SURF Nature booklet on forest biodiversity

Forest biodiversitySustainable investment for the benefit ofboth people and nature

December 2011This report was prepared by:Francesc Cots, Forest Sciences Center of CataloniaForest biodiversityAuthors:Francesc Cots and Denis Boglio, Forest SciencesCenter of Catalonia/ Gerald Plattner, Austrian FederalForests/ Francisco Flores, DG Environmentof the Region of MurciaContentEditors: Peter Torkler and Julia Steinert,WWF Germany/ Colette Price, CountrysideCouncil for WalesLayout:Communication Department, Forest SciencesCenter of CataloniaCover photo:© Jordi Camprodon and David GuixéPrinting:Thank you to everybody who commented andcontributed to this report.This report was published in 2011 by the <strong>SURF</strong>natureproject. www.surf-nature.euThis project is funded by the EU’s EuropeanRegional Development Fund through the INTERREGIVC programmeIntroduction1. Facts about Europe’s forests1.1 Forest ecosystems1.2 General status1.3 Key findings relating to maintenance, conservationand appropriate enhancement of biodiversity in forestecosystems1.4 Pressures, threats and risks1.5 EU Forest policy2. EU Regional Funds for forest biodiversity2.1 European funding for forest biodiversity2.2 Regional Policy and forest biodiversity2.3 Opportunities to improve regional funding for forestbiodiversity3. Stakeholders views4. Good Practices and innovative approaches4.1 Project examples4.2 Reccommendations for successful project implementatation4.3 The Alpine Convention: an example of an innovativeregulatory approach5. Conclusions and recommendations6. References4666811131515172021242429303235

1.Facts about Europe’s forestsImportant ecosystem services and natural capital provided by forests:- Protective function: There are several important functions, the most important being:- Influence on climate Forests affect climate by reflecting less heat back into the atmosphere than other types ofland use, also reducing wind velocity, moderating soil temperature and increasing relative humidity.In order to give an overview of the situation on thestatus of forest biodiversity the following topics willbe presented:1.11. Forest ecosystems2. General status3. Key findings relating to maintenance,conservation and appropriateenhancement of biodiversity in forestecosystems4. Pressures, threats and risks5. EU Forest PolicyForest ecosystemsThere is no common definition of forests agreedamong the Member States. In this section, the term‘forest ecosystems’ includes woodland vegetationcomprising species forming forests of tall treeswith typical undergrowth, therefore the followingforest types of Broadleaf forests, Coniferous forests,Mixed forests and Transitional woodland-shrub areincluded. EU forests and other wooded areas nowcover 176 million ha, more than 42 % of the EU landarea.1.2General statusForest habitats play an important role for nativespecies diversity and biodiversity and also fulfilmany different functions for the public benefit.Table below shows that the services provided byhealthy forests range from recreational benefitsto a real economic value including job creation.However, there are significant differences in forestdistribution and extent in different regions of theEU. Currently, there is no major deforestation inEurope and forest area increased slightly in mostcountries between 1990 and 2005, partly due toafforestation programmes and natural regenerationon abandoned agricultural or formerly grazed land.The spatial forest pattern is changing locally dueto different dynamics such as loss of forest areas,fragmentation of forest cover and therefore loss ofconnectivity.Because of their structural complexity, forests area key factor for biological diversity providing idealhabitats for a huge number of plants, birds andanimals. However, these species are in many caseshighly dependent on the environmental qualityof forests, which has been reduced in the past fewdecades because of changes such as intensifiedsilvicultural practices, the use of exotic species andthe resulting increase in uniformity.- Protection from wind erosion Wind-rows and shelterbelts reduce the loss of nutrient rich topsoil and protectyoung plants from wind within their zone of influence. They also help stabilize dunes.- Protection from risk in mountainous areas The Alpine countries in Europe have had much experience withprotection from snow avalanches and mudslides by forests and have many forests designated for this purpose.- Air-pollution filters Trees perform a valuable role in intercepting and trapping windborne particulate matteras long as the pollution does not damage or kill them. Protecting water resources Forests protect water byreducing surface erosion and sedimentation, filtering water pollutants, regulating water yield and flow,moderating floods, enhancing precipitation (e.g. ‘cloud forests’) and mitigating salinity.- Recreational function: Forests provide opportunities for recreation in a natural environment. Forests are abenefit to people’s souls. The scent of the forest soil and the trees makes us breathe deeply and relax. Silenceand direct contact with nature have a recreational and purifying effect.- Sustainable tourism Forests hold a wide range of recreational opportunities and cultural values which areincreasing sought after by a growing number of tourists.- Timber production for the sawmill, pulp and paper industry in Europe is important and this sector provideswork places for approx. 3.5 million employees. In 2005, the gross value added by forestry, wood industries, andpulp and paper industries totalled 110 billion € in the 44 countries participating in the Ministerial Conferenceon the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) (excl. Russia) and the sector’s contribution to GDP was 1%.- Carbon storage Forests store much carbon and provide a carbon sink: European forests sequester increasingamounts of carbon in tree biomass. Between 2005 and 2010, about 870 million tonnes of CO 2were removedannually from the atmosphere by photosynthesis and tree biomass growth in the European countries. In 2008this corresponded to about 10% of the greenhouse gas emissions of these countries (MCPFE members).- Biodiversity: Forests are biologically diverse systems, representing some of the richest biological areas onEarth. They offer a variety of habitats for plants, animals and micro-organisms.6 7

1.3Key findings relating to maintenance, conservation andappropriate enhancement of biodiversity in forest ecosystemsThe following sections give an overview of the most important areas for forest biodiversity with fields ofspecial interest for the <strong>SURF</strong> project discussed more extensively. The information is mainly focused on Natura2000 sites and does not include data on all EU forests.Protected forestsProtected areas are one of the oldest instruments for protecting nature and natural resources. Explicitlydesignated protected areas focus mainly on conserving the biological diversity, landscapes, naturalmonuments and protective functions of forests. In the EU, around 20.4 million hectares of forest (equivalentto 13.0 % of the total area) were in protected areas in 2010. The Member States with the largest protectedforest areas were Italy, Germany and Spain. Protected forests make up a large share of the land area protectedunder the Habitats Directive in several countries.Within the Natura 2000 network, data for protected forests shows us that forest ecosystems cover about 46%of the surface of Natura 2000 Sites, 42% are situated in “Special Protection Areas (SPAs)” and 48% in “Sitesof Community Importance (SCIs)”. 1 For “Special protection areas (SPA)” and “Special Areas of Conservation(SAC)” the conservation status of species and habitats of European interest differs strongly betweenbiogeographical regions, but altogether more than half the species and nearly two thirds of habitats have anunfavourable conservation status.Conservation status of habitat types of European interest in forest ecosystems (statistics by region on the left, overall statistics on theright); Note: Geographical coverage: EU except Bulgaria and Romania; number of assessments in brackets. Source: ETC/BD, 2008Conservation status of species of European interest in forest ecosystems (statistics by region on the left, overall statistics on the right)Note: Geographical coverage: EU except Bulgaria and Romania; number of assessments in brackets. Source: ETC/BD, 2008The graph above shows that only 15% of the assessments of forest species of Natura 2000 relevance are infavourable status and over 50% of the are in unfavourable status. Also remarkable is that the percentage ofunknown assessments differs significantly among the different biogeographical regions. The Macaronesianand Boreal regions show the highest percentage of favourable assessments (respectively 30 % and morethan 40 %).NaturalnessOver 87% of forests in the 44 countries of the MCPFE (excludingthe Russian Federation) are semi-natural. Plantations cover about8% of the forest area, located mainly in North West Europe, andundisturbed forests cover about 5% of the forest area, locatedmainly in East and Nordic/Baltic Europe. The degree of naturalnessof forests shows the intensity and history of human interventions.Forests undisturbed by man have a high conservation value,especially when they form large-scale continuous forest areasallowing natural disturbance processes to occur. Undisturbedforests also serve as reference areas for understandingecological principles and contribute to the development of forestmanagement methods. The development of instruments tosecure and increase the naturalness of forests is one of the futurechallenges.Distribution (%) of forest area in the MCPFEregion excluding the Russian Federation byclasses of naturalness, 2005. Source: MCPF, 20071 Natura 2000, Corinne Land Cover (CLC) 2006 for the EU except Greece and the United Kingdom (where CLC 2000 was used).8 9

