Across the years this Community has joked (and even despaired) regarding the ever increasing number of locations being inscribed within the WHS of "Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe". The apparent absurdity was captured recently in the forum question "I have a beech tree in my garden .......can I inscribe it?"

I am no botanist and gained my "tick" for this WHS by visiting just 1 location way back in 2013 (Kellerwald-Edersee in Germany) without, I admit, really understanding the entire site. So, with the recent discussions about yet another upcoming extension for this year's WHC (locations in France, Serbia and Montengro) I have tried to inform myself more about it and share below my discoveries across several posts for the "Record" within a topic "dedicated" to this monster of a WHS!! (All "Bolds" within quotes are mine for emphasis)

The sorts of questions I have tried to address are
a. What is the history of the site and its ever growing number of locations
b. What is the justification for so many locations of what on the face of it seem simply to be very similar "Beech Forests" and can these multiple sites be categorized in some way to help understand the logic for them all and what each "brings to the party"
c. Has there been an overall "controlling organization" or individual with a vision or have countries just jumped on the available bandwagon to increase their WHS count
d. Where and when is the end point

SUMMARY of INSCRIPTION & EXTENSION HISTORY
There are currently 93 different locations inscribed across 18 European countries via 4 separate inscription events with a nominated extension scheduled in 2026 which could add c7 and 2 extra countries
2007 10 in Slovak Rep and Ukraine
2011 5 all in Germany
2017 63 across Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Italy, Romania, Slovenia, Spain and Ukraine.
2021 15 across Bosnia/Herz, Czechia, France, Italy, N Macedonia, Poland, Slovakia and Switzerland (nominations for Montenegro and Serbia got withdrawn)
2026 c7 in Serbia, Montenegro and France

2007 INSCRIPTION
The original 2007 nomination (Just titled "Primeval Beech forests of the Carpathians") claimed Crit vii, ix and x but only ix was accepted by IUCN which proposed an OUV statement of "The Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians are indispensable to understanding the history and evolution of the genus Fagus, which, given its wide distribution in the Northern Hemisphere and its ecological importance, is globally significant. These 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".

The 2007 AB evaluation includes this significant paragraph
"the consensus of a number of experts is that the best remnants of beech forests are situated in the Trans-Carpathian Mountains. The nominated sites are supposedly the best example of this forest type – and its associated ecological processes – that still remains and are a significant part of the very last remnants of Europe's original nature. Fragments of previously disturbed mixed beech forests are found elsewhere but they are not of the same quality neither enjoying the same level of protection of the beech forests included in the nominated property. However, Germany has some significant old-growth beech forests that may extend the coverage of Europe's original beech forests in the World Heritage List.......In conclusion, the nominated serial property contains key remnants of original forests representing almost all types of European beech forests and their associated ecological processes, including mono-dominant beech stands that have the largest and tallest European beech specimens in the world. .......Whilst the nominated sites are not the only remaining undisturbed beech forests in Europe, the extent of the nominated series and the different forest types, stages and ecological conditions it contains, set them apart. These are the best of the last."

Although it made a number of recommendations for further actions and congratulated SLK/UKR on their transnational cooperation IUCN made NO recommendation whatsoever for further additions to be made to the inscribed site – despite the comment above about Germany's beech forests. That might have been the end of the story!

To 2011 Extension....

2011 EXTENSION
The 2011 extension was for 5 German Beech forests to be added under the name of "Ancient Beech Forests of Germany". IUCN was NOT happy that these German "Ancient Beech forests" could simply be added to what had previously been considered a complete inscription of what had been evaluated as the "best of the last" of the Carpathian "Primeval Beech Forests" .
"There is nonetheless a difference in the nomination between the notion of primeval (PBF of the Carpathians) versus ancient (ABF of Germany) which undermines the conceptual linkages between these properties. The nomination proposes to extend the OUV of the Carpathians property, not with primeval forests, but with forests that were never fully exploited, or have not been exploited or managed in recent decades, and still contain small, remnant primeval patches of forest within them. The conceptual difference is amplified by the lack of proposed Statement of OUV for the proposed single, serial property"

IUCN also recognised a potential further issue - "there exist a range of other primeval and ancient forests that appear to have equivalent claims to be considered as serial extensions to the existing properties. The nomination does not present the extension as a coherent part of the series, nor does it clarify the potential scope of an eventual serial property."

