[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels, 10.3.2005

SEC(2005) 333

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Annex to the : Communication on the implementation of the EU Forestry Strategy {COM(2005) 84 final}

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. BACKGROUND 5

1.1. Context for the preparation of the implementation report 5

1.2. The process of producing this report 6

1.3. Structure and contents of this report 6

2. THE EU FOREST SECTOR 8

2.1. Main characteristics 8

2.2. Forest management in the new Member States 12

3. RECENT TRENDS IN EU FOREST POLICY 14

3.1. Overview of actions 14

3.2. Concluding remarks 16

4. DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL FOREST PROGRAMMES 17

4.1. Progress in individual Member States 17

4.2. Development process and structure of national forest programmes 20

4.3. Concluding remarks 21

5. EU AND THE “INTERNATIONAL FOREST REGIME” 22

5.1. From the “Rio Forest Principles” to the UN Forum on Forests 22

5.2. Other elements of the international forest regime 23

5.3. The Ministerial Conferences on the Protection of Forests in Europe 24

5.4. Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) 25

5.5. Concluding remarks 26

6. COMMUNITY ACTIONS RELATED TO THE EU FORESTRY STRATEGY 27

6.1. Forestry in the context of rural development 27

6.1.1. The conceptual framework for forestry measures within the rural developmentpolicy 27

6.1.2. Implementation of 2000–2006 programmes in the EU-15 Member Sates 28

6.1.3. Overview of individual forestry measures 29

6.1.4. Recent policy developments 35

6.1.5. Rural development policy post-2006 35

6.1.6. Concluding remarks 36

6.2. Support for forestry measures in accession countries – the Sapard programme 36

6.2.1. Overview of actions 37

6.2.2. Concluding remarks 38

6.3. The European forestry information and communication system (EFICS) 38

6.3.1. Overview of actions 39

6.3.2. Concluding remarks 39

6.4. EU forest monitoring measures 40

6.4.1. Council Regulation (EEC) No 3528/86 on the protection of forests against atmospheric pollution 40

6.4.2. Council Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 on the protection of the Community’sforests against fire 42

6.4.3. A new approach to forest monitoring 44

6.4.4. Concluding remarks 46

6.5. Forests and biodiversity 46

6.5.1. EU situation, initiatives and actions 47

6.5.2. Important developments regarding forest biodiversity conservation 49

6.5.3. Concluding remarks 51

6.6. Forests and climate change 51

6.6.1. Activities at international level 52

6.6.2. Activities at EU Level 53

6.6.3. Activities at the national level 55

6.6.4. Concluding remarks 56

6.7. Forest-based and related industries 56

6.7.1. Background 57

6.7.2. Activities at EU level 59

6.7.3. Concluding remarks 62

6.8. Forest certification 63

6.8.1. Recent developments 65

6.8.2. Concluding remarks 66

6.9. Forestry within the EU research policy 67

6.9.1. Research actions under the EU Framework Programmes 67

6.9.2. Forestry-related research at the Joint Research Centre (JRC) 69

6.9.3. Concluding remarks 71

6.10. Complementary actions 72

6.10.1. Forest reproductive material and plant health 72

6.10.2. “Forests and Development: The EC approach” 73

7. CO-ORDINATION, COMMUNICATION AND CO-OPERATION 75

7.1. Co-ordination within the Commission 76

7.2. Co-ordination with the Member States 76

7.3. Communication and co-operation with stakeholders 77

7.4. Concluding remarks 78

8. MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND EMERGING ISSUES 79

8.1. Sustainable forest management and the multifunctional role of forests 79

8.2. National forest programmes 80

8.3. The international forest policy debate 80

8.4. Community actions concerning forests and forestry 81

8.5. Co-ordination, communication and co-operation 86

8.6. Concluding remarks 86

BACKGROUND

CONTEXT FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION REPORT

On 15 December 1998, the European Council adopted a Resolution on a Forestry Strategy for the European Union[1]. This Strategy was the outcome of a process initiated in 1996 with a call from the European Parliament[2] requesting the Commission to put forward a legislative proposal on a European Forestry Strategy, in response to which the Commission presented a corresponding Communication to the Council and the European Parliament[3]. The growing concern about the coherence between the forest policies of the Member States and forest related activities at the EU level, as well as the rising profile of forests in international policy debates and initiatives in the area of sustainable development, were the main driving forces behind the adoption of the EU Forestry Strategy.

The Forestry Strategy provides a framework for forest-related actions in the EU, considering the existing EU legislation concerning the forest sector and the commitments made by the European Union and its Member States in all relevant international processes, in particular the UN Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 and its follow-up, as well as the Ministerial Conferences on the Protection of Forests in Europe. The Strategy emphasises the importance of the multifunctional role of forests and sustainable forest management (Article 1) and identifies a series of key elements (in Article 2), which include:

- Forest policy being a Member State competence, while the EU can contribute to the implementation of sustainable forest management through common policies, based on the principle of subsidiarity and the concept of shared responsibility;

- Implementation of international commitments, principles and recommendations through national or sub-national forest programmes developed by the Member States and active participation in all forest-related international processes;

- The need to improve co-ordination, communication and co-operation in all policy areas of relevance to the forest sector, both within the Commission and with the Member States, and also among the Member States.

These elements form the basis for the EU Forestry Strategy and its implementation process.

The Council Resolution on a Forestry Strategy asks the Commission to present to the Council an implementation report five years after its adoption. Consequently, the Commission has elaborated a Communication to the Council and the European Parliament containing an overview about the EU forest sector and the recent trends in forest policy, as well as a description of the Community actions and policies relevant to the Strategy during the period of 1999–2003. In order to provide a background to this Communication, the Commission has prepared this Commission Staff Working Document.

The implementation of the EU Forestry Strategy, as stated in the Council Resolution, is a dynamic process. The Strategy encourages a participatory and transparent approach involving all stakeholders, recognising the wide variety of ownership regimes within the Community and the important role of forest owners. Today, this approach is becoming mainstream practice in national policy- and decision-making in the forest sector.

Therefore, in the above context, the Commission believes that it is in the spirit of the Strategy to conduct this exercise in association with the Member States, interest groups and other relevant stakeholders. An active exchange of information and communication is essential, so that the forest-related issues in the European Union can be addressed in an adaptive manner – learning from the achievements and making improvements where shortcomings or gaps exist.

The process of producing this report

In order to ensure a balanced representation of all important issues and to account for all relevant activities carried out throughout the EU during the five years of implementation of the Strategy, an extensive consultation process with the Member States and stakeholders was carried out in preparation of this document. Firstly, the Standing Forestry Committee has provided a very constructive input, and a questionnaire on the implementation of the EU Forestry Strategy was sent out to the members of the Standing Forestry Committee and observers from acceding countries in November 2003. The responses were analysed and are used in this report. Secondly, the member organisations of the Advisory Group on Forestry and Cork, which are representing both public and private forest owners, forest-based industries, environmental NGOs, forest trade unions, traders and consumer groups, made a substantial contribution. To complement the consultation process and in order to give all relevant stakeholders an opportunity to provide their input into this reporting exercise, an internet-based stakeholder consultation on the Draft Commission Staff Working Document was carried by the Commission. And last, but not least, an effective co-operation in this process between the services of the European Commission enabled an in-depth coverage of the issues addressed by the EU Forestry Strategy.

Structure and contents of this report

This implementation report is divided into eight main sections and structured along the main issues addressed in the Strategy. Following this introduction, Section 2 describes the EU forest sector including the peculiarities of forest management in the ten new Member States. Sections 3 and 4 deal respectively with the recent trends in EU forest policy and review the progress in the development of national forest programmes in the Member States.

The implementation of international commitments and active participation in relevant international processes was distinguished in the Strategy as an important element in promoting sustainable forest management in the European Union and beyond. Activities related to this issue are addressed in Section 5.

The Strategy adopted the concept of sustainable forest management as defined at the Helsinki Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe[4] and the multifunctional role of forests as overall principles for action. In order to accomplish the above, the Strategy addressed a number of specific issues. The development and maintenance of rural areas and the contribution of forestry and forest-based industries to income, employment and other elements affecting the quality of life, was underlined. The inter-relation between forestry and the forest-based industries influences the competitiveness and economic viability of each sector. This was recognised, as well as the fact that the use of wood and other forest products is environmentally friendly. Among the environmental aspects, the Strategy highlighted, but was not limited to the conservation and enhancement of biological diversity, the maintenance of forest heritage and the role of forests in mitigating the effects of climate change. Forest protection measures constitute an integral element of sustainable forest management and the actions carried out at EU level were considered in the Strategy, together with the need to improve information and communication in forestry issues. The progress made in the implementation of Community actions in these and other specific areas related to the fulfilment of the three main functions of forests is reported in Section 6, the most technical part of this report.

Section 7 describes co-ordination, communication and co-operation in addressing forest-related issues in the EU. The Strategy calls for a better integration of forests and forest products in all sectoral common policies in order to take into account both the contribution of the sector to other policies and the impacts of other policies on forest-related issues. Also, as requested by the Strategy, the variety of European natural environments and socio-economic conditions needs to be considered. Similarly, the opinions of a broad range of stakeholders have to be sought in a participatory and transparent approach.

