Most forest habitats, as defined and listed for their nature conservation importance in the Habitats Directive of the European Union and in the Bern Convention, result from centuries of human intervention. This paper explores the scope for, and the attitudes towards coppicing in Natura 2000 sites in some of the EU28 countries where coppice was historically one of the most important traditional silvicultural systems. A questionnaire survey was circulated to experts involved with Natura 2000 sites and case studies were conducted in Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom, to investigate attitudes to coppice silviculture within the framework of Natura 2000 site management plans. A list of forest habitat types capable of being managed as coppices was compiled and populated with sites at national and regional levels. At the regional level, management plans for the relevant forest habitat types in Natura 2000 sites were critically scrutinised together with other statutory, administrative or contractual measures. The results show that approaches to integrate coppice management into conservation plans differ widely. Examples of disparities are given and the possible causes discussed. A case is made for coppicing to be continued, where appropriate, as an important strategy in site management plans that aim to conserve habitats and improve forest biodiversity.
Abandonment of coppice management is a complex phenomenon due to the collapse of small roundwood and fuelwood markets throughout Europe following the second world war, the marginalisation of rural and mountain areas, the inaccessibility of many of the sites, and the cost of carrying out uneconomic harvesting operations for conservation. However, current policies at the European Union (EU) level (
This system, admittedly, does not conflict with the aims of conservation policies in Europe. Management of Natura 2000 sites,
Nevertheless, non-intervention or conversion to high forest seem to be the most common approaches to forest management in protected areas. Therefore, this study investigates attitudes to coppicing in a representative sample of EU Member States within SCI/SAC site management plans (SMPs), and examines the case for reconsidering coppicing among the options to improve and conserve habitats, and to enhance biodiversity.
Countries participating in the survey included Belgium (BE), the Czech Republic (CZ), Estonia (EE), Germany (DE), Italy (IT) and the United Kingdom (UK), encompassing a range of EU Biogeographical Regions, different amounts of forest cover, centralized to devolved countries, and both small and large regions. Where a government has delegated responsibility for managing Natura 2000 sites to regional authorities or statutory conservation bodies, the relevant NUTS (
The study was in two parts: (a) a questionnaire and (b) six case studies. The questionnaire was sent to experts in countries directly involved in national or regional SCI/SAC administration. Fifteen open-ended questions (Tab. S1 in
to understand how each country deals with coppices in SCIs/SACs;
to identify the forest habitat types listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive with the capacity to coppice successfully,
to verify the distribution and conservation status of FHT_C forests across countries and Natura 2000 sites;
to determine the extent to which the Habitats Directive is being implemented in SMPs, and the administrative authority for managing Natura 2000 sites.
The questionnaire was conducted at the national level for most selected countries, but to illustrate important differences in regional administration, four representative territorial regions at a lower level were selected in Italy: IT-C1 Piemonte; IT-D4 Friuli Venezia Giulia; IT-E2 Umbria and IT-F4 Puglia (NUTS2). For Belgium, due to resource limitations, only BE-1 Flemish region, or Flanders (NUTS1), was considered.
Guidelines for the compilation of SMPs were issued by the
For both the questionnaire and the case studies, data collection included (
collation of national territorial statistics from EU or national level databases,
compilation of a list of Habitats Directive Annex I forest habitat types with potential for coppice;
compilation of a country level list of SCIs/ SACs, where these forest habitat types may also occur, using the European nature information system (EUNIS) database. Additionally for the case studies, their designation, total site surface area, habitat type surface area within site, number of protected habitat types and species were taken from the EUNIS database. Descriptions of SCIs/SACs and individual SMPs were collected at either national or regional levels from official websites.
The 172 SMPs examined represented 51% of those available (
Most European Biogeographical Regions were represented in the countries and regions surveyed: Alpine (IT, DE), Atlantic (UK, BE, DE), Boreal (EE), Continental (DE, CZ, IT), Pannonian (CZ) and Mediterranean (IT). The land areas of the selected countries vary significantly with BE, CZ and EE having considerably less than the UK, DE and IT (
For this group of countries the terrestrial component of the Natura 2000 network accounts for an average 14.6% of the country area (
Compliance with the Habitats Directive recommendation to compile SMPs for all SCI/SAC sites differs widely within the EU28,
Based on the re-sprouting potential of the dominant trees, 53 (68%) of the 78 Annex I forest habitat types in the Habitats Directive have potential for coppice (
In all the examined countries coppicing is allowed by law (question 1), although in CZ it has to be authorised on a case-by-case basis and under specific restrictions.