Nevertheless IUCN did indicate that it could see the potential for a wider approach to European Beech forests "The nominated components of the property represent different altitude zones, site conditions, and dominant beech forest types that are not represented by the ten PBF components and hence provide the basis for a serial approach". This is the first time that mention is made of a series of different "zones" into which Beech forests developed after the last Ice Age - The "PBF of the Carpathians component parts are representative of the montane-subalpine altitudinal zones" whilst "The five nominated components of the ABF are representative of the colline-submontane (Kellerwald, Hainich) and planar (Serrahn, Grumsin, Jasmund) altitudinal zones". No attempt was made however to identify or define how many "zones" there might be in total.

IUCN recommended a deferral "to allow the State Party to continue working with the States Parties of Ukraine and Slovakia and other interested States Parties, with the support of IUCN and the World Heritage Centre as required in order to define the scope of a finite and complete serial transnational nomination based on an extension of the existing property;"

However the WHC ignored the IUCN, inscribed the extension and left history to "pick up the pieces"!!! The title was amended to incorporate the German "ancient" forests alongside the Carpathian "Primeval" ones and the OUV underwent a significant extension (how or when this was determined .i.e at the WHC or later isn't clear) – The inscribed forests are now described as having OUV because they are "indispensable to understanding the history and evolution of the genus Fagus, which, given its wide distribution in the Northern Hemisphere and its ecological importance, is globally significant. These 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 and represent all altitudinal zones from seashore up to the forest line in the mountains. 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. They represent key aspects of processes essential for the long term conservation of natural beech forests and illustrate how one single tree species came to absolute dominance across a variety of environmental parameters."

So - the WHS is now no longer about the Carpathian Primeval Forests but rather the entire colonization of post ice age Europe by the European Beech (Fagus Sylvatica) in all its ecological niches - But without any real thought or understanding as to where that might lead

2017 EXTENSION
This proposal for 63 extra locations across 9 new countries would seem to have been the inevitable (?) result of the gates being opened in 2011. The proposed name was now changed to "Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe" (with the "Ancient" epithet dropped - how can the previous "Ancients" suddenly have become "Primeval?!) but the OUV remained unchanged The IUCN comments about it indicate an organization not entirely happy about what it is being asked to do by others against its own better judgement!
"The precedent of previous evaluations and Committee decisions has established that a serial approach is necessary to relate a pan-European story of Outstanding Universal Value for the post-glacial spread and development of European Beech. The Committee's decision which encourages the States Parties to define what constitutes "a finite serial transnational nomination" implies that this approach is not only justified but desirable to tell a complete story. The altered landscape of Europe has also created 'islands' of intact primeval and ancient beech forest in a 'sea' of settlement which means a series of separate components and clusters is necessary to demonstrate Outstanding Universal Value. This nomination again raises the question of what would constitute a finite serial site for European Beech forest as has been called for by the World Heritage Committee. IUCN notes that, despite the current, multicomponent nomination for extension, there remains the potential and perhaps the necessity for additional sites to be added progressively. The site selection process canvassed a wider array of States Parties, some of whom were reportedly (by the nominating States Parties) not interested or unable to participate at the time, and the State Party of Poland withdrew its components prior to evaluation. The States Parties have acknowledged the scope for further additions to this site whilst noting that potential is limited, as all but two of the European BFRs would be represented if the current extension were to be approved."

And there we have for the first "official" time (It never appeared in 2007 or 11) the introduction of "BFRs" = "Beech Forest Regions". IUCN explains "The forests span the biogeographical provinces of the Atlantic, Central European Highlands, Pannonian and Balkan Highlands according to Udvardy's classification. A European regional-scale biogeographic system has been developed to identify different ecoregions which are characterized by specific climatic and floristic diversity. During the site screening process conducted by the States Parties, experts refined these bioregions to settle upon 12 European Beech Forest Regions (BFR). These BFRs were used as a framework to identify beech forest representatives of the spectrum of post glacial spread and development within different environmental gradients across the continent."