Finally, Section 8 is intended to summarise the accomplishments during the implementation period and to present some emerging issues in the forest sector of the European Union.

THE EU FOREST SECTOR

MAIN CHARACTERISTICS

There is a great diversity of natural forest types, forest cover, ownership structure and socio-economic conditions in the EU.

Forests are one of the most important renewable resources that Europe has and can still be considered as the most important component of European nature. EU-25 forests and other wooded land cover approximately 160 million ha (35% of the EU territory), of which 117 million ha are available for wood supply (Table 1). Additionally, both as a result of afforestation programmes and due to the natural succession on abandoned agricultural land, forest cover in the EU is still increasing. However, large differences in the share of forested areas in the landscapes of individual regions of the Community still remain.

The recent enlargement of the EU to 25 Member States has led to a substantial expansion of the EU forest sector, both in forest area and in terms of productive and ecological potential. The total area covered by forests and other wooded land grew by some 20%.

In addition, Bulgaria and Romania are candidate countries and hope to join the Union by 2007, adding another 11 million ha of forest area. Turkey is also a candidate country with 21 million ha of forest and other wooded land area, although it is not yet negotiating its membership.

Forests and forestry in the European Union are characterised by a wide variety of climatic, geographic, ecological as well as socio-economic conditions. EU forests are situated in very different ecological environments, ranging from boreal to the Mediterranean, and from alpine to lowlands.

About 35% of forests and other wooded land in the EU-15 were in public, and about 65% in private ownership (see Table 2). However, with the accession of the ten new Member States, the proportion between areas of publicly and privately owned forests has changed to approximately 40% public and 60% private forests.

Along with the change in distribution between individual types of forest ownership in the EU, the changes are also taking place in the occupation and life styles of private forest owners. In some regions, forest owners are increasingly becoming less dependent from forestry as a main source of income and practice urbanised lifestyles.

After enlargement, the number of private forest holdings has increased by 25% and it is estimated that the number of forest owners has risen by nearly three million. In the EU-15, private forest holdings were managed by an estimated number of 12 million forest owners, being in most cases small-scale private forest owners. Forest restitution processes, which took place in the new Member States, have introduced private forest ownership. The situation is characterised by variation in knowledge and understanding of forest management by private forest owners, size of individual forest holding, expectations from and interests in forest management.

Table 1. Areas of forest and other wooded land in EU and candidate countries |

Country | Total area of forest and other wooded land | Forest area | Other wooded land |

Austria | 3 924 | 3 840 | 3 352 | 488 | 84 |

Belgium | 672 | 646 | 639 | 7 | 26 |

Denmark | 538 | 445 | 440 | 5 | 93 |

Finland | 22 768 | 21 883 | 20 675 | 1 208 | 885 |

France | 16 989 | 15 156 | 14 470 | 686 | 1 833 |

Germany | 10 740 | 10 740 | 10 142 | 598 | 0 |

Greece | 6 513 | 3 359 | 3 094 | 265 | 3 154 |

Ireland | 591 | 591 | 580 | 11 | 0 |

Italy | 10 842 | 9 857 | 6 013 | 3 844 | 985 |

Luxembourg | 89 | 86 | 86 | 0 | 3 |

Netherlands | 339 | 339 | 314 | 25 | 0 |

Portugal | 3 467 | 3 383 | 1 897 | 1 486 | 84 |

Spain | 25 984 | 13 509 | 10 479 | 3 030 | 12 475 |

Sweden | 30 259 | 27 264 | 21 236 | 6 028 | 2 995 |

United Kingdom | 2 489 | 2 469 | 2 108 | 361 | 20 |

Total EU-15 | 136 204 | 113 567 | 95 525 | 18 042 | 22 637 |

Cyprus | 280 | 117 | 43 | 74 | 163 |

Czech Republic | 2 630 | 2 630 | 2 559 | 71 | 0 |

Estonia | 2 162 | 2 016 | 1 932 | 84 | 146 |

Hungary | 1 811 | 1 811 | 1 702 | 109 | 0 |

Latvia | 2 995 | 2 884 | 2 413 | 471 | 111 |

Lithuania | 2 050 | 1 978 | 1 686 | 292 | 72 |

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

Poland | 8 942 | 8 942 | 8 300 | 642 | 0 |

Slovak Republic | 2 031 | 2 016 | 1 706 | 310 | 15 |

Slovenia | 1 166 | 1 099 | 1 035 | 64 | 67 |

Total EU-25 | 160 271 | 137 060 | 116 901 | 20 159 | 23 211 |

Bulgaria | 3 903 | 3 590 | 3 124 | 466 | 314 |

Romania | 6 680 | 6 301 | 5 617 | 684 | 379 |

Turkey | 20 713 | 9 954 | 8 635 | 1 319 | 10 759 |

Source: TBFRA 2000 (UNECE /FAO). |

The average size of EU public forest holdings is more than 1 000 ha, while private forest holdings have an average size of 13 ha. However, there is considerable variation among countries in the average size of holdings. The vast majority of private owners have holdings of less than 3 ha. These characteristics of forest ownership make the EU a particular case among the large international forest producing countries, where public ownership is often the predominant, even exclusive, situation.

Table 2. Growing stock, annual net increment and fellings in EU and candidate countries |

The forest sector is one of the most important economic sectors within the EU

Forestry and forest-based and related industries comprise the following industrial sectors: woodworking, cork and other forest-based materials; pulp, paper and paper-board manufacturing; paper and paper-board converting, and printing industries. They employ about 2.7 million people in the EU-15, producing an annual production value of about EUR 335 billion (2001). Forestry and forest-based and related industries in the ten new Member States are estimated to provide employment for about 650 000 individuals, with an annual production value of EUR 20.6 billion (2001).

The social and economic importance of forestry in rural areas is difficult to assess and tend to be underestimated as forestry is characterised by small enterprises or even individuals working under certain conditions and activities are commonly coupled with those of other economic sectors.

Besides wood, forests produce many other products, such as cork, resins, medicinal plants, mushrooms and berries. Cork is one of the most important non-wood forest products in the European Union, with approximately 1.7 million ha of cork oak forests accounting for 80% of the worldwide production of cork. In addition, almost 100% of the manufactured output of cork originates in the EU.

The EU is one of the biggest traders and consumers of forest products in the world, with a positive trade balance overall. Conversely, supplies of wood-based raw materials of adequate quality can be imported at competitive prices and the EU is a net importer of these. The two main types of such imports comprise: roundwood, mostly from the Russian Federation (in roughly equal quantities of coniferous and non-coniferous) and Eastern European countries (both non-coniferous and coniferous), as well as wood pulps coming from North and South America and other regions that have high forest growth rates and low costs for timber production and processing. In contrast, for certain categories of processed wood products, some EU sub-sectors exhibit a particularly high level of domestic supply, especially of the more highly value-added products (e.g. quality papers and wood-based panels). Consequently, the EU is a prominent exporter of these. Table 3 shows this situation in figures for the EU-15 and the new Member States. These positions are strengthened even more with the accession of new member states, where forestry plays an important role in some of the national economies (e.g. the Baltic States, Slovakia and Poland).

Table 3. Roundwood and processed wood products flows in EU-15 and the new Member States |

EU-15 + 10, year 2002 |

Next to their production function, EU forests provide environmental and social functions

Forests offer many goods and benefits in addition to forest products, because they provide important environmental functions, such as the conservation of the natural heritage and the protection of water and soil. In addition, forests are very important in supplying social and recreational services, because people have traditionally close links to them. Forestry provides also for the stewardship of scenic and cultural values, as well as other functions, such as traditional collection of mushrooms and berries, hunting and tourism.

Forest biotope in Europe remains home to the largest number of species on the continent (e.g. the Mediterranean biogeographical region alone has 30 000 vascular plants, of which over 10 000 are exclusively regional). This indicates the biological importance and vitality of forests. Less than 1% of EU forests are undisturbed by man, over 2/3 of all forests in Europe are classified as semi-natural, with half of the forest area covered by mixed-species forests. About 12% of the forest area is designated as protected forests. Their management is mainly directed to soil, water or biodiversity conservation and to protect infrastructure.

Forest protection is a constant concern

The Temperate & Boreal Forest Resources Assessment 2000 (UNECE/FAO) identified biotic factors and grazing as main causes of forest damage within the EU. Other major factors affecting forests are air pollution, storms and forest fires. While EU legislation has led to considerable improvement of air quality in Western Europe over the past 20 years, deposition of air pollutants is still a concern for European forests and most sites with the highest acid inputs (which comprise nitrogen as well as sulphate deposition) are now situated in Central European forests. Several heavy storms within a relatively short period, the latest at the end of 1999 in France and South Germany, caused severe damage to more than 1 million ha of forests (three times the normal annual cut of timber uprooted). Forest fires are the most important damaging factor in the Mediterranean countries where between 300 000 to 500 000 ha of forests and other wooded land are burnt per year. Forest fires were particularly virulent during the summer of 2003 when the forests were exposed to very hot and dry climatic conditions, and when, for instance, only in Portugal, around 400 000 ha were destroyed by fire.

Forest management in the new Member States

The above-mentioned increase both in forest area and in terms of productive and ecological potential in the EU-25 deserves special attention. During the period 1999–2002, several studies assessed the impact of enlargement on the forest sector and the specific forest management issues in those countries[5]. Some of the particular aspects of the forest sectors of new Member States are reviewed below, emphasising the restitution and/or privatisation of forest land, institutional reforms, timber processing and the conservation of biodiversity.

