EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - UNESCO World Heritage

State Party: Ukraine 

Slovak Republic 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

State, Province or Region: Transcarpathian Region, Prešov Self-Governing Region 

Name of Property: BEECH PRIMEVAL FORESTS OF THE CARPATHIANS 

Geographical coordinates to the nearest second: 

Table 1: Geographical coordinates of the nominated properties to the nearest second 

Site 

element 

No. 

Name of the 

primeval forest 

Country/Region Coordinates of 

Centre point 

1 Chornohora Ukraine, Transcarpathian Region 48° 08’ 25” N 

24° 23’ 35” E 

2 Havešová Slovak Republic, Prešov Self- 49˚ 00’ 35” N 

Governing Region 

22˚ 20’ 20” E 

3 Kuziy-Trybushany Ukraine, Transcarpathian Region 47° 56’ 21” N 

24° 08’ 26” E 

4 Maramarosh Ukraine, Transcarpathian Region 47° 56’ 12” N 

24° 19’ 35” E 

5 Rožok Slovak Republic, Prešov Self- 48˚ 58’ 30” N 


22˚ 28’ 00” E 

6 Stužica – Bukovské Slovak Republic, Prešov Self- 49˚ 05’ 10” N 

Vrchy 


22˚ 32’ 10” E 

7 Stuzhytsia-Uzhok Ukraine, Transcarpathian Region 49° 04’ 14” E 

22° 03’ 01” N 

8 Svydovets Ukraine, Transcarpathian Region 48° 11’ 21” N 

24° 13’ 37” E 

9 Uholka-Shyrokyi Luh Ukraine, Transcarpathian Region 48° 18’ 22” N 

23° 41’ 46” E 

10 Vihorlat Slovak Republic, Prešov Self- 48° 55’ 45” N 


22° 11’ 23” E 

1

Textual description of the boundaries of the nominated properties: 

General outline of the serial nominated property 

The principal axis of the serial transnational nominated property “Beech primeval forests 

of the Carpathians” is approximately 185 km long. It coincides with the divison between the 

sub-provinces of Outer Eastern Carpathians and the Inner Eastern Carpathians, extending 

from Maramorosh on the northern megaslope of the Rakhiv Mountains and the southern 

macroslope of the Chornohirskyi Range in the South-East, along the Polonynian Ridge 

(Polonyns'kyi chrebet) up to the Bukovské Vrchy Mts. and Vihorlat Mts. in the North-West. 

The individual properties are centered along this axis. 

The boundaries of individual properties 

Chornohora (property No. 1 in alphabetical order acc. to Tab 1) is located on the 

southern macroslope of the Chornohirskyi range. Its boundary of begins (clockwise) in the 

saddle between Mt. Hoverla and Mt. Menchil, then descends down to the Hemaneskul Brook, 

crosses the Horneskul Brook and ascends again on the South-Eastern ridge of Mt. Sheshu and 

Mt. Menchul. It continues in the West and North-Western direction until it reaches slopes 

overlooking the Black Tysa Valley. The boundary makes the a semicircle and returns along 

the contour lines of the North slopes of Mt. Menchul, then it crosses the crest connecting Mt. 

Petros and Mt. Sheshu and descends again into the valley of Rohneskul and then Hermaneskul 

brooks before it climbs back to the saddle between Mt. Hoverla and Mt. Menchil. 

Havešová (Property No. 2) extends under the main ridge of the Nastaz Range, a part of 

the Bukovské Vrchy Mts. The property has its boundaries in the form of a loop that follows 

the ridge between Mt. Kalidlo and Mt. Dielnica in the South direction, then turns West and 

Nort-West towards the right tributary of the Ublianka Brook. After it makes contact with the 

brook twice, it returns on the top of one of the side crests back on the main range of the 

Nastaz Mts. There it turns South-East until it reaches Mt. Kalidlo again. 

Kuziy-Trybushany (Property No. 3), located on the southern offspurs of the Svydovets 

range, extends from the North-Western slope immediately bellow Mt. Polonskyi in the 

Western and North-Western direction. Its boundary crosses the Valley of the River Kuziy, 

then makes a loop around Mt. Tempa and proceeds toward Mt. Menchul. From there, it runs 

in the North-Eastern direction until it reaches a ridge overlooking the Lykhyi Brook, descends 

towards Tysa and finally returns back to Mt. Polonskyi. 

Maramorosh (Property No. 4), extends on the Northern megaslope of the Rakhiv 

Mountains – one of the Maramoroskyi crystal massif’s offspurs. Its boundaries begin on the 

2

Northern slope of Mt. Pip Ivan and coincide with the Southern limit of the Bylyi Brook 

watershed until it hits the Yavirnykovyi Brook. After that it copies the Northern limit of the 

Bylyi Brook, thus ascending towards bellow Mt. Berlebashka. Following a contourline it 

makes a loop around Mt. Petros, drops sharply and crosses the Radomyr Brook, climbs the 

ridge above and turns Northwards. Before hitting the connecting line between Mt. Menchul in 

the West and Mt. Bolotyn Hrun in the East, it makes a sharp turn towards the East and the 

River Kvasnyi. Then it follows the stream towards its headwaters and following one of its 

right tributaries climbs to the starting point below Mt. Pip Ivan. 

Rožok (Property No. 5) is located on the Western slope of the Javorník Ridge in the 

Bukovské Vrchy Mts. It is encompassed within boundaries that coincide with two ridges 

limiting the Northern slope of Mt. Rožok and the crest of the opposite slope, running from the 

main range of Javorník. 

Boundaries of the Stužica – Bukovské Vrchy (Property No. 6) in the Bukovské Vrchy 

Mts. too begin on the top of Mt. Kremenets. From there the boundary follows (counterclockwise) 

the state border between the Slovak Republic and Poland in the North-Western 

direction on the main ridge of the Bukovské Vrchy Mts and Nízke Beskydy Mts. It runs of 

over the top of several mountains, e. g. Mt. Čierťaž, Mt. Ďurkovec, Mt. Kruhliak, Mt. Beskyd 

and Mt. Čierny, before it reaches the springs of the Udava River. There, the boundary makes a 

loop around the Udava’s headwaters and returns in the South-Eastern direction along the 

countourline of the main ridge towards the headwaters area of the Stužica River. There, it 

diverges from the main ridge of the Bukovské Vrchy Mts. and runs on the top of Mt. Príkry 

and Mt. Packova Kýčera, where it again turns northwards along the Kamenistý Potok Brook, 

then the boundary traverses the western slope of Mt. Kalnica, reaches its top and continues to 

Mt. Kremenec. 

The boundary of Stuzhytsia-Uzhok (Property No. 7) on the Eastern and Southern slopes 

of Beskids Ridge, starts atop Mt. Kremenets and follows the main ridge that is at the same 

time a state border between Ukraine and Poland. It makes an convex arc towards Mt. Khresty 

and froms an Eastern oriented apex before Mt. V. Beskyd, from where it returns, crossing 

several right tributaries of the Stuzhytska River and the the river itself, to the the state border 

between Ukraine and the Slovak Republic south of Mt. Kalnytsya. It proceeds along the state 

border over the top of Mt. Kalnytsyia until it reaches the top of Mt. Kremenets again. 

Svydovets (Property No. 8) covers in the highest part of the Svydovets mountains. It has 

its boundaries following the contour line that starts in the saddle between Mt. Blyznytsia and 

Mt. Stara in the Western direction. It follows the aspect of the slope, turns North and proceeds 

3

in that direction until it hits the bottom of the Kosiyska Brook Valley. At that point it turns 

South and runs under Mt. Menchul along the opposite side of the valley. South of Mt. 

Menchul it turns eastwards, crosses the Kosiyska Brook and travberses the Western slope of 

Mt. Stara, before it reaches the aforementioned saddle again. From there on, it follows the 

contour line across the North-Eastern slope of Mt. Stara, until it turns North and descends 

sharply to the valley bottom, where it crosses the Trostyanets Brook. From the point of 

crossing, it leads parallel to the contour line on Southern and Eastern slopes of Mt. 

Blyzhnitsa, crossing the Hropynets Brook. Before it hits the Trufanets Brook, it ascends up to 

the Eastern ridge of Mt. Blyznytsia, makes a wide loop and returns, again along a contourline 

at a higher elevation back to the saddle between Mt. Blyznitisa and Mt. Stara. 

The boundaries of Uholka-Shyrokyi Luh (Property No. 9) on the southern slopes of the 

Krasna mountain pasture, and its powerful offspur of the Menchul mountain pasture, start in the North 

under Mt. Topas. They encompass the headwaters area of the Luzhanka River approximately to Mt. 

Ivaniv Zvir where the boundary turns to the West, crosses the Luzhanka River and climbs the ridge 

radiating from Mt. Menchul. It follows that ridge southwards and at Mt. Rankul it makes a sharp turn 

to the West and follows the contourlines, crossing the rivers of Velyka Uholka and Mala Uholka. After 

that, it traverses the Western slopes of Mt. Vezha and Mt. Menchul, until it reaches its top. It then 

proceeds northwards on the top of the Mt. Menchul northern spurs until it turns, at an almost right 

angle, eastwards again and makes a comes a full circle under Mt. Topas. 

Vihorlat (Property No. 10) is located on both sides of the main range of Vihorlat. It has its 

boundaries traversing the South-Eastern and North-Western slopes of the Vihorlat main range, 

beginning at Mt. Vihorlat in the South-West and continuing along Mt. Motrogon and Mt. Sninský 

Kameň. At that point, the boundaries proceed towards Mt. Nežabec in the East, where there is a 

bifurcation point, from which one branch of the property extends towards Mt. Veža, the other towards 

Mt. Fedkov. 

4

5 

A4 size map of nominated property, showing boundaries and buffer zone

Justification 

Statement of Outstanding Universal Value 

The transnational nominated series “Beech primeval forests of the Carpathians” as a 

whole provides a superior representation of undisturbed biological and ecological processes in 

the monodominant mesotrophic European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) primeval forests on a 

wide range of substrates, in terms of area, growth and the assurance of conservation 

management. Such forests once extended over approximately 40 % of the European continent, 

but the anthropogenic pressure led to their nearly entire elimination on mesotrophic sites on 

other territories. Now their remnants are comprised mainly to the parts of the Carpathians due 

to a limited extent or the absence of industrial developments. 

The undisturbed ecological processes within the transnational nominated series result in 

a high ecological stability and dynamics that leads to the formation of hall-like structural 

primeval forest patterns on mesotrophic sites. Beech primeval forests of the transnational 

nominated series reach the highest average growing stock and feature a rich structure. Along 

with a balanced spatial arrangement of developmental stages, it results in the occurrence of 

record tree dimensions within the ergodic process of the developmental cycle. These patterns 

manifest outstanding aesthetical values and thereby strongly influenced aesthetical and 

landscape perceptions of the European civilization. 

The beech primeval forests of the nominated series also contain genetic pools and 

provide habitats for numerous endangered species, including xylobiotic fungi, insects, hollownesting 

birds and large mammals, such as brown bear, wolf, lynx, wisent and others. 

Furthermore, several decades-long scientific research, carried out specifically in the 

transnational nominated series, strongly contributed to the development of the concept of 

close-to-nature forestry on the global scale. Also, the nominated series offers a unique etalon 

for the assessment of anthropogenic pressures on other forest ecosystems. 

6

Criteria under which property is nominated 

(itemized criteria) 

The serial nomination “Beech Primeval Forests of the Carpathians” is proposed for 

inscription under the following criteria: 

Criterium (ix): The serial nomination “Beech Primeval Forests of the Carpathians” 

contains outstanding examples representing significant on-going ecological and biological 

processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial (forest) ecosystems and communities 

of their plants and animals. As a natural feature, it consists of a biological formation – climax 

temperate beech primeval forests with largely monospecific canopy. The development of this 

formation is an indispensable part of the phylogenetic history of the genus Fagus, which is, 

given the distribution of Fagus in the Northern Hemisphere, globally significant. The 

nominated series does most completely and comprehensively reflects the ecological patterns 

of pure stands of European beech, which is the most important constituent of forests in the 

Temperate Broad-leaf Forest Biome, in the Middle European Forest (2.11.05) biogeographical 

province and partly in the biome of mixed mountain systems. The value of the nominated 

beech forests does consist both in the status of European beech as originally the main forest 

constituent (after the the return of tree species banished from Central Europe during the ice 

ages was complete) in Europe, but also in their intrinsic ecological patterns as seen from the 

viewpoint ecology, i. e. complete stadial and developmental cycles that include all 

developmental stages. The serial nomination features unique characteristics of Europe’s 

primary, indigenous, undisturbed, unique, complex (and therefore outstanding) forest 

ecosystems with Europe’s most typical tree species as their main edificator. At the same time, 

it is the last best conserved remnant of monodominant beech forests that once covered large 

tracts of Europe. The characteristics include the absolute hegemony of European beech, its 

competitiveness, autoregulation and homeostasis capacity and adaptation to changing 

environmental conditions. The serial nomination represents highly productive and extremely 

stable ecosystems on mesotrophic substrates of cristalline rocks, flysh, calcareous rock 

(limestones) and volcanic rock (andesite), with no other tree species able to compete with the 

beech trees on a significant scale. The overall site conditions allow the beech to reach heights 

up to 56 m – tallest European beech trees measured. The formation is sustained by 

undisturbed biogeochemical cycles as an indispensable part of this formation. 

The textural composition of these primeval forests fluctuates very little during their 230– 

250 years-long developmental cycle and the aerial representation of individual developmental 

stages is balanced over areas as small as 20–30 ha. European beech population is so well 

7

established on the respective sites that no other species, even other C-strategists such as silver 

fir, are able to co-exist there, except for small patches conditioned by micro-relief. The 

underlying ecological processes are so articulate that beech forests in this area have defied 

every attempt to convert them into spruce monocultures. Stands with various phases (stages) 

of vital cycle are available in the primeval forests. These distinctly different types of stands 

are called “developmental stages”. All the stages of forest development are represented in the 

primeval forests. They are such as the optimum stage, old growth, decay, and regeneration of 

selected forest and undergrowth. Along with a greatly mosaics nature according to 

developmental stages, the stands are characterized by a great variability of stand structures. 

The existence of these monodominant beech forests allows for a long-term research of 

beech primeval forests, which represents a significant added value from the point of science; 

the respective localities have been subject to a periodical, 50 year long systematic forestry and 

ecological research using a common methodical, internationally accepted approach. The value 

of this complex research is enhanced by the overall excellent conservation of entire 

ecosystems including plants and animals (including brown bear, lynx, wolf, locally also 

wisent, elk and other species) being in a constant interaction and functioning in a functional 

unity. Owing to ongoing global changes, such research can not be reproduced any more as the 

initial and boundary conditions have changed reproducible. 

Criterium (x): The serial nomination “Beech Primeval Forests of the Carpathians” 

contains the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of 

biological diversity, including those containing endangered species of outstanding universal 

value from the point of view of science or conservation. Its conservation value consists in the 

protection of the only remaining intact populations of pure beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) and the 

protection of European beech gene pool, not limited in the past through selection or 

interventions by man, but formed solely by natural processes. The beech primeval forest of 

the nominated series therefore also provide an invaluable opportunity to study the 

evolutionary history of Fagus in western Eurasia based on the evidence from genes, 

morphology and the fossil record. 

The serial nomination also includes habitats of entomofauna, avifauna and of some mammal 

species (e. g. bats) bound to habitats existing only in primeval forests, as well as their intact 

mycoflora (484 species recorded to date). The series contains gene pools of autochthonous 

organisms and habitats providing favourable living conditions for globally endangered 

species, numerous species of entomofauna (Osmoderma eremita) bound to the trees 

8

necromass, hollow nesting birds dependent on presence of old standing trees (Strix uralensis), 

as well as a complete mycoflora of the Carpathian beech forests. Habitats of a number of 

animal species practically correspond to distribution of beech forests within the continent. The 

survival of numerous vulnerable species directly depends upon beech forests conservation. 

They are such species as Dendrocopos leucotos, Myotis myotis, M. bechsteinii, Rosalia alpina 

etc. Myotis myotis is a rare fauna species of the continent and, listed in Annexes 2 of the Bonn 

and Bern Conventions. Karst caves of the Uholka – Shyrokyi Luh cluster serve as hibernation 

shelters for thousands of bats. Myotis bechsteinii is a globally rare species and is listed in 

Annexes 2 of Bonn and Bern Conventions. As a typical dendrophillous species, during a year 

it is directly bound to tree-trunk hollows. Availability of hollow trees is for that matter the 

main limiting factor for this species, though still abundantly available across the serial 

nomination, where there have been registered parent colonies of Myotis bechsteinii with 

hundreds of bats during the last decade. 

Criterium (vii): The serial nomination “Beech Primeval Forests of the Carpathians” 

evidently contains areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance. Indeed, this 

argument can not be discarded in the face of the real impact that the appearance of Europe’s 

primeval forests has exerted on the mindset of people and artists in particular, who in turn 

have hugely influenced our culture and standards by which we perceive and measure beauty 

and aesthetical quality – Czeslaw Milosz, a 1980 Nobel Prize winner in literature. In his 

“Symbolic Mountains and Forests” he wrote: “The interiors of certain Gothic cathedrals − 

Strasbourg, for example − replicate man's smallness and helplessness in his middle zone 

between hell and heaven, amid the columns of the primeval forests which still covered large 

areas of Europe when the cathedrals were built”. Translated in the language of science, the 

nominated series’ aesthetic value resides in the original tree species composition, structure 

and monumental dimensions of trees, the amount of impressively looking trees necromass that 

according to perception research accounts to their wild look, documented by early historians 

(e. g. Herodotus of Halicarnassus, Tacitus). According to the modern science of the 

imaginary, European primeval forests became one of the important imaginative sources, from 

which the Gothic architecture developed. The works of Eliade, Le Goff, Matteoli, Schama and 

Ovidian have documented how the image of heaven in Christianity mixed with the image of 

wild forests. The hall-way, cathedral-like appearance and pattern of the nominated properties 

features easily recognizable, featuring full-boled, tall, straight trunks of beech trees. Despite a 

less dramatic character of the local landscapes, the beauty and impact of the primeval forest 

9

look (of similar beech or oak forests that once covered a great deal of the European continent) 

on the aesthetical perception of the Gothic thinkers and architects are well documented. 

According to Matteoli, “The forest, an overwhelming presence of the great North, is the 

genius loci of the Gothic church. The tall tree trunks become columns, the ogive vaults 

replicate the arching of the branches connecting the trees high above. The forest/cathedral is 

home to northern imagery. Fairies, fantastic animals, ghosts, monsters peek out from every 

corner and receptacle.” The scenery of the beech primeval forests of the nominated series is 

unique both in Europe and in the world in this context − the cathedral growths of the North- 

Pacific coast have been discovered by the Europeans after the Gothic period had long ended. 

The images of the beech primeval forests bred mermaids in Slavic legends, Celts inhabited 

these forests with dryads, and Germanic tribes believed that elfs dwelt among those fairy-like 

trees. Also today, these forests are of a paramount significance in the traditional view of 

nature both in Slovakia and Ukraine. 

10

Name and contact information of official local institution/agency: 

Carpathian Biosphere Reserve 

Krasne Pleso str.,77 

Rakhiv, 90600 

Transcarpathian Region, Ukraine 

Tel.: +380 3132 22193 

Fax: +380 3132 22659 

e-mail: cbr@rakhiv.ukrtel.net 

http://cbr.nature.org.ua 

Uzhanskyi National Nature Park 

Shevchenka Str., 54 

Velykyi Bereznyi, 89000 


Tel. +380 3135 21770 

Fax. +380 3135 21037 

e-mail: sciunpp@unet.net.ua 

NP Poloniny 

Mierová 193 

06761 Stakčín, Slovak republic 

Tel.: +421 57 768 56 15 

Fax : +421 57 768 56 15 

E-mail: repka@sopsr.sk 

http://www.sopsr.sk 

Vihorlat Protected Landscape Area 

ul. Fraňa Kráľa 1 

071 01 Michalovce, Slovak Republic 

Tel.: +421 56 688 25 41 

Fax: +421 56 688 25 43 / 56 688 25 42 

E-mail: rovnak@sopsr.sk 


East Carpathians Protected Landscape Area 

Lipová ul. 19 

066 01 Humenné, Slovak Republic 

Tel.: +421 57 775 36 32 

Fax : +421 57 775 36 32 

E-mail: platko@sopsr.sk 


11

1. Identification of the Property 

1.a Country: Ukraine 


1.b State, Province, Region: Transcarpathian Region (Ukraine) 

Prešov Self-governing Region (Slovak Republic) 

1. c Name of Property: BEECH PRIMEVAL FORESTS OF THE 

CARPATHIANS 

1.d Geographical coordinates to the nearest second 

Table 1: Serial nomination table for the “BEECH PRIMEVAL FORESTS OF THE CARPATHIANS” 

Site 

element 

No. 

Name of the 

primeval 

forest 


Centre point 

1 Chornohora Ukraine, 

Transcarpathian Region 

2 Havešová Slovak Republic, Prešov 

Self-Governing Region 

3 Kuziy- Ukraine, 

Trybushany Transcarpathian Region 

4 Maramarosh Ukraine, 


Area of core 

zone (ha) 

Buffer zone 

(ha) 1 

Map 

Annex 2 

48° 08’ 25” N 

24° 23’ 35” E 

2 476,8 12 925,0 7 

49˚ 00’ 35” N 

22˚ 20’ 20” E 

171,3 63,99 8 

47° 56’ 21” N 

24° 08’ 26” E 

47° 56’ 12” N 

1 369,6 3 163,4 9 

24° 19’ 35” E 2 243,6 6 230,4 10 

5 Rožok Slovak Republic, Prešov 48˚ 58’ 30” N 

67,1 41,4 11 

Self-Governing Region 22˚ 28’ 00” E 

6 Stužica – Slovak Republic, Prešov 49˚ 05’ 10” N 2 950,0 11 300,0 12 

Bukovské 

Vrchy 


7 Stuzhytsia – Ukraine, 

49° 04’ 14” E 2 532,0 3 615,0 13 

Uzhok Transcarpathian Region 22° 03’ 01” N 

8 Svydovets Ukraine, 

48° 11’ 21” N 3 030,5 5 639,5 14 

Transcarpathian Region 24° 13’ 37” E 

9 Uholka – Ukraine, 

48° 18’ 22” N 11 860,0 3 301,0 15 

Shyrokyi Luh Transcarpathian Region 23° 41’ 46” E 

10 Vihorlat Slovak Republic, Prešov 48° 55’ 45” N 2 578,0 2 413,0 16 

Self-Governing Region 22° 11’ 23” E 

Total area 29 278,9 48 692,7 

1 Not subject to nomination 

2 Each property is also depicted on the Map annexes 1–6 

2

1.e Maps and plans, showing the boundaries of the 

nominated property and buffer zone 

• Map Annex 1: Beech primeval forests of the Carpathians – The position of Ukraine 

and the Slovak Republic in the Central Europe (1:7 000 000) 

• Map Annex 2: Beech primeval forests of the Carpathians – The position of the serial 

nomination properties on the territories of Ukraine and the Slovak Republic 

(1:800 000, as of January 2006) 


nomination properties according to tectonic units (1:800 000, as of January 2006) 


nomination properties according to vegetation belts (1:800 000, as of January 2006) 

• Map Annex 5: Beech primeval forests of the Carpathians – Beech ecosystems as 

embedded in the ecological continuum 

• Map Annex 6: Beech primeval forests of the Carpathians – Ecological corridors and 

protected areas connecting the nominated properties (1:800 000, as of January 2006) 

• Map Annex 7: Chornohora; nominated property No. 1 and its buffer zone (1:100 000, 

as of January 2006) 

• Map Annex 8: Havešová; nominated property No. 2 and its buffer zone (1:50 000, as 

of January 2006) 

• Map Annex 9: Kuziy – Trybushany; nominated property No. 3 amd its buffer zone 

(1:100 000, as of January 2006) 

• Map Annex 10: Maramorosh; nominated property No. 4 amd its buffer zone 

(1:100 000, as of January 2006) 

• Map Annex 11: Rožok; nominated property No. 5amd its buffer zone (1:50 000, as of 

January 2006) 

• Map Annex 12: Stužica – Bukovské Vchy; nominated property No. 6 and its buffer 

zone (1:75 000, as of January 2006) 

• Map Annex 13: Stuzhytsia –Uzhok; nominated property No. 7 and its buffer zone 

(1:100 000, as of January 2006) 

• Map Annex 14: Svydovets; nominated property No. 8 and its buffer zone (1:100 000, 

as of January 2006) 

• Map Annex 15: Uholka –Shyrokyi Luh; nominated property No. 9 and its buffer zone 

(1:100 000, as of January 2006) 

• Map Annex 16: Vihorlat; nominated property No. 10 and its buffer zone (1:50 000, as 

of January 2006) 

1.f Area of nominated property (ha) and proposed buffer zone (ha) 

See Table 1. 

3

2. Description 

2.a Description of Property 

Beech Primeval Forests of the Carpathians as elements of the nominated series belong to 

the Biogeographical province Middle European Forest (2.11.05) according to Udvardy’s 

classification (1975). All nominated localities belong to the same biome and forests complex. 

Slovak “Stužica – Bukovské Vrchy” and the Ukrainian “Stuzhytsa – Uzhok” as nominated 

properties establish a direct link between nominated properties. The nominated properties are 

parts of a continuum of nature, natural and semi-natural beech forests in Ukraine and the 

easternmost part of Slovakia. 

2.a.1 Chornohora (Ukraine) 

Abiotic conditions 

This cluster is a part of the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve, located on the southern 

macroslope of the Chornohora Mountain Ridge being the most western part of the 

Polonynsko-Chornohirskyi watershed (the Svydovetsko-Chonohirskyi Physical-Geographic 

district of the Polonynsko-Chornohirskyi Region of the Eastern Carpathian Subprovince) at 

700–2.061 m above sea level. 

Four tectonic zones (Chornohora, Duklyanska, Porkuletska and Burkutska) are the base 

for the geological structure of the Chornohora massif, and they are represented by flysh with 

dominating sandstone. Besides, breccias sometimes occur in the geological structure of the 

massif. 

The modern geomorphological structure of Chornohora was formed mainly in the 

Miocene-Holocene. At present time the south-western part of the massif is characterized by 

the Middle Mountain landscapes complicated due to the erosion-denudation activity of 

streams as well as the processes of land subsidence. They are more complicated because of an 

ancient icing with typical glacier forms – nivation niches, karren (rock rill), and trough 

valleys. 

The climate conditions are temperate-warm in lower parts to cold in upper ones. 

Precipitation is in limits 750-1.5000 mm per year, and average annual temperature +8 0 C -0 0C . 

The massif covers the drainage area of the Bila (White) Tysa and Chorna (Black) Tysa 

Rivers; a dense network of small streams curves it. 

Acid brown soils and sod brown soil predominate but meadow brown soils sometimes 

occur here. The soils of all types in this area have a rather high pH level (4.0) and a powerful 

profile (of 80-100 cm), as well as a rich content of rough humus belonging to the “modern” 

4

type - beginning since 10-12% in the upper horizons and 1-2% in transitional and bottom 

horizons. A low content of amfoteric bases is also characteristic for soil here (degree of 

saturation less than 30%). 

Biota (vegetation) 

The total area of the Chornohora cluster is 15.401 ha: 1.323,8 ha of the core zone and 

14.078 ha of the buffer zone. The core zone includes three patches of virgin forests located 

close one to another and united with the sites of buffer zone, therefore, at present time this 

cluster represents the continuous natural massif. Besides, the territory of the Carpathian 

National Nature Park is adjusted to the foregoing cluster. 

The Chornohora cluster covers an area from the lowest limit of the the Mountain Forest 

belt (ca. 600 m) up to the High Mountain vegetation belt (2.061 m). Its forests are 

characterized by a high diversity of communities, and within them there are a lot of sites of 

natural forests (viz., Fagetum, Piceeto-Fagetum, Abieto-Piceeto-Fagetum, Piceeto-Abieto- 

Fagetum, Acereto-Piceeto-Fagetum, Fageto-Piceeto-Abietum, Fageto-Abieto-Piceetum, 

Piceetum and others). In the Chornohora the pure beech virgin forests cover about 20% of the 

total beech forests area, and they occur on the altitude 600-1.250 (1.300) m above sea level. 

Predominate communities Fagetum symphytosum, Fagetum dentariosum, Fagetum 

athyriosum, Fagetum mercurialidosum, Fagetum asperulosum, and the mixed Piceeto- 

Fagetum symphytosum, Piceeto-Fagetum oxalidosum, Piceeto-Fagetum myrtllosum, Piceeto- 

Abieto-Fagetum asperulosum, Piceeto-Abieto-Fagetum mercurialidosum, Fagetum 

stellariosum and Abieto-Piceeto-Fagetum. They have the large standing volume (800– 

900 m 3 /ha), besides, beech and fir trees occured here are sometimes 300-350 years old and 1.3 

m and 1.6-1.8 m in diameter respectively. 

There are also the rare communities Ulmeto-Acereto-Fagetum symphytosum and others. 

The most peculiar features of this cluster is the presence of the vast continuous groves of 

Pinus mugo, Duschekia viridis and Rhododendron kotschy distributed above the upper forest 

limit. 

The shrub layer in the Chornohora virgin forests is poorly developed and it includes 

solitary plants of Lonicera nigra and Corylus avellana. The herbaceous layer mainly consists 

of Athyrium filix-femina, Dryopteris filix-mas and D. carthusiana, but also sometimes 

Polystichum braunii, Gymnocarpium dryopteris, Oxalis acetosella, Galeobdolon luteum and 

Mercurialis perennis. 

5

As a whole, ca. 1.540 plant species are distributed within the Chornohora cluster: ca. 

580 species of the Vascular Plants, 180 species of mosses, 290 species of lichens, 280 species 

of algae, and 90 species of fungi. Within the Vascular Plants, about 30 rare species occur in 

the forests (viz., Huperzia selago, Botrychium lunaria, Blechnum spicant, Ranunculus 

carpaticus, Arnica montana, Galanthus nivalis, Lilium martagon, Listera cordata, Silene 

dubia, Traunsteinera globosa, Pulmonaria filarszkyanaoccur, and most of them are included 

into the “Red Book of Ukraine” (1996) or “European Red List” (1992).). Beside the foregoing 

rare forest species, there are more than 20 rare species occcured in the buffer zone and the 

close high-mountain belt (viz., Aconitum jacquinii, Doronicum clusii, Gentiana acaulis, 

Ranunculus thora, Primula minima, etc.). 

Biota (animal world) 

The core of the fauna in the “Chornohora” cluster includes mainly species belonging to 

the Taiga complex, but the species characteristic for the broad-leaved forests of Europe are 

well represented here too: 45 species of mammals, 84 bird species, 6 reptile species and 7 

amphibian species. Besides, 1 species of Cyclostomata and 7 species of fish occur in the local 

mountain rivers and streams. Within the cluster, there are several thousands of invertebrates 

dwelling: viz., 65 species of Colembola, 5 species of Nematoda, 1 species of Myriapoda, 73 

species of Lepidoptera, 5 species of Orthoptera, 46 species of Mollusca, 70 species of 

Arachneidea, and many others. 

There are a lot of species usual for the forest belt of the Carpathians including Cervus 

elaphus montanus, Sus scrofa attila, Capreolus capreolus, Vulpes vulpes, Meles meles, 

Martes martes, and also large carnivares, viz., Lynx lynx, Canis lupus, Ursus arctos. Other 

species are Mustela lutreola and Lutra lutra. An endemic species Pitymis tatricus occurs 

within the cluster, but its habitat was regarded the Western Carpathians (Vysoké Tatry) only. 

There is also a lot of hollow tree-trunks within which a number of dendrophilous bats 

and birds dwelling, viz., the rare Myotis bechstenii, Nyctalus leislerii, Strix uralensis, 

Aegolius funereus, Glaucidium passerinum, 8 species of woodpeckers, Regulus regulus, 

Turdus torquatus, Loxia curvirostra, Cinclus cinclus, etc. 

Tetrao urogalus rudolf being widely distributed in the forests of the Chornohora is very 

rare on other territories and therefore it is listed to the “Red Book of Ukraine” (1996). 

Vipera berus and Lacerta vivipara are rather widely distributed in the Chornohora, but 

Lacerta agilis and Anguis fragilis are rare here. 

6

Amphibian are represented here by Rana temporaria, Bombina variegata and Bufo 

bufo. The rare endemic species Triturus montandoni and T. alpestris breed in small stagnant 

reservoirs; they are included into the “Red Book of Ukraine”, and T. alpestris is a more rare 

one. 

Salmo trutta m. fario, Thymalus thymalus, Cottus gobio, Cobitis taenia and Phoxynus 

phoxynus occur in the mountain rivers in the Chornohora, and Eudonthomyzon danfordi rarely 

occur here. 

There is a number of the Carpathian and Eastern Carpathian endemics occuring at the 

territory of this cluster only [viz., Calosoma inquisitor, Carabus transsylvanicus, Trechus 

plicatulus and Duvalius ruthenus (Carabidae, Coleoptera)]. 

7

2.a.2 Havešová (Slovak Republic) 


Havešová National Nature Reserve is located in the Nasta mountain range of the 

Bukovské Vrchy Mountains, in the Dukla unit of the Carpathian outer flysch belt, between the 

villages of Kalná Ráztoka and Stakčínska Ráztoka. It belongs administratively to Snina 

District. The reserve’s primeval forest stands are located from 440 to 741 metres above sea 

level. 

The reserve is classified into the moderately warm mountainous climatic-geographical 

type. Mean annual temperature is 6.0−6.5 °C and the growing season lasts from 145−150 days 

a year. The annual precipitation is 800-850 mm, and snow cover can be observed for 140−145 

days a year. 

Bedrock beneath the reserve is sandstone flysch, or more precisely, Cisna sandstone 

layers with fine conglomerates and claystone of the Palaeocene age. The wild appearance of 

the reserve is accentuated by deep gullies formed on fissures by the erosion of soft claystone 

patches between layers of harder sandstone. The gullies are deep and have steep unstable 

slopes, and can form even when the relief gradient is only 3°. This substrate gave rise to 

average depth Cambisols (i.e., those soils that were until recently classified as “brown forest 

soils”). These soils are formed by a partial soil-forming process called “browning”. This 

process is typical of biologically active environments with a pH of 4.5−7 and a well-balanced 

biogeochemical cycle. The process results in the formation of a massive brown Cambic 

diagnostic horizon that lends its colour shade to the entire soil profile. These soils occupy 

approximately two-thirds of the total forested area in Slovakia. They are typical soils of the 

most common forest ecosystems in Slovakia—beech forest. The Cambisols in the reserve 

differ distinctly, due to the presence of slopes of opposite aspect (southern and northern). 

Eutric Cambisols are prevalent on slopes with southern aspect, while Dystric Cambisols are 

prevalent on slopes with northern aspect. Overall, soil conditions are favourable and 

productive, allowing beech to reach heights of nearly metres with diameter nearly 100 cm and 

heights up to 56 m. 

Biota 

Massive beech trees (Fagus sylvatica) form stands with sparsely admixed (less than 5 % 

of the standing volume) sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), common ash (Fraxinus excelsior) 

and wych elm (Ulmus glabra). Since the Subboreal period, beech has been the dominant 

8

deciduous tree species in Slovakia, and it is the backbone of this reserve, as well as many 

nature reserves in the country. Sycamore and common ash in combination only contribute 

approximately 5% of the total tree volume in Havešová Reserve. 

In terms of phytocenology, the forests of Havešová are part of larger Carpathian beech 

forests of flysch areas, containing dominant East Carpathian species such as comfrey 

(Symphytum cordatum), and they are also a part of the sub-oceanic beech populations that 

spread along the outer Carpathian Arc up to the Ukraine. These sub-oceanic populations 

contain wood speedwell (Veronica montana), yellow pimpernel (Lysimachia nemorum), 

Streptopus amplexifolius, and other species. The reserve’s beech forests possess a typical 

depauperate appearance due to the very low density of the herb layer. The most important 

diagnostic herb species of these forests are Dentaria glandulosa, a Carpathian endemic 

species, and sweet woodruff (Galium odoratum). In beech-linden forests that have high 

nitrogen levels, dog’s mercury (Mercurialis perennis) and other nitrophilous species are 

common. 

Havešová National Nature Reserve contains nearly homogeneous beech forests with 

significantly variable height and diameter structure. Its developmental cycle lasts 220-250 

years. The developmental stages occur within spatially restricted small patches and can be 

delineated based on the proportion of trees within the middle overstorey and the average 

diameter of trees from the upper overstorey. According to the latest research, which was 

carried out in 1999, most forests of the reserve are in the maturation developmental stage (45- 

50 % of the area of the reserve), followed by the senescence stage (30-35%), and the optimum 

stage (20-25%). Shelterwood regeneration takes place in the reserve’s forests within small 

10–14 are patches and groups. Developmental independence is reached on 30 ha. 

Because of the clear dominance of beech in the reserve, it is very rich in phytophagus 

insect species that are developmentally dependent on beech, as well as predators and 

parasitoids of these species. Many species of beetles develop in dead branches and trunks in 

various stages of decay, with each stage having a specific fauna. The blue longhorn beetle 

(Rosalia alpina) is perhaps the most beautiful of these. 

Birds in the reserve include characteristic nesting species such as the stock pigeon 

(Columba oenas), the woodpecker Dendrocopos leucotos, and the red-breasted flycatcher 

(Ficedula parva). Chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs), old world robin (Erithacus rubecula), coal tit 

(Parus ater), and nuthatch (Sitta europaea), the most common inhabitants of this primeval 

forest, are also worthy of mention. 

9

2.a.3 Kuziy-Trybushany (Ukraine) 


Being the part of the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve, the “Kuziy-Trybushany” cluster is 

located on the southern outshoot of the Svydovets Mountain Ridge and its altitude is in limits 

360-1.409 m above sea level. This cluster represents the periphery part of the Maramorosh 

crystalline middle-mountain massif (the Rakhiv-Chvychynsky Physical-Geographic Region of 

the Eastern Carpathian Subprovince). 

Gneiss and quartzite occur at the territory of this cluster, and they are partially saturated 

with precious metals. Being the edge of the mountain scole and shifts, it also contains 

dolomites, limestone and hard marlstone. There is a line of Jurassic limestones in the southern 

part of the cluster, which usually is situated deeply under flysch in other parts of the 

Transcarpathia. Besides, their fragments are on the surface and look like rocks. 

The climatic conditions are softer than in the High Mountains here. Average annual 

temperature is + 7° C, and average annual precipitation 600 mm (430 mm fall during warm 

season). The snow cover thickness is 40−60 cm, and in the higher localities it reaches 

50−100 cm. 

The cluster covers the upper part of Tysa’s left tributaries drainage basins. 

Acid (dystrophic) brown soils totally dominate in the topsoil of the cluster. The 

characteristic features of soils here are: high pH level (4.0); a powerful profile of 80-100 cm; 

rich content of rough humus (10-12% in upper horizons and 1-2% in transition and bottom 

horizons); a low content of amphoteric bases (degree of saturation less than 30%). Like in the 

previous clusters, soils are very stony, mostly mid-loamy with good penetration of water and 

air. 

Biota (vegetation and flora) 

The total area of the cluster is 4.533 ha: core zone is 360 ha and buffer zone is 4.173 ha. 

The oak-beech forests with admixtures of Carpinus betulus, Acer pseudoplatanus and 

other species occur in the forest mountain belt at 330-1.410 m, and since 400 m the pure 

beech forests predominate, and most of them (96%) are natural. 

This cluster is remarkable because of its significant coenotic diversity. Within the beech 

virgin forests, there are ca. 20 communities, and within them the pure beech forests dominate, 

viz.,Fagetum galiosum odoratae and Fagetum dentariosum. Besides, here are a number of 

communities, viz., Fraxineto-Fagetum, Acereto-Fagetum, Taxoso-Fagetum and Querceto 

petraeae–Fagetum occuring on limestone and dolomite. Meanwhile, communities Fagetum 

10

taxoso-mercurialidosum, Fagetum festucosum silvaticae and Piceeto-Fagetum sesleriosum 

heuflerianae are rather rare within this cluster. 

There are the rare or unique virgin forest communities Quercetum petraeae and Abieto- 

Quercetum petraeae-Mercurialidosum perennis. Exactly within foregoing communities the 

unusual heat-loving species occur, viz., frutices Cornus mas, Swida sanguinea, and herbs 

Ranunculus cassubicus and Symphytum popovii. 

The flora of this comparatively small cluster is very rich: it includes ca. 600 species of 

the Vascular Plants and ca. 220 species of the Cryptogames (ca. 100 species of mosses, 40 

species of lichens, 80 species of algae and 60 species of fungi). Within the foregoing flora 

there are 35 rare or endangered species included into the “Red Book of Ukraine” (viz., Taxus 

baccata, Campanula carpatica, Cephlanthera rubra, Iris pseudocyperus, etc.) 


49 species of mammals, 79 species of birds, 7 reptile species, and 7 amphibian species, 

12 fish species and 1 species of Cyclostomata occur here. Besides, several thousands of 

invertebrates are distributed here, viz., 1 species of Colembola, 12 species of Nematoda, 7 

species of Myriapoda, 109 species of Lepidoptera, and others. 

The usual for the Carpathian forests species are widely distributed here, viz., mammals 

Cervus elaphus montanus, Sus scrofa attila, Capreolus capreolus, Vulpes vulpes, Meles 

meles, Martes marte and others. Ursus arctos often hibernates here, Lynx lynx isn’t a 

permanent dweller of this cluster and it appears here from time to time. Besides, Artiodactyla 

are very numerous here. Felis silvestris occurs here too, but their animals are few few. There 

are several caves and galleries on the territory of the cluster. 8 species of bats dwell here and 4 

of them are included into the “Red Book of Ukraine”: Rhinolophus hipposideros, Rh. 

Ferrumequinum, Myotis bechsteini and Barbastella barbastellus. Besides, dendrophilous bats 

are well represented here. 

The bird fauna is very diverse here because of the forest diversity. There is a great 

number of birds nesting in hollows of tree-trunks, and all species of woodpeckers usual in the 

deciduous biome occur here. 

Four bird species nesting here (Aquila chrysaetos, Strix uralensis, Aegolius funereus and 

Glaucidium passerinum) are included into the “Red Book of Ukraine”. 

Elaphe longissima is included into the “Red Book of IUCN” and its number is rather 

large here. Besides, reptiles Lacerta vivipara, L. agilis, Anguis fragilis, and Natrix natrix are 

usual here. 

11

The endemic of the Carpathians Triturus montandoni, and reptiles Salamandra 

salamandra, Rana temporaria, Bombina variegata and Bufo bufo occur within this cluster, 

and Salmo trutta m. fario, Thymalus thymalus, Cottus gobio and other fish species inhabit 

local rivers. 

12

2.a.4 Maramorosh (Ukraine) 


Being a part of the Carpathain Biosphere Reserve (CBR), this cluster is located on the 

northern megaslope of the Rakhiv Mountain Ridge – an offshoot of the Maramorosh 

crystalline massif, at 380−1.940 m (Rakhiv-Chyvchynska Physical-Geographic Region of the 

Eastern Carpathian Subprovince). 

This territory is very close to the Romanian National Nature Park “Maramures 

Mountains”. It is unique within the clusters because being of the part of the Rakhiv and the 

Radomyr functional zones and the Maramorosh crystalline massif. There are also flysh 

carbon-terigen sediments of the bottom chalk, volcanic rocks of the main constitution, upper 

Jurassic carbonate rocks, as well as metamorphic rocks of the basal complex (upper 

Proterozoic shist and gneiss, Vendian-Cambrian shist and quartz shist), and also carbonateterigen 

rocks (conglomerate and conglomerate-breccia, sandstone, aleurite, upper Paleozoic 

and Jurassic limestone and argillite). 

The landscapes of the cluster are mainly Middle Mountain erosion with patches of 

leveled denudation surfaces and fragments of ancient (Pleistocen) glacial landscapes. The 

essential part of this cluster consists of erosion-denudation slopes of valleys and mountain 

ridges complicated by smaller morphologic-sculptural fragments. 

The climatic conditions here are softer than the same within other Carpathian Highlands. 

Average annual temperature is +7° C; average precipitation is 600 mm (430 mm fall during a 

warm season). Thickness of snow cover is ca. 40-60 cm (sometimes till 50−100 cm). 

The cluster covers the upper part of Tysa’s left tributaries drainage basins. 

Acid (dystrophic) brown soils dominate in the topsoil of the cluster. The characteristic 

features of soil here are: high pH level (pH 4.0), a powerful profile of 80-100 cm, rich 

content of rough humus – 10-12% in upper horizons and 1-2% in transitional and bottom 

horizons, a low content of amphoteric bases (degree of saturation less than 30%). The upper 

part corresponds to acid (dystrophic) brown soil, and the bottom one – to eutrophic saturated 

with calcium brown soils with neutral reaction. Soils are very stony, mostly mid-loamy with 

good penetration of water and air into them. 


The total area of the Maramarosh cluster is 8.474 ha: core zone is 582 ha, buffer zone is 

7.892 ha. 

The forest mountain belt occurs at 380–1.680 m above sea level, and most of forests here 

13

are natural. Within pure beech forests, there are mainly Fagetum galiosum and Fagetum 

symphytosum, but the mixed beech-spruce and beech-fir natural forests predominate and they 

are widely distributed here (ca. 20 communities). Within them are Abieto-Piceeto-Fagetum 

oxalidosum, Piceeto-Abieto-Fagetum mercurialidosum, Piceeto-Abieto-Fagetum galiosum, 

Abieto-Fagetum symphytosum, Acereto-Fagetum symphytosum predominate. The very 

valuable and rare forest communities are ones with the participation of Taxus baccata. 

As a whole, ca. 980 plant species are distributed within this cluster: ca. 490 species of the 

Vascular Plants, 260 species of mosses, 90 species of lichens, 120 species of algae and 16 

species of fungi. Within them 35 species are regarded as rare, all of them included into the 

“Red Book of Ukraine” (1996) and therefore they are under protection, viz., Campanula 

carpatica, Centaurea carpatica, Cephalanthera longifolia and Lilium martagon. Besides, a 

lot of the extremely rare species occur in the High-Mountain Belt, viz., Gentiana lutea, 

Primula minima, Anthemis carpatica, Narcissus angustifolius, Anemone narcissiflora, 

Pulsatilla alba, etc. Within the Cryptogames, Hookeria lucens, Hookeria lucens, Lobaria 

amplissima, L. pulmonaria, , Plagiothecium neckeroideum, Russula turci, Sarassis crispa, 

Schistostega pennata, Usnea florida, U. longissima and others occur. 


The Maramarosh vertebrate fauna core includes mainly species belonging to the 

deciduous, Taiga and Alpine complexes. 42 mammal species, 68 bird species, 7 reptile 

species and 7 amphibian species occur within the cluster, meanwhile, 7 species of fish and 1 

species of Cyclostomata inhabit local mountain rivers. There are a lot of invertebrates, viz., 43 

species of Colembola, 4 species of Nematoda, 4 species of Myriapoda, 75 species of 

Lepidoptera, etc. 

Species of mammals occured here are usual for the forest belt of the Carpathians, viz., 

Cervus elaphus montanus, Sus scrofa attila, Capreolus capreolus, Vulpes vulpes, Martes 

martes, as well as large predators: Lynx lynx, Canis lupus and Ursus arctos. Besides, Meles 

meles, Mustela lutreola and Lutra lutra are included into the “Red Book of Ukraine” (1996). 

About 10 bat species spend the summer or winter in the old galleries on the territory of 

the Maramorosh cluster. Within these species, there are those regarding as rare ones 

everywhere, viz., Strix uralensis, Aegolius funereus and Glaucidium passerinum nestling in 

tree-trunks hollows. 

Several bird species (viz., Tetrao urogalus rudolfi, Strix aluco, Picoidus tridactylus, 

Regulus regulus, Turdus torquatus, Loxia curvirostra, Cinclus cinclus) are usual here. The 

14

ird fauna of the cluster is very peculiar due to its rocky landscapes. Falco peregrinus and 

smaller Falcons, viz., F. subbuteo ³ F. tinnunculus, occur only here, because of their 

preference to dwell in rocks. Nucifraga caryocatactes occurs here while nestling. 

Vipera berus and Lacerta vivipara are widely distributed here, but Lacerta agilis and 

Anguis fragilis are rather occasional. 

There are amphibians, viz., Bombina variegata, Rana temporaria and Bufo bufo, and the 

first two species are more numerous. The endemic Triturus montandoni and T. alpestris occur 

here and they are included into the “Red Book of Ukraine”. 

The mountain rivers in the Maramorosh cluster are inhabited by Salmo trutta m. fario, 

Thymalus thymalus, Cottus gobio, Cobitis taenia, Phoxynus phoxynu; and Eudonthomyzon 

danfordi (Cyclostomata) occur rather rarely. 

Being the Carpathian and Eastern-Carpathian endemics, a number of invertebrates occur 

in the Maramorosh only, viz., Carabus fabricii, Nebria transsylvanica and Trechus carpaticus 

(Carabidae, Coleoptera). 

15

2.a.5 Rožok (Slovak Republic) 


The site, one of the most productive beech primeval forests on the Slovak territory. It is 

a national nature preserve embedded in the B-zone of the Poloniny National Park. The 

property is located in the Bukovské Vrchy (Bukovské Hills), in its part Kremencové Pohorie 

(Kremencové Mts.), northeast of Ulič, a village in the Snina District. It touches the boundary 

between Slovakia and Ukraine and borders on the Ukrainian Uzhansky National Nature Park 

(UNNP). The national nature preserve extends at the elevation 500−790 m a.s.l., on a NW 

slope from sandstones and claystone slope deposits within the outer Carpathian flysch belt. Its 

largest part is underlain by a rhythmic series of thinly flysch layers. Thin layers of sandstone 

and various claystones are superimposed on each other. 

The average yearly temperature is 7 ºC, the annual precipitation ranges 780 mm and the 

vegetation period lasts about 190 days. Its climate has been classified in the mildly warm 

mountainous and moderately cold mountainous climatic-geographical types. Cambisols rich 

in humus have gradually formed on light grey daze sandstones and dark grey marl-clay slates. 

They are eutric to mesotrophicl, sandy clays, loamy clays and loams with featuring good 

water, air and nutrients regimes. These soils provide the basis for a higly productive primeval 

beech forest with the average age of trees 130 years, 210 years in the main canopy. The 

average standing volume ranges from 577 to 794 m 3 ha –1 . 

The reserve is drained by Zbojský Potok brook that mouthing into Stužica River, which 

in turn drains into the Uh River and is a part of the Bodrog River watershed. 

Biota 

Massive beech trees (Fagus sylvatica) form stands with sparsely admixed (less than 2 % 

of the standing volume) sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), common ash (Fraxinus excelsior) 

and wych elm (Ulmus glabra). Since the Subboreal period, beech has been the dominant 

deciduous tree species in Slovakia, and it is the backbone of this reserve, as well as many 

nature reserves in the country. 

In terms of phytocenology, the forests of Rožok constitute a part of larger Carpathian 

beech forests of flysch areas, containing dominant East Carpathian species such as comfrey 

(Symphytum cordatum), and they are also a part of the sub-oceanic beech populations that 

spread along the outer Carpathian Arc up to the Ukraine. These sub-oceanic populations 

contain wood speedwell (Veronica montana), yellow pimpernel (Lysimachia nemorum), 

Streptopus amplexifolius, and other species. The reserve’s beech forests possess a typical 

16

depauperate appearance due to the very low density of the herb layer. The most important 

diagnostic herb species of these forests are Dentaria glandulosa, a Carpathian endemic 

species, and sweet woodruff (Galium odoratum). In beech-linden forests that have high 

nitrogen levels, dog’s mercury (Mercurialis perennis) and other nitrophilous species are 

common. 

Rožok National Nature Reserve contains nearly homogeneous beech forests with 

significantly variable height and diameter structure. Its developmental cycle lasts 220−230 

years. The developmental stages occur within spatially restricted small patches and can be 

delineated based on the proportion of trees within the middle overstorey and the average 

diameter of trees from the upper overstorey. According to the latest research, which was 

carried out in 1999, most forests of the reserve are in the maturation developmental stage 

(45−50 % of the area of the reserve), followed by the senescence stage (30−35%), and the 

optimum stage (20−25%). Shelterwood regeneration takes place in the reserve’s forests within 

small 10–14 are patches and groups. Developmental independence is reached on 30 ha. 

Because of the clear dominance of beech in the reserve, it is very rich in phytophagus 

insect species that are developmentally dependent on beech, as well as predators and 

parasitoids of these species. Many species of beetles develop in dead branches and trunks in 

various stages of decay, with each stage having a specific fauna. The blue longhorn beetle 

(Rosalia alpina) is perhaps the most beautiful of these. 

Birds in the reserve include Ural owl (Strix uralensis) and characteristic nesting species 

such as the stock pigeon (Columba oenas), the woodpecker Dendrocopos leucotos, and the 

red-breasted flycatcher (Ficedula parva). Chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs), old world robin 

(Erithacus rubecula), coal tit (Parus ater), and nuthatch (Sitta europaea), the most common 

inhabitants of this primeval forest, are also worthy of mention. 

17

2.a.6 Stužica − Bukovské Vrchy (Slovak Republic) 


Stužica – Bukovské Vrchy is a contigeous complex of beech primeval forests that 

extends from the headwaters of the Udava River (Nízke Beskydy Mts.) in the North-West to 

the headwaters of Stužica River (Bukovské Vrchy Mts.) in the South East. The complex 

comprises four primeval forest preserves (Udava, Pľaša, Rjaba Skala and Stužica) and beech 

primeval forests of the A (core) zone of the Poloniny National Park. Its territory lies within 

the borders of Snina District. It touches the boundaries of Slovakia, Poland, and the Ukraine. 

The territory is characterised by a great range in altitude, from 650 to 1121 metres above sea 

level. It has been classified in the mildly warm mountainous, moderately cold mountainous, 

and cold mountainous climatic-geographical types. Mean annual temperature in the reserve is 

3.5–6.0 ºC, and the growing season lasts 90 to 140 days. Annual precipitation is 900–1250 

mm and snow cover is present 145−180 days a year. 

The property lies in the outer Carpathian flysch belt. Its largest part is underlain by a 

rhythmic series of thinly flysch layers. Thin layers of sandstone and various claystones are 

superimposed on each other. Cambisols rich in humus have gradually formed on light grey 

daze sandstones and dark grey marl-clay slates, thus including the whole range of Cambisols 

that occur in the primeval forests of Slovakia. Soil variability results from the high range in 

altitude, from the fact that the reserve occupies three forest vegetation zones (4 th –6 th ), and 

from the reserve’s great diversity in slope gradient and aspect. 

Eutric Cambisols, the most common forest soils in Slovakia, are the main soil types in 

the reserve. They are high quality soils with favourable humification, usually excellent 

physical qualities, and good nutrient content. At altitudes over 1000 m, the Eutric Cambisols 

is replaced by Dystric Cambisols with pH around 4.0. Cambisols help provide the basis for 

productive sites with natural beech-fir forest communities. At the highest altitudes in the 

reserve, where short-statured maple beech forests occur, a short growing season appears to be 

the factor limiting forest productivity. 

The reserve is drained by Stužická rieka (Stužica River) through a fan-like network of 

tributaries and springs with a water regime that is relatively balanced over the course of a 

year. Stužica River drains into the Uh River and is a part of the Bodrog River watershed. 

Biota 

Primeval forest plant communities that are protected within the reserve occur within the 

4 th beech forest vegetation zone and 5 th fir-beech forest vegetation zone. The beech primeval 

18

forests complex contains some 200 year old beech (Fagus sylvatica) specimens and >300 year 

old clusters of silver fir (Abies alba) including exceptionally large individuals, as well as 

equally respectable sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) trees. Sycamore often occurs in stony 

gullies with common ash (Fraxinus excelsior). The presence of sycamore and rowan (Sorbus 

aucuparia) is even more visible on ridges in the reserve. A section of forest in the 4 th forest 

vegetation zone, where beech is the dominant species, contains the highest proportional 

presence of fir of any primeval forest in eastern Slovakia. Its total volume percentage can 

reach 35%, but the number of fir individuals never exceeds 10% of the total tree number per 

hectare. 

It has been shown that the presence of fir enriches the productivity of the forests in the 

reserve, as well as their overall function during the optimum and senescence developmental 

stages. This is due to the lifespan of fir, which is significantly longer than the lifespan of 

beech. It is quite common for firtrees to outlive even 2 generations of beech. Fir diameter can 

reach 160-180 cm, and its volume can exceed 30 m 3 . The presence of fir makes itself felt most 

during the advanced phase of the maturation developmental stage of the 2nd beech 

generation, when there is the greatest height differentiation in stand structure. Fir abundance 

increases in the 5th forest vegetation zone of the reserve, but beech remains the core species 

and continues to determine the structure and development of forest stands. Fir is 20-30% of 

the total standing volume. Stands in this zone are characterized by a typical hierarchical 

structure that is sometimes multi-layered. Beech is regarded as the determinant species of the 

developmental cycle, which lasts 230 to 250 years. In the senescence developmental stage, the 

gradual elimination of surviving beech individuals is a characteristic process. This means that 

the spatial structure of stands in this stage has a small-scale pattern. Developmental stages 

rapidly change and overlap within relatively limited areas. Developmental stage length differs 

when fir is present in higher numbers. The final life stages of beech are connected with the 

prosperity of fir growth, thus contributing to the differentiated structure of the forest stands. 

The herb layer of forests in the reserve contains, in addition to typical beech forest 

species, sweet woodruff (Galium odoratum), evergreen asarabacca (Asarum europaeum), and 

dog’s mercury (Mercurialis perennis). Eastern Carpathian species are also present, such as 

comfrey (Symphytum cordatum), spurge (Tithymalus sojakii), as are a large number of 

suboceanic and oceanic species, such as Aposeris foetida, wood speedwell (Veronica 

montana), and fescue (Festuca drymeja). Spring brings the very common Carpathian endemic 

species Dentaria glandulosa. The attractive and noticeable perennial Lunaria rediviva resides 

in gullies and below ridge slopes. Mountain species such as alpine coltsfoot (Homogyne 

19

alpina), blue sow thistle (Cicerbita alpina), alpine lady fern (Athyrium distentifolium) and 

greater woodrush (Luzula sylvatica), are dominant in the area of the main ridge. 

From the viewpoint of biodiversity, the forests of Stužica Reserve, like other primeval 

forests but in contrast to commercially managed forests, host a great wealth of algae, mosses, 

and lichens that thrive on rocks, tree trunks and branches, and in the soil. Some insect species 

are dependent on this flora, including the butterfly species Mircopterix osthelderi and 

a number of other butterfly species from the genera Bacotia, Dahlica, Taleporia, Proutia and 

Psyche. 

Among typical nesting birds, the Ural owl (Strix uralensis), hazel grouse (Bonasa 

bonasia), three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus), red-breasted flycatcher (Ficedula 

parva), pygmy owl (Glaucidium passerinum), and white-backed woodpecker (Dendrocopos 

leucotos) have been observed. The European bison, or wisent (Bison bonasus) has been 

sighted in the reserve in recent years. Elk (Alces alces) is another rare mammal species found 

in the reserve, and wolf (Canis lupus) is quite common. 

20

2.a.7 Stuzhytsia − Uzhok (Ukraine) 


This cluster is a part of the serial nomination and a part of the “Uzhanskiy National 

Nature Park” (UNNP), located in the western part of the Transcarpathian Region in the Tysa 

River basin in the frontier zone and close to the borders with the Slovak Republic and Poland. 

The area of the cluster belongs to the three climatic zones: warm, temperate and cold, 

having the annual precipitation 850–1.000 mm and snow cover the ground during 120–180 

days. 

This area mainly includes flysch hills based on upper chalk layer and the Magura Zone 

(topsoil formed during Paleogene). The most usual soils are brown soils and meadow brown 

soils based on alluvial and delluvial sediments. 


The total area of the “Stuzhytsa-Uzhok” cluster is 6.147 ha: core zone is 2.532 ha, and 

buffer zone is 3.615 ha. 

The territory of Stuzhytsa-Uzhok is situated in the Stavnensko-Zhdenivskyi Geobotanic 

Region. 

Soil and climate here are favorable for beech forests which occupy the vast territories at 

elevation 400-1.200 (1.250) m above sea level. The beech mono- and oligodominant climax 

communities predominate here, viz., Fagetum nudum, Fagetum dentariosum glandulosae, 

Fagetum festucosum (altissimae) and Fagetum ruboso hirti–festucosum (altissimae). A 

noticeable admixture of Acer pseudoplatanus, A. platanoides, Fraxinus excelsior, but 

sometimes of Acer campestre and Cerasus avium is characteristic for these forests. At 1.200- 

1.260 m (upper limit of growing of deciduous trees), there is a transitive zone of beech 

crooked forests. 

Meanwhile, the communities Acereto pseudoplatani-Fagetum-Ruboso hirtidryopteridosum 

filix-max and Acereto-Fagetum dryopteridosum filix-max occur the rocky 

slopes. In Stuzhitsa-Uzhok two groups of sycamore-beech forests occur, and they are 

sycamore-beech groves growing on rocky slopes and the same on the upper timber level. 

The grass layer of the foregoing forests includes Athyrium filix-femina, Dryopteris filixmas, 

Carex pillosa, Festuca altissima, Mercurialis perennis, Dentharia bulbifera, Lunaria 

rediviva, Symphytum cordatum, Salvia glutinosa, Senecio fuchsii, Oxalis acetosella, Actea 

spicata, but also in early spring Anemone nemorosa, A. ranunculoides, Corydalis cava, C. 

solida, etc. Within them, Galanthus nivalis, Leucojum vernum and Lilium martagon are 

21

egarded as rare plants. 


The Carpathian endemic vertebrates Sciurus vulgaris carpathicus, Lynx lynx carpathica, 

Dendrocopos leucotos carpathicus, Cervus elaphus carpathicus occur in this cluster. 

Within carnivores the most usual is Ursus arctos that dwells very to the borders of 

Poland and the Slovak Republic (territory of the Novo-Stuzhytske forestry). 

Besides, here Canis lupus occurs and in stony localities Meles meles is present, 

Capreolus capreolus and Sus scrofa also occur here. 

Strigiformes are represented here by Asio otus, Strix aluco, S. uralensis. Within 

Piciformes there are woodpackers Dryocopus martius, Dendrocopos major, D. leucotos, D. 

minor. Meanwhile, Passeriformes are represented here by Garrulus glandarius, Corvus 

corax, Erithacus rubecula, Parus ater, P. major, Sitta europaea, Fringilla coelebs, Pyrrhula 

pyrrhula. 

Within Amphibia (Caudata), Salamandra salamandra and within Reptilia Elaphe 

longissima and Vipera berus are included into the “Red Book of Ukraine” (1996). 

There is a lot of endemic invertebrate species, especially insects, viz., Carabus 

zawadszkii, C. hampei, Nebria reitter, Duvalius subterraneus carpathicus; and lots of species 

of Staphylinidae (Chrysomeiidae, Curculionidae). 

There also species ocurring only in the north-western part of the Ukrainian Carpathians, 

viz., Cychrus attenuatus , Pterotichus burmeisteri. 

In the upper parts of streams species of the Gammarus and Niphargus occur, and also 

the tertiary relict Niphargus remained in underground streams. 

The rather rich fauna of invertebrates is noted in the mixed beech-fir stands, viz., 

Arthropods Phatang Hdae, Lithobius forficatus, beetles Carabus violaceus, as well as species 

of Cychrus, Abax, Pterostichus, Philontus, Ocypus, Quedius. A lot of them are endemic for 

the Carpathians or characteristic for the mountains of Central Europe. Arrnadiilum occurs, as 

well as larvae of Lucamdae (Oryctes nasicornis), Cetoninae, Elateridae. In the wet forest 

biotopes the numerous Arthropods (Coliembola) occur, and also Carabus linnei, C. eschen. 

Larvae, viz., Lymexylonsdae, Buprestidae, and Cerambycidae, dwell in the stands disturbed 

by windstorms. One of the most beautiful and rare beetles Rosalia alpina occurs here. There 

are species of Staphylinidae, Histeridae, Cuccujidae and Thanasimus formicarius, Cucujidae. 

Cucujus cinnabarinus is included into the “Red List of Europe” but it is rather widespread in 

some localities of Stuzhitsa-Uzhok. Within parasites, Ichne urn onidae is the most numerous 

22

one. Gonepteryx rhamni, Nymphalis antio, Nymphalis polychloros, Inachis ³î and Aglais 

uriicae are widely distributed here. 

23

2.a.8 Svydovets (Ukraine) 


Being a part of the CBR, this cluster is located on the slopes of the Svydovets Ridge and 

on its offshoots at 350-1.883 m and it belongs to the Svydovets-Chornohirskyi Physical- 

Geographic district of the Polonynsko-Chornohirskyi Region of the Eastern Carpathian 

Subprovince. 

The flysch formations with dominating clay and aleurite are present in the geologic 

structure of the cluster, and sandstones with admixtures of limestone occur here. 

The western part of Svidovets is characterized by the Middle-Mountain landscapes 

complicated by erosion-denudation activity of streams. Besides, the fragments of the High- 

Mountain Meadow denudation leveled surface are characteristic features of the Svidovets 

summits; they are mainly flat saddles and gently sloping foothills, and they are complicated 

by the signs of an ancient icing with typical glacial forms (karrens and trough valleys). 

The climatic conditions here vary from moderate-warm to cold. Annual precipitation is 

750–1.500 mm. 

The cluster covers the drainage area of the rivers Chorna (Black) Tysa and Kisva (right 

tributary of the Tysa River). A dense network of streams curves this area. 

Acid (dystrophic) brown soils totally dominate in the topsoil of the cluster, and only 

small patches on rocks are covered with primitive and initial soils. The characteristic features 

of soils here are the high pH level (ca. 4.0), a powerful profile of 80-100 cm; rich content of 

rough humus (10-12% in upper horizons and 1-2% in transition and bottom horizons), and a 

low content of amphoteric bases (degree of saturation less than 30%). Brown soils on 

limestone rocks have a two-member grid (double structure). The upper part corresponds to 

acid (dystrophic) brown soil, and the bottom one to eutrophic saturated with calcium brown 

soils with neutral reaction. Soils are very stony, mostly middle-loamy with good penetration 

of water and air into them. 


The total area of the cluster “Svydovets” is 8.670 ha: core zone is 1.525 ha and buffer 

zone is 1.145 ha, and here is the richest flora within the Ukrainian Carpathians. Beside the 

forest vegetation belt, the High-Mountain belt (mainly subalpine and partly alpine) occur 

within the Svidovets site. 

Soil-climatic conditions are optimal for beech, therefore its communities here are of a 

climax character, and they are mainly Fagetum rubosum hirtae, Fagetum asperulosum, 

24

Fagetum dentariosum and Fagetum sparsiherbosum. Other tree species (Acer 

pseudoplatanus, A. platanoides, Fraxinus excelsior and Ulmus scabra) are usual here. 

In the upper part of the forest belt the communities Fagetum oxalidosum, Fagetum 

myrtillosum are widely distributed and sometimes Fagetum calamagrostidosum villosae 

occurs. The rare species Galanthus nivalis, Epipactis helleborine, Listera ovata, Lilium 

martagon and some others occur in the foregoing virgin beech forests. 

The mixed forests Acereto-Fagetum and Fraxineto-Acereto-Fagetum occur on the rocky 

slopes because of the low viability of Fagus sylvatica here. 

As a whole, ca. 860 plant species are distributed within this cluster: 400 species of the 

Vascular Plants, 180 species of mosses, 135 species of lichens, 95 species of algae and 50 

species of fungi. There are 37 species included into the “Red Book of Ukraine” (1996) being 

under protection here, viz., Botrychium lunaria, Hupertia selago, etc., but also Aster alpinus, 

Gentiana excisa, Leontopodium alpinum, Dryas octopetela, Pinquicula alpina and others 

(grow mainly on the high-mountain rocks), mosses Hookeria lucens, Plagiothecium 

neckeroideum, lichens Lobaria amplissima, L. pulmonaria, Usnea florida, U. longissima, 

Coriscium viride, and fungi Hericium coralloides, Clavariadelphus pistillaris. 


40 species of mammals, 82 bird species, 6 reptile species, 7 species of amphibian and 8 

species of fish occur at the territory of the cluster, and the entomofauna of the Svydovets is 

very rich too, viz., there are 74 species of Lepidoptera here. 

Within the fauna of Svidovets, the species characteristic for the broad-leaved and boreal 

(Taiga) forests and also of the Alpine complexes are represented. Besides, species usual for 

the forest belt of the Carpathians occur the virgin forests of the cluster, viz., mammals Cervus 

elaphus montanus, Sus scrofa attila, Capreolus capreolus, Mustela lutreola, Lutra lutra, 

Meles meles, Martes martes, Vulpes vulpes, Canis lupus, Ursus arctos, Lynx lynx, Felis 

silvestri and others. 

A number of hollow tree-trunks are characteristic for the cluster, and the dendrophilous 

bats and birds nest in them, viz., Strix uralensis, Aegolius funereus, Glaucidium passerinum 

and others. All species of woodpeckers usual for the deciduous biome occur here, and within 

them Strix uralensis, Aegolius funereus, Glaucidium passerinum Dendrocopos leucotos and 

Columba oenas rare outside virgin forests on other territories. 

25

Within other bird species, Buteo buteo, Bubo bubo, Corvus corax, Turdus merula, T. 

torquatus, Troglodytes troglodytes, Regulus regulus, Loxia curvirostra, Cinclus cinclu are 

widely distributed in Svidovets. 

Amphibian are represented by Rana temporaria, Bombina variegata and Bufo bufo 

including rare endemic Triturus montandoni and T. alpestris for their reproduction 

Vipera berus and Lacerta vivipara are the usual reptiles for the cluster, while Lacerta 

agilis and Anguis fragilis are rare, and fish species Salmo trutta m. fario, Thymalus thymalus, 

Cottus gobio, Cobitis taenia, Phoxynus phoxynus and some other species inhabit local 

mountain rivers. 

26

2.a.9 Uholka-Shyrokyi Luh (Ukraine) 

Abiotic Conditions 

The “Uholka-Shyrokyi Luh” cluster is an essential part of the Carpathian Biosphere 

Reserve (CBR) situated on the Polonynsko-Chornohirskyi Mountain Ridge on the southern 

megaslopes of the High Meadow Krasna (the Polonynskyi Physical-Geographic District of the 

Polonynsko-Chornohirskyi Region of the Eastern-Carpathian Subprovince). The massif 

covers the upper part of the drainage area of Mala Uholjka, Velyka Uholjka and Luzhanka 

rivers (right tributaries of the Tisa River). The altitude above sea level elevates within 380- 

1501 m. The midlle-mountain to low-mountain landscapes are based on sandy-clayed flysch 

with steep slopes covered by a dance network of streams, and they are characteristic for the 

northern part of the foregoing cluster, meanwhile, the rocky low-mountain landscapes (with 

elements of carst landscape) based on limestone rocks, as well as mountain tops divided by 

gorges, are characteristic for its southern part. 

Climate is moderate: average annual temperature +7° C, average temperature in July 

+17° C and in January -4°C. Average annual precipitation is 948 mm (622 mm during the 

vegetation season), average humidity ca. 85%, and snow cover thickness 40-60 (100) cm. 

Acid brown soils dominate in the topsoil of the site, and only small parts of the topsoil 

(mainly on rocks) belong to initial or primitive soils. The pH balance of brown soils is 4.0, 

topsoil is characterized by powerful profiles of 80-150 cm and by low content of rough humus 

(ca. 10-12% in upper soil horizons and ca. 1-2% in transitory horizons) and low degree of 

amphoteric base saturation (less than 30%). Brown soils based on limestones have a twomember 

grid: the upper part identical to acid brown soils, and the lower one to eutrophic soils 

(rich in calcium and with neutral reaction). The soils have a rich content of crushed stones; it 

is mostly mid-loamy with high penetration of water and air into it. 


The“Uholka-Shyrokyi Luh” cluster is situated in the mountain belt of beech forests. 

Local conditions of soil and climate correspond to the ecological-biological peculiarities of 

beech because of their growing in a damp and rather soft climate. Within this cluster, the 

beech communities are characterized by the very high vitality and they have a climax 

character. 

The total area of the cluster is 15.033 ha: 8.835 ha - the core area, and 6.198 ha - a buffer 

zone. Exactly here the largest massif of the virgin beech forests is situated, and this phenomen 

confirms an extraordinary value and the unique nature of the foregoing cluster, as well as the 

27

greatest importance of the Uholka-Shyrokyi Luh virgin forests for the World Natural 

Heritage. 

There are ca. 65 forest communities belonging to 10 formations, and Fagus sylvatica 

makes up here the continuous forest vegetation belt (in limits from 380 m till 1250-1350 m 

above sea level). The fresh or wet acid mega- and mesotrophic pure beech forests 

predominate here (ca. 85% of the foregoing massif). The communities Fagetum dentariosum 

and Fagetum asperulosum are distributed on the rich brown soils, and exactly within them 

some beech trees are up to 55 m in height and ca. 130 cm in diameter. There are other trees 

(viz., Fraxinus excelsior, Populus pseudoplatanus, etc.), frutices (viz., Sambucus nigra, 

Daphne mezereum, etc.) and herbs (viz., Dentaria bulbifera, Pulmonaria obscura, Asperula 

odorata, etc.). As a whole, these communities represent the so called phytocoenotic core of 

the beech forests of the foregoing cluster and the CBR. 

The other beech communities here are wet Fagetum athyriosum, Fagetum rubiosum, 

Fagetum symphytoso-mercurialidosum and Fagetum oxalidosum, and fresh poor Fagetum 

pteridio-vacciniosum, Fagetum-festucoso altissimae, Fagetum moneso-melicosum, etc. 

Meanwhile, in the biotopes with comparatively low viability of beech, mixed 

communities are distributed, viz., Querceto petraeae-Fagetum, Carpineto-Fagetum, Acereto 

pseudoplatani– Fagetum and others. 

On the southern slopes of Uholka massif, in Vezha and Pohar areas, the relict 

communities Fageto-quercetum-luzulozum luzuloides, Fageto–quercetum-asperulosum and 

Fageto–quercetum-dentariosum have remained as the undisturbed ones. Besides, here, 

especially on limestones, are a lot of relict and endemic species, viz., Staphyllea pinnata, 

Corallorhiza trifida, etc. 

Among dominating pure beech stands, communities Fageto-Aceretum pseudoplatani, 

Ulmeto-Fraxineto excelsioris-Aceretum pseudoplatani, Fraxinetum excelsioris, Betuletum 

pendulae and others are present here in small fragments. 

In the localities Hrebin, Zadniy Kaminnyi, Strunga and Mala Kopytsya a number of 

relict communities have remained. Here are Fageto-Tilieto-platyphyllae-Sesleriosumheuflerianae, 

Fagetum-taxoso-hederosum, Fagetum-taxoso-sesleriosum and Fagetumtaxoso–myrtilosum, 

but also the rather large natural community Fagetum with the 

participation of the tertiar relict Taxus baccata (unique within Ukraine), and very rare 

Juniperetum sabinae. Besides, on limestones only the communities Caprineto-Fagetospiraeoso-Mercurialidosum, 

also Ulmeto-Fraxineto–Aceretum occur. 

28

The beech forests with an admixture of coniferous species Abies alba and Picea abies 

have remained as undisturbed relict ones in the north-eastern part of the cluster (Luzhanka 

River basin) due to its colder climate. Some fragments of the relict Picea abies forests with an 

admixture mixture of Betula pendula are present on these rocks. 

Within the “Uholka-Shyrokyi Luh” cluster 725 species of the Vascular Plants grow. 27 

of them (viz., Listera ovata, Platanthera bifolia, Erytronium dens-canis, Atropa belladonna, 

etc.) are included into the “Red Book of Ukraine” (1996), and two species (Pulmonaria 

filarszkyana and Silene dubia) into the “European Red List” (1992). Within 160 moss species 

the most characteristic ones are Sphagnum acutifolium and Polytrichum commune, as well as 

Hookeria lucens, and lichenes (ca. 180 sp.) from Cladonia, Cetraria, also Lobaria 

pulmonaria and Usnea florida, algae (ca. 140 sp.) and fungi (ca. 100 sp) Clavariadelphus 

pistillaris, Mutinus caninus, Amanita caesarea (all of them included into the “Red Book of 

Ukraine”). 


The fauna of beech virgin forests in this cluster is rich. Animal species usual for the 

Carpathians occur here together with the species regarded as rare or unique. The ungulates 

Cervus elaphus, Capreolus capreolus, Sus scrofa are usual dwellers of this site, and 

carnivores Vulpes vulpes, Martes martes, Putorius putorius are usual here too. Beech virgin 

forests are a shelter for the rare mammals: Lynx lynx, Ursus arctos, Mustela erminea, M. 

lutreola, Meles meles, Neomys anomalus, and Sorex alpinus (54 sp. all in all). Being very 

rare, Felis silvestris is a permanent dweller of this territory. Fauna of Cheiroptera is very rich 

too, and most Cheiroptera species live in carst caves. Within 20 species of bats occuring here, 

8 species are regarded as the unique and endangered. The winter colonies of Cheiroptera 

hibernating in local karst caves are probably the most numerous in Europe. 

A large number of old hollow tree-trunks is a characteristic feature of this site, and they 

shelter a lot of animals (viz., Myotis bechsteinii, Nyctalus leisleri), as well as birds nesting in 

hollows (viz., Strix uralensis, Aegolius funereus, Glaucidium passerinum, etc.), and also all 

the species of woodpeckers usual for the deciduous biome. 

Buteo buteo, Cinclus cinclus, Corvus corax, Turdus merula, Columba oenas, 

Troglodytes troglodytes, Bubo bubo and other birds occur here too (ca. 100 sp.), together with 

woodpeckers Dendrocopos medius, D. leucotos, Picus canus and others. Within this cluster 

one to two couples of Ciconia nigra nest every year, and it is well known that they can nest 

only in the virgin forest, without any human intrusion. 

29

There are reptilies Lacerta vivipara and L. agilis, and also Elaphe longissima which 

became very rare in its habitat and therefore they are included into the “International Red 

Data Book”. 

The most usual amphibians in beech forests are Salamandra salamandra, Bombina 

variegata and Rana temporaria including endemic Triturus montandoni and T. cristatus. 

The fish species Cottus gobio, Cobitis taenia, Phoxynus phoxynus occur in the mountain 

streams and rivers of this cluster (ca. 10 sp.), meanwhile, the endemic Hucho hucho comes up 

here from the Danube River basin in the period of spawning. A rare species Eduonthomyzon 

danfordi (Cyclostomata) also occur here. 

Insects are represented mainly by the Middle European species, viz., rare Osmoderma 

eremita, Lucanus cervus, Rosalia alpina, Cerambyx cerdo, Aglia tau, Parnassius mnemosinae 

and some others. 

Invertebrates are several thousands species including ca. 100 Lepidoptera species, 150 

Orthoptera and ca. 70 Mollusca species, etc. 

The fauna of invertebrates-troglobions dwelling in the karst caves includes a lot of 

narrow endemics. The carst caves of the Uholjka-Shyrokyi Luh cluster is the only place in the 

world where Duvalius transcarpaticus (Carabidae, Coleoptera) and Willemia virae 

(Collembola) occur. Besides, the rare Mollusca species dwell within the cluster, viz., 

Granaria frumentum, Serrulina serrulata and Chondrula bielzi occur here too. 

30

2.a.10 Vihorlat (Slovak Republic) 


Vihorlat is a large complex of beech primeval forests extending along the the arc of the 

main range of the Vihorlat Mts. It runs from Mt. Kyjov in the South-West over Mt. Motrogon 

to Mt. Nežabec in the North and ends south of Mt. Fetkov in the South-East. It encompasses 

the Vihorlat National Nature Preserve on Mt. Kyjov. South of the village of Kamienka, it 

belongs administratively to Humenné District. The complex spans an altitudinal range from 

630 to 1076 metres above sea level, and is classified into the moderately cold mountainous 

climatic type. Mean annual temperature is 5.2 to 5.7 °C and the growing season lasts 132−139 

days. Annual precipitation is 950−1000 mm, and snow cover occurs 152–160 days a year. 

The bedrock in the reserve is composed of andesite rocks of the Kyjov stratovolcano. 

There are lava flows of pyroxenic andesite, and less frequently, autochthonic sinters and 

pyroclastic breccias. Andosols, mainly a transitional type toward the Cambisols, have 

developed on andesites of the Vihorlat Mountains. It is worth mentioning here that in addition 

to their excellent air-water properties, these soils contain ample quantities of basic nutrients 

such as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, and magnesium. All six of the 

physiologically important microelements, namely iron, manganese, copper, zinc, 

molybdenum, and boron, are also present in these soils. They are present not only in sufficient 

total content, but in a ratio favourable to life, i.e., preventing the potential antagonistic action 

of some of these elements. Boron is exceptionally important for plant growth, in a way similar 

to vitamin C in animals. The excellent soil properties found in the reserve are reflected in the 

high stability, productivity, and good health of its ecosystems, which contain 240-year-old 

specimens of beech, even when viewed in a broader European context. 

Biota 

Beech forests in the reserve are characterised by the absence of both spruce and fir. 

Hardwoods such as sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) and common ash (Fraxinus excelsior), 

however, are found in the preserve’s forests due to its rocky andesite substrate. These species 

form so-called „scree forests“ patches dominated by herbaceous species such as belladonna 

scopola (Scopolía carniolica), comfrey (Symphytum cordatum) and the beautiful, decorative 

species oxeye daisy (Telekia speciosa). These species are accompanied by some suboceanic 

and oceanic species such as Aposeris foetida and yellow pimpernel (Lysimachia nemorum), 

which in combination form the typical East Carpathian communities found on volcanic 

substrates. Mountain species are also present, such as willow gentian (Gentiana asclepiadea), 

31

oad-leaved meadow grass (Poa chaixii), Scrophularia sciopolii, and others. 

Vihorlatský Primeval Forest National Nature Reserve is an example of primary beech 

forest with an area of 250-300 ha, with distinctively variable diameter and height structure. 

Typical selection structure is very rare, occurring only in small patches of forest where 

senescence is very gradual and characterised by the dying of individual trees. Due to this fact, 

the regeneration stage in the forest exceeds 60 years. Most often, the senescence stage lasts 

less than 60 years, and thus the stands often have a two-layer structure. These two-layered 

stands are characterised by a richly differentiated lower overstorey and a sparsely represented 

upper overstorey in the latter phases of the senescence stage. The whole developmental cycle 

of these forests lasts 220-230 years, out of which 50-70 years are in the senescence stage, 90- 

110 years are in the maturation stage, and 60-80 years are in the optimum stage. 

The fauna on beech is less diverse than that on oak, even though these trees are 

taxonomically related to each other. Around the time of spring leaf-out, large cinnamonorange 

butterflies can be seen fluttering playfully in the beech forests on sunny days. These 

are males of beech asturnid (Aglia tau) seeking females who hide on lower branches. Solitary 

brown caterpillars of the lobster moth (Stauropus fagi), resembling giant ants, can also be 

observed near beech at this time of year. Another interesting caterpillar, Watsonalla cultraria, 

resembles dry leaves. 

The complex is a part of the Vihorlat Protected Landscape Area, which has a large 

number of natural landmarks, such as Morské Oko (Sea Eye) Lake, a remnant of the historical 

relief-forming processes in the area. This lake was formed in the Holocene period in a way 

typical for lakes of young volcanic mountain ranges. Andesites, released by the weathering of 

accompanying soft tuffs, fell from the surrounding slopes and blocked a valley that contained 

a small mountain brook. Water gradually filled the dammed edge of the valley, forming 

a lake. Remnants of the edge of the lava flow, called Sninský kameň, tower above the lake 

affording a beautiful view. Another noteworthy feature of the reserve is that it contains peat 

lands with populations of the carnivorous plant round-leafed sundew (Drosera rotundifolia). 

32

2.b History and Development: 

Forest tree species were not present, except for exceptions, on the territory of Western 

and partly Eastern Carpathians in the glacial period. They survived this period in so-called 

glacial refuges, that is to say in sheltered sites with the most favorable climatic conditions, 

usually located in southern Europe (Fig. 1). Refuge localization and migration routes can be 

reconstructed using analyses of fossilized pollen and fireplace carbon remnants from the 

Neolithic settlements. Furthermore, gene structure of current tree species populations also 

reflects the post-glacial distribution process. Extraordinary is that the vegetation belt of 

European Beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) and fir currently forming the chief area of Ukrainian and 

Slovak forests reached the territory on which the serial nomination extends as the last one in 

the Atlantic and promptly “sneaked” itself in between already established belts of spruce and 

sessile oak. 

During last Würm glacial period, beech found its refuges in the Balkans area, namely 

the Dinare Mountains and the Southern Carpathians, on the Italian Peninsula and in some less 

important sanctuaries by the Mediterranean Sea. Majority of current European beech 

populations come from Balkan refuges. Towards the end of Boreal climatic period, beech 

began to expand in the Southern Carpathians and on the territory of nowadays Slovenia. 

Beech reached Western and Eastern Carpathian territory in an Epiatlantic period 5.000 years 

ago. Beech expansion proceeded most probably along the Carpathians ridges from the southeast, 

the results of genetical analyses. Ever since the Subboreal period beech represents 

dominant deciduous tree species in the region of interest thus forming a backbone of 

numerous primeval forest preserves. 

Fig. 1: Start-up position of the European beech expansion 

Following the Boreal climatic period. See the gif animation on 

CD No. 1 (Migration of beech.gif) 

33

Whereas the during the 1 st and 2 nd colonization waves in the 11 th –12 th and 13 th –15 th 

centuries the agriculture advanced to altitudes 200–300 m a.s.l. or 500 m a.s.l. respectively, 

during the Valachian (pastoral) colonisation in the 15 th –17 th centuries the upper timeberline of 

formerly intact forests was depressed and the mountains meadows (so called Poloniny) spread 

mainly in the mountain zone on the mountain ridges. Still, due to low population density in 

the mountain areas, large tracts of beech primeval forests remained intact. In the Vihorlat Mts. 

for instance, several thousand hectares of beech primeval forests were untouched until 1950, 

also due to low demand for beech wood and other factors, such as remoteness or use of forests 

owned by nobles (such as the House of Andrassy) as hunting districts (Korpeľ 1989). This 

picture is supported by written evidence issued by the State District Forest Authority in Chust 

(Ukraine), saying that “the whole surrounding area north of Chust is covered by intact pure 

beech stands featuring old trees of age 180 years old” and that they “will remain intact due to 

remoteness and bad access” (Delehan 2005). 

2.b. 1 Chornohora (Ukraine) 

The nature protection on the Chornohora Mountain Ridge has started before the First 

World War, and spruce and beech-fir-spruce virgin forests on the southern-western slopes of 

the Hoverla Mt. in the upper part of the Bilyi (White) Stream basin (120.6 ha) began 

protected at that time. Afterwards the conservation of these sites continued, and the Czech 

botanists Zlatnik and Hilitcer (1932) supported the enlarging of the territory of the Nature 

Reserve here till ca. 242 ha. 

The new protected clusters had been designated here after the Second World War, and all 

of them were the base for establishing in 1968 the Carpathian State Reserve consisted of four 

isolated massifs united into two complexes, the foregoing Uholka (4.734 ha) and Chornohora 

(7.938 ha). The latter one consisted of three sites: Chornohirskyi (2.100 ha), Hoverlianskyi 

(3.927 ha) and Vysokohirnyi (1.911 ha). The first one was located on the southern macroslope 

of the Chornohora, while Hoverlianskyi and Vysokohirnyi site on its northern macroslope. In 

1980 the northern sites were withdrawn from the territory of the Carpathian State Reserve as 

the core zone of the Carpathian National Nature Park. Meanwhile, in 1990 the territory of the 

Chornohora cluster was sufficiently enlarged (by 2.577 ha more), and as a result, the upland 

part of the southern macroslope of the Hoverla Mt., as well as some very valuable sites on the 

slopes of the Petros Mt., were added to the initial part of this cluster. 

According to the Decree of the President of Ukraine No. 563/93, the Carpathian State 

Reserve was the base for designation of the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve (CBR) in 1993. 

34

Due to it, the buffer zone of the CBR has been greatly extended. In 1997 the Kevelivskyi 

Reserve (together with its adjusted territories, viz., Svydovets) was added to the CBR. As a 

result, the large continuous natural complex has been created including 24 071.8 ha of the 

territory. In a close future we hope to enlarge the territory of the Chornohora cluster and to 

unite it with the Maramorosh cluster located to the west from the initial one. 

2.b.2 Havešová (Slovak Republic) 

The core area of the site is 171.32 ha and the buffer zone is 63.99 ha. The site has been 

designated as a National Nature Reserve in 1964 as a part of a larger complex of intact beech 

pimeval forests in the Nastaz Range. 

2.b.3 Kuziy-Trybushany (Ukraine) 

The nature protection at the territory of the Kuziy-Trybushany cluster was realized since 

XVII century because its northern part was used as a hunting forest of the Prince Eugene of 

Savoy, and afterwards these unique forests were under attention and protection of the Austro- 

Hungarian Governments. Since 1936 the Kuziy Reserve was arranged here with an area 292.8 

ha. In 1974 it became the Kuziy State Reserve and in 1990 it became a part of the Carpathian 

State Reserve. A sufficient extension of the cluster’s boundaries took place in 1997 while the 

well-preserved forest massif was joined to it, and as a result, its territory included 4.533 ha. 

In the nearest future a new territory enlargement of the Kuziy-Trybushany cluster would 

be arranged, and after that Kuziy-Trybushany will join with the Svydovets and Maramorosh 

clusters disposed at the north and east correspondingly. 

2.b.4 Maramorosh (Ukraine) 

As long as in 1912 exactly here the first forest natural reserve within the Carpathians was 

arranged, and it was “Lysychyi-Strunzhen” (“Pip Ivan Marmaroshskyi”), with area 221.9 ha. 

Later, in 1932, under support of Zlatnik and Hizler its territory was enlarged till 412.2 ha. 

Besides, in the 1930s, another Natural Reserve (High-Mountain Meadow Petros-Hripka) was 

arranged here under protection of all the adjusted territories. After the Second World War 

the Bilyi Potik and the Radomir Reserves were restored as the National Heredity Reserves 

and afterwards they were united into the one continuous Maramorosh massif (with an area of 

3.155 ha) which was moved to the Carpathian State Reserve. 

35

After the re-arrangement of the Carpathian State Reserve into the Carpathian Biosphere 

Reserve by the Decree of the President¹ 563/93 (1993), the buffer zone of the Maramorosh 

cluster was sufficiently enlarged, and in 1997 its territory was enlarged till 8.474 ha. 

In the nearest future a new boundary extension of the Maramorosh cluster in planned to 

be held, and it would be realistic to unite the Marmarosh cluster with another two clusters 

(Chornohora and Kuziy-Trybushany) located to the north and west respectively. The integrity 

of this territory with the “Maramures Mountain National Nature Park” (Romania) is an 

essential background for the arrangement here the Ukrainian-Romanian bilateral Biosphere 

Reserve “The Maramorosh Mountains”. At present time the great work conducts for its 

designation and arrangement. 

2.b.5 Rožok (Slovak Republic) 

The core area of the site is 67,1 ha and the buffer zone is 41,4 ha. The site has been 

designated as a National Nature Reserve in 1965 as a segment of a larger complex of beech 

primeval forests in the Bukovské Vrchy Mts. 

2.b.6 Stužica − Bukovské Vrchy (Slovak Republic) 

It is a part of the new A-zone of the Poloniny National Park and encompasses several 

national nature preserves, most notably Stužica, Rjaba Skala, Pľaša and Udava, which were 

designated in 1965. Due to its size, the reserve ranks among the largest mountain-type 

primeval forest reserves in Europe. 

2.b.7 Stuzhytsia-Uzhok (Ukraine) 

The Stuzhytsya Reserve was established by the decree of the Ministry for Agriculture 

and Forestry of the Austria-Hungarian Empire still in 1908, and it probably was the first 

Reserve within both the Precarpathian Rus and Ukraine. In 19934-1936 Zlatnik established 

here four permanent plots for the dendrometric and phytocenotic study. One of these plots 

was situated exactly at the foot of the Kremenets Mt. (1.221 m above sea level) adjusted to 

beech crooked woodland at the edge of the upper part of the forest belt and it exists here at 

present time being in the centre of interests of biologists of the Uzhansky National Nature 

Park (UNNP) together with the biologists of the Mendel University for Agriculture and 

Forestry (Brno, Czech Republic - MUAF). Meanwhile, Zlatnik arranged the similar research 

plots on the Yavirnyk Mt. (elevation 1.017 m) with the total area 12.9 ha. 

36

Within the territory of the Uzhansky National Nature Park, the beech primeval forests at 

the territory 3.000 ha are under protection. The large massifs of the undisturbed primeval 

forests are situated in the Novo-Stuzhytske forestry (north-western mesoslope of the Ravka 

Mt.), Lubyanske forestry (Vezha Mt.) and also in the Uzhotske forestry (Rozsypanets, 

Kinchyk-Bukovskiy Mts. and some others). 

2.b.8 Svydovets (Ukraine) 

The first reserve here was established is 1936 by the Government of the Czech Republic, 

and it was restored by the Government of the Soviet Union in 1974 only as the Svidovets 

Reserve. Approximately at the same time the “Blyznytsy Rocks Reserve” was arranged for 

conservation of the High-Mountain flora. In 1997 these two sites were united into the 

foregoing Svydovets cluster of the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve which covers areas on the 

north-western and north-eastern macroslopes of the Svydovets Ridge. At present time this 

cluster close to the Chornohora cluster represents one natural-territorial complex. Besides, in 

the nearest future it is planned to unite this cluster to the Kuziy-Trybushany cluster located to 

the south. 

2.b.9 Uholka-Shyrokyi Luh. 

The great role of the virgin ecosystems of the “Uholka-Shyrokyi Luh” cluster for science 

and nature protection was noted by many outstanding botanists a lot of years ago, since 30-th 

of the XIX century. While the Transcarpathia was an essential part of the Czech Republic, 

Zlatnik (1930) proposed to arrange here the Luzhanskyi Virgin Forest Reserve at the territory 

1.404 ha. Afterwards the Uholka Reserve was arranged only in 1958 and the close Shyrokyi 

Luh Reserve in 1964 (in limits of the former Soviet Union). Exactly in 1968 the Carpathian 

State Reserve was arranged, and the Uholka Reserve was included into it. In 1980 the 

Shyrokyi Luh Reserve was joined to the Carpathian State Reserve. At last in 1993 the 

Carpathian Biosphere Reserve was arranged at the base of the Carpathian State Reserve, and 

its buffer zone was extended to 4.650 ha. As a whole, this action of the Government of 

Ukraine has evidently had a great advantage for protection and conservation of the virgin 

forests within the Ukrainian Carpathians, Ukraine and Central Europe as a whole. 

2.b.10 Vihorlat 

In the Vihorlat Mts., several thousand hectares of beech primeval forests remained 

untouched due to low demand for beech wood and other factors, such as remoteness or use of 

37

forests owned by nobles (such as the House of Andrassy) as hunting districts (Korpeľ 1989). 

The territory has been designated Protected Landscape Area and protected since 1973. The 

nominated property is part of its currently proposed A-zone (Ia conservation regime according 

to IUCN) and encompasses several national nature preserves, most important among them are 

Vihorlat, Jedlinka and Motrogon. The property is connected with the Kyjov Primeval Forest 

through a connecting ecological corridor. 

38

3. Justification of Inscription 

The beech primeval forests once extended over approximately 40 % of the European 

continent, but the remnants of pure beech natural forests are now comprised to remnants in 

the Carpathians. Their ecological processes, autoregulation, homeostasis and autoreproduction 

are based on undisturbed biogeochemical cycles as well as on natural species composition that 

in turn evolved as a result of post-glacial climate changes and species migration. The 

ecological processes ensure, among other features, an extremely high ecological stability of 

beech forests in terms of both resistance and resilience, despite a simple coenotic structure. 

The European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) represents the main climax tree species in Central 

Europe and an important forest constituent in an area extending from the north of Spain and 

the south of England and Sweden to the east of Poland, the Carpathian Arc and down to the 

south of the Balkan Peninsula and the Apennine Peninsula, i. e. in the biogeographical 

provinces Atlantic (2.9.05), Central European Highlands (2.32.12), Pannonian (2.12.5) and 

Balkan Highlands (2.33.12). The representation of ecological processes characteristic of 

Europe’s beech natural forests in the proposed serial nomination is therefore of global value 

and significance. 

3.a Criteria under which inscription is proposed (and justification for inscription under 

these criteria): 

As “natural features consisting of physical and biological formations or groups of such 

formations, which are of outstanding universal value from the aesthetic or scientific point of 

view” and “natural sites or precisely delineated natural areas of outstanding universal value 

from the point of view of science, conservation or natural beauty”, the serial nomination 

“Beech Primeval Forests of the Carpathians” is proposed for inscription under the following 

criteria according to Paragraph 77 of the operational guidelines: 

Criterium (ix): The serial nomination “Beech Primeval Forests of the Carpathians” 

contains outstanding examples representing significant on-going ecological and biological 

processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial (forest) ecosystems and communities 

of their plants and animals. As a natural feature, it consists of a biological formation – climax 

temperate beech primeval forests with largely monospecific canopy. The development of this 

formation is an indispensable part of the phylogenetic history of the genus Fagus, which is, 

given the distribution of Fagus in the Northern Hemisphere, globally significant. The 

nominated series does most completely and comprehensively reflects the ecological patterns 

39

of pure stands of European beech, which is the most important constituent of forests in the 

Temperate Broad-leaf Forest Biome, in the Middle European Forest (2.11.05) biogeographical 

province and partly in the biome of mixed mountain systems. The value of the nominated 

beech forests does consist both in the status of European beech as originally the main forest 

constituent (after the the return of tree species banished from Central Europe during the ice 

ages was complete) in Europe, but also in their intrinsic ecological patterns as seen from the 

viewpoint ecology, i. e. complete stadial and developmental cycles that include all 

developmental stages. The serial nomination features unique characteristics of Europe’s 

primary, indigenous, undisturbed, unique, complex (and therefore outstanding) forest 

ecosystems with Europe’s most typical tree species 3 as their main edificator. At the same 

time, it is the last best conserved remnant of monodominant beech forests that once covered 

large tracts of Europe. The characteristics include the absolute hegemony of European beech, 

its competitiveness, autoregulation and homeostasis capacity and adaptation to changing 

environmental conditions. The serial nomination represents highly productive and extremely 

stable ecosystems on mesotrophic substrates of cristalline rocks, flysh, calcareous rock 

(limestones) and volcanic rock (andesite), with no other tree species able to compete with the 

beech trees on a significant scale. The overall site conditions allow the beech to reach heights 

up to 56 m – tallest European beech trees measured. The formation is sustained by 

undisturbed biogeochemical cycles as an indispensable part of this formation. 

The developmental cycle of the beech primeval forests in the nominated properties lasts 

230–250 (Fig. 2). During that period, their textural composition fluctuates only little and the 

aerial representation of individual developmental stages is balanced over areas as small as 20– 

30 ha. European beech population is so well established on the respective sites that no other 

species, even other C-strategists such as silver fir, are able to co-exist there, except for small 

patches conditioned by micro-relief. The underlying ecological processes are so articulate that 

beech forests in this area have defied every attempt to convert them into spruce monocultures 

(Míchal 1992). Stands with various phases (stages) of vital cycle are available in the primeval 

forests. These distinctly different types of stands are called “developmental stages” 

(Leibundgut, 1978). All the stages of forest development are represented in the primeval 

forests. They are such as the optimum stage, old growth, decay, and regeneration of selected 

forest and undergrowth. Along with a greatly mosaics nature according to developmental 

stages, the stands are characterized by a great variability of stand structures. This may be 

3 

Also able to form mixed forests with a broad range of other species when site conditions allow for their 

establishment. 

40

illustrated by the inventory data of beech primeval forest on a 10 ha Ukrainian-Swiss 

permanent plot in Uholka – Shyrokyi Luh. Variability of forest taxation data of the 40 plots 

within the 10 hectare inventory plot are given in Table 2 and Fig. 3. Their vigorous growth, 

vitality and dynamics of beech and its stands document the fact that they grow in their 

physiological and ecological optima. 

Tab. 2: Taxation parameters taken in Uholka – Shyrokyi Luh 

Main forest taxation data of the stand (10 

ha plot) 

Mean Min. Max 

Number of living trees per 1 ha 217 140 336 

Cross cut diameter (m 2 ) 38.4 22 51.8 

Standing volume (living trees) per 1 ha (m 3 ) 767 421 1042 

Volume of dead wood (m 3 ) 73 0 308 

Mean diameter (cm) 39.4 21.8 54.4 

Mean diameter of dominant layer (cm) 63.1 42.3 74.1 

Mean height of dominant 

layer (m) 

40.2 33.6 42.8 

Fig. 2: 220-year-long life cycle of beech 

primeval forest in Havešová (Slovakia) 

Number of trees per ha 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42 46 50 54 58 62 66 70 74 78 82 86 90 94 98 102 106 110 114 

Diameter class, cm 

Fig. 3: Distribution Figure. Distribution of trees of number according of trees according to to diameter diameter class class in 

Uholka – Shyrokyi Luh (Uholka) 

Data in Tab. 3 illustrate the extremely fast decomposition of coarse woody debris due to 

activity of xylobitic organisms, which entirely decompose the logs within 6−7 years. The 

existence of these monodominant beech forests allows for a long-term research of beech 

primeval forests, which represents a significant added value from the point of science; the 

respective localities have been subject to a periodical, 50 year long systematic forestry and 

ecological research using a common methodical, internationally accepted approach (Zlatník et 

al. 1938, Stoiko 1973, Korpeľ 1989, Parpan 1994, Saniga, Schütz 2001, Vološčuk 2003, 

Commarmot 2005, Brang 2005). The value of this complex research is enhanced by the 

overall excellent conservation of entire ecosystems including plants and animals (including 

41

own bear, lynx, wolf, locally also wisent, elk and other species) being in a constant 

interaction and functioning in a functional unity. Owing to ongoing global changes, such 

research can not be reproduced any more as the initial and boundary conditions have changed 

reproducible. 

Criterium (x): The serial nomination “Beech Primeval Forests of the Carpathians” 

contains the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of 

biological diversity, including those containing endangered species of outstanding universal 

value from the point of view of science or conservation. Its conservation value consists in the 

protection of the only remaining intact populations of pure beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) and the 

protection of European beech gene pool, not limited in the past through selection or 

interventions by man, but formed solely by natural processes. The beech primeval forest of 

the nominated series therefore also provide an invaluable opportunity to study the 

evolutionary history of Fagus in western Eurasia based on the evidence from genes, 

morphology and the fossil record (Denk et al. 2002, 2004). 

The serial nomination also includes habitats of entomofauna, avifauna and of some 

mammal species (e. g. bats) bound to habitats existing only in primeval forests, as well as 

their intact mycoflora (484 species recorded to date). The series contains gene pools of 

autochthonous organisms and habitats providing favourable living conditions for globally 

endangered species, numerous species of entomofauna (Osmoderma eremita) bound to the 

trees necromass, hollow nesting birds dependent on presence of old standing trees (Strix 

uralensis), as well as a complete mycoflora of the Carpathian beech forests. Habitats of a 

number of animal species practically correspond to distribution of beech forests within the 

continent. The survival of numerous vulnerable species directly depends upon beech forests 

conservation. They are such species as Dendrocopos leucotos, Myotis myotis, M. bechsteinii, 

Rosalia alpina etc. Myotis myotis is a rare fauna species of the continent and, listed in 

Annexes 2 of the Bonn and Bern Conventions. Karst caves of the Uholka – Shyrokyi Luh 

cluster serve as hibernation shelters for thousands of bats. Dynamics of number of this species 

during hibernation is given in Table 4. Myotis bechsteinii is a globally rare species and is 

listed in Annexes 2 of Bonn and Bern Conventions. As a typical dendrophillous species, 

during a year it is directly bound to tree-trunk hollows. Availability of hollow trees is for that 

matter the main limiting factor for this species, though still abundantly available across the 

serial nomination, where there have been registered parent colonies of Myotis bechsteinii with 

hundreds of bats during the last decade. 

42

Tab. 4: Dynamics of number of Myotis myotis during hibernation in the Karst caves of the Uholka – Shyrokyi 

Luh 

Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Nos. of 495 

bats 

719 658 687 978 988 1016 1020 985 1076 1120 1007 1145 1056 

Criterium (vii): The serial nomination “Beech Primeval Forests of the Carpathians” 

evidently contains areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance. Indeed, this 

argument can not be discarded in the face of the real impact that the appearance of Europe’s 

primeval forests has exerted on the mindset of people and artists in particular, who in turn 

have hugely influenced our culture and standards by which we perceive and measure beauty 

and aesthetical quality – Czeslaw Milosz, a 1980 Nobel Prize winner in literature. He wrote: 

“The interiors of certain Gothic cathedrals − Strasbourg, for example − replicate man's 

smallness and helplessness in his middle zone between hell and heaven, amid the columns of 

the primeval forests which still covered large areas of Europe when the cathedrals were 

built” 4 . Translated in the language of science, the nominated series’ aesthetic value resides in 

the original tree species composition, structure and monumental dimensions of trees, the 

amount of impressively looking trees necromass that according to perception research 

accounts to their wild look, documented by early historians (e. g. Herodotus of Halicarnassus, 

Tacitus). According to the modern science of the imaginary, European primeval forests 

became one of the important imaginative sources, from which the Gothic architecture 

developed. The works of Eliade 5 , Le Goff 6 , Matteoli 7 , Schama 8 and Ovidian 9 have 

documented how the image of heaven in Christianity mixed with the image of wild forests. 

The hall-way, cathedral-like appearance and pattern of the nominated properties features 

easily recognizable, featuring full-boled, tall, straight trunks of beech trees. Despite a less 

dramatic character of the local landscapes, the beauty and impact of the primeval forest look 

(of similar beech or oak forests that once covered a great deal of the European continent) on 

the aesthetical perception of the Gothic thinkers and architects are well documented. 

According to Matteoli (1994), “The forest, an overwhelming presence of the great North, is 

4 

Czeslaw Milosz (b. 1911), Lithuanian-born Polish poet. “Symbolic Mountains and Forests”, Visions from San 

Francisco Bay, Farrar Straus (1982) 

5 

Eliade, M., 1952: Images and symbols 

6 

Le Goff, J., 1984: Medieval Imagination 

7 

Matteoli, L., 1994: Notes for a history of glass in architecture: the Cathedrals 

8 

Schama, S., 1995: Landscape and Memory 

9 

Mircean, O., 2002: At the Confines of the Imaginary: The Desert 

For full quotations see Chapter VII. Bibliography 

43

the genius loci of the Gothic church. The tall tree trunks become columns, the ogive vaults 

replicate the arching of the branches connecting the trees high above. The forest/cathedral is 

home to northern imagery. Fairies, fantastic animals, ghosts, monsters peek out from every 

corner and receptacle.” The scenery of the beech primeval forests of the nominated series is 

unique both in Europe and in the world in this context − the cathedral growths of the North- 

Pacific coast have been discovered by the Europeans after the Gothic period had long ended. 

The images of the beech primeval forests bred mermaids in Slavic legends, Celts inhabited 

these forests with dryads, and Germanic tribes believed that elfs dwelt among those fairy-like 

trees. Also today, these forests are of a paramount significance in the traditional view of 

nature both in Slovakia and Ukraine. 

3.b Proposed Statement of Outstanding Universal Value 

The transnational nominated series “Beech primeval forests of the Carpathians” as a 

whole provides a superior representation of undisturbed biological and ecological processes in 

the monodominant mesotrophic European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) primeval forests on a 

wide range of substrates, in terms of area, growth and the assurance of conservation 

management. Such forests once extended over approximately 40 % of the European continent, 

but the anthropogenic pressure led to their nearly entire elimination on mesotrophic sites on 

other territories. Now their remnants are comprised mainly to the parts of the Carpathians due 

to a limited extent or the absence of industrial developments. 

The undisturbed ecological processes within the transnational nominated series result in 

a high ecological stability and dynamics that leads to the formation of hall-like structural 

primeval forest patterns on mesotrophic sites. Beech primeval forests of the transnational 

nominated series reach the highest average growing stock and feature a rich structure. Along 

with a balanced spatial arrangement of developmental stages, it results in the occurrence of 

record tree dimensions within the ergodic process of the developmental cycle. These patterns 

manifest outstanding aesthetical values and thereby strongly influenced aesthetical and 

landscape perceptions of the European civilization. 

The beech primeval forests of the nominated series also contain genetic pools and 

provide habitats for numerous endangered species, including xylobiotic fungi, insects, hollownesting 

birds and large mammals, such as brown bear, wolf, lynx, wisent and others. 

Furthermore, several decades-long scientific research, carried out specifically in the 

transnational nominated series, strongly contributed to the development of the concept of 

44

close-to-nature forestry on the global scale. Also, the nominated series offers a unique etalon 

for the assessment of anthropogenic pressures on other forest ecosystems. 

45

3.c Comparative analysis (including state of conservation of similar properties): 

Where were the beech trees? 

Simon Schama: Landscape and memory 

Comparative analysis within the biogeographical province Middle European Forest 

(2.11.5) 

Slovak Republic: several other localities than those included in the serial nomination contain 

very good examples of pure beech primeval forests, e. g. Vtáčnik (246 ha) in the Vtáčnik 

Range, Raštún (109 ha) in the Lower Carpathians, Vozárska (77 ha) in the Ore Mts. and 

others that however do exist outside the main European beech belt of the West Carpathians. 

The nearly monodominant tree species composition formed due to special position of the 

Lower Carpathians on the outer NW rim of the West Carpathians having typical oceanic 

climate owing to the “comb” effect, the combined effect of migratory routes and geobarriers, 

or soil. The main forest areas with the monodominant European beech however extend in the 

Eastern part of the country over tens of thousands of hectares, where properties of the serial 

nomination have been selected as best examples creating a contiguous complex or such that 

can be easily connected by ecological corridors. 

Poland and Belorussia: Beech Primeval Forests of the Carpathians as elements of the 

nominated series belong to the biogeographical province Middle European Forest (2.11.05). 

There is only one world heritage site that partly represents natural forests of the province 

on its border with the Boreonemoral biogeographical province (2.10.5), namely the 

Bialowieza Forest / Beloweyhskaya Pushcha, included in 1979. The Bialowieza Virgin Forest 

features some 20 major forest associations typical of that part of Europe, mainly Tilio- 

Carpinetum and Querco-Carpinetum. The virgin forest is dominated by spruce (Picea abies), 

pine (Pinus sylvestris), hornbeam (Carpinus betulus), lime (Tilia cordata), alder (Alnus 

glutinosa), oak (Quercus robur), maple (Acer platanoides), ash (Fraxinus excelsior), birch 

(Betula pubescens, B. verrucosa) and aspen (Populus tremula), whereas beech (Fagus 

sylvatica), yew (Taxus baccata) and larch (Larix decidua) are missing almost entirely. 

In a stark contrast to Bialowieza Forest, the serial nomination “Beech Primeval Forests of 

the Carpathians” encompasses forest associations whose main or sole constituent is the 

European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.). The most abundant among them are Fagetum pauper 

and Fagetum typicum. However, opportunities for extension of the presented serial 

46

nomination by Polish beech primeval forest reserves in the Biesczady National Park shall be 

considered providing a consent of the Polish authorities in the future. 

In the Czech Republic, primeval forests quoted by Pruša (1985), e. g. Salajka (19,30 ha), 

Polom (19,40 ha), Razula (23,20 ha), Mionší and others are small fragments of mixed beechfir 

ecosystems (

Comparative analysis within comparable biogeographical provinces 

Beside the above discussed countries and the serial nomination “Beech Primeval Forests 

of the Carpathians” itself, there are a few remains of close-to-nature beech forests in 

comparable biogeofraphical provinces in Europe: 

• Atlantic (2.9.05), Central European Highlands (2.32.12) 

Fragments of previously disturbed, now close-to-nature beech forests in France: 

Fontainebleau (136 ha, La Tillaie reserve; Grassy oak forest in 8 th century, and last cut over in 

1372. Described in 1664 as high forest with mature beech, oak, and some hornbeam and lime. 

Protected since 1853; longest untreated reserve in NW Europe.), Sainte Baume (isolated, 

species-rich beech forest of the Sainte-Baume range of Provence, characterized by the strong 

representation of evergreen undergrowth), la Massane in the East Pyréneés (in the past 

intensively used for grazing, charcoal production etc.). 

A 250-year-old beech forest in Val Cervara (Abruzzo NP) with an area of 100 ha, with 

some 500 year old specimen (Piovesan et al. 2005). The old-growth stand is however not 

embedded into a larger complex of natural beech forest. 

There are numerous primeval forest preserves in Austria (159 ha in total). They are 

located mainly in impenetrable terrain of the carbonate Alps. The Rothwald reserve is located 

in the Lower Austrian Calcareous Alps on the eastern side of the Dürrenstein (1878 m), near 

the border to Styria. With 412 ha and is thus the largest and most important natural forest area 

in Austria. The pine-fir-beech primeval forest community is characterized by dense stands of 

several hundred year old trees. However, in 1994 reserves in beech forests and oak-hornbeam 

mixed forests were missing and there is no contiguous complex of beech primeval forests left 

in that country. 

It follows from the above data that there are no comparable beech primeval forests left in 

countries falling in the biogeographic provinces Atlantic (2.9.05) and Central European 

Highlands (2.32.12). 

• Balkan Highlands (2.33.12) 

According to literature sources (Leibundgut 1993, Dajoz 2000), primeval forests remains, 

significant in terms of quantity, structure, texture and overall representativness (except for 

complexes of boreal forests in the West Eurasian Taiga biogeographical province, 2.3.3.) have 

been preserved in the countries of the Central Europe, in the former Yougoslavia and some 

other countries in the Balkans. This fact has already been reflected in the inscription of 

Plitvice Lakes NP, Durmitor NP (Republic of Montenegro) and Pirin NP (Bulgaria) on the 

48

world natural heritage list within the Balkan Highland biogeographical province (2.33.12). 

They can briefly be characterised as follows: There have been 11 forest associations described 

in the Pirin NP, from which four include beech forests (Ostrio-Fagetum moesiacae, Fagetum 

moesiacae 10 , Abieto-Fagetum, Aceri-Fagetum). The Parangalica forest preserve famous for 

the extraordinary standing volume of its forests is composed of spruce. 

There are five forest preserves in the Durmitor NP: Crna Poda (devoted to the protection 

of old Pinus nigra stands), Sliv Mlinskog Potoka (size: 10 ha, protection of mixed forests of 

spruce and fir with beech at the elevation of 1600 m a. s. l.), Kanjon Susice (protection of firbeech 

forests with sycamore), Vaskovske Stijene (protection of loose stands of Pinus 

heldreichii) a Dragisnjica. The outstanding Perucica (Sutjeska NP, Bosnia-Hercegovina) 

preserve does represent a mixed beech-fir ecosystem. 

In the Pirin NP, the tree species composition of local forests mainly includes Pinus peuce, 

P. heldreichii, P. leucodermis. 

Within the Plitvice Lakes NP, there are 22 308 ha of forest which cover 75% of the Park. 

The forest comprises pure, lesser-growth calciphillous stands of beech Fagus sylvatica at 

lower altitudes and mixed stands of beech and fir Abies alba at higher levels. The percentages 

of species are 72.8% beech, 22.1% fir, 4.7% spruce Picea excelsa and 0.4% pine Pinus 

sylvestris. One area of 84 ha has never been cut. 

In Albania, the beech virgin forests are Puka, Rajca (Tabaku 2000) and Mirdita 

(Christensen, Hahn 2003). However, according to de Waal (2004), unlicensed felling and 

sawmill businesses flourish in the mountain forests. Sixty sawmills in the above mentioned 

Mirdita region were felling over 100,000 cu. m of wood annually, about 95 per cent of which 

was illegally felled. Other finding of the author imply grave uncertainities for the prospective 

management of the forest preserves. 

• Other biogeographical provinces 

2.15.05 Oriental Decidous Forest 

Shirakami-sanchi (Japan): The core area of 10 139 ha encompasses the last remaining area 

of primeval Siebold’s beech forest (Fagus crenata B.). It is the largest beech virgin forest 

remaining in the East Asian Region. However, Fagus crenata constitutes a different species 

isolated from the region of Fagus sylvatica, which followed its own phylogenetic path. Beside 

that, Fagus crenata attains maximum heights of some 29 m (Ohtani et al. 2001) in the region, 

10 

The populations belonging to the putative taxon Fagus moesiaca Czeczott seem to form an independent group 

acc. to Comps et. al. (1999). 

49

which only about 55 % of the height attained by the European beech in the nominated 

properties on mesotrophic sites within its physiological and ecological optima. The height is 

further limited by rugged terrain relief and steep slopes (Osada et al. 2004). Henceforth the 

nominated properties contains examples of the maximum growth performance of European 

beech with corresponding hall-like forest appearance and impact on cultural and nature 

perceptions in Europe. Also, the total area of the proposed serial nomination is larger by some 

100 km 2 and its management offers hope for even further reconstruction of natural beech 

forests within the connecting ecological corridors. Measured by scientific publications, 

research in the proposed serial nomination has generated more than 100 times more scientific 

papers than that in the Shirakami-sanchi region. 

Conclusions 

It ensues from the comparative analysis that the serial nomination of “Beech Primeval 

Forests of the Carpathians” is unparalleled either within its own biogeographical province or 

other provinces in terms of: 

a) Size of the beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) primeval forest areas that include all developmental 

stages in their entirety; 

b) Absolute dominance, vitality and growth of European beech as the leading species within 

the developmental cycle of forests, only a minimum presence of other, admixed tree 

species; 

c) The wide spectrum of growing conditions; 

d) Protection level and guarantees for current and future integrity. 

Unlike on some other territories, the complex of mesotrophic nominated beech forests 

exists in its physiological and ecological optimum under present climatic conditions and on 

given substrates. The competitive capacity of European beech on this territory is illustrated by 

the extremely rare occurrence of spruce and fir, only limited to small secluded depressions, 

creating basins of cool air. The serial nomination covers the entire spectrum of site conditions 

in terms of climate gradients, and geological bedrock (crystalline, carbonate, flysch and 

volcanic). 

50

3.d Integrity and Authenticity 

Authenticity 

Because the conditions of Authenticity apply for properties nominated under criteria (i) 

to (vi) only, we have still used criteria according to Biris, Veen (2005) 11 : 

− natural composition and distribution of composing species 

− complex structures (stratified on vertical plan and mosaic on horizontal plan), according 

to the development stages (specific textures); 

− diversity of sizes and ages (occurrence of very old trees); 

− the occurrence of dead wood (standing or fallen), in different stages of decay. 

− representative ecosystems for the main forest formations. 

The fulfilment of these criteria as well as the overall scientific value of localities making 

up the serial nomination “Beech Primeval Forests of the Carpathians” is widely 

acknowledged within the international scientific circles (Leibundgut 1993, Korpeľ 1995, 

Commarmot 2000, Dajoz 2000, Parviainen 2005). The development of concerned beech 

primeval forests is in a full accordance with to-date knowledge on the population genetics of 

beech (Comps et al. 2001). Beech expansion proceeded most probably along the Carpathians 

ridges from the south-east. Ever since the Subboreal period beech represents dominant 

deciduous tree species in the Carpathians thus forming a backbone of numerous nature 

preserves. The credibility of scientific information on properties of the nominated series 

secured by peer reviews of quoted papers. 

Integrity 

The integrity account is given according to Operational Guidelines for the 

Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (hereinafter referred to as Guidelines), 

Chapter II.E, paragraphs applying to properties nominated under criteria (vii), (ix), (x): 

− Paragraph 87: All properties of the nominated series “Beech primeval forests of the 

Carpathians satisfy conditions of integrity. 

− Paragraph 88: (a) Primeval forest properties and the nominated series as a whole are 

formed by unity of its abiotic and biotic components, undisturbed 

biogeochemical cycles, i. e. by energy and matter exchange 

between abiotic environment and organisms and complex 

11 In fact, the selection criteria (admission) of the nominated primeval forests have gone beyond this by the 

inclusion of undisturbed biogeochemical cycling and the primary character of forests (no secondary natural 

forests addmitted) as additional criteria. 

51

ecological relations. Each property follows natural dynamics 

characterized by rich structural and textural patterns. 

(b) According to Bücking (2003) and current research methodology as 

applied in primeval forests of the Temperate zone of Europe (Biris, 

Veen 2005), the homeostasis and autoregulation processes are 

ensured, in the case of beech primeval forests, on areas > 50 ha. 

This condition is fulfilled as all but one (Rožok, 67 ha) nominated 

primeval forest are far larger than 50 ha. The effects of abiotic 

factors as well as the exchange of biological information are not 

restricted to any considerable level, because the nominated 

properties, being from 3 to 80 km apart, are embedded in valuable 

natural and semi-natural forest complexes, of which a considerable 

part is protected in national or nature parks (e. g. Synevyr National 

Nature Park between the Uhol’ka-Shyrokyi Luh and Stuzhysia- 

Uzhok, Poloniny National Park). They are not encircled by 

agricultural land, deforested land or man-made monocultures. The 

external presure is therefore very limited. Genetic exchange and 

repopulation are then possible, which is essential for sustainable 

existence of the virgin forest ecosystems (Biris, Veen 

2005).Contrary to that, the proposed integrated management of the 

nominated series considers the gradual extension of beech forest 

preserves and the buffer zone through the establishment of new 

national nature parks and forest management regulations. 

(c) No disruption of ecological processes, patterns and loss of 

biodiversity through activities such as the extraction of litter, wood, 

grazing, charcoal production etc. have been found to date by in situ 

investigation or the review of historical records. 

− Paragraph 90: The biophysical processes and landform features of the nominated 

series are intact. 

− Paragrapha 91, 92: The nominated series properties are of outstanding universal value 

and include all areas that essential for maintaining the beauty of the sites, i. e. the 

representation of all forest structures occurring within the ergodic process of beech 

primeval forests dynamics, including hall-like old growths, snags, fallen trees and 

other features that lend the properties their appeal which, according to Schama (1995) 

52

and LeGoff (1992) once presented a source of inspiration for the typical components 

of the Gothic architecture (arboreal Gothic) during the Middle Ages despite the lack 

of dramatic geomorphological features. Citing numerous historical sources, they argue 

that respected spiritual, cultural and behind-the-scenes medieval leaders such as Suger, 

Abbott of St. Denise, St. Bruno (founder of the Carthusian monastic order), were 

indeed inspired by the inner appearance of European primeval forest among other 

things. 

− Paragraphs 91, 94: Korpeľ (1989) and others established 30 ha as the minimum area to 

secure the functioning of autoregulation, homeostasis and autoreproduction of 

monodominant beech primeval forests in their entirety, based on his research in the 

Carpathian beech primeval forests. The nominated properties exceed that size 

considerably, include all developmental stages (stage of growing up, the optimum 

stage and the stage of decay), feature a relatively constant proportion of the area taken 

by the respective developmental cycle stages across the primeval forest and manifest 

limited, approximately 30 % deviations in the standing volume within comparatively 

small segments (30−50 ha). The series spans the altitudinal range from 330 to 

2061 m a.s.l. and the corresponding temperature and precipitation gradients (see Map 

Annex 5). It covers all slope aspects, various slope gradients – from steep to almost 

flat relief, a broad range of bedrock (cristalline, limestone, flysh, andezite), a wide 

spectrum of soil types (Dystric Cambisols, Eutric Cambisols, Rendzic Cambisols, 

Podsols, rare Andosols) and soil depths (from shallow soils on limestone ridges to 

deep soils on moderate flysh slopes). It ensues that the serial nomination contains all 

necessary elements to demonstrate key aspects of processes that are essential for the 

long term conservation of the beech primeval forests and their biological diversity. 

− Paragraphs 91, 95: The nominated series of beech primeval forests makes up an 

invaluable genetic pool of European beech and organisms bound to European beech 

forest habitatsogeographic province (e. g. Rosalia alpina), as well as those not 

restricted to a particular tree species. Perhaps contradicting the general perception, 

populations of brown bear (Ursus arctos), lynx (Lynx lynx) and wolf (Canis lupus) as 

big carnivores are not even bound to primeval forests in the strict sense but easily 

survive in extensive and relatively wild semi-natural and managed forests. Other types 

of habitats characteristic of mixed forests and organisms bound to tree species other 

than European beech (e. g. capercaillie) are represented in sites that have already been 

inscribed on the list of world natural heritage. 

53

4. State of Conservation and factors affecting the Property 

4.a Present state of conservation 

4.a.1Chornohora (Ukraine) 

At present time the Chornogora cluster is a part of the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve 

(CBR), and its modern status is the base for arrangement of the conservation and protection of 

all objects on its territory. Like in the Ugoljka-Shyrokyi Luh cluster, both conservation and 

protection here are regulated by the Ukrainian Legislation and by a number of the 

corresponding decrees, as well by the Regulations for the CBR. The state of conservation of 

the virgin forests within this massif is of the highest quality because of the measures taken 

here since 1920s. 

4.a.2 Havešová (Slovak Republic) 

Since the site is currently designated as a National Nature Reserve, and it is a part of the 

Poloniny National Park, which was awarded a European diploma by the European Council in 

1998, a system of protection measures is defined for it in the National Council of the Slovak 

Republic Act No. 543/2002 Coll. on Nature and Landscape Protection. 

4.a.3 Kuziy-Trybushany (Ukraine) 

Belonging of the Kuzyi-Tribushany cluster to the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve 

provides it’s the reliable conservation and protection. The CBR’s activity here is regulated by 

the Ukrainian Legislation and by a number of decrees concerning protection and conservation 

of the sites belonging to the Protected Areas Network of Ukraine, as well by the Regulations 

for the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve and and the Management-Plan, which is arranged for a 

period of 10 years. 

4.a.4 Maramorosh (Ukraine) 

Belonging of the Marmarosh cluster to the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve provides its 

reliable conservation and protection. The CBR’s activity here is regulated by the Ukrainian 

Legislation and by a number of decrees concerning protection and conservation of the sites 

belonging to the Protected Areas Network of Ukraine, as well by the Regulations for the 

Carpathian Biosphere Reserve and the Management-Plan, which is arranged for a period of 10 

years. The state of conservation of the virgin forests within this massif is of a high quality 

because of the measures realized here since 1920s. 

54

4.a.5 Rožok (Slovak Republic) 

Since the site is currently designated as a National Nature Reserve, and it is a part of the 

Poloniny National Park, a system of protection measures is defined for it in the National 

Council of the Slovak Republic Act No. 543/2002 Coll. on Nature and Landscape Protection. 

4.a.6 Stužica – Bukovské Vrchy (Slovak Republic) 

The property extends within the designated A-zone of the Poloniny National Park and 

encompasses several national nature preserves. According to the Act No. 543/2002 Coll. on 

Nature and Landscape Protection, the area is subject to Ia conservation management regime. 

4.a.7 Stuzhytsia-Uzhok (Ukraine) 

The official status of the National Nature Park of the Stuzhytsa-Uzhok virgin forests 

being also a part of the International Trilateral Biosphere Reserve “Eastern Carpathians” 

provides its reliable conservation and protection. 

4.a.8 Svydovets (Ukraine) 

At present time the Svidovets cluster is a part of the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve 

(CBR), and its modern status is the base for arrangement of the conservation and protection 

of all objects on its territory. Like in the “Ugolka-Shyrokyi Luh” and “Chornohora” clusters, 

both conservation and protection here are regulated by the Ukrainian Legislation and by a 

number of the corresponding decrees, as well by the Regulations for the CBR. The state of 

conservation of the virgin forests within this massif is of a high quality because of the 

measures realized here since 1920s. 

4.a.9 Uholka-Shyrokyi Luh (Ukraine) 

At present time the “Uholka-Shyrokyi Luh” cluster is a part of the Carpathian Biosphere 

Reserve (CBR), and its modern status is the base for arrangement of the conservation and 

protection of all objects on its territory because all of them are regulated by the Ukrainian 

Legislation and by a number of decrees concerning protection and conservation of all the sites 

belonging to the Protected Areas Network of Ukraine, as well by the Regulations for the 

Carpathian Biosphere Reserve and the Management Plan and Action Plan arranged for a 

period of 10 years. Therefore, the beech virgin forests together with their complexes of living 

organisms are the main objects of the nature protection here. We have to note that the state of 

conservation of the virgin forests in this massif is of the highest quality due to the the very 

55

serious measures realized here since 1920s. 

4.a.10 Vihorlat (Slovak Republic) 

The territory lies within the designated A-zone of the Vihorlat Protected Landscape 

Area. As such, it is subject to Ia conservation management regime according to the Act No. 

543/2002 Coll. on Nature and Landscape Protection. 

4.b Factors affecting the Property 

(i) Development Pressures (e.g., encroachment, adaptation, agriculture, mining): 

All nominated properties have long been subject to Ia conservation management regime 

according to IUCN in compliance with dedicated legislation, i. e. the Law of Ukraine “On 

Protected Areas Network of Ukraine” 16. 06. 1992, No. 2456-XII and the Act No. 543/2002 

Coll. on Nature and Landscape Protection in the Slovak Republic. They enjoy an integral 

protection as parts of the core zones within the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve (CBR), 

Uzhansky National Park (UNNP) and Poloniny NP and Vihorlat Landscape Protection Area. 

Territorial development 

In Ukraine, the law guarantees their protection from both direct civilisation impact and 

further infrastructural development also in terms of the territorial planning. In Ukraine, the 

Law of Ukraine “On the general scheme of territory planning in Ukraine” No. 3059-III, 

approved by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (the Parlament of Ukraine) on February 7, 2002 

contains the General scheme of territory planning in Ukraine (further on – “the General 

Scheme”) and defines priorities and conceptual decisions on planning and use of Ukrainian 

territory, including provision of sustainable development of settlements and the formation of 

ecological network. 

In the Slovak Republic, territorial development is controlled by the General 

supraregional territorial system of ecological stability (hereinafter GESTES), approved by the 

Government of the Slovak Republic on April 27, 1992, Resolution Nr. 319. GESTES is 

similar to the concepts used in the theory of European Ecologial Network (EECONET) 12 . The 

establishment of biocentres and biocorridors that coincide with the territory of the neminated 

properties, their buffer zones and broader surroundings was projected into the Territorial Plan 

for the greater Prešov Self-Governing Region, as approved by the statutory rules of the 

12 The National Ecological Network of Slovakia was published in 1995 (Sabo, P., ed. : National Ecological 

Network of Slovakia, IUCN Bratislava, 1995, 323 pp.). 

56

Government of SR No. 216/1998. Given the current legislation framework, the nominated 

localities, their buffer zones or connecting corridors are not threatened by the developmental 

pressures. 

Forestry 

Forestry in Ukraine and in Slovakia presents no danger to the nominated properties. No 

forestry-related activities or operations are allowed or considered within the nominated 

properties because as national nature preserves or core areas of biosphere reserves and 

national parks they a subject to Ia conservation management according to IUCN. 

In the Slovak Republic, forests within the nominated properties have forest management 

plans stipulating non-intervention policy according to Legal norms providing for the forest 

management plans, contained in the §1–5 of the Act of the Slovak National Council No. č. 

326/2005 Coll. on the forest management and state administration of forest management and 

in the wording of the pursuant regulations and Regulation of the Ministry of Agriculture of 

the Slovak Republic No. 5/1994 Coll. on forest management 

(ii) Environmental pressures (e.g., pollution, climate change, desertification) 

Air pollution 

Due to the fact that there are no major air pollution sources on the adjacent territory, 

absence of any major industrial development within the broader territory both in the past and 

at the present time, and position outside the main air pollution long-distance transfer routes, 

air-pollution induced damage to primeval forests of the nominated properties has not been 

established. 

Fig. 4: Model of the beech stemflow 

impact on soil properties. No dramatic 

soil reaction decrease or heavy metals 

accumulation have been detected 

within the stemflow zone on the 

nominated localities. 

For survey of potential pollution load, a method specially suited for beech forests has 

been selected (Fig. 4). The pH-value and concentrations of chemical elements within the 

stem-flow zone of beech trees in particular is an early indicator of potential acid or heavy 

57

metals load of ecosystems due to air pollution (Šály, Pichler 1993). The investigations have 

shown that no significant increase in soil acidity or heavy metals content due to potentially 

polluted stemflow water occurred in the nominated properties. 

Climate changes 

According to Forest Gap Model, in the Carpathian forest at lower elevation (100– 

450 m a.s.l.), ecological condition for beech may worsen and sessile oak could take a higher 

proportion in the tree species composition, while at higher altitudes, conditions for European 

beech will remain favourable mainly due to water regime, including options for further 

expansion of beech toward higher altitudes and higher representation of noble broadleaves, 

such as sycamore and ash (Minďáš, Škvarenina 2003). Overall, beech forest are the least 

threatened ecosystems among sub-mountain and mountain forest ecosystems. Owing to 

climate pattern of the Eastern Carpathians, no considerable reduction of precipitation is 

foreseen due to the combined effect of air-streams bringing humidity both from the Atlantic, 

Adriatic and Black Sea. 

(iii) Natural disasters and risk preparedness (earthquakes, floods, fires, etc.): 

Wind 

Wind and fire are the most important factors threatening the static and ecological 

stability of nominated primeval forests. In case of wind there is practically no effective 

protection in place to avert wind caused disasters except for avoiding open stand boundaries, a 

measure for which there is no need in the case of the nominated properties, because they are 

surrounded by buffer zones of a sufficient area. However, current data from beech primeval 

forests show that gaps can be defined as small, as a result of dying of old trees (endogenous 

stand development), and big, as a result of outside abiotic factors (exogenous stand 

development) (Runkle 1992). In beech primeval forests specifically, the size gap disturbances 

patterns may vary from several m 2 to a few hectares (Rosenbergar et al. 2002, Zeibig et al. 

2005) and such disturbances thus represent naturally occurring disturbances in beech forest 

ecosystems. Generally, large-scale disturbances in beech virgin forests are rare. 

Forest fires 

On contrary to windstorms, forest fires are not a part of the ecosystem processes in the 

Carpathian beech forests. Forest fires represent most immediate danger mainly for xerotherm 

communities on carbonate rocks with shallow, drought-prone soils (Škvarenina et al. 2003). 

58

Nominated properties are situated on sites with a high annual precipitation that provide for 

high soil moisture levels and semiuvidic water regime. The vincinity of a large open water 

surface of the Starina and other water reservoir in the adjacent areas provide a source of water 

if needed in a case of emergency (forest fire) in any of the nominated properties. 

(iv) Visitor/tourism pressures 

According to Pichler and Soroková (2004), domestic population in the rural areas 

adjacent to the nominated properties does not perceive the difference between forests as such 

and truly natural forests as very significant. That is also due to the semi-natural character of 

the majority of Carpathian and especially East-Carpathian forests. The awareness of natural 

forests is comparatively low. This perception begins to change for better in young generation, 

following the inclusion of a more appropriate, ecological interpretation of natural forests in 

the modern textbooks and intense ecological and nature protection awareness rising 

campaigns through the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve and Poloniny National Park 

administrations. Natural forests therefore cannot be considered a primary attractor for the 

ecotourism development carried by native citizens. Hiking in the pursuit of physical workout 

in a clean environment and wilderness, seeking extraordinary vistas, collecting forest fruits, 

camping, hunting and fishing remain the activities mostly sought for by the majority of 

domestic visitors. Based on this, it is not recommended to actively advertise mass tourism in 

natural forests at present, as the pursuit of such activities would inevitably lead to a 

considerable ecosystem load and unchecked penetration of pristine ecosystems. Instead, 

guided or interpretative forms of tourism shall be encouraged. Practical experience gathered 

by The Centre for Scientific Tourism in Slovakia at the Institute of Ecology, Slovak Academy 

of Sciences, during the last six years, i. e. from 1998 till 2003, has delivered important 

insights into the public perception of natural forests and their possible utilization for 

ecotourism. 

Indeed, there is a lasting interest for primeval forests among forestry scientists, 

ecologists, nature conservationists and enthusiasts, both native and international. They learnt 

about Slovak primeval forests mostly from scientific literature, co-operation and the internet 

sites. Their visits surged following the regime change after 1989, first on the basis of personal 

contacts and later in the form of guided scientific excursions organized by the Centre for 

Scientific Tourism in Slovakia. They also often resulted into further scientific co-operation 

and further visits by people generally interested in nature (Zach 2003). Measured by the 

59

number of study tour participants, both in terms of groups and individuals, primeval forests 

excursions rank as the most popular and attractive tours among other products in this group. 

This may change in a few years when children now exposed to the new ecological and 

environmental education grow up and response more positively to the restrictions necessarily 

limiting people’s behavior in pristine ecosystems of natural forest, including rangers’ 

guidance. However, an active information policy and promotion of primeval forests as nature 

treasures can be recommended in order to secure their sustained protection in terms of 

preserves’ number, area and protection management. It has been shown in this study that the 

involvement of medially known and supportive personalities can serve as one among many 

ways of how to achieve that goal. 

Overall, there is no threat to the nominated properties from tourism development 

currently or in the foreseeable futrure. The numbers of visitors to the entire area is only 

approximately 80 000 a year and only a fraction of this figure enters the sites on available 

marked hiking trails or during guided walk. 

(v) Number of inhabitants within the property and the buffer zone: 

Table 5 shows the number of inhabitants living outside the primeval forest buffer zones, 

because there are no inhabitants either within the sites or their buffer zones (data from the 

2001 population survey). Every buffer zone is divided into several subzones depending on the 

distance from a particular primeval forest (up to 1 km, 1–3 km, 3–5 km, 5–10 km of direct 

distance). No inhabitants live within the core and buffer zones. No inhabitants live within 

boundaries of the Property and its buffer zones. 

Table 5: Number of inhabitants living in buffer zones of nominated primeval forests (as of 2002) 

Primeval forest Number of inhabitants given for different distance subzones 

< 1 km 1–3 km 3–5 km 5–10 km Total 

Chornohora 0 0 0 0 0 

Havešová 0 0 589 3.050 3.339 

Kuziy- 

Trybushany 

0 15 50 0 65 

Maramorosh 0 0 0 0 0 

Rožok 0 0 258 860 1118 

Stužica – 

Bukovské Vrchy 

0 0 337 740 1.077 

Svydovets 0 0 0 0 0 

Uholka- 

Shyrokyi Luh 

0 25 76 0 101 

Vihorlat 0 0 1.981 10.147 12.128 

60

5. Protection and Management of the Property 

5.a Ownership: 

Primeval forests of the nominated series, i. e. the stands and the premises on which they 

grow, are state property of Ukraine and the Slovak Republic. 

5.b Protective designation: 

The establishment of CBR and UNNP was enacted by the Decree of the Cabinet of 

Ministers of the Soviet Union No. 568, 12.11 1968, the Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of 

the Soviet Union No.565, 12. 12. 1979, the Decree No. 119, 30.05.1990, and the Presidential 

Decrees No. 563/93, 26.11.1993, No. 325/97, 10.09.1997, No. 1230/99, 27.09.1997. 

The properties have been subject to nature protection for several decades. The 

nominated properties located on the territory of Ukraine are an integral part of the Carpathian 

Biosphere Reserve and the Uzhanskyi National Nature Park (UNNP). Their protection is 

stipulated by the Law of Ukraine “On Protected Areas Network of Ukraine” 16.06.1992, 

No.2456-XII. CBR and the UNNP are subordinated to the Ministry for Environmental 

Protection of Ukraine. 

The nominated properties on the Slovak territory coincide with the area- designated Azones 

(Ia conservation management regime acc. To IUCN) of the Poloniny National Park 

(established through the Act of the Government of the Slovak Republic No. 258/1997) and 

Vihorlat Protected Landscape Area, following the provisions of Act No. 543/2002 of the 

Slovak National Council on Nature and Landscape Protection. 

The A-zones have been designated during 2004–2005 approved by the Ministry if 

Environment of the Slovak Republic, which will submitt them for a formal governments 

approval in 2006. 

In the meantime, the core and buffer zones are under strictest protection as NATURA 

2000 sites, biocentre and biocorridors. The new area-designation and establishment of core 

zones enabled a considerable expansion of the area of strictly protected beech primeval 

forests, compared to the previously existing system of national nature preserves. Thus for 

instance the nominated property Stužica – Bukovské Vrchy (Property No.7) includes also the 

national nature preserves Stužica, Rjaba Skala, Pľaša and Udava. 

The buffer zones coincide with parts of the B-zones where only management aimed at 

enhancing or supporting the ecological stability is allowed. The entire areas of the Poloniny 

National Park and Vihorlat Protected Landscape Area, as well as their connecting corridors 

coincide with the NATURA 2000 biotopes (acc. to the Annex I of the Council Directive 

61

92/43/EEC of 21 may 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and 

flora): Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests (code 9130, Viceníková, Polák 2003), Medio- 

European subalpine beech woods with Acer and Rumex arifolius (kód 9140, Viceníková, 

Polák, 2003). In the Slovak National List of NATURA 2000 areas, the territory of Poloniny 

NP is included as Beskyd SKUEV 0129 and Stinská SKUEV 0210, the territory of Vihorlat 

Protected Landscape Area is include as Morské Oko SKUEV 0209. Their connecting 

ecological corridors between Beskyd a Morské Oko are listed as Ulička SKUEV 0234 

and Ublianka SKUEV 0063. This National NATURA 2000 List was approved by the 

Government of the Slovak Republic by Decree No. 239, March 17, 2004 and forwarded to the 

European Commission in Brussels following standard procedures. In the mean time, until the 

final decision is made by the EC, these areas are under preliminary protection regime 

according to the Act No. 543/2002 of the Slovak National Council on Nature and Landscape 

Protection. 

Among areas covered by the Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the 

conservation of wild birds are the Bukovské Vrchy Mts. and Vihorlat Mts., in which Poloniny 

NP and a Vihorlat Protected Landscape Area are situated. Also their connecting corridors 

belong to areas covered by the same directive. The proposed list of wild bird areas have been 

approved by the Government of the Slovak Republic No. 636, July 9, 2003 and and forwarded 

to the European Commission in Brussels following standard procedures. Similar to the List of 

NATURA 2000 localities, these areas also are under preliminary protection regime according 

to the Act No. 543/2002 of the Slovak National Council on Nature and Landscape Protection 

until approved by the EC. 

5.c Means of implementing protective measures 

In both countries, the protection regime corresponds to Ia management regime of IUCN 

class. In the buffer zone, only measures aimed at supporting natural processes are allowed 

according to the cited legislation. 

According to the Law of Ukraine “On Nature Protection Fund of Ukraine”, the 

protection measures are enforced under a threat of severe penalties stipulated by the Decree of 

the Cabinet of Ministers No. 521, 21.04.1998. Control over implementation of protective 

legislation on the territory of the Property is carried out by the Inspection Service, which is 

submitted to the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve (CBR) Administrations that manage the 

Property. The on-site monitoring will consist in regular inspections of the sites by 

professional rangers. Currently, approximately 200 forestry officers are in charge of 

62

protection of the massifs on the Ukrainian territory. Forest beaters perform twenty-four-hour 

patrolling of the territory. Forestry beat points are situated on the edges beyond each of the 

clusters. Twice a year the authorities of the CBR and UNNP realize an inspection of their 

territory and use the necessary preventive measures. The State Forest Guard Service closely 

co-operates with the Police and other closer services. 

On the Slovak territory, protection measures covering the nominated properties are 

enforced by the State Nature Conservancy, as elaborated in “Protected area maintenance 

programmes” (§54, sec.3–4 of the Act 543/2002), worked out by the respective authority (NP 

Poloniny, Vihorlat Protected Landscape Area) in compliance with §21 of the Regulation No. 

24/2003 of the Ministry of the Environment of the Slovak Republic, and subject to the 

approval by the Government of the Slovak Republic. On the Slovak territory, regular 

inspections are carried continuously or more often if necessary by four Poloniny National 

Park rangers and twenty voluntary nature protection guards, whose competences are defined 

by the Act and Guards of the State Nature Conservancy of the Slovak Republic according to § 

72 of the Act No. 543/2003 Coll. on Nature and Landscape Protection. The guards are entitled 

to monitor, prevent and avoid illegal cuttings, illegal picking up of berries, poaching, bird 

criminality, nest robbery, illegal collection of animals and trespasses against the law related to 

the mass tourism. 

5.d Existing plans related to municipality and region in which the proposed property is 

located (e.g., regional or local plan, conservation plan, tourism development plan): 

Ukraine 

The Transcarpathian region (Zakarpatska oblast), in which the Ukrainian localities of the 

bilateral serial nomination are found, was designated in 1946; the town of Uzhgorod is the 

regional center with all regional administrative bodies located there. Its development is 

governed by the General scheme of territory planning in Ukraine (further on – “the General 

Scheme”), as defined by the Law of Ukraine “On the general scheme of territory planning in 

Ukraine”, Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, 7.02.2002, No. 3059-III. It lays out priorities and 

conceptual decisions on planning and use of Ukrainian territory, provision of sustainable 

development of settlements, development of industrial, social and transport, as well as the 

formation of ecological network. 

Regulations provided in the General Scheme correspond to the principles of appropriate 

documents adopted at the UN Conference on the settlements’ development (HABITAT-II) 

and to corresponding recommendations of the UN European Economic Commission and the 

63

Council of Europe. According to it, any territorial developments must respect not only nature 

protected areas, but also areas covered by the The Law of Ukraine “On Ecological Network of 

Ukraine”, adopted by the Supreme Council (Parliament) of Ukraine in 2004, the Law of 

Ukraine “On the State Programme of Ukraine’s National Environmental Network 

Development for Years 2000−2015” (see Annex 8) – in 2000 and the Law of Ukraine “On 

Nature-Protection Fund of Ukraine” 16.06.1992, No.2456-XII, Nature, that are important for 

biological and landscape diversity conservation. 

In order to guarantee efficient utilization of territories that are of a special ecological, 

scientific, aesthetic value it is envisaged to elaborate a system of state (national) support for 

such territories. The implementation of the General Scheme is fulfilled by the bodies of the 

state power and by local self-governing bodies in the order envisaged by Ukrainian 

Legislation. 

The Carpathian Biosphere Reserve and the Uzhanskyi National Nature Park, to which 

the nominated properties on the Ukrainian territory belong, are subordinated directly to the 

Ministry and their territory belongs to the Nature Protection Fund of Ukraine. The 

administrations of both establishments however manage their territories in close co-operation 

with local bodies of state power and self-government. 

Management of the sites belonging to the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve is executed 

according to the Project of the Territory Organization and Natural Complexes Protection of 

the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve and Statutes of the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve (Annex 

5). Management of the sites belonging to the Uzhanskyi National Park is executed according 

to the Regulations for UNNP (Annex 5). 


Several plans apply to the Prešov Self-Governing Region, in which the nominated 

properties are located: 

– General supraregional territorial system of ecological stability (hereinafter GESTES, 

Annex 10), approved by the Government of the Slovak Republic on April 27, 1992, 

Resolution Nr. 319: GESTES is similar to the concepts used in the theory of European 

Ecologial Network (EECONET) 13 . The system has established a framework for the 

strategy of ecological stability, biodiversity and gene fund conservation and is thereby 

binding for the creation of regional and local systems of ecological stability and also for 

13 The National Ecological Network of Slovakia was published in 1995 (Sabo, P., ed. : National Ecological 

Network of Slovakia, IUCN Bratislava, 1995, 323 pp.), see Annex 4. 

64

territorial development plans and any plans concerning spatial arrangement of land and 

land use. The aforementioned General supraregional system approved of the 

representation of the The East Carpathian biogeographical province by the provincial 

core area (biocentre) Poloniny (5 680 ha) and regional core area (biocentre) Vihorlat 

(app. 5.650 ha). The selected core areas can be connected to the system of ecological 

corridors (biocorridors), as well as biocorridors connecting the two biocentres. ). The 

notion „biocentre“corresponds to the „core area“, the notion „biocorridor“ responds 

approximatelly to the „ecological corridor“. 

– Territorial Plan of the Prešov Self-Governing Region (Annex 10), approved by the 

Government provison No. 216/1998 Coll.), which reflects the GESTES principles; 

The care for nominated properties is incorporated into management plans elaborated by 

the respective authority (NP Poloniny, Vihorlat Protected Landscape Area) in the form of 

"protected area maintenance programmes" (§54, sec.3-4 of the Act 543/2002), which are 

prepared in compliance with §21 of the Regulation No. 24/2003 of the Ministry of the 

Environment of the Slovak Republic that represents executive legal norm to this act, and 

approved by the Government of the Slovak Republic. The protected area maintenance 

programmes establish a binding framework for the elaboration of forest management plans. 

Thus, every nominated property is individually covered by an approved forest management 

plan (FMP) for a 10-year period, which stipulates non-intervention policy within the 

nominated primeval forests. In the buffer zone, the FMP allows for measures aimed to support 

natural processes if necessary, using the close-to-nature forestry approach. 

5.e Property management plan or other management system 

See Annex 2 for Integrated Management Plan of the transnational nominated property. 

5.f Sources and levels of finance 

Financing of the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve and Uzhansky National Park are 

provided by the State Budget of Ukraine and with the support of their own income. Their 

budget in 2004 was 3 500 000 UAH (Ukrainian hryvnyas), approx. 700 000,− USD as of the 

current rate of exchange. Logistic is performed with the help of budget assignations and with 

the help of their own incomes received form some commercial activity. Amount of financing 

and Plan of measures on nature protection are approved every year by the Minister for 

Environmental Protection of Ukraine. 

65

Ministry of the Environment of SR provides funding for protected areas management, 

approximately 250 000,− USD for Poloniny NP, Eastern Carpathians Protected Landscape 

Area and Vihorlat Protected landscape Area in total. Funds are distributed via State Nature 

Conservancy of the Slovak Republic run as a state budgetary organization. 

5.g Sources of expertise and training in conservation and management techniques 

State Nature Conservancy of the Slovak Republic and the CBR and UNNP 

administrations in the Ukraine are the bodies responsible for continual development of 

management and nature conservation practices and skills for various levels of protected sites 

through continual training of its employees, usually having a university degree in ecology, 

landscape and nature protection or forestry. That training involves the participation of 

international university scholars on one hand and the engagement of the employees in 

scientific research on the other hand, often as graduate students or post-docs. The rangers 

must have completed their high school education. The management measures foreseen for the 

buffer zones (only if necessary), which are included in a forest management plan are carried 

out by forestry organizations. A high level of practical management techniques is also assured 

by an intense international co-operation such as in terms of Association of the Carpathian 

National Parks and Reserves (ACANAP), scientific conferences and the involvement of 

NGOs and municipal governments. 

5.h Visitor facilities and statistics 

CBR and UNNP run special departments that serve as the main providers of guided 

indoor and outdoor activities, information, expertise, instructions and assistance for visitors to 

the area. Annualy, they cater for approximately 50 000 visitors. A part of the respective CBR 

department in Rakhiv is a Museum of Carpathian Ecology aimed at the explanations of the 

natural history of the Carpathians and etnography of that region. Main accommodation and 

boarding services are available in Rakhiv hotels. 

On the Slovak territory, the Visitors Centre in Nová Sedlica as an integral part of the 

Poloniny NP provides the same type of visitor services. Data on numbers of visitors are 

monitored and kept by the Poloniny National Park Administration and the ECPLA. According 

to their records taken between 1997–2004, the Poloniny NP territory is visited by 

approximately 30 000 visitors per year. 

Expert guidance is also provided by the Centre for Scientific Tourism at the Slovak 

Academy of Sciences (www.ecosystems.sk). In addition, it has also introduced some 

66

technological innovations with the use of E-learning (www.poznajachran.sk) that for instance 

inform visitors on the formation of flysh or karst bedrock that in turn provides foothold for 

primeval forests of the nominated properties. The Centre also provides a unique opportunity 

for explaining the underlying natural history through a GPS-aided system coupled with 

Pocket PCs, which itself is a major innovation usable for explaining the natural history of any 

natural heritage, because it “shrinks” the time scale. 

Fig. 5: GPS-aided dynamic visualisation 

of the nominated properties’ natural history 

Location-specific, GPS-controlled dynamic animations run on the 

Pocket PCs that are distributed among the visitors prior to the tour. The 

animations pre-installed on the hand-held devices help the visitors to 

visualize the long-term ecological processes in the forest, as explained by the guides, such as 

geological developments and primeval forests dynamics. Main accommodation and boarding 

services are available in pensions in Nová Sedlica and Stakčín. 

5.i Policies and programmes related to the presentation and promotion of the property 

Information about the site is presented in various basic research and forestry publications 

in Slovak and foreign scientific literature. However, presentation and promotion of the 

nominated among the domestic and foreign population uses various channels, such as movies, 

media coverage and a dedicated project “Green diplomacy”. The most successful among the 

movies in terms of awards were the “Primeval forests of the Carpathians” (produced by the 

Centre for Scientific Tourism in Slovakia at the Slovak Academy of Sciences), awarded prize 

for the documentation of natural heritage at the international film festival Envirofilm 1999, 

which was then aired on Slovak TV, further “Through the Carpathians” and others. These 

movies were distributed in schools. Green diplomacy is a project that aims at rising the 

awareness of primeval forests by promoting them through the visits of prominent persons, 

such as ambassadors and personalities known from the public life. As an exampe, HRH The 

Prince of Wales in his capacity as a nature enthusiast visited a primeval forest in Slovakia in 

67

2000 14 . Following media coverage increased the awareness of primeval forests in Slovakia 

from 10 to some 70 %according to a poll {Pichler, Soroková 2005). 

Fig. 6: HRH The Prince of Wales visits 

A Carpathian Primeval Forest in 

Slovakia 

The virgin forests are the subject of the complex study held by the Ukrainian and foreign 

biologists. The Scientific Department of the CBR intensively co-operate with the Lviv and 

Uzhgorod National Universities, Precarpathian National University (Ivano-Frankivsk), 

Kholodnyi Institute of Botany and Shmalhausen Institute of Zoology of the Ukrainian 

National Academy of Sciences (both in Kiev), State Nature Museum of the Ukrainian 

Academy of Sciences (Lviv), Ukrainian Scientific Research Institute of Mountain Forestry 

(Ivano-Frankivsk), Federal Institute of Mountain, Snow and Landscape Investigation (WSL – 

Birmensdorf, Switzerland), Mendel University of Agriculture and Forestry (Brno, Czech 

Republic), and some others. 

The Scientific Department of the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve conducts permanent 

detailed study of the cluster, and the data on the Uholka-Shyrokyi Luh massif are available in 

the numerous papers and thesises published in the scientific journals, located on the web-sites 

of the scientific-research institutions, and also in the “Chronicles of Nature” of the CBR. 

The data on the “Uholka-Shyrokyi Luh” cluster are in the numerous booklets, 

guidebooks, brochures, films and so on, e. g. a very valuable book “Virgin Forests in the 

Centre of Europe”. Guidebook about Forests of the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve” was 

published by the Scientific Department of the CBR together with the biologists of the Swiss 

Federal Institute of Forest, Snow and Landscape Investigation (WSL) in 2003 in Ukrainian 

and German. 

14 “During his first stop on his two-day tour of the Carpathian mountain region he strolled through a primeval 

forest, where he was then presented fujara, a musical instrument favored by Carpathian shepherds for 800 

years.” (a typical headline from newspapers published immediately after his visit). 

68

5.j Staffing levels (professional, technical, maintenance): 

CBR and UNNP have 310 and 110 employees available – this number includes the 

whole biosphere reserve including the buffer and developmental zones. Poloniny NP, East 

Carpathians Protected Landscape Area (ECPLA) avail of 24 employees (only those with 

university degree). The positions are filled through natural scientists and university educated 

forest ecologists possessing adequate professional experience and practical skills that are 

capable of sole management of forest reserves. Expert management is reinforced by the cooperation 

with the staff from the Centre for Nature and Landscape Protection of State Nature 

Conservancy SR. Forest Districts are bodies responsible for the practical implementation of 

forest management measures within the buffer zones and corridors connecting the properties. 

They employ highly qualified staff as well as possess necessary technical equipment. From 

the total number of employees, 199 forestry officers are in charge of protection of the massifs 

on the Ukrainian territory. 

The number of staff responsible for management and specialized work (e. g. research) 

related to the nominated properties on the Slovak territory is 16 plus 8 rangers available for 

patrolling the nominated properties on the Slovak territory (Poloniny NP, Eastern Carpathians 

Protected Landscape Area, Vihorlat Protected Landscape Area). They are assisted by 32 

voluntary Nature guards operating on the basis of the § 72 of the Act No. 543/2003 Coll. on 

Nature and Landscape Protection 

69

6. Monitoring 

In the absence of developmental pressures, the monitoring of the nominated properties 

means mainly a sustained or periodically repeated systematic observation and quantitative 

collecting of data on the state of respective components of the natural environment of the 

primeval forests on stationary permanent monitoring plots. Beside recording the current state 

itself it also includes the observation of external factors that may manifest an influence on 

primeval forests, such as long distance air pollution. In the monitoring process the main 

components being observed are: air, water, soils and biota including trees as main edificators 

of the geobiocenoses. For the monitoring and the evaluation of samples, state-of-the-art 

technology is used, e. g. Time Domain Reflectometry, CNS elemental analyzer, electric 

resistivity and X-ray tomography. 

A regular monitoring of beech virgin forests in the Ukrainian Carpathians started after 

the Carpathain State Reserve was established in 1968, the monitoring of primeval forests on 

the Slovak territory began as early as 1964. It is now carried out on a co-operative basis and 

using a unified methodology accross a network of permanent sampling plots. Biometric 

measurements on the permanent plots are held every 5 or 10 years respectivelly, depending on 

the parameter. Other investigations cover soils, geobotany, phytocoenology, zoology (all 

groups of vertebrates and some groups of invertebrates). To co-ordinate both types all the 

activities, Joint Centre for the Research of Temperate Primeval Forests has been founded in 

2005 (www.virginforests.sk). 

6.a Key indicators for measuring state of conservation: 

Table 6: Key indicators for measuring state of conservation: 

Indicator Periodicity Location of Records 

Extreme temperatures weekly CBR, Poloniny National Park, 

Eastern Carpathians Protected 

Landscape Area, Vihorlat 

Protected Landscape Area 

headquarters, Database of the 

Joint Management Committee of 

the “Beech Primeval Forests of 

the Carpathians” series 

Precipitation 

Other meteorological 

characteristics obtained from 

hydrometeorological institutes 

(daily temperatures, wind, relative 

air humidity, solar radiation etc.) 

every two weeks 

Soil water regime weekly 

Physiologically available water weekly 

Maximum water capacity yearly 

Hydrophysical soil properties yearly 

70

Chemical composition of 

precipitation – both horizontal and 

veritical 

every two weeks 

Chemicals input into primeval every two weeks 

forests in the form of stemflow, 

throughfall 

Soil water chemistry every 5 years 

Stabile soil indicators (soil profile 

description and soil classification, 

textural analysis, physical 

properties, humus and chemical 

analysis) 

Labile soil indicators (pH, mobile 

nutrients and heavy metals, S, T, 

V values – CEC, ecological and 

genetic humus quality, humus 

layer) 

Microbial activity of soils, CO2 

production in the spring, summer 

and autumn 

Health status of main primeval 

forest constituents 

every 5 years 

every 5 years 

3 times a year 

once a year 

Biodiversity monitoring with the twice a year 

emphasis on species known as 

indicators of primeval forests 

intactness or bioindicators 

Monitoring of organisms bound to every two years 

primeval forests 

Primeval forest structure and every 5 years 

texture monitoring 

Soil biota monitoring 5 year intervals 

Air: Extreme temperatures (weekly), precipitation (every two weeks), temperatures (daily 

temperatures taken from nearest meteorological station and their derivatives), other 

meteorological characteristics obtained from hydrometeorological institutes (wind, relative air 

humidity, solar radiation etc.) 

Water: Soil water regime for the analyses of solute transport in soils, physiologically 

available water (weekly using non-destructive tensiometers, Time Domain Reflectometry, 

Electrical Resistivity Tomography), maximum water capacity and hydrophysical soil 

properties (yearly), chemical composition of precipitation – both horizontal and veritical (pH, 

H + , Ca 2+ , Mg 2+, K + , Na + , NH 4+ , NO 3- , (SO4) 2- , Cl - , F - , electric conductivity), chemicals input 

into primeval forests in the form of stemflow, throughfall (every two weeks), soil water 

chemistry by lysimeters (pH, H + , Ca 2+ , Mg 2+, K + , Na + , NH 4+ , NO 3- , (SO4) 2- , Cl - , F - , electric 

conductivity, C, N, S Elemental an analyzer). 

Soil: Stabile soil indicators (soil profile description and soil classification, textural analysis, 

physical properties, humus and chemical analysis), labile soil indicators (pH, mobile nutrients 

and heavy metals, S, T, V values – CEC, ecological and genetic humus quality, humus layer 

71

– every 5 years), microbial activity of soils, CO2 production in the spring, summer and 

autumn (3 times a year). 

Biota: Health status of main primeval forest constituents is monitored acc. methods adopted 

by International Co-operative Programme on Assessment and Monitoring of Air Pollution 

Effects on Forests (once a year), biodiversity monitoring with the emphasis on species known 

as indicators of primeval forests intactness or bioindicators (twice a year), monitoring of 

organisms bound to primeval forests (every two years), primeval forest structure and texture 

monitoring (every 5 years), soil biota monitoring (5 year intervals). 

Both countries have had a long tradition of monitoring of the tree component of the strict 

preserves. Sampling methods include: 

− permanent experimental plots, measurement of the living trees DBH > 8 cm, 

species composition, height, sociological (age) class, stem and crown quality, 

damage, necromass (3 degradation phases) 

− transects: living trees DBH > 1 cm, species composition, height, position, crown 

parameters, natural regeneration (using 4 height classes). 

Monitoring frequency ranges from 5 to 10 years. Additional research includes: soils, 

biogeochemistry, phytocoenology, zoology (birds, bats), fungi etc. with an increasing 

emphasis on inter-disciplinary and comparative research in reserves and managed areas 

Currently, the arrangement of monitoring plots establishes an irregular net. In the future, 

each site shall also have its own subsystem that will consist of plots on two levels: 

− a higher level drawing on a few monitoring plots with a wide array of frequently or 

continuously measured parameters (one or two monitoring plots for every 

primeval forests in the nominated series assumed) 

− a lower level containing a design of additional monitoring plots aimed at lowfrequency 

measurements (0-4 monitoring plots for every primeval forest in the nominated 

series assumed). The goal of the second level is to identify possible changes of a primeval 

forest as a whole. 

6.b Administrative arrangements for monitoring property: 

Constant monitoring, most part of inventory-making and scientific research are held by 

the scientists of Scientific Departments of the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve and the 

Uzhanskyi National Nature Park. Besides that, on the basis of contracts National Universities 

of L’viv, Uzhgorod and Ivano-Frankivsk, Different Institutes belonging to the Ukrainian 

72

National Academy of Sciences, Federal Institute of Forest, Snow and Landscape 

Investigations (WSL, Switzerland), Mendel Agriculture and Forestry University (Czech 

Republic) conduct their research and investigation here. 

On the Slovak territory, the monitoring is carried-out by the state nature conservation 

authority, universities (Faculty of Forestry in Zvolen, Faculty of Natural Sciences of the 

Comenius University Bratislava, Faculty of Ecology and Environmental Sciences of the 

Technical University Zvolen and others) and research institutes (Institute of Forest Ecology 

and Institute of Landscape Ecology of the Slovak Academy of Sciences). Research and 

monitoring are financially secured by the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak republic, 

state grant commissions and non-governmental organisations. To co-ordinate both types of 

activities, Joint Centre for the Research of Temperate Primeval Forests has been founded in 

2005 (www.virginforests.sk). 

6.c Results of previous reporting exercises: 

Data on monitoring, which lasts here for many years already, are found in 27 volumes of 

Chronicles of Nature of the CBR and in 3 volumes of Chronicles of Nature of UNNP, as well 

as in numerous scientific reports, proceedings, abstract volumes, articles monographies, and 

in professional literature. 5 PhD thesises and 1 Doctor degree thesis were defended on the 

basis of these investigations. 

Main results of s 25 years long monitoring of the properties on the Slovak territory are 

available in Korpeľ (1993). Beside an extensive and comprehensive monitoring, to-date 

monitoring has focused mainly also on inventory research. Its results have been summarised 

by Bublinec & Pichler (2001). Continually updated information is also available at the official 

website of the Joint Centre for the Research of Temperate Primeval Forests 

(www.virginforests.sk). 

73

7. Documentation 

7. a Photographs, slides, image inventory and authorisation table and other audiovisual 

materials 

Table 7: List of slides 

Id. 

No 

Format 

(slide/ 

print/ 

video| 

Caption Date of 

Photo 

Photographer 

/ 

Director 

Of the video 

Copyright owner (if 

different than 

photographer/ 

director of the video) 

Contact details of 

copyright owner 

(Name, address, 

tel/fax and e-mail 

Non 

exclusive 

cession of 

rights 

granted 

1 slide Chornohora 2003 CBR Rakhiv n/a cbr@rakhiv.ukrtel.n 

et 


et 

granted 


et 

granted 

4 slide Havešová 2002 TU Zvolen n/a pichler@vsld.tuzvo. 

sk 

granted 

5 slide Kuziy- 2003 CBR Rakhiv n/a cbr@rakhiv.ukrtel.n granted 

Trybushany 

et 

6 slide Kuziy- 2003 CBR Rakhiv n/a cbr@rakhiv.ukrtel.n granted 

Trybushany 

et 

7 slide Maramarosh 2003 CBR Rakhiv n/a cbr@rakhiv.ukrtel.n 

et 

granted 

8 slide Maramarosh 2003 CBR Rakhiv n/a cbr@rakhiv.ukrtel.n 

et 

granted 

9 slide Rožok 2004 TU Zvolen n/a pichler@vsld.tuzvo. 

sk 

granted 

10 slide Stužica – 2000 TU Zvolen n/a pichler@vsld.tuzvo. granted 

Bukovské 

Vrchy 

sk 


Bukovské 

Vrchy 

sk 


Bukovské 

Vrchy 

sk 

13 slide Svydovets 2003 CBR Rakhiv n/a cbr@rakhiv.ukrtel.n 

et 

granted 

14 slide Svydovets 2003 CBR Rakhiv n/a cbr@rakhiv.ukrtel.n 

et 

granted 

15 slide Uholka- 2003 CBR Rakhiv n/a cbr@rakhiv.ukrtel.n granted 

Shyrokyi 

Luh 

et 


Shyrokyi 

Luh 

et 


Shyrokyi 

Luh 

et 


Shyrokyi 

Luh 

et 

Table 7: List of prints 

Id. 

No 

Format 

(slide/ 

print/ 

video| 

Caption Date of 

Photo 

Photographer 

/ 

Director 

Of the video 

Copyright owner (if 

different than 

photographer/ 

director of the video) 

Contact details of 

copyright owner 

(Name, address, 

tel/fax and e-mail 

Non 

exclusive 

cession of 

rights 

granted 

1 Print Chornohora 2003 CBR Rakhiv n/a cbr@rakhiv.ukrtel.n 

et 

2 Print Chornohora 2003 CBR Rakhiv n/a cbr@rakhiv.ukrtel.n 

et 

granted 

3 Print Havešová 2002 TU Zvolen n/a pichler@vsld.tuzvo. granted 

74

4 Print Havešová 2002 TU Zvolen n/a pichler@vsld.tuzvo. granted 

5 Print Kuziy- 2003 CBR Rakhiv n/a cbr@rakhiv.ukrtel.n granted 

Trybushany 

et 

6 Print Kuziy- 2003 CBR Rakhiv n/a cbr@rakhiv.ukrtel.n granted 

Trybushany 

et 

7 Print Rožok 2004 TU Zvolen n/a pichler@vsld.tuzvo. 

sk 

granted 

8 Print Stužica – 2000 TU Zvolen n/a pichler@vsld.tuzvo. granted 

Bukovské 

Vrchy 

sk 

9 Print Stuzhytsia- 2003 CBR Rakhiv n/a cbr@rakhiv.ukrtel.n granted 

Uzhok 

et 

10 Print Svydovets 2003 CBR Rakhiv n/a cbr@rakhiv.ukrtel.n 

et 

granted 

11 Print Svydovets 2003 CBR Rakhiv n/a cbr@rakhiv.ukrtel.n 

et 

granted 

12 Print Uholka- 2003 CBR Rakhiv n/a cbr@rakhiv.ukrtel.n granted 

Shyrokyi 

Luh 

et 

13 Print Uholka- 2003 CBR Rakhiv n/a cbr@rakhiv.ukrtel.n granted 

Shyrokyi 

Luh 

et 

14 Print Vihorlat 2003 TU Zvolen n/a pichler@vsld.tuzvo. 

sk 

granted 

15 Print Vihorlat 2003 TU Zvolen n/a pichler@vsld.tuzvo. 

sk 

granted 

7. b Texts relating to the protective designation, copies of property management plans or 

documented management systems and extracts of other plans relevant to the property 

− Annex 1: Map Annexes 15 

− Annex 2: Integrated management plan for the serial nomination “Beech primeval 

forests of the Carpathians” 

− Annex 3: Color prints 

− Annex 4: Summary – the NECONET of Slovakia 

− Annex 5: Project of the territoria organization and protection of natural comlexes of 

the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve, Regulations of the National nature Park 

Uzhanskyi” 

− Annex 6: Decree of the Slovak Government on the establishment of Poloniny National 

Park and decree of the Slovak Government on the establishment of Vihorlate 

Protected Area 

− Anenx 7: Development of the ECONET of Ukraine 

− Annex 8: Law of Ukraine on the State Programme of Ukraine’s Environmental 

Network Development for years 2000–2015 

− Annex 9: Decisions of the Government of the Slovak Republic to the National list of 

NATURA 2000 and the Wild Birds Areas 

− Annex 10: General supraregional territorial system of ecological stability an the 

Territorial development plan of the greater Prešov Self-Governing Region 

15 Due to time and technical constraints, the maps could not have been furnished with geographical coordinates 

in time. However, new maps are under peraparation. 

75

7. c Form and date of most recent records and archives held 

The most recent and detailed records of the state of the nominated properties and their 

components, including primeval forests dynamics, structure and biodiversity have been 

acquired between 1996–2006 within the framework the periodical survey. The reults are 

available in the form of published scioentific articles, reports and databases. All acquired data 

are collected and classified by nature protection administrations responsible for the respective 

properties, i. e. Carpathian Biosphere Reserve Administration (Ukraine) and Poloniny 

National Park Administration (Slovak Republic). 

7.d Address where inventory, record and archives are held 

The source materials and originals of reports, scientific artcicles, as well as specialized 

databases are kept by: 

1. Ministry of the Environment of the Slovak Republic 

Department of Nature and Landscape Protection 

1 L. Štúr Square, 812 35 Bratislava, Slovak Republic 

2. Slovak Inspectorate for the Environment 

Nature Conservancy Inspectorate Headquarters 

2 Karloveská Street, 812 22 Bratislava, Slovak Republic 

(with regional offices in Bratislava, Banská Bystrica, Žilina and Košice) 

3. State Nature Conservancy of the Slovak Republic 

Centre for Nature and Landscape Protection 

10 Lazovná Street, P.O. BOX 5, 974 01 Banská Bystrica, Slovak Republic 

(with executive bodies described in part 4d of this nomination project) 

4. Slovak Environmental Agency 

Centre for Environmental Project Programming 

26 Kammerhofská street, 96900 Banská Štiavnica, Slovak Republic 

5. Slovak Environmental Agency 

Centre for Environmentalistics and Informatics 

28 Tajovského Street, 97500 Banská Bystrica, Slovak Republic 

6. Technical university of Zvolen 

Faculty of Forestry 

24 T.G.Masaryka, 96001 Zvolen, Slovak Republic 

7. Slovak Academy of Sciences 

Institute for the Forest Ecology 

4 Štúrova Street, 96001 Zvolen, Slovak Republic 

8. Carpathian Biosphere Reserve 90600 

Krasne Pleso str., 77 

76

Rakhiv, Transcarpathian Region 

Ukraine 

9. State Nature Museum (Ljviv) 

79000, Teatralna str., 18 

Ljviv, Ukraine 

10. Institute of Ecology 

of the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences (UNAS) 

79000, Chaikovskoho str.,7 

Ljviv, Ukraine 

11. Institute of Zoology of UNAS 

01601,Khmelnytskogo str., 15 

Kyiv-30, Ukraine 

12. Institute of Botany UNAS 

01601 Tereshchenkivska str., 2 

Kyiv, Ukraine 

13. Ljviv National University (Faculty of Geology) 

79000, Doroshenka str. 

42 Ljviv, Ukraine 

14. Uzhgorod National University (Faculty of Geography) 

88000, Voloshyna str., 32 

Uzhgorod, Ukraine 

15. Ukrainian Scientific Research Institute for Mountain Forestry 

76000, Grushevskogo str. 

31, Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine 

16. Mendel University of Agriculture and Forestry 

Zemědělská 3, Brno – Černá pole 

61300, Czech Republic 

17. Institute for Geography 

of the Russian National Academy of Sciences Moscow 

Staromonetnaya str, 21, Russia 

18. Ukrainian State Project Agency (Irpin’) 

08200, Proletarska str., 22-24 

Irpinj, Kyiv District, Ukraine 

77

7. e Bibliography 

ABELENTSEV V.I., POPOV B.M. Chiroptera (or bats) / Fauna of Ukraiene. Mammals. Kyiv, 

1956, vol. 1, pp. 229-446. 

ANDRIANOV G.A. About vertical soil zoning in the Soviet Carpathians – Proceedings of the 

Lviv university, 1970, 40, issue 4, pp. 180-188. 

ANDRSHENKO G.O. Soils of western regions of the Ukrainian SSR. – Dublyany: Lviv 

agricultural institute, 1970. – 114. 

ANTOSYAK V.M., HODOVANETS B.YO., DOVHANYCH YA.O., POKYNCHEREDA V.F., CHUMAK 

V.O. Conservationa of natural diversity of Transcarpathia by optimization of Nature 

Protection Fund of the region. // Sustainable agricultural development anl biodiversity 

conservation: Proceedings of International - Regional Conference (Uzhgorod, 17-18 May 

1996) Egs. V.Kricsfalusy. – Uzhgorod, 1996. – P. 25-27. 

ASZÁLOS, R., STANDOVÁR, T., 2003: A study of Gap Characteristics in the Néra Forest 

Reserve (Romania) Using Satellite Image Analysis. NAT-Man working report 2006. 

BAIDASHNIKOV A.A. Terrestrial mollusks // Flora and fauna of reserves of USSR. Fauna of 

the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve. – M. , 1998. –pp. 6–14. 

Biodivarsity of the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve.– Kyiv: Intercocenter, 1997, p. 714. 

BOZHUK T. Some notes to the methodic of landscape-ecological monitoring organization on 

the Maramorosh testing plot in the Ukrainian Carpathians // Geodezja inzynieryjna i 

kataster w gospodarce narodowej: Budownictwo i inzynieria srodowiska. -Nr.166. - 

Rzeszow, 1998. T.I. –S.49-56. 

BOZHUK T. Notes to the problem of data-base structure of landscape-ecological information 

system in the Ukrainian Maramorosh // Geoinformation monitoring of the environment - 

GPS & GIS technologies: Зb. Proceedings of the V International Symposium. - Lviv, 

2000. pp. 75-77. 

BOZHUK T.I., SENCHYNA B.V. Vegetation cover of the Ukrainian Maramorosh: characteristic 

features and problems of nature use in the Carpathian region. – Kolomyia: IUPR, 2000. 

p.5-8. 

BUBLINEC, E., PICHLER, V. (Eds.), 2001: Slovak Primeval Forests – Diversity and 

Conservation. IFE SAS, Zvolen. 

BÜCKING,W., 2003: Are there threshold numbers for protected forests? J. Environ. manage. 

67, 1, 37−45. 

BUCHYNSKYI I.O., VOLEVAKHA M.M., KORZHOV V.O. Climate of the Ukrainian Carpathians. 

– K.: Naukova Dumka, 1971 

78

BRANG, P., 2005: Virgin Forests as a Knowledge Source for Central European Silviculture: 

Reality or Myth? Forest Snow and Landscape Research, 79 (1/2), 19−31. 

CHUMAK V.O. Homoptera, Aphidinea in the Ukrainian Carpathians./ Dissertation. – Kyiv, 

1999. – p. 309. 

Carpathian Reserve. – Uzhgorod, Karpaty, 1982 – p. 125. 

COMMARMOT, B., (EDS.), 2005: Natural Forests in the Temperate Zone of Europe: biological, 

social and economic aspects. In: Forest Snow and Landscape Research, 79 (1/2). 

COMMARMOT, B., DUELLI, P., CHUMAK, V., 2000: Urwaldforschung – Beispiel 

Biosphärenreservat Transkarpatien. In: Naturwerte in Ost und West. Publ. zur Tagung 

“Forum fuer Wissen”, WSL, Birmensdorf, S. 61–68. 

COMPS, B., GÖMÖRY, D., LETOUZEY, J., THIÉBAUT, B., PETIT, R. J., 2001: Diverging Trends 

Between Heterozygosity and Allelic Richness During Postglacial Colonization in the 

European Beech. Genetics, Vol. 157, 389-397. 

DAJOZ, R., 2000: Insects and forests: the role and diversity of insects in the forest 

environment. Intercept, London –– New York; Lavoisier Pub., Paris. 

DELEHAN, I., V., 2005: History of forest management in the Transcarpathian province. In: 

Commarmot, B., Hamor, F. D. (eds), 2005: Natural forests of the Temperate zone of 

Europe – Values and Utilisation. Conference 13–17 October 2003, Mukachevo, Ukraine. 

Proceedings. Birmensdorf, Swiss federal Research Institute WSL; Rakhiv, Carpathian 

Biosphere Reserve, 455–462. 

DENK, T., 2004: Revision of Fagus from the Cenozoic of Europe and southwestern Asia and 

its phylogenetic implications. Documenta Naturae 150, Vlg. Documenta Naturae, 

Muenchen, 72 pp. 

DENK, T., GRIMM, G., STOGERER, K., LANGER, M., HEMLEBEN, V., 2002: The evolutionary 

history of Fagus in western Eurasia: Evidence from genes, morphology and the fossil 

record Plant Syst. Evol. 232: 213–236. 

DE VAAL, C., 2004: Post-socialist Property Rights and Wrongs in Albania: An Ethnography of 

Agrarian Change, 2, 1, 19–50. 

DOVHANYCH YA.E. Notes on some peculiarities of mammals in beech forests of the 

Carpathian Reserve // Ecology of mountain mammals. - Sverdlovsk, 1982. - pp. 34-35. 

DOVHANYCH YA.E. Communities of rodents of the beech virgin forests of the Carpathian 

Reserve // Abstract volume of the 5 th Conf. of young scientists – Uzhgorod, 1990. – pp. 

12-13. 

79

DOVHANYCH YA. E., RYBCHAK R.V. Role of model plots for finding solution to the problem 

of protection and rational use of the Carpathian mountain forests // Moscow, 1991. - pp. 

131-132. 

DOVHANYCH YA.E. Carnivores of the Carpathian Reserve // Moscow, 1986. – pp. 12-14. 

DOVHANYCH YA.E., LUHOVOI O.A. Field-mice of the Carpathian Reserve // Problems of 

protected ecosystems’ protection and research. – Rakhiv, 1988. – pp. 107-109. 

DUELLI, P., CHUMAK, V., OBRIST, M. K., WIRZ, P.: The biodiversity values of European virgin 

forests. Forest Snow and Landscape Research, 79 (1/2), 91−99. 

Ecological bases for optimization of protection regime and use of the Nature Protection Fund, 

- Rakhiv, 1993. 

EUROPEAN FORESTS and PROTECTED AREAS: Gap Analysis. TECHNICAL REPORT. 

Compiled by the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK. July 

2000. 

Fauna of the Carpathian Reserve. –Moscow, 1988. – pp. 19-35. 

Flora and fauna of the reserves in USSR. Fauna of the Carpathian Reserve. - Moscow, 1988. - 

pp. 36-43. 

Flora and vegetation of the Carpathian Reserve. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 1982. 

GÁPER, J., 1996: Fruktifikácia a produkcia bazidiospór hubou Fomes fomentarius v Národnej 

prírodnej rezervácii Stužica (Bukovské vrchy). Spravodajca slovenských mykológov, 

Roč. 4, č. 11 (1996), s. 17-18. 

