Forests,grasslands, wetlandsEU 15 experience

Prospects

CEEWEB Academy

Anton Gazenbeek

‘Natura 2000 and forests: Challenges and opportunities. Interpretation guide’,

Commission DG Environment Nature and Biodiversity Unit, 2003.• No intention to block all economic activities in Natura 2000 sites

• BUT the economic function of forests will often have to be adapted according to the conservation requirements of the Natura 2000 sites.

• If the forestry practices being applied at designation have helped to create or maintain a forest with a structure and species composition in line with Natura 2000 objectives and do not lead to a decline in the conservation status of the habitats and species for which the site was designated, they can be continued.

• If the forestry practices being applied at designation are contrary to the conservation objectives for which the site was designated and do lead to a deterioration of Natura 2000 habitats and species, then nature conservation objectives must have priority over the economic use and forestry management will have to be adapted.

• Specific values for the dimensions of clearings, the timing of interventions, the quantification of tree harvesting levels etc can not be given at an EU level – these depend on management objectives and measures which have to be negotiated on a local level between the responsible Natura 2000 site managers and the forestry operators.

Giving woods back to nature

• Dürrenstein: Totally out of bounds

• Große Arber – Kalkalpen: Bark beetles and ring barking

• Kuusamo: Accommodating locals by using part of wood for nature tourism

Traditional woodmanship (England, in Rackham, The History of the Countryside)

• Variety of deciduous tree species, conifers rare

• Underwood

• Tall (timber) trees

• cut in a rotation system for firewood and small wood

• creating adjacent stages running from open areas (ideal for flowering herbs) through young stands to taller shadier wood.

• left to grow to maturity and then felled selectively.

It’s never black and white

Woodmanship

Creates Annex I habitats

Atlantic OakwoodsScotland

Lack of dead wood Danube gorge

Bavaria-Austria

Slash-and-burnKuopioFinland

Cutting out planted exotics

Compensation former owner:current value?

value at maturity?

Cut by project:Sale of wood =

income, offsets part of costs

Owner cuts before land saleOwner sells wood, but no costs project

Contractor risk

Public domainPublic forest agencies

• F – ONF• UK – Forestry Commission• FIN – Metsahallitus• D, A –

Bundes/Landesforstverwaltung• NL – SBB• etc

• Funded from public budget – sheltered from market

• Generational and cultural shift

• Failure of intensive forestry schemes

• Cost cutting• Instructions from

above

Private forestsCorporations and citizens

• FINLAND

• Total forest cover 24,100,000 ha• UPM Kymmene company owns 870,000

ha • 14,000,000 ha owned by 400,000 private

individuals – average holding 35 ha• Restrictions = state must buy.

Expropriation!

Sylvi-Environment In FranceUsing RDP (Art. 30, 32 Reg. 1257/99)

Financial support available for restoration: • restoring riverine woodland, including

work to stabilise riverbanks • clearing and thinning stands to benefit

habitats or species on the Directives • natural regeneration in stands with low

productivity where normal forest practice would be for planting

• fencing patches of natural regeneration to create mosaic-like horizontal forest structure

• planting to restore Annex I habitats • establishing complex, multi-storey and

gradual forest edges • creating new clearings in forests, or

restoring old overgrown ones • digging or restoring ponds in forests • building crossings of small streams in

forests to stop forestry machines destroying Annex Ii species habitats

•  •  

Compensation payments available to:• cover the loss of expected monetary

value and reduced technical exploitability which results when the heterogeneity of stands is increased to restore habitats or species of Community interest (= going from monoculture to mixed)

• cover the additional costs connected with manual clearing or undergrowth thinning for the benefit of Natura 2000 values, where existing forest policy or practice would have led to using mechanical or chemical means.

Besides providing funds for the restoration and contractual management of Natura 2000 forests, the French authorities have focused on providing information and training to stakeholders: Two-volume guide for the identification and integrated management of forest habitats and species (‘Gestion des forêts et diversité biologique’). The guide helps forest owners identify habitats and species found in their woods and find out what to do, thanks to a vast range of descriptions of practical situations. French private forest owners’ association cooperated in the compilation of the guides.

Technical reference manuals for the Annex I habitat types and Annex II species occurring in France. Each forest habitat is listed under its French name with the Natura 2000 and CORINE codes. This is followed by scientific descriptions, succession stages, associated habitats, conservation value, potential threats, production capacities and economic use, management practices and research needs. The value of these manuals lies in their holistic approach, which presents forest managers with a systematic linking of conservation-related data, management practices and economic use.

