Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Subcontractors:
University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences (BOKU)
Institut fr Wald-, Umwelt- und Ressourcenpolitik
Feistmantelstrae 4
A-1180 Wien, Austria
November 2009
ANNEXES
Annex 1: Inventory of the implementation of the EU FAP
Annex 2: Case study Exchange and assess experiences on
the valuation and marketing of non-wood forest goods and
services (Key Action 3)
Annex 3: Case study FAP and SFC role towards EU
compliance with the obligations on climate change
mitigation of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol
Annex 4: Case study Strengthening policy coordination
between policy areas: EU FAP strengthening co-ordination
within the Commission
Annex 5: List of themes and topics of new emerging issues
for consideration of the EU FAP in the future
Annex 6: List of materials
List of abbreviations
Key Action 1 Examine the effects of globalisation on the economic viability and
competitiveness of EU forestry
Key Action 2 Encourage research and technological development to enhance the
competitiveness of the forest sector
Key Action 3 Exchange and assess experiences on the valuation and marketing of non-wood
forest goods and services
Key Action 4 Promote the use of forest biomass for energy generation
Key Action 5 Foster the cooperation between forest owners and enhance education and training
in forestry
7
8
10
11
14
16
Key Action 6 Facilitate EU compliance with the obligations on climate change mitigation of
the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol and encourage adaptation to the effects of
climate change.
Key Action 7 Contribute towards achieving the revised Community biodiversity objectives for
2010 and beyond
Key Action 8 Work towards a European Forest Monitoring System
Key Action 9 Enhance the protection of EU forests
16
19
22
23
28
28
30
32
33
33
34
35
35
37
39
Introduction
This Annex provides information on implementation of the EU Forest Action Plan (EU
FAP) Key Actions and activities. The inventory is based on the EU FAP Work Programme
2007-2011, progress reports concluded as part of the SFC annual work programmes 20072009, and the data and information collected in the mid-term evaluation document reviews,
in interviews of the Commission representatives as well as in the Member State responses
to the implementation inventory survey.
In total 24 Member States responded to the inventory survey, and the following table
summarises the responses of the EU Member States excluding Portugal, Malta and
Belgium. Contact to the Member States was made through the Standing Forestry
Committee representatives. In the survey, the Member States were requested to indicate the
status of implementation of the EU FAP Key Actions and activities where the EU FAP
work programme indicates Member States as Leading Actors either on their own or
together with the Commission. The Member States were also requested to specify the most
important measures in their country contributing to achievement of the EU FAP objectives.
The level of detail in the Member States responses varied considerably. Furthermore, a
number of respondents pointed out that it is difficult to indicate activities at the national
level which were implemented specifically due to the EU FAP. Rather, the activities are
ongoing in many cases, for several years already and they would also have taken place
without the Action Plan, even though they now contribute to the objectives defined in the
EU FAP. As a consequence, the list of activities in the Member States presented in this
Annex is not exhaustive but rather, gives a sample of activities and types of activities
carried out in the Member States within the objectives of the EU FAP.
The period of analysis for the investigation is from the beginning of the implementation of
the EU FAP (January 2007) up until the mid-term review and the time of data collection
(March 2009). More recent activities in 2009 are presented when they are relevant for the
description. Stakeholder involvement and activities parallel to the EU FAP are included to
extent such references are made in the documents reviewed and in the surveys carried out
for the mid-term evaluation.
List of abbreviations
AC-FBI
AFOLU
AGFC
BENELUX
C&I
CADSES
CBD
CEI-Bois
CEPF
CEPI
CIFOR
CIP-IEE
CITES
COFO
COFORD
COP
COP/MOP
COPA-COCEGA
COST
CPF
DG
EAFRD
EBRD
EEA
EESC
EFDAC
EfE
EFFIS
EFI
EFICP
FACE
FAO
FBI
FCN
FCS
FERN
FLEG(T)
FP
FRI
FTP
FTP NRA
FTP SRA
GHG
GPP
greenhouse gas
Green Public Procurement
ICP Forests
IFSA
IIASA
IPCC
IPPC
ISG
ITTO
IUCN
KBBE
LBA
LIFE+
LULUCF
MCPFE
ICP IM
NFP
NGO
NWFGS
OECD
OMC
PAWS
PEBLDS
PEFC
PRO SILVA
R&D
RES
RDP
SBSTA
SEBI 2010
SEE
SEIS
SFC
SFM
UN
UNCCD
UNECE
UNFCCC
UNFF
USSE
WG
WWF
United Nations
Convention to Combat Desertification
United Nations Economic Commission to Europe
Framework Convention on Climate Change
United Nations Forum on Forests
Union of Foresters of Southern Europe
working group
World Wide Fund for Nature
Conference on strengthening
competitiveness of forestry
Status
Completed
Completed
(2007-08)
Completed
2007
No.
Status
Ongoing
Ongoing
2007-2011
Completed
2007-08
Presidencies
2007
(FTP activities
ongoing)
No.
10
Status
Ongoing
Ongoing
2007-2011
WG
Completed
2007-08
11
services; Valuation of outdoor recreation in forests; Valuation of nonwood forest functions: forest berries and mushrooms; Research of
efficient use of environmental, economic and social potential of
forests in Slovakia
Status
Ongoing
Completed
2007-08
A4.2
A4.3
12
- LT: National Energy Strategy approved; operational objectives for
biomass production
- LU: promotion of wood as construction material in buildings
- LV: studies related to wood for energy production; National Biomass
Action Plan is planned
- RO: promotion system for energy production from renewable
resources; Biomass Plan prepared with support of the Agency for
Sustainable Development and the Ministry of Economic Affairs from
the Netherlands
- SI: implementation of the FAO study WISDOM on woodfuel
production; RDP support for agricultural and forestry products and
investments on the wood processing and marketing
- SK: strategy for the use of renewable energy sources adopted;
National Biomass Action Plan adopted; funds for biomass research as
a part of Rural Development Programme
Developing cooperation methods are either carried out or in progress in
12 Member States, in planning in CZ, ES, HU, LT, LV and SK; not on the
agenda in BG, CY, EL, PL and RO (no information for DK)
Completed
2007
13
Several Member States plan to utilise EAFRD resources in rural
development programmes for promoting the use of forest biomass for
energy generation: activity carried out/in progress in 17 countries, in
planning in CZ. Not on the agenda of BG, CY, DE, IE and LU.
Member States reported the following activities:
- DK: Aid applicable for investment and demonstration projects in the
Danish RDP regarding local business development.
- EE: Estonian development programme for promotion and usage of
biomass and bioenergy 2007-2013 forms a national policy framework
for promoting the use of forest biomass for energy generation.
Different support measures are available through Estonian Rural
Development Plan 2007- 2013.
- FR: Beyond subsidies of 123B measure which can be activated for the
mechanization of wood mobilization, one of the work group of the
rural network (obj 4) is dedicated to the valorisation of woods from
rural forests.
- HU: Subsidies to establish short rotation tree plantations are provided
within the frame of EAFRD until 2013.
- IT: several local initiatives to support production and use of
bioenergy, supported mainly by RDPs (20 regions) and linked to the
National Plan on Biofuels (Probio) agreed in 2000
- LT: National Energy Strategy (1999; update every five years, last
update in 2007) with one of the strategic objectives to strive for a
share of renewable energy recourses of up to 20 % of the total
primary energy balance by 2025. Operational objectives for biomass
production are formulated in RDP 2007-2013.
- LV: two measures in RDP 2007-2013 related to energy from biomass
(including forest biomass): Production of energy from biomass which
is of an agricultural or forestry origin, and; a submeasure Production
of fuel derived from agricultural and forestry produce under the
measure Support for creation and development of microenterprises.
- SE: a project on bioenergy and compensation measures through
capacity building for forest owners and entrepreneurs aiming for
bioenergy generation
- RO: modernising agricultural holdings and bioenergy generation
under rural development plan
Ongoing
(in work
programme
2011)
14
IE: Funding of COFORD Forest Energy R&D and demonstration programme focussing on mobilisation of wood energy from forests, Government White Paper on Energy,
which includes targets for wood energy, establishment of the Renewable Energy Development Group by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources,
with input from COFORD and the Forest Service, Forest Service grants for wood energy harvesting machinery, COFORD workshops on wood energy, the woodenergy.ie
website and advisory service, development of wood fuel quality testing service (in conjunction with Sustainable Energy Ireland), seminars and conferences outlining good
practice in development of wood fuel supply chains, wood fuel combustion and fuel quality.
- NL: the Netherlands has established a 'Vision on Biobased Economy'. It is a part of the program "Clean and Sparing", which has the ambition to reduce C02-emission of 30%
in 2020 compared to 1990.
Parallel activities:
ENERSILVA project: cooperation financed in an INTERREG programme (ERDF) and six regions in Portugal and France participating with the aim to make biomass more dynamic
Stakeholder involvement: regular involvement in AGFC meetings, in SFC ad hoc WG2 (wood mobilisation).
CEPF Cooperatives Working Group has developed a Wood Mobilisation Action Plan (Draft ref. website, April 2009).
MCPFE Workshop on Strategies for increased mobilisation of wood resources from sustainable sources, 16-18 June, 2009 in Grenoble, France. The industries (CEPI and CEPF
together) followed on activity 4.1 and developed and ranked 33 measures as a guidance for policy-makers (presented at the Grenoble workshop in June 2009)
No.
Status
Ongoing
(work
programme
2008)
15
Ongoing 2009
2009
16
Status
Ongoing
2008-2010
Ongoing
2007-2011
Ongoing
2007-09
17
Ongoing
2009-2011
18
19
HU participate the meetings organised by JRC; and reports an ongoing discussion on responsibilities of reporting, procedures and methods between the Min. of Environment
and Min. of Agriculture. Based on the final agreement LULUCF reporting will be developed and prepared by January 2010.
- IE: COFORD is co-ordinating 5 forest and climate change research projects under CLI-MIT Research Programme; CARBIFOR II (information to determine the influence of
distrurbance, land-use change, soil type and forest age on carbon budgets that are relevant to the reporting LULUCF activities under the Kyoto Protocol and UNFCCC);
CARBWARE (tools and systems for reporting on forest carbon stocks and stock change under the Kyoto Protocol and the UNFCCC); CLIMADAPT (use of Ecological Site
Classification in adapting forests and their management of Climate Change); FORESTSOILC (soil carbon stock changes and greenhouse gas fluxes in Irish Forests);
WOODCARB (carbon stocks and carbon changes in harvested wood products).
- LV: research project Reaction capability of Latvia's forestry on potential climate changes in Europe.
- RO: research projects: on the establishment and management of the National Phenology Network as support for climate change assessment and its impact on forests (200608); Assessment and monitoring of environmental global changes on forest ecosystems; reconstruction / conservation of biodiversity for forest ecological reconstruction.
(2006-10)
- SI: LULUCF reporting part of the national reporting system coordinated by ARSO (National Environmental Agency) and MOP, several research projects supporting the efforts
to improve forest related elements of reporting LULUCF. efforts to improve forest related elements of the reporting on In the period 2007/08 (08: first half of the year)
Slovenian experts were actively participating at the EU EG LULUCF meetings (informal exchange of information between SFC and LULUCF representatives)
- SK: research projects e.g. "Impacts of climate change on forests in Slovakia" (2004-2008). Special attention was paid to the investigation of forest-based adaptation and
mitigation measures; EU FP6 project CECILIA" Central and Eastern Europe Climate Change Impact and Vulnerability Assessment 2006-09
Parallel activities to Key Action 6, e.g.:
- FP7 project CCTAME, Climate change terrestrial adaptation and mitigation in Europe (AT, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, SK, UK and JRC)
- FutMon project (Life+), 2009-2013 with partners from 24 MSs: AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, NL, PL, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK
- INTERREG IVB project ForeStClim 2008-2012, Transnational Forestry Management Strategies in Response to regional Climate Change Impacts (DE, FR, LU, NL, UK )
- INTERREG IVC project FUTUREforest launched 2009-2011 using innovation in the environment to prepare the forest of Europe for climate change and contribute towards
carbon sequestration and reducing natural hazards (BG, DE, ES, FR, LV, SK, UK)
- Relevant COST-Projects e.g. FP0703 Expected Climate Change and Options for European Silviculture (ECHOES); FP0903 Climate Change and Forest Mitigation and
Adaptation in a Polluted Environment
Stakeholder involvement: Regular involvement in AGFC meetings, participation in SFC ad-hoc WG climate change (2009-)
Information campaigns etc. by the stakeholders to raise awareness of role of the forest-based sector in climate change mitigation and adaptation. E.g. the European Economic
and Social Committee (EESC) exploratory opinion adopted in March 2009 underlining the importance of forests in the fight against climate change
No.
Status
2008-09
20
A7.2
field of forestry. IT reports that also several groups and NGOs lead
initiatives supporting the Objective 2 and spreading information to
the public and professionals, e.g. WWF/Birdlife seminar in Rome,
April 2009 in relation to the monitoring of Natura2000 areas.
LU: guidance to private forest owners.
RO: as long as most of the Administrations of National and Natural
Parks declared as Natura 2000 Sites are under the National
Administration of Forests, there is a good communication and
exchange of information and experience in this respect.
SE: both from the side of forest owners and public administration
continuous dialogue takes place on the implementation of Natura
2000. Moreover, Sweden has contributed to the information
exchange at EU level through, for example, written submissions on
Natura 2000 in forest areas (within the framework of cooperation in
the SFC).
SK: report national experiences on the implementation of Natura2000
in forest (SFC), by means of exchange of experiences, at national
level, between nature conservation authority (State Nature
Conservancy) and the National Forest Centre as a part of cooperation
projects.
Ongoing
2007-09
21
SFC sessions;
JRC report on forest area changes and forest
fragmentation in the EU based on high
resolution forest maps of Europe.
Ongoing
2008-2010
Ongoing
2007-2011
A7.5
Member States report this activity carried out / ongoing in 19 MS. Not
on agenda in BG and EL (no information for AT, NL and RO).
Ongoing
2007-2011
22
on Forest Genetic Resources" (EUFGIS), participation of the Slovak Republic in the EUFORGEN programme.
Parallel activities to Key Action 7 e.g.
ERA-net BiodivERsA project
Stakeholder involvement: Regular involvement in AGFC meetings, Bird Life International presentation in SFC meeting (2008) on a version of the improved common forest bird
indicator
Participation in the events arranged in relation to the EU Presidencies e.g. a working meeting connected to the EU nature directors meeting in Slovenia (2008) between NGOs
(WWF, ELO, BirdLife, Prosilva etc.) and IUCN
No.
