HIGH NATURE VALUE FOREST AREAS: A PROPOSAL FOR ITALy BASED ON NATIONAL FOREST INVENTORy DATA1

1. I ntroductIon

The maintenance and enhancement of High Nature Value (HNV) farming and forestry sys- tems is a strategic objective of the European Rural Development Policy and the Manag- ing Authority has to monitor and assess the

– L’Italia Forestale e Montana / Italian Journal of Forest and Mountain Environments 67 (3): 281-288, 2012 © 2012 Accademia Italiana di Scienze Forestali doi: 10.4129/ifm.2012.3.06

The maintenance and enhancement of High Nature Value (HNV) farming and forestry systems is a strategic objective of the European Rural Development Policy. The assessment of the effectiveness of rural development measures as regards this objective is a challenging task. The paper focuses on HNV forest areas and presents an approach to assessing their baseline extent in Italy. The procedure described here is consistent with the guidelines provided by the European Evaluation Network for Rural Development.

Based on National Forest Inventory (NFI) data, sound estimates are provided of the extent of HNV forest area at national and regional level. The use of NFI data ensures consistency of data collection and processing at the national level as required in European Commission’s methodological guidelines.

Following this approach, the overall of HNV forest in Italy amounts to 2,259,066 ha, which corresponds to 26% of the total forest area.

Key words: high nature value; indicators; national forest inventory; rural development.

Parole chiave: alto valore naturale; indicatori; inventario forestale nazionale; sviluppo rurale.

Citation - P IgnattI G., d e n atale F., g asParInI P., M arIano A., t rIsorIo a., 2012 – High Nature Value forest areas: a proposal for Italy based on national forest inventory data. L’Italia Forestale e Montana, 67 (3): 281-288. http://dx.doi.org/10.4129/ifm.2012.3.06

GIUSEPPE PIGNATTI (*) - FLORA DE NATALE (*) - PATRIZIA GASPARINI (**) ANGELO MARIANO (***) - ANTONELLA TRISORIO (****)

HIGH NATURE VALUE FOREST AREAS:

A PROPOSAL FOR ITALy BASED ON NATIONAL FOREST INVENTORy DATA ¹

(*) Agricultural Research Council (CRA), Research Unit for Intensive Wood Production, via Valle della Quistione 27;

00166 Roma, Italy.

(**) Agricultural Research Council (CRA), Forest Monitoring and Management Research Unit, Piazza Niccolini 6; 38100 Trento, Italy.

(***) National Forest Service (CFS), Ministry of Agricultural and Forest Policies (MIPAF), via Carducci 5, 00187 Roma, Italy.

(****) National Institute of Agricultural Economics (INEA), via Nomentana 41, 00161 Roma, Italy.

(°) Corresponding author; giuseppe.pignatti@entecra.it

1

Study carried out by the National Rural Network in the context of the Environment and Cross Compliance Task Force - Biodiversity working group, coordinated by Antonella Trisorio.

effectiveness of rural development measures

as regards this objective. In order to perform

the assessment, the European Commission

has envisaged three indicators for HNV farm-

lands and forestry, in the context of the Com-

mon Monitoring and Evaluation Framework

(CMEF) for Rural Development 2007-2013

(see EC Reg.1974/2006): baseline indicator 18,

result indicator 6 and impact indicator 5. The

application of these indicators is a challenging

task, mainly due to the complexity of the con-

cept to be measured. This has proved to be

particularly true for forest areas, to which the

concept of high nature value has only recently been extended.

This situation led the European Commission to supply methodological guidelines in November 2008, aimed at supporting Managing Authorities during the process of revision of the HNV farmland and forestry indicators according to a common scheme that can still be adapted to regional specificities (B eaufoy and c ooPer , 2008).

Subsequently, the European Evaluation Network for Rural Development provided further refinements and considerable updating of methodological issues as a result of a Thematic Working Group devoted to exploring practical ways of applying CMEF indicators (l ukesch and s chuh , 2010).

