Progress towards sustainable forest management in Europe

Transcription

1 Progress towards sustainable forest management in Europe Source: JRC Global Land Cover Map 2000 Discussion report for the European Forestry Commission Zvolen, Slovakia

2 Introduction This paper provides an overview of progress towards sustainable forest management (SFM) in Europe, drawing largely from the results of the FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005 (FAO.2006). The State of Europe s Forests 2003: The MCPFE Report on Sustainable Forest Management in Europe (MCPFE.2003) was a comprehensive report on the same subject. In addition, MCPFE plans to prepare an updated report on SFM for consideration at the next Ministerial Conference in Similarly, the European Forest Sector Outlook Study (EFSOS) ( UNECE/FAO.2005) provides a comprehensive analysis of long-term trends of the forestry sector in Europe. This paper is not intended to duplicate the more comprehensive MCPFE or EFSOS reports. Rather, the purpose of the current report is to provide delegates to the 33 rd session of the European Forestry Commission with updated information based on FRA 2005 and several other sources, including the Forest Products Yearbook 2004 (FAO.2006). In 2006, each Regional Forestry Commission will review progress towards SFM in their respective region. Based on feedback from each Commission, regional summaries will be included in the State of the World s Forests The regional summary for Europe will be based on this report. Sustainable development has three broad components: environmental, social and economic. Inter-governmental processes have agreed to use seven thematic elements as a framework for monitoring, assessing, and reporting on progress towards sustainable forest management: Extent of forest resources Biological diversity Forest health and vitality Productive functions of forest resources Protective functions of forest resources Socio-economic functions Legal, policy and institutional framework The MCPFE report and FRA 2005 covered the first six of the above thematic elements. Information about each country from FRA 2005 can be found on the FAO Web site: The MCPFE has also published several reports that provide a wealth of information about the legal, policy and institutional framework of European countries, including: National Forest Programmes in Europe; Implementation of MCPFE Commitments and The MCPFE and the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action. These reports are available on the MCPFE web-site: About 80% of the country information for Europe in FRA 2005 was based on national forest inventories or assessments provided by national correspondents. Additional information was based on expert assessments of available data and remote sensing. Details on FRA 2005 and other data sources are available in working papers and country tables available on the FAO web site. This discussion report draws on available information reported by countries. A list of countries is included in the Annex. 2

3 1. Extent of forest resources There is considerable diversity in the extent of forest cover among European countries. Figure 1 displays European countries on the basis of the percentage of land area in the country that is considered forest in FRA European countries range from less than 10% forest cover (Iceland and Ireland) up to more than 60% forest cover (Finland and Sweden). The average forest area in Europe is 44%, plus an additional 4% other wooded land (essentially where tree cover is between 5% and 10%). Figure 1: Forest cover as % of land area The reported forest area for Europe (excluding the Russian Federation) is 193 million hectares in 2005, an increase of 7% since This compares with a net global decrease of 3% forest area over the same period of time. Europe is the only major region with a net increase in forest area over the entire period (Asia has also reported a net increase in the last five years, due mainly to a huge afforestation programme in China.) Forest statistics in Europe are dominated by the Russian Federation, with Russia accounting for 81% of the total forest area. For practical reasons, this includes the part of Russia that is in Asia. Hence, when FRA 2005 data are cited, this report provides separate data for the Russian Federation. In Table 1, the reported net forest area in the Russian Federation is virtually stable, with a small increase in the 1990s and a small decline between 2000 and Table 1: Extent and change of forest area Area Annual change Annual change rate (%) Europe % 0.07% Europe excluding Russian Federation % 0.40% Russian Federation % -0.01% WORLD % -0.18% The FAO web-site provides a complete list of 47 countries and other reporting areas included in Europe for the purposes of FRA 2005: 3

