COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND EVIDENCE BASE Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS New EU Forest Strategy for 2030
Date: 2021-07-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: EU strategy, European forestry policy, adaptation to climate change, forest, forest conservation, forestry economics, sustainable forest management, wood industry, wooded area

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 16.7.2021  SWD(2021) 652 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND EVIDENCE BASE Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS New EU Forest Strategy for 2030 {COM(2021) 572 final} - {SWD(2021) 651 final}  
 
 
Contents 
1. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 2 

2.  ROADMAP CONSULTATIONS .................................................................................................. 2 

3. 

4. 

STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS ..................................................................................................... 2 

STOCKTAKING OF FORMER CONSULTATIONS ................................................................................ 3 

5.  RESULTS FOR THE CLOSED AND OPEN QUESTIONS OF THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION INCLUDING OPEN REPLIES .......... 3 

5.1.  INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 3 

5.2.  OVERVIEW OF REPLIES ........................................................................................................ 3 

5.3.  OVERVIEW OF RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 4 

5.4.  ANALYSIS OF REPLIES TO PART I OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE: VIEWS ON POTENTIAL OBJECTIVES AND ACTIONS OF THE 
NEW FOREST STRATEGY .............................................................................................................. 5 

5.5.  ANALYSIS OF REPLIES TO PART II OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE: OPTIONAL QUESTIONS ON VARIOUS FOREST ASPECTS .... 8 

6.  ANALYSIS OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION .................................... 10 

7. 

SOURCES OF THE EVIDENCE USED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE FOREST STRATEGY .................................... 13 

7.1.  FOREST AREA AND COVER, AND THEIR CHANGES OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS .............................................. 13 

7.2.  GHG DATA OF THE LULUCF SECTOR INCLUDING FOREST LAND ......................................................... 17 

7.3.  REGIME OF EU’S FORESTS ................................................................................................... 18 

7.4.  FORESTS PROTECTED UNDER THE EU NATURE LEGISLATION .............................................................. 21 

7.5.  STATUS OF FOREST HABITATS PROTECTED UNDER THE HABITATS AND BIRDS DIRECTIVES ............................. 23 

7.6.  COMPOSITION OF EU’S FORESTS ............................................................................................ 26 

7.7.  EU FORESTS AGE OVERVIEW ................................................................................................. 27 

7.8.  VULNERABILITY TO CLIMATE-DRIVEN DISTURBANCES IN EUROPEAN FORESTS .......................................... 30 

7.9.  FOREST TYPE AND TREE RANGE SHIFTS UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE ........................................................ 32 

7.10.  FOREST DEFOLIATION ........................................................................................................ 33 

7.11.  FELLINGS AND NET ANNUAL INCREMENT .................................................................................... 34 

7.12.  SALVAGE LOGGING ........................................................................................................... 35 

7.13.  WOOD USE IN THE EU ........................................................................................................ 36 

7.14.  CASCADING USE OF WOOD ................................................................................................... 38 

7.15.  SIZE OF AND EMPLOYMENT IN DIFFERENT FOREST-BASED SECTORS IN THE EU .......................................... 38 

7.16.  THE VALUE OF FOREST ECOSYSTEM SERVICES .............................................................................. 41 

7.17.  CONDITION OF EU FORESTS ................................................................................................. 42 

7.18.  KEY SOURCES OF EVIDENCE ................................................................................................. 44 

8.  CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 44 

1 

 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION  

This  staff  working  document  presents  a  summary  of  the  evidence  as  well  as  the  consultation  activities 
related to the new EU Forest Strategy for 2030, as set out in the consultation strategy for the initiative, 
notably  the  roadmap  consultation,  the  open  public  consultation  and  additional  meetings  with  the 
stakeholders. Stakeholders also submitted position papers and documents directly to the Commission. 

The roadmap consultation lasted from 30 October to 04 December 2020, and the open public consultation 
was carried out between 25 January and 19 April 2021, via the website of the European Commission in all 
official EU languages. As input into the finalisation of the new EU forest strategy, the consultations aimed 
at gathering information and feedback from EU citizens and relevant stakeholders from national, regional 
and local authorities, forest owners and managers, forest-based industries and businesses, trade unions, 
individual  citizens  in  the  EU  and  elsewhere,  consumers  of  wood-based  products,  non-governmental 
organisations,  universities,  academic/research  centres,  other  countries  and  international  organisations, 
and financial institutions. 

Targeted  consultation  activities  were  also  carried  out  with  the  competent  authorities  of  the  EU  Member 
States responsible for forestry e.g. at different meetings of the Standing Forestry Committee (SFC); with 
forest-  based  industries  and  business  and  professional  organisations  having  activities  at  EU  level  in  the 
forestry  sector;  with  non-governmental  organisations,  EU  citizens,  forest  owners  and  managers  (e.g. 
meeting  of  the  Civil  Dialogue  Forestry  and  Cork  (CDGFC));  with  universities,  academia  and  research 
centres, international organisations and associations.  

The  evaluation  of  the  current  EU  forest  strategy  and  other  policies  related  to  forest  (e.g.  biodiversity, 
rural  development)  and  consultation  of  and  responses  to  European  Green  Deal  were  also  taken  into 
consideration. 

Relevant input from the other EU institutions was also considered. This included Council Conclusions (e.g. 
on the review of the EU Forest Strategy), European Parliament reports. 

2.  ROADMAP CONSULTATIONS  

A  total  of  312  replies  were  received  on  the  roadmap  consultation,  of  which  four  responses  were  a 
duplicate, resulting in 308 responses being  considered  for the assessment of replies to the  consultation. 
EU  citizens  provided  most  contributions  to  this  consultation,  accounting  for  40  %  of  all  respondents, 
followed  by  non-governmental  organisations  (19%).  Academic/research  institutions  submitted  10%  of 
responses, company/business organisations accounted for 8%. Business associations, public authority and 
environmental  organisations  participated  with  5%  of  replies  each.  Similarly  trade  unions  and  non  EU-
citizen participated with 1% each. Other type of respondents accounted for 5% of replies. 

The outcome of the roadmap consultations was considered for the design of the open public consultation 
survey, in particular the part I which covered views on potential objectives and actions of the new forest 
strategy, and in organising the stakeholder meetings. In addition, the roadmap consultations provided an 
additional 86 documents and their review and analysis is presented in Section 6.   

3.  STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS   

The  joint  consultations  of  the  SFC  and  the  CDGFC  took  place  on  15-16  October  2020.  An  additional 
meeting  of  SFC  was  organised  after  closure  of  the  Roadmap  consultations,  on  10th  December  2020. 
During that meeting the participating Member States discussed (1) their contributions shared during the 
Roadmap  consultations,  including  the  most  priority  areas  of  action,  of  those  contained  in  the  Roadmap’ 
that require action at EU level and gaps in the identified list of action areas, (2) activities that would bring 
European added value in the new EU Forest Strategy (3) specific actions to address ‘urging subjects’, i.e. 
enhancing  resilience  and  adaptation  to  climate  change,  the  forests’  and  sector’s  contribution  to  climate 
neutrality  and  the  circular  bioeconomy,  and  forest  biodiversity  and  ecosystem  services,  and  (4) 
strengthening the SFC governance. 

2 

 
 
Other  bilateral,  ad-hoc  or  webinar  discussions  on  topics  relevant  to  the  Forest  Strategy  have  been 
organised by the Commission with, among others, the European Forest Institute, the Working Group on 
Forests and Nature. The Commission has also attended workshops or events organised by other parties, 
e.g.  Politico,  LUKE  Natural  Resources  Institute,  IUCN  European  Regional  Office,  CEPI,  FOREST  EUROPE, 
the German and Portuguese Presidencies of the Council of the EU, etc.  

4.  STOCKTAKING OF FORMER CONSULTATIONS   

In 2018 the Commission reported on the progress in the implementation of the EU Forest Strategy 2013-
20201.  Substantial  progress  was  made  for  the  Strategies’  priorities.  The  Strategy  was  considered  fit  for 
purpose to also address new policy developments such as the LULUCF Regulation, the Renewable Energy 
Directive  and  the  Paris  Agreement.  In  2019,  the  Commission  specifically  assessed  the  drivers, 
effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance  and  added  value  for  support  of  forestry  for  the  rural  development 
under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural  Development (EAFRD)2. The analysis noted the dilemma 
between long forest cycles and short programming periods. Forest measures, being voluntary under the 
CAP, contribute to the EU goals, namely the EU Forest Strategy, albeit often at a lower level than planned 
for with financial envelopes. 

5.  RESULTS  FOR  THE  CLOSED  AND  OPEN  QUESTIONS  OF  THE  PUBLIC  CONSULTATION  INCLUDING 

OPEN REPLIES

3 

5.1.  INTRODUCTION 

The open public consultation (OPC) was carried out between 25 January and 19 April 2021 in all official EU 
languages and using EU Survey, via the European Commission’s website4 . 

The  Commission  was  looking  for  input  from  a  broad  range  of  stakeholders,  from  national,  regional  and 
local  authorities  to  forest  owners  and  managers,  forest-based  industries  and  businesses  (in  particular, 
small  and  medium  enterprises),  trade  unions,  individual  citizens  in  the  EU  and  elsewhere  (including 
women,  men  and  young  people),  consumers  of  wood-based  products,  non-governmental  organisations, 
universities,  academic/research  centres,  other  countries  and  international  organisations,  and  financial 
institutions. 

5.2.  OVERVIEW OF REPLIES 

The OPC received a total of 19 117 replies. EU citizens provided most contributions, accounting for 91% of 
all  respondents  (17  326),  followed  by  companies/business  organisations  (3%  of  respondents,  530 
replies),  other  users  (2%  of  respondents,  303  replies),  NGOs  (1%  of  respondents,  261  replies),  public 
authorities  (1%  of  respondents,  230  replies),  academic/research  institutions  (1%  of  respondents,  164 
replies)  and  environmental  organisations  (1%  of  respondents,  123  replies).  Business  associations  (71 
replies),  non-EU  citizens  (67  replies),  trade  unions  (35  replies)  and  consumer  organisations  (7  replies) 
account each for less than 1% of all replies.  

Responses  were  collected  from  across  27  EU  Member  States.  The  largest  number  of  replies  came  from 
Poland  (87.90%,  16 803  replies),  followed  by  Germany  (2.34%,  447  replies),  Austria  (1.16%,  222 
replies),  France  (1.06%,  203  replies),  Finland  (1.02%,  195  replies),  and  Belgium  (0.87%,  167  replies). 
There were also 111 replies (0.58% of the total) from outside the EU. 

For the purpose of this report, the term “respondents” refers to all those who have answered this public 
consultation.  The  term  ‘organisations’  includes  all  stakeholder  groups  except  for  EU-citizens  (i.e. 

1

   COM(2018) 811: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0811&from=EN 

2

   SWD(2019) 389: ext-study-forestry-measures-swp_2019_en.pdf (europa.eu) 

3

   This section was prepared by Technopolis Group & COWI under the framework contract No. 

CLIMA.A.4/FRA/2019/0011 led by COWI, as part of the specific contract No. 340201/2020/832904/ETU/CLIMA.C.3  

4

   Consultations outcomes are available here: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-

say/initiatives/12674-Forests-new-EU-strategy/public-consultation_en 

3 

 
 
 
                                                
company/business  organisations,  business  association,  non-governmental  organisations  (NGO),  public 
authorities,  academic/research  institutions,  environmental  organisations,  trade  unions,  consumer 
organisations); in total 1 791 responses. The 67 Non-EU citizens are also included in this group. The other 
two  key  groups  reported  on  are  non-Polish  EU  citizens  (1 524)  and  Polish  citizens  (15 802).  The  high 
response  rate  from  Poland  suggests  outreach  from  stakeholders  to  the  public;  90.6%  of  the  responses 
from EU citizen came from Polish citizens. Differences in the responses between Polish citizens and other 
EU citizens are identified and presented, where relevant.  

Figure 1 Respondent type & geographic distribution  

Regarding  respondents’  connection  to  forests,  the  most  frequently  chosen  option  was  “visiting  forests 
regularly,  e.g.  for  health,  well-being,  nature  observation”  (63.22%  of  total,  14  204  replies,  multiple 
options possible). 13.12% of total respondents (2 948 replies) indicated that they were a forest owner, a 
forest  manager  or  a  forest  investor.  9.65%  of  total  responses  (2 169  replies)  suggested  that  their 
livelihood  is  dependent  on  forests.  Another  8.23%  (1  848)  indicated  that  they  either  work  in  a  forest-
based industry, with (peri-) urban green spaces or as a forest researcher.  

Respondents  were  also  asked  to  indicate  which  sectors  they  are  active  in  to  further  detail  their 
stakeholder  type  (up  to  three  sectors  could  be  selected).  Amongst  the  organisations  that  provided  a 
followed  by 
frequently 
response, 
biodiversity/environment  (17.29%,  618  replies),  and  climate  change  (9.09%,  325  replies).  EU  citizens 
also  selected  forestry  most  frequently  (14.41%,  3 790  replies),  followed  by  a  non-predefined  sector 
(13.80%, 3 630 replies), and biodiversity/environment (9.10%, 2 392 replies). 

(29.54%,  1 056 

selected  most 

forestry  was 

replies), 

5.3.  OVERVIEW OF RESULTS  

The  OPC  included  16  questions  on  the  new  EU  Forest  Strategy  for  2030,  separated  into  two  parts.  The 
first three questions in Part I focussed on the roadmap published in October 2020, and the remaining 13 
questions concerned various forest aspects and were not mandatory to fill in. All questions allowed for an 
additional  open  feedback  and  responses  were  systematically  analysed  and  reported  for  the  roadmap 
questions.  As  questions  for  Part  II  were  optional,  percentages  presented  for  Part  II  refer  to  the 
respondents of the  presented stakeholder group that  answered the question concerned. Some questions 
allowed respondents to ‘rate’ options (from -2 to +2 or “not important at all” to “very important” or “not 
challenging”  to  “very  challenging”).    In  Part  II,  questions  4,  5,  8,  and  9  were  more  relevant  for 
organisations, question 13 was primarily relevant for citizens, while the other questions were relevant for 
all groups. This is reflected in the reporting which focusses on the responses from the targeted groups per 
question.  In  the  analysis  of  Part  I  and  II,  the  replies  for  ‘important’  and  ‘very  important’  are  jointly 
categorized as ‘important’. 

