52 62. the commission considers that where measure 122 was the correct measure to use, the economic value of forests was indeed increased — even if the exact nature of the link between the aid and the increase of value of the forest varied according to the type of investment. the commission considers that the economic value of a forest is linked to its multifunctionality: it depends on various potential uses of the forest and not only on the single (though important) component that is wood. in the case of a forest which is used commercially for recreation on the basis of entrance fees, thinning and pruning may increase the potential economic value of the trees as a source of wood, but the main value of the forest stand may come from the accessibility of the land and the forest structure. recommendation 3 the commission notes that the principle of subsidiarity hands considerable discretion to Member states and regions in respect of the points raised — in line, for example, with the European parliament’s ‘report on the implementation of a European union forestry strategy’ (a6-0015/2006). the commission notes that precisely measuring increases in the economic value of a given forest may continue to present challenges in some cases. nevertheless, the possiblity of a certain level of measurement, combined with general expert knowledge about the benefits of certain types of investment for the value of a forest, constitute a valid basis for operating measure 122. for the next programming period, together with the Member states the commission is developing a cMEf which will allow the assessment, for each rdp, of progress in implementation against commonly defined target indicators for the priorities and focus areas selected for the programme. at the basis is an indicator plan which for each focus area sets the target and the planned outputs and expenditure for the measures that will be used to achieve the targets and objectives of the programme. the indicator plan represents more accurately the quantified intervention logic for each individual programme than does the current rigid axis structure. Reply of the CoMMISSIoN common reply to paragraphs 63–64. the indicators and the evaluation questions of the current cMEf are related to the rationale and the objectives of measure 122 and the axis in which it is included. the commission considers that appropriate analysis of relevant data within the framework provided can illustrate the economic improvements generated through investments supported under this measure. it is recognised however, that Member states have experienced some difficulties in undertaking this economic analysis, and as a result the commission has 1. issued additional guidance in relation to the current period, and 2. reviewed the situation in order to improve the effectiveness of monitoring and evaluation for the future period. for the next programming period, together with the Member states the commission is developing a cMEf which will allow the assessment, for each rdp, of progress in implementation against commonly defined target indicators for the priorities and focus areas selected for the programme. at the basis is an indicator plan which for each focus area sets the target and the planned outputs and expenditure for the measures that will be used to achieve the targets and objectives of the programme. the indicator plan represents more accurately the quantified intervention logic for each individual programme than does the current rigid axis structure. it should be understood that qualitative assessment of measure 122 can play a valuable role alongside quantitative assessment, as it sometimes takes more time for policy intervention to lead to a clearly measurable effect in the case of forestry than in the case of farming. slovenia and austria established procedures intended to determine the effect of measure 122 on the economic value of forests. 
OdpOvede KOmisie spoločná odpoveď na body 63 – 64. ukazovatele a hodnotiace otázky súčasného srMH súvisia s podstatou a cieľmi opatrenia 122 a s osou, do ktorej je zaradené. komisia sa domnieva, že primeranou analýzou príslušných údajov v stanovenom rámci sa môže poukázať na hospodárske zlepšenie, ktoré sa podarilo dosiahnuť na základe investícií podporovaných v rámci tohto opatrenia. uznáva sa však, že členské štáty zaznamenali pri vykonávaní tejto hospodárskej analýzy určité ťažkosti, v dôsledku čoho komisia 1) vydala ďalšie usmernenie týkajúce sa súčasného obdobia a 2) preskúmala situáciu s cieľom zlepšiť účinnosť monitorovania a hodnotenia v budúcom období. komisia na nasledujúce programové obdobie vypracúva spolu s členskými štátmi srMH, pomocou ktorého bude možné vyhodnotiť pre každý prv pokrok dosiahnutý pri vykonávaní na základe spoločne vymedzených cieľových ukazovateľov priorít a cieľových oblastí zvolených pre program.