GIURGIU, V., DONITA, N., BANDIU, C., RADU, S., CENUSA, R., DISSESCU, R., STOICULESCU, 

C., IOVU, A., 2001: Les Forêts Vierges De Roumanie. Asbl Forêt Wallonne. 206 pp. 

HALKKA, A., LAPPALAINEN, I., 2001: WWF Report – Insight into Europe's Forest 

Protection.WWF, Gland, 36 pp. 

HODOVANETS B.YO. Present state and conservation of golden eagle population in the 

Ukrainian Carpathians // Zoology journal. – 2003, 37 (2) – pp. 36-41. 

HODOVANETS B.YO Present state of avifauna of the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve // Nature 

protection in Ukraine. – 1996. – Vol. 2. – pp. 36-41. 

HODOVANETS B.YO State of Ural owl in the Carpathian biosphere reserve // Nature protection 

in Ukraine. – 1996. – Vol. 2. – pp. 50-51. 

HODOVANETS B.YO Notes to nest biology of Cinclus cinclus in the Carpathians // “Berkut”. 

– 1996 – Vol. 5, issue 1. – pp.53-55. 

HODOVANETS B.Yo Notes to biology of Motacilla cinerea in the Carpathians. // Conf. 

proceedings. – Chernivtsi, 1996. – pp.36-39. 

80

HODOVANETS B.YO Distribution and number of Prunella collaris in the Ukrainian 

Carpathians. // Zoology journal. – 2000. – No. 14 (special issue).– pp. 91-97. 

HODOVANETS B.YO Present state and conservation of Falconiformes in the Ukrainian 

Carpathians. // Scientific journal of the Uzhgorod National university: Biology. – 2004. – 

Issue 14. – pp. 176–179. 

HODOVANETS B.YO., LUHUVOI O.YE., GUZIY A.I., SKILSKYI I.V., BUDZYAK P.V., Fauna, 

population and peculiarities of nest biology of birds in the “Narcissus Valley” massif of 

the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve and adjacent area. // Nature protection in Ukraine. – 

Chernivtsi, 1995. – pp. 51-56. 

HODOVANETS B.YO., SKILSKYI I.V., Notes to nest biology of Troglodyites troglodyites in the 

Carpathians. // Conf. proceedings. – Chernivtsi, 1996. – pp. 40-42. 

HORBAN I.M., BOKOTEI H.V., Ornithology news from wester regions of Ukraine. // 

Ornithology. – 1991.- issue 25. – pp. 153-155. 

HORBAN I.M., DAVYDOVYCH L.I. Present characteristic features of avifauna of the 

Chornohora Mountain Ridge. // Biocoenoses of the Carpathian upland (optimization and 

protection): journal of the Lviv university. Biology. – Lviv, 1987. – issue 17. – pp. 72-75. 

HOFFSTEIN I.D. Geomorphology outline of the Ukrainian Carpathians.– K.: Naukova Dumka, 

1995, p. 86. 

HOFFSTEIN I.D. Neotectonics of the Carpathians.– Kyiv, 1964.– p. 184. 

HUSTON, M., 1979: General hypothesis of species diversity. Am. Nat., 113, 81–101. 

HUZIY A.I. Dynamics of number of nest population of birds in the beech primeval forests of 

the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve in winter. // Abstract volume. Zoology research. – 

Novgorod, 1990. – pp. 211-213. 

HUZIY A.I Number and ecology of Parus major in mature and overgrowth beech forests of the 

Carpathians // Zoology journal. – 1988. – No. 2. – pp. 71-73. 

HUZIY A.I Ornithology complexes of forest ecosystems of the Ukrainian Carpathians – their 

ecology, practical meaning and protection. – Voronezh, 1992. – p. 27. 

HUZIY A.I Autumn-winter population of birds in virgin beech forests of the CBR in different 

years. // Abstract volume, Novgorod, 1990 – part III – pp. 213-271. 

HUZIY A.I Ciconia ciconia and Ciconia nigra in the Ukrainian Carpathians. // Conf. 

proceedings – Minsk: Nauka i Tekhnika, 1990. – pp. 224-226. 

International aspects of study and conservation of biodiversity in the Carpathians 

(Proceedings of the int. conf.). – Rakhiv, 1997. 

81

KIDSON, P.: The Medieval World. London: Paul Hamlyn (Landmarks of the World's Art 

series), 1967. Hardback. 219x290mm. 176pp. 

KORPEĽ, Š., 1967b: Vývoj a veková štruktúra bukového pralesa na Vihorlate. Biológia 4, 

SAV Bratislava, s.285-303. 

KORPEĽ, Š., 1971: Výstavba, vývojové štádiá a produkčné pomery bukových pralesov na 

Vihorlate. Československá ochrana prírody, zborník 11, s. 101-129. 

KORPEĽ, Š., 1979: Prales Stužica – štruktúra, vývoj a produkčné pomery. Československá 

ochrana prírody, 19, s. 5-46. 

KORPEĽ, Š., 1989: Pralesy Slovenska. Veda, Bratislava, 238 s. 

KORPEĽ, Š., 1995: Die Urwälder der Westkarpaten. Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, 310 s. 

KORSÚŇ, F., 1938: Taxační průskum reservace Stužica, Javorník a Pop Ivan. Sborník 

výskumního ustavu zemědelského ČSR, Brno, 7, 82 s. 

Moscow, 1988 – p. 61. 

KOMENDAR V.I. Forest vegetation of the Chornohora Mountain Range in the Ukrainian 

Carpathians // Flora and fauna of the Carpathians. – Moscow, 1963. – pp. 70-96. 

KOMENDAR V.I Vegetation of the Chornohora mountain range in the Eastern Carpathians // 

Field session of biology department devoted to investigation of fauna and flora of the 

Carpathians. – Kyiv, 1956. – pp. 14-16. 

KROCHKO YU.I. Chiroptera of the Ukrainian Carpathians: DrSc Dissertation.— Kyiv, 1992.— 

p. 34. 

KROCHKO YU.I. Invertebrate fauna of some caves and galleries of the Transcarpathian region. 

// About protection of the Carpathians. – Uzhgorod, Karpaty, 1973. – pp. 172-175. 

LE GOFF, J., 1988: Medieval Imagination. The Chicago University Press, Ltd., London, 

293 pp. 

LE GOFF, J. (Ed), 1990: Medieval Callings. The Chicago University Press, Ltd., London, 

392 pp. 

LEIBUNDGUT, H., 1982: Europäische Urwälder der Bergstufe, darg. fuer Forstleute, 

Naturwissenschafter und Freunde des Waldes. Bern/Stuttgart, Haupt. 306 S. 

LUHOVOI A.E. Visible birds’ migrations in the upper part of the Tysa river basin // Season 

migration of birds in Ukraine. – Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 1992. – pp. 141-152. 

LUHOVOI A.E. Peculiarities of city ornithology complexes in mountains (Ukrainian 

Carpathians). // Birds and city landscape. – Kaunas, 1984. – pp. 91-93. 

82

LUHOVOI A.E. Birds // Fauna of the Carpathian Reserve. – Moscow, 1988. – pp. 19–35. 

MALYNOVSKYI K.A. Upland vegetation of the Ukrainian Carpathians. Kyiv, “Naukova 

Dumka”, 1980.– p. 278 . 

MELAMUD V.V. Investigation of Acariformes & Oribatei within protected areas of the 

Ukrainian Carpathians. // Problems of biota and abiota inventory in reserves. – M., 

“Nauka”, 1988 – pp. 207-216. 

MARYSOVA I.V. Anthus spinoletta and its role in highland biocoenoses // Carpathian highlad 

biocoenoses and: Optimization and protection. / Lviv, “Vscha Shkola”, 1987. – pp. 67- 

72. 

MARYSOVA I.V. Notes to Prunella collaris ecology in the Carpathians. // Avifauna of the 

western regions of Ukraine and problems of its protection. Conf. proceedings. – Lutsk, 

1990. – pp. 27-29. 

MATTEOLI, L., 1994: Notes for a history of glass in architecture: the Cathedrals. Available at: 

http://members.iinet.net.au/~matteoli/html/Articles/Glass.html. 

MAYER, H. , 1987: Europäische Naturwaldreservate. In: Mayer, H. (Hrsg.) IUFRO Gruppe 

Urwald: 2. Oesterreichisches Urwald-Symposium, Ort-Gmunden 1987. Wien, Waldbau- 

Institut, Universität fuer Bodenkultur. 1–23. 

MÍCHAL, I., 1992: Ekologická stabilita. SPN Praha, 366 s. 

MIKLÓS, MARÁKY, KLINDA et al., 2002: Landscape Atlas of The Slovak Republic. 1st edition. 

Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic & Slovak Environmental Agency, 

Bratislava – Banská Bystrica, 344 pp. 

MINĎÁŠ, J., ŠKVARENINA, J., 1996: Modelovanie dôsledkov klimatických zmien na lesy. In: 

Klimatické zmeny a lesy Slovenska. Národný klimatický program SR, MŽP SR 

Bratislava, 5, s. 29-40. 

MIRCEAN, O., 2001: At the Confines of the Imaginary: The Desert. In: Teoria si practica 

imaginii. Echinox (2), "Babes-Bolyai" University, Cluj (Romania). 

Mountains and people (in the context of sustainable development). Conf. proceedings, Vol. 

1,2. – Rakhiv, 2002. 

MUCINA, L. & MAGLOCKÝ, Š. eds 1985: A list of vegetation units of Slovakia. Documents 

phytosociologiques, Camerino, NS 9:175B220. 

Natural conditions and natural resources of the Ukrainian Carpathians / Coll. of scientific 

articles. – naukova Dumka, 1986. – p. 303. 

Natural values of Transcarpathia. Uzhgorod, 1987. – p. 288. 

83

Natural forests in the temperate zone of Europe – values and utilization. / Proceedings of 

International conf., Mukachevo, Ukraine, 2003. – Birmensdorf-Rakhiv, 

Nature conservation in the Ukrainian Crapathians and adjacent areas. / Stoiko S.M., Milikina 

L.I. – K.: Naukova Dumka, 1980. – p. 264. 

Nature of the Ukrainian Carpathians./ - university of Lviv. – Lviv, 1968, p. 252. 

Nature of Ukrainian SSR: Geology and minarals. / O.S. Vyalov, A.V. Cherkumov, E.F. 

Shiyukov. – Kyiv, Naukova Dumka, 1986, p. 183. 

Nature of the Transcarpathian region / by K. Herenchuk. – Lviv, Vyscha Shkola, 1981. – p. 

156. 

Nature of Ukrainian SSR: Landscapes and physical-geographical division. / A. Marynych, V. 

Paschenko. – Kyiv, 1985. – p. 221. 

Nature of Ukrainian SSR: Soils. N. Vernander, I. Gogolev. – Kyiv, Naukova Dumka, 1986. – 

p. 212. 

Nature of Ukrainian SSR: Climate / V. Babichenko, M. Barabash, K. Loginov. – Kyiv, 

Naukova Dumka, 1984. – p. 232. 

OHTANI, S., KOIKE, F., 2001: Implications of 19th century landscape patterns for the recovery 

of Fagus crenata forests. Applied Vegetation Science Volume: 8 Issue: 2 Pages: 125–132. 

PARPAN V. I. Structure, dynamics and ecological basis for rational use of beech forests of the 

Carpathian region of Ukraine. Dr.Sc. dissertation, Dnipropetrovsk, 1994, p. 42. 

PARPAN V.I., STOIKO S.M. beech primeval forests of the Ukrainian Carpathians – 

conservation and coenotic structure. – Ivano-Frankivsk, “LimaNV”, - pp. 82-86. 

PARVIANEN, J., 2005: Virgin and Natural Forests in the Temperate Zone of Europe. Forest 

Snow and Landscape Research. 79, (1/2), 9−18. 

PARVIAINEN, J., 1999: Strict forest reserves in Europe – efforts to enhance biodiversity and 

strengthen research related to natural forests in Europe. In: PARVIAINEN, J., LITTLE, D., 

DOYLE, M., O’SULLIVAN, A., KETTUNEN, M., KORHONEN, M., (eds) Research in Forest 

Reserves and Natural Forests in European Countries – Country reports for COST Action 

E4: Forest Reserves Research Network. EFI Proceedings 16: 7– 33. 

PICHLER, V., SOROKOVÁ, M., 2005: Utislisation of natural Forests for Ecostourism: Matching 

the goals and Reality. Forest Snow and Landscape Research, 79 (1/2), 185−194. 

PICHLER, V., ZACH, P., 2002: Bewertung der Nachhaltigkeit des wissenschaftlichen Turismus 

in Naturökosystemen der Slowakei. IFE SAS, Zvolen, 76 pp. 

PICHLER, V., GREGOR, J., BUBLINEC, E., TUŽINSKÝ, L., STŘELCOVÁ, K., 2002: Lesné 

prostredie v súčasných podmienkach. Les, 58, 9, s. 9–13. 

84

PIOVESAN, G., DI FILIPPO, A., ALESSANDRINI, A., BIONDI, F., SCHIRONE, B., 2005: Structure, 

dynamics and dendroecology of an old-growth Fagus forest in the Apennines. Journal of 

Vegetation Science 16: 13–28. 

POHORILYAK YO.M., HOLUBKA F.M. Insects of the Uholka Reserve // About nature 

conservation in the Carpathians. – Uzhgorod, Karpaty, 1973. 

POKYNCHEREDA V.F. Hebirnation of Chiroptera in the Kuziy mossif of the CBR // 

Proceedings of the State Nature Museum UNAS. – Lviv, 1997. – p. 124. 

POKYNCHEREDA V.F. Amphibian in caves and galleries of the Carpathians // Proceedings of 

the conf. – Kyiv: Naukova Dumka. – 1989. – p. 198. 

POKYNCHEREDA V.F. Myotis brandtii (Chiroptera) — new fauna species of Ukraine // 

Zoology journal. — 1999, volumes 31-32, No. 4-5 - p. 86. 

POKYNCHEREDA V.F., ZAHORODNYUK I.V., POSTAVA T., LABOKHA M., POKYNCHEREDA V.V. 

Myotis bechsteinii (Mammalia, Chiroptera) in western Ukraine // Zoology journal, vol. 

33, No. 6. - 1999. - pp. 115-120. 

POLUSHYNA N. State of Chiroptera population in Western Podillya // European bet night '98 in 

Ukraine. – Kyiv, 1998. – pp. 106–116. 

Proceedings of the International conference “Fauna of the East Carpathians: present state and 

protection”. – Uzhgorod, 1993. – pp. 55-57. 

RAZENBERGER, D., MARINŠEK, A., DIACI, J., 2002: Influence of Large Natural Disturbance on 

Stand Development in Virgin Forest Remnant Ravna Gora – Slovenia. Natman, 

Working Report 8. 

RANDUŠKA, D., VOREL, J., PLÍVA, K., 1986: Fytocenológia a lesnícka typológia. Príroda, 

Bratislava, 339 s. 

Red Data Book of Ukraine. Animal world.- Kyiv: Ukrainian Encyclopaedia. –1994. – p. 464. 

ROTH, C., 1932: Beobachtungen und Aufnahmen in Buchen-Urwäldern der Wald-Karpathen. 

Schweiz. Z. Forstwes. 83, 1: 1–13. 

RUDNEVA E.N. Topsoil of the Transcarpathian region. – Moscow, 1960. – p. 28. 

RUNKLE, J. R., 1992. Guidelines and sample protocol for sampling forest gaps.- Research 

report - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, p. 

29. 

RYZUN V.B., YANYTSKYI T.P. New species of Duvalius (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in the 

Ukrainian Carpathians// Zoology journal, – 1994. – No.3, – pp. 79–82. 

SCHAMA, S., 2002: Landscape and Memory. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1995, pp. 

85

SCHERBAK N.N., SCHERBAN M.I. Reptiles and amphibians of the Ukrainian Carpathians. – 

Kyiv, Nakova Dumka, 1980. – p. 268. 

SHPERYK YU.S. COMMARMOT B., SUKHARYUK D.D., VITER R.M. Structure and mosaic nature 

of beech primeval forest in the Ukrainian Carpathians. / Mountains and people (in the 

context of sustainable development). Proceedings of the Int. Conf., vol. 2. – Rakhiv, 

2002. – pp. 553-558. 

SHYLENKOV V.H., RYZUN V.B. New species of Duvalius (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in the 

Transcarpathia // Zoology journal, – 1989, -– No. 4, –pp. 83–85. 

SKILSKYI I.V., HODOVANETS B.YO, BUCHKO V.V., KLITIN O.M. Ural owl. – Green Bukovyna. 

– 1995–1996. – No. 3-4 (1995), No. 1-2 (1996). – pp. 59-61. 

SNYDER, J., 1990: Medieval Art: Painting, Sculpture and Architecture 4th-14th Century. 

Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, Inc. 

STOIKO S., HADACH E., SHYMON T., MYKHALYK S. Protected ecosystems of the Carpathians. – 

Lviv, “Svit”, 1991. – p. 248. 

STOIKO S.M. Reserves and natural sites of the Ukrainian Carpathians. – University of Lviv, 

1966. – p. 142. 

STOIKO S.M. Carpathian Reserve – problems and perspectives. // About nature protection in 

the Carpathians. – Uzhgorod, Karpaty, 1973. – pp. 5-18. 

STRAUTMAN F.I. Birds of the Soviet Carpathians. – Kyiv, 954. – p. 330. 

ŠÁLY, R., PICHLER, V., 1994: Súčasné zmeny pôdnej reakcie v bučinách. Acta Facultatis 

Forestalis Zvolen, Slovakia, 35 (1993), s. 51–70. 

TABAKU, V., 2000: Struktur von Buchen-Urwäldern in Albanien im Vergleich mit deutschen 

Buchen-Naturwaldreservaten und Wirtschafts. Göttingen, Cuvillier. 

TALPOSH V.S. New data about birds of Ukrainian Carpathians and Transcarpathian lowland. // 

Ornithology. – Moscow, 1972. – pp. 391-394. 

TASENKEVICH L.O. Geobotanic characteristics of veretation of the Uholka yew-beech reserve 

in the Transcarpathia. – Naukova Dumka, 1976. – p. 157. 

Tatarinov K.A. Animal world. // Carpathian Reserve. – Uzhgorod, Karpaty, 1982. – pp. 

66-94. 

UDVARDY, M., 1975: A Classification of Biogeographical Provinces of the World. IUCN 

Occasional Paper No. 18. IUCN, Morges, Switzerland, 1975. 

URBAN, P., KRIŠTÍN, A., 1993: Faktory ovplyvňujúce diverzitu stavovcov v horských 

chránených územiach Slovenska. Životné prostredie, 27, s. 188-192. 

VERNANDER N.B. Soils of Transcarpathian region. “Pochvovedenie”, No.6, 1947. 

86

VOLOŠČUK, I., 1999: National Parks and Biosphere Reserves in Carphatians – The Last 

Nature Paradises. ACANAP, Tatranská Lomnica, 248 s. 

VOLOŠČUK, I., 2003: The geobiocenological research in the natural forest ecosystems of the 

Carpathian protected areas. The monographical studies on national parks (3). State 

nature conservancy Banská Bystrica, 122 pp. 

VYALOV O.S. Paleogen flysch of the Northern slope of the Carpathians – K.: 1961, p. 136. 

VYSKOT, M., a kol., 1981: Československé pralesy. Academia, Praha, 272 s. 

WWF Report: WWF European Forest Scorecards 2000 

ZAHORODNYUK I., POKYNCHEREDA V., KYSELYUK O., DOVHANYCH YA. Reptiles of the CBR 

// Zoology journal- 1997. – p. 60. 

Zákon č. 543/2002 Z.z. NR SR o ochrane prírody a krajiny 

ZEIBIG, A., DIACI, J., WAGNER, S., 2005. Gap Disturbannce Patterns of a Fagusy sylvatica 

virgin forest remnant in the mountain vegetation belt of Slovenia. : Forest Snow and 

Landscape Research, 79 (1/2), 69−80. 

ZIMAN, V., 1972: Vývoj, štruktúra a produkčné pomery pralesa v rezervácii Stužica. 

Diplomová práca, VŠLD Zvolen. 

ZLATNÍK, A., KORSUŇ, F, KOČETOV, F., KSENEMAN, M., 1938: Průzkum přirozených lesů na 

Podkarpatské Rusi. Sborník vyzkumných ústavů zemědělských ČSR, sv. 152, 524 pp. 

ZLATNÍK, A., 1938: Forest Reserves. (In Czech). Csl. matice lesn. 23. Písek, s. 118–125. 

ZLATNÍK, A., 1950: Přehled slovenských lesů podle skupin lesních typů. Spisy vědecké 

laboratoře biogeocenologie a typologie lesa, VŠZ, Brno, 195 s. 

ZRAZHEVSKYI A.I. Genesis and fertility of stony soils of the Carpathians. – Kyiv, 1956. 

ZUBAROVSKYI V.M. Fauna of Ukraine: Birds. – Vol. 5 (predators). – Kyiv, Naukova Dumka, 

1977. – p. 323. 

YEFREMOV A.P., ANTOSYAK V.M., SUKHARYUK D.D. Flora of the Carpathian Reserve. – 

87

8. Contact information of responsible authorities 

State Agency for Protected Areas 

Ministry of Environmental Protection of Ukraine 

35 Uryts’kogo Str. 

03035 Kyiv, Ukraine 

Tel./fax: +380 44 206 33 08 

parks@parks.freenet.kiev.ua 

State Nature Conservancy of the Slovak Republic 

10 Lazovná Street, 

P.O. BOX 5, 

974 01 Banská Bystrica, Slovak Republic 

Tel.: +421 048 471 36 26 

Fax: +421 48 415 38 66 

E-mai: urban@sopsr.sk 

8. a. Preparer 

Name: 

Viliam Pichler 

(principal preparer) 

Title: 

Assoc. 

Prof. Dr. 

Addreess: 

City, Province/State, 

Country 

Institute of Forest Ecology, 

Slovak Academy of Sciences, 

Štúrova 2, 960 53 Zvolen, 


Ivan Vološčuk Prof. Dr. Vysoké Tatry National Park 

Administration, Zdravotné 

stredisko č. 86, 059 60 

Tatranská Lomnica, Slovak 

Republic 

Fedir Hamor Prof. Dr. Carpathian Biosphere 

Reserve, 77, Krasne Pleso 

Str. 

90600 Rakhiv 

Ukraine 

8.b Official Local Institution/Agency 

Carpathian Biosphere Reserve 

Krasne Pleso str.,77 

Rakhiv, 90600 


Tel.: +380 3132 22193 

Fax: +380 3132 22659 

e-mail: cbr@rakhiv.ukrtel.net 

http://cbr.nature.org.ua 

Uzhanskyi National Nature Park 

Shevchenka Str., 54 

Velykyi Bereznyi, 89000 

Tel./fax E-mail 

Tel: +421 45 5206 

197, +421/905 580 

765 (cellular) 

Fax: +421/45/533 

2654 

Tel: +421/52/446 

7195 

Fax: + 421/52/446 

7195 

Tel.: +380/3132 

22193 

Fax: +380/3132 

22054 

pichler@vsld.tuzvo.sk 

voloscuk@sopsr.sk 

cbr@rakhiv.ukrtel.net 

88


Tel. +380 3135 21770 

Fax. +380 3135 21037 

e-mail: sciunpp@unet.net.ua 

NP Poloniny Administration 

Mierová 193 

06761 Stakčín, Slovak republic 

Tel.: +421 57 768 56 15 

Fax : +421 57 768 56 15 

E-mail: repka@sopsr.sk 

Vihorlat Protected Landscape Area 

ul. Fraňa Kráľa 1 

071 01 Michalovce, Slovak Republic 

Tel.: +421 56 688 25 41 

Fax: +421 56 688 25 43 / 56 688 25 42 

E-mail: rovnak@sopsr.sk 

East Carpathian Protected Landscape Area 

Lipová ul. 19 

066 01 Humenné, Slovak Republic 

Tel.: +421 57 775 36 32 

Fax : +421 57 775 36 32 

E-mail: platko@sopsr.sk 

8.c Other Local Institutions 

– Slovak Museum of Nature Protection 

and Speleology Liptovsky Mikulas 

Skolska 4, 031 01 Liptovsky Mikulas 


Tel./Phone: +421 44 547 72 10, +421 44 547 72 30 

Fax: +421 44 551 43 81 

E-mail: smopaj@smopaj.sk 

Www: www.smopaj.sk 

– Centre for Scientific Tourim in Slovakia 

Institute of Forest Ecology, SAS 

Štúrova 2 

960 53 Zvolen, Slovak Republic 

Tel.: +421 45 533 0914 

Fax: +421 45 547 9485 

E-mail: sekruel@sav.savzv.sk 

– Museum of Mountains Ecology and History of Nature Use 

in the Ukrainian Carpathians 

77, Krasne Pleso Str. 

89

90600 Rakhiv 

Ukraine 

Tel.: +380 3132 22193 

Fax: +380.3132 22054 

E-mail: cbr@rakhiv.ukrtel.net 

8.d Official Web address 

Thus far, there are two main web addresses that provide rich resources on the nominated 

properties: 

– http://cbr.nature.org.ua/main.htm (the official web address of the Carpathian Biosphere 

Resreve, Ukraine) 

– www.virginforests.sk (the official web address of the Joint National Centre of Temperate 

Primeval Forests Research, Slovakia) 

An official web addreess for the nominated property is under preparation in Ukrainian, 

Slovak, English and French languages (www.carpathianbeech.sk, www.carpathianbeech.sk). 

90

9. Signature on behalf of the State Party 

………………………………………… …………………………………………. 

Pavlo Mykolayovych Ihnatenko László Miklós 

Minister of Environmental Protection Minister of Environment 

of Ukraine of the Slovak Republic 

91

INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE SERIAL NOMINATION 

“BEECH PRIMEVAL FORESTS OF THE CARPATHIANS” 

I. Introduction 

The presented integrated management plan for the serial nomination “Beech primeval 

forests of the Carpathians” (hereinafter referred to as IMP) is not seen as a closed document. 

In the course of time it will be updated, adjusted and corrected if necessary in the process of 

its implementation so as to meet its pre-defined objectives. Additionally, we consider the IMP 

a tool for the transfer of the knowledge acquired by scientific methods into the real world of 

nature conservation and for both identification and and implementation of steps and measures 

aimed at maintaining a long-term integrity of nominated localities. It is understood that the 

IMP quality and implementation efficiency depends on the support of the involved 

stakeholders and parties. Such support can be achieved by a combined approach based on 

explanatory work, identifications of potential benefits for the involved entities and ways how 

to materialise those benefits without compromising the natural values and their integrity but 

instead by drawing on them, and the legal instruments. 

The management is based on scientific results from research on virgin forests and the 

various interactions between them and society with all their relevant components. Because a 

continuous improvement of primeval forests protection and management depends on a public 

support mobilisation, all inhabitants, opinion leaders and decision makers have to be 

sensitized over this issue through activities such as awareness rising, education and lobbying. 

An important role is played here by environmental ethics and justice. In this field also IMP 

has incorporated the experience and expertise of ACANAP 1 that has been promoting the 

adaptive management of primeval forests and biodiversity in the Carpathians as well as 

opportunities for exchange of management, research and monitoring experience and for 

creation of a harmonic relationship between people and nature in the Carpathians. 

The integrated management plan is based on both existing and planned instruments and 

mechanisms supposed to ensure and promote the long-term conservation and extension of the 

Beech primeval forests of the Carpathians as a serial nomination proposed for inscription onto 

the List of World Natural Heritage. Parts of this IMP have therefore a legally binding 

character while others present recommendations negotiated and approved by all stakeholders. 

The IMP of the primeval forest series nominated by Ukraine and the Slovak Republic for 

1 Association of the Carpathian National Parks and Reserves 

1

inscription onto the UNESCO World Heritage List is organised on two mutually interlinked 

levels. Each series’ property has a management plan based on a strict non-intervention policy. 

State parties guarantee the strictest level of protection for the series of nominated primeval 

forests (Ia management regime acc. to IUCN) and the monitoring aimed at preventing 

possible anthropogenic damage or disturbance on the legal premises given in 4 c). The main 

aim is to leave nominated properties to their spontaneous self-regulating development, free of 

anthropic intervention. Current buffer zones can be subject to regulatory management 

measures aimed to secure and enhance ecological stability of forest stands. On its second 

level, the IMP covers the serial nomination as a whole with objectives listed bellow. 

II. General Objectives 

The clear identification of the serial nomination innate values for which it is proposed for 

inclusion in the world natural heritage, long-term research, monitoring and experience 

gathered from the international co-operation within the ACANAP framework and other fora 

has allowed for a clear definition of integrated management plan objectives: 

(i) To ensure the most effective conservation of the nominated properties with all 

their abiotic and biotic components, geo- and biodiversity and ecological 

processes; to secure a lasting homeostasis and self-reproduction of the respective 

ecosystems and their protection both against anthropic and anthropogenic factors 

(ii) To maintain and expand the existing, ecologically connected complex of primeval 

and natural beech forests that encompass and connect (link) the nominated 

properties on both the Slovak and the Ukrainian sides through the conservation of 

other remaining natural beech forests within the proposed corridors connecting the 

nominated properties and measures supporting the succession of managed beech 

semi-natural forests adjacent to and between the nominated properties, to convert 

the expanded area into a continuous buffer zone encompassing the nominated 

properties, in addition to the already existing ones; that will support the exchange 

of biological information between the properties. 

(iii) To use nominated series of primeval forests for scientific research in order to 

acquire knowledge transferable and applicable on the level of sustainable, close-tonature 

and continuous-cover forestry through mimicking of selected primeval 

2

forests patterns; at the same time also serve the call for enhancement of landscape 

ecological stability not only on national but also global level; 

(iv) To use natural heritage for enhancement of ecological and environmental 

education, awareness of primeval forests and their intrinsic, innate value in the 

local communities, nations and the global community; educational activities shall 

be carefully chosen to maintain integrity and conservation of the existing sites, to 

preserve their naturalness and uniqueness and to avoid both their devastation or 

degradation. 

(v) To allow for the sustainable use of natural resources in the broader region through 

the support of traditional crafts, products and ecotourism, the latter having the 

beech primeval forests as one of its attractors, as a source of income for the nearby 

communities, based on a proper sensitization of the local and foreign visitors over 

their value through multiple communication channels, including the internet page, 

provision of guided walks, eductional trails, interactive learning, films, press 

articles an other forms. 

III. Legal instruments 

This chapter lays out valid legal instruments applied to ensure meeting the above 

objectives in areas within and outside the serial nomination properties perimeter. An effective 

coordination of the legal instruments use and implementation represents one of the main tasks 

of the Joint Management Committee (hereinafter JMC). JMC itself has no legal enforcement 

powers, but they are sufficiently exercised by institutions represented in it, mainly the 

ministries of environment of both countries, national park and biosphere reserve 

administrations, State nature conservancy and municipal governments. The legal instruments 

are divided into two groups and several sub-groups in this chapter. The first group includes 

legal instruments that ensure in a thorough and consequent manner the conservation of the 

nominated properties and partly enable also their possible extension. 

The second group establishes a legal instruments framework that enables the embedding 

of the integrated management plan objectives into a complex territorial planning and their 

implementation through the Landscape ecological planning, because the principal questions 

asked in the planning process is: What are the valuable elements in the landscape worth 

protection? Then the land use is adjusted according to this priority. 

3

Nature protection oriented legal instruments 

Legal instruments for the management of the nominated properties: The nominated properties 

are subject to non-intervention management guaranteed by the state laws of Ukraine and the 

Slovak Republic. According to the Law of Ukraine “On Nature Protection Fund of Ukraine”, 

the beech virgin forests selected for the nomination are located within the core zones A of the 

CBR and thus under the strictest protection. The protection measures are enforced under a 

threat of severe penalties stipulated by the Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 521, 

21.04.1998. 

Protection measures related to the nominated beech primeval forests on the Slovak territory 

are regulated by the provisions of Act No. 543/2002 Coll. on Nature and Landscape 

Protection (hereinafter only Act). In the wording of § 16, section 1 of the Act, any 

interventions are prohibited in these strictly protected areas. The cited protection regimes 

correspond to Ia management regime of IUCN classification. 

That principle is in turn projected in the elaboration of forest management plans. Every 

nominated property is individually covered by an approved forest management plan (FMP) 

for a 10-year period, which stipulates no-intervention policy within the nominated primeval 

forests. In the buffer zone, the FMP allows for measures aimed to support natural processes if 

necessary, using the close-to-nature forestry approach. Legal norms providing for the forest 

management plans are contained in the §1- 5 of the Act of the Slovak National Council No. č. 

326/2005 Coll. on the forest management and state administration of forest management and 

in the wording of the pursuant regulations and Regulation of the Ministry of Agriculture of 

the Slovak Republic No. 5/1994 Coll. on forest management. Both of them provide specific 

provisions for the structure and design of forest management plans. Additionally, each cluster 

of nominated properties has its buffer zone supposed to reinforce desired protection effect. 

Protection measures are realized by the State Nature Conservancy. 

Legal instruments for the management of the nominated properties’ buffer zones: The 

management of the nominated properties buffer zones (zone B) is regulated by the state laws 

of Ukraine and the Slovak Republic (Ukraine: Law of Ukraine “On Nature Protection Fund of 

Ukraine”, Law of Ukraine “On the nature reserve fund of Ukraine” No. 2456-XII; Slovak 

Republic: Act No. 543/2002 Coll. on Nature and Landscape Protection). Only measures in 

support of natural processes are allowed within a buffer zone. Such measures are planned, if 

necessary, in the management plans of national nature preserves, and projected into binding 

forest management plans. 

4

Legal instruments for the management of the connecting corridors and areas outside the 

serial nomination properties and buffer zone perimeter: On the Ukrainian territory, the 

connecting corridors linking the properties are subject to the Law of Ukraine No. 1989-111 

“On establishing of the Ukrainian national ecological network”. These forests are thus either 

under state protection and designated already for the future extension of the Carpathian 

Biosphere Reserve or are they reserved for the establishment of new protected areas (See Map 

Annex No. 6), e. g. the Zhdymyr Nataional Nature Park with a rather vast territory has been 

established. 

On the Slovak territory, the largest part of the connecting corridors (about 85 % on the 

Slovak territory) is located within the boundaries of the Poloniny NP and VPLA. Thus, they 

are subject to forest management plans, in which the application of close-to-nature 

continuous-cover forestry toolbox is secured by the obligatory incorporation of “protected 

area maintenance programmes” (§54, sec.3-4 of the Act 543/2002), worked out by the 

respective authority (NP Poloniny, ECPLA) in compliance with §21 of the Regulation No. 

24/2003 of the Ministry of the Environment of the Slovak Republic, and subject to the 

approval by the Government of the Slovak Republic. ECONET, NECONET – Ivan 

The rest (about 15 % on the Slovak territory) is covered by forest management plans that 

respect principles of sustainable forestry acc. to the Act of the Slovak National Council No. 

326/2005 Coll. In these sections of connecting corridors, the sole application of continuouscover 

forestry toolbox must yet be negotiated within the Steering committee. 

Complex territorial planning oriented legal instruments 

The General scheme of territory planning in Ukraine (further on – “the General Scheme”) 

defines priorities and conceptual decisions on planning and use of Ukrainian territory in, 

improvement of settling system and provision of sustainable development of settlements, 

development of industrial, social and transport-engineering infrastructure, formation of 

ecological network. The General Scheme has its legal footing in Law of Ukraine “On the 

general scheme of territory planning in Ukraine” Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, 7.02.2002, No. 

3059-III and its fully respects the Law of Ukraine "On Nature-Protection Fund of Ukraine" 

16.06.1992, No.2456-XII. Regulations provided in the General Scheme correspond to the 

principles of appropriate documents adopted at the UN Conference on the settlements’ 

development (HABITAT - II) and to corresponding recommendations of the UN European 

Economic Commission and the Council of Europe. In order to create a sufficient environment 

5

for living and favorable conditions for economic development, and also to provide efficient 

use of the territories’ potential and conservation of their natural and cultural originality based 

upon the results of evaluation of anthropic pressures, the territory is determined basing upon 

the kinds and regimes of utilization: areas with intensive industry; territories with mostly 

agricultural industry located there; territories of the Nature Protection Fund of Ukraine that are 

important for biological and landscape diversity conservation; zones with expended radiation 

level and some other. In order to guarantee efficient utilization of territories that are of a 

special ecological, scientific, aesthetic value it is envisaged to elaborate the system of state 

(national) support for such territories. The General Scheme is implemented by the bodies of 

the state power and by local self-governing bodies in the order envisaged by Ukrainian 

Legislation. 

The Carpathian Biosphere Reserve and the Uzhanskyi National Nature Park are 

subordinated directly to the Ministry and their territory belongs to the Nature Protection Fund 

of Ukraine. But still, administrations of both establishments manage their territories in close 

co-operation with local bodies of state power and self-government. There operate Coordination 

Councils with the members representing both local authorities and representatives 

of the Reserve and the Park respectively. 

The territorial planning in the Slovak Republic is regulated by Act No. 50/1976, 

103/1990, 262/192, 136/1995, 199/1995, 222/1996, 229/1997, 175/199, 237/2000, 416/2002, 

553/2001 Coll. This establishes a compulsory framework for the designation of functional 

zones based on the landsape-ecological planning (LANDEP) and allows for an organic 

incorporation of corridors connecting the nominated properties into the territorial plans for the 

respective region (The Prešov Self-Governing Region on the Slovak territory has had its 

binding Territorial Plan approved by the Government provison No. 216/1998 Coll.). The acts 

allow for the necessary changes in the territorial plans through territorial proceedings that 

result into issuing a territorial decision. In the case of issuing a decision on the landscape 

protection, decisions are based on § 39b, Act No. 50/1976 Coll. 

Legal instruments stipulating and encouraging the participative processes 

According to Ukrainian Legislation, some areas within the zone of anthropogenic 

landscapes of these nature protection establishments belong to stakeholders (not within the 

core and buffer zones), but any kind of activity performed by landusers is supervised by CBR 

6

and UNNP respectively. More than that, Scientific Boards of the aforementioned 

establishment include not only scientists and specialists, but also representatives of local 

bodies of power and stakeholders. 

On the Slovak territory, the acts that regulate the preparation of territorial plans also 

provide for the participation of municipal and regional governments, state administration, 

state nature conservancy, non-governmental organisations and other entities in that process. 

The creation and functioning of non-governmental organisations is regulated by the Act No 

83/1990 Coll. 

IV. Management structure 

As it has been outlined above, the conservation of the nominated properties can be 

ensured within the existing legal framework. So, the sheer conservation of the nominated 

properties is not the sole objective of the integrated management plan. Much more it is 

oriented at the mobilization of the public resources in order to pursue a vision of a contiguous 

natural area over which the natural beech forests dynamics will be the governing force, and 

whose natural heritage is respected and recognized as a unique intrinsic value that can be 

utilized for people’s benefit in a both sensitive and sensible manner. To proceed along these 

lines, the integrated management structure for the serial nomination must be kept simple, 

transparent and shaped according to project management standards. 

IMP consists of two stages, in which two entities are supposed to play decisive roles. 

Currently, during its 1 st top-down stage, the integrated management plan aims at the 

implementation of the objectives (i) and (iv), as well as for the preparatory steps towards the 

implementation of the objective (ii). An awareness rising campaign is continues so as to 

sensitize and inform a broad spectrum of stakeholders on the values of the beech primeval 

forests of the Carpathians, the need for their conservation, on their nomination for the world 

natural heritage, as well as on the opportunities opening up for the East Carpathian region in 

terms of ecotourism, cultural tourism, manufacturing of traditional products and provision of 

services, as well as shape and intensify the participative process by the initiation of a bottomup 

process, which is currently rather limited. The main coordinator of these steps and 

processes is the Joint Management Committee for the Integrated Management of the Beech 

Primeval Forests of the Carpathians. 

7

During the 2 nd stage that too has already begun, an intense co-operation on the 

implementation of objectives (ii), (iii) and (v), as well as the expression of interests pertaining 

to these objectives is expected within a panel representing a broad spectrum of stakeholders. 

IV. 1 Management co-ordination 

The territory of the serial nomination is embedded into a specific legal, executive and 

administrative system that in turn allows for the practical execution of steps and measures 

aimed at IMP implementation. For that reason, the management of the serial nomination 

requires superior structures that are locally, nation-wide and bilaterally supported on a 

political level. For that purpose, a Joint Management Committee for the Integrated 

Management of the Beech Primeval Forests of The Carpathians (JMC) was established by the 

ministries of environment of both countries. It has been entrusted with further development 

and adjustments of the integrated management plan, as well as its co-ordination. To be 

functional and effective, it does not need a special executive authority, because that is 

available to its members. 

The top-down approach initiated by the ministries, state nature conservancies, as well as 

scientific circles is necessary during the 1 st phase because the public awareness of the 

primeval forests and their potential for sustainable ecotourism has been found relatively low 

among inhabitants and organizations in the remote areas, where natural forests are still 

abundant and considered a standard part of people’s environment 2 . The political support on 

both municipal and state levels is secured. 

Its competences are delegated and its financing is secured by the ministries. JMC meets 

quarterly or when a need arises, and prepares reports on the state of the properties on a yearly 

basis. It coordinates the serial nomination monitoring based on unified methodology and 

reports the ministries and national UNESCO committees on emerging problems in the pursuit 

of integrated management goals. It initiates steps necessary to assure scientific research, 

monitors and supports, where possible and feasible, the extension of the heritage already 

declared by additional properties. Committee is responsible for the implementation of 

nominated series of primeval forests integrated management policy into practice, both in 

terms of the conservation management and the foreseen expansion of the buffer zone. 

2 Pichler, V., Soroková, M., 2005: Utislisation of natural Forests for Ecostourism: Matching the goals and 

Reality. Forest Snow and Landscape Research, 79 (1/2), 185−194. 

8

Currently, the committee pursues the goals sorted out for the 1 st stage of the integrated 

management plan development and implementation, i. e. objectives (i) and (iv), as well as the 

preparation for the implementation of the objective (ii). An awareness rising campaign is 

continued so as to sensitize and inform a broader spectrum of stakeholders on the nomination 

proceedings and the respective criteria to be met, as well as on opportunities opening up for 

the East Carpathian region in terms of ecotourism, cultural tourism, manufacturing of 

traditional products and provision of services in connection with the possible awarding of the 

world natural heritage label. The ultimate goal is to shape and intensify the participative 

process in the bottom-up direction as the 2 nd stage. 

During the 2 nd stage, a JMC-assisted creation of an Integrated Management Panel (IMP 

Panel) Panel as a non-governmental organisation is foreseen in order to achieve a balanced 

representation of all stakeholders’ interests willing to participate in the pursuit of IMP 

objectives. The panel members will both co-operate with the JMC on the implementation of 

objectives (ii), (iii) and (v) and to voice their interests pertaining to these objectives. There 

will be an intense and fruitful communication between the JMC and the Panel. JMC will 

provide panel with the vital information on the opportunities for both sensitive and sensible 

utilisation of the world natural heritage lable as well as the goals and criteria to be met. The 

Panel will probably be active mainly in the fields of forestry, public relations and lobbying, 

ecotourism (transportation, services), for which it will set up dedicated working groups. 

Together, they will closely cooperate in all areas, in partcicular in the territorial planning 

aimed at the extension of corridors connecting the serial nomination properties and their 

sensible and differentiated utilisation. 

IV.2 Practical management 

As outlined in chapter IV. (Management structure), the practical management in the areas 

of nature conservation, science, awareness rising and territorial planning is coordinated by the 

JMC and carried out by the responsible organisations represented in it, through the available 

legal framework. 

IV.2.1 Specific objectives 

9

The following are the main inter-related specific objectives, derived from general objectives 

(Chapter II of IMP) and of this framework and integrated management plan, their outputs and 

activities 3 : 

Objective I: co-ordination of joint activities concerning serial property 

Output I.1: Establishment of the Joint Management Committee of the serial 

property 

− Activity I.1.1*: Establish the Joint Management Committee of the 

serial property 

− Activity I.1.2**: Elaborate and approve the statutes o the Joint 

Management Committee of the serial property 

Output І.2: Regular meetings of the Joint Management Committee of the serial 

property 

− Activity І.2.1*: Organize regular meetings of working group to elaborate 

joint serial nomination “Beech primeval forests of the Carpathians” (Ukraine- 

Slovakia); 

− Activity І.2.2*: Develop Joint Integrated Management Plan (IMP); 

− Activity І.2.3*: Organize regular meetings concerning IMP implementation 

and agree the short-term action plans; 

− Activity І.2.4**: Organize public presentations to introduce preparation of 

transboundary serial nomination “Beech primeval forests of the Carpathians”, 

as well as objectives, outputs and activities of the Management Plan; 

− Activity І.2.5**: Found of working groups for the short-term action plans 

realization; 

− Activity І.2.6**: Make annual reports for IMP implementation and update 

the Plan; 

Output І.3: An operation management for realization of IMP 

− Activity І.3.1**: Provide operation management for Management Plan by 

administrations of the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve (Ukraine) and Poloniny 

National Park including: 

3 (remarks: * - already achieved; ** - on-going activity; *** other activities are still to be implemented) 

10

− prepare meetings of the JMC and agree with Committee members 

their agendas; 

− elaborate draft action plans, control realization of the IMP, work 

packages and action plans; 

− invite other interesting parties, especially the IMP Panel 

representatives to JMC meetings; 

− formally establish relations with regional authorities (in Ukraine: 

Department of Environment and Natural Resources in the Zakarpats’ka 

Oblast, Transcarpathian Regional State Administration; in Slovakia: 

governments of Prešov and Košice Self-governing Regions, municipal 

authorities; 

− implement other issues of the JMC or elaborate new proposals. 

− Activity І.3.2**: Conduct regularly together with local authorities and other 

interested parties, and those represented in the IMP Panel in particular, 

operation management concerning biodiversity conservation and sustainable 

development of the region, especially in buffer zones of the serial property. 

Output І.4: Realisation of separate points of the Management Plan and founding 

of special working groups 

− Activity І.4.1**: Appoint Joint Steering Committee mechanisms for the 

Integrated Management Plan realization; 

− Activity І.4.2**: Develop special projects and found working groups for 

implementation of separate points of the Integrated Management Plan; 

− Activity І.4.3**: Estimate results of working groups output and elaborate 

new proposals for the IMP. 

Output І.5: Optimisation of borders of the property and its buffer zones 

− Activity І.5.1*: Optimise borders of the property and its buffer zones; 

− Activity І.5.2***: Study possibilities for extension of the serial nomination 

by Romanian and Polish localities in cooperation with Romanian and Polish 

experts. 

11

Objective II: Ensuring the most effective nature conservation of the serial nomination 

properties 

Output II.1: Improving conservation of beech primeval forests as an integral 

biological formation 

. 

− Activity II.1.1*: Analyze in detail existing information on virgin forests of 

the serial property; 

−Activity II.1.2**: Continue iinvestigations of structure, functions and 

biogeochemical cycles in virgin forests;. 

−Activity II.1.3**: Develop GIS-maps of vegetation and habitats. 

Output II.2: Improvement of natural conditions for conservation of the most 

significant natural habitats and valuable biodiversity, especially globally 

threatened species 

− Activity II.2.1: Analyze existing information and experience concerning 

conservation of the most significant natural habitats, flora and fauna species 

globally threatened and identify the information gaps; 

− Activity II.2.2**: Analyze the existing and potential threats to the most 

significant natural habitats, flora and fauna species. Identify vulnerable zones 

such as upper timberline, ecotones, mires, spring areas and others and sensitive 

sites of high biodiversity value at risk; 

− Activity II.2.3**: Carry out additional investigations on species of flora and 

fauna, their habitats to fill up the information gaps in database of the serial 

property; 

− Activity II.2.4**: Compile the inventories, generalize and incorporate 

existing information and new data on the flora, fauna and habitats into database 

of the serial property and use it in long-term monitoring of biodiversity; 

− Activity II.2.5**: Elaborate special action plans for conservation of separate 

species of flora and fauna globally threatened; 

−Activity II.2.6**: Implement special measures and provide special regimes 

for conservation of rare and endangered species of flora and fauna. 

Output II.3: Development of detailed regulatory mechanisms and management 

guidelines for each individual area of the serial property 

12

−Activity II.4.1: Analyze existing management system and threats to each 

individual area; 

−Activity II.4.2: Develop detailed regulatory mechanisms and management 

guidelines for controlling negative impacts to outstanding natural values. 

Output II4: Effective management checked by long-term monitoring 

− Activity II.4.1**: Propose necessary changes in conservation of the most 

vulnerable ecosystems, rare and endangered species of flora and fauna and 

habitats; 

− Activity II.4.2*: Establish permanent plots for annual qualitative and 

quantitative recording of vegetation to detect early signs of changes. 

Objective III: Promoting sustainable land resources management in buffer zones and 

connecting ecological corridors of the serial property 

Output III.1: Implementation of the buffer zoning and connecting corridors 

systems and long-term monitoring of their effectiveness 

− Activity III.1.1**: Propose ecological corridors connecting the serial 

nomination properties based on the system of protective and special purposes 

forests, the National ECONET of the Slovak Republic, the system of 

Natura 2000 areas in the Slovak Republic, as well as the Law of Ukraine “On 

establishing of the Ukrainian national ecological network” and the proposed 

principles of ECONET in Ukraine; 

− Activity III.1.2***: Area-designate the connecting corridors on individual 

forest stands level based on the Map Annex Nr. 6, forest maps and the 

information that will become available through the implementation of the 

PINMATRA project 4 , resulting into a polygon map of primeval forests in the 

Ukraine. 

− Activity III.1.3**: Leaning on national ECONETs, propose the optimal 

management for connecting corridors on forest stands level, most preferably 

non-intervention regime and close-to-nature forestry management in the other 

cases; in limit cases, initiate expropriation process offset by corresponding 

4 The co-operative Dutch-Ukrainian project is due to start in 2006 

13

government compensation, or purchasing of land within the framework of the 

LIFE scheme 

− Activity III.1.4**: Conduct meetings with regional and local leaders and 

other stakeholders to announce the designation of the buffer zoning and 

connecting corridors systems; explain in detail their objectives, implications 

and implementation of the system; obtain feedback from the participants; 

− Activity III.1.5**: Implement proposed ecological corridors into binding 

regional development plans, implement their management modes into forest 

management plans 

− Activity III.1.6**: Implement the long-term monitoring program; channel 

findings back to the serial property database to evaluate the effectiveness of the 

zoning system. 

Output III.2: Extensive monitoring and mapping of social and economic factors 

on the terrestrial environment and natural resources 

− Activity III.2.1**: Inventory and verify land-ownership and user rights, 

especially those constituting permanent ownership and grazing and cuttings 

rights. Channel the gathered information into the database of the serial 

property. 

− Activity III.2.2**: Document the traditional practices (e.g. forestry, 

agriculture, etc.) pertaining to sustainable use of natural resources. 

− Activity III.2.3**: Produce the guidelines for traditional land and water 

resources use and biodiversity conservation. This document will subsequently 

be used for promoting awareness at the local level, and also provide guidelines 

for the governments, planning and research institutions. 

Output III.3: Income generating activities from traditional products and 

activities 

− Activity III.3.1: Develop legal measures and contractual framework to 

safeguard the serial property rights of the local inhabitants and to ensure that 

any economic benefits derived from the sustainable use of resources, including 

recreation will benefit them; 

14

− Activity III.3.2: Provide vocational (technical and financial) training for the 

development and management of the above income generating activities, 

incorporating environmental awareness programs which explain the serial 

property conservation objectives behind these income generating activities. 

Output III.4: Supportive development activities launched to assist sustainable 

development and enhance public support 

− Activity III.4.1**: Collaborate with development agencies to develop joint 

nature conservation and development activities. 

− Activity III.4.2**: Implement alternative to intensive forestry and agriculture 

technologies which are environmental friendly within the connecting corridors. 

Output III.5: Monitoring and documentation of ecological and socio-economic 

changes. 

− Activity III.5.1***: Carry out ecological and socio-economic surveys in the 

serial nomination properties and adjacent areas; introduce environmental 

extension officers with the techniques of monitoring and recording changes in 

the parameters, and report findings on regular basis. 

− Activity III.5.2***: Input as much as possible data from the above mentioned 

surveys in the databases; integrate and analyze the data as appropriate; 

document the process of change and disseminate success stories and best 

practices; study and discuss with local inhabitants on the possible causes of 

failure and revise the intervention accordingly. 

Objective IV: Strengthening institutional and human resources capacities 

Output IV.1: Supply with work offices and equipment of the serial property staff 

− Activity IV.1.1*/**: Construct new buildings and reconstruct existing offices 

for protected areas staff, meeting rooms, libraries, visit-centres (museum), 

research laboratories, sanitary faciulities for staff and guests. 

− Activity IV.1.2*/**: Supply protected areas staff within the serial property 

with hardware and software including Internet connection. 

15

Output IV.2: Biodiversity database, use of natural resources and environmental 

monitoring in the serial property and its buffer zones 

− Activity IV.2.1*/**: Create database of the serial property and update it 

regularly. 

− Activity IV.2.2*/**: Use of database for planning and management for 

biodiversity conservation and sustainable natural resources use in areas of the 

serial property and its buffer zones. 

− Activity IV.2.3*/**: Provide national and international scientists and 

environmental officers with the serial property database access. 

Output IV.3: Raising professional and technical skills 

− Activity IV.3.1**: Survey the current professional and technical capacity of 

the serial nomination staff and local inhabitants to identify the types and levels 

of training needed for the natural resources management in the long run. 

Suggested area for consideration includes: Heritage Convention mechanisms, 

study and management of biological and landscape diversity, forest 

management, water regimes in rivers and mires, education in the sphere of 

environment and traditional and progressive environmental friendly economic 

use, sustainable tourism management, computer’s education; 

− Activity IV.3.2***: Based on this survey, provide the appropriate 

professional and technical training to selected local inhabitants; 

− Activity IV.3.3**/***: Raise the level of expertise of the staff of the 

protected areas, forestry enterprises and others who are included into the 

Management Plan realization, namely: heads of research, forest observation, 

restoration of natural resources, monitoring, education, recreation, protection 

units and others; 

− Activity IV.3.4**: increase the number and range of organisations involved 

in cross-border cooperation, including organisations not previously involved. 

Output IV.4: Strengthening environmental awareness and knowledge base to 

incorporate biodiversity conservation and sustainable use objectives into 

development in the serial property and adjacent areas 

16

− Activity IV.4.1***: Conduct regular meetings, seminars and workshops 

between the protected areas staff, representatives from interesting parties, 

NGOs and science teams for joint planning, co-ordinate and evaluate activities 

in the serial property and its buffer zones, as well as to enhance knowledge 

transfer; 

− Activity IV.4.2**: Use of databases from partner organizations, in particular 

of research and educational organizations in planning and developing decisions 

regarding biodiversity conservation and sustainable development of the serial 

property and its buffer zones. 

Output IV.5: Using legislative framework for the protection of the serial property 

and its buffers zones and a balanced use of the connecting corridors 

− Activity IV.5.1**: Identify “gaps” in the present national legislations, and the 

Zakarpats’ka Oblast Parliament (Ukraine) and Presov Self-governing Region 

(Slovakia) acts whose existence could potentially allow for uncontrolled 

exploitation of natural resources in the buffer zones and connecting corridors 

(e.g. overgrazing, wood-cutting etc), violation of indigenous serial property 

rights, and habitat destruction (damaging of local people houses, quarrying, 

recreation overactivities, etc.); identify any contradictory regulations, overlaps 

of governments jurisdictions, gaps in treatment of issues and unrealistic 

enforcement of regulations; 

− Activity IV.5.2***: Propose revision of the present legislation to improve 

protection and management of the serial property and its buffer zones; 

− Activity IV.5.3: Adjust the enforcement capacity to implement the above 

mentioned legislative and regulatory mechanisms. 

Objective V: to promote environmental education and awareness 

Output V.1: Increase public awareness and organize conservation awareness 

campaigns 

− Activity V.1.1**: Further develop communication skills of protected areas 

staff, who are responsible for education in the sphere of conservation, carry out 

ecological monitoring, develop methods for sustainable development and 

implement special protected measures in the Carpathian region; 

17

− Activity V.1.2**/***: Organize meetings, seminars and workshops among 

environmental officers to exchange experience and expand activities, 

supervision of conservation of habitats of special interest, environmental 

monitoring and recreational measures involving local teachers, pupils and other 

social groups; 

− Activity V.1.3**: Implement special programs and campaigns for nature 

conservation and sustainable development awareness in the region; 

− Activity V.1.4**: Design and implement conservation awareness out-reach 

campaigns; 

− Activity V.1.5***: Organize public consultations on the issue connecting 

corridors management ; submit received comments and suggestions from the 

local authorities, NGOs, other institutions and inhabitants to the JMC for 

review and endorsement; 

−Activity V.1.6**: Support local communities’ initiatives in culture, education 

and social spheres. 

Output V.2: Optimization of sustainable recreational and tourist activities in the 

adjacent region of the serial property. 

− Activity V.2.1**: Develop co-operation between protected areas 

administrations with tourism and recreation establishments; 

− Activity V.2.2***: Determine optimal recreation regimes for different 

ecosystems of the serial property, buffer zones and connecting corridors, and 

implement special regimes for visitors in different seasons; 

− Activity V.2.3**: Support sustainable ecotourism activities and services in 

the broader region, develop visit-centres and educational paths within the 

framework of international cross-boundary schemes, such as the EU-funded 

INTERREG; 

− Activity V.2.4***: Determine special fees for recreational resources use and 

take into account the serial property rights of local inhabitants. 

− Activity V.2.5***: Sign agreements with local communities and protected 

areas administrations for co-operation. 

− Activity V.2.6**: Develop transboundary sustainable tourism in this serial 

property; improve area’s attractiveness as a tourism and investment destination. 

18

IV.2.2 Practical management mechanisms and measures framework 

Nominated properties management: Practical conservation management of the nominated 

series properties is realised by both the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve Administration and the 

Uzhanskyi National Nature Park Administration in the Ukraine, and by the organisational 

units of State Nature Conservancy of the Slovak Republic (Poloniny National Park, Vihorlat 

Protected Landscape Area). Results of their activities are quarterly reported to the JMC. 

Management of the corridors connecting the nominated properties: The ecological 

corridors connecting those serial nomination properties, which are not yet connected by buffer 

zones or protected areas, do exist de facto. They coincide with the system of NATURA 2000 

areas on the Slovak territory, National Ecological Network of Slovakia (Annex No. 4) and the 

proposed geographical directions of the ECONET of Ukraine, specifically with the elements 

of the Halitsko-Slobozhanski Eco-corridor that encompasses also sectors of virgin forests in 

the Carpathians. The practical management of the connecting corridors will alternatively 

consist of non-intervention, small-scale shelterwood and continuous forestry systems. 

According to Huston (1979), small to intermediate ecosystem perturbations do not interfere 

with the ecosystem integrity, but non-intervention is preferred wherever possible in the IMP. 

The start-up situation for the establishment of the connecting corridors is favorable. Four 

clusters of Ukrainian part of nomination (Chornohora, Svydovets, Kuziy-Trybushany and 

Maramorosh) are situated on the distance of 1−5 km from one another. Forests under state 

protection are situated in between, reserved for the future extension of the Carpathian 

Biosphere Reserve. Uhol’ka-Shyrokyi Luh is located on the distance of about 60 km from 

those mentioned above. It is also surrounded with natural forests. The territory of the National 

Nature Park “Synevi” is adjusted to this property on the northwest and the establishment of 

ecological corridors connecting it with the four aforementiond properties is planned. It is 

foreseen that in the nearest future some areas within the outlined ecological corridors will be 

given to the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve. 

Stuzhytsia-Uzhok cluster is a constitutive part of the trilateral transboundary biosphere 

reserve “Eastern Carpathians” and is directly adjusted to the Stužica Reserve on the Slovak 

territory, which itself is an integral part of the Poloniny National Park, in which all but one 

nominated properties on the Slovak territory are embedded. It is the most distant of Ukrainian 

sites and it is naturally connected through continuous massifs of beech forests with the other 

Ukrainian sites. According to the Law of Ukraine “On establishing of the Ukrainian national 

ecological network” on territories connecting the sites new forest reserves will be established 

(See Map Annex No. 6). The first step has already been made – the Zhdymyr National Nature 

19

Park with a rather vast territory has been established. On the Slovak territory, Vihorlat will be 

connected by a similar coridor to the cluster of three properties within the Poloniny National 

Park. That partcicular corridor will overlap with the Vihorlat Protected Landscape Area 

(approx. 300 ha of beech primeval forests). All these facts serve the basis for establishing an 

indivisible nature-territorial complex on the Ukrainian part and Slovak territories. 

Given the current situation, the management of corridors management consists in: 

− The placement of the buffer zone areas under the Ia conservation management regime to 

achieve the autoregulation of ecosystems 

− The establishment of new forest reserves on territories connecting the sites (applies for 

natural forests that has not been managed yet) 

− The application of specific measures within the designated corridors connecting the 

properties; these measures will include: 

− reclassification of concerned forests stands as protective forests subject to a low 

intensity management 

− extension of the rotation period from current 110 years to ≥ 150 years and the 

application small groups shelterwood system or its variations; 

− a gradual transition from shelterwood system to the selection system that features 

no rotation period but a continual regeneration period instead; 

− mimicking the natural forests patterns through the introduction of the continuouscover 

forestry and its toolbox 

− The entire abandonement of forestry operations and introduction of natural dynamics. 

The best possible alternative for specific elements of connecting corridors will be 

determined by JMC, based on consultative proceedings including the stakeholders represented 

in the IMP Panel 5 ; they will be embedded in the management programs of the respective 

5 In the 2 nd stage, the Panel will take over considerable responsibilities in the area of awareness rising, education, 

ecotourism, cultural aspects, territorial planning, development and establishment of the BEPFOC world natural 

heritage label and consequent lobbying for the benefit of the heritage and the network members. For this 

purpose, the network will establish dedicated working groups. As an example, the working group “sustainable 

transportation” will, in co-orpartion with the steering committee and the Centre for Scientific Tourism in 

Slovakia (www.ecosystems.sk) investigate opportunities for the re-establishment of express trains connecting 

the cities of Snina (Slovakia) and Rachov (Ukraine) as gates to the BEPFOC world natural heritage. To give 

another example, the working group “Cultural aspects” will investigate the underlying connections between the 

natural and cultural heritage in the region and present it through documentaries or publications. They in turn 

may provide an additional incentive for ecotourims development. In case of a successful nomination and thus 

also the Panel creation, it will likely employ managerial staff equivalent to approximately 200 % personal 

capacity. 

20

protected areas and through the territorial plans respecting the principles of the National 

ECONET of the Slovak Republic (finished and approved – Annex No. 4) and the ECONET of 

Ukraine (under preparation – Annex No. 7). In both cases, changes will be also reflected in 

the forest management plans elaborated and periodically renewed for the concerned areas 

beginning 2006 (see the Action plan). 

The overall implementation of the above principles is guaranteed by the legal authority of 

organisations represented in the JMC and the ministries of environment or environmental 

protection of both Ukraine and Slovakia. In the limit cases and after a thorough analysis of 

viable alternatives, expropriation including a corresponding compensation and the 

implementation of proposed management will be proposed by the JMC, pursued and carried 

through by the national ministries represented in it (The Ministry of Environmental Protection 

of Ukraine, The Ministry of Environment of The Slovak Republic). 

The practical management also draws to a large extent on the experience of the JMC 

members and among them of the Association of the Carpathian National Parks and Reserves 

(ACANAP) in particular. Since its establishment in 1992 it has collected, exchanged ant 

utilized information and knowledge of ecosystem research through workshops, conferences 

and symposiums with the purpose to help to solve conceptual problems of the nature 

protection, management and monitoring of Carpathian Mountains 6 . 

V. Research and monitoring 

The research and monitoring of the serial nomination properties, the buffer zones and 

connecting ecological corridors will be coordinated by the Joint Management Committee. 

6 The Proceedings from this International Scientific Conferences have been published : 

− cc from the Conference „Topic Problems on Protection of Frontier National Parks“ held in Pieniny 

National Park, Slovakia, on July 1992 

− from the Conference „Forest Protection in Protected Areas of Carpathians“ held in Bükk National Park, 

Hungary, on September 1993 

− from the Conference „Research and Management of the Carpathian Natural and Primeval Forests“ held 

in Bieszczady National Park, Poland, on October 1994 

− from the Conference „Methods of the Monitoring of Nature in Carpathian National Park and Reserves“ 

held in Carpathian Biosphere Reserve, Rakhiv, Ukraine, on October 1995 

− from the Conference „Rangers in Carpathian National Parks and Protected Areas“ held in Aggtelek 

National park, Hungary, on September 1996 

− from the Conference „International Aspects of Study and Conservation of the Carpathians Biodiversity“ 

held in Rakhiv, Ukraine, on September 1997 

− from the Conference „Issues of Sustainable Development in the Carpathian Region“ held in Rakhiv, 

Ukraine, on October 1998 

− from the Conference „Mountains and People“ held in Rakhiv, Ukraine, on October 2002. 

21

JMC will develop and maintain its own GIS-aided database containing all necessary layers 

pertaining to the world natural heritage status of the nominated properties. JMC and its 

activity in this field will lean on the existing and well proved research and monitoring 

activities performed by the scientific departments of the CBR, UNNP and the Poloniny 

National Park 7 . The results will be reported to the JMC in the form of published works and 

final reports. If a need arises, JMC can also initiate, through its scientific communication 

officers, a research on specific problems. 

In Ukraine, approximately twenty scientists affiliated with the CBR and UNNP scientific 

departments, assisted by 11 technicians and equipment, available in zoological, botanical and 

phenological laboratories, GIS laboratory and the laboratory of forest and landscape research, 

will take part in the research and monitoring activities. In addition, officers of the State Forest 

Guard will continue conducting day-to-day field observation of botanic, zoological, climatic 

and other natural phenomena under supervision of the scientists. Results of these observations 

are registered in special cards, as well as in the data basis used for the Chronicles of Nature. 

Numerous scientific-research institutions also have valid agreements and contracts with 

administrations of CBR and UNNP and conduct their research and investigation here 

(Institute of botany, Institute of Zoology, Institute of Mountain Forestry, Ivano-Frankivsk, 

Uzhgorod National University and many others). 

The scientific research and monitoring of the nominated series properties on the Slovak 

territory will continue to be carried out by the Faculty of Forestry (TU Zvolen), Faculty of 

Ecology and Environmental Sciences (TU Zvolen), Institute of Forest Ecology (Slovak 

Academy of Sciences, Zvolen) and the Faculty of Natural Sciences (Comenius University, 

Bratislava) for over 50 years. Currently, there are approximately 30 scientists engaged in this 

dedicated interdisciplinary primeval forests forest research whose results are regularly 

published. 

New joint scientific projects aimed at the integrated ecological research of the serial 

nomination properties have been prepared and will be submitted after the opening of the 7 th 

EU Framework program (see Annex 4) 

The systematic monitoring of the nominated properties will be performed based on 

systematic scientific research, continual monitoring and risk assessment studies, carried out 

7 There have been successful efforts to coordinate the research and monitoring methodology has been unified 

since the early works of Zlatník (1938) and the Korpeľ (1995), Bublinec and Pichler (2001), Vološčuk (2003), 

Parpan (1994). It has been formulated in the proceedings from the ACANAP conferences „Research and 

Management of the Carpathian Natural and Primeval Forests“, held in Bieszczady National Park, Poland, in 

October 1994, and „Methods of the Monitoring of Nature in Carpathian National Park and Reserves“ held in 

Carpathian Biosphere Reserve, Rakhiv, Ukraine, in October 1995. 

22

y the CBR, UNNP and Poloniny National Park. Its results will be reported to and evaluated 

by the JMC, which will also assess the potential threats to the serial nomination as a whole. If 

necessary, JMC shall take action through the competent institutions represented in it and in 

co-operation with the IMP Panel. The on-site monitoring will consist in regular inspections of 

the sites by professional rangers. Currently, approximately 200 forestry officers are in charge 

of protection of the massifs on the Ukrainian territory. Forest beaters perform twenty-fourhour 

patrolling of the territory. Forestry beat points are situated on the edges beyond each of 

the clusters. Twice a year the authorities of the CBR and UNNP realize an inspection of their 

territory and use the necessary preventive measures. The State Forest Guard Service closely 

co-operates with the Police and other closer services. On the Slovak territory, regular 

inspections are carried out twice a month or more often if necessary by four Poloniny 

National Park rangers and twenty voluntary nature protection guards, whose competences are 

defined by the Act and Guards of the State Nature Conservancy of the Slovak Republic 

according to § 72 of the Act No. 543/2003 Coll. on Nature and Landscape Protection. The 

guards are entitled to monitor, prevent and avoid illegal cuttings, illegal picking up of berries, 

poaching, bird criminality, nest robbery, illegal collection of animals and trespasses against 

the law related to the mass tourism. 

VI. Management principles 

It is clear from the previous chapters that the integrated management plan is based on the 

combination of both the top-down, government-driven and bottom-up, local population-driven 

approach. The top-down approach with the JMC as its main channel focuses on the 

conservation issues and the maintenance of the nominated series overall integrity, as this basic 

principle shall not be compromised by any further deliberations. 

However, the foreseen participation of selected big players, such as the State Forests of 

the Slovak Republic, state owned company, and others in the JMC sessions does not 

constitute the participatory principle to the desired degree. That’s why JMC has the ambition 

to strengthen that principle by the initiation of bottom-up activities through a broad 

participation of stakeholders, organised in the IMP Panel. IMP Panel shall focus on benefiting 

the local population through activities that at the same time comply with the promotion of the 

BEPFOC (BEech Primeval FOrests of the Carpatians) and IMP objectives, mainly in the areas 

of forestry, ecotourism, BEPFOC label development and marketing, consequent lobbying etc. 

So, the integrated management plan principles can be summarized in the following 

manner: 

23

− uncompromised application of the conservation management based on scientific 

knowledge and monitoring through the available legal framework, enacted through the 

government-driven top-down approach; 

− implementation of the broad participatory principle through the bottom-up approach 

aimed at voicing the stakeholders’ interests and thereof translation into concrete results 

benefiting the local population, mostly in terms of ecotourism development, public 

relations and marketing and their spin-off effects; 

− combined top-down and the bottom-up approach to enhance the BEPFOC integrity and 

value through the formal establishment of corridors connecting the nominated properties 

and their embedding into the regional territorial plans, where such formally ackowledged 

corridors do not yet exist. 

VII. Promotion and educational activities 

During the 1 st phase, JMC encourages promotional and educational activities related to 

BEPFOC through the respective departments of the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve, UNNP 

and Poloniny National Park. It provides them with the expertise reaching beyond the standard 

provision of information and educational activities such as the own internet sites of the 

Carpathian Biosphere Reserve and the Poloniny National Park (available at 

http://cbr.nature.org.ua/main.htm, www.sopsr.sk). JMC has already co-operated on setting-up 

a comprehensive and interactive internet site www.virginforests.sk dedicated to the research 

of temperate primeval forests. Currently it is preparing an interactive internet site containing 

dynamic animations of the primeval forests patterns and dynamics based on the format 

developed by the Centre for Scientific Tourism in Slovakia (CSTS, available at 

www.poznajachran.sk). It also heavily leans on the use of modern technology in setting up 

pocket-PC and GPS-aided educational trails, whose concept and technical solutions were 

developed by CSTS (available at www.poznajachran.sk/mojchodnik). Further activities 

include video production, publishing and communication with the media outlets. JMC 

committee has initiated the elaboration of several diploma thesis by university students on the 

most effective communication of IMP objectives to various categories, such as children, 

pupils, students, parents and others. It has also begun a campaign called “Green Diplomacy” 

intended to raise the BEPFOC awareness among both national and international opinion 

leaders and decision makers. As a significant achievement in terms of PR, a visit of HRH The 

Prince of Wales to some of the nominated properties has highlighted their value among the 

24

local and partly also international population through the intense media coverage (Pichler, 

Soroková 2005). 

During the 2 nd phase, the IMP Panel will participate strongly in the PR and educational 

activities on both national and international levels. Currently, works continue on a movie 

dealing with the underlying connection between the primeval forests and the architectural 

developments during the Middel Ages that will be offered to international TV-channels. 

VIII. Mechanisms of Ukraine-Slovakia co-operation to implement the Management Plan 

The principal mechanism of the cooperation between Ukraine und the Slovak Republic in the 

management of the bilateral serial nomination will consist in the Action Plan and other 

working activities of the Joint Management Committee, including regular meetings and 

consultations, permanent E-mail contact among the JMC members, participation of the JMC 

members in the cross-border co-operation for socio-economic development ‘Carpathian 

Euroregion’, scientific cooperation, development and maintenance of serial nomination web 

page with database covering the property, annual plans and reports; joint working groups, 

development of special joint action plans, preparation of joint projects and programs, 

renewing of management plan. If a need arises, JMC can, according to its Statutes (under 

preparation, see Annex 2), bring outstanding issues to the attention of the Minister of 

Environmental Protection of Ukraine and the Minister of Environment of the Slovak 

Republic. 

IX. Funding of the Joint Management Committee and the Integrated Management Plan 

The main financial resources for the functioning of the Joint Management Committee are the 

state budgets of Ukraine and the Slovak Republic. Both countries will yearly allocate 

25 thousand EUR,- for covering the JMC activities. Additional resources for the 

implementation of the IMP, going beyond the normal tasks of organisations represented in the 

JMC, will also be allocated, according to state and regional budgets procedures, on a yearly 

basis and based on the Action Plan and the Plan of Main Tasks elaborated by the JMC as 

implied in the JMC Statutes. The estimated start-up allocation for 2007 will be 25 thousand 

EUR,- provided by the Ministry of Environmental Protection of Ukraine and the Ministry of 

Environment of the Slovak Republic. If need arises, JMC can request special budgetary 

measures, e. g. for expropriation and corresponding compensation of ownership rights. 

Besides state and regional budgets, JMC and IMP Panel working groups will prepare and 

submit projects for various schemes, in particular those supposed to promote international co- 

25

operation, such as the EU-funded INTERREG (see Annex 3), LIFE and other schemes. These 

projects will aim at the elaboration of feasibility studies, management plans, reconstruction of 

habitats, ecotourism development and other activities. 

Funds for scientific research will be aggregated from dedicated scientific projects, such as 

PRIMEFOR (see Annex 4), projects funded by Research and Development Agency of the 

Slovak Republic and Scientific and Grant Agency of the Slovak Republic. 

26

Annex 1 to IMP 

List of the members of the Joint Management Committee 

for the Integrated Management of the for the properties of the serial nomination 

“Beech Primeval Forests of the Carpathians” 

1) Mykola Stetsenko, First Deputy Head of the State Agency for Protected Areas of the 

Ministry of Environmental Protection of Ukraine, co-chairman of the committee. 

2) Dr. Jozef Kramárik, head of the Nature and Landscape Protection Section of the 

Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic, co-chairman of the committee 

3) Prof. Fedir Hamor, Director of Carpathian Biosphere Reserve (Ukraine), deputy 

chairman of the committee 

4) Peter Repka, MSc., Director of Poloniny National Park (Slovakia), deputy chairman of 

the committee 

5) Ambassador Tetiana Izhevska, deputy head of the National Commission of Ukraine 

for UNESCO 

6) Prof. Dr. Vasyľ Parpan, director of the Institute of Mountain Forestry Ivano- 

Frankivsk, Ukraine 

7) Prof. Dr. Ivan Vološčuk, deputy head of the Slovak National Committee for the 

UNESCO Programme MAB, Slovakia 

8) Assoc. Prof. Dr. Viliam Pichler, Faculty of Forestry of the Technical University 

Zvolen, Slovakia 

9) Mr. Mykola Andrus, head of the Deputies Council of Zakarpatska Oblast, Ukraine 

10) Mr. Pavol Vočko, head of the Regional Environmental Protection Authority, Prešov, 

Slovakia 

11) Mr. Jurij Smereka, deputy director of the State Department of Ecological Resources in 

Zakarpatska Oblast, of the Ministry of the Environmental Protection of Ukraine 

12) Mr. Peter Chudík, head of the Prešov Self-governing Region, Slovakia 

27


Action plan for the implementation 

of the Integrated Management Plan for the properties of the serial nomination 

“Beech Primeval Forests of the Carpathians” 

No. Action Responsible body Time of 

implementation 

1 To establish the Joint 

Management Committee 

with the Ukrainian and 

Slovakia representation 

2 Elaborate the Statutes of the 

Joint Management 

Committee 

3 To elaborate and adopt 

Integrated Management Plan 

for the Serial Transboundary 

Natural Property “Beech 

Primeval Forests of the 

Carpathians” 

4 To organize meetings of the 

Joint Steering Committee in 

Ukraine and Slovakia 

5 To complete nomination on 

the Serial Transboundary 

Natural Property “Beech 

Primeval Forests of the 


6 To area-designate the 

ecological connecting 

corridors on forest stands 

level 

7 Determine management 

modes for connecting 

Ministry of 

Environmental 

Protection of 

Ukraine, Ministry 

of Environment of 

the Slovak 

Republic 


Committee, 

Ministry of 

Environmental 

Protection of 



the Slovak 

Republic 


Committee 

Administration of 

the Carpathian 

Biosphere 

Reserve, 

State Nature 

Conservancy 


Committee 


Committee 


Committee 

August 9–10, 

2005, Ukraine 

June 2006, 

Slovakia 

January 9−11, 

2006, Ukraine 

June 2006, 

Slovakia 

January 20, 

2006, Slovakia 

Expected 

outcome 

List of members 

of the Joint 

Management 

Committee from 

Ukraine and 

Slovakia approved 

Statutes of the 


Committee 

approved 

Integrated 

Management Plan 

adopted 

Action plan for 

implementation in 

2005−06 of the 

Management Plan 

adopted 

Nomination 

dossier completed 

September 2007 List of forests 

stands constituting 

the ecological 

corridors 

assembled 

December 2007 Management 

regimes for 

28

ecological corridors on 

forest stands level 

8 To begin the implementation 

of non-intervention or closeto-nature 

forestry 

management approaches in 

the connecting ecological 

corridors through the 

renewal of 10–year forest 


9 Continue the currently 

running and initiate new 

multilateral projects aimed 

at the elaboration of action 

plans for biodiversity 

conservation in the 

nominated properties, buffer 

zones and connecting 

corridors 

10 Feasibility study of 

opportunities for sustainable 

use of resources, including 

international ecotourism 

11 To prepare annual joint 

report on the action plan 

implementation 

12 To update action plan as of 

2007 


Committee, 

Ministry of 

Environmental 

Protection of 



the Slovak 

Republic 

State Agency for 

Protected Areas 

(Ukraine), State 

Nature 

Conservancy 

(Slovakia) 

State Agency for 


(Ukraine), State 

Nature 

Conservancy 

(Slovakia) 


Committee 


Committee 

connecting 

ecological 

corridors on forest 

stands level 

approved 

2006–2015 Forest 


stipulating nonintervention 

or 

close-to-nature 

forestry enacted 

2006– Action plans for 

conservation in 

the property of 

globally 


of flora and fauna 

2006–2007 Recommendations 

and best practices 

as a basis for 

updating the plans 

of regional 

development and 

Annually, 

beginning 2006 


Annual report 

January 2007 Action plan 

updated 

29


INTERREG IIIB CADSES – Project proposal (preliminary outline) 

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT THROUGH NATURE-BASED MANAGEMENT 

OF FOREST RESOURCES AND HERITAGE-ORIENTED TOURISM IN THE 

CARPATHIANS 

Four priorities are covered by this project proposal. They are mutually interlinked by inputs 

and outputs and contribute to solving the challenge of sustainable use of resources in the 

Carpathians. 

I. Protecting and developing natural heritage 

The most important natural values in the concerned countries regions are represented by the 

Carpathian primeval forests in particular. Regarding patterns such as tree species composition, 

specific developmental cycles and the overall dynamics, no similar forests can be found in 

other parts of the world. Beside pure beech primeval forests, currently extremely rare in 

Europe, oak forests and renowned fir-beech primeval forests of the Carpathians reflect the 

variability of climax forests that once covered the area extending from Central France to 

Western Ukraine and from Southern Sweden to the mountainous part of Central Italy. They 

are also home to populations of numerous endangered tree species, e. g. yew (Taxus baccata) 

and elm (Ulmus glabra), xylobiont species and birds nesting in cavities or on broken trees. 

The unique standing of the Carpathian primeval forests has been highlighted by the inclusion 

of the Ecoregion No. 77, to which they belong, among the world’s most important ecoregions 

known as “WWF Global 200”. Selected ecoregions cover the most outstanding examples of 

each major habitat type from every continent. The primeval forests of the Carpathians also fall 

under the EU Natura 2000 Habitats directive, mainly 9110 Luzulo-Fagetum beech forests, 

Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests, Medio-European limestone beech forests of the 

Cephalanthero-Fagion, Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines and others. They 

represent a source of knowledge for sustainable management of forest resources and risk 

prevention. 

To ensure the protection of this invaluable heritage, On 22 May 2003 in Kiyv, Ukraine, the 

Ministers of the Environment of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Serbia and 

Montenegro, Slovak Republic and Ukraine signed the Framework Convention on the 

Protection and Sustainable Development of the Carpathians. The Carpathian Convention 

provides the framework for cooperation and multi-sectoral policy coordination, a platform for 

joint strategies for sustainable development, and a forum for dialogue between all 

stakeholders involved. Natural heritage protection is facilitated by initiatives such as The 

Carpathian Ecoregion Initiative, 'CERI' (formerly known as the 'CEI'), an international 

network of NGOs and research institutes from seven Carpathian countries (Hungary, 

Slovakia, Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Ukraine and Serbia & Montenegro) dedicated to 

the protection of one of the most important natural areas of Europe, and of the world and 

ACANAP. On the national level, it rests on national legislations, such 

Currently, the integrity of Carpathian primeval forests is partly compromised due to 

fragmentation. While the localities have sufficient size (Korpeľ 1995, Bücking 2003, Biris, 

Veen 2005) and contain all mutually related and reciprocally dependent key components 

interlinked by undisturbed biogeochemical cycles, the exchange of biological information 

however is not sufficiently guaranteed, because the localities are from 3 to 80 km apart, partly 

embedded in intensively managed forests and agricultural land. According to current 

knowledge, genetic exchange and repopulation are possible when the virgin forest ecosystems 

30

are connected by ecological corridors consisting of forests subject to nature-based 

management (Korpeľ, Saniga, Biris, Veen 2005). Therefore, our project proposes the 

establishment of such corridors, in which a combination of conservation and forest 

management regimes would be applied. 

Objectives (and related tasks, work packages) 

a) To create a continuous, contigeous complex of natural forests that will encompass and 

connect (link) the important primeval forest reserves on the Slovak, Ukrainian and Romanian 

territories; The objective can be achieved through the conservation of other remaining natural 

forests within proposed corridors connecting the preserves, measures supporting the 

succession of managed semi-natural forests between them and the application of nature-based 

forest management (see Priority 4.1) 

Given the current situation, the management of corridors management can be based on: 

− The placement of the buffer zone areas under the Ia conservation management regime 

to achieve the autoregulation of ecosystems 

− The establishment of new forest reserves on territories connecting the sites (applies for 

natural forests that has not been managed yet) 


properties; these measures will include, according to the status of forest estates negotiated 

in the 2 nd stage: 

− reclassification of concerned forests stands as protective forests subject to a 

low intensity management 

− extension of the rotation period from current 110 years to ≥ 150 years and the 

application small groups shelterwood system or its variations; 

− a gradual transition from shelterwood system to the soft selection system that 

features no rotation period but a continual regeneration period instead; 

− mimicking the natural forests patterns through the introduction of the 

continuous-cover forestry and its toolbox 

− The entire abandonement of forestry operations and introduction of natural dynamics 

The best possible or negotiable alternative for specific corridors will be implemented through 

the management programmes of the respective protected areas or through the territorial plans 

outside the protected areas. In both cases, changes will be also reflected in the forest 

management plans elaborated for the concerned areas. 

II. Protecting and developing cultural heritage 

The natural values along with the cultural heritage of the concerned countries and regions 

establish a base for ecotourism as one of the primary elements of sustainable development. On 

a one hand side, there is a steadily growing interest for Carpathian ecosystems among forestry 

scientists, ecologists, nature conservationists and enthusiasts, both native and international. 

They learnt about primeval forests mostly from scientific literature, co-operation and the 

internet sites. Excursions often resulted into further scientific co-operation and further visits 

by people generally interested in nature (Zach 2003, Pichler 2005). Measured by the number 

of study tour participants primeval forests excursions rank as the most popular and attractive 

tours among other products in this group that include geology and botany field excursions. 

Upon recommendation or personal initiative of excursion members, numerous groups of 

visitors that usually constitute the customer base for study tours operators, both international 

and domestic, also asked for guidance through the primeval forests. The excursion programs 

usually featured a sandwich pattern, i. e. primeval forests visits were combined with cultural 

heritage sites in a convenient manner. The interest is steadily growing but dependent on 

31

pushing the envelope through personal contacts, business contact with study tours operators, 

targeted advertising, publishing and visual media 

On the other hand, the natural and cultural values are little known among non-experts due to a 

lack of an active information policy. Currently, the overall numbers of visitors are rather low 

compared to countries such as Poland, Hungary or the Czech Republic, partly due to 

country’s short existence and the lack of presentation on the part of the state government. For 

example, the Austrian, Hungarian, Czech, and Polish governments spent 49.4, 41, 5.5 and 8 

million USD respectively for advertising their countries as tourism destination, compared to 

only 1.6 million USD spent by the Slovak government for that purpose. 

Objectives 

a) Expanding an integrated and interactive internet information systems providing information 

on natural and cultural history of concerned regions and their infrastructure for ecotourism 

and interpretative tourism: expertise provided by the Centre for Scientific Tourism in 

Slovakia (www.poznajachran.sk, www.ecosystems.sk). 

b) Expanding the system of interpretative tourism scheme Carpathicum, based on local 

tourism infrastructure and focused on the natural and cultural heritage and their underlying 

connection (topics: vymenovať) 

III. Promoting environmental protection and resource management 

Mimicking of Carpathian natural forests patterns 

Forests in the partner countries have the potential to contribute significantly to torrent control 

and flood avoidance, replenishment of water reservoirs, carbon accumulation in forest 

ecosystems, landslide and erosion control, geo- and biodiversity protection, and feature 

recreational, cultural and various other social values. 

According to the Strategic Research Agenda of the Forests Based Sector’s Technological 

Platform, that potential depends entirely on ensuring the sustainable character of forestry, on 

using research to make wood a more predictable engineering material, and on reducing the 

input of material, energy and work per unit wood and wood based-products. All these 

assumptions seem to be seriously compromised across Europe: The burning of fossil fuels 

may lead to problems in applying the traditional concept of sustainable forestry, in which site 

factors are assumed steady-state (Wagonner 1994, Kauppi 1995). The predictability of wood 

as material is limited due to wood market volatility, amplified by wood availability being a 

delayed function of the demand. And finally, the profit margins from wood utilization are 

often not high enough to cover the necessary silvicultural measures in many countries 

(Commarmot et al. 2000). 

In this situation, nature-based management of forest resources becomes a principal doctrine 

aimed to narrow the gap between managed and nature forests patterns, to ensure higher forests 

stability, to provide for a diversified supply of wood and to achieve desired forests functions 

at lower costs. Therefore, the major aim of this network is to find new ways of how 

substantially more natural patterns and processes normally taking place in the primeval forests 

can be harnessed for the benefit of forest resources management under global changes. The 

highly integrated approach goes far beyond of what has been achieved in this field thus far. 

The partnership overcomes geographic and interdisciplinary fragmentation and establishes the 

critical mass of capacity in order to bridge the limited, site- or region-specific character of the 

available knowledge and to significantly advance the theory and practice of nature based 

32

management of forest resources, capable of adapting to site conditions where it is applied and 

to new conditions yet to be experienced. This shall provide a major advance in this field, 

which is bedeviled by the dispersion and scarcity of primeval forests remnants and differences 

in data collection modes and methodology, making direct comparisons among studies, useful 

modeling and the transfer of knowledge into forest management difficult or impossible. 

Conceptual foundations 

Brang (2005) reviewed the concept of virgin forests as a knowledge source for central 

European silviculture. Small-scale regeneration methods, such as progressive felling by small 

groups and single tree or group selection systems correspond best to the natural regeneration 

processes in undisturbed beech forests. But a number of other patterns occurring in primeval 

forests can potentially be used in forest management after further research of the opening 

opportunities, for instance the substitution of tending and thinning by natural regeneration, 

suppression and released of target trees by auxiliary trees; growing of mosaic forests 

composed of small patches covered by bio-groups of different age, as devised from the 

textural primeval forests patterns or the mimicking of the biometric parameters of oak crowns 

able to sustain the maximum stem diameter increment while maintaining its quality in oak 

primeval forests. The natural growth and increment rhythm, as well as the production of 

higher quality and larger dimensions can be supported by an according initial suppression of 

certain species, such as fir and spruce. The response of other species, such as oak and beech 

must further be studied, similar to the question how much trees necromass should be retained 

in managed forests in order to provide habitats for stenoec organisms, microclimatesmoothing 

within forest stands, and contribute to carbon accumulation in the surface humus 

and ultimately in mineral soils. 

Thus, there is a widely recognized need to consolidate and extend the network of studied 

primeval forests to achieve necessary replications and thus overcome the site dependency, 

which currently presents the barrier to knowledge transfer. Also, no major breakthrough has 

yet been made in the synthesis of silviculture, hydrology, soil physics, ecology and 

biogeochemistry in particular, which is urgently needed in order to assess the impact of 

primeval forests patterns and processes on the environmental functions, including carbon 

sequestration, slope stability, runoff quantity and quality and erosion controls. 

Objectives: 

a) To develop a comprehensive understanding of the causes for the variation in 

ecological patterns and processes within temperate primeval forests: Some of the results 

from primeval forest research could have been generalized, such as the developmental 

independence of small forest segments in beech primeval forests on mesotrophic sites. Further 

and more complex research covering the entire spectrum of site conditions will yield 

exceptional data and provide ESR with a unique training opportunity in field methods. 

b) To resolve the introduction and maintenance of natural forests patterns in managed 

forests: The opportunities for a cost-effective and ecologically sound approach, based on the 

introduction of selected processes and patterns of the primeval forests ecosystems into the 

forest management toolbox, depend on the site conditions, its past use, previous forest 

management and its current and future goals. Further research shall therefore focus on what 

other forest structures are most suitable to benefit from self-regulating processes and how 

these structures can be achieved. 

33

IV. Promoting risk management and prevention of disasters 

Nature-based management of forests 

Landslides, floods, forest fires, windthrow and windbreak pose major threat to mountainous 

areas such as the Carpathians. On multiple occasions, the availability and safety of natural 

resources, as well as the safety and quality of life of citizens living in the affected areas have 

been seriously compromised or severely degraded for a long period of time. However forests 

that exist in balance with site conditions provide a high level of protection against such 

disasters. 

For instance, forest canopies, manly those in natural or primeval forests featuring a multilayer 

structure, exert a smoothing effect on throughfall and the development and subsequent 

transmission of pressure waves down the soil profile, which can cause a slope to co collapse 

(Keim, Weiler, Skaugset). Also, complex forest stands can respond much more rapidly to an 

increased soil water content during or after strong rainfall events. It has been shown that in 

beech forests, the surpressed trees can increase their transpiration rate as much as five times 

compared to main canopy trees. Normally, surpressed trees are present only in close-to-nature 

forests because they are removed form managed forests at an early stage of a forest stand 

development. In that way, nature-based forest structures and textural patterns function as 

important flood avoidance factors. In addition, rich forest structures are typical of unevenaged 

stands that are much less prone to windthrow, because the structural patterns dissipate 

the wind energy and prevent the synchronization of trees oscillations. Also the windbreak is 

less frequent, as the exposure of trees to winds from their origin leads to the formation of 

stems having their centres of gravity much lower that in trees growing in monocultures. Their 

crowns are conical and narrow, providing winds with little resistance. As a result of 

comparatively low disturbances frequency and biodiversity they sustain (Duelli), natural 

forests suffer much less from forest fires that often rage on windthrow or windbreak areas, e. 

g. most recently in the High Tatras, where settlements had to evacuated. 

Conceptual foundations 

Regulation capacity of primeval forests ecosystems sustains ecological processes and the vital 

environmental functions, such slope stability protection, torrent control, retention, 

accumulation, filtration and the carbon sequestration. Functions provided by primeval forests 

are often assumed superior to functions fulfilled by managed forest. However, this line 

argument deserves a scientific scrutiny, because multiple evidences indicate that certain 

combinations of these functions can not be achieved at the same time. A reliable and accurate 

determination of ecological and environmental functional capacity of forests is the 

fundamental prerequisity for sustainable, close-to-nature and adaptive forestry under global 

changes. 

Objectives 

b) To form a self-contained picture of the temperate primeval forests functional 

capacity: Most temperate primeval show an outstanding performance in terms of biomass 

production, the ecological resistance and resilience, biodiversity, preventing erosion, retention 

and carbon accumulation. Not always, however, these functions are provided simultaneously. 

In the light of increasing efforts to employ natural processes in forest management, there is an 

urgent need to determine the effects of natural patterns and processes on forest functions. 

Deliverables: 

- Nature based management of forests resources in the Carpathians: research on a 

compendium (textbook), dissemination workshops for policy makers, workshops for end 

users (owners, managers) 

34

- a pilot study: practical application of the above in the creation of ecological corridors 

connecting the sites constituting the nomination project; a study and its projection into 

forest management plans 

- use of natural heritage in the development of ecotourism schemes (Carpaticum): 

itineraries, interactive maps, central info 

35


STARTPAGE 

HUMAN RESOURCES AND MOBILITY (HRM) 

ACTIVITY 

MARIE CURIE ACTIONS 

Marie Curie Research Training Networks 

(RTN) 

Call: FP6-2005-Mobility-1 

PART B 

STAGE 1 – OUTLINE PROPOSAL 

“PRIMEFOR” 

36

Table of Contents for the Outline Proposal 

1. Network motivation and aims 3 

2. Scientific objectives 3 

3. Current international state-of-the-art and scientific originality of the project 4 

3.1 Conceptual foundations and the transfer of knowledge from 

primeval to managed forests 4 

3.2 Project novelty and expected contributions 5 

4. Workplan 5 

4.1 The research tasks 5 

4.2 Research facilities 6 

4.3 Selected research methods 7 

5. Collective experience and collaboration between the research teams 7 

6. Training 10 

6.1 Training needs 10 

6.2 Training programme 11 

6.2.1 Early stage researchers (ESRs) 11 

6.2.2 Experienced researchers (ERs) 11 

6.3 Procedure to hire early stage and experienced researchers 12 

7. Literature 12 

37

MIMICKING PRIMEVAL FORESTS PATTERNS IN NATURE-BASED FOREST 

RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 

1. Network motivation and aims: 

According to the Strategic Research Agenda of the Forests Based Sector’s Technological 

Platform, the competitiveness of the sector depends entirely on ensuring the sustainable 

character of forestry, on using research to make wood a more predictable engineering 

material, and on reducing the input of material, energy and work per unit wood and wood 

based-products. All these assumptions seem to be seriously compromised: The burning of 

fossil fuels may lead to problems in applying the traditional concept of sustainable forestry, in 

which site factors are assumed steady-state (Wagonner 1994, Kauppi 1995). The 

predictability of wood as material is limited due to wood market volatility, amplified by wood 

availability being a delayed function of the demand. And finally, the profit margins from 

wood utilization are often not high enough to cover the necessary silvicultural measures in 

many countries (Commarmot et al. 2000). In this situation, nature-based management of 

forest resources becomes a principal doctrine aimed to narrow the gap between managed and 

nature forests patterns, to ensure higher forests stability, to provide for a diversified supply of 

wood and to achieve desired forests functions at lower costs. Therefore, the major scientific 

aim of this network is to find new ways of how substantially more natural patterns and 

processes normally taking place in the primeval forests can be harnessed for the benefit of 

forest resources management under global changes. Owing to the network structure, the early 

stage researcher (ESR) will for the first time get an integral view of nature forests ecosystems 

on distinct sites in the Temperate Zone of Europe. That experience accompanied by a highly 

interdisciplinary approach will create a new breed of scientists able to pose clear scientific 

questions even in the face of considerably complex ecosystem patterns and demands on forest 

functions. Trained under the supervision of acclaimed scientists, they will be able to resolve 

the challenge of a science-based and economically viable management of forest ecosystems in 

a possibly transient, non-steady-state environment. 

2. Scientific objectives 

The research training activities will unfold around the principal axis, constituted by the 

network’s scientific objectives. These objectives will be achieved within the framework of 

tasks which are described in detail in the Work Plan section (4): 

a) To develop a comprehensive understanding of the causes for the variation in 

ecological patterns and processes within temperate primeval forests: Some of the results 

from primeval forest research could have been generalized, such as the developmental 

independence of small forest segments in beech primeval forests on mesotrophic sites. Further 

and more complex research covering the entire spectrum of site conditions will yield 

exceptional data and provide ESR with a unique training opportunity in field methods. 

b) To form a self-contained picture of the temperate primeval forests functional 

capacity: Most temperate primeval show an outstanding performance in terms of biomass 

production, the ecological resistance and resilience, biodiversity, preventing erosion, retention 

and carbon accumulation. Not always, however, these functions are provided simultaneously. 

In the light of increasing efforts to employ natural processes in forest management, there is an 

urgent need to determine the effects of natural patterns and processes on forest functions. 

38

c) To extract the past and assess the current and future global climate change impact on 

temperate forests: Primeval forests, owing to a negligible human intervention, provide us 

with a window of opportunity to estimate the interference of climate fluctuations with the 

growth dynamics of tree populations. Any changes however must be evaluated and judged 

against the natural dynamics. 

d) To resolve the introduction and maintenance of natural forests patterns in managed 

forests: The opportunities for a cost-effective and ecologically sound approach, based on the 

introduction of selected processes and patterns of the primeval forests ecosystems into the 

forest management toolbox, depend on the site conditions, its past use, previous forest 

management and its current and future goals. Further research shall therefore focus on what 

other forest structures are most suitable to benefit from self-regulating processes and how 

these structures can be achieved. 

3. Current international state-of-the-art and scientific originality of the project 

The network objectives have been set after a thorough evaluation of both successes and 

failures in primeval forest research and in the transfer of its results into sustainable forestry. 

3.1 Conceptual foundations and the transfer of knowledge from primeval to managed 

forests 

Brang (2005) reviewed the concept of virgin forests as a knowledge source for central 

European silviculture. Due to the case-study character of the available knowledge, there 

continues to be disagreement about the degree to which the processes observed in primeval 

forests can legitimately be incorporated into the managed forests dynamics. Small-scale 

regeneration methods, such as progressive felling by small groups and single tree or group 

selection systems correspond best to the natural regeneration processes in undisturbed beech 

forests. But a number of other patterns occurring in primeval forests can potentially be used in 

forest management after further research of the opening opportunities, for instance the 

substitution of tending and thinning by natural regeneration, suppression and released of 

target trees by auxiliary trees; growing of mosaic forests composed of small patches covered 

by bio-groups of different age, as devised from the textural primeval forests patterns or the 

mimicking of the biometric parameters of oak crowns able to sustain the maximum stem 

diameter increment while maintaining its quality in oak primeval forests. The natural growth 

and increment rhythm, as well as the production of higher quality and larger dimensions can 

be supported by an according initial suppression of certain species, such as fir and spruce. The 

response of other species, such as oak and beech must further be studied, similar to the 

question how much trees necromass should be retained in managed forests in order to provide 

habitats for stenoec organisms, microclimate-smoothing within forest stands, and contribute 

to carbon accumulation in the surface humus and ultimately in mineral soils. Thus, there is a 

widely recognized need to consolidate and extend the network of studied primeval forests to 

achieve necessary replications and thus overcome the site dependency, which currently 

presents the barrier to knowledge transfer. Also, no major breakthrough has yet been made in 

the synthesis of silviculture, hydrology, soil physics, ecology and biogeochemistry in 

particular, which is urgently needed in order to assess the impact of primeval forests patterns 

and processes on the environmental functions, including carbon sequestration, slope stability, 

runoff quantity and quality and erosion controls. 

39

3.2 Project novelty and expected contributions 

The highly integrated approach employed by the network goes far beyond of what has been 

achieved in this field thus far, and for the first time it has the ambition to shed light on the 

causes for the spatio-temporal variability so as to help bridge the limited, site- or regionspecific 

character of the available information. This shall provide a major advance in this 

field, which is bedeviled by the dispersion and scarcity of primeval forests remnants and 

differences in data collection modes and methodology, making direct comparisons among 

studies, useful modeling and the transfer of knowledge into forest management difficult or 

impossible. 

4. Workplan 

The research conducted in this network has been structured into five distinct but interrelated 

research tasks. Tasks #1 and #4 provide the new empirical data basis for the network. Task #3 

and #4 narrow the uncertainties in the development of the primeval forests mimicking toolbox 

within the task #5. 

4.1 The research tasks 

Task 1: Comparative study of current ecological patterns and processes in primeval forests 

and of their spatial variability in the temperate zone of Europe; Task description and 

approach: The task aims to reveal the causes of the differences in structure, texture, 

disturbances, regeneration and the overall dynamics under a range of environmental and 

genetic causes responsible for the variability of observed patterns. For that purpose, series of 

primeval forests on distinct sites will be composed in numbers assuring a proper replication. 

The respective patterns and processes will be studied using existing records and current or 

new observations; Task leader: ZVO; Involved partners: GOT, RAK, LJU, BRA, ZVO. 

Task 2: Regulation capacity assessment of primeval forests ecosystems; Task description 

and approach: We will measure locally, model and on larger scales estimate the regulation 

functions of primeval forest, i. e. their capacity to sustain ecological processes and the vital 

environmental functions, such slope stability protection, torrent control, retention, 

accumulation, filtration and the carbon sequestration. Functions provided by primeval forests 

are often assumed superior to functions fulfilled by managed forest. However, this line 

argument deserves a scientific scrutiny, as there is a multiple evidence that certain 

combinations of these functions can not be achieved at the same time. The corresponding 

analysis will draws on results from task #1 and deliver a list of functions worth mimicking for 

the task #5. Task leader: DUB; Involved partners: DUB, ZVO, BRA. 

Task 3: Analysis of possible temporal variations in temperate primeval forests patterns; Task 

description and approach: This task shall detect possible global climate change impacts on 

the patterns and dynamics in primeval forests on the backdrop of environmental stochasticity. 

Network partners (ZVO, RAK) avail of data from a 50-year-long continuous primeval forests 

research and so the approach will lean, beside dendrochronological analyses, on contrasting 

current patterns against data taken prior to the rapid onset of the global changes, and against 

site and genetic variations as identified in task #1. The results will enable capturing the 

emergent trends and making more specific predictions about the future fate of forests 

ecosystems. Task leader: TOR; Involved partners: TOR, ZVO, GOT, BRA 

40

Task 4: Investigation of interactions between primeval forest patterns and organisms; Task 

description and approach: In compliance with Huston (1979), who predicted the highest 

species richness under intermediate perturbations, no significant differences in species 

richness between a beech primeval forest and a properly managed beech forest have been 

detected (Duelli et al. 2005). However, primeval forests patterns support saprophagous 

organisms groups, e. g. millipedes, gastropods, saproxylophagous beetles and xylobiont fungi, 

birds nesting in tree cavities and others. They in turn may strongly influence primeval forests 

traits, such as the spatial heterogeneity of surface humus and natural regeneration. Therefore, 

these and other important interactions, such as those between ungulates and their predators in 

relation to natural regeneration dynamics, will be studied. Comparatively less attention will be 

paid to biodiversity inventories. Task leader: RAK; Involved partners: ZVO, RAK, BRA 

Task 5: Mimicking of primeval forests patterns in close to nature forestry; Task description 

and approach: Three teams in this network (GOT, ZVO, LJU) have made independently 

significant contributions to the study of primeval forests patterns and their incorporation into 

close-to nature silviculture. These teams join forces in this network to evaluate primeval 

forests patterns and experiments, as well as to emulate the underlying processes by means of 

computer modeling. In that way, new applications and recipes for nature-based management 

of forest resources will be developed. That approach will draw on findings from previous 

tasks. We envision that ESRs employed in the network are thoroughly exposed to both theorybuilding 

and empirical research. Task leader: GOT; Involved partners: ZVO, LJU, GOT, 

RAK, BRA 

4.2 Research facilities 

We have chosen approximately fifty primeval forests of outstanding authenticity and 

integrity. The group reflects the variability of climax forests across an area that extends from 

Central France to Western Ukraine and from Southern Sweden to the mountainous part of 

Central Italy. The group includes primeval forest in the Slovak republic (e. g. Kasivarova, 

Dobroc, Havesova,), in Ukraine (e. g. Uholka, Svydovets, Kuzyi-Trybushany) and in Slovenia 

(e. g. Strmec) They are composed mainly of sessile oak (Quercus petraea), European beech 

(Fagus sylvatica), silver fir (Abies alba) and Norway spruce (Picea excelsa). These species 

represent the backbone of the European forestry and some of the best studied tree species in 

Europe. The field sites were selected from areas close to the home institutions of the network 

partners. In these localities, advanced research methods will be applied. Besides, teams in 

Zvolen, Rakhiv, Ljubljana and Göttingen avail of series of experimental plots where close-tonature 

forest management methods are applied, which enable comparative studies based on 

multiple replications. 

4.3 Selected research methods 

The research teams have further developed within collaborative research, e. g. by O’Linger et. 

al (1997), and successfully applied the following selection of methods: Site capacity 

determination: As opposed to usual site descriptions, the field method relies on the 

determination of site parameters in absolute terms, e. g. total amount of available nutrients 

instead of concentration only. This is achieved by the conversions using for instance the total 

volume of forest soil cover. The variables will be measured by advanced technology, such as 

electrical resistivity tomography, Time Domain Reflectometry, elemental analyzers and others 

owned by several teams (ZVO, DUB). Population genetics of forest tree species: Our 

41

groups (ZVO, GOT) have expertise in studying the genetic structuring of tree species 

populations using alloenzymes, isoenyzmes and DNA analyses. They are used to determine 

the postglacial migration of tree species in the Carpathians and the adjacent regions and will 

help determine the spatial variability of primeval forests patterns in the area of interest 

(Comps et al. 2001). Global change impact detection and modeling: The main methods to 

be applied are the measurement of the growth rate through basal area increments (TOR) and 

time series analysis of primeval forest dynamics over past 50 years (ZVO, RAK). Structural 

analysis of the primeval forests, including the gap analysis: A co-operation of two teams 

(GOT, ZVO) lead to the development of a standard method applied on 10 ha plots. The 

investigation includes determination of the site resources utilization, the crown volume, forest 

canopy gaps, trees necromass survey, natural regeneration and other parameters. The research 

will rely on ground measurements and the evaluation of aerial photographs or satellite images 

from IKONOS or Quickbird satellites. Growth models: Forest structure generators 

(SIBYLA) developed by two teams (ZO, GOT) within a co-operative research will be used to 

generate individual tree data from stand data and predict spatial structure. This is inasmuch 

significant that the close-to-nature forestry approach is increasingly concerned with individual 

trees, their production and stability. Thinning models (SIBYLA Cultivator, SIBYLA 

Prophesier) shall be employed to model autoselection as compared to tending, thinning and 

harvesting. 

5. Collective experience and collaboration between the research teams 

Our network includes complementary research skills from population genetics, 

biogeochemical cycling, forest ecology, silviculture and forest management, environmental 

sciences and mathematical modeling, which are required for successful accomplishment of 

the ultimate aim of the network. Task #1 involves the majority of teams, while each of the 

remaining tasks include 3 to 5 teams having the necessary expertise, with the network 

coordinator (BRA) being involved in each task. Thus, the network overcomes geographic and 

interdisciplinary fragmentation and establishes the critical mass of scientific capacity in order 

to significantly advance the theory and practice of nature based management of forest 

resources, capable of adapting to site conditions where it is applied and to new conditions yet 

to be experienced. The network partners are: 

UKE – Institute of Landscape Ecology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, 

Slovakia: Network coordinator. The institute has been participating in nine projects within 

the 5 th EU and 6 th EU Framework Programs: BIOSCENE, BIOPRESS, CARBOMONT, 

BIOHAB, BIOPLATFORM, BIOFORUM, RURAL-ETINET, ALTERNET and SENSOR. 

The team under the leadership of Dr. J. Oszlányi, the institute’s director, has co-operated with 

all network partners. The main contributions of this team to the network consist in 

investigations of biomass production, carbon accumulation and biodiversity survey in forest 

ecosystems, as well as regionalization of results and the network management. 

Two key publications: 

Oszlányi, J., 2001: Research in UNESCO Biosphere Reserves as one of the elements of the 

Seville Strategy. Ekológia – Bratislava. 20 (3): 45–53. 

Oszlányi, J., Grodzinska, K., Badea, O., Sharpyk, Y.: Nature conservation in Central and 

Eastern Europe with a special emphasis on the Carpathian Mountains. Environmental 

Pollution. 130 (1): 17–32. 

42

GOT – Faculty of Forest Sciences and Forest Ecology, Georg-August-University 

Göttingen, Germany: Partner #1, leader of task #5. The team of the Faculty of Forest 

Sciences and Forest Ecology in Göttingen contributes to the network by extraordinary 

complementary research in the fields of silviculture and forest ecology. They are represented 

by the group of. Prof. Dr. A. Dohrenbusch and it includes forest regeneration, competitionbased 

control of young stands, ecological demands of forest trees species, ecological and 

economical aspects forest developments, e. g. carbon sequestration and water quality 


Dohrenbusch, a., 2000: forest management. In: Puhe, J. Ulrich, B.: Global Climate Change 

and Human Impacts on Forest Ecosystems. Springer Ecological Studies: 419–462. 

Dohrenbusch, A.; Bartsch, N. (eds.) (2002) Forest development – succession, environmental 

stress and forest management. Springer, Berlin, 220 pp. 

ZVO – Faculty of Forestry, Technical University Zvolen, Zvolen, Slovakia: Partner #2, 

leader of task #1. Results of to-date longest systematic research of the primeval forests in the 

Temperate Zone of Europe have been published by Korpeľ (1995), the co-founder of modern 

natural forests research in Europe. His work has become a reference for further primeval 

forest research results. Consequently, it has been cited one hundred and forty five times in the 

ISI-indexed journals and more than 1000 times in journals indexed by other databases. The 

team has been participating in several projects within the 5 th and 6 th EU Framework 

Programs: FRAXIGEN, FRAXINAS, Implementing Tree Growth Models (ITM), WARM. 


Saniga, M., Schütz, J.P., 2001: Dynamik des Totholzes in zwei gemischten Urwäldern der 

Westkarpaten im pflanzengeographischen Bereich der Tannen-Buchen- und der 

Buchenwälder in verschiedenen Entwicklungsstadien. Schweiz. Z. Forstwes. 152, (10): 

407–416. 

Comps, B., Gömöry, D., Letouzey, J., Thiébaut, B., Petit, R. J., 2001: Diverging Trends 


European Beech. Genetics, Vol. 157: 389–397. 

RAK – Carpathian Biosphere Reserve, Rakhiv; UA: Partner #3, leader of task #4. The 

research team of the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve, has a long-standing experience in 

performing the biodiversity inventories and has achieved remarkable results in comparative 

studies between biodiversity in primeval and managed forests. As a result, his team organized 

the scientific conference “Natural Forests in the Temperate Zone of Europe – Values and 

Utilisation” in 2003 in Rakhiv, during which one hundred and thirty contributions dealing 

with biological, social and economic aspects of natural forest ecosystems and thereof 

utilization were presented (Hamor, Commarmot 2003). The participation of the Rakhiv team 

is indispensable for the network as the team contributes its research plots in the largest 

European beech reserves, e. g. Uholka – 6200 ha in size, Kuzyi-Trybushany – 4200 ha in 

size. Carpathian Biosphere Reserve closely cooperates with Zvolen team on the research of 

permanent experimental plots in the Ukrainian primeval forests founded by prof. Zlatník 

(Zlatník et. al 1938, Vološčuk 2003). Their data records complete the series of observations 

needed for capturing spatial variety of primeval forests in the Temperate Zone of Europe and 

their temporal variations. 

43


Commarmot, B., Bachofen, H., Bundziak, Yo., Bürgi, A., Ramp, B., Shparyk, Yu., 

Sukhariuk, D., Viter, R., Zingg, A., 2005: Structures of virgin and managed forests in 

Uholka (Ukraine) and Sihlwald (Switzerland): a comparative study. For. Snow Landsc. 

Res. 79, 1/2: 45–56 

Dovhanych Ya.E., 1986: Carnivores of the Carpathian Reserve. Moscow, 12–14. 

LJU – Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia: Partner #4, 

Tasks # 1, 5. Leader of the team, prof. J. Diaci made highly significant contributions to the 

“Nature-based Management of beech in Europe – a multifunctional approach to forestry”, an 

international project supported by the EU fifth framework program. The project has delivered 

scientifically founded policy recommendations and management guidelines for sustainable 

forest management. His team specializes on ecophysiological research on gap dynamics in 

virgin forests and on indicators for monitoring and evaluation of forest biodiversity in Europe. 


Christensen, M., Hahn, K., Mountford, E. P., Odor, P., Standovar, T., Rozenbergar, D., Diaci, 

J., Wijdeven, S., Meyer, P., Winter, S., Vrska, T., 2005: Dead wood in European beech 

(Fagus sylvatica) forest reserves. Forest ecology and management, 210 (1–3): 267–282. 

Diaci, J., Pisek, R., Boncina, A., 2005: Regeneration in experimental gaps of subalpine Picea 

abies forest in the Slovenian Alps. European journal of forest research 124 (1): 29–36. 

TOR – Department of Agronomy, Silviculture and Land Management, University of 

Turin, Turin, Italy: Partner #5, leader of the task #3. The team headed by prof. R. Motta, an 

associate editor of Dendrochronologia, an interdisciplinary scientific journal of tree ring 

science, is devoted to dendroecological analysis of the conifer trees, the studies of forest 

stands histories, and the research on the impact of the global climate change on forests. They 

also conduct silvicultural experiments, such as small gaps or elongated cuts, established in 

order either to maintain the current status using natural regeneration or to improve the 

structures and the “naturalness” of the forest stands. 


Motta R, Garbarino F, 2003: Stand history and its consequences for the present and future 

dynamic in two silver fir (Abies alba Mill.) stands in the high Pesio Valley (Piedmont, 

Italy). Annals of Forest Science, 60 (4): 361–370. 

Motta, R., Edouard, J., 2005: Stand structure and dynamics in a mixed and ultilayered forest 

in the Upper Susa Valley, Piedmont, Italypper Susa Valley, Piedmont, Italy. Canadian 

journal of forest research,35 (1): 21–36. 

DUB – Department of Environmental Resource Management, Faculty of Agriculture, 

University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland: Partner #6, leader of the task #2. The team of 

Prof. E. P. Farrell has made significant contribution on the assessment of forests 

environmental functions, mainly soil protection, the provision of clean water and carbon 

accumulation, under the global climate change. Prof. Farrell acts as Member of the COST 

Action E21 Management Committee (Contribution of Forests and Forestry to the Mitigation 

of Greenhouse Effects) and COST Action E25 Management Committee (European Network 

for a Long-term Forest Ecosystem and Landscape Research Programme). 

44


Goodale, C. L, Aber, J. D. , Farrell, E. P., 1998: Predicting the relative sensitivity of forest 

production in Ireland to site quality and climate change. Climate research 10 (1): 51–67. 

Byrne, A. K., Farrell, E. P., 2005: The effect of afforestation on soil carbon dioxide emissions 

in blanket peatland in Ireland. Forestry 78 (3): 217–227. 

6. Training 

The research program will help to train ESR able to provide a scientifically sound basis for 

the implementation of the Resolution on Forestry Strategy for the EU, adopted by the 

European Council in 1998, and specifically for sustainable production of renewable resources 

and sound environmental practices as the main objectives. This new generation of scientists 

will also be essential for the development and implementation of the Strategic Research 

Agenda of the EU Forests Based Sector’s Technological Platform, EU environmental policies 

and the EU Climate and Environment Program. These expectations are not unrealistic, as our 

network teams have had a long record of successful participation in the 5 th and 6 th EU FPs. 

Early stage researchers will benefit both directly from their network-specific activities and 

indirectly from operating in a creative, international and interactive scientific environment. 

6.1 Training needs 

From the viewpoint of human resources, the transfer of know-how from applied ecology of 

primeval forests ecosystems into practical management of forest ecosystems has been 

seriously hindered not only by the scarcity and dispersal of primeval forests remnants, but 

also by the lack of an interdisciplinary approach. Thus, most universities in Europe provide 

the training in nature-based forestry only of a facultative appendix. Though we cannot 

undertake to train new fully fledged experts in each area within this network, we can help the 

young researchers to become familiar with the purpose and use of methods applied in the 

particular fields. Only then can they attain the capacity to pose relevant questions, to capture 

the complexity of forest ecosystems and extract solutions for the practical, adaptive and 

nature-based management of forest ecosystems. We have identified training need for young 

European researchers especially in the following areas: Experimental designs: In forestry 

research, proper replication of studies is sometimes confused with pseudoreplication. ERSs 

shall receive training on setting up proper research designs in order to ensure opportunities for 

the transfer of knowledge. Methods of field work: There is little methodological 

standardization of field techniques employed in primeval forests and silvicultural studies, 

which makes comparative studies difficult. Thus, it is essential to develop comparable 

methods, widely applicable with minimum modification. Quantitative analyses of 

biogeochemical cycles: The biogeochemical cycling is often analyzed or modeled 

qualitatively, or quantitative analyses and modeling are performed on spatially very limited 

compartments. Such approach can essentially mask the overall patterns, such as the carrying 

capacity of sites. The use of absolute values shall be encouraged. Spatio-temporal 

variability: In studying heterogeneity, what we call ground noise (or residual variance) in 

classical statistical inference, actually may be the matter of our study in highly complex 

ecosystems. ESRs should become acquainted with a wide spectrum of statistical methods. 

Genetics applied to forestry studies: Though there is no lack of general expertise in the use 

of molecular techniques in population biology in Europe, there is an ever present need to help 

45

field researchers acquire a better understanding of the opportunities presently available via the 

application of current molecular techniques. 

6. 2. Training programme 

In this network, ERS will develop an ability to work in groups. On completion of the project, 

transferable and specific skills will enable them to overtake responsibilities in collaborative 

research, to understand and predict the direct and indirect effects of forest management. 

6.2.1 Early stage researchers (ESRs) 

Early stage researchers employed in this program will receive a contract for 1–3 years in one 

of the seven research teams in the network. It is foreseen that they will focus on the following 

topics: Genetic causes for spatial variations in production, structure, texture, natural 

disturbances and regeneration within a primeval forests sample: 2 ESR (ZVO, GOT); Site 

factors and variations in primeval forests patterns: 3 ESR (RAK, ZVO, GOT); Interactions 

between primeval forests patterns, biodiversity, populations and ecosystems fragmentation: 2 

ESR (RAK, ZVO, BA, GOT); Regulation functions of primeval forests compared to managed 

forests (torrent control and flood avoidance, replenishment of water reservoirs, carbon 

accumulation in forest ecosystems, landslide and erosion control an others): 3 ESR (DUB, 

ZVO, BRA); Temporal changes and predictions of primeval forests dynamics: 3 ESR (TOR, 

ZVO); Emulating primeval forests processes and patterns in managed forests: 5 ESR (ZVO, 

RAK, GOT, TOR, DUB). 

The total estimated number of ESR is between 15 and 20 which corresponds to approximately 

600 person months. Over the period of the contract, each ESR will spend at least two months 

with at least two other tams in compliance with his o her Personal Career Development Plan, 

elaborated in co-operation with personal supervisors recruited from among the respective 

partner faculty. During periods of intensive field work, ESR will work together at particular 

locations in association with the local task leader and scientists, post graduate students, and 

undergraduate assistants. During winter months, ESR will visit other laboratories and work 

closely with faculty and staff involved in the statistical analyses of material and data gathered 

in the field season and the modeling. The visits and secondments will be coordinated in order 

to fit the schedule of structured training courses provided by the network partners, summer 

schools, workshops and network wide training activities, including E-learning, data 

visualisation, as well as joint database development on web-platforms. A particularly strong 

emphasis will be put on a simple access to structured and, wherever possible, visualized data 

across the entire network. All relevant information and data will be available to the network 

partners, ESRs and ERs on the internet site currently under development 

(www.virginforests.sk). The teams will provide the ESRs with training in techniques 

presented in Training needs section (6.1). 

6.2.2 Experienced researchers (ERs) 

The ER will be given the opportunity to visit two other laboratories in the network for one 

month per year of their contract. This mobility is essential to the transfer of knowledge, 

research collaboration as well as to the training of ESR. Two meetings will be organized by 

the network (years 2 and 3) in which all ESR and ER in the network will give presentations 

and discuss progress and conclusions. All ESR and ER will be strongly encouraged to 

participate in staff development programs in the institutions where they are employed, annual 

career development appraisals will be carried out, and training progress will be subject to 

annual reports. 

46

6.3 Procedure to hire early stage and experienced researchers 

The vacancies will be advertised by informative folders sent to forest ecology, silviculture and 

forest management departments at the universities and scientific institutes across Europe, 

through the IUFRO Newsletter and its division and task force meetings, national Pro Silva 

organizations and ERA ENV (a new European initiative financed by the European 

Commission through the 6 th Framework Programme aimed at the integration of Associated 

Candidate Countries and new EU member states into European Research Area by 

environmental approaches). The selection will take place on a competitive base, but in case of 

equal scores female candidates will be preferred to achieve a minimum 40 % representation of 

female ESRs and ERs. 

7. Literature 

Brang, P., 2005: Virgin Forests as a Knowledge Source for Central European Silviculture: 

Reality or Myth? Forest Snow and Landscape Research, 79 (1/2), 19−31. 

Commarmot, B., (Eds.), 2005: Natural Forests in the Temperate Zone of Europe: biological, 

social and economic aspects. In: Forest Snow and Landscape Research, 79 (1/2). 

Comps, B., Gömöry, D., Letouzey, J., Thiébaut, B., Petit, R. J., 2001: Diverging Trends 


European Beech. Genetics, Vol. 157, 389-397. 

Duelli, P., Chumak, V., Obrist, M. K., Wirz, P.: The biodiversity values of European virgin 

forests. Forest Snow and Landscape Research, 79 (1/2), 91−99. 

Hamor, F., D., Commarmot, B (eds.) 2003: Natural Forests in the Temperate Zone of Europe 

– Values and Utilisation. International Conference in Mukachevo, Transcarpathia, 

Ukraine, October 13-17, 2003. Rakhiv, Carpathian Biosphere reserve; Birmensdorf, 

Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, s. 112. 

Huston, M., 1979: General hypothesis of species diversity. Am. Nat., 113, 81–101. 

Kauppi, P. E., 1995: What Is Changing in the Global Environment? Papers presented in 

IUFRO'95 Sub-Plenary Sessions. 

Vološčuk, I., 2003: The geobiocenological research in the natural forest ecosystems of the 

Carpathian protected areas. The monographical studies on national parks (3). State nature 

conservancy Banská Bystrica, 122 pp. 

Zlatník, A., Korsuň, F, Kočetov, F., Kseneman, M., 1938: Průzkum přirozených lesů na 

Podkarpatské Rusi. Sborník vyzkumných ústavů zemědělských ČSR, sv. 152, 524 pp. 

Waggoner, P.E. 1994. How Much Land Can Ten Billion People Spare for Nature ? Council 

for Agricultural Science and Technology. Task Force Report No. 121, Ames, IA, U.S.A. 

47

ENDPAGE 

HUMAN RESOURCES AND MOBILITY (HRM) 

ACTIVITY 

MARIE CURIE ACTIONS 

Marie Curie Research Training Networks 

(RTN) 

Call: FP6-2005-Mobility-1 

PART B 

STAGE 1 – OUTLINE PROPOSAL 

“PROPOSAL ACRONYM” 

48

Beech Primeval Forests of the Carpathians 

Nomination project 

Mr. David Sheppard 

Head – Programme of Protected Areas 

IUCN – World Conservation Union 

Gland – Switzerland 

Dear Mr. Sheppard, 

hereby we are sending you the explanations and clarifications with regard to the remarks 

and questions contained in your letter dated November 20, 2006. They represent the joint 

position of both Ukraine and the Slovak Republic. 

1

EXPLANATIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS 

WITH REGARD TO THE REMARKS AND QUESTIONS CONTAINED 

IN THE LETTER OF MR. DAVID SHEPPARD 

DATED NOVEMBER 20, 2006 

1) Species Lists 

1.1 The discrepancies between the area figures in the Table 1 (Identification of the Property) 

and the dossier text have resulted from omissions in the process of multiple text editing. The 

figures given in Table 1 are correct. 

Site 

element 

No. 

Name of the 

primeval 

forest 


Centre point 

1 Chornohora Ukraine, 


2 Havešová Slovak Republic, Prešov 

Self-Governing Region 

3 Kuziy- Ukraine, 

Trybushany Transcarpathian Region 

4 Maramarosh Ukraine, 


Area of core 

zone (ha) 

Buffer zone 

(ha) 

Map 

Annex 

48° 08’ 25” N 

24° 23’ 35” E 

2 476,8 12 925,0 7 

49˚ 00’ 35” N 

22˚ 20’ 20” E 

171,3 63,99 8 

47° 56’ 21” N 

24° 08’ 26” E 

47° 56’ 12” N 

1 369,6 3 163,4 9 

24° 19’ 35” E 2 243,6 6 230,4 10 

5 Rožok Slovak Republic, Prešov 48˚ 58’ 30” N 

67,1 41,4 11 


6 Stužica – Slovak Republic, Prešov 49˚ 05’ 10” N 2 950,0 11 300,0 12 

Bukovské 

Vrchy 


7 Stuzhytsia – Ukraine, 

49° 04’ 14” E 2 532,0 3 615,0 13 

Uzhok Transcarpathian Region 22° 03’ 01” N 

8 Svydovets Ukraine, 

48° 11’ 21” N 3 030,5 5 639,5 14 

Transcarpathian Region 24° 13’ 37” E 

9 Uholka – Ukraine, 

48° 18’ 22” N 11 860,0 3 301,0 15 

Shyrokyi Luh Transcarpathian Region 23° 41’ 46” E 

10 Vihorlat Slovak Republic, Prešov 48° 55’ 45” N 2 578,0 2 413,0 16 

Self-Governing Region 22° 11’ 23” E 

Total area 29 278,9 48 692,7 

1.2 The following figure was omitted in the dossier text, but mistakenly referred to as Table 3 

(page 41). 

Fig.: A comparatively large amplitude of 

CDW volume in some of the nominated 

beech primeval forests is also 

conditioned by a rapid decomposition of 

the trees necromass (Saniga, Schütz 

2002). 

2

1.3 Only the list of Fungi is available. The number of Fungi species is 482 in the 

monodominant beech primeval forests. There are around 1100 species found in the forests 

from oak up to the subalpine vegetation stage in the Eastern Carpathians (parts of them are in 

the marginal areas of the nominated properties’ core zones). 

1.4 More streamlined and amended species lists with total species counts are included. For 

nomination properties that are missing in the respective species lists, corresponding 

inventories have not been completed yet. 

Tab. : Number of species 

Locality/ VI ST HA RO KZ SV CH MA UH SU Species 

Taxon 

total 

Vascular 

plants 

Slovakia 

28 490 271 389 763 

Vascular 

plants 

Ukraine 

599 399 581 491 717 491 1067 

Mosses 152 143 145 141 95 108 259 233 158 102 444 

Lichens 

Slovakia 

62 123 42 126 317 

Lichens 

Ukraine 

42 132 291 90 165 32 436 

Fungi 

Slovakia 

55 663 235 118 741 

Fungi Ukraine 59 93 16 103 60 247 

Mammalia 33 36 35 33 50 41 44 44 54 65 73 

Birds 69 72 66 68 68 65 65 60 76 46 101 

Amphibia and 

Reptilia 

11 10 10 10 15 14 14 15 17 10 18 

Coleoptera 50 104 54 44 48 16 79 69 84 47 206 

Lepidoptera 41 34 11 11 109 74 73 75 97 18 165 

Mollusca 5 1* 11 2* * * 46 * 67 * 74 

Araneidea 52 * 85 * * * 26 * * * 127 

Myriapoda 5 3 5 4 7 2 1 4 5 2 7 

Nematoda 6 2 9 2 12 2 5 4 11 8 16 

VI- Vihorlat 

ST- Stužica 

HA- Havešová 

RO- Rožok 

KZ- Kuziy-Trybushany 

SV- Svydovets 

CH- Chornohora 

MA- Maramorosh 

UH- Uhol’ka-Shyrokyi Luh 

SU- Stuzhytsia-Uzhok 

* - no completed data 

2) Endangered Species Lists 

2.1 The biodiversity inventories are not available for all properties of the serial nomination 

proposed for nomination and the tables could therefore not be streamlined entirely. Some 

endangered species listed probably do merit in terms of outstanding value even if taken 

individually, e. g. Rosalia alpina and Myotis bechsteinii, but it also the presence of animal 

assemblages bound to hollow tress or dead wood is of a paramount importance, for instance 

3

the presence of numerous woodpecker species of the Palearctic realm across the nominated 

series. However, the research of affiliation of the listed endangered species with the beech 

primeval forests continues. E. g., with regard to the presence of dead wood, it is assumed that 

CWD not only generates new habitats for saproxylic species but also influences habitat 

structures of the nearby forest floor. According to the theory of spatial heterogeneity 

(Simpson 1964; Mac Arthur 1965) the presence of CWD increases the assemblage-wide 

carrying capacity, resulting in enhanced densities and higher species richness. According to 

Topp et al. (2006), the effect of CWD on litter dwelling beetles is apparently dependent of the 

forest type. 

2.2 The rapid decomposition of coarse woody debris 

and intense biogeochemical cycling is documented 

by the figure bellow. The spikes in the organic 

carbon content down to the depth of almost 50 cm 

and their spatial coincidence with decaying logs 

indicate an extremely fast biogeochemical cycling in 

the Vihorlat beech primeval forest growing on an 

Andosol. In fact, the tree logs disappear within a few 

years when in contact with the soil, as opposed to a 

decade or more in beech primeval forests on other 

substrates. Indeed it may be such as specific 

combination of factors that features an unusual 

dynamics (vigorous natural regeneration) and 

richness of xylobiotic organisms (Pichler et al. 

2006). The research on the patterns of mutual 

dependence and synergies continues. 

3) Buffer Zones and Corridors 

3.1 While the role of the buffer zones is to help ensure the integrity of the core zones, the 

importance of the connecting corridors rests with linking the nominated properties 

geographically and ecologically with several aims: 

a) enable exchange of biological information; 

b) designation of the corridors as areas to be converted into as close-to-nature as 

possible, ideally natural, contiguous complex of beech forest, eventually perhaps 

allowing for the extension of the core zones in the future. 

It should be emphasized that the area-designation of the connecting corridors drew primarily 

on the existence of nature (primeval), natural and semi-natural forests (also managed) forests 

tesserae, combining into a mosaic, not entirely intact but still capable of fulfilling all functions 

expected to be provided by the corridors as defined in a) and b). 

3.2 The management of the respective sectors within the connecting corridors will change 

irrespective of the nomination process outcome. Parts of them will be included within 

expanded or new national parks boundaries and nature protected areas in Ukraine. A 

dedicated project has been prepared and submitted in order to identify optimal conservation 

management regimes for the connecting corridors sectors (see the enclosed Compendium of 

Project Pre-Proposals and Call-Lines developed on the ERA ENV Platform, Pre-Proposal No. 

3, page 22–30). 

4

The status of the corridors will change irrespective of the nomination outcome. The 

connecting corridors on the Ukrainian territory will become an integral part of the Pan- 

European ecological network through the Ukrainian national ecological network according to 

the Law of Ukraine No. 1989–111 “On establishing of the Ukrainian national ecological 

network”. If the nomination is successful, the status of the connecting corridors will change 

on the Slovak territory in that their sectors falling into protected areas of any kind 

(specifically the B an C zones of the Poloniny National Park and Vihorlat Protected 

Landscape Area) will be upgraded as “protected areas of international significance” and their 

conservation management plans will be adjusted accordingly in compliance with the Law on 

Nature Protection No, 543/2002 Coll., § 54, Section 4). That conservation regime supercedes 

any other provisions. 

4) Integrated Management Plan 

4.1 The Coordination Councils in Ukraine are important elements of the management process. 

Because of their experience, they will be essential drivers in setting-up the Integrated 

Management Panel. 

4.2 There are two ways for the Joint Management Committee to ensure that the Territorial 

Plans in Slovakia are, if necessary, changed as proposed: either through the representatives of 

the Prešov Self-Governing Region, who is a member of the Joint Management Committee, or 

through filing its respective proposals to the Prešov Self-Governing Region Administration by 

the way of the Ministry of Environment as its umbrella state authority. The self-governing 

region will then be obliged to start territorial proceedings that will result into issuing a 

territorial decision, according to § 39b, Act No. 50/1976 Coll., which is also subject to 

national government approval, in which the position of the Ministry of Environment is 

considered. However, the whole territory on which the nominated properties (Slovak part) are 

located belongs to the Prešov Self-Governing Region, which has had its binding Territorial 

Plan approved by the Government provision No. 216/1998 Coll. and no major changes in it 

are required as it does not foresee any infrastructural developments in the area containing the 

nominated properties, their buffer zones and connecting corridors. The areas are currently 

void of such infrastructure. More importantly, the Joint Management Committee will, in a 

close cooperation with the Integrated Management Panel, initiate or support changes, if 

necessary, in the territorial plans of communities in the areas adjacent to the buffer zones and 

connecting corridors. 

4.3 The bottom-up approach during the 1st implementation stage of the he Integrated 

Management Plan is asserted mainly through the participation of elected members of 

municipal governments (independent of the state authorities, ministries etc.): 

− Mr. Mykola Andrus, head of the Deputies Council of Zakarpatska Oblast, Ukraine 

− Mr. Peter Chudík, head of the Prešov Self-governing Region, Slovakia. 

During the 2 nd stage of the IMP implementation, representatives of the Integrated 

Management Panel (citizens, NGOs, other stakeholders) will be delegated to the Joint 

Management Committee. The panel role is essential also for the appropriate management of 

the connecting corridors. The motivation of its members leans to a large extent on built-in 

components based on the self-interest of all stakeholders: the panel will serve, among other 

things, as a platform for empowering state, individual and collective forest owners and 

managers through providing them with solid quantitative data, instead of generally qualitative 

5

statements, e. g. informing them on the value of water regulation and carbon sequestration 

services provided to the society through the maintenance of forest estates and possibly 

increased through specific, nature-based forest management methods, expressed for instance 

in terms of quality water yield and carbon sequestration in forest soils; a provision of 

quantitative data on savings due possible substitution of labour through natural processes and 

owing to an increased forest stability; setting-up of incentive schemes in cooperation with 

other stakeholders in the forest-society chain (inc. utilities and safety), aimed at benefiting 

sensible forest management (through tailored forest stock insurance schemes, shares on 

income from providing customers with utilities (water, hydropower, carbon stock quatas, 

etc.). Such approach is appropriate in rural, comparatively disadvantaged regions. 

5) Formal Recognition of Joint World Heritage Values by State Properties 

Both in Ukraine and in Slovakia, there is a possibility that given the scarcity of World 

Heritage Sites in both countries, dedicated state legislation will be adopted to acknowledge 

and highlight the superior status of the transboundary serial nomination. Such is the case of 

Banská Štiavnica, a World Cultural Heritage site in the Slovak Republic (Law 100/2001 Coll. 

On Banská Štiavnca and its surroundings). 

But given the existent legislation frameworks in both countries, such moves are only 

symbolical. In terms of formal acknowledgement, the nominated properties (Slovak part) will 

be, if the nomination is successful) automatically upgraded as “protected areas of international 

significance” and their conservation management plans will be adjusted accordingly in 

compliance with the Law on Nature Protection No, 543/2002 Coll., § 54, Section 4). That 

conservation regime supercedes any other provisions. 

6

ERA ENV in the Slovak Republic 

– getting an edge in the international cooperation on the EU FP 6 platform 

COMPENDIUM 

OF PROJECT PRE-PROPOSALS 

AND CALL-LINES developed 

on the ERA ENV p l a t f o r m 

in co-operation between the Technical University Zvolen 

and ERA ENV clients for the EU FP 6 

calls and towards EU FP 7

ERA ENV in the Slovak Republic 

– Getting an edge in the international cooperation on the EU FP 6 platform 

CATALOGUE OF PROJECT PRE-PROPOSALS DEVELOPED ON THE ERA ENV PLATFORM 

in cooperation between Technical University Zvolen and ERA ENV clients for the EU FP6 calls and towards EU FP 7 

© Editors: 

Viliam Pichler Faculty of Forestry, Technical University Zvolen 

Rudolf Kropil Faculty of Forestry, Technical University Zvolen 

Ingrid Kri‰‰áková Technical University Zvolen 

Gabriela Jamnická Faculty of Forestry, Technical University Zvolen 

© Main Contributors: 

Juraj Bebej Dept. of Natural Environment, Faculty of Forestry, Technical University Zvolen 

Pavol Bielek Research Institute of Soil Science and Soil Protection, Bratislava 

Mikulá‰ âernota National Forestry Centre, Zvolen 

Jaroslav ëurkoviã Dept. of Phytology, Faculty of Forestry, Technical University Zvolen 

Juraj Gregor Dept. of Natural Environment, Faculty of Forestry, Technical University Zvolen 

Fedir Hamor Carpathian Biosphere Rserve, Rakhiv (Ukraine) 

Matú‰ Jakubis Dept. of Forestry Constructions and Ameliorations, Faculty of Forestry, Technical University Zvolen 

Bohdan Juráni Dept. of Soil Science, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Commenius University, Bratislava 

Milan KoreÀ Dept. of Forest Management and Geodesy, Faculty of Forestry, Technical University Zvolen 

Oºga Majerãáková Slovak Hydrometeorological Institute, Bratislava 

Viliam Novák Institute of Hydrology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava 

Július Oszlányi Institute of Landscape Ecology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava 

Milan Saniga Dept. of Silviculture, Faculty of Forestry, Technical University Zvolen 

Ján Supuka Department of Garden and Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering, 

Slovak Agricultural University, Nitra 

Ján Szolgay Department of Land & Water Resources Management, Faculty of Civil Engineering, 

Slovak University of Technology, Bratislava 

Jozef Váºka Institute of Forest Ecology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Zvolen 

Other contributing authors are listed on page 30. 

Copyright: Materials contained in this Compendium present intellectual property of the contributing authors 

and thus subject to copyright. 

ISBN: -80-228-1668-X 

Publisher: Technical University Zvolen, July 2006 

Print: Manna, s. r. o., Bratislava 

Acknowledgements: This publication was funded by the ERA ENV SSA, EU FP6

INTRODUCTION 

The EU FP funded ERA ENV Specific Support Action has spawned a vital cooperation among researchers from the Technical University Zvolen 

as the ERA ENV Project Partner, and other research organizations in the Slovak Republic as its clients. During the project implementation, 

a number of project pre-proposals for specific FP 6 calls had been drafted. Despite an immense time pressure conditioned by the SSA timing, 

this activity has continued with an eye on the presumed EU FP 7 call lines. Presented materials were drafted during several dedicated expert 

meetings that took place from November 2005 till July 2006 at Skuratka, Chmelovska, as well as in Warsaw on the occasion of Integration4Water 

(EU FP6 SSA) workshop. They were conceived of either as self-contained preliminary project proposals, or modules offered for 

project compilation a la cárte. 

Because of the value of the individual and collective inputs by contributing researchers and teams, as well as the subsequent synthesis by 

the editors, a decision was made to publish them as a Compendium of Pre-Proposals and Call-Lines. Its primary aim is to present them as 

solid components, from which future projects can be further developed, and, last but not least, in order to demonstrate the fruitfulness of the 

thematic networking, as promoted by the ERA ENV project. Topical expert groups are committed to a further elaboration of the presented preproposals, 

which, along with future contributions, are also available at www.virginforests.sk. 

Credits shall be given to all contributing authors, who shared their ideas on the frontiers of environmental research. 

About ERA ENV Project 

ERA ENV (Extending European Research Area through Environmental Approaches) is a Specific Support Action under EU’s Sixth Framework Programme, aiming at assisting the participation of 

organisations from New Member States and Candidate Countries in FP6 projects. More information and free registration: www.eraenv.com 

Editors

CONTENTS 

Pre-proposal No 1: MICKING PRIMEVAL FORESTS PATTERNS 

IN NATURE-BASED FOREST RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (“PRIMEFOR”). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

Pre-proposal No 2: SPATIAL VARIABILITY OF SOIL DEPTH AND TRANSPORT 

PROPERTIES AS THE PRINCIPAL INDICATORS 

OF ENVIRONMENTAL SOIL FUNCTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

Pre-Proposal No 3: NATURE - BASED MANAGEMENT OF BIODIVERSITY, 

WATER AND CARBON IN FORESTS ECOSYSTEMS OF THE CARPATHIANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 

Pre-Proposal No 4: ENHANCEMENT OF CARBON AND WATER RELATED 

REGULATORY FUNCTIONS OF FORESTS THROUGH PATTERNS OF PRIMEVAL 

FORESTS DYNAMICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 

Pre-proposal No 5: ADAPTATION TO AND MITIGATION OF ADVERSE 

WATER-RELATED IMPACTS IN VULNERABLE SYSTEMS 

– ENHANCEMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY OF ADAPTATION STRATEGIES 

AND MEASURES UNDER UNCERTAINTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

MICKING PRIMEVAL FORESTS 

PATTERNS IN NATURE-BASED 

FOREST RESOURCES 

MANAGEMENT (“PRIMEFOR”) 

developed as a project outline in reference to 

• FP 6, Human Resources and Mobility Activity 

• Marie Curie Actions – Marie Curie Research Training Networks (RTN) 

Pre-proposal No 1 

5

Pre-proposal No 1 MICKING PRIMEVAL FORESTS PATTERNS 

IN NATURE-BASED FOREST RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (“PRIMEFOR”) 

1. Network motivation and aims: 

According to the Strategic Research Agenda of the Forests Based Sector’s Technological Platform, the competitiveness of the sector depends 

entirely on ensuring the sustainable character of forestry, on using research to make wood a more predictable engineering material, and on 

reducing the input of material, energy and work per unit wood and wood based-products. All these assumptions seem to be seriously compromised: 

The burning of fossil fuels may lead to problems in applying the traditional concept of sustainable forestry, in which site factors are 

assumed steady-state (Wagonner 1994, Kauppi 1995). The predictability of wood as material is limited due to wood market volatility, amplified 

by wood availability being a delayed function of the demand. And finally, the profit margins from wood utilization are often not high enough 

to cover the necessary silvicultural measures in many countries (Commarmot et al. 2000). In this situation, nature-based management of forest 

resources becomes a principal doctrine aimed to narrow the gap between managed and nature forests patterns, to ensure higher forests stability, 

to provide for a diversified supply of wood and to achieve desired forests functions at lower costs. Therefore, the major scientific aim of 

this network is to find new ways of how substantially more natural patterns and processes normally taking place in the primeval forests can be 

harnessed for the benefit of forest resources management under global changes. Owing to the network structure, the early stage researcher 

(ESR) will for the first time get an integral view of nature forests ecosystems on distinct sites in the Temperate Zone of Europe. That experience 

accompanied by a highly interdisciplinary approach will create a new breed of scientists able to pose clear scientific questions even in the 

face of considerably complex ecosystem patterns and demands on forest functions. Trained under the supervision of acclaimed scientists, 

they will be able to resolve the challenge of a science-based and economically viable management of forest ecosystems in a possibly transient, 

non-steady-state environment. 

2. Scientific objectives 

The research training activities will unfold around the principal axis, constituted by the network’s scientific objectives. These objectives will be 

achieved within the framework of tasks which are described in detail in the Work Plan section (4): 

a) To develop a comprehensive understanding of the causes for the variation in ecological patterns and processes within temperate primeval 

forests: Some of the results from primeval forest research could have been generalized, such as the developmental independence of small 

forest segments in beech primeval forests on mesotrophic sites. Further and more complex research covering the entire spectrum of site 

conditions will yield exceptional data and provide ESR with a unique training opportunity in field methods. 

b) To form a self-contained picture of the temperate primeval forests functional capacity: Most temperate primeval show an outstanding performance 

in terms of biomass production, the ecological resistance and resilience, biodiversity, preventing erosion, retention and carbon accumulation. 

Not always, however, these functions are provided simultaneously. In the light of increasing efforts to employ natural processes in 

forest management, there is an urgent need to determine the effects of natural patterns and processes on forest functions. 

c) To extract the past and assess the current and future global climate change impact on temperate forests: Primeval forests, owing to a negligible 

human intervention, provide us with a window of opportunity to estimate the interference of climate fluctuations with the growth dynamics 

of tree populations. Any changes however must be evaluated and judged against the natural dynamics. 

d) To resolve the introduction and maintenance of natural forests patterns in managed forests: The opportunities for a cost-effective and ecologically 

sound approach, based on the introduction of selected processes and patterns of the primeval forests ecosystems into the forest 

management toolbox, depend on the site conditions, its past use, previous forest management and its current and future goals. Further research 

shall therefore focus on what other forest structures are most suitable to benefit from self-regulating processes and how these structures 

can be achieved. 

3. Current international state-of-the-art and scientific originality of the project 

The network objectives have been set after a thorough evaluation of both successes and failures in primeval forest research and in the transfer 

of its results into sustainable forestry. 

6 

3.1 Conceptual foundations and the transfer of knowledge from primeval to managed forests 

Brang (2005) reviewed the concept of virgin forests as a knowledge source for central European silviculture. Due to the case-study character 

of the available knowledge, there continues to be disagreement about the degree to which the processes observed in primeval 

forests can legitimately be incorporated into the managed forests dynamics. Small-scale regeneration methods, such as progressive 

felling by small groups and single tree or group selection systems correspond best to the natural regeneration processes in undisturbed 

beech forests. But a number of other patterns occurring in primeval forests can potentially be used in forest management after further 

research of the opening opportunities, for instance the substitution of tending and thinning by natural regeneration, suppression and 

released of target trees by auxiliary trees; growing of mosaic forests composed of small patches covered by bio-groups of different age, 

as devised from the textural primeval forests patterns or the mimicking of the biometric parameters of oak crowns able to sustain the



maximum stem diameter increment while maintaining its quality in oak primeval forests. The natural growth and increment rhythm, as 

well as the production of higher quality and larger dimensions can be supported by an according initial suppression of certain species, 

such as fir and spruce. The response of other species, such as oak and beech must further be studied, similar to the question how much 

trees necromass should be retained in managed forests in order to provide habitats for stenoec organisms, microclimate-smoothing within 

forest stands, and contribute to carbon accumulation in the surface humus and ultimately in mineral soils. Thus, there is a widely 

recognized need to consolidate and extend the network of studied primeval forests to achieve necessary replications and thus overcome 

the site dependency, which currently presents the barrier to knowledge transfer. Also, no major breakthrough has yet been made in 

the synthesis of silviculture, hydrology, soil physics, ecology and biogeochemistry in particular, which is urgently needed in order to 

assess the impact of primeval forests patterns and processes on the environmental functions, including carbon sequestration, slope stability, 

runoff quantity and quality and erosion controls. 

3.2 Project novelty and expected contributions 

The highly integrated approach employed by the network goes far beyond of what has been achieved in this field thus far, and for the 

first time it has the ambition to shed light on the causes for the spatio-temporal variability so as to help bridge the limited, site- or region-specific 

character of the available information. This shall provide a major advance in this field, which is bedeviled by the dispersion 

and scarcity of primeval forests remnants and differences in data collection modes and methodology, making direct comparisons 

among studies, useful modeling and the transfer of knowledge into forest management difficult or impossible. 

4. Workplan 

The research conducted in this network has been structured into five distinct but interrelated research tasks. Tasks #1 and #4 provide the new 

empirical data basis for the network. Task #3 and #4 narrow the uncertainties in the development of the primeval forests mimicking toolbox 

within the task #5. 

4.1 The research tasks 

Task 1: Comparative study of current ecological patterns and processes in primeval forests and of their spatial variability in the temperate 

zone of Europe; Task description and approach: The task aims to reveal the causes of the differences in structure, texture, disturbances, 

regeneration and the overall dynamics under a range of environmental and genetic causes responsible for the variability of 

observed patterns. For that purpose, series of primeval forests on distinct sites will be composed in numbers assuring a proper replication. 

The respective patterns and processes will be studied using existing records and current or new observations; Task leader: ZVO; 

Involved partners: GOT, RAK, LJU, BRA, ZVO. 

Task 2: Regulation capacity assessment of primeval forests ecosystems; Task description and approach: We will measure locally, 

model and on larger scales estimate the regulation functions of primeval forest, i. e. their capacity to sustain ecological processes and 

the vital environmental functions, such slope stability protection, torrent control, retention, accumulation, filtration and the carbon sequestration. 

Functions provided by primeval forests are often assumed superior to functions fulfilled by managed forest. However, this line 

argument deserves a scientific scrutiny, as there is a multiple evidence that certain combinations of these functions can not be achieved 

at the same time. The corresponding analysis will draws on results from task #1 and deliver a list of functions worth mimicking for 

the task #5. Task leader: DUB; Involved partners: DUB, ZVO, BRA. 

Task 3: Analysis of possible temporal variations in temperate primeval forests patterns; Task description and approach: This task shall 

detect possible global climate change impacts on the patterns and dynamics in primeval forests on the backdrop of environmental stochasticity. 

Network partners (ZVO, RAK) avail of data from a 50-year-long continuous primeval forests research and so the approach 

will lean, beside dendrochronological analyses, on contrasting current patterns against data taken prior to the rapid onset of the global 

changes, and against site and genetic variations as identified in task #1. The results will enable capturing the emergent trends and 

making more specific predictions about the future fate of forests ecosystems. Task leader: TOR; Involved partners: TOR, ZVO, GOT, 

BRA 

Task 4: Investigation of interactions between primeval forest patterns and organisms; Task description and approach: In compliance 

with Huston (1979), who predicted the highest species richness under intermediate perturbations, no significant differences in species 

richness between a beech primeval forest and a properly managed beech forest have been detected (Duelli et al. 2005). However, pri- 

7



8 

meval forests patterns support saprophagous organisms groups, e. g. millipedes, gastropods, saproxylophagous beetles and xylobiont 

fungi, birds nesting in tree cavities and others. They in turn may strongly influence primeval forests traits, such as the spatial heterogeneity 

of surface humus and natural regeneration. Therefore, these and other important interactions, such as those between ungulates 

and their predators in relation to natural regeneration dynamics, will be studied. Comparatively less attention will be paid to biodiversity 

inventories. Task leader: RAK; Involved partners: ZVO, RAK, BRA 

Task 5: Mimicking of primeval forests patterns in close to nature forestry; Task description and approach: Three teams in this network 

(GOT, ZVO, LJU) have made independently significant contributions to the study of primeval forests patterns and their incorporation into 

close-to nature silviculture. These teams join forces in this network to evaluate primeval forests patterns and experiments, as well as to 

emulate the underlying processes by means of computer modeling. In that way, new applications and recipes for nature-based management 

of forest resources will be developed. That approach will draw on findings from previous tasks. We envision that ESRs employed 

in the network are thoroughly exposed to both theory-building and empirical research. Task leader: GOT; Involved partners: ZVO, 

LJU, GOT, RAK, BRA 

4.2 Research facilities 

We have chosen approximately fifty primeval forests of outstanding authenticity and integrity. The group reflects the variability of climax 

forests across an area that extends from Central France to Western Ukraine and from Southern Sweden to the mountainous part of Central 

Italy. The group includes primeval forest in the Slovak republic (e. g. Kasivarova, Dobroc, Havesova,), in Ukraine (e. g. Uholka, Svydovets, 

Kuzyi-Trybushany) and in Slovenia (e. g. Strmec) They are composed mainly of sessile oak (Quercus petraea), European beech 

(Fagus sylvatica), silver fir (Abies alba) and Norway spruce (Picea excelsa). These species represent the backbone of the European 

forestry and some of the best studied tree species in Europe. The field sites were selected from areas close to the home institutions of 

the network partners. In these localities, advanced research methods will be applied. Besides, teams in Zvolen, Rakhiv, Ljubljana and 

Göttingen avail of series of experimental plots where close-to-nature forest management methods are applied, which enable comparative 

studies based on multiple replications. 

4.3 Selected research methods 

The research teams have further developed within collaborative research, e. g. by O’Linger et. al (1997), and successfully applied the 

following selection of methods: Site capacity determination: As opposed to usual site descriptions, the field method relies on the determination 

of site parameters in absolute terms, e. g. total amount of available nutrients instead of concentration only. This is achieved by 

the conversions using for instance the total volume of forest soil cover. The variables will be measured by advanced technology, such 

as electrical resistivity tomography, Time Domain Reflectometry, elemental analyzers and others owned by several teams (ZVO, DUB). 

Population genetics of forest tree species: Our groups (ZVO, GOT) have expertise in studying the genetic structuring of tree species 

populations using alloenzymes, isoenyzmes and DNA analyses. They are used to determine the postglacial migration of tree species in 

the Carpathians and the adjacent regions and will help determine the spatial variability of primeval forests patterns in the area of interest 

(Comps et al. 2001). Global change impact detection and modeling: The main methods to be applied are the measurement of the 

growth rate through basal area increments (TOR) and time series analysis of primeval forest dynamics over past 50 years (ZVO, RAK). 

Structural analysis of the primeval forests, including the gap analysis: A co-operation of two teams (GOT, ZVO) lead to the development 

of a standard method applied on 10 ha plots. The investigation includes determination of the site resources utilization, the crown volume, 

forest canopy gaps, trees necromass survey, natural regeneration and other parameters. The research will rely on ground measurements 

and the evaluation of aerial photographs or satellite images from IKONOS or Quickbird satellites. Growth models: Forest structure 

generators (SIBYLA) developed by two teams (ZO, GOT) within a co-operative research will be used to generate individual tree 

data from stand data and predict spatial structure. This is inasmuch significant that the close-to-nature forestry approach is increasingly 

concerned with individual trees, their production and stability. Thinning models (SIBYLA Cultivator, SIBYLA Prophesier) shall be 

employed to model autoselection as compared to tending, thinning and harvesting. 

5. Collective experience and collaboration between the research teams 

Our network includes complementary research skills from population genetics, biogeochemical cycling, forest ecology, silviculture and forest 

management, environmental sciences and mathematical modeling, which are required for successful accomplishment of the ultimate aim of 

the network. Task #1 involves the majority of teams, while each of the remaining tasks include 3 to 5 teams having the necessary expertise, 

with the network coordinator (BRA) being involved in each task. Thus, the network overcomes geographic and interdisciplinary fragmentation 

and establishes the critical mass of scientific capacity in order to significantly advance the theory and practice of nature based management



of forest resources, capable of adapting to site conditions where it is applied and to new conditions yet to be experienced. The network partners 

are: 

UKE – Institute of Landscape Ecology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovakia: Network coordinator. The institute has been participating 

in nine projects within the 5th EU and 6th EU Framework Programs: BIOSCENE, BIOPRESS, CARBOMONT, BIOHAB, BIOPLATFORM, 

BIOFORUM, RURAL-ETINET, ALTERNET and SENSOR. The team under the leadership of Dr. J. Oszlányi, the institute’s director, has co-operated 

with all network partners. The main contributions of this team to the network consist in investigations of biomass production, carbon 

accumulation and biodiversity survey in forest ecosystems, as well as regionalization of results and the network management. 


Oszlányi, J., 2001: Research in UNESCO Biosphere Reserves as one of the elements of the Seville Strategy. Ekológia – Bratislava. 20 

(3): 45–53. 

Oszlányi, J., Grodzinska, K., Badea, O., Sharpyk, Y.: Nature conservation in Central and Eastern Europe with a special emphasis on the 

Carpathian Mountains. Environmental Pollution. 130 (1): 17–32. 

GOT – Faculty of Forest Sciences and Forest Ecology, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Germany: Partner #1, leader of task #5. The team of 

the Faculty of Forest Sciences and Forest Ecology in Göttingen contributes to the network by extraordinary complementary research in the 

fields of silviculture and forest ecology. They are represented by the group of. Prof. Dr. A. Dohrenbusch and it includes forest regeneration, 

competition-based control of young stands, ecological demands of forest trees species, ecological and economical aspects forest developments, 

e. g. carbon sequestration and water quality 


Dohrenbusch, a., 2000: forest management. In: Puhe, J. Ulrich, B.: Global Climate Change and Human Impacts on Forest Ecosystems. 

Springer Ecological Studies: 419–462. 

Dohrenbusch, A.; Bartsch, N. (eds.) (2002) Forest development – succession, environmental stress and forest management. Springer, 

Berlin, 220 pp. 

ZVO – Faculty of Forestry, Technical University Zvolen, Zvolen, Slovakia: Partner #2, leader of task #1. Results of to-date longest systematic research 

of the primeval forests in the Temperate Zone of Europe have been published by Korpeº (1995), the co-founder of modern natural forests 

research in Europe. His work has become a reference for further primeval forest research results. Consequently, it has been cited one hundred 

and forty five times in the ISI-indexed journals and more than 1000 times in journals indexed by other databases. The team has been 

participating in several projects within the 5th and 6th EU Framework Programs: FRAXIGEN, FRAXINAS, Implementing Tree Growth Models 

(ITM), WARM. 


Saniga, M., Schütz, J.P., 2001: Dynamik des Totholzes in zwei gemischten Urwäldern der Westkarpaten im pflanzengeographischen 

Bereich der Tannen-Buchen- und der Buchenwälder in verschiedenen Entwicklungsstadien. Schweiz. Z. Forstwes. 152, (10): 407–416. 

Comps, B., Gömöry, D., Letouzey, J., Thiébaut, B., Petit, R. J., 2001: Diverging Trends Between Heterozygosity and Allelic Richness 

During Postglacial Colonization in the European Beech. Genetics, Vol. 157: 389–397. 

RAK – Carpathian Biosphere Reserve, Rakhiv; UA: Partner #3, leader of task #4. The research team of the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve, has a longstanding 

experience in performing the biodiversity inventories and has achieved remarkable results in comparative studies between biodiversity 

in primeval and managed forests. As a result, his team organized the scientific conference “Natural Forests in the Temperate Zone of Europe 

– Values and Utilisation” in 2003 in Rakhiv, during which one hundred and thirty contributions dealing with biological, social and economic 

aspects of natural forest ecosystems and thereof utilization were presented (Hamor, Commarmot 2003). The participation of the Rakhiv team is 

indispensable for the network as the team contributes its research plots in the largest European beech reserves, e. g. Uholka – 6200 ha in size, 

Kuzyi-Trybushany – 4200 ha in size. Carpathian Biosphere Reserve closely cooperates with Zvolen team on the research of permanent experimental 

plots in the Ukrainian primeval forests founded by prof. Zlatník (Zlatník et. al 1938, Volo‰ãuk 2003). Their data records complete the series 

of observations needed for capturing spatial variety of primeval forests in the Temperate Zone of Europe and their temporal variations. 


Commarmot, B., Bachofen, H., Bundziak, Yo., Bürgi, A., Ramp, B., Shparyk, Yu., Sukhariuk, D., Viter, R., Zingg, A., 2005: Structures of 

virgin and managed forests in Uholka (Ukraine) and Sihlwald (Switzerland): a comparative study. For. Snow Landsc. Res. 79, 1/2: 45–56 

Dovhanych Ya.E., 1986: Carnivores of the Carpathian Reserve. Moscow, 12–14. 

LJU – Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia: Partner #4, Tasks # 1, 5. Leader of the team, prof. J. Diaci made highly sig- 

9



10 

nificant contributions to the “Nature-based Management of beech in Europe – a multifunctional approach to forestry”, an international project 

supported by the EU fifth framework program. The project has delivered scientifically founded policy recommendations and management 

guidelines for sustainable forest management. His team specializes on ecophysiological research on gap dynamics in virgin forests 

and on indicators for monitoring and evaluation of forest biodiversity in Europe. 


Christensen, M., Hahn, K., Mountford, E. P., Odor, P., Standovar, T., Rozenbergar, D., Diaci, J., Wijdeven, S., Meyer, P., Winter, S., Vrska, 

T., 2005: Dead wood in European beech (Fagus sylvatica) forest reserves. Forest ecology and management, 210 (1–3): 267–282. 

Diaci, J., Pisek, R., Boncina, A., 2005: Regeneration in experimental gaps of subalpine Picea abies forest in the Slovenian Alps. European 

journal of forest research 124 (1): 29–36. 

TOR – Department of Agronomy, Silviculture and Land Management, University of Turin, Turin, Italy: Partner #5, leader of the task #3. The team 

headed by prof. R. Motta, an associate editor of Dendrochronologia, an interdisciplinary scientific journal of tree ring science, is devoted to 

dendroecological analysis of the conifer trees, the studies of forest stands histories, and the research on the impact of the global climate 

change on forests. They also conduct silvicultural experiments, such as small gaps or elongated cuts, established in order either to maintain 

the current status using natural regeneration or to improve the structures and the “naturalness” of the forest stands. 


Motta R, Garbarino F, 2003: Stand history and its consequences for the present and future dynamic in two silver fir (Abies alba Mill.) 

stands in the high Pesio Valley (Piedmont, Italy). Annals of Forest Science, 60 (4): 361–370. 

Motta, R., Edouard, J., 2005: Stand structure and dynamics in a mixed and ultilayered forest in the Upper Susa Valley, Piedmont, Italypper 

Susa Valley, Piedmont, Italy. Canadian journal of forest research,35 (1): 21–36. 

DUB – Department of Environmental Resource Management, Faculty of Agriculture, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland: Partner #6, leader 

of the task #2. The team of Prof. E. P. Farrell has made significant contribution on the assessment of forests environmental functions, mainly 

soil protection, the provision of clean water and carbon accumulation, under the global climate change. Prof. Farrell acts as Member of 

the COST Action E21 Management Committee (Contribution of Forests and Forestry to the Mitigation of Greenhouse Effects) and COST Action 

E25 Management Committee (European Network for a Long-term Forest Ecosystem and Landscape Research Programme). 


Goodale, C. L, Aber, J. D. , Farrell, E. P., 1998: Predicting the relative sensitivity of forest production in Ireland to site quality and climate 

change. Climate research 10 (1): 51–67. 

Byrne, A. K., Farrell, E. P., 2005: The effect of afforestation on soil carbon dioxide emissions in blanket peatland in Ireland. Forestry 78 

(3): 217–227. 

6. Training 

The research program will help to train ESR able to provide a scientifically sound basis for the implementation of the Resolution on Forestry 

Strategy for the EU, adopted by the European Council in 1998, and specifically for sustainable production of renewable resources and sound 

environmental practices as the main objectives. This new generation of scientists will also be essential for the development and implementation 

of the Strategic Research Agenda of the EU Forests Based Sector’s Technological Platform, EU environmental policies and the EU Climate 

and Environment Program. These expectations are not unrealistic, as our network teams have had a long record of successful participation 

in the 5th and 6th EU FPs. Early stage researchers will benefit both directly from their network-specific activities and indirectly from operating 

in a creative, international and interactive scientific environment. 

6.1 Training needs 

From the viewpoint of human resources, the transfer of know-how from applied ecology of primeval forests ecosystems into practical 

management of forest ecosystems has been seriously hindered not only by the scarcity and dispersal of primeval forests remnants, but 

also by the lack of an interdisciplinary approach. Thus, most universities in Europe provide the training in nature-based forestry only of 

a facultative appendix. Though we cannot undertake to train new fully fledged experts in each area within this network, we can help the 

young researchers to become familiar with the purpose and use of methods applied in the particular fields. Only then can they attain 

the capacity to pose relevant questions, to capture the complexity of forest ecosystems and extract solutions for the practical, adaptive 

and nature-based management of forest ecosystems. We have identified training need for young European researchers especially 

in the following areas: Experimental designs: In forestry research, proper replication of studies is sometimes confused with pseudoreplication. 

ERSs shall receive training on setting up proper research designs in order to ensure opportunities for the transfer of know-



ledge. Methods of field work: There is little methodological standardization of field techniques employed in primeval forests and silvicultural 

studies, which makes comparative studies difficult. Thus, it is essential to develop comparable methods, widely applicable with 

minimum modification. Quantitative analyses of biogeochemical cycles: The biogeochemical cycling is often analyzed or modeled qualitatively, 

or quantitative analyses and modeling are performed on spatially very limited compartments. Such approach can essentially 

mask the overall patterns, such as the carrying capacity of sites. The use of absolute values shall be encouraged. Spatio-temporal variability: 

In studying heterogeneity, what we call ground noise (or residual variance) in classical statistical inference, actually may be the 

matter of our study in highly complex ecosystems. ESRs should become acquainted with a wide spectrum of statistical methods. Genetics 

applied to forestry studies: Though there is no lack of general expertise in the use of molecular techniques in population biology in 

Europe, there is an ever present need to help field researchers acquire a better understanding of the opportunities presently available 

via the application of current molecular techniques. 

6. 2. Training programme 

In this network, ERS will develop an ability to work in groups. On completion of the project, transferable and specific skills will enable them 

to overtake responsibilities in collaborative research, to understand and predict the direct and indirect effects of forest management. 

6.2.1 Early stage researchers (ESRs) 

Early stage researchers employed in this program will receive a contract for 1–3 years in one of the seven research teams in the 

network. It is foreseen that they will focus on the following topics: Genetic causes for spatial variations in production, structure, 

texture, natural disturbances and regeneration within a primeval forests sample: 2 ESR (ZVO, GOT); Site factors and variations 

in primeval forests patterns: 3 ESR (RAK, ZVO, GOT); Interactions between primeval forests patterns, biodiversity, populations 

and ecosystems fragmentation: 2 ESR (RAK, ZVO, BA, GOT); Regulation functions of primeval forests compared to managed 

forests (torrent control and flood avoidance, replenishment of water reservoirs, carbon accumulation in forest ecosystems, landslide 

and erosion control an others): 3 ESR (DUB, ZVO, BRA); Temporal changes and predictions of primeval forests dynamics: 

3 ESR (TOR, ZVO); Emulating primeval forests processes and patterns in managed forests: 5 ESR (ZVO, RAK, GOT, TOR, DUB). 

The total estimated number of ESR is between 15 and 20 which corresponds to approximately 600 person months. Over the period 

of the contract, each ESR will spend at least two months with at least two other tams in compliance with his o her Personal 

Career Development Plan, elaborated in co-operation with personal supervisors recruited from among the respective partner 

faculty. During periods of intensive field work, ESR will work together at particular locations in association with the local task leader 

and scientists, post graduate students, and undergraduate assistants. During winter months, ESR will visit other laboratories 

and work closely with faculty and staff involved in the statistical analyses of material and data gathered in the field season 

and the modeling. The visits and secondments will be coordinated in order to fit the schedule of structured training courses provided 

by the network partners, summer schools, workshops and network wide training activities, including E-learning, data visualisation, 

as well as joint database development on web-platforms. A particularly strong emphasis will be put on a simple access 

to structured and, wherever possible, visualized data across the entire network. All relevant information and data will be available 

to the network partners, ESRs and ERs on the internet site currently under development (www.virginforests.sk). The teams will 

provide the ESRs with training in techniques presented in Training needs section (6.1). 

6.2.2 Experienced researchers (ERs) 

The ER will be given the opportunity to visit two other laboratories in the network for one month per year of their contract. This mobility 

is essential to the transfer of knowledge, research collaboration as well as to the training of ESR. Two meetings will be organized 

by the network (years 2 and 3) in which all ESR and ER in the network will give presentations and discuss progress and conclusions. 

All ESR and ER will be strongly encouraged to participate in staff development programs in the institutions where they are 

employed, annual career development appraisals will be carried out, and training progress will be subject to annual reports. 

6.3 Procedure to hire early stage and experienced researchers 

The vacancies will be advertised by informative folders sent to forest ecology, silviculture and forest management departments at the 

universities and scientific institutes across Europe, through the IUFRO Newsletter and its division and task force meetings, national Pro 

Silva organizations and ERA ENV (a new European initiative financed by the European Commission through the 6 th Framework Programme 

aimed at the integration of Associated Candidate Countries and new EU member states into European Research Area by environmental 

approaches). The selection will take place on a competitive base, but in case of equal scores female candidates will be preferred 

to achieve a minimum 40 % representation of female ESRs and ERs. 

11



7. Literature 

Brang, P., 2005: Virgin Forests as a Knowledge Source for Central European Silviculture: Reality or Myth? Forest Snow and Landscape Research, 

79 (1/2), 19-31. 

Commarmot, B., (Eds.), 2005: Natural Forests in the Temperate Zone of Europe: biological, social and economic aspects. In: Forest Snow and 

Landscape Research, 79 (1/2). 

Comps, B., Gömöry, D., Letouzey, J., Thiébaut, B., Petit, R. J., 2001: Diverging Trends Between Heterozygosity and Allelic Richness During 

Postglacial Colonization in the European Beech. Genetics, Vol. 157, 389-397. 

Duelli, P., Chumak, V., Obrist, M. K., Wirz, P.: The biodiversity values of European virgin forests. Forest Snow and Landscape Research, 79 

(1/2), 91-99. 

Hamor, F., D., Commarmot, B (eds.) 2003: Natural Forests in the Temperate Zone of Europe – Values and Utilisation. International Conference 

in Mukachevo, Transcarpathia, Ukraine, October 13-17, 2003. Rakhiv, Carpathian Biosphere reserve; Birmensdorf, Swiss Federal Research 

Institute WSL, s. 112. 

Huston, M., 1979: General hypothesis of species diversity. Am. Nat., 113, 81–101. 

Kauppi, P. E., 1995: What Is Changing in the Global Environment? Papers presented in IUFRO'95 Sub-Plenary Sessions. 

Volo‰ãuk, I., 2003: The geobiocenological research in the natural forest ecosystems of the Carpathian protected areas. The monographical 

studies on national parks (3). State nature conservancy Banská Bystrica, 122 pp. 

Zlatník, A., KorsuÀ, F, Koãetov, F., Kseneman, M., 1938: PrÛzkum pfiirozen˘ch lesÛ na Podkarpatské Rusi. Sborník vyzkumn˘ch ústavÛ zemûdûlsk˘ch 

âSR, sv. 152, 524 pp. 

Waggoner, P.E. 1994. How Much Land Can Ten Billion People Spare for Nature ? Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. Task Force 

Report No. 121, Ames, IA, U.S.A.

SPATIAL VARIABILITY OF SOIL DEPTH 

AND TRANSPORT PROPERTIES 

AS THE PRINCIPAL INDICATORS 

OF ENVIRONMENTAL SOIL FUNCTIONS 

developed as a module in reference to 

• EU FP6, Global Changes and Ecosystems, 4 th Call 

• EU FP 7, Theme 6: Environment (including Climate Change) 


13

Pre-proposal No 2 SPATIAL VARIABILITY OF SOIL DEPTH AND TRANSPORT 

PROPERTIES AS THE PRINCIPAL INDICATORS OF ENVIRONMENTAL SOIL FUNCTIONS 

Description 

A soil acts as a physical, chemical and biological reactor {Richter 1987), which determines the functionality of ecosystems. Some of the most 

important forest soil functions include the biomass production, regulation of ecosystem processes and environmental interaction, i. e. mainly 

accumulation, filtration and transformation. Individual functions are most often approximated through certain attributes and their indicators, 

which are parameters relatively easily available from soil survey or mapping, such as textural composition, structure, pH and others. More 

complex indicators, termed as pedotransfer functions represent combinations of several variables and are based on various types of correlation 

analysis with the aim to extract transformation relationships. As important forest soils quality indicators, organic matter content, porosity 

and infiltration intensity have recently been proposed by international working groups. The most frequently used indicators however provide 

only a rough and little reliable approximation of soil functions, as they are based on intensity variables, instead of the capacity ones. 

The estimation of forest soil functions based on the intensity-capacity approach requires a sufficient knowledge on the spatial variability of the 

forest soils depth, which is one of he least studied processes due to inherent technical difficulties. This problem is often solved by converting 

the intensity into capacity variables for deliberately selected top soil layers, by the assumption of an average depth without any knowledge on 

the type of its distribution, or by employing simple models rendering soil depth as a function of the elevation, slope curvature etc. Currently, 

methods for the prediction of soil depth based on soil-landscape regression models are constructed, and methods for non-destructive, geophysical 

measurement of soil depth, such as the ground penetration or electric resistivity tomography are being further developed. 

The importance and connection between the soil depth and soil transport properties is well illustrated by the fact that variability in correlation 

relationships between the soil properties and topographic features at various depths may exist, conditioned by the declining hydraulic conductivity 

in the downward direction. Another reason, why even the intensity-capacity approach may not deliver expected reliability and accuracy 

in the estimation of forest soil functions, is the enormous spatial variability of the soil hydraulic conductivity and the susceptibility of forest 

soils to the preferential flow. Due to non-linear dependence of the water flow velocity on the porous volume properties and the occurrence of 

structural heterogeneity of forest soils, the pedotransfer functions do not allow for viable predictions of the soil hydraulic conductivity from static 

properties. As an alternative to a time consuming, labour intensive and little representative direct measurement on undisturbed samples, 

soil hydraulic conductivity is often predictions based on retention curves. The methods are being constantly improved, for instance by a model 

allowing for a bimodal distribution of the soil pores. For these reasons, no systematic data on the transport properties of forest soils are available 

either abroad, or in Slovakia. 

Literature references (including those used in the methodological section) 

BELL, J. C., CUNNINGHAM, R. L., HAVENS, M. V., 1992: Calibration and validaton of a soil-landscape model for predicting soil drainage 

class. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. Journal, 56, 6, 1860–1866. 

BLUM, W.E.H., SANTELISES, A. A, 1994: A Concept of Sustainability and Resilience Based of Soil Functions: the Role of the International 

Society of Soil Science in Promoting Sustainable Land Use. In: Greenland D.J. and I. Szabolcs (Eds.): Soil Resilience and Sustainable Land 

Use, pp. 535-542. CAB INTERNATIONAL Wallingford, 1994. 

BOER, M., DEL BARIO, G., PUGDEFÁBRES, J., 1996: Mapping soil depth classes in dry Mediterannean areas usng terrain attributes derived 

from a digital elevation model. Geoderma, 72, 1–2, 99–118. 

BOUMA, J, 1989: Using soil survey data for quantitative land evaluations. Adv. Soil Sci, 9, 177–213. 

BOURENNANE, H., KING, D., COUTURIER A., 2000: Comparison of kriging with external drift and simple linear regression for predicting soil 

horizon thickness with different sample densities. Geoderma 97, 3–4, 255–271. 

BRUBAKER, S. C., JONES, A. J., LEWIS, D. T., FRANK, K., 1993: Soil properties associated with landscape position. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Journal 

57, 1, 235–239. 

CAPULIAK, J., PICHLER, V., GREGOR, J., PICHLEROVÁ, M., BEBEJ, J., 2005: V˘poãet desukcie lesného porastu na báze indikátorového 

experimentu calculation of forest desiccation on the base of indicator experimentu. In: Sobocká, J., (ed): ·tvrté pôdoznalecké dni v SR. Zborník 

referátov z vedeckej konferencie pôdoznalcov SR, âingov, 14.–16. jún, 2005. VÚPOP, Societas Pedologica Slovaca, Bratislava, 60–64. 

CATANI,F,. SEGONI, S., FALORNI, G., 2006: A soil depth prediction scheme for geomorphologic and hydrologic distributed modeling. Geophysical 

Research Abstracts, Vol. 8, 09405. 

COSENZA, P., MARMET, E., REJIBA, F., CUI, Y. J, TABBAGH, A., CHARLERY, Y, 2006: Correlations between geotechnical and electrical 

data: A case study at Garchy in France. Journal of Applied Geophysics. (In press). 

DE GROOT, R. S., WILSON, M. A., BOUMANS, R. M. J., 2002: A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, 

goods and services. Ecological economics (May 2002) 

DE VAAL, C., 2004: Post-socialist Property Rights and Wrongs in Albania: An Ethnography of Agrarian Change, 2, 1, 19–50. 

DORAN, J. W., LEIBIG, M., SANTANA, D. P., 1996: Soil health and sustainability. Adv. Agron. 56, pp. 1–56. 

DURNER, W., 1991: Vorhersage der hydraulischenLeitfähigkeit strukturierten Böden. Bayreuther bodenkundliche Berichte, Band 20, 180ss. 

14



ELLIOT, W. J., PAGE-DUMROESES, D., ROBICHAUD, R., 1999: The effect of forest management on erosion and soil productivity. In: Lal, R. 

(Ed.), Soil quality and soil erosion. Soil and Water Conservation Society and CRC press, Boca Raton, pp. 195–208. 

EWING, R. P., HORTON, R., 1999 (a): Discriminating Dyes in Soil with Color Image Analysis. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 63, s. 

18–24. 

EWING, R. P., HORTON, R., 1999 (b): Quantitative Color Image Analysis of Agronomic Images. Agronomy Journal, 91, s. 148–153. 

FLORINSKY, I. V, EILERS, R. G., MANNING, G. R., FULLER, L. G., 2002: Prediction of soil properties by digital terrain modelling. Environmental 

Modelling & Software, 17, 3, 295–311. 

FLURY, M., 1993: Transport of Bromide and Chloride in a Sandy and a Loamy Field Soil. Diss. ETH No. 10185, Zürich, 136 s. 

FLURY, M., FLÜHLER, H., JURY, W. A., LEUENBEREGER, J., 1994: Susceptibility of Soils to Preferential Flow of Water. Water Resources 

Research, 30, 7, s. 1945–1954. 

FLURY, M., FLÜHLER, H., 1995: Tracer Characteristics of Brilliant Blue FCF. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 59, 1, s. 22–27 

FORRER, I. E., 1997: Solute Transport in an Unsaturated Field Soil: Visualization and Quantification of Flow patterns using Image Analysis. 

Diss. ETH No. 12476, Zürich, 129 s. 

GERMANN, P., 1976: Wasserhaushalt und Elektrolytverlagerung in einem mit Wald und einem mit Wiese bestockten Boden in ebener Lage. 

Eidg. Anst. forstl. Versuchswes., Mitt. 52, 3, s. 163–309. 

GHODRATI, M., JURY, W. A., 1990: A Field Study Using Dyes to Characterize Preferntial Flow of Water. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Journal 54, 6, 

1558–1563. 

GÖMÖRYOVÁ, E., 2004: Edafické podmienky rastu smrekov˘ch porastov na Slovensku. Vedecké ‰túdie 8-2004/B, Technická univerzita vo 

Zvolene, 57 ss. 

GREGOR, J., 1999: Vplyv denzity bukového porastu a reliéfu terénu na vlhkosÈ pôdy. Vedecko-pedagogické aktuality, TU Zvolen, 60 s. 

GREGOR, J., PICHLER, V., BUBLINEC, E., TUÎINSK¯, L., 2004: The content and accummulation of Carbon in the Carpathian Beech and 

Spruce Ecosystems – a Comparatove Case Study. In: COST E21 – Contribution of Forests and Forestry to the Mitigation of the Greenhouse 

Effect. Final Plenary Meeting Dublin, Ireland, 7–9th October 2004. University College Dublin, 49. 

GROZEV, O., ALEXANDROV, V., RAEV, I., 1996: Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessments of Forest Vegetation in Bulgaria. In: Smith, J. B., 

Bhatti N., Menzhulin G., Benioff R., Budyko M. I., Campos M., Jallow B., Rijsberman F. (eds.): Adapting to Climatic Change – Assessments 

and Issues. Springer, New York, 374–383. 

HALAJ, J., GRÉK, J., PÁNEK, F., PETRÁ·, R., REHÁK, J., 1987: Rastové tabuºky hlavn˘ch drevín âSSR. Príroda, bratislava, 362 s. 

JURÁNI, B., 1996: Environmentálna charakteristika vybran˘ch pôd Slovenska. Habil. práca PríF Univerzity Komenského, Bratislava, 38 s. 

JURY, W. A., SCOTTER, D. R., 1994: A Unified Approach to Stochastic-Convective Transport problems. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 

58, 5, s. 1327–36. 

JURY, W. A., GARDNER, W. R., GARDNER, W. H., 1991: Soil Physics. 5th ed., John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 328 s. 

JURY, W. A., ROTH, K., 1990: Transfer Functions and Solute Movement in Soils. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 226 s. 

KEANE, R. E.; ROLLINS, M. G.; MCNICOLL, C. H.; PARSONS, R. A. 2002. Integrating ecosystem sampling, gradient modeling, remote sensing, 

and ecosystem simulation to create spatially explicit landscape inventories. RMRS-GTR-92. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 61 p. 

