The impact of Natura 2000 on forest management: a ...

The impact of Natura 2000 on forest management: a socio-ecological analysis in the continental region of the European Union Susanne Winter, Lars Borrass, Maria Geitzenauer, Marieke Blondet, Ruth Breibeck, Gerhard Weiss & Georg Winkel Biodiversity and Conservation ISSN 0960-3115 Volume 23 Number 14 Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:3451-3482 DOI 10.1007/s10531-014-0822-3

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer Science +Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23

Author's personal copy Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:3451–3482 DOI 10.1007/s10531-014-0822-3 ORIGINAL PAPER

The impact of Natura 2000 on forest management: a socio-ecological analysis in the continental region of the European Union Susanne Winter • Lars Borrass • Maria Geitzenauer • Marieke Blondet Ruth Breibeck • Gerhard Weiss • Georg Winkel

•

Received: 6 May 2014 / Revised: 29 September 2014 / Accepted: 3 October 2014 / Published online: 20 November 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract Beech forests previously covered substantial areas of the continental region of Europe, however, their current distribution is limited to a small percentage of their former yet still potential range. Many beech forests are now protected under the European Union-wide conservation approach of Natura 2000. We analyse the impact of Natura 2000 on the management of beech forests via social science data on management practices gathered from 73 interviews with local stakeholders within nine case study sites in Austria, France, and Germany, and via an ecological analysis of Natura 2000 management plans (MPs). Our data reveals that the Natura 2000 implementation has had little impact on forest management practices. We found that the Natura 2000 network is well known amongst stakeholders, yet the objectives and measures for beech forest protection are usually vaguely defined in the MPs. According to our interviewees, in many cases

S. Winter (&) Chair of Land Improvement and Nature Conservation, Institute for General Ecology and Environment Protection, Technische Universita¨t Dresden, Pienner Str. 7, 01737 Tharandt, Germany e-mail: [email protected] L. Borrass G. Winkel Forest and Environmental Policy Group, Institute of Environmental Social Sciences and Geography, Universita¨t Freiburg, Tennenbacher Straße 4, 79106 Freiburg, Germany e-mail: [email protected] G. Winkel e-mail: [email protected] M. Geitzenauer G. Weiss Central-East European Regional Office of the European Forest Institute and Institut fu¨r Wald-, Umwelt- und Ressourcenpolitik, Universita¨t fu¨r Bodenkultur Wien, Feistmantelstraße 4, 1180 Vienna, Austria e-mail: [email protected] G. Weiss e-mail: [email protected]

123

Author's personal copy 3452

Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:3451–3482

this vagueness results in a disregard for the MPs, which hence fail to guide the management of the forests protected under Natura 2000. In addition, when ecological thresholds are included in the MPs, they are often below recommendations based on conservation research. In the case of the structural bio-indicator deadwood, the thresholds given by MPs for a favourable site conservation status were significantly lower than those considered within conservation science to be necessary in order to conserve typical beech forest biodiversity. We conclude that while Natura 2000 has raised awareness of the importance of European beech forests for biodiversity conservation, it needs significant additional efforts to make it an effective policy for forest biodiversity conservation. Keywords Governance Fagus sylvatica Habitats directive Favourable conservation status Natura 2000 management plan Implementation

Introduction Natura 2000 is a centrepiece of the European biodiversity conservation policy. It is a comprehensive network of protected areas combining Special Protection Areas designated under the European Birds Directive (1979, revised in 2009) and Special Areas of Conservation designated under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC, HD). The HD is the first European Union (EU) directive in the field of nature protection to be based on the concept of bio-geographical regions at a European scale. It aims to protect a representative share of each habitat listed in Annex I of the HD within these regions. The HD obliges the EU member states, inter alia, to establish a comprehensive network of protected areas within each bio-geographical region. The Natura 2000 network aims at balancing the protection of habitats and species with economic, social and cultural requirements as well as local characteristics (Article 2(3) of the HD). Thus Natura 2000 allows for a wide variety of other uses, including commodity production within the protected ecosystems. Commercial forestry is allowed as long as it does not significantly compromise the conservation objectives that are defined and monitored as a habitat-specific favourable conservation

M. Blondet UMR 7206 Eco-anthropologie & ethnobiologie, De´partement ‘‘Hommes, Natures, socie´te´s’’, Museum national d’histoire naturel (MNHN), Paris, France e-mail: [email protected] M. Blondet Laboratory of Forest Economy (LEF), UMR 356 INRA AgroParisTech, Nancy, France R. Breibeck Department of Ecology and Ecosystem Management, Geobotany, Technische Universita¨t Mu¨nchen, Hans-Carl-von-Carlowitz-Platz 2, 85354 Freising, Germany e-mail: [email protected]

123

Author's personal copy Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:3451–3482

3453

status (EC 2003, p. 28) for the site,1 at the EU member state level and the bio-geographical region. Such an integrated conservation approach is seen as beneficial as it might mitigate potential conflicts between commercial use and nature conservation (Lindenmayer and Franklin 2002; Winkel 2008; Winter et al. 2013). The synergistic pursuance of ecological and economic goals promises to increase the efficiency of the conservation instruments and to improve their acceptance by land users. Thus, an integrated conservation approach is seen (and politically promoted) as an instrument to foster a comprehensively understood sustainable use of forests—also beyond Natura 2000—that addresses economic, social and ecological demands in Europe (Forest strategy 2010; Forest Europe 2010; Rametsteiner and Mayer 2004; European Commission 2011, 2013). According to Article 288 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, directives are binding with respect to the results to be achieved, but leave the details of implementation to the EU member states (EU 2008). EU directives are thus not immediately applicable (Beichelt 2009, pp 96–97). As for Natura 2000 and the HD, this framework approach has resulted in a huge diversity of implementation strategies chosen by the EU member states, a variety of ecological and spatial criteria for the designation of Natura 2000 sites, and distinct monitoring methods (Ellwanger and Schro¨der 2006; Kruk et al. 2009; Apeldoorn et al. 2009), even within federalist states (for Germany, Winter and Seif 2011; Borrass 2014). Generally, Natura 2000 has been implemented in two major subsequent stages: the designation of an area to be protected under Natura 2000 and the implementation of a management regime. With many member states having mostly completed the designation of their Natura 2000 areas, attention has now moved towards the implementation of management regimes. Forests are of high importance for Natura 2000. Of the 231 habitats listed in the HD for protection, 81 are forest-habitat types, including beech forests that extend over large areas. In this paper we chose to address beech forests as they are highly characteristic for large areas of Europe and would naturally cover around 40 % of Western, Central and (South) Eastern Europe (Bohn and Weber 2000). Being always dominated by Fagus sylvatica, the climate region, geological substrate and soil conditions differentiate these forests into several variations, which are listed in the Annex I of the HD: for example, xerothermic beech forest on calcareous soils (HD habitat code (hc) 9150), central European beech and beech-oak forests on neutral to base-rich soils (hc 9130), or acidophilus beech forests (hc 9110). Bu¨cking (2003) assesses that more than 11,000 species (4,320 plant and fungi species and 6,715 animal species) are connected with forests almost completely dominated by beech. However, as a result of forest conversion, afforestation and intensive management practices that favour fast growing species, the present proportion of beech within the total forest area—9.1 % in Austria, 9.6 % in France and 14.0 % in Germany—is low compared to the natural range; in particular, late forest development phases with large old trees are extremely rare (BMU 2007).

1

The concept of a favourable conservation status actually applies to the national and bio-geographical level. Site specific assessments of the conservation status differ from the monitoring of the favourable conservation status. The HD states a series of criteria, which must be fulfilled in order to classify a natural habitat or species as having a favourable conservation status. These are range, area, structure and function (referred to as habitat condition) and future prospects. At the local site level, conservation status is defined as the ‘‘degree of conservation of the structure and functions of the natural habitat type concerned and restoration possibilities’’. This is what we mean by the concept of a site conservation status, which will be used hereonin.

