State of Europe’s forests

1. State of Europe’s forests Kit Prins

2. Outline • What do Europeans want from their forests? • Are they getting what they want? • Challenges from outside the forest sector

3. Where are Europe’s forests?(source: Schuck et al. Paivinen et al. EFI, 2001/2)

4. Huge differences: from this ...

5. to this.

6. How to tell whatEuropeanswantfromtheirforests? • Askthem (surveys etc.) • Look atoutcome of policyprocesses • Makedeductionsfrom pan-European set of criteria and indicators of sustainableforest management

7. What do Europeanswantfromtheirforests (based on C&I)? • No loss of resource • Continuedhealth and vitality • Production of goods and services • Conservation of biodiversity • Protection of soil, water and infrastructure • Income, employment and othersocio-economicbenefits • Cultural values • Good governance, value for money

8. Are Europeansgettingwhattheywantfromtheirforests?

9. A reliable and comprehensive source (includesRussia!)

10. Criterion 1: Forest resources and their contribution to global carbon cycles • Forests are 45% of land area and expanded by 0.8 million ha/year • Forest area available for wood supply has declined in many regions • For 20 years, growing stock has expanded by 430 million m3 (0.37%) per year • Europe’s forests are major carbon sinks and stores: annual carbon sequestration of 870 million tonnes is equivalent to 10% of gross GHG emissions

11. Annual % change in forest area, 1990-2010

12. Relative importance of carbon stocks: FOREST EUROPE

13. Criterion 2: Forest ecosystem health and vitality • Sulphur deposition decreasing, nitrogen and ammonia stable or increasing. Critical loads exceeded on 49/106 plots. • Nitrogen deposition causes disturbed organic matter and nutrient cycling on 14% of plots (30% in Central-West Europe) • Almost one fifth of trees “damaged”. On 29% of the plots forest health deteriorated between 1998 and 2009 (insects, fungal diseases and weather extremes most widespread influencing factors, all may increase with climate change). • Insects and diseases are the damaging agent most frequently observed, followed by wildlife and grazing. 1 percent of the European forest area is affected by one or more damaging agents (6 percent for Europe without the Russian Federation)

14. C/N ratio in forestsoils(<1 =excess N)

15. Fire damage

16. Criterion 3: Productive functions (wood and non-wood) • Ratio of fellings to net annual increment 39% (62% without Russia) • Value of marketed roundwood €21.1 billion in 2010. Average value varied from €5/ha to €241/ha (FAWS only). • Value of marketed non-wood goods €2.76 billion: stars are Christmas trees, cork, game meat, fruits/berries/nuts • Value of marketed forest services (15 countries only) at €818 million, especially for “social” services (i.e. recreation). • Most forests are under management plan or equivalent (but problems of comparability!)

17. Ratio of felling to net annual increment, 2010

18. Criterion 4: Forest biodiversity • Decrease in single species stands (-0.6% per year) • 70% natural regeneration (without Russia, where 98%), increasing. • 87% “semi-natural” (without Russia) • 9 million ha dominated by introduced species, no change • Average volume of deadwood 20.5 m3/ha. Some evidence that change to more nature oriented management can be observed in forest characteristics • Gene conservation: 476 000 ha for in situ and 7 700 ha for ex situ, for 139 tree species. Still significant gaps for geographical representativeness of in situ conservation • Status and change of connectivity and share of core forest can now be mapped • Better data on threatened forest species: difficult to interpret • Increase in area of protected forests: now 38.4 million ha (without RU) for biodiversity and landscape together (18%). +0.5 million ha/year. Strong variation in concepts and practice.

19. Naturalness, 2010

20. Area protected for biodiversity, by type of management

21. Criterion 5: Protective functions • Nearly 20% of forest and other wooded land protects water supplies, prevents erosion (11%, including Russia). Importance recognised, but mechanisms vary • In reporting countries, 7% of forest protects infrastructure and managed natural resources

22. Criterion 6: socio-economic functions • Public and private forest both about 100 million ha (excluding Russia). Private forest expanded by 15% because of privatisation and restitution. • Forest sector (including industries) contributes about 1% of GDP: more in some countries, generally share is falling • Net value added per ha per region varies widely, generally increasing, negative in a few countries • Reported government expenditure for forest services varies from €0.8/ha to €86/ha: comparability problems, but differences real • 3.95 million people employed in sector (including industries): number falling. Workforce aging. • Forestry work remains very dangerous and accident prone. Few improvements, despite stated objectives. Mechanisation helps. • Wood consumption rising, until recession. Per head, ranges from 0.8 m3 to 3.0 m3 • Europe net exporter, trade doubled between 1990 and 2005, affected by recession • Wood contributed 3.7% of energy in Europe without Russia. Knowledge improving a lot. • At least 90% of forests accessible for recreation, less than 10% has recreational use as a major management goal. Weak data on forest visits • Over one million sites with cultural and spiritual values identified