KLUTE, A., 1986: Water Retention-Laboratory Methods. In: Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1-Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd Edition, 

edited by A. Klute. ASA, Inc./SSSA, Madison, s. 635–662. 

KLUTE, A., DIRKSEN, C., 1986: Hydraulic Conductivity and Diffusivity-Laboratory Methods. In: Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1-Physical and 

Mineralogical Methods, 2nd Edition, edited by A. Klute. ASA, Inc./SSSA, Madison, s. 687–734. 

KOBZA, J., BARANâÍKOVÁ, G., FULAJTÁR, E., MAKOVNÍKOVÁ, J., MATÚ·KOVÁ, L., MEDVEë, M., PAVLENDA, P., SCHLOSSEROVÁ, J., 

STYK, J., ·IRÁ≈, M., TÓTHOVÁ, G., VOJTÁ·, J., 2004: Monitoring pôd SR. V˘ssledky ãiastkového monitorovacieho systému pôda ako súãasÈ 

Monitoringu Ïivotného prostredia SR za rok 2004, 3. rok 3. cyklu Monitoringu pôd SR. VÚPOP Bratislava, ÚKSÚP Bratislava, LVU Zvolen, 153 ss. 

MALICKI, M.A., SKIERUCHA, W.M., 1989: A manually controlled TDR soil moisture meter operating with 300 ps rise-time needle pulse. Irrig. 

Sci., 10, s. 1536–1563. 

MARTHALER, H. P., VOGELSANGER, W., RICHARD, F., WIEREN-GA, P., 1983: A pressure transducer for field tensiometers. Soil Sci. Soc. 

of Amer. J., 47, s. 624–627. 

MATEJKA, F., HUZULÁK, J., 1987: Anal˘za mikroklímy porastu. Veda, Bratislava, 232 s. 

MCKENZIE, N. J., AUSTIN, M. P., 1993: A quantitative Australian approach to medium and small size surveys based on soil stratigraphy and 

environmental correlation. Geodema, 57, 4, 329–355. 

MESQUITA, M., MORAES, S. O., CORRENTE, J. E., 2002: More adequate probability distributions to represent the saturated soil hydraulic 

conductivity. Scientia Agricola, 59, 4, 789–793. 

15



16 

MUALEM, Y., 1986: Hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils – Prediction and formulas. In: Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1-Physical and 

Mineralogical Methods, 2nd Edition, edited by A. Klute. ASA, Inc./SSSA, Madison, s. 799–824. 

NAEL, M., KHADEMI, H., HAJABBASI, M. A., 2004: Response of soil quality indicators and their spatial variability to land degradation in central 

Iran. Applied Soil Ecology, 27, 3, 221–232. 

NOVÁK, V., 1978: Vplyv pôdnych puklín na vodn˘ reÏim ÈaÏk˘ch pôd. Vodohosp. âas., 26, s. 487–492. 

NOVÁK, V., 1995: Vyparovanie vody v prírode a metódy jeho urãovania. VEDA, Bratislava, 260 s. 

O’LINGER, J, 2000: Measurement and modeling of hydraulic conductivity with solute transport experiments / by JoAnn C. O'Linger. Doctoral 

Thesis. University of California, Riverside.. 

O’LINGER, J., PICHLER, V., JURY, W. A., 1997: Measurement of Saturated and Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity through Solute Transport 

Experiments. Agronomy Abstracts 61, s. 145. 

PICHLER, V., CAPULIAK, J., GREGOR, J., 2006: Patterns of preferential flow in a soil under a beech forest subject to various management 

systems. Accepted contribution to the Workshop on Preferential Flow and Transport Processes in Soil, 4.-9. November 2006, Monte Veritá, 

Switzerland. 

PICHLER, V., GREGOR, J., BUBLINEC, E., GÖMÖRYOVÁ, E., BEBEJ, J., 2005: Produkcia buka a smreka vo vzÈahu k Ïivinám – kºúãov˘ referát 

témy iii. „produkcia biomasy vi vzÈahu ku pôde a regiónom. In: Sobocká, J., (ed): ·tvrté pôdoznalecké dni v SR. Zborník referátov z vedeckej 

konferencie pôdoznalcov SR, âingov, 14.–16. jún, 2005. VÚPOP, Societas Pedologica Slovaca, Bratislava, 278–280. 

PICHLER, V., 1994: Die Forstbauwerke und Ihre Auswirkugen auf Umwelt der Berggebiete. In: Neue Inhalte – Umweltwissenschaften Schriftenreihe 

zur wissenschaftlichen Weiterbildung, 24, EIPOS an der TU Dresden, 214–216. 

PICHLER, V., 1997: Die Zuvärlässigkeit des Monitorings von Transportprozessen in Böden unter Berücksichtigung der Variabilität der gesättigten 

hydraulischen Leitfähigkeit. In: Schriftenreihe zur wissenschaftlichen Weiterbildung, 28, EIPOS and der TU Dresden, s.193-196. 

RICHARD, F., LÜSCHER, P., STROBEL, T., 1978: Physikalische Eigenschaften von Böden der Schweiz. Bd. 1, Birmensdorf, Eidg. Anstalt für 

das forstl. Versuchswes., 180 s. 

RICHTER, J., 1987: The Soil as a Reactor. Modelling Processes in the Soil. Catena Verlag, Reiskirchen, 192 s. 

ROGOWSKI, A. S., SIMMONS, D. E., 1988: Geostatistical analysis of field hydraulic conductivity in compacted clay. Mathematical Geology 

20, 4, 423–446. 

SAMOU_LIAN, A., COUSIN, I., TABBAGH, A, BRUAND, A., RICHARD, G, 2005: Electrical resistivity survey in soil science: a review. Soil and 

Tillage Research 83, 2, 173–193. 

·ÁLY, R., 1978: Pôda – základ lesnej produkcie. Príroda, Bratislava, 238 s. 

·ÁLY, R., 1986: Svahoviny a pôdy Západn˘ch Karpát. Veda, Bratislava, 200 s. 

·IMUNEK, J., M. SEJNA, AND M.TH. VAN GENUCHTEN, 1996. The HYDRUS-2D software package for simulating water flow and solute transport 

in two-dimensional variably saturated media. Version 1.0, Int. Groundwater Model Cent., TPS-53, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, 

Colorado. 

TUÎINSK¯, L., 2004: Vodn˘ reÏim lesn˘ch pôd. Technická univerzita vo Zvolene. 101 ss. 

VAN GENUCHTEN, M. TH., 1980: A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. J., 

44, s. 892–898. 

WEBSTER, R., OLIVER, M. A., 1990: Statistical Methods in Soil and Land Resource Survey. Oxford University Press, New York, 316 s. 

b)WEILER M., FLUEHLER, H., 2004: Inferring flow types from dye patterns in macroporous soils. Geoderma 120:137–153 

Project novelty 

The presented project proposal has the capacity to characterize both qualitatively and quantitatively the mutually coupled processes of the 

spatial variability of soil depth, hydraulic conductivity and susceptibility to preferential flow in the most important forest soil types of the Western 

Carpathians. The project will also extract a set of regression relationships between the soil depth and landscape patterns, including both 

the abiotic environment and forest stands, as well as qualitatively new findings on the susceptibility of forests soils to the preferential flow as 

related to forest management. 

Project objectives 

• To characterize and quantitatively determine processes of the spatial variability of soil depth and transport properties in their capacity as 

important indicators the production, regulation and environmental functions of the main forest soil types of the West Carpathians 

• To identify and extract presumed correlation between soil depth and the abiotic environment and the patterns of natural and managed forest 

ecosystems 

• To clarify dependence between the susceptibility of forests soils to preferential flow and forest management

Particular stages objectives 

Stage I: Spatial variability of the soil depth in the main forest soil types of the West Carpathians areas 

Objectives 

A. To characterize, based on direct measurements, the spatial variability along selected transects 

B. To extract assumed correlations between the soil depth and both abiotic and biotic environments 

Stage II:Modification of new fast method for the prediction of soil transport properties 

Objectives: 

C. To adapt new laboratory method of the soil hydraulic conductivity measurement for field measurement 

D. To test the reliability, accuracy and robustness of the modified method 

Stage III.Determining spatial variability of the transport properties of selected forest soils 

Objectives: 

E. To determine the spatial variability of the hydraulic conductivity of forest soils along selected transects 

F. To establish the susceptibility of typical forest soil types to the preferntial flow phenomenon. 

Scientific originality 

The originality of project objectives consists in the key combination of the three variables, whose spatial variability will be studied. The question of 

possible correlation between the soil depth and easily observable taxation variables on has not been posed yet either. It is our hypothesis that 

such correlations exist on different scales. The innovative aspect of the objectives leans on the expected, considerable increase in the speed of 

the soil hydraulic conductivity prediction by the new method. 

Methodology 

Methods of achieving project objectives 



Stage I: Spatial variability of the soil depth in the main forest soil types of the West Carpathians 

Actions: 

1.1 The measurement of the soil depth on transects within model areas 

Representative localities have been selected based on criteria derived from the project objectives: homogenous bedrock, most typical forest 

soil types, i. e. cambisols, rendzic leptosols and podzols, as well as andosols that feature extraordinary production, ecosystem regulation 

and environmental propertioes, main tree species – beech, spruce, oak, fir. Equally important was in the process of selection the opportunity 

to place in the selected model areas transects 3–5 km long so as for the to capture the terrain geomorphology, vertical soil zonality, forest 

vegetation stages as well as forest stand and forest management types (non-intervention, shelterwood system, clear-cut system). 

Table 1: Selected localities 

Masív/M Horstvo/Mountain Nadm. v˘‰ka (m.n.m.)/ Geol. PodloÏie/ Hlavné pôdne typy/ Prevládajúce dreviny/ 

assi range Elevation (a.s.l) Bedrock Main soil types Main tree species 

Vtáãnik Vtáãnik 1346 Andezity/Andesites Andozeme typické, Buk, jedºa/Beech, Fir 

kambizeme typické/ 

Andosols, Cambisols 

Babia hora Oravské Beskydy 1725 Pieskovce, ílovce/ Podzoly typické, Smrek/Spruce 

Sandstones, claystones kambizeme dystrické 

Veºk˘ Tribeã Tribeã 839 Granodiorites, diorites Kambizeme dystrické/ Buk, dub, hrab/ 

Dystric Cambisols Beech, Oak, Hornbeam 

Tlst˘ javor Veporské vrchy 1068 Pararuly, ruly, svory/ Kambizeme dystrické/ Smrek, buk, jedºa/ 

Gneiss, Paragneiss Dystric Cambisols Spruce, Beech, Fir 

Tlstá Veºká Fatra 1373 Vápence, dolomity/ Rendziny vylúhované, Smrek, jedºa, buk/ 

Limestones, Dolomites rendziny organozemné, Spruce, Beech, Fir 

kambizeme rendzinové/ 

Rendzic Leptosols 

17



Soil depth will be measured by means of two methods: 

• the electric resistivity tomography, which has been successfully applied in the Vtáãnik Massif already, along with the ground penetration radar 

and digging; 

• measurement of soil depth at forest road cuts. 

In the massifs given in Table 1, the soil depth will be measured by 2-Delectric resistivity tomography along transects running in the North-South 

direction parallel to the slope gradient. The electrodes arrays will be arranged so as to ensure the maximum resolution on the scale of tens of cm. 

One measurement will capture approximately a section 250 m long. In the case of dificulties in discriminating between soil cover and bedrock, 1- 

D electric sounding will be employed. 

18 

1.2 Characterization of soil depth spatial variability 

The sets of measured data will be analyzed as realizations of random processes. Their statistical distribution will be determined, whereas 

deviations from the normal distribution will be screened by the Smirnov-Kolmogorov Test. The structure of spatial autocorrelation 

will be studied by geostatistical methods, and specifically semivariograms. It can be assumed that the data sets will be effected by a 

trend due to the growing thisckness of the slope deposits as a function of elevation and aspect. This possibility will be coped with by 

the application of universal kriging with an external drift, which, according to the autors, provided a 38 % higher accuracy in estimating 

a soil horizon thickness than the simple linera regression of the horizon depth and soil sloping. 

1.3 Correlation with the abiotic environment 

The topographic atributes will be calculated from a digital model of terrain. For the identification of factors, directly on indirectly effecting 

the measured soil depth, factor analysis will be used for the set of climatic-topographic characteristics. The extraction of factor will 

be performed by the principal component analysis. For any given data set, the number of used factors shall ensure that their cumulative 

share on the total variance exceeds 70 %. Subsequently, crossvalidation of the predicted values will be carried out. 

1.4 Correlation with the biotic environment 

A similar approach will be taken in observable variables, themselves conditioned by the soil depth – and by that virtue also through the 

total content of nutrients and water holding capacity. They are the tree species composition, the height of the medium stem in the forest 

stand at the age of 100 years. The transects however must avoid areas subject to random cutting which changes the distribution of tree 

heights and diameters in a non-systematic way. Under standard conditions and management systems, the height of medium tree at the 

age of 100 years in a forest stand represents a good denominator for a comparison. It will be determined by means of the height curves 

reproduced in the growth tables based on the upper height of the joint stand. It is known form literature that it is not sensitive to thinnings 

and well reflects the quality of individual sites. By means of the Sybilla tree growth model (Fabrika 2006), opportunities of further 

downscaling of the indicated approach will be studied. 

Stage II: Modification of new fast method for the prediction of soil transport properties 

Actions: 

2.1 Derivation of mathematical relationships 

The adaptation of new fast method for the prediction of the hydraulic conductivity of soils for field measurements will be carried out 

based on the stochastic-convective assumption for the transport of water and solutes. For this purpose, formulas for the calculation of 

_ (_) a K(_) from the indicator resident concentration will be derived leaning on the framework laid by Jury and Scotter (1994). It will enable 

alternative approaches based on experiments defined by initial or boundary conditions, which shall render breakthrough curves of 

the indicator (bromide) established by the Time Domain Reflectometry device connected to probes inserted horizontally into the soil profile 

in the depth z, or form the resident concentrations of the indicator at a given time t, or alternatively, from the resident concentration 

profiles of the Brilliant Blue dye tracer by means of image analysis. 

2.2 Construction of the experimental apparatus 

The breakthrough curves and concentration changes in the soil profile will be acquired through field measurements by means of an 

apparatus specially built for this purpose. As opposed to sprinklers employed by other authors, it will feature nature-like a technique of 

liquid indicator application in the form of drops similar to throughfall. The device will consist of an dispenser part, assembled from an 

array of 400 x 400 syringe needles embedded in a teflon plate attached to a vibrator. The needed sprinkling intensity will be achieved 

through a dosing pump operating in the range of 0,5–150,0 l.h–1.



The teflon plate in a wooden frame will be attached to a telescopic support, enabling its operation on slopes. The measurement of the indicator concentrations 

will be carried out by TTDR and though the image analysis of photographs taken on exposed profiles with colored stains. 

2.3 Robustness analysis of the new method 

We will perform tests, how soil hydraulic conductivity predictions obtained from concentration profiles of the bromide indicator at a given 

time t will compare with those extracted from breakthrough curves, or, alternatively, from resident concentrations of the Brilliant Blue dye 

tracer, established by means of image analysis. In such way, an optimum operational mode will be selected. Besides, soil hydraulic 

conductivities are usually measured at different depths. According to our hypothesis, the selected soils do not manifest a considerable 

differences in the hydraulic conductivity in the range of 0–70 cm, as reported by Pichler (1997). The results will also be compared to 

hydraulic conductivities established by the direct measurement according to standard methods and predicted form retention curves. 

Stage III: Determining spatial variability of the transport properties of selected forest 

3.1 Field measurements will be carried out by the method developed in Stage II on slected transects. 

They will be conducted on different scales, i. e. at distance ranging from meters over tens of meters, several hundred meters up to cca. 

3 km. Overall, soil hydraulic conductivity will be measured at approximately 60 sites along each individual transect. In that process, 

three sprinklers will be in use simultaneously. In order to secure gravity flow prior the experiment, the measurements will be carried out 

mostly following snowmelt. 

3.2 Determination of the soil hydraulic conductivity spatial variability 

The coefficient of variation of the hydraulic conductivity reaches 40–320 %. The acquired data sets will therefore most likely feature a 

high dispersion thus indicating non-symmetrical distribution. They will be analyzed for the best theoretical distribution – transformed normal 

distribution, lognormal distribution, gamma or beta distribution. Transformed data will undergo geostatistical analysis and cross-validation 

in order to identify the spatial autocorrelation structure. 

3.3 Susceptibility of forest soils topreferntial flow 

In each area, experimental micro-plots, 1 m x 1 m in size, will be selected. Each plot will be weekly treated with the Brilliant Blue dye 

tracer, repeatedly dispersed on the forest floor by a sift. Another series of micro-plots will be treated by dye tracer solute applied by a 

sprinkler developed during Stage II. Then, vertical soil profiles will be exposed, rendering dye patterns to be further analyzed. The profiles 

will be photographed, the total area of coloured stains will be determined for each 10 cm layer and contours of the stained patterns 

shall be extracted. The contours can be considered to some approximation fractals and their fractal dimension was estimated by the 

box-counting method. The fractal dimension, total stained area and colored area in soil layers at different depths will serve as quantitative 

indicators of susceptibility of preferential flow under different forest management. It is assumed that the single most important interface 

that determines the formation of preferential flow in forest soils is the surface humus. To understand the nature of underlying transport 

process, concentration profiles will be obtained form photographs by means of image analysis and then used for modeling using 

the CDE approach, stochastic-convective and DLA approach. 

19

NATURE - BASED MANAGEMENT 

OF BIODIVERSITY, WATER AND 

CARBON IN FORESTS ECOSYSTEMS 

OF THE CARPATHIANS 


• EU FP6, Global Changes and Ecosystems, 4 th Call 



21

Pre-proposal No 3 NATURE - BASED MANAGEMENT OF BIODIVERSITY, 

WATER AND CARBON IN FORESTS ECOSYSTEMS OF THE CARPATHIANS 

Description 

The main project priority is the scientific research, testing and model implemetation of selected primeval forests dynamics components into 

forestry toolbox with the aim to eliminate the risk of biodiversity loss, to avert the degradation and loss and elimination of biotopes in the carpathian 

forest ecosystems. The project goal is to resolve the dual optimisation problem of the integrated forest ecosystems management in 

compliance with two leading principles: stopping the biodiversity loss in accordance with the directive 92/43/CCE on biotopes and the convention 

on biodiversity conservation CBD 1992, as well as assuring the highest possible provision of ecological and environmental functions 

(The Framework UN Accord on Climate Change 1992, Kyoto Protocol 1997) on one hand; and economically viable production of quality wood, 

according to Forests Based Sector Technological Platform (2005) on the other hand. Given the framework conditions, the problem can only 

be resolved by the implementation of far more natural processes into every-day forestry than is the reality today. Within the project platform, 

elements of primeval forests structure, texture and developmental dynamics in the Carpathians, and their interactions with the abiotic environment 

and biodiversity will be analyzed in both qualitative and quantitative terms with an outlook on their potential transfer into forestry toolbox, 

while considering the generally volatile economic environment. Ecological demands of floral and animal species bound to primeval 

forests-type habitats will be throughly investigated. In-depth research will be conducted on the opportunities for reconstruction and sustainable 

existence of habitats under forest management. Subsequently, selected elements of primeval forests patterns and dynamics will be screened 

and tested by trees growth and economic models, in the assemblage of past research plots subject to low-intensity intervention. Subsequently, 

successful models will be implemented into proposals of protected areas maintenance programs and forest management plans for 

proposed ecological biocorridors connecting primeval forests into ecologically functional clusters, as well as for adjacent forest areas, in which 

a substantial increase of reliance on the natural dynamics is possible. 

Thus the project will achieve: (1) Definition of selected endangered primeval forests species ecological demands, development of methods 

for ex-situ conservation of endangered tree species by micropropagation; (2) Validated models of retention, accumulation and filtration of 

water in forest ecosystems, based on the exploitation of natural forest structure, texture, trees necromass dynamics and surface humus patterns; 

(3) Validated models of increased organic carbon accumulation, based on the utilisation of surface humus and trees necromass spatial 

distribution patterns and solute transport in soils; (4) Validated models and routines of harmonization of forestry interventions with the natural 

dynamics in forest ecosystems, their maximum utilization for boosting the ecological and environmental functions of forests in a desired 

composition; (5) Increased stability of forest ecosystems and adjacent landscapes, incl. slope stability and erosion, landslides, windthrow, 

windbreak and forest fires suppresion. The project's added value also consists in the future direct transfer of knowledge into the management 

of forests in the neigbouring Transcarpathioan Region (Ukraine) as agreed with the Ukrainian authorities (Ministry of Environment of Ukraine, 

Carpathian Biosphere Reserve). 

Multiple demands on forests are defined by both national law and international treaties and documents, mainly Act No. 543/2002 Coll. of the 

Slovak National Council on Nature and Landscape Protection, Act of the Slovak National Council No. ã. 326/2005 Coll. on the forest management 

and state administration of forest management, Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 may 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and 

of wild fauna and flora, Resolution No. 2 of the Third Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe held in Lisbon in 1998, and 

most recently by The Forests Based Sector Technological Platform and its Research Agenda (Beckmann et al. 2005). Such composition of 

demands is currently not secured: under global change, one of the main sustainable forestry premises on a steady-state abiotic site conditions 

is no longer valid (Wagonner 1994, Kauppi 1995). The wood market has become extremely volatile and the profit margins from wood and 

its products frequently are not sufficient to cover the costs of silvicultural and regeneration measures (Commarmot et al. 2000). The only feasible 

way out of this situation appears to be an increased reliance and controlled utilisation of nature forests dynamics for the purpose of securing 

the forests ecosystems stability, value production and both ecological and environmental functions. The related scientific research is possible 

owing to the combination of the existence of the most representative sample of nature forests in the Carpathians over a relatively small 

territory of the Slovak Republic, high biodiversity including xylobiotic species, cavity-nesting birds and large carnivores, as well as the preceding, 

50-year-long research of the primeval forests structure and textural patterns (Korpel 1995, Bublinec, Pichler 2001). All the three factors 

taken together, they allow for overcoming the research fragmentation and reaching a critical capacity, when complemented by research on 

primeval forests ecological and environmenmental functions, including water and carbon retention, accumulation and transformation. 

The threat of biodiversity loss ensues mainly from the fragmentation of primeval forests remnants and the management of forests of all categories 

(commercial, protective, special purposes). From the research conducted thus far it is known that the biodiversity loss can be countered 

by the creation of ecological corridors connecting the primeval forests reserves. In order to secure the existence and abundance of the 

corresponding habitats a possible migration, it is necessary to define far more precisely the ecological demands of species bound to primeval 

forests, as well as the natural dynamics that creates them, so as to enable their incorporation into forest management toolbox, in compliance, 

for instance, with the intermediate disturbance hypothesis (Connel 1978). To achieve the stated goal, it is equally necessary to identify 

and investigate natural patterns, processes and dynamics components in primeval forests, which can be incorporated into forest management 

theory and practice for the purpose of ensuring the stability of forests and their adjacent landscapes, provision of water, torrent control and 

22

Pre-proposal No 3 NATURE - BASED MANAGEMENT OF BIODIVERSITY, 

WATER AND CARBON IN FORESTS ECOSYSTEMS OF THE CARPATHIANS 

carbon sequestration. E. g., Keim and Skaugset (2003) showed that complex forest structure almost intirely dissipates the kinetic energy of 

rain, decelerates infiltration and thus sustains the slope stability. These function may open new sources of income for forestry as an answer to 

wood market volatility, and thus generate resources for sustainable development of forested and mountain regions of Europe, which are usually 

less favoured in terms of economic strenght. The project will make a significant contribute to the advance of theory and practical aspects 

of the conservation of the primeval forests as the most pristine ecosystems of the Temperate Zone of Europe, whereas know-how will be amde 

available for forests owners and users in terms of models for transfering and inclusion of natural dynamics into practical forests management. 

Summary of thus far achievements in this field was made by Brang (2005), but further models are being proposed, making this issue a current 

research hot-spot (Saniga 2005). 

Table 2: Log-frame matrix 

Description of objective Indicators (max three per objective) Baseline (Indicator value at project start date) 

Overall Objective Maintaining of biodiversity and habitats Increase of biodiversity indexes Current biodiversity indexes 

(long-term effects) in primeval forests, their extension into all in connecting corridors by 20% 

forests categories, strenghtening the water Area with managm. plans ba-sed Current area 

management and enviro-nmental functions on nat. dynamics: 60000ha 

of Carpathian forests through research 200% increase of peer-rev. Nos. of ISI publications per year 

publications for kowledge transf. 

Purpose Spatial connection of prim. forests, Identified of areas with possible biotopes Current area of biotopes 

(direct and proposals of managm. plans based on new conserv.: 120 000 ha 

immediate effects) sci. findings on the ecol. Demands Proposed measures for redu-ction 

of species, biogeochem. cycles, mainly of end. species by 40% Nos. of prim. forests endangered species 

those of of water and organic carbon Valid proposals for H2O cycle deceler. Accum. amount of H2O and C 

and C accum. by 20% under curr. management 

R e s u l t s Proposal of area-deignation, management 5 map works and corresp. ma-nagm. Management plans for biocorridors 

(goods and services plans and related proposals for ecological plans of ecocorridors not available 

produced) corridors and forests of all categories, 60% of natural processes in the proposed Current species compos., structure, 

representing the main forests types m a n a g e m e n t texture of stands 

in the Slovak Republic Joint Committee for the managemenet Consultation Platform of Carpath. 

of ecocorridors Nat. Parks Assoc. 

Database of endangered species List of ecol. demands of 200 endang. List of ecol. demands not available 

of primeval forests and species conservation and indicator species 

ex-situ, models of increased CO2 accum. 5 endang. floral species with avail. 1 species with routine micropropagation 

In forests and deceleration of matter micropropagation routine (U. glabra) 

cycling and ersosion Models of incr. water and C accum. Avg. run-off coeff., currently accum. amount of C 

in for. By 24 and 30% 

Models of implementation of natural Assembling 15 res. plots + buff. zones Plots scattered, some aban-doned, must be 

processes into forest management based suitable for screening r e c o v e r d 

on screening of research plots with a low 10 new models of nat. process. implement. No verified models available 

intensity intervention, buffer zones and trees into forest. mangm. 

growth models 4 manuals on forest managm. based Manuals not available 

on natural dynamics 

23

LIST OF PROJECT WORK PACKAGES 

AND ACTIONS 

LIST OF PROJECT WORK PACKAGES AND ACTIONS 

Work package 1: 

Research of ecological demands of species as primeval forests patterns and dynamics indicators 

Description: 

The conservation of Carpathian primeval forests is not optimized specifically according the ecological demands of species. Under strong 

fragmentation, the question of a minimum contiguous protected area that can sustain the species is of a paramount importance. From the 

viewpoint of developmental independence of the trees layer, an area above 50 ha appears to suffice (Korpeº 1989, 1995), in particular in 

countries like the Slovak Republic, because the populations of ungulates and their behaviour is checked by indigenous populations of big 

predators, such as brown bear, wolf or lynx. But from the perspective of trophic networks, some authors propose areas of millions of hectars 

(Schnitzler-Lenoble 2002). That however is not possible any more in the Temperate Zone of Europe, both because of land fragmentation 

and economic reasons. It is therefore indispensable to investigate the ecological demands of indicator species bound to primeval 

forests, mainly the xylobiotic ones, bird species nesting in trees cavities and others, in order to ensure their protection by creating connecting 

corridors encompassing the primeval forests remnants, and also through the creating or restoring the respective habitats in all forests 

categories. 

24 

Action 1.1: 

Creation of metadatabase of the biodiversity contained in the Carpathian primeval forests 

Description of work: The metadatabase will be constructed based on biodiversity inventories conducted before in connection with the 

nomination of primeval forests for inscription onto the List of World Natural Heritage UNESCO and provision of on-line access to all investigators 

involved in the project. Advanced environment, Oracle database management system will be employed for this purpose. 

Indicator: Biodiversity metadatabase 

Milestones: • Database procurement finished 31. May 2007 

• Database completion 30. September 2007 

Action 1.2: 

Selection of key species as primeval forests dynamics indicators 

Description of work: Through the data mining, comparative analysis and advanced multidimensional statistical methods applied to data 

available in the metadatabase set-up in Action 1.1, the key and most endangered species will be identified, for whose protection the 

actions of work packages 4 and 5 will aim through protection, restoration and creation of biotopes. The selected species will at the same 

time will serve as indicators of their status. 

Indicator: Target list of 200 key and most endangered species 

Milestones: • Target list posted on the project internet page 30. November 2007 

Action 1.3: 

Establishing the effect of genetic variability and site conditions on biometric parameters and vitality of ecosystem edificators 

Description of work: The differences in growth performance and vitality of trees as ecosystem edificators, as well as in their responses 

to management are determined by their genetic variability and site conditions. These differences and variability in main primeval forests 

consituents, i. e. beech, oak, fir, spruce and noble hardwoods will be investigated based on DNA and isoenzymes analyses with the 

aim to adjust and rectify the management of connecting corridors and forests of all categories, as planned in WP 4, WP 5, in which components 

of natural dynamics will be incorporated, e. g. support of resistant populations in Action 1.4.

Indicator: Differences in growth performance, transpiration and elemental content in edificator species; 

Milestones: 1 st peer-reviewed paper published 31. May 2008 

2 nd peer reviewed paper published 28. February 2009 

Action 1.4: 

Research on the indicator species ecological demands 

Description of work: Findings from scientific literature will be summarized and complemented by own research of ecological demands 

and etology of selected indicator species, identified in Action 1.2, and under consideration of results from Action 1.3, supposedly mainly 

xylobiotic organisms and bird species nesting in cavities. Research will lean on a broad array of suitable methods, including telemetric 

tracking. Acquired findings will be directly utilized in WP 5 a WP 5, whose actions aim at the development of management models, 

which would ensure the saturation of identified demands within the corridors and forests of all categories. 

Indicator: Compendium of ecological demands of 200 indicator species 

Milestone: • Publication of the compendium within a book: Slovak Primeval Forests 

– Diversity and Protection (2 nd edition) 31. January 2010 

Action 1.5: 

In vitro micropropagation of selected floral species 

Description of work: Opportunities for in-vitro micropropagation of endangered selected floral species will be investigated in order to 

ensure the conservation of endangered trees and herbs, based on successful micropropagation of whych elm (Biro‰ãíková et al. 2004), 

whose population was devastated by the Dutch Elm Disease. The related expertise will be applied to further tree species, threatened 

by trachemycoses or plants reduced by illegal plucking (Drosera rotundifolia). 

Indicator: micropropagation of four new endangered species 

Milestone: • 1 st peer-reviewed paper published 30. April 2008 

• 2 nd peer reviewed paper published 28. February 2009 

• plantlets available for field tests 31. January 2010 


Dynamics of primeval forests and its effect on the availability, and safety of water resources, 

carbon accumulation and ecological stability of landscapes 

Description: 

Scientific data records from are available from a number of primeval forests preserves in the Slovak part of the Carpathians, several of them 

spanning 50 years of a systematic research of primeval forests structure and texture (Korpeº 1989, Bublinec, Pichler 2001, Volo‰ãuk 2004). 

Contrary to that, only fragmented data are available on the effect of primeval forests dynamics on biodiversity, biogeochemical cycling, slope 

and landscape stability, although the results indicate very promising lines of research (Keim, Skaugset 2003, Kropil et al. 1995, Kropil 1996, 

Saniga, Schuetz 2001). This thematic and methodological fragmentation must be overcome in order to develop functioning models for the integration 

of natural processes into forest management toolbox, as planned in WP 4 and WP 5). The critical research capacity will be reached 

through actions 2.1–2.3. 

Action 2.1: 

Evaluation and synthesis of findings from own prior long–term primeval forests research 


AND ACTIONS 

25


AND ACTIONS 

26 

Description of work: The results of 50-years long research in the Slovak Carpathians primeval forests preserves have only been processed 

per partes, within individual thematic fields. This obstructs attempts to draw general far-reaching conclusions for forestry and, 

biodiversity conservation theory and practice, as well as in water and carbon accumulation management, although the critical mass of 

partial knowledge has already been most likely collected. The research will therefore concentrate within a Oracle DBMS platform, whereby 

large numbers of observations from various locations will constitute long-enough chronosequences for drawing conclusions on 

natural dynamics, disturbance regimes, spatio-temporal variability and interpretation of any new findings in this context from action 2.2. 

Indicator: Time series of primeval forests dynamics for main forest types 

Milestones: • Metadatabase of results from 50-years long research 31. December 2007 

• Publication of three peer-reviewed sci. papers 31. December 2009 

• Publication of mean results in the book Slovak Primeval Forests 

– Diversity and Protection (2 nd edition) 31. January 2010 

Action 2.2: 

Field research on the effect of primeval forests structure, texture and developmental dynamics on water and solute 

transport in forest slopes and their stability 

Description of work: The forests water regime features specific traits, e. g. nearly total dissipation of raindrops kinetic energy on the forest 

storeys and surface humus, retention of water in the trees necromass, moderation of forest microclimate, irregular infiltration and preferential 

flow in forest soils, efficient use of resources by forests indigenous to a given sites. Methods suitable for intensity–capacity approach, 

e. g. electric resistivity tomography, Time Domain Reflectometry, dye (Duasyne) tracing and others will be used to provide a 

quantitatively and qualitative description of processes that can be used for natural enhancement of water management, erosion and 

slope stability control in forest management. Results will be used in action 3.2. 

Research will be conducted in the primeval forests of the following four clusters (see map, Annex VIII.): 

1. NPR Vtáãnik, Badín, Mláãik, Svrãiník; 

2. NPR Poºana, Hronãeck˘ GrúÀ, Dobroã, Klenovsk˘ Vepor; 

3. NPR Pod Latiborskou Hoºou, ëumbier, Skalka; 

4. NPR Have‰ová, RoÏok, StuÏica, Udava, Pºa‰a, Vihorlat. 

Indicator: Estimates of the retention, accumulation, filtration and transformation capacity of main primeval forests ecosystems 

Milestones: • development of new rapid method for the measurement of soil hydraulic properties: 31. December 2007 

• dominant transport processes in forests soils determined 31. December 2008 

• four peer-reviewed sci. papers: 31. August 2009 

Action 2.3: 

Field research of organic carbon spatial variability, accumulation and decomposition in forest ecosystems 

Description of work: Spatial variability of carbon from the atmospheric CO 2 in primeval forests ecosystems, and mainly in their soil component, 

will be analyzed, because the main resident time of carbon in deep soil layers may well exceed several hundred years (Persson et al. 2000), 

and, unlike climax above earth biomass can hardly be increased, soils represent a reservoir still unsaturated. We ascertained that the organic 

carbon concentrations in soils copy the spatial distribution of trees necromass down to minimum 50 cm. A combination of these findings with 

the measurement of the soil and slope deposits thickness will facilitate development of models for nature based management of forests of all 

categories. Advanced sampling designs based on known processes and variograms will be employed, along with state-of-the-art devices (Vario 

Macro elemental analyzer, BIO-plates). Results will be used in action 3.2. The research will be conducted in same localities as above. 

Indicator: Quantitative expression of the relationships between carbon content in soils and primeval forests patterns 

Milestones: • maps of carbon stock in primeval forests soils: 31. December 2008 

• three peer-reviewed sci. papers: 30. June 2009


Modeling and testing of a controlled application of additional new natural dynamics components 

Description of work: 

Controlled application of primeval forests dynamics in managed forests must be preceded by modeling with the help of advanced forest and 

trees growth models, such as Sibyla, and screening of forest functions in permanent research plots subject subject to past low-intensity management 

(for various reasons), but in particular in the buffer zones of nature preserves, where there has been a constant interaction between 

natural processes and human intervention. Thus the overall picture will be compiled from the results of modeling and forest functions screening 

performed at different times and in forests at various localities in various developmental stages. 

Action 3.1: 

Identification and screening of past research plots 

Description of work: Past permanent research plots, either abandoned or still being subject subject to a low intensity management will 

be identified, tracked and their forest stands screened for the provision of various forest functions, biodiversity and environmental 

effects. Equally valuable will be similar observations in forests located in the buffer zones of primeval forest preserves, where a mix of 

natural dynamics and forestry intervention for various management purposes has led to development of patterns that may come close 

to patterns providing the desired forest functions. Results will be compared with the action 3.2 outputs. 

Indicators: • set of recovers past research plots 

• inventory of forest functions 

Milestones: • list and a map of suitable plots 30. June 2007 

• report on the plots inventories 31.December 2008 

Action 3.2: 

Modeling of the controlled incorporation of natural dynamics components into the forest management 

Description of work: Advanced models, such as the Sibyla tree growth model (Fabrika, ëursk˘ 2005), Hydrus (Simunek et al. 2004) – a 

tool form modeling water and solutes transport in soils, as well as BIOME BGC (Thornton et al. 2002) model for studying biogeochemical 

cycles of carbon and nitrogen, leaning on data acquired in actions 2.1–2.3 as the model input. Results will be compared with the 

action 3.1 outputs. 

Indicators: • functional assessment of natural processes 

Milestones: • modeling reports 30. June 2009 

• two-peer reviewed papers published 31.December 2009 


AND ACTIONS 

Action 3.3: 

Cost/benefit analysis of the controlled incorporation of natural dynamics components into the forest management 

Description of work: Based on the results of actions 2.1–2.3 a 3.1. a 3.2, potential savings from the reliance on natural processes instead 

of the material, energy or work input will be modeled and calculated. Those concern mainly costs incurred during silvicultural operations, 

afforestations, which can be offset through the introduction value increment management, lowering the risk of forest stand 

destruction, as well as potential income from the increased volume and quality of provided forest ecological and environmental functions, 

mainly quality water production and carbon accumulation. The importance of this action also consists in the potential additional 

incomes being generated in less favoured regions. Advanced modeling techniques applied for calculating insurance premiums for 

forest properties will be used in this action. 

27


AND ACTIONS 

28 

Indicators: • costs/benefits ratio 

Milestones: • cost/benefits assessment of proposed measures 31. October 2009 

Work Package 4: 

Proposing area-designation and management plans based on primeval forests dynamics 

Description of work: 

Findings from WP 3 will be directly projected into the proposals of corridors connecting the Carpathian primeval forests threatened by the 

loss of biodiversity, as well as into proposed management plans adjusted to the fulfillment of ecological-production and environmental functions, 

as well as biodiversity support and conservation. Similarly, forest units will be identified within all forest categories (commercial, protective, 

special purposes), in the management of which components of natural dynamics can be incorporated and then implemented in a controlled 

manner with the ultimate goal of increasing the provision of desired composition of forest functions. 

Action 4.1: 

Area-designation of ecological corridors and forest units for amended forest management 

Work description: The proposed area-designation of connecting corridors and suitable forest units. i. e. those across which a substantial 

increase in the implementation of natural processes is possible and desired, will be conducted based on the evaluation of the ecological 

survey formerly carried out by Lesoprojekt, remote sensing and GIS, as well as field inspections if necessary. 

The ecological corridors will be set up to connect the primeval forests of the following four clusters (see map, Annex VIII.): 

1. NPR Vtáãnik, Badín, Mláãik, Svrãiník; 

2. NPR Poºana, Hronãeck˘ GrúÀ, Dobroã, Klenovsk˘ Vepor; 

3. NPR Pod Latiborskou Hoºou, ëumbier, Skalka; 

4. NPR Have‰ová, RoÏok, StuÏica, Udava, Pºa‰a, Vihorlat. 

Indicators: • number and area of proposed ecological corridors 

• number and area of suitable forest units 

Milestones: • maps of ecological corridors 31. December 2008 

• maps of suitable forest units 31. May 2009 

Action 4.2: 

Proposals of management principles and routines for nature-based management of biodiversity, 

water and carbon in forest ecosystems 

Description of work: Principles and routines for updating and creation of forest management plans for forests of all categories, and management 

programs for protected areas, based on the reliance on a substantially increased role played by natural dynamics, according 

the results expected from WP 1 a WP 2. 

Indicators: • increase of natural dynamics ratio in the proposed forest management 

Milestones: • proposals of the managm. plans of ecological corridors 31. December 2009 

• proposals of the managm. plans for suitable forest units 30. March 2010


Project management 

Action 5.1: 

Management Committees meetings 

Description of work: The Management Committee will consist of the project principal investigator (responsible for scientific matters and 

leadership), main technical manager (responsible for project logistics and technical support), project administrator (responsible for 

financial and legal matters), and leaders of individual work packages. The Management Committee will meet quarterly or more frequently, 

if necessary. Due to its primarily scientific character, the committee will be chaired by the principal investigator, Prof. Dr. Ladislav 

TuÏinsk˘, Faculty of Forestry, Technical University Zvolen. During the meetings, all key scientific, financial and technical issues. 

Action 5.2: 

Plenary meetings 

Description of work: The meetings will be held twice a year and all scientists involved in the project are entitled to participation. The meetings 

will provide opportunities for mutual information transfer among work packages, discussion and rectification of methods if necessary 

Action 5.3: 

Annual reporting 

Description of work: Annual reports on the progress of activities will be prepared by the Management Committee in order to provide all involved 

parties with information and the necessary reflection, to keep the team spirit and facilitate inner coherence and focus of the scientific team. 


Dissemination of Knowledge 

TUZVO has a substantial record in disseminating knowledge among various target groups. Even prior to setting up the project own internet 

page, preliminary results and information will be transmitted through a page dedicated to the primeval forests research in Slovakia, administered 

by Joint Centre for the Research of Temperate Primeval Forests (www.virginforests.sk) at the Faculty of Forestry, TUZVO. The transfer of 

scientific findings across European scientific circles will be achieved through ISI and other peer-reviewed publications. 

The target groups of forest users and owners will be informed through the internet site, leaflets, articles in forestry magazines, brochures, movies 

and a virtual, science shop. TUZVO will use its expertise in educational cinematography and movie-making, e. g. a movie on the successful 

micropropagation of whych elm trees, and another one on the Primeval Forests of the Carpathians, which was awarded at the international 

film festival Envirofilm 2000. 

Project results will also be dispersed through the national Pro Silva network and practical training, and through workshops for ministerial staff, 

regional administration staff and regional forestry offices. 

Timing of individual actions is given in the Annex VI., Project flow-chart 

Action 6.1: 

Internet page 

Description of work: Setting up an highly informative and interactive internet page for all categories of users 

Action 6.2: 

Scientific papers 

Description of work: Quality scientific papers will be published as outlined in the milestones of WP1–WP4. 


AND ACTIONS 

29


AND ACTIONS 

30 

Action 6.3: 

Leaflets and brochures 

Description of work: Leaflets will be prepared for particular target groups (big or small forest owners, forest users, farmers etc.) 

Action 6.4: 

Short movie 

Description of work: A short movie (two editions: 8 and 25 min.) will be shot with the aim aim to disseminate crucial new findings. The 

movie will be aired during time slots on state-wide and regional TV stations. It will serve the purpose of rising and encouraging further 

interest. 

Action 6.5: 

Pro Silva 

Description of work: TUZVO leading role in the national Pro Silva Network, and participation on the international level, will be used to 

spread the project message a findings through a excursions and field training. 

Action 6.6: 

Workshops 

Description of work: Workshops will serve as a tool for communicating the project ideas and findings to ministerial staff, regional environment 

and forestry offices, land planners, municipal politicians and other relevant players.

ENHANCEMENT OF CARBON AND WATER 

RELATED REGULATORY FUNCTIONS 

OF FORESTS THROUGH PATTERNS 

OF PRIMEVAL FORESTS DYNAMICS 


• EF FP6, Global Changes and Ecosystems, 4 th Call 

• Call for SSA dedicated to international cooperation with developing countries, 

Mediterranean countries, Balkan countries, Russia and NIS, as well as multilateral cooperation 



31

Pre-proposal No 4 ENHANCEMENT OF CARBON AND WATER RELATED REGULATORY FUNCTIONS 

OF FORESTS THROUGH PATTERNS OF PRIMEVAL FORESTS DYNAMICS 

Medzinárodná spolupráca s rozvojov˘mi krajinami, s krajinami v Stredozemí, s Balkánskymi krajinami, s Ruskom a nov˘mi nezávisl˘mi ‰tátmi, multilaterálna 

koordinácia – len ‰pecifická podporná ãinnosÈ: V˘zva zo 17.12.05, Deadline 06.03.06 

The main project goal is to determine the carbon and water retention, retardation and accumulation in nature forests. It is necessary to identify and 

investigate natural patterns, processes and dynamics components in unmanaged primeval forests, which can be incorporated into forest management 

theory and practise for the purpose of ensuring the stability of forests and their adjacent landscapes, provision of water, torrent control 

and carbon sequestration.The new models to decelerate water cycle, the maps of carbon stock in primeval forests soils and the validated proposals 

of enhancement of carbon accumulation by 20% will be developed. The field research will be conducted on the localities in Carpathian primeval 

forests of the Ukraine, including cooperation among the top-researchers from these three countries: Ukraine, Slovak Republic and Czech 

Republic.There will be used the new Methodology of the primeval forest structure development research and the Methodology of material and 

energy cycles and fluxes research. 

The project priority is scientific research concerning water and carbon cycling in temperate forest ecosystems. The main project goal is to determine 

the carbon and water retention, retardation and accumulation in nature forests. The importance of this research project is sustained by the 

significance of biological carbon sinks, within the Kyoto Protocol (1997), and the global climate changes which influence the quality and quantity 

of the hydrological fluxes within forest ecosystems, including the impacts on carbon sequestration and down stream water users. Within the project 

platform, elements of managed and unmanaged forests structure, texture and development dynamics in the temperate Carpathian forests 

(Ukrainian Carpathians) and their interactions with the abiotic environment will be analysed in both qualitative and quantitative terms. Subsequently, 

selected elements of virgin forests patterns and dynamics will be screened and tested by Sibyla, Hydrus, Biome BGC models. Successful 

models will be proposed for implementation into forest management plans of Ukrainian Forestry. 

The novel project contribution will consist in: 

32 

1) Validated models of retention, accumulation and filtration of water in forest ecosystems, based on the exploitation of natural forest structure, 

texture, trees necromass dynamics and surface humus patterns. 

2) Verified datasets of increased organic carbon accumulation in forest biomass and soils, based on the utilisation of surface humus and 

trees necromass spatial distribution patterns and solute transport in soils. 

3) Identified forest types offering the best opportunities for enhancement of water and carbon retention and accumulation, with respect to 

habitat conditions and type of forest management. 

4) Proposed management practices to achieve increased and carbon water retention and accumulation in forests managed based by 

nature-based approaches. 

Regions of the Ukrainian Carpathians (Transcarpathian region), Eastern Slovakia (Slovak Republic) and Moravia (Czech Republic), as well as the 

neighbouring European countries periodically suffer great human, material and moral losses from the catastrophic floods and other ecological 

disasters, so it is also trans-boundary problem. The opinion, that one of the main reasons of this flood disaster is the disturbance of ecological 

balance in the mountains, was completely supported at many scientific forums, in particular at the international scientific-practical conference, 

Rakhiv 1999, “Ecological and socialeconomic aspects of the catastrophic hazards in the Carpathian region (floods, mud flows and landslides)”. 

75 % of the Transcarpathian region is a mountainous area. 9429 rivers with the total length of 19866 km flow within its territory. The average density 

of their network is 1.7 km per 1 sq. km, and is the largest one in Ukraine. Without taking into account the specify of mountainous conditions, 

there was the unreasoned intensive management in the mountains and in the result of that, the woodlands of the Ukrainian Carpathians have 

decreased from 95 to 53 percent, the upper timber line has decreased in 200-300 meters. The age structure of tree stands is disturbed. More than 

70 percent of their part constitutes young stands and middle aged stands, the water regulated role of which is much lower than in ripening and 

overmature forests. 

Taking into account all this, Transcarpathia refers to the regions with a special ecological vulnerability and also declaration of the Transcarpathian 

region as a zone of emergency ecological situation is especially actual (F. D. Hamor, 1999, 2001). The eloquent confirmation of the fact, that 

from the regime of forest use depends to the great extent the degree of losses incurred by floods can serve the virgin forests of Uholsko- Shyrokoluzhanskyi 

massif of the Carpathian biosphere reserve. In zone of their location neither in previous years nor today, the flood has incurred such 

great losses. 

Also, population in these mostly rural and underdeveloped has not yet had any opportunity to capitalize on their maintenance and provision of 

regulatory functions of forests to the society, e. g. slide protection, water management, carbon sequestration. It is therefore necessary to effect a 

correction by providing a solid reasoning to enable such participation on forest functions benefits, achieved through sound, services-oriented eco-

system management. The data are however very incomplete and by no means quantitative. E. g., Keim and Skaugset (2003) showed that complex 

forest structure almost entirely dissipates the kinetic energy of rain, decelerates infiltration and thus 

sustains the slope stability. Knohl et al. (2003) were found unexpectedly high carbon uptake rates for an unmanaged ‘advanced’ beech forest 

(490–494 gCm_2 per year), which is in contrast to the widely spread hypothesis that ‘advanced’ forests are insignificant as carbon sinks. Unmanaged 

forests at a comparatively late stage of successional development can still act as significant carbon sinks with large implications for forest 

management practice and negotiations (CARBOEUROFLUX). 

Because of the potential of forest regulatory functions in provision of services and the mitigation of adverse effects of climate changes, the project 

priority is the scientific research on water and carbon cycling in temperate forest ecosystems. 

This is also consonant with the Forest code of Ukraine and with the facts that “if there is not reorganization of the national economic complex of 

the mountainous part of Transcarpathia in regard to the development of ecologically harmless types of activity (e.g. clear fellings of forest in the 

mountains, ...), this land will always be endangered not only with floods, but also other natural calamities. So, it is necessary to work out and introduce 

the State programme of anti-flood measures, especially in the upper flow of the Tysa river, taking into account the experience of foreign 

countries.” (F.D. Hamor, director of the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve). 

The research programme is based on scientific knowledge and long-term research of temperate forest ecosystems (e.g. Korpeº 1989, Bublinec & 

Pichler 2001, Volo‰ãuk 2004, Keim & Skaugset 2003, Saniga & Schuetz 2001, Saniga 2005) and cooperation among the top-researchers from these 

three countries: Ukrainian Research Team (URT), Slovakian Research Team (SRT), and Czech Research Team (CRT). The new models to decelerate 

water cycle, the maps of carbon stock in primeval forests soils and the validated proposals of enhancement of carbon accumulation by 20% 

will be developed. The enhanced rainfall and humidity prove to be the main controlling factors in increasing plant growth and carbon uptake. 

The field research will be conducted on the selected localities in Carpathian primeval forests of the Ukraine (CHORNOHORA, KUZYI- 

TRIBUSHANY, MARAMOROSH, ROZOK, STUZHYTSIA-UZHOK, SVYDOVETS, UHOLKA-SHYROKYI LUH) and also in adjacent managed forests, 

for purpose to implement the nature forests dynamics, which may reduce watershed damage to a minimum, into Ukrainian forestry operations. The 

preparatory work was carried in the year of 2005 through numerous contacts and workshops among Slovakian, Czech and Ukrainian partners. 

The long-time cooperation 

among these teams on relevant subject is recorded, e.g. International Conference in Mukachevo, Transcarpathia, Ukraine (October 13- 17, 2003): 

Natural Forests in the Temperate Zone of Europe – Values and Utilisation; many workshops; common research on Carpathian primeval forests in 

connection with serial nomination of these virgin forest ecosystems to Inscription into the List of World Nature Heritage of UNESCO. The study period 

will cover two years. There will be used the Methodology of the primeval forest structure development research and the Methodology of material 

and energy cycles and fluxes research. The new methodology to investigate the primeval forest structure was developed by the Department 

of Silviculture, Faculty of Forest Sciences and Forest Ecology, Georg-August University in Göttingen and the Department of Silviculture, the Forestry 

Faculty of the Technical University in Zvolen. This methodology is comprised from the components: the structure characteristics and their measuring, 

the production use of the available primeval forest area, the crown volume (Ck) of broadleaf species, the crown volume (Ck) of coniferous 

species, the primeval forest canopy gaps, the necromass survey, natural regeneration survey in the gaps, natural regeneration measuring in the 

gaps, the primeval forest height and diameter structure survey on the transect, survey of the remaining part of the ZP area. The investigation of 

water and carbon fluxes and cycles in forest ecosystems will involve: study of bedrock and soil properties, meteorological characteristics, water 

regime, solute transport and drainage, carbon accumulation and dynamics. 

The advantage of using these methods is also in data compatibility, that the results can be compared to those obtained from the research of Slovak 

Carpathians and to create a scientific knowledge database. 

4.2 Project Structure 



4.2.1 Task Title : 

Synthesis of prior knowledge and identification, selection and screening of permanent research plots 

Task coordinator: 

Prof. Ivan Volo‰ãuk, belonging to team: SRT 

Objectives : 

The results of 50-years long research in the Slovak Carpathians primeval forests preserves and also long-running research in the 

White Carpathians of Czech Republic and Ukrainian Carpathians will be assembled. That is necessary to overcome a certain 

fragmentation and reach critical mass in knowledge. The data are available on the effect of primeval forests dynamics on biodi- 

33



34 

versity, biogeochemical cycling, slope and landscape stability and the results indicate very promising lines of research (Keim & 

Skaugset 2003, Kropil et al. 1995, Kropil 1996, Saniga & Schuetz 2001, Holubets 1994, Chubatyi 1984). The permanent research 

plots in virgin forests of Ukraine and adjacent forests will be identified, tracked and their forest stands screened for the provision 

of various forest functions, biodiversity and environmental effects. The similar observations in forests located in the buffer 

zones of primeval forest preserves, where a mix of natural dynamics and forestry intervention for various management purposes 

has led to development of patterns that may come close to patterns providing the desired forest functions. 

Methodology : 

Methodology of the primeval forest structure development research that was developed by the Department of Silviculture, Faculty 

of Forest Sciences and Forest Ecology, Georg-August University in Göttingen and the Department of Silviculture, the Forestry 

Faculty of the Technical University in Zvolen. 

Task Input: 

maps, experience on forest mapping, good knowledge of methodology 

Result, milestones: 

• list and a map of suitable plots (30. May 2007) 

• report on the plots inventories (31.December 2007) 

• Metadatabase of results from long-term research (31. December 2008) 

4.2.2 Task Title: 

Field research on water and solute transport in forest slopes and their stability 


Prof. Jifií Kulhav˘ , belonging to team: CRT 

Objectives: 

The forests water regime features specific traits, e. g. nearly total dissipation of raindrops kinetic energy on the forest storeys and 

surface humus, retention of water in the trees necromass, moderation of forest microclimate, irregular infiltration and preferential 

flow in forest soils, efficient use of resources by forests indigenous to a given sites. Results will be used in action 4. 

Methodology : 

Methods suitable for intensity–capacity approach, e.g. electric resistivity tomography, Time Domain Reflectometry, dye (Duasyne) 

tracing and others will be used to provide a quantitatively and qualitative description of processes that can be used for natural 

enhancement of water management, erosion and slope stability control in forest management. 

Task Input: 

The task is depending on : Synthesis of prior knowledge and identification, selection and screening of permanent research plots 

• set of the permanent research plots 


• results of prior research 


• development of new rapid method for the measurement of soil hydraulic properties (October 2007) 

• dominant transport processes in forests soils determined (31. December, 2008) 


Field research of organic carbon spatial variability, accumulation and decomposition in forests 


Dymitrij Sukharyuk, belonging to team: URT



Objectives: 

Spatial variability of carbon from the atmospheric CO2 in primeval forests ecosystems, and mainly in their soil component, will 

be analyzed, because the main resident time of carbon in deep soil layers may well exceed several hundred years (Persson et 

al. 2000), and, unlike climax above earth biomass can hardly be increased, soils represent a reservoir still unsaturated. 

We ascertained that the organic carbon concentrations in soils copy the spatial INTAS Thematic Call with ESA 2006 Page 19 

INTAS Ref. Nr 06-1000025-9144 distribution of trees necromass down to minimum 50 cm. A combination of these findings with 

the measurement of the soil and slope deposits thickness will facilitate development of models for nature based management of 

forests of all categories. Results will be used in action 5. 

Methodology: 

Advanced sampling designs based on known processes and variograms will be employed, along with state-of-the-art devices 

(Vario Macro elemental analyzer, BIO-plates). 

Task Input: 

The task is depending on: Synthesis of prior knowledge and identification, selection and screening of permanent research plots 

• set of the permanent research plots 


• results of prior research 


• maps of carbon stock in primeval forests soils: 31 October 2008 


Modelling of a controlled application of additional new natural dynamics components 


Prof. Milan Saniga , belonging to team: SRT 

Objectives: 

Controlled application of primeval forests dynamics in managed forests must be preceded by modeling with the help of advanced 

forest models subject to past lowintensity management (for various reasons), but in particular in the buffer zones of nature 

preserves, where there has been a constant interaction between natural processes and human intervention. Thus the overall picture 

will be compiled from the results of modeling and forest functions screening performed at different times and in forests at 

various localities in various developmental stages. 

Methodology: 

Sibyla tree growth model (Fabrika, ëursk˘ 2005), Hydrus (Simunek et al. 2004) – a tool form modeling water and solutes transport 

in soils, as well as BIOME BGC (Thornton et al. 2002) model for studying biogeochemical cycles of carbon and nitrogen, 

and screening of forest functions in permanent research plots. 

Task Input: 

The task is depending on : Field research on water and solute transport in forest slopes and their stability, the models leaning 

on data acquired in actions 1., 2., 3., 4. as the model input. 


Functional assessment of natural processes: 

• modelling reports 

• Validated proposals of enhancement of carbon accumulation by 20%, 

• Validated model of retention and accumulation of water in forests 

(31 February 2009) 

35



36 

4.3 Project Management 

4.3.1 Planning & Task allocation 

4.3.1.1 List of Task Titles 

1. Synthesis of prior knowledge and identification, selection and screening of permanent research plots 

2. Field research on water and solute transport in forest slopes and their stability 

3. Field research of organic carbon spatial variability, accumulation and decomposition in forests 

4. Modelling of a controlled application of additional new natural dynamics components

ADAPTATION TO AND MITIGATION OF 

ADVERSE WATER-RELATED IMPACTS 

IN VULNERABLE SYSTEMS– ENHANCEMENT 

OF EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY 

OF ADAPTATION STRATEGIES 

AND MEASURES UNDER UNCERTAINTY 1 

developed as a call-line in reference to 



1 Contributing authors 

Zbigniew W. Kundzewicz ( P o l a n d ) 

Luis Chicharo (Portugal) 

Viliam Pichler (Slovakia) 

Jan Szolgay (Slovakia) 

G_bor B_lint (Hungary) 

Zdzis∏aw Kaczmarek (Poland) 

Irena Kopac (Slovenia) 

Iain Pollard (Malta) 

Leszek ¸ab´dzki (Poland) 

Mária Mirtová (Slovakia) 

Olga Majerãáková (Slovakia) 

Dan-CÇlin Tocaciu (Romania) 

Snejana Dakova (Bulgaria) 

Jaros∏aw Chormaƒski (Poland) 

37

Pre-proposal No 5 ADAPTATION TO AND MITIGATION OF ADVERSE WATER-RELATED IMPACTS IN VULNERABLE 

SYSTEMS – ENHANCEMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY OF ADAPTATION STRATEGIES 

AND MEASURES UNDER UNCERTAINTY 

Justification 

The premises on which this document builds are the following: climate changes impacts on terrestrial, aquatic, social and economic systems, 

modifying the interactions among them. Consequently, new equilibria will occur. Existing and in development climate changes models allow 

anticipation of more vulnerable regional areas and systems. Based on such information, adaptation and mitigation measures can be proactively 

taken aiming to prepare ecosystems and society to ensure ecosystems uses and services. Such adaptation and mitigations processes 

require integrated strategies on all intervening systems. National regulations may also need to be adapted. The ability to successfully implement 

adaptation and mitigation measures and strategies depends on knowledge and technical capacity. 

Based on these premises and the Research Area a Call line under the title “Enhancement of effectiveness and efficiency of adaptation strategies 

and measures under uncertainty” was proposed. 

Specific objectives from perspective of the New Member States 

This call line reflects the. The identified objectives were as follows: 

• Promoting sustainable development by enhancing nature-based and man-made infrastructure-based approaches to adaptation and mitigation. 

• Aggregating and comparing adverse and positive impacts across different sectors for the development of adaptive capacities of decision 

making, harmonizing data and policies for planning, and adaptive management. 

• Inclusion of all temporal scales from short-term (e. g. flood forecasting and warning, temporary dikes, projection of water quality) to long-term 

(e.g. decades for forestry or reservoir planning). 

• Adaptation for cross-boundary cases (international watersheds) in the spirit of Water Framework Directive (River Basin District) 

• Promoting robustness of adaptation and mitigation strategies by integration of stakeholder analysis and commercial viability to enable all-level 

stakeholders to benefit from the provision of water-related services. 

• Adverse water-related impacts including changes in water surface, sub-surface and groundwater resources quantity and quality (low dilution 

at low flows, erosion and flushing chemicals by intense precipitation, overland flow, and snowmelt, preferential flow, temperature-induced 

eutrophication, changes in retention time and stratification in reservoirs, saltwater intrusion, and salinization of agricultural land) 

Background / state-of-the-art 

The participants agreed that within the suggested Call Line several specific research topics should be addressed based on the evaluation of the existing 

knowledge. The participants emphasized the existence of vulnerable systems: natural systems (semi-natural and managed aquatic, terrestrial ecosystems, 

in particular mountainous, lake, riparian, wetland, coastal systems); human systems (vulnerable regions, sectors, groups of people). Examples of vulnerable 

sectors were quoted: water management, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, industry, energy, health, tourism, transport. Current situation and projections 

for the future indicate decreasing precipitation, river flows, soil moisture, and groundwater levels in summer (in vegetation season) in much of Europe, changing 

means, seasonality and extremes, potential for higher intense precipitation, less snow cover, earlier and lower snowmelt – possibility of low flows and 

early spring droughts. Therefore, sectors have to adapt to the existing climate and every change induces a need for adaptation, involving costs. 

In the State-of-the art assessment there was a general agreement among the participants that some adaptation to natural variability of water availability and changing 

demand has taken place. However, there are considerable differences in dealing with climate change and its possible impacts in various NMS/AC countries. 

Instead of fixed boundary conditions to be considered, interactions with exogenous drivers and multiple stressors, also besides the climate 

change (e. g. land-use, land-cover and land property changes in the transition period) have to be taken into account. 

Ongoing and completed projects on issues raised 

In respect to past and on-going research, it was unequivocally concluded that projects have addressed mainly the climate change, while the 

adaptation and mitigation issues in NMS and AC countries have been poorly covered, leaving many important issues unsolved but many 

opportunities to apply novel approaches omitted. The following list of past and on-going projects/programs was put together: 

• ADAM (Adaptation and mitigation strategies) – 6FP IP. It was noted that the project mostly addressed Pan-European research 

• National Climate Programmes exist in some countries (e.g., Slovakia, Hungary – VAHAVA, Bulgaria) but they deal mostly with impacts. Adaptation 

is on general not taken into consideration. 

• Stormwater master plan, Malta 

• Kyoto Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), Malta is the only EU Member State to have non-annex 1 status. Benefit from sale of carbon credits. 

• Sector-specific projects on adaptation (Slovakia) 

• WMO/UNESCO Flood Initiative 

• Assessment of climate change impact on the hydrological cycle elements in South-Eastern European countries (UNESCO, UVO ROSTE) 

38




Priorities of FP7 and WSSTP SRA addressed by objectives: 

Besides the specifics of the NMS and ACC the proposed call line, in its objectives is closely related to the priorities defined in preliminary 

FP7 (of June 2006), as well on the WSSPT-SRA documents. In fact, adaptation and mitigation aspects are embedded in several places in 

the referred documents. The single most important linkage of the call line to the FP7 relates to the Theme 6, Environment (including Global 

Change), Activity I. Climate change, pollution, and risks, Priority Pressures on environment and climate, Subpriority 6 -Response strategies: 

Mitigation and adaptation. Moreover links also exist to Priority Natural hazards, Subpriority 4 - Risk management and mitigation. The call line 

is also concerned with Activity II. Sustainable management of resources - Priority Conservation and sustainable management of natural and 

man-made resources and Activity III - Environmental technologies. The call line also drew on the WSSTP SRA, Pilot theme 6: Proactive an 

corrective management of extreme hydro-climatic events and on the Generic RTD, parts G.6.1 Forecasting. The hydro-meteorological 

aspects; G.6.2 Warning systems, monitoring network and crisis management; G.6.3 Long term flood mitigation; G.6.4 Short and long-term 

drought management. Other relevant linkages are with enabling RTD: E.6.1 Regional-scale flooding; E.6.2 Local scale multiple hazard management 

and E.6.3 Drought, and river flow management. 

Suggestion for most appropriate type of project: 

• Collaborative Projects of different size 

Existing expertise 

• Ecology and ecohydrology 

• Hydrology 

• Risk assessment 

• Hydrological Modelling 

• Biomonitoring 

• Protection of water resources 

• Water management in agriculture 

• Soil ecology 

Required expertise 

• Sociology 

• Economy 

• Spatial planning and engineering 

• Expertise covering sectoral issues 

Gaps in the knowledge 

As an important result from the meeting an assemblage of the existing gaps in knowledge was compiled from the perspective of the New Member 

States and Candidate Countries: 

• Need for approaches for assessing levels of confidence and uncertainty of adaptation strategies and identifying ways of efficient communicating 

these to the decision-makers and stakeholders 

• Integrated models of total water consumption for incorporation into decision support tools and evaluation of uncertainty and confidence levels 

for the development of credible decision support systems in data sparse and low tech regions. 

• Adapting stochastic water cycle concepts, methodologies and models especially with respect to extreme events (e.g., hydro-climatological 

predictions, projections, design values and associated uncertainties) to non-stationary conditions and transferring them into the management, 

planning, and design of water decision systems and infrastructure. 

• Methods for managing conflicting demands on domestic and transboundary water resources for water consumption, ecological functions, 

industrial uses, and transport resulting from changes of water consumption patterns and trends in course of major climatic events, adaptation 

invoked technological innovation and economic conditions. 

• Inventory of data for regional and sectoral studies, especially for data for which regional and river basin district bases repositories do not exist 

(e.g., water demand, use and consumption). 

• Innovative ways to address sector-specific problems related to climate changes (e.g. rainwater capture and usage, adaptation of cooling 

water systems to climate change, organizational and legal solutions for implementation of adaptation and mitigation measures, regulatory function 

of natural (pristine) and close-to-nature ecosystems in the adaptation context, risk assessment and propagation mechanisms) 

39




Societal, economical and European relevance 

The call line is relevant for European society and economy, since understanding the vulnerability and adaptability of natural and managed 

eco- and water systems to climate change, evaluation and communication of uncertainty and levels of confidence of adaptation strategies is 

a crucial issue for the development of credible decision support resources. A basic requirement for achieving this goal is the development of 

frameworks for integrating the natural, technical and social science information necessary for multiple-objective decision making. Indeed, 

novel approaches for improvement of water management practices, economical benefits, health, food and water security, protection against 

extreme events are needed, as well as the expertises from climatology, hydrology, integrated Modelling, water management, spatial planning, 

economy, social sciences (sociology, politology), sector expertise (water sector, agriculture, fisheries, forestry, energy, transport, health). 

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 

AT THE FACULTY OF FORESTRY, 

TU ZVOLEN 

The Faculty of Forestry of the Technical University Zvolen further develops the traditions of 

higher forestry education on the Slovak territory. As early as 1807, Forestry Institute had 

been established within the former Mining Academy in the nearby Banská ·tiavnica. Thirty 

nine years later, a joint Mining and Forestry Academy was founded there. Following turbulent 

social developments that swept across Europe during the 1st half of the XX century and the decline of mining industries, University of Forestry 

and Wood Technology was finally established in Zvolen in 1952. It had two faculties at that time: the Faculty of Forestry and the Faculty of 

Wood Technology. Since then, 5316 students have graduated from the Faculty of Forestry, 98 among them from abroad, and 412 candidates have 

earned their PhD degree from it. In 1991, the University of Forestry and Wood Technology was renamed to Technical University Zvolen. 

The research base is determined by the world trends in forestry, game and natural resources management, own traditions, strengths and innovations, 

as well as the required profile of faculty graduates and co-operation with forestry business branch. The scientific research is carried out 

by all faculty members and staff, as well as graduate students with a resulting research capacity of 200 000 hours. 

Owing to the long reproduction process of forest stands (90–120 years), forestry planning and management, the scientific basis is comparatively 

stable, with graduate students being its most dynamic component. Currently, the faculty consists of 16 full professors, 22 associate professors, 

29 assistant professors and 26 scientific researchers. 

The technical resources of the Faculty of Forestry lean on its state-of-the art scientific equipment. Advanced technical solutions have recently been 

acquired and partly concentrated within two centers established on the faculty platform: The Joint Laboratory of the Technical University Zvolen 

and National Forestry Centre Zvolen for DNA analyses and The Joint National Centre for the Research of Temperate Primeval Forests (www.virginforests.sk) 

as platforms for an interdisciplinary approach and cooperation. 

Own institutional resources currently play only a minor role in the scientific research. The major part of funds for approved scientific projects is 

provided on a competitive basis by the Scientific Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic and the Slovak Academy of 

Sciences (VEGA), Research and Development Agency (RDA) and the EU funds, mainly within the 5th and 6th framework programs. 

The faculty is represented in two VEGA commissions (Commission for forestry, agricultural and veterinary sciences, Commission for ecological 

and biological science), in the RDA Board of governors and two RDA councils (Council for Agricultural and Forestry Sciences, Council for International 

Scientific Cooperation). Also, the Faculty of Forestry holds the position of the National expert for the 6th thematic priority “Sustainable 

Development, Global Change and Ecosystems (ECOTECH)” within the 6 th framework program.

Amphibia and reptilia ; See bottom of the table for the codes of selected localities. 

Druh - Amphibia HA VI ST RO KZ SV CH MA UH SU 

Bombina bombina (Linnaeus, 1761) 

Bombina variegata (Linnaeus, 1758) H H H H H H H H H H LR: cd 

Bufo bufo (Linnaeus, 1758) H H H H H H H H H H LR: cd 

Bufo viridis Laurenti, 1768 H H H H H H LR: cd 

Hyla arborea (Linnaeus, 1758) H H H H H H H H H LR: nt 

Rana arvalis Nilson, 1842 H H H H H VU 

Rana dalmatina Bonaparte, 1839 H H H H LR: lc 

Rana kl. Esculenta Linnaeus, 1758 

Rana ridibunda Pallas, 1771 

Rana temporaria Linnaeus, 1758 H H H H H H H H H H LR: lc 

Salamandra salamandra (Linnaeus, 1758) H H H H H H H H H H LR: nt 

Triturus alpestris (Laurenti, 1768) H H H H VU 

Triturus montandoni (Boulenger, 1880) H H H H H H 

Triturus vulgaris (Linnaeus, 1758) H 

Druh - Reptilia 

Ablepharus kitaibelii Bibron et Bory, 1833 

Anguis fragilis Linnaeus, 1758 H H H H H H H H H LR: nt 

Coronella austriaca Laurenti, 1768 H H H H H H H VU 

Elaphe logissima (Laurenti, 1768) H H H LR: cd 

Lacerta viridis (Laurenti, 1768) 

Lacerta agilis H H H H H H H H H H 

Natrix natrix (Linnaeus, 1758) H H H H H H LR: lc 

NAtrix tesselata (Laurenti, 1768) 

Podarcis (Lacerta) muralis (Laurenti, 1768) 

Vipera berus (Linnaeus, 1758) H H H H H H VU 

Zootoca (Lacerta) vivipara Jacquin, 1787 H H H H H H H H H H LR: nt 

Σ Species (total) 18 

Number of Species/ Locality 126 10 11 10 10 15 14 14 15 17 10 

Abbreviations: 

Havesova HA 

Vihorlat VI 

Stuzica ST

Rozok RO 

Kuziy-Trybushany KZ 

Svydovets SV 

Chornohora CH 

Maramorosh MA 

Uhol’ka-Shyrokyi Luh UH 

Stuzhytsia-Uzhok SU 

* species of conservation interest 

Conservation cathegory (IUCN, Red Data Book, SR) 

EN - endangered 

VU - vulnerable 

LR:nt - low risk, near threatened 

LR:cd - low risk, conservation dependend 

DD-data deficient 

LR: lc - least concern

Araneidea – list of species of the 3 primeval forests nominated for the World Natural Heritage 

Druh / Species HA VI CH * 

Aculepeira ceropegia 1 

Agelena gracilensis (C.L.Koch 1841) 

Agelena labyrinthica (Clerck, 1758) 

Agraecina striata 

Agroeca brunnea 

Achaeranea tepidariorum (C.L.Koch, 1841) 

Alopecosa aculeata 1 

Alopecosa trabalis 1 

Amaurobius fenestralis 1 1 

Amaurobius jugorum (C.L.Koch 1868) 

Antistea elegans 1 

Anyphaena accentuata 

Araneus angulatus 1 

Araneus bituberculatus (Walckenaer, 1802) 

Araneus diadematus 1 1 

Araniella alpica 1 

Araniella cucurbitina 1 

Asagena phalerata (Panzer, 1801) 

Atea triguttata (Fabricius, 1775) 

Aulonia albimana (Walckenaer, 1805) 1 

Ballus depressus (Walckenaer, 1802) 

Ballus chalybeius 1 

Bathyphantes nigrinus 1 1 

Bathyphantes torrentum 

Berlandina cinerea (Menge, 1872) 

Bianor aurocinctus 1 

Bolyphantes alticeps 1 

Boroechemus angustifrons (Westring, 1861) 

Callobius claustrarius 1 

Centromerus arcanus 1 

Centromerus dilutus 1 

Centromerus pabulator 1 

Centromerus silvicola 1 

Centromerus sp 1 

Centromerus sylvaticus 1 

Ceratinella major 

Ceratinella scabrosa 

Cercidia prominens (Westring, 1851) 

Clubiona neglacta 1 

Clubiona similis 1 

Clubiona sp. 1 

Coelotes atropos 1 1 1 

Coelotes inermis 1 1 

Coelotes terrestris 1 1 

Cryphoeca silvicola 1 1 

Cybaeus angustiarum 1 1 1 

Cyclosa conica (Pallas, 1772) 1 

Diaea dorsata 1 1 

Dicimbium nigrum 1 

Dictyna arundinacea (Linnaeus, 1758) 

Dictyna pusilla 

Dictyna uncinata 

Dicymbium nigrum 

Diplocephalus cristatus 1

Diplocephalus helleri EN 

Diplocephalus latifrons 1 1 

Diplocephalus picinus 1 

Diplostyla concolor 1 

Dipoena melanogaster 

Drapetisca socialis 

Drassodes lepidosus 

Drassodes pubescens 1 

Drassyllus pusillus 1 

Dysdera erythrina (Walckenaer, 1802) 

Dysdera ninii 1 

Enoplognatha ovata 1 

Enoplognatha thoracica 

Entelecara congenera 1 

Epiclubiona neglecta (Cambridge, 1862) 

Episinus angulatus 

Episinus truncatus (Latreille, 1809) 

Ergatis viridissima (Walckenaer, 1802) 

Erigone atra 1 

Erigone dentipalpis 1 1 1 

Erigone tirolensis VU 

Evarcha flammata 1 

Evarcha laetabunda 1 

Evophrys obsoleta (Simon, 1868) 

Gnaphosa lucifuga (Walckenaer, 1802) 

Gnaphosa opaca (Herman, 1879) 

Gnophosa montana 1 LR: nt 

Gonatium rubellum 1 1 

Hahnia helveola LR: lc 

Hahnia ononidum 

Hahnia pusilla 

Haplodrassus signifer 1 

Harpactes hombergi 

Harpactes rubicundus (C.L.Koch, 1839) 

Heliophanus flavipes (Hahn, 1831) 

Heliophanus kochi (Simon, 1868) 

Helophora insignans 1 

Heteroclubiona frutetorum (C.L. Koch, 1866) 

Histopona torpida 1 

Cheiracanthium elegans (Thorell, 1875) 

Cheiracanthium pennyi (Cambridge, 1872) 

Larinioides ixobolus (Thorell, 1873) 

Lepthyphantes flavipes 

Lepthyphantes tenebricola 

Leptorchestes berolinensis 1 

Leptyphantes alacris 1 1 1 

Leptyphantes annulatus VU 

Leptyphantes collinus C.L.Koch, 1872 

Leptyphantes exiguus 

Leptyphantes expunctus 

Leptyphantes flavipes 1 

Leptyphantes leprosus 1 1 

Leptyphantes mengei 1 

Leptyphantes minutus 1 

Leptyphantes monticola 1 

Leptyphantes mughi 1 1

Leptyphantes pallidus 1 1 

Leptyphantes pulcher 

Leptyphantes tenebricola 1 1 

Leptyphantes tenuis 1 

Leptyphantes varians 

Lessertinella carpatica 

Linyphia frutetorum C.L.Koch, 1834 

Linyphia hortensis 1 

Linyphia triangularis 1 

Linyphiidae not det. 1 

Linyphys triangularis 

Lycosa radiata (Latreille, 1819) 

Macrargus carpenteri 1 EN 

Macrargus rufus 1 

Mangora acalypha 1 

Maso sundevalli 1 

Meioneta rurestris 1 1 1 

Meta merianae (Scopoli, 1763) 

Meta segmentata 1 1 

Metellina marianae 1 

Metellina mengei 1 

Metellina segmentala 1 

Micrargus herbigradus 1 

Microcentria pusilla 

Microlinyphia pusilla 1 

Micrommata roseum (Clerck, 1758) 

Microneta viaria 1 1 

Minicia marginella (Wider, 1834) 

Misumena vatia (Clerck, 1758) 

Misumenops tricuspidatus (Fabricius, 1775) 

Montitextrix glacialis 

Neon reticulatus 1 

Neottiura bimaculatum (Linnaeus, 1758) 

Neriene clathrata 1 

Nuctenea umbratica (Clerck, 1758) 

Oedothorax apicatus 1 

Oedothorax gibbifer 1 1 

Oreonetides vaginata VU 

Oxyopes lineatus (Latreille, 1806) LR: nt 

Ozyptila praticola 

Ozyptila simplex 1 

Ozyptila trux 1 

Pachygnatha clercki 

Pachygnatha degeeri 1 

Pachygnatha listeri 1 

Panamomops inconspicuus 1 

Pardosa amentata 1 

Pardosa ferruginea LR: nt 

Pardosa hortensis 1 

Pardosa lignaria 1 

Pardosa lugubris 1 1 

Pardosa monticola (Clerck, 1758) 1 

Pardosa paludicola 1 

Pardosa palustris 1 1 

Pardosa riparia 1 

Philodromus aureolus 1

Philodromus vagulus 

Phlegra fasciata (Hahn, 1826) 

Phlegra festiva (C.L. Koch, 1834) 

Pholcus opilionoides (Schrank, 1781) 

Phrurolithus festivus 

Pirata higrophilus 1 

Pisaura mirabilis (Clerck, 1758) 

Pocadicnemis pumila 1 

Porrhomma microphthalmum (Cambridge, 1871) 

Porrhomma pygmaeum 

Prrhomma microphthalmum 1 

Pseudicius encarpatus (Walckenaer, 1802) 

Rhaebothorax morulus 

Robertus lividus 

Saloca diceros 1 

Saloca kulczynskii 1 

Salticus cingulatus 1 

Salticus olearii (Scopoli, 1763) 

Scotinotylus antennatus 

Scotophaeus quadripunctatus 

Scotophaeus scutelatus (C.L. Koch, 1866) 

Segestria senoculata 1 1 

Singa hamata (Clerck, 1758) 

Sitticus dzieduszyckii VU 

Sitticus floricola 1 

Sitticus pubescens (Fabricius, 1775) 

Sitticus rupicola 1 1 

Steatoda bipunctata (Linnaeus, 1758) 

Syedre gracilis 

Tapinocyba insecta 

Taranucnusbihari 

Tarentula sulzeri (Pavesi, 1873) 

Tegenaria agrestis (Walckenaer, 1802) 

Tegenaria ferruginea 1 

Tegenaria silvestris 1 

Tenuiphantes alacris 1 

Tenuiphantes cristatus 1 

Tenuiphantes tenebricola 1 

Tetragnatha pinicola 1 1 

Teutana triangulosa (Walckenaer, 1802) 

Theridion betteni 1 

Theridion bimaculatum 1 

Theridion leuconotum 1 

Theridion varians 

Thyreosthenius parasiticus 1 

Titanoeca obscura (Walckenaer, 1802) 

Titanoeca schineri (C.L.Koch 1872) 

Trochosa terricola 1 1 

Walckenaeria antica 1 

Walckenaeria atrotibialis 1 

Walckenaeria cucullata 1 

Walckenaeria dysderoides 

Xerolycosa nemoralis 1 1 

Xysticus alpicola VU 

Xysticus bifasciatus 1 1 

Xysticus erraticus 1

Xysticus ferrugineus (Menge, 1876) LR: nt 

Xysticus luctuosus 1 LR: lc 

Xysticus sp. 1 

Xysticus ulmi 

Zelotes apricorum 1 1 

Zelotes clivicola 1 

Zelotes erebeus (Thorell, 1871) 1 

Zelotes subterraneus 1 1 

Zodarium germanicum (C.L.Koch, 1837) 

Zora pardalis (Simon, 1878) 

Zora silvestris (Kulczynski, 1897) 

Zora spinimana 1 

Σ druNumber of Species/ Locality 163 85 52 26 


Havesova HA 

Vihorlat VI 

Chornohora CH 







DD-data deficient

Araneidea – list of species of the 3 primeval forests nominated for the World Natural Heritage 

Druh / Species HA VI CH * 

Aculepeira ceropegia 1 

Agelena gracilensis (C.L.Koch 1841) 

Agelena labyrinthica (Clerck, 1758) 

Agraecina striata 

Agroeca brunnea 

Achaeranea tepidariorum (C.L.Koch, 1841) 

Alopecosa aculeata 1 

Alopecosa trabalis 1 

Amaurobius fenestralis 1 1 

Amaurobius jugorum (C.L.Koch 1868) 

Antistea elegans 1 

Anyphaena accentuata 

Araneus angulatus 1 

Araneus bituberculatus (Walckenaer, 1802) 

Araneus diadematus 1 1 

Araniella alpica 1 

Araniella cucurbitina 1 

Asagena phalerata (Panzer, 1801) 

Atea triguttata (Fabricius, 1775) 

Aulonia albimana (Walckenaer, 1805) 1 

Ballus depressus (Walckenaer, 1802) 

Ballus chalybeius 1 

Bathyphantes nigrinus 1 1 

Bathyphantes torrentum 

Berlandina cinerea (Menge, 1872) 

Bianor aurocinctus 1 

Bolyphantes alticeps 1 

Boroechemus angustifrons (Westring, 1861) 

Callobius claustrarius 1 

Centromerus arcanus 1 

Centromerus dilutus 1 

Centromerus pabulator 1 

Centromerus silvicola 1 

Centromerus sp 1 

Centromerus sylvaticus 1 

Ceratinella major 

Ceratinella scabrosa 

Cercidia prominens (Westring, 1851) 

Clubiona neglacta 1 

Clubiona similis 1 

Clubiona sp. 1 

Coelotes atropos 1 1 1 

Coelotes inermis 1 1 

Coelotes terrestris 1 1 

Cryphoeca silvicola 1 1 

Cybaeus angustiarum 1 1 1 

Cyclosa conica (Pallas, 1772) 1 

Diaea dorsata 1 1 

Dicimbium nigrum 1 

Dictyna arundinacea (Linnaeus, 1758) 

Dictyna pusilla 

Dictyna uncinata 

Dicymbium nigrum 

Diplocephalus cristatus 1

Diplocephalus helleri EN 

Diplocephalus latifrons 1 1 

Diplocephalus picinus 1 

Diplostyla concolor 1 

Dipoena melanogaster 

Drapetisca socialis 

Drassodes lepidosus 

Drassodes pubescens 1 

Drassyllus pusillus 1 

Dysdera erythrina (Walckenaer, 1802) 

Dysdera ninii 1 

Enoplognatha ovata 1 

Enoplognatha thoracica 

Entelecara congenera 1 

Epiclubiona neglecta (Cambridge, 1862) 

Episinus angulatus 

Episinus truncatus (Latreille, 1809) 

Ergatis viridissima (Walckenaer, 1802) 

Erigone atra 1 

Erigone dentipalpis 1 1 1 

Erigone tirolensis VU 

Evarcha flammata 1 

Evarcha laetabunda 1 

Evophrys obsoleta (Simon, 1868) 

Gnaphosa lucifuga (Walckenaer, 1802) 

Gnaphosa opaca (Herman, 1879) 

Gnophosa montana 1 LR: nt 

Gonatium rubellum 1 1 

Hahnia helveola LR: lc 

Hahnia ononidum 

Hahnia pusilla 

Haplodrassus signifer 1 

Harpactes hombergi 

Harpactes rubicundus (C.L.Koch, 1839) 

Heliophanus flavipes (Hahn, 1831) 

Heliophanus kochi (Simon, 1868) 

Helophora insignans 1 

Heteroclubiona frutetorum (C.L. Koch, 1866) 

Histopona torpida 1 

Cheiracanthium elegans (Thorell, 1875) 

Cheiracanthium pennyi (Cambridge, 1872) 

Larinioides ixobolus (Thorell, 1873) 

Lepthyphantes flavipes 

Lepthyphantes tenebricola 

Leptorchestes berolinensis 1 

Leptyphantes alacris 1 1 1 

Leptyphantes annulatus VU 

Leptyphantes collinus C.L.Koch, 1872 

Leptyphantes exiguus 

Leptyphantes expunctus 

Leptyphantes flavipes 1 

Leptyphantes leprosus 1 1 

Leptyphantes mengei 1 

Leptyphantes minutus 1 

Leptyphantes monticola 1 

Leptyphantes mughi 1 1

Leptyphantes pallidus 1 1 

Leptyphantes pulcher 

Leptyphantes tenebricola 1 1 

Leptyphantes tenuis 1 

Leptyphantes varians 

Lessertinella carpatica 

Linyphia frutetorum C.L.Koch, 1834 

Linyphia hortensis 1 

Linyphia triangularis 1 

Linyphiidae not det. 1 

Linyphys triangularis 

Lycosa radiata (Latreille, 1819) 

Macrargus carpenteri 1 EN 

Macrargus rufus 1 

Mangora acalypha 1 

Maso sundevalli 1 

Meioneta rurestris 1 1 1 

Meta merianae (Scopoli, 1763) 

Meta segmentata 1 1 

Metellina marianae 1 

Metellina mengei 1 

Metellina segmentala 1 

Micrargus herbigradus 1 

Microcentria pusilla 

Microlinyphia pusilla 1 

Micrommata roseum (Clerck, 1758) 

Microneta viaria 1 1 

Minicia marginella (Wider, 1834) 

Misumena vatia (Clerck, 1758) 

Misumenops tricuspidatus (Fabricius, 1775) 

Montitextrix glacialis 

Neon reticulatus 1 

Neottiura bimaculatum (Linnaeus, 1758) 

Neriene clathrata 1 

Nuctenea umbratica (Clerck, 1758) 

Oedothorax apicatus 1 

Oedothorax gibbifer 1 1 

Oreonetides vaginata VU 

Oxyopes lineatus (Latreille, 1806) LR: nt 

Ozyptila praticola 

Ozyptila simplex 1 

Ozyptila trux 1 

Pachygnatha clercki 

Pachygnatha degeeri 1 

Pachygnatha listeri 1 

Panamomops inconspicuus 1 

Pardosa amentata 1 

Pardosa ferruginea LR: nt 

Pardosa hortensis 1 

Pardosa lignaria 1 

Pardosa lugubris 1 1 

Pardosa monticola (Clerck, 1758) 1 

Pardosa paludicola 1 

Pardosa palustris 1 1 

Pardosa riparia 1 

Philodromus aureolus 1

Philodromus vagulus 

Phlegra fasciata (Hahn, 1826) 

Phlegra festiva (C.L. Koch, 1834) 

Pholcus opilionoides (Schrank, 1781) 

Phrurolithus festivus 

Pirata higrophilus 1 

Pisaura mirabilis (Clerck, 1758) 

Pocadicnemis pumila 1 

Porrhomma microphthalmum (Cambridge, 1871) 

Porrhomma pygmaeum 

Prrhomma microphthalmum 1 

Pseudicius encarpatus (Walckenaer, 1802) 

Rhaebothorax morulus 

Robertus lividus 

Saloca diceros 1 

Saloca kulczynskii 1 

Salticus cingulatus 1 

Salticus olearii (Scopoli, 1763) 

Scotinotylus antennatus 

Scotophaeus quadripunctatus 

Scotophaeus scutelatus (C.L. Koch, 1866) 

Segestria senoculata 1 1 

Singa hamata (Clerck, 1758) 

Sitticus dzieduszyckii VU 

Sitticus floricola 1 

Sitticus pubescens (Fabricius, 1775) 

Sitticus rupicola 1 1 

Steatoda bipunctata (Linnaeus, 1758) 

Syedre gracilis 

Tapinocyba insecta 

Taranucnusbihari 

Tarentula sulzeri (Pavesi, 1873) 

Tegenaria agrestis (Walckenaer, 1802) 

Tegenaria ferruginea 1 

Tegenaria silvestris 1 

Tenuiphantes alacris 1 

Tenuiphantes cristatus 1 

Tenuiphantes tenebricola 1 

Tetragnatha pinicola 1 1 

Teutana triangulosa (Walckenaer, 1802) 

Theridion betteni 1 

Theridion bimaculatum 1 

Theridion leuconotum 1 

Theridion varians 

Thyreosthenius parasiticus 1 

Titanoeca obscura (Walckenaer, 1802) 

Titanoeca schineri (C.L.Koch 1872) 

Trochosa terricola 1 1 

Walckenaeria antica 1 

Walckenaeria atrotibialis 1 

Walckenaeria cucullata 1 

Walckenaeria dysderoides 

Xerolycosa nemoralis 1 1 

Xysticus alpicola VU 

Xysticus bifasciatus 1 1 

Xysticus erraticus 1

Xysticus ferrugineus (Menge, 1876) LR: nt 

Xysticus luctuosus 1 LR: lc 

Xysticus sp. 1 

Xysticus ulmi 

Zelotes apricorum 1 1 

Zelotes clivicola 1 

Zelotes erebeus (Thorell, 1871) 1 

Zelotes subterraneus 1 1 

Zodarium germanicum (C.L.Koch, 1837) 

Zora pardalis (Simon, 1878) 

Zora silvestris (Kulczynski, 1897) 

Zora spinimana 1 

Σ druNumber of Species/ Locality 163 85 52 26 


Havesova HA 

Vihorlat VI 

Chornohora CH 







DD-data deficient

Bird species – 101 species; See bottom of the table for the codes of selected localities. 

Druh / Species HA VI ST RO UH CH MA SV KZ SU Conservation Status (Red 

Data Book, SR) IUCN Red List 

Accipiter gentilis (Linnaeus, 1758) H N N N N N N N N N LR:lc 

Accipiter nisus (Linnaeus, 1758) H N N N N N N N N N LR:lc 

Acrocephalus arundinaceus (Linnaeus, 1758) 

LR:nt 

Acrocephalus palustris (Bechstein, 1798) 

Actitis hypoleucos (Linnaeus, 1758) N N LR:lc 

Aegithalos caudatus (Linnaeus, 1758) N N N N N N N N N 

Aegolius funereus (Linnaeus, 1758) N N N N N NE 

Alcedo atthis (Linnaeus, 1758) N LR:nt 

Anas platyrhynchos Linnaeus, 1758 H H H H H 

Anser anser (Linnaeus,1758) H H H H H EN:B1 

Anthus pratensis (Linnaeus, 1758) H H 

Anthus spinoletta (Linnaeus, 1758) N N N N 

Anthus trivialis (Linnaeus, 1758) N N N N N N N N N 

Apus apus (Linnaeus, 1758) N H H H 

Aquila clanga Pallas, 1811 P VU 

Aquila heliaca Savigny, 1809 EN:B3,D VU 

Aquila chrysaetos (Linnaeus, 1758) H H N N VU:B2acd 

Aquila pomarina Brehm, 1831 H H H H N N N N LR:nt 

Ardea cinerea Linnaeus, 1758 LR:nt 

Asio otus (Linnaeus, 1758) H H H H N N N 

Athene noctua (Scopoli, 1769) N N LR:nt 

Bombycilla garrulus (Linnaeus, 1758) 

Bonasa bonasia (Linnaeus, 1758) N N N N N N N N N LR:nt 

Bubo bubo (Linnaeus, 1758) N N NE 

Buteo buteo (Linnaeus, 1758) N N N N N N N N N N LR:lc 

Buteo lagopus (Pontoppidan, 1763) 

Caprimulgus europaeus Linnaeus, 1758) H H N N N N NE 

Carduelis cannabina (Linnaeus, 1758) H H H H N N N N N N 

Carduelis carduelis (Linnaeus, 1758) H H H H N N N 

Carduelis flammea (Linnaeus, 1758) NE 

Carduelis flavirostris (Linnaeus, 1758)

Carduelis chloris (Linnaeus, 1758) H H H H N N N N 

Carduelis spinus (Linnaeus, 1758) 

Certhia brachydactyla Brehm, 1820 

P P P P N N 

Certhia familiaris Linnaeus, 1758 N N N N N N N N N N 

Ciconia ciconia (Linnaeus, 1758) LR:lc 

Ciconia nigra (Linnaeus, 1758) N N H H N N LR:nt 

Cinclus cinclus (Linnaeus, 1758) N N N N N LR:lc 

Circaetus gallicus (Gmelin, 1788) H N EN:B2d,D 

Circus aeruginosus (Linnaeus, 1758) LR:lc 

Circus cyaneus (Linnaeus, 1766) P P 

Circus pygargus (Linnaeus, 1758) VU:B2acd 

Coccothraustes coccothraustes (Linnaeus, 

1758) 

Columba oenas Linnaeus, 1758 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N N N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N LR:lc 

Columba palumbus Linnaeus, 1758 N N N N N N N N N N 

Coracias garrulus Linnaeus, 1758 

EN:A1,B2d,D 

Corvus corax Linnaeus, 1758 

Corvus corone Linnaeus, 1758 

Corvus frugilegus Linnaeus, 1758 

N N N N N N N N N N 

Corvus monedula Linnaeus, 1758 LR:nt 

Coturnix coturnix (Linnaeus, 1758) LR:nt 

Crex crex (Linnaeus, 1758) LR:cd VU 

Cuculus canorus Linnaeus, 1758 N N N N N N N N N N 

Delichon urbica (Linnaeus, 1758) H H H H 

Dendrocopos leucotos (Bechstein, 1803) N N N N N N N N N LR:nt 

Dendrocopos major (Linnaeus, 1758) N N N N N N N N N N 

Dendrocopos medius (Linnaeus, 1758) H P 

Dendrocopos minor (Linnaeus, 1758) 

Dendrocopos syriacus (Hem. Ehr., 1833) 

N N N N N N N N N N 

Dryocopus martius (Linnaeus, 1758) N N N N N N N N N N 

Egretta alba (Linnaeus, 1758) EN:B1 

Egretta garzetta (Linnaeus, 1766) EN:B1 

Emberiza cia Linnaeus, 1766 

Emberiza citrinella Linnaeus, 1758 

Emberiza schoeniclus (Linnaeus, 1758) 

LR:nt 

Erithacus rubecula (Linnaeus, 1758) N N N N N N N N N N

Falco columbarius Linnaeus, 1758 

Falco cherrug Gray, 1834 CR:A1c,B2acd 

Falco peregrinus Tunstall, 1771 N EN:B1,D 

Falco subbuteo Linnaeus, 1758 LR:nt 

Falco tinnunculus Linnaeus, 1758 LR:lc 

Falco vespertinus Linnaeus, 1766 EN:B2acd 

Ficedula albicollis (Temminck, 1815) N N N N N N N N 

Ficedula hypoleuca (Pallas, 1764) P P P P P P 

Ficedula parva (Bechstein, 1794) N N N N N N N N N N NE 

Fringilla coelebs Linnaeus, 1758 N N N N N N N N N N 

Fringilla montifringilla Linnaeus, 1758 P P P P P P P P P 

Fulica atra Linnaeus, 1758 

Gallinago gallinago (Linnaeus, 1758) VU:B2d 

Gallinula chloropus (Linnaeus, 1758) 

Garrulus glandarius (Linnaeus, 1758) N N N N N N N N N N 

Glaucidium passerinum (Linnaeus, 1758) N H N N N N N NE 

Haliaeetus albicilla (Linnaeus, 1758) CR:B1 LRnt 

Hieraaetus pennatus (Gmelin, 1788) H H N N CR:A1c,B1,D 

Hippolais icterina (Vieillot, 1817) 

Hirundo rustica Linnaeus, 1758 H H H H N 

Jynx torquilla Linnaeus, 1758 N N N N N N 

Lanius collurio Linnaeus, 1758 N N N 

Lanius excubitor Linnaeus, 1758 LR:nt 

Larus ridibundus Linnaeus, 1766 

Locustella fluviatilis (Wolf, 1810) 

Loxia curvirostra Linnaeus, 1758 N N N N N 

Lullula arborea (Linnaeus, 1758) N 

Luscinia megarhynchos Brehm, 1831 

Luscinia svecica (Linnaeus, 1758) VU:B2c 

Merops apiaster Linnaeus, 1758 LR:nt 

Milvus migrans (Boddaert, 1783) VU:B1,2c LRlc 

Milvus milvus (Linnaeus, 1758) H H EN:A1c 

Monticola saxatilis (Linnaeus, 1766) 

N N CR:A1,B2acd 

Motacilla alba Linnaeus, 1758 N N N N N N 

Motacilla cinerea Tunstall, 1771 H H N H N N N N N N

Muscicapa striata (Pallas, 1764) N N N N N 

Nucifraga caryocatactes (Linnaeus, 1758) H H N N N N N N 

Numenius arquata (Linnaeus, 1758) CR:A1,B2d 

Oriolus oriolus (Linnaeus, 1758) N 

Otus scops (Linnaeus, 1758) N EN:D 

Pandion haliaetus (Linnaeus, 1758) 

Panurus biarmicus (Linnaeus, 1758) LR:nt 

Parus ater Linnaeus, 1758 N N N N N N N N N N 

Parus caeruleus Linnaeus, 1758 N N N N N N 

Parus cristatus Linnaeus, 1758 N N N N N 

Parus major Linnaeus, 1758 N N N N N N N N N N 

Parus montanus Baldenstein, 1827 N N N N N N N N N N 

Parus palustris Linnaeus, 1758 N N N N N N N N N N 

Passer domesticus (Linnaeus, 1758) 

Passer montanus (Linnaeus, 1758) 

Perdix perdix (Linnaeus, 1758) LR:nt 

Pernis apivorus (Linnaeus, 1758) N H H H N N N N N LR:lc 

Phalacrocorax carbo (Linnaeus, 1758) NE 

Phasianus colchicus Linnaeus, 1758 

Phoenicurus ochruros (Gmelin, 1774) 

Phoenicurus phoenicurus (Linnaeus, 1758) N N N LR:nt 

Phylloscopus collybita (Vieillot, 1817) N N N N N N N N N N 

Phylloscopus sibilatrix (Bechstein, 1793) N N N N N N N N N N 

Phylloscopus trochiloides (Sundevall, 1838) 

DD 

Phylloscopus trochilus (Linnaeus, 1758) N N N N N N N 

Pica pica (Linnaeus, 1758) 

Picoides tridactylus (Linnaeus, 1758) N N N 

Picus canus Gmelin, 1778 N N N N N N N N N N 

Picus viridis Linnaeus, 1758 N N H N N N N N N 

Podiceps cristatus (Linnaeus, 1758) 

Prunella collaris (Scopoli, 1769) LR:nt 

Prunella modularis (Linnaeus, 1758) N N N N N N N N N 

Pyrrhula pyrrhula (Linnaeus, 1758) N N N N N N N N P 

Rallus aquaticus Linnaeus, 1758 NE 

Regulus ignicapillus (Temminck) 1820)

Regulus regulus (Linnaeus, 1758) H N N H H N N N N 

Remiz pendulinus (Linnaeus, 1758) 

Scolopax rusticola Linnaeus, 1758 N N N N N N N LR:nt 

Serinus serinus (Linnaeus, 1766) 

Sitta europaea Linnaeus, 1758 N N N N N N N N N N 

Streptopelia turtur (Linnaeus, 1758) N 

Strix aluco Linnaeus, 1758 N N N N N N N N N N 

Strix uralensis Pallas, 1771 N N N N N N N N N N LR:lc 

Sturnus vulgaris Linnaeus, 1758 N N N N N N 

Sylvia atricapilla (Linnaeus, 1758) N N N N N N N N N N 

Sylvia borin (Boddaert, 1783) N N 

Sylvia communis Latham, 1787 N N 

Sylvia curruca (Linnaeus, 1758) H H H H N N N 

Sylvia nisoria (Bechstein, 1795) 

Tetrao tetrix (Linnaeus, 1758) N N VU:A1cd,B2acd 

Tetrao urogallus Linnaeus, 1758 N N N VU:A1cd,B2acd 

Tichodroma muraria (Linnaeus, 1766) LR:nt 

Tringa ochropus Linnaeus, 1758 

Troglodytes troglodytes (Linnaeus, 1758) N N N N N N N N N N 

Turdus iliacus Linnaeus, 1766 P P P P 

Turdus merula Linnaeus, 1758 N N N N N N N N N N 

Turdus philomelos Brehm, 1831 N N N N N N N N N N 

Turdus pilaris Linnaeus, 1758 

Turdus torquatus Linnaeus, 1758 H N N N N N LR:lc 

Turdus viscivorus Linnaeus, 1758 N N N N N N N N N N 

Upupa epops Linnaeus, 1758 N N VU:B2c 

Σ Species 101 


Explanation: 

Havesova HA 

Vihorlat VI 

Stuzica ST 

Rozok RO


Svydovets SV 

Chornohora CH 

Maramorosh MA 



Total of 162 species (this number accountns for 1,7% of the world avifauna, 28% European avifauna, 47,6% Slovak avifauna. 

Out of the 162 species 113 are the nesting ones. 5 species are listed in the The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 

N - nesting sp., H- hospites, P- permigrants 







DD-data deficient

Coleoptera 

Druh/Species 

HA VI ST RO UH CH MA SV KZ SU 

Conservation Status (Red 

Data Book, SR) 

Abax parallelepipedus + + + + + 

Abax parallelus + + + 

Abax schueppeli rendschmidtii + + + + 

Abax ater + + + + + 

Abax ovalis + + + + + 

Acanthocinus reticulatus* + + LR:cd 

Acanthoderes clavipes + + + + + + + 

Acupalpus meridianus + 

Agonum albipes + 

Agonum assimile + + + + 

Agonum fuliginosum + 

Agonum metallicus + + 

Agonum micropterus + + 

Agonum sexpunctatum + + + + 

Agonum viduum + + + 

Agrilus cyanescens + + 

Agrilus gramminis + + 

Agrilus integerrimus* + + + VU 

Agrilus olivicolor + 

Agrilus pratensis + 

Agrilus viridis + + + + + + 

Agrilus aurichalceus + 

Agrilus convexicollis + 

Agrilus italicus + 

Amara aenea + + 

Amara erratica + + + 

Amara misella + + 

Amara schimperi + 

Amara spreta + 

Amara tibialis + 

Anaglyptus mysticus + + + + + + + + + +

Anisodactylus binotatus + 

Anisodactylus nemorivagus + 

Anthaxia quadripunctata + + + + + 

Anthaxia submontana + 

Bembidion atroviolaceum + + + 

Bembidion bipunctatum nivale + + 

Bembidion doderoi + + + 

Bembidion geniculatum + + + + 

Bembidion glaciale + 

Bembidion lampros + 

Bembidion millerianum + 

Bembidion monticula + 

Bembidion nitidulum + + + 

Bembidion properans + + 

Bembidion quadrimaculatum + 

Bembidion stephensi + 

Bembidion subcostatum javurkovae + 

Bembidion tibiale + + + 

Bembidion tricolor + 

Bitoma crenata + + + + + + 

Bostrychus capucinus + + + + + 

Brachyleptura tesserula* + requires special attention 

Buprestis haemorrhoidalis + + 

Buprestis rustica + + 

Byrrhus arietinus + 

Byrrhus fasciatus + + + 

Byrrhus glabratus + + 

Byrrhus luniger + + 

Byrrhus pilula + + + 

Calathus ftiscipes + 

Callidium violaceum + + 

Callidium aeneum + 

Carabus arcensis + + + + VU 

Carabus cancellatus + + + + + +

Carabus coriaceus + + + + 

Carabus auronitens escheri + + + + + + + + + LR:nt 

Carabus hampei + + 

Carabus intricatus + + + + + + 

Carabus irregularis + + + + + + + 

Carabus linnaei + + + + + + 

Carabus obsoletus* + + LR:cd 

Carabus transsylvanicus + 

Carabus variolosus* + + + + + + LR:cd 

Carabus violaceus + + + + + + + + 

Carabus glabratus + + 

Carabus scheidleri + + + 

Carabus zawadzkii + 

Carpathobyrrhulus transsylvanicus + + 

Cerambyx scopolii + + + + + 

Cerylon histeroides + + + + + + + 

Chrysobothris affinis + + + + + + + + + 

Chrysobothris chrysostigma* + + + VU 

Cicindela campestris + 

Cicindela sylvicola + + + 

Cicones variegatus* + + + + VU 

Clivina fossor + 

Clytus lama + + 

Corymbia rubra + + + + + 

Cucujus cinnaberinus* + + + LR:nt 

Curimus erichsoni + + 

Cychrus caraboides + + + + + + + + 

Cymindis cingulata + 

Cytilus auricomus + + + 

Cytilus sericeus + + + 

Deltomerus carpathicus + + + + 

Dictyoptera aurora + + + + + 

Duvalius corpulentus + 

Duvalius roubali + +

Duvalius ruthenus + 

Duvalius subterraneus + + + + 

Duvalius transcarpathicus + 

Dyschirius roubali + 

Endomychus coccineus + + + + 

Eurythyrea austriaca* + + VU 

Evodinus calathratus + + + + + 

Harminius undulatus + + + + 

Harpalus affinis + + + 

Harpalus latus + + + + 

Hylecoetus dermestoides + + + + + 

Pachytodes (Judolia) cerambyciformis + + + + + 

Lacon lepidopterus* + VU 

Lamprohiza splendidula + + + + 

Leistus baenningeri + 

Leistus piceus + + + + 

Leptusa coronensis 

Leptura erythroptera + 

Leptura (Strangalia) thoracica* + + +? EN, extremely threatened 

Licinus hoffmannseggii + + 

Litargus connexus + + + 

Molorchus minor + + + 

Monochamus sartor + + 

Monochamus sutor + 

Melandrya caraboides + + + 

Melanophila acuminata + 

Melasis buprestoides + + + + 

Molops piceus + + + 

Mycetophagus quadripustulatus + + 

Nebria brevicollis + 

Nebria fuscipes + + + + + + 

Nebria jockischii hoepfneri + + + 

Nebria reitteri + + 

Nebria rufescens + + +

Nebria transsylvanica + + 

Notiophilus biguttatus + + + 

Obrium brunneum + 

Oceoptoma thoracica + + + + 

Ostoma ferruginea + 

Toxotus cursor + 

Paleocallidium coriaceum 

Patrobus quadricollis + + + 

Peltis grossum + + 

Phosphaenus hemipterus + 

Platycis minutus + + + 

Platyderus ruftis + 

Poecilus caerulescens + + 

Poecilus cupreus + 

Poecilus lepidus + + 

Pogonocherus fasciculatua 

Pristonychus terricola + 

Prionus coriarius* + + + + + VU 

Pseudanophthalmus pilosellus + + 

Pseudoophonus rufipes + 

Pterostichus anthracinus + 

Pterostichus cordatus + + + 

Pterostichus diligens + 

Pterostichus foveolatus + + + + 

Pterostichus jurinei heydeni + + + 

Pterostichus niger + + + + 

Pterostichus nigrita + + + 

Pterostichus oblongopunctatus + 

Pterostichus ovoideus + 

Pterostichus pilosus + + + + + + 

Pterostichus strenuus + + 

Pterostichus unctulatus + + + + 

Pterostichus vernalis + 

Ptilinus pectinicornis + + + + + + + + +

Rhizophagus bipustulatus + + + + + 

Rosalia alpina* + + + + + VU 

Rhagium sycophanta + + + 

Rhagium inquisitor + 

Rhopalopus macropus + VU 

Rhopalopus ungaricus + + + + VU 

Rugilus mixtus + 

Rutpela maculata + + + + + + + 

Saperda scalaris + 

Serropalpus barbatus + + LR:nt 

Simplocaria acuminata + 

Simplocaria deubeli + 

Stenus ludyi + 

Stenus maculiger + 

Stenus obscuripes + 

Stenolophus teutonus + 

Stictoleptura scuttelata + + + + + 

Stomis pumicatus + 

Syncalypta paleata + 

Synodendron cylindricum* + + + + + + + + + + LR:nt 

Tetropium castaneum + + 

Tetropium fuscum + + 

Throscus dermestoides + + + + + + + + + + 

Tillus elongatus + + 

Trachys minuta + + + + 

Trechus carpaticus + 

Trechus fontinalis + + 

Trechus latus + + + + + + + + 

Trechus plicatulus + 

Trechus pseudomontanellus + + 

Trechus pulchellus + + + + + + 

Trechus pulpani + + + 

Trechus striatulus + + + + + 

Trichotichnus laevicollis + + +

Triplax russica + + + + 

Xyleborus dispar + + + + + + + 

Xylophilus corticalis* + + VU 

Xyloterus domesticus + + + + + + 

Xylotrechus rusticus + + + + + + + 

Number of species 54 50 104 44 84 79 69 16 48 47 

206 

Explanations 






LR:cd - low risk, conservation dependend

Species list of Fungi 

Druh / Species VI ST HA RO 

Abortiporus biennis 1 

Agaricus essettei 1 

Agaricus semotus 1 

Agrocybe firma 1 

Agrocybe praecox 1 1 1 

Aleuria aurantia 1 

Aleuria cornubiensis 1 

Aleurodiscus amorphus 1 1 

Amanita citrina 1 1 1 

Amanita excelsa 1 

Amanita mappa 1 1 1 

Amanita muscaria 1 1 

Amanita phalloides 1 

Amanita rubescens 1 1 1 

Amanita rubescens var. sulphureoannulata 1 

Amanita spissa 1 

Amanita vaginata 1 

Amylostereum chailetii 1 

Anthracobia maurilabra 1 

Antrodia albida 1 1 1 

Antrodia heteromorpha 1 

Antrodia lenis 1 

Antrodia malicola 1 

Antrodia mellita 1 

Antrodia serialis 1 

Antrodia sinuosa 1 

Antrodiella citrinella 1 

Antrodiella fissiliformis 1 1 1 

Antrodiella genistae 1 

Antrodiella hoehnelii 1 1 1 

Antrodiella semisupina 1 1 1 

Aporpium caryae 1 1 1 

Armillaria cepistipes var. pseudobulbosa 1 1 1 

Armillaria mellea 1 1 1 

Armillaria oystoyae 1 

Artomyces pyxidatus 1 1 1 

Ascocoryne cylichnium 1 1 1 

Ascocoryne sarcoides 1 1 1 1 

Ascotremella faginea 1 

Auricularia mesenterica 1 1 1 

Baeospora myriadophylla 1 

Basidioradulum radula 1 

Belonidium leucophaeum 1 

Bertia moriformis 1 

Bisporella citrina 1 1 1 1 

Bjerkandera adusta 1 1 1 

Bjerkandera fumosa 1 1 

Blumeria graminis 1 

Bolbitius reticulatus 1 1 

Boletellus fragilipes 1 1 

Boletus calopus 1 

Boletus edulis 1 

Boletus fragrans 1

Boletus luridus 1 

Boletus pinophilus 1 

Boletus pulverulentus 1 1 1 

Boletus reticulatus 1 1 1 

Bondarzewia mesenterica 1 

Bondarzewia montana 1 

Bourdortia galzini 1 

Bulgaria inquinans 1 1 1 

Calocera cornea 1 1 

Calocera viscose 1 

Caloscypha fulgens 1 

Calyptelopsis reticulata 1 

Cantharellus cibarius 1 

Cantharellus cinereus 1 

Cantharellus friesii 1 1 

Catinella olivacea 1 

Ceratiomyxa fruticulosa 1 

Ceriporia reticulata 1 1 1 

Ceriporiopsis gilvescens 1 1 1 

Ceriporiopsis pannocincta 1 1 1 

Cerrena unicolor 1 

Clavidisculum acuum 1 

Clavulina cinerea 1 

Clavulina coralloides 1 

Clavulina cristata 1 

Clavulina rugosa 1 

Clavulinopsis subtilis 1 

Climacodon septentrionalis 1 1 1 

Clitocybe alnetorum 1 

Clitocybe brumalis 1 

Clitocybe clavipes 1 

Clitocybe dealbata 1 

Clitocybe diatreta 1 

Clitocybe ditopa 1 

Clitocybe fuligineipes 1 1 

Clitocybe gibba 1 

Clitocybe incilis 1 

Clitocybe inornata 1 1 1 

Clitocybe odora 1 

Clitocybe phyllophila 1 1 

Clitocybe pruinosa 1 

Clitocybe radicellata 1 

Clitocybe rivulosa 1 

Clitocybe umbilicata 1 1 1 

Clitocybe vibecina 1 

Clitocybula abundans 1 

Clitocybula lacerata 1 

Clitopilus hobsonii 1 

Clitopilus punulus 1 

Cochnatium cyathoideum 1 

Collybia acervata 1 1 

Collybia asema 1 1 

Collybia butyracea 1 

Collybia confluens 1 1 1 

Collybia cookei 1

Collybia cryophilla 1 

Collybia distorta 1 

Collybia dryophila 1 

Collybia fodiens 1 

Collybia hariolorum 1 

Collybia impudica 1 

Collybia maculata 1 

Collybia peronata 1 1 

Collybia porea 1 

Coniophora olivacea 1 

Conocybe ambigua 1 

Conocybe dumetorum 1 1 

Conocybe semiglobata 1 

Conocybe subovalis 1 

Conocybe tenera 1 

Coprinus alopecia 1 1 1 

Coprinus angulatus 1 

Coprinus atramentarius 1 1 

Coprinus lagopus 1 

Coprinus micaceus 1 

Coprinus romagnesianus 1 

Coprinus tardus 1 

Cordyceps militaris 1 1 

Coriolopsis gallica 1 

Corticium roseum 1 1 1 

Cortinarius brunneofulvus 1 

Cortinarius bulbiger 

Cortinarius coerulescens 1 

Cortinarius rufoolivaceus 1 

Cortinarius violaceus 1 

Cortinarius xanthocephalus 1 

Cotylidia pannosa 1 

Creolophus cirrhatus 1 

Crepidotus applanatus 1 1 1 

Crepidotus cesatii 1 1 1 

Crepidotus epibryus 1 1 1 

Crepidotus haustelaris 1 

Crepidotus herbarum 1 1 

Crepidotus mollis 1 1 1 

Crepidotus sphaerosporus 1 1 1 

Crepidotus variabilis 1 

Crepisotus amygdalosporus 1 

Crustomyces subabruptus 1 

Cudoniella clavus 1 1 1 

Cyathicula cyathoidea 1 

Cyathus striatus 1 

Cyphella digitalis 1 

Cystoderma amianthinum 1 

Cystoderma carcharias 1 

Cystoderma carpaticum 1 

Cystoderma jasonis 1 

Cystoderma terrei 1 

Cystolepiota seminuda 1 

Cystolepiota sistrata 1 

Cystostereum murrayi 1

Dacrymyces nigricans 1 

Dacrymyces stillatus 1 

Daedalea quercina 1 

Daedalopsis confragosa 1 1 1 

Daedalopsis tricolor 1 1 1 

Dasyscyphella crystallina 1 1 

Dasyscyphus acuum 1 

Dasyscyphus citrinescens 1 

Dasyscyphus crystalinus 1 

Datronia mollis 1 1 1 

Dentipellis fragilis 1 1 1 

Dermocybe punicea 1 

Diatrype disciformis 1 

Diatrype stigma 1 1 1 

Discina parma 1 

Eichleriella deglubens 1 

Entoloma cetratum 1 

Entoloma conferendum 1 

Entoloma dichroum 1 

Entoloma icterinum 1 

Entoloma nidorosum 1 

Entoloma placidum 1 

Entoloma pleopodium 1 

Entoloma rhodopolium 1 

Entoloma vernum 1 

Entoloma xylophilum 1 

Eocronartium muscicola 1 

Erysiphe circaeae 1 

Erysiphe cruciferarum 1 

Erysiphe galeopsidis 1 

Erysiphe heraclei 1 

Erysiphe hyperici 1 

Exidia sp. 1 

Exidia glandulosa 1 1 1 

Exidia pithya 1 

Exidiopsis calcea 1 

Flammulaster carpophilus 1 

Flammulaster erinacellus 1 

Flammulaster muricatus 1 

Flammulina velutipes 1 

Fomes fomentarius 1 1 

Fomitopsis pinicola 1 1 

Fuligo septica 1 

Funalia gallica 1 

Galerina badipes 1 

Galerina cinctula 1 

Galerina hypnorum 1 

Galerina marginata 1 1 

Galerina nana 1 1 

Galerina triscopa 1 

Galerina unicolor 1 1 1 

Galerina vittaeformis 1 

Ganoderma lipsiense 1 1 1 

Geastrum pectinatum 1 

Geopyxis carbonaria 1

Gerronema umbilicatum 1 

Gloeocystidiellum citrinum 1 

Gloeophyllum abietinum 1 

Gloeophyllum odoratum 1 

Gloeophyllum sepiarium 1 

Gloeoporus pannocinctus 1 1 1 

Grandinia nesporii 1 

Gymnopilus bellulus 1 

Gymnopilus hybridus 1 

Gymnopilus penetrans 1 

Gymnopilus sapineus 1 

Gymnopus acervatus 1 

Gymnopus aquosus 1 

Gymnopus hariolorum 1 

Gymnopus herinkii 1 

Gymnopus impudicus 1 

Gyromitra gigas 1 

Gyroporus cyanescens 1 1 1 

Gyroporus cyaneus 1 1 1 

Haplotrichum aureum 1 

Hebeloma sp. 1 

Hebeloma mesophaeum 1 

Helvella macropus 1 

Helvella elastica 1 1 1 

Helvella lacunosa 1 

Hemimycena cucullata 1 

Hericium clathroides 1 1 1 

Hericium coralloides 1 

Hericium erinaceus 1 

Heterobasidion annosus 1 

Hohenbuehelia abientina 1 

Hohenbuehelia annosum 1 

Hohenbuehelia atrocaerulea 1 

Hohenbuehelia grisea 1 

Hohenbuehelia mastrucata 

Hohenbuehelia petaloides 1 1 1 

Hohenbuehelia spatulina 1 1 

Hydnum repandum 1 

Hydnum rufescens 1 

Hydropus atramentosus 1 

Hydropus marginellus 1 

Hydropus subalpinus 1 

Hygrocybe calyptraeformis 1 

Hygrocybe citrinovirens 1 

Hygrocybe miniata 1 

Hygrocybe reidii 1 

Hygrocybe vitellina 1 

Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca 1 

Hygrophorus sp. 1 

Hygrophorus eburneus 1 1 1 

Hygrophorus fagi 1 

Hygrophorus karstenii 1 

Hygrophorus penarius 1 

Hygrophorus pudorinus 1 

Hymenochaete carpatica 1

Hymenochaete cruenta 1 

Hymenochaete fuliginosa 1 

Hymenochaete rubiginosa 1 1 1 

Hymenoscyphus epiphyllus 1 

Hymenoscyphus fructigenus 1 

Hymenoscyphus imberbis 1 

Hymenoscyphus scutula 1 1 1 

Hymenoscyphus serotinus 1 

Hymenoscyphus vernus 1 

Hyphoderma radula 1 

Hyphoderma setigerum 1 1 1 

Hyphodontia nespori 1 

Hypholoma capnoides 1 1 

Hypholoma epixanthum 1 

Hypholoma fasciculare 1 

Hypholoma radicosum 1 

Hypholoma sublateritium 1 1 

Hypholoma subviride 1 1 1 

Hypoxylon fragiforme 1 

Hypoxylon fuscum 1 

Hypsizygus circinatus 1 

Hypsizygus tessulatus 1 1 

Hypsizygus ulmarius 1 

Cheilymenia stercorea 1 

Chlorociboria aeruginascens 1 1 1 

Chlorosplenium aeruginascens 1 1 1 

Chondrostereum purpureum 1 

Chondrostereum purpureum 1 

Chrysomphalina chrysophyllum 1 

Chrysophalina chrysophyllum 1 

Inocybe argillacea 1 

Inocybe brunnea 1 

Inocybe calamistrata 1 

Inocybe eutheles 1 

Inocybe fastigiata 1 

Inocybe geophylla 1 

Inocybe glabrescens 1 

Inocybe mixtilis 1 

Inocybe napipes 1 

Inocybe pudica 1 

Inocybe rimosa 1 

Inocybe sindonia 1 

Inocybe whitei 1 

Inocyne abietis 1 

Inonotus cuticularis 1 1 1 

Inonotus hastifer 1 

Inonotus nodulosus 1 1 1 

Inonotus radiatus 1 

Ionomidotis irregularis 1 

Irpex lacteus 1 

Isaria cf. farinosa 1 

Ischnoderma benzoinum 1 

Ischnoderma resinosum 1 1 1 

Isosoma carnosum 1 

Junghuhnia fimbriatella 1

Junghuhnia nitida 1 

Kuehneromyces mutabilis 1 1 1 

Laccaria affinis var. intermedia 1 1 1 

Laccaria altaica 1 1 

Laccaria amethystina 1 1 1 

Laccaria laccata 1 

Laccaria pumila 1 

Lacrymaria pyrotricha 1 1 1 

Lactarius acris 1 

Lactarius blennius 1 1 1 

Lactarius fulvissinus 1 

Lactarius glutinopallens 1 

Lactarius hepaticus 1 

Lactarius ichoratus 1 

Lactarius pallidus 1 1 1 

Lactarius picinus 1 

Lactarius piperatus 1 

Lactarius pterosporus 1 

Lactarius rugatus 1 

Lactarius salmonicolor 1 

Lactarius serifluus 1 

Lactarius subdulcis 1 1 1 

Lactarius torminosus 1 

Lactarius vellereus 1 

Lachnum abnorme 1 

Lachnum cerinum 1 

Lachnum citrinescens 1 

Lachnum clandestinum 1 

Lachnum mollisimum 1 

Lanzia luteovirescens 1 

Laxitextum bicolor 1 1 1 

Lentaria albovinacea 1 

Lentaria delicata 1 

Lentaria mucida 1 

Lentinellus castoreus 1 

Lentinellus cochleatus 1 1 1 

Lentinellus flabeliformis 1 

Lentinus adhaerens 1 

Lentinus strigosus 1 1 1 

Lenzites betulina 1 

Leotia lubrica 1 

Lepiota aspera 1 

Lepiota clypeolaria 1 

Lepiota felina 1 

Lepiota fulvella 1 

Lepiota ignivolvata 1 

Lepiota perplexa 1 1 1 

Lepiota rhodorrhiza 1 

Lepiota ventriosospora 1 

Lepista flaccida 1 

Lepista gilva 1 

Lepista nebularis 1 

Leucocortinarius bulbiger 1 

Leucopaxillus gentianeus 1 

Lopharia spadicea 1

Lycogala epidendrum 1 1 

Lycoperdon echinatum 1 

Lycoperdon foetidum 1 

Lycoperdon perlatum 1 1 1 1 

Lycoperdon pyriforme 1 1 

Lyophyllum connatum 1 

Lyophyllum decastes 1 1 1 

Lyophyllum ulmarium 1 

Macrolepiota gracilenta 1 

Macrolepiota mastoidea 1 

Macrolepiota procera 1 1 1 

Macrolepiota rhacodes 1 1 1 

Macrotyphula fistulosa 1 

Marasmiellus perforans 1 

Marasmius alliaceus 1 1 1 

Marasmius cohaerens 1 

Marasmius lupuletorum 1 

Marasmius rotula 1 1 

Marasmius setosus 1 

Marasmius wynnei 1 1 

Megacollybia platyphylla 1 

Melanocua cognata 1 

Melanocua verrucipes 1 1 

Melanoleuca cognata 1 

Melastiza chateri 1 

Melograma spiniferum 1 

Meripilus giganteus 1 1 1 1 

Merulius tremellosus 1 1 

Micromphale perforans 1 

Mollisia cinerea 1 

Mollisia ligni 1 

Mutinus caninus 1 

Mycelina salicina 1 

Mycena abramsii 1 

Mycena acicula 1 

Mycena atrocyanea 1 

Mycena aurantiomarginata 1 

Mycena capillaris 1 1 

Mycena citrinomarginata 1 

Mycena coracina 1 

Mycena crocata 1 1 1 1 

Mycena diosma 1 

Mycena epipterygia 1 

Mycena epipterygia var. viscosa 1 

Mycena erubescens 1 

Mycena fagetorum 1 1 

Mycena filopes 1 

Mycena flavescens 1 

Mycena flavoalba 1 

Mycena galericulata 1 1 

Mycena galopus 1 

Mycena haematopus 1 1 1 1 

Mycena laevigata 1 

Mycena leptocephala 1 

Mycena lohwagii 1

Mycena luteoalcalina 1 

Mycena maculata 1 

Mycena oortiana 1 1 1 

Mycena pelianthina 1 

Mycena pseudocorticola 1 

Mycena pura 1 1 1 

Mycena purpureofusca 1 

Mycena renati 1 1 

Mycena rorida 1 

Mycena rosea 1 

Mycena rosella 1 

Mycena rubromarginata 1 

Mycena rugosa 1 1 

Mycena rugulosipes 1 1 

Mycena sanguinolenta 1 

Mycena silvae-nigrae 1 

Mycena speirea 1 

Mycena stipata 1 

Mycena stylobates 1 1 

Mycena tintinnabulum 1 1 

Mycena viridimarginata 1 

Mycena viscosa 1 

Mycena vulgaris 1 

Mycena zephirus 1 

Mycenella salicina 1 

Mycoacia aurea 1 

Myxarium galzinii 1 

Nectria cinnabarina 1 

Nectria coccinea 1 

Nectria fuckeliana 1 

Neobulgaria pura 1 1 1 1 

Neobulgaria pura var. foliacea 1 

Odontia bicolor 1 

Oligoporus simanii 1 

Oligoporus stipticus 1 

Omphalina epichysium 1 

Omphalina ericetorum 1 

Omphalina grossula 1 

Ossicaulis lignatilis 1 1 

Oudemansiella mucida 1 1 1 1 

Oudemansiella radicata 1 1 1 

Oxyporus corticola 1 

oxyporus populinus 1 1 

Oxyporus ravidus 1 

Panellus mitis 1 

Panellus serotinus 1 1 1 1 

Panellus stipticus 1 1 

Panelus violaceofulvus 1 

Panus rudis 1 1 

Paxillus involutus 1 1 

Paxillus panuoides 1 

Peziza sp. 1 

Peziza micropus 1 1 1 

Peziza recedens 1 

Phaeohelotium imberbe 1

Phaeolepiota aurea 1 

Phaeolepiota lugubris 1 

Phaeolus schweinitzii 1 

Phanerochaete filamentosa 1 

Phanerochaete velutina 1 

Phellinus feruginosus 1 1 

Phellinus hartigii 1 

Phellinus pouzarii 1 

Phellinus robustus 1 

Phlebia centrifuga 1 

Phlebia livida 1 1 1 

Phlebia radiata 1 1 

Phlebia rufa 1 1 1 

Phlebia serialis 1 

Pholiota adiposa 1 1 1 1 

Pholiota astragalina 1 

Pholiota aurivella 1 1 

Pholiota carbonaria 1 

Pholiota flammans 1 

Pholiota gummosa 1 

Pholiota lenta 1 

Pholiota scamba 1 

Pholiota squarrosa 1 1 

Pholiota squarrosoides 1 1 

Pholiotina aporos 1 

Pholiotina arrhenii 1 

Pholiotina intermedia 1 

Pholiotina teneroides 1 

Phyllactinia guttata 1 

Phyllotopsis nidulans 1 1 

Physisporinus sanguinolentus 1 1 1 

Physisporinus vitreus 1 1 1 

Phytoconis ericetorum 1 

Piptoporus betulinus 1 

Pleurocybella porrigens 1 

Pleurotus cornucopiae 1 

Pleurotus dryinus 1 

Pleurotus ostreatus 1 1 

Pleurotus pulmonarius 1 1 1 1 

Plicaturopsis crispa 1 1 1 1 

Pluteus sp. 1 

Pluteus atromarginatus 1 

Pluteus cervinus 1 1 1 1 

Pluteus depauperatus 1 

Pluteus galeroides 1 

Pluteus godeyi 1 

Pluteus granulatus 1 

Pluteus hispidulus 1 1 

Pluteus chrysophaeus 1 1 

Pluteus leoninus 1 1 

Pluteus luteovirens 1 

Pluteus nanus 1 1 

Pluteus pellitus 1 

Pluteus petassatus 1 1 

Pluteus phlebophorus 1 1

Pluteus plautus 1 

Pluteus podospileus 1 

Pluteus pouzarianus 1 

Pluteus robertii 1 

Pluteus romellii 1 

Pluteus semibulbosus 1 

Pluteus tricuspidatus 1 

Pluteus umbrosus 1 1 

Polyporus arcularius 1 

Polyporus badius 1 1 

Polyporus brumalis 1 1 

Polyporus lentus 1 

Polyporus melanopus 1 1 

Polyporus squamosus 1 1 1 

Polyporus varius 1 1 

Polyporus varius var. nummularius 1 

Porostereum spadiceum 1 

Porphyrellus porphyrosporus 1 

Porpomyces mucidus 1 1 1 

Postia caesia 1 

Postia caesia var. minor 1 

Postia lactea 1 

Postia stiptica 1 

Postia tephroleuca 1 1 1 

Protodontia fascicularis 1 

Psathyrella alympiana 1 

Psathyrella artemisiae 1 

Psathyrella candolleana 1 1 1 

Psathyrella caput-medusae 1 

Psathyrella fusca 1 

Psathyrella hydrophila 1 1 

Psathyrella olympiana 1 

Psathyrella pennata 1 

Psathyrella piluliformis 1 

Psathyrella pygmaea 1 

Psathyrella pyrotricha 1 1 

Psathyrella spadicea 1 1 

Psathyrella spadiceogrisea 1 

Psathyrella squamosa 1 

Psathyrella subceurnua 1 

Psathyrella subnuda 1 

Psathyrella velutina 1 1 

Psathyrella vernalis 1 

Pseudoclitocybe beschidica 1 1 

Pseudoclitocybe cyanthiformis 1 1 

Pseudohydnum gelatinosum 1 

Pseudoplectania melaena 1 

Pseudoplectania vogesiaca 1 

Pseudovasla spinifera 1 

Psilocybe crobula 1 1 

Psilocybe cyanescens 1 

Psilocybe inquilina 1 1 

Psilocybe semilanceata 1 

Puccinia arenariae 1 

Puccinia asarina 1

Puccinia poarum 1 

Pycnoporellus fulgens 1 

Pycnoporus cinnabarinus 1 1 

Pyrenopeziza fuckelii 1 

Pyrenopeziza petiolaris 1 

Pyrenopeziza rubi 1 

Radulomyces confluens 1 

Radulomyces molaris 1 1 

Ramaria bourdotiana 1 

Ramaria flava 1 

Ramaria fumigata 1 

Ramaria stricta 1 1 1 

Resinicium bicolor 1 

Rhodocollybia fodiens 1 

Rhodocollybia maculata 1 

Rhodocollybia melleopallens 1 

Rhodocollybia prolixa 1 

Rhodocybe melleopallens 1 

Rhodocybe nitellina 1 

Rhytisma acerinum 1 

Rigidoporus crocatus 1 1 1 

Rigidoporus nigrescens 1 1 

Ripartites helomorphus 1 

Ripartites tricholoma 1 1 1 

Russula amethystina 1 

Russula amoenicolor 1 

Russula aurora 1 

Russula brunneoviolacea 1 

Russula curtipes 1 

Russula cyanoxantha 1 1 

Russula faginea 1 

Russula fellea 1 1 

Russula foetens 1 

Russula fragilis 1 

Russula grisea 1 

Russula heterophylla 1 

Russula chloroides 1 

Russula integra 1 

Russula laurocerasi 1 

Russula lepida 1 

Russula mairei 1 1 

Russula nauseosa 1 

Russula nigricans 1 

Russula ochroleuca 1 1 

Russula olivacea 1 

Russula polychroma 1 

Russula puellaris 1 

Russula puellula 1 

Russula raoultii 1 

Russula rosea 1 

Russula solaris 1 1 

Russula turci 1 

Russula velenovskyi 1 

Russula vesca 1 

Russula violeipes 1

Russula viscida 1 1 

Russula xerampelina 1 

Sarcodon imbricatus 1 

Scleroderma citrinum 1 1 

Scutellinia crinita 1 

Scutellinia diaboli 1 

Scutellinia scutellata 1 

Scutellinia trechispora 1 

Scutellinia umbrorum 1 

Sebacina incrustans 1 

Schizophyllum commune 1 1 1 1 

Schizopora carneolutea 1 1 

Schizopora flavipora 1 1 

Schizopora paradoxa 1 1 1 

Schizopora radula 1 1 1 

Simocybe centunculus 1 1 1 

Simocybe rubi 1 

Simocybe sumptuosa 1 

Skeletocutis carneogrisea 1 

Skeletocutis lenis 1 

Skeletocutis nivea 1 1 1 

Sparassis nemecii 1 

Sphaerotheca balsaminae 1 

Sphaerotheca fusca 1 

Spongipellis delectans 1 

Steccherinum fimbriatum 1 

Steccherinum ochraceum 1 

Stemonitis ferruginea 1 1 

Stereum hirsutum 1 1 

Stereum insignitum 1 

Stereum ostrea 1 

Stereum rugosum 1 

Stereum sanquinolentum 1 

Stereum subtomentosum 1 1 

Strobilurus esculentus 1 

Stropharia aeruginosa 1 

Stropharia hornemanii 1 

Stropharia squamosa 1 1 1 

Suillus aeruginascens 1 

Suillus grevillei 1 

Thelephora palmata 1 

Thelephora penicillata 1 

Trametes cervina 1 1 

Trametes gibbosa 1 1 

Trametes hirsuta 1 1 

Trametes multicolor 1 1 1 

Trametes pubescens 1 1 1 

Trametes suaveolens 1 1 

Trametes versicolor 1 1 1 1 

Tremella encephala 1 

Tremella foliacea 1 

Tremella mycophaga 1 

Trichaptum abietinum 1 

Trichaptum biforme 1 1 1 

Trichaptum fuscoviolaceum 1

Trichia affinis de Bary 1 

Tricholoma columbetta 1 1 1 

Tricholoma imbricatum 1 

Tricholoma inocybeoides 1 

Tricholoma lascivum 1 1 1 

Tricholoma saponaceum 1 

Tricholoma sciodes 1 

Tricholoma ustale 1 

Tricholomopsis decora 1 

Tricholomopsis rutilans 1 

Tyromyces sp. 1 

Tyromyces chioneus 1 

Tyromyces kmetii 1 1 

Tyromyces lacteus 1 

Tyromyces mentschulensis 1 1 

Uromyces rumicis 1 

Ustulina deusta 1 

Vesiculomyces citrinus 1 

Vibrissea truncorum 1 

Xerocomus badius 1 

Xerocomus chrysenteron 1 

Xerocomus subtomentosus 1 

Xeromphalina campanella 1 

Xylaria carpophila 1 1 

Xylaria filiformys 1 

Xylaria hypoxylon 1 

Xylaria longipes 1 

Xylaria polymorpha 1 

Σ species 741 55 663 235 118 

Σ Species 741 

Number of Species/ Locality (1071) 

Havesova HA 

Vihorlat VI 

Stuzica ST 

Rozok RO

List of lichens 

SU KZ SV CH MA UH 

1. Acarospora fuscata 1 

2. Acarospora badiofusca 1 

3. Acarospora glaucocarpa 1 

4. Acrocordia gemmata 1 1 1 

5. Acrocordia salweii 1 

6. Acrocordia conoidea 1 

7. Adelolecia pilati 1 

8. Alectoria ochroleuca 1 

9. Alectoria sarmentosa 1 1 

10. Amandinea punctata 1 

11. Anaptychia ciliaris 1 1 1 1 

12. Arthonia dispersa 1 

13. Arthonia leucopellaea 1 

14. Arthonia radiata 1 

15. Arthonia radiata 1 

16. Arthopyrenia persoonii 1 

17. Arthrorhaphis alpina 1 

18. Arthrorhaphis citrinella 1 

19. Aspicilia adunans 1 

20. Aspicilia cinerea 1 

21. Aspicilia cacarea 1 

22. Aspicilia flavida 1 

23. Aspilidea myrinii 1 

24. Bacidia imbrina 1 

25. Bacidia rosella 1 

26. Baeomyces rufus 1 1 

27. Baeomyces roseus 1 

28. Bellemerea cinereorufescens 1 

29. Belonia herculina 1 1 

30. Belonia russula 1 

31. Biatora sphaeroides 1 

32. Biatora vernalis 1 

33. Biatora turgidula 1 

34. Brodoa intestiniformis 1 

35. Bryoria bicolor 1 1 

36. Bryoria capillaris 1 1 

37. Bryoria chalybeiformis 1 1 

38. Bryoria fuscescens 1 

39. Bryoria implexa 1 1 

40. Bryoria jubatus 1 

41. Bryoria smithi 1 

42. Bryoria subcanus 1 

43. Buellia disciformis 1 

44. Buellia stellulata 1 

45. Byssolomas subdiscordans 1 

46. Calicium abietinum 1 1 

47. Calicium huculinum 1 

48. Calicium lenticulare 1 

49. Calicium viride 1 

50. Caloplaca cerina 1 1 1 1 

51. Caloplaca citrina 1 

52. Caloplaca ferruginea 1 1

53. Caloplaca flavovirescens 1 

54. Caloplaca holocarpa 1 1 

55. Caloplaca nivalis 1 1 

56. Caloplaca saxicola 1 

57. Candelaria concolor 1 

58. Candelariella vitellina 1 1 1 

59. Candelariella xanthostigma 1 

60. Catapyrenium cinereum 1 1 

61. Catapyrenium daedaleum 1 

62. Catillaria chalybeia 1 

63. Catillaria globulosa 1 

64. Catillaria lenticularis 1 

65. Catillaria minuta 1 

66. Catolechia wahlenbergii 1 

67. Cetraria chlorophyla 1 1 

68. Cetraria kukullata 1 1 1 

69. Cetraria hepatizon 1 1 

70. Cetraria islandica 1 1 1 

71. Cetraria laureri 1 1 

72. Cetraria muricata 1 

73. Cetraria nivalis 1 1 

74. Cetraria oakesiana 1 1 

75. Cetraria pinastri 1 

76. Cetraria sepincola 1 1 

77. Cetrelia olivetorum 1 1 

78. Cetrelia setrarioides 1 

79. Chaenotheca chysocephala 1 

80. Chaenotheca furfuracea 1 1 1 

81. Chaenotheca phaeocephala 1 

82. Chaenotheca chlorella 1 1 

83. Chaenothecopsis pusiola 1 

84. Cladonia alpicola 1 

85. Cladonia amaurocraea 1 

86. Cladonia arbuscula 1 1 

87. Cladonia bellidiflora 1 

88. Cladonia botrytes 1 

89. Cladonia carneola 1 

90. Cladonia chlorophaea 1 

91. Cladonia cenotea 1 1 

92. Cladonia coccifera 1 

93. Cladonia coniocraea 1 1 1 1 

94. Cladonia cornuta 1 

95. Cladonia crispata 1 

96. Cladonia cyanipes 1 

97. Cladonia glauca 1 

98. Cladonia deformis 1 1 

99. Cladonia digitata 1 1 1 

100. Cladonia fimbriata 1 1 1 

101. Cladonia floerceana 1 

102. Cladonia furcata 1 1 1 1 1 

103. Cladonia gracilis subsp. gracilis 1 1 

104. Cladonia macilenta subsp. macilenta 1 1 

105. Cladonia macroceras 1 

106. Cladonia macrophylla 1 

107. Cladonia macrophyllodes 1 1

108. Cladonia ochrochlora 1 1 

109. Cladonia pleurota 1 1 1 

110. Cladonia pocillum 1 1 1 

111. Cladonia portentosa 1 

112. Cladonia polydactyla 1 

113. Cladonia pyxidata 1 1 1 1 

114. Cladonia rei 1 1 

115. Cladonia rangiferina 1 

116. Cladonia rangiformis 1 

117. Cladonia squamosa var. squamosa 1 1 

118. Cladonia squamosa var. subsquamosa 1 

119. Cladonia stygia 1 

120. Cladonia subulata 1 

121. Cladonia sulphurina 1 

122. Cladonia sylvatica 1 

123. Cladonia uncialis 1 1 

124. Collema auriforme 1 

125. Collema flaccidum 1 1 1 

126. Collema nigrescens 1 1 

127. Collema undullatum 1 1 

128. Collema occultatum 1 

129. Collema fasciculare 1 1 1 

130. Coriscium viride 1 

131. Cornicularia normoerica 1 1 

132. Cyphelium inquinans 1 

133. Dermatocarpon intestiniforme 1 

134. Dermatocarpon luridum 1 1 

135. Dermatocarpon miniatum 1 1 1 1 1 

136. Dermatocarpon rivulorum 

137. Dibaeis baeomyces 1 1 

138. Dimerella pineti 1 

139. Diploschistes muscorum 1 

140. Diploschistes scruposus 1 1 1 

141. Diplotomma alboatrum 1 

142. Eopyrenula leucoplaca 1 

143. Evernia divaricata 1 1 1 1 

144. Evernia prunastri 1 1 1 1 

145. Farnoldia jurana 1 

146. Fuscidea kochiana 1 

147. Graphis scripta 1 1 1 

148. Gyalecta flotowii 1 

149. Gyalecta foveolaris 1 

150. Gyalecta peziza 1 

151. Gyalecta leucaspis 1 

152. Gyalecta trunsigena 1 

153. Gyalecta jenensis 1 1 

154. Gyalecta ulmi 1 

155. Haematomma ochroleucum 1 

156. Helocarpon crassipes 

157. Heterodermia speciosa 1 1 1 

158. Hypocenomyce scalaris 1 1 1 

159. Hypogymnia bitteri 1 

160. Hypogymnia farinacea 1 

161. Hypogymnia physodes 1 1 1 1 1 1 

162. Hypogymnia tubulosa 1 1 1 1

163. Hypogymnia vittata 1 1 1 

164. Icmadophila ericetorum 1 

165. Imshaugia aleurites 1 

166. Immersaria athroocarpa 1 

167. Lasallia pustulata 1 

168. Lecania fuscella 1 

169. Lecanora allophana 1 1 

170. Lecanora argentata 1 

171. Lecanora atra 1 

172. Lecanora badia 1 

173. Lecanora campestris 1 

174. Lecanora carpinea 1 1 1 

175. Lecanora cenisia 1 1 1 

176. Lecanora cinereofusca 

177. Lecanora subcarpinea 1 

178. Lecanora dispersa 1 

179. Lecanora expallens 1 1 

180. Lecanora gangaleoides 1 

181. Lecanora glabrata 1 

182. Lecanora impudens 1 

183. Lecanora phaeostigma 1 

184. Lecanora intricata 1 1 

185. Lecanora intumescens 1 1 

186. Lecanora leptyrodes 1 

187. Lecanora marginata 1 

188. Lecanora muralis 1 1 1 1 

189. Lecanora polytropa 1 

190. Lecanora pulicaris 1 1 

191. Lecanora rupicola 1 

192. Lecanora pallida 1 1 1 

193. Lecanora sulphurea 1 1 

194. Lecanora rugosa 1 1 

195. Lecanora symmicta 1 1 

196. Lecanora sarcopidoides 1 

197. Lecidea caecioatra 1 1 

198. Lecidea confluens 1 

199. ´Lecidea fuliginosa 1 1 

200. Lecidea promiscens 1 

201. ´Lecidea lymosa 1 

202. Lecidea lapicida var. pantherina 1 

203. Lecidea lithophila 1 

204. Lecidea plana 1 1 

205. Lecidea lurida 1 

206. Lecidea pantherina 1 

207. ´Lecidea personata 1 

208. Lecidea turgidula 1 

209. Lecidella anomaloides 1 

210. Lecidella elaeochroma 1 1 

211. Lecidella euphorea 1 1 

212. Lecidella wulfenii 

213. Lecidoma demissum 1 

214. Lepraria candelaris 1 

215. Lepraria incana 1 1 1 

216. Lepraria neglecta 1 

217. Leptogium cyanescens 1 1

218. Leptogium gelatinosum 1 1 

219. Leptogium lichenoides 1 1 1 

220. Leptogium saturninum 1 1 

221. Leptogium tenuissumum 1 1 

222. Leptorhaphis atomaria 1 1 

223. Leptorhaphis epidermidis 1 

224. Leptogium sabtille 1 1 

225. Lobaria amplissima 1 1 1 1 

226. Lobarina scrobiculata 1 

227. Lobothallia linita 1 1 

228. Lobothallia melanaspis 

229. Lobothallia pulmonaria 1 1 1 1 1 

230. Lopadium pezizoideum 1 

231. Massalongia carnosa 1 1 

232. Megalaria grossa 1 

233. Melaspilea proximella 1 

234. Menegazzia terebrata 1 1 1 

235. Micarea assimilata 1 1 

236. Micarea lignaria 1 

237. Micarea prasina 1 

238. Miriquidica garovaglii 1 

239. Mycobilimbia hypnorum 1 

240. Mycobilimbia lobulata 1 

241. Mycoblastus sanguinarius 1 1 

242. Mycocalycium subtile 1 

243. Nephroma bellum 1 1 1 

244. Nephroma parile 1 1 

245. Nephroma resupinatum 1 1 1 1 

246. Normandina pulchella 1 1 1 

247. Ochrolechia pallescens 1 1 

248. Ochrolechia androgyna 1 

249. Ochrolechia parella 1 

250. Ochrolechia turneri 1 

251. Ochrolechia tartarea 1 

252. Omphalina hudsoniana 1 

253. Orphniospora mosigii 1 

254. Opegrapha atra 1 1 

255. Opegrapha rufescens 1 1 

256. Opegrapha varia 1 

257. Opegrapha viridis 1 1 

258. Opegrapha vulgata 1 

259. Ophioparma ventosa 1 

260. Pannaria conoplea 1 1 

261. Pannaria mikrophylla 1 

262. Pannaria pezzizoides 1 1 

263. Pannaria rubiginosa 1 

264. Parmelia caperata 1 1 1 1 1 

265. Parmelia saxatilis 1 1 1 1 1 

266. Parmelia conspersa 1 1 1 1 

267. Parmelia elegantula 1 1 

268. Parmelia exasperata 1 1 1 

269. Parmelia exasperatula 1 1 1 

270. Parmelia fuliginosa 1 

271. Parmelia glabra 1 1 1 1 

272. Parmelia glabratula 1 1 1 1

273. Parmelia laevigata 1 1 1 

274. Parmelia perlata 1 

275. Parmelia revoluta 1 1 1 1 

276. Parmelia scortea 1 

277. Parmelia sinuosa 1 1 1 

278. Parmelia sorediosa 1 

279. Parmelia subargentifera 1 

280. Parmelia subaurifera 1 1 

281. Parmelia subrudecta 1 1 1 

282. Parmelia tiliace 1 1 1 1 

283. Parmelia verruculifera 1 1 

284. Parmelia stygia 1 

285. Parmelia quercina 1 1 

286. Parmelia sulcata 1 1 1 1 1 1 

287. Parmeliella triptophylla 1 1 1 

288. Parmeliopsis ambigua 1 1 1 

289. Parmeliopsis hyperopta 1 

290. Parmotrema arnaldii 1 

291. Parmotrema crinitum 1 1 

292. Parmotrema chinense 1 1 1 

293. Peltigera aphthosa 1 1 1 

294. Peltigera canina 1 1 1 1 1 1 

295. Peltigera collina 1 

296. Peltigera degenii 1 1 

297. Peltigera horizontalis 1 1 1 

298. Peltigera hymenina 

299. Peltigera lepidophora 1 1 1 

300. Peltigera leucophlebia 1 1 

301. Peltigera malacea 1 

302. Peltigera polydactylon 1 1 1 1 

303. Peltigera praetextata 1 1 1 1 

304. Peltigera rufescens 1 1 1 1 

305. Peltigera scabrosa 1 

306. Peltigera venosa 1 1 

307. Pertusaria albescens 1 1 1 

308. Pertusaria alpina 1 

309. Pertusaria amara 1 1 1 1 

310. Pertusaria trachythalliana 1 

311. Pertusaria coccodes 1 

312. Pertusaria corallina 1 

313. Pertusaria constricta 1 1 

314. Pertusaria flavida 1 

315. Pertusaria multipuncta 1 

316. Pertusaria hemisphaerica 1 

317. Pertusaria leucostoma 1 1 

318. Pertusaria lactea 1 1 

319. Pertusaria oculata 1 

320. Pertusaria pertusa 1 

321. Pertusaria servitiana 1 

322. Phaeocalicium praecedens 1 

323. Phaeophyscia ciliata 1 

324. Phaeophyscia orbicularis 1 1 

325. Phlyctis agelaea 1 1 1 

326. Phlyctis argena 1 1 1 1 

327. Physcia adscendens 1

328. Physcia aipolia 1 

329. Physcia caesia 1 

330. Physcia dubia 1 

331. Physcia stellaris 1 1 1 

332. Physcia tenella 1 

333. Physconia distorta 1 

334. Physconia grisea 1 

335. Placynthium nigrum 1 1 1 

336. Placynthiella uliginosa 

337. Platismatia glauca 1 1 1 1 1 

338. Polyblastia lojkana 1 

339. Polyblastia muralis 1 

340. Polyblastia plicata 1 

341. Polyblastia cupularis 1 

342. Polyblastia terrestris 1 

343. Porpidia crustulata 1 1 

344. Porpidia macrocarpa 1 

345. Porpidia musiva 1 

346. Porpidia speirea 1 

347. Porpidia superba 1 

348. Porpidia hidrophila 1 

349. Protoblastenia rupestris 1 1 

350. Protoblastenia incrustans 1 

351. Protoparmelia badia 1 

352. Protothelenella sphinctrinoidela 1 

353. Pseudephebe pubescens 1 

354. Pseudevernia furfuracea 1 1 1 1 

355. Psoroma hypnorum 1 

356. Pyrenula laevigata 1 1 

357. Pyrenula nitida 1 

358. Pyrenula nitidella 1 

359. Ramalina capitata 1 

360. Ramalina baltica 1 1 

361. Ramalina calicaris 1 1 1 1 

362. Ramalina fraxinea 1 1 

363. Ramalina fastigiata 1 

364. Ramalina pollinaria 1 1 1 1 

365. Ramalina thrausta 1 1 

366. Ramalina roesleri 1 1 

367. Ramallina farinacea 1 1 1 

368. Rhizocarpon alpicola 1 1 

369. Rhizocarpon badioatrum 1 1 1 

370. Rhizocarpon concentricum 1 

371. Rhizocarpon geographicum 1 1 1 

372. Rhizocarpon grande 1 

373. Rhizocarpon obscuratum 1 

374. Rhizocarpon petraeum 1 

375. Rhizocarpon umbilicatum 1 

376. Rhizocarpon hchstetteri 1 1 

377. Rinodina archaea 1 

378. Rinodina pyrina 1 1 

379. Rinodina bischoffii 1 

380. Rinodina confragosa 1 1 

381. Rinodina exigua 1 

382. Rinodina niaraea 1

383. Ropalospora lugubris 1 

384. Saccomorpha uliginosa 1 

385. Sarcogyne regularis 1 

386. Scoliciosporum umbrinum 1 

387. Solorina bispora 1 1 

388. Solorina octospora 

389. Solorina saccata 1 1 1 

390. Sphaerophorus fragilis 1 1 1 

391. Sphaerophorus globosus 1 

392. Stereocaulon alpinum 1 

393. Stereocaulon vesuvianum 1 

394. Sticta sylvatica 1 1 

395. Sticta fuliginosa 1 1 1 

396. Tephromela atra 1 1 

397. Tephromela armeniaca 1 

398. Thamnolia vermicularis var. subuliformis 1 1 

399. Thelidium aenovinosum 1 1 

400. Thelidium minutulum 1 

401. Thelidium papulare 1 1 

402. Thelidium piceum 1 

403. Thelidium decipiens 1 

404. Thelopsis rubella 1 

405. Thelotrema lepadinum 1 1 1 

406. Thyrea confusa 

407. Toninia candida 1 

408. Trapeliopsis granulosa 1 

409. Tremolecia atrata 1 

410. Umbilicaria crustulosa 1 

411. Umbilicaria cylindrica 1 1 1 

412. Umbilicaria deusta 1 1 

413. Usnea carpatica 1 

414. Usnea ceratina 1 

415. Usnea dacypoga 1 

416. Usnea fulvoreagens 1 

417. Usnea florida 1 1 1 1 1 

418. Usnea glabrata 1 

419. Usnea glabrescens 1 

420. Usnea hirta 1 1 

421. Usnea lapponica 1 

422. Usnea scabrata 1 1 

423. Usnea longissima 1 1 1 

424. Usnea plicata var. pendulina 1 

425. Usnea subfloridana 1 1 

426. Verrucaria aethiobola 1 1 1 

427. Verrucaria caerulea 1 

428. Verrucaria calciseda 1 1 

429. Verrucaria fusca 1 

430. Verrucaria hidrela 1 

431. Verrucaria ceissleri 1 1 

432. Verrucaria murina 1 

433. Verrucaria muralis 1 1 

434. Verrucaria fuscella 1 

435. Verrucaria margacea 1 

436. Verrucaria nigrescens 1 1 1 

437. Vulpicida pinastri 1 1 1

438. Xanthoria fallax 1 1 1 

439. Xanthoria candelaria 1 

440. Xanthoria parietina 1 1 

441. Xanthoria polycarpa 1 

442. Xylographa abietina 1 

Number of Species/ Locality ( 752) 32 42 132 291 90 165 

Total Species 436 


Svydovets SV 

Chornohora CH 

Maramorosh MA 


Stuzhytsia-Uzhok SU

Tab. 3. List of mammals – 73 species; See bottom of the table for the codes of selected localities. 

Conservation HA VI ST RO 

Status, Red Data 

KZ SV CH MA UH 

Latin name Taxon - slovak name Book (SR) 

SU 

Alces alces (Linnaeus, 1758) los mokradovy EN H 

Apodemus agrarius (Pallas, 1771) rysavka tmavopasa LR:lc H H H H H 

Apodemus flavicollis (Melchior, 1834) rysavka zltohrdla LR:lc H H H H H H H H H H 

Apodemus sylvaticus (Linnaeus, 1758) rysavka krovinna LR:lc H H H H H H H H 

Apodemus uralensis (A. microps) (Pallas, 1811) rysavka mysovita LR:lc H H H 

Arvicola terrestris (Linnaeus, 1758) hryzec vodny LR:lc H 

Barbastella barbastellus (Schreber, 1774) uchana cierna LR:cd H H H H H H H 

Bison bonasus (Linnaeus, 1758) zubor europsky NE H 

Canis lupus Linnaeus, 1758 vlk dravy LR:nt H H H H H H H H H H 

Capreolus capreolus (Linnaeus, 1758) srnec lesny NE H H H H H H H H H H 

Castor fiber Linnaeus, 1758 bobor eurazijsky LR:nt H 

Cervus elaphus Linnaeus, 1758 jelen lesny NE H H H H H H H H H H 

Chionomys (Microtus) nivalis (Martins, 1842) hrabos snezny VU H 

Clethrionomys glareolus (Schreber, 1780) hrdziak lesny NE H H H H H H H H H H 

Crocidura leucodon (Hermann, 1780) bielozubka bielobrucha LR:lc H 

Crocidura suaveolens (Pallas, 1811) bielozubka krpata LR:lc H 

Dama dama (Linnaeus, 1758) daniel skvrnity NE H 

Dryomys nitedula (Pallas, 1778) plch lesny LR:nt H H H H H H H 

Eptesicus nilssoni (Keyserling Blasius, 1839) vecernica severska LR:lc H H H H H H 

Eptesicus serotinus (Schreber, 1774) vecernica pozdna DD H H H H H H H H H H 

Erinaceus concolor Martin, 1838 jez vychodny DD H H H H H H H H H H 

Felis silvestris Schreber, 1775 macka diva VU H H H H H H H H H H 

Lepus europaeus Pallas, 1778 zajac polny LR:lc H H H H H H 

Lutra lutra (Linnaeus, 1758) vydra riecna VU H H H H H 

Lynx lynx (Linnaeus, 1758) rys ostrovid EN H H H H H H H H H H 

Marmota marmota (Linnaeus, 1758) svist vrchovsky EN 

Martes foina (Erxleben, 1777) kuna skalna DD H H H H H H H H H H 

Martes martes (Linnaeus, 1758) kuna lesna DD H H H H H H H H H H





SU 

Meles meles (Linnaeus, 1758) jazvec lesny VU H H H H H H H H H H 

Micromys minutus (Pallas, 1771) myska drobna LR:lc 

Microtus (Pitymys) tatricus Kratochvil, 1952 hrabos tatransky VU H H 

Microtus agrestis (Linnaeus, 1761) hrabos mociarny NE H H H H H H 

Microtus arvalis (Pallas, 1778) 

Microtus subterraneus (de Selys-Longchamps, 

hrabos polny NE H H 

1836) hrabac podzemny NE H H H H H 

Miniopterus schreibersi (Kuhl, 1817) netopier stahovavy CR 

Mus musculus Linnaeus, 1758 mys domova NE H H H H H 

Muscardinus avellanarius (Linnaeus, 1758) plsik lieskovy LR:lc H H H H H H H H H H 

Mustela erminea Linnaeus, 1758 hranostaj ciernochvosty NE H H H H H H 

Mustela eversmanni Lesson, 1827 tchor stepny DD H 

Mustela nivalis Linnaeus, 1766 lasica mysozrava LR:lc H H H H H H H H H H 

Mustela putorius (Linnaeus, 1758) tchor tmavy DD H H H H H H 

Myotis bechsteini (Kuhl, 1817) netopier Bechsteinov LR:lc H H H 

Myotis blythi (Tomes, 1857) netopier ostrouchy LR:cd H H H 

Myotis brandti (Eversmann, 1845) netopier Brandtov VU H H 

Myotis dasycneme (Boie, 1825) netopier pobrezny VU H 

Myotis daubentoni (Kuhl, 1817) netopier vodny LR:lc H H H H H H H H H H 

Myotis emarginatus (E. Geoffroy, 1806) netopier brvity VU H H 

Myotis myotis (Borkhausen, 1797) netopier velky LR:cd) H H H H H H H H H 

Myotis mystacinus (Kuhl, 1817) netopier fuzaty VU H H H H H H H H H 

Myotis nattereri (Kuhl, 1817) netopier riasnaty LR:nt H H 

Myoxus (Glis) glis (Linnaeus, 1766) plch sivy LR:lc H H H H H H H H H H 

Neomys anomalus Cabrera, 1907 dulovnica mensia LR:nt H H H H H 

Neomys fodiens (Pennant, 1771) dulovnica vacsia LR:nt H H H H H H H H H H 

Nyctalus leisleri (Kuhl, 1817) netopier stromovy DD H H H H H 

Nyctalus noctula (Schreber, 1774) netopier hrdzavy LR:lc H H H H H H H H H 

Nyctereutes procyonoides (Gray, 1834) psik medvedikovity NE H 

Ondatra zibethicus (Linnaeus, 1766) ondatra pizmova NE H H





SU 

Ovis ammon (Linnaeus, 1758) 

Pipistrellus nathusii (Keyserling et Blasius, 

muflon lesny NE H 

1839) vecernica parkova DD H H H H H H 

Pipistrellus pipistrellus (Schreber, 1774) netopier hvizdavy LR:lc H H H H H H H H 

Plecotus auritus (Linnaeus, 1758) netopier svetly LR:nt H H H H H H 

Plecotus austriacus (Fischer, 1829) netopier sivy LR:nt H H H H H H H H 

Rattus rattus (Linnaeus, 1758) potkan tmavy NE H H H H H H 

Rhinolophus ferrumequinum (Schreber, 1774) podkovar stihlokridly EN H H H H 

Rhinolophus hipposideros (Bechstein, 1800) podkovar krpaty LR:cd H H H 

Rupicapra rupicapra rupicapra (Linnaeus, 1758) kamzik vrchovsky alpsky NE 

Rupicapra rupicapra tatrica (Blahout, 1972) kamzik vrchovsky tatransky CR H 

Sciurus vulgaris Linnaeus, 1758 veverica stromova LR:lc H H H H H H H H H H 

Sicista betulina (Pallas, 1779) mysovka horska VU H 

Sorex alpinus Schintz, 1837 piskor vrchovsky VU H H H H H H H H H 

Sorex araneus Linnaeus, 1758 piskor obycajny NE H H H H H H H H H H 

Sorex minutus Linnaeus, 1766 piskor maly NE H H H H H H H H H H 

Sus scrofa Linnaeus, 1758 diviak lesny NE H H H H H H H H H H 

Talpa europaea Linnaeus, 1758 krt obycajny NE H H H H H H H H H H 

Ursus arctos Linnaeus, 1758 medved hnedy LR:cd H H H H H H H H 

Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758 vecernica tmava DD H H H 

Vulpes vulpes (Linnaeus, 1758) liska hrdzava NE H H H H H H H H H H 

Σ Species 73 


Explanations 

Havesova HA 

Vihorlat VI 

Stuzica ST

Latin name Taxon - slovak name 

Rozok RO 


Svydovets SV 

Chornohora CH 

Maramorosh MA 










Conservation 


Book (SR) 

HA VI ST RO 


SU

List of Mollusca 

Druh/Species ST KZ SV CH MA UH HA VI ST RO 

Abida frumentum 

Aegopinella sp. 1 1 

Aegopinella epipedostoma 1 

Aegopinella minor 

Aegopinella pura 1 1 1 1 

Anisus leucostomus 

Anisus spirorbis 

Anisus vortex 

Anisus vorticulus 

Aplexa hypnorum 

Arianta arbustorum 1 1 

Arianta arbustorum ssp. alpicola 

Arion fasciatus 

Arion rufus 

Arion subfuscus 1 1 

Balea biplicata 

Bathyomphalus contortus 

Bielzia coerulens 1 1 

Bithynia leachi 

Bithynia tentaculata 

Carychium minimum 1 

Cecilioides acicula 

Cepaea vindobonensis 

Cepea hortensis 

Clausilia cruciata 1 1 

Clausilia dubia 1 

Clausilia pumila ssp. succosa 1 

Cochlicopa lubrica 1 

Cochlicopa lubricella 1 

Cochlodina laminata 1 

Columella edentula 1 

Deroceras reticulatum 

Discus rotundatus 1 

Discus ruderatus 

Ena montana 1 1 

Ena obscura 

Eucobresia nivalis 1 1 

Euconulus fulvus 1 1 1 

Euomphalia strigella 

Fruticicola fruticum 

Fusulus varians 

Galba truncatula 

Gyraulus albus 

Helicella obvia 

Helix pomatia 1 1 

Chondrula tridens 

Iphigena plicatula 

Iphigena tumida 

Isognomostoma isognomostoma 1 1 1

Jamania tridens 

Limax maximus 

Limax tennelus 

Lymnaea palustris 

Lymnaea peregra 

Lymnaea stagnalis 

Macrogastra ventricosa 

Milax budapestensis 

Monacha cartusiana 

Monachoides incarnata 

Monachoides incarnatus incarnatus 

Monachoides vicina 1 1 1 

Nesovitrea hammonis 1 1 

Oxychilus cellarius 

Oxychilus depressus 1 1 

Oxychilus glaber 

Oxyloma elegans 

Perforatella incarnata 

Perforatella rubiginosa 

Physa fontinalis 

Pisidium obtusale 

Planorbarius corneus 

Planorbis planorbis 

Pseudalinda turgida 

Pseudotrichia rubiginosa 

Punctum pygmaeum 1 1 

Pupilla muscorum 

Radix auricularia 

Radix ovata 

Segmentina nitida 

Semilimax kotulae 1 1 1 

Semilimax semilimax 1 1 

Sphaerium lacustre 

Stagnicola palustris 

Stagnicola turricula 

Succinea oblonga 1 1 

Succinea putris 

Trichia hispida 

Trichia striolata danubialis 

Truncatellina cylindrica 1 1 1 

Vallonia costata 1 

Vallonia excentrica 

Vallonia pulchella 1 

Valvata cristata 

Valvata piscinalis 

Valvata pulchella 

Vertigo pygmaea 1 

Vitrea crystallina 1 1 

Vitrea diaphana 1 1 

Vitrina pellucida 1 1 

Viviparus contectus

Zebrina detrita 

Zonitoides nitidus 

Acanthinula aculeata 1 1 1 

Acicula polita 1 

Aegopinella nitens 1 

Arcna bielzi 1 

Arianta aethiops petrii 1 

Arion silvaticus 1 1 

Balea stabilis 1 1 

Bradybaena fruticum 1 

Bulgarica cana 1 1 1 

Carpathica calophana 1 1 

Carychium tridentatum elongatum 1 1 

Chondrina avenacea 1 1 

Chondrula bielzi 1 

Coclodina orthostoma 1 

Columella colemella 1 1 

Deroceras laeve 1 

Deroceras moldavicum 1 

Deroceras occidentale 1 

Deroceras rodnae 1 1 

Edentiella bakowskii 1 1 1 

Faustina faustina 1 1 

Granaria frumentum 1 1 

Idmax cinereoniger 1 

Lehmannia macroflagellata 1 1 1 

Lehmannia marginata 1 1 

Macrohastra latestriata 1 1 

Macrohastra tumida 1 1 1 

Merdigera obscura 1 

Oxychilus orientalis 1 1 1 

Perforatella dibothrion 1 

Pupilla sterri 1 

Puramidula rupestris 1 1 1 

Ruthenica filohrana 1 

Serrulina serrulata 1 

Vertigo modesta alpestris 1 

Vertigo substriata 1 1 

Vestia gulo 1 1 1 

Vestia turgida procera 1 

Vestia turgida turgida 1 

Vitrea transsylvanica 1 1 

Number of Species/ Locality 

132 46 67 11 5 1 2 

Σ Species 74 

Havesova HA 

Vihorlat VI 

Stuzica ST 

Rozok RO


Svydovets SV 

Chornohora CH 

Maramorosh MA 


Stuzhytsia-Uzhok SU

List of mosses SU KZ SV CH MA UH HA VI ST RO * 

1. Aloina rigida 1 1 

2. Amblystegium confervoides 1 1 1 1 

3. Amblystegium juratzkanum 1 

4. Amblystegium reparium 1 

5. Amblystegium serpens 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

6. Amblystegium subtilis 1 1 

7. Amblystegium tenax 1 1 1 1 1 1 

8. Amblystegium varium 1 1 

9. Amphidium lapponucum 1 1 1 1 

10. Amphidium mougeotii 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

11. Anastrepta. orcadensis 1 

12. Anastrophyllum michauxii 1 1 Lr:nt 

13. Anastrophyllum minutum 1 1 1 1 

14. Andrea rupestis 1 

15. Aneura pinguis 1 

16. Anoectangium aestivum 1 1 Vu 

17. Anomodon attenuatus 1 1 1 1 1 1 

18. Anomodon longifolius 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

19. Anomodon rugelii 1 1 1 1 1 Vu 

20. Anomodon viticulosus 1 

1 1 1 

21. Anthelia juratzcana 1 1 1 1 

22. Antitrichia curtipendula 1 1 1 Vu 

23. Arctoa fulvela 1 En 

24. Atrichum hausscanechtii 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

25. Atrichum tenellum 1 1 1 

26. Atrichum undulatum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

27. Aulacomnium androgynum 1 

28. Aulacomnium palustre 1 1 1 1 

29. Barbilophozia floerkei 1 1 1 1 

30. Barbilophozia hatcheri 

31. Barbilophozia lycopodioides 1 1 

32. Barbilophozia attenuata 1

33. Barbilophozia barbata 1 

34. Barbula convoluta 1 

35. Barbula crocea 1 1 

36. Barbula unquiculata 1 1 1 1 

37. Barbula vinealis 1 

38. Bartramia hallerana 1 

39. Bartramia ithyphylla 1 1 1 1 

40. Bartramia pomiformis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

41. Bazzania tricrenata 1 1 1 1 1 1 

42. Bazzania trilobata 1 1 1 1 

43. Blasia pusilla 1 1 1 1 1 

44. Blepharostoma trichofyllum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

45. Blindia acuta 1 1 Vu 

46. Brachythecium geheebii 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

47. Brachythecium glareosum 1 1 

48. Brachythecium plumosum 1 1 1 

49. Brachythecium populeum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

50. Brachythecium reflexum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

51. Brachythecium rivulare 1 1 1 1 1 

52. Brachythecium rutabulum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

53. Brachythecium salebrosum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

54. Brachythecium starkei 1 1 

55. Brachythecium velutinum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

56. Bryoerythrophyllum recurvirostrum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

57. Bryum argenteum 1 1 

58. Bryum caespiticium 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

59. Bryum capillare 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

60. Bryum cappillare var. latifolium 1 

61. Bryum elegans 1 1 1 1 1 

62. Bryum gemmiparum 1 

63. Bryum pallens 1 1 

64. Bryum pallescens 1 1 1 1 1 1 

65. Bryum pseudotriquetrum 1 1 1 1 

66. Bryum schleicheri 1 Vu 

67. Bryum turbinatum 1 1 1 Vu 

68. Bryum uliginosum 1 En

69. Bryum weigelii 1 LR: nt 

70. Buxbaumi viridis 1 VU 

71. Buxbaumii aphylla 1 LR: nt 

72. Callicladium haldanianum 1 1 1 1 1 VU 

73. Calliergon giganteum 1 LR: nt 

74. Calliergon stramineum 1 

75. Calliergonella cuspidata 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

76. Calypogeia azurea 1 1 1 

77. Calypogeia muelleriana 1 

78. Calypogeia neesiana 1 

79. Calypogeia suecisa 1 

80. Campylium halleri 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

81. Campylium sommerfeltii 1 1 1 DD 

82. Campylium stellatum 1 1 1 1 1 1 

83. Campylopus pyriformis 1 CR 

84. Campylopus schwarzii 1 DD 

85. Cephalozia ambigua 1 

86. Cephalozia bicuspidata 1 1 1 1 1 1 

87. Cephalozia catenulata 1 1 1 1 1 1 

88. Cephalozia lunulifolia 1 1 1 

89. Cephalozia pleniceps 

90. Ceratodon purpureus 1 1 1 1 

91. Chiloscyphus coadunatus 1 

92. Chiloscyphus pallescens 1 1 1 

93. Chiloscyphus polyanthos 1 1 

94. Cinclidium stygium 1 1 CR 

95. Cirriphvllum cirrosum 1 1 1 EN 

96. Cirriphvllum crassinervium 1 

97. Cirriphvllum piliferum 1 1 1 1 1 

98. Cirriphvllum reichenbachianum 1 1 

99. Climacium dendroides 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

100. Cnestrum schisti 

1 

101. Cololejeunea calcarea 

1 

102. Cololejeunea rossetiana 

1

103. 

Conocephalum conicum 1 1 1 1 1 1 

104. Cratoneuron commutatum 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

105. Cratoneuron decipiens 

1 

106. Cratoneuron filicinum 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

107. Ctenidium molluscum 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

108. Cynodontium bruntonii 

1 DD 

109. Cynodontium polycarpon 1 

1 

111. Cynodontium strumiferum 

1 

112. Cynodontium tenelum 

1 1 1 1 Cr 

113. Desmatodon latifolius 

1 1 

114. Dichodontium pellucidum 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

115. Dicranella cerviculata 

1 VU 

116. Dicranella heteromalla 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

117. Dicranella palustris 

1 

118. Dicranella rufescens 

1 Lr: nt 

119. Dicranella schreberana 

1 

120. Dicranella subulata 

1 1 

121. Dicranella varia 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

122. Dicranodontium asperulum 

1 En 

123. Dicranodontium denudatum 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

124. Dicranoweisia crispula 

1 1 

125. Dicranum affine 

1 

126. Dicranum bongieanii 1 

1 1 1 Lr: nt 

127. Dicranum elongatun 

1 1

128. Dicranum flagellare 

129. Dicranum fulvum 

130. Dicranum fusceccens 

131. Dicranum majus 

132. Dicranum montana 1 

133. Dicranum muehlenbeckii 

134. Dicranum scoparium 

135. Dicranum viride 

136. Didymodon acutus 

137. Didymodon insulans 

138. Didymodon rigidulus 

139. Didymodon spadiceus 

140. Didymodon tophaceus 

141. Didymodon vinealis 1 

142. Difiscium foliosum 

143. Diplophyllum albicans 

144. Diplophyllum taxifolium 

145. Distichium capillaceum 

146. Ditrichum cylindricum 

147. Ditrichum flexicaule 

148. Ditrichum heteromalium 

149. Ditrichum pallidum 

150. Ditrichum pusillum 

151. Drepanocladus aduncus 

1 VU 

1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 Vu 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1En 

1 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 

1 

1 

1 1 Ex 

1 1Vu 

1 Lr: nt 

1 Lr: nt 

1 1 1 1 

1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 

1 1 1 1 1 1

152. Drepanocladus exannulatus 

153. Drepanocladus fluitans 

154. Drepanocladus lycopodioides 

155. Drepanocladus revolvens 

156. Drepanocladus sendetneri 

157. Drepanocladus uncinatus 1 

158. Drepanocladus vernicosus 

159. Encalypta ciliata 

160. Encalypta rabdocarpa 

161. Encalypta streptocarpa 

162. Encalypta vulgaris 

163. Entodon concinnus 1 

164. Eurhynchium anguslirete 

165. Eurhynchium hians 1 

166. Eurhynchium praelongum 

167. Eurhynchium speciosum 

168. Eurhynchium striatum 1 

169. Fissidens adianthoides 1 

170. Fissidens bryoides 

171. Fissidens cristatus 1 

172. Fissidens limbatus 

173. Fissidens pussillus 1 

174. Fissidens taxifolius 1 

175. Frullania dilatata 

1 

1 

1 Cr 

1 1 

1 1 1 1 En 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 

1 

1 1 Lr: nt 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 

Lr: nt 

1 1 1 1 VU 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 

1 

1 1 DD 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1

176. Frullania fragilifolia 

177. Frullania tamarisci 

178. Funaria hygrometrica 1 

179. Grimmia alpestris 

180. Grimmia anodon 1 

181. Grimmia atrata 1 

182. Grimmia decipiens 1 

183. Grimmia donniana 

184. Grimmia elatior 

185. Grimmia elongata 

186. Grimmia hartmanii 

187. Grimmia Incurva 

188. Grimmia ovalis 

189. Grimmia pulvinata 

190. Gymnostomum aeruginosum 

191. Gyroweisia tenuis 

192. Harpanthus flotowianus 

193. Harpanthus scutatus 

194. Hedwigia ciliata 

195. Herzogiella seligeri 1 

196. Herzogiella striatella 

197. Heterocladium dimorphum 

198. Heterocladium heteropterum 

199. Homalia trichomanoides 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 Lr: nt 

Lr: nt 

1 1 Lr: nt 

1 DD 

1 1 1DD 

1 1 1 1 

1 

1 

1 1 

1 1 1 VU 

1 

1 1 Lr: nt 

1 1 1 1 

1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 En 

1 

1 

1 1 1 1 1 1

200. Homalothecium lutescens 1 

201. Homalothecium nitens 

202. Homalothecium philippeanum 1 

203. Homalothecium sericeum 1 

204. Homomallium incurvatum 1 

205. Hookeria lucens 

206. Hygrohypnum luridum 1 

207. Hygrohypnum molle 

208. Hygrohypnum ochraraceum 

209. Hylocomium pyrenaicum 

210. Hylocomium splendens 

211. Hylocomium umbratum 

212. Hypnum bambergeri 

213. Hypnum callichroum 

214. Hypnum cupressiforme 1 

215. Hypnum fertile 

216. Hypnum imponens 1 

217. Hypnum lindbergii 1 

218. Hypnum pallescens 1 

219. Hypnum recurvatum 1 

220. Hypnum revolutum 1 

221. Isoptervgium pulchellum 

222. Isothecium alopecuroides 1 

223. Isothecium myoruroides 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 Ex 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lr: nt 

1 VU 

1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 Lr: nt 

1 1 1 1 1 1 VU 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 DD 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 

1 1 1 1 1 

Vu

224. Jamesoniella autumnalis 

225. Jungermannia atrovirens 

226. Jungermannia gracillima 

227. Jungermannia hyalina 

228. Jungermannia leiantha 

229. Jungermannia obovata 

230. Jungermannia sphaerocarpa 

231. Kiaeria blyttii 

232. Kiaeria falcata 

233. Kiaeria starkei 

234. Lejeunea cavifolia 

235. Lepidozia reptans 

236. Leptobrium pyryforme 

237. Lescea polycarpa 

238. Lescuraea incurvata 

239. Lescuraea mutabilis 

240. Lescuraea patens 

241. Lescuraea plicata 

242. Lescuraea radicosa 

243. Leucobryum glaucum 

244. Leucodon sciuroides 

245. Lophozia ventricosa 

246. Lophozia wenzelii 

247. Lophozia alpestris 

1 

1 

1 1 1 1 

1 

1 

1 1 1 1 

1 

1 1 1 

1 Lr: nt 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 

1 1 1 

1 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 

1 

1 

1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 

1 1 1 

1

248. Lophozia ascendens 

249. Lophozia badensis 

1 

250. Lophozia bantriensis 

1 1 1 1 

251. Lophozia heterocolpos 

1 1 1 1 

252. Lophozia incisa 

1 1 1 

253. Lophozia longiflora 

1 1 1 1 

254. Lophozia sudetica 

1 1 1 

255. 

Mannia triandra 1 

256. Marchantia polymorpha 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

257. Marsupella emarginata 

1 

258. Marsupella funckii 

1 1 1 

259. Marsupella sphacelata 

1 1 LR: nt 

260. Marsupella ustulata 

1 

261. Metzgeria furcata 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

262. Metzgeria conjugata 

1 1 1 

263. 

