Contents

1........... Process: consultation and expertise. 3

1.1........ Background. 3

1.2........ Evaluation of the Forest Action Plan (FAP) 4

1.3........ Consultation with Member States and stakeholders. 9

1.4........ Consultation within the Commission. 14

2........... Analysis. 15

2.1........ State of the EU's forests. 15

2.2........ State of the EU's forest sector 32

2.3........ State of the policy environment 39

2.4........ Coordination, cooperation and communication. 47

3........... Way forward. 47

3.1........ Governance. 47

3.2........ Follow up. 47

Annex I: Definitions. 47

Annex II: Main References. 47

Annex III: Acronyms. 47

1. Process: consultation and expertise

1.1. Background

The EU Forestry Strategy[1] was adopted in 1998, following a Resolution of the European Parliament calling for the Commission to put forward a proposal for such a strategy and a Communication from the Commission[2] which highlighted the challenges facing the EU forests, the policy and legal framework for forests and forestry in the EU as well as common objectives and guiding principles for the roles of the EU and the Member States in forest policy.

The Forestry Strategy has served as a reference document for i.e. forestry measures in Rural Development and as a basis for the EU Forest Action Plan.

The Forestry Strategy is related to several EU policies and objectives, in particular: agriculture and rural development, environment, climate change, biodiversity, plant health, research and innovation, trade, industry and energy.

In 2005 the Commission adopted a report on the implementation of the EU Forestry Strategy[3], concluding that the basic principles and elements identified in the EU Forestry Strategy of 1998 were still valid. However, it also observed a need for a more coherent and pro-active approach to forest policy at EU level. Therefore the Commission presented an EU Forest Action Plan in 2006[4].

The EU Forest Action Plan (FAP) was based on the principles and elements identified in the Forestry Strategy for the EU, and it covered four objectives:

(1) Improve the long-term competitiveness,

(2) Improve and protect the environment,

(3) Contribute to the quality of life, and

(4) Foster coordination and communication between Community actions as well as between Community actions and the forest policies of the Member States.

The Action Plan provided a framework for the implementation of forest-related actions at Community and Member State level, and it served as an instrument for coordination between different Community actions as well as between Community actions and forest policies of the Member States. The aim was to support and enhance sustainable forest management (SFM) and the multifunctional role of forests. The Leading Actors responsible for implementing the plan in 2007-2011 were consequently the Commission and the Member States. As a follow up of the Forest Action Plan, the Commission committed to publish a report about its implementation in 2012.

In 2010 the Commission adopted a Green Paper on Forest Protection and Information - Preparing forests for climate change[5] which set out options for a European Union approach to the protection of forests and to information about forest resources and their condition. The purpose of the Green Paper was to encourage an EU-wide public debate and to secure views on the future of forest protection and information policy, as well as to provide elements for a possible update of the EU Forestry Strategy on climate related aspects.

The new Forest Strategy is also linked with international forest discussions and, in particular, with the Legally Binding Agreement on forests for which negotiations have been opened in July 2011.

The need to review the 1998 Strategy has been stated in a number of contexts; such as the Council Conclusion on an EU Forest Action Plan[6] that considers necessary an update of the Forestry Strategy to ensure greater coherence of forest-related policies and to reflect the changes in the global, regional and national policy context; the White paper on adaptation to climate change[7] that recommended updating it on climate-related aspects; and the Green Paper on forest protection and information which aimed to provide elements for a possible update of the EU Forestry Strategy on climate related aspects. The Resolution from the European Parliament about the strategy calls for strengthening it with a view to improving sustainable forest management and conservation, and the recommendations of the mid-term and the ex-post evaluation of the EU Forest Action Plan[8] also mentions the need for updating the strategy. The review process was welcomed in the Council Conclusions on the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020[9] and supported by both the Standing Forestry Committee and the Advisory Committee on Forestry and Cork.

In April 2011 the Commission launched the review process of the 1998 Forestry Strategy. The main inputs being considered are the consultation process with Member States and stakeholders including two ad-hoc Working Groups to the Standing Forestry Committee and two workshops with Member States and stakeholders, and the evaluation of the Forest Action Plan carried out by external consultants.

1.2. Evaluation of the Forest Action Plan (FAP)

A mid-term evaluation of the EU Forest Action Plan was conducted in 2009[10] and an ex-post Evaluation was concluded in November 2012[11]. These two evaluations are important inputs for the 1998 Forestry Strategy review and have been taken into account for the new Strategy.

The mid-term evaluation concluded that the implementation of the plan was on track but that its effectiveness in influencing action in the Member States should be analysed at a later stage as the effects of the EU FAP on its specific goals (the four objectives above) cannot be expected to show up after only two years of implementation.

For the period post 2011, the evaluation raises the following aspects for consideration:

- more holistic approach to forest sector issues, making it more interrelated with parallel sectors and with environmental, economic and social policies;

- integration of the international forestry issues into the EU forestry action;

- higher profile of the EU in international forest-related processes;

- strengthening the science-policy-practice triangle by better coordination of scientific work and utilisation of financial resources (FP7, COST, national);

- preparation of post-2013 financial instruments.

The mid-term evaluation was an important input for the ex-post evaluation.

The ex-post evaluation was based on extensive document reviews, questionnaire surveys and interviews of the Member States, Commission and stakeholder representatives. The evaluation was carried out by an external evaluation team between November 2011 and March 2012. Conclusions were based on the qualitative analysis and the evaluation team’s expert opinion. The work was guided by a Steering Group composed of Commission representatives from nine different services and was structured under five Evaluation Questions that were formulated for the evaluation:

1. To what extent have the activities in the framework of the EU FAP been effective and efficient?

According to the results, the implementation of the EU Forest Action Plan was effective and efficient in the manner that the Action Plan has been largely implemented as defined in its work programme 2007-2011.

Implementation made use of, for example, studies to investigate forestry related issues, and Standing Forestry Committee ad hoc Working Groups to gather technical expertise on specific topics. Member State joint statements were defined as Standing Forestry Committee opinions on e.g. forest research, forestry measures in rural development, non-wood goods and services, wood mobilisation, and climate change and forestry. Objective 1 improving the long-term competitiveness of forestry contributed to improved understanding on effects of globalisation on forestry; valuation and marketing of non-wood forest goods and services, and; wood mobilisation for energy generation. There was a positive impact on research and technological development and forestry measures in rural development. Objective 2 enhancing and protecting the environment contributed to improved information on climate change and forestry (including EU and international commitments) and information sharing on biodiversity targets. There were steps taken towards a European forest monitoring system, although the future depends on continued funding and voluntary co-operation by Member States. Objective 3 contributing to the quality of life shared information between the Member States on environmental education and information; protective functions of forests; and the potential of urban and peri-urban forests. There is impact on integrating forest protective functions in risk management and prevention initiatives in the EU. Objective 4 fostering coordination and communication strengthened the structure and mechanisms for implementation of the Action Plan, and contributed to investigations on public procurement of wood and wood products as well as on EU forest communication strategy. Impact on international processes was weak, but the Action Plan was a positive means to build synergies with the FOREST EUROPE process.

There were no specific resources earmarked for the EU FAP, but implementation was based on existing resources e.g. Rural Development Programmes in the Member States and other EU and national funding. Some activities found their role more naturally at EU level (Objective 1 on economic aspects, Objective 2 on environmental aspects, and Objective 4 on coordination and communication), whereas other activities were mainly implemented at national or even local levels (Objective 3 on socio-cultural aspects, but also e.g. forest owner cooperation and forest sector visibility events). Although the EU FAP resulted in several concrete outputs, such as reports, studies, working groups and recommendations, the uptake at Member State and Community levels remains weak. Furthermore, activities at national (and regional) level are not reported as contribution to the EU FAP goals, and the EU added value remains often unattained.

2. To what extent have the activities in the framework of the EU Forest Action Plan contributed to the improvement of coherence and cross-sectoral co-operation in implementing the EU Forestry Strategy?

The EU Forest Action Plan has been helpful for information exchange within the Commission, between Member States and between the Commission and Member States. However, due to its character as a voluntary instrument, improvement in cooperation and coordination depends on the commitment of the Commission Services and the Member States. The EU Forest Action Plan enabled information sharing and provided an agenda for raising awareness and understanding about forest-related issues across policy areas (e.g. rural development, research and development, climate action, risk management and prevention). Although in the beginning of the EU Forest Action Plan implementation there were expectations of a more proactive and holistic approach to forestry-related issues in the EU, the Action Plan has only been able to react to ongoing developments in other policy areas, e.g. in energy and renewable energy fields. An impact can, however, be found in terms of the Seventh Framework Programme implementation for forest and forest-based sector research, and on the definition of forestry measures in the preparation of the proposed new rural development regulation. The influence of the EU Forest Action Plan on national forest programmes varies between the Member States. Most countries replied that their national forest programme considered the EU FAP to some extent, and that the Action Plan was an additional driver in other national policies, such as in the rural development programmes, in bio-energy strategies or in public procurement guidelines. The steps towards a coherent and consistent forest monitoring for the EU27 still requires political commitment and resources.

3. To what extent have the activities in the framework of the EU Forest Action Plan contributed to balancing economic, environmental and socio-cultural objectives related to forestry?

The EU Forest Action Plan addressed the three dimensions of sustainable development through Objectives 1 to 3. Objective 4 on coordination and communication was important in terms of enabling a balanced view on Sustainable Forest Management, but implementation of specific actions (e.g. on promotion of forest biomass for energy generation, or actions on biodiversity or valuation and compensation mechanisms for non-wood forest goods and services), the potential was hardly used to develop an integrated approach to sustainability. The three sustainable development dimensions remained largely separated from each other. The socio-cultural objective activities were carried out at Member State level, but they were hardly reported on or coordinated through the Action Plan at EU level. The EU Forest Action Plan was not actively utilised as a framework to define an EU level vision and priorities overarching the national and sectoral definitions of multifunctionality and Sustainable Forest Management. The Action Plan implementation furthermore did not fully utilise support measures for forestry, such as education and advice, with the potential to build capacities for the whole sector to address new challenges and new societal demands.

4. To what extent did the EU Forest Action Plan have an added value in implementing the EU Forestry Strategy?

The EU Forest Action Plan covered the principles defined in the EU Forestry Strategy and provided an added value by operationalising them in the Key Actions and activities. The Action Plan did influence several processes both at Member States and Community level. The main achievements and added value in implementing the Forestry Strategy goals refer to a better visibility of the forest sector at EU level, facilitation for improving coherence and coordination of activities between different Community actions and for improving coordination of activities between the Commission and Member States. It is nonetheless difficult to point out the causal links of the Action Plan implementation and specific effects, because several processes are ongoing in parallel and interlinked with impact on forestry in the EU. Developments in parallel sectors and policy fields (e.g. climate action, energy, industry) have generated an increased interest in forests, and the EU Forest Action Plan was a means to address these developments and keep the forestry-specific issues on the agenda. Thus, without the EU Forest Action Plan, the responses of the forestry sector would most likely have been more sporadic. The achievement of the goals will however, dependent on the commitment of the Commission and Member States to put the Action Plan results into use also after concluding the implementation in 2011.