Practical guidebook covering all investment subsidies and compensatory payments available for forest operators in Natura 2000 sites in France, with explanations about administrative procedures, conditions of eligibility, calculation of payments, technical measures and habitats covered etc. Very important in this guidebook is a definition of ‘good forestry practices’ – only what goes beyond good forestry practice can be compensated by national or EU subsidies, as it is a responsible forest owner’s duty to apply good forestry practice!

Multifunctionality

Wood production

Recreation Hunting

BiodiversityLandscape

EU Action Plan for Forests

• Göteborg

• Halt loss of biodiversity by 2010

• Lisbon

• EU world’s most competitive economy

EBRD Biodiversity Financing Facility

Shortlist of SME

Companiesin N2000

Business planEcological +

Financialassessment

Partner bankSoft loan

EBRD cover

Grasslands – Why there is a Biodiversity Problem

• Wild grasses, no ploughing

• Animals grazing outdoors

• Hay from meadows

• Low productivity per unit.

• Ploughing, sown grasses designed by seed companies

• Livestock penned in stables year-round and food brought to them

• High-protein fodder – silage from sown grasses, maize from ploughed-up former grassland, waste from the margarine and oils industry, imported materials like soy (= concentration of intensive livestock near seaports!)

• Cows producing over 10,000 litres milk per annum. Less land needed to produce as much as before, or even more.

Restoration and recurring management of grasslands

Restoration of former grasslands:• cutting and clearing away overgrowth on abandoned grassland

( = seed bank can regenerate; seeding with hay from existing species-rich grasslands)

• removing nutrients from land converted to silage grass, maize or arable field (= scraping off topsoil; a regime of repeated mowing and export of biomass)

Recurring management:After restoration, getting farmers to use the grassland in an

ecologically appropriate manner.

Voluntary: farmer self-commitment, seize opportunity (Lafnitz, Austria)

Incentive: purchase and make available at zero rent, in return farmers must commit to mowing or grazing it according to the instructions of the owner (northwest Germany. Locally high land rents!).

Incentive: hire farmers as contractors, kick-start demand for product

(Alpine foreland: Chiemgau, Vorarlberg, Weidmoos)

Agri-environment: EU financial incentives

• 5 year contracts to use grasslands in ways which benefit biodiversity:

• no inputs/ploughing• late mowing• low stocking density• grazing at certain times• accepting seasonal

flooding

• Since 1992 part of the CAP second pillar, financed through the Rural Development Programme (RDP) and its Regulations

Budgetary DisciplineWhere the Blows Fell

EU Budget 2007-2013

Structural FundsDown

330-300

CAP First PillarStatus Quo

CAP Second Pillar(RDP)Down75-60

Using the new RDP (2007-13)Its success in maintaining or reviving biodiversity-friendly land uses depends

inter alia on:

• are there suitable agri-environment programmes? – if none of them propose contracts for the kind of land use needed to support a specific biodiversity target, nothing can be achieved. For the content of the programmes, conservation authorities and NGOs depend on other (agriculture!) authorities….

• are the contracts offered to farmers attractive enough? I.e. are the premia high enough to make it economically worthwhile? How much paperwork is involved in applying for premia and how much inflexibility and inspection/penalties in carrying out a contract? If it is too excessive nobody will want to apply!

• Perverse effects. Farmers can get high agri-environment premia (up to 450€/ha) but if the land rent is raised by the landowner, there is no real gain.

Economic incentives

Quality labelRegional produceFarmgate salesFarmers’ market

Specific demandPremium prices

Farmers motivated to use land

‘pro biodiversity’

Land abandonment = no farmersIntensive land use = farmers not interested

• Do-it yourself (DIY)

• Self-regulating management

• Own staff & machines• Hired contractors• Volunteer work camps

• Half-wild or wild grazers (Netherlands – Gelderse Poort, Oostvaardersplassen) Practical application of the megaherbivore theory?

Wetland degradation

Linked to human intervention in water: • lowering water levels• eliminating natural flooding dynamics• polluting water.

Drainage of wetlands to create new opportunities for farming, afforestation and building

Peat bogs:• Traditional = cutting peat for fuel • Modern = peat for gardening and horticulture

Wetland restoration examples taken from projects

• A lake and its surrounding reedbeds are suffering from low water levels. A simple dam across the point where water flows out of the lake raises the water level and the reeds recover

• Ditches are bringing eutrophic water from farmland into a mire. A new ditch collecting this water and diverting it away from the mire stops the eutrophication process

• Old drainage ditches are desiccating a bog. Solution: block with dams, or even fill in, the ditches

• A lake is terrestrialising too rapidly because of accumulated silt. Dredge the silt and, providing the flow of nutrients into the lake has also been dealt with, the lake should get a new lease of life.

