Key Questions on Forests in the EU
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
04
Key Questions
on Forests in
the EU
Edited by
Harald Mauser
KNOWLEDGE
TO ACTION
Key Questions on Forests in the EU 1
Lukas Giessen
Editor-In-Chief Key Questions
Sarah Adams
Managing Editor
on Forests in
Inazio Martinez de Arano
Associate Editor
the EU
The editorial office can be contacted at
k2a@efi.int
2 What do you see when you think about forests?
Layout: Lina Salamanca
This work and publication have been
4 Forest benefits to EU citizens
financed by EFI’s Multi-Donor Trust Fund
for policy support, which is supported by the
6 EU 27 forests in a nutshell
governments of Austria, Czech Republic,
Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, 8 Q1. How did EU 27 forests develop and why do they differ from those of the past?
Norway, Spain and Sweden.
12 Q2. Who owns the forests and how are they managed?
Recommended citation:
Mauser, H. (ed). 2021. Key questions on 16 Q3. What do people think about forests in the EU?
forests in the EU. Knowledge to Action 4,
European Forest Institute. 20 Q4. How has climate change affected EU forests and what might happen next?
https://doi.org/10.36333/k2a04
24 Q5. To manage or not to manage – how can we support forests to mitigate climate
Edited by Harald Mauser, European Forest
Institute; full list of contributors on p.59 change and adapt to its impacts?
Acknowledgements:
The report benefited from helpful comments
28 Q6. How does forest management affect biodiversity?
by external reviewers, Lukas Giessen from
the Technical University Dresden, Tomas 32 Q7. What role do forests play in the water cycle?
Lundmark from the Swedish University
of Agricultural Sciences SLU and Marco 36 Q8. How can forests improve human health and well-being?
Marchetti from the University of Molise. We
wish to express our thanks for their insights 40 Q9. How can trees and forests support sustainable and climate friendly cities?
and comments that helped to improve the
report, and acknowledge that they are in no 44 Q10. How does forest management and the use of wood contribute to economic
way responsible for any remaining errors.
prosperity and employment?
ISBN 978-952-7426-05-0 (print)
ISBN 978-952-7426-06-7 (pdf) 48 Q11. How can a forest-based bioeconomy support biodiversity and climate neutrality?
ISSN 2670-2126 (printed)
ISSN 2670-2215 (pdf) 52 Q12. What is the impact of the EU’s consumption on the world’s forests?
56 Glossary
58 Contributors
Photo by: Florian Haider on Pexels
Key Questions on Forests in the EU 3
Key Questions on Forests in the EU
The listed perceptions A solid and holistic
A scenic landscape people have about forests understanding of the different
you want to spend demonstrate some of the roles forests play is necessary
time in? many products and services to be able to design policies
that the EU’s forests provide that help to maximize synergies
to society, benefiting citizens and minimize trade-offs
in numerous different ways. between the different forest
The expectations for forests uses.
are high, and they are subject
to many and varied demands. This publication compiles key
A treasure you want Not all of these demands research findings in the form
to hand over in good are necessarily compatible, of 12 questions on forests in
shape to your children? resulting in societal and policy the EU and the benefits they
debates on the role of forests provide to society. It aims to
and their multiple products and inform a wider range of people
services. Often such debates who are not forest experts,
focus on the question if and but who are interested in
for which primary objectives information on some of the
forests in the EU should be many contributions forests
The wooden house managed, and how. make to achieving EU policy
you want to live in, goals. Harnessing its ongoing
enjoying wooden Sound decision making needs, monitoring of recent EU policy
furniture and other amongst other things, a holistic processes, EFI selected the
wood-based products understanding of the different following areas in particular:
interests regarding forests that bioeconomy, civil protection,
like paper and textiles? are represented by multiple climate change mitigation and
directly or indirectly involved adaptation, forestry, impact
stakeholders, and of the on global forests, nature
complexity, diversity and long- conservation, public health
time horizons of ecological and regional development. The
processes and management geographic scope is the 27
A refuge for decisions in forests. Different EU member states, although
biodiversity in which groups of actors tend to have in specific cases it is indicated
you can experience a good understanding of the if EU 28 or European data are
forest aspects they value the used.
nature and see most or they are familiar with.
wildlife? But often information on other For the sake of brevity, this
aspects and interrelations publication only provides a
between them are rather poorly snapshot of the available
understood or downplayed. information. More detailed
This limits proper assessment insights and relevant
of the implications of references are provided on
A major carbon sink decisions in policy and forest the EFI website; a link is given
that helps to mitigate management. Together with under each question.
climate change? myths, misunderstandings,
and distrust between actor
groups, these gaps impede
dialogue and rational policy
All of the above? development.
K2A Knowledge to Action Key Questions on Forests in the EU 5
K2A Knowledge to Action Key Questions on Forests in the EU 9
1. How did EU 27 forests develop
and why do they differ from those
of the past?
Forests in the EU have seen major changes over time. The
expansion of agricultural areas for food production and the
overexploitation of forests for fuel and construction materials for
e.g. mining, shipping and built infrastructure resulted in major
losses of forest cover during the last centuries to millennia.
Those trends in forest cover change have reversed since the beginning of the
19th century. Forest area has been expanding through active afforestation or
natural forest expansion on abandoned pasture and agricultural areas. The
timing, pace and extent of this development differs between EU countries and
regions. As a result of these human interventions and their interaction with
natural processes, a cultural landscape has evolved with predominantly semi-
natural forests. Only small and fragmented areas of primary forests remain in
a few boreal and mountainous areas in the EU.
The forest resources in the EU currently cover 159 million ha or around 40%
of the land area. This corresponds to an area four times the size of Sweden.
The share in forest cover is largest in the Nordic countries with a forest cover
of 74% in Finland and 69% in Sweden, whereas it is as little as 11% in Ireland
and the Netherlands, and 1% in Malta.
