Natura 2000 and the Dos and Don’ts of Conservation
Among German private forest owners, the European Natura 2000 conservation scheme is strongly contested and it might even result in actions adverse to nature conservation.
“If a [Natura 2000] protected area becomes designated, the [forest] stand will be cleared.”
In how far does this quote reflect the general perspective of private forest owners? What is their attitude towards conservation, and what are their objectives and management activities? A recently published study provides answers to these questions. As such, it offers valuable insights into the Dos and Don’ts of establishing a nature conservation network.
Natura 2000 and private forest owners
Natura 2000 is the world’s largest network of protected areas and covers 18% of the terrestrial surface of the European Union. Consisting of the EU Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive, Natura 2000 aims to conserve and improve the condition of endangered habitats and species typical of Europe — while at the same time considering local social and economic conditions.
In Europe as well as in Germany, forests are a major component of this scheme. Thus, it is vital to take a look at those who own and manage the forests. They are needed for the strategy’s successful implementation.
Especially in Western Europe, the forest ownership structure is dominated by small-scale private forest owners. Through surveying 1671 private forest owners in the German region of Southern Lower Saxony, we were able to gain comprehensive insights into the objectives and perspectives of this ownership group. For more information on this research approach, please have a look at our previous blog post.
A stable and healthy forest stand as main objective
We found that private forest owners pursue very diverse goals: Preserving healthy and stable stands, protecting soil, water and air quality, and protecting biodiversity were rated as important or very important by more than 90% of our survey respondents. Wood production for personal consumption was considered important by more than two thirds of the respondents. The higher valuation of aspects such as biodiversity or landscape aesthetics in comparison to resource use is in concordance with other studies across Europe.
However, differences emerged between the respondents’ high valuation of nature conservation and the measures actually implemented: Although biodiversity protection appears to be very important for 90 % of the private forest owners, 45% of the respondents stated to preserve deadwood or habitat trees — the most frequent conservation activity performed. This value-action gap possibly results from a variety of factors: Forest owners might perceive their stand as being in a close-to-nature state, they might doubt their own influence, or they might focus on resource use and assume that other objectives will be achieved in the wake. Other reasons could be high costs or external forest management advice.
Increased focus on resource use among owners with Natura 2000 sites
In our survey, forest owners with Natura 2000 sites assigned a bigger importance to wood production for personal consumption and sale, as well as to profit maximization. While the protection of habitat trees was the only biodiversity-enhancing measure which was more frequently stated by this ownership group, thinning and harvesting mature individual trees was also performed significantly more often.
The question of cause and effect, i.e., whether an active management resulted in stands worthy of protection or whether impending management restrictions stimulated greater interest in resource use, cannot be answered based on our data and might not be mutually exclusive. The two following quotes illustrate both lines of explanation as well as negative attitudes towards this conservation network:
“Who, over generations, has shaped the forest the way it is today? In earlier thinning measures, care was always taken to leave some of the older trees in the stand, so that today we find over-200-year-old beeches, over-100-year-old spruces and oaks in our forests.”
“Many forest owners are against the FFH [Natura 2000] site in our community. Therefore, some are considering to manage the forest more intensively in advance. This means that old trees worthy of protection will be cut down, or if the plots are quite small, they will be cleared. This would not happen if the forest could simply continue to be managed without restrictions.”
Do all forest owners with Natura 2000 sites take a negative stance towards this conservation scheme? While there are individual differences, this ownership group felt more threatened in their personal freedom of decision, wished significantly more often for a higher level of participation, more frequently perceived the nature conservation requirements as too strict and the resulting costs as too high.
How to improve the Natura 2000 scheme?
The diverse interests of forest owners as well as the goal of Natura 2000 to also take local conditions into account seem to be promising conditions for a successful implementation of the protected area network. However, the survey results show adverse effects: Private forest owners with Natura 2000 areas take a more negative stance towards conservation and have a stronger interest in resource use. Thus, what are possible ways to improve the network?
Being asked about the usefulness of certain policy instruments to foster conservation action, on-site consultation and financial incentives were ranked highest, followed by information on the legal regulations, possibilities to exchange experiences as well as visits of exemplary forest stands. The existing compensation scheme, which is exploitable under certain conditions, was only used by 2% of the forest owners with Natura 2000 stands — 70% did not even know about this program.
It can thus be concluded that the instruments used within this compensation scheme should be stronger adapted to the needs and demands of small-scale forest owners. A promising approach is a result-based reward system which leaves freedom of choice to the owners.
Moreover, private forest owners request a higher degree of involvement into the conservation process: Increased participation is frequently demanded in the context of Natura 2000 and reported to increase its acceptability. Such a strategy needs to enable mutual learning, foster trust and include a diverse set of stakeholders. Despite of an imminent lawsuit, filed by the European Commission against the German state, and the resulting time pressure on the implementation of the network in Germany, participation is needed to prevent further conflicts when legally securing the areas or formulating management plans.
As the establishment of conservation areas is a central strategy in nature conservation, it is crucial to learn from existing approaches and past difficulties. A stronger consideration of the main stakeholder group, in this case small-scale private forest owners, is an important lesson of Natura 2000.
Full study: Tiebel, M., Mölder, A. & Plieninger, T. (2021): Small-scale private forest owners and the European Natura 2000 conservation network: perceived ecosystem services, management practices, and nature conservation attitudes. European Journal of Forest Research. DOI: 10.1007/s10342–021–01415–7
The project “Small private forests: conservation through resource use (KLEIBER)” is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) through the Agency of Renewable Resources (FNR) within the funding program “Renewable Resources” and according to a decision of the German Parliament (FKZ 22001218 and 22023218).
