Environmental Management (2014) 53:1085–1094 DOI 10.1007/s00267-014-0265-3
Trade-Offs Between Forest Protection and Wood Supply in Europe Pieter Johannes Verkerk • Giuliana Zanchi Marcus Lindner
•
Received: 20 August 2013 / Accepted: 17 March 2014 / Published online: 4 April 2014 Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract Forest protection is one of the main measures to prevent loss of biological and landscape diversity. This study aimed to assess to what extent forests are currently protected and how felling restrictions affect the potential annual wood supply within 27 European Union member states, Norway, and Switzerland and to discuss trade-offs between intensified use of forest biomass and forest protection efforts. Protected forests covered 33 million ha (20 % of total forest area) in 2005, of which 16 million ha was protected for biodiversity and the remaining area for landscape diversity. Within the protected areas, on average 48 % of the volume cannot be harvested in forests protected for biodiversity and 40 % in forests protected for landscapes. Consequently, 73 million m3 (10 % of the annual theoretical potential supply from the total forest area) of wood cannot be felled from the protected forests in Europe. Protected forests do not necessarily affect wood supply given the current demand for wood in Europe. However, if demand for wood from European forests for material and energy use significantly increases, the impact of existing protected forest networks may become significant after all. On the other hand, wood harvesting is allowed to a fair extent in many protected areas. Hence, the question could be raised whether biodiversity and landscape diversity within designated areas are sufficiently protected. Careful planning is required to accommodate both the protection of biological and landscape diversity and demand for wood, while not forgetting all other services that forests provide. P. J. Verkerk (&) G. Zanchi M. Lindner European Forest Institute, Sustainability and Climate Change Programme, Yliopistokatu 6, 80100 Joensuu, Finland e-mail: [email protected] G. Zanchi Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science, Lund University, So¨lvegatan 12, 22362 Lund, Sweden
Keywords Biodiversity Bio-energy Forest protection Trade-offs Wood supply
Introduction Despite commitments of many countries to conserve biodiversity (e.g., the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity), biodiversity is still showing signs of decline globally (Butchart et al. 2010). Intensive forest management has affected biodiversity in European forests (Siitonen 2001; Wallenius et al. 2010; Brukas et al. 2013), and there is pressure to protect forests to prevent further loss of biodiversity. On the other hand, policies are developed to increase the share of renewable energy in energy consumption (e.g., Directive 2009/28/EC), which may lead to a greater demand for wood or biomass from forests (UNECE-FAO 2011; Bo¨ttcher et al. 2012). The combination of policies related to biodiversity and intensified use of forest biomass may result in a classical dilemma between wood production and forest protection: more wood may be removed from the forest to meet the future demand for wood for material and energy use, which will lead to an intensification of management. This intensification, however, may increase the pressure on forest biodiversity. Understanding such trade-offs and defining optimal strategies to achieve different policy goals are a key challenge for scientists, decision makers, and forest managers (McShane et al. 2011; Sandstro¨m et al. 2011). The demand for wood for material and energy use is expected to increase substantially in the next few decades, which could partially be met by importing wood to Europe (UNECE-FAO 2011), but this may lead to negative impacts on biodiversity in other parts of the world (Sohngen et al. 1999; Lambin and Meyfroidt 2011). Such biodiversity
123
1086
impacts outside Europe may even affect biodiversity within Europe through species dispersal and migration across European borders (Mayer et al. 2005; 2006). Another option is to increase domestic wood removals (Verkerk et al. 2011a), but to what extent European forests can satisfy an increased wood demand, without compromising biodiversity goals, remains an open question. There are generally two broad approaches to maintain biodiversity; firstly, protected area networks can be created in which ecosystems and species are conserved which are unlikely to survive in intensively managed areas (Parviainen and Frank 2003). This is a more segregative approach as part of the forest area is designated to the protection of biodiversity, while wood production is allocated to the remaining part of the entire forest area (Boncina 2011). Secondly, appropriate management regimes may be developed to maintain biodiversity in production forests (Parviainen and Frank 2003). This follows a more integrative approach as it tries to combine biodiversity protection with wood production within the same forest area (Boncina 2011). Whereas the integrative approach has recently received a lot of attention in Europe (Boncina 2011; Kraus and Krumm 2013), historically the segregative forest protection approach has been a common method to protect biological and landscape diversity, as protected areas have been established over a long time (Reid and Miller 1989) and new protected areas are still being designated (Gaston et al. 2008; Radeloff et al. 2013) through policies and measures that may vary substantially from country to country. Whereas several studies have been conducted to model impacts of extending protected forest areas (see e.g., Linden and Uusivuori 2002; Bolkesjø et al. 2005; Leppa¨nen et al. 2005; Kallio et al. 2006; Ha¨nninen and Kallio 2007; UNECE-FAO 2011), the impact of existing protected forest areas on wood supply is not clear. Protected areas may have either a negligible impact on wood supply—when protection does not lead to any management and exploitation restrictions—or substantial impacts—when strict protection rules forbid commercial wood harvesting. In the current study, we aimed to assess to what extent forests are currently protected and how felling restrictions affect the potential annual wood supply and to discuss trade-offs between intensified use of forest biomass and forest protection efforts within Europe.
Methods General Approach The area and wood volumes affected by felling restrictions in Europe (in this study limited to 27 European Union member states, Norway, and Switzerland) were estimated
123
Environmental Management (2014) 53:1085–1094
in four steps. Firstly, data on the extent of protected forest areas were collected and the total area of protected forests was calculated. Secondly, the volume of wood that can be harvested from these protected areas was assessed by estimating the theoretical potentials for wood fellings (i.e., disregarding all forms of protection or limitations to mobilize the resources). Thirdly, restrictions to the volume of wood that can be felled in protected areas were estimated. Fourthly and finally, the data collected in the first three steps were combined to estimate the potential annual wood volume unavailable due to forest protection, using the following equation: n X V¼ Apij Fpotij Rij ð1Þ i;j
with V the wood volume unavailable due to forest protection, Ap the protected forest area, Fpot the theoretical felling potential, R the felling restrictions, i denoting the type of protection (protection of biodiversity or landscape diversity), and j denoting countries. Due to data availability, we based our analyses on national-level statistics. In addition, for few selected countries, we used spatially specific data on the distribution of protected areas. Protected Forest Area In Europe, a wide range of terms is used to denominate protected forests (Frank et al. 2007). To estimate the area of forests designated to biological and landscape diversity protection (Ap in Eq. 1), we included protected forests that were classified, according to the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, recently renamed to Forest Europe (MCPFE) guidelines on protected forest and other wooded land in Europe (Parviainen et al. 2010). These guidelines include only protected forests with a legal basis, a long-term commitment, and an explicit designation. The MCPFE guidelines distinguish two different classes of protected forests in Europe (and a third class for protective forests). The first class focuses on biodiversity and is divided into three sub-classes; 1.1: No Active intervention; 1.2: Minimum intervention; and 1.3: Conservation through active management. The second class focuses on protection of landscapes and specific natural elements. The forest area for each sub-class is available from Forest Europe (2011)for all countries in our study, except Austria for which for each sub-class was only available for forest and other wooded land (i.e., not only forest) (cf. Forest Europe 2011). We used the protected forest area in 2005 as a basis of our calculations. Data on the extent of protected areas are also available through a classification system by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Environmental Management (2014) 53:1085–1094
(IUCN), which include areas ‘‘of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means’’ (IUCN 1994). For Europe, data are available from the Common Database on Designated Areas (CDDA; EEA 2011a) and the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA; IUCN and UNEP-WCMC 2012). However, the IUCN classification system was not specifically designed for forests (Parviainen and Frank 2003; Frank et al. 2007; Parviainen et al. 2010), nor does it indicate for all sites whether it is covered by forest. Furthermore, spatial data are not complete for all countries (Mac Sharry 2011; Parviainen et al. 2010). Hence, we used the protected forest area estimates from Forest Europe (2011) as the main data source for our analysis, but used the spatial data for selected countries (see ‘‘Spatial Analysis’’ section). Felling Potentials To assess the felling potential in protected forests (Fpot in Eq. 1), first a maximum, theoretical felling potential was calculated. The theoretical felling potential reflects the maximum amount of stem volume that could be potentially harvested each year according to the principles of sustainable forest management. We used the net annual increment as a measure for the theoretical felling potential, as it relates to long-term sustainability (MCPFE 2003) and it has been suggested (in absence of more detailed data) for use in large-scale wood or biomass assessments (Vis and Dees 2011). This upper limit does not take into account any management restrictions and also does not take into account other environmental, social, economical, and technical factors that may further limit the felling potential (cf. Verkerk et al. 2011a). Net annual increment for the total forest area—including protected forests—is available at the European level from UNECE-FAO (2000). More recent estimates of the net annual increment (for example from Forest Europe 2011) refer only to the productive forest area available for wood supply and were, therefore, not used in this study. Felling Restrictions In the next step, we quantified felling restrictions (R in Eq. 1), which represent the limitations on wood harvesting within protected forest areas. We did not consider the effect of general requirements on forest management that are applicable to managed forests. For example, the Swedish Forestry Act sets requirements on green tree retention, set-aside areas, and creation of buffer zones, which reduce the potential supply of wood in Sweden by 7 % (Eriksson et al. 2007). Similar requirements may be
1087 Table 1 Restrictions to conventional management practices in protected forest areas as estimated by national experts within the COST action E27 study (Frank et al. 2007; Latham et al. 2005) and the assumed corresponding reduction in wood supply Description of restriction level
Restriction score (–)
Assumed reduction in wood supply (%)
Activity is strictly prohibited
A
100
Activity is usually prohibited, but with some exceptions or conditions Activity is usually allowed, but with some exceptions or conditions
B
67
C
33
Activity is allowed with no restrictions
D
0
applicable to other European countries, but they were not considered in our analysis. Data on felling restrictions in forests protected for biological and landscape diversity were obtained from the COST action E27 study on protected forests in Europe (Frank et al. 2007). The data were available from summary tables compiled between 2002 and 2005 by national experts for 22 countries (European Forest Institute 2007) and include 254 international, national, and regional protection types and consider a wide range of interpretations of protection (Latham et al. 2005). Restrictions to conventional management practices in protected forest areas were estimated by the national experts within the COST action E27 study and are given as scores (Table 1). We converted these scores into felling restrictions expressed as a percentage reduction in wood supply, i.e., 0 % means that fellings are allowed without restrictions, and 100 % means that fellings are strictly prohibited (Table 1). Based on the restriction levels for each individual-protected forest type in the dataset, we calculated national average restrictions distinguishing between forest protected for biodiversity and for landscape diversity, using the forested area within the protected sites as a weight. For biodiversity protection, we selected only protected forests that were classified by the national expert as IUCN class I, II, or IV, or MCPFE class 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3, or when the primary motivation for protection of the protected area was related to biodiversity. For landscape diversity protection, protected forests were selected that were classified by the national expert as IUCN class III, V, or VI, or MCPFE class 2, or when the primary motivation for protection of the protected area was related to landscape protection. In some cases, the size of a protected forest was not available and instead the size of the whole protected area (including non-forested areas) was used, assuming that 60 % (average of the dataset) of each protected area was covered with forest. Protected forest
123
1088
types without information on the extent of the (forested) areas were excluded from the analysis.