As well as the extent of forest in Europe, the structure of forest resources
has also been changing. Improved land and forest management practices,
as well as nitrogen deposition and climate change have caused the growth
rate (or increment) of trees and forests to increase over recent decades. The
rate of wood harvesting has also been increasing in recent decades, but at
a slower pace than the increase in wood increment. Currently, about 75% of
the net annual growth is felled, but with a large variation across regions. As
Read the full story! the annual growth rate exceeds fellings, the amount of wood and biomass
standing in Europe’s forests has been increasing continuously since the end
of the Second World War.
The management of forest resources varies greatly across Europe,
depending on local conditions and traditions. Since the 1990s, there has
been a trend towards more close-to-nature silviculture and nature-oriented
Photo by: Bernadett Hiersche on Adobe Stock
K2A Knowledge to Action
WHY WERE SCOTS PINE AND NORWAY SPRUCE PLANTED
OUTSIDE THEIR NATURAL RANGE HISTORICALLY?
Better ability to grow and produce sufficient timber on
Photo by: Ruslan Khismatov on Adobe Stock
degraded soils depleted of nutrients by previous agricultural
forest management, although this is and Norway Spruce are coniferous uses such as litter raking and grazing.
implemented in many ways. While in native species in many parts of Europe.
the past, forests were predominantly They have been particularly promoted
managed as simple, even-aged- (see box) and established outside their
forests (i.e. all trees were the same natural range as well as their ecological
age), management nowadays aims to niche. However, a shift towards a larger
increasingly develop more structurally share of broadleaved species can be Faster tree growth enabled meeting in shorter time the
rich forests. observed, especially in Central Europe. increasing wood demand of a growing population and the
Motivated by the realization of the higher wood demand after wars for reconstruction and
Clearcutting with tree retention susceptibility of coniferous forests to reparation payments.
(typically 5-10 trees per ha) is still the storm, wildfire and insect outbreaks and
dominant cutting regime especially climate change, forest managers have
in the north of Europe, but there is a been increasingly favouring broadleaved
move away from clearcutting towards species since the 1990s.
small-scale harvest and selective Better energy efficiency of timber processing and usability for
cutting of individuals or groups of Tree species composition is, however, high quality products due to stem straightness and fibre length,
trees, especially in Central and South- not always a direct management as well as fewer defects like knots, colouration, tensions and
Eastern European countries. When choice. Especially in southern Europe, twists in the wood. Timber from pine and spruce was in higher
clearcutting is applied, harvesting forests have been established in demand, both from sawmills as well as pulp and paper mills.
cycles can go from 10 to 30 years recent decades through natural forest
in the case of fast growing species expansion following the abandonment
(poplar, eucalyptus, some pine or of agricultural practices. The tree
spruce species), but cycles typically species composition of these forests
exceed 80 years - ranging up to more is determined, amongst many other Silvicultural management to produce good quality timber
than 200 years in Central Europe. factors, by the availability of seeds was easier.
and the ability of species to reach and
Tree species selection is another major occupy new sites. Also, high densities
management choice. For centuries, of e.g. roe and red deer populations
land managers, including foresters, often lead to failures of deciduous
favoured relatively few tree species species as they are selectively browsed.
for timber and fuelwood production, In addition, the historical expansion of
as well as other amenities. As a result, agriculture typically occurred on fertile
European forests deviate substantially and easily accessible areas. The forests
from the potential natural vegetation. and tree species that remained are
At the European level, economically typically those species that can grow on
important and widespread tree species less fertile soils or in harsher conditions.
include Scots Pine, Norway Spruce,
Oak and European Beech. Scots Pine
Read the full story at: www.efi.int/forestquestions/q1
K2A Knowledge to Action Key Questions on Forests in the EU 13
2. Who owns the forests and
how are they managed?
European forests belong to around 16 million private and public
forest owners. In the EU, about 60% of the forest area is privately
owned and 40% public.
Public forests are owned by municipalities, regional or national governments.
Private forests may include traditional, non-industrial types of private
ownership including families, farms, rural commons, churches and aristocratic
estates. Industrial private owners include forest industry companies, e.g.
producing pulp and paper. There are also specific types that are not fully
private nor public, such as commonly owned forests by local citizens or farm
holdings that go back to historical ownership forms or are triggered by social
movements.
Overall, the property sizes range from below one hectare to up to several
millions of hectares. However, almost 90% of private forest holdings are
smaller than 10 hectares, many are even much smaller. Income generated
by forest use spreads to a large number of families and individuals in society
(different from income generated from e.g. coal, oil or gas resources).
Due to the different historical, legal and social circumstances, patterns of
public and private ownership vary greatly across Europe. For example, in
Northern Europe, around 70% of the forests are privately owned, while in
South East Europe around 90% are public. While private ownership clearly
dominates in western European regions, it is the opposite in Eastern Europe
(see Figure 1). The extent of property rights granted to owners by the specific
national legal frameworks also differs strongly, with a gradient of a greater
freedom for owners in forest management in Western European countries and
more legal restrictions in Eastern Europe.
