1. Natural and economic impacts of FFH-measures in forest enterprises
- A case study from Germany -
Forests and Natura 2000: Opportunities and Challenges
Session 2
13. December 2012, Brussels
Lydia Rosenkranz
Thünen-Institute for Forest Economics, Hamburg, Germany 1

2. Natura 2000 in Germany Natura 2000: Protected area in German forests
Natura 2000, including Birds Directive: 2.6 Mio. ha forest area
Habitats Directive (FFH): 1.8 Mio. ha forest area (17 %)
0.55 Mio. ha of protected beech forests which were not subject to a special protection status before
Share of ownership of FFH-area in Germany
Länder 46%
Private 28%
Communal 21%
Federal State 5%
Focus of study
9110 woodrush beech forest (luzulo-fagetum)
9130 woodruff beech forest (asperulo-fagetum) 2

3. Implementation of Habitats Directive
Ongoing process
Responsibility largely with the Länder
FFH-areas have been designated
Management plans are just being written
Current situation
Management plans: Varying state of completion within the Länder
Varying degree of participation: e.g. management plans in some parts without participation and unknown to forest owners
Measurement planning: partly without prior assessment of impacts and determination of financial compensation.
Assessment of conservation status: partly different threshold values amongst the Länder 3

4. Assessment of conservation status E.g. Threshold values of dead wood
9110 woodrush and 9130 woodruff beech forest
Lying and standing deadwood
Conservation status A 
Conservation status B
Länder
BY, NI, NW, RP, SH, SL, SN, TH ST BW HE BB
RP, SH, TH
NI, NW, SL, SN
Required amount (piece/ha or m³/ha)
>3 pcs.
>5 pcs.
>10 m³
>15 m³
>40 m³
>1 pcs.
1-3 pcs.
1-4 pcs.
3-10 m³
5-14 m³
21-40 m³
BB = Brandenburg
RP = Rhineland-Palatinate
BW = Baden-Württemberg
SH = Schleswig-Holstein
BY = Bavaria
SL = Saarland
HE = Hesse
SN = Saxony
NI = Lower Saxony
ST = Saxony-Anhalt
NW = North Rhine-Westphalia
TH = Thuringia 4

5. FFH-measures and perceived restrictions Online survey of forest owners (211 participants)
cons. = conservation
comp. = composition
comm. = community
Mittelwald = coppice with standard forest 5

6. FFH-induced changes in case study forest enterprises: Beech forest habitat-type area
Average: -29 €/ha/a ≙ about 20 % of ø- silvicultural contribution margin
FE = forest enterprise 6

7. „Enterprise Objective“
FFH-induced changes in case study forest enterprises: Beech forest habitat-type area
FFH-Reductions
compared to
„Status Quo“
„Enterprise Objective“
Harvested timber
Contribution margin (+ ongoing admin. costs)
Arithmetic average
-0.4 m³/ha/a
(≙ about 6 %)
-29 €/ha/a
(≙ about 20 %)
-0.7 m³/ha/a
(≙ about 11 %)
-40 €/ha/a
(≙ about 27 %)
Total range
+1.9 to -2.7 m³/ha/a
+46 to -197 €/ha/a
+3.7 to -5.3 m³/ha/a
+97 to €/ha/a 7

8. Results: capitalised earning power
Average „Status Quo“: €/ha
Average „Enterprise Objective“: €/ha
FE12 = No restrictions caused by FFH-implementation! 8

9. Evaluation of FFH-implementation to date
Online survey of forest owners (211 participants)
1 = very poor; 5 = very good

10. Conclusions
The greatest natural and economic impairments for forest enterprises arise from the conservation of old growth and habitat trees as well as restrictions in the choice of future tree species.
Implementation of FFH-measures leads to an immediate reduction of earnings that needs to be compensated. Also, in some enterprises, high fluctuations in loss of contribution margins occur during calculated time period.
Loss of contribution margin only mirrors loss of income and additional expenses.
Noticeable loss of market value in case study forest enterprises (calculation of capitalised earning power). 10

11. Conclusions
Costs can consume income in some years/enterprises completely, especially in communal forest enterprises with a high level of expenditure for recreation and environmental education (which are mostly financed from timber revenues).
The calculations are based on constant revenues from wood sales and current raw wood assortment demand: If future demand for raw wood and wood prices increases (e.g. energy prices), so will the costs of FFH-measures.
Freedom of action is restricted by FFH-measures: Great uncertainties in regard to local conditions (e.g. climate change) and societal demands in the future. Forest owners bear the risks of societal decisions. 11

12. Thank you very much for your attention !

13. Evaluation concept Forest management according to FFH-measures:
“FFH-Regime”
Determination
of FFH-measures
Possible difference
Forest management according to “Status Quo”
(without FFH-measures)
Forest management according to forest owners objectives before designation of FFH-area
Possible difference
Forest management according to forest owners objectives:
“Enterprise Objective”
(without FFH-measures)
Time
Survey date

14. Impacts of conservation measures
Impacts on „measure areas“
Enterprises concerned
from to
Designation of habitat trees
Number of habitat trees per hectare 3 10
Reduction of forest management area per tree & ha
20/21
1 %
2 %
Reduction of overall forest management area
0.2 %
9.6 %
Increase of harvesting costs for safety measures
18/21
1 €/m³
6 €/m³
Restricted choice of tree species
No planting/increase of Douglas fir, spruce (& oak)
15/21
Thinning/removing of non-native tree species
3/21
50 €/ha
1000 €/ha
Increase of production time (rotation cycle) /
Conservation of old-growth forest
4/21
20 years
40 years
Conservation of dead wood
2/21
0.5 m³/ha/a
1 m³/ha/a
Increase of ongoing administrative costs
19/21
0.5 €/ha/a
15 €/ha/a (120 €/ha/a) 14