Environmental Management (2014) 53:1085–1094
annual increment of protected forests for the three selected countries.
Unavailable Wood Volume Results As a last step, we combined the data on protected forest areas (Ap), theoretical felling potential (Fpot), and the felling restrictions (R) and calculated the wood volumes unavailable due to forest protection according to Eq. 1. For countries without data on felling restrictions, we used the felling restrictions from neighboring countries. For Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia, we used the restriction level calculated for the Czech Republic; for Estonia and Latvia, we used the value from Lithuania; and for Luxembourg, we used the value from France. For Belgium, felling restriction for landscape diversity protection could not be calculated; instead, the restriction from the Netherlands was applied.
Spatial Analysis In our study, we used national-level statistics on forest area and net annual increment as a measure for the annual felling potentials of forests. For several countries, spatial data were available on the location of protected areas, as well as regional data on net annual increment, allowing us to analyze whether the location of protected areas affected our estimates of the annual felling potentials of forests. We selected Finland, Germany, and Italy for a more detailed analysis using spatial data, because these countries have rather complete data on the geographical location and boundaries of protected areas ([95 % of total number of sites listed in the database; Mac Sharry 2011) and the data are publically available (EEA 2011b). We included sites established before 2006 from the CDDA dataset (EEA 2011a) and made an overlay with a forest cover map (Gunia et al. 2012). Based on this overlay, we estimated the forest area within protected areas. We did not distinguish between sites protected for biodiversity and landscape diversity as data on the protection status were not complete. In addition to spatial data on the location of protected areas, we also collected regional level statistics on net annual increment for Finland (Peltola 2008), Germany (Bundeswaldinventur 2002), and Italy (INFC 2006). To avoid differences in national-level increment reported by the three national data sources and data from UNECE-FAO (2000), we calculated the increment volume share per region in the total increment volume reported by the national data sources and used those shares to subdivide national-level increment volume as reported by UNECEFAO (2000). Finally, we combined the spatial data on the location of the protected forest areas and the increment level in the regions they were located to estimate the net
123
About 16 million ha of European forests are covered by protection schemes with biodiversity as the main objective in 2005. This corresponded to 10 % of all European forests, but with considerable variation (0–35 %) among the countries (Fig. 1). About 76 % of all protected areas are included in only 5 countries (Spain, Italy, Germany, Finland, and Sweden), although this reflects to some extent the size of these countries. In addition to forest protected for biodiversity, large tracts of forest land have been protected for landscapes and specific natural elements. About 17 million ha were protected for this purpose. Landscape diversity protection prevailed in Central and Western Europe; Austria, Czech Republic, France, Poland, and Switzerland all have more than 15 % of their forests protected for landscapes and natural elements, but less than 5 % for biodiversity. On average, the potential wood volume that could annually be felled is about 4.4 m3 ha-1 year-1 in the whole study region (range between countries: 0.8–8.4 m3 ha-1 year-1), which corresponds to 721 million m3 year-1 that could potentially be felled on the total forest area. The largest theoretical felling potentials were located in Central and Western Europe. The felling potential, based on the national-level net annual increment, from forests protected for biodiversity is 71 and 105 million m3 year-1 from forests protected for landscape diversity (Fig. 2). Average felling restrictions in protected forests are presented in Fig. 3. The average felling restriction in forests protected for biodiversity over 22 countries is 48 % (range between countries: 34–85 %), i.e., 52 % of the wood volume in these protected forests can potentially be felled. Felling restrictions applied as well to the forests protected for landscape diversity and appeared to be equal or less strict than the restrictions applicable to forests protected for biodiversity. Especially in Switzerland and Austria, extensive forest areas have been designated to protect landscapes and natural elements, but few constraints are applied to the volumes of wood that can be felled in these areas. The average restriction level for landscape protection in Europe was around 40 % (range between countries 7–77 %). Based on the ranking of countries according to their restrictions on fellings, we infer that countries applying strong restrictions in forests protected for biodiversity also apply strong restrictions in forests designated to protect landscapes. We estimated that the potential annual volume of wood that could no longer be felled due to forests protected for
Environmental Management (2014) 53:1085–1094
1089
Fig. 1 Forests protected for biodiversity (a) and landscape diversity (b) as a percentage of the total forest area in 2005 (Forest Europe 2011). See Table 2 for country name abbreviations
wood could not be felled due to landscape diversity protection in European forests (5.2 % of theoretical potential; range between countries: 0–16 %). Altogether, forest protection in 2005 reduced the potential annual fellings by about 73 million m3 according to our calculations, which represents 10 % of the annual theoretical felling potential (range between countries 0–32 %). In our spatially explicit analysis for Finland, Germany, and Italy, we combined the location of protected sites with detailed forest maps and regional statistics on net annual increment. Our results (Fig. 4) indicate a similar felling potential for protected forests in Germany and Italy as compared to data presented in Fig. 2. For Finland, however, we estimated a felling potential 46 % less as compared to the potential presented in Fig. 2, mainly because the spatial data suggest that protected forests are located in the less productive Northern parts of the country, which have lower theoretical felling potentials as compared to the more productive forests in Southern parts of the country.
