booklet forest biodiversity

7/31/2019 Booklet Forest Biodiversity

1/21

Forest biodiversitySustainable investment or the beneft oboth people and nature


2/21

December 2011This report was prepared by:Francesc Cots, Forest Sciences Center of Catalonia

Authors:Francesc Cots and Denis Boglio, Forest Sciences

Center of Catalonia/ Gerald Plattner, Austrian Fe-

deral Forests/ Francisco Flores, DG Environmentof the Region of Murcia

Editors: Peter Torkler and Julia Steinert, WWF Ger-

many/ Colette Price, Countryside Council

for Wales

Layout:Communication Department, Forest Sciences

Center of Catalonia

Cover photo: Jordi Camprodon and David Guix

Printing:

Thank you to everybody who commented and

contributed to this report.

This report was published in 2011 by the SURF-nature project. www.surf-nature.eu

This project is funded by the EUs European

Regional Development Fund through the INTERREGIVC programme

Forest biodiversity

Content

Introduction

1. Facts about Europes forests

1.1 Forest ecosystems

1.2 General status

1.3 Key fndings relating to maintenance, conservation

and appropriate enhancement o biodiversity in orest

ecosystems

1.4 Pressures, threats and risks

1.5 EU Forest policy

2. EU Regional Funds for forest biodiversity

2.1 European unding or orest biodiversity

2.2 Regional Policy and orest biodiversity

2.3 Opportunities to improve regional unding or orest

biodiversity

3. Stakeholders views

4. Good Practices and innovative approaches

4.1 Project examples

4.2 Reccommendations or successul project implementatation

4.3 The Alpine Convention: an example o an innovative

regulatory approach

5. Conclusions and recommendations

6. References

4

6

6

6

8

11

13

15

15

17

20

21

24

24

29

30

32

35LD: L.287-2012ISBN: 978-84-695-2713-9


3/21

4 5

Introduction

About us

European unds provide opportunities to comple-

ment the fnancing o nature conservation mea-

sures in the Member States, contributing to the

preservation o precious natural assets and cultural

landscapes. The European approach or fnancing

Natura 2000 suggests that nature conservation

measures should be integrated into all EU unds.

The current unding period 2007-2013 has shown

good potential or fnancing the promotion o bio-

diversity and nature within the European Regional

Development Fund (ERDF). Indeed, 3.8 billion

have been allocated or nature investments across

all ERDF Operational Programmes. However, the

allocation o und varies enormously between pro-

jects and between countries across Europe.

In light o this, the Sustainable Use o Regional

Funds or Nature (SURF Nature) project has been

developed. The overall objective o the project is to

improve regional policies and practices or nature

conservation and biodiversity. This will be achieved

by increasing the opportunities or fnancing the-

se measures rom the ERDF, whilst giving them a

greater impact. The SURF partnership consists o 14

public bodies rom 10 EU countries which are res-

ponsible or the implementation o ERDF unding,

or have experience in applying or these unds.

Within the project, the partners chose one o fve

topics which also serve as their main ocus. The fve

topics or publication o thematic booklets or the

SURF Nature project are:

Sustainable Tourism

Natura 2000 Management

Green Inrastructure

Environmental Education

Forest and Biodiversity

All booklets will build a bridge between the topic

and the ERDF as a fnancing opportunity and con-

tain project examples or the thematic ocus rom

the partner regions as well as best practice case

studies.

The thematic booklet on forest biodiversity

This booklet addresses the issue o European un-

ding on the topic o orest biodiversity. Forests are

the shelter or a major part o European biodiver-

sity and their ecological unctions (protection o

soil, water quality, protection against erosion, etc.)

are crucial or our well being. Forests also protect

us rom multiple risks e.g. landslides, avalanches,

ooding, while ulflling numerous social unctions

providing leisure and aesthetic benefts to Euro-

pean citizens. With regard to climate change, o-

rests are a major carbon reservoir and play a main

role both mitigating and adapting to the eects o

burning ossil uels.

Among all these aspects, orest biodiversity and its

unctions are central topics that should be taken

into consideration in any activity or project that

is implemented in or in someway aects, orestry

areas. The ocus on these topics requires an unders-

tanding o orests as ecosystems that need to be

managed in an holistic way, putting the emphasis

on the ecosystem management approach instead

o other more sectoral and/or ragmented pers-

pectives. Funding o activities that support orest

biodiversity conservation should not constitute

a hindrance to the protective unction o these

ecosystems, and i easible should support the pre-vention o climate change eects, oods, fres or

other natural risks. Equally, unding o risk preven-

tion activities should recognise the intrinsic value o

local biodiversity and promote the implementation

o sustainable orest management techniques. In

some felds, the links between these topics are

more evident e.g. in the biological realm, where

maintaining species and genetic diversity addresses

the need to be prepared or whatever environmen-

tal changes might happen.

Chapter 1 o the booklet oers a general description

o the state o Europes orests including updated

data and statistics, detailing the status o biodiver-

sity and indicating the valuable services that thisecosystem provides to our society. Chapter 2 has

an overview o the current state o European un-

ding options or investment in orest biodiversity

with a specifc ocus on the opportunities oered

by regional unds (reerred to as ERDF: European

Regional Development Fund) fnancial ramework.

This chapter provides ideas or improvement or

the next unding period. Chapter 3 highlights the

most relevant quotes rom 6 interviews with Eu-

ropean orestry experts experienced in the imple-

mentation o ERDF unds. These interviews were

o great value in identiying the main barriers and

opportunities relating to, improving fnancing op-

portunities. Chapter 4 ocuses on good practices

and innovative approaches, showing three ERDF

examples illustrating the potential o Regional Poli-

cy to fnance orest biodiversity related projects and

gathering some recommendations or successul

project implementation. This chapter also includes

some relevant provisions o the Alpine convention

as an example o an innovative regulatory approach

which integrates orest biodiversity, risk preventionand other sustainable development considerations.

Finally, the conclusions in chapter 5 collect the most

relevant data and insights o the previous chapters

to bring orward the key messages and ormulate

some policy recommendations.


4/21

6 7

In order to give an overview o the situation on the

status o orest biodiversity the ollowing topics will

be presented:

1. Forest ecosystems

2. General status

3. Key fndings relating to maintenance,conservation and appropriate

enhancement o biodiversity in orest

ecosystems

4. Pressures, threats and risks

5. EU Forest Policy

There is no common defnition o orests agreed

among the Member States. In this section, the term

orest ecosystems includes woodland vegetation

comprising species orming orests o tall trees

with typical undergrowth, thereore the ollowing

orest types o Broadlea orests, Conierous orests,

Mixed orests and Transitional woodland-shrub areincluded. EU orests and other wooded areas now

cover 176 million ha, more than 42 % o the EU land

area.

Forest habitats play an important role or native

species diversity and biodiversity and also ulfl

many dierent unctions or the public beneft.

Table below shows that the services provided by

healthy orests range rom recreational benefts

to a real economic value including job creation.

