DISCUSSION AND USE OF THE BALTIC FOREST MAPPING RESULTS
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Baltic Forest Mapping project
4. DISCUSSION AND USE OF THE BALTIC FOREST MAPPING RESULTS
4.1 Methodology
The BFM project is one of the very first attempts to identify biological values of forests in the Baltic countries, based on
a methodology that is as much as possible scientific, objective, and avoiding artificial limitations such as advance targets
as to the amount of sites to be selected, ownership considerations etc. The BFM approach should be seen as a tool to
identify biologically valuable forests, rather than a static map showing their location. The BFM methodology was developed
to work with data of traditional national forest inventories (and species inventories), which makes the system relatively
cheap and easy to implement.
The BFM database provides opportunities to analyse the abundance and geographical distribution of different forest
types and the number of value criteria they meet: e.g. given forest types can be compared between regions, and especially
valuable areas where conservation or restoration measures would be needed can be quickly identified. BFM also gives an
opportunity to evaluate current networks of forest protected areas, and to identify areas where further field surveys
should be carried out as part of forest conservation projects.
Each BFM country adjusted the common set of BFM criteria to meet local conditions. Therefore, BFM results are
not completely comparable between the Baltic countries. The most significant difference between the project counties are
the age limits of tree species in BFM criterion 12 (Age of the stand) (see chapter 2 for details) that were defined nationally
based on local knowledge. This, together with the slight differences in the interpretation of criterion 17 (Uneven age/
canopy structure) (see chapter 2) cause most of the differences in the amount of BFM stands e.g. between similar regions
of Latvia and Lithuania. This is not, however, a major drawback in the BFM approach, as adjustments of e.g. different age
limits of tree species can be done in the BFM database also afterwards as required. Apart from interpretations, different
national data sources and their quality demanded a slightly different approach in each country, and caused differences. In
all cases, the conservation value of forest is expected to be higher the more BFM criteria it fulfils.
In Estonia, the BFM criteria are mostly similar to those used in the EFCAN project. Forests without signs of human
impact were identified in BFM based on EFCAN data only, and in reality there may be more stands fulfilling this criterion.
Information on dead wood is incomplete because older forest inventories do not have data on dead wood at all, and in
some more recent inventories the amount of dead wood has been recorded only if they have commercial value. Cultural
forests (wooded pastures) are not covered by the Estonian BFM project, as such sites are adequately covered by projects
on semi-natural grasslands.
In Latvia, the BFM methodology differs considerably from other preceding forest conservation projects. The application
of various data sets combined with GIS tools to map valuable forests is a new approach in Latvia. One of the achievements
of BFM is that existing forest is divided into forest families and types; in other words ecological classification is applied
to the existing forest classification system, and the distribution of forest types can be interpreted using the BFM database.
Consequently, the BFM database containing stand descriptions should be considered not only as a new data set, but also
as a tool for various conservation and forestry planning purposes.
In Lithuania, the BFM project is the first attempt to evaluate the forests according to their complex or integrated value
for biodiversity.
4.2 Data quality
The reliability of the results of the BFM project is directly connected with the quality of the source data, and the quality
and accuracy of the field inventories behind the data. The source data may contain errors and gaps such as incorrect
boundaries of stands, incorrectly recorded species, and values of different forest attributes. The age of the source
databases also plays a significant role, especially in Lithuania, as the former Institute of Forest Management has had no
capacity to carry out inventories of biodiversity values during the recent few years. The inventories on which the main
part of the BFM source data is based are mainly for economical purposes, not for recording pure biological data (for
example different stages of dead wood), so that some biologically valuable stands may not be recorded. The BFM maps
and database should therefore not be considered as the “final truth” when it comes to details of single stands; individual
stands should always be checked in the field when using the BFM database for practical forest planning.
53Baltic Forest Mapping project
In Estonia, data on private forests in the BFM database largely overlaps those of both state forests and agricultural
farms, as described in more detail in Chapter 2. In addition, at the present time only ca. one third of identified BFM
forests (those in state forests) can actually be presented on the Estonian BFM map, although all BFM stands (with a
reference to the location) are included in the Estonian BFM database (see chapter 2).
4.3 Applications of the Baltic Forest Mapping data
The results of the BFM project, as well as the BFM methodology in general, are aimed at both forest conservation
planning and sustainable forest management. The BFM maps reveal that a considerable amount of biologically potentially
valuable forest can be found outside existing protected areas. This means there are excellent opportunities to improve
forest protected area networks in the Baltic States in a systematic and ecologically logical way, as well as to take the
biological values of forests into account in forestry planning outside protected areas. The BFM GIS database allows to
identify concentrations of potentially biologically valuable forests, and forest areas that fulfil several BFM criteria at once
(and that are, by implication, the most valuable of all). Different forest types are variably represented in the current
network of protected areas in the Baltic region; the BFM results clearly establish that there is need for additional protection
of certain forest types in order to establish an ecologically adequate and representative network of forest protected areas.
Protection of biological values in commercial forests can be carried out through management planning, where the
biologically most valuable areas are set aside. The BFM map and methodology can also be used in the forest certification
process, particularly in locating High Conservation Value Forest (HCVF) defined by the FSC certification system. National
FSC certification standards are currently being elaborated across the Baltic region.
The BFM results also demonstrate the need to improve (state) forest surveys and the respective databases in order to
monitor the requirements of biodiversity conservation .
4.4 Conservation priorities identified by the Baltic Forest Mapping project
4.4.1 Estonia
The BFM project is not the first attempt to identify biological values in Estonia in a systematic way beyond the stand (or
species) level. BFM results support earlier findings. Recent scientific research shows that the present amount of strictly
protected forests in Estonia does not guarantee the survival of viable populations of all forest dwelling species. Based on
a representativeness analysis of different forest types, only three out of thirteen Estonian forest types (Estonian national
classification) enjoy a more or less satisfactory level of conservation. The current political target in Estonia is to increase
the amount of strictly protected forests.
Based on BFM results, Estonian forests still host relatively high nature values compared to many other European
countries. On the other hand, the extremely high current logging levels are a major threat to these values. The BFM GIS
database is potentially a very helpful tool in establishing new as well as expanding existing forest protected areas, and for
developing sustainable forest management in commercial forests.
As all state forests (RMK) in Estonia are certified by FSC, and the certification of private forests is under way, there are
good possibilities to utilise the BFM results in future forest use planning, in particular to identify biologically valuable
stands. In the long term, the BFM database could become a part of a landscape level plan of a representative network of
forest protected areas and green corridors.
