• Legal and institutional framework
• Overview of the extent and state of Europe's forests
• Annex 1: 

Documentation for the third Ministerial Conference on the protection of forests in Europe
• Annex 2: 

Tabular presentation of the information supplied to the Ministerial Conference on the legal and institutional framework
• Annex table 1:  Major changes to the legal and institutional framework
• Annex table 2:  Information availability and dissemination
• Annex table 3:  Conservation and protection of forest biodiversity
• Annex table 4:  Participation in international co-operation in the forestry field
• Annex 3: 

Portugal: public information
• Annex 4: 

Protection regimes for forests in Turkey

It is important to distinguish at the outset between the state of the forests themselves (area, condition, growth, ownership, biodiversity etc.), which is bound to change only slowly, and developments in the legal, institutional and policy framework.  The latter may change quite rapidly in a short time, but the effects of any changes may need years or decades before they are visible on the ground.  This long time lag is because of the generally slow biological processes in European conditions and the great stability of European land-use patterns. This report concentrates on the legal and institutional framework, as this framework is the essential tool for the formulation and implementation of policies for sustainable forest management and the only factor, which can be changed in the short term. 

Legal and institutional framework           Return to top of page

In 25 European countries, the great majority of those providing information, the basic forest law, as well as other relevant legislation, notably on environment protection, but also on hunting and environmental impact assessment, has recently (i.e. in the past five years or so) been fundamentally overhauled at the highest level (i.e. by national Parliaments).  In all cases, the objectives cited include a balance between the equally important economic, social, cultural  and environmental functions of forests.  Many countries specifically stated that the law had been revised to bring it into conformity with the principles expressed at UNCED and in resolutions H1 and H2. This practically simultaneous overhaul of national legislation in the light of international documents is a new phenomenon in the forestry field, even if national factors played a predominant role in almost all cases.  A very important factor in the countries in transition was the need to change the property regime and relations between the state and private forest owners to bring them into conformity with the overall social and political changes in those countries. 

Twenty-one countries mentioned that, simultaneously with the legislation, their forest policy and strategy had been reformulated, or is in the process of formulation, often in a participatory process and approved at a high level.  There was a wide variation between these strategies in content, method of preparation and legal status.  For instance, the method of endorsement varied from an act of parliament to an administrative statement by the forest authorities.  These documents had varying names, including �action plan� �national strategy�, �policy concept and guidelines�, �strategic plan�, �forest development program� etc. but in general seem to correspond with the concept of �national forest program� as endorsed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) and the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). 

Together with the changes in the fundamental legal framework, these strategies are clear evidence of a widespread desire in the 1990s to re-assess and, in some cases, modify, the broad direction of forestry and adapt to the changing circumstances.  In particular the general public has demonstrated increased interest in forest matters and sometimes shown that it  has a very different perception of them than forestry professionals. Most governments decided that the exercise of preparing the forestry strategy should be an open, democratic exercise and not a purely technical one.  The rise in influence (political and administrative) of environmental bodies, including the incorporation in many countries of forestry authorities to environmental ministries, played a major role. 

With regard to forest institutions, countries provided a wealth of detail, which it is not possible to summarize here (For this information, readers are referred to the national reports in volume II of the documentation for the Lisbon Ministerial Conference).  All countries in transition have completely overhauled the organization of their forest administration in accordance with social changes, particularly changes in patterns of forest ownership where there has been large scale restitution/privatization of forest land.  The functions of forest planning (on public and private land),  management of publicly owned forests and administration of the forest law (all these functions were typically carried out by a single service in the centrally planned period) have mostly been separated from each other, although often kept in the same administration unit. 

Elsewhere, forest services and administration have been reorganized to take account of decentralization of responsibility for forests to sub-national entities such as the Regions in Belgium, the Autonomous Communities in Spain etc. 

A number of countries gave information on the system of public subsidies and payments for forestry (This is not generally referred to in the Lisbon reports but has been mentioned elsewhere).  Significant payments are also made under a number of EU measures. It is not possible to get an objective overview of the sums involved or to which purposes they are directed in an internationally comparable format, but it is clear that in most countries forestry is a significant recipient, direct or indirect (for instance through fiscal measures, rather than grants), of public funds.  In Finland and Sweden, however, as well as Lithuania, there is a principle that the forest sector should not be a net recipient of public funds.  Portugal also considers that the forest sector should not be a net recipient of public funds, although this is not formally stated.  This is not surprising in countries where forestry and forest-based economic activities make such a large contribution to the national income. 