Templatehttp://www.votervoice.net/Common/commonpopup.aspx?control=DisplayNewsLetter&NewsLetterId=4710Page 6 of 121/2/2008Lemforder. "We have worked very hard toward a goal of making thisfacility a 'zero-waste plant'."During the past year, ZF Lemforder Tuscaloosa established clear goals toreduce the number of trips to landfills, and increase the amount ofrecycled material. These environmentally friendly measures helpeddivert 30,000 pounds of plastic per year from landfills to recycling centersor reusable means. This not only helps protect the environment, but alsoreduces costs, as suppliers do not need to buy additional plastic.In addition, wood pallets and boxes are sent for recycling, while about28,000 pounds of cardboard is collected and recycled each month. Byintroducing recycling bins throughout the plant, items such as officepaper, magazines, junk mail, newspaper, plastic bottles and aluminumcans were all able to be collected and recycled. Scrap metal has longbeen a part of the recycling process.Using these measures, ZF Lemforder was able to reduce the number oflandfill trips by 75 percent, while realizing a significant savings indisposal fees.Davis says that the plant will increase the focus on plastics and should beable to reduce landfill trips to one every two weeks.ZF is a leading worldwide supplier of driveline and chassis technology.Headquartered in Friedrichshafen, Germany, ZF is among the 15 largestautomotive suppliers in the world. The company employs approximately55,000 at 122 locations in 26 countries, and totaled sales of $15.2 billionin 2006.ZF operates an extensive manufacturing network in North America,combined with global research and development capabilities, to provideadvanced technology to the NAFTA region. The ZF Group NorthAmerican Operations Headquarters and Technical Center is located inNorthville, Mich., USA.Last "2nd Tuesday" Mixer of 2007 Commemorates BCCAnniversaryOur November "Second Tuesday" after hours networking event was heldat the Bryant Conference Center on the evening of the 13th. Itcommemorated the 20th anniversary of BCC and was co-hosted by theSheraton Four Points Hotel. Dean Carolyn Dahl (pictured, far left) madeopening remarks and the event featured beautiful food stations, specialtydrinks, door prizes and giveaways for all attendees and the music of localJazz great Keith Williams. The well-attended affair was the lastnetworking event of 2007 and a nice way to end the year.Top

Habitat loss and fragmentationIn many places urban sprawl, expandingtransport networks or forest harvesting thatbreaks core forest areas into smaller parts, havecaused the fragmentation of European forestecosystems. Forest losses to agriculture andartificial surfaces are more frequent in southwesternEurope. One of the consequencesof fragmentation is the loss of ecologicalconnectivity, which impacts on forest species.Between 1990 and 2000, the process of fragmentation, breaking core forest areas larger than 100 ha into smallerunits, was significant (very high and high intensity) in western Latvia, some areas of Portugal, the Basque country andAndalucía in Spain, south-western France, the Northern Carpathians and the Tatra mountains.Pollution and nutrient loadAir pollution is a major threat to Europe’s forest biodiversity as it can degrade or destroy culturally and historicallyimportant ancient woodlands and associated species. Forest soil acidification is widespread in Europe, despite nowbeing below critical loads in many countries. It is mainly caused by atmospheric depositions of pollutants, especiallyrelated to nitrogen emissions, which can affect tree roots and soil biodiversity and also impair the supply of nutrientsto plants. So far, efforts to reduce the emissions of nitrogen to the atmosphere have not been as successful as forsulphur, which is considered as one of the most significant international environmental success stories.Climate change and adaptationCore forest fragmentation between 1990 and 2000. Source: JRC, 2009Climate change is likely to affect forest stands directly through changing temperature and precipitationpatterns (especially on the edge of tree species distribution), and indirectly, by altering the distribution andfrequency of viruses, pests, small fires and wind damage.Tree populations have three biological adaptation options to avoid extinction in a rapidly changing climate:o persistence based on the inherent flexibility of tree species, enabling them to withstand a widerange of environments;o (genetic) adaptation to new conditions in existing locations;o migration to areas with more suitable conditions.Climate change is likely to favour species with highlevels of flexibility (whereas low flexibility may leadto extinction). At forest ecosystem level, the coexistenceof tree species with different flexibilitylevels can act as a buffer against changes. In manyparts of Europe, the rate of climate change is likelyto exceed the adaptive capacity of many wild anddomesticated plant species, including forest trees,which have the highest levels of genetic diversity ofany group of plants and have wide geographic andecological ranges. In this sense, the maintenanceand conservation of biodiversity in forestsconstitutes an essential ‘insurance policy’ againsteventual climate change impacts and associatedrisks. Diversity of species, genetic variability anda regional pool of species and ecosystems are keyfactors for assessing the level of resilience of a forestecosystem to changing environmental conditions.EU Forest policyUnlike agriculture and fisheries where there isthe Common Agricultural Policy and CommonFisheries Policy, there is no formal EU Forest Policy.The Treaty of Rome has left forestry apart fromthe competencies delegated to the EuropeanCommission, therefore forests are dealt withthrough other sectors for which the EC has legalcompetence: agriculture, environment, health,enterprise, trade, regional development, energy,etc.There are nevertheless some instruments in placeto coordinate the actions of the different DGs, withmixed results.An EU forestry strategy which was adopted in 1998is currently being reviewed in order to improve thelimited visibility of the forest sector and the need forgreater coherence of related policies.In 2006 the Forest Action Plan for the period 2007-2011was approved, consisting of a set of actionsthat the Commission proposes to implementwith the Member States. The overall objectiveof the Action Plan is to maintain and enhancethe biodiversity, carbon sequestration, integrity,health and resilience of forest ecosystems. It alsoaims to serve as an instrument of coordinationbetween EU activities and forest policies of theMember States and it is thus supported both fromexisting Community and national or subnationalinstruments. The actions of the plan are divided into4 main goals:• Improving long-term competiveness• Improving and protecting the environment• Contributing to the quality of life• Fostering communication and coordinationFrom the institutional point of view, an InterserviceGroup on Forestry issues has been createdwithin the European Commission as well as oneStanding Committee and 2 Advisory Committees.However, the lack of a central, converging policybody is generally seen as hindering both forestdevelopment and protection in Europe.In the FOREST EUROPE Ministerial Conference onthe Protection of Forests in Europe (June 2011Oslo,) European ministers launched negotiationsfor a Legally Binding Agreement on Forests inEurope. Under this initiative, there is a commonunderstanding that the protection and sustainablemanagement of Europe’s forests requires a stable12 131.5