One of the most important issues in the eight continental new Member States, which has triggered a whole sequence of market and governance changes, is the restitution and/or privatisation of forest land and other forest-related assets. Most of these new Member States (with the notable exception of Poland), started far-reaching programmes to re-privatise forests that had been mostly managed by public forest services until 1989. In many cases, this has led to a large number of small forest properties, the owners of which often lack the skills or the investment capacity to develop their forests. This has resulted in a lack of economy of scale for forestry operations, which also afflicts the private forest sector in the EU-15. Absentee ownership in some locations is also a problem for efficient forest management. In most countries, the forest ownership distribution is still not conclusively settled and the approaches followed differ in many ways, including the type (e.g. private, church, municipal) and size of the areas allocated for restitution, the reference year (the conditions of which are to be restored) and the treatment of cases where restitution is not feasible or desirable (areas that ceased to be forest, nature reserves, etc.). The earlier fear that restitution would lead to excessive timber harvesting has generally not materialised, except in some limited areas in the early stages of restitution.

Another important development is the progress of institutional reforms, such as the trend towards separating the productive and the administrative functions of state forest administrations. Several new Member States and candidate countries have established commercial companies (mostly state-owned) for the management of state forests. Harvesting and silvicultural operations are mostly carried out by private contractors, and some services, like the preparation of forest management plans have also been shifted to the private domain in several countries. While these reforms have generally increased economic efficiency, jobs have been reduced in the state-owned sector and, in some cases, there is inadequate capacity for the enforcement of forestry regulations, and a low level of technical support for private forest owners. Additionally, the loss of employment in the public forest administrations caused by the restructuring of their commercial forest activities, can aggravate rural poverty in regions where no or only few alternative livelihoods are available.

From the wood-processing perspective, enlargement has maintained the EU’s position as a net exporter of forest products. Confirming a process that has already started several years ago, forest products originating from the continental new Member States continue to gain market share in the EU. The reason for this has been the differentials in processing costs and product prices, respectively, between the EU-15 and the EU-10. The new Member States have offered attractive investment opportunities for the forest-based industries from the EU-15, North America and elsewhere. However, erosion of the differentials continues, with rising wage rates and social and environmental requirements in the EU-10. At the same time, the growing living standard of the new Member States will open new market possibilities for higher value-added products in those countries, particularly for printing and writing papers on the one hand and for quality wooden construction elements and furnishings on the other. As in the EU-15, demand for the use of wood and its residues for energy generation will also continue to increase. As elsewhere in the EU, that process needs to be conducted in a coherent manner so as to optimise material and value flows as well as to ensure an efficient use of the raw material.

The importance of EU-10 forests for the conservation of biodiversity has raised high hopes, not only in the framework of Natura 2000, but also outside of protected areas at the landscape level. Some new Member States have extensive and relatively undisturbed forest areas with a high conservation value. This is especially obvious as regards the existence of relatively large and stable populations of large carnivores and birds of prey.

Hence, one of the most important challenges for the new Member States is how to combine the conservation of their rich natural heritage with investments in a dynamic forest industry.

RECENT TRENDS IN EU FOREST POLICY

The EU Forestry Strategy identified the principle of subsidiarity as one of it’s substantial elements, and acknowledged the fact that “…the Treaty establishing the European Community makes no provision for a specific common forestry policy and that responsibility for forestry policy lies with the Member States, nevertheless taking into account that, pursuant to the principle of subsidiarity and the concept of shared responsibility, the Community can contribute positively to the implementation of sustainable forest management and the multifunctional role of forests.” (Article 2-b).

Overview of actions

Forest policies in the European Union are designed and implemented by Member States within clearly established framework of ownership rights and with a long history of national and regional laws and regulations. Forest policies are increasingly influenced by a number of broader societal and policy issues outside the forest sector, such as the protection of our natural and cultural heritage, climate change mitigation and the use of renewable energies.

The last five years have been marked by changes in forest policy, legal frameworks and institutional settings in the forest sectors of EU countries[6]. In general, EU Member States are bringing national forest policy in line with broad EU objectives, as stated in the EU Forestry Strategy and relevant directives, regulations and programmes. In this respect, the rural development policy of the EU, the Habitats and Birds directives, the directives on the use and marketing of forest reproductive material, as well as the energy-related directives and the 6th Community Environment Action Programme have been of particular relevance. Some countries indicate that their national policies are linked to the results of the IPF/IFF and/or the Ministerial Conferences on the Protection of Forests in Europe, with national legal frameworks having been modified and updated accordingly.

Changes have also taken place in the structure of the forest administrations. Although very diverse between countries, the trend has been towards decentralisation with more emphasis given to sub-national or regional administrations, or, in other cases, towards the privatisation of public forest services. In addition, there have been profound changes in the institutional structures in the ten new Member States.

The economic environment is marked by increased economic liberalisation and the perspective of the forest-based industries is less domestic than a decade ago

As a result of major technological developments in manufacturing, communications and transport at global level, trends towards liberalisation of international trade have been supported by increasing regional integration and by the lowering of tariff and non-tariff barriers. This has led to a set of global markets for many forest materials and products in which the market price is defined by the lowest-cost producers. In this context, not only industry but also EU forest owners are facing increasing difficulty to compete because their production costs, for wood and wood-based products are higher than those of low-cost competitors outwith the EU. Moreover, the value of the environmental and social functions (for forests: protection of soils, biodiversity and watersheds, climate regulation, recreation, etc.; for wood processing: low energy use and low emissions) is not covered by wood product revenues.

At the same time, pressure to control illegal logging and to introduce market-based instruments that promote sustainable forest management, such as forest certification, has arisen from the concern about the alarming rate of loss and degradation of forests at a global level. Whilst new EU measures are emerging to tackle these issues directly (see section 5.4), forest certification has been one of the tools to encourage the sustainability of forest management and, thereby, raise awareness about these trends. This may also be extended to include the certification of wood products and wood-processing industries along the chain-of-custody from the forest to the ultimate customer of products.

Growing emphasis is put on nature conservation and the promotion of biological diversity of forest ecosystems

On one hand, European Environment Agency (EEA) reports on general environmental conditions in Europe have indicated a tendency towards more uniform forest structures, reduction of variety in tree species and loss of biodiversity. And the UNECE/FAO assessment of the temperate and boreal forests (TBFRA 2000) gathered new data on forest dwelling species showing that the number of threatened taxa is alarmingly high. On the other hand, the finalisation of the NATURA 2000 designation process has revealed that forests are among the most important groups of habitats in this network of protected sites. Forest policy-makers are therefore confronted with growing expectations to increase the rate of protected areas for nature conservation, and increase the diversification of species composition, for example by favouring an uneven-aged structure of forest stands, eliminating or at least reducing clear cuttings and extending selective harvesting systems, as well as diminishing the use of chemicals in forests, enhancing natural regeneration, planting indigenous species and managing forest fires.

The EU has taken up a leading role in the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol

The implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, and more general considerations about climate change, are expected to have a significant impact on forest policies and the competitiveness of this sector in the future. Presently, there is a lot of research being conducted to better understand how climate change will affect European forests, including how to adapt forest management to the potential changes. The EU has consistently defended the position that the contribution of the forest sector to the Kyoto objectives through the use of sinks projects has to be based on environmental integrity and social equity. In order to implement climate change mitigation objectives through substitution of fossil fuel, the EU has set up an array of legislation to increase the use of renewable energy sources in electricity generation, heating and transport for which biomass of various types may play an important role.

Policy problems become increasingly interdependent and the impact and linkages between forest policies and other policy domains is steadily growing

The globalisation and the promotion through the media of the debates on biodiversity conservation and climate change, have favoured public interest in initiatives where nature protection, economic aspects as well as the social expectations of citizens are increasingly taken into account. A framework of coherent public policies with co-ordinated objectives, strategies and instruments is considered more and more essential to overcome complex land use challenges.

Concluding remarks

Recent trends in EU forest policy suggest that policy issues are becoming increasingly interdependent and that the impact and linkages between forest policies and other policy domains are steadily growing.

Economically, the period of 1999–2003 was marked by a further liberalisation of world trade and the resulting globalisation of markets for forest-based materials and products. Thus, EU forest owners are facing increasing difficulty to maintain competitiveness because they have to compete with low-cost wood-producers outside the EU, whilst the value of their forests’ environmental and social services is not met by timber revenues.

Additionally, the EU has taken up a leading role in the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, which is expected to have a significant impact on forest policies in the future.

DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL FOREST PROGRAMMES

The EU Forestry Strategy identifies, as one of the substantial elements, that international commitments, principles and recommendations, should be implemented through national and sub-national forest programmes or appropriate instruments developed by the Member States (Article 2-d).

The concept of national forest programme has evolved under a variety of names and intergovernmental processes for nearly 20 years. Today, the term has become an important concept with a broad scope for achieving sustainable forest management, in a manner that respects national sovereignty and is consonant with specific country conditions. At their best, such programmes should close the gap between forest-related international agreements and operational forest management. The overall objective of developing national forest programmes is to establish a workable social and political framework for sustainable forest management.