Discussion and Conclusions Fig. 2 Net Annual Increment as approximation of the theoretical felling potential in forests (UNECE-FAO 2000). See Table 2 for country name abbreviations
biodiversity in 2005 comprised 36 million m3 year-1 (5 % of the total theoretical annual potential of the total forest area; range between countries: 0–25 %) (Table 2). In addition to protection of biodiversity, about 37 million m3 year-1 of
Implications of Current Forest Protection Forest management affects species richness in European forests (Paillet et al. 2010), and past intensive management practices altered biodiversity in forested landscapes (Siitonen 2001; Wallenius et al. 2010; Brukas et al. 2013). Increased biomass production from forests for renewable energy could increase the pressure on forest biodiversity
123
1090
Environmental Management (2014) 53:1085–1094
Fig. 3 Average felling restrictions within protected forests with a biological and b landscape diversity protection as primary objective. 0 % means that fellings are allowed without restrictions, and 100 % means that fellings are strictly prohibited. Restrictions were calculated from data provided by national experts within the COST action E27 study (Frank et al. 2007; Latham et al. 2005). See Table 2 for country name abbreviations
(Bouget et al. 2012; Jonsell, 2008; Lamers et al. 2013; Pedroli et al. 2013; Verkerk et al. 2011b). However, our results suggest that forest protection also affects the potential wood supply from these forests. Given that policies are developed that may enhance both wood production and biodiversity protection, it is relevant to assess how these policies affect each other, as well as other services provided by forests. According to our data and calculations, about 33 million ha of forests were protected in the European Union, Norway, and Switzerland in 2005. Due to felling restrictions applied in these protected areas, the potential supply of wood from European forests could be reduced by 73 million m3 year-1, which represented about 16 % of the actual roundwood removals in 2005 in the study area (Forest Europe 2011). These results indicate that forest protection does reduce the potential wood or biomass supply from forests in Europe. However, it is not clear whether this reduction is significant. Protected areas are often located in areas with low accessibility (Boncina 2011; Gaston et al. 2008; Joppa and Pfaff 2009), and it may thus be economically infeasible to intensify the supply of wood from these areas. In addition, there is still a significant potential to increase wood supply from unprotected areas (Verkerk et al. 2011a) and it could thus be questioned whether there is a need to supply wood from these protected areas. Protected forests do, therefore, not necessarily affect the supply of wood given the current demand for wood in Europe. However, when demand for wood or biomass from European forests would significantly increase to meet the future demand for materials and
123
energy (UNECE-FAO 2011; Bo¨ttcher et al. 2012), the impact of existing protected forest networks may become significant after all. Uncertainties Our study is the first European-wide assessment that aimed to quantify the effect of forest protection on wood supply. Schmack et al. (2012) conducted a similar analysis for Germany and analyzed the effect on wood supply of Natura 2000 sites, protected according to the Habitats Directive of the European Union (Council Directive 92/43/EEC). They found that planned measures in the management plans of designated sites would reduce wood supply annually by 9.9 % within the protected areas (1.6 % of the annual wood supply at national level, or 0.9 million m3 year-1). Compared to Schmack et al. (2012), we estimated stronger felling restrictions (see Fig. 3) and larger volumes of wood being unavailable (see Table 2). The difference in unavailable wood volumes can probably be attributed to differences in estimated felling restrictions on the Natura 2000 sites as analyzed by Schmack et al. (2012) and the protected forests considered in our study. Differences can also be caused by different assumptions, methods, and data on the extent of the protected area, as well as the structure and growth of the protected forests. Due to data availability, we applied a simple approach in which we combined national-level statistics on protected forest areas and net annual increment of all forests in a country as a measure of the annual felling potential. For estimates on the
Environmental Management (2014) 53:1085–1094
1091
Table 2 Potential annual wood volumes that are unavailable as a result of felling restrictions in Europe due to forest protection for biological and landscape diversity in 2005 (in 1000 m3 and as percentage of theoretical potential of the total (protected and unprotected) forest area) Country
Biodiversity protection 1000 m3
Landscape diversity protection %
1000 m3
%
Austria
AT
429
1.5
697
2.5
Belgium Bulgaria
BE BG
84 342
1.6 2.8
108 292
2.0 2.4
Cyprus
CY
10
7.5
0
0.0
Czech
CZ
422
2.0
1,773
8.5
Denmark
DK
225
5.7
0
0.0
Estonia
EE
514
6.2
327
3.9
Finland
FI
5,537
7.4
2,379
3.2
France
FR
385
0.4
6,435
6.7
Germany
DE
8,017
8.6
14,912
16.0
Greece
GR
110
2.6
n.d.
n.d.
Hungary
HU
272
2.4
774
6.8
Ireland
IE
14
0.3
n.d.
n.d.
Italy
IT
6,645
24.5
1,930
7.1
Latvia
LV
985
6.5
316
2.1
Lithuania
LT
615
5.9
385
3.7
Luxembourg Malta
LU MT
0 n.d.
0.0 n.d.
0 n.d.
0.0 n.d.
the Netherlands
NL
194
7.7
112
4.5
Norway
NO
197
0.7
n.d.
n.d.
Poland
PL
879
2.0
2,595
5.9
Portugal
PT
1,302
9.0
1,310
9.0
Romania
RO
1,074
3.3
366
1.1
Slovakia
SK
1505
11.3
1,329
10.0
Slovenia
SI
586
8.2
240
3.3
Spain
ES
2,429
6.3
0
0.0
Sweden
SE
2,255
2.3
85
0.1 1.5
Switzerland
CH
95
1.0
136
United Kingdom
UK
707
4.2
796
4.7
35,831
5.0
37,298
5.2
Total n.d. no data
protected forest area, we used Forest Europe (2011) as the main source of data as the data are based on guidelines specifically designed for European conditions (Parviainen and Frank 2003; Parviainen et al. 2010). However, data based on the MCPFE classification system have been shown to deviate from data based on the IUCN classification system, largely due to differences in (interpretations of) the guidelines of both systems (Frank et al. 2007). Uncertainties in the extent of protected forest areas, as well as estimated restrictions imposed on these areas, have a strong impact on our estimates.
To assess the annual felling potential from protected areas, we used net annual increment of all forests in a country. It could be argued that using the net annual increment is not a correct measure for the felling potential of protected areas, which could be considered to be oldgrowth forests with no growth. However, Luyssaert et al. (2008) found that old-growth forests can continue to accumulate stem volume. The general view that protected areas are old-growth forests with no growth may thus not be correct. Furthermore, we assessed the long-term (reduction in) potential wood supply from protected forests; in case old-growth forests would be taken back into production, proper management actions may increase the growth rates of these areas. Finally, not all protected areas are strictly protected and our data on felling restrictions indicated that fellings are allowed to a fair extent in many protected sites. This suggests that these areas may be actively managed similar to unprotected production forests. For these reasons and in absence of detailed, spatially explicit forest inventory data for all protected areas, we considered the net annual increment as an appropriate measure to assess the long-term annual felling potential of forests (cf. Vis and Dees 2011). There are nevertheless uncertainties associated with using national-level estimates of net annual increment as a measure for the felling potential. Protected areas are typically located on sites with special features (Branquart et al. 2008) at higher elevation, on steeper slopes, and at greater distance from roads and cities (Joppa and Pfaff 2009), and protected areas are typically of lesser economic value (Norton 1999) due to low productivity or inaccessibility (Boncina 2011). Protected forests may thus exhibit growth rates that deviate from the average national net annual increment. This is also supported by the results of our spatial analysis for Finland, which showed that the majority of the protected forest area in Finland is located in Northern parts of the country with low increment rates (see also Peltola 2008). However, we could not confirm this finding with our spatial analysis for Germany and Italy, due to lack of detailed data on local growth rates. Nevertheless, there are uncertainties associated with the use of the national average net annual increment as a measure for the potential wood volumes that protected forests could potentially supply.
Concluding Remarks Forests are important for supplying wood and for protecting biological and landscape diversity. Within currently protected forest areas, we estimate that on average, 48 % of the volume cannot be felled in forests protected for biodiversity and 40 % in forests protected for landscape diversity due to restrictions on forest management
123
1092
Environmental Management (2014) 53:1085–1094
Fig. 4 Overview of location of protected areas (upper row), net annual increment (middle row), and the derived theoretical felling potential when using spatially explicit (‘‘spatial’’) or national-level statistical (‘‘nonspatial’’) data (lower row) in Finland, Germany, and Italy. See text for data references
within these areas. These restrictions reduce the long-term potential supply of wood from European forests by 73 million m3 annually. Conversely, as many protected sites are not strictly protected, this implies that 52 and 60 %, respectively, of the wood volume in these protected forests can potentially still be felled, although these rates differ largely between countries. This means that wood harvesting is allowed to a fair extent in forests protected for biological and landscape diversity. Given that management intensity may increase to meet future materials and energy needs, the question could be raised whether
123
biodiversity and landscape diversity are sufficiently protected even within designated areas. Careful planning is thus required to accommodate both the need for protection and the growing demand for wood—while not neglecting other goods and services that forests provide. Such planning requires identifying (i) where biodiversity and landscape diversity protection should be prioritized, (ii) where wood production could be optimized, but also (iii) where both biodiversity and landscape diversity and wood production could be combined through integrated forest management.
Environmental Management (2014) 53:1085–1094 Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank prof. Timo Pukkala and three anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier versions of this paper. This study was funded by the Confederation of European Paper Industries and by the European Commission as part of the EXIOPOL project (A New Environmental Accounting Framework Using Externality Data and Input–Output Tools for Policy Analysis (contract no. 037033-2)). Views expressed in this paper are those of the authors only.