member states the accessibility to the programme isonly available for private landowners.Both EU LIFE+ Biodiversity and Environmentprogrammes offer different opportunities for forestbiodiversity and risk prevention funding, e.g. for theimprovement of functional connectivity of wildlifehabitats and the movements of species betweenprotected areas in the former, or the establishmentof linkages between forested areas in the latter.Example of 2007-2013 EU LIFE projectEC- Square: The conservation of the European redsquirrelEradication and control of grey squirrel: actions forpreservation of biodiversity in forest ecosystemsThe project focuses on protecting the species from thecompetition of the introduced Eastern grey squirrel.For more information: http://www.life-ecsquare.eu/en/projectThe 7th Framework Programme for Research andTechnological Development (FP7) may result inbenefits for biodiversity conservation as there arespecific actions funded for the sustainability of thenatural and man-made environment.aims to support and complement the efforts ofMember States for the protection, primarily of people,but also of the environment and property, includingcultural heritage, in the event of natural and manmadedisasters, acts of terrorism and technological,radiological or environmental accidents.Example of 2007-2013 European Civil ProtectionFinancial Instrument projectAccidental, Natural and Social Fire Risk (ANSFR):The prevention and diminution of the human andfinancial costs of fire through effective risk assessmentand managementThe overall aim of the ANSFR project is to reduce thehuman, financial and environmental cost of fires inthe partner countries (United Kingdom, Denmark,Italy and Finland) and across Europe. For moreinformation: www.fire-risk.euFinally, Regional Policy covers a broad spectrum ofactivities that include risk prevention, natural heritage,biodiversity and nature conservation supportingmeasures among others, even though the mainobjective is to promote coherent development withinthe EU and reduce gaps between the poor and richregions. This funding source is available for all types ofrural land not only in protected areas.Regional Policy and forestbiodiversityThe goal of regional policy is to encourage thedevelopment of balanced and sustainable economicgrowth, the development of employment andhuman resources, environmental protection, theelimination of inequalities and the promotion ofequal opportunities across the Union.During 2007 - 2013, Regional Policy consists of the- European Regional Development Fund(ERDF),- European Social Fund (ESF), and the- Cohesion FundThe Regional funds are administered on the basisof Operational Programmes that are negotiatedbetween the Member States, regions and theCommission. Measures in the forestry sector relatedto biodiversity and risk prevention may be includedas long as they contribute to the above said overallgoals.biodiversity, for instance waste water treatment andnatural risk prevention.This low level of funding has led the Committeeof the Regions and other European institutions tourge the EU 2020 Biodiversity strategy to “addressthe current underspend of structural funds onenvironment and biodiversity-related issues andpromote the exchange of best practice to empowerregional and local authorities for action on theground”.On the other hand, some activities financed by theEuropean funds may cause negative impacts onforest ecosystems. There are several cases whichprovide examples of conflicting funding in the EURegional Policy, particularly associated with thecreation and extension of all types of infrastructureswhich fragment forest habitats and displace somespecies.Despite the current underspending in natureconservation measures and the funding of activitiesthat may result in the promotion of contradictoryobjectives, Regional Policy has great potentialfor creating win-win situations that pursuea sustainable forest management approach,enhancing synergies, promoting innovativesilviculture techniques, protecting biodiversity andat the same time reducing forest related risks (fire,floods, climate change, etc.). The priorities of eachof the Convergence, Regional Competitiveness andEmployment and European Territorial Cooperationallow for the funding of forest biodiversity andnatural risk prevention activities through forexample, “developing plans and measures to preventand cope with natural risks”, and “promoting thedevelopment of infrastructure linked to biodiversityIn the 2007-2013 programming period, MemberExample of 2007-2013 FP 7 projectDespite the adoption of the integrative approach, theStates have allocated 2.7 billion € to the “Promotionamount of funds allocated to biodiversity is insignificantof biodiversity and nature protection (includingFunDivEUROPE: Functional significance of forestacross the different instruments, including RegionalNatura 2000)”, 1.1 billion € has been allocated tobiodiversityPolicy. In this sense, LIFE + <strong>Nature</strong> & Biodiversitythe „promotion of natural assets“ and 1.4 billionThis project works on quantifying the influence ofcomponent (the only one exclusively addressed to€ for the „protection and development of naturalbiodiversity on ecosystem functions and services andthe delivery of timely, relevant and understandable biodiversity and environment purposes) includesheritage“. This means that approximately 1.5%information to policymakers and stakeholders about approximately 120 million € per year, less than 0.1%of the total 2007-2013 Regional Policy fundingforest biodiversity and ecosystem services. For moreof the total EU budget. According to a recent study,is allocated to measures that can directly andinformation: www.fundiveurope.euonly 20% of the total financing needs for managingindirectly support biodiversity policy. In additionSpecific funds have also been created, such as theprotected areas in Europe, including the Natura 2000there are also other funding themes that have theEuropean Civil Protection Financial Instrument, whichnetwork, are being met.potential to contribute indirectly to nature andand Natura 2000 sites…”.16 172.2