However, there are signifcant dierences in orest

distribution and extent in dierent regions o the

EU. Currently, there is no major deorestation in

Europe and orest area increased slightly in most

countries between 1990 and 2005, partly due to

aorestation programmes and natural regeneration

on abandoned agricultural or ormerly grazed land.

The spatial orest pattern is changing locally due

to dierent dynamics such as loss o orest areas,

ragmentation o orest cover and thereore loss o

connectivity.

Because o their structural complexity, orests are

a key actor or biological diversity providing ideal

habitats or a huge number o plants, birds and

animals. However, these species are in many cases

highly dependent on the environmental quality

o orests, which has been reduced in the past ewdecades because o changes such as intensifed

silvicultural practices, the use o exotic species and

the resulting increase in uniormity.

Facts about Europes forests1.

Forest ecosystems1. 1

General status1. 2


5/21

8 9

The ollowing sections give an overview o the most important areas or orest biodiversity with felds o

special interest or the SURF project discussed more extensively. The inormation is mainly ocused on Natura

2000 sites and does not include data on all EU orests.

Protected forests

Protected areas are one o the oldest instruments or protecting nature and natural resources. Explicitly

designated protected areas ocus mainly on conserving the biological diversity, landscapes, natural

monuments and protective unctions o orests. In the EU, around 20.4 million hectares o orest (equivalent

to 13.0 % o the total area) were in protected areas in 2010. The Member States with the largest protected

orest areas were Italy, Germany and Spain. Protected orests make up a large share o the land area protected

under the Habitats Directive in several countries.

Within the Natura 2000 network, data or protected orests shows us that orest ecosystems cover about 46%

o the surace o Natura 2000 Sites, 42% are situated in Special Protection Areas (SPAs)and 48% in Sites

o Community Importance (SCIs).1 For Special protection areas (SPA)and Special Areas o Conservation

(SAC) the conservation status o species and habitats o European interest diers strongly between

biogeographical regions, but altogether more than hal the species and nearly two thirds o habitats have an

unavourable conservation status.

Conservation status o habitat types o European interest in orest ecosystems (statistics by region on the l et, overall statistics on theright); Note: Geographical coverage: EU except Bulgaria and Romania; number o assessments in brackets. Source: ETC/BD, 2008

1 Natura 2000, Corinne Land Cover (CLC) 2006 for the EU except Greece and the United Kingdom (where CLC 2000 was used).

Key ndings relating to maintenance, conservation andappropriate enhancement of biodiversity in forest ecosystems

1. 3

Conservation status o species o European interest in orest ecosystems (statistics by region on the let, overall statistics on the right)Note: Geographical coverage: EU except Bulgaria and Romania; number o assessments in brackets. Source: ETC/BD, 2008

The graph above shows that only 15% o the assessments o orest species o Natura 2000 relevance are in

avourable status and over 50% o the are in unavourable status. Also remarkable is that the percentage o

unknown assessments diers signifcantly among the dierent biogeographical regions. The Macaronesian

and Boreal regions show the highest percentage o avourable assessments (respectively 30 % and more

than 40 %).

Naturalness

Over 87% o orests in the 44 countries o the MCPFE (excluding

the Russian Federation) are semi-natural. Plantations cover about

8% o the orest area, located mainly in North West Europe, and

undisturbed orests cover about 5% o the orest area, located

mainly in East and Nordic/Baltic Europe. The degree o naturalness

o orests shows the intensity and history o human interventions.

Forests undisturbed by man have a high conservation value,especially when they orm large-scale continuous orest areas

allowing natural disturbance processes to occur. Undisturbed

orests also serve as reerence areas or understanding

ecological principles and contribute to the development o orest

management methods. The development o instruments to

secure and increase the naturalness o orests is one o the uture

challenges.Distribution (%) o orest area in the MCPFEregion excluding the Russian Federation byclasses o naturalness, 2005. Source: MCPF, 2007


6/21

0 11

Introduced tree species

In total, about 8.1 million hectares, or 5.2% o

the total orest area, is dominated by introduced

tree species o which 10% are dominated by

invasive species. Countries with the highest share

o introduced tree species are Ireland, Denmark,

Iceland, the UK, Hungary, Belgium, Luxembourg

and the Netherlands.

Deadwood

Deadwood in the orm o decaying wood as

standing and lying trees is a habitat or a wide range

o organisms, especially saproxylic species, and is

seen as an important component o biodiversity.

Ater humifcation, deadwood also constitutes an

important component o orest soils. During some

part o their lie cycle, some species are dependent

on dead or dying wood o moribund or dead trees,

or on wood-inhabiting ungi or invertebrate species.

Examples o species dependent on deadwood are

hole-nesting birds such as woodpeckers, several

orest-occurring beetle species, epixylic lichens and

bryophytes.

The amount o deadwood varies considerablybetween the orest types, the standing volume o

the stands, decaying rates, vegetation zones and

the level o management carried out in the orest.

In many orests, lack o deadwood endangers those

species that are dependent on it. However, in

some circumstances, accumulations o resh dying

deadwood may cause a risk o insect outbreaks.

Genetic resources

Genetic diversity is the ultimate source o biodiversity

at all levels. A loss o genetic diversity may have

negative consequences or general adaptation and

production, and may prevent adaptation o tree

populations in response to climate change and

reduce their capacity to fx CO2.

In Europe, a total o 135 tree species, subspecies and

hybrids are included in gene conservation and seed

production eorts, but most o these eorts are

targeted to a limited number o economically important

tree species as Fagus sylvatica, Picea abies and Pinus

sylvestris. In addition, the genetic resources o several

rare and endangered tree species are still inadequately

conserved and need urgent attention. Furthermore,

the marginal populations o many widely distributed

tree species are acing new threats at the edges o their

geographical range areas due to climate change.

Threatened species

The most recognizable orm o depletion o

biodiversity is the loss o plant and animal species.

Slowing down the rate o species extinction

due to anthropogenic actors is a key objectiveo biodiversity conservation. Threatened orest

species are seen as indicators o change in the orest

ecosystems. Most threatened species are limited in

their geographical distribution to single countries,

thereore the implementation o sustainable orest

management at the national level is important.

Some tree species are endemic and rare, only

occurring in very restricted areas. Central and East

European countries report the highest numbers o

threatened vascular plant species occurring in the

orests.

Larger animals, particularly mammals and birds, tend

to be proportionally more threatened than the smaller

ones. In Europe, orests are important habitats or big

mammals such as wol, bear, and lynx, especially in

the northern countries. The loss o connectivity o

orest areas is also a threat to these species.

In Europe, birds seem to be less dependent than

mammals on orests as habitat. Typically, one-fth

o orest-occurring bird species have been reported

as threatened. The highest numbers are reported in

Central and East European countries, but the numbers

vary signifcantly between individual countries.

The data on threatened species by countries is ver y

heterogeneous and does not yet allow monitoring

o trends at the European level. The changes in

orests are always very slow, which means that the

new biodiversity orientation in orest management

will be reected in uture results and trends o

threatened species.

