(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "European forests and protected areas: gap analysis. (Technical report)"

/ 



European Forests and Protected Areas: 

Gap Analysis 



TECHNICAL REPORT 



Compiled by the 

UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre 
Cambridge, UK. 



July 2000 



UNEP 



■ ir 



I ^ 



tr 



WCMC 




WWF 



European Forests and Protected Areas: 

Gap Analysis 



TECHNICAL REPORT 



Compiled by the 

UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre 
Cambridge, UK. 



Editors: Gemma Smith and Harriet Gillett 

With support from 
World Wide Fund for Nature 



July 2000 



UNEP 




m 



WCMC 




WWF 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2010 with funding from 

UNEP-WCIVIC, Cambridge 



http://www.archive.org/details/europeanforestspOOunep 



CONTENTS 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 

1. INTRODUCTION 3 

1.1 Project OBJECTIVES 3 

2. METHODOLOGY 4 

2.1 Study AREA 4 

2.2 Forest Data 5 

2.2.1 Potential forest cover 5 

2.2.2 Current forest cover 5 

2.2.3 Production of detailed map of current forest cover 7 

2.3 Protected Areas Data 8 

2.4 Analyses 10 

2.4.1 Data preparation and procedure 10 

2.4.2 Size analyses 10 

3. RESULTS 12 

3.1 Analysis BY country 12 

3.1.1 Forest extent 12 

3.1.2 Forest loss 13 

3.1.3 Forest protection 14 

3.1.4 Forest diversity 15 

3.2 Analysis by SPECIFIC Forest Type (B & N 66) 15 

3.2.1 Potential and current forest cover 15 

3.2.2 Forest loss 17 

3.2.3 Forest protection 18 

3.3 ANALYSIS BY GENERALISED FOREST TYPE (B & N 20) 18 

3.3.1 Potential and current forest cover 18 

3.3.2 Forest loss 20 

3.3.3 Forest protection 22 

3.4 Size and distribution of protected forest areas 23 

3.4.1 Size 23 

3.4.2 Distribution 24 

4. DISCUSSION 24 

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 25 

REFERENCES 27 

MAP 1: SIMPLIFIED FOREST COVER 

ANNEX 1: FOREST DATA SOURCES 

ANNEX 3: PROTECTED AREA DATA SOURCES 

ANNEX 4: lUCN PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES I - VI 

ANNEX 5: FOREST COVER BY COUNTRY 

ANNEX: 6 CONTENTS OF THE CD-ROM 



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Many agencies and individuals responsible for managing protected area and forest 
data have contributed vital datasets to this study. A full list of these contributors is 
included in Annexes 1 and 3 of this document. The willingness of these contributors 
to provide data and comments is greatly appreciated. Thanks are due in particular to 
Dr. Udo Bohn (Bundesamt fur Naturschutz) for permission to use the Natural 
Vegetation Map of Europe (1994), which underpins the entire study. 

Funded by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF-Intemational) under its European 
Forest Programme, this project follows on from an earlier pilot study undertaken by 
the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) Feasibility Study: Gap Analysis 
of Forest Protected Areas in Europe, completed in November 1995. The terms of 
reference for this current study were discussed and agreed by Dr Michael Green 
(WCMC) and Per Rosenberg (WWF-hitemational) in 1997. 

The project was managed by Harriet Gillett (WCMC) working with many staff at 
WCMC. Corinna Ravilious was responsible for managing the forest vegetation data, 
under the guidance of Dr Valerie Kapos. Simon Blyth was responsible for managing 
protected areas boundary data, with input from Javier Beltran, and Balzhan Zhimbiev. 
Igor Lysenko was responsible for managing the development of protected area 
datasets for Russia, the Ukraine and Belarus. Jonathan Rhind provided GIS technical 
supervision. Corinna Ravihous was responsible for the digital overlays of habitat and 
protected area data and the production of the underlying statistics. Simon Blyth 
completed the analysis on the number and size of protected forest areas and produced 
the final maps with support from Ian May. Gemma Smith produced the tables and 
figures included in the report and developed the user-fHendly Excel file included on 
the CD-ROM (see below), under the guidance of Gerardo Fragoso. Edward Coney 
helped produce the final figures. Julie Reay and Lise Jackson were responsible for 
project administration. The final text was written by Gemma Smith and Harriet 
Gillett. 

The project was managed in close collaboration with Harri Karjalainen (WWF 
International). Draft outputs of habitat and protected area maps were circulated to 
WWF national officers for review, and project progress was discussed at WWF 
European Forest Team meetings in 1998 (Latvia), January and September 1999 
(Switzeriand and Komi, Russia) and March 2000 (Switzerland). 

CD-ROM 

This document is accompanied by a CD-ROM that contains electronic outputs from 
the study. More specifically it contains an electronic copy of this report, an Excel file 
with original data from the digital overlay; summary stafistics by country and forest 
type and gif-file maps of potential forest cover, current forest cover, and protected 
areas, that can be viewed as single or multiple layers. Forest cover maps were 
produced by Corinna Ravilious; protected area maps were produced by Simon Blyth 
and the CD-ROM was created by Phil Fox. The contents of the CD-ROM are also 
available on the internet at: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/forest/eu gap 



European Forests and Protected Areas: Gap Analysis 



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This gap analysis of forest protected areas in Europe was designed to provide relevant 
information on the distribution and conservation status of European temperate forests, 
in support of the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy and in 
particular WWF's Forest Strategy for Europe. 

Digital pan-European forest cover maps of potential and current forest cover were 
compiled together with a digital map of Europe's protected areas. Digital overlays of 
these data were undertaken and statistics produced indicating the current state of 
protection of differing forest types, in respect to the location of these forests within 
legally gazetted areas. 

The study indicates that 56% of Europe's forest has already been lost. Europe's 
potential forest cover was 7,395,440 km^ and current forest cover is 3,255,680 km'. 
Of this, 204,996 km^ (6.3%) lie within protected areas (lUCN management categories 
I-IV). 

The analyses were undertaken by country and by forest type at complex (66 forest 
types) and simplified (20 forest types) levels. At a national level forest protection (as 
a proportion of current forest cover) ranges from 11. 7% in Belarus to less than 1 % in 
relatively large countries such as Bosnia Herzegovina (0.8%)), United Kingdom 
(0.6%) and Belgium (0.2%). 

The analysis of current forest cover using a simplified forest classification system (20 
categories), found that forest protection varies ft-om < 0.5% for spruce woodland amid 
hygrophilous birch tundra, to 18.5% for conifer forests in mires and bogs. 

An indication of the wilderness quality of European forests is given by the analyses of 
protected forest by forest size. This shows that rather few (329) relatively large 
(>10,000 ha') sites account for 67% of Europe's protected forests. Conversely, 95%) 
of Europe's protected forest areas comprise fragments of less than l,000ha. Together 
these fragments protect less than 10% of Europe's forests. Forty-five of the 50 largest 
protected forest areas occur in the Russian Federation and Fennoscandia, accounting 
to a large extent for the much greater proportion of Europe's protected forest that is 
found in northern Europe, compared to that found in the south. 

Full details of the analyses and a series of maps illustrating the distribution of 
potential and current forest cover and protected areas are included in the CD-ROM 
that accompanies this report. 



km"= 100 hectares 



1. INTRODUCTION 

Many of the world's temperate forests exist in some of the wealthiest developed 
countries, where there is a tradition of forest protection and research. Paradoxically, 
public awareness and debate on forest conservation has focused almost exclusively on 
tropical forests and their highly diverse flora and fauna, while the protection of 
temperate forests and their equally important, albeit fewer, species has received much 
less attention (WWF, 1992). 

In 1998 total global forest cover amounted to 38,966,548 km^ (Commonwealth of 
Australia, 1999) of which 8.23% was protected under lUCN management categories 
I-VI. At a regional level, data available in 1996 indicated that 8% of European 
temperate forests (excluding Russia), lay within protected areas (lUCN categories I- 
VI) (Iremonger et al. 1997). 

In Europe, temperate forests are often highly fragmented, threatened ecosystems. An 
urgent need for geo-referenced information on the region's forests and protected areas 
was identified by Luxmoore and Drucker (1994), to provide the basis of a regional 
gap analysis and recovery plan for forests. Subsequently a project entitled Feasibility 
study: Gap Analysis of Forest Protected Areas in Europe, was undertaken by the 
World Conservation Monitoring Centre on behalf of WWF (WCMC, 1995), assessing 
the availability of relevant forest protected areas information. Following on from this 
a second phase of the project was agreed in 1997. 

This current gap analysis forms the second phase of the project. It is designed to 
provide information on the distribution and conservation status of European temperate 
forests, in relation to potential and current forest cover. The project supports the Pan- 
European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy and more specifically WWF's 
Forest Strategy for Europe. In particular, information on the conservation status of 
different forest types will support implementation of Action Theme 9 on Forest 
Ecosystems of the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy. 

Gap analysis, in the sense used in this project, involves overlaying information on the 
distribution of forests with information on the distribution of protected areas, to 
identify the level of official protection afforded to differing forest types. Like other 
rapid appraisal methodologies, it should not be viewed as a substitute for full 
biological inventories, but as a coarse indicator of gaps. Such information is vital to 
policy-makers and planners in developing a European-wide network of ecologically 
representative protected forests. 

1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES 

The objectives of this project were as follows: 

• To compile a digital pan-European forest cover map, classified, harmonised and at 
sufficiently high resolution for analysis at national and regional scales. 

• To compile a digital map of European protected areas 



European Forests and Protected Areas: Gap Analysis 

• To assess quantitatively the extent of protection of forest types in relation to 
original and present forest cover and forested wilderness in Europe and identify 
major gaps in their protection. 

• To identify regional priorities for conservation action and apply them within a 
national context. 



2. METHODOLOGY 

2.1 STUDY AREA 

The countries that constitute Europe are not easily defined, as the region is contiguous 
with Asia and continues to undergo political change. Table 1 lists the 45 European 
countries that were selected to be included in this study. They cover the region 
between the Atlantic Ocean and the Ural Mountains, and extend as far south as 
southern Greece and northwards to the Barents Sea. 

Table 1. European countries included in the study. 



Albania 


Greece 


Poland 


Andorra 


Hungary 


Portugal 


Austria 


Iceland 


Romania 


Belgium 


Ireland 


Russian Federation 


Belarus 


Italy 


San Marino 


Bosnia Herzegovina 


Latvia 


Serbia 


Bulgaria 


Liechtenstein 


Slovakia 


Croatia 


Lithuania 


Slovenia 


Czech Republic 


Luxembourg 


Spain 


Denmark 


FYROM 


Sweden 


Estonia 


Malta 


Switzerland 


Finland 


Monaco 


Ukraine 


France 


Moldova 


United Kingdom 


Germany 


Netherlands 




Georgia 


Norway 





2.2 FOREST DATA 



2.2.1 Potential forest cover 



Potential forest cover was taken from the map Natural Vegetation of Europe produced 
by Bohn and Neuhausl in 1994 at a scale 1 : 2.5 million (referred to in this report as B 
& N). This map was designed to provide a unified view of Europe's potential 
vegetation types. The editors of the map envisaged that one of its principal uses would 
be to support the development of plans for the systematic protection of natural 
ecosystems in Europe (Bohn 1994). The B & N map has a hierarchical legend from 
which two levels were selected for this project. The simplified level divides European 
forest types into 20 categories (B & N 20) (see Map 1), whilst the detailed level 
divides them into 66 categories (B & N 60). 

The vegetation map is based on climate, soil and historical records. The map presents 
the distribution of the main natural plant communities corresponding to the actual 
climatic and edaphic conditions, excluding, as far as possible, human impact. It seeks 
to show the most important features of latitudinal zone (i.e. vegetation zones and sub- 
zones), longitudinal (oceanic/continental gradients) and altitudinal variations 
(vegetation belts). In addition the main azonal vegetation types and their 
differentiation, as well as the floristic variations of the natural vegetation units 
resulting from different edaphic, florogenetic and climatic conditions are depicted. 
The construction of the potential vegetation level was based on existing remnants of 
natural ecosystems and their relation to specific site conditions (climate, soil, water 
regime, etc.). Recent large-scale changes of the abiotic environment resulting from 
man-made air and water pollution were not taken into consideration as the effects on 
potential natural vegetation could not be definitively determined (Bohn, 1994). 

The final version of the map was compiled following review by experts from 
throughout Europe. Full details of the methodology followed in the compilation of the 
map are given in Bohn (1994, 1995) and Neuhausl (1990). 

2.2.2 Current forest cover 

Forests have been estimated to cover approximately one third of Europe's total land 
area by FAO in their report: State of the World's Forests (FAO 1999). However, the 
figure depends upon the precise definition used to identify forest, and what is "other 
wooded land". The FAO Forest Resource Assessment defines forests as having at 
least 10% crown cover per area unit (FAO, 1995). hi contrast CORINE land cover 
forest classes (which this project is based on) define forests as having 30% crown 
cover. Definitions of forest types also vary between countries and international 
organisations, frequently causing problems in assessing their state and trends. 

The European Topic Centre on Land Cover (ETC/LC) is a consortium of 16 different 
organisations from all over Europe, contracted by the European Environment Agency 
(EEA). ETC/LC (led by Satellus) co-ordinates the CORINE landcover mapping 
programme (Co-ordination of Information on the Environment), which is the source 
for the majority of the current forest data used in this project. The CORINE 
programme began in 1985, with the aim to create a consistent, compatible and 



European Forests and Protected Areas: Gap Analysis 

updateable digital database on land cover across the whole of Europe. The CORINE 
data currently covers most of Western Europe and provides 250m resolution satellite 
data on the actual extent of coniferous forests, broad-leaved forests, mixed forests and 
sclerophyllous vegetation. These forest classes have been selected from a 44 class 
CORINE landcover nomenclature, and are described below. 