Read the full story! Societal and political developments, like structural changes in agriculture,
urbanization, changes in lifestyles, as well as restitution and privatization after
the 1989 fall of the Iron Curtain, and decentralization have led to changes in
ownership patterns. When small farms are given up, the agricultural land is
usually sold to other farmers, but forests are often kept in the family and may
become owned by non-agricultural owners with urban lifestyles. The restitution
of nationalized land to its former owners has been a major (and still ongoing)
Photo by: Anne Rauhamäki
60°0•0•N
30°0'0"W 20°0'0"W 10°0'0"W 0°0'0" 10°0'0"E 20°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 40°0'0"E 50°0'0"E 60°0'0"E 70°0'0"E
FOREST MAP OF EUROPE
0 250 500 750
(geographical Europe, Cyprus and Turkey)
60°0•0•N
Kilometers
30°0'0"W 20°0'0"W 10°0'0"W 0°0'0" 10°0'0"E 20°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 40°0'0"E 50°0'0"E 60°0'0"E 70°0'0"E
ETRS89 Lambert Azimuthal Equal Area projection
Proportion of forest from land area
FOREST
(% at 1km x 1km MAP OF EUROPE
resolution)
0 250 500 750
Kilometers
(geographical Europe, Cyprus and Turkey)
0 - 10
ETRS89 Lambert Azimuthal Equal Area projection
Proportion of forest
11 - from
25 land area
K2A Knowledge to Action Key Questions on Forests in the EU 15
(% at 1km x 1km resolution)
26 - 50
0 - -10
51 75
11 - 25
76 100
26 - 50
Water
51 -data
No 75
76 - 100
Forest area by country
Water(Millions hectares)
60°0'0"N
and percentage from total land area:
No data
AL 0.776 (28%)
AT 3.857 (47%)
BA 2.472
Forest area by(48%)
country
(Millions hectares)
60°0'0"N
BE 0.678 (22%)
and percentage from total land area:
BG 3.927 (36%)
BY
AL 0.776 (28%) 8.600 (41%)
CH
AT 1.240 (31%)
3.857 (47%)
CY
BA 0.1732.472
(19%)(48%)
CZ 0.6782.657
(22%)(34%)
50°0'0"N
BE
DE
BG 3.927 (36%) 11.076 (32%)
DK
BY 0.587 (14%) 8.600 (41%)
EE
CH 2.203
1.240 (52%)
(31%)
ES
CY 0.173 (19%) 18.173 (36%)
FI
CZ 2.657 (34%) 22.084 (73%)
50°0'0"N
FR
DE 15.954 (29%)
11.076 (32%)
GR
DK 3.903 (30%)
0.587 (14%)
HR
EE 1.920
2.203(34%)
(52%)
HU
ES 2.039 (23%) 18.173 (36%)
IE
FI 0.737 (11%) 22.084 (73%)
Private forest ownership
Private Forestmap of Europe
Ownership Map of Europe
IS *
FR 0.030 (0.3%) 15.954 (29%)
GRIT 3.903 (30%) 9.149 (31%)
HRLI 0.0071.920
(43%)(34%)
LT
HU 2.165 (23%)
2.039 (35%)
LUIE 0.087
0.737(33%)
(11%)
50°0'0"N
LV
IS * 3.354 (54%)
0.030 (0.3%)
MDIT 0.386 (12%) 9.149 (31%)
MELI 0.467(43%)
0.007 (34%)
MK
LT 0.998
2.165(39%)
(35%)
NL
LU 0.365(33%)
0.087 (11%)
50°0'0"N
NO
LV 3.354 (54%) 10.250 (34%)
PL
MD 0.386 (12%) 9.319 (30%)
PT
ME 3.456 (38%)
0.467 (34%)
RO
MK 0.998 (39%) 6.573 (29%)
RS
NL 0.3652.713
(11%)(31%)
SE
NO 10.250 (34%) 28.605 (70%)
30°0’0’’W 20°0’0’’W 10°0’0’’W 0°0•0• ’ 10°0’0’’E
0°0’0’ 20°0’0’’E 30°0’0’’E 40°0’0’’E 50°0’0’’E 60°0’0’’E 70°0’0’’E
SI
PL 1.253 (62%) 9.319 (30%)
SK
PT 1.938 (40%)
3.456 (38%)
40°0'0"N
TR
RO 6.573 (29%)11.334 (15%)
30°0•0•W 20°0•0•W 10°0•0•W 10°0•0•E 20°0•0•E 30°0•0•E 40°0•0•E 50°0•0•E 60°0•0•E 70°0•0•E
UA
RS 2.713 (31%) 9.705 (17%)
60°0’0’’N
UK
SE 2.881 (12%) 28.605 (70%)
SI 1.253 (62%)
Russian Federation (European part): 171.188 M ha (46%)
SK 1.938 (40%)
40°0'0"N
TR 11.334 (15%)
60°0•0•N
* based on Forest Europe 2011; not included in map due to lacking
UA
satellite data coverage 9.705 (17%) 30°0'0"W 20°0'0"W 10°0'0"W 0°0'0" 10°0'0"E 20°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 40°0'0"E 50°0'0"E 60°0'0"E 70°0'0"E
UK
Total forest2.881
area(12%)
shown in the map: 379.280 M ha (37%)
Two different earth-observation products: FOREST MAP OF EUROPE
Russian Federation (European part): 171.188 M ha (46%)
http://efdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/data/forestmaps, 0 250 500 750
Kilometers
(geographical Europe, Cyprus and Turkey)
www.efi.int/portal/virtual_library/publications/research_reports/14
*have
based on combined
been Forest Europe
with 2011; not included
statistical data to in map due to lacking
40°0'0"N
ETRS89 Lambert Azimuthal Equal Area projection
satellite
producedata coverage
a forest map that corresponds to the official forest inventory Proportion of forest from land area
Total forest
statistics area shown
at national and/orinregional
the map: 379.280 M ha (37%)
level. (% at 1km x 1km resolution)
Two different
Further earth-observation products:
details:
http://efdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/data/forestmaps,
www.efi.int/portal/virtual_library/information_services/ 0 - 10
www.efi.int/portal/virtual_library/publications/research_reports/14
mapping_services/forest_map_of_europe
have been combined with statistical data to 11 - 25
40°0'0"N
produce aefisec(at)efi.int
Contact: forest map that corresponds to the official forest inventory
26 - 50
statistics at national and/or regional level.