Metzgeria fruticulosa 1 1 1 1 1 1 

264. Mnium ambiguum 

1 

265. Mnium marginatum 

1 

266. Mnium spinosum 

1 1 1 1 

267. Mnium spinulosum 

1 

268. Mnium stellare 1 

1 1 1 1 

269. Mnium thomsonii 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

270. Moerckia blyttii 

1 1 1 

271. Mvurella julacea 1 

1 1 1

272. Mylia anomala 

273. Mylia taylori 

274. Nardia scalaris 

275. Neckera complanata 

276. Neckera crispa 

277. Neckera pennata 

278. Neckera webbiana 

279. Novelia curvifolia 1 

280. Oligotrichum hercinicum 

281. Onchophorus vahlenbergii 

282. Onchophorus virens 

283. Orthothecium intricatum 

284. Orthotrichum affine 

285. Orthotrichum alpestre 

286. Orthotrichum lyellii 

287. Orthotrichum patens 

288. Orthotrichum pumillum 

289. Orthotrichum speciosum 

290. Orthotrichum stramineum 

291. Orthotrichum striatum 

292. Oxystegus tenuirostris 

293. Pallavicinia lyellii 

294. Paraleucobrium enerve 

295. Paraleucobrium longifolium 1 

1 

1 1 1 

1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 En 

1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 

1 

1 1 Lr: nt 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 

1 Cr 

1 Lr: nt 

1 1Cr 

1 

1 1 1 Lr: nt 

1 DD 

1 Vu 

1 1 1 1 1 1 Lr: nt 

1 1 1 

1 Lr: nt

296. Paraleucobrium sauteri 

297. Pedinophyllum interruptum 

298. Pellia endiviifolia 

299. Pellia ephyphilla 

300. Pellia nisiana 

301. Philonotis caespitosa 

302. Philonotis calcarea 

303. Philonotis marchica 1 

304. Philonotis seriata 

305. Philonotis tomentella 

306. Philonotis. fontana 1 

307. Plagiochila asplenioides 

308. Plagiomnium affine 1 

309. Plagiomnium cuspidatum 1 

310. Plagiomnium elatum 

311. Plagiomnium ellipticum 

312. Plagiomnium medium 

313. Plagiomnium rostratum 

314. Plagiomnium undulatum 

315. Plagiopus oederi 

316. Plagiothecium curvifolium 

317. Plagiothecium denticulatum 

318. Plagiothecium laetum 

319. Plagiothecium neckeroideum 1 

1 Vu 

1 1 1 1 

1 1 

1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1En 

1 1 

1 1 1 Vu 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 

1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 

1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 

1 1 DD 

1 1 1 

1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 1

320. Plagiothecium nemorale 1 

321. Plagiothecium platyphyllum 1 

322. Plagiothecium succulentum 1 

323. Plagiothecium undulatum 

324. Platygyrium repens 1 

325. Pleurozium schreberi 1 

326. Pogonatum aloides 

327. Pogonatum nanum 

328. Pogonatum urnigenum 

329. Pohlia ambigua 

330. Pohlia cruda 

331. Pohlia elongata 

332. Pohlia longicollis 1 

333. Pohlia nutans 1 

334. Pohlia obtusifolia 

335. Pohlia wahlenbergii 1 

336. Polytrichum alpinum 

337. Polytrichum commune 1 

338. Polytrichum formosum 1 

339. Polytrichum juniperinum 

340. Polytrichum longisetum 1 

341. Polytrichum pallidisetum 

342. Polytrichum piliferum 1 

343. Polytrichum secsangulare 

1 1 1 1 

1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 DD 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 Vu 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 Vu 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 Vu 

1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 Vu 

1 Vu 

1 1 1 1 

1 1

344. Polytrichum strictum 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

345. Porella arbovis-vitae 

1 

346. Porella plathyphylla 

1 1 1 

347. Preissia quadrata 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

348. Pseudephemerum nitidum 

1 Vu 

349. Pseudoleskeella catenulata 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

350. Pseudoleskeella nervosa 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

351. Pteriginandrum filiforme 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

352. Ptilidium ciliare 

1 1 

353. Ptilidium pulcherrimum 

1 1 1 1 

354. Ptilium crista castrensis 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

355. Pylaisia polyantha 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

356. Racomitrium aciculare 

1 1 1 1 

357. Racomitrium affine 

1 1 1 

358. Racomitrium canescens 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

359. Racomitrium heterostichum 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

360. Racomitrium lanuginosus 1 

1 1 1 

361. Racomitrium microcarpon 1 

1 1 1 Vu 

362. Racomitrium sudeticum 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

363. Radula complanata 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

364. Radula lindbergiana 

1 

365. 

Reboulia chemisphaaerica 1 

366. Rhizomnium magnifolium 

1 1 1 1 1 

367. Rhizomnium pseudopunctatum 

1 1 1 1 Lr: nt

368. Rhizomnium punctatum 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

369. Rhodobrium roseum 

1 

370. Rhynchostegium murale 

1 

371. Rhynchostegium riparioides 

1 1 1 1 

372. Rhytidiadelphus loreus 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

373. Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

374. Rhytidiadelphus subpinnatus 

1 1 1 

375. Rhytidiadelphus triquetrus 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

376. Rhytidium rugosum 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

377. Riccardia chamaedryfolia 

1 

378. Riccardia latyfrons 

1 1 1 1 

379. Riccardia myltyfida 

1 1 

380. Riccardia palmata 

1 1 1 1 1 

381. Saelania glaucescens 

1 Lr: nt 

382. 

Sauteria alpina 1 1 1 1 Lr: nt 

383. Scapania apiculata 

1 1 1 

384. Scapania curta 

1 

385. Scapania Irrigiu 

1 1 1 

386. Scapania mucronata 

1 1 

387. Scapania nemorea 

1 1 1 1 1 

388. Scapania parvifolia 

1 Vu 

389. Scapania uliginosa 

1 1 

390. Scapania undulata 

1 

391. Scapania verrucosa 

1 1

392. Schistidium agassizii 

393. Schistidium apocarpum 1 

394. Schistostega pennata 

395. Scleropodium purum 

396. Seligeria calcarea 

397. Seligeria doniana 

398. Seligeria recurvata 

399. Sphagnum angustifolium 

400. Sphagnum balticum 

401. Sphagnum capillifolium 1 

402. Sphagnum centrale 

403. Sphagnum compactum 

404. Sphagnum contortum 

405. Sphagnum cuspidatum 

406. Sphagnum fallax 

407. Sphagnum fimbriatum 

408. Sphagnum gingefarium 1 

409. Sphagnum girgensohnii 

410. Sphagnum magellanicum 

411. Sphagnum palustre 

412. Sphagnum papillosum 

413. Sphagnum riparium 

414. Sphagnum russowii 

415. Sphagnum squarrosum 

1 1 1 DD 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 En 

1 

1 Lr: nt 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 DD 

1 1 Cr 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 Lr: nt 

1 Vu 

1 

1 Vu 

1 Vu 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 Vu 

1 Vu 

1 1 

1 1 1 1

416. Sphagnum subsecundum 

417. Sphagnum teres 

418. Splachnum ovatum 

419. Tayloria serrata 

420. Tayloria tenuis 

421. Tetraphys pellucida 

422. Tetrodontium brounianum 

423. Thamnobryum alopecurum 

424. Thuidium abietinum 

425. Thuidium erectum 

426. Thuidium philibertii 

427. Thuidium recognitum 1 

428. Thuidium tamariscinum 1 

429. Timmia bavarica 

430. Tortella inclinata 

431. Tortella tortuosa 1 

432. Tortula aestiva 1 

433. Tortula canescens 

434. Tortula intermedia 1 

435. Tortula norvegica 

436. Tortula ruraliformis 1 

437. Tortula ruralis 

438. Tortula subulata 

439. Tortula tirescens 

1 

1 1 

1 

1 En 

1 1 Cr 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 Ex 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 

1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 Vu 

1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 

1 1 1 1

440. Trichostomum brachydontium 

1 1 1 1 DD 

441. Trichostomum crispulum 1 

1 1 1 1 1 Vu 

442. Tritomaria exsectiformis 

1 VU 

443. Tritomaria exsecta 

1 1 1 1 1 

444. Tritomaria qinqedentata 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

445. 

Ulota coarctata. 1 1 1 

446. Ulota crispa 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Vu 

447. Ulota hutchinsiae. 

1 1 Cr 

448. Weissia condensa 

1 1 1 1 1 

449. Zigodon viridissimus 

1 Cr 

Number of Species/ Locality 1608 102 95 180 259 233 158 145 152 143 141 1608 



Svydovets SV 

Chornohora CH 

Maramorosh MA 



Havesova HA 

Vihorlat VI 

Stuzica ST 

Rozok RO 




VU - vulnerable




Ex - extinct

Myriapoda 

Druh/Species HA VI ST RO KZ SV CH MA UH SU 

Cvlindroiulus burzenlandicus + + + + + + + + 

Glomeris connexa + + + + 

Leptophvllum trilobatus polonicus + + + + + + 

Megaphyllum projectum kochi + + + + 

Polydesmus complanatus + + + + + + + + + + 

Polydesmus polonicus + + 

Unciger foetidus + + + + 


Species 7 

Havesova HA 

Vihorlat VI 

Stuzica ST 

Rozok RO 


Svydovets SV 

Chornohora CH 

Maramorosh MA 



Vestia turgida turgida + 

Vitrea transsylvanica + +

Nematoda 


Anatonchus istvani + + 

Anatonchus tridentatus + + + 

Clarcus papillatus + + + + + 

Clarcus patricius + 

Coomansus menzeli + + + + + + + + 

Coomansus parvus + 

Coomansus zschokkei + + + + + + 

Miconchus studeri + + + + 

Miconchus vliconchus hopperi 

Mininchus sp. + 

Mononchus aquaticus + 

Mononchus truncatus + + + + + 

Mylonchulus brachyuris + + + + 

Mylonchulus sigmaturus + + 

Prionchulus auritus + + + + + + 

Prionchulus muscorum + + 

Prionchulus punctatus + + + + + + + + + + 

9 6 2 2 12 2 5 4 11 8 

Σ Species 16 


Havesova HA 

Vihorlat VI 

Stuzica ST 

Rozok RO 


Svydovets SV 

Chornohora CH 

Maramorosh MA 


Stuzhytsia-Uzhok SU

Nematoda 


Anatonchus istvani + + 

Anatonchus tridentatus + + + 

Clarcus papillatus + + + + + 

Clarcus patricius + 

Coomansus menzeli + + + + + + + + 

Coomansus parvus + 

Coomansus zschokkei + + + + + + 

Miconchus studeri + + + + 

Miconchus vliconchus hopperi 

Mininchus sp. + 

Mononchus aquaticus + 

Mononchus truncatus + + + + + 

Mylonchulus brachyuris + + + + 

Mylonchulus sigmaturus + + 

Prionchulus auritus + + + + + + 

Prionchulus muscorum + + 

Prionchulus punctatus + + + + + + + + + + 

9 6 2 2 12 2 5 4 11 8 

Σ Species 16 


Havesova HA 

Vihorlat VI 

Stuzica ST 

Rozok RO 


Svydovets SV 

Chornohora CH 

Maramorosh MA 


Stuzhytsia-Uzhok SU

Tab. 7: Species list of Lepidoptera for primeval forests that are parts of the serial nomination and for 

which a relatively complete inventory is available as of today. See bottom of the table for the codes of selected localities. 

Druh / Species HA VI ST RO UH CH MA SV KZ SU Conservation Status, Red Data Book (SR) 

Abarax sylvestris 1 

Adaina microdactyla 1 

Adcita statices 1 1 1 1 1 

Aglais urticae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Aglia tau 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Agrius convolvuli 1 1 1 

Agrodiaetus amanda 1 

Agrochola lota 1 1 1 

Argynnis laodice 1 LR:nt 

Acherontia atropos 1 

Alcis repandata 1 1 1 

Amphipyra livida 1 

Anthocharis cardamines 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Apatura ilia 1 1 1 1 

Apatura iris 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Aphantopus hyperantus 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Aplocera plagiata 1 

Aplocera praeformata 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Araschnia levana 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Arctia caja 1 1 

Argynnis paphia 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Archinemapogon yildizae 1 

Autographa gamma 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Brenthis daphne 1 

Callimorpha dominula 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Callimorpha quadripunctaria 1 1 1 

Callophris rubi 1 1 1 1 1 

Catocala electa 1 1 

Catocala elocata 1 1 1 

Catocala fraxini 1 

Catocala nupta 1 1 1

Catocala promissa 1 1 

Catocala sponsa 1 

Celastrina argiolus 1 1 1 1 1 

Cerura vinula 1 1 1 

Clossiana euphorsyne 1 1 1 

Clossiana selene 1 1 1 1 1 

Coenonympha pamphilus 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Cochylidia rupicola 1 

Colias crocea 1 1 1 1 1 

Colias hyale 1 1 

Cossus cossus 1 1 1 

Cupido minimus 1 1 1 1 1 

Cyaniris semiargus 1 1 1 

Cydia fagiglandana 1 1 1 

Cynthia cardui 1 1 1 1 1 

Dasychira pudibunda 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Deilephila elpenor 1 1 1 1 1 

Deilephila porcellus 1 1 1 1 1 

Dendrolimus pini 1 1 1 1 

Dioryctria abietella 1 1 

Diurnea fagella 1 1 1 1 

Diurnea lipsiella 1 1 1 1 

Drepana falcataria 1 

Eilema complana 1 

Eligmodonta ziczac 1 1 

Endromis versicolora 1 

Epinotia nanana 1 1 

Epinotia tedella 1 1 

Epirrita autumnata 1 1 1 1 

Erebia aethiops 1 

Erebia euryale 1 1 1 

Erebia ligea 1 1 1 1 

Erebia manto 1 VU 

Erebia medusa 1 1 1 1 1

Erynnis tages 1 1 1 1 1 

Eudia pavonia 1 

Fabriciana adippe 1 1 1 1 1 

Fabriciana niobe 1 1 1 1 1 

Gastropacha populifolia 1 

Genopteryx rhamni 1 

Geometra papilionaria 1 

Glaucopsyche alexis 1 

Gonepteryx rhamni 1 1 1 1 1 

Hamearis lucina 1 

Hepialus humuli 1 1 1 1 1 

Hesperia comma 1 1 

Hydriomena furcata 1 

Hylaea fasciaria 1 

Hyles euphorbiae 1 VU 

Hyles gallii 1 VU 

Hyloicus pinastri 1 1 1 1 1 

Chloroclysta truncata 1 1 1 

Idaea emarginata 1 

Inachis io 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Iphiclides podalirius 1 1 

Issoria lathonia 1 1 1 1 1 

Laothae populi 1 1 1 1 1 

Lasiocampa quercus 1 1 1 

Lasiommata maera 1 1 1 1 1 

Leptidea sinapis 1 1 1 1 1 

Leucoma salicis 1 

Limenitis camilla 1 1 

Limenitis populi 1 1 LR:lc 

Lycaena alciphron 1 1 VU 

Lycaena hippothoe 1 

Lycaena phlaeas 1 1 1 1 1 

Lyceana tityrus 1 1 1 

Lyceana virgaureae 1 1 1 1 1

Lymantria monacha 1 1 1 1 1 

Macroglossum stellatarum 1 1 1 1 1 

Macrothylacia rubi 1 1 1 1 1 

Maniola jurtina 1 1 1 1 1 

Melanargia galathea 1 1 1 1 1 

Melitaea athalia 1 1 1 

Mesoacidalia aglaja 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Mimas tiliae 1 1 1 1 1 

Neptis rivularis 1 1 1 1 LR:nt 

Noctua comes 1 

Nothocasis sertata 1 

Notocelia uddmanniana 1 

Notodonta dromedarius 1 1 1 

Nymphalis antiopa 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Nymphalis polychloros 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Ochlodes venatus 1 1 1 1 1 

Operopthera brumata 1 1 1 1 1 

Papilio machaon 1 1 1 1 1 

Pararge aegeria 1 1 1 1 1 

Pararge megera 1 1 1 1 1 

Parasemia plantaginis 1 1 

Parnassius mnemosyne 1 1 1 1 1 VU 

Pericallia matronula 1 EN 

Phalera bucephala 1 1 1 1 1 

Pheosia tremula 1 1 1 

Pieris brassicae 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Pieris bryoniae 1 1 1 1 

Pieris napi 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Pieris rapae 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Plebejus agrus 1 1 

Poecilocampa populi 1 1 

Polia bombycina 1 

Polygonia c-album 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Polyommatus icarus 1 1 1 1 1

Ponthia daplidice 1 1 1 1 1 

Protodeltote pygarga 1 

Proxenus lepigone 1 

Pseudoips fagana 1 1 1 1 

Pseudopanthera macularia 1 1 

Pterostoma palpinum 1 1 1 1 

Ptilophora plumigera 1 

Pyrausta falcatalis 1 

Pyrgus malvae 1 1 1 1 1 

Quercusia quercus 1 

Satyrium w-album 1 1 VU 

Scoparia ingratella 1 

Scopula nigropunctata 1 

Scotopteryx chenopodiata 1 

Smerinthus ocellatus 1 1 1 1 1 

Spilosoma lubricipeda 1 1 

Spilosoma menthastri 1 1 

Stauropus fagi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Strumonidia spina 1 

Talaeporia tubulosa 1 

Thecla betulae 1 

Thera variata 1 1 

Thymelicus lineolus 1 1 1 

Thyria jacobaeae 1 

Trisateles emortualis 1 

Udea alpinalis 1 1 1 1 1 

Udea decrepitalis 1 

Udea olivalis 1 

Watsonalla cultraria 1 1 

Xestia baja 1 

Zeuzera pyrina 1 1 1 1 1 

Zygaena filipendulae 1 1 1 1 1 

Number of species 11 41 34 11 97 73 75 74 109 18

165 

Explanations 

LR:lc Lower risk: least concern 

LR:nt Lower risk: near threatened 

VU Vulnerable 

EN Endangered

Vascular plants – list of species of the 4 Slovak 

primeval forests nominated for the World Natural Heritage 

Druhy / Species VI ST HA RO 

(Abies balsamea) 

(Abies concolor) 

(Picea excelsa) 

(Picea pungens) 

Abies alba 1 1 

Acer campestre 

Acer campestre ssp. leiocarpon 1 

Acer platanoides 1 1 

Acer pseudoplatanus 1 1 1 

Acer tataricum 

Acetosa alpestris 

Acetosa arifolia 1 1 

Acetosa carpatica 1 

Acetosa pratensis 1 1 

Acetosa scutata 

Acetosa thyrsiflora 

Acetosella vulgaris 1 

Acinos alpinus 1 

Acinos arvensis 1 

Aconitum anthora 

Aconitum firmum 

Aconitum firmum ssp. firmum 

Aconitum firmum ssp. moravicum 

Aconitum lasiocarpum 1 

Aconitum moldavicum 1 

Aconitum napellus 

Aconitum napellus ssp. firmum 

Aconitum toxicum ssp. lasiocarpum 1 

Aconitum variegatum 1 

Aconitum variegatum ssp. gracile 

Aconitum vulparia 1 

Acosta rhenana 

Actaea spicata 1 1 1 

Adenophora liliifolia 

Adenostyles alliariae 1 1 

Adonis flammea 

Adoxa moschatellina 1 1 1 

Aegilops cylindrica 

Aegonychon arvense 

Aegopodium podagraria 1 1 

Aethusa cynapium 

Agrimonia eupatoria 

Agropyron caninum 1 

Agropyron cristatus 

Agropyron pectinatum 

Agropyron repens 1 

Agrostis alpina 

Agrostis canina 1 1 

Agrostis capillaris 1 1 1 

Agrostis gigantea 1 1

Agrostis rupestris 

Agrostis stolonifera 1 1 1 

Agrostis tenuis 1 1 

Agrostis vulgaris 

Achillea collina 

Achillea crithmifolia 

Achillea distans 1 1 1 

Achillea millefolium 1 1 

Achillea millefolium ssp. sudetica 1 

Achillea millefolium ssp. alpestris 1 

Achillea millefolium ssp. eumillefolium 

Achillea neilrechii 

Achillea nobilis 

Achillea ochroleuca 

Achillea pannonica 

Achillea setacea 

Achillea stricta 1 1 1 

Achillea tanacetifolia 

Achyrophorus maculatus 

Achyrophorus uniflorus 

Ajuga genevensis 1 

Ajuga reptans 1 1 1 

Alchemilla sp. 

Alchemilla baltica 1 

Alchemilla fissa 

Alchemilla flabellata 

Alchemilla incisa 1 

Alchemilla monticola 

Alchemilla silvestris 

Alchemilla vulgaris 1 

Alchemilla xanthochlora 

Alisma plantago-aquatica 

Alliaria petiolata 

Alliaria officinalis 

Allium angulosum 

Allium carinarum ssp. carinatum 

Allium flavum 

Allium montanum 

Allium montanum ssp. glaucum 

Allium ochroleucum 1 

Allium oleraceum 1 

Allium rotundum 

Allium senescens ssp. montanum 

Allium schoenoprasum 

Allium ursinum 1 

Allium ursinum ssp. ucrainicum 1 1 

Allium victoralis 1 

Alnus glutinosa 

Alnus incana 1 

Alopecurus aequalis 

Alopecurus pratensis 1 

Alsinula media 1 

Althaea cannabina

Althaea officinalis 

Althaea pallida 

Althaea taurinensis 

Alyssum alyssoides 

Alyssum desertorum 

Alyssum montanum 

Amelanchier ovalis 1 

Amygdalus nana 

Anagallis arvensis 

Androsace elongata 

Androsace lactea 1 

Androsace maxima 

Androsace obtusifolia 

Androsace villosa 

Anemone narcissiflora 

Anemone nemorosa 1 1 1 

Anemone ranunculoides 1 1 

Angelica sylvestris 1 1 1 

Anchusa barrlieri 

Anchusa italica 

Anchusa officinalis 

Antenaria dioica 1 1 

Antennaria carpatica 

Anthemis arvensis 1 

Anthemis tinctoria 

Anthericum ramosum 1 

Anthoxanthum alpinum 1 

Anthoxanthum odoratum 1 1 1 

Anthriscus cerefolium 

Anthriscus nitidus 1 1 

Anthriscus sylvestris 1 1 

Anthyllis vulneraria 1 

Aphanes arvensis 

Aposeris foetida 1 

Aquilegia vulgaris 1 

Arabidopsis thaliana 

Arabis alpina 

Arabis auriculata 1 

Arabis hirsuta 1 1 

Arabis nemorensis 1 

Arabis recta 

Arabis sagittata 

Arabis soyeri ssp. subcoriacea 1 

Arabis turrita 

Arctium lappa 1 

Arctium nemorosum 1 

Arctium vulgare 1 

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi 1 

Arenaria leptoclados 

Arenaria leptoclados ssp. leptoclados 

Arenaria serpyllifolia 

Arenaria tenella 

Archangelica officinalis

Aristolochia clematitis 

Arrhenatherum elatius 1 

Artemisia absinthium 

Artemisia campestris 

Artemisia eriantha 

Artemisia pontica 

Artemisia santonicum ssp.monogyna 

Artemisia scoparia 

Artemisia vulgaris 1 

Arum alpinum 

Aruncus dioicus 1 

Aruncus silvestris 

Aruncus vulgaris 1 1 

Asarum europaeum 1 1 1 

Asparagus officinalis 

Asperula cynanchica 

Asperula glauca 

Asperula neilreichii 

Asperula odorata 1 1 

Asperula rivalis 

Asperula tinctoria 1 

Asplenium adiantum 

Asplenium ruta-muraria 1 

Asplenium septentrionale 

Asplenium trichomanes 1 1 

Asplenium viride 1 1 

Aster alpinus subsp. glabratus 

Aster amelloides 

Aster amelus 

Aster bellidiastrum 1 

Aster linosyris 

Aster novi-belgii agg. 

Aster serpentimontanus 

Astragalus glycyphyllos 1 1 

Astragalus onobrychis 

Astrantia major 1 1 1 

Athyrium alpestre 

Athyrium distentifolium 1 1 

Athyrium filix femina 1 1 1 

Atragena alpina 1 

Atriplex patula 

Atropa bella-donna 1 1 

Aurinia saxatilis ssp. arduinii 

Avena fatua 

Avenella flexuosa 

Avenula planiculmis 

Avenula pratensis 

Avenula pubescens 

Avenula versicolor 

Baeotryon alpinum 

Baeotryon caespitosum 

Ballota nigra 

Barbarea vulgaris 1

Bartsia alpina 1 

Bassia scoparia 

Bellidiastrum michelii 1 

Bellis perennis 1 

Berberis vulgaris 1 

Berula erecta 

Betonica officinalis 1 1 

Betula pendula 1 1 

Betula pendula ssp. pendula 1 

Betula pubescens 

Betula pubescens ssp. Carpatica 

Betula verrucosa 

Bidens cernua 1 

Bidens frondosa 

Bidens tripartita 1 

Biscutella laevigata 1 

Bistorta major 

Bistorta vivipara 

Blackstonia perfoliata ssp. serotina 

Blechnum spicant 1 

Blysmus compressus 1 

Bombycilaena erecta 

Botriochloa ischaemum 

Botrychium lunaria 1 

Brachypodium pinnatum 1 

Brachypodium silvaticum 1 1 1 

Briza media 1 1 1 

Bromopsis bennekenii 1 

Bromus arvensis 

Bromus benekenii 1 1 

Bromus commutatus 1 

Bromus commutatus ssp. commutatus 

Bromus hordeaceus 

Bromus japonicus 

Bromus monocladus 1 

Bromus racemosus 

Bromus ramosus 1 

Bromus squarrosus 

Bromus sterilis 

Bromus tectorum 1 

Buglossoides arvensis 

Buglossoides purpureocaerulea 

Buphtalmum salicifolium 1 

Bupleurum affine 

Bupleurum falcatum 

Bupleurum longifolium subsp. vapincense 

Bupleurum praealtum 

Bupleurum rotundifolium 

Bupleurum tenuissimum 

Butomus umbellatus 

Calamagrostis arundinacea 1 1 1 

Calamagrostis canescens 1 1 

Calamagrostis epigeios 1 1 1

Calamagrostis varia 1 

Calamagrostis villosa 1 1 

Calamintha acinos 

Calathiana nivalis 

Calathiana verna 

Callianthemum coriandrifolium 

Callitriche sp. 

Callitriche cophocarpa 

Callitriche palustris agg. 

Calluna vulgaris 

Caltha laeta 1 

Caltha palustris 1 1 1 

Caltha palustris ssp. laeta 1 

Calystegia sepium 

Camelina microcarpa 

Campanula abietina 1 

Campanula alpina 

Campanula bononiensis 

Campanula cervicaria 

Campanula cocheariifolia 1 1 1 

Campanula glomerata 1 1 1 

Campanula glomerata ssp. elliptica 1 

Campanula latifolia 1 

Campanula moravica 

Campanula patula 1 

Campanula patula ssp. eupatula 

Campanula persicifolia 1 1 

Campanula rapunculoides 1 1 1 

Campanula rotundifolia 

Campanula serrata 1 1 

Campanula sibirica 

Campanula tatrae 

Campanula trachelium 1 1 

Capsella bursa-pastoris 1 

Carastium arvense 

Cardamine amara 1 1 1 

Cardamine amara ssp. opizii 

Cardamine arenosa 

Cardamine dentata 

Cardamine flexuosa 1 1 

Cardamine impatiens 1 1 

Cardamine pratensis 1 1 

Cardaminopsis arenosa 

Cardaminopsis borbasii 1 

Cardaminopsis halleri 1 1 

Cardaminopsis neglecta 

Carduus acanthoides 

Carduus collinus 

Carduus glaucinus 

Carduus nuttans 

Carduus personata 1 

Carex sp. 

Carex acuta

Carex acutiformis 

Carex alba 1 

Carex aterrima 

Carex atrata 

Carex atrata ssp aterrima 

Carex atrata ssp atrata 

Carex atrata ssp sterrima 

Carex brachystachys 1 

Carex brizoides 1 

Carex caespitosa 

Carex canescens 1 1 

Carex caryophyllea 1 

Carex contigua 

Carex davalliana 1 

Carex digitata 1 1 

Carex dioica 

Carex disticha 

Carex echinata 1 

Carex elata 

Carex elongata 

Carex ericetorum subsp. approximata 

Carex firma 1 

Carex flacca ssp. claviformis 1 

Carex flacca ssp. flacca 1 1 

Carex flava 1 1 

Carex fuliginosa 

Carex gracilis 

Carex hirta 1 1 

Carex hostiana 

Carex humilis 1 

Carex chabertii 

Carex lachenalii 

Carex lepidocarpa 1 

Carex limosa 

Carex liparocarpos 

Carex melanostachya 

Carex michelii 

Carex montana 1 

Carex muricata 

Carex nigra 1 1 

Carex oederi 

Carex ornithopoda 

Carex ovalis 1 

Carex pairae 

Carex pallens 1 

Carex pallescens 1 

Carex panicea 1 1 

Carex paniculata 

Carex pauciflora 

Carex pendula 1 1 

Carex pilosa 1 1 1 

Carex pilulifera 1 

Carex praecox 1

Carex pseudocyperus 

Carex remota 1 1 1 

Carex riparia 

Carex rostrata 1 1 

Carex rupestris 

Carex sempervirens 

Carex sempervirens ssp. tatrorum 1 

Carex spicata 

Carex stellulata 1 

Carex stenophylla 

Carex strigosa 

Carex supina 

Carex sylvatica 1 1 1 

Carex tomentosa 1 

Carex vesicaria 1 

Carex viridula 

Carex vulpina 

Carlina acaulis 1 1 1 

Carlina vulgaris 

Carpinus betulus 1 1 

Carthamus lanatus 

Carthamus tinctorius 

Carum carvi 1 

Caucalis platycarpos 

Centaurea cyanus 

Centaurea jacea 1 

Centaurea jacea ssp. oxylepis 

Centaurea melanocalathia 1 

Centaurea montana ssp. mollis 1 1 

Centaurea phrygia 1 

Centaurea scabiosa ssp. alpestris 1 

Centaurea triumfettii 1 

Centaurium erythraea 1 1 

Centaurium pulchellum 

Cephalanthera damasonium 1 

Cephalanthera longifolia 1 1 1 

Cephalanthera rubra 1 

Cephalaria transsylvanica 

Cerastium sp. 

Cerastium alpinum 

Cerastium arvense 

Cerastium arvense ssp. strictum 

Cerastium brachypetalum 

Cerastium brachypetalum ssp. tauricum 

Cerastium fontanum 

Cerastium holosteoides 1 1 

Cerastium lanatum 

Cerastium strictum 

Cerastium strictum ssp. tatrae 

Cerastium uniflorum 

Cerasus avium 

Cerasus fruticosa 

Cerasus mahaleb

Cerasus vulgaris 

Ceratocephala orthoceras 

Cerinthe minor 

Cicerbita alpina 1 1 1 

Cicuta virosa 

Cichorium intybus 1 

Circaea alpina 1 1 1 

Circaea intermedia 1 1 1 

Circaea lutetiana 1 1 1 

Circaea x intermedia 1 

Cirsium acaule 

Cirsium arvense 1 1 

Cirsium brachycephalum 

Cirsium campestre 

Cirsium canum 

Cirsium eriophorum 

Cirsium erisithales 1 1 

Cirsium erisithales x C. oleraceum 

Cirsium oleraceum 1 1 

Cirsium palustre 1 1 

Cirsium pannonicum 

Cirsium rivulare 1 

Cirsium rivulare x C. palustre 

Cirsium rivulare x oleraceum 1 

Cirsium vulgare 1 

Cirsium waldstenii 1 

Cleistogenes serotina 

Clematis alpina 1 1 

Clematis integrifolia 

Clematis recta 

Clematis vitalba 

Clinopodium vulgare 1 

Cnidium dubium 

Coeloglossum viride 1 1 

Cochlearia tatrae 

Colchicum autumnale 

Colutea arborescens 

Colymbada alpestris 1 

Colymbada sadleriana 

Colymbada scabiosa 1 

Conioselinum tataricum 

Conringia austriaca 

Consolida regalis 

Convallaria majalis 

Convolvulus arvensis 

Convolvulus cantabrica 

Conyza canadensis 1 

Corallorhiza trifida 1 1 

Corispermum nitidum 

Cornus mas 

Cornus sanguinea 1 

Coronilla coronata 

Coronilla vaginalis

Coronilla varia 1 

Coronopus squamatus 

Cortusa matthioli 1 

Corydalis cava 1 1 

Corydalis intermedia 

Corydalis pumila 

Corydalis solida 1 1 1 

Corylus avellana 1 1 1 

Cota tinctoria 

Cotoneaster sp. 1 

Cotonaster integerrima 

Cotonaster melanocarpa 

Cotoneaster cf. alaunicus 

Cotoneaster integerrimus 1 

Cotoneaster tomentosus 1 

Crateagus sp. 

Crataegus curvisepala 1 

Crataegus laevigata 

Crataegus monogyna 1 

Crataegus rhipidophylla 

Crepis alpestris 

Crepis biennis 1 

Crepis conyzifolia 1 

Crepis foetida ssp. rhoeadifolia 1 

Crepis jacquinii 1 

Crepis mollis 1 

Crepis paludosa 1 1 

Crepis praemorsa 

Crepis pulchra 

Crinitina linosyris 

Crocus discolor 

Crocus heuffelianus 

Crocus scepusiensis 

Cruciata glabra 1 1 1 

Cruciata laevipes 1 

Cruciata pedemontana 

Crupina vulgaris 

Crystopteris fragilis 1 

Cucubalus baccifer 

Cuscuta epithymum 1 

Cuscuta europaea 

Cyanus mollis 1 

Cyanus segetum 

Cyanus triumfettii 1 

Cyclamen fatrense 

Cynoglossum germanicum 

Cynoglossum officinale 

Cynosurus cristatus 1 

Cyperus fuscus 

Cypripedium calceolus 1 

Cystopteris alpina 

Cystopteris fragilis 1 1 

Cystopteris montana 1

Cystopteris regia 

Dactylis glomerata 1 1 

Dactylis glomerata ssp. euglomerata 

Dactylis glomerata ssp. slovenica 1 

Dactylis polygama 1 

Dactylohriza fuchsii ssp. psyschrophylla 

Dactylorhiza incarnata ssp. incarnata 

Dactylorhiza maculata s. lat. 1 1 

Dactylorhiza majalis 1 1 

Dactylorhiza sambucina 1 1 

Dactylorhiza x ruppertii 

Danthonia decumbens 

Daphne cneorum 

Daphne mezereum 1 1 1 

Datura stramonium 

Daucus carota 1 

Delphinium elatum ssp. elatum 1 

Delphinium oxysepalum 

Dentaria bulbifera 1 1 1 

Dentaria enneaphyllos 1 1 1 

Dentaria glandulosa 1 1 

Dentaria glandulosa x D. enneaphyllos 

Descurainia sophia 

Deschampsia caespitosa 1 1 

Deschampsia caespitosa f.aurea 1 

Deschampsia caespitosa ssp. caespitosa 1 

Deschampsia flexuosa 

Dianthus armeria 1 

Dianthus barbatus 1 

Dianthus barbatus ssp. compactus 1 

Dianthus carthusianorum 

Dianthus carthusianorum ssp. latifolius 

Dianthus carthusianorum ssp. montivagus 

Dianthus carthusianorum ssp. vulgaris 

Dianthus collinus 

Dianthus deltoides 1 

Dianthus glacialis 

Dianthus hungaricus 

Dianthus nitidus 1 

Dianthus pontederae 

Dianthus praecox ssp. praecox 

Dianthus superbus 

Dianthus superbus ssp. alpestris 

Dictamnus albus 

Digitalis grandiflora 1 1 1 

Dichanthium ischaeum 

Dichodon cerastoides 

Dichodon viscidum 

Diphasiastrum alpinum 1 

Diphasiastrum complanatum 1 

Dipsacus fullonum 

Doronicum austriacum 1 1 

Doronicum hungaricum

Doronicum styriacum 

Dorycnium sp. 

Dorycnium pentaphyllum agg. 

Draba aizoides 1 

Draba dubia 

Draba muralis 

Drosera rotundifolia 1 

Dryas octopetala 

Dryopteris austriaca ssp. dilatata 

Dryopteris carthusiana 1 1 1 

Dryopteris cristata 1 1 

Dryopteris dilatata 1 1 1 

Dryopteris expansa 1 

Dryopteris filix-mas 1 1 1 

Dryopteris oreopteris 1 

Dryopteris pseudomas 1 

Dryopteris spinulosa ssp. dilatata 

Echinocystis lobata 

Echinochloa crus-galli 1 

Echinops ritro 

Echinum italicum 

Echium russicum 

Echium vulgare 

Eleocharis carniolica 1 

Eleocharis palustris 1 

Eleocharis quinqueflora 

Elytrigia repens 1 

Empetrum hermaphroditum 1 

Epilobium alpestre 1 1 

Epilobium alsinifolium 

Epilobium anagallidifolium 

Epilobium ciliatum 1 

Epilobium colinum 1 

Epilobium hirsutum 1 1 

Epilobium lamyi 

Epilobium montanum 1 1 1 

Epilobium obscurum 

Epilobium palustre 1 

Epilobium parviflorum 1 

Epilobium roseum 

Epipactis atrorubens 1 

Epipactis helleborine 1 

Epipactis latifolia 1 

Epipactis leptochila 

Epipactis microphylla 

Epipactis palustris 

Epipogium aphyllum 1 

Equisetum arvense 1 1 

Equisetum fluviatile 1 

Equisetum palustre 1 1 1 

Equisetum pratense 1 

Equisetum sylvaticum 1 1 

Equisetum telmateia 1 1

Eragrostis pilosa 

Eremogone micradenia 

Erigeron acre 

Erigeron uniflorus 

Eriophorum angustifolium 1 

Eriophorum latifolium 1 

Eriophorum vaginatum 

Erodium ciconium 

Erodium cicutarium 

Erodium neilreichii 

Erophila verna 

Erygnium planum 

Eryngium campestre 

Erysimum odoratum 

Erysimum repandum 

Erysimum witmannii 1 

Euclidium syriacum 

Euonymus europaeus 1 

Euonymus verrucosus 

Eupatorium cannabinum 1 1 1 

Euphorbia amygdaloides 1 1 

Euphorbia cyparissias 1 

Euphorbia polychroma 

Euphrasia picta 

Euphrasia rostkoviana 1 

Euphrasia salisburgensis 1 

Euphrasia stricta 

Euphrasia tatrae 

Fagus sylvatica 1 1 1 

Falcaria vulgaris 

Fallopia convolvulus 

Fallopia dumetorum 

Festuca altissima 1 1 

Festuca amethystina 1 

Festuca carpathica 1 

Festuca drymeja 1 1 

Festuca gigantea 1 1 1 

Festuca heterophylla 

Festuca longifolia 

Festuca ovina 

Festuca pallens 1 

Festuca picta 

Festuca picturata 

Festuca pratensis 1 1 

Festuca pseudodalmatica 

Festuca pseudovina 

Festuca rubra 1 1 

Festuca rupicola 

Festuca supina 

Festuca tatrae 1 

Festuca valesiaca 

Festuca versicolor 

Festuca versicolor ssp versicolor

Ficaria bulbifera 

Ficaria calthifolia 

Ficaria verna 

Filaginella uliginosa 1 

Filago arvensis 

Filipendula ulmaria 1 1 1 

Filipendula ulmaria ssp. denudata 1 

Filipendula vulgaris 1 

Fragaria moschata 

Fragaria vesca 1 1 1 

Fragaria viridis 

Frangula alnus 

Fraxinus americana 

Fraxinus angustifolia 

Fraxinus excelsior 1 1 

Fraxinus ornus 

Fumana procumbens 

Fumaria schleicheri 

Fumaria vaillantii 

Gagea lutea 

Gagea minima 

Gagea pusilla 

Gagea villosa 

Galanthus nivalis 1 1 

Galatella cana 

Galeobdolon luteum 1 1 1 

Galeobdolon montanum 1 

Galeopsis angustifolia 

Galeopsis bifida 1 

Galeopsis grandiflora 

Galeopsis pubescens 

Galeopsis speciosa 1 1 

Galeopsis tetrahit 1 1 

Galeopsis tetrahit ssp.tetrahit 

Galim cruciata 

Galinsoga cruciata 

Galium album 1 

Galium album ssp. album 1 

Galium anisophyllon 

Galium aparine 

Galium austriacum 

Galium boreale 1 

Galium glaucum 

Galium mollugo agg. 1 

Galium odoratum 1 1 

Galium palustre 1 

Galium pumilum 

Galium rivale 

Galium rotundifolium 1 1 

Galium schultesii 1 1 

Galium spurium 

Galium spurium subsp. vaillantii 

Galium tenuissimum

Galium uliginosum 

Galium vernum 

Galium verum 1 1 

Galium verum x G. album 

Galium wirtgenii 

Genista germanica 

Genista ovata 

Genista pilosa 

Genista tinctoria 1 1 

Genista tinctoria ssp. elatior 

Gentiana asclepiadea 1 1 1 

Gentiana clusii 1 

Gentiana cruciata 1 

Gentiana frigida 

Gentiana pneumonanthe 

Gentiana punctata 

Gentianella amarella 1 

Gentianella austriaca 1 

Gentianella ciliata 1 

Gentianella fatrae 1 

Gentianella lutescens 1 

Gentianella lutescens ssp. carpatica 

Geranium columbinum 1 

Geranium divaricatum 

Geranium palustre 1 1 

Geranium phaeum 1 

Geranium phaeum ssp. phaeum 1 

Geranium pratense 

Geranium pusillum 

Geranium robertianum 1 1 1 

Geranium rotundifolium 

Geranium sanguineum 

Geranium sylvaticum 1 

Geum montanum 

Geum rivale 1 1 

Geum urbanum 1 1 

Glaucium corniculatum 

Glechoma hederacea 1 1 

Glechoma hederacea ssp. hirsuta 

Glechoma hederacea ssp. glabriuscula 

Glechoma hirsuta 1 1 

Globularia cordifolia 1 

Globularia punctata 

Glyceria declinata 1 

Glyceria fluitans 

Glyceria maxima 

Glyceria nemoralis 

Glyceria notata 

Glyceria plicata 1 1 

Gnaphalium norvegicum 1 

Gnaphalium sylvaticum 1 1 1 

Goodyera repens 1 

Gratiola officinalis

Grossularia uva-crispa 

Gymnademia conopsea 1 1 

Gymnademia conopsea ssp. conopsea 1 

Gymnadenia conopsea ssp. densiflora 

Gymnadenia odoratissima 1 

Gymnocarpium dryopteris 1 1 1 

Gymnocarpium robertianum 1 1 

Gypsophila sp. 1 

Gypsophila repens 

Hacquetia epipactis 

Hedera helix 1 

Hedysarum hedysaroides 

Heleochloa alopecuroides 

Heleochloa schoenoides 

Helianthemum grandiflorum ssp. obscurum 1 

Helianthemum nummularium 

Helianthemum ovatum 1 

Helianthemum rupifragum 

Heliotropium europaeum 

Heloscandium repens 

Heracleum sphondylium 1 1 

Heracleum sphondylium ssp. trachycarpum 1 

Herniaria incana 

Hesiodia montana 

Hesperis matronalis subsp. nivea 1 

Hesperis nivea 

Hesperis tristis 

Hibiscus trionum 

Hieacium racemosum 

Hieracium argillaceum 

Hieracium alpinum 

Hieracium atratum 

Hieracium aurantiacum 1 

Hieracium bauhinii 1 

Hieracium bifidum 1 

Hieracium bupleroides 1 

Hieracium coespitosum 

Hieracium cymosum 

Hieracium laevicaule 

Hieracium lachenalii 1 

Hieracium murorum 1 1 

Hieracium pilosella 1 

Hieracium sabaudum 1 1 

Hieracium sylvaticum 

Hieracium umbellatum 

Hieracium villosum 

Hieracium vulgatum 1 

Hierochloe odorata 

Himantoglossum sp. 

Hippocrepis comosa 

Holcus lanatus 1 

Holcus mollis 1 1 

Holosteum umbellatum

Homogyne alpina 1 1 1 

Hordelymus europaeus 1 1 1 

Hordeum europaeum 1 1 

Hottonia palustris 

Humulus lupulus 1 

Huperzia selago 1 1 

Hutchinsia alpina ssp. dubia 

Hydrocharis morsus-ranae 

Hylotelephium argutum 

Hylotelephium maximum agg. 1 

Hypericum hirsutum 1 

Hypericum humifusum 1 

Hypericum maculatum 1 1 1 

Hypericum montanum 

Hypericum perforatum 1 1 

Hypericum tetrapterum 1 

Hypochoeris maculata 

Hypochoeris radicata 1 1 

Hypochoeris uniflora 

Chaenarrhinum minus 

Chaerophyllum aromaticum 1 1 

Chaerophyllum hirsutum 1 1 

Chaerophyllum temulum 

Chamaecytisus austriacus 

Chamaecytisus hirsutus 

Chamaecytisus supinus 

Chamaepitys chia ssp. trifida 

Chamenerion angustifolium 

Chamerion angustifolium 1 1 

Chamerion dodonaei 

Chamerion palustre 

Chamomilla recutita 

Chelidonium majus 1 

Chenopodium album 1 

Chenopodium bonus-henricus 

Chenopodium foliosum 

Chenopodium polyspermum 

Chenopodium rubrum 

Chenopodium strictum 

Cherleria sedoides 

Chondrilla juncea 

Chrysanthemum corymbosum 1 

Chrysanthemum leucanthemum 1 

Chrysaspis aurea 1 

Chrysaspis spadicea 

Chrysopogon gryllus 

Chrysosplenium alternifolium 1 1 1 

Impatiens noli-tangere 1 1 

Impatiens parviflora 

Inula conyzae 

Inula ensifolia 

Inula germanica 

Inula hirta

Inula oculus-christi 

Inula salicina 

Inula stricta 

Iris aphylla 

Iris graminea 

Iris pseudacorus 

Iris pumila 

Iris sibirica 

Iris variegata 

Isopyrum thalictroides 1 1 1 

Jacea macroptilon ssp. oxylepis 

Jacea pannonica 

Jacea phrygia agg. 

Jacea phrygia ssp. phrygia 1 

Jacea pratensis 

Jacea vulgaris 

Jovibarba globifera ssp. glabrescens 

Jovibarba globifera ssp. hirta 1 

Jovibarba globifera ssp. tatrensis 

Jovibarba hirta 

Jovibarba hirta ssp. glabrescens 

Juncus acutiflorus 

Juncus alpinoarticulatus 1 

Juncus articulatus 1 1 1 

Juncus atratus 

Juncus buffonius agg. 1 

Juncus castaneus 

Juncus compressus 1 

Juncus conglomeratus 1 1 

Juncus effusus 1 1 

Juncus filiformis 

Juncus gerardii ssp. geragdii 

Juncus inflexus 1 1 1 

Juncus squarrosus 

Juncus tenuis 1 

Juncus trifidus 

Juniperus communis 1 1 

Juniperus communis ssp. alpina 

Juniperus nana 

Juniperus sibirica 

Jurinea mollis 

Kernera saxatilis 1 

Kickxia elatine ssp. elatine 

Kickxia spuria 

Knautia arvensis 1 1 

Knautia dipacifolia 1 1 

Knautia kitaibelii 1 

Knautia maxima 1 1 

Knautia sylvatica 1 

Koeleria gracilis 

Koeleria macrantha 

Koeleria tristis 

Kohlrauschia prolifera

Lactuca muralis 

Lactuca perennis 

Lactuca quercina 

Lactuca salinga 

Lactuca serriola 

Lactuca viminea 

Lamiastrum galeobdolon 1 

Lamiastrum montanum 1 

Lamium amplexicaule 

Lamium galeobdolon 

Lamium luteum 

Lamium maculatum 1 

Lamium maculatum ssp. cupreum 1 

Lamium purpureum 

Lappula deflexa 1 

Lappula heteracantha ssp. heterocarpa 

Lappula squarosa 

Lapsana communis 1 1 1 

Larix decidua 1 

Laser trilobum 

Laserpitium alpinum 1 

Laserpitium archangelica 1 

Laserpitium latifolium 1 

Lastrea limbosperma 1 

Lathraea squamaria 

Lathraea squamaria ssp. tatrica 1 

Lathyrus hirsutus 

Lathyrus lacteus 

Lathyrus laevigatus 1 

Lathyrus latifolius 

Lathyrus niger 

Lathyrus nissolia 

Lathyrus palustris 

Lathyrus pannonicus 

Lathyrus pannonicus ssp. pannonicus 

Lathyrus pratensis 1 1 

Lathyrus sylvestris 1 

Lathyrus vernus 1 

Lavatera thuringiaca 

Leersia oryzoides 1 

Lembotropis nigricans 

Lemna minor 

Lemna trisulca 

Leontodon autumnalis 

Leontodon hastilis 1 

Leontodon hispidus 1 1 

Leontodon hispidus ssp. danubialis 

Leontodon hispidus ssp. hastilis 1 

Leontodon hispidus ssp. hispidus 

Leontodon montanus ssp. pseudoteraxaci 

Leontopodium alpinum 1 

Leonurus cardiaca 

Leopoldia comosa

Leopoldia tenuiflora 

Leucanthemella serotina 

Leucanthemopsis alpina 

Leucanthemopsis alpina ssp tatrae 

Leucanthemum gaudinii ssp. gaudinii 

Leucanthemum ircutianum 1 1 

Leucanthemum margaritae 1 

Leucanthemum rotundifolium 1 

Leucanthemum vulgare 

Leucanthemum waldsteinii 1 

Leucojum aestivum 

Leucorchis albida 1 

Libanotis pyrenaica 1 

Ligusticum mutellina 1 

Ligustrum vulgare 

Lilium martagon 1 1 1 1 

Lilium martagon 

Linaria genistifolia 

Linaria vulgaris 1 1 

Linnaea borealis 

Linum austriacum 

Linum catharticum 1 1 1 

Linum extraaxillare 

Linum flavum 

Linum hirsutum 

Linum perene ssp. extraaxillare 

Linum tenuifolium 

Listera cordata 1 

Listera ovata 1 1 1 

Lithospermum arvense 

Lithospermum officinale 

Lithospermum purpurocaeruleum 

Lloydia serotina 

Logfia arvensis 

Loiseleuria procumbens 

Lolium perenne 1 

Lonicera caprifolium 

Lonicera nigra 1 1 1 

Lonicera xylosteum 

Loranthus europaeus 

Lotus borbasii 

Lotus corniculatus 1 1 1 

Lunaria rediviva 1 1 1 

Lupinus polyphyllus 

Luzula sp. 

Luzula albida 1 

Luzula alpino-pilosa 

Luzula alpino-pilosa ssp obscura 

Luzula campestris 

Luzula luzulina 1 1 

Luzula luzuloides 1 1 

Luzula multiflora 1 1 

Luzula nemorosa

Luzula pallidula 

Luzula pilosa 1 1 

Luzula spicata 

Luzula spicata ssp. mutabilis 

Luzula sudetica 

Luzula sudetica ssp. alpina 

Luzula sylvatica 1 1 1 

Lycopodium alpinum 

Lycopodium annotinum 1 1 

Lycopodium clavatum 1 

Lycopodium inundatum 1 

Lycopodium selago 

Lycopus europaeus 1 1 

Lycopus exaltatus 

Lychnis coronaria 

Lychnis flos-cuculi 1 1 

Linosiris vulgaris 

Lysimachia nemorum 1 1 

Lysimachia nummularia 1 

Lysimachia punctata 

Lysimachia vulgaris 

Lythrum hyssopifolia 

Lythrum salicaria 1 

Maianthemum bifolium 1 1 1 

Malachium aquaticum 1 

Malaxis monophyllos 1 1 

Malus sylvestris 

Marrubium peregrinum 

Marrubium x paniculatum 

Matricaria discoidea 

Matricaria maritima ssp. inodora 1 

Medicago falcata 

Medicago lupulina 1 

Medicago minima 

Medicago monspeliaca 

Medicago prostrata 

Medicago rigidula 

Melampyrum arvense 

Melampyrum barbatum 

Melampyrum cristatum 

Melampyrum herbichii 1 

Melampyrum nemorosum 

Melampyrum pratense 

Melampyrum pratense ssp. tatrense 

Melampyrum sylvaticum 1 1 

Melampyrum sylvaticum ssp. carpaticum 

Melampyrum tatrense 

Melandrium album 

Melandrium diurnum 

Melandrium pratense 1 

Melandrium rubrum 1 

Melandrium sylvestre 1 

Melandrium x dubium 1

Melica ciliata 

Melica nutans 1 1 1 

Melica picta 1 1 

Melica transsilvanica 

Melica uniflora 1 

Melilotus alba 1 

Melilotus altissimus 

Melilotus officinalis 1 

Melittis melissophyllum 

Mentha aquatica 

Mentha arvensis 1 

Mentha longifolia 1 1 1 

Mentha pulegium 

Menyanthes trifoliata 1 

Mercurialis longistipes 

Mercurialis paxii 

Mercurialis perennis 1 1 1 1 

Milium effusum 1 1 1 1 

Minuartia fastigiata 

Minuartia gerardii 

Minuartia glomerata 

Minuartia hirsuta 

Minuartia hirsuta ssp. frutescens 

Minuartia kitaibelli 1 

Minuartia langii 1 

Minuartia rubra 

Minuartia sedoides 

Moehringia muscosa 1 

Moehringia trinervia 1 1 1 

Molinia arundinacea 

Molinia coerulea 1 1 

Moneses uniflora 

Monotropa hypophegea 

Monotropa hypopitis 1 1 

Montia arvensis 

Mulgedium alpinum 1 

Muscari botryoides 

Muscari comosa 

Muscari neglectum 

Muscari racemosa ssp. Euracemosa 

Muscari ranossima 

Mycelis muralis 1 1 1 

Myosotis alpestris 

Myosotis arvensis 

Myosotis caespitosa 

Myosotis hispida 

Myosotis micrantha 

Myosotis nemorosa 1 1 

Myosotis nemorosa ssp. brevisetacea 

Myosoris nemorosa ssp. nemorosa var. nemorosa 

Myosotis palustris 

Myosotis palustris ssp. palustris 

Myosotis parviflora 1

Myosotis pratensis 

Myosotis radicans 

Myosotis scorpioides agg. 

Myosotis sparsiflora 

Myosotis stricta 1 

Myosotis sylvatica 1 1 1 

Myosoton aquaticum 1 

Myosurus minimus 

Myriophyllum verticillatum 

Najas marina 

Najas minor 

Nardus stricta 1 1 

Nasturtium officinale 

Negundo aceroides 

Neottia nidus-avis 1 1 1 

Nepeta pannonica 

Nigella arvensis 

Nonnea pulla 

Nuphar lutea 

Nymphaea alba 

Odontites rubra 

Oenanthe silaifolia ssp. silaifolia 

Omalotheca norvegica 

Omalotheca supina 

Omalotheca sylvatica 1 

Omalotheca sylvatica ssp. alpestre 

Onobrychis arenaria 

Ononis arvensis 1 

Ononis hircina 1 

Ononis spinosa 1 

Onosma arenaria 

Onosma pseudoarenaria 

Onosma visianii 

Ophioglossum vulgatum 1 

Ophrys insectifera 

Oreogeum montanum 

Oreochloa disticha 

Oreopteris limbosperma 1 

Orchis latifolia 

Orchis laxiflora ssp. palustris 

Orchis mascula 1 

Orchis mascula ssp. signifera 1 

Orchis militaris 

Orchis morio 

Orchis morio ssp. morio 

Orchis muscala 

Orchis palens 1 

Orchis palustris 

Orchis purpurea 

Orchis sambucina 1 

Origanum vulgare 1 

Orlaya grandiflora 

Ornithogalum gussonei

Orobanche sp. 

Orobanche alsatica 

Orobanche flava 

Orobanche reticulata 1 

Orthantha lutea 

Orthilia secunda 1 

Ostericum palustre 

Otites borysthenica 

Oxalis acetosella 1 1 1 

Oxycoccus microcarpus 

Oxycoccus palustris 

Oxyria digyna 

Oxytropis albus 

Padus avium 

Padus avium ssp. petrea 1 

Padus racemosa 

Pachypleurum simplex 

Papaver argemone 

Papaver dubium 

Papaver rhoeas 

Papaver tatricum 

Papaver tatricum ssp. fatraemagnae 

Parageum reptans 

Parietaria officinalis 

Paris quadrifolia 1 1 1 1 

Parnassia palustris 1 

Parthenocissus quinquefolia 1 

Pastinaca sativa 

Pedicularis hacquetii 

Pedicularis oederi 

Pedicularis palustris 

Pedicularis verticillata 

Persicaria amphibia 1 

Persicaria hydropiper 

Persicaria lapathifolia 

Persicaria maculosa 1 

Petasites albus 1 1 1 

Petasites hybridus 1 1 1 

Petasites kablikianus 1 1 

Petrorhagia prolifera 

Peucedanum alsaticum 

Peucedanum cervaria 1 

Peucedanum palustre 1 

Phalaroides arundinacea 

Phegopteris connectilis 1 1 1 

Phegopteris dryopteris 

Phegopteris polypodioides 1 

Phelipanche arenaria 

Phelipanche purpurea 

Phellandrium aquaticum 

Phleum alpinum 1 

Phleum boehmerii 

Phleum phleoides

Phleum pratense 1 1 

Phleum rhaeticum 1 

Phlomis tuberosa 

Pholiurus pannonicus 

Phragmites australis 

Phyllitis scolopandrium 1 1 

Physalis alkekengi 

Phyteuma orbiculare 1 

Phyteuma spicatum 1 1 

Phytolacca americana 

Picea abies 1 1 

Picris hieracioides 1 

Pilosella alpicola 

Pilosella aurantiaca 1 

Pilosella bauhinii 

Pilosella blyttiana 1 

Pilosella caespitosa 1 

Pilosella cymosa 

Pilosella floribunda 

Pilosella glaucescens 1 

Pilosella lactucella 1 

Pilosella macrantha 

Pilosella officinarum 1 

Pilosella piloselloides 

Pilosella vulgaris 

Pimpinella major 1 

Pimpinella major ssp. major 1 

Pimpinella major ssp. rubra 1 

Pimpinella saxifraga 1 1 

Pinguicula alpina 1 

Pinguicula vulgaris 1 

Pinus cembra 

Pinus mugo 1 

Pinus mugo ssp. pumilio 

Pinus nigra 

Pinus sylvestris 1 

Pirus communis 

Pistolochia digitata 

Pistolochia solida 

Plantago altissima 

Plantago lanceolata 1 1 

Plantago lanceolata ssp. sphaerostachya 

Plantago major 1 1 

Plantago major ssp. intermedia 

Plantago major ssp. major 

Plantago maritima 

Plantago media 1 1 

Plantago media ssp. media 

Plantago uliginosa 

Plantago uliginosa ssp. leptostachya 

Platanthera bifolia 1 

Platanthera bifolia ssp. latiflora 1 1 

Platanthera chlorantha 1

Pleurospermum austriacum 1 

Poa alpina 1 

Poa angustifolia 

Poa annua 1 1 

Poa annua ssp. mutabilis 

Poa bulbosa 

Poa compressa 1 1 

Poa glauca agg. 

Poa granitica 

Poa granitica ssp. granitica 

Poa chaixii 1 

Poa laxa 

Poa mutabilis 

Poa nemoralis 1 1 1 

Poa nobilis 

Poa palustris 1 

Poa pannonica 

Poa pannonica ssp. scabra 

Poa pratensis 1 

Poa remota 1 

Poa scabra 

Poa sterilis 

Poa stiriaca 1 

Poa supina 

Poa trivialis 1 1 1 

Podospermum canum 

Podospermum laciniatum 

Polygala amara 

Polygala amara ssp. brachyptera 1 

Polygala amarella 1 

Polygala comosa 

Polygala vulgaris 1 1 

Polygonatum latifolium 

Polygonatum multiflorum 

Polygonatum odoratum 1 

Polygonatum verticillatum 1 1 1 

Polygonum minus 1 

Polygonum persicaria 1 1 

Polygonum viviparum 1 

Polypodium interjectum 

Polypodium vulgare 1 1 

Polystichum aculeatum 1 1 

Polystichum lobatum 

Polystichum lonchitis 1 

Populus alba 

Populus nigra 

Populus tremula 1 1 

Populus x canescens 

Potamogeton pusillus 

Potamogeton trichoides 

Potentilla alba 

Potentilla anserina 1 1 

Potentilla arenaria

Potentilla arenaria ssp. tommasiniana 

Potentilla argentea 1 

Potentilla aurea 1 

Potentilla collina 

Potentilla crantzii 

Potentilla erecta 1 1 1 

Potentilla heptaphylla 

Potentilla micrantha 

Potentilla neumanniana 

Potentilla norvegica 1 

Potentilla patula 

Potentilla pedata 

Potentilla recta 

Potentilla reptans 

Potentilla rupestris 

Potentilla sterilis 

Potentilla tabernaemontani 

Potentilla tommasiniana 

Potentilla verna 

Prenanthes purpurea 1 1 1 1 

Primula auricula 1 

Primula elatior 1 1 1 

Primula elatior ssp tetrensis 

Primula elatior x P. vulgaris 

Primula farinosa ssp. farinosa 1 

Primula minima 

Primula veris 

Primula veris ssp. canescens 

Primula veris ssp. genuina 

Primula vulgaris 1 

Prunella grandiflora 

Prunella grandifolia 

Prunella laciniata 

Prunella vulgaris 1 1 1 

Prunus cerasifera 

Prunus fruticosa 

Prunus mahaleb 

Prunus spinosa 

Prunus spinosa ssp. dasyphylla 

Psammophiliella muralis 1 

Pseudolysimachion orchideum 

Pseudolysimachion spicatum 

Pseudoorchis albida 1 

Pteridium aquilinum 1 1 

Pulicaria dysenterica 

Pulmonaria mollis 1 

Pulmonaria mollis ssp. mollis 

Pulmonaria mollissima 

Pulmonaria montana 

Pulmonaria murini 

Pulmonaria obscura 1 1 

Pulmonaria officinalis 

Pulmonaria officinalis ssp. obscura

Pulsatila alba 

Pulsatilla grandis 

Pulsatilla pratensis ssp. bohemica 

Pulsatilla scherfelii 

Pulsatilla slavica 1 

Pulsatilla subslavica 

Pulsatilla vernalis 

Pycreus flavescens 1 

Pyrethrum clusii 

Pyrethrum corymbosum 

Pyrola carpatica 

Pyrola chlorantha 

Pyrola media 1 

Pyrola minor 1 

Pyrola rotundifolia 1 

Pyrus communis 

Pyrus pyraster 

Quercus cerris 

Quercus petraea 

Quercus pubescens 

Quercus robur 

Ranunculus acer 

Ranunculus aconitifolius 

Ranunculus acris 1 1 

Ranunculus acris ssp. acris 

Ranunculus alpestris 1 

Ranunculus auricomus agg. 1 1 

Ranunculus bulbosus 

Ranunculus cassubicus 1 

Ranunculus ficaria ssp. ficaria 

Ranunculus flammula 1 

Ranunculus glacialis 

Ranunculus illyricus 

Ranunculus lanuginosus 1 1 

Ranunculus lateriflorus 

Ranunculus lingua 

Ranunculus nemorosus 1 1 

Ranunculus oreophilus 1 

Ranunculus pedatus 

Ranunculus platanifolius 1 

Ranunculus polyanthemos 1 

Ranunculus polyphyllus 

Ranunculus pseudomontanus 1 

Ranunculus pygmaeus 

Ranunculus repens 1 1 1 

Rapistrum perenne 

Reseda lutea 

Reseda phyteuma 

Rhamnus catharticus 

Rhinanthus minor 1 1 

Rhinanthus minor ssp. stenophyllus 

Rhinanthus pulcher 1 

Rhinanthus serotinus 1

Rhinantus minor 

Rhodax rupifragus 

Rhodiola rosea 

Rhytitiadelphus squarrosus 

Ribes alpinum 1 1 

Ribes grossularia 1 

Ribes nigrum 

Ribes petraeum 1 

Ribes petraeum var. carpaticus 

Ribes uva-crispa 1 

Ribes uva-crispa ssp. grossularia 

Roegneria canina 1 1 

Rorippa amphibia 

Rorippa palustris 

Rosa sp. 

Rosa agrestis 

Rosa alpina 

Rosa andegavensis 

Rosa arvensis 

Rosa canina 

Rosa gallica 

Rosa gizellae 

Rosa glauca 

Rosa granensis 

Rosa kmetiana 

Rosa pendulina 1 1 

Rosa pimpinellifolia 

Rosa spinisissima 

Rosa subcanina 

Rubus sp. 

Rubus caesius 

Rubus fruticosus 

Rubus hirtus s. lat. 1 1 

Rubus idaeus 1 1 1 

Rubus nessensis 1 

Rubus saxatilis 1 

Rumex acetosa 

Rumex acetosella 

Rumex alpestris 1 

Rumex alpinus 1 

Rumex arifolius 1 

Rumex confertus 1 

Rumex crispus 

Rumex hydrolapathum 

Rumex maritimus 

Rumex obtusifolius 1 

Rumex obtusifolius ssp. obtusifolius 

Rumex sanguineus 

Rumex thyrsiflorus 

Sagina apetala 

Sagina procumbens 

Sagina saginoides 

Sagina subulata

Salix alba 1 

Salix aurita 1 

Salix bicolor 

Salix caprea 1 1 1 

Salix cinerea 

Salix fragilis 1 

Salix helvetica 

Salix herbacea 

Salix kitaibelliana 

Salix pentandra 

Salix purpurea 1 

Salix repens 

Salix reticulata 

Salix silesiaca 1 1 

Salix triandra 

Salvia aethiopsis 

Salvia austriaca 

Salvia glutinosa 1 1 1 

Salvia nemorosa 

Salvia pratensis 

Salvia verticillata 

Sambucus ebulus 1 

Sambucus nigra 1 1 

Sambucus racemosa 1 1 1 

Sanguisorba minor 

Sanguisorba officinalis 1 

Sanicula europaea 1 1 1 

Saponaria officinalis 1 

Sarothamnus scoparius 

Saussurea alpina 

Saussurea discolor 1 

Saussurea pygmaea 

Saxifraga adscedens 

Saxifraga aizoides 

Saxifraga aizoom 

Saxifraga androsacea 

Saxifraga bryoides 

Saxifraga bulbifera 

Saxifraga caesia 1 

Saxifraga carpatica 

Saxifraga decipiens 

Saxifraga hieraciifolia 

Saxifraga moschata 

Saxifraga moschata ssp. kotulea 

Saxifraga moschata var. dominii 

Saxifraga oppositifolia ssp. oppositifolia 

Saxifraga paniculata 1 

Saxifraga retusa 

Saxifraga retusa ssp retusa 

Saxifraga tridactylites 

Saxifraga wahlenbergii 

Scabiosa columbaria ssp. lucida 

Scabiosa lucida 1

Scabiosa ochroleuca 

Scilla bifolia agg. 

Scilla Kladnii 1 1 

Scilla vindobonensis 

Scirpoides holoschoenus 

Scirpus sylvaticus 1 1 1 

Scleranthus annuus 

Scleranthus polycarpos 

Scopolia carniolica 1 

Scorsonera purpurea 

Scorzonera austriaca 

Scorzonera hispanica 

Scorzonera humilis 

Scorzonera parviflora 

Scrophularia canina 

Scrophularia nodosa 1 1 

Scrophularia scopoli 1 

Scrophularia umbrosa 

Scrophularia vernalis 

Scutellaria galericulata 

Scutellaria hastifolia 

Securigera varia 

Sedum acre 

Sedum album 

Sedum alpestre 

Sedum anum 1 

Sedum argutum 1 

Sedum carpatica 1 

Sedum maximum 

Sedum neglectum 

Sedum saxangulare 

Sedum saxangulare ssp. boloniense 

Sedum telephium 

Sedum telephium ssp. maximum 

Selaginella selaginoides 1 

Selinum carvifolia 

Sempervirum montanum 

Sempervivum hirsutum ssp. pressianum 

Sempervivum hirtum ssp. glabrescens 

Sempervivum marmoreum 

Sempervivum matricum 

Sempervivum montanum ssp. carpaticum 

Sempervivum wettsteinii 

Sempervivum wettsteinii ssp. heterophyllum 

Sempervivum wettsteinii ssp. wettsteinii 

Senecio abrotanifolius 

Senecio abrotanifolius ssp. carpthicus 

Senecio aurantiacus 

Senecio carniolicus 

Senecio carpatica 

Senecio erraticus 

Senecio erucifolius 

Senecio fuchsii 1 1 1 1

Senecio germanicus 

Senecio hercynicus 

Senecio incanus 

Senecio incanus subsp. carniolicus 

Senecio integrifolius 

Senecio jacobaea 

Senecio jacquinianus 

Senecio nemorensis agg. 1 1 1 

Senecio nemorensis ssp. fuchsii 

Senecio nemorensis ssp. jacquinianus 

Senecio ovatus 

Senecio paludosus 

Senecio rivularis 1 

Senecio subalpinus 1 

Senecio sylvaticus 1 

Senecio ucrainicus 

Senecio umbrosus 1 

Senecio vulgaris 

Serratula tinctoria 

Seseli elatum 

Seseli hipomarathum 

Seseli libanotis ssp. libanotis 1 

Seseli osseum 

Sesleria coerulea 1 

Sesleria tatrae 1 

Sesleria uliginosa (coerulea) 1 

Sesleria varia 

Scheuchzeria palustris 

Schoenoplectus lacustris 

Schoenus nigricans 

Sieglingia decumbens 1 

Silene acaulis 

Silene borysthenica 

Silene bupleuroides 

Silene dioica 

Silene inflata 

Silene latifolia 

Silene latifolia ssp. alba 

Silene nemoralis 

Silene nutans 1 

Silene otites 

Silene pusilla 1 

Silene viridiflora 

Silene vulgaris 1 

Silene vulgaris ssp. alpina 

Silene vulgaris ssp. glareosa 1 

Silene vulgaris ssp. vulgaris 1 

Siler montanum 

Sisymbrium altissimum 

Sisymbrium austriacum 

Sisymbrium orientale 

Sisymbrium strictissimum 

Sium latifolium

Solanum dulcamara 1 

Solanum nigrum 

Soldanella carpatica 1 

Soldanella hungarica 

Soldanella hungarica ssp. hungarica 

Soldanella hungarica ssp. major 

Soldanella montana 

Soldanella montana ssp. eumontana 

Soldanella montana ssp. hungarica 

Soldanella pseudomontana 

Solidago alpestris 1 

Solidago gigantea 

Solidago virgaurea 1 1 

Solidago virgaurea ssp. virgaurea 1 

Solidago virgaurea ssp. minuta 1 

Sonchus arvensis 1 

Sorbus aria 

Sorbus aria x S. aucuparia 

Sorbus aucuparia 1 

Sorbus aucuparia ssp. aucuparia 1 1 

Sorbus aucuparia ssp. glabrata 1 

Sorbus aucuparia ssp. lanuginosa 

Sorbus diversicolor 1 

Sorbus chamaemespilus 1 

Sorbus torminalis 

Spiraea media 

Spirea media ssp. oblongifolia 

Stachys alpina 1 1 

Stachys arvensis 

Stachys palustris 

Stachys recta 

Stachys sylvatica 1 1 1 

Staphylea pinnata 

Stelaria nemorum 

Stellaria alsine 

Stellaria graminea 1 1 1 

Stellaria holostea 1 1 

Stellaria media 

Stellaria nemorum 1 1 

Stellaria nemorum ssp. montana 

Stellaria nemorum ssp. nemorum 1 

Stellaria palustris 

Stellaria uliginosa 1 

Stenactis annua 1 

Stenactis anua ssp. septentrionalis 1 

Steris viscaria 

Stipa capillata 

Stipa crassiculmis 

Stipa dasyphylla 

Stipa joannis 

Stipa pulcherrima 

Stipa tirsa 

Streptopus amplexifolius 1 1

Succisa pratensis 1 1 

Swertia perennis ssp. alpestris 1 

Swida alba 

Swida australis 

Swida sanguinea 

Symphytum cordatum 1 

Symphytum nodosum 

Symphytum officinale 1 

Symphytum tuberosum 

Tanacetum corymbosum 

Tanacetum corymbosum ssp. clusii 1 

Tanacetum vulgare 1 

Taraxacum erythrospermum 

Taraxacum laevigatum 

Taraxacum officinale 1 

Taraxacum sect. Ruderalia 1 

Taraxacum serotinum 

Taraxacum silesiacum 

Taraxacum telmatophilum 

Taxus baccata 1 

Telekia speciosa 1 1 

Tephroseris aurantiaca 

Tephroseris crispa 

Tephroseris integrifolia 

Tetragonobolus maritimus 

Teucrium botrys 

Teucrium chamaedrys 1 

Teucrium scordium ssp. scordium 

Teurium montanum 1 

Thalictrum aquilegifolium 1 1 

Thalictrum flavum 

Thalictrum minus 1 

Thalictrum perfoliatum 

Thalictrum simplex 

Thelypteris palustris 1 

Thelypteris phegopteris 1 

Thesium alpinum 1 1 

Thesium dollineri ssp. simplex 

Thesium linophyllon 

Thesium ramosum 

Thlapsi caerulescens 

Thlaspi montanum 

Thlaspi perfoliatum 

Thymelaea passerina 

Thymus alpestris 1 

Thymus glabrescens 

Thymus ovatus 

Thymus pannonicus 

Thymus praecox 

Thymus pulegioides 1 

Thymus serpyllum 

Thymus sudeticus 1 

Thymus vulgaris

Tilia cordata 

Tilia platyphyllos 1 1 

Tithymalus amygdaloides 1 1 

Tithymalus austriacus ssp. sojakii 1 

Tithymalus caparissias 1 1 1 

Tithymalus epithymoides 

Tithymalus exiguus 

Tithymalus falcatus 

Tithymalus glareosus 

Tithymalus palustris 

Tithymalus platyphyllos 1 

Tithymalus polychroma 

Tithymalus seguierianus 

Tofieldia calyculata 1 

Torilis arvensis 

Torilis japonica 

Tozzia alpina ssp. carpatica 1 

Tragopogon dubius 

Tragopogon orientalis 1 1 

Tragopogon pratensis 

Tragus racemosus 

Traunsreinera globulosa 1 1 

Trientalis europaea 1 

Trifolium alpestre 

Trifolium arvense 

Trifolium aureum 1 

Trifolium campestre 

Trifolium dubium 

Trifolium flexuosum 1 

Trifolium fragiferum 

Trifolium hybridum 

Trifolium medium 1 

Trifolium montanum 1 1 

Trifolium ochroleucon 

Trifolium pratense 1 1 

Trifolium repens 1 

Trifolium rubens 

Trifolium spadiceum 

Trifolium striatum 

Triglochin palustre 1 

Trichophorum alpinum 

Trichophorum cespitosum 

Tripleurospermum inidorum 

Tripolium pannonicum 

Trisetum alpestre 1 

Trisetum ciliare 

Trisetum flavescens 1 1 

Trisetum fuscum 

Trollius altissimus 1 

Trollius europaeus 1 

Trollius europaeus ssp. tatrae 

Trommsdorffia maculata 

Trommsdorffia uniflora

Turgenia latifolia 

Tussilago farfara 1 1 1 

Typha angustifolia 1 

Typha latifolia 

Ulmus glabra 1 1 

Ulmus laevis 

Ulmus minor 

Urtica dioica 1 1 1 

Urtica dioica ssp. dioica 

Urtica dioica ssp. vulgaris 

Urtica kioviensis 

Urticularia vulgaris 

Vaccinium gaultheroides 

Vaccinium myrtillus 1 1 

Vaccinium uliginosum 

Vaccinium vitis-idaea 1 1 

Valeriana collina 

Valeriana dioica 1 

Valeriana montana 1 

Valeriana officinalis 1 

Valeriana sambucifolia 1 

Valeriana simplicifolia 1 

Valeriana stolonifera ssp. angustifolia 

Valeriana tripteris 1 1 1 

Valerianella carinata 

Valerianella coronata 

Valerianella locusta 

Valerianella pumila 

Valerianella rimosa 

Veratrum album 1 1 

Veratrum album ssp. lobelianum 1 1 1 

Veratrum lobelianum 1 

Verbascum austriacum 

Verbascum blattaria 

Verbascum densiflorum 

Verbascum chaixii ssp. austriacum 

Verbascum lychnitis 

Verbascum nigrum 1 

Verbascum nigrum ssp. abietinum 1 

Verbascum phoeniceum 

Verbascum thapsiforme 

Verbascum thapsus 

Veronica anagallis-aquatica 1 

Veronica anagalloides 1 

Veronica aphylla 

Veronica arvensis 1 

Veronica austriaca 

Veronica beccabunga 1 1 

Veronica dentata 

Veronica fruticans 1 

Veronica hederifolia 

Veronica chamaedrys 1 1 1 

Veronica chamaedrys ssp. chamaedrys

Veronica montana 1 1 1 

Veronica officinalis 1 1 

Veronica pumila 

Veronica scutellata 

Veronica serpyllifolia 

Veronica serpyllifolia ssp. humufusa 

Veronica spicata 

Veronica sublobata 

Veronica teucrium 

Veronica urticifolia 

Veronica verna 

Veronica vindobonensis 

Viburnum lantana 1 

Viburnum opulus 

Vicia cassubica 

Vicia cracca 1 1 

Vicia dumetorum 

Vicia grandiflora 

Vicia hirsuta 

Vicia lathyroides 

Vicia lutea 

Vicia oreophila 

Vicia pannonica 

Vicia pisiformis 

Vicia sepium 

Vicia sparsiflora 

Vicia tenuifolia 

Vicia tetrasperma 

Vicia villosa 

Vinca herbacea 

Vinca minor 

Vincetoxicum hirundinaria 1 

Viola alba 

Viola ambigua 

Viola arvensis 

Viola biflora 1 1 

Viola canina 1 1 

Viola canina ssp. montana 

Viola collina 

Viola dacica 1 

Viola hirta 

Viola lutea 

Viola lutea ssp. sudetica 

Viola mirabilis 

Viola odorata 

Viola reichenbachiana 1 1 1 

Viola riviniana 

Viola saxatilis 

Viola stagnina 

Viola sudetica 

Viola sylvatica 

Viola tricolor 1 

Virga pilosa

Viscaria vulgaris 

Viscum album 

Waldsteinia geoides 

Woodsia ilvensis ssp. rifidula 

Xanthium albinum 

Xeranthemum annuum 

Xeroloma cylindracea 

Zannichellia palustris 

Σ druhov Number of Species/ Locality /1178/ 28 490 271 389 


EXPLANATION: 

Havesova HA 

Vihorlat VI 

Stuzica ST 

Rozok RO

Nomination of the “Ancient Beech Forests of Germany” 

as Extension to the World Natural Heritage “Primeval Beech 

Forests of the Carpathians” (1133) 

Nomination Dossier to the UNESCO for the Inscription on the World Heritage List 

Nationale 

Naturlandschaften

Nomination of the “Ancient Beech Forests of Germany” 

as Extension to the World Natural Heritage “Primeval 

Beech Forests of the Carpathians” (1133) 

Nomination Dossier to the UNESCO for the 

Inscription on the World Heritage List 

Steering group of 

the Länder of Brandenburg, Hesse, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Thuringia, 

the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and 

Nuclear Safety, and 

the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation 

Nationale 

Naturlandschaften 

3

4 NOMINATION DOSSIER "ANCIENT BEECH FORESTS OF GERMANY" 

Titel photo: 

Natural beech forest 

(Kellerwald) 

Imprint 

Applicant body 

Federal Republic of Germany (Länder of Brandenburg, Hesse, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Thuringia) 

Coordination 

Manfred Großmann (Länder Committee) 

Editors 

Heike Britz (Federal Ministry for the Environment), 

Olaf Dieckmann (Land of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania), 

Barbara Engels (Federal Agency for Nature Conservation), 

Achim Frede (Land of Hesse), 

Dr. Tilo Geisel (Land of Brandenburg) 

Manfred Großmann (Land of Thuringia), 

Dr. Karin Kaiser (Land of Hesse), 

Prof. Dr. Hans Dieter Knapp (Federal Agency for Nature Conservation), 

Dr. Michael E. Luthardt (Land of Brandenburg), 

Jutta Seuring (Land of Hesse), 

Scientific support 

Atelier Papenfuss, Weimar 

Büro für Landschaft und Service, Dr. Alexandra Kruse und Mitarbeiter, Overath 

cognitio Kommunikation & Planung, Niedenstein 

Dr. Martin Flade, Brodowin 

Prof. Dr. Peter A. Schmidt, Coswig 

Wald-Consult, Dr. Susanne Winter, Eberswalde 

Translation 

Nizami Übersetzungen 

Photo credits 

Klaus Bogon, Andreas Hoffmann, Gerhard Kalden, Hans Dieter Knapp, Astrid Kohls, Ralf Kubosch, Michael E. Luthardt, 

Jörg Müller, Nationalparkamt Kellerwald-Edersee, Franz Rahn, Thomas Stephan, Ekkehard Wachmann 

Specialised editing, layout, graphic design 

cognitio Kommunikation & Planung, Niedenstein 

Alongside with the individuals mentioned above, many others became involved and have contributed features to 

this application. We thank all contributors to this great project – may it be successful. 

December 2009

Preamble 

We are glad to submit to UNESCO the 

nomination of “Ancient Beech Forests of 

Germany” for inscription into the World 

Heritage List to extend the “Primeval Beech 

Forests of the Carpathians” (Slovak Republic 

/ Ukraine). 

Our European beech forests are a unique 

natural heritage. Mighty silver-grey trunks 

bear a canopy the aesthetics of which are 

without parallel throughout the year. Th ese 

beech forests are a purely European phenomenon. 

Germany lies at the heart of their 

range of distribution. Europe's natural beech 

forests have been pushed back and today 

are limited to a few regions. We take great 

pride in the nomination, for it refl ects the 

decades-long eff orts undertaken in Germany 

to protect and preserve these outstanding 

old-growth beech stands as an essential part 

of the globally unique Natural Heritage 

that are the European beech forests. Intense 

discussions with all stakeholders and the 

inhabitants of the surroundings had already 

been opened when the reserves encompassing 

the nominated component parts 

were established, which has resulted in 

the nomination being broadly supported. 

Th e nomination does fi ll us with joy also 

because the endeavour to nominate fi ve areas 

in four diff erent federal states with the 

support of our Slovakian and Ukrainian 

partners was crowned with success. Th e path 

to success was paved, on the one hand, 

by the political resolve that the governments 

involved have demonstrated and, on the 

other hand, by the acceptance of residents 

and all protagonists on location. Implementing 

an extension nomination of the kind 

required plenty of coordination with all 

involved parties at the local, regional, national 

and transnational level. Already during 

preparations did it become apparent that a 

transnational nomination poses special 

requirements. But then again, it shows that 

diff erent countries bearing responsibility 

for an ecosystem that has no parallel in the 

world are willing to work together in fulfi 

lling this responsibility. In Europe, where 

the nations are in an intimate spatial, historical 

and cultural relationship, cooperating 

in the implementation of the World Heritage 

Convention is not just imperative but also 

a great opportunity. From our point of 

view, the collaboration with our Slovakian 

and Ukrainian partners is one of the most 

beautiful aspects in the nomination and has 

turned out as a fantastic experience already. 

With the nominated component parts 

acknowledged as World Heritage, the regional 

identity of geographic Central Europe 

could, based on a joined World Natural 

Heritage property composed of component 

parts stretching over three European countries, 

be perceived in a positive light all over 

the world. 

If the Natural Heritage property “Primeval 

Beech Forests of the Carpathians”, which has 

already been included in the World Heritage 

List, is extended by the “Ancient Beech 

Forests of Germany”, the eff orts put up by 

the people and by us, the governments at 

the state and federal level, to preserve these 

territories for present and future generations, 

will be acknowledged and supported. 

Nationale 


PREAMBLE 

Christine Lieberknecht 

Prime Minister, 

Free State of Thuringia 

Matthias Platzeck 


Federal State of Brandenburg 

Roland Koch 


Federal State of Hesse 

Erwin Sellering 

Prime Minister, Federal State of 

Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania 

Norbert Röttgen 

Federal Minister for the 

Environment, Nature Conservation 

and Nuclear Safety 

5


Contents 

Preamble ............................................................. 

Summary ............................................................. 

1. Identifi cation of the Property ....................... 

1.a Country ........................................................ 

1.b State, Province or Region .......................... 

1.c Name of Property ....................................... 

1.d Geographical coordinates of the nominated 

properties to the nearest second ................ 

1.e Maps and plans, showing the boundaries 

of the nominated property and buff er 

zone ............................................................... 

1.f Area of nominated property and 

proposed buff er zone .................................. 

2. Description ................................................... 

2.a Description of Property ............................. 

2.b History and Development ......................... 

3. Justifi cation for Inscription........................... 

3.a Criteria under which inscription is 

proposed (and justifi cation for 

inscription under these criteria) ................ 

3.b Proposed Statement on Outstanding 

Universal Value ........................................... 

3.c Comparative analysis ................................. 

3.d Integrity ........................................................ 

4. State of Conservation and factors aff ecting 

the Property .................................................. 

4.a Present state of conservation ..................... 

4.b Factors aff ecting the property ......................... 

5. Protection and Management of the Property ... 

5.a Ownership ................................................... 

5.b Protective Designation ............................... 

5.c Means of implementing protective 

measures ....................................................... 

5.d Existing plans related to municipality 

and region in which the proposed property 

is located ............................................. 

5 

9 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

16 

20 

26 

31 

67 

80 

81 

86 

87 

99 

102 

103 

113 

116 

116 

118 

126 

129 

5.e Property management plan or other 

management system .................................... 

5.f Sources and levels of fi nance ...................... 

5.g Sources of expertise and training in conservation 

and management techniques ....... 

5.h Visitor facilities and statistics ................... 

5.i Policies and programmes related to 

the presentation and promotion of 

the property ................................................. 

5.j Staffi ng levels .............................................. 

6. Monitoring .................................................... 

6.a Key indicators for measuring the state 

of conservation............................................. 

6.b Administrative arrangements for 

monitoring property ................................... 

6.c Results of previous reporting exercises .... 

7. Documentation ............................................. 

7.a Photographs, slides, image inventory 

and authorization table and other 

audiovisual materials .................................. 

7.b Texts relating to protective designation, 

copies of property management plans 

or documented management systems 

and extracts of other plans relevant to 

the property ................................................. 

7.c Form and date of the most recent 

records or inventory of property ............... 

7.d Address where inventory, records and 

archives are held .......................................... 

7.e Bibliography ................................................ 

8. Contact Information of responsible 

authorities ..................................................... 

8.a Preparer ........................................................ 

8.b Offi cial Local Institution / Agency ........... 

8.c Other Local Institutions ............................ 

8.d Offi cial Web Address ................................. 

9. Signature on behalf of the State Party .......... 

132 

133 

135 

140 

147 

153 

154 

159 

161 

161 

162 

162 

164 

164 

165 

166 

172 

172 

173 

174 

179 

180

Annexes 

Annex to Chapter 1: ............................................ 

1.1 Topographical map of the nominated 

component part Jasmund ........................... 


component part Serrahn ............................ 


component part Grumsin .......................... 


component part Hainich ............................ 


component part Kellerwald ....................... 


3.1 BfN-Skripten 233 „Beech Forests 

– a German contribution to the global 

forest biodiversity” ...................................... 

3.2 Publication Natur & Landschaft 

“Buchenwälder” (Issue 9 /10 2007) 


5.1 Summary minutes of the trilateral 

meetings Slovak Republic, Ukraine and 

Germany regarding the extension of 

the World Natural Heritage "Primeval 

Beech Forests of the Carpathians" ............ 

5.2 Statute of the association Kulturlandschaft 

Uckermark e. V. ................................................ 

5.3 Overview of the acquisition and 

relocation of land in the Grumsin 

component part since July 2008 ................. 

5.4 Parliament of Th uringia: Parliamentary 

Paper 4 / 4045, 4th Legislative Period, 

23.4.2008, Application by the CDU 

Group “German beech forests as part of 

UNESCO World Natural Heritage” ...... 

5.5 Ministry for the Environment, Energy, 

Agriculture and Consumer Protection 

Hesse, Wiesbaden, 4 September 2009; 

Report to the Cabinet on the issue of the 

nomination of German beech forests 

for UNESCO Natural World Heritage 

status incl. the decision of the Cabinet 

of September 14th 2009 ............................... 

Nationale 


CONTENTS 

5.6 Communication strategy: beech forests 

as UNESCO World Natural Heritage ... 

5.7 List of publications / PR activities as 

part of the application, Further press 

releases and media records 

(CD included) .............................................. 

5.8 List of events to announce the intended 

nomination in the individual nominated 

properties ..................................................... 

5.9 List of all expert meeting held at the 

International Academy for Nature 

Conservation, Vilm ........................................ 

5.10 Exhibition fl yer containing the 8 World 

Natural Heritage messages ........................ 

5.11 Displays ........................................................ 

5.12 Leafl et in German and English ................. 

5.13 Brochure ....................................................... 


6.1 Nature Data 2008 (CD included) ............ 

6.2 Summary of relevant current or future 

research projects ........................................... 

6.2.1 Fundamentals for a modern management 

concept for the Carpathian Biosphere 

Reserve (Transcarpathia, 

Ukraine – including the Ukrainian 

parts of the UNESCO World Heritage 

Site “Primeval Beech Forests of the 

Carpathians”) ........................................... 

6.2.2 Summary of the current application 

for a research project “Mountain 

Landscape Management in CEE 

states – Perspectives of transition to 

inter national markets (CEEMP = 

Central Eastern European Mountains 

Perspectives)” 


7.1 Digital photographic documentation 

including photo credits and authorisation 

certifi cates (CD included) .......................... 

7.2 Protected area ordinances and other 

legal framework ........................................... 

7.2.1 Decree on the designation of 

the Jasmund National Park of 

12 September 1990 ................................. 

7


7.2.2 Decree on the designation of 

the Müritz National Park of 

12 September 1990 ................................ 

7.2.3 Decree on the regulation of hunting 

in the national parks in the State of 


(National Park Hunting Ordinance 

– NLPJagdVO M-V) of 8 June 1998.... 

7.2.4 Ordinance regulating the designation 

of nature conservation areas within an 

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty 

with the general designation Biosphere 

Reservation Schorfheide-Chorin 

12 September 1990 ................................ 

7.2.5 Th uringian Law on the Hainich 

National Park (Th ürNPHG) ................ 

7.2.6 Th uringian Order amending the sizes 

and layout of protected zones in the 

Hainich National Park dated 26 June 

2009........................................................... 

7.2.7 Ordinance of the Kellerwald-Edersee 

National Park ........................................... 

7.3 Management plans ...................................... 

7.3.1 Integrated Management System (IMS) 

for the serial Property “Primeval Beech 

Forests of the Carpathians and the 

Ancient Beech Forests of Germany" ..... 

7.3.2 Coordinated management for the 

German nominated component parts ..... 

7.3.3 National Park Plan for the Jasmund 

National Park ........................................... 

7.3.4 National Park Plan for the Müritz 

National Park ........................................... 

7.3.5 Th e Maintenance and Development 

Plan for the Biosphere Reserve 

Schorfheide-Chorin ............................... 

7.3.6 National Park Plan for the Hainich 

National Park ........................................... 

7.3.7 National Park Plan for the Kellerwald- 

Edersee National Park (CD included) .....

Summary 

State party 

Federal Republic of Germany 

State, Province or Region 

Länder: Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, 

Brandenburg, Th uringia and Hesse 

Identifi cation of the property 

“Ancient Beech Forests of Germany” 

(Extension to the World Natural Heritage 

“Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians”, 

ref. 1133) 

Geographical coordinates to nearest 

second 

Component 

part 

Name Protected area Land 

1 Jasmund Jasmund 

National Park 

2 Serrahn Müritz 

National Park 

3 Grumsin Schorfheide-Chorin 

Biosphere Reserve 

4 Hainich Hainich 

National Park 

5 Kellerwald 

Kellerwald-Edersee 

National Park 

Written description of the borders 

of the nominated property 

• Jasmund: Half of Jasmund's border 

follows the coastline. In the northern 

sector, the coastal beech forests with 

their zone of contact with the sea have 

been integrated into the component 

part. 

Mecklenburg- 

Western Pomerania 

Mecklenburg- 


Position of centre of 

the region 

N 54°32´53´´ E 13°38´43´´ 

N 53°20´24´´ E 13°11´52´´ 

Brandenburg N 52°59´11´´ E 13°53´44´´ 

Thuringia N 51°04´43´´ E 10°26´08´´ 

Hesse N 51°08´43´´ E 8° 58´25´´ 

• Serrahn: The demarcation in Serrahn 

has produced a compact core area of 

beech-dominated forests. In the northern 

subterritory, it shows a recess to exclude 

the settlement of Serrahn, which is occupied 

by three persons, from the component 

part. 

Nationale 


SUMMARY 

9


Left: Jasmund, 

Scale 1 : 200.000 

Right: Hainich, 

Scale 1 : 250.000 

Left: Serrahn, 

Scale 1 : 150.000 

Right: Kellerwald, 

Scale 1 : 250.000 

Grumsin, 

Scale 1 : 120.000 

• Grumsin: The demarcation of Grumsin 

predominantly follows the border of the 

core area of the Schorfheide-Chorin 

Biosphere Reserve, which was designated 

in 1990. 

• Hainich: The demarcation in Hainich 

follows the distribution of the best- 

preserved beech forests with old-growth 

stands. 

• Kellerwald: In Kellerwald, the border 

was established taking into account the 

specific qualities of the component part, 

such as the high relief energy, the disjointed 

occurrence of small primeval-forest 

like steep slopes, and the spatial distribution 

of valuable old beech forests. 

Maps indicating the borders and 

buff er zone 

proposed World Heritage 

Buffer Zone

Justifi cation 

Proposed Statement on Outstanding 

Universal Value 

Th e “Ancient Beech Forests of Germany” 

represent, in an outstanding manner, the 

undisturbed biological and ecological processes 

of the evolution and development 

of beech forests as a terrestrial ecosystem 

that has shaped an entire continent in 

a unique way. Together with the World 

Natural Heritage “Primeval Beech Forests 

of the Carpathians”, the “Ancient Beech 

Forests of Germany” tell a comprehensive 

and concise tale of how the post-glacial 

forests have been developing in Europe. 

Th ere is no other tree species in the world 

to play such a dominant and unique role 

in the zone of nemoral deciduous forests as 

Fagus sylvatica; it is the only tree species 

to shape the appearance and life to such an 

extent as is the case in natural beech forests. 

Th e World Natural Heritage “Primeval 

Beech Forests of the Carpathians”, which 

is limited to the Carpathians spatially, 

is extended by the nominated property 

“Ancient Beech Forests of Germany” to 

complement the best beech forests from the 

seashores to the low mountains as important 

representatives of the biogeographic region 

of the “Central European and Baltic Beech 

Forests” and the core zone of beech distribution 

with its ecosystemary evolu tion, 

which has been in progress since the last 

ice age. Th e nominated German component 

parts are indispensable to understanding 

the history of postglacial re-colonisation and 

ecosystem development with a high evo lutionary 

diversity in terms of: 

Ecosystem evolution 

Consecutively initiated from south to north, 

old forest habitats have been undergoing a 

development into extremely diff erentiated 

beech forest landscapes for some 6,000 years. 

Geographic and local diversity 

From planar to submontane, from nutrientpoor 

acidic to nutrient-rich alkaline, from 

dry to moder ately moist, from Pleistocene 

sands and slate up to lime stone – the nominated 

component parts present an outstanding 

geographical and local diversity. 

Morphological diversity 

Wind blasted shrubs on shorelines, compact 

dwarf types in rocky locations, tall-growing 

trees with pillar-like trunks and mighty tops 

mark the natural spectrum. 

System-internal diversity 

Beech forest ecosystems are characterised 

by specifi c regenerative cycles and high ecological 

stability. 

Ecological diversity 

Th e uniqueness of the Fagus sylvatica ecosystems 

is highlighted by maximum ecological 

diff erentiation and diversity of niches. 

Th e fi ve nominated component parts are 

home to in excess of 50% of all European 

forest species of herbaceous plants, grasses, 

shrubs, and trees, consequently making 

them the characteristic beech forest fl ora. 

Complexity of the ecosystems 

Th e ecological structures and processes 

found in Central European beech forest 

landscapes are represented under various 

climatic and edaphic starting conditions. 

Habitats which have been sculpted by 

water such as shores, lakes, rivers and moors, 

but also dry and rocky locations are intimately 

associated with the beech forests. 

Germany is the heartland of the global 

natural range of the European beech forest. 

Nationale 



11


Designation of the responsible 

local authorities and contact 

data 

Institution 

Mecklenburg-Western 

Pomerania National Park 

Offi ce 

(for Jasmund) 

Müritz National Park 

Offi ce 

(for Serrahn) 

Schorfheide-Chorin 


(for Grumsin) 

Hainich 

National Park Offi ce 



Beech forests would cover about 66% of 

Germany's land area, with the country 

consequently occupying some 25% of the 

potential total range of European beech 

forests. 

Historical and cultural developments have 

resulted in the beech forests in the Central 

European and German centre of distri b u tion 

having shrunken by over 90% due to direct 

destruction and human interfer ence. 

Th e nominated component parts are some 

of the very last remains. As regards age 

and integrity, these are the prime examples 

of the beech forest climax ecosystem at its 

centre of distribution. 

Address: 

street, city, province, country 

Im Forst 5 

18375 Born 

Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, 

Germany 

Schlossplatz 3 

17237 Hohenzieritz 


Germany 

Hoher Steinweg 5 6 

16278 Angermünde 

Brandenburg, Germany 

Bei der Marktkirche 9 

99947 Bad Langensalza 

Thuringia, Germany 

Laustraße 8 

34537 Bad Wildungen 

Hesse, Germany 

Telephone / Fax E-mail / web address 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)38234 502-0 

Fax: +49 (0)38234 502-24 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)39824 252-0 

Fax: +49 (0)39824 252-50 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3331 3654-0 

Fax: +49 (0)3331 3654-10 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3603 3907-0 

Fax: +49 (0)3603 3907-20 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)5621 75249-0 

Fax: +49 (0)5621 7524919 

Criteria the nomination of the 

property is based on 

Inscription into the list of World Heritage 

sites is proposed following criterion ix: 

“Outstanding examples representing signifi cant 

on-going ecological and biological processes 

in the evolution and development of terrestrial, 

fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and 

communities of plants and animals.” 

Th e serial nomination “Ancient Beech 

Forests of Germany” comprises out standing 

examples of the evolutionary and developmental 

processes of beech forests since the 

last glacial period, giving rise to a terrestrial 

eco system that has shaped an entire continent 

in a globally unique manner. 

In addition to the “Primeval Beech Forests 

of the Carpathians”, the nominated beech 

forests in Germany are an outstanding and 

globally un paralleled example of the ongoing 

ecological processes outlined below: 

poststelle.br@npa-vp.mvnet.de 

www.nationalpark-jasmund.de 

poststelle@npa-mueritz. 

mvnet.de 

www.nationalpark-mueritz.de 

br-schorfheide-chorin@lua. 

brandenburg.de 

www.schorfheide-chorin.de 

np_hainich@forst.thueringen.de 

www.nationalpark-hainich.de 

info@nationalpark-kellerwaldedersee.dewww.nationalpark-kellerwaldedersee.de

1. One single tree species (Fagus sylvatica) 

has come, over the course of postglacial 

expansion, to absolute domination over the 

natural vegetation of a major part of an 

entire continent and, based on intraspecifi c 

genetic diff erentiation, has adapted to 

the highly varying local conditions with the 

overall territory, which boundaries being 

primarily defi ned by climate; 

2. Th e complete replacement of an climax 

ecosystem by a new one as a consequence of 

postglacial global climate change – the 

replacement of the oak-linden forests by 

beech forests since the subatlanticum, as well 

as the biogeographic and ecological diversifying 

over the course of the late postglacial 

evolution; 

3. Th e regeneration power and for the survival 

to the present day of a climax ecosystem 

with long-standing habitat tradition 

as well as of structures and processes typical 

for original wilderness despite fragmentation 

partly ending in isolation within 

extensive landscapes with a long history of 

settlement; 

4. Ongoing carbon fi xation in growing biomass 

and of ongoing and permanent carbon 

storage in the humus of soil, as well as of 

the ability of nemoral deciduous forest ecosys 

tems to regenerate degraded soils with 

revitalisation of their ecosystem functions 

in a unique manner. 

Th e additional value of the German component 

parts consists in: 

• the completion of the history of postglacial 

areal expansion 

• the completion of the altitudinal gradient 

from the seashore to the submontane belt 

• the addition of the best remaining 

examples in the geographical heartland 

of beech distribution 

• the enlargement of the ecological spectrum 

with regional, bio-geographical 

and ecological diff erent beech forest types 

and their specifi c plant and animal life, 

cover ing the main part of the autochthon 

Central European biological diversity 

• the involvement of specifi c compartments 

of typical landscape-ecological complexes, 

e. g. sea shore cliff s, mires, lakes, streams, 

rocks, boulder fi elds as last remnants 

of Central European ancient deciduous 

forest landscape. 

Primeval forest relic in 

Kellerwald 

Nationale 



13


Jasmund Serrahn Grumsin 

1. Identifi cation of the Property 

1.a Country 

Federal Republic of Germany 

1.b State, Province or 

Region 

Länder: Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, 

Brandenburg, Th uringia and Hesse 

1.c Name of Property 

“Ancient Beech Forests of Germany” 

(Extension to the World Natural Heritage 


ref. 1133) 

1.d Geographical coordinates 

of the nominated 

property to the nearest 

second 

Th e position of the extension nomination 

“Ancient Beech Forests of Germany” is 

defi ned based on the centre of the respective 

territory (tab. 1.1).

Component 

part 

Hainich Kellerwald 

Name Protected area Land 

1 Jasmund Jasmund 

National Park 

2 Serrahn Müritz 

National Park 

3 Grumsin Schorfheide-Chorin 


4 Hainich Hainich 

National Park 

5 Kellerwald Kellerwald-Edersee 

National Park 

Mecklenburg- 


Mecklenburg- 


Position of centre of 

the region* 

N 54°32´53´´ E 13°38´43´´ 

N 53°20´24´´ E 13°11´52´´ 

Brandenburg N 52°59´11´´ E 13°53´44´´ 

Thuringia N 51°04´43´´ E 10°26´08´´ 

Hesse N 51°08´43´´ E 8° 58´25´´ 

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY 

Tab. 1.1: 

Overview of the names and 

geographical positions of the 

five component parts of the 

extension nomination “Ancient 

Beech Forests of Germany” 

* Coordinates to nearest second 

Fig. 1.1: Position in Europe of 

the five component parts of 

the serial extension nomination 

“Ancient Beech Forests of 

Germany” and the World 

Natural Heritage “Primeval 

Beech Forests of the Carpathians”, 

which was inscribed in 2007 

Nationale 


15


Fig. 1.2: Position of the five 

German component parts of 

the serial extension nomination 

“Ancient Beech Forests of 

Germany” in Germany 

1.e Maps and plans, 

showing the boundaries 

of the nominated property 

and buff er zone 

Th e fi ve German component parts of the 

extension nomination “Ancient Beech 

For ests of Germany” are distributed across 

Germany from the low mountains to the 

Baltic Sea coast (fi g. 1.2). Th e component 

parts Jasmund, Serrahn and Grumsin 

are located in the German north eastern 

lowlands, while the component parts 

Hainich and Kellerwald are located in 

Central Germany. 

Th e German component parts are to be 

nominated as an extension to the World 


of the Carpathians” (1133) located in the 

Carpathians (fi g. 1.1). 

Th e fi ve German component parts of the 

serial extension nomination “Ancient Beech 

Forests of Germany” are all situated 

within large woodlands or densely wooded 

regions that reach far beyond the forestdominated 

buff er zones (fi g. 1.3). Hence, the 

buff er zones of the nominated component 

parts almost entirely consist of woodland, 

providing the sites with additional protection. 

In each of the fi ve component parts, the 

beech forests are in close contact with water. 

Water bodies are integral parts of the lowland 

beech forest landscapes. 

Jasmund borders on the Baltic Sea in the 

north and east so that the buff er zone 

stretches up to the coast. A multitude of 

minor waters as well as lakes are embedded 

in Serrahn and Grumsin. Small brooks 

fl ow through Jasmund, Hainich, and Kellerwald.


Fig. 1.3: Regional maps depicting 

the five German component 

parts of the serial extension 

nomination “Ancient Beech 

Forests of Germany” 


Buffer Zone 

Jasmund, Scale 1 : 150.000 


Buffer Zone 

Serrahn, Scale 1 : 120.000 

Nationale 


17



Buffer Zone 

Grumsin, Scale 1 : 160.000 


Buffer Zone 

Hainich, Scale 1 : 200.000

Component 

part 

Name Annex Scale Type Data source 

1 Jasmund 1.1 1 : 25.000 Topographical 

map 25.000 

2 Serrahn 1.2 1 : 25.000 Topographical 

map 25.000 

3 Grumsin 1.3 1 : 25.000 Topographical 

map 20.000 

4 Hainich 1.4 1 : 25.000 Topographical 

map 25.000 

5 Kellerwald 1.5 1 : 25.000 Topographical 

map 25.000 


Landesamt für innere Verwaltung 

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (LAiV M-V) 

Landesamt für innere Verwaltung 

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (LAiV M-V) 


Buffer Zone 

Kellerwald, Scale 1 : 200.000 

Landesvermessung und Geobasisinformation 

Brandenburg (LGB) 

Thüringer Landesvermessungsamt (ThürLVermA) 

Hessische Verwaltung für Bodenmanagement 

und Geoinformation (HVBG) 

Tab. 1.2: Overview of the maps 

provided in the annexes 

Nationale 


19


Tab. 1.3: Area sizes of the 

nominated serial property (ha) 

and its component parts with 

buffer zones (ha) 

Closed woodland in contact 

with the sea ( Jasmund) 

Component 

part 

Name Size (ha) Size of buff er zone (ha) 

1 Jasmund 492.5 2,510.5 

2 Serrahn 268.1 2,568.0 

3 Grumsin 590.1 274.3 

4 Hainich 1,573.4 4,085.4 

5 Kellerwald 1,467.1 4,271.4 

total 4,391.2 13,709.6 

1.f Area of nominated 

property and proposed 

buff er zone 

Within the selected fi ve large-scale protected 

areas with the highest integrity were included 

in the nomination as component parts 

of the serial property. 

Th e individual demarcations of the component 

parts have been chosen so as to 

guarantee the outstanding universal value, 

maximum integrity, and coherent, suffi ciently 

sized forests. 

Existing primeval forest relics of the protected 

areas have been included. Add itio nal 

protection and ecological exchange is en sured 

by wooded buff er zones.

Jasmund 

Half of Jasmund's property border follows 

the coastline. Although this border is subject 

to very slow natural dynamic changes 

based on the denudation of the steep coast, 

it is clearly identifi able by distinctive habitat 

limits at any given point. In the northern 

sector, the extremely valuable area of the 

globally unique coastal beech forests with 

their zone of contact with the sea has been 

integrated into the component part. Th e 

entire Jasmund National Park is embedded 

in the buff er zone so that the borders 

of the national park are identical with the 

buff er zone borders. 


Fig. 1.4: Jasmund – border and 

buffer zone 

Topographical map 50.000 

Data Source: Landesamt für 

innere Verwaltung Mecklenburg- 

Vorpommern (LAiV M-V) 

Projection: Gauß-Krüger 

Scale: 1 : 70.000 

Nationale 


21


Fig. 1.5: Serrahn – border and 

buffer zone 


Data Source: Landesamt für 

innere Verwaltung Mecklenburg- 

Vorpommern (LAiV M-V) 

Projection: Bessel 4/Gauß-Krüger 

Scale: 1 : 60.000 

Serrahn 

Demarcation in Serrahn has produced a 

compact core area of beech-dominated 

forests. Th e demarcation in the northern 

subterritory shows a recess to exclude the 

settlement of Serrahn, which is occupied 

by three persons, from the nominated 

property. Th e buff er zone with its wooded 

areas and lakes widely encompasses the 

core area on all sides.

Grumsin 

Th e demarcation of the Grumsin component 

part largely follows the core area 

border of the Schorfheide-Chorin Biosphere 

Reserve, which was designated in 

1990. Minor marginal zones which predominantly 

consist of pine woods rather 

than near- natural deciduous forests and were 

likewise abandoned to natural development 

in 1990 have been assigned to the buff er 

zone. 


Fig. 1.6: Grumsin – border and 

buffer zone 

Data Source: Landesvermessung 

und Geobasisinformation 

Brandenburg (LGB) 


Projection: UTM 

Scale: 1 : 30.000 

Nationale 


23


Fig. 1.7: Hainich – border and 

buffer zone 


Data Source: Thüringer 

Landesvermessungsamt 

(ThürLVermA) 


Scale: 1 : 100.000 

Hainich 

Th e demarcation in Hainich follows the 

distribution of the best-preserved beech 

forests with old-growth stands. Th e buff er 

zone comprises the core area of the national 

park.

Kellerwald 

In Kellerwald, the border was established 

taking into account the specifi c qualities of 

the component part, such as the high relief 

energy, the disjointed occurrence of small 

primeval-forest like steep slopes, and the 

spatial distribution of valuable beech forests. 

A coherent complex of valuable old-growth 

beech forests has been included. Th e 

demarcation of the buff er zone follows the 

national park border. No buff er has been 

designated in a very small plot located on 

the northern border in order to integrate one 

of the primeval beech forest slopes into the 

property. 


Fig. 1.8: Kellerwald – border 

and buffer zone 


Data Source: Hessische Verwaltung 

für Bodenmanagement 

und Geoinformation (HVBG) 


Scale: 1 : 100.000 

Nationale 


25


Morning mist in the Kellerwald-Edersee 

National Park 

Being the best preserved 

old beech forests of the 

planar to submontane level 

in Germany, the nominated 

component parts are 

representative both of the 

ongoing ecological processes 

of the European 

beech forests and of the 

biodiversity that is peculiar 

to the European beech 

forests. 

2. Description 

Th e fi ve German component parts of the nominated serial property 

“Ancient Beech Forests of Germany” Jasmund, Serrahn, Grumsin, 

Hainich and Kellerwald are to extend the World Natural Heritage site 

“Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians”. Th is is to ensure that 

the unique and ongoing postglacial development process of the European 

beech forests is exhaustively illustrated. 

Germany represents the centre of distribution of the European beech 

forests that, from a global perspective, are a genuinely European 

phenomenon. Germany bears extraordinary responsibility for forest 

birds and primeval forest relic species. And what is more, vascular 

forest plants are found in Germany in substantial fractions of their 

global populations.

European Beech Forests 

Europe’s beech forests are deciduous forests 

which are dominated by the European Beech 

(Fagus sylvatica). Th e beech is endemic to 

Europe. Beech forests are limited to Europe 

(fi g. 2.1, 2.2). Such forests therefore share 

the fate of all deciduous forests of the northern 

hemis phere’s nemoral zone. Th ey have 

been exposed to an enormous development 

pressure (settlement, utilisation) for centuries 

so that natural forests have become 

scarce. 

Forest communities built up and dominated 

by the beech are widespread across major 

parts of Central Europe. Potentially forming 

the predominant zonal vegetation in Western 

and Central Europe in terms of area, they 

are found at the montane level of the South 

European mountain ranges. Th ey show 

the widest amplitude of soil trophic levels 

and altitude distribution, of all deciduous 

forests in Europe potentially occupying the 

largest area (BOHN & NEUHÄUSL 

2003). Th e beech’s main range of distribution 

lies in the moder ately humid temperate 

climate of Central Europe, with Germany 

being the core area. Th e beech will be the sole 

ruler here and attain coverage in excess of 

90% of the tree layer, or is found accompanied 

by few other tree species (DIERSCHKE 

& BOHN 2004). Forming the principal 

forest eco system, it represents the climax 

vegetation. 

A signifi cant feature of the beech forests is 

a decline in fl oristic diversity, which is a 

result of the history of fl ora and vegetation, 

from the former glacial refuges in Southern 

and Southeastern Europe up the northern 

and northwestern subterritories. 

2. DESCRIPTION 

Germany bears extraordinary 

responsibility for the 

beech forests of the lowlands, 

the oligotraphent to 

mesotraphent forms of 

the low mountain ranges, 

and the completeness of the 

(meso-) eutraphent beech 

forests. 

European Beech 

(Fagus sylvatica) 

Nationale 


27


Fig. 2.1: Total distribution of 

the European Beech (Fagus 

sylvatica) (WELK /DINES 

in PRESTON et al. 2003) 

Roughly one-third of all 

European beech forest 

communities is widespread 

in Germany. 

In the northern portion of the area, the beech 

forests extend from the low mountain ranges 

up to the lowlands and seashore to potentially 

cover large areas. Th is gradient shows 

especially clearly in Germany. Th is is why 

substantial portions of the lowland beech 

forests are found here, which are scarce on 

a global scale and entirely absent in other 

deciduous forest regions. 

Th e European beech forests stand out due to 

an exceptional variety of types. Accord ing 

to BOHN & NEUHÄUSL (2003), a total 

of 86 diff erent biocoenotic units of the beech 

and mixed beech forests are found in the 

beech forest area, subdivided according to 

trophic and altitude levels as well as geographical 

and local forms. Of these units, 

14 cover more than 50% of the potential 

natural range, with as many as eight units 

being also wide spread in Germany with 

signifi cant proportions of the overall area. 

A total of 28 biocoenotic units, which 

roughly equals one-third of all European 

units, are wide spread in Germany, which 

emphasises Germany's particular respon sibility 

for the preservation of the beech 

forests worldwide. 

Th e six biogeographic sub-regions of beech 

forest distribution (fi g. 2.2) are charac teris ed 

by associations (according to DIERSCHKE 

2004) the fl oristic inventory of which refl ecting 

the result of long migrations of species 

from their glacial refuges or the diversity 

gradient from the glacial areas of retreat to 

the north and northwest. 

Together with the Carpathian beech forests 

and the southern centres of expansion the 

nominated component parts, rank among 

the prime elements to document the ongoing 

postglacial development process of the 

European beech forests. 

Primeval beech forests of the 

Carpathians 


Beech Forests of the Carpathians” is to be 

supplemented by the nomination of the 

“Ancient Beech Forests of Germany”. With 

the long and uninterrupted postglacial 

development of their primeval beech forests, 

the ten component parts of the existing 

World Natural Heritage are unique compo 

nents of a purely European phenomenon.

Altitudinal zones 

Atlantic-Western Atlantic-Western Atlantic-Western European European European 

Planar 

Colline-submontane 

Montane-altomontane/subalpine 

“Th ese undisturbed, complex temperate 

forests exhibit the most complete and comprehensive 

ecological patterns and processes 

of pure stands of European beech 

across a variety of environmental conditions. 

Beech is one of the most important elements 

of forests in the Temperate Broad-leaf 

Forest Biome and represents an outstanding 

example of the re-colonisation and 

development of terrestrial ecosystems and 

communities after the last ice age, a process 

which is still ongoing.” (UNESCO World 

Heritage Committee) 

Th e World Natural Heritage is situated in 

the biogeographic region “Carpathian beech 

forests” with a centre of diversity in the 

Eastern Carpathians. 

Kellerwald 

Serrahn 

Alpic 

Central European 

European 

Hainich 

Jasmund 

Grumsin 

Illyric-Balkan 



South South South European/montane 

European/montane 


It is part of the Inner Carpathians, which 

form a continuous mountain range over 

1,300 km in length, 100 to 350 km in width, 

and up to 2,600 m in height. In the periphery 

and the montane-altomontane zone, large 

portions of this richly wooded mountain 

range are charac terised by specious beech 

and mixed beech forests. Th e potential 

natural range of the beech forests therefore 

comprises an area of approx. 92,000 km 2 

throughout the Carpa thian centre zone, 

which corresponds to roughly one-tenth of 

the pan-European beech forest area. Specifi c 

peculiarities of these Carpathian forests 

include the richness in endemic species, the 

occurrence of Europe’s largest population of 

predatory mammals with some 8,000 brown 

bears, 4,000 wolves and 3,000 lynxes as well 


Primeval Beech Forests 

of the Carpathians 

Carpathian 

Carpathian 

Carpathian 

Fig. 2.2: Biogeographic differentiation 

of European beech 

forests (from HOFFMANN 

& PANEK 2006), including 

positions of the German component 

parts and the Carpathian 

World Natural Heritage site. 

The bio-geographic region that 

is Central Europe can be further 

subdivided in a "Sub-atlantic- 

South Central Europe" sub-territory 

(in the plant geographical 

sense of MEUSEL et al. 1965) 

and a “Baltic” sub-territory. 

The German beech forests 

rank among the prime 

elements to document the 

ongoing postglacial development 

process of the 


Nationale 


29


Beech (Fagus sylvatica) fl owers 

are wind-pollinated (anemophily). 

The focus of the autochthonous 

biodiversity found 

in Germany lies within 

the beech forests. The fi ve 

German component parts 

of the “Ancient Beech 

Forests of Germany” are 

ab solutely necessary to 

illustrate concisely the still 

ongoing post glacial development 

processes of the 


as the most signifi cant large-scale primary 

forest on the periphery of the European 

beech forests’ distribution range. Represen ting 

its remain ing primeval forests, the World 


of the Carpathians” is an essential part 

of these unique beech forest landscapes. 

Beech forests of Germany 

Th e biogeographic region of the Central 

European beech forests is composed of 

glacial lowlands in the north, undulating 

foothills by the northern alpine border and 

a number of low mountain ranges. Germany 

is at the region's core, representing the 

global centre of distribution of the European 

beech forests. Most beech forests are pure 

stands. Many of the forest bird species 

and primeval forest relic species among the 

insects as well as a large fraction of forest 

vascular plants occurring in Germany have 

a major share of their global populations in 

Germany’s deciduous forests. 

In the tree layer, these beech forests are 

dominated by the beech and display the 

seasonal phenophases typical of deciduous 

forests. Th ey will populate an exceedingly 

broad habitat spectrum in a wide range 

of climates and altitudes, from dry to moist, 

from nutrient-poor to nutrient-rich, from 

highly acidic to calcareous. Th ey are a principal 

living environment to more than 

10,000 animal, plant, and fungal species (cf. 

OTTO 1994) and consequently a focus 

of Central Europe’s autochthonous biodiversity, 

the uniqueness of which having 

emerged over the last millennia in a breathtaking 

postglacial development process. 

Th e fi ve component parts of the “Ancient 

Beech Forests of Germany” are absolutely 

necessary to exhaustively illustrate the still 

ongoing processes. It is for this reason that 

they are to extend the Natural World 

Heritage “Primeval Beech Forests of the 

Carpathians”. Forming a relevant part 

of the ongoing development and expansion 

processes of the beech forests in Central 

Europe, the component parts of the nominated 

German extension constitute the 

main range of distribution of the beech 

forests with the typical temperate climate. 

Moreover, the component parts extend the 

montane Carpathian World Natural 

Heritage by planar (Jasmund, Serrahn, and 

Grumsin) and colline-submontane (Hainich, 

Kellerwald) beech forests.


Planar 



Kellerwald 

2.a Description of Property 

Biogeography 

Th e nominated component parts are charac 

teristic of the beech forests in Europe. 

While Jasmund, Serrahn, and Grumsin 

occupy the lowland at heights of 0 m to 

a maximum of 140 m above sea level, 

Hainich and Kellerwald are situated in the 

colline to submontane altitudinal zone 

(200 – 626 m above sea level), thus extending 

the Carpathian World Natural Heritage, 

the greater part of which being located at 

levels between 600 and 1,000 m above sea 

level (max. 1,940 m above sea level) and 

consequently at the montane to subalpine 

altitude level, by essential altitudinal zones 

to give a com prehensive illustration of the 

post glacial development process (fi g. 2.3). 

Th e various altitudinal forms of beech forest 

are characterised by the occurrence of altitudinal 

diff erential species. While oaks 

(Quercus petraea and Q. robur), Hornbeam 

(Carpinus betulus), Small-leaved Lime (Tilia 

Serrahn 

Hainich 

Jasmund 

Grumsin 



cordata), and Field Maple (Acer campestre) 

occur as mixed tree species in the planar 

and colline beech forests and the nominated 

component parts (BOHN & GOLLUB 

2007), the (alto-)montane zone is naturally 

mixed with Rowan (Sorbus aucuparia), 

Sycamore Maple (Acer pseudoplatanus), 

White Fir (Abies alba), and Norway Spruce 

(Picea abies). 

Th e nominated component parts are located 

in a typical temperate climate zone with 

mild winters, moderately warm, at times 

hot summers and rather evenly distributed 

pre cipitation. Th is is the central climatic 

range of the mesophytic deciduous broadleaf 

forests, complementing the Carpathian 

mountain climate with its long, cold winters 

and a relatively brief growing season by relevant 

growth types (fi g. 2.4). 

Th e nominated component parts are markedly 

diff erent in terms of soil base content. 

Th e soils of Jasmund and Hainich are 

base-rich in consequence of the high lime 


Fig. 2.3: Altitudinal zonation of 

European beech forests (BOHN 

et al. 2002 / 2003) in planar 

(-colline), colline-submontane, 

and montane-altomontane forms, 

including position of the nominated 

component parts and the World 


Beech Forests of the Carpathians” 


will extend the Carpathian 

World Natural Heritage 

by essential altitudinal 

zones to give a comprehensive 

illustration of 

the post glacial development 

process. 

The temperate climate of 

the German beech forests 

is complementary to 

the Carpathian mountain 

climate. 

Nationale 


31


Fig. 2.4: Climatic zonation of 

Europe (according to WALTER 

et al. 1975, modified in BOHN 

et al. 2004), including position 

of the nominated component 

parts and the World Natural 

Heritage Site “Primeval Beech 

Forests of the Carpathians” 

IV-V 

V 

III IV 

IX IX 

VIII-IX 

IX-VIII X 

VIII-VI 

oc 

V-VI 

fr 

X 

IV fr 

VI-V 

oc 

VI-V 

IV-III 

IV 

1000 km 

VI-VIII oc 

content, which has given rise to (meso-)eutraphent 

beech forests (as is also the case in 

Grumsin), while Serrahn and Kellerwald are 

dominated by oligotraphent to mesotraphent 

beech forests. Th e Carpathian beech 

forests rank among the (meso-)eutraphent 

forms (fi g. 2.5). Again, trophic levels will refl 

ect in diff erent phytosociological units and 

the appurtenant fl oristic species inventories. 

oc 

V-IV V-VI 

IV-VII 

V 

IV 

III-IV 

VI 

oc 

VII 

Position of the nominated component parts Position of the Carpathian World Natural Heritage 

Key: 

III subtropic arid zone with desert vegetation 

IV typical Mediterranean climate with Mediterranean sclerophyllous vegetation 

V warm temperate climate − deciduous broad-leaf forests with non-deciduous understorey 

VI typical temperate climate − deciduous mesophytic broad-leaf forests 

VII (semihumid)-semiarid temperate climate of the continental regions − real steppes, desert steppes, with cold winters 

VIII boreal climate zone − boreal coniferous forests, birch forests in the oceanic region 

IX arctic climate zone − tundra, polar deserts 

X alpine climates − altitudinal zonation of the vegetation typical of respective region 

The types show smooth transitions that are designated using the appropriate Roman numeral combinations, 

e.g. V-VI, V(IV). The first numeral designates the predominant type in each case. 

X 

X 

IV-VI 

IV 

VI 

IV 

VI 

VI-VIII 

VII a 

VIII 

VI 

IV 

VI-VII 

VI-IV 

VIII 

VIII co 

VI-VII 

IV 

IX 

VI-VIII 

Signifi cant ecological characteristics 

Th e European natural beech forests stand 

out due to a highly peculiar natural dynamism 

which is determined by the cycle of growth 

and decay of one single tree species, which 

is the beech. Old beech stands will regenerate 

with the crowns of individual trees 

grad ually dying back to allow more light to 

the ground. Either there already is young 

X 

IV-VI 

VII-IV 

V 

VI-

Kellerwald Hainich 

beech wood that will now emerge, or the next 

generation of saplings will close the void 

within a period of a few years. Th e beech 

once again forms the upper crown canopy 

later on, thus resetting the cycle, which has 

been described as the small development 

cycle (ZUKRIGL et al. 1963). In the wake 

of major disruptions, however, the cycle 

may also involve the formation of an early 

successional forest made up of pioneer 

species such as pines, birches, goat willows 

or rowans, which is later on infi ltrated by 

medium-shade and shade tree species. 

Th is big successional cycle may take several 

decades longer than the small one. Variations 

incorporating elements of both big and 

small cycle are possible (fi g. 2.6). 

Th is endogenous cycle of development meets 

with the diversity of sites resulting from 

the glacial and postglacial periods, producing 

the considerable structural variety as 

a basis for the species-rich, complex system. 

Serrahn 

Jasmund 

Grumsin 

Trophic levels Oligo-mesotraphent (Meso)-eutraphent 



Rooted in the beech’s enormous ecological 

plasticity, the high ecological stability 

results in a biodiversity-promoting continuity 

of the forest’s character, which makes 

the dynamics of the beech forest persistently 

“predictable” for the forest dwellers. 

Old beech forests are, for example, home 

to a multitude of fl ightless ground beetles 

that would drop the ability to fl y due to 

the habitat being continuously available or 

chang ing only at a small scale (WINTER 

2005). 

Th e nominated component parts show a 

broad range of possible forest development 

stages from rejuvenation to decay. Th e 

regenerative capacity and cycle of the forest 

are particularly manifest at Jasmund's 

dynamic seashore. In Kellerwald, the endogenous 

dynamics, together with the border 

forest setting, is especially apparent in 

the hillside and hilltop forests with their 

primeval forest-like character. 


Fig. 2.5: Zonation of European 

beech forests according to soil 

trophic levels in oligotraphent 

to mesotraphent and (meso-) 

eutraphent forms (according to 

BOHN et al. 2000, from BOHN 

& GOLLUB 2007), including 

position of the nominated component 

parts and the Carpathian 

World Natural Heritage. 

European beech forests 

show a unique natural 

dynamism dominated by 

the beech. The German 

component parts represent 

the entire gamut of forest 

development stages from 

growth to decay. 

Nationale 


33


Fig. 2.6: Regeneration cycle 

with successions of forest 

development stages in beech 

forests (ZUKRIGL et al. 

1963) 

All signifi cant beech forest 

communities of the planar 

to submontane zone are 

represented in the German 

component parts. They are 

a decisive complement 

to the beech forests of the 

Carpathians. 

Tab. 2.1: Beech forest communities 


parts and forest types of the 

World Natural Heritage 

“Primeval Beech Forests of the 


Designation of forest typologies 

according to *Flora and vegetation 

of the Carpathian Reserve, 1982. 

MUCINA, L. & MAGLOCKY, 

S. (eds.) (1985) 

Beech forest community Jasmund Serrahn Grumsin Hainich Kellerwald 

Luzulo-Fagetum x (x) 

(small-scale) 

Galio odorati-Fagetum x x x x (x) 

(small-scale) 

Hordelymo-Fagetum x x (x) 

(fragmentary) 

Carici-Fagetum x x 

Piceeto-Fagetum* x 

Abieto-Piceeto-Fagetum, 

Piceeto-Abieto-Fagetum* 

Acereto-Piceeto-Fagetum, 

Fraxineto-Fagetum* 

Early successional forest 

Rejuvenation stage 

Vegetation 

All signifi cant beech forest communities of 

the planar to submontane zones are represented 

in the nominated component parts. 

Th e various trophic levels and altitudinal 

zones are refl ected in the beech forest 

communities. Everything is there – from 

Kellerwald’s acidophilous beech forests of 

the Luzulo-Fagetum, through the woodruff 

beech forest (Galio odorati-Fagetum) 

with a medium base content in Serrahn 

Mid successional forest 

and Grumsin right up to the rich limestone 

or wood barley-beech forest (Hordelymo- 

Fagetum) in Jasmund and Hainich that 

may merge into sedge or orchid beech forest 

(Carici-Fagetum) on south-facing slopes. 

Th e beech forest communities of the extension 

nomination are therefore principally 

diff erent from the montane forms of 

the Carpathian World Natural Heritage, 

to which they are an outstanding and signifi 

cant addition (tab. 2.1). 

x 

Climax forest 

Optimal stage 

Decay stage Selection stage Maturity stage 

Primeval Beech 

Forests of the 

Carpathians 

x 

x

Association 

with forest*1 

Verifi ed European forest types 

Lowlands Highlands 

Code Jasmund Serrahn Grumsin Hainich Kellerwald 

Potential 

European forest types 

Lowlands Highlands Total 

high 1 22 7 17 30 25 64 62 77 

notable 2 9 6 14 28 20 40 47 52 

slight 3 8 10 22 56 44 58 84 68 

weak 4 0 1 6 32 13 32 71 68 

Sum 39 24 59 146 103*3 194 264 265 

European species*² 20% 12% 30% 55% 39% 73% 99.6% 

Flora 

Th e European beech forests show a decline 

in vascular plant species numbers from 

the glacial refuges in Southern Europe to the 

north and north west, in which directions 

they were advanc ing. Th eir centres of diversity 

lie in the Eastern Carpathians, Dinaric Alps, 

and Pyreneans (DIERSCHKE & BOHN 

2004). Th e particular evolutionary connection 

clearly refl ects in the entire Central 

European fl ora. For example, 265 forest 

species of the lowland and highland 

(SCHMIDT et al. 2003) have a marked 

focus of distribution in Europe (chorology 

of MEUSEL et al. 1965, 1978, 1992). Of 

these species, 264 are found in the highland 

forests, and 194 of the lowland forests (tab. 

2.2). 

Th e fi ve component parts together house 

over two-third (171) of forest species with 

80 – 100% of their global distribution concentrated 

in Europe. Moreover, their beech 

forest fl ora is representative of 7 out of 

the 16 area types that are typical of Central 

Europe (MEUSEL & JÄGER 1992). Th e 

Fagus sylvatica type is persistently found, 

hallmarks of which being the occur rence of 

Fagus sylvatica, Quercus petraea, and Melica 

unifl ora (fi g. 2.7). 

With regard to the herb layer, the nominated 

beech forests are largely characterised by 

species – with focus in Europe – regardless 

of the geographical position and nutrient 

supply. With 146 European forest species, 

Hainich shows an extraordinary wealth 

of European forest species and may consequently 

be regarded as prototypic of basophilic 

European beech forests. Jasmund 

also boasts distinct geophyte forests. Among 

the geophytes, Kidneywort (Hepatica nobilis) 

belongs to the European species for example. 

Th e White Wood-rush (Luzula luzuloides) 

is the indicator plant of acidophilous beech 

forests, and is also eponymous for the 

Luzulo-Fagetum forest community (fi g. 2.8). 

With Luzula luzuloides und Fagus sylvatica, 

two of the prime fl oristic structural components 

in Kellerwald are hence endemic to 

Europe and, at the same time, are manifestations 

of the unique natural inventory in 

Central Europe. 

Preliminary investigations suggest that also 

the cryptogam fl ora appears to be relevant 

in diagnosing mature deciduous forests. 

Old growth indicator species among mosses 

and lichen are found specifi cally associated 

with phenomena of maturity, special habitat 

structures, and certain substrates such 

as rough bark or dead wood. Rarities and 

natu ral forest specialists detected in Kellerwald 

for instance, among hundreds of 

species, include the two natural forest indicators 

Gyalecta fl otowii (recovery in Germany) 

and Megalaria laureri. 


Tab. 2.2: Forest species with 

main distribution range in 

Europe 

*1 according to Schmidt et al. 

2003 

*2 Jasmund, Serrahn, Grumsin 

with reference to 194, Hainich 

and Kellerwald to 264 species 

with focus of distribution in 

Europe; percentages in the “Lowlands” 

and “Highlands” columns 

refer to 265 European species 

*3 with Anthericum liliago, 

Corydalis cava, Corydalis solida, 

Festuca heterophylla, Inula conyza, 

there are forest species in Kellerwald’s 

buff er zone on the periphery 

of the component part which might 

also occur within the nominated 

property 

The German component 

parts combinedly house 

over two-third of the forest 

species with global distribution 

concentrated in 

Europe. 

Nationale 


35


Fig. 2.7: Distribution range of 

Melica uniflora as signature 

species of the Fagus sylvatica 

area type (MEUSEL et al. 

1965) 

Fig. 2.8: Global range of distribution 

of Luzula luzuloides as 

an example of beech forest 

plants with focus of distribution 

in Europe (taken from 

MEUSEL et al. 1965) 

Beech forest aesthetics are one 

of a kind over the course of the 

year: spring, summer, autumn, 

winter. 

Seasonality 

As opposed to the climatic pattern of tropical 

rainforests, the climate of the temperate zone 

is distinguished by its seasonal changes 

together with the phaenological fl oral cycle 

involved. From a physiognomic perspective, 

the most striking feature of deciduous 

trees is the fall of leaves, which will further 

accentuate the seasonal diff erences and 

conditions of the biotopes respectively. However, 

the foliage changing with the seasons 

does not take place abruptly. In pure beech 

forests, this process accompanied by unique 

changes in colour, from bright neon green 

in May to the golden leaves of autumn. Th e 

most dramatic consequence of leaf fall is 

the light climate’s periodicity. Th is sets deci- 

duous forests apart from all non-deciduous 

forest types, permitting the intermittent 

occurrence of a herb layer that shows diff erent 

specifi c adaptations. Spring geophytes 

exploiting the brief warm spring period 

prior to leafi ng for development are particularly 

well adapted and transform the 

soils of richer beech forests into a carpet 

of fl owers. 

Each of the nominated component parts 

has distinct geophyte forests, which is 

particularly true for the base-rich areas of 

Jasmund and Hainich. Being multifaceted 

both in seasonal course and structural 

arrangement, they are very beautiful and, at 

the same time, an image of their evolutio-

nary formation in parallel to the beech's 

continuous expansion. 

Th e association that has given rise to geophyte-rich 

beech forests is a result of ecosystemary 

continuity as well as the inner 

functional and structural diff erentiation of 

the development cycle of deciduous forests. 

In this particular shape, it is without parallel 

in the world. 

Fungi 

A multitude of fungi are involved in dead 

wood decomposition, with a number of 

species being specialised in the metabolisation 

of specifi c wood types. Species typical 

of the beech include Horse’s Hoof Fungus 

(Fomes fomentarius), Neobulgaria pura, 

Porcelain Fungus (Oudemansiella mucida), 

which is indicative of extensive matured 

wood pools, and Coral Tooth (Hericium coralloides), 

which, although widespread throughout 

the northern hemisphere and also 

growing on other trees, is only found in very 

old, mature beech forests. 

An especially important symbiosis has evolved 

between fungi and plants in the rhizo sphere, 

which is called mycorrhiza. Unlike tropical 

regions, forests of the temperate zone are 

home to fungi that will enter into specifi c 

symbioses with one or few tree species. 

Fauna 

While the beech itself is endemic to Europe, 

there is only a limited number of species 

that are exclusively bound to the beech (or 

the beech forest), which is rather young 

from an evolutionary perspective. Even so, 

the beech forest, as the dominant biotope 

by land area, is of particular relevance to 

the European fauna. Th e Central European 

beech forest is a reliable constant to its 

inhabitants with their potential range of 

distribution from the planar to the montane 

altitudinal zone. Its habitats and structures 

are available everywhere in suffi cient 

diversity, or at least were before having 

been impacted by human activity. Th e nominated 

areas prove their outstanding signifi - 

cance also here. Th e proposed forests show 

a degree of structural and habitat continuity 

and the specifi c biodiversity coming with it 

that is scarcely found in the managed forests 

of modern day Central Europe. 

Th e diff erent beech forest types are home to 

20% of the terrestrial fauna in Central 

Europe – 7,000 to 10,000 animal species 

(OTTO 1994) that have mostly adapted 

their rhythm of life to the seasonal cycle. 

Alongside with the plants, fungi, and microorganisms, 

they are the determining factor 

in the beech forest ecosystem. 


Geophytes in the nominated 

component parts: 

Each spring sees the development 

of wood garlic (Allium ursinum) 

carpet in Hainich. 

Anemones (Anemone nemorosa 

and A. ranunculoides) occur 

in all nominated properties. 

The geophyte-rich German 

beech forests represent 

an association that has no 

parallel in the world. 

The fungus populations in 

the nominated German 

component parts are evidence 

of near-naturalness 

and developmental potential. 

Nationale 


37



represent a faunistic 

community which is both 

typical of Central Europe 

and universally unique. In 

the nominated component 

parts, their diversity shows 

almost to its entirety. 

Th e inventory of species in the nominated 

component parts can be regarded as being 

indicative of the exceptionally well preserved 

ecological-functional interrelationships in 

beech forests. 

Th e specifi c abundance of species in the 

beech forests is no coincidence. Consumer 

numbers will increase at the stages of late 

maturity and collapse of the forest. Wooddwelling 

insects, for instance, are found 

in numbers. When increasing, the number 

of birds per unit area will rise accordingly 

(REMMERT 1997). In over 180-year-old 

beech forests, the population density 

of breeding birds is twice as high as in a 

140-year-old forest (SCHERZINGER 

1996), with hole-nesting birds accounting 

for more than 50%. Consequently, natural 

beech forests are regarded as particularly 

rich in fungi as well as plant and animal 

species that take advantage of dead wood. 

Despite the beech's absolute dominance, the 

beech forests which have evolved in Central 

Europe show outstanding diversifi cation 

and are unique in function and structure. 

Notwithstanding the geologically short time 

of a few thousand years, a highly characteristic 

faunistic biocoenosis has evolved 

postglacially which is just as globally unique 

as is the plant community. Th e fauna can 

exist in all its diversity, and the postglacial 

evolutionary processes can take place only if 

each forest development stage of the natural 

regeneration cycle is available – which is the 

case in the beech forests of the nominated 

component parts. 

Birds 

As for the number of both species and individuals, 

birds are the leading vertebrate 

group in the Central European beech forest 

ecosystem. Th eir ability to fl y permits them 

to exploit the entire spatial structure of the 

beech forest and quickly respond to changes 

(WINTER 1999). Th ey occupy a variety 

of niches. For example, the “wood dwellers” 

will feed off sources found on / in the wood 

and nest in tree holes. 

Moreover, the occurrence of numerous bird 

species is largely coextensive with the beech 

forest. Germany bears extraordinary responsibility 

for European endemites (DENZ 

2003, FLADE 1998, tab. 2.3). Beside the 

various mixed beech forest indicator species 

(FLADE 1994), a host of bird species 

abundant in beech forests are listed in the 

highest signifi cance class. Examples include 

Pied Flycatcher (Ficedula hypoleuca), 

Middle Spotted Woodpecker (Dendrocopos 

medius) (LÜBCKE et al. 2004), Wood 

Warbler (Phylloscopus sibilatrix), and Shorttoed 

Treecreeper (Certhia brachydactyla) 

as indicator species, but also Red Kite 

(Milvus milvus), Blue Tit (Parus caeruleus), 

Wood Pigeon (Columba palumbus), Song 

Th rush (Turdus philomelos), and Mistle 

Th rush (Turdus viscivorus) (PALEIT 2002), 

which are all found in the nominated component 

parts (tab. 2.3). 

Th e biogeographic limits of the beech forest 

distribution range result in this zonal bird 

community being highly vulnerable. 

Found in each of the fi ve component parts, 

the Black Woodpecker is a key species of 

old beech forests (MÜLLER 2005), preferring 

beech-dominated stands and building 

its nests in old live beeches. Th e nesting holes 

are the starting point of an exceedingly 

complex ecological development chain. As 

opposed to the lowland, Hainich and 

Kellerwald, which are parts of the Central 

European low mountains in plant geographical 

sense (MEUSEL et al. 1965), are 

home to the Grey-headed Woodpecker 

(Picus canus), taking global responsibility for 

this species (tab. 2.4). Th e White-backed 

Wood pecker (Dendrocopos leucotos), which

Species, isolated 

subspecies; 

English name 

Species, isolated 

subspecies; 

scientifi c name 

Concentration 

European 

distribution 

Share GER in 

global 

population 

Rank 

GER in 

Europe 

Red Kite Milvus milvus ● 60% 1. ↔ 

Marsh Tit Parus palustris ● 24% 1. ↔ 

Population 

trend GER 

Middle Spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopos medius ● 20% 1. ↔ V 

Mistle Thrush Turdus viscivorus ● 20% 2. ↑ 

Blue Tit Parus caeruleus ● 15% 2. ↓ 

Short-toed Treecreeper Certhia brachydactyla ● > 12% 3. ↔ 

Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla ○ > 10% 1. ↑ 

Green Woodpecker Picus viridis ● < 10% 3. ↓ 

Wood Warbler Phylloscopus sibilatrix ● 2% 3. ↔ 

Bonelli’s Warbler Phylloscopus bonelli ● 1% 9. ↓ 

Collared Flycatcher Ficedula albicollis ● 1% 9. ↓↓ 1 

is not found as a breeding bird in North 

and Central Germany any more, is regarded 

as indicator species of beech and 

mixed deciduous forests with extensive 

pools of dead wood. It is dependent on a 

minimum dead wood volume of 58 m 3 / ha 

(FRANK 2002). With maturation of the 

nominated forests advancing, this rare 

woodpecker species is also anticipated to 

re-immigrate from Poland and form viable 

populations. In recent years, isolated individuals 

were already detected in Grumsin. 

● exclusive ↔ perpetual 

● largely ↑ increasing 

○ predominantly ↓ decreasing 

Dendrocopos medius 

Dendrocopos minor 

Dryocopus martius 

Picus viridis 

Picus canus 

major 

Dendrocopos 

Property 

Jasmund X X X X 

Serrahn X X X X X 

Grumsin X X X X X 

Hainich X X X X X X 

Kellerwald X X X X X X 


Nationale 


Red List 

category GER 

Tab. 2.3: German breeding bird 

species with a preference for beech 

forests and global distribution 

limited to Europe (FLADE 

1998). 

Tab. 2.4: Occurrence of woodpecker 

species in the nominated 

component parts 

The German forests are 

populated by a host of bird 

species endemic to Europe. 

This is a highly vulnerable 

bird community for which 

Germany, of all countries, 

bears extraordinary responsibility. 

Representative 

populations have been 

observed in the nominated 


Left: Red Kite (Milvus milvus) 

Right: Black Woodpecker 

(Dryocopus martius) 

39


Lynx (Lynx lynx) 

Even highly endangered 

predators are returning to 

the German beech forests, 

which, from a global perspective, 

are of outstanding 

signifi cance for the preservation 

of the European 

forest bats. 

Wildcat (Felis sylvestris) 

in Hainich 

Mammals 

With civilisation advancing, predators such 

as wolf, bear, lynx, and even wildcat have 

become very rare. Th e bear has been exterminated 

in Germany, but is about to return 

here and there. Some 10 years ago, the 

wolf returned to East Germany in the Polish 

border area. It seems to take hold and 

spread. Th e lynx was reintroduced to the 

wild also in Germany and has been spreading 

from there unaided. Th e wildcat is 

once again gaining ground as a result of the 

extensive networking projects in some 

forest land scapes. Requiring ample habitats, 

these predators form viable populations 

only in East and South Europe. 

In the early days of the postglacial era, large 

herbivorous mammals were present in 

Central, North, and East Europe in the form 

of roe deers, red deers, elks, wild boars, 

aurochs, and wisents. While elks prefer to 

search swamps and fen woodland for food, 

the other animal species were wide spread 

in the primordial forest landscape. Th e cattle 

species are irrelevant for today’s forests. 

Th e aurochs has been exterminated. Wisent 

populations have been rescued through 

re-breeding, and reintroduction to the wild, 

for instance in the Rothaargebirge, is under 

consideration. 

Alongside with large domestic hoofed game 

such as Red Deer (Cervus elaphus), Red 

Roe (Capreolus capreolus), Wild Boar (Sus 

scrofa), the burrow-dwelling species European 

Badger (Meles meles) and Red Fox 

(Vulpes vulpes), which are found in all component 

parts, Hainich and Kellerwald 

are home to the rare Wildcat (Felis silvestris). 

Th e Lynx (Lynx lynx), which is highly 

endangered in Germany, has been detected 

nearby Kellerwald and Hainich, which 

makes recolonisation probable. Th e Wolf 

(Canis lupus), which has returned to 

Germany only in one place, at the southeastern 

border of Brandenburg and North 

Saxonia, was also observed in the proximity 

of the nominated property Grumsin in 

winter 2008 and spring 2009. 

Th ere are 29 bat species in Central Europe. 

From a global perspective, the distribution 

range of at least fi ve species has a focus in 

Europe. Two to four out of these fi ve 

European bat species could be observed in 

the component parts Serrahn, Grumsin, 

Hainich and Kellerwald, respectively. 

Th e bat species Myotis bechsteinii, Myotis

dasycneme, Myotis myotis und Pipistrellus 

nathusii are mainly threatened by the extensive 

loss of near-natural forests. Th e abovementioned 

species rely on the availa bility 

of tree hollows in the forest, which are 

abundant in the component parts and are 

found in major tree dimensions (tab. 2.5). 

Hence, the German beech forests are highly 

sig nifi cant for the preservation of the 

European forest bat populations. Barbastella 

barbastellus preferentially uses clefts in trees 

Bat species Serrahn 

Barbastella 

barbastellus 

Barbastelle 

Myotis bechsteinii 

Bechstein’s Bat 

Myotis dasycneme 

Pond Bat 

Myotis myotis 

Greater Mouseeared 

Bat 

Pipistrellus nathusii 

Nathusius’ 

Pipistrelle 

Grumsin 

Hainich 

Kellerwald 

Number 2 2 4 4 

that have developed in numbers throughout 

the forests of the component parts Serrahn 

and Hainich, which have not been managed 

for years. Based on the quickly accumu lat ing 

pool of dead wood, the formation of holes 

in living trees, and the increasing occurrence 

of trees with protruding bark and crotches, 

the component parts will develop even 

more favour able living environments for the 

bat species occurring in Europe. 

Distribution and 

German responsibility Forest habitats 

X X Europe and Mediterranean, Germany: so far 

only in Bavaria, North Rhine-Westphalia, and 

Thuringia; other than that mostly extinct. 

X X Europe, Asia Minor up to the Caucasus, North 

Iran; not found in the north of Germany 

24% of the known distribution area 

(MITCHELL-JONES et al. 1999) is located in 

Germany (BOYE & BAUER 2000) - the low 

mountain ranges seem to be the centre zone 

of the Central European population This is 

one of the rarest species in Germany 

(MESCHEDE & HELLER 2000). 

X Distribution in the east up to the Yenisei 

River in Russia On a European level, Germany 

is responsible for the conservation of the 

species with its disjointed distribution, 

which can be designated in more detail only 

through further studies on its distribution. 

(from MITCHELL-JONES et al. 1999). 

X X X Endemic to Europe, occurring from the 

Mediterranean to North Germany About 

16% of the detected populations are found 

in Germany. Consequently, Germany bears 

great responsibility for the species, which 

is still widespread in Germany (PETERSEN 

et al. 2004). 

X X X X European bat with notable focus of 

distribution in Germany (from MITCHELL- 

JONES et al. 1999). 


Tab. 2.5: Populations of European 

bat species in nominated 


No data is available for Jasmund 

tree crack, partially with daily shift 

very strongly bound to the forest, 

summer quarters mainly set up in 

woodpecker holes, but also in 

protruding bark and crotches that 

are open to the top (PETERSEN et 

al. 2004) 

tree holes 

hunting grounds above large 

stagnant or slowly fl owing bodies 

of water (BAAGOE 2001) 

tree holes, 

75% of the hunting grounds lie 

within closed woodland 

old forests rich in cavities, tree 

islands nearby bodies of water 

Nationale 


41


„Primeval forest 

relic species“ Serrahn 

Abraeus 

parvulus 

Aeletes 

atomarius 

Aesalus 

scarabaeoides 

Allecula 

rhenana 

Ampedus 

brunnicornis 

Grumsin 

Hainich 

Kellerwald 

Habitat requirements 

x x Predatory species in rotten wood and voluminous dead wood duff . 

Obligatory guest of the Brown Ant Lasius brunneus Tree ruins and/or standing, richly structured 

stems*1 

x x Predominantly in voluminous tree ruins: Lasius brunneus in duff , within passageways of the 

larvae of other wood-dwelling insects such as Dorcus parallelipipedus, Sinodendron cylindricum, 

Stereocorynes truncorum.*1 

x Primarily in old oak stumps with red rot that have maintained a hard surface, less frequently in 

beech stumps, often for a number of generations in one stump, nocturnal.*3 

x x x Rather thermophile. Predominantly in deciduous tree ruins. Larvae in dry, detritus-enriched duff 

in stem holes, in wood cracks and rather spacious pockets behind thick bark where they feed on 

mycelium-containing wood particles and dead insects. 

x in near-natural stands rich in dead wood and a tradition of old trees; larvae prefer blighted oak ruins 

at low levels 

Ampedus cardinalis x rather thermophile, larva frequently found deep in the wood of preferably standing, blighted old oaks 

Anitys rubens x x Rather thermophile. Character species of old oaks populated with Laetiporus sulphureus. Larvae 

follow the front of the active mycelium in rather humid wood. Many generations of partly fl ightless 

individuals in one tree - therefore above-average numbers of dead examples. Association: 

e.g. Dorcatoma fl avicornis, D. chrysomelina, Mycetophagus piceus, Lacon quercus, Ampedus cardinalis, 

Aderus oculatus.*1 

Corticeus 

fasciatus 

Crepidophorus 

mutilatus 

x Preferably on dry, hard spots infected with white rot (e.g. lightning shakes, branch tear-out wounds) 

on exposed old oaks and open old-growth stands, where it is frequently found associated with 

Colydium fi liforme. Lying wood only when kept warm and rather dry through open exposition.*1 

x Cavities with rich structures created through processes of aging*² 

Dircaea australis x On rotten and fungus-infected deciduous trees and barks, also on old deciduous wood stumps of 

several deciduous tree species, nowadays often found on managed grassland with fruit trees, on 

putrescent fruit trees, nocturnal.*3 

Elater 

ferrugineus 

Ischnodes 

sanguinicollis 

Limoniscus 

violaceus 

Mycetochara 

fl avipes 

Mycetophagus 

decempunctatus 

x x Character species of large hollows in deciduous tree stems, mostly at increased heights. 

Larvae prefer duff intermingled with nesting material of hole-nesting birds; Often associated with 

Osmoderma eremita.*1 

x Cavities with rich structures created through processes of aging.*² 

x Cavities with rich structures created through processes of aging*2 on root collars. 

x Probably a mycetophagous species under the rotten bark of old deciduous trees, in particular 

Tilia (in Hainich mainly beeches), which are infected with Corticium quercinum or Tubercularia 

confl uens, thermophile species*3 

x x On weakened trees with Inonotus obliquus.*² 

Necydalis ulmi x In cavities created by fungi of the Ionotus genus.*² 

Osmoderma 

eremita 

Schiff ermuelleria 

stroemella 

Synchita 

separanda 

Number 8 5 5 10 

x x x Rather thermophile - e.g. seams, open old-growth stands, old parks. Larvae preferably gregarious in detritus-rich 

duff , in the wood of spacious cavities of deciduous tree ruins which already show a cotton-like 

fungal lining. Furthermore e.g. in deep wood cracks and in woodpecker holes. Generally living in trees 

(moisture supply through transpirational stream); but also in rather dry high stumps if there are areas perpetually 

imbued by precipitation. Frequently associated with Elater ferrugineus and Brachygonus megerlei.*1 

x Thermophile, in dry areas (lee side of the stems, cavities) of standing large dimension timber 

and tree ruins 

x Probably a mycetophagous species under the rotten bark of old deciduous trees, in particular 

Tilia (in Hainich mainly beeches), which are infected with Corticium quercinum or Tubercularia 

confl uens, thermophile species*3

“Primeval forest relic species“ 

Hundreds of wood-dwelling insect species 

pick from the diverse wood inventory of the 

near-natural beech forest. Th e respective 

experts come into action consecutively, depending 

on whether the tree is sickly, partly 

dead or contributing to the diversity of biotopes 

in the form of dead wood. Some of 

them exclusively dwell inside the bark, 

others in the dry wood or moist duff . Th ere 

are some highly demanding species among 

the wood-dwelling insects. Th ere are, for 

instance, some beetles that require the excrements 

of other particular species for 

proper development. Some require a specifi c 

level of humidity, such as is only found in 

the root collar of old deciduous trees. Some 

conditions will develop only over the course 

of decades or even centuries. And then, the 

insects must be capable of fi nding the respective 

place. Th is means that the “ecological 

niche” must be available in high continuity 

– which requires a habitat and dead wood 

tradition. If this is not the case, the species 

is bound to vanish. Th is is exactly what makes 

the beech so relevant. Within its range of 

distribution, it will form and dominate stands 

at a large scale. Moreover, it ascends from the 

lowland up to high montane zones. 

Hallmarks of “primeval forest relic species” 

are their being highly demanding in terms 

of habitat quality and continuity as well as 

very limited mobility. A list of 115 primeval 

forest relic species among xylobiontic beetles 

has been drawn up for Central Europe 

(MÜLLER et al. 2005a), with some 30 species 

probably being typical of beech forests. 

Th e fact that these species are not found in 

Western and Central Europe but in relic 

populations can be explained by the management 

history of the forests, which are largely 

lacking in the development stages of late 

maturity and decomposition with a diverse 

supply of dead wood. However, a total 

of 19 primeval forest relic species have been 

observed in the German component parts, 

which is a remarkable fi gure in the Central 

European context (tab. 2.6). It refl ects their 

above-average ecological value within 

Germany, characteris ing them as very nearnatural 

old beech forests. 


Left: 

Tab. 2.6 Occurrence of "primeval 

forest relic species" (defi nition 

according to MÜLLER et al. 

2005) within nominated component 

parts 

(* 1 according to WINTER 2005, 

* 2 according to the National Park Plan 

Kellerwald-Edersee (2008), 

* 3 data according to A. Weigel, 

23 January 2009. 

No data is available for Jasmund.) 

The occurrence of 19 

"primeval forest relic species" 

refl ects the fact that 

the old beech forests in 

the German component 

parts are highly ecologically 

valuable. 

“Primeval forest relic species” 

are very demanding towards 

their habitat: 

Elater ferrugineus 

Osmoderma eremita 

Limoniscus violaceus 

Nationale 


43


Old beech in Jasmund 

The Jasmund National Park 

ranks among the speciesrich 

eutraphent beech 

forests of the planar altitudinal 

zone. Primeval beech 

forest relics populate 

the unique chalk cliff s. 

2.a.1 Jasmund 

Area size 

Component part 492.5 ha 

Buff er zone 2,510.5 ha 

Short profi le and biogeography 

Within the biogeographic region “Central 

European beech forests”, the Jasmund 

National Park ranks among the speciesrich 

eutraphent beech forests of the planar 

altitudinal zone. Being one of the most 

spectacular natural landscapes, it is widely 

characterised by the highly dynamic coastal 

retreat – the chalk cliff s with their natural 

beech forest mosaic. Th e forests on the 

steep slopes are untouched by human exploitation. 

Th ey represent the beech 

forest’s permanent struggling zone on the 

narrow front of the chalk cliff s toward 

the Baltic Sea. It is the largest remaining 

beech forest landscape complex (including 

springs, brooks, lakes, and mires) in the 

Northern Central European plaineland. 

Abiotic factors 

Geographical position, natural region, 

altitudinal zone 

Situated in northeasternmost Germany on 

the island of Rügen, the nominated property 

Jasmund is part of the South Baltic 

coastal landscapes. During the last ice age, 

the Jasmund peninsula was shaped to its 

present surface confi guration with its distinct 

forest ridges and the coast fringe (LANGE 

et al. 1986). Th e dynamics of the Baltic Sea 

have ever since been sculpting the distinct 

appearance of the coast. Jasmund rises 

from the sea to heights of 60 to 161 m above 

sea level as a massive chalk block. 

Geology and geomorphology 

Jasmund comprises formations dating back 

to the Cretaceous as well as the Pleistocene 

and Holocene periods. Th e writing chalk 

of Rügen was formed some 70 million 

years ago in the Upper Cretaceous. With 

thicknesses of up to 150 m, the chalk 

deposits (weakly cemented biomicrite, 

CaCO 3 ) are composed of amassed calcareous 

skeletons and silicifi ed hard parts of various 

marine animal species. Particularly striking 

is the occurrence of black fl int within the

chalk. Th is is an exceedingly hard and brittle 

silicate (SiO 2 ) that has developed from 

the amorphous silicic acid of radiolarians, 

certain sponges, and algae. 

Th e writing chalk having been distorted 

due to the approaching glaciers of the main 

thrust of the Vistula Glaciation led to the 

emergence of Jasmund’s varied landscape. 

In the lower reaches of the creeks, the water's 

force has paved precipitous V-shaped 

valleys. Storms and the concomitant fl ood 

waters result in bank erosion. 

Climate 

Th e island of Rügen is generally characterised 

by an oceanic climate, which features 

low annual mean temperatures, relatively 

slight annual temperature fl uctuations, 

high atmospheric humidity, and high wind 

frequency (RABIUS & HOLZ 1993). 

As compared to mainland conditions, the 

island climate is cooler with an annual 

mean air temperature below 7.7 °C. Annual 

precipitation ranges between 730 mm 

and 860 mm. Th e mesoclimate is highly 

diff erentiated due to the agitated relief. Cold 

air pockets develop in the numerous basinlike 

hollow forms; high atmospheric humidity 

stagnates in precipitous V-shaped 

and bank valleys while warm escarpments 

are nestled against the cliff ’s edges and crests. 

Soils 

Boulder marl from the Vistula Glaciation, 

which is found in its eroded form of boulder 

clay, is the predominant parent substrate. 

Th e northern subterritory is widely occupied 

by boulder sands. Writing chalk is found 

surfacing only at a small scale on hill crests. 

Holocene formations include peat of various 

mire types in the numerous boggy hollows. 

Freshwater chalks in spring fens and on 

percolated chalk slopes are peculiar features. 

In the zone of the coastal crags and young 

creek valleys, CaCO 3 -containing matter is 

included in soil formation as a result of soil 

erosion. According to REUTER (1958), 

the developing pararendzines played a major 

role in the young moraine landscaped of 

the postglacial period. In plateau locations, 

brown soils and lessivé have formed inside 

the moraine covers. Podzolic brown soils are 

predominant in sand sheets with low base 

saturation. Leaves being blown away lead to 

nutrient depletion. 

Water balance 

Open water catchment areas are found within 

the valleys tapering off in east-west direction 

in a comb-like manner. Inland dewatering 

zones have formed most notably in the 

northern sector of Jasmund. Inside these 

superfi cially undrained hollows, surface 

water accumulates in swamps, mires, and 

bodies of standing water. Brooks issue from 

the spring fens of Stubnitz which display 

karst phenomena such as dolines, brook 

ponors, and calc-sinter formations. Particularly 

striking is the short, precip itous 

course of the brooks nearby the steep coast. 

Th ey leap over the chalk cliff , cross the 

narrow seaside, and empty into the Baltic 

Sea in small cataracts. A gorge has developed 

at the mouth of the Kollicker Bach 

(JESCHKE 1964). 

Biotic factors 

Biotopes and vegetation 

In the Jasmund National Park, 80% of the 

woodland is dominated by the beech. 

Jasmund in its entirety can potentially be 

assigned to the specious eutraphent and 

mesotraphent beech forests that show an 

unusual small-scale variety. 

Dry orchid beech forest (Carici-Fagetum), 

Dentario-Fagetum, and fresh lush wood 

barley-beech forest (Hordelymo-Fagetum) 

as well as poor acidophilous blueberry-beech 


Geology: 

Rugen writing chalk, 

Pleistocene and 

Holocene formations 

Climate: 

Atlantic-Subatlantic 

Soil: 

brown soil, podzolic brown 

soil, pararendzina, bog soil 

Predominant beech 

forest types: 

Galium odorati-Fagetum 

Hordelymo-Fagetum 

Carici-Fagetum 

Nationale 


45


Fig. 2.9: Distribution of forest 

communities and other biotope 

types in Jasmund

forests (oligotraphent) are benchmarks of 

the variety of types – from dry to moist, 

from poor to rich, from basic to acidic. In 

transitional zones from spring to brook, the 

landscape is characterised by alder forests 

(fi g. 2.9). Th e transition toward mixed hillside 

forests and alder carrs is smooth and 

structured at a small scale. A multitude of 

biotopes which is threatened all over Europe, 

such as chalk tuff springs, transition and 

quaking bogs, and natural eutrophic lakes 

form a mosaic with the beech forest. A highly 

diff erentiated vegetation mosaic has developed 

on the banked steep slopes down to the 

Baltic Sea. Physiog nomically, the complex of 

beech forests on limestone, service tree-beech 

shrub, juniper-dogwood shrub, Silene-Libanotis 

seams, and grass of Parnassus-hawkbit 

communities (Parnassia palustris-Leon todon 

hispidus community) corresponds to 

the vegetation complexes rich in blue grass 

(Sesleria) that are found in natural forest 

limit sites on limestone in the highlands. Th e 

forests on the coastal slopes are to be rated 

as highly signifi cant in terms of naturalness. 

Th e sites are partly kept clear by the 

natural dynamic forces of the coast, or 

are even develop anew over and over again. 

Flora 

While the mean number of species of the 

herb layer in the Dentario-Fagetum on the 

central Stubnitz plateau is just short of 

20, it comprises over 30 species in the wood 

barley-beech forest (NATIONAL PARK 

PLAN 1998). Hallmarks of the thermophilic 

forms are, in particular, forest orchids 

alongside with Kidneywort (Hepatica 

nobilis). Th is includes helleborines (Cephalanthera 

rubra, C. longifolia, C. damasonium) 

and the Lesser Butterfl y-orchid (Platanthera 

bifolia). Th e Lady’s Slipper Orchid (Cypripedium 

calceolus) has very good growth conditions 

in Vincetoxicetum hirundinariae 

on limestone. Less frequent species found 

near the coast include Coral Root (Coral- 

lorrhiza trifi da) and Ghost Orchic (Epipogium 

aphyllum). 

Th e beech’s undergrowth includes, among 

others, English Holley (Ilex aquifolium), 

which is characteristic of Atlantic Europe. 

On moraine sites, ivy (Hedera helix) will 

partly account for the beech's undergrowth 

across the whole area. Th is is most probably 

to be ascribed to the high atmospheric humidity 

in north exposure. 

Fauna 

Th e diversity of biotopes in contact with 

the sea and the maritime climate provide 

favourable living conditions to a host of 

species, some of which having their only or 

most important habitat in Jasmund. With 

regard to the birds, the ecological peculi arities 

are associated with the chalk cliff . Th is 

place provides rock breeders with the only 

one natural breeding place in the entire 

Northeast German region. Peregrine (Falco 

peregrinus), Common Swift (Apus apus), 

Black Redstart (Phoenicurus ochruros), and 

House Martin (Delichon urbica, some 

800 breeding pairs) breed in the chalk cliff . 

A total of 153 bird species occur in the 

Jasmund National Park, 86 of which being 

breeding birds and 67 birds of passage 

(NATIONAL PARK PLAN 1998); 

in 2009, 54 breeding bird species have been 

noted in the nominated component part 

(tab. 2.7). Th e avifauna of Jasmund's beech 

forests is composed of about 30 species. 

Particular mention deserves the occurrence 

of all three fl ycatchers, the Pied, Spotted, 

and Red-breasted Flycatcher (Ficedula 

hypoleuca, Muscicapa striata, Ficedula parva) 

in high densities. Jasmund is quite probably 

one of the few forest regions in Mecklenburg-Western 

Pomerania which is regularly 

in habited by the four warbler species 

Chiff chaff (Phylloscopus colly bita), Willow 

Warbler (Phylloscopus trochilus), Wood 

Warbler (Phylloscopus sibilatrix) and Greenish 

Warbler (Phylloscopus trochi loides). 


Nationale 


47


Species Scientifi c name BP counted BP estimated Breeding pairs 

Breeding bird 

Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla 25 30 25 – 30 

Black Woodpecker Dryocopus martius 1 1 1 

Blue Tit Parus caeruleus 35 40 35 – 40 

Chaffi nch Fringilla coelebs 165 125 125 – 160 

Chiff chaff Phylloscopus collybita 10 13 1,013 

Coal Tit Parus ater 1 2 1 – 2 

Common Blackbird Turdus merula 26 40 26 – 40 

Common Crane Grus grus 1 1 1 

Common Crossbill Loxia curvirostra 1 1 1 

Common Merganser Mergus merganser 3 3 3 

Common Raven Corvus corax 4 4 4 

Common Redstart Phoenicurus phoenicurus 3 5 3 – 5 

Coucal Cuculus canorus 1 1 1 

Crested Tit Parus cristatus 1 1 1 

Dunnock Prunella modularis 2 3 2 – 3 

Eurasian Jay Garrulus glandarius 6 7 6 – 7 

Eurasian Nuthatch Sitta europaea 25 50 25 – 50 

Eurasian Treecreeper Certhia familiaris 6 3 1 – 3 

European Pied Flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca 3 3 3 

European Robin Erithacus rubecula 34 45 34 – 45 

European Starling Sturnus vulgaris 8 20 8 – 20 

Firecrest Regulus ignicapillus 14 17 14 – 17 

Garden Warbler Sylvia borin 5 7 5 – 7 

Goldcrest Regulus regulus 3 3 3 

Great Spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopos major 32 40 32 – 40 

Great Tit Parus major 136 150 136 – 150 

Greenish Warbler Phylloscopus trochiloides 1 3 1 – 3 

Green Woodpecker Picus viridis 1 0 0 – 1 

Hawfi nch Coccothraustes coccothraustes 7 5 5 – 7 

Hooded Crow Corvus corone / C. corone x C. corone 14 11 11 – 14 

House Martin Delichon urbica 226 200 181 – 200 

Jackdaw Corvus monedula 1 1 1 

Lesser Spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopos minor 1 0 0 – 1 

Lesser Whitethroat Sylvia curruca 3 5 3 – 5 

Long-tailed Tit Aegithalos caudatus 1 1 1 

Marsh Tit Parus palustris 10 15 10 – 15 

Marsh Warbler Acrocephalus palustris 1 2 1 – 2 

Oriole Oriolus oriolus 2 2 2 

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus 1 1 1 

Red-breasted Flycatcher Ficedula parva 7 10 7 – 10

Species Scientifi c name BP counted BP estimated Breeding pairs 

Rosefi nch Phyrrhula phyrrhula 2 0 0 – 2 

Short-toed Treecreeperr Certhia brachydactyla 7 14 7 – 14 

Song Thrush Turdus philomelos 15 17 15 – 17 

Spotted Flycatcher Muscicapa striata 1 2 1 – 2 

Stock Pigeon Columba oenas 12 15 12 – 15 

Tawny Owl Strix aluco 8 10 8 – 10 

Whitethroat Sylvia communis 1 3 1 – 3 

White Wagtail Motacilla alba 9 13 7 – 13 

Willow Tit Parus montanus 1 2 1 – 2 

Willow Warbler Phylloscopus trochilus 7 15 7 – 15 

Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes 55 60 55 – 60 

Wood Pigeon Columba palumbus 32 40 32 – 40 

Wood Warbler Phylloscopus sibilatrix 50 55 50 – 55 

Regular visitor 

Common Buzzard Buteo buteo 0 1 

Goshawk Accipiter gentilis 

Great Coromorant Phalacrocorax carbo 

Herring Gull Larus argentatus 

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 

White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla 

Jasmund's inshore region provides habitat 

for White-tailed Eagles (Haliaeetus albicilla) 

and Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus). 

Th e roughly 300 large butterfl y species observed 

in the national park include species of 

supraregional signifi cance such as the Sand 

Dart (Agrotis ripae). Th e Photedes morrisii 

population is the only one in Germany and 

one of the few in Europe. 

Beside exclusive coastal species such as 

Bembidion pallidipenne and Cicindela maritima, 

which prefer sandy grounds, the 

species Bembidion saxatile, B. andreae polonicum, 

and Nebria livida lateralis, which 

rely on cohesive soils on steep slopes, ground 

beetles include a whole range of other 

interesting species on the chalk coast. Among 

the forest ground beetles, the occurrence 

of the Caterpillar Hunter (Calosoma inquisitor), 

a tree-dwelling species and a number 

of large ground beetles is noteworthy – for 

example Carabus glabratus, which is a typical 

inhabitant of old forests. C. convexus, 

which prefers rather dry forests and declining 

throughout Europe, is still found relatively 

frequently in the nominated component 

part. 

Eight bat species have been observed on the 

island of Rügen, the occurrence of which 

should also be anti cipated in the nominated 

component part. Noteworthy amphibians 

include the occurrence of the agile frog. 


Tab 2.7: Breeding birds of 

the nominated component part 

Jasmund 

(Source: Jasmund National 

Park 2009) 

Nationale 


49


Old beech forest in Serrahn 

Serrahn’s beech forests rank 

among the oligotraphent 

to mesotraphent forms of 

the planar zone. 

2.a.2 Serrahn 

Area size 


Buff er zone 2,568 ha 


Serrahn is home to the base-defi cient variant 

of the lowland (planar) beech forest on 

glacial sands. In the wake of temporary forest 

degradation in Slavic and early German 

times (round 800 years ago), a beech forest 

has evolved that has not been managed for 

over 50 years in places (old Strict Forest 

Reserve) and is an impressive illustration of 

regeneration power and the development 

cycle of beech forests. Sea and fi sh eagles as 

well as hole-nesting bird species are found 

in outstanding densities due to the close 

contact of the beech forests with extensive 

natural lakes. 


Geographical position, ecological region, 

altitudinal zone 

Serrahn lies in the undulating young 

moraine region of the Northeast German 

lowlands some 80 km from the Baltic Sea, 

and is characterised by elevations and 

valleys of the terminal moraine alternating 

on a small scale, as well as by outwash 

plains. Serrahn lies within the larges coherent 

woodland of all Mecklenburg-Western 

Pomerania, about 10 km east of the city 

of Neustrelitz and 4 km south of the small 

town of Zinow. It is characterised by the 

strongly truncated terrain, with the two 

highest elevations being 124 m above sea level 

in the western and 113.7 m above sea level 

in the southeastern periphery. Th e lowest 

areas lie at 80 to 90 m above sea level and 

are mostly swampy or wet to some extent. 

Th e settlement of Serrahn, which lies in 

the forest and contains only a few houses, 

abuts on the nominated component part. 

It is located in the tran sition zone from 

Düsterförder Sandhochfl äche to the Feldberger 

Seenlandschaft.


Th e area’s characteristic landscapes evolved 

about 20,000 years ago during the second 

major glacial advance period of the Vistula 

Glaciation. In terms of geomorphology, the 

nominated property is part of the garlandshaped 

terminal moraine bend of the Pomeranian 

Stage (HOHL 1985, BAUER 1972). 

Th ere are height diff erentials of up to 40 m, 

with a multitude of smaller and larger 

hollows and summits the slopes of which 

being inclined up to 25 degrees. 

Climate 

Mean annual precipitation is just below 

600 mm. More than 50% of the precipitation 

occurs within the growth season, with peak 

values in June or July. Th e annual mean air 

temperature is 8.0°C. Th e predominant 

wind direction is west to southwest with 

maximum storm activity in February. 

Soils 

Serrahn is part of the Chorin moraine complex 

of the Wismar type. Th e diversifi ed 

mosaic of ground forms of the terminal 

moraine is determined by ground water-free 

mesotrophic sandy soils which predominantly 

occur as weakly podzolised brown soils 

and are found associated with strong soil 

forms of carbonate-containing boulder 

clays (Albelusivols with clay). Fault blocks 

of boulder clay and boulder marl are found 

surfacing in places or are concealed below a 

sandy layer. Local agglomerations of coarse 

terminal moraine material represent remains 

of alluvial deposits which were intensely 

exploited by quarrymen in earlier times. 

Having developed with the thawing of 

buried dead ice relics, the mostly drainless 

hollow forms are characterised by Holocene 

peat formations on siliceous and organogenic 

peat clays. Consequently, the nominated 

property contains kettle-hole mires of poor 

trophic conditions. Soils under hydromor- 

phic infl uence are found on the banks of the 

Schweingartensee (buff er area) in the shape 

of gley podzoles and gley brown soils with 

spring-time groundwater levels above 1 m 

underground. 

Water balance 

Th e water bodies in the nominated property 

were devoid of any above-ground effl uents 

in their former natural condition. Over 

the past decades, the artifi cial drainage was 

eliminated within the scope of renaturation 

measures. Th erefore, hydrologic conditions 

have largely normalised. Atmospheric 

humidity in proximity to the sea and nearby 

the kettle-hole mires is increased at a small 

scale, resulting in elevated numbers of 

humidity indicators among the vegetation. 

Th e capacity to retain water in the nearsurface 

sand layers is mostly low. 20–25% 

of the water volume will rapidly drain away 

deeper into the ground and ducted through 

an underground drain to the eastern border 

of the property right up to the Schweingartensee 

in the buff er zone. Water supply 

is better only such areas that contain layers 

of boulder marl and clayey sand covers. 


Kettle-hole mire (Serrahn) 

with Sphagnum (spec.) and 

Calla (Calla palustris) 

Geology: 

Pleistocene formations 

Climate: 

Atlantic-Subcontinental 

Soil: 

podzolic brown soil, gleyic 

brown soil, gleyic podzol, 

bog soil 


forest types: 

Luzulo-Fagetum 


Nationale 


51


Fig. 2.10: Distribution of forest 

communities and other biotope 

types in Serrahn 



Serrahn´s beech forests are of the Galio odorati-Fagetum 

(woodruff beech forest) type 

with medium to lower trophic levels, the 

acido philous beech forest (Luzulo- Fagetum) 

type with Avenella fl exuosa and May Lily 

(Maianthemum bifolium), the pine-beech 

forest type, and sessile oak-beech forest type, 

which are peculiar regional development 

stages. Th e slope angles, which for lowlands 

are remarkably steep in places, have a modifying 

eff ect on the forest communities, with 

both profound moist emplacement areas and 

natural small-scale denudation zones where 

the soil is being depleted of nutrients. Further 

more, the property contains six meso trophic-acidic 

kettle-hole mires (about 4 ha) and 

two eutrophic swamp mires (about 2 ha). Th e 

kettle-hole mires are to be classed as near-natural, 

the swamp mires as moderately drained. 

Wet sites are populated with elongated sedgealder 

carrs, which is a characteristic element 

of lowland beech forest landscapes (fi g. 2.10). 

Flora 

Th e herb layer of Serrahn’s beech forests 

does not comprise any distinctly rare 

species. European Wood Anemone (Anemone 

nemorosa), May Lily (Maianthemum 

bifolium), Wood Mellick (Melica unifl ora), 

Oak Fern (Gymnocarpium dryopteris), 

Yellow Archangel (Galeobdolon luteum), and 

Wood Millet (Milium eff usum) are typical 

species. 

Twice as many moss species as compared 

to the nearby managed forests are found in 

the beech forests, which have not been 

managed for 50 years (WIEHLE 1994), 

with Metzgeria furcata (Red List 3) and 

Ptilidium pulcherrimum being examples of 

the less frequent species. 

SCHURIG (1995) found 154 fungal species 

in the area. Th e endangered fungi Xylobolus 

frustulatus, Hericium erinaceus, Creopus 

gelatinosus, and Phellinus pini are mentioned 

as distinctive. Th e Horse’s Hoof Fungus 

(Fomes fomentarius), which is one of the main

decomposers of beech wood, is regularly 

found on both living and freshly dead 

trees. 

Fauna 

Serrahn is rich in insect species. MÖLLER 

(in FLADE et al. 2003) found 428 xylobiotic 

beetle species. With the moth Schiff ermuelleria 

stroemella, a prim eval forest relic 

species has been observed which does not 

occur in Germany but in a very few isolated 

cases (MÜLLER et al. 2005). Species 

endangered at a supraregional level also 

include the beetle Acritus minutus. Ampedus 

hjorti, Nemapogon picarellus, Osmoderma 

eremita, Pseudathous hirtus, Ptinus fur, and 

Tenebrio opacus have been observed as 

exclusive and signifi cant species indicative 

of near-natural beech forests. 

Th e Middle Spotted Woodpecker (Dendrocopos 

medius) as an indicator of old beech 

forests, the Black Woodpecker (Dryocopus 

martius) as a key species for hole-nesting 

birds, and cavernicolous insects (e.g. Aderidae) 

are found in the nominated component part. 

Th e population density of Eurasian Nuthatch 

(Sitta europaea), a hallmark beech forest 

species, is twice as frequently in the component 

part which has not been managed 

for fi ve decades, as in an old yet managed 

reference forest (PRILL 1994) (tab. 2.8). 

Among the bats, the Lesser and Common 

Noctule (Nyctalus leisleri, N. noctula) as well 

as the Barbastelle (Barbastella barbastellus) 

have been observed as typical inhabi tants of 

old and dead wood within the component 

part. 

Parameter Serrahn Managed 

forest 

Number of species 25.0 25.0 

Breeding pairs / 10 ha 40.0 31.0 

Hole-nesting birds (%) 56.0 49.0 

Hole-nesting birds / 10 ha 22.5 15.3 

Middle Spotted Woodpecker, Dendrocopos medius / 10 ha 0.4 0.0 

Black Woodpecker, Dryocopus martius / 10 ha 0.4 0.0 

European Pied Flycatcher, Ficedula hypoleuca / 10 ha 0.7 0.0 

Common Redstart, Phoenicurus phoenicurus / 10 ha 0.4 0.0 

Eurasian Nuthatch, Sitta europaea / 10 ha 4.0 2.1 

Great Tit, Parus major / 10 ha 5.8 2.0 

Blue Tit, Parus caeruleus / 10 ha 4.4 2.5 

Stock Pigeon, Columba oenas / 10 ha 1.8 0.4 

Short-toed Treecreeper, Certhia brachydactyla / 10 ha 1.1 0.8 


Tab. 2.8: Comparison of the 

avifauna (selection) in Serrahn 

and a nearby managed beech 

forest 

Nationale 


53


Light and shadow in Grumsin 

Grumsin’s beech forests 

rank among the (meso-) 

eutraphent forms of the 

planar zone. 

2.a.3 Grumsin 

Area size 


Buff er zone 274.3 ha 


Grumsin is representative of the base-rich 

lowland beech forest type of the “Central 

European beech forests” region. Th e natural 

beech forest communities lie within the 

zone of the terminal moraines of the Schorfheide-Chorin 

Biosphere Reserve. It is the 

ideal type of a near-natural young terminal 

moraine landscape with pronounced relief 

and rich diversity of embedded alder carrs, 

forest bogs, and lakes. Being the best example 

case of that quality, Grumsin is an outstanding 

part of the largest contiguous lowland 

beech woodland worldwide. 


Geographical position, ecological 

region, altitudinal zone 

Grumsin lies in the Northeast German lowlands 

in Uckermark, which forms the northeastern 

portion of the Land of Brandenburg. 

Being a part of the Uckermark highlands, 

it is to be assigned to the “North Brandenburg 

young moraine land” growth zone, 

characteristic of which being ground moraines, 

terminal moraines, outwash plains, 

and valley sand areas. Th e altitude varies 

from 84 m to 139 m above sea level. 


Major sections of the property form part of 

the terminal moraine of the Pomeranian 

ice marginal zone and Angermünde terminal 

moraine. Other than that, they are ground 

moraine sites (SCHÄFER & HORN- 

SCHUCH 1998). Th e surface terrain of 

Grumsiner Forst was sculpted 70,000 to 

12,000 years ago during the Vistula Glaciation. 

Moraine plates and the terminal 

moraine have created height diff erentials at 

a small scale. Deep hollows alternate with 

craggy ridges of which the “Blocksberg” 

with 139 metres forms the highest elevation

in the biosphere reserve. Most of the property 

is occupied by the geological formation 

of boulder marl. About 20% are characterised 

by sand on a permeable substrate. 

Climate 

Totalling 571 mm on average, annual precipitation 

shows a maximum of 72 mm in 

July and is altered by the terminal moraine's 

ridges at a small scale. Together with the 

hillsides having a retaining eff ect, the lakes 

produce an increase in atmospheric humidity 

in the forest. More than half of the precipitation 

occurs during the growth season. 

Th e annual mean air temperature is 8.3 °C. 

Th e climate is under Atlantic as well as subcontinental 

infl uences. 

Soils 

About half of the Grumsiner Forst area is 

dominated by boulder marl. 40% of leached 

brown soils and 10% of brown soils are 

found in the forest area. Th e remaining 50% 

should be summarised as brown soils at 

varying degrees of podzolisation. Soils of 

the terrestrialisation, kettle-hole, and 

swamp mires are found only in small areas 

(SCHÄFER & HORNSCHUCH 1998). 

Water balance 

A formative feature of the component part 

is the close contact between water and forest. 

On the one hand, it is the fi ve lakes Buckowsee, 

Großer Dabersee, Moossee, Brakensee 

und Schwarzer See, and on the other hand 

the multifarious mires that determine the 

outstanding character. 

Th e property is located within the large 

catchment area of the Oder River. Th e involved 

smaller local groundwater catchment 

areas are predominantly delimited by the 

relief and geological factors (SCHÄFER 

& HORNSCHUCH 1998). A hallmark of 

the ground and terminal moraine zones 

is the alteration between groundwater-retain- 

ing layers and aquifers. Contiguous aquifers 

are rather scarce due to the widespread 

sandy boulder marl (JORDAN & WEDER 

1995). Consequently, groundwater levels in 

the moors and lakes of the property vary 

markedly. Th e inland catchment areas, which 

had initially been separate from each 

other, were in part connected by anthropogenic 

intervention. Th is was reversed within 

the scope of hydro-engineering measures 

in preparation of the nomination. 



Th e forest landscape is dominated by beech 

forests that diff er in soil base contents. 

Th e large-area woodruff -beech forest (Galio 

odorati-Fagetum) is representative of a 

medium trophic level. Woodruff -beech 

forest with Wood Melick (Melica unifl ora), 

woodruff -beech forest with Wood Millet 

(Milium eff usum), and woodrush-beech 

forest (Luzulo-Fagetum) with May Lily 

(Maianthemum bifolium) can be diff erentiated 

with dropping base contents. 

Th e slope angles, which for lowlands are 

remarkably steep in places, have a modifying 

eff ect on the forest communities, with 

both profound moist emplacement areas 

and natural small-scale denudation zones. 