Status
Ongoing
2007-2011
A8.2
23
Ongoing
2007-2011
Status
Ongoing
2007-2011
24
A9.2
Ongoing
2007-2011
25
(COM(2009)82)
Briefing of SFC on the Communication on
Reinforcing the EUs disaster response
capacity (COM(2008)130)
Discussion with the SFC on development of a
Commission communication on forest
protection, with links to the elements of Key
Actions 6, 7 and 8.
COM(2009) 147 White Paper. Adapting to
climate change: Towards a European
framework for action
Research under FP7 (e.g. 2009 topics
assessing and reducing vulnerability of
European forests to climate change and the
consequences for industrial and societal
needs SICA (Russia); developing new
methods for valuing and marketing currently
non-marketable forest functions, goods and
services).
A9.3
Ongoing
2007-2010
26
A9.4
2007 and
2009
27
- LU: research activities in nature conservation areas and
phytosanitary monitoring
- RO: following research projects have been carried out (2006-2008):
Dynamics of forest pollution process in hot spot areas Copa Mic
and Baia Mare, prevention and control of pollution effects measures;
Study on identification of invasive insect species in Romania (20062009)
- SE: Swedish University of Agricultural Science research
- SI: Internet portal and database called "e-forest protection" is at the
developmental phase (forthcoming in 3 years).
- SK: Programmes and sub-programmes of the Ministry of Agriculture
(research and professional assistance, development of forestry
sector)
28
Status
ongoing
2008
Not started
29
No.
30
A11.2
A11.3
Status
Not started
20 Member States activity carried out or in progress. Activity in planning
in LU (no information for FR, SE and UK)
In work plan
2009
Not? started
2009-2011
Not started
2010 / 2011
The FP7 programme has addressed forest-related natural hazards through several calls, from its Environment line; 5 specific calls in 2007, 5 in 2008 and 3 in 2009:
ENV.2007.2.1.3.1. Geographical transect approach to desertification
ENV.2007.1.3.4. 1. European (multi) hazard database analysis
ENV.2007.1.3.3.3. Investigating Europes risk from droughts
ENV.2007.1.3.3.2. Harmonising avalanche forecasting, risk mapping and warning
ENV.2007.1.3.2.1. Frame for better vulnerability assessment
ENV.2008.1.3.2.1. Natural Hazards: Social perception, behaviour and responses to risks
ENV.2008.1.3.3.1. Prediction of triggering and risk assessment for landslides
ENV.2008.1.3.3.2. Preparedness and risk management for flash floods including generation of sediment and associated debris flow
ENV.2008.1.3.4.1. Natural hazards in Europe: Coordinated research strategy between European and national levels
ENV. 2008.2.1.3.1. Assessment of methods to combat desertification
ENV.2009.1.3.2.1 Costs of natural hazards
ENV.2009.1.3.3.1 Risk, prevention and management of urban floods
ENV.2009.2.1.3.2 Desertification process and land degradation
JRC conducts studies on early warning systems. Specifically, in 2009, the Action will work towards establishing a European Flood Observatory (EUFO), which will be a central
website containing early warning info from EFAS (restricted access), ongoing flooding information, flood risk maps and climate change effect maps, as well as links to European
and global websites on floods. This action contributes to the JRC's Task Force 'Natural Disasters', the JRC Strategy on Climate Change, the Thematic Programme on the "EU-AU
Strategic Partnership", and the Task Force GMES. Within these platforms, collaboration takes place with several JRC Actions. The forecasting and risk mapping activities will be
coordinated with the ones foreseen under the European Forest Fire Information System, operated under the JRC by the Forest Action, the activities on Droughts, operated by
the Desert Action, and the activities on soils, soil erosion and landslides, operated by the Soil Action. Activities in Europe include:
- National and Regional Hydrological Services: communicating early flood warnings from the EFAS system.
- European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts: Research and Meteorological forecast data contributing to the European Flood Alert System.
- International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR): Development and delivery of the Danube part of the European Flood Alert System as a contribution
to the Danube Flood Action Programme.
- International river basin conventions, flood working groups, working on flood forecasting, flood risk mapping and flood prevention measures:- ICPDR (Danube river), IKSE (Elbe
river), IKSO (Oder river).
- Utrecht University, the Netherlands: Natural hazard research & data assimilation research.
Stakeholder involvement: Stakeholders have been involved in e.g. development of Mediterranean Forests Research agenda (EFI)
31
No.
32
A12.2
Status
Not started
16 Member States report activity carried out or in progress and activity
in planning in BG, RO and CY. Activity not in the agenda in HU and LU (
no information for EL, ES and FR)
(plan)
2008-2010
2009 / 2010
33
34
AGFC defined its priorities for EU FAP (29.11.2006 meeting). There are regular AGFC meetings with report of EU FAP implementation given by DG AGRI, and presentations of
other DGs. AGFC met three times both in 2007 and in 2008. In 2008 these meetings were held appr. one week prior to SFC meetings. Chairperson(s) of AGFC participate in the
SFC meetings.
AGFC and FBI advisory Group members nominate their members for the SFC ad hoc working groups
AGFC receives presentation of presidencies priorities (by Austria in the meeting of 10.3.06; Germany 29.11.06; Portugal 12.7.07)
No.
Status
Completed
(2007/08)
Updated as
needed
ongoing
2007-2011
ongoing
2007-2011
35
No.
Status
Not started
2010-2011
Status
ongoing
Ongoing
2007-2011
36
A16.2
Ongoing
2007-2011
37
No.
Status
Ongoing
From FAP
perspective
activity is
completed,
FBI Comm. is
ongoing
(2008-12)
(2007-2008)
Ongoing
2009
38
39
No.
Status
Ongoing
2007-2009
40
well as monitoring indicators.
- SK: proposal for a national strategy of public relations and
communication in forestry was prepared in 2007; establishing of an
expert wg on communication in forestry
A18.2
A18.3
Completed
2007-2008
Completed
2006-2008
41
exchange of experience between MS is foreseen in the ongoing EFICP
project. Beside of fully functioning Forest Cadastre Integrated
Information System based on internet and terminal servers
technologies was established in Lithuanian State Forest Survey Service in
2008. Further development of this system is foreseen towards user
friendly applications, better communication and interchange of
information, automatic data supply for interested parties, etc.
2008 / 2009
42
- PL: regular events documented since 1920s
- SI: Slovenian Forest Week in May every year.
- SK: National Forest Days every year and several other visibility
measures e.g. media communication on forest events, forestry and
forests through press releases, press conferences, media trips, articles
in papers and magazines, interviews with forestry experts in national
and regional TVs.
- RO: every last 2 years national foresters forums; every year "month of
forest" (mid-March to mid-April)
Member States participated also in the European Forest Week 2008
(20.-24. October) by organising national, regional and local events in e.g.
CY, FR, HU, LT, PL and SK.
List of contents
1. Background for the case study of the Key Action 3
2. Methods
3. Outputs of the KA3
4. Summary results
References
44
45
45
57
60
44
45
2. Methods
The case study on the Key Action 3 (KA3) gathers material on the effective and efficient
implementation of these activities (EQ1) and on how far they have reached and influenced
the key policy-makers and stakeholders (EQ2). It contributes to the answer of the evaluation
theme 1. From the detailed analysis, conclusions may also be drawn to the evaluation themes
4 and 6.
The data rely on the combination of questionnaires, interviews and document analyses. It
partly relies on the questionnaire sent out during the course of the project and complements
this information by document analysis and interviews at EU and MS levels. The following
data collection activities include (Table 2):
- collection of material of SFC WG 1 activities
- interviews with SFC WG 1 members, and EU level stakeholders
- questions in the FAP evaluation questionnaire to the MS governments
- e-mail request for further information from the MS governments (SFC members) and
collection of related studies
- review of EU and national level projects and studies
- review of support instruments and project databases
Table 2 Tasks of the case study of the evaluation theme 1
The following tasks were performed:
- review the activities of the SFC ad-hoc WG 1 on NWFGS: review of terms of reference,
meeting minutes and collected material such as contributions of the participants to the WG
- review of related studies conducted at EU and national levels: review of EC study FORVALUE
and its uptake by DG AGRI, SFC and national governments and publication/dissemination
- review of EU support instruments in how far they were used for related studies: EAFRD, the
LIFE+ instrument, the 6th and 7th Research Framework Programmes and the Intelligent
Energy-Europe Programme IEE within the Innovation Framework Programme CIP (data
collection: search of project databases for relevant studies and calls)
- use of questionnaire survey to the national governments, the Commission and stakeholders to
assess in how far the activities have reached and influenced the key policy-makers (specific
questions in the questionnaire)
- enquire with other stakeholders to assess how far the activities have reached and influenced
stakeholders (interviews with stakeholders from forest sector and other relevant NGOs as well
as EU representatives)
46
compensation methods of non-wood forest goods and services"). On the basis of the ad hoc
WG 1 results, an opinion of the SFC was developed and finalised in early 2009.
Activity 3.1 Carry out studies and pilot projects on valuation, compensation and
innovative marketing of non-wood forest goods and services, including methodologies
One of the activities under KA3.1 (carrying out studies and pilot projects by the Commission
as well as the Member States) from the side of the Commission (DG AGRI) was the Study
on the Development and Marketing of Non-Market Forest Products and Services
(FORVALUE), which was successfully implemented in 20082. The study was well received
by the Commission (DG AGRI, DG ENT) and published on the web in early 2009. In
addition, other studies contributed to the topic, including the study by DG ENV on the
"Economic value of groundwater and biodiversity in European forests" which is to be
presented to SFC in 2009.
The ad hoc WG1 consisted of 18 participants (14 countries and 4 stakeholders
representatives). It served for exchange of experiences. The SFC WG1 had six meetings in
total: June 2007, November 2007, February 2008, April 2008, June 2008, and the two last
ones in July and October 20083. According to information provided by the Commission, 12
countries delivered presentations about the NWFGS and their situations in the respective
countries. In addition, other organizations, processes and forest-related groups such as
MCPFE, IUCN, DG AGRI, COST and EFIMED attending the meetings provided additional
information on the NWFGS.
The MCPFE representative briefed the WG about a conference on forest and water that was
organised by EFIMED, MCPFE, IUFRO and others in Barcelona, 30 - 31 October 2008.
MCPFE is also organising a summer school in Chania, Greece, which will be dedicated to
forests and water. Other additional projects on groundwater and forests was launched by DG
Environment and contracted by IUCN and CEPF in January 2008. An economic assessment
of ground water protection has already been carried out by a past study (Economic
Assessment of Groundwater Protection: A Survey of the Literature; Project
ENV.A1/2002/0019).
According to the COST Action E30 presentation provided by Ms. Tyrvinen, the most widely
used methods in the EU are the contingent valuation (CV) and travel cost (TC) methods,
while choice experiments (CE) and hedonic pricing (HP) find fewer application. Most studies
have been undertaken in central and northern Europe; calculations of forest recreation value
at countries level remain rare (exceptions e.g. Belgium, Germany, France, the UK). Overall,
trading of amenity values seems to have a high potential for further development and
practical use.
ERDF and INTERREG funded projects
An especially relevant funding source for the NWFGS-related studies and projects has been
the INTERREG programme. For example, in the programming period 2000-2006, the
Community Initiative Programme Interreg IIIC contributed to project INCENDI on forest
Study on the Development and Marketing of Non-Market Forest Products and Services (FORVALUE), DG AGRI, Study Contract No: 30CE-0162979/00-21.
3
Meeting minutes from the 6th and 7th meetings were not delivered to the contractor.
47
fires with a budget amounting to some 7 million euro. The project completion was planned
for June 2008.
Another INTERREG-funded activity is ForeStClim that addresses forests and climate
change. The short name stands for Transnational Forestry Management Strategies in
Response to Regional Climate Change Impacts, and it brings together 21 partners with a
wide range of experts from the United Kingdom, Germany, France, the Netherlands and
Luxemburg. The main aim is to develop proactive and adaptive regional forestry
management and forest protection strategies in the face of the expected climate change
scenarios. Consequently, it will contribute to the economic and ecological stability of the
forests in North-West Europe (NWE). ForeStClim has a total budget of 11.6 million euro.
Out of this, 5.7 million euro are provided by the ERDF.
Robinwood is a three-year INTERREG IIIC Regional Framework Operation project, a first
for Wales and delivered by the Forestry Commission Wales on behalf of the Welsh Assembly
Government using both the EU and WAG funding. One of its main objectives is to develop
and compare appropriate systems of forestry development, help define regional forestry
policies, and to increase the socio-economic potential for the forestry sector and increase
general growth and competitiveness in the area by considering the forest not only as a source
of production but to identify all means which will assist in sustainable development of
forests. It is also closely associated with the FAP objectives.
The Baltic Sea Region (BSR) INTERREG IIIB Baltic Biomass Network works at a regional,
spatial planning level with local authorities, biomass producers and bioenergy investors in
drawing up optimal GIS based biomass production schemes for mobilising biomass resources
and planning sustainable bioenergy investment projects. Co-financed from the ERDF within
the framework of the BSR INTERREG III B programme the project network consists of 13
expert institutions and associated bio-energy stakeholders from Germany, Poland, Latvia,
Lithuania, Estonia, and Finland.
The INTERREG project "Advantage Hardwood tools for integrated regional and
business development" takes its departure in some problems and challenges shared by the
BSR countries such as the need for converting agriculture and forestry to fit the enlarged
European Union; the increasing need for joint environmental actions to achieve sustainable
development; the risk of decline in rural areas, etc.
The main objective of the INTERREG III project FOWARA - Problems in the realisation
of forested water retention areas: natural and social scientific studies in the Rhine
catchment is to develop and test strategies for a sustainable management of forested water
retention areas of regional and local significance under the assumption of an increasing
probability of flooding events.
The INTERREG IV funded project Multi Function Mountain Forest MF has an overall
objective to exchange experience along with the development of a network between
transnational regions in the Central Alpine area, which should lead to the development of a
common transnational strategy in a view of the mountain and protection forest policy and
related measures. The issue "mountain/protection forest" as essential foundation for a safe
living area should thus receive a higher significance in the EU, and strengthen the Mountain
Forest Protocol and the Alpine Convention.
48
49
BACCARA - Biodiversity and climate change, a risk analysis looks for forecasting forest
diversity under the influence of climatic changes and the consequences for stability and
productivity of forest ecosystems (started in the beginning of 2009), whereas ANAEE Structuring infrastructures for the analysis and experimentation on ecosystem focuses in
design studies for research infrastructures in all S&T fields started in 2008.
CIP
No active NWFGS-related projects were found under the framework of CIP.