European Forest Institute, December 2011
Further details: 51 - 75
www.efi.int/portal/virtual_library/information_services/
mapping_services/forest_map_of_europe 76 - 100
Water
Contact: efisec(at)efi.int
European Forest Institute, December 2011 No data
www.fefr.org
Forest area by country (Millions hectares)
60°0'0"N
0°0'0" 10°0'0"E 20°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 40°0'0"E and percentage from total land area:
AL 0.776 (28%)
Forest Map of Europe
www.fefr.org AT 3.857 (47%)
BA 2.472 (48%)
BE 0.678 (22%)
may live far away, or not even know costs), disincentives for investment
0°0'0" 10°0'0"E 20°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 40°0'0"E BG 3.927 (36%)
BY 8.600 (41%)
CH 1.240 (31%)
CY 0.173 (19%)
Forest Map of Europe
CZ 2.657 (34%)
50°0'0"N
DE 11.076 (32%)
DK 0.587 (14%)
EE 2.203 (52%)
ES 18.173 (36%)
FI 22.084 (73%)
FR 15.954 (29%)
that they are forest owners. This is true in sustainable forest practices, and
50°0•0•N
GR 3.903 (30%)
HR 1.920 (34%)
HU 2.039 (23%)
IE 0.737 (11%)
IS * 0.030 (0.3%)
IT
Recommended citation for the forest ownership map of Europe:
9.149 (31%)
LI 0.007 (43%)
50°0•0•N
LT 2.165 (35%)
LU 0.087 (33%)
50°0'0"N
LV 3.354 (54%)
both for Western European countries greater management problems
MD 0.386 (12%)
Pulla, P., Schuck, A., Verkerk,
for the P. J., Lasserre, B., map
Marchetti, M. and Green, T. 2013.
ME 0.467 (34%)
Recommended citation forest ownership of Europe:
MK 0.998 (39%)
NL 0.365 (11%)
NO 10.250 (34%)
PL 9.319 (30%)
PT 3.456 (38%)
MappingP., the distribution of forest
P. J.,ownership
Lasserre, in
B.,Europe. EFIM.
Technical Report 88. 92 p.
RO 6.573 (29%)
Pulla, Schuck, A., Verkerk, Marchetti, and Green, T. 2013. RS
SE
SI
2.713 (31%)
1.253 (62%)
28.605 (70%)
(e.g. inherited forests owned by urban related to the provision of ecosystem
SK 1.938 (40%)
40°0'0"N
TR 11.334 (15%)
UA 9.705 (17%)
Mapping the distribution of forest ownership in Europe. EFI Technical Report 88. 92 p. UK 2.881 (12%)
Russian Federation (European part): 171.188 M ha (46%)
60°0’0’’N
* based on Forest Europe 2011; not included in map due to lacking
Forest ownership data
satellite data coverage
Total forest area shown in the map: 379.280 M ha (37%)
60°0•0•N
Two different earth-observation products:
people) and for Eastern European services, including wildlife, water,
http://efdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/data/forestmaps,
www.efi.int/portal/virtual_library/publications/research_reports/14
have been combined with statistical data to
40°0'0"N
Compiled from official
data national and international information sources on private,
produce a forest map that corresponds to the official forest inventory
Forest ownership
statistics at national and/or regional level.
Further details:
www.efi.int/portal/virtual_library/information_services/
mapping_services/forest_map_of_europe
public and other forest ownerships (publications, websites and information portals) Contact: efisec(at)efi.int
Compiled from official national and international information sources on private,
European Forest Institute, December 2011
public and other forest ownerships (publications, websites and information portals)
Private ownership
countries where owners of restituted
0°0'0" 10°0'0"E 20°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 40°0'0"E
www.fefr.org
recreational opportunities and soil
forests often lack bonds to their re- protection. However, joint management
Forest Map of Europe
Forest owned
Private by individuals, families, communities, private co-operatives, corporations
ownership
50°0’0’’N
and other business entities, private religious and educational institutions, pension
acquired properties. In contrast to the by private forest associations, forest
Forest owned by individuals, families, communities, private co-operatives, corporations
50°0•0•N
or investment funds, NGOs, nature conservation associations and other private
and other business entities, private religious and educational institutions, pension Recommended citation for the forest ownership map of Europe:
institutions. (FAO 2010)
or investment funds, NGOs, nature conservation associations and other private Pulla, P., Schuck, A., Verkerk, P. J., Lasserre, B., Marchetti, M. and Green, T. 2013.
institutions. (FAO 2010)
References existing good understanding of the
Mapping the distribution of forest ownership in Europe. EFI Technical Report 88. 92 p.
certification initiatives and support by
FAO 2010. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010. Terms and Definitions. Working
References
Paper 144/E. 27 p. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
FAO 2010. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010. Terms and Definitions. Working
behaviour of traditional forest holders,
Forest ownership data
Compiled from official national and international information sources on private, advisory services can address these
in most countries there is much less disadvantages. The diversity of forest
public and other forest ownerships (publications, websites and information portals)
Gunia, K., Päivinen,
Paper 144/E. 27 p. FoodR.,and
Zudin, S. andOrganization
Agriculture Zudina, E. of
2012. Forest Nations,
the United map of Rome.
Europe.
European Forest Institute. http://www.efi.int/portal/virtual_library/information_
Gunia, K., Päivinen, R., Zudin, S. and Zudina, E. 2012. Forest map of Europe.
Proportion of forest
knowledge about other forest owner owners also represents a richness
Private ownership
40°0•0•N
services/mapping_services/forest_map_of_europe/
50°0’0’’N
European Forest Institute. http://www.efi.int/portal/virtual_library/information_
50°0•0•N
Forest owned by individuals, families, communities, private co-operatives, corporations
land in private
40°0•0•N
services/mapping_services/forest_map_of_europe/ and other business entities, private religious and educational institutions, pension
types with their specific motives and since a mosaic of management
or investment funds, NGOs, nature conservation associations and other private
ownership(%) institutions. (FAO 2010)
preferences. approaches can increase the resilience
Proportion of forest land
in private ownership (%) References
Proportion of forest land
0
FAO 2010. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010. Terms and Definitions. Working
of forests, biodiversity at landscape
in private ownership
0 (%) Paper 144/E. 27 p. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
0.1-10
Gunia, K., Päivinen, R., Zudin, S. and Zudina, E. 2012. Forest map of Europe.
0
40°0’0’’N
The more fragmented forest ownership level, and help to provide a more
0.1–10 European Forest Institute. http://www.efi.int/portal/virtual_library/information_
40°0•0•N
11-25
services/mapping_services/forest_map_of_europe/
0.1–10
11–25
26-50
11–25
26 –50 becomes the more important (and diverse set of forest ecosystem
51-75
26 –50
more difficult) it is to reach forest services.