At international level, there is an agreement on the general principles and dimensions of national forest programmes. However, a commonly agreed definition is lacking. In response to this need, the European countries have developed a common approach to national forest programmes in the context of the MCPFE. This common approach has been included in the Vienna Conference under Resolution n° 1[7].

According to this approach, a national forest programme constitutes a participatory, holistic, inter-sectoral and iterative process of policy planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation at the national or sub-national level in order to proceed towards the further improvement of sustainable forest management and to contribute to sustainable development.

Progress in individual Member States

Overall, substantial progress has been achieved over the last five years in the preparation and implementation of national forest programmes in the EU. However, the status of the activities varies among the Member States. The responses to the questionnaire sent to the Member States provide the following information:

In Austria , a national forest programme is presently being prepared. The process was launched in April 2003 and the first action programme is envisaged in 2005. Some 50 institutions and interest groups are actively involved in several structural elements of the process.

In Belgium , although no specific process towards a national forest programme is currently underway, in the Walloon Region the forest law is under revision. The Flanders Region has adopted the Long Term Forestry Plan, which is effectively a NFP. The plan provides for integration and consultation mechanisms for the areas of direct importance to forestry (e.g. environment, nature conservation, land-use management, recreation and tourism).

The national forest programme of Denmark was approved by the Government in June 2002, following a wide-range consultation process. The programme is now entering in its implementation phase. Another important initiative is the new Forest Act, which is expected to enter into force in 2004.

In Finland , the National Forest Programme 2010, which was adopted in 1999, is being implemented. In 2002 the Government appointed a new Forest Council which brings together a wide range of organisations and stakeholders of the Finnish forest sector. In addition, seven follow-up groups for the implementation of the national forest programme have been established, as well as 13 Regional Forest Councils to follow-up and support the implementation of the regional forest programmes.

France has started the preparation of the national forest programme, following the adoption of the new Forest Law approved by the Parliament in 2003. The programme will be elaborated in the framework of the Forest and Forest Products Advisory Council, which is composed of members of the National Parliament, relevant public institutions, local and regional organisations, professional organisations, and other stakeholders.

In Germany , following a two-phase preparation process, the national forest programme was adopted in 2003. More than 80 actors comprising all forest-relevant stakeholders as well as governmental bodies and scientific institutions, were involved in the dialogue process in the preparation of the programme.

Greece adopted a new forest law in December 2003 and the national forest programme is currently being formulated. The first step was the establishment of a forest policy working group by the National Council for Agricultural Policy, which is a broad consulting body bringing together stakeholders and interest groups from the agricultural sector. In Greece, the principles of sustainable forest management are traditionally applied by the regional forest services.

Ireland adopted a Forestry Strategy in 1996, which was developed through an open, consultative process involving stakeholders and interest groups. It was recognised from the outset that forestry has many linkages with agriculture, rural development, social and industrial policy, leisure and tourism, trade and the protection of the environment. Consultations took place with all of these sectors.

In Italy , according to the Constitution, forestry lies within the competence of the regions. The National Forest Plan of 1985 has been the reference framework for the development of the regional forest plans. In 2004, an agreement between National and Regional Administrations on the guidelines for a new National Forest Programme has been signed. Thanks to it, all the bodies involved commit themselves to implement sustainable forest management according to European, national, regional/local legislation and to international conventions and agreements aiming to protect forest ecosystems.

Luxembourg has finished the preparation of the national forest programme. The programme was set up by several working groups representing the different sectors and interests related to forestry. The working groups were assisted by an organising and management body, which was formed by forestry experts and experienced facilitators.

In the Netherlands , the national forest programme is included in the broader policy programme for nature management “Nature for people, people for nature 2000”. The main objective of this programme is to make an essential contribution to a liveable and sustainable society through the conservation, restoration, development and sustainable use of nature and landscape.

In Portugal , the national forest programme consists of the Forest Policy Act (1996), the Sustainable Development Plan of the Portuguese Forest (1999), the Programme of Action for the Forest Sector (2002) and several other regulations and programmes. All these instruments cover the elements considered part of a national forest programme.

Spain adopted the National Forestry Strategy in 2000 following a two year consultation process. The Strategy is the basis of the new Forest Law and the National Forest Plan approved in 2002.

Sweden has interpreted national forest programmes as a forest policy process. It is considered that the main principles and elements of a national forest programme can be met without a formalised process, and incorporated, or found present, in the existing Swedish forest policy development and implementation framework.

In the UK , the national forest programme consists of the Forestry Strategies for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the UK Forest Standard, which were developed through wide ranging consultative processes involving a broad spectrum of groups, including forest owners, the forest-based industry, environmental NGOs, and various Government Departments and Agencies. Mechanisms to maintain participation in the implementation of these programmes have also been established. These mechanisms vary between countries to reflect their individual circumstances.

Progress has also been achieved in the ten new Member States.

Cyprus has already developed a national forest programme, which was approved by the government in 2002. The preparation took 18 months and the programme provides a new strategy for the development of the forest sector for the period 2002–2011.

In the Czech Republic , the preparation of the national forest programme was jointly co-ordinated by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Environment. The national forest programme for the period 2003–2006 was adopted by the Government in January 2003.

In Estonia , the Parliament approved in 2002 the Estonian Forestry Development Programme 2010, following a preparatory process initiated in 1999 which involved extensive consultations with stakeholders and interest groups.

Hungary has completed the preparation of the national forest programme, which was adopted in 2004. The preparation of the programme was carried out between 2000 and 2003. The consultation process included regional, thematic and cross-sectoral discussions organised by the programme bureau.

In Latvia , the preparation of the national programme for the forest sector and related sectors (forest cluster) was launched in 2003.

In Lithuania , the national forest programme has been specifically designed for the implementation of the strategic forest development objectives set up for the period until 2015.

Malta indicates that all of the important natural woodlands and characteristic shrublands have been protected under the Trees and Woodlands Protection Regulations of 2001 and the Environment Protection Act of 2003.

In Poland , the preparation of the national forest programme started in 2002 by the development of regional operative programmes of the State forest policy, and the process is planned to finish in 2004. Seventeen consultative groups were established for the preparation of the regional operative programmes.

In Slovakia , the national forest programme is currently being formulated. Different interest groups are involved in the preparation of the programme.

In Slovenia , forest policy and strategy are defined in the Forest Development Programme, which was adopted by the Parliament in 1996. The implementation of the programme is carried out through the yearly programme of work of the Slovenian Forest Service. Different stakeholders are involved in the process of establishing the yearly programme of work.

Development process and structure of national forest programmes

During the process of preparation of national forest programmes, almost all EU Member States have developed some form of institutionalised mechanisms for the participation of stakeholders in the preparation of forest policies and policy implementation. However, there are differences across countries in terms of the status, timing and breadth of involvement of stakeholders in the policy process.

Some countries complement the formal participation of organised stakeholders with some form of consultation with the general public. This consists of the organisation of public hearings, thematic workshops, national stakeholder conferences, and consultations by the means of internet to allow comments on the draft versions of the national forest programmes. This form of consultation fulfils the double aim of providing information to citizens on the government’s intentions, and of involving them in determining political priorities and implementing set objectives.

In general, all programmes attempt to provide a holistic approach to sustainable forest management, integrating economic, social and environmental objectives, in line with international forest-related commitments. Issues such as the productive function of forests and the economic viability of sustainable forest management, the contribution of forestry to rural development, the protection and enhancement of biodiversity in forests, climate change mitigation, the protective functions of forests, and social, recreational and cultural aspects, are addressed in the national forest programmes. The programmes increasingly respond to growing societal demands concerning the protection of the environment and the provision of social functions of forests. Although the programmes contain similar aims, they vary by focus, reflecting the socio-economic and ecological diversity of the European forests.

At the same time, in their national forest programmes countries stress the growing relevance of cross-sectoral issues in forestry and the need to improve cross-sectoral co-operation with regard to subjects of common interest, such as biodiversity conservation, climate change, energy, rural development, trade, competitiveness, research and innovation, etc.

Countries have generally included an international dimension in their national forest programmes. International forest-related commitments form the basis for choosing specific priorities. Other themes commonly treated are foreign aid, trade and the outcome of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD).

Several countries also focus on education and communication as key areas for action, with a view to facilitating a sound understanding of sustainable forest management over time and the benefits that forests and sustainable forestry provide to society.

Concluding remarks

The need for comprehensive and inter-sectoral approaches as a prerequisite for proceeding towards improved forest resource management and sustainable development has been clearly formulated by the UNFF as well as by the 4th MCPFE (Vienna, 2003). An important means to strengthen coherence and synergies within the forest sector and between the forest sector and other sectors, are the national forest programmes. They provide a planning framework to address inter-sectoral impacts on forest policies, raise awareness, formalise involvement of different parts of government and interest groups, build capacity and create an opportunity to focus on issues that tend to fall between different political authorities.

The main challenge, thereby, is to establish sufficient political attention and support for the national forest programme processes. This political support can be triggered by ensuring broad participation of the stakeholders, which consequently establishes the legitimacy for the outcome of the process.

Overall, substantial progress has been achieved in the preparation and implementation of national forest programmes in the Member States. Although there are differences, almost all countries have developed or are developing mechanisms and approaches to the forest policy-making process that are consistent with the overall principles of national forest programmes as agreed at the 4th MCPFE.