4.4.2 Latvia
Only 8% of BFM forests are included in the current Latvian network of forest protected areas (FPAs). At the same time
many forests within the existing FPAs do not meet BFM criteria. This stresses the need not only to evaluate the existing
FPA network, but also to establish an adequate network of set-aside areas outside existing FPAs, and to improve current
forestry practices to take biodiversity issues better into account. The existing FPA network is insufficient to maintain the
biological values of Latvian forests in the long term. Forest use planning in commercial forests should incorporate
measures such as preservation of dead wood, the maintenance of all natural succession stages of forests, and sensitive
management of vulnerable habitats (e.g. forests along watercourses, forests on steep slopes, remnants of broad-leaved
54Baltic Forest Mapping project
forests). An analysis should be made of how existing forestry practices are compatible with maintenance of nature values.
It would also be reasonable to elaborate special forestry management plans for areas with concentrations of BFM forests.
Of various forest types, especially broad-leaved forests are insufficiently protected.
The BFM data can be used to identify High Conservation Value Forests (HCVFs) within the Latvian FSC forest
certification framework. A pilot study carried out in 2002 showed that BFM is a useful and simple tool to identify HCVF
areas. Another use of the BFM GIS database in Latvia is to evaluate the potential distribution of forest-dependent bird
species in forest landscapes. Based on modelling, the possible trends on forest-dependent species population dynamics
could be elaborated, and consequently adequate steps to ensure sufficient protection measures (e.g. improvement of
forestry practices) can be to be initiated based on database predictions as to the species’s requirements.
The BFM is also a useful tool for identifying forest areas where forests restoration is needed. The regional distribution
of each forest type can be identified and gaps in the distribution disruptive of conservation aims identified. Especially
there is a need for restoration of broad-leaved forests in southern Latvia.
4.4.3 Lithuania
BFM results indicate the areas of Lithuania where concentration of potentially biologically valuable forests are highest.
These areas should be taken into account when planning forestry activities and e.g. the Lithuanian NATURA 2000
network. The largest proportion of BFM stands is concentrated in the central, northern and western parts of Lithuania,
where wet deciduous and spruce-dominated forests prevail. This part of the country should be considered as the most the
valuable for forest biodiversity in Lithuania. The central and northern (particularly north-eastern) parts of the country are
underrepresented in the current Lithuanian forest protected area (FPA) network: the region has no strict nature reserves,
no national parks, and only a few regional parks. More attention should be paid to this region, which host very high
potential biological values. Valuable forest tracts important for birds of EU interest are also concentrated in this region.
An inventory of forest-dwelling bird populations has been made in Lithuania recently (Raudonikis & Kurlavicius 2000),
and the results of this inventory coincide with the results of the BFM project. Further proof of the very high biological
value of forests of this region is the fact that one of its forestry units, Birzai, holds Woodland Key Habitats covering 3.4%
of its total forest area. The average figure for Lithuania is 0.6%.
The BFM project also revealed that in southern and south-eastern parts of Lithuania (the most forested part of the
country), where dry pine forest prevail, the proportion of BFM stands is relatively low. This is reflects prevailing forestry
practices in Lithuania, which do not support ecological processes in pine-dominated stands.
Comparison between BFM stands and current protected forests in different forest protected areas (FPAs) and forests
of different categories indicates that a large proportion of BFM forests are situated either outside current FPAs, and
indeed belong to forest use category IV (commercial forests). At the same time there are many forests within existing FPA
and forests of category II that do not meet any of BFM criteria (mostly due to the young age of the stands). One reason
for this is that the FPAs of Lithuania are still young (e.g. most of the Regional parks were established only ten years ago),
and only a small part of their forests were previously without forest management. Most of earlier (during Soviet times)
established FPAs are situated on peat bogs.
Private forests are being used more intensively than state forests in Lithuania. Private forests have less BFM stands
already now as compared to other ownership categories, and it is obvious that future continued privatisation will be one
of the main threats to BFM forests. To avoid the loss of biologically valuable forests, the government should exclude the
most valuable stands from the forests reserved for privatisation. BFM results should also be utilised when defining the
High Conservation Value Forests according to the Lithuanian FSC standard.
55Baltic Forest Mapping project
Case study
Implementation of the results of the Baltic Forest Mapping project
in the management of a protected area in Estonia
The methodology and results of the BFM project was used in Estonia in making the management
plan and planning further activities for the Rannametsa–Soometsa Protected Area. The main
purpose of this work was to describe and analyse forests of different zones within the protected
area, proceeding from the aim of protection of the zone and its known or potential nature
values. A brief vision of the development of the forests in the next one hundred years was also
made. Possible forest management actions arising from nature conservation requirements were
analysed and described, as well as the forest management actions which would not hinder the
fulfilment of conservation aims.
The suitability of each protection procedure was evaluated considering the proportion and distribution
of BFM stands. Different thematic BFM maps were prepared by zones of the protected area in
order to obtain an overview of the nature values of the forests, e.g.:
distribution of forests by age;
distribution of forests by BFM criteria (number of fulfilled criteria)
typological distribution of forests according to the BFM forest types
In the case of the Rannametsa–Soometsa Protected Area, there was no direct need to establish
stricter protection procedures, as the most valuable areas were already strictly protected. At
some sites, protection status was recommended to be somewhat alleviated, in order to allow the
restoration of the natural water regime in drained areas. As to the expansion of the strictly
protected area, the BFM maps confirmed the respective proposals made based on the earlier
EFCAN project (see chapter 2). In addition, a proposal was made to expand the protected area
to cover some old-growth forests, which met many of the BFM criteria.