In our interviews with the experts (see chapter

III) we gathered inormation about important

pressures and threats. These included non-

sustainable orest management, ragmentation,

and the loss o ecosystem connectivity which was

especially important or bigger mammals and

birds. In addition, the trend or planting non-native

trees and the lack o deadwood was considered to

be detrimental to birds. Intensifcation measures

including the drainage o peatlands and wet orests,

ertilisation, and orest-tree genetic modifcation

have had a particularly negative eect on the

biodiversity values o orests. Forest managers

must preserve genetic diversity and consequently

practise risk prevention through the maintenance

o seed repositories. These areas should be the ocus

in the coming years and are essential to reach the

biodiversity targets 2020.

However, the main threat is climate change which,

together with other actors such as uncontrolledgame keeping, intensive proft-orientated orest

management in northern countries, or orest

fres in Mediterranean countries, represent high

risks or European orests. Landslides, avalanches,

storms, ooding or erosion are also important

pressures and ater eects o the climate change.

In Mediterranean countries, climate change also

increases the probability o orest fres both in

requency and intensity. Low proftability and lack

o orest management also constitute major causes

o orest fres due to uel accumulation.

Risk prevention and adaptation o the European

orests, especially in mountainous areas arethereore important tasks to be carried out in

the uture. The activities or methods used will

vary depending on the particular eatures o the

ecosystem. European unding policy should ocus

more strongly on these challenges in order to secure

orestsecosystem services and overall biodiversity.

Pressures, threats and risks1. 4


7/21

2 13

Habitat loss and fragmentation

In many places urban sprawl, expanding

transport networks or orest harvesting that

breaks core orest areas into smaller parts, have

caused the ragmentation o European orest

ecosystems. Forest losses to agriculture and

artifcial suraces are more requent in south-

western Europe. One o the consequences

o ragmentation is the loss o ecological

connectivity, which impacts on orest species.

Between 1990 and 2000, the process o ragmentation, breaking core orest areas larger than 100 ha into smaller

units, was signifcant (very high and high intensity) in western Latvia, some areas o Portugal, the Basque country and

Andaluca in Spain, south-western France, the Northern Carpathians and the Tatra mountains.

Pollution and nutrient load

Air pollution is a major threat to Europes orest biodiversity as it can degrade or destroy culturally and historically

important ancient woodlands and associated species. Forest soil acidifcation is widespread in Europe, despite now

being below critical loads in many countries. It is mainly caused by atmospheric depositions o pollutants, especially

related to nitrogen emissions, which can aect tree roots and soil biodiversity and also impair the supply o nutrients

to plants. So ar, eorts to reduce the emissions o nitrogen to the atmosphere have not been as successul as or

sulphur, which is considered as one o the most signifcant international environmental success stories.

Climate change and adaptation

Climate change is likely to aect orest stands directly through changing temperature and precipitation

patterns (especially on the edge o tree species distribution), and indirectly, by altering the distribution and

requency o viruses, pests, small fres and wind damage.

Tree populations have three biological adaptation options to avoid extinction in a rapidly changing climate:

o persistence based on the inherent exibility o tree species, enabling them to withstand a wide

range o environments;

o (genetic) adaptation to new conditions in existing locations;

o migration to areas with more suitable conditions.

Core orest ragmentation between 1990 and 2000. Source: JRC, 2009

Climate change is likely to avour species with high

levels o exibility (whereas low exibility may lead

to extinction). At orest ecosystem level, the co-

existence o tree species with dierent exibility

levels can act as a buer against changes. In many

parts o Europe, the rate o climate change is likely

to exceed the adaptive capacity o many wild and

domesticated plant species, including orest trees,

which have the highest levels o genetic diversity o

any group o plants and have wide geographic and

ecological ranges. In this sense, the maintenance

and conservation o biodiversity in orests

constitutes an essential insurance policy againsteventual climate change impacts and associated

risks. Diversity o species, genetic variability and

a regional pool o species and ecosystems are key

actors or assessing the level o resilience o a orest

ecosystem to changing environmental conditions.

Unlike agriculture and fsheries where there is

the Common Agricultural Policy and Common

Fisheries Policy, there is no ormal EU Forest Policy.

The Treaty o Rome has let orestry apart rom

the competencies delegated to the European

Commission, thereore orests are dealt with

through other sectors or which the EC has legal

competence: agriculture, environment, health,

enterprise, trade, regional development, energy,

etc.

There are nevertheless some instruments in place

to coordinate the actions o the dierent DGs, with

mixed results.

An EU orestry strategy which was adopted in 1998

is currently being reviewed in order to improve the

limited visibility o the orest sector and the need or

greater coherence o related policies.

In 2006 the Forest Action Plan or the period 2007-

2011was approved, consisting o a set o actions

that the Commission proposes to implement

with the Member States. The overall objective

o the Action Plan is to maintain and enhance

the biodiversity, carbon sequestration, integrity,

health and resilience o orest ecosystems. It also

aims to serve as an instrument o coordination

between EU activities and orest policies o the

Member States and it is thus supported both romexisting Community and national or subnational

instruments. The actions o the plan are divided into

4 main goals:

Improving long-term competiveness

Improving and protecting the environment

Contributing to the quality o lie

Fostering communication and coordination

From the institutional point o view, an Interservice

Group on Forestry issues has been created

within the European Commission as well as one

Standing Committee and 2 Advisory Committees.

However, the lack o a central, converging policy

body is generally seen as hindering both orestdevelopment and protection in Europe.

In the FOREST EUROPE Ministerial Conerence on

the Protection o Forests in Europe (June 2011

Oslo,) European ministers launched negotiations

or a Legally Binding Agreement on Forests in

Europe. Under this initiative, there is a common

understanding that the protection and sustainable

management o Europes orests requires a stable

EU Forest policy1. 5


8/21

4 15

There are several fnancing opportunities in the European

unding ramework that enable the application and

implementation o orest biodiversity and orest related

risk prevention projects, addressing the main threats and

pressures described in chapter 1. These unding instrumentsaddress a range o activities, including the enhancement

o sustainable orest management techniques, the

quantifcation o the inuence o biodiversity on orests

ecosystems unctions and services (research), and the

conservation o key riparian buer zones to prevent the

negative eects o oods to name a ew. Currently, at

least eight dierent Community unding instruments,

including EAFRD, EFF, the Regional unds, LIFE+ and the

7th Framework Programme or Research and Development

include options to fnance orest biodiversity and risk

prevention related activities. This ragmented approach is part o a decision taken in the 2007-2013 period,

the so called integrated unding model, which aims to integrate the unding o biodiversity and Nature

2000 activities in dierent fnancing instruments and embed biodiversity goals into other policy sectors.

The EAFRD allocates a higher budget to such type o initiatives (especially under Axis 2) than other unds even though it is

very dicult to ollow a precise track o the resources allocated to the dierent themes. The EAFRD supports measures in

the felds o orestry or agri-environment which can be used to promote connectivity within rural landscapes.