123



Beech is (one of) the most important deciduous species in Europe for wood production in terms of volume and total economic yield (for Germany: Statistisches Bundesamt 2014). The annual cuttings of beech wood were 1.75 million m3 per year in Austria (6.77 % of the total cuttings, own calculation based on Bundesamt fu¨r Wald 2009), 3.6 million m3 in France (8.6 % of the total cuttings, IGN 2011), and 11.86 million m3 of 56.14 million m3 total cuttings in Germany (21.12 %, Statistisches Bundesamt 2009). Notably, these official statistics largely exclude the significant volume of beech wood that is harvested for local energy and fuel wood supply (Seintsch and Weimar 2013). Only a very small percentage of the beech forest sites are under strict protection that excludes timber harvest, whereas by far the greatest proportion—including most forests under Natura 2000, particularly within the continental bio-geographical region—are managed at least partially for timber production. Hence the challenge outlined above, combining sustainable timber production and conservation in these forests, is of crucial importance for the success of Natura 2000 and the European approach to integrated conservation (Kraus and Krumm 2013). According to Art. 6 (EC 2000, p 9) of the HD: ‘‘for Special Areas of Conservation, Member States shall establish the necessary conservation measures involving, if need be, appropriate management plans […], administrative or contractual measures which correspond to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types in Annex I […] present on the sites’’. This formulation leaves EU states with considerable discretion to decide on the most appropriate conservation measures. As such, it has triggered a variety of approaches to management planning for Natura 2000 sites within the EU member states (Apeldoorn et al. 2009; Borrass 2014). Most EU member states and their federal states have opted to develop Natura 2000 management plans (MPs) (Ellwanger and Schro¨der 2006; Kruk et al. 2009). The European Commission and most environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) also recommend MPs as the most suitable tool for establishing a reliable conservation regime (EC 2000). In a guidance document produced by the European Commission (EC 2000, pp 53–54), 15 issues (for the full list see Table 4) are listed as crucial aspects to be addressed in the MPs. They encompass, inter alia, the ecological and socio-economic value of the site, main threats, management objectives, means of achieving the objectives, monitoring and evaluation. While there is a certain agreement about the broad content of a MP, current approaches differ with regard to the procedures for establishing the MPs, the involvement of stakeholders, the level of prescriptiveness and precision of the MPs, the degree to which they are binding, and the enforceability of the measures outlined in the plans (Kruk et al. 2009, p 13). Against this background, this paper analyzes the impact of Natura 2000 on beech forest management, planning and practice, with a particular focus on the MPs, drawing on case studies within the continental bio-geographical region of Central Europe. Specifically, the following questions are addressed: (1) (2)

(3)

How is Natura 2000 implemented in beech forests in different countries? How are the MPs structured and what kinds of bio-indicators (including their definitions) and thresholds for forest management are established for a favourable site conservation status of the forests protected under Natura 2000? Are these thresholds in line with the findings of conservation science? How does Natura 2000—via MPs—influence the management practices and/or perceptions of forest managers of Natura 2000 sites?

123


3455

Methods We selected nine case studies (Table 1) within the European continental region in order to answer our research questions. Our sites span over three European countries (Austria, France and Germany) that, taken together, represent essential parts of the potential and remaining continental beech forests within the EU. Within Austria, we selected three Natura 2000 sites that were located in three different Austrian federal states: Upper Austria, Lower Austria and Burgenland. In the more centrally organised state of France, one site was selected. Five Natura 2000 sites were located in two federal states of continental, southern Germany: Baden-Wuerttemberg and Bavaria. The selection of the different sites was guided by socio-ecological criteria that candidate case study sites had to fulfil: a minimum area (10 ha) of beech forests on neutral to baserich soils (habitat code of the HD 9130), active management (=harvests) in the area within the last 15 years, a diverse ownership structure, the availability of a management plan and the location of the areas within the pre-selected federal states (Germany, Austria) or the study region (France, Franche-Comte´). Aside from the exception of the minimum size criteria for site A1 in Austria, which covered only 7.9 ha of beech forest (Table 2), the selection criteria (see section on case studies) were met for all selected sites (Table 2). In order to answer research question 1 (implementation of Natura 2000 in beech forest) and 3 (influence of MP on management practices and perception of Natura 2000), 73 qualitative interviews (28 in Germany, 20 in France, 25 in Austria) with relevant actors were carried out in eight of the nine case studies (Table 1, without D4). The interviewees were selected on the basis of their involvement in the local implementation of Natura 2000. The intention was to select a representative sample of actors from different groups, in particular forest administrators, nature conservation administrators, forest owners and managers, further interest groups (e.g. hunters) and other political actors (e.g. mayors). The overall topic of the interviews was the implementation process of Natura 2000 at the local level. A joint interview guideline (Appendix) was used in order to allow for a comparison of the results. We addressed issues of site-specific management planning and site supervision. In addition, interviewees were asked about their opinion on the Natura 2000 implementation process, on biodiversity conservation in general, and more precisely on beech forest conservation. Moreover, the effects of Natura 2000 on forest management

Table 1 Natura 2000 sites included in the study State

Austria

France Germany

a

Region

Site identa

Size of Natura 2000 site (ha)

Management plan published in

Upper Austria

A1

\1,000

2008

Lower Austria

A2

[50,000

2009

Burgenland

A3

[5,000

No MP

Franche-Comte´

F1

\5,000

2005

Baden-Wuerttemberg

D1

\5,000

2010

Baden-Wuerttemberg

D2

[10,000

2011

Bavaria

D3

\5,000

2011

Bavaria

D4

\1,000

2001 with revision in 2003

Bavaria

D5

\1,000

2011

We refer on site codes of our case study sites to secure anonymity of the interview partners

123

9130

9130 9110

9110 9130 9140

9110

9130 9110

9130 9110

9130 9110

9130

A1

123

A2

F1

D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

a

0

0 0

0 0

100 100

100

100 100

100 100

0 0

100

0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0

Thresholds are given for a favourable site conservation status

85

242 42

1681 131

932 390

0

Favourable

Favourable

Favourable

Excellent

Favourable 8,7 m3/ha 4 m3/ha 3.6 m3/ha

8.94 m3/ha

3 m /ha 3 m3/ha 3 m3/ha 3 m3/ha

20 cm

20 cm

20 cm

n.s

n.s.

0 m3/ha

3 m3/ha

11,73 3

35 cm

0.6 m3/ha

Minimum of 2 senescent or dead trees/ha *0.9 m3/ha

Favourable

0 0 0

100 100 100

n.s.

0 0 0

Favourable

2010 814 12

32.2

n.s vague nominal indication ‘‘deadwood of major dimensions’’

67.8 Not metrically specified, vague nominal indication ‘‘the SAC offers partially forest stands with high amounts of deadwood’’

0 n.s.

7.9 2 m3/ha

Minimum diameter

Favourable

Number of objects or m3/ha indicated in MP

Official requirement

0

Summarised evaluation result

100

Has to be improved %

0

Favourable %

Deadwood thresholds and amountsa

20,245 60

Excellent %

Site conservation status

2 m3/ha

Beech forest area in hectares

(1,3 m, inductive)

(1,3 m, inductive)

(1,3 m, inductive)

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

Minimum length

3456

n.s. not specified

Beech forest habitat codes

Site ident

Table 2 Site conditions, and deadwood thresholds and amounts, of the Natura 2000 beech forests in eight Natura 2000 sites according to the MPs



3457

practices on the sites were discussed with the interviewees. The interviews were recorded, fully transcribed, and a qualitative content analysis was done (Mayring 2000). As for research question 2 (MPs’ structure, bio-indicators, definitions and ecological thresholds), MPs were available for eight out of the nine sites. For one site in Austria’s Burgenland, the MP was in preparation but not yet complete and consequently not available for our analysis. We analysed these eight MPs with regards to their general structure and content in relation to the 15 main issues described in the EU guidance document (EC 2000). In addition, we identified structural bio-indicators that were used in more than two of the MPs studied and analysed the definitions and thresholds for these indicators specified in the MPs as being necessary for achieving a favourable site conservation status. Three structural bio-indicators met this criterion and, in addition, are shown to be positively correlated with forest biodiversity as presented, inter alia, by Bobiec et al. (2000), Kral et al. (2010), Winter and Brambach (2011), and Begehold et al. (2014) for the forest development phase; by Harmon et al. (1986), Samuelsson et al. (1994) and Christensen et al. (2005) for the amount of accumulated deadwood, and by Samuelsson et al. (1994) and Ranius et al. (2009) for the number of habitat trees. Two further criteria for the description of the vegetation composition were selected: tree regeneration types and vegetation—including tree, shrub and herbal species cover and composition. In a subsequent step, the definitions and assessment parameters as well as available thresholds for the structural bio-indicators that were used in the MPs in order to define the beech forest conservation status were analysed for their comparability. A particular focus was put on the ecological relevance of established thresholds. In order to achieve this, we first compared given definitions and thresholds established at the level of countries (France) or federal states (Austria and Germany) with those of the MPs. This analysis revealed that the bio-indicator deadwood is dealt with in most of the official guidelines (Winter and Seif 2011) and MPs studied. Hence, we analysed the deadwood thresholds included in (sub-) national guidelines and compared them with deadwood volumes outlined in the MPs for the specific sites. Secondly, we compared these thresholds with thresholds that, according to the scientific literature, are necessary for the conservation of different biodiversity groups and single flagship species that depend on deadwood within their life-cycle. In order to make such a comparison possible we converted the deadwood volumes provided in the MPs and the thresholds outlined in the literature into deadwood volumes (m3) using a cylinder formula pr2l with r = diameter (radius) measured in breast height and l = length of the object.

Results The implementation of Natura 2000 in beech forests In the three EU member states studied, the responsibility for designating Natura 2000 sites and for establishing MPs is delegated to the sub-national level (e.g. regions, federal states or provinces, see overview in Table 3). The respective nature or environment ministry, combined with other administrations responsible for predominantly forested areas (Table 3), holds the general responsibility for Natura 2000 sites. Within some states (France and Germany) the definition of responsibilities and procedures underwent considerable change as a result of internal struggles amongst administrations, emerging costs, and limited human and financial resources. Several interviewees underlined that

123

123 Different local administrations that carry the project. For the French case study, it is currently the office in charge of the Department (DO). Additionally, the RO, the project leader from the DO, and the NFS for public forests are implementing Natura 2000

Formally the nature conservation authorities of the federal states

Responsibility: nature conservation authority, most often employment of private planning offices (data collection etc.)