56Baltic Forest Mapping project
5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The success of the Baltic Forest Mapping depended on co-operation and assistance from a great many individuals and
institutions. The BFM project staff and Steering Group particularly wish to thank:
The Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs for major financial support
Estonian Forest Survey Centre, State Forest Management Centre and Estonian Environment
Information Centre
JSC “Latvijas Valsts Mezi” and Latvian “State forest service” for the possibility to use forest databases
free
Latvian Environmental Agency for helping with interpretation of topographical maps
State Enterprise Lithuanian Forest Inventory and Management Institute
GIS Laboratory of the Lithuanian Agricultural University, Institute of Environment
The Baltic Forest Mapping project Scientific Review Committee Members for advice and comment, and
in particular Professor Per Angelstam for input into the formation of the BFM stand selection
criteria
Novo Meridian Oy (Finland) and ESRI Inc. for supplying ArcView software licenses at a reduced price
57Baltic Forest Mapping project
6. CONTACT INFORMATION
Estonia Lithuania Mikko Kuusinen
BFM project Scientific Review
Rainer Kuuba Vitas Stanevicius Committee member
BFM project co-ordinator BFM project co-ordinator Ministry of the Environment, PL 380,
Eestimaa Looduse Fond ELF Lietuvos Ornitologu Draugija LOD 00131 Helsinki, Finland
Pk 245, Tartu 50002, Estonia (BirdLife Lithuania) tel +358 9 19911
tel: +372 7 428443 Naugarduko St. 47-3, Vilnius, LT-2006, fax: int. +358 9 1991 9545
fax: +372 7 428166 Lithuania e-mail: mikko.kuusinen@ymparisto.fi
e-mail: Rainer@elfond.ee tel/fax.: +370 2 230498
email: lod@birdlife.lt
Sweden
Toomas Trapido
BFM project Steering Group member Petras Kurlavicius
Eestimaa Looduse Fond ELF BFM project Steering Group member Per Larsson
Pk 245, Tartu 50002, Estonia Lietuvos Ornitologu Draugija LOD BFM project Steering Group member
tel: +372 7 428443 (BirdLife Lithuania) WWF Sweden
fax: +372 7 428166 Naugarduko St. 47-3, Vilnius, LT-2006, Ulriksdals slott, 170 81 Solna, Sweden
e-mail: Toomas@elfond.ee Lithuania tel: +46 -8-624 74 00
tel/fax.: +370 5 2130498 fax: +46-8-85 13 29:
email: petras.kurlavicius@birdlife.lt per.larsson@wwf.se
Jaanus Elts
BFM project Steering Group member
Eesti Ornitoloogiaühing (BirdLife Gintautas Mozgeris Per Angelstam
Estonia) BFM project co-ordinator BFM project Scientific Review
Pk. 227, 50002 Tartu, Estonia Lietuvos Ornitologu Draugija LOD Committee member
tel. +372 7 422195 (BirdLife Lithuania) Grimsö Wildlife Research Station,
fax +372 7 422180 Naugarduko St. 47-3, Vilnius, LT-2006, Department of Conservation Biology
email: jaanus@linnu.tartu.ee Lithuania Forest Faculty, Swedish University of
tel/fax.: +370 2 23 04 98 Agricultural Sciences (SLU)
email: gislab@hidro.lzua.lt SE-730 91 Riddarhyttan, Sweden
Asko Lõhmus tel: +46-(0)581-697300
BFM project Scientific Review fax.+46-(0)581-697310
Committee member Marius Lazdinis e-mail: per.angelstam@nvb.slu.se
email: hirundo@linnu.tartu.ee BFM project Scientific Review
Committee member
e-mail: mariusl@nt.gamta.lt
Latvia
Finland
Martins Lukins
BFM project co-ordinator
Latvijas Ornitologijas Biedriba LOB Petteri Tolvanen
(BirdLife Latvia) BFM project co-ordinator
P.O.Box 1010, LV-1050 Riga, Latvia WWF Finland
tel./fax.: +371 722 1580 Lintulahdenkatu 10, FIN-00500
e-mail: mlukins@wwf.org.lv Helsinki, Finland
tel. +358 9 77401053
fax +358 9 77402139
Maris Strazds email: petteri.tolvanen@wwf.fi
BFM project Steering Group member
Latvijas Ornitologijas Biedriba LOB
(BirdLife Latvia) Harri Karjalainen
P.O.Box 1010, LV-1050 Riga, Latvia BFM project Steering Group member
tel./fax.: +371 722 1580 WWF Finland
e-mail: mstrazds@latnet.lv Lintulahdenkatu 10, FIN-00500
Helsinki, Finland
tel. +358 9 7740100
Ints Mednis fax +358 9 77402139
BFM project Steering Group member email: harri.karjalainen@wwf.fi
WWF Latvia
Elizabetes str. 8-4 Riga, LV1010, Latvia
tel +371 7505640, fax:+371 7505651, e- Marcus Walsh
mail: IMednis@wwf.org.lv BFM project Steering Group member
BirdLife Finland, P.O.Box 1285
FIN-00101 Helsinki, Finland
Janis Donis tel. +358 (0)9 4135 3300
BFM project Scientific Review fax +358 (0)9 4135 3322
Committee member e-mail: office@birdlife.fi
e-mail: donis@silava.lv
58Baltic Forest Mapping project
7. REFERENCES
Ahti, T., Hämet-Ahti, L. & Jalas, J. 1968: Vegetation zones and their sections in north-western Europe. Ann. Bot.
Fenn. 5:169-211.
Angelstam, P. 1992: Conservation of communities – The Importance of Edges, Surrounding and Landscape Mosaic
Structure. In: Hansson, L. (ed.): Ecological principles of nature conservation. – Elsevier. London & New York.
Angelstam, P. 1999: Europe’s last wilderness. The Pechora-Ilych Zapovednik in Russia – Internet pages at http://
w1.581.telia.com/~u58104198/PIZsite/
Angelstam, P. & Lazdinis, M. 2000: Sustainable forestry. Balancing forest production and biodiversity maintenance in
the Baltic drainage basin. – WWF Baltic Bulletin 1/2000:5–9.
Dudley, N. & Pressey, B. 2001: Forests Protected Areas. Why should we worry about systematic planning. – Arbor
vitæ, Supplement, October 2001. WWF & IUCN.
Dudley, N., Gilmour, D. & Jeanrenaud, J.-P. 1996: Forests for Life. The WWF/IUCN forest policy book. – WWF & IUCN.
(http://www.panda.org/forests4life/downloads/wwfpb.pdf)
Esseen, P.-A., Ehnström, B., Ericson, L. & Sjöberg, K. 1992: Boreal Forests – The Focal Habitats of Fennoscandia.
In: Hansson, L. (ed.): Ecological principles of nature conservation. – Elsevier. London & New York.
Korjus, H., Viilma, K. 1998: EC-1: Eesti metsakaitsealade võrgustiku arendamine. 1998. aasta välitööde aruanne.
Riigi Metsaamet, Tallinn. 47 p.
Kotiranta, H. & Niemelä, T. 1996: Suomen uhanaliset käävät. Toinen, uudistettu painos (English abstract: Threatened
Polypores in Finland. Second revised edition). – Finnish Environmet Institute. Environmental guide 10: 1–184.