In general, the majority of the Member States are at an early stage in the process of implementation of national forest programmes. There are emerging opportunities for joint action between countries, notably for identifying good practice, pooling knowledge, and exchanging experience on issues such as:

- key success factors in the preparation and implementation of national forest programmes;

- institutionalised mechanisms to involve stakeholders in the process of developing and implementing national forest programmes, and to help policy-makers to identify policy priorities, look for synergies and make trade-offs between conflicting objectives;

- mechanisms for effective communication and selection of objectives;

- institutions and instruments enabling to measure and evaluate progress on sustainable forest management;

- effective measures to increase cross-sectoral co-operation and increase policy coherence across sectors;

- integration of national forest programmes into national sustainable development strategies and processes.

EU AND THE “INTERNATIONAL FOREST REGIME”

Article 2-e of the EU Forestry Strategy identifies the “active participation in all international processes related to forest sector” as one of its substantial elements. Article 4, “agrees that the Community take part actively” in the implementation of the resolutions of the MCPFE and “participate pro-actively” in international discussions and negotiations of forestry-related issues, in particular in the United Nations Intergovernmental Forum on Forests.

The debate on the conservation and sustainable management of forests worldwide takes place in various processes and initiatives which are jointly called “the international forest regime”. This includes global processes such as the UN Forum on Forests (UNFF), and regional processes such as the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE). Other relevant elements of the international forest regime are conventions and processes, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN FCCC) with its Kyoto Protocol, and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). Forests are also dealt with under the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, which prepared the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD).

The Community participated together with Member States in these processes, as well as in regular meetings of the FAO’s Committee on Forests (COFO), the UNECE’s Timber Committee and the International Tropical Timber Organisation (ITTO). Preparations for the meetings and joint statements are discussed in relevant Council Groups, where the Commission assists the Presidency in its co-ordinating role, as well as ensuring that Resolutions and commitments are in line with Community legislation and policies.

From the “Rio Forest Principles” to the UN Forum on Forests

At the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, 1992, multilateral environmental agreements[8] (MEAs) on climate change, biological diversity and desertification were adopted, but no consensus could be reached on adopting a global, legally binding Forest Convention. Instead, a set of Forest Principles called “Non-legally binding authoritative statement of principles for a global consensus on the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests” was adopted. In addition, chapter 11 of Agenda 21 addressed means and ways of combating deforestation.

After the Rio Conference, the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) continued the global forest dialogue by establishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests 1995–1997 (IPF), followed by an Intergovernmental Forum on Forests 1997–2000 (IFF). IPF and IFF agreed on around 280 Proposals for Action to implement the Rio Forest Principles. At the same time divisions of opinions over a Global Forest Convention and a Global Forest Fund to finance sustainable forest management (SFM) remained and even deepened, with no global agreement being reached.

In 2000, the international community created a new international arrangement for the forest dialogue, comprising UNFF and the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF). The UNFF provides a high-level policy forum on forests. Established as a subsidiary body of the UN Ecosoc, it is composed of all Members of the United Nations (including all EU Member States) and the specialised agencies and their Member Countries with full and equal participation, including voting rights. The Community is not a member with voting rights of UNFF, but a full participant. To complement the intergovernmental UNFF, heads of relevant multilateral organisations formed a Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF), which consists of all major forest related international governmental organisations, and aims to support the work of the UNFF and enhance co-operation and co-ordination among its members[9]. UNFF has adopted a Plan of Action to facilitate the implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action and, in 2005, is expected to produce recommendations for “parameters of a mandate for developing a legal framework on all types of forests”.

Since Rio ’92, one of the key political goals for the EU was to achieve international consensus on a global forest convention. However, the unwillingness of many countries to accept binding commitments which they feared could constrain their options for economic development, and reluctance of many developed countries to establish a specific forest fund outside GEF[10] to support SFM are amongst the main reasons why little progress has been made towards such a legally binding instrument. The debate on a forest convention was put aside after IFF, but will be revived as part of the review of the UNFF in 2005. Because it remains an open question whether there will ever be consensus for a legally binding instrument on forests – which in any case would take many years to negotiate – the EU involvement in the international forest regime has concentrated on the strengthening and implementation of existing political commitments.

In 2002, the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD – “Rio +10”) in Johannesburg evaluated the implementation of the “Rio commitments” of 1992. Many of the issues on the WSSD agenda were relevant to forests and the conservation and SFM can play a key role in achieving the wider objectives, targets and principles agreed in Johannesburg, such as the Plan of Implementation, the Political Declaration and the many Partnerships. As a result, it is expected that forest policy formulation will take into account the outcomes of WSSD in areas such as poverty, sustainable consumption and production, renewable energy, water resource management, desertification, climate change, biodiversity, economic globalisation, trade and governance.

Two forest-related partnerships were launched at WSSD: the Congo Basin Forest Initiative and the Asia Forest Partnership. These aim at promoting sustainable forest management, conservation, combating illegal logging through a regional approach, and involving local and donor governments, international governmental and non-governmental organisations and other stakeholders. Several EU Member States and the European Community participate in these Partnerships.

Other elements of the international forest regime

Further to the above mentioned UNFF and WSSD processes, the European Community and the EU Member States also committed themselves to implement provisions of other agreements, conventions and international processes, such as:

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol (UN FCCC)

Since forests play an important role in the carbon cycle and have the largest carbon sequestration level among land-based ecosystems, their existence is critical for climate change mitigation. This is further commented in the section “Forests and Climate Change”.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

Since forests harbour the majority of global biodiversity, objectives of the CBD are of direct relevance for sustainable forest management (SFM). This is further commented in the section “Forests and Biodiversity”.

The Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)

Trees and forests play a key role in the UNCCD’s role of combating desertification and soil degradation, as well as the UNCCD’s objectives related to poverty reduction. UNCCD provides a framework in which forests can be addressed holistically along with other forms of land use such as grazing and agriculture.

The International Tropical Timber Organisation (ITTO)

The ITTO is a forum for policy dialogue among producer and consumer member countries (around 50) on sustainable management of tropical forests and trade in tropical timber. The Community is a party to the International Tropical Timber Agreement (ITTA) and, as the ITTA is a trade-related agreement, the Commission negotiates on behalf of the Community and its Member States.

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

CITES is an international agreement to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. The Community is not a party to CITES (Member States are) but implements it through it’s wildlife trade Regulations and prepares Common Positions. Twenty-seven tree species are currently listed by CITES. Some of these are important elements of the habitats of other highly endangered species whose trade is regulated by CITES. For example, ramin (Gonystylus spp.) is an important tree in forests where the remaining orang-utans are found. Trade in these species may be prohibited and regulated allowing to control global trade in endangered or threatened species.

The Ministerial Conferences on the Protection of Forests in Europe

The MCPFE involves more than 40 European countries, including all 25 EU Member States, and the European Community, as well as observers from other countries, stakeholders and international organisations, in order to address common threats and opportunities related to forests and forestry.

The main aim of all participants working together in this process is to further develop a common understanding regarding the protection and the sustainable management of forests in Europe. This process is based on Ministerial Conferences (Strasbourg 1990, Helsinki 1993, Lisbon 1998 and Vienna 2003), at which resolutions are adopted that are prepared by ad-hoc working groups and expert level meetings. The discussion and work between the conferences, which is called the “Pan-European Process”, has focussed on monitoring and on national level implementation.

The European Community has signed all MCPFE Resolutions, and they are fully reflected in the EU Forestry Strategy. As a signatory to the MCPFE Resolutions, the European Community is directly involved in the follow-up and implementation of the Resolutions. In October 2002, the Commission submitted to the MCPFE Liaison Unit a report concerning progress on the implementation at Community level of the “MCPFE Resolutions” during the period 1999–2002. The report highlights the contribution of several Community policies and measures, notably rural development, environment and research, to the implementation of the Ministerial Resolutions at Community level.

At the 4th Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, held in Vienna in 2003, forty European countries (including all EU-25 Member States) and the European Community adopted the “Vienna Living Forest Summit Declaration: European Forests – Common Benefits, Shared Responsibilities” and five Resolutions[11]. Building on the Resolutions adopted in previous Ministerial Conferences, as well as on forest-related global commitments, the Vienna Declaration and the five Resolutions stress the balance between the economic, ecological and social roles of forests, while aiming to further work towards the protection and sustainable management of forests.

Taking into account the enlargement of the EU to 25 Member States, the Ministerial Declarations and Resolutions offer a good basis for a discussion on common approaches to forest policy. In fact, through the Ministerial Resolutions adopted in the series of conferences, the European countries have set themselves fairly detailed guidelines in forest policy, laying down common objectives and strengthening co-ordination and co-operation in the area.

Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT)

At meetings of major timber producing and consuming countries from Asia (Bali, 2001) and Africa (Yaoundé, 2003), high level declarations on Forest Law Enforcement and Governance were adopted, recognising the problem of illegal logging and the shared responsibility of both producing and consuming countries to address the issue.