• Broad-leaved forest 

Vegetation formation composed principally of trees, including shrub and bush 
understories, where broad-leaved species predominate. Broad-leaved trees must 
represent more than three-quarters of the surface unit in this category, failing 
which the category is that of mixed forest. Young coppices and young plantations 
also belong to this category 

• Coniferous forest 

Vegetation formation composed principally of trees, including shrub and bush 
understudies, where coniferous species predominate. Surface planted with conifers 
must represent at least 75% of the total surface of the unit; otherwise, the unit is 
one of mixed forest. 

• Mixed forest 

Vegetation formation composed principally of trees, including shrub and bush 
understories, where neither broad-leaved nor coniferous species predominate. This 
category includes not only mixed forest in the strict silvicultural sense (single tree 
or clump mixtures), but also complex forest parcels comprising an intricate 
mosaic of broad-leaved and softwood species where no homogeneous stand of 
more than 25 ha can be distinguished. 

• Sclerophyllous vegetation 

Bushy sclerophyllous vegetation, including maquis and garrigue. 

Maquis describes dense vegetation associations composed of numerous shrubs 
covering acid siliceous soils in Mediterranean areas. This formation generally 
consists of small oaks, oleasters, arbutus, lentiscus, junipers, briar wood and 
an understorey of cistus and low heathers. 

Garrigue describes discontinuous bushy associations of the Mediterranean 
calcareous plateaus, often composed of kermes oak, lavender, thyme and 
white cistus. There may be a few isolated trees. Garrigue is found on a dry, 
filtering substrate (usually calcareous). 

Bushy sclerophyllous vegetation describes a subforest formation often difficult 
to distinguish from Mediterranean forest (possibility of confirsion between 
high maquis and sclerophyllous forest). Use of ancillary data (aerial 
photographs, forest inventory maps, vegetation index) is highly recommended. 

Where CORINE forest data were unavailable, the best available alternative sources 
were used. In some cases this entailed using data at a scale of 1 : 2,500,000 or at a 
resolution of 1km. A fiill list of the sources used in compiling the current forest data 
for this project can be found in Annex 1 . 



2.2.3 Production of detailed map of current forest cover 

The basic current forest cover data only included information on the occurrence of 
these four forest classes. To increase the level of detail, these data were then overlaid 
with the B & N data. Thus data on the categories and extent of current forest cover 
were combined with data on potential forest cover to provide a more detailed 
classification of current forest cover. 

Combining the two maps resulted in the identification of some areas that were 
problematic to resolve in terms of forest type as the current forest cover differed from 
the potential vegetation cover. The three anomalous situations that arose were treated 
as follows: 

1 Current and potential forest cover differ in broad physiognomic type 

In instances (178,340 km^) where current and potential cover were both identified as 
forest, but differed in terms of broad physiognomic type (conifer, broad-leaved or 
mixed), the tentative conclusion was reached that the current forest cover was 
replacement vegetation. The most obvious example of this is where current coniferous 
forest occurs in areas identified as deciduous forest on the potential forest map. These 
areas were identified as "replacement forest" (see table 2, example 1 below) for this 
project. It is important to recognise that the original forest cover map is coarser in 
resolution than the current forest cover datasheets, so that disagreement between the 
two may not, in fact, indicate thai the forest is a replacement type. 

2 Current cover forest, potential cover clearly non-forest 

In those instances (152,068 km^) where current forest fell within a B & N class that 
was clearly only non-forest, the CORINE definition of the forest (i.e. coniferous, 
broad-leaved, sclerophyllous or mixed) has been kept, with the qualifier "from 
current" appended (see table 2, example 2 below). 

3 Current cover forest, potential cover clearly non forest class with forest 
elements 

In some instances an area identified as currently forested corresponded to a B & N 
category that was not obviously forest. The B & N legend has been reworded to 
account for these and to emphasise the forest component of the vegetation type (see 
table 2, example 3 below and Annex 2). 

Full details of the B & N 66 classification, including the additional and re-worded 
classes are given in Annex 2 with a key to the corresponding simplified scheme of 20 
B & N classes. 

The maps of potential and current forest cover were circulated by Harri Karjalainen 
(WWF-Intemational) to WWF national officers for review, following the WWF 
European Forest Programme Protected Areas team meeting in Gland, in January 
1999. 



European Forests and Protected Areas: Gap Analysis 

Table 2. Examples of legend harmonisation between potential and current forest 
cover maps 



Example 


Potential 

(B&N) 


Current 
(CORINE) 


Project legend 


1 


Broad leafed 


Coniferous 


Replacement vegetation 


2 


Non forest 


Coniferous 


Coniferous (from current) 


3 


Non Forest 

In B & N source full definition was: 
Pannonian sand steppes {Festuca beckeri, 
F. vaginata) with Dianthus polymorphus 
var. bessarabicus. Astragalus varius, 
Echinops rulhenicus, Anlhemis ruthenica 
alternating with oak forests (Quercus 
robur) with Convallaria majalis 


Broad- 
leaved and 
mixed 


Oak forests in Panoman sand 
steppes 



2.3 PROTECTED AREAS DATA 

WCMC maintains a global database of protected areas. This has been developed over 
many years in collaboration with lUCN's World Commission on Protected Areas 
(WCPA). In addition European protected area data are managed by WCMC, on behalf 
of the European Environment Agency (EEA) and other regional organisations. This 
subset of the global protected areas database is known as the Common Database of 
Designated Areas (CDDA). Digital data providing protected area boundary lines is 
included as part of this database as it becomes available. Under the current project, 
funding was provided for appropriate organisations in Russia and the Ukraine to 
digitise protected areas data and to make this available to WCMC. Similarly, data for 
Belarus were digitised at WCMC. These are countries for which relatively little data 
were previously available, but contain extensive areas of temperate forest. 

Lists and maps of each country's protected areas were sent to the appropriate 
management authorities for review, with a request for further protected area 
information if it was available. Data were received by WCMC in a range of formats 
(electronic and hard copy). The data were then integrated into a standard format in 
WCMC's geographic information system (GIS). A full listing of the sources of 
protected areas data is given in Annex 3. A copy of the final digital protected area 
map is included on the CD-ROM that accompanies this report. 

For this project it was agreed that only protected areas that fell within lUCN 
categories I-fV should be included in the study. Thus a fiirther task involved in 
protected areas data management was to identify the appropriate RJCN category of 
each area, where this was not already known. 

Details of lUCN protected area management categories are given in Annex 4. The 
best protected area boundary data available in 1999, were used for this project. 
However, it should be realised that the rapid growth in computer technology in recent 
years means that the quality and availability of protected areas digital data is 
continually improving and increasing. 

Table 3 illustrates polygon and point data available to WCMC for each country 
included in the project, and more specifically provides an idea of the level of data 
quality. Countries with a high percentage of polygons are considered to have better 



quality protected areas data. Thus, data for several countries including Ireland, 
Belgium, Albania, Romania, Moldova, Slovenia and the Netherlands could be even 
more accurate if polygon data were made available. 

Table 3 Quality of protected area polygon data 



Country 


Points 


Polygons 


% Polygons 


Albania 


22 








Andorra 











Austna 


30 


13 


30 


Belarus 


320 


161 


33 


Belgium 


26 








Bosnia and Herzegovina 


11 








Bulgana 


45 








Croatia 


139 








Czech Republic 


1,742 








Denmark 


47 


21 


31 


Estonia 


9 


48 


84 


Finland 


14 


4,163 


100 


France 


143 


2,653 


95 


Georgia 





20 


100 


Germany 


326 


37 


10 


Greece 


34 


15 


31 


Hungary 


69 


67 


49 


Iceland 


4 


54 


93 


Ireland 


54 








Italy 


53 


305 


85 


Latvia 


125 


6 


5 


Liechtenstein 


9 








Lithuania 


23 


6 


21 


Luxembourg 


15 








FYROM 


20 


3 


13 


Malta 


6 








Moldova 


43 








Monaco 


2 








Netherlands 


56 








Norway 


2 


1,304 


100 


Poland 


375 


22 


6 


Portugal 


2 


20 


91 


Romania 


52 








Russian Federation 


6,981 


1,731 


20 


San Marino 











Slovakia 


31 


7 


18 


Slovenia 


3 








Spain 


100 


192 


66 


Sweden 


23 


4,330 


99 


Switzerland 


14 


197 


93 


Ukraine 


8 


1,425 


99 


United Kingdom 





2,995 


100 


Serbia 


60 









European Forests and Protected Areas: Gap Analysis 

2.4 ANALYSES 

2.4.1 Data preparation and procedure 

The main aim of the analyses was to identify all forested land within lUCN protected 
areas management categories I - IV. 

The analysis of potential and current forest data with protected areas was undertaken 
by overlaying the data layers within a GIS and calculating the size of corresponding 
areas. In some instances protected area boundary data were not available. In these 
cases the protected area was represented by a circle proportional to its area at its 
latitude/longitude position (where such information was available), rather than 
digitised boundaries. A total of 30,833 polygons were identified in the analysis - this 
included both boundaries and proportional circles. Of these, a total of 19,795 
protected areas were digitised outlines and 11,038 were proportional circles. It should 
be noted that, in general, the proportional circle data tend to represent very small 
protected areas. Of the 11,038 proportional circles, 8,415 have an area of less than 1 
kml 

To analyse data in a GIS, all data layers must be in a common format ie. raster or 
vector. Raster data has a cellular data structure composed of rows and columns for 
storing images. Groups of cells with the same value represent features. Vector data 
has a co-ordinate based data structure. Each linear feature is represented by an ordered 
list of locations that are joined up to form lines and polygons. Polygons are 
boundaries that enclose areas that represent features. 

The forest data were initially held electronically in a raster format. To perform the 
analyses the forest data were converted to vector format in order to maintain the detail 
and accuracy of the protected areas vector dataset. (Note: Data can also readily be 
converted from vector to raster format but the raster data storage in the form of cells 
of a pre-determined size has the effect of generalising the vector data. No such loss of 
detail occurs in a raster to vector conversion). 

The overall accuracy of the analysis is defined by the scale of the original source 
information for both the forests and protected areas datasets. These vary in detail from 
country-to-country. Full source information is given in Annex 1 and Annex 3 for 
forest cover and protected areas data respectively. 

2.4.2 Size analyses 

Another aspect of the analyses was to identify the size distribution of Europe's 
protected forest areas. These analyses were undertaken at two levels: 

Firstly, looking at protected forest areas as one general category and subsequently 
splitting the protected forest areas into the major B & N categories (20 classes). 

The analysis was designed to identify individual pieces of forest which fall within 
either an individual protected area (figure 1) or combinations of adjacent protected 
areas (figure 2) of lUCN categories I - FV inclusive. This maintains the analysis of 
individual blocks of forest that occur across more than one protected area. 



10 



Only in the analysis of the 50 most forested protected areas were the individual 
boundaries of each protected area maintained. When several individual blocks of 
forest are protected by a single protected area, such individual blocks of forest are not 
added together in this analysis, hence it is important to recognise that the number of 
areas of protected forest will exceed the total number of protected areas. 

Figure 3 illustrates the situation where one protected area crosses two forest types. 
When the analysis is irrespective of forest type, the result is one protected forest area. 
When the analysis considers forest type, then the result is two protected forest areas. 

Diagrams to show the issues involved in counting forest protected areas. 

(F = forest; PA = protected area) 

Figure 1. Three protected forest areas 

(one protected area containing three non-adjacent forest areas) 




Figure 2. One protected forest area 

(one forest area containing three adjacent protected areas) 




11 



European Forests and Protected Areas: Gap Analysis 

Figure 3. Two protected forest areas - when analysed by forest type 

(one protected area comprising two forest types - wiien analysed irrespective of forest 
type, tiiis example would give a count of one protected forest area) 




3. RESULTS 

Outputs produced as a result of this project include: 

• Harmonised digital maps of potential and current European forest cover and 
protected areas 

• Potential and current forest cover statistics 

• Protected forest area statistics 

• Technical report describing gap analysis methodologies, results and initial 
conclusions from the project 

This information has been combined in a user-friendly format on a CD-ROM that 
accompanies this technical report. The contents of the CD-ROM are also available on 
the internet at: http://www.wcmc.org.uk/forest/eu_gap. Details of the contents of the 
CD-ROM are provided in Annex 6. 

The analyses for the project were undertaken at two levels: detailed and simplified. 
The most detailed level involved analyses of forest data classified into 66 forest types, 
while a second analysis was undertaken classifying forest data into 20 simplified 
forest types. Annex 2 provides information on the 66 detailed and corresponding 20 
simplified forest types. 

3.1 ANALYSIS BY COUNTRY 

3.1.1 Forest extent 

Results indicate that total potential forest cover for all countries included in the study 
extends to 7,395,440 km^. Analysed at a country-by-country level the data show that 
the Russian Federation has the largest potential forest area (2,469,520 km^), while 
Monaco has the smallest potential forest area (8 km^), (Annex 5, Table 1). Figure 1 in 
Annex 5 illustrates potential forest cover by country. 



12 



A further analysis of potential forest cover as a proportion of each country's total land 
area was made. Potential forest cover ranges from 100% in Luxembourg to 6.4% of 
land area in Iceland (Annex 5, Table 5). Twenty-seven of the 45 countries (60%) in 
the study had potential forest cover extending over 90- 1 00% of their total land area 
(see table 4). 