As the <strong>SURF</strong> <strong>Nature</strong> project analysis shows, many ERDF Operational Programmes provide co‐financing formanaging protected areas, particularly Natura 2000 (over half of all proposed sites for the EU-wide Natura2000 network include forest areas) and for implementing measures that protect valuable habitats andsupport ecological coherence and connectivity in the context of regional development. These measures areoften funded under the budget line for promotion of biodiversity and nature protection (code 51). Otheroptions for financing natural risk prevention activities that may affect forests (fires, floods, mudfloods, etc.)are code 53 (risk prevention) and 54 (other measures to preserve the environment and prevent risks). However,such activities can also be linked indirectly with other budget lines, for example, code 56 (protectionand development of natural heritage), and code 49 (mitigation and adaptation to climate change).The following table illustrates some possibilities provided by the current framework of the ERDF regulation,including possible links to the categories of expenditure within the fund. This table shows potentialopportunities. However the actual availability of funds and relevant measures is based on the regional ornational Operational Programmes (OP).Article Possible application for (forest) biodiversityCategories of expenditure which could alreadycover the investments4 ConvergenceEnvironment, including investments connected with water supply and water and waste management; wastewater treatment and airquality; prevention, control and fight against desertification; integrated pollution prevention and control; aid to mitigate the effects4(4)of climate change; rehabilitation of the physical environment, including contaminated sites and land and brown field redevelopment;promotion of biodiversity and nature protection, including investments in Natura 2000 sites; aid to SMEs to promote sustainableproduction patterns through the introduction of cost-effective environmental management systems and the adoption and use ofpollution-prevention technologies;• Restoration of forest habitats with special interest, connectecologically valuable natural and cultural landscapes• Establishment of a regional management body to promotesustainable forest management• Reintroduction of threatened species in forest habitats of specialinterest49 Mitigation and adaptation to climate change51 Promotion of biodiversity and nature protection(including Natura 2000)55 Promotion of natural assets56 Protection and development of natural heritage4(5) Prevention of risks, including development and implementation of plans to prevent and cope with natural and technological risks;• Development of forest habitat management plans incrucial sites for risk management (eg flood prevention)• Establishment of networking activities with regard toforests as big contributors to risk prevention• Tree planting of low fire-risk native trees5 Regional competitiveness and employment5(2)b49 Adaptation and mitigation to climate change53 Risk prevention (…)54 Other measures to preserve the environmentandprevent risksPromoting the development of infrastructure linked to biodiversity and investments in Natura 2000 sites where thiscontributes to sustainable economic development and/or diversification of rural areas;5(2)e• Restoration activities at forest areas of special interestto enable long-term habitat management and enhancesustainable tourism in the region• Creation of underpasses/ overpasses in transportinfrastructures to reduce the effect of forest habitatsfragmentation49 Mitigation and adaptation to climate change51 Promotion of biodiversity and nature protection(including Natura 2000)55 Promotion of natural assets56 Protection and development of natural heritageDeveloping plans and measures to prevent and cope with natural risks (e.g. desertification, droughts, fires and loods)and technological risks;• Development of forest habitat management plans incrucial sites for risk management (eg flood prevention)• Establishment of networking activities with regard toforests as big contributors to risk prevention• Tree planting of low fire-risk native trees6 European territorial cooperation6(1)b2(b)49 Adaptation and mitigation to climate change53 Risk prevention (…)54 Other measures to preserve the environmentandprevent risksDevelopment of cross-border economic, social and environmental activities through joint strategies for sustainable territorialdevelopment:by encouraging and improving the joint protection and management of natural and cultural resources, as well as the preventionof natural and technological risks;• Development of management plans for a cross bordernetwork of forest habitats/ sites• Establishment of a cross border body to promotesustainable forest management practices in the area• Establishment of cross border networking activities withregard to forests as big contributors to risk prevention• Reintroduction of threatened species in cross border foresthabitats49 Mitigation and adaptation to climate change51 Promotion of biodiversity and nature protection(including Natura 2000)53 Risk prevention (...)54 Other measures to preserve the environmentand prevent risks55 Promotion of natural assets56 Protection and development of natural heritageThe establishment and development of transnational cooperation, including bilateral cooperation between maritime regionsnot covered under point 1, through the financing of networks and of actions conducive to integrated territorial development,concentrating rimarily on the following priority areas: b) Environment: water management, energy efficiency, risk prevention andenvironmental protection activities with a clear transnational dimension. Actions may include: protection and management of riverbasins, coastal zones, marine resources, water services and wetlands; fire, drought and flood prevention; the promotion of maritimesecurity and protection against natural and technological risks; and protection and enhancement of the natural heritage in support ofsocio-economic development and sustainable tourism;• Development of management plans for transnational networkof forest habitats/ sites of special interest• Establishment of a transnational body in charge of managingtransnational sensitive forest areas from different perspectives(nature conservation, risk prevention, etc.)• Establishment of transnational networking activities with regardto forests as big contributors to risk prevention• Transfer of knowledge concerning management mechanisms(including management plans where necessary) related to sitesdesignated as special areas of conservation• Integrated transnational approaches to the management oftrans-boundary mountain and forest areas of transnationalsignificance49 Mitigation and adaptation to climate change51 Promotion of biodiversity and nature protection(including Natura 2000)53 Risk prevention (...)54 Other measures to preserve the environmentand prevent risks55 Promotion of natural assets56 Protection and development of natural heritageSource: Interpretation of the authors based on categories of expenditure provided by implementing regulation (EC) No. 1080/200618 19

2.3Oppportunities to improveregional funding forforest biodiversityCurrently, Regional Funds do not establish minimumfunding requirements to be allocated to specificactivities. As a result, the actual decisions on how toallocate the Community financing are mainly takenat the national level, allowing great disparitiesamong Member States.The requirement of a minimum funding forbiodiversity goals could be complemented bya stricter enforcement of eco-conditionalityrequirements when allocating financial support,increasing for example the capacity of theCommission to monitor and ensure that theallocation of funds to forest biodiversity and riskprevention supporting activities is spread acrossrelevant sectoral policies.This approach requires the establishment of amethodology with clear and reliable indicators toenable the monitoring of spending. There are difficultiesassociated with separating out forest biodiversityspending per se, since some measures have the potentialto simultaneously support multiple benefits e.g. forestbiodiversity, water quality and adaptation to climatechange and this poses additional challenges in terms ofits cost-effectiveness.However, it is not only a matter of increasing thefunds allocated to forest biodiversity and riskprevention, but also to ensure that Regional Fundsare coherent in the promotion of their objectives.Some of the investments supporting infrastructuredevelopment may contribute directly to thefragmentation of forestry habitats and landscapes.Even though important efforts have been madein recent years to mainstream environment andbiodiversity considerations into all policy sectors,more effort should be made to avoid financingmeasures that pursue contradictory objectives.One way to tackle this issue is to understand forestsas an ecosystem that demands to be managed in anholistic way. For example, active forest managementmeasures funded under the “risk prevention”theme in order to decrease the risk of forest firescan also create more diverse habitat structures, bymimicking natural disturbances, which in turn canfavour higher species diversity in comparison toforest areas with no management. This approachhas proven to be successful in the implementationof internationally well known sustainablecertification schemes for forestry areas, like theForest Stewardship Council (FSC) or the Programmefor the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC),which seek simultaneously to prevent risks, improvelocal economic conditions, enhance the capacity offorests to retain more CO 2and to adapt to climatechange challenge, together with the protection offorest biodiversity.According to a WWF and IEEP report, “experience atthe national level also shows that the bureaucracyand administrative burden associated withaccessing the EU funds can make them inaccessibleor unappealing for some stakeholders”. To addressthis problem, efforts should be made to simplifythe processes and to empower local stakeholders toapply for and to manage Regional Funds efficiently,thus reducing the concentration of such fundsin a relatively low number of highly specializedorganisations.Stakeholders’ viewsIn this chapter, 6 interviews have been conductedwith the purpose of gathering relevant informationon the opportunities and challenges that Regionalfunds present to improve forest biodiversity and riskprevention aspects. The interviewees are experts in thefield and represent different views and interests (publicadministrations, NGOs, companies, etc.). They also comefrom diverse European geographical areas and thereforemanage or regulate different typologies of forests.The main aspects and findings from the interviewsfollow:Discussion with Georg Erlacher, CEO, AustrianFederal Forests (ÖBf), President of EUSTAFOR(European State Forest Association):Problems and threats in the field of forestbiodiversityWe see a very rapid development towards fragmentationof habitats, and thereby also a threat for the biodiversity.In the future, the forest management also has to besure of preserving genetic diversity and consequentlypractising risk prevention.The pursuit of sustainable forestry is a good basis forsafeguarding biodiversity, and at the same time thisis also a good form of risk prevention. The themes ofwildlife and hunting are also risk factors, especiallyin the Alpine region. In some regions we have toohigh stocks of game, which not only endanger theforest’s biodiversity, but also the stability.As far as the EU nature conservation fundingprogrammes are concerned, the programmes shouldbe opened up and made more suitable for funding theprotection of state forests. A more well-balanced accessto these programmes on a national level is necessary toreach the EU Biodiversity targets 2020.Experience with the application andimplementation of ERDF fundsThe length of time between expenditure andreimbursement is a problem. Priority should alsobe given to the funding of projects focused on theimplementation of measures on the ground ratherthan to more theoretically oriented approacheswhich sometimes lack a practical component.Discussion with Wolfgang Lexer, Project Manager(environmental expert), UmweltbundesamtGmbH, (this interview reflect the personal viewof the respondent)Problems and threats in the field of forestbiodiversityCurrently the main two topics are the accord onbiological diversity and the EU’s goal for 2010 tostop the decline in biodiversity.20 213.