4 

 
 
 
 
5.4.  ANALYSIS  OF  REPLIES  TO  PART  I  OF  THE  QUESTIONNAIRE:  VIEWS  ON  POTENTIAL 

OBJECTIVES AND ACTIONS OF THE NEW FOREST STRATEGY  

Nurturing forests 

Figure 2 Responses to Roadmap Question 1 – Nurture 

While  all  options  could  be  rated,  the  objective  selected  most  frequently  by  organisations  (1 791)  as 
‘important’  for  nurturing  existing  forests  was  to  enhance  prevention  of  disaster  risk  events  and  of 
damages,  and  secure  forest  resilience  to  incidence  and  extent  of  fires  and  other  natural  hazards,  and 
secure forest health with a view to changing climatic conditions and environmental degradation (89.06%), 
followed  by  ensure  the  sustainable  management  of  all  EU  forests,  maximising  the  provision  of  their 
multiple  functions  while  enhancing  their  productive  capacity  (85.71%)  and  support  restoration  of 
damaged areas and degraded ecosystems, taking into account projected climate conditions (84.92%).  

There is agreement among public authorities, business associations, and NGOs that enhance prevention of 
disaster  risk  events  and  of  damages,  and  secure  forest  resilience  to  incidence  and  extent  of  fires  and 
other  natural  hazards,  and  secure  forest  health  with  a  view  to  changing  climatic  conditions  and 
important  measures. 
environmental  degradation  (92.61%,  95.77%,  93.87%)  are 
Representatives from trade unions most frequently selected ensure the sustainable management of all EU 
forests  as  ‘important’  (87.39%).  Environmental  organisations  most  frequently  considered  support 
restoration of damaged areas and degraded ecosystems, taking into account projected climate conditions 
as ‘important’ (97.56%)  

the  most 

Non-Polish EU citizens (1 524) selected most frequently as ‘important’ enhance prevention of disaster risk 
events and of damages, and secure forest resilience (91.40%), support restoration of damaged areas and 
degraded ecosystems, (88.32%), and ensure the sustainable management of all EU forests (83.40%). 

Polish Citizens (15 802) selected most frequently as ‘important’ support restoration of damaged areas and 
degraded ecosystems (93.32%), enhance prevention of disaster risk events and of damages, and secure 
forest  resilience  (92.44%),  and  preserve  stocks  and  increase  the  EU  carbon  sinks  in  forests,  their  soils 
and harvested wood products (86.64%). 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
In  the  open  feedback,  public  authorities  and  business  associations  emphasised  the  need  to  define  old-
growth  forest  and  primary  forests,  as  well  as  strict  protection  and  the  need  to  further  differentiate 
questions;  some  of  them  also  prefer  to  deal  in  general  with  forest  issues  at  the  national  level.  Public 
authorities noted that the roadmap misses the objective to establish and elaborate protected and strictly 
protected areas and needs to better consider the balance between forests and hunting, forest planning to 
address  climate  change  versus  protection  of  seminatural  habitats,  and  the  multifunctionality  of  forests. 
Private sector organisations emphasised the need for a holistic approach to foster the competitiveness of 
the forest-based sector including  bioenergy  and harvested wood products (HWPs). Business associations 
also  referred  to  the  need  to  align  with  the  EU  biodiversity  efforts.  A  large  number  of  NGOs  and 
environmental  organisations  frequently  noted  that  forests  should  be  left  unmanaged,  the  forest  policy 
should build on the EU biodiversity strategy, and climate efforts should not lead to monocultures or harm 
biodiversity. They also objected against biomass use & energy and considering HWPs as carbon sinks, and 
there  was  strong  criticism  concerning  the  term  “sustainable  forest  management”  because  it  is  lacking  a 
clear and widely shared definition and should be replaced with clear and quantifiable metrics. It was also 
frequently  noted  that  the  question-and-answer  option  design  grouped  too  many  opposing  concepts 
together, reducing overall clarity for the respondents. 

Planning for the forests of the future 

While  all  options  could  be  rated,  the  objective  selected  most  frequently  by  organisations  (1 791)  as 
‘important’  for  planning  for  the  forests  of  the  future  was  adaptation  of  forests  to  climate  change  and 
strengthening their resilience to face future challenges, including through enhanced conservation and use 
of the genetic diversity of trees (91.79%), followed by rural development, including local enterprises and 
value  chains,  tapping  on  forests’  multiple  functions  (87.05%),  and  a  strong  research  and  innovation 
agenda  to  improve  our  knowledge  of  forests  and  to  optimise  their  composition,  structure,  management 
and use, including for the bioeconomy (82.30%).  

There  is  agreement  among  all  organisations  that  adaptation  of  forests  to  climate  change  is  the  most 
important measure to plan for the forests of the future (business associations: 90.14%, public authorities: 
92.61%, trade unions: 91.43%, environmental organisations and NGOs: 91.10%, business associations: 
90.14%).  Business  associations  also  note  a  strong  research  and  innovation  agenda  to  improve  our 
knowledge of forests with the same share. 

6 

 
 
 
 
Figure 3 Responses for Roadmap Question 2 – Planning  

Most  frequently  selected  by  Polish  citizens  (15 802)  were  adaptation  of  forests  to  climate  change 
(94.20%),  afforestation  and  tree  planting  by  setting  out  a  roadmap  for  planting  at  least  three  billion 
additional  trees  in  the  EU  by  2030  (89.04%),  and  a  strong  research  and  innovation  agenda  to  improve 
our knowledge of forests (83.96%). 

In  the  additional  open  feedback,  organisations  primarily  underlined  the  need  of  adaptation  to  climate 
change  and  shared  different  methods  of  achieving  this  objective.  Afforestation  also  received  significant 
attention,  with  respondents  from  multiple  organisation  types  being  largely  supportive,  but  concerned 
about  implementation.  In  particular  business  associations  noted  that  tree  planting  could  become  a 
singular  strategy  and  called  for  sustainable  forest  management  to  build  adequate  resilience  against 
climate change. Around half of the public authorities indicated that their priority for planning new forests 
takes  into  account  adaptation  and  building  resilience  to  climate  change,  and  one-third  also  noted  that 
resilience  to  climate  change  should  be  underpinned  by  a  strong  research  agenda.  Multiple  public 
authorities identified a strong research agenda as of particular importance for maintaining biodiversity and 
expressed the need for rural development, specifically requesting a ‘multi-functional plan’ which looks at 
the forest value chain. A few public authorities specified the need for training forest professional in both 
public  and  private  domains.  NGOs  and  environmental  organisations  also  stated  that  the  incorrect 
implementation of afforestation could result in detrimental impacts with regards to carbon emissions and 
biodiversity, especially if its purpose is to produce wood for energy. Public authorities, trade unions and 
business associations alike questioned the meaning of ‘enhanced conservation of the genetic diversity of 
trees’, stating that the wording was too vague to comment on, and therefore could not fully support the 
measures proposed.  

Managing existing and new forests 

Figure 4 Responses for Roadmap Question 3 - Managing 

While  all  options  could  be  rated,  the  objective  selected  most  frequently  by  organisations  (1 791)  as 
‘important’  for  managing  existing  and  new  forests  was  to  improve  communication  and  dialogues  on 
forests  and  their  roles,  considering  the  rural/urban  interface  (81.97%),  followed  by  secure  financing, 
including for research, enhancing the use of EU and national budget, as well as private funds, ensuring a 
consistent  approach  among  different  funding  instruments  (80.18%),  and  foster  innovative  financial 
incentives,  including  payments  for  ecosystem  services  and  result-based  schemes  (‘carbon  farming’)  for 
forest managers that provide public goods such as carbon sequestration or biodiversity benefits, including 
7 

 
 
 
 
through  protecting  and  restoring  forests  (80.07%).  The  most  important  measure  for  environmental 
organisations and NGOs was to ensure consistency with international commitments (84.42%).  

The three options most frequently selected as ‘important’ by non-Polish EU citizens (1 524) were improve 
communication and dialogues on forests and their roles (80.58%), followed by foster innovative financial 
incentives (80.51%) and secure financing (78.15%). 

Most  frequently  selected  by  Polish  citizens  (15 802)  as  ‘important’  were  improve  communication  and 
dialogues  on  forests  and  their  roles  (85.06%),  ensure  consistency  with  international  commitments 
(83.01%), and foster innovative financial incentive (82.15%). 

In  the  open  feedback,  primarily  Polish  public  authorities  and  one  Swedish  public  authority  noted  that 
management  and  monitoring  of  new  and  existing  forests  should  remain  the  responsibility  of  Member 
States, and a significant portion of them also expressed that it was “essential that the definition of forest 
was  the  same  in  all  Member  States”.  Several  local  authorities  stated  that  the  new  EU  forest  strategy 
should focus on “integration of other policies within the European Green Deal”. NGOs and environmental 
organisations  alike  shared  concerns  that  the  forestry  agenda  was  still  not  science-driven;  they  also 
broadly  supported  fostering  coordination  between  EU  Green  Deal  objectives  and  national  forest  policies, 
as  well  as  consistency  of  the  new  forest  policy  with  international  commitments.  A  few  organisations 
expressed concern  that financial incentives may  be  translated into  purchasing carbon offsets in the land 
sector.  In  addition,  some  NGOs  commented  on  how  exchanges  between  citizens  and  forest  authorities 
happen  quite  late  in  forest  governance  processes,  and  proposed  an  earlier  engagement  within  the 
governance framework.  

5.5.  ANALYSIS OF REPLIES TO PART II OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE: OPTIONAL QUESTIONS ON 

VARIOUS FOREST ASPECTS 

The  report  for  Part  II  groups  answers  into  themes.  Since  group  sizes  differ,  the  three  most  frequent 
options  are  reported  by  the  percentage  of  responses  which  selected  an  option  as  ‘very  important’  or 
‘important’. Response option ‘other’ was hardly selected and excluded from the statistical analysis.  

THREATS AND CHALLENGES FOR EU FORESTS 

Q1  Respondents  were  asked  to  rate  which  potential  obstacles  posed  a  challenge  or  threat  to 
forests. Organisations felt that climate change and extreme events posed the greatest threat (90.13%), 
biological  threats  such  as  diseases/invasive  species/game  (73.40%),  followed  by  biodiversity  loss,  and 
ecosystem  degradation  and  vulnerability  of  monocultures  (65.76%).  The  three  options  most  frequently 
selected as posing the greatest threat by non-Polish EU citizens were climate change and extreme events 
(84.79%),  followed  by  direct  human  induced  deforestation  (74.02%),  and  biological  threats"  (e.g. 
diseases/invasive  species/game)  (73.87%).  For  Polish  citizens  they  were  climate  change  and  extreme 
events  (90.33%),  followed  by  direct  human  induced  deforestation  (87.98%),  and  biodiversity  loss, 
ecosystem degradation and vulnerability of monocultures) (84.73%). 

FORESTS FOR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC WELFARE IN RURAL AREAS 

Q2  Regarding  what  should  be  done  to  ensure  that  forests  continue  to  provide  rural 
communities  with  livelihoods  and  income,  organisations  selected  most  frequently  as  ‘important’ 
direct economic/financial incentives  (85.57%), followed by  cooperation/partnership building (82.59%) as 
second  priority,  and  improving  forest  management  (e.g.  digitalisation/infrastructure)  (73.29%)  as  the 
third  one.  Non-Polish  EU  citizens  most  frequently  selected  as  ‘important’  direct  economic/financial 
incentives  (84.65%),  followed  by  cooperation/partnership  building  (79.06%),  and  technical  support  e.g. 
job creation/training/advisory services (78.11%). Polish citizens selected the same sequence of response 
options with 88.96%, 80.88%, and 74.90% respectively. 

FORESTS FOR CLIMATE AND BIODIVERSITY  

8 

 
 
 
Q3  Concerning  specific  actions  and  measures  that  should  be  promoted  to  enhance  forest 
biodiversity, adapt forests to climate change and strengthen carbon sequestration, organisations 
selected  most  frequently  as  ‘important’  increase  forest  species  diversity  &  select  native  and  better 
climate-suited  species  (81.41%).    Next,  they  selected  the  promotion  of  long-living  wood  products  and 
alignment  of  wood  demand  (73.24%),  and  improve  forest  management  incl.  improved  biodiversity 
practices (67.79%). Non-Polish EU citizens selected the same sequence of response options with 82.25%, 
80.90%,  and  76.32%  respectively.  Polish  citizens  second  most  frequently  selected  as  ‘important’  was 
afforestation / reforestation / forest & soil protection (85.22%); but the first and third response was the 
same as in the other two groups with 88.87% and 83.22% respectively. 

EU/NATIONAL SUPPORT AND INSTRUMENTS  

Q4  Regarding  what  should  be  done  to  facilitate  access  to,  and  improve  the  use  of,  EU  and 
national funds for forest management and forest-related activities, organisations most frequently 
chose  as  ’important’  improve  funding  allocation  (86.69%),  followed  by  increasing  EU  co-funding  rates 
(79.48%), and prioritisation of forests in budget allocation and expenditure (78.23%). 

FOREST-RELATED CHALLENGES FACING FOREST-BASED INDUSTRIES  

Q5  On  the  main  forest-related  challenges  facing  the  forest-based  industry  sector  in  their 
respective  countries  and  the  EU  as  a  whole,  organisations  most  frequently  selected  lack  of  skilled 
labour  force  (66.28%),  and  with  somewhat  lower  shares  unclear  forest  policy  objectives  and  regulatory 
framework (49.48%), and lack of price premium for sustainable products (47.98%). 