Table 4. Countries with potential forest cover > 90% 



Rank 


Country 


Potential Forest Area as % of Land Area 


1 


Luxembourg 


100.0 


2 


Bosnia Herzegovina 


99.8 


3 


Belgium 


99.5 


4 


Czech Republic 


99.3 


5 


Slovakia 


99.1 


6 


Lithuania 


98.8 


7 


Poland 


98.8 


8 


Germany 


98.6 


9 


Latvia 


98.4 


10 


San Marino 


98.3 


11 


Netherlands 


97,8 


12 


France 


97.8 


13 


Slovenia 


97.4 


14 


Spain 


97.4 


15 


Albania 


97.0 


16 


Greece 


96.9 


17 


FYROM 


96.5 


18 


Italy 


95.9 


19 


Serbia 


95.4 


20 


Bulgaria 


95.1 


21 


Liechtenstein 


93.9 


22 


Belarus 


93.6 


23 


Portugal 


93.3 


24 


Finland 


92.9 


25 


Estonia 


92.8 


26 


Croatia 


92.8 


27 


Sweden 


91.6 



Current forest cover for all countries included in the study stands at 3,255,680 km 
(Annex 5, Table 2). Analysed at a country-by-country level, the data show that the 
Russian Federation has the largest current forest cover area (1,539,947 km^), while 
Monaco has the smallest area of current forest of less than 1 km^. Figure 2 in Annex 5 
illustrates current forest cover for all countries included in the analysis. 

When analysed as a proportion of each country's total land area, current forest 
coverage ranges from 55.5% in Finland to 1.2% of land area in Iceland (Annex 5, 
Table 6). 

3.1.2 Forest loss 

Total forest loss (potential forest cover - current forest cover) for all countries in the 
study amounted to 4,139,759 km^ a decline of 56% of potential forest area. Note that 



13 



European Forests and Protected Areas: Gap Analysis 



this is an estimate due to the necessarily different methodologies employed in 
quantifying potential and current forest cover. 

Figure 4 illustrates the top 20 countries ranked in order of relative loss of forest area 
(km'). Data on the area (km^) of forest lost and forest loss in relation to potential 
forest cover at a country-by-country level are given in Annex 5, Table 3. 

Figure 4: Top 20 countries ranked by forest loss (relative terms) 



120.00 



100 00 



80 00 



60.00 



20.00 



0.00 



s 



dJ — 



When forest loss is measured in relation to potential forest cover, the situation is very 
different. Nationally, forest loss ranges from 38% (Russian Federation) to 100% 
(Malta) of potential forest area (Annex 5, Table 3). The Russian Federation, ranks top 
in terms of area of forest loss, but ranks at the bottom in terms oi percent of forest 
loss. 



3.1.3 Forest protection 

At a regional scale, 204,996 km^ (6.3%) of current forest is protected. Levels of 
protection (km^) range from 1 1.7% of current forest area in Belarus, to 0% of current 
forest area in Andorra, Monaco and San Marino (Annex 5, Table 4). These three are 
small countries so this absence of protected forest has negligible impact on the overall 
European situation. Nations with a greater land area, that also have low quantities of 
protected forest (lUCN categories I-IV) include the United Kingdom (0.6%), Portugal 
(1.2%) and France (1.2%)). Figure 5 illustrates the top 15 countries ranked according 
to the largest proportion of current forest protected (lUCN categories I-fV). 

Figures for current forest protection as a proportion of national land area are given in 
Annex 5, Table 7. Protected forest accounts for between 0% (Andorra) and 3.49% 
(Slovakia) of each country's land area. 



14 



Figure 5: Top 15 countries ranked according to proportion of forest protected 



2 2 

I ^ 

t u 



14 



12 



10 



= 0) 

> 
o 
10 



§ I 
^ i - 



5 



5 

to 



Country 



3.1.4 Forest diversity 

Forest type diversity was analysed at a national level, following the most detailed 
forest classification data (B & N 66). Results indicate that diversity ranges from a 
minimum of 1 (San Marino and Monaco) to 33 (Russian Federation) forest types in 
any one country, with a mean value of 1 1 types (Annex 5, Table 8). 

3.2 ANALYSIS BY SPECinC FOREST TYPE (B & N 66) 
3.2.1 Potential and current forest cover 

Data were first analysed at a detailed level, with 66 forest categories defined (see 
Annex 2). The extent of potential forest cover according to the detailed B & N 
classifications is given in figure 6 .The most predominant forest types are identified 
as: 

• D:l (Western boreal spruce (Picea abies, P. obovata, P. abies x P. obovata), 
partly with Piniis sylvestris, locally with birch {Betula czerepanovii, B. pendula, 
B. pubescens), alder (Alnus incana) or mixed forests (1,147,593 km ). 

• D:5 (Boreal and hemiboreal pine forests {Pinus sylvestris), partly with Betula 
czerepanovii, B. pubescens, Picea obovata, P. abies) and F:5 (Beech and mixed 
hQQch forests (Fagus sylvatica, partly F. moesiaca, Abies alba) (990,858 km ). 



15 



European Forests and Protected Areas: Gap Analysis 



In contrast, minerotrophic mires (S:3), vegetation of marine sand dunes and sea shores 
(P:l), Juniper and cypress woodlands and scrub {Juniperus thurifera. J. excelsa. J. 
foetidissima. J. polycarpos, Cupressus sempenirens) (K:3), meso- and 
supramediterranean fir forests {Abies pinsapo, A. cephalonica) (K:2) and humid 
thermophytic mixed broad-leaved forests (H: Hu) are uncommon (Annex 5, table 10). 
All of these categories have a potential extent of less than 9,300 km . 

Figure 6. Top 15 Potential forest types ranked by area (B & N 66 classification) 



1.400,000 
1,200,000 

£. 1,000,000 

n 

a> 

< 800,000 

V 

^ 600,000 

is 

e 4 0,000 t- 

o 

200,000 -I- 





JUl 



in CO n 

U- Q LL. 



=3 O 



CN (N rsi CN 

O O u- ^ 



Potential Forest Type 



The extent of current forest cover according to the detailed B & N classification (B & 
N 66) is given in Annex 5, Table 10. The top 15 current forest types by current area 
are illustrated in Figure 7. 

Figure 7. Top 15 current forest types by current area (B «& N 66 classification) 





900 


000 


r* 


800 


000 


E 


700 


000 










600 


000 


< 


500.000 




400 


000 


fe 








300 


,000 


J? 






3 


200 


,000 


u 


100 


,000 










■^ in 
Q Q 



m 



n n n n n ■-■ 



t- CO -^ 



Q U- U. ^ O U- (j) 

Current Forest Type 



o 



o 



16 



The data reveal a similar pattern to that shown by potential cover, with predominant 
classes (D:l, D:5 and F:5) remaining in the same rank order, although reduced in 
extent (770,775 km', 581,470km' and 309,702 km^ respectively). Forest types with 
very small current areas are listed in table 5. 

Table 5. Current forest types with area <250 km^ 



Current Forest Type Description 


Current 
Area (km^) 


Riverine forest 


248 


Central European raised bogs wooded with Pinus rotundata (S: Ce) 


181 


Quercus pubescens forests in Crimean herb-grass steppes (L: Qu ) 


181 


Pre-Ural Spruce woodland amid hygrophilous birch tundra (B: Pr) 


145 


Birch swamp forests amid Icelandic coastal heaths (E:Bi) 


74 


Continental willow alluvial forests {Populus nigra, P. alba, Salix alba) and 
tamarisk alluvial scrub {Tamarix ramosissima) (U: 5) 


71 


Greek evergreen scrub (C: Gr) 


33 


Juniperus foetidissima forest (C: Ju ) 


28 


Orocantabrian juniperus sibirica scrub (C: Or) 


2 


Apenine mountain pine scrub {Pinus mugo) (C: Ap) 


1 



3.2.2 Forest loss 

Total forest loss amounts to 4,139,759 km^ . Further analysis of the data allowed the 
forest types (B &N 66) that have declined the most (in absolute terms) to be identified 
(Annex 5, Table 13). The top four of these forest types are: 

• (F:5): Beech and mixed beech forests {Fagus sylvatica, partly F. moesiaca, Abies 
alba) 

• (F:3): Mixed oak-hombeam forests (Carpinus betulus, Quercus robur, Q. petraea, 
Tilia cordata), 

• (D:5): Boreal and hemiboreal pine forests (Pinus sylvestris), partly with Betula 
czerepanovii, B. pubescens, Picea obovata, P. abies 

• (D:l): Western boreal spruce (Picea abies, P. obovata, P. abies x P. obovata), 
partly with Pinus sylvestris, locally with birch (Betula czerepanovii, B. pendula, 
B. pubescens), alder (Alnus incana) or mixed forests 

When these figures are analysed as a percentage of potential forest cover, thus 
providing relative forest loss data, the picture is somewhat different (see Figure 8 and 
Annex 5, Table 14). 

Forest loss ranges from 99.5% (Continental willow alluvial forests (Populus nigra, P. 
alba, Salix alba) and tamarisk alluvial scrub (Tamarix ramosissima), to 19.3% 
(coastal vegetation). Three categories of alluvial forest (U:5, U:4 and U:3) appear to 
have suffered greatest proportional loss (>90%). Other forest classes that have 
suffered relatively high levels of decline include those of Mediterranean origin (J:l, 
J:2,G:1,G:2,G:3). 



17 



European Forests and Protected Areas: Gap Analysis 

Figure 8. Top 15 detailed forest types (B&N) 66 tliat have suffered the greatest 
relative forest loss 



o 



o 
bfa 



12U -] 




100 
80 
60 
40 ■ 
20 - 


- 












— - 










rn ' — ' 














— 




- 




— 




— 




; 




- 




















— 










— 




— 




- 






— 
















- 


JTcN?!^ — ^ — I fi ^ — r^ f^ <N — 

Forest Type 





3.2.3 Forest protection 

Protected current forest figures (in absolute terms) range from 42,904 km (D: 5) to 
no protection (B: Sp; B: Pr) (Annex 5, Table 11). With the exception of two forest 
types with minimal current forest areas that are largely protected (56% and 100%) and 
that both lie within the Russian Federation, protection (as a proportion of current 
forest area) ranges from zero to 36% (Annex 5, Table 12). Two forest types have 
areas greater than 1 ,000 km^ and receive more than 20% protection. These occur in 
North-east Europe (Poland, Russian Federation and the Ukraine) (S: PisC) and in 
Romania and the Ukraine (C: So). 

Five forest types extend to at least 1,000 km^ but receive less than 2% protection. 
These forests occur in Russian Federation (B: Sp); Fennoscandia (S: PisS); Central 
and Eastern Europe (G:l); Hungary (H: Hu) and the Mediterranean (J:l). Other forest 
types receiving less than 2% protection but that cover very small areas comprise: B:Pr 
(Russian Federation); E:Bi (Norway); L: OaS (Hungary, Romania and Serbia): and PI 
(France). 



3.3 ANALYSIS BY GENERALISED FOREST TYPE (B&N 20) 
3.3.1 Potential and current forest cover 

Data on potential forest area, for simplified forest categories are illustrated in table 6. 
Results support findings in the detailed analysis. Predominant forest types include: 

• Mesophytic and Hygromesophytic coniferous and broadleaf forests (type: D) 

• Mesophytic deciduous broad-leaved and coniferous-broad-leaved forests (type E) 

• Tliermophilous deciduous broad-leaved forests and mixed coniferous broad- 
leaved forests (type: G) 



Humid Thermophytic mixed broad-leaved forests (type: H) conifer forests in mires 
and bogs (type:S) and coastal vegetation (type: P) remain under-represented. 

Table 6. Potential forest type ranked by area (B & N 20 classification) 



Forest Type 


Description 


Potential Forest 
Area ( km^) 


D 


Mesophytic and Hygromesophytic coniferous 
and broadleaf forests 


3,051,980 


F 


Mesophytic deciduous broad-leaved and 
coniferous-broad-leaved forests 


2,406,552 


G 


Thermophilous deciduous broad-leaved forests 
and mixed coniferous broad-leaved forests 


581,416 


J 


Mediterranean broad-leaved sclerophyllous 
forests and scrub 


537,597 


U 


Alluvial forests 


438,722 


C 


Subarctic, boreal and nemoral-montane birch 
woodlands and forests 


287,014 


T 


Swamp and fen forests 


50,790 


K 


Xerophytic coniferous forests, woodlands and 
scrub 


32,562 


H 


Humid Thermophytic mixed broad-leaved 
forests 


5,584 


S 


Conifer forests in mires and bogs 


2,289 


P 


Coastal vegetation 


934 


B 


Spruce woodland amid hygrophilous birch 
tundra 





Broadleaf (from current) 


Broadleaf (from current) 





Coniferous (from current) 


Coniferous (from current) 





L 


Deciduous broad-leaved forests amid steppes 





Mixed (from current) 


Mixed (from current) 





Plantation 


Plantation 





Replacement vegetation 


Replacement vegetation 





Sclerophyllous (from 
current) 


Sclerophyllous (from current) 





Unclassified (from 
current) 


Unclassified 





Total 




7,395,440 



Table 7 provides comparable information to that shown by the detailed classification, 
for the extent of current forest cover. Again, results suggest a similar theme to that 
of potential forest cover, with Mesophytic and Hygromesophytic coniferous and 
broadleaf forest and Mesophytic deciduous broad-leaved and coniferous-broad- 
leaved forests remaining predominant. 

As a result of forest loss due to human and natural environmental influences, current 
forest area for most types declines. The exceptions to this are deciduous broad-leaved 
forests amid steppes (type: L) and Spruce woodland amid hydrophillous birch tundra 
(type: B). The area of these two types increases. 