References Bolkesjø TF, Tromborg E, Solberg B (2005) Increasing forest conservation in norway: consequences for timber and forest products markets. Environ Res Econ 31(1):95–115 Boncina A (2011) Conceptual approaches to integrate nature conservation into forest management: a Central European perspective. Int For Rev 13(1):13–22 Bo¨ttcher H, Verkerk PJ, Gusti M, Havlik P, Grassi G (2012) Projection of the future EU forest CO2 sink as affected by recent bioenergy policies using two advanced forest management models. GCB Bioenergy 4(6):773–783 Bouget C, Lassauce A, Jonsell M (2012) Effects of fuelwood harvesting on biodiversity—a review focused on the situation in Europe. Can J For Res 42:1421–1432 Branquart E, Verheyen K, Latham J (2008) Selection criteria of protected forest areas in Europe: the theory and the real world. Biol Conserv 141:2795–2806 Brukas V, Felton A, Lindbladh M, Sallna¨s O (2013) Linking forest management, policy and biodiversity indicators—A comparison of Lithuania and Southern Sweden. For Ecol Manag 291:181–189 Bundeswaldinventur (2002) National forest inventory. http://www. bundeswaldinventur.de. Accessed 30 May 2012 Butchart SHM, Walpole M, Collen B, van Strien A, Scharlemann JPW, Almond REA, Baillie JEM, Bomhard B, Brown C, Bruno J, Carpenter KE, Carr GM, Chanson J, Chenery AM, Csirke J, Davidson NC, Dentener F, Foster M, Galli A, Galloway JN, Genovesi P, Gregory RD, Hockings M, Kapos V, Lamarque J-F, Leverington F, Loh J, McGeoch MA, McRae L, Minasyan A, Morcillo MH, Oldfield TEE, Pauly D, Quader S, Revenga C, Sauer JR, Skolnik B, Spear D, Stanwell-Smith D, Stuart SN, Symes A, Tierney M, Tyrrell TD, Vie´ J-C, Watson R (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328:1164–1168 EEA (2011a) Nationally designated areas (National—CDDA). Version 9. European Environment Agency. http://www.eea.europa. eu/data-and-maps/data/ds_resolveuid/1ec5cbd6ab3294e2e7fe655 8cd81b940. Accessed 22 Mar 2012 EEA (2011b) European Common Database on Nationally Designated Areas (National—CDDA). Version 9—Quality control report. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen Eriksson LO, Sallna¨s O, Sta˚hl G (2007) Forest certification and Swedish wood supply. For Policy Econ 9:452–463 European Forest Institute (2007) COST E27. PFA tables. European Forest Institute. http://www.efi.int/portal/virtual_library/informa tion_services/cost_e27/results/pfa_tables/. Accessed 22 Jan 2008 Forest Europe, UNECE, FAO (2011) State of Europe’s forests 2011. Status and trends in sustainable forest management in Europe. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe. Forest Europe liaison unit Oslo, Aas Frank G, Parviainen J, Vandekerkhove K, Latham J, Schuck A, Little D (Eds.) (2007) COST Action E27 Protected forest areas in Europe-analysis and harmonisation (PROFOR): results,
1093 conclusions and recommendations. Federal research and training centre for forests, natural hazards and landscape (BFW), Vienna Gaston KJ, Jackson SF, Nagy A, Cantu´-Salazar L, Johnson M (2008) Protected areas in Europe. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1134:97–119 Gunia K, Pa¨ivinen R, Zudin S, Zudina E (2012) Forest map of Europe. European Forest Institute. http://www.efi.int/portal/virtual_library/ information_services/mapping_services/forest_map_of_europe/. Accessed 17 Feb 2012 Ha¨nninen R, Kallio AMI (2007) Economic impacts on the forest sector of increasing forest biodiversity conservation in Finland. Silva Fennica 41:507–523 INFC (2006) National Inventory of Forests and forest Carbon pools. http://www.sian.it/inventarioforestale/jsp/documentation.jsp. Accessed 30 May 2012 IUCN (1994) Guidelines for protected area management categories. IUCN commission on national parks and protected areas, World Conservation Monitoring Centre IUCN and UNEP-WCMC (2012) The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC. www.protec tedplanet.net. Accessed 01 Jan 2012 Jonsell M (2008) The effects of forest biomass harvesting on biodiversity. In: Ro¨ser D, Asikainen A, Raulund-Rasmussen K, Stupak I (eds) Sustainable use of forest biomass for energy. A synthesis with focus on the Baltic and Nordic region. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 129–154 Joppa LN, Pfaff A (2009) High and far: biases in the location of protected areas. PLoS One 4(12):e8273 Kallio AMI, Moiseyev A, Solberg B (2006) Economic impacts of increased forest conservation in Europe: a forest sector model analysis. Environ Sci Policy 9:457–465 Kraus D, Krumm F (eds) (2013) Integrative approaches as an opportunity for the conservation of forest biodiversity. European Forest Institute Lambin EF, Meyfroidt P (2011) Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:3465–3472 Lamers P, Thiffault E, Pare´ D, Junginger M (2013) Feedstock specific environmental risk levels related to biomass extraction for energy from boreal and temperate forests. Biomass Bioenergy 55:212–226 Latham J, Frank GF, Fahy O, Kirby K, Miller H, Stiven R (Eds.) (2005) Cost Action E27 Protected forest areas in Europe— analysis and harmonisation (PROFOR): reports of signatory states. Federal research and training centre for forests, natural hazards and landscape (BFW), Vienna Leppa¨nen J, Linden M, Uusivuori J, Pajuoja H (2005) The private cost and timber market implications of increasing strict forest conservation in Finland. For Policy Econ 7:71–83 Linden M, Uusivuori J (2002) Econometric analysis of forest conservation: the Finnish experience. Environ Dev Econ 7:281–297 Luyssaert S, Schulze ED, Bo¨rner A, Knohl A, Hessenmo¨ller D, Law BE, Ciais P, Grace J (2008) Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature 455:213–215 Mac Sharry B (2011) Merged European CDDA dataset for 2011. Public version. European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity (ETC/BD) Mayer AL, Kauppi PE, Angelstam PK, Zhang Y, Tikka PM (2005) Importing timber, exporting ecological impact. Science 308:359–360 Mayer AL, Kauppi PE, Tikka PM, Angelstam PK (2006) Conservation implications of exporting domestic wood harvest to neighboring countries. Environ Sci Policy 9:228–236 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
123
1094 McShane TO, Hirsch PD, Trung TC, Songorwa AN, Kinzig A, Monteferri B, Mutekanga D, Thang HV, Dammert JL, PulgarVidal M, Welch-Devine M, Peter Brosius J, Coppolillo P, O’Connor S (2011) Hard choices: making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biol Conserv 144(3):966–972 Norton DA (1999) Forest reserves. In: Hunter ML (ed) Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 525–555 ´ dor P, Avon C, BernhardtPaillet Y, Berge`s L, Hja¨lte´n J, O Ro¨mermann M, Bijlsma R-J, De Bruyn LUC, Fuhr M, Grandin ULF, 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 KAI, Virtanen R (2010) Biodiversity differences between managed and unmanaged forests: meta-analysis of species richness in Europe. Conserv Biol 24:101–112 Parviainen J, Frank G (2003) Protected forests in Europe approachesharmonising the definitions for international comparison and forest policy making. J Environ Manag 67:27–36 Parviainen J, Frank G, Bu¨cking W, Schuck A, Vandekerkhove K (2010) Information document on data collection and compiling the statistics on protected and protective forest and other wooded land for pan-European reporting. United Nations, Geneva Pedroli B, Elbersen B, Frederiksen P, Grandin U, Heikkila¨ R, Krogh PH, Izakovicˇova´ Z, Johansen A, Meiresonne L, Spijker J (2013) Is energy cropping in Europe compatible with biodiversity?— Opportunities and threats to biodiversity from land-based production of biomass for bioenergy purposes. Biomass Bioenergy 55:73–86 Peltola A (ed) (2008) Finnish statistical yearbook of forestry 2008. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Vammala Radeloff VC, Beaudry F, Brooks TM, Butsic V, Dubinin M, Kuemmerle T, Pidgeon AM (2013) Hot moments for biodiversity conservation. Conserv Lett 6:58–65
123
Environmental Management (2014) 53:1085–1094 Reid WV, Miller KR (1989) Keeping options alive: the scientific basis for conserving biodiversity. World Resources Institute, Washington ¨ hman K, Nordstro¨m E-M (2011) Sandstro¨m C, Lindkvist A, O Governing competing demands for forest resources in Sweden. Forests 2:218–242 Schmack S, Aichholz R, Hartebrodt C (2012) Modellgestu¨tzte Bewertung naturschutzfachlicher Restriktionen. AFZ-Der Wald 20:20–25 (in German) Siitonen J (2001) Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylic organisms: fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecol Bull 49:11–41 Sohngen B, Mendelsohn R, Sedjo R (1999) Forest management, conservation, and global timber markets. Am J Agric Econ 81:1–13 UNECE-FAO (2000) Forest Resources of Europe, CIS, North America, Australia, Japan and New Zealand. Contribution to the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000. UN, New York and Geneva UNECE-FAO (2011) The European forest sector outlook study II. 2010–2030. ECE/TIM/SP/28. United Nations, Geneva Verkerk PJ, Anttila P, Eggers J, Lindner M, Asikainen A (2011a) The realisable potential supply of woody biomass from forests in the European Union. For Ecol Manag 261:2007–2015 Verkerk PJ, Lindner M, Zanchi G, Zudin S (2011b) Assessing impacts of intensified biomass removal on deadwood in European forests. Ecol Ind 11:27–35 Vis M, Dees M (eds) (2011) Biomass resource assessment handbook: harmonisation of biomass resource assessments, best practices and methods handbook. VDM Verlag Dr. Mu¨ller, Saarbru¨cken Wallenius T, Niskanen L, Virtanen T, Hottola J, Brumelis G, Angervuori A, Julkunen J, Pihlstro¨m M (2010) Loss of habitats, naturalness and species diversity in Eurasian forest landscapes. Ecol Ind 10:1093–1101
Trade-Offs Between Forest Protection and Wood Supply in Europe Pieter Johannes Verkerk • Giuliana Zanchi Marcus Lindner
•
Received: 20 August 2013 / Accepted: 17 March 2014 / Published online: 4 April 2014 Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract Forest protection is one of the main measures to prevent loss of biological and landscape diversity. This study aimed to assess to what extent forests are currently protected and how felling restrictions affect the potential annual wood supply within 27 European Union member states, Norway, and Switzerland and to discuss trade-offs between intensified use of forest biomass and forest protection efforts. Protected forests covered 33 million ha (20 % of total forest area) in 2005, of which 16 million ha was protected for biodiversity and the remaining area for landscape diversity. Within the protected areas, on average 48 % of the volume cannot be harvested in forests protected for biodiversity and 40 % in forests protected for landscapes. Consequently, 73 million m3 (10 % of the annual theoretical potential supply from the total forest area) of wood cannot be felled from the protected forests in Europe. Protected forests do not necessarily affect wood supply given the current demand for wood in Europe. However, if demand for wood from European forests for material and energy use significantly increases, the impact of existing protected forest networks may become significant after all. On the other hand, wood harvesting is allowed to a fair extent in many protected areas. Hence, the question could be raised whether biodiversity and landscape diversity within designated areas are sufficiently protected. Careful planning is required to accommodate both the protection of biological and landscape diversity and demand for wood, while not forgetting all other services that forests provide. P. J. Verkerk (&) G. Zanchi M. Lindner European Forest Institute, Sustainability and Climate Change Programme, Yliopistokatu 6, 80100 Joensuu, Finland e-mail: [email protected] G. Zanchi Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science, Lund University, So¨lvegatan 12, 22362 Lund, Sweden
Keywords Biodiversity Bio-energy Forest protection Trade-offs Wood supply