COST
Since 2007, five COST Actions with some relevance to KA3 (E30, E40, E45, E51, E53) were
ongoing which are 14% of the Domains Actions, but no new started. A proposal for a
strategic workshop on competitiveness and innovation was not approved; particularly the
search for new financing mechanisms is related to innovation. In the ongoing COST Actions,
there is some focus on NWFGS. It seems that generally there is no strong connection of the
FAP with COST. Currently, it seems that COST does not specifically support FAP theme 1
questions and the promotion of NWFGS because new Actions do not relate to these issues.
Activity 3.2 Examining ongoing activities and lessons learned on compensation for and
valuation of non-wood forest goods and services, and identification of possible
constraints
In November 2008, the SFC completed the final report on non-wood forest goods and
services with a set of recommendation and findings at national level. The recommendations
of the final report propose at EC level to concentrate on the following 4 focus areas:
- strategy and planning of the NWFGS, the SFC recommends developing a vision of
the desired provision; providing discussion and guidance in implementing valuation
methods and developing and supporting communication strategies for the FGS;
- using rural development programmes regarding the measures addressed to the
provisions of NWFGS, to take NWFGS into consideration when undertaking different
capacity building topics and explore the possibility to support the introduction of
innovative schemes in rural development programmes;
- information needs and awareness raising to incorporate monitoring of the provision
and financing related to non-wood forest goods and services and promote
understanding and awareness of successful valuation and payment schemes at
different levels (national, international, intra-sectoral);
- research should enhance the accuracy of monetary estimates, further explore the
wider influence of NWFGS on regional economies and focus on efficiency of
different financing mechanisms.
The recommendations of the final report propose at MS and regional level the following 3
focus areas:
- strategy and planning work on a better integration of forest related goods and
services in spatial and land use planning and development at different levels, to foster
stakeholder involvement and dialogue by establishing inter-sectoral negotiation
bodies to promote communication and the coordination and coherence of related
50
policies and plans, in consulting forest users, including forest-based industry, in the
development of NWFGS strategies and mechanisms to enhance the marketing of
hitherto non-market benefits;
payment schemes for policies preferably on market basis, support new and
innovative mechanisms like contractual instruments; reviewing existing mechanisms
and payment schemes to ensure that forest service providers are benefiting from
application and guidance in implementing in order to facilitate the broader use of
successful payment schemes;
market development to support innovation, product development and
entrepreneurship connected to NWFGS and explore options for forest owners to
benefit from such added value; further apply public payment schemes where the
public nature of NWFGS is likely to continue restricting marketability in the future
and promote pilot initiatives to function in order to foster broader application of
successful efforts in the marketing of non-wood forest goods and services.
51
The Danish private forest sector receives approximately 10-15 /ha in subsidies and support
for specific management changes aimed at environmental services and habitat protection,
including changing species to native ones, setting aside forest as nature reserve, habitat
protection, the use of environment friendly silvicultural techniques, etc. Several of these
instruments are related to the EU policies.
Especially public money plays a major role in compensation for preservation of habitat and
biodiversity in Denmark, either through public-to-private payments or public-to-public. But
also private-to-private payments (capital funds as owners and managers of nature areas) and
private-to-public transfers (fees and licenses, specific taxes) exist. Denmark also emphasises
the need for sound calculation of willingness to pay (WTP). For example, different values
may be achieved if asking for a single specie present or in the context of a larger scope.
Referring to that, the reliability of WTP results may be questioned by decision makers. In the
case of recreation use values, no other methodology, for example multi criteria assessment is
necessary, but for biodiversity valuation the value criteria as such already appears to be
critical. The creation of private-to-private mechanisms and markets works directly through
person to person contacts (for example in hunting) and in different ways (for horseback
riders, stickers to prove payment may be required, in the case of mountain bikers, tour
organisers may pay to the landowner). In Denmark, owners also apply for environmental
payments, but there are indications that not all will be eligible for funding.
ESTONIAs biodiversity protection subsidies used to compensate private forest owners
(based on Natura 2000). Other Estonias activities include Restoration and repair of cultural
heritage objects (EAFRD funded) and publicly funded development of recreational sites in
the forests (eco-sponsoring).
According to FORVALUE results, public-private
contracts/partnerships are still a relatively new instrument in Estonia. The Estonian Forest
Act defines valuable forest habitats and the voluntary protection mechanism for commercial
forests in private ownership. Under this financing mechanism voluntary commitments by
private owners are made for the enhancement of biodiversity protection. Estonias key
policymakers were reached and policy-decisions were influenced on this particular case as
mechanism is incorporated into legislation.
FINLAND in the FAP questionnaire, reports on the research programme of the Finnish NFP
2015 "Welfare effects of forests" (2008-12) by FFRI and forest biodiversity programme for
Southern Finland METSO 2008-2016. Other activities that Finland reports under KA3.1 are
Natura-based recreation monitoring and assessment and Integrating ecological and social
information in urban planning, Developing services for efficient utilization of forest,
Resources for the welfare of forest owners and society, and Environmental and recreation
services of forests: economic impacts, valuation, and business opportunities.
In their presentation during the WG1 meeting, Finland tells about national studies on
Sustainable multiple use of forests in northern Lapland, and the Meaning of tourism and
recreation in rural development and landscape. Finnish Central Union of Agricultural
Producers and Forest Owners (MTK) of trade has developed a new compensation method in
recreational values for particularly valuable areas, for example particularly beautiful
landscapes. The Finnish Forest Research Institute (Metla) is now looking closer into the
economic impacts of recreational services and specifically focusing on market creation
through the introduction of trading mechanisms. Positive results were also obtained from the
biodiversity programme METSO.
52
Two Finnish projects were found within the LIFE+ framework: LIFE to Koli - Restoration
of the forests and meadows in the nature park and LIFE07 ENV/B/000037/Promotion of
public awareness and protection of aapa mires in Lapland, 2005.
FRANCE reports completing national studies on the Inventory and analysis of payment
mechanisms for forest benefits for the water sector in France and in Europe and Guidelines
for good practises in implementing economic valuation methods or economic calculation
when valuating non-wood forest goods or services. France is a member of EVRY database
(Environment Valuation Reference Inventory) and has contributed to the European program
COST E45 (European forest externalities EUROFEX). However, according to the
questionnaire replies, the works undertaken are primarily of technical nature and have no
influence on political decisions even if they contribute to improving the evaluation of
services and to the dissemination of evaluation methods towards managers.
France presented in the WG1 meeting Econometric stu
by
. France already
has in place compensation mechanisms for the for non-market services. They are public
subsidies (forest management against erosion), incentive fiscal measures (Natura 2000) or
contractual measures (Natura 2000). It supports the production of non-market services by the
internalization of a part of collective goods produced by forests, to the benefit of forest
producers. A project of law "Grenelle I" currently worked on is planning the recognizing and
valorisation of non-wood forest services. With the establishment of CDC Biodiversit, a
private branch of the Caisse des Dpots Bank (an investment vehicle of the French
government to support private strategic sectors, activities and companies), a possible new
compensation mechanism has been introduced in France. On the basis of an environmental
impact study, CDC biodiversit can provide, sell or contract a required compensation for
losses caused by administrative requirements. The system may be applied to every
environmental service, including water. Frances national study on managements, water
quality, and land use provided positive results on the influence of forest on water quality. In
addition, the result supported on water price and replacement of forest by agriculture entails
more nitrates, or more pesticides, when corn a significant part in agriculture.
France has LIFE+ project forest and water 2003-2007 Role of forest in the Water
Framework Directive (WFD) that includes 3 associated countries: Sweden, UK and France.
France has also a joint project INRA Nancy-FPF of Synthesis on forest and water payment
schemes 2007-2009.
According to FORVALUE , GERMANY has formed a Round Table in NFP, and has
distributed advisory leaflet for landowners. Other activities done within KA3 are exchange of
experiences among forest owners in the framework of the national campaign on strengthening
competitiveness of forest groupings. Another German project is called Forest & Landscape
Life.
HUNGARY is, within the frame of the rationalisation of the structure of the state owned
forest companies, planning a special national study on valuation of non-wood forest products
and services, which is foreseen in 2009-2010. Some studies Hungary has presented during
SFC meetings have been TERMERD project: Assessing forest naturalness in Hungary
(2001-2005). Hungary emphasises state support to the forest sector still lay on afforestation,
changing forest structures and forest development. But also grants for forest railways play a
53
prominent role. Growing passenger numbers underline the potential of such forest railroads
also for tourism but some coordination problems exist between the national and local
strategies.
IRELAND reports on national Woodspec manual study, website and advisory service to
promote the use of wood products. In addition, Ireland has launched the COFORD R&D
programme on NWFP. Irelands Departmental high level Group on Forestry Strategy has
been appointed to review the current policy strategy and identify clear options for decision
makers. That ongoing evaluation also includes non-wood benefits. The report is expected to
be presented in the coming months. The non-wood benefits covered by the review are
leisure/recreation, biodiversity as well as carbon sequestration. Other non-wood benefits like
landscape or water quality are not included so far.
Biodiversity values were derived from cost benefit analysis (CBA) carried out for the high
level review group as well as from existing studies. According to the CBA results each
afforested hectare accounts for a 80 value in biodiversity, and annually a benefit of 8 per
hectare can be added. Carbon sequestration is calculated at 17.7 per ton of CO2
sequestered.
Compensation mechanisms in use are the "NeighbourWood Scheme", which aims to support
local authorities in the establishment and improvement of forest amenities for recreation and
access, the "Native Woodland Scheme" that grants support to establish, develop or restore
native woodlands (grant and premium for establishment or conservation). The "Forest
Environment Protection Scheme" (FEPS) grants financial support for activities and benefits
beyond mandatory requirements already covered by the "Afforestation Scheme". Co-financed
by the Rural Development Fund this may incorporate measures like retained habitats or
planting berry bearing species. According to presentation provided in the WG1 meeting, this
scheme is widely accepted and used by forest owners.
In Ireland especially, population growth and access to land are important factors for land
valuation. Afforested areas are not open to the public and there is no obligation of the forest
owner to provide such an access. The issue is complex and connected to the general question
of access to the countryside. The willingness to pay is highly connected with that an access
framework and mixed practices exist in Ireland. Generally, forest owners defend their
individual access rights. It was clarified that hedgerows form a fundamental element of the
rural development protection scheme in Ireland, based on the principle of respect of the
existing stock and willingness to expand it where possible.
According to the FAP questionnaire replies, the pilot projects and studies reached the central
government level leading to the establishment of new and modifications to existing schemes
of NWFGS and/or their valuation.
ITALY reports on several pilot projects and initiatives on the use of non-timber forest
products, and a seminar was organised by the University of Padova in March 2009 (study
with EAFRD). However, Italy reports the impact of the NWFGS has not been so far very
significant even if the significance is slowly growing, especially in the case where there is a
clear and relevant economic profitability.
54
LITHUANIA has prepared studies on evaluation of economical and social forest functions
and a project about rules for preparation and use of secondary forest goods and valuation
methodology.
LATVIA has completed studies on evaluation of economical and social forest functions.
Latvia also has launched a project for preparation and use of secondary forest goods and
valuation methodology. Projects concerning NWFGS in Latvia are such as nature trails in
connection with the Gauja National Park, and leasing of hunting.
In the WG1 presentation, Latvia tells that Natura 2000 payments are only provided for
private owners. Payments for game and hunting rights lease go to all landowners and are
quite high. In case the government may be ready to allocate additional money for
environmental services, new financing sources like for instance taxes may be created to
collect the necessary funds. However, this seems hard to achieve as national compensation
schemes are operational only since 2006, with 25% of funds from national, 75% from EU
sources. In Latvia an obligation exists to conduct a forest inventory every 10 years. This
might be changed in the future towards compulsory forest management plans. At the moment
such plans may be set up voluntarily. Management plans exist for protected areas that may
not even allow thinnings.
Latvia reports on the use of the EAFRD measures under the Rural Development Programme
for Latvia 2007-2013, and of Natura 2000 payments for forest owners. In addition, Latvia has
new initiatives on the establishment of enclosed areas for game observations or hunting, and
private installation of nature parks includes special offers like horseback riding and trails. The
local government initiatives includes the establishment of nature paths in protected areas with
additional offers like excursions, and nature education efforts by mother nature an
institution using multiple channels to inform people about nature.
POLAND reports about a study financed by the State Forest Organisation (the funding is
national).
THE NETHERLANDS is preparing to value the effects of land use scenarios in economic
terms by increasing experience by applying nature-inclusive Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) in
policy making on land use scenarios. Thus far, assessment of benefits and costs for
stakeholders associated with forest / nature has been studied. Next step would be the use
assessment of benefits to include stakeholders into financing nature development projects in
order to reduce free-riding on public financed nature.
The Netherlands overall spending for nature is dominated by public financing, which is also
the case for the two main nature conservation organisations. These nature conservation
organizations own around 47% of the non-governmental forests. They obtain revenues from
forestry activities, contributions, donations and the National Lottery. Membership of these
organisations has significantly increased the last decades and therewith public involvement in
forest management issues has also gained in importance. Potential areas for application of
CBA results have already been identified in the Netherlands such as payments for visiting
natural sites of interest (entrance fee, membership to nature conservation organizations and
therewith access to managed area), environmental improvements compensating for land
development elsewhere, or usage of added value of real estates due to environmental
favourable conditions to finance environmental projects. Other possibilities are clean water
fees provided by drinking water supply companies. According to presentation information,
55
hedonic pricing results may be used to argue with the higher value in order to motivate house
constructors to financially support environmental improvements, for example the
establishment of a nature protection area. However this is only realized on a small scale so
far.
SLOVAKIAs national studies on the NWFGS are Research, classification and
implementation of forest functions, Valuation of outdoor recreation in forests, Valuation
of non-wood forest functions: forest berries and mushrooms. Other pilot projects are
Research of efficient use of environmental, economic and social potential of forests in
Slovakia (2008-2011) and European Forest Externalities (EUROFOREX, COST Action
E45).
SLOVENIA has completed different pilot projects and studies modelling future value of
forest stands (seed production), and of truffle production. In addition, Slovenia reports on
burn wood solutions and biomass trade centres.
The Constitution of the Slovak Republic also obliges the State to compensate land owners for
economic losses (income forgone, additional costs) due to management restrictions in public
interest. The available financial resources are not sufficient to allow the compensation in all
cases though. Land tax payment exemptions are granted for protection and special purpose
forests. The usage of market driven innovative mechanisms (contracts for nature protection,
personal services and leisure facilities etc.) is limited due to the general legal framework (free
access to forest land, obligation of forest owners for forest environment protection etc.).
Overall the compensation is not fully functional yet. The reason for not using the apparent
possibilities in application of alternative compensation mechanisms is caused by the
orientation of forest owners mainly towards wood production which means no realization of
the non-wood forest products potential.