19 



European Forests and Protected Areas: Gap Analysis 



Table 7. Current forest extent and ranked by extent (B & N 20 classification) 



Forest Type 
Abbreviation 


Forest Type Description 


Current Forest 
Area (km^) 


D 


Mesophytic and Hygromesophytic coniferous and 
broadleaf forests 


1,796,260 


F 


Mesophytic deciduous broad-leaved and coniferous- 
broad-leaved forests 


624,537 


Replacement vegetation 


Replacement vegetation 


178,340 


G 


Thermophilous deciduous broad-leaved forests and 
mixed coniferous broad-leaved forests 


141,285 


J 


Mediterranean broad-leaved sclerophyllous forests and 
scrub 


119,542 


C 


Subarctic, boreal and nemoral-montane birch woodlands 
and forests 


102,490 


Coniferous (from 
current) 


Coniferous (from current) 


90,168 


Broadleaf (from 
current) 


Broadleaf (from current) 


48,304 


U 


Alluvial Forests 


46,588 


L 


Deciduous broad-leaved forests amid steppes 


24,841 


Unclassified (from 
current) 


Unclassified (from current) 


20,854 


K 


Xerophytic coniferous forests, woodlands and scrub 


15,207 


Mixed (from current) 


Mixed (from current) 


11,778 


S 


Conifer forests in mires and bogs 


10,857 


T 


Swamp and fen forests 


9,538 


Plantation 


Plantation 


8,097 


B 


Spruce woodland amid hygrophilous birch tundra 


3,404 


Sclerophyllous (from 
current) 


Sclerophyllous (from current) 


1,818 


H 


Humid Thermophytic mixed broad-leaved forests 


1,018 


P 


Coastal vegetation 


754 


Total 




3,255,680 



3.3.2 Forest loss 

Figure 9 illustrates absolute forest loss, and identifies that the greatest decline has 
occurred to: 

• (F): mesophytic deciduous broad-leaved and coniferous-broad-leaved forests 
(1.782,015 W) 

• (D): mesophytic and hygromesophytic coniferous and broadleaf forests (1,255,643 
km^) 

• (G): thermophilous deciduous broad-leaved forests and mixed coniferous broad- 
leaved forests (440,131 km^) 

• (J): Mediterranean broad-leaved sclerophyllous forests and scrub (417,825 km^) 

As a proportion of potential forest cover, forest loss figures by type range from 88.8% 
(alluvial forest) to 19.4% (coastal vegetation) (Annex 5, Table 15). 

Figure 10 illustrates relative forest loss. Three of the four forest types that rank 
highest in this figure comprise wetland forests: U Alluvial forests; S Conifer forests in 
mires and bogs; T Swamp and fen forests. 



20 



Figure 9. Simplified forest type (B & N 20) ranked according to greatest forest 
loss (km^) 



2,000,000 

1.800,000 

1,600,000 

1,400,000 

1,200,000 

1,000,000 

800,000 

600.000 

400,000 

200.000 









^ 


:>> 










- 








n 


n 1-1 



o 



=) o w 
Forest Type 



Figure 10. Simplified forest type (B & N 20) ranked according to greatest relative 
forest loss. 



100.00 
90.00 
80.00 4- 
70.00 -h 
S^ 60.00 

(A 
(A 

^ 50.00 
o 40.00 

30.00 -h 

20.00 

10.00 
0.00 



Forest Type 



o 



21 



European Forests and Protected Areas: Gap Analysis 



3.3.3 Forest protection 

The results of the analysis identifying the quantity and proportion of current forest (by 
simplifled forest type), that is protected (lUCN category I-IV) are presented in table 8. 
As a proportion of the current forest type they represent, the most protected forest 
types include: conifer forests in mires and bogs (type: S) (18.5%) and swamp fen 
forest and (type: T) (14.8%). hi contrast, spnice woodland amid hygrophilous birch 
tundra (type: B) appear to be the least protected (0%). 

Table 8. Current forest protection: B «& N 20 simplified classification (ranked by 
area protected) 



Simplifled 
Forest Type 
Abbreviation 


Simplified Forest Type Description 


Protected 

Forest Area 

(km^) 


% Forest Type 
Protected 


D 


Mesophytic and Hygromesophytic coniferous and 
broadleaf forests 


126,082 


7.0 


F 


Mesophytic deciduous broad-leaved and 
coniferous-broad-leaved forests 


28,615 


4.6 


C 


Subarctic, boreal and nemoral-montane birch 
woodlands and forests 


9,515 


9.3 


Coniferous (from 
current) 


Coniferous (from current) 


9,475 


10.5 


Replacement 
vegetation 


Replacement vegetation 


8,020 


4.5 


G 


Thermophilous deciduous broad-leaved forests 
and mixed coniferous broad-leaved forests 


5,045 


3.6 


Broadleaf (from 
current) 


Broadleaf (from ciurent) 


4,049 


8.4 


U 


Alluvial forests 


2,812 


6.0 


Unclassified 
(from current) 


Unclassified (from current) 


2,481 


11.9 


J 


Mediterranean broad-leaved sclerophyllous 
forests and scrub 


2,313 


1.9 


S 


Conifer forests in mires and bogs 


2,013 


18.5 


T 


Swamp and fen forests 


1,404 


14.8 


L 


Deciduous broad-leaved forests amid steppes 


1,233 


5.0 


K 


Xerophytic coniferous forests, woodlands and 
scrub 


1,106 


7.3 


Mixed (from 
current) 


Mixed (from current) 


637 


5.4 


Sclerophyllous 
(from current) 


Sclerophyllous (from current) 


96 


5.3 


Plantation 


Plantation 


78 


1.0 


H 


Humid Thermophytic mixed broad-leaved forests 


13 


1.3 


P 


Coastal vegetation 


9 


1.2 


B 


Spruce woodland amid hygrophilous birch 
tundra 


1 


0.0 


TOTAL 




204,996 


6.3 



22 



Figure 1 1 illustrates the proportion of each forest type that is protected, ranked in 
order of decreasing levels of protection. 

Figure 11: Percentage of forest currently protected (B «& N 20 classification) 







18 00 

16.00 

14.00 

« 12.00 

"S 10.00 
qI 

vo 8.00 
6.00 
4.00 
2.00 
























- 




— 














!r 




— 














— 








— 




— 


~ 


— 






— 










n n n 




S 

T 

Unclassified(from current) 

Coniferous(from current) 

C 

Broadleaf (from current) 

K 

D 

U 

n Mixed (from current) 

H Scieroplnyllous (from current) 

■B 

L 

F 

Replacement (from current) 

G 

J 

H 

P 

Plantation (from current) 

B 





3.4 SIZE AND DISTRIBUTION OF PROTECTED FOREST AREAS 
3.4.1 Size 

Table 9 illustrates the size distribution of European protected forest. 

Table 9. Size distribution of protected forest areas 



Size class (ha) 


Number of protected forest 
areas 


Area protected 
(ha) 


Area protected 

(% of total area 

protected) 


> 100,000 


20 


5,621,173 


27 


50,000-99,999 


34 


2,448,497 


12 


10,000-49,999 


275 


5,747,235 


28 


1,000-9,999 


1,497 


4,717,163 


23 


< 1,000 


36,025 


1,965,525 


10 


Total 


37,851 


20,499,593 





23 



European Forests and Protected Areas: Gap Analysis 

A total of 37,851 areas were identified when the analysis was made with all forest 
considered as one type. Rather few (329) relatively large (>1 0,000 ha) sites account 
for 67% of Europe's protected forests. Conversely, 95% of Europe's protected forest 
areas comprise fragments of less than 1,000 ha. Together these fragments protect less 
than 10% of Europe's forests. 

Forest protected areas were fiirther analysed by forest type and size category 
(according to the simplified forest categories). This analysis showed that the number 
of separate pieces of protected forest frequently increased, as one forest protected area 
often comprises more than one type of forest. Hence one protected area containing 
two types of forest would give a count of two forest protected areas when analysed by 
forest type. Details of the number and area of each category of protected forest are 
included in the Excel sheet on the accompanying CD-ROM. In summary mesophytic 
and hygromesophytic coniferous and broadleaf forests represent the most protected 
forest type (12,603,428 ha) with the greatest number of protected areas (14,814). In 
contrast, forest types that occur over a smaller area and in fewer numbers include: 

• Spruce woodland amid hygrophilous birch tundra (1 protected forest, 56 ha) 

• Humid thermophytic mixed broad-leaved forests (5 protected forests, 1,297 ha) 

• Coastal vegetation (16 protected forests, 920 ha) 

3.4.2 Distribution 

Further analysis of forest and protected area data enabled the top 50 largest protected 
forest areas (lUCN categories I-IV) to be identified. Most of these areas occur in 
Russia (39 out of 50), with the remaining areas occurring in Finland (2), Sweden (3), 
Italy (2), Slovenia (1), Slovakia (1), Norway (1) and Spain (1). The largest forested 
protected area is Ugyd-Va National Park in Russia (1,138,401 ha). This protected area 
constitutes part of the Virgin Forests of Komi; a UNESCO World Heritage site. The 
predominance of these large protected areas in northern Europe to a large extent 
accounts for the much greater extent of protected forest that is found in this region 
compared to the south. 

Full details of all forest data for each country included in this study are available in 
the Excel file included on the CD-ROM that accompanies this report. 

4. DISCUSSION 

The results of this Gap Analysis provide a baseline illustrating the extent of European 
current forest cover and relative forest protection status in 2000. The study identifies 
the extent and type of forest cover that exists and the current level of legal protection. 
Used in conjunction with the Excel file on the CD-ROM accompanying this 
document, the analyses also allow each country to assess the state of protection of 
each forest type within their country, compared to Europe as a whole. 

It would appear that Europe's forests (fUCN categories I-FV) have low levels of 
protection (only 6.3% of current forest is protected), and that there is a need to press 
policymakers to increase these levels, to ensure valuable forest habitats and 
ecosystems are maintained. 



24 



It is interesting to compare the data on forest loss as a proportion of potential forest 
cover, with data on existing levels of protection, at the national level (Annex 5, Tables 
3 and 4). These tables appear to show a regional bias within Europe. Countries of 
western Europe have suffered greatest forest loss, yet they have the lowest current 
levels of protection. For example Ireland and the UK rank high (4 and 9) in terms of 
forest loss, yet low (27 and 36) in terms of protection. Conversely, countries of 
northern Europe that have suffered lower levels of forest loss rank amongst the top in 
terms of current levels of protection. The Russian Federation and Finland rank 45 and 
44 in terms of forest loss (i.e. the lowest), yet they rank high (2 and 1 1) in terms of 
protection. The picture for Mediterranean countries and eastern Europe is more 
variable, with less extreme variations in ranking between forest loss and forest 
protection. These figures appear to indicate that those countries that still have a 
relatively high proportion of their potential forest remaining, value this as a resource, 
and that they are prepared to invest in establishing protection measures. The data 
could also indicate that protection measures in place are effective in helping halt 
forest loss. The situation for western Europe, where the little forest that remains 
receives some of the lowest levels of protection suggests that action is urgently 
needed if the remaining fragments are to be preserved. 

The analyses of levels of protection by forest type clearly relate to the distribution of 
these forest types within Europe, with forest types occurring in those countries that 
ranked high in the country analyses predominating. Protection levels for conifer 
forests in mires and bogs and swamp and fen forests are relatively high (18.5% and 
14.8% respectively), but these two forests together only comprise 1% of Europe's 
protected forests. The majority (60%) of Europe's protected forests comprises 
mesophytic and hygromesophytic coniferous and broadleaf forests; mesophytic 
deciduous broad-leaved and coniferous-broad-leaved forests. This reflects the 
predominance of this forest type, which stands at 55% of current forest cover. 

There appear to be 'gaps' in protection for three of the least common forest types: 
coastal vegetation: humid thermophytic mixed broad-leaved forest; spruce woodland 
and hygrophilous birch tundra. Less than 1.5% of each of these three forest types is 
currently protected. Another forest type with low (<2%) protection is Mediterranean 
broad-leaved scler aphyllous forests and scrub. 

Initial investigations into the concept of 'wilderness' (in this study based on the size 
distribution of protected forest areas), indicate that there are few areas of large 
wilderness in Europe (20 forests over 100,000 ha). However, these are very unevenly 
distributed within Europe, with the majority located in the north, predominantly in the 
north-east of Russia. Conversely, only four of the 50 largest areas occur in the south, 
indicating that the forests that remain are only protected as fragments and that a 
pressing need exists to protect larger individual areas. It should be noted that this is 
quite a coarse classification of wilderness. A more accurate and detailed analysis 
requires further study. 

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Gap analysis, in the sense used in this project, involves overlaying information on the 
distribution of forests with information on the distribution of protected areas to 
identify the level of official protection afforded to differing forest types. Like other 



25 



European Forests and Protected Areas: Gap Analysis 

rapid appraisal methodologies, it should not be viewed as a substitute for full 
biological inventories, but rather as a coarse indicator of gaps. Such information is 
vital to policy-makers and planners, in developing a European-wide network of 
ecologically representative protected forest areas. 

As well as identifying the current extent and types of European forest, the analyses 
presented in this study provide two indications of the state of protection of Europe's 
forests: the area of forest that is currently afforded legal protection; and the relative 
size of the pieces of protected forest. However it should be noted that no attempt has 
been made to address other issues that impact the state of protection. Additionally 
forest condition and threats to forest protection have not been analysed. 