Responding to increasing public interest in actions against the imports of illegally harvested timber and related products, the Commission adopted an “Action Plan on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade” (FLEGT), in May 2003,[12] having consulted several times with a wide range of relevant stakeholders. The Action Plan has a number of elements related to development co-operation, procurement policies, private sector voluntary measures, international co-operation and potential use of existing legislative measures. A further element of the action plan is a proposal for the establishment of bilateral agreements with producer countries allowing the exclusion from the EU of timber not accompanied by a legality certificate. This initiative immediately attracted considerable international attention and its practical implementation will have a high priority during the coming years.

The Council adopted conclusions on the EU Action Plan on FLEGT in October 2003[13], providing the Commission with a mandate to start its implementation.

Concluding remarks

During the preparations for the IFF discussions, the Council adopted conclusions in favour of a legally binding agreement on forests. Although positions do not seem to have changed substantially since the start of UNFF, the debate appears to have shifted somewhat from one of “pro or con” a convention, towards one about the effective outputs that should be achieved by either a voluntary or a legally binding agreement.

The Commission has been present in all major international discussions concerning forests. There has been some progress at the level of international forest policy in that previously controversial topics such as certification and forest law enforcement are now discussed openly, but the possibility of a legally binding global agreement on the conservation and management of forests has not come within reach.

Global commitments need to be translated and implemented at the regional level. In this respect, the MCPFE has played an important role over the years. The Pan-European Process has continuously extended the field of forestry related issues, and has influenced forest policy in Europe. The Pan-European Process can also contribute to the development of forest-related commitments at a global level.

Through the Ministerial Resolutions adopted in the successive conferences, the European countries have set themselves detailed guidelines in forest policy, laying down common objectives, and strengthening co-ordination and co-operation in the area. In this respect, Community policies have contributed to the implementation of the MCPFE Resolutions.

The concept of national forest programmes as inclusive and dynamically evolving frameworks for incorporating international forest-related policy principles into forest management is well established. However, at global level, progress on the ground remains disappointing. It is recognised that many factors causing deforestation lie outside the forest sector; the establishment of mechanisms at international level to facilitate effective interaction between the different sectors remains a challenge.

The FLEGT Action Plan is widely seen as a far-reaching EU initiative, bringing together many diverse tools and policies to improve forest law enforcement and governance.

COMMUNITY ACTIONS RELATED TO THE EU FORESTRY STRATEGY

FORESTRY IN THE CONTEXT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT

The EU Forestry Strategy emphasises the contribution that forests have on the promotion of employment, well-being and the environment (Article 3), and it stresses the role of forestry in the context of rural development, in particular the added value that the Community’s actions can provide through the forestry measures inside rural development measures (Article 11).

The Strategy also “recognises that the existing forestry measures as well as a chapter specially dedicated to forestry inside the Agenda 2000 could provide a basis to implement the guidelines of this Resolution” (Article 16).

In 1999, the European Council in Berlin adopted the Agenda 2000 reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), a new and important step in the development of the CAP. Agenda 2000 represented a deepening and an extension of the 1992 reform for market policy and the consolidation of rural development as the second pillar of the CAP.

The EU’s rural development policy under Agenda 2000 seeks to establish a coherent and sustainable framework for the future of the rural areas based on the following main principles:

- The multifunctionality of agriculture and forestry, i.e. its varied role over and above the production of foodstuffs and raw materials. This implies the recognition and encouragement of the range of services provided by farmers and foresters;

- A multisectoral and integrated approach to the rural economy in order to diversify activities, create new sources of income and employment, and protect the rural heritage;

- Subsidiarity for Member States to draw up their rural development programmes.

The core instrument to achieve these objectives is Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999[14] – the Rural Development Regulation.

The conceptual framework for forestry measures within the rural development policy

The overall principles of the EU Forestry Strategy, e.g. multifunctionality and sustainability, are reflected in the rural development policy, which brings together economic, social and environmental objectives and transform them into a coherent package of voluntary measures, thus giving added value to the implementation of forest programmes of the Member States. The forestry measures of the rural development programmes are, at the same time, seeking to contribute to global issues, such as climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation.

This Regulation, thus, emerges as an important vehicle for implementing the EU Forestry Strategy. In broad terms, the integration of forestry aspects in the rural development policy follows three pathways, in particular for privately owned and municipality forests:

- investments to improve the multifunctional role of forests (Article 30),

- afforestation of agricultural land (Article 31),

- improvement of forest protection values (Article 32).

The integrated rural development approach puts great emphasis on linkages with other policy areas and land uses, as well as on the consideration of specific socio-economic and ecological factors, in line with the following basic principles:

- interdependence of different sectoral and horizontal policy areas – the need to accommodate different interests and to achieve economic, social and environmental objectives in a coherent way;

- regional diversity – an acknowledgement of locally distinctive characteristics and priorities, problems and opportunities;

- bottom-up approach – an emphasis on the active involvement and participation of local communities, and self-help rather than reliance on external action.

Implementation of 2000–2006 programmes in the EU-15 Member Sates

Despite the improvements in relation to previous programming periods, the implementation of the rural development policy under Agenda 2000 is still rather complex. For the current period, 2000–2006, two funding sources are available for Rural Development (RD) measures: EAGGF Guarantee and EAGGF Guidance.

Table 4. Financial forecast of the rural development programmes 2000–2006 and forestry measures within the programmes: EU contribution under EAGGF (Leader+ excluded) |

Country | EAGGF budget for rural development (EUR) | EAGGF budget for forestry measures (EUR) | % of total RD budget |

Belgium | 401 767 048 | 6 153 000 | 18 068 182 | 24 221 182 | 6.0% |

Denmark | 336 420 000 | 35 330 000 | 6 600 000 | 41 930 000 | 12.4% |

Finland | 2 393 294 000 | 23 330 000 | 40 731 000 | 64 061 000 | 2.6% |

France | 5 762 531 788 | 37 605 789 | 238 268 240 | 275 874 029 | 4.7% |

Germany | 8 661 786 733 | 110 012 000 | 299 378 594 | 409 390 594 | 4.7% |

Greece | 3 253 700 000 | 57 800 000 | 129 966 503 | 187 766 503 | 5.7% |

Ireland | 2 558 291 000 | 350 800 000 | 31 500 000 | 382 300 000 | 14.9% |

Italy | 7 493 685 000 | 560 123 000 | 341 189 000 | 901 312 000 | 12.0% |

Luxembourg | 91 000 000 | 14 000 | 1 101 250 | 1 115 250 | 1.2% |

Netherlands | 427 000 000 | 12 210 000 | 5 450 000 | 17 660 000 | 4.1% |

Portugal | 3 552 483 178 | 345 864 791 | 341 115 503 | 686 980 294 | 19.3% |

Spain | 8 515 946 848 | 663 539 423 | 832 792 843 | 1 496 332 266 | 17.5% |

Sweden | 1 232 268 999 | 3 620 999 | 3 620 999 | 0.3% |

United Kingdom | 1 555 509 000 | 175 910 000 | 51 452 000 | 227 362 000 | 14.6% |

Total | 49 485 129 064 | 2 386 772 003 | 2 419 853 896 | 4 806 625 899 | 9.7% |

A total amount of EUR 4.8 billion has been allocated to forestry measures in the EU-15 Member States under the EAGGF budget for the period 2000–2006. This amount represents approximately 10% of the total budget allocated to rural development over that period (Leader+ excluded). Table 4 provides the breakdown between countries. Portugal (19.3%), Spain (17.5%), Ireland (14.9%), UK (14.6%), Denmark (12.4%) and Italy (12%) are the countries with the highest proportion of the budget allocated to forestry measures within their rural development programmes.

Overview of individual forestry measures

This section provides information on individual forestry measures based on the responses to the questionnaire sent to the EU-15 Member States.

Article 30 – Investments to improve the multifunctional role of forests

Article 30 of the Rural Development Regulation encompasses a number of measures aimed at enhancing the multifunctional role of forests and their sustainable management. This article includes six main types of measures:

- afforestation of land non eligible under Article 31;

- investments in forests aimed at improving their economic, ecological or social value;

- investments to improve and rationalise the harvesting, processing and marketing of forestry products; investments to the use of wood as a raw material is limited to working operations prior to industrial processing;

- promotion of new outlets for the use and marketing of forest products;

- the establishment of associations of forest holders in order to help their members to improve the sustainable and efficient management of their forests;

- restoring forestry production potential damaged by natural disasters and fire, and introducing appropriate prevention instruments.

Concerning afforestation of land not eligible under Article 31, only Austria, Belgium, France, Greece, Portugal and UK have reported activities in relation to this measure, although the level of implementation is rather moderate also in those countries. Austria indicates that about 1 500 hectares per year were afforested during the period 2000–2003; Belgium reports that in the first half of 2004 some 80 ha were afforested; France estimates that around 600 hectares are annually afforested; Greece indicates that a budget of EUR 600 000 was allocated to this measure for the period 2000–2003; and UK has reported that about 900 hectares per year were planted during the period 2000–2002.

The bulk of the actions in the Member States have concentrated on the other measures included in Article 30 (Table 5). Silvicultural measures to enhance the overall quality of forest stands, forest protection measures such as liming, investments to improve the ecological value of forests, investments to improve forestry operations, setting-up of associations of forest holders, protection against fire, and restoring the forestry production potential damaged by natural disasters and fire, are examples of the measures implemented in the different countries.

