Protected forests in Europe approaches-harmonising the definitions for international comparison and forest policy making

Protected forests in Europe approaches-harmonising the definitions for international comparison... Comparison of forest protection between regions in Europe is extremely difficult, because there is such wide variation of strategies, procedures and constraints; the way forests have been used historically and their present closeness to nature also varies, and furthermore so does the definition of what constitutes a forest. For the European Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) in 2003, forest protection has been harmonised into three categories for the sake of comparison: protection to safeguard biodiversity, protection of landscape and specific natural features, and protective forest functions. There is no single, uniform and universal model and no internationally agreed target with respect to the percentage of forests which should be protected. What is more important than a fixed percentage level of forested area (e.g. 5 or 10%) is that the protection network should be biogeographically and ecologically representative and accordingly distributed on a regional basis. Long-term practical experience and research have proved that conservation of different species of organisms can be assured by appropriate silvicultural management of multifunctional production forests. Consequently, the focus of debate in Europe appears to shift more and more from total protection in segregated areas to ‘precision protection’ and to combining protection and timber production in the holistic, integrated concept of modern management of forest areas. Advances in regional ecological planning and the growing adoption of naturalistic forest management practices have slowed the decline of the biological diversity in the multifunctional production forests. However, this fact is not yet widely and sufficiently acknowledged and appreciated. There is consequently a political and scientific need for continued study of the effects of naturalistic silvicultural management on the biodiversity of forests. Information from such research is crucially needed before new and additional protection networks and schemes are set up on a large-scale. Protection by voluntary contracts between parties is a workable model concept for European forestry based on private forest ownership. In small private forests, patches of forest worth protecting are often small and located within production forests. Forest certification can contribute to the efforts of maintaining biodiversity in multifunctional production forests and offers an instrument of independently monitoring and verifying that forests are managed according to the agreed criteria. Forest certification is not an alternative or a means of increasing forest protection, because as a voluntary process it cannot guarantee the permanence of protected areas or deal with issues of finance and compensation. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Environmental Management Elsevier

Protected forests in Europe approaches-harmonising the definitions for international comparison and forest policy making

Loading next page...
1
 
/lp/elsevier/protected-forests-in-europe-approaches-harmonising-the-definitions-for-4lFR026Zsp
Publisher
Elsevier
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd
ISSN
0301-4797
DOI
10.1016/S0301-4797(02)00185-8
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Comparison of forest protection between regions in Europe is extremely difficult, because there is such wide variation of strategies, procedures and constraints; the way forests have been used historically and their present closeness to nature also varies, and furthermore so does the definition of what constitutes a forest. For the European Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) in 2003, forest protection has been harmonised into three categories for the sake of comparison: protection to safeguard biodiversity, protection of landscape and specific natural features, and protective forest functions. There is no single, uniform and universal model and no internationally agreed target with respect to the percentage of forests which should be protected. What is more important than a fixed percentage level of forested area (e.g. 5 or 10%) is that the protection network should be biogeographically and ecologically representative and accordingly distributed on a regional basis. Long-term practical experience and research have proved that conservation of different species of organisms can be assured by appropriate silvicultural management of multifunctional production forests. Consequently, the focus of debate in Europe appears to shift more and more from total protection in segregated areas to ‘precision protection’ and to combining protection and timber production in the holistic, integrated concept of modern management of forest areas. Advances in regional ecological planning and the growing adoption of naturalistic forest management practices have slowed the decline of the biological diversity in the multifunctional production forests. However, this fact is not yet widely and sufficiently acknowledged and appreciated. There is consequently a political and scientific need for continued study of the effects of naturalistic silvicultural management on the biodiversity of forests. Information from such research is crucially needed before new and additional protection networks and schemes are set up on a large-scale. Protection by voluntary contracts between parties is a workable model concept for European forestry based on private forest ownership. In small private forests, patches of forest worth protecting are often small and located within production forests. Forest certification can contribute to the efforts of maintaining biodiversity in multifunctional production forests and offers an instrument of independently monitoring and verifying that forests are managed according to the agreed criteria. Forest certification is not an alternative or a means of increasing forest protection, because as a voluntary process it cannot guarantee the permanence of protected areas or deal with issues of finance and compensation.

Journal

Journal of Environmental ManagementElsevier

Published: Jan 1, 2003

References

  • Strict forest reserves in Europe: efforts to enhance biodiversity and research on forests left for free development in Europe (EU-COST-Action E4)
    Parviainen, J.; Bücking, W.; Vandekerkhove, K.; Schuck, A.; Päivinen, R.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off