Download Naturalness Questionnaire for WG 1 - Part 1

COST Action E27
Protected Forest Areas in Europe –
Analysis and Harmonisation
(PROFOR)
Working Group 1
Key subject ‘Naturalness’
Questionnaire for Working Group 1 – Part 1
March 2004
Country: UNITED KINGDOM
COST E27 WG 1 contact person
Name: Keith Kirby
Institution: English Nature
Email: [email protected]
Rationale
One goal of the COST Action E27 is to clarify the concept of naturalness as used for forest protection. A
reason for this is that maintenance and restoration of naturalness is a primary motive for forest protection.
The importance of naturalness for Protected Forest Areas is also considered in the PFA table of WG 1
and Etienne Branquart’s questionnaire on selection criteria.
The degree of naturalness of forest ecosystems reflects the intensity of human intervention. Different
levels of utilisation intensity are characterised not only by different structures but also by different species
communities which means that human influence changes the biological diversity of an area. Naturalness
can be described by degrees of naturalness. Within the Temperate and Boreal Forest Resources
Assessment (TBFRA) (UN-ECE1/FAO2 2000) and the MCPFE3 Report on Sustainable Forest
Management in Europe (MCPFE 2003), three degrees of naturalness, namely ‘undisturbed by man’,
‘semi-natural’ and ‘plantations’, were used. According to this classification scheme, forests undisturbed by
man, which have a high conservation value, are forests where processes, composition of tree species and
structure remain natural or have been restored. Plantations usually represent ecosystems on their own,
with artificial dynamics establishing species communities distinct from the original ecosystem. Seminatural forests are neither undisturbed by man nor plantations and display certain characteristics of the
natural ecosystem.
The definitions given by the UN-ECE, FAO and MCPFE give only a very basic idea of what is meant by
‘undisturbed by man’, ‘semi-natural’ and ‘plantations’. They need further interpretation and precision to be
applicable to national forest conditions. Additionally, most forests in Europe (70%) are semi-natural, with a
wide spectrum ranging from forests managed in a close-to-nature way to forests whose management is
close to plantation silviculture. It is desirable to introduce one or more subdivisions in order to differentiate
1
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
3 Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe
2
1
more efficiently. The COST Action E27 aims at contributing to the development of a classification scheme
that is more appropriate for European conditions.
Questions
After each section, a box is provided for any further comments or information. We would be very
interested in your additional remarks.
1.
Is the subject “naturalness of forests” discussed in your country other than within
the reporting for the Temperate and Boreal Forest Resources Assessment
(TBFRA) and the MCPFE Report on Sustainable Forest Management in Europe?
Comments: A good overview of the conventional approach to woodland
naturalness in a UK context is given in Peterken (1996). More recently the ideas of
Vera (2000) have revived discussions, particularly on what the impacts of large
herbivores would have been, and hence what the structure of the past natural
forest was. An interesting sub-set of the discussion is what the future natural
composition of our forests might be, because of the changing climate, but also the
addition of many introduced species.
Yes
No
2.
If such a discussion takes place, has it led to one or more concepts of forest
naturalness that are generally accepted by national forest experts (is there a
common idea of original naturalness4, are there widespread ideas of what today’s
natural forests look like or would look like in your country)?
Comments: NOT COMPLETELY. Because of the interest in Vera’s work there is
active discussion about the degree of openness of the original forests: some
consensus is emerging that the forests were more open than perhaps previously
thought, but perhaps not to the degree that Vera himself implies (not open parkland
or savannah). This is the subject of active research at present – see appendix 1
which explains about a project we are running.
Yes
No
3.
Do these concepts of naturalness include classification schemes for describing
forms of naturalness (forest type classification 5, scales of naturalness6)?
If scales of naturalness do exist (the international scale of UNECE/FAO and
MCPFE excluded), do they comprise more than three degrees of naturalness?
Is the concept of the potential natural vegetation (according to Tüxen 1956) widely
used within these concepts and classification schemes of naturalness?
Comments: Virtually none of our woodland can be classed as natural; much more
is classed as semi-natural, but then there are large areas of plantations. Both
semi-natural stands and plantations can be split into those which are on sites that
have a long history as woodland – at least since 1600 AD as far as we can judge –
which are called ancient woodland, and those that have become wooded only in
the last few centuries.
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Terms such as old growth (or old growth characteristics) are also used; a recent
report looked at how this might be applied in a British context but there was not
complete consensus on the outcome.