On dry crests, the dominant beech is 

replaced by the sessile oak, on slopes by hornbeams, 

in wet hollows by ash trees, and on 

the lake banks by alders. Wet sites in 

Grumsin are populated with elongated sedgealder 

carrs, which are signature elements 

of the lowland beech forest landscapes (fi g. 

2.11). 


Geology: 

Pleistocene formations 

Climate: 

Atlantic-Subcontinental 

Soil: 

brown soil, leached brown 

soil, podzolic brown soil, 

bog soil 


forest types: 


Nationale 


55


Fig. 2.11: Distribution of the 

forest communities and other 

biotope types in Grumsin 

Flora 

349 higher plant species have been observed 

in the woodland of Grumsin (LUTHARDT 

et al. 2004), with a 17% share of Red List 

species. Particularly remarkable is the 

occurrence of 24 species which have been included 

in the German Red List, and which 

make up about 7% of all species detected 

(BENKERT et al. 1996). Noteworthy are the 

Mud Sedge (Carex limosa), Marsh Labrador 

Tree (Ledum palustre), Southern Adderstongue 

(Ophioglossum vulgatum), Calla 

(Calla palustris), Royal Fern (Osmunda regalis), 

and Runnoch Rush (Scheuchzeria palustris) 

that benefi t from the forests being in close 

contact with water. 

Fauna 

Grumsin's fauna also refl ects the spatial 

connection between forest and water. 

Together with other major wooded areas 

and embedded non-forest habitats located 

within the “Poratzer Moränenlandschaft 

mit Görlsdorfer Forst” landform, the 

Grumsiner Forst is of national signifi cance 

as a breeding area for endangered large 

bird species. Most notably, these include 

White-tailed Eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) and 

Common Crane (Grus grus), but also 

Osprey and Lesser Spotted Eagle (Pandion 

haliaetus, Aquila pomarina) as well as Black 

Stork (Ciconia nigra). 

Th e Grey Wolf (Canis lupus), which returned 

to Germany approx. 10 years ago in the 

Polish border zone, was also observed in the 

area of the nominated component part in 

winter 2008 and spring 2009.

2.a.4 Hainich 

Area size 

Component part 1,573.4 ha 



Th e nominated component part Hainich 

represents the low mountain range beech 

forest (colline-submontane) on limestone rich 

in species and nutrients. Th e forest landscape 

is made up of coherent beech forests 

and stands out due to its highly distinct 

population of early bloomers and richness 

in tree species. With some 5,000 ha, Hainich 

contains Germany’s largest free-of-use 

deciduous forest area. Th e nominated component 

part comprises the national park's 

centre area, which was already free of silvicultural 

use decades prior to the designation 

as national park. 




Th e nominated property Hainich lies only 

a few kilometres from Germany’s geographic 

centre, in the southern portion of the 

eponymous hill chain which, with 16,000 ha, 

contains the largest contiguous woodland of 

all Germany. Forming the western part of 

the muschelkalk ring around the Th uringian 

Basin, the Hainich range of hills belongs to 

the ecological region “Hainich-Dün-Hainleite”. 

Hallmarks of this ecological region 

include the mostly wooded muschelkalk 

plateaus at altitudes of 300 – 500 m above 

sea level. Th e nominated component part is 

entirely encompassed by the 5,650-ha core 

zone within the 7,500-ha Hainich National 

Park; the remaining core zone areas constitute 

the buff er of the nominated component 

part. 


Having formed some 225 million years ago 

mostly from marine sediments, the rock 

of Hainich fractured into fault blocks during 

the “alpidic” stage as a result of faulting 

tectonic events. 

In the northeast, toward the Th uringian 

Basin, there a large areas of almost undisturbed 

Upper Muschelkalk which, in 

its extreme periphery, is covered by Lower 

Keuper deposits. Th e national park's 

southwestern slope contains a fault zone 

with a multitude of cross valleys and longitudinal 

valleys. Th e oldest facies are made 

up of two small dolomite occurrences of the 

Zechstein (Upper Perm) within another 

hercynic striking fault (i.e. from northwest 

to southeast) in the national park's southern 

portion. Th ese are associated with smaller 

fault blocks of the Lower and Middle Bunter. 

Th e limestones are highly fragmented and 

permeable to water. Over the course of 

the Pleistocene, the surface forms of the 

Hainich range of hills were strongly reshaped 

through slope denudation and loess accumu- 


Crown canopy in Hainich 

Hainich’s beech forests 

rank among the (meso-) 

eutraphent forms of the 

colline-submontane zone. 

Nationale 


57


Geology: 

Muschelkalk, Keuper, 

Zechstein, Buntsandstein 

Climate: 

Continental 

Soil: 

rendzina, terra fusca, 

brown soil, leached brown 

soil 


forest types: 


Hordelymo-Fagetum 

Carici-Fagetum 

Right: 



biotope types in Hainich 

lation processes. Steep escarpments to the 

Werre valley developed when the Upper 

Muschelkalk weathered. Th e eastern hillsides 

down to the Th uringian Basin show a 

multitude of V-shaped valleys or V-shaped 

valleys with a broad fl oor. Minor sinkholes 

are found in the eastern half of the territory 

which has developed from lixiviation processes 

during the Middle Muschelkalk. 

Climate 

With an annual altitude-dependent volume 

of precipitation of approx. 550 – 750 mm 

and an average annual mean temperature 

of 7 – 8 °C, Hainich lies in the continental 

climate zone. Precipitation in and around 

Hainich varies markedly by almost 200 mm. 

Th ere is an annual average of 30 – 40 fog 

days. Th e predominant wind direction is 

southwest throughout the national park area. 

Soils 

Muschelkalk weathering products are 

dominant in the national park. Rendzinas 

are found in erosion positions on crests 

and ridges, on slope sides and escarpments, 

forming transitional or permanent phases. 

Th is is because Pleistocene mass displacements 

would clear out older soils through 

solifl uction and slumping processes to leave 

behind fresh detrital carbonate. Th e claychalk 

rendzina, which is prevalent over the 

Upper Muschelkalk, is characterised by 

its unbalanced hydrology. Th e colloid-rich 

soils are hardly permeable to water and 

show a tendency to waterlogging in shallow 

synclines. In many cases, plateaus, shallow 

crest slopes, and slope hollows are covered 

with Terra Fusca. Th ey are overlaid with 

aeolic sediments on lower slopes, in hollows 

and dry valleys, and on the eastern periphery 

of the property. Th e surface is largely 

dominated by brown soil-Terra Fusca and 

brown soil-leached brown soil (KRUPPA 

2000). Th e meadows of the elongated brook 

valleys are covered with Holocene river clay. 

Water balance 

Hainich constitutes the watershed between 

the Werra-Weser system and the Unstrut- 

Saale-Elbe system. Th e groundwater fl ows 

from west to east towards the Th uringian 

Basin. Persistently aquiferous streams are 

naturally absent due to the geological 

structure. Typical features of Hainich are 

little summer-dry brook valleys that will 

carry water only after snowmelt and heavy 

rain. 

Standing surface waters are small in size, 

being little local patches where the ground 

has settled, sealed with layers of clay. Th ey 

will fall dry during the summer months for 

lack of constant feeding. Th ere are no permanent 

standing water bodies in Hainich. 

Th e water-impermeable horizon is formed 

by the Upper Bunter. Groundwater in 

Hainich may be buried at up to 100 m in the 

bedrock owing to the superjacent muschelkalk 

ridge. 



Wood barley-beech forest (Hordelymo- 

Fagetum) is the prevalent type here. Th e 

forb-rich fresh beech forest on limestone 

impresses by its rich populations of early 

bloomers. Depending on the site, the wood 

barley-beech forest features major wood 

garlic or dog's mercury populations (Allium 

ursinum, Mercurialis perennis), while the 

montane form is populated with Coralroot 

(Dentaria bulbifera). On slope edges and 

loess covers, the understorey is dominated 

by Wood Melick (Melica unifl ora), while 

forms rich in ferns are found on shady, cool 

north and east-facing slopes. Limestone 

indicator species are largely absent in zones 

of thicker loess clay covers with superfi cial 

acidifi cation (fi g. 2.12).


Nationale 


59


Tab. 2.9: Species in Hainich 

under protection of the Habitats 

(annex II and annex IV) and 

Birds Directive (annex I) 

English name Scientifi c name Annex II Annex IV Annex I 

Common Midwife Toad Alytes obstetricans X 

Barbastelle Barbastella barbastellus X X 

Yellow-bellied Toad Bombina variegata X X 

Natterjack Toad Bufo calamita X 

Smooth Snake Coronella austriaca X 

Serotine Bat Eptesicus serotinus X 

Marsh Fritillary Euphydryas aurinia X 

Wildcat Felis silvestris X 

Large Blue Glaucopsyche arion X 

European Tree Frog Hyla arborea X 

Sand Lizard Lacerta agilis X 

White-faced Darter Leucorrhinia pectoralis X X 

Hazel Dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius X 

Bechstein’s Bat Myotis bechsteinii X X 

Brandt’s Bat Myotis brandti X 

Daubenton’s Bat Myotis daubentoni X 

Leisler’s Bat Nyctalus leisleri X 

Greater Mouse-eared Bat Myotis myotis X X 

Whiskered Bat Myotis mystacinus X 

Natterer’s Bat Myotis nattereri X 

Common Noctule Nyctalus noctula X 

Nathusius’ Pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii X 

Common Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus X 

Soprano Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus X 

Brown Long-eared Bat Plecotus auritus X 

Pool Frog Rana lessonae X 

Great Crested Newt Triturus cristatus X X 

Tengmalm’s Owl Aegolius funereus X 

Short-eared Owl Asio fl ammeus X 

Great Bittern Botaurus stellaris X 

Eurasian Eagle Owl Bubo bubo X 

Black Stork Ciconia nigra X 

Western Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus X 

Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus X 

Montagu‘s Harrier Circus pygargus X 

Corn Crake Crex crex X 

Middle Spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopus medius X 

Black Woodpecker Dryocopus martius X 

Merlin Falco columbarius X

Collared Flycatcher Ficedula albicollis X 

Red-breasted Flycatcher Ficedula parva X 

Lesser Grey Shrike Lanius collurio X 

Woodlark Lullula arborea X 

Black Kite Milvus migrans X 

Red Kite Milvus milvus X 

Honey Buzzard Pernis apivorus X 

Grey-headed Woodpecker Picus canus X 

Barred Warbler Sylvia nisoria X 

Black Grouse Tetrao tetrix ssp. tetrix X 

Woodruff -beech forest (Galio odorati-Fagetum) 

occurs here. On a number of steeper, 

primarily south-facing hillsides which occur 

only at a small scale, the Mixed ash-maple 

stands are found in Hainich's moist valleys. 

Wet sites are populated with very small 

elongated sedge-alder carrs. 

Flora 

1,167 plant species (812 fern and fl owering 

plant, 221 moss and 134 lichen species) as 

well as 1,646 fungal species grow in Hainich 

National Park (as at 2008). Th e forests’ 

extensiveness, the continuous habitat, the 

relative richness in structures and dead 

wood in Hainich provide an outstanding 

basis for preserving most of the species 

spectrum of Central European beech forests 

on limestone. 

Geophytes are found in Hainich covering 

impressive areas. Striking and locally 

aspect-forming species include Wood Garlic 

(Allium ursinum), Spring Snowfl ake (Leucojum 

vernum), Hollowroot (Corydalis cava), 

Kidneywort (Hepatica nobilis), and Windfl 

o we r (Anemone nemorosa). With White 

and Red Helleborine (Cephalanthera damasonium, 

C. rubra), two thermophilic and 

photophilic orchids occur in the sedge-beech 

forest alongside with Lilly-of-the-Valley 

(Convallaria majalis), Mountain and Finger 

Sedge (Carex montana, C. digitata). 

Remarkably, the fungus Mycoacia nothofagi 

has also been observed, which is indicative 

of near-natural beech forests. 

Fauna 

Th e current report on the species inventory 

of the national park (2008) lists 5,287 

animal species. With the occurrence of 

Wildcat (Felis silvestris), Bechstein’s Bat 

(Myotis bechsteinii) and Barbastelle (Barbastella 

barbastellus), Middle Spotted Woodpecker 

(Dendrocopus medius) and Greyheaded 

Woodpecker (Picus canus) as soon 

as the primeval forest relic species Synchita 

separanda, the composition of animal species 

in Hainich, which is highly endangered, 

is typical of beech forests. A host of species 

that will not spread readily or are specialised 

inhabitants of old or dead wood occur in 

Hainich, which confi rms the fact that these 

beech forests are highly continuous as well 

as the protected area’s relevance. Th e Lynx 

(Lynx lynx), which is highly endangered 

in Germany, has been observed in the area 

of the nominated component part (tab. 2.9). 


Nationale 


61


Dead wood in the Kellerwald- 

Edersee National Park 

Kellerwald’s beech forests 

rank among the oligotraphent 

to mesotraphent 

forms of the colline-submontane 

zone. 

2.a.5 Kellerwald 

(according to FREDE 2007) 

Area size 

Component part 1,467.1 ha 



Th e nominated component part Kellerwald 

represents the acidophilous nutrient-poor 

beech forest of the Western-Central European 

highlands (colline-submontane) within 

the biogeographic region “Central European 

beech forests”. 

While not fragmented by any roads and free 

of settlements, the compact beech forest 

territory contains small primeval forest 

relics that never saw any silvicultural treatment. 

Roughly one-third of the nominated 

area has not been exploited for many 

decades. Over 1,000 ha of old beeches aged 

over 160 years, minor primeval forest-like 

sectors, hundreds of springs and valuable 

special biotopes, most notably on rocks and 

in stone runs are characteristic of the component 

part. 




Th e Kellerwald component part lies in the 

northwestern part of the Land of Hesse 

within the 5,738-ha Kellerwald-Edersee 

National Park and the eponymous nature 

park of approx. 41,000 ha. Th e property is 

located on the eastern periphery of the ecological 

region “Rhenish Slate Mountains” 

(Hochsauerland) at altitudes of 200 to 626 m 

above sea level. 


Th e Kellerwald massif is composed of marine 

deposits aged 300 to 400 million years, 

which were folded to a mountain range during 

the Upper Carboniferous. Formative parent 

rock materials are argillaceous slate and greywackes 

of the Lower Carboniferous, but 

locally also siliceous rock and loess clay. 

Based on tectonic elevation processes, the 

streams have carved river beds deep into 

the massif to create an outstanding variety 

of reliefs. Over 50 hilltops give distinction 

to the national park territory. “Traddelkopf 

” (626 m) and “Dicker Kopf ” (604 m) 

are the highest elevations.




biotope types in Kellerwald 

Nationale 


63


Geology: 

argillaceous slate, 

greywacke, siliceous rock, 

loess clay 

Climate: 

Subatlantic-Subcontinental 

Soil: 

brown soil, rankers 


forest types: 

Luzulo-Fagetum 

Climate 

Located within the rain shadow of Hochsauerland, 

which abuts on its western border, 

the property is dominated by a subatlanticsubcontinental 

transitional climate. 

Th e average precipitation volume is 600 to 

800 mm annually. Th e annual mean air 

temperature lies between 6 and 8 °C. Th e 

main growth season lasts for 120 to 140 

days. Kellerwald’s agitated relief has created 

a relatively small-scale climate mosaic from 

south-exposed dry slopes to humid-cool 

valleys. 

Soils 

Hallmarks of the entire area are acidic, 

nutrient-poor, and shallow soils. Brown soils 

of shallow to medium depths and medium 

to low base contents have formed over greywacke 

and argillaceous slate. Loess loam 

and loess-loamy coats of talus with profound 

and rather nutrient-rich brown soils are 

locally found on lower slopes and antic lines. 

Shallow brown soils and rankers are widely 

found on dry slopes and crests. Virgin soil 

types occur in extreme rock and talus sites. 

Water balance 

Th e nominated area lies in the Eder River 

catchment area, with hardly any yielding 

groundwater occurrences. With their 

mostly near-natural structures, the streams 

within the component part show moderate 

to very high fl ow diversities. All geochemical 

parameters emphasise the siliceous character 

of the water bodies, which are nutrient- 

poor and predominantly free of organic 

(anthro po genic) loads. Spring water is generally 

found to be ultrapure. 



Kellerwald is widely characterised by acidophilous 

beech forests in the typical (Luzulo- 

Fagetum typicum) and nutrient-rich 

(Luzulo-Fagetum milietosum) as well as 

nutrient-depleted (cladonietosum), humid, 

fern-rich (dryopterietosum) and rocky 

variants. Natural high-value timber tree 

forests as well as boulder and slope forests 

(Tilio-Acerion) or dry oak forests with 

near-natural structures, which locally merge 

into peculiar stunted beech forests (Luzulo- 

Quercetum), are found in the numerous 

rocky sites such a stone runs and taluses. 

Per vading the beech forests like veins, the 

numerous fountain raceways and brooks 

are lined with alder-ash forests (fi g. 2.13). 

Flora 

As of today (NATIONAL PARK PLAN 

2008) , the fl ora of the entire national park 

is composed of about 550 fern and fl owering 

plant species, 383 fungal species (inventory 

not yet completed), 146 of which are 

endangered at a regional and supraregional 

level, and 270 lichen species (inventory 

not yet completed) including a number of 

“primeval forest indicators”. Moss populations 

are still under survey (320 species as 

of today). White Wood-rush (Luzula luzuloides) 

is the indicator species of the acidophilous 

beech forest, which is wide spread in 

the area. Together with Fagus sylvatica, it 

is ende mic to Europe. Rare tree species 

include haw, wild service tree, broad leaved 

lime, and Norway maple, while Alpine 

currant ranks among the rare shrub species 

– all of which being predominantly species 

of dry forests as well as of boulder and rock 

vegetations. Among the herbaceous fl owering 

plants, the Central European endemite 

Cheddar Pink (Dianthus gratianopolitanus) 

is worthy of mention. Kellerwald is home 

to the largest Hessian population of this 

globally endangered postglacial relic species. 

Noteworthy fungal species include the socalled 

“primeval forest indicators” such as 

the Coral Tooth and Ceramic Parchment 

Fungus.

Fauna 

Th e entire national park territory is home 

to the biocoenoses typical of European 

decid uous forests in extraordinary completeness. 

Particular mention should be made of 

such animal species the habitats of which 

are bound to old mature deciduous forests. 

822 butterfl y and 876 beetle species, 10 

of which being regarded as primeval forest 

relics colonising dead wood, such as the 

Violet Click Beetle (Limoniscus violaceus) 

and Hermit Beetle (Osmoderma eremita), 

have been observed so far. 

Large birds such as the Red Kite (Milvus 

milvus), Honey Buzzard (Pernis apivorus), 

Black Stork (Ciconia nigra), Eurasian Eagle 

Owl (Bubo bubo) and Common Raven 

(Corvus corax) as well as a total of six woodpecker 

species are widespread in the com- 

ponent part. Th e Grey-headed Woodpecker 

(Picus canus), which is found breeding here 

with 17 pairs, is an indicator species of nearnatural 

highland beech forests of Central 

Europe. In the nominated area 11 bird 

species breed are classifi ed as endangered 

according to the EU Birds Directive. 

As many as 15 out of 24 bat species observed 

in Germany live in the national park, including 

Bechstein's Bat (Myotis bechsteinii) 

which is regarded as a “species of primeval 

forests” (tab. 2.10). 

Th e rare Wildcat (Felis silvestris) lives in 

Kellerwald. Th e Lynx (Lynx lynx), which is 

highly endangered in Germany, has been 

observed in the area of the nominated 

component part, which makes recolonisation 

probable. 

Bechstein’s Bat 

(Myotis bechsteinii) 


Nationale 


65


Tab. 2.10: Species in Kellerwald 

under protection of the Habitats 

(annex II and annex IV) and 

Birds Directive (annex I) 

English name Scientifi c name Annex II Annex IV Annex I 1 

Common Midwife Toad Alytes obstetricans X 

Smooth Snake Coronella austriaca X 

European Bullhead Cottus gobio X 

Northern Bat Eptesicus nilssoni X 

Jersey Tiger Euplagia quadripunctaria X 

European Tree Frog Hyla arborea X 

Sand Lizard Lacerta agilis X 

Violet Click Beetle Limoniscus violaceus X 

Stag Beetle Lucanus cervus X 

Hazel Dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius X 

Brandt’s Bat Myotis brandti X 

Daubenton’s Bat Myotis daubentoni X 

Bechstein’s Bat Myotis bechsteinii X X 

Pond Bat Myotis dascycneme X 

Leisler’s Bat Nyctalus leisleri X 

Greater Mouse-eared Bat Myotis myotis X X 

Whiskered Bat Myotis mystacinus X 

Natterer’s Bat Myotis nattereri X 

Common Noctule Nyctalus noctula X 

Hermit Beetle Osmoderma eremita X X 

Common Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus X 

Soprano Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus X 

Brown Long-eared Bat Plecotus auritus X 

Parti-coloured Bat Vespertilio murinus X 

Tengmalm’s Owl Aegolius funereus X 

Common Kingfi sher Alcedo atthis X 

Hazel Grouse Bonasa bonasia X 

Eurasian Eagle Owl Bubo bubo X 

Middle Spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopus medius X 

Black Woodpecker Dryocopus martius X 

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus X 

Red-breasted Flycatcher Ficedula parva X 

Eurasian Pygmy Owl Glaucidium passerinum X 

Lesser Grey Shrike Lanius collurio X 

Woodlark Lullula arborea X 

Black Kite Milvus migrans X 

Red Kite Milvus milvus X 

Honey Buzzard Pernis apivorus X 

Grey-headed Woodpecker Picus canus X

2.b History and 

Development 

A single tree species – the beech – having 

come to dominate the forest and ecosystemary 

development of major portions of an 

entire continent over the course of an 

ongoing ecological process is unparalleled 

globally. Th is dominance has developed 

within a few thousand years after the last ice 

age – which is extremely short a period 

from a geological or evolutionary perspective. 

Within Europe, the ongoing process 

currently shows particularly strikingly in 

Germany. 

Processes of Europe’s 

evolutionary development 

Although the Gondwana supercontinent 

had started to fragment at the turning 

point from Triassic to Jurassic, the fragments 

were initially close to each other so that 

plants could spread. A number of recent 

plant taxa therefore have a distinct “Gondwana 

distribution range”. Relic areas on the 

southern tip of South America, Australia, 

and New Zealand are possibly occupied 

by the southern beech (Nothofagus) genus 

(WALTER & STRAKA 1970). Nothofagus 

might have evolved within the region 

of what is Antarctica today, but was subsequently 

unable to reach the portions 

of Gondwanaland that had detached already 

at an earlier point (Africa, Madagascar, 

India). However, it would come to South 

America, New Zealand, and Australia, where 

it has persevered ever since (CRANWELL 

1963, 1964 in WALTER & STRAKA 

1970). Disjunctive distribution might best 

be explained by the existence of a former 

antarctic land bridge (DU RIETZ 1940, 

quoted in WALTER & STRAKA 1970). 

It is assumed that Fagus spread from a 

“warmer subterritory of Laurasia”. Th e bipolar 

areas of the nearest related genuses 

Nothofagus and Fagus are most probably due 

to migrations across the tropical high 

mountains. Until the Eocene, the Central 

European fl ora was showing a tropicalsubtropical 

character (Arctotertiary fl ora, 

WALTER & STRAKA 1970). By the 

end of the Oligocene, it was losing species 

under the infl uence of a temperate climate. 

Deciduous forests had developed as early 

as during the period when broad-leaf in decid 

u ous species migrated from tropical to 

more temperate zones. Th is adaptation would 

allow them to survive in the northern 

hemisphere in the cool to chill climate of the 

Miocene, while the austral woodland vegetation 

in the southern hemisphere has 

been dominated by broad-leaf indeciduous 

forest to the present day. Th e Central 

European Miocene fl ora saw the blending 

of numerous geographical elements (East 

Asian, North American, Mediterranean, 

Subtropical, Tropical, Holarctic, and Eurasian). 

During this epoch, a beech species 

appeared being an intermediate type between 

the North American Fagus grandifl ora 

and the European Fagus sylvatica (WALTER 

& STRAKA 1970). 

Th e subsequent loss of species in Europe 

resulted from climatic changes. By the end 

of the Pliocene epoch, the Quarternary 

was already about to set in with its relatively 

rapid and strong variations in temperature. 

Th e Glacial epoch (Pleistocene) with at 

least four glacials had commenced, causing 

the tropical-subtropical and East Asian- 

North American elements to disappear. 

Yet it was not before the onset of the Middle 

Pleistocene that the temperate fl ora would 

turn into what we see today (fi g. 2.14, 2.15). 



represent the development 

process which has 

been taking place in 

Europe since the Ice Age. 

Nationale 


67


Fig. 2.14: Schematic development 

of the annual mean 

temperature for Central Europe 

during the Tertiary and Quarternary 

(from WALTER & 

STRAKA 1970) 

The glacial epoch resulted 

in Arctotertiary fl oristic 

elements becoming extinct 

at a globally unprecedented 

scale. 

Fig. 2.15: European vegetation 

by 20,000 before present 

maximum expansion of the 

ice during the last glacial period 

(from BOHN & NEUHÄUSL 

2003) 

0C 25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Eocene Oligocene Miocene Pliocene 

60 million years 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 

| | | | | | 

1.000 km 

Polar desert, open tundra 

Steppe-tundra 

Steppe 

Isolated tree stands (deciduous 

and coniferous wood) 

High Glacial shoreline 

Present shoreline 

Glacier 

Water

During the glacials, the snow line in Scandinavia 

dropped to the zone of maximum 

precipitation, giving rise to a vast continental 

ice sheet of up to 3,000 metres in thickness. 

With the water bound, sea levels fell by up 

to 120 metres. Th e Baltic Sea region was 

covered by huge glaciers but the southern 

North Sea, and the greatest part of the 

Adriatic turned into dry land (SCHROE- 

DER 1998). Th e Alps were also glaciated, 

leaving only a single ice-free strip in Central 

Europe between the Nordic continental 

ice sheet and the Alpine glaciers that were 

reaching far into the foreland. Consequently, 

the climate was extreme here, and tundra 

was spreading. 

With the inland ice approaching from the 

north and due to the chill, plant species of 

the temperate zones became extinct. In 

Europe, the “retreating” fl ora would, beside 

the Alps, encounter the Mediterranean, 

so that it sought out regions of the Mediterranean 

coast with a favourable climate 

as refuges. Trees could still grow in some 

mountain ranges – places which also allowed 

the beech to survive. 

Like Europe, North America and parts of 

north eastern Asia were also ice-covered. 

Th e tundra had expanded here also. However, 

while only relatively small refuge areas 

with limited climates were available in 

southern Europe for the species to survive, 

the entire spectrum of species would persevere 

in North America due to the availability 

of large-area refuges. In East Asia, the 

glacial epochs had only a mild impact resulting 

from the much less extensive continental 

ice sheet. Th e original arctotertiary 

fl ora was not forced out of the region and 

has consequently survived to the present day 

almost unchanged (WALTER & STRAKA 

1970, SCHROEDER 1998). Th e diff erent 

consequences of the Quarternary climate 

oscillations on the fl ora, which had still been 

distributed all over the northern hemisphere 

during the Tertiary, resulted in largescale 

disjunction for many species. 

During the interglacials, the climate would 

keep fl uctuating from arctic through subarctic 

to temperate or warm Atlantic and 

back. In this manner, the climate oscillations 

forced the plant species to migrate back 

and forth, with many genuses of the Arctotertiary 

becoming extinct in the process 

(fl oristic impoverishment). Th e less pronounced 

their capacity to expand and mutate, 

the more threatened were the species. 

FRENZEL (1967), for instance, describes 

a forest composed of beeches, hornbeams, 

tsuga, and elm trees for the Tegelen interglacial 

(early Quarternary) of northwestern 

Central Europe. In contrast, the beech 

was rarely found during the interglacials of 

the Middle Quaternary. Fagus was almost 

completely absent during the last interglacial. 

However, migrations during the 

climate oscillations also resulted in new 

species evolving. Only in this way could 

what little of the Tertiary genuses was left 

survive the ice age. While most of our 

forest trees therefore belong to Tertiary 

genuses, the species did not evolve before 

the glacial climate change. 

Postglacial development of Europe 

With the end of the last ice age, the largearea 

reforestation of Central and Western 

Europe set in – the Central European 

basic succession, which has found a typical 

expression in Germany. With the climate 

gradually warming and soil development 

taking place, the territories were at fi rst 

colonised by birches and pines. Th eir qualities 

as anemochoric, rapidly migrating pioneers 

proved benefi cial (POTT 1992), while the 

zoochoric oaks and beeches with their 

heavy fruits were not gaining much ground. 

It was only in the further course of the 


Extreme climate fl uctuations 

during the Glacial 

period prompted the evolution 

of new plant species 

in Europe. It is safe to 

assume that the beech is 

also a result of this unique 

process. 

Nationale 


69


The beech has survived the 

last ice age in southern 

refuges in the Mediterranean 

area. In the period that 

followed the ice age, it 

spread from the Dinaric 

Alps to colonise Central 

Europe. For it to reach 

the Baltic Sea took several 

millennia. 

forest development that hazel, oak, elm, ash, 

maple, and lime would advance. Th e mixed 

oak forest period of the Atlantic was associated 

with an increase in temperatures and 

humidity. Dense mixed deciduous forests 

would develop (POTT 1993). Th e climate 

was already suitable for the beech’s expansion 

8,000 years ago (GIESECKE et al. 2006). 

However, some more millennia were to 

pass before it reached the Baltic Sea, and even 

more before it took hold as the dominant 

tree species (WALTER & STRAKA 1970). 

In the end, it was a temperature depression 

at the beginning of the Subboreal period 

some 5,000 years to a humid-cool climate 

that promoted the beech’s mass expansion 

(WALTER & STRAKA 1970). 

A number of recent American studies have 

furnished evidence of the climate's key 

role in triggering the sudden, extremely rapid 

geographical expansion of a population 

(MAGRI et al. 2006). 

Th e beech has only been taking hold in 

Central Europe for a few millennia – which 

is a very short period of time for the geological 

perspective. Germany is the core 

area of this ongoing ecological process, which 

comprises the evolutionary development 

of the complex and diff erent beech forest 

ecosystems as well as the biotic moulding of 

the Central European landscape. 

Th e beech’s highly successful expansion can 

be explained by its immense climatic plasticity, 

wide ecological amplitude, and genetic 

adaptability, which is why it is also called 

“prevalence strategy”. Th e beech owes its 

enormous competitiveness most notably to 

its shade tolerance, which is characterised 

by the growth rate being fl exibly adapted to 

the light conditions based on leaf morphology, 

sprout length, and branching type 

(PETERS 1997). Beeches are, for example, 

able to survive in the shade of the understorey 

for more than 200 years, waiting for 

a gap in the crown canopy to open which 

would allow it to grow upwards and reach 

the light (fi g. 2.16). 

VISNJIC & DOHRENBUSCH (2004) 

and CZAJKOWSKI & BOLTE (2006) 

have demonstrated that occurrences of 

Fagus sylvatica from diff erent climatic regions 

show diff erent tolerances toward extreme 

temperatures and aridity. 

Recent genetic assessments have shown the 

beech's postglacial colonisation of Central 

Europe to have started from only a few 

populations. Th e main thrust of expansion 

as well as the development relevant for 

Germany took its origin from the Dinaric 

Alps and, to a lesser extent, from the Western 

Alps and Western Carpathians. Th e populations 

of the Pyrenean and Italian refuges 

seem to have not contributed to colonisation 

(MAGRI et al. 2006). However, expansion 

cores for the Northwest Iberian beech 

forests are considered to be the glacial refuge 

areas of the Pyrenees (LOPEZ-MERINO 

et al. 2008), and the South Italian refuges 

for the Apennine Mountains (LEONARDI 

& MENOZZI 1995). 

Th e low mountain ranges of Germany, starting 

with the Black Forest, Swabian Mountains, 

and Bavarian Forest were colonised 

from about 7,000 before present (POTT 

1992). Th e beech arrived at the northern loess 

areas by 6,500 before present. From there, 

it has probably spread to adjacent siliceous 

sites and the montane zone. About 3,800 

years ago, it reached the coastal region of the 

North Sea and the Baltic young moraine 

along the Baltic Sea, and Jasmund 800 years 

later (LANGE et al. 1986). 

While the Late Glacial period (until 10.000 

years ago), the beech covered 6% of its 

current range in few isolated refuge areas. In 

the mid Holocene (5,000 years ago) the

dry 

moderately 

humid 

wet 

very 

acidic 

beech had colonised about 50% and the 

second half up to the present time. But 

the beech’s expansive capacity is unbroken: 

expansive tendencies are observed on the 

British Isles, in Scandinavia, and in Poland 

(CZAJKOWSKI et al. 2006). According 

to POTT (1992), the beech has never been 

able to take over its potential distribution 

area even in the Northwest German lowlands. 

While the ongoing beech expansion in the 

Northwest German plain (HANSTEIN 

2000), Northeast Central Europe, and 

South Scandinavia should rather be considered 

to be a retaking of terrain that became 

lost in the course of its usage, the development 

in Great Britain and Norway appears 

to be the “consummation” to an incomplete 

postglacial immigration process 

(CZAJKOWSKI et al. 2006) (fi g. 2.17). 

too dry for forests 

Fagus sylvatica 

to wet for forests 

moderately 

acidic 

neutral alkaline 

dominant copper 

beech area 

Th is means that the beech has not yet arrived 

at its climatic limit (LANG 1994), which is 

also expanding in the course of the present 

climate change (SYKES et al. 1996, BOX 

& MANTHEY 2006) and absence of 

historic landuse practises eliminating beech. 

Changes of the beech distribution area 

within the context of climate change, however, 

are anticipated not to take place but 

along the edge of the present potential distribution. 

Th e present beech distribution 

area in its large core area will remain unaff 

ected by climate change (KÖLLING et 

al. 2005). 


Fig. 2.16: Ecogram of the beech, 

which forms forests in the 

Central European submontane 

zone with temperate suboceanic 

climates (according to ELLEN- 

BERG 1996). Narrower 

physiologic optimum range 

(dark green), wider potential 

range, physiological amplitude 

(bright green) are highlighted. 

Germany is the core area of 

this ongoing ecological 

process, which comprises 

the evolutionary development 

of the beech forest 

ecosystems as well as the 

biotic moulding of the 

Central European landscape. 

The nominated 

component parts are expressive 

of this process 

as well as its development 

trend. 

Nationale 


71


Fig. 2.17: Areas of retreat, 

centres of expansion and 

expansion of the beech in the 

postglacial period (from 

LEIBNITZ INSTITUT 

FÜR LÄNDERKUNDE, 

modified according to MAGRI 

et al. 2006) 

The beech’s expansive 

capacity is unbroken. It has 

not yet reached its climatic 

limits. 

1,000 

up to 

9,000 

2,000 

up to 

8,000 

5,000 

6,000 

up to 

7,000 

6,000 

1,000 

7,000 

5,000 

up to 

6,000 

2,000 2,000 

4,000 

8,000 

4,000 

7,000 

9,000 

9,000 

Centres of expansion and direction 

As is illustrated by the forest history, the 

beech has shaped the natural appearance of 

Central Europe in a relatively short period 

of time. Beech became the dominant tree 

species in the low mountain ranges such as 

Hainich and Kellerwald for some longer 

time than in the northern lowlands, of which 

Grumsin was probably the fi rst to be colonised 

by the beech, followed by Serrahn and, 

fi n a l l y, J a s m u n d . 

Th e beech’s expansion in Central Europe is 

related with the encroachment of Neolithic 

cultures (fi g. 2.18). Man with his settlements 

and agriculture did interfere with dynamic 

processes which have not come to their 

8,000 

up to 

5,000 

6,000 

from 14,000 BP 

up to 

4,000 

2,000 

up to 1,000 

years BP 

conclusion yet. Th e succession of settlements 

and wasted sites probably aided and accelerated 

the simultaneous immigration of the 

beeches. Th e beech obviously continued to 

take hold in parallel with the cultural 

development in Central Europe, which has 

left behind characteristic traces. Th e naturally 

occurring beech forests were, for 

example, repeatedly pushed back over the 

course of settlement history. Th e portion 

of beech forests has decreased from about 

two-third of the German territory to less 

than 5% (KNAPP et al. 2008). Primeval 

beech forests can be found in Germany in 

very small and rare relics only.

From Fagus sylvatica’s rate of spread 

(150 – 350 m/a), the onset of fructifi 

cation with 40 – to 50 years in 

the case of free standing trees and 

60 – 80 years in closed stands, leaps 

of expansion of 6 – 22 km can be 

derived according to LANG (1994). 

Th is is made possible by the relatively 

voluminous and highly oleiferous 

fruits being disseminated by animals, 

most notably birds. Beeches produce 

full masts at 6 to 7 year intervals, i.e. 

it took them 10 to 30 seed generations 

to cross Central Europe from south 

to northwest (POTT 1992). 

7,000 - 6,000 years BP 

7,500 - 6,500 years BP 

8,000 - 7,000 years BP 

up to 8,000 years BP 

up to 8,500 years BP 

9,000 years BP 

Beechnuts 


Fig. 2.18: Advance of Neolithic 

cultures in Europe (from 

LANG 1994) 

As for forest continuity and 

regenerative potential, the 

nominated component 

parts contain the largest 

contiguous and most nearnatural 

beech forests north 

of the Alps and in complement 

of the Carpathian 


Jasmund and Kellerwald 

are moreover home to 

the last surviving primeval 

forest relics. 

Nationale 


73


Stelzbuche in the Jasmund 

National Park 

Beech forests of Jasmund 

started developing as late 

as 800 years ago. 

Kreidefelsen auf Rügen, 1818 

(Caspar David Friedrich) 

The present forests of 

Jasmund have been forests 

for 1,000 years. 

2.b.1 Jasmund 

Forest history 

Following the fi nal retreat of the glaciers of 

the last ice age, over 3,000 years would 

pass before the late glacial tundra vegetation 

gave way to permanent woodlands in the 

Preboreal period. Another 3,000 years saw 

the vegetation cover being dominated by 

pine forests with birch and aspen, later on 

with hazel and elm. During the following 

six and a half millennia, the property was 

covered with various types of mixed oak 

forest. 

In Jasmund, so called the mixed oak forests 

(the lime Tilia cordata was the main tree) 

would develop into beech forests as late as 

some 800 years ago. Th ey have ever since 

been dominating all forest-compatible mineral 

soil sites in Jasmund without restrictions, 

while alder and ash trees continue to 

be prevalent in wet sites. At the same time, 

Jasmund’s steep coast was carved by coast 

adjustment processes of the intermittently 

rising sea level. Special sites developed 

where photophilic and thermophilic plants 

could spread together with the beech. 

Human interference 

With insular clearances and thinning out of 

the mixed oak forests, the neolithic colonisa- 

tion about 5,000 years ago had a fi rst lasting 

impact on Jasmund’s forests. With the extension 

of the settlement during the Bronze 

Age (3,800 – 2,600 BP), which is testifi ed 

by 389 burial mounds in the national park, 

the forest was pushed back. Th e Iron 

Age (2,600 – 1,350 BP) saw an increase in 

wood demand caused by iron production and 

smelting. Th e Migration period, 1,600 – 

1,350 BP was a time of recovery for the forest. 

In medieval times however, the area was 

the "wood basket" of the almost unwooded 

island of Rügen, in the process of which 

the coastal slope forests were spared. Wood 

harvest was restricted as early as in the 

16th century. From 1648 to 1815, Jasmund 

was a Swedish crown forest which was 

managed gently. After Rügen had fallen to 

Prussia, the old customary laws of forest 

grazing and free wood removal were gradually 

abolished. 1,500 hectares of forest became 

a preserve in 1929. Stubnitz became a 

nature conservation area in 1935. After 1945, 

large-area wood harvest took place within 

the scope of reparations, which had a 

massive impact on Jasmund’s beech forest. 

In the context of a treatment directive, 

the 1960s saw the designation of a fi rst strict 

forest reserve of 256 ha that included the 

slope forests, the brook valleys of Kiel and 

Brisnitz, and the Herthasee surroundings. 

Following the political turning point in 1990, 

the area was designated as national park 

with 3,003 ha of total land area within the 

scope the national park programme of 

the GDR. Jasmund is legally protected as 

national park and Natura 2000 territory. 

Th e area of the present national park Jasmund 

is of outstanding signifi cance also 

in terms of cultural history. Th e chalk coast 

has been providing artists, philosophers, 

and scientist with inspiring motives since 

the 19th century. Th e most famous exponent 

is Caspar David Friedrich, whose

painting “Kreidefelsen auf Rügen” (Chalk 

Cliff s of Rügen) has been coining the 

nimbus of the island of Rügen to the present 

day. 

Natural disasters 

Th e sea is steadily eating away at the chalk 

coast. With every storm, rocks will break 

or slump into the Baltic Sea – taking shrubs 

and trees with them. Th e beech keeps 

germinating, making it to a shrub or even a 

tree up to the point where it is carried away 

by the next storm. 

2.b.2 Serrahn 


Analyses of pollen found in Serrahn have 

revealed that the beech’s dominance gradually 

evolved during the period from 2,800 – 

1,200 before present. It attenuated 700 years 

ago, with birch portions increasing. 500 

years ago, the pine pressed forward. With the 

beech on the decline, the oak too spread to 

a marked extent. It was not before 300 years 

ago that the beech regained domination 

(HÄRDTLE et al. 2003). Th e changes of 

the dominance of diff erent tree species were 

caused by human infl uence (forest use) and 

succession. 


Serrahn has been occupied with woodland 

for quite some time. Th e presence of continuous 

forest stands is verifi able with certainty 

at least since the mid-16th century. Over 

the last centuries, the component part and 

its surroundings have escaped major clearings 

due to its remoteness, yet did see silvicultural 

or forest pasture use (HÄRDTLE 

et al. 2003). Utilisation was intensifi ed 

from the 16th century, which resulted in substantial 

encroachments on the forest even 

without clear-felling. How ever, even at the 

pinnacle of forest destruction and reduction 

in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, about 

mid-18th century, Serrahn was still lying 

within major, relatively closed woodlands. 

Up to the mid-18th century, the area was 

dominated by oaks and pines and served as 

pasture. Th e beech started spreading once 

again in the second half of the 17th century. 

From the end of the 18th century to the 

beginning of the 19th century, large-area 

natural revegetation of the beech occurred, 

from which the present old beech stands 

developed. 

Controlled silviculture has been practised 

in Serrahn from the beginning of the 19th 

century. In August 1848, a section of 

2,150 ha was fenced and arranged as game 

preserve. Silvicultural use was largely restricted 

to cutting out dry wood. Th e 

preserve lasted until 1945. In 1951, the property 

was declared “experimental bird 

sanctuary”. Serrahn was designated as nature 

reserve as early as in 1952. Afterwards, 

any silvicultural activities had to be agreed 

with staff members of the biological station 

beforehand. In 1957, a segment of 471 ha 

was secured as forest preserve, 211 ha of 

which as natural forest reserve. Th us, about 

70 ha of the nominated property have ever 

since been free of silvicultural use. 


Dead wood in Serrahn 

In Serrahn, the beech 

began to take hold about 

2,800 years ago. 

The present forests of 

Serrahn have possibly 

always been forests since the 

beginning of the forest 

development, but defi nitely 

for about 500 years. 

Nationale 


75


Standing dead wood in Grumsin 

In Grumsin, the beech 

began to take hold about 

3,000 years ago. 

With the establishment of the Müritz 

National Park on 1 October 1990, the nominated 

component part was designated as 

core area of the national park. Th e borders 

of core area, which has been unmanaged 

ever since, reach far beyond the nominated 

property so that the nominated beech 

forests have a highly reliable, persis tently 

unmanaged buff er. 


Th ere have been no known natural disasters. 

2.b.3 Grumsin 


(according to SCHÄFER & 

HORNSCHUCH 1998) 

In Grumsin, the period between the Late 

Glacial and Preboreal periods was characterised 

by occurrences of birches and 

pines. Th e subsequent Boreal period featured 

large portions of hazelnut trees. 

Successively elm, alder, and oak with regular 

values appeared. During the Atlantic, lime 

trees were an addition to the forests. Th e 

northwestern part of Grumsin was characterised 

by a high portion of lime trees until 

the beginning of the 20th century (HUECK 

1929). Even today, the species is regularly 

found in the tree layer of richer sites. 

Th ere were sporadic beech and hornbeam 

occurrences already at the beginning of the 

Atlantic period, which, however, would not 

become relevant mixed tree species before the 

Subboreal period. Following a brief increase 

in pine numbers, the composition of the 

for est changed radically during the Older 

Sub atlantic. Th e pines would disappear 

almost entirely. Beech and hornbeam culminated. 

HESMER (1935) concludes that the clayey 

moraine sites “have been deciduous forests 

for thousands of years”, in which the beech 

has the largest share. 


Grumsin is an old forest site (LUTHARDT 

2007, 2008). Th e beech has long since 

been the dominant tree species. Th e nominated 

component part was temporarily used 

as forest pasture; rocks were removed from 

the coarse terminal moraine material. Th ere 

are fi nd spots in the wider area of Grumsin 

from the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Slavic 

settlement sites from the 12th and 13th 

century have been verifi ed. Some town 

names have Slavic radicals, such as Buckow 

(buk = beech). However, hardly any human 

settlements have been verifi ed around 

Grumsin for the period from 1500 to 1750. 

Hunting took centre stage in the forest. 

Fence keepers and guards were settled along 

a fence of over 70 km in length, which was 

set up about 1661. In so doing, the village of 

Grumsin was created in 1728, which even 

today is composed of but a few houses, and 

located about two kilometres from the nominated 

component part. 

By 1720, the forest showed a natural composition 

of tree species with the dominant 

beech. Existing large-crowned oaks were 

exempt from wood harvest so as to have the

acorns available for pig fattening. Th e beginning 

of the 19th century already saw the 

use of natural revegetation in the property. 

Drainage was forced in order to extend the 

area of cultivable land. 

Th e beech was clearly dominant also in 1845, 

with a high portion of over 100-year-old 

stands. However, the surrounding forests 

saw massive changes when the pine was 

being promoted to a notable extent. Th e harvesting 

of construction timber and fi rewood 

was practised rather extensively from the 

1950s. Its role was secondary especially in 

times of the GDR State Hunts. Th ere 

were massive interventions to control the 

water balance. Mires and lakes were furnished 

with inlets and effl uents. After the 

State Hunts had been suspended, moufl ons, 

roe deers, fallow deers, and red deers 

began to have an impact on the vegetation 

through browsing. Th e last minor silvicultural 

interventions were carried out from 

1979 to 1983 in the form of low thinning 

(PAGEL 1970). 

Th e present distribution of tree species in 

the surroundings once again shows an increased 

dominance of the beech. Grumsin 

itself has survived as an almost intact deciduous 

stand for a few hundred years. 

PAGEL (1970) demonstrated that the beech 

stands have developed from natural revegetation 

throughout. 

Today, Grumsin is part of the 6,100-ha 

“Grumsiner Forst-Redernswalde” nature 

conservation area. All utilisation was 

suspended when it became a biosphere 

reserve in 1990. A process protectioncompatible 

hoofed game management was 

implemented in 1998. Th e drainage constructions 

are being reversed. 

With 657 ha, Grumsin is the largest total 

reserve within the Schorfheide-Chorin Biosphere 

Reserve. 


In January 2007, the hurricane Kyrill tore 

gaps into the crown canopy of the relatively 

uniform beech forests. Th is has caused 

an increase in natural forest structures and 

accelerated the natural dynamism. 

2.b.4 Hainich 


Analyses of pollen from the wider area of 

Hainich have revealed that the beech has 

been dominating the forest landscape for at 

least 2,800 years, replacing the mixed oak 

forests, which had been prevalent up to that 

point. It was not before the early Middle 

Ages that the beech was somewhat pushed 

back in favour of the oak. 


Settlement history, documents, and historical 

maps suggest that Hainich has survived 

the major periods of deforestation in 

medieval times largely intact. Th e lack 

of water precluded permanent settlements. 

Moreover, there were richer soils available 

for agricultural use in the Th uringian 

Basin. Major portions of Hainich's forests 

were used as coppice with standards in 

former times. Th ere is historical evidence 

of forest grazing and selection forest use. 

As a result of the increasing wood demand 

of the growing population, the forest was 

increasingly subject to utilisation. Th erefore, 

fi rst rules were issued on how to treat 

the forest in the 16th century. In the 18th 

century, silviculture increasingly strove 

for tall forests of high dimensions. Forest 

grazing was restricted. 

From the mid-19th century, middle forest 

management became increasingly less 

important in the face of the incipient in- 


Grumsin’s beech forests are 

centuries-old deciduous 

forest sites. 

The beech has been dominating 

Hainich's forests for 

more than 2,800 years. 

Nationale 


77


Autumnal play of colours in the 

Hainich National Park 

The beech forests in 

Hainich grow on centuriesold 

forest sites. 

dustrialisation. Beside the harvest of fi rewood, 

timber economy became increasingly 

relevant. Heterogeneous multilevel 

selection forests were now established, 

which were dominated by the beech. Th is 

type of management made Hainich widely 

known in the forestry. Peculiarities of 

historical silviculture in Hainich also include 

the use by so-called local forest cooperation 

of a village's holders of rights of use. 

When the forest areas were taken over by 

the military, silvicultural use changed 

once more in the 20th century. Th e Weberstedt 

training area existed for 30 years 

(1965 – 1995). Large areas saw little silvicultural 

treatment. Stands rich in structures, 

species, and dead wood could develop. 

Th ere is a wide range of coppice with 

standards, with a transitional phase very 

rich in structures and tree species. Later 

on, when the portion of beeches in the 

understorey, middle storey, and overstorey 

has increased, they hardly diff er any more 

from near-natural mixed beech stands. 

On October 1996, the Government of 

Th uringia resolved upon an “integrated 

concept for the protection of Hainich”. 

Th e national park was established in 1998. 

Its total area is 7,500 ha. Th e aim of protection 

is focused on the large-area, un disturbed 

development of the deciduous 

forests preserved within the area. Th e national 

park is registered as area NATURA 

2000 site and bird sanctuary as per European 

Habitats and Birds Directive. It´s 

embedded in the Eichsfeld-Hainich-Werratal 

Nature Park which measures about 

80,000 ha and is rich in beech forests. 


Th ere are no known major natural disasters. 

2.b.5 Kellerwald 


Historical accounts and maps show that the 

property was characterised by closed, 

contiguous forests even when the forests 

where pushed back in the Early and Late 

Middle Ages, and therefore represents a 

“historical old” forest site. Recent fi ndings 

from pollen analyses suggest that the 

nearby South Westphalian highlands (Rothaargebirge) 

forms part of the former core 

area of the beech's distribution range in 

Central Europe, where beeches had immigrated 

in consequence of an Early Atlantic 

migrational thrust as early as 7,000 years 

before present (SPEIER 2006). Beech 

colonisation at fi rst occurred at altitudes 

around 500 m above see level. It was not 

before the Bronze and Iron Age that beech 

forests became characteristic landscape 

elements in the region. 


Th e possibly fi rst and, at the same time, last 

attempts at establishing settlements 

within what is the national park area today 

were unsuccessfully aborted in the 12th 

century. Th e rough climate, military campaigns, 

and the plague have repeatedly 

resulted in the settlements being abandoned. 

Th e few traces left of this settlement phase

are the so-called “Driescher”, which are 

found outside of the nominated property. 

Th ese are former clearance vegetations 

which were used as wood pastures after 

abandonment, and have been aff orested 

largely with spruce trees since the early 19th 

century. 

Th e eastern portion of the present national 

park, which became a part of the principality 

of Waldeck, had been used for hunting 

from the 18th century. Increased browsing 

damage in the adjacent districts prompted 

the dynasty of Waldeck to set up a fence 

in 1896, which is gradually being removed 

today. Th is period also saw the fi rst successful 

attempts at settling fallow dears and 

moufl ons as wells as considerations toward 

the designation of a “Reich nature conservation 

area”. In the post-war period, the 

preserve was designated as “wildlife preserve”, 

and the hunting tradition resumed. Forestry 

use, which had always been relatively 

extensive in a core area of about 2,000 ha, 

was ultimately ceased. 

In January 2004, the Kellerwald-Edersee 

National Park was designated by ordinance 

to protect the valuable beech forests. 

It comprises a total area of 5,738 ha in 

which the nominated component part is 

embedded. Th e national park is registered 

as area NATURA 2000 site and bird 

sanctuary as per European Habitats and 

Birds Directive. Protecting and preserving 

the submontane acidophilic beech forest 

(Luzulo-Fagetum) and its development 

processes takes centre stage. 

Th e protected area is compact, free of settlements 

and classifi ed roads, and is embedded 

in the Kellerwald-Edersee Nature Park, 

which measures about 40,000 ha and is rich 

in beech forests. A hallmark of the national 

park is the exceedingly high portions of 

old growth. Some 30% of the nominated 

area have not been used for decades. Small, 

inaccessible relic areas have never seen 

exploitation. 


Major portions of the allochthonous coniferous 

stands, which are limited to certain 

subterritories, were knocked over by the 

storm “Kyrill” in 2007, which will speed 

up the natural development process in 

these areas. Th ese processes are illustrated 

based on bark-beetle spreading and the 

beech's natural competitiveness. 


Golden autumn in Kellerwald 

Pure beech forests took 

hold in Kellerwald about 

3,000 years before present. 

Kellerwald has been a 

largely closed forest 

landscape for centuries. 

Nationale 


79


The German component 

parts are vital for the 

understanding of the history 

and evolution of the European 

beech forests, complementing 

the existing 

World Heritage property 

with signifi cant old-growth 

beech forest types. 

3. Justifi cation for Inscription 

Having inscribed the “Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians” on 

the World Heritage List, the World Heritage Committee has acknowledged 

the outstanding universal value of European beech forests with 

their unique history and evolution as a prominent example of the 

ongoing re-colonisation and development of terrestrial ecosystems after the 

last glacial period. Pure beech forests as a large-area climax vegetation 

being globally limited to Europe due to the combination of postglacial 

climate changes and the beech’s (Fagus sylvatica) extreme competitiveness 

and its distinct life strategy. Based on its incredible ecological adaptability, 

the beech has spread throughout Europe to cover wide areas and 

shape a broad array of diff erent beech forest types.

Situated on the easternmost edge of the European 

beech forest range, the Carpathians 

with their natural forests represent an important 

section of the ongoing ecological 

and biological processes. 

However, with about one-fourth of the 

overall natural range, Germany is the heartland 

of European beech forest´s distribution. 

Th e IUCN –Technical Evaluation – ID 

No. 1133 already points out that the “Primeval 


(Slovak Republic and Ukraine) is not representative 

for all types of the original beech 

forests and that Germany has some signifi - 

cant old-growth beech forests that may extend 

the coverage of Europe´s original beech 

forests in the World Heritage List. With 

the approval and support by Ukraine and 

the Slovak Republic, the extension of the 

World Heritage Property “Primeval Beech 

Forests of the Carpathians” by fi ve German 

component parts is applied for supplementing 

important stations of beech forest 

development and distribution with signifi 

cant beech forest types not covered by 

the existing World Heritage property. 

Th e German component parts are vital for 

the understanding of the history and evolution 

of the European beech forests, com- 

plementing the existing World Heritage 

property with signifi cant old-growth beech 

forest types. 

3.a Criteria under which 

inscription is proposed (and 

justifi cation for ins cription 

under these criteria) 

Inscription on the World Heritage list is 

proposed under criterion ix: 

“Outstanding examples representing signifi cant 

on-going ecological and biological processes 

in the evolution and development of terrestrial, 

fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and 

communities of plants and animals.” 

Th e serial nomination “Ancient Beech Forests 

of Germany” comprises out standing examples 

of the evolutionary and developmental processes 

of beech forests since the last glacial 

period, giving rise to a terrestrial eco system 

that has shaped an entire continent in a 

globally unique manner (fi g. 3.1). In addition 

3. JUSTIFICATION FOR INSCRIPTION 

Th e beech forest coast dynamism 

in Jasmund's chalk cliff zone is 

symbolic of the ongoing ecological 

process. 

Nationale 


81


Fig. 3.1: Position of the World 



and the component parts of the 

nominated property “Ancient 

Beech Forests of Germany” 

within the geographic range 

of European beech forests, their 

bio geographic differentiation 

and altitudinal belt-related 

characteristics. 

The biogeographic region that is 

Central Europe can be further 

subdivided in a "Subatlantic- 

South Central Europe" subterritory 

(in the plant geographical 

sense of MEUSEL et al. 1965) 

and a “Baltic” subterritory. 


to the “Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians”, 

the nominated beech forests in 

Germany are an outstanding and globally 

un paralleled example of the ongoing ecological 

processes outlined below: 

1. One single tree species – Fagus sylvatica 

– has come, over the course of postglacial 

expansion, to absolute domination over 

the natural vegetation of a major part of 

an entire continent – Europe – and, 

based on intraspecifi c genetic diff erentiation, 

has adapted to the highly varying 

local conditions within the overall territory, 

the boun d aries of which being 

defi ned by climate. Th e beech, which is 

both young in terms of developmental 

Atlantic-Western Atlantic-Western Atlantic-Western European European European 

Planar 



Kellerwald 

Serrahn 

Alpic 

Central European 

European 

Hainich 

history and competitive, has not yet 

arrived at its climatic boun d aries in 

certain areas. Th e beech is still showing 

tendencies of expansion. 

2. Th e complete replacement of an climax 

ecosystem by a new one is a consequence 

of global climate change in the postglacial 

period. Th e mixed oak-linden forests, 

which are pre dominant in the zone of 

nemoral deciduous forests, have evolved 

into beech forests. 

Th e beech forest, which is a climax ecosystem 

shaped by a single tree species, has 

been diversifying in biogeographic and 

ecological terms over the course of late 

postglacial evolution. Th is makes beech 

Jasmund 

Grumsin 




South South South European/montane 





Carpathian 

Carpathian 

Carpathian

forests the last witnesses of Central 

Europe’s natural vegetation, which has 

been prevailing since the beginning of 

the subatlantic period and under today's 

climate conditions, and conse quently 

representatives of nemoral deciduous 

forest biomes. 

3. Th e European beech forests are an outstanding 

and unique example for the 

extra ordinary regeneration power and 

for the survival to the present day of a 

climax ecosystem with longstanding 

habitat tradition. Th is includes distinct 

structures and processes typical for original 

wilderness despite fragmentation 

partly ending in isolation within extensive 

land scapes with a long history of settlement. 

4. Beech forests are an outstanding example 

for climate eff ecting ecosystem services 

with the ongoing carbon fi xation in growing 

biomass and the ongoing and permanent 

carbon storage in the humus of 

soil. Th ey also represent the ability of 

nemoral deciduous forest ecosystems to 

regeneration of degraded soils with revitalisation 

of their ecosystem functions 

in unique manner. 

Together with the World Natural Heritage 


the nominated “Ancient Beech Forests of 

Germany” tell a comprehensive and concise 

tale of how the post-glacial forests have 

been developing in Europe. With the nominated 

component parts, the “Primeval 

Beech Forests of the Carpathians” are substantially 

complemented by the following 

important aspects that are indispensable 

to understand the history and development 

of European beech forests and remain 

uncovered by the inscribed World Heritage 

property: 

• the completion of the history of postglacial 

areal expansion 

• the completion of the altitudinal gradient 

from the seashore to the submontane belt 

• the addition of the best remaining 

examples in the geographical heartland 

of beech distribution 

• the enlargement of the ecological spectrum 

with signifi cant regional, biogeographical 

and ecological diff erent beech 

forest types and their specifi c plant 

and animal life, cover ing the main part 

of the autochthon Central European 

biological diversity 

• the involvement of specifi c compartments 

of typical landscape-ecological complexes, 

e. g. sea shore cliff s, mires, lakes, streams, 

rocks, boulder fi elds as last remnants 

of Central European ancient deciduous 

forest landscape. 

• the gene pool within one and the same 

species Fagus sylvatica. 

From the perspective of developmental 

history, beech forests, as a large-area climax 

vegetation, are a postglacial and geograph ically 

European phenomenon. 

Th roughout its natural range – spanning 

all altitudinal levels in Central Europe – the 

beech shows a tendency toward a unique 

dominance and formation of pure stands. 

Th ese are defi nitely the prevalent natural 

vegetation in Central Europe including the 

Carpathians, in most of Western Europe, 

and throughout Southern Europe’s mountain 

ranges, where they assume diff erent 

forms. A globally unpar alleled feature is the 

European beech forests refl ecting the biological 

potential to naturally populate and 

shape major areas under unfavourable 

migratory conditions. 

As a result of its widespread distribution over 

a number of degrees of latitude, from 

the planar to the montane altitudinal belts, 

and its broad habitat amplitude, there are 

multiple biogeographic beech forest regions 


The serial nomination of 

the “Ancient Beech Forests 

of Germany” at the heart 

of the natural range of European 

beech forests contains 

the most prominent 

examples of the evolutionary 

and ecological development 

processes of the 

nemoral deciduous forests 

which have been in progress 

since the last ice age 

and display the features 

mentioned above in an 

exemplary way. 

Among nature’s most outstanding 

creations are the 

beech forests in postglacial 

Europe, which developed 

in a very short period of 

time by immigration of the 

beech (Fagus sylvatica). 

Together with the Carpathian 

primeval forests, the 

German component parts 

attest to the ongoing 

developmental process in 

the scope of which the 

beech has come to dominate 

the tree layer, and 

has formed species-rich 

biocoenoses. 

Nationale 


83


Component part 

During the 

Pleistocene glacial 

epoch 

Biogeographic 

region / altitude 

Jasmund glaciated Central European / 

planar 

Serrahn glaciated Central European / 

planar 

Grumsin glaciated Central European / 

planar 

Hainich tundra vegetation Central European / 

colline-submontane 

Kellerwald tundra vegetation Central European / 

colline-submontane 

World Natural 

Heritage 

"Primeval Beech 

Forests of the 

Carpathians" 

Tab. 3.1: Overview of the 

starting conditions of the nominated 

component parts and 

the Carpathian World Natural 


The selected component 

parts are the paramount 

parts of the central beech 

distribution area and 

cannot be substituted for 

with any other areas in the 

European nemoral zone. 

partially glaciated Carpathian / 

(submontane)montane-subalpine 

with a host of beech forest types depend ing 

on trophic levels, altitudinal level, and 

meso-climate. Th is outstanding wealth of 

diff erent habitats and shapes of Central 

European beech forests, which is a consequence 

of their developmental history, 

cannot be illustrated if not by nominating 

several component parts. For example, 

Jasmund, Serrahn, and Grumsin are representative 

of the areas which were ice-covered 

during the last glacial period. After the 

glaciers had retreated, these areas were devoid 

of any vege tation and are consequently 

fi nal results of the primary succession on 

virgin soils taking place in the wake of the 

post glacial climate change. In contrast, 

Hainich and Kellerwald were part of the 

treeless unglaciated Tundra south of the 

northern ice sheet. Th e starting point here 

was late glacial tundra vege tation. Jasmund, 

Serrahn and Grumsin, being planar areas, 

Prevalent parent rock 

material / trophic level 

limestone (chalk), boulder 

clay and Pleistocene 

sands (meso-)eutrotrophic 

base-defi cient Pleistocene 

sands / oligotrophic 

to mesotrophic 

base-rich detrital clays / 

(meso-)eutrotrophic 

Mesozoic limestone / 


Palaeozoic base-defi cient 

siliceous shale and 

graywackes / oligotrophic 

to mesotrophic 

various Mesozoic rocks 

(mostly base-rich) 


Special habitats in the 

beech forest landscapes 

active and inactive cliff s, 

forest border habitats 

on the seashore, valley 

heads, brooks, water rise 

mires, and percolation 

mires 

mires, alder fens, lakes, 

small temporary water 

bodies 

mires, alder fens, lakes, 

small temporary water 

bodies 

periodically aquiferous 

brook valleys, depressions 

rock and block vegetation, 

slope forests, fonts, 

brooks, swamps 

brook valleys, caverns, 

rocks 

were more over colonised by deciduous trees 

and fi nally by beech markedly later than 

the colline-submontane domains of the low 

mountain ranges of Hainich and Kellerwald. 

Together, they represent the entire 

habitat spectrum in the centre of the 

beech's natural range in a unique fashion, 

from acidic nutrient-poor silicate bedrocks 

and sands (Kellerwald, Serrahn) through 

basic boulder clay (Grum sin) up to lime 

stone (Jasmund and Hainich) (tab. 3.1). 

3.a.1 Jasmund 

Jasmund is representative of the “beech 

forest of the lowlands” type. Its most distinctive 

unique feature is the cretaceous 

steep coast, which ranks among the most 

impressive natural landscapes in Europe,

having inspired poets and painters alike 

over the centuries. Th is highly dynamic 

coast retreat with its “trees precipitating 

into the sea” is an overwhelming symbol 

of the ongoing ecological processes on the 

edge of the beech’s natural range of distribu 

tion. Th e beech forests of the steep 

slopes are some of the few primeval forest 

relics in Germany which have never been 

exploited. 

3.a.2 Serrahn 

Th e “best structured lowland beech forest in 

Europe” is to be found in Serrahn (HEISS 

1990). Th is appraisal has been corroborated 

by recent dendro-entomo logical studies 

(MÖLLER 1994). Lakes and mires are 

integral components of beech forest landscape 

that involve a particularly high moisture 

gradient. For the beeches, this means a 

“zone of permanent struggling”, with the 

beech forests of Serrahn consequently 

documenting moisture-related distribution 

limits in an outstanding manner. 

3.a.3 Grumsin 

Grumsin forms part of the world's largest 

remaining rather old lowland beech forest 

complex that occupies a total area of 6,500 

hectares within the core zone cluster of 

the Schorfheide-Chorin Biosphere Reserve. 

Grumsin is interspersed with small-area 

alder fens, forest moors, and lakes in a 

unique combination. Th e area therefore 

represents an exceedingly textured young 

moraine landscapes with altitudes of between 

60 and 140 m above sea level and 

all the typical elements in a unique fashion. 

3.a.4 Hainich 

Hainich National Park encompasses what is, 

at present, the largest unmanaged deciduous 

forest area in Germany. Hainich represents 

the best reference area for the specious 

eutraphent beech forests of the European 

colline-submontane zones with their ground 

vegetation rich in geophytes and the exceedingly 

attractive fl oral display in early spring, 

representing the seasonality of Central 

European deciduous forests in a unique 

manner. Furthermore, Hainich is situated 

within the Central European downs on 

the climatic border to an arid region. Here, 

the beech is increasingly antagonised by 

other tree species. Th e Hainich beech forest 

is therefore unique proof of the currently 

ongoing ecological processes associated with 

the present climate change. 


Th e Kellerwald component part is considered 

to be the best reference area for oligotraphent 

to mesotraphent beech forests 

of the submontane type, the global distribution 

focus of which being Germany. 

Kellerwald contains the largest protected 

area of this type, where undisturbed ecological 

and biological processes occur and 

is a perfect illustration of acidophilous 

beech forests. Moreover, special mention 

deserve the primeval forest relics on the steep 

slopes where – a unique situation in 

Germany – pristine small-area deciduous 

forests are found which show an outstanding 

diversity and integrity of typical primeval 

forest indicator species, a part of which 

being dependent on the beeches. 


Nationale 


85


3.b Proposed Statement 

on Outstanding Universal 

Value 

Th e “Ancient Beech Forests of Germany” 

represent, in an outstanding manner, the 

undisturbed biological and ecological processes 

of the evolution and development 

of beech forests as a terrestrial ecosystem 

that has shaped an entire continent in a 

unique way. Together with the World 


of the Carpathians”, the “Ancient Beech 

Forests of Germany” tell a comprehensive 

and concise tale of how the post-glacial 

forests have been developing in Europe. 

Th ere is no other tree species in the world 

to play such a dominant and unique role 

in the zone of nemoral deciduous forests as 

Fagus sylvatica; it is the only tree species to 

shape the appearance and life to such an 

extent as is the case in natural beech forests. 


Beech Forests of the Carpathians”, which 

is limited to the Carpathians spatially, is 

extended by the nominated property 

“Ancient Beech Forests of Germany” to 

complement the best beech forests from 

the seashores to the low mountains as important 

representatives of the biogeographic 

region of the “Central European 

and Baltic Beech Forests” and the core 

zone of beech dis tribution with its ecosystemary 

evolu tion, which has been in progress 

since the last ice age. Th e nominated 

German component parts are indispens able 

to understanding the history of postglacial 

re-colonisation and ecosystem development 

with a high evo lu tionary diversity in 

terms of: 

Ecosystem evolution 

Consecutively initiated from south to north, 

old forest habitats have been undergoing a 

development into extremely diff erentiated 

beech forest landscapes for some 6,000 years. 

Geographic and local diversity 

From planar to submontane, from nutrientpoor 

acidic to nutrient-rich alkaline, from 

dry to moder ately moist, from Pleistocene 

sands and slate up to lime stone – the nominated 

component parts present an outstanding 

geographical and local diversity. 

Morphological diversity 

Wind blasted shrubs on shorelines, compact 

dwarf types in rocky locations, tall-growing 

trees with pillar-like trunks and mighty 

tops mark the natural spectrum. 

System-internal diversity 

Beech forest ecosystems are characterised 

by specifi c regenerative cycles and high ecological 

stability. 

Ecological diversity 

Th e uniqueness of the Fagus sylvatica ecosystems 

is highlighted by maximum ecological 

diff erentiation and diversity of niches. 

Th e fi ve nominated component parts are 

home to in excess of 50% of all European 

forest species of herbaceous plants, grasses, 

shrubs, and trees, consequently making 

them the characteristic beech forest fl ora. 

Complexity of the ecosystems 

Th e ecological structures and processes 

found in Central European beech forest 

landscapes are represented under various 

climatic and edaphic starting conditions. 

Habitats which have been sculpted by water 

such as shores, lakes, rivers and moors, but 

also dry and rocky locations are intimately 

associated with the beech forests. 

Germany is the heartland of the global 

natural range of the European beech forest.

Beech forests would cover about 66% of 

Germany's land area, with the country 

consequently occupying some 25% of the 

potential total range of European beech 

forests. 

Historical and cultural developments have 

resulted in the beech forests in the Central 

European and German centre of distri b ution 

having shrunken by over 90% due to 

direct destruction and human interfer ence. 

Th e nominated component parts are some 

of the very last remains. As regards age 

and integrity, these are the prime examples 

of the beech forest climax ecosystem at its 

centre of distribution. 

3.c Comparative analysis 

3.c.1 Nemoral deciduous 

forests of the world 

For the most part, the occurrence of deciduous 

forests is limited to the Holarctic of 

the Earth’s northern hemisphere. Th ey are 

found throughout the nemoral zones for 

climatic reasons and are limited to moderate 

climates with a minimum vegetative period 

of four months, a cold phase in the winter, 

and humid-(semihumid) conditions. 

Th e genus of beech (Fagus) is a typical element 

of deciduous forests. It comprises a total 

of 14 species that exist under humid climate 

conditions in the three major Holarctic 

regions of deciduous forest: in the east of 

North America, in Europe / West Asia, and 

in East Asia. Its counterpart in the southern 

hemisphere is the cognate Nothofagus genus 

(Fagaceae) with its approx. 45 species native 

to the austral and Antarctic zones as 

well as the Australian fl oristic realm, to New 

Zealand, and to New Guinea. 

Fagus spread all over the northern hemi sphere 

during the early Tertiary (PETERS 1997). 


A view into the treetops of 

beeches in summer 

Nationale 


87


Fig. 3.2: Distribution of nemoral 

deciduous forest regions in the 

Holarctic and distribution of the 

genus Fagus (after MEUSEL et 

al. 1965, SCHROEDER 1998, 

KNAPP 2007) 

Neotropic 

Capensic 

Antarctic 

Th ere are two species in Europe and West 

Asia: Fagus sylvatica and F. orientalis, which 

are also regarded as one single species according 

to recent scientifi c fi ndings (DENK, 

GRIMM & HEMLEBEN 2005). Fagus 

sylvatica's distribution ranges from the 

Mediterranean montane level through the 

mountainous regions and downs of Central 

Europe to the North / Central European 

lowlands, South Scandinavia, and Great 

Britain. Th roughout its area of distribution, 

F. sylvatica is a dominant forest-forming 

species. However, as a rule, F. orientalis and 

F. crenata also form and dominate forests 

while other Fagus species are found in mixed 

forests rich of woody species at varying proportions. 

According to KLEOPOW 1941 

(quoted in WALTER & STRAKA 1970), 

Fagus sylvatica is evolutionary more recent 

than Fagus orientalis, which is very closely 

related to Fagus crenata in Japan. As opposed 

to the genus Nothofagus found in the southern 

hemisphere, there are only deciduous Fagus 

Holarctic 

Palaeotropic 

Australic 

Distribution of nemoral 

deciduous forest regions 

Distribution of the genus Fagus 

species, with all of them being relatively 

competitive and shade tolerant. When in their 

optimum range, they are capable of supplanting 

almost any other tree species (PETERS 

1997, HOFFMANN & PANEK 2006). 

Th ere is but one widespread species of the 

Fagus genus native to North America: 

Fagus grandifolia comprising a var. mexicana 

with a disjunctive relic habitat. A total 

of 11 species including six local endemites 

and fi ve more common species have been 

described for East Asia. Fagus crenata and 

F. japonica are widely found in Japan’s nemoral 

zone. Fagus longipetiolata, F. engleriana 

and F. lucida are found in South China up 

to the laurel forest region in the meridional 

zone (MEUSEL et al. 1965, PETERS 

1997) (fi g. 3.2, 3.3). 

36% of the Earth’s forests may still be 

regarded as primeval (FAO 2006); however, 

these are exclusively found in unsettled

Fagus mexicana 

Fagus grandifolia 

or sparsely settled regions with little infrastructure 

(KNAPP et al. 2008). In contrast, 

the Holarctic deciduous forest regions are 

among the most densely populated areas in 

the world, which are growth centres of 

modern industrialised civilisations. It therefore 

comes as no surprise that deciduous 

forests have seen a massive displacement 

during the history of settlement, with only 

a few relics being found globally. 

Th e current fl oristic discrepancies between 

the Earth's major deciduous forest regions 

are primarily a result of the Quarternary 

climate change (WALTER & STRAKA 

1970, LANG 1994). Th e conse quences of 

glaciation turned out more extreme in 

Europe than in North America (ARCHI- 

BOLD 1995). Th e ice cover in Siberia or 

in Central Asian mountain ranges was 

comparatively less pronounced, resulting in 

the forest coverage being fragmented to a 

lesser extent than was the case in Europe 

Fagus sylvatica 

and North America. In glacial Japan, the 

glaciers rose to an altitude of 2,700 metres 

and above. 

Europe 

Being associated with the climate’s steadily 

decreasing oceanity from west to the east, 

the beech forest distribution in Europe is 

bounded by climatic parameters. Th e beech 

forests’ eastern and northern bound aries are 

roughly correspondent to the distributions 

limit of Fagus sylvatica, which is confronted 

with increasing winter's cold (< –30°C) 

in the east and north as well as with aridity 

(annual precipitation < 500 mm) (c.f. 

SCHRÖDER 1998). Beech forests with 

F. sylvatica form the potential and partially 

actual climax vegetation in Central Europe 

with its oceanic to suboceanic characteristics. 

In global comparison, F. sylvatica’s 

absolute dominance should be emphasised, 

which forms pure stands predominantly and 

particularly in Central Europe. 


Fagus crenata 

Fagus orientalis Fagus engleriana 

Fagus chienii Fagus japonica 

Fagus longipetiolata 

Fagus lucida 

Fagus hayatae 

Fig. 3.3: Worldwide distribution 

of 11 Fagus species throughout 

the deciduous forests 

(HOFFMANN & PANEK 

2006) 

Nationale 


89


Another striking feature is the poverty in 

species of the European deciduous wood 

fl ora: there are 53 Central European species 

as opposed to North America with 124 

species (ELLENBERG in LANG 1994). 

Due to its developmental history, Europe 

is dominated by anemophilous species. 

West Asia 

With the Colchic, Hyrcanic, Caspian, and 

Caucasian forests at the Black Sea, on the 

montane level of the Caucaus Mountains as 

well as on the southern edge of the Caspian 

Sea, West Asia is the prime relic area of 

Arcto-Tertiary forests in West Eurasia. Th e 

northern slope of the Alborz is covered by 

the Caspian forests, stretching over 800 km 

from Southern Azerbajan across North 

Iran almost up to the Turkmen border in a 

width of only some 70 km. Beech forests 

made up of Fagus orientalis are found in the 

middle and upper montane belts. Th e beech 

is accompanied by a host of maple species, 

lime trees, oaks, and hornbeams. It is assumed 

that the Caspian forests have developed 

without any interruption caused by glacial 

impact as opposed to other forests in the 

deciduous forest zone. Today, the Caspian 

forests in their entirety represent the most 

signifi cant, albeit receding remainder of 

primeval forests in the world’s deciduous 

forest zone (KNAPP 2005). 

North America 

Th e North American deciduous forest zone 

has seen the transformation of 50% of all 

forests into farmland and pastures in less 

than 400 years. Th e remaining deciduous 

forests are mostly managed and can be 

considered to be relatively near-natural only 

in terms of the composition of tree species. 

Fagus grandifolia is widespread in eastern 

North America. Th ere are, however, no largearea 

pure Fagus grandifolia forests. Th e 

natural Fagus grandifolia-Acer saccharum 

ranges south of the Great Lakes have been 

stripped of forests almost entirely and are 

densely populated (“corn belt” of the USA). 

Obviously, there are no primeval forests 

left with the exception of the World Heritage 

site Great Smokey Mountains National 

Park in America’s eastern decid uous forest 

regions. 

East Asia 

East Asian deciduous forest areas have 

shrunken to approx. 25% of their natural distribution 

range. During the last approx. 

6,000 years of cultural history, they have 

been pushed back in a similar way as in 

Europe. Today, some major woodlands are 

found only in South and, in particular, 

Northeast China. Th ese areas saw the 

cutting down of all forests at the beginning 

of the 20th century, which left the vast 

region devoid of any primeval forests and 

with only a very few old forests. Th e forest 

development in the wake of said deforestation 

was once again suppressed in the 

1960s during the Cultural Revolution. 

Established in 1961, the Changbai Shan 

National Park on the Korean border 

comprises, in its core zone of 196,463 ha, 

the most important near-natural deciduous 

forest stands in Manchuria. However, this 

does not include any Fagus forests. 

Near-natural forests are currently found in 

the montane domains of Central and 

South Japan as well as in the lowlands of 

North Japan (ARCHIBOLD 1995). 

Forests here are dominated by Fagus crenata 

(SCHRÖDER 1998), which unfolds 

its shaping force at the montane level 

(WILMANNS 1989). It is associated with 

maple, oak, and alder, with an understorey 

frequently being formed by dwarf bamboo.



Criterion 

for inscription 

Justifi cation of the “outstanding universal values” 

Great Smokey Mountains, USA vii, viii, ix, x outstanding Arcto-Tertiary geofl ora era 

Huanglong scenic and historic 

interest areas, China 

Jiuzhaigou valley scenic and 

historic interest area, China 

Mount Emei / Leshan 

Giant Buddah, China 

vii Huanglong valley includes the easternmost of all the Chinese glaciers with a 

mountain landscape, diverse forest ecosystems and spectacular limestone formations, 

waterfalls and hot springs. Huanglong houses the giant panda and the 

Sichuan golden snub-nosed monkey. 

vii It superb landscapes are particularly interesting for their series of narrow conic 

karst land forms and spectacular waterfalls. 

iv, vi, x Mt. Emei is of exceptional cultural signifi cance, since it is the place where 

Buddhism fi rst became established on Chinese territory and from where it 

spread widely throughout the east. It is also an area of natural beauty and known 

for its high plant species diversity with a large number of endemic species. 

Mount Huangshan, China ii, vii, x Huangshan is well known in art and literature during a good part of Chinese 

history. Today it holds the same fascination for visitors, poets, painters and 

photo graphers who come on pilgrimage to the site with magnifi cent scenery 

of many granite peaks and rocks emerging out of a sea of clouds. 

Shirakami-Sanchi, 

Japan 

World Natural Heritage properties 

in deciduous forests regions outside 

of Europe 

(Source: Natural site datasheet from 

World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 

www.unep-wcmc.org) 

Great Smokey Mountains 

(USA, area 209,000 ha, World Natural 

Heritage since 1983) 

Th ere are two World Heritage Sites in the 

nemoral deciduous forest regions in eastern 

North America. Th e Mammoth Cave 

National Park has been inscribed as a pala eontologic 

fi nd spot, and the Great Smokey 

Mountains National Park as the last primeval 

forest range in eastern North America. 

Th e lower altitudinal belts are dominated by 

oak species and the higher ones by conifer 

species. Of particular note is a ravine 

forest, comprising 20 diff erent species of 

deciduous trees and conifers. Th e Canadian 

Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) is mainly 

found in the low to middle altitudinal belts 

and is associated with Red Spruce (Picea 


ix The trackless site includes the last virgin remains of the cool-temperate forest 

of Siebold’s beech trees that once covered the hills and mountain slopes of 

northern Japan. 

rubens) at 1,500 m and above. Th e park's 

high altitude areas form the largest coherent 

range of virtually pristine Picea rubens 

populations. Being a mixed tree species, 

Fagus grandifolia is found throughout, albeit 

at low proportions. 

Huanglong scenic and historic interest 

areas 

(China, area 60,000 ha, World Natural 


Huanglong is situated within the transition 

zone between the eastern wetland forests 

and the montane conifer woodland of the 

Jing Zang plateau. Some 65% of the area 

are covered by forests. Mixed forest, which 

is dominated by Chinese Hemlock (Tsuga 

chinensis), Dragon Spruce (Picea aspertata) 

and maple species, is found at altitudes 

from 1,700 m to 2,300 m. At levels between 

2,300 m and 3,600 m, forests are mostly 

shaped by conifers and show subalpine characteristics. 

Th is zone is followed by alpine 

mats, snow, and granite at above 3,600 m. 

Th ere are no Fagus species. 

Tab. 3.2: World Natural Heritage 

properties in deciduous forest 

regions outside of Europe 

Nationale 


91


Fagus sylvatica is found 

exclusively in Europe. 

The development and 

expansion of beech forests, 

which started after the last 

glacial period, is in full 

swing only in Europe and, 

in its diversifi cation, is 

characterised by the 

dominant species Fagus 

sylvatica. 

Jiuzhaigou valley scenic and historic 

interest area 



Th is protected area is located in the Szechuan 

upland and is shaped by temperate conifer 

and deciduous forests. Th e level of aff orestation 

is approx. 65%. In Jiuzhaigou, 

there are protected pristine conifer forests 

and two bamboo species serving as an 

important food source to the giant panda 

(Ailuropoda melanoleuca). More accurate 

data on the vegetation is not available; 

however, the fl ora roughly corresponds to 

the fl ora in the Huanglong scenic and 

historic interest area. Th ere are no Fagus 

species. 

Mount Emei / Leshan Giant Buddah 



Th e Mt. Emei protected area is shaped by 

fi ve vegetation levels; vegetation coverage 

amounts to 87 %, 52% of which being woodlands. 

At levels below 1,500 m, the vege tation 

is dominated by subtropical inde ciduous 

forests, with indeciduous and deciduous 

mixed forests and mixed coni f erous / nonconiferous 

forests being typical at higher 

levels. Above 2,800 m, there are subalpine 

coniferous forests and shrubbery. Th ese 

forests are home to over 3,200 plant species, 

accounting for 10% of the Chinese fl ora. 

Th ere are no Fagus species. 

Mount Huangshan 



Beside the Huangshan Oak (Quercus 

stewardii), deciduous forests are also populated 

by a Fagus species – Fagus engleriana – 

that reaches a mere 20 m and is mostly 

multi-stemmed. Huangshan is home to 

en demic vegetation foms covering up to 

approx. 56% of the protected area. Below 

a level of 800 m, the vegetation is shaped 

by the Massons Pine (Pinus massoniana) 

together with the Huangshan Pine (Pinus 

hwang shanensis). Th e latter is found at levels 

between 600 m and 1,100 above sea level. 

Above 1,100 m, there are deciduous forests. 

Fagus engleriana is not found as a dominant 

mixed tree species here. 

Shirakami Sanchi 

(Japan, area 16,139 ha, World Natural 


Beside the “Primeval Beech Forests of the 

Carpathians” the Japanese World Natural 

Heritage is the only World Natural Heritage 

site owing its outstanding signifi cance to 

a Fagus species. It comprises the last pristine 

populations of Fagus crenata, which is endemic 

to Japan. 

Th e protected area is situated in the northwest 

of Honshu Island, North Japan. 

F. crenata is restricted to montane habitats 

with a humid-cool climate and heavy snowfall 

during winter months. 

Starting from the areas of retreat of the last 

ice age, F. crenata reached its current refuge 

approx. 8,000 years ago. In the course of 

time, a forest community has evolved which 

is rather rich in species as compared to 

Europe. Th ere is an estimated 500 plant 

species with many of which being endemic 

to the region. Th is results in the ecosystems, 

which are furthermore limited to 

montane zones, being of diff erent composition 

then the European beech forests. 

For example, an understorey is frequently 

formed by the dwarf bamboo (ARCHI- 

BOLD 1995).

Taken together, it can be said in global comparison 

that the conservation status of 

nemoral deciduous forests is rather critical 

also outside of Europe as a consequence 

of the loss of wooded areas and degradation 

of the remaining woodland. Exceptions are 

but a few individual national parks, World 

Heritage sites, and the Caspian deciduous 

forests. Forests housing Fagus species are 

mostly of the mixed type without the beech 

being dominant at a large scale. Where 

the forest structure is determined by Fagus, 

the areas are located in mountain ranges 

as compared to the component parts of the 

extension nomination (Fagus orientalis and 

Fagus crenata) with an entirely diff erent 

forest history as compared to forests dominated 

by Fagus sylvatica. Due to the glacial 

period that shaped Central Europe north 

of the Alps and, in particular, to the re - 

colonisation having taken an idiosyncratic 

course, the evolution ary processes in the 

Central European beech forests contrast 

strongly with other continents. 

Area in 1,000 ha 

18,000 

16,000 

14,000 

12,000 

10,000 

8,000 

6,000 

4,000 

2,000 

0 

Romania 

Germany 

France 

Slovenia 

3.c.2 European beech 

forests 

From the 26.7% of forest area in Europe, the 

boreal conifer zone occupies the largest 

portion. At present, the fraction in the nonconiferous 

forest region is markedly lower. 

In the absence of human interven tion, 

major parts of Central Europe, in total 

amounting to approx. 910,000 km 2 , would 

be occupied by Fagus sylvatica forests, with 

Germany accounting for a potential 26% 

(BOHN & GOLLUB 2007), as the country 

is at the centre of the global range of 

Fagus sylvatica distribution (fi g. 3.4). In a 

potential natural vegetation, more than 

two-thirds of Germany’s land area would 

be covered by beech forests communities, 

with F. sylvatica still showing some potential 

for expansion (WILMANNS 1989, 

LEUSCHNER 1998, CZAJKOWS KI et 

al. 2006). In the north, the European 

beech forests are mainly found in the lowlands 

while in the south of Europe reaching 

far into the montane zones. Th e entire 

lowlands from Northern France to Southern 

Sweden and North-eastern Poland as well 

Beech forest Total forest area 

Bulgaria 

Slovac Republic 

Austria 

Greece 

Italy 

Switzerland 

Czech Republic 

United Kingdom 

Denmark 

Belgium 

Poland 


Netherlands 

Fig. 3.4: Present forests / beech 

forests in Europe (according to 

FAO 2003, HOFFMANN 

& PANEK 2006) 

Beech forest portions in the 

United Kingdom, Denmark, 

Belgium, Poland, and the 

Netherlands are too small for 

them to be identified in the 

figure. Details on the beech 

forest portions of Albania, 

Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, 

Luxemburg, Macedonia, 

Moldavia, Sweden, Serbia- 

Montenegro, Spain, and Ukraine 

are not known. 

Nationale 


93


Tab. 3.3: Current distribution 

of European lowland beech 

forests (WINTER 2005, 

figures estimated). 

Country 

Lowland beech forests 

(ha) 

Sweden 50,000 

United Kingdom 58,000 

Denmark 72,000 

Netherlands 10,000 

Belgium 50,000 

(planar and montane?) 

France 140,000 

(planar and montane?) 

Germany 270,000 

Poland 50,000 

Sum 750,000 

as the downs and mountainous regions of 

Central and South Europe are potentially 

covered by Fagus sylvatica forests. In Southern 

Europe, e. g. Sicily, they are found in the 

form of the upper forest belt in the Nebrodi 

National Park at altitudes over 1,200 above 

sea level. In total, 86 diff erent mapping 

units can be diff erentiated (BOHN et al. 

2002 / 2003). 

Th e European beech forests have been exploited 

to such a degree during the past 

millennia that they could survive in their 

natural shapes only in some inaccessible 

pockets, isolated, and frequently in peripheral 

zones. Th e primeval forests that still exist 

at a small scale are therefore located in particular 

in the mountain ranges of the 

Carpathians and hence at the eastern border 

of their natural range rather than in the 

Fagus sylvatica core habitat. 

Particularly endangered on a global scale are 

the lowland beech forests with a potential 

total area of about 93,000 km 2 in Europe. 

How ever, there is a maximum of only 

7,500 km 2 left dispersed and fragmented 

throughout Europe, with some 2,700 km 2 

of which being located in Germany, which 

consequently bears great responsibility 

for the preservation of large-area lowland 

beech forests (tab. 3.3). 

Alongside with the lowland beech forests, 

Germany also assumes a special obligation 

to preserve the oligotroph to mesotroph 

European beech forests. Of the Fagus sylvatica 

forests’ potential natural distribu tion range 

totalling 907,000 km², about 361,000 km² 

or 40% belong to this trophic level (BOHN 

et al. 2002 / 2003). In Germany, the portion 

of these forests potentially amounts to 

approx. 130,000 km². Consequently, about 

one-third of the European population 

of “species-poor” beech forests is covered 

by Germany alone, hence representing 

the world's centre of this beech forest type 

(PANEK 2008). Germany bears globally 

extraordinary responsibility for two 

variants of this type, i. e. the Central European 

and the Subatlantic “Luzula luzuloides 

beech forests”, as their distribution is restric 

ted to the German territory. Th e nominated 

component part Kellerwald is representative 

of the Subatlantic type. 

World Heritage properties in the 

deciduous forest regions of Europe 

(Source: Natural site datasheet from 

World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 

www.unep-wcmc.org) 

Six World Heritage properties with non-coniferous 

forests are contained in the nemoral 

decid uous forest regions of Europe. 

Beside the "Primeval Beech Forests of the 

Carpathians", which are to be complemented 

by the nominated component parts, other 

regions with relevant beech forest fractions 

are of particular signifi cance that represent 

various biogeographic regions. Th is includes 

the Plitvice Lakes and Pirin sites with 

“Illyrian Balkan Beech Forests” as well as 

Mont Perdu with its montane portions of 

the "Atlantic-West European Beech Forests". 

As a consequence of the diff erent biogeographic 

regions, altitudinal zones, and the 

history of postglacial development, these 

are markedly diff erent from the beech forests



Bialowieza National Park, 

Poland, Belarus 

Plitvice Lakes National Park, 

Croatia 

Criterion 

for inscription 

Justifi cation of the “outstanding universal values” 

vii Extensive woodlands containing the watershed between the Baltic and Black 

Sea. The forests are composed of indeciduous and deciduous tree species, 

accommodating an exceedingly rich fauna like wolf, lynx, otter, and the European 

bison. 

vii, viii, ix The World Natural Heritage of a karst landscape with giant cataracts and limestone 

mountains, caves, and lakes was designated in view of its beauty and the 

particular geological and ecologic peculiarities (a host of endemic species). 

Pirin National Park, Bulgaria vii, viii, ix Situated at an altitude of one thousand to nearly three thousand metres, is the 

gorgeous limestone landscape of the Balkans with its glacial lakes, cataracts, 

caverns and pine forests that are home to a number of endemic animal and 

plant species of the Pleistocene. 

Durmitor National Park, 

Montenegro 

vii, viii, ix The canyon of the Tara River is Europe’s deepest chasm. Moulded during the 

glacial periods, these parts contain subterranean streams and vast pine forests 

with embedded clear water lakes. The area boasts a great many endemic species. 

Mont Perdu, France, Spain vii, viii The limestone massif of Mont Perdu (3,352 m) is the centre of the World Heritage 

site. Alongside its special geological features (two abyssal gorges), the World 

Natural and Cultural Heritage represents a meadow landscape which in earlier 

times was widespread throughout Europe, yet cannot be found today but in 

this particular part of the Pyrenees. 

Primeval Beech Forests of the 

Carpathians, Slovak Republic 

and Ukraine 

of the nominated component parts as representatives 

of the “Central European Beech 

Forests”, which is the reason why they cannot 

be seen as substitutes for the latter. 

Th ere are no or hardly any appreciable beech 

forest portions in the two remaining World 

Natural Heritage properties. 

Bialowieza National Park 

(Poland and Byelorussia, area 147,872 ha; 

World Natural Heritage since 1979 and 

1992, criterion vii) 

Th e national park is characterised by a 

relatively large area of natural old-growth 

forests which hardly show any human 

infl uence. With 12 European main forest 

types as well as an exceedingly rich fauna, 

woodlands here show the qualities of 

typical primeval forests. Fagus sylvatica is 

not found in Bialowieza. 


ix The undisturbed, complex temperate primeval beech forest of the Carpathians 

are indispensable to understanding the history and evolution of the genus 

Fagus. 

Plitvice Lakes National Park 

(Croatia, area 19,200 ha, World Natural 

Heritage since 1979, criteria vii, viii, ix) 

70% of Plitvice is woodlands. 72% of the 

overall forest area (9,676 ha) are shaped by 

pure Fagus sylvatica stands. Th ese forests 

are shelter to bears, wolves, and rare birds. 

However, the outstanding universal value 

is determined by the gorgeous karst lake 

landscapes rather than by the forests. Th e 

area ranges from 417 – 2,180 m above sea 

level, with the main portion including the 

Plitvice lakes being located above 600 m. 

Unlike the “Central European Beech Forests” 

of the extension nomination, the beech 

forests of the Plitvice lakes in the Illyrian 

Balkan territory are glacial refuges. Th e 

postglacial process of continental expansion 

began here. Th e centres of diversity of the 

European beech forests can be found here. 

Tab. 3.4: World Heritage properties 

in the deciduous forest regions 

of Europe 

Nationale 


95


Name of property Country Form Protection status 

Jasmund* Germany CE / p national park 

Serrahn* Germany CE / p national park 

Grumsin* Germany CE / p biosphere reserve 

Hainich* Germany CE / c-sm national park 

Kellerwald* Germany CE / c-sm national park 

Bavarian Forest Germany CE / m-am national park 

Palatinate Forest Germany CE / c-sm biosphere reserve 

Steigerwald Germany CE / c-sm Natura 2000 area 

Hochspessart Germany CE / c-sm Natura 2000 area 

Sihlwald Switzerland CE / sm Natura 2000 area 

Dürrenstein Austria alp (marginal 

Alps) 

biosphere reserve 

Cevennes France W / c-sm national park 

Pyrénées Occidentale France W / m-am national park 

Ordesa-Mt. Perdido Spain W / m national park 

Covadonga Spain W / m-am national park 

Forest Casentinesi Italy Med / m national park 

Abruzzi Italy Med / m national park 

Gargano Italy Med / m national park 

Central Balkan Bulgaria IDB / m-am national park 

Plitvice Croatia IDB / m-am national park 

Risnjak Croatia IDB / m-am national park 

Sutjeska Bosnia-Herzegovina IDB / m-am national park 

Carpathians** Ukraine C / m-am biosphere reserve 

Western 

Carpathians** 

Slovakia C / m-am national park 

Semenic Romania C / m national park 

Tab. 3.5: Significant European 

beech forests (adapted from 

Plachter et al. 2007) 

(CE = Central European region, 

W = West European-Atlantic 

region, 

Med = Mediterranean region, 

IDB = Illyric-Dinaric-Balkan 

region, 

C = Carpathian region, 

Alp = Alpic region, 

p = planar, 

c = colline, 

sm = submontane, 

m = montane, 

am = altomontane 

* German extension nomination; 

** including Carpathian World 

Heritage area) 

Pirin National Park 

(Bulgaria, area 40,060 ha, World Natural 

Heritage since 1983, criteria vii, viii, ix) 

60% of the total area is covered by the 

park’s forests, with the largest fraction being 

mixed conifer forests of the altomontane 

zone. At the montane level, there are also 

fi r-beech forests with Fagus sylvatica that are 

notably diff erent from the pure beech 

forests on the nominated component parts 

with their planar to submontane altitudinal 

types. Moreover, they are characterised by 

a high portion of relic and endemic species. 

Dominating species at the timber line are 

the Bosnian Pine (Pinus heldreichii) and 

Macedonian Pine (Pinus peuce). Individual 

Pinus leucodermis populations are up to 

500 years old, while others are 45 m high. 

Th e subalpine zone is dominated by Pinus 

mugo thickets. 

Durmitor National Park 

(Montenegro, area 32,000 ha, World Natural 

Heritage since 1980, criteria vii, viii, x) 

Th e canyon of the Tara River is Europe’s 

deepest chasm. Th e primeval forests of 

Mlinski are among the primary factors for 

the park's protection status, covering 

50% of the park area and being composed 

of deciduous forests, conifer forests, subalpine 

and alpine mats. Dumitor boasts one 

of the last primeval pine forests in Europe, 

while the beech (Fagus sylvatica) plays is 

only of secondary importance as a mixed 

tree species. 

Mont Perdu 

(France and Spain, area 31,189 ha, World 

Natural Heritage, mixed site, since 1997, 

criteria vii, viii) 

Located in the Central Pyrenees, the World 

Natural Heritage runs along the Spanish- 

French frontier area in the limestone massif 

of Mont Perdu. Th e northern portion with 

an area of 11,055 ha lies in France, while the 

southern part with its 20,134 ha is located 

in Spain. Altitudinal zones range from 

600 m in the “Midi Pyrénées” region up to 

3,352 m to the mountain ranges around 

Monte Perdido / Mont Perdu. Five vegetation 

types have been described for the domain. 

Submediterranean vegetation is mostly 

found in the southern valleys. Th e colline 

type is dominated by sessile oaks, while 

montane mixed forests are formed by Fagus 

sylvatica and Abies alba in montane zones. 

Th e vegetation of the subalpine level is 

determined by Pinus uncinata, Vicia argen tea,

and the endemitic Bordera pyrenaica. A total 

of over 1,500 plant species are found in the 

protected area, 50 species of which being 

considered to be endemic to the Pyrenees. 

Th e region’s beech forests document the 

montane Pyrenean type “Atlantic-West 

European Beech Forests” which is markedly 

diff erent from the “Central European Beech 

Forests”. Another critical diff erence is the 

Pyrenees not having seen a comparable 

postglacial development of the forests, all 

the more so as there were glacial refuges 

without any tendency toward repopulation 

(MAGRI et al. 2006). 

Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians 

(Slovak Republic and Ukraine, area 

29,278.9 ha, World Natural Heritage 

since 2007, criterion ix) 

Th e World Heritage property is composed 

of 10 component parts in Slovakia and 

Ukraine. Th e montane to subalpine primeval 

beech forests represent the “Carpathian 

Beech Forests”. 

Th e primeval beech forests of the Carpathians 

are an outstanding example of intact montane 

nemoral forests which have been preserved 

in their complexity. Th is is a singular, 

complete, and comprehensive example of 

a forest dominated by a single tree species, 

which is the beech tree. Forest dynamics 

here were allowed to proceed without interruption 

or interference since the last ice 

age. Nowadays, they are the last pure beech 

forests in Europe to document the undisturbed 

postglacial repopulation of the species, 

which also includes the unbroken existence 

of typical animals and plants. Wolf, lynx, and 

bear deserve partic ular mention here. 

Th e primeval beech forests of the Carpathians 

are the linchpin for the nomination of the 

German component parts that, in the centre 

of the beech’s distribution range, are an 

essential part of the ecological processes 

underway since the last ice age. 

European beech forests outside of 

World Natural Heritage properties 

According to PLACHTER et al. (2007), 

large-area beech forests in Europe that are 

not World Natural Heritage sites but still 

have a high protection status and show a 

World Natural Heritage potential are to be 

found in Switzerland, Austria, France, 

Spain, Italy, Bulgaria, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, 

Ukraine, Slovakia, and Romania 

(tab. 3.5). As becomes apparent from the information 

on the beech forest types here 

also, there are, due to the diff er ent biogeographic 

regions, altitudinal zones, and 

the history of postglacial development, no 

beech forests comparable to the nominated 

component parts within in the “Central 

European Beech Forests”. 

3.c.3 Beech forests in 

Germany (see annex 3.1 and 3.2) 

In Germany, beech forests potentially are the 

naturally prevailing, dominant ecosystem 

and are formative for the specifi c biodiver sity. 

Accounting for 26% of the European habitat, 

Germany is located at the centre of the 

beech forests' distribution range. Th ere 

is no other country to boast a comparably 

high share of the natural distribution range 

of this type of forest. According to their 

local and geographical diff erentiation, a total 

of 86 diff erent beech forest variants are 

found throughout the European territory, 

one-third of which being present in the 

German centre of distribution. Of these 

28 types of beech forest, 18 types are mainly 

found in Germany with an area fraction 

of at least 50 %. Th is means that the sole 

global responsibility to preserve 20% of the 

European beech forest types as a natural 

value for the global community rests with 

Germany. Particular emphasis should be 


The nominated German 

beech forests are representative 

of the “Central European 

Beech Forests”. They 

document the ongoing 

postglacial history of European 

forests and are irreplaceable 

as far as existing 

or potential World Heritage 

properties are concerned. 

Nationale 


97


Beech forest 

Acidophilous species-poor Deschampsio-Fagetum 

and lowland oak-beech forests 

Luzulo-Fagetum of the colline and 

submontane zone 

Luzulo-Fagetum of the altomontane zone, partly 

with fi r and / or spru 

Lowland Galio odorati-Fagetum and 

Mercuriali-Fagetum 

Colline and submontane Galio odorati-Fagetum, 

Hordelymo-Fagetum, and Carici-Fagetum, 

partially with fi r trees 

Galio odorati / Dentario / Lonicero / Seslerio-Fagetum 

of the altomontane zone and marginal Alps, 

mostly with fi r trees, partially with spruce trees 

Potential distribution 

(% of German territory) 

Current portion of deciduous 

forests (% of German territory) 

12.28 0.61 

21.24 1.70 

5.00 0.25 

9.73 0.68 

14.68 1.76 

3.62 0.22 

Total % 66.55 5.22 

Tab. 3.6: Present and potential 

area fractions of beech forests in 

Germany (WINTER 2005). 

The nominated component 

parts rep resent the 

largest coherent, oldgrowth 

beech forests at 

the centre of beech distribution. 

They are the most 

outstanding representatives 

of the species evolution 

of Fagus sylvatica and 

the ongoing eco logical and 

biological processes in 

Central European beech 

forest ecosystems. 

laid on the fact that there is also a number 

of endemic species, e. g. among birds the 

global distribution of which is limited to the 

beech forest landscapes in the centre of 

distribution. 

Consequently, Germany of all countries bears 

the greatest responsibility for the “Central 

European Beech Forests”; it is, alongside 

with Poland and France, the only country to 

display the entire range of beech forest types 

from the low mountains to the sea shores. 

Moreover, the globally largest pop u lation of 

lowland beech forests and species-poor 

acidophilous beech forests within the European 

range is to be found in Germany. 

Th erefore, the illustration of the ongoing 

ecological processes since the last glacial 

period can be completed only when including 

Germany. 

While the greatest part of Germany had been 

occupied by beech forests when the largescale 

deforestation started some 1,100 years 

ago, the country has lost major por tions 

of its most important forest habitat during 

the past millennium. Th e massive loss of 

beech forests in Germany due to human in- 

fl uence can be seen by comparison of the 

potential with the current popu lations (tab. 

3.6). Th e forest areas that are potential 

beech forest habitats are currently covered by 

beech forests but to a minor extent. Moreover, 

in excess of 97% of the 1,564,806 ha of 

beech forests still existent in Germany 

(SCHERFOSE et al. 2007) are managed. 

As a consequence of the intensive historical 

exploitation of the beech forests, there are 

hardly any major old-growth beech forests 

left in Germany as the central beech forest 

territory, but also in the adjacent beech 

countries. Not more than a maximum of 6% 

of the German beech forests are older than 

160 years (SCHERFOSE et al. 2007). For 

the most part, the managed beech forests 

are poor both in structure and dead wood 

volume. Only a few isolated pockets deserve 

a mention as having seen little human 

impact. Large-area, unfragmented nearnatural 

beech forests are a rare occurrence, 

while primeval forests have completely 

vanished safe for some minuscule leftovers. 

Th ere are, however, a few large-scale, largely 

unfragmented old growth and valuable

eech forests in German national parks and 

biosphere reserves. Other remaining valuable 

beech forests in Germany are intended 

to be preserved within the scope of a comprehensive 

system of protected areas. 

Further more, it is Germany’s intention to 

meet its globally outstanding responsibility 

to preserve the beech forests and nominate 

the best preserved beech forest areas in the 

exis ting biological range as “Ancient Beech 

Forests of Germany” as an extension to the 

World Natural Heritage “Primeval Beech 

Forests of the Carpathians”. 

Hence, a feasibility study was conducted in 

the course of the eff orts toward nomi nation 

(HOFFMANN & PANEK 2006) to 

analyse all potentially suitable beech forests 

in Germany according to a uniform scheem 

examining the wholeness and intactness 

of their natural attributes by assessing size, 

representativity (representation of signifi 

cant features and processes), protection 

status and management aiming at non intervention 

policy as well as factors aff ecting the 

sites. Th e results of this assessement for 

the individual beech forest areas were compared 

within al fi nal analysis focusing 

on the respective World Heritage potential. 

Th e analysis revealed a clear order of prefe rence 

for the selection of the individual 

component parts for a serial World Heritage 

nomination of German beech forests. 

Th is resulted in the Schorfheide-Chorin 

Biosphere Reserve with Grumsin as well as 

the Jasmund and Müritz National Parks 

being recommended for the planar area. For 

the colline-submontane zone, the Hainich 

National Park was regarded as the best 

representative of the rich in species Central 

European beech forests, while the Kellerwald-Edersee 

National Park was seen as the 

best representative for poor in species Central 

European acidic beech forests. 

3.d Integrity 

With the “Ancient Beech Forests of Germany”, 

the best old-growth beech forests of 

Germany are nominated as repre sentatives 

of the “Central European Beech Forests” 

with the highest degrees of maturity and 

nativeness. Indicators include forest continuity, 

duration of the absence from use, 

structural diversity, com pleteness of natural 

dynamic processes, fractions in primeval 

forest relics, favour able buff er and networking 

potentials, and representativity for 

the biogeographic region of the “Subatlantic 

Central European Beech Forests” and the 

ongoing ecological processes follow ing the last 

ice age (fi g. 3.1). 

As is the case with all European natural areas, 

the beech forests of the nominated component 

parts are not completely un aff ected 

by human activity and, like all natural areas, 

are undergoing change. Especially in the 

last 1,000 years, in general the beech forests’ 

ecosys tems have been impacted by human 

activity throughout Europe, and partly 

drastically so. As compared to the potential 

natural distribution area, the present area has 

shrunken by 90% in Central Europe alone. 

Th e primeval forests in the West and 

Central European centre of distribution of 

the Euro pean beech forests have largely been 

eliminated. Genuine primeval forests with 


The beech forests of the 

nominated “Ancient Beech 

Forests of Germany” are 

the best old growth relics 

at the heart of beech forest 

distribution. 

Natural beech forest in 

Kellerwald 

Nationale 


99



parts, as an extension to 

the existing World Natural 

Heritage “Primeval Beech 

Forests of the Carpathians”, 

contain all elements pertaining 

to the complete 

illustration of the outstanding 

universal value of 

the ongoing ecological process 

following the last 

glacial period. They are the 

best remnants at the heart 

of beech forests distribution 

in terms of complete and 

comprehensive ecological 

patterns. 

Furthermore, they are exceptional 

examples of 

climax ecosystems under 

human infl uence being 

able to regenerate natural 

structures and ecological 

functions in the natural 

balance and despite fragmentation 

partly ending in 

isolation, survived with its 

longstanding habitat tradition 

as well as structures 

and processes typical for 

original wilderness to the 

present day within extensive 

landscapes with a long 

history of settlement and 

land use. 

beeches (Fagus sylvatica) as the primary tree to 

form populations are found only on a relatively 

small scale in the East Central European 

and Southeast European regions 

(Carpathians, Dinarides, Balkan) on the 

eastern boundary of the beech forest habitat. 

Th e integrity of the World Natural Heritage 

“Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians” 

is rooted in the history of forest development 

and the intactness in terms of unbroken, 

uninterfered dynamics that include all stages 

of forest development and preserve biodiversity. 

Still existing ancient beech forests in the 

centre of beech distribution are mostly 

relics, which aff ects in particular the natural 

large animal fauna and highly specialised 

dead wood inhabitants. Against this culturalhistorical 

backdrop, the best old-growth 

beech forests at the centre of beech distribution, 

which are nominated as an extension 

to the World Natural Heritage “Primeval 

Beech Forests of the Carp athians” are of 

high integrity. In the nominated component 

parts, the utilisation and / or withdrawal 

of biomass has already been suspended 

several years or even decades ago, 

allowing the accumulative function of the 

ecosystems to proceed undisturbed by 

human intervention, and all the more successfully 

so as the areas are uninterrupted in 

terms of forest continuity. Th eir structural 

elements and population of plants, animals, 

fungi, and micro-organisms show systemspecifi 

c characteristics. Th e ongoing biological 

and ecological processes take course 

in open systems. 

Completeness 

Th e nominated German component parts 

comprise the entire diversity off ered by 

the beech landscapes in Central European 

lowlands and downs. Integral natural components 

include moors, fens, lakes, brooks, 

seashores, stone runs, and rocks. In terms of 

their varying in character according to altitudinal 

levels, zonations, local and biogeographic 

diff erences as well as typical animal 

and plant species, the selected Central 

European beech forests are to be regarded as 

complete. Th e component parts, as an extension 

to the existing World Natural Heritage 


contain all elements pertaining 

to the complete illustration of the outstanding 

universal value of the ongoing ecological 

processes following the last glacial period. 

Furthermore, the nominated component 

parts are exceptional examples of climax 

ecosystems under human infl uence being 

able to regenerate natural structures and 

ecological functions in the natural balance. 

Notwithstanding vestiges of earlier interference, 

the functional interconnections are 

undisturbed due to currently ongoing 

natural processes. From rejuvenation to degradation, 

from the gap in the forest canopy 

to the closed beech canopy, from the beech 

sapling to the majestic giant tree, the entire 

development cycle of natural beech forests 

is found in each of the compo nent parts 

and not lacking in any element. Owing to old 

age and large surface area, the territories 

show typical features of mature beech forests. 

Wood-dwelling bugs are represented by 

a host of relic species typical for primeval 

forests and by an impressive number of 

characteristic European forest species. 

Area size 

Th e serial property, which comprises representative 

beech forests, is suffi ciently sized 

to allow for the relevant processes required 

in the long-term preservation of the ecosystems 

and the biodiversity contained. 

Th e variegated beech forest types are represented 

across all altitudinal and trophic 

levels. However, only a combination of the

compo nent parts will be able to illustrate 

the ongoing ecological process after the last 

ice age with all of its facets and diversity of 

habitats and species. 

Th e area sizes of the individual nominated 

component parts also meet certain minimum 

requirements. With areas ranging from 

several hundred to more than one thousand 

hectares, they are capable of represen ta tively 

and, for the most part, completely illustrating 

the typical forms and natural dynamic 

processes of Central European beech forest 

ecosystems as well as cushion ing them 

against external infl uences. Plausible minimum 

sizes to protect the fl ora and vegetation, 

developmental stages, and forest habitats 

are 30 – 40 (100) ha (e.g. KORPEL 1995), so 

that this criterion is met. Th e actual sizes 

of the component parts will moreover guarantee 

suffi ciently dimensioned minimum 

populations of the characteristic zoocoenoses, 

from the soil fauna and arthropods through 

small and medium-sized mammals up to 

most bird species (SCHERZINGER 1996). 

Together with the buff er zones and the 

surrounding densely wooded or extensively 

used landscapes which they are embedded 

in, the nominated component parts are in 

an outstanding initial situation to empha sise 

and safeguard the existing integ rity of the 

nominated property of the Central European 

beech forests. Th e buff er zones are all subject 

to similarly strict protection requirements 

and a coordinated management. 

With the exception of Jasmund, the needs 

of large mammals, predators, and individual 

large birds as well as migrating animal 

species requiring large territories and complex 

landscape-ecological interrelationships 

can also be catered to in the context of the 

large-scale surrounding woodlands. 

Adverse eff ects of development 

and / or negligence 

Th ere are no known serious eff ects that 

might neglect, impact, or destroy the 

property (cf. chapter 4). 

Management 

Management of the nominated component 

parts is coordinated and executed by the 

protected area administrations. All territories 

are subject to strict protection on a permanent 

legal basis following the internation ally 

applicable IUCN categories. Th e management 

is comprehensively outlined in the 

management plan. Th eir protection concepts 

ensure any direct human infl uence and 

exploitation of the area to be permanently 

ruled out also in the long-term future. Th e 

component parts are character ised by low 

fragmentation as well as a high networking, 

buff ering, and developmental potential. 


The Hainich National Park 

contains the largest free-of-use 

deciduous forest preserve in 

Germany. 

Nationale 


101


Natural beech forest Serrahn 

4. State of conservation and 

factors aff ecting the property 

Th e nominated property “Ancient Beech Forests of Germany” represents 

the last relics in the European centre of distribution of the beech forests. 

Th ese are old-growth beech forests and prim eval forest relics. Together 

with the "Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians", they illustrate 

the singularly successful expansion process of the beech and beech forests 

as well as the ongoing postglacial ecological developments.

In general, the European beech forests have 

been increasingly subject to substantial 

human interference since the Neolithic, and 

even more so in the last 1,000 years, especially 

in the Central European centre of 

distribution. For example, the beech forest 

range in Germany today is less than 10% 

of the potential natural range. Alongside 

with the loss of areas and structures, the history 

of settlement and utilisation has also 

interfered with the continuity of the developmental 

and ecosystem-internal processes. 

Th is is particularly evident by the loss 

of dynamics, old trees, dead wood, and 

micro habitats. Primeval forests have disappeared 

from Central Europe safe for a 

hand ful of tiny relics. In the beech forests of 

the nominated component parts however, 

the natural processes are allowed to take 

course undisturbed. Th is is associated with 

a natural cycle of growth and decay, which 

includes the formation and accumulation of 

dead wood. 

4. STATE OF CONSERVATION AND FACTORS AFFECTING THE PROPERTY 

4.a Present state 

of conservation 

Th e beech forests within the nominated 

component parts are subject to the protection 

of processes in line with the basic 

principle “Let Nature be Nature” (tab. 4.1). 

Th eir state of conservation is regularly 

monitored based on their being located 

within protected areas (national parks, biosphere 

reserve). Series of data, obtained 

within the scope of monitoring programmes 

and reaching back up to several decades, are 

available for all territories to capture and 

illustrate the developmental dynamics of the 

beech forests. It is an outstanding example 

for the regeneration power of a climax ecosys 

stem as well as for the ability of beech 

forests to re-vitalisation of former degraded 

sites (KNAPP & JESCHKE 1991). All 

relevant areas including the primeval forest 

relics are included. Alongside with the 

surveys carried out within the scope of 

forest research, one can draw on comprehensive 

material obtained both from the 

Despite human interference 

with the forests of Central 

Europe generally being 

drastic, the natural processes 

take an undisturbed 

course within the nominated 


Nature is allowed to be 

nature in the beech forests 


parts. Monitoring 

is guaranteed. 

Nationale 


103


Tab. 4.1: Duration of process 

protection in the nominated 


The nominated property is 

predestined by its forest 

continuity to document 

the ongoing ecological 

processes of European 

beech forests since the last 

glacial period. 

Tab 4.2: States of naturalness 

of the five nominated component 

parts by comparison 

(SCHNEIDER 2008) 

Component 

part 

Processes under legal 

protection since 

Remarks 

Jasmund 1990 steep coast has never been exploited, 

256 ha since 1960 

Serrahn 1990 70 ha free of use since 1957 

Grumsin 1990 

Hainich 1997 subterritories free of use since 1965 

Kellerwald 1990, partly 1999 partly for decades, steep slopes have never 

been exploited 

results of the integrated enviromental monitoring 

and from a wealth of area-specifi c 

single measure ments. 

Old forest sites 

Th e fi ve component parts of the extension 

nomination are verifi ably old forest sites 

– with restrictions in the case of Serrahn 

(GLASER & HAUKE 2004). Old forest 

sites are characterised by an age-long continuous 

forest tradition. Th is forest continuity 

has guaranteed the characteristic 

edaphic diversity (ASSMANN 1994, 

WULF 1994) notwithstanding the periods 

of partly utilisation. Only the smallest 

of areas were temporarily inhabited during 

the last millennia, which is evidenced by 

objects found at settlement sites (shards and 

other objects) and historical documents (e.g. 

for Dachsberg in Grumsin, LUTHARDT 

et al. 2004). Due to the rather negligible 

historic impact, cultural history makes itself 

felt only at a local level, for example by evidence 

for soil cation depletion. 

Component 

part 

Number of 

surveys 

Average degree of 

naturalness [%] 

Naturalness of beech forests 

A fi rst comparative appraisal of the degree of 

naturalness of all nominated component parts 

applying a both ecological and monitoringcompatible 

methodology (BUCHEN- 

WALDINSTITUT in BUBLITZ 2005 

and SCHNEIDER 2008) is available 

to some extent. Degrees of naturalness were 

rated on a one-hectare sample area according 

to precisely defi ned features specifi c for 

natural and / or primeval beech forests, 

with the primary parameters being population 

structure, dynamics, and dead wood 

quantities (SCHNEIDER 2008). According 

to this, an assessed area can meet a 

maximum of 27 criteria for primeval forests. 

Th e natural beech forest on the island of 

Vilm (Rügen) can be used as a national 

“reference area” that meets 100% of the 

criteria, but is precluded from nomination 

due to its small area size and isolation. 

Th e highest degrees of naturalness determined 

(tab. 4.2) are evidence of the outstanding 

ecological value of the old beech 

forests within the German component parts. 

Degree of naturalness 

highest value [%] 

Jasmund 12 59.00 96.30 

Serrahn 3 72.80 74.10 

Grumsin 7 38.10 55.60 (60 – 70) 

Hainich 19 69.40 92.60 

Kellerwald 20 66.10 96.30

Th e more natural a beech forest, the more 

complete its development cycle as a result 

of the formation of ecosystems that it has 

shaped over the last millennia. Th e smallscale 

endogenous rhythm in the beeches’ 

cycle of growth and decay as well as the 

seasonal rhythm allows for the formation 

of mosaics of rather sunny and shady as 

well as richly structured areas, to which the 

variegated fauna and fl ora that is characteristic 

of Central Europe has adapted. 

Th erefore, only a complete development 

cycle can illustrate the entire functional and 

biological diversity of a beech forest. 

Each of the nominated component parts 

features old beech populations with trees of 

more than 160 years of age. With between 

300 und 640 m 3 / ha depending on the 

dominant development phase, the living wood 

pools are consequently large. Th e dead wood 

pools of the properties correlate with how 

long they have been left unmanaged. Dead 

wood volumes are already above average in 

all of the component parts, which also show 

analogous increases in dead wood. Th ese 

extensive dead wood pools are an important 

element in the ecosystem formation of 

beech forests. Th e persistent generation of 

dead wood, which already sets in on the 

living tree up to standing and lying mighty 

dead wood stems, is an essential prerequisite 

to preserving the integrity and biodiversity 

of the nominated property. It is guaranteed 

in all component parts. With their primeval 

forest relic species, they are already 

capable of illustrating the biodiversity of a 

beech forest almost to its entirety and undisturbed 

ecological processes. 

Natural regeneration is assisted by the nominated 

component parts being embedded in 

major forest conservation areas and – with 

the exception of Jasmund (island position) 

– in large-scale forest landscapes. For 

example, Hainich and Kellerwald are part 

of the eponymous landscapes that comprise 


several ten thousand hectares of forest. Aided 

by the World Heritage nomination process 

as well as ongoing major nature conservation 

projects and eff orts towards protected 

areas, this off ers the opportunity 

to repopulate the areas with typical large 

mammals and / or predators that require 

ample territories. 

Diversifi ed microhabitats 

Microhabitats lend detailed structure to the 

body of a tree. Microhabitats may be of 

both abiotic (e.g. wind breakage) and biotic 

(e.g. woodpeckers, insects, fungi) origin. 

Being starting points for dieback processes 

within the forest's life cycle, they generally 

play a decisive role in infl uencing the biodiversity 

of the beech forest ecosystem. 

Moreover, microhabitats are essential biotopes 

for a host of forest-dwelling organisms 

(WINTER & MÖLLER 2008). 

With 103 microhabitats per ha and 19 different 

types, biodiversity-promoting structures 

on individual trees such as crown, 

stem, and crotch breakages, fungal pads, 

hollow trunks, bark pockets, and root wads 

are found in numbers in the subterritory 

of Serrahn, which has been left unmanaged 

for 50 years (WINTER 2005). With 85 

microhabitats per ha, there are almost as 

many structures in the lowland beech 

forests of Grumsin. With some 150 microhabitats 

per ha, the submontane nominated 

property of Kellerwald is likewise home 

to a signifi cant number of microhabitats 

(tab. 4.3). After a period of absence from use 

of up to 40 years, such structures are also 

found in Hainich in markedly higher proportions 

as opposed to managed forests. By 

comparison, studies conducted in 12 managed 

beech forests of more than 120 years age 

revealed only half as many microhabitats on 

average (46). Th us, microhabitats are structures 

typical of forests that are free of use. 

The high level of naturalness 

of the German component 

parts stand for 

biodiversity and integrity. 

A higher-than-average 

number of biodiversity-promoting 

microhabitats identifi 

es the old-growth beech 

forests of the German component 

parts as being free 

of use. 

Nationale 


105


The outstanding inventory 

of beech forest indicator 

species in the German 

component parts is evidence 

of their integrity. 

Grey-headed Woodpecker 

(Picus canus) 

Tab. 4.3: Average number of 

standing trees and high stumps 

with microhabitats per ha, data 

obtained from three nominated 


* 1 no data available 

* 2 high fraction of old peeling 

damage (former game reserve) 

– microhabitat on dead wood 

not determined due to lack of 

ecological significance 

Completeness of the beech forest 

indicator species 

Over 50% of the beech forest indicator 

species as defi ned by FLADE (1994) and 

SCHUMACHER (2006) are found in 

each of the nominated component parts (tab. 

4.4, cf. chapter 2a). As many as 9 of the 12 

species indicative of lowland beech forests 

already breed in Serrahn, which means that 

the spectrum of indicator species is largely 

complete. All breeding bird indicator species 

could actually be detected in Kellerwald. 

Th e outstanding inventory of indicator species 

found in the component parts is an 

expression of these forests being largely intact. 

Th is is because indicator species can only 

exist when having their specifi c needs met by 

the beech forest. For this reason, indicator 

species monitoring is a crucial variable in 

proving the persistent integrity of the nominated 

component parts (see Indicators 

chapter 6). 

Developmental perspectives 

Due to their relic character, deciduous forests 

and consequently near-natural beech forests 

rank among the most endangered forest 

ecosystems in the world. Th e endangerment 

Serrahn Grumsin Kellerwald 

living 

trees 

Average number of standing trees and high stumps with microhabitats per ha: 

bark pockets 2.4 13.5 5.2 8.1 1.6 – 

bark damage (> 10 cm in length) 22.9 – 32.0 – 122.4*2 – 

wood and tree fungi 0.6 *1 0.1 *1 1.1 1.9 

stem / branch or woodpecker hole 13.0 10.0 7.9 0 19.7 1.4 

slime fl ux / necroses 23.5 *1 8.7 *1 12.1 – 

open cracks / clefts / lightning shakes (> 50 cm in length) 0.6 0.6 9.3 0.6 2.2 0 

covers of moss / leaf / fruticose lichen *1 *1 *1 *1 8.4 0.7 

dead wood fraction (more than one-third of the tree) 0.6 – 1.1 – 0.3 – 

root collar hole (below 0.5 m) *1 *1 *1 *1 7.1 0.7 

stem breakage 24.1 – 12.6 – *1 *1 

dead 

wood 

is mainly a consequence of the historical 

forestry use. It was not until recently that 

nature conservation has increasingly been 

taken into account through the introduction 

of natural silvicultural methods. However, 

silvicultural practice and even many 

protected stands still lack in consistently 

integrated protection concepts. For this 

reason, large and mature beech forests characterised 

by old and dead wood are downright 

scarce. Th e popu lation of strictly 

protected near-natural beech forests is frag- 

living 

trees 

dead 

wood 

living 

trees 

dead 

wood

Bird species Scientifi c name Jasmund Serrahn Grumsin Hainich Kellerwald 

2009 1999 2000 1998 2001 2008 1998 

Stock Pigeon Columba oenas 0,24 1.20 0.70 0.50 0.20 0.10 0.10 

Tawny Owl Strix aluco 0,16 0.20 0.20 – 0.20 0.05 0.10 

Tengmalm’s Owl Aegolius funereus 

not an indicator species in the lowlands 

– present 

(population density 

unknown) 

Green Woodpecker Picus viridis 0,02 0.20 – – – 0.02 present 


unknown) 

Grey-headed 

Woodpecker* 

Middle Spotted 

Woodpecker 

Lesser Spotted 

Woodpecker 

Picus canus not an indicator species in the lowlands 0.04 0.03 

Dendrocopos medius – 0.50 0.50 – – 0.15 0.03 

Dendrocopos minor 0,02 0.20 0.20 – 0.50 0.02 present 


unknown) 

Wood Warbler Phylloscopus sibilatrix 1,01 0.20 0.30 0.50 – 0.39 0.70 

Spotted Flycatcher Muscicapa striata 0,02 – – 0.20 – 0.20 0.10 

Red-breasted Flycatcher Ficedula parva 0,14 0.50 0.70 1.00 0.20 – 0.03 

European Pied 

Flycatcher 

Ficedula hypoleuca 0,06 – – – – 0.90 0.80 

Marsh Tit Parus palustris 0,20 0.50 0.50 0.70 0.50 0.60 0.80 

Eurasian Nuthatch Sitta europaea 0,51 3.20 2.30 0.70 1.70 1.20 0.40 

Short-toed Treecreeper Certhia brachydactyla 0,14 0.90 0.70 0.50 0.20 0.10 0.20 

Number of indicator species 11 10 9 7 7 12 14 

% of indicator species ≈ 85 83 75 58 58 86 100 

mentary especially in the Atlantic and Subatlantic-Central 

European deciduous forest 

zone; moreover, it is insuffi cient with 

respect to area sizes, while beech forests in 

the East and Southeast European region 

are partly well represented within the existing 

protected areas (cf. KNAPP 2005). 

Th e integrity and representativity of the 

German component parts, which are extraordinary 

by Central European standards, 

makes them centres of dispersal for biodiversity 

within the intended large-scale 

systems of beech forest conservation areas. 

Th is is because the protection status of the 

nominated component parts includ ing 

the buff er zones has been secured. Natural 

forest maturation will continue while increa- 


singly revealing the mosaic cycle especially 

in the old-growth stands. Th e optimal 

forest embedding is likewise anticipated to 

remain unchanged. 

While the impact of partly extensive wildlife 

stocks on beech forest rejuvenation 

stands is often still visible in the properties 

today, this impact will be markedly reduced 

with wildlife stocks declining as a result of 

the implementation of the management 

plans. For the German extension nomination 

the general principle “Nature Development: 

Let Nature be Nature” has been approved 

(cf. chapter 5). 

Tab. 4.4: Occurrence and density 

of breeding bird indicator species 

in the nominated component 

parts. 

The figures represent breeding 

bird densities per 10 ha. 

* Indicator species exclusively 

for submontane beech forest 

(FLADE 1994). 

Data for Serrahn and Grumsin 

according to SCHUMACHER 

(2006), 

Data for Kellerwald according 

to PALEIT et al. (1998). 

Data for Hainich according to 

BLANK (written notice 2009). 

Nationale 


107


All eff orts towards protecting 


parts take an ecosystemary 

approach and 

are geared to preserving 

the evolutionary and biological 

processes as well as 

every facet of the biodiversity 

that belongs to natural 

and dynamic beech forests. 

Natural beech forest Jasmund 

4.a.1 Jasmund 

Status 

2,120 ha of the national park area (3,003 ha) 

are woodland, most of which being beech 

forests. Th e nominated component part has 

an area of 492.5 hectares. 76% of the forest 

area of the nominated component part is 

populated with pure beech forests. Mixed 

beech forests containing high-value timber 

tree species or pure high-value timber 

tree forests are concentrated along the brook 

valleys and hill feet of the chalk coast. 

Th e beech forests on the Stubnitz plateau 

are characterised by closed populations of 

about 150 years of age. Structures and the 

dead wood portion have increased in consequence 

of the non intervention management 

policy. A diff erentiated vertical spatial 

structure is found in the mixed forests 

populating the slopes of the brook valleys, 

and, fi rst and foremost, in the primeval 

forests on the chalk coasts that give distinction 

to the area. Together with the natural 

forest cell “Schlossberg”, they represent the 

most natural and valuable areas. 

Important indicator species resident in the 

property are Green Woodpecker (Picus 

viridis), European Pied Flycatcher (Ficedula 

hypoleuca), Wood Warbler (Phylloscopus 

sibilatrix), and Black Woodpecker (Dryocopus 

martius). 

Trend 

Under conditions of strict non-intervention 

policy the natural structure of the beech 

forest will be further enhanced. In addition, 

starting from the old-growth forests and 

the primeval forest relics on the steep slopes 

the expansion of species of the stage of late 

maturity will be further supported. Natural 

rejuvenation will extensively proceed as a 

result of the game density being drastically 

scaled down with the implementation of the 

management plan.

4.a.2 Serrahn 

Status 

Th e eastern subterritory of the Müritz 

Na tional Park, Serrahn, spans 6,200 ha and 

is covered with 4,500 ha of woodland, 

1,300 ha of which being beech forests. Th e 

forest aspect in Serrahn is found alternating 

between rather closed overstorey zones, 

two-layered areas, and mosaicked sections 

with “cones of decay”. After having been 

placed under protection, the beech forest 

has regained its dynamics as a result of 

regeneration and natural processes (KNAPP 

& JESCHKE 1991, TABAKU 2000). All 

developmental phases of lowland beech 

forests are present (fi g. 4.1). 

Th e core area is a 200-year old beech population 

that has not been managed for 50 years. 

It is characterised by extensive dead wood 

volumes (up to 56 m³ / ha, in one subterritory 

142 m 3 / ha, WINTER 2005) and a multitude 

of micro-organisms (tab. 4.3). Th e 

beech forests within the nominated component 

part is to be considered as “high-grade 


and near-natural” (SCHNEIDER 2008) 

and, of all the forests in the Müritz National 

Park, boast the highest ecological quality. 

Particular mention deserve the following 

indicator species of the component part: 

Middle Spotted Woodpecker and Black 

Woodpecker (Dendrocopos medius, Dryocopus 

martius), Stock Pigeon (Columba oenas), 

Hermit Beetle (Osmoderma eremita), and 

the moth Schiff ermuelleria stroemella. 

Trend 

With almost 150 m³ of dead wood per ha, 

the 70-ha plot in Serrahn, which has not 

been managed for 50 years, already shows 

high values. Owing to the strict non-intervention 

policy that has been continuing for 

decades as well as tree aging and wind impact, 

the dead wood portion, albeit subject 

to dynamic fl uctuations, will stay on a high 

level in the long term. 

In order to ensure the forest to rejuvenate 

naturally, it is crucial to regulate the 

hoofed game stocks, which has been initiated 

within the management framework. 

Fig. 4.1: Stages of forest development 

in a part of Serrahn (from 

WINTER 2005): Th e phases of 

forest development are designated 

following TABAKU 2000. 

Nationale 


109


Fig. 4.2: Stages of forest development 

in a part of Grumsin 

(from WINTER 2005): Th e 

phases of forest development are 

designated following TABAKU 

2000. 

4.a.3 Grumsin 

Status 

Th e nominated component part is an old 

beech forest site showing a high temporal 

and spatial continuity. It is located amidst 

an ample complex of beech forests stretching 

all through the Schorfheide-Chorin Biosphere 

Reserve from the terminal moraine 

of Chorin to the Melzow forest. 

Th e beech forests consist of rather uniformly 

structured populations with high stem 

numbers and 131 to 170 years of age, including 

natural rejuvenation zones. Tree species 

mixtures with oaks, hornbeams, and ash trees 

are a result of local heterogeneities especially 

along the embedded lakes and moors. With 

some 640 m³/ ha, the wood pool is already 

notably larger than in comparable managed 

forests (WINTER 2005). After having 

been placed under protection, the forest has 

regained its dynamics through regeneration 

and natural processes of development. 

Resulting from the freedom from use which 

has been continuing for two decades, the 

formerly hall-like old forest has developed 

small-scale clearings. Th e competition 

or storm-related loss of individual trees or 

groups of trees has given rise to minor 

lightwells or clearances. All development 

phases of the lowland beech forest are 

present (TABAKU 2000), with small-scale 

rejuvenation and aging processes taking 

place (fi g. 4.2). Th e dead wood portion is 

increasing with every year of non-cultivation. 

Indicator species typical of the component 

part are, among others, Stock Pigeon 

(Columba oenas), Green Woodpecker 

(Picus viridis), Middle Spotted Woodpecker 

(Dendrocopos medius), Lesser Spotted 

Woodpecker (Dendrocopos minor), Marsh 

Tit (Parus palustris), Common Crane 

(Grus grus), and Osprey (Pandion haliaetus). 

Trend 

Th e beech stands, which are relatively of the 

same age, will disintegrate in the long term 

and at a large scale to regain a typical 

mosaicked structure in the course of the

advancing natural process development 

toward the decay phase, which is further 

promoted by punctual wind breakage, local 

variations, and game density regulation. 

Th e large wood pool will yield a lot of dead 

wood in the foreseeable future. 

Th e wolf is expected to successfully return. 

A periodical immigration from West Polish 

populations or, of late, from the German 

population in nearby Lusatia has been observed 

during the last 150 years. 

4.a.4 Hainich 

Status 

Th e national park currently boasts the largest 

deciduous forest conservation area throughout 

Germany. Th e beech forests occupy an 

area of 3,200 ha, with the por tion of the 

beech populations that are over 120 years of 

age amounting to 2,000 ha. Th e nominated 

component part area measures 1,573 ha. 

For the most part, the composition of tree 

species in Hainich is near-natural to natural. 

Within the rich habitats, the dominant 

pure beech stands are interspersed with highvalue 

timber tree species. Th e arid eastern 

portion is dominated by oak-hornbeam forests 

with small-leaved lime trees. Th e total 

pool of living timber in the rough amounts 

to 450 m³ per ha (inventory 2000), and to 

523.5 m³ (up to 630 m³) per ha in the centre 

of the nominated component part. Being 

rich in high-value timber trees and having 

emerged from former composite forest 

systems, the forests were exposed to no or 

hardly any silvicultural exploitation in 

times of military use, allowing the forest to 

develop largely undisturbed since 1965. 

Correspondingly, the development toward 

a “primeval forest in the middle of Germany” 

is most advanced in the national comparison. 


Th e core area with its “Weberstedter Holz” 

– which has not been exploited for 40 

years – is made up of high-grade near-natural 

beech stands and mixed beech stands 

with 60 m³ of dead wood per ha. 

To put it in a nutshell, the nominated component 

part consists of beech forests which 

are exceedingly valuable from the perspective 

of nature conservation and show very 

near-natural structures and dynamics. 

Hainich indicator species (among others): 

Wildcat (Felis silvestris), Bechstein’s Bat 

(Myotis bechsteinii), Grey-headed woodpecker 

(Picus canus), Middle Spotted Woodpecker 

(Dendrocopus medius), and the beetle Synchita 

separanda. 

Trend 

Th e largely closed stands in Hainich provide 

the beech with good rejuvenation conditions, 

while the fraction of other non-coniferous 

tree species decreases with advancing 

age of the rejuvenation stands. Th e currently 

large mixed tree species fractions throughout 

the old-growth stands are bound to 

decline with the development process advancing. 

Th e wildcat population will continue to 

stabilise. Th e lynx is most likely to return. 


Status 

About 4,400 ha of the national park’s total 

area (5,738 ha) are rated as beech forests in 

the narrow sense. Th e fraction of beech 

forests in the component part earmarked for 

nomination comprises some 1,300 hectares. 

Th e Kellerwald component part shows a 

pre dominantly near-natural composition of 

tree species (fi g. 4.3, 4.4). Th e territory is 

Nationale 


111


Fig. 4.3: Age distribution of the 

beech in Kellerwald (source: 

national park forest management 

planning 2005) 

Fig. 4.4: Degree of naturalness 

in Kellerwald 

Coral Tooth 

(Hericium coralloides) 

0 500 1.000 1.500 

metre 

demarcation of the World 

Natural Heritage 

beech 

1 to 40 years 

41 to 120 years 

over 120 years 

0 500 1.000 1.500 

metre 

demarcation of the World 

Natural Heritage 

near-naturalness 

1 natural to near-natural 

2 near-natural 

3 near-natural to semi-natural 

char acterised by small-scale, near-natural 

to natural beech forest complexes (primeval 

forest relics), in particular on the 

steep slopes of the Eder river (“Wooghölle”). 

Hallmarks of these areas are a high 

fraction of mature phases of forest development 

and a multitude of microhabitats 

(tab. 4.3), a notable feature of which being 

the numerous duff holes. With their 

steep slopes that never saw much silvicultural 

use or were taken out of such use, 

the areas are home to primeval forest stands 

with 260-year-old beeches (fi g. 4.3). 

Other tree species are even far older. Both 

the dead wood volumes of 59 m³ / ha (in 

places markedly more) and the entire spectrum 

of dead wood decomposition stages 

are an important pre requisite to the wealth 

of fungi, mosses, and lichen in Keller wald. 

Th e beech forests are mostly two-layered, 

in part multi-layered, while the trees are 

rather low in height. Th e local conditions 

in Kellerwald give rise to small-scale, 

preforest-like structures on the steep slopes 

and especially to quaintly shaped, extremely 

slow growing beeches. With large plots 

of soil being of very shallow depth and precipitation 

being readily drained (aboveground 

and through aquifers), the beeches 

have partially grown char acteristic buttress 

roots while showing little growth in 

height. 

Important indicator species of the component 

part include: 

Red Deer (Cervus elaphus), Grey-headed 

Woodpecker (Picus canus), Middle Spotted 

Woodpecker (Dendrocopos medius), Stock 

Pigeon (Columba oenas), Hermit Beetle 

(Osmoderma eremita), Violet Click Beetle 

(Limoniscus violaceus), Coral Tooth (Hericium 

coralloides)

Trend 

Th e ongoing natural development process 

will continue to notably increase the richness 

in structures and particularly in dead 

wood volumes and promote species that 

require biotopes in the stages of late maturity 

and decomposition with the corresponding 

dead wood inventory. Major beech 

stands of the same age that collapse in 

patches (example: “Ruhlauber”) and major 

windfall areas that have developed in the 

past years will also favour the settling of 

pioneer and open land species. Th e wildlife 

management outlined in the national park 

plan champions a wildlife density that is 

in line with the natural situation. Moreover, 

the allochtonous moufl on population is to 

be removed and the fallow deer population 

reduced in the property. A hunting-free 

zone is intended to be established in 75% of 

the national park area – including the nominated 

area –, while the necessary wild life 

regulation is shifted to the periphery of the 

national park. 

A distribution gap in the western German 

low mountain range has been closed by 

the population of wildcats in the Kellerwald- 

Edersee National park, which was detected 

in 2007. 


4.b Factors aff ecting 

the property 

At present, the fi ve nominated component 

parts are not subject to any factors that might 

have a direct impact on the beech forests 

or their integrity. Th ey have all been placed 

under long-term protection as large-scale 

protected areas (national parks and Schorfheide-Chorin 

Biosphere Reserve (see 

chapter 5). Furthermore, all of the properties 

are free of silvicultural exploitation 

(tab. 4.1). Potential direct infl uences are 

averted by the buff er areas which, as a rule, 

are subject to the regulations of the national 

park and biosphere reserve ordinances 

as well as the stipulations contained in the 

management plan. 

i) Development pressure 

Th e nominated component parts are embedded 

in ample forest landscapes (see 

chapter 4a) merging into a region which is, 

by German standards, sparsely populated 

with minor villages and a rural structure. 

Th ere are no big cities nearby the nominated 

component parts. Th e buff er zones largely 

consist of major wooded areas that are, for 

the most part, almost entirely unmanaged. 

Th e only small managed strip of land is 

found in the western portion of the buff er 

zone in Grumsin. A specifi c management 

is in eff ect here (see chapter 5). 

Th e diminutive open areas within the buff er 

zones are extensively used as pastures 

and / or grassland in line with nature conservation 

stipulations. 

Unforeseeable future changes in the surrounding 

rural areas would be cushioned 

and / or rendered ineff ective by the largescale 

buff er zones and forest embedding. 

Nationale 


113


At present, there are no 

developments to be made 

out that might have a 

negative impact on the 

beech forests in the nominated 


and their integrity. 

The beech forests of the 


parts are not threatened 

by natural disasters. 

ii) Environmental pressure 

Th ere is no known environmental pressure 

signifi cantly jeopardising the beech forests 

contained in the nominated component 

parts. Neither is the existence of the beech 

forests threatened by climate change. 

Exceeding 650 mm, the annual amount of 

precipitation in the territories of Jasmund, 

Kellerwald, and Hainich are far from 

the beech’s aridity limit (about 450 mm). 

Precipitation in Serrahn (589 mm) and 

Grumsin (532 mm) is lower indeed, and continuing 

aridity during the vegetation period 

might be detrimental to the beeches' vitality; 

however, the existence as beech forest with 

its biodiversity is not threatened. A study 

(MANTHEY et al. 2007) has revealed 

that Fagus sylvatica most defi nitely is, under 

all climatic conditions relevant to the 

Fagus genus, the most competitive in comparison 

with all other Fagus species. 

Fagus sylvatica’s climatic amplitude is such 

that it will not be maxed out by the climate 

changes. 

Being an integral part of the more recent 

forest development in Central Europe, the 

atmospheric element input from anthropogenic 

sources (predominantly agriculture, 

industry, the energy sector, and traffi c) 

have been impacting the growth of forests 

in Central Europe since the very fi rst days 

of industrialisation. Element input is 

found to exceed the critical loads for acids 

and / or nitrogen in 89% and 94% of the 

deciduous woodland in Germany. Th e critical 

loads represent threshold values which, 

provided they are complied with, will 

not evoke an ecosystemary response that is 

bound to cause long-lasting alterations 

to the present state according to currently 

available information. Element input is 

currently dominated by nitrogen compounds, 

which also holds true for acid deposition. 

Relevant quantities of sulphur compounds 

will not fi nd their way into the forest eco- 

systems any more thanks to a successful 

air pollution control policy. 

Despite their being located remote from 

industrial and traffi c sources, the nominated 

component parts are yet impacted by acidifying 

and eutraphent developments. All 

of the fi ve territories show exceedances of 

the critical loads. However, no profound 

deleterious eff ects on the beech stands resulting 

from element input have so far been 

observed in the nominated component 

parts. Th e nominated beech forests are not 

assumed to be in acute peril, for beech 

ecosystems are considered to be rather stable 

in terms of nitrogen deposition, and are 

suffi ciently buff ered against acid deposition. 

Th e European air pollution control policy 

in force is expected to entail a further reduction 

in the emission of pollutants and 

nitrogen in particular, which is thought 

to bring about an additional improvement 

of the load situation in natural and nearnatural 

terrestrial ecosystems in Germany. 

Game density (especially red deer and wild 

boar) is high in each of the fi ve component 

parts. Hoofed game is part of the natural 

species spectrum of the beech forests within 

the extension nomination. However, increased 

game densities locally result in 

damage to rejuvenation stands, consequently 

impacting the occurrence, growth, and 

tree species diversity of the rejuvenation 

stands. An effi cient game management has 

been established to address this issue (see 

management plan). Moreover, with the 

moufl on and fallow deer, there are animal 

species that are alien to the Central European 

beech forest. Th ey are intended to 

be removed or substantially reduced in the 

medium term.

iii) Natural disasters and risk preparedness 

(earthquakes, fl oods, fi res, etc.) 

Being situated in North and Central 

Germany, the nominated component parts 

are not exposed to an increased risk of 

destruction by natural disaster. Earth quakes 

or fl ooding are irrelevant, as are fi res in the 

non-coniferous temperate forests. Although 

Jasmund is situated directly at the Baltic Sea, 

its plateau, which is over 100 m in height 

and accounts for the greater part of the component 

part, is beyond the reach of fl oods. 

Th e steep coast is the only element to 

be permanently exposed to wind and water, 

which in this case mainly results in a unique 

diversity of habitats with a specifi cally 

adapted fauna and fl ora rather than only 

in normal ecologic erosion processes. 

Moreover, the retreats and slumps are invariably 

small-scaled so that the forests at the 

steep coast are un interrupted. Changes 

occurring at the steep coast therefore have a 

regenerative eff ect and represent the ongoing 

ecological process. 

Storms and hurricanes cause tree windfall 

in the beech forests of the nominated component 

parts, an infl uence that is a substantial 

part of the beech forests’ development 

cycle. In the component parts, it obviously 

promotes the dynamic structural diversity of 

the forest. 

iv) Visitor / tourism pressures 

Th e protected areas encompassing the 

nominated component parts allow visitors 

to experience near-natural beech forests 

that are developing towards wilderness. All 

areas (with the exception of Grumsin) are 

predominantly visited by tourists who 

want with to experience the nature of the 

national parks as day visitors or holiday 

guests and pursue nature-sound touristic 

and / or leisure activities such as hiking or 

cycling. Furthermore, students, researchers, 


and other persons interested in nature visit 

the areas to become acquainted with and 

explore the beech forests in their most 

near-natural forms. Th ey are the determining 

element in the visitor structure in Grumsin. 

Conclusive visitor statistics of the protected 

areas and information facilities are detailed 

in chapter 5.h. 

None of the fi ve nominated component 

parts shows any marked disturbances of the 

beech forests caused by visitors. Th is is 

consistently ensured by the existing visitor 

management systems of the national parks 

and / or biosphere reserve (see management 

plan). 

v) Number of inhabitants within the 

property and the buff er zone 

Th e component parts are unoccupied. Th ere 

are neither settlements nor roads. Only the 

Serrahn buff er zone is currently inhabited 

by three persons. Existing for decades, the 

settlement is precluded from being extended 

based on the legal provisions of Müritz 

National Park. 

The visitor traffi c in the 

protected areas does not 

aff ect the beech forests in 


parts. 

There are no discernible 

infl uences that might have 

a direct and substantial 

impact on the integrity 

of the nominated beech 

forests. 

Nationale 


115


Natural beech forest Grumsin 

5. Protection and Management 

of the Property 

5.a Ownership 

Permanent protection of the property is 

ensured by the ownership structure of the 

component parts. Four out of the fi ve 

de signated component parts, which are also 

situated within national parks, are almost 

entirely publicly owned (tab. 5.1). Th e 

owners are Länder and municipal ities. Th e 

fi fth component part, being a total reserve 

in the Schorfheide-Chorin Biosphere 

Reserve, is an exception in terms of ownership 

structure. Th e domains are in private 

ownership for the most part (81%), with 

64% being owned by the non-profi t organisation 

“Kulturlandschaft Uckermark e. V.” 

(tab. 5.2). Established for the implementation 

of the biosphere reserve, the society has 

been supporting the goals of the World 

Heritage nomination to the full extent and 

has subscribed to the management requirements 

of the German extension nomination. 

Th e area of 375 ha was pur chased 

by means of public funds the allocation of 

which is associated with the pertinent 

obligations, most notably the non-intervention 

policy (see annex 5.2, Articles of 

Association of the Kultur land schaft Uckermark 

e. V.). Should the society “Kulturlandschaft 

Uckermark e. V.” disband, the 

domains shall automatically revert to the 

state of Brandenburg. 

Only a small portion of 3.3% of all component 

parts is privately owned with a purpose 

solely governed by private law. Th ese areas

will be purchased in the foreseeable future 

by the territorial communities by way of 

acquisition or relocation. Th e corresponding 

stipulations and projects are being advanced 

by the Länder. 

Component 

part 

Ownership Area size Fraction 

Jasmund Federal State of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania 492.50 ha 100.00% 

Serrahn Federal State of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania 268.10 ha 100.00% 

Grumsin Federal State of Brandenburg 118.00 ha 20.00% 

communes (excluding road and path network) 7.00 ha 1.00% 

Kulturlandschaft Uckermark e.V. – Schorfheide- 

Chorin Biosphere Reserve support organisation 

375.00 ha 64.00% 

further private owners 90.00 ha 15.00% 

Hainich Free State of Thuringia 1,573.40 ha 100.00% 

Kellerwald Federal State of Hesse 1,466.00 ha 99.93% 

communes 0.40 ha 0.03% 

private 0.60 ha 0.04% 

total 4,391.20 ha 

Thereof not publicly owned (incl. Kulturlandschaft Uckermark e. V.) 465.60 ha 10.58% 

5. PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE PROPERTY 

Persistent protection of the 


parts is ensured by their 

ownership structure. 

Tab. 5.1 Ownership structure 

in the nominated component 

parts (as at December 2009) 

Nationale 


117



parts are subject to 

comprehensive arrangements 

governing their 

protection and management 

in an integrated and 

sustainable manner. 

5.b Protective Designation 

Th e nominated component parts are subject 

to comprehensive arrangements governing 

the protection and management, and 

are extensively monitored. Th e protection 

status is ensured by both national and 

interna tional guidelines and laws (tab. 5.2). 

• German nature conservation law aff ords 

various options to persistently safeguard 

valuable natural goods. Th e Federal 

Nature Conservation Act (BNatSchG: 

Bundesnaturschutzgesetz) provides the 

basis for any protected area categories 

applicable in Germany. Furthermore the 

act explicitly refers to the UNESCO 

World Heritage Convention when stating 

“Inter national eff orts in the area 

of nature conservation and landscape 

management shall be sup ported especially 

via protection of cultu ral and natural 

heritage within the meaning of the Convention 

of 16 November 1972 Concerning 

the Protection of World Cultural 

and Natural Heritage (Federal Law 

Gazette 1997 II pp. 213, 215)” (Art. 2, 

para 5). 

• Th e designation of protected areas is 

eff ected – depending on the respective 

arrangements in the Land in question – 

by laws or by ordinances. 

• Furthermore, there are directives of the 

European Union aiming at the preservation 

of specifi c natural values. Th e most 

signifi cant aspects for the nominated 

areas are the Birds Directive (“Directive 

79 / 409 / EEC 02 April, 1979 on the 

Conservation of Wild Birds” of 1979) 

and the Habitats Directive (Council 

Directive 92 / 43 / EEC on the Conservation 

of the Natural Habitats and of 

Wild Fauna and Flora of 21 May 1992 

– see below: International pro tection 

status, protection regime of the European 

Union). 

Th ese legal arrangements, which diff er in 

terms of thematic and hierarchic structure, 

jointly ensure that the nominated component 

parts enjoy integrated and sustainable 

protection. 

National protection status 

As a consequence of Germany's federal organisation, 

the federal and Länder governments 

share responsibilities in matters of 

nature conservation. Th e currently in force 

(as at June 2009) “Federal Nature Conservation 

Act of 25 March 2002 (BGBl. I p. 

1193), last amended by Article 3 of the Act 

of 22 December 2008 (BGBl. I p. 2986)”, 

abridged "BNatSchG", is based on the former 

federal competence to enact framework 

legislation. Th e responsibility to fi ll 

the federal framework legislation with 

detailed legal provisions resided with the 

Länder. Th e Act to Reform Nature Conservation 

and Landscape Management Law 

of 29 July 2009 (BGBl. I p. 2542) gives 

rise to the fi rst Nature Conservation Law 

applicable directly within the entire Federal 

Republic of Germany. Th e act will enter 

into force on 1 March 2010. Within the 

scope of the reform of federalism, the Länder 

have been granted the right to deviate 

from federal provisions. Th e general principles 

of nature conservation as well as 

the legislation on the protection of species 

and maritime nature conservation are 

expressly exempt from said right to deviate. 

Th e general principles of nature conservation 

also include the pre-existing protected 

area categories. 

Save for a few exceptions, both the execu tion 

of the legislation on nature conservation, 

including the directly eff ective provisions 

under the BNatSchG, and the issuance 

of protected area ordinances rest with the 

Länder. Th e departments of state responsible 

for nature conservation act either directly

through their respective regional authorities 

or other administrative bodies. 

Th e protected area categories diff er in terms 

of dimensions, protection purpose, and 

protection aims with the consequent 

limita tions of use. Th e paramount protected 

area categories are: nature conservation 

area, national park, biosphere reserve, landscape 

conservation area, and nature park. 

Th ey may superpose one another in part 

or even be equivalent. Owing to their size, 

national parks, biosphere reserves, and 

natural parks rank among the large-scale 

protected areas. 

According to national legislation, the German 

extension nomination includes areas 

located in four national parks and one 

biosphere reserve. Th e relevant protected 

area categories are briefl y explained in the 

following: 

National parks (§ 24 BNatSchG) 

National parks are areas that have been 

designated in a legally binding manner, 

that enjoy uniform levels of protection and 

that 

1. are large, largely unfragmented and 

have special characteristics, 

2. fulfi l the requirements for a nature conservation 

area in the greater part of their 

territory, and 

3. in the greater part of their territory, 

have not been aff ected by human intervention 

at all, or to a limited extent 

only, or are suitable for developing, or 

being developed into, a state which 

ensures the undisturbed progression, as 

far as possible, of natural processes in 

their natural dynamics. 


Biosphere reserves (§ 25 BNatSchG) 

Biosphere reserves are areas that are to be 

protected and developed in a uniform, 

consistent manner and that 

1. are large and are typical representatives 

of certain landscape types, 

2. fulfi l the requirements for nature conservation 

areas in the greater part of their 

territory, and most of the requirements 

for landscape reserves throughout the 

rest of their territory, 

3. serve the primary purpose of preserving, 

developing or restoring landscapes 

shaped by traditional, diverse forms of 

use, along with their species and biotope 

diversity as evolved over time, including 

wild forms and formerly cultivated 

forms of commercially used or usable 

animal and plant species, and 

4. illustrate ways of developing and testing 

forms of economic activity that are especially 

conserving of natural resources. 

Nature conservation areas 

(§ 23 BNatSchG) 

Nature conservation areas are areas that 

have been designated in a legally binding 

manner and in which the special protection 

of nature and landscapes as a whole, or 

of individual parts thereof, is required for 

the following reasons: 

1. in order to preserve, develop or restore 

living spaces, biotopes or communities 

of certain species of wild fauna and fl ora, 

2. for reasons of science, natural history or 

national heritage, or 

3. because of their rarity, special characteristics 

or outstanding beauty. 

From the perspective of spatial planning, 

nature conservation enjoys priority in such 

territories. Alongside with the national parks, 

they are signifi cant areas for the preservation 

of biodiversity in Germany. Th e protection 

of core zones in biosphere reserves 


parts Jasmund, 

Serrahn, Hainich, and 

Kellerwald are embedded 

in national parks. 

National parks are subject 

to legal protection as per 

Federal Nature Conservation 

Act. 


part Grumsin lies 

within a biosphere reserve. 

Biosphere reserves are 

subject to legal protection 

as per Federal Nature 

Conservation Act. 

Nationale 


119


Acts, ordinances, directives, plans Year 

Jasmund National Park 

Ordinance on the Designation of the Jasmund National Park 1990 

National Park Plan 1998 

Ordinance on the Regulation of Hunting in the National Parks of the State of Mecklenburg-Western 1998 

Pomerania 

Ordinance on Navigation on Inland Waterways in National Parks and Nature Conservation Areas 

within the Coast of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania 

Directive on the Treatment of the Forests in the National Parks of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania 2005 

Council Directive 92 / 43 / EEC of 21 May, SCI-HD 1992 DE 1447-302 Jasmund 

Müritz National Park, Serrahn component part 

designation 2004 

Ordinance on the Designation of the Müritz National Park 1990 

National Park Plan Müritz National Park 2003 

Ordinance on the Regulation of Hunting in the National Parks of the State of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania 1998 

Directive on the Treatment of the Forests in the National Parks of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania 2005 

Council Directive 92 / 43 / EEC of 21 May 1992 DE 2645-301 Serrahn 6,464 ha designation 2004 

Council Directive 79 / 409 / EEC of 02 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, SPA-BD 

DE 2645-402 forest and lake landscape Lieps-Serrahn 21,315 ha 


Schorfheide-Chorin Biosphere Reserve, Grumsin component part 

Ordinance on the Designation of Nature Conservation Areas and a Landscape Protection Area of Primary 

Importance under the Overall Designation of Schorfheide-Chorin Biosphere Reserve 

Maintenance and development plan (PEP) (undergoing revision, follow-up ordered: 2009 – 2013) 1997, 2009 

Pilot study PEP 2008 

Council Directive 92 / 43 / EEC of 21 May 1992 DE 1447-302 SCI-HD “Grumsiner Forst / Redernswalde” designation 2000 

Council Directive 79 / 409 / EEC of 02 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, SPA-BD 

DE 2948-401 SPA “Schorfheide-Chorin” 



Thuringian Act on the Hainich National Park 1997 

National Park Plan for the Hainich National Park 2009 

Thuringian Ordinance on the Resizing and Division of the Protected Zone in the Hainich National Park 2009 

Designation of Hainich National Park as SAC-HD 1998 

Designation of Hainich National Park as SPA-BD 2007 

Kellerwald-Edersee National Park 

Ordinance of the Kellerwald-Edersee National Park 2003-12-17 (GVBl.I page 463 from 2003-12-22) 2004 (entry into force) 

last amended by Ordinance of the amendment of the Ordinance Kellerwald-Edersee 2009-12-07 

(GVBl.I page 511 from 2009-12-16) 

Hessian Nature Conservation Act (Hessisches Naturschutzgesetz - HENatG) of 04 Dec 2006 - § 22 National Parks 2006 

National Park Plan for Kellerwald-Edersee National Park 2008 

Habitats original data survey SAC-HD 4819-301 (Kellerwald) and Habitats management planning 2006 

Declaration “Bannwald Edersee” 1991 

Designation of the national park as SAC-HD (Ordinance 2008) 1998 

Additional designation as SPA (Ordinance 2008) 2000 

SPA= Special Protection Area for the Conservation of Wild Birds (Birds Directive BD) 

SCI= Site of community importance (Habitats Directive HD) 

SAC= Special Area of Conservation (Habitats Directive HD) 

1997 

1990

is frequently stricter and more specifi c based 

on exercising the additional option of nature 

conserva tion areas ordinances. 

Th e designation of areas as national parks, 

biosphere reserves, and nature conserva tion 

areas rests with the Länder according to 

§ 22 BNatSchG. National parks are 

design ated in consultation with the Federal 

Ministry for the Environment, Nature 

Conservation and Nuclear Safety as well 

as the Federal Ministry of Transport, 

Building and Urban Aff airs (§ 22 para 4 

clause 2 BNatSchG). 

Protection regime of the European 

Union 

Th e legal provisions issued by the European 

Union to govern the fi eld of nature and 

the environment are of particular signifi cance 

for the extension nomination for reasons 

of all component parts in their entirety 

being included in the Natura 2000 European 

system of protected areas as sites of 

community importance. 

In Germany, EU directives come into eff ect 

by implementation within the scope of the 

BNatSchG and Länder legislation. In contrast, 

EC Regulations such as the EC Regulat 

ion on the Protection of Species (COUN- 

CIL Regulation (EC) No. 338 / 97 of 

9 December 1996 on the protection of 

species of wild fauna and fl ora by regulating 

trade therein (Regulation (EC) No. 338 / 97) 

are immediately binding for administrative 

bodies and citizens without requiring 

implementation by the national legislator. 

Paramount EU laws governing nature conservation 

and hence the sustainable development 

of the nominated beech forest areas 

are the “Council Directive 92 / 43 / EEC of 

21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural 


habitats and of wild fauna and fl ora” (Habitats 

Directive), and the “Council Directive 

79 / 409 / EEC of 2 April 1979 on the 

conservation of wild birds” of 1979 (Birds 

Directive). Th ey have been eff ectively implemented 

in the BNatSchG and in Länder 

legislation. 

Th e Habitats Directive stipulates habitat 

types as well as the wild fauna and fl ora 

endangered on a pan-European level to be 

permanently protected and preserved 

especially by way of the protected area system 

Natura 2000, which has been designated 

according to uniform criteria, alongside 

with specifi c regulations on the protection 

of species. Th is network of protected areas 

defi nes nine biogeographic regions throughout 

the EU, taking account of the understanding 

that biodiversity preservation can 

be achieved only through a consistent network 

of protected areas that does justice to 

the ecologi cal requirements of the species 

and habitat types to be protected rather than 

by protecting individual habitats. For this 

purpose, the annexes to the directive specify 

231 habitat types (annex I) and some 900 

species (annex II) for which the member 

states are obliged to nominate and designate 

suitable protected areas. 


parts are included in the 

European protected area 

system “Natura 2000”. 

The member states are 

obliged to take action in 

order to preserve the 

species and biotope types 

detailed in the appendices. 

Implementation is ensured 

by a monitoring system. 

Th e Habitats Directive in its entirety aims 

at ensuring the preservation of species and 

habitats specifi ed in the annexes. Th is means 

that a “favourable conservation status of 

natural habitats and of wild fauna and fl ora 

of Community interest” is maintained or 

restored. Th e achievement of a favourable 

conservation status in the biogeographic 

regions is assessed at six-year intervals (result 

checking). For the goal of protecting the 

populations of native wild bird species, 

the Birds Directive moreover calls for their 

habitats to be preserved and restored. Left: 

Tab. 5.2: Legal principles and 

plans specific for protected areas 

(annexes 7.2, 7.3) 

Nationale 


121


Beside the habitat types and biotopes of the 

species being protected within the scope 

of the designation of the aforementioned 

protected areas, there are specifi c obligations 

towards the conservation of other species 

mentioned in the Habitats Directive 

(annexes IV and V). Th e Birds Directive 

applies to all wild bird species and specially 

requires protected areas for regularly migrating 

species. 

Th e protection of “special area of conservation” 

is governed by article 6 of the Habitats 

Directive. Th e member states are hence 

challenged to defi ne the required conservation 

activities for the “special areas of conser 

vation” and to set up management plans 

where appropriate (art. 6 para 1 Habitats 

Directive). Moreover, they are obliged 

to take “suitable measures” to avoid in the 

special areas of conservation any deterio - 

ration of habitat types and dis tur bance of 

species mentioned in the annexes to the 

directives (art. 6 para 2 Habitats Directive). 

Th e actions to be taken for the conservation 

of natural habitat types and species mentioned 

in the directive can be defi ned, for 

instance, by means of management plans and 

should take into account the ecological 

requirements of the habitat types and species. 

Actions and goals of conservation have 

to be exclusively defi ned according to the 

goals of nature conservation of the two 

EU directives on nature conservation. With 

regard to the objects to be protected, this 

calls for the maintenance or restoration 

(if applicable) of a favourable conservation 

status in the biogeographic region concerned. 

As a rule, the concrete measures taken 

for the maintenance and development of 

the biotopes as well as fauna and fl ora 

species to be found in the special areas for 

conservation (SAC) and special protected 

areas (SPA) (together NATURA 2000 

sites) are identifi ed in cooperation with the 

local stakeholders. 

Article 6, para 3 of the Habitats Directive 

stipulates an appropriate assessement of 

implications in cases where any plan or 

project may interfere with the sites conservation 

objectives to a substantial degree. 

Furthermore, the member states take suitable 

action to prevent, in the respective protected 

areas, any deterioration of the natural 

habitats and disturbance of species which 

the sites have been designated for. Th is 

is true in the event that such disturbances 

may have a signifi cant impact in terms of 

the goals of the directive. 

It is an essential responsibility of the member 

states within the framework of the Habitats 

Directive to submit a report on the conservation 

status of the Habitat types and 

species (inside and outside of the Natura 

2000 areas) to the European Commission 

(article 17 Habitats Directive). Based on 

the national reports, the European Commission 

prepares a composite report with 

the conservation status being assessed 

using the traffi c light colours: red (unfavourable 

– bad), yellow (unfavourable – inadequate), 

and green (favourable). Among 

others, this includes a rating of the conservation 

status of the species and habitat 

types of Community interest in the area of 

the European Union. Corre spondingly, 

the member state reports must contain information 

on the conservation status of 

the species and habitat types specifi ed in the 

Habitats Directive (annexes I, II, IV and 

V of the Habitats Directive) that are to 

be found in their respective territories. Th e 

reports are based on a uniform monitoring 

system of the conservation status of species 

and natural habitats of community interest 

according to article 11 of the Habitats 

Directive (chapter 6). Th e fi rst comprehensive 

national report on the conservation 

status of 230 species and 91 habitat types 

in Germany was prepared and submitted to

the European Commission in December 

2007. According to this report, only one 

fourth of these protected habitat types and 

species show a favourable conser vation status 

in Germany. As far as the beech forests 

are concerned, the ratings of the individual 

forest habitat types in the three German 

biogeographic regions show noticeable disparities. 

Th e German Natura 2000 network comprises 

substantial portions of the Atlantic 

and continental region as well as a narrow 

strip of the alpine region. With in excess of 

5,000 German Natura 2000 areas, about 

15% of the country’s territory have by now 

been recorded – beside maritime regions –, 

making for more than 10% of the Nature 

2000 areas reported throughout the EU. 

More than 50% of the area of protected 

habitat types throughout the special areas of 

conservation are forest habitat types. With 

almost 800,000 ha, about two percent 

of the German territory is protected under 

the Natura 2000 regime as forest habitat 

types. Th e Natura 2000 network comprises 

the fi ve most important beech forest types 

in Germany (LRT 9110, 9120, 9130, 9140, 

9150). 

Special protected areas are also to be selected 

for the roughly 190 species detailed in annex 

I of the Birds Directive for their suitability 

as regards both numbers and sur face areas. 

For migratory bird species appear ing on a 

periodical basis, there is the obligation take 

adequate action to protect their reproduction, 

moulting, and hibernation areas as 

well as their resting places located on their 

migration paths. 

While the nominated beech forest areas 

form part of the Natura 2000 network, the 

concrete measures taken to implement the 

Natura 2000 goals are part of the management 

plans. Th e Länder have already esta- 


blished the Natura 2000 European system 

of protected areas taking account of the 

stipulations of the Federal Nature Conservation 

Act. Implementation in the Länder 

ensures the Natura 2000 network to be 

under legal protection. 

Other legal provisions of the 

European Union 

Other relevant legal provisions of the European 

Union include the environmental 

compatibility directive for projects (environmental 

impact assessment, EIA Directive: 

Council Directive of 27 June 1985 on 

the assessment of the eff ects of certain public 

and private projects on the environment 

(85 / 337EEC) (OJ EC No. L 175 / 40), as 

amended by the Directive 97 / 11 / EC 

of 3 March 1997, OJ EC No. L 73 / 5, and 

the Directive 2003 / 35 / EC of 26 May 

2003, OJ EC No. L 156 / 17.), the Directive 

on Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment 

(Parliament and Council Directive 

2001 / 42 / EC of 27 June 2001 on the 

assessment of the eff ects of certain plans and 

programmes on the environment) that 

are of prime importance for the evaluation 

of the environmental consequences of 

political actions, plans, and concrete projects, 

as well as the Directive on the Integrated 

Pollution Prevention and Control (Parliament 

and Council Directive 2008 / 1 / EC 

of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated 

pollution prevention and control). According 

to German law, the directives are 

implemented by an act or an ordinance. 

National Biodiversity Strategy 1 

On a national level, the National Biodiversity 

Strategy adopted by the federal cabinet 

on 7 November 2007, is of signifi cance. 

It is a future vision of the Federal Government 

and outlines about 330 objectives and 

430 concrete protagonist-related measures 

Nationale 


123


regarding all topics relevant for biodiversity. 

It represents a comprehensive and sophisticated 

strategy to ensure the imple men ta tion 

of the Convention on Biological Diversity 

(CBD) in Germany. It has been designed to 

cover a minimum of four legislative periods 

and is a binding strategy for the entire 

Federal Government the success of which 

can be regularly assessed based on a set 

of indicators and statements. Particular 

mention deserves the integration and embedding 

in existing national and inter national 

agreements such as the national sus tainability 

strategy, the biodiversity strategy of 

the EU, and the decisions of the CBD. 

Th e concrete goals and actions to be implemented 

for forest biodiversity explicitly 

point out the increase in the portion of natural 

and subnatural forests: 5% of the 

woodland in Germany is to be surrendered 

to natural forest development by 2020. 

(http://www.bmu.de/ naturschutz_biologische_vielfalt/downloads/doc/40333. 

php) 

Biosphere reserves in the UNESCO 

programme “Man and the Biosphere” 

15 German biosphere reserves have as of 

yet been designated by the UNESCO and 

hence integrated into the global network 

of UNESCO biosphere reserves. Th ese 

representative model regions contribute to 

the implementation and advancement of 

the MAB programme “Man and the Biosphere" 

the objective of which is to reconcile 

eco logical, economical, and socio- 

cultural aspects in a sustainable fashion. 

Th e Grumsin component part is part of the 

UNESCO biosphere reserve of Schorfheide-Chorin 

and has been designated as 

a nature conser vation area (see above, national 

protection status: biosphere reserves). 

Protective designation of the component 

parts 

Jasmund component part in the Jasmund 

National Park (Mecklenburg-Western 

Pomerania) 

On 01 October 1990, the national park 

was designated through the “Ordinance 

on the Designation of the Jasmund National 

Park” (Law Gazette of the GDR, reprint 

no. 1467 of 01 October 1990). In 2004, a 

declaration was fi led according to the 

Habitats Directive (3,622 ha, DE 1447-302 

“Jasmund”). 

Serrahn component part in the Müritz 

National Park (Mecklenburg-Western 

Pomerania) 

On 01 October 1990, the Müritz National 

Park was designated through the “Ordinance 

on the Designation of the “Müritz 

National Park” (Law Gazette of the GDR, 

reprint no. 1468). Th e area was declared 

as an special area of conservation (SAC) 

and special protection area for the conservation 

of wild birds (Birds Directive) (SPA) 

(SAC 2645-301 “Ser rahn” 6,464 ha, 

SPA area 2645-402 “Wood and Lakeland 

Lieps-Serrahn” 21,315 ha). 

Grumsin component part in the 

Schorfheide-Chorin Biosphere Reserve 

(Brandenburg) 

With the Ordinance on the Designation of 

Nature Conservation Areas and Landscape 

Protection Area of Prime Importance, 

the Grumsiner Forst was designated as a 

nature conservation area (protection zones 

I and II) under the designation of “Schorfheide-Chorin 

Biosphere Reserve” on 

12 September 1990. Th e area was declared 

as an special area of conservation (SAC) 

and special protection area for the conservation 

of wild birds (Birds Directive) 

(SPA) (SAC 6,106 ha, DE 2949-302 ha, 

SPA 64,610 ha DE 2948-401).

Hainich component part in the Hainich 

National Park (Thuringia) 

Th e Th uringian Act on the Hainich National 

Park entered into force on 31 December 

1997 (promulgated as Article 1 of the Act 

on the Hainich National Park and for the 

amendment of provisions under nature 

protection law of 19 December 1997, GVBI. 

p. 546). In addition, the entire area of 

the national park has been designated as an 

special area of conservation (SAC) and 

special protection area for the conservation 

of wild birds (Birds Directive) (SPA) (SAC 

15,036 ha DE 4828-301, SPA 15,036 ha, 

DE 4828-301). 


Kellerwald component part in the 

Kellerwald-Edersee National Park (Hesse) 

On January 2004, the Kellerwald-Edersee 

territory (GVBL I – of the Federal State of 

Hesse – p. 463 of 22 December 2003) was 

designated as a national Park. Following 

the declaration in 1998 and 2000, the area 

has also been a special protection area for 

the conservation of wild birds (Birds Directive) 

(SPA) and special area of conservation 

(SAC) (SAC 4819-301 “Kellerwald” 

since 2008: 5,745 ha, SPA 4920-401 

“Keller wald”: 26,468 ha). 

Natural beech forest on 

Jasmund's chalk coast 

Nationale 


125


Protection and management 

of the German component 

parts is ensured 

by coordinated management, 

with the trilateral 

cooperation of Slovak 

Republic, Ukraine, and 

Germany constituting the 

frame-work. 

Fig. 5.1: Hierarchic organisation 

of the overriding trilateral 

management relating to the 

management plan of the component 

parts 

Trilateral 

Trilateral Managementsystem (Joint Management Committee) 

Germany 

Coordinated Management (Main Objectives and Visions) 

State Authorities / 

Management Plans of the single component parts 

National Park 

Plan 

National Park 

Plan 

National Park 

Plan 

State Ministry 

Mecklenburg- 

Western 

Pomerania 


Hesse 

5.c Means of implementing 

protective measures 

Th e basic intentions of the protection and 

management of the nominated property 

“Ancient Beech Forests of Germany” are 

based on the management requirements of 

the Slovakian-Ukrainian World Natural 

Heritage property “Primeval Beech Forests 

of the Carpathians”. Th e trilateral cooperation 

forms the collective framework to 

protect the nominated property on the basis 

of an Integrated Management System 

(annex 7.3.1). See chapter 5.e for detailed 

information of the implementation of the 

protective measures at the trilateral level. 

Th e German extension is subject to effi cient 

administrative protection of each single 

component part (chapter 5.b). Functional 

protection within the component parts and 

their buff er zones is ensured by 

– designation of protected areas by law or 

ordinances, 

– administrative bodies responsible for the 

management of the component parts, and 

– Management plans specifi cally devised 

for the protected areas including the component 

parts. 

Biosphere 

Reserve 

Regulations 

National Park 

Plan 


Brandenburg 


Thuringia 

Establishing a Coordinated 

Management 

In order to ensure the fi ve German component 

parts to be uniformly protected and 

managed, a Coordinated Management was 

agreed to be legally implemented by the 

competent authorities (annex 7.3.2). 

Objective I: Coordination of measures 

within the scope of the 

serial site 

Objective II: Involvement of stakeholders 

Objective III: Coordination within 

the scope of the trilateral 

collaboration 

Objective IV: Protection of the proposed 

World Heritage Property 

Objective V: Risk management 

Objective VI: Wildlife management 

Objective VII: Public relations and 

educational work 

Objective VIII: Visitor routing 

“Experiencing Nature 

– Preserving Nature” 

Objective IX: Monitoring 

Ukraine 

Management Plans 


Management Plans

General principle for the Coordinated 

Management 

Let Nature be Nature 

Th e aim is to preserve and protect a globally 

unique and outstanding parts of the 

European beech forests with signifi cant 

ongoing evolutionary and ecological 

processes aff ecting the plant and animal 

societies. 

• Within the nominated component 

parts, nature is allowed to develop 

according to its own rules – they 

are the most valuable old large-area 

beech forests in Germany. 

• Th e property shields the common 

beech's habitat, which is limited to 

the European lowlands and low 

mountain ranges. 

Th e responsibility to coordinate the management 

of the German component parts 

including the required reporting resides with 

a steering group made up of representatives 

of the ministries for the environment 

of the Länder (Brandenburg, Hesse, 

Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and Th uringia), 

the Federal Environment Ministry 

(BMU), and the Federal Agency for Nature 

Conser vation (BfN: Bundesamt für Naturschutz). 

During the course of the application 

process, it was closely collaborating 

with the ad ministrations of the nominated 

component parts and involving experts 

in the analysis and harmonisation processes. 

Th e Coordinated Management guarantees 

the protected area management of the 

individual component parts to be involved in 

the integrated trilateral management system 

(annex 7.3.1). 


• Th e property provides the space 

required for undisturbed, natural, 

ecological, and biologic processes, 

places of rest and retreat for naturally 

occurring wild animals and plants 

(following criterion ix). 

• Th e property is a valuable place of 

experience for both education and 

research, a one-of-a-kind place allowing 

recreation seekers to experience 

nature as well as coining the regions’ 

image. 

With the extension nomination, Germany 

makes a major contribution towards the 

preservation of a property of outstanding 

universal value. All protective endeavours 

undertaken in the component parts follow 

an ecosystem approach. Th ey are intended 

to safeguard the on-going evolutionary 

and natural dynamic processes to preserve 

the entire biological diversity of the beech 

forests. 

A common general principle (see grey box 

above) was adopted for the extension 

nomination within the scope of the harmonisation 

process; its maxim is: 

“Nature Development: Let Nature be Nature” 

“Nature development: Let 

Nature be Nature” is the 

general principle which 

the German nominated 

component parts share. 

Nationale 


127


There are explicit provisions 

in place at all levels to 

govern responsibilities in 

the implementation of 

the protective measures. 

Specifi c instructions are 

detailed in management 

plans. 

Implementation of the protective 

measures in the individual component 

parts 

Having ratifi ed the World Heritage Convention, 

Germany, as a signatory, has committed 

to implement the regulations of the Convention. 

Within the framework of Germany's 

federal structure, the political subdivisions 

of Bund, Länder, and municipalities undertake 

to properly implement the provisions on 

the management and protection of the 

individual nominated component parts. Th e 

responsibility for the concrete implementation 

on location resides with the individual 

protected area administrations. Th e Länder 

ministries (competent authorities) responsible 

for nature conservation act either 

directly or through their respective regional 

authorities. Th ere are explicit provisions to 

govern responsibi lities at all levels. 

Moreover, the higher and highest nature conservation 

authorities exert supervisory control 

over the lower authorities. Th e immediate 

execution of the protective instruments 

of the individual component parts is ensured 

by the protected area administrations on 

the basis of their capacities of public ad minis - 

tration (see chapter 8b for a list of admin istrations). 

Th e protected area administrations 

are part of the administrative structure of the 

Länder and representatives of public interest. 

Th ey are – for the purpose of the 

cooperation principle – involved in the decision-making 

processes of other depart ments. 

Th e protected area administrations moreover 

implement the spatial and land scape 

framework plans and are committed to 

environmental education to enhance public 

acceptance and understanding of the contents 

of the protective measures. Th e direct 

responsibility to implement the provisions 

contained in the laws and ordinances on 

national parks lies with the national park 

authorities of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, 

Hesse, and Th uringia. Th e biosphere 

reserve administration is integrated in the 

Environmental Authority (LUA: Landesumweltamt) 

of Brandenburg and is performed 

by the non-profi t registered organisation 

“Kulturlandschaft Uckermark e. V.” (see 

also chapter 5.a). 

Th e protected area administrations are 

– according to the respective Land – assisted 

by a nature conservation watch consisting 

of voluntary and non-governmental 

organi sations (see also chapters 5.g and 5.j). 

Th e management plans (national park plans, 

maintenance and development plan in the 

biosphere reserve, tab. 5.2), which have been 

prepared with broad public involvement, issue 

tangible instructions on management and 

protection and are directly binding for the 

protected area administrations. Th ere are 

detailed plans relating to the administration 

of each area. Th e plans (tab. 5.2) guarantee 

the areas to be protected and, among 

others, govern in detail the fi elds of visitor 

management, forest manage ment, wildlife 

management, risk management, public 

relations, and bio diversity conservation. Th ey 

are evalu ated and updated by the protected 

area administrations on an ongoing basis. 

Supervision in the component parts is invariably 

ensured by trained personnel on the 

basis of set service schedules. Such personnel 

will have the power of a public authority and 

is authorised to use appropriate legal means 

to guarantee the compliance with the protection 

provisions in force. 

Th e protected area administrations are 

backed by advisory boards that serve the 

purpose of reconciling the interests of 

the diff erent stakeholders within the area 

and support the activities of the national 

park administration in the respective region. 

Th e advisory boards will discuss the goals 

and current projects of the national park 

adminis trations, fathom solutions to pro-

lems, and exchange information. Th e 

composition and functions are in part 

governed by the corresponding act and / 

or by an ordinance. 