Proportion of forest land
51–75 in private ownership (%)
76-100
51–75
owners for common forest policy goals.
76 –100 0
40°0’0’’N
No
76
No–100data
0.1–10
40°0•0•N
data
0
No data
250 500 750
11–25
26–50
Fragmentation often leads to economic
0
0 250
250
ETRS89 Lambert Azimuthal Equal Area projectionKilometers
500
500 750
750Kilometers
51–75
inefficiency in forest management
(higher harvesting and transaction
76–100
Kilometers
ETRS89 Lambert Azimuthal Equal Area projection
No data
ETRS89 Lambert Azimuthal
Equal Area Projection
0 250 500 750
Kilometers
0°0’0’’
0°0•0•
10°0’0’’E
10°0•0•E
20°0’0’’E
20°0•0•E 30°0’0’’E
30°0•0•E
40°0’0’’E
40°0•0•E ETRS89 Lambert Azimuthal Equal Area projection
Figure 1. Distribution of private and public ownership across Europe
(red-strong private, yellow-strong public) (Pulla et al, 2013)1
change in some Eastern European While state forest owners generally
countries. The privatization of state actively manage their forests according
forests is observed in the Baltic states. to political, societal and business
objectives, there is a wide variation
The goals and motivation of forest in private forests, especially in small-
owners to manage their forests vary scale forest ownership. This may range
substantially. It depends on their from active market participation to
forest size, their connection to their self-subsistence from forest products,
property, their preferences regarding keeping their forest as a reserve for
economic, environmental and social family investments, to altruistic motives
values, and their flexibility to respond to no management at all. Especially
to market trends. The regional setting owners of very small properties often
and infrastructure (e.g. is there a local lack the knowledge, skills, capacities
industry using wood) is also likely and interest in forest management.
to have a major effect. Together this
all impacts on the way forests are Another important aspect is the Photo by: Pellinni on Adobe Stock
managed and on the products and urbanization of owners – some have
services which are provided to society. little or no connection to their forests, 1
References used:
Pulla, P., Schuck, A., Verkerk, P. J., Lasserre, B., Marchetti, M., Green, T. (2013) Mapping the distribution of forest ownership in Europe. EFI Technical Report
88. 92 p.
Read the full story at: www.efi.int/forestquestions/q2
K2A Knowledge to Action Key Questions on Forests in the EU 17
3. What do people think
about forests in the EU?
Citizens living in Europe appreciate forests for the many societal
benefits they provide, and literally all of them consume forest-
based products ranging from furniture to paper products.
However, when asked about their perceptions of forests and their
benefits, environmental benefits are the most well-known, and
receive the highest appreciation.
In a 2016 Eurobarometer study, the benefits most often mentioned as being most
important were:
absorbing carbon dioxide providing animals protecting people from
to fight climate change with natural habitats natural disasters such as
floods and avalanches
66% 63%
40%
The economic potential of forests – for example their ability to provide
wooden products and energy, their contributions to employment, green jobs
Read the full story! and rural development- did not score highly. Neither did their importance
for healthy leisure activities, although there are large regional variations
in Europe as outdoor recreation is much more appreciated in the North
compared to southern member states. But during the COVID-19 pandemic
in 2020, recreation opportunities in forests have been heavily used. Their
importance for recreation, health and well-being is well documented in the
literature (see Question 8).
Photo by: V Sot on Adobe StockK2A Knowledge to Action Key Questions on Forests in the EU 19
In 2018, 39.3% of the EU population with large dimensions are perceived as Some studies point out that a relatively
lived in urban areas such as cities, beautiful. However, studies show some high share of respondents feels rather
31.6% lived in peri-urban towns and differences between verbally stated poorly informed about forests and has
suburbs, and 29.1% lived in rural and visually stated preferences using little knowledge about the purposes
areas. While there are differences photos. Apparently, there are trade-offs and effects of forest management. This
with regards to respondents’ country, between societal preferences regarding indicates a need to improve information,
age, gender, education and in some forest ecosystem services and forestry education and communication on forests
cases between people living in rural objectives when these are translated and their management, also explaining
or urban areas, the overall perception into concrete forest management the synergies and trade-offs between
of forests is remarkably consistent interventions. They might not be different forest ecosystem services
across the continent: the environmental considered by the general public when related to different management
benefits of forests are perceived as surveyed. practices.
most important. In particular, female,
higher educated individuals or urban
citizens tend to give comparatively
higher preference to the environmental
benefits of forests than male, less
educated and rural citizens. Wood
and wood-based products such as for
construction purposes, composites,
chemicals, packaging, textiles or
fuels are appreciated as they are
substituting fossil-based materials.
However, citizens have little knowledge
about them and are concerned about
their environmental sustainability.
Some studies indicate a general
satisfaction with forest management,
albeit with regional differences and
partially negative perceptions of
forestry operations. People with a
professional background in forestry
and/or forest owners and managers
show significantly higher support
for silvicultural operations and the
economic use of forests than the
general public. Visible signs of
(intense) wood harvesting (especially
clear-cuts, impacts of harvesting
machinery on forest areas and forest
roads) are frequently perceived
negatively by citizens. In turn, mixed
and rich structured forests and
close-to-nature management are the
preferred management options. Trees
Photo by: Josh Hild on Pexels
Photo by: Art of line on Adobe Stock
Read the full story at: www.efi.int/forestquestions/q3K2A Knowledge to Action Key Questions on Forests in the EU 21
4. How has climate change
affected EU forests and what
might happen next?
Climate change is ongoing, and global temperatures are now
more than one degree above pre-industrial levels. As well as the
warming trend, extreme weather events and other disturbances
have been amplified, often connected to climate change.
Recently, especially during the 2018-2020 summers, European forests
have been affected by severe droughts, a series of windstorms,
more severe and widespread wildfires, rapidly expanding bark beetle
infestations and several other pest and disease outbreaks. Damage to
forests caused by extreme events and disturbances as well as interactions
between disturbances (such as bark beetle outbreaks following windstorm
or drought damage) have increased in recent decades and are projected
to increase under climate change. This is a major challenge for future
forest management.