5. Are the current objectives, key actions and activities of the EU Forest Action Plan still relevant in tackling the needs the Plan was intended to address? To what extent is the organisational set-up of the EU Forest Action Plan as a whole adequate for its purpose?

International policy developments have caused and are causing shifts in priorities which were not foreseeable to a full extent when preparing the Action Plan. The processes in, for instance, climate change action and renewable energy policy targets, as well as the aspirations expressed in the new biodiversity targets and the bioeconomy strategy, present the forest sector with possibilities but also challenges. To a certain extent, the EU Forest Action Plan responded to these changing needs, but it was not able to build capacities for a dialogue at multiple levels (EU, national, regional or local) or to develop a common response to these policy developments.

The organisational set-up based on the existing structures (Standing Forestry Committee, Advisory Group on Forestry and Cork, Interservices group on Forestry) was largely purposeful for the EU Forest Action Plan implementation – taking into account that the Action Plan was a voluntary instrument – these structures provided an opportunity for Member States to share information and experiences. A more structured coordination would have required a clearer vision, target-setting and high-level political commitment to the goals defined.

In the process of defining the follow-up after the EU Forest Action Plan, the viewpoints of the Member States, Commission and stakeholders are valuable. It is important that the debate about the follow-up reaches beyond the mere Action Plan implementation in the forestry sector, and includes beneficiaries of the intended measures at large. Bringing the achievements as well as the challenges ahead for forestry in Europe to an EU forum would help in understanding the complexity of issues at stake, but also in setting a target for the long-term sustainability of the EU forests that we want to pass on to future generations.

1.2.1. Conclusions and key recommendations

The ex-post evaluation concluded that the EU Forest Action Plan has been a useful means of operationalising the EU Forestry Strategy principles and coordinating action across the Member States and EU. There are limitations to the leverage that the Action Plan can exert on policy processes at EU level or implementation at Member State level; without a shared vision for EU forestry, the forestry response to the developments in other policy areas (e.g. climate action and energy) remains weak, and without clear commitments and targets the Member State reporting to EU level continues to lack consistency.

Based on the analysis, the following key recommendations were put forward as a contribution to the deliberations on the review of the EU Forestry Strategy and the possible follow-up to the Action Plan:

1. In order to increase commitment to an EU Action Plan, a joint effort is needed to develop and operationalise a common vision of multi-purpose and sustainable forest management. This would cover the following aspects:

- assess present and future societal demands on forests;

- balance the three dimensions of sustainable development, strengthening and defining a holistic view of Sustainable Forest Management in the EU;

- build capacities at both EU and Member State level to address new challenges and new societal demands for sustainable and innovative forest management, for example, in forest information and monitoring, research and innovation, education, advisory services and communication.

2. In order to support effects and impacts of an EU Action Plan, strengthened instruments and structure for mutual information exchange and joint action are needed. This would cover the following aspects:

- define priorities and targets for action;

- link EU and Member State level funding strategies and plans to the EU Forestry Strategy and the EU Forest Action Plan priorities and actions;

- strengthen coherent cross-sectoral planning, funding and implementation of activities;

- besides pre-defined measures, maintain the possibility to define additional actions or refocus existing ones if the need arises during the implementation period;

- set up a clear mechanism for monitoring, evaluating and reporting;

- revise the mechanisms for involving stakeholders from economic, environmental and social interest fields;

- advance dialogue to support public awareness raising, science-policy-practice interaction, and improved preparedness for emerging challenges and opportunities.

1.3. Consultation with Member States and stakeholders

The new Communication on a Forest Strategy builds on a very close and extensive consultation process with both Member States and stakeholders during the preparatory phase.

A first discussion on the future of the EU Forestry Strategy took place at the 115th Standing Forestry Committee (SFC) meeting in July 2010 and continued at subsequent meetings in December 2010 and February 2011. In its meeting on the 18th of February 2011 the SFC decided that an ad hoc working group (WG) should be established to support and contribute to the review process.

1.3.1. Working Group under the Standing Forestry Committee contributing to the development of a new EU Forest Strategy

The ad hoc Working Group (WG) was set up in June 2011. It consisted of experts nominated by the Member States and by relevant stakeholder groups (private and public forest owners, forest-based industries, environmental NGO's, foresters and forest research), as well as experts from 10 different Directorate Generals of the Commission[12]. The terms of reference for the WG specified that the overall objective of the WG was to make recommendations for a new EU Forest Strategy.

The WG met five times (15 June, 15 September, 18 November 2011, 9 February, 8 June 2012) and adopted a report in June 2012[13], providing ten key recommendations to the Commission. In the recommendations, it is suggested that the strategy is called forest strategy addressing also the value chain, that it affirms the EU commitment to the principles of sustainable forest management (SFM) as defined by Forest Europe, and enshrine and promote these principles in the management of all forests in the EU. Most members of the WG considered that the strategy should be a voluntary instrument, building on subsidiarity, including agreed lines of added value at the EU level with Member States (policy guidance on certain specified topics and for actions) and identifying other areas where some Member States would like to advance further, such as: regional /cross-regional cooperation; climate change adaptation and mitigation; forest health; valuation of ecosystem services; forest biodiversity, forest information and monitoring; forest fire; production and mobilisation of wood material from sustainable managed forests; promotion of wood based products and constructing with wood as part of the green economy; afforestation. Finally, the WG proposed a long term vision and a 2020 headline target and identified ten interlinked priorities (figure 1)

Figure 1. Ten interlinked priorities proposed by the WG under the Standing Forestry Committee

Lastly, the WG recommended that a Forest Action Plan/Framework that sets out specific actions for implementing the strategy, monitoring and reporting mechanisms should be developed within one year after adoption of the strategy.

1.3.2. Working Group under the Standing Forestry Committee on forest information and monitoring

This ad hoc Working Group (WG) was set up in April 2011 and addressed the issue of forest information and monitoring that came out as the most important issue in the public and inter-institutional discussion following the 2010 Green Paper on Forest Protection and Information.

The WG consisted of experts nominated by the Member States and by relevant stakeholder groups (private forest owners, forest-based industries and environmental NGO's), as well as experts from 8 different Directorate Generals of the Commission. The WG included also representatives from the European National Forest Inventory Network (ENFIN) as well as from International Co-operative Programme on Forests (ICP Forests). The terms of reference for the WG specify that the overall objective of the WG was to contribute to the implementation of the EU Forest Action Plan in the field of EU-wide, cost-efficient and harmonized forest information.

The WG met four times (5 April, 28 June, 29 September and 5 December 2011) and adopted a final report in March 2012[14] that was discussed in the 124th, 125th and 126th meetings of the Standing Forestry Committee. The final report highlights critical issues, priorities and resource issues regarding forest information needs that relate to EU policies. It suggests a list of core variables to be considered for future work and priority setting on forest information.

The SFC agreed with the Commission's proposal to address forest information and monitoring at EU level by using a special budget from the European Parliament for a preparatory action with the JRC for harmonizing forest information collected by Member States.

1.3.3. Opinion of the Standing Forestry Committee contributing to the development of a new EU Forest Strategy

The report of the WG contributing to the development of a new EU Forest Strategy was discussed in the 124th and 125th meetings of the Standing Forestry Committee and an opinion was adopted in this last meeting, that took place in September 2012[15]. In the opinion, the SFC welcomes the Working Group report and endorses its 10 recommendations. They urge the Commission to prepare a forest package by early 2013, the proposal for a new EU Forest Strategy acting as an umbrella, and including initiatives on forest information, on wood processing industry and related value chains as well as providing data on the State of EU Forests.

The SFC suggests to the Commission to prepare a strategy as a fundamentally voluntary forest policy instrument at EU level, building on subsidiarity and respecting national competence. It should further develop lines of added value at the EU level agreed with Member States, provide policy guidance on certain specified topics, provide recommendations for actions and identify other areas where some Member States might wish to advance further than other's.

1.3.4. Workshops with Member States and Stakeholders

A Workshop organised in April 2011 included representatives from Member States, stakeholders, several Commission services and the Cabinet of the Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development. This workshop[16] was the launching event for the work towards the new strategy and the outcome was used to get input and orientation for the Working Group under the SFC that was established later on. In the concluding remarks, it was considered that the review of the EU Forestry Strategy is an opportunity for the Member States, supported by the stakeholders, to put in place a common process to act on prioritised forestry issues that will be agreed upon in the strategy work. The need for coordination was considered important, but it is not going to make the different and to some extent even contradictory interests and objectives regarding forests to go away. Thus, it is necessary to face those different interests and find the best solution to balancing between them. In this framework, it would be important to prioritise and find those areas where we can add value with common actions at EU level.

A second workshop with Member States and stakeholders to present the report of the ad-hoc Working Group of the SFC took place in July 2012. During the debate several voices referred to the weak resources allocated to the sector that should fulfil many (and increasing) demands. Other issues underlined were the fact that research and innovation is among the EU priorities, the problem of forest fires, the need to strengthen the link between agriculture and forestry, the fact that forest products are underrepresented in the report, the lack of indicators to measure progress, the need to improve information about the strategy outside of the forest sector and to the society, the lack of references to certification, the necessary diagnosis of the sector before trying to improve the coordination and the increasing problem of fragmentation of forest policy (i.e. policies from other sectors where forests are important elements). In the workshop there was a general view supporting the review process. According to the discussion, the new strategy should contribute to Europe 2020 and other 2020 targets and include a "holistic view". Flexible instruments based on the agreement of the different parties involved were considered the right tools to apply, where each party should have its role, reflecting also respective competences and ensuring the three aspects of sustainability (economic, social and environmental). Last, it was underlined the need to ensure coherence between the strategy and the international instruments and, in particular, the future legally binding agreement.

1.3.5. Forest Directors General Meetings

A presentation of state of play of the work was done in the informal Forest Directors General meetings under the Polish, Danish, Cypriot and Irish Presidencies (September 2011, June 2012, November 2012 and March 2013). In the meeting under the Cypriot Presidency the Forest Directors General provided guidance to the further steps of the forest strategy, as reflected in the final chair report. In particular, they expressed their concern about the level of implementation and visibility of the EU Forest Action Plan and uptake of SFC opinions for policy formulation in other areas. They stressed the need for improved coordination at EU level during the implementation, better monitoring and communication / outreach and they also underlined that the new EU Forest Strategy should:

- Include a clear vision/ objective/ target(s);

- Be a framework for policy developments related to forests, taking into account the future LBA. The strategy can make a difference only if it is meaningful for other policies outside the forest sector;

- Take a holistic view on the forest sector

- Address the whole value chain;

- Address the issue of balancing the delivery of multiple goods and services.