The 2017 AB evaluation includes a map of the 12 regions but no descriptions and doesn't explain where they came from. However I have discovered a report ("The potential for a finite serial transnational nomination of primeval and ancient beech forests of Europe to the World Heritage List") of a workshop run by the German "Federal Agency for Nature Conservation" in 2012 on the island of Vlim which clearly represents a major stage in the development of the concept. It was the second in a series of 4 (the first of which actually took place before the 2011 WHC) and was clearly aiming at addressing the issues raised at that WHS (Summary of Workshops 3 and 4 are attached as apps). IMO it is an important document in understanding the European Beech Forest WHS journey.

This downloadable document indicates (page 20 of the original source journal) that in 2014, as preparation for the 2017 extension proposal, a number of workshops were held in Vienna which produced a "Vienna Shortlist" of 64 sites and a "Vienna Longlist" of 126 addressimg the issue of how many sites might be nominated within the 12 BFRs. The choice was apparently made on such factors as - Stand age/structure, Minimum size thresholds, Long-term non-intervention (primeval/ancient status). Protection (IUCN Category I or II equivalent) and Ecological representativeness across Beech Forest Regions (BFRs). The "shortlist" of 64 became the inscribed 63 of 2017.

Despite the introduction of the BFR concept and the "Vienna Shortlist" to help determine which Beech forests should be added, IUCN was still not happy with either the selection or the direction .... but again it was overruled by the WHC and the WHS increased to 78 locations across 12 countries with 10 of the 12 newly identified BFRs now represented

To BFR definition.......

EUROPEAN BEECH FOREST REGIONS (BFR)
The 2017 inscription officially cemented the transition of the WHS from its original "Best of the Primeval forests anywhere in Europe" to a "complete telling of the story of the post ice-age Beech expansion across Europe" using a 12 region taxonomy within which site selections were made. Each of those 12 regions has its own special aspects and factors which needed to be covered, such as particularly high altitude forests, those on the boundaries of another region, on a particular type of soil etc etc. So the next tranche of sites could cover unreperesented regionsand/or represented ones which could still identify sites possessing under-represented aspects – the scene was set for yet more extensions!!!

The 2012 Vlim report was to some extent work in progress on BFRs and I can only find 11 described within it even though the 2017 AB evaluation refers to 12. Lacking a good list from the Web I got Grok AI to produce the following with, for each region an ecological summary, a list of countries and an indication of extent of current WHS coverage -

(Figures 1 & 2 of this downloadable document provide good maps of Europe showing the boundaries of the 12 regions and the locations of inscribed and nominated sites within them as of 2021)

1. Atlantic. Oceanic lowland forests; high rainfall, mild temperatures, dense pure beech with rich epiphytes and mosses (Belgium, France northern/coastal, Germany northwestern, potentially UK though not inscribed). Well represented (e.g., Belgium's Sonian Forest components).

2. Subatlantic-Hercynic. Transitional oceanic-continental; mid-altitudes, mixed beech-oak-hornbeam on varied soils (Germany central, Czechia, France eastern, Switzerland parts). Strongly represented (e.g., Germany's Hainich/Kellerwald, Czechia's Jizera Mountains, France/Switzerland additions).

3. Baltic. Cooler maritime-continental lowlands; sandy/acidic soils, pure beech with high deadwood and saproxylic species (Germany northeastern/Baltic coast). Represented (e.g., Germany's Jasmund, Serrahn, Grumsin components).

4. Pannonic. Warmer/drier continental basin; lowland to insular mountains, mixed deciduous on fertile loess soils (Serbia proposed, Hungary potential, parts of Austria, Slovakia, Romania). Currently a gap (no components; targeted by ongoing proposals, e.g., Serbia's Fruska Gora).

5. Carpathian. Continental mountain forests; high altitudes, mixed beech-fir-spruce, primeval dynamics and high deadwood (Ukraine, Slovakia, Romania, Poland). Heavily represented (largest group; core original sites from 2007, plus many in Ukraine/Slovakia/Romania/Poland).