Through the application o national and regional Rural Development Programmes the EAFRD fnances,

among other activities, measures to improve the environment and the countryside, encouraging armers

and orest holders to employ methods o land use compatible with the need to preserve the natural

environment and landscape and protect and improve natural resources. The main aspects to take into

account include biodiversity, the management o Natura 2000 sites, water and soil protection and cl imate

change mitigation (Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005). These unds also support agri-environmental

or orest-environmental payments, which cover commitments beyond the obligatory standards. In some

EU Regional funds for forestbiodiversity

2.

European funding for forest biodiversity2. 1


9/21

6 17

The goal o regional policy is to encourage the

development o balanced and sustainable economic

growth, the development o employment and

human resources, environmental protection, the

elimination o inequalities and the promotion o

equal opportunities across the Union.

During 2007 - 2013, Regional Policy consists o the

- European Regional Development Fund

(ERDF),

- European Social Fund (ESF), and the

- Cohesion Fund

The Regional unds are administered on the basis

o Operational Programmes that are negotiated

between the Member States, regions and the

Commission. Measures in the orestry sector related

to biodiversity and risk prevention may be included

as long as they contribute to the above said overall

goals.

In the 2007-2013 programming period, Member

States have allocated 2.7 billion to the Promotion

o biodiversity and nature protection (including

Natura 2000), 1.1 billion has been allocated to

the promotion o natural assets and 1.4 billion

or the protection and development o natural

heritage. This means that approximately 1.5%

o the total 2007-2013 Regional Policy unding

is allocated to measures that can directly and

indirectly support biodiversity policy. In addition

there are also other unding themes that have the

potential to contribute indirectly to nature and

biodiversity, or instance waste water treatment and

natural risk prevention.

This low level o unding has led the Committee

o the Regions and other European institutions to

urge the EU 2020 Biodiversity strategy to address

the current underspend o structural unds on

environment and biodiversity-related issues and

promote the exchange o best practice to empower

regional and local authorities or action on the

ground.

On the other hand, some activities fnanced by the

European unds may cause negative impacts on

orest ecosystems. There are several cases which

provide examples o conicting unding in the EU

Regional Policy, particularly associated with the

creation and extension o all types o inrastructures

which ragment orest habitats and displace some

species.

Despite the current underspending in nature

conservation measures and the unding o activities

that may result in the promotion o contradictory

objectives, Regional Policy has great potential

or creating win-win situations that pursue

a sustainable orest management approach,

enhancing synergies, promoting innovative

silviculture techniques, protecting biodiversity andat the same time reducing orest related risks (fre,

oods, climate change, etc.). The priorities o each

o the Convergence, Regional Competitiveness and

Employment and European Territorial Cooperation

allow or the unding o orest biodiversity and

natural risk prevention activities through or

example, developing plans and measures to prevent

and cope with natural risks, and promoting the

development o inrastructure linked to biodiversity

and Natura 2000 sites.

Regional Policy and forestbiodiversity

2. 2


10/21

8 19


11/21

20 21

Currently, Regional Funds do not establish minimum

unding requirements to be allocated to specifc

activities. As a result, the actual decisions on how to

allocate the Community fnancing are mainly taken

at the national level, allowing great disparities

among Member States.

The requirement o a minimum unding or

biodiversity goals could be complemented by

a stricter enorcement o eco-conditionality

requirements when allocating fnancial support,

increasing or example the capacity o the

Commission to monitor and ensure that the

allocation o unds to orest biodiversity and risk

prevention supporting activities is spread across

relevant sectoral policies.

This approach requires the establishment o a

methodology with clear and reliable indicators to

enable the monitoring o spending. There are diculties

associated with separating out orest biodiversity

spending per se, since some measures have the potential

to simultaneously support multiple benefts e.g. orest

biodiversity, water quality and adaptation to climatechange and this poses additional challenges in terms o

its cost-eectiveness.

However, it is not only a matter o increasing the

unds allocated to orest biodiversity and risk

prevention, but also to ensure that Regional Funds

are coherent in the promotion o their objectives.

Some o the investments supporting inrastructure

development may contribute directly to the

ragmentation o orestry habitats and landscapes.

Even though important eorts have been made

in recent years to mainstream environment and

biodiversity considerations into all policy sectors,

more eort should be made to avoid fnancing

measures that pursue contradictory objectives.

One way to tackle this issue is to understand orests

as an ecosystem that demands to be managed in an

holistic way. For example, active orest management

measures unded under the risk prevention

theme in order to decrease the risk o orest fres

can also create more diverse habitat structures, bymimicking natural disturbances, which in turn can

avour higher species diversity in comparison to

orest areas with no management. This approach

has proven to be successul in the implementation

o internationally well known sustainable

certifcation schemes or orestry areas, like the

Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or the Programme

or the Endorsement o Forest Certifcation (PEFC),

which seek simultaneously to prevent risks, improve

local economic conditions, enhance the capacity o

orests to retain more CO2

and to adapt to climate

change challenge, together with the protection o

orest biodiversity.

According to a WWF and IEEP report, experience at

the national level also shows that the bureaucracy

and administrative burden associated with

accessing the EU unds can make them inaccessible

or unappealing or some stakeholders. To address

this problem, eorts should be made to simpliy

the processes and to empower local stakeholders to

apply or and to manage Regional Funds eciently,

thus reducing the concentration o such unds

in a relatively low number o highly specialized

organisations.

Oppportunities to impro-ve regional funding forforest biodiversity

2. 3

In this chapter, 6 interviews have been conducted

with the purpose o gathering relevant inormation

on the opportunities and challenges that Regional

unds present to improve orest biodiversity and risk

prevention aspects. The interviewees are experts in the

feld and represent dierent views and interests (public

administrations, NGOs, companies, etc.). They also come

rom diverse European geographical areas and thereore

manage or regulate dierent typologies o orests.

The main aspects and fndings rom the interviews

ollow:

Discussion with Georg Erlacher, CEO, Austrian

Federal Forests (Bf), President of EUSTAFOR

(European State Forest Association):

Problems and threats in the eld of forest

biodiversity

We see a very rapid development towards ragmentation

o habitats, and thereby also a threat or the biodiversity.

In the uture, the orest management also has to be

sure o preserving genetic diversity and consequently

practising risk prevention.

The pursuit o sustainable orestry is a good basis or

saeguarding biodiversity, and at the same time this

is also a good orm o risk prevention. The themes o

wildlie and hunting are also risk actors, especially

in the Alpine region. In some regions we have too

high stocks o game, which not only endanger the

orests biodiversity, but also the stability.

As ar as the EU nature conservation unding

programmes are concerned, the programmes should

be opened up and made more suitable or unding the

protection o state orests. A more well-balanced access

to these programmes on a national level is necessary to

reach the EU Biodiversity targets 2020.

Experience with the application and

implementation of ERDF funds

The length o time between expenditure and

reimbursement is a problem. Priority should also

be given to the unding o projects ocused on the

implementation o measures on the ground rather

than to more theoretically oriented approaches

which sometimes lack a practical component.