4 The net increase in forest area in Europe is due in large part to several countries which had substantial increases between , led by Spain ( hectares / year average increase) and Italy ( ha / year), followed by Bulgaria, France, Portugal and Greece. The largest percentage increases were reported by several countries with low forest cover, Iceland (3.9% increase in forests per year) and Ireland (1.9%). The Russian Federation was the only European country reporting a net loss of forest area between , an average decrease of hectares per year; however, this amounted to only 0.01% loss of the total forest area. Table 2: Area of forest plantations Area Annual change Europe Europe excluding Russian Federation Russian Federation WORLD By comparing Tables 1 and 2, it can be concluded that slightly less than half of Europe s increase in net forest area over the past 15 years is due to the increase in the area of forest plantations (defined as forest of introduced species and in some cases native species, established through planting or seeding). The balance of the increase in Europe s forest area results from processes other than forest plantations, including the natural expansion of forests into former agricultural land, and the establishment of semi-natural planted forests using native species that are not considered to be forest plantations in Europe. Conclusions Net increases in the extent of forest, in forest plantations, and in growing stock are positive trends towards sustainable forest management in the region. The Russian Federation is the only reporting country with a negative trend in this regard, and the net decrease of forest area in Russia was only 0.02% over the 15 year period All indications are that European countries have successfully stabilized their forest areas, in many cases from the 19 th or early 20 th centuries. Although the numbers are slightly different, the conclusions of FRA 2005 reinforce the conclusions of the State of Europe s Forests

5 2. Biological diversity Biological diversity refers to the variety of life forms, their ecological functions and the genetic diversity they contain. The conservation of biological diversity provides a different challenge in Europe than in other regions. While few species are currently threatened or endangered, this is mainly because few of Europe s forest landscapes resemble what they would have been had they not been totally changed by human activity over several millennia. Although most of Europe has been deforested in the past, many areas have also been reforested, naturally or intentionally over centuries, under a variety of human influences such as agriculture, industrialisation and war. A simple comparison between the present situation as regards biodiversity and a pre-existing natural situation is theoretically and practically difficult and fairly irrelevant in policy terms. In this respect, Europe (excluding Russia) is different from other regions, although many large areas in other continents, notably North America and Asia have also been profoundly influenced over centuries by human activities.. FRA 2005 defines a primary forest as a forest of native species without clearly visible indications of human activities and where ecological processes are not significantly disturbed. Primary forests often have high levels of biodiversity, and they usually perform other important environmental functions as well. Only 4% of Europe s forest area (excluding the Russian Federation) is classified as primary forest, compared with 27% of the world as a whole. Table 3 indicates a slightly increasing trend in primary forests in Europe other than the Russian Federation which accounts for 97% of Europe s total. Russia s primary forests increased in the 1990s but declined by 0.2% per year between Table 3: Area of Primary Forests Area Annual change Europe Europe excluding Russian Federation Russian Federation WORLD Another important proxy for conservation of biological diversity is the extent to which forest ecosystems are designated for conservation with legal protection. A positive global trend in the 1990s continued during , with the total increase in forest area designated for conservation approaching 100 million ha during the 15-year period , an increase of 32%. In Europe, forest area designated for conservation increased by 100% over this same time period. Most of this increase occurred in the 1990s, but during the period the increase was still significant, about 3% per year (Table 4). 10.5% of forest area in Europe (excluding the Russian Federation) is designated for conservation, compared with the global average of 10%. In the Russian Federation, forest conservation areas increased to 2% of the total forest area. 5

6 Table 4: Area of forest designated for conservation Area Annual change Europe Europe excluding Russian Federation Russian Federation WORLD FRA 2005 also asked countries to report on threatened forest tree species using IUCN red list categories and criteria. As seen in Figure 2, the average number of threatened tree species per country in Europe is significantly less than in other regions, which would be expected given the generally smaller number of species in the temperate and boreal ecosystems in the European region, as well as the relative stability of the total forest area in the region. Figure 2: Endangered and vulnerable tree species: average per country Number of species South America Asia North and Central America 8 Africa Oceania Europe 1 Vulnerable tree spp. Endangered tree spp. Critically endangered tree spp. Conclusions In comparison with other regions, Europe is making significant progress towards conserving forest biological diversity. While there is no single indicator of biological diversity, several parameters can be measured including the area of forest designated for conservation or protection, and the number of tree species that are considered to be vulnerable or endangered. In both respects, European countries continue to make good progress. 6