Potential natural vegetation concept is not widely used, although John Rodwell has
explored this idea and contributed to the European map of potential natural
vegetation. The reason it is not used much is that so much of what
4
The state which existed before people became a significant ecological factor (Peterken 1996).
e.g. virgin forest, cultured forest , primary forest, secondary forest, ancient forest, recent forest
6 e.g. natural > close-to-nature > semi-natural > far-from-nature > artificial (Dierschke 1989)
5
2
conservationists value is part of the cultural landscape – meadows, heath, etc – so
knowing what the potential natural vegetation would be (usually a type of
woodland) is not that helpful.
4.
If there are classification schemes, are they used for assessing forest naturalness
in practice (systematic field examinations)?
If they are used for this purpose, which institutions are responsible for the
assessment:
a) the administrative bodies and research institutes of the forest administration,
b) the administrative bodies and research institutes of the nature conservation
administration,
c) other institutions?
Which forests are evaluated:
a) forests in Protected Forest Areas mainly protected for biodiversity ( MCPFE classes
1.1 to 1.3),
b) forests in other Protected Forest Areas,
c) publicly owned forests outside Protected Forest Areas,
d) privately owned forests outside Protected Forest Areas?
How is the assessment of forest naturalness carried out: comprehensively or by
sampling?
a) forests in Protected Forest Areas mainly protected for biodiversity ( MCPFE classes
1.1 to 1.3):
b) forests in other Protected Forest Areas:
c) publicly owned forests outside Protected Forest Areas:
d) privately owned forests outside Protected Forest Areas:
Comments: Responsibility for classification schemes: Local government
authorities and NGOs also make some use of the classifications
Yes
No
Alone
Partly
All of
them
Parts of
them
Comprehensively
By
sampling
Yes
No
Which forests are evaluated? The classification was done from a mixture of old
maps and aerial photographs and is fairly crude. Therefore most forests, whether
protected or not, have a first approximation of naturalness applied to them. This is
backed up to varying degrees by field surveys, mainly in protected forests and
those in public ownership.
5.
Do you know one or more national experts who deal with the description,
classification and assessment of forest naturalness?
3
If you know such experts, please note down their name, the institution at which
they work, their email address and their field of work related to forest naturalness, if
you consider it appropriate to do so.
Expert 1:
Name: G. F. Peterken
Institution: private consulter/researcher
Email: [email protected]
Field of work: extensive knowledge of British woodland and its conservation;
originator of many of the key concepts dealing with degrees of naturalness with
respect to the UK
Expert 2:
Name: J. Rodwell
Institution: Lancaster University
Email: [email protected]
Field of work: editor of British Plant Communities and developer of the British
contribution to the potential vegetation map of Europe
Expert 3:
Name:
Institution:
Email:
Field of work:
Comments:
Bibliography
Dierschke, H. (1989): Natürlichkeitsgrade von Wäldern und Forsten (Degrees of naturalness of forests).
In: Norddeutsche Naturschutzakademie: NNA-Berichte 2 (3), 149.
MCPFE (2003): State of Europe’s Forests 2003. The MCPFE Report on Sustainable Forest Management
in Europe. Jointly prepared by the MCPFE Liaison Unit Vienna and UNECE/FAO. Vienna, 126 pp.
Peterken, G. F. (1996): Natural Woodland. Ecology and Conservation in Northern Temperate Regions.
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, 522 pp.
Tüxen, R. (1956): Die heutige potentielle natürliche Vegetation als Gegenstand der Vegetationskartierung
(The present potential natural vegetation as an object of vegetation mapping). Angewandte
Pflanzensoziologie (Stolzenau/Weser) 13, 15-42.
UN-ECE/FAO (2000): Forest Resources of Europe, CIS, North America, Australia, Japan and New
Zealand (industrialized temperate/boreal countries). Main Report. UN-ECE/FAO Contribution to the
Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000. Geneva Timber and Forest Study Papers No. 17, 445 pp.
Please send the questionnaire back to [email protected] by 14th April 2004. Please do
not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. The results of this enquiry will be presented at our
next meeting in Lithuania in May.
Many thanks for your help and best regards,
Jan Carl Welzholz and Renate Bürger-Arndt
Institute for Forest Policy, Forest History
and Nature Conservation
Georg August University, Göttingen
Büsgenweg 3
D-37077 Göttingen
Germany
4
Tel.: +49 (0)551 39-3754
Fax: +49 (0)551 39-3415
Email: [email protected]
5