Table 5. Article 30 (indents 2 – 6), overview of measures

Country | Investments in forests | Investments in harvesting, processing, marketing | Promotion of new market outlets | Setting-up of associations | Restoring forestry production potential – protection |

Austria | Tending of young stands | Forest access, logistics | Marketing of products | Promotion of associations | Damages due to windfall and biotic factors |

Denmark | Promotion of indigenous broadleaf tree species | Product development to enhance use and value of wood and wooden products | Restoration measures after 1999 windfall. Scheme designed to favour use of indigenous tree species |

Luxembourg | Conversion of stands, first thinnings, protection measures | Management plans. Aid for traditional harvesting methods |

(broad range of measures) |

Source: Information based on the responses provided by the members of Standing Forestry Committee. |

Article 31 – Afforestation of agricultural land

This measure follows the scheme established in 1992 by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2080/1992 as an accompanying measure of the CAP reform. This Regulation introduced a system of EU aid for forestry measures in the context of the CAP, with four main objectives:

- to accompany the changes to be introduced under market organisation rules;

- to contribute towards an eventual improvement in forest resources;

- to contribute towards forms of countryside management more compatible with environmental balance;

- to combat the greenhouse effect and absorb carbon dioxide.

In the context of Regulation (EC) No 2080/92, about one million hectares of agricultural land were afforested in the EU Member States during the period 1994–1999. In qualitative terms, the broadleaf species represented 56.8% of the planted area, particularly cork oak and evergreen oak stands. Conifers represented 32.1% of the area, while about 4% of the total area was planted with fast growing tree species. More specifically, the situation concerning afforestation of agricultural land in the Member States (EU-15) is presented in Table 6.

Table 6. Article 31, afforestation of agricultural land

Belgium | 216 ha (2003–2004) | Broadleaf tree species: 44% oak, 23% poplar | Regional strategy | There must be a permission to plant, issued by the municipalities – field control by Forest service |

Denmark | 1 500 ha/year | 96% indigenous broadleaf tree species | Included in the national forest programme. To increase forest area so that forest landscapes cover 20-25% of Denmark after one tree generation. Based on the concept of multiple use forest management. Greater co-operation with local actors | Detailed guidelines and strategies for afforestation have been developed |

Finland | Measure not used |

France | 3 000 ha/year | 70% broadleaf tree species and 30% conifers | At national level, only in relation to climate change mitigation. Priorities established at regional level | Established at regional level to guarantee coherence and consistency with environmental requirements |

Germany | 2 000–3 000 ha/ year | 96% of all afforestations are mixed broadleaf stands | Afforestation strategies established at the level of the single German Länder | National framework regulation for the promotion of afforestation, which is shaped in detail in the development programmes of the Länders |

Greece | Target: 5 000 ha/year. Average: 2 200 ha/year | There is a variety of tree species included in the action both in pure and mixed stands. 98% are broadleaf tree species | Landscape restoration, maintenance of protective role of forests, soil protection, watershed management, enhancement of forest resources, tolerance and resistance to forest fires, increase in wood production, rural development | Approval on the basis of recommendations prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture. Inspection and control carried out by the Regional Forest services |

Ireland | 15 000 ha/year | Target of 30% broadleaf tree species | Set out in the Irish National Forest Strategy: Growing for the future – A strategic plan for the development of the forestry sector in Ireland – 1996 | Statutory consent system for initial afforestation according to statutory instrument n° 538 of 2001 |

Italy | Established at regional level. Contribution to wood production, enhancement of the landscape and diversification of revenues and activities are common objectives to the majority of regions | Established at regional level |

Luxembourg | 2 ha/year | According to species-specific environmental conditions | No national strategy for afforestation | Subject to adequacy of species |

Netherlands | 200 ha/year | National policy. Compatibility with the environment and local conditions ensured by the Physical Planning Act | Provincial and local authorities are responsible for the designation of areas to be afforested |

Portugal | 10 000– 12 000 ha/ year | Priority given to autochthonous tree species | National Strategy: Priority given to the promotion of autochthonous species and the rehabilitation of degraded soils | Subject to technical assessment. In addition, guidelines for best silvicultural practices based on the MCPFE operational guidelines are mandatory for these projects |

Spain | 25 000 ha/year | Priority given to autochthonous tree species | Established by National Regulation (RD 6/2001). Objectives: diversification of activities, employment and income in rural areas, protection against erosion and desertification, as well as soil protection and improvement, conservation of biodiversity, water regulation and development of forest ecosystems | Applications approved at regional level in accordance with the national regulation adopted annually |

Sweden | Measure not used |

UK | 16 000 ha/year | 77% broadleaf tree species and 23% conifers | Objectives set up in the Country Forestry Strategies | Applications are assessed against the national scheme rules, the UK Forestry Standard and its guidelines |

Source: Information based on the responses provided by the members of the Standing Forestry Committee. |

The Commission presented an evaluation report of this Regulation in 2001 (AGRI/2001/33002-00-00-EN). The report analyses the economic, social and environmental impacts of the measures in the EU. In terms of economic and social aspects, the report indicates that all countries benefited from the favourable effects of diversification of agricultural activities and the development of activities connected with afforestation. It is estimated that 150 000 full-time equivalent jobs were temporarily created owing to afforestation operations. The frequent planting of mixed stands in certain countries and autochthonous tree species contributed, for example in Germany, Finland and Austria in particular, to a greater diversity, and in Spain and Portugal they enabled the specific interventions connected with fire protection to be developed as well as the improvement of cork oak stands.

Under the current Rural Development Regulation, the measure is being implemented in 13 of the EU-15 Member States (all except Finland and Sweden). The information provided by the EU-15 Member States shows that countries are placing greater emphasis on the use of native broadleaf tree species. For instance, Denmark indicates that afforestation with indigenous broadleaf tree species represents 94% of the total area planted. In Germany, 96% of planted forests are mixed broadleaf stands; France indicates a rate of 70% and UK of about 77% of broadleaf tree species in the new plantations. Concerning afforestation strategies, seven countries indicate that they are established at national level, while in the rest specific strategies are established at regional level.

Article 32 – Improvement of forest protection values

The measures under Article 32 are aimed at maintaining and improving the ecological stability of forests where the protective and ecological role of the forests are of public interest and where the costs of maintenance and improvement measures for the forests exceed the income from forestry. Support is granted to the beneficiaries provided that the protective and ecological values of these forests are ensured in a sustainable manner, and the measures to be carried out are laid down by contract, and their cost specified therein.

The responses to the questionnaire indicate that this measure is being applied in a limited number of countries. Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain reported activities within this measure. For instance, in Austria the measure has been mainly applied for the conservation of special forest types. In some German Länder, the measure is used mainly in protective forests (avalanche control) or for contract-based ecological forest management in ecologically sensitive regions (e.g. Natura 2000 areas). Ireland indicates that the new Native Woodland Scheme provides financial support for land owners to protect and enhance native woodlands. Belgium (Flemish Region) indicates that the measure is being applied since 2004, where a grant is given to make up a forest management plan according to the criteria of sustainable forestry.

According to responses of the Member States, aspects related to the lack of tradition in establishing contracts between forest owners and administrations, the heavy administrative procedures and some lack of clarity concerning eligible measures, as well as limited financial resources within the RD programmes are the main reasons for the low level of implementation of the measure. As an indication, Table 7 provides the data for the year 2001 concerning the implementation of this measure under rural development programmes of the Member States’ (EAGGF-Guarantee funded, 87 programmes).

Table 7. Article 32, EAGGF-Guarantee (87 programmes) – 2001 |

Article 9 – Training of forest holders

Education and training of farmers and forest holders are crucial for the development and application of sustainable management methods and practices. Responding to this need, the Rural Development Regulation provides for support for vocational training aimed at improving the occupational skills and competences of forest holders and other persons involved in forestry activities, notably on the application of forest management practices for improving the economic, ecological or social functions of forests. This measure is horizontal in nature, coexisting with and complementing the objectives of other RD measures.

Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Portugal and Sweden have indicated that several activities are being implemented in the context of this measure, although in some cases the actions are carried out within schemes which cover both agriculture and forestry, and it is therefore difficult to provide quantitative data on the application of this measure.

Recent policy developments

As the CAP’s second pillar, the rural development policy follows the overall orientations for a sustainable agriculture in line with the conclusions of the Lisbon (March 2000) and Gothenburg (June 2001) European Councils. At Lisbon, EU leaders stated their objective of making the EU “the most competitive and knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion” by 2010. The Gothenburg conclusions added a new emphasis on protecting the environment and achieving a more sustainable pattern of development, and highlighted the fact that in the context of Agenda 2000, European agriculture had “become oriented towards satisfying the general public’s growing demands regarding food safety and quality, product differentiation, environmental quality and the conservation of nature and the countryside”. The reform of the CAP in 2003 gave a further impulse to this objective through the introduction of a series of new measures in the Rural Development Regulation, including additional resources to be generated by modulation. With regard to forestry, the 2003 CAP reform introduced the possibility to provide support to State-owned forests for investments aimed at enhancing the ecological and social values[15].