1.3.6. EC Advisory Groups

The new Forest Strategy has also been discussed in several meetings of the Advisory Group on Forestry and Cork[17] (October 2011, June 2012, December 2012 and June 2013). In the discussions, it was underlined the need for a strong position on forestry for EU through the strategy to avoid the contradicting targets on forests in EU policies and to raise the competitiveness and forest sector’s contribution to green economy and employment. The need to involve stakeholders in the process was specifically underlined. The Strategy was also presented in the Advisory Committee on Forest-based Industries[18] (plenary meetings of October 2011 and April 2012 and ad hoc Working Group meeting of November 2012).

1.3.7. Other fora

Several stakeholder groups have also organised special sessions on the Forest Strategy where DG Agriculture and Rural Development has collected the different views on the issues that the strategy should address. Thus, CEPF (private forest owners), EUSTAFOR (public forest owners), FERN and a group of environmental NGO's and UEF (foresters) have provided input to the process. CEPF, EUSTAFOR, CEPI (pulp and paper industry) and CEI-Bois (woodworking industry) and Finnish Forest Owners and Finnish Forest Industries have spontaneously made joint position papers on the strategy and Birdlife has provided some reports to be considered in the work.

From the research side, the University of Leuven has produced a position paper from the Leuven Metaforum on Forests that aims to support the review process[19].

Last, Think Forest, a high level discussion and information forum on forests coordinated by the European Forest Institute (EFI) has organised a special session on the strategy at the European Parliament on 18th of September 2012[20].

1.4. Consultation within the Commission

The Commission Inter-Service Group on Forestry discussed the preparation of the new Forest Strategy in five meetings (25 October 2011, 13 February 2012, 4 Mary 2012, 2 October 2012, 22 February 2013), and representatives of several Commission services actively participated in the two workshops and in the discussions of the two Working Groups of the Standing Forestry Committee, one dealing with the review of the 1998 EU Forestry Strategy and a second one specifically dealing with forest information and monitoring.

2. Analysis

European forests serve different aims such as social (contribution to rural development), economical (raw materials like sawn wood for construction purposes or furniture, pulpwood for cellulose, insulation, packaging, paper and source of renewable energy), environmental (e.g. protection against soil erosion, avalanche control, regulation of streams and rivers, CO2 capture) and societal (e.g. recreation, employment in rural areas).

2.1. State of the EU's forests

The EU currently contains 5 % of the world's forests and EU forests have continuously expanded for over 60 years, although recently at a lower rate. EU Forests and other wooded land now cover 155 million ha and 21 million ha respectively. This together means more than 42 % of EU land area is covered with forest and other wooded land. The Forest cover varies largely across Europe. The Member States with the largest proportions of wooded area are Finland and Sweden, where approximately three quarters of the land area is covered with forests or other wooded land. These same two Member States records the highest areas of wooded land per inhabitant, approximately ten times the EU average. Relatively high areas of wooded land per capita are also recorded in Estonia and Latvia. The least densely wooded EU Member States are Malta, the Netherlands, Ireland and the United Kingdom.

Area covered by forests in Europe has increased at a rate of approximately 0.4% per year since 1990, as a result of afforestation programmes, natural succession of vegetation and abandonment of farming. This is in contrast to the current global situation where the forest area continues to decline, with a global rate of deforestation still alarmingly high, impacting negatively on global climate and biodiversity. Only four of the EU Member States recorded a fall in their areas of wooded land in 2010, with Denmark recording the largest reduction (-5.0 %) ahead of Portugal, Slovenia and Finland. In relative terms, the largest expansions in wooded area were recorded in Ireland (21.4 %), while Bulgaria and Latvia both recorded increases in excess of 10 %. In absolute terms, four Member States recorded an expansion in excess of 400 000 hectares, namely France, Bulgaria, Italy and Spain, with the latter recording the highest increase (594 000 hectares).

The area of forests available for wood supply (FAWS) amounted to 133 million ha in the EU-27 in 2010, 102 million ha of which (77% of the total) is located in the EU-15 and 30.6 million ha (23%) in the EU-N12. In the EU-27, FAWS corresponded to 84.8% of the total forest area and this share was quite similar in the EU-15 (84.4%) and in the EU-N12 (86.1%). Cyprus (23.9%) and Portugal (52.7%) had the lowest share of FAWS in the total forest area, whereas in Belgium, Denmark, Germany and Luxembourg this share accounted for more than 95% of the total forest area.

Other wooded land (OWL) represents only a small part (6%) of the EU-27 land area, except in some areas of southern Europe (Greece, Spain and Cyprus) where it reaches around 20% of the land area. Indeed, in South Europe the climatic and edaphic conditions favour scattered vegetation[21]:

In the EU, forest nursery activities are linked to reforestation and afforestation, which could concern forested area, agricultural land (agricultural abandonment of marginal area), creation/renovation of hedges or agro-forestry.

Table 1. Forest area in the EU, EFTA and candidate countries

|| Forest || Other Wooded Land || FOWL || FAWS

|| 2000 || 2010 || 2000 || 2010 || 2000 || 2010 || 2000 || 2010

|| (1000 ha)

EU-28 || 154 702 || 159 113 || 21 559 || 20364 || 176 261 || 179 477 || 131 982 || 134 807

Belgium || 667 || 678 || 27 || 28 || 694 || 706 || 663 || 672

Bulgaria || 3 375 || 3 927 || 105 || 0 || 3 480 || 3 927 || 2 258 || 2 864

Croatia || 1 885 || 1 920 || 415 || 554 || 2 300 || 2 474 || 1 749 || 1 741

Czech Republic || 2 637 || 2 657 || 0 || 0 || 2 637 || 2 657 || 2 561 || 2 330

Denmark || 486 || 587 || 136 || 48 || 622 || 635 || 481 || 581

Germany || 11 076 || 11 076 || 0 || 0 || 11 076 || 11 076 || 10 568 || 10 568

Estonia || 2 243 || 2 203 || 94 || 134 || 2 337 || 2 337 || 2 103 || 2 013

Ireland || 635 || 737 || 49 || 50 || 684 || 788 || 472 || 460

Greece || 3 601 || 3 903 || 2 924 || 2 636 || 6 525 || 6 539 || 3 317 || 3 595

Spain || 16 988 || 18 173 || 10 367 || 9 574 || 27 355 || 27 748 || 13 942 || 14 915

France || 15 353 || 15 954 || 1 812 || 1 618 || 17 165 || 17 572 || 14 645 || 15 147

Italy || 8 369 || 9 149 || 1 650 || 1 767 || 10 019 || 10 916 || 7 396 || 8 086

Cyprus || 172 || 173 || 214 || 214 || 386 || 387 || 43 || 41

Latvia || 3 241 || 3 354 || 123 || 113 || 3 364 || 3 467 || 3 024 || 3 138

Lithuania || 2 020 || 2 165 || 83 || 84 || 2 103 || 2 249 || 1 756 || 1 875

Luxembourg || 87 || 87 || 1 || 1 || 88 || 88 || 87 || 86

Hungary || 1 907 || 2 039 || 0 || 0 || 1 907 || 2 039 || 1 622 || 1 726

Malta || n.s. || n.s. || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || - || -

Netherlands || 360 || 365 || 0 || 0 || 360 || 365 || 290 || 295

Austria || 3 838 || 3 857 || 117 || 134 || 3 955 || 3 991 || 3 341 || 3 343

Poland || 9 059 || 9 319 || 0 || 0 || 9 059 || 9 319 || 8 342 || 8 532

Portugal || 3 420 || 3 456 || 101 || 155 || 3 521 || 3 611 || 1 782 || 1 822

Romania || 6 366 || 6 573 || 234 || 160 || 6 600 || 6 733 || 5 029 || 5 193

Slovenia || 1 233 || 1 253 || 38 || 21 || 1 271 || 1 274 || 1 157 || 1 175

Slovakia || 1 921 || 1 938 || 0 || 0 || 1 921 || 1 938 || 1 767 || 1 775

Finland || 22 459 || 22 084 || 824 || 1 032 || 23 283 || 23 116 || 20 317 || 19 869

Sweden || 28 512 || 28 605 || 2 225 || 2 020 || 30 737 || 30 625 || 20 947 || 20 554

United Kingdom || 2 793 || 2 881 || 20 || 20 || 2 813 || 2 901 || 2 323 || 2 411

Iceland || 18 || 30 || 83 || 86 || 101 || 116 || 18 || 29

Liechtenstein || 7 || 7 || 1 || 1 || 7 || 7 || 4 || 4

Norway || 9 301 || 10 250 || 2 699 || 2 134 || 12 000 || 12 384 || 6 519 || 6 419

Switzerland || 1 194 || 1 240 || 63 || 71 || 1 257 || 1 311 || 1 156 || 1 200

Montenegro || 467 || 467 || 277 || 277 || 744 || 744 || 386 || 386

FYR of Macedonia || 958 || 998 || 143 || 143 || 1 101 || 1 141 || 804 || 804

Turkey || 10 146 || 11 334 || 10 702 || 10 368 || 20 848 || 21 702 || 8 648 || 7 313

Figures in bold italics are estimates. FOWL = Forests and other wooded land

FAWS = Forests available for wood supply

Source: SoEF 2011, with estimates by Eurostat (Forestry in the EU and the world 2011)

2.1.1. Forest Productivity

Forest productivity varies significantly among Member States, from a net annual increment of 0.9 m³ per ha in Cyprus and 1.3 m³ per ha in Greece, to a net annual increment of 11.1 m³ per ha in Germany and 13.4 m³ per ha in Denmark (source: Eurostat, 2010).

On average, 60-70% of the annual increment is cut, so the growing stock of wood keeps rising significantly. This is measured by the balance between net annual increment and annual felling's. This relation is decisive for the current and future availability of wood and for shaping a stable growing stock[22]: However, it should be mentioned that the net annual increment alone does not give any indication of the sustainability of forests and forest productivity[23]: Factors such as slow growth of the trees, the historical development of age class distribution and accessibility also need to be considered for any projection of future wood availability. According to MS projections under LULUCF, harvest rates are expected to increase by 2020 by around 30% compared to 2010[24].

