COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Subsidiarity Grid Accompanying the document 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) 372 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Subsidiarity Grid Accompanying the document 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) 373 final} - {SWD(2023) 374 final}  
 
 
Subsidiarity Grid 

-  As proposed by the Committee of the Regions with guidance in blue  

-  Obviously, the answers to the questions below, the explanatory memorandum and – if 

applicable – the impact assessment should be consistent. This may require some iterations.  

-  Please try to stay under 10 pages.  

1.  Can the Union act? What is the legal basis and competence of the Unions’ intended action? 

1.1 Which article(s) of the Treaty are used to support the legislative proposal or policy initiative? 

Article  192(1)  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU)  gives  the 
Union the right to act in to achieve objectives of its policy on the environment, as defined in 
Article  191(1).  These  include  preserving,  protecting,  and  improving  the  quality  of  the 
environment; a prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources; and promoting measures 
at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, in particular 
combating climate change. Forest ecosystems are part of the EU natural heritage. 

1.2 Is the Union competence represented by this Treaty article exclusive, shared or supporting in 
nature? 

In the case of environment, the Union’s competence is shared. While the Treaties do not 
explicitly mention ‘forest policy’, the EU has a range of competences that may relate to 
forests such as climate, environment, rural development, and disaster prevention. The EU has 
already exercised these competences, and forests are covered by several legal texts of the 
Union. The protection the natural heritage of forest ecosystems falls under shared EU 
environmental competence as stated by the EU Court of Justice (joint cases C-164/97 and C-
165/97). 

Subsidiarity does not apply for policy areas where the Union has exclusive competence as defined in 
Article 3 TFEU1. It is the specific legal basis which determines whether the proposal falls under the 
subsidiarity control mechanism. Article 4 TFEU2 sets out the areas where competence is shared 
between the Union and the Member States. Article 6 TFEU3 sets out the areas for which the Unions 
has competence only to support the actions of the Member States. 

2.  Subsidiarity Principle: Why should the EU act? 

2.1 Does the proposal fulfil the procedural requirements of Protocol No. 24: 

-  Has there been a wide consultation before proposing the act? 
- 

Is there a detailed statement with qualitative and, where possible, quantitative indicators 
allowing an appraisal of whether the action can best be achieved at Union level? 

The Commission carried out broad consultation activities, starting with the Call for Evidence 
and following up with an Open Public Consultation (OPC). Contributions were received from 

1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12008E003&from=EN  
2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12008E004&from=EN  
3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12008E006:EN:HTML  
4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12016E/PRO/02&from=EN  

1 

 
 
 
a  broad  range  of  stakeholder  groups  representing  EU,  national,  regional  and  local  level.  A 
series of four thematic expert workshops were also organised between October and November 
2022.  A  dedicated  sub-group  under  the  Standing  Forest  Committee  facilitated  technical 
exchange  with  the  Member  States  (four  meetings  held  between  November  2022  and  May 
2023),  complemented  by  thematic  workshops  organised  by  the  Czech  and  Swedish 
Presidencies of the Council, respectively, in September 2022 and February 2023, in which the 
Commission  actively  engaged.  Several  meetings  were  held  with 
forest  owners, 
administrations and forest industry representatives at EU, national and regional or local level 
(reflecting  the  multi-level  governance  of  forest  monitoring  and  planning)  and  with  civil 
society organizations. A summary of the discussions and feedback received is provided in the 
impact assessment.  

2.2 Does the explanatory memorandum (and any impact assessment) accompanying the 

Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the conformity with the 
principle of subsidiarity? 

The  explanatory  memorandum  and  the  impact  assessment  (chapter  3)  contain  a  dedicated 
section on the principle of subsidiarity with justification of the necessity to act at Union level 
and description of the proportionality of the proposed measures. 

Subsidiarity 
Forest monitoring is currently patchy and fragmented, which prevents the Union from acting 
in a timely manner against stressors and threats. While forest ecosystems often stretch across 
boundaries,  forests  are  often  seen  as  sovereign  entities  and  no  consistent,  transnational  data 
gathering approach has been fully developed so far. Action at EU level is justified because of 
the scale and transboundary nature of forest-dependent markets and growing risks connected 
to climate change (increasing damage risks by bark beetle, wildfires and windstorm resulting 
in higher costs, biodiversity loss, and market distortions, with particular effects on SMEs).   
In  addition,  EU  action  allows  to  make  the  most  out  of  cost-effective  technological 
developments and digital innovation, particularly in relation to Earth Observation.  
A common structure and integrated governance ensure that forest plans, including at regional 
level, better delivery on forest-related policies.  

2.3 Based on the answers to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed action be 

achieved sufficiently by the Member States acting alone (necessity for EU action)? 

The EU initiative targets aspects of common interest and which, due to scale economies, 
needs for harmonisation and transboundary dimension, cannot be achieved by the Member 
States acting alone.  

(a)  Are there significant/appreciable transnational/cross border aspects to the problems being 

tackled? Have these been quantified? 

