Synergies of planning for forests and planning for Natura 2000: Evidences and prospects from northern Italy

Abstract

Improvements in the management of Natura 2000 sites are essential to achieve the targets set out by the Habitats and Birds Directives of the European Union. A current focus is on the development of management plans, which are fundamental instruments in the implementation of conservation measures. This study explores the viability of using existing forest plans to assist in this purpose. As case study, we consider the regulatory framework of the Veneto Region, northern Italy. We collected quantitative and qualitative data on forest plans at the regional and at three sub-regional spatial scales: local, district, and biogeographical. Forest plans cover about 54% of the terrestrial area of Natura 2000 sites in Veneto, and 75% of Sites of Community Importance in the Alpine biogeographical region. At the local scale of analysis, metrics from forest plans represent a valuable historical record which can be used to interpret the current state and future trends, especially for forests with long management records. These data can be used to assess biodiversity indicators for the monitoring of Natura 2000 forest and non-forest habitat types, in compliance with Article 17 of the Habitats Directive. Moreover, the heterogeneous stand conditions which are promoted by some forest management approaches can improve the conservation efforts for some habitat types and species. The scale of local forest plans are typically the most appropriate for implementing habitat management strategies. From this study, we conclude that management authorities should take advantage of the wide spatial coverage and distribution of existing forest plans, especially in mountain areas inside and outside the Natura 2000 network, for the successful conservation of European Union habitat types and species.

Introduction

A current focus for protected areas worldwide is the need for improved conservation management of habitats and species (Watson, Dudley, Segan, & Hockings, 2014). In this context, a common goal is to improve the application and use of management planning for the effective protection of habitats (Leverington, Costa, Pavese, Lisle, & Hockings, 2010). To achieve biodiversity goals, planners must consider ecological complexity, economic interests, legal boundaries, and social expectations; making management planning in protected areas a complex task.

For the Natura 2000 network, the flagship European Union (EU) program for protected areas, conservation management is of extreme importance, particularly for habitat types and species listed in the Habitats (1992/43/EEC) and Birds (2009/147/EC) Directives (Ostermann, 1998). Indeed, the improvement of the management of Natura 2000 sites is essential to achieve the targets set by international agreements (Beresford, Buchanan, Sanderson, Jefferson, & Donald, 2016). The EU biodiversity strategy (COM/2011/0244 final) mentions this need in several different targets, including; “complete the Natura 2000 network and ensure its good management” (action 1) and “integrate biodiversity measures […] in forest management plans” (action 12). Currently, the process of designating Natura 2000 sites is concluded, and the focus is now on appropriate management with an adequate development and implementation of plans (Blicharska, Orlikowska, Roberge, & Grodzinska-Jurczak, 2016; Borrass, 2014; Grodzinska-Jurczak & Cent, 2011; Kati et al., 2015; Křenová & Kindlmann, 2015; Maes et al., 2013). The Habitats Directive, under Article 6(1) (Sobotta, this issue), foresees that “Member States shall establish the necessary conservation measures involving, if need be, appropriate management plans”. These management plans can be integrated into other plans if they exist, and the choice of which approach to follow is left to the discretion of the Member States (Dupont, Gourmelon, Rouan, Le Viol, & Kerbiriou, 2016). The most common choice is not to use existing instruments, but rather to introduce new instruments outside the existing implementation framework (Bouwma, Liefferink, Apeldoorn, & Arts, 2016). This can lead to overlapping regulatory requirements, which can hinder the adoption of effective and socially responsible policies.

Many planning instruments, such as water protection or forest management plans, are implemented in Natura 2000 sites, which are available tools for site management authorities (Pellegrino, Schirpke, & Marino, 2016). These planning tools are also important because many human activities can impact biodiversity (Tsiafouli et al., 2013). Different types of plans have been analysed in terms of their opportunities, synergies, and conflicts with the Natura 2000 framework; such as river basin management plans (Janauer, Albrecht, & Stratmann, 2015; Stratmann & Albrecht, 2015).

Recently, increased attention has been given to participatory approaches in planning and managing Natura 2000 sites (e.g., Apostolopoulou, Drakou, & Pediaditi, 2012; Dupont et al., 2016; Secco, Favero, Masiero, & Pettenella, 2017), and to stakeholders’ perception of such instruments (e.g., Morris, Bennett, Blyth-Skyrme, Barham, & Ball, 2014; Šorgo, Špur, & Škornik, 2016). However, many Natura 2000 sites still lack management schemes (Borrass, 2014; Popescu, Rozylowicz, Niculae, Cucu, & Hartel, 2014).

Regarding forest management planning, Europe has long-historical experience (e.g., Müllerová, Szabó, & Hédl, 2014; Rackham, 1980; Szabó, Müllerová, Suchánková, & Kotačka, 2015). Forest planning typically aims to provide long-term and consistent production and supply of services, by defining the activities and the timing of the activities needed to reach such goal (Baskent & Keles, 2005; Hellrigl, 1986). To this end, forest planning often aims to control stand structure and biodiversity (Barbati, Corona, & Marchetti, 2007). Forest management and planning has local, regional, and national peculiarities and traditions; and occurs at multiple different levels and spatial scales (Cullotta et al., 2015). For example, in certain Italian regions, forests are managed at the local level through different types of management plans. Forest monitoring and assessment have been evolving towards the consideration of multipurpose resource surveys, with the development of new inventory and mapping techniques and tools (Corona, 2016; Corona, Chirici, & Marchetti, 2002). Theoretically and practically, in many EU countries, these plans aim for the sustainable use of natural resources. This leads to the opportunity for integrating forest planning tools with other sectors’ instruments, such as for nature conservation (Maetzke & Cullotta, 2016).

Natura 2000 management plans have had limited effects on the application of specific forest activities, mainly because management measures have not been clear (Borrass, Sotirov, & Winkel, 2015), or are abstract concepts which are not translated into forestry practices (Borrass, 2014; Cantiani, 2016; Geitzenauer, Hogl, & Weiss, 2016). However, legal provisions regarding management under the Habitats Directive must be harmonized with local capacity (Morris et al., 2014). The possibility of integrated conservation approaches within the Natura 2000 forest framework has been highlighted by the European Commission (2015). Therefore, the integration of forest management plans within Natura 2000 may be viable in terms of management and conservation measures under the Habitats Directive requirements. Research is called on to focus on the implementation practices and related results, as well as on the practical and operational approaches used by local administrations and authorities (Borrass, 2014).

We present a case study in Veneto, a northern Italian administrative region, where we focused on forest planning with the aim (a) to stress the informative role that forest plans can have for Natura 2000 management through the identification of possible synergies, and (b) to assess the possibility of meeting the Habitats Directive requirements by identifying the spatial coverage of forest plans in Natura 2000 sites.