Discussion with Wolfgang Lexer, Project Manager(environmental expert), Umweltbundesamt

GmbH, (this interview reect the personal view

of the respondent)


biodiversity

Currently the main two topics are the Convention

on biological diversity and the EUs goal or 2020 to

stop the decline in biodiversity.

Stakeholders views3.


12/21

22 23

The main strength and at the same time opportunity

is sustainable orest management in Europe.



Particularly the administrative loads, especially

due to reporting regulations, should be reduced

or the project participants: controlling, reporting,

accounting, frst level and second level control

require a lot o time. Public unds should be used

more eciently and more emphasis should be put

on the capitalisation o the projects. The promotion

o knowledge transer to the user could possibly bea project, which could be particularly ocused on

towards the end o such a programme period.

Discussion with Gerald Pnger , Managing

Director, Birdlife Austria


biodiversity

Some o the most important problems are climate

change and the trend o planting oreign trees

which inuence birds in a very sensitive way. The

lack o Natura 2000 management plans is also areason or concern.

We need to involve all the important players in the

feld o native orests and we need more targeted

research in the area o extensive orestry practices.



More unding or biodiversity-related issues should

be available and we should defnitely ensure that

this increasingly continues to happen.

Discussion with Matias Garcia Morell,

Delegate for the Region of Murcia, Association

of Forest Engineers of the Region of Murcia


biodiversity

Forest and mountain ecosystems are extremely

valuable and ragile. Problems and threats as a

direct result o the excessive and inappropriate use

o natural resources will have greater relevancein the uture, with special emphasis on the most

populated areas. We need sound rules in terms o

planning and management instruments as well as

tools or the diagnosis and early ollow-up o the

main problems.



More unds should be available or a series o

inrastructures and to gain the knowledge needed

or the improvement o biodiversity conservation

and the monitoring o orest risks.

Discussion with Irene Lucius, Head of Policy,

WWF Danube Carpathian Programme


biodiversity

The main problems and threats stem rom the

strong ocus on the use o wood rom orests and not

sucient emphasis on preservation and sustainable

use o other orest ecosystem services. Lack o

good governance and short term profteering are

other actors that lead to a reduction on orest

biodiversity. A new threat is that the search or

new renewable energy sources can lead to the

extension o biodiversity poor plantations or wood

production.



ERDF unds potentially fll a very important unding

gap or biodiversity issues. The contract conditions

or spending ERDF unds are very dicult to work

under, at least in some countries with managementauthorities and payment agencies not trained well

enough and pre-fnancing being oten a problem.

Other aspects that should be taken into account are:

shorter pre-fnancing time spans; better contract

conditions; aster processing o applications; more

training o und managers in orest biodiversity

issues; more advertisement o using ERDF or

(orest) biodiversity issues

Discussion with Virginie Fabre Ayala, Director,

GEIE FORESPIR


biodiversity

The main threats are: climate change, agro-pastoral

pressure, fre risk and lack o orest management.

Pyrenean orests remain underexploited due to high

operating costs i we compare it with other areas

both at European and global level.



Some rules have obstacles which make participation

dicult or small organisations. There is need or

advice and technical support addressed to small

organisations that do not have enough capacity to

maintain such complex project management.


13/21

24 25

The ollowing projects illustrate the potential o Regional Funds to fnance Forest Biodiversity related

projects. Nevertheless, these projects show that there are urther opportunities or improvement, and that

lessons learnt rom the projects could make uture projects even more eective and sustainable.

Cross-bordermultistakeholders

conservation project

Operational Programme

OP France- Spain- Andorra 2007-2013

Priority 2. Natural heritage and risk prevention, tourism and local products. The main objectiveis to harmonize in the three States o the Pyrnes (France, Spain and Andorra) the monitoringand habitat management systems o three species o mountain galliorms.Total costs: 2 446 940 EU cofnancing: 1 534 119

Background inormation.The GALLIPYR project is designed to harmonize the methods o monitoring and management o3 species o mountain game owl between 3 States that make up the Pyrenean Massi (Spain-France-Andorra): the Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus), the Rock ptarmigan (Lagopus mutus) andGrey partridge (Perdix perdix). Actions are also conducted to encourage the return o HazelGrouse (Bonasa bonasia), extinct specie o the P yrenees ollowing pressure rom human activity.On the French side o the Pyrenees, methods o monitoring o these populations exist acrossthe Observatoire des Galliformes de Montagne. The GALLIPYR project will expand and developexpertise between French-Spanish-Andorran specialists or the mountain game owl in the wholeo the Pyrenean chain or a better cross-border balance. The project provides or the creationo a network o Pyrenean mountain game owl, assistance to the creation o a database and inimplementing actions or habitats and species o mountain game owl.

Partners and actors involved

The partners are: GEIE Forespir ; Govern dAndorra; Oce National des Forts; Oce Nationalde la Chasse et de la Faune Sauvage; Fdration Rgionale des Chasseurs de Midi-Pyrneset Fdrations Dpartementales des Chasseurs (Arige, Haute-Garonne, Hautes-Pyrnes,Pyrnes-Atlantiques et Pyrnes-Orientales); Generalitat de Catalunya (Departament de MediAmbient i Habitage); Centre Tecnolgic Forestal de Catalunya; Conselh Generau dAran; GestinAmbiental Viveros y Repoblaciones de Navarra SA; Diputacin de Alava

The project has had a very important support rom public administrations at both sides o theborder. It has not included the direct support o social groups in fnancial terms, but permanentdialogue with livestock armers and other social actors has been necessary to perorm the dutieso the project.

Connectivity with key EUpolicies and regulations

The activities developed in the project are completely coherent and complementary with otherplans and projects, mainly Natura 2000 management rules in the sites protected by this fgureand the implementation o the Habitats and Birds EC Directives. It is in accordance too withregional development plans that specifcally exclude some types o development and osternature conservation practices in the project areas.

Key actors or success The design o the project has been based in the experiences and lessons learned rom previousand similar French projects in the Pyrenees. It has boosted the conviction and motivation o all thepartners involved getting a high level o consensus and approval o the implemented activities.Activities are carried out rom the beginning o the project to motivate the squad members aboutthe objectives o their work (improve the habitat o endangered species) and to transmit the valueo what they are doing. One o the key actors or success o the project has been the doubleapproach used to both carry on habitat restoration activities and monitor the impact o theseactivities on the endangered species through innovative techniques such as camera trapping.

CommunicationMost o the budget has been allocated to perorm activities o habitat restoration andmonitoring o indicators, thus less resources were let to communication and dissemination

activities. Nevertheless, the project has perormed in various media to the general public:television, regional and local newspapers, etc. and preliminary results have been announcedin international and regional conerences and workshops addressed to specialized target groupssuch as ornithologists, nature conservation actors, scientists, etc. Finally, the project team willwork on a practical Handbook on how to manage Western Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) andthe Grey Partridge (Perdix perdix) habitats to improve its conditions and avour the animalsreproduction addressed to public administrators and experts.