From the list of forest habitat types with potential for coppice, 32 types (60%) were present in the responding countries (question 2). For 31 of these, coppicing was, or had formerly been, a common regeneration method (
The same category can be differently managed in different countries,
Question 3 explored the conservation status (
The questionnaires (question 4) confirmed the low compliance of this group of countries in developing SMPs reported by the
Generally, SMPs in all the countries surveyed took particular account of species listed in the Annexes to the Habitats Directive (question 6). Apart from a very few examples (UK, DE, IT-C1 Piemonte), these SMPs did not cite species which are favoured by active coppice management (question 7), and focused exclusively on Annex II species, relatively few of which are specifically adapted to coppicing (question 8).
Although the ecological requirements for rare “coppice species”, such as the hazel grouse (
Active coppice management was reported for most countries, but only for research purposes in CZ, and none in EE (question 10 -
In EE and many other countries, non-intervention is the default management strategy for protected areas. No special management prescriptions for coppices within Natura 2000 sites (question 11) were given for BE, DE, CZ and UK, but in some IT regions (
The UK and CZ were the only countries where SMPs were compiled by the same body that designates Natura 2000 sites (question 12). In all the other countries, external consultants of varied professional types were engaged on a public tender basis including conservation experts (only in the UK), biologists (DE, EE, IT), forestry consultants (BE, DE, EE, IT), agronomists (BE, DE, IT), or landscape managers and historians (EE) and urban planners (IT - question 15).
Sample units obviously differed in terms of the total number of SCI/SAC sites containing FHT_C and in the average frequency of any FHT_Cs within these sites (
However, sample units were more similar in terms of the average number of all habitat types within each site and by the relative richness of FHT_C (
The proportions of SMPs mentioning coppice or former coppicing/pollarding (
The analysis of individual management plans allowed a more detailed consideration of management perspectives in relation to coppice in SCI/SAC sites and Annex I forest habitats. These are summarised in the following sub-sections for each case study.
The four conservation agencies in the UK responsible for designating SACs are Natural England, Natural Resources Wales, Scottish Natural Resources and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. Natural England publishes Site Improvement Plans for each SAC, but these do not cover any ongoing routine management or maintenance, so any current coppicing or pollarding work is unknown. Like Scottish Natural Heritage and Northern Ireland Environment Agency, they publish very brief citations describing the site and its qualifying habitats. Rather than specifically proposing a silvicultural system, they cite such generic objectives as:
the removal or eradication of non-native species;
the control of grazing within the woodlands, to ensure adequate regeneration;
the promotion of a good woodland structure and a mix of tree ages; and
maintaining the extent of the woodland habitat and minimising disturbance.
SMPs in this sense tended to be ideal “visions” of management, rather than actual prescriptions for active operations. The general impression was that non-intervention or minimal interventions could be applied at most sites: there was rarely a specific recommendation for coppice management. Over 70% of SAC woodland area in Wales was allocated to this minimal intervention category, although much was located in gorges, in steep valleys or on wetland where active management would be physically limited by the terrain or too costly to maintain. Interestingly, site management plans here stressed that “favourable conservation status” was a wider objective,
Availability of German management plans differed in each NUTS1 region. In NUTS1 Rhineland-Palatinate, these were only available for 10 SAC sites out of 97 with FHT_WPC.
Coppicing in Germany was more likely to occur in habitats dominated by oaks. Indication of the term “oak coppice” was found only in some management plans. Other forest habitat types, such as 9130 (
At one site in forest habitat type (9170
Regione Umbria is the regional authority responsible for managing SCIs/SACs in IT-E2 Umbria, with SMPs compiled by external consultants who are most probably foresters, consistent with the strong forestry tradition of this region. SMPs were in two parts, a short description of the site, also reiterating information provided by the Natura 2000 Standard forms, and a second part consisting of regulations detailing prescriptions and constraints for the site.