The reporting of data on timber stocks follows in principle the international definitions of the FAO. In practice, however, only BE, CZ, DK, DE, FR, HU, IT, NL, PT and SE applied these definitions when delivering data to the FAO and Forest Europe (country reports for the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010). The Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on accounting rules and action plans on greenhouse gas emissions and removals resulting from activities related to land use, land use change and forestry[25] (LULUCF) contains an annex showing that only BE, DK, FI, FR, HU, IT, LU, NL and SE will apply the FAO’S definition of forests or a stricter variant (greater canopy cover). The other countries will apply a different minimum of forest area and/or a lower tree height. This Decision is foreseen to be based on the national definitions of forests.

Eurostat uses the physical data provided by the FAO and Forest Europe and provides estimates in the case of non-reported data.

Table 2. Growing stock, increment and fellings

|| Growing stock (million m3 ob) || Increment || Fellings (million m3 ob)

|| FOWL || FAWS || FAWS

|| 2000 || 2010 || 2000 || 2010 || 2000 || 2010 || 2000 || 2010

EU-27 || 22 374,4 || 24 685,8 || 19 533,5 || 21 849,5 || 759,9 || 774,6 || 467,7 || 489,3

Belgium || 157,6 || 168,1 || 156,6 || 164,3 || 5,3 || 5,3 || 3,5 || 3,9

Bulgaria || 526,8 || 656,0 || 321,0 || 435,0 || 13,6 || 14,7 || 3,8 || 7,8

Croatia || 364,4 || 415,6 || 332,5 || 371,4 || 10,0 || 9,9 || 4,3 || 5,2

Czech Republic || 698,8 || 769,3 || 678,3 || 737,7 || 21,5 || 23,1 || 15,9 || 17,9

Denmark || 78,0 || 114,4 || 70,8 || 111,9 || 4,8 || 5,8 || 2,1 || 2,4

Germany || 3 381,0 || 3 492,0 || 3 356,0 || 3 466,2 || 122,0 || 107,0 || 59,8 || 59,6

Estonia || 463,0 || 447,2 || 427,5 || 398,3 || 11,8 || 11,2 || 12,4 || 5,7

Ireland || 70,0 || 74,7 || 69,6 || 74,3 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 2,8 || 2,8

Greece || 192,0 || 205,8 || 156,6 || 170,4 || 4,2 || 4,5 || 2,2 || 1,5

Spain || 871,2 || 915,1 || 746,2 || 783,9 || 43,8 || 45,8 || 16,9 || 16,6

France || 2 267,6 || 2 596,7 || 2 119,4 || 2 453,2 || 97,6 || 94,4 || 67,4 || 64,3

Italy || 1 215,0 || 1 448,3 || 1 072,6 || 1 285,3 || 30,2 || 32,5 || 14,3 || 12,8

Cyprus || 9,5 || 10,5 || 3,1 || 3,3 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0

Latvia || 548,1 || 634,9 || 507,0 || 584,0 || 17,7 || 18,3 || 15,5 || 12,4

Lithuania || 452,0 || 481,9 || 391,6 || 408,0 || 9,0 || 10,8 || 6,3 || 8,6

Luxembourg || 26,0 || 26,0 || 12,8 || 13,9 || 0,7 || 0,7 || 0,3 || 0,2

Hungary || 325,2 || 355,7 || 303,0 || 259,2 || 9,3 || 11,1 || 7,0 || 6,9

Malta || 0,0 || 0,0 || - || - || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0

Netherlands || 61,0 || 70,0 || 49,0 || 56,0 || 2,2 || 2,3 || 1,3 || 1,6

Austria || 1 089,5 || 1 141,0 || 1 059,8 || 1 106,7 || 28,9 || 25,1 || 17,5 || 23,5

Poland || 1 736,0 || 2 304,0 || 1 584,0 || 2 092,0 || 67,0 || 68,5 || 31,4 || 40,7

Portugal || 197,8 || 187,8 || 163,0 || 154,0 || 19,1 || 19,1 || 12,6 || 13,0

Romania || 1 348,2 || 1 391,5 || 740,9 || 838,0 || 34,6 || 34,0 || 14,1 || 17,2

Slovenia || 335,2 || 417,0 || 312,3 || 389,9 || 7,3 || 9,2 || 2,5 || 3,4

Slovakia || 463,2 || 514,1 || 436,9 || 477,6 || 11,7 || 13,2 || 6,7 || 10,4

Finland || 2 090,3 || 2 216,0 || 1 927,0 || 2 024,0 || 80,3 || 91,0 || 66,3 || 59,4

Sweden || 3 097,2 || 3 252,2 || 2 268,0 || 2 651,1 || 86,7 || 96,5 || 71,2 || 80,9

United Kingdom || 310,0 || 380,0 || 268,0 || 340,0 || 20,7 || 20,7 || 9,7 || 10,5

Iceland || 3,3 || 5,2 || 2,6 || 4,8 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0

Liechtenstein || 1,8 || 1,8 || 1,4 || 1,4 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0

Norway || 852,0 || 1022,0 || 685,0 || 797,0 || 22,7 || 21,9 || 11,1 || 11,0

Switzerland || 416,5 || 429,6 || 403,0 || 415,0 || 7,7 || 6,2 || 7,2 || 6,2

Montenegro || 74,1 || 74,1 || 67,7 || 67,7 || 2,2 || 2,2 || 0,6 || 0,5

FYR of Macedonia || 80,0 || 77,5 || 66,0 || 66,0 || 4,6 || 4,6 || 2,8 || 2,9

Turkey || 1 461,3 || 1 616,7 || 1 198,4 || 1 084,7 || 49,5 || 0,0 || 30,4 || 26,1

Figures in bold italics are estimates.

FOWL = Forests and other wooded land

FAWS = Forests available for wood supply

Ob: over bark

Source: SoEF 2011, with estimates by Eurostat (Forestry in the EU and the world 2011)

2.1.2. Forest ownership

Around 40 % of the forest area in the EU is publicly owned. Public ownership dominates in most of the eastern and south-eastern EU Member States. The average size of public forest holdings is more than 1000 ha, with considerable variations among countries[26]. Based on data for 24 EU Member States (incomplete data for Greece, Portugal and Sweden), the publicly owned forest area decreased by a total of 2.9 % between 2000 and 2010, whereas privately owned forest area increased by 8.6 %. The number of forest owners rose by nearly 3 million as a result of the enlargement[27].

The publicly owned share of forest area decreased between 2000 and 2010 in ten Member States, most notably in Romania, Slovenia and Lithuania and to a lesser extent in Austria, Finland, Latvia, Estonia and the United Kingdom. Some of the decreases in the new Member States that joined the EU as of 2004 may be due to the restitution of land to former owners, while other countries sold their public forest assets[28]:.

Around 60% of the EU's forests are in private hands, with about 16 million private forest owners. Private forest holdings have an average size of 13 ha, but the majority of privately owned forests are smaller than 5 ha[29]. The average size of the forest under private ownership varies considerably among Member States, from 0.7 ha per holding in Bulgaria to 130 ha per holding in Slovakia[30]. Nevertheless, the sector is changing. Alongside alterations in the structure of forest ownership in the EU, changes are also taking place in the occupations and lifestyles of private forest owners. Forest owners are becoming less dependent on forestry as a main source of income. Increasingly, the EU's forests are owned by urban dwellers, who may have different management objectives, compared with traditional rural forest holders[31].

Table 3. Forest ownership

|| Public || Private || Other

|| 2000 || 2010 || 2000 || 2010 || 2000 || 2010

|| (1000 ha)

EU-27 || 65 340 || 64 101 || 88 384 || 94 233 || 977 || 780

Belgium || 290 || 301 || 377 || 377 || 0 || 0

Bulgaria || 3 041 || 3 408 || 272 || 423 || 62 || 96

Croatia || 1 398 || 1 396 || 487 || 524 || 0 || 0

Czech Republic || 2 023 || 2 041 || 614 || 616 || 0 || 0

Denmark || 138 || 139 || 348 || 424 || 0 || 23

Germany || 5 846 || 5 708 || 4 824 || 5 283 || 406 || 85

Estonia || 899 || 858 || 953 || 976 || 391 || 369

Ireland || 399 || 400 || 236 || 337 || 0 || 0

Greece || 2 790 || 3 025 || 811 || 878 || 0 || 0

Spain || 4 988 || 5 336 || 11 998 || 12 836 || 2 || 2

France || 3 984 || 4 113 || 11 369 || 11 841 || 0 || 0

Italy || 2 811 || 3 073 || 5 558 || 6 076 || 0 || 0

Cyprus || 118 || 119 || 54 || 54 || 0 || 0

Latvia || 1 748 || 1 656 || 1 464 || 1 636 || 29 || 61

Lithuania || 1 562 || 1 376 || 458 || 789 || 0 || 0

Luxembourg || 41 || 41 || 46 || 46 || 0 || 0

Hungary || 1 155 || 1 178 || 750 || 848 || 2 || 13

Malta || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Netherlands || 184 || 184 || 176 || 181 || 0 || 0

Austria || 1 093 || 991 || 2 745 || 2 866 || 0 || 0

Poland || 7 535 || 7 661 || 1 524 || 1 658 || 0 || 0

Portugal || 54 || 55 || 3 366 || 3 401 || 0 || 0

Romania || 6 010 || 4 451 || 356 || 2 122 || 0 || 0

Slovenia || 365 || 291 || 868 || 962 || 0 || 0

Slovakia || 1 006 || 980 || 830 || 827 || 85 || 131

Finland || 7 213 || 6 698 || 15 245 || 15 386 || 0 || 0

Sweden || 7 639 || 7 664 || 20 873 || 20 941 || 0 || 0

United Kingdom || 1 011 || 959 || 1 782 || 1 922 || 0 || 0

Iceland || 7 || 8 || 12 || 22 || 0 || 0

Liechtenstein || 6 || 6 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 0

Norway || 1 299 || 1 450 || 8 002 || 8 800 || 0 || 0

Switzerland || 856 || 889 || 313 || 325 || 26 || 27

Montenegro || 337 || 337 || 130 || 130 || 0 || 0

FYR of Macedonia || 864 || 898 || 94 || 100 || 0 || 0

Turkey || 10 131 || 11 317 || 15 || 17 || 0 || 0

Figures in bold italics are estimates.

Source: SoEF 2011, with estimates by Eurostat (Forestry in the EU and the world 2011)

2.1.3. Conservation status

EU forests are mainly made up of predominantly coniferous stands (50%) and predominantly broadleaved stands (27%). The remaining part is mixed stands, including coniferous and broadleaved trees.