Introduction Despite commitments of many countries to conserve biodiversity (e.g., the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity), biodiversity is still showing signs of decline globally (Butchart et al. 2010). Intensive forest management has affected biodiversity in European forests (Siitonen 2001; Wallenius et al. 2010; Brukas et al. 2013), and there is pressure to protect forests to prevent further loss of biodiversity. On the other hand, policies are developed to increase the share of renewable energy in energy consumption (e.g., Directive 2009/28/EC), which may lead to a greater demand for wood or biomass from forests (UNECE-FAO 2011; Bo¨ttcher et al. 2012). The combination of policies related to biodiversity and intensified use of forest biomass may result in a classical dilemma between wood production and forest protection: more wood may be removed from the forest to meet the future demand for wood for material and energy use, which will lead to an intensification of management. This intensification, however, may increase the pressure on forest biodiversity. Understanding such trade-offs and defining optimal strategies to achieve different policy goals are a key challenge for scientists, decision makers, and forest managers (McShane et al. 2011; Sandstro¨m et al. 2011). The demand for wood for material and energy use is expected to increase substantially in the next few decades, which could partially be met by importing wood to Europe (UNECE-FAO 2011), but this may lead to negative impacts on biodiversity in other parts of the world (Sohngen et al. 1999; Lambin and Meyfroidt 2011). Such biodiversity
123
1086
impacts outside Europe may even affect biodiversity within Europe through species dispersal and migration across European borders (Mayer et al. 2005; 2006). Another option is to increase domestic wood removals (Verkerk et al. 2011a), but to what extent European forests can satisfy an increased wood demand, without compromising biodiversity goals, remains an open question. There are generally two broad approaches to maintain biodiversity; firstly, protected area networks can be created in which ecosystems and species are conserved which are unlikely to survive in intensively managed areas (Parviainen and Frank 2003). This is a more segregative approach as part of the forest area is designated to the protection of biodiversity, while wood production is allocated to the remaining part of the entire forest area (Boncina 2011). Secondly, appropriate management regimes may be developed to maintain biodiversity in production forests (Parviainen and Frank 2003). This follows a more integrative approach as it tries to combine biodiversity protection with wood production within the same forest area (Boncina 2011). Whereas the integrative approach has recently received a lot of attention in Europe (Boncina 2011; Kraus and Krumm 2013), historically the segregative forest protection approach has been a common method to protect biological and landscape diversity, as protected areas have been established over a long time (Reid and Miller 1989) and new protected areas are still being designated (Gaston et al. 2008; Radeloff et al. 2013) through policies and measures that may vary substantially from country to country. Whereas several studies have been conducted to model impacts of extending protected forest areas (see e.g., Linden and Uusivuori 2002; Bolkesjø et al. 2005; Leppa¨nen et al. 2005; Kallio et al. 2006; Ha¨nninen and Kallio 2007; UNECE-FAO 2011), the impact of existing protected forest areas on wood supply is not clear. Protected areas may have either a negligible impact on wood supply—when protection does not lead to any management and exploitation restrictions—or substantial impacts—when strict protection rules forbid commercial wood harvesting. In the current study, we aimed to assess to what extent forests are currently protected and how felling restrictions affect the potential annual wood supply and to discuss trade-offs between intensified use of forest biomass and forest protection efforts within Europe.
Methods General Approach The area and wood volumes affected by felling restrictions in Europe (in this study limited to 27 European Union member states, Norway, and Switzerland) were estimated
123
Environmental Management (2014) 53:1085–1094
in four steps. Firstly, data on the extent of protected forest areas were collected and the total area of protected forests was calculated. Secondly, the volume of wood that can be harvested from these protected areas was assessed by estimating the theoretical potentials for wood fellings (i.e., disregarding all forms of protection or limitations to mobilize the resources). Thirdly, restrictions to the volume of wood that can be felled in protected areas were estimated. Fourthly and finally, the data collected in the first three steps were combined to estimate the potential annual wood volume unavailable due to forest protection, using the following equation: n X V¼ Apij Fpotij Rij ð1Þ i;j
with V the wood volume unavailable due to forest protection, Ap the protected forest area, Fpot the theoretical felling potential, R the felling restrictions, i denoting the type of protection (protection of biodiversity or landscape diversity), and j denoting countries. Due to data availability, we based our analyses on national-level statistics. In addition, for few selected countries, we used spatially specific data on the distribution of protected areas. Protected Forest Area In Europe, a wide range of terms is used to denominate protected forests (Frank et al. 2007). To estimate the area of forests designated to biological and landscape diversity protection (Ap in Eq. 1), we included protected forests that were classified, according to the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, recently renamed to Forest Europe (MCPFE) guidelines on protected forest and other wooded land in Europe (Parviainen et al. 2010). These guidelines include only protected forests with a legal basis, a long-term commitment, and an explicit designation. The MCPFE guidelines distinguish two different classes of protected forests in Europe (and a third class for protective forests). The first class focuses on biodiversity and is divided into three sub-classes; 1.1: No Active intervention; 1.2: Minimum intervention; and 1.3: Conservation through active management. The second class focuses on protection of landscapes and specific natural elements. The forest area for each sub-class is available from Forest Europe (2011)for all countries in our study, except Austria for which for each sub-class was only available for forest and other wooded land (i.e., not only forest) (cf. Forest Europe 2011). We used the protected forest area in 2005 as a basis of our calculations. Data on the extent of protected areas are also available through a classification system by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Environmental Management (2014) 53:1085–1094
(IUCN), which include areas ‘‘of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means’’ (IUCN 1994). For Europe, data are available from the Common Database on Designated Areas (CDDA; EEA 2011a) and the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA; IUCN and UNEP-WCMC 2012). However, the IUCN classification system was not specifically designed for forests (Parviainen and Frank 2003; Frank et al. 2007; Parviainen et al. 2010), nor does it indicate for all sites whether it is covered by forest. Furthermore, spatial data are not complete for all countries (Mac Sharry 2011; Parviainen et al. 2010). Hence, we used the protected forest area estimates from Forest Europe (2011) as the main data source for our analysis, but used the spatial data for selected countries (see ‘‘Spatial Analysis’’ section). Felling Potentials To assess the felling potential in protected forests (Fpot in Eq. 1), first a maximum, theoretical felling potential was calculated. The theoretical felling potential reflects the maximum amount of stem volume that could be potentially harvested each year according to the principles of sustainable forest management. We used the net annual increment as a measure for the theoretical felling potential, as it relates to long-term sustainability (MCPFE 2003) and it has been suggested (in absence of more detailed data) for use in large-scale wood or biomass assessments (Vis and Dees 2011). This upper limit does not take into account any management restrictions and also does not take into account other environmental, social, economical, and technical factors that may further limit the felling potential (cf. Verkerk et al. 2011a). Net annual increment for the total forest area—including protected forests—is available at the European level from UNECE-FAO (2000). More recent estimates of the net annual increment (for example from Forest Europe 2011) refer only to the productive forest area available for wood supply and were, therefore, not used in this study. Felling Restrictions In the next step, we quantified felling restrictions (R in Eq. 1), which represent the limitations on wood harvesting within protected forest areas. We did not consider the effect of general requirements on forest management that are applicable to managed forests. For example, the Swedish Forestry Act sets requirements on green tree retention, set-aside areas, and creation of buffer zones, which reduce the potential supply of wood in Sweden by 7 % (Eriksson et al. 2007). Similar requirements may be
1087 Table 1 Restrictions to conventional management practices in protected forest areas as estimated by national experts within the COST action E27 study (Frank et al. 2007; Latham et al. 2005) and the assumed corresponding reduction in wood supply Description of restriction level
Restriction score (–)
Assumed reduction in wood supply (%)
Activity is strictly prohibited
A
100
Activity is usually prohibited, but with some exceptions or conditions Activity is usually allowed, but with some exceptions or conditions
B
67
C
33
Activity is allowed with no restrictions
D
0
applicable to other European countries, but they were not considered in our analysis. Data on felling restrictions in forests protected for biological and landscape diversity were obtained from the COST action E27 study on protected forests in Europe (Frank et al. 2007). The data were available from summary tables compiled between 2002 and 2005 by national experts for 22 countries (European Forest Institute 2007) and include 254 international, national, and regional protection types and consider a wide range of interpretations of protection (Latham et al. 2005). Restrictions to conventional management practices in protected forest areas were estimated by the national experts within the COST action E27 study and are given as scores (Table 1). We converted these scores into felling restrictions expressed as a percentage reduction in wood supply, i.e., 0 % means that fellings are allowed without restrictions, and 100 % means that fellings are strictly prohibited (Table 1). Based on the restriction levels for each individual-protected forest type in the dataset, we calculated national average restrictions distinguishing between forest protected for biodiversity and for landscape diversity, using the forested area within the protected sites as a weight. For biodiversity protection, we selected only protected forests that were classified by the national expert as IUCN class I, II, or IV, or MCPFE class 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3, or when the primary motivation for protection of the protected area was related to biodiversity. For landscape diversity protection, protected forests were selected that were classified by the national expert as IUCN class III, V, or VI, or MCPFE class 2, or when the primary motivation for protection of the protected area was related to landscape protection. In some cases, the size of a protected forest was not available and instead the size of the whole protected area (including non-forested areas) was used, assuming that 60 % (average of the dataset) of each protected area was covered with forest. Protected forest
123
1088
types without information on the extent of the (forested) areas were excluded from the analysis.
