0135-B4

Systemic forest management and operational perspectives for implementing forest conservation in Italy under a pan-European framework

Orazio Ciancio ¹, Piermaria Corona, Marco Marchetti and Susanna Nocentini

Abstract

Forest ecosystems must be perceived as entities with intrinsic value and as complex, self-regulating, dynamically changing systems. A holistic and synthetic management approach is required. Abandoning the strategy of forest normalization, adaptive management criteria are needed to frame operational practices.

In Europe, a relevant opportunity in this regard is given by the European Commission strategy for the creation of a network of designated areas for biodiversity conservation, called Natura 2000. The management of a Natura 2000 site pursues one fundamental aim: preserve, restore and maintain at a proper conservation status the habitats and species that the site has been proposed for.

This paper discusses the theory of systemic forest management and associated methodological basics under such a pan-European framework, with examples from experiences in Italy: the aim is to provide managers of protected areas and Nature 2000 sites with interpretation keys and guidance.

1. Framework

Italy has vigorously pursued a conservation policy in the last decade: about 10% of its land area and about 19% of forest land are now protected. As in the rest of Europe, a relevant opportunity in this regard is given by the European Commission (EC) nature protection strategies. The latter promote the creation of a network of designated areas for biodiversity conservation, called Natura 2000. The basic legal texts for the establishment of Natura 2000 are the Directives 79/409/EC (Birds Directive) and 92/43/EC (Habitats Directive) (EC/DG-ENV, 2002). These Directives are the most effective measure set forth by the EC for the conservation of wild animal and plant species and natural habitats of European importance at the continental level. The management of a Natura 2000 site pursues one fundamental aim: to preserve, restore and maintain at a proper conservation status the habitats and species that the site has been proposed for, adopting ad hoc measures of conservation or proper interventions.

The framework by which European Union (EU) countries have implemented the EC Directives on nature conservation varies widely across the EU Member States. In some regions, especially in Central and Northern Europe, there is a tendency towards the designation of small and medium-sized Natura 2000 sites. In this approach, the protection of natural sites often involves purchasing the land or the rights to its use, in a segretative view of conservation. In regions where there are extensive farming and forestry systems still characterized by scattered patches of natural and semi-natural forest stands, especially in Southern and Eastern Europe and in some highlands and mountains in other European countries, the proposed Natura 2000 sites tend to be larger in size, with a view to the integration of nature conservation and rural development (EC/DG-ENV, 2002).

In Italy, many Nature 2000 sites and other protected conservation areas are predominantly characterized by forest habitats. In the light of this, the paper discusses the theory of systemic forest management with the aim of providing forest managers with interpretation keys and operational guidelines, under a pan-European framework.

2. Systemic forest management

In a worldwide perspective, the conventional bases of forest management have undergone significant revisions in the last decades. Born as timber production management, inheriting agricultural ideas and approaches, silviculture has gradually attempted to shift towards applied ecology. Yet the influence of the traditional approach on this process must still be fully recognized.

Traditionally, forest management has been centred on two paradigms: (i) forest perpetuity based on the equilibrium between standing volume, increment and allowable cut; (ii) constrained optimization of commodities (marketable or not). The latter, basically output-oriented paradigm, has favoured simplification of forest structure and composition. The development of applied ecology has highlighted how dangerous such simplifications are for the ecosystems' functionality. Forest normalization, the traditional guiding scheme in Europe, has become a barrier (Ciancio et al., 1999).

Although the contribution of this theoretical approach to the development of forestry as a science should not be forgotten, its limits need to be correctly identified, particularly if the forest is not seen only as a group of trees with commercial value, but as a complex biological system that must be managed so as to sustain its functionality, diversity and resilience.

Silvicultural methods have traditionally been classified on the basis of the forest regeneration approach they implement. Methods that are well-cognized are hence the different types of clear-cutting systems, shelterwood systems, selection systems and coppice treatments. On these bases, technical silvicultural operations (the procedures) are perceived as the main focus of forestry.