Coppicing was not deemed relevant to the conservation of species or groups of species, yet it was not considered incompatible with conservation objectives for the site. A number of plans recommended conversion to high forest for specific forest habitat types (91L0 Illyrian oak-hornbeam forests, 91M0 Pannonian-Balkanic turkey oak-sessile oak forests, 9210* Apennines beech forests with
Where socio-economic considerations tended to support or even dictate an active coppice silviculture, constraints were set regarding cut size and contiguity, length of rotation, releasing certain tree species and retaining isolated trees according to regional forest regulations in force. The principles of Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) were encouraged in coppice management, such as the retention of standards in groups (
In IT-F4 Puglia, the regional authority responsible for the management of SCIs/ SACs also used external consultants, most often urban planners, supported by naturalists rather than foresters, to compile SMPs, consistent with the poor forestry tradition of this region and the large size of sites, including complex anthropogenic landscapes. No schedule was provided for the specialist flora and fauna, other than a generic indication of their relative priority. As before, regulations constrain a number of activities including coppicing, which was considered irrelevant, or even injurious, to the conservation of species or groups of species. Conversion to high forest or non-intervention was generally advocated. High forests were assumed to increase species diversity, particularly of forest trees (the aim of a mixed species forest was often advocated), and to improve the forest structure. The objective was to promote natural stand regeneration and increase coarse woody debris, on the assumption that this would enhance biodiversity.
Where socio-economics was locally important, similar constraints applied to cut size and contiguity, longer rotation intervals, retention of heavy standards with a given number of ageing/decaying trees.
The main difference between the prescriptions for active coppicing in SMPs in IT-E2 Umbria and IT-F4 Puglia are that in Umbria these are intended to sustain coppice management, whereas in Puglia they tend to dismiss this system.
The authority in charge of all SACs in Estonia is the Estonian Environmental Board (
The layout of the SMPs followed a common pattern: in most general sections there was a list of forbidden activities, including clear-cutting of large areas and the cultivation of energy forests. Any economic management could be carried out only in the buffer zones, whilst in the inner protected areas only spontaneous development of the forest was allowed. The only exceptions here concerned decreasing the conifer ratio to protect the specific broadleaf forest type, and a one-time cutting back of clearings for open-land birds or for providing firewood on isolated islands.
In many SACs, further management involved raising the water table (especially in 91D0* Bog woodland) and leaving dead wood on site. Both of these activities were designed to develop habitats for different species, but significantly they also decreased the probability of any active utilisation of the site by humans. The one exception among the categories examined was habitat 9070 Fennoscandian wooded pastures, that requires constant human activity and coppicing. However, once again management prescriptions were for one-time only harvests, after which the sprouting of trees was to be suppressed by periodical grazing or mowing.
Although EU member states should harmonise Natura 2000 Directives with national interests, as expected, variations in attitudes towards coppice management in SCIs/SACs are observed when non-legally binding recommendations (including traditional forest management, hence coppice where appropriate) from nature protection directives are not incorporated into national and regional legislation frameworks. Where national authorities had delegated this responsibility to regional authorities, the resulting variations in the implementation of Natura 2000 legislation were more marked. Accordingly, progress in formulating SMPs ranged widely between the EU countries.
Large differences in forest cover between the surveyed countries appeared to influence geographical patterns of SCIs and SACs; countries with greater forest cover had more designated sites and larger countries were able to accommodate more of them. A fifth to almost a half of all the SCIs/SACs surveyed contained habitat types associated with coppice management. With a few exceptions (
According to the hierarchical planning approach proposed by
As SMPs were written by various types of professional bodies in different countries, cultural attitudes towards nature conservation, forests and silvicultural management, and the site’s historical socio-economic context, also influenced their implementation. The Habitats Directive aim of “maintaining and restoring sites at favourable conservation status” may therefore be interpreted differently according to these widely-varying professional and educational backgrounds.