PROMOTION OF WOOD PRODUCTS  

Q6  Concerning  what  could  be  done  to  promote  the  wider  use  of  sustainable  wood-based 
products  to  boost  recycling  rates,  organisations  stated  that  the  most  important  objective  was  to 
support research on new and innovative wood-based products (85.47%), followed by better information, 
communication  and  exchange  of  practices  (81.86%),  and  economic  incentives  (79.47%).  Non-Polish  EU 
citizens  most  frequently  selected  as  ‘important’  support  research  on  new  and  innovative  wood-based 
products  (82.89%),  followed  by  economic  incentives  (82.56%),  and  better  information,  communication 
and exchange of practices (81.82%). Polish citizens selected the same sequence of response options with 
85.66%, 85.26%, and 84.38% respectively. 

CERTIFICATION AND LABELLING 

Q7  In  regards  to  the  extent  to  which  stakeholders  know  or  use  tools  that  certify  the 
sustainability of forest products (forest certification, product labelling), organisations selected in 
my  purchasing  decisions,  I  am  more  likely  to  trust  certified  products  from  EU  forests  most  frequently 
(22.73%), followed by I do not trust the existing labelling and certification systems and I would like that 
the EU does something about it (19.26%), and certification/labelling is sometimes an important criterion 
driving  my  decision  to  buy  a  product  (18.07%).  Non-Polish  EU  citizens  selected  the  same  sequence  of 
response options with 27.31%, 21.69%, 16.35%, respectively. Polish citizens most frequently selected  I 
don’t know of any labelling or certifying systems for forest-based products (45.80%); but the second and 
third response was the same as for the other stakeholder groups with 19.87% and 11.11%, respectively. 

FOREST INFORMATION AND MONITORING AT EU LEVEL  

Q8  Respondents  were  asked  what  should  be  done  to  improve  forest  data,  knowledge  and 
monitoring  of  EU  forests.  Organisations  selected  most  frequently  monitoring  climate  risks  and  forest 
condition (84.50%), and next harmonise national forest inventories (71.58%), and increase use of remote 
sensing/satellite data (64.13%).  

ENSURING CONSISTENCY WITH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS AND SHOWING GLOBAL LEADERSHIP 

Q9  Regarding  the  most  important  way  the  EU  forest  strategy  should  ensure  consistency  with 
international  commitments  and  to  support  EU’s  international  leadership,  the  three  preferred 
9 

 
 
 
options for organisations were set out the EU’s positions, approaches and values in favour of sustainable 
forest  in  relevant  fora  (85.35%),  closely  followed  by  ensuring  consistency  between  the  EU’s  domestic 
policies  and  trade  agreements  (84.03%)  and  promotion  of  experience  and  lessons  learnt  at  EU  level 
(82.95%).  

PLANTING AT LEAST 3 BILLION ADDITIONAL TREES IN THE EU BY 2030 

Q10 Respondents were asked where the 3 billion additional trees should be planted. The three 
most  frequently  selected  options  by  organisations  are,  afforestation  of  degraded  land  (23.52%),  tree 
planting as part  of  forest restoration  (15.63%),  and  landscape features to foster connectivity  (14.13%). 
Non-Polish  EU  citizens  replied  with  the  same  sequence  of  response  options  and  shares  of  24.81%, 
15.49%, and 13.18%. Polish citizens ranked highest afforestation of degraded land (23.05%), followed by 
tree planting for agroforestry, including orchards (17.82%), and tree planting as part of forest restoration 
(16.28%). 

Q11  Respondents  were  asked  what  are  the  main  challenges  in  terms  of  planting  additional 
trees  in  their  respective  countries.  Organisations  identified  Financial  resources  /  loss  of  farmland 
value after conversion to forest land  as the most challenging obstacle  (62.88%),  followed  by  barriers to 
transnational production/transfer (46.29%) and unfavourable climatic conditions (43.83%). Non-Polish EU 
citizens found financial resources / loss of farmland value after conversion to forest land (55.03%), local 
acceptance/administrative  procedures  (48.59%),  and  finding  appropriate  spaces  (45.82%)  most 
challenging.  Polish  citizens  selected  the  same  first  and  second  options  as  non-Polish  EU  citizens  most 
frequently  with  61.18%  and  59.82%  respectively;  but  their  third  most  frequently  selected  choice  was 
unfavourable climatic conditions (41.79%). 

Q12  Respondents  were  asked  how  the  EU  could  encourage  the  wider  use  of  forests  for  the 
health  and  well-being  of  all.  Encouraging  forest-related  educational  opportunities  was  selected  most 
frequently  by  organisations  (87.26%)  followed  by  raise  awareness  of  the  health  benefits  of  forests 
(83.68%)  and  promote  the  exchange  of  best  practices  and  other  communication  efforts on  the  multiple 
roles  of  forests  (77.42%).  Non-Polish  EU  citizens  ranked  highest  encourage  forest-related  educational 
opportunities  (81.63%),  promote  the  exchange  of  best  practices  (76.62%)  and  raise  awareness  of  the 
health  benefits  of  forests  (73.62%).  Polish  citizens  selected  raise  awareness  of  the  health  benefits  of 
forests  (91.45%),  encourage  forest-related  educational  opportunities  (90.29%),  and  promote  the 
exchange of best practices and other communication efforts on the multiple roles of forests (82.69%). 

Q13  Respondents  were  further  asked  if  they  had  ever  paid  to  compensate  for  the  CO2 
emissions  associated  with  their  purchases  through  tree  planting  schemes.  26.48%  of 
organisations,  29.54%  of  non-Polish  EU  citizens  and  26.45%  of  Polish  citizens  responded  that  they  had 
paid CO2 emissions compensation through tree planting schemes.  

6.  ANALYSIS OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION

5 

A  total  of  228  additional  documents  (e.g.  position  papers)  were  submitted  as  part  of  the  roadmap 
consultation (86), open public consultation (133), and via direct submission to the Commission (9). This 
analysis  covers  sampling  of  30  papers  from  a  range  of  public  and  private  stakeholders  from  within  EU 
Member  States  and  stakeholders  with  a  pan-EU  focus,  10  of  these  were  submitted  as  part  of  the  initial 
roadmap  consultation  and  separately  sampled  after  a  review  of  the  responses  received  to  the  roadmap 
consultation. All organisation types were included in the sample.  Position papers were analysed based on 
the objectives of the roadmap and aligned with the roadmap questions of the OPC. Results are presented 
grouped by the three roadmap themes, nurture  forests, plan for forests of the future, and manage new 
and existing forests. 

TO NURTURE FORESTS 

5   This  section  was  prepared  by  Technopolis  Group  &  COWI  under 

framework  contract  No. 
CLIMA.A.4/FRA/2019/0011 led by COWI, as part of the specific contract No. 340201/2020/832904/ETU/CLIMA.C.3  

the 

10 

 
 
 
                                                
Business associations note that, while forest protection is important for biodiversity, protection objectives 
do  not  actually  contradict  production  or  sustainable  forest  management,  with  one  business  association 
suggesting  that  forest  protection  should  be  left  to  Member  States.  Similarly,  companies  largely  want  to 
protect and restore forests in an effort to combat climate change, though also consider that management 
and  production  could  be  integrated.  Public  authorities6  and  non-governmental  and  environmental 
organisations want to increase  protections and restrict industry measures, in particular the restriction of 
biomass  use  for  energy  in  the  renewable  energy  directive.  Preservation  of  stocks  and  increasing  carbon 
sinks  was  of  interest  to  the  majority  of  stakeholders.  All  stakeholders  agree  that  forest  protection  must 
include  initiatives  to  counter  fires,  pests  and  diseases.  Suggestions  of  how  to  accomplish  this  objective 
included employing local initiatives to manage forests,  mixed forests with  natural  regeneration, a higher 
proportion  of  deciduous  trees,  and  active  and  timely  management  to  contain  disasters.  One  public 
authority referred to the importance of conserving and using forest tree genetic resources plays a key role 
in  forest  adaptation.  All  stakeholders  support  restoration  of  damaged  areas  and  degraded  ecosystem. 
Companies  and  business  organisations  pointed  to  the  natural  limitations  of  forests  and  suggested 
monitoring  of  restoration  objectives  at  global  scale.  An  environmental  organisation  and  a  research 
institute  suggested  that  restoration  measures  should  include  biodiversity  targets.  A  central  theme  of 
several position papers was that the EU Forest Strategy for 2030 should ensure sustainable management 
of EU forests. In this regard, NGOs and environmental organisations stress that current sustainable forest 
management  practices  are  not  sufficient.  One  NGO  also  mentions  that  sustainable  forest  management 
needs a clear widely adapted definition since for example currently clear cutting of forests would still be 
seen  as  sustainable.  Another  NGO  stressed  that  the  EU  also  needs  to  support  sustainable  forest 
management and forest conservation in non-EU countries and to ensure consistency with the EU Timber 
Regulation and Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Regulation. Other measures suggested to 
achieve this include the use of binding forest protection criteria in trade agreements. 

TO PLAN FOR FORESTS OF THE FUTURE 

Several  position  papers  commented  on  planning  for  forests  of  the  future,  specifically  in  terms  of 
afforestation and tree planting. Out of three business associations which covered this topic, two stressed 
the  importance  that  the  areas  for  tree  planting,  including  under  the  3  billion  trees  initiative,  should  be 
determined  by  the  Member  States.  All  three  companies/business  associations  included  in  the  sample 
supported  afforestation  in  particular  by  converting  unused  land,  one  company  also  mentioned  the 
potential  of  using  the  offsetting  emissions  via  afforestation.  Environmental  organisations  and  NGOs 
stressed the need to avoid monocultures and to enhance biodiversity, which also decreases vulnerability 
and fire risk, it was also stressed that binding nature restoration are necessary and proforestation should 
be promoted. One national forest ministry highlighted that it must be possible to determine the areas to 
be afforested at national level in order to maintain an understanding of the suitability and impacts of the 
sites on the environment e.g. that open habitats of cultural value should not be afforested but also that 
economic  areas  of  importance  should  be  considered.  Regarding  adaptation  of  forests  to  future  climate 
change the two main suggestions by stakeholders are to foster adaptation via biodiversity and sustainable 
forest  management,  including  the  use  of  an  ecosystem  approach.  The  UN  Office  for  Disaster  Risk 
Reduction  suggests  to  increase  research  into  climate-resilient  tree  species,  and  a  company  suggested 
direct  adaptation  support  could  be  financed  via  carbon  offsetting  by  companies.  One  research  institute 
noted  that  climate  change  adaptation  requires  increased  attention  on  fire,  pests  and  disease.  Only  five 
position  papers  mentioned  training  and  jobs  in  the  context  of  planning  new  forests  with  only  one  clear 
recommendation by an NGO that foresters should be trained on the consequences of climate change. In 
terms of rural development, several stakeholders felt that the strategy should emphasise the entire forest 
value  chain  which  has  a  huge  impact  on  rural  development.  Two  business  associations  asked  for  the 
Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) to maintain and increase its focus on forests. One stressed the need to 
coordinate  rural  development  policies  with  the  forest  strategy  and  one  suggested  that  an  ecosystem 
restoration  fund  levied  through  the  CAP  or  Emission  Trading  Scheme  (ETS)  could  boost  rural 
development. The discussion surrounding the role of innovation with regards to forest-based services and 
products  focussed  on  the  substitution  of  wood  biomass  for  fossil  fuels  but  also  for  carbon-intensive 

6   Public authorities include state owned forest companies 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                
building materials in the building sector. One NGO stressed the importance of keeping forests out of the 
ETS  due  to  uncertainty  in  data  around  forest  sinks  and  stocks,  and  one  NGO  and  one  environmental 
organisation  strongly  opposed  using  wood  for  bioenergy  and  expressed  that  it  should  be  excluded  from 
the Renewable Energy Directive. Stakeholders from all groups expressed the need for additional research 
to  support  an  effective  sustainable  forest  management  strategy,  including  increasing  forests’  resilience 
towards natural disasters, adapting to climate change and improving the sustainability of wood biomass. 
Less  common  suggestions  includes  improving  resource  efficiency  and  improving  links  between  research 
and policy. 

TO MANAGE NEW AND EXISTING FORESTS 

Stakeholders  have  diverging  views  regarding  the  governance  to  manage  new  and  existing  forests. 
Business  associations,  a  trade  union,  and  one  public  authority  prefer  forest  policy  to  be  left  to  Member 
States,  the  business  associations  and  the  trade  union  go  even  further  and  prefer  to  use  a  bottom-up 
approach  where  forest  owners  are  at  the  core  of  the  forest  strategy  and  forest  governance.  One  public 
authority highlighted that including cities as part of the forest governance will support the management of 
forests, and it would make sense as city dwellers need near-by forests for recreation. NGOs had several 
suggestions  to  improve  governance  including  establishing  further  guidelines  on  biodiversity-friendly 
reforestation and close-to-nature management and having regular checks on whether actions in Member 
States are implemented, and to ensure that local communities from forest areas have a voice in decision 
making. Stakeholders were in agreement that national forest strategies should have a strong coordination 
function with the EU  Green Deal objectives and other  EU  Green Deal policies. Stakeholders were also in 
agreement  that  the  new  forest  policy  is  pivotal  to  integrate  existing  forest  policies  into  the  Green  Deal. 
Responses  from  public  authorities,  business  associations,  and  NGOs  highlight that  the  wood  value  chain 
could  be  a  contributing  factor  in  achieving  the  Green  Deal  objectives.  NGOs  and  environmental 
organisations expressed the view that the forest strategy needs to align with a number of other policies 
such  as  the  Biodiversity  strategy  for  2030  and  the  other  policies  under  the  Green  Deal.  Regarding 
improving and harmonising the monitoring of forests all stakeholders agree that this is a prerequisite for 
sustainable  forest  management.  Suggestions  included  cooperation  across  the  borders  in  the  event  of 
pests  or  fire,  monitoring  the  enforcement  of  bans  on  commercial  forestry,  establishing  a  harmonised 
monitoring system, monitoring biodiversity, and improving the quality of forest data for monitoring. One 
public authority mentioned that the EU has to improve the knowledge base on forest biodiversity through 
harmonised  reporting  based  on  national  forest  inventories.  Securing  financing  was  identified  as  a 
challenge by multiple stakeholder groups. There was a wide range of suggestions in separate areas. One 
international  organisations  highlighted  the  current  fragmentation  in  financing  as  a  challenge  where 
funding  comes  from  smaller  forest  departments  rather  than  from  environment,  health  or  social 
departments,  which  benefit  of  the  forest  regulatory  services.  Business  associations  stressed  the 
importance  of  the  forest  policy  to  provide  a  stable  and  predictable  policy  framework  to  channel 
investments  into  the  sector  and  making  use  of  existing  instruments  such  as  the  CAP.  Stakeholders  also 
agreed that innovative financial incentives will be positive, but views differed how these incentives should 
look like. The NGOs and environmental organisation which mentioned this topic highlighted that financial 
incentives should be provided through payments for ecosystem services which rewards forest owners for 
actions  to  protect  forest  areas.  One  NGO  also  mentioned  that  the  polluter  pays  principle  should  be 
employed through a tax on forest products based on their ecological footprint to prioritise long-lived wood 
product.  Lastly,  all  stakeholder  groups  were  in  agreement  that  improving  the  dialogue  with  the  public 
would be a positive step in the new strategy. All stakeholder groups agree on ensuring consistency with 
international commitments. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
7.  SOURCES OF THE EVIDENCE USED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE FOREST STRATEGY 

7.1.  FOREST AREA AND COVER, AND THEIR CHANGES OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS  

When looking into forest area and cover it is important to consider  that the term ‘forest’ may have very 
different meanings depending on the context. As a result, different data sources may use different forest 
definitions  or  even  concepts,  typically  linked  to  the  assessment  methods  and  criteria  agreed  in  various 
international frameworks.  Great care  should thus be taken when using, comparing, or combining, forest 
area and forest cover estimates. 