Slovakias subsidies have relied mostly on the National Rural Development Programme
2007-2013, Natura 2000 payments on forestland, and forest-environment payments. The
funding has been national and publicly funded.
SPAIN reports on the project MEDFOREX that is a national study on the NWFGS, and
another national study of Forest incomes modelisation.
SWEDEN reports on the studies Forest and human health, Outdoor recreation in change
and Identification of forests with high social values.
In the WG1 presentation, Sweden tells on the study of the Swedish National Institute of
Economic Research (NIER) to elaborate an overview of monetary valuation methods of
biodiversity, its application by outlining strengths, weaknesses and suitability as well as the
motivation for implementation. The project worked through two expert panels (a researcher
panel and a stakeholder panel) supported by short discussion papers on opportunities and
constraints of monetary valuation of biodiversity. Results were delivered to the Swedish
Government by the end of 2007.
Seven experience values of forests, which determine the stewardship and the forest
management type, have been identified:
1. Solitude and story (for example old forests with a mystique aura)
2. A sense of a forest (forest harmonies)
56
57
4. Summary results
Implementation at EU Level
The KA3 activities foreseen in the work programme were carried out. The Working Group
collected information through presentations prepared by the WG members and stakeholder
group. These presentations covered overviews of individual country experiences, specific
national and international projects, COST actions and briefings on support measures provided
by the Rural Development Programmes (RDP) and the State Aid rules.
Under the activity 3.1, a study on the Development and Marketing of Non-Market Forest
Products and Services provided a holistic view on the situation of NWFGS in the EU, which
was further amplified by the final report of the WG1. In addition to more traditional forest
goods and services (such as honey, timber, berries), topics related to recreation, biodiversity
and carbon sequestration are strongly represented in the Member States information. It
appears that especially issue of water is gaining a lot of attention: many of the given
presentations concentrated on the aspect of forest and water.
A majority of the different funding programmes concentrated on the biodiversity and nature
conservation (LIFE+, FP7) or biomass aspects. However, a few EU level studies/projects
exist on the NWFGS.
Under the activity 3.2, existing information on the valuation studies of NWFGS was collected
and analysed. There is a lot of existing information, but it appears that information mainly
concentrates on single services, habitats or species, and certain types of valuation types, those
being contingent valuation (CV) and travel cost (TC) methods. The WG1 acknowledges the
importance of these goods and services and their growing significance, and recognises the
need to further increase and diversify the available information on valuation and
compensation of the NWFGS. The WG1 also recognises the need to increase available
funding to support the development of different valuation schemes for the NWFGS at both
EC and national level.
Implementation in Member States
In sum, Activity 3.1 of collecting and carrying out studies and projects on valuation,
compensation and innovative marketing of non-wood forest goods and services, including
methodologies in was done to a different extent in different Member States.
Information the Member States provided in the FAP questionnaire was often scarce, and the
studies they reported relied in most cases to national and, to lesser degree, private funding.
Additional information obtained from the ad hoc WG1 meeting minutes and FORVALUE
results revealed Natura 2000 and EAFRD to be the most frequently used EU funds. In
addition, LIFE+, and Rural Development Funds were reported to be used in relation to FAP
KA3 objectives.
There is a huge difference between available information in the Member States: while some
countries inform about a great amount of relevant KA3 activities (studies and projects), some
countries provide none (CZ, BG, GR, RO or MT, BE, PT). The importance of the NWFGS or
58
their innovative financing mechanisms is not always very clear, as is the case e.g. in Italy or
Estonia.
Exchange of experiences (Activity 3.2) especially took place in the ad hoc WG1 including a
limited number of countries and less in the SFC as a whole.
Have the activities been carried out effectively and efficiently?
The activities have been carried out according to the FAP and its multiannual work plan at
the EU level. One stakeholder referred to FORVALUE project as an important outcome of
the SFC activities during an interview. However, no other stakeholder related back to EC
activities with regards to KA3 of the EU FAP.
A number of countries report on recent, ongoing or planned studies. With this regard it
appears that there is a lot of interest invested in the question of NWFGS. In many cases, the
studies mostly refer to the forest functions and their valuation, sometimes also to their
compensation possibilities. In sum, there is not so much awareness of the questions of
marketing and new financing mechanisms.
One of the goals in the formation of the ad hoc Working Group 1 was the active participation
by the MS and exchange of experiences. Members were actively sharing information not only
on the NWFGS but also on their different valuation methods and on their financing
possibilities. The meetings have been arranged more or less regularly twice a year and been
attended by the MS representatives and various stakeholders and other experts. However, not
all countries distributed information on NWFGS within the ad hoc Working Group 1
meetings. The Commission has carried out studies and pilot projects on valuation,
compensation and innovative marketing on NWFGS, including methodologies.
The financing of the NWFGS appears to rely very much on the EU and public (national)
funding. To some degree, MS report on the private funding options. Most of the
compensations are to be found within existing programmes such as Rural Development and
Natura 2000 programmes. Search through different funding programmes did not provide very
much information; the most relevant programme when it comes to NWFGS is the
INTERREG. LIFE+ is more concerned with biodiversity and protective measures. One call
specifically related to NWFGS was issued under FP7. Other calls exist within FP7, albeit
they are not explicitly related to the valuation and compensation of NWFGS.
Both Activities 3.1 and 3.2 are seen as completed at EC level, and partially at MS level, too.
The scarce information provided by some MS in the FAP questionnaire may indicate the lack
of interest or possibilities to perform studies or projects.
Have the results reached and influenced key policy makers and stakeholders?
Relevant EU actors, MS representatives and stakeholders were engaged in the SFC, the SFC
ad-hoc WG1 meetings and activities and the study report. Results gained from the meetings
and studies were further reported to the AGFC. In addition, results are presented at various
seminars and will be published in journals by the study authors.
However, in the FAP questionnaire countries/stakeholders report nothing or explicitly say
that they have not received results of KA3. Only a smaller number of respondents report that
59
policy-makers are aware of the results and then they mostly refer to national studies and
other national level activities. According to the MS replies, the results on the national studies
on NWFGS and their valuation methods have had a small or no impact on policy makers.
As being the case for all WGs and studies, also the KA 3 ad-hoc WG 1 and the study report
on the valuation and marketing of non-market forest goods and services (FORVALUE) are
seen as being particular successful by the DG representatives and other actors/stakeholders.
The study has been evaluated with a high score and the WG resulted in a common report and
was the basis for an SFC opinion on the issue. However, other stakeholders do not refer to the
KA3, nor do the MS representatives, which might indicate poor communication between the
Commission and the other actors, or their limited interest.
Recommendations
Funding of studies and projects
It seems that the national NWFGS projects and studies rely pretty much on the national
sources. Many of the different EU-funded projects concentrate on the protective measures,
biodiversity, and Natura 2000 sites. The Commission recommendation on the use of Rural
Development Programmes as a mean of promoting NWFGS could be more emphasised and
explored. In addition, other innovative funding/financing schemes could be supported and
encouraged at MS level, e.g. by taking into consideration local forest owners, stakeholders
and end-users and possibly consult with them (as was done in Finnish METSO-programme).
Communication and coordination
Information flows within the SFC are efficiently performed, however, there is the problem of
distributing the information to wider social groups, actors and stakeholders. Some of the
stakeholders are of the opinion that the SFC activities are not communicated to external
parties well enough. The communication could be improved and strengthened by, e.g. web
pages, distributing leaflets and reports of the SFCs findings. The communication and
coordination could be improved by requesting the MS reports on related dissemination
activities, and also reporting frequently on the projects and policies that relate to NWFGS.
It would be beneficial for the MSs to arrange seminars with a broad participation of
stakeholders, thus distributing and disseminating information about the NWFGS. The
Member States might try to collect more cases/relevant information on the non-wood forest
goods and services in order to facilitate the information flow at European level. The relevant
information is concentrated to certain countries, which dominate the studies on the NWFGS,
and also their valuations. However, best practises vary between countries, and more
information should be collected in order to be able to produce a comprehensive database at
EU level and, also, to be able to implement relevant and efficient policies at MS level in
order to promote the NWFGS. MS should also consider publications in technical journals
with a wide audience in order to support the promotion of NWFGS, their valuation and
financial mechanisms.
Increasing publicity and cross-sectoral activities
Organising specific events, publications or other follow-up activities at EC and MS levels
would increase the publicity and the awareness of the NWFGS, their funding mechanisms,
60
and valuations. National RDPs could specifically refer to the study report, WG report or the
SFC opinion, and the EU policies could use the study as a reference, e.g. policies on
sustainable use of biomass, renewable energy, etc. in order to disseminate the information to
other sectors. CAP discussion on public goods could refer to the study, especially on how to
conceptualize public goods in agriculture. In addition, many interesting ideas and
mechanisms in the study could be of importance to other processes (e.g. climate change,
water protection, public procurement, rural development policy, public funding, etc.).
However, synergies are not yet fully realised/thought. It would be beneficial to consider also
this aspect, and indulge more closely in cross-sectoral/co-operation activities such as
arranging joint workshops and conferences with other DGs, stakeholders, organisations and
bodies.
References
COM(1997) 599 final Communication from the Commission - Energy for the future:
renewable sources of energy - White Paper for a Community strategy and action
plan
COM(1998) 42 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament of 4 February 1998 on a European Community biodiversity strategy
COM(1999) 457 Communication from the Commission on the The State of the
Competitiveness of the EU Forest-Based and Related Industries
COM(2000) 769 final Commission Green Paper of 29 November 2000 Towards a European
strategy for the security of energy supply
COM(2001) 142 final Commission Communication of 27 March 2001 on Biodiversity
Action Plans in the areas of Conservation of Natural Resources, Agriculture,
Fisheries, and Development and Economic Cooperation
COM(2003) 251 final Commission Communication of 21 May 2003 - Forest Law
Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) - Proposal for an EU Action Plan
COM(2003) 830 final Communication from the Commission on guidance to assist Member
States in the implementation of the criteria listed in Annex III to Directive
2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading
within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, and on the
circumstances under which force majeure is demonstrated, Brussels, 7.1.2004
COM(2005) 628 final Communication from the Commission of 7 December 2005 - Biomass
Action Plan
COM(2008) 113 final Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament on innovative and sustainable forest-based industries in the EU. A
contribution to the EU's Growth and Jobs Strategy
COM(2008) 400/2 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the
Regions
COM(2008) 644/3 Communication from the Commission - Proposal for a Regulation of the
European Parliament and of the Council laying down the obligations of operators
who place timber and timber products on the market
COM(2008) 864 final Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European
Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of
61
62
Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council of 18 December
2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation.
Regulation (EC) No 614/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May
2007 concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE+).
Renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy, Council of the European Union, Brussels,
26 June 2006, 10917/06.
Report on implementation of Forestry Measures under the Rural Development Regulation
698/2005 for the period 2007-2013 [pdf] Executive Summary.
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/publi/forestry_rurdev_2007_2013_en.pdf
SFC ad hoc Working Group on valuation and compensation methods of non-wood forest
goods and services 1st meeting, Brussels, 28 June 2007 + Annexes
SFC ad hoc Working Group on valuation and compensation methods of non-wood forest
goods and services 2nd meeting (Commented draft report) Brussels, 16
November 2007
SFC ad hoc Working Group on valuation and compensation methods of non-wood forest
goods and services 3rd meeting, 15 February 2008
SFC ad hoc Working Group on valuation and compensation methods of non-wood forest
goods and services 4th meeting (Draft report) Brussels, 22 April 2008
SFC ad hoc Working Group on valuation and compensation methods of non-wood forest
goods and services 5th meeting (Draft report), Brussels, 27 June 2008
SFC ad hoc Working Group on valuation and compensation methods of non-wood forest
goods and services Report: Valuation and Compensation Methods for Non-wood
Forest Goods and Services, November 2008
Study on the development and marketing of non-marketed forest products and services
(FORVALUE), Contract AGRI-2007-G4-13, Contractor: European Forest
Institute.
Presentations:
- Alexandrou, C., Situation on valuation and compensation mechanisms of non-wood
forest goods and services in Cyprus
- Blomquist, S. Identification of forests with high social values
- Bos, E. and G. Meijerink, Forests in the Netherlands: basic facts, valuation experience
and finance potentials, Agricultural Economics Institute, The Hague
- Bucki M.,(ENV/B1), Study on the Economic value of groundwater and biodiversity in
European forests, 2008
- Fjellstad, K.B., MCPFE activities within the field of non-wood forest goods and
services 27 June 2008
- Gmez-Zamalloa M. G., Link between EU Industrial Policy and WG on valuation and
compensation methods of non-wood forest goods and services
- Greguka, Boris on Experiences on valuation and compensation mechanisms of nonwood forest goods and services applied in the Slovak Republic, 3rd meeting of the
SFC ad hoc Working Group on valuation and compensation methods of non-wood
forest goods and services Brussels, 15 February 2008
- Heikkil K., DG AGRI, Forestry rules in the Community Guidelines for State aid in
the agriculture and forestry sector, Presentation in DG AGRI on 15.22008
- Jellesmark Thorsen B.,Valuation and Compensation Methods of Non-wood forest
goods and services Danish Experiences , 15. February 2008, DG Agriculture and rural
development, European Commission, Bruxelles
63
- Pusks, L., Valuation and compensation methods of nonwood forest goods and
services in Hungary, Experiences on valuation and compensation mechanisms
- Silamikele I., Non wood forest goods, tradition of use, possible markets and
evaluation of experiences in Latvia, 22 April, 2008
- Sjstrm M, Monetary valuation of biodiversity. Methods and experiences.
Environmental Economics Unit National Institute of Economic Research
- Snowdon, Pat Valuing forestry in the UK in the 4th meeting - ad hoc working group
of the Standing Forestry Committee "Valuation and compensation methods of nonwood forest goods and services" 22 April 2008,
- Szedlak, T., Forestry measures in Rural Development Programmes for the period
2007-2013, Preliminary overview, Brussels, 19 September 2008
- Tyrvinen, L., COST E33, Forest Recreation and Nature Tourism results
- Experiences on valuation and compensation mechanisms applied in France, The case
of Forest and water, 2008
- Study on the development and marketing of non-marketed forest products and
services, 2008
- SFC ad hoc working group on valuation and compensation methods of non-wood
forest goods and services DG AGRI F.6 Bioenergy, biomass, forestry and climate
change, 27.6.2008
- SFC ad hoc working group on valuation and compensation methods of non-wood
forest goods and services, DG AGRI F.6 Bioenergy, biomass, forestry and climate
change, 19.9.2008
Webpages:
http://www.forestclim.eu/
http://www.robin-wood.eu/whatis.php
http://www.ocrincendi.eu/
http://balticbiomass.com/content/index.cfm
http://www.advantagehardwood.org/default.asp?mainmenu=1
http://www.fowara.org/
http://www.network-mountain-forest.org/
http://futmon.org/
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/funding/lifeplus.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/projects/stories/index_en.cfm
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/projects_en.html
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf
http://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-un-en.pdf
http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/text.shtml#I
http://www.unccd.int/convention/text/pdf/conv-eng.pdf
List of contents
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion and conclusions
65
67
67
69
65
66
Table 1. Election of activities and accounting period under Article 3.4 and election of accounting period under
Article 3.3, for the 25 EU Member States that are Parties to the UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol.