Kuuba, R. 2001. The dynamics and the character of harvest rates in Estonia during tha last decade of the 20th
century. - Forestry Studies XXXV, Tartu, 59 - 73.
Kuuba, R. (ed.) 2001. Management Guidelines for Protection Forests. Working Group on Protection Forest
Management. Estonian Forest Conservation Area Network. Estonian Ministry of Environment. Triip Grupp,
Tartu, 45 p.
Kuuluvainen, T., 1994: Gap disturbance, ground microtopography, and the regeneration dynamics of boreal coniferous
forests in Finland: a review. Annales Zoologici Fennici, vol. 31, pp. 35-51.
Nilsson, S.G. & Ericson, L. 1992: Conservation of Plant and Animal Populations in Theory and Practice. In: Hansson, L.
(ed.): Ecological principles of nature conservation. – Elsevier. London & New York.
Paal, J. 1997. Eesti taimkatte kasvukohatüüpide klassifikatsioon. Classification of Estonian vegetation site types.
Tallinn, 297 p.
Rassi, P., Itkonen, P., Lindholm, T. & Salminen, P. 1996: Vanhojen metsien suojelu Pohjois-Suomessa- Vanhojen
metsien suojelutyöryhmän osamietintö III. – The Finnish Environment 30: 1-108.
Rassi, P., Lindholm, T., Salminen, P. ja Tanninen, T. 1992: Vanhojen metsien suojelu valtion mailla Etelä-Suomessa;
Vanhojen metsien suojelutyöryhmän osamietintö. – Ympäristöministeriö, ympäristönsuojeluosasto; työryhmän
mietintö 1992(70).
Raudonikis L. & Kurlavicius P. 2000: Important Bird Areas in Lithuania. – Lithuanian Ornithological Society and
Institute of Ecology. Lutute, Vilnius.
Rolstad, J. 1989: Effects of logging on capercaillie Tetrao urogallus leks: cutting experiments in Southcentral Norway.
– Scand. J. For. Res. 4: 99-109.
Ruuhijärvi, R. (chair), Kuusinen, M., Raunio, A. & Eisto, K. 2000: Metsien suojelun tarve Etelä-Suomessa ja Pohjan-
maalla. Etelä-Suomen ja Pohjanmaan metsien suojelun tarve –työryhmän mietintö. (English abstract: Forest
protection in southern Finland and Ostrobothnia.) – The Finnish Environment 437: 1-284.
Siitonen, J. 1998: Lahopuun merkitys metsäluonnon monimuotoisuudelle – kirjallisuuskatsaus. (In Finnish) – Metsän-
59Baltic Forest Mapping project
tutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja 705: 131–161.
Syrjänen, K., Kalliola, R., Puolasmaa, A. and Mattsson, J., 1994: Landscape structure and forest dynamics in subcontinental
Russian European taiga. Annales Zoologici Fennici 31: 19–34.
Viilma, K., Öövel, J., Tamm, U., Tomson, P., Amos, T., Ostonen, I., Sørensen, P. & Kuuba, R. 2001: Estonian Forest
Conservation Area Network. Final report of the Estonian Forest Conservation Area Network Project. – Ministry
of Environmet, Estonia. Triip Grupp. Tartu. 95 p + 306 p.
UNEP/WCMC 2000: European Forests and Protected Areas. Gap analysis. – Internet: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/
forest/eu_gap/homepage.htm
WWF 2000: Insight into Europe’s Forest Protection. – WWF Report, WWF, Gland, Switzerland. (also available in
internet at http://www.panda.org/resources/publications/forest/FOREST_1.pdf)
60Baltic Forest Mapping project
ANNEX 1
Overview of forest characteristics, forest governance and forest protection in the Baltic States
1. Estonia
1.1 General characteristics of forests
The Estonian Forest Act defines forest as areas of 0,5 ha or bigger where trees are at least 1,3m high and crown projection
covers at least 30% of the area; or as an area managed for timber and other forest products; or as an area where trees are
maintained for other uses connected with forests.
Forests cover ca 51 % (2.25 million ha) of Estonia. The most common forest tree species are Scots pine (32% of forest
area), Birch (31%), Norway spruce (19%) and Grey alder (9%). The forest cover has been increasing since the early 1900s;
this has mostly taken place on arable lands that have become overgrown by deciduous forests. One third of forests belong
to the state and are managed by the State Forest Management Centre (RMK), one third belong to private owners, and one
third (e.g. former collective farm lands) is still awaiting privatisation.
1.2 Government forest policy and legislation
The most important Estonian legislative acts regulating forestry and forest conservation are:
1) the National Forest Policy Act (1997), which states that Estonian forests should be managed in
a sustainable way; and that the share of strictly protected forests should be increased to at least
4% of forest land and the area of protection forests to 15% of forest area;
2) The Forest Act (1998), which classifies forests by management regimes, introduces the concept
of key habitats, and gives rules for their management. Based on this law, a Forestry Development
Plan for 2002–2011 has been compiled;
3) The Act on Protected Natural Objects (1994, 2001), which sets out the classification of protected
areas and the principles for protecting species. A proposal has been made to increase the area of
strictly protected forests to 10% of forest land, but consideration and further implementation of
this proposal is still open.
1.3 Forest industry and certification
The intensity of felling increased from 2,4 million m3/year in 1993 to more than 12,7 million m3/year in 2000. The latter
exceeds the sustainable maximum (7,8 million m3), stated in the National Forest Policy Document of 1997. However, the
new Forest Development Plan of 2002 established the maximum harvest at 13.1 million m3/year. Moreover, the structure
of forests is dramatically changing, as cuttings have been concentrated in certain forest types, especially old spruce
forests. Compared to the Forest Development Plan, pine has been harvested annually at 144% and spruce at 190% of the
agreed maximum during 1998-2002.
The logging pressure of forests varies by owner. In certified state forests the average wood outtake is relatively low
(3,6 m3/ha/year), whereas in privatised forests it is 10,1 m3/ha/year (Kuuba 2001). Despite this, the conservation status
of Estonian forests is still relatively good compared to many other parts of West and North Europe. This is because of
the relatively low logging pressure during the period that Estonia was part of the Soviet Union, and because one third of
Estonian forests still remain unprivatised and therefore unmanaged. Independence and the ensuing forest privatisation
has meant rapidly growing harvest rates, so that the biggest threat to Estonian forests is the expected continued decrease
in the area of unmanaged forest as privatisation proceeds.