A topic which is frequently mentioned in discussions, for instance at the Timber Committee, (although not specifically mentioned in the official Lisbon reports) and in private conversations is the economic viability of forest enterprises, both public and private.  Many forest services (e.g. in some German Länder) which were in the past net contributors to public finances are now net recipients of public funds.  Private forest owners� associations regularly complain about the difficult situation facing their members.  Contributory factors mentioned include rising costs, higher public expectations regarding biodiversity and recreational facilities (often expressed in official guidelines) and low wood prices, especially for smaller sizes and lower qualities.  The latter development may be attributed partly to the globalization of the pulpwood trade, and to downward price pressure from recovered paper and industry residues. 

As one response to this situation, in a number of countries, including Finland, France, the Netherlands and UK, management of state owned forest land has been entrusted to agencies with a very autonomous, quasi-commercial mandate.  However, only in Sweden has state forest land been completely privatized (but with strong state equity ownership).  The aim of these changes has been to improve efficiency and flexibility of management and reduce the burden on public finances. 

Interesting innovations in forest policy and institutions include: 

An external audit of forest policy in Switzerland;

System of chartered forest managers in Slovakia;

The �Dutch management program� aimed at more transparency and efficiency.

Eleven countries (Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Switzerland, and United Kingdom) reported that they had either developed or were developing national criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management.  Denmark, Finland and Switzerland informed the Ministerial Conference that a national report had been prepared.  Germany reported that the pan-European criteria and indicators were being applied unchanged.  Denmark reported that the national criteria and indicators are being used as a basis for national policy debate and policy formulation (although it may be assumed that this role was also fulfilled in other countries).  In Switzerland, the report on pan-European criteria and indicators will be used as a basis for debate and for the development of national criteria and indicators. All mentioned that the national criteria and indicators were based on and/or fully compatible with the pan-European criteria and indicators.  The UK stated that the UK Forestry Standard includes criteria and indicators as well as guidelines for sustainable forest management.  In general, the drawing up of official forest management guidelines both as a codification of good practice and as an instrument for extension services, as well as a demonstration that forestry practices are sustainable has been the focus of much attention in many countries over the past five  years. 

In Hungary, the state and development of the forest resource has been evaluated on a five-yearly basis since 1981, using national quantitative indicators. After the pan-European criteria and indicators were adopted, a small was performed on the comparability of the two sets of criteria and indicators. This study revealed that most of the pan-European quantitative indicators are applicable without any difficulties, especially for criteria 1-5.  The national system is even more detailed in some cases, while some indicators, especially for criterion 6, require more work before they can considered fully operational. 

In Portugal, as a consequence of the development of the pan-European operational level guidelines, which will have to be further developed nationally to reflect the different ecological, economic and social realities involved, eight projects have been launched.  They result from an agreement among forest producers and owners, forest industries, NGOs and the Ministries of Agriculture, Rural development and Fisheries and of the Environment.  They are open to other interested parties, such as local authorities; assistance from the scientific community is provided. The main objectives of these projects are: testing methodologies of sustainable management and monitoring the evolution of ecosystems under observation, contribute to the national and international credibility of the economic agents involved who comply in their work with the principles of sustainability and of biological diversity conservation.  Some examples of these projects are: studies on plant genetics, namely on Quercus suber, Q. rotundifolia, Castanea sativa and  Ceratonia siliqua, and of other living forms (e.g. rabbit Oryctolagus sp.); methodological research into criteria and indicators for biological diversity at different spatial scales; and assessment of diversity of biological communities. 

It is also relevant to examine the status and periodicity of forest inventory.  If this basic information is not collected (or if it is not of sufficient quality and/or frequency), national and international discussion of forest policy would be hampered.  Seven countries reported a continuing forest inventory, and others provided the date of their most recent inventory.  However, it is clear from work on the TBFRA 2000 that most European countries have recent forest inventory data (i.e. since 1995), although methods vary widely. A few countries mentioned special work on measuring and monitoring biodiversity. 

An aspect of major political importance, and the focus of complaints by NGOs is the percentage of forest which is �protected� for the conservation of biodiversity.  A close reading of the national reports reveals that the term �protected� is interpreted in many different ways, and that most countries have several degrees of �protection� applied in their forests.  In one sense, almost 100% of European forest is �protected� in that it is usually not allowed to change land-use from forest to something else without permission and that this rule is generally applied on the ground.  In the context of the TBFRA, the secretariat has attempted to collect information according to the IUCN categories (I to VI), but this system is not fully accepted by all experts, and certainly contains ambiguities with regard to definitions.  The range reported as being in IUCN categories I to VI is so wide (from 0.8% to 71.8% of forest cover) that, despite the best efforts of national correspondents, the data appear not to be fully comparable between countries.  Given the importance of obtaining a better understanding of how much forest is �protected� and in what way, and whether this is �enough�, the whole question appears to deserve more in-depth scientific consideration.  Ways should be found of displaying in an objective and, if possible, comparable way how well European forests are protected.  The variety and complexity of the differing management regimes and objectives which may co-exist even inside a single country is exemplified by the information for Turkey in annex 4. 

