, I. (2014): Joint Slovak-Ukraine-Germany Beech Ecosystems as the World Natural Heritage. Links: Ekologia. 33. 10.2478/eko-2014-0027. Vološčuk, I. & Pichler, V. & Pichlerova, M. (2013): The https://whc.unesco.org/ Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and An- https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/ cient Beech Forests of Germany: Joint natural Her- https://whc.unesco.org/en/committee/ itage of Europe. Folia Oecologica 40, No. 2: 295-303. https://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/ WHC - World Heritage Committee (2004): Decision 28 COM 14B.2. Primeval Forests of Slovakia (Slo- https://whc.unesco.org/en/faq/9/ vakia) – request by the State Party not to examine https://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/rs submitted nomination. Suzhou, China. https://whc. https://www.skijanje.rs/istorija/istorija-skijanja- unesco.org/archive/2004/whc04-28com-26e.pdf u-srbiji/pocetci-skijanja-na-kopaoniku/ WHC - World Heritage Committee (2007): Decision 31 COM 8B.16. Primeval Beech Forests of the Car- (All accessed on 19.01.2020.)

32