The general principle that identifies HNV farmland, under discussion since the early ‘90s, is based on the idea that certain farming prac- tices guarantee high levels of biodiversity. There are three fundamental elements that character- ize these areas: low intensity “management”

(e.g. moderate use of machinery and chemical inputs, extensive grazing, etc.), high proportion of semi-natural vegetation (e.g. meadows and pastures that are mowed or grazed in a low-in- tensive manner, presence of trees isolated or in small groups, hedgerows, humid areas, special habitats), and diversity of land use (mosaic of low-intensity farmed/forest areas and natural/

semi-natural and structural elements).

HNV forests are defined as “all natural for- ests and those semi-natural forests where the management (historical or present) supports a high diversity of native species and habitats and/or which support the presence of spe- cies of European, and/or national, and/or re- gional conservation concern” (B eaufoy and c ooPer , 2008).

Thus, the following aspects should be considered:

– natural and semi-natural forests, excluding plantations;

– high diversity of native species and related habitats;

– presence of species that are particularly valuable for the preservation of biodiversity.

This paper presents an approach for the estimation of HNV forest area at national and regional level based on the information provided by the Italian national forest inventory, called “National Inventory of Forests and forest Carbon pools” (INFC). This approach ensures consistency of data collection and processing at the national level, as required in the European methodological guidelines.

2. M ethods

The assessment of HNV forest area of Italy, at national and regional level, was based on data available from the national forest inventory database. The analysis focused on those attributes that are suitable for assessing the indicators related to biodiversity, as defined by the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE, 2003).

2.1. National forest inventory data

The second Italian national forest inventory (INFC 2003-2007, reference year 2005) was funded by the Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies (Mipaaf) and was carried out by two institutions, the Mipaaf National Forest Service (CFS), responsible for the overall organization and the operational aspects, and the Forest Monitoring and Management Research Unit of the Agricultural Research Council (CRA-MPF), responsible for the scientific aspects and the data processing. Data collection was performed on sampling points selected on the basis of a three phase sampling strategy (t aBacchI

et al., 2007). The 1

phase was carried out

through photo-interpretation and aimed at a

preliminary stratification of points, based on a

few land cover/land use classes. Field surveys

were carried out in the 2

and 3

phase which

aimed at assessing, respectively, qualitative

attributes and quantitative attributes. The 2

phase involved a larger sample: more than

four times the 3

one. The present study was

based on 2

phase attributes, in order to

assure a higher precision of the estimates at

regional level.

The advantages of using INFC data are the following:

– statistical sampling and homogeneous analysis throughout Italy (with reliable sub-national estimates for all the 21 Italian administrative districts

);

– information consistent with international standards (FAO, 2001; MCPFE, 2003);

– detailed analysis of certain aspects of forest biodiversity, thanks to a detailed forest classification;

– possibility of repeating the inventory in future, thus collecting updated information.

Disadvantages include:

– the data, referring to single points, cannot be extrapolated to wider areas: therefore, it is possible to estimate precisely the extent of national and regional HNV forests, but not their exact location;

– uncertainty concerning the timing of future INFC data collection.

In the light of these considerations, the analysis was aimed at providing a baseline estimate of HNV forest areas based on

2

Italian administrative regions are 20, and one of them is subdivided into 2 autonomous provinces: therefore the Italian NFI considered 21 administrative districts.

table 1 – MCPFE indicators and 2

phase INFC attributes to estimate HNV forest areas.

MCPFE indicator INFC attribute Possible use for the estimation of the HNV forest area.

Naturalness (4.3) Forest category Makes it possible to distinguish natural and semi-natural forests from plantations.

Introduced tree species (4.4) Forest sub-category Makes it possible to distinguish forests made up mainly of autochthonous species.

Regeneration (4.2) Origin of the stocking Makes it possible to distinguish natural or semi-natural forests from reforestation and afforestation.