Example Hainich 

Two associations have been established 

to back the implementation of objectives 

of the national park. “Verein der Freunde 

des Nationalparks Hainich und des 

Naturparks Eichsfeld-Hainich-Werratal” 

and “Gesellschaft zur Förderung des 

Nationalparks Hainich”. 

Example Jasmund 

Th e communal national park board in 

the Jasmund National Park is composed 

as follows: 

1. Chief offi cer of the NPA Western 

Pomerania 

2. Mayor of the city of Sassnitz 

3. Mayor of the commune of Hagen 

4. Mayor of the commune of Lohme 

5. District administrator of the 

district of Rügen 

6. Representatives of the WWF 

7. Mangaging Director of the national 

park visitor centre 

8. Representatives of the Ministry of 

the Environment 

9. Representatives of the Ministry of 

Economics 

10. Representatives of the Kur- und 

Tourist GmbH Lohme 

11. Representatives of the “Insula 

Rugia” society 

Th e advisory board conducts periodic 

meetings, furnishes information on 

current topics concerning the national 

park, and attempts to identify practical 

solutions to emerging problems. Th e 

executive function invariably lies with 

the mayor of the city of Sassnitz. 


5.d Existing plans related 

to municipality and region 

in which the proposed 

property is located (e.g. 

regional or local plan, 

conservation plan, tourism 

development plan) 

Th e national and international protection 

regimes outlined in chapter 5.b for the fi ve 

component areas clearly show that there 

is a management concept spanning the 

Länder and administrative structures while 

taking account of the distribution of 

the fi ve areas on four Länder with diff erent 

admin is trative structures. 

Th e federal system's peculiarities result in 

diff ering regional and local administrative 

structures for the nominated component 

parts. Planning tasks including spatial 

planning are performed by the Länder as 

well as the regional and local adminis trations 

in their respective fi eld of competence. 

Beside the relevant designation as protected 

areas and the appurtenant international 

acknowledgements (e.g. biosphere reserve, 

Natura 2000), there are extensive spatial 

plannig for all component parts (tab. 5.3). 

Th ese are implemented following the overriding 

protection ordinances, prioritising 

the protect ion of the outstanding universal 

value “of undisturbed, complex temperate 

forests and exhibit the most complete and 

comprehensive ecological patterns and 

processes of pure stands of European beech 

across a variety of environmental conditions” 

(outstanding universal value of the 

World Heritage “Primeval Beech Forests 

of the Carpathians” – Slovak Republic and 

Ukraine – Word Heritage Nomination 

Dossier 1133) on the basis of criterion ix. 

Nationale 


129


Tab. 5.3: Instruments of spatial 

and land planning 

Component 

part 

Planning level Name Explanation Date 

Jasmund Mecklenburg- 


Land Spatial Development Programme GVOBl. Mecklenburg-Western 

Pomerania p. 308 

Region Regional Spatial Development Programme 


GVOBI. Mecklenburg-Western 

Pomerania no. 20, p. 833 

Serrahn Mecklenburg- 


Land State Development Programme GVOBI. Mecklenburg-Western 

Pomerania p. 308 

Grumsin Brandenburg 

Hainich Thuringia 

Kellerwald Hesse 

Th e planning requirements are supporting 

the measures for area protection while the 

management plans of the protected areas 

are crucial for the actions taken on location. 

Some relevant spatial / land development 

plannings in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, 

Th uringia, and Hesse are currently 

undergoing revision. 

Region Regional Spatial Development Programme 

Mecklenburg Lake District 

Land State Development Plan Berlin-Brandenburg 

(LEP B-B) as an ordinance issued by 

the Land Government 

GVOBl. Mecklenburg-Western 

Pomerania no. 20, p. 644 

30 May 2005 

21 October 

1998 

30 May 2005 

22 July 1998 

GVBl., BB, II, p. 186 15 April 

2009 

Region Landscape Framework Plan set up in 2004 by the highest 

nature conservation agency 

Region Regional Development Plan North Thuringia a follow-up is currently being 2001 

Region Regional Development Plan South Thuringia 

prepared 

2001 

Land State Development Plan Hesse: 

Hessian Ministry of Economy, Transport, 

Urban and Regional Development 

• Regional Spatial Development Programme 

Western Pomerania, to be 

fi n a l i s e d : D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 9 

• Regional Spatial Development Programme 

Mecklenburg Lake District, 

to be fi nalised: 1. quarter of 2010 

• Development Plan Hesse: a follow-up 

is currently being prepared 

Following the requirements of the laws and 

ordinances on protected areas, there are 

management plans pertaining to every single 

protected area. Th ose currently undergoing 

revision include: 

a follow-up is currently being 

prepared 

Region Regional Plan North Hesse The update is expected to 

become eff ective at the 

beginning of 2010. 

2004 

2000 

2000

• Hainich National Park: maintenance 

and development plan 2001 was superseded 

by the national park plan (completed 

in 2009) 

• Schorfheide-Chorin Biosphere Reserve 

(see example: Schorfheide-Chorin 

Biosphere Reserve): maintenance and 

development plan end of 2009 

• Jasmund National Park: national park 

plan from beginning of 2008 

– anticipated until the end of 2011 

• Müritz National Park: national park 

plan from beginning of 2009 

– anticipated until the end of 2013 

Example maintenance and development 

plan: Schorfheide-Chorin 


Th e implementation of a maintenance 

and development plan is subdivided into 

a preliminary and a main study. Th e 

preliminary study for the Schorfheide- 

Chorin Biosphere Reserve including 

the Grumsin component part was drawn 

up in 2007 / 2008 (annex 7.3.5). In the 

fi rst place, it addresses 

• Data screening 

• Area characteristics 

• Drafting of general principles and 

an overall objective system 

• Defi nition of the required processing 

work and processing depth for the 

main study. 


Example for the participative 

approach in preparing the 

management plans: 

Müritz National Park (Serrahn 

component part) 

Th e national park plan appertaining 

to Müritz (Serrahn component part) 

has resulted from extensive public 

involvement. In excess of 900 comments 

were received after the draft plan had 

been provided, which were addressed 

by a working group that involved the 

two administrative districts of Mecklenburg-Strelitz 

and Müritz, the “Nationalpark-Anliegergemeinden” 

association, 

the State Offi ce for Forests and Natural 

Reserves, and the Müritz National Park 

Offi ce. Each comment was answered 

with a statement contain ing the outcome 

of the considerations (annex 7.3.4). 

Essential contents of the main study 

relating to Schorfheide-Chorin include: 

• Additional biotope types / habitat 

types mapping 

• Supplementary species registration 

• Preparation of scientifi c articles 

(e.g. phytosociology and fl ora, fauna, 

water and water balance, agriculture, 

forestry and hunting, fi shery, tourism, 

overall appearance of landscapes) 

• Strategy of diff ering intensity 

concerning nature conservation 

• Natura 2000 management planning. 

Either study outlines an embedded 

extensive protection concept for Grumsin 

to preserve the property and its integrity 

to be protected sustainably. Th is methodology 

can be applied to other areas as well. 

Th e legal basis for this is detailed in tables 

5.2 and 5.3. 

Nationale 


131


Tab. 5.4: Organisation of spatial 

planning in the Länder 

Protection of the outstanding 

universal value of the 


parts is made sure by an 

effi cient trilateral management 

system. 

Land Number and 

designation of the 

planning regions 

Mecklenburg- 

Western 

Pomerania 

Agency responsible for 

regional planning 

4 (planning regions) regional planning 

associations (with offi ce at the 

regional planning authorities) 

Brandenburg 5 (regional planning 

areas) 

Hesse 3 (administrative 

districts) 

regional planning 

associations 

regional assemblies 

(at the regional 

administrative authorities) 

Thuringia 4 (planning regions) regional planning 

associations 

(offi ce at the State 

Administration Offi ce) 

5.e Property management 

plan or other management 

system 

All German partners as well as the Ukrainian 

and Slovak partners representing the 

existing World Heritage Property are well 

aware of the outstanding universal value 

of the World Heritage Property “Primeval 

Beech Forests of the Carpathians” and the 

nominated “Ancient Beech Forests of 

Germany”. Due to this responsibility, they 

jointly undertake to preserve those for present 

and future generations. Based on this 

thoroughly shared understanding of the 

property the conservation of the outstanding 

universal value and the integrity of 

the property and the nominated component 

parts is already secured and will be 

secured in the future by an eff ective trilateral 

management system. 

Th is aimes at protecting the evolutionary 

and biological processes in accordance 

with the criterion applied for in chapter 3. 

Trendsetting for this is a harmonised general 

principle for the protection of a common 

World Heritage Property (annex 

7.3.1) 

Plans 

regional 

development 

programmes 

regional plans 

regional plans 

regional 

development 

programmes 

Th e German Länder have corroborated 

their responsibility within the scope of 

statements and decisions in favour of the 

World Heritage extention nomination 

(annexes 5.4, 5.5). 

Th e close German-Slovakian-Ukrainian 

collaboration constitutes the nec essary 

political framework for an overriding trilateral 

management. Th ere have been trilateral 

meetings at least on an annual basis as well 

as extensive expert contacts and exchange 

since 2007 (annex 5.1). Th e meetings were 

used to draw up a joint work programme 

and initiate its implementation. Th e focus 

has so far been on the required harmonisation 

of the extension nomination with the 

existing Ukrainian-Slovakian World 

Natural Heritage Property “Primeval Beech 

Forests of the Carpathians”. 

Th e creation of a trilateral management 

system was of particular importance here. 

Integrating the management of the nominated 

component parts, it takes account of 

their particular qualities. It has been set up 

to provide the overriding framework for a 

joint eff ort to protect the serial property and 

is in line with the outstand ing universal value 

of the beech forests and their protection.

Th e joint management system is evaluated 

in regular cycles, with the results being 

presented and discussed by national and 

trilateral boards and forums and, if required, 

adjusted and optimised based on the evaluation 

results. Th ere is a Joint Manage ment 

Committee (JMC) meeting at regular 

intervals for the purpose of harmonisation 

and coordination at the trilateral level. Th e 

component parts of the extension nominations 

are represented by the steering group 

(fi g. 5.1 and 5.2). 

Trilateral 

JMC 


Committee 

National Authorities / 

Component Coordination 

LG Lenkungsgruppe 

Steering Group 

Coordinated 

Management 

Federal Environment Ministry (BMU) / 

German Federal Agency for 

Nature Conservation (BfN) 

Ukraine 

Management Authority 


5.f Sources and levels 

of fi nance 

Th e long-term funding of the nominated 

component parts is guaranteed by corresponding 

allowances in the Länder budgets, 

including implementation, monitoring, 

environmental education, and research. 

Common activities of the Länder are jointly 

fi nanced. Any funds for the necessary collaboration 

at the trilateral level are also 

allowed for in the respective state budgets. 

Th e means for personnel and material costs 

are also allotted from the respective Länder 

budgets as required by the diff erent sources 

(nature conservation, forestry, etc.). Th e 

detailed itemisation for the individual protected 

areas can be seen from the annual 

plannings for the respective budget plans. 

Further funds from the state budgets are 

made available for individual measures and 

are used in the areas or their surround ings. 

Germany 

State Authorities / 

Component Management 

National Park 

Administration 

National Park 


National Park 


National Park 


Biosphere 

Reserve 


Fig. 5.2: Organisation of the 

cooperation on the trilateral 

level 


Mecklenburg- 

Western 

Pomerania 


Hesse 


Thuringia 


Brandenburg 


Management Authority 

Nationale 


133


Tab. 5.5: Funds for personnel 

and material costs in the year 

2009 for the nominated parts 

*1 Budgetary funds for the entire 

Jasmund National Park in 

the year 2009. Th e funds were 

allocated from the state budget 

Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. 


Müritz National Park in 



Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. 

*3 Th e personnel and material 

funds for Grumsin in the year 

2009 were computed on a 

prorata basis from the budgetary 

funds of the Schorfheide-Chorin 

Biosphere Reserve. Th e material 

costs include means for the maintenance 

and development planning 

on a prorata basis amounting to 

EUR 10,000, and for monitoring 

in the amount of EUR 26,000. 

Th e funds are allocated from the 

state budget of Brandenburg. 


Hainich National Park in 



of Th uringia. 


Kellerwald-Edersee National 

Park in the year 2009. Th e funds 

were allocated from the state 

budget of Hesse. Additional means 

can be applied for within the 

framework of the Hessian state 

budget law. 

In addition to the funds appropriated for 

the Kellerwald-Edersee National Park listed 

in tab. 5.5, provision is also made in 

Hesse’s state budget for the projected 

UNESCO World Natural Heritage Beech 

Forests. Th ese funds are allotted to the following 

sectors: Sponsoring measures within 

the scope of nature conservation. Th ese 

measures are planned to see a follow-up 

provided the necessary resources are made 

available by the Landtag. On the aforementioned 

premise, Hesse also intends to 

contribute its share to the trilateral cooperation. 

Monitoring in the national parks and the 

Schorfheide-Chorin Biosphere Reserve 

ranks among the primary tasks of the protected 

area administrations and is scientifi 

cally accompanied in all areas. Th e funds 

necessary for monitoring are obtained 

from the aforementioned sources, which 

is secured on a long-term basis. 

Furthermore, there are EU funds available 

for selected projects as well as generally 

available funds from the regular federal 

budget. Further fi nancial means are available 

from foundations, municipalities, nature 

conservation organisations (e.g. for educational 

projects, monitoring, land acquisitions) 

and from donations. 

Personnel 

costs in € 

1,000 

Example for third party funding 

Th e granted INTERREG project 

“Parks & Benefi ts”, which involves the 

Müritz National Park offi ce and the 

Tourist Board Mecklenburg Lake 

District, provides an example for EU 

funding. It is intended to have the 

Müritz Natio nal Park certifi ed by the 

Europarc Federation within the 

framework of the European Charta for 

Sustainable Tourism. Th e focus will 

be placed on enhancing the quality of 

nature tourism products in the national 

park region. Up-to-date infor ma tion 

on the nomination and the possi bilities 

that come with it is furnished within 

the scope of the project measures such 

as the planned training of certifi ed 

nature and landscape guides. 

Material 

costs in € 

1,000 

Total in € 

1,000 

Area 

size 

in ha 

Jasmund National Park*1 861 75 936 3,003 

Müritz National Park*2 4,368 1,336 5,704 32,000 

Grumsin component part*3 45.5 61 106.5 864 

Hainich National Park*4 1,266 480 1,746 7,500 

Kellerwald-Edersee National Park*5 2,167 1,430 3,597 5,738 

TOTAL 8,707.5 3,382 12,089.5 49,105

5.g Sources of expertise and 

training in conservation and 

management techniques 

Th e national park administrations, the biosphere 

reserve administration, and the 

nature conservation authorities responsible 

for the nominated component areas all have 

in-depth knowledge in the subject matter. 

Th e employees involved in the protection 

and management of the nominated component 

parts are highly skilled graduates. 

Also, the personnel operating in the day-today 

management has long-standing experience 

in nature conservation and management. 

Moreover, there is a long-time 

tradition in ecological research in the territories 

by internationally recognised research 

institutions and organisations. 

EUROPARC Germany, the umbrella 

organisation of national parks, UNESCO 

biosphere reserves, and nature parks off ers 

a common basis for further research projects 

and expertise divided into diff erent 

working groups. 

Alongside with the rangers and / or wardens 

and the territorial administration, private 

persons, most notably honorary natural 

historians (botanists, ornithologists, entomologists, 

etc.) performing specifi c tasks in 

the context of the work of their technical 

group such as mapping or eyrie care are important 

sources of information on the area. 

Nationwide initiatives and international 

events support the nature conservation 

activities in the nominated component parts 

by providing know-how and training opportunities. 

Th e International Nature Conservation 

Academy of the Federal Agency for Nature 

Conservation has been hosting training and 

expert seminars on the topic of UNESCO 


World Natural Heritage on a regular basis 

since 2005, cooperating with the UNESCO 

World Heritage Centre in Paris and the 

International Union for Conservation of 

Nature (IUCN): 

• Enhancing the IUCN Evaluation Process 

of World Heritage Nominations 

– a Contribution to Achieving a Credible 

and Balanced World Heritage List. 

24 – 28 November 2005 

• World Natural Heritage and Cultural 

Landscapes in Europe. Th e Potential 

of Europe’s World Natural Heritage. 

18 – 21 June 2005 

• Expert meeting: “Nomination of 

German / European Beech Forests 

as a World Natural Heritage”. 

02 – 05 May 2006 

• Training course: How to Manage a 

World Natural Heritage Site? Applying 

the IUCN Tool Kit on Management 

Plans in Central and Eastern Europe. 

28 October – 01 November 2006 

• 1st trilateral meeting of Ukraine, Slovakia 

and Germany: Beech forests Nomination 

for the World Heritage List. 

06 – 08 May 2007 

• Harmonisation of Tentative Lists in 

Central, Eastern and South-Eastern 

Europe. 09 – 13 May 2007 

• Tourism Planning and Management for 

World Natural Heritage Sites in Europe. 

31 October – 04 November 2007 

• Implementation of the World Heritage 

Convention in the Caspian Region 

– Working towards a World Natural 

Heritage Nomination for the Hirkan / 

Caspian Forests of Azerbaijan / Iran. 

26 February – 02 March 2008 

• World Natural Heritage in Central, 

East and South-East Europe 

– Strengthening the Network. 

13 – 16 September 2008 

• Nomination and Management of Serial 

World Natural Heritage Sites. 

26 – 30 November 2008 

Based on professional expertise, 

research co-operations, 

staff training and 

citizen involvement, the 

administrative bodies of the 

reserves are in a position 

to guarantee the management 

plans are implemented 

in line with the protection 

of the outstanding 

universal value. 

Nationale 


135


• 2nd trilateral meeting of Ukraine, 

Slovakia and Germany: Beech forests 

Nomination for the World Heritage List. 

28 November – 01 December 2008 

• World Heritage in Central, East and 

Southeast Europe Network Meeting. 

17 – 20 September 2009 

• Serial Natural World Heritage Properties 

– Challenges for Nomination and 

Management. 7 – 11 November 2009 

Jasmund component part 

Research cooperation 

Th ere is no formal cooperation with research 

institutions. Th ere is a loose collaboration 

with geologists of the University of Greifswald, 

the State Offi ce for Environment, 

Nature Conservation and Geology and the 

Hanoverian Federal Institute for Geosciences 

and Natural Resources as well as with the 

University of Applied Sciences in Eberswalde 

and various faculties of forest sciences on 

the topics of forests, nature conservation and 

land use, and the Technical University of 

Berlin on the subject of water management. 

Contributions to the research on natural 

forests, water development, moor protection, 

and water balance in the Jasmund National 

Park were worked out and par tially published 

in the context of diploma and doctoral theses. 

Publications 

For an own series of publications, the nation al 

park has been releasing three issues annually 

of the National Park Info publication. 

Staff training 

Th ere is no special training programme for 

employees of the offi ce. Th e training courses 

are based on the respective employees’ 

personal requirements and their operating 

areas. Rangers attend internal training 

courses on an annual basis. Furthermore, 

forest managers and wardens in general are 

off ered the opportunity to train for certifi ed 

nature and landscape manager at the Agricultural 

College of the State of Mecklenburg-Western 

Pomerania. 

Other national park employees select and 

participate in training courses in line with 

their needs, among others at the College 

of Natural Conservation and Sustainable 

Development of Mecklenburg-Western 

Pomer ania and at the University of Applied 

Sciences of Public Administration, Police, 

and Administration of Justice of the state 

of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. Information 

on training courses off ered by 

other institu tions (meetings, workshops, etc.) 

is provided, such off erings may also be used 

if there is an offi cial need and interest. 

Citizen involvement 

• Four appointed natural conservation 

wardens 

• Verein der Freunde und Förderer des 

Nationalparks Jasmund e. V. (80 members): 

sponsor of the Chalkstone Museum 

Gummanz, occasional fund ing of printed 

matters for the national park offi ce, no 

regular cooperation 

Serrahn component part 

Research cooperation 

A research plan is currently being developed 

in the Müritz National Park to govern 

the direction of the research activities in the 

intermediate and long term, with a harmonisation 

within EUROPARC Germany 

taking place here. Müritz National Park is 

member in the LTER-D (Long Term Ecological 

Research – Deutschland) research 

association. 

Th ere is a close informal cooperation related 

to the research fi elds of forests, nature 

conservation, moors, water balance, and 

open landscape vegetation with the University

of Applied Sciences of Neubranden burg, the 

universities of Rostock, Greifswald, Halle, 

Lüneburg, and the Technical University of 

Dresden. 

Th e National Park Offi ce hosts 1 – 2 colloquia 

annually to present the latest research 

results from the National Park Offi ce. 

Publications 

Th ere is no periodically issued scientifi c 

series for the publication of research results. 

A research and monitoring magazine is 

scheduled to be issued at irregular intervals 

in the future to give a brief overview of 

the fi ndings of the research work carried 

out so far. 


An attempt is made to continuously qualify 

all employees based on an internal training 

programme. Training courses off ered by 

the College of Natural Conservation and 

Sustainable Development of Mecklenburg- 

Western Pomerania and the University of 

Applied Sciences of Public Administration, 

Police and Administration of Justice of the 

State of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania 

are announced on the Offi ce's intranet. 

Forest managers and wardens are off ered the 

opportunity to undergo professional advanced 

training for Certifi ed Nature and 

Landscape Managers at the Agricultural 

College of the State of Mecklenburg-Western 

Pomerania. Furthermore, the Offi ce off ers 

employees advanced training courses held 

by third-party host institutions. 

Participation is decided by the head of offi ce 

according to requirements. 


• Eight appointed nature conservation 

wardens, two of whom in the nominated 

component part 

• Four additional volunteers with special 

jobs, one of whom partially in the World 

Heritage area 


• Th e Friends of the Müritz National Park 

association, which has been in existence 

since 1990, is in support of the Müritz 

National Park in ways both non-material 

and material, the latter in part through 

projects the funds for which are raised by 

the association. At present, the association 

has approx. two hundred members. 

Grumsin component part 

Research cooperation and publications 

Th e Grumsin component part ranks among 

the best-researched woodlands in Brandenburg. 

A host of studies in forest ecology were 

– and are – carried out here, especially after 

the territory having been designated as 

part of the Schorfheide-Chorin Biosphere 

Reserve. 

• Two areas in Grumsin are under permanent 

examination within the scope of 

the ecosystemary environmental monitoring 

done by the University of Applied 

Sciences in Eberswalde since 1997. 

Basically, an area that is part of a managed 

distinctive forest ecosystem type is respectively 

compared to an area of the same 

type without management (total reserve), 

with special attention being payed to 

the development with regard to the aspect 

of climate change. Both the character 

of the ground vegetation and the forest 

structures take centre stage here. 

• New areas for the research project “Biodiversity 

Exploratories” of the University 

of Potsdam have been created in the 

surroundings. Diff erent management 

and maintenance activities are to be 

assessed for their impact on biodiversity. 

• Th e by now completed research project 

NEWALNet (supported by the BMBF) 

included the analysis of how forests aff ect 

major landforms and the production and 

the conduct of socio-economic studies 

Nationale 


137


in collaboration with the Centre for Agriculture 

and Landscape Research Müncheberg 

(ZALF: Zentrum der Agrar- und 

Landschaftsforschung Müncheberg). 

As is the case with the other territories, 

Grumsin participates in the initiatives under 

the auspices of EUROPARC Germany. 

Research results are periodically presented 

to the general public within the scope of 

symposia by the biosphere reserve administration. 

Th e last event of that type took 

place in March 2009. 


Both the nature watch staff and the landscape 

guides undergo regular training. 

Th e last year saw a number of events and 

fi eld trips focussing on the World Natural 

Heritage subject. 


• Biosphere reserve board of trustees 

• Association “Kulturlandschaft 

Uckermark e. V.“ 

• Nature and Biodiversity Conservation 

Union of Germany (NABU: Naturschutzbund 

Deutschland, operating 

agency of the information centre) 

• Two private landscape guides are gradually 

being integrated into the development. 

Hainich component part 


A research concept has been in eff ect since 

2001 that acts as a conceptual framework. 

It is implemented subject to the allocated 

staff appropriations and fi nancial resources as 

well as third party funding and capacities. 

Research projects in Hainich are primarily 

focussed on the protection targets, i.e. they 

need to be compatible with the paramount 

protection purpose of the national park, 

which amounts to “safeguarding and establishing 

of a largely undisturbed course 

of the natural processes”. For this reason, 

the investigations have to be designed to be 

nature and environmentally friendly (noninterfering 

methodology). Type and extent 

of the research activities in the national 

park are specifi ed and coordinated by the 

national park administration. Besides, it 

also conducts independent research work 

within the scope of its capacity. Its own 

research eff orts are predominantly focussed 

on status recording, control of success, 

and continuous observation. As is the case 

with the other territories, the national 

park is involved in the EUROPARC programme 

under the auspices of Europarc- 

Deutschland e. V. Comprehensive and 

particular research approaches are covered 

in the context of projects conducted by 

research partners and diploma / doctoral 

theses (in excess of 30 theses in the last few 

years). Important research projects and 

partners currently include: 

• Forest dynamics with the University 

of Freiburg. 

• Studies on the ecology of mixed populations 

with the University of Göttingen 

• Carbon turnover with the Max Planck 

Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena. 

• Studies on the biodiversity with the 

Friedrich Schiller University in Jena 

(establishment of so-called biodiversity 

exploratories). 

• Th e component part is member in the 

LTER-D (Long Term Ecological Research 

– Deutschland) research association. 

A species report and a research report presenting 

the results of the ongoing activities 

are issued on an annual basis. Th e “Erforschen” 

(“Exploring”) series of publications 

was launched in 2008 to publish the results 

of forest inventory.


• Society of the Friends of the Hainich 

National Park and the Eichsfeld- 

Hainich-Werratal Nature Park 

• Society for the Development of the 


• Approx. 150 trained nature guides 

• Partnerships in the educational sector 

with schools and in the context of the 

EUROPARC project “Partners of the 

National Natural Landscapes” 

• Involvement in the EUROPARC 

programme “Volunteers in Parks” 

Kellerwald component part 


To allow for the entire protected area management, 

research, and education as well as the 

concomitant public relations to be eff ectively 

implemented, the national park adminis tration 

has been maintaining comprehensive 

and multifaceted cooperations and partnerships. 

Th ere is a close cooperation between the 

Kellerwald-Edersee National Park and 

other national parks and specialised institutions 

to actively promote both the research 

association and the transfer of knowledge. 

Th e national park participates in the workgroup 

“Research and Monitoring in Largescale 

Protected Areas” under the umbrella 

organisation EUROPARC-Germany. 

Moreover, explicit principles include the 

partnership-based collaboration with 

state departments, universities, research 

institutes, freelance experts and volunteers 

according to the national park plan and 

research concept. Previous research cooperations 

(examples): 

• Th e component part is member in the 

LTER-D (Long Term Ecological Research 

– Deutschland) research association, 

the latter being a platform for 


communicat ion, documentation, and 

cooperation in the area of long-term 

system-oriented, and interdisciplinary 

environmental monitoring in Germany. 

LTER-D in turn is involved in national 

and international networks. 

• Level II programme with the Northwest 

German Forest Research Station, 

Hessian State Offi ce for Environment 

and Geology. 

• Investigations into freshwater ecology 

with the University of Kassel. 

• Permanent sample inventory with the 

Northwest German Forest Research 

Station. 

• Studies on natural forest reserves with 

the Senckenberg Society for Research 

on Nature Frankfurt / Main. 

• Fungus research with the University 

of Kassel. 

• Beech genetics with the University of 

Marburg. 

• Studies on hoofed game with the 

University of Göttingen. 

Th e fi eld of publications and knowledge 

transfer saw the beech forest symposium 

HessenForst (interdisciplinary scientifi c 

forum for research on national park-specifi c 

ecosystems), the creation of the ongoing 

series “Research Reports” for the national 

park, and periodical fi eld trips, technical 

lectures, seminars, accompanied by the 

release of scientifi c publications. Th e national 

park magazine “BuchenBlatt” (“Beech- 

Leaf / Paper”), which is issued three times 

a year, is the offi cial bulletin addressing 

the general public. 


• Honorary activities: nature conservation 

organisations, local and supraregional 

experts 

• National park advisory board and expert 

panel on research, honorary national park 

guides 

Nationale 


139


Development of wilderness 

in the Kellerwald-Edersee 

National Park 

Example citizen involvement in 

the Kellerwald component part 

Honorary protagonists and services have 

been involved in the establishment and 

development of the national park from the 

very beginning: essential basic knowledge, 

scientifi c data, fi eld mappings and 

concepts are periodically introduced 

into the research projects and management 

work of the park (e.g. research 

on birds, bats, and insects) by nature 

conservation organisations and local 

or supraregional experts. 

Volunteers are represented both in the 

national park’s offi cial advisory board 

and the research expert panel at an 

interdisciplinary level. Specifi cally trained 

• Partnerships in the educational sector 

with schools and in the context of the 

EUROPARC project “Partners of the 

National Natural Landscapes” 

• Involvement in the EUROPARC 

programme “Volunteers in Parks” 

• Friends of the National Park 

Th ere is a national park support organisation 

to back the objectives at an institutional 

level. It has emerged from the former “Pro 

Nationalpark” initiative of 1990, which 

had been the starting point for crucial 

conceptual and political lobby initiatives 

and certifi ed honorary national park 

guides and regional connaisseurs are 

employed to guide tours and give lectures. 

In the educational fi eld, there are steady 

school sponsorships as well as a tested 

collaboration with extracurricular educational 

institutions such as churches, 

adult education centres, and nature conservation 

organisations. Th e Kellerwald- 

Edersee National Park takes part in the 

EURO PARC project “Volunteers in 

Parks”. Th e protected area administration 

has been collaborating with a host of 

partners in the fi eld of tourism, services, 

and regional development, organising 

certifi ed partnerships within the scope of 

the EUROPARC project “Partners of the 

National Natural Landscapes”. 

for the national park. Th e establishment 

phase saw the organisation contributing to 

the development of ordinances and establishment 

staff as well as preparing the fi rst 

basic brochure and hiking map as well as 

making vital conceptual contributions to 

the protected area. After having been 

rededicated as offi cial support organisation, 

it now handles sponsoring, public relations, 

specialist counselling, individual marketing 

products, and concrete projects (e.g. wildcat 

studies, topic-related fl yers, photomonitoring, 

etc.). 

5.h Visitor facilities and 

statistics 

National parks, nature parks, and biosphere 

reserves are held in high esteem by recreation 

seekers and tourists alike in Germany. 

75% of all German travellers see “experiencing 

nature“ as an important holiday motivation 

(Forschungsgemeinschaft Urlaub und Reisen

e.V. – travel analysis 2007). Th ey are an important 

part to the touristic off er and infrastructure. 

It is in particular protected areas with a broad 

off er of guided tours, visitor facilities, and 

specifi c wonders of nature that aff ord visitors 

the opportunity to get to know and learn 

to appreciate outstanding natural values. Th e 

nominated component parts in Germany 

are, in their entirety, embedded in larger 

protected areas the function of which being, 

among others, educational work and communicating 

the value of these areas to visitors. 

Within the framework of a research project 

of the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation 

(JOB et al. 2009, tab. 5.6), visitor 

numbers in the Hainich, Kellerwald-Edersee, 

and Müritz National Parks were determined 

using uniform methods that provide 

information on both visitor structure 

(same-day visitors, national park tourists in 

the narrow and broader sense) and the economic 

signifi cance of national park tourism 

for the respective region. For the Jasmund 

National Park, the relevant fi gures were 

determined applying a standardised extrapolative 

approach. 

Visitors explicitly travelling the areas for 

their having been designated as national 

parks were counted as national park tourists 

in the narrow sense. All areas (with the 

exception of Grumsin) are fi rst and foremost 

sought out by tourists who wish to 

Total visitors in 2007: 

Total 

Same-day 

guests 

Overnighter Total 

of whom: 

national park tourists in the strict sense 

Same-day 

guests 

Overnighter 

Jasmund 1,349,700 863,200 486,500 398,600 213,300 185,300 

Müritz 390,000 152,000 238,000 167,000 62,000 105,000 

Kellerwald- 

Edersee 


experience the extraordinary landscapes of 

the national parks. Furthermore, students, 

researchers, and other persons interested 

in natural history will frequent the areas in 

numbers to become acquainted with and 

explore the beech forests. 

In all component parts, the existing visitor 

facilities and statistics are based on the 

entire surrounding protected area. Visitor 

management is mostly matched to the 

entire territory. 

Since the nominated component parts are 

commercially unexploited zones with 

controlled road concepts, visitor numbers 

here are restricted and considered to be 

lower. Th e road concepts on hand allow for 

a gentle experience of nature and environmental 

education. 

All visitor facilities to accommodate for 

larger visitor numbers are located outside 

of the nominated component parts. Th e 

majority of visitor facilities (national park 

centres) are situated on the brink and, 

alongside with the presentation of the nominated 

World Heritage property, have 

further functions as is the case, for instance, 

with the Königsstuhl visitor centre in 

Jasmund: experience of nature and exhibition 

centre, restaurant, special programmes for 

youth groups and seminar opportunities. 

Environmental education 

and a gentle experience of 

nature is possible in the 


parts. Visitor facilities are 

located outside. 

Tab. 5.6: Visitor numbers in the 

national parks of the nominated 

component parts (according to JOB 

et al. 2009) 

200,000 117,000 83,000 52,000 30,000 22,000 

Hainich 290,000 220,000 70,000 119,000 88,000 31,000 

Nationale 


141


Königsstuhl National Park Centre 

Visitors are presented the Jasmund 

National Park in the Königsstuhl National 

Park Centre on an exhibition area of 

2,000 sqm and 28,000 sqm of open air 

area. Based on an entertaining multimedia 

exhibition, visitors are given an understanding 

and graphic explanation of the 

multifaceted habitats, with the beech 

forests and the cliff line taking centre 

stage. Visitors with a desire to experience 

the national park's beauty during all 

seasons or from a bird's eye perspective 

Jasmund component part 

Th e Jasmund National Park, being the 

smallest German national park (3,003 ha) 

is frequented by 1.0 – 1.5 million visitors 

annually (especially in May – September). 

Th is stream of visitors is routed in an ecologically 

sound manner based on a welldefi 

ned visitor management concept. Th e 

entire passenger car traffi c is absorbed 

outside of the national park in two major 

parking areas located on the edge of the 

towns of Sassnitz and Hagen. Th e corresponding 

signage in the parking areas 

provides visitors with information on objectives, 

conduct, and tourist sights in the 

are off ered an interesting multivision 

cinema programme. Furthermore, the 

national park centre organises target groupspecifi 

c guided tours into the national 

park for interested visitors. Beside 

environmental education, the national 

park centre is also committed to the 

sector of environmental pedagogy. 

Specifi c off erings cater to children and 

school classes. While the national park 

centre hosts meetings and off ers room 

for playing and recreational activities in 

any weather, it is also a capable sponsor of 

the catering business in the national park. 

Th e Königsstuhl National Park Centre 

has a dedicated bus parking area that 

can be directly approached motor coaches. 

Moreover, a periodic shuttle bus connection 

has been established between 

the large parking area of Hagen and the 

Königsstuhl National Park Centre. 

Königsstuhl National Park Centre’s 

legal form is a gGmbH (Nationalpark- 

Zentrum Königsstuhl Sassnitz gGmbH). 

Shareholders are the WWF Germany 

with 70% and the municipality of Sassnitz 

with 30%. 

national park. Designated and signposted 

hiking, bicycling, bridle, and coach trails lead 

into the national park right from the parking 

areas and towns outside the national park. 

Major tourist attractions in the national 

park include three viewing platforms on the 

rim of the cliff . National park visitors can 

make use of a path network including 40 km 

of hiking trails, 23 km of cycle tracks, 14 km 

of bridle paths and 5 km of coach trails. 

Th e nominated component part features 

as little as 7 km of hiking trails. Th e component 

part is crossed by the Hoch ufer weg, 

which is one of the main hiking trails of the

national park with its over 300,000 visitors 

per year. With its nine stairways to cross 

creek valleys and plankways in sensitive 

terrain (e.g. quagmires), visitor management 

on this hiking trail is guaranteed to be ecologically 

sound. Access to the beach from 

the plateau and vice versa is ensured by 

four stairways down to the beach, two of 

which being located inside the nominated 

component part. 

In principal, it is strictly forbidden to stray 

from the designated paths in the national 

park’s core zone. 

Visitor information and management relies 

on the Königsstuhl National Park Centre 

(box p. 142), two information centres (fi eld 

offi ce of the National Park Offi ce and at the 

Wedding car-park), and 12 infor mation 

panels which are all located outside of the 

nominated area. Starting from the National 

Park Centre and the Sassnitz parking 

area, visitors can single-handedly obtain 

specifi c information at two designated locations 

along two theme trails by way of 

brochures covering the national park, the 

coast, and the beech forest. 

At the Königsstuhl lookout point directly 

outside the nominated component part 

of Jasmund an annual average of 276,000 

visitors were counted from 2003 and 2007. 

2003 and 2007 saw the lowest numbers with 

260,000 while the highest visitor numbers 

were counted in 2004 (JOB et al. 2009). For 

the most part, visitors are tourists visiting 

the cliff line of Jasmund with the Königsstuhl 

lookout point. As for visitor numbers, 

the Jasmund National Park located on 

the island of Rügen is exceptional insofar as 

the region is a popular holiday destination 

in Germany. It should be stated that many 

among the holiday-makers and visitors 

feel close to nature, which is the reason for 

them to come to Jasmund. From the visitors 


of the Königsstuhl lookout point and the 

appurtenant visitor centre with associated 

restaurant as well as the exhibition and 

information buildings in the other areas, 

only a minor portion, which cannot be 

precisely determined, has visited the nominated 

component area. 

Serrahn component part 

Th e component part is situated in the eastern 

part of the Müritz National Park. Tourists 

can access the national park via fi ve entrance 

areas in surrounding towns. Th e town 

of Zinow is the central entrance to the component 

part including the buff er zone. 

Th e entrance area here comprises a parking 

and resting place featuring a refuge and 

information panel. From here, a nature 

experience path of 4 km winds to the settlement 

of Serrahn (buff er zone), and a bicycle 

trail of 7 km to the Carpin entrance area 

via Serrahn. Visitor attractions include a 

watchtower with a view to the Große 

Serrahn see and a moor plankway on the 

banks of the Kleiner Serrahnsee. Th e 

nominated area is spanned by segments of 

the nature experience path (approx. 200 m 

in length) and the cycle path (approx. 

1,350 m in length). Located in the buff er 

zone, the public road from Zinow to Serrahn 

borders on a stretch of the component 

part of 700 m. Horseback riding is only permitted 

on this road. Th e settlement of 

Serrahn with its few buildings (4) is located 

within the buff er zone and has a fi eld offi ce 

of the Müritz National Park Offi ce with an 

information centre including an exhibition 

related to the territory, information panels, 

and seating. 

An annual average of 2,049 visitors to the 

national park exhibition (1,665 min. in 2001 

and 2,563 max. in 2006) has been registered 

since 1997. Visitors are mostly guests with 

an interest in nature and hailing from the 

Nationale 


143


region or taking a holiday in the Müritz 

National Park and Mecklenburg Lake 

District. 

As a consequence of the low number of 

permanent residents and visitors, the human 

infl uence on the component part is found 

to be but slight. 

Grumsin component part 

At present, the nominated area does not 

contain any visitor facilities or hiking / 

cycling trails. However, the component part 

is linked to a number of regional hiking 

trails. A stretch of the projected hiking 

trail will run along the border of the component 

part, thus creating the opportunity 

to experience the diff erent aspects of 

managed forests on the one hand and the 

unmanaged forest on the other hand. 

Th ere is a connection to the path net work 

of the national geopark “Eiszeitland am 

Oderrand” (“Glacial Land on the Oder 

Banks”) the international acknowledgement 

of which having been fi led with the 

UNESCO in 2008, and the holiday and 

adventure route “Märkische Eiszeitstraße” 

(“Clacial Road of the Mark”) with its 340 km. 

Furthermore, the component part is linked 

to the long-distance cycling trails “Tour 

Brandenburg” and “Berlin-Usedom” as well 

as the supraregional “Uckermärki scher 

Radrundweg” (“Uckermark Circular Cycling 

Trail”). 

Since any unauthorised access to the area 

is forbidden, the only possibility to enter is 

on the basis of guided walking tours off ered 

by trained landscape guides. 

Th e distance between the “Blumberger 

Mühle” visitor centre of the biosphere 

reserve and the component part is approx. 

10 km. An information outlet related 

to the nominated World Heritage will be 

established here (box below). 

Hainich component part 

Visitors in the component part can draw on 

19 km of hiking trails that can also be 

used in part as cycling, bridle, and coach 

paths (6 km). One of the paths has been 

developed to be barrier-free and furnished 

with a number of adventure stations. 

Blumberger Mühle 

From 1997 – 2007, the information centre 

of the Schorfheide-Chorin Biosphere 

Reserve, about 10 km from the Grumsin 

component part, saw an average of 

33,500 visitors per year (51,300 max 

in 1997 and 21,300 min in 2004). While 

visitor numbers in the component part 

are signifi cantly lower, visitors to this 

area are not counted. Th e visitors (200 – 

400 yearly at a rough estimate) would 

enter Grumsin in small groups under 

expert guidance. It is mostly specialists 

and scientists taking a look at the 

Grumsin beech forest or conducting 

studies on natural forests.

Treetop Trail 

Opened in 2005, the treetop trail has a 

length of approx. 300 m, a maximum 

height of 24 m, and a tower rising to 44 m. 

Its purpose is to familiarise visitors with 

the habitat that is the treetops from a 

unique perspective. Its operation is based 

on a concept of environmental education 

that has been implemented by means 

of information facilities and expert staff . 

Th e beauty and elegance of the beech 

forests are presented here. Exceedingly 

high demand and outstanding acceptance 

of the facility led to the treetop trail 

being extended to a length of more than 

500 m in May 2009. 

Apart from the small refuge of four square 

metres, the area does not feature any other 

buildings and structures. 

While the buff er zone has more hiking trails 

with an overall length of about 100 km, 

there are no information outlets or other 

buildings and structures. Information panels 

have been erected on all hiking car-parks 

around the national park to provide visitors 

with information. Th e national park centre 

at the Th iemsburg (outside of the buff er 

zone but still within the national park’s 

premises) is the central point of reference 

accommodating the major exhibition 

“Discover the Hainich’s Secrets”, which also 

furnishes information on the nominated 

World Natural Heritage Beech Forests. 

Th e national park centre’s primary point of 

attraction is the treetop trail which was 

opened in 2005 and drew about 1 million 

visitors until the end of 2009. Th ere are 

three other minor information centres in the 

national park’s sur-roundings that off er 

exhibitions. 


Kellerwald component part 

Apart from a historical hunting lodge and 

some hiking infrastructure, there are no 

facilities to be found whatsoever in the 

nominated com ponent part. At the northern 

border and through eastern portion of 

the nominated component part runs the 

Edersee primeval forest hiking trail. Th e 

stretch inside the territory measures approx. 

5.2 km. As compared to other hiking trails 

within the area, it has an slightly higher 

frequentation of visitors. Moreover, there 

are 24.3 km of paths for mixed use (hiking, 

horseback riding, cycling, and partly for 

national park management), with only 8.8 km 

being indicated in public brochures, maps 

etc. as paths and 6.4 km as trails. A supraregional 

bicycling track touches on 2.4 km of 

the component part’s northern border. 

Th ere are 10 hiking car-parks and three 

central information facilities on the edge of 

the Kellerwald-Edersee National Park 

to provide visitors with information (box 

p. 146). Information on hiking routes and 

peculiarities within the national park domain 

is furnished to visitors through signposts 

installed on the car-parks. Symbols mounted 

Nationale 


145


on wooden posts indicate the routes to 

ensure that visitors can discover them on 

foot without any expert guidance. Th e 

infrastructural facilities for visitors are 

supplemented by three nature trails along 

the hiking paths. Outside of the national 

park, there is a visitor centre and two information 

houses focussing on diff erent 

topics. 

Visitor centres and information 

houses of the Kellerwald-Edersee 

National Park 

• The Kellerwald National Park Centre 

in Vöhl-Herzhausen informs its visitors 

about the wilderness subject on an 

exhibition space of 700 m 2 and an open 

air area of 15,000 m 2 . Inaugurated in 

2008, it is state-of-the-art and follows 

a multimedia approach. A 4D sensual 

cinema is featured as the main attraction, 

taking the visitors away to the 

beech forests of the national park. The 

exhibition concept is rounded off by 

a comprehensive event and educational 

programme. 

• The “Fagutop” nearby the Edertal 

Wild lifePark is a small information 

house addressing the beech forest 

ecosystem and its wildlife. Scheduled 

for extension in 2009 and 2010 in 

terms of space and contents, it will be 

developed into a primary centre for the 

national park’s educational programme, 

into a wilderness school. 

• The “KellerwaldUhr” in Frankenau 

on the southern edge of the national 

park informs about the national park 

and history of the forest. 

60,000 visitors have been counted in 

the national park centre and 130,000 

in the “Fagutop” and its wildlife park. 

The “KellerwaldUhr” was frequented 

by some 14,000 visitors.

5.i Policies and programmes 

related to the presentation 

and promotion of the 

property 

Th e specifi c challenge in presenting and conveying 

the fi ve nominated component parts 

lies in the particular features jointly and 

with a uniform appearance meeting their 

communicative function both in regional 

promotion and in connection with the serial 

property. 

The joint communication strategy 

Th e communication concept “World 

Heritage Beech Forests” was developed 

(annex 5.6) to ensure the best possible information, 

presentation, and commu nication 

of the nominated component parts. 

For this purpose, the relevant target groups 

were identifi ed: 

• Local / regional population 

• Children / adolescents 

• Tourists 

• Tourism businesses and associations 

• Local / regional politicians and public 

persons 

• National population 

• Multipliers 

Th e target groups have been assigned targets 

to be communicated in order to achieve 

suffi cient involvement in the nomination 

process. Taking into account the media- 

related structures of the respective group, the 

strategy defi nes formats to properly communicate 

the information. 

To have a balanced informational awareness 

across the individual target groups, information 

elements are subdivided into central, 

regional, and individual modules. Th is 


system guarantees communication to be 

highly fl exible and off ers a handle for ensuring 

thematic awareness, establishing the 

beech forest subject, and conveying to the 

population the signifi cance of the World 

Heritage nomination. 

Th e following milestones have been worked 

out for communication: 

Raising regional awareness 

Goal: Th e population relates to the region 

and takes a conscious stance towards it. It 

will therefore look upon the nomination 

for UNESCO World Heritage favourably. 

Informational balance 

Goal: Shortcomings in the subject-specifi c 

education have been evened out with a consequent 

harmonisation of the communi cation 

structure within the areas. 

Creating areas of action 

Goal: Th e population is off ered the opportunity 

to get actively involved in supporting 

the nomination. 

Defi nition and reinterpretation of terms 

Goal: Using a target group-specifi c language, 

it is possible to ensure the communication 

between the protagonists and target groups 

to properly convey the meaning and purpose 

of the nomination. Th e notions of nature 

conservation are also understood by persons 

who are not active protagonists in nature 

conservation. 

Knowledge popularisation 

Goal: Knowledge and information have been 

popularised in terms of language and contents 

to ensure that any alienation through 

excessive knowledge and the resulting lack 

of interest is obviated. 

Information, presentation, 

and communication of the 


parts is based on a coordinated 

uniform communication 

structure. 

Nationale 


147


Fig. 5.3: Information concept 

and elements of a joint communication 

strategy 

INFORMATION MODULES 

Up-to-datedness 

Goal: Any information is transmitted via 

trusted communication channels as quickly 

and regularly as possible. A sense of involvement 

is to be conveyed. 

Th e existing communication processes and 

exploitable information media have been 

analysed in relation to the target groups in 

order to identify the appropriate measures to 

be taken for public relations. To implement 

the communication strategy, a comprehensive 

list of individual activities was determined 

that could already be successfully implemented 

in the course of the pre arrange ments 

for the nomination. 

4.4 

4.3 

4.2 

4.1 

3.4 

3.3 

3.2 

3.1 

2.4 

2.3 

2.2 

2.1 

1.4 

1.3 

1.2 

1.1 

a) Printed media 

• A general brochure in German and 

English to provide various target groups 

with fi rst basic information (1st issue 

2007, German 20,000, English 5,000, 

2nd issue December 2008, 3rd issue 

December 2009; annex 5.12). 

• A sophisticated brochure addressing the 

target groups involved in local / regional 

politics, national politics, and to multipliers 

(including the press), which can be 

variably assembled to cater to the requirements 

of diff erent target groups in a fl exible 

way (October 2008, issue: 10,000; 

annex 5.13) 

TARGET GROUPS 

· interested citizens 

· sceptical citizens 

· indifferent citizens 

· affected citizens 

· classes 

· youth clubs 

· sport associations 

· libraries 

· regional politicians 

· public institutions 

· influential persons 

· societies / citizens’group 

· responsible conservationists 

· day trippers 

· overnight guests 

· regular guests 

· domestic population 

· tourists 

· scientists 

· domestic natural landscapes 

· national politicians 

· teachers 

· tour operators 

· press 

· cooperation partners


Fig. 5.4: Leafl et used for communication, 

education and public awareness 

(annex 5.12) 

Fig. 5.5: Web page of the joint 

communication strategy “World 

Heritage Beech Forests” 

Nationale 


149


Fig. 5.6: Quadrilingual brochure 

of the “World Natural Heritage 

Beech Forests” travelling 

exhibition presenting the eight 

World Natural Heritage messages 

(annex 5.10) 

Der deutsche Beitrag zum Weltnaturerbe 

Fünf deutsche Buchenwaldgebiete sind als 

UNESCO-Weltnaturerbe zur Ergänzung der 

Buchenurwälder der Karpaten vorgeschlagen. 

Sie gewährleisten eine Vollständigkeit des 

Weltnaturerbes „Europäische Buchenwälder“. 

Th e German Contribution to the world 

natural heritage 

Five German beech forest areas have been suggested 

as UNESCO world natural heritage to complement 

the Carpathian beech forests. Th ey guarantee a totality 

of the world natural heritage “European beech forests“. 

La contribución alemana al patrimonio 

de la humanidad 

Cinco zonas alemanas de hayedos están propuestas 

como patrimonio de la humanidad de la UNESCO, 

como complemento a los hayedos vírgenes de los 

montes Cárpatos. Estas zonas garantizan una 

integridad del patrimonio de la humanidad de los 

hayedos europeos. 

Вклад Германии в список 

мирового природного наследства 

Пять немецких регионов с фондом букового 

леса предложены для включения в 

список мирового природного наследства 

ЮНЕСКО. Они обеспечивают совокупность 

списка мирового природного наследства 

«Европейские буковые леса». 

Herausgeber (Projektträger der Ausstellung) 

publisher (lead-management of the project): 

HESSEN-FORST, Nationalparkamt Kellerwald-Edersee 

Laustraße 8, 34537 Bad Wildungen 

www.nationalpark-kellerwald-edersee.de 

www.weltnaturerbe-buchenwälder.de 

Nationalpark 


Redaktion & Gestaltung (Planung & Umsetzung der Ausstellung) 

Editorial & design (planning & implementation): 

cognitio Kommunikation & Planung 

Westendstraße 23, D-34305 Niedenstein 

www.cognitio.de 

Fotos (einschließlich Ausstellung) 

photos (inclusive of exhibition): cognitio, U. Bense, K. Bogon, 

M. Delpho, T. Denk, G. Kalden, C. Krohn, R. Kubosch, 

B. Lüthi-Herrmann, M. E. Luthard, A. Monohara, U. Meßner, 

F. Rahn, T. Stephan, S. Thierfelder, K.-H. Volkmar, U. Wasem (WSL), 

G. Zimmermann 

Die Ausstellung wird als Forschungs- und Entwicklungsvorhaben 

durch das Bundesamt für Naturschutz mit Mitteln des Bundesministeriums 

für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktor sicherheit 

gefördert. 

The exhibition is supported as a research and development project 

by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation with funds provided 

by the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation 

and Nuclear Safety. 

Die Ausstellung wird mit Mitteln des Landes Hessen fi nanziell 

unterstützt. 

The exhibition is fi nancially supported by the federal state Hesse. 

1. Aufl age, Mai 2008, 1st edition, may 2008 

© cognitio 

UNESCO-WELTNATURERBE 

UNESCO WORLD NATURAL HERITAGE 

PATRIMONIO DE LA HUMANIDAD DE LA UNESCO 

МИРОВОЕ ПРИРОДНОЕ НАСЛЕСДТВО ЮНЕСКО 

Buchenurwälder der Karpaten 

Im Gebirge der Karpaten sind letzte großfl ächige 

Buchenurwälder erhalten – Inbegriff der Unversehrtheit. 

Beech primeval forests of the Carpathians 

Th e last extensive beech primeval forests are preserved 

in the Carpathian Mountains – the epitome of 

integrity. 

Hayedos vírgenes de los Cárpatos 

En los montes Cárpatos están conservadas las 

últimas grandes áreas de hayedo virgen: 

la preservación por excelencia. 

Девственные буковые леса 

Карпатов 

В Карпатских горах сохраняются последние 

простирающиеся девственные буковые 

леса – воплощённая сохранность! 

b) Editorial measures 

• Internet: A dedicated webpage has been 

set up for propagating the nomination 

(www.weltnaturerbe- buchenwaelder.de) 

which provides basic information on the 

UNESCO World Heritage Convention, 

the nomination process, and on beech 

forests in general while including a news 

page, an event calendar, a moderated 

forum, FAQ, and an image gallery. Visitors 

to the web page mainly come from 

(in descending order): Germany, France, 

the Netherlands, Australia, United 

Kingdom, Austria, and the USA. 

• Regional and national press releases 

(annex 5.7) 

c) Exhibition “World Heritage Beech 

Forests” 

Within the framework of the implementation 

of the joint communication strategy, 

the travelling exhibition “World Heritage 

Beech Forests” was conceived and implemented 

to present the World Heritage nomination 

of a German beech forest cluster as 

an extension to the Slovakian-Ukrainian 

UNESCO World Heritage site “Primeval 

DEUTSCHER VORSCHLAG 

GERMAN SUGGESTION 

PROPUESTA ALEMANA 

ПРЕДЛОЖЕНИЕ ГЕРМАНИИ 

Nationalpark Kellerwald-Edersee 

Zur Erhaltung bodensaurer Buchenwälder der 

Mittelgebirge leistet Deutschland einen herausragenden 

Beitrag. 


Germany makes an outstanding contribution with 

regard to the preservation of acidic-soil beech forests 

of the low mountain ranges. 

Parque nacional de Kellerwald-Edersee 

La contribución alemana para la conservación de 

los hayedos de media montaña y suelo ácido, es 

sobresaliente. 

Национальный парк 

Келлервальд-Эдерзее 

Германия вносит великолепный вклад для 

сохранения букового леса, произ растающего 

на кислой почве в средних горах. 





Nationalpark Hainich 

Der Buchenwald über Kalkgestein repräsentiert 

die artenreiche Ausprägung Mitteleuropas mit 

einzigartigen Jahreszeitenaspekten. 


Th e beech forest on limestone represents a speciose 

characterisation of Central Europe with unique 

seasonal aspects. 

Parque nacional de Hainich 

Los hayedos sobre roca calcárea son representantes 

de la riqueza de especies en Europa central, con 

sus únicas características estaciónales. 

Национальный парк Хайних 

Буковый лес, произрастающий на известковых 

породах, представляет собой 

великолепный пример разнообразия 

видов букового леса в Центральной 

Европе. Он отличается уникальными 

оттенками цветов во всех временах года. 





Nationalpark Müritz 

(Teilgebiet Serrahn) 

Reste naturnaher Tiefl and-Buchenwälder gibt es 

weltweit nur noch in Deutschland. 


(part of Serrahn area) 

Remnants of natural lowland beech forests 

throughout the world are to be found exclusively 

in Germany. 

Parque nacional de Müritz 

(zona Serrahn) 

Los últimos representantes mundiales de hayedos 

naturales de tierras bajas se encuentran únicamente 

en Alemania. 

Национальный парк Мюритц 

(Часть Серран) 

В мировом масштабе, только в Германии 

имеются еще остатки естественных 

буковых лесов в низменностях. 

Beech Forests of the Carpathians” to a 

national and international audience based 

on multimedia exhibits. Th e exhibition 

is centred on the extraordinary universal 

value of the beech forests in the component 

parts of the German extension nomination 

and the existing World Heritage 

site. Said value is conveyed through eight 

World Heritage messages that bolster the 

claim to World Natural Heritage of the 

German beech forest domains. Th e exhibition 

elements pick up these messages and fi ll 

them with contents. Th e messages are 

delivered to visitors by means of a take-away 

portrait-format brochure (fi g. 5.6). 

Th e exhibition on European beech forests 

is set against the backdrop of a beech forest 

section rich in structure – a “Beech Room”. 

Visitors would be walking between “beech 

trunks”. Th e aspect of the forest canopy 

changes as the seasons pass by. Th ere are 

integrated interactive exhibits. Comfortably 

seated in a heap of leaves, visitors will 

enjoy the beauty of beech forests in the 

“Beech Cinema”. Voices of the woods lend 

an air of authenticity to the coulisse. At the 





Totalreservat Grumsiner Forst 

im UNESCO-Biosphären reservat 


Einer der größten zusammenhängenden 

Tiefl and-Buchenwälder der Welt ist geschützt. 

Grumsiner Forst Total Reservation 

in the UNESCO Schorfheide-Chorin 

Biosphere Reservation 

One of the largest coherent lowlands beech forest 

in the world. 

La « Reserva Total » de Grumsiner 

Forst en la Reserva de la Biosfera- 

UNESCO de Schorfheide-Chorin 

Esta protegido uno de los mayores conjuntos 

territoriales de hayedos de tierras bajas del mundo. 

Резерват первой категории 

Грумзинер Форст в биосферном 

резервате ЮНЕСКО 

Шорфхайде-Хорин 

Охраняется один из крупнейших во всем 

мире ареалов объединённого букового 

леса в низменностях. 





Nationalpark Jasmund 

Die Waldgrenz-Situation am Kreidekliff symbolisiert 

die andauernde Ausbreitung der Buche. 


Th e forest-line situation on the chalk cliff symbolises 

the continuous distribution of the beech. 

Parque nacional de Jasmund 

La persistencia de la propagación del hayedo está 

perfectamente simbolizada en el perímetro boscoso 

del acantilado de tiza. 

Национальный парк Ясмунд 

Границы лесов на меловой прибрежной 

скале символизирует непрерывное 

распространение бука. 

Die 8 Weltnaturerbe- 

Botschaften des Europäischen 

Buchenwaldes 

Th e 8 world natural 

heritage messages of the European 

beech forest 

Los 8 mensajes del 

patrimonio mundial de los 

hayedos europeos 

8 миссий мирового 

природного наследcтва 

Европейского букового леса 

Nationale 

Naturlandschaften

The eight World Natural Heritage 

messages related to the German 

extension nomination 

1. Beech forests are deciduous forests! 

2. Pure beech forests are a European 

phenomenon! 

3. Beech forests are still spreading! 

4. Beech forest aesthetics are one-of-akind! 

5. Beech forests are rich in biodiversity! 

6. Beech forests and European culture 

are intimately connected! 

7. Th ere are but a few leftovers of 

primeval forests in Europe! 

8. Germany is at the heart of the 

natural range of the beech forests! 

“Beech Bar”, one may get a picture of the 

extraordinary biodiversity of European 

beech forests glancing into a stylised tree 

hole. Historical traditions are linked to 

phenomena. Th e “Beech Book” invites 

visitors to browse, providing in-depth information 

on the history of European 

forests, the beech forests spreading over the 

individual territories and a lot more. 

Multilingual messages about beech forests 

are declared in an echoic fashion. Using the 

“Beech Mail”, international visitors have 

the option to send e-mails to friends and relatives. 

Furnishing information on beech 

forests in image and text, a multilingual mail 

form invites visitors to provide pictures and 

reports from the forests of faraway regions. 

All information elements of the exhibition 

are available in German, English, Spanish, 

and Russian. Ukrainian and Slovakian 

versions are planned. All wooden elements 

are made of beech wood, with all other 

elements being based on the outward appearance 

of beeches. 


On 19 May 2008, the exhibition was inaugurated 

by the Parliamentary State Secretary 

of the Federal Environment Ministry and 

the Hessian Minister for the Environment 

in the context of the 9th Conference of the 

Parties to the Convention on Biodiversity 

(CBD) in Bonn. 

During the nomination process, the exhibition 

is presented to the general public in the 

regions of the nominated component parts, 

including the Hessian Landtag (Wiesbaden / 

Hesse, 27 August – 15 September 2008), 

Wandelhalle Bad Wildungen (Kellerwald- 

Edersee National Park, Hesse, 

18 February 2009 – 12 April 2009), 

Top: 

Exhibition “World Natural 

Heritage Beech Forests” on 

19 May 2008 in Bonn within 

the scope of the 9th Conference 

of the Parties to the Convention 

on Biodiversity (CBD) 

Bottom: 

Inauguration of the exhibition 

by the Hessian Minister for 

the Environment Dietzel 

Nationale 


151


Exibition displays for events 

and information centres 

German Horticultural Show (Schwerin, 


14 April – 12 October 2009). 

And also the future will see the exhibition 

being used for effi cient public relations to 

present the World Heritage of the beech 

forests. 

d) Further activities 

A joint audiovisual presentation for information 

events has been prepared. Intense 

public relations in the shape of special 

information events in the visitor centres as 

well as educational activities with the local 

population and press relations for local 

papers were staged for each of the fi ve nominated 

component parts. Accompanying 

press relations were also cultivated at the 

national level based on features in newspapers, 

magazines, and specialist journals. 

(annexes 5.7 and 5.8 for lists of press 

releases, events etc.). 

Moreover, a line of exhibition displays was 

set up for versatile use with events and information 

centres (annex 5.11). 

Th e extensive eff orts to inform the population 

on the signifi cance of the World 

Natural Heritage nomination of beech 

forests have paved the way for a marked 

increase in awareness and acceptance.

5.j Staffi ng levels 

(professional, technical, 

maintenance) 

Th e activities in the fi ve nominated component 

parts are carried out by bodies of the 

national park administrations and the 

biosphere reserve. Th e number of employees 

in all component parts is suffi cient to ensure 

proper management of the nominated 

component parts. Based on a broad range 

of qualifi cations, all necessary activities in 

Protected area Personnel (December 2009) 

Jasmund National Park 18 forest managers (of whom 11 certifi ed nature and landscape 

guides); 2 administrative offi cials, 3 graduated forest engineers 

(Bachelor), 1 graduated marine biologist 

Müritz National Park, 

relating to Serrahn part 

Grumsin (relating to the 


part) 

2 graduated forest engineers (Bachelor), 8 rangers (certifi ed nature 

and landscape guides), 8 forest managers with professional qualifi - 

cation 

4 nature watch employees, 1 forest engineer, 1 district forester 

of the State Forest Administration, 2 certifi ed landscape guides 

Hainich National Park 8 administrative employees, 2 district directors, 25 rangers 

(forest managers, partly with additional qualifi cation as nature 

and landscape managers) 


National Park 

6 graduated forest engineers, 18 rangers (forest managers with 

additional qualifi cation as nature and landscape managers), 

1 biologist, 1 agriculturist 


the context of protection, administration, 

maintenance of the area, public relations, 

visitor management, and monitoring are 

guaranteed to be performed to excellence. 

Th ere are approx. 100 active employees 

in the nominated component parts and surroundings 

(as at December 2009), out of 

whom roughly one fourth are forest managers 

and forest engineers and more than one 

third (35) are lumbermen. Great emphasis 

is placed on the further education of the 

personnel (chapter 5.g). 

The number of employees 

in all component part is 

suffi cient to ensure proper 

management of the World 

Heritage Property. 

Tab. 5.7: Number and training 

of the protected area staff 

Ranger-guided tour of the 


Park 

Nationale 


153


Natural beech forest Kellerwald 

6. Monitoring 

Area monitoring essentially means a periodical, systematic, and uniform 

investigation of natural parameters which are hallmarks of the outstanding 

universal value. Alongside with the collection of abiotic and 

biotic data, this requires specifi c indicators to be identifi ed that are 

characteristic for potential external infl uences in order to obtain to early 

information on possible negative impact factors.

Monitoring contents are therefore divided 

into four spheres: 

1. Determining the natural bases, species 

and biotopes (inventory). 

2. Permanent observation of natural 

processes and alterations in the ecosystem, 

natural forest development, 

and its biocoenoses (monitoring). 

3. Special scientifi c questions and projects 

(special ecosystem research). 

4. Social signifi cance of the national park, 

visitor development and behaviour, 

tourism-related issues (socio-economic 

research). 

Other fi elds of work include technical data 

management, cooperation with other 

national parks and research institutes, and 

transfer of knowledge. 

Since the time of their institution, there 

have been well-established monitoring 

systems in the territories to survey the most 

important basic parameters. As for many 

crucial indicators, the joint management 

system therefore builds on these investiga- 

tions (development of forest structures and 

biocoenoses, climate, water and groundwater 

quality, geologic processes, visitor 

traffi c and others). 

Inventories of the areas are almost completed. 

Th ey serve as a starting point for further 

monitoring. Monitoring the indicators, 

which are characteristic of the outstanding 

universal value, is performed based on 

representative sample areas in the territories 

applying a consistent methodology. Depending 

on indicator variability, they are 

determined on a daily or annual basis or, 

following the period of Periodic Reporting, 

at intervals of six or twelve years. More over, 

extensive monitoring and research programmes 

are conducted in all areas and are 

carried out in collaboration with research 

institutes, universities or specialised institutions 

of the Länder. 

Furthermore, the collection of biotic data 

is also ensured by the obligations to undertake 

surveillance and to report within 

the scope of the Natura 2000 network (EU 

Habitats and Birds Directive). 

6. MONITORING 

Nationale 


155


Tab. 6.1: Monitoring 

programmes in Jasmund 

National Park since 1991 


programmes in Müritz 


Hence, the data originate in particular from 

the permanent monitoring programmes 

of the protected areas and / or the Länder 

as well as from the surveys carried out 

by the respective Länder institutions. Th is 

is to be continued to ensure comparability of 

the data sets. Additional data are collected in 

Component 

part 

Type of monitoring 

Jasmund forest monitoring 

(forest institution) 

Component 

part 

Beginning 

Carried out by Depository 

1996 State Forestry 

Institute 

forest condition survey 1992 State Forestry 

Institute 

State Forestry 

Institute, National 

Park Offi ce 


Institute 

water levels in selected moors 1996 National Park Offi ce National Park Offi ce 

amphibian surveys along safety 

fences during spawning migration 

1993 National Park Offi ce National Park Offi ce 

bats in wintering grounds 1991 National Park Offi ce National Park Offi ce 

weather 1993 National Park Offi ce National Park Offi ce 

natural forest conservation 

areas 

1997 National Park Offi ce State Forestry 


Park Offi ce 

hoofed game 1996 National Park Offi ce National Park Offi ce 


Serrahn forest monitoring 

(forest institution) 

Beginning 


1996 State Forestry 

Institute 

forest condition survey 1992 State Forestry 

Institute 

natural forest conservation 

areas 

phaenological investigations 

in foliation RBU 



Park Offi ce 


Institute 

1999 National Park Offi ce State Forestry 


Park Offi ce 


water levels in selected moors 1995 National Park Offi ce National Park Offi ce 

survey of the breeding areas of 

large birds (eagle, crane, black stork) 

new surveys only where there are currently 

no continuous data sets available. 

Th e existing monitoring programmes in the 

German component parts were initiated 

already at an early point as outlined in the 

following tables. 


weather 1993 National Park Offi ce National Park Offi ce 

visitors 1999 National Park Offi ce National Park Offi ce 

hoofed game 1996 National Park Offi ce National Park Offi ce

Component 

part 


Grumsin ecosystemary observation 

of the environment 

Component 

part 

game monitoring 

(browsing damage) 

Beginning 


1997 University of 

Applied Sciences 

of Eberswalde 

(with sub-tasks) 

1998 Aldo Leopold 

Society 

biodiversity exploratory 2008 University 

of Potsdam 

species monitoring 1960 volunteer 

conservationists 


Beginning 


ad ministration, University 

of Applied Sciences 

of Eberswalde 


administration 






Hainich forest inventory 1999 National Park Offi ce National Park 

Offi ce 

fl ora and vegetation 1999 

Component 

part 

birds 1999 

amphibians 2000 

bats 2000 

photographic documentation 2000 

weather 2003 

visitors 2003 


Kellerwald PSI 

(forest inventory) 

Beginning 


2007 national park + NW- 

FVA / FENA, contract 

for services 

indicator plots 1994 foresters, Simon & 

Goebel 

FFH monitoring 2006 contracts for services 

PNL, Lösekrug and 

others by order of the 

state of Hesse (RP+NLP) 

level II - climate station 

(forestal environmental 

monitoring within the scope 

of EU-Directive) 

2005 NW-FVA, HLUG 

photographic monitoring 2008 National Park Offi ce 

avifaunistic monitoring 1997 Paleit 

bat monitoring 2000 Dietz & Simon 

Dianthus monitoring 2007 Kubosch 

National Park 

Offi ce 

6. MONITORING 


programmes in Grumsin 

since 1997 


programmes in Hainich 



programmes in Kellerwald- 

Edersee National Park since 

1997 

Abbr.: 

NW-FVA: Nordwestdeutsche 

Forstversuchsanstalt 

FENA: Hessen-Forst 

Forsteinrichtung und Naturschutz 

PNL: Planungsgruppe für 

Natur und Landschaft 

RP: Regierungspräsidium 

NLP: Nationalpark 

HLUG: Hessisches Landesamt 

für Umwelt und Geologie 

Nationale 


157


Indicator 

no. 

Indicator Periodicity 

1 total size of forest in which the nominated property is located 12 years GIS, Atkis 

2 connectivity of the forest 

(fragmentation through the road and path network) 

Data on status quo available 

(presentation of results) 

12 years GIS assessments, periodical assessments of 

orthophotographic aerial surveys 

3 extreme temperatures annual summaries weather data obtained directly in the 

territory or from DWD 

4 precipitation annual summaries weather data obtained directly in the 


5 further climatic data such as annual mean temperature, 

number of snow / frost days, wind, relative atmospheric 

humidity, irradiation (specifi ed in the management plan) 

annual summaries weather data obtained directly in the 


6 forest soil 12 years National Soil Condition Survey (BZE: Bundesweite 

Bodenzustandserhebung): Water balance, 

chemism of humus and mineral soil layer 

7 rain water chemism 12 years standardised (level 2 data, State Forestry Offi ce) 

8 state of health of the forests 6 or 12 years National Forest Condition Survey 

9 mapping of the stages of forest development according 

to Tabaku 2000 (distribution and portions of forest 

development stages) 

12 years own mapping project planned 

10 portions of tree species in tree population 12 years Permanent Site Inventory (PSI) 

11 portions of tree species in rejuvenation stands 12 years PSI 

12 dead wood volume (m3 / ha) 12 years PSI 

13 degree of decomposition of dead wood 12 years PSI 

14 soil contact of dead wood 

preferably: dead wood type standing or lying 

12 years PSI 

15 wood base area and volume 12 years PSI 

16 microhabitats on living trees (number / ha) 12 years PSI 

17 indicator species for natural forests and endangered species 

bound to natural forests (e.g. "primeval forest relic species", 

species of EU-community interest such as Osmoderma eremita, 

xylobiotic insects, beetles, woodpeckers, Bechstein’s Bat, 

Coral Tooth) 

18 monitoring of the avifaunistic beech forest indicator species 

according to FLADE 1994 (Hainich, Kellerwald) 

and SCHUMACHER 2006 (Jasmund, Serrahn, Grumsin) 

12 years Natura 2000 monitoring 

6 years ongoing own surveys, district mapping on 

experimental plots or line taxation 

19 mammals (game density) 6 years game census methods, spotlight counting / 

camera trap (additional) 

20 large mammals / large birds special programmes as needed 

21 browsing damage to vegetation 6 or 12 years browsing areas, indicator fence 

22 invasive species (occurrence, spreading (trends)) 6 years observation 

23 ground vegetation 6 years (see chapter 4a and management plan) 

sample plots 

24 visitor numbers summary 

every 6 years 

25 hiking trails (length (m), level of development, density 

(m / ha), touristic infrastructure 

26 index numbers for accompanying PR activities 

(events, printed media, guests addressed) 

see chapter 5, fi gures from ongoing 

monitoring of the NLPs / BRs, projected: 

surveys for the properties 

12 years data available via GIS, from the regular orthophotographic 

aerial surveys (see item 2) 

or ATKIS (incl. buff er zone) as appropriate 

annual reports of the protected area 

administrations 

27 levels of naturalness 12 years publications (SCHNEIDER 2008)

Monitoring the outstanding universal value 

has been harmonised between the fi ve 

German component parts of the extension 

nomination and the existing World Natural 

Heritage property in Slovakia and Ukraine. 

Both the survey methodology and the data 

management form are standardised. 

A corresponding methodology manual will 

be developed at a national and trilateral 

level after the extension nomination will 

have been sucessfully inscribed. 

6.a Key indicators for 

measuring the state of 

conservation 

Th e key indicators have been selected so that 

they are largely congruent with the variables 

monitored in the Carpathian beech forests 

(tab. 6.6). Th is allows for the developments 

in the beech forest core area in Germany 

to be directly compared and depicted with 

the World Natural Heritage of the Carpathians 

located on the eastern edge. Especially 

the impact of climate change on the 

nominated component parts can be tracked 

in this way. 

Th e structural dynamics of the forest populations 

are in the focus of the monitoring 

processes. Likewise signifi cant are index 

numbers descriptive of the climate development 

and the changing of fauna and fl ora. 

Both visitor infl uence and public relation 

activities are each monitored by way of three 

meaningful variables. 

General environmental parameters 

In Germany, temperature, precipitation, 

wind directions and force, solar irradiation, 

atmospheric humidity, and atmospheric 

pressure are continuously monitored through 

a close meshed network of climate stations. 

To the extent there are no dedicated climate 

station within the territories, the data of 

the nearest weather station are evaluated. 

Geographical parameters 

Relevant parameters such as area size, degree 

of fragmentation, and lengths of paths of 

every description are monitored on the 

basis of aerial images and the existing GIS 

data supplied by the cartographic institutes 

of the Länder. 

Water chemism 

During the last decades, nutrient and acid 

contamination has had a substantial impact 

on the development of many ecosystems. 

Th is led to nutrient enrichment, soil acidifi - 

cation, and discharge most notably of nitrate 

and heavy metals into the groundwater 

in a number of locations in Germany. Th is 

aspect therefore justifi es intensive monitoring. 

Forest structure 

In particular the forest structure has been 

subject to intense dynamics up to the present 

day due to the peculiar history of the nominated 

component parts. Th is factor is also 

taken into account in the monitoring. Th e 

forest structure building up is surveyed 

based on living trees and dead wood. Neither 

the living biomass nor the spatial arrangement 

of the trees or the dead wood mass 

remains constant. Th ese structural variables 

are subject to high natural yet cyclic dynamics 

even in autoch thonous natural forests. 

Alongside with species monitoring, the 

natural structural cycles and developments 

rank among the most important monitoring 

contents. Th is is because the vegetation 

dying off and the dead wood subsequently 

naturally decomposing forms the basis for 

6. MONITORING 

The outstanding universal 

value is monitored in coordination 

between the 

component parts and the 

existing World Natural 

Heritage property in Slovak 

Republic and Ukraine. 

Left: 

Tab. 6.6: Indicators including 

methodology and periodicity 

Nationale 


159


Visitor routing with plankways in 

Serrahn 

the biodiversity of subnatural beech forests. 

Especially Germany, being the heartland of 

beech dis tribution, has plenty of dead beech 

wood that fails to decompose rapidly due 

to the geographic position, which is characterised 

by cool temperate climate. For this 

reason, both the dead wood volumes and 

degrees of decomposition are monitored. 

Large dead wood volumes and the wood being 

rapidly converted upon ground contact 

account for the signifi cance of the dead 

wood for the nutrient regime in beech forests, 

substantially aff ecting biodiversity. 

Closeness to nature is an expression of functional 

ecological cycles with a maximum 

of structural and biological diversity. Th e 

closeness to nature is to be comparatively 

rated for all nominated component parts 

applying a both ecological and monitoringcompatible 

methodology (BUCHEN- 

WALDINSTITUT in BUBLITZ 2005 

and SCHNEIDER 2008). Degrees of 

closeness to nature are rated according to 

defi ned characteristics specifi c for natural 

and / or primeval beech forests, with the 

primary parameters being population 

structure, dynamics, and dead wood quantities. 

Biocoenoses and species 

Representative sample areas within the 

territories are intensively monitored for biodiversity 

already today, with monitoring 

intervals being based on the specifi c re quirements 

of the species, i.e. their temporal 

and spatial variability. Ground vegetation as 

well as the relevant natural forest indicators 

and endangered species of the natural 

beech forests are surveyed in six-year 

cycles. Typical bird indicator species in beech 

forests are monitored at annual intervals 

and evaluated in six-year cycles. Mammals 

are also monitored periodically. According 

to European legislation, particularly relevant 

species are subject to intensifi ed surveillance 

(EU Habitats Directive). 

Th e species inventory is monitored on an 

ongoing basis, e.g. in order to determine 

the repopulation by plant or animal species 

as well as the development of their populations. 

Th is does not only apply to invasive 

animals and plants but also to the natural 

reconstitution of biocoenoses (e.g. wildcat, 

lynx). Species and population fi gures are 

determined and the impact e.g. of the 

damage to the forest community caused by 

game animals are monitored already today 

within the scope of wildlife monitoring. 

Tourism-related parameters 

Th e registration of visitor numbers, hiking 

trail development, and the touristic infrastructure 

in the nominated component parts 

provides important index numbers for 

the sites to be acknowledged while also 

documenting the eff ects of tourism on the 

area.

6.b Administrative 

arrangements for 

monitoring property 

Monitoring in the nominated component 

parts forms part of the continuous area 

moni toring and therefore rests with the 

respective national park or biosphere reserve 

adminis trations, which will work on certain 

aspects of the monitoring processes by 

themselves, collaborate with technical authorities, 

universities and institutes, and 

commission specialists correspondingly. 

Th e development of a methodology manual 

to govern area monitoring also includes 

a standard data format to be specifi ed so 

as to allow for results and information to 

be exchanged smoothly and quickly. 

6.c Results of previous 

reporting exercises 

Th e forest development has undergone intensive 

monitoring already since the designation 

as national park or biosphere reserve. 

Inventory results and special issues reach far 

beyond these designations. In Germany, 

the results yielded by environmental monitoring 

are publicly available in the form of 

environmental monitoring data and, as a 

rule, are periodically published (annex 6.1). 

Relevant monitoring reports for the fi ve 

component parts are listed in tab. 6.7. 

Further monitoring results will be available 

in future resulting from new research 

activities (annex 6.2). 

Jasmund No relevant reports available. 

Serrahn MÜRITZ NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY (ed., 2006): Research and Monitoring 

1990 – 2006. 

UNIVERSITY OF LÜNEBURG, INSTITUTE FOR ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CHEMISTRY, (ed., 2003): Succession research in near-natural beech forests with a 

long tradition of undisturbed forest dynamics in the north-eastern lowlands 

of Germany 

Grumsin No relevant reports available. 

Hainich HAINICH NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY (ed., 2008): Forests in the Hainich 

National Park – results of the 1st permanent inventory sampling procedure 

1999 – 2001. Series “Erforschen”, Vol. 1 

HAINICH NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY (ed., 2009): Research report 2008 Yearly 

updated account containing an index of research projects, the most important 

monitoring results, and weather data 

Kellerwald KELLERWALD-EDERSEE NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY & NORDWESTDEUTSCHE 

FORSTLICHE VERSUCHSANSTALT (2009): Results of the permanent inventory 

sampling procedure in the Kellerwald-Edersee National Park. Un published 

manuscript, Göttingen. 

PALEIT, J. (2007): First ornithological monitoring results from the Kellerwald- 

Edersee National Park. Vogelkundliche Hefte Edertal 33: 31 – 42, Korbach. 

SIMON, O., GOEBEL, W. & SCHELKE, K. (2008): Succession research and monitoring 

in the Kellerwald-Edersee National Park: Vegetation development and browsing 

damage in the Kellerwald-Edersee National Park – recommendations for 

wildlife management. Report for 2008. Institute for Animal Ecology and Nature 

Education. Unpublished assessment by order of the Kellerwald-Edersee National 

Park Authority, Gonterskirchen. 

6. MONITORING 

The area monitoring 

performed so far has 

revealed a positive 

development back to 

natural forests 

(cf. chapter 4). 

Tab. 6.7: 

Results of previous studies 

Nationale 


161


Tab. 7.1: 

Photographic documentation 

No. Format Name Date Photographer Author Contact Author 

1 digital 

3888 x 2592 px 

2 digital 

3888 x 2592 px 

3 digital 

3264 x 2448 px 

4 digital 

4288 x 2848 px 

5 digital 

4288 x 2848 px 

6 digital 

3935 x 2574 px 

7 digital 

3888 x 2592 px 

8 digital 

4892 x 3230 px 

9 digital 

3888 x 2592 px 

10 digital 

4288 x 2848 px 

11 digital 

2848 x 4288 px 

12 digital 

3720 x 2480 px 

13 digital 

3888 x 2592 px 

14 digital 

2592 x 3888 px 

15 digital 

3888 x 2592 px 

16 digital 

3888 x 2592 px 

1_Kellerwald_Arensberg 12.09.2007 A. Hoff mann cognitio cognitio 

Kommunikation & Planung, 

Westendstraße 23, 

34305 Niedenstein 


13_Kellerwald_ 

Ringelsberg 

Non 

exklusive 

assignment 

of 

rights 

03.09.2007 A. Hoff mann cognitio Yes 

14_Jasmund 24.05.2007 M. Weigelt H.-D. Knapp Bundesamt für Naturschutz 

(BfN), Insel Vilm, 18581 Putbus 

14_Serrahn 05.07.2008 A. Hoff mann cognitio Yes 

14_Grumsin 19.09.2009 A. Hoff mann cognitio Yes 

15_Hainich 16.10.2000 Th. Stephan Th. Stephan Thomas Stephan, Wiener 

Weg 12, 89597 Munderkingen 

www.thomas-stephan.com 

15_Kellerwald 25. 06.2007 A. Hoff mann cognitio Yes 

20_Jasmund_ 

aerialphoto 

7. Documentation 

7.a Photographs, slides, 

image inventory and authorization 

table and other 

audiovisual materials 

Th e digital photographic documentation 

with photo credits and authorisation 

certifi cates (authorisation form) is available 

on the enclosed CD (annex 7.1). 

20.02.2007 M. Weigelt H.-D. Knapp Yes 

21_Jasmund_forest 18.07.2007 A. Hoff mann cognitio Yes 

22_Serrahn_bogforest 05.07.2008 A. Hoff mann cognitio Yes 


24_Hainich 14.04.2008 Th. Stephan Th. Stephan Yes 

30_bloomy_beech 22.04.2007 A. Hoff mann cognitio Yes 

36_beech_spring 15.04.2007 A. Hoff mann cognitio Yes 

36_beech_summer 03.09.2007 A. Hoff mann cognitio Yes 

36_beech_fall 22.10.2007 A. Hoff mann cognitio Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

17 digital 

11574 x 4233 px 

18 digital 

2245 x 1465 px 

19 digital 

3888 x 2592 px 

20 digital 

3888 x 2592 px 

21 digital 

4288 x 2848 px 

22 digital 

4288 x 2848 px 

23 digital 

1754 x 2631 px 

24 digital 

2000 x 1334 px 

25 digital 

3888 x 2592 px 

26 digital 

4288 x 2848 px 

27 digital 

4288 x 2848 px 

28 digital 

3888 x 2592 px 

29 digital 

3888 x 2592 px 

30 digital 

1754 x 2631 px 

31 digital 

2592 x 3888 px 

32 digital 

3264 x 2448 px 

33 digital 

3888 x 2592 px 

36_beech_winter 21.12.2007 A. Hoff mann cognitio Yes 

37_wood_garlic_ 

Hainich 

Th. Stephan Th. Stephan Yes 

37_anemones 09.04.2007 A. Hoff mann cognitio Yes 

44_beech_Jasmund 18.07.2007 A. Hoff mann cognitio Yes 

50_Serrahn 05.07.2008 A. Hoff mann cognitio Yes 


57_Hainich Th. Stephan Th. Stephan Yes 


Ruhlauber 


74_beech_Jasmund 18.07.2007 A. Hoff mann cognitio Yes 

75_Serrahn_ 

deadwood 




october 


Ruhlauber 

7. DOCUMENTATION 

Serrahn 



101_Hainich Th. Stephan Th. Stephan Yes 

108_Jasmund 20.07.2007 A. Hoff mann cognitio Yes 

112_Coral_Tooth 05.09.2006 R. Kubosch R. Kubosch Ralf Kubosch, Hohgartenstraße 4, 

57074 Siegen 

125_Jasmund 18.07.2007 A. Hoff mann cognitio Yes 

Nationale 


Yes 

163


Tab. 7.2: 

Texts relating to protective 

designation 

Component part Acts, ordinances, plans, etc. Year 

Jasmund Ordinance on the Designation of the Jasmund National 

Park 

1990 

Serrahn Ordinance on the Designation of the Müritz National Park 1990 

Grumsin Ordinance on the Designation of Nature Conservation Areas 

and a Landscape Protection Area of Primary Importance 

under the Overall Designation of Schorfheide-Chorin Biosphere 

Reserve on 12 September 1990. 

Hainich Thuringian Act on the Hainich National Park and for the 

Amendment of Provisions under Nature Protection Law of 

19 December 1997. 

Kellerwald Ordinance of the Kellerwald-Edersee National Park 2003- 

12-17 (GVBl.I page 463 from 2003-12-22) last amended by 

Ordinance of the amendment of the Ordinance Kellerwald- 

Edersee 2009-12-07 (GVBl.I page 511 from 2009-12-16) 

7.b Texts relating to protective 

designation, copies 

of property management 

plans or documented 

management systems and 

extracts of other plans 

relevant to the property 

See annexes 7.2 and 7.3 for the appropriate 

records and other documents. 

1990 

1997 

2003 

7.c Form and date of the 

most recent records or 

inventory of property 

(annex 7.3) 

Jasmund: National Park Plan Jasmund 

1998 

Serrahn: National Park Plan Müritz 

National Park 2003 

Grumsin: Maintenance and Development 

Plan 1997, 2002 (State 

Agency for Large Protected 

Areas of Brandenburg) 

Hainich: National Park Plan 2009 

Kellerwald: National Park Plan for the 


Park 2008: Implementation 

as per zonation concept 

according to IUCN categories 

(category II)

7.d Address where inventory, 

records and archives 

are held 

All documents pertaining to the respective 

nominated properties are kept by the offi cial 

local institutions (see chapter 8.b), i. e. by the 

local protected area administrations responsible 

for the property. 

Institution 



(for Jasmund) 

Müritz 


(for Serrahn) 



(for Grumsin) 

Hainich 




Address: 


Im Forst 5 

18375 Born 


Germany 




Germany 

Hoher Steinweg 5 – 6 






Laustraße 8 



Telephone / fax E-mail / web address 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)38234 502-0 

Fax: 

+49 (0)38234 502-24 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)39824 252-0 

Fax: 

+49 (0)39824 252-50 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3331 3654-0 

Fax: 

+49 (0)3331 3654-10 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3603 3907-0 

Fax: 

+49 (0)3603 3907-20 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)5621 75249-0 

Fax: 

+49 (0)5621 75249-19 



poststelle@npa-mueritz.mvnet.de 


br-schorfheide-chorin@lua.brandenburg.de 





Tab. 7.3: 

Address where inventory, 

records and archives are held 

info@nationalpark-kellerwald-edersee.de 

www.nationalpark-kellerwald-edersee.de 

Nationale 


165


7.e Bibliography 

ARCHIBOLD, O. W. (1995): Ecology of World Vegetation. 

Chapmann & Hall London. 

ASSMANN, T. (1994): Epigäische Coleopteren als Indikatoren 

für historisch alte Wälder der Nordwestdeutschen 

Tiefebene. NNA-Berichte 7 (3): 142 – 151. 

BAAGOE, H. J. (2001): Danish bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera): 

Atlas and analysis of distribution, occurrence and abundance. 

Steenstrupia 26 (1):1 – 117. 

BAUER, L. (1972): Handbuch der Naturschutzgebiete der 

Deutschen Demokratischen Republik. Urania, Leipzig. 

BENEKE, C. (2002): Totholzanfall in einem Buchenaltbestand 

im Nationalpark Hainich / Thüringen. Diplomarbeit 

Universität Freiburg. 

BENKERT, D., FUKAREK, F. & KORSCH, H. (Hrsg.) (1996): 

Verbreitungsatlas der Farn- und Blütenpflanzen Ostdeutschlands. 

Gustav Fischer, Jena. 

BfN (2002): Daten zur Natur. Landwirtschaftsverlag, Münster. 

BfN (2008): Beech Forests – a Germany contribution to the 

global forest biodiversity. BfN-Skripten 233. Bonn, 86 p. 

BfN (2008): Bonner Thesen zum „Naturerbe Buchenwälder“. 

Bonn, 19. Mai 2008. 

BfN (2008): Forschung und Monitoring in den deutschen 

Biosphärenreservaten“. Bad Godesberg. 

BRÄNDL, U.-B. & DOWHANYTSCH, J. (2003): Urwälder im 

Zentrum Europas – Ein Naturführer durch das Karpaten- 

Biosphärenreservat in der Ukraine. Haupt-Verlag Bern, 

Stuttgart, Wien. 

BfN (Hrsg.) (2008): Naturerbe Buchenwälder – Situationsanalyse 

und Handlungserfordernisse. – BfN-Skripten 240, 

Bad Godesberg. 

BIEHL, R., GROSSMANN, M. & STEPHAN, TH. (o. J.): Urwald 

mitten in Deutschland. Nationalpark Hainich. Behringen, 97 S. 

BOHN, U., NEUHÄUSL, R., GOLLUB, G., HETTWER, C., 

NEUHÄUSLOVA, Z., SCHLÜTER, H. & WEBER, H. (2002 / 2003): 

Karte der natürlichen Vegetation Europas, Maßstab 

1:2.500.000. Landwirtschaftsverlag Münster, Teil 1: 

Erläuterungstext. 

BOHN, U. & NEUHÄUSL , R. (2003): Karte der natürlichen 

Vegetation Europas – Maßstab 1 : 2 500 000. Hrsg. Bundesamt 

für Naturschutz, Bonn-Bad Godesberg. 

BOHN, U., GOLLUB, G., HETTWER, C., NEUHÄUSLOVÁ, Z., 

RAUS, T., SCHLÜTER, H. & WEBER, H. (Bearb. / eds.)(2004): 

Karte der natürlichen Vegetation Europas / Map of the 

Natural Vegetation of Europe, Maßstab / Scale 1 : 2 500 000. 

Interaktive / Interactive CD-ROM – Erläuterungstext, Legende, 

Karte / Explantory Text, Legend, Maps. Landwirtschaftsverlag, 

Münster. 

BOHN, U. & GOLLUB, G. (2007): Buchenwälder als natürliche 

Vegetation in Europa. Natur und Landschaft 82 (9 / 10): 

391 – 397. 

BOYE, P. & BAUER, H.G. (2000): Vorschlag und Prioritätenfindung 

im Artenschutz mittels Roter Listen sowie unter 

arealkundlichen und rechtlichen Aspekten am Beispiel 

der Brutvögel und Säugetiere Deutschlands. In: BINO-HAFKE, 

M., GRUTTKE, H., LUDWIG, G., RIECKEN, U. Bundesweite 

Rote Listen – Bilanzen, Konsequenzen, Perspektiven. 

Schriftenreihe für Landschaftspflege und Naturschutz 

65: 71 – 88. 

BOX, E.O. & MANTHEY, M. (2006): Conservation of Deciduous 

Tree Species in Europe: Projecting Potential Ranges and 

Changes. In. GAFTA, D., AKEROYD, J.R., Nature Conservation: 

Concepts and Practice. Springer Berlin: 241 – 253. 

BUBLITZ, S. (2005): Naturwissenschaftliche Grundlagen 

und methodische Vorarbeiten für den Aufbau eines 

europäischen Buchennaturwaldkatasters. Dipl.-Arbeit / 

FH Osnabrück, Buchenwaldinstitut. 

BURMESTER, A., ENGELS, B. & SCHEUERBRANDT, B. (2005): 

World Natural Heritage and Cultural Landscapes in Europe 

– The Potential of Europe’s World Natural Heritage – 

BfN-Skripten 149, Vilm. 

CLEERE, H: (2006): A Management Plan for the World 

Heritage Site The Frankincense Trail (Sultanate of Oman). 

COMMARMOT, B., CHUMAK, V., DUELLI, P., KÜFFER, N., 

LOVAS, P. & SHPARYK, Y. (2007): 

Buchenurwälder als Referenz für Naturschutz: Forschungsergebnisse 

aus den ukrainischen Karpaten. 

Natur und Landschaft, 62. Jg., H 9 / 10: 398 – 400. 

COMMARMOT, B. & HAMOR, F. D. (2005): Natural Forests 

in the Temperate Zone of Europe – Values and Uitilisation. 

Conference 13 – 17 October 2003, Mukachevo, Ukraine. 

CRANWELL, L.M. (1963): Nothofagus: living and fossil.10th 

pacific Science Congress 1961, Hawaii: 387 – 400. 

CRANWELL, L.M. (1964): Antarctica: Cradle or Grave for its 

Nothofagus? Anc. Pacif.Floras. University Hawaii Press, 87 – 93. 

CZAJKOWSKI, T. & BOLTE, A. (2006): Unterschiedliche 

Reaktion deutscher und polnischer Herkünfte der Buche 

(Fagus sylvatica L.) auf Trockenheit. Allgemeine Forstund 

Jagdzeitung 177: 30 – 40. 

CZAJKOWSKI, T., KOMPA, T. & BOLTE, A. (2006): Zur 

Verbreitungsgrenze der Buche (Fagus sylvatica L.) im 

nordöstlichen Mitteleuropa. Forstarchiv 77: 203 – 216. 

DELPHO, M. & LÜBCKE, W. (o.J.): In the kingdom of quaint 

beeches. Nationalpark Kellerwald-Edesee. Bad Wildungen, 

128 p. 

DENK, T., GRIMM, W. & HEMLEBEN; V. (2005): Patterns of 

molecular and morphological differentation in Fagus 

(Fagaceae): Phylogenetic implications. American Journal 

of Botany 92(6): 1006 – 1016. 

DENZ, O. (2003): Rangliste der Brutvogelarten für die Verantwortlichkeit 

Deutschlands im Artenschutz. Vogelwelt 

124: 1 – 16. 

DIERSCHKE, H. (2004): Sommergrüne Laubwälder (Querco- 

Fagetea s.lat.) in Europa – Einführung und Übersicht. 

Tüxenia 24: 13 – 17, Göttingen. 

DIERSCHKE, H. & BOHN, U. (2004): Eutraphente Rotbuchenwälder 

in Europa. Tuexenia 24: 19 – 56. 

DUK et al. (2009): Welterbe-Manual – Handbuch zur 

Umsetzung der Welterbekonvention in Deutschland, 

Luxemburg, Österreich und der Schweiz. 

DU RIETZ, G.E. (1940): Problems of Bipolar Plant Distribution. 

Acta hytogeogr. Suec. 13: 215 – 282. 

EICHSTÄTT, W., SCHELLER, W., SELLIN, D., STARKE, W. & 

STEGEMANN, K.D. (2006): Atlas der Brutvögel in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. 

Steffen Verlag, Friedland. 

ELLENBERG, H.(1996): Vegetation Mitteleuropas mit den 

Alpen. Eugen Ulmer Verlag, Stuttgart. 

EMMERT, W. & E. (1998): Jagdwende – Vom Edelhobby 

zum ökologischen Handwerk. – Becksch’sche Reihe, 

Verlag C.H.Beck, München, S. 318.

ENGELS, B. & BRITZ, H. (2007): Auf dem Weg zu einer Nominierung 

eines deutschen Buchenwald-Clusters als UNESCO- 

Weltnaturerbe. Natur u. Landschaft 82 (9 / 10): 451 – 452. 

ENGELS, B., OHNESORGE, B. & BURMESTER, A. (Hrsg.) (2009): 

Nominations and Management of Serial Natural World 

Heritage Properties – Present Situation, Challenges and 

Opportunities. BfN. 

ESPING, L.-E. (1997): Potential Nature World Heritage Sites 

in Europe. Parks for Life 97. Proceedings of the IUCN / WCPA 

European Regional Working Session on Protecting 

Europe’s Natural Heritage, November 9 – 13, 1997, Island 

of Rügen, Germany, p. 75 – 78. 

FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations (2003): State of the World's Forests. 

FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations (2006): Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005 

– Progress towards sustainable forest management. FAO 

Forestry Paper 147, Rome. 

FEILDEN, B.M. & JOKILETHO, J. (1998): Management 

guidelines for World Cultural Heritage sites, 2nd ed. 

Rome: ICCROM. 

FLADE, M. (1994): Die Brutvogelgemeinschaften Mittelund 

Norddeutschlands. Grundlagen für den Gebrauch 

vogelkundlicher Daten in der Landschaftsplanung. 

IHW-Verlag, Eching. 

FLADE, M. (1998): Neue Prioritäten im deutschen Vogelschutz: 

Kleiber oder Wiedehopf. Der Falke 45: 348 – 355. 

FLADE, M., G. MÖLLER, H. SCHUHMACHER & WINTER, S. 

(2003): Sachbericht zum F+E-Vorhaben Biologische Vielfalt 

und Forstwirtschaft „Naturschutzstandards für die 

Bewirtschaftung von Buchenwäldern im nordostdeutschen 

Tiefland“. – unveröffentlicht. 

FRANK, G. (2002): Brutzeitliche Einnischung des Weißrückenspechtes 

Dendrocopos leucotos im Vergleich zum 

Buntspecht Dendrocopos major in montanen Mischwäldern 

der nördlichen Kalkalpen. Vogelwelt 123: 225 – 239. 

FRANKLIN, J. (1992): Scientific basis for new perspectives 

in forests and streams. In: Naiman R (Hrsg.): Watershed 

management: balancing sustainability and environment 

change. Springer Verlag, New York, 25 – 72. 

FREDE, A. (2007): Der Nationalpark Kellerwald-Edersee. 

In: Naturschutzgebiete in Hessen Band 4 Landkreis Waldeck- 

Frankenberg mit Nationalpark Kellerwald-Edersee. 

Zierenberg. 

FREDE, A. (2009): Naturwälder in der Nationalpark-Region 

Kellerwald-Edersee – Ein Beitrag zur Urwaldfrage in 

Deutschland. 2. Hessisches Naturwaldforum Buche, 

28. –29. April 2008 in Bad Wildungen. Mitt. Hess. Landesforstverw. 

47: 70 – 78. 

FRENZEL, B. (1967): Die Klimaschwankungen des Eiszeitalters. 

Die Wissenschaft, Band 129, Vieweg & Sohn, 

Braunschweig. 

GIESECKE, T., HICKLER, T., KUNKEL, T., SYSKES, M.T. & 

BRADSHAW, R.H.W. (2006): Towards an understanding 

of the Holocene distribution of Fagus sylvatica L. Journal 

of Biogeography 34: 118 – 131. 

GLASER, F. & HAUKE, U. (2004): Historisch alte Waldstandorte 

und Hudewälder in Deutschland. Bundesamt für 

Naturschutz, Angewandte Landschaftsökologie 61. 

HÄRDTLE, W., WESTPHAL, C., OHEIMB, G. von, FRIEDEL, A. 

& TEMPEL, H. (2003): Sukzessionsforschung in naturnahen 

Buchenwäldern mit langjährig ungestörter Walddynamik 

im Nordostdeutschen Tiefland. Schlussbericht „Zukunftsorientierte 

Waldwirtschaft“, FKZ 0339756, S. 368. 

HAINICH NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY (ed., 2008): Forests 

in the Hainich National Park – results of the 1st permanent 

inventory sampling procedure 1999 – 2001. Series 

“Erforschen”, Vol. 1 

HAINICH NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY (ed., 2009): 

Research report 2008 Yearly updated account containing 

an index of research projects, the most important monitoring 

results, and weather data 

HANSTEIN, U. (2000): Vom Geheimnis des Alterns – am 

Beispiel nordwestdeutscher Tiefland-Buchenwälder. 

Forst u. Holz 55: 477-480. HAMOR, F. & VEEN, P. (ed.) 

(2008): Virgin Forests of Transcarpathia – Inventory and 

Management. Radhiv. 

HEISS, G. (1990): Gutachterliche Stellungnahme zur Ausweisung 

eines Flachland-Buchenwald-Nationalparks 

im Bereich der Grund- und Endmoräne auf dem Staatsgebiet 

der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, im 

Auftrag der FÖNAD, Grafenau. 

HENDRISCHKE, O. (2003): „Verkehrssicherungspflicht in 

Großschutzgebieten“ BfN-Skripten 84. 

HESMER, H.(1938): Die heutige Bewaldung Deutschlands. 

Paul Parey Verlag, Berlin. 

HOFFMANN, A. & PANEK, N. (2006): Machbarkeitsstudie 

für eine UNESCO Weltnaturerbenominierung eines ausgewählten 

deutschen Buchenwaldclusters. Teilprojekt 1: 

Fachwissenschaftlicher Teil im Auftrag des BfN. 

HOFFMANN, B. & PANEK, N. (2007): Europäische Buchenwälder 

als Weltnaturerbe? In: KNAPP, H.D., SPANGENBERG, A. 

(eds.), Europäische Buchenwaldinitiative, BfN-Skripten 

222: 77 – 89. 

HOFMANN, F., KILL, J., MEDER, R., PLACHTER, H. & VOLZ, 

K.R. (2000): Waldnutzung in Deutschland. Bestandsaufnahme, 

Handlungsbedarf und Maßnahmen zur Umsetzung 

des Leitbildes einer nachhaltigen Entwicklung. Materialien 

zu Umweltforschung (Rat von Sachverständigen für 

Umweltfragen 35, Metzler-Poeschl, Stuttgart, S. 316. 

HOHL, R. (Hrsg.) (1985): Die Entwicklungsgeschichte der 

Erde. 6. Auflage, Werner Dausien Verlag, Hanau. 

HUECK, K. (1929): Die Vegetation und die Entwicklungsgeschichte 

des Hochmoores am Plötzendiebel (Uckermark). 

Beitr. Naturdenkmalpfl. 13: 1 – 230. 

JACQUOT, M. & JACQUOT, S. (2008) : Impacts socioéconomiques 

de l’inscription d’un site sur la liste du 

patrimoine mondial : Une revue de la littérature. Polygraphié. 

JAHN, G. (1979): Zur Frage der Buche im nordwestdeutschen 

Flachland. Forstarchiv 50: 85 – 95. 

JAHN, G. (1983): Die Buche auf dem Vormarsch im Flachland 

des nordwestlichen Mitteleuropas. Forstarchiv 54: 

142 – 145. 

JAHN, G. (1984): Eichenmischwälder in Nordwestdeutschland 

– naturnah oder anthropogen? Phytocoenologia 12 

(2 / 3): 363 – 372. 

JESCHKE, L. (1964): Die Vegetation der Stubnitz. Natur 

und Naturschutz Meckl. 2, S. 1 – 154. 


Nationale 


167


JESCHKE, L. (2007): Schutzgebiete und Integrität von Buchenwäldern. 

In: Knapp, H.D. & Spangenberg, A. (eds.), Europäische 

Buchenwaldinitiative, BfN-Skripten 222, 121 – 131. 

JESCHKE, L., LENSCHOW, U. & ZIMMERMANN, H. (2003): 

Die Naturschutzgebiete in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. 

Schwerin, 713 S. 

JOKILETHO, J, (1997): Management and Presentation of 

Cultural Heritage Sites. 

JOKILETHO, J. (2006): Considerations on authenticity 

and integrity in world heritage context: 

http://www.ct.ceci-br.org. 

JOB, H., WOLTERING, M., METZLER, D. & HARRER, B. 

(2008): Abschlussbericht zum BMU-Forschungsprojekt 

(FKZ 806 82 030) „Wirtschaftsfaktor Großschutzgebiete: 

Regionalökonomische Effekte des Tourismus in Nationalen 

Naturlandschaften“ Untersuchungsgebiet: Nationalpark 

Kellerwald-Edersee. Würzburg. 

JORDAN, H. & WEDER, H.-J. (ed.) (1995): Hydrogeologie. 

Grundlagen und Methoden. Regionale Hydrogeologie: 

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Brandenburg und Berlin, 

Sachsen-Anhalt, Sachsen, Thüringen. Ferdinand Enke 

Verlag, Stuttgart, 603 S. 

KELLERWALD-EDERSEE NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY & 

NORDWESTDEUTSCHE FORSTLICHE VERSUCHSANSTALT 

(2009): Results of the permanent inventory sampling 

procedure in the Kellerwald-Edersee National Park. 

Un published manuscript, Göttingen. 

KNAPP, H.D. (2005): Die globale Bedeutung der Kaspischen 

Wälder. In: Schutz der Biologischen Vielfalt und integriertes 

Management der Kaspischen Wälder (Nordiran). BfN, 

Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 12. 

KNAPP, H.D. (2007): Buchenwälder als spezifi sches Naturerbe 

Europas. In: KNAPP, H.D., SPANGENBERG, A. (eds). Europäische 

Buchenwaldinitiative. BfN-Skripten 222: 13 – 39. 

KNAPP, H.D. (2008) Gedanken über sommergrüne Breitlaubwälder: 

Feddes Repertorium 119: 526 – 542. 

KNAPP, H.D. (2009): Buchenwälder als europäisches Naturerbe. 

2. Hessisches Naturwaldforum Buche. 28. – 29. April 2008 in 

Bad Wildungen. Mitt. Hess. Landesforstverwaltung 47: 13 – 19. 

KNAPP, H.D., EMDE, FA., ENGELS, B., LEHRKE, S., 

HENDRISCHKE, O., KLEIN, M., KLUTTIG, H., KRUG, A., 

SCHÄFER, H.J., SCHERFOSE, V., SCHRÖDER, E. & SCHWEPPE- 

KRAFT, B. (2008): Naturerbe Buchenwälder. Situationsanalyse 

und Handlungserfordernisse. Bundesamt für 

Naturschutz. 

KNAPP, H.D. & ESPING, L.-E. (1997): Welt-Naturerbe in 

Deutschland? Nationalpark Nr. 95 (2 / 97): 8 – 14. 

KNAPP, H.D. & JESCHKE, L. (1991): Naturwaldreservate 

und Naturwaldforschung in den ostdeutschen Bundesländern. 

Schriftenreihe für Vegetationskunde 21: 21 – 54. 

KRUPPA, J. (2000): GIS-gestützte Analyse und Bewertung 

der Entstehung, Verbreitung und Funktion von Böden im 

Nationalpark Hainich. Diplomarbeit Universität Marburg, 

Fachbereich Geographie. 

KÖLLING, C., WALENTOWSKI, H. & BORCHERT, H. (2005): 

Die Buche in Mitteleuropa. AFZ – Der Wald 13: 696 – 701. 

KÖNIG, H. & BOUVRON, M. (2005): Die ökologische Flächenstichprobe 

als Beitrag zur FFH Berichtspflicht. LÖBF-Mitteilungen 

3: 20 – 25. 

KORPEL, S. (1995): Die Urwälder der Westkarpaten. 

Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart. 

KRUSE, A., PAULOWITZ, B. & KRUCKENBERG, H. (2009): 

Requirements for the management of protected areas 

according to the UNESCO World Heritage Convention 

and IUCN Categories. Hungarian Journal of Landscape 

Ecology 7(1): 209 – 227. 

LANG, G. (1994): Quartäre Vegetationsgeschichte Europas. 

Fischer Verlag, Jena. 

LANGE, E., JESCHKE, L. & KNAPP, H.D. (1986): Ralswiek 

und Rügen. Landschaftsentwicklung und Siedlungsgeschichte 

der Ostseeinsel. Teil I. Die Landschaftsgeschichte 

der Insel Rügen seit dem Spätglazial. – In: Schriften zur 

Ur- und Frühgeschichte. – Berlin 38 (1986), S. 1 – 175. 

LEIBNITZ INSTITUT FÜR LÄNDERKUNDE (Hrsg.) (2003): 

Nationalatlas Deutschland. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag. 

LEUSCHNER, C. (1998): Mechanismen der Konkurrenzüber legenheit 

der Rotbuche. Berichte der Reinh. Tüxen-Ges. 10: 5 – 18. 

LEONARDI, S. & MENOZZI, P. (1995): Genetic variability 

of Fagus sylvatica L. in Italy: the role of postglacial 

recolonization. Heredity 75, 35 – 44. 

LEUSCHNER, C., RODE, MW. & HEINKEN, T. (1993): Gibt es 

eine Nährstoffmangel-Grenze der Buche im nordwestdeutschen 

Flachland? Flora 188: 239 – 249. 

LÓPEZ-MERINO, L., LÓPEZ-SÁEZ, J.A., RUIZ ZAPATA, M.B. & 

GIL GARCÍA, M.J. (2008): Reconstructing the history of 

beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in the north-western Iberian 

Range (Spain): From Late-Glacial refugia to the Holocene 

anthropic-induced forests. Review of Palaeobotany and 

Palynology 152, Issues 1 – 2: 58 – 65. 

LÜBCKE, W., SCHLOTE, M. & BREßLER, W. (2004): Ergebnisse 

der Spechtkartierung 2004 im Nationalpark Kellerwald- 

Edersee. – unveröffentlicht. 

LUTHARDT, M.E., SCHULZ, R. & WULF, M. (2004): Ein Buchenwald 

im Wandel der Zeit - 300 Jahre Nutzungsgeschichte 

im Grumsiner Forst. Natur und Text, Rangsdorf, S. 102. 

LUTHARDT, M.E. (2007): Vom Wirtschaftswald zum Weltnaturerbe? 

Zur Entwicklung des Grumsiner Forstes. 

Naturmagazin 2 / 2008: 34 – 35. 

LUTHARDT, M.E. (2008): Buchenwälder im Grumsiner 

Forst als UNESCO-Weltnaturerbe nominiert. Naturschutz 

und Landschaftspflege in Brandenburg 16 (2): 54 – 56. 

MAGRI, D., VENDRAMIN, G., COMPS, B., DUPANLOUP, I., 

GEBUREK, T., GOMORY, D., LATALOWA, M., LITT, T., PAULE, L., 

ROURE, J.M., TANTAU, I., VAN DER KNAAP, WO., PETIT, R.J. 

& DE BEAULIEU, J.L. (2006): A new scenario for the 

Quaternary history of European beech populations: 

palaeobotanical evidence and genetic consequences 

New Phytologist, 171 (1): 199 – 221. 

MANTHEY, M., LEUSCHNER, C. & HÄRDTLE, W. (2007): 

Buchenwälder und Klimawandel. Natur und Landschaft 

82 (9 / 10): 441 – 445. 

MESCHEDE, A. & HELLER, KG. (2000): Ökologie und Schutz 

von Fledermäusen in Wäldern. Schriftenreihe für Landschaftspflege 

und Naturschutz 66. 

MEUSEL, H., JÄGER, E., RAUSCHERT, S. & WEINERT, E. 

(1965 & 1978): Vergleichende Chorologie der zentraleuropäischen 

Flora. Band 1 und 2. Gustav Fischer Jena. 

MEUSEL, H. & JÄGER, E. (1992): Vergleichende Chorologie 

der zentraleuropäischen Flora, Karten, Band 3. 

Gustav Fischer Jena.

MITCHELL-JONES, A.J., AMORI, G., BOGDANOWICZ, W., 

KRYSTUFEK, B., REIJNDERS, P.J.H., SPITZENBERGER, F., 

STUBBE, M., THISSEN, J.B.M., VOHRALIK, V. & ZIMA, J. 

(1999): The Atlas of European Mammals. Academic Press, 

London. 

MÖLLER, G. (1994): Dendroentomologische Untersuchungen 

zur Pflege- und Entwicklungsplanung in der Kernzone 

Serrahn des Müritz-Nationalparks (Zwischenbericht), 

unveröff., Berlin. 

MÖLLER, G. (2005): Großhöhlen als Zentrum der biologischen 

Vielfalt in Wäldern unter besonderer Berücksichtigung 

von Holzinsekten und Pilzen. In: HOLST, S. (Hrsg): 

Der Schwarzspecht: Indikator alter Waldökosysteme. 

Tagungsband. Deutsche Wildtierstiftung: 95 – 109. 

MUCINA, L. & MAGLOCKY, S. (eds.)(1985): A list of vegetation 

units of Slovakia. Documents phytosociologiques, 

Camerino, NS 9: 175B220 

MÜLLER, H. (1961): Pollenanalytische Untersuchungen 

im Bereich des Meßtischblattes Thurow / Südostmecklenburg. 

Dissertation, Universität Halle, Halle. 

MÜLLER, J. (2005): Waldstrukturen als Steuergröße für 

Artengemeinschaften in kollinen bis submontanen 

Buchenwäldern. Dissertation / TU München, Wissenschaftszentrum 

Weihenstephan. 

MÜLLER, J., BUßLER, H., BENSE, U., BRUSTEL, H., FLECHTNER, 

G., FOWLES, A., KAHLEN, M., MÖLLER, G., MÜHLE, H., 

SCHMIDL, J. & ZABRANSKY, P. (2005a). Urwald relict 

species – Saproxylic beetles indicating structural qualities 

and habitat tradition. Waldoekologie online 2: 106 – 113. 

MÜLLER, J., BUßLER, H. & DORKA, V. (2005b): Karpatenwälder 

als Bezugsfl ächen für mitteleuropäische Urwälder. 

AFZ-Der Wald 9: 482 – 484. 

MÜRITZ NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY (ed., 2006): 

Research and Monitoring 1990 – 2006. 

NICKEL, E. (2007): Buchenwälder als deutscher / europäischer 

Beitrag zum Waldarbeitsprogramm der CBD. In: KNAPP, H.D. 

& SPANGENBERG, A. (eds.), Europäische Buchenwaldinitiative, 

BfN-Skripten 222: 7 – 12. 

NICKEL, E. (2008): „Einwanderungsland Deutschland“ 

– Zur Zukunft von Artenschutz und Wildnis. Benediktbeurener 

Gespräche der Allianz Umweltstiftung 2008: 47 – 59. 

NICOT, B.-H. & BURÇO, O. (2008): Les impacts socio-économiques 

de l’inscription sur la liste du Patrimoine 

Mondial : Deux comparaisons en Turquie. Polygraphié. 

OTTO, H.-J.(1994): Waldökologie. Verlag Eugen Ulmer, 

Stuttgart. 

PAGEL, H.-U. (1970): Vegetation, Standort und Ertrag von 

Buchenwäldern der südlichen Uckermark. Arch. F. Forstwesen 

19 (1): 43 – 76. 

PALEIT, J., ROCHARZ, K. & SCHULTE, A. (1998): Vogelkundliche 

Gesichtspunkte zum Management des geplanten 

Nationalparks Kellerwald. Vogel und Umwelt 9: 247 – 277. 

PALEIT, J. (2002): Avifaunistische Bestandsabschätzungen 

für das NATURA 2000-Gebiet „Kellerwald“. Jahrbuch 

Naturschutz in Hessen 7: 63 – 68 

PALEIT, J. (2007): First ornithological monitoring results 

from the Kellerwald-Edersee National Park. Vogelkundliche 

Hefte Edertal 33: 31 – 42, Korbach. 

PANEK, N. (2008): Rotbuchenwälder in Deutschland 

– Beitrag zur Umsetzung einer Schutzstrategie. Naturschutz 

und Landschaftsplanung 40 (5): 140 – 146. 

PAULOWITZ, B., STRASSER, P. & KRUSE, A. (2008): Audit 

UNESCO-Welterbeeinreichung Kulturlandschaft Bregenzer 

Wald. – Abschlussbericht, unveröffentlicht. 

PETERS, R. (1997): Beech Forests. The Netherlands: Kluwer 

Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. 

PETERSEN, B., ELLWANGER, G., BLESS, R., BOYE, P., 

SCHRÖDER, E. & SSYMANK, A. (2004): Das europäische 

Schutzgebietssystem NATURA 2000. Ökologie und 

Verbreitung von Arten der FFH Richtlinie in Deutschland, 

Band 2 Wirbeltiere. Schriftenreihe für Landschaftspflege 

und Naturschutz 69. 

PLACHTER, H., GRÄFF, F. & SCHMIDT, P. A. (2006): 

Machbarkeitsstudie für eine UNESCO-Weltnaturerbenominierung 

eines ausgewählten deutschen Buchenwaldclusters. 

Teilprojekt 2: Strategisch-logistischer Teil 

im Auftrag des BfN. 

PLACHTER, H., HOFFMANN, A., PANEK, N. & SCHMIDT, P. A. 

(2007): Europäische Rotbuchenwälder als Naturstätte auf 

der Welterbeliste der UNESCO. Natur und Landschaft 82 

(9 / 10): 446 – 450. 

PLACHTER, H., HOFFMANN, A., PANEK, N. & SCHMIDT, P.A. 

(2008): European Beech forests as natural site on the 

World Heritage List of UNESCO. BfN-Skripten 233: 53 – 60. 

PLACHTER, H., KRUSE, A. & KRUCKENBERG, H. (2006): 

Screening potenzieller deutscher Naturwerte für das 

UNESCO-Welterbeübereinkommen. BfN-Skripten 177, 

Bad Godesberg. 

POTT, R. (1992): Nacheiszeitliche Entwicklung des Buchenareals 

und der mitteleuropäischen Buchenwaldgesellschaften. 

In: Naturschutzzentrum NRW, Seminarberichte 

12 – Buchenwaldökosysteme – Naturerbe Mitteleuropas. 

Recklinghausen: 6 – 18. 

POTT, R. (1993): Farbatlas Waldlandschaften. Verlag Eugen 

Ulmer, Stuttgart. 

POTT, R. (2000): Palaeoclimate and vegetation – long-term 

vegetation dynamics in central Europe with particular 

reference to beech. Phytocoenologia 30 (3-4): 285 – 333. 

PRESTON, C. D., PEARMANN, D. A. & DINES, T. D. (2003): 

New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora. Oxford, 910 p. 

PRILL, H. (1994): Brutvogeldichte im Teilgebiet Serrahn 

des Müritz-Nationalpark. – unveröffentlicht 

RABIUS, E.-W. & HOLZ, R. (1993): Naturschutz in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. 

Demmler, Schwerin. 

RANIUS, T. (2002): Osmoderma eremita as indicator of 

species richness of beetles in hollows. Biodiversity and 

Conservation 11: 931 – 941. 

REMMERT, H. (1997): Terrestrische Systeme. Springer 

Verlag, Heidelberg / Berlin. 

REUTER, G. (1958): Tendenzen der Bodenentwicklung 

im Küstenbezirk Mecklenburg. Habil.-Schrift, Wiss. 

Abhandlung Nr. 49 d. DAL Berlin, 1962. 

RINGBECK, B. (2008): Managementpläne für Welterbestätten. 

DUK, Bonn. 

SCHÄFER, J. & HORNSCHUCH, F. (1998): Standort und 

Vegetation der Wälder, Moore und Sümpfe im Naturschutzgebiet 

„Grumsiner Forst“. Dipl.arbeit Ernst-Moritz- 

Arndt-Universität Greifswald, 234 S. 

SCHERFOSE, V., HOFFMANN, A., JESCHKE, L., PANEK, N., 

RIECKEN, U. & SSYMANK, A. (2007): Gefährdung und 

Schutz von Buchenwäldern in Deutschland. Natur und 

Landschaft 82 (9 / 10): 416 – 422. 


Nationale 


169


SCHERZINGER, W. (1996): Naturschutz im Wald. Ulmer 

Verlag, Stuttgart. 

SCHMIDT, M., EWALD, J., FISCHER, A., von OHEIMB, G., 

KRIEBITZSCH, W.U., ELLENBERG, H. & SCHMIDT, W. (2003): 

Liste der in Deutschland typischen Waldgefäßpflanzen. 

Mitteilungen der Bundesforschungsanstalt für Forst- und 

Holzwirtschaft 212. Verlag M. Wiedebusch, Hamburg, 68 S. 

SCHNEIDER, J. (2008): Ein Buchennaturwaldkataster für 

Europa – Erprobung und Modifikation der Bewertungsmethode 

am Beispiel ausgewählter Buchenwaldbestände 

in Deutschland. Dipl.-Arbeit / FH Osnabrück, Buchenwaldinstitut. 

SCHROEDER, F.-G. (1998): Lehrbuch der Pfl anzengeographie. 

Verlag Quelle Meyer, Wiesbaden. 

SCHUMACHER, H. (2006): Zum Einfluss forstlicher Bewirtschaftung 

auf die Avifauna von Rotbuchenwäldern im 

nordostdeutschen Tiefland. Cuvillier Verlag, Göttingen. 

SCHURIG, B. (1995): Pilzfloristische Erfassung auf 4 ausgewählten 

Untersuchungsflächen im Müritz-Nationalpark 

sowie eine Altdatenerfassung für den ganzen Nationalpark. 

Gutachten im Auftrag des Nationalparkamtes 

M-V, Waren (Müritz). 

SIMON, O., GOEBEL, W. & SCHELKE, K. (2008): Succession 

research and monitoring in the Kellerwald-Edersee National 

Park: Vegetation development and browsing damage in 

the Kellerwald-Edersee National Park – recommendations 

for wildlife management. Report for 2008. Institute for 

Animal Ecology and Nature Education. Unpublished 

assessment by order of the Kellerwald-Edersee National 

Park Authority, Gonterskirchen. 

SPEIER, M. (2006): Holozäne Dynamik der Europäischen 

Rotbuche (Fagus sylvatica) in der regionalen Waldentwicklung 

des Westfälischen Berglandes. Decheniana 159: 

5 – 21, Bonn. 

SPERBER, G. (2002): Buchenwälder – deutsches Herzstück 

im europäischem Schutzgebietssystem NATURA 2000. 

Jahrbuch des Verein zum Schutz der Bergwelt 67: 167 – 194. 

STRASBURGER, E. (1991): Lehrbuch der Botanik für Hochschulen. 

Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart. 

STOVEL, H (2007): Eff ective use of authencity and integrity 

as world heritage qualifying conditions. City & Time 2 

(3).3. online: www.ct.ceci-br.org. 

STOVEL, H. (1998): Risk preparedness: A Management 

Manual for World Cultural Heritage, ICCROM. 

SYKES, M.T., PRENTICE, I.C. & CRAMER, W. (1996): A bioclimatic 

model for the potential distributions of north 

European tree species under present and future climates. 

Journal of Biogeography 23: 203 – 233. 

SYNGE, H. (ed.) (1998): Parks for Life 97. Proceedings of 

the IUCN / WCPA European Regional Working Session on 

Protecting Europe’s Natural Heritage. November 9 – 13, 

1997, Island of Rügen, Germany, 97 p. 

TABAKU, V. (2000): Struktur von Buchen-Urwäldern in 

Albanien im Vergleich mit deutschen Buchen-Naturwaldreservaten 

und -Wirtschaftswäldern. Cuvillier Verlag, 

Göttingen, S. 206. 

TALANDIER, P. & MAGALI (2008) : Le classement UNESCO 

favorise-t-il l’activite touristique et le developpement 

economique local? Une étude économétrique du cas de 

la France. Polygraphie. 

THORNTHWAITE, CW. (1948): An approach toward a rational 

classification of climate. Geogr. Rev. 38: 55 – 94. 

UNIVERSITY OF LÜNEBURG, INSTITUTE FOR ECOLOGY 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTRY, (ed., 2003): Succession 

research in near-natural beech forests with a long tradition 

of undisturbed forest dynamics in the north-eastern lowlands 

of Germany 

VISNJIC, C. & DOHRENBUSCH, A. (2004): Frostresistenz 

und Phänologie europäischer Buchenprovenienzen (Fagus 

sylvatica L.). Allg. Forst- u. Jagd-Zeitschrift 6: 101 – 108. 

WALTER, H. & STRAKA, H. (1970): Arealkunde: Floristischhistorische 

Geobotanik. Ulmer Verlag, Stuttgart. 

WATTENMEERSEKRETARIAT (2008): Nomination of the 

Dutch-German Wadden Sea as World Heritage Site. 

Wadden Sea Ecosystem No 24-2008. 

WIEHLE, W. (1994): Bryophytenfl ora des Müritz-Nationalpark. 

Gutachten im Auftrag des Nationalparkamtes M-V, 

Waren (Müritz). 

WILHELM, G. (2009): „Neuer Wald für die Natur”. Gutachten 

(keine weiteren Angaben vorhanden). 

WILMANNS, O. (1989): Die Buchen und ihre Lebensräume. 

Rintelner Symposium I. Berichte der Reinhold-Tüxen- 

Gesellschaft (Hrsg. POTT, R.), Goltze, Göttingen: 49 – 72. 

WINTER, K. (1999): Programm zur Untersuchung der 

Fauna in Naturwäldern. IHW-Verl., Eching. 

WINTER, S. (2005): Ermittlung von strukturellen Indikatoren 

zur Abschätzung des Einflusses forstlicher Bewirtschaftung 

auf die Biozönosen von Tiefland-Buchenwäldern. 

Dissertation TU Dresden, S. 322. 

WINTER, S., FLADE, M., SCHUMACHER, H. & MÖLLER, G. 

(Hrsg.) (2003): Naturschutzstandards für die Bewirtschaftung 

von Buchenwäldern im nordostdeutschen Tiefland. 

F&E-Vorhaben, BfN. 

WINTER, S., MÖLLER, G. & ASSATZK, S. (2004): Der Eremit 

– Ansprüche, Vorkommen und Lebenschancen im NSG 

Stechlin. In: Flade, M. & Lütkepohl, M. (Hrsg.): Das Naturschutzgebiet 

Stechlin. Natur & Text, 153 – 160. 

WINTER, S. & MÖLLER, G. (2008): Microhabitats in Lowland 

Beech Forests as monitoring tool for Nature Conservation. 

Forest ecology and Management 255: 1251 – 1261. 

WÖRLER, K., BURMESTER, A. & STOLPE, G. (2006): Evaluierung 

der Managementeffektivität in deutschen Großschutzgebieten. 

BfN-Skripten 173. 

WULF, M. (1994): Überblick zur Bedeutung des Alters von 

Lebensgemeinschaften, dargestellt am Beispiel „historisch 

alter Wälder“. NNA-Berichte 7 (3): 3 – 14. 

ZIEGENHAGEN, B. (2009): Die Buche im rechtsrheinischen 

Schiefergebirge - Einwanderungsgeschichte und Status 

ihrer genetischen Diversität. 2. Hessisches Naturwaldforum 

Buche, 28. – 29. April 2008 in Bad Wildungen. Mitt. Hess. 

Landesforstverw. 47: 4 – 10. 

ZUKRIGL, K., ECKHARDT, G. & NATHER, J. (1963): Standortskundliche 

und waldbauliche Untersuchungen in 

Urwaldresten der niederösterreichischen Kalkalpen. 

Mitteilungen der forstlichen. Bundesversuchsanstalt, Wien.


Nationale 


171


Tab. 8.1: Regional coordination 

Name Title 

Karin 

Kaiser 

Address: 

city, province, country: 

Dr. Hessian Ministry of the Environment, 

Energy, Agriculture and Consumer 

Protection 

Post offi ce box 3109 

65021 Wiesbaden 


Tilo Geisel Dr. Ministry of Environment, Health and 

Consumer Protection Brandenburg 

Department 4, Division Forest Ecology 

Post offi ce box 60 11 50 

14411 Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany 

Olaf 

Dieckmann 

8. Contact Information 

of responsible authorities 

8.a Preparer 

Primary coordination: 

Name: Manfred Großmann 

Title: Director 

Address: Nationalparkverwaltung Hainich, Bei der Marktkirche 9 

City, province, country: D-99947 Bad Langensalza, Th uringia, Germany 

Tel: +49 (0)3603 390713 

Fax: +49 (0)03603 390720 

E-mail: manfred.grossmann@forst.thueringen.de 

Regional coordination: 

Ministry of Agriculture, Environment 

and Consumer Protection 


Dreescher Markt 2 

19053 Schwerin 

Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Germany 

Telphone / Fax E-mail 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)611 8151652 

Fax: 

+49 (0)611 8151973 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)331 866779-0 

Fax: 

+49 (0)331 275487790 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)385 5886631 

Fax: 

+49 (0)385 5886037 

karin.kaiser@hmuelv.hessen.de 

tilo.geisel@mugv.brandenburg.de 

olaf.dieckmann@ 

lu.mv-regierung.de

Contributing federal authorities 

Name Title 

Heike 

Britz 

Barbara 

Engels 

Hans D. 

Knapp 

Institution 

Mecklenburg-West 

Pomerania National Park 

Offi ce 

(for Jasmund) 


Offi ce 

(for Serrahn) 



(for Grumsin) 

Hainich 




Prof. 

Dr. 

8.b Offi cial Local 

Institution / Agency 

Address: 

city, province, country 

Federal Ministry for the Environment, 

Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety 

Robert-Schuman-Platz 3 

53175 Bonn 

North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany 

Federal Agency for Nature Conservation 

Konstantinstraße 110 

53179 Bonn 

North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany 

International Academy for Nature 

Conservation, Federal Agency for Nature 

Conservation - Field Offi ce Vilm 

Island of Vilm, 18581 Lauterbach / Rügen 


Address: 


Im Forst 5 

18375 Born 


Germany 




Germany 

Hoher Steinweg 5 6 






Laustraße 8 



8. CONTACT INFORMATION OF RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITIES 


Telephone: 

+49 (0)228 99305-0 

Fax: 

+49 (0)228 99305-3225 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)228 8491-0 

Fax: 

+49 (0)228 8491-9999 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)38301 86-0 

Fax: 

+49 (0)38301 86-117 


Telephone: 

+49 (0)38234 502-0 

Fax: 

+49 (0)38234 502-24 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)39824 252-0 

Fax: 

+49 (0)39824 252-50 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3331 3654-0 

Fax: 

+49 (0)3331 3654-10 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3603 3907-0 

Fax: 

+49 (0)3603 3907-20 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)5621 75249-0 

Fax: 

+49 (0)5621 75249-19 

Tab. 8.2: Contributing federal 

authorities 

www.bmu.de 

www.bfn.de 

ina.vilm@bfn-vilm.de 

www.bfn.de/06_akademie_ 

natursch.htm 

Tab. 8.3: 

Official local institution 



poststelle@npa-mueritz. 

mvnet.de 


br-schorfheide-chorin@lua. 

brandenburg.de 




info@nationalpark-kellerwaldedersee.dewww.nationalpark-kellerwaldedersee.de 

Nationale 


173


Tab. 8.4: Local Institution 

– Jasmund 

Institution 

Jasmund 

Address: 


Kreidefelsen.de G.b.R. Johanniskloster 28 

18439 Stralsund 


Woldwide Fund for 

Nature (WWF) 

Deutschland 

Kreidemuseum 

Gummanz 

Rügener Personennahverkehrs 

GmbH (RPNV) 

Rügenbio GmbH 

Hofgut-Bisdamitz 

Tourismusverband 

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 

e. V. 

Tourismuszentrale 

Rügen GmbH 


– Serrahn 

Institution 

ibena Müritz&Natur 

Reiseservice 

Knieper Wall 1 

18439 Stralsund 


Germany 

Gummanz 3a 

18551 Sagard 


Tilzower Weg 33 

18528 Bergen auf Rügen 


Germany 

Dorfstraße 1 

18551 Lohme 


Germany 

Platz der Freundschaft 1 

18059 Rostock 


Germany 

Bahnhofstraße 15 

18528 Bergen auf Rügen 


Germany 

Serrahn 

Address: 


An der Nicolaikirche 

17209 Röbel / Müritz 


Germany 

Müritz-Wild Specker Straße 9 a 

17192 Waren (Müritz) 


Germany 

Nationalpark-Service Informationshaus 

17192 Federow 


Germany 

Waren (Müritz) 

Information 

8.c Other Local Institutions 

Neuer Markt 21 



Germany 


Telephone: 

+49 (0)171 4162757 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3831 297018 

Fax: 

+49 (0)3831 297599 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)38302 56229 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3838 822931 

Fax: 

+49 (0)3838 822929 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)38302 9207 

Fax: 

+49 (0)38302 90199 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)381 4030500 

Fax: 

+49 (0)381 4030555 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3838 807747 

Fax: 

+49 (0)3838 254440 

redaktion@kreidefelsen.de 

www.kreidefelsen.de 

lamp@wwf.de 

www.wwf.de 

kreidemuseum@web.de 

www.kreidemuseum.de 

marketing@rpnv.de 

www.rpnv.de 

ruegenbio@hofgut-bisdamitz.de 

www.hofgut-bisdamitz.de 

presse@auf-nach-mv.de 

www.auf-nach-mv.de 

patrunky@ruegen.de 

www.ruegen.de 


Telephone: 

+49 (0)39931 51809 

Fax: 

+49 (0)39931 51809 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3991 662787 

Fax: 

+49 (0)3991 669155 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3991 668849 

Fax: 

+49 (0)3991 666994 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3991 666183 

Fax: 

+49 (0)3991 664330 

reiseservice_ibena@t-online.de 

www.reiseservice-mueritz.de 

info@mueritz-wild.de 

www.mueritz-wild.de 

info@nationalpark-service.de 

www.nationalpark-service.de 

info@waren-tourismus.de 

www.waren-tourismus.de

Tourismusverein 

Havelquellseen e. V. 

Dorfstraße 24 

17237 Kratzeburg 


Germany 

Seenland Müritz GmbH Dudel 1 

17207 Bollewick 


Germany 

ODEG Ostdeutsche 

Eisenbahn GmbH 

Eitelstraße 85 / 86 

10317 Berlin 

Berlin, Germany 

Müritzeum gGmbH Friedensstraße 5 



Germany 

Müritz online 

– digitales Marketing 

Kurverwaltung 

Feldberger 

Seenlandschaft 

Tourismusverband 

»Mecklenburgische 

Seenplatte« e. V. 

Touristinformation der 

Stadt Neustrelitz 

Touristinformation 

Wesenberg 

Tourist-Information 

Mirow 

Tourist-Information 

Rechlin 

Touristinfo 

Neubrandenburg 

Fremdenverkehrsverein 

Serrahn-Wanzka 

Warendorfer Straße 20 



Germany 

Strelitzer Straße 42 

17258 Feldberg 


Turnplatz 2 

17207 Röbel / Müritz 


Germany 

Strelitzer Straße 1 

17235 Neustrelitz 


Germany 

Burg 1 

17255 Wesenberg 


Germany 

Im Torhaus 

17252 Mirow 


Germany 

Neuer Markt 2 

17248 Rechlin 


Germany 

Stargarder Straße 17 

17033 Neubrandenburg 


Germany 

Lindenstraße 17 

17237 Blankensee 



Telephone: 

+49 (0)700 38842835 

Fax: 

+49 (0)39822 20307 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)39931 539702 

Fax: 

+49 (0)39931 539704 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)30 514888812 

Fax: 

+49 (0)30 51488 8814 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3991 6336811 

Fax: 

+49 (0)3991 63368 10 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3991 634691 

Fax: 

+49 (0)3991 634692 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)39831 270-0 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)39931 5380 

Fax: 

+49 (0)39931 53828 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3981 253-119 

Fax: 

+49 (0)3981 2396870 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)39832 20621 

Fax: 

+49 (0)39832 203 83 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3981 253119 

Fax: 

+49 (0)3981 28022 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)39823 21261 

Fax: 

+49 (0)39823 21267 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)1805 170330 

Fax: 

+49 (0)395 5667661 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)39826 12315 

info@havelquellseen.de 

www.havelquellseen.de 

info@seenland-mueritz.de 

www.seenland-mueritz.de 

joerg.kiehn@odeg.info 

www.odeg.info 

t.kohler@mueritzeum.de 

www.mueritzeum.de 

roger.heinzel@t-online.de 

www.mueritz.de 

willkommen@feldberg.de 

info@mecklenburgischeseenplatte.de 

touristinformation@ 

neustrelitz.de 

info@wesenbergmecklenburg.de 

tourismus-rechlin@t-online.de 

info@serrahn-wanzka.de 

Nationale 


175


Institution 

TourismusService 

Templin e.V. 

TourismusMarketing 

Uckermark GmbH 


Angermünde e. V. 


Uckerseen e. V. 

Tourismuszentrum 

Eberswalde 


Schorfheide 


Krafthaus Niederfi now 


Eichhorst 

Wirtschafts- und 

Tourismusentwicklungsgesellschaft 

mbH 

NABU- Informationszentrum 

„Blumberger Mühle“ 

Umweltpädagogische 

Station 

Groß Fredenwalde e.V. 

Address: 


Obere Mühlenstraße 11 

17268 Templin 


Grabowstraße 6 

17291 Prenzlau 


Brüderstraße 20 



Lindenallee 27 

17291 Oberuckersee / OT Warnitz 


Am Alten Walzwerk 1 

16227 Eberswalde 


Schlossstraße 6 

16244 Schorfheide / 

OT Groß Schönebeck 


Lieper Schleuse – Parkplatz 6 

16248 Niederfi now 


Am Werbellinkanal 13 A / B 

16244 Schorfheide OT Eichhorst 


Alfred-Nobel-Straße 1 



Blumberger Mühle 2 




17268 Groß Fredenwalde 


Berliner Tor Berliner Straße 27 

17268 Templin 


Haus der Naturpfl ege e. V. Dr.-Max-Kienitz-Weg 2 

16259 Bad Freienwalde 


Alte Schule Stegelitz e. V. Dorfstraße 37 

17268 Flieth-Stegelitz 


Ehm Welk- und 

Heimatmuseum 

Grumsin 

Puschkinallee 10 



Biorama Projekt Am Wasserturm 1, (Töpferstraße) 

16247 Joachimsthal 


Telephone E-mail 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3987 2631 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3984 7180748 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3331 297660 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)39863 78122 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3334 645020 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)33393 65777 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)33362 71377 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3335 330934 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3334 59100 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3331 2604-0 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)39887 4731 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3987 3275 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3344 3582 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)39887 61173 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3331 33381 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)33361 64931 

templin-info@t-online.de 

info@tourismus-uckermark.de 

info@angermuendetourismus.de 

ferienregionuckerseen@yahoo.de 

tourist-info@eberswalde.de 

touristinfo.schorfheide.gs@ 

barnim.de 

krafthaus@amt-bco.de 

touristinfo-ei@gemeindeschorfheide.de 

grassow-wito@barnim.de 

Blumberger.Muehle@NABU.de 

kontakt@fww-schule.de 

info@berlinertor-templin.de 

verein@haus-der-naturpfl ege.de 

alte_schule_stegelitz@freenet.de 

info@museumangermuende.de 

info@biorama-projekt.org

Denkmale Glambeck e. V. Wolletzer Weg 1 

16247 Parlow-Glambeck 


Infoladen 

„Am Kreuzdammeck“ 

Waldschule Reiersdorf, 

Oberförsterei 

Speicher 

„Kranichdorf Parlow“ 

Wildpark Schorfheide 

gGmbH 

BUND 

– Ökostation Prenzlau 


17268 Ringenwalde 


Reiersdorf 3 

17268 Templin OT Gollin 


Hof 25 

16247 Parlow 


Prenzlauer Straße 16 

16244 Schorfheide / OT Groß Schönebeck 


Am Scharfrichtersee 2 a 

17291 Prenzlau 


Wald- Solar- Heim Brunnenstraße 25 



Schorfheide-Info Töpferstraße 1 

16247 Joachimsthal 


Hainich 

Institution 

Hainichland – Tourismusverband 

der Thüringer 

Nationalparkregion e. V. 

Kur- und Immobilienverwaltungsgesellschaft 

Bad Langensalza mbH 

Thüringer Tourismus 

GmbH 

Eisenach Wartburgregion 

Touristik GmbH 

Address: 





Erfurter Straße 4 



Willy-Brandt-Platz 1 

99084 Erfurt 


Markt 9 

99817 Eisenach 



Telephone: 

+49 (0)33361 70265 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)39881 49131 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)39882 360 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)33361 649064 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)33393 65855 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3984 806000 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3334 2892-45 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)33361 63380 

Telephone / Fax E-mail 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3603 892658 

Fax: 

+49 (0)3603 892673 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3603 82580 

Fax: 

+49 (0)3603 825820 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)361 37420 

Fax: 

+49 (0)361 3742388 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3691 79230 

Fax: 

+49 (0)3691 792320 

glambeck-ev@barnim.de 

info@Kranichland-verein.de 

Bernd.Koch@AFFTP.Brandenburg.de 

oeko-log@t-online.de 

info@wildpark-schorfheide.de 

oekostationprenzlau@web.de 

info@waldsolarheim.de 

br-joachimsthal@web.de 


– Grumsin 

info@hainichland.de 

info@wbg-bad-langensalza.de 

service@thueringentourismus.de 

info@eisenach.info 


– Hainich 

Nationale 


177



Mühlhausen 

Deutsches 

Jugendherbergswerk 

LV Thüringen e. V. 

Ratsstraße 20 

99974 Mühlhausen 


Zum Wilden Graben 12 

99425 Weimar 


Werratal Touristik e. V. Markt 9 

99817 Eisenach 


Touristinformation VG 

Mihla 

KulTourStadt Gotha 

GmbH 

Harsberg 

Urwald-Life-Camp 

Besucherzentrum 

Kammerforst 

Nationalparkzentrum 

Thiemsburg 

Am Schloss 6 

99826 Berka v. d. H. 


Hauptmarkt 17 

99867 Gotha 


Harsbergstraße 4 

99826 Lauterbach 


Straße der Einheit 

99986 Kammerforst 


Thiemsburg am Baumkronenpfad 

99947 Bad Langensalza / OT Alterstedt 


ReKo GmbH Rumbachstraße 9 



Besucherzentrum 

Harsberg 

Naturkundemuseum 

Erfurt 

Harsbergstraße 4 

99826 Lauterbach 


Große Arche 14 

99084 Erfurt 


Mühlhäuser Museen Kristanplatz 7 

99974 Mühlhausen 


Museum der Natur Parkallee 15 

99867 Gotha 


Telephone: 

+49 (0)3601 40477-0 

Fax: 

+49 (0)3601 40477-11 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3643 850795 

Fax: 

+49 (0)3643 850796 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3691 79230 

Fax: 

+49 (0)3691 792320 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)36924 38018 

Fax: 

+49 (0)36924 38015 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3621 510430 

Fax: 

+49 (0)3621 510449 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)36924 47865 

Fax: 

+49 (0)36924 47864 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)36028 36893 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3603 892464 

Fax: 

+49 (0)3603 892521 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3603 844550 

Fax: 

+49 (0)3603 844573 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)36924 47586 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)361 6555680 

Fax: 

+49 (0)361 6555689 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3601 85660 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)3621 82300 

Fax: 

+49 (0)3621 823020 

service@touristinfomuehlhausen.de 

info@djh-thueringen.de 

info@werratal.de 

tourismus-info@vg-mihla.de 

info@kultourstadt.de 

jh-harsberg@djh-thueringen.de 

npinfo.kammerforst@forst. 

thueringen.de 

info@reko-uh.de 

info@reko-uh.de 

npinfo.harsberg@forst. 

thueringen.de 

0 36 01 / 85 66 26 

info@muehlhaeusermuseen.de 

mail@museumsloewen.de

Kellerwald 

Institution 

NationalparkZentrum 

Kellerwald 

Wildtierpark Edersee 

mit Fagutop 

Address: 


Weg zur Wildnis 1 

34516 Vöhl-Herzhausen 


Am Bericher Holz 1 

34549 Edertal-Hemfurth 


Edersee Touristic GmbH Hemfurther Straße 14 

34549 Edertal-Aff oldern 


Touristic Service 

Waldeck-Ederbergland 

GmbH 

Touristik Service 

Kurhessisches Bergland 

e. V. 

Kur- und Touristik-Service 

Staatsbad Bad Wildungen 

GmbH 

Kurverwaltung Bad 

Zwesten 

Naturpark 


Südring 2 

34497 Korbach 


Parkstraße 6 

34576 Homberg (Efze) 


Brunnenallee 1 



Rathaus, Ringstraße 1 

34596 Bad Zwesten 


Laustraße 8 



8.d Offi cial Web Address 

www.weltnaturerbe-buchenwaelder.de 



Telephone: 

+49 (0)5635 992781 

Fax: 

+49 (0)5635 992782 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)5623 933592 

Fax: 

+49 (0)5623 973332 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)5623 9998-0 

Fax: 

+49 (0)5623 9998-30 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)5631 9543-59 

Fax: 

+49 (0)5631 9543-78 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)5681 775480 

Fax: 

+49 (0)5681 710614 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)5621 96567-41 

Fax: 

+49 (0)5621 96567-37 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)5626 773 

Fax: 

+49 (0)5626 999326 

Telephone: 

+49 (0)5621 96946-0 

Fax: 

+49 (0)5621 96946-19 

info@NationalparkZentrum- 

Kellerwald.de 

www.NationalparkZentrum- 

Kellerwald.de 

info@nationalpark-kellerwaldedersee.de 

www. nationalpark-kellerwaldedersee.de 

Edersee-info@t-online.de 

www.edersee.com 

info@waldecker-land.de 

www.waldecker-land.de 

kbh@schwalm-eder-kreis.de 

www.kurhessisches-bergland.de 

info@badwildungen.net 

www.bad-wildungen.de 

kurverwaltung@badzwesten.de 

www.badzwesten.de 

info@naturpark-kellerwaldedersee.dewww.naturpark-kellerwaldedersee.de 


– Kellerwald 

Nationale 


179


9. Signature on behalf 

of the State Party 

Prime Minister, Free State of Th uringia 

Christine Lieberknecht 

Prime Minister, Federal State of Hesse 

Roland Koch 

Federal Minister for the Environment, 

Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety 

Norbert Röttgen 


Brandenburg 

Matthias Platzeck 



Erwin Sellering

9. SIGNATURE ON BEHALF OF THE STATE PARTY 

Nationale 


181

182 NOMINATION DOSSIER "ANCIENT BEECH FORESTS OF GERMANY"

Nationale 

Naturlandschaften

Annex to Chapter 1 

Nationale 

Naturlandschaften

1.1 

Topographical map 

of the nominated component part 

Jasmund

1.2 

Topographical map of 


Serrahn

1.3 



Grumsin

1.4 



Hainich

1.5 



Kellerwald


Nationale 

Naturlandschaften

3.1 

BfN-Skripten 233 „Beech Forests 

– a German contribution to the global 

forest biodiversity”

3.2 

Publication Natur & Landschaft 

“Buchenwälder” (Issue 9 / 10 2007)


Nationale 

Naturlandschaften

5.1 

Summary minutes of the trilateral 

meetings Slovak Republic, Ukraine 

and Germany regarding the extension 

of the World Natural Heritage 

“Primeval Beech Forests of the 

Carpathians”

NOMINATION DOSSIER ANNEX 5.1 

"ANCIENT BEECH FORESTS OF GERMANY" 

Summary minutes of the trilateral 

meeting 'Nominating beech forests 

for inscription in UNESCO World 

Heritage List', 

Isle of Vilm, Germany 7-8 May 2007 

Dr Nickel from the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear 

Safety, head of the German delegation, opened the meeting. 

In their opening statements Ukrainian Deputy Minister of Environmental Protection, Dr Pavlo 

Bolshakov und Ms Janka Kročianová, representative of the Slovak Ministry of Environment, 

both welcomed the BMU's initiative for a trilateral meeting with the aim of strengthening 

cooperation in the framework of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention. Both reiterated 

the willingness of their ministries to support the addition of a cluster of selected German sites 

of beech forests to the Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians. 

All three parties affirmed their willingness to cooperate closely in the framework of the 

UNESCO World Heritage Convention and to support each other and coordinate efforts in 

particular with regard to their beech forest nominations. Various scenarios and resulting 

options for action were discussed, depending on the outcome of the IUCN recommendation 

concerning the Slovak-Ukrainian nomination Primeval beech forests of the Carpathians and 

the decision of the World Heritage Committee. The following schedule was agreed: 

7/8 May 2007 First trilateral meeting on the Isle of Vilm 

Mid-May 2007 (after 12 May): Publication of IUCN recommendation to World Heritage 

Committee concerning the Slovak-Ukrainian nomination Primeval Beech Forests of the 

Carpathians on the Internet on the UNESCO World Heritage Convention's website (Ms 

Engels/BfN will send this to all participants of the trilateral meeting via e-mail). Assessment of 

IUCN recommendation and discussion of technical key issues at expert level. 

1



26 June to 1 July 2007: 31st session of the World Heritage Committee in Christchurch, 

New Zealand: 

Decision on inscription of Slovak Ukrainian nomination Primeval Beech Forests of the 

Carpathians in World Heritage List. 

Goal is Committee decision 'Inscription'. After inscription of Slovak-Ukrainian nomination 

Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians in World Heritage List, support for German beech 

forest nomination and trilateral cooperation on joint tasks which result from envisaged 

transnational (Slovak-Ukrainian-German) serial Beech Forest Property (e.g. management, 

research). 

In case of Committee decision 'Referral': prior to 1 February 2008 submission of revised 

nomination, Committee decision at 32nd session in 2008. 

German nomination (extension of Slovak-Ukrainian World Heritage Property of beech 

forests through German cluster); the nomination file will be submitted to the World Heritage 

Centre by 1 February 2009; the Committee will make its decision at its 33rd session in 

2010. It was agreed that UNSCO World Heritage Centre should be informed that Slovak 

Republic and Ukraine support subsequent extension through German beech forest cluster 

(i.e. that a trinational property is envisaged). 

The delegations designated the following coordinators for concrete technical questions 

relating to the beech forest nomination in the run-up to the Committee's decision: 

Slovak Republic: Professor Ivan Vološčuk and Dr Viliam Pichler 

Ukraine: Prof. Fedir Hamor, Mr Vasyl Pokynchereda 

Germany: Ms Barbara Engels/BfN, Mr Manfred Großmann /Thuringia 

Designated contacts at the national environment ministries: 

Slovak Republic: Dr Joseph Klinda 

Ukraine: Ms Tetyana Granovska 

Germany: Ms Heike Britz. 

In the course of the meeting, Ukrainian Deputy Minister of Environmental Protection Dr Pavlo 

Bolshakov suggested establishing key elements of future trilateral cooperation regarding 

2



World Heritage in a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). This should focus on the Slovak- 

Ukrainian-German World Heritage Property of beech forests. Both the Slovak and the 

German delegation welcomed this proposal in principle but made it subject to the agreement 

of the respective government. The Ukrainian delegation agreed to draw up a draft MoU and 

to send it to the environment ministries in the Slovak Republic and Germany for coordination 

as soon as all three national environment ministries officially confirmed that a MoU should be 

agreed. 

Furthermore, Dr Nickel informed the Slovak and Ukrainian delegations that Germany will 

host the 9th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological 

Diversity (CBD) in May 2008 and presented the main items on the agenda. In Germany's 

view an important topic is the establishment of a global network of protected areas. 

Consideration should be given to presenting the trinational beech forest nomination at this 

UN conference in a proper manner. 

The German delegation agreed to send the draft minutes of the trilateral meeting as soon as 

possible to the environment ministries of the Slovak Republic and Ukraine for coordination. 

All participants will receive a list of participants including coordinators and a CD with the 

presentations. 

Signed on 4 June 2007 

Heike Britz 

Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety 

Division N I 4 International Nature Conservation 

3



Summary minutes of the second 

trilateral meeting 

(Germany, Slovak Republic, Ukraine) 

"Beech forests as UNESCO World 

Heritage" 

Isle of Vilm/Germany, 

28.11.- 01.12.2008 

The second trilateral meeting took place in a very cooperative and constructive atmosphere 

with a total of 23 representatives from the Slovak Republic, Ukraine and Germany. Dr Nickel 

from the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, 

head of the German delegation, opened the meeting. The German delegation congratulated 

the guest delegations on the inscription of the Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians on 

UNESCO's World Heritage List. Dr Igor Ivanenko, head of the Ukrainian delegation, and Ms 

Lucia Fančová, head of the Slovakian delegation, in their opening statements both welcomed 

the continuation of the trilateral exchange with the aim of strengthening cooperation on 

beech forests within the framework of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention. Both 

reiterated the willingness of their ministries to support the extension of a cluster of selected 

German sites of beech forests to the already inscribed Primeval Beech Forests of the 

Carpathians. 

All three countries affirmed their determination to cooperate closely under the UNESCO 

World Heritage Convention for the protection of their outstanding beech forests and to draw 

up recommendations for a Memorandum of Understanding on future cooperation as well as a 

joint work programme with a specific focus at the second trilateral meeting. 

The Slovakian and Ukrainian delegations presented the basic elements of management of 

the joint Slovakian-Ukrainian UNESCO World Natural Heritage Property Primeval Beech 

Forests of the Carpathians. Management, including monitoring, was identified as an 

4



important future priority of the trilateral cooperation. Both delegations highlighted the 

significance of socio-economic factors for conserving the World Heritage Property. The 

delegation from the Slovak Republic emphasised their view that it was crucial to involve the 

local population and to convey the special value of the beech forests which form the World 

Heritage Property. In addition, the delegation from Ukraine presented their priorities for the 

future trilateral cooperation and proposed adopting a work programme. 

The German delegation reported on the current status of work for the nomination of the 

German cluster of outstanding beech forests, which is planned as an extension to the 

Slovakian-Ukrainian UNESCO Word Natural Heritage Property Primeval Beech Forests of 

the Carpathians: 

the nomination file will be submitted to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2010; the 

Committee will probably make its decision at its 34 th meeting in 2011. It was agreed that it 

should be sorted out with the UNESCO ambassadors of the three countries, how the Slovak 

Republic and Ukraine will formally agree to the extension of a German beech forest cluster. 

In addition, the delegations from Ukraine and the Slovak Republic recommended that the 

German nomination should preferably base the justification for the Outstanding Universal 

Value for an inscription on the World Heritage List on criterion (ix) of the Operational 

Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, as this was the criterion 

under which the Slovakian-Ukrainian beech forests property were inscribed on the list. 

During the deliberations, the Ukrainian and Slovakian representatives were open-minded 

towards adding Romanian and Polish components to the World Heritage Property in the 

future. Furthermore, the Slovakian delegation informed that there were no current plans to 

nominate additional sites so that the German nomination would not be delayed. In this 

context the Ukrainian delegation confirmed that it would give priority to supporting the 

German additional components and decide on further additions (possibly also on Ukrainian 

territory) at a later time. 

The meeting also discussed how the trilateral cooperation should be shaped in future. All 

parties agreed that two levels of cooperation seem necessary: a) a trilateral working group 

which should be structured in the same way as the two trilateral meetings and b) a level of 

experts. 

The delegations designated the following focal points for future cooperation: 

5



1. At the environment ministry level: 

Slovak Republic: tba 

Ukraine: Dr Igor Ivanenko, Deputy Head of State Service for Protected Areas Affairs 

Germany: Heike Britz, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Division on International Nature 

Conservation 

2. At the expert level: 

Slovak Republic: Prof. Ivan Vološčuk, Matej Bel University, and Prof. Viliam Pichler, 

University Zvolen 

Ukraine: Prof. Fedir Hamor, Director of the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve 

Germany: Mr Manfred Großmann, Director of the National Park Hainich/Thuringia 

During the second bilateral meeting the three delegations drew up a proposal for a first draft 

of the planned MoU. In particular, the following potential priorities were identified which are to 

be laid down as Areas of Cooperation in the MoU: 

- development and implementation of common principles and objectives based on 

the defined OUV 

- joint management approach (including legal issues) 

- joint monitoring concept and implementation 

- research concepts, programmes and projects (including inventories, research on 

natural forest ecosystems, anthropogenic impact assessments, response to 

climate change, etc.) 

- training and capacity building (including training institutions; exchange of 

specialists) 

- securing adequate resources and funding 

- communication, education and public awareness (CEPA) 

- sustainable tourism 

- sustainable development in the wider context 

The delegations elaborated recommendations for the following activities which are suggested 

as the work programme for 2009: 

- Further elaboration and signing of the MoU during the first half of 2009 as a basis 

for the trilateral cooperation (top priority) (Germany, Slovak Republic, Ukraine) 

6



- Determining the Terms of Reference for a trilateral working group and, based on 

these terms, establishing the working group (Germany, Slovak Republic, Ukraine) 

- Compiling a list of experts/institutions which are concerned with the topic of 

protecting beech forests (Germany, Slovak Republic, Ukraine) 

- Advice by Slovakian and Ukrainian experts on the preparation of the German 

nomination file 

- Compiling a list of relevant support institutions/programmes/funds which may 

possibly fund projects in the three countries (Germany) 

- Cooperation within the framework of the existing German management project 

(exchange of information/experience, possibly expert visits) 

- Organising a trilateral meeting of experts on integrated bilateral/trilateral 

management (incl. monitoring) of a joint World Heritage Property (Germany: 

Thuringia) 

- Determining whether a training seminar for protected area managers from the 

three countries can be carried out on the invitation of Germany; if so: the seminar 

will take place at the International Academy for Nature Conservation (INA) of the 

Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) on the Isle of Vilm (Germany) 

- Inviting experts from the three countries to an international meeting on European 

beech forests in autumn 2009 at the INA on Vilm (Germany: BfN) 

- Providing advice to Ukraine on establishing a concept for setting up a training 

centre in the vicinity of the Carpathian biosphere reserve (Germany: BfN) 

- Interlinking websites as a first joint activity with regard to public relations 


- Looking into the possibility of carrying out a joint protected areas-related project 

with the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena on the topic of "Carbon 

balance of unmanaged beech forests" (Germany: Thuringia) 

- Sending out information on "Spatial planning/land use planning" (Slovak Republic) 

- Sending out information on a "beech forest tour" as potential project for ecotourism 

(Germany: Länder) 

It was further agreed to proceed as follows: 

- By the end of December 2008, if possible, Germany will send the following documents to 

the environment ministers of the Slovak Republic and Ukraine for coordination: 

- the draft minutes for the second bilateral meeting, including the work programme 

7



- the proposal for the draft of the MoU which was drawn up by the participants of 

the meeting. 

- Once the environment ministers of all three countries have approved the documents, the 

aim must be to swiftly implement/realise the individual activities to fill the trilateral 

cooperation with life by means of specific projects. The three delegations agreed that 

further work on the proposed MoU and the subsequent signing was of utmost importance 

as a basis for the work of the trilateral cooperation. 

All participants received a list of participants including contact data. 

Signed 11 December 2008: 

Heike Britz 



8



PROGRAM 

of the third Trilateral Meeting 

May 8, 2009 

For the German delegation: 

14 00 – arrival to Lviv (airport) 

14 00 – 17 00 – excursion in Lviv city 

17 00 – 22 00 – transfer to Rakhiv 

22 00 – registration, Hotel Olenka 

22 15 – dinner, restaurant “Olenka” 

For other participants: 

14 00 - 20 00 – registration, Hotel Olenka 


May 9 

8 00 – 9 00 – breakfast, restaurant “Olenka” 

9 00 – 11 00 – excursion to the Geographic Center of Europe 

11 00 – 16 00 – excursion to the beech primeval forests of the Uholka protected massif (CBR) 

16 00 – 17 00 – lunch in the open air 

17 00 – 19 00 – excursion to the Narcissi Valley 

19 00 – 22 00 – return to Rakhiv 


May 10 


9 00 – trilateral meeting 

11 00 – coffee break 

9



11 30 – 13 45 – trilateral meeting 

13 45 – 14 30 - lunch 

14 30 – 15 00 – excursion to the Museum of Mountain’s Ecology 

15 00 – 15 30 – participation in the opening of the Hutsul folk festival “Berlybashskyi Banosh” 

15 30 – 19 30 – experts meeting on the joint management plan 

20 00 – official event 

May 11 


8 00 – 9 30 – close down of the trilateral meeting 

9 30 – departure of Dr. Elsa Nickel 

Departure 

For the German delegation: 

9 30 – departure of the German delegation to Slovakia 

17 00 – field trip to Slovak primeval forests 

19 00 – departure to Lviv and flight to Germany on May 12 

10



Summary minutes of the fourth 

trilateral meeting 


"Beech forests as UNESCO World 

Heritage" 

Bonn, Germany, 17 November 2009 

The fourth trilateral meeting took place once again in a very cooperative and constructive 

atmosphere with a total of 18 representatives from the Slovak Republic, Ukraine and 

Germany. Dr Nickel from the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and 

Nuclear Safety, head of the German delegation, opened and chaired the meeting. The 

German delegation thanked its partners from Slovakia and Ukraine for their continuous 

support for the intended German extension nomination. 

The Ukrainian delegation was headed by Deputy Minister of Environmental Protection 

Mykola Movchan. In his welcome address he reported on the positive current developments 

in Ukraine, in particular the Presidential Decree of 14 August 2009 on additional measures to 

improve the management of protected areas and the commissioning of the Cabinet of 

Ministers of Ukraine to draw up a plan of measures to support the World Heritage Property 

Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians, including surrounding areas, by 2010 and the 

further development of international cooperation in this field. He reaffirmed that the Ukrainian 

Ministry of Environmental Protection wanted to sign the MoU elaborated by the three parties, 

and that it would continue to support the German extension nomination in order to ensure 

better protection and long-term conservation of the World Heritage of beech forests and to 

intensify cooperation in environmental protection. 

In his welcome address, Dr Ladislav Ambróš, head of the Slovak delegation and Director- 

General for Nature Conservation at the Ministry of Environment, stressed the importance of 

continuing the trilateral cooperation and, as a priority, the prompt signing of the 

Memorandum of Understanding concerning the Cooperation on the Protection of their 

Natural Beech Forests as an Object of Outstanding Universal Value (hereinafter referred to 

11



as MoU). He reiterated the willingness of his ministry to support the addition of a cluster of 

selected German sites of beech forests to the already inscribed Primeval Beech Forests of 

the Carpathians. All three countries affirmed their determination to continue cooperating 

closely under the UNESCO World Heritage Convention for the protection of their outstanding 

beech forests and to create the prerequisites for signing the MoU on future cooperation in 

this area as swiftly as possible. 

The German delegation presented its draft nomination dossier for Germany's beech forests 

as an extension to the World Heritage Property Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians, 

including the envisaged management system. The multi-tiered system includes the following 

levels: management plan for the individual German component parts, coordinated 

management of all German component parts and a integrated management system as 

general (trilateral) management with harmonised goals, principles, measures, management 

structures and, in particular, a Joint Management Committee to ensure a coordinated 

management of a trilateral property. The integrated management system (IMS) was already 

intensively discussed at the third trilateral meeting (Rakhiv, Ukraine, 8 – 11 May 2009). The 

Slovak delegation had reviewed the presentation of management in chapter 5 of the 

nomination dossier and the IMS, which included all changes discussed at the trilateral 

meeting in Rakhiv in May 2009, and came to the conclusion that everything was well 

elaborated. The Ukrainian delegation did not see any need for additional suggestions on 

management either. 

Both delegations considered the draft of the German proposal for extension to be of high 

quality. However, they both stressed the importance of formulating a convincing key 

statement to justify the nomination. The Slovak and Ukrainian delegations suggested also 

pointing out the ecosystem services of beech forests in the German dossier for the extension 

nomination (in particular with regard to the special ability to revitalise soil and the existing 

beech stand's capacity to store CO2). 

Furthermore, the title for the German extension nomination was discussed in connection with 

the title for the envisaged joint Slovak-Ukrainian-German World Heritage Property. Having 

considered various options, the delegates agreed on the following title: 

12



Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians (Slovak Republic/Ukraine) and Ancient Beech 

Forests of Germany (Germany). 

This option allows for retaining the name of the property already inscribed in the list. 

The German delegation again pointed to the crucial issue that the Slovak Republic and 

Ukraine have to agree officially to the German extension of the World Heritage Property 

Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians in time before the nomination dossier is 

submitted. In its 2011 Committee Session – Draft Nomination Completeness Check, the 

UNESCO World Heritage Centre expressly mentioned this (quote: "As this nomination is an 

extension to a transnational property, its submission will have to be accompanied by an 

official letter by the authorities of both Ukraine and Slovakia granting their permission to 

extend the already inscribed property."). The World Heritage Centre submitted the abovementioned 

completeness check on 5 November 2009 to the German UNESCO Ambassador. 

The German delegation reported that it had asked the German UNESCO Ambassador, as 

had been agreed at the trilateral meeting in November 2008, to deal with this topic through 

diplomatic channels and sound out whether there was a possibility for a joint cover note as 

an alternative to separate letters granting permission. The Ukrainian delegation is of the 

opinion that the Ukrainian Ministry of Environmental Protection should request the Ministry of 

Foreign Affairs and the national UNESCO Commission to grant their permission. The 

prerequisite for this would be a corresponding letter from Germany. The Slovak delegation 

went along with this view. 

Furthermore, the status of the MoU was discussed. The BMU/Germany submitted a draft in 

May 2009 at expert level to the Slovak and Ukrainian Environment Ministries, which had 

been reviewed with regard to international law by the Federal Foreign Office. It was 

requested that Germany would be permitted to send this version of the MoU to the ministers 

for signing. The Slovak Environment Ministry agreed to the request, the Ukrainian ministry 

has not agreed so far. The Ukrainian delegation explained that they had carried out an 

interministerial coordination for the MoU. The result of this coordination was that it was 

considered necessary for Germany to make a statement about financial contributions to the 

trilateral cooperation. The Ukrainian delegation requested that the German colleagues 

submit another written request concerning the MoU at minister level, also in view of the new 

13



minister at the Federal Environment Ministry. The Slovak delegation went along with this 

assessment. 

At the conclusion of the meeting, the status of the implementation of the working programme 

was discussed, which shows good progress. An overview of the current status will be 

attached to the minutes. 

Summary of results: 

1. The Slovak and Ukrainian delegations agree in principle to the draft of the 

German proposal for extension including trilateral management, as envisaged in 

chapter 5 of the draft nomination dossier and the IMS. 

2. Adoption of the title Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians (Slovak 

Republic/Ukraine) and Ancient Beech Forests of Germany (Germany) for the 

trilateral World Heritage Property. 

3. Letter from Federal Environment Minister Dr. Röttgen to his colleagues in the 

Slovak Republic and Ukraine requesting their written confirmation that they agree 

with the German extension nomination (dossier) including the IMS as trilateral 

management concept, and requesting them to ask their Ministries of Foreign 

Affairs as well as their national UNESCO Commissions for rapid official 

permission of the German proposal to extend the World Heritage Property 

Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians in time before the dossier is 

submitted (January 2010). 

4. Separate letter from the new Federal Environment Minister to his colleagues in 

the Slovak Republic and Ukraine concerning the MoU. 

5. Continuation of implementation of the working programme adopted at the second 

trilateral meeting in November 2008. 

Signed on 19 November 2009: 

Heike Britz 



14



– D R A F T – 

Memorandum of Understanding 

concerning the Cooperation on the 

Protection of their Natural Beech 

Forests as an Object of Outstanding 

Universal Value 

Between 

the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources of Ukraine, 

the Ministry of the Environment of the Slovak Republic and 

the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear 

Safety of the Federal Republic of Germany 

(hereinafter referred to as the “Participants”) 

The Participants 

consider the outstanding importance of natural beech forests as a key element of forest 

ecosystems of Europe; 

are aware that the centre of the area of beech (Fagus sylvatica) is located in Germany, with 

its eastern border of the areal distribution in Ukraine and the Slovak Republic; 

acknowledge the importance of the protection of the integrity of the natural beech forest 

areas of the Participants; 

note the significant role of natural beech forests in supporting biodiversity and mitigating 

effects of climate change; 

recall the objectives of 

• the UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural 

Heritage (1972), 

• the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992), 

• the Framework Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the 

Carpathians (2003), 

• the Agreement between the Ministry of the Environment of the Slovak Republic and the 

Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources of Ukraine on Cooperation 

in Environmental Protection (1994), 

15



• the Agreement between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the 

Government of the Slovak Republic on Cooperation in Environmental Protection (1997), 

and 

• the Agreement between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the 

Government of Ukraine on Cooperation in Environmental Protection (1993); 

recall the results of the first Trilateral Meeting on “Beech Forest Nomination for the UNESCO 

World Heritage List” on 7 to 8 May 2007 at the isle of Vilm in Germany, and the second 

Trilateral Meeting “Beech Forests as World Natural Heritage” on 28 November 2008 to 1 

December 2008 at the isle of Vilm in Germany; 

recognise the willingness to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) as a basis for the 

trilateral cooperation on the protection of the natural beech forests in the three countries as 

an object of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV); and 

note the support by Ukraine and the Slovak Republic for the proposed extension of the 

inscribed serial transnational World Heritage property “Primeval Beech Forests of the 

Carpathians” by additional component parts of German beech forests based on a shared 

understanding of a joint World Heritage property. 

1. AIM OF THE COOPERATION 

The Participants express their intention of mutual support and cooperation concerning the 

identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of 

the natural heritage of beech forests. 

2. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS 

2.1. The Participants share the view that a permanent trilateral working group on “Beech 

Forests of Outstanding Universal Value” should be set up to establish the cooperation 

for the purpose of and in accordance with this MoU. 

2.2. Possible tasks of the trilateral working group include 

• to promote, steer and manage the implementation of this MoU, 

• to jointly establish and to further develop a programme of work and to oversee its 

implementation. 

16



2.3. The Participants share the view that the permanent trilateral working group may 

establish by mutual consent further specific task groups to address, inter alia, topics 

of the different areas of cooperation as specified in section 3. 

2.4. The permanent participants in the trilateral working group should be the 

representatives of the Ministries for Environment and/or Nature Conservation on 

national level, and in Germany on Länder level, and representatives of the relevant 

protected areas. By mutual consent of the Participants, experts and representatives 

of other institutions/ organisations may be invited to meetings. 

2.5. Meetings: 

• Meeting frequency: One regular meeting per year (and additional extraordinary 

meetings if required and by prior consent of all Participants). 

• Meeting venue: Alternating in one of the three Participants. 

• Chair: Participant hosting the meeting. 

• Language: Meetings should be held in English unless consented otherwise. 

3 . AREAS OF COOPERATION 

The Participants intend to cooperate, inter alia, on the following topics: 

3.1. the development and implementation of common principles and objectives 

based on 

the defined outstanding Universal Value, 

3.2. 

a joint management approach (including legal issues), 

3.3. a joint monitoring concept and implementation, 

3.4. research concepts, programmes and projects (including 

inventories, research on 

natural forest ecosystems, anthropogenic impact assessments, response to climate 

change, etc.), 

3.5. training and capacity building (including 

training institutions, exchange among 

specialists), 

3.6. securing adequate resources 

and funding, 

3.7. communication, education and public awareness, 

3.8. sustainable tourism, 

3.9. sustainable development 

in the wider context. 

17



4. DURATION 

The Participants share the view that the cooperation under this Memorandum of 

Understanding should start when it is signed by the respective representative of each 

Participant. The Participants intend to cooperate on the basis of this Memorandum of 

Understanding for a period of 10 years with the possibility of prolongation if the Participants 

express their intent to do so. 

For the Ministry of 

Environmental Protection 

and Natural Resources of 

Ukraine 

For the Ministry of the 

Environment of the Slovak 

Republic 

For the Federal Ministry for the 

Environment, Nature 

Conservation and Nuclear 

Safety of the Federal Republic 

of Germany 

Signature Signature Signature 

18

5.2 

Statute of the association 

Kulturlandschaft Uckermark e.V.



Kulturlandschaft Uckermark e.V. 

Statute 

of the association - Kulturlandschaft 

Uckermark e.V. - 

Society for the promotion of ecologically sound and socially responsible initiatives in 

the Uckermark / friends of the Biosphere Reservation Schorfheide-Chorin 

§ 1 

Name, domicile 

(1) The association carries the name "Kulturlandschaft Uckermark e.V. - Verein zur 

Unterstützung von natur- und sozialverträglichen Initiativen in der Uckermark / Förderverein 

des Biosphärenreservates Schorfheide-Chorin". 

It is to be entered in the register of associations. 

(2) The association has its domicile in Angermünde, Landkreis Uckermark. 

§ 2 

Purpose of the association 

(1) The purpose of the association is the promotion and provision of support for projects and 

initiatives which serve to preserve the cultural landscape in the Uckermark and the Biosphere 

Reservation Schorfheide-Chorin in their specificity and to develop them in a ecologically 

sound and socially responsible manner. The association supervises and promotes all 

initiatives in the Uckermark and adjacent regions drawn from the areas of nature 

conservation and environmental education, especially those of a sustainable natural and 

environmental nature and those drawn from the sector of ecological agriculture, landscape 

management and heritage preservation, youth exchange and education and scientific and 

artistic work. 

(2) These aims are promoted through the provision of support to 

a) exemplary projects of a sustainable long-term and environmentally-friendly nature, 

especially ecological land-use of the area to be supported as well as development in the rural 

area. 

b) of cultural and artistic projects, 

c) of environmental education projects and initiatives 

d) of projects for the conservation and re-establishment of near-natural landscape sections 

and their communities, taking into account the requirements of resource-protection and biodiversity. 

1



e) of medial materials falling under the provisions of points a) - d), of presentations and 

exhibitions as well as corresponding measures for public relations work. 

The association remains open to further projects which accord with the purpose of the 

association. 

§ 3 

Not for profit status 

(1) The association "Kulturlandschaft Uckermark e.V." exclusively pursues ends of immediate 

public benefit in the sense of the paragraph § 51 ff. of the tax code, “tax-privileged activities”. 

(2) the measures listed in § 2 designed to accomplish non-profitable activities serving the 

public good are to be financed through membership fees, government donations, fundraising, 

donations and contributions which are made without being subject to conditions. 

Acceptance of such funds is subject to the decision of the executive committee. 

(3) the association is a purely non-profit organization and pursues absolutely no economic 

goals or profit. Association funds may only be used for aims which conform with the aims of 

the statute. Members do not receive any dividends or gratuities in the capacity as members. 

(4) It is forbidden for any person to benefit from disproportionally high emoluments or from 

disbursements for a purpose of which does not conform to the aims of the association. 

§ 4 

Accounting year 

The accounting year is based on a calendar year. 

§ 5 

Membership 

(1) The following persons can become regular members of the association: Natural, legal 

persons over 18 years of age who actively support the aims and goals of the association and 

who accept the association statute. 

(2) Membership can be terminated within a period of six months before the end of a financial 

year. The written form is required. 

(3) A member can be excluded from the association if they damage the interests of the 

association a culpable and gross manner. All decisions pertaining to exclusion are to be 

taken by the executive committee. Members can appeal against this decision to the meeting 

of members in writing within a month of receiving notice of the decision. 

(4) Affiliate (supporting) membership is possible upon submission of a written declaration to 

the executive committee. A decision from the executive committee or the members meeting 

is not necessary. Affiliate members are not entitled to vote in the sense of this statute. 

2



§ 6 

Membership fees 

(1) Fess are levied from the members. 

(2) The amount of the fees are determined by the meeting of members and agreed upon by a 

simple majority. Payment is due on 1 March of every year. 

§ 7 

Organs 

The association has the following organs: 

1. The executive committee 

2. The meeting of members 

3. The advisory committee 

§ 8 

The executive committee 

(1) The executive committee is made up of its chairman, at least two deputies, the treasurer 

and the secretary. 

(2) The committee is elected for two years by the meeting of members. 

The committee remains in office after the expiry of its term of office until it is re-elected or 

replaced. 

(3) The association is represented by the chairman and a further committee member both in 

and outside court. 

(4) The committee can assemble whenever necessary, but must do so at least four times in a 

year. The chairman summons the committee in writing. Notice of two weeks is mandatory. 

(5) Further persons can be invited to committee meetings. 

(6) The committee conducts the business of the association and makes all decisions not 

reserved for the other organs of the association. 

The committee holds especial responsibility for 

a) The preparation and summoning of the meeting of members as well as determining the 

agenda. 

b) Implementing decisions made by the meeting of members 

c) Preparing the budget, book-keeping, drawing up the annual report 

d) Appointing and discharging a full-time management 

e) Appointing / dismissal of the KLU representative in membership organizations. This 

requires confirmation from the next regular meeting of members. 

The committee is to involve the advisory committee in all matters of especial significance. 

3



(7) The committee is authorized to delegate its duties as outlined in § 8 (6) a-c to the full-time 

management. All measures taken by the management requires its subsequent confirmation. 

(8) The committee is to determine a set of standing orders regulating its work. This also 

contains instructions for the management. The standing orders must be confirmed by the 

meeting of members with a simple majority. 

§ 9 

Meeting of members 

(1) The regular meeting of members is to take place annually. 

Extraordinary meetings of members can be summoned following a committee decision, if this 

is in the interest of the association, or if a minimum of a third of members require it in writing, 

stating the reason for the meeting and providing an agenda for the meeting. 

(2) The duties of the meeting of members comprise: 

a) Acceptance of the annual report of the committee and the auditor’s report. 

b) Acceptance and expulsion of members 

c) Discharging the committee 

d) Drawing up an annual financial plan in which income and expenditure is to be balanced. 

e) The election of an auditor 

f) The election of the committee members 

g) Decision-making regarding alterations to the statute 

h) Decision-making regarding the dissolution of the association 

i) The election of the advisory committee 

(3) Meetings of members are summoned by the committee chairman, or one of his deputies 

should he be unable to do so. This is to be effected via a simple letter. The agenda as 

determined by the committee is to be included with this letter. Meetings require a month’s 

notice. Members have the right to file applications in writing up to a week before the meeting 

of members. 

§ 8 (7) remains unaffected. 

(4) The committee chairman presides over the meeting of members; should he is unable to 

attend the meeting, one of his deputies is to perform this task. Should his deputies also be 

prevented from attending the meeting, the meeting of members is to elect a chairman for the 

meeting. 

The meeting of members can change or supplement the agenda by passing a resolution. 

Oral applications for the proposal can be placed on the agenda with a third of the votes 

present. 

4



The meeting of members decides whether to permit applications for a proposal with a 

majority of the valid votes cast. Abstentions are classed as invalid votes. The meeting of 

members is quorate if the invitations were issued in accordance with the provisions of this 

statute. 

Every member has a vote. Every member can be represented by another member. 

Authorization requires the written form and must be noted in the minutes. A member may not 

represent more than one other member. 

Resolutions are made with a majority of the votes. 

Alterations to the statue and the dissolution of the association can only be decided by a 

meeting of members at which at least two thirds of the members are present. 

The resolution requires a majority of three-quarters of the voting members present. 

In the absence of a quorum, the matter is to be decided upon by a new meeting of members 

with a simple majority of the voting members present, as long as the invitation makes 

express reference to this legal consequence. It is also necessary to inform the members that 

such a meeting represents a second extraordinary meeting of members dealing with the 

same agenda. This agenda is to be included in the letter of invitation. 

Minutes of the meeting are to be kept. Resolutions are to be recorded in a written record 

listing the time and location of the meeting and the result of the voting. 

The keeper of the minutes is named by the committee chairman or his deputy. A nonmember 

is entitled to keep the minutes. The minutes are to be signed by the leader of the 

meeting and the keeper of the minutes. A copy is to be posted to all members. 

Voting is conducted by raising hands. If a third of members present demands a secret vote, 

this is to be granted. 

§ 10 

Advisory committee 

(1) The advisory committee is made up of both association members and non-members with 

an interest in the promotion of the goals of the association, and who are able to make a 

contribution to the realization of the goals of the association on the strength of their expertise. 

The executive committee proposes the members of the advisor committee. The proposal 

requires the approval of the meeting of members. The number of members sitting on the 

advisory committee can vary and is determined by the meeting of members from case to 

case. 

§ 11 

Procedure following dissolution of the association 

Following the dissolution or abolition of the association, or following the abolition of the taxprivileged 

goals, the sum of the association assets remaining after the settlement of all 

obligations are to be given to another association recognized by the tax authorities as a nonprofit 

organization. This organization is to be determined by the meeting of members, and is 

to use the funds to fund activities for the exclusive and immediate promotion of nature 

conservation, landscape management or environmental conservation in the Uckermark. 