A  fundamental  distinction  needs  to  be  made  between  forest  as  land  cover  and  forest  as  land  use.  Land 
cover describes the state of the land, often closely linked to the instant or short period an observation is 
made, e.g. using a sensor aboard a satellite or other forms of Earth Observation. Land use focuses on the 
function  of  a  piece  of  land,  recorded  in  cadastral  information  or  land  use  or  management  plans,  which 
may disregard the momentary state of the land. This has important implications for managed forest land 
that  undergoes  cycles  of  planting,  growth,  and  harvest.  When  such  land  is  recently  harvested  the  area 
seizes to be forest in terms of land cover, until the trees regrow. In terms of land use, however, this land 
is considered forest throughout the management cycle, including when no trees are present. 

Many  forest  land  cover  maps  follow  the  Food  and  Agricultural  Organization  (FAO)  modular-hierarchical 
Land Cover Classification System. At the regional scale, Forest Europe makes use of the FAO results under 
the  Forest  Resources  Assessment  (FRA),  following  a  land  use  definition  for  reporting  on  the  European 
forest  area.  Countries  validate  collected  information  before  publishing  and  aligning  forest  definitions  on 
forest cover and land use. At the European scale, data on forest is gathered by the CORINE Land Cover 
monitoring  (CLC)  combining  land  cover  information  from  satellite  with  land  use  information  from  other 
sources.  

The  FAO-FRA  definition  of  forest7  is  “land  spanning  more  than  0.5  hectares  with  trees  higher  than  5 
meters  and  a  canopy  cover  of  more  than  10  percent,  or  trees  able  to  reach  these  thresholds  in  situ.  It 
does not include land that is predominantly under agricultural or urban land use.” EUROSTAT and Forest 
Europe  make  use  of  the  same  definition8.  The  FAO-FRA  definition  provides  further  explanations  such  as 
that  forests  are  designated  landholdings  used  as  forests,  regardless  of  their  current  vegetation. 
Regeneration sites after harvesting, understocked sites due to clear-cut and (natural) disasters, nurseries, 
forest  roads  and  firebreaks,  rubber-wood,  cork  oak  and  Christmas  tree  plantations,  areas  with  bamboo 
and palms (if height and canopy cover criteria are met) etc. are  included in the forest area. It excludes 
tree stands in agricultural production systems such as in fruit plantations and agro-forestry systems, and 
trees in urban parks and gardens.9  

The  CORINE  Land  Cover  (CLC)  definition  of  forest  is:  “Areas  occupied  by  forests  and  woodlands  with  a 
vegetation pattern composed of native or exotic coniferous and/or broad-leaved  trees and which can be 
used  for  the  production  of  timber  or  other  forest  products.  The  forest  trees  are  under  normal  climatic 
conditions  higher  than  5  m  with  a  canopy  closure  of  30%  at  least.  In  case  of  young  plantation,  the 
minimum cut-off-point is 500 subjects by ha.”10 This definition uses forest cover to refer to areas where 
trees dominate a vegetation type. ‘Forest cover’ is mainly used when assessments are based on  remote 
sensing and legal designation of the land is unknown or not considered. This definition also uses criteria 
for  minimum  tree  cover,  minimum  tree  height  and  a  minimum  area  below  which  the  area  it  is  not 
considered a forest. CLC information is limited by a minimum mapping unit of 25ha. 

7   i8661en.pdf (fao.org) 
8
   Eurostat collects information on the area of wooded land, including forest and other wooded land as defined in FAO 
FRA, through the European Forest Accounts (EFA). The methodology states that data on land reported through that 
questionnaire “must  be  coherent  with  other data  provided at  European  and  international  level  (national  accounts, 
Forest Europe, FAO, and OECD)”. 14 Member States report data on forest area to Eurostat under the EFA, and in 
addition Eurostat gapfills EFA tables with FAO-FRA data on forest area. Data reported for the same variable are in 
general well aligned among EFA, FRA and Forest Europe. 

9

   National definition of forests however, could differ from the FAO definition. 

10

  https://land.copernicus.eu/user-corner/technical-library/corine-land-cover-nomenclature-

guidelines/html/index.html  

13 

 
 
 
                                                
Besides  the  FAO  and  CLC  assessments,  which  both  have  their  own  definition  of  forest,  the  EUROSTAT 
LUCAS and the UNFCCC-LULUCF are noteworthy. They both build on the FAO forest definition concept to 
collect and process data of the forest area but have their own specific criteria and thresholds set in their 
specific policy context. 

The EUROSTAT LUCAS survey is a European-scale field survey. It generates harmonised forest land cover 
and land use  data for  European statistics through direct field observations every three  years since 2006 
(EUROSTAT-LUCAS).  The  LUCAS  ‘Woodland’  land  cover  class  equals  the  FAO  Forest  class  and  the 
‘Shrubland’ cover’ class is equal to the FAO class ‘Other Wooded Land’. The share of forest area based on 
the LUCAS data is used as indicator for the Sustainable Development Goal Life on land11 (SDG 15). 

Under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), parties annually report on land use, 
land use  change  and forestry (LULUCF) to provide information on carbon greenhouse  gas emissions and 
removals  from  land  use  including  forests.  The  forest  definition  follows  the  2006  IPCC  Guidelines  on 
national greenhouse gas inventories (vol. 4) which allows to set minimum thresholds for area, tree height 
and  tree  crown  cover  density  according  to  national  circumstances.  Specific  Member  States 
implementations  are  reported  in  National  Inventory  Reports12  and  listed  in  Annex  II  of  the  LULUCF 
Regulation13. 

Besides  forest  itself,  there  are  other  terms  that  are  used  in  land  classifications  that  may  influence  the 
forest area. The FAO forest assessment defines two classes similar to forests: ‘Other Wooded Land’ (OWL) 
and ‘Other land with tree cover’ (OLT). EUROSTAT  and Forest Europe make use of the same categories. 
The FAO defines OWL as land with a canopy cover of 5-10 per-cent of trees able to reach a height of 5 m 
in situ, or a canopy cover of more than 10 percent when smaller trees, shrubs and bushes are included. 
Other  Land  with  Tree  cover  (OLT)  is  defined  as  ‘Other  land’  that  is  predominantly  agricultural  or  urban 
land  use  and  has  patches  of  tree  cover  that  span  more  than  0.5  hectares  with  a  canopy  cover  of  more 
than  10  percent  of  trees  able  to  reach  a  height  of  5  meters  at  maturity”  and  including  both  forest  and 
non-forest  tree  species.  Similarly  to  the  FAO  category  ‘Other  wooded  land’,  LUCAS  also  considers  class 
‘Other  wooded  land’,  while  the  CORINE  land  cover  classification  includes  a  category  called  ‘Transitional 
woodland  and  shrub’.  The  IPCC  guidelines  do  not  foresee  such  a  top  level  land  use  category  but  could 
allow for specific implementations at sub-category level.  

The  comparison  of  the  forest  area  (including  Other  wooded land)  from  the  different  assessments  shows 
that they result in a different forest area for Europe (Figure 5). This comparison is further complicated by 
the fact they have  different  assessment years14. The difference  between  to  FAO’s 2020  estimate for the 
EU27 forest area (159 million ha), and the LULUCF estimate from 2019 (163 million ha) is greater than 4 
million  hectares,  or  roughly  the  forest  area  of  Latvia.  The  CORINE  Land  Cover  reports the  lowest  forest 
area, even when the area for ‘Transitional woodland and shrub’ is included. 

The  forest  area  for  the  EU27  reported  in  the  forest  assessments  of  FAO-FRA,  LULUCF,  CLC,  and  LUCAS 
show  large  differences  over  the  period  1990-2020  (Figure  6).  The  forest  area  according  FAO-FRA  (the 
sum of Forest and OWL) amounts to approximately 180 million ha in 2020, which is similar to the forest 
area  reported by LUCAS (2018), but much  higher than the area  reported by CLC and LULUCF. FAO-FRA 
reported for 2020 a 10% higher forest area (ca. 17 million ha) than was reported by LULUCF, which could 
mainly  be  explained  by  the  inclusion  of  the  OWL  class  in  the  FAO-FRA  forest  area.  Although  the  class 
Transitional woodlands and shrubs is included in the CLC forest area in the graph, which together with the 
CLC Forest class theoretically covers about the same land cover types as the FAO Forest and OWL classes, 
the area reported by CLC is 23 million ha lower than that reported by FAO-FRA. 

11

  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-statistical-books/-/KS-03-21-096  

12

  National Inventory Submissions 2021 | UNFCCC 

13

  EUR-Lex - 32018R0841 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu). In few cases there are differences between definitions in 

National inventory reports and the LULUCF Regulation which will require reconciliation for compliance. 

14  Depending on the data sources the EU outermost territories may or may not be included. 

14 

 
 
 
                                                
Figure  5  Forest  area  (1000  ha)  for  the  EU27  according  to  different  forest  assessments  of  FAO-FRA, 
LUCAS,  CORINE  Land  cover,  and  LULUCF  (year  of  reporting  for  sources:  FAO-FRA:  2020,  LUCAS:  2018, 
CORINE-CLC:  2018,  UNFCCC:  2019).  LULUCF  includes  managed  and  unmanaged  forests  as  defined  by 
IPCC. 

Figure  6  Forest  area  for  the  current  EU27  Member  States15.  FAO-FRA  data  is  presented  for  both  “forest 
area”  and  “forests  and  other  wooded  land”  (FOWL),  and  LUCAS  data  is  presented  in  a  similar  manner 
(“forest”  area  and  “forest  and  other  wooded  land”  –  FOWL).  ;  CLC  data  is  presented  as  “forest”  area 

15  Data sources fig. 5 and fig. 6: FAO/FRA; CLC: Land cover and land cover changes in European countries in 2000-
LUCAS 
& 

2018 
(https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/LAN_LCV_FAO__custom_1066297/default/table 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/for_area/default/table?lang=en) 

Copernicus 

Monitoring 

Service); 

LULUCF; 

Land 

— 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                
(including broadleaved forest, coniferous forest, mixed forest) and “forest and transitional woodland and 
shrub’ (FTWL&S). LULUCF includes managed and unmanaged forest as defined by IPCC. 

All four assessments for the EU27 show an increase of the forest area for all periods considered, yet at a 
slower  pace  in  the  last  15  to  20  years.  The  hybrid  land  cover-land  use  CLC  assessment  even  shows  a 
slight decrease in forest area of 108.000 ha over the period 2012 to 2018.  

These assessments combined lead to some important conclusions:1) the concept of forest and land cover, 
land use or a hybrid of both as well as their specific definitions and thresholds is a key consideration when 
assessing forest cover in the EU and Member States 2) several assessments point to an increase in forest 
area in the last 30 years; 3) growth in forest and tree-covered area has slowed in the last two decades;  

To  specifically  assess  the  development  of  forest  area  gain  and  loss,  Figure  7  depicts  the  annual  time 
series  for  1990-2019  of  afforested  and  deforested  land  in  the  EU-27,  extracted  from  Member  States’ 
LULUCF  greenhouse  gas  inventory  submissions  of  2021  (annual  land  conversion  estimated  in  CRF  Table 
4.1)16. Afforested land (the stacked bar above the zero-line) shows the land converted to forest land by 
IPCC  land  use  category;  deforested  land  (the  stacked  bar  below  the  zero  line)  indicates  to  which  land 
category forest land was converted. The black solid line depicts the net area change in forest land; that is 
the difference between the total afforested and total deforested land.  

Notably,  grasslands  and  croplands  were  converted  to  forests.  Annual  variations  are  mainly  driven  by 
changes in the shares of cropland conversion and to a lesser extent by grassland conversions. Losses of 
forest  land  are  predominantly  due  to  the  expansion  of  settlements  and  conversion  to  grasslands.  The 
dynamics by total afforested area indicate a decline from approximately 500,000 ha at the end of the last 
millennium  to  below  300,000  ha  in  the  last  10  years.  Comparatively  lower  variations  are  shown  for 
deforested land, in  most years being around  100,000  ha of forest area loss except for the period 2004-
2010 reaching almost 150,000 ha. The net area change reaffirms the net area gains of forest land for all 
years  of  this  30-year  time  series;  yet,  the  net  area  increase  of  forest  land  diminished  over  the  last  20 
years from 400kha to approximately 150kha. According to greenhouse data reporting, the EU forest area 
increased by 7.2 Mio ha over the 30 years in this time series. 