6. Polonic-Podolic-Moldavian. Transitional continental plateaus; mid-altitudes, richer understories on nutrient-rich loess (Ukraine western, Poland southeastern, Moldova potential). Represented (e.g., Ukraine's Roztochchia/Satanivska Dacha, Poland's Bieszczady additions).

7. Alpic. Alpine high-elevation; cold/wet conditions, stunted beech at treelines, mixed with conifers (Austria, Switzerland, Italy Alps, Germany Alpine parts, France Alpine). Well represented (e.g., Austria's Kalkalpen/Durrenstein, Switzerland's Ticino reserves, Italy/France Alpine parts).

8. Illyric. Dinaric karst montane; Mediterranean-continental, mixed beech-conifer with endemic species and sinkholes (Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro proposed). Represented (e.g., Croatia's Paklenica/Hajducki kukovi, Slovenia's Krokar/Sneznik, Bosnia's Prasuma Janj).

9. Moesian-Balcanic. Continental-Mediterranean highlands; transitional to oriental beech, diverse understories on karst (Bulgaria, North Macedonia, Albania, Serbia parts). Represented (e.g., Bulgaria's Central Balkan reserves, Albania's Lumi i gashit/Rrajca, North Macedonia's Dlaboka Reka).

10. Central Mediterranean. Warmer/drier southern; varied altitudes, refugial genetics, mixed with evergreen oaks (Italy Apennines/southern, potentially France southern). Represented (e.g., Italy's Abruzzo/Calabria/Lazio components like Sasso Fratino, Cozzo Ferriero).

11. Pyrenaic-Iberian. Mild humid western-southern; mid-altitudes, isolated refugia on acidic/granitic soils (Spain Pyrenees/northern, France Pyrenees). Represented (e.g., Spain's Tejera Negra/Montejo/Lizardoia, France's Massane).

12. Euxinic. Black Sea / Pontic coastal-mid altitude; humid subtropical influences, mixed with Colchic elements (Bulgaria eastern/Black Sea, Romania eastern, potentially Ukraine southern, Georgia/Turkey beyond current focus). Currently a gap (no components; remains a priority for potential future extensions).

To 2021 Extension....

2021 EXTENSION
After amendments during the evaluation process, this extension added a further 15 locations across 6 countries – notably it did NOT add to the number of BFRs covered (still only 10 out of 12). The arguments used to justify the additions within already represented BFRs focused on strengthening the property's integrity, representativeness, and long-term viability and demonstrate the wide scope still remaining for finding yet more sites within an already well filled BFR!!! So –
a Filling intra-regional gaps and refining representation. Edge/transition sites (e.g., France's proposals at the southern end of Subatlantic-Hercynic or borders with other regions, sensitive to climate change). Additional high-altitude or mixed stands in Alpic (Switzerland, Italy) and Illyric/Moesian-Balcanic (Bosnia, North Macedonia) to better illustrate adaptations. Lowland or plateau examples in Polonic-Podolic-Moldavian (Poland's Bieszczady) and Subatlantic-Hercynic (Czechia's Jizera Mountains).
b. Enhancing ecological integrity and redundancy: Many prior components (especially from 2017) were small or vulnerable. Adding more sites provided a network effect—better genetic reservoir protection, resilience to threats (e.g., logging in buffers, climate stress), and sustained natural processes like regeneration and deadwood dynamics
c Improving bio-geographical and genetic completeness: The additions consolidated diversity within regions (e.g., transitional beech forms in Moesian-Balcanic via North Macedonia/Bosnia) and addressed minor gaps in coverage, such as more oceanic-influenced or refugial variants.
d, Supporting long-term conservation and management: More components strengthened the transnational network for monitoring, research, and adaptive strategies (e.g., climate resilience), aligning with the site's evolving "pan-European" vision without needing new BFRs.