Species which might benefit from coppice management (
Although coppicing in SMPs was not advocated widely, there was often some acknowledgment of former copping. With a few exceptions, there was a tendency to consider that conversion to high forest, or even non-intervention, was more desirable than coppicing. Justification was rarely given but, especially in plans written by foresters, one motive was expressed that high forest is more likely to return some financial return (but see
A decision in SMPs for non-intervention or to convert a coppice to high forest would appear to depend on whether the aim was to enhance biodiversity in a generic sense, or to focus on one particular habitat type for its specific biodiversity, such as the bryophyte-rich Atlantic oakwoods in the UK (
According to the Convention on Biological Diversity, old-growth forest conditions can indeed occur in both ancient and secondary forests. However, such conditions take place at the forest stand scale and are relatively transitory within the stand dynamic, as they correspond to just one of the possible later stages of stand development, as described by different classification schemes (
Socio-economic and especially cultural factors affected SMP strategies and attitudes towards coppicing. Active coppicing had virtually ceased or was expected to cease in many SCIs/SACs, partly owing to the absence of ready markets for coppice products, to which managers have responded to by advocating conversion and non-intervention as the most feasible conservation strategies. Yet, demand for wood for energy is expected to increase in the period to 2020 (
This study was carried out as a task of the Working Group 4 “Services, protection, nature conservation” of the FPS COST Action FP1301 “Innovative management and multifunctional utilization of traditional coppice forests - an answer to future ecological, economic and social challenges in the European forestry sector” (EuroCoppice). We thank two anonymous reviewers and Jenny J. Mills for their critical comments, which greatly improved the original manuscript. Authors order follows a modified Sequence Determines Credit criterion (
Synopsis of numbers of individual Site Management Plans examined, showing the proportion mentioning active or historic coppicing.
Country area, forest area, terrestrial Natura 2000. Proportion of each Member State land area devoted to Terrestrial Natura 2000 sites in the study countries. The proportion of SCI/SAC area within Natura 2000 sites is also shown. Sources for data: EUNIS Database; EE: EELIS, Keskkonnaagentuur Keskkonnaregister; BE: Trading Economics; UK: Joint Nature Conservation Committee; DE: German National Forest Inventory 2012; IT: National Forest Inventory 2005 (see Box S1 in
Number of FHT_C present in SCI/SAC sites by study units and their frequency.
Average number of habitat types and of FHT_C present in SCI/SAC sites by study units.
Standardised data collection framework. Main sources for data collection: EUNIS database or regional official websites, Natura 2000 Barometer; EE: EELIS, Keskkonnaagentuur - Keskkonnaregister; UK: Joint Nature Conservation Committee; BE: Trading Economics; CZ: Czech National Forestry Inventory, Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic; DE: German National Forest Inventory (2012); IT: National Forest Inventory
Data ID | Data description |
---|---|
1 | General aspects |
1.1 | Compiler’s name |
1.2 | Country of study |
Total area | |
Total forest area | |
1.3 | No. of terrestrial SCIs/SACs |
Area of terrestrial SCIs/SACs | |
1.4 | No. of terrestrial SCIs/SACs including forest habitats types with potential for coppice |
1.5 | No. of forest habitats types with potential for coppice |
No. of sites with SMPs under Habitats Directive | |
1.6 | Notes |
2 | General occurrence in all available management plans for study regions |
2.1 | Compiler’s name |
2.2 | Country of study |
2.3 | Study region |
2.4 | No. of SCIs/SACs in study region including forest habitats types with potentials for coppice |
2.5 | No. of available SMPs for study region |
2.6 | N. of SMPs containing the word "coppice" or similar terms |
2.7 | No. of SMPs mentioning former coppicing/pollarding |
2.8 | Notes |
3 | Analysis of individual management plans |
3.1 | Site code NUTS2/NUTS3 |
3.2 | Site name |
3.3 | List of FHT_WPC |
3.4 | No. pages |
3.5 | Count of term "coppice" or similar terms |
3.6 | Own chapter about coppice in table of content YES/NO |
3.7 | Current coppice management |
3.8 | Coppice related aims for species YES/NO |
3.9 | Coppice related aims for species comments |
3.10 | Coppice related aims for habitats YES/NO |
3.11 | Coppice related aims for habitats comment |
3.12 | Main management recommendations for active coppices |
3.13 | Notes |
Initial list of forest habitat types of community interest with potential for coppice within EU28 (A), list of forest habitat types present in one or more of the surveyed countries (B), countries where the habitat is or has been managed as coppice (C). Source: List derived from the EUNIS Database (http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats). The codes and the names of the forest habitat types correspond to those of the Annex I the EU Council Directive 92/43/EEC. (*): priority habitat types.