A number of countries stressed the importance of management intended to optimize biodiversity in managed, as opposed to protected, forest.  Several countries stressed this aspect in national forest management guidelines. 

Finally, international co-operation on forest issues is more intense than ever before.  In addition to the pan-European process, and work under the auspices of the Timber Committee, the EFC, and their subsidiary bodies, there has been intense activity in more specialized bodies, such as EUFORGEN, and ICP Forest, as well as subregional organizations, notably, but not exclusively the EU, and non-governmental bodies, including IUFRO.  There is co-operation at the international level in many areas, from the highly technical, through research, to broad questions of policy and strategy.  This is due to the intrinsically international nature of some of the issues (international trade, transboundary pollution, climate change), and of course to the vastly improved communications of today, but also to shrinking resources, forcing countries to seek economies of scale, cost-sharing and other synergies by cooperating at the international level.  Another feature of the international negotiations in preparation for the Lisbon Conference was the emergence of a number of well-organized associations representing private forest owners, whose point of view is now presented and defended on equal terms with those of the environmental NGOs. 

Overview of the extent and state of Europe�s forests           Return to top of page

The Temperate and Boreal component of the Forest Resource Assessment 2000 will present an objective and wide ranging picture of European forests in the late 1990s.  The work of validation of replies is not yet complete, but interim data were provided to the Lisbon Conference as quantitative indicators of sustainable forest management.  This information, which includes tables and graphs with country data, with accompanying explanatory text, is contained in volume II of the Lisbon documentation, on pages 9 to 69.   The �overview� of this report is reproduced below. 

�About a third of Europe�s land surface (excluding Russia) is covered by forest and other wooded land, although this share varies widely, from 1% to 74%.  The largest forest areas are in the Nordic countries and in mountainous regions, with large expanses of �other wooded land� (open forest and scrub/maquis etc.) around the Mediterranean.  Over half the land mass of the world�s largest country, Russia, is covered by forest and other wooded land. 

On average there is less than 0.5 ha of forest and other wooded land for each European, and there is considerably less in several densely populated urban countries.  Only six, mostly northern, countries (Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Norway, Russia and Sweden) have more than 1 ha of forest and other wooded land for each inhabitant. 

Most European forest is privately owned, although public bodies own and manage significant areas in almost all countries.  The exception to the general picture of private ownership is the formerly centrally planned countries, where most forest is still in public ownership.  However, in several of these countries, there are major programs of restitution/privatization of forest land, so that in a few years the share of privately owned forest will have risen further. 

Europe�s forest is expanding slowly, by about 1 million ha/year (0.6%): losses to urban and transport infrastructure are more than counterbalanced by expansion onto agricultural and other land.  Nearly 40% of forest regeneration is classified as �natural regeneration.� 

Almost all forests in Europe are managed, i.e. with a formal or informal management plan.  �Management� in this context may be for wood production, for biodiversity conservation, recreation or any other objective.  For instance over 10% of Europe�s forests are reported as being �managed primarily for soil protection�. 
About half of Europe�s forest is classified as �predominantly coniferous�, a third as �predominantly broadleaved� and about 15% as �mixed.� Coniferous stands are largely predominant in Russia, although some mixed stands may be included in this total. 

Most European countries have no forest �undisturbed by man�, or only very small areas; however there are significant areas of undisturbed forest in the Nordic countries (over 6 million ha) and in a few other countries. The largest undisturbed area in countries which signed the Helsinki Resolutions is however in Russia, even though the breakdown between �undisturbed� and �semi-natural� forest could not be made in the Russian response. 

In Europe, there are over 15 million ha of �plantations� intensively managed stands of introduced or domestic species, usually with a primary goal of maximum wood production.  This is about 8.5% of the total forest area. 
The great majority (85%) of European forest is considered �semi-natural,� i.e. neither �undisturbed by man� nor �plantation.�  The semi-natural category contains a very wide variety of forest types. 

In most countries, 10 to 35% of the total forest area is considered �protected� i.e. it has some form of special protection status in addition to the protection accorded to almost all European forests (which typically includes restrictions on change of land use from forest to other uses). 