This time IUCN went along with the nominations after slight adjustment....but commented "Based on this call by the Committee, this nomination raises for the third time the question of what would constitute a finite series for European Beech forests" and noted that the 15 proposed this time include(d) five new sites........ and moving ten sites from the "long list" referred to earlier to a revised Vienna shortlist of 2020

2026 EXTENSION
The proposal focuses on adding new component parts and some boundary adjustments/refinements to strengthen representation. It brings in the Pannonic region for the first time while adding Serbia and Montenegro as new States Parties. Again presumably all the sites will have been found from within the "Longlist" remaining after the 2021 extension!!!
Serbia (three main sites in national parks, proposed as new components):
Papratski Do (Fruska Gora National Park) — lowland/insular mountain beech in the Pannonian Basin.
Kozje Stene (Kopaonik National Park) — mid-altitude beech in central Serbia.
Zvezda and Raca (Tara National Park) — high-altitude primeval beech-fir mixes in western Serbia near the Dinaric area.

Montenegro (one primary site):
Virgin Forest Reserve in Biogradska Gora National Park — mixed primeval beech-fir-spruce stands with transitional features (influences from oriental beech).

France (three new or refined components):
Sites at the edge of or transitional between Beech Forest Regions (e.g., Aigoual - La Breze in the Cevennes for Subatlantic-Hercynic; Sainte-Baume in Provence; Saint-Pe-de-Bigorre in the Pyrenees), emphasizing climate-sensitive or marginal beech stands.

Italy (boundary adjustments/expansions):
Refinements to existing clusters (e.g., in Abruzzo, Lazio & Molise National Park components like expansions or adjustments to sites such as Cozzo Ferriero or Pollinello in the Central Mediterranean region).

This joint extension would bring the total components to c100 and the countries to 20 if approved. It builds on the 2021 extension by further consolidating diversity and addressing remaining gaps, particularly Pannonic via Serbia's lowland/insular examples. It does not address the "gap" of the Euxinic BFR and there are still over 100 sites on the remaining "Longlist" - but, unfortunately I am unable to access a copy. It seems unlikely However that this extension will be the last for this site!

EUROPEAN BEECH FOREST NETWORK – The Guiding Hand
From "humble" origins in Slovakia/Ukraine in 2007, the European Beech Forest WHS has grown in importance and stature and has been taken on by a number of European Eco Organisations operating under the umbrella of "The European Beech Forest Network" ( https://www.europeanbeechforests.org ) . This started around 2010 when Germany involved its "Federal Agency for Nature Conservation" and held the workshops at the "International Academy for Nature Conservation" on the Isle of Vilm. These produced outputs called the "Vilm Resolutions". This phrase from the 2015 Resolution seems particularly noteworthy IMO "The European Beech Forests represent a unique and unifying European natural heritage". The Beech forest is thus elevated to a metaphor for European unity (one adaptable species conquering the continent post-Ice Age, just as ideas of integration spread across borders)! Beech forests are more than just ecological features: they are a symbol of shared European identity and cohesion. No wonder the WHS's growth has been unstoppable!!

To .... Current 93 location summary by BFR

CURRENTLY INSCRIBED LOCATIONS by BFR
Finally, I have asked AI to categorise each of the current 93 sites by BFR and highlight any "special" attribute brought to the overall collection wihin a BFR. Because of overlaps and uncertainties some numbers are approx. I haven't checked the detail.

Carpathian BFR (30–35 components; core primeval high-mountain old-growth):
- Ukraine: Uholka-Shyrokyi Luh (largest primeval stand, exceptional deadwood volumes and full regeneration cycles); Chornohora (high-altitude rugged terrain adaptations); Kuziy-Trybushany (mixed fir-beech with rich fungi); Maramarosh (deep valleys, high biodiversity); Stuzhytsia-Uzhok (border area, transboundary connectivity); Svydovets (high-elevation limits); Gorgany (remote, undisturbed dynamics); Synevyr cluster (Darvaika, Kvasovets, Strymba, Vilshany – smaller additions for buffer redundancy and local variations); Irshavka/Velykyi Dil/Zacharovanyi Krai (protected reserves with karst influences).
- Slovakia: Havesova/Poloniny (ancient mixed stands); Rozok/Poloniny (small but intact primeval patch); Stuzica – Bukovske Vrchy (large primeval core); Udava/Poloniny (valley dynamics); Vihorlat (volcanic substrate adaptations).
- Romania: Domogled-Valea Cernei cluster (Iauna Craiovei, Ciucevele Cernei – vast karst canyons, mixed conifer-beech); Izvoarele Nerei (large primeval area); Cheile Nerei-Beusnita (gorges, high endemism); Cozia Massif/Lotrisor (high-altitude fir-beech); Codrul Secular Sinca/Slatioara (ancient secular stands); Grosii Tiblesului (Izvorul Surii/Preluci – remote mountain refugia); Strambu Baiut (mixed dynamics).
- Poland: Bieszczady clusters (Border Ridge/Gorna Solinka, Polonina Wetlinska/Smerek, Terebowiec, Wolosatka – transitional highland adaptations, wildlife corridors).
Overall: Largest concentration of true primeval beech-fir-spruce; extreme old-growth features, natural disturbances, eastern refugium genetics.