7 3. Forest health and vitality FRA 2005 included research on three factors affecting forest health and vitality: Forest fires Insects and diseases Other disturbances (wind, snow, ice, floods, storms, drought, and animal damage) Noting that forest fires and forest vulnerability will be discussed in more detail under other agenda items at the 33 rd European Forestry Commission, this section will focus on threats posed to forest health by insects and disease. Damage to forests from fire in the European Region constitutes less than 10% of the area that was reported for insects, diseases and other disturbances in FRA Compared to other regions of the world, non-fire disturbances are relatively well reported in Europe, with reports received from over 90% of forest areas. However, it is difficult to compare data, since there is different interpretation of what constitutes a disturbance. Responses to questionnaires and country pest profiles being prepared as supplementary information to FRA 2005, indicate that forest pests and other disturbances may have even more widespread impact than reported. Trans-boundary movement of pests and establishment of invasive species have directed attention to the adverse/negative effects of invasive species (including insects and diseases and woody invasive species) and their impact on forests. More rapid transport and ease of travel has facilitated the increase in the rate of spread of pests. For example, Anoplophora chinensis, which originates from Japan and Korea where it is a serious pest of Citrus and many other deciduous trees, was first discovered in Europe in 2000 in Lombardy, Italy. The potential impact on the region is not yet determined. The 33 rd Session of the European Forestry Commission will discuss the vulnerability of the region s forests, including the hypothesis that forest areas may be increasingly vulnerable to outbreaks of pests (native and exotic) and susceptibility to impacts of weather related events such as snow storms and drought. For example, there is increasing speculation that global climate change is increasing the vulnerability of forests to insects and disease. Recently there has been concern in the region about the potential risk of increased number of bark beetles affecting spruce exacerbated by the number of fallen trees from recent severe storms. Disturbance to forests by pests and abiotic factors significantly affect productivity. Data on causative agents are required on a regular basis to develop management strategies. Regular monitoring is required to recognise when new pests have become established. Not all data provided for FRA 2005 are directly comparable between countries within a region or between regions. Despite these limitations, general trends may be observed. Within Europe, defoliation was chosen as a key indicator for forest health by the MCPFE, and crown condition of forests has been systematically monitored by the EU/UNECE International Cooperative Programme on Forests (ICP-Forest), under the UNECE Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution since the mid-1980s when the health of Europe s forests became a matter of particular concern. For FRA 2005, countries reported on forest disturbances for the year 2000 by considering the annual average for the period For Europe as a whole, about 2% of the forest area was reported affected by disturbances in a typical year. For Europe excluding the Russian Federation, this figure increases to about 6% (Table 5). 7

8 Table 5: Forest disturbances Disturbances affecting forests Fire Insects Disease Other Total Europe Europe excluding Russian Federation Russian Federation Figure 3 indicates the relative disturbances caused by the four reporting categories: fire, insects, disease, and all other types of disturbances (storms, drought, ice, etc.). Figure 3: Forest disturbances Comparative annual average areas disturbed Other Disturbances Fire Insects Diseases Fire Insects Diseases Other Disturbances Conclusions Forest health and vitality are affected by a number of disturbances. The absence of base-line data for earlier reporting periods makes it difficult to conclude that forest health is improving or declining. However, is between 2% and 6% of forest area is affected in an average year, clearly the cumulative affects and the long-term consequences can be very significant. (Forest fires also have an important impact on forest health. The forest fire situation in Europe will be discussed under a separate agenda item at the 33 rd session of the European Forestry Commission.) 8