Party
Austria
Article 3.3
accounting
period (a)
CP
Belgium
CP
NA
NA
NA
NA
Bulgaria
CP
NA
NA
NA
NA
Czech Republic
CP
CP
NA
NA
NA
Denmark
NA
Estonia
CP
NA
NA
NA
NA
Finland
CP
CP
NA
NA
NA
France
NA
NA
NA
Germany
CP
CP
NA
NA
NA
Greece
CP
CP
NA
NA
NA
Hungary
NA
NA
NA
Ireland
CP
NA
NA
NA
NA
Italy
CP
CP
NA
NA
NA
Latvia
CP
CP
NA
NA
NA
Lithuania
CP
CP
NA
NA
NA
Luxembourg
CP
NA
NA
NA
NA
Netherlands
CP
NA
NA
NA
NA
Poland
CP
CP
NA
NA
NA
Portugal
CP
CP
CP
CP
NA
Romania
CP
CP
NA
NA
CP
Slovakia
CP
NA
NA
NA
NA
Slovenia
CP
CP
NA
NA
NA
Spain
CP
CP
CP
NA
NA
Sweden
CP
CP
NA
NA
NA
United Kingdom of
Great Britain and
Northern Ireland
CP
CP
NA
NA
NA
The changes in carbon stock and greenhouse gas emissions relating to LULUCF activities
under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4 must be reported for each year of the commitment period,
beginning with the start of the commitment period, or with the start of the activity, whichever
is later.
Currently, negotiations for the post-2012 period are ongoing, and the global agreement for
post-2012 action is expected to be achieved at the 15th Conference of the Parties of the
67
UNFCCC, in Copenhagen December 2009. There are great expectations to the Copenhagen
Climate Change Conference. The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC 2007) has shown that global warming is very likely to reach dangerous levels
this century unless fast-increasing global emissions are cut sharply and rapidly. EU is
determined that the agreement must be guided by the latest scientific knowledge. This means
it must aim to limit global warming to an average of no more than 2C above the preindustrial temperature because there is strong scientific evidence that irreversible and
disastrous changes in the environment will become far more likely beyond this point.
Keeping within 2C will require a reduction in global emissions of at least 50% compared
with 1990 levels by 2050. On December 2008 the European Parliament and Council reached
an agreement on the EU Climate and Energy package that will help transform Europe into a
low-carbon economy and increase its energy security (COM(2008) 30 final). On the basis of
the package, the EU is committed to reduce its overall emissions to at least 20% below 1990
levels by 2020, and is ready to scale up this reduction to as much as 30% under a new global
climate change agreement when other developed countries make comparable efforts. It has
also set itself the target of increasing the share of renewables in energy use to 20% by 2020
(COM(2008) 30 final).
Consequently, climate change is a crucial issue on the environmental political agenda. The
EU has taken the leadership in the process and hence the non-compliance with the obligations
on climate change mitigation of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol would be a loss of face.
Furthermore, the issue of climate change adaptation is critical for the sustainability as well as
the competitiveness of the forest sector in the EU. In this case study, which is part of a midterm evaluation of EU Forest Action Plan, the aim is to find out what is done under EU FAP
to reach the compliance with the obligations on climate change mitigation of the UNFCCC
and its Kyoto Protocol. This case study will help answering if and how the EU Forest Action
Plan (EU FAP) Key Action (KA) 6 has been or is being implemented effectively and
efficiently.
Methods
This case study assesses the implementation of FAP activities relating to its Key Action 6.
The assessment is based on a comparison of targets set in the EU Forest Action Plan and the
implementation based on the mid-term evaluation questionnaires and interviews with MS,
COM services and stakeholders. Particularly the questionnaires to COM services and MS
contained a set of questions in support of this case study. Furthermore, the work programmes
and minutes of Standing Forestry Committee (SFC), the Advisory Group on Forestry and
Cork (AGFC) and the Inter-Service Group on Forestry (ISG-F) are scrutinized. The EU
structure in issues concerning climate change and forestry is also demonstrated to see the
possible linkages between the EU Forest Action Plan and the climate discussions within EU.
68
Results
The EU FAP Key Action 6, entitled Facilitate EU compliance with the obligations on
climate change mitigation of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol and encourage
adaptation to the effects of climate change, includes following actions (Commission of the
European Communities COM (2006) 302 final and Annex):
-
6.1 The Commission will examine with the SFC how to respond in a more
coordinated way to the obligations of Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol,
including, inter alia, reporting on land use changes and forest management.
6.2 The Commission will facilitate exchanges between the SFC and the EU sinks
experts group, in order to increase the effectiveness of the discussions on climate
change mitigation. Measures to reduce global deforestation and post-2012 climate
commitments will be addressed. It was expected that this would contribute to the
development of science-based adaptation strategies and measures. Improved and more
coordinated reporting about land use under the Kyoto protocol will allow the EU to
better defend its positions in the upcoming UNFCCC negotiations about the Kyoto
regime after 2012.
6.3 The Commission will continue to support research, training and studies on the
impact of and adaptation to climate change.
6.4 The Member States are invited to work on assessing the impacts of climate
change, to raise awareness and to exchange experience, as well as to promote
activities for mitigation and adaptation. Awareness raising about the expected
effects of climate change is expected to allow forest-managers to anticipate evolution
of ecological conditions. In this context, it was considered especially important that
the EU has information about land use and climate change.
As the Standing Forestry Committee is the coordinating body of the EU FAP, we scrutinized
what was planned in the SFC work programs concerning the KA6 of the EU FAP and we
checked from the minutes of the SFC meetings what has been done on EU-level under FAP.
This indicated that SFC work has covered all issues mentioned in the work programme, but
targets set in the Action Plan (COM (2006) 302 final) are not yet reached. For Activities 6.1
and 6.2, establishment of the SFC ad hoc Working Group on Climate Change and Forestry is
the main activity so far, in addition to debriefing and discussion on the outcomes of the
UNFCCC COP13 and COP14 (KA6.2). No information about exchanges between the SFC
and the EU expert group on LULUCF (KA6.2) was found from SFC meeting minutes, but it
is expected that this will happen through the ad hoc Working Group on Climate Change and
Forestry, which was established in February 2009. For Activity 6.3, a study "Impacts of
climate change on European Forests and options for adaptation" was completed at end of
2008 and its results were presented by the contractor to the SFC.
On a Member State level, 23 countries (out of 24 countries that responded to the
questionnaire) reported Key Action 6 activities either as carried out or as being in progress,
and 10 countries reported additional activities directly targeted to implement the Objective 2
of the EU FAP. However, while only few of the reported activities were related to mitigation
of climate change, most of the reported forest sector activities were related to adaptation and
some of the activities reported under the Key Action 6 could be listed rather as additional
activities than actual progress of the EU FAP since they would also have taken place without
the Action Plan even though they are now contributing to the EU FAP. In addition, member
69
states were also enquired about their latest developments in climate change related activities
in the field of mitigation and adaptation in forest sector (i.e. relating to Activity 6.3).
Feedback shows that a lot of research is ongoing at member state level and this research is
often in support of the climate change negotiations or in support of the development of
monitoring methods, but again these activities would also have taken place without the Forest
Action Plan. Nevertheless, a study commissioned by DG AGRI in support of Activity 6.3 has
consolidated knowledge from Member States and identified important gaps in knowledge,
awareness raising and actual adaptation activities (Lindner et al. 2008) and the SFC ad hoc
Working Group on Climate Change and Forestry will address the findings of the study
according the draft work plan for 2009 and consequently the recommendations of the study
should affect the future development of the Forest Action Plan.
EU member states
Former Temporary
Committee on Climate Change
May 2007- February 2008
Working Party on
Forestry
European Commission
DG AGRI
DG ENV
JRC
AT
BE
BG
CZ
CY
DE
DK
EE
ES
FI
FR
GR
HU
IE
IT
LV
LT
LU
MT
NL
PL
PO
RO
SI
SK
SE
UK
ESTAT
ISG-F
ISG-IF
Unit G.4,
Pre-accession
assistance to
agriculture
and rural
development
Unit L.4:
Evaluation
of measures
applicable
to
agriculture;
studies
Unit H4
Bioenergy,
biomass,
forestry
and
climate
change
Unit B1,
Agriculture
, forests &
soil
Directorate E,
International
affairs & LIFE
Unit C1 Climate
Strategy,
international
negotiation and
monitoring of
EU action
ECCP I & II
AGFC
EEA
SFC
AT
BE
BG
CZ
CY
DE
DK
EE
ES
FI
FR
GR
HU
IE
IT
LV
LT
LU
MT
NL
PL
PO
RO
SI
SK
SE
UK
ETC/ACC
Figure 1. EU organization in climate change issues. Boxes represent the different environment, agriculture
and/or forestry institutions involved in discussions and decision making process, and lines between the boxes
describe the direct connection between the institutions in the context of the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change.
A diagram was drafted to show the interrelations between forest, environment and
agricultural institutions in the context of EU FAP and the UNFCCC (Figure 1). The figure
demonstrates that at the moment there is no direct link between the EU FAP and the
UNFCCC negotiations. The exchange of experiences between the SFC and the EU LULUCF
expert group, which is a group under and reporting to the WPIEI, would establish this
connection and could thus help to increase the effectiveness of EU FAP Key Action 6. To
have an effect through exchange of experiences within any member state, there should be a
link between the national SFC representative and UNFCCC focal point responsible for FCCC
negotiations (or the national LULUCF expert(s)). The figure however shows that SFC
70
members represent usually the ministries that are responsible for agriculture, and UNFCCC
issues at the member states are under ministries of environment. Furthermore, although DG
ENV is one of the main actors on the Objective 2 of the EU FAP, the unit C.1 Climate
Strategy, international negotiation and monitoring of EU action is not expressly involved
with the EU Forest Action Plan. This missing or intransparent link between the SFC as an
advisory organ in forestry matters on the one hand and those who are taking principle
decisions that affect the forest sector on the other hand, presents an issue that should be
addressed. Without the link it will be hard for the EU FAP or the FSC to have a structured
impact on EU compliance with agreements in the context of the UN FCCC. More detail on
the role of the organizations shown in the figure is described in the Annex A to this case
study.
71
programming of research topics and calls at DG RTD also on climate change issues. It could
also take a more proactive role on this, as it can draw on a lot of national as well as
international experience. The SFC is also well positioned to further stimulate cross-boundary
cooperation and exchange of experiences between countries and regions. There should be
formal consultation processes with stakeholders to also give them a chance to contribute on
this important topic.
References
Annual compilation and accounting report for Annex B Parties under the Kyoto Protocol
FCCC/KP/CMP/2008/9/Rev.1
(http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2008/cmp4/eng/09r01.pdf)
Communication from the Commission Progress Towards Achieving the Kyoto Objectives,
COM(2008)651final/2
Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European parliament on an EU
Forest Action Plan, COM(2006) 302 final
Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, The
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.
Winning the Battle Against Global Climate Change COM(2005)35final
Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, The
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.
Limiting Global Climate Change to 2 degrees Celsius: The way ahead for 2020
and beyond" COM(2007)2final
Communication from the Commission to the European parliament, the Council, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. 20 20 by
2020 Europes Climate Change Opportunity, COM(2008)30final
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, The
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.
Towards a comprehensive climate change agreement in Copenhagen
COM(2009)39final
Detailed AGFC meeting minutes March 1st, 2004 February 20th, 2009 (total 13 meetings)
Detailed SFC meeting minutes for meetings no. 94 (27 June 2006) no. 106 (1 October
2008) and no. 108 (23 February 2009), summary report of the meeting no.109 (56 May 2009)
Draft minutes of the 21st meeting of the inter-service group on forestry, Brussels, 5 February
2009
Draft Work Plan of the SFC ad hoc Working Group on Climate Change and Forestry, 2009
EU FAP mid-term evaluations questionnaires and interviews (COM services, MS,
stakeholders)
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report - Climate Change 2007. Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change 2007.
Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, United
Nations 1998.
Lindner, M., Garcia-Gonzalo, J., Kolstrm, M., Green, T., Reguera, R., Maroschek, M.,
Seidl, R., Lexer, M.J., Netherer, S., Schopf, A., Kremer, A., Delzon, S., Barbati,
A., Marchetti, M. and Corona, P. 2008. AGRI-2007-G4-06. Impacts of Climate
Change on European Forests and Options for Adaptation. Report to the European
Commission Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development
72
Standing Forestry Committee 2008 and 2009 work programmes for implementation of the
EU Forest Action Plan
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, United Nations 1992.
White paper - Adapting to climate change: Towards a European framework for action
COM(2009)147final
Work Programme for Implementation of the EU Forest Action Plan (2007-2011)
Websites:
DG AGRI Forestry website:
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/index_en.htm
DG Environment Climate Change website:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/home_en.htm
Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural development (DG AGRI) website:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/agriculture/index_en.htm
Directorate General for Energy and Transport (DG TREN) website:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/index_en.htm
Directorate General for Enterprise and Industry (DG ENTR) website:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/index_en.htm
Directorate General for Environment (DG ENV) website:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/environment/index_en.htm
EP Intergroup on climate change and biodiversity (EP/ICCB) website:
http://www.ebcd.org/ISDA1.html
EU Climate Action website: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/home_en.htm
European Climate Change Programme (ECCP) website:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/eccp.htm
European Environment Agency website:
http://www.eea.europa.eu/
Former Temporary Committee on Climate Change (CLIM) website:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/staticDisplay.do?language=
EN&id=180
Joint Research Centre (JRC) website:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/index.cfm
73
Annex A. Role of the EU and Member State organizations concerning climate change in the
EU FAP and the UNFCCC. These are descriptions of the different environment, agriculture
and/or forestry institutions involved in discussions and decision making process, as illustrated
in the Figure 1.