Win-win situations

The project brings orward potential benefts related to eco-tourism/recreation and regionalmarketing o products. The preservation o those species and particularly the emblematicWestern Capercaillie will increase the attractiveness o the area or tourists and may enhance theapparition o local products that take advantage o the uniqueness o such species (jams romthe Western Capercaillie habitat, etc.). The project provides direct income and ormation to localpopulation hiring personnel to work in the restoration o habitats.

Further inormation http://www.gallipyr.eu

Good practices and innovativeapproaches

4.

Project examples4. 1

Photos:Jordi Camprodon and David Guix



14/21

26 27

Interregional ocus onriparian orests restoration

Operational Programme

OP South West European Space (2007-2013)

Priority 2: Improvement o sustainability or the protection and conservation o the environmentand natural surroundings o the SUDOE space. The main objective is to defne and implementcommon methodologies and strategies to recover and improve the ecological status o riparianorests in the Mediterranean rivers.

Total cost: 1.798.182,64

ERDF Funds: 1.348.636,98

Background inormation The project aims to defne and implement (through pilot interventions) strategies andmethodologies o joint protection and conservation o riparian orests in the SUDOE area, takinginto account, inter alia, natural eatures and biodiversity, the preservation o priority habitatsand Heritage o the Natura 2000 network, the importance o rivers as ecological corridors, theircontribution to the natural water cycle, the need or rich river and its economic value

Partners and actors involvedThe partners are: Instituto Superior de Agronomia. Universidade Tcnica de Lisboa; guasdo Algarve, SA; Administraao da Regiao Hidrogrfca do Algarve; Biodiversity and AnimalConservation lab. Centre Tecnolgic Forestal de Catalunya.

Permanent dialogue with property owners, fshermen and other social actors has been necessaryto perorm the duties o the project and obtain their support. Land stewardship agreementshave been accorded and implemented. Private owners have taken advantage o the habitatand landscape improvement works and in some cases they got wood rom the clearing works.Dialogue with fshermen has been crucial to intervene in their fshing lots and areas respectingtheir interests and needs. Ongoing communication with local stakeholders has been carried outto explain the purpose o the project and to avoid conicts o interest.


The activities developed in the project are completely coherent and complementary with otherplans and projects, mainly the Water Framework Directive. It is ocused on the achievement o agood ecological status o waters and river banks in 2015 according to the established in the WaterFramework Directive.It is in accordance too with Nature 2000 management rules and regional development plans thatspecifcally exclude some types o development and oster nature conservation practices in theproject areas.

Key actors or success

The already organized workshops and partner meetings have been used to present early successeso the project to boost conviction and motivation o the partners and actors involved. Activitiesare carried out rom the beginning o the project to motivate the squad members about theobjectives o their work and to transmit the value o what they are doing. O ne o the key actorsor success o the project has been the d ouble approach used to both carry on habitat restorationactivities and monitor the impact o these activities through the application o bioindicators.



Communication Important eorts have been devoted to communication activities in the project. Preliminaryresults o the project have been announced in international and regional conerences andworkshops addressed to specialized target groups: Congress on Land Stewardship, Congress onEnvironmental Indicators on the Recovery o Riversetc. It is a common practice o the projectteam to organize partners meetings together with workshops on specifc topics open to localstakeholders and the scientifc community: Workshop on the restoration o river banks (Flix),Workshop on invasive plant species (Faro) and Workshop on biodiversity indicators (Mrida).

Win-win situations

The project brings orward potential benefts related to eco tourism/recreation since it willincrease the attractiveness o riparian areas or tourists. The projects promotes that localcommunities get more engaged and become closer to the river, understanding its value, theunctions and services that provides and its uniqueness. The project provides direct income andormation hiring personnel with social exclusion problems to work in the squads adding thus asocial dimension to the project.

Further inormation http://www.ricover.eu


15/21

28 29

Wildlife improvement in the mountains of Peas de Bejar

Operational Program:

OP ERDF 2007-2013 o the Region o Murcia.Priority axis 5. The main objective is the improvement o the wildlie in the Region o Murcia. Itpromotes and encourages biodiversity in the orest ecosystem o Murcia.49.950,00 : 70% ERDF and 30% by Own Funds o the Region o Murcia

Background Inormation:

The Monte de Peas de Bjar is an SPAs (ES0000262 Sierras del Gigante-Pericay, Lomas delBuitre-Ro Luchena y Sierra de la Torrecilla.) located in the South East o Spain, Region o Murcia.In this area we can highlight the presence o protected wildlie species or the Murcia region,highlighting a nest o Bonellis Eagle (Hieraaetus asciatus) and species o Bubo bubo, Circaetusgallicus, peregrine alcon (Falco peregrinus) and the Tortuga mora (Testudo graeca) among others.

The aim o the project is the conservation o biodiversity and nature in the region o Murcia. Itacts on two key actors or the development o lie in an area o Natura 2000, SPA Sierras delGigante-Pericay, Lomas del Buitre-Rio Luchena and Sierra de la Torrecilla, which are: availabilityo water points and planting in areas or the conservation o wild species, many o which areprotected in the Region.

The main objective is the improvement o the wildlie that lives in the Monte Peas de Bjarthrough the increase o the trophic resources and the availability o water supply. Both actionspromote and encourage biodiversity in this orest ecosystem o Murcia.

Partners and actors involvedThe project has been designed and implemented directly by DG Environment o the Region oMurcia.


The activities developed in the project are completely coherent and complementary with otherplans and projects, mainly Natura 2000 management rules in the sites protected by this fgureand the implementation o the Habitats and Birds EC Directives.

Key actors or successThe execution o the project can be characterized as successul until now, because the morerealistic projection shows that by encouraging permanently the provision o water and ood inthis mountain area within the Natura 2000 network, biodiversity will improve signifcantly.The project contains methods and innovative or creative elements such as that the ones used onthe recovery o the terraces: to slow the runo and erosion while maintaining the same waterneeded or the planting o corn which will eed the wildlie, sangraores have been installed.They are a traditional old but novel method recovered which consists on strengthening throughmasonry (mortar and stone) the base o the terrace, rom where it drains the excess water onceland is soaked, but does not drag and erosion it.

Communication

The budget has been allocated to perorm the ac tivities o the Project and its monitoring. Thepreliminary results have been very positive and communication activities will be carried outonce the fnal results are available.

Win-win situations

The project brings orward potential benefts related to eco tourism / recreation as it will increasethe attractiveness o the area or tourists.

The measures contribute to the conservation o nature in ancient agricultural abandoned terracesthat have been recovered through this action, sides have been maintained to support the sheltero wildlie living in the SPA, with the aim o improving the habitat or them.

Further inormation http://www.murcianatural.carm.es

A successul project application consists o several

dierent aspects: the specifc requirements o the

respective programme e.g. concerning partnership;

strategic knowledge; bringing the right proposal

at the right time; having the lead partner rom the

rightcountry and the quality o the project itsel.