The share of forest occurring species (trees and other species) reported as �endangered� varies widely between countries, and further analysis is necessary before a satisfactory overview is possible. 

Europe�s forests are damaged by fire (from 410 to 780 thousand hectares a year, depending on weather conditions, with an average of 551 thousand hectares a year), wildlife and grazing, insects and diseases and pollution.  In many countries a significant percentage of trees are recorded as showing over 25% defoliation, although the causes and significance of these figures are not fully clear. 

The great majority of European forest (nearly 85%) is reported to be �available for wood supply�, although most of this area is in fact managed for other functions in addition to wood supply. Forest land �not available for wood supply� is usually so designated for conservation/protection reasons, although remoteness and difficult access also play a role in availability. 

The growing stock volume of Europe�s forest is about 23 billion m3 and of Russian forest about 81 billion m3.  The woody biomass of European forests and trees (above and below stump) is about 12 billion m.t.  The corresponding figure for Russia is 55 billion m.t. Thus, Europe�s forests store about 6 billion tons of carbon in woody biomass and Russia�s store over 25 billion tons of carbon.  Neither of these figures includes an estimate for carbon in other parts of the forest ecosystem, notably forest soils which may be an important carbon reservoir. 

The annual growth on Europe�s forests after deduction of natural losses (net annual increment) is about 760 million m3 o.b. and 920 million m3 o.b. in Russia.  Annual fellings are about 460 million m3 o.b. over bark in Europe and 150 million m3 o.b. in Russia.  Thus the European forest is simultaneously supplying most of the region�s demand for forest products and acting as an important �sink� for atmospheric carbon. 

The forests also supply annually a significant amount of non-wood forest products which include game meat, mushrooms, berries, fruits, nuts, Christmas trees, decorative foliage, medicinal plants, cork and resin as well as a wide range of products with more local importance.  However, according to those countries providing data on value of production, wood remains by far the most important source of revenue for most forest owners. 
The public has access to most publicly and privately owned forests, with the exception of private forests in a few countries which restrict access to private land to those who have the permission of the landowner.  In this latter category, the landowner may in fact give or sell access to recreation facilities so that use of �restricted access� land may actually be more intense than the use of land with open access.� 
 

Information provided by Portugal and the Liaison Unit Vienna. 

Introduction

In each one of the three Ministerial Conferences on the Protection of Forests in Europe already held, several resolutions were adopted. They included guidelines and future actions that Ministers agreed to implement at a national or regional level. 

The follow-up of the resolutions is co-ordinated nationally by a national co-ordinator, and internationally, for most of the resolutions, by an international organisation. Nevertheless, the responsibility for the international co-ordination of two of the Helsinki Resolutions, H1  and H2 , belongs to the General Co-ordinating Committee of the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, in close collaboration with FAO, ECE and the European Commission. 

Signatory countries were asked to report on the progress achieved in implementing these commitments. An Interim Report was elaborated in 1995, and another Follow-up Report was prepared especially to be presented to the Lisbon Ministerial Conference (June, 1998) so that Ministers could analyse them, reflect on the progress and decide on how to proceed in new co-operative actions. 

With respect to the Follow-up Report for Lisbon, countries therefore informed on the most relevant facts after the Helsinki Conference 1993. However, the object of the present FAO/ECE Secretariat analysis are elaborated national reports. 

Explanation on the production of the Lisbon report

For the preparation of the National Report on Resolutions H1 and H2 for the Lisbon Conference countries were asked not to exceed 5 pages of length (or about 2500 words) for their reports. This limited the report only to the most relevant data of each country and implied some pre-selection regarding the relevance of national changes. 

The reports then had the following structure: 

• First, the goal was to demonstrate the progress made in the national implementation of the commitments under �Part II: Future Actions� of Resolutions H1 and H2. 
• In addition, the general measures taken and the plans for action in the near future to implement Resolutions H1 and H2, including the development of national criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management were asked to be reported. The general measures taken where then divided into the groups legal/regulatory framework, institutional framework, economic policy/financial instruments and informational means. 

Since 6 out of the 27 panEuropean Criteria and Most Suitable Quantitative Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management could not be included into the TBFRA � out of various reasons � these indicators were reported separately by the countries, even if the information on them was not complete and hence not fully comparable between countries. 

Recalling again the limitation and the specific focus on Resolutions H1 and H2 it becomes clear that further information in addition to the national reports prepared for the Lisbon Conference is needed in order to give a more comprehensive view on the state of forestry in the region. 
 