The process of forest certification has started in Estonia. By the end of the year 2002 the forest area certified
according to FSC requirements covered 830 000 ha of state forests, and more than 500 ha of private forest. The full
Estonian National FSC Standard is currently being finalised.
61Baltic Forest Mapping project
1.4 The status of forest biodiversity conservation
Of all Estonian forests, ca 78% are commercial forests managed mostly for timber production (Figure A1). The rest, i.e.
forests with limitations of use and so-called conservation forests, can be classified in four categories:
1 Strictly Protected Forests, divided in the following sub-categories:
- Reserves of protected areas and special management zones (in total 4,0% of Estonian forest land)
- Forests proposed for strict protection by the EFCAN project (not yet under legal protection)
- Forests of Zone I at permanent Capercaillie leks (in total 0,7% of Estonian forest land)
- Forests forming parts of habitats of category I protected species
1 Forest areas identified and recommended for strict protection by the Estonian Forest Conservation
Areas Network EFCAN project (1999–2001). The final report of the EFCAN project (Viilma
et al. 2001) notes that by the end of the project, the area of strictly protected forests of high
conservation value totalled 51 900 ha. EFCAN recommended protecting strictly another 29 000 ha
of forest land identified as of high conservation value. At the moment the proposed additional 29
000 ha are not under official protection, but the state forest management agency RMK has excluded
all such forests located in its area of management from commercial planning. In addition to the
above there are also several long established protected areas founded in time without a clear protection
regime (lacking protection rules). Around 2 600 ha of these can described as strictly protected forests.
2 Woodland Key Habitats (as defined by law). Potentially up to 20 000 ha forest land, but up to
now only partly documented. By the end of the year 2001 ca 11 500 ha of land was classified as
Woodland Key Habitat, but signed contracts ensuring their protection covered only some 180
ha.
3 So-called ‘protection forests’, aiming at protecting certain general environmental values such as
soils. This category covers about 16% of Estonia’s forest land. The management in these forests
varies a lot from low to intensive, so that ‘protection forests’ cannot usually be regarded as
strictly protected. Protection Forests are:
- Limited management zones of protected areas with protection rules
- Protected areas as yet without protection regulations
- Forests of Zone II in permanent habitat of Capercaillie (the remaining permanent habitat,
whichcomprises habitats suitable for Capercaillie within a radius of 1 km around the display grounds)
- Water protection forests
- Soil protection forests
The National Forest Inventory of 1999 gives the area of forests in reserves and special management zones as 4% of the total
forest area. According to the statistical forest inventory of 2002, the area of protected forests was 498 500 ha (22,1% of the total
forest area). The current and expected percentage of strictly protected forest in Estonia (ca 6,1%) is higher than in Latvia and
Lithuania, but still less than is generally considered to be the minimum for successful long term conservation of forest
biodiversity. Also, the protected sites do not cover all forest types sufficiently. It is evident that current protected areas have been
established based on territorial considerations only. Field inventories show that only 26% of strictly protected forests are
mature or nearly mature stands. There is a need not only for additional forest reserves but also for the restoration of natural
forest conditions.
Another recent study put the percentage of strictly protected forests of Estonia at 162 000 ha (7,2%), but this included
land as yet not properly established, with protection ensured through agreements and contracts. The analysis also showed that
only three forest types of thirteen (dry boreal, mixotrophic bog and ombotrophic bog forests) have a satisfactory conservation
status. Even this takes account only of area considerations, not ecological characteristics. Many protected forests have low
protective value.
62Baltic Forest Mapping project
In many regions, large protected areas contain mires, coastal regions and other non-forested areas. No calculations have been
made so far as to the minimum necessary area for guaranteeing the long term protection of biological values in Estonian
forests. Most of the strictly protected areas are also relatively small: for example, the Estonian Forest Conservation Area
Network project proposed 136 new sites to be protected of total area 37 821 ha, i.e. 278 ha per site.
During the 1990s, populations of all sensitive bird species of old forests (e.g. Black Stork, Goshawk, Capercaillie, White-
backed Woodpecker) declined in Estonia. According to an analysis by the Estonian Ornithological Society EOÜ, most forest
birds included in Annex I of the EU Birds Directive are not sufficiently well represented in current protected areas.
The Estonian Natura 2000 network will basically be established using sites of existing protected areas. The Estonian draft
list of Natura 2000 sites proposed by the authorities was finalised in spring 2001. Based on inventories and other data, an
analysis is being carried out as to which habitat types are sufficiently well represented and which types need additional areas to
fulfil Natura 2000 requirements. In 2003 the additional new areas for inclusion in Natura 2000 will be made public and added
to the final database of Estonia’s Natura 2000 proposal.
Strictly protected Partly protected: Partly protected:
Partly protected:
forests protected areas water protection
soil protection
6 % lacking protection forests
forests
regulations 6%
3 %
1% Partly protected:
Zone II of
Capercaillie leks
2%
Partly protected:
limited management
zones
3%
Commercial forests
79 %
Figure A1. Protected and protection forests in Estonia by protection categories.
Treeless areas and
areas under
regeneration
Young forests
Mature stands 6%
6%
20 %
Pole stands
Pre-mature stands 10 %
7%
Middle aged stands
51 %
Figure A2. Protected and protection forests in Estonia by age.
63Baltic Forest Mapping project
2 Latvia
2.1 General characteristics of forests
Forests cover ca 45% (2,9 million ha) of Latvia. The most common forest tree species are Scots pine and birch. As with Estonia,
forest cover has increased considerably during the last decades.
2.2 Government forest policy and legislation
The first national Forest Policy was drafted in 1996 and passed in 1998. 1999 saw adoption of an optimisation plan for forest
industry and administration, and the reorganised structures started to function in 2000. The government of Latvia has made
a clear international commitment to retain or increase the area and quality of protected forests to the level needed to sustain
biodiversity. The former complicated and ineffective system of forest protection is under re-evaluation following adoption of
the new Forest Bill passed in 2000.
The most important regulations affecting biodiversity in conventionally managed forests are those regulating final cutting
and the conservation requirements during forestry operations (2001). Other relevant regulations, from the Act on Species and
Habitats Conservation, are those governing the creation, protection and management of micro-reserves (Woodland Key
Habitats) (2001). The micro-reserve regulations allow for creating small-size protected territories around discovered nests of
Black Storks (10–30 ha for each nest), several species of birds of prey (up to 200 ha for large eagles), rare Woodpeckers (2-8 ha
per site), Capercaillie leks (10-200 ha) etc.