With this regard, the ollowing recommendations

or the successul implementation o a project

were agreed upon as the most relevant during a

SURF-Nature Interregional Workshop on ForestBiodiversity and Risk Prevention that took place in

May 2011 in Solsona, Catalonia (Spain):

1. Develop an in depth analysis o the needs in the

preparation and scoping phase o the project, with a

good identifcation o the state o the arto the topics

addressed, in order to capitalize and take advantage o

the existing experiences and projects.

2. The idea and preparation o the project should have a

bottom up approach, with huge and key stakeholder

involvement and support, thereore enabling the ater-

lie sustainability o the project.

3. There should be innovative mechanisms to provide

technical support and prefnancing or good

partnerships and ideas. In particular, site managers,

NGOs and other local actors that directly intervene

in the landscape should receive more support in

accessing ERDF. The idea o proessional support

during the preparation phase is crucial (or instance via

collaboration o local actors with research centres).

4. The partnership and the stakeholders involved in the

project should have similar institutional goals, be

reliable and representative o the regional and local

levels

5. Good project planning is necessary to minimize

administrative and fnancial problems. However, a

high degree o exibility is needed to change goals and

activities during the implementation o the project,

depending upon changing circumstances.

6. Developing a good communication strategy appears to

be a key element or success, particularly with regard to

natural conservation issues. However, it is important tobe critical with the project communication approaches

most predominantly used, or example, is there a need

to develop a website page or each project? Are press

releases the only way to measure the achievement o

communication objectives?

7. Leadership is crucial or project success as are

cooperation and collaboration between partners.

Changing roles during project implementation could

be interesting in order to understand others needs

(e.g. do partners always give an answer to coordination

e-mails?)

8. Establishing good networking with other projects

and transerring results through capacity buildingactivities is crucial or project success and to seek

win-win situations. With this regard, a key word is

capitalisation, which demands an eort to make the

knowledge acquired during the implementation o the

project available to the user and to put it into practice.

9. Actions o the projects should be clear and target

oriented. The need or clear ac tions versus broad

ideas should be stressed.

Recommendations for successful project implementation4. 2


16/21

0 31

The ollowing section oers a more detailed view o relevant provisions o the Alpine Convention concerning

orest biodiversity and prevention o risk and hazards. It constitutes a good example o how orest

biodiversity, risk prevention and other sustainable development considerations can be integrated into one

regulatory ramework. The main points o the Convention are shown in the box on page 14.

Spatial planning and sustainable development

In this protocol, the objectives stipulate that there must be a harmonisation o spatial utilisation with the ecological

objectives and requirements. In order to promote the sustainable development o the Alpine region, the contract

parties pledge to develop instruments which lead to a better coordination o sectoral policies.

Nature conservation und landscape conservation

The target provisions o the Convention stipulate that arrangements will be made to protect or maintain

and restore nature and landscape so that the unctional capability o the ecosystems will be permanently

saeguarded. Agriculture and orestry play a crucial role in the implementation o nature and landscape

conservation measures and it is thereore envisaged that the protection, preservation and maintenance o

near-natural biotopes will be achieved on the basis o agreements with landowners or managers. Market-

based control instruments such as economic incentives or payments are also particularly suitable or

this purpose. With regard to the protected areas, which are connected through a cross-border ecological

network, it is recommended that these shall be preserved and urther developed. New protected areas are

also to be designated and the establishment o protective and environmental zones or wild animal and

plant species is also envisaged. In other provisions, the parties to the Convention will be called upon or will

pledge to take measures to preserve animal and plant species and natural or near-natural types o biotopes

and to saeguard their unctionally adequate spatial distribution.

Mountain forest

Mountain orest in the Alpine region can provide climate regulation and protection against natural hazards

which reaches beyond mountainous areas. The objective is thereore to preserve, develop or augment the

mountain orest as a near-natural habitat and to enhance its stability. For this purpose the Convention

parties particularly pledge to implement the ollowing measures:

Employment o natural orest rejuvenation methods Development o a well-structured, stepped population with tree species in accordance

with the location Utilisation o autochthonous reproductive material as well as Prevention o soil erosion and soil compaction;

The Alpine Convention: an example of an innovative regulatoryapproach

4. 3 Reduction o air pollutant burdens Restriction o hooed game populations to an extent whereby the natural rejuvenation o

mountain orests is possible in accordance with the location The preservation o a unctional mountain orest has priority over orest grazing The utilisation o mountain orest or recreational purposes can be managed and i

necessary can also be restricted Promotion and utilisation o increased timber production rom sustainably managed

orests Sucient consideration o the danger o orest fres Provision o appropriately qualifed sta provided by the signatory states or ulflment o

the orests ecosystem benefts

The contract parties pledge to create the necessary fnancial ramework and to contribute towards sucient

silvicultural promotion to saeguard the protective and utility unction o the mountain orest, ulflment

o its social and ecological benefts, orest development and designation o natural orest protection areas.

Soil conservation

The reduction o quantitative and qualitative soil impairments is the ocal point o eorts here. Soil-

conserving agricultural and orestry production methods, dealing economically with ground and soil,

the containment o erosion and the uncontrolled development o soils are other pivotal elements in the

provisions. The obligation to preserve bogs and ens is relevant to biodiversity in this protocol. The soils which

are vital or agriculture, pasture arming and orestry shall be saeguarded.

As this description shows, the Alpine Convention can serve as an example or other regions in Europe and sets

a trend or the sustainable protection and utilisation o the Alps.

Photo: B AG-Pritz


17/21

2 33

The ollowing conclusions/policy recommendations may be highlighted in relation to improving ERDF Regulations

and general political procedures with regard to orest biodiversity and risk prevention considerations:

1. There is a need to develop a unding system that osters synergies, ensures cost eciency and

seeks to promote win-win situations in the dierent areas that aect orest management. The

ERDF regulations should prioritize projects that integrate key aspects in the management o

orests such as biodiversity conservation, mitigation and adaptation to climate change and risk

prevention and develop market based instruments to ulfl and value this ecosystem service.

2. There is a need to maximise and better value the benefts o the Regional Funds or orest

biodiversity and risk prevention activities and tackle the current under spending in these and

other biodiversity areas.

3. It is not only a matter o increasing the unds allocated to orest biodiversity and risk prevention,

but also ensuring that Regional Funds are coherent in the promotion o their objectives. It is well

known that some o the investments to support inrastructure development may contribute

directly to the ragmentation o orest habitats and landscapes. In this regard, it is imperative

that no ERDF-unded project should constitute a hindrance or adversely aect the development

o orest biodiversity, risk prevention or climate change goals.

4. Forests should be recognised as complex ecosystems that need to be managed in a holistic way. For

example, when active orest management measures conducive to decreasing the risk o orest fres

are adopted, they must respect specifc local biodiversity considerations. I fre risks are reduced in an

area or region, the capacity o the orest to retain CO2will be maintained and endemic species will be

preserved in the long term. The benefts o adopting an ecosystem based approach rather than a more

technological one when defning ERDF priorities and fnancial lines should be stressed.