The EU 25 Member States (i.e. excluding Romania and Bulgaria) reported in 2008 on the conservation status of all the species and habitats listed in the Annexes of the Habitats Directive. The Commission then produced a consolidated report in 2008 on the conservation status and species protected under the Habitats Directive[32]. Habitat types associated with forest have in general a better conservation status than non-forest habitats. The conservation status of species and habitats of European interest differs strongly between bio-geographical regions.

According to a EEA report[33] in the EU, only 17 per cent of habitats and species and 11 per cent of key ecosystems protected under EU legislation are in a favourable status. Altogether more than 50% of species and nearly two thirds of habitats in forest ecosystems have an unfavourable conservation status, see figures 2 and 3 below. At the same time the State of Europe's Forests 2011[34] indicates positive development in EU's forests. According to this report, both EU's forest area and the area of protected forests are expanding and forest management practices increasingly promote conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

Figure 2:

Source: European Environment Agency technical report 12/2010

Figure 3:

Forests are subject to multiple pressures and can suffer a series of damages from biotic and abiotic sources. Furthermore, the effect of climate change, which will have a clear latitudinal effect through the increase of temperatures and drought in southern Europe, is already noticeable in the altitudinal gradient. Species at the lower altitudes of mountains in Europe are already suffering from decreased precipitation and increased temperature[35]. Therefore, the immediate effect that climate change signals is the shift in the range of suitability for forest tree species across Europe. These changes will certainly lead to an increase of biotic damages, as species become highly susceptible to the attack of pests. Forests will also become more susceptible to abiotic damages produced by more frequent windstorms, droughts and forest fires.

2.1.4. Forest Fires

Currently, yearly damages due to forest fires are estimated to about half a million ha of forested areas, which is approximately 0.25% of the forests area in Europe and over half of the yearly increase of forest areas, as reported above. The yearly economic damage caused by forest fires is estimated to approximately € 2 billion[36]. 150 000 ha of Natura 2000 areas were damaged by fires in 2012.

Figure 4. Number of fires and burnt area in EU27 (1980-2011)

Source: EFFIS and estimates

2.1.5. Soil quality

Sulphur deposition has decreased over the last decade. Mean annual sulphur inputs decreased by 30% between 1998 and 2007, with significant reductions measured on half of the observed plots. For nitrogen compounds there is no clear trend in measured deposition[37].

In many parts of Europe, there is a tendency to acidification and eutrophication of soils. The development of pH and base saturation of soils did not show a uniform pattern within Europe. However, increased pH and base saturation were found in acidic forest soils[38]:.

2.1.6. Forests and ecosystem services

Forests provide a wealth of benefits and services to the European citizens; these are often referred to as forest ecosystem services (FES). FES include wood and non-wood products as well as services such as recreation, water and soil conservation, protection against natural hazards, etc.

In the last years there has been an increased competition for forest products and services. For instance, European forests are the largest reservoir of biodiversity compared to other terrestrial ecosystems, while providing over 50% of the renewable energy in Europe. Growing demands represents an opportunity for this sector, but, at the same time, poses a significant challenge for maintaining forest ecosystems, increasing the potential for conflicts. It is important that SFM principles are applied to ensure in the long term the provision of multiple goods and services.

2.1.7. Forests and Natura 2000

Overall, it is estimated that forest ecosystems cover around half of the surface of the Natura 2000 Network. This in turn represents around 1/4 of the total forest resource within the EU27. Furthermore, many other forests are home to animal or vegetal species protected under the EU Nature legislation.

Table 4. Total Natura 2000 forest area and total forest within Natura 2000

Member State || Total Natura 2000 (km²) || Total Natura 2000 Forest* Area (km²) || % Natura 2000 which is Forest* || Total Forest* within Natura 2000 (%)

Austria || 12 317 || 4 790 || 38,40% || 12,64%

Belgium || 3 858 || 2 130 || 55,00% || 33,79%

Bulgaria || 37 648 || 22 220 || 58,84% || 52,53%

Cyprus || 1 626 || 88 || 79,17% || 36,63%

Czech Republic || 11 073 || 7 510 || 68,00% || 27,11%

Germany || 55 113 || 26 684 || 48,42% || 25,09%

Denmark || 3 858 || 7600 || 19,89% || 16,33%

Estonia || 8 035 || 4 683 || 58,28% || 18,73%

Spain || 137 224 || 79 503 || 57,94% || 41,83%

Finland || 48 731 || 28 823 || 59,15% || 11,81%

France || 68 770 || 30 380 || 44,18% || 18,86%

Greece || 35 793 || 20 155 || 56,31% || 33,95%

Hungary || 19 937 || 8 330 || 41,78% || 41,06%

Ireland || 9 155 || 1 211 || 13,22% || 17,22%

Italy || 57 705 || 29 912 || 51,84% || 30,11%

Lithuania || 7 864 || 5 067 || 64,43% || 24,14%

Luxemburg || 474 || 294 || 62,01% || 31,22%

Latvia || 7 303 || 4 033 || 55,22% || 12,39%

Malta || 40 || 10 || 24,38% || 25,19%

Netherlands || 5 724 || 1 199 || 20,94% || 37,91%

Poland || 60 796 || 34 049 || 56,00% || 35,09%

Portugal || 19 204 || 7 775 || 40,48% || 21,39%

Romania || 42 639 || 22 472 || 52,70% || 29,63%

Sweden || 57 425 || 22 808 || 39,72% || 7,69%

Slovenia || 7 201 || 4 998 || 69,41% || 42,28%

Slovakia || 14 132 || 9 701 || 68,64% || 44,55%

United Kingdom || 17 711 || 1 334 || 7,53% || 6,14%

EU27 Total || 751 368 || 382 009 || 50,84% || 23,10%

Note: Calculations performed with data from End 2010 Natura 2000 database and Corine Land Cover 2006 and Corine Land Cover 2000 for UK and GR

*CLC classes grouped as forests: 311 Broad-leaf forests; 312 Coniferous forests; 313 Mixed forests; 323 Sclerophyllous vegetation; 324 Transitional woodland-shrub

2.1.8. Forests and Climate Change

The role of forests in climate change mitigation is particularly important as forests remove around 11% of greenhouse gases emitted in other parts of the economy (9% for the whole LULUCF) and provide bio-materials that can act as temporary carbon stores (harvested wood products) or as “carbon substitutes”, replacing carbon intensive materials and fuels.

Figure 5. Trend in emissions and removals by land uses in the EU

Source: 2013 National Inventory Submissions to UNFCCC

2.1.9. Sustainable Forest Management

Sustainable Forest Management is the stewardship and use of forests and forest lands in a way, and at a rate, that maintains their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and their potential to fulfil, now and in the future, relevant ecological, economic and social functions, at local, national, and global levels, and that does not cause damage to other ecosystems[39]:.

There are several initiatives across the EU to support, implement and assess sustainable forest management. Criteria and indicators have been developed by Forest Europe for the pan-European region to report on the implementation of sustainable forest management by countries.

The six pan-European criteria for reporting SFM are:

- Maintenance and appropriate enhancement of forest resources and their contribution to global carbon cy­cles;

- Maintenance of forest ecosystems’ health and vitality;

- Maintenance and encouragement of productive func­tions of forests (wood and non-wood);

- Maintenance, conservation and appropriate enhance­ment of biological diversity in forest ecosystems;

- Maintenance, conservation and appropriate en­hancement of protective functions in forest manage­ment (notably soil and water); and

- Maintenance of other socio-economic functions and conditions.

Associated indicators were initially adopted by the Ministers in Lisbon (1998). They were later simplified and further improved to be endorsed at the Vienna MCPEE (2003) as “Improved Pan-European Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management”. They are used to assess progress towards sustainable forest management in the pan-European region both at regional and national level. This progress and up-to-date information on European forests is regularly being presented in the “State of Europe’s Forest” reports.

Forest management plans (FMP) are an important tool for the implementation of SFM at the operational level, and can be a proxy to sustainability. FMP are information (in the form of text, maps, tables and graphs) collected during periodic forest inventories at operational forest unit level (stands, compartments) and operations planned for individual stands or compartments to reach the management goals. Equivalent instruments is information collected on forest area, at forest management or aggregated forest management unit level (forest blocks, farms, enterprises, watersheds, municipalities or wider units) and strategies/management activities planned to reach the management or development goals[40].

Forest certification has been one of the tools to document the sustainability of forest management. Looking at the number of ha certified and products carrying a logo of certification, it is clear that certification has gained importance, year after year. In the EU around 50% of forests and other wooded land are certified by FSC[41] or PEFC[42], although there are large differences between countries (figure 6). At global level, area certified by the two main voluntary forest management certification systems (PEFC and FSC) cover 412 million ha of forest (165 million ha under FSC[43] and 247 million ha under PEFC[44]), which represents around 10% of the forest world area.

Figure 6. Certified area in the EU

Source: Calculated from FSC and PEFC, 2012.

Model Forests is an initiative for landscape-scale platforms and broad stakeholder engagement, which carry out global change studies, develop and test local-scale innovation and adaptation strategies, and monitor such efforts over the long term. Thus, it can contribute to support sustainable forest management by implementing resource management policies at the local level, establishing networks and ensuring the participation of local communities. There are a few initiatives being developed in the EU, some of which are supported by EU programs such as Interreg (e.g. Baltic and Mediterranean model forest networks).

2.1.10. Agroforestry

Agroforestry systems, which are at the interface between agriculture and forestry, are also important to mention. Agroforestry is the integration of trees, crops and/or livestock on the same area of land. Trees can stand inside parcels or on the boundaries (hedges). Agroforestry can be applied to all agricultural systems, in all parts of Europe. Agroforestry systems are obtained by planting trees on agricultural land or by introducing agriculture in existing woodland (e.g. silvopasture). This land use can optimise the benefits from the biological interactions created when trees and/or shrubs are deliberately combined with crops and/or livestock and can help to cope with growing challenges, including climate change adaptation.

Europe has a unique heritage of traditional agroforestry systems with a high environmental and cultural value, and a high potential for innovative modern agroforestry systems as developed by research centres across Europe during the last two decades. However, since no statistics on such practices exist, its contribution to agriculture or rural economy is undervalued.

2.2. State of the EU's forest sector

The importance of forests goes far beyond the environmental role, although their social and economic importance tends to be underestimated. Forests contribute to rural development through the provision of secure employment with competitive incomes.

Some 56% of the population in the EU live in rural areas, which cover 91% of the overall territory. Farming and forestry remain crucial for land use and the management of natural resources in the EU's rural areas as well as being a basis for economic diversification in rural communities.