Environmental Management (2014) 53:1085–1094
annual increment of protected forests for the three selected countries.
Unavailable Wood Volume Results As a last step, we combined the data on protected forest areas (Ap), theoretical felling potential (Fpot), and the felling restrictions (R) and calculated the wood volumes unavailable due to forest protection according to Eq. 1. For countries without data on felling restrictions, we used the felling restrictions from neighboring countries. For Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia, we used the restriction level calculated for the Czech Republic; for Estonia and Latvia, we used the value from Lithuania; and for Luxembourg, we used the value from France. For Belgium, felling restriction for landscape diversity protection could not be calculated; instead, the restriction from the Netherlands was applied.
Spatial Analysis In our study, we used national-level statistics on forest area and net annual increment as a measure for the annual felling potentials of forests. For several countries, spatial data were available on the location of protected areas, as well as regional data on net annual increment, allowing us to analyze whether the location of protected areas affected our estimates of the annual felling potentials of forests. We selected Finland, Germany, and Italy for a more detailed analysis using spatial data, because these countries have rather complete data on the geographical location and boundaries of protected areas ([95 % of total number of sites listed in the database; Mac Sharry 2011) and the data are publically available (EEA 2011b). We included sites established before 2006 from the CDDA dataset (EEA 2011a) and made an overlay with a forest cover map (Gunia et al. 2012). Based on this overlay, we estimated the forest area within protected areas. We did not distinguish between sites protected for biodiversity and landscape diversity as data on the protection status were not complete. In addition to spatial data on the location of protected areas, we also collected regional level statistics on net annual increment for Finland (Peltola 2008), Germany (Bundeswaldinventur 2002), and Italy (INFC 2006). To avoid differences in national-level increment reported by the three national data sources and data from UNECE-FAO (2000), we calculated the increment volume share per region in the total increment volume reported by the national data sources and used those shares to subdivide national-level increment volume as reported by UNECEFAO (2000). Finally, we combined the spatial data on the location of the protected forest areas and the increment level in the regions they were located to estimate the net
123
About 16 million ha of European forests are covered by protection schemes with biodiversity as the main objective in 2005. This corresponded to 10 % of all European forests, but with considerable variation (0–35 %) among the countries (Fig. 1). About 76 % of all protected areas are included in only 5 countries (Spain, Italy, Germany, Finland, and Sweden), although this reflects to some extent the size of these countries. In addition to forest protected for biodiversity, large tracts of forest land have been protected for landscapes and specific natural elements. About 17 million ha were protected for this purpose. Landscape diversity protection prevailed in Central and Western Europe; Austria, Czech Republic, France, Poland, and Switzerland all have more than 15 % of their forests protected for landscapes and natural elements, but less than 5 % for biodiversity. On average, the potential wood volume that could annually be felled is about 4.4 m3 ha-1 year-1 in the whole study region (range between countries: 0.8–8.4 m3 ha-1 year-1), which corresponds to 721 million m3 year-1 that could potentially be felled on the total forest area. The largest theoretical felling potentials were located in Central and Western Europe. The felling potential, based on the national-level net annual increment, from forests protected for biodiversity is 71 and 105 million m3 year-1 from forests protected for landscape diversity (Fig. 2). Average felling restrictions in protected forests are presented in Fig. 3. The average felling restriction in forests protected for biodiversity over 22 countries is 48 % (range between countries: 34–85 %), i.e., 52 % of the wood volume in these protected forests can potentially be felled. Felling restrictions applied as well to the forests protected for landscape diversity and appeared to be equal or less strict than the restrictions applicable to forests protected for biodiversity. Especially in Switzerland and Austria, extensive forest areas have been designated to protect landscapes and natural elements, but few constraints are applied to the volumes of wood that can be felled in these areas. The average restriction level for landscape protection in Europe was around 40 % (range between countries 7–77 %). Based on the ranking of countries according to their restrictions on fellings, we infer that countries applying strong restrictions in forests protected for biodiversity also apply strong restrictions in forests designated to protect landscapes. We estimated that the potential annual volume of wood that could no longer be felled due to forests protected for
Environmental Management (2014) 53:1085–1094
1089
Fig. 1 Forests protected for biodiversity (a) and landscape diversity (b) as a percentage of the total forest area in 2005 (Forest Europe 2011). See Table 2 for country name abbreviations
wood could not be felled due to landscape diversity protection in European forests (5.2 % of theoretical potential; range between countries: 0–16 %). Altogether, forest protection in 2005 reduced the potential annual fellings by about 73 million m3 according to our calculations, which represents 10 % of the annual theoretical felling potential (range between countries 0–32 %). In our spatially explicit analysis for Finland, Germany, and Italy, we combined the location of protected sites with detailed forest maps and regional statistics on net annual increment. Our results (Fig. 4) indicate a similar felling potential for protected forests in Germany and Italy as compared to data presented in Fig. 2. For Finland, however, we estimated a felling potential 46 % less as compared to the potential presented in Fig. 2, mainly because the spatial data suggest that protected forests are located in the less productive Northern parts of the country, which have lower theoretical felling potentials as compared to the more productive forests in Southern parts of the country.