Climate change and associated extreme events are already affecting
the growth and stability of forests in Europe. Improved forest growth
has been observed in northern parts of Europe and in higher altitudes
of mountainous regions (e.g. mountain treeline changes). Negative tree
growth has already been reported, for example for spruce and beech in
Slovakia and Belgium. Drought-induced growth declines have increasingly
been observed at the dry distribution limits of tree species such as in
southern Switzerland or Spain, but also in temperate lowland forests
following the drought year of 2003. Forests are particularly vulnerable at
the warm and dry tree species distribution limits, where intensified drought
impacts and wildfire risk are particularly large and no other tree species
are available to replace them.
The recent exceptionally long and intensive drought in Central Europe
Read the full story! from 2018 to 2020 drastically exceeded previous impacts and resulted
in widespread mortality in different species. It caused an unprecedented
large-scale bark beetle outbreak, which affected particularly Norway
Spruce forests planted outside their native range in Central Europe. This
led to salvage cutting on more than a million hectares. Drought-induced
mortality also affected several other species including beech and Scots
pine within their native range, and partially even native mountain spruce
Photo by: -Alex Po on Adobe StockK2A Knowledge to Action Key Questions on Forests in the EU 23
forests. Saturated wood markets, reversed due to more frequent or The present rate and magnitude of
collapsing wood prices and subsequent intensive disturbances. Therefore, climate change exceeds the speed of
economic losses for many forest owners it is necessary to interpret climate natural tree species migration. Active
followed, especially in the Czech change impacts on productivity management is therefore needed to
Republic, Austria and Germany. and disturbance regimes together. enable the future existence of forests
Such integrated and quantitative and their sustainable management. This
In the future, forest growth and tree assessments are missing for the could for example be achieved through
species composition in Europe is likely EU. artificial planting or seeding of better
to change, but the location, the amount adapted genotypes or species currently
and partly even the direction of this • adaptive capacity of land not available at the site (so called
change is hard to predict. This is due to owners, trees and forest “assisted migration”).
a number of fundamental uncertainties ecosystems. Locally prevailing
regarding the: species and genotypes get
increasingly maladapted. There
• level of climate warming during is only limited knowledge on
the 21st century. Future impacts how trees can adapt to novel
might be magnified if the world fails climate conditions close to their
to meet the Paris Agreement targets. physiological limits.
• future evolution of extreme events
in a changing climate. Some of the
recent extremes were caused by
changing global weather circulation
patterns. It is unknown, how they will
reoccur and how much worse they
could get with continuing climate
warming.
• effect of increasing CO2
concentrations in the atmosphere
and their impact on forest
growth and water use efficiency.
Increasing CO2 concentrations in the
atmosphere stimulate forest growth
with slightly less water uptake.
However, interactions with other
growth limiting factors (nutrients,
water) will likely reduce these effects
in the future.
• combined effects of productivity
changes and disturbance
impacts. Climate change may
enhance forest productivity in years
with average climatic conditions,
but these gains may be lost or even
Photo by: Helge on Adobe Stock Photo by: vojtechkuchar on Adobe Stock
Read the full story at: www.efi.int/forestquestions/q4K2A Knowledge to Action Key Questions on Forests in the EU 25
5. To manage or not to manage
– how can we support forests
to mitigate climate change and
adapt to its impacts?
Forests play an important role in the global carbon cycle that
can help to mitigate climate change via three pathways:
Forests remove carbon In forests managed for wood In addition to carbon storage
dioxide from the supply, part of the carbon in forest ecosystems and in
atmosphere and store (mainly in tree stems and major wood products, using wood
carbon in biomass and branches) is extracted from can avoid or reduce fossil
soil. the forest during harvest. If greenhouse gas emissions
the wood is used for materials, by replacing (substituting)
the carbon is stored in wood products or fuels that emit
products and only released at more greenhouse gases
the end of their life (which may during their production, use
include one or more phases of and disposal (e.g. steel,
recycling). concrete).
Possible approaches for forests range from no management with the (sole)
aim to store carbon within forest ecosystems to active management aiming
Read the full story! either to strengthen carbon storage in forest ecosystems (e.g. through tree
species selection, breeding, thinning, cutting regimes, etc.) or to strengthen
carbon storage in forest ecosystems and in wood-based products and avoiding
emissions through substitution effects. An open key question is if forests
which are left unmanaged provide larger CO2 emission reductions than forests
managed for the production of wood (with carbon storage in wood products and
substitution effects).
Photo by:lovelyday12 on Adobe StockK2A Knowledge to Action Key Questions on Forests in the EU 27
Scientific studies to tackle this
Scientific studies to tackle this question When looking at carbon balances, performance of forest owners, but also
may even appear contradictory it is also essential to consider for the wood-processing industries and
because they reflect different views consequences beyond the local level. regional economies (see Question 10).
and approaches. The carbon effects of Reducing wood production may lead
managed and unmanaged forests are to gains in carbon storage in forest A holistic evaluation is therefore needed
generally found to be affected by the ecosystems at one location, but to understand the full consequences
assumed forest dynamics (growth rate, these gains may be offset through of changing forest management in
mortality, disturbances). In the case of the international trade of wood and supporting climate policy. To strengthen
managed forests, other relevant factors wood products causing deforestation the long-term contribution of forests and
include the types of forest management, or degradation elsewhere (a “leakage forestry to climate change mitigation,
of wood products considered, and the effect”). There is an increase in as well as the resilience of forests to
non-wood products that are substituted, material demand due to a growing climate change, the best strategy will
and how these products have been world population and rising levels of therefore be a mix of measures that
produced. In addition, the comparison prosperity. The reduced production takes into account regional conditions.
of managed and unmanaged systems is and use of forest products may result This mix combines conservation
hampered by limited information on the in increased use of competing, non- approaches to strengthen carbon
natural dynamics of unmanaged forests renewable materials, often with larger storage in forest ecosystems, as well as
and by uncertainties on the impacts carbon footprints, such as steel and active management approaches to store
of climate change (see Question concrete. carbon in forest ecosystems and wood
4). Europe’s forests are affected by products, and avoid emissions through
climate change and this is expected to In most of the EU regions, selling substitution.
continue in the future with changes of timber is the dominant source of
productivity, tree species suitability and income from forests to fund the costs
extreme events and disturbances. of the establishment and adaptation
of forests to new climate conditions.