Protected forests (4.9) Protected areas Meets the criterion of presence of species that are particularly valuable for the preservation of biodiversity.

Dead-wood (4.5) Stand development stage The volume of dead-wood is one of the parameters advised by the EC guidelines. Information about this indicator has been drawn from the 2

phase INFC attribute “stand

development stage”.

Specific composition (4.1) Forest sub-category Tree diversity, though not a parameter advised by the EC guidelines, is deemed of considerable importance. Information about this indicator has been drawn from the 2

phase INFC attribute “forest sub-category”.

processing the most general information – of a qualitative nature – collected by the INFC. In future years, on the basis of possible new data (e.g. INFC revision, ad hoc surveys or similar), it will be possible to provide a more detailed analysis.

2.2. MCPFE indicators

The Sustainable Forest Management moni- toring system, introduced by the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE, 2003), includes biodiversity indicators that are useful to assess HNV for- est areas. As shown in the Table 1, the national forest inventory is an important data source for assessing such MCPFE indicators.

2.3. Proposal of classification for HNV forest areas

The structure of this classification requires as “basic requisites for HNV forest areas”

the exclusion of all intensively managed

forests, such as timber plantations, stands

that are clearly of artificial origin and/or are

dominated by exotic species (Fig. 1). This

prerequisite must be accompanied by a “high

nature level” description related to two main

indicators, which conceptually correspond to

those presented in the guidance document for

Member States (B eaufoy and c ooPer , 2008):

– HNV forest type: the nature and conservation interest of the forest, derived from the list of natural and semi-natural habitats in EEC Directive 92/43 (“Habitat Directive”) and from the assessment of the local rarity;

– protected areas and stand structure: location of the stand in a protected area of European, national or regional interest and the structure of the forest stand (old and mixed-age stands are considered important for biodiversity conservation).

The adoption of the first indicator made it possible to consider of high nature value those forest types that are listed as habitats in the Habitat Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC). In order to provide an estimate of the area of these habitats, a correspond- ence between the forest sub-categories identi- fied by the national forest inventory (INFC) and the habitats mentioned in the Directive was established on the basis of both the in- terpretation manual for Natura 2000 habitats (e uroPean c oMMIssIon , 2003) and specific studies at local level (e.g., s Indaco et al., 2003; L asen , 2006).

Although specific forest habitats are identified by the Directive as being of European importance, not all of the examples of these habitats in Italy have been considered of conservation interest at district level.

Therefore, in order to properly assess the level of biodiversity, we focused on the local ecological value of the single habitats. This analysis assessed the value of forest types corresponding to the units of the Habitat Directive on the basis of the proportion of their area (NFI category or sub-category) in relation to the total forest area at district level;

in practice, the INFC categories (e.g. spruce forests, that correspond to Habitat unit 9410) or sub-categories (e.g. stone-pine forests, that correspond to Habitat unit 9540) with an area below 10% of the district forest area were considered as having high nature value. Even with this threshold value, most of the “rare”

units thus identified have actually a much smaller surface area, often less than 5% of the district forest area.

For correspondence between Directive units and inventory (categories or sub- categories) and their link with regional level

“rarity”, consideration has also been given to the natural range of the species in Italy and the description of the Directive habitat.

For this reason, various forest sub-categories were excluded from the HNV forest areas when, although the area was less than 10%, these were located outside the natural range of the species (e.g. maritime pine forests in Central-Southern regions, such as Calabria or Campania, are outside the range of this species) or occurred in a district that does not correspond to the description of the habitat in the Directive (e.g. “pannonic” type oak forests, whose presence could be plausible only in the North-Eastern areas of Italy).

To the forest types identified with this procedure, those deemed of conservation value were added anyway, even if they proved not to be rare in the administrative district considered.