The collation of protected areas data remains an on-going task. Any analyses will 
inevitably date, as more data become available. However the analyses provide as 
accurate a view as possible for the status of Europe's protected forests for the year 
2000. 

Obtaining harmonised vegetation data across the entire area of interest of a project, 
classified according to a readily understood scheme is critical to any study. While 
this has been attempted for this analysis, it has been an inmiensely difficult task. Any 
subsequent analysis would need to ensure that this is again achieved. As with the 
collation of protected areas data, the gathering of up-to-date forest data is an ongoing 
task. Once again, this project provides as accurate a picture as possible for the year 
2000, given the financial resources available for the project. 

When analysing the data provided in this study, these factors should be taken into 
consideration, in order to provide a balanced well informed strategic plan, for 
improving the network of protected forest areas. 



26 



I 



REFERENCES 

Bohn, U. 1994. International Project for the construction of a map of the natural 
vegetation of Europe at a scale of 1 : 25 million - its concept, problems of 
harmonization and application for nature protection. Collogues Phytosociologiques. 
XXIII. Large Area Vegetation Surveys. Bailleul. 23pp. 

Bohn, U. 1995. Structure and content of the Vegetation Map of Europe (scale 1 : 25 
m) with reference to its possible relevance to the project entitled "European 
Vegetation Survey". Annali di Botanica LIII: 143-149. 

FAO. 1995. Forest Resources Assessment 1990. Global synthesis. FAO, Rome. 44pp. 

FAO. 1999. State of the World's Forests. FAO, Rome 1999. 154pp. 

Iremonger, S., C. Ravilious and T. Quinton. 1997. A Statistical Analysis of Global 
Forest Conservation. In: Iremonger, S., C. Ravilious and T. Quinton (Eds.) A Global 
Overview of Forest Conservation. Including: GIS files of forests and protected areas, 
version 2. CD-ROM. CIFOR and WCMC, Cambridge, U.K. 

Luxmoore, R. & Drucker, G. 1994. The needs for geo-referenced information on 
European forests: forest and biodiversity conservation. In: Kennedy, P.J. et al. 
Proceedings of International Workshop Designing a System of Nomenclature for 
European Forest Mapping 13-15 June 1994, Joensuu, Finland, European 
Commission, Luxembourg. p21-26. 

McNeely, J.A., Harrison, J. and Dingwall, P. (Eds). 1994. Protecting Nature: 
Regional Reviews of Protected Areas. lUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, 
UK. 402pp. 

Neuhausl, R. 1990. Unified classification of European natural forests: the approach of 
the vegetation map of Europe. Vegetation 89: 173-181 

WCMC. 1995. Feasibility study: Gap analysis of forest protected areas in Europe. 
Compiled by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre with support fi-om World 
Wide Fund for Nature. 12pp. 

WWF. 1992. Forests in Trouble: a review of the status of temperate forests 
worldwide. WWF Publication, London. 295pp. 

Full details of the sources of protected area and forest data used in these analyses are 
included in Annexes 1 and 3. 



27 



MAP 1: SIMPLIFIED FOREST COVER 



^1 






(0 
O 




E ? 



I 2 t 

1 1 1 
m u S 



QID 






2 f 
I I 



S o 






S T> i= 



E -a 



8 g 

Q. H 

ffi U 



2 

■g 

E 

Q. 
O 

E 



■= ro 



S' y 



i:icii:iiii 



^ Q- g O 

p bJ OJ O 

o TO 2§ 
O Q Q. @ 






•So ^5 






O C C 

=3 P 

O i: 

" (0 

(0 O 

c 



0) 

> 

(U 

o 



5-^05 

JO C 3 CD 

.!>•§ s £ 

CO -i w — 

Q) Q d) 

■D O CD -o 

— :>. '^ ^, 

CD c -5? 



.y CD 



x: 

CD ■" 

j: 13) 

' ■ c 



2 C C3)c 

13) O C ■ 

S '" != 

Oj en 1- 

O) (B 0) 



0) 

o 

c 
o 
o 



tt 



c 
o 

o 
w 

o 



CN - 



> 

o 

o 

o 
o 

LL 

C 

<D 

a 
o 

LU 



■D 

0) (A 
^ .2 

a o 

E c 
.E <u 

"35 " 

is 

? o 
Z o 

C 



o 

O 

*^ 

O) 

c 






O 

o 
u 

< 




■■y"-^ 









\ 















if 



1 1 1 1 1 f I 



HI 



•D 
C 
U 



llllll! 

IIIIIIIIID 

I j 

fill 

! I I ^ 6 
|ll I 

I jjj! . 
m i! lU 

11111101111 



gill 



E o c c 

il§| 



ra c 3 2 

;d O ra-o 

(0 £■ « O 

:i w ® ~ 

Q-O £ c 

o) o c E 

o ui c SH 

<" « S; c 



A 



ANNEX 1: FOREST DATA SOURCES 



Summary of Current Forest Data Sources: 

Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Liechtenstein, FYROM, Norway, 
Yugoslavia: 

Stockholm Environment Institute. (1996). The forests of Europe. 1: 2,500,000. 

Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, 
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, 
Northern Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Slovak Republic, 
Sweden (unclassified), Spain: 

European Topic Centre on Land Cover (ETC/LC) (Satellus). (1999). CORINE Land 
Cover Version 6. 250m. 

Great Britain (England, Scotland, Wales): 

I. T. E. (1996). Land Cover Map of Great Britain. 1km. 

Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russian Federation: 

Isaev, A. C. State Committee of the USSR. (1990). Forests of the USSR. 1:2,500,000. 

Iceland: 

Iceland Forest Service, unpublished data. Scale unknovra. 

Switzerland: 

Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (WSL). (1985). 
Dominant Tree Species. 1km. 

Ukraine: 

Yu. M. Voznyi, T. V. Medyna, A.O. Tkachev (1999). Forests of the Ukraine - Digital 
Map. Department of National Nature Parks and Reserves, Ministry of the 
Environment, Ukraine. 1 :250,000. 



u 




Q. 


- 


^ 


Jt 




1? 


f" 


y 


U 




.2 


E 


o 


tf) 


r» 








u 


O 


o 


&0 






VO 




VO 


o 



o 


<U 




en 


o 




S 


D. 




M 


w 




U 


•s 










0) 


.R 




u 

£ 


•a 




?. 


^3 




V 


o 




.ii 


£ 




k. 






V 


OJ 




fl 


<1J 






Xi 


c^ 




C/l 




s 


J= 


c 


.a 
s 


3 




4> 


^ 


z 


3 


J= 


■o 


z 


r! 


a 


•a 




CS 


c 


m 


a 


« 

5 


1 


o 


o 


QQ 


m 








(1) 


"O 


XI 






•T3 






•a 


j:) 


o< 


> 


C3 


5 


Si 
o. 




in 


c 


r« 


a 


.2 


2 


■o 


in 


w 


V 


T3 


Z 








R 




oi 


Q 




O 

u 


• a 


O 


n 






-o 


a 


u 


c 


a 




< 


z 


^ 




o 

^ o 
a <s 

■- CQ 

E 



a 
o 



a. 



Q 



^ ^ S 

<2 ^ -Q 

o '^ a 



o b ^ 



-r^ X *-J 

^ O i^ 

.^ -Ci ^ 

OJ ^ ^ — 

CJ ^ W 

s s; g 

U Ji > 

^ O =3 



-»1 




o. 


o 




(/) 




«J 


U- 


h 


rt 


o 




feh 


•T3 


>. 


n 


J3 




T) 


j:» 


B 


TJ 


rt 


c 


(* 


« 


?, 


3 


^ 


o 


o. 
















S 


o 



2 = 
■2 '^ 

S 'a 

■I s 

O = 



■S -Si 

s 



c 5 

O K 

E 5 

-So: 



O t/5 

E S 
o 



B 

u 8 

B " 
o Ji 

&> o 



s XI 

- B 



cd 



■^ 2 

o « 

" S 

«5 P 



ec5 



^ ■§ 

§ § 
£ S 

a a: 

o 5 
•^ "a. 



o 



a; D. 



_ -a 
o 



E £ 
a a. 

o -a 






<U O 



o 



v> 



-c 2 
o. g 
o c; 

^ 'B 
U B 



3 


o 

N 






O 


ra 




n 




F 






o 


B 


fc: 


OJ 


'^ 


J3 



u -a 

B i- 

B JJ 

O -C 

2 b;- 



O) 



a 3 

on 



S -a. 

o "t: 

o c: 

d, ^ 

- oa 

to ^" 



§-° J 
■a g :§ 



O) 



5 



3 


a 




<i* 


>^ 


a 


a 


^ 


ti; 


^ 
c^ 


















[/) 




<u 





O 3 






ss 



O) 



O) 






O) 



cS 



m 



J3 ^~. 



1^ 

|s 

(11 ^^ 



-^ S 



to 



O) 



O) 



o 



O) 



•« ii 

O OJ 

E 3 

o a 

M 5 



3 ,a 

u 

•a g 

<U -3 



^ to 

in S; 
to ^ 

<2 -S 
^°- 

I I 

<D ^ 

B^ 

•SO) 

° a 

■% O) 

CI- 1- 

I S 

S ^ 

^ OJ 
•5 ^^ 

Id ^ 

§c2 

C ID 

O -J? 
U H 
^ B 

,2 « 

00 « 



i^ 0)0) 

§ .S g 
u ? -S 

S Si § 

« a a 
o ^ ^ 

= i: O) 

(U "^ -2 
w t^ CI, 

s 3 5 

^ ^ Q 
u S -« 
5 3 O 

2 0)-s; 
g --^ 

■^ en ^ 
U JJ OJ 

^ <2 g" 
2 -o S 
a. S ?i, 






° =: 



D. '" 
O ^ 



— ^ "5 

cd cd c 

B P 

u E O)'- 

B M 2 

s =^ a S 

E C3 S U 

S CQ ^ 2 

•§ -5 '5 -a 

GO 



g 'fe, 5. 



I- vo 
o _ 

DXZ 



U CQ 



a 



o 



o 
a M 






•o 
e 

B 



e 
o 



<s 



a. 
E 



13 


3 
o 






> 


>-, 




J3 




O. 


T3 


R 


cd 


(1* 


O 


O 


j= 




•a 


•s 



O. 
O 



O 

" hi 

at ^ 

5 ■« 

2 C 



!^ 



a 



3 












<« 




'a 




o 




u 




o 










5 


D. 


O 


n 




X 








3 



2 

(U 



>, 


-Cl 


J3 




D. 




y 


^^) 










tj 


n 


en 




•a 

> 

a 


o 



O) 






d) 



O)- 



eo) 



U S3 



O. 

o 



O) 



It 
•3 a 



2 Oi 
•a — 



O) 



.•§ « 

•« s. 

D. .S" 
O ~ 

s ^ 

•o 5 
S S 

O ? - 

•a :§ ■ 
^5 



o 



o 

5. 
Q, 
3 
■& 

5 



"V c 

■o S 

s s 

a 



O) 



c .3 

«s a a 
u a ;; 



u 



T3 -^ 

CO Q" 

OJ o 



a. a; 



n< 



5 C 
a ^ 
^ S- 



s 


T) 


O 


o 


t^ 


flj 


n 




•a 


& 


s 


fi 


to 




(fl 




Q 


&. 


bi; 


S 




o 








a 


•a 


c 




c 


C3 


■^* 








a. 




a. 




<i> 






(/I 


(A 






n, 


V3 


Cl. 


2 



.2 



t 

o 
I «8 

s 



n. 



£ 



a. 
S 
35 



■a 






c 


>, 


3 


.:^ 


TD 




■a 


R 






tn 


o 




c 


n 


o 










P3 

E 






> 


c 


u 




>1 




J= 


(1) 


D. 


nr 


O 


OJ 

> 


C3 



so 

o 

-a 

B 



cti 



U 



W 



■a 


Lri 




<y 






a. 


ca 


S 


> 




3 


^ 




C/D 


< 



■a 

c 




« 








c 




Ph 


a 










s 











I, M 

•T3 -a 

ca Q 



03 



O 
K 

■Si 
5 



a -5 



ft: c 

a s 

- c 

a ^ 

&-^ 

5 3 

1 ^ 









CQ 2 



CQ 



3 ■'^ -c 









o c 
U 2 



03 



■^ t 



i: 3 

S E 

OJ o 



J3 
D. 
O 



a s 

t: t 

- E 

~ o 






Oi 



o _ 






— u 

■>; t 

J3 3 

D. " 

2 E 

^ o 

CO — 



C o 



oi 



ANNEX 3: PROTECTED AREA DATA SOURCES 

The pages that follow provide information on the protected areas data sources used in this 
Gap Analysis project. In addition to new protected areas data that were gathered dunng 1998- 
1999, existing protected areas data held m the WCMC Protected Areas Database were also 
used. 

Country: Albania 

All protected areas polygon data buffered from points using official 'size' and location 

information held in the WCMC Protected Areas Database. 

Country: Andorra 

Title: None given 

Source: Govern, MI (Eds) 

Publisher: Consellana de Serveis Publics 

Date: 1987 

Scale: 1: 50000 

Country: Austria 

Title: Evaluation of Austria's protected area system and lUCN's contribution to improve this 

system 

Source: Mang, J 

Publisher: lUCN 

Date: 1990 

Scale: None given 

Country: Austria 

All protected areas polygon data buffered from points using official 'size' and location 

information held in the WCMC Protected Areas Database. 

Country: Belgium 

All protected areas polygon data buffered from points using official 'size' and location 

information held in the WCMC Protected Areas Database. 