5. The orest should be developed and nurtured so that it can better withstand uture climate

warming and be more stable and robust in the long term, ensuring that orest management

practices preserve genetic diversity and consequently oster risk prevention whilst still ulflling

their important unction o timber production.

Conclusions and recommendations5.6. This global approach should also be taken into consideration in the application and

implementation o ERDF unds in cross-sectoral topics such as fre risk prevention, seeking

to involve a range o public administrations with powers on natural environment, territorial

planning, education, etc., thereore covering the dierent perspectives o orest management.

7. Managers o European unds should be aware o the particular needs o both Mediterranean

orests (higher risk o fres, land abandonment, low economic proftability, etc.) and continental

and northern orests (less prone to fre risks, higher proftability, etc.), so that unds are

distributed according to the particular requirements o the region.

8. There is a need to improve communication and perception issues. The fnal benefciaries o ERDF

unds are local site managers with real potential capacity to intervene and manage orests in

a sustainable way. ERDF unds should be oriented to empower these agents to carry on theiractivities in a sustainable way thereore a higher degree o understanding is needed between

und managers and these fnal benefciaries.

9. A stronger orientation towards implementation o measures should be adopted, since the

impression o some o the interviewees is that the results move very strongly on a meta-level

and the relevance o implementation is oten only given indirectly.

10. It is necessary to establish mechanisms that acilitate participation o NGOs and other local

actors (or example via cooperation with research centres, regional advisers or specialised

associations) in ERDF unding since these groups oten lack the degree o technical expertise

and fnancial capacity required to apply or and/or manage those unds. In this sense, eorts

should be devoted to simpliying the processes rom the administrative/bureaucratic point o

view and to empowering local stakeholders via pre-fnancing, training and capacity building

activities, networking activities, etc. In general terms, the time allocated to frst level and

second level controlling, reporting, accounting, etc. should be reduced and spent instead in theachievement o substantive project goals.

11. A more general but important area is the representation o orestry at the political level.

Approximately 40% o Europe consists o orests and this should be recognised appropriately in the

realm o politics. The benefts that have resulted rom orest management are multiple, not only

rom the economic perspective but also or the many essential goods and services, rom drinking

water and air quality to protection against natural hazards. It is thereore considered important

that a common orest policy or a special commissariat at the Brussels level is developed.


18/21

4 35

12. In conclusion, it is an imperative that Regional Fund regulations recognise the importance o orests as:

shelters or biodiversity providers o crucial services (regulating climate, water and soil) providers o goods (timber) places or leisure and work activities

areas with the capacity to prevent risks (oods, avalanches and torrent control etc,).

Regional Funds should thereore prioritise the stimulation and implementation o projects that create

spill over eects into national policies in order to enhance sustainable orest management and the

protection o this key ecosystem.

- Committee o the Regions.2010. Opinion on EU and international biodiversity policy beyond

2010(2010/C 267/08)

- European Environment Agency (EEA). 2010. EU 2010 biodiversity baseline.

- European Environment Agency (EEA). 2010. Assessing biodiversity in Europe the 2010 report.

- European Topic Centre on Biologial Diversity (ETC/BD). 2008. Habitats Directive Article 17

Report (2001-2002)- Gantioler S., Ten Brink P., Rayment M., Bassi S., Kettunen M., McConville A., Financing Natura

2000 Financing needs and socio-economic benefts resulting rom investment in the

network. Background Paper or the Conerence on Financing Natura 2000, 15-16 J uly 2010. DG

Environment Contract. ENV.B.2/SER/2008/0038. Institute or European Environmental Policy /

GHK / Ecologic, Brussels 2010

- Halacher, P. 2003. Vademecum Alpenkonvention, Innsbruck.

- JRC, Estreguil, C. and Mouton, C., 2009. European Forest Data Centre (JRC EFDAC Map viewer

at http://edac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/). Measuring and reporting on orest landscape pattern,

ragmentation and connectivity in Europe: methods and indicators. Joint Research Centre o the

European Commission, Internal publication. Pubsy reerence 51802

- Keti Medarowa-Bergstom, Friends o the Earth Europe/ CEE Bankwatch; Annabel Lambert,

RSPB and Peter Torkler, WWF.2010. The need or a reorm o the uture EU Cohesion Policy:

Putting our money where our mouth is, Position paper o the European Environmental NGOsCoalition or Sustainable EU Funds.

- Kettunen, M., Baldock, D., Adelle, C., Cooper, T., Farmer, M. Hart, K. (IEEP), Torkler, P. (WWF).

2009. Biodiversity and the EU budget: Making the c ase or conserving biodiversity in the

context o the EU budget review, WWF and IEEPIs

- Ministerial Conerence on the Protection o Forests in Europe (MCPFE). 2007. State o Europes

orests 2007. The MCPFE Report on Sustainable Forest Management in Europe. Warsaw, Poland.

- Progress towards the European 2010 - biodiversity target indicator act sheets -

Compendium to EEA Report No 4/2009

References6.


19/21

6 37

www.sur-nature.eu- Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 o the European Parliament and o the Council o 5 July 2006 on

the European Regional Development Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999

- Stndiges Sekretariat der Alpenkonvention in Innsbruck. 2010. Alpenkonvention

Nachschlagewerk, Alpensignale 1, 2. Auage, Innsbruck

- Suske, W., Allex, B., Martinko,M, Torkler, P., Mey, Franziska. 2011. European Regional

Development Funding or Biodiversity: An analysis o selected Operational Programmes, SURF-

Nature Interreg IV C Project.

- WWF, IEEP. 2007. Financing Natura 2000 Guidance Handbook.Commissioned by the European

Commission DG Environment.

Project PartnerForest Sciences Center o Catalonia

Ctra. St. Lloren de Morunys, Km225280 Solsona

Spain

Contact:

Francesc Cots

Phone: +34973481752

[email protected]

www.ctc.cat

Lead Partner:Spittelauer Lnde 5

1090 Wien

Austria

Contact:

Peter Tramberend

Klara Brandl

Phone: + 43 1313 045935

[email protected]

Project Coordination:WWF Deutschland

Reinhardtstrae 14

10117 Berlin

Germany

Contact:Peter Torkler

Melanie Hillmann

Julia Steinert

Phone: + 49 30 311777222

[email protected]

www.ww.de

Other project partners:

AT / Environment Agency Austria

RO / Giurgiu County Council

PL / Marshal O ce o Warmia & Mazury Voivodship

IT / Province o Rieti

GR / Municipal Enterprise For Planning &

Development o Patras S.A.

GR / Preecture Preveza

ES / DG Environment o the Region o Murcia

ES / Forest Sciences Center o Catalonia

UK / Environment Agency Wales

CZ / University Olomouc

AT / Austrian Federal Forests

AT / Donau-Auen National Park

FR / Ctes dArmor General Council

SL / Development Agency Savinja


20/21

Photo: B AG-Pritz


21/21

booklet forest biodiversity

Documents