2.3 Forest industry and certification
The total share of the forest industry in the National Gross Domestic Product was 10–14% in the year 1999. The major part
(80–85%) of timber products are exported, with 63% going to EU countries. Sawn wood, round wood and plywood
comprise more than 70% of the exported goods. Since 1993, the amount of exported sawn wood has increased almost
tenfold, reaching more than 2.8 million m3 in 1999.
The process of forest certification using the FSC scheme has been started. By April 2002 the area certified according to FSC
requirements was 800 000 ha of state forests and 905 ha of privately owned forests. The Latvian national standard is still being
elaborated, with article 9 ( i.e. the criteria and implementation of High Conservation Value Forest protection) currently under
discussion.
2.4 The status of forest biodiversity conservation
The division of Latvian forests into different management and protection categories is shown in Figure A3. Although in ca
17% of Latvia’s forests management is somehow limited, only ca. 0,4% of the country’s forests can be classified as strictly
protected (corresponding to IUCN protection categories I-IV) and already officially so recognised. Despite a well-elaborated
zoning system of protected areas (PAs), including management prescriptions for each zone, various data sources give different
figures as to the area of forest considered as strictly protected. This is because figures on the areas of different management
zones are not available. Protected areas established for species and habitat management cover ca 65 000 ha of forests, but the
management status of these varies from strictly protected to no forestry restrictions at all. Because of this, this analysis
considers forests established for species and habitat management as less strictly protected than the State Strict Nature Reserves
and Strictly protected zones of National Parks. This results in a minimum estimate for strictly protected forest in Latvia of
0,4% rather than the 3,7% usually cited.
Special Purpose forests comprise all forests with some form of restrictions to forest management compared to commercial
forests. These include certain zones in forests of species/habitats management, restricted and controlled management zones
of National Parks and Biosphere reserves etc.. The pending regulations on nature conservation requirements in forestry have
set aside all former forest ‘protection’ categories such as protection zones along streams, bogs and lake islands, coastal forests
etc. where formerly either a cutting age much higher than average was used, or which were excluded from forestry. These sites
will in future either be listed as micro-reserves (Woodland Key Habitats) or be converted into areas of conventional forest
management.
64Baltic Forest Mapping project
The Latvian Woodland Key Habitat project was started in 1999. The total area so far inventoried exceeds 1 million ha (98 000
stands) in state forests. The discovered WKHs cover 38 000 ha in 20 000 sites. According to statistics, the total protected area
in commercial forests was ca 6,8% of the total at the beginning of 2001, but WKHs are not included in this figure. It is expected
that the conservation status of ca. 40-50% of the currently protected areas in commercial forests will be cancelled soon.
Consequently, the protected area in commercial forests including WKHs delineated would be between 3 to 4% of the total
forest area. Additionally, management measures are totally prohibited in strict regime zones of Nature reserves (total area ca 1
400 ha) and National Parks (total area ca 3 300 ha).
special purpose strictly protected
forests (II) 11,9% reserves 1,2%
protection forests
(III)
15,7 %
commercial
forests (IV)
71,2 %
Figure A3. Protected and protection forests in Latvia by protection categories. Data source: State Forest Service 2001
3 Lithuania
3.1 General characteristics of forests
The Lithuanian Forest Law defines forest as a site larger than 0,1 ha with trees at maturity more than 5 m high. Forests cover
ca 31 % of Lithuania (2.01 million ha). The most common forest tree species are Scots pine (37% of forest area), Norway spruce
(23%) and Birch (20%). Forest cover has been increasing since World War II. The increase has mostly taken place on abandoned
unfertile former agricultural land that has become naturally overgrown by forests. Half of Lithuanian forests belong to the
state, 26% of forests are private, and the rest (24%) are still awaiting privatisation.
3.2 Government forest policy and legislation
The most important legislative acts regulating nature conservation and forestry in Lithuania are the following:
1) The National Forest Law (2001), which among other things recognises owners’ and users’ obligations
to protect forest biodiversity. The law also classifies national forests into use/protection categories.
2) National Protected Area Law (2001) which details the system of protected areas and sets out rules for
their management. The law also integrates the EU Bird and Habitats Directives into the Lithuanian
legislation.
3) Regulations on the Final Cutting of Forests, which regulate forest use (1999, 2001).
4) Regulations on Forest Inventories, which set out details on carrying out forest inventories and
preparation of forest management plans.
5) The Law on Protection of Animal, Plant and Mushroom Species as well as Species Communities,
which describes the principles of habitat protection, etc.
The Law on Species and Communities Protection requests forest owners to protect species by creating favourable conditions
for protected species and their communities. The latter are listed in the national Red Data Book and in the EU Bird and Habitat
directive documents. Unfortunately there is no national regulation governinghow to protect these species or how to manage
their populations and habitats. However, protected zones of a fixed radius (Table A1) are established around the nest of some
forest dwelling bird species. Regulations on final cutting also require protection of stands around Capercaillie leks, where
clearcuts are prohibited. Additionally, in the zone around the lek the maximum permitted clearcut area is 2 ha.
65Baltic Forest Mapping project
Table A1. Protected zones around nests of some forest dwelling bird species in Lithuania.
Radius of protected zone Bird species
around nest, m
200 Short-toed Eagle, Spotted Eagle, Golden Eagle, White-tailed Eagle, Osprey,
Black Stork, Peregrine Falcon, Eagle Owl
100 Black Kite, Red Kite, Honey Buzzard, Lesser Spotted Eagle, Goshawk,
Common Crane
50 Hobby, Kestrel, Merlin
The Lithuanian Government has made considerable progress in implementing the European Union Bird and Habitat
directives. This includes:
criteria for the selection of areas important for bird protection according to the EU Bird Directive
elaborated and confirmed;
list of potential sites important for bird protection prepared, and their boundaries fixed
designation process of non-forest sites started
draft regulations on how to manage the sites prepared (not yet approved)
Analyses of proposed draft NATURA 2000 network show that ca 50% of the areas are outside the current national
Protected Area network. Forested areas that are potential NATURA 2000 sites are concentrated in central Lithuania.
These are mostly deciduous and mixed forests tracts important for e.g. many rare bird species.
3.3 Forest industry and certification
The intensity of felling has doubled from approximately 3 million m3/year in the years 1961-1991 to nearly 6 million m3/
year in the years 1995-2001
The process of forest certification using the FSC scheme was initiated in 2002, when the first two regional state forest
enterprises were certified. Neither of these enterprises had at the moment of certification any strictly protected forest. In 2003,
16 more regional forest enterprises will be certified, bringing the total to nearly half the state forest area. The Lithuanian national
FSC certification standard has not yet been elaborated.