Figure  7.  Area  of  annually  afforested  land  deforested  areas  in  the  EU-27  for  the  period  1990-2019. 
Source:  EU  Member  States’  GHG  inventory  submission  of  2021,  CRF  Table  4.1.  National  Inventory 
Submissions 2021 | UNFCCC. 

16

  For greenhouse gas reporting Member States follow specific definitions of forest land with regards to area, 

anticipated tree height and tree crown cover. Details may be obtained from Member States National Inventory 
Report and Regulation (EU) 2018/841. 

16 

 
 
 
 
                                                
7.2. GHG DATA OF THE LULUCF SECTOR INCLUDING FOREST LAND 

Land  use  in  the  EU  is  a  net  sink,  removing  more  CO2  from  the  atmosphere  than  emitting  greenhouse 
gases.  Figure 8  shows in Mega tonnes of  CO2  equivalents (Mt  CO2-eq)17  the total LULUCF net  removals 
(black  line)  and  the  net  emissions  or  net  removals  by  land  use  category  as  stacked  bar  plots  (net 
removals have negative sign). At the EU level only forests and products from forests, so-called harvested 
wood products (HWP), are net removals; all other land use categories show net emissions. In recent years 
(2016-2018), forest land and HWPs have annually removed, on average, about  -360 Mt CO2-eq and -40 
Mt  CO2-eq,  respectively18  in  the  EU-27.Trends  and  variations  in  net  removals  of  the  land  sink  are 
predominantly driven by changes in the net  removals by  forest land  and  the associated forest products. 
Following  an  increase  in  removals  by  70  Mt  CO2-eq  from  1992  and  1999,  there  is  a  plateau  with  some 
variability, which decreases by 70 Mt CO2-eq since 2013. 

The vast majority of the net forest carbon sink is captured in the above and below ground living biomass, 
followed by sequestration mineral soils and small amounts in deadwood, which can however significantly 
increase after natural disturbances such as storms. It should be noted that organic soils are net emitters, 
which can lead  to offsetting carbon sequestration by other pools and forests in such locations becoming 
net emitters. 

17

  Reporting of greenhouse gas (CO2, CH4 and N2O) emissions and removals in the Land Use, Land Use Change and 

Forestry (LULUCF) sector follows the IPCC 2006 guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. LULUCF 
distinguishes six main land use categories, including their conversion: Forest Land, Cropland, Grassland, Wetlands, 
Settlements and Other land. Changes in carbon stocks are estimated for carbon pools above and below-ground 
living biomass, dead organic matter (for forests divided in deadwood and litter), and soils with a separation 
between mineral and organic soils. Specific emissions, e.g. related to nitrogen application and leaching, drainage 
and rewetting or biomass burning are recorded separately. The harvested wood product category estimates the net 
balance between inputs and outputs of biomass for different wood product categories. Non-CO2 gases were 
converted to CO2 equivalents by applying global warming potentials from the IPCC 5 Assessment Report (CH4: 28, 
N2O: 265). 

18

  Average value for 2016-2018 in the EU-27, which includes forest remaining forest (315 Mt CO2-eq) and land to 

forest (45 Mt CO2-eq). Grassi, G., Fiorese, G., Pilli, R., Jonsson, K., Blujdea, V., Korosuo, A. and Vizzarri, M., Brief 
on the role of the forest-based bioeconomy in mitigating climate change through carbon storage and material 
substitution, Sanchez Lopez, J., Jasinevičius, G. and Avraamides, M. editor(s), European Commission, 2021, 
JRC124374. 

17 

 
 
 
 
                                                
Figure  8  Net emission and removals by land use  category  and  total LULUCF in the EU-27 for  the period 
1990-2019.  Source:  EU  Member  States’  GHG  inventory  submission  of  2021,  CRF  Table  4.  National 
Inventory Submissions 2021 | UNFCCC. 

Figure 9 shows, by land use conversion category, net removals by afforested land (stacked bar plot below 
zero line) and emissions by deforested land (stacked bar plot above zero line)19; for land area conversions 
see  also  Figure  7.  Total  removals  from  afforested  land  decreased  from  almost  60Mt  CO2-eq  in  2010  to 
40Mt CO2-eq in 2019, over the same period emissions from deforestation decreased from 36 Mt CO2-eq 
to  31  Mt  CO2-eq.  This  reduces  the  net  contribution  of  20Mt  of  net  forest  removals  by  afforested  land 
reported  for  the  period  2000-2013  to  just  below  10Mt  CO2-eq  in  most  recent  years.  This  demonstrates 
that the decreased rate in net forest area gain also contributed to the reduction in net removals over the 
last decade, yet at a lower level than other drivers. 

Figure 9 Net removals by afforested land and emissions by deforested land and their net total in the EU-
27  for  the  period  1990-2019.  Source:  EU  Member  States’  GHG  inventory  submission  of  2021,  multiple 
CRF Tables. National Inventory Submissions 2021 | UNFCCC 

7.3.  REGIME OF EU’S FORESTS 

In 2020, 85% of the forest area and 88% of the growing stock was available for wood supply in the EU-
27.  Forest  is  considered  available  for  wood  supply  (FAWS)  when  there  are  no  environmental,  social  or 
economic  restrictions  that  could  have  a  significant  impact  on  the  current  or  potential  supply  of  wood 
(Alberdi  et  al.,  2016).  A  breakdown  of  the  forest  area  available  (FAWS)  and  non-available  (FnWAS)  for 
wood supply in 2020 by Member State is shown in  Figure 10, based on the FAO Global Forest Resources 
Assessment 2020. 

Given  some  differences  in  the  national  definitions  of  FAWS,  the  JRC  worked  with  National  Forest 
Inventories  institutions  to  produce  harmonized  data  on  FAWS  at  sub-national  scale  and  assess  the 
restrictions  to  wood  availability  for  20  European  countries.  The  results  are  described  in  a  JRC  Technical 
Report (see Figure 11 and Figure 12). 

19  Greenhouse gas reporting for “land converted to forest land”, here afforested land, or “forest land converted to 

cropland / grassland / wetland / settlement / other land”, here deforested land, remain in this transition category 
for 20 years. Emissions by CH4 and N2O from afforested land and deforested land are included under “Other”. 

18 

 
 
 
 
                                                
Figure  10  Share  of  forest  land  available  for  wood  supply  (FAWS)  and  non-available  for  wood  supply 
(FnAWS) by Member state in 2020. 

19 

 
 
 
 
Figure  11  Percentage  of  wood  available  in  European  forests.  The  percent  of  wood  is  in  unit  of 
aboveground biomass for countries with data available at sub-national level (countries participating in the 
JRC study) and in unit of growing stock volume for countries 

Figure  12  Percentage  contribution  of  each  restriction  to  the  forest  available  for  wood  supply  for  20 
European  countries  in  terms  of  area  (left  bars  with  light  colours)  and  biomass  (right  bars  with  dark 
colours) . The restrictions are divided in three main categories categories: economic (red), environmental 
(green) and social (orange) restrictions. Source: Avitabile V., Pilli R., Camia A., The biomass of European 
forests, EUR 30462 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020, ISBN 978-92-76-
26100-1, doi:10.2760/758855, JRC122635. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
Primary and old-growth forests represent below 3% of the total EU forest extent20. About 90% of the 
reported primary and old-growth forests in the EU is located in Sweden, Bulgaria, Finland and Romania. 
The mapped area of primary and old-growth forests in the EU is ~1.35 million hectares, however there is 
a pronounced mapping deficit estimated at ~4.4 million hectares. About 93% of the mapped primary and 
old-growth forests are part of the Natura 2000 Network, and 87% are strictly protected. 

As  regards  forest  ownership,  60  %  of  EU  forests  are  privately  owned  (estimated  at  16  million  forest 
owners). Many different schemes of public ownership cover the other 40%, see Figure 13. 

Figure  13  Proportion  of  forest  land  in  private  ownership.  Source:  Pulla,  P.,  Schuck,  A.,  Verkerk,  P.  J., 
Lasserre,  B.,  Marchetti,  M.  and  Green,  T.  2013.  Mapping  the  distribution  of  forest  ownership  in  Europe. 
EFI Technical Report 88. 92 p. 

7.4.  FORESTS PROTECTED UNDER THE EU NATURE LEGISLATION  

To preserve forests and the biodiversity that they host, specific species and habitats are protected by the 
Birds  and  Habitats  Directives.  The  species  and  habitats  protected  under  the  nature  legislation  are  to  a 
large  extent  included  in  Natura  2000  sites.  Nearly  25%  of  the  total  forest  area  (including  transitional 
forest  land)  in  the  EU  is  part  of  Natura  2000  sites,  according  to  information  available  in  the  Forest 
Information  System  for  Europe  –  FISE  (based  on  overlapping  Corine  landcover  maps  and  Natura  2000 

20  JRC study on Mapping and assessment of primary and old-growth forests in Europe (2021). 

https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC124671  

21 

 
 
 
 
                                                
mapping)21. The same FISE data is used below for the overview of forests (in % and in ha) in Natura 2000 
sites by Member State, see Figure 14 and Figure 15  

Figure  14  Percentage  of  forest  area  inside  Natura  2000  (%).  Forest  area  (CLC)=  Broad-leaved  forest 
(3.1.1) + Coniferous forest (3.1.2 ) + Mixed forest (3.1.3 )+ Transitional woodland/shrub (3.2.4 ); Corine 
Land Cover (CLC) Nomenclature Guideline 

Figure 15 Forest area inside Natura 2000, by Member State in ha. Forest area (CLC)= Broad-leaved forest 
(3.1.1) + Coniferous forest (3.1.2 ) + Mixed forest (3.1.3 )+ Transitional woodland/shrub (3.2.4 ); Corine 
Land Cover (CLC) Nomenclature Guideline 

21

  Forest Nature and biodiversity https://forest.eea.europa.eu/topics/forest-nature-and-biodiversity. Data Sources: 
Corine Land Cover (CLC) 2018 provided by European Environment Agency (EEA) and Copernicus Land Monitoring 
Service & Extracted from Natura 2000 Barometer provided by European Environment Agency (EEA) 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                
7.5.  STATUS  OF  FOREST  HABITATS  PROTECTED  UNDER  THE  HABITATS  AND  BIRDS 

DIRECTIVES 

The third edition of the report on the State of Nature in the EU was published in 2020, based on reports 
from Member States under the Birds (2009/147/EC) and the Habitats (92/43/EEC) Directives covering the 
period 2013-201822. Protected forest habitats make up almost one third of the area of habitats protected 
under  the  Habitats  Directive  (Annex  I  of  the  directive  lists  all  protected  habitats,  including  81  forest 
habitat types), with over 500 000 km2. Out of these, approximately 60% of which are temperate forests, 
and  25%  are  boreal  and  Mediterranean  (overlap  between  the  groups  is  possible).  Around  35%  of  the 
Annex I forest area reported by Member States is included in Natura 2000. 

The report includes data on the conservation status of Annex I forest habitats, indicating that over half of 
the assessments showed a poor conservation status (54 %) and 31% showed a bad conservation status, 
while only around 14 % of the assessments showed good conservation status, see Figure 16  

These  percentages  refer  to  the  number  of  assessments  (for  forests  the  total  is  232),  not  the  area  of 
habitats.  The  conservation  status  is  assessed  based  on  four  parameters:  range,  area,  structure  and 
functions and future prospects – hence area is only one of these. At regional level there are some notable 
differences in conservation status and trends. 

Figure 16 Conservation status of forests by region, State of Nature report 

Over  90%  of  boreal  forest  habitat  assessments  show  an  unfavourable  conservation  status  and  worse 
trends than temperate and Mediterranean forests. Boreal forests had the highest rate of bad assessments 
(56%) and the highest percentage of habitats with deteriorating trends in conservation status (43%).  

The  conservation  status  is  determined  by  four  parameters  (Habitat  condition,  Distribution  range,  Area 
covered,  Future  prospects)  and  is  considered  favourable  only  when  all  of  them  are  favourable  or  three 
favourable  and  one  unknown.  Changes  in  the  conservation  status  of  all  habitat  types  require  major 
changes in the parameters23 and this explains why the status shows relatively stable patterns and trends. 
For forests in particular, which have far longer  cycles than other habitats, the parameters might require 
time to improve.  While the habitats condition is measured in terms of forest habitats area reported, the 

22  EEA Report No 10/2020, State of Nature in the EU, Results from reporting under the nature directives 2013-1018 
23  State of Nature in the EU - Methodological paper Methodologies under the Nature Directives reporting 2013-2018 

and analysis for the State of Natura 2000, page 19. 

23 

 
 
 
 
                                                
conservation  status  of  habitats  is  aggregated  at  EU  level  and  counted  as  number  of  assessments  (one 
assessment may refer to e.g. beech forests in the Alpine biogeographical region), see Figure 17.  

In  order  for  a  habitat  type  to  be  considered  in  favourable  conservation  status,  the  result  of  each 
assessment  has  to  be  favourable  for  all  the  four  parameters  or  three  favourable  and  one  unknown.  For 
example,    if  the  specific  structure  and  functions  parameter  is  favourable  this  is  not  sufficient  for  the 
habitat type to be  considered in a favourable status as the three other parameters  –the area, the range 
and the ‘future prospects’- have to be favourable or two favourable and one unknown24. 

The  habitat  condition  parameter  shows  that  not-good  condition  is  reported  only  for  21.1%  of  the  forest 
habitats area, whereas nearly half of the area (49.5%) of forests under the Habitats Directive are in good 
condition, and for almost one third (29.4%) the condition is unknown. However, the total area of forests 
in good condition is limited to a very small number of ecosystems. The percentage of unknown conditions 
shows that the monitoring of conservation status of forest could be improved. 