The main strength and at the same time opportunityis sustainable forest management in Europe.Experience with the application andimplementation of ERDF fundsParticularly the administrative loads, especiallydue to reporting regulations, should be reducedfor the project participants: Controlling, reporting,accounting, first level and second level controlrequire a lot of time. Public funds should be usedmore efficiently and more emphasis should be puton the capitalisation of the projects. The promotionof knowledge transfer to the user could possibly bea project, which could be particularly focused ontowards the end of such a programme period.Discussion with Gerald Pfiffinger , ManagingDirector, Birdlife AustriaProblems and threats in the field of forestbiodiversitySome of the most important problems are climatechange and the trend of planting foreign treeswhich influence birds in a very sensitive way. Thelack of Natura 2000 management plans is also areason for concern.We need to involve all the important players in thefield of native forests and we need more targetedresearch in the area of extensive forestry practices.Discussion with Matias Garcia Morell,Delegate for the Region of Murcia, Associationof Forest Engineers of the Region of MurciaProblems and threats in the field of forestbiodiversityForest and mountain ecosystems are extremelyvaluable and fragile. Problems and threats as adirect result of the excessive and inappropriate useof natural resources will have greater relevancein the future, with special emphasis on the mostpopulated areas. We need sound rules in terms ofplanning and management instruments as well astools for the diagnosis and early follow-up of themain problems.Experience with the application andimplementation of ERDF fundsMore funds should be available for a series ofinfrastructures and to gain the knowledge neededfor the improvement of biodiversity conservationand the monitoring of forest risks.Discussion with Irene Lucius, Head of Policy,WWF Danube Carpathian Programmegood governance and short term profiteering areother factors that lead to a reduction on forestbiodiversity. A new threat is that the search fornew renewable energy sources can lead to theextension of biodiversity poor plantations for woodproduction.Experience with the application andimplementation of ERDF fundsThe contract conditions for spending ERDF fundsare very difficult to work under, at least in somecountries with management authorities andpayment agencies not trained well enough and prefinancingoften a problem. ERDF funds potentiallyfill a very important funding gap for biodiversityissues. Other aspects that should be taken intoaccount are: shorter pre-financing time spans;better contract conditions; faster processing ofapplications; more training of fund managers inforest biodiversity issues; more “advertisement” ofusing ERDF for (forest) biodiversity issuesDiscussion with Virginie Fabre Ayala, Director,GEIE FORESPIRProblems and threats in the field of forestbiodiversityThe main threats are: climate change, agro-pastoralpressure, fire risk and lack of forest management.Pyrenean forests remain underexploited due to highoperating costs if we compare it with other areasboth at European and global level.Experience with the application andimplementation of ERDF fundsSome rules have obstacles which make participationdifficult for small organisations. There is need foradvice and technical support addressed to smallorganisations that do not have enough capacity tomaintain such complex project management.Problems and threats in the field of forestExperience with the application and biodiversityimplementation of ERDF fundsThe main problems and threats stem from theMore funding for biodiversity-related issues should strong focus on the use of wood from forests and notbe available and we should definitely ensure that sufficient emphasis on preservation and sustainablethis increasingly continues to happen.use of other forest ecosystem services. Lack of22 23

4.4.1Good practices and innovativeapproachesProject examplesThe following projects illustrate the potential of Regional Funds to finance Forest Biodiversity relatedprojects. Nevertheless, these projects show that there are further opportunities for improvement, and thatlessons learnt from the projects could make future projects even more effective and sustainable.Connectivity with key EUpolicies and regulationsKey factors for successThe activities developed in the project are completely coherent and complementary with otherplans and projects, mainly Natura 2000 management rules in the sites protected by this figureand the implementation of the Habitats and Birds EC Directives. It is in accordance too withregional development plans that specifically exclude some types of development and fosternature conservation practices in the project areas.The design of the project has been based in the experiences and lessons learned from previousand similar French projects in the Pyrenees. It has boosted the conviction and motivation of all thepartners involved getting a high level of consensus and approval of the implemented activities.Activities are carried out from the beginning of the project to motivate the squad members aboutthe objectives of their work (improve the habitat of endangered species) and to transmit the valueof what they are doing. One of the key factors for success of the project has been the doubleapproach used to both carry on habitat restoration activities and monitor the impact of theseactivities on the endangered species through innovative techniques such as camera trapping.Cross-bordermultistakeholdersconservation projectOperational ProgrammeBackground information.Partners and actors involvedOP France- Spain- Andorra 2007-2013Priority 2. Natural heritage and risk prevention, tourism and local products. The main objectiveis to harmonize in the three States of the Pyrénées (France, Spain and Andorra) the monitoringand habitat management systems of three species of mountain galliforms.Total costs: 2 446 940 €EU cofinancing: 1 534 119 €The GALLIPYR project is designed to harmonize the methods of monitoring and management of3 species of mountain game fowl between 3 States that make up the Pyrenean Massif (Spain-France-Andorra): the Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus), the Rock ptarmigan (Lagopus mutus) andGrey partridge (Perdix perdix). Actions are also conducted to encourage the return of HazelGrouse (Bonasa bonasia), extinct specie of the Pyrenees following pressure from human activity.On the French side of the Pyrenees, methods of monitoring of these populations exist acrossthe Observatoire des Galliformes de Montagne. The GALLIPYR project will expand and developexpertise between French-Spanish-Andorran specialists for the mountain game fowl in the wholeof the Pyrenean chain for a better cross-border balance. The project provides for the creationof a network of Pyrenean mountain game fowl, assistance to the creation of a database and inimplementing actions for habitats and species of mountain game fowl.The partners are: GEIE Forespir ; Govern d’Andorra; Office National des Forêts; Office Nationalde la Chasse et de la Faune Sauvage; Fédération Régionale des Chasseurs de Midi-Pyrénéeset Fédérations Départementales des Chasseurs (Ariège, Haute-Garonne, Hautes-Pyrénées,Pyrénées-Atlantiques et Pyrénées-Orientales); Generalitat de Catalunya (Departament de MediAmbient i Habitage); Centre Tecnológic Forestal de Catalunya; Conselh Generau d’Aran; GestiónAmbiental Viveros y Repoblaciones de Navarra – SA; Diputación de AlavaThe project has had a very important support from public administrations at both sides of theborder. It has not included the direct support of social groups in financial terms, but permanentdialogue with livestock farmers and other social actors has been necessary to perform the dutiesof the project.CommunicationWin-win situationsFurther informationPhotos:Jordi Camprodon and David GuixéMost of the budget has been allocated to perform activities of habitat restoration andmonitoring of indicators, thus less resources were left to communication and disseminationactivities. Nevertheless, the project has performed in various media to the general public:television, regional and local newspapers, etc. and preliminary results have been announcedin international and regional conferences and workshops addressed to specialized target groupssuch as ornithologists, nature conservation actors, scientists, etc. Finally, the project team willwork on a practical Handbook on how to manage Western Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) andthe Grey Partridge (Perdix perdix) habitats to improve its conditions and favour the animalsreproduction addressed to public administrators and experts.The project brings forward potential benefits related to eco-tourism/recreation and regionalmarketing of products. The preservation of those species and particularly the emblematicWestern Capercaillie will increase the attractiveness of the area for tourists and may enhance theapparition of local products that take advantage of the uniqueness of such species (jams fromthe Western Capercaillie habitat, etc.). The project provides direct income and formation to localpopulation hiring personnel to work in the restoration of habitats.http://www.gallipyr.euPhotos:Jordi Camprodon and David Guixé24 25