Cyclical managementWieden-Weerribben (NL)

Excavate trenchFills with waterPioneer stadia

Quaking bogTerrestrialises

Old reedbedsSwamp wood (alder, willow)

Technical durability

One-off civil engineering

works

Not very ‘natural’Sustainability?

footprint!High cost

LIFEWFD

Soils DirectiveFloods Directive

Social Feasibility

• Potential for opposition:

• Objectively affected

• Cultural/esthetic differences (paradigms)

• Disunity = own goal

• Irrational = blinkmanship

Social feasibility: a sample of real-life objections from the community.

A LIFE project in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany) had as its objectives:

• closing off a canalised river and re-opening its old meandering bed, which was now merely a line of trees and depressions in the landscape;

• putting a dam across the outflow of a lake to raise water levels and expand the surface of the lake;

• raise groundwater levels across several hundred hectare of fen to halt peat mineralization and restore natural fenland conditions

It faced objections from:

• farmers, who did not want to lose land they were using as this threatened their holdings and meant loss of CAP premia based on farmed surface area;• two rich outsiders who were buying land in the project area in order to establish private hunting districts of their own; • inhabitants of a small settlement who feared that higher groundwater levels would flood their cellars;• inhabitants of another settlement who feared that damming the lake outflow and raising lake levels would mean water in the creek flowing through their settlement would back up and flood low-lying gardens;• the fisherman who caught eels in the lake outflow – the dam would make eel fishing impossible and ruin his livelihood;• the local water authority which simply did not believe that the river restoration and higher groundwater levels were technically possible and produced counterarguments;• inhabitants in the district who objected to hundreds of trees being cut down to re-open the old meandering riverbed;• the tourist board which considered that turning the current attractive landscape of fields, pastures and woods into a ‘wilderness of swamps’ would destroy the cultural heritage built up by past farmers and make the area unattractive for tourists;• inhabitants who feared that the new wetlands would lead to plagues of mosquitoes;• local opinion leaders who complained that two million euros was being spent to create needless swamps while there was 30% unemployment in the district .

Pre-empting conflict?Hampshire New Forest (UK)

• Constitution of a forum uniting the most important authorities

• Public information and consultation

• Pilot project to show restoration in practice, before starting on the main works

• Impact assessment studies will be done

• Continuous feedback to ecosystem

• With particular attention to possible impacts of the restoration (flooding downstream, effect on fishing)

• located at a spot with high visibility, so that local inhabitants aware of what is being done

• to address local concerns about the consequences of restoration

• Whatever ‘ecological engineering’ technique is proposed, it will be beneficial for some habitats and species but maybe detrimental for others. This must be investigated and choices made

Multifunctionality

Angling, huntingCommercial fishing, fish farming

Bathing, water sportsBird watching

Biodiversity, water qualityReed cutting

Forests, grasslands, wetlands:typical intervention steps

• Planning

• Land/rights acquisition

• Restoration

• Recurring (active) management

• Management plans, technical plans.

• Targets, feasibility, cost-benefit, action ranking

• For passive/active management

• Technical durability• Nature creation!

• Economic durability?

Lisbon versus Göteborg

• Natura 2000

• Lisbon

• No mega-fund• No ring-fencing• Integration

• Level playing field• Cohesion policy• TENs – Trans-

European Networks• BUT: demography!

Non-natural dynamics

Rural depopulation

LifestylersSuburbiaSunbelt

DecouplingWTO

Land use

Cultural paradigms

Nature:ExaltationInspirationEducation

Nature as Playground

Nature as Acadian Park

Nature = Boring

CLIMATE CHANGE

• THREAT

• Northward shift biogeographic zones

• Interconnectivity problem

• Wetland spreading• Biofuels, bioenergy +

biorefineries – new monocultures

• OPPORTUNITY

Active management supported by:

• Wood biomass for bioenergy

• Grass/reed biomass for biofuel

• Both for biorefineries?

The multifunctionality dilemma:Products for market, services for society

DEFRA ‘Vision Europe’ June 2006

A set of proposals for EU agriculture:

• Internationally competitive without subsidies• Market rewards farmers for output, taxpayers only pay

for societal benefits• Agriculture is environmentally sensitive – enhancing and

maintaining landscape• Agriculture is socially responsive to changing needs of

rural communities and animal health/welfare• Non-distorting to international trade