There has been no revision so far; revision is not envisaged or planned for as of now

The relevant stakeholders: forest department, representatives of forest owners’ interest groups, big forest owners (e.g. Austrian Federal Forests, big private owners), nature associations (Naturschutzbund etc.), mayors representing municipalities

Not binding

Responsibility for the implementation of Natura 2000

Management plan preparation

Process revised

Participation

Bindingness

Not binding—nevertheless state forest administrations have to implement the MP

Baden-Wuerttemberg: formal; stakeholders are only informed; representative input via organizations Bavaria: formal; round tables with local, regional stakeholders and organizations

Effective; Stakeholders who participated in: RC, RO, and DO, various private forest owners, representatives of municipalities owning forest, farmers, hunters, fishermen, LPO (League for the Protection of Birds)

3458

Not binding but state-forest managers have to implement the MP; Impact appraisal implemented since January 2011 that push people to better respect the MPs

Revision of final management plan not foreseen Major revision in 2006 and 2008 in Bavaria and Baden-Wuerttemberg, respectively, to achieve simplification and cheaper plans

Baden-Wuerttemberg: planning offices are commissioned by administrations; finalization by forest and nature administrations Bavaria: forest administrations (regional compiling teams), complemented by species experts

Baden-Wuerttemberg: for all areas main responsibility rests with nature administration; forest administrations compile modules for forest habitat types, which are included in the management plan Bavaria: for forest areas ([50 % of forested area) forest administration leads MP compilation

Germany

The MP was issued in 2005. It should be revised every 5 years (so in 2010). Not revised yet

The MP was originally prepared by the Natura 2000 project leader from Regional center for private forest owners (RC) (over several working groups gathering the local stakeholders). The head of the administrative region and RO officially and legally validates the final MP

France

Austria

EU member state

Main topics on Natura 2000 management planning

Table 3 Natura 2000 implementation by management planning (based on Kruk et al. 2009)


Very general measures in Lower Austria; MP in Upper Austria specific measures

Public–private contracts; site supervisors; supervision is integrated in other nature protection work in Lower Austria; specific site supervisors in Burgenland and Upper Austria

Specificity of measures in the MPs

Enforceability/ specification

NFS National Forest Service

RO Regional office of the Environment Ministry

Austria

EU member state

Main topics on Natura 2000 management planning

Table 3 continued

General measures, usually not spatially explicit within the Natura 2000 site; specification later via forest inventories or contracts Voluntary nature conservation contracts; Baden-Wuerttemberg: state foresters responsible for specifying measures; regional nature conservation administration responsible for supervision and enforcement Bavaria: regional site managers from the forest administration in coordination with the nature conservation administration supervise and enforce area management requirements

Voluntary signature of contracts and charter; Site supervision by the project leader who also tries to convince forest owners to sign these contracts and charters and to follow the MP’s objectives

Germany

General objectives for the site and a list of considered habitats specific to the site. A part on recommended management measures and possible financing (mainly contracts)

France

Author's personal copy

Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:3451–3482 3459

123



management planning, including the development of MPs, is a particularly complicated element in this process, which takes a long time and consumes considerable resources. Austria In Austria the responsibility for the implementation of Natura 2000 and for developing MPs lies with the nature conservation authorities of the federal states (Table 3). The nature conservation laws of the federal states sets the general legal framework, which is adjusted to the obligations specified by Natura 2000. After the site selection and agreement with the European Commission, the sites were designated. The designation documents (e.g. for Lower and Upper Austria sites see Landesgesetzblatt 2005, 2013) set legally binding rules. However, in the designation documents for Burgenland and Lower Austria, these rules do not encompass restrictions referring to forest management within Natura 2000 sites. In contrast, in Upper Austria, a list of permitted management measures is given (Obero¨sterreichische 2011, paragraph 4). In this federal state, all other forest activities, such as planting a high proportion of spruce in the beech habitat, are required to undergo an impact assessment. The MPs, however, are not legally binding in any of the Austrian states. Consequently, the implementation of the Natura 2000 MPs depends to a great extent on public–private contracts and voluntary measures. In Burgenland and in Lower Austria, big areas of previously unprotected land were designated as Natura 2000 areas. Landowners and interest groups were only involved at a late stage; this resulted in significant conflicts in the implementation process and a delay in management planning. In Burgenland the MPs that concern private owners are currently being processed. In Lower Austria heavy opposition from landowners made it difficult to develop MPs; several intermediary steps (mainly consultations with stakeholders) were needed before any advances in management planning could be achieved. In Upper Austria only a small fraction of previously unprotected land was designated as Natura 2000 areas; landowners and their interest groups were involved in the development of the plans at an early stage, resulting in a much lower level of conflict in this state. The currently available MPs in Burgenland cover only a small portion of the Natura 2000 territory compared to Lower Austria, where the MPs for all sites are available, and Upper Austria, where only a small number of MPs are still missing. A future revision of the MPs is not foreseen for any of the Austrian cases. France In France in the mid-1990s strong conflicts arose out of the obligation to implement management planning for each Natura 2000 area. Representatives of various interest groups from rural land use sectors challenged the approach selected by the government for implementing Natura 2000. It was claimed that the government ignored this opposition— which was led by private forest owners—during the implementation process by working only with scientists and experts and excluding land users and owners from participation. The conflict became so intense that the French prime minister decided to stop the implementation of Natura 2000. The process resumed in 1997 when a new minister for environment decided to move towards a reliable participatory approach involving the local stakeholders during the drafting of MPs. Since then, it is required that the MP for each Natura 2000 area is negotiated with all the relevant actors and land users. In this process, the heads of the administrative region where the Natura 2000 sites are located publically announce the launch of a steering committee and invite all concerned

123


3461

stakeholders to participate in order to discuss the future objectives and management measures for the sites. While the French government, through its local representative, remains the central authority, the steering committee is the place where the Natura 2000 management is discussed and negotiated, and where the MP is set up (Souheil et al. 2009). The MPs do not stipulate any obligations for private and communal forest managers and owners. Implementation on private and communal forestland is based on voluntary participation and relies on the signing of compensation contracts to change management practices and a charter, which engages the signatory in good practices without controlling compliance. There is, however, no further specification provided of what good practice measures mean. In a subsequent step, private owners are supposed to transpose the requirements of the Natura 2000 MPs into the forest management plans for their respective forest property. Yet in practice, a simple mention of Natura 2000 within a forest management plan is sufficient to fulfil this requirement. This procedure does not require the owner to make any changes in view of ecologically based forest management. MPs in France are supposed to be valid for five years; afterwards they are to be discussed again and (re-)adjusted. In practice, however, the renegotiations for many Natura 2000 sites did not start when the MPs expired, usually because of a lack of human and financial resources as well as a fear that new or old conflicts may (re-)develop. Consequently, the outdated MPs remain valid. In 2012 the NGO France Nature Environnement reported that 50 % of the 1,753 French Natura 2000 sites had an operative MP and 35 % were in the process of developing one (France Nature Environment 2012). Germany The federal structure of Germany significantly influenced the implementation of the requirements of the HD. As the federal states are largely in charge of nature conservation and forest policy, nearly all requirements—such as site designations, management planning and enforcement—had to be implemented through the federal states. This has led to the emergence of a variety of approaches. While the two federal states studied here represent only an excerpt of the various implementation approaches in Germany (cf. Rosenkranz et al. 2012), they contain a great share of the beech forest habitats designated under the HD in the continental region of Germany. In Germany the implementation of the HD in forests has been characterized by conflicts about competencies and responsibilities between nature conservation and forest administration. Aiming to settle these conflicts has increased the need for coordination between these administrations. In the two federal states addressed in this study, the position of forest administrations has been rather strong, and a carefully balanced system of checks, via a shared responsibility between administrations, has emerged. As of 2013, MPs have been developed for 25 % of the Bavarian sites and around 40 % of the Baden-Wuerttemberg Natura 2000 sites. The MPs in both federal states each cover the entire Natura 2000 site and includes management measures for forests of all ownership types (privately and state owned forests). However, the MPs are only legally binding for state forests and not for private owners. The plan provides owners with planning security and should increase transparency regarding the necessity to adapt management. There is no foreseeable revision of the MPs in Germany.

