COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a monitoring framework for resilient European forests
Date: 2023-11-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: European forestry policy, adaptation to climate change, environmental monitoring, exchange of information, forest, forest conservation, forestry development, forestry economics, sustainable forest management, wooded area

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 22.11.2023  SWD(2023) 374 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a monitoring framework for resilient European forests    {COM(2023) 728 final} - {SEC(2023) 384 final} - {SWD(2023) 372 final} - {SWD(2023) 373 final}  
 
 
Impact assessment on the initiative on a monitoring framework for resilient European forests  

Executive summary sheet 

What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level? 

A. Need for action 

The main problems are the current lack of quality and comparable forest data and of integrated long-
term forest planning. Without appropriate and comparable data on forests, which the Member States 
are not currently providing on their own, it is not possible to achieve the climate, biodiversity and 
sustainable and circular bioeconomy policy objectives stemming directly from the European Green 
Deal. Currently, forest data is not complete, comparable and timely, which hampers the possibility to 
adapt decisions to pressures and impedes the development and implementation of EU forest-related 
objectives and policies. This situation is worsening due to climate change and direct or indirect human 
activity and related land use changes, which creates a threat to the health and resilience of forests and 
their ability to continue providing essential ecosystem services.  
The  current  patchy  and  fragmented  forest  monitoring  in  the  Member  States  prevents  national 
authorities and the EU from acting in a timely manner against stressors and threats  (e.g. droughts, 
storms, large-scale infestations, and wildfires) with a cross-border dimension. It also prevents forest 
managers, the wood-based industry and insurers from deriving the benefits from quality and timely 
data, such as in relation to damage prevention and new business opportunities from the certification 
of carbon removals or payments for ecosystem services. In addition, it prevents the EU from fully 
exploiting the potential of technological developments and digital innovation, particularly in the area 
of earth observation, which would be of significant benefit to SMEs. 
Moreover, most national planning instruments do not go beyond a 10-year planning cycle. There is a 
need for a holistic and long-term analysis and integration of policies and societal demands related to 
forests to tackle the risk of setting policy targets or objectives that are mutually exclusive. 

What should be achieved? 

The general objective is to develop an EU-wide forest monitoring framework, aiming to help achieve 
the objective of having healthy and resilient forests, which is essential to the EU’s commitment to 
combat  climate  change,  preserve  and  restore  biodiversity,  and  improve  the  level  of  preservation, 
protection and quality of the environment. To this end, the proposed action aims to ensure common 
digitalised, consistent, comparable, timely and accessible data, and to set up a coherent framework 
for developing integrated long-term forest planning. This is  expected to support the adaptation of 
forests to climate change, strengthen disaster prevention and preparedness, and ensure consistency of 
different forest-related policy objectives. This initiative is about better data and knowledge and does 
not affect Member States’ forest management policy choices and objectives. 

What is the value added of action at EU level (subsidiarity)? 

Taking action at EU level, within the limits of the objectives that cannot be achieved sufficiently or 
most effectively by the Member States in the absence of an EU framework, would provide clear added 
value in terms of consistency and economic efficiency. Action at EU level is justified because of the 
scale and cross-border nature of the problem, the impacts on people across the EU, the risks to the 
EU  economy  from  growing  disturbances,  and  the  need  to  monitor  the  effects  of  EU  policies  and 
legislation and to anticipate the need for policy changes with a view to achieving targets. 

1 

 
 
 
 
What are the options to achieve the objectives?  

B. Solutions 

Option  1  is  based  on  voluntary  coordination  through  Commission  guidelines  and  sharing  of  best 
practice, also through a dedicated expert group, to harmonise national data collection and strengthen 
forest planning frameworks and mechanisms.  
Option 2.1 has as key aspects: (i) the set-up of a new EU framework including harmonisation and/or 
standardisation  of  forest  indicators  and  mandatory  reporting  to  a  common  platform  on  those 
indicators that are required by EU legislation or are included in international monitoring systems that 
are relevant to EU policy objectives; (ii) the obligatory use of earth observation with a possibility for 
Member States to opt in to an EU system based on Copernicus; and (iii) mandatory integrated long-
term forest planning based on agreed common aspects to be taken into consideration. 
Compared  to  option  2.1,  option  2.2:  (i)  covers  indicators  beyond  current  EU  and  international 
monitoring and reporting systems mirroring policy priorities; (ii) requires the Commission to operate 
a single earth observation system to which Member States would be obliged to supply additional data 
on  their  forests;  and  (iii)  requires  the  Commission  to  issue  non-binding  recommendations  on  the 
integrated forest plans. 
Option 3 takes a hybrid approach, combining the voluntary aspects of option 1 on long-term planning 
with  the  obligatory  aspects  on  forest  monitoring  (for  both  ground  data  and  earth  observation)  of 
option 2.2. 
Options covering targeted EU funding and strengthened international engagement were discarded at 
an early stage. 

The  preferred  option  is  a  combination  of  options  2.1  and  2.2.  It  would  cover  the  broader  list  of 
indicators, the mandatory use of earth observation with an opt-in option for Member States, and the 
issuance of non-binding recommendations on the long-term plans by the Commission. As regards the 
indicators,  a  stepwise  approach  would  be  applied.  First,  a  limited  list  of  indicators  would  be 
considered for inclusion in the legislative proposal based on their relevance, on the current level of 
harmonisation, monitoring and reporting, and on the need for higher spatial or temporal resolution. 
At  a  later  stage,  other  indicators  would  be  considered  for  inclusion,  also  taking  into  account 
recommendations by a dedicated expert group. 

What are different stakeholders’ views? Who supports which option? 