Figure 17 Conservation status of forests in Member States (% assessments) 

The State of the Nature report shows that the conservation status of forest habitats protected under the 
Habitats  Directive  varies  significantly  among  Member  States,  with  more  than  50%  of  assessments 
showing a bad conservation status in several countries (DK, UK, BE, IE, MT, NL, SE, HU), while more than 
50% of assessments show a good status only in HR, GR, RO. 

24  General evaluation matrix for habitat types (from the Report format for the period 2013- 2018: 

http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/help/habitats_art17) Parameter Conservation Status 

24 

 
 
 
 
                                                
Figure 18 Trend in conservation status of forests by region, State of Nature report 

Figure  18  does  not  show  much  progress,  nevertheless,  the  trends  in  conservation  status  of  forest  are 
more  favourable  than  those  for  other  protected  habitats  with  over  54%  of  all  protected  forest  habitats 
assessed showing stable or improving trends. However, about one third (27%) of the forest assessments 
are deteriorating and 19% are unknown. Most of the improvements in diverse forest types were reported 
by Bulgaria (37 of 73 cases), e.g. for eastern white oak woods or beech forests. Apart from these, forests 
in Belgium and Greece also reportedly improved more than the average.  

A high proportion, if not most changes in trends across reporting cycles are due to changes in the quality 
of  Member  States’  reports  (as  the  SoN  indicates  in  both  its  2015  and  2020  editions).  The  2015  report 
concluded that the reported changes were mostly an artefact and, most likely, the conservation status of 
forest and woodland habitats and species did not significantly change25. The 2020 report26 refers to the 
genuine  changes27,  and  concludes  that  only  around  1%  of  all  (not  only  forests)  habitat  and  species 
assessments show improving genuine changes in their conservation status, and 3% of habitats and 2% of 
species show a deterioration. 

Another  element  reported  under  the  State  of  Nature  concerns  the  pressures  and  threats  for  protected 
habitats. For forests, the most reported pressures were: forestry (50 % of all pressures for mixed forests, 
broadleaved deciduous and coniferous forests), agriculture, alien species, natural processes, development 
/  construction,  and  climate  change.  Among  the  forestry  operations,  those  reported  most  often  are: 
removal  of  dead  and  dying  trees,  clearcutting  and  removal  of  all  trees,  removal  of  old  trees  (excluding 
dead  or  dying),  conversion  to  other  types  of  forests  including  monocultures,  and  replanting  with  or 
introducing non-native or non-typical species.  

Forest-dependent insects, mammals, non-vascular plants and breeding  birds such as the Lesser  Spotted 
Woodpecker (Dryobates minor) are most heavily affected by an excessive removal of dead and old trees 

25  State of Nature Report. EEA 2015, page 166. 
26

  ‘Limitations due to poor data quality or gaps in data completeness still exist. A noteworthy portion of the reported 

information comes from expert opinion and partial surveys, indicating the absence or incomplete monitoring 
schemes in Member States.’ ‘Compared with the previous reporting period, the share of habitats with bad 
conservation status has increased by 6 %. These differences largely relate to changes in the methods used or 
variations in data quality’ (State of Nature Report 2020. EAA. Executive summary. Page 5) 

27

  Genuine changes refer to real changes in nature, rather than changes that are due to improved data or knowledge, 

taxonomic rearrangements or the use of different monitoring methods 

25 

 
 
 
 
                                                
or  the  reduction  of  old-growth  forests.  The  clear-cutting  of  forested  areas  is  considered  to  be  the  most 
relevant pressure for breeding birds in the context of forestry. Although new trees should be replanted or 
allowed  to  regrow  after  the  forest  stands  have  been  clear-cut  —  as  required  by  national  forest  acts  in 
Europe — deforestation and clear-cutting without regrowth is occurring in Europe (EEA, 2016). Apart from 
breeding birds that depend on forest habitats, old trees are particularly valuable for some bats and small 
mammals,  such  as  the  Western  Barbastelle  (Barbastella  barbastellus),  the  Caucasian  Squirrel  (Sciurus 
anomalus)  or  the  Forest  Dormouse  (Dryomys  nitedula).  For  species  other  than  birds  and  for  habitats, 
however, the most frequently reported forestry pressure is the removal of dead trees. Many insects, non-
vascular  plants,  amphibians  and  reptiles  depend  on  these  for  food,  breeding  places  and  shelter.  Dead 
wood  specialists  such  as  the  near-threatened  Hermit  Beetle  (Osmoderma  eremita)  need  dead,  decaying 
wood for their life cycle. These structures thus represent integral features of healthy forest habitats; their 
removal can lead to changes in forest structure and diversity (Paillet et al., 2010; Vilén et al., 2015) 

7.6.  COMPOSITION OF EU’S FORESTS  

Currently,  26 %  of  EU  forests  have  one  tree  species  (mainly  conifers),  52 %  have  two  to  three  tree 
species, and 6% of forests have six or more tree species reported (Figure 19)28. A further breakdown of 
area by number of tree occurring species is shown in Figure 20. 

Figure 19 Forest area classified by a number of tree species occurring in the EU-27 in 20153 

28  FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 

26 

 
 
 
 
                                                
Figure 20 Forest area classified by a number of tree species occurring, by Member State in 2015 

7.7.  EU FORESTS AGE OVERVIEW 

About  three-quarters of  forests  in the  EU  reported  as29  even-aged  (Figure  21), of  which  about  53%  are 
beyond the regeneration phase (forests between 0 and 20% of the recommended rotation age) and have 
not yet reached the mature phase (forests older than 90% of the recommended rotation age)30. Forests in 
their mature phase represent 14% of the even-aged total stands, while the remaining 7% is unspecified 
in the statistics or unknown. Nearly a quarter of European forests are uneven-aged, i.e. mostly managed 
through single-tree selection system. 

29  

In forest management planning average age can be used if the difference between the oldest and youngest trees 
are not significant. This may originate from the planting/regenerating phase when the difference between the 
seedlings/young trees could be e.g. 10 years. However, the inventories shows only the weighted average of the 
age. 

30  Values for CY, FR, EL, LU, MT, and SI in the age development phases are not reported. AT FAWS only; IT data for 

2010 

27 

 
 
 
 
                                                
Figure  21  Share  in  the  EU-27  of  the  area  of  even-aged  forest  development phases  and  of  uneven-aged 
forest in FAWS in 2015 

A breakdown of the FAWS by the age class distribution in 2015 in the EU-27 Member States is shown in 
Figure 22, based on the FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020. 

28 

 
 
 
 
Figure  22  Share  in  the  EU-27  of  the  area  of  even-aged  forest  development phases  and  of  uneven-aged 
forest in FAWS in 2015 by Member state 31 

Furthermore,  Figure  23  represents  the  evolution  of  the  age-class  distribution  of  even-aged  forests 
between 2000 and 2020, as estimated from the Carbon Budget Model used by the JRC, according to data 
reported from National Forest Inventories. 

31

  Source: State of Europe’s Forests 2020 Report (SoEF). 2020. Available at: https://foresteurope.org/state-europes-

forests-2020-report/. 

29 

 
 
 
 
                                                
Figure 23 Age class evolution in even-aged forests. Source: Based on Pilli et al., 2016 

7.8.  VULNERABILITY TO CLIMATE-DRIVEN DISTURBANCES IN EUROPEAN FORESTS 

Ongoing  changes  of  European  climate  are  rapidly  affecting  the  condition  of  forests  in  terms  of 
temperature  regime,  water  availability  and  nutrient  cycles,  ultimately  impacting  on  the  risk  of  natural 
disturbances.  Multiple  assessments  have  documented  the  increase  of  climate-driven  risks  in  various 
regions  of  Europe  from  fires,  windstorms  and  insect  outbreaks.  Analysis  of  both  satellite  retrievals  and 
surface inventories of disturbance events are confirming the increasing frequency of the events and of the 
overall  area  affected  by  the  various  types  of  natural  disturbances,  with  a  relevant  rise  of  wind 
disturbances32 and of bark-beetle infestations in central-European spruce forests33. In 2017, when forest 
fires  burnt  more  than  1  million  ha  and  killed  over  130  people  –  the  worst  EU  fire  season  on  record  - 
Portugal was the country affected the most. Yet, beyond the ‘traditional’ Mediterranean countries, forest 
fires have also left  their marks in central and  northern European countries in recent years, especially in 
Sweden, which requested twice assistance through the Union Civil Protection Mechanism. The year 2019 
stood out for an unusually high number of winter and spring fires, driving the total number of fires in the 
EU to the highest level for the preceding decade (almost 2000), and for an exceptional number of forest 
fires, significantly more than average and much earlier in the season, in the Arctic34. Further analysis of 
climate  drivers  of  these  events  combined  with  climate  scenarios  are  pointing  to  a  potential  further 
increase  of  their  impacts  in  future  decades,  with  possible  negative  implications  on  the  forest  carbon 
budget35.  

In addition to an increase frequency of events, the results of a JRC36 study suggest that climate change 
has made Europe's forests also more vulnerable to hazards like fires, insect outbreaks, wind throws, or a 
combination of these three. Consistently to the IPCC risk assessment framework, 'vulnerability' is defined 

32

  Senf, C. and Seidl, R.: Storm and fire disturbances in Europe: Distribution and trends, Glob. Chang. Biol., 

(November 2020), 1–15, doi:10.1111/gcb.15679, 2021. 

33

  Sebald, J., Senf, C. and Seidl, R.: Human or natural? Landscape context improves the attribution of forest 

disturbances mapped from Landsat in Central Europe, Remote Sens. Environ., 262(May), 112502, 
doi:10.1016/j.rse.2021.112502, 2021. 

34

  DG ECHO Emergency Response Coordination Centre, JRC and the Situational Awareness Team: Analytical Brief 

‘Forest Fires in Europe’, 14 May 2020 / DG ECHO A3 Situational Awareness Team: Analytical Brief ‘Increase of Arctic 
wildfires in 2019’, 25 July 2019. 

35  Seidl, R., Schelhaas, M.-J., Rammer, W. and Verkerk, P. J.: Increasing forest disturbances in Europe and their 

impact on carbon storage, Nat. Clim. Chang., 4(9), 806–810, doi:10.1038/nclimate2318, 2014. 

36

  Forzieri G. et al (2020) Vulnerability of European forests to natural disturbances. JRC PESETA IV project – Task 12. 
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union / Forzieri, G., Girardello, M., Ceccherini, G. et al. (2021) 
Emergent vulnerability to climate-driven disturbances in European forests. Nat Commun 12, 1081. 

30 

 
 
 
 
                                                
as  the  fraction  of  biomass  that  is  potentially  lost  when  a  forest  ecosystem  is  affected  by  a  natural 
disturbance. More than 60% of the biomass in European forests is exposed to these risks - over 33 billion 
tonnes  in  total  -  putting  the  future  role  of  forests  for  wood  provision  or  carbon  sequestration  under 
growing uncertainty. The study is based on machine-learning models applied to disturbance records and 
satellite data from 1979-2018, to measure and map the vulnerability of Europe's forests to these hazards. 
The study shows that vulnerability is driven by a combination of climate parameters and forest structural, 
physiological  and  mechanical  properties.  Vulnerability  to  fires  shows  an  increasing  trend  in  the 
Mediterranean  region,  whereas  vulnerability  to  insect  outbreaks  shows  a  generalized  increase  across 
Europe,  with  higher  rates  in  Central  and  Northern  (see  Figure  24)  .  Quantifying  the  effects  of  natural 
disturbances to forests' resilience and productivity at large scales is a major challenge. The results of this 
study  contribute  to  a  better  understanding  of  potential  climate-driven  natural  disturbances  on  European 
forests,  helping  to  guide  forest  management  and  define  adaptation  policies  to  address  these 
vulnerabilities. 

Figure  24  Temporal  trends  in  forest  vulnerability  to  (ab)  forest  fires,  (cd)  windstorms  and  (ef)  insect 
outbreaks) over the 1979-2018 period. Shaded patterns reflect the 95% confidence interval; black dots in 
maps show pixels where trends are significant. Corresponding temporal drivers visualized in terms of area 
fraction (reported in colour and numbers) where the given driver (total precipitation, average temperature 
and standardised precipitation index, SPEI) is dominant. (Source: Forzieri G. et al., 2020) 

31 

 
 
 
 
The  extraordinary  drought  conditions  since  2015,  which  were  unprecedented  in  the  past  2110  years37, 
also caused significant direct tree damage and dieback in certain parts of Europe. Available studies project 
more  frequent,  severe  and  longer  lasting  meteorological  and  hydrological  droughts  for  most  of  Europe 
during  the  21st  century,  except  for  parts  of  central-eastern  and  north-eastern  Europe.  The  greatest 
increase  in  drought  conditions  is  projected  for  southern  Europe38.  These  projections  are  very 
consequential  for  forests.  The  ability  of  trees  to  survive  sustained  drought  is  strongly  related  to  their 
embolism  resistance.  However,  70%  of  226  forest  species  from  81  sites  worldwide  operate  with  narrow 
hydraulic safety margins against injurious levels of drought stress. Many trees and forests, both in Europe 
and  across  the  globe,  are  therefore  highly  vulnerable  to  drought,  potentially  resulting  in  long-term 
reductions  in  tree  productivity,  resilience  and  survival.  Drought-induced  forest  decline  is  occurring  not 
only  in  arid  regions  but  also  in  wet  forests  not  normally  considered  at  drought  risk,  because  tree’s 
hydraulic  safety  margins  are  largely  independent  of  mean  annual  precipitation39.  By  weakening  trees, 
droughts  will  also  increase  the  vulnerability  of  forests  to  other  disturbances,  like  fires  and  bark  beetle 
infestations, further amplifying the climate impacts on forests. 

7.9.  FOREST TYPE AND TREE RANGE SHIFTS UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE 

The onset of climate change means also forest change. Europe’s vegetation zones have already started to 
move upwards and northwards, triggering a transformation of forest ecosystems in many places.  