These are a series of forest habitats men- tioned in the Directive, that correspond to the following cases:

1. environments of special ecological interest for both their biodiversity and the natural dynamics processes (high-altitude environ- ments, plain environments, ravine and rocky environments, etc.), corresponding to spe- cific forest sub-categories, e.g. isolated Larix decidua in sub-Alpine heaths, Quercus robur alluvial plain forests, Populus-Salix hygro- philous woodlands, Acer-Tilia mountain for- ests, woods of Fraxinus sp. and Betula sp., pioneer mountain woods, ravine Quercus ilex groves;

2. forests of bio-geographical and landscape interest present in various regions, identified as special forest sub-categories, such as Mediterranean cork oak forests (Habitat unit 9330), Quercus frainetto forests (9280), Pinus laricio forests (9530);

3. forests of bio-geographical and landscape interest, present only in individual districts, e.g. Quercus trojana and Quercus macrolepis (9250) woodland or Pinus halepensis forests in the Puglia Region.

The second indicator made it possible

to consider stands within protected areas (national, regional or of European interest) for their intrinsic potential conservation value.

Of these stands, only the ones that presented a structure of importance for biodiversity, such as older growth stages (e.g. old coppice or high forest) or that showed highly diverse structures (e.g. irregular and uneven-aged forests), have been selected (Fig. 1). A recent analysis (M aesano et al., 2011) stresses the importance of protected areas (34% of the national forest area) as the basis for sustainable forest management and identifies many points of contact between the concepts of High Conservation Value Forests (J ennIngs et al., 2003) and HNV forest areas.

3. r esults

Using this methodology, the forests classified as HNV forests in Italy amount to 2,259,066 ha, which corresponds to 26% of the total forest area (Tab. 2).

As regards Other Wooded Land

, it inclu-

Figure 1 – Flowchart to classify HNV forest areas .

3

Other Wooded Land is defined as land that has either a crown cover between 5 and 10% of trees able to reach a height of 5 m at maturity, or a crown cover more than 10%

of shrubs or trees unable to reach a minimum height of 5 m at maturity in situ (FAO, 2001).

des areas of different extent in the various ad- ministrative regions, and may represent stable stages in pioneer site conditions or may evolve towards more or less open forest structures.

Generally, for these reasons, they are to be deemed of high nature value, irrespective of the assessments linked to the indicators considered in this analysis, as reported in Table 2.

Given a national average of 26% of HNV

forest areas, higher percentages were found

in many districts throughout the country,

mainly concentrated in Southern regions. This

result may be interpreted as the combined

effect of the presence, within one region, of

environments that differ very much from each

other favoring a great forest biodiversity (from

Mediterranean-type to mountain and Alpine

vegetation, which affects the second indicator)

and of the inclusion of many forest stands in protected areas. A typical case is that of the Southern regions (Sardegna, Sicilia and Puglia) where forests, though a few, are often included in protected areas or consist of species of conservation interest.

4. d IscussIon and conclusIons

The high nature value concept underlines the importance of farming practices in supporting, or being associated with, high levels of biodi- versity and/or species and habitats of conser- vation concern (B aldock , 1999; P aracchInI

et al., 2008; d oxa et al., 2010). In the case of forests, the definition of HNV forest areas highlights the importance of a type of manage- ment (historical and present) that supports a high number of species and habitats and/or the presence of species of conservation interest and

therefore does not differ very much from that adopted for farmland.

However, considering the peculiarity of the forest ecosystem (greater richness of spe- cies and communities than in farmland, long growth cycles and slower responses to envi- ronmental change, use of less intensive man- agement practices), it is important to consider factors which affect forest biodiversity or for- est ecosystem structure (t hoMasIus , 1992). In this way our methodology underlines the im- portance of species and age structure (e.g., bio- topes of ecological value as defined by Habitat Directive or uneven aged forests) and processes (e.g., old-growth stages of stand development).

In a country like Italy, that is characterized by a very extensive anthropogenic impact on forests in past centuries and, at the same time, by a high biodiversity and fragility (s carascIa

M ugnozza et al., 2000), it seems reasonable to establish as “high nature value” features

Table 2 – Results of HNV forest area assessment at national and regional level.

d

f

o

Total area HNV area St. Err. HNV area Total area St. Err.

