Διαδικτυακή Πύλη Συνεργασίας Για Τα Δάση

Natura 2000 is the core pillar in the European Union’s (EU) biodiversity conservation policy. It is an EU-wide ecological network of protected areas that cuts across countries’ borders, administrative levels, policy sectors and socio-economic contexts. The network is established and managed according to the legally-binding provisions of the 1979 EU Birds Directive (79/409/EEC, revised in 2009) and the 1992 EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). Natura 2000 aims to achieve biodiversity conservation and to combine it with the sustainable development of land and natural resources. It can allow for continuation of land uses (eg agriculture, forestry) as long as they do not significantly compromise conservation objectives for habitats and species within and beyond the network. The Natura 2000 network now covers almost 18% of the EU’s territory. Forests are of crucial importance for Natura 2000 and vice versa. Almost 50% of the whole coverage of the network is comprised of forests. This means that nearly 25% of the total forest area in the EU-28 is part of the EU-wide network of protected areas. Yet knowledge about the implementation of Natura 2000 in forests and its effects on biodiversity, forest management and other land uses across the EU is fragmented. This science-based study aims to narrow the gaps in the scholarly, practical and policy-related knowledge. It looks from policy, economic and ecological perspectives at the monitoring of forest biodiversity in Europe, as well as the challenges, achievements, effectiveness and efficiency of the implementation of Natura 2000 in forests in the EU-28. The study provides conclusions and recommendations that can support decisionmaking in policy and practice.

Habitats with highest relevance index correspond to rare habitats or to highly represented in a region, as in the Iberian Peninsula case. The relevance index is a helpful tool to identify on which we have greater responsibility, providing information to regions and Natura 2000 management boards. The output of this index can support the monitoring/assessment of Natura 2000 habitats. To funding projects: priority status is important for conservation planning. Also relevance index can be considered to support management and financial decisions. It is important to improve the knowledge of habitat status. Also the National Forest Inventory of each region can be a helpful tool to provide data to characterize and update the current status of the habitats. 

Since the enactment of the EU Habitats Directive, the conservation status of forest habitat types, habitats of species, and species has become the central concept of the Directive's nature conservation legislation. Despite its role, it has drawn relatively little attention. Within a rather short research period, a few research papers have addressed the existing definitions, indicators for the conservation status assessment, and assessment techniques. This paper attempted to complete the set of measurable indicators available in national forest inventories and connect them with the forest habitat types’ conservation status components (area, function, structure, and prospects). A set of 40 indicators was defined, labelled with one or more of the four conservation status components and assessed with the quality dimensions. The analysis uncovered that five indicators could be used to assess the component of range and area, 20 that of structure, 22 that of function and 27 that of prospects. It also showed that conventional forestry indicators such as tree species, diameter at breast height, and regeneration are less sensitive regarding the data quality. Conversely, some typical biodiversity indicators lacked completeness, timeliness, and precision. In addition to this analysis, the data distributions (data for them were provided by the national forest inventories of Italy, Slovenia, and Spain) of some indicators were analysed. Based on all the results, it was also possible to conclude that there is a shortage of national forest inventory indicators for the assessments of the area and function conservation status components. While the area component should be described with the indicators of forest habitat type fragmentation, mingling and perforation with non-forest and other forest vegetation communities, the functional component is bereft of indicators describing processes such as biomass growth and carbon cycling. Future research should thus search for more indicators to represent all conservation status components in a more balanced way. More efforts should also be expended into the harmonisation of indicators.