Discussion and Conclusions Fig. 2 Net Annual Increment as approximation of the theoretical felling potential in forests (UNECE-FAO 2000). See Table 2 for country name abbreviations
biodiversity in 2005 comprised 36 million m3 year-1 (5 % of the total theoretical annual potential of the total forest area; range between countries: 0–25 %) (Table 2). In addition to protection of biodiversity, about 37 million m3 year-1 of
Implications of Current Forest Protection Forest management affects species richness in European forests (Paillet et al. 2010), and past intensive management practices altered biodiversity in forested landscapes (Siitonen 2001; Wallenius et al. 2010; Brukas et al. 2013). Increased biomass production from forests for renewable energy could increase the pressure on forest biodiversity
123
1090
Environmental Management (2014) 53:1085–1094
Fig. 3 Average felling restrictions within protected forests with a biological and b landscape diversity protection as primary objective. 0 % means that fellings are allowed without restrictions, and 100 % means that fellings are strictly prohibited. Restrictions were calculated from data provided by national experts within the COST action E27 study (Frank et al. 2007; Latham et al. 2005). See Table 2 for country name abbreviations
(Bouget et al. 2012; Jonsell, 2008; Lamers et al. 2013; Pedroli et al. 2013; Verkerk et al. 2011b). However, our results suggest that forest protection also affects the potential wood supply from these forests. Given that policies are developed that may enhance both wood production and biodiversity protection, it is relevant to assess how these policies affect each other, as well as other services provided by forests. According to our data and calculations, about 33 million ha of forests were protected in the European Union, Norway, and Switzerland in 2005. Due to felling restrictions applied in these protected areas, the potential supply of wood from European forests could be reduced by 73 million m3 year-1, which represented about 16 % of the actual roundwood removals in 2005 in the study area (Forest Europe 2011). These results indicate that forest protection does reduce the potential wood or biomass supply from forests in Europe. However, it is not clear whether this reduction is significant. Protected areas are often located in areas with low accessibility (Boncina 2011; Gaston et al. 2008; Joppa and Pfaff 2009), and it may thus be economically infeasible to intensify the supply of wood from these areas. In addition, there is still a significant potential to increase wood supply from unprotected areas (Verkerk et al. 2011a) and it could thus be questioned whether there is a need to supply wood from these protected areas. Protected forests do, therefore, not necessarily affect the supply of wood given the current demand for wood in Europe. However, when demand for wood or biomass from European forests would significantly increase to meet the future demand for materials and
123
energy (UNECE-FAO 2011; Bo¨ttcher et al. 2012), the impact of existing protected forest networks may become significant after all. Uncertainties Our study is the first European-wide assessment that aimed to quantify the effect of forest protection on wood supply. Schmack et al. (2012) conducted a similar analysis for Germany and analyzed the effect on wood supply of Natura 2000 sites, protected according to the Habitats Directive of the European Union (Council Directive 92/43/EEC). They found that planned measures in the management plans of designated sites would reduce wood supply annually by 9.9 % within the protected areas (1.6 % of the annual wood supply at national level, or 0.9 million m3 year-1). Compared to Schmack et al. (2012), we estimated stronger felling restrictions (see Fig. 3) and larger volumes of wood being unavailable (see Table 2). The difference in unavailable wood volumes can probably be attributed to differences in estimated felling restrictions on the Natura 2000 sites as analyzed by Schmack et al. (2012) and the protected forests considered in our study. Differences can also be caused by different assumptions, methods, and data on the extent of the protected area, as well as the structure and growth of the protected forests. Due to data availability, we applied a simple approach in which we combined national-level statistics on protected forest areas and net annual increment of all forests in a country as a measure of the annual felling potential. For estimates on the
Environmental Management (2014) 53:1085–1094
1091
Table 2 Potential annual wood volumes that are unavailable as a result of felling restrictions in Europe due to forest protection for biological and landscape diversity in 2005 (in 1000 m3 and as percentage of theoretical potential of the total (protected and unprotected) forest area) Country
Biodiversity protection 1000 m3
Landscape diversity protection %
1000 m3
%
Austria
AT
429
1.5
697
2.5
Belgium Bulgaria
BE BG
84 342
1.6 2.8
108 292
2.0 2.4
Cyprus
CY
10
7.5
0
0.0
Czech
CZ
422
2.0
1,773
8.5
Denmark
DK
225
5.7
0
0.0
Estonia
EE
514
6.2
327
3.9
Finland
FI
5,537
7.4
2,379
3.2
France
FR
385
0.4
6,435
6.7
Germany
DE
8,017
8.6
14,912
16.0
Greece
GR
110
2.6
n.d.
n.d.
Hungary
HU
272
2.4
774
6.8
Ireland
IE
14
0.3
n.d.
n.d.
Italy
IT
6,645
24.5
1,930
7.1
Latvia
LV
985
6.5
316
2.1
Lithuania
LT
615
5.9
385
3.7
Luxembourg Malta
LU MT
0 n.d.
0.0 n.d.
0 n.d.
0.0 n.d.
the Netherlands
NL
194
7.7
112
4.5
Norway
NO
197
0.7
n.d.
n.d.
Poland
PL
879
2.0
2,595
5.9
Portugal
PT
1,302
9.0
1,310
9.0
Romania
RO
1,074
3.3
366
1.1
Slovakia
SK
1505
11.3
1,329
10.0
Slovenia
SI
586
8.2
240
3.3
Spain
ES
2,429
6.3
0
0.0
Sweden
SE
2,255
2.3
85
0.1 1.5
Switzerland
CH
95
1.0
136
United Kingdom
UK
707
4.2
796
4.7
35,831
5.0
37,298
5.2
Total n.d. no data
protected forest area, we used Forest Europe (2011) as the main source of data as the data are based on guidelines specifically designed for European conditions (Parviainen and Frank 2003; Parviainen et al. 2010). However, data based on the MCPFE classification system have been shown to deviate from data based on the IUCN classification system, largely due to differences in (interpretations of) the guidelines of both systems (Frank et al. 2007). Uncertainties in the extent of protected forest areas, as well as estimated restrictions imposed on these areas, have a strong impact on our estimates.
To assess the annual felling potential from protected areas, we used net annual increment of all forests in a country. It could be argued that using the net annual increment is not a correct measure for the felling potential of protected areas, which could be considered to be oldgrowth forests with no growth. However, Luyssaert et al. (2008) found that old-growth forests can continue to accumulate stem volume. The general view that protected areas are old-growth forests with no growth may thus not be correct. Furthermore, we assessed the long-term (reduction in) potential wood supply from protected forests; in case old-growth forests would be taken back into production, proper management actions may increase the growth rates of these areas. Finally, not all protected areas are strictly protected and our data on felling restrictions indicated that fellings are allowed to a fair extent in many protected sites. This suggests that these areas may be actively managed similar to unprotected production forests. For these reasons and in absence of detailed, spatially explicit forest inventory data for all protected areas, we considered the net annual increment as an appropriate measure to assess the long-term annual felling potential of forests (cf. Vis and Dees 2011). There are nevertheless uncertainties associated with using national-level estimates of net annual increment as a measure for the felling potential. Protected areas are typically located on sites with special features (Branquart et al. 2008) at higher elevation, on steeper slopes, and at greater distance from roads and cities (Joppa and Pfaff 2009), and protected areas are typically of lesser economic value (Norton 1999) due to low productivity or inaccessibility (Boncina 2011). Protected forests may thus exhibit growth rates that deviate from the average national net annual increment. This is also supported by the results of our spatial analysis for Finland, which showed that the majority of the protected forest area in Finland is located in Northern parts of the country with low increment rates (see also Peltola 2008). However, we could not confirm this finding with our spatial analysis for Germany and Italy, due to lack of detailed data on local growth rates. Nevertheless, there are uncertainties associated with the use of the national average net annual increment as a measure for the potential wood volumes that protected forests could potentially supply.
Concluding Remarks Forests are important for supplying wood and for protecting biological and landscape diversity. Within currently protected forest areas, we estimate that on average, 48 % of the volume cannot be felled in forests protected for biodiversity and 40 % in forests protected for landscape diversity due to restrictions on forest management
123
1092
Environmental Management (2014) 53:1085–1094
Fig. 4 Overview of location of protected areas (upper row), net annual increment (middle row), and the derived theoretical felling potential when using spatially explicit (‘‘spatial’’) or national-level statistical (‘‘nonspatial’’) data (lower row) in Finland, Germany, and Italy. See text for data references
within these areas. These restrictions reduce the long-term potential supply of wood from European forests by 73 million m3 annually. Conversely, as many protected sites are not strictly protected, this implies that 52 and 60 %, respectively, of the wood volume in these protected forests can potentially still be felled, although these rates differ largely between countries. This means that wood harvesting is allowed to a fair extent in forests protected for biological and landscape diversity. Given that management intensity may increase to meet future materials and energy needs, the question could be raised whether
123
biodiversity and landscape diversity are sufficiently protected even within designated areas. Careful planning is thus required to accommodate both the need for protection and the growing demand for wood—while not neglecting other goods and services that forests provide. Such planning requires identifying (i) where biodiversity and landscape diversity protection should be prioritized, (ii) where wood production could be optimized, but also (iii) where both biodiversity and landscape diversity and wood production could be combined through integrated forest management.
Environmental Management (2014) 53:1085–1094 Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank prof. Timo Pukkala and three anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier versions of this paper. This study was funded by the Confederation of European Paper Industries and by the European Commission as part of the EXIOPOL project (A New Environmental Accounting Framework Using Externality Data and Input–Output Tools for Policy Analysis (contract no. 037033-2)). Views expressed in this paper are those of the authors only.