23. Share of public and private forest, 2005

24. The policy challenges • How should the forest sector contribute to mitigating climate change? • How can wood contribute to renewable energy supply? • Adapting to climate change and protecting forests • Protecting forest biodiversity: at what cost? • Supplying renewable and competitive forest products to Europe and the world • Achieving and demonstrating sustainability • Developing appropriate policies and institutions

25. UNECE/FAO European Forest Sector Outlook Study II (2011)

26. Supply and Demand in 2030

27. Mitigatingclimate change

28. The best strategy for mitigation in the European forest sector • Combine • Increasedsequestration in forestbiomass (longer rotations, highershare of thinnings) • Steady flow of wood for products and energy • However • In the long run, the sequestrationcapacitylimitwillbereached, and the onlywayforwardwillbe to increasestorage in products and substitution

29. Wood for energy

30. It istechnically possible to meetwoodenergytargets, assuming: • Energyefficiency • Fastergrowth for otherrenewables • Major wood mobilisation • Sixfoldincrease in use of harvestresidues, stumps • Strongdevelopment of non-forest sources • Reduction of 20 million m3 for industry • (but no imports or short rotation coppice)

31. However, this would imply: • Impoverishment of forest sites (extraction of residues, stumps) • Social and economic costs of intense mobilisation • Reduction in biodiversity • Less attractive for recreation

32. EFSOS II proposes a balanced approach to expanding wood energy: • Promoteenergyefficiency • Develop non-woodrenewablesevenfaster • Implement Guidelines for wood mobilisation • Develop non-forestwood (landscape care wood, recoveredwood) • Cascade principle • Fastgrowingbiomass plantations • Burnwoodefficiently and cleanly • Import fromsustainable sources

33. Adaptation of Europeanforests to climate change

34. Adaptation to climate change: threats • Higherfrequency of severeevents • Change in speciescompetitiondynamics, negativeconsequences for thoseoutsidetheir optimum range (e.g. spruce in dry lowlands) • Invasive alienspecies: trees, shrubs, but alsoinsects • Combinedeffects of climate change and air pollution • No new « stable state »: high fluctuations and uncertaintywillbecome normal • NB regionaldifferences

35. Main aim: increase adaptive capacity of forests • Takeregionalapproaches to: • Regeneration (species, method) • Tending and thinning: regulating composition • Harvesting: age of trees, areas • Pest and disease management, fireprevention • Monitor and document results, adaptapproaches as needed and shareexperience

36. Priority to biodiversity

37. It is possible to improve the biodiversity of Europe’sforests Consequences for woodsupply • Deadwood v. residue use • Less land available for woodsupply • Longer rotations • But close-to nature management on protected areas couldpartlycompensate High carbon accumulation Win-win: recreation, protection, air quality all positivelyaffected by priority to biodiversity Win-lose: biodiversity v. highwoodenergy mobilisation

38. Innovation and competitiveness

39. Innovation and competitivity • Innovation (or the lack of it) will influence the long termdevelopment of the sector in powerful but unexpectedways • Products (e.g. smart paper), processes (e.g. bio-refineries), above all, attitudes • Potential for innovation in forest management, led by state forest organisations • Governmentsshouldlead the search for a culture of innovation – not only for forests

40. Achieving and demonstratingsustainability

41. Achieving and demonstratingsustainability: the challenges • DEVELOP concepts and methodswhich are comprehensive, feasible, objective, sociallyaccepted and takeaccount of variety of situations • USE the methods to evaluatepolicychoices • COMMUNICATEwithothersectors and the public in simple and objective terms How wouldyou propose to assess the sustainability of forest management??

42. Policies and institutions

43. Policies and institutions • Policies, institutions and instruments in Europe are, in general, stable, recent and effective • National forest programmes (NFPs) have improved public acceptance of forestpolicy goals • Total governmentspending ~ €18.4/ha • Objectives have been formulated for the main policy challenges, and some instruments put in place • Challenges are complex and long term, requiresophisticatedpolicymaking, sharplyfocused instruments and strongpoliticalwill

44. Kit Prins Kit.prins@gmail.com +41 78 739 1491 Thank you for your attention