Rural development policy post-2006

In July 2004, the Commission adopted a proposal to reinforce the EU’s rural development policy for the period 2007–2013, and to greatly simplify its implementation[16]. Reflecting citizens’ demands, the Commission wants the EU’s rural development policy to play a more important role in the new, reformed CAP. The proposal will increase EU funding to EUR 13.7 billion per year for 2007–2013. By introducing a single funding and programming instrument, the new policy will be much simpler to manage and control. Coherence, transparency and visibility will be increased. Member States and regions will have more freedom as to how to implement the programmes.

To achieve a more strategic approach to rural development, a first step in the programming phase would be the preparation by the Commission of a strategy document setting out the EU priorities around the three major objectives for RD policy set-out in the Communication on the Financial Perspectives for the period 2007–2013, namely:

- improving the competitiveness of the agricultural and the forestry sector;

- enhancing the environment and countryside through support to land management;

- enhancing the quality of life in rural areas and promoting diversification of economic activities through measures targeting the farm sector and other rural actors.

The EU rural development strategy would then be adopted by the Council and form the basis for the national rural development strategies of the Member States. The latter strategy would translate the EU priorities to the national level after stakeholder consultation, set core result indicators and demonstrate the complementarity of rural development programming with other EU policies, in particular the cohesion policy.

The proposal acknowledges the important role of forestry in rural development and includes a number of measures across the three priority axes aiming at enhancing the protection and sustainable forest management and promoting the multifunctional role of forests in the EU, as well as a better integration of forestry in rural development programmes.

Concluding remarks

The analysis of the responses of the Member States to the questionnaire distributed in November 2003 invites the following remarks on the content and scope of the Rural Development Regulation:

- the Rural Development Regulation is considered as an innovative tool with a broad menu of measures providing considerable potential to support sustainable rural development throughout the EU;

- the majority of the countries consider that the scope of the forestry measures is satisfactory with regard to their needs. However, it is also felt that forestry should be better integrated in rural development programmes. It should be treated on an equal level with agriculture and the range of measures available should be used more effectively with respect to forestry;

- the framework of Article 32 measures should be better explained;

- aspects related to the economic viability of sustainable forest management are of a growing importance;

- the integration of environmental objectives in forestry measures in the context of rural development should be improved;

- participation of all rural actors in the preparation and implementation of programmes should be enhanced;

- there is a potential to learn from best practices and innovative approaches and actions carried out in individual countries;

- countries also indicate the importance of increasing training activities and capacity building in the future;

- the large number of programmes, programming systems and different financial management and control rules impose a heavy administrative burden on the Member States and the Commission, and decrease the transparency and visibility of the rural development policy. A main objective for the next programming period is to simplify the implementation of the policy.

Support for forestry measures in accession countries – the Sapard programme

The EU Forestry Strategy points out that “measures in the framework of co-operation with Central and Eastern Europe … should promote sustainable management and sustainable development of forests” (Article 8). As well, it is considered in the Strategy that Community support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development “may contribute to management, conservation and sustainable development of forests in Central and Eastern Europe” (Article 8).

Overview of actions

Community support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development was provided under the umbrella of the Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development (Sapard)[17]. This programme has assisted the 8 new continental Member States, as well as Bulgaria and Romania in making structural improvements to their agricultural and rural environments. To achieve this general goal, encompassing the above objectives of the EU Forestry Strategy, each country has drawn up a development plan in accordance with the principles of the programming approach used by the Member States for rural development. Measure 14 of the Sapard Regulation concerns forestry, including afforestation of agricultural areas, investment in forest holdings owned by private forest owners, processing and marketing of forest products, and support for forest infrastructure.

Forestry measures have been included in the Sapard programmes of six countries – Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and the Slovak Republic – for a total amount of EUR 167.5 million (Table 8), representing about 5% of the EU contribution to Sapard. Its importance for each individual candidate country varied from 1% (Estonia) to 8% (Bulgaria and the Slovak Republic) and 10% (Romania).

The principal activities supported by Sapard were production-oriented, including investment in forest infrastructure, afforestation and the development of forest nurseries. It must be stressed that the support for forestry measures was not unilateral in a sense that it attempted to improve and enhance multiple functions served by forests. Afforestation can be mentioned as a good example. Due to this measure, mainly abandoned agricultural land was converted to forests. This provided a potential for future economic gain (once planted forests reach the maturity age), as well as improvement of biodiversity (new habitats were created typically using mixed tree species), captured greenhouse gas emissions and in many cases prevented soil degradation (afforestation taken place on marginal agricultural land).

The Sapard programme was targeted at the private forest sector. Unfortunately, in most of the Central and Eastern European countries, where the private sector emerged slightly more than a decade ago, many private forest owners, or even their associations, do not have the necessary experience or capacity to apply for projects under Sapard.

At the Copenhagen Summit in December 2002 it was agreed that the new Member States would receive a rural development package specifically adapted to their requirements and the amount available for the ten countries was fixed at EUR 5.1 billion for the period 2004–2006. The preparation phase of the rural development programmes shows that forestry measures can be expected to represent at least as high a proportion of funding in the programmes of the new Member States as in the ongoing rural development programmes of the EU-15.

Table 8. Forestry measures in the Sapard programmes 2000–2006 |

Country | Sapard funding for forestry-related activities | Main activities |

EUR million | % of planned total funding |

Bulgaria | 30.0 | 8 | Forest plantations, non-commercial thinnings, afforestation |

Czech Republic | 0 | Not applicable |

Estonia | 1.1–3.3 | 1–3 | Diversification of activities |

Hungary | 0 | Not applicable |

Latvia | 4.6 | 3 | Development of forest tree nurseries, afforestation |

Lithuania | 7.7 | 4 | Afforestation, improvement of forest infrastructure |

Poland | 0 | Not applicable |

Romania | 108.3 | 10 | Forest roads, afforestation, nurseries |

Slovak | 9.7 | 8 | Forest nurseries, equipment for forest work |

Slovenia | 0 | Not applicable |

Total | 167.5 | 5 |

Source: European Commission. |

Concluding remarks

One lesson to be drawn from the implementation of Sapard forestry measures is that shortcomings are often related to inadequate institutional capacity and a shortage of financial means. In this respect, institution building, training and the development of information systems for forest owners are important, especially for improving the co-operation among forest owners.

On the other hand, despite the small failures and difficulties during the process, the overall result of Sapard in the forest sector was positive. One type of benefits is the intended direct support for rural development channelled through the Sapard measures, which have helped facilitate sustainable forest development. Another not less significant benefit was the experience gained in the learning process of preparing required documents, understanding the mechanism of support in general and accumulating human and financial resources to utilise support from structural funds to achieve an even larger positive effect on sustainable forest development.

The European forestry information and communication system (EFICS)

In the Article 7, the Strategy emphasises the importance of continued development of the European Forestry Information and Communication System (EFICS) established and extended by several regulations[18], by improving the quality and reliability of data on forests, and underlines the value of co-operation with the relevant national and international institutions.

Overview of actions

The system was conceived to collect, co-ordinate, standardise, process and disseminate information concerning the forest sector and its development. So far, there has only been a small amount of co-ordination activities between Commission services and a modest amount of financial means devoted to this action.

The co-ordination activities within the framework of the EFICS regulation have led to the setting up of an informal Inter-secretariat Working Group (IWG), bringing together relevant Commission services, Eurostat, EEA, together with the main international organisations collecting data on the forest sector (FAO, UNECE, OECD, and ITTO). The primary tool for the co-operation is the annual Joint Forest Sector Questionnaire (JQ) used by all organisations. The idea behind the JQ is that, with the help of one common questionnaire, forest product data are collected world-wide using a set of harmonised product aggregations, coding and definitions. Each agency takes care of the collection of the data of a certain number of countries and Eurostat is responsible for EU and EFTA Member States. This form of co-operation with relevant international institutions has resulted in improving data quality and avoiding duplication of work.

The implementation of research activities by the Joint Research Centre in the field of remote sensing applied to the forest sector and the development of a prototype of a communication platform for forest information (European Forest Information System – EFIS) constitute an important contribution to the objectives of the EFICS Regulation. The aim of EFIS was to demonstrate on a limited number of datasets the capabilities of an information system able to retrieve and display data collected from different national and international sources.

The development of the new EFICS initiative takes place in the context of a continuing need from administrations, industry, commerce, and societal groups for statistical and other information on the EU forest sector at Community, national and regional levels. A major issue in this context is to identify and prioritise the concrete needs of the various potential users. Another issue concerns limiting factors which persist, such as the completeness, quality and comparability of available data. These aspects need to be addressed in parallel with those on data retrieval and presentation.

Concluding remarks

The EFICS regulation expired on 31 December 2002. As a future action, the Commission has proposed a two-year preparatory action aiming to further develop the internet-based forestry information platform.

At the same time, there is a need to examine the concrete needs of potential data users, as well as the limitations related to data completeness, quality and comparability. Presently, for instance, many data on the positive functions and services that the forest sector provides are not collected.

EU forest monitoring measures

The EU Forestry Strategy calls on the Commission to undertake a review of the measures in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3528/86 on the protection of forests against atmospheric pollution in order to evaluate and improve continuously the effectiveness of the European monitoring system of forest health, taking into account all the potential impacts on forest ecosystems (Article 5). Also the continuation and evaluation of, and consideration of a possible improvement to the Community’s scheme for the protection of the forests against fire (Council Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92) is advocated (Article 6)