Country: Belarus 

Title: Republic of Belarus 

Source: Map produced for the Department of Environment and Protection 

Publisher: Belgeadezia 

Date: 1996 

Scale: 1:500000 

Country: Bosnia Herzegovina 

All protected areas polygon data buffered from points using official 'size' and location 

information held in the WCMC Protected Areas Database. 

Country: Bulgaria 

All protected areas polygon data buffered from points using official 'size' and location 

information held in the WCMC Protected Areas Database. 

Country: Croatia 

All protected areas polygon data buffered from points using official 'size' and location 

information held in the WCMC Protected Areas Database. 



Country: Czech Republic 

Most protected areas polygon data buffered from points using official 'size' and location 

information held in the WCMC Protected Areas Database. 

Country: Czech Republic 

Title: Chanena Uzemi Priody Ceske 

Source: Unknown 

Publisher: Laket Cartography Computer Drawing 

Date: 1993 

Scale: 1:500000 

Country: Denmark 

Approximately half of the protected areas polygon data is represented by polygon outlines 

from a sketch map (source unknown). The remaining protected areas polygon data buffered 

from points using official 'size' and location information held in the WCMC Protected Areas 

Database. 

Country: Estonia 

Title: Nature Conservation in Estonia 

Source: Unknown 

Publisher: REGIO, LKU 

Date: 1996 

Scale: Unknown 

Country: Finland 

Title: Oulanka National Park, Finland 

Source: Finnish Forest and Park Service 

Publisher: (same as source) 

Date: 1995 

Scale: 1:50000 

Country: Finland 

Title: Finnish National Parks 

Source: Finnish Forest Research Institute 

Publisher: (same as source) 

Date: Unknown 

Scale: 1:40000 

Country: Finland 

Title: Wilderness and Nature Conservation Area in Northern Finland 

Source: Ministry of Environment, Environment Protection Dept. 

Publisher: Pohjaartta, Karttakeskus, Helsinki 

Date: 1993 

Scale: Unknown 

Country: Finland 

Title: Pyhatuntun National Park 

Source: Finnish Forest Research Institute 

Publisher: Same as source 

Date: Unknown 

Scale: 1:40000 



Country: Finland 

Title: Protected Areas of Finland 

Source: Yr)o Sucksdorff, Finnish Environment Institute / GIS and Remote Sensing Unit, PO 

Box 140, FIN-00251, Helsinki, Finland 

Publisher: Same as source 

Date: 1998 

Scale: 1: 30000; 1 : 50000; 1 : 60000; 1: 100000; 1: 200000; 1: 250000; 1: 400000; 

unknown 

Country: France 

Title: Unknown 

Source: Espaces Naturels Proteges (1996) 

Publisher: Unknown 

Date: Unknown 

Scale: 1:500000 

Country: France 

Title: Les Zones Naturelles d'Interet Ecologique, Faunistique, Floristique de la Region Midi- 
Pyrenees 

Source: Le Ministere de L'Environnement (1991) 
Publisher: (Same as source) 
Date: Unknown 
Scale: 1:250000 

Country: France 

Title: Protected Areas of France 

Source: Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 57 Rue Cuvier, PARIS 75231 (via Dominique 

Richard) 

Publisher: Same as source 

Date: 1999 

Scale: Unknown 

Country: France 

Title: Mont Perdu Patrimoine Mondial 

Source: Documentation on World Heritage Properties (Natural) October 1998 

Publisher: lUCN 

Date: 1997 

Scale: Unknown 

Country: Georgia 

All data in the form of polygon outlines from a sketch map (source unknown) 

Country: Germany 

Title: Protected Areas of Germany 

Source: Bundesamt fur Naturschutz 

Publisher: Same as source 

Date: Unknown 

Scale: Unknown 

Country: Greece 

Title: World Directory 

Source: Unknown 

Publisher: Hellenic Military Geographical Service 

Date: 1985 

Scale: 1: 1000000 



Country. Hungary 

Title: National Parks, Landscape Protection Reserves and Nature Conservation Areas in 

Hungary (1983) 

Source: Unknown 

Publisher: Unknown 

Date: 1983 

Scale: 1:500000 

Country: Iceland 

Title: 

Source: UNEP GRID, Arendal, Norway 

Publisher: 

Date: Unknown 

Scale: Not given 

Country: Iceland 

Title: Fridlyst Svaedi og Adrar Natturuminjar 

Source: Nature Conservation Council of Iceland 1991 

Publisher: Same as source 

Date: 1991 

Scale: 1: 750000 

Country: Ireland 

All protected areas polygon data buffered from points using official 'size' and location 

information held in the WCMC Protected Areas Database. 

Country: Ireland 

Title: Killamey National Park 

Source: Office of Public Works, Ireland (1990) 

Publisher: Unknown 

Date: 1990 

Scale: Unknown 

Country: Italy 

Title: Carta Delle Aree Protette in Italia (1991) 

Source: Ministero Dell'Ambiente 

Publisher: (Same as source) 

Date: 1991 

Scale: 1: 1500000 

Country: Italy 

Title: Protected Areas of Italy 

Source: Italian Environment Ministry 

Publisher: Same as source 

Date: Unknown 

Scale: Unknown 

Country: Latvia 

Title: European Travel Map of Latvia (1996) 

Source: Bartholomew 

Publisher: Bartholomew 

Date: (1995) 

Scale: 1:400000 



Country: Leichtenstein 

Title: Inventar der Natyrvorrangflachen 

Source: Mario F. Broggi 

Publisher: Buro fiir Umweltplanung 

Date: Unknown 

Scale: 1:25000 

Country: Lithuania 

Most protected areas polygon data buffered from points using official 'size' and location 

information held in the WCMC Protected Areas Database. 

Country: Lithuania 
Title: Lithuania (1985) 
Source: Unknown 
Publisher: Unknown 
Date: 1985 
Scale: 1:600000 

Country: Luxembourg 

Title: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Programme CORINE/Project Land Cover 

Source: EC, CORINE, Ministre de I'Amengement du territoire et de rEnvironnement and 

WALPHOT 

Publisher: 

Date: Unknown 

Scale: 1: 100000 

Country: FYROM 

Title: European Travel Map, Macedonia 

Source: Bartholomew 

Publisher: Bartholomew 

Date: 1996 

Scale: Unknown 

Country: Netherlands 

Title: Carte Touristique - Pares Nationaux des Pays de I'Entente (1984) 

Source: Institute Geographic National and Conseil de I'Entente, Abijan 

Publisher: 

Date: 1984 

Scale: Unknown 

Country: Netherlands 

Title: 

Source: C. Magin pers. 1992 

Publisher: 

Date: 1992 

Scale: Unknown 

Country: Norway 

Title: 

Source: UNEP GRID, Arendal Norway 

Publisher: 

Date: 

Scale: 



Country: Norway 

Title: Protected Areas of Norway 

Source: Torstein Olsen, Statens kartverk Miljoenheten, Postboks 1608, Myrene, 4801 Arendal 

Publisher: Same as source 

Date: 1999 

Scale: Unknown 

Country: Poland 

Title: Polska Mapa Ochrony Pryzyrody - Conservation of Nature (1992) 

Source: Istytut Ochrony Srodowiska and Polskie Przedseibiorstwo Wydawnictw 

Kartograficzynch and provided by Dr. Cjanusz Radziejowksi, Deputy Director, Institute for 

Environmental Protection 

Publisher: Known 

Date: 1992 

Scale: 1:750000 

Country: Poland 

Title: Wigierski Park Narodowy 

Source: Polish Mapa turystycznz (1990) 

Publisher: Same as source 

Date: (1990) 

Scale: 1:46000 

Country: Poland 

Title: Kampinoski Park Narodowy 

Source: Polish Mapa turystycznz (1987) 

Publisher: Same as source 

Date: 1987 

Scale: 1:60000 

Country: Poland 

Title: Biesczcady 

Source: Polish Mapa turystycznz (1982) 

Publisher: Same as source 

Date: (1982) 

Scale: 1:75000 

Country: Poland 

Source: UNEP/GRID Warsaw 

Scale: 1:4000000 



Country: Poland 

Title: Kardonoski National Park 

Source: Polish Mapa turystycznz (1985) 

Publisher: Same as source 

Date: (1985) 

Scale: 1:30000 



Country: Poland 

Title: Protected Areas of Poland 

Source: The state information on nature conservation in Poland (produced by Ministry of 

Environment) 

Publisher: Institute of Geodesy and Cartography (Warsaw) and Institute of Nature 

Conservation PAS (Cracow) 

Date: 1998 

Scale: 

Country: Portugal 

Title: Areas Protegidas 

Source: Serviso Nacional de Parques, Reservas e Conservacao da Natureza 

Publisher: 

Date: 

Scale: 1:3000000 

Country: Portugal 

Title: Unknown at present 

Source: Source of the dataset has been requested. Data provided by the Institute de 

Consevacao de Natureza, Lisbon, Portugal. 

Publisher: 

Date: 

Scale: 1: 1000000 

Country: Russia 

Title: Protection of Nature in the USSR (1985) 

Source: Moscow State University 

Publisher: 

Date: 1985 

Scale: 1:4000000 

Country: Russia 

Title: 

Source: V. Nikiforov, Deputy Director, Great Arctic Reserve 

Publisher: 

Date: 

Scale: 

Country: Russia 

Source: Ministry of Nature Protection 

Scale: 1: 1000000 

Country: Russia 

Title: Meshchera Wetland National Park 

Source: Gary Hill - Univ. of Hertfordshire 

Publisher: 

Date: 

Scale: 1:200000 

Country: Russia 

Title: 

Source: State Committee for the Environment Protection of the Russian Federation 

Publisher: 

Date: 

Scale: 



Country: Russia 

Title: The Golden Mountains of Altai 

Source: Documentation on World Rentage Properties (Natural) October 1998 

Publisher: lUCN 

Date: 1998 

Scale: Unknown 

Country: Serbia 

All protected areas polygon data buffered from points using official 'size' and location 

information held in the WCMC Protected Areas Database. 

Country: Slovakia 

Title: Protected Areas of Slovakia (1991) 

Source: Jozef Kramarik 

Publisher: Unknown 

Date: 1991 

Scale: 1:500000 

Country: Slovenia 
Title: Slovenija 
Source: Marko Zeovnik 
Publisher: Unknown 
Date: Unknown 
Scale: 1:300000 

Country: Spain 

Title: Donana National Park - guide map 

Source: Ministerio de Agricultura Pesca y Alimetacion 

Publisher: Instituto Geografico Nacional 

Date: Unknown 

Scale: 1:50000 

Country: Spain 

Title: Espacios naturales protegidos del Estado Espanol (Natural Protected Areas of Spain) 

Source: Federacion de Parques Nacionales y Naturales de Europa, Fernandez Sanudo, P & de 

Lucio,J.V., 1994 

Publisher: 

Date: 1995 

Scale: 

Country: Spain 

Title: Mont Perdu Patrimoine Mondial 

Source: Documentation on World Rentage Properties (Natural) October 1998 

Publisher: lUCN 

Date: 1997 

Scale: Unknown 

Country: Sweden 

Title: Areas of National Importance to Outdoor Recreation (Sweden) 

Source: 

Publisher: 

Date: 

Scale: 1:2500000 



Country: Sweden 

Title: Areas of National Importance to Nature Conservation (Sweden) 

Source: 

Publisher: 

Date: 

Scale: 1:2500000 

Country: Sweden 

Title: GSD-Naturvardsobjekt database digitised at scales of 1:10,000, 1:20000, 1:50,000 and 

1:100,000 

Source: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 

Publisher: Same as source 

Date: 1998 

Scale: 

Country: Switzerland 

Title: Protected Areas of Switzerland 

Source: Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape 

Publisher: Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape 

Date: 1998 

Scale: 

Country: Ukraine 

Title: Protected Areas of the Ukraine 

Source: Main Department of National Nature Parks and Reserves, Ministry of the 

Environment, Ukraine. 

Publisher: Same as source 

Date: 1999 

Scale: 1:250000 

Country: United Kingdom 

Title: Protected Areas in the United Kingdom 

Source: Countryside Commission 

Publisher: Same as source 

Date: 1990 

Scale: 

Country: United Kingdom 

Title: SSSI and other Statutory Sites in Cambridgeshire 

Source: English Nature 

Publisher: 

Date: 

Scale: 1: 150000 

Country: United Kingdom 

Title: English National Parks & Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty 

Source: Countryside Commission (Bob Monks) - Department of Environment Transport and 

the Regions supplied the data. 

Publisher: Same as source 

Date: 

Scale: 



Country: United Kingdom 

Title: English National Nature Reserves 

Source: English Nature, Geographic hiformation Unit, Northminster House, Peterborough 

PEl lUA 

Publisher: Same as source 

Date: 1998 

Scale: 1: 10000 

Country: United Kingdom 

Title: Northern h-eland (National Nature Reserves and Areas of Special Scientific Interest) 

Source: Environment and Heritage Service, Belfast. 

Publisher: Environment and Heritage Service, Commonwealth House, 35 Castle Street, 

Belfast BTl IGU 

Date: 

Scale: 

Country: United Kingdom 

Title: Scotland National Nature Reserves 

Source: Scottish Natural Heritage, Edinburgh. 

Publisher: Scottish Natural Heritage, 12 Hope Terrace, Edinburgh, EH9 2AS 

Date: 1998 

Scale: 1: 10000 

Country: United Kingdom 

Title: Protected Areas of Wales 

Source: Countryside Council for Wales 

Publisher: Countryside Council for Wales, Plas Penrhos, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 

Date: 1998 

Scale: 



ANNEX 4: lUCN PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES I - VI 

la Strict nature reserve: protected area managed mainly for science. 

lb Wilderness Area: protected area managed mainly for wilderness protection. 