Especially in a transition from a Changes in forest management
managed to an unmanaged forest, it limiting the supply of wood have
is unclear how ceasing management consequences for the economic
would affect forest development and its
carbon balances under climate change.
The present rate and magnitude of
climate change (including the effects
of natural disturbances) exceeds the
speed of natural tree species migration
and their capacity to adapt to the
changing conditions (see Question
4). Ending management limits the
possibility to strengthen forest resilience
to climate change through adaptive
forest management – for example
by increasing species diversity,
introducing better adapted species and
provenances - implementing sanitary
fellings to contain invasive pest species,
reducing the amount of burnable
materials in fire-prone areas, etc.
Photo by: Christian Faludi on Adobe Stock Photo by: Alberto Masnovo on Adobe Stock
Read the full story at: www.efi.int/forestquestions/q5K2A Knowledge to Action Key Questions on Forests in the EU 29
6. How does forest management
affect biodiversity?
Most forests in Europe have a long history of human use and have
been altered in one way or another (see Question 1). Still, forests are
one of the ecosystems with the highest biodiversity. Old-growth and
natural forests are particularly valuable for biodiversity and carbon
storage. Some intensively managed forests (e.g. coppice forests)
can also have high conservation value.
Today 94% of Europe’s forests are classified as ‘semi-natural’ (with regards
to tree species composition, regeneration, age and stand structure), 2%
are undisturbed by man (mainly found in North, South-East and Central
Europe) and 3% are plantations. Since the majority of forests is managed
(including forests with a less strict protection status, e.g. Natura 2000 sites),
forest biodiversity conservation heavily depends on best-practices of forest
management. However, in nearly 24% of European forests, management must
take special care to conserve biodiversity as stipulated by the EU Birds and
Habitats Directives.
Very often the impact on biodiversity depends on the intensity of forest
management. High intensity measures like clear-cutting result in the temporary
removal of all trees. Reduced impact logging, like single tree selection, is an
example of a low intensity timber harvesting technique. All types of management
change some properties of the forest and hence may favour some species - e.g.
light loving species in a clear-cut system - while disadvantaging others.
Forests managed primarily for timber production often lack the late development
phases found in natural forest ecosystems. Many species live or are dependent
on habitat trees, typically large and old trees that bear microhabitat structures
such as cavities, cracks, breakages, deadwood, epiphytes or provide
Read the full story! possibilities for nest building. Lying and standing deadwood is home to many
specialized organisms, in particular saproxylic invertebrates (e.g. insects) and
wood decomposing fungi, and in addition contributes to improving the nutrient
balance in soils and to preserving water. It is therefore of high importance
for biodiversity to integrate these elements of old-growth stages into forests
managed for wood supply, i.e. considerable amounts of deadwood, old trees
with microhabitats, diverse stand structures or forest gaps.
Photo by: Anton Mir-Mar on Adobe StockK2A Knowledge to Action Key Questions on Forests in the EU 31
Photo by: Wendy Wei on Pexels
Forest management may also aim Forest management practices influence
to increase biodiversity through forest structure and biodiversity in many
mimicking natural disturbances, e.g. different ways, but there is no one-size-
by prescribed burning, creating gaps fits-all-solution for optimizing biodiversity
of different sizes, and increasing the in forests because of the different
amount of coarse woody debris. demands of forest dwelling species.
While forests managed for a range of
In addition, the choice of site-adapted different ecosystem services will always
tree species is a fundamental forest differ from natural forest ecosystems,
management decision that influences silviculture has many options to better
biodiversity. This not only directly integrate biodiversity conservation
influences tree species diversity, but by imitating natural processes and
indirectly affects forest biodiversity, as integrating old-growth forest elements.
numerous species have co-evolved
and thus depend on specific tree
species or species groups. A prominent
example is the spotted nutcracker that
in its European range depends heavily
on the nuts of Swiss pine. The lack of
co-evolution is often the reason why,
overall, fewer native animal species
profit from introduced tree species.
Read the full story at: www.efi.int/forestquestions/q6 Photo by: Alex Fu on PexelsK2A Knowledge to Action Key Questions on Forests in the EU 33
7. What role do forests play
in the water cycle?
Clean fresh water has become a key asset of the 21st century,
as continued rise in demand and global change induced drought
are leading to chronic shortages in many countries. Forests play
an essential role in the stable provision of clean, fresh water and
related ecosystem services, such as drinking water, protection
from floods, erosion and landslides, and climate regulation.
Trees are multi-tasking water engineers, acting as:
A giant umbrella A water pump An air conditioner A water tank
Trees have more Trees have deeper High evapotranspiration Their large litter
leaf area than other roots, so they can from trees and forests production and
vegetation, so their pump up larger soil ensures a strong extensive root
canopies are more water volumes for cooling effect on their systems lead to more
effective in tempering transport to the leaves, environment, especially soil carbon and better
the erosive forces resulting in more in urban heat islands. soil water infiltration,
of rain and creating biomass production, which improves water
a more shaded and transpiration and retention in the soil
humid microclimate. precipitation. A big oak and groundwater
tree transpires up to recharge.
1600 litres of water
Read the full story! per day. European
forests transpire about
400 mm per year, or
roughly half the rainfall
on the continent.