Wood is still the main source of income for most forest owners, delivering the raw material to the forest-based industries and to the bioenergy sector. Forest-based industries are an important industrial branch representing 7% of added value of total manufacturing in the EU and providing around 3 million jobs. These industries, in particular woodworking, were especially hit by changes affecting economies, with important impacts also being felt upstream. Woody biomass is also the most important source of renewable energy, representing 50% of the EU gross final energy consumption from renewable biomass sources.

In addition, forests produce a large range of other products, such as cork, for which the EU accounts for 80% of worldwide production, resins, medicinal plants, mushrooms, truffles, game, nuts and berries. Resin is increasingly used by the chemical industry, which is contributing to a re-flourishing of resin extraction in the EU. EU rural development policy supports SFM and multifunctionality, contributing to further developing these non-wood products.

Table 5. Production of roundwood, fuel wood and other basic wood products in the EU, EFTA and candidate countries 2011 (1000 m3)

2011 || Roundwood || Wood chips and particles || Wood residues and pellets

|| Total || Industrial roundwood || Fuel- wood || ||

|| || Total || Coniferous || Non-Coniferous || Total || Pellets

EU-28 || 426752 || 334403 || 262099 || 72304 || 92349 || 64067 || 46978 || 11472

Belgium || 5128 || 4235 || 3231 || 1004 || 893 || 473 || 538 || 0

Bulgaria || 6205 || 3364 || 2005 || 1359 || 2841 || 38 || 78 || 21

Croatia || 5258 || 3836 || 678 || 3158 || 1422 || 175 || 248 || :

Czech Republic || 15381 || 13467 || 12291 || 1176 || 1914 || 1157 || 1173 || 102

Denmark || 2583 || 1468 || 1118 || 350 || 1115 || 168 || 0 || 0

Germany || 56142 || 45358 || 36443 || 8915 || 10783 || 10031 || 3101 || 2679

Estonia || 7470 || 5454 || 3699 || 1755 || 2016 || 2800 || 1793 || 554

Ireland || 2627 || 2432 || 2431 || 1 || 195 || 509 || 165 || 0

Greece || 1196 || 339 || 241 || 98 || 857 || 2.5s || 1.2 || 0

Spain || 16648 || 11528 || 4616 || 6912 || 5120 || 2080 || 2456 || 343

France || 55041 || 28387 || 19585 || 8802 || 26653 || 5041 || 8633 || 360

Italy || 6306 || 1662 || 1253 || 409 || 4643 || 2000 || 1200 || 743

Cyprus || 8 || 5 || 5 || 0 || 4 || 2 || 4 || 0

Latvia || 12833 || 11649 || 8445 || 3204 || 1184 || 3653 || 1358 || 973

Lithuania || 7004 || 5346 || 3332 || 2014 || 1658 || 900 || 720 || 286

Luxembourg || 261 || 244 || 107 || 137 || 18 || 422 || 98 || 8

Hungary || 6073 || 2922 || 649 || 2273 || 3152 || 138 || 141 || 0

Malta || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Netherlands || 978 || 688 || 471 || 217 || 290 || 139 || 725 || 171

Austria || 18696 || 13631 || 12784 || 847 || 5065 || 4253 || 2965 || 1085

Poland || 37180 || 32200 || 24969 || 7231 || 4980 || 2187 || 5500 || 643

Portugal || 9140 || 8540 || 3258 || 5282 || 600 || 96 || 1782 || 692

Romania || 14359 || 10344 || 5108 || 5237 || 4014 || 577 || 2655 || 350

Slovenia || 3388 || 2052 || 1582 || 469 || 1336 || 82 || 314 || 92

Slovakia || 9213 || 8570 || 5124 || 3446 || 643 || 1250 || 1515 || 121

Finland || 50767 || 45526 || 38355 || 7171 || 5241 || 7760 || 5294 || 268

Sweden || 72103 || 66203 || 62333 || 3870 || 5900 || 16000 || 4000 || 1982

United Kingdom || 10021 || 8788 || 8665 || 123 || 1234 || 2309 || 770 || 0

Iceland || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || :

Liechtenstein || 26 || 8 || 7 || 1 || 18 || 19 || 0 || 0

Norway || 10291 || 8506 || 8468 || 39 || 1785 || 0s || 303 || 44689

Switzerland || 4861 || 3322 || 2840 || 482 || 1539 || 0 || 846 || 0

Montenegro || 364 || 208 || 177 || 31 || 156 || 0 || 0 || :

FYR of Macedonia || 631 || 101 || 40 || 61 || 530 || 0 || 0 || :

Turkey || 21039 || 16423 || 10147 || 6276 || 4616 || 850 || 850 || :

Figures in bold italics are estimates: Not available

Source: Eurostat 2013

2.2.1. Wood resources

Figure 7 provides an overview of the current use of wood from all sources (not just forests) in the EU. Some of the wood resources used for energy come directly from forests (and other primary sources) and the remainder are production residues from industrial wood processing, including black liquor from paper production, and re-cycled wood waste.

Figure 7. Wood resources in EU27 in 2010

Source: EUwood, 2010

Figure 8 shows the forest sector's share of GDP. As can be seen in the figure, the wood-based sectors’ share of GDP fell from 1.79 % in 2001 to 1.29 % in 2009. Forestry and logging appears to be the only wood based sector that did not decline, as measured against the development of GDP for all economic activities. These basic data were estimated by national accounts.

When indexed on 2005, the gross value added of forestry and logging increased faster than the gross value added of all economic activities up until the recent financial and economic crisis of 2008. In 2009, forestry and logging was level with the index of all activities, while wood products, paper and printing dropped below the trend for all activities. For forest-based industries, further details will be included in a separate document.

Figure 8. Forest sector´s share of GDP (2001-2009)

Source: Eurostat

2.2.2. Employment and Economy

The number of persons employed dropped between 2006 and 2009 in all the wood-based sectors, according to national accounts data, see figure 9:

Figure 9. Persons employed in the forest sector in EU27 (1000)

Source: Eurostat

In 2010 the average labour productivity in the forestry sector (calculated as value added per employee) varied substantially among Member States. The highest labour productivity is found in Finland (€101,240 per employee), whereas Bulgaria reached only €7,770 per employee. The relative increments of labour productivity in forestry between 2006 and 2010 also differ significantly across the EU. The highest average annual growth rate of the labour productivity was observed in Hungary (+12.2% between 2006 and 2009) and Slovenia (+11.5%), whereas the labour productivity of forestry decreased in France (-9.7%), in the United Kingdom (-7.3), in Greece (-2.1% between 2006 and 2009) and in Finland (-3.7%). The decrease in labour productivity was particularly high between 2009 and 2010 in several countries where it reduced by 15% or more: Germany (-16%), France (-20%), Finland (-34%) and the United Kingdom (-20%)[45].

Gross fixed capital formation (GFCF), which measures how much of the new value added is invested rather than consumed, is a key element for assessing future competitiveness. € 1.4 billion were invested in the forestry sector in 2009, accounting for 13.5% of its total Gross Value Added (GVA), of which EUR 1.17 billion (84% of the total) were invested in Sweden and Finland. The gross fixed capital formation in forestry decreased by more than 40% between 2008 and 2009. The highest relative share of GFCF in GVA of the forestry sector is found in Cyprus (67%), followed by Greece and the United Kingdom (26%). [46].

Regarding forest-based industries, further details will be provided in a separate Staff Working Paper.

The EU has signed voluntary partnership agreements with 6 countries that in 2011 exported around 31 million tonnes of wood and articles of wood to the EU (table 6).

Table 6. Total imports of wood and articles of wood, Chapter 44 of the Harmonised System

|| 2005 || 2007 || 2009 || 2011

|| Quantity (tonnes) || Value (1000 €) || Quantity (tonnes) || Value (1000 €) || Quantity (tonnes) || Value (1000 €) || Quantity (tonnes) || Value (1000 €)

|| VPAs signed or agreed

Cameroon || 639.361 || 426.681 || 606.235 || 445.968 || 329.933 || 229.397 || 405.024 || 296.873

Centr. African Rep. || 48.154 || 24.667 || 45.176 || 24.544 || 22.334 || 11.393 || 21.274 || 10.686

Ghana || 124.280 || 121.120 || 97.474 || 100.122 || 46.440 || 47.454 || 46.353 || 49.053

Indonesia || 699.465 || 702.183 || 479.553 || 653.728 || 331.682 || 427.024 || 332.283 || 468.149

Liberia || - || - || 35 || 31 || 49.624 || 3.632 || 230.727 || 16.424

Rep. of Congo (Brazzaville || 216.650 || 101.096 || 174.969 || 91.679 || 231.242 || 53.034 || 128.011 || 60.292

|| VPAs under negotiation

Dem. Rep. of Congo || 134.275 || 69.443 || 318.215 || 123.995 || 228.183 || 58.551 || 106.569 || 56.113

Gabon || 560.166 || 269.888 || 492.739 || 289.949 || 299.082 || 180.513 || 178.143 || 159.928

Malaysia || 475.026 || 438.848 || 517.110 || 587.070 || 405.866 || 391.324 || 354.102 || 406.933

Vietnam || 16.901 || 33.467 || 27.564 || 50.424 || 28.263 || 55.690 || 34.732 || 58.276

Imports from FLEGT countries || 2.914.278 || 2.187.393 || 2.759.070 || 2.367.510 || 1.972.649 || 1.458.012 || 1.837.218 || 1.582.727

Total imports || 41 087 965 || 10 636 018 || 40 090 964 || 13 392 913 || 25 310 312 || 8 097 771 || 31 801 815 || 10 040 614

2.2.3. Renewable energy

Member States plan to mobilise significant additional domestic biomass resources for heating and electricity generation, which will increase from 76 Mtoe in 2006 to 113 Mtoe in 2020. According to estimates based on NREAPs, forestry will continue to be the predominant source of biomass supply, with an overall share of over 66% of total biomass as a renewable energy source by 2020 (rising from 62 Mtoe in 2006 to 75 Mtoe in 2020). Agriculture will be the second source (18%), more than tripling from 6 Mtoe in 2006 to 21 Mtoe in 2020) and the contribution of waste is projected to double (up to 15% share), increasing from 8.5 Mtoe in 2006 to 17 Mtoe in 2020.

Figure 10. EU domestic biomass supply for heating/cooling and electricity, 2008-2020 (ktoe)[47]

Source: European Commission's estimates based on 26 NREAPs data

Wood currently plays a prominent role in total renewable energy supply, providing around half of total renewable energy (figure 11). Households accounted for the largest share (61.3%) of the EU´s final energy consumption of wood and wood wastes in 2008 followed by paper manufacturing and printing (19.8%)[48].