II National Park: protected area managed mainly for ecosystem protection and 
recreation. 

III Natural Monument: protected area managed mainly for the conservation of 
specific natural features. 

rV Habitat/Species management area: protected area managed mainly for 
conservation through management intervention. 

V Protected Landscape/Seascape: protected area managed mainly for 
landscape/seascape conservation and recreation. 

VI Managed Resource Protected Area: protected area managed mainly for the 
sustainable use of natural ecosystems. 



The analyses in this project are based on protected area management categories I-fV. 
For additional information on RJCN management categories, readers should consult: 

lUCN. 1994. Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. WCPA with the 
assistance of WCMC. lUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. X +261pp 

Extracts of this publication may be found at: http://iucn.org/themes/wcpa/iucncategories- 
english.pdf 



ANNEX 5: FOREST COVER BY COUNTRY 

Figure 1 Potential forest cover by country 
Figure 2 Current forest cover by country 
Tables 1-14 Forest cover, loss and protection 



e 
_o 
'S 
cs 

u 
a 

■o 

a 
es 

Hi 
IB 

s 

DC 

e 



>^ 

h< 

s 
s 
o 
u 

>> 

o 

OS 



e 
o 



s 

DC 




( Ul>|) E3JV )S3J0J 



a 

A 
U 
V 

•9 
V 



B 



u 



> 
O 



o 



01 



S 

u 






3 



ouuBj'^ ireg 

UI31SU31lJ33n 

Euopuy 

Sjnoquiaxn-j 
piie|33i 

EAOpiOlM 
pUBpj] 

spire[i3qwN 

!ijieujU3Q 

LuniSpg 

EIU3A01S 
PUE|J9Z]1MS 

eiireqiv 

EIU0p33By^ 
EllEOJJ 

eitienqii'] 
Eiuoisg 
iijop8ui>4 paiiuf] 

EIAJET 

AjE3unj4 

BI^AOIS 

euiAoSszjsp] Eiusog 

3t|qnd3J 43323 

fESnyoj 

EiSjoar) 

GiJE9|ng 

Eiqjas 

emsny 

3D33JO 

snjE|3g 

EIUFUJO)] 
A[E1| 

pUEIOJ 

Xemjo[vI 

XliEllU3Q 
3UtEJ5|fl 
UIEdg 
33UEJJ 
piIE|U1J 
U3p3A\S 



(uiTf) esjy jsdjoj 



Table 1. Potential forest cover (km ) by country 



Table 2. Current forest cover (km ) by country 



Rank 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 



Country 



Russian Federation 

France 

Spain 

Sweden 

Germany 

Poland 

Finland 

Italy 

Ukraine 

Belaius 

Norway 

Romania 

United Kingdom 

Greece 

Bulgaria 

Serbia 

Portugal 

Czech Republic 

Austria 

Hungary 

Lithuania 

Latvia 

Georgia 

Ireland 

Croatia 

Bosnia Herzegovina 

Slovakia 

Estonia 

Denmark 

Netherlands 

Switzerland 

Belgium 

Albania 

FYROM 

Slovenia 

Moldova 

Iceland 

Luxembourg 

Andorra 

Malta 

Liechtenstein 

San Marino 

Monaco 

Total 



Potential Forest 
Aita(ktn) 



2,469,520 

538,096 

486,609 

376,920 

351,767 

308,850 

282,884 

282,155 

260,142 

194,121 

194,019 

189,596 

166,103 

124,880 

105,159 

97,349 

85,417 

78,327 

74,306 

69,758 

64,022 

62,654 

55,920 

52,847 

51,879 

50,905 

48,617 

39,246 

38,152 

33,180 

32,309 

30,377 

27,900 

24,531 

19,605 

17,513 

6,427 

2,613 

324 

226 

150 

60 

8^ 

7395,440 



Rank 


Countay 


Current Forest 
Area(kin^ 


1 


Russian Federation 


1,539,947 


2 


Sweden 


216,631 


3 


Finland 


169,157 


4 


France 


145,856 


5 


Spain 


137.7% 


6 


Ukraine 


126,764 


7 


Germany 


103,930 


8 


Norway 


99,668 


9 


Poland 


90,187 


10 


Italy 


76,779 


11 


Romania 


66,909 


12 


Belarus 


60,353 


13 


Greece 


40,114 


14 


Austria 


36,813 


15 


Serbia 


36,802 


16 


Bulgaria 


33,626 


17 


Georgia 


31,076 


18 


Portugal 


26,563 


19 


Czech RepubUc 


24,465 


20 


Bosnia Herzegovina 


23,031 


21 


Slovakia 


19,356 


22 


Hungary 


14,412 


23 


Latvia 


16,249 


24 


United Kingdom 


15,917 


25 


Estonia 


15,214 


26 


Lithuania 


15,106 


27 


Croatia 


13,964 


28 


FYROM 


10,958 


29 


Albania 


10,684 


30 


Switzerland 


10,633 


31 


Slovenia 


7,128 


32 


Belgium 


6,041 


33 


Denmark 


3,953 


34 


Netherlands 


3,051 


35 


Ireland 


2,914 


36 


Moldova 


1,327 


37 


Iceland 


1,167 


38 


Luxembourg 


960 


39 


Andorra 


142 


40 


Liechtenstein 


30 


41 


San Marino 


4 


42 


Monaco 


1 


43 


Malta 







Total 


3,255,680 



Annex 5 continued 



Table 3. Forest loss by country 



Rank 



Country 



Forest Loss (kna) 



Forest loss as % of 
Potential Forest Area 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 



Malta 

Ireland 

Monaco 

San Marino 

Moldova 

Netherlands 

United Kingdom 

Denmark 

Iceland 

Belgium 

Liechtenstein 

Hungary 

Lithuania 

Latvia 

Croatia 

France 

Italy 

Spain 

Poland 

Germany 

Belarus 

Portugal 

Czech Republic 

Bulgaria 

Greece 

Switzerland 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Luxembourg 

Serbia 

Albania 

Estonia 

Slovakia 

Andorra 

FYROM 

Bosnia Herzegovina 

Ukraine 

Austria 

Norway 

Georgia 

Sweden 

Finland 

Russian Federation 

Total 



226 

49,933 

8 

56 

16,186 

30,129 

150,181 

34,199 

5,259 

24,336 

120 

55,346 

48,916 

46,405 

37,915 

392,240 

205,376 

348,813 

218,662 

247,837 

133,768 

58,853 

53,861 

71,533 

84,766 

21,676 

122,688 

12,477 

1,652 

60,546 

17,216 

24,031 

29,261 

182 

13,573 

27,874 

133,377 

37,492 

94,351 

24,844 

160,289 

113,727 

929,573 

4,139,759 



100.0 
94.5 
93.3 
92.9 
92.4 
90.8 
90.4 
89.6 
81.8 
80.1 
79.9 
76.9 
76.4 
74.1 
73.1 
72.9 
72.8 
71.7 
70.8 
70.5 
68.9 
68.9 
68.8 
68.0 
67.9 
67.1 
64.7 
63.6 
63.2 
62.2 
61.7 
61.2 
60.2 
56.1 
55.3 
54.8 
51.3 
50.5 
48.6 
44.4 
42.5 
40.2 
37.6 



Annex 5 continued 

Table 4. Current Forest Protected (km^) 



Country 


Current 


% Current 




forest 


Forest 




protected 


Protected 




(km') 




Belarus 


7,044 


11.7 


Russian Federation 


134,466 


8.7 


Slovakia 


1,678 


8.7 


Ukraine 


8,928 


7.0 


Italy 


5,304 


6.9 


Slovenia 


480 


6.7 


FYROM 


733 


6.7 


Estonia 


955 


6.3 


Sweden 


10,609 


4.9 


Spain 


6,623 


4.8 


Finland 


7,933 


4.7 


Switzerland 


488 


4.6 


Netherlands 


136 


4.5 


Lithuania 


664 


4.4 


Bulgaria 


627 


4.2 


Iceland 


1,427 


4.1 


Hungary 


48 


4 1 


Austria 


1,390 


3.8 


Georgia 


1,070 


3.4 


Denmark 


132 


3.3 


Latvia 


535 


3.3 


Serbia 


1,157 


3.1 


Romania 


2,089 


3.1 


Czech Republic 


758 


3.1 


Greece 


1,098 


2.7 


Moldova 


34 


2.6 


Ireland 


65 


2.3 


Germany 


2,264 


2.2 


Norway 


2,036 


2.0 


Croatia 


262 


1.9 


Poland 


1,479 


1.6 


Albania 


157 


1.5 


France 


1,724 


1.2 


Portugal 


308 


1.2 


Bosnia Herzegovina 


179 


0.8 


United Kingdom 


101 


0.6 


Luxembourg 


4 


0.5 


Belgium 


12 


0.2 


Liechtenstein 





0.0 


Andorra 





0.0 


Malta 





0.0 


Monaco 





0.0 


San Marino 





0.0 


Total 


204,996 


6.3 



Annex 5 continued 



Table 5. Potential forest as % of land area biy 
area by country 



Table 6. Current forest as % of land area by country 
country 



Country 


Potential 

Forest 

Area 

as%of 

land area 




Rank 


Countiy 


Current Forest Area 
as % of land area 


Luxembourg 


100.0 




I 


Finland 


55.5 


Bosnia Herzegovina 


99.8 




2 


Sweden 


52.6 


Belgium 


99.5 




3 


Bosnia Herzegovina 


45.2 


Czech Republic 


99.3 




4 


Georgia 


44.6 


Slovalda 


99.1 




5 


Austria 


44.5 


Lithuania 


98.8 




6 


FYRCM 


43.1 


Poland 


98.8 




7 


Slovakia 


40.3 


Genrany 


98.6 




8 


Albania 


39.0 


Latvia 


98.4 




9 


Luxembourg 


37.1 


San Marino 


98.3 




10 


Serbia 


36.1 


Netherlands 


97.8 




11 


Estonia 


36.0 


France 


97.8 




12 


Slovenia 


35.4 


Slovenia 


97.4 




13 


Norway 


32.5 


Spain 


97.4 




14 


Ciech Republic 


31.7 


Albania 


97.0 




15 


Andorra 


31.6 


Greece 


%.9 




16 


Greece 


31.1 


FYROM 


96.5 




17 


Bulgaria 


30.4 


Italy 


96.0 




18 


Gentuiiy 


29.8 


Serbia 


95.4 




19 


Poland 


29.6 


Bulgaria 


95.1 




20 


Belarus 


29.1 


Liechtenstein 


93.9 




21 


Romania 


29.0 


Belarus 


93.6 




22 


Portugal 


29.0 


Portugal 


93.4 




23 


Spain 


27.6 


Finland 


92.9 




24 


Switzerland 


26.9 


Estonia 


92.8 




25 


France 


26.5 


Croatia 


92.8 




26 


Latvia 


26.2 


Swsden 


91.6 




27 


Italy 


26.1 


Denmark 


89.9 




28 


Q-oatia 


25.0 


Austria 


89.8 




29 


Lithuania 


23.3 


Romania 


82.3 




30 


Ukraine 


21.9 


Switzerland 


81.7 




31 


Belgium 


19.8 


Georgia 


80.2 




32 


Liechtenstein 


18.8 


Ireland 


76.7 




33 


Hungary 


15.6 


Hungary 


75.5 




34 


Denmark 


9.3 


Andorra 


72.0 




35 


Russian Federation 


9.1 


Malta 


70.6 




36 


Netherlands 


9.0 


United Kingdom 


69.5 




37 


San Marino 


7.0 


Norway 


63.2 




38 


United Kingdom 


6.7 


Moldova 


53.1 




39 


Ireland 


4.2 


Ukraine 


44.9 




40 


Moldova 


4.0 


Monaco 


44.1 




41 


Mmbco 


3.0 


Russian Federation 


14.6 




42 


Icelaixi 


1.2 


Iceland 


6.4 




43 


Malta 


0.0 



Annex 5 continued 



Table 7. Current forest protected as % of 
land area by country 



Table 8. Current forest type diversity 
ranked by country 



Country 


Current Forest 




Protected 




as % of land area 


Slovakia 


3.5 


Belarus 


3.4 


FYROM 


2.9 


Finland 


2.6 


Sweden 


2.6 


Slovenia 


2.4 


Estonia 


2.3 


Italy 


1.8 


Austria 


1.7 


Ukraine 


1.5 


Georgia 


1.5 


Spain 


1.3 


Bulgaria 


1.3 


Switzerland 


1.2 


Serbia 


1.1 


Lithuania 


1.0 


Czech Republic 


1.0 


Romania 


0.9 


Latvia 


0.9 


Greece 


0.9 


Russian Federation 


0.8 


Hungary 


0.7 


Norway 


0.7 


Germany 


0.6 


Albania 


0.6 


Poland 


0.5 


Croatia 


0.5 


Netherlands 


0.4 


Bosnia Herzegovina 


0.4 


Portugal 


0.3 


France 


0.3 


Denmark 


0.3 


Luxembourg 


0.2 


Moldova 


0.1 


Ireland 


0.1 


Iceland 


0.0 


United Kingdom 


0.0 


Belgium 


0.0 


Andorra 


0.0 


Liechtenstein 


0.0 


Malta 


0.0 


Monaco 


0.0 


San Marino 


0.0 



Country 


Number of forest 




types {B&N66) 