Disturbances such as bark beetle outbreaks, wildfires or windstorms result in greenhouse gas 
emissions,  biodiversity  loss  and  market  distortions  that  have  a  significant  transboundary 
dimension. These may also cause abrupt increases of salvage logging with a direct impact on 
the  market,  irrespectively  of  the  political  borders.  Moreover,  there  is  a  transboundary  long-
term dimension due to the fact that climate and forest zones will shift northwards and upwards 
(altitude)  within  the  next  few  decades,  making  comparability  of  long-term  datasets  across 
borders  a  growing  necessity. Quantified  examples  on  the  effects  of  recent  disturbances  are 
provided. 

2 

 
 
 
(b)  Would national action or the absence of the EU level action conflict with core objectives of 

the Treaty5 or significantly damage the interests of other Member States? 

Yes, since there are EU level policy and targets that relate to forests and consistent monitoring 
and planning are needed for the Union to deliver on its objectives. Absence of EU level action 
would also prevent having better knowledge of forests dynamics including their resilience to 
disturbances based on comparable data sets and a related high level of protection and 
adaptation across the EU level. In the case of major disturbances (which are on the rise) the 
risk of market distortions due to salvage logging could significantly damage the interests of 
certain Members States (particularly the neighbouring ones). Smaller Member States have a 
comparative economic disadvantage in accessing to Earth Observation innovative 
technologies due to scale economies, acting at the level of the EU would allow these Member 
States to profit by cost-saving technologies. 

(c)  To what extent do Member States have the ability or possibility to enact appropriate 

measures? 

The EU initiative is based on Art 192(1) TFUE and Member States would be able to maintain 
or introduce more stringent protective measures pursuant to Art. 193 TFUE, if compatible 
with the Treaties. 
In the absence of EU action, Member States are free to enact measures on forest monitoring at 
national level, however these would not cover the transboundary dimension nor be necessarily 
compatible  with  each  other  and  therefore  be  comparable.  Not  all  Member  States  would  be 
able to access Earth Observation technology at a competitive cost. 

(d)  How does the problem and its causes (e.g. negative externalities, spill-over effects) vary 

across the national, regional and local levels of the EU? 

The  need  for  better  comparable  information  and  knowledge  on  forests  indicators  concerns 
potentially  all  governance  levels  depending  on  the  structure  of  ownership/management  of 
forests.  

(e)  Is the problem widespread across the EU or limited to a few Member States? 

Although the share of forest as a proportion of total land and the relative importance of forests 
both environmentally and economically varies across Member States (some MS have more 
than 60% of their land covered by forests, the average is 43%, the minimum is around 10%  - 
with the exception of Malta, which has less than 1%), the need for better data and information 
on forests is shared across the EU.  

(f)  Are Member States overstretched in achieving the objectives of the planned measure? 

All Member States collect data on forests already, though not on all relevant indicators and 
not in a comparable manner. The action concerns harmonising/standardizing the information 
according to comparable criteria and it builds on existing monitoring infrastructure in the 
Member States such as National Forest Inventories.  

5 https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-in-brief_en  

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
(g)  How do the views/preferred courses of action of national, regional and local authorities 

differ across the EU? 

In general Member States which have more advanced or detailed monitoring schemes are 
keen to maintain their systems in place, especially regarding in situ observation. The EU 
initiative is fully compatible with this objective.  Interest for cost-effective additional 
solutions based on Earth Observation is shared across the Member States.   

2.4 Based on the answer to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed action be 

better achieved at Union level by reason of scale or effects of that action (EU added value)? 

(a)  Are there clear benefits from EU level action?  

Yes. Clear benefits stem from better comparability, time-relevance and transparency which 
will allow to better face challenges and protect forest ecosystems, including timber resources, 
in view of the growing importance of forests for climate, biodiversity and the bioeconomy. 
The uptake of new Earth Observation technologies will lead to cost effectiveness-related 
benefits and reduce the risk of not meeting forest-related policy objectives, such as those 
under the LULUCF Regulation or Habitats Directive, which will benefit from access to better 
data on forest extent and condition.  

(b)  Are there economies of scale? Can the objectives be met more efficiently at EU level (larger 

benefits per unit cost)? Will the functioning of the internal market be improved? 

Economies of scale are very important aspect in relation to Earth Observation (satellite, 
airborne-lidar monitoring) where the cost per hectare can be considerably reduced the larger 
the surface to monitor. Moreover, past frontload investments into Copernicus monitoring 
services means that these systems are already in place and putting them into practice will 
contribute to cost-efficient use of this EU investment while avoiding that it becomes a 
stranded investment. 

(c)  What are the benefits in replacing different national policies and rules with a more 

homogenous policy approach? 

A “common language” in forest monitoring will allow to better assess the delivery of EU 
policies, compare situations, and adjust to growing pressures, including climate change, 
leading to better resilience of forest resources. Having, where appropriate, one monitoring 
methodology instead of 27 will allow for consistency and cost-efficiency gains. 