These changes to the statute were established and decided upon on 5/4/2005 

5

5.3 

Overview of the acquisition and 


component part since July 2008



Overview of the acquisition and 


component part since July 2008 

1

5.4 

Parliament of Thuringia: 

Parliamentary Paper 4 / 4045, 

4th Legislative Period, 23.4.2008, 

Application by the CDU Group 

“German beech forests as part of 

UNESCO World Natural Heritage”



PARLIAMENT OF THURINGIA Parliamentary Paper 4/4045 

4th Legislative Period 23.4.2008 

A p p l i c a t i o n 

by the CDU Group 

German beech forests as part of UNESCO World Natural Heritage 

The Parliament supports the nomination campaign of the Federal Government 

and the States of Brandenburg, Hesse, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and 

Thuringia to have German beech forests recognised as part of the UNESCO 


Reasons: 

If its forest stocks were in their natural state, Germany would be dominated by 

beech forests today. 2000 years ago, the red beech was the dominant species 

of tree in the primeval forests of this region. Today, because of the climatic 

conditions, beech forests only exist in Europe. Their main area of distribution 

would be in Germany. In addition, beech forests are an integral part of the 

cultural development of Europe and not only provided an economic livelihood 

for humans but were also part of their cultural identity. As the source of myths 

and sagas, beech forests also stimulated people's imaginations. 

Because of forest clearances and conversions, however, the beech lost its 

dominant role long ago, so that natural beech forests have become a rarity 

and are amongst the threatened habitats of Europe. Despite the dominance of 

one species of tree in our latitudes, the various beech forest communities are 

an important habitat for more than 7,000 species of animals, plants and fungi. 

With the East German National Park programme, which the former German 

Minister for the Environment, Professor Klaus Töpfer, described as the "family 

silver of German unity", large areas of deciduous forest were placed under 

protection for the first time. This programme was continued with the 

designation of the Hainich and Kellerwald-Edersee National Parks. 

Five German protected areas are now to be proposed as part of the UNESCO 


These are 

- the Jasmund National Park, 

- the Müritz National Park, 

- the Grumsiner Forest in the UNESCO Schorfheide Chorin biosphere 

reservation, 

- the Hainich National Park and 

- the Kellerwald-Edersee National Park. 

Print: Thuringian Parliament, 29 April 2008 

1



Parliamentary Paper 4/4199 PARLIAMENT OF THURINGIA 4th Legislative Period 

If the application is successful, the beech forests of Germany would be placed 

on a par with world-famous natural landscapes and would benefit enormously 

in terms of image. But it would also create an obligation for society as a whole 

to preserve this unique cultural landscape. The states of Brandenburg, 

Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Hesse and Thuringia would assume a 

particular responsibility for maintaining the "beech forest" world natural 

heritage. 

On behalf of the group: 

Lieberknecht 

2



PARLIAMENT OF THURINGIA Parliamentary Paper 4/4199 

4th Legislative Period 

re. Parliamentary Paper 4/4045 

6.6.2008 

D e c i s i o n 

German beech forests as part of UNESCO World Natural Heritage 

In its 86th session on 6 June 2008, the Parliament adopted the following 

decision: 

The Parliament supports the nomination campaign of the Federal Government 

and the States of Brandenburg, Hesse, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and 

Thuringia to have German beech forests recognised as part of the UNESCO 


Print: Parliament of Thuringia, 18 June 2008 

Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Schipanski 

President of the Parliament 

3

5.5 

Ministry for the Environment, Energy, 


Hesse, Wiesbaden, 4 September 2009; 

Report to the Cabinet 

on the issue of the nomination of 

German beech forests for UNESCO 

Natural World Heritage 

status incl. the decision of the Cabinet 

of September 14th 2009



Ministry for the 

Environment, Energy, Agriculture, 

and Consumer Protection 

Hesse 

Report to the Cabinet 

Wiesbaden, 4 September 2009 

on the issue of the nomination of German beech forests for UNESCO Natural World Heritage 

status 

The Cabinet should resolve: 

The report presented by the Ministry for the Environment, Energy, Agriculture and Consumer 

Protection on the issue of the nomination of German beech forests for UNESCO World Nature 

Heritage status is acknowledged. The Cabinet seconds the nomination campaign conducted 

by the Federal Government and the federal states of Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-West Pomerania, 

Thuringia, and Hesse, to have German beech forests designated as UNESCO Nature 

World Heritage sites, and orders the Ministry for the Environment, Energy, Agriculture and 

Consumer Protection to continue to pursue the undertaking. 

Statement of Grounds: 

The UNESCO World Heritage Convention is deemed among the most important agreements under 

international law in the field of monument and nature conservation. 

At present, the World Heritage List contains 689 cultural heritage sites and 176 natural heritage sites 

as well as 25 mixed sites (meeting both cultural and natural criteria). Germany is represented in the 

World Heritage List with 33 sites: 31 cultural heritage sites and 2 natural heritage sites ("Grube Messel" 

and “Wattenmeer”, which was newly inscribed this year). Since there is an underrepresentation of 

natural heritage sites in the UNESCO World Heritage List, the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation 

(BfN: Bundesamt für Naturschutz) conducted a study in 2004 to identify potential UNESCO World 

Heritage sites in Germany. In light of the global responsibility incumbent on Germany to preserve 

these ecosystems, the "beech forests", as part of an international serial nomination, were judged favourably. 

The BfN feasibility study that followed gave proof that a nomination appears to have prospect 

of succeeding. 

Together with the three federal states of Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-West Pomerania, and Thuringia, 

Hesse is seeking the designation of five German beech forest areas as UNESCO Natural World Heritage. 

These forests are the most valuable subterritories of the national parks Hainich in Thuringia, 

Jasmund and Müritz in Mecklenburg-West Pomerania, Kellerwald-Edersee in Hesse and Grumsin in 

the Schorfheide-Chorin Biosphere Reserve. 

1



- 2 - 

In this context, an extension of the transnational UNESCO World Heritage "Primeval Beech Forests of 

the Carpathians" in Ukraine and the Slovak Republic, which was established in 2007, by these German 

parts is aimed at, that is to say, the proposed German beech forests are to extend the existing 

Carpathian World Heritage site by a globally outstanding and unique example of ongoing ecological 

processes. These forests are illustrative of the evolutionary wealth of biotopes and types of copper 

beech forests in the focus of their global geographic range. The nominated areas represent the core 

zones of said geographic range and cannot be substituted for with other territories in Central Europe's 

deciduous forest zone. 

In this, the Hessian nominated area "Kellerwald” is a representative of the colline and lower montane 

silicate beech forest on acidic, nutrient-poor bedrock with embedded borderline habitats on rocks and 

rocky slopes, complementing the coastal and planar beech forests of Jasmund, Müritz and Grumsin, 

as well as Hainich, which is a beech forest on limestone. A forest complex of 1467 ha was designated 

as nominated area in the national park that typifies, in context, the most characteristic and near-natural 

old beech forest stands with their peculiar associated biotopes and two primeval forest relics on Edersee’s 

steep slopes. In line with UNESCO requirements, the area is not subjected to exploitation or 

management already at the present time; it offers major zones of retreat and is efficiently buffered 

based on the national park's protective ordinance. As with the park itself, the World Heritage sites are 

to be accessible to human experience, which is ensured based on the visitor management concept 

and the national park’s existing path network. 

The nominated area “Kellerwald” is situated within the boundaries of the Kellerwald-Edersee National 

Park, and lies encompassed by a buffer zone made up of the remaining acreage of the national park. 

Thus, both the legal status to secure the area and its management by the National Park Office are 

already in place. 

Relevant regulations are also contained in the National Park Plan. 

In order to preserve the nominated area for future generations in accordance with the World Heritage 

Convention, UNESCO calls for a funding basis secured in the long term to sustain the nominated areas 

(e.g. management…). With the nominated area being part of the national park, budgetary funds 

assigned to Kellerwald-Edersee in Chapter 09 60 Product No. 3 as appropriated from the state budget 

of the federal state of Hesse are guaranteed to be available in the long run. 

2



- 3 - 

For example, the year 2008 saw EUR 3.693 million being spent on human and material resources for 

the entire Kellerwald-Edersee National Park. According to the state budgetary plan, a total for human 

and material resources for the entire national park of EUR 3.76 million have been earmarked in the 

planning for 2009 and EUR 3.7358 million for 2010. With the nominated area being part of the national 

park, its management (human and material resources) is per se covered by national park budget. 

There are no additional expenditures. 

Moreover, as was the case in the previous year, a total of EUR 119,000 has already been appropriated 

in the annual state budget (Chapter 09 22, Product No. 9, “Support of measures of nature and 

landscape preservation”) for the projected UNESCO Natural World Heritage Beech Forests (collective 

state nomination, trilateral collaboration, public relations) and the existing UNESCO World Heritage 

“Middle Rhine Valley”. The plan is to secure the continuation of these activities on the premise of 

moneys being appropriated by the budgetary legislator. It is the intention of Hesse to contribute its 

share, on the aforementioned premise, also within the scope of the trilateral collaboration. No additional 

expenditures beyond the budget resources computed for the UNESCO World Heritage in previous 

years should be anticipated; on the contrary, it is assumed that expenditures will drop on completion 

of the nomination process. 

Nomination costs will be borne by the participating federal states, resulting in considerable costsavings. 

Furthermore, the Federal Government will give financial assistance in the nomination process 

(Assigning of tasks public relations campaign, assigning of tasks Chapter 5 incl. management plan 

Germany and trilateral, and Chapter 6, Funding of two trilateral meetings, principal sponsor of the 

Natural World Heritage Beech Forests exhibition. 

The entire nomination process is accompanied by a public relations campaign in cooperation with the 

federal states of Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-West Pomerania, and Thuringia. The aim is to have the 

population participating in this singular process of nomination. 

A great deal has already been accomplished within the scope of said campaign (leaflet, website, 

Power Point presentation, "World Natural Heritage Beech Forests" exhibition, brochure, roll-up exhibition). 

The UNESCO has established a specific set of provisions regarding the nomination procedure (see 

Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention). 

3



Initially, the property has to be included in the German Tentative List in order to be nominated. The 

“German Beech Forests” have already been included in said list (Tentative List as of 23 January 

- 4 - 

2007), i.e. a crucial prerequisite for nomination has already been met. This was the starting signal for 

the nomination including four Länder. 

In addition, it is the responsibility of the federal states involved to draw up and submit the application 

(= the nomination dossier) for the German beech forests to be inscribed in the UNESCO World Heritage 

List pursuant to the detailed specifications (format) in the aforementioned guidelines. 

The collective German (extension) application for submission to the UNESCO (= nomination dossier) 

is currently being prepared under the auspices of Thuringia, to the fullest extent and under severe 

deadline pressure. The dossier is focused on proving the areas’ “outstanding universal value” (=OUV) 

and the (ecologic) “integrity”. The nomination is exclusively based on criterion ix (= natural heritage). 

Within the scope of the nomination dossier being drafted, a number of tasks – both on the part of the 

participating federal states and the Federal Government – were assigned tasks that are nearing completion. 

The individual results are to be joined, and final editing of the dossier text/contents is to take 

place no later than by the end of September, because the draft of the nomination dossier is scheduled 

for submission to the UNESCO for a first completeness check no later than by 30 September 2009. 

This is an unsolicited inspection for completeness of the application documents. Any changes and additions 

to the contents resulting both from the respective national and transnational process of coordination 

(Ukraine and Slovak Republic) that follows are to be implemented subsequently. The complete 

official application document is scheduled for submission to UNESCO by 01 February 2010 at the latest. 

The entire nomination process requires a comprehensive coordinative effort with Ukraine and the Slovak 

Republic, as the UNESCO application refers to an extension of the existing Carpathian Natural 

World Heritage. Three trilateral meetings were held so far, in the scope of which the Ukrainian and 

Slovak delegations not only agreed to support the German nomination, but also offered their active 

assistance. A trilateral system to manage the projected transnational World Natural Heritage has been 

drafted and put forward to Ukraine and the Slovak Republic for approval. In addition, a Memorandum 

of Understanding between the ministries of the environment of the three countries Ukraine, Slovak 

Republic, and Germany (in coordination with the participating federal states) was conceived on the 

cooperation regarding the Natural World Heritage Beech Forests, which has not yet been approved by 

Ukraine and the Slovak Republic. 

4



- 5 - 

The official approval of either States Party (Ukraine, Slovak Republic) regarding the extension of the 

existing Carpathian Natural World Heritage by German territories is necessary, and is to be provided 

to UNESCO together with the German nomination dossier. 

Overall control and state coordination in the project rests with the state of Thuringia. At its 86 th meeting 

on 06 June 2008, the Landtag of Thuringia resolved to sponsor the nomination campaign of the Federal 

Government and the participating federal states. On 20 March 2007, the cabinet of Mecklenburg- 

West Pomerania, at its 11 th meeting, was informed accordingly. The State Chancellery of Hesse, the 

departments HMdF, HKM, HMWVL, HMdJ, HMWK, HMdIS, HMS, and the parliamentary groups of the 

Landtag of Hesse were officially informed by ministerial letter (incl. leaflet) of 11 March 2008 (with reference 

to the dedicated website) issued by the Ministry for the Environment, Energy, Agriculture and 

Consumer Protection of Hesse. Moreover, a number of press releases were issued, and the World 

Natural Heritage Beech Forests exhibition was presented (all members of parliament were invited) in 

the period from 27 August to 15 September 2009. A comprehensive account of the nomination project 

was given before the Commission for the Environment, Agriculture and Consumer Protection. In view 

of the relevance of the project outlined above and the nomination dossier nearing completion, the 

Cabinet is asked to give assistance. 

The federal states of Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-West Pomerania, Thuringia, and Hesse would bear 

particular responsibility in preserving of the Natural World Heritage "Beech Forests” for generations to 

come. 

Hesse, of all federal states being richest in beech forests and boasting a beech forest national park, 

wishes to meet this responsibility for the ecosystem with this nomination. Furthermore, the nomination 

presents an outstanding opportunity for the Kellerwald-Edersee National Park as well as the state of 

Hesse. What is more, inscription into the coveted UNESCO World Heritage List will, by all means, involve 

a tremendous gain in prestige both for the state of Hesse (preservation of globally valuable 

beech forests) and the entire Kellerwald region (unique tourist feature). Germany’s beech forests – 

including Hesse’s “Kellerwald” – will be placed on the same footing as natural landscapes of world 

renown such as the Everglades or the Grand Canyon. 

signed 

Lautenschläger 

Minister of State 

5



Decision of the Cabinet 

4. On item 4 of the agenda 

Report to the Cabinet concerning the nomination of German 

beech forests as UNESCO Natural World Heritage 

(Presentation MUELV from 4 Sept. 2009) 

The presentation is endorsed by the Cabinet 

(22 nd Cabinet meeting on 14 September 2009) 

6

5.6 

Communication strategy: beech forests 

as UNESCO World Natural Heritage



PAPENFUSS 

ATELIER FÜR GESTALTUNG 

COMMUNICATION STRATEGY: 

BEECH FORESTS AS UNESCO WORLD 

NATURAL HERITAGE 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

SEPTEMBER 2008 

1




BEECH FORESTS AS UNESCO WORLD NATURAL HERITAGE 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, SEPTEMBER 2008 

COMMUNICATION STRATEGY 


This Communication Strategy is structured as follows: 

1. Analysis of the local situation at the sites 

2. Communication objectives 

3. Points to be considered for a positive message 

4. Communication Strategy 

5. Definition of interim targets 

6. Target groups 

7. Information building blocks, editing 

8. Proposed measures 

9. Measured implemented 

2






1. ANALYSIS OF THE LOCAL SITUATION 

PERSPECTIVES 

To establish comparability, the individual sites (component parts) were considered from the following 

perspectives: 

1. The site and its location 

2. Tourism 

3. Points of interest for tourism 

4. Public relations 

5. Information points at the protected area 

6. Political interlocutors and non-governmental organisations 

7. Acceptance of the protected areas 

8. Ideas and comments from the national park 

RESULTS 

In order to define the message content and appropriate measures, the results are summarised under the 

following themes. The points identified are intended to ensure consistency in the communication process. 

The specific features of the sites must be profiled in the communication process at regional level and in the 

context of the serial nomination. 

At the same time, the points selected offer an overview of communication channels, media and site-specific 

information content of the products. 

1. The site 

• The beech forest 

• Flora and fauna to be profiled 

2. Tourism 

• Accessibility of the protected area 

• Significance of the beech forest for tourism at the site 

• Settlement patterns in the region, geographical position 

3. Public relations 

• Positioning of the beech forest in public relations work 

• Opportunities for regular information provision to the general public (publications) 

• Information centres and their thematic focus 

4. Budget/resources 

5. Acceptance of the protected area 

2|3 

3






2. COMMUNICATION OBJECTIVES 

• Positive attitude to the nomination among the population at large 

• Active support for the nomination from representatives of various population groups, without any 

suspicion of pseudo or tokenist participation 

• Provision of transparent, comprehensive and reliable information about the nomination process 

• Involvement of the general public in the nomination process through the provision of practical 

opportunities to lend support. 

• Longer-term support for the conservation process is ensured. 

4






3. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR A POSITIVE MESSAGE 

Resulting from the site (component part) analyses, a number of points were identified which must be taken 

into account in the Communication Strategy. These points determine the content, focus, depth and dispersion 

of the information that is required to ensure that the general public is consistently positive in its response to 

the nomination. This positive attitude is essential to ensure ownership of, and (active) support for, the 

protection of natural processes. 

Reasons for acceptance problems 

among the public at large 

Site-specific differences Problems in conveying the 

message 

5



• Restrictions on freedom of 

movement 

• Hierarchy problems 

• Local conflicts 

• Property rights 

• Cultural connotations of terms such 

as “wilderness” and “primeval forest” 

• Feeling of being passed over by 

decision-makers 

• Prejudices against 

stakeholders/nature conservation 

• Resurgence of entrenched 

discussions and fears 

• Deculturalisation of living space 

• Nature conservation is regarded as a 

luxury 

• Differences in the accessibility of 

sites 

• Different levels of awareness of the 

various sites 

• Different regional settlement 

patterns and development structures 

• Different geographical conditions 

• Differences in the thematic focus of 

the protected areas 

• Different communication structures 

(various information agencies) 

• Differences in the frequency and 

regularity of information provision 

• Different levels of relevance to local 

communities’ daily lives 

• Different financial capacities 

• Existing environmental education 

creates highly disparate conditions 

• Differences in the extent to which 

beech forests are recognised as 

deserving protection 

• Differences in educational material 

available on this theme 

• Different cultural connotations 

associated with the beech 

• Different communication structures 

(various information agencies) 

6






4. COMMUNICATION STRATEGY 

The Communication Strategy is based on targeted distribution of information, in the form of information 

building blocks, to identified target groups. 

The key question, in terms of guaranteeing acceptance, is which information is passed on, how and when this 

is done, and to whom. If identical information is provided to everyone, it may not be suitable to trigger an 

appropriate response in many cases. 

To reach the target group and convey the message, the choice of medium is key. Here, it is essential to take 

account of the media structures of relevance to the target group concerned and, at the same time, identify a 

format that conveys the information appropriately. 

The Communication Strategy therefore identifies target groups based on differentiation between the specific 

structures available and the general recipient groups. For each of these target groups, communication 

objectives are identified which define what needs to be achieved for the individual target group in order to 

involve it appropriately in the nomination process. 

In order to achieve an equivalent level of knowledge among all target groups, the information building 

blocks are broken down into central, regional and individual building blocks. 

This system ensures very flexible communication and is a tool with which to achieve increased awareness of 

the subject over the longer term, establish the “beech forest” as a topic, and convey the significance of the 

World Heritage nomination to the public at large. 

INFORMATION BUILDING BLOCKS TARGET GROUPS 

1.4 · Interested members of the public 

1.3 · Sceptical members of the public 

1.2 · Uninterested members of public 

1.1 · Persons affected 

etc. 

... 

7






5. DEFINITION OF INTERIM TARGETS 

The objectives of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention can only be achieved through the fulfilment of 

interim targets. We list these below as a basis on which to develop the acceptance that is desired: 

• Raising regional awareness 

In order to develop a positive attitude towards the nomination, the public must have an active awareness of 

the region and identify with it. 

• Filling the information gaps 

In order to provide transparent and evenly balanced information, gaps in thematic awareness must be filled 

and equivalence must be established in terms of the quality of information structures. 

• Creating forums for action 

To encourage the general public to play an active role in the nomination, it must be given opportunities for 

participation. 

• Clarification of terms, re-interpretation 

In order to facilitate communication between stakeholders and target groups and convey an appropriate 

understanding of the purpose and aims of the nomination, the language used must be harmonised in order to 

avoid misunderstandings. Nature conservation terminology is often not understood by non-specialists or may 

have different connotations in daily life. 

• Accessibility of knowledge 

The message and associated information must be made accessible in terms of both language and content in 

order to ensure that people are not overwhelmed by the amount of information provided and therefore lose 

interest. 

• Topicality 

All the information must be passed to recipients as quickly as possible on a regular basis via trusted 

communication channels. The crucial aspect here is not to cover everything in terms of content but to 

encourage a sense of ownership and empowerment. 

8






6. TARGET GROUPS 

Due to the identified differences in site structure, levels of awareness of the subject and communication channels, a 

highly flexible approach to the various target groups is needed. In order to respond as precisely as possible to the 

individual target groups’ information needs, the highest possible level of differentiation is required. During the 

consultation process, it became apparent that target groups 2 and 3 are particularly important in conveying the message. 

1. Regional population 

• Interested members of the public 

• Sceptical members of the public 

• Uninterested members of the public 

• People affected by the measures 

2. Children and young people 

• School classes 

• Children’s nurseries 

• Youth centres 

• Sports clubs etc. 

• Institutions frequented by children 

and young people 

• Nature conservation organisations 

• Fire services 

• Churches 

• Youth hostels 

• UNESCO schools 

3. Regional politicians and public figures 

• Politicians 

• Public institutions . 

• Churches 

• Trade unions and other professional bodies 

• Influential persons (farmers, investors, regional figures) 

• Associations, citizens’ initiatives, etc. 

• Persons responsible for the protected area/nature conservation 

4. Tourists 

• Interested day visitors 

• Overnight guests with a specific programme and interest 

• Regular visitors 

5. The public nationwide 

• Awareness among the public at large 

• Interested German tourists from elsewhere in Germany 

• Scientists with a specialist interest 

• Other national parks and relevant stakeholders 

9



• National nature conservation organisations 

• Other World Heritage sites 

• Political parties 

• Foundations 

6. Multipliers 

• Teachers 

• Tourism industry (tour operators, tourism associations) 

• Press, media agencies/media representatives etc. 

• Cooperation partners (e.g. Die Bahn »Destination Nature« scheme, institutes, nature conservation organisations, etc.) 

• National parks which have been identified as partners 

• UNESCO World Heritage Committee 

• Regional development groups, regional forums 

• Agenda 21 groups 

• Adult education centres 

• Colleges specialising in nature conservation 

• Youth Hostel Association 

10






7. INFORMATION BUILDING BLOCKS, EDITING 

The information building blocks are subdivided in both thematic and editorial terms: the key information 

building blocks of relevance to all sites involved in the nomination must be coordinated in terms of content 

and supplemented with regional aspects as appropriate. Regional information which may be of thematic 

relevance to all sites (component parts) must also be coordinated. 

1. UNESCO 

World 


Convention 

2. Beech 

forests 

3. Beeches 

(Primeval 

forests) 

4. Regional 

significance 

1.1 Description | Tasks | Objectives 

1.2 The UNESCO World Heritage Convention in 

Germany 

1.3 Significance and impacts of the nomination 

1.4 Nomination and its international context 

2.1 History| Distribution | 

Characteristics 

2.2 Cultural and historical significance 

2.3 Scientific data | Research 

2.4 Popular science version 

3.1 »Wilderness« as a concept 

3.2 Primeval forest, the forest cycle 

3.3 Dead wood 

3.4 Species diversity and specific regional fauna 

4.1 Features of regional beech forests 

Single message 

+ regional 

aspects 

Regional 

relevance (same 

structure) 

11 

Updated 

separately on a 

regional basis



4.2 Regional significance of the beech 

(history) 

4.3 Singular and specific forms 

4.4 Current information and events 

12






8. PROPOSED MEASURES 

PRINT MEDIA 

• General flyer 

2008 flyer available 

• Specialised brochure 

If appropriate, a glossy brochure with targeted distribution 

Short general section, brief reference to other sites, main focus on a specific site 

• Modular exhibition 

5-6 posters, can be exhibited separately if appropriate, thematically independent, include a title poster, can be 

combined and adapted to a variety of spatial and information settings 

• City Cards 

Have a similar function to a small poster, aimed at young, active target groups, often taken away. 

EDITORIAL 

• Internet 

Basic information, regularly updated news section, diary of events, moderated discussion forum, gallery 

• National press releases 

• Regional press releases 

• Editorial contributions 

PUBLIC INFORMATION 

• Information events 

• Public events 

• Thematic guided tours 

• Workshops 

9. MEASURES IMPLEMENTED 

AS OF 09/2008 

PRINT MEDIA 

• General flyer 

2008 flyer available 

• Specialised brochure with targeted distribution 

(Short general section, brief reference to other sites, main focus on a specific site) 

EDITORIAL 

• Internet 

Basic information, regularly updated news section, events diary, moderated discussion forum, gallery 

13



PUBLIC INFORMATION 

• PowerPoint presentation for information events 

Marktstraße 12 · D – 99423 Weimar 

Tel: 03643/7760-0 

Fax: 03643/7760-20 

ISDN 03643/4421000 

www.atelierpapenfuss.de 

14

5.7 

List of publications / PR activities as 

part of the application, Further press 

releases and media records 

(CD included)



List of publications / PR activities 

as part of the application 

(sorted chronologically) 

1) Grossmann, Manfred: Hainich National Park is to be designated as UNESCO World 

Natural Heritage site. Landschaftspflege und Naturschutz in Thüringen (Landscape 

and nature conservation in Thuringia) H. 1 (2007) 

2) Grossmann, Manfred: Beech forests as World Natural Heritage also in Germany? 

In: Nationalpark 1/2007. 

3) Britz, Heike: Developments under the UNESCO World Heritage Convention – news 

from the Natural Heritage sector. Umwelt No. 9/2007, p. 525-528 

4) National park administration: Hainich National Park – on the way to UNESCO World 

Natural Heritage status. Nationalparkzeitung/ Hainichzeitung 2008, p. 16-17 

5) Report on the Trilateral Meeting in Rakhiv/Ukraine, Biosphere Reserve of the 

Carpathians, 2008 

6) Luthardt, Michael Egidius: From managed forest to World Natural Heritage? On the 

evolution of the Grumsiner Forst. Naturmagazin 02/2008, p. 34-35. 

7) Förderverein für den Nationalpark Kellerwald-Edersee (Kellerwald-Edersee National 

Park support organisation): Kellerwald National Park to draw level with Grand 

Canyon. News from 07 March 2008 

8) MVRegio state news service: UNESCO World Heritage – nomination of German 

beech forests underway - website now online. 

i. (07.03.2008) 

9) Ministry for Rural Development, Environment and Consumer Protection (MLUV): 

Beech forests of Brandenburg to become part of UNESCO World Natural Heritage. 

Press release 12 March 2008 

10) Haerdle, Benjamin: Pristine primeval forests in 50 years from now. Stuttgarter Zeitung 

of 20 March 2008 

11) ArtenBlog: Beech forests on the way to World Natural Heritage status. ArtenBlog.de 

(17.04.2008) 

12) Dehmer, Dagmar: A German primeval forest. Der Tagesspiegel of 20 May 2008, p. 4 

13) Travelling exhibition “World Natural Heritage Beech Forests” in the Parliament of 

Hesse. Buchenblatt, Kellerwald National Park 03/2008 

14) Berliner Morgenpost: You can look out for beeches. 20 April 2008 

1



15) Fulda, Hendrik: UNESCO World Natural Heritage – proposal is online. Press release 

19 March 2008 

16) Fulda, Hendrik: Beech forests in Serrahn proposed for World Natural Heritage status. 

Nationalpark-Nachrichten, April – June 2008 

17) Beech forests as World Cultural Heritage. Schoene-nachrichten.de 26 October 2008 

http://www.schoene-nachrichten.de/?p=12937 

18) Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN): Nomination of German beech forests 

as UNESCO World Natural Heritage site. Umwelt No. 1/2009, p. 78-79 

19) Blahy Beate: An absolute rarity: The Grumsin beech forest. ADEBAR Information 

from UNESCO Schorfheide-Chorin Biosphere Reserve, 01/2009 p. 4 

20) Fulda, Hendrik: Day of the Parks at the National Garden Show in Schwerin (incl. 

reference to Beech Forest exhibition) Press release 18 May 2009 

21) Fulda, Hendrik: International cooperation on behalf of World Natural Heritage site. 

Press release 4 June 2009 

22) Fulda, Hendrik: Beech forests proposed as possible next UNESCO World Natural 

Heritage site. Press release 29 June 2009 

23) Foundation “Unternehmen Wald” (“Forest as Business”): Beech forests soon to 

become UNESCO World Natural Heritage? 29 June 2009 

http://www.wald.de/buchenwaelder-bald-unesco-weltnaturerbe/ 

24) bkr: Ukrainian scientists at the University of Applied Sciences Eberswalde. Delegation 

came to see Schorfheide. Märkische Oderzeitung of 15 July 2009 

25) FAZ: A second World Natural Heritage for Hesse? Faz.net 23 September 2009 

26) Trettin, Maik: Rugen Island's World Heritage proposal is in Paris now. OstseeZeitung 

of 30 September 2009 

27) Fulda, Hendrik: World Natural Heritage exhibition. Nationalpark-Nachrichten October 

2009 – March 2010 

28) Proplanta: Beech Forests filed for inscription in World Natural Heritage List. Proplanta.de 

01 October 2009 

29) Natural landscapes of Germany: Beech forests in Serrahn proposed for World Natural 

Heritage status. 02 October 2009 http://www.lifepr.de/pressemeldungen/nationalenaturlandschaften/boxid-125177.html 

30) Grossmann, Manfred: Beech forests as World Natural Heritage. Natural landscapes 

of Germany http://www.nationale-naturlandschaften.de/buchenwaelder-alsweltnaturerbe 

(21 October 2009) 

2



Further press releases and media records (not included in 

the CD-ROM): 

Ministry for Agriculture, Environment and Consumer Protection of Mecklenburg-West 

Pomerania: Beech forests in Mecklenburg-West Pomerania nominated for UNESCO World 

Natural Heritage status, press release 01 February 2007 

Forest in national park to be granted World Natural Heritage status? Ostsee-Zeitung Rugen 

of 25 January 2008 

Beech forests to be included in World Heritage List, Ostsee-Zeitung Mecklenburg-West 

Pomerania of 25 January 2008 

World Natural Heritage, Märkische Oderzeitung of 25 January 2008 

Mecklenburg trees as World Natural Heritage, Hamburger Abendblatt of 25 January 2008 

Two beech forests to become World Natural Heritage, Berliner Morgenpost of 26 January 

2008 


Pomerania: UNESCO World Natural Heritage: nomination of German beech forests 

underway - website online, press release 06 March 2008 

Two beech forests to become “World Natural Heritage”, Schleswig-Holsteinische Landeszeitung 

of 07 March 2008 

Fulda, Hendrik: Minister Dr. Backhaus takes first step toward projected UNESCO World 

Natural Heritage site Serrahn Press release 23 April 2008 

Kellerwald National Park to draw level with Grand Canyon, Waldeckische Landeszeitung of 

07 March 2008 

Haerdle, Benjamin: Natural Heritage within the reserve, Neues Deutschland of 17 March 

2008 

Application for World Natural Heritage status, Bremer Nachrichten of 03 July 2008 

Application for World Natural Heritage status, Schweriner Volkszeitung of 03 July 2008 

Application for World Natural Heritage status, Weser Kurier of 03 July 2008 

Application for World Natural Heritage status, Delmenhorster Kreisblatt of 03 July 2008 

Natural Heritage on the Müritz? Mittelbayerische Zeitung of 03 July 2008 

Jasmund and Müritz National Parks want to become World Heritage sites, Ostsee-Zeitung 

Mecklenburg-West Pomerania of 03 July 2008 

Beech forests to become World Natural Heritage, Ostsee-Zeitung Rugen of 04 July 2008 

3



Forests to become World Natural Heritage sites, Schweriner Volkszeitung of 25 January 

2009 

Beech forests of Rugen soon to become World Natural Heritage sites? Ostsee-Zeitung 

Rugen of 30 June 2009 


Pomerania: “German beech forests: application for World Natural Heritage status” soon to 

be filed, press release 30 September 2009 

Fulda, Hendrik: Beech forests in Serrahn proposed for World Natural Heritage status. Press 

release 2 October 2009 

Fulda, Hendrik: Application German beech forests for UNESCO World Natural Heritage 

status on the Internet: press release 02 December 2009 

Fulda, Hendrik: Proposal of German beech forests for UNESCO World Natural Heritage 

status online. Press release 2 December 2009 

4

5.8 

List of events to announce the 

intended nomination in the 

individual nominated properties



List of events to announce the intended 

nomination in the individual nominated 

properties 

Jasmund 

15 March 2007 In the national park centre, Minister Dr. Backhaus hands out information on 

the World Natural Heritage proposal to representatives of the communes, associations, and 

the press 

21 August 2007 State Secretary Dr. Kreer visits the nominated area together with selected 

representatives of the region 

since 2008 Regular ranger-guided tours through the nominated area and online presentation 

by the national park centre 

20 January 2008 Presentation in the Communal National Park Council, KÖNIGSSTUHL 

national park centre 

08-12 September 2008 Teacher training in the KÖNIGSSTUHL national park centre 

17 March 2009 Information event for tourist service suppliers of the city of Sassnitz by the 

KÖNIGSSTUHL national park centre 

31 March 2009 Information event for municipal officials of the city of Sassnitz by the 

KÖNIGSSTUHL national park centre 

from July 2009 Travelling exhibition "World Natural Heritage: Beech Forests" in hotels, 

leisure facilities, shopping arcades 

14-18 September 2009 Teacher training in the KÖNIGSSTUHL national park centre 

December 2009 One-week youth business game with pupils of Sassnitz Vocational School 

in the KÖNIGSSTUHL national park centre 

13 October 2009 The Communal National Park Council is informed of the current status of 

the World Natural Heritage application 

1



Serrahn 

06 March 2008 Minister Dr. Backhaus briefs representatives of the press on the online 

presentation of the application procedure, which is jointly maintained by the federal states 

30 April 2008 Minister Dr. Backhaus attends a special event devoted to the World Natural 

Heritage: Beech Forests, which is hosted by the Müritz National Park Authority; he would 

also guide the field trip to the nominated area 

since 2008 Regular ranger-guided tours to the nominated area and online presentation by 

the National Park Authority 

29 January 2009 The proposal is portrayed within the scope of the public annual assessment 

conducted by the Müritz National Park Authority in Hohenzieritz. 

Since 01 October 2009 A display window installed in Neustrelitz’ pedestrian zone providing 

information on beech forests as potential World Natural Heritage (planned until mid-March 

2010) 

14 October 2009 The “World Natural Heritage: Beech Forests” exhibition is opened by 

Minister for Education, Science and Culture Henry Tesch at Carolinum grammar school in 

Strelitz (until 29 November 2009) 

2



Grumsin 

March 2008 The Kulturlandschaft Uckermark e.V. advisory board is informed. Representatives 

of the communes and tourism associations as well as association members were 

informed of the projected nomination. 

Briefing in the run-up to the opening event 

(7 November 2008 Dampfmühle Groß 

Ziethen) 

Opening ceremony “World Natural Heritage: 

Beech Forest Grumsin” (28 November 2008, 

NABU information centre Blumberger Mühle) 

Photo exhibition Beech Forest Grumsin at 

Blumberger Mühle (Nov-Dec 2008) 

Committee meeting to develop a visitor 

guidance concept (31 March 2009, BRSC 

administration) 

Field trip to the beech forest Grumsin for 

interested citizens on 12 June 2009 

1. Round table with mayors, office directors, 

interested citizens and forest owners to discuss 

the development of a visitor guidance 

concept 

Public information event for local residents 

(the event was announced in the press and 

made known via bulk mail to all households 

in the surrounding communes) 

Public session with interested citizens, mayors 

and office directors that had signalled an 

interest in contributing to the opening event 

The invitation to the field trip was made public 

in the surrounding communes. 

Letter to authorities, communes and tourism associations providing important tourist information 

supplementary to the visitor guidance concept, 26 June 2009 

Letter to the Kulturlandschaft Uckermark e.V., being the major forest owner within the nominated 

area, to request approval of the visitor guidance concept, 30 September 2009 

Letter to 12 surrounding communes offering an additional event to furnish information on the 

current status of the proposal, 23 October 2009 

An application for designation and marking of hiking routes as per visitor guidance concept 

was filed with the Lower Nature Conservation Authorities of the Uckermark and Barnim 

districts and to the Lower Forest Authority, Brandenburg State Forest Office, section 

Eberswalde, 26 October 2009. 

The proposed hiking trails were inspected on location with the Ministry for the Environment, 

Health and Consumer Protection, the Lower Nature Conservation Authorities, Lower Forest 

Authority, administrative bodies, forest owners on 02 October 2009. 

3



Hainich 

Since 2007 Brokering of information about the project as part of all such public events of 

the national park the purpose of which is to communicate the focal points and objectives, 

e.g. annual meetings held by the support organisation, the communal work groups, and the 

tourism association 

January 2008 The project is explicitly mentioned and presented within the scope of the PR 

activities within the context of "10 years Hainich National Park" (resulting in TV, radio, newspaper 

and magazines coverage) 

19 March 2008 The project is presented to the national park guides in the Hainich region 

16 April 2008 The project is announced by Prime Minister Althaus within the scope of the 

"10 Years Hainich National Park" festival 

27 May 2008 Information event at the World Heritage site Wartburg with Minister for the 

Environment Dr. Sklenar 

28 September 2008 Lecture “World Natural Heritage Beech Forests – Germany’s global 

responsibility for the entirety of beech forests” in Bad Hersfeld 

19 November 2008 Parliamentary Evening in Berlin 

12-14 June 2009 International conference “World Natural Heritage: Beech Forests” in Bad 

Langensalza 

16 September 2009 Lecture “World Natural Heritage: Beech Forests” in the museum of 

natural history in the state capital Erfurt 

17-20 September 2009 Officials of the national park administration visit the World Heritage 

site “Beech Forests of the Carpathians” in Slovakia 

02 November 2009 The project is presented to the national park’s board of trustees 

4



Kellerwald 

14 March 2007 The state nature conservation advisory board is advised of the planned 

nomination (starting signal) by the Hessian Ministry for the Environment 

11 March 2008 A leaflet containing the ministerial letter is sent to local decision makers as 

well as to the recognised nature conservation associations of Hesse and the state nature 

conservation advisory board 

19 March 2008 The state nature conservation advisory board is informed of the entire 

planned nomination project and the current status by the Hessian Ministry for the Environment 

10 August 2008 Portions of the exhibition are presented during a regional all-day event 

(Heideblütenfest) which attracted over 1,000 guests 

13 August 2008 The state nature conservation advisory board is informed of the “World 

Natural Heritage: Beech Forests” exhibition by the Hessian Ministry for the Environment at 

the CBD 

14 August 2008 The Committee on the Environment, Rural Space and Consumer Protection 

is informed in the Hessian Parliament on the projected nomination (current status) by the 

Hessian Ministry for the Environment 

27 August – 15 September 2008 Exhibition “World Natural Heritage: Beech Forests” in the 

premises of the Hessian Parliament for representatives and visitor groups; the exhibition is 

opened by Minister Dietzel on 27 August 2008 

22 October 2008 In the Parliament of Hesse, the state nature conservation advisory board is 

briefed on the “World Natural Heritage Beech Forests” exhibition by the Hessian Ministry for 


31 October 2008 The national park advisory board (= panel of relevant local institutions and 

associations) is informed of the entire nomination project by the National Park Authority 

06 November 2008 Course of lectures organised by the national park: lecture & forum: 

World Natural Heritage Beech Forests – Hainich National Park 

15 January 2009 Course of lectures organised by the national park: lecture & forum: World 

Natural Heritage Beech Forests – Jasmund National Park 

12 February 2009 Course of lectures organised by the national park: lecture & forum: World 

Natural Heritage Beech Forests – Grumsiner Forst in the Schorfheide-Chorin Biosphere 

Reserve 

18 February - 12 April 2009 Exhibition "World Natural Heritage: Beech Forests" in the region 

of the nominated area (Lobby Bad Wildungen) The exhibition is opened by the mayor of 

the town of Bad Wildungen, the Hessian Ministry for the Environment, and the National Park 

Authority on 18 February 2009 

5



06 March 2009 The national park advisory board is briefed on the “World Natural Heritage: 

Beech Forests” exhibition in the Bad Wildungen Lobby; guided tour for board members 

following the meeting 

29 October 2009 Course of lectures organised by the national park: lecture & forum: World 

Natural Heritage Beech Forests – Müritz National Park 

09 August 2009 The nomination project is presented within the scope of the Heideblütenfest 

in Altenlotheim 

04 - 05 November 2009 The exhibition displays are presented within the scope of the 2009 

conference on UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Darmstadt-Kranichstein (organised by 

Deutsche UNESCO-Kommission e.V. / Welterbestätten Deutschland e.V.) by the Hessian 

Ministry for the Environment 

20 November 2009 Ceremonial presentation of the World Heritage nomination at the end-ofyear 

event “Wildbuffet” hosted by the Kellerwald-Edersee National Park support organisation 

in front of more than 130 guests and associates 

25 November 2009 The state nature conservation advisory board is informed of the planned 

nomination (current status) by the Hessian Ministry for the Environment; presentation of the 

exhibition displays 

22 December 2009 Hessian Minister mails the brochure "Buchenwälder in Deutschland - 

Nominierung zum UNESCO Weltnaturerbe" to regional stakeholders, nature conservation 

NGOs and the state nature conservation advisory board 

Transnational activities 

01. February 2007 Press release issued by the Federal Ministry for the Environment and the 

State Ministries to accompany the official submission of the proposal to UNESCO in Paris, 

announcing that five German beech forests are to be nominated for World Natural Heritage 

status. 

06 March 2008 Press release to accompany the start of the PR campaign within the scope 

of the nomination project (joint effort by all states), activation of a website, publication of a 

leaflet about the planned World Natural Heritage: Beech Forest. 

19-30 May 2008 On the occasion of the 9 th Biodiversity Conference of the Parties (COP 9), 

over 5,000 international deputies are presented the “World Natural Heritage: Beech Forests” 

exhibition in the foyer of the Federal Ministry for the Environment in Bonn. 

23. April - 11 October 2009 "World Natural Heritage: Beech Forests" exhibition at the 

National Gardening Exhibition in Schwerin with ca. 1,86 million visitors from Germany and 

abroad 

6

5.9 

List of all expert meeting 

held at the International Academy 

for Nature Conservation, Vilm



List of all expert meeting held at 

the International Academy for Nature 

Conservation, Vilm 

a) Workshops and expert meeting on World heritage 

2.5.06 - 5.5.06 

Expert Meeting: "Nominierung deutscher/europäischer Buchenwälder als Weltnaturerbe" 

28.10.06 - 1.11.06 

Training Course: How to manage a World Natural Heritage site? - Applying the IUCN tool kit 

on management plans in Central and Eastern Europe 

7.5.07 - 8.5.07 

Joint nomination (Ukraine, Slovakia, Germany) of beech forest as a world natural heritage 

site 

9.5.07 - 13.5.07 

Expert Meeting "Harmonisation of Tentative Lists of the World Natural Heritage in the 

Central European Region 

31.10.07 - 4.11.07 

Training Course: Tourism Planning and Management for World Natural Heritage Sites in 

Europe 

27.2.08 - 29.2.08 

Implementation of the World Heritage Convention in the Caspian Region - 

Working towards a World Natural Heritage nomination for the Hirkan/Caspian Forests of 

Azerbaijan/Iran 

13.9.08 - 16.9.08 

Network Meeting: World Natural Heritage in Central, East and South-East Europe 

- Strengthening the Network 

26.11.08 - 30.11.08 

Transboundary, transnational and serial World Natural Heritage sites: challenges for 

nomination and management 

28.11.08 - 1.12.08 

2nd Trilateral Meeting 

17.9.09 - 20.9.09 

Network Meeting Current trends and challenges of the implementation of the UNESCO 

World Heritage Convention - Network Meeting 

7.11.09 - 11.11.09 

Expert Meeting Serial Natural World Heritage Sites: Challenges for Nomination and 

Management 

1



b) Workshops and expert meeting on Beech forests 

2.5.06 - 5.5.06 

Expert Meeting: "Nominierung deutscher/europäischer Buchenwälder als 

Weltnaturerbe" 

19.11.06 - 22.11.06 

Workshop "Caspian Forests” 

22.10.08 - 25.10.08 

National expert meeting: „Naturerbe Buchenwald“ (Nature heritage Beech forests) 

13.5.09 - 15.5.09 

National expert meeting: "Naturerbe Buchenwälder" - Beitrag zur Umsetzung der Nationalen 

Strategie zur biologischen Vielfalt - gemeinsame Verpflichtung von Forstwirtschaft und 

Naturschutz 

2

5.10 

Exhibition flyer containing the 

8 World Natural Heritage messages

5.11 

Displays



Displays 

1



2

5.12 

Leaflet in German and English

5.13 

Brochure


Nationale 

Naturlandschaften

6.1 

Nature Data 2008 

(CD included)

Foreword 

In May 2008, the city of Bonn is host 

to the ninth meeting of the Conference 

of the Parties to the Convention on 

Biological Diversity (CBD COP 9). The CBD 

links conservation of biodiversity to the 

sustainable use of natural resources and 

the fair and equitable sharing of benefits 

arising out their utilisation. A key CBD 

target is to achieve a significant reduction 

in the current rate of biodiversity loss 

by 2010. 

In order to see what has been 

achieved so far and what still needs to be 

done, it is necessary to take stock of the 

state of biodiversity and the natural 

environment and of factors affecting 

them. The German Federal Agency for 

Nature Conservation (BfN) provides a 

comprehensive survey for this purpose in 

‘Nature Data’, presented here in its fifth 

edition. 

The Nature Data publications provide 

information on the state and utilisation 

of nature in Germany and on conservation 

activities engaged in to date to 

conserve biodiversity at all levels. They 

record successes achieved, but also show 

the need for further nature conservation 

and policy action. By documenting key 

data at regular intervals, the publications 

make it possible to track important 

developments in core fields of nature 

conservation, for example regarding the 

conservation status of ecosystems, 

designation of protected areas, and 

progress in species conservation at 

national and international level. 

The updated German Red List of 

Threatened Habitat Types, for example, 

shows that the number of habitat types 

classed as critically endangered has 

decreased and conservation efforts are 

showing results. On the other hand, an 

increase in the number of habitat types in 

the endangered and vulnerable categories 

indicates urgent need for further action. 

Nature Data 2008 illustrates how threatened 

bird species like the black stork and 

Montagu’s harrier can be successfully 

promoted with targeted species conservation 

activities. However, such successes 

are parallelled by a major decline in 

species once common to agricultural 

landscapes. 

These examples, like many of the facts 

presented in Nature Data 2008, emphasise 

the ongoing need for intensive joint 

action at regional, national and international 

level to counter threats to biodiversity 

and to the ecological capacity of 

the natural environment. The wideranging 

contribution of official and 

voluntary nature conservation can secure 

considerable progress but is not enough 

on its own to achieve the desired objectives. 

In place of a sectoral approach to 

conservation, it is essential to apply a 

broad-based, cross-cutting strategy that 

takes in all relevant policy areas and 

combines conservation with development 

and sustainable use. The German National 

Biodiversity Strategy adopted in November 

2007 records the will of the German 

government to make progress in all 

biodiversity-related policy areas with the 

active involvement of social actors. The 

aims of this strategy are furthered among 

other things by work to safeguard the 

national natural heritage and the funding 

programmes implemented by the Federal 

Agency for Nature Conservation, for 

example for large scale nature conservation 

projects. The successful establishment 

of a suite of sites for the Natura 

2000 network in the German North Sea 

and Baltic Exclusive Economic Zone 

likewise underscores the German government’s 

ability to take action and its 

awareness of the country’s responsibilities. 

In face of diverse change, nature 

conservation itself can never be static but 

must flexibly adapt as conditions evolve. 

This is reflected in the various editions of 

Nature Data by regularly taking up new 

topics and areas of emphasis. On the topical 

issue of climate change and biodiversity, 

for example, Nature Data 2008 

contains a detailed discussion on monitoring 

and indicators, presenting both 

existing approaches and upcoming 

research and development needs in this 

subject central to the future of nature 

conservation. Nature conservation and 

health represent a new area where 

synergies can be obtained. In the discussion 

of land and resource use as they 

relate to nature conservation, particular 

Foreword 

emphasis is placed on the use of biomass 

as a factor of increasing importance. 

With this combination of regularly 

recurring and topical new subject areas, 

Nature Data 2008 comprehensively covers 

all important aspects of the conservation 

and development of nature and the 

landscape in Germany and world-wide. A 

large variety of data, information and 

maps are supplemented with numerous 

pointers for further reading on the BfN 

website and elsewhere online. An 

appendix section with useful addresses 

completes this reference work on nature 

conservation. 

Such a comprehensive work as Nature 

Data 2008 is necessarily a cooperative 

effort involving many contributors. I 

would like to thank all involved – and 

especially the staff of the Federal Agency 

for Nature Conservation – for providing 

articles, data and information. Nature 

Data 2008 would not have been possible 

without them. 

Prof. Dr. Beate Jessel 

President of the Federal Agency for 

Nature Conservation 

1

2 

Contents 

Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), Nature Data 2008 

Foreword 1 

Table of Contents 2 

BfN Online Information Systems on Nature Conservation 6 

Political Boundaries 7 

Contents 

Part 1 

State and Utilisation of Nature 

1 Natural Classification 10 

1.1 Physiographic Units 10 

1.2 Potential Natural Vegetation 11 

2 Fauna, Flora and Vegetation: Numbers of Species and Conservation Status 15 

2.1 Numbers of Species 15 

2.1.1 Fauna 15 

2.1.2 Flora and Vegetation 18 

2.2 Threat Status 25 

2.2.1 Fauna 25 

2.2.2 Flora 34 

2.3 Alien Species 39 

2.3.1 Neozoans 40 

2.3.2 Neophytes 41 

3 Habitat Types and Landscapes: Status and Threats 44 

3.1 Habitat Types 44 

3.2 Threats to Habitat Types 45 

3.3 Landscapes 48 

4 Genetic Diversity: Status and Threats 51 

4.1 Species and Populations in the Wild 51 

4.2 Crop Plants and Livestock 52 

5 Land and Resource Use 55 

5.1 Structure of Land Use 55 

5.2 Agriculture 57 

5.2.1 Agricultural Land Use 57 

5.2.2 Organic Farming 61 

5.3 Forests and Forestry 63 

5.3.1 Forest 63 

5.3.2 Near-Natural Forest Management and Certification 65 

5.4 Agricultural Genetic Engineering 67 

5.5 Rivers and Lakes: Condition and Use 72 

5.5.1 Rivers 72 

5.5.2 Lakes 75 

5.6 Fisheries 76 

5.6.1 Inland Fisheries 76 

5.6.2 Marine Fisheries 77 

5.7 Hunting 81 

5.8 Human Settlements and Transportation 83 

5.8.1 Land Take 83 

5.8.2 Populated Areas 85 

5.8.3 Transport 88 

5.9 Exploitation of Mineral Resources 95 

5.10 Renewable Energy 99 

5.10.1 Biomass 100

5.10.2 Hydropower 106 

5.10.3 Wind Energy 107 

5.10.4 Solar Energy 109 

5.11 Tourism 110 

5.12 Sports and Leisure Activities 112 

3Contents 

Part 2 

Nature Conservation Tools and Measures 

6 Nature Conservation Law 120 

6.1 International Law 120 

6.2 European Law 121 

6.3 National Law (German Federal and Länder Law) 122 

7 Species Conservation 124 

7.1 The German Federal Nature Conservation Act and Federal Species 

Conservation Ordinance 124 

7.2 Implementation of CITES and EU Wildlife Trade Regulations in Germany 126 

7.3 Habitats Directive 130 

7.4 Birds Directive 132 

7.5 Bern Convention 133 

7.6 Agreements Under the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) 133 

7.7 Ex-Situ Species Conservation 140 

8 Protected Areas 143 

8.1 Protected Areas Under German Law 145 

8.1.1 Nature Conservation Areas 145 

8.1.2 National Parks 148 

8.1.3 Biosphere Reserves 151 

8.1.4 Specially Protected Habitats Under Section 30 of the German Federal 

Nature Conservation Act 155 

8.1.5 Landscape Protection Areas 158 

8.1.6 Nature Parks 159 

8.1.7 Strict Forest Reserves 162 

8.2 Protected Areas Under EU Law: Natura 2000 165 

8.2.1 Protected Areas Under the Habitats Directive 170 

8.2.2 Protected Areas Under the Birds Directive 172 

8.2.3 Natura 2000 Sites in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) 173 

8.2.4 Reporting Obligations Under the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive 174 

8.3 Protected Areas Under International Agreements, 

and Specially Designated Areas 176 

8.3.1 Wetlands of International Importance 176 

8.3.2 OSPAR and HELCOM Marine Protected Areas 179 

8.3.3 Council of Europe Diploma Sites 183 

8.3.4 European Reserves 183 

8.3.5 Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs) 184 

8.4 The Ecological Network Under Section 3 of the German Federal Nature 

Conservation Act 187 

8.5 National Natural Heritage 190 

9 Nature and Landscape Surveillance, Analysis and Evaluation 192 

9.1 Red Lists 192 

9.1.1 Aims and Methodology 192 

9.1.2 Status of German National and Länder Red Lists 201

4 

Contents 

Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), Nature Data 2008 

9.2 Monitoring 202 

9.2.1 Monitoring Under the Habitats Directive 202 

9.2.2 Bird Monitoring 204 

9.2.3 Monitoring the Environmental Impacts of Genetically Modified Organisms 

(GMOs) 207 

9.3 Indicators 209 

9.3.1 Indicators at EU Level 210 

9.3.2 Core Indicator Set 213 

9.3.3 Indicators Used in the National Biodiversity Strategy 213 

Contents 

10 Landscape Planning and Impact Mitigation Under German Nature 

Conservation Law 216 

10.1 Landscape Planning 216 

10.1.1 Landscape Planning at Regional Level 219 

10.1.2 Landscape Planning at Local Level 219 

10.2 Impact Mitigation Under German Nature Conservation Law 220 

11 Nature Conservation and Regional Development 224 

11.1 Agri-Environmental Programmes 224 

11.2 Marketing Initiatives 228 

12 German Federal Government Model Projects and Research Projects 231 

12.1 Large-Scale Nature Conservation Projects and the Riparian Zones Programme 231 

12.2 Testing and Development Projects 234 

12.3 Research and Development Projects 242 

13 Nature Conservation and the EU LIFE/LIFE+ Programme 243 

14 Nature Conservation and Society 246 

14.1 Nature Education Institutions 246 

14.1.1 National Working Group of Governmental Educational Facilities for the 

Conservation of Nature and the Environment (BANU) 246 

14.1.2 Working Group on Nature and Environmental Education (ANU) 247 

14.1.3 National Parks, Biosphere Reserves and Nature Parks 249 

14.1.4 Zoos, Botanical Gardens, Wildlife Parks, Game Parks and Open-Air Museums 249 

14.1.5 Rural School Hostels and Youth Hostels 251 

14.2 Vocational Training and Further Education and Training in Nature Conservation 252 

14.2.1 Academic Training in Nature Conservation and Landscape Management 252 

14.2.2 Work-Related Training and Education 253 

14.3 Non-Governmental Nature Conservation Organisations in Germany 254 

14.4 Voluntary Work in Nature Conservation 255 

14.4.1 Civilian Service in Nature Conservation 256 

14.4.2 Voluntary Year in Environment Protection (FÖJ) 257 

14.5 Value Attached to Nature Conservation 257 

14.5.1 Public Perceptions of Nature Conservation 258 

14.5.2 Images of Nature in Germany 259 

14.5.3 Willingness to Pay 260 

14.6 Nature Conservation and Health 260 

15 International Nature Conservation 262 

15.1 International Agreements and Programmes 265 

15.1.1 Convention on Biological Diversity 265 

15.1.2 CITES 275 

15.1.3 Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) 276 

15.1.4 Ramsar Convention 

15.1.5 Helsinki Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the 

279 

Baltic Sea Area 

15.1.6 OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the 

279 

North-East Atlantic 282 

15.1.7 Trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation 

15.1.8 Antarctic Treaty System and German Act Implementing the Antarctic 

284 

Treaty Environmental Protection Protocol 285

15.1.9 Alpine Convention 287 

15.1.10 World Heritage Convention 289 

15.1.11 UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme 289 

15.2 Nature Conservation and Development Cooperation 290 

15.3 Transboundary Protected Areas and Ecological Networks 292 

15.3.1 Transboundary Protected Areas 292 

15.3.2 Transboundary Ecological Networks 293 

15.4 International River and Lake Management 295 

15.4.1 International River and Lake Commissions 295 

15.4.2 The EU Water Framework Directive and Nature Conservation 296 

15.5 International Organisations 297 

5Contents 

Part 3 

Selected Conservation Issues 

16 Climate Change and Biodiversity: Monitoring and Indicators 304 

Annex 

Directory of Conservation-Related Addresses 316 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 318 

References 322 

Index 349

6.2 

Summary of relevant current 

or future research projects

6.2.1 

Fundamentals for a modern 

management concept for the Carpathian 

Biosphere Reserve (Transcarpathia, 


parts of the UNESCO World 

Heritage Site “Primeval Beech Forests 

of the Carpathians”

NOMINATION DOSSIER ANNEX 6.2.1 


Fundamentals for a modern 

management concept for the Carpathian 

Biosphere Reserve (Transcarpathia, 


parts of the UNESCO World Heritage 

Site „Primeval Beech Forests of the 

Carpathians“). 

Funded by the DBU 

Project management: 

University of Applied Sciences Eberswalde 

Faculty of Forest and Environment 

Prof. Dr. Pierre Ibisch 

Project period: 01.07.2009-31.10.2010 

One of the outstanding characteristics of the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve in Ukraine is its 

large, well-preserved primeval beech forest that is part of the UNESCO World Heritage Site 

“Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians”. Following several years of studying and visiting 

this area and on the basis of initial research work undertaken by the University of Applied 

Sciences Eberswalde the idea about an applied research project regarding the development of 

the reserve’s management emerged from conversations and close contact with the reserve’s 

administration. The management of the CBR is facing and challenged by local, national and 

global changes including land use change and climate change. The overall goal of the project is 

to support the CBR in effectively implementing current strategies and action plans of the 

UNESCO Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage network in line with the management in the 

context of (eco)regional initiatives (e.g. Carpathian Convention). The first step will be to provide 

the basis for the development of a strategic, proactive management concept for the area of the 

CBR. This includes the identification of stakeholders and key actors and their position regarding 

the CBR and the region’s development, the estimation of the sustainable development potential 

of the region, the elaboration of conservation priorities and a risk analysis taking current and 

future developments and their impact on the conservation objectives of the CBR into account. 

Finally the need for developing and adapting conservation planning of the CBR will be identified 

and a concept for the integrated and sustainable development of the region drafted. 

1

6.2.2 

Summary of the current application 

for a research project “Mountain 

Landscape Management in CEE 

states – Perspectives of transition to 

inter national markets (CEEMP = 

Central Eastern European Mountains 

Perspectives)”



Summary of the current application for a research project 

“Mountain Landscape Management in CEE states – Perspectives of 

transition to international markets (CEEMP = Central Eastern 

European Mountains Perspectives)” 

(Decision on the project proposal is expected to be taken in March 

2010.) 

APPLYING INSTITUTION: 

Universität Marburg, Fachbereich Biologie, Fachgebiet Naturschutz 

Technical University of Dortmund, Fakultät für Raumplanung 

Applied University of Eberswalde, Faculty of Forest and Environment 

IN ASSOCIATION WITH 

Institute for Carpathian Ecology of the Ukrainian Akademy of Science 

Administration of the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve 

Institute for Geography, Ivan-Franko University Lviv 

AIMS OF THE PROJECT 

As a consequence of the breakdown of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, the central 

eastern European states (in the following: CEE) seek to catch up with the international 

markets. The economy of these countries was mainly focussed on primary production, with a 

considerable share of areas in mountainous regions (South eastern Poland, Slovakia, 

Romania, western Ukraine, Slovenia and others). Many of these mountainous regions turned 

to subsistence production after the breakdown of the Warsav Pact, which was also a treaty 

commitment. But this cannot be a sound perspective for the future. To find alternatives of 

development it is crucial for these states to save economic prosperity and social welfare 

(ROTH ET AL. 2008). In parallel these alternatives may protect one of the most prominent 

hotspots of biodiversity outside the Mediterranean. 

In recent years one focus of sustainability research was on problems in high mountain areas. 

But the situation is much more complicated on low mountain range, where humans, in 

contrast to the high mountains, constantly settle. Europe disposes on a great variety of low 

mountainous regions with altitude between 500 and 2.000 m above sea level. 

This project seeks to transfer western European and international knowledge and experience 

in transformation processes caused by similar conditions to representative CEE low 

mountain range areas with special emphasis on ecosystem functions and services, after 

adaptation to the specific local circumstances. In turn models and solutions there may 

contribute to a more sustainable development in Western European areas under lower public 

subsidies. 

GENERAL CONCEPT OF THE PROJECT 

This project unifies outstanding institutions and scientists on the field of sustainable 

development on the landscape level. Due to logistic restrictions and the regulations of the 

call scientific work is arranged into 6 work packages. However, it is believed that the 

substantial scientific and practical novelties will emerge just in between the WPs, by very 

close co-operation and developing innovative approaches. Therefore a dense network 

between the WP and between the scientific partners is planned and partially already 

established. Much knowledge and experience is already accumulated in the related 

1



disciplines, like biology, hydrology, land use sciences or planning, but it has to be 

harmonized with each other, and significant gaps have to be filled. 

The project focuses on Investigation areas (AI) in the western Ukraine (Capathians). 

However, adjacent areas in Slovakia (Poloniny NP; EU status) will be targeted by close 

scientific co-operation, as well as areas in Germany. Doing so, a transect over Europe is 

spanned out, reaching from areas being under EU policies since more than 30 years, over an 

area being only part of the EU very recently, to the adjacent model areas in the Ukraine. 

While in Germany an aggregation of experience is in the foreground, in the Ukraine new 

approaches on basis of research data are needed. Poloniny NP / Slovakia lies in between, 

and research is there needed as well as new political and planning concepts. 

KEY ISSUES 

Sustainable development 

Ecosystem services and functions 

KEY QUESTIONS 

How can ESS/ESF be analysed on regional level? 

Which interactions and feedback mechanisms exist between different ecosystem services 

(ESS) and between them and substantial land use systems? 

Which trade-offs and synergy effects of ESS and ecosystems functions (ESF) exist between 

different spatial and temporal scale levels? 

Which monetary or non-monetary evaluation schemes are suitable to allow to quantify ESS 

and ESF (ecosystem functions) to incorporate such value into market mechanisms? 

Which socio-economic frame conditions and which mechanisms/instruments allow the 

integration of ESF/ESS into decisions on land use? 

INVESTIGATION AREAS 

Country Name Location 

Germany AR BR Rhoen, Central Germany 

Bavarian part 

AR BR Swabian Southern Germany 

Alb 

Slovakia AR Poloniny NP Eastern SK 

Ukraine AI Carpathian BR Western UA 

AI Carpathian NP Western UA 

TRANSFER TO PRACTISE 

Is done by two independent approaches: 

1. Management plans 

2. Interreg IV A and ENPI projects 

2


Nationale 

Naturlandschaften

7.1 

Digital photographic documentation 

including photo credits 

and authorisation certificates 

(CD included)


„ANCIENT BEECH FORESTS OF GERMANY“ 

A. Hoffmann cognitio 

Non 

exklusive 

assignment 

of 

rights 

Yes 

No. Format Name Photographer Author 

1 digital 

3888 x 2592 px 

12.09.2007 

2 digital 

3888 x 2592 px 

03.09.2007 

3 digital 

3264 x 2448 px 

24.05.2007 

4 digital 

4288 x 2848 px 

05.07.2008 

5 digital 

4288 x 2848 px 

19.09.2009 

6 digital 

3935 x 2574 px 

16.10.2000 

7 digital 

3888 x 2592 px 

25.06.2007 

8 digital 

4892 x 3230 px 

20.02.2007 

1_Kellerwald_Arensberg 

Natural beech forest in Kellerwald 

13_Kellerwald_Ringelsberg 

Primeval forest relic in Kellerwald 

14_Jasmund 

Chalk coast of Jasmund 

14_Serrahn 

Natural beech forest in Serrahn 

14_Grumsin 

Grumsin is interspersed with forest 

moors and lakes. 

15_Hainich 

Hainich represents the best 

reference area for the specious 

eutraphent beech forests. 

15_Kellerwald 

Kellerwald is considered to be 

the best reference area for oligotraphent 

to mesotraphent beech 

forests. 

20_Jasmund_aerialphoto 

Closed woodland in contact with 

the sea (Jasmund) 

A. Hoffmann cognitio Yes 

M. Weigelt H.-D. Knapp Yes 





M. Weigelt H.-D. Knapp Yes 

1



9 digital 

3888 x 2592 px 

18.07.2007 

10 digital 

4288 x 2848 px 

05.07.2008 

11 digital 

2848 x 4288 px 

19.09.2009 

12 digital 

3720 x 2480 px 

14.04.2008 

13 digital 

3888 x 2592 px 

22.04.2007 

14 digital 

2592 x 3888 px 

15.04.2007 

15 digital 

3888 x 2592 px 

03.09.2007 

16 digital 

3888 x 2592 px 

22.10.2007 

17 digital 

11574 x 4233 px 

21.12.2007 

21_Jasmund_forest 

Jasmund is representative of the 

”beech forest of the lowlands“ type. 

22_Serrahn_bogforest 

In Serrahn integral components 

include lakes and moors. 

23_Grumsin 

Grumsin forms part of the world´s 

largest rather old lowland beech 

forest complex. 

24_Hainich 

Natural beech forest in Hainich 

30_bloomy_beech 

Beech (Fagus sylvatica) flowers are 

wind-pollinated (anemophily). 

36_beech_spring 

Beech forest aesthetics are one of a 

kind over the course of the year: 

spring. 

36_beech_summer 



summer. 

36_beech_fall 



autumn. 

36_beech_winter 



winter. 










2



18 digital 

2245 x 1465 px 

19 digital 

3888 x 2592 px 

09.04.2007 

20 digital 

3888 x 2592 px 

18.07.2007 

21 digital 

4288 x 2848 px 

05.07.2008 

22 digital 

4288 x 2848 px 

19.09.2009 

23 digital 

1754 x 2631 px 

24 digital 

2000 x 1334 px 

03.05.2007 

25 digital 

3888 x 2592 px 

18.07.2007 

26 digital 

4288 x 2848 px 

05.07.2007 

37_wood_garlic_Hainich 

Each spring sees the development 

of wood garlic (Allium ursinum) 

carpet in Hainich. 

37_anemones 

Anemones (Anemone nemorosa 

and A. ranunculoides) occur in all 

nominated component parts. 

44_beech_Jasmund 

Old beech in Jasmund 

50_Serrahn 

Old beech forest in Serrahn 

54_Grumsin 

Light and shadow in Grumsin 

57_Hainich 

Crown canopy in Hainich 

62_Kellerwald_Ruhlauber 

Dead wood in the Kellerwald- 


74_beech_Jasmund 

Stelzbuche in the Jasmund 

National Park 

75_Serrahn_deadwood 

Dead wood in Serrahn 










3



27 digital 

4288 x 2848 px 

19.09.2009 

28 digital 

3888 x 2592 px 

22.10.2007 

29 digital 

3888 x 2592 px 

15.10.2007 

30 digital 

1754 x 2631 px 

31 digital 

2592 x 3888 px 

20.07.2007 

32 digital 

3264 x 2448 px 

05.09.2006 

33 digital 

3888 x 2592 px 

Contacts: 

18.07.2007 

76_Grumsin 

Standing dead wood in Grumsin 

79_Kellerwald_october 

Golden autumn in the Kellerwald- 


99_Kellerwald_Ruhlauber 

Natural beech forest in 

Kellerwald (autumn) 

101_Hainich 

The Hainich National Park 

contains the largest free-of-use 

deciduous forest preserve in 

Germany. 

108_Jasmund 

Natural beech forest Jasmund 

112_Coral_Tooth 

Coral Tooth (Hericium coralloides) 

125_Jasmund 

Natural beech forest on Jasmund‘s 

chalk coast 

cognitio: cognitio Kommunikation & Planung, Westendstraße 23, 34305 Niedenstein, www.cognitio.de 

H.-D. Knapp: Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN), Insel Vilm, 18581 Putbus 

Thomas Stephan: Thomas Stephan, Wiener Weg 12, 89597 Munderkingen, www.thomas-stephan.com 

Ralf Kubosch: Ralf Kubosch, Hohgartenstraße 4, 57074 Siegen 






R. Kubosch R. Kubosch Yes 


4

7.2 

Protected area ordinances and other 

legal framework

7.2.1 

Decree on the designation 

of the Jasmund National Park 

of 12 September 1990



Decree on the designation of the 



On the basis of Art. 6 § 6 no. 1 of the Guideline Environmental Law of 29 June 1990 (Legal 

Gazette I no. 42, p. 649) in combination with §§ 12 and 14 of the Federal Nature 

Conservation Act, the following is decreed: 

§ 1 *) 

Designation 

(1) The forest and coastal landscape of the Stubnitz area on the Jasmund peninsula 

(Rügen) is designated a national park. 

(2) The national park is given the name "Jasmund National Park". 

Footnotes 

*) § 1 para. 1 amended by the Decree of 20 November 1992. 

§ 2 *) 

Description of area and boundaries 

(1) With the relief chalk horst of the Jasmund peninsula covered with beech forests, 

including the chalk cliffs along the coast, the Jasmund National Park covers a unique 

landscape that is one of the last natural landscapes in Central Europe. Springs, streams, 

fens and chalk cliffs provide varied habitats for an extraordinary variety of rare and 

biogeographically remarkable plant and animal species. 

(2) The boundary of the national park runs as follows: 

1. in the east: a line along the Baltic around 500 m from the coast, starting at the 

eastern edge of the local area of Lohme (easting [R] and northing [H] of 

topographical map R 541064, H 605147) - 530 m seawards to the north (R 541064, 

H 605200) - to the north Hankenufer (R 541200, H 605200) - to the northeast 

Stubbenkammer (R 541400, H 605074) - to the east Kollicker Ort (R 541535, H 

604890) - to the east Waldhalle (R 541535, H 604600) - to the southeast edge of 

Sassnitz (R 541435,H 604400) - beach at northeast edge of local area of Sassnitz 

(R 541385, H 604420), 

2. in the south: from the beach NE of Sassnitz following the boundary of the existing 

nature conservation area (edge of forest above Sassnitz) as far as 

1



Stubbenkammer Strasse and further along the southern forest edge of the 

Krampaser Berg above Sassnitz to the western edge of the Lenzberg. 

3. in the west: from Lenzberg on the northern forest edge of the Krampaser Berg as 

far as the Lancken-Buddenhagen road (R 541187, H 604500) - western edge of 

the Stubnitz forest as far as the Wittenhagen chalk quarry - upper slope edge of the 

chalk quarry to the southern tip of the Sehlitzer Krutt - southern forest edge of the 

Sehlitzer Krutt to the stream valley to the south of the Steinberg (R 540948, H 

604607) - northern forest edge of the stream valley and northern forest edge of the 

Boner Berg as far as the forest corner at the Rusewaser stream (R 541043, H 

604658) - forest edge of the Stubnitz forest around Rusewase as far as R 541089, 

H 604666 - further in a straight line to the forest corner R 541609, H 604680 - 

along the ditch to the regional boundary (R 541063, H 604792) - boundary of 

mineral soil/fen toward NO as far as edge of Stubnitz forest (R 541097, H 604742) 

- forest edge as far as banks of the lake - along the banks of the lake including the 

area of water and further along the western edge of the Stubnitz forest as far as 

forest corner R 540972, H 604790 - edge of Long Meadow, including this 

completely, as far as the forest corner height point 132.0 - forest edge of 

Mattowberg as far as road to the north of Jägerhof including a damp depression to 

the east of Poissow - Nipmerow-Sagard road to south as far as the forest corner R 

540966, H 604870 - forest edge of Jägerhof forest (Königsberg, Balleisenberg, 

Langer Berg) as far as R 540826, H 604885 - at NW edge of Kickberg as far as 

southern corner of Quoltitz chalk quarries (R 540807, H 604858) - southern edge of 

Quoltitz chalk quarries as far as R 540797, H 604866 - southwards in a straight line 

as far as the southern edge of the chalk quarry NW Gummanz (R 540790, H 

604825)- northwards following the edge of the chalk quarry at the north edge of the 

Tripsowberg as far as the ditch (R 540760, H 604886) - edge of the S Bakenberg 

forest and Tieschow stream including the Old Meadow as far as the Kader stream 

(R 540829, H 604950) - eastern forest edge of the Hohes Holz as far as forest 

edge R 540879, H 604910 - extension across field to edge of Jägerhof forest (R 

540910, H 604900) - northern edge of Jägerhof forest including the piece of 

meadow W Jägerhof and Dept. 258 as far as the Jägerhof-Nipmerow road (R 

540988, H 604928) - forest edge of Dept. 251 b and 257 - northern bank of 

Smilenzer See - edge of Stubnitz forest to forest corner (R 541103, H 605003) - 

bog and meadow edge as far as R 541106, H 605024 - embankment edge to forest 

edge R 541123, H 605017 - further following the edge of the Stubnitz forest Dept. 

145, 150, 151 as far as the eastern edge of Lohme (R 541063, H 605137) - down 

the steep bank as far as the beach (R 541064, H 605147). 

(3) The local area of Hagen with the surrounding usable agricultural areas is excluded 

from the area of the national park. 

(4) The boundary of the national park is shown in a map 1:50000 **) , which is attached as 

an integral part of this Decree. In addition, the boundary of the national park is shown in 

red in the Topographical Map 1:10000 (published for economic purposes), which is 

archived in the offices of the Higher Nature Conservation Authority and to which reference 

is made. Further copies are held in the National Parks Office and at the Rügen District 

Administrative Office. The maps are generally accessible during consultation hours at the 

offices of the authorities named. 

2



Footnotes 

*) § 2 para. 4 amended by the Decree of 20 November 1992 

**) The map attached to the Decree is not shown for technical reasons. 

§ 3 

Protection Aim 

(1) The purpose of the designation of the area as a national park is as follows: 

1. to maintain the diversity, the special character and outstanding beauty of this chalk 

landscape, which is unique in Europe, with its characteristic surface forms (glacially 

overturned chalk horst, terminal moraine ridges, dead ice and karst hollows, young 

erosion valleys, active and inactive chalk and moraine cliffs, the largest natural 

geological outcrop in the North German lowlands) and a corresponding mosaic of 

sites and vegetation in a natural state, 

2. to ensure that the processes of nature run in a way that is largely undisturbed by 

human intervention over a large area (coastal dynamics including coastal 

submarine processes, water balance and fenland genesis, forest development), 

3. to regenerate natural forests, including their natural dynamics, in very different 

locations over a large area (chalk and moraine beech forests on sites of varying 

moisture and trophic levels, brushwoods at orogenous forest boundary sites on the 

chalk cliff coast, alder and alder-ash forests in spring hollows and stream valleys, 

precious hardwood-rich maple forests at chalk cliffs), 

4. to regenerate site-related spring, cauldron and flow fens, 

5. to maintain the landscape-specific natural diversity of the flora and fauna. 

(2) No commercial use is intended in the national park; however, its aim is to serve to 

improve the structure of the adjoining areas. 

§ 4 

Protected zones 

(1) The area of the Jasmund National Park is divided into Protected Zones I, II and III. 

(2) Protected Zone I (core zone) covers the following areas: 

1. the entire former Jasmund Nature Conservation Area (NCA) except for the 

softwood-covered areas and residential areas, 

2. all areas located outside the former NCA covered with old beech wood, plus 

fenlands and water bodies, 

3. the Baltic as far as the border described in § 2. 

3



(3) Protected Zone II (development and maintenance zone) is divided into Zones IIa and 

IIb: 

1. Protected Zone IIa (development zone) covers the following areas: 

a. all areas situated outside the former NCA with the exception of those listed under 

Zone I, IIb and III, 

b. all forest areas of the former NCA covered with softwood and other timber species 

not native to the area, 

c. fenlands with anthropogenically disturbed water balance, 

d. all meadows and grassland enclosed by forests 

2. Protected Zone IIb (maintenance zone) covers the abandoned chalk quarries at 

Quoltitz and Buddenhagen. 

(4) Protected Zone III (relaxation zone) covers the residential areas within the national 

park of Stubbenkammer, Baumhaus Schwierenz, Baumhaus Hagen, Werder, Waldhalle, 

Buddenhagen. 

(5) The borders of the protected zones are shown in the map, scale 1:10000 mentioned in 

§ 2 Para. 4. 

(1) In the national park, 

§ 5 *) 

Instructions 

1. the undisturbed development of the natural symbiotic communities must be 

ensured, 

2. Protected Zone I must be left to develop completely naturally, 

3. commercial use of the hardwood forests in Protected Zone IIa must be ended so 

that they can be transferred to Protected Zone I at the earliest possible date, 

4. the softwood forests in Protected Zone IIa must be developed into Protected Zone I 

using suitable forestry measures, 

5. the fenlands with a disturbed water balance must be returned to their natural state, 

6. the biotope-typical diversity of the flora and fauna in Protected Zone IIb must be 

maintained and encouraged through suitable maintenance measures, 

7. the residential areas in Protected Zone III must be developed in a way that is in 

accordance with the protection aim of the national park, 

8. the quiet nature of the area must be enhanced through suitable measures to divert 

traffic and visitors; in particular, motor vehicle traffic must be limited considerably, 

9. scientific investigation must be encouraged primarily in relation to matters relating 

to the development of the national park, 

10. stocks of wild animals must be regulated according to the objectives for the 

national park in Protected Zones I and II as defined and in Protected Zone III in 

agreement with the National Parks Office. 

(2) A maintenance and development plan must be prepared in a reasonable time in order 

to implement the instructions listed in paragraphs 1 to 3 and for the maintenance, care and 

development of the national park. 

4



Footnotes 


§ 6 *) 

Prohibitions 

(1) All actions are forbidden which could destroy, damage or change the national park or 

its components or which could lead to any long-term damage or destruction. In particular, it 

is forbidden 

1. to construct or alter any building structures and advertising media, even if no 

building permission is required for this; this also applies for the erection of booths 

and of mobile or fixed sales kiosks, 

2. to take any coastal protection measures, 

3. to remove any components of the soil, to carry out explosions, drilling or 

excavations, to import or pile up materials of any kind or to change the relief of the 

land, 

4. to drive motor vehicles of any type or caravans off the carriageways of the roads 

and pathways designated for public traffic and the signposted parking and picnic 

areas or to park such vehicles there, to ride or drive harnessed teams outside the 

specifically designated pathways, and to cycle on marked walking paths and 

outside the specifically designed paths and roads, 

5. to use other mechanically powered vehicles, 

6. to leave the pathways with the exception of the pebble beach between Sassnitz 

and Lohme, 

7. to import, remove or damage plants and parts thereof, or to adversely affect their 

continued existence, 

8. to angle or fish, 

9. to release animals or pursue wild animals, to feed them, to disturb them wantonly, 

to trap or kill them or to remove, damage or destroy their development forms or 

their nesting, breeding or living habitats or places to which they flee, 

10. to change natural water courses and areas of water, their banks and their water 

drains or to remove water beyond what is used locally for drinking and common 

consumption or to lower the groundwater level, 

11. to apply fertilisers, plant pesticides, other chemicals such as slurry, sewage sludge 

or waste water, 

12. to spend the night outside permanent buildings, to camp, to park camper vans or 

caravans, 

13. to start or land aircraft of any type or to operate model flying devices, 

14. to operate water vehicles including models or water sports equipment within 500 m 

from the bank, 

15. to affix, remove or change plaques containing images or writing, memorial stones 

and path markings without the permission of the National Parks Office, 

16. to throw away or tip waste of any kind, to wash or maintain vehicles or to pollute 

the landscape including areas of water in any other way, 

17. to allow dogs to run freely, 

5



18. to cause noise and to use sound and image transmission equipment, sound and 

image reproduction equipment or radio equipment outside buildings or vehicles, 

19. to light fires, 

20. to run organised events of any type, except for events led by or with the approval of 

the National Parks Office, 

21. to fell clearances or to remove naturally occurring dead wood and to plant timber 

which is not native to the area, 

22. from 1 February to 31 July of each year, to carry out management and upkeep 

work in an area of 300 m around the breeding areas of eagles, cranes, black 

storks, giant falcons and owls and in an area of 150 m around the propagation and 

reproduction areas of other species of animals threatened with extinction without 

the permission of the National Parks Office. 

(2) In addition, it is forbidden to carry equipment which could be used exclusively or mainly 

for activities which are prohibited according to paragraph 1. 

Footnotes 


§ 7 *) 

Exceptions 

(1) The following are exceptions to the prohibitions under § 6: 

1. measures which cannot be postponed which are intended to protect the population 

and to prevent dangers to physical safety and life of people and major material 

damage, 

2. measures implemented by the National Parks Office solely for the purpose set out 

in § 3, 

3. driving on the blocked roads and pathways in motor vehicles used by persons 

belonging to state administrative bodies or their agents on urgent business travel 

and other persons with the permission of the National Parks Office, 

4. outside Protected Zone I, the proper agricultural land use, as defined in the Federal 

Nature Conservation Act (§ 8 para. 7), of the areas used to date for agricultural 

purposes, except for mineral-based fertilisers in Protected Zone II; other proposals 

may be made in the maintenance and development plan to be prepared according 

to § 5 para. 2, 

5. the existing use for the intended purpose of building structures including the areas 

belonging to them, 

6. the creation of clearances in Protected Zone III with an area of up to three hectares 

and in Protected Zone II only in so far as they serve the protection aim (§ 3). 

(2) Furthermore, the measures permitted at the time of the entry into force of the Decree 

on the basis of special approvals and rights shall remain unaffected. In so far as these 

measures are incompatible with the protection aim of the national park (§ 3), they should 

be dismantled as quickly as possible within the scope of what is legally allowed. 

6



Footnotes 


§ 8 *) 

Exemptions 

(1) Exemptions may be granted in individual cases, on application, from the prohibitions in 

§ 6 if 

1. carrying out the instructions would 

a) lead to an unintended hardship and the deviation is compatible with the 

protection aim of the national park (§ 3), or 

b) lead to unintentional damage to the nature and landscape, or 

2. such an exemption would be of overwhelming benefit to the common welfare. 

(2) The National Parks Office is responsible for issuing exemptions. 

Footnotes 

*) § 8 para.2 revised by the Decree of 20 November 1992. 

§ 9 *) 

Agreement 

The agreement of the National Parks Office must be obtained n the event of: 

1. measures to maintain the roads and pathways 

2. the preparation of general planning schemes. 

Footnotes 

*) § 9 amended by the Decree of 20 November 1992. 

§ 10 

Compensation for restrictions on use 

If restrictions in their usage rights or obligations are imposed on owners or others with a 

right of use as a result of this Decree or through measures implemented because of this 

Decree to an extent that goes beyond the social obligations of ownership, they have a right 

to compensation. This must appropriately compensate for the damage to assets caused by 

the measures. 

7



§ 11 

Precedence of this Decree 

The provisions of this Decree take precedence over the provisions of the existing 

decisions, decrees or orders under nature conservation law for this area. 

§ 12 *) 

Misdemeanours 

(1) A person is considered to be committing a misdemeanour as defined in § 11 para. 2 

no. 2 of the First Law on Nature Conservation in the State of Mecklenburg-Western 

Pomerania of 10 January 1992 (Legal Gazette M-V, p. 3) if they deliberately or negligently, 

and without any exception according to § 7 or any exemption being granted according to § 

8, 

1. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 1, construct or alter any building structures 

and advertising media, even if no building permission is required for this; this also 

applies for the erection of booths and of mobile or fixed sales kiosks, 

2. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 2, take any coastal protection measures, 

3. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 3, remove any components of the soil, 

carry out explosions, drilling or excavations, import or pile up materials of any kind 

or change the relief of the land 

4. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 4, drive motor vehicles of any type or 

caravans off the carriageways of the roads and pathways designated for public 

traffic and the signposted parking and picnic areas or park such vehicles there, ride 

or drive harnessed teams outside the specifically designated pathways, or cycle on 

marked walking paths and outside the specifically designed paths and roads 

5. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 5, use other mechanically powered 

vehicles, 

6. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 6, leave the pathways with the exception 

of the pebble beach between Sassnitz and Lohme, 

7. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 7, import, remove or damage plants and 

parts thereof, or adversely affect their continued existence, 

8. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 8, angle or fish, 

9. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 9, release animals or pursue wild animals, 

feed them, disturb them wantonly, trap or kill them or remove, damage or destroy 

their development forms or their nesting, breeding or living habitats or places to 

which they flee, 

10. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 10, change natural water courses and 

areas of water, their banks and their water drains or remove water beyond what is 

used locally for drinking and common consumption or lower the groundwater level, 

11. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no 11, apply fertilisers, plant pesticides, other 

chemicals such as slurry, sewage sludge or waste water, 

12. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 12, spend the night outside permanent 

buildings, camp, park camper vans or caravans, 

8



13. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 13, start or land aircraft of any type or 

operate model flying devices, 

14. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 14, operate water vehicles including 

models or water sports equipment within 500 m from the bank, 

15. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 15, affix, remove or change plaques 

containing images or writing, memorial stones and path markings without the 

permission of the National Parks Office, 

16. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 16, throw away or tip waste of any kind, 

wash or maintain vehicles or pollute the landscape including areas of water in any 

other way, 

17. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 17, allow dogs to run freely, 

18. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 18, cause noise or use sound and image 

transmission equipment, sound and image reproduction equipment or radio 

equipment outside buildings or vehicles, 

19. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 19, light fires 

20. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 20, run organised events of any type, 

except for events led by or with the approval of the National Parks Office, 

21. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 21, fell clearances or remove naturally 

occurring dead wood or plant timber which is not native to the area, 

22. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 22, from 1 February to 31 July of each 

year, carry out management and upkeep work in an area of 300 m around the 

breeding areas of eagles, cranes, black storks, giant falcons and owls or in an area 

of 150 m around the propagation and reproduction areas of other species of 

animals threatened with extinction without the permission of the National Parks 

Office. 

Footnotes 

*) § 12 revised by the Decree of 20 November 1992. 

§ 13 

Final provision 

This Decree enters into force on 1 October 1990. 

Berlin, 12 September 1990 

The Council of Ministers of the German Democratic Republic 

de Maiziere 

Prime Minister 

Prof. Dr. sc.nat. Steinberg 

Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Energy and Reactor Safety 

9

7.2.2 

Decree on the designation 

of the Müritz National Park 

of 12 September 1990



Decree on the designation of the 



On the basis of Art. 6 § 6 no. 1 of the Guideline Environmental Law of 29 June 1990 (Legal 

Gazette I no. 42, p. 649) in combination with §§ 12 and 14 of the Federal Nature 

Conservation Act, the following is decreed: 

§ 1 

Designation 

(1) The lake landscape to the east of Lake Müritz described in more detail in § 2 is 

designated a national park. 

(2) The national park is given the name "Müritz National Park". 

§ 2 *) 

Description of area and boundaries 

(1) The Müritz National Park represents a major section of the Mecklenburg Lake District 

near the towns of Neustrelitz and Waren. It covers generously forested terminal moraine, 

sandur and flat landscapes in which a diverse, often original natural heritage is maintained. 

The many lakes and fens create a particularly varied landscape and provide a natural 

habitat for the many endangered species of flora and fauna that can still be found here. 

The region is particularly significant for the maintenance of a number of large bird species 

that are endangered in Central Europe (such as the sea eagle, fishing eagle, crane, black 

stork). The territory is thinly populated and is only used for agricultural purposes in a few 

marginal areas because of its lack of suitability. 

(2) The Müritz National Park consists of two part-areas: Müritz and Serrahn. 

1. The boundary of the Müritz section runs as follows: 

a) Waren-Tannen forest district: SW and NW boundary of Dept. 25 direction N; SW 

boundary of Dept. 16 direction NW; NW boundary of Dept. 16 direction N; W 

boundary of Dept. 17 direction N; NE boundary of Dept. 17 direction SE; W boundary 

of Dept. 22 direction N; E boundary of Dept. 22 direction S; W boundary of Dept. 30 

direction S; S boundary of Dept. 30 direction E as far as Dept. 33; W boundary of 

Dept. 33 direction N as far as Dept. 32; N boundary of Dept. 33 direction SE; E 

boundary of Dept. 32 direction N; NE boundary of the agriculturally used area of the 

Waren Agricultural Production Collective (APC) (P) sub-region number 721901 

direction NW; E boundaries of the plots of land W and N of the Feisneck bank, 

direction N and E as far as the W boundary of the agriculturally used area of the 

Waren APC (P) region number l23; S boundary of the agriculturally used area of the 

1



Waren APC (P) sub-region number 123 126, 123 125 and 124 131 direction SE as far 

as the sub-region of the Waren APC (P) number 124 132; SE boundary of the 

agriculturally used area of the Waren APC (P) sub-region number 124 132 direction 

NE as far as the S boundary of Dept. 65; NE boundary of Dept. 54 und 53 direction 

SE as far as the W boundary of the agriculturally used area of the Waren APC (P); W 

boundary of the agriculturally used area of the Waren APC (P) sub-region number 

225 243 direction S; 

b) Müritzhof forest district: N boundary of Dept. 531 direction E; E boundary of Dept. 

531 direction S; N boundary of Dept. 526 direction E; E boundary of the unsurfaced 

road direction Federow as far as the surfaced Federow -Schwarzenhof road; 

c) Federow forest district: S boundary of the surfaced Federow - Schwarzenhof road 

direction E as far as the N boundary of Dept. 507; N boundary of Dept. 507 direction 

E as far as the W boundary of Dept. 508; W boundary of Dept. 508 direction N as far 

as the S boundary of Dept. 509; S boundary of Dept. 509 direction W following the 

forest-meadow boundary; W and N boundary of the part-areas 509 b 1 and 2 ; western 

boundary of Dept. 509 c direction N and NE as far as Dept. 491; W boundary of Dept. 

491 and 478 direction N; N boundary of Dept. 478 direction E; W boundary of Dept. 

537 as far as the Waren - Neustrelitz railway line; N boundary of Dept. 537 direction E 

as far as Dept. 542; NW boundary of Dept. 542 direction N as far as Dept. 541; W 

boundary of Dept. 541 direction N, excluding sub-dept. 541 d; N boundary of Dept. 

541 direction E as far as the unsurfaced Kargow - Gr. Dratow road; S boundary of the 

Kargow - Gr. Dratow road direction E as far as the agriculturally used area of the 

Waren APC (P) sub-region number 807 663 to the north of the road; 

d) Klockow forest district: W boundary of the agriculturally used area of the Waren 

APC (P) sub-region number 807 663 direction N; N boundary of the agriculturally 

used area of the Waren APC (P) sub-region number 222 229 direction W; E boundary 

of the agriculturally used area of the Waren APC (P) sub-region number 217 219 

direction N as far as Dept. 569 (Peeneholz); W and N boundary of Dept. 569 direction 

E as far as the N tip of part-area a³; S boundary of the unsurfaced road to the 

Schwastorf - Charlottenhof link road, direction E as far as the Schwastorf - 

Charlottenhof link road; W boundary of the unsurfaced Schwastorf - Charlottenhof 

road direction S as far as the Groß-Dratow/Kargow local authority boundary; Groß- 

Dratow - Kargow local authority boundary direction E and S as far as the partly 

surfaced Kargow - Groß Dratow road; S boundary of the partly surface Kargow - Gr. 

Dratow road direction NE as far as the unsurfaced Gr. Dratow - Speck road; W 

boundary of the unsurfaced Gr. Dratow - Speck road southwards as far as the N 

boundary of Dept. 365, N boundary of Dept. 365 (excluding the part-area b 6 ) and 

Dept. 361 direction E as far as the unsurfaced Gr. Dratow - Klockow road; W 

boundary of Dept. 362 direction N; N boundary of Dept. 362 direction E; E boundary 

of Dept. 362 as far as Dept. 355; NE boundary of Dept. 355 direction E as far as 

Dept. 194; N and E boundary of Dept. 194 (excluding part-area b 4 ) as far as Dept. 

197; NE boundary of Dept. 197 as far as the N boundary of Dept. 186 of the 

Ankershagen forest district; 

e) Ankershagen forest district: N boundary of Dept. 186, 187, 178, 179, 180 and 170 

direction E as far as the W boundary of Dept. 182; W boundary of Dept. 182 and 183 

direction N; N boundary of Dept. 183 as far as the S boundary of the agriculturally 

2



used area of the Ankershagen APC (P) region number 412; E boundary of the 

agriculturally used area of the Ankershagen APC (P) region number 412 direction N 

as far as Bornhof; E boundary of the plots of land in Bornhof direction N as far as the 

agriculturally used area of the VEG Saatzucht Bornhof; E and N boundary of the 

agriculturally used area of the VEG Saatzucht Bornhof region number 2 direction N 

and W as far as region 1; E and S boundary of the agriculturally used area of the 

VEG Saatzucht Bornhof region number 1 direction E; S boundary of the undesignated 

agriculturally used area of the VEG Saatzucht Bornhof direction E and N as far as the 

W boundary of Dept. 208; N boundary of Dept. 208 (excluding sub-dept. e, f, g) 

direction E; N and E boundary of Dept. 207; E boundary of Dept. 206, 200 and 193 

direction S as far as the S tip of Dept. 192; W boundary of the agriculturally used area 

of Ankershagen APC sub-region number 098 as far as Dept. 188; E boundary of 

Dept. 188 direction SE; N boundary of Dept. 168 direction E as far as the boundary of 

the agriculturally used area of the Hohenzieritz APC (P) sub-region number 2408; W 

boundary of the agriculturally used area of the Hohenzieritz APC (P) sub-region 

number 2408 direction S as far as the hamlet of Pieverstorf; W boundary of the plots 

of land in Pieverstorf in direction S as far as the agriculturally used area of the 

Hohenzieritz APC (P) sub-region number 2405; W boundary of the agriculturally used 

area of the Hohenzieritz APC (P) sub-region number 2405 direction S as far as the N 

boundary of Dept. 3347 of the Adamsdorf forest district; 

f) Adamsdorf forest district: N boundary of Dept. 3347 and 3342 in direction E as far 

as the W boundary of the agriculturally used area of the Hohenzieritz APC (P) subregion 

number 1203; W boundary of the agriculturally used area of the Hohenzieritz 

APC (P) sub-region number 1203 direction S; S boundary of the agriculturally used 

area of the Hohenzieritz APC (P) sub-region number 1203 direction E as far as the 

sub-region no. 2802; W boundary of the agriculturally used area of the Hohenzieritz 

APC (P) sub-region number 2802 direction S as far as region area 11; E boundary of 

the agriculturally used area of the Hohenzieritz APC (P) region area 11 direction S as 

far as the unsurfaced Liepen - Adamsdorf road; W boundary of the Liepen - 

Adamsdorf road as far as the N tip of sub-dept. 3323 a; W boundary of the same road 

along the SW boundary of sub-dept. 3323 a as far as the Kratzeburg - Adamsdorf 

road; E boundary of Dept. 3322 direction S as far as the Waren - Neustrelitz railway 

line; S boundary of the Waren - Neustrelitz railway line in direction SE as far as the F 

193 trunk road; 

g) Langhagen forest district: W boundary of the F 193 trunk road direction S as far as 

the boundary of the Hohenzieritz forest district; W boundary of Dept. 3411 of the 

Hohenzieritz forest district as far as the unsurfaced Neustrelitz - Kratzeburg road 

(former railway embankment); N boundary of the agriculturally used area of the 

Stendlitz APC (P) region number l direction W as far as the NE boundary of Dept. 

3211; NE boundary of Dept. 3211, 3208 and 3205 direction S as far as the 

Kiebitzbruch living area; W and S boundary of the Kiebitzbruch plot of land in 

direction S and E as far as the agriculturally used area of the Stendlitz APC (P) subregion 

number 3424; W boundary of the agriculturally used area of the Stendlitz APC 

(P) sub-region number 3424 in direction S as far as the unsurfaced Torwitz-Prälank 

road; N boundary of the unsurfaced Torwitz - Prälank road in direction W and S as far 

as Prälank; W boundary of the plots of land in Prälank as far as the E boundary of 

Dept. 3203; E boundary of Dept. 3203 direction S; S boundary of Dept. 3203 direction 

W as far as the E boundary of Dept. 3124 of the Blankenförde forest district; 

3



h) Blankenförde forest district: E boundary of Dept. 3124 direction S; NE boundary of 

Dept. 3123 direction S; S boundary of Dept. 3123 direction W as far as the 

agriculturally used area of the Roggentin APC (P) region number 270; N and W 

boundary of the agriculturally used area of the Roggentin APC (P) region number 270 

as far as the hamlet Userin; W boundary of the plots of land of the hamlet Userin in 

direction S as far as the agriculturally used area of the Roggentin APC (P) region 

number 293; W boundary of the agriculturally used area of the Roggentin APC (P) 

region number 293, 289, 286, 288 and 285 as far as the Userin Mill; N and W 

boundary of the plot of land of the Userin Mill and of the agriculturally used Roggentin 

APC region number 284 direction W as far as the river Havel; W boundary of Lake 

Havel direction S as far as the surfaced Userin - Zwenzow road; N boundary of the 

surfaced Userin - Zwenzow road direction W as far as the E boundary of Dept. 1345 

of the Zwenzow forest district (excluding the hamlet of Zwenzow); 

i) Zwenzow forest district: E boundary of Dept. 1345 direction S as far as Dept. 1340; 

N boundary of Dept. 1340 direction E; E boundary of Dept. 1340 direction S; E 

boundary of Dept. 1341, 1328 and 1327 as far as the unsurfaced Zwenzow - 

Wesenberg road; W boundary of the unsurfaced Zwenzow - Wesenberg road 

direction S as far as the unsurfaced road direction S (along the overhead power line); 

W boundary of the unsurfaced road (along the overhead power line) direction S as far 

as the unsurfaced Wesenberg - Leussow-See road; N boundary of the unsurfaced 

Wesenberg - Leussow-See road direction NW (1 500 m) as far as the unsurfaced 

Zwenzow - Mirow road; W boundary of the unsurfaced Zwenzow - Mirow road 

direction S as far as the N boundary of Dept. 1216 of the Leussow forest district; 

k) Leussow forest district: E boundary of Dept. 1216 direction S as far as the 

agriculturally used area of the Roggentin APC (P) region number 3148; S and W 

boundary of the agriculturally used area of the Roggentin APC (P) region number 

3148 direction W and N as far as the unsurfaced Wesenberg - Roggentin road; NE 

boundary of the unsurfaced Wesenberg - Roggentin road in direction NW as far as 

the agriculturally used area of the Roggentin APC (P) region number 3137; E 

boundary of the agriculturally used area of the Roggentin APC (P) region area 3137 

direction N as far as region no. 3138; S and E boundary of the agriculturally used 

area of the Roggentin APC (P) region number 3138 direction E and N as far as the W 

boundary of Dept. 1334 of the Zwenzow forest district; 

l) Zwenzow forest district: N boundary of Dept. 1334 direction E; boundaries of Dept. 

1350 to 1354 to the agriculturally used area of the Roggentin APC (P) as far as the 

surfaced Zwenzow - Kakeldütt road; E boundary of the surfaced Zwenzow - Kakeldütt 

road direction N as far as the hamlet of Kakeldütt; S and E boundary of the 

agriculturally used area of the Roggentin APC (P) region number 3122 direction E 

and N as far as region no. 3123; 

m) Blankenförde forest district: E, N and W boundary of the agriculturally used area of 

the Roggentin APC (P) region number 3123 direction N, W and S; W boundary of the 

agriculturally used area of the Roggentin APC (P) region number 153 direction S as 

far as the unsurfaced Blankenförde - Henningsfelde road; W boundary of the 

unsurfaced road direction S as far as the hamlet of Blankenförde; W boundary of the 

plots of land of the hamlet of Blankenförde direction S as far as the river Havel; S 

4



bank of the river Havel direction W as far as the sub-dept. e of Dept. 1367 of the 

Zwenzow forest district; 

n) Zwenzow forest district: E boundary of sub-dept. e of Dept. 1367 direction S as far 

as the agriculturally used area of the Roggentin APC (P) region number 3142; 

o) Leussow forest district: N boundary of the agriculturally used area of the Roggentin 

APC (P) region number 3142, 3141, 3140, 130 and 3136 and 3134 direction W and N 

as far as the pumping station to the west of Lake Jäthensee; E boundary of the 

unsurfaced road from the pumping station to Babke direction N as far as the S 

boundary of Dept. 761 of the Babke forest district; 

p) Babke forest district: S boundary of Dept. 761, 762, 763, 764 as far as the 

agriculturally used area of the Roggentin APC (P) region number 3133; S boundary of 

the agriculturally used area of the Roggentin APC (P) region number 3133 to the S 

boundary of sub-dept. b of Dept. 764; SW boundary of Dept. 764 direction W as far 

as the E boundary of Dept. 1162 of the Mirowdorf forest district; 

q) Mirowdorf forest district: SE boundary of Dept. 1162; S boundary of Dept. 1162 as 

far as Dept. 1163; S boundary of sub-dept. 1163 a direction W; W boundary of subdept. 

1163 a and c direction N as far as the factory boundary of Uckermärkische 

Fischerei GmbH; E and N boundary of the production site of Uckermärkische 

Fischerei GmbH direction N as far as the sub-dept. 604 b of the Boek forest district; 

r) Boek forest district: W boundary of sub-dept. 604 b direction N as far as the S 

boundary of Dept. 609; W boundary of Dept. 609, 611 and 618 to the N as far as 

Dept. 628; S boundary of Dept. 628 direction W as far as Dept. 640; W boundary of 

Dept. 640 and 651 direction N as far as Dept. 661; S boundary of Dept. 661, 662 and 

663 direction W to the S boundary of the boundary on the water side of the NSG east 

bank of Lake Müritz; 

s) Müritz: Boundary on the water side of the NSG east bank of Lake Müritz (runs 500 m 

away from the bank line of Lake Müritz at normal level of 62.0 m above seal level 

parallel to the bank, beginning at the S boundary of Dept. 663 of the Boek forest 

district as far as the S tip of Dept. 25 of the Waren-Tannen forest district). 

2. The boundary of the Serrahn section runs along the outer boundary of the area which 

includes the following parts of the forest districts: 

a) Zinow forest district: Dept. 5343 to 5354 and 5362 to 5370; 

b) Serrahn forest district: Dept. 5401 to 5439; 

c) Goldenbaum forest district: Dept. 6127 to 6175; 

d) Grünow forest district: Dept. 6201 to 6203 and 6205 to 6225; 

e) Waldsee forest district: Dept. 6418 to 6428, 6430 and 6453 to 6476; 

f) Herzwolde forest district: Dept. 5513 to 5517, 5520, 5522 to 5525, 5531, 5545 to 

5548, 5550, 5552 to 5554 and 5556 to 5573. 

(3) The following areas within the boundary described in § 2 para. 2 are not part of the 

national park: 

1. Kratzeburg - Dalmsdorf region with the following boundaries: 

5



a) Adamsdorf forest district: N boundary of the surfaced Adamsdorf - Kratzeburg road 

from the NE boundary of Dept. 3338 direction W as far as the hamlet of Kratzeburg; N 

boundary of the hamlet of Kratzeburg as far as the SE boundary of the agriculturally 

used area of the Hohenzieritz APC (P) sub-region number 3308; N boundary of the 

agriculturally used area of the Hohenzieritz APC (P) sub-region number 3308 

direction W to region no. 31; N and W boundary of the agriculturally used area of the 

Hohenzieritz APC (P) region number 31 and sub-region number 3305 to region no. 

32; S and E boundary of the agriculturally used area of the Hohenzieritz APC (P) 

region number 32 as far as the hamlet of Dalmsdorf; E boundary of the plots of land 

of Dalmsdorf direction N as far as the Dalmsdorf - Kratzeburg road; S boundary of the 

surfaced Dalmsdorf - Kratzeburg road as far as the Waren - Neustrelitz railway line; S 

boundary of the Waren - Neustrelitz railway line direction SE as far as the partly 

surfaced road between Kratzeburg and the camp site at Lake Käbelicksee; W 

boundary of the leisure facilities and the camp site as far as the N boundary of Dept. 

3335; N boundary of Dept. 3335 direction E; N boundary of Dept. 3334 direction E as 

far as the old railway line; W boundary of Dept. 3337 and 3338 direction N as far as 

the surfaced Adamsdorf - Kratzeburg road 

2. Hamlets and buildings inhabited all year round including the fenced land immediately 

surrounding them. 

(4) The boundary of the national park is shown in a map 1:50000 **) , which is attached as 

an integral part of this Decree. In addition, the boundary of the national park is shown in 

red in the following maps: 

Forestry land maps 

- of the Waren State Forestry Operation, forest status, 1 January 1987, 

- of the State Forestry Operation, forest status, 1 January 1977, basic agricultural map 

- of the Ankershagen APC (P) (1986) 1:25000 

- of the Hohenzieritz APC (P) (1986) 1:25000 

- of the Roggentin APC (P) (1987) 1:25000 

- of the Stendlitz APC (P) (1987) 1:10000 

- of the Waren APC (P) (1986) 1:25000 

- of the VEG Saatzucht Bornhof (1987) 1:10000. 

These are archived in the offices of the Higher Nature Conservation Authority and 

reference is made to them. Further copies are held at the Neustrelitz and Waren District 

Administrative Offices and in the National Parks Office. The maps are generally accessible 

during consultation hours at the offices of the authorities named. 

Footnotes 

*) § 2 para. 4 amended by the Decree of 20 November 1992 

**) The map attached to the Decree is not shown for technical reasons. 

6



§ 3 


(1) The aim of the national park is to protect the extensive, typically Mecklenburg 

landscape of forests and lakes in the North German lowlands to the east of Lake Müritz. 

The general protection aim is to ensure that nature develops freely, unaffected by human 

influence. Specific protection aims are: 

- to permit the undisturbed development of the forest in the largest part of the region, 

- to maintain the wet biotopes, 

- to restore a natural water balance to regenerate the numerous fenland areas, 

- to main the diversity of the various flora and fauna, 

- to maintain the bird populations and various plant species on extensively farmed 

meadows, 

- to facilitate undisturbed succession, over large areas, on the present military 

exercise areas. 

(2) No commercial use is intended in the national park; however, its aim is to serve to 

improve the structure of the region. 

§ 4 

Protected Zones 

(1) The area of the national park is divided into Protected Zones I, II and III. 

(2) Protected Zone I (core zone) is divided into Parts I a and I b. Protected Zone I b covers 

the areas of Protected Zone I which are currently still used by the Soviet Army for military 

exercises. The areas in Protected Zone I are described as follows: 

1. Fittensee including sub-dept. b, c and part-areas d 4 to d 6 of dept. 540 of the Klockow 

forest district, bordered by the agriculturally used area of the Waren APC (P), sub-region 

number 222 231 and 221 223 and the Ankershagen APC (P) sub-region number 422. 

2. Moorsee including marshland areas of sub-dept. 42 b and 43 d; bordered by the 

agriculturally used area of the Waren APC (P), sub-region number 701 501 to 701 503 and 

702 511 to 702 513. 

3. Rederangsee and Großes Bruch bordered by the agriculturally used area of the 

Waren APC (P), sub-region number 703 524, 704 532, 722 911, 722 912, 802 611 to 802 

7



614, 825 981 to 825 983; including sub-dept. d, e and f of dept. 510 of the Müritzhof forest 

district. 

4. Röbelsche Wold, Specker Wold, Boeker Wold and Binnenmüritz bordered by the 

agriculturally used area of the Waren APC (P) sub-region number 802 612 to 802 614; 

including dept. 251, 252, 261 to 263 and 265 to 268 of the Müritzhof forest district, subdept. 

271 a and 274 a of the Speck forest district, dept. 262, 263 and the untreated area 

no. 7 of the Boek forest district. 

5. Fauler See including dept. 655 and 656 of the Boek forest district. 

6. Priesterbäker See in the north, bordered by the agriculturally used area of the Waren 

APC (P) sub-region number 805 643 and 805 644, including dept. 81 and sub-dept. b 1 to 

b 3 of dept. 87 of the Speck forest district and dept. 648 to 650, 657, 658, 664 and 667 of 

the Boek forest district. 

7. Woods and forests to the east of Speck: dept. 82 to 86, 88 to 92, 101, 105, 279, 317 

and 324 of the Speck forest district, dept. 93 to 97, 99 and 102 of the Klockow forest 

district; untreated forest areas bordered by dept. 3356 to 3358 of the Adamsdorf forest 

district and by the unsurfaced Klockow - Granzin road starting at dept. 3356 of the 

Adamsdorf forest district to the hamlet of Granzin and by the enclosed plots of land of the 

hamlet of Granzin; dept. 736 to 741, 751, 752 and 765 and 766 of the Babke forest district. 

8. Open spaces to the south-east of Granzin and northern part of Lake Langhäger 

See including dept. 3231 to 3234, 3238, sub-dept. a of dept. 3239, sub-dept. a, c and d of 

dept. 3240 and dept. 3258 of the Langhagen forest district; bordered in the north by subdept. 

e of dept. 3240 of the Langhagen forest district, the unsurfaced path from the northwest 

tip of sub-dept. e of dept. 3240 of the Langhagen forest district to the Dalmsdorf - 

Granzin road, from there along the road in a south-westerly direction to the point where the 

path turns off to Babke and from there along the path in a southerly direction to the northwest 

tip of dept. 3258 of the Langhagen forest district. 

9. Woods and forests to the north-west of Neustrelitz with Lake Babker See and 

Bodenseen including dept. 3324 to 3326, 3329 to 3333 and sub-dept. a of dept. 3334 of 

the Adamsdorf forest district; bordered in the north by dept. 3301, 3315 and 3319 of the 

Adamsdorf forest district; bordered in the east by the F 193 and dept. 3411 of the 

Hohenzieritz forest district; bordered in the south by the agriculturally used area of the 

Stendlitz APC (P) sub-region numbers 111, 115, 117, 118, 120, 126 and the path from the 

north-west tip of sub-region no. 120 of this APC as far as the south-east tip of dept. 3248 

of the Langhagen forest district; also including dept. 3248 to 3256 of the Langhagen forest 

district. 

10. Lakes Krummer See, Lieper See and Vaucksee bordered in the west by the 

pathway along the western bank of Lake Krummer See and pathways to the west and 

north of Lake Moorsee including sub-dept. a 1 to a 3 of dept. 3346 of the Adamsdorf forest 

district; including dept. 3341 of the Adamsdorf forest district; bordered in the north-east by 

the agriculturally used area of the Hohenzieritz APC (P) sub-region number 3001, from the 

Liepen - Pieverstorf path in the sub-dept. 3343 a of the Adamsdorf forest district to the 

north-east tip of the agriculturally used area of the Hohenzieritz APC (P) region number 

11; bordered in the east by the agriculturally used area of the Hohenzieritz APC (P) region 

8



number 11; also including dept. 3340 and part-areas 3339 a l and a 3 of the Adamsdorf 

forest district. 

11. Lake Trinnensee including dept. 181 and 191 of the Ankershagen forest district. 

12. Mewenbruch including dept. 623 to 625 of the Boek forest district. 

13. Lake Caarpsee and surrounding alder marshland forests including dept. 604 of the 

Boek forest district and sub-dept. 1162 f of the Mirowdorf forest district; bordered to the 

west and north by the production facilities of Uckermärkische Fischerei GmbH. 

14. Lake Säfkowsee including sub-dept. and part-areas 3151 b, 3152 a, 3153 a l , 3134 a 14 

to a 19 , 3141 a 4 , a 6 to a 8 and 3140 b of the Blankenförde forest district. 

15. Lake Zotzensee bordered by the agriculturally used area of the Hohenzieritz APC (P) 

sub-region numbers 17.01 to 17.03 and agriculturally used area of the Roggentin APC (P), 

sub-region numbers 3127 and 3128. 

16. Lake Jäthensee with Schulzenwerder bordered by the agriculturally used areas of 

the Roggentin APC (P) sub-region numbers 130, 3131, 3124, 3134, 3136, 3140, 3141 and 

3142; including sub-dept. 3135 a 4 and 3136 a of the Blankenförde forest district; bordered 

by the unsurfaced road on the eastern bank of Lake Jäthensee as far as the northern tip of 

sub-region no. 3142 of the Roggentin APC (P). 

17. Lake Kramssee to Lake Krummer See including dept. 3127 to 3130, 3146, sub-dept. 

3147 b, d and part-areas 3125 c 3 and c 4 of the Blankenförde forest district; including, in the 

north, dept. and sub-dept. 3204, 3207 b and c, 3210, 3213 to 3215 and 3216 a and b of 

the Langhagen forest district and bordered by the agriculturally used area of the Stendlitz 

APC region number 15; including, in the south, dept. and sub-dept. 1357, 1363 to 1365, 

1366 b, 1368 a, 1369 a, 1370, 1371 and 1375 of the Zwenzow forest district and bordered 

by the path from the western tip of part-area 1368 a 3 to the north-west tip of part-area 1366 

a 7 of the Zwenzow forest district and from the path to the west and south of Krummer See 

(essentially including part-areas 1345 b 4 and b 5 , 1346 b 1 to b 3 , 1356 a 2 , a 3 , a 6 and 1366 a 1 , 

a 2 , a 4 , a 6 , a 7 of the Zwenzow forest district). 

18. Lake Bullowsee, Lake Leussowsee to Gründlingsmoor including dept. 1321 to 

1326, 1333 and 1337 of the Zwenzow forest district and sub-dept. 1231 b of the Zwenzow 

forest district; bordered to the north and west by the agriculturally used area of the 

Roggentin APC (P) sub-region numbers 3137, 3138, 3143 and 3148. 

19. Degensmoor bordered by dept. 1311, 1312, 1317, 1319 of the Zwenzow forest 

district. 

20. Beech forest valley reserves, Lakes Schweingartensee and Großer Serrahnsee 

including dept. 5401 to 5424 and 5435 to 5437 of the Serrahn forest district; dept. 6122, 

6124, 6126, 6145, 6150, 6151, 6154, 6156 and 6159 of the Goldenbaum forest district and 

dept. 6202, part-areas 6207 a1, a2 and 6217 a3, a4 of the Grünow forest district; bordered 

in the north by dept. 5353 and 5354 of the Zinow forest district and dept. 5438 and 5439 of 

the Serrahn forest district. 

9



21. Lake Zwirnsee bordered by dept. 5518 and 5520 to 5523 of the forest district 

Herzwolde. 

The areas of Protected Zone I b are described as follows: 

1.) Dept. 82, 84 to 86, 88 to 92, 101, 105, 279 of the Speck forest district; untreated forest 

areas bordered by dept. 3356 to 3358 of the Adamsdorf forest district and by the 

unsurfaced Klockow - Granzin road starting at dept. 3356 of the Adamsdorf forest district 

as far as the hamlet of Granzin and the enclosed plots of land of the hamlet of Granzin; 

dept. 93, 94, 96 and 99 and parts of dept. 95 und 97 of the Klockow forest district; dept. 

736 to 740 and parts of dept. 741, 751, 752 of the Babke forest district. 

2.) Bordered by dept. 3234, 3240 and 3258 of the Langhagen forest district, also bordered 

by the unsurfaced path from the north-west tip of sub-dept. e of dept. 3240 of the 

Langhagen forest district to the Dalmsdorf - Granzin road, from there along the road in a 

south-westerly direction to the point where the path turns off to Babke and from there 

along the path in a southerly direction to the north-west tip of dept. 3258 of the Langhagen 


3.) Bordered by dept. 3301, 3315 and 3319 of the Langhagen forest district, the F 193 and 

dept. 3411 of the Hohenzieritz forest district, by the agriculturally used area of the Stendlitz 

APC (P) sub-region numbers 111, 115, 117, 118, 120 and 126 and dept. 3248, 3249 and 

3254 of the Langhagen forest district and dept. 3319, 3324 and 3329 of the Adamsdorf 


(3) The following areas are designated as Protected Zone II (maintenance zone): 

1. the grasslands in the region of Waren - Schwarzenhof - Speck: regions of the Waren 

APC (P) no. 701 50, 702 51, 703 52, 704 53, 722 91, 801 60, 802 61, 804 63 and 825 98 

and sub-regions no. 805 642 to 805 644; Spuklochkoppel with juniper heath 

2. the grassland and arable land around Charlottenhof: sub-region no. 423 of the 

Ankershagen APC (P) to the south of the national park border, sub-regions 807 663 to 807 

665 and 222 230 of the Waren APC (P). 

(4) Protected Zone III (development zone) covers all the other areas. Parts of these will be 

developed in the medium to long term into Protected Zone I or Protected Zone II as 

determined by the maintenance and development plan to be prepared according to § 5 

para. 2. 

(5) The borders of the protected Zones are shown in the maps listed in § 2 para. 4. 

(1) In the national park, 

§ 5 *) 

Instructions 

1. in Protected Zone I, the undisturbed development of natural and near-natural 

symbiotic communities must be ensured and disturbed symbiotic communities 

must be returned to a natural or near-natural state primarily through suitable 

10



protection measures, 

2. in Protected Zones II and III, the locally typical diversity of the native flora and 

fauna must be maintained and encouraged primarily through specific maintenance 

and renaturing measures, 

3. the quiet nature of the area must be enhanced through suitable measures to divert 

traffic and visitors, 

4. the national park must be opened up to the public for education and relaxation, as 

far as the protection aim allows, through suitable facilities and forms of public 

relations work and direction of visitors, 

5. scientific investigation must be facilitated and encouraged primarily in relation to 

matters relating to the development of the national park, 

6. stocks of wild animals must be regulated according to the objectives for the 

national park in Protected Zones I and II as defined and in Protected Zone III in 

agreement with the National Parks Office. 

(2) A maintenance and development plan must be prepared in a reasonable time in order 

to implement the instructions listed in paragraph 1 and for the maintenance, care and 

development of the national park. 

Footnotes 


§ 6 *) 

Prohibitions 

(1) In the national park, all actions are forbidden which could destroy, damage or change 

the protected zone and its components or which could lead to any long-term damage or 

destruction. In particular, it is forbidden 

1. to remove any components of the soil, to carry out explosions or excavations, to 

change the relief of the land in any other way or to search for, extract or acquire 

minerals and other resources, 

2. to change the lake banks, natural water courses and areas of water, their banks, 

the groundwater level and the water supply or drains or to remove water beyond 

what is used locally for drinking and common consumption, 

3. to disturb or change the habitats of plants and animals, 

4. to allow dogs to run freely, 

11



5. to apply fertilisers, plant pesticides, other chemicals as well as slurry, sewage 

sludge or waste water, 

6. to import, remove or damage plants of any kind and parts thereof, 

7. to pursue wild animals, to disturb them wantonly, to feed them, to bring in devices 

suitable for trapping animals, to trap or kill these animals, to search out, remove or 

damage their breeding or living habitats, 

8. to import plants and release animals, 

9. to create clearances or to remove naturally occurring dead wood, 

10. from 1 February to 31 July of each year, to carry out management and upkeep 

work in an area of 300 m around the breeding areas of eagles, cranes, black 

storks, giant falcons and owls and in an area of 150 m around the propagation and 

reproduction areas of other species of animals threatened with extinction without 

the permission of the National Parks Office. 

11. to allow forestry maintenance measures to affect shrubbery areas, remaining tree 

stocks, ground vegetation and small-scale structures (such as marshes, ponds), 

12. to construct or alter any building structures, fences, advertising media, signs with 

images or writing and pathway signs, even if no building permission is required for 

this, 

13. to drive motor vehicles of any type or caravans off the carriageways of the roads 

and pathways designated for public traffic and the signposted parking and picnic 

areas or to park such vehicles there, to ride or drive harnessed teams outside the 

specifically designated pathways, and to cycle on marked walking paths and 

outside the specifically designated paths and roads, 

14. to use other mechanically powered vehicles, 

15. to bivouac, to camp, to park camper vans or caravans and to light fires outside the 

designated areas, 

16. to walk on areas of the national park other than the roads, paths and designated 

pathways, 

17. to cause noise and to use sound and image transmission equipment, sound and 

image reproduction equipment or radio equipment outside buildings or vehicles, 

18. to pollute the land including the areas of water, 

19. to run organised events of any type, except for events led by or with the approval of 

the National Parks Office, 

20. to fish or bathe anywhere except for the designated lakes and areas, 

12



21. to use motor-powered water vehicles including models and to use boats in any 

areas other than the designated lakes and water exploration areas, 

22. to start or land aircraft of any type or to operate model flying devices 

(2) In addition, it is forbidden to carry equipment which could be used exclusively or mainly 

for activities which are prohibited according to paragraph 1. 

Footnotes 


§ 7 *) 

Exceptions 

(1) The following are exceptions to the prohibitions under § 6: 

1. measures which cannot be postponed which are intended to protect the population 

and to prevent dangers to physical safety and life of people and major material 

damage, 

2. measures implemented by the National Parks Office solely for the purpose set out 

in § 3, 

3. driving on the blocked roads and pathways in motor vehicles used by persons 

belonging to state administrative bodies or their agents on urgent business travel 

and other persons with the permission of the National Parks Office, 

4. outside Protected Zone I, the proper agricultural land use, as defined in the Federal 

Nature Conservation Act (§ 8 para. 7), of the areas used to date for agricultural 

purposes, except for mineral-based fertilisers in Protected Zone II; other proposals 

may be made in the maintenance and development plan to be prepared according 

to § 5 para. 2, 

5. the existing use for the intended purpose of building structures including the areas 

belonging to them, 

6. the gathering of wild forest fruits such as mushrooms and berries in Protection 

Zone III in a way which safeguards the vegetation and the soil, for personal use by 

the local population, 

7. the creation of clearances in Protected Zone III with an area of up to three hectares 

in so far as they serve the protection aim (§ 3). 

(2) Furthermore, the measures permitted at the time of the entry into force of the Decree 

on the basis of special approvals and rights shall remain unaffected. In so far as these 

measures are incompatible with the protection aim of the national park (§ 3), they should 

be dismantled as quickly as possible within the scope of what is legally allowed. 

13



Footnotes 


§ 8 *) 

Exemptions 

(1) Exemptions may be granted in individual cases, on application, from the prohibitions in 

§ 6 if 

1. carrying out the instructions would 

a) lead to an unintended hardship and the deviation is compatible with the 

protection aim of the national park (§ 3), or 

b) lead to unintentional damage to the nature and landscape, or 

2. such an exemption would be of overwhelming benefit to the common welfare. 

(2) The National Parks Office is responsible for issuing exemptions. 

Footnotes 

*) § 8 para.2 revised by the Decree of 20 November 1992. 

§ 9 *) 

Agreement 

The agreement of the National Parks Office must be obtained n the event of: 

1. measures to maintain the roads, pathways and areas of water, 

2. the preparation of general planning schemes. 

Footnotes 

*) § 9 sentence 1 amended by the Decree of 20 November 1992. 

§ 10 

Compensation for restrictions on use 

If restrictions in their usage rights or obligations are imposed on owners or others with a 

right of use as a result of this Decree or through measures implemented because of this 

Decree to an extent that goes beyond the social obligations of ownership, they have a right 

14



to compensation. This must appropriately compensate for the damage to assets caused by 

the measures. 

§ 11 

Precedence of this Decree 

The provisions of this Decree take precedence over the provisions of the existing 

decisions, decrees or orders under nature conservation law for this area. 

§ 12 *) 

Misdemeanours 

(1) A person is considered to be committing a misdemeanour as defined in § 11 para. 2 

no. 2 of the First Law on Nature Conservation in the State of Mecklenburg-Western 

Pomerania of 10 January 1992 (Legal Gazette M-V, p.3) if they deliberately or negligently, 

and without any exception according to § 7 or any exemption being granted according to § 

8, 

1. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 1, remove any components of the soil, 

carry out explosions or excavations, change the relief of the land in any other way 

or search for, extract or acquire minerals and other resources, 

2. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 2, change the lake banks, natural water 

courses and areas of water, their banks, the groundwater level and the water 

supply or drains or remove water beyond what is used locally for drinking and 

common consumption, 

3. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 3, disturb or change the habitats of plants 

and animals, 

4. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 4, allow dogs to run freely. 

5. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 5, apply fertilisers, plant pesticides, other 

chemicals, slurry, sewage sludge or waste water, 

6. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 6, remove or damage plants of any kind 

and parts thereof, 

7. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 7, pursue wild animals, disturb them 

wantonly, feed them, bring in devices suitable for trapping animals, trap or kill these 

animals, search out, remove or damage their breeding or living habitats, 

8. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 8, import plants and release animals, 

15



9. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 9, create clearances or remove naturally 

occurring dead wood, 

10. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 10, from 1 February to 31 July of each 

year, carry out management and upkeep work in an area of 300 m around the 

breeding areas of eagles, cranes, black storks, giant falcons and owls and in an 

area of 150 m around the propagation and reproduction areas of other species of 

animals threatened with extinction without the permission of the National Parks 

Office, 

11. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no 11, allow forestry maintenance measures 

to affect shrubbery areas, remaining tree stocks, ground vegetation and smallscale 

structures (such as marshes, ponds), 

12. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 12, construct or alter any building 

structures, fences, advertising media, signs with images or writing and pathway 

signs, even if no building permission is required for this, 

13. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 13, drive motor vehicles of any type or 

caravans off the carriageways of the roads and pathways designated for public 

traffic and the signposted parking and picnic areas or park such vehicles there, ride 

or drive harnessed teams outside the specifically designated pathways, or cycle on 

marked walking paths and outside the specifically designated paths and roads, 

14. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 14, use other mechanically powered 

vehicles, 

15. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 15, bivouac, camp, park camper vans or 

caravans or light fires outside the designated areas, 

16. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 16, walk on areas of the national park 

other than the roads, paths and designated pathways, 

17. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 17, cause noise and use sound and image 

transmission equipment, sound and image reproduction equipment or radio 

equipment outside buildings or vehicles, 

18. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 18, pollute the land including the areas of 

water, 

19. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 19, run organised events of any type, 

except for events led by or with the approval of the National Parks Office, 

20. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 20, fish or bathe anywhere except for the 

designated lakes and areas, 

21. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 21, use motor-powered water vehicles 

including models or use boats in any areas other than the designated lakes and 

water exploration areas, 

16



22. in violation of § 6 para. 1 sentence 2 no. 22, start or land aircraft of any type or 

operate model flying devices. 

Footnotes 

*) § 12 revised by the Decree of 20 November 1992. 

§ 13 


This Decree enters into force on 1 October 1990. 

Berlin, 12 September 1990 

The Council of Ministers of the German Democratic Republic 

de Maiziere 

Prime Minister 

Prof. Dr. sc.nat. Steinberg 

Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Energy and Reactor Safety 

17

7.2.3 

Decree on the regulation of hunting 




– NLPJagdVO M-V) of 8 June 1998



Decree on the regulation of hunting 




- NLPJagdVO M-V) of 8 June 1998 

On the basis of § 20 para. 2 and 4 of the State Hunting Law of 10 February 1992 (Legal 

Gazette M-V p. 30), amended by Article 26 of the Law of 5 May 1994 (Legal Gazette M-V 

p. 566), the Ministry for Agriculture and Nature Conservation decrees: 

§ 1 

Principles of hunting, species of game 

(1) The purpose of hunting in the national parks is to regulate wildlife stocks. Its sole 

objective is to maintain healthy, naturally structured stocks of hoofed game to an extent 

that does not impede the arrival and growth of natural rejuvenation in the forests and 

excludes as far as possible damage caused by animals to agricultural crops. Gamekeeping 

measures must not have a detrimental effect on this aim. It should be made 

possible for visitors to observe wild animals in their natural habitats. 

(2) Hunting in the national parks is limited to hoofed game, foxes, raccoon dogs, raccoons 

and mink. Exceptions may be granted on application or ex officio by the Higher Hunting 

Authority in agreement with the Higher Nature Protection Authority. 

(3) Decrees which, in combination with § 79 para. 3 of the Law on Animal Diseases in the 

version published on 20 December 1995 (Fed. Gazette I, p. 2083), create hunting law 

regulations, remain unaffected. 

§ 2 

Shooting planning 

(1) To determine the density of hoofed game, the National Parks Offices will establish a 

damage monitoring area over 200 ha of forest area at a time and carry out the survey. The 

monitoring areas should preferably be created in state forests, on federal areas in 

agreement with the competent Federal Forestry Departments. 

(2) Depending on the degree of damage caused by animals in the damage monitoring 

areas, the National Parks Offices shall determine, by 10 December each year, whether 

shooting the stock shall lead to the reduction or maintenance of the stocks of hoofed 

game. These findings (expected bag) must be forwarded, with the technical justifications, 

to the persons entitled to hunt by 1 February each year. 

1



(3) Taking paragraph 2 into account, a shooting plan proposal must be prepared for all 

hunting districts, which is forwarded by 1 March each year to the game-keeping 

community for discussion. The Lower Hunting Authority, the National Parks Office and the 

Hunting Committee must be involved in this discussion in order to achieve, at this early 

stage, a coordinated shooting plan proposal from the game-keeping community. 

(4) On the basis of the shooting plan proposals under paragraph 3, the shooting plans: 

1. are set for the areas belonging to the National Government and the State by the 

State National Parks Office, 

2. and confirmed for the other hunting districts by the Lower Hunting Authority in 

agreement with the National Parks Office, or defined in cases covered by § 21 

para. 3 of the State Hunting Law; if no agreement can be reached, the Higher 

Hunting Authority shall decide. 

(5) The persons entitled to hunt in the private and municipal independent hunting districts 

and the common hunting districts shall submit the bag list each quarter to the Lower 

Hunting Authority by the 10th working day after the end of the quarter. The Lower Hunting 

Authority shall submit the bag results immediately for each hunting district to the National 

Parks Office. Bag lists for the administrative hunting districts of the national government 

and the state must be presented to the State National Parks Office in the same time 

sequence. 

§ 3 

Game reserves and non-hunting areas 

(1) The following are designated game reserves and non-hunting areas in the borders 

according to sentence 3: 

1. in the Vorpommersche Boddenlandschaft National Park: 

a) Darßer Ort, Sundische Wiese/Pramort, 

b) Bock, Gellen, Neubessin, Bug, 

2. in the Müritz National Park: 

a) east bank of Lake Müritz, 

b) Serrahn, 

c) Lieper See - Krummer See, 

d) Caarp-See 

The location of the game reserves and non-hunting areas is marked on the general maps 

on a scale of 1:25000, which are published as attachments to this Decree, using a bold, 

black line. The borders of the game reserves and non-hunting areas are shown in the 

same way on the boundary maps on a scale of 1:10000. The maps are an integral part of 

this Decree and are archived at the Ministry for Agriculture and Nature Conservation, 

Paulshöher Weg 1, 19061 Schwerin. 

Copies of the maps are kept 

2



1. at the State National Parks Office 

Specker Schloß 

17192 Speck 

2. further copies of the maps for the relevant local area of competence 

a) at the Vorpommersche Boddenlandschaft National Parks Office 

am Wald 13 

18375 Born, 

b) at the Müritz National Parks Office 

An der Fasanerie 13 

17235 Neustrelitz, 

c) at the Lower Hunting Authority of the Administrative District of Nordvorpommern 

Bahnhofstrasse 12/13 

18507 Grimmen 

d) at the Lower Hunting Authority of the Administrative District of Rügen 

Billrothstrasse 5 

18528 Bergen, 

e) at the Lower Hunting Authority of the Administrative District of Müritz 

Kietzstrasse 10/11 

17192 Waren 

f) at the Lower Hunting Authority of the Administrative District of Mecklenburg- 

Strelitz 

Woldegker Chaussee 35 

17235 Neustrelitz. 

The maps can be inspected at the offices of these authorities during working hours. 

(2) Hunting is prohibited in the game reserves and non-hunting areas. The only exception 

to this is hunting for foxes, raccoon dogs, raccoons, mink and wild boards in coastal bird 

hatching areas in Neubessin. Further exceptions to sentence 1 may be allowed in justified 

individual cases on application by the persons authorised to hunt or ex officio by the 

Higher Hunting Authority in agreement with the Higher Nature Protection Authority. 

(3) Game reserves and non-hunting areas must be evaluated by the National Parks 

Offices every three years to review their effect on the development of game stocks and the 

natural vegetation. 

(4) During the period of the autumn crane migration, within a radius of 1000 m around the 

cranes' roosting areas, hunting must be carried out in such a way that detrimental effects 

to and disturbances of the arriving, resting and sleeping cranes are avoided. Each year, 

the National Parks Offices shall define, through a general disposition, the period of the 

autumn crane migration, the location of the crane roosting areas and measures 

appropriate for the avoidance of disturbances and shall inform the relevant persons 

entitled to hunt. 

3



§ 4 

Hunting facilities 

(1) Sites for hunting hides or for bait for wild boar in hunting districts that do not belong to 

the national government or state require the approval of the National Parks Office; 

approval is considered to have been granted if it has not been refused four weeks after the 

receipt of the request from the persons authorised to hunt. Permission is not granted for 

fixed hunting hides in the game reserves and non-hunting areas according to § 3 and the 

eyrie protection zones existing around the breeding grounds of endangered species of 

birds; exceptions may be granted by the National Parks Office in the case of hunting 

districts that do not belong to the state. 

(2) The creation or upkeep of bait areas is permitted solely for the purposes of regulating 

the stocks of wild boar. Only grain maize, cereal or fruit from trees may be provided in a 

total quantity not exceeding one kilogram per day and bait area and in such a way that it is 

difficult for other species to consume it. 

(3) Any wild meadows which have mainly been created by natural seeding and which can 

be reached by game all year round may be maintained by mowing. The area proportion of 

wild meadows within the national parks is basically limited to 0.5 per cent of the timber 

land area. Efforts must be made to achieve the best possible distribution of wild meadows. 

The planting or sowing of areas in order to create or maintain wild fields or permanent 

green grazing areas is not allowed. 

(4) The feeding of game in the national parks is not allowed. Times of extraordinary 

hardship are excepted from this feeding ban. The Lower Hunting Authority shall, in 

agreement with the National Parks Office, define the times of extraordinary hardship as in 

sentence 2 ex officio and shall inform those persons entitled to hunt. The nature of the 

feed and the way in which the feed is provided shall be determined in the same way. The 

establishment or upkeep of stationary feed facilities is not permitted; exceptions may be 

permitted by the Lower Hunting Authority in agreement with the National Parks Office. 

(5) The establishment or upkeep of hunting enclosures of any types is not permitted. 

Exceptions may be granted by the Higher Hunting Authority in agreement with the Higher 

Nature Conservation Authority for scientific investigations relating to the protective purpose 

of the national park and for measures to combat animal diseases. 

(6) Hunting with traps is not permitted; exceptions may be granted by the National Parks 

Offices for scientific investigations relating to the protective purpose of the national park, 

for measures to protect against birds of prey in coastal nesting areas and for measures to 

combat animal diseases. 

§ 5 

Misdemeanours 

Anyone who deliberately or negligently commits the following actions shall be considered 

to have committed a misdemeanour as defined in § 41 para. 3 no. 5 of the State Hunting 

Law. Those who 

4



1. in violation of § 1 para. 2, hunt any game other than that named therein without special 

permission; 

2. in violation of § 2 para. 5 sentence 1, do not submit the bag lists, without being 

requested, to the competent Lower Hunting Authority by the 10th working day after the 

end of the quarter; 

3. in violation of § 3 para. 2, hunt in game reserves and non-hunting areas without special 

permission; 

4. in violation of § 4 para. 1, establish hunting hides or bait areas for wild boar without 

permission or establish or maintain fixed hunting hides in game reserves or eyrie 

protection zones without special permission; 

5. in violation of § 4 para. 2, fill bait areas with feed other than grain maize, cereal or fruit 

from trees or with more than one kilogram per day and bait area; 

6. in violation of § 4 para 3, 

a) sentence 1, maintain wild meadows other than by mowing, 

b) sentence 2, maintain more than 0.5 percent of the timber land area as a wild 

meadow, 

c) sentence 4, sow, plant or maintain areas for the purpose of creating a wild meadow 

or permanent green grazing area; 

7. in violation of § 4 para. 4, according to 

a) sentence 1 and 3, feed game except in defined extraordinary hardship situations, 

b) sentence 3 and 4, leave out feed other than that approved by the Hunting Authority 

or do not comply with the prescribed method for the provision of food, 

c) sentence 5, establish or maintain stationary feeding facilities 

without special permission; 

8. in violation of § 4 para. 5, establish or maintain hunting enclosures without special 

permission; 

9. in violation of § 4 para. 6, hunt using traps without special permission. 

§ 6 

Entry into force 

This Decree enters into force on the day after it is published. 

Schwerin, 8 June 1998 

The Minister for 

Agriculture and Nature Conservation 

Martin Brick 

5

7.2.4 

Ordinance regulating the designation 





12 September 1990



Ordinance regulating the designation 





12 September 1990 

In accordance with art.6 § 6 No.1 of the Environmental Framework Law from 29 June 1990 

(GBJ.1 No. 42 p. 649) in connection with §§ 12, 13 and 15 of the Federal Nature 

Conservation Act, it is prescribed that: 

§1 

Stipulation 

(1) The landscapes north of the Eberswalde glacial valleys indicated in § 2 are prescribed as 

a nature conservation area and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. 

(2) The entire area is designated as the »Biosphere Reservation Schorfheide-Chorin. 

§2 

Expanse and Boundary 

(1) the Biosphere reservation Scchorfheide-Chorin comprises the following landscape areas: 

1. the Chorin end moraine landscape with lake Parstein and the Grumsin Forest, 

2. the Niederoderbruch and the Neuenhagen Oder Island, 

3. the Britz plane, 

4. the Werbellin-Joachimsthal moraine landscape, 

5. the Schorfheide, 

6. the Poratz ground and end moraine landscapes, 

7. the ground and end moraine landscapes around Melzow and Greiffenberg 

8. the arable landscape Gerswalde - Stegelitz, 

9. the Templin lake district 

(2) The biosphere reservation “Schorfheide-Chorin” as outlined in the map of the scale 

1: 50 000 comprises total reservations (core areas), nature conservation areas, cultural 

landscapes and devastated (seriously damaged) landscapes. The biosphere reservation 

has the following borders: 

1



1. Southern border 

Beginning at the Oder on the confluence of the Old Oder and Stromoder, to 5 up to 

Neuglietzen, the mineral soil edge to Altglietzen, Neutornow, Neukietz. At Neukietz on the 

Old Oder in a north-westerly direction up to south-west of Vorwerk Tortz. From the Darm 

district border SW to the Eberswalde / Bad Freienwalde railway line, in a north-westerly 

direction past Falkenberg up to the stream crossing between Amalienhof and Falkenberg. 

Along the river in a south-westerly direction to the Falkenberg-Amalienhof road. From here 

towards Hohenfinow approx. 150 m, behind the construction to the south, parallel to the road 

up to the Falkenberg / Hohenfinow road. This route westwards up to the entrance to the 

village, deviating in a northerly direction, up to the Hohenfinow / Niederfinow road. 250 m 

north of the entrance to the village of Hohenfinow deviating in a north-westerly direction until 

reaching the terrace edge. Crossing this in a westerly direction, following the western terrace 

edge in a northerly, westerly and south-westerly direction until reaching the sand pit south of 

Karlswerk. From here in a north-westerly direction until the district border, along the forest 

edge the direction of Tornow up to the northwards-flowing stream. Along the forest edge up 

to just north of Sommerfelde. From here along the forest edge in a northerly direction up to 

the Eberswalde / Frankfurt railway line. Following the track in a north-westerly direction until 

reaching the Ragös lock. Along the railway footpath up to the lock on the Finow canal. 600 m 

eastwards. From there, along a path skirting the forest edge in a north-westerly direction up 

to the Eberswalde / Liepe road at Mönchsbruch. Along the path in a northerly arc 

In a northerly direction up to the Oder-Havel canal. Along the canal to the north in a westerly 

direction up to the SZME Lichterfelde. From here in a north-westerly direction, skirting the 

factory premises, along the forest edge in a northerly direction. Crosses the high-voltage line, 

along the forest-edge in an easterly direction. Crossing the high-voltage line in a northerly 

direction, crossing the high-voltage line westwards. Along the path on the forest edge 

deviating in a northerly direction up to the high-voltage line running from east-west. Follows 

this line westwards. Upon northerly deviations of the line to the slurry separation plant, 

circumventing this plant in a north-easterly and westerly direction towards the Lichterfelde - 

Blütenberg crossroads. Follows the westward-running road to the crossroads of the northrunning 

road. West of Buckow, following the road towards 5 and the south-west up to the 

Oder – Havel canal and then up to the crossroads with the motorway. From the motorway 

bridge over the Oder - Havel canal, the border runs along the north side of the canal in a 

westwards direction, deviating north of Marienwerder on the F 167 and proceeds along the 

F 167 up to the intersection with the Berlin/ Groß Schönebeck railway. 

2. Western Border 

From there, along the railway line in a northerly direction until approx. 2 km before the 

railway station Groß Schönebeck. Here, it deviates eastwards and runs in a north-easterly 

direction along the forest border until reaching the road between Eichhorst and Groß 

Schönebeck. It runs further along the road in a westerly direction until reaching Groß 

Schönebeck. Then in a northerly, westerly and southerly direction along the forest border, 

skirting Groß Schönebeck along the forest gate, crossing the field, to the tip of the forest and 

the road to Hammer. The border proceeds further in a south-westerly direction until reaching 

the dispersed settlement Böhmerheide. From there, in a north-easterly direction along the 

intersecting path until reaching the district border. A further northerly path along the district 

border until reaching the forest edge north of Liebenthal, where it then runs along the road 

running north until reaching the Schluft urban district. From Schluft in a westerly direction, 

north of the road up to the stream Faules Fließ. From there along the Döllnfließ up to the 

confluence in the Eisergraben. The border continues in a northerly direction along the 

2



Eisergraben and the Eiserlake. Further along the Zehdenick district border until the road to 

Kurtschlag, and then in an easterly direction along the road to Kurtschlag. The border skirts 

the settlement in a southerly and easterly direction. The border continues along the road to 

Groß Dölln. East of Groß Dölln it follows the course of the forest path until reaching a district 

of Groß Vater. From there in a north-easterly direction on the Barsmoor path along the 

northern border of the Klein-Vätersee and the conjoining raised moor hollows until arriving at 

the path north of the Bebersee, then along the frame of the wood on the department 210 until 

reaching the forest path Gollin / Vietmannsdorf. It then proceeds along this path in a westerly 

direction until the fork in the path at Vietmannsdorf / Groß Dölln, then along the forest edge 

up to the path Vietmannsdorf / Storkow and in a westerly direction until reaching the junction 

of the path towards Ringofen. Up to the edge of the moor, further west until reaching the 

edge of the lake Krempsee; from there around the lake (north) until reaching the path to the 

district border. Along the border until reaching Werderhof; from there a deviation at 

Schneisen until reaching the Templin / Vietmannsdorf road up to the crossroads on the 

Dargersdorf / Templin road. Proceeding on the northern border of the Hammer flow field until 

reaching the bank of the Lübbesee. Crossing the Lübbesee in a straight line until reaching 

the inlet of the old canal; from there in a northerly direction along the road until the 

Erholungsheim Seehof residential area, further in a westerly direction along the edge of the 

accretion moor and the Fährsee, until reaching the survey point, the crossing of the Fährsee, 

up to the confluence with the stream opposite. Following the course of the stream in a northeasterly 

direction until shortly before the Petznicksee on the lane Kreuzkrug / Milmersdorf. 

3. Northern border 

Following the path in a south-easterly direction to the forest edge, deviating in an easterly to 

northerly direction until reaching Aalgraben, crossroads to the F 109. From there into the 

extension of the track until reaching the Mittenwalde / Gerswalde path. Following this path 

until reaching the junction with the road to Böckenberg. Following a course north-east of the 

high-voltage line until reaching the road Raakstedt / Pinnow. Following the path over 

Gustavsruh until reaching the south-east bank of the Pinnowsee. From their, following the 

stream in a south-easterly direction up to the high-voltage line until reaching the junction of 

this line. From there, along the high-voltage line in a south-easterly direction until reaching 

the path towards Potzlow. From the road to Potzlow until reaching Seehausen. South of 

Seehausen on the west bank of the Lanke, across the meadow in a northerly direction 

towards the railway line towards 5 until reaching the path south of Quast in an easterly 

direction until reaching the Neuhof / Blankenburg path. Following this path until southern 

edge of Blankenburg, path away from Blankenburg / motorway. 

4. Eastern border 

From the motorway along the Gramzow / Melzow / forest edge in a southerly direction to the 

path to the forestry HQ Gramzow, forest edge 5 up to paved road Meichow / Wamitz to path 

construction Meichow. From here up to the district border Prenzlau / Angermünde (drainage 

channel). Along the channel to the western entrance to Polßen. Path Polßen / Haussee / 

F198. The F198 in a north-easterly direction up to the Leopoldsthal / Biesenbrow road. 

Westwards of the site on the Biesenbrow / railway station Schönermark road. The path from 

the railway station Schönermark / Klein Frauenhagen to the Schönermark / Frauenhagen 

road. Omitting the settlement, road to Mürow, entrance to Mürow, the Mürow / Welsow path, 

omitting Welsow, the Welsow / Bahnhof road, Bruchhagen, railway line southwards in the 

Angermünde direction, north of Angermünde, the crossover line of the Anger¬münde 

Stralsund railway line, to the path south of the Blumberg Mühle Kranichpfuhl lake, on the 

meadow southwards to the Angermünde / Altkünkendorf road, on the eastern edge of 

Sternfelder Tanger in a southerly direction towards Sternfelde, omitting the site, path to 

Sonnenhof / Kalksandsteinwerk to the F 2, on the F2 in a southerly direction to the ditches in 

3



the direction of Herzsprung. Following this path to Mudrowsee north of Herzsprung, omitting 

the site, to the Herzsprung / Bölkendorf road along the road until Parstein. Omitting the site, 

the road to Neuendorf, continuing to Sternlager, from the Sternlager road eastwards to the 

Angermünde / Freienwalde railway, along the railway line over the Alte Oder. Along the river 

in an easterly direction and north east to the confluence in die Stromoder. 

§3 

Areas of Protection 

(1) The biosphere reservation is divided into the conservation zones I - IV: 

1. Conservation zone I (core zone) is designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural beauty 

without economic exploitation. 

2. Conservation zone II consists of all nature conservation areas not belonging to zone I. 

3. Conservation zone III (an area of economically utilized harmonious cultural landscape) is 

designated as a landscape conservation area. 

4. The devastated areas of the Britz plane and the western Schorfheide belong to 

conservation zone IV. They are designated as a landscape conservation area. 

(2) The borders of the conservation zones and the area numbers according to § 4 para. 3 are 

entered in the map specified in § 2 para. 2. Furthermore, the borders of the protected zones 

are entered in the map M 1:10000 archived at the most senior environmental agency and to 

which is to be referred. Copies are held at the reservation office and district authorities. 

These authorities are to provide general access to the maps during official opening hours. 

§4 

Conservation goals 

(1) These areas have been placed under legal protection for the purpose of protecting, 

maintaining and developing the special diversity, unique nature and beauty of a cultural 

landscape unique in central Europe. 

(2) The landscape conservation area is to be protected in order to: 

1. maintain or re-establish the functional capacity of the ecosystem 

2. due to the diversity, uniqueness and beauty of the natural landscape 

3. due to the special significance of this area for human recreation. 

(3) The areas described below are established as a nature conservation areas or total 

reservations und placed under protection for the maintenance, establishment or reestablishment 

of a near-natural state on the grounds of the special characteristics stated. In 

detail, the following areas are subject to the protection of a nature conservation area (NCA) 

or total reservation: 

1. NCA No. 1 “Bollwinwiesen / Großer Gollinsee” 

- For the conservation of the natural habitats of endangered animal and plant species and 

the oligotrophic alkali lake area and the peat-bog moors 

- Due to the special character and outstanding beauty of the area. 

2. NCA No. 2 “Buchheide” 

- For the conservation of the natural habitats of endangered animal and plant species in the 

partially waterlogged, calcareous ground moraine landscape . 

3.NCA No. 3 “end moraine landscape at Ringenwalde” 

4



- For the conservation and promotion of the natural habitats of endangered animal and plant 

species, especially the near-natural forest community in the especially typically formed end 

moraine landscape. 

- On special regional and geological grounds. 

4. NCA No. 4 “Krinertseen” 


species, especially the oligotrophic alkali lake area and the accretion moors. 

- Due to the special character and outstanding beauty of the area. 

5. Total reservation No. 4 “Krinertseen” 

This comprises the small Krinertsee with the adjacent accretion moor. After re-establishing 

their natural water balance, these areas should be given to independent self-regulation in 

order to observe this development. 

6. NCA No. 5 »Winkel«, south-west of Ringenwalde 

- For the conservation and re-establishment of the natural habitats of endangered animal and 

plant species in the waterlogged ground moraine landscape, with many kettle holes. 

7. NCA / total reservation No. 6 “Reiersdorf” 

This comprises lake Reiersdorf with the surrounding moor areas and adjacent western pine 

stocks of varying ages on the outwash plane of the Weichsellian ice age. Investigation of the 

development of the pine forests independently of all forestry activities into a forest ecosystem 

appropriate to the requirements of the location. This is to occur under the conditions 

of a weakly maritime-influenced macro-climate and the nutritional content of the Pomeranian 

stage. 

The conservation aim of lake Reiersdorf and its moor areas is its preservation as a natural 

habitat for acutely threatened animal and plant species. 

8. NCA No. 7 “Poratz moraine landscape” 


plant species in the lake and moraine landscape. 

- On geographical grounds 

9. Total reservation No. 7a 

Contains predominantly near-natural beech stocks. The conservation aim is the investigation 

of the beech forest ecosystem under the conditions of a weakly maritime-influenced macroclimate 

in terms of its development without any forestry-related influence. 

10. Total reservation No. 7 b 

This comprises an oligotrophic peat-bog moor with colk developments. The area should be 

given over to independent self-regulation. 

11. NCA No. 8 “Arnimswalde” 


species in the strongly cropped moraine landscape with its diverse landscape elements, 

especially its dry grassland plant community and the moor in the middle of a mixed forest 

area. 

12. Total reservation No. 8 

After restoring the natural water balance, the moor should be left to independent selfregulation. 

The development of the mixed forest should be investigated under the conditions 

of a weakly maritime-influenced macro-climate, in terms of its species diversity without 

coming under any forestry-related influence. 

13. NCA No. 9 “Labüskewiesen” 


species, especially the orchid-rich moor meadow community. 

14. NCA No. 10 “Großer Briesensee” 


species. 

15. NCA No. 11 “Suckower Haussee” 


plant species, especially the communities of the source moor, marsh area and dry grasses. 

5



16. NCA No. 12 “Melzower Forst” 

- For the conservation, re-establishment and promotion of the natural habitats of endangered 

animal and plant species of the strongly cropped, moraine waterscape. 

- On special scientific and geological grounds. 

17. Total reservation No. 12 a 

This comprises a semi-natural beech and oak tree rich moraine location, free of ground and 

slack water and with countless kettle holes. Under the conditions of a continentallyinfluenced 

macro-climate, the development of the deciduous woodland into a woodland 

ecosystem appropriate to its location should be subject to observation. 

18. Total reservation No.12b 

This comprises a near-natural deciduous woodland stock on a hill moraine with calcareous 

hanging source moor. Te deciduous woodland stock should be investigated for its 

development into a woodland ecosystem appropriate to its location under the conditions of a 

continentally-influenced macro-climate. 

19. NCA No. 13 “Eulenberge” 


plant species of the calcareous moraine landscape with a peripheral intersection relief to the 

Ückeraue, characterized especially through he communities of the dry grasses with 

grassland steppe plants. 

20. Total reservation No. 13 

This comprises the Eulenberge beech stocks growing on the sand rendzina; includes the 

streams found there.Under the conditions of diverse meso and macro-climate conditions the 

development into a plant community appropriate to its location should be observed. 

21. NCA No. 14 “Breitenteichische Mühle” 

- for the conservation of the natural habitats of endangered animal and plant species of a 

sand island in the Welsequell area. 

22. NCA No. 15 “Hintenteiche at Biesenbrow” 


plant species. 

- On the grounds of the outstanding natural beauty of the area. 

23. NCA No. 16 “Torfbruch at Polßen” 


plant species, especially the communities of the wetland orchid meadows. 

24. NCA No. 17 “Großer Briesensee” 

This comprises the lake area of the Großen Plötzsee with a 100m wide conservation area 

along the bank. The westerly border of the area is the eastern side of the railway 

embankment. 

The conservation aim of the Großen Plötzsee is the preservation of the natural habitats of 

endangered animal and plant species. 

25. NCA No. 18 “Fischteiche Blumberger Mühle” 


plant species, especially the feeding and resting grounds of endangered water fowl. 

26. NCA No. 19 “Kienhorst/Köllnseen/Eichheide” 


species of the pine forest and lake complex, especially the communities of the mesotrophic 

lakes and the moors. 

- On the grounds of the unique nature of the area. 

27. Total reservation No. 19a 

This comprises both southerly lakes Röllnseen as mesotrophic sand lakes with specific bank 

and under-water vegetation and the accretion zones as well as the adjacent pine stocks in 

the sands of the Weichsellian ice-age. The development of the pine into a climax community 

should be investigated under the conditions of a weakly maritime-influenced macro-climate 

and the nutrient content of the Brandenburg stage. The seas and their accretion zones 

should be given over to independent self-regulation. 

6



28. Total reservation No. 19 b - 

This comprises the moor area of the Pinnowsee as the habitat of endangered animal and 

plant species. The area should be given over to independent self-regulation. 

29. Total reservation No. 19c 

This comprises predominantly pine trees on old dunes of the Weichsel ice age. The 

development of the pine into a climax community should be investigated under the conditions 

of a weakly maritime-influenced macro-climate and the nutrient content of the Brandenburg 

stage. 

30. NCA No. 20 “Rarangseen” 

- For the conservation and re-establishment of natural habitats of endangered animal and 

plant species, especially the communities of the lakes, moors and moor flora. 

31. NCA No. 21 “Großer Lubowsee” 

- or the conservation and promotion of the natural habitats of endangered animal and plant 

species of lake Lübow and the Bruchgebiet. 

32. NCA No. 22 “Wacholderjagen” 

- For the conservation of the natural habitats of endangered animal and plant species. 

33. NCA No. 23 “Grumsiner Forst/Redernswalde” 

- For the conservation, re-establishment and promotion of the natural habitats of endangered 

animal and plant species. 


This comprises one of the largest accretion moors of a former lake. After the reestablishment 

of a natural water balance, these areas should be given over to independent 

self-regulation. 

35. Total reservation No.23b- 

This comprises the central area of a strongly arrested area, with features including 

precipitation-fed lakes and kettle holes and various moors. This also contains old beech 

stock on bolder clay sand mosaics of the Pomeranian stage of the Weichsel ice age. The 

development of the beech and oak stocks under the conditions of a weakly maritime 

influenced macro-climate in the direction of a climax community should be investigated. 

36. NCA No. 24 “Tiefer See” 

- For the conservation of the habitat of endangered animal and plant species of the 

mesotrophic alkali clear-water lake. 

37. Total reservation No. 25 “Breitefenn” 

- For the conservation and natural development of the old oak stock. The development of the 

oaks under the conditions of a continentally-influenced macroclimate into a climax 

community should be subject to further investigation. 

38. Total reservation No. 26 “Pimpinellenberg” 

- For the conservation and promotion of the habitats of endangered animal and plant 

habitats, especially the plants extra-zonal, steppe-similar continental dry grasses. 

- On scientific grounds 

39. NCA No. 27 “Plagefenn” 

- For the conservation and development of the natural habitats of endangered animal and 

plant species, especially the communities of various valuable moor types, water bodies and 

forest communities. 


This comprises the large and small Plagesee with their accretion zones and variety of moor 

types. The natural development of this area should be subject to investigation. 

41. NCA No. 28 “Niederoderbruch” 

- For the conservation of natural habitats of endangered animal and plant species of the 

diverse lower moor areas of the glacial valley with their variety of landscape elements. 

42. NCA No. 29 “Kanonen and Schloßberg, Schäfergrund” 


species, especially the communities of the dry grasses in the two areas. 

43. NCA No. 30 “Fettseemoor” 

7



- for the conservation of the natural habitats of endangered animal and plant species in a 

functional mesotrophic moor complex. 

44. NCA No. 31 “Tongruben Neuenhagen” 

For the conservation of the natural habitats of endangered animal and plant species, 

especially the communities in the former clay pits. 

§5 

Mandatory regulations 

(1) For the purposes of maintaining and re-establishing a fully-functioning natural balance, 

the following regulations apply: 

1. Immediate drafting of maintenance and development plans for the conservation, 

maintenance and development of the biosphere reservation according to the provisions of 

the ordinance. 

2. Above and beyond the maintenance and development plans, the original water balance is 

to be restored. 

3. A series of steps are to be taken in order to develop the landscape as an ecological 

cultivation site. 

4. The agriculturally-utilized hydromorphic mineral soil layer is to be returned to green land. 

5. The arable land on lake banks are to be transformed into extensively cultivated grassland 

of a breath of at least 100m. 

6. For the conservation of the reed stocks, water traffic and anglers must maintain a 

minimum distance of 20 m from the reeds. 

7. The historic paved roads and the accompanying paths are to be retained and maintained. 

8. Regulation of the animal population is to be conducted in accordance with the goals 

established for the biosphere reservation in the conservation zones I and II following the 

stipulations of the reservation authorities and in conservation zone III in co-operation with the 

reservation authorities. 

9. Hunting facilities are to be reduced to the necessary minimum and adapted to the 

landscape. The details are to be regulated by the management and development plans. 

10. Angling in the conservation zone II is to orient itself around the conservation goals and is 

to be regulated in agreement with the biosphere reservation authorities. 

11. Individual (mature) trees are to be left free to facilitate survival. 

12. Aesthetically striking, unique or unusually-formed trees are to be retained. 

13. Use of the areas for agriculture and forestry must occur in accordance with the 

conservation and maintenance plans. .Forest management is to be performed in accordance 

with the conservation and maintenance plans. 

(2) The natural performance of the ecosystem is to be restored on the devastated agricultural 

and forestry-utilized areas on the Britz plane and the western Schorfheide. The suitability of 

the programme is to be monitored by appropriate scientific advisers. 

(3) A usage concept for the waterways is to be drawn up regulating all water traffic, not just 

commercial shipping. 

8



§6 

Prohibitions 

(1) Irrespective of the supplementary regulations outlined in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, the 

following activities are forbidden within the biosphere reservation: 

1. The building of structural construction outside the already cultivated urban settlements or 

the areas covered by legally authorized development plans. 

Exempted from this provision are milking stalls, animal hunting livestock shelters, electric 

fences usual to the loaction and constructions within households and yards, forest cultivation 

fences, feeding units and hunting hides. The re-location of agricultural operations (farms) is 

permissible with the approval of the biosphere reservation authorities. 

2. Driving or parking motorized vehicles of any type, trailers, caravans, mobile homes or 

carriages outside the paved paths, park or parking places or in courtyards. Exempted are 

agricultural or forestry traffic as well as maintenance vehicles for loading and disposal plant. 

3. All motor sport or model sport units. 

4. Horse riding away from public roads and paths and the marked bridle paths or blacklines. 

5. To navigate the waterways with vehicles of any nature; the only exemption is for 

navigation of the Werbellinsee, Wolletzsee, Parsteinsee, Oberückersee, Fährsee, Lübbesee 

(and to the previous extent on the Grimnitzsee) with non-motor propelled water vehicles. 

Navigation of the Oder-Havel canal and the Finow canal with motor-propelled is also 

forbidden. Navigation with motor-propelled vehicles on the Oberückersee is subject to 

authorization; navigation of the Kölpinsee, Stiernsee, Lübelowsee, Düstersee Sabinensee 

and the Großen Briesensee with non-motor propelled water vehicles is permitted. 

6. Bathing outside the marked areas 

7. Releasing non-indigenous animal species into the waters; and feeding fish. 

8. Between 1 February and 31 July of every year, the performance of economical or 

maintenance activities within 300 m of the breeding areas of eagles, cranes, black storks, 

great falcons, and eagle owls, or within 150 m around the breeding areas of species 

threatened with extinction without the express permission of the reservation authorities. 

9. Intensive fish breeding activities except in artificial ponds. 

10. The establishment of clearings (border or shelter woods as well as any cuttings of up to 

0.3 ha do not count as clearings). 

11. Primary forestation or reforestation with non-indigenous tree species, with the exception 

of the training forest. 

12. The construction of new forestry-related paths or the upgrade of existing forest paths. 

13. The transport of timber with vehicles away from forest paths and timber-transport paths. 

14. Changing the form of the ground 

15. Land improvement measures (except for measures contained in the maintenance and 

development plans) 

16. Ploughing grassland 

17. The construction of air sport facilities; starting or landing with air-craft 

18. Clearing or damaging bank groves, cane or reed stocks, bushes, field hedges, hedge 

banks, field wood, hedgerows, single trees, rows of trees, avenues or groups of trees outside 

of the forest. Maintenance measures and unavoidable measures for maintaining the paths 

and waterways are exempted from this provision. 

19. all actions which could alter the character of the area or contradict the conservation 

goals. 

(2) in addition to the prohibitions of the paragraph 1, in the conservation zones I and II with 

the exception of further provisions in paragraphs 3 and 4, it is forbidden: 

1. To navigate these areas with motor-driven vehicles outside public the highways and paths 

and to enter the area except when using the marked paths. 

2. To use these areas for any leisure purpose, especially for camping, pitching tents, igniting 

a fire or swimming. 

9



3. Changing or diverting natural water courses or expanses of water, their banks, or to use or 

divert any amount of water in excess of the valid practices of common water-use. 

4. Trapping, injuring or killing any wild animals or their stages of development, including their 

locations of nesting, breeding, habitation or sanctuary. 

5. Cutting picking, removing, damaging, destroying tearing or digging out any wild plants or 

parts of them, including any forms of their development. 

6. Planting any plants or releasing any animals 

7. Letting dogs from the lead 

8. Feeding game Planting seeds or constructing closed hunting hides. 

9. The use of pesticides, insecticides or mineral fertilizer as well as the chemical treatment of 

timber or other products in the conservation area. 

10. All actions which could result in the destruction, damage or alteration of this area or its 

populations, or in long-term damage. 

(3) In addition to the prohibitions contained in paragraphs 1 and 2 in conservation zone I it is 

also forbidden for: 

1. public traffic to operate anywhere apart from the 

the approved rods and paths. 

2. Fishing 

(4) The following prohibitions are valid for the following areas in conservation II: 

1. NCA No. 2 “Buchheide”: 

Fishing is prohibited 

2. NCA No. 3 , “end moraine landscape at Ringenwalde”: Landing on the island in the 

Libbesickesee is prohibited. 

3. NCA No. 24 “Tiefer See”: 

Fishing is prohibited 

§7 

Population conservation and non-affected activities 

(1) Even after this ordinance has taken effect, the following activities remain unaffected by 

the prohibitions of § 6 para. 1: all legally permitted uses, powers exercised and legal 

activities and operations including their maintenance permitted by the individual decisions of 

legal authorities. These rights are to be checked for their compatibility with the conservation 

goal of this ordinance and to be forbidden where necessary. 

(2) The following activities remain unaffected by the prohibitions of this ordinance: 

1. The use of existing household, yard and garden spaces. 

2. Correct, near-natural forestry land-use, taking into account the conservation goal and the 

regulations of § 6 para. l figs. 9-12 and 18 as well as clearings from up to 3 ha. in the 

conservation zones III and IV. 

3. The correct agricultural land-use under consideration of the goal of conservation and the 

regulations of § 6 para. 1 figs. 13, 14, 15 and 18. 

4. The use of land for correct hunting purposes under consideration of the goal of 

conservation and the regulations of § 6 para. 2 fig. 8. 

10



(3) The following activities remain unaffected by the prohibitions of this ordinance: 

Measures of conservation, maintenance or development designed for the realization of the 

conservation goal through the competent authorities or the biosphere reservation 

management, or authorized body acting on their behalf. 

2. Persons authorized by the competent authorities or the management of the biosphere 

reservation, to enter the conservation area in order to perform monitoring or scientific 

investigations. 

3. Delivery and disposal operatives authorized by this ordinance, including maintenance and 

servicing tasks involved in their duties. 

§8 

Exemptions 

(1) Applications for exception from the prescriptions and prohibitions contained in this 

ordinance can be granted in individual cases if 

1. implementation of the prescription 

a) would result in unintentional severity and the deviation from the provision is compatible 

with the concerns of nature conservation and landscape management, or 

b) would result in unintended damage to the nature and landscape, or 

2. where overriding concerns of public interest require the exemption. 

(2) Responsibility for granting all exemptions lies with the regulatory authority of the 

reservation management. The regulatory authority can delegate this task in part or in whole. 

§9 

Good understanding 

The understanding with the biosphere reservation management is to be established through 

1. drawing up an urban land-use plan, 

2. Measures for maintenance of roads, paths, dikes and watercourses. 

§10 

Compensation for restricted exploitation 

Should this ordinance or measures resulting from this ordinance subject property owners or 

the holders of use-rights either to restrictions in their rights of use, or to duties exceeding the 

provisions contained in the “social obligation of property”, then they have a claim to 

compensation. Such compensation must provide adequate recompense for the financial loss 

suffered as a result of the measure. 

§11 

Precedence of this ordinance 

The provisions of this ordinance override the provisions of existing nature conservation 

legislation, ordinances or directives applying to this area. 

11



§12 


(1) The ordinance is effective as of 1.October 1990. 

Berlin, 12. September 1990 

The council of ministers 

of the German Democratic Republic 

Minister President de Maziere 

Prof. Dr. sc. nat. Steinberg 

Minister for Environment, Conservation, Energy and Reactor Safety 

12

7.2.5 

Thuringian Law on the Hainich 

National Park (ThürNPHG)



Thuringian Law on the Hainich National 

Park (ThürNPHG) 

§1 

Establishment of the National Park 

A national park is being established in the Hainich between Kammerforst in the north, 

Behringen in the south, Bad Langensalza in the east and Mihla in the west. The name of the 

national park will be the "Hainich National Park". 

§2 

Area of the National Park 

The National Park has a surface area of approx. 7 600 ha. The borders and the extent of the 

National Park in terms of area are shown outlined by a continuous red line in the protected 

areas map, consisting of map sheets numbered 1 and 2 on a scale of 1:10000. The inside 

edge of the line demarcating the National Park is the boundary line. The map described in 

sentence 2 is an integral part of the Law and is kept in the offices of the President of the 

State Parliament and retained in the archives. Copies of the map are kept by the District 

Administrator's Offices of the Unstrut-Hainich district and the Wartburg district and by the 

National Park Administration; the map can be viewed there by anyone during office hours. 

For a more precise documentation of the plots of land forming the outer boundary of the 

National Park, the list of the adjoining plots to the National Park (including descriptions where 

the boundary runs through plots of land) in the map according to sentence 2 is enclosed as 

an appendix. 

If there are any doubts about details of the demarcation, this shall not affect the surface area 

in question. 

§3 


(1) The National Park has been established to keep the southern part of the Hainich as free 

from human influences as possible in order to maintain the diversity, the special character 

and outstanding beauty of the large continuous area of natural mixed deciduous forests of 

the Hainich, which is unique in Central Europe, the habitats of its varied animal and plant 

population and the dynamics of the communities made up by these species, to ensure a 

natural development and to keep adverse effects at bay. The aim of the establishment of the 

National Park, in particular, is to secure and create a largely undisturbed process in which 

nature can continue, and to maintain and regenerate natural forestry stocks. The National 

Park also serves to provide an environmentally friendly form of relaxation close to nature, to 

1



develop tourism as far as this is compatible with the protective aim generally, to shape the 

environment and to allow research. 

(1a) Major elements of the National 

Park are natural habitats and species of common interest according to Appendices I and II of 

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the maintenance of natural habitats and wild 

animals and plants (EC Official Journal no. L 206 p. 7) in the version currently valid. With 

regard to the implementation of the Directive 92/43/EEC, the National Park is of particular 

significance for 

1. 

the following habitats: 

mixed forests on gorges and hillsides, riverside woodland with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus 

excelsior (priority habitats), woodrush beech forest, woodruff beech forest, bedstraw-oakhornbeam 

forest, natural lime-dry grassland and associated scrub stages, plus 

2. 

the following species: 

yellow-bellied toad, crested newt, marsh fritillary, Bechstein's bat, greater mouse-eared bat. 

The aim of the classification of this region as a National Park is also to ensure a favourable 

state of maintenance for the types of habitat and species listed in sentence 2. 

(2) In particular, the National Park shall serve to develop and improve the living and working 

conditions of the people living in its environs and to allow local industry and tourism, and 

shall help to maintain in its present form the management of the forest using a selection 

system in the natural forest reserves, for which agreements have been concluded between 

the private and local authority forest owners in the Hainich region and the Free State of 

Thuringia. 

§4 

Protected Zones 

(1) The area of the National Park is divided into two protective zones. Their boundaries are 

shown in the map described in § 2. § 2 sentence 3 applies accordingly. The areas belonging 

to Protected Zone 1 are shown hatched in blue. All the other areas in the National Park 

belong to Protected Zone 2. The development possibilities are regulated in the Care and 

Development Plan. 

(2) In Protected Zone 1, nature and the landscape are left to develop naturally, unless 

otherwise stated in the Care and Development Plan according to § 7. 

(3) The State Government is authorised to change the existing size and layout of the 

protected zones through a statutory order in agreement with the Environmental Committee of 

the State Parliament to realise the protection aim described in § 3. § 21 of the Thuringian 

Nature Protection Act (ThurNatPA) of 28 January 1993 (Legal Gazette p. 57) in the version 

valid at the time shall apply accordingly. 

2



§5 

Instructions 

The National Park Administration and all national and local authorities and public offices who 

plan or make decisions regarding the National Park area or who administer, manage or care 

for sites must in particular ensure that 

1. in Protected Zone 1, undisturbed natural development is ensured, all direct human effects 

are avoided and indirect human influence is reduced as far as possible, 

2. in Protected Zone 2, the diversity of flora and fauna typical of the biotope is maintained or 

restored on the basis of the Care and Development Plan as described in § 7 and that the 

type of use is based on the requirements of the animal and plant species to be encouraged 

in the region, 

3. the natural forests in the National Park, if they are not left to develop naturally, are 

maintained through corresponding management measures and the other forestry areas are 

developed, through secondary forest creation measures, into becoming natural forest areas, 

4. all traffic is kept away, except in the areas intended for it, using suitable measures for 

diverting traffic and visitors to allow the undisturbed development of fauna and flora; this also 

applies for the deployment of aircraft on the ground or close to the ground. 

§6 

Information and Educational Work, Scientific Observation and Research 

(1) The National Park Administration shall carry out information and education work, the aim 

of which, in particular, is to support the protection aim of the National Park, to create 

amongst the population an understanding of the undisturbed course of natural processes and 

of the National Park system and to make a contribution to maintaining the environment in 

general. 

(2) After consulting the Board of Trustees, the National Park Administration shall develop a 

concept for its own and external research projects. External scientific observation and 

research in the National Park shall require the approval of the National Park Administration. 

(3) The results of scientific observation and research according to Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 

shall be made available to the National Park Administration as agreed in more detail, unless 

these results are published. 

(4) A separate commercial company shall be made responsible for National Park marketing. 

This may be an entity in public or private law. 

§7 

Care and Development Plan, Regional Planning 

(1) To implement the protection, care and development measures set out in this Law and to 

carry out the instructions as described in § 5 and meet the protection aim as described in § 3, 

the National Park Administration shall prepare a Care and Development Plan for the first time 

within two years of the start of validity of the Law. The Care and Development Plan shall, 

whilst complying with the requirements of regional planning and country planning, embody 

the aims and measures for the development of the protection zones and the National Park as 

3



a whole. It shall in particular contain the measures that are necessary to fulfil the protection 

aim defined in § 3, including diversion of visitors, and must be taken into account in all 

planning and administrative procedures whose decisions could affect the nature and 

landscape in the area of the National Park. The Care and Development Plan must be agreed 

with the Board of Trustees and the local authorities whose sovereignty is affected and must 

be updated as necessary, generally after ten years. The Care and Development Plan and its 

update require the approval of the Ministry for Agriculture, Nature Protection and the 

Environment. 

(2) The National Park Administration shall lay down, in a programme of work based on the 

Care and Development Plan, the individual measures that are to be carried out for the 

development of the National Park and for its care and monitoring. 

(3) The plans and objectives of the National Park shall, in so far as they are suitable, be 

integrated as objectives for regional and town and country planning into the Town and 

Country Development Programme, the regional plans and other specialist plans and be 

shown in these. 

§8 

Prohibitions 

(1) In the National Park, all actions are forbidden which could destroy, damage, change or 

lastingly disturb the area, its natural balance or any of its individual components. 

(2) In particular, it is forbidden 

1. to carry out mining or gravel excavation, to extract or otherwise remove any soil 

components, to undertake excavations, drilling, blasting or backfilling, to bring in materials or 

to change the structure of the soil in any other way, 

2. to expand above-ground water courses, 

3. to use chemical wood protectants, plant protectants or other chemicals, fertilisers or soil 

improvement agents, slurry or sewage sludge, 

4. to expand existing drainage ditches or to create new drainage ditches, 

5. to convert deciduous forest into pine forest or to reforest greenland, 

6. to disturb to change the habitats (biotopes) of the plants and animals, 

7. to cut off, pick, tear off or down, unearth, damage, destroy or take away any wild plants or 

parts or development forms thereof, 

8. to prey on, wilfully disturb, trap, injure or kill wild animals or to damage, destroy or remove 

from nature their development forms, their nesting, breeding or living habitats or places to 

which they flee, to feed them or to affix devices suitable for the trapping of wild animals, 

9. to abandon animals or plant plants, 

10. to collect herbs, berries or mushrooms unless otherwise stated in § 12, 

11. to build or make major changes to structural installations, to erect or install advertising 

media, signs with images or written texts, memorial crosses or route markings of any type or 

to erect mobile or fixed sales stands, 

12. to build or extend rail ways or roads, to create or widen paths or to change their surfaces, 

13. to set up above-ground power cables, pipelines or other lines including any support 

masts required, 

4



14. to ride or drive motor vehicles, caravans, coaches, harnessed teams, invalid cars or 

bicycles of any type off the public roads and paths or the specially designated pathways or to 

park these anywhere other than the parking and rest areas, 

15. to maintain, wash or care for vehicles, 

16. to organise sporting competitions or meetings or demonstrations in the open air, to camp, 

tent or spend the night, to light unauthorised fires or to disturb the natural peace and quiet by 

noise, 

17. to spend the night in caravans or campers anywhere other than in the camping areas, 

18. to store or deposit rubbish or to dispose of it in any other way, 

19. to allow dogs to run free or to train them, or 

20. to operate models or remotely controlled devices, to set up or keep available the facilities 

for these or to practice sports outside the designated areas. 

(3) In Proted Zone 1, any use or other human intervention is forbidden, especially as a result 

of interventions in nature and the landscape, management or protection measures, unless 

otherwise stated in the Care and Development Plan as described in § 7. Furthermore, in 

Protected Zone 1, it is forbidden to exercise common usage, as described in § 37 Para. 1 of 

the Thuringian Water Act (ThurWA) of 10 May 1994 (Legal Gazette, p. 445) in the version 

currently valid or to apply uses as described in § 33 Para. 1 of the Water Management Act 

(WMA) of 12 November 1996 (Legal Gazette 1, p. 1695) in the version currently valid without 

permission or approval. The exceptional provisions of § 12 to 14 do not apply. 

§9 

Right of Access 

(1) The right to access the meadows and forests in the National Park remains unaffected 

unless the prohibitions listed in § 8 apply or other legal provisions contain further restrictions. 

(2) In order to separate pedestrian, riding and motor traffic, the National Park Administration 

may take suitable measures to block or reserve pathways for certain types of use. 

§ 10 

Permitted Actions 

(1) On the basis of the following provisions and subject to § 12 to 15, the following are 

excepted from the prohibitions in § 8: 

1. essential disaster prevention measures to protect the population and to defend against 

present dangers to the health or life of people or items of significant value, 

2. measures required by the National Park Administration or other authorities or public 

bodies or their agents which serve to fulfil the protection aim as described in §3 or the 

instructions as described in § 5, 

3. measures on the part of scientists or research facilities within the scope of an activity as 

described in § 6, 

4. work necessary to maintain and repair existing 

a) roads and pathways, 

b) supply and disposal installations, 

c) waterways, or 

5



d) systems for the operation of telecommunication networks in agreement with the National 

Park Administration, unless any further form of involvement is provided for in other legal 

regulations; the nature, scope and time of the execution of such works must be in line with 

the protection aim as described in § 3; if a delay would cause danger, notice must be sent of 

such works to the National Park Administration immediately afterwards, 

5. measures necessary to create and maintain the tourist infrastructure in agreement with the 

National Park Administration, 

6. the sale of foods, drinks, souvenirs or other tourist items from mobile and fixed sales 

stands at sites approved by the National Park Administration, 

7. uses of water courses within the scope of existing approvals under water legislation, 

especially permits, approvals, usage approvals under water legislation and ancient rights, 

8. fertilising measures as part of the pasture land management, with the approval of the 

National Park Administration. 

(2) The National Park Administration can approve further exceptions for the National Park or 

part-areas in general if this is necessary for urgent reasons for the common good and if no 

adverse effects, or only minor ones, on the balance of nature are likely. 

§ 11 

Exemption 

Upon application, exemptions may be granted by the Higher Nature Protection Authority from 

the prohibitions of this Law and the statutory orders issued on the basis of this Law under the 

conditions given in § 31 of the Federal Nature Protection Act (FNatProAct) of 20 December 

1976 (Legal Gazette IS.3574; 1977 p. 650) in the version currently valid. Exemptions may be 

subject to secondary provisions. Prohibitions according to other regulations shall not be 

affected. 

§ 12 

Collection of Berries and Mushrooms 

In Protected Zone 2, the collection of berries and mushrooms in small quantities for personal 

requirements is permitted in the period from 1 July to 15 November each year. The National 

Park Administration may, if there is any danger to stocks or if there is any risk to the 

protection aim as described in § 3, change the period of time given in sentence 1, limit 

collection to certain areas or forbid it until stocks have recovered. Further regulations relating 

to the laws on the protection of species are not affected. 

§ 13 

Pasture Management 

(1) Outside the forest, in Protected Zone 2, proper pasture management within the scope of 

usage or lease agreements valid on 1 May 1997 shall be permitted. To meet the protection 

aim as described in § 3, it is necessary to reduce the area of grazing in favour of continued 

natural reforestation. The National Park Administration shall therefore examine the existing 

6



leased pasture areas regularly, but at least every five years following the start of validity of 

the law. New usage or lease agreements must be approved by the National Park 

Administration in order to be valid, in agreement in each case with the competent agricultural 

authority, 

(2) The prohibition in § 8 Para. 2 No. 19 shall not apply for the use of sheepdogs for pasture 

management according to Paragraph 1 Sentence 1. The prohibition in § 8 Para. 2 No. 3 does 

not apply for dung arising from the use of the areas in the National Park within the scope of 

pasture management according to Paragraph 1 Sentence 1. 

§ 14 

Management of the Forest 

The management of the forests in Protected Zone 2 must serve the protection aim as 

described in § 3 and comply with the instructions as described in § 5. The forest owners shall 

prepare annual management plans according to § 20 of the Thuringian Forestry Act 

(ThurForAct) of 6 August 1993 (Legal Gazette pp. 470, 623) in the version currently valid. 

They require the approval of the competent forestry authority in agreement with the National 

Park Administration. Upon approval, they become a part of the Care and Development Plan. 

§ 15 Hunting 

Hunting according to the due provisions is permitted in the National Park. The Minister for 

Agriculture, Nature Protection and the Environment is authorised to regulate, through 

statutory orders, hunting in the National Park in compliance with the protection aim as 

described in § 3. 

§ 16 

Compensation 

In the event of expropriation or usage restrictions on the area of the National Park, the 

provisions of § 48 to 52 ThurNatPA shall apply accordingly. 