Interregional focus onriparian forests restorationOperational Programme OP South West European Space (2007-2013)CommunicationImportant efforts have been devoted to communication activities in the project. Preliminaryresults of the project have been announced in international and regional conferences andworkshops addressed to specialized target groups: Congress on “Land Stewardship”, Congress on“Environmental Indicators on the Recovery of Rivers” etc. It is a common practice of the projectteam to organize partners meetings together with workshops on specific topics open to localstakeholders and the scientific community: Workshop on the restoration of river banks (Flix),Workshop on invasive plant species (Faro) and Workshop on biodiversity indicators (Mérida).Background informationPartners and actors involvedConnectivity with key EUpolicies and regulationsPriority 2: Improvement of sustainability for the protection and conservation of the environmentand natural surroundings of the SUDOE space. The main objective is to define and implementcommon methodologies and strategies to recover and improve the ecological status of riparianforests in the Mediterranean rivers.Total cost: 1.798.182,64ERDF Funds: 1.348.636,98The project aims to define and implement (through pilot interventions) strategies andmethodologies of joint protection and conservation of riparian forests in the SUDOE area, takinginto account, inter alia, natural features and biodiversity, the preservation of priority habitatsand Heritage of the Natura 2000 network, the importance of rivers as ecological corridors, theircontribution to the natural water cycle, the need for rich river and its economic valueThe partners are: Instituto Superior de Agronomia. Universidade Técnica de Lisboa; Águasdo Algarve, SA; Administraçao da Regiao Hidrogràfica do Algarve; Biodiversity and AnimalConservation lab. Centre Tecnològic Forestal de Catalunya.Permanent dialogue with property owners, fishermen and other social actors has been necessaryto perform the duties of the project and obtain their support. Land stewardship agreementshave been accorded and implemented. Private owners have taken advantage of the habitatand landscape improvement works and in some cases they got wood from the clearing works.Dialogue with fishermen has been crucial to intervene in their fishing lots and areas respectingtheir interests and needs. Ongoing communication with local stakeholders has been carried outto explain the purpose of the project and to avoid conflicts of interest./ It is in accordance with<strong>Nature</strong> 2000 management rules and regional developmentThe activities developed in the project are completely coherent and complementary with otherplans and projects, mainly the Water Framework Directive. It is focused on the achievement of agood ecological status of waters and river banks in 2015 according to the established in the WaterFramework Directive.It is in accordance too with <strong>Nature</strong> 2000 management rules and regional development plans thatspecifically exclude some types of development and foster nature conservation practices in theproject areas.Win-win situationsFurther informationPhotos:Jordi Camprodon and David GuixéThe project brings forward potential benefits related to eco tourism/recreation since it willincrease the attractiveness of riparian areas for tourists. The projects promotes that localcommunities get more engaged and become closer to the river, understanding its value, thefunctions and services that provides and its uniqueness. The project provides direct income andformation hiring personnel with social exclusion problems to work in the squads adding thus asocial dimension to the project.http://www.ricover.euKey factors for successThe already organized workshops and partner meetings have been used to present early successesof the project to boost conviction and motivation of the partners and actors involved. Activitiesare carried out from the beginning of the project to motivate the squad members about theobjectives of their work and to transmit the value of what they are doing. One of the key factorsfor success of the project has been the double approach used to both carry on habitat restorationactivities and monitor the impact of these activities through the application of bioindicators.Photos:Jordi Camprodon and David Guixé26 27