123



MP structure, bio-indicators and thresholds outlined for a favourable site conservation status of beech forests under Natura 2000 In Austria, MP A1 (Upper Austria) contains detailed information, especially on the species, habitats and their conservation status. In addition it proposes management measures. This MP contains 10 out of the 15 issues crucial for management plans (EC 2000, pp 53–54, Table 4). The missing issues comprise an elaboration of the designation obligations, a detailed stakeholder list, records on the meetings, a detailed work plan, and information on monitoring. The plan is for internal use only and remains unpublished; it was however accessible for our research. MP A2 (Lower Austria) covers 9 of the 15 MP issues. In comparison to MP A1, MP A2 covers the same issues, but lacks any reference to suggested restrictions on land management (Allowed and forbidden activities, issue 11). The description of the proposed management measures is very general and formulated as suggestions for orientation for voluntary contracts with the landowners. For instance, one of the three measures suggested for beech habitat with the HD code 9130 was: ‘‘Promotion of nature-oriented habitats (promotion of old trees and deadwood, promotion of taking areas out of production)’’. In France, the first 10 MP issues (compare Sect. 1.4, EC 2000, pp 53–54, and Table 4) are present in the MP studied (MP F1). This MP actually mirrors the general structure of Natura 2000 MPs in France, which consist of two main parts: the first part describes the biological and socio-economic characteristics of the site, followed by an analysis of the current site conservation status and by a definition of the conservation issues with their related socio-economic topics to be addressed. The second part describes the objectives of the MPs for the site and the management strategies and measures that should be used to reach these goals. Financing (e.g. funding) is also briefly addressed. The level of specification of objectives and measures in MPs varies depending on the project leader, who is also the plans’ author. In the case of MP F1, general objectives are described such as ‘‘maintaining and improving the specific diversity of forest habitats’’ or ‘‘managing forest habitats with strong environmental value in order to conserve them’’. The last part of the MP outlines various recommended management measures; different measures are proposed in great detail (description, objectives, considered habitat, time frame, contracting people, localisation, and financing mode—mainly through contracts). Regarding forest habitats, eleven measures are proposed: among others, to support biodiversity-promoting management, restoration and management of the specific diversity of forest habitats, setting of ageing tree plots and deadwood, etc. Specific measures for beech forest management are not mentioned. Finally, the five analysed MPs in Germany contain 10 to 14 of the 15 issues outlined in the guidance document (EC 2000) for developing MPs. The issue Cultural history and archaeological objects (5) is only mentioned in two of the five MPs (D3 and D5), and three further requirements are considered in only one MP each. Specifically, the issues Allowed and forbidden activities (mentioned in D5), Work plan, work timetable, funding etc. (fully addressed only in D5), and Stakeholder lists and members of managing board/working group (fully available only in D1) are only partly considered. Furthermore, the MPs studied only rarely make explicit recommendations for certain habitat types or structures; rather they broadly state the management goals. In summary, the MPs’ content and precision differ considerably among and within the EU member states studied. Despite the differences regarding the information provided in the MPs, the site conservation status for all beech forests within the selected Natura 2000 sites in the three countries is described in their respective MPs as being favourable

123

Guidance document for MPs (EC 2000, pp 53–54)

Description of the site, including reasons for selection of the site

Map, location, boundaries, administrative distribution, land ownership

Socio-economic situation, history, land-use–e.g. tourism, forestry, recreation, hunting, agriculture etc.

Natural values– birds, fauna and flora, geology, hydrology

Cultural history & objects (archaeloly)

Designation responsibilities and obligation arising from the designation

Opportunities and threats of activities or developments in or outside the site

Current status of Natura2000 species and habitats present at the site

Conservation objectives (favourable status of present Natura2000 species and habitats)

Issue

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Available

–

Partially

Available

Available

Available

–

Partially

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available, weak

Available

Available

Available

Available, ownership missing

Available

Available

–

–

Available

Available

Available

Available

F1

Available

A2

Available

A1

Available

Available

Available

–

–

Available

Available

Available

Available

D1

Available

Available

Available

–

Partially, only on historic vineyards and fishponds

Available

Available

Available

Available

D2

-, But favourable conservation status is mentioned

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available, but land-use forms are missing

Available, but landownership is missing

Available

D5

Available

Available

Available

–

available

Available

Available

Available

Available

Available

D4

Available

Available

Available

Available

D3

Table 4 Fifteen issues crucial for a management plan—guidance document of the European commission (EC 2000, p 53–54)


Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:3451–3482 3463

123

Guidance document for MPs (EC 2000, pp 53–54)

Management measures required to meet the favourable conservation statuses of species and habitats

Allowed and forbidden activities

Work plan, work timetable, resource and time allocations, sources of funding for management, monitoring and staff responsibilities

Monitoring and review data collection requirements and review procedures

Stakeholder lists and Members of managing board/working group

Brief, formal record of meetings; significant outcomes

Issue

10

11

12

13

14

15

Table 4 continued

123 –

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Available

Partially, very general and vague; only suggestions

Available

–

A2

A1

–

–

–

Information on source of funding is available

Available

Available Available

Partially

–

Partially

Partially

Available

–

–

Available

Available

Available but vague and general –

D2

D1

F1

–

Partially

Available

–

–

Available

D3

–

Partially

Available

Partially

Partially

Available

D4

Available

Partially

Available

Available

Available

Available

D5


3464 Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:3451–3482


3465

(exception DE2: excellent, Table 2). The evaluation is not spatially explicit for the Natura 2000 areas, and the conservation status of all beech forests within the sites is evaluated jointly as being favourable—with the exception of Austrian MP A1, where one-third of the area is evaluated as having an unfavourable site conservation status. Regarding the assessment of site conservation status, however, significant differences occur, even within one country. For instance, in Germany MPs DE1 and DE3 draw on different (implicit) algorithms to combine the assessment of different bio-indicators (e.g., deadwood and tree species composition) in order to evaluate the conservation status. For the D1 site, the conservation status of the beech habitat with 0 habitat trees/ha, 0 m3 deadwood/ha and a proportion of 45 % common spruce (Picea abies) is evaluated as being favourable. This is the same evaluative result as for the beech habitat in the DE3 site, which has 6 habitat trees/ha, 4 m3 deadwood/ha, and a proportion of 71 % beech alongside a variety of other deciduous tree species characteristic for the beech habitat. The single bio-indicators habitat trees, forest development phases, tree species composition, vegetation as herbal species composition, and tree regeneration type can also hardly be compared across the MPs that we analysed because heterogeneous definitions lead to incomparable variables (Table 5). Again, the thresholds of the different evaluation indicators vary considerably. For example, Austrian MPs only provide vague nominal information about the survey of these indicators. For France, thresholds are expressed in numbers. For example, two habitat trees are necessary to obtain a favourable site conservation status. However, nothing is mentioned about the composition of forest development phases, and only vague information (no clear definitions) is given for tree species composition, herbal species composition and regeneration. In Germany, mainly metric information is required according to the guidelines at the (federal) state level, but the information provided in the MPs studied is again heterogeneous (Table 5). In German MPs, metric information on the habitat status is generally presented for deadwood volumes and the tree species composition; habitat trees are described in number per hectare (MP DE2-DE5), and less (or no) information is provided about the herbal species composition and regeneration types. Moreover, there is great discrepancy with regard to the deadwood indicator: in France a minimum of about 0.9 m3 deadwood/ha (assessed information about the deadwood minimum, Table 2) meets the official habitat requirements, whereas Natura 2000 beech sites in Baden-Wuerttemberg and Bavaria, Germany require 3 m3 deadwood/ha to achieve a favourable site conservation status (Fig. 1). Within the Austrian MPs studied no deadwood volume is officially required or reported for the Natura 2000 sites, and deadwood is not quantified. In France and Germany, the deadwood volumes reported in the MPs of the Natura 2000 sites are close to the official requirements for deadwood that are outlined at the state and regional levels (see the column on the official requirement in Table 2—with the exception of 0 m3 deadwood/ha reported for DE2, which is clearly below the general requirement). These significant differences render any conclusion about the conservation status of Natura 2000 sites across countries questionable. Perceptions and considerations of Natura 2000 amongst responsible managers and local stakeholders Austria Perceptions of the impact of Natura 2000 MPs vary considerably amongst the interviewed forest practitioners. Two forest managers we interviewed represented big private forest

123

Table 5 Thresholds and definitions of the different evaluation indicators


3466

123



Table 5 continued


123


Table 5 continued

3468

123



Table 5 continued


123



Fig. 1 Deadwood facts: (1) Natura 2000 deadwood requirements for three EU member states (Austria, France, Germany, Ellwanger and Schro¨der 2006; Carnino 2009; Carnino and Touroult 2010; Schmitz et al. 2004) within the continental biogeographical region, (2) deadwood thresholds given for two German federal states, (3) deadwood amounts reported in MPs, and (4) deadwood requirements scientifically revealed for different forest species and species groups in forests of the continental region (three-toed woodpecker: Bu¨tler et al. 2004; terrestrial molluscs: referenced in Mu¨ller and Bu¨tler 2010; white-baked woodpecker: Frank 2002; saproxylic beetles: referenced in Mu¨ller and Bu¨tler 2010; endangered saproxylic beetles source population: Mu¨ller 2005 ;and own MP analyses see Table 5, lichens: Moning et al. 2009)

enterprises that had negotiated contracts based on the management plans directly with the nature conservation authorities. Compliance with these contracts is monitored. These forest managers stated that they face constraints due to the contracts. More specifically, the selection of tree species is restricted, only natural regeneration is foreseen and minimum volumes of deadwood as well as forest development phases are pre-given. In addition, further construction of roads is prohibited. However, beyond these restrictions related to the maintenance of beech forests, only certain general principles for management are