(ha) (ha) of HNV area (%) (ha) (%)

(%)

Piemonte 870,594 218,961 3.9 25 69,522 7.2

Valle d’Aosta 98,439 17,965 13.5 18 7,489 21.4

Lombardia 606,045 177,418 4.4 29 59,657 8.2

Alto Adige 336,689 79,704 6.2 24 35,485 9.9

Trentino 375,402 77,839 6.2 21 32,129 10.3

Veneto 397,889 138,944 4.5 35 48,967 8.3

Friuli-Venezia Giulia 323,832 88,509 5.7 27 33,392 9.9

Liguria 339,107 75,440 6.3 22 36,027 9.5

Emilia Romagna 563,263 107,738 5.4 19 45,555 8.5

Toscana 1,015,728 200,910 3.9 20 135,811 4.9

Umbria 371,574 74,837 6.4 20 18,681 13.4

Marche 291,394 47,937 8.3 16 16,682 12.8

Lazio 543,884 158,870 4.3 29 61,974 7.3

Abruzzo 391,492 110,066 5.1 28 47,099 7.6

Molise 132,562 24,206 11.8 18 16,079 14.2

Campania 384,395 113,672 5.1 30 60,879 7.3

Puglia 145,889 57,447 7.2 39 33,151 10

Basilicata 263,098 73,438 6.5 28 93,329 5.5

Calabria 468,151 146,638 4.5 31 144,781 4.6

Sicilia 256,303 92,078 5.8 36 81,868 6.2

Sardegna 583,472 176,450 4.3 30 629,778 1.8

ITALy 8,759,200 2,259,066 1.2 26 1,708,333 1.3

of forests, not only the presence of species or habitats of ecological interest, but also elements of management that safeguard natural development processes in forest ecosystems.

Thus, the indicators considered here attempt to underline the importance of certain structural characteristics that are the result of more or less active management (irregular and uneven- aged stands), but also of non-intervention (e.g., old-growth development stages of high forest and coppice), the latter being important for the natural evolution of the natural dynamics of forest ecosystem. In this way, further development of the methodology should focus on the current state of species structure in relation to the late successional stages of the forest community, as an indicator of higher organisation and complexity of the ecosystem, as defined by the concept of hemeroby (h Ill

et al., 2002).

Forests with low-intensity management (or non-intervention) play a significant role particularly in protected areas, in order to allow the ecological processes to take place, or in those areas where it is possible to give priority to the safeguard of habitats and species.

In conclusion, our proposal is a starting point that can be improved by a subsequent step aimed at both determining in more detail the boundaries of the HNV forest areas and map- ping their distribution. Overall, the proposed methodology considers both ecological and economic aspects of forest management, which are crucial for the sustainable development of rural areas.

RIASSUNTO

Aree forestali ad alto valore naturale: una proposta per l’Italia basata sui dati dell’inventario forestale nazionale La salvaguardia ed il miglioramento dei sistemi agri- coli e forestali ad alto valore naturale (high nature value - HNV) è un obiettivo strategico della politica di sviluppo rurale, una sfida da conseguire attraverso adeguate mi- sure di intervento. Il lavoro è incentrato sulle aree fore- stali HNV e presenta un metodo per misurare un valore iniziale di riferimento (baseline) per l’Italia. La procedura proposta segue le linee guida individuate dalla Rete Eu- ropea di Valutazione per lo Sviluppo Rurale (EENRD).

Sulla base di dati dell’inventario forestale nazionale (INFC), viene stimata la superficie delle foreste HNV a

livello nazionale e regionale. L’uso dei dati inventariali assicura criteri omogenei di raccolta ed elaborazione dei dati, come richiesto dalle linee guida della EENRD. Se- condo questo approccio, la superficie di boschi HNV in Italia è stimata in 2.259.066 ha, pari al 26% della superfi- cie forestale totale.