9 4. Productive functions of forests The production of wood and non-wood forest products is a very important function of forests and woodlands in the region, with a major impact on the social and economic dimensions of sustainable development. In Europe, 72 percent of the total forest area is designated primarily for production (52 percent excluding the Russian Federation) compared to the global average of 31 percent. Table 6 summarizes the trend in the extent of productive forests. Table 6: Area of forest designated primarily for production Area Annual change Europe Europe excluding Russian Federation Russian Federation WORLD The area of Europe s forests designated primarily for production declined significantly in the 1990s, but remained relatively stable during the period The concept of forests for production is less applicable in Europe than in some other regions, because in Europe a majority of forests are designated for multiple uses, including both production and protection. This categorization may be help to generate discussion, but it may be less useful in supporting relevant policy decisions. Growing stock is another interesting parameter; it can be debated if this is an indicator of forest productivity (perhaps annual increment is more relevant), or if it is more an indicator of silviculture and history. Country data suggest an increase in the total growing stock in many countries, especially in areas of central Europe where conservative silviculture and weak markets have brought growing stock per hectare to record high levels. The net result at the regional level is an increase in total growing stock as expressed in cubic meters and in terms of cubic meters per hectare. Table 7 provides an overview of growing in Europe s forests. When the Russian Federation is excluded, growing stock in Europe strongly increased at the rate of 1.3% per year between , slightly lower than the rate of 1.4% in the 1990s. Growing stock also continues to increase slightly in the Russian Federation, characterized by lower growing stock her hectare than the rest of Europe, which is to be expected considering the vast forest areas in colder regions. The Russian Federation accounts for almost 19% of the world s total forest growing stock, about the same as Brazil, the other leading country in this regard. Table 7: Growing stock Growing stock (million m 3 ) Growing stock (m 3 /ha) Europe Europe excluding Russian Federation Russian Federation WORLD

10 Another indicator of the productive functions of forests is the level of wood removals. During the period , wood removals increased about 2% per year for Europe as a whole, led by a strong rebound in the Russian Federation, where wood removals had declined sharply in the 1990s (Table 8). Table 8: Wood removals (million cubic metres) Industrial roundwood Woodfuel Total Subregion Europe Europe excluding Russian Federation Russian Federation WORLD FRA 2005 also requested countries to report on non-wood forest products. It is difficult to draw global conclusions due to low reporting levels in most regions; European countries reported about tonnes of food removed from forests in the year 2005 (about 6% of the world total); tonnes of raw material for medicine and aromatic products (5% of the global total); and tonnes of other plant products (18% of the reported world total). Asia is by far the region with the highest levels of non-wood forest product removals, accounting for at least 80% in most categories. The reader s attention is also drawn to the EFSOS study, which provides comprehensive information on this parameter. Conclusions Europe s forests are among those in the world which produce the most wood. Excluding the Russian Federation, Europe accounts for 23% of the world s industrial roundwood removals but only 5% of the world s forest area. When the Russian Federation is included, Europe accounts for 30% of the industrial roundwood and 25% of the forest area. Over half of Europe s forests are designated for production, much higher than the global average of 32% (again, it should be noted that many of the forest areas in Europe that are designated for production are also designated for other uses). When this information is combined with the fact that Europe s forest area and growing stock continue to increase, an obvious conclusion is that a high level of wood production is not incompatible with sustainable forest management at least not in a region of the world characterized by relatively developed economies and institutions. Furthermore, removals are still well below increment (refer to EFSOS for additional details). 10

11 5. Protective functions of forests Forests fulfil a number of protective functions, including protection of watersheds, arresting land degradation and desertification, mitigation of climate change, and improvement of urban environments. While these functions are critical to rural livelihood, most of these benefits are not quantified or valued in markets, and hence they are seldom taken into account in assessing forest benefits. For the first time FRA 2005 collected information on the area of forest primarily used for protective functions and the area of forest plantations established with the primary objective of protection. As indicated in Table 9, forest area designated primarily for protection in 2005 accounted for 9% - the same as the global average (note: FRA 2005 uses IUCN protection categories, not MCPFE categories). Table 9: Area of forest designated primarily for protection Area Annual change Europe Europe excluding Russian Federation Russian Federation WORLD In Europe, protective forest plantations are increasing mainly in the Russian Federation where they account for 30% of the total forest plantations, compared with 9% in the rest of Europe. In many parts of Europe, notably in mountainous regions, the protective functions are supplied by existing semi-natural forests. Table 10: Area of protective forest plantations Area Subregion Annual change Europe Europe excluding Russian Federation Russian Federation WORLD Conclusions The increasing trends of forest area designated primarily for protection and forest plantations primarily for protection are indications that countries in Europe have recognized, in may case for centuries, the importance of the protective functions of forests. Concern about maintaining the protective functions of forests was at the base of the forest law in many countries, notably in mountainous regions. Although considerable research has been carried out on the benefits of forest protection, the fact that these benefits are not valued in the marketplace and are highly site specific continues to make it difficult to quantify them. The two parameters reported here are not adequate to draw conclusions about the adequacy of Europe s forests to help protect the quality of air, water, or soil in the region. 11