Classic silvicultural practices aim at forest regeneration with a predefined model in mind. The aim is to develop "regular" structures with normalised stocking, increment and age or diameter distribution, for even-aged and uneven-aged forests, respectively. In both cases, silvicultural practices try to enforce a model by controlling a few key variables and practically ignoring other aspects classifying them as casual effects. Yield tables, and the corresponding "norm" for uneven-aged forests, are the main expression of the idea that, in principle, by managing forests precisely following such optimal schemes, forest growth will probably match model expectation. However, it is quite often discouraging to match actual observations and the results of forest dynamics simulations. That basic simplified schemes do not find direct application in the forest is a fact well known by practicing foresters: like all complex biological systems, forests are characterised by undetermined reactions, multiple feedback links and close dependency on initial conditions (Corona and Scotti 1998).

In attempts at adapting the approach to actual ecological sustainability, basic schemes have been complicated but the fundamental principles have not been abandoned: inherent forest heterogeneity has been reduced favouring homogeneity, the apparent disordered and chaotic structure of the forest has been forcibly ordered (Ciancio and Nocentini 1997).

Many decades of practical forest management have shown that the current deterministic approach, that expects to explain and govern the system by managing a few key variables, cannot succeed. Moreover, even short-term predictions are not sufficiently reliable. Specifically, as far as natural and semi-natural forests are concerned, subjective and intuitive judgement plays a substantial role in day-by-day choices, relying on monitoring to verify the effectiveness of the choices.

It is now clear that a fundamental modification to the classic approach is required, focusing directly on the forest ecosystem. The search for functional efficiency of the system becomes the fundamental objective of forest management. Acceptance of such a paradigm leads to systemic forest management. In such a perspective (Ciancio and Nocentini 1997, 1998; Ciancio et al., 1999):

• the forest is perceived as a self-organising system with intrinsic value;
• the classic silvicultural framework, centred on the simplistic equilibrium between standing volume, standing volume increment and allowable cut, must be abandoned;
• management practices are guided by an adaptive approach based on reversible interventions (maximising future intervention options);
• the role of monitoring and interpreting the reactions of the system to abiotic, biotic and anthropic factors is fundamental;
• productivity, yield and economic value are dependent on the ecosystem and sustainability does not depend on high inputs of energy; with classic forest management, instead, productivity, yield and economic value are independent of the ecosystem and sustainability depends on a high input of energy from outside.

Systemic silviculture aims at preserving the internal organisation and feedback relations of forest ecosystems. Nonetheless, every human intervention impacts the structure of forest stands, provoking a certain level of stress in the system (Rogers 1996). These impacts need to be constrained within the forests' resilience. Understanding that natural systems are able to preserve their internal organisation, withstanding even major structural modifications, could help find key elements in this issue. Successive forest transformations resulting from human interventions, whether of structural or marginal nature, need to be observed and interpreted considering the complex interactive relations linking the management subjects (the forest and man).

The proposed management approach envisions specific suggestions for systems at different functional and efficiency levels. It is, therefore, possible to define a general framework of technical guidelines for a wide range of intervention levels. Adjustments to the specific requirements of each level are implemented by modifying intervention parameter values (intensity, frequency, etc.) within the given framework. The following are the most relevant aspects of the general framework:

• identification of the specific values of each forest complex;
• overcoming sharp spatial distinction of management targets (absolute preservation on one side and intensive wood production on the other: protection of complexity and biodiversity is a prominent requirement throughout the entire area, under a so-called "integrative" conservation approach);
• preservation of system connectivity at the landscape and regional levels, and maintaining, whenever possible, the occurrence of transitions (ecotones) between different vegetation types;
• overcoming a priori yield determination and aiming instead at a planning approach that relies on periodic monitoring of yield levels as the means of verification;
• search for impact-reducing cultivation methods that preserve existing values and promote others (e.g., temporary logging bans, extending rotation periods, adapting size and shape of felling areas to the pattern of the ecological landscape, adoption of a modular cutting system, favouring natural mixture of species, grazing control, releasing particularly large trees and, at a certain extent, standing deadwood and large woody debris, etc.);
• assuring regular monitoring, so as to allow to quantify the effects both of management and of other human activities (grazing, fires, tourism, pollution, etc.); constant monitoring is also useful for appraising changes in natural species richness, especially as concerns rare or threatened fauna and flora elements.