Wildlife improvement in the mountains of Peñas de BejarOP ERDF 2007-2013 of the Region of Murcia.Priority axis 5. The main objective is the improvement of the wildlife in the Region of Murcia. ItOperational Program:promotes and encourages biodiversity in the forest ecosystem of Murcia.49.950,00 €: 70% ERDF and 30% by Own Funds of the Region of MurciaThe Monte de Peñas de Béjar is an SPAs (ES0000262 Sierras del Gigante-Pericay, Lomas delBuitre-Río Luchena y Sierra de la Torrecilla.) located in the South East of Spain, Region of Murcia.In this area we can highlight the presence of protected wildlife species for the Murcia region,Background Information:highlighting a nest of Bonelli‘s Eagle (Hieraaetus fasciatus) and species of Bubo bubo, Circaetusgallicus, peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) and the Tortuga mora (Testudo graeca) among others.Partners and actors involvedConnectivity with key EUpolicies and regulationsKey factors for successCommunicationWin-win situationsFurther informationThe aim of the project is the conservation of biodiversity and nature in the region of Murcia. Itacts on two key factors for the development of life in an area of Natura 2000, SPA „Sierras delGigante-Pericay, Lomas del Buitre-Rio Luchena and Sierra de la Torrecilla, „which are: availabilityof water points and planting in areas for the conservation of wild species, many of which areprotected in the Region.The main objective is the improvement of the wildlife that lives in the Monte Peñas de Béjarthrough the increase of the trophic resources and the availability of water supply. Both actionspromote and encourage biodiversity in this forest ecosystem of Murcia.The project has been designed and implemented directly by DG Environment of the Region ofMurcia.The activities developed in the project are completely coherent and complementary with otherplans and projects, mainly Natura 2000 management rules in the sites protected by this figureand the implementation of the Habitats and Birds EC Directives.The execution of the project can be characterized as successful until now, because the morerealistic projection shows that by encouraging permanently the provision of water and food inthis mountain area within the Natura 2000 network, biodiversity will improve significantly.The project contains methods and innovative or creative elements such as that the ones used onthe recovery of the terraces: to slow the runoff and erosion while maintaining the same waterneeded for the planting of corn which will feed the wildlife, sangraores have been installed.They are a traditional old but novel method recovered which consists on strengthening throughmasonry (mortar and stone) the base of the terrace, from where it drains the excess water onceland is soaked, but does not drag and erosion it.The budget has been allocated to perform the activities of the Project and its monitoring. Thepreliminary results have been very positive and communication activities will be carried outonce the final results are available.The project brings forward potential benefits related to eco tourism / recreation as it will increasethe attractiveness of the area for tourists.The measures contribute to the conservation of nature in ancient agricultural abandoned terracesthat have been recovered through this action, sides have been maintained to support the shelterof wildlife living in the SPA, with the aim of improving the habitat for them.http://www.murcianatural.carm.es4.2Recommendations for successful project implementationA successful project application consists of severaldifferent aspects: the specific requirements of therespective programme e.g. concerning partnership;strategic knowledge; bringing the right proposalat the right time; having the lead partner from the‘right’ country and the quality of the project itself.With this regard, the following recommendationsfor the successful implementation of a projectwere agreed upon as the most relevant during a<strong>SURF</strong>-<strong>Nature</strong> Interregional Workshop on ForestBiodiversity and Risk Prevention that took place inMay 2011 in Solsona, Catalonia (Spain):1. Develop an in depth analysis of the needs in thepreparation and scoping phase of the project, with agood identification of the “state of the art” of the topicsaddressed, in order to capitalize and take advantage ofthe existing experiences and projects.2. The idea and preparation of the project should have abottom up approach, with huge and key stakeholderinvolvement and support, therefore enabling the afterlifesustainability of the project.3. There should be innovative mechanisms to providetechnical support and prefinancing for goodpartnerships and ideas. In particular, site managers,NGOs and other local actors that directly intervenein the landscape should receive more support inaccessing ERDF. The idea of professional supportduring the preparation phase is crucial (for instance viacollaboration of local actors with research centres).4. The partnership and the stakeholders involved in theproject should have similar institutional goals, bereliable and representative of the regional and locallevels5. Good project planning is necessary to minimizeadministrative and financial problems. However, ahigh degree of flexibility is needed to change goals andactivities during the implementation of the project,depending upon changing circumstances.6. Developing a good communication strategy appears tobe a key element for success, particularly with regard tonatural conservation issues. However, it is important tobe critical with the project communication approachesmost predominantly used, for example, is there a needto develop a website page for each project? Are pressreleases the only way to measure the achievement ofcommunication objectives?7. Leadership is crucial for project success as arecooperation and collaboration between partners.Changing roles during project implementation couldbe interesting in order to understand other’s needs(e.g. do partners always give an answer to coordinatione-mails?)8. Establishing good networking with other projectsand transferring results through capacity buildingactivities is crucial for project success and to seekwin-win situations. With this regard, a key word is“capitalisation”, which demands an effort to make theknowledge acquired during the implementation of theproject available to the user and to put it into practice.9. Actions of the projects should be clear and targetoriented. The need for clear actions versus broadideas should be stressed.28 29

4.3 The Alpine Convention: an example of an innovative regulatory• Reduction of air pollutant burdens• Restriction of hoofed game populations to an extent whereby the natural rejuvenation ofapproachThe following section offers a more detailed view of relevant provisions of the Alpine Convention concerningforest biodiversity and prevention of risk and hazards. It constitutes a good example of how forestbiodiversity, risk prevention and other sustainable development considerations can be integrated into oneregulatory framework. The main points of the Convention are shown in the box on page 14.Spatial planning and sustainable developmentIn this protocol, the objectives stipulate that there must be a harmonisation of spatial utilisation with the ecologicalobjectives and requirements. In order to promote the sustainable development of the Alpine region, the contractparties pledge to develop instruments which lead to a better coordination of sectoral policies.<strong>Nature</strong> conservation und landscape conservationThe target provisions of the Convention stipulate that arrangements will be made to protect or maintainand restore nature and landscape so that the functional capability of the ecosystems will be permanentlysafeguarded. Agriculture and forestry play a crucial role in the implementation of nature and landscapeconservation measures and it is therefore envisaged that the protection, preservation and maintenance ofnear-natural biotopes will be achieved on the basis of agreements with landowners or managers. Marketbasedcontrol instruments such as economic incentives or payments are also particularly suitable forthis purpose. With regard to the protected areas, which are connected through a cross-border ecologicalnetwork, it is recommended that these shall be preserved and further developed. New protected areas arealso to be designated and the establishment of protective and environmental zones for wild animal andplant species is also envisaged. In other provisions, the parties to the Convention will be called upon or willpledge to take measures to preserve animal and plant species and natural or near-natural types of biotopesand to safeguard their functionally adequate spatial distribution.Mountain forestMountain forest in the Alpine region can provide climate regulation and protection against natural hazardswhich reaches beyond mountainous areas. The objective is therefore to preserve, develop or augment themountain forest as a near-natural habitat and to enhance its stability. For this purpose the Conventionparties particularly pledge to implement the following measures:• Employment of natural forest rejuvenation methods• Development of a well-structured, stepped population with tree species in accordancewith the location• Utilisation of autochthonous reproductive material as well as• Prevention of soil erosion and soil compaction;mountain forests is possible in accordance with the location• The preservation of a functional mountain forest has priority over forest grazing• The utilisation of mountain forest for recreational purposes can be managed and ifnecessary can also be restricted• Promotion and utilisation of increased timber production from sustainably managedforests• Sufficient consideration of the danger of forest fires• Provision of appropriately qualified staff provided by the signatory states for fulfilment ofthe forest’s ecosystem benefitsThe contract parties pledge to create the necessary financial framework and to contribute towards sufficientsilvicultural promotion to safeguard the protective and utility function of the mountain forest, fulfilmentof its social and ecological benefits, forest development and designation of natural forest protection areas.Soil conservationThe reduction of quantitative and qualitative soil impairments is the focal point of efforts here. Soilconservingagricultural and forestry production methods, dealing economically with ground and soil,the containment of erosion and the uncontrolled development of soils are other pivotal elements in theprovisions. The obligation to preserve bogs and fens is relevant to biodiversity in this protocol. The soils whichare vital for agriculture, pasture farming and forestry shall be safeguarded.As this description shows, the Alpine Convention can serve as an example for other regions in Europe and setsa trend for the sustainable protection and utilisation of the Alps.30 31Photo: ÖBf AG-Pritz

