Forest biodiversity

Sustainable investment for the benefit of both people and nature

December 2011 This report was prepared by: Francesc Cots, Forest Sciences Center of Catalonia

Forest biodiversity
Content
Introduction 1. Facts about Europes forests 4 6 6 6 8

Authors: Francesc Cots and Denis Boglio, Forest Sciences Center of Catalonia/ Gerald Plattner, Austrian Federal Forests/ Francisco Flores, DG Environment of the Region of Murcia

Editors: Peter Torkler and Julia Steinert, WWF Germany/ Colette Price, Countryside Council for Wales Layout: Communication Department, Forest Sciences Center of Catalonia Cover photo: Jordi Camprodon and David Guix Printing:

1.1 Forest ecosystems 1.2 General status 1.3 Key findings relating to maintenance, conservation and appropriate enhancement of biodiversity in forest ecosystems 1.4 Pressures, threats and risks 1.5 EU Forest policy 2. EU Regional Funds for forest biodiversity

11 13 15 15 17 20 21 24 24 29 30 32 35

Thank you to everybody who commented and contributed to this report. This report was published in 2011 by the SURFnature project. www.surf-nature.eu

2.1 European funding for forest biodiversity 2.2 Regional Policy and forest biodiversity 2.3 Opportunities to improve regional funding for forest biodiversity 3. Stakeholders views 4. Good Practices and innovative approaches 4.1 Project examples 4.2 Reccommendations for successful project implementatation 4.3 The Alpine Convention: an example of an innovative regulatory approach 5. Conclusions and recommendations 6. References

This project is funded by the EUs European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVC programme

LD: L.287-2012 ISBN: 978-84-695-2713-9

Introduction
About us European funds provide opportunities to complement the financing of nature conservation measures in the Member States, contributing to the preservation of precious natural assets and cultural landscapes. The European approach for financing Natura 2000 suggests that nature conservation measures should be integrated into all EU funds. The current funding period 2007-2013 has shown good potential for financing the promotion of biodiversity and nature within the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). Indeed, 3.8 billion have been allocated for nature investments across all ERDF Operational Programmes. However, the allocation of fund varies enormously between projects and between countries across Europe. In light of this, the Sustainable Use of Regional Funds for Nature (SURF Nature) project has been developed. The overall objective of the project is to improve regional policies and practices for nature conservation and biodiversity. This will be achieved by increasing the opportunities for financing these measures from the ERDF, whilst giving them a greater impact. The SURF partnership consists of 14 public bodies from 10 EU countries which are responsible for the implementation of ERDF funding, or have experience in applying for these funds. Within the project, the partners chose one of five topics which also serve as their main focus. The five
4

topics for publication of thematic booklets for the SURF Nature project are: Sustainable Tourism Natura 2000 Management Green Infrastructure Environmental Education Forest and Biodiversity All booklets will build a bridge between the