123


3471

specified, such as practices of close-to-nature forestry with only small clear-cuts. The MPs provide a basis for the negotiated contracts. However, it is difficult to say how strongly the contracts were determined by the MPs, especially because—as in the case of the Lower Austrian sites—other nature conservation statuses (e.g. nature reserves, landscape protection areas) needed to be taken into consideration. The procedure described above is unique to certain big landowners. Other private forest owners, especially the smaller forest owners, are often not even aware that their forests are part of Natura 2000. For example, an Austrian forest manager from a private forest enterprise within a Natura 2000 area reported: ‘‘In the beginning of Natura 2000, there was a meeting, where we were informed […] that a Natura 2000 site is planned. Afterwards I did not hear anything anymore. I actually do not know, if we really are in the Natura 2000 site’’. Consequently, the site designation and MP does not influence their forest management. In such cases, forest owners usually first become aware of Natura 2000 when they approach the administration to seek funding for general forest management measures. Other forest owners know of the status but since the MPs are not legally binding and the hitherto used management practices are allowed, the MPs do not have any substantial impact. Consequently, Natura 2000 and the MPs are seen as hardly influencing forest management. France The interviewed forest officers of the national forest service are quite familiar with the relevant MPs. In contrast, most other Natura 2000 actors interviewed are aware of the existence of the MPs, but know little about their content. Private forest owners in particular had very limited knowledge of the MPs’ contents. Most of the knowledge they have about the analysed Natura 2000 site and its objectives originate from discussions with the Natura 2000 project leader, who is in charge of information dissemination and of convincing the different landowners to change their practices towards biodiversity conservation. Tools such as compensation contracts and the Natura 2000 charter help the project leader in working towards this goal. The signing of a Natura 2000 charter is not compulsory, but it offers financial incentives since it exempts the signatory from paying some taxes on nonbuilt land. The Natura 2000 contracts are meant to compensate the loss of income that may result from changing forest management practices. For forest habitats there are 13 measures that can be the object of a Natura 2000 contract. Armed with these incentive tools, the project leader goes from door to door to discuss the measures with farmers, mayors and foresters, and tries to convince them to move towards more ecologically sustainable or naturalness-promoting management practices. In the case study this was quite effective, mostly because the project leader is highly dedicated to the implementation of Natura 2000. Additionally, he is a trained forest manager and locally well known, which accords him with high legitimacy in front of other forest actors. As a positive result of the project leader’s work, seven contracts on forest habitats were signed in March 2013 for 10 ha of ageing trees and 190 habitat trees on the site. These are in addition to contracts on water and open-area habitats. Despite the example described above, our interviews reveal that forest practitioners on public and private land generally recognize that they have barely changed their management practices. For the officers of the national forest service, an internal directive related to the development of sustainable forest management has existed since 1993, which recommends measures very similar to the objectives subsequently stated in the Natura 2000 MPs. As such, the officers have not noticeably modified their practices; at best they have

123



accentuated what they were already doing. One interviewee from the national forest service reported: ‘‘We know we are on a Natura 2000 site but as we don’t have […] restrictive measures, we are doing the same management as anywhere else. When there are bio-trees we conserve them anyway, being in Natura 2000 or not.’’ The elected representatives of municipalities that own forest normally heed the advice of the officers who are managing their forest. If the officer proposes setting up measures—for example, a plot of ageing trees or some habitat trees—the municipality council often decides to follow this proposition. Finally, private forest owners are generally not tempted to sign Natura 2000 contracts. Only one interviewed forest owner considers himself to be an environmentalist and decided not to cut any more trees on his property. Consequently, he readily agreed to sign a Natura 2000 contract that included funding for harvest abandonment. However, private forest owners usually fear the consequences that may accompany the signing of Natura 2000 contracts, especially the possible loss of freedom in their forest management and potential restrictions for timber harvest. Hence, only a few private owners have signed contracts, and these contracts refer only to sites that are not important or not suitable for timber harvesting. Other private forest owners signed contracts for actions (e.g. for closeto-nature silviculture methods) that they would have implemented anyway. One voice from the private forest advisors stated conclusively: ‘‘Natura 2000—I don’t see that as a constraint since nothing, in practical terms, has been imposed on us yet.’’ Germany Although MPs and their broad implications are generally well known in Baden-Wuerttemberg and Bavaria, their specific contents are mostly unfamiliar to managers both on private and public land. A strong impression from the interviews with forest practitioners is that the translation of the MPs into forest management practices is a major challenge. Most MP formulas and targets are ambiguous and open to interpretation. As a result, the implementation of MPs is usually determined by the efforts and discretion of individual officers. Forest management practices are hardly influenced by the Natura 2000 protection status. Two interview quotes illustrate this general finding: ‘‘Until now there has been no impact at all on management. But who knows what will happen if somebody will take the MP and actually read it and visit the sites. Perhaps it will change then!’’ (Forest administration). An interviewee from the state forest service argued: ‘‘the MPs do not really help the forest owners. The plans are designed to broadly define the goals for the protected species or habitats, to make clear that these exist. Yet, the plans do not show exactly which measure to take and where. This of course has been the wish of the forest administration, not to present it sharply for confined parcels of land in the MPs’’. Local administrators have to negotiate implementation with every forest owner, especially as MPs are not binding for private owners. While the nature conservation administration is responsible for supervising implementation of the MPs, their officers are rarely present within the Natura 2000 sites and thus can only fulfil their control function to a limited extent. This means that decisions about management and conservation are largely left to the engagement of the local state forest officers, their relation to the individual owners, their own view of what is right or wrong with regards to the site management, their relation to other administrations (forest versus nature conservation), their communicative skills, their standing within the local community and their view on nature conservation issues. One interviewee summarized this situation: ‘‘The MPs are only worth something if you have knowledge about local conditions, if you have people on the grounds who do not block, who believe in what you tell them […] otherwise you have no chance at all with or

123


3473

without a MP.’’ Overall, the practical role of MPs for forest management on the ground is frequently described as being ‘‘very subordinated and marginal’’ (forest administration). This has implications in terms of the assessment of the overall importance of Natura 2000 for forest owners, which was described by one interviewee: ‘‘This whole Natura 2000 story is, on the level of the forest owners, no topic at all’’ (forest administration).

Discussion … on the Natura 2000 implementation in different countries Our paper has reinforced the findings of Kruk et al. (2009) that implementation practices vary significantly depending on the region—and especially on the social and political contexts within these regions. Such differences relate, for instance, to the overall content of MPs, i.e. the specification of objectives, ecological thresholds and measures, and to the design of the implementation process including the involvement of different stakeholders. Yet at the same time, there are common patterns observable across the local case studies that relate to the core challenges of implementing Natura 2000 in European (beech) forests. Our case studies largely confirm the general impression in the literature that site designation and management planning as part of the implementation of the HD has been a cumbersome and contested process in many EU member states (e.g., Alphandery and Fortier 2001; Hiedanpaä¨ 2002; Kautz 2002; Stu¨tz 2004; Leibenath 2008; Rosenkranz et al. 2012). Several authors have underlined that forest organizations and private forest owners are sceptical about the HD as they see it as significantly interfering with their property rights and related chances to manage their forests profitably in terms of timber-production revenues. This was also found in other EU member states (Finland, The Netherlands, see Hiedanpaä¨ 2002; van der Zouwen 2001, pp 5–6). Moreover, landowners and some social scientists have criticized the implementation process for being focused too exclusively on scientific considerations and constituting an overly bureaucratic, top-down exercise (Alphandery and Fortier 2001). In contrast, environmental groups and ecological scientists are partially frustrated about the weak and slow implementation process, and expect significant changes in forest management practices if the policy is to achieve its biodiversity related policy goals (BMU 2007; France Nature Environment 2012).

… on the operational objectives and ecological thresholds for a favourable site conservation status A comparison of the bio-indicators and ecological thresholds that are used for the evaluation of the conservation status and related management suggestions in the MPs with the findings of conservation research creates doubts as to whether these plans are suitable for conserving the biodiversity that is typical for European beech forest ecosystems. For instance, for the bio-indicator deadwood, there is a notable gap between the deadwood requirements for the occurrence of a diversity of forest species discussed in the scientific literature and the politically negotiated deadwood thresholds that are used in Natura 2000 MPs and their subsequent monitoring. The deadwood volumes documented in the MPs were close to the officially required thresholds for a favourable conservation site status of

123



around 1–3 m3 deadwood/ha. However, even the highest volume of deadwood (8.94 m3/ ha) measured in our case studies (beech forest DE5) still represents, at a maximum, only a third of the deadwood volume identified in the scientific literature on beech forest biodiversity in the continental region as being an important ecological threshold for some forestspecific, deadwood-dependent species (Bu¨tler et al. 2004, compare Fig. 1). For instance, Mu¨ller and Bu¨tler (2010) show in a detailed research overview that to secure typical (beech) forest biodiversity, a minimum of 30 m3 of deadwood/ha is needed (see also Fig. 1). In the continental region of Europe most forest species and species groups using wood within their life cycle demand even more (50–136 m3 deadwood/ha; Frank 2002; Moning et al. 2009; Mu¨ller 2005; Mu¨ller and Bu¨tler 2010, Fig. 1). Interestingly, in France and Germany the deadwood amounts measured in the case study sites are lower than the average deadwood amounts measured by the national forests inventories, with 24.5 m3 deadwood/ha in France (IGN 2013) and 11.5 m3 deadwood/ha in Germany. Conclusively, the achievement of a favourable site conservation status within the official Natura 2000 evaluation does not substantially maintain or restore beech forest biodiversity beyond an average state of economically used beech forests. In turn, MPs building on the current definition of a favourable conservation status are not able to guide the management necessary to achieve a conservation status that takes into account the demands of typical beech forest biodiversity, including the many species depending on late forest development phases.