3.4 The status of forest biodiversity conservation
Lithuanian forests are divided into four categories, depending on their management and protection status (Figure A4):
Strictly protected reserves (category I), Special purpose forests (category II), Protection forests (category III) and Commercial
forests (category IV).
The clearly largest category is commercial forests, comprising ca. 71.2% of all forests (situation of 1st January 2002).
Forest use is regulated according to norms set out in regulations for final felling. Felling of trees is permitted, with some
limitations at specified economic harvesting ages using any commercially appropriate silvicultural system or method (see
Table A2). To forest use category IV belong not only commercial but also some forests in protected areas, for example
some management zones of the National and Regional Parks (4,2% of the total area; 1998). ‘Protection forests’ (category
III), where clear felling is allowed (but priority is given to selective cuttings), comprise ca 15,7% of forests. They are
mostly forests in geological, geo-morphological, and hydrographical preservation areas, and belong to zones of state
parks and to landscape as well as botanical-zoological nature reserves; some are parts of zones for recreation or of nature
reserves. They consist of part of forests of managed reserves (4,0%), forests of protective zones of State parks (3,2%),
forests around factories (0,1%), forests of protective and aesthetic value near roads (0,1%), forests providing protection
for fields (0,9%), forests of seed stands (0,1%) and forests of protective zones for water bodies (7,3%). Forests of
category II (Special purpose forests) consist of recreational forests (3,2%) and so-called forests for protection of ecosystems
(8,7%). Regulations are similar to those for categories III and IV, but the final cutting age is higher (Table A2).
66Baltic Forest Mapping project
Table A2. Minimum age of forest stand to be cut by final felling in Lithuania.
Dominating tree species in the stand category IV category III category II
Pine, ash, maple, elm 101 111 170
Spruce 71 81 120
Oak 121 141 200
Birch, black alder, lime, hornbeam 61 61 90
Aspen 41 41 60
Grey alder and various Salix species 31 31 50
The Lithuanian protected area system consists of State Strict Nature Reserves, Biosphere Reserves, State Parks (National and
Regional Parks), State Nature Reserves and Nature Monuments. Different protected/limited use areas comprise ca 754 000 ha
or 11,5% of Lithuanian territory. Forest categories also regulate the maximum permitted clear cut area. In forests of category
IV the limit is 8 ha and in category III 5 ha. Unfortunately, clear felling is allowed in “unproductive” stands (from the
commercial point of view), as well as stands damaged by storms, disease, fire or other phenomena, without any area limitations.
Most protected areas in Lithuania are zoned. The zoning is based on natural and cultural values, with the protection regime
(categories) usually differing in each zone. Forest management in various zones of protected areas depends on the forest
category. The final cutting age of so-called small-leaved (aspen, birch, alder) stands in forest categories III and IV is not
regulated. Natural regeneration is preferred to clear felling.
Only ca 1,2% of Lithuanian forests can be classified as strictly protected reserves (fulfilling the criteria of IUCN
protected area categories I–IV). All economic activities (excluding educational tourism along special routes) are prohibited
in strict reserves. This strict protection figure is considerably less than the minimum considered sufficient for the conservation
of forest biodiversity. In strictly protected reserves, pine forests are overrepresented, and forests growing on more fertile soils
correspondingly underrepresented. According to a survey carried out by the Lithuanian Ornithological Society, most forest
birds included in the Annex I of the EU Birds Directive are very poorly represented in current strictly protected areas.
The Lithuanian forest conservation statistics have been criticised by some nature conservation experts. Their main argument
is that all so-called ‘protected’ forests, except for strict nature reserves, are managed. So-called ‘sanitary logging’ is very common
in forests of all categories except for strictly protected forests. Such cuttings have removed most of the dead wood. Other
serious forest management problems from a conservation viewpoint in Lithuania are:
an inadequate understanding of forest conservation needs and priorities, as well as a general
lack of biodiversity-friendly forest management
lax legislation, with inadequate enforcement
a lack of species and habitat management plans
a lack of resources and capacity to manage protected areas
The Lithuanian Woodland Key Habitat project was started in 2001. It is expected that the Woodland Key Habitat area
will on average cover about 1-2% of the total forest area; initial sampling has produced 0,6 – 3,4% Woodland Key
Habitats depending on the region. These sites are intended for full protection, although this is not yet legally validated.
The high management intensity typical of Lithuanian forestry has led to the loss of many forest dwelling species.
During the 1900s, e.g. golden eagle, spotted eagle, and short-toed eagle have become extinct as breeding species in
Lithuania. The main reason is considered to have been excessively intensive forestry, including forest drainage. Other bird
species of old forests sensitive to intensive forestry, e.g. black Stork, capercaillie, white-backed woodpecker and three-
toed woodpecker have recently declined in Lithuania, as have populations of other forest-related species such as European
roller, white-tailed eagle, black kite, osprey, merlin, pygmy owl and ural owl. Their populations are now so small that they
will suffer local extinction unless forestry practices do not change.
The most recent Lithuanian Red Data Book (2000) lists 21 species of mammals, 76 species of birds, 2 species of reptiles, 3
amphibians, 4 molluscs, 4 spiders, 108 insects, and more than 530 species of flora and fungi. Protected communities are listed
in the national Red Data Book of Communities. For 17 mammal and 30 bird species included in the national Red Data Book,
forest is the most important habitat, and the management regimes of forests the key factor affecting the survival of the
populations.
67Baltic Forest Mapping project
To date, no analysis has been carried out on the ecological gaps in the Lithuanian forest protected network for biodiversity.
As a rough estimate it can be stated that some forest types are not well enough represented in the existing network. Some
regions contain no category I forests at all, and little or no category II forest either. The percentage of mature stands is also
ecologically too low in places – for example, in Dzukija National Park mature stands represent about 2% of by forests.
With the exception of birds, the status of species included in the national Red Data Book within protected areas is not well
known. Thereby the sufficiency of the protected area network cannot be evaluated. However, it is known that all forest birds
included in the national Red Data Book are not sufficiently well represented in protected areas (Raudonikis & Kurlavicius 2001).