References Bolkesjø TF, Tromborg E, Solberg B (2005) Increasing forest conservation in norway: consequences for timber and forest products markets. Environ Res Econ 31(1):95–115 Boncina A (2011) Conceptual approaches to integrate nature conservation into forest management: a Central European perspective. Int For Rev 13(1):13–22 Bo¨ttcher H, Verkerk PJ, Gusti M, Havlik P, Grassi G (2012) Projection of the future EU forest CO2 sink as affected by recent bioenergy policies using two advanced forest management models. GCB Bioenergy 4(6):773–783 Bouget C, Lassauce A, Jonsell M (2012) Effects of fuelwood harvesting on biodiversity—a review focused on the situation in Europe. Can J For Res 42:1421–1432 Branquart E, Verheyen K, Latham J (2008) Selection criteria of protected forest areas in Europe: the theory and the real world. Biol Conserv 141:2795–2806 Brukas V, Felton A, Lindbladh M, Sallna¨s O (2013) Linking forest management, policy and biodiversity indicators—A comparison of Lithuania and Southern Sweden. For Ecol Manag 291:181–189 Bundeswaldinventur (2002) National forest inventory. http://www. bundeswaldinventur.de. Accessed 30 May 2012 Butchart SHM, Walpole M, Collen B, van Strien A, Scharlemann JPW, Almond REA, Baillie JEM, Bomhard B, Brown C, Bruno J, Carpenter KE, Carr GM, Chanson J, Chenery AM, Csirke J, Davidson NC, Dentener F, Foster M, Galli A, Galloway JN, Genovesi P, Gregory RD, Hockings M, Kapos V, Lamarque J-F, Leverington F, Loh J, McGeoch MA, McRae L, Minasyan A, Morcillo MH, Oldfield TEE, Pauly D, Quader S, Revenga C, Sauer JR, Skolnik B, Spear D, Stanwell-Smith D, Stuart SN, Symes A, Tierney M, Tyrrell TD, Vie´ J-C, Watson R (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328:1164–1168 EEA (2011a) Nationally designated areas (National—CDDA). Version 9. European Environment Agency. http://www.eea.europa. eu/data-and-maps/data/ds_resolveuid/1ec5cbd6ab3294e2e7fe655 8cd81b940. Accessed 22 Mar 2012 EEA (2011b) European Common Database on Nationally Designated Areas (National—CDDA). Version 9—Quality control report. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen Eriksson LO, Sallna¨s O, Sta˚hl G (2007) Forest certification and Swedish wood supply. For Policy Econ 9:452–463 European Forest Institute (2007) COST E27. PFA tables. European Forest Institute. http://www.efi.int/portal/virtual_library/informa tion_services/cost_e27/results/pfa_tables/. Accessed 22 Jan 2008 Forest Europe, UNECE, FAO (2011) State of Europe’s forests 2011. Status and trends in sustainable forest management in Europe. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe. Forest Europe liaison unit Oslo, Aas Frank G, Parviainen J, Vandekerkhove K, Latham J, Schuck A, Little D (Eds.) (2007) COST Action E27 Protected forest areas in Europe-analysis and harmonisation (PROFOR): results,
1093 conclusions and recommendations. Federal research and training centre for forests, natural hazards and landscape (BFW), Vienna Gaston KJ, Jackson SF, Nagy A, Cantu´-Salazar L, Johnson M (2008) Protected areas in Europe. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1134:97–119 Gunia K, Pa¨ivinen R, Zudin S, Zudina E (2012) Forest map of Europe. European Forest Institute. http://www.efi.int/portal/virtual_library/ information_services/mapping_services/forest_map_of_europe/. Accessed 17 Feb 2012 Ha¨nninen R, Kallio AMI (2007) Economic impacts on the forest sector of increasing forest biodiversity conservation in Finland. Silva Fennica 41:507–523 INFC (2006) National Inventory of Forests and forest Carbon pools. http://www.sian.it/inventarioforestale/jsp/documentation.jsp. Accessed 30 May 2012 IUCN (1994) Guidelines for protected area management categories. IUCN commission on national parks and protected areas, World Conservation Monitoring Centre IUCN and UNEP-WCMC (2012) The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC. www.protec tedplanet.net. Accessed 01 Jan 2012 Jonsell M (2008) The effects of forest biomass harvesting on biodiversity. In: Ro¨ser D, Asikainen A, Raulund-Rasmussen K, Stupak I (eds) Sustainable use of forest biomass for energy. A synthesis with focus on the Baltic and Nordic region. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 129–154 Joppa LN, Pfaff A (2009) High and far: biases in the location of protected areas. PLoS One 4(12):e8273 Kallio AMI, Moiseyev A, Solberg B (2006) Economic impacts of increased forest conservation in Europe: a forest sector model analysis. Environ Sci Policy 9:457–465 Kraus D, Krumm F (eds) (2013) Integrative approaches as an opportunity for the conservation of forest biodiversity. European Forest Institute Lambin EF, Meyfroidt P (2011) Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:3465–3472 Lamers P, Thiffault E, Pare´ D, Junginger M (2013) Feedstock specific environmental risk levels related to biomass extraction for energy from boreal and temperate forests. Biomass Bioenergy 55:212–226 Latham J, Frank GF, Fahy O, Kirby K, Miller H, Stiven R (Eds.) (2005) Cost Action E27 Protected forest areas in Europe— analysis and harmonisation (PROFOR): reports of signatory states. Federal research and training centre for forests, natural hazards and landscape (BFW), Vienna Leppa¨nen J, Linden M, Uusivuori J, Pajuoja H (2005) The private cost and timber market implications of increasing strict forest conservation in Finland. For Policy Econ 7:71–83 Linden M, Uusivuori J (2002) Econometric analysis of forest conservation: the Finnish experience. Environ Dev Econ 7:281–297 Luyssaert S, Schulze ED, Bo¨rner A, Knohl A, Hessenmo¨ller D, Law BE, Ciais P, Grace J (2008) Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature 455:213–215 Mac Sharry B (2011) Merged European CDDA dataset for 2011. Public version. European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity (ETC/BD) Mayer AL, Kauppi PE, Angelstam PK, Zhang Y, Tikka PM (2005) Importing timber, exporting ecological impact. Science 308:359–360 Mayer AL, Kauppi PE, Tikka PM, Angelstam PK (2006) Conservation implications of exporting domestic wood harvest to neighboring countries. Environ Sci Policy 9:228–236 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
123
1094 McShane TO, Hirsch PD, Trung TC, Songorwa AN, Kinzig A, Monteferri B, Mutekanga D, Thang HV, Dammert JL, PulgarVidal M, Welch-Devine M, Peter Brosius J, Coppolillo P, O’Connor S (2011) Hard choices: making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biol Conserv 144(3):966–972 Norton DA (1999) Forest reserves. In: Hunter ML (ed) Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 525–555 ´ dor P, Avon C, BernhardtPaillet Y, Berge`s L, Hja¨lte´n J, O Ro¨mermann M, Bijlsma R-J, De Bruyn LUC, Fuhr M, Grandin ULF, 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 KAI, Virtanen R (2010) Biodiversity differences between managed and unmanaged forests: meta-analysis of species richness in Europe. Conserv Biol 24:101–112 Parviainen J, Frank G (2003) Protected forests in Europe approachesharmonising the definitions for international comparison and forest policy making. J Environ Manag 67:27–36 Parviainen J, Frank G, Bu¨cking W, Schuck A, Vandekerkhove K (2010) Information document on data collection and compiling the statistics on protected and protective forest and other wooded land for pan-European reporting. United Nations, Geneva Pedroli B, Elbersen B, Frederiksen P, Grandin U, Heikkila¨ R, Krogh PH, Izakovicˇova´ Z, Johansen A, Meiresonne L, Spijker J (2013) Is energy cropping in Europe compatible with biodiversity?— Opportunities and threats to biodiversity from land-based production of biomass for bioenergy purposes. Biomass Bioenergy 55:73–86 Peltola A (ed) (2008) Finnish statistical yearbook of forestry 2008. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Vammala Radeloff VC, Beaudry F, Brooks TM, Butsic V, Dubinin M, Kuemmerle T, Pidgeon AM (2013) Hot moments for biodiversity conservation. Conserv Lett 6:58–65
123
Environmental Management (2014) 53:1085–1094 Reid WV, Miller KR (1989) Keeping options alive: the scientific basis for conserving biodiversity. World Resources Institute, Washington ¨ hman K, Nordstro¨m E-M (2011) Sandstro¨m C, Lindkvist A, O Governing competing demands for forest resources in Sweden. Forests 2:218–242 Schmack S, Aichholz R, Hartebrodt C (2012) Modellgestu¨tzte Bewertung naturschutzfachlicher Restriktionen. AFZ-Der Wald 20:20–25 (in German) Siitonen J (2001) Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylic organisms: fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecol Bull 49:11–41 Sohngen B, Mendelsohn R, Sedjo R (1999) Forest management, conservation, and global timber markets. Am J Agric Econ 81:1–13 UNECE-FAO (2000) Forest Resources of Europe, CIS, North America, Australia, Japan and New Zealand. Contribution to the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000. UN, New York and Geneva UNECE-FAO (2011) The European forest sector outlook study II. 2010–2030. ECE/TIM/SP/28. United Nations, Geneva Verkerk PJ, Anttila P, Eggers J, Lindner M, Asikainen A (2011a) The realisable potential supply of woody biomass from forests in the European Union. For Ecol Manag 261:2007–2015 Verkerk PJ, Lindner M, Zanchi G, Zudin S (2011b) Assessing impacts of intensified biomass removal on deadwood in European forests. Ecol Ind 11:27–35 Vis M, Dees M (eds) (2011) Biomass resource assessment handbook: harmonisation of biomass resource assessments, best practices and methods handbook. VDM Verlag Dr. Mu¨ller, Saarbru¨cken Wallenius T, Niskanen L, Virtanen T, Hottola J, Brumelis G, Angervuori A, Julkunen J, Pihlstro¨m M (2010) Loss of habitats, naturalness and species diversity in Eurasian forest landscapes. Ecol Ind 10:1093–1101