(A) Habitat type code and name | (B)Presence | (C)Coppiced |
---|---|---|
9020* Fennoscandian hemiboreal natural old broadleaved deciduous forests ( |
Yes | EE |
9070 Fennoscandian wooded pastures | Yes | EE |
9080 Fennoscandian deciduous swamp woods | Yes | EE |
9110 |
Yes | IT,BE,CZ |
9120 Atlantic acidophilous beech forests with |
Yes | BE,UK |
9130 |
Yes | IT,BE,CZ,DE,UK |
9140 MedioEuropean subalpine beech woods with Acer and |
Yes | IT |
9150 MedioEuropean limestone beech forests of the |
Yes | IT,CZ |
9160 SubAtlantic and medio-European oak or oak-hornbeam forests of the |
Yes | IT,BE,CZ,DE,UK |
9170 |
Yes | CZ,DE |
9180* |
Yes | IT,CZ,DE,UK |
9190 Old acidophilous oak woods with |
Yes | BE,DE,UK |
91A0 Old sessile oak woods with |
Yes | UK |
91B0 Thermophilous |
No | - |
91C0 Caledonian forest | No | - |
91D0* Bog woodland | Yes | UK |
91E0* Alluvial forests with |
Yes | IT,BE,CZ,DE,UK |
91F0 Riparian mixed forests of |
Yes | IT,CZ,DE |
91G0 Pannonic woods with |
Yes | CZ,DE |
91H0* Pannonian woods with |
Yes | CZ |
91I0 Euro-Siberian steppic woods with |
Yes | CZ |
91K0 Illyrian |
Yes | IT |
91L0 Illyrian oakhornbeam forests ( |
Yes | IT |
91M0 PannonianBalkanic turkey oak -sessile oak forests | Yes | IT |
91N0 Pannonic inland sand dune thicket ( |
No | - |
91Q0 Western Carpathian calcicolous |
No | - |
91S0 Western Pontic beech forests | No | - |
91V0 Dacian Beech forests ( |
No | - |
91W0 Moesian beech forests | No | - |
91X0 Dobrogean beech forests | No | - |
91Y0 Dacian oak and hornbeam forests | No | - |
91Z0 Moesian silver lime woods | No | - |
9210* Apeninne beech forests with |
Yes | IT |
9220 Apennine beech forests with |
Yes | IT |
9230 GalicioPortuguese oak woods with |
No | - |
9240 |
No | - |
9250 |
Yes | IT |
9260 |
Yes | IT |
9270 Hellenic beech forests with |
No | - |
9280 |
Yes | IT |
92A0 |
Yes | IT |
92B0 Riparian formations on intermittent Mediterranean water courses with |
No | - |
92C0 |
No | - |
92D0 Southern riparian galleries and thickets ( |
No | - |
9310 Aegean |
No | - |
9320 |
No | - |
9330 |
No | - |
9340 |
Yes | IT |
9350 |
Yes | IT |
9360 Macaronesian laurel forests ( |
No | - |
9380 Forests of |
Yes | IT |
9390 Scrub and low forest vegetation with |
Yes | - |
93A0 Woodlands with |
Yes | - |
Box S1 - Links to public databases.
Tab. S1 - Questionnaire.
Tab. S2 - Explanation of abbreviations used in the text.
Fig. S1 - Comparison of the distribution of all forest habitat types, forest habitat types with potential for coppice (FHT_WPC), and forest habitat types currently or formerly coppiced (FHT_C), by broad Annex I forest categories.
Fig. S2 - Distribution of forest habitat types by Annex I broad forest categories among the examined countries.
Fig. S3 - Number of forest habitat types currently or formerly coppiced (FHT_C) by conservation status in different biogeographical regions represented by the questionnaire.