12 6. Socio-economic functions of forests This chapter provides a brief statistical summary of the economic contributions of forests and forest products in Europe in the context of the global situation. Table 11 compares the value of primary forest products in different regions. Europe accounts for about 22% of the value of industrial roundwood removals. Europe s share of the global value of total wood removals has increased from 20% in 1990 to 22% in This increase has been mainly at the expense of Asia, whose economic share of the value of wood removals declined throughout the 1990s and continued to decline between Industrial roundwood removals Table 11: Value of wood removals Value (million US$) Africa Asia Europe North and Central America Oceania South America WORLD Fuelwood removals Africa Asia Europe North and Central America Oceania n.s. n.s. n.s. South America WORLD Industrial roundwood plus fuelwood removals Africa Asia Europe North and Central America Oceania South America WORLD When the net trade of forest products (including both primary and secondary products) is considered, Europe is seen to lead the world in terms of being a net exporter (Figure 4). The sharp increase in US$ value of European exports tends to coincide with the strengthening of the euro vis-à-vis the US$. Perhaps the most dramatic trend in recent years has been the decline of North America from being a net exporter to a net importer of forest products, a trend that started in 1995 and continues today. 12

13 Figure 4 Net regional trade in forest products 30 Europe 20 US$ billion South America Oceania Africa North and Central America Asia Table 12 summarizes the value added by the sub-sectors of primary forest industries. At the global level, the value of wood and other forest products as it comes out of the forest is less than 22% of the value added; followed by wood industries (30%) and pulp and paper (48%). In Europe, unprocessed wood accounts for only 16% of the total value, compared with 34% for wood industries and 50% for pulp and paper. Region Table 12: Gross value added by the forest sector in 2000 (in US$ millions) Forestry Wood industries Pulp and paper Total Contribution to GDP (%) Africa Asia Europe Oceania North and Central America South America WORLD

14 Figure 5: Trends in value addition in the forest sector in Europe (at constant prices) Value-added (in million USD) Contribution to GDP 110, ,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10, % 1.40% 1.20% 1.00% 0.80% 0.60% 0.40% 0.20% 0.00% Average Forestry Woodworking Pulp and paper Figure 5 indicates a decline in value addition in the forest sector in the early 1990s, due to the collapse of the Russian forest sector, followed by recovery in 1995 and a levelling off in the late 1990s. There is a decline in the forest sector s contribution to GDP in Europe, falling from 1.5% in 1990 to about 1.21% in 1992, and remaining stable thereafter. Table 13 reflects the results from FAO s Forest Products Yearbook The value of forest products trade is increasing in all parts of Europe, but the percentage increase is especially significant in Central and Eastern Europe (including EU accession countries and other countries with economies in transition). The value of both exports and imports of forest products are steadily increasing, both in Europe and in most of the rest of the world. Table 13: Forest products trade value (in current US$ billion) Export Import Subregion Central and Eastern Europe (including Russian Federation) Nordic countries (Finland, Sweden and Norway) The Rest of Europe Total Europe WORLD While the increasing value of forest products trade is impressive, it is nonetheless dwarfed by the increasing value of trade in other products and services. Table 14 demonstrates that the value of forest product exports has declined as a share of the total value of all exports, both in Europe and in the world as a whole. This decline is the most dramatic in Nordic countries, where the value of forest product exports increased by US$ 10 billion per year between 1990 and 2004, but this represented a decline from 21% to 13% of the total exports of the three Nordic countries included in this analysis (due mainly to the rapid rise of Nokia and other firms in other economic sectors). 14

