Get notifications on new reports and products. Frequency: 3-4 emails / month.
Sign up to receive our reports (print and/or electronic) and quarterly e-newsletter.
Follow us
Twitter iconTwitter
Facebook iconFacebook
YouTube iconYouTube channel
RSS logo RSS Feeds

Write to us Write to us

For the public:

For media and journalists:

Contact EEA staff
Contact the web team

Call us Call us


Phone: (+45) 33 36 71 00
Fax: (+45) 33 36 71 99


Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Sound and independent information
on the environment

– or –
Please login or register to participate.
Last discussed by EEA
Aug 27, 2014 02:14 PM
Last discussed by EEA
Aug 25, 2014 09:41 AM

collopa Thank you for your effort to define a High Nature Value of European forests as part of the study on forest naturalness, but as almost all forests in Europe are no longer primary or even secondary forests - how can we define indicators valid across Europe while only ~ 4% of the European forests can be considered as natural?
The purpose of the HNV concept seems to be designed "to better safeguard natural and semi-natural areas supporting great diversity of species and habitats". Yet most European forests are replanted ones by mankind, so what could we measure in terms of indication of naturalness (1st what do we understand by "naturalness")?
As I understand the report the focus seems to be more on forestry activities in Europe, which can also have negative impacts on biodiversity as unsustainable forest operations can lead to forest degradation and loss of biodiversity. The HNV indicator is defined by IEEP as an HNV for farmland process, to also target: "all natural forests and those semi-natural forests in Europe, where the management (historical or present) supports a high diversity of native species and habitats."
That means 4% (at best) as natural forests, thus an inventory of the biodiversity of those forests should be done to base the HNV criteria upon. The report assimilates also semi-natural forests (still to be clearly defined) as included. The report also states:" If only one or a limited number of indicators are used, erroneous conclusions may be drawn". Yet the assessment of HNV is based on 5 indicators: "naturalness (still to be defined); the degree of human influence on the ecosystem; accessibility (expressed by the steepness of terrain and thus how accessible the forest is for management); growing stock (the volume of living trees); connectivity (forest availability and distance between patches of forests i.e. the extent to which the landscape facilitates or impedes the movement of species)."

The criteria include: "rare or threatened species, endemic species"; what is the definition in this context of endemic species for forest semi-natural? How can we be sure that the species have not been imported with planted trees 4/5 centuries ago and as then have disappeared in the rest of Europe?
Thank you in advance for clarifying these points for me.

Last created by collopa
Aug 22, 2014 12:18 PM

abhinavkumarvats Sir as it has been a matter of debate since long i thought consulting the ultimate is the best choice.Sir i wanna know if humans are the only and root cause of global warming.Because sir as you can see most of the heat is retained my the gas methane and methane gas emissions are very higher in nature than humans.All the swamp volcano etc. keep on emitting methane along with other gases causing global warming and if it is considered that humans deforest due to which the gases are not absorb then i ask how can the trees absorb methane sulfur dioxide and methane.If it is taken that although co2 causes comparatively less global warming than other gases but due to its large amount it is affecting the earth then i would love to ask that about a million years ago when the earth was in ice age then there were 10 times more co2 but still the ice age persisted only to diminish much later and if it is said that co2 was in dry ash form in ice age then how come earth enter ice age at first didn't the 10 times more co2 prevented it from entering the ice age. And sir what we are telling global warming can't it actually be one of the heating cycles of the earth .We all know after the formation of earth 45 million years it has gone through many heating and cooling cycles.Another topic is that the temperatures observed now is the highest recorded in all the heating cycles of earth .At this i question the accuracy of thermometers millions of years age and they wee even not present at that time.Sir i seek answers for my questions i guess you can surely help me out very well as sir i regard you as the best .Please sir reply at the earliest.

Last discussed by EEA
Aug 15, 2014 10:27 AM