Most of the areas important for protection of forest dwelling bird species included in the Annex I of the EU Birds Directive
(potential Special Protected Areas by EU legislation) are situated in currently commercial forests (Raudonikis & Kurlavicius
2001).
special purpose strictly protected
forests (II) 11,9% reserves 1,2%
protection forests
(III)
15,7 %
commercial
forests (IV)
71,2 %
Figure A4. Protected and protection forests in Lithuania by protection categories
68Baltic Forest Mapping project
ANNEX 2
Country-specific selection criteria
Criterion Description
Estonia Latvia Lithuania
11 Little or no Forests from EFCAN inventory, Forested areas of strictly protected Forested areas of strictly protected
signs of human described as forests without or few zones of State reserves are selected zones of group 1 forests. They are
influence signs of human influance (natural because of complete prohibition on selected because of complete
forests) forestry operations within these zones prohibition on forestry operations
for a long . Generally the time since within these zones for a long time.
last management exceeds 50 years at
least.
For commercial forests particularly
protected habitats and micro reserves
e.g. nesting sites of red list birds are
considered to meet the criterion 11.
These areas are established according
to special rules and all kind of logging
operation is prohibited inside these
areas.
12 Average age Forests from national forest database, The age criterion applied based on Main tree species Age
of stand more based on different site quality classes local experience on endangered Oak 121
than… an average age of main tree species. species occurrence in old-growth Pine and other coniferous,
See country specific table for Estonia forests. Besides the old-growth forest but not spruce, Ash, Maple
following this table. tracts where trees age is higher than and Elm 101
final cutting age are becoming rare. At Aspen, Poplar 41
the same time the old aged stands, at Gray alder, Salix Petrea and
least for deciduous forests, generally other Salix species 31
contain high amount of deadwood of Spruce 81
big dimensions. Broad-leaved species Birch, Black alder, Lime and
except ash are included because they Hornbeam 61
likely represent the remnants of
broad-leaved forests in the landscape
13 Considerable Forests from national forest database, Those stands were selected where
amount / long a total amount of standing and lying amount of dead wood on different
continuum of dead trees is described on forest decomposition stages (diameter>20
dead wood of inventory at least 50 cbm / ha. cm) is greater than 15 trees/ha. The
different types, Results are not very reliable because data acquired from db of Woodland
rich flora of usually dead trees were described Key Habitats. The second parameter
wood rotting when these have commercial value for stands selection using db of WKH
fungi and richness of flora were not taken was occurrence of wood dependent
account. But these stands have at least fungi also indicated if such qualities
higher pottential to develope into are noted during WKH inventory.
forest with long continuum of dead
wood of different types compared
with stands with smaller amount of or
without dead trees.
16 Forests on Not analysed due to lack of source The topographical maps analyse in Soil type is different in the case slope
steep (more than data in suitable format. scale 1:50 000 is performed. Using is over 15 degree.
15°) slopes, this approach only 400 ha of
ravines particular forests are selected. The
second data set is Woodland Key
Habitats database. Those WKH
defined as “Ravine forests” and
“Forests on the slopes” have been
selected for BFM. Third data source
used for selecting forests meeting this
criteria was forestry resource
database, which contains descriptions
for small share of these forests.
17 Uneven Forests from national forest database, Species Age Proportion 3 sub-criteria – (1) 4 or more tree
age/canopy which fulfill at least one of these less than (%) species available in a stand and age
structure, criteria: Pine 151 30 more than 50 years; (2) Age of trees
overmature/big - four or more tree species in main Spruce 151 50 varies more than 30 years within the
trees of the layer and at least 50 years old Oak 151 10 stand; (3) Presence of trees (at least
previous tree - age of trees varies more than 30 Birch 100 50 one) with an age older than indicated
generation years Black alder 100 30 in the table above (see criterion 12).
present in - there are trees (at least one Ash 100 20
considerable described) 20 years older than in the Grey alder 70 50
amounts table Salix spp 70 10
Aspen 110 20
69Baltic Forest Mapping project
Criterion Description
Estonia Latvia Lithuania
Defining query for selecting stands
that contains uneven canopy structure
and old age trees in operational terms
for various habitat types is a
complicated task.
Basically, uneven age/canopy
structure means distribution of trees
at different ages, and depending on
soil conditions and disturbance
history diverse tree species
composition.
Therefore, the query is made to select
those stands where certain amount of
old aged trees occurred in the main
canopy (see table above). However
their amount is to little to consider as
a dominated, and likely younger trees
prevail. Occurrence of matured/old
age trees in the stand means that the
rest of trees in main canopy are at
different ages or at least there are 2
ages in the main tree canopy
18 Forests after Forests from national forest database, Beaver flooded areas where selected
large scale where trees are described as dead or which were inventoried during WKH
natural dyeing after natural disturbance. inventory. Areas where fire scars/
disturbance burned deadwood are found during
(fire, storm, the WKH inventory have been
beaver) selected meeting this criterion
21 Endangered Forests from national forest database, Endangered vegetation types are not
vegetation types where forest site type and main tree mapped, therefore the Criterion is
(national “forest species are responsive to rare forest skipped
habitat Red communities described by Jaanus Paal
Lists” to be in the Classification of site types of
added) the Estonian vegetation cover (Paal
1997). The list of these forests
communities is available in English in
the Management Guidelines for
Protection Forests (Kuuba 2001)
22 Populations Information about woodpeckers was The forest tracts/stands where
of several not analysed. Information about particular species found during field
endangered spotted eagles and flying squirrels was inventories were selected.
forest dependent analysed under criterion 25. NOTE Using the criterion for
species evaluating biological values of forest
(spotted eagle, tt should be noted that data on forest
flying squirrel, 3 dependent species area available on
sp. of limited extent because inventories
woodpeckers. have performed only partly across the
Rich Latvia.
woodpecker
fauna; Great
Spotted
Woodpecker
(D.major) not
dominating
23 Capercaillie Forests of Zone I and II in the The core area of capercaillie lek as Forest stands, available in Capercaillie
leks permanent habitat of Capercaillie most typical was selected only. leks data base, being developed by
(Capercaillie leks and bufferzones NOTE Using the criterion for Lithuanian Ornithological Society
around these) got from Capercaillie evaluating biological values of forest it
inventory through national forest should be noted that data on forest
database. dependent species area available on
limited extent because inventories
have performed only partly across the
Latvia.
24 Very old trees Combined with criterion 17 The criterion is combined together Description of this criterion was very
(of previous tree with Primary Criterion 17 similar to that one of primary
generations) criterion 17, but only so called “single
present trees”, not included into the
descriptions of the main forest layers,
was taken into the consideration.
70You can also read