Photo by: TTstudio on Adobe StockK2A Knowledge to Action Key Questions on Forests in the EU 35
The exact role of forests in the water • Optimizing the location of intensive
cycle has been much debated. In
Green water flows 3
plantation forestry with fast-
older literature forests were described growing tree species can temper
as “sponges”, emphasizing the water evapotranspiration where needed
buffering capacity of their crowns, and therefore lead to increased
roots and soils, moderating flooding water harvest.
and equalizing river flows. But
Downwind
more recently, the multiple benefits • In drinking water production areas,
1 2 4
generated by green water services broadleaved forests are preferred
of forests (biomass production, over coniferous because their
microclimate formation, erosion control, lower time-averaged leaf area
atmospheric cooling and precipitation yields more water and reduces
5
recycling) have been recognized contamination of aquifers.
in addition to blue water services
(groundwater recharge, water provision • In the context of climate change
for aquatic systems and human needs, and increased summer drought, Downstream
6
Figure 2). As a consequence, the higher thinning intensity stimulates
idea of trees as water hogs has been forest vitality and tree growth. The 7
replaced by an integrated approach mixing of tree species often leads
recognizing the trade-offs between the to complementary soil exploration
multiple green water related benefits of by roots and may contribute to
trees and their water consumption. improved drought tolerance.
Several principles of water-friendly • Greening cities with trees cools
forest management are well urban heat islands and mitigates
established to manage synergies peak flows. Blue water flows
and tradeoffs in the bundle of water-
related ecosystem services forests can Moving beyond the scale of forest Ocean Land
provide: stands and river catchments to the
regional and continental scale reveals
• Essential is avoiding deforestation the breadth of forest-water interactions.
especially in erosion-prone Forest canopies massively produce 1 Precipitation recycling at regional and 5 Fog/cloud interception
areas, limiting the area of biological particles that serve as continental scale
clearcuts especially on steep condensation nuclei for rain formation. 2 Humidity and bioprecipitation triggers 6 Infiltration and groundwater recharge
slopes, and reducing surface The evapotranspiration by forests
run-off and sediment loss. Land recycles rain into clouds (green water 3 Atmospheric moisture transport 7 Flood moderation
degradation and the loss of tree flows in Figure 2), impacting wind and
4 Local and global scale heating and cooling
cover worldwide contribute to the weather patterns and creating “flying
loss of soil carbon, infiltration, rivers” over continents that ensure
water retention and groundwater downwind rainfall deep into continental
recharge, with the consequence Figure 2. Forests balance blue and green water flows in the landscape.
interiors. This helps to sustain rainfall
Green water: water that is intercepted or taken up by plants and returned to the atmosphere by
that drying landscapes become in many of the major crop producing evapotranspiration.
more prone to drought and wildfire. areas of the world. Therefore, Blue water: water that is running off or percolates and ends up in aquifers, rivers and lakes.
forest protection and sustainable Numbers 1-7 show the water cycle processes that are enhanced by trees and forests.
• Restoring forests along riverbanks management contribute to global (modified after Ellison et al. 2019 and Falkenmark & Rockström 2005) 2
contributes to water quality and social-ecological stability.
flood resilience. References used:
2
Ellison, D., Wang-Erlandsson, L., van der Ent, R. & van Noordwijk, M. (2019). Upwind forests: managing moisture recycling for nature-based resilience.
Unasylva 70.
Falkenmark M., and Rockström J. (2005). Balancing water for humans and nature; the new approach in Ecohydrology. Earthscan, 247p.
Read the full story at: www.efi.int/forestquestions/q7K2A Knowledge to Action Key Questions on Forests in the EU 37
8. How can forests improve
human health and well-being?
Forests have positive proven effects on physical, mental and
social health as well as individual well-being. This is important
during crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as in the
public health context in tackling chronic problems such as obesity,
depression, and the related loss of work days. The impacts of forests
on human health and well-being can be indirect or direct in nature,
but are generally found to lead to both short-term and long-term
health improvements.
Forests provide ecosystem services such as highly nutritious food supplements,
fuelwood, medicinal plants, clean water, protection against natural hazards,
and income, all of which indirectly impact human health and well-being. Another
contribution of forests to human health is related to better environmental quality
in and around forest areas, including urban green spaces (see also Question 9).
In terms of direct effects, a walk in the forest has a positive influence on the
nervous system as heart rate and blood pressure decrease. Forest-based health
care activities can improve the quality of sleep and encourage regular physical
exercise. Being in a forest environment also has a positive effect on the human
emotional state. It contributes to recovering from stress-related exhaustion.
People feel more balanced and in a better mood after regularly visiting forests.
In the case of hospitals and other healthcare facilities, viewing green spaces
can measurably reduce patient stress and improve health outcomes.
Natural settings such as parks, woodland and forests, facilitate social contact
and foster communication between different user groups. Programmes of
Read the full story! health interventions delivered in such spaces have the potential to positively
impact particularly vulnerable groups, such as children and youth, people
with low income, with disabilities or people with a migratory background. This
could support better social integration. Access to forests, the quality of their
management for public enjoyment and proximity to large populations are key
factors in maximizing their value for health and well-being. Forests, along
with other green spaces need to be viewed as a key component of a green
Photo by: Sergey Novikov on Adobe StockK2A Knowledge to Action Key Questions on Forests in the EU 39
infrastructure benefiting public health.
Lock-down phases in the EU during
the COVID-19 pandemic have revealed
forests to be a critical infrastructure for
human health and well-being in times
of restricted freedom of movement and
assembly. Visitor numbers in urban
green spaces and forests around urban
agglomerations have increased and
new user groups have started to visit
forests.
The impact of wood used as a building
material on human health and well-
being remains a subject for research.
There are indications that the stress
levels of people living in wooden
buildings are generally lower, and that
wooden buildings create more healthy
interior climates through summer
and winter. Wood used in interior
design (furniture, flooring, cladding)
contributes to self-perceived wellness.
The role of forests for human health
and well-being need more research
on the many benefits, the dose-effect
relations and for improving forest-
based care activities. For this, cross-
sectoral cooperation with public health
professionals, urban developers,
and other sectors is encouraged.
Additionally, the growing interest in
this field represents an opportunity for
businesses with innovative approaches
towards forest-based health
interventions and green care activities
to emerge.
Photo by:Image’in on Adobe Stock
Read the full story at: www.efi.int/forestquestions/q8 Photo by:Alvaro on Adobe StockYou can also read