REFERENCES

B aldock d., 1999 – Indicators for High Nature Farming in Europe. In: Environmental Indicators and Agricultural Policy (Brouwer f.M., Crabtree J.r.

eds.), CAB International, p. 121-135. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1079/9780851992891.0121

B eaufoy g., Co o per t., 2008 – Guidance Document to the Member States on the Application of the High Nature Value Indicator. European Evaluation Network for Rural Development.

d oxa A., B as y., P aracchInI M.L., P oIntereau

P., t erres J.-M., J Iguet F., 2010 – Low-intensity agriculture increases farmland bird abundances in France. Journal of Applied Ecology, 47: 1348-1356.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01869.x e uroPean c oMMIssIon , 2003 – Interpretation Manual of

European Union Habitats. European Commission DG Environment, 129 p.

FAO, 2001 – Global Forest Resources Assessment, Main Report. Appendix 2: Terms and definitions. 140 p.

h Ill M.O., r oy D.B., t hoMPson K., 2002 – Hemeroby, urbanity and ruderality: bioindicators of disturbance and human impact. Journal of Applied Ecology, 39 (5): 708-720. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365- 2664.2002.00746.x

J ennIngs S., n ussBauM R., J udd N., e vans T., 2003 – The high conservation value forest toolkit. Proforest, Oxford, UK, p. 21, [online] URL: http://www.

proforest.net/objects/ publications/HCVF/hcvf- toolkit-part-1-final-updated.pdf

l asen C., 2006 – Habitat Natura 2000 in Trentino.

Provincia Autonoma di Trento, 206 p.

l ukesch R., s chuh B., 2010 – Working paper on approaches for assessing the impacts of the Rural Development Programmes in the context of multiple intervening factors. Findings of a Thematic Working Group established and coordinated by The European Evaluation Network for Rural Development, 34.

[online]URL: http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/evaluation/

evaluation-methodologies/assessing-the-rdp-impacts/

socio-economic-and-environmental/en/socio- economic-and-environmental_home_en.cfm.

M aesano M., g Iongo a lves M.V., o ttavIano M., M archettI M., 2011 – Prima analisi a livello nazionale per l’identificazione delle High Conservation Value Forests (HCVFs). Forest@ 8: 22-34. [online: 2011-02- 17] URL: http://www.sisef.it/forest@/. http://dx.doi.

org/ 10.3832/efor0649-008

MCPFE, 2003 – Improved Pan-European Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management as adopted by the MCPFE Expert Level Meeting 7-8 October 2002, Vienna, Austria. MCPFE Liaison Unit Vienna, 6 p.

P aracchInI M.L., P etersen J.-E., h oogeveen y.,

B aMPs C., B urfIeld I., van s waay C., 2008 – High

Nature Value Farmland in Europe. An Estimate of the

Distribution Patterns on the Basis of Land Cover and Biodiversity Data. Luxembourg, 87 p.

s carascIa M ugnozza G., o swald H., P IussI P., r adoglou K., 2000 – Forests of the Mediterranean region: gaps in knowledge and research needs. Forest Ecology and Management, 132: 97-109. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00383-2

s Indaco R., M ondIno G.P., s elvaggI A., e Bone A., d ella B effa G., 2003 – Guida al riconoscimento di Ambienti e Specie della direttiva habitat in Piemonte.

Regione Piemonte, 220 p.

t aBacchI G., d e n atale F., f lorIs A., g aglIano C., g asParInI P., s crInzI G., t osI V., 2007 – Italian National Forest Inventory: Methods, State of the Project, and Future Developments. In: “Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Forest Inventory and Analysis Symposium”, Portland, ME October 3-6, 2005. USDA Gen. Tech. Report WO-77. p. 55-66.

t hoMasIus H., 1992 – Prinzipien eines ökologisch

orientierten Waldbaus. Forswiss. Centralbl., 111: 141-

155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02741667