15 Table 14: Forest products value as proportion of total trade (in percent) % of total export value % of total import value Subregion Central and Eastern Europe (including Russian Federation) Nordic countries The Rest of Europe Total Europe WORLD Figure 6 shows that Europe has been a net exporter of forest products since Of special note are the upward trends in primary paper and primary wood products, and the strong surplus position on markets for secondary products. Figure 6: Trends in net trade of forest products in Europe (at current prices) US$ million 25,000 20,000 Total forest products Secondary paper products Net import Net export 15,000 10,000 5, , Primary paper products Secondary wood products Primary wood products Roundwood Non-wood forest products Employment levels in the forest sector are discouraging. As noted in EFSOS, labour productivity has been rising faster than production, so total employment in the forest sector has been steadily falling. It is expected that this trend will continue. 15

16 Figure 7: Employment in the forest sector in Europe Number employed (in 1 000) 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Contribution to employment 1.20% 1.00% 0.80% 0.60% 0.40% 0.20% 0.00% Average Forestry Woodworking Pulp and paper Conclusions The contribution of the forestry sector to GDP has declined over the long term as other sectors, including services, have increased. It should also be recalled from the previous section that the marketplace tends to under-value the protective functions of forests. The forest sector remains economically significant in some regions, such as the Nordic and Baltic countries. In Europe the value added to the economy by the forestry sector is mainly due to processing of the raw material, with wood industries and pulp and paper accounting for 78% of the value added by the sector. If secondary forest products were included, the share of the sector would be significantly greater. Trade of forest products is booming, with sustained increases in the value of both exports and imports. The value of forest products exports in Europe exceeded the value of forest products imports by US$ 25 billion in 2004, more than double the amount only three years earlier. Employment in the forestry sector declined throughout most of the 1990s before levelling off at the end of the decade; data were not available for this report to indicate if the trend in the last five years is upward or downward. Although the title of this section is socio-economic functions, data presented herein are mainly about economics. This is not because the social dimension of forests is not important, but rather because it is difficult to quantify. An important factor of the social dimension of forests is ownership. FRA 2005 reports that in the year 2000, about 90% of Europe s forests were in public ownership and 10% were privately owned. This statistic is heavily skewed by the Russian Federation. Private forest ownership increased from 2.5 to 7.5 million hectares in the 1990s in central and Eastern Europe, with the Baltic countries, the Czech Republic and Hungary having the highest rates of increase. A special thematic study on forest ownership is being prepared as a supplement to the FRA 2005 main report. In Europe, excluding the Russian federations well over half the forests (62% in the EU25) are privately owned. 16

17 7. Policy, legal and institutional framework Progress towards sustainable forest management depends on the policy, legal and institutional environment. As FRA 2005 did not address this thematic element in depth, this summary draws on several other sources including FRA 2000, EFSOS, ongoing FAO data gathering to update the country pages of the FAO Forestry web-site, and MCPFE reports. Measures to improve monitoring of the policy and institutional framework will be discussed under the agenda item on the integrated programme of work. Policy EFSOS noted that some aspects of European forestry policy have remained remarkably stable in the recent past, such as a commitment to ensuring that forest area should not decline; highly regulated forest harvesting; the requirement to replant forests after harvesting; the widespread acceptance of multiple purpose forestry practices; and tax and payment incentives that favour the retention of forests and the conversion of agricultural land to forest. Forest policies are also changing in some respects, including a strong trend toward public involvement in policy-making. Legal framework The most important recent changes in the forestry legal framework in Europe have taken place in Eastern Europe where a majority of countries have reported an increase in private forest ownership. In several countries, the area of privately owned forests has increased by a factor of three or four in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union. However, forest ownership in the Russian Federation and in the CIS countries remains almost 100% public. Institutions An interesting trend has been to re-organize state forest management organizations to function as quasi-private companies, with commercial objectives and more flexibility to manage forests without following strict bureaucratic rules. Austria, Finland, Sweden, Ireland, Poland and Latvia have all made changes along these lines. Conclusions The goals of the policies, laws and institutions are remarkably similar; to promote sustainable forest management and conservation (see Discussion Paper by Bauer et al. on Forest legislation in Europe (ECE/TIM/DP.37). Every country in Europe has in place laws and policies which make it very difficult to convert forests to other uses. This is true in countries where virtually all forests are owned by the state, and it is equally true in countries (mainly in Western Europe) with a large number of private forest owners. The framework for monitoring of the policy and institutional framework exists in the MCPFE qualitative indicators of sustainable forest management and more structured information on this theme will be presented to the Warsaw ministerial Conference. 17

