Booklet Forest Biodiversity
Transcript of Booklet Forest Biodiversity
-
7/31/2019 Booklet Forest Biodiversity
1/21
Forest biodiversitySustainable investment or the beneft oboth people and nature
-
7/31/2019 Booklet Forest Biodiversity
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
-
7/31/2019 Booklet Forest Biodiversity
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.
-
7/31/2019 Booklet Forest Biodiversity
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
-
7/31/2019 Booklet Forest Biodiversity
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
-
7/31/2019 Booklet Forest Biodiversity
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
-
7/31/2019 Booklet Forest Biodiversity
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
-
7/31/2019 Booklet Forest Biodiversity
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
-
7/31/2019 Booklet Forest Biodiversity
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
-
7/31/2019 Booklet Forest Biodiversity
10/21
8 19
-
7/31/2019 Booklet Forest Biodiversity
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)
Problems and threats in the eld of forest
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.
-
7/31/2019 Booklet Forest Biodiversity
12/21
22 23
The main strength and at the same time opportunity
is sustainable orest management in Europe.
Experience with the application and
implementation of ERDF funds
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
Problems and threats in the eld of forest
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.
Experience with the application and
implementation of ERDF funds
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
Problems and threats in the eld of forest
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.
Experience with the application and
implementation of ERDF funds
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
Problems and threats in the eld of forest
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.
Experience with the application and
implementation of ERDF funds
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
Problems and threats in the eld of forest
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.
Experience with the application and
implementation of ERDF funds
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.
-
7/31/2019 Booklet Forest Biodiversity
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
Photos:Jordi Camprodon and David Guix
-
7/31/2019 Booklet Forest Biodiversity
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.
Connectivity with key EUpolicies and regulations
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.
Photos:Jordi Camprodon and David Guix
Photos:Jordi Camprodon and David Guix
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
-
7/31/2019 Booklet Forest Biodiversity
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.
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.
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
-
7/31/2019 Booklet Forest Biodiversity
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
-
7/31/2019 Booklet Forest Biodiversity
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.
-
7/31/2019 Booklet Forest Biodiversity
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.
-
7/31/2019 Booklet Forest Biodiversity
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
www.ctc.cat
Lead Partner:Spittelauer Lnde 5
1090 Wien
Austria
Contact:
Peter Tramberend
Klara Brandl
Phone: + 43 1313 045935
Project Coordination:WWF Deutschland
Reinhardtstrae 14
10117 Berlin
Germany
Contact:Peter Torkler
Melanie Hillmann
Julia Steinert
Phone: + 49 30 311777222
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
-
7/31/2019 Booklet Forest Biodiversity
20/21
Photo: B AG-Pritz
-
7/31/2019 Booklet Forest Biodiversity
21/21