§ 17 

Acquisition of Land 

To minimise the obligation to make compensation as defined in § 16 and to establish the 

National Park as quickly as required, the State shall purchase ownership of the entire area in 

so far as the State budget will allow. § 31 Para. 5 of the Assets Act as published on 4 August 

1997 (Legal Gazette 1. p. 1974) in the version currently valid shall apply accordingly. 

7



§18 

National Park Administration 

(1) For the execution of tasks under this Law, a National Park Administration is formed at the 

Ministry for Agriculture, Nature Protection and the Environment. 

(2) It shall carry out the tasks assigned to it in this Law; in particular, it shall coordinate and 

implement measures for the care and development of the National Park and monitor and 

implement compliance with the protection measures valid for the National Park. It shall be 

responsible for dealing with public matters. The tasks of the Lower Nature Protection 

Authority and Lower Forestry Authority in the National Park will be carried out by the National 

Park Administration. 

(3) The National Park Administration shall furthermore be responsible for maintaining public 

safety and order by warding off dangers and by preventing and removing disturbances; § 2 

Para. 2 of the Police Authorities Act of 18 July 1993 (Legal Gazette p. 323) in the version 

currently valid shall apply accordingly, unless otherwise stated in this Law. The National Park 

Administration may take the necessary measures to ward off an isolated danger to public 

safety or order. It has the rights of a policing authority under § 5 Para. 1, 9 to 13, 15 to 20, 22 

to 26 of the Police Authorities Act. 

(4) Unless this Law provides justifications for the competences of the National Park 

Administration, the competences of other authorities are not affected. 

§18a 

Objection Procedure 

There is an objection procedure for objections to administrative acts of the National Park 

Administration. 

§19 

Board of Trustees 

(1) The National Park Administration is advised, especially as regards the matters described 

in § 3, by a Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees is made up of the following members: 

1. the district administrators of the Unstrut- Hainich district and the Wartburg district, 

2. eight mayors from the communities or towns whose areas are in or adjoining the National 

Park, 

3. one representative each from the central local authority organisations in Thuringia, 

4. one representative each of the associations for agriculture and forestry, 

5. a representative of the regional tourism associations, 

6. a representative nominated by the universities and colleges of Thuringia: 

7. three of the representatives nominated by the nature protection associations recognised in 

Thuringia according to § 29 FNatProAct. 

8. a representative each from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Chamber of 

Crafts, 

9. a representative each from the German Federal Environmental Foundation and the 

Thuringian Nature Protection Foundation. 

8



The Federal Minister for the Environment, Nature Protection and Reactor Safety and the 

Commission of the European Community can also each send a member to the Board of 

Trustees. The district administrators and mayors according to Sentence 2 numbers 1 and 2 

may each be represented by their named representatives. The mayors or their 

representatives to be sent according to Sentence 2 No. 2 to the Board of Trustees shall be 

selected by the municipalities of the districts of Wartburg and Unstrut-Hainich in collaboration 

with the Federation of Municipalities and Towns of Thuringia. The Board of Trustees may 

name further members. 

(2) The activities of the members of the Board of Trustees are honorary. The Minister for 

Agriculture, Nature Protection and the Environment is empowered to issue statutory orders to 

regulate further details, especially regarding the appointment, method of working and 

remuneration of the Board of Trustees. 

(3) The head of the National Park Administration or his deputy shall attend the meetings. 

§ 20 

Obligatory Tolerances 

§ 47 Para. 1, 2, 4 and 5 ThurNatPA shall also apply for measures of the National Park 

Administration within the scope of its own or external scientific observation and research. 

§21 

Restriction of Basic Rights 

On the basis of this Law, the basic rights to physical integrity and personal freedom, to 

freedom of assembly and to the inviolability of the home may be restricted (Article 2 Para. 2, 

Article 8 and Article 13 of the Basic Law; Article 3 Para. 1, Article 8 and Article 10 of the 

Constitution of the Free State of Thuringia). 

§22 

Misdemeanours 

(1) A person is considered to be committing a misdemeanour as defined in § 54 Para. 1 No. 

1 ThurNatPA if they violate, deliberately or by negligence, one of the prohibitions in § 8. In 

addition, a person is considered to have committed a misdemeanour who deliberately or 

negligently 

1. collects in violation of the provisions of § 12 or 

2. carries out grazing activities contrary to § 13 Para. 1 and without the required approval or 

without a usage or lease agreement or outside the framework of an existing effective usage 

or lease agreement. 

(2) Misdemeanours according to Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 are punishable with a fine of up to 

fifty thousand euros, misdemeanours according to Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 1 may be 

punished with a fine of up to five thousand euros and misdemeanours according to 

Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 2 can be punished with a fine up to twenty-five thousand euros. 

(3) § 54 ThurNatPA is not affected. 

9



(4) The National Park Administration is the competent administrative authority as defined in § 

36 Para. 1 No. 1 of the Law on Misdemeanours. 

§ 23 

Gender Equality Clause 

Status and functional designations in this Law apply for both the masculine and feminine 

form. 

Published as Article 1 of the Law on the Hainich National Park and in amendment of nature 

protection regulations of 19 December1997 (Legal Gazette p. 546), which entered into force 

on 31 December 1997. 

The version given here takes into account the amendments through Article 3 of the Law 

amending environmental regulations of 7. January 1999 (Legal Gazette p. 1 -14). 

© For this text: TMLNU 1999. 

10

7.2.6 

Thuringian Order amending the sizes 

and layout of protected zones 

in the Hainich National Park 

dated 26 June 2009



Thuringian Order amending the sizes 

and layout of protected zones in the 


dated 26 June 2009 

On the basis of § 4 Para. 3 of the Thuringian Law on the Hainich National Park (ThürNPHG) 

of 19 December 1997 (Leg. Gaz. p. 546), most recently amended by Article 2 of the Law of 

15 July 2003 (Leg. Gaz. p. 393), the State Government, in agreement with the Parliamentary 

Committee for Nature Protection and the Environment, orders: 

§ 1 

Boundaries of the protective zones 

(1) The protected zones defined in § 4 Para. 1 ThürNPHG are changed. Protected Zone 1 

covers an area of 5,650 ha within the National Park. The remaining area is Protected Zone 2. 

(2) The geographical location of the protected zones according to paragraph 1 is shown in 

the overview map on a scale of 1:50 000 attached as an appendix to this Order. The area of 

Protected Zone 1 is marked in this map by being outlined in black and closely hatched. 

(3) The boundary of Protected Zone 1 is shown in the detailed map which consists of two 

map sheets numbered 1 and 2 on a scale of 1:10 000. The area of Protected Zone 1 is 

marked in this detailed map by being outlined in blue and hatched blue. The detailed map is 

an integral part of this Order and is held by the Parliamentary administrative office and 

archived there. Copies of this detailed map are held by the administrators’ offices of the 

Districts of Unstrut-Hainich and Wartburg, the Hainich National Park administration and the 

highest Nature Protection Authority; copies may be inspected there by anyone during office 

hours. 

Erfurt, 26 June 2009 

State Government 

§ 2 

Entry into force 

This order enters into force on the day after it is published. 

The Minister President Minister for Agriculture, 

Nature Protection and the Environment 

Dieter Althaus Dr. Volker Sklenar 

1

7.2.7 

Ordinance of the Kellerwald-Edersee 

National Park



Explanatory Note 

to the Unofficial Consolidated Version 

Ordinance of the Kellerwald-Edersee National Park 

2003-12-17 (GVBl.I page 463 from 2003-12-22) last amended by Ordinance of the 

amendment of the Ordinance Kellerwald-Edersee 2009-12-07 (GVBl.I page 511 from 

2009-12-16) 

It will be presented to the UNESCO: 

1) Ordinance of the Kellerwald-Edersee National Park 2003-12-17 (GVBl.I page 463 

from 2003-12-22) 

2) Ordinance of the amendment of the Ordinance Kellerwald-Edersee National 

Park 2009-12-07 (GVBl.I page 511 from 2009-12-16) 

3) Unofficial Consolidated Version Ordinance of the Kellerwald-Edersee National 

Park 2003-12-17 (GVBl.I page 463 from 2003-12-22) last amended by Ordinance 

of the amendment of the Ordinance Kellerwald-Edersee 2009-12-07 (GVBl.I page 

511 from 2009-12-16) 

(at the times submission of the nomination an official consolidated version was not 

yet available. To facilitate reading, an Unofficial Consolidated Version of the 

Ordinance of the Kellerwald-Edersee National Park was prepared.) 

According to Art. 4 of the World Heritage Convention, it is the obligation of the States Party, 

to guarantee the protection and conservation of the world heritage and to ensure its 

transmission to future generations. 

Already in the stage of the nomination process of "Ancient beech forests of Germany" with its 

component part "Kellerwald" (as one of the five German component parts nominated as an 

extention to the already inscribed World Natural Heritage "Primeval Beech Forests of the 

Capathians"), the Land of Hesse takes these obligations seriously. This is reflected in the 

fact that the requirements of UNESCO have been consequently implemented by adapting 

the Ordinance of the National Park accordingly prior to the nomination. 

E.g., as the most important change of the former ordinance, unlimited validity of the new 

Ordinance has been reached. 

Mayor parts of the former ordinance of the NP (=§§ 3-10, § 11 Abs. 2-4 and the §§ 12 and 

13) were limited according to § 14, 3rd sentence until 31 December 2009 (see Ordinance of 

the Kellerwald-Edersee National Park 2003-12-17 (GVBl.I page 463 from 2003-12-22). All 

mayor regulations with regard to management and functionality of the NP were limited in time 

with exemption of protection status and the organizational structure of the park. 

By repealing the limitation in time of the entire ordinance, a clear signal is given with the new 

ordinance (see: Ordinance of the amendment of the Ordinance Kellerwald-Edersee National 

Park 2009-12-07 (GVBl.I page 511 from 2009-12-16)) and its unlimited validity in time. 

By changing the Ordinance and repealing the limitation in time of the entire ordinance, the 

State of Hesse has achieved great success because 

1



a. The idea and purpose of the declaration of a National Park can not be brought in line 

with the administrative and political objectives of a limitation in time of regulations: 

According to its legal definition, a National Park aims at the development of greater 

parts of its area towards “a state which ensures the undisturbed progression, as far 

as possible, of natural processes in their natural dynamics." (§ 24 (1) no. 3 German 

Nature Conservation Act / § 22 (1) no. 3 Hessian Nature Conservation Act). Hence, 

the Ordinance of the National Park foresees to relinquish 75% of its area to natural 

processes (§ 2 (1) of the Ordinance). Such development is aligned to long-term 

processes. This is ensured by the amended Ordinance. 

b. Since February 2007 the National Park Kellerwald-Edersee ( = area of the nominated 

component part "Kellerwald" and its buffer zone) is part of the joint nomination 

process of the German Länder Brandenburg, Hesse, Mecklenburg-Western 

Pommerania and Thuringia for inscription as World Heritage of particularly close-tonature 

beech forests in the framework of the World Heritage Convention. With the 

consent of the Ukraine and the Slovak Republic the extension of the already inscribed 

World heritage "Beech forests of the Carpathians" by the five German component 

parts is brought forward. To achieve this goal, a permanent legal regulation unlimited 

in time for the NP is indispensable. This is ensured by the amended Ordinance. 

c. as stipulated in § 1 (1), last sentence of the Ordinance, the National Park shall fulfil 

the criteria of category II of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and 

Natural Resources (IUCN) for achieving an international classification. The omission 

of the limitation in time is a cornerstone in the process of classification. 

With the new ordinance, the required legal measures (Art. 5 d of the World Heritage 

Convention) for protection, conservation and rehabilitation of the heritage are realized. 

2



B NATIONAL PARK PLAN 2008 -– STATUS ANALYSIS E 

Appendix: 


2003-12-17 

(GVBl. I page 463 from 2003-12-22) 

By reason of §16 paragraph 5 sentence 1 of the Hessen nature conservation law in the version from the 16th April, 1996 (GVBl. 

I S. 145), last changed by law from the 1st October, 2002 (GVBl. I S. 614), is prescribed in the behaviour with the Federal 

Ministry of environment, nature conservation and reactor security and the Federal Ministry of traffic, civil engineering and 

housing: 

§ 1 

Declaration to the National Park 

(1) That in the district Waldeck-Frankenberg south of the Edersee located and in the demarcation map according to paragr. 4, 

sentence 1, is declared to the National Park. It receives the label National Park "Kellerwald-Edersee". The National Park 

represents woodrush-beech woodland typical of low mountains of Western Europe with a mosaic of interspersed special 

locations, above all rocky-dry steep cliff, damp valley reason with near-natural streams and small nutrient poor forest meadows. 

Its areas fulfill the environmental protection criteria of the Habitats Directive and Birds Directive and are planned as a part of the 

European network of protected areas, "NATURA 2000". The National Park should fulfill the criteria of category II of the 

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in order to reach an international classification. 

(2) The Kellerwald-Edersee National Park consists: 

1. of areas of the State forest sector 20 to 34, 36 to 89, 91 to 126, 128 to 156, 158 to 163, 165 to 177, 179 to 203, 206 to 

213, 248 to 266, 269, 270 to 304, 306 to 309, 312 to 315, 317 to 330, 332 to 336, 338, 339, 406 to 409, 410 to 428, 

430 to 447, 517, 519 to 524, 

2. of part areas of the State forest sector 90, 178, 204, 205, 268, 305, 310, 311, 316, 331, 337, 429, 515, 516 und 518, 

3. of plots of land of the districts: 

a) Altenlotheim Plot 14 Land parcel 1/2, Plot 15 Land parcel 1 und 4,Plot 16 Land parcel 3 to 5, Plot 17 Land 

parcel 5, 14 (partly), 15, Plot 19 Land parcel 4, 7, 8, Plot 20 Land parcel 1 to 3, 7 to 12, Plot 26 Land parcel 9/1, 

Plot 32 Land parcel 11 to 12, Plot 41 Land parcel 1, Plot 51 Land parcel 1 to 6, 8, 

b) Asel Plot 16 Land parcel 38/5, Plot 17 Land parcel 8, 12, 13/1, Plot 26 Land parcel 11/2, 29/8, 30/4, Plot 27 

Land parcel 32/12, 42/4, 33/13, 34/14, 36/2, Plot 28 Land parcel 7/3, 

c) Bringhausen Plot 2 Land parcel 26/2, Land parcel 78, 96/50, 98/51, 99/51, 108/51, 109/51, 135/59, 136/77, Plot 

8 Land parcel 4, Plot 9 Land parcel 8, 9, 44, 65/16, 68/46, 69/19, 76/50, 96/22, 99/25, 100/25, 101/25, 102/25, 

106/43, 107/43, 108/7, Plot 10 Land parcel 25, 29/5, 45/7, 

Edersee Plot 1 Land parcel 13 (partly),14, 15, 17, Plot 3 Land parcel 15/1, 

d) Edertal, local forest sector 801 to 803 partly and 901 partly, 

e) Frankenau, State forest sector 201, Plot 9 Land parcel 2/1, 24, Plot 10 Land parcel 5, 

f) Frebershausen Plot 2, Land parcel 20, Plot 15 Land parcel 1 to 7, 24, 25, 27, 28, 38 to 42, Plot 16 Land parcel 

2, 6/1, 13 to 17, 

g) Gellershausen Plot 2, Land parcel 26 (partly), Plot 18 Land parcel 4 to 6, 17 (partly), 18, Plot 19 Land parcel 51, 

58, 72/65, Plot 20 Land parcel 4, 7, 23, 27, 28, Plot 21 Land parcel 1/2, Plot 22 Land parcel 1, 2/1, 

h) Hemfurth Plot 6 Land parcel 6, 10/10, 10/11, 12/1, 16/1 (partly), 22/1, 22/3, 63/22, 64/22, 69/5, 

i) Kirchlotheim Plot 2 Land parcel 104, 

j) Kleinern Plot 17, Land parcel 23 and 24, Plot 22 Land parcel 1, 

k) Mehlen Plot 7 Land parcel 11 to 13, 

l) Schmittlotheim Plot 5 Land parcel 5/1, 7, Plot 6 Land parcel 2, Plot 11 Land parcel 25 

and 

m) Vöhl, local forest sector 654. 

(3) The National Park has a size of about 5,724 hectares. Its position is shown on the enclosed general map in the scale 1: 

60,000 (arrangements 1). 

(4) The borders of the National Park arise from the demarcation map of the scale 1: 10.000 (arrangements 2). The National Park 

is marked with a dashed red line. Where roads or paths form the external border of the National Park, they lie outside the 

National Park. The map is stored with the Minister for forests and nature conservation. An official copy is in each case at the 

National Park Authority and with the towns Frankenau, Bad Wildungen, Gemünden as well as at the municipalities Bad 

Zwesten, Edertal, Gilserberg, Haina, Jesberg, Vöhl and Waldeck. The map and the official copies are archived there and can be 

seen to the regularly office hours. The map is a component of this order. 

(5) The National Park area is marked by official signs. 

3



B NATIONAL PARK PLAN 2008 -– STATUS ANALYSI E 

§ 2 

Conservation Aim 

(1) The reason for the land being under protection is the natural and semi-natural ecological systems of the National Park with 

their typical plant and animal communities as well as the rocks and soils and to allow natural environmental factors and 

dynamics to develop on at least 75% of the area (process protection). 

(2) In addition, the National Park should – as far as it is compatible with the protective purpose - 

1. manage the habitats of native plant and animal, or restore them, protect them from disturbance and promote the 

natural re-establishment of displaced species promoted, 

2. preserve or restore the special characteristic, regional beauty, peace and quiet of the area, 

3. preserve culturally-historical and natural-historical valuable monuments and land and, where possible, restore, 

4. scientifically observe and investigate the natural dynamism of the long-term relationships of the woodland, and 

5. ensure the area is open and accessible to the population for recreational purposes and educational purposes. 

(3) Other protective purpose is, a maintaining the condition of the habitats in the National Park zone and animal and plant 

species of the supplements I, II and IV of the guideline 92/43/EWG of the advice by the 21 May 1992 (ABl. EC No. L 206 S.7), 

last amended through guideline 97/62 EC of the advice of the 27 October 1997 (ABl. EC no. L 305 S. 42) (Habitats Directive), 

and that after type. 4 sec.1 and 2 of the guideline 79/409 EEC of the advice of the 2 April 1979 over the maintenance of wild life 

bird type (ABl. EC no. L 103 S.1), last amended through guideline 97/49/EG of the commission of the 29. July 1997 (ABl. EC 

no. L 223 of the 13 August 1997 S. 9) (Birds Directive) as far as this is compatible with the protection purpose. 

(4) In relation to the natural habitat types it is essentially for: 

1. the priority habitat types: Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines (EU code 9180), Alluvial forests with 

Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae) (EU code 91E0) and Speciesrich 

Nardus grassland, on siliceous substrates in mountain and submountain areas (EU-Code 6230) 

2. the further habitats types: Luzulo-Fagetum beech forests (EU-Code 9110), Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests (EU- 

Code 9130), Sub-Atlantic and medio-European oak or oak-hornbeam forests of the Carpinion betuli (EU-Code 9160), 

bedstraw-oak-hornbeam woodlands (EU-Code 9170), European dry heaths (EU-Code 4030), Hydrophilous tall herb 

fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels (EU-Code 6430), Medio-European siliceous scree 

(EU-Code 8150), Siliceous rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation (EU-Code 8220) and Siliceous rocky knolls 

with pioneer vegetation (EU-Code 8230). 

(5) Active protection measures for endangered species can be carried out according to the criteria of the IUCN guidelines only 

on less than 25% of the National Park area. 

(6) In the non-natural areas of the National Park, natural processes should be initiated and enabled by specific ecological 

control measures. The individual measures required to reach the natural state are specified according to different areas in the 

National Park Plan. 

(7) The game distribution in the National Park is to be managed in a way that the protection criteria are not hindered. 

(8) No commercial forestry is to take place the National Park. 

§ 3 

Regional Development 

Through infrastructure-improving measures, the National Park should contribute to positive regional development. 

§ 4 

National Park Plan 

(1) Concepts, management measures and development measures of the National Park are to be shown in a National Park Plan. 

This contains particular measures and plans for the achieving the conservation aim at §2. In particular: 

1. Process-, Biotope- and species- protection, 

2. Care of the woodland and open spaces, 

3. Encure and control of recreational and visitor traffic, 

4. Education and Public Relations, 

5. Game population control, 

6. Scientific documentation and research, and 

7. Fulfill the reporting duties of the Habitats Directive and Birds Directive. 

4




(2) The National Park Plan is laid down by the National Park administration after hearing National Park advisory board, public 

interests of the towns bordering the National Park area, municipalities, as well as under §29 of the federal nature conservation 

law in the version valid at 3rd April 2002 accepted federations and the federations, which are to be enlisted according to § 35 

paragraph 1 of the Hesse nature conservation law, and is approved by the ministry responsible for forestry and 

natureconservation in accordance with the Ministry of regional planning. 

(3) The National Park Plan is to be put up first to the 31st December, 2006. It is to be updated when required, at the latest after 

ten years. Paragraph 2 is applied. 

(4) The plans and measures of the National Park and those of the Nature Park should be aligned with each other. 

§ 5 

Scientific Documentation and Research 

(1) The scientific documentation and research after §4 paragraph 1 No. 6 refers to the periodic, investigations concerning the 

development on a continuing basis and to specific single investigations. Documentation and research have the particular goals: 

1. to explore the construction and the development of natural and semi-natural long-term relationships, 

2. to deliver knowledge for nature protection, for silvicultural science and silvicultural practice 

3. monitoring for Habitats Directive and Birds Directive, 

4. To acquire knowledge for the development of the National Park, 

5. to explore the impact of anthropogenic Immisionen activities and disturbances in the natural cycle, and 

6. to support the National Park management in the fulfilment of its tasks. 

(2) Where the National Park Office itself does not carry out research, it coordinates all research projects in the National Park. 

Research projects by a third party are to be brought into agreement with the National Park Authority. It can ban the research 

project, if the impact of the project on the conservation objective could be expected to be disproportionate to the projects 

success or would not accord to the regulations of this prescription. 

§ 6 

Education and Public Relations 

The purposes and tasks of the National Park are to provide for the general public, considering the protective role, education and 

public relations; particular measures are to 

1. Promote the understanding of woodland and ecological connections, 

2. Explain about the protective role, and 

3. Give information and offers for experience of nature 

in order to develop and contribute to nature education and general environmental education. 

§ 7 

Recreation and Path plan 

(1) The National Park is available to the general public for the purpose of physical recreation, as long as this does not contradict 

the protective purpose under §2. 

(2) The National Park may only be accedet on especially marked routes for own risk, exclusive used by wheel chairs, bikes and 

horse riding. To control the recreational and visitor traffic the National Park Authority can decree measurements for visitor 

management and additional exceptions. 

(3) Equipment used for recreational purposes is used by individuals at their own risk. 

(4) The carrying out of organized or commercial horse sledge and wagon trips needs the approval by the National Park 

Authority. 

(5) The Route Plan shows the present stage and the intended development of the roads and paths whilst considering the 

protective purposes of §2 in the National Park. The Route Plan is also intended to display large, un-cut areas especially in areas 

where, the forest is left to develop in a natural way without being managed. The Route Plan serves in particular to control 

visitors and contributes to the fulfilment of the recreational order and educational order. It is a component of the National Park 

Plan. 

(6) The National Park Authority can, in consultation with the municipality involved, close or restrict the use of non-public roads 

and paths in the area of the National Park and in the property of the land Hesse, subject to a third parties rights, if necessary for 

nature protection objectives. 

5




§ 8 

Restrictions 

(1) In the National Park all activities which can lead to destruction, damage or change of the protective area and its components 

or to lasting interference or disturbance, are forbidden. 

(2) Activities for the purposes of paragraph 1 are in particular: 

1. producing, widening or changing physical structures for the purposes of §2 paragraph 1 of the Hesse building 

code, even if the measures do not need approval according to building regulations or have been given license 

after other statutory regulations, 

2. the exploitation or profit from mineral resources or other soil components, by the use of blasting or drilling or the 

change of ground structures, 

3. attaching or putting up of inscriptions, posters, picture boards or written boards, 

4. changing, removing or creation of bodies of water, in particular changing of watercourses, water surfaces or pools 

including their banks as well as changing of in and outflows water bodies or draining of ground water levels, 

marshes or other wetlands or the extraction of water over the normal use of man. 

5. damaging or removing plants or plant parts, 

6. affecting wild animals, including fish in ponds, willfully disturbing, the imitating their sounds, searching for, taking 

photos or filming nests or homes, or recording sounds at such places, attaching devices to catch them, to injure or 

to kill or to take away her pupae, larvae, eggs, nests or other broods or homes or to damage them, 

7. introducing plants or plant parts or the release of animals, 

8. breaking up meadows, pastures or fallow land or the realization of drainage measures, 

9. fertilizing and liming, application of herbicide on areas belonging to the state, 

10. camps, bathing or camping, caravans, making noise, lighting fire, using boats or model ships, take off or landing 

of aircraft of any kind 

11. driving or parking cars and bicycles beyond the ways permitted for them, 

12. using of sledge dogs or allowing dogs to run free, or 

13. carrying out commercial activities. 

§ 9 

Exceptions 

The following are excluded from the restrictions §8, regardless of third party rights: 

1. measures by the National Park Authority for the carrying out its protective goals, 

2. the care of meadows under in §8 paragraph 2 No. 7 to 9 called restrictions, 

3. arrangements in fulfilment of an order of information or educational order from the National Park Authority, 

4. scientific investigations and researches under attention of § 5 paragraph 2, 

5. the use, establishment or change of the physical structures which serve the fulfilment of the protective purpose of this 

order, 

6. measures which are necessary for the operation of existing assessing and disposal facilities and telecommunications, 

7. Operation, servicing, maintenance and repair of the pumping storage power station Waldeck I and II, its secondary 

structures and the funicular railway, 

8. Use and maintenance of the Banfe pond, 

9. using cars on routes by employees or representatives of authorities in exercise of their official duties, 

10. Measures for game population control, 

11. exercising third party rights which exist at the time of the coming into force of this order, and 

12. the re-construction physical structures. 

§ 10 

Exemption 

Exemption from bans and orders of this order is covered by § 30 b of the Hesse nature conservation law. 

§ 11 

National Park Authority 

(1) A National Park Authority Kellerwald-Edersee is arranged. It comes under the legal supervision and professional supervision 

of the Ministry of forests and nature conservation and under the official supervision of state company HESSEN-FORST. 

(2) The National Park Authority perceives in particular the following tasks: 

1. the production and implementation of the National Park Plan under §4 paragraph 1, 

2. regulation of visitor's traffic and recreational traffic, 

3. the management, maintenance and the operation of the equipment serving the National Park, 

6




4. the development of a concept for scientific documentation and research under §5 paragraph 1 and the coordination of 

research project under §5 paragraph 2, 

5. the implementation of the Route Plan under §7 paragraph 5, and 

6. the perception of the educational work and public relations. 

(3) The National Park Authority is to listen to public law measures, planning and other plans which are carried out beyond the 

National Park, and which affect the traffic and visitor control system in the National Park. 

(4) The National Park Authority arranges a National Park rangers. 

§ 12 

National Park Advisory Board 

(1) An advisory board is formed to consult and support the National Park in all technical affairs. 

(2) Sience the minister responsible for forest and environmental or one of their nominated representatives the advisory board. 

Beside the chairpersons, members come from: 

1. Federal Ministry of environment, nature conservation and reactor security, 

2. Hesse state office, 

3. Administrative district of Waldeck-Frankenberg, 

4. town of Bad Wildungen, 

5. town of Frankenau, 

6. town of Gemünden, 

7. municipality of Vöhl, 

8. municipality of Edertal, 

9. municipality of Bad Zwesten, 

10. municipality of Gilserberg, 

11. municipality of Haina, 

12. municipality of Jesberg, 

13. municipality of Waldeck, 

14. regional developing group Kellerwald-Edersee e. V. and 

15. Naturpark Kellerwald- Edersee Association, 

16. Regional Council Kassel and 

17. State Company HESSEN FORST. 

In addition, organizations of local tourism, local agriculture and regional trade in the administrative district send a member to the 

Advisory Board, from the field of Forestry sience, biology two members and under §29 of the federal nature conservation law in 

the version valid to the 3rd April, 2002 to approved federations a total of four members to the Advisory Board. For every member 

a substitution is to be named. Participation on the advisory board is in an honorary capacity. 

(3) The National Park Advisory Board gives itself an agenda. It can furnish committees of experts. 

(4) The buisiness attends to the National Park Authority. The Minister responsible for forests and nature conservation calls a 

meeting at least once a year or at the request of at least eight members of the Advisory Board. Other experts can be invited. 

(5) The minister responsible for forest and environmental protection can appoint further members after voting with other 

members of the Advisory Board. 

§ 13 

Regulatory offence 

(1) Against the regulations for the purposes of §43 paragraph 3 No. 10 of the Hesse nature conservation law trades, anyone 

who in the National Park deliberately or negligently: 

1. against §8 paragraph 2 produces No. 1 physical structures for the purposes of §2 paragraph 1 of the Hesse building 

code, extends, changes, even if the measure does not require approval according to building regulations or if a 

licensing was given after other statutory regulations, 

2. against §8 paragraph 2 diminishes No. 2 mineral resources or other soil components or exploits, carries out spraying 

or drilling or, otherwise changes the ground structure, 

3. against §8 paragraph 2 attaches or puts up No. 3 inscriptions, posters, picture boards or written boards, 

4. against §8 paragraph 2 creates No. 4 body of water, drains changed or removed, in particular watercourses, water 

surfaces or pools including their banks as well as the in and outflow of water or changed the ground water level or 

marshes or other wet areas or extracts water, 

5. against §8 paragraph 2 No. 5 plants or plant parts including trees and shrubs, damages or removes, 

7



B NATIONAL PARK PLAN – STATUS ANALYSIS E 

6. against §8 paragraph 2 affects No. 6 wild-living animals, including fish in ponds, copies sounds intentionally to disturb, 

visits nests or homes and takes photos, films or records sounds there, attaches devices to catch , catches, injures or 

kills, takes away pupae, larvae, eggs, nests or other broods or homes or damages them, 

7. against §8 paragraph 2 introduces No. 7 plants or plant parts or releases animals,, 

8. against §8 paragraph 2 breaks up No. 8 meadows, pastures or fallow land or carries out drainage measures, 

9. against §8 paragraph 2 fertilizes No. 9 on land, limes or applies herbicides, 

10. against §8 paragraph 2 stores No. 10, bathes, camps, caravans, makes a noise, lights fires, uses boats of all kind or 

model ships or allows aircraft of all kind or land or take off, 

11. against §8 paragraph 2 drives No. 11 cars and bicycles beyond the routes permitted for them or parks vehicles, 

12. against §8 paragraph 2 uses No. 12 sledge dogs or allows dogs to run free, 

13. against §8 paragraph 2 undertakes No. 13 commercial activities, 

14. against §7 paragraph 2 drives or rides in the National Park beyond the routes especially marked for it, 

or 

15. against §7 paragraph 4 carries out organized activities without approval of the National Park Authority or offers horse 

sledge or wagon journeys commercially. 

(2) Regulatory offence under paragraph 1 can be punished with a fine of up to 100,000 euros. 

§ 14 

Coming into force, expiring 

§13 comes into force on the 1st July, 2004. For the rest, this order comes into force on the 1st January, 2004. 

§§3 to 10, §11 paragraph 2 to 4 and §§12 and 13 expire with expiry 31st December, 2009. 

Wiesbaden, 17, December 2003 

Hesse Government 

Prime Minister The Minister for Environment, Rural Areas and Consumer Protection 

Koch Dietzel 

8



Ordinance on the Amendment of the 

Ordinance on the 


of 2009–12-07 

(GVBl. I page 511 from 2009-12-16) 

On the basis of § 28 para 1 sentence 1 in connection with § 22 para 1 and § 28 para 2 no. 1 

of the Hessian Nature Conservation Act of 4 December 2006 (Journal of Laws and Ordinances I 

p. 619) as last amended by the act of 12 December 2007 (Journal of Laws and Ordinances I 

p. 851), it is decreed that: 

Article 1 

The Ordinance on the Kellerwald-Edersee National Park of 17 December 2003 (Journal of Laws 

and Ordinances I p. 463) is amended as follows: 

1. In § 1 para 3 sentence 1, the figure “5,724” is replaced by the figure “5,738”. 

2. In § 2 para 3, the term “Council Directive 97/62 EC of 27 October 1997” (Official Gazette 

EC No. L 305 p. 42)" is replaced by the term “Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 

2006 (Official Gazette EC No. L 363 p. 368)”, and the term “Commission Directive 

97/49/EC of 29 July 1997 (Official Gazette EC No. L 223 of 13 August 1997 p. 9)” is 

replaced by the term “Directive 2008/102/EC of the European Parliament and the Council 

of 19 November 2008 (Official Gazette EU No. L 323 p. 31)” 

3. In § 10, the term“30b” is replaced by the term “42 sentence 1”. 

4. § 13 shall be amended as follows: 

a) In § 13, the term“43 para 3 no. 10” is replaced by the term “57 para 3 no. 9 (a)”. 

b) In § 13 para 2, the figure “100,000” is replaced by the words “one hundred thousand”. 

5. § 14 shall be amended as follows: 

a) The title is replaced by the following: “Coming into Force” 

b) Sentence 3 shall be repealed. 

9



Article 2 

This ordinance shall come into force on 31 December 2009. 

Prime Minister of Hesse 

(Koch) 

Wiesbaden, 07. December 2009 

Hesse Government 

The Minister for the Environment, Energy, 


(Lautenschläger) 

10



Unofficial Consolidated Version 


2003-12-17 (GVBl. I page 463 from 2003-12-22) last amended by Ordinance of 

the amendment of the Ordinance Kellerwald-Edersee 2009-12-07 (GVBl.I page 

511 from 2009-12-16) 

By reason of §16 paragraph 5 sentence 1 of the Hessen nature conservation law in the version from the 16th April, 1996 (GVBl. 

I S. 145), last changed by law from the 1st October, 2002 (GVBl. I S. 614), is prescribed in the behaviour with the Federal 

Ministry of environment, nature conservation and reactor security and the Federal Ministry of traffic, civil engineering and 

housing: 

§ 1 

Declaration to the National Park 

(1) That in the district Waldeck-Frankenberg south of the Edersee located and in the demarcation map according to paragr. 4, 

sentence 1, is declared to the National Park. It receives the label National Park "Kellerwald-Edersee". The National Park 

represents woodrush-beech woodland typical of low mountains of Western Europe with a mosaic of interspersed special 

locations, above all rocky-dry steep cliff, damp valley reason with near-natural streams and small nutrient poor forest meadows. 

Its areas fulfill the environmental protection criteria of the Habitats Directive and Birds Directive and are planned as a part of the 

European network of protected areas, "NATURA 2000". The National Park should fulfill the criteria of category II of the 

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in order to reach an international classification. 

(2) The Kellerwald-Edersee National Park consists: 

1. of areas of the State forest sector 20 to 34, 36 to 89, 91 to 126, 128 to 156, 158 to 163, 165 to 177, 179 to 203, 206 to 

213, 248 to 266, 269, 270 to 304, 306 to 309, 312 to 315, 317 to 330, 332 to 336, 338, 339, 406 to 409, 410 to 428, 

430 to 447, 517, 519 to 524, 

2. of part areas of the State forest sector 90, 178, 204, 205, 268, 305, 310, 311, 316, 331, 337, 429, 515, 516 und 518, 

3. of plots of land of the districts: 

a) Altenlotheim Plot 14 Land parcel 1/2, Plot 15 Land parcel 1 und 4,Plot 16 Land parcel 3 to 5, Plot 17 Land 

parcel 5, 14 (partly), 15, Plot 19 Land parcel 4, 7, 8, Plot 20 Land parcel 1 to 3, 7 to 12, Plot 26 Land parcel 9/1, 

Plot 32 Land parcel 11 to 12, Plot 41 Land parcel 1, Plot 51 Land parcel 1 to 6, 8, 

b) Asel Plot 16 Land parcel 38/5, Plot 17 Land parcel 8, 12, 13/1, Plot 26 Land parcel 11/2, 29/8, 30/4, Plot 27 

Land parcel 32/12, 42/4, 33/13, 34/14, 36/2, Plot 28 Land parcel 7/3, 

c) Bringhausen Plot 2 Land parcel 26/2, Land parcel 78, 96/50, 98/51, 99/51, 108/51, 109/51, 135/59, 136/77, Plot 

8 Land parcel 4, Plot 9 Land parcel 8, 9, 44, 65/16, 68/46, 69/19, 76/50, 96/22, 99/25, 100/25, 101/25, 102/25, 

106/43, 107/43, 108/7, Plot 10 Land parcel 25, 29/5, 45/7, 

Edersee Plot 1 Land parcel 13 (partly),14, 15, 17, Plot 3 Land parcel 15/1, 

d) Edertal, local forest sector 801 to 803 partly and 901 partly, 

e) Frankenau, State forest sector 201, Plot 9 Land parcel 2/1, 24, Plot 10 Land parcel 5, 

f) Frebershausen Plot 2, Land parcel 20, Plot 15 Land parcel 1 to 7, 24, 25, 27, 28, 38 to 42, Plot 16 Land parcel 

2, 6/1, 13 to 17, 

g) Gellershausen Plot 2, Land parcel 26 (partly), Plot 18 Land parcel 4 to 6, 17 (partly), 18, Plot 19 Land parcel 51, 

58, 72/65, Plot 20 Land parcel 4, 7, 23, 27, 28, Plot 21 Land parcel 1/2, Plot 22 Land parcel 1, 2/1, 

h) Hemfurth Plot 6 Land parcel 6, 10/10, 10/11, 12/1, 16/1 (partly), 22/1, 22/3, 63/22, 64/22, 69/5, 

i) Kirchlotheim Plot 2 Land parcel 104, 

j) Kleinern Plot 17, Land parcel 23 and 24, Plot 22 Land parcel 1, 

k) Mehlen Plot 7 Land parcel 11 to 13, 

l) Schmittlotheim Plot 5 Land parcel 5/1, 7, Plot 6 Land parcel 2, Plot 11 Land parcel 25 

and 

m) Vöhl, local forest sector 654. 

(3) The National Park has a size of about 5,738 hectares. Its position is shown on the enclosed general map in the scale 1: 

60,000 (arrangements 1). 

(4) The borders of the National Park arise from the demarcation map of the scale 1: 10.000 (arrangements 2). The National Park 

is marked with a dashed red line. Where roads or paths form the external border of the National Park, they lie outside the 

National Park. The map is stored with the Minister for forests and nature conservation. An official copy is in each case at the 

National Park Authority and with the towns Frankenau, Bad Wildungen, Gemünden as well as at the municipalities Bad 

Zwesten, Edertal, Gilserberg, Haina, Jesberg, Vöhl and Waldeck. The map and the official copies are archived there and can be 

seen to the regularly office hours. The map is a component of this order. 

(5) The National Park area is marked by official signs. 

11



B NATIONAL PARK PLAN 2008 -– STATUS ANALYSI E 

§ 2 

Conservation Aim 

(1) The reason for the land being under protection is the natural and semi-natural ecological systems of the National Park with 

their typical plant and animal communities as well as the rocks and soils and to allow natural environmental factors and 

dynamics to develop on at least 75% of the area (process protection). 

(2) In addition, the National Park should – as far as it is compatible with the protective purpose - 

1. manage the habitats of native plant and animal, or restore them, protect them from disturbance and promote the 

natural re-establishment of displaced species promoted, 

2. preserve or restore the special characteristic, regional beauty, peace and quiet of the area, 

3. preserve culturally-historical and natural-historical valuable monuments and land and, where possible, restore, 

4. scientifically observe and investigate the natural dynamism of the long-term relationships of the woodland, and 

5. ensure the area is open and accessible to the population for recreational purposes and educational purposes. 

(3) Other protective purpose is, maintaining the condition of the habitats in the National Park zone and animal and plant species 

of the supplements I, II and IV of the guideline 92/43/EWG of the council by the 21 May 1992 (ABl. EC No. L 206 S.7), last 

amended through guideline 2006/105/EG of the council of the 20 November 2006 (ABl. EU no. L 363 S. 368) (Habitats 

Directive), and that after type. 4 sec.1 and 2 of the guideline 79/409 EEC of the advice of the 2 April 1979 over the maintenance 

of wild life bird type (ABl. EC no. L 103 S.1), last amended through guideline 2008/102 EG of the European Parliament and the 

council of 19.November 2008 (ABl. EC no. L 323 S. 31) (Birds Directive) as far as this is compatible with the protection 

purpose. 

(4) In relation to the natural habitat types it is essentially for: 

1. the priority habitat types: Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines (EU code 9180), Alluvial forests with 

Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae) (EU code 91E0) and Speciesrich 

Nardus grassland, on siliceous substrates in mountain and submountain areas (EU-Code 6230) 

2. the further habitats types: Luzulo-Fagetum beech forests (EU-Code 9110), Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests (EU- 

Code 9130), Sub-Atlantic and medio-European oak or oak-hornbeam forests of the Carpinion betuli (EU-Code 9160), 

bedstraw-oak-hornbeam woodlands (EU-Code 9170), European dry heaths (EU-Code 4030), Hydrophilous tall herb 

fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels (EU-Code 6430), Medio-European siliceous scree 

(EU-Code 8150), Siliceous rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation (EU-Code 8220) and Siliceous rocky knolls 

with pioneer vegetation (EU-Code 8230). 

(5) Active protection measures for endangered species can be carried out according to the criteria of the IUCN guidelines only 

on less than 25% of the National Park area. 

(6) In the non-natural areas of the National Park, natural processes should be initiated and enabled by specific ecological 

control measures. The individual measures required to reach the natural state are specified according to different areas in the 

National Park Plan. 

(7) The game distribution in the National Park is to be managed in a way that the protection criteria are not hindered. 

(8) No commercial forestry is to take place the National Park. 

§ 3 

Regional Development 

Through infrastructure-improving measures, the National Park should contribute to positive regional development. 

§ 4 


(1) Concepts, management measures and development measures of the National Park are to be shown in a National Park Plan. 

This contains particular measures and plans for the achieving the conservation aim at §2. In particular: 

1. Process-, Biotope- and species- protection, 

2. Care of the woodland and open spaces, 

3. Encure and control of recreational and visitor traffic, 

4. Education and Public Relations, 

5. Game population control, 

6. Scientific documentation and research, and 

7. Fulfill the reporting duties of the Habitats Directive and Birds Directive. 

12




(2) The National Park Plan is laid down by the National Park administration after hearing National Park advisory board, public 

interests of the towns bordering the National Park area, municipalities, as well as under §29 of the federal nature conservation 

law in the version valid at 3rd April 2002 accepted federations and the federations, which are to be enlisted according to § 35 

paragraph 1 of the Hesse nature conservation law, and is approved by the ministry responsible for forestry and 

natureconservation in accordance with the Ministry of regional planning. 

(3) The National Park Plan is to be put up first to the 31st December, 2006. It is to be updated when required, at the latest after 

ten years. Paragraph 2 is applied. 

(4) The plans and measures of the National Park and those of the Nature Park should be aligned with each other. 

§ 5 

Scientific Documentation and Research 

(1) The scientific documentation and research after §4 paragraph 1 No. 6 refers to the periodic, investigations concerning the 

development on a continuing basis and to specific single investigations. Documentation and research have the particular goals: 

1. to explore the construction and the development of natural and semi-natural long-term relationships, 

2. to deliver knowledge for nature protection, for silvicultural science and silvicultural practice 

3. monitoring for Habitats Directive and Birds Directive, 

4. To acquire knowledge for the development of the National Park, 

5. to explore the impact of anthropogenic Immisionen activities and disturbances in the natural cycle, and 

6. to support the National Park management in the fulfilment of its tasks. 

(2) Where the National Park Office itself does not carry out research, it coordinates all research projects in the National Park. 

Research projects by a third party are to be brought into agreement with the National Park Authority. It can ban the research 

project, if the impact of the project on the conservation objective could be expected to be disproportionate to the projects 

success or would not accord to the regulations of this prescription. 

§ 6 

Education and Public Relations 

The purposes and tasks of the National Park are to provide for the general public, considering the protective role, education and 

public relations; particular measures are to 

1. Promote the understanding of woodland and ecological connections, 

2. Explain about the protective role, and 

3. Give information and offers for experience of nature 

in order to develop and contribute to nature education and general environmental education. 

§ 7 

Recreation and Path plan 

(1) The National Park is available to the general public for the purpose of physical recreation, as long as this does not contradict 

the protective purpose under §2. 

(2) The National Park may only be accedet on especially marked routes for own risk, exclusive used by wheel chairs, bikes and 

horse riding. To control the recreational and visitor traffic the National Park Authority can decree measurements for visitor 

management and additional exceptions. 

(3) Equipment used for recreational purposes is used by individuals at their own risk. 

(4) The carrying out of organized or commercial horse sledge and wagon trips needs the approval by the National Park 

Authority. 

(5) The Route Plan shows the present stage and the intended development of the roads and paths whilst considering the 

protective purposes of §2 in the National Park. The Route Plan is also intended to display large, un-cut areas especially in areas 

where, the forest is left to develop in a natural way without being managed. The Route Plan serves in particular to control 

visitors and contributes to the fulfilment of the recreational order and educational order. It is a component of the National Park 

Plan. 

(6) The National Park Authority can, in consultation with the municipality involved, close or restrict the use of non-public roads 

and paths in the area of the National Park and in the property of the land Hesse, subject to a third parties rights, if necessary for 

nature protection objectives. 

13




§ 8 

Restrictions 

(1) In the National Park all activities which can lead to destruction, damage or change of the protective area and its components 

or to lasting interference or disturbance, are forbidden. 

(2) Activities for the purposes of paragraph 1 are in particular: 

1. producing, widening or changing physical structures for the purposes of §2 paragraph 1 of the Hesse building 

code, even if the measures do not need approval according to building regulations or have been given license 

after other statutory regulations, 

2. the exploitation or profit from mineral resources or other soil components, by the use of blasting or drilling or the 

change of ground structures, 

3. attaching or putting up of inscriptions, posters, picture boards or written boards, 

4. changing, removing or creation of bodies of water, in particular changing of watercourses, water surfaces or pools 

including their banks as well as changing of in and outflows water bodies or draining of ground water levels, 

marshes or other wetlands or the extraction of water over the normal use of man. 

5. damaging or removing plants or plant parts, 

6. affecting wild animals, including fish in ponds, willfully disturbing, the imitating their sounds, searching for, taking 

photos or filming nests or homes, or recording sounds at such places, attaching devices to catch them, to injure or 

to kill or to take away her pupae, larvae, eggs, nests or other broods or homes or to damage them, 

7. introducing plants or plant parts or the release of animals, 

8. breaking up meadows, pastures or fallow land or the realization of drainage measures, 

9. fertilizing and liming, application of herbicide on areas belonging to the state, 

10. camps, bathing or camping, caravans, making noise, lighting fire, using boats or model ships, take off or landing 

of aircraft of any kind 

11. driving or parking cars and bicycles beyond the ways permitted for them, 

12. using of sledge dogs or allowing dogs to run free, or 

13. carrying out commercial activities. 

§ 9 

Exceptions 

The following are excluded from the restrictions §8, regardless of third party rights: 

1. measures by the National Park Authority for the carrying out its protective goals, 

2. the care of meadows under in §8 paragraph 2 No. 7 to 9 called restrictions, 

3. arrangements in fulfilment of an order of information or educational order from the National Park Authority, 

4. scientific investigations and researches under attention of § 5 paragraph 2, 

5. the use, establishment or change of the physical structures which serve the fulfilment of the protective purpose of this 

order, 

6. measures which are necessary for the operation of existing assessing and disposal facilities and telecommunications, 

7. Operation, servicing, maintenance and repair of the pumping storage power station Waldeck I and II, its secondary 

structures and the funicular railway, 

8. Use and maintenance of the Banfe pond, 

9. using cars on routes by employees or representatives of authorities in exercise of their official duties, 

10. Measures for game population control, 

11. exercising third party rights which exist at the time of the coming into force of this order, and 

12. the re-construction physical structures. 

§ 10 

Exemption 

Exemption from bans and orders of this order is covered by § 42 1 st sentence of the Hesse nature conservation law. 

§ 11 

National Park Authority 

(1) A National Park Authority Kellerwald-Edersee is arranged. It comes under the legal supervision and professional supervision 

of the Ministry of forests and nature conservation and under the official supervision of state company HESSEN-FORST. 

(2) The National Park Authority perceives in particular the following tasks: 

1. the production and implementation of the National Park Plan under §4 paragraph 1, 

2. regulation of visitor's traffic and recreational traffic, 

3. the management, maintenance and the operation of the equipment serving the National Park, 

14




4. the development of a concept for scientific documentation and research under §5 paragraph 1 and the coordination of 

research project under §5 paragraph 2, 

5. the implementation of the Route Plan under §7 paragraph 5, and 

6. the perception of the educational work and public relations. 

(3) The National Park Authority is to listen to public law measures, planning and other plans which are carried out beyond the 

National Park, and which affect the traffic and visitor control system in the National Park. 

(4) The National Park Authority arranges a National Park rangers. 

§ 12 

National Park Advisory Board 

(1) An advisory board is formed to consult and support the National Park in all technical affairs. 

(2) Sience the minister responsible for forest and environmental or one of their nominated representatives the advisory board. 

Beside the chairpersons, members come from: 

1. Federal Ministry of environment, nature conservation and reactor security, 

2. Hesse state office, 

3. Administrative district of Waldeck-Frankenberg, 

4. town of Bad Wildungen, 

5. town of Frankenau, 

6. town of Gemünden, 

7. municipality of Vöhl, 

8. municipality of Edertal, 

9. municipality of Bad Zwesten, 

10. municipality of Gilserberg, 

11. municipality of Haina, 

12. municipality of Jesberg, 

13. municipality of Waldeck, 

14. regional developing group Kellerwald-Edersee e. V. and 

15. Naturpark Kellerwald- Edersee Association, 

16. Regional Council Kassel and 

17. State Company HESSEN FORST. 

In addition, organizations of local tourism, local agriculture and regional trade in the administrative district send a member to the 

Advisory Board, from the field of Forestry sience, biology two members and under §29 of the federal nature conservation law in 

the version valid to the 3rd April, 2002 to approved federations a total of four members to the Advisory Board. For every member 

a substitution is to be named. Participation on the advisory board is in an honorary capacity. 

(3) The National Park Advisory Board gives itself an agenda. It can furnish committees of experts. 

(4) The buisiness attends to the National Park Authority. The Minister responsible for forests and nature conservation calls a 

meeting at least once a year or at the request of at least eight members of the Advisory Board. Other experts can be invited. 

(5) The minister responsible for forest and environmental protection can appoint further members after voting with other 

members of the Advisory Board. 

§ 13 

Regulatory offence 

(1) Against the regulations for the purposes of §57 paragraph 3 No. 9 letter a of the Hesse nature conservation law trades, 

anyone who in the National Park deliberately or negligently: 

1. against §8 paragraph 2 produces No. 1 physical structures for the purposes of §2 paragraph 1 of the Hesse building 

code, extends, changes, even if the measure does not require approval according to building regulations or if a 

licensing was given after other statutory regulations, 

2. against §8 paragraph 2 diminishes No. 2 mineral resources or other soil components or exploits, carries out spraying 

or drilling or, otherwise changes the ground structure, 

3. against §8 paragraph 2 attaches or puts up No. 3 inscriptions, posters, picture boards or written boards, 

4. against §8 paragraph 2 creates No. 4 body of water, drains changed or removed, in particular watercourses, water 

surfaces or pools including their banks as well as the in and outflow of water or changed the ground water level or 

marshes or other wet areas or extracts water, 

5. against §8 paragraph 2 No. 5 plants or plant parts including trees and shrubs, damages or removes, 

15



B NATIONAL PARK PLAN – STATUS ANALYSIS E 

6. against §8 paragraph 2 affects No. 6 wild-living animals, including fish in ponds, copies sounds intentionally to disturb, 

visits nests or homes and takes photos, films or records sounds there, attaches devices to catch , catches, injures or 

kills, takes away pupae, larvae, eggs, nests or other broods or homes or damages them, 

7. against §8 paragraph 2 introduces No. 7 plants or plant parts or releases animals,, 

8. against §8 paragraph 2 breaks up No. 8 meadows, pastures or fallow land or carries out drainage measures, 

9. against §8 paragraph 2 fertilizes No. 9 on land, limes or applies herbicides, 

10. against §8 paragraph 2 stores No. 10, bathes, camps, caravans, makes a noise, lights fires, uses boats of all kind or 

model ships or allows aircraft of all kind or land or take off, 

11. against §8 paragraph 2 drives No. 11 cars and bicycles beyond the routes permitted for them or parks vehicles, 

12. against §8 paragraph 2 uses No. 12 sledge dogs or allows dogs to run free, 

13. against §8 paragraph 2 undertakes No. 13 commercial activities, 

14. against §7 paragraph 2 drives or rides in the National Park beyond the routes especially marked for it, 

or 

15. against §7 paragraph 4 carries out organized activities without approval of the National Park Authority or offers horse 

sledge or wagon journeys commercially. 

(2) Regulatory offence under paragraph 1 can be punished with a fine of up to onehundrethousand euros. 

§ 14 

Coming into force 

§13 comes into force on the 1st July, 2004. For the rest, this order comes into force on the 1st January, 2004. 

16

7.3 

Management plans

7.3.1 

Integrated Management System (IMS) 

for the serial Property “Primeval Beech 


Ancient Beech Forests of Germany“



Integrated Management System (IMS) 

for the serial Property „Primeval Beech 


Ancient Beech Forests of Germany” 

Contents 

I. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 2 

II. General Objectives ........................................................................................... 4 

III. Legal instruments ............................................................................................. 5 

IV. Management structure .................................................................................... 10 

IV.1 Management coordination ........................................................................... 11 

IV.2 Operational management ............................................................................ 12 

IV.2.1 Specific objectives ................................................................................. 12 

IV.2.2 Practical management mechanisms and measures framework ............. 18 

V. Research and monitoring ................................................................................ 21 

VI. Management principles ................................................................................... 23 

VII. Promotion and educational activities .............................................................. 24 

VIII. Mechanisms of the trilateral cooperation (Ukraine-Slovakia-Germany) to 

implement the Management System .............................................................. 25 

IX. Funding of the Joint Management Committee and the Integrated Management 

System ............................................................................................................ 26 

Annex 1 to IMS ......................................................................................................... 27 

Annex 2 to IMS: Short-term actions .......................................................................... 28 

1




Preamble 

The following “Integrated Management System” is the existing and approved Integrated 

Management Plan of the inscribed World Heritage Property “Primeval Beech Forests of 

the Carpathians” with additions reflecting the nomination of the German component parts 

and adjustments according to the recent status of an inscribed site. 

It is the result of an intensive international cooperation first during the nomination phase 

between the Ukraine and the Slovak Republic and later between the latter named countries 

and Germany for the German extension nomination. 

General Vision 

The aim is to preserve and protect globally unique and outstanding parts of the beech forests 

(Fagus sylvatica) in Central Europe, especially in consideration of significant on-going ecological 

and biological processes in the evolution and development of Fagus sylvatica forests 

ecosystems and communities of their plants and animals. With the extension nomination 

achieves Germany an important contribution to the preservation of a site of outstanding universal 

value. 

The integrated management system (hereinafter referred to as IMS) for the serial nomination 

“Primeval Beech forests of the Carpathians” shall not be seen as a closed document. In the 

course of time it will be updated, adjusted and corrected if necessary in the process of its implementation 

so as to meet its pre-defined objectives. In case of the extension of the World 

Heritage Property “Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians” by the nominated German 

component parts the Integrated Management Plan for the “Primeval Beech Forests of the 

Carpathians” will be changed into the Integrated Management System for the entire World 

Heritage property. Additionally, we consider the IMS as a tool for the transfer of the knowledge 

acquired by scientific methods into the real world of nature conservation and for both 

identification and implementation of steps and measures aimed at maintaining a long-term integrity 

of nominated localities. It is understood that the IMS quality and implementation efficiency 

depends on the support of the involved stakeholders and parties. Such support can 

be achieved by a combined approach based on explanatory work, identifications of potential 

benefits for the involved entities and ways how to materialise those benefits without compromising 

the natural values and their integrity but instead by drawing on them, and on the 

legal instruments. 

The management is based on scientific results from research on virgin and old growth forests 

and the various interactions between them and society with all their relevant components. 

Because a continuous improvement of primeval forests protection and management depends 

on a public support mobilisation, all inhabitants, opinion leaders and decision makers have to 

be sensitized over this issue through activities such as awareness raising, education and 

lobbying. An important role is played here by environmental ethics and justice. In this field 

the IMS has incorporated the experience and expertise of ACANAP 1 that has been promoting 

the adaptive management of primeval forests and biodiversity in the Carpathians as well 

as opportunities for exchange of management, research and monitoring experience and for 

creation of a harmonic relationship between people and nature in the Carpathians. 

The assortment of the German component parts, nominated for the extension of the Slovakian-Ukrainian 

World Heritage Property, is based on a profound research activity. It represents 

a common approach, an agreed consistent monitoring program as well as common 

experience on fundamental organisational and planning aspects. The German component 

parts are already under a strict legal protection (four National Parks and one part of a core 

1 Association of the Carpathian National Parks and Reserves 

2



zone of a Biosphere Reserve). During the preparation phase a Steering Group (Lenkungsgruppe) 

was established. This group shall become the institutionalized body for the management 

of the German nominated component parts. 

The integrated management system is based on both existing and planned instruments and 

mechanisms supposed to ensure and promote the long-term conservation and extension by 

the German nomination of the “Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians” as a serial property. 

Parts of this IMS have therefore a legally binding character while others present recommendations 

negotiated and approved by all stakeholders. 

The Integrated Management of the serial World Heritage Property “Beech primeval forest of 

the Carpathians” located in the Ukraine and the Slovak Republic is organised on two mutually 

interlinked levels. Each component part (first management level) has a management 

plan based on a strict non-intervention policy. State parties guarantee the strictest level of 

protection for the inscribed property (Ia management regime acc. to IUCN) and the monitoring 

aimed at preventing possible anthropogenic damage or disturbance on the legal premises 

given in 4 b). The main aim is to leave the component parts to their spontaneous selfregulating 

development, free of anthropogenic intervention. Current buffer zones can be subject 

to regulatory management measures aimed to secure and enhance ecological stability of 

forest stands. 

Each of the German component parts, nominated as extension to the existing World Heritage 

Property, have legally approved management and monitoring plans in place following their 

status as National park (4 component parts) and as a core zone of a Biosphere Reserve (1 

component part). All protection regimes are in line with the IUCN category II criteria. Aim of 

the management is the protection and conservation of the integrity and biodiversity of the 

outstanding beech forests. These management plans are geared to leave the component 

parts to their spontaneous self-regulating development, free of anthropogenic intervention. 

The monitoring is linked to these aims, too. Due to Natura2000 regulations additional monitoring 

processes apply to the German component parts. 

On its second level, the Integrated Management covers the overall management of the serial 

property as a whole with specific objectives, legal instruments and an appropriate management 

structure listed below. 

3



II. General Objectives 

The clear identification of the serial property and the extension nomination innate values for 

which it is proposed for inclusion in the World Heritage list, long-term research, monitoring 

and experience gathered from the international co-operation within the ACANAP framework 

and other fora has allowed for a clear definition of integrated management system objectives: 

(i) To ensure the most effective conservation of the property with all abiotic and biotic 

components, geo- and biodiversity and ecological processes; to secure a lasting 

homeostasis and self-reproduction of the respective ecosystems and their 

protection both against anthropic and anthropogenic factors. 

(ii) To maintain and expand the existing, ecologically connected complex of primeval 

and natural beech forests that encompass and connect (link) the component parts 

in the Slovakian Republic and the Ukraine through the conservation of other 

remaining natural beech forests within the proposed corridors connecting the 

component parts and measures supporting the succession of managed beech 

semi-natural forests adjacent to and between the component parts, to convert the 

expanded area into a continuous buffer zone encompassing the component parts 

(in addition to the already existing ones); that will support the exchange of biological 

information between the properties. Between the proposed German component 

parts a network of protected areas exists. It consists of Habitat (FFH-) / Natura 

2000 areas and beech forest habitats of other protected areas (e. g. natural forest 

reserves) under a legal protection regime. They all contain beech forests. This 

network is supposed to serve as a system of stepping stones, which allows and 

facilitates exchange between species and therefore to keep the genetic reservoir. 

(iii) To use the serial property of primeval forests for scientific research in order to 

acquire knowledge transferable and applicable on the level of sustainable, close-to 

nature and continuous-cover forestry through mimicking of selected primeval 

forests patterns; at the same time also serve the call for enhancement of landscape 

ecological stability not only on national but also global level; 

(iv) To use the natural heritage for enhancement of ecological and environmental 

education, awareness of primeval forests and their intrinsic, innate values in 

communities on local, national and global level; educational activities shall be 

carefully chosen to maintain integrity and conservation of the component parts, to 

preserve their naturalness and uniqueness and to avoid both their devastation or 

degradation. 

(v) To allow for the sustainable use of natural resources in the broader region through 

the support of traditional crafts, products and ecotourism, the latter having the 

beech primeval forests as one of its attractors, as a source of income for the nearby 

communities, based on a proper sensitization of the local and foreign visitors over 

their value through multiple communication channels, including the internet page, 

provision of guided walks, educational trails, interactive learning, films, press 

articles and other forms. 

4



III. Legal instruments 

This chapter lays out valid legal instruments applied to ensure meeting the above objectives 

in areas within and outside the serial property perimeter. An effective coordination of the legal 

instruments use and implementation represents one of the main tasks of the Joint Management 

Committee (hereinafter JMC). The JMC itself has no legal enforcement powers, 

which are, however sufficiently exercised by institutions represented in it, mainly the ministries 

of environment of the three countries (in Germany due to the federal system Federal 

and State(Länder) delegates), national park and biosphere reserve administrations, State nature 

conservancy and municipal governments. The legal instruments are divided into two 

groups and several sub-groups in this chapter. The first group includes legal instruments that 

ensure in a thorough and consequent manner the conservation of the nominated properties 

and partly enable also their possible extension. 

The second group establishes a legal instruments’ framework that enables the embedding of 

the integrated management system objectives into a complex territorial planning and their 

implementation through the landscape ecological planning, because the principal questions 

asked in the planning process is: What are the valuable elements in the landscape worth to 

be protected? Then the land use is adjusted accordingly to this priority. 

Nature protection oriented legal instruments: Component parts 

Legal instruments for the management of the component parts: The component parts 

are subject to non-intervention management guaranteed by the state laws of Ukraine, the 

Slovak Republic and the federal law of Germany as well as the relevant German stat 

(Länder) laws of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Hesse, Thuringia and Brandenburg. 

1. Ukraine and Slovakia 

According to the Law of Ukraine “On Nature Protection Fund of Ukraine”, the beech virgin 

forests selected for the World Heritage component parts are located within the core zones A 

of the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve (CBR) and thus under the strictest protection possible. 

The protection measures are enforced under a threat of severe penalties stipulated by the 

Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 521, 21.04.1998. 

Protection measures related to the component parts of the beech primeval forests on the 

Slovak territory are regulated by the provisions of Act No. 543/2002 Coll. on Nature and 

Landscape Protection (hereinafter only Act). In the wording of § 16, section 1 of the Act, any 

interventions are prohibited in these strictly protected areas. The cited protection regimes 

correspond to Ia management regime of IUCN classification. 

That principle is in turn projected in the elaboration of forest management plans. Every nominated 

property is individually covered by an approved forest management plan (FMP) for a 

10-year period, which stipulates no-intervention policy within the nominated primeval forests. 

In the buffer zone, the FMP allows for measures aimed to support natural processes if necessary, 

using the close-to-nature forestry approach. Legal norms providing for the forest 

management plans are contained in the §§1- 5 of the Act of the Slovak National Council No. 

č. 326/2005 Coll. on the forest management and state administration of forest management 

and in the wording of the pursuant regulations and Regulation of the Ministry of Agriculture of 

the Slovak Republic No. 5/1994 Coll. on forest management. Both of them provide specific 

provisions for the structure and design of forest management plans. Additionally, each cluster 

of nominated properties has its buffer zone intended to reinforce desired protection effectively. 

Protection measures are implemented by the State Nature Conservancy. 

5



2. Germany 

In Germany, based on the federal structure, competences for nature protection are shared 

between the federal and the states (Länder) level. The Federal Ministry for the Environment 

is responsible for the legal framework, fixed in the "Federal Nature Conservation Act“ („hereinafter: 

BNatSchG“) of 25. March 2002 (Federal Law Gazette (BGBl). I S. 1193), last 

amended by article 3, 22. December 2008 (BGBl. I S. 2986). It serves as framework regulation 

providing guidelines for the states and it implements EU-directives for nature protection 

into national law. The enforcement of the federal law and of regulations is based on states 

level. Each state enacted a „State Nature Conservation Act“ protecting the individual component 

parts. 

On the national level the “National Strategy on Biological Diversity” adopted by the federal 

cabinet on the 7 November 2007 is an important strategy of the federal government encompassing 

330 conservation objectives and 430 concrete actions for all biodiversity related topics. 

It constitutes a comprehensive and ambitious strategy aiming at the implementation of 

the Convention on Biological Diversity, which was ratified by Germany on the 21 December 

1993 (Act concerning the Convention on Biological Diversity of 30 August 1993, BGBl. II No. 

32, p. 1741 ff.). The strategy formulates a concrete vision for the future, and specifies quality 

targets and action objectives for all biodiversity-related topics. The target deadlines are objectively 

achievable, and range from the immediate term through to the year 2050. The action 

objectives listed under the various sub-headings have been concretised in terms of specific 

measures by government and non-government players. In the overall strategy, equal consideration 

is given to ecological, economic and social aspects, in keeping with the guiding principle 

of sustainability. In terms of forests-issues the following objectives are formulated: 

• To conserve extensive, undissected forest areas 

• To conserve and develop natural and near-natural forest communities 

• To particularly conserve ancient woodlands, and to conserve and – where possible – 

augment forest areas with conservation-relevant traditional usage forms by 2020 

• To promote contract-based nature conservation in 10 % of the area of privatelyowned 

forest land 

• To develop a guideline strategy between the Federal Government and the State Governments 

to incorporate biodiversity requirements into all publicly-owned forests by 

2010, and to implement this strategy by 2020 

• To define more clearly the legal principles of sustainable forest management by 2010 

• To certify 80 % of woodland of high ecological standards by 2010 

• To achieve a balanced ratio between forest rejuvenation and wildlife by 2020 

• To adapt the forests to the challenges of climate change e.g. by cultivating mixed 

stands with the highest possible diversity 

• To uphold the Government’s undertaking not to use genetically modified organisms or 

propagatable parts thereof which could pose a threat to forest ecosystems, with due 

regard for the particular conditions of forest ecosystems. 2 

The German component parts are under strict legal protection fixed in four National Park 

regulations and one Biosphere Reserve regulation, all approved by the competent state ministries 

(see Annex 5-5 – 5-9, nomination dossier). The German nature protection works in a 

complementary way consisting of the federal law, the states laws and the legal regulations of 

the protected areas themselves. According to these regulations a strict non-intervention 

management applies to the nominated component parts 3 . 

2 

National Strategy on Biological Diversity, page 32 

3 

In the nominated component part “Kellerwald” remain two meadows under a special management 

because of their importance for biodiversity. 

6



The cited protection regimes correspond to category II management regime of IUCN 

classification and respectively to the core zone I management of Biosphere Reserves 

of UNESCO (strict nature reserve). 

There are forest management plans for most of the forests in Germany. Three of the nominated 

component parts belong to “extra category 0” of the respective forest management 

plans, which means the application of non-intervention policy. The nominated component 

parts Grumsin and Hainich are not covered by any forest management plan which also 

means that there applies non-intervention policy. The forest management plans for category 

0 will be phased out and not be updated. In future, the management will be exclusively fixed 

in the relevant national park / biosphere reservation regulations. 

Legal instruments for the management of the component parts buffer zones: The management 

of the component parts buffer zones (zone B) is regulated by the state laws of 

Ukraine and the Slovak Republic (Ukraine: Law of Ukraine “On Nature Protection Fund of 

Ukraine”, Law of Ukraine “On the nature reserve fund of Ukraine” No. 2456-XII; Slovak Republic: 

Act No. 543/2002 Coll. on Nature and Landscape Protection). The buffer zones of the 

four German component parts that belong to national parks are also part of the corresponding 

national park and therefore are under strict protection, fixed in the national park regulations. 

The buffer zone of the Biosphere Reserve lays in zone B and is regulated in the Biosphere 

Reserve Regulation. These protection schemes are approved by the competent state 

(Länder) ministries, the highest responsible authority. Only measures supporting natural 

processes are allowed within a buffer zone. Such measures, if necessary, are planned in the 

management plans of national nature reserves, and included binding forest management 

plans. 

Legal instruments for the management of the connecting corridors 4 , stepping stones 5 

and areas outside the component parts and buffer zone perimeter: On the Ukrainian territory, 

the connecting corridors linking the component parts are subject to the Law of Ukraine 

No. 1989-111 “On establishing of the Ukrainian national ecological network”. These forests 

are thus either under state protection and designated already for the future extension of the 

Carpathian Biosphere Reserve or they are reserved for the establishment of new protected 

areas (See Map Annex No. 6, nomination dossier No 1133), e. g. the Zhdymyr National Nature 

Park with a rather vast territory has been established. 

On the Slovak territory, the largest part of the connecting corridors (about 85 % on the Slovak 

territory) is located within the boundaries of the Poloniny NP and VPLA. Thus, they are 

subject to forest management plans, in which the application of a close-to-nature continuouscover 

forestry toolbox is secured by the obligatory incorporation of “protected area maintenance 

programmes” (§ 54, sec.3-4 of the Act 543/2002), worked out by the respective authority 

(NP Poloniny, ECPLA) in compliance with §21 of the Regulation No. 24/2003 of the 

Ministry of the Environment of the Slovak Republic, and subject to the approval by the Government 

of the Slovak Republic. ECONET, NECONET. 

The rest (about 15 % on the Slovak territory) is covered by forest management plans that respect 

principles of sustainable forestry according to the Act of the Slovak National Council 

No. 326/2005 Coll. In these sections of connecting corridors, the sole application of a continuous 

cover forestry toolbox must yet be negotiated within the Steering committee 6 . 

According to the German Federal Nature Conservation Act, a biotope network of 10 % of the 

country is envisaged (§3 BNatSchG). Therefore a network of protected areas exists between 

4 Corridor: Linking element between the Ukrainian and Slovakian component parts, even cross border 

5 Stepping Stone: Linking element between the German component parts within Germany 

6 The Steering Committee was established to build up and to introduce the connecting corridors and 

the ECONET. It is not a permanent body within the bi-/trilateral management. 

7



the proposed German component parts. It consists of Habitat (FFH) / Natura 2000 areas and 

beech forest habitats of other protected areas (e. g. natural forest reserves) under a legal 

protection regime (see fig. 1). They all have their own legal restrictions including a protection 

management. 

Natura2000 areas and National Parks with beech 

forest, Stand 2008 

Natura2000 areas with beech forest habitat types 

National Parks 

Fig. 1: Protected areas 

(Natura 2000 and National 

Parks) with beech forest habitats. 

Blue circles: 5 German 

nominated component parts. 

Complex territorial planning oriented legal instruments 

The General scheme of territory planning in Ukraine (further on – “the General Scheme”) defines 

priorities and conceptual decisions on planning and use of Ukrainian territory in, improvement 

of settling system and provision of sustainable development of settlements, development 

of industrial, social and transport-engineering infrastructure, formation of ecological 

network. The General Scheme has its legal basis in the Law of Ukraine “On the general 

scheme of territory planning in Ukraine” Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, 7.02.2002, No. 3059-III 

and it fully respects the Law of Ukraine "On Nature-Protection Fund of Ukraine" 16.06.1992, 

No.2456-XII. Regulations provided in the General Scheme correspond to the principles of 

appropriate documents adopted at the UN Conference on the settlements’ development 

(HABITAT - II) and to corresponding recommendations of the UN European Economic 

Commission and the Council of Europe. In order to create a sufficient environment for living 

and favourable conditions for economic development, and also to provide efficient use of the 

territories’ potential and conservation of their natural and cultural originality based upon the 

results of evaluation of anthropogenic pressures, the territory is determined basing upon the 

8



kinds and regimes of utilization: areas with intensive industry; territories with mostly agricultural 

industry located there; territories of the Nature Protection Fund of Ukraine that are important 

for biological and landscape diversity conservation; zones with expended radiation 

level and some other. In order to guarantee efficient utilization of territories that are of a special 

ecological, scientific, aesthetic value it is envisaged to elaborate the system of state (national) 

support for such territories. The General Scheme is implemented by the bodies of the 

state power and by local self-governing bodies in the order envisaged by Ukrainian Legislation. 

The Carpathian Biosphere Reserve and the Uzhanskyi National Nature Park are subordinated 

directly under the Ministry and their territory belongs to the Nature Protection Fund of 

Ukraine. But still, administrations of both establishments manage their territories in close cooperation 

with local bodies of state power and self-government. Their operating Coordination 

Councils consists of the members representing both local authorities and representatives of 

the Reserve and the Park respectively. 

The territorial planning in the Slovak Republic is regulated by Act No. 50/1976, 103/1990, 

262/192, 136/1995, 199/1995, 222/1996, 229/1997, 175/199, 237/2000, 416/2002, 553/2001 

Coll. This establishes a compulsory framework for the designation of functional zones based 

on the landscape-ecological planning (LANDEP) and allows for an organic incorporation of 

corridors connecting the nominated properties into the territorial plans for the respective region 

(The Prešov Self-Governing Region on the Slovak territory has had its binding Territorial 

Plan approved by the Government provision No. 216/1998 Coll.). The acts allow for the necessary 

changes in the territorial plans through territorial proceedings that result in issuing a 

territorial decision. In the case of issuing a decision on the landscape protection, decisions 

are based on § 39b, Act No. 50/1976 Coll. 

Germany has a federal structure which implicits some different competences for the nominated 

properties. Planning, including spatial planning is within the competence of the states 

and sometimes of the regional or local level. 

The “Landesentwicklungsplan (LEP or LEPro)“ (regional development plan) is developed on 

states (Länder) level. It is based on the regional planning and contains the spatial regulation. 

It is the most important instrument of land use planning. 

In the relevant spatial plannings, the nominated component parts are defined as „Priority Areas 

of Ecology“ respectivly “Priority Areas of Nature Protection”, which means, that the task 

of nature protection has priority before other competing uses. 

Legal instruments stipulating and encouraging the participative processes 

According to Ukrainian Legislation, some areas within the zone of anthropogenic landscapes 

of these nature protection establishments belong to stakeholders (not within the core and 

buffer zones), but any kind of activity performed by land users is supervised by CBR and 

UNNP respectively. More than that, Scientific Boards of the aforementioned institutions include 

not only scientists and specialists, but also representatives of local bodies of power 

and stakeholders. 

On the Slovak territory, the acts that regulate the preparation of territorial plans also provide 

for the participation of municipal and regional governments, state administration, state nature 

conservancy, non-governmental organisations and other entities in that process. The creation 

and functioning of non-governmental organisations is regulated by Act No. 83/1990 Coll. 

In Germany stakeholder involvement plays a vital role. The four National Parks and the Biosphere 

Reserve are supported by Advisory Boards, the so called “Nationalparkbeiräte” and 

the “Förderverein des Biosphärenreservates” constituted by the local authorities, civil stakeholders, 

scientists and specialists. 

9



IV. Management structure 

As it has been outlined above, the conservation of the property and the nominated German 

component parts can be ensured within the existing legal framework. So, the sheer conservation 

of the property and its component parts is not the sole objective of the integrated 

management system (IMS). Much more it is oriented at the mobilization of the public resources 

in order to pursue a vision of a contiguous natural area over which the natural beech 

forests dynamics will be the governing force, and whose natural heritage is respected and 

recognized as a unique intrinsic value that can be utilized for people’s benefit in a both sensitive 

and sensible manner. To proceed along these lines, the integrated management structure 

for the serial property must be kept simple, transparent and shaped according to project 

management standards. It is illustrated in the following figure. 

Fig. 2: The Management consists of two management levels with different participation 

of actors. 

The IMS consists of two stages, in which two entities are supposed to play decisive roles. 

Currently, during its 1 st top-down stage, the integrated management system aims at the implementation 

of the objectives (i) and (iv), as well as for the preparatory steps towards the 

implementation of the objective (ii). A permanent awareness raising campaign is to sensitize 

and inform a broad range of stakeholders on the outstanding value of the Primeval Beech 

Forests of the Carpathians and the German old growth beech forests nominated, the need 

for their conservation, the importance of being World Natural Heritage, as well as on the opportunities 

opening up for the embedding rural regions (East Carpathians and the surrounding 

rural areas in Germany) in terms of ecotourism, cultural tourism, manufacturing of traditional 

products and provision of services, as well as shape and intensify the participative 

process by the initiation of a bottom-up process, which is currently rather limited. The main 

coordinator of these steps and processes is the Joint Management Committee for the Integrated 

Management of the Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and German old 

growth beech forests. 

10



During the 2 nd stage that has already begun, too, an intense co-operation on the implementation 

of objectives (ii), (iii) and (v), as well as the expression of interests pertaining to these 

objectives is expected within a panel representing a broad spectrum of stakeholders. 

IV.1 Management coordination 

The territory of the serial property is embedded into a specific legal, executive and administrative 

system that in turn allows for the practical execution of steps and measures aimed at 

IMS implementation. For that reason, the management of the serial property requires superior 

structures that are locally, nation-wide and trilaterally supported on a political level. For 

that purpose, a Joint Management Committee for the Integrated Management of the Primeval 

Beech Forests of the Carpathians (JMC) was established by the ministries of the environment 

of the Ukraine and the Slovak Republic. It has been entrusted to further developments 

and adjustments of the integrated management, as well as its co-ordination. To be 

functional and effective, it does not need a special executive authority, because that is available 

to its members. In the hopefully case of a successful German nomination, Germany will 

join this JMC accordingly. 

The top-down approach initiated by the ministries, state nature conservancies, as well as 

scientific circles is necessary during the 1 st phase because the public awareness of the primeval 

forests and their potential for sustainable ecotourism has been found relatively low 

among inhabitants and organizations in the remote areas, where natural forests are still 

abundant and considered as a standard part of people’s environment 7 . The political support 

on both municipal and state levels is secured. 

Its competences are delegated and its financing is assured by the ministries. The JMC meets 

at least yearly or when a need arises, and prepares reports on the state of the properties on 

a yearly basis. It coordinates the serial nomination monitoring based on an unified methodology 

and reports to the ministries and national UNESCO committees on emerging problems in 

the pursuit of the integrated management goals. It initiates steps necessary to assure scientific 

research, monitors and supports, where possible and feasible, the extension of the heritage 

already declared by additional properties. The committee is responsible for the implementation 

of the serial properties integrated management policy into practice, both in terms 

of the conservation management and the foreseen expansion of the buffer zones. 

Currently, the Joint Management Committee pursues the goals sorted out for the 1 st stage of 

the integrated management system development and implementation, i.e. objectives (i) and 

(iv), as well as the preparation for the implementation of the objective (ii). An awareness raising 

campaign is continued so as to sensitize and inform a broader spectrum of stakeholders 

on the nomination proceedings and the respective criteria to be met, as well as on opportunities 

opening up for the East Carpathian region in terms of ecotourism, cultural tourism, 

manufacturing of traditional products and provision of services in connection with the possible 

awarding of the World Natural Heritage label. The ultimate goal is to shape and intensify 

the participative process in the bottom-up direction as the 2 nd stage. A similar procedure has 

already started in the German surrounding areas. In a Research & Development-project (see 

annex 3) the current situation and the needs of the local people and other stakeholders have 

been analysed, deficits have been identified and a strategy how to improve awareness of 

and identification with the outstanding value of the beech forests and the idea of a UNESCO 

World Heritage site was set up. The developed strategies are implemented in stages since 

2008. 

During the following stages, a JMC-assisted creation of an Integrated Management Panel 

(IMP Panel) as a non-governmental organisation is foreseen in order to achieve a balanced 

representation of all stakeholders’ interests willing to participate in the pursuit of IMS objectives. 

The panel members will both co-operate with the JMC on the implementation of objec- 

7 Pichler, V. & Soroková, M. (2005): Utilisation of natural Forests for Ecotourism: Matching the goals 

and Reality. Forest Snow and Landscape Research, 79 (1/2), 185-194. 

11



tives (ii), (iii) and (v) and to voice their interests pertaining to these objectives. There will be 

an intense and fruitful communication between the JMC and the IMP. JMC will provide the 

panel with the vital information on the opportunities for both sensitive and sensible utilisation 

of the World Natural Heritage label as well as the goals and criteria to be met. The IMP will 

probably be active mainly in the fields of forestry, public relations and lobbying, ecotourism 

(transportation, services), for which it will set up dedicated working groups. Together, they 

will closely cooperate in all areas, in particular in the territorial planning aimed at the extension 

of corridors connecting the serial nomination properties and their sensible and differentiated 

utilisation. 

The IMPs are organised nationally, more or less one for each component part. In Germany, 

they will be congruent with the existing advisory councils of the component parts (“Nationalparkbeirat 

/ Förderverein des Biosphärenreservates”). If the IMPs want to meet bi- or trilateral, 

they will announce this to the JMC. 

IV.2 Operational management 

As outlined in chapter IV. (Management structure), the practical management in the areas of 

nature conservation, science, awareness raising and territorial planning is coordinated by the 

JMC and carried out by the responsible organisations represented in it, through the available 

legal framework. 

IV.2.1 Specific objectives 

The following are the main inter-related specific objectives, derived from general objectives 

(Chapter II of IMS) and of this framework and integrated management system, their outputs 

and activities³: 

The activities, listed in the following, can be subdivided in three categories: 

* already achieved 

** on-going activity 

*** other activities are still to be implemented 

Objective l: Coordination of joint activities concerning the serial property 

Output I.1: Establishment of the Joint Management Committee of the serial property 

Activity I.1.1*: Establish the Joint Management Committee of the serial property 

Activity I.1.2**: Elaborate and approve the statutes of the Joint Management Committee 

of the serial property. 

Output І.2: Regular meetings of the Joint Management Committee of the serial 

property 

Activity І.2.1*: Organize regular meetings of the working group to elaborate the joint 

serial dossier “Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians” (Ukraine- Slovakia- 

Germany); 

Activity І.2.2*: Adapt the Joint Integrated Management to the new situation of a third 

party participation (Germany); 

Activity І.2.3*: Organize regular meetings concerning IMS implementation and 

agree the short-term action plans [see annex 2]; 

Activity І.2.4**: Organize public presentations to promote the transnational serial 

property “Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians” and the German nomination, 

as well as objectives, outputs and activities of the Management System; 

Activity І.2.5**: Create working groups for the short-term action plans realization; 

Activity І.2.6**: Prepare annual reports on the IMS implementation and update the 

IMS if necessary. 

12



Output І.3: An operation management for the realization of the IMS 

Activity І.3.1**: Provide operational management for the Management System in 

order to support administrations of the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve (Ukraine), 

Poloniny National Park (Slovakia) and the German National Parks Jasmund, 

Müritz-Serrahn, Kellerwald-Edersee, Hainich and the Biosphere Reserve 

Schorfheide-Chorin (Germany) including: 

Prepare the meetings of the JMC and agree with the Committee members on the 

agendas; 

Elaborate draft action plans, control the realization of the IMS, the work packages 

and the action plans; 

Invite other interested parties, especially the IMS Panel representatives to the JMC 

meetings; 

Formally establish relations with regional authorities: 

in Ukraine: Department of Environment and Natural Resources in the Zakarpats’ka 

Oblast, Transcarpathian Regional State Administration; 

in Slovakia: governments of Prešov and Košice Self-governing Regions, municipal 

authorities; 

in Germany: Competent State (Länder) Ministries in Mecklenburg-Western Pommerania, 

Hesse, Thuringia and Brandenburg 

Implement other issues of the JMC or elaborate new proposals for the Action plan 

(see annex 2). 

Activity I.3.2**: Conduct regularly together with local authorities and other interested 

parties, and those represented in the IMP Panel in particular, the operational management 

concerning biodiversity conservation and sustainable development of the 

region, especially in the buffer zones of the serial property. 

Output І.4: Realisation of separate points of the Management System and establishing 

of special working groups 

Activity І.4.1**: Appoint Joint Management Committee mechanisms for the Integrated 

Management System realization; 

Activity І.4.2**: Develop special projects and constitute working groups for the implementation 

of separate points of the Integrated Management System; 

Activity І.4.3**: Estimate results of working groups output and elaborate new proposals 

for the IMS. 

Output І.5: Optimise borders of the property and its buffer zones 

Activity І.5.1*: Optimise borders of the property and its buffer zones, where appropriate. 

The JMC will make proposals to the national or state authorities; 

Activity І.5.2***: Study possibilities for extension of the serial property by Romanian 

and Polish localities in cooperation with Romanian and Polish experts; 

Objective II: Ensuring the most effective nature conservation of the serial property 

Output II.1: Improving the conservation of beech primeval forests as an integral 

biological formation 

Activity II.1.1*: Analyze in detail existing information on virgin and old growth forests 

of the serial property; 

Activity II.1.2**: Continued investigations of structure, functions and biogeochemical 

cycles in virgin and old growth forests; 

Activity II.1.3**: Develop GIS-maps of vegetation and habitats; 

Activity II.1.4***: Analyse the plant-animal-interaction in virgin and old growth beech 

forests; 

Activity II.1.5***: Introduce in some areas a non-intervention wildlife management in 

the nominated properties (Germany). 

13



Output II.2: Improvement of the natural conditions for the conservation of the 

most significant natural habitats and valuable biodiversity, especially globally 


Activity II.2.1: Analyze existing information and experience concerning conservation 

of the most significant natural habitats, flora and fauna species globally threatened 

and identify the information gaps; 

Activity II.2.2**: Analyze the existing and potential threats to the most significant 

natural habitats, flora and fauna species. Identify vulnerable zones such as upper 

timberline, ecotones, mires, spring areas and others and sensitive sites of high biodiversity 

value at risk; 

Activity II.2.3**: Carry out additional investigations on species of flora and fauna, 

their habitats to fill up the information gaps in the database of the serial property; 

Activity II.2.4**: Compile the inventories, generalize and incorporate existing information 

and new data on the flora, fauna and habitats into database of the serial 

property and use it for the long-term monitoring of biodiversity; 

Activity II.2.5**: Elaborate special action plans for the conservation of separate 

species of flora and fauna globally threatened; 

Activity II.2.6**: Implement special measures and provide special regimes for the 

conservation of rare and endangered species of flora and fauna. 

Output II.3: Development of detailed regulatory mechanisms and management 

guidelines for each individual area of the serial property. 

Activity II.3.1: Analyze the existing management system and threats to each individual 

area; 

Activity II.3.2: Develop detailed regulatory mechanisms and management guidelines 

for controlling negative impacts to outstanding natural values. 

Output II.4: Effective management checked by long-term monitoring: 

Activity II.4.1**: Propose necessary changes in the conservation of the most vulnerable 

ecosystems, rare and endangered species of flora and fauna and habitats; 

Activity II.4.2*: Establish permanent plots for the annual qualitative and quantitative 

recording of the vegetation to detect early signs of changes. 

Objective III: Promoting sustainable land resources management in buffer zones, connecting 

ecological corridors and stepping stones of the serial property 

Output III.1: Implementation of the buffer zoning, connecting corridors and stepping 

stones systems and a long-term monitoring of their effectiveness. 

Activity III.1.1**: Propose ecological corridors connecting the serial property based 

on the system of protective and special purposes forests, the National ECONET of 

the Slovak Republic, the system of Natura 2000 areas in the Slovak Republic, as 

well as the Law of Ukraine “On establishing of the Ukrainian national ecological 

network” and the proposed principles of ECONET in Ukraine; 

Activity III.1.2***: Area-designate the connecting corridors etc. on individual forest 

stands level based on the Map Annex No. 6 (nomination dossier No 1133), forest 

maps and the information that will become available through the implementation of 

the PINMATRA project8, resulting into a polygon map of primeval forests in the 

Ukraine. 

Activity III.1.3**: Leaning on the national ECONETs, propose the optimal management 

for connecting corridors on forest stands level, most preferably nonintervention 

regime and close-to-nature forestry management in the other cases; in 

8 The cooperative Dutch-Ukrainian project is due to start in 2006 

14



limited cases, initiate expropriation process offset by corresponding government 

compensation, or purchasing of land within the framework of the LIFE scheme; 

Activity III.1.4**: Conduct meetings with regional and local leaders and other stakeholders 

to announce the designation of the buffer zoning, connecting corridors and 

stepping stone systems; explain in detail their objectives, implications and implementation 

of the system; obtain feedback from the participants; 

Activity III.1.5**: Implement proposed ecological corridors into binding regional development 

plans, and to implement their management modes into forest management 

plans; 

Activity III.1.6 **: Implement the long-term monitoring program; to channel findings 

back to the serial property database to evaluate the effectiveness of the zoning system. 

Output III.2: Extensive monitoring and mapping of social and economic factors 

on the terrestrial environment and natural resources 

Activity III.2.1**: Inventory and verify land-ownership and user rights, especially 

those constituting permanent ownership and grazing and cuttings rights. Channel 

the gathered information into the database of the serial property; 

Activity III.2.2**: Document the traditional practices (e.g. forestry, agriculture, etc.) 

pertaining to sustainable use of natural resources; 

Activity III.2.3**: Produce the guidelines for traditional land and water resources use 

and biodiversity conservation. This document will subsequently be used for promoting 

awareness at the local level, and also provide guidelines for the governments, 

planning and research institutions. 

Output III.3: Income generating activities from traditional products and activities 

Activity III.3.1: Develop legal measures and contractual framework to safeguard the 

serial property rights of the local inhabitants and to ensure that any economic benefits 

derived from the sustainable use of resources, including recreation will benefit 

them; 

Activity III.3.2: Provide vocational (technical and financial) training for the development 

and management of the above income generating activities, incorporating environmental 

awareness programs which explain the serial property conservation 

objectives behind these income generating activities. 

Output III.4: Supportive development activities launched in order to assist sustainable 

development and enhance public support 

Activity III.4.1**: Collaborate with development agencies to develop joint nature 

conservation and development activities; 

Activity III.4.2**: Implement alternatives to intensive forestry and agriculture technologies 

which are environmental friendly within the connecting corridors. 

Output III.5: Monitoring and documentation of ecological and socio-economic 

changes. 

Activity III.5.1***: Carry out ecological and socio-economic surveys in the serial 

property and adjacent areas; introduce environmental extension offices (where appropriate) 

9 with the techniques of monitoring and recording changes in the parameters, 

and to report findings on regular basis; 

Activity III.5.2***: Insert as much data as possible from the above mentioned surveys 

in the databases / Information Management System; integrate and analyze 

the data as appropriate; document the process of change and disseminate suc- 

9 This refers to the Ukrainian and Slovakian national monitoring programme 

15



cess stories and best practices; study and discuss with local inhabitants on the 

possible causes of failure and revise the intervention accordingly. 

Objective IV: Strengthening institutional and human resources capacities 

Output IV.1: To supply the component parts staff with adequate work offices and 

equipment 

Activity IV.1.1*/**: Construct new buildings and reconstruct existing offices for the 

protected areas staff, meeting rooms, libraries, visitor-centres (museum), research 

laboratories, sanitary facilities for staff and guests, where appropriate; 

Activity IV.1.2*/**: Supply protected areas staff within the serial property with hardware 

and software including Internet connection; 

Activity IV.1.3*/**: Provide the staff and facilities with adequate material to survey 

the property (GPS) and do conservation and protection work, e.g. vehicles, equipment 

. 

Output IV.2: Biodiversity database / Information Management System, use of 

natural resources and environmental monitoring in the serial property and its 

buffer zones 

Activity IV.2.1*/**: Create a database of the serial property and update it regularly; 

Activity IV.2.2*/**: Mandatory use of the database for planning and management for 

biodiversity conservation and sustainable natural resources use in areas of the serial 

property and its buffer zones; 

Activity IV.2.3*/**: Provide national and international scientists and environmental 

officers with access to the serial property database. 

Output IV.3: Improving professional and technical skills 

Activity IV.3.1**: Survey the current professional and technical capacity of the serial 

property staff and local inhabitants to identify the types and levels of training 

needed for the natural resources management in the long run. The suggested area 

for consideration includes: Heritage Conventions mechanisms, study and management 

of biological and landscape diversity, forest management, water regimes 

in rivers and mires, education in the sphere of environment and traditional and progressive 

environmental sound and sustainable economic use, sustainable tourism 

management, computer’s education; 

Activity IV.3.2***: Based on this survey, provide the appropriate professional and 

technical training to selected local inhabitants; 

Activity IV.3.3**/***: Improve the level of expertise of the staff of the protected areas, 

forestry enterprises and others who are included into the Management System 

realization, namely: heads of research, forest observation, restoration of natural resources, 

monitoring, education, recreation, protection units and others; 

Activity IV.3.4**: Increase the number and range of organisations involved in crossborder 

cooperation, including organisations not previously involved. 

Activity IV.3.5***: Exchange among staff and experts and common training program 

between the single component parts (crossborder) 

Output IV.4: Strengthen environmental awareness and knowledge base to incorporate 

biodiversity conservation and sustainable use objectives into the development 

in the serial property and adjacent areas 

Activity IV.4.1***: Conduct regular meetings, seminars and workshops between the 

protected areas staff, representatives from interested institutions/organisations, 

NGOs and science teams for joint planning; co-ordinate and evaluate activities in 

the serial property and its buffer zones, as well as to enhance knowledge transfer; 

Activity IV.4.2**: Use databases from partner organizations, in particular of research 

and educational organizations in planning and developing decisions regard- 

16



ing biodiversity conservation and sustainable development of the serial property 

and its buffer zones. 

Output IV.5: Using the legislative framework for the protection of the serial property 

and its buffers zones and a balanced use of the connecting corridors 

Activity IV.5.1**: Identify “gaps” in the present national legislations, and the Zakarpats’ka 

Oblast Parliament (Ukraine) and Presov Self-governing Region (Slovakia) 

acts whose existence could potentially allow uncontrolled exploitation of natural resources 

in the buffer zones and connecting corridors (e.g. overgrazing, woodcutting 

etc), violation of indigenous serial property rights, and habitat destruction 

(damaging of local people houses, quarrying, recreation over activities, etc.); To 

identify any contradictory regulations, overlaps of governments jurisdictions, gaps 

in treatment of issues and unrealistic enforcement of regulations; 

Activity IV.5.2***: Propose a revision of the present legislation to improve the protection 

and the management of the serial property and its buffer zones (where appropriate); 

Activity IV.5.3***: Adjust the enforcement capacity to implement the above mentioned 

legislative and regulatory mechanisms. 

Objective V: Promote environmental education and awareness 

Output V.1: Increase public awareness and organize conservation awareness 

campaigns 

Activity V.1.1**: Develop communication skills of protected areas staff, who are responsible 

for education in the sphere of conservation, to carry out ecological monitoring, 

to develop methods for sustainable development and implement special protected 

measures in the surrounding areas of the component parts; 

Activity V.1.2**/***: Organize (trilateral and / or national) meetings, seminars and 

workshops among environmental officers to exchange experience and expand activities, 

supervision of conservation of habitats of special interest, environmental 

monitoring and recreational measures involving local teachers, pupils and other social 

groups; 

Activity V.1.3**: Implement special programs and campaigns for nature conservation 

and sustainable development awareness in the region; 

Activity V.1.4**: Design and implement conservation awareness out-reach campaigns; 

Activity V.1.5***: Organize public consultations on the issue connecting corridors 

and stepping stones management; submit received comments and suggestions 

from the local authorities, NGOs, other institutions and inhabitants to the JMC for 

review and endorsement; 

Activity V.1.6**: Support local communities’ initiatives in culture, education and social 

spheres; 

Activity V.1.7***: Develop a common fundraising approach/programme for common 

activities (research, capacity building, PR, education etc.) maybe in connection with 

a common label. 

Output V.2: Optimize sustainable recreational and tourist activities in the adjacent 

region of the serial property. 

Activity V.2.1**: Develop co-operation between protected areas administrations with 

tourism and recreation establishments; 

Activity V.2.2***: Determine optimal recreation regimes for different ecosystems of 

the serial property, buffer zones and connecting corridors, and to implement special 

regimes for visitors in different seasons; 

Activity V.2.3**: Support sustainable ecotourism activities and services in the 

broader region, to develop visitor-centres and educational pathways within the 

17



framework of international cross-boundary schemes, such as the EU-funded IN- 

TERREG programme; 

Activity V.2.4***: Determine special fees where appropriate, for recreational resources 

use and take into account the serial property rights of local inhabitants; 

Activity V.2.5***: Sign agreements with local communities and protected areas administrations 

for co-operation; 

Activity V.2.6**: Develop transboundary sustainable tourism in the surroundings of 

the serial property; to improve the attractiveness of the area as a tourism and investment 

destination. 

IV.2.2 Practical management mechanisms and measures framework 

Component parts management: Practical conservation management of the component parts 

is realised by the competent authorities/ administrations: 

In Ukraine: the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve Administration and the Uzhanskyi National 

Nature Park Administration 

In Slovak Republic: the organisational units of State Nature Conservancy of the Slovak Republic 

(Poloniny National Park, Vihorlat Protected Landscape Area) 

In Germany: the five relevant administrations of the component parts: National park administrations 

Jasmund, Müritz, Kellerwald-Edersee and Hainich and the administration of the 

Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin. Results of their activities are yearly reported to the 

JMC. 

Management of the corridors connecting the component parts: 

The ecological corridors connecting those component parts of the property, which are not yet 

connected by buffer zones or protected areas, do exist de facto. They coincide with the system 

of NATURA 2000 areas on the Slovak territory, National Ecological Network of Slovakia 

(Annex No. 4, nomination dossier No 1133) and the proposed geographical directions of the 

ECONET of Ukraine, specifically with the elements of the Halitsko-Slobozhanski Eco-corridor 

that encompasses also sectors of virgin forests in the Carpathians. The practical management 

of the connecting corridors will alternatively consist of non-intervention, small-scale 

shelterwood and continuous forestry systems. According to Huston (1979), small to intermediate 

ecosystem perturbations do not interfere with the ecosystem integrity, but nonintervention 

is preferred wherever possible in the IMS. 

The start-up situation for the establishment of the connecting corridors is favorable. Four 

clusters of the Ukrainian part of the nomination (Chornohora, Svydovets, Kuziy-Trybushany 

and Maramorosh) are situated in a distance of 1−5 km from each other. Forests under state 

protection are situated in between, reserved for the future extension of the Carpathian Biosphere 

Reserve. Uhol’ka-Shyrokyi Luh is located within a distance of about 60 km from those 

mentioned above. It is also surrounded by natural forests. The territory of the National Nature 

Park “Synevi” is adjusted to this property on the northwest and the establishment of ecological 

corridors connecting it with the four aforementioned properties is planned. It is foreseen 

that in the nearest future some areas within the outlined ecological corridors will be given to 

the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve. 

The Stuzhytsia-Uzhok cluster is a constitutive part of the trilateral transboundary biosphere 

reserve “Eastern Carpathians” and is directly adjusted to the Stužica Reserve on the Slovak 

territory, which itself is an integral part of the Poloniny National Park, in which all but one 

component parts on the Slovak territory are embedded. It is the most distant of the Ukrainian 

component parts and it is naturally connected through continuous massifs of beech forests 

with the other Ukrainian component parts. According to the Law of Ukraine “On establishing 

of the Ukrainian national ecological network” on territories connecting the component parts 

new forest reserves will be established (See Map Annex No. 6, nomination dossier No 1133). 

The first step has already been made – the Zhdymyr National Nature Park with a rather vast 

territory has been established. On the Slovak territory, Vihorlat will be connected by a similar 

18



corridor to the cluster of three properties within the Poloniny National Park. That particular 

corridor will overlap with the Vihorlat Protected Landscape Area (approx. 300 ha of beech 

primeval forests). All these facts serve the basis for establishing an indivisible natureterritorial 

complex on the Ukrainian part and Slovak territories. 

The current situation of the management of the corridors consists of: 

− The placement of the buffer zone areas under the Ia conservation management regime to 

achieve the autoregulation of ecosystems 

− The establishment of new forest reserves on territories connecting the component parts 

(applies for natural forests that has not been managed yet) 


properties; these measures will include: 

− reclassification of concerned forests stands as protective forests subject to a low intensity 

management 

− extension of the rotation period from current 110 years to ≥ 150 years and the application 

small groups shelterwood system or its variations; 

− a gradual transition from shelterwood system to the selection system that features no 

rotation period but a continual regeneration period instead; 

− mimicking the natural forests patterns through the introduction of the continuous 

cover forestry and its toolbox 

− The entire abandonment of forestry operations and introduction of natural dynamics. 

The best possible alternative for specific elements of connecting corridors will be determined 

by the JMC, based on consultative proceedings including the stakeholders represented in the 

IMS Panel 10 ; they will be embedded in the management programs of the respective protected 

areas and through the territorial plans respecting the principles of the National 

ECONET of the Slovak Republic (finished and approved – Annex No. 4, nomination dossier 

No 1133) and the ECONET of Ukraine (under preparation – Annex No. 7 , nomination dossier 

No 1133). In both cases, changes will be also reflected in the forest management plans 

elaborated and periodically renewed for the concerned areas beginning in 2006 (see the Action 

plan at the end of this management system). 

The overall implementation of the above principles is guaranteed by the legal authority of the 

institutions/organisations represented in the JMC and the ministries of environment or environmental 

protection of both Ukraine and Slovakia. In the limit cases and after a thorough 

analysis of viable alternatives, expropriation (only applies to Slovak Republic, Ministry of Environmental 

matters) including a corresponding compensation and the implementation of the 

proposed management will be proposed by the JMC, pursued and carried through by the national 

ministries represented in it (The Ministry of Environmental Protection of Ukraine, The 

Ministry of Environment of The Slovak Republic). 

The practical management also draws to a large extent on the experience of the JMC members 

and among them of the Association of the Carpathian National Parks and Reserves 

10 In the 2 nd stage, the Panel will take over considerable responsibilities in the area of awareness 

raising, education, ecotourism, cultural aspects, territorial planning, development and establishment of 

the BEPFOC world natural heritage label and consequent lobbying for the benefit of the heritage and 

the network members. For this purpose, the network will establish dedicated working groups. As an 

example, the working group “sustainable transportation” will, in co-operation with the steering 

committee and the Centre for Scientific Tourism in Slovakia (www.ecosystems.sk) investigate 

opportunities for the re-establishment of express trains connecting the cities of Snina (Slovakia) and 

Rachov (Ukraine) as gates to the BEPFOC world natural heritage. To give another example, the 

working group “Cultural aspects” will investigate the underlying connections between the natural and 

cultural heritage in the region and present it through documentaries or publications. They in turn may 

provide an additional incentive for ecotourism development. In case of a successful nomination and 

thus also the Panel creation, it will likely employ managerial staff equivalent to approximately 200 % 

personal capacity. 

19



(ACANAP) in particular. Since its establishment in 1992 it has collected, exchanged and utilized 

information and knowledge of ecosystem research through workshops, conferences and 

symposiums with the purpose to help to solve conceptual problems of the nature protection, 

management and monitoring of Carpathian Mountains 11 . 

11 The Proceedings from this International Scientific Conferences have been published : 

− cc from the Conference „Topic Problems on Protection of Frontier National Parks“ held in Pieniny 

National Park, Slovakia, on July 1992 

− from the Conference „Forest Protection in Protected Areas of Carpathians“ held in Bükk National 

Park, Hungary, on September 1993 

− from the Conference „Research and Management of the Carpathian Natural and Primeval Forests“ 

held in Bieszczady National Park, Poland, on October 1994 

− from the Conference „Methods of the Monitoring of Nature in Carpathian National Park and Reserves“ 

held in Carpathian Biosphere Reserve, Rakhiv, Ukraine, on October 1995 

− from the Conference „Rangers in Carpathian National Parks and Protected Areas“ held in 

Aggtelek National park, Hungary, on September 1996 

− from the Conference „International Aspects of Study and Conservation of the Carpathians Biodiversity“ 

held in Rakhiv, Ukraine, on September 1997 

− from the Conference „Issues of Sustainable Development in the Carpathian Region“ held in Rakhiv, 

Ukraine, on October 1998 

− from the Conference „Mountains and People“ held in Rakhiv, Ukraine, on October 2002. 

20



V. Research and monitoring 

The research and monitoring of the serial property, the buffer zones and the connecting ecological 

corridors will be coordinated by the Joint Management Committee. 

The JMC will develop and maintain its own GIS-aided database containing all necessary layers 

pertaining to the World Natural Heritage status of the component parts. The JMC and its 

activity in this field will lean on the existing and well proved research and monitoring activities 

performed by the scientific departments of the CBR, UNNP, the Poloniny National Park 7 , the 

German National Parks of Jasmund, Müritz, Kellerwald-Edersee, Hainich and the Biosphere 

Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin. The results will be reported to the JMC in the form of published 

works and final reports. If a need arises, the JMC can also initiate, through its scientific 

communication officers, a research on specific problems. 

In Ukraine, approximately twenty scientists affiliated with the CBR and UNNP scientific departments, 

assisted by 11 technicians and equipment, available in zoological, botanical and 

phenological laboratories, GIS laboratory and the laboratory of forest and landscape research, 

will take part in the research and monitoring activities. In addition, officers of the 

State Forest Guard will continue conducting day-to-day field observation of botanic, zoological, 

climatic and other natural phenomena under supervision of the scientists. Results of 

these observations are registered in special cards, as well as in the data basis used for the 

Chronicles of Nature. Numerous scientific-research institutions also have valid agreements 

and contracts with administrations of CBR and UNNP and conduct their research and investigation 

here (Institute of botany, Institute of Zoology, Institute of Mountain Forestry, Ivano- 

Frankivsk, Uzhgorod National University and many others). 

The scientific research and monitoring of the component parts on the Slovak territory will 

continue to be carried out by the Faculty of Forestry (TU Zvolen), Faculty of Ecology and Environmental 

Sciences (TU Zvolen), Institute of Forest Ecology (Slovak Academy of Sciences, 

Zvolen) and the Faculty of Natural Sciences (Comenius University, Bratislava) for over 50 

years. Currently, there are approximately 30 scientists engaged in this dedicated interdisciplinary 

primeval forests forest research whose results are regularly published. 

New joint scientific projects aimed at the integrated ecological research of the serial property 

have been prepared and will be submitted after the opening of the 7 th EU Framework program 

(see Annex 4, nomination dossier No 1133). 

The monitoring within the German nominated component parts contains different levels of 

landscape and biodiversity analysis in different levels of specification. All five component 

parts have agreed to the same and consistent indicators and time intervals, listed in chapter 

6 of the nomination dossier. All data will be collected by the scientific staff of the nominated 

protected area administrations (see chapter 8 of the nomination dossier). If data results of 

other monitoring programmes, e.g. German meteorological service, the protected area scientific 

stuff is in charge of the collecting the required data regularly and transmit them to the 

monitoring centre, which will be installed at one administration. One administration out of the 

five protected area administrations will be named officially as “German monitoring centre of 

the nominated component parts”. This centre will be in charge for the setting up and the 

maintenance of a database and data analysis as well as their prompt publication. 

The systematic monitoring of the component parts will be performed based on systematic 

scientific research, continual monitoring and risk assessment studies, carried out by the 

21



CBR, UNNP, Poloniny National Park 12 and the German National Parks of Jasmund, Müritz, 

Kellerwald-Edersee, Hainich and the Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin. 

Its results will be reported to and evaluated by the JMC, which will also assess the potential 

threats to the serial property as a whole. If necessary, JMC shall take action through the 

competent institutions represented in it and in co-operation with the IMP Panel. The on-site 

monitoring will consist in regular inspections of the component parts by professional rangers. 

Currently, approximately 200 forestry officers are in charge of protection of the massifs on 

the Ukrainian territory. Forest beaters perform twenty-four hour patrolling of the territory. Forestry 

beat points are situated on the edges beyond each of the clusters. Twice a year the authorities 

of the CBR and UNNP realize an inspection of their territory and use the necessary 

preventive measures. The State Forest Guard Service closely co-operates with the Police 

and other closer services. On the Slovak territory, regular inspections are carried out twice a 

month or more often if necessary by four Poloniny National Park rangers and twenty voluntary 

nature protection guards, whose competences are defined by the Act and Guards of the 

State Nature Conservancy of the Slovak Republic according to § 72 of the Act No. 543/2003 

Coll. on Nature and Landscape Protection. The guards are entitled to monitor, prevent and 

avoid illegal cuttings, illegal picking up of berries, poaching, bird criminality, nest robbery, illegal 

collection of animals and trespasses against the law related to the mass tourism. 

In Germany the protected area staff, mainly forest engineers and rangers, check the territory 

and its borders regularly. 

12 There have been successful efforts to coordinate the research and monitoring methodology has 

been unified since the early works of Zlatník (1938) and the Korpeľ (1995), Bublinec and Pichler 

(2001), Vološčuk (2003), Parpan (1994). It has been formulated in the proceedings from the ACANAP 

conferences „Research and Management of the Carpathian Natural and Primeval Forests“, held in 

Bieszczady National Park, Poland, in October 1994, and „Methods of the Monitoring of Nature in 

Carpathian National Park and Reserves“ held in Carpathian Biosphere Reserve, Rakhiv, Ukraine, in 

October 1995. 

22



VI. Management principles 

It is clear from the previous chapters that the integrated management system is based on the 

combination of both the top-down, government-driven and bottom-up, local population-driven 

approach. The top-down approach with the JMC as its main channel focuses on the conservation 

issues and the maintenance of the serial propertys’ overall integrity, as this basic principle 

shall not be compromised by any further deliberations. 

However, the foreseen participation of selected big players, such as the State Forests of the 

Slovak Republic, a state owned company, and others in the JMC sessions does not constitute 

the participatory principle to the desired degree. That’s why JMC has the ambition to 

strengthen that principle by the initiation of bottom-up activities through a broad participation 

of stakeholders, organised in the IMP Panel. The IMP Panel shall focus on benefiting the local 

population through activities that at the same time comply with the promotion of the BEP- 

FOC (Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and IMS objectives, mainly in the areas of 

forestry, ecotourism, BEPFOC label development and marketing, consequent lobbying etc.. 

So, the integrated management system principles can be summarized in the following manner: 

− An uncompromised application of the conservation management based on scientific 

knowledge and monitoring through the available legal framework, enacted through the 

government-driven top-down approach; 

− the implementation of the broad participatory principle through the bottom-up approach 

aimed at voicing the stakeholders’ interests and thereof the translation into concrete results 

benefiting the local population, mostly in terms of ecotourism development, public relations 

and marketing and their spin-off effects; 

− a combined top-down and the bottom-up approach to enhance the BEPFOC integrity and 

value through the formal establishment of corridors connecting the serial property and their 

embedding into the regional territorial plans, where such formally acknowledged corridors 

do not yet exist. 

23



VII. Promotion and educational activities 

During the 1 st phase, the JMC encourages promotional and educational activities related to 

BEPFOC through the respective departments of the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve, UNNP 

and Poloniny National Park. It provides them with the expertise reaching beyond the standard 

provision of information and educational activities such as the own internet sites of the 

Carpathian Biosphere Reserve and the Poloniny National Park (available at 

http://cbr.nature.org.ua/main.htm, www.sopsr.sk). JMC has already co-operated on settingup 

a comprehensive and interactive internet site www.virginforests.sk dedicated to the research 

of temperate primeval forests. Currently it is preparing an interactive internet site containing 

dynamic animations of the primeval forests patterns and dynamics based on the format 

developed by the Centre for Scientific Tourism in Slovakia (CSTS, available at 

www.poznajachran.sk). It also heavily leans on the use of modern technology in setting up 

pocket-PC and GPS-aided educational trails, whose concept and technical solutions were 

developed by CSTS (available at www.poznajachran.sk/mojchodnik). Further activities include 

video production, publishing and communication with the media outlets. The JMC 

committee has initiated the elaboration of several diploma thesis by university students on 

the most effective communication of IMS objectives to various categories, such as children, 

pupils, students, parents and others. It has also begun a campaign called “Green Diplomacy” 

intended to raise the BEPFOC awareness among both national and international opinion 

leaders and decision makers. As a significant achievement in terms of PR, a visit of HRH 

The Prince of Wales to some of the nominated properties has highlighted their value among 

the local and partly also international population through the intense media coverage 

(Pichler, Soroková 2005). 

During the 2 nd phase, the IMP Panel will participate strongly in the PR and educational activities 

on both national and international levels. Currently, works continue on a movie dealing 

with the underlying connection between the primeval forests and the architectural developments 

during the Middle Ages that will be offered to international TV-channels. 

In order to inform the public on a broader scale and to raise awareness on beech forests as 

an important natural heritage Germany opened an interactive exhibition at the 9 th Conference 

of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD-COP9), in Bonn/Germany, in 

May 2008. The exhibition informs visitors on the nomination of selected German beech forest 

areas as UNSECO World Natural Heritage as extension to the World Heritage property “Primeval 

beech forests of the Carpathians”. At CBD-COP-9 the exhibition was introduced under 

the motto “Beech forests – model examples of transnational cooperation on conserving biological 

diversity”. It is designed and utilized as a travelling exhibition, which is available in 

several languages, among others English, Spanish, Russian. A translation into Ukrainian and 

Slovak language is planned for the future. Furthermore an internet site was introduced 

(http://weltnaturerbe-buchenwaelder.de/) in order to inform on the nomination process and on 

beech forests as an important natural heritage. This page is linked to the homepage of each 

component part. In addition information is available by common leaflets, exhibition panels 

and other information material, which was developed in the framework of a joint project on 

public involvement in 2007 and 2008. Since the five component parts are not directly adjacent, 

a common corporate identity scheme was decided. 

In addition to the Advisory Boards of the National Parks and the Biosphere Reserve, some of 

the parks have established “friends associations”, which are mainly active in raising awareness 

among the local people, public relations and fundraising. 

24



VIII. Mechanisms of the trilateral cooperation 

(Ukraine-Slovakia-Germany) to 

implement the Management System 

The principal mechanism of the cooperation between Ukraine, the Slovak Republic and 

Germany in the management of the proposed trilateral serial nomination will consist of the 

Action Plan and other working activities of the Joint Management Committee, including regular 

meetings and consultations, permanent E-mail contact among the JMC members, participation 

of the JMC members in the cross-border cooperation for socio-economic development 

‘Carpathian Euroregion’, scientific cooperation, development and maintenance of the serial 

property, web page with database covering the property, annual plans and reports; joint 

working groups, development of special joint action plans, preparation of joint projects and 

programs, renewing of management plan. If a need arises, the JMC can, according to its 

statutes (under preparation, see Annex 2, nomination dossier No 1133, bring outstanding issues 

to the attention of the Minister of Environmental Protection of Ukraine, the Minister of 

Environment of the Slovak Republic and the four relevant German state (Länder) ministers of 

Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Hesse, Thuringia and Brandenburg and the German Federal 

Minister for the Environment. 

During the nomination process several trilateral meetings have taken place. Representatives 

of the competent authorities at national respectively at federal and at level as well as administrations 

of component parts have jointly prepared and agreed upon the extension nomination. 

Political and scientific focal points were appointed. Since 2007 intensive cooperation 

has been taken place . This well approved system will remain. 

25



IX. Funding of the Joint Management 

Committee and the Integrated 

Management System 

The main financial resources for the functioning of the Joint Management Committee are the 

state budgets of Ukraine and the Slovak Republic. Both countries will yearly allocate 25 

thousand EUR,- for covering the JMC activities. Additional resources for the implementation 

of the IMS, going beyond the normal tasks of organisations represented in the JMC, will also 

be allocated, according to state and regional budgets procedures, on a yearly basis and 

based on the Action Plan and the Plan of Main Tasks elaborated by the JMC as implied in 

the JMC Statutes. The estimated start-up allocation for 2007 will be 25 thousand EUR,- provided 

by the Ministry of Environmental Protection of Ukraine and the Ministry of Environment 

of the Slovak Republic. If a need arises, JMC can request special budgetary measures, e. g. 

for expropriation and corresponding compensation of ownership rights. 

The relevant German state ministries of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Hesse, Thuringia 

and Brandenburg as well as the administrations of the German component parts take the responsibility 

(see chapter 5 of the nomination dossier) for the secure funding during the nomination 

process as well as for future activities of the JMC. The costs will be financed by the 

regular budget of the four responsible states. Moreover, special funding comes from special 

projects, EU- or generally available funds from the regular federal budget, foundations etc.. 

Besides state and regional budgets, JMC and IMP Panel working groups will prepare and 

submit projects for various schemes, in particular those supposed to promote international 

co-operation, such as the EU-funded INTERREG (see Annex 3, nomination dossier No 

1133), LIFE and other schemes. These projects will aim at the elaboration of feasibility studies, 

management plans, reconstruction of habitats, ecotourism development and other activities. 

Funds for scientific research will be aggregated from dedicated scientific projects, such as 

PRIMEFOR (see Annex 4, nomination dossier No 1133), projects funded by Research and 

Development Agency of the Slovak Republic and Scientific and Grant Agency of the Slovak 

Republic. 

Trilateral research projects will be prepared and submitted e.g. within the EC FP7 framework 

program, INTERREG and LEADER. Cooperation in this sense has already started (see Annex 

4). 

26



Annex 1 to IMS 

List of the members of the Joint Management Committee 

for the Integrated Management of the for the properties of the serial nomination 

“Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians” 

1) Mykola Stetsenko, First Deputy Head of the State Agency for Protected Areas of the Ministry 

of Environmental Protection of Ukraine, co-chairman of the committee. 

2) Dr. Jozef Kramárik, head of the Nature and Landscape Protection Section of the Ministry 

of Environment of the Slovak Republic, co-chairman of the committee 

3) Prof. Fedir Hamor, Director of Carpathian Biosphere Reserve (Ukraine), deputy chairman 

of the committee 

4) Peter Repka, MSc., Director of Poloniny National Park (Slovakia), deputy chairman of the 

committee 

5) Ambassador Tetiana Izhevska, deputy head of the National Commission of Ukraine for 

UNESCO 

6) Prof. Dr. Vasyľ Parpan, director of the Institute of Mountain Forestry Ivano-Frankivsk, 

Ukraine 

7) Prof. Dr. Ivan Vološčuk, deputy head of the Slovak National Committee for the UNESCO 

Programme MAB, Slovakia 

8) Assoc. Prof. Dr. Viliam Pichler, Faculty of Forestry of the Technical University Zvolen, 

Slovakia 

9) Mr. Mykola Andrus, head of the Deputies Council of Zakarpatska Oblast, Ukraine 

10) Mr. Pavol Vočko, head of the Regional Environmental Protection Authority, Prešov, Slovakia 

11) Mr. Jurij Smereka, deputy director of the State Department of Ecological Resources in 

Zakarpatska Oblast, of the Ministry of the Environmental Protection of Ukraine 

12) Mr. Peter Chudík, head of the Prešov Self-governing Region, Slovakia 

German delegation: 

1) One delegate representing the state of Mecklenburg-Western Pommerania 

2) One delegate representing the state of Hesse 

3) One delegate representing the state of Thuringia 

4) One delegate representing m the state of Brandenburg 

5) One delegate representing the Federal Ministry for the Environment 

6) One German expert (according to the main topic of the agenda) 

27



Annex 2 to IMS: Short-term actions 

28



29

7.3.2 

Coordinated management for the 

German nominated component parts



Coordinated Management for the 

German nominated component parts 

Contents 

I. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 2 

Prearrangement of the Coordinated Management ........................................................ 3 

II. General goals of the Coordinated Management ............................................................ 3 

III. Legal protection status .................................................................................................. 5 

IV. Structure of the management ...................................................................................... 10 

IV.1 Management coordination ........................................................................................ 10 

IV.2 Practical management (individual measures) ........................................................... 12 

Objective I: Coordination of measures within the scope of the serial site ................ 12 

Objective II: Involvement of stakeholders ................................................................. 13 

Objective III: Coordination within the scope of the trilateral collaboration ................ 14 

Objective IV: Protection of the proposed World Heritage Site .................................. 15 

Objective V: Risk management ................................................................................ 16 

Objective VI: Wildlife management ........................................................................... 16 

Objective VII: Public relations and educational work ................................................ 17 

Objective VIII: Visitor routing “Experiencing Nature - Preserving Nature" ................ 18 

Objective IX: Monitoring ........................................................................................... 20 

1




The management for the five German component parts Jasmund, Serrahn, Grumsin, Kellerwald, 

and Hainich of the extension nomination of the existing Slovak-Ukrainian World Heritage 

site “Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians” is outlined below. 

The Coordinated Management is centred on coordinated guidelines, goals, and measures 

targeted at the long-term protection and preservation of the outstanding universal value 

(OUV) and the integrity of the nominated component parts while at the same time ensuring 

these measures to be accepted by the local administrative bodies and population. The Coordinated 

Management of the German nominated component parts forms an integral part of 

the management system of the trilateral World Heritage site. 

1.1.1.1 Management plan 

Each component part has a dedicated, legally binding management plan in place that takes 

into account the goals of preserving the outstanding universal value and the integrity of the 

site. Any activities that would affect or even jeopardise the preservation of the OUV or integrity, 

are prohibited and will not be allowed. The management plans of the four national parks 

(NLP) are called National Park Plans, while the biosphere reserve plan is titled Maintenance 

and Development Plan (PEP: Pflege- und Entwicklungsplan). 

The guiding principle for the management of the nominated component parts is to safeguard 

their spontaneous, self-regulating, undisturbed development without any human interference. 

The designated buffer zones serve to protect the nominated component parts and, if need 

be, cushion any compromising influences. No utilisation is allowed here that might jeopardise 

the OUV or integrity of the World Heritage site. 

The Coordinated Management is based on scientific insight from the subdisciplines involved 

as well as on the long-standing protection, planning, and administrative practice. 

1.1.1.2 Legal basis 

Each component part is covered by a legally binding protection status based on a legally 

binding ordinance or act. This status is guaranteed by the State departments involved. Consequently, 

parts of this Coordinated Management are legally binding. Other parts contain 

recommendations resulting from the coordination processes with local parties. 

The Coordinated Management being effective also depends on the support afforded by those 

parties. In order to ensure said support to be available in the long run, specific public relations 

and educational work are crucial aspects of the Coordinated Management. Appropriate 

measures have already been implemented in the component parts during the last few years 

and are continued within the scope of the Coordinated Management. 

The Coordinated Management on hand is not an exhaustive document. It will be evaluated 

on an ongoing basis, matched to the current situation, and revised if necessary. 

2



Prearrangement of the Coordinated Management 

The following steps have been carried out in preparation of the Coordinated Management 

within the context of the nomination activities: 

assessment of the existing protected area plans 

elaborating the differences in the management system of the component parts; 

harmonisation of the existing protected area plans with UNESCO and IUCN stipulations 

regarding Natural World Heritage sites; 

development and coordination of a standardised framework in case management is 

not is handled uniformly. 

A steering group has been instituted to address these issues which is composed of representatives 

of the State departments (Brandenburg, Hesse, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, 

and Thuringia), the Federal Environment Ministry, and the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation 

(BfN: Bundesamt für Naturschutz). This group has been closely collaborating with 

the administrations of the nominated component parts and having experts involved in the 

analysis and harmonisation processes. 

A shared general principle was adopted for the extension nomination within the scope of the 

harmonisation process the maxim of which being: “Let Nature be Nature”. 

General principle 

Let Nature be Nature 

The aim is to preserve and protect a globally unique and outstanding parts of the European 

beech forests with significant ongoing evolutionary and ecological processes affecting the 

plant and animal societies. 

• Within the nominated component parts, nature is allowed to develop according to its own 

rules – they are the most valuable old large-area beech forests in Germany. 

• The property shields the common beech's habitat, which is limited to the European lowlands 

and low mountain ranges. 

• The property provides the space required for undisturbed, natural, ecological, and biologic 

processes, places of rest and retreat for naturally occurring wild animals and plants 

(following criterion ix). 

• The property is a valuable place of experience for both education and research, a oneof-a-kind 

place allowing recreation seekers to experience nature as well as coining the 

regions’ image. 

With the extension nomination, Germany makes a major contribution towards the preservation 

of a property of outstanding universal value. All protective endeavours undertaken in the 

component parts follow an ecosystem approach. They are intended to safeguard the ongoing 

evolutionary and natural dynamic processes to preserve the entire biological diversity of 

the beech forests. 

3



II. General goals of the Coordinated 

Management 

The Coordinated Management aims at sustainably protecting and preserving the nominated 

component parts, preserving the outstanding universal value (OUV) and integrity as per criterion 

(ix), paragraph 77 of the Operational Guidelines (2008), according to which the OUV is 

defined as follows: The component parts constitute “outstanding examples representing 

significant on-going ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of 

terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and 

animals”. 

The Coordinated Management guarantees that all values the inscription on the World Heritage 

list is based on will be protected and preserved, and that the institutional foundation required 

for this purpose is in place. 

This includes 

protecting and preserving the site. 

securing the planning and funding for future generations based on administrative continuity. 

identifying potential dangers. 

identifying shortcomings and developing methods of resolution. 

jointly looking for solutions in cases of external threats. 

installing and fostering communication between the individual component parts. 

promoting the site by means of international partnerships. 

The management requirements of the German component parts are geared to those of the 

existing Ukrainian-Slovakian Word Heritage sites. The German component parts and the superior 

administrative bodies will create the appropriate administrative and technical prerequisites 

to implement the Coordinated Management on hand. The guiding principles are outlined 

in the following. 

4



III. Legal protection status 

The Coordinated Management is based both on provisions of the international, Federal and 

State regulations and on the rules specific to the individual protected areas with the maintenance 

and development plans in force. The acts and ordinances in force governing the component 

parts are detailed in chapter 5c and 5d of the nomination dossier (reference table 5-3 

and 5-4). 

The measures and structures proposed are backed and implemented by the involved protected 

area administrations and Ministries of the Environment. Locally affected persons will 

be involved in the process in case of changes. This Coordinated Management is deemed to 

be legally binding by the States. 

Legal provisions on nature conservation 

Legal provisions on the management of the German component parts 

The German component parts are subject to legally binding ordinances (VO: Verordnungen), 

that have been decided by the respective Landtag as the supreme board in the corresponding 

federal state. In each case, the ordinances are applicable both for the nominated component 

part and the surrounding buffer zone, since each nominated component part is embedded 

in a larger protected area. Based on the VO, management plans (NLP plan or maintenance 

and development plan (PEP)) were drawn up and periodically updated in each protected 

area by the respective administration. Should the nomination be successful, the World 

Heritage sites will be separately portrayed in the next updates. Alongside with the national 

VO, the component parts are also subject to international provisions on protection, in particular 

in accordance with the Natura 2000 Directive. The different legal bases are arranged in 

table 1 together with the management plans. 

Tab. 1: Acts, ordinances, and directives of the nominated component parts (as of 2009) 

Nominated 


Jasmund (NLP) 

Acts, ordinances, plans, etc. Year 

Ordinance on the Designation of the Jasmund National (Law Gazette reprint 

Park 

GDR, no. 1467 of 01 

October 10 1990) 

Council Directive 92 / 43 / EEC of 21 May 1992 DE 1447- 

302 Jasmund 

nomination 2004 

Ordinance on the Regulation of Hunting in the National Law and Ordinance 

Parks of the State of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania Gazette Mecklen- 

(Nationalpark-Jagdverordnung – NLPJagdVO M-V) burg-WesternPomerania 1998, p. 588, 8 

June 1998 

Directive on the Treatment of the Forests in the National Official Journal of 

Parks of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania 

Mecklenburg- 


p. 1293, 14 September 

2005 

5



Serrahn (NLP) 

Grumsin (BR) 

Ordinance on Navigation on Inland Waterways in National 

Parks and Nature Conservation Areas within the Coast of 

Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (Befahrensregelungsverordnung 

Küstenbereich Mecklenburg-Vorpommern – 

NPBefVMVK) 

National Park Plan (National Park Office of the State of 

Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania) Jasmund 

Ordinance on the Establishment of the Müritz National 

Park 

Ordinance on the Regulation of Hunting in the National 

Parks of the State of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania 

(Nationalpark-Jagdverordnung – NLPJagdVO M-V) 

Directive on the Treatment of the Forests in the National 

Parks of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania 


301 Serrahn 

Council Directive 79 / 409 / EEC of 02 April 1979 on the 

conservation of wild birds, DE 2645-402 forest and lake 

landscape Lieps-Serrahn 

NLP plan, ed.: State Agency of Forests and Large Protected 

Areas, unsigned by the Minister for the Environment 

and the Minister for Food, Agriculture, Forest and Fisheries 

Ordinance on the Designation of Nature Reserves and a 

Landscape Conservation Area of Primary Importance under 

the Overall Designation of Schorfheide-Chorin Biosphere 

Reserve on 12 September 1990. 


302 FFH area “Grumsiner Forst/Redernswalde” 

Council Directive 79 / 409 / EEC of 02 April 1979 on the 

conservation of wild birds, DE 2948-401 SPA 

“Schorfheide-Chorin” 

A draft Maintenance and Development Plan (PEP) for the 

entire biosphere reserve was prepared in 1997. A pilot 

study for the update was commissioned in 2007. The master 

study for the biosphere reserve was commissioned in 

2009 and is to be completed by 2013. The FFH management 

planning, which will be commissioned in 2009 and is 

to be completed in 2012, is incorporated in the PEP. 

24 June1997 Federal 

Gazette. I p. 1542; effective 

as of 10 July 

1997, FNA: 940-9-22; 

94 Federal Waterways 

940 

Federal Waterways 


May 1998 

Law Gazette GDR 

1990, reprint 1468 

12. September 1990 

Law and Ordinance 

Gazette. Mecklenburg-WesternPomerania 

1998, p. 588, 8. 

June 1998 

Official Journal of 

Mecklenburg- 


p. 1293, 14 September 

2005 2005 



2003 

1990 

2000 

2005 

6



Tab. 2 (continued): Acts, ordinances, and directives of the nominated component parts (as of 

2009) 

Nominated 


Kellerwald (NLP) 

Hainich (NLP) 

Acts, ordinances, plans, etc. Year 


2003-12-17 (GVBl.I page 463 from 2003-12-22) 

last amended by Ordinance of the amendment of the 

Ordinance Kellerwald-Edersee 2009-12-07 (GVBl.I 

page 511 from 2009-12-16) 

Hessian Nature Conservation Act (HENatG: Hessisches 

Naturschutzgesetz) of 04 December 2006 - § 22 National 

Parks 

Declaration “Bannwald Edersee” (28 October 1991, Gov- 

ernment Gazette. 47/1991 p. 2617) 

1998 Designation of the national park as FFH area Ordinance 

(of the Land of Hesse) on the Natura 2000 areas in 

Hesse of 16 January 2008, Law and Ordinance Gazette I 

p. 30 30 

Additional designation as bird sanctuary in 2000: Ordinance 

(of the Federal State of Hesse) on the Natura 2000 

Areas in Hesse of 16 January 2008, Law and Ordinance 

Gazette I p. 30 

NLP Plan, NLP administration, approved by the Ministry of 


Act on the Hainich National Park and for the Amendment 

of Provisions under Nature Protection Law of 19 December 

1997 

2004 (amended 

2009) 

2006 

1991 



2009 

1997, as amended in 

1999 

Council Directive 92 / 43 / EEC of 21 May 1992 designation 1998 

Council Directive 79 / 409 / EEC of 02 April 1979 on the designation 2007 

conservation of wild birds 

NLP Plan (currently in approval process as 2001 PEP up- prior to 2009 

date), NLP administration 

Regional planning instruments 

All participating States have regional plannings in place (cf. tab. 2) which identify the protected 

areas concerned as “areas where nature conservation has priority”. This means that, 

within the scope of whatever planning project, the stipulated goals of nature conservation 

have to be taken into consideration and/or have priority. Thus, the component parts enjoy a 

status of permanent protection. Regional planning contains the following instruments: 

Planning legislation 

The planning legislation contains standards regarding the development, organisation, and 

assurance of the supra-local plannings and measures taken. In Germany, it is regulated by 

the German Spatial Planning Act on the federal level, and on the state level by the state 

planning acts. This provides a basis for at the federal and state level to draw up regional 

plannings that are geared to the objectives, principles, and requirements of spatial planning. 

Therefore, there are stipulations to be observed or considered for secondary planning stages 

in spatial planning, for urban land-use planning or for the sectoral plannings of the public 

bodies charged with planning tasks that result from the development plans. 

7



Regional development plan adopted by a Land = (also regional development programme 

or regional spatial planning programme, depending on the federal state, in short 

LEP or LEPro (Landesentwicklungsprogramm). In the Länder, it contains the specifications 

regarding spatial planning at the state level. It is the most important state planning instrument. 

The plans or programmes form a mixture of palpable objective targets, specifications 

within the scope of spatial planning, and general guidelines governing the further planning of 

the Länder, but also the regions and communes. 

Regional plan 

Regional planning serves the concretisation, technical integration, and implementation of the 

land use planning objectives below the level of national land use planning. It hence assumes 

an intermediate position between national and communal planning. Taking account of the 

goals and objectives of land use planning and state planning, regional planning creates planning 

reliability for communes and specialised planning authorities. The corresponding planning 

scales range between 1:50,000 and 1:5,000. At the federal and state level, the stipulations 

of land use planning take precedence. At the state level, land use planning is supplemented 

by regional development plans. This includes regional planning, which contains textual 

and graphic planning requirements for subterritories of a Land. 

Tab. 2: Land use planning legislation pertaining to the nominated properties (as of 2009) 

Component 

part 

Planning level Name Source of law Date 

Jasmund Mecklenburg- 


Land Regional Development Pro- Law and Ordinance 30 May 

gramme 

Gazette Mecklenburg- 

Western Pomerania p. 

503, 613 

2005 

Region Regional Development Pro- Law and Ordinance 21 October 

gramme West Pomerania Gazette Mecklenburg- 


no. 20, p. 833 

1998 

Serrahn Mecklenburg- 


Land Regional Development Pro- Law and Ordinance 30 May 

gramme 

Gazette Mecklenburg- 

Western Pomerania p. 

503, 613 

2005 

Region Regional Development Pro- Law and Ordinance 22 July 

gramme Mecklenburg Lake Gazette Mecklenburg- 1998 

District 


no. 20, p. 644 

Grumsin Brandenburg 

Land Regional Development Plan 

Berlin-Brandenburg (LEP B-B) 

of 15 May 2009 

2009 

Region Landscape Framework Plan, 

set up the Highest Nature 

Conservation Agency 

2004 

8



Kellerwald Hesse 

Land State Development Plan 

Hesse: Hessian Ministry of 

Economy, Transport, Urban 

and Regional Development 

Region Regional Plan North Hesse: 

Regional Administrative Au- 

thority Kassel 

Hainich Thuringia 

Region Regional Development Plan 

North Thuringia 

Region Regional Development Plan 

South Thuringia 

Provisions on the protection of the buffer zone 

All acts and ordinances specified herein also apply to the surrounding buffer zone, since 

each of the proposed component parts forms part of a larger surrounding protected area. 

The acts and ordinances invariably apply to the entire area. 

Measures to present and promote the nominated component parts 

The particular challenge in presenting and conveying the nominated site lies in the serial approach 

of the nomination. In addition to their respective unique features, the five nominated 

component parts thus also communicate the higher common framework as well as their role 

as part of a serial nomination. Furthermore, they meet their role as media communicating the 

UNESCO World Heritage in general. 

To ensure the best possible information, presentation, and communication of the nominated 

component parts, the communication concept “World Heritage Beech Forests” has been 

developed to account for said role (see annex 5.6 nomination dossiers) . The concept is currently 

under implementation. 

Beside the public relation and educational activities outlined in chapter 5h and 5i of the 

nomination dossier, there are organisations to support the protected areas that are particularly 

committed to communicate with the local public and action groups. 

2000 

2000 

2001 

2001 

9



IV. Structure of the management 

The structure of the management comprises three levels: 

1. Component part level: the existing management of the existing component parts 

2. National level: the Coordinated Management on hand 

3. Trilateral level: the Integrated Management System (IMS) 

The trilateral management structure pertaining to the nominated site is composed of the following 

bodies: 

Steering group (national) 

Joint Management Committee (JMC) (trilateral) with appurtenant subject-specific 

(temporary) working groups 

Support organisations and advisory boards (for the respective component parts) 1 

German financing of the upcoming steering group activities and participation in the JMC 

meetings is guaranteed based on funds appropriated in the budgets of the involved institutions 

at the federal and state level. 

IV.1 Management coordination 

The steering group will coordinate the management of the German component parts as well 

as the required reporting. Moreover, the Coordinated Management guarantees the protected 

area management of the individual component parts to be incorporated into the integrated 

management system: 

Fig. 1: Structure of the Coordinated management of the German nominated component parts 

1 These are designated as “Joint Management Panels" at the international level. 

10



Trilateral management 

The close German-Slovakian-Ukrainian collaboration constitutes the necessary political 

framework for an overriding trilateral management. 

There have been trilateral meetings on an at least annual basis as well as extensive expert 

contacts and exchanges since 2007. The trilateral meetings were used to draw up a joint 

work programme the implementation of which has already been initiated. In particular the coordination 

with the existing Ukrainian-Slovakian Natural World Heritage site “Primeval Beech 

Forests of the Carpathians” required for the extension nomination was carried out within the 

scope of the trilateral cooperation. The coordination of an overriding trilateral management 

was of particular importance here. 

A Joint Management Committee (JMC) has been instituted as trilateral coordinating body 

which meets at regular intervals. Should the nomination be successful, the German extension 

nomination will be represented in the JMC through the institutions indicated in the trilateral 

management system. 

Subject-specific working groups will be established as needed, which can be national, binational 

or even trinational. Integration of the various local stakeholders is ensured by the existing 

national park advisory boards and support organisations. 

Fig. 2: Levels in the trilateral management of the Natural World Heritage site 

11



IV.2 Practical management (individual measures) 

The objectives and activities of the Integrated Management System (IMS) apply to the 

Coordinated Management of the German component parts. Its implementation is the 

maxim of action to the protected area administrations of the individual component 

parts. 

There are, moreover, goals and activities that specifically apply to the German extension, 

which are listed below. 

Objective I: Coordination of measures within the scope of 

the serial site 

Measure 1: Institution of a steering group (LG: Lenkungsgruppe) 

The steering group will be continued. It is composed of: 

a representation for the respective competent protected area 

a representation of the respective competent Department of State 

a representation of the Federal Environment Ministry (BMU: 

Bundesumweltministerium) 

a representation of the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN: 

Bundesamt für Naturschutz) 

If possible, representation in the steering group will be included in the job description of 

the respective organisational structure and/or allocation of duties of the corresponding 

department. 

Measure 2: Specification of LG tasks 

The LG's mandate (Terms of reference - ToR) will include the following tasks: 

Coordination of the management of the component parts 

Periodic coordination of any aspects related to the German component parts of 

the World Heritage site and the trilateral World Heritage site. 

Local coordination and communication with other local parties in the individual 

component parts (including stakeholders e.g. within the scope of ownership 

structure arrangements) 

Periodic coordination and exchange with the Slovakian and Ukrainian 

component parts of the trilateral World Heritage site 

Development of documents for the implementation of obligations arising from 

the World Heritage Convention (e.g. preparation of periodical reports) 

Collaboration with other partners (e.g. other World Heritage sites, project 

partners, research institutes, sponsors, etc.) 

The mandate is reviewed by the LG on a regular basis and extended as needed. 

12



At its first meeting, the LG will draw up a working plan containing concrete 

measures/activities to meet and implement the LG’s tasks in line with its mandate. 

Measure 3: Periodic LG meetings on the serial site 

The steering group will at least meet once a year. Other participants, e.g. experts or 

stakeholders will be called in and further meetings convened as needed. 

Objective II: Involvement of stakeholders 

Implementation of the management relies on the assistance by competent authorities, interest 

groups, and the local population. Protection and perpetual preservation of the nominated 

component parts cannot be achieved but through sufficient acceptance on location as well as 

having everybody involved. The aim is to establish a common understanding about the outstanding 

value of the sites and to have a procedure in place to involve all partners and parties. 

Measure 1: Improving the collaboration 

The possibilities of improving public involvement, especially measures to have the 

public actively participating, will be fathomed at a regional scale. 

Measure 2: Continuing the “Natural World Heritage Beech Forests" 

communication concept 

The communication concept worked out within the context of the nomination process 

(cf. annex 5.6 nomination dossier) will be continued. Implementation measures include: 

printed media (leaflet German/English, information brochure, etc.) 

website 

regional and national press releases 

travelling exhibition “Natural World Heritage Beech Forests” 

information events 

Measure 3: Providing the monitoring results 

The results of the monitoring programme will be made available to the competent 

authorities, interest groups, and the local population. 

Measure 4: Web forum 

The existing website of the nominated component parts (http://weltnaturerbebuchenwaelder.de/de.html) 

will be used for direct communication (discussion board). 

13



Objective III: Coordination within the scope of the trilateral 

collaboration 

Since this is a trilateral World Heritage site, regular coordination and mutual information interchange 

regarding the individual component parts of the World Heritage site is vital. 

Measure 1: Attendance in meetings of the Joint Management Committee (JMC) 

The JMC will at least meet once a year. The specific conditions are laid down in the 

joint management plan (IMS). 

The LG will delegate the following members to the JMC: 

a representative of the State of Brandenburg 

a representative of the State of Hesse 

a representative of the State of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania 

a representative of the State of Thuringia 

a representative of the Federal Environment Ministry 

Experts may be consulted as needed and by mutual consent. 

Fig. 3: Diagram of the trilateral organisational and communicational structure 

14



Objective IV: Protection of the proposed World Heritage 

Site 

All component parts are subject to strict obligations concerning the protection, preservation, 

and improvement of the ecological conditions in the natural beech forests/primeval beech 

forests. The protection concepts include 

Renunciation of any utilisation including agriculture, silviculture, hunting, and fishery. 

No digging. 

Education, recreation, and tourism are subject to strict obligations taking account of 

the purpose of protection of the areas. 

The areas are almost entirely publicly owned. 

The boundaries of the five component parts were established on ecological criteria and 

in due consideration of representativeness and completeness. The nomination dossier 

gives a summary of how they have been derived (cf. chapter 3d); authoritative aspects 

were the status of conservation, ability to develop, and the biologic-ecologic inventory 

as well as the areas' integration into the landscape-ecological context. 

Measure 1: Taking account of the World Heritage site in all planning projects 

The World Heritage site will be taken account of in all future planning projects at all 

administrative levels to ensure that no decisions and stipulations are made beforehand 

that would run contrary to the protection and preservation of the World Heritage site. 

Measure 2: Regular monitoring of the borders 

The areas of the proposed World Heritage territories and the buffer zones are regularly 

inspected and checked by staff members of the protected area administration to make 

sure the outstanding universal value (OUV) and integrity are appropriately protected 

and no measures are brought to bear that may jeopardise the OUV or integrity. 

Measure 3: Signage 

The World Heritage site will be provided with sufficient signage, in particular in zones 

seeing large numbers of visitor as well as in places where other modes of use, e.g. 

agriculture abut on the buffer zone, for the purpose of raising awareness and furnish 

information. This includes both educational advertising of the OUV and the purpose of 

the nomination as well as the resulting behavioural requirements. 

Measure 4: Sustainable organisation of the ownership structure in the Grumsin 


The ownership structure is to be permanently secured in all nominated component 

parts. The Grumsin component part will see the relocation and acquisition activities 

being continued with the aim of transferring the entire area to public ownership or to the 

Kulturlandschaft Uckermark e.V. association until 2020. 

15



Measure 5: Sustainable land management in the buffer zone of the Grumsin 


Negotiations with landowners are to be continued in the Grumsin component part with 

the objective of comprehensively sustainable land use. The relocation and acquisition 

activities will be continued with the aim of transferring the entire area to public 

ownership or to the Kulturlandschaft Uckermark e.V. association until 2020. 

Objective V: Risk management 

Developing a risk management including stipulations regarding its implementation is a 

worthwhile effort to protect the site. There were no palpable threats at the time the nomination 

dossier was being prepared. 

Measure 1: Potential risk scenarios for the World Heritage area 

The scenarios might be centred on the following events: 

climate change 

substance input 

infrastructural measures within the area or surroundings (e.g. road or railroad construction, 

canalisation, overhead power lines, radio interference, wind energy). 

research activities 

game stock 

invasive species 

tourism 

Measure 2: Creation of a risk management 

The steering group will create a coordinated risk management together with an 

appropriate action plan based on the results of Measures 1 (scenarios). The risk 

management will undergo continuous updating based on the results of the similarly 

coordinated monitoring and the (international) research projects and developments. 

Objective VI: Wildlife management 

The goal of undisturbed natural development also includes wildlife management. The aim is 

to forego any utilisation-oriented hunting in every one of the areas. Wildlife management is 

exclusively limited to the required activities arising from the risk management scenarios. 

Measure 1: Reorganising wildlife management in the Grumsin and Jasmund 


Active wildlife management in the Grumsin and Jasmund component parts will be 

shifted to the buffer zone and surroundings at an early point. With the exception of 

such years in which there game monitoring yields evidence of excessive hoofed game 

populations, the nominated component parts are kept free of game population control. 

16



Objective VII: Public relations and educational work 

Public relations and educational activities most notably include 

Development of strategies and conceptions resulting from situational analysis and 

opinion surveys, and of strength/weakness profiles; 

dialogue with the population, visitors, partners and representatives of relevant social 

groups; 

editing and arranging information as well as active press relations; 

hosting events and conducting projects; 

signage and visitor information in the area. 

A comprehensive public relations campaign on the “Natural World Heritage Beech Forests” 

subject has been launched within the scope of the nomination activities. Target-group 

specific measures were developed that in part have already been initiated, and that will partly 

be carried out in the coming years on a one-time or regular basis. 

Educational activities in the nominated component parts are focused on the following tasks: 

Information on the UNESCO World Heritage Convention and its goals, 

information on the UNESCO Natural World Heritage (and other international protected 

area titles) as well as the UNESCO’s MAB programme, 

model function within the context of the UN decade "Education for Sustainable Development”, 

portrayal of the nominated component parts: information on the profile and peculiarities in 

topography and natural inventory of the five nominated component parts; 

information on European beech forests; 

addressing the wilderness, dynamics and ecological process management subjects; 

education on ecosensitive conduct in line with the aims of nature conservation. 

Measure 1: Targeted and coordinated public relations to make the World 

Heritage site known 

The German component parts are uniformly advertised based on the results of the 

public relations project. Various printed media, exhibitions, and a website are used for 

this purpose (see also Objective II Measure 2 and chapter 5.i nomination dossier). 

Measure 2: Staff training 

The national administrations are responsible for giving a view of the World Heritage 

site, which requires the staff members of the protected area administrations to undergo 

periodic further training in communication methodology and, specifically, in the "World 

Heritage" subject. Such subject-specific further training will take place, among others, 

in cooperation with the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN). 

Measure 3: Educational programme 

Working out the communication concept "Natural World Heritage Beech Forests“ also included 

developing the basics on an educational programme. These will continue to be revised 

and implemented. 

17



Measure 4: Annual report 

Preparation of an annual report including evaluation of the implementation of the 

Coordinated Management and the Integrated Management System (IMS) as well as 

the resulting management updates (if any) at the national or trilateral level. 

The report is available as PDF file for public download on the homepage 

www.weltnaturerbe-buchenwaelder.de 

Objective VIII: Visitor routing “Experiencing Nature - 

Preserving Nature" 

Subterritories of the nominated component parts will be made accessible to visitors in order 

to communicate the aims of the World Heritage Convention and to present the potential 

World Heritage site. This will allow them to experience the World Heritage beech forests. 

Concepts of visitor routing will be in place to guarantee the protection and preservation of the 

site’s OUV and integrity. Visitor routing in the component parts is geared to the particular requirements 

and necessities of protection, which are governed by the respective protected 

area ordinances. 

Measure 1: Road and path concept 

Road/path layout in the component parts is to be organised so that visitors can 

experience the site without putting its OUV or integrity at risk. 

Based on the respective protected area provisions, all component parts already have 

an ecologically sound road/path and development concept in place that allows visitors 

to experience nature and, at the same time, ensures protection of the OUV. The 

concepts are to be adjusted according to the aims of the World Heritage site. 

In the road and path concept, distinction is made between: 

advertised paths (officially indicated on panels and hiking maps) 

signposted paths (only marked within the component part) 

temporarily closed paths 

paths for national park-internal work only (service routes) 

Measure 2: Prohibitions to enter / quiet zones 

Partial prohibitions to enter (which may be temporary) can be enforced in order to 

provide very sensitive areas with sufficient protection. 

Measure 3: Individual measure road and path concept: Revision of the road 

and path concept of the Jasmund component part 

The road and path concept will be revised to thin out the path network in the World 

Heritage area. The measure aims at increasing the portion of near-natural zones and 

improving the naturalness of wildlife living conditions (level of near-naturalness / 

naturalness). 

18



Measure 4: Individual measure path concept: Revision of the path concept in 

the Grumsin component part 

A path concept will be drafted for Grumsin which takes account of the requirements of 

providing the opportunity of experiencing the area with current tourism planning in 

mind. The experience of nature starts at the buffer zone. 

Measure 5: Individual measure path concept: Road use and prohibition to enter 

in the Grumsin component part 

Measures to increase acceptance and enforce both he prohibition to enter and the 

prohibition to use the roads are taken. 

Measure 6: Revision of an old right of recess on a forest track (Gellershausen- 

Bringhausen) in the Kellerwald component part 

Possibilities will be assessed as to how the old rights of passage for adjacent owners 

regarding the segment of forest track at issue, which spans 250 m in the eastern 

portion of the nominated component part, can be released in the medium to long term. 

The necessary monitoring measures to avoid any abuse will be implemented. 

Measure 7: World Heritage-compatible implementation of the duty to implement 

safety precautions 

Entering into (natural) forests involves specific risks. For example, old trees or dead 

branches may topple or come off especially in stormy weather, potentially putting 

visitors at risk. Visitors to the World Heritage must anticipate dangers that may result 

from the protection purpose. The limited safety precautions have to be pointed out at 

an early point; the same holds true for the World Heritage areas being entered at one's 

own risk. 

Measure 8: Signage 

The limited safety precautions are to be pointed out to visitors at all accesses to the 

World Heritage areas in clearly visible positions: e.g. in the following manner: 

Attention! Nature can be dangerous! 

Dying or dead trees will be removed only in case of imminent danger. Therefore, trees 

toppling over or parts of trees falling down are to be reckoned with anytime. 

The State takes no responsibility for any such dangers that are present in the World 

Heritage area. This means that you enter the area at your own risk in this respect." 

The presence of warning signs is to be checked and recorded biannually. 

19



Objective IX: Monitoring 

The monitoring of the nominated component parts is coordinated following the monitoring of 

the existing World Heritage site. 

Measure 1: Monitoring manual 

The LG will draw up a monitoring manual that details the methodology, intervals, etc. 

per indicator. 

Measure 2: Centralised data storage 

The monitoring data and analytic results of the German component parts will be stored 

at a central location. 

20

7.3.3 

National Park Plan for the Jasmund 

National Park 

This management plan is only available in German and can be 

assessed at the respective protected area administration.



National Park Plan for the Jasmund 

National Park 

Editing status 

Draft of November 1999, binding for the Nature Conservation Administration since 

December 2003, under review since 2008 

Contents 

Chapter A: General principles for the national park and national park region 1 

1. Location, boundaries and statistical data 1 

2. National park border area and national park region 2 

3. History of the area and of nature conservation 3 

3.1 Settlement history 3 

3.2 History of the landscape and forest 5 

Change in vegetation since the Weichselian glacial period 5 

History of forest use 6 

3.3 History of nature conservation 10 

4 Present major conservation area management in Mecklenburg - Western 

Pomerania (MWP) 11 

Chapter B: Statutory and planning principles 13 

1. Overall planning 13 

1.1 First state land use planning programme in MWP 13 

1.2 Regional land use planning programme 15 

2. Nature conservation 18 

2.1 Federal Nature Conservation Act 18 

2.2 State Nature Conservation Act MWP 18 

1



2.3 Decree on the Designation of the Jasmund National Park 18 

2.4 Provisional expert landscape programme 19 

2.5 First expert overall landscape programme 21 

2.6 Landscape plans 22 

2.7 International nature conservation provisions 22 

2.7.1 Helsinki Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment 

of the Baltic Sea Area 22 

2.7.2 FFH Directive of the European Union 23 

2.8 IUCN Criteria 23 

2.9 Recommendations of the FNNPE 26 

Chapter C: Guiding principles for the Jasmund National Park 27 

1. General guiding principles 27 

2. Special guiding principles 28 

Chapter D: Population / Appraisal / Measures 31 

1. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LANDSCAPE AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 31 

1.1 Introduction 31 

1.2 Population and appraisal 32 

2. NATURAL CONDITIONS 35 

2.1 Structure of the landscape and types of natural region 35 

2.2 Geology and geomorphology 37 

2.2.1 Introduction 37 

2.2.2 Rügen White Chalk 38 

2.2.3 Pleistocene sediments and Weichselian glacial relief formation 38 

2.2.4 Holocene sediments and recent relief 39 

2.3 Soil 41 


2.3.2 Soils 41 

2.4 Climate 43 


2.4.2 The Stubnitz climate 43 

2.4.3 The Western coastal climate 44 

2.5 Water management and bodies of water 46 

2




2.5.2 Water catchment areas 47 

2.5.3 Springs 48 

2.5.4 Streams 48 

2.5.5 Dykes 50 

2.5.6 Standing water bodies 52 

2.5.6.1 Natural standing water bodies 52 

2.5.6.2 Artificial standing water bodies 52 

2.5.7 Baltic 54 

2.6 Ecosystem, woods and forests 55 


2.6.2 Population 55 

2.6.2.1 Natural forest communities 55 

2.6.2.1.1 Beech forests of the plateau areas 64 

2.6.2.1.2 Alder-ash forests/alder-swamp forests 69 

2.6.2.1.2 Hillside and ravine forests of the steep coast 70 

2.6.2.2 Half forests and forests 72 

2.6.2.2.1 Hardwood forests 72 

2.6.2.2.2 Pinewood forests 73 

2.6.2.2.3 Special areas 73 

2.6.2.2.4 Low and medium forests 74 

2.6.3 Appraisal 74 

2.6.3.1 Introduction 74 

2.6.3.2 Indigenous tree species 75 

2.6.3.3 Non-indigenous tree species 75 

2.6.3.4 Clearances 76 

2.6.3.5 Low and medium-level forests 77 

2.6.3.6 "Coastal conservation forest" 77 

2.6.3.7 Interception and transpiration through trees 78 

2.6.3.8 Natural forest dynamics 78 

2.6.4 Measures 79 

2.6.4.1 Guideline for the planning of forest treatment measures 

in the Jasmund National Park 79 

2.7 Ecosystems in the open landscape 82 


2.7.1 Population and appraisal 83 

2.7.2.1 Open biotopes on the coast 83 

2.7.2.2 Fens and bogs 86 

2.7.2.3 Grassland on mineral soil 98 

2.7.2.4 Fields, open spaces, sand, gravel and chalk pits 98 

2.7.3 Measures 100 


3



2.7.3.2 Regeneration of natural fens and bogs 101 

2.7.3.3 Regeneration of extensively used meadows and pasture land 102 

2.7.3.4 Protection, care and development of chalk pits 103 

2.7.3.5 Regeneration of forest in open spaces 103 

3. USAGE STRUCTURE 103 

3.1 Introduction 103 

3.2 Tourism/leisure use and visitor control 103 

3.2.1 Development of tourism to date 104 

3.2.2 Tourism development trends 106 

3.2.3 Effects of tourism on the National Park 110 

3.2.4 Guidelines for the development of tourism 111 

3.2.4.1 Influence on behaviour in tourism source areas 111 

3.2.4.2 Influence on behaviour in the National Park and National Park boundary area 112 

3.3 Network of roads/paths and traffic 114 

3.3.1 Public roads 114 


3.3.1.2 Public transport 115 

3.3.1.3 Traffic from residents 122 

3.3.1.3 Bus routes - local public transport 122 

3.3.2 Parking 123 

3.3.3 Walking paths 124 

3.3.4 Cycling paths 131 

3.3.5 Riding paths 132 

3.3.6 Carriageways 133 

3.3.7 Forest paths 134 

3.3.8 Shipping 134 

3.4 Settlements 135 

3.4.1 Settlements in the National Park belonging to the municipal area of Sassnitz 135 

3.4.1 Settlements at the edge of the National Park belonging to the municipal 

area of Sassnitz 148 

3.4.3 Settlements and districts in the National Park belonging to the municipality 

of Lohme 148 

3.4.4 Settlements and districts at the edge of the National Park belonging to the 

municipality of Lohme 149 

3.4.5 Settlements and districts at the edge of the national Park belonging to the 

municipality of Sagard 151 

3.5 Forest administration and hunting 151 

3.5.1 Forest administration 151 

3.5.2 Hunting 152 

3.6 Chalk and gravel extraction 153 

3.7 Water management and fishing 156 

4



3.7.1 Water management 156 

3.7.1.1 Melioration trenches, banked up water 156 

3.7.1.2 Extraction of drinking water 157 

3.7.1.3 Waste water treatment 158 

3.7.2 Fishing 159 

3.8 Agriculture 160 

3.8.1 Agriculture within the National Park 160 

3.8.2 Agriculture at the edge of the National Park 162 

3.8.3 Agricultural structures 162 

3.9 Military use 163 

4. SEQUENCE AND PRIORITIES FOR CARE AND 

DEVELOPMENT MEASURES 163 

4.1 Forest 163 

4.2 Bodies of water 164 

4.3 Open land biotopes 164 

4.3 Care of biotopes 165 

5. PUBLIC RELATIONS WORK AND NATIONAL PARK WATCH 166 

5.1 Preliminary comment 166 

5.2 Population 168 

5.2.1 Staff 168 

5.2.2 Buildings/site 168 

5.2.3 Entrance areas and signs 169 

5.2.4 Publications and documentation 169 

5.2.5 Collaboration with local authorities, other authorities, federations, institutions 170 

5.2.6 Encouragement of acceptance 170 

5.2.7 Educational work 171 

5.3 Appraisal 172 

5.4 Measures 173 

6. RESEARCH AND CONTINUING PLANNING 176 

6.1 Basic principles for research and monitoring 176 

6.2 Recommendations for monitoring and research topics 177 

6.3 Recommendations for continuing planning 178 

6.4 Staff 179 

5



CHAPTER E: LITERATURE AND MAPS USED 180 

APPENDICES 

1. OVERVIEW OF STREAMS IN THE JASMUND NATIONAL PARK 196 

2. CATALOGUE OF OPEN LAND BIOTOPES IN THE JASMUND 

NATIONAL PARK 203 

3. FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE FLORA AND FAUNA 226 

3.1 Bats 226 

3.2 (Breeding) birds 227 

3.3 Amphibians and reptiles 230 

3.4 Fish 231 

3.5 Spiders 232 

3.6 Crustaceans (decapoda only) 233 

3.7 Large butterflies 233 

3.8 Ground beetles 243 

3.9 Dragonflies 247 

3.10 Land snails 251 

3.11 Planarians 254 

3.12 Endangered flora in areas 95 and 100 255 

4. HABITATS AND SPECIES OF SIGNIFICANCE THROUGHOUT EUROPE 256 

5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA 257 

6. INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WALKING PATHS 259 

6

7.3.4 

National Park Plan for the Müritz 

National Park 





National Park Plan for the 


Editing status 

Draft of November 1999, binding for the Nature Conservation Administration since December 

2003, under review since 2008 

Contents 

1 Introduction 4 

2 General guiding principles for national parks 5 

2.1 General guiding principles for Germany's national parks 5 

2.2 Guiding principles for the Müritz National Park 5 

2.2.1 Preliminary comment 5 

2.2.2 Unique feature 9 

2.2.3 Guiding principles 9 

3 Directives and laws 11 

3.1 International 11 

3.2 In Germany 11 

4 Data on the Müritz National Park 12 

4.1 Location and size 12 

4.2 Settlement and history 12 

4.3 Natural features 12 

4.4 Ownership and administration 15 

4.5 Zoning 15 

5 Guidelines and development objectives 16 

5.1 Climate and air 16 

5.2 Geological forms and soils 17 

5.3 Water balance and bodies of water 17 

5.3.1 The lakes 18 

5.3.1.1 Banks and reed beds 19 

5.3.1.2 Commercial fishing 20 

5.3.1.3 Angling 21 

5.3.1.4 Boat traffic 22 

5.3.1.5 Diving 22 

5.3.2 Bodies of flowing water 23 

5.3.3 The fens 25 

1



5.4 The forests 25 

5.5 Habitats dependent on the culture 28 

5.5.1 Agriculture 28 

5.6 Appearance of the landscape 29 

5.7 Flora and fauna 30 

5.7.1 Special protection of species 30 

5.7.2 Regulation of hoofed game through hunting 33 

5.8 Research and continuous monitoring 33 

5.9 Ownership of areas 35 

6 Integration of the National Park into the region 36 

6.1 Cooperation structures 36 

6.2 Development of settlements 37 

6.3 Leisure, information and education 38 

6.3.1 Information and public relations work 39 

6.3.2 Environmental education 42 

6.3.3 Visitor control 42 

6.3.3.1 Footpaths and cycle paths 43 

6.3.3.2 Touring the waters 43 

6.3.3.3 Riding and carriage rides 43 

6.3.3.4 Visitor facilities 44 

6.4 Traffic 45 

6.4.1 Motor vehicle traffic 45 

6.4.2 Air traffic 47 

7 Appendix 49 

Enclosure 1: National Park Decree 50 

Enclosure 2: Hunting Decree 54 

Enclosure 3: Guideline for the planning of forest treatment measures by the forest 

agency in the Müritz National Park 57 

Enclosure 4: Occurrence of select flora and fauna 60 

Enclosure 5: General endangerment of types of habitat in the Müritz National Park 

and their dependence on culture / use: 62 

Enclosure 6: The Müritz National Parks Department 66 

Enclosure 7: Tasks of the National Park Service 67 

Text maps 

1. Location of the national park 

2. Development objectives for the areas of the Müritz National Park 

3. Soil substrates 

4. Visitor control 

2

7.3.5 

The Maintenance and Development 

Plan for the Biosphere Reserve 






State office for 

Large conservation areas 

The Maintenance and 

Development plan 

(draft) 

for the Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin 

1



Table of contents 

0. Introduction 

1. Characterization of the plan area 

2. Legal principles, tasks and targets of the maintenance and development plan 

3. Method and mode of operation 

3.1 General procedures of maintenance and development planning 

3.2 Water bodies 

3.3 Biotope types and flora 

3.4 Woods and forests 

3.5 Fauna 

3.6 Agriculture 

3.7 Planning 

3.8 Data processing 

4. Overview of the environment and uses 

4.1 Climate, geology and soil 

4.2 Water balance 

4.3 Biotope types, vegetation and flora 

4.4 Fauna 


4.5 Forestry and hunting 

4.1 Fishery and angling 

4.8 Recreational use 

4.9 Conservation areas 

4.10 Ecological research and environmental monitoring 

5. General approach, guidelines and strategies for the biosphere reserve 

5.1 General approach 

5.2 guidelines and strategies 

6. Outline of the individual landscapes 

6.1 Landscape Forst Buchheide LR N1 

6.2 Landscape agricultural land Britz LR N7 

6.3 Landscape Britz Forest LR N8 

6.4 Landscape Finowtal LR N 10 

6.5 Landscape Barnimhangkante LR N11 

6.6 Landscape Klandorf LR N12 

6.7 Landscape agricultural land Gerswalde-Stegelitz LR U2 

6.8 Landscape agricultural land Schmiedeberg LR U4 

6.9 Landscape Poratz moraine landscape and Görlsdorfer Forest LR U6 

6.10 Landscape agricultural land Altkünkendorf LR U 10 

6.11 Landscape agricultural land Groß Ziethen LR U 12 

6.12 Landscape Welse-Sernitz-Niederung LR U 15 

6.13 Landscape Central Schorfheide LR N5 

6.14 Landscape Werbellinsee area LR N6 

6.15 Landscape Mönchsheide LR N9 

6.16 Landscape meadow flood plane Niederoderbruch LR O1 

6.17 Landscape Neuenhagener Island LR O2 

2



6.18 Landscape Moor meadow Niederoderbruch LR O3 

6.19 Landscape Grimnitzsee LR U11 

6.20 Landscape Parsteinbecken LR U13 

6.21 Landscape Chorin end moraine arc LR U14 

6.22 Landscape agricultural land Liepe LR U16 

7. Special measures planning 

7.1. Hydrological development concept for the watershed of the 

Welse head water 

7.2 Evaluation and measures map “state of the water bodies and hydrology 

hydrology” M 1:25000 

Appendix 

Glossary 

Literature 

List of maps 

3



0. Introduction 

In accordance with the specifications of the Brandenburg Nature Conservation Act 

(BbgNatSchG), the State Office for Large Conservation Areas is to draft a maintenance and 

development plan within three years of the designation of the conservation area ordinance of 

a large conservation area. 

The goal of the maintenance and development plan in the large conservation area is to 

present an action plan proposing an approach to realizing the conservation aims as outlined 

in the conservation ordinance. The maintenance and development plans are primarily 

addressed to the various land-uses and those responsible for it, e.g. the forestry, agricultural 

and fishery and hydrological industries. In their capacity as regionally significant planning 

authorities, the federal state of Brandenburg, the counties and districts are also important 

target groups in the realization of this action plan. 

The draft maintenance and development plan for the Biosphere Reservation Schorfheide- 

Chorin has been available since 1997. Due to the relatively detailed nature of the population 

analysis across an area of almost 130,000 ha, this plan consists of approx. 1,800 pages, 

including the additional volumes of commentary. 

The core of the maintenance and development plan is a comprehensive set of maps. The 

most important cartographic working-base is the blanket-coverage biotope type mapping in 

the scale 1:10 000 developed for this plan. An abundance of population and evaluation 

maps covering various thematic areas in varying scales is also presented. 

A prioritization process resulted in the generation of twelve concrete plans presented in the 

maps of the "maintenance and development goals" for 12 selected landscape areas in the 

scale 1:25000. In subsequent years, this was gradually extended to many of the remaining 

landscape areas. 

For the maintenance and development plan to complete its task, it must publish its aims and 

contents to a wider public. To this end, a summary was produced in 1997. 

After 1997, the maintenance and development plan was processed further to include 

subareas. A comprehensive update was commissioned in 2009 within the scope of the 

habitats directive planning procedure. The maintenance and development plan will be 

available in 2012. 

4

7.3.6 

National Park Plan for the Hainich 

National Park 







Progress to date 

Draft of 29 September 2009, approved by the Thuringian Ministry for Agriculture, Nature 

Protection and the Environment, October – November 2009 

Involvement of the public, discussion in committee, consultation with parties with a public 

interest 

December 2009 incorporation of comments 

January 2010 final agreement with the Ministry 

Approval with letter dated…… 

Contents (structure) 

A Introduction and basic principles 

A 1 Introduction 

A 2 History of the Hainich National Park 

A 3 Historic and current land use 

A 4 Ecological significance 

B Foundations for planning 

B 1 International recommendations (IUCN) and recommendations of the UNESCO 

Commission 

B 2 National park overall concept issued by EUROPARC Deutschland 

B 3 Requirements of the Flora and Fauna Habitat Directive (92/43/EC) and the Bird 

Protection Directive (79/409/EEC) 

B 4 Requirements under Federal and State law 

B 5 Basic planning requirements 

C National park objectives 

C 1 Hainich National Park - overall concept 

C 2 Ensuring natural development 

C 3 Transformation of the forest 

C 4 Renaturisation measures 

C 5 Measures for animal and plant species 

C 6 Leisure activities and visitor control 

C 7 Information and publicity work, environmental education 

C 8 Monitoring and research 

C 9 Agricultural use 

D Integration of the Hainich National Park into the region 

1



E Role of the Hainich National Park in the supraregional system of protected 

areas 

Statements on the planned World Heritage Site 

The protection of the planned World Heritage Site is an important task of the national park 

and has been integrated into the overall concept. The National Park Plan contains maps 

showing the planned World Heritage Site. All measures allow for the maximum protection of 

the planned World Heritage Site. 

2

7.3.7 



(CD included)

NATIONAL PARK PLAN 

FOR THE KELLERWALD-EDERSEE NATIONAL PARK 

Concept 

(Valid: Juni 2008)

NATIONAL PARK PLAN 2008 


for Kellerwald-Edersee National Park 

Draft (June 2008) 

Production 

National Park Authority Kellerwald-Edersee 

Laustrasse 8 


Approval 

Hesse Ministry of Environment, Rural Areas and Consumer Protection 

Mainz Straße 80 

65189 Wiesbaden 

Editing 

National Park Authority Kellerwald-Edersee 

Leadership: Achim Frede 

Design 

cognitio 

Communication and planning 

Westendstrasse 23 

34305 Niedenstein 


Acknowledgements 

We would like to thank the members of the RAN project group, the National Park 

advisory board, the scientific advisory board as well as all honorary and official partners 

and assistants who have contributed directly and indirectly to the success of the plan.

Preface 

NATIONAL PARK PLAN 2008 

Nature needs a plan! 

What is a National Park? Which animals live here? Why are the beech trees so 

valuable? And, how does the Kellerwald looks like in ten years? The development 

plan for Kellerwald-Edersee National Park can answer these and many other 

questions. 

With all the enthusiasm for the beauty of our landscape, the uniqueness of many 

animal and plant species or the fascinating insights which one can learn from a 

ranger guide or a visit to the National Park Centre. Without a long-term designed 

and marketable plan we cannot successfully develop such a complex project such 

as a National Park these days. And thus we come along to this piece of work... 

In less than three years preparation time a detailed monograph of the area and a 

comprehensive, professionally underpinned plan has emerged. This was only 

possible because even before the declaration of the National Park a multitude of 

voluntary assistants were heavily involved in the area. A highly motivated team 

collected all the existing results, sorted them, obtained more in addition and 

developed a vision of a Kellerwald-Edersee National Park which should count 

nationwide and internationally as one of the most significant protected areas. 

The present plan defines, based on an analysis of the years 2006 and 2007, the 

development objectives and strategies of the Kellerwald-Edersee National Park as 

well as their implementation. The National Park Authority is responsible for this; 

however, without close involvement with regional stakeholders and the 

administrative and politically responsible bodies, development of this National Park 

would remain an incomplete work of art. 

The editorial team has succeeded in working together on what are, to some extent, 

difficult professional and speciality subjects and to present it in a clear and 

understandable way for everyone. In this unique format, the work can be used for 

the reasons that it was written for: as operational guidelines for National Park 

employees, as a clear, transparent basis for the regional development for citizens of 

the National Park region, as well as a basis for decisions for all socially and 

politically relevant institutions. But it is also a unique data source for scientists and 

planners. And thus it becomes clear whilst reading this work that although this 

fascination wilderness certainly originates without our intervention, without a 

functioning National Park management using a good plan it would have no chance 

of survival and would remain a secret. 

The plan is here. Now it is up to us, you and many other decision makers to 

preserve the wild nature in Kellerwald-Edersee National Park for our own enjoyment 

and for that of future generations. 

Peter Gaffert – National Park Director 

Bad Wildungen, June 2008

B NATIONAL PARK PLAN 2008 – STATUS ANALYSIS 

Table of Contents 

1. Volume ‘Status Analysis’ B 

Preface 

A. Introduction 

1. Introduction to the Plan. How to use the 

Plan 

2. Introduction to the National Park Area 

3. Historical Development of the National 

Park 

B. General Data about the National Park and 

its Area 

1. Boundaries and Location 

2. General Structural Data 

3. History of Settlement and Land Use 

C. Legal and Planning Foundation 

1. State Development Planning 

and Regional Planning 

2. Laws for Nature Conservancy 

3. The National Park Edict 

4. Landscape Planning 

5. International Edicts/Agreements 

D. Inventory, Vulation and Development 

Trends 

1. Physiographic Units 

2. Natural Scenery 

3. Abiotic Environment 

3.1 Geology 

3.2 Soils 

3.3 Climate 

3.4 Water Balance and Waters 

4. Biotic Environment 

4.1 Ecosystems and Habitats 

a) Near- and Semi-Natural Forests 

b) Forests strongly influenced by Man 

c) Shrubs 

d) Rock and Boulder Piles 

e) Springs and Streams 

f) Fresh Meadows and Pastures 

g) Wet Grassland and Marsh 

h) Acidic Oligotrophic Grassland and 

Heathland 

4.2 Flora and Vegetation 

a) Vegetation 

b) Ferns and flowering Plants 

c) Fungi 

d) Lichens 

4.3 Fauna 

a) Bats 

b) Other Mammals 

c) Birds 

d) Amphibians and Reptiles 

e) Spring and flowing Water-Biota 

f) Beetles 

g) Butterflies and Moths 

h) Grasshoppers and Crickets 

i) Other Insect Groups 

4.4 Habitats Directive – Habitat Types and 

Appendix species 

5. Categories of protection 

6. Infrastructure and Utilization 

6.1 Roads, Paths, Traffic 

6.2 Buildings/Settlements 


6.4 Silviculture 

a) Previous Silvicultural Utilization 

b) Current Forest Management Planning 

(Forest Inventory) 

6.5 Hunting and Fishing 

6.6 Energy Generation and Electricity Alignments 

6.7 Generation of Drinking Water 

6.8 Other technical Facilities and Utilizations 

6.9 Recreation and Tourism 

7. Public Relations 

8. Education 

8.1 Educational Work 

8.2 Information Facilities 

8.3 Edersee Wildlife Park 

9. Previous/Current Research 

E. Appendix 

Edict of the Kellerwald-Edersee National Park

L NATIONAL PARK PLAN 2008 – APPROACH AND INTENTIONS 

Table of Contents 

2. Volume “Approach and Intentions” L 

A. Introduction 

1. Introduction and Handling 

2. Summarised Short Description of the National Park 

B. Planning Background 

1. Legal Foundation, (Inter-)national 

Recommendations 

2. National Parks Approach - EUROPARC 

Germany 

3. National Park Approach - Kellerwald-Edersee 

National Park 

C. National Park Key Intentions 

1. Zoning of the National Park 

2. Process Conservation and Development of 

Authentic Habitats 

3. Habitat and Water Course Renaturalisation, Forest 

Restructuring 

4. Objectives for Culural Landscape Elements 

5. Game Management 

6. Regulation of non-native Plant and Animal 

Species 

7. Protection of Species 

8. Recreation and Visitor Guidance 

9. Path Plan 

10. Public Relations 

11. Education in the National Park 

11. 1. Education 

11. 2. Methods 

11. 3. Information facilities 

12. Monitoring and Research 

13. Requirements on Utilization 

13. 1. Commercial Resources use, Agriculture and 

Silviculture 

13. 2. Hydroelectric Energy, Mains Networks 

13. 3. Facilities of Supply Technique, Telephone 

Networks and other Usages of Externs 

13. 4. Uses permitted by the Protected Area 

Administration and authorised Personnel 

13. 5. Handling of previous Forestry and Hunting 

Facilities 

D. National Park integration into 

surrounding area 

1. National Park Region and Regional 

Development 

2. Partnerships, Tourism and Marketing 

3. The Kellerwald Region Large-Scale Nature 

Conservation Project 

4. Our Role in the International System of 


E. National Park Plan Bibliography

PK NATIONAL PARK PLAN 2008 – PROJECTS AND MAPS 

Table of contents 

3. Volume “Projects” and “Maps” PK 

P. Projects 

1. Introduction / Explanation 

2. Project overview 

a) Principles and Strategy 

b) Management and Development 

c) Nature Conservation Strategy, Research and Monitoring, Database, Concerns of Nature 

Conservation Authority (UNB) 

d) Education and Public Relations 

3. Documentation of Results and Evaluation 

K. Maps 

Maps for Volume ‘Status Analysis’ B 

K 1 - Boundaries and land tenure 

K 2 - Forest inventory (forestry map) 

K 3 - Biotopes and Habitats Directive 

K 3a - Habiat types (habitat mapping) 

K 3b - Habitats and species of Habitats Directive 

K 4 - Springs and streams 

K 5 - Map of visitor infrastructure and objects of interests 

K 6 - Structural and technical facilities 

Maps for Volume ‘Approach and Intentions’ L 

K 7 - Zoning plan for the National Park 

K 8 - Framework planning for open areas and grassland 

K 9 - Path plan and topic maps 

K 9a - Overall Plan of path system 

K 9b - Cycle and long distance routes 

K 9c - Circular hiking trails 

K 10 - Water renaturalisation (suggested measures) 

K 11 - Management planning (representative example)

13/15, ave. Franklin D. Roosevelt – 75008 Paris 

Mr 

Francesco BANDARIN 

Director 

World Heritage Center 

UNESCO 

Paris 

Subject: World Heritage List, here: nomination World Natural Heritage 

“Ancient Beech Forests of Germany” (N 1133 bis, Germany) 

extension to “Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians” (N 1133) 

File no.: 611.90 Pr 5.12/17 

Paris, 25 th February 2011 

Dear Mr Director, 

ADDRESS 

13/15, avenue Franklin D. Roosevelt 

75008 Paris 

TEL + 01.53.83.46.63 

FAX + 01.53.83.46.67 

Email: wolfgang.lahr@diplo.de 

Extension no.: -664 

In January 2010 Germany submitted the above nomination for a UNESCO World Natural 

Heritage Property to the World Heritage Centre with support from the Slovak Republic and 

Ukraine. Since then, Germany has conducted a range of interesting activities which are related 

to the nomination and which I would like to outline in this letter. 

The inscription of the “Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians” in the UNESCO World 

Heritage List and the German extension nomination are decisive steps towards the goal of 

protecting and preserving the European beech forest ecosystem, which is unique in the world. 

In order to achieve this long-term goal and canvass ample support, Germany organised an 

international meeting “Beech Forests – Joint Natural Heritage of Europe” in October 2010. 

The meeting was held at the International Academy for Nature Conservation, which is part of 

the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), and brought together experts from 14 

European countries. In the course of the workshop, participants discussed the current situation 

of valuable ancient beech forests in the Balkans (Albania, Bulgaria, Greece), Belgium, 

Italy, Romania, Southern Scandinavia, the Czech Republic and Germany, the protection 

status of these forests and potential threats. The results of the meeting will be published as 

BfN reports (BfN-Skripten) in March 2011. I would be happy to send you a copy after publication. 

Germany has long been committed to the protection and preservation of European beech forests. 

One project that stands out in this context is the “Map of natural vegetation in Europe”, 

in which beech forests feature prominently in line with their particular significance. The map 

was developed in a joint project by European botanists, coordinated by the Federal Agency

2 

for Nature Conservation, which started in Cold War times and was pursued over two decades 

across the Iron Curtain. 

Moreover, Germany has put forward the idea of launching a broad-based “European Beech 

Forest Initiative”. This has been discussed at national and international level, and several 

workshops and research projects have been carried out. 

In the medium to long term, Germany considers the following steps to be vital for the protection 

and preservation of the ecosystem of the European beech forests: 

- identification and assessment of the specific potential of the individual remaining 

natural beech forests and their protection status 

- establishment of a multi-level European network (expert level, protected area level, 

political decision-making level) 

- cooperation between European areas with comparable potential. 

As a major contribution to implementing the steps described above, Germany is currently 

preparing another international meeting “Beech Forests of Europe – Joint Natural Heritage 

II”, which is planned to be held at the International Academy for Nature Conservation Isle of 

Vilm in July 2011 as a follow up to the October 2010 meeting. We will ask IUCN to cooperate 

with us in organising this event. 

I would also like to inform you that IUCN recently decided to grant the Kellerwald-Edersee 

National Park, which includes the nominated component part “Kellerwald”, the status of a 

“Category II Protected Area” (National Park) according to the IUCN guidelines. The certificate 

will be awarded in March of this year. 

The UNESCO World Heritage status, which is recognised throughout the world, can be an 

effective driving force for the protection and preservation of the unique ecosystem of the 

European beech forests. Ukraine and the Slovak Republic have taken on a pioneering role 

with the inscription of the Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians in the World Heritage 

List. The German extension nomination is another major step towards protecting this unique 

ecosystem for the long term. In 2011, the UN International Year of Forests, this could be an 

important signal for international forest conservation in general. 

Please accept, Mr.Director, the assurances of my highest consideration 

b.o. 

Wolfgang Lahr 

(Second Secretary) 

cc: IUCN Headquarters Gland

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - UNESCO World Heritage

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?