Tabular presentation of the information supplied to the Ministerial Conference on the legal and institutional framework.

• Annex table 1:  Major changes to the legal and institutional framework

• Annex table 2:  Information availability and dissemination

• Annex table 3:  Conservation and protection of forest biodiversity

• Annex table 4:  Participation in international co-operation in the forestry field

Note:    Not all countries provided information on the dates of their forest inventory. However, it is clear from work on TBFRA 2000 that most European countries have recent forest inventory data.

In accordance with the care and special attention that the social aspects of forests deserve, a special education program for children has been developed since the beginning of 1997 in Portugal.  It is called �Forests in Motion� and has been carried out by the General Directorate of Forests and Aveiro University, with the collaboration of the ministries of the Environment and Education, local authorities, private organisations and associations of forest producers and industries.  Its main objective consists of the creation of new behavior towards forests through games and aesthetics, through symbols and art objects.  As a consequence, inter alia, Portugal hopes to improve the awareness of children of the importance of forests and their environmental value, the valorisation of the cultural, social, economic and environmental interdependencies, the bringing of citizens to the forest and taking the forest to the citizens.  The approach is organised under different issues, that is, each year is dedicated to a different approach. 1997 dealt with the �the forest in the city�, 1998 (the year of the Lisbon Expo) �forests and the oceans�, 1999 �forests in the air�.  In 2000, we will be �back in the forest�. 
Several thousand children are already involved in the project and many more are expected to be so in the near future. 

Since 1995, the University of Coimbra has also had a program addressing the main objective of sensitising children to the problems that affect forests and developing in them new feelings and responsibilities towards forests. 

Wide participation and public discussion has been ensured for the major decisions regarding the forest sector.  This was especially strengthened over the past 2-3 years: a major workshop to discuss the elaboration of forest legislation was open to everybody wishing to participate and several regional meetings to prepare the Plan for Sustainable Development of Portuguese Forestry took place and were announced on national and local newspapers to allow for a broader participation. The major stakeholders are consulted regularly. 

The Portuguese Forest Service also has a website (http://www.dgf.min-agricultura.pt) for public information. 
 

(Information provided by the national co-ordinator, Mr. Ulvi Us)

Protected areas established by the Ministry of Forestry play a vital role in the protection of natural and cultural values and biodiversity of the forest resources, as the national and international heritage for present and future generations. With this purpose, several protected areas have been established under various different area categories. In Turkey, protected areas for aesthetic, cultural, historical, spiritual soil and water protection purposes and scientific research have been established and managed by the Ministry of Forestry on forest and other wooded land.

Definitions of the existing protected area categories, according to the National Parks Law are as follows:

1. NATIONAL PARK is a natural area having, from the scientific and aesthetic viewpoints, both natural and cultural values of rare national and international standing, and natural recreational and touristic sites. 32 National Parks have a forest area of 160 528 ha and other wooded land 134 034 ha by the end of 1997.

2. NATURE PARK is a natural area containing characteristic vegetation and wildlife features and suitable for recreational activities. 11 Nature Parks have a forest area of 8816 ha and other wooded land 5056 ha at end 1997.

2. NATURE RESERVE is a natural area designated to be used only for scientific and educational purposes, containing rare threatened and endangered ecosystems and/or species and their outstanding samples brought about by natural phenomena that definitely requires protection. The 32 Nature Reserves had a forest area of 16577 ha and other wooded land of 4543 ha by the end of 1997.

2. NATURAL MONUMENT is a natural area having the characteristic and scientific values brought about by nature or natural phenomena, and protected within the framework of the principles on national parks. The 55 Natural Monuments have a forest area of 73 ha at end 1997.

2. CONSERVATION FORESTS because of fragile ecological conditions, the assignment and management of significant forest areas for conservation purposes are needed. With his purpose, and according to Article 23-24 of the Forest Law, 49 conservation forests have been established so far, by the end of 1997, 49 conservation forests cover a forest area of 87337 ha and other wooded land 116479 ha, where strict protection is needed for conservation of soil and water resources as well as protesting neighboring agricultural lands, settlement areas and infrastructures (roads, water reservoirs etc.)

2. FOREST CHARACTERISED AS CONSERVATION FOREST AREA. The other conservation area is forest characterised as conservation forest areas, for technical reasons, for protection of soil and water, e.g. neighboring agricultural lands, settlement areas and infrastructures (roads, water reservoirs etc.). These cover a forest area of 1045741 ha and other wooded land of 1996767 ha at end 1996. Conservation measures are carried out on these sites and no production activity is permitted.