3. Silvicultural orientations for managing Natura 2000 sites and other protected conservation areas

Natura 2000 is a network of areas designated for biodiversity conservation, enjoying a varying degree of protection from absolute reserves to individual species-based restrictions. The EC Directives only indicate the result to be achieved through national implementation: they do not prescribe any actual conservation measures, and the EU Member States are free to impose a stricter legal framework than originally intended in the Directives (EC/DG-ENV 2002).

As a consequence, only general forest management requirements can be directly derived from the above-mentioned Directives. However, guidance at the operational level can be deduced from the process of the Ministerial Conferences on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE; see, distinctively, Helsinki-1993, Lisbon-1998, and following documents). Silvicultural orientations for Nature 2000 sites have also been outlined by EC (reported in EC/DG-ENV 2002):

• habitat and species conservation at the level of an entire site should be the result of measures in favour of the habitats and species for which the site was designated, leading to a stable "biodiversity offer" for the site as a whole;
• interventions leading to temporary disturbance of forest cover on a reduced space (e.g., group cuttings) or with a limited intensity (e.g., thinning) are legitimate, provided that they allow recovery of the initial situation by natural regeneration, even if several stages of natural succession have to follow one another.

On the whole, silvicultural treatment should emphasise the forest's evolutionary dynamics, supporting natural self-organisation processes that occur in the stands, at least with reference to natural and semi-natural forests. In this perspective, it is preferable to designate Natura 2000 sites with a sufficient extension to allow conservation objectives integrated into existing management plans, rather than to designate small stands corresponding exactly to the forest habitats to be protected (EC/DG-ENV 2002). Depending on the specific conditions, support work may be quite limited (e.g., in the case of management oriented towards sensu stricto preservation) or it may be more active in the dynamics of biocenoses.

4. The Italian experience

Following the above principles, the Nature Conservation Direction of the Italian Ministry for the Environment has prepared management guidelines for Natura 2000 sites in Italy and a reference manual reporting specific management indications referred to the categories into which the Italian Natura 2000 sites have been classified (over 2000 sites with significant forest habitats, grouped in 9 site categories; e.g., see Table 1).

According to the same principles, Italian national conservation policy has been recently translated into management guidelines for the National Parks: such guidelines are based on an integration of systemic forest management criteria with the different protection levels and forest types present in each Park (Ciancio et al. 2002).

For each of these categories and forest types, respectively, the associated habitats, the typical uses, the ecological needs, the most suitable indicators and the existing threats are sinthetically described.
In the framework of systemic forest management, associated guidelines at the operational level provide for:

• a lack of rigid schemes; different specific objectives need to be adopted for each case, adapting to each particular environment and site; instead of necessarily trying to converge on predetermined, so-called normal structures, interventions are based on detailed comparative evaluations of the effects of preceding actions;
• following and sustaining natural regeneration processes; this is done by enhancing the forest's structural complexity, favouring natural irregularities in the spatial and temporal distribution of regeneration;
• linking tree felling criteria, in very general terms, to conditions of single trees or tree groups; the risk of reducing diversity, inherent to all artificial interventions, should be minimised, avoiding early and uniform treatments that alter natural selection processes; dishomogeneities should be favoured, maintaining rare species, trees with cavities that are potential nesting sites, etc.;
• minimising alterations in nutrient cycles, only removing what is truly important to remove, leaving dead or decaying trees and decomposing branches, which may offer suitable habitats for woodpeckers, birds of prey, insects and many lower plants;
• suitable timing and localization of harvesting operations so as to prevent both interference with the reproductive season of animal species and disturbance of rare or threatened species.

The implementation of a network of old-growth forests is also being devised inside the protected areas, as reference stands of functional and dynamic processes.