(d)  Do the benefits of EU-level action outweigh the loss of competence of the Member States 
and the local and regional authorities (beyond the costs and benefits of acting at national, 
regional and local levels)? 

The EU has already exercised its competence on forests. In this case, the EU framework 
would rather provide a service for cost-effective monitoring and build on existing monitoring 
infrastructures in the Member States. Member States competences on forest management are 
not affected.  

(e)  Will there be improved legal clarity for those having to implement the legislation? 

Yes. The common definitions/indicators will facilitate implementation and create a level 
playing field allowing for greater legal clarity. 

4 

 
 
3.  Proportionality: How the EU should act 

3.1  Does the explanatory memorandum (and any impact assessment) accompanying the 

Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the proportionality of the 
proposal and a statement allowing appraisal of the compliance of the proposal with the 
principle of proportionality? 

The  combination  of  elements  selected  in  the  preferred  option  is  proportionate  insofar  it  is 
limited  to  those  aspects  that  Member  States  need  to  implement  to  achieve  satisfactorily  the 
objectives of this Regulation. To that end, data collection is required from the Member States, 
only  on  forest  data  that  are  linked  to  EU  legislation  and  policy  objectives.  The  proposed 
Regulation will moreover be based on sharing of harmonised data from existing national data 
collection systems, mainly National Forest Inventories (NFIs), which will minimise the extent 
to which Member States will have to adapt their data acquisition methods. The definitions of 
the  forest  data  have  been  selected  based  on  existing  harmonisation  work  done  by  Member 
States experts at the EU level to ensure low adjustment costs. The proposal also aims to work 
with existing reported data where this meets the required definition, avoiding duplication of 
reporting obligations.  
Because of the scale of the issue at stake and its cross-border dimensions, the EU is the only 
body that can ensure a consistent monitoring framework bringing together the Member States. 
Common standards for data collection, monitoring and long-term integrated planning cannot 
be developed at a Member State level. 
No  option  would  involve  transferring  powers  from  Member  States  to  the  EU  beyond  the 
necessary monitoring and planning harmonisation and standardisation (no transfer of powers 
on the operational choices related to forest management). 

3.2 Based on the answers to the questions below and information available from any impact 
assessment, the explanatory memorandum or other sources, is the proposed action an 
appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives? 

The proposal is based on an impact assessment which considered five different policy options. 
Three of these options including one with two sub-options on the level of intervention were 
fully analysed. The analysis was reviewed by the regulatory scrutiny board and finalised 
based on the board’s comments. The resulting final analysis has informed the current 
proposal. 

(a)  Is the initiative limited to those aspects that Member States cannot achieve satisfactorily on 

their own, and where the Union can do better? 

Yes, Members States on their own are by definition not in a condition to 
harmonize/standardize forest monitoring at EU level nor to reach scale-economies on new 
Earth Observation technologies such as satellite and airborne LIDAR). The proposal only 
touches on aspects which Members States cannot address on their own. 

(b)  Is the form of Union action (choice of instrument) justified, as simple as possible, and 

coherent with the satisfactory achievement of, and ensuring compliance with the objectives 
pursued (e.g. choice between regulation, (framework) directive, recommendation, or 
alternative regulatory methods such as co-legislation, etc.)? 

The objectives of this proposal are best pursued through a regulation. This will ensure direct 
and uniform applicability of the provisions in the Union at the same time and hence serve the 
purposes of harmonisation and provision of timely data. A regulation will allow to set 

5 

 
 
common standards that are directly applicable in all Member States without the administrative 
burden of and the delay for transposing the instrument into national law. It will also provide 
for greater legal clarity on definitions and monitoring specifications.   

(c)  Does the Union action leave as much scope for national decision as possible while achieving 
satisfactorily the objectives set? (e.g. is it possible to limit the European action to minimum 
standards or use a less stringent policy instrument or approach?) 

The EU framework is precisely based on providing common elements on forest monitoring 
(e.g. common definitions and indicators, transparency rules, access to innovative technology) 
while leaving MS fully in charge on how to use the information collected for the purpose of 
forest management.  

(d)  Does the initiative create financial or administrative cost for the Union, national 

governments, regional or local authorities, economic operators or citizens? Are these costs 
commensurate with the objective to be achieved? 

Costs of implementing the proposed Regulation would fall on the Union and the national or 
regional governments, namely to adopt their current monitoring systems to meet the proposed 
data collection requirements.  

At the EU level, the continuous production of frequent remote sensing data will come with 
some additional costs to improve the frequency and accuracy compared to the current data 
products. At the national level, these costs would be relatively minor in Member States with 
developed monitoring systems, while countries where systematic data collection is currently 
lacking will face higher costs related to setting up the data collection infrastructure.  

These costs are considered commensurate with the stated objectives, as having access to high 
quality data on forest will be indispensable to reduce the impacts of climate change, with 
consequent economic gains, and meet forest-related policy objectives.  

(e)  While respecting the Union law, have special circumstances applying in individual Member 

States been taken into account? 

N.A. 

6