Subatlantic-Hercynic BFR (10 components; mid-altitude mixed):
- Germany: Hainich (large, nutrient-poor soils, high herb diversity); Kellerwald (Edersee area, ancient stands with oak mixes).
- Czechia: Jizera Mountains (mountainous transitions, acidophilous understory).
- France: Grand Ventron (Vosges edge, continental influences).
- Switzerland: Bettlachstock (Jura limestone adaptations).
Overall: Central European transitional forms; mixed communities on varied geology; moderate biodiversity.

Atlantic BFR (5–6 components; oceanic lowland):
- Belgium: Sonian Forest clusters (Joseph Zwaenepoel, Grippensdelle A/B, Ticton A/B – dense pure beech, high humidity, rich moss/epiphytes despite urban proximity).
Overall: Maritime productivity and lush understories; western lowland archetype.

Baltic BFR (3 components; cooler lowland sandy):
- Germany: Jasmund (chalk cliffs, coastal influences); Serrahn (Muritz area, glacial soils); Grumsin (Schorfheide, deadwood-rich).
Overall: Northern pure stands; saproxylic habitat emphasis.

Alpic BFR (8–10 components; alpine high-elevation):
- Austria: Kalkalpen clusters (Hintergebirge, Bodinggraben, Urlach, Wilder Graben – mixed conifer-beech, treeline stunting); Durrenstein-Lassingtal (primeval core).
- Switzerland: Lodano/Busai/Soladino Valleys (Ticino, southern alpine refugia).
- France: Chapitre (Provence Alps, marginal adaptations).
Overall: Extreme cold/wet resilience; conifer mixes at limits.

Illyric BFR (5–6 components; Dinaric karst):
- Croatia: Hajducki i Rozanski kukovi (karst peaks); Paklenica NP (canyons, endemic mixes).
- Slovenia: Krokar (ancient pure); Sneznik-Zdrocle (high karst).
- Bosnia and Herzegovina: Prasuma Janj (primeval mixed).
Overall: Karst-enhanced biodiversity; endemic species.

Moesian-Balcanic BFR (12–15 components; transitional highlands):
- Bulgaria: Central Balkan reserves (Boatin, Tsarichina, Kozya stena, Steneto, Stara Reka, Dzhendema, Severen Dzhendem, Peeshti skali, Sokolna – diverse karst understories, transitional moesiaca forms).
- Albania: Lumi i gashit (high karst); Rrajca (valley dynamics).
- North Macedonia: Dlaboka Reka (Balkan refugia).
Overall: Transitional genetics to oriental beech; drought-tolerant diversity.

Central Mediterranean BFR (12–15 components; southern refugia):
- Italy: Abruzzo clusters (Cervara Valley, Selva Moricento, Coppo del Morto/Principe, Fondillo); Calabria/Basilicata (Cozzo Ferriero, Pollinello, Infernale Valley); Apulia (Falascone, Pavari-Sfilzi); Lazio (Monte Cimino/Raschio); Emilia-Romagna/Tuscany (Sasso Fratino – ancient refugial genetics).
Overall: Southern warmer adaptations; evergreen oak mixes; high end

Pyrenaic-Iberian BFR (5–6 components; isolated refugia):
- Spain: Tejera Negra (Pyrenees, humid); Montejo (ancient); Lizardoia/Aztaparreta (Navarre); Cuesta Fría/Canal de Asotin (Castile).
- France: Massane (Pyrenees edge).
Overall: Western refugial isolation; acidic soils genetics.