… on the MPs influence on forest management MPs are promoted as a central policy instrument for mediating contradicting expectations such as those outlined above. They are expected to play a crucial role in the Natura 2000 implementation process, including the transformation of abstract goals into concrete conservation measures, and through their function as mediators amongst different interest groups (Kruk et al. 2009; Apeldoorn et al. 2009). In addition to the already mentioned problem of less ambitious ecological objectives and thresholds, the social science results of our study create further doubts as to whether the MPs in their existing form are able to meet such expectations. This is due to two interrelated reasons: • The objectives and measures in the MPs are often not clear enough to provide the necessary guidance to facilitate their translation into management practice; • As a result, the MPs’ content is considered to be largely irrelevant to daily forest management practices. The tendency that MPs are not specific enough to allow for their operationalization into practice is demonstrated through regularly occurring vague terms such as ‘‘increase in the amount of deadwood and habitat trees‘‘or ‘‘continuation and if applicable further development of the existing preferably close-to-nature forestry under special consideration of the stand structure and species composition’’. Such formulations need further specification, inter alia, regarding spatial explicitness. In some cases, a translation of these abstract management formulas into practice is accomplished through the interactions of local forest owners, nature conservation officers and Natura 2000 project leaders. However, as our results have demonstrated, in most cases the plans are unfamiliar to many forests owners and are widely regarded as irrelevant for management practices. This is even true for several public forest managers who demonstrated only vague knowledge about the contents of the MPs. In addition to unspecified objectives and management recommendations, the

123


3475

non-legally binding character of the plans, at least on private land, adds to their limited impact. The findings for most of our case studies show that MPs result in a minimal affect (or none at all) on forest management within the protected areas; consequently, forest management practices continue as before. This finding is in line with statements made by (sub-)national administrations and politicians during the early, conflict-ridden site-designation phase of Natura 2000 that the new policy would have only a minimal impact on regular forest management. This situation, however, is highly ambivalent. On the one hand, one may argue that the continuation of past management practices is unproblematic as these practices have rendered the Natura 2000 site ecologically valuable, at least in relative terms. On the other hand, some of the forest management practices used—such as largescale shelterwood harvests of mature stands and clear-cuts as well as the establishment of new access tracks, the felling of habitat trees for safety reasons and the removal of dying trees and deadwood for firewood—do conflict with conservation goals in beech forest ecosystems such as, inter alia, those related to ecosystem integrity (Michel and Winter 2009; Vanderwel et al. 2009; Paillet et al. 2010), and can thus be seen to conflict with the Natura 2000 objectives to maintain or even improve forest biodiversity. Finally, an additional challenge is the timeframe of the MPs. As our results show, there is seemingly no intention to regularly update Natura 2000 MPs on forestland. Even in France, where the Natura 2000 MPs are valid for only five years, very often the revision does not happen. This stands in remarkable contrast to classical forest inventories and forest management plans, which are conducted regularly in most of the analysed forests (updated every ten years). When considered together with the doubtful impact of MPs on forest management practices on the ground, this one-off characteristic of the MPs raises questions regarding their actual importance. Viewed from a critical perspective, one may even argue that Natura MPs on forestland are, at least in some regards, an example of what Hanju¨rgens and Lu¨bbe-Wolff (2000) label only symbolic environmental policy—a policy instrument that is designed with some effort and investment to demonstrate political activity, but which largely fails to govern and is also not expected to be effective on the ground in terms of protecting economic interests. Our rather small sample, however, does not allow for a generalization of this certainly bold thesis. In conclusion, there are three points we would like to emphasize: First, returning to the dichotomy between specific expectations introduced at the beginning of this discussion chapter—that Natura 2000 is either too top-down and science based, or it is too participatory and inclusive—our findings suggest that the problem in the current management planning process is no longer so much the lack of stakeholder participation (Rauschmayer et al. 2009), but the ambiguous and less ambitious guidance that the MPs provide. In this sense, one may argue that while forest managers and forest owners have at least temporarily been appeased through the management planning process, the challenge in implementing Natura 2000 has now been reversed as the policy is no longer too science based and technocratic, but rather does not correspond enough with the findings of conservation science and is ineffective on the ground—at least with regard to the nine case studies of beech forest management in the continental region of Europe. Second, when operational conservation objectives and ecological thresholds are formulated, the currently stipulated favourable conservation status level is insufficient. Third and finally, we revealed the urgent need to properly monitor the measures targeted within the Natura 2000 process in a harmonized way amongst the countries involved so that we can reach an ecologically relevant overview of the beech forest conservation status.

123



Conclusions This paper started with an overview of the character and importance of Natura 2000 as an integrative approach to biodiversity conservation—an approach that is arguably crucial and particularly appealing in the context of Central European forest landscapes, which have been subject to a long history of human use. Our findings have demonstrated that such a well-justified policy concept is nevertheless challenging once attempts are made to break down abstract conservation goals into concrete integrative forest management practices. It is in the (beech) forests of Europe where traditional management concepts (e.g. small clear-cuts in Austria, shelterwood cuttings in France and Germany), economic interests and conservation objectives clash. Potentially painful decisions involving trade-offs between conservation or forest use options have to be made. Yet our analysis indicates that in many cases such decisions are not explicitly made. With Natura 2000 MPs failing to provide conservation guidance that is in line with conservation research findings, it remains up to the knowledge and attitude of individual local managers in how far beech forest biodiversity will be maintained or restored. In many cases conservation objectives are hence implicitly watered down to the continuation of a status quo; even this is not guaranteed given the overall increasing pressure on Central European beech forests due to the increasing demand for bio-energy and a strengthened profit-orientation in the forest management of many, including public, forest enterprises (Meiwes et al. 2008). Does this mean that for European beech forests Natura 2000 is a failed conservation policy? We would argue this is not necessarily the case. Natura 2000 is a conservation policy project of enormous dimensions and significant ambition that is implemented in a landscape with a centuries-long tradition of forest use that is sustainable in an economic sense. Specifically, Natura 2000 introduced a new paradigm of biodiversity conservation, which can hardly be expected to be taken up by local foresters and forest owners without any transitional challenges. This institutionalization of a new policy paradigm alone already makes Natura 2000 valuable from a conservation perspective. For instance, the listing of European beech forests as habitats in Annex 1 of the HD and their subsequent designation as Natura 2000 sites was instrumental in making the conservation value of these forests politically and socially visible. The concomitant fundamental change in perspective, however, is a challenge for many involved local stakeholders and needs time to be translated into (local) forest management paradigms and practices. In this sense, time is an important dimension in a process that, in a best-case scenario, may be characterized by mutual learning between conservation experts and forestry stakeholders. In order to achieve such a best case and to make such mutual learning and adjustment possible, three major preconditions must be met. First, a (gradual) convergence of the best available scientific knowledge on forest biodiversity conservation and Natura 2000 policy objectives must occur. This does not necessarily mean that scientifically determined conservation goals and practices must be authoritatively implemented, but rather that MPs must take the available scientific knowledge into account, and that the formulation of conservation objectives must be conducted with regard to what we know about beech forest biodiversity and its conservation in Central Europe. The political negotiation of conservation thresholds and measures can then be undertaken in a crucial, second step. A situation in which the local conservation status of a beech forest site with 0 habitat trees/ha, 0 m3 deadwood/ha and a proportion of 45 % common spruce (Picea abies) is evaluated as being favourable is awkward in light of the available knowledge on beech forest biodiversity. It is at this conceptual base where a more thorough and ecologically relevant assessment is initially needed (compare literature on evidence-based conservation planning

123


3477

such as Albuquerque et al. 2013; Boor 2014; Mills and Lindberg 2002; Morris et al. 2014). Second, as for the political negotiation process of implementing Natura 2000, a genuine political commitment to achieving and improving biodiversity conservation in Central European beech forests is needed. This involves the willingness to invest resources in the regulation of trade-offs, including the engagement of the states themselves on public lands. Finally, in order to make successful learning possible, a regular update of the MPs should be foreseen, and these plans must be aligned with and implemented via classical forest management planning. If such a periodic update and integration does not take place, a gradual learning and mutual adaptation process between both worlds—conservation knowledge and forest practices—is not likely to take place. The Central European beech forests are of special interest to society and nature conservation because of their greatly altered structure and biodiversity due to human management and use. An integrated conservation approach coupled with some strictly protected areas is for many reasons the most suitable strategy for conserving their natural and cultural heritage, including typical biodiversity, while also encouraging their provision of other ecosystem services. Our study demonstrates that there is still a long way to go until this approach really does work effectively in terms of translating Natura 2000 into local management practices. The continuation of socio-ecological studies on forest and conservation policy in the Central European context is instrumental in supporting such a process of ongoing learning and improvement. Acknowledgments The data used for this paper was collected within the scope of the European BeFoFu project (www.befofu.org/). BeFoFu is funded by national funding agencies. For this paper, we are grateful to the Austrian Wissenschaftsfond, the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research for their support. In addition, we are grateful to the experts and stakeholders who devoted their time for the interviews, and to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Finally, we wish to thank Amelia Pope for the final proof reading.

Appendix List of interview questions The local actors 1.

Data about the interviewee -

2. 3.

What is your main activity? Are you the member of an institution or a group related to forest management, nature conservation and/or Natura 2000? How have you been involved in the N2000 sites’ implementation process? Describe your view on the Habitat Directive and Natura 2000. What do you think of the N2000 network and its in situ implementation? How do you understand it?

Who are the other actors involved in the implementation of Natura 2000? What was their position before the implementation and what is their current position? Practices related to the N2000 site’s local implementation

4.

