Korjus, H., Viilma, K. 1999. Development of forest conservation area network in Estonia. –In: Hytönen, M. (ed.). Social sustainability of forestry in the Baltic Sea Region. The Finnish Forest Research Institute. Research Papers 704: 153-161. Development of forest-conservation area network in Estonia Henn Korjus & Kaili Viilma Abstract In the Estonian new forest policy an effort has been given on formulation of the biodiversity assessment of forest communities and plans for developing forest conservation area network representative to all forests in this region. There are also discussed problems in connection with selection of conservation areas and social aspects of forest conservation ideas. As maintaining of particular area outside common management regime is always complicated and needs comprehensive calculations there are listed some basic problems to be considered before making any management decision. Forest biotopes are quite diverse for temperate climate zone in Estonia and there are lot of world-wide rare and endangered species habiting in these forests. Estonian Forest Policy has stated that 4% of the total forest area of Estonia should be strictly protected for maintaining the biodiversity. These areas should be chosen, inventoried and analysed during next few years. Keywords: forest conservation, protected forests, biodiversity, forest policy Authors addresses: Estonian Agricultural University, Faculty of Forestry, Kreutzwaldi 5, Tartu EE 2400, Estonia Fax: + 372 7 421 053, E-mail: hkorjus@ph.eau.ee, kviilma@ph.eau.ee 1. Introduction History of forest protection in Estonia goes back to medieval time when some first cutting restrictions were set to reinforce and regulate ownership relations. Before that only some holy trees or stands with very old and big trees - mainly oak and limetrees - were protected from cuttings. In 17th century the abstract idea of forest protection came to state forest policy level and it was intended to avoid overcuttings in state forests and maintain valuable tree species as Quercus robur, Malus sp. and ship building trees (Meikar 1987). This line continued more or less through 18th century but on the last third of century forests were treated already more as separate, independent management units. Birth of classical forest management with expansion of large clearcutting areas dictated the need for keeping some areas under permanent forest cover on state and later on environmental considerations. Cuttings were prohibited, for example, on 100 m wide coastline on island Naissaare as it was used as daytime see-mark. In 19th century were prohibited cuttings in Curonia and Livonia to fix dunes and protect coastline and 300…2100 m wide protection forest belt was