European Parliament
EP Inter-group on Climate Change and Biodiversity EP/ICCB, 7 subgroups, (former
intergroup on sustainable Development, renamed February 2009)
o Recognizing that the well-being of humankind is severely affected by climate
change and the loss of global biodiversity, the Intergroup on Climate Change
and Biodiversity aims to constitute a cross-sectoral political platform to lead
the integration of these issues in the legislative activity of the European
Parliament.
Former Temporary Committee on Climate Change (CLIM, May 2007-February 2008)
o Members: 60 MEPs, tasks to formulate proposals on the EUs future integrated
policy on climate change and to coordinate the Parliaments position in the
negotiations regarding the international framework for climate policy after 2012; to
analyze and evaluate the application, to date, of relevant Community legislation; to
that end, to make the necessary contacts and hold hearings with the parliaments and
governments of the Member States and third countries, the European Institutions
and international organizations, as well as representatives of the scientific
community, business and civil society, including the networks of local and
regional authorities
o WG 1 annual inventories: Improvement of quality of MS and EC GHG
inventories, exchange of experiences, evaluation of EC inventory system
European Commission
Interservice Group on Forestry (ISG-F)
o chaired and managed by DG AGRI, with representation of in total 16 directorates
general, was established to ensure the flow of information and for seeking
agreement between departments
Interservice Group on International Forestry (ISG-IF)
o chaired by DG ENV, preparation of Commission positions in international issues
DG Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI)
o Coordination of FAP, several units involved in FAP (at least Unit G.4 Preaccession assistance to agriculture and rural development, Unit L.4 Evaluation of
74
DG Environment (ENV)
o Several units of the DG ENV involved in FAP, at least Unit B.1 (Agriculture,
forests and soil) and Directorate E (International affairs and LIFE), coordination
of FAP Objective 2
o Overall responsibility for EC GHG Inventory
o Unit C.1 Climate Strategy, international negotiation and monitoring of EU action
Artur Runge-Metzger Chief Climate Negotiator of the European
Commission
75
List of contents
1. Introduction
2. Scope of the study
3. Intersectoral Coordination Capacity Scale
4. Commission DGs and the EU FAP Key Actions
5. Conclusions
References
77
78
78
82
84
85
1.
77
Introduction
Policy co-ordination and coherence are given a high priority in the EU Forest Action Plan:
building on the EU forestry strategy, the Action Plan aims at providing a framework for
forest-related actions at the Community and Member State levels and serving as an
instrument of coordination between the Community actions and the forest policies of the
Member States. Furthermore, it aims at strengthening coherence between the forest-related
EU policies and initiatives and to enhance coordination within the Commission.
Based on the feedback and perceptions collected in the mid-term evaluation there are
different expectations as to what an improved coordination is and what it aims at. Response
from the Commission departments and services, Member States and stakeholders shows that
the very concept of coordination differs. Coordination can be understood, for example, as a
one-way hierarchical process of directing action, as a two-way dialogue of sharing and
gaining information about parallel actions, or as a multiple level collaboration process of
dialogue and feedback in preparing positions and future actions. None of these descriptions of
coordination is more right or wrong, but the feedback in the mid-term evaluation shows
that the different understandings of coordination mean different starting points for
implementing the EU FAP. The fact that it is not clear what should be coordinated, how
and/or by whom and why, can impede achievement of the objectives set for the Action Plan.
In the mid-term evaluation interviews and questionnaire responses e.g. the following
examples of shortcomings of coordination and implications of lacking coordination were
brought up:
- It is difficult to direct the Member States to work towards the international
commitments that the EU has: there are no legal bases for pushing the outcome from
international agreements and processes into action for e.g. forest monitoring or more
active participation in the EU FLEGT.
- There is a lack of coordination within the Commission: the legislative processes and
initiatives in other sectors do not recognize the effect they have on the forest sector in
the EU e.g. sustainability indicators for different forest products are prepared in
parallel in several DGs.
- It is not clear how the national forest programmes (NFP) relate to the EU Forest
Action Plan.
- The linkage between the European level good intentions and the implementation in
the Member States is weak: the principles of national forest programmes, sustainable
forest management and multiple functions of forests are signed for by the Member
States and the EU, but this does not lead to dissemination of good practices e.g. in
engaging stakeholders and the civil society in planning and implementation of
NFP/RFPs in the Member States.
- There is a need to define competences within the Commission for the international
meetings, e.g. the statements and positions presented in the UNECE/FAO meetings.
The case study does not allow investigating all aspects of coordination that the EU FAP aims
at affecting. Coordination between international and national (and subnational) levels would
be worth separate case studies, as well as coordination between the interrelated sectors. As
discussed in the evaluation Steering Group meeting in May 2009 the case study elaborates
78
further the analysis on coordination within Commission, i.e. between the Directorate
Generals (DGs) involved in the implementation of the EU FAP. The study report has been
revised in accordance with the comments of the Steering Group of the mid-term evaluation in
July 2009.
2.
The aim of the case study is to provide information how the Commission DGs are involved in
the implementation of the EU FAP, how the EU FAP aims at improving coordination and
coherence within Commission and what challenges there are for achieving the objective of
improved coordination.
Conceptual framework for the analysis is the intersectoral coordination capacity scale, which
is used to illustrate what kind of coordination capacities there are within the Commission for
the implementation of the EU FAP, and what are the mechanisms and instruments how the
EU FAP strengthens coordination of the forest-related Community actions. Similar analysis
could be made at national level in the EU Member States i.e. what mechanisms and
instruments there are to improve coherence between forest policy and other policy areas, and
how these mechanisms and instruments contribute to improved coherence in policy
formulation and decision making at the EU level. This case study covers only the
coordination within the Commission.
The EU FAP mid-term evaluation report describes how the EU FAP has been implemented in
the Commission and what kind of actions, initiatives and for example studies have been
carried out in the Commission in support of the EU FAP. The descriptions do not indicate
which departments (Commission DGs) have been involved in which activity of the EU FAP.
This case study aims at providing more detailed information on the Commission DGs
involvement in the EU FAP.
The case study report should not be understood as a description how the EU Commission
functions or how the Commission has organised its work for the implementation of the EU
FAP. The role of the Commission departments and services in the EU FAP Key Actions is
described based on the information collected in the mid-term evaluation in other words, the
description is based on the mid-term evaluation team observations from the document review
and from the information and assessments collected in the interviews and questionnaires.
3.
The Intersectoral Coordination Capacity Scale by Metcalf (in Hogl 2002b based on Metcalfe
1994 and 1997, OECD 1996) provides a qualitative scale to assess capacity of coordination.
The scale was developed for assessment and comparison of different governments
coordination capacity. It is based on the accumulation of coordination capacities from
autonomously acting policy areas, through informing and consultation to higher levels of
coordination by defining institutional structures, such as joint committees to avoid conflicting
views, arbitration systems to resolve intersectoral differences, agreements to define limits for
sectoral activities, and furthermore, common agreement on binding priorities (see Table 1).
The accumulation of capacities means that failure on lower level capacities hampers the
79
success in higher levels: if there are commonly agreed binding priorities for the policy areas,
but there is no information sharing or consultation between the responsible actors, resources
will be needed to solve problems raised due to e.g. duplication of work, conflicts between
different actions, as well as topics left in the margin between specific responsibility areas. In
other words, the lower level capacities (e.g. communication and consultation) need to exist
and be reliable in order to make the higher levels (e.g. arbitration between conflicting views
or setting of binding priorities) work effectively and efficiently (Metcalf 1996). Higher level
coordination is not an aim as such: level of coordination should be matched with the needs of
the situation, and if issues can be handled in the lower levels that should be the aim. In the
following table the intersectoral coordination capacity scale is utilised to illustrate the
institutional arrangements in place for the implementation of the EU FAP.
The Table 1 illustrates how the mechanisms and instruments utilised in the implementation of
the EU FAP build up the coordination capacities as these capacities are defined in the eight
steps of the Intersectoral Coordination Capacity Scale.
Table 1: EU FAP mechanisms and institutional arrangements according to the Inter-Sectoral Co-ordination
Capacity Scale (modified from Hogl 2002b based on Metcalfe 1994 and 1997, OECD 1996).
Step 8 Establishing an overall inter-sectoral strategy.
(This step is added for the sake of completeness, but is
unlikely to be attainable in practice)
Step 7 Establishing commonly agreed or binding
priorities:
Inter-sectoral agreement to common priorities and/or high-inhierarchy level (of government) lays down the main lines of
policy and establishes cross-sector priorities.
80
81
The EU FAP aims at improving coordination and coherence in forest-related matters at all
levels. The Key Action 14 concerns coordination within the Commission, and includes three
activities (see Table 2).
Table 2: EU FAP Key Action 14.
Key action 14: Strengthen coordination between policy areas in forest-related matters
Activity
Leading
TimeWorking method /
Actor
frame
instrument
14.1 Appoint a co-ordinator for forest- COM
2007
Internal procedures of
related policies in each relevant
Commission.
Directorate-General
14.2 Regularly inform the SFC of the
COM
2007Presentations by
initiatives and actions in different
2011
Commission services at
policy areas that are of relevance
the SFC sessions.
to the work of the Committee
14.3 Strengthen the role of the InterCOM
2007Contribute to the
Service Group on Forestry
2011
development of a work
programme 2007-2011
for implementation of
the FAP; review the
working methods of the
group.
Output/result
List presented to the SFC.
By the mid-term in 2009, most activities have been carried out as defined in the EU FAP
work programme. Coordinators or rather contact persons in the relevant DGs have been
appointed and the list of contact persons has been presented to the SFC in 2007. There are 14
DGs in the contact list, thus the same DGs as in the ISG on forestry, excluding DG ENLARG
and SG. The list indicates the name of the contact person, position, DG and Unit. The list
does not give information on a specific field of operation in relation to the EU FAP or its Key
Actions, activities or topics. The SFC and the AGFC are regularly informed about
developments on relevant policy areas by the respective DGs, for example, the forest-based
industry related matters by DG ENTR, biomass by DG TREN, biodiversity goals by DG
ENV and so on. The ISG on forestry participated in preparing the SFC work programme
2007-2011. DG AGRI drafts the SFC annual work programmes and the draft is discussed at
the ISG on forestry before it is finalised in the SFC together with the Member States. To the
knowledge of the evaluation team the working methods of the group have not been reviewed
so far (activity 14.3).
According to the logic of the intersectoral coordination scale, the failures in coordination
could be avoided or alleviated and solved with the capacities available in the lower levels of
coordination. The above description shows that in principle there are lower-level capacities
built up for implementation of the EU FAP, and the Action Plan itself has created and
strengthened the mechanisms to improve coordination. This is also confirmed in the mid-term
evaluation interviews with the Commission representatives: coordination within Commission
has improved due to the implementation of the EU FAP. There is a structured manner to
communicate and share information between parallel initiatives and actions. The EU FAP
work programme 2007-2011 gives a framework to the discussions, and the themes defined
for the annual SFC work programmes can be utilised to mobilise a specific area of expertise
to participate in the implementation of the EU FAP (incl. information sharing to the SFC and
AGFC).
However, the feedback from Member States shows practical examples where the
coordination has not functioned but the initiatives prepared in different DGs have led to
contradicting requirements to the forest sector (e.g. sustainaibility criteria to forest products).
Also two parallel interservice groups for coordination of forest-related matters in the
82
Commission raise questions. Member States and stakeholders point out that although the
coordination within the Commission has improved, there is not a holistic enough approach to
the forest sector. The increased demands for forests, e.g. by the renewable energy,
biodiversity and other targets would require more coherence at all levels of coordination,
including the initiatives and actions within the Commission.
4.
There are 18 Key Actions in the EU FAP, under the main responsibility of DG AGRI, with
environment related issues in coordination with DG ENV and forest-based industry related
issues in association with DG ENTR. The ISG on forestry includes representatives of 16
DGs. The following table summarises how the 16 DGs of the ISG on forestry are involved in
the implementation of the EU FAP Key Actions. The description is based on information
collected in the mid-term evaluation. In other words, this is not an official definition of tasks.
Neither should it be read as an exhaustive but rather as an illustrative presentation on how the
Commission DGs are involved in the implementation of the EU FAP.
SG
dg enlarg
dg comp
dg regio
dg markt
dg empl
dg trade
dg dev
dg rtd
dg estat
jrc
dg entr
dg sanco
dg env
dg tren
dg agri
Objective 3 quality
Objective 2 environment
of life
Objective 1 competitiveness
Table 3: Involvement of Commission DGs in the implementation of the EU FAP Key Actions (KA),
including indication of the role in implementation of the EU forestry strategy (ref. 2001).
Forestry
strategy
(ref.2001)
X
X
X
X
X
DG ENV (+DG
AGRI)
DG ENV & DG
AGRI
X
X
DG ENV
X
DG ENV
X
X
X
X
DG AGRI & DG
ENV +DG ENTR
DG AGRI
DG AGRI & DG
ENV +DG ENTR
DG ENV & DG
AGRI +DG ENTR
DG AGRI
83
DG ENTR
DG TREN
DG SANCO
JRC
DG ESTAT
DG RTD
DG DEV
DG TRADE
DG EMPL
DG MARKT
DG REGIO
DG COMP
DG ENLARG
SG
general follow-up of the EU forestry strategy; all EU FAP objectives 1-4, though objective 2
under DG ENV coordination, and objective 3 not started (Member State initiative)
coordination of the EU FAP Objective 2; and involvement also in objective 1 (KA 1-4: green
credential as comparative advantage to forest sector; energy efficiency and environmental
friendly production technologies; nwfgs valuation; biomass sustainability criteria) and
objective 4 (KA16-17: international processes; GPP and FLEGT) All in all about ten DG ENV
units are involved in the EU FAP themes.
issues related to forest-based industries i.e. Objective 1 (globalisation, RTD incl. FTP, energy,
wood mobilisation, nwfgs) and objective 4 (KA17 FBI communication); partly involved also
in Objective 2 (incl. KA6.3 climate change study steering group) and Objective 3 (public
perceptions, forest-based industries).
energy issues, mainly involvement in objective 1 KA4 (renewable energy RES, Biomass
Action Plan and national BAPs), but also KA2 (Biofuel Technology Platform and research
related matters by another unit within DG TREN) and KA17 (sustainable use of resources).
issues in relation to plants and seeds (incl. nwfgs), plant health, pests and phytosanitary
questions in principle in all objectives 1-4 (DG SANCO covers also consumer protection
issues)
contribution to Objectives 2 and 4 (forest monitoring, data and information systems, EFICP);
marginal involvement in Objective 1 (e.g. nwfgs & information provision), specific studies
no direct contribution (production & trade data, forest accounts; UNECE/FAO data; JRC data)
objective 1 (KA2), possibly research in other themes too in relation to objectives 1-3 (KA11)
no direct involvement: Flegt, global and development issues
no direct involvement: Flegt, trade negotiations, third countries
no direct involvement (in principle relevant in relation to Objective 3 e.g. tourism and forests
for recreational purposes; in relation to objective 1 Social Dialogue Committees; in relation to
objective 4 PP guidelines and sustainability indicators)
no direct involvement (terms of reference of SFC Working Group on Public Procurement of
Timber)
no direct involvement (financing of cohesion policy and regional projects; ERDF,
INTERREG, EUSF, topics e.g. natural risk prevention, fire, RES incl. wood biomass, climate
change, protective functions)
no direct involvement (competition policy, State Aid etc. questions)
(preaccession negotiations and instruments, Sapard)
(coordination and coherence)
The EU FAP refers to several parallel Community Actions (e.g. the Biomass Action Plan, the
Biodiversity Action Plan, the FLEGT Action Plan and the FBI communication). These
actions are coordinated by different Commission DGs. Building the parallel actions towards a
more holistic approach to the EU forest sector is not a task that can be accomplished by
improving the coordination within the Commission only. The more holistic approach would
need to build up in all levels of coordination and policy formulation in the EU.