How far and in which way did you participate in the discussions around the management plan?

123


5.


How does the management plan take into consideration… -

6. 7. 8.

your forest management practices (for foresters, hikers, hunters,…)? activities related to forest concerning the town/village (to mayors)?

How do the two (forest management practices and interests of town) correspond? Which changes do you suggest for the MP? How do you plan to manage your forest with this management plan? Biodiversity

9. In your personal opinion, what are the main reasons for the nomination of this N2000 area? 10. What is your opinion about all the discourses around biodiversity and nature protection? • How important is climate change? • Did it have an effect on the management/policy? • •

Why/why not? If not, should it?

11. Did you consider climate change issues in your management practices? 12. How important is the issue of biodiversity and its conservation in your view? Economic impact 13. What is the economic impact of Natura 2000 on your enterprise? -

Costs: monetary expenses, use of resources, time Benefits of Natura 2000: additional income, subsidies, private sources of funding

14. How do you fund the cost caused by N2000? • • • •

Which sources of funding did you apply for? Which applications were successful? Which sources of funding do you know? Which do you consider accessing? Why? Which do you not consider? Why not?

References Albuquerque FS, Assuncao-Albuquerque MJT, Cayuela L, Zamora R, Benito BM (2013) European bird distribution is ‘‘well’’ represented by special protected areas: mission accomplished? Biol Conserv 159:45–50 Alexander M (2008) Management planning for nature conservation. A theoretical basis & practical guide. Springer, New York Alphandery P, Fortier A (2001) Can a territorial policy be based on science alone? The system for creating the Natura 2000 network in France. Sociol Rural 41(3):311–328 Barrett SM (2004) Implementation studies: time for a revival? Personal reflections on 20 years of implementation studies. Public Admin 82(2):249–262 Begehold H, Rzanny M, Flade M (2014) Forest development phases as an integrating tool to describe habitat preferences of breeding birds in lowland beech forests. J Ornithol. doi:10.1007/s10336-014-1110-4

123


3479

Beichelt T (2009) Deutschland und Europa. Die Europaïsierung des politischen Systems. VS Verlag fu¨r Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden BfN—Bundesamt fu¨r Naturschutz (2006) Machbarkeitsstudie fu¨r eine UNESCO-Weltnaturerbenominierung eines ausgewa¨hlten deutschen Buchenwaldclusters. Buchenwaldinstitut e.V BMU—Bundesministerium fu¨r Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (2007) Nationale Strategie zur biologischen Vielfalt. Bundesministerium fu¨r Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit BMU—Bundesministerium fu¨r Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (2011). Deutsche buchenwa¨lder—Weltnaturerbe der UNESCO, p 36 BNatSchG (2010) Gesetz u¨ber Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz) vom 29. Juli 2009 (BGBl. I S. 2542), last modification February 2012 (BGBl. I S. 148) Bobiec A, von der Burgt H, Meijer K, Zuyderduyn C, Haga J, Vlaanderen B (2000) Rich deciduous forests in Bialowieza as a dynamic mosaic of developmental phases: premises for nature conservation and restoration management. For Ecol Manag 130:159–175 Bohn U, Weber H (2000) Karte der natu¨rlichen vegetation Europas, Maßstab 1:2,5 Mio. Bundesamt fu¨r Naturschutz, Bonn Bo¨hnke-Henrichs A, Lipp T (2009) Implementation of the habitats directive: management planning in Germany. In: Breusta J, Kozova M, Finka M (eds) European landscapes in transformation: challenges for landscape ecology and management, conference proceedings ‘70 years of landscape ecology in Europe’. European IAELE Conference, Salzburg/Bratislava, pp 301–302 Boor GKH (2014) A framework for developing objective and measurable recovery criteria for threatened and endangered species. Conserv Biol 28(1):33–43 Borrass L (2014) Varying practices of implementing the habitats directive in German and British forests. Forest Policy Econom 38:151–160 Bu¨cking W (2003) Naturwaldreservate. Urwald in Deutschland, Bonn, p 66 ¨ sterreichische Waldinventur—Erhebung (2007–2009). http://bfw.ac.at/rz/wi. Bundesamt fu¨r Wald (2009) O home. Accessed on 11 Mar 2013 Bu¨tler R, Angelstam P, Ekelund P, Schlaepfer R (2004) Deadwood threshold values for the three-toed woodpecker presence in boreal and sub-Alpine forest. Biol Conserv 119:305–318 Carnino N (2009) Etat de conservation des habitats d’inte´reˆt communautaire a` l’ećhelle du site. Guide d’application de la me´thode d’e´valuation des habitats forestiers. SPN—ONF Carnino N, Touroult J (2010) Evaluation de l’e´tat de conservation des habitats forestiers a` l’ećhelle d’un site natura 2000: Du concept vers un outil pour le gestionnaire. Rev for fr 62(2):127–140 CBD (1992) Convention on biological diversity. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations Environment Programme. http://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf. ´ dor P, Rozenberger D, Diaci J, Standovar T, Wijdeven S, Winter S, Christensen M, Hahn K, Mountford E, O Vrska T, Meyer P (2005) Deadwood in European beech (Fagus sylvatica) forest reserves. For Ecol Manag 210:267–282 EC—European Commission (2003) Natura 2000 and forests ‘Challenges and opportunities’. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg EC—European Commission (2000) Managing Natura 2000 sites: the provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/ provision_of_art6_en.pdf Ellwanger G, Schro¨der E (Eds.) (2006) Management von Natura 2000-Gebieten. Erfahrungen aus Deutschland und ausgewa¨hlten anderen Mitgliedsstaaten der Europaïschen Union. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 26, Bonn EU—European Union (2008) Consolidated version of the treaty on the functioning of the european union. Off J Eur Union C 115:47–199 European Bird Directive (2009) Council Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds replacing the Directive 79/409/EEC of 1979 on the conservation of wild birds European Commission (2011) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and Committee of the Regions. Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 (COM 2011/244 final) European Commission (2013) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and Committee of the Regions. A new EU Forest Strategy: for forests and the forest-based sector (COM(2013) 659 final) Forest Europe (2010) Enriching forest biodiversity. Forest Europe is implementing convention on biological diversity provisions. Aas, Norway. Retrieved from: http://www.foresteurope.org/documentos/Enriching ForestBiodiversity_print.pdf

123



Forest Strategy (2010) The strategic Plan for the CBD. COP10/MOP5 Aichi-Nagoya, Japan. Retrieved from: http://www.cbd.int/cop/cop-10/doc/press/press-briefs-en.pdf France Nature Environnement (2012) Natura 2000 la Directive a` 20 ans. Dossier Press France Nature Environnement. www.fne.asso.fr/com/dossierpresse/dp-150512.pdf. Accessed 5 Feb 2014 Frank G (2002) Brutzeitliche Einnischung des Weißru¨ckenspechtes Dendrocopos leucotos im Vergleich zum Buntspecht Dendrocopos major in montanen Mischwa¨ldern der no¨rdlichen Kalkalpen. Vogelwelt 123:225–239 Habitats Directive (1992) Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora Hanju¨rgens B, Lu¨bbe-Wolff G (2000) Symbolische Umweltpolitik. Franfurt a.M, Suhrkamp Harmon ME, Franklin JF, Swanson FJ, Sollins P, Gregory SV, Lattin JD, Anderson NH, Cline SP, Aumen NG, Sedell JR, Lienkaemper GW, Cromack K, Cummins KW (1986) Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Adv Ecol Res 15:133–276 Hiedanpaä¨ J (2002) European-wide conservation versus local well-being: the reception of the Natura 2000 Reserve Network in Karvia. SW-Finland Landsc Urban Plan 61(2/4):113–123 IGN—National Institute for geographic and forest Information (2011) Pre´le`vement de bois en foreˆt et production biologique: des estimations directes et compatibles, LIF n 28 IGN—National Institute for Geographic and Forest Information (2013) Le me´mento E´dition 2013. La foreˆt en chiffres et en cartes. http://inventaire-forestier.ign.fr/spip/spip.php?rubrique16. Accessed on 10 Sept 2014 IUCN-UNEP-WWF (1980) World conservation strategy—living resource conservation for sustainable development. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland Kautz R (2002) Natura 2000—Evaluierung eines naturschutzpolitischen Instruments vor dem Hintergrund des Spannungsverha¨ltnisses zwischen Naturschutzanliegen und Eingriffen in das Eigentumsrecht. Eigenverlag des Instituts fu¨r Sozioo¨konomik der Forst- und Holzwirtschaft, Wien Kral K, Vrska T, Hort L, Adam D, Samonil P (2010) Developmental phases in a temperate natural sprucefir-beech forest. Determination by a supervised classification method. Eur J For Res 129:330–351 Kraus D, Krumm F (eds) (2013) Integrative approaches as an opportunity for the conservation of forest biodiversity. European Forest Institute Krott M (2001) Politikfeldanalyse Forstwirtschaft. Blackwell Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin Kruk RW, De Blust G, Van Apeldoorn RC, Bouwma IM, Sier ARJ (2009) NATURA 2000. Information and communication on the designation and management of Natura 2000 sites. Main Report 2: Organizing the management in 27 EU Member States Landesgesetzblatt (2005) www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Lgbl/LGBL_OB_20051031_110/LGBL_OB_20051031_ 110.pdf (2005), actualization (2011) www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Lgbl/LGBL_OB_20110630_48/ LGBL_OB_20110630_48.pdf Landesgesetzblatt (2013) http://www.noe.gv.at/Umwelt/Naturschutz/Rechtliche-Grundlagen.html. Accessed on 8 Jan 2013 Leibenath M (2008) Legitimacy of biodiversity policies in a multi-level Setting. The case of Germany. In: Keulartz J, Leistra G (eds) Legitimacy in European nature conservation policy: case studies in multilevel governance. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 233–250 Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF, (2002) Conserving forest biodiversity: a comprehensive multiscaled approach. Island Press, Washington, DC Louette G, Adriaens D, Adriaens P, Anselin A, Devos K, Sannen K, Van Landuyt W, Paelinckx D, Hoffmann M (2011) Bridging the gap between the Natura 2000 regional conservation status and local conservation objectives. J Nat Conserv 19:224–235 LUBW (2009) Handbuch zur Erstellung von Managementpla¨nen fu¨r die Natura 2000-Gebiete in BadenWu¨rttemberg. Version 1.2. http://www.lubw.baden-wuerttemberg.de/ LWF (2004) Arbeitsanweisung zur Erstellung von Managementpla¨nen fu¨r Waldfla¨chen in Natura 2000-Gebieten. Retrieved from http://www.lwf.bayern.de/publikationen/daten/sonstiges/p_34539.pdf MAB (1970) Man and Biosphere programme. Officially launched in 1970 and formally endorsed by the UN Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972 Mayring P (2000) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. Deutscher Studien Verlag, Weinheim Meiwes KJ, Asche N, Block J, Kallweit R, Ko¨lling C, Raben G, von Wilpert K (2008) Potenziale und Restriktionen der Biomassenutzung im Wald. AFZ-Der Wald 10–11:598–603 Michel A, Winter S (2009) Tree microhabitat structures as indicators of biodiversity in Douglas-fir forests of different stand ages and management histories in the Pacific Northwest. USA For Ecol Manag 257:1453–1464