The call for evidence showed wide agreement among stakeholders that an EU-wide forest monitoring 
network should build on existing national forest inventory data, to reduce the risk of duplicating data. 
In  the  open  public  consultation,  business  associations,  companies,  forest  owners  and  public 
authorities tended to show a preference for Member States continuing current monitoring systems. 
By contrast, environmental organisations, forest data providers the general public tended to favour 
better integration of monitoring systems, with standardisation of forest monitoring methods.  

Most  respondents  stated  that  there  are  benefits  to  long-term  forest  planning.  The  most  frequently 
mentioned benefits were a holistic view on forest status and trends as well as overall coordination. 
However, the added value of strategic planning at EU level was questioned by some  respondents, 
notably public authorities. Member State experts consulted though a dedicated expert group showed 
general  support  for  harmonised  or  standardised  information  on  the  state  and  development  of  EU 
forests while pointing to the need to build on existing monitoring infrastructure and avoid duplication.  

What are the benefits of the preferred option? 

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

The  preferred  option  is  designed  to  ensure  common  modern,  digitalised,  consistent,  comparable, 
timely  and  accessible  data  on  the  state  of  EU  forests,  and  ensure  that  all  Member  States  publish 
integrated long-term forest plans based on high-quality monitoring information related to relevant 

2 

 
 
EU policy objectives. Therefore, the largest benefits come from setting up an EU-wide framework 
for forest monitoring and integrated long-term forest planning. 
In  the  case  studied,  the  quantifiable  economic  benefits  of  increased  use  of  earth  observation 
(estimated at between EUR 28 million and EUR 37 million by 2035 for tree-cover monitoring) tend 
to already offset the running economic costs, without considering the additional unquantifiable – but 
very significant – environmental and social benefits. These include benefits from improved decision-
making based on the better data in the areas of climate mitigation (improved implementation of the 
Regulation on land use, land use change and forestry, and improved forest sink management), forest 
resilience  (supporting  prevention  and  early  action),  countering  illegal  logging  and  deforestation 
and/or ensuring sustainable provision of forest resources and services. 
The initiative will offer numerous opportunities for growth and innovation to European businesses, 
especially SMEs. Remote sensing will play a greater role in forest monitoring than is currently the 
case, offering many possibilities to SMEs active in acquiring and processing the satellite imagery, 
data processing, and providing services related to forests and forestry, including advisory services. 

What are the costs of the preferred option? Will there be significant impacts on national 
budgets and administrations? 

Monitoring, reporting and integrated planning would be the responsibility of public authorities,  so 
Member  States  will  need  to  financially  support  the  transition,  also  using  available  EU  funds. 
Obligatory  harmonisation  and  standardisation  of  selected  indicators  would  have  a  moderate  to 
significant  economic  impact  on  the  public  budget  of  Member  States,  depending  on  the  current 
situation in individual Member States. The costs would be highest in Member States where a new 
ground-based system with sufficient sampling plots would need to be set up or where the frequency 
of  the  national  forest  inventory  would  need  to  increase.  Member  States  with  already  developed 
systems will incur lower additional costs, while those with less advanced monitoring systems can be 
supported by the EU system based on Copernicus.  
Applying the harmonised definitions and methods to the actual data gathering costs on average around 
EUR 10 000 per indicator per Member State. The average annual cost of forest monitoring through 
national forest inventories in three sample countries is EUR 42/km2 of forest area.  

What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness? 

None of the policy options include any regulatory obligations that would be directly applicable to 
businesses. In the exceptional case of indicators related to  production and use of timber and non-
wood  forest  products,  some  indirect  reporting  obligations  might  arise  but  are  estimated  to  have 
negligible costs. On the contrary, due to the greater role of earth observation, the initiative will offer 
numerous opportunities for growth and innovation to SMEs active in acquiring and processing the 
satellite imagery, data processing, and providing services related to forests and forestry, including 
advisory services. Benefits have been identified also for forest managers willing to enter certification 
schemes and incentive schemes for payments for forest ecosystem services, who will be able to rely 
on  quality  forest  data.  The  greater  role  of  modern  forest  monitoring  technologies  and  reporting 
systems, using advanced technology, is expected to bring large benefits in terms of digitalisation, in 
line with the objectives of the digital agenda for Europe. 

Will there be other significant impacts? 

Despite being difficult to directly quantify as they are often indirect, the preferred option will deliver 
significant  environmental  and  social  benefits  as  regards  climate  mitigation,  forest  health  and 
resilience, biodiversity and ecosystem conditions, invasive alien species, and countering deforestation 
and illegal logging. By doing so, it will create greater trust in forest data from different stakeholders 
and support the sustainable provision of forest resources and services. 

Proportionality 

The  combination  of  aspects  selected  in  the  preferred  option  is  proportionate  because  it  is  clearly 
limited to those aspects that Member States cannot  satisfactorily achieve on their own, and where 

3 

 
 
harmonisation at EU level is needed. To this end, Member States are only required to collect forest 
data that is linked to EU legislation and policy objectives. Moreover, the proposed regulation will be 
based  on  sharing  of  harmonised  data  from  existing  national  data  collection  systems.  This  will 
minimise  the  extent  to  which  Member  States  will  have  to  adapt  their  data  acquisition  methods. 
Member States relying on more advanced forest monitoring systems can continue to use their own 
data (opt-in), which will be harmonised to ensure compatibility across the EU. No option would lead 
to the involvement of the EU in Member States’ forest management policy choices and objectives. 

When will the policy be reviewed? 

D. Follow-up 

The Commission will design a plan based on a set of milestones to track the implementation of the 
measures required to achieve the specific objectives against a specific timeframe. The Commission 
will also monitor the roll-out and impact of the measures on a regular basis using specific criteria. 
Finally, the Commission will carry out an evaluation, considering the Member States’ reporting on 
the integrated long-term plans, and present it to the Council and Parliament. 

4