The mid-term evaluation feedback showed that there are also themes and topics in the EU
FAP Work Programme which are not easy to place under one specific sector of operation.
These themes fall between several sectors not only in the operation of the Commission, but
also at the national level between several Ministries. An example of such theme is the
environmental education, which covers environment, education and SFM questions but has
also to do with promoting the forest sector and the forest products and services, thus
including the FBI-related communication questions. Another example is the forest science
forum, which falls between the administrative sectors of research and forests, again including
84
forestry as well as forest-based sector at large. It is not clear who should act as a leading actor
in these themes, and how an initiative would become a part of the EU FAP. For example, the
Forest Communicators Network is an existing structure outside the EU FAP, but it has
defined as one of its goals to support the EU FAP Key Action 10 environmental education
and the Key Action 18 forest sector communication strategy. Two DGs participate in the
network (DG AGRI and DG ENTR), but the network seems to remain as a parallel activity to
the EU FAP.
Furthermore, the same question comes apparent with regard to the EU FAP themes which
would interest several Member States, but not necessarily all EU27, and even so, not
necessarily as a national, but more likely as a sub-national theme. The Key Action 9 aims at
forming groupings of Member States to study particular regional problems with the condition
of forests. Also the EU FAP Objective 3 themes on e.g. mountain forests, water and soil
protection or the themes of urban and peri-urban forests would be interesting for several
countries, but there is no specific method or procedure as to how a regional activity could be
an EU FAP activity. This issue is not directly about coordination within the Commission, but
coordination within the Commission is needed to define the solutions how to trigger Member
State action and to give institutional support (incl. identification of possible means for
financing of such groupings). The themes and topics might already be found in the NFPs in
the Member States, but the EU FAP or the EU Forestry Strategy does not give the
Commission further building blocks to define the actions for the EU FAP goals. Initiative
would need to come from the Member States.
5.
Conclusions
There are structures and mechanisms to improve coordination within the EU Commission,
and the EU FAP has created and strengthened them e.g. by creating structured information
sharing mechanisms. The forest-related issues are handled in several policy areas, and it is
crucial to target for a more coherent approach. This would require more efficient use of the
existing structures and mechanisms for cooperation and coordination also within the
Commission.
In order to make the EU FAP to achieve its goals, the different levels of operation i.e. the EU
and its institutions, Member States, but also sub-national level actors and the stakeholders
would need to be mobilised for the exercise. This requires collaborative partnership. The
definition of coordination can be understood in several ways but ownership of an EU
Action can be built only in an open dialogue and with a participatory approach.
85
References
Mid-term evaluation surveys: information collected with the interviews and questionnaires
(Commission, Member States and stakeholders)
Mid-term evaluation document reviews:
Inter service group on forestry meetings 2006-2009
Standing Forestry Committee meetings 2006-2009
Advisory Committee on Forestry and Cork meetings 2006-2009
EU FAP multiannual work programme 2007-2011
COM(2006) 302 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament on an EU Forest Action Plan, 15.6.2006; with Commission Staff
Working Document. Annex to the Communication on an EU Forest Action Plan
SEC(2006) 748
Commission Decision (Procdure crite no. E/2318/2001, 10.-12.12.2001) with the annexed
Draft agreement between DG Agriculture, DG Environment and DG Enterprise
concerning the continuation of the two forest protection measures and the
distribution of responsibilities for the EU Forestry Strategy Division of
competencies within the Commission (DG ENV and DG AGRI, Dec.2001)
Council conclusions on an EU Forest Action Plan (Agriculture and Fisheries Council on May
30 and 31, 2005)
Council Resolution on a Forestry Strategy for the European Union, 15 December 1998,
(1999/C 56/01)
Domnguez, Gloria and Eduard Plana (2002) The Status of Inter-sectoral Co-ordination in
SFM in Catalonia Lessons Learnt from an Experimental Qualitative Research
Design. EFI Proceedings No. 46, 2002.
European Parliament (2006): Report on the implementation of a European Union forestry
strategy (2005/2054(INI)). Rapporteur: Heinz Kindermann, Committee on
Agriculture and Rural development, 31.1.2006 (A6-0015/2006).
Hogl, Karl (2002a) Background Paper on Inter-Sectoral Co-ordination. Contribution to
COST Action E19 National forest programmes in the European Context.
Hogl, Karl (2002b) Reflections on Inter-Sectoral Co-ordination in NFP Processes COST
Action E19
Metcalfe, Les (1996) Building Capacities for Integration: The Future Role of the
Commission. Professor of Public Management/Director of Research, EIPA.
Lecture given at the Schuman-Seminar: 'Maastricht in Maastricht, the Treaty
Revisited', held at the Provincial Government House, Maastricht (NL) on 13 May
1996.
Plzl, Helga and Eva Nussbaumer (2006) Study about "Modes of governance" for European
Forest Policy (coordination, co-operation, and communication) University of
Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences Vienna, Institute of Forest,
Environmental, and Natural Resource Policy, Department of Economics and
Social Sciences for the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment
and Water Management of Austria
Zingerli, Claudia, Kurt Bisang and Willi Zimmermann (2004) Towards Policy Integration:
Experiences with intersectoral coordination in international and national forest
policy.
87
This list of materials was compiled as part of the EU FAP mid-term evaluation. Materials are grouped
by the 11 Evaluation Questions defined for the analysis.
List of contents
Evaluation Questions 1-2: Key Actions 1-5 (EU FAP Objective 1)
Evaluation Question 3: Key Actions 6-7 (EU FAP Objective 2)
Evaluation Question 4: Key Actions 8-9 (EU FAP Objective 2)
Evaluation Question 5: Key Actions 10-12 (EU FAP Objective 3)
Evaluation Question 6: Key Action 13 (EU FAP Objective 4)
Evaluation Question 7: Key Action 14 (EU FAP Objective 4)
Evaluation Question 8: Key Actions 15 and 17 (EU FAP Objective 4)
Evaluation Question 9: Key Action 16 (EU FAP Objective 4)
Evaluation Question 10: Key Action 18 (EU FAP Objective 4)
Evaluation Question 11: Relevance of the EU FAP
89
91
93
94
95
96
96
97
98
99
89
90
91
92
European Environment Agency (2008) European Forests ecosystem conditions and sustainable use.
EEA Report 3/2008.
European Environment Agency (2009) Progress towards the European 2010 biodiversity target. EEA
Report No 4/2009.
European Parliament resolution of 4 February 2009 on 2050: The future begins today recommendations for the EUs future integrated policy on climate change
(2008/2105(INI)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) IPCC Fourth Assessment Report - Climate
Change 2007 (AR4).
Lindner, M., Garcia-Gonzalo, J., Kolstrm, M., Green, T., Reguera, R., Maroschek, M., Seidl, R.,
Lexer, M.J., Netherer, S., Schopf, A., Kremer, A., Delzon, S., Barbati, A., Marchetti, M.
and Corona, P. 2008. AGRI-2007-G4-06. Impacts of Climate Change on European
Forests and Options for Adaptation. Report to the European Commission DirectorateGeneral for Agriculture and Rural Development
[http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/external/euro_forests/full_report_en.pdf]
MCPFE (2007) State of Europes Forests 2007. The MCPFE Report on Sustainable Forest
Management in Europe. Jointly prepared by the MCPFE Liaison Unit Warsaw, UNECE
and FAO. Warsaw, 2007.
UNFCCC (1992) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, United Nations 1992.
[http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf]
UNFCCC (1998) Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,
United Nations 1998. [http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf]
UNFCCC (2008) FCCC/KP/CMP/2008/9/Rev.1 Annual compilation and accounting report for Annex
B Parties under the Kyoto Protocol
[http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2008/cmp4/eng/09r01.pdf]
UNFCCC (2009) A compilation of proposals by Parties for aggregate and individual figures for
Annex I Parties, Non-paper by the Co-Chairs of the Contact Group on paragraphs 49 (a)
and (b) of the of the report of the AWG-KP at its resumed sixth session version of
120609 http://unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/2nd_nonpaper_cg_numbers.pdf]
Workshops:
Informal meeting of EU Environment Ministers under the Slovenian Presidency, Brdo, Slovenia on
11-12 April 2008.
[http://www.eu2008.si/en/Meetings_Calendar/Dates/April/0411_ENV.html]
Websites:
Commission website on forestry measures [http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/]
Commission website on climate change [http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/home_en.htm]
Commission website of the Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural development
[http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/agriculture/index_en.htm]
Commission website of the Directorate General for Energy and Transport
[http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/index_en.htm]
Commission website of the Directorate General for Environment
[http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/environment/index_en.htm]
Commission website of the Directorate General for Enterprise and Industry
[http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/index_en.htm]
Convention on Biological Diversity [http://www.cbd.int/]
COST European Cooperation in Science and Technology: FPS Domain Forests, their Products and
Services [http://www.cost.esf.org/domains_actions/fps]
FP0703 Expected Climate Change and Options for European Silviculture (ECHOES); [http://www.gipecofor.org/publi/page.php?id=2&rang=0&domain=37&lang=en_GB]
FP0903 Climate Change and Forest Mitigation and Adaptation in a Polluted Environment
[http://w3.cost.esf.org/index.php?id=143&action_number=FP0903]
EU Biodiversity Action Plan
93
[http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/index_en.htm]
EU Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) [http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/]
European Climate Change Programme (ECCP)
[http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/eccp.htm]
European Environment Agency [http://www.eea.europa.eu/]
European Parliament: EP Intergroup on climate change and biodiversity EP/ICCB
[http://www.ebcd.org/ISDA1.html]
European Parliament: Former Temporary Committee on Climate Change CLIM
[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/staticDisplay.do?language=EN&i
d=180]
GreenForce Network [http://ec.europa.eu/environment/greenforce/index_en.htm]
JRC Forest [http://forest.jrc.ec.europa.eu/]
LIFE+ [http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/funding/lifeplus.htm]
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol [http://unfccc.int/]
Evaluation Question 4: Key Actions 8-9 (EU FAP Objective 2)
Meeting minutes of the SFC, AGFC and ISG on forestry.
Work programme of the EU FAP 2007-2011 and the Work programmes of SFC 2007, 2008 and 2009.
Baltic-Nordic Forestry Statistic Project. Minutes of the Meetings.
Commission of the European Communities (2008) Report from the Commission to the Council and
the European Parliament on the implementation of the Forest Focus scheme according to
Regulation (EC) No 2152/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17
November 2003 concerning monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the
Community (Forest Focus). COM(2008) 6 final, 22.1.2008 and the annexed Commission
Staff Working Document {SEC(2008) 30}
Commission of the European Communities (2008) Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament and the Council on Reinforcing the Union's Disaster Response
Capacity. COM(2008) 130 final, 5.3.2008.
Commission of the European Communities (2009) Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and
the Committee of the Regions on A Community approach on the prevention of natural
and man-made disasters. COM(2009) 82 final, 23.2.2009.
European Commission (2009) Report on implementation of Forestry Measures under the Rural
Development Regulation 1698/2005 for the period 2007-2013. DG Agriculture and rural
Development, H.4, March 2009.
[http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/publi/forestry_rurdev_2007_2013_en.pdf]
Mateus, P., 2008: Forest fires: global challenge, local solutions, Presentation at the OPEN-DAYS
Workshop Prevention of natural and man-made disasters: global challenge, local
solutions Open Days European Week of Regions and Cities, Brussels, 6-9 October
2008
Regulation (EC) No 2152/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003
concerning monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the Community
(Forest Focus) (OJ L 324, 11.12.2003, p. 1-8)
Requardt, A. (2007): Pan-European Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management:
Networking Structures and Data Potentials of International Data Sources, PhD Thesis,
University of Hamburg (UHH), Institute for World Forestry, p.228 [ http://www.sub.unihamburg.de/opus/volltexte/2007/3430/]
Requardt, A., Khl, M., Schuck, A., Poker, J., Janse, G., Mavsar, R., Pivinen, R., (2007): Feasibility
Study on means of combating forest dieback in the European Union, EC DG ENV
94
95
Janse, G., Konijnendijk, C.C. (2007) Communication between science, policy and citizens in public
participation in urban forestry - Experiences from the Neighbourwoods project. Urban
Forestry & Urban Greening 6 (1): 23-40.
Konijnendijk, C.C., Nielsen, A.B., Schipperijn, J., Rosenblad, Y., Sander, H., Sarv, M., Mkinen, K.,
Tyrvinen, L., Donis, J., Gundersen, V., kerlund U. and Gustavsson, R. (2007)
Assessment of urban forestry research and research needs in Nordic and Baltic countries
in Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, Volume 6, Issue 4, 15 November 2007, Pages 297309.
UNECE/FAO Forest Communicators Network (2008) FCN Mandate 2008 to 2013. Proposal of
Bilbao, 15 May 2008 [http://www.unece.org/timber/pr/docs/2008-draft-mandate.pdf]
Websites:
Commission website on forestry measures [http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/]
Cost actions database [http://www.cost.esf.org/domains_actions/all_actions]
COST E33 Forests for Recreation and Nature Tourism
[http://www.openspace.eca.ac.uk/coste33/welcome.htm]
COST E39 Forests, Trees and Human Health and Wellbeing [http://www.e39.ee/]
EU Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) [http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/]
European Forum on Urban Forestry (EFUF) [http://www.efuf.org/]
European Network for Qualification in Forestry [http://www.enquafor.com/]
Interreg IVC projects [http://www.interreg4c.net/Projects.html] other INTERREG projects (20002006 and 2007-2013) from programme-specific webpages [further information from
http://www.interact-eu.net/etc/4]
Leonardo da Vinci project and product portal ADAM [http://www.adam-europe.eu/]
Life projects database [http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm]
LIFE+ [http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/funding/lifeplus.htm]
UNECE/FAO Forest Communicators Network [http://timber.unece.org/index.php?id=95]
Evaluation Question 6: Key Action 13 (EU FAP Objective 4)
Meeting minutes of the SFC, AGFC and ISG on forestry.