Figure 11. Share of wood and wood waste in total renewable energy in the EU, EFTA and candidate countries in 2010 (% of gross inland consumption of renewable energy)

Source: Eurostat

2.3. State of the policy environment

Despite the absence of a common forest policy, EU policies such as rural development, employment, climate change, energy, water and biodiversity influence Member States decisions on forests. There is a long history of the EU contributing to the implementation of sustainable forest management (SFM) through these other policies, see chapter 2.1.9.

Based on the principle of subsidiarity and the concept of shared responsibility, the 1998 EU Forestry Strategy[49] established a framework for forest-related actions in support of SFM, based on cooperative and beneficial linkages between the forest policies of the Member States and Community policies and initiatives relevant to forests. The Forest Action Plan[50] covering the period 2007-2011 was the main instrument for its implementation addressing four objectives referring to competitiveness, environment, quality of life and coordination and communication, see also chapter 1.1. Forestry Measures under the Rural Development Regulation have been the main financial driver for the implementation of the EU Forestry Strategy at the EU level. Other relevant measures include the Timber Regulation and FLEGT[51] and the Renewable Energy Directive.

The EU has also undertaken relevant international commitments. The Non-Legally Binding Instrument on All types of Forests under UNFF[52] aims to strengthen political support and action to SFM but there are also several conventions in related areas relevant for forests. These include CBD[53] and its Nagoya Protocol, FAO Commission of genetic resources for food and agriculture (CGRFA) including forest genetic resources, UNFCCC[54], UNCCD[55] or CITES[56], OECD scheme for the certification of forest reproductive material. Special attention is being given to the on-going negotiations for establishing a Legally Binding Agreement for forests in the pan-European area, in which the EU is participating.

The review of the Forestry Strategy took into account the overall context of EU policies, including:

o Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth - according to which the EU wants to become a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy, where the EU and the Member States can deliver high levels of employment, productivity and social cohesion. The Union has set five ambitious objectives - on employment, innovation, education, social inclusion and climate/energy - to be reached by 2020;

o Review of the Common Agricultural Policy, including a new regulation on Rural Development for the period post-2013;

o The EU Biodiversity Strategy and 2020 Target, including the outcome of the CBD COP in Nagoya;

o Existing legislation (Birds and Habitats Directives, etc.)

o The Commission proposal for a decision on LULUCF accounting and the further development of forest-related issues under UNFCCC towards a new international climate agreement;

o The EU targets on renewable energy share currently implemented at Member State level through National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAP);

o EU FLEGT Action Plan and EU Timber Regulation;

o Communication on "Innovative and Sustainable Forest-based Industries" COM(2008)113 and the analysis of its implementation;

o The 7th Environmental Action Plan

and of the initiatives on-going outside the EU:

o The development of a Legally Binding Agreement on forests within the Forest Europe process;

o Other International forest related processes (Rio+20, UNFF, FLEG, REDD+).

The relevant EU2020 targets and the contribution from forests are included below:

Table 7. Relevant EU targets and contribution from forests and the forest sector

EU targets || Contribution from forests and the forest sector

Growth and jobs: 75% employment rate by 2020 Reverse the declining role of industry in Europe from its current level of 15.2% of GDP to as much as 20% by 2020 Poverty and social exclusion: 20 million fewer people in or at risk of poverty and social exclusion || European Structural and Investment Funds contribute to poverty eradication and social cohesion. 3 million jobs in the EU are provided by the forest sector, particularly important in rural areas. Forest-based industries represent 7% of the total added value and 8% of total employment of manufacturing.

Climate change: in 2020 reduction by 20% of CO2 emissions compared to 1990 || In 2009, LULUCF removed an amount of carbon from the atmosphere equal to about 9% of the EU's total greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in other sectors[57]. MS are obliged to provide information on LULUCF action and have international obligations until 2020 to enhance sinks and reduce emissions from LULUCF under the 2nd Commitment Period of the Kyoto Protocol.

Energy: 20% share of energy from renewable sources by 2020 || In 2012 wood energy represented 50% of the total EU renewable energy consumption.

Biodiversity: to halt the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services degradation in the EU by 2020, restoring them in so far as feasible || 50% of terrestrial Natura 2000 network is on forests or other wooded land.

Deforestation: to halt global forest cover loss by 2030 and to reduce gross tropical deforestation by at least 50% by 2020 compared to current levels || Worldwide forests cover 30% of land. While EU forest area is increasing, deforestation is an important problem worldwide, accounting for 20% of global CO2 emissions – more than total EU GHG emissions.

At EU level, forests and the forest sector currently receive important funds from the EU. Forestry measures under RD Regulation constitute the resource backbone for the implementation of the strategy adding up to around 90% of total EU funds spent on forestry. LIFE+ provides support for nature protection and forest information needs, and cohesion and structural funds support regional development projects. Horizon 2020[58] and the European Innovation Partnerships (EIP) are important tools for the development of research and innovation actions. One EIP on agriculture sustainability and productivity has recently been launched[59] and another EIP on raw materials[60].

There is also some possibilities for state aid in the forest sector under certain conditions, see further information regarding this in chapter 2.3.8.

At international level, development, neighbourhood and climate change policies also provide relevant financing for third countries, with a relevant contribution through REDD+ and FLEGT.

Innovative financing mechanisms will also be needed to mobilise funding from both public and private sources, in particular for payment of ecosystem services.

Chapter 1 provides a background explaining the developments that followed the adoption of the EU Forestry Strategy in 1998, including in particular the Forest Action Plan and the Green Paper on Forest Protection and information. Below follows a detailed description of the EU actions already carried out or on-going under the different policies relevant for forests and the forest sector as well as financial possibilities under the different policies.

2.3.1. Rural development and cohesion policy

2.3.1.1. Rural development

If we want forests to maintain and maximise their functions, including protection, it is important to ensure that forests contribute to generate wealth and employment in rural areas.

Part A: 2007-2013

With forests covering over 40 % of EU land it seems clear that a policy aiming at developing rural areas has to cover also forests and forestry. This is already the case in the current Rural Development Regulation for the period 2007-2013[61]. The regulation is the main financial instrument for the implementation of the EU Forestry Strategy and the EU Forest Action Plan (2007-2011), which Member States have to take into account when defining their national rural development strategies and rural development programmes. Compared to earlier Rural Development Regulations, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) offers a more coherent and structured set of measures that support forestry, with a strong emphasis on Sustainable Forest Management (SFM). The regulation offers a comprehensive toolkit for Member States with more than 40 measures through 3 Axis and the Leader approach to choose for their programmes. This toolkit includes 8 measures specifically targeting forests and 7 others that can be used among others for forest related activities. All of these (apart from one) are within Axis 2 ("Improving the environment and the countryside"), and should therefore contribute to the EU-level priority objectives of biodiversity, water and climate change. Member States are free to choose measures and allocate budgets according to their specific needs in the current 88 Rural Development Programmes (RDP) including national and regional programmes.

The total financial resources allocated by Member States to the 8 forestry-specific measures were initially €12 billion including public and private funds and also including €6 billion from the rural development fund. This constitutes about 7 % of overall intended EAFRD spending. Since the adoption of the programmes in 2007-2008 they are under continuous modifications (including the "Health-check" related ones[62]) in order to be adapted to new challenges and to changing needs and adaptation capacity. Since the economic crisis started in 2008, forestry measures are also subject of financial adjustments. The Commission prepared a report in 2009 on the implementation of forestry measures which summarised the planned measures and planned allocation of resources for forestry and forestry related measures according to the original programmes (before any modifications)[63]

In addition to the forestry-specific measures substantial amounts of funding is directed to forestry through those axis 1 ("Improving the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector") measures which can cover both agricultural and forestry activities. The measures "adding value to agricultural and forestry products" and "support to infrastructure related to the development and adaptation of agriculture and forestry" have the largest budgets among these forestry-related measures.

Adding together the funding intended for forestry-specific (€ 6 billion) and forestry-related measures (€ 1-2 billion) it was expected that around € 8 billion would be made available from the Community budget (EAFRD) and up to € 16 billion in total. These amounts correspond respectively to 9 % of the EAFRD funding and 7-8 % of the total amount of financial resources devoted to rural development programmes during the programming period 2007-2013.

Implementation of forestry measures during 2007-2013

The implementation of forestry measures started slowly and the data shows that by the end of 2011 there appears to have been some under-spending for forestry measures compared to the original target and even compared to the updated targets which take into account the on-going modifications. In terms of the realised payments two environmentally focused measures performed very much under the average; payments for the forest-environment and Natura 2000 measures where less than 14% of the updated and reduced budget. The implementation of afforestation of agricultural land performed the best 40%. However, in this case there is a significant determination for payments(delay in actual payments), because of the long commitment period from the previous programming periods for payments for lost income, which is still under execution for afforestation during 2000-2006. Even if the measure targeting restoring forestry potential and prevention against fires and natural disasters has a long history since the 80'ies, the implementation is just almost the same as for afforestation, around 40%. In average the financial implementation of eight forestry specific measure was 34% by the end of 2011. Considering that 2013 is the last year for implementation of the measures and for using the available financial resources, it is understandable that sember states made several financial reallocations to avoid losing EAFRD funds. As a result of these reallocations the new updated plan for the above 8 forestry specific measures has been modified to €5.4 billion which is 88% of the planned €6.1 billion in 2007.

The financial implementation of the measures, i.e. the requested EAFRD payments, increased in 2012. This can be explained by the fact that many forestry measures cover multiannual activities and payments for the work done comes progressively (e.g. establishment of new or replanting damaged forests). Table 8 shows the updated plan and the payments requested in the year 2012. According to these figures 48% of the planned expenses had been requested by the end of 2012. However, when comparing with the originally planned expenses the implementation level differs among measures, but altogether it is close to 42% of the planned level in 2007.

Spending for prevention and restoration has the best result; slightly over 55% of the originally planned. Measures providing support for non-productive investments and afforestation of agricultural land performed well; 55,5% and 45.7% respectively. Spending for afforestation of non-agricultural land (where there is no long commitment period and determination for payments for lost income). The only forestry specific Axis 1 measure supporting improvement of the economic value of forest through sustainable investments, reached already around 28% of their expected level. Payments for establishment of agroforestry systems, forest environment payments and for Natura 2000 are still lagging behind the expectations. However, both measures show some improvements during the last years. In the case of Natura 2000 payments the preparation of management plans or equivalent instruments was the first step of the implementation and the preparation of these plans could have received supports from an Axis 3 measure.

Table 8. Implementation of forestry measures under Rural Development regulation

Source: European Commission, 2013

Concerning the physical implementation of the above mentioned measures the available preliminary intermediate data by the end of 2011 still show a moderate development in the implementation. It means that in the case of afforestation where the payment level was 40% by the end of 2011, the real planting of trees on agricultural land was lagging behind and only 122 000 ha compare with the planned 566 000 ha. This is close to 22% of the already modified plantation target. The original target for afforestation of agricultural land was 650 000 ha at the end of the adoption of the programmes in 2008.