Polonic-Podolic-Moldavian BFR (3–4 components; transitional plateaux):
- Ukraine: Roztochchia (loess understories); Satanivska Dacha (drier adaptations).
- Poland: Bieszczady (some overlap, transitional highland).
Overall: Eastern plateau drier traits; richer loess understories.

Pannonic BFR
- Serbia Fruska Gora (proposed) . Brings isolated lowland/insular adaptations to warmer, drier plains; mixed oak-linden-beech communities; refugial genetics on fertile loess/alluvial soils; transitional continental traits absent from mountain or wet lowland sites. (Serbia proposed, Hungary potential, parts of Austria, Slovakia, Romania).
Overall: Warmer/drier continental basin; lowland to insular mountains, mixed deciduous on fertile loess soils

Euxinic BFR
Currently a gap (no components; remains a priority for potential future extensions). Brings easternmost humid/coastal refugia; milder subtropical climate; lush understories with Colchic relicts (e.g., rhododendrons, ferns); transitional to oriental beech forms; unique biodiversity hotspots at the Black Sea margin. (Bulgaria eastern/Black Sea, Romania eastern, potentially Ukraine southern, Georgia/Turkey beyond current focus).
Overall: Black Sea / Pontic coastal-mid altitude; humid subtropical influences, mixed with Colchic elements

CURRENTLY

CURRENTLY

Yedigöller National Park (Turkey) or Yalta Mountain-Forest Nature Reserve (Crimea) could be a good choices for the Euxinic BFR.

I maintain my opinion that Faux de Verzy (France) would also be a valuable addition to the existing list.

I also support the Swedish park mentioned in the document:
"Baltic BFR: Söderasen NP in Sweden is the only suitable candidate area identified for a potential extension nomination.
In spite of the fact that the Baltic BFR is already represented by the current World Heritage Serial the added value of this site could be justified by the Baltic expansion of beech."

Thank you for doing this in depth summary, certainly offered some insight. Maybe I'll try to visit this WHS when it reaches an end?

It was certainly an interesting suggestion which I am pleased to have learned about and provided a rewarding hour or 2 of investigation!!!. But, as I understand it, these particular beech trees are not and never have been "Primeval" (or even "Ancient") which is the justification for all those other inscriptions - forests largely untouched by man since their spread after the last ice age. The specimens at Verzy are indeed the same species as all those "primeval" examples - "Fagus Sylvatica" (from which the French name of this location "Faux" is derived) but are a specific genetic mutation of it -"Fagus sylvatica variety tortuosa" which has only survived in the group at Verzy because of human intervention. The twisted mutation, of which they are an example, is not that unusual in nature but rarely survives naturally in competition with non-mutated neighbours. The reason for the survival, and spread, of the forest at Verzy is thought to be due to its "cultivation" from the 6th C by monks from the nearby monastery. They saw the "hand of god" in the mutation and spread it by layering, and used its dense form as a location for contemplation etc etc. The fact that the twisted wood had no practical uses preserved it after the destruction of the monastery during the French Revolution until scientists developed an interest in it and it was given protection by Franch law in 1932.

Other similar but smaller stands exist in a number of other European countries particularly Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Italy - As I understand it they mostly survive as "cultivars" or at least because of human intervention (peasants preserving the naturally occurring "sports" for some reason). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_beech

HOWEVER!!! It seems that the "tortuosa" variety IS already recognised within the "Natural" Ancient forests WHS in Italy where they have survived "Naturally" (unlike in Verzy) because of the advantages their genetic variety gave them. I quote from AI
"The Italian twisted beeches are most famous in the Abruzzo, Lazio and Molise National Park (specifically in the Valle Cervara and Coppo del Principe components).
The "Dwarf" Factor: In these high-altitude Italian sites, the beech tree reaches its "tree line." To survive the extreme wind and snow, the trees exhibit the contorted, stocky, dwarf growth pattern that mirrors the var. tortuosa found in Verzy.
UNESCO Recognition: UNESCO specifically notes that these Italian forests show the "broad spectrum of ecological patterns" of the beech, including "stocky dwarf varieties in rocky habitats."