Work programme of the EU FAP 2007-2011 and the Work programmes of SFC 2007, 2008 and 2009.
Commission Decision (97/837/EC) of 9 December 1997 amending Decision 83/247/EEC setting up a
committee on Community policy regarding forestry and forestry-based industries. (OJ L
346, 17.12.1997, p. 95)
Council Decision (89/367/EEC) of 29 May 1989 setting up a Standing Forestry Committee. (OJ L
165, 15.6.1989, p. 14-15)
Commission Decision (2004/391/EC) of 23 April 2004 on the advisory groups dealing with matters
covered by the common agricultural policy. (OJ L 120, 24.4.2004, p. 50-60)
Websites:
Advisory Committee on Community Policy regarding forestry and forest based industries, meeting in
April 2009 [http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/forest_based/advisory_committee.html]
Commission website on forestry measures [http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/]
Commission website on transparency, incl. register of comitology and register of expert groups
[http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/index_en.htm]
Council of the European Union [http://www.consilium.europa.eu/]
Council of the European Union document register
[http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showPage.aspx?id=1279&lang=EN]
European Parliament document register
[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegWeb/application/registre/advancedSearch.faces]
96
EUR-LEX [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/]
EUR-LEX Process and players.
[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/droit_communautaire/droit_communautaire.htm]
Evaluation Question 7: Key Action 14 (EU FAP Objective 4)
Meeting minutes of the SFC, AGFC and ISG on forestry.
Work programme of the EU FAP 2007-2011 and the Work programmes of SFC 2007, 2008 and 2009.
List of contact persons in Commission DGs (SFC meeting materials 2007)
Commission internal documents and information
Websites:
Commission website on forestry measures [http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/]
Commission website on transparency, incl. register of comitology and register of expert groups
[http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/index_en.htm]
Commission Directory [http://ec.europa.eu/staffdir/plsql/gsys_page.display_index?pLang=EN]
Evaluation Question 8: Key Actions 15 and 17 (EU FAP Objective 4)
Meeting minutes of the SFC, AGFC and ISG on forestry.
Work programme of the EU FAP 2007-2011 and the Work programmes of SFC 2007, 2008 and 2009.
Commission of the European Communities (2001) European Governance A White paper
COM(2001) 428, 25.7.2001
Commission of the European Communities (2008) Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable
sources (presented by the Commission). COM(2008) 19 final, 23.1.2008, 2008/0016
(COD). {COM(2008) 30 final} {SEC(2008) 57} and {SEC(2008) 85}
Commission of the European Communities (2008) Communication from the Commission to the
Council and the European Parliament on innovative and sustainable forest-based
industries in the EU. A contribution to the EU's Growth and Jobs Strategy. COM(2008)
113 final, 27.2.2008. {SEC(2008) 262}
Commission of the European Communities (2008) Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and
the Committee of the Regions on Public procurement for a better environment.
COM(2008) 400 final, 16.7.2008. {SEC(2008) 2124} {SEC(2008) 2125} and
{SEC(2008) 2126}
Commission of the European Communities (2008) Communication from the Commission to the
Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions on Addressing the challenges of deforestation and forest
degradation to tackle climate change and biodiversity loss COM(2008) 645 final,
17.10.2008 with annexes {SEC(2008) 2618-2620}
Commission of the European Communities (2008) Proposal for a Regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council on laying down the obligations of operators who place
timber and timber products on the market (presented by the Commission). COM(2008)
644 final, 17.10.2008. 2008/0198 (COD). With {SEC(2008) 2615} and {SEC(2008)
2616}
97
Plzl, Helga and Nussbaumer, Eva (2006) Study about "Modes of governance" for European Forest
Policy (coordination, co-operation, and communication) University of Natural Resources
and Applied Life Sciences Vienna, Institute of Forest, Environmental, and Natural
Resource Policy, Department of Economics and Social Sciences for the Federal Ministry
of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management of Austria.
Workshops:
Conference on Setting criteria for sustainable timber in public procurement in Copenhagen, 7-8 April
2008 organised by the Danish Ministry of Environment together with the Commission.
Presentations available at:
[http://www.skovognatur.dk/International/English/Forestry/Presentations.htm]
FLEGT Industry Information Meeting, in Brussels, 4 December 2008 arranged by the Commission
[http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/forest_based/news_en.html#flegt]
Workshop on Public Procurement Policy on Wood and Wood-based Products in Brussels, 13 June
2008 organised by the Commission.
Websites:
Commission web site on forest-based industries
[http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/forest_based/index_en.html]
Commission website on forestry measures [http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/]
Commission website on forests [http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/home_en.htm]
Commission web site on Green Public procurement GPP
[http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/index_en.htm]
Commission website on Investing in European research: Open Method of Coordination
[http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/coordination/coordination01_en.htm]
Commission website on Public Procurement legislation
[http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/legislation_en.htm]
European Union Eco-label web site
[http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/index_en.htm]
Ministerial Conference on Protection of Forests (MCPFE) Working Group on exploring the potential
added value of and possible options for a legally binding agreement (LBA) on forests in
the pan-European region [http://www.mcpfe.org/]
United Nations Forum of Forests (UNFF) ad hoc expert groups
[http://www.un.org/esa/forests/adhoc.html]
Evaluation Question 9: Key Action 16 (EU FAP Objective 4)
Meeting minutes of the SFC, AGFC and ISG on forestry.
Work programme of the EU FAP 2007-2011 and the Work programmes of SFC 2007, 2008 and 2009.
Commission of the European Communities (2007) Communication from the Commission to the
Council concerning the European Community's participation in the fifth Ministerial
Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (Warsaw, 5-7 November 2007).
COM(2007) 597 final, 12.10.2007.
Commission of the European Communities (2008) Communication from the Commission to the
Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions on Addressing the challenges of deforestation and forest
degradation to tackle climate change and biodiversity loss COM(2008) 645 final,
17.10.2008 with annexes {SEC(2008) 2618-2620}
Commission of the European Communities (2008) Proposal for a Regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council on laying down the obligations of operators who place
timber and timber products on the market (presented by the Commission). COM(2008)
98
644 final, 17.10.2008. 2008/0198 (COD). With {SEC(2008) 2615} and {SEC(2008)
2616}
Websites:
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Forests [http://www.cbd.int/forest/]
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
[www.cites.org]
Commission website on forestry measures [http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/]
Commission website on forests [http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/home_en.htm]
Council of the European Union document register
[http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showPage.aspx?id=1279&lang=EN]
European and Mediterranean Plant protection Organisation (EPPO) [http://www.eppo.org]
European Parliament document register
[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegWeb/application/registre/advancedSearch.faces]
FAO Committee on Forests COFO [http://www.fao.org/forestry/37836/en/]
Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [www.ipcc.ch]
Ministerial Conference on Protection of Forests MCPFE [http://www.mcpfe.org/]
UNECE Timber Committee [http://timber.unece.org/index.php?id=2]
UNECE/FAO Teams of Specialists [http://timber.unece.org/index.php?id=145]
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) [http://www.unccd.int/main.php]
United Nations Forum of Forests UNFF [http://www.un.org/esa/forests/]
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
[http://unfccc.int/meetings/items/2654.php]
Evaluation Question 10: Key Action 18 (EU FAP Objective 4)
Janse G. (2007) Communication in forest policy decision-making in Europe: a study on
communication processes between policy, science and the public University of Joensuu,
Faculty of Forest Sciences, Academic dissertation. Dissertationes Forestales 48/2007.
Rametsteiner, E. and Kraxner, F. (2003) Europeans and Their Forests - What Do Europeans Think
About Forests and Sustainable Forest Management? A Review of Representative Public
Opinion Surveys in Europe. MCPFE 2003.
Rametsteiner, E., Oberwimmer, R. and Gschwandtl I. (2007) Europeans and Wood What Do
Europeans Think About Wood and its Uses? A Review of Consumer and Business
Surveys in Europe. MCPFE 2007
UNECE/FAO Forest Communicators' Network (2008) Best Practices in Forest Communication,
Edited G. Janse. June 2008.
Events:
European Forest Week web site [http://www.europeanforestweek.org/home/en/]
Forest Day 3 web site [http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/events/forestday3]
Green Week web site [http://greenweek2009.alligence.com/home.html]
International Year of Forests 2011 [http://www.un.org/esa/forests/2011/2011.html]
UNECE/FAO Forest Communicators' Network (FCN) Workshop in Support of the EU Forest Action
Plan Taking us out of the woods Communication on Forests and Forestry, June 3-5,
2009
Websites:
Commission web site on forest-based industries
[http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/forest_based/index_en.html]
Commission website on forest and illegal logging
[http://ec.europa.eu/development/policies/9interventionareas/environment/forest/forestry
_intro_en.cfm]
99
100
101
102
European Council (2006) Renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy. Adopted by the European
Council on 15/16 June 2006. European Council DOC 10917/06
European Economic and Social Committee (2006) Opinion of the European Economic and Social
Committee on the Commission Communication to the Council and to the European
Parliament Reporting on the implementation of the EU Forestry Strategy (OJ C 28,
3.2.2006 p. 57-65)
European Economic and Social Committee (2006) Opinion of the European Economic and Social
Committee on the Commission Communication to the Council and to the European
Parliament on an EU Forest Action Plan (OJ C 324, 30.12.2006, p. 29-22)
European Environment Agency (2008) European Forests ecosystem conditions and sustainable use.
EEA Report 3/2008.
European Parliament (1997): Report on the European Unions forestry strategy. Rapporteur: David E.
Thomas, Committee on Agriculture and Rural development, 18.12.1996 (A4-0414/96).
European Parliament (2006): Report on the implementation of a European Union forestry strategy
(2005/2054(INI)). Rapporteur: Heinz Kindermann, Committee on Agriculture and Rural
development, 31.1.2006 (A6-0015/2006).
European Parliament Fact Sheets (2008) Forestry policy: The European Forestry Strategy: Framework
& Principles and Action.
[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/expert/displayFtu.do?language=EN&id=74
&ftuId=index.html]
Lazdinis, M., Zimmermann, W. and Van de Velde, J. (2005): Participation in EU Forest governance:
Present institutional framework and a path for improvement. Paper presented in 2005
Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change
International Organisations and Global Environmental Governance, 2-3 December
2005, Berlin.
[http://web.fu-berlin.de/ffu/akumwelt/bc2005/papers/lazdinis_zimmermann_van-develde_bc2005.pdf]
Lazdinis, M. (2008): From the EU Forestry Strategy to the EU Forest Action Plan. Presentation in the
VI Forum on Forest Policy: Forests and Society in a Global Change Framework
Challenges and Opportunities, 4-6 November 2008, Solsona (Lleida, Spain).
[http://www.ctfc.es/forumpf08/docs/31ArticleLazdinisENG.pdf]
MCPFE (2007) State of Europes Forests 2007. The MCPFE Report on Sustainable Forest
Management in Europe. Jointly prepared by the MCPFE Liaison Unit Warsaw, UNECE
and FAO. Warsaw, 2007.
Plzl, Helga and Nussbaumer, Eva (2006) Study about "Modes of governance" for European Forest
Policy (coordination, co-operation, and communication) University of Natural Resources
and Applied Life Sciences Vienna, Institute of Forest, Environmental, and Natural
Resource Policy, Department of Economics and Social Sciences for the Federal Ministry
of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management of Austria.
Regulation (EC) 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on
maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin
and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC. (OJ L 70, 16.3.2005, p. 1-16)
Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the
European Regional Development Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999.
(OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p.1-11)
Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council of 18 December 2006
establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation. (OJ L 378, 27.12.2006,
p. 41-71)
Regulation (EC) No 614/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007
concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE+) (OJ L 149, 9.6.2007,
p. 1-17)
Rey, G. and Mah, M. (2005). Perspectives pour la stratgie forestire europenne Office National des
Forts, France. A study for the European Parliament Committee of Agriculture and Rural
Development. Full text in French, summary e.g. in English: Forest Strategy Outlook.
103
Websites
Commission web site on forest-based industries
[http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/forest_based/index_en.html]
Commission website on forestry measures [http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/]
Commission website on forests [http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/home_en.htm]
Convention on Biological Diversity [http://www.cbd.int/]
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
[http://www.cites.org/]
Council of the European Union document register
[http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showPage.aspx?id=1279&lang=EN]
European Economic and Social Committee document register
[http://europa.eu/documents/eesc/index_en.htm]
European Parliament document register
[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegWeb/application/registre/advancedSearch.faces]
Eurostat [http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home]
EUR-LEX [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/]
FAO forest facts by country [http://www.fao.org/forestry/country/en/]
Ministerial Conferences on the Protection of Forests in Europe MCPFE [http://www.mcpfe.org/]
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol [http://unfccc.int/]
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification [http://www.unccd.int/]
UNECE/FAO Timber section [http://timber.unece.org/index.php?id=2]
UNECE/FAO Forest Products Annual Market Reviews [http://www.unece.org/timber/mis/fpama.htm]
Statistics (ref. report Chapter 2)
Eurostat (2007) Forestry Statistics 2007 edition. Eurostat Pocket books.
Eurostat (2008) Production and trade of wood products in 2006. Eurostat statistics in focus 48/2008.
Eurostat (2008) Forest-based industries in the EU-27. Eurostat statistics in focus 74/2008.
Eurostat (2008) STAT/08/146, 20 October 2008 (press release in relation to the European Forest
Week 20-24 October 2008)
FAO (2006). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005. Main Report. FAO, Rome.
[http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra2005/en/]
MCPFE (2007) State of Europes Forests 2007. The MCPFE Report on Sustainable Forest
Management in Europe. Jointly prepared by the MCPFE Liaison Unit Warsaw, UNECE
and FAO. Warsaw, 2007.
MCPFE (2002) Relevant Definitions used. MCPFE Advisory Group Recommendations for Improved
Pan-European Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management (Supplement 2 to ELM
June 02 Document 8). Expert level Meeting, 10-11 June 2002, Vienna Austria.
[http://www.mcpfe.org/system/files/u1/meetings/02/06elm/Relevant_definitions.pdf]
UNECE/FAO (2009) Forest Products, Annual Market Review. Jointly prepared by UNECE and FAO,
New York and Geneva. [http://timber.unece.org/index.php?id=208]