The impact of Natura 2000 on forest management: a socio-ecological analysis in the continental region of the European Union

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 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

Perspectives on forest conservation: building evidence at the frontier between policy and conservation science

“…A similar direction is taken by De Koning et al (2014), who emphasise the need for scientists and forest managers to cooperate closely in the production of ''actionable knowledge'' that cannot be based on the available scientific evidence alone. On the contrary, Winter et al's (2014) socio-ecological assessment of the implementation if the EU's biodiversity conservation policy in central European forests identifies not only a certain trade-off between local stakeholder participation and conservation science based approaches, but demands a (re-) consideration of scientific evidence in the policy implementation process. Osei-Tutu et al (2014), while reiterating the call for the integration of traditional local ecological knowledge in conservation, show, however, that such claims must not disregard the forces of modernization that all (including traditional) knowledge cultures are subject to.…”

“…While Johnson and Franklin's call to play both cards, better science and more democratic policy-making, is likely the most compelling to all sides, it may face serious challenges when put into practice. This may be the case, for instance, in a situation where local actors shaped by strong traditional institutions perceive any new conservation initiative as unwanted intervention (see, for example, one of the two case studies of Pecurul-Botines et al (2014), or the critical observation of ''appeasement policy'' under Natura 2000 made by Winter et al (2014). It is in such difficult situations that decisions about trade-offs in forest conservation must be made, in the best case including available scientific knowledge and local consensus, but in many cases also involving the necessity to mediate and decide between clashing knowledge cultures, competing interests, and land management ideologies, not to mention the issue of scales (e.g.…”

“…Reviewing the contributions in this special issue, one interesting observation emerges. On one hand, Winter et al (2014) in their analysis of the EU's Natura 2000 policy identify significant weaknesses regarding the on the ground implementation of an ''integrative'' conservation approach, and even label this approach as partially only symbolic conservation policy. On the other hand, Johnson and Franklin's (2014) essay on Pacific North-West forest policy critically assesses shortcomings of the segregative approach, and calls for a better integration of ecology and other forest management purposes.…”

“…Such on the ground practices in integrative forest conservation across Europe are a focus of Winter et al (2014). They analyze integrative forest conservation under the EU's nature conservation policy Natura 2000.…”

Učinci europeizacije sustava zaštite prirode u hrvatskoj: primjer uspostave višestupanjskog sustava za upravljanje zaštićenim područjima „natura 2000“

“…Th e system of nature protection at the EU level is based on the international obligations of sustainable development (Giljum et al, 2005;Ferranti et al, 2010;Winter et al, 2014;Winkel et al, 2015). Th e concept of sustainable development 1 (SD), based on the 1987 Brundtland Report (BR) and the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, emerged in order to protect nature on a global level, which is the main pillar of economic and social development (Lukšič, 2010).…”