5. Economic and financial aspects

Forest utilization costs are increasing at a much faster rate than market prices for wood products. This is particularly true in countries like Italy, where most of the forests grow in mountain areas. In these conditions, silviculture could become financially profitable only if intensive and simplified cultivation systems were applied, with high risks for soil conservation and slope stability. But today multiple values are attributed to forests: not only for their productive functions, but also for environmental, naturalistic, landscape, historical, cultural, anthropological, social and scientific aspects. The correct economic (sensu lato) interpretation of these different values is absolutely necessary for the implementation of conservation strategies and guidelines that can gain consensus from all the stakeholders.

Systemic silviculture can feasibly be introduced in the management of public forest properties, given the political will to do so. The application of systemic forest management in private forests should be sustained by economic instruments (incentives, contractual agreements, etc.) and technical assistance, as recognition of the services rendered by the forest to society as a whole (EC/DG-ENV 2002).

A relevant opportunity to test this approach on a large scale is the Italian national conservation policy and its integration in the European Union nature conservation strategy implemented by the Natura 2000 biodiversity conservation network.

Several existing financing instruments can be used for Natura 2000 and forestry. These stem from Life Nature and, partly, Life Environment mechanisms, to Leader+ and Interreg III Community initiatives, to European Regional Development Fund and to Cohesion Fund (the latter only for some EU Member States) (EC/DG-ENV 2002). Furthermore, European Union agricultural policy instruments can be focused on the implementation of forest management oriented to ecological sustainability and biodiversity conservation too: e.g., see Articles 30 and 32 of the EC Regulation 1257/99 "Structural Funds for Rural Development", financed through the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.

6. Concluding remarks

Forest ecosystems need to be perceived as complex, self-regulating, dynamically changing systems. Abandoning the strategy of forest normalisation, an adaptive management approach based on systemic silviculture is needed to frame operational practices in the primary search for forest functional efficiency: nature is ever changing, and it is neither desirable nor possible, in the long term, to reach conservation objectives by opposing the natural forces of change.

The continuation of economic activities in the form of sustainable forest management based on these principles, especially in forest systems that have a long history of use integrated into local traditions and culture, is fundamental for the implementation of a nature conservation strategy that is really effective and widely accepted.

References

Ciancio, O. and S. Nocentini 1997. The forest and man: the evolution of forestry thought from modern humanism to the culture of complexity. Systemic silviculture and management on natural bases. In: Ciancio O. (ed.), The forest and man, Accademia Italiana di Scienze Forestali, Firenze, Italy, pp. 21-114.

Ciancio, O. and S. Nocentini 1998. Forest management in protected conservation areas. In: Morandini, R., Merlo, M., Paivinen, R. (eds.), Forest management in designated conservation and recreation areas, Accademia Italiana di Scienze Forestali, European Forest Institute, Firenze, Italy, pp. 73-86.

Ciancio, O., Corona, P., Iovino, F., Menguzzato, G. and R. Scotti 1999. Forest management on a natural basis: the fundamentals and case studies. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 1/2: 59-72.

Ciancio, O., Corona, P., Marchetti, M. and S. Nocentini 2002. Linee guida per la gestione sostenibile delle risorse forestali e pastorali nei Parchi Nazionali. Ministero dell'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio, Direzione per la Conservazione della Natura, Accademia Italiana di Scienze Forestali, Firenze, Italy.

Corona, P. and R. Scotti 1998. Forest growth-and-yield models: questioning support for sustainable forest management. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 3/4: 131-143.

EC/DG-ENV 2002. Towards a guidance document on Natura 2000 and forestry. "Challenges and opportunities". Revised draft, 1/V3, European Commission, DG-ENV-B2, Brussels, Belgium, 84 pp.

Rogers, P. 1996. Disturbance ecology and forest management: a review of the literature. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report INT-GTR-336, USA, 16 pp.

Table 1. Examples from the guidelines for the development of conservation measures for three categories of Natura 2000 sites related to Mediterranean forest habitats in Italy.

¹ Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Ambientali Forestali, Università di Firenze. Via San Bonaventura 13, 50145 Firenze, Italy. Tel: +39-055-30231221, Fax: +39-055-319179, E-mail: [email protected]