123


3481

Mills LS, Lindberg MS (2002) Sensitivity analysis to evaluate the consequences of conservation actions. In: Beissinger SR, McCullough DR (eds) Population viability analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 338–366 ¨ kologische Schlu¨sselwerte in Bergmischwa¨ldern als Grundlage fu¨r Moning C, Bussler H, Mu¨ller J (2009) O eine nachhaltige Forstwirtschaft. Wissenschaftliche Reihe des nationalpark Bayerischer Wald 19:1–102 Morris RKA, Bennett T, Blyth-Skyrme R, Barham PJ, Ball A (2014) Managing Natura in the marine environment—an evaluation of the effectiveness of ‘management schemes’ in England. Ocean Coastal Manag 87:40–51 Mu¨ller J (2005) Waldstrukturen als Steuergro¨ße fu¨r Artengemeinschaften in kolinen bis submontanen Buchenwa¨ldern. PhD thesis Technische Universita¨t Mu¨nchen, p 197 Mu¨ller J, Bu¨tler R (2010) A review of habitat thresholds for deadwood: a baseline for management recommendations in European forests. Eur J For Res 129:981–992 Obero¨sterreichische Landesregierung (2011): Verordnung der Oo¨. Landesregierung, mit der das Gebiet ‘‘Ettenau I’’ in den Gemeinden St. Radegund und Ostermiething als Naturschutzgebiet festgestellt und ein Landschaftspflegeplan fu¨r dieses Gebiet erlassen wird ´ dor P, Avon C, Bernhardt-Ro¨mermann M, Bijlsma RJ, de Bruyn L, Fuhr M, Paillet Y, Berge`s L, Hja¨lteń J, O Grandin U, Kanka R, Lundin L, Luque S, Magura T, Matesanz S, Me´sza´ros I, Sebastia` MT, Schmidt W, Standova´r T, To´thme´re´sz B, Uotila A, Valladares F, Vellak K, Virtanen R (2010) Biodiversity differences between managed and unmanaged forests: meta-analysis of species richness in Europe. Conserv Biol 24(1):101–112 Paluch JG (2007) The spatial pattern of a natural European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.)-silver fir (Abies alba Mill.)-forest. A patch-mosaic perspective. For Ecol Manag 253:161–170 ¨ K—Planungsbu¨ro fu¨r angewandten Naturschutz GmbH & Institut fu¨r Landschaftso¨kologie, AG PAN & ILO Biozo¨nologie (2009) Bewertung des Erhaltungszustandes der Lebensraumtypen nach Anhang I der ¨ berarbeitete Bewertungsbo¨gen der Bund-La¨nderFauna-Flora-Habitat-Richtlinie in Deutschland. U Arbeitkreise als Grundlage fu¨r ein bundesweites FFH-Monitoring erstellt im Rahmen des F ? EVorhabens ‘‘Konzeptionelle Umsetzung der EU-Vorgaben zum FFH-Monitoring und Berichtspflichten in Deutschland’’ Pu¨lzl H, Treib O (2007) Implementing Public Policy. In: Fischer F, Miller GJ, Sidney MS (eds) Handbook of public policy analysis—theory, politics, and methods. CRC Press, Boca Raton, London, New York, pp 89–107 Rametsteiner E, Mayer P (2004) Sustainable forest management and Pan-European forest policy. Ecol Bull 51:51–57 Ranius T, Niklasson M, Berg N (2009) Development of tree hollows in pedunculate oak (Quercus robur). For Ecol Manag 257(1):303–310 Rauschmayer F, van den Hove S, Koetz T (2009) Participation in EU biodiversity governance: how far beyond rhetoric? Environ Plan C 27(1):42–58 Rosenkranz L, Wippel B, Seintsch B (2012) FFH-Impact. Work report 04/05/06/2012. Johann Heinrich von Thu¨nen-Institut Samuelsson J, Gustafsson L, Ingelog T (1994) Dying and dead trees—a review of their importance for biodiversity. Swedish Threatened Species Unit, Uppsala, p 109 Sauer A (2006) Europaïsche Naturschutzpolitik. Oekom Verlag, Mu¨nchen Schmitz F, Polley H, Hennig P, Schwitzgebel F, Kriebitzsch WU (2004) Die zweite Bundeswaldinventur – BWI2: Das Wichtigste in Ku¨rze. Bundesministerium fu¨r Verbraucherschutz, Erna¨hrung und Landwirtschaft, Bonn Schofield J (2004) A model of learned implementation. Public Admin 82:283–308 Seintsch B, Weimar H (2013) Holzbilanzen 2010 bis 2012 fu¨r die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Thu¨nen Working Paper 9 Souheil H, Germain L, Boivin D, Douillet R et al (2009) Guide me´thodologique d’e´laboration des documents d’objectifs Natura 2000. Atelier Technique des Espaces Naturels, Cahier Technique N82: Montpelliers Statistisches Bundesamt (2014) https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/Wirtschaftsbereiche/LandForst wirtschaftFischerei/WaldundHolz/Tabellen/GesamteinschlagHolzartengruppen.html StatistischesBundesamt (2009) Statistical yearbook. Statistisches Jahr, Wiesbaden, p 753 Stu¨tz B (2004) Der politische Prozess zur Erstellung von Managementpla¨nen in Natura 2000-Gebieten in Niedero¨sterreich, Wien Van Apeldoorn RC, Kruk RW, Bouwma IM, Ferranti F, Blust G de, Sier ARJ (2009) Natura 2000— information and communication on the designation and management of Natura 2000 sites. Main Report 1. Alterra: Wageningen

123



van der Zouwen, M, van den Top M (2001) European nature conservation policies in the Netherlands - a pioneer unable to implement its own ambitions. Radboud University Nijmegen: www.ru.nl/publish/ pages/515103/2002-10.pdf. Accessed on 18 Sept 2012 Vanderwel MC, Malcolm JR, Smith SM (2009) Long-term snag and downed woody debris dynamics under periodic surface fire, fire suppression, and shelterwood management. Can J For Res 39(9):1709–1721 ¨ berlegungen zur Bewertung des Erhaltungszustands von FFHvon Drachenfels O (2011) Methodische U Lebensraumtypen. Nat Landsch 86:08 Winkel G (2008) Schutz von Wa¨ldern außerhalb von Schutzgebieten. Zur Rolle von Segregation und Integration im globalen Waldnaturschutz. Nat Landschaft 4:162–164 Winter S (2012) Forest naturalness assessment as a component of biodiversity monitoring and conservation management. Int J For. doi:10.1093/forestry/cps004 Winter S, Brambach F (2011) Determination of a common forest life-cycle assessment method for biodiversity evaluation. For Ecol Manag 262(12):2120–2132. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.07.036 Winter S, Seif J (2011) Bewertungskriterien zum Erhaltungszustand von Natura-2000-BuchenwaldLebensraumtypen—Vergleich verschiedener Bundesla¨nder und Umsetzung in Managementpla¨nen. Nat Landsch Plan 43(4):101–110 Winter S, Begehold H, Vrska T (2013) Forest naturalness as a key to forest biodiversity preservation. In: Kraus D, Krumm F (eds) Integrative approaches as an opportunity for the conservation of forest biodiversity. European Forest Institute, Freiburg, pp 52–61

123