Member States and stakeholders indicated that they had problem in interpretations of some requirements and considered that the high administrative burden and the low fund contributions were the main causes for the low level of performance.

Part B: 2014-2020

The Commission presented a proposal for a regulation for the EAFRD 2014-2020[64] in October 2011, as part of its proposal to reform the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The EAFRD will no longer be divided into three areas or axis but into six priorities linked to the EU's 2020 strategy.

Figure 12. Link between Europe 2020 and the EAFRD

Source: European Commission, 2011

The proposed regulation acknowledges that forestry is an integral part of rural development. Support for sustainable and climate friendly land use should encompass forest area development and sustainable management of forests. In the interest of simplification but also to allow beneficiaries to design and realise integrated projects with increased added value, there was an aim that a single measure should cover all types of support for forestry investments and management. This measure is intended to cover the extension and improvement of forest resources through afforestation of land and creation of agroforestry systems combining agriculture with forestry systems, restoration of forests damaged by fire or other natural disasters and relevant prevention measures, investments in forestry technologies and in the processing and marketing of forest products aimed at improving the economic and environmental performance of forest holders and non-remunerative investments which improve ecosystem and climate resilience and environmental value of forest ecosystems.

Based on the experiences gained through implementation of the current and previous measures, there was a need for simplification and for improving effectiveness by merging and regrouping existing measures and by allowing more flexibility to the Member States to take into account their national or regional specificities and the characteristics of forestry processes, which are different from and have a different time span than agricultural ones.

Forestry measures should be proposed in the light of undertakings by the Union and the Member States at international level, and be based on Member States’ national or sub-national forest plans or equivalent instruments which should take into account the commitments made in the Ministerial Conferences on the Protection of Forests in Europe. Building on the work done through this Forest Europe process, there is now a requirement that for holdings above a certain size, to be determined by the Member States in the programme, support shall be conditional on the presentation of the relevant information from a forest management plan or equivalent instrument in line with SFM. (see chapter 2.1.9) This requirement, based on the subsidiarity principles, gives free hands to Member States to set an appropriate threshold which reflects their socio-bio-geographic specificities, however, at the same time acknowledges the importance of proper planning and results achieved in this field.

It is particularly important to acknowledge the multifunctional role that forests and forestry have for the rural economies and environments. Forestry measures should be constructed so that they simultaneously contribute to economic, environmental and social objectives. Measures aiming at improving the public amenity value of forests or environmental objectives (such as improving forest health, biodiversity, climate change resilience, protection of water and soil) should not exclude sustainable economic use of the supported forest areas.

These are the main forestry related measures in the draft regulation:[65]

Article 22: Investments in forest area development and improvement of the viability of forests;

- afforestation and creation of woodland (art. 23)

- establishment of agroforestry systems (art. 24)

- prevention and restoration of damage to forests from forest fires and natural disasters, including pest and disease outbreaks, catastrophic events and climate related threats (art. 25)

- investments improving the resilience and environmental value as well as the mitigation potential of forest ecosystems (art. 26)

- investments in forestry technologies and in processing and marketing of forest products (art. 27)

Article 31: Natura 2000 and Water Framework Directive payments, and

Article 35: forest environmental and climate services and forest conservation

At the time of the preparation of the Forest Strategy and this Staff working document, the proposal for rural development was under discussion and preparation in the Council and in the Parliament, together with the related documents, e.g. Delegated Act, Guidelines. Member States are expected to prepare their rural development programmes by 2014, therefore, the past experiences and future expectations should be incorporated into the new programmes. For this reason the new EU Forest Strategy is timely and could provide impetus for the planning work.

2.3.1.2. EU Cohesion policy support to forestry

In addition to the EAFRD, Member States and their regions can also benefit from the support of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and European Social Fund (ESF) The ERDF co-finances programmes and projects that might be directly or indirectly linked to forests and the forestry sector, in the framework of measures aimed at territorial development. Some examples that can be linked to forests and the forestry area are: investments of the ERDF in Natura 2000 and the promotion of biodiversity and ecosystem services, the use of biomass as renewable energy and the support to SME's and innovation.

The ERDF co-finances cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation programmes that can support projects which relate to forests and forestry. Projects can include the following fields of intervention: monitoring and information systems as well as networks linked to forest fires, sustainable land management, Information sharing on climate change adaptation, carbon sequestration and risk reduction, biodiversity, policies against depopulation in mountain areas, favouring of bio-energy use, cooperation for use of renewables and energy efficiency and sustainable development of regions through SMEs.

2.3.1.3. Contribution from the EU Forest Strategy to rural development

The EU Forest Strategy should contribute to achieve the rural development objectives underlined above by:

- Improving the competitiveness of the forest sector and promoting the diversification of economic activity and quality of life, delivering specific environmental public goods [66];

- Assessing and improving the effect of forestry measures under rural development policy;

- Emphasising the social aspects of sustainable forest management

- Ensuring a sustainable workforce as one of the pillars for a successful implementation;

- Better valuing the benefits that forests give to society, and, through SFM, finding the right balance between delivering the various goods and services. Restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems dependent on forestry

2.3.2. Forest Protection: Environmental policy and plant health and reproductive material policy

From the environmental policy perspective, the major policy developments since the 1998 strategy are the following:

• The development of the EU 2020 biodiversity Strategy against the background of the EU's international commitments to halt the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020 and in particular the different specific targets therein which are relevant to forests and forest ecosystem services;

• The EU 25 Member States (i.e. excluding Romania and Bulgaria) reported in 2008 according to the provisions of Article 17 of the Habitat Directive, on the conservation status of all the species and habitats listed in the Annexes of the Habitats Directive which occur on their territory. On the basis of this, the Commission produced a consolidated report on the conservation status of each species and habitat type at a bio geographical and EU level. These reports provide useful contextual information.[67] A new report for the period 2007-2013 will be produced in 2015 on improved scientific basis;

• The advancing implementation of the Natura 2000 legislation[68] and the inclusion of forest areas as approximately 50% of the network. This will entail work on appropriate EU funding and on cooperation between foresters and nature conservationists;

• The implementation of water and air legislation (notably the water framework[69] and national emissions ceilings directives[70]) and of the soil thematic strategy[71];

• The 6th and now 7th Environment Action Program[72]-[73] with considerable emphasis not least on the protection of natural resources;

• The adoption of the Resource Efficiency roadmap[74] which raises issues regarding how we use resources and the choices we make regarding priorities;

• The EU-wide impacts of the expected increase of forest biomass for bio-energy potentially leading to runaway developments that may threaten more climate friendly use of wood as a material;

• The upcoming invasive alien species initiative, under the 2020 Biodiversity Strategy[75];

• The Commission adopted a proposal in May 2013 for a new EU Plant reproductive material regulation[76].

• The Commission adopted a proposal in May 2013 for a new EU plant health Regulation, offering reinforced protection of trees and forests against new non-European pests[77];

• The development of the EU database of forest reproductive material containing species and artificial hybrids listed in Annex I to Council Directive 1999/105/EC, and including hyperlinks to national registers;

• The outcomes of the FLEGT Action Plan[78] which have both internal and international aspects;

• REDD/REDD +[79] issues/outcomes;

• The amendments of the EIA directive[80] on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment

• The SEA directive[81] on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment

2.3.2.1. Forest Protection

European forests are threatened by biotic and abiotic agents, such as insects and other pests, diseases, grazing and invasive alien species, windstorms, forest fires, droughts, floods and avalanches. Both the nature and the effects of certain threats are trans-boundary and therefore actions at EU level increase the added value of the measures.

The disturbances caused by these agents do have significant socioeconomic and environmental impacts and climate change effects will further exacerbate them, particularly through the increased frequency of extreme events (storms, drought, floods and temperature extremes).

Relevant policy instruments already provide support for prevention and restoration, such as for example, the EU Rural Development and regional policy measures, the EU legislation on Plant Health and Plant Reproductive Material, the Solidarity Fund, other Civil Protection Mechanisms. The use in forestry of high-quality reproductive material suited to the site in question is essential if the stability, disease-resistance, adaptation, productivity, diversity and overall resilience of forests are to be increased

The EU plant health legislation has been reviewed and a proposal for a new Regulation on protective measures against pests of plants has been adopted in May 2013. The new Regulation will offer better protection of forests against new non-European pests reaching the Union with international trade, including mandatory surveys for such pests and obligations to eradicate or contain those pests. In this context, the Commission is currently assessing the impacts of the extension of the obligation to apply within the EU the International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures nº 15 on wood packaging materials.

The EU forest reproductive material has been reviewed and a new regulation on Plant Reproductive Material (PRM) was adopted in May 2013. The new PRM regulation reinforces the principles set in the Directive 1999/105/EC on FRM: approval of well identified material on the basis of its origin, traceability as well as flexibility for operators and decrease of the administrative burden.

The Forest Strategy should ensure that under changing climatic conditions forests have enough resilience to, and are adequately protected against natural and human-induced threats so that forest cover is maintained, if not increased, forests are healthy and provisioning of all forest functions is continued. Prevention has to be priorities, rather than damage mitigation and restoration.

2.3.2.2. The fight against illegal logging

Illegal logging is the harvesting of timber in contravention of the laws and regulations of the country of harvest. Illegal logging is a global problem with significant negative economic, environmental and social impact. In economic terms illegal logging results in lost revenues and other foregone benefits. In environmental terms illegal logging is associated with deforestation, climate change and a loss of biodiversity. In social terms illegal logging can be linked to conflicts over land and resources, the disempowerment of local and indigenous communities, corruption and armed conflicts. Illegal activities also undermine the efforts of responsible operators by making available cheaper but illegal timber and timber products in the market place.

The European Union's policy to fight illegal logging and associated trade was defined back in 2003 with the Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan. The key regions and countries targeted in the FLEGT Action Plan, which together contain nearly 60% of the world’s forest and supply a large proportion of internationally traded timber, are Central Africa, Russia, Tropical South America and Southeast Asia. The FLEGT Action Plan covers both supply and demand side measures to address illegal logging, and was endorsed by the EU Council of Ministers in November 2003.

The FLEGT Action Plan has led to two key pieces of legislation:

FLEGT Regulation[82] adopted in 2005, allowing for the control of the entry of timber to the EU from countries entering into bilateral FLEGT Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPA) with the EU; EU Timber Regulation[83] adopted in 2010, as an overarching measure to prohibit placing of illegal timber and timber products on the internal market. This regulation came into effect on 3 March 2013.

However the EU response has not been limited to legislative measur