18 Summary: overview of progress towards sustainable forest management Table 15 summarizes the results of parameters assessed in FRA Green indicates a significant positive trend; yellow is somewhat neutral; and red tends to be significantly negative. It is recognized that this is a somewhat superficial approach; it provides a visual comparison between regions, which is perhaps more useful in a global report than in a regional report. Table 15 18

19 It is tempting to conclude that Europe has achieved sustainable forest management. The negative trends are largely offset by positive ones. Key indicators including forest area are stable or increasing; most countries have enacted and are capable of enforcing laws that result in the effective protection of forests. However, a number of disturbing trends remain. Forest health is adversely affected by fire, insects and disease, all of which may increase if global warming continues. Climate change poses an unknown threat to Europe s forests, although some areas may well benefit e.g. from longer growing seasons. Employment in the forestry sector continues to fall as the forest sector workforce continues to age, and labour productivity increases as capital continues to replace labour as the most important factor of production. The contribution of forests to Europe s economy will most likely continue to fall if prices for forest products remain stagnant. Globalization is changing the forest sector along with the rest of the world economy. In its concluding section, EFSOS asks, Are European forests sustainable in the long term? The answer is a qualified yes, with caveats in all three areas of sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. A comprehensive discussion of major trends in each of these three pillars of sustainable development can be found in EFSOS. It is perhaps timely to repeat the main policy relevant forecasts from EFSOS: Recycling and residue use will continue to expand Renewable energy policies will increase the demand for wood Europe s forest resource will continue to expand Fellings will remain below annual increment in Europe Forest products trade will intensify further Economic viability of forest management will remain threatened Forest sector institutions will continue to evolve rapidly EFSOS also made 14 policy recommendations which have been widely discussed. Europe s leaders face many challenges, including constraints on public finances, an aging workforce, and unanswered questions about long-term economic viability such as the impact of stagnant prices for forest products. The uncertain impacts of climate change on forest ecosystems looms over Europe and the rest of the world like a storm cloud. However, there are also many positive trends on which to build, starting with the fact that Europe has successfully halted and reversed the historical loss of forest area. With MCPFE, Europe has in place a strong political process to support the forest sector, a process that is the envy of forestry officials in other regions, and the envy of many other sectors in Europe. 19

20 Bibliography Bauer, et. al Forest Legislation in Europe. ECE/TIM/DP.37. Geneva FAO Forest Resources Assessment 2000 main report. FAO Forestry Paper 140. Rome. Lebedys, A Trends and current status of the contribution of the forestry sector to national economies. FAO Forest Finance Working Paper FSFM/ACC/07. Rome. FAO Forest Products Yearbook Rome. FAO Trends in wood products Rome. FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005 progress towards sustainable forest management. FAO Forestry Paper 147. Rome. FAO FAOSTAT statistical database. Rome. JRC Global Land Cover Map. Prepared by the EU Joint Research Centre. Italy. MCPFE State of Europe s Forests Vienna. UNECE/FAO European Forestry Sector Outlook Study. Geneva. UN United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database (COMTRADE). New York. World Bank World development indicators database. Washington, DC. Annex Countries and reporting areas in Europe in FRA 2005: Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Channel Islands, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Faeroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Gibraltar, Greece, Holy See, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Isle of Man, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom Countries included in Nordic countries in Chapter 6: Finland, Norway, Sweden Countries included in Central and Eastern Europe in Chapter 6: Albania, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine 20