Russian Federation 


33 


Ukraine 


26 


Italy 


21 


Greece 


20 


Romania 


20 


France 


19 


Spain 


19 


Germany 


17 


Serbia 


17 


Bulgaria 


16 


Belarus 


15 


Norway 


15 


Albania 


14 


Austria 


14 


Poland 


14 


Croatia 


13 


Czech Republic 


13 


Bosnia Herzegovina 


12 


Georgia 


12 


Sweden 


12 


Slovenia 


11 


Switzeriand 


11 


United Kingdom 


11 


Hungary 


10 


Lithuania 


10 


FYROM 


10 


Denmark 


9 


Finland 


9 


Netherlands 


9 


Slovakia 


9 


Estonia 


8 


Ireland 


8 


Latvia 


8 


Moldova 


8 


Portugal 


8 


Belgium 


6 


Andorra 


3 


Liechtenstein 


3 


Iceland 


2 


Luxembourg 


2 


Monaco 


1 


San Marino 


1 


Malta 






Annex 5 continued 



Drtailed forest t>pe (B &N 66) 
Table 9. Potential Forest Area (krn) 



Table Itt Qirrent Forest Area (W) 



ftitEittid Fbnst TvDC 




TotlAra . 


ni) 


1) 


1,147,593 


D5) 


D5) 


990,858 


F:5) 


F:5) 


931,575 


D3) 


n3) 


590,422 


F:3) 


F;3) 


562,909 


J:l) 


J:l) 


422,131 


PI) 


F:l) 


419,0M 


U3) 


Nnf 


364,652 


G3) 


Q3) 


2EM,a30 


F;4) 


F:4) 


286,009 


D2) 


n2) 


2M,785 


G2) 


Q2) 


209,791 


C2) 


C2) 


156,587 


F:2) 


F:2) 


132,098 


J; 2) 


J: 2) 


115,467 


0.4) 


n4) 


81J79 


Gl) 


Gl) 


77,596 


CI) 


CI) 


73,759 


C3) 


C3) 


59,665 


FT) 


F:7) 


49320 


U4) 


U4) 


41,763 


T;l) 


Fats 


35^1 


F6) 


F:6) 


25,557 


U2) 


U2) 


19^3 


Kl) 


Kl) 


19.080 


T:2) 


Naif 


15,449 


U5) 


U5) 


13,084 


K3) 


K:3) 


939 


0.6) 


D6) 


7,043 


HHu 


HHu 


5.584 


K2) 


K.2) 


4233 


S:3) 


S3) 


2289 


PI) 


PI) 


934 


Irolal: 




7J9S,4« 



QnratniictTvte 


TofalArB 


Dl) 


770,775 


D5) 


581,470 


F5) 


309,702 


D3) 


226,169 


Rcplacamtve^oiion 


178,JtO 


2) 


161,810 


F:l) 


122J74 


J:!) 


»4,885 


Omfoas (fion curat) 


90,168 


F3) 


87.509 


Q3) 


69267 


F4) 


61,152 


Q2) 


58.781 


4) 


51.M6 


EhBdeaf (from currert) 


483>t 


C2) 


45.918 


CI) 


36234 


U3) 


34332 


J: 2) 


24,656 


F7) 


23,426 


Ur lasi fied (fiom oirot) 


20,854 


C3) 


16295 


F;6) 


14.664 


Ql) 


13237 


M;ed(fixxii curat) 


11,778 


Kl) 


9,554 


U2) 


8,801 


LU 


8,459 


HatMion 


8,097 


LAsm 


8,032 


F2) 


5,710 


S3) 


5,044 


T:I) 


4,928 


LHo 


4,811 


T:2) 


4.537 


ns) 


4390 


SHsC 


4,351 


K:3) 


3,5*4 


HSp 


3259 


U4) 


3.137 


K:2) 


2068 


Sdaophylloif (from cumst) 


1,818 


CRh 


1.549 


Lav 


1.548 


C&) 


1.161 


SPlsS 


1,144 


HHi 


1,018 


LCbD 


878 


LCB> 


769 


PI) 


754 


CBa 


698 


CD 


300 


Clb 


272 


Rivoine 


248 


SCs 


B9 


LQu 


181 


LC^ 


148 


BI¥ 


146 


SFim 


77 


EH 


74 


US) 


71 


ca 


33 


CJu 


28 


LAs 


16 


CO 


2 


CAD 


1 


Tofcil: 


3^'i5,680 



Annex 5 continued 



Table 11. Protected Forest Area (km ) 



Current Forest Type 


Protected .\rea 


D5) 


■42,904 


Dl) 


40,666 


D2) 


23,225 


n3) 


13,677 


F:5) 


12,162 


Coniferous (from cuirem) 


9,475 


Replacement vegetation 


8,020 


F:4) 


6,(M5 


C:2) 


5,116 


D4) 


5,022 


Broadleaf (from cuitent) 


4,(H9 


F:l) 


3,897 


G:3) 


3,591 


F:3) 


2,600 


Unclassified (from cunent) 


2,481 


U:3) 


2,302 


C:l) 


1,978 


F:7) 


1,856 


F6) 


1,786 


J;l) 


1,744 


C:3) 


1,686 


S:PlsC 


1,315 


G2) 


1,303 


T;2) 


820 


tCl) 


778 


S:3) 


675 


Mixed (from cunent) 


637 


n6i 


590 


T:l) 


584 


J: 2) 


569 


L:U 


529 


L: Asm 


374 


U:2) 


341 


F:2) 


271 


C:So 


263 


CBa 


246 


K;3) 


223 


G:l) 


151 


CRh 


150 


K:2) 


105 


L:Ho 


101 


U:4) 


97 


Sclerophyllous (from current) 


96 


LOaV 


78 


Plantation 


78 


L:(Ju 


66 


LOaD 


47 


U:5) 


40 


L:OaP 


34 


Riverine 


32 


Clb 


30 


C.Dl 


24 


H:Hu 


13 


CGr 


11 


CJu 


10 


Rl) 


9 


S:PisS 


9 


S:Pim 


8 


S:Ce 


6 


L:As 


3 


L:OaS 


1 


C:Ap 


1 


COr 





EBi 





B:Sp 





B Pr 





Total: 


204,997 



Annex 5 continued 



Table 12. Protected forest area as a percentage of current forest area 



Current Forest Tvw 


Current Forest Area (kjn2l 1 


% of current forest area 


C Ap 


1 


100 00 


U 5) 


71 


56.49 


LQu 


181 


36.23 


C Ba 


698 


35.22 


CJu 


28 


35.01 


CGr 


33 


33.50 


S PisC 


4,351 


30.21 


CSo 


1,161 


22.63 


L. As 


16 


19.90 


T:2) 


4.537 


18.08 


D.2) 


161.810 


14.35 


D.6) 


4,390 


13.44 


S;3) 


5,044 


13.39 


CO 


2 


13.33 


Riverine 


248 


12.72 


F:6) 


14,664 


12.18 


Unclassified (from cuiremj 


20.854 


11.90 


T: 1) 


4,928 


11.85 


C;Ib 


272 


11.21 


C:2) 


45,918 


11.14 


SPim 


77 


10.90 


Coniferous (from current) 


90.168 


1051 


C:3) 


16.295 


10.35 


F:4) 


61,152 


9.89 


0:4) 


51.646 


9.72 


CRh 


1,549 


9.66 


Broadleaf (from cunent) 


48,304 


8.38 


ICI) 


9,554 


8.14 


CDi 


300 


7.92 


F:7) 


23.426 


7.92 


0:5) 


581.470 


7.38 


U:3) 


34,332 


6.70 


L:Li 


8,459 


626 


K:3) 


3,584 


622 


3) 


226,169 


6.05 


C:l) 


36,234 


546 


Mixed (from current) 


11,778 


5.41 


L OaD 


878 


533 


Sclerophyllous (from current) 


1.818 


5.28 


Dl) 


770.775 


5.28 


G:3) 


69,267 


5.18 


IC2) 


2,068 


5.07 


LOaV 


1,548 


5.05 


F;2) 


5.710 


4.74 


LAsm 


8.032 


4.65 


Replacement vegetation 


178.340 


450 


L:OaP 


769 


4.42 


F:5) 


309.702 


3.93 


U:2) 


8.801 


3.87 


F:l) 


122.374 


3.18 


U:4) 


3,137 


3.09 


F:3) 


87.509 


2.97 


S:Ce 


239 


2.42 


J 2) 


24,656 


2.31 


G:2) 


58,781 


2.22 


L:Ho 


4,811 


2.10 


J:l) 


94,885 


1.84 


RHu 


1,018 


1.27 


P.I) 


754 


1.22 


G 1) 


13,237 


1 14 


Plantation 


8,097 


0% 


L OaS 


148 


0.83 


S. PsS 


1,144 


077 


E:Bi 


74 


0.30 


B Sp 


3,259 


OOO 


B Pr 


146 


000 



Annex 5 continued 



Table 13. Forest loss rkm ) 



Current Forest Tvpe 


Forest loss (km'^ 


F 5) 


621,873 


F:3) 


475.401 


0:5) 


409.388 


ni) 


376.818 


D:3) 


364,253 


U:3) 


330,320 


J:l) 


327,246 


F:l) 


296.709 


F:4) 


224,857 


a 3) 


224.763 


G;2) 


151,010 


F:2) 


126,389 


C:2) 


110,669 


J: 2) 


90,810 


a 2) 


72,975 


G:l) 


64,358 


C:3) 


43,370 


U:4) 


38,626 


C:l) 


34,526 


T:l) 


30,414 


D:4) 


29,633 


F:7) 


25,894 


U:5) 


13,013 


T:2) 


10,913 


F:6) 


10,892 


U:2) 


10,422 


K:l) 


9,525 


K:3) 


5,666 


HHu 


4,566 


n6) 


2,653 


K;2) 


2,165 


P:l) 


180 


B:Pr 





B:Sp 





Broadleaf (from current) 





CAp 





CBa 





CDi 





C:Gr 





Clb 





CJu 





CO 





CRh 





CSo 





Coniferous (from current) 





E:BJ 





L:As 





L:Ho 





LLi 





LAsm 





L. Qu 





Mixed (from current) 





Plantation 





Replacement vegetation 





Riverine 





S3) 





SCe 





SPim 





Sclerophyllous (from current) 





Unclassified (from current) 





SPisS 





LOaP 





LOaS 





SPisC 





L, OaV 





L OaD 






Annex 5 continued 



Table 14. Forest type ranked according to percent 
forest loss 



Current Forest Type 



I 



Va of Potential forest 



U:5) 
2) 
U;4) 
U.3) 
1) 
3) 
1) 
H:Hu 
J: 2) 
F:4) 
J;l) 
G:3) 
C;3) 
G;2) 
F:l) 
C:2) 
T:2) 
F:5) 
D:3) 
K:3) 
U:2) 
F:7) 
K;2) 
K:l) 
C:l) 
F:6) 
D:5) 
D:6) 
D:4) 
D;l) 
D:2) 

P:l) 

B:Pr 

BSp 

Broadleaf (from current) 

CAp 

C:Ba 

C;Di 

C:Gr 

Clb 

C:Ju 

COr 

C:Rh 

C So 

Coniferous ( from current) 

E:Bi 

L:As 

L:Ho 

L:Li 

L Asm 

LQu 

Mixed (from current) 

Plantation 

Replacement vegetation 

Rjverine 

SCe 

SPim 

Sclerophyilous (from current) 

Unclassified (from current) 

S,3) 

S PisS 

L OaP 

L. OaS 

S: PisC 

LOaV 

L OaP 



99 46 
95 68 
9249 
90 59 
86 06 
8445 
82.94 
81.77 
7865 
78.62 
77 52 
7644 
7269 
71 98 
70 80 
70 68 
70 64 
6676 
61.69 
61 25 
5422 
52.50 
51.14 
49.92 
48.79 
42.62 
41.32 
37.67 
36.46 
3284 
31.08 
1931 
000 
0.00 
0.00 

o.co 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
000 
000 



Annex 5 continued 



Sinplified forest type (B «& N 20) 



Table 15. Forest loss as a percent of potential forest 



Rank 


Potential forest tvne 


% Forest Loss 


1 


U 


88.8 


2 


S 


88.2 


3 


H 


81.8 


4 


T 


81.3 


5 


J 


77.8 


6 


G 


75.7 


7 


F 


74.0 


8 


C 


56.1 


9 


K 


53.3 


10 


D 


41.1 


11 


P 


19.4 


12 


B 


0.0 


13 


L 


0.0 


14 


Coniferous (from current) 


0.0 


15 


Broadleaf (from current) 


0.0 


16 


Mixed (from current) 


0.0 


17 


Sclerophyllous (from current) 


0.0 


18 


Replacement(from current) 


0.0 


19 


Plantation (from current) 


0.0 


20 


Unclassified 


0.0 



ANNEX: 6 CONTENTS OF THE CD-ROM 

Details are given at a country-by-country level and for the region as a whole. 
Users can view the following: 

• Potential forest cover 

• Current forest cover 

• Protected forest (lUCN categories I-IV) 

• Protected forest as a proportion of potential forest cover 

• Protected forest as a proportion of current forest cover 

Additional statistics that are provided include: 

• Top 50 largest forest protected areas 

• A summary of protected forest areas by size category 

• A summary of protected forest areas by forest type & size 

• Ranked potential and current forest cover by forest type 

• Ranked protected current forest cover by type 

• Countries ranked in terms of potential & current forest area, percent of current 
forest protected, and absolute forest loss 

Digital maps of regional forest cover and protected areas, as described in the project 
objectives, are also available on the on the CD-ROM that accompanies this report, or 
at http://www.unep-wcmc.org/forest/eu gap . The results that follow assess the 
analysis firstly at a national level and then by forest type, at regional level. 



L 





WORLD CONSERVATION 
MONITORING CENTRE