5.Conclusions and recommendations5. This global approach should also be taken into consideration in the application andimplementation of ERDF funds in cross-sectoral topics such as fire risk prevention, seekingto involve a range of public administrations with powers on natural environment, territorialplanning, education, etc., therefore covering the different perspectives of forest management.The following conclusions/policy recommendations may be highlighted in relation to improving ERDFRegulations and general political procedures with regard to forest biodiversity and risk preventionconsiderations:1. There is a need to develop a funding system that fosters synergies, ensures cost efficiency andseeks to promote win-win situations in the different areas that affect forest management. TheERDF regulations should prioritize projects that integrate key aspects in the management offorests such as biodiversity conservation, mitigation and adaptation to climate change and riskprevention and develop market based instruments to fulfil and value this ecosystem service.6. Managers of European funds should be aware of the particular needs of both Mediterraneanforests (higher risk of fires, land abandonment, low economic profitability, etc.) and continentaland northern forests (less prone to fire risks, higher profitability, etc.), so that funds aredistributed according to the particular requirements of the region.7. There is a need to improve communication and perception issues. The final beneficiaries of ERDFfunds are local site managers with real potential capacity to intervene and manage forests ina sustainable way. ERDF funds should be oriented to empower these agents to carry on theiractivities in a sustainable way therefore a higher degree of understanding is needed betweenfund managers and these final beneficiaries.2. There is a need to maximise and better value the benefits of the Regional Funds for forestbiodiversity and risk prevention activities and tackle the current under spending in these andother biodiversity areas.3. It is not only a matter of increasing the funds allocated to forest biodiversity and risk prevention,but also ensuring that Regional Funds are coherent in the promotion of their objectives. It is wellknown that some of the investments to support infrastructure development may contributedirectly to the fragmentation of forest habitats and landscapes. In this regard, it is imperativethat no ERDF-funded project should constitute a hindrance or adversely affect the developmentof forest biodiversity, risk prevention or climate change goals.4. Forests should be recognised as complex ecosystems that need to be managed in a holistic way.For example, when active forest management measures conducive to decreasing the risk offorest fires are adopted, they must respect specific local biodiversity considerations. If fire risksare reduced in an area or region, the capacity of the forest to retain CO 2will be maintained andendemic species will be preserved in the long term. The benefits of adopting an ecosystembased approach rather than a more technological one when defining ERDF priorities andfinancial lines should be stressed. The forest should be developed and nurtured so that it canbetter withstand future climate warming and be more stable and robust in the long term,ensuring that forest management practices preserve genetic diversity and consequently fosterrisk prevention whilst still fulfilling their important function of timber production.8. A stronger orientation towards implementation of measures should be adopted, since theimpression of some of the interviewees is that the results move very strongly on a “meta-level”and the relevance of implementation is often only given indirectly.9. It is necessary to establish mechanisms that facilitate participation of NGOs and other localactors (for example via cooperation with research centres, regional advisers or specialisedassociations) in ERDF funding since these groups often lack the degree of technical expertiseand financial capacity required to apply for and/or manage those funds. In this sense, effortsshould be devoted to simplifying the processes from the administrative/bureaucratic point ofview and to empowering local stakeholders via pre-financing, training and capacity buildingactivities, networking activities, etc. In general terms, the time allocated to first level andsecond level controlling, reporting, accounting, etc. should be reduced and spent instead in theachievement of substantive project goals.10. A more general but important area is the representation of forestry at the political level.Approximately 40% of Europe consists of forests and this should be recognised appropriatelyin the realm of politics. The benefits that have resulted from forest management are multiple,not only from the economic perspective but also for the many essential goods and services,from drinking water and air quality to protection against natural hazards. It is thereforeconsidered important that a common forest policy or a special commissariat at the Brusselslevel is developed.32 33

11. In conclusion, it is an imperative that Regional Fund regulations recognise the importance of forests as:• shelters for biodiversity• providers of crucial services (regulating climate, water and soil)• providers of goods (timber)• places for leisure and work activities• areas with the capacity to prevent risks (floods, avalanches and torrent control etc,).Regional Funds should therefore prioritise the stimulation and implementation of projects that createspill over effects into national policies in order to enhance sustainable forest management and theprotection of this key ecosystem.6. References- Committee of the Regions.2010. Opinion on ‘EU and international biodiversity policy beyond2010’ (2010/C 267/08)- European Environment Agency (EEA). 2010. EU 2010 biodiversity baseline.- European Environment Agency (EEA). 2010. Assessing biodiversity in Europe – the 2010 report.- European Topic Centre on Biologial Diversity (ETC/BD). 2008. Habitats Directive Article 17Report (2001-2002)- Gantioler S., Ten Brink P., Rayment M., Bassi S., Kettunen M., McConville A., Financing Natura2000 –Financing needs and socio-economic benefits resulting from investment in thenetwork. Background Paper for the Conference on ‘Financing Natura 2000’, 15-16 July 2010. DGEnvironment Contract. ENV.B.2/SER/2008/0038. Institute for European Environmental Policy /GHK / Ecologic, Brussels 2010- Haßlacher, P. 2003. Vademecum Alpenkonvention, Innsbruck.- JRC, Estreguil, C. and Mouton, C., 2009. European Forest Data Centre (JRC EFDAC Map viewerat http://efdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/). Measuring and reporting on forest landscape pattern,fragmentation and connectivity in Europe: methods and indicators. Joint Research Centre of theEuropean Commission, Internal publication. Pubsy reference 51802- Keti Medarowa-Bergstom, Friends of the Earth Europe/ CEE Bankwatch; Annabel Lambert,RSPB and Peter Torkler, WWF.2010. The need for a reform of the future EU Cohesion Policy:Putting our money where our mouth is, Position paper of the European Environmental NGOsCoalition for Sustainable EU Funds.- Kettunen, M., Baldock, D., Adelle, C., Cooper, T., Farmer, M. Hart, K. (IEEP), Torkler, P. (WWF).2009. Biodiversity and the EU budget: Making the case for conserving biodiversity in thecontext of the EU budget review, WWF and IEEPIs- Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE). 2007. State of Europe’sforests 2007. The MCPFE Report on Sustainable Forest Management in Europe. Warsaw, Poland.- Progress towards the European 2010 - biodiversity target — indicator fact sheets -Compendium to EEA Report No 4/200934 35

- Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 onthe European Regional Development Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999- Ständiges Sekretariat der Alpenkonvention in Innsbruck. 2010. Alpenkonvention –Nachschlagewerk, Alpensignale 1, 2. Auflage, Innsbruck- Suske, W., Allex, B., Martinko,M, Torkler, P., Mey, Franziska. 2011. European RegionalDevelopment Funding for Biodiversity: An analysis of selected Operational Programmes, <strong>SURF</strong>-<strong>Nature</strong> Interreg IV C Project.- WWF, IEEP. 2007. Financing Natura 2000 Guidance Handbook.Commissioned by the EuropeanCommission DG Environment.Other project partners:AT / Environment Agency AustriaRO / Giurgiu County CouncilPL / Marshal Offi ce of Warmia & Mazury VoivodshipIT / Province of RietiGR / Municipal Enterprise For Planning &Development of Patras S.A.GR / Prefecture PrevezaES / DG Environment of the Region of MurciaES / Forest Sciences Center of Cataloniawww.surf-nature.euProject PartnerForest Sciences Center of CataloniaCtra. St. Llorenç de Morunys, Km225280 SolsonaSpainContact:Francesc CotsPhone: +34973481752francesc.cots@ctfc.eswww.ctfc.catLead Partner:Spittelauer Lände 51090 WienAustriaContact:Peter TramberendKlara BrandlPhone: + 43 1313 045935coordination@surf-nature.euwww.umweltbundesamt.atUK / Environment Agency WalesProject Coordination:WWF DeutschlandCZ / University Olomouc Reinhardtstraße 1410117 BerlinAT / Austrian Federal Forests GermanyContact:AT / Donau-Auen National Park Peter TorklerMelanie HillmannFR / Côtes d’Armor General Council Julia SteinertPhone: + 49 30 311777222SL / Development Agency Savinjacoordination@surf-nature.eu36 www.wwf.de37

Photo: ÖBf AG-Pritz