I am told by a friend who I trust on these matters that much the same applies to all of the UK's beech forest - UK woodland has been so comprehensively managed that any UK extension of the Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests would be faintly ridiculous. That will have to wait for some future "Cultural Landscape of the Managed Beech Forests of Northwestern and Other Regions of Europe" WHS.

Thank you for the comprehensive overview!

Perhaps on the WHS page, it should be noted which users have visited the most Beech Forest Regions (BFR's)?

An interesting point which justifies a bit of further explanation and digging.

Hidden away in my text about the Primeval forests you might have noticed "The choice was apparently made on such factors as - Stand age/structure, Minimum size thresholds, Long-term non-intervention (primeval/ancient status). Protection (IUCN Category I or II equivalent)"

It is there where UK fails the test - in the management philosophy and legal status rather then simply on the age or size of the Forests. UK does not "Do" much Cat I or II. There is no Cat I natural site anywhere and only 19 Cat II - all in Scotland. The Beech doesn't go as far north as Scotland - but England has some VERY fine Beech forests .... The New Forest, the Chilterns, Epping, etc etc etc. but "we" are just not prepared to "manage" them as required to get Cat II status.... That requires a degree of "non intervention" which is incompatible with what the public want or expect or what the government is pepared to put into law. The Chilterns for instance have been branded as a "National Landscape" (formerly "Area of Outsanding Natural Beauty" AONB) ... That is about beauty and people ....Cat V in "IUCN speak"(With some areas of Cat IV - see later)!!! The New Forest NP too is Cat V - a "protected landscape" but with ponies and "Commoner rights" etc etc. Epping is mananged as a Cat IV "Habitat or Species Management Area". It contains over 55000 pollarded trees , some up to 800 years old,

If, like some other countries one might mention, UK wanted to go "chasing" WHS inscriptions it could impose Cat II restrictions on parts of the 3 Forests I have mentioned. Belgium gained inscription for the Sonian forest in 2017. This is as much a suburb of Brussels as Epping is of London but (to gain inscription?) Belgium designated 5 relatively small areas - 269ha out of 4400ha - .... officially with NO human management since no earlier than the 1980s ... and got WHS status for it so must have "proven" Cat II or 1a (but i cant find evidence of either). UK runs its forests entirely as "Cultural Landscapes" .... partly created by humans and managed as such... just not suitable for a "Natural WHS".

UK COULD change its approach even by "playing games" and imposing strict management rules in a small core area even if it had for centuries been open to human use. But why would it?? There is no evidence that a significant element of the population want it! Actually the Sonian forest probably faced WORSE human intervention across the years than Epping etc ... and its famous "Cathedral" Beech stands were planted 1770 - 1850... Indeed one of these, the Joseph Zwaenepoel reserve, is one of the core zones. See this Sonian Forest link .... and this quote from it "Not all the Sonian Forest has been recognised as a world heritage site. Specifically, there are five areas designated as integral forest reserves, which are located in the Joseph Zwaenepoel reserve, Grippensdelle and the Ticton forest reserve. These parts of the Sonian Forest are no longer under any management and are characterised by a very complete composition with exceptionally old trees and an exceptionally rich biodiversity. In this way, this 'chain' of world heritage can serve as a window onto what primeval forests and ancient forests in Europe look like"

So the "Primeval" WHS doesn't require great age as a fully "wild" site or even great size to join - just a willingness to follow IUCN management "rules" to be considered "Natural"!!!

On an associated matter....UK (and Ireland) does actually possess a significant Forest type - The "Atlantic Oakwood Forest" as a special example of "Temperate Rainforest". All the UK areas are run as Cat iv or v but are undergoing a program of improvement, preservation and even restoration within that category - see https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/temperate-rainforest-restoration.
Interestingly Ireland has since 1970 (?) managed Killarney National Park as a Cat II reserve ..... and it contains a fine example of the Atlantic forest and seems to do so without excessive prevention of human entry. See Derrycunnihy Wood. Perhaps it should be moved back on to Ireland's T List??