Figure 25 Modelled past (1961–90, left) and future (2071–2100, right) potential natural vegetation (PNV) 
in Europe, using a high greenhouse gas emission scenario40 

37

  Büntgen, U., Urban, O., Krusic, P.J. et al. (2021) Recent European drought extremes beyond Common Era 

background variability. Nat. Geosci. 14, 190–196. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00698-0  

  https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/river-flow-drought-3/assessment  

38
39  Choat, B., Jansen, S., Brodribb, T. et al. (2012) Global convergence in the vulnerability of forests to drought. 

Nature 491, 752–755. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11688  

40  Source: Hickler, T., Vohland, K., Feehan, J., Miller, P.A., Smith, B., Costa, L., Giesecke, T., Fronzek, S., Carter, 

T.R., Cramer, W., Kühn, I. and Sykes, M.T. (2012) Projecting the future distribution of European potential natural 

32 

 
 
 
 
                                                
 
By the end of this century and under a high emissions scenario, trees may grow in many of today’s arctic 
and  alpine  tundra  ecosystems;  the  transition  zone  between  temperate  broad‐leaved  and  boreal  conifer 
forest may have moved  several hundreds kilometres northwards;  and shrub lands may be replacing the 
forests  of  Southern  Spain.  Altogether,  31  to  42  per  cent  of  Europe’s  land  area  could  be  belong  to  by  a 
different  ‘potential  natural  vegetation’  zone,  depending  on  the  emissions  scenario  and  circulation  model 
used (see Figure 25). 

Along with such  vegetation zone shifts, the  potential range of Europe’s main tree species is expected to 
shift, too. Depending on the climate scenario used, between 21 and 60% of European forest lands may to 
suitable  mostly  for  Mediterranean  oak  forest  types  by  2100  whilst  Norway  spruce  -  one  of  the  major 
commercial  tree  species  in  Europe  today  –  may  be  restricted  to  the  higher  elevations  in  central  Europe 
and  to  areas  in  northern  Sweden,  Finland  and  Norway.  Broadleaves  such  as  oak  and  beech  could 
experience range shifts from western Europe (France, Netherlands, Germany) and the lower elevations in 
central and eastern Europe more to central,  northern  and northeastern Europe (see  Figure 26). Without 
effective  countermeasures,  these  developments  could  have  profound  consequences  for  the  economic 
value and the delivery of the various ecosystem services by forests. 

Figure  26  Potential  range of  major tree  species  in  Europe  under  a  moderate  warming  scenario  in  2070-
2100 (right) compared to the 1950–2000 period (left)41 

7.10. FOREST DEFOLIATION

42 

Crown  defoliation  of  trees  is  an  indication  of  poor  forest  health.  In  fact,  an  indicator  on  defoliation  is 
collected periodically by the International Co-operative Programme on Assessment  and  Monitoring of Air 
Pollution  Effects  on  Forests  (ICP  Forests;  Michel  et  al.  2018)43  and  reported  in  Forest  Europe  under 
Criterion 2 “forest Ecosystem  Health and Vitality” of  FOREST EUROPE.  Defoliation is a parameter of tree 
vitality, which can be affected by a number of human and natural factors (abiotic and biotic). Therefore, 
defoliation  is  a  natural  bioindicator  useful  as  warning  sign  on  the  fate  of  forest  pressures  i.e.  insect’s 
infestations,  fungi,  deposition,  abiotic  factors  such  as  heat  and  drought,  frost,  wind,  snow/ice,  or  the 
action of man.  

vegetation zones with a generalized, tree species-based dynamic vegetation model. Global Ecology and 
Biogeography, 21: 50-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00613.x  

41   Source: Hanewinkel, M., Cullmann, D., Schelhaas, MJ. et al. (2013) Climate change may cause severe loss in the 
economic value of European forest land. Nature Clim Change 3, 203–207. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1687  

42

  Summary sourced from the EU ecosystem assessment: 

https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC120383 

43

  Michel A, Seidling W, Prescher A-K, (Eds.). (2018). Forest Condition in Europe: 2018 Technical Report of ICP 

Forests. Report under the UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (Air Convention). Vienna: 
BFW-Dokumentation 25/2018. BFW Austrian Research Centre for Forests. 

33 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
The defoliation survey from ICP in 2017 assessed 5496 plots in 26 European countries, in total 101,779 
trees (Michel et al. 2018). Of the 26 countries assessed, 20 are MS of the EU, the other six countries are: 
Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland and Turkey. The seven MS of the EU  not included in 
the 2017’s defoliation data are Malta, Portugal, Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland and Netherlands. 

The reporting from ICP indicates that 25.1% of all assessed trees had needle or leaf loss exceeding 25%, 
thus  classified  as  damaged.  The  mean  defoliation  of  all  trees  was  21.7%,  indicating  a  0.3%  increase  in 
relation  to  2016.  Broadleaved  trees  had  a  higher  mean  defoliation,  22.7%,  than  coniferous  trees  with 
20.7%. Around 71% of all the plots assessed had a mean defoliation up to 25%, therefore 29% of plots 
had a mean defoliation above 25% i.e. the damage threshold. 

The overall trend of mean plot defoliation from 1998 to 2017 per group of tree species indicates that all 
the 10 groups of tree species exhibited upward trends of defoliation, of which seven statistically significant 
trends.  The  groups  exhibiting  significant  upward  trends  represent  around  70%  of  all  the  trees  of  the 
survey (Table 1). 

In  summary,  one  out  of  four  of  all  assessed  trees  showed  defoliation  levels  suggesting  damage.  In 
addition,  all  the  groups  of  the  most  abundant  tree  species  exhibited  upward  trends  of  defoliation 
suggesting a degrading condition. 

Table  1  Trend  of  mean  annual  plot  defoliation  (percentage)  in  the  most  abundant  tree  species  groups 
across  Level  I  plots  (5057  plots)  from  1998-2017  in  26  European  countries.  A  positive  trend  indicates 
increasing  defoliation.  (*)  Significant  at  5%  according  to  the  Mann-Kendall  test.  Source  of  data:  ICP 
Forests (Michel et al., 2018). Source of table: Maes et al. Annex (2020). 

Tree species/groups [abundance of the species on Level I plots] 

Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) [16.5%] 
Norway spruce (Picea abies) [12%] 
Austrian pine (Pinus nigra) [5.1%] 
Mediterranean lowland pines (Pinus brutia, P. halepensis, P. pinaster, 
P. pinea) [>7.3%] 
Other conifers  
Common beech (Fagus sylvatica) [11.7%] 
Deciduous temperate oaks (Quercus petraea and Q. robur) [8.5%] 
Deciduous sub-Mediterranean oaks (Quercus cerris, Q. frainetto, Q. 
pubescens, Q. pyrenaica) [>5.4%] 
Evergreen oaks (Quercus coccifera, Q. ilex, Q. rotundifolia, Q. suber) 
[>3.7%] 
Other broadleaves 

7.11. FELLINGS AND NET ANNUAL INCREMENT 

Trend 1998-2017 
(percentage) 
0.064 
0.070 
0.230 
0.371  

Statistical significance  
(p-value) 
0.381 
0.035* 
0.010* 
< 0.001* 

0.081 
0.118 
0.065 
0.003 

0.329 

0.283  

< 0.001* 
< 0.012* 
0.347 
0.871 

< 0.001* 

< 0.001* 

Growing stocks of timber in EU-27's forests increased by 43 % in the  period of  1990–2019.  The largest 
increase  was  estimated  for  Denmark,  Spain,  Bulgaria  and  Poland  (>80 %  for  each),  while,  at  the  other 
end  of  the  spectrum,  a  much  less  moderate  increase  was  estimated  for  Sweden  and  Greece  (<20 % 
increase).  None  of  the  EU  countries  estimated  a  decrease  in  the  growing  stocks  of  timber  in  2019 
compared to 199044. 

An  indication  of  the  pressures  from  forest  management  on  forest  ecosystems  can  be  derived  by 
comparing fellings to net annual increment (NAI). Roundwood removals are reported by countries in the 
Joint Wood Energy Enquiry (JFSQ)45 and can be converted to fellings.  

  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/for_vol/default/table?lang=en 

44
45  https://unece.org/forests/data-forest-products-production-and-trade 

34 

 
 
 
  
 
                                                
These reported values in the JFSQ are compared using an alternative sources of data. In the alternative 
approach,  fellings  are  derived  from  the  amount  of  wood  sourced  in  European  forests,  which  is  also 
available from country reporting. In this approach, there is the caveat that a significant amount of woody 
biomass is reported as ‘unspecified’ in the reported sources, meaning without specifying whether or not it 
is from primary or secondary sources. The JRC has therefore developed an approach, described in Jonsson 
et al (2021)46, whereby a range is reported on the presumed removals from EU forests. The ‘unspecified’ 
wood is either fully attributed to primary (= maximum); or to secondary, (= minimum). In this way, the 
fellings are estimated from the amount of wood that is reported as sourced as either ‘primary’, or ‘primary 
plus unspecified’.  

The net annual increment (NAI) is the gross annual increment minus natural losses, where gross annual 
increment  is  the  annual  volume  of  increment  of  all  trees  and  includes  the  increment  of  trees  that  have 
been felled or have died during the reference period47. 

As  shown  in  Figure  27,  the  trends  in  NAI  between  2009  and  2015  were  slightly  decreasing  in  Europe, 
while the trends in fellings were increasing. 

Figure  27  Fellings  derived  directly  from  the  removals  declared  in  the  JFSQ  (yellow  line),  compared  with 
the  fellings  derived  from  the  uses  (JRC  estimates,  brown  and  pink  lines),  compared  against  the  Net 
Annual  Increment  of  Forest  Available  for  Wood  Supply  (units:  million  m3  SWE  o.b.,  figure  taken  from 
Jonsson et al 2021). 

7.12. SALVAGE LOGGING 

Currently  there  is  no  common  dataset  on  salvage  forest  loggings  in  the  EU.  The  European  Commission 
has therefore initiated a data-collection process on total harvest, salvage loggings and causes of salvage 

46

  Jonsson R., Cazzaniga N.E., Camia A., Mubareka S., Analysis of wood resource balance gaps for the EU, EUR 30393 

EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, ISBN 978-92-76-22970-4, ISSN 1831-9424, 
doi:10.2760/417678, JRC122037. 

47  https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/bioeconomy/glossary/N_en 

35 

 
 
 
 
                                                
loggings in 2020, for the  period 2004-2019. Data has been collected in 17  Member States by  searching 
national datasets, Eurostat and/or consulting with national experts. The data found was presented to the 
Standing  Forestry  Committee  for  validation  and/or  for  additional  input.  The  following  Member  States 
validated  data  on  salvage  loggings  and/or  provided  additional  information:  Austria,  Bulgaria,  Croatia, 
Cyprus,  Czechia,  Estonia,  France,  Finland,  Germany,  Hungary,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Romania,  Poland, 
Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden. These Member States represent 76% of total forest area in EU-27. It is 
important to note that the time series where annual data on salvage loggings are available varies among 
Member  States.  In  some  countries  data  are  available  for  the  entire  period  requested  2004-2019,  but  in 
some countries data are available for a shorter period. For the period 2014-2018, data are available in all 
17  Member  States  that  data  was  collected.  Figure  28  shows  the  time  series  of  salvage  loggings, 
overlapped with the graphic of total removals in seventeen Member States for the period 2014-2018. 

Figure 28 Salvage loggings of total removals (1000 m3, u.b.) in 17 Member States; for the period 2014-
2018. Source: Camia A., Giuntoli, J., Jonsson, R., Robert, N., Cazzaniga, N.E., Jasinevičius, G., Avitabile, 
V., Grassi, G., Barredo, J.I., Mubareka, S., The use of woody biomass for energy purposes in the EU, EUR 
30548  EN,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  Luxembourg,  2021,  ISBN  978-92-76-27867-2, 
doi:10.2760/831621, JRC122719048. 

This Figure 28indicates that natural disturbances followed by salvage loggings have increased during the 
time period considered from 10.7% in 2014 to 22.8% in 2018 of total removals in 17 Member States. It is 
important  to  note  that  the  magnitude  of  the  recent  rise  in  salvage  loggings  is  varying  largely  between 
countries. For example, in Czechia in 2018, salvage loggings accounted for 90% of total removals, while 
in  Sweden  it  accounted  for  only  3%.  The  time  period  considered  in  this  analysis  is  rather  short  for 
analysing  long  term  trend  of  natural  disturbances.  The  recent  rise  in  salvage  loggings  indicates  a  large 
pulse  of  bark  beetle  infestations  in  Central  Europe.  Further  work  is  needed  to  acquire  information  on 
natural disturbances and salvage loggings. 

48  The original dataset is available at: https://data.jrc.ec.europa.eu/dataset/2100b612-a4b0-4897-829b-

72b7b1e5782c 

36 

 
 
 
 
                                                
7.13. WOOD USE IN THE EU 

In 2015, considering both primary and secondary wood,  417 m3  of Solid  Wood  Equivalent (SWE) in the 
EU-27  were  used  for  energy  in  2015,  while  76  m3  SWE  and  181  m3  SWE  were  used  for  short-lived 
products  (pulp  for  paper)  and  long-lived  products  (sawnwood,  wood-based  panels  and  dissolving  pulp), 
respectively.  This  implies  that  about  62%  of  the  available  biomass  is  used  for  energy  production,  while 
27% is stocked in long-lived products and 11% in short-lived products. Short-lived products here do not 
include recycled paper. Source: Sankey diagrams of woody biomass flows in the EU-27. 

On  the  other  hand,  when  double  accounting  the  woody  biomass  is  taken  into  account  (because  of 
cascading use of by-products), 52% of the wood in the EU-27 was used for the material production (i.e., 
including also the woody biomass that is not stocked in the product) and 48% for energy. The breakdown 
by  Member  State  is  show  in  Figure  29  and  the  underlying  data  available  in  the  Bioeconomy  Monitoring 
System from the Knowledge Centre for Bioeconomy49. 

Figure  29  Share  of  woody  biomass  used  for  materials  and  energy  in  the  EU-27  Member  States  in  2015 
(incl. double accounting 50. 

49  https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/bioeconomy/monitoring_en 
50   Source: Knowledge Centre for Bioeconomy: https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/bioeconomy/monitoring_en 

37 

 
 
 
 
                                                
7.14. CASCADING USE OF WOOD 

The cascading factor represents multiple use of woody biomass in different sectors, first as logs and then 
as industrial by-products or post-consumer recovered resources. The higher the cascade factor, the more 
often by-products and recycled  woody biomass are used.  When  only primary  wood is used, the cascade 
factor is equal to 1.0. It is evaluated as “total cascade factor” according to the formula defined in Mantau 
(2015)51.  Data  for  calculations  are  derived  by  the  Joint  Forest  Sector  Questionnaire,  Eurostat,  the  Joint 
Wood Energy Enquiry, the National Renewable Energy Action Plan Progress reports of the Member States 
and the factors are consistent with the Wood Resource Balances (Cazzaniga et al 2019)52. The roundwood 
sources are estimated considering the total uses of WRB as described above in the section on Fellings to 
NAI comparison. This indicator has been computed for the EU Bioeconomy Monitoring System53. 

Figure 30  shows an increase in  the cascading use  of wood between 2009 and 2015. On this period, the 
overall cascade factor of the wood resource balance is above 1.50 and increasing. This means the wood 
resources from trees have been used more than one and a half time and increasing. 

Figure 30 EU Bioeconomy indicator ‘cascading use of wood’, showing an increasing circularity of wood at 
EU-level between 2009-2015. 

7.15. SIZE OF AND EMPLOYMENT IN DIFFERENT FOREST-BASED SECTORS IN THE EU 

The gross value added of the forest-based sector –which includes forestry and logging, the manufacture 
of  wood  and  of  products  of  wood  and  cork,  and  the  manufacture  of  paper  and  paper  products–  was 
109,855  million  euros  in  the  EU-27  in  2018,  about  0.9%  of  the  total  gross  value  added  in  the  EU.  The 
sector is particularly important in Baltic countries,  Finland and Sweden (Figure 31). In addition,  printing 
activities and the manufacturing of wood-based furniture cumulated 25 and 31 billion euros in 2018 in the 
EU-27. In total, the wood-based industries in the EU-27 generated a gross value added of EUR 139 billion 
in 2018, which corresponds to 7.1 % of the total manufacturing industry54. 

51  Mantau, U. (2015). Wood flow analysis: Quantification of resource potentials, cascades and carbon effects. Biomass 

and bioenergy, 79, 28-38. 

52  Cazzaniga N.E., Jonsson R., Pilli R., Camia A.(2019).Wood Resource Balances of EU-28 and Member States. EC Joint 

Research Centre, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, doi:10.2760/020267, JRC114889. 

53  https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/visualisation/eu-bioeconomy-monitoring-system-dashboards_en 
54
  Eurostat 2020: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Wood_products_-

_production_and_trade#Wood_based_industries, accessed on 22.06.2021 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                
Figure  31  Share  of  gross  value  added  in  the  forest-based  sector  in  2018  (source:  Eurostat  National 
accounts aggregates by industry [NAMA_10_A64]) 

In  2018,  the  number  of  people  employed  in  the  forest-based  sector  employed  2.1 million  people  in  the 
EU-27  (see  Figure  32  and  Figure  33),  corresponding  to  about  1.1%  of  the  total  employment  in  the  EU. 
The other wood-related manufacturing activities employed an additional 1.2 million people (0.66 million in 
printing  industries  and  0.53  million  people  in  of  wood-based  furniture).  More  generally,  and  considering 
other  economic  activities  further  transforming  wood  and  wood-based  products,  heat  and  power  from 
bioenergy, wood in construction and the publishing of printed books, newspapers, flyers…, the activity of 
more than 4 million people is related to forest or wood in the EU-27 (see Robert, et al., 2020). This does 
not account for retail  activities and non-wood  activities such as forest-related  leisure  activities,  scientific 
work on forests, etc. 

The  number  of  jobs  the  forest-based  sector  was  subject  to  important  decline  until  2013-2014,  mainly 
related  to  gains  in  productivity  and  to  increased  international  competitivity.  With  the  conjunction  of 
additional demand for renewable material and products as well as for ecosystem services, the number is 
currently stabilising. 

39 

 
 
 
 
Figure 32 Change in employment in the forest-based sectors (source: Robert et al. 202055). 

Figure  33  Share  of  employment  by  Member  State  in  the  forest-based  and  wood  related  sectors in  2018 
out  of  total  employment  (data  from  Eurostat  [LFSA_EGAN22D]  and  Robert  et  al.  2020);  A02:  Forestry 
and logging; C16: Manufacture of wood and of products of wood and cork, except furniture; manufacture 
of articles of straw and plaiting materials; C17: Manufacture of paper and paper products; wC18: Printing 
on paper and other wood products; wC31: Manufacture of wood-based furniture; wD35: Electricity, gas, 

55  Source: Robert, N., Jonsson, R., Chudy, R., Camia, A. 2020. The EU Bioeconomy: Supporting an Employment Shift 
Downstream in the Wood-Based Value Chains? Sustainability 2020, 12, 758. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030758. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                
steam and air conditioning supply from  wood;  wF:  wood-based Construction;  wJ58:  Publishing  activities 
related to printed material. 

In the EU, most wood-based jobs are in manufacturing industries and in construction. However, in some 
countries, employment remains principally in primary and first transformation activities such as in Latvia, 
Croatia and Czechia whereas in other countries such as in the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark, jobs 
are mainly in the end of the value chain (production of final products such as pieces of furniture, books, 
buildings). 

Although often undervalued, the total value of non-wood forest products (NWFP) collected each year may 
amount to 71% of the value of annual roundwood production according to Lovrić et al. 202056. However, 
in most cases, these  products are  not marketed  and  sometimes not  marketable either (direct benefit to 
households often without payment). Activities related to NWFPs are therefore rather difficult to estimate 
since most of them are indirect (ongoing work at the JRC). 

7.16. THE VALUE OF FOREST ECOSYSTEM SERVICES 

Ecosystem  services  are  the  contributions  of  ecosystems  to  benefits  used  in  economic  and  other  human 
activity. Forests provide us with timber, but they also regulate water flows, control soil erosion, clean the 
air we breathe and withdraw vast amounts of the carbon we emit into the atmosphere. The amount and 
quality of the services provided by forests depends on their size (extent) and on their ecological condition. 
Healthy forests provide more services than degraded forests and drivers of degradation, including climate 
change  and  natural  and  man-made  disturbances,  thus  may  compromise  the ability  of  forests  to  provide 
ecosystem services. Figure 34 illustrates for a group of ecosystems including forest, the monetary value 
of  several ecosystem  services  they provide,  as  estimated by  the  INCA  project57.  While  the  INCA  project 
aimed to cover the economically most important ecosystem services, this estimate still comprises only a 
subset of all ecosystem services. 

The total supply of these seven ecosystem services in Europe amounts to EUR 172 billion/year, of which 
European  forests  deliver  EUR  81  billion/year,  or  48%.  The  value  of  these  seven  ecosystem  services  is 
more than 9 times higher for an area of forest, than for the same extent of urban area. Timber accounts 
for  EUR  15  billion/year,  or  about  18%,  of  the  value  of  the  forest  ecosystem  services  considered  here. 
Which is, for example, about the same amount of the water purification service of forests. 

56

  Lovrić M, Da Re R, Vidale E, Prokofieva I, Wong J, Pettenella D, et al. Non-wood forest products in Europe – A 

quantitative overview. Forest Policy and Economics 2020;116:102175. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102175. 
  https://ecosystem-accounts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 

57

41 

 
 
 
                                                
Figure  34  Annual  economic  value  of  ecosystem  services  in  the  EU-28  (in  euros  as  of  2012).  Source: 
Vysna,  V.,  Maes,  J.,  Petersen,  J.E.,  La  Notte,  A.,  Vallecillo,  S.,  Aizpurua,  N.,  Ivits,  E.,  Teller,  A.  (2021) 
Accounting for ecosystems and their services in the European Union (INCA). Final report from phase II of 
the  INCA  project  aiming  to  develop  a  pilot  for  an  integrated  system  of  ecosystem  accounts  for  the  EU. 
Statistical report. Publications office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 

7.17. CONDITION OF EU FORESTS 

This  section  presents  in  short  the  conclusions  of  the  summary  for  policymakers  of  the  EU  ecosystem 
assessment58  (Figure  35).  Forests  host  a  dominant  part  of  Europe’s  terrestrial  biodiversity,  and 
contributing  significantly  to  climate  change  mitigation.  After  millennia  of  forest  use,  currently  only 
between  2%  and  4%  of  EU  forests  are  primary  or  old-growth  forests.  Today,  most  forests  are  semi-

58  

https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC123783 

42 

 
 
 
 
                                                
natural  (89%).  The  remaining  share  are  plantations.  There  has  been  an  increase  in  some  structural 
indicators, for example forest area, biomass volume and deadwood. Forest area increased in Europe by 13 
million  hectares  in  the  period  between  1990  and  2015  due  to  both  natural  processes  and  to  active 
afforestation.  More  forested  area  does  not  necessarily  mean  healthier  and  biodiverse  forests.  Climate 
change  impacts  are  increasing.  Tree  cover  loss  from  wildfires,  storms  and  harvesting  is  increasing.  This 
suggests  that  the  harvested  area  of  forests  is  likely  increasing  due  to  a  higher  demand  for  biomass. 
Pollutants remain a concern even if the trends point downwards. One out of four forest trees suffers leave 
damage  and  loss.  The  predominant  drivers  are  not  yet  fully  understood,  whereas  parasitic  insects  and 
abiotic  factors,  mostly  drought,  are  recognized  as  factors  exacerbating  this  negative  trend.  Increased 
evapotranspiration  suggests  functional  changes  in  forests.  Whereas  a  3%  decrease  in  the  abundance  of 
common  forest  birds  has  been  reported  since  1990,  their  status  shows  slightly  improving  trends  in  the 
last  few  years.  Important  knowledge  gaps  persist  with  respect  to  biodiversity  in  forests,  forest 
management intensity, as well as forests health and resilience, pointing to the need for a reinforced forest 
monitoring framework. 

43 

 
 
 
 
Figure 35 Summary of trends in pressure and condition of forests in the EU-2859 

7.18. KEY SOURCES OF EVIDENCE 

The key sources of evidence considered in the Communication include: 

  Agriculture, forestry and fishery statistics — 2020 edition - Products Statistical Books - Eurostat 
 

Forest Europe State of Europe Forests 2020  
https://foresteurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/SoEF_2020.pdf 
European forest ecosystems. State and trends (EEA Report No 5/2016) 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-forest-ecosystems 

 

  Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services: An EU ecosystem assessment - MAES 

(2020)  
JRC Publications Repository - Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services: An EU 
ecosystem assessment (europa.eu) 
EEA Report No 10/2020, State of Nature in the EU, Results from reporting under the nature 
directives 2013-1018 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-nature-in-the-eu-2020 
JRC study on Mapping and assessment of primary and old-growth forests in Europe (2021) 
Earth Day : New report shows there are still pristine forests in Europe and calls for their mapping 
and strict protection | EU Science Hub (europa.eu)  
Forest Information System for Europe (FISE)  
Forest Information System for Europe (europa.eu)  
Land cover and change statistics 2000-2018, EEA 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/dashboards/land-cover-and-change-statistics 

 

 

 

 

  Greenhouse gas inventory submission 2020 (annual time series 1990-2018) of EU Member States 

 

 

 

to the UNFCCC 
National Inventory Submissions 2020 | UNFCCC 
Forzieri G. et al (2020) Vulnerability of European forests to natural disturbances. JRC PESETA IV 
project – Task 12. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union 
https://op.europa.eu/s/pdwB 
Forzieri, G., Girardello, M., Ceccherini, G. et al. (2021) Emergent vulnerability to climate-driven 
disturbances in European forests. Nat Commun 12, 1081. 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21399-7 
Thompson, I., Mackey, B., McNulty, S., Mosseler, A. (2009). Forest Resilience, Biodiversity, and 
Climate Change. A synthesis of the biodiversity/resilience/stability relationship in forest 
ecosystems. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. Technical Series no. 
43, 67 pages. 

  Vysna, V., Maes, J., Petersen, J.E., La Notte, A., Vallecillo, S., Aizpurua, N., Ivits, E., Teller, A. 

(2021) Accounting for ecosystems and their services in the European Union (INCA). Final report 
from phase II of the INCA project aiming to develop a pilot for an integrated system of ecosystem 
accounts for the EU. Statistical report. Publications office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 

8.  CONCLUSIONS 

The  new  EU  Forest  Strategy  for  2030  covers  the  issues  identified  by  stakeholders  as  important  to  be 
included in the strategy. The strategy also sets out different actions and all of them are to varying extend 
supported  by  the  quantitative  and  qualitative  inputs  from  the  stakeholder  consultations  as  well  as  the 
scientific evidence.  

The Commission services have noted all key messages mentioned in the consultations and summarised in 
this  document.  Most  of  the  recommendations  made  in  the  consultation  were  very  helpful  to  gauge  the 
expectations  and  positions  of  consulted  parties  and  have  been  fully  taken  into  account  in  the  drafting 
process. Recommendations from the scientific literature were also examined and taken into account in the 
drafting  process.  Further  engagement  with  the  stakeholders  and  scientist  will  take  place  for  during  the 
implementation stage. 

Although the results of the public consultations allowed the Commission to collect a very high number of 
views  and  opinions  on  the  initiative,  this  may  not  be  statistically  representative,  due  to  the  relatively 

59  https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC120383  

44 

 
 
 
                                                
small  number  of  answers  from  some  stakeholder  groups  or  Member  States.  Overall,  the  results  of  the 
consultation  activities  confirmed  the  proposed  objectives  and  actions  of  the  new  EU  forest  strategy  for 
2030, even if there are differences among the stakeholder groups. 

45