Is there a consensus in German forest conservation? Targeting forest conservation with compensatory payments

(Poster)

Laura Demant
laura.demant@nw-fva.de

Northwest German Forest Research Institute, Grätzelstrasse 2, 37079 Göttingen University of Göttingen, Vegetation and Phytodiversity Analysis, Untere Karspüle 1a, 37073 Göttingen, Germany
,
Peter Meyer
Northwest German Forest Research Institute, Grätzelstrasse 2, 37079 Göttingen, Germany
,
Holger Sennhenn-Reulen
Northwest German Forest Research Institute, Grätzelstrasse 2, 37079 Göttingen, Germany
,
Helge Walentowski
University of Applied Sciences and Arts Göttingen, Resource Management, Büsgenweg 1a, 37077 Göttingen, Germany
,
Erwin Bergmeier
University of Göttingen, Vegetation and Phytodiversity Analysis, Untere Karspüle 1a, 37073 Göttingen, Germany

DOI: 10.17011/conference/eccb2018/107734

SEE PEER REVIEW

Implementing forest conservation measures may lead to lower revenues, opportunity costs and additional expenses for forest owners. Half of the German forest area is privately owned, where it is even more challenging to implement forest conservation. Besides fair monetary compensation for income reduction, forest conservation targets and measures should be evidence-based and supported by forest owners and conservation agencies, likewise. However, problems are rooting in trade-offs between aims, limited consistency in target setting, vague concepts and discrepancies in compensatory payment legislations and implementation (1).

In order to derive a framework of targets and measures for compensatory payments in privately owned forests, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of nature conservation concepts of different stakeholders. By deducing an evidence-based and consensual system of conservation targets and measures, we claim a high degree of transferability and generality for the methods and results of our study. We conducted quantitative and qualitative textual status quo analysis in 79 biodiversity and forest conservation concepts. The concepts represented different stakeholders on various spatial scales, relevant to German forest conservation. To review the scientific rationale of targeting compensatory payments in Germany, we developed hierarchically ordered classification systems for forest conservation targets and measures. Furthermore, we wanted to reveal whether discrepancies in targets obstruct the conservation of forest biodiversity. In order to enhance the implementation of forest conservation measures in privately owned forest, we deduced a framework of relevant structures and biotopes for forest conservation.

Our analysis showed that in general, there is a broad consensus concerning forest conservation across stakeholders in Germany, with few differences in primary conservation focus. The main emphasis is laid on the preservation of species, ecosystems and natural forest elements. However, a broad range of targets was found, covering social, biotic and abiotic natural resources. Furthermore, the concepts mainly focus on active restoration and preservation measures to secure old and habitat trees and to protect species habitats in forests. Suitable measures to improve forest conservation in private forests are e.g. restoring degraded forest biotope types, continuing traditional forest management practices (wood pastures or coppicing) and conserving natural forest elements (habitat trees and deadwood).

In conclusion, targeting forest conservation in privately owned forests with compensatory payments can only be reached by choosing long-lasting contractual agreements with fair monetary compensation and improved cooperation among all participating parties.

(1) European Court of Auditors (2017): Special Report Nr. 1/2017: More efforts needed to implement the Natura 2000 network to its full potential. Luxembourg.

SEE PEER REVIEW

INTRO:
Half of the forest area in Germany is privately owned, which challenges the implementation of forest conservation measures. Targets and measures for forest conservation should be agreed and supported by both, conservation agencies and forest owners.

The authors conducted quantitative and qualitative analysis of 79 biodiversity and forest conservaton concepts by different stakeholders. The main focus was laid on preservation of species and ecosystems, and the framework was reduced in order to enhance the implementation of conservation measures.
MERITS:
The German forest conservation case is complex as half of the forest area is privately owned thus challenging forest conservation. The challenge is due to low revenues, opportunity costs and additional expenses for the forest owners.
CRITIQUE:
The topic is relevant for the conference but the abstract/research needs improvement. First of all a language check is needed, particularly due to very long sentences that without enough punctuation marks are very difficult to read and understand.The abstract would also gain if the authors re-organized the text and clarify more about the methods used and results.

The system of compensatory payments was not explained, it was simply mentioned in the title. The abstract should give some brief explanation how the compenatory payments work in Germany at present? how does the status quo analysis of the 79 conservation concepts helps tp improve or incentivate the compensatory payments?

In the second paragraph, line 3, please rephrase to better explain what is implied by reviewing the 'scientific rationale' of stakeholders. In my view it sounds rather patronizing to expect or evaluate a scientific rationale on the forest owners. Reviewing the scientific rationale sounds as qualifying their understanding. Perhaps instead of focusing on a 'scientific rationale' the authors could strenghthen their analysis on what are the drivers and obstacles towards conservation e.g. culture, profits, and so on.
DISCUSSION:
The discussion could be improved. The authors should clarify how did they identified the main focus concepts? how were the targets of conservation found? how was the framework reduced? If the authors could explain better their methods, that would also help to highlight and understand their conclusions.

- - -
INTRO:
This study maps stakeholder views on targets for voluntary forest conservation in Germany. The targets identified were largely agreed upon by the differnt stakeholders, mainly focusing on species and ecosystems, but overall a broad range of targets was found. The authors propose a framework of relevant targets to be used in voluntary forest conservation.
MERITS:
It appears there is a need for a study like this if indeed the compensatory payments have been lacking uniform criteria, but the abstract was rather hard to evaluate as I'm not familiar with the German system (see Critique below)
CRITIQUE:
I found the abstract rather hard to follow, and some clarifications would strenghten it: How was the scientific rationale of the targets evaluated and by whom? How many stakeholders were involved, and what kinds of groups they represented? Is there a conservation policy in place in Germany that takes advantage of compensatory payments, or is this a hypothetical exercise? If such a policy is in place, then what are the official criteria for its implementation, and was the idea of this study to see how differnetly those are interpreted, or how much people (dis)agree with them? I was left a bit perplexed about these issues, not knowing the German legislation and implementation. To make space for the clarifications you can reduce the lengthy general level introduction, which is not necessary for a specialized audience.
DISCUSSION:
The abstract was a bit difficutl to assess as I wasn't sure what exactly was the motivation for the study question (see above) and the general legislatory/policy setting in Germany. I have chosen "minor review" for several categories, but these all refer to the clarifications asked for above, rather than some actual problems or errors.

- - -
INTRO:
This study reviews the reasons /the rationale of different conservation concepts in Germany and introduces hierarchically ordered classification systems for forest conservation targets and measures.
MERITS:
Topic in interesting and timely. I would be glad to hear more about this study.
CRITIQUE:
The title of the study is really interesting. Unfortunately, probably because of the wording, the aim and the research question remain unclear, and the links to compensatory payments are not described with enough details for the reader to understand the whole story. Probably, the idea of study is very clear for the researchers. Unfortunately, this idea does not transfer well to the reader of this manuscript.
DISCUSSION:
The theme of compensatory payments is topical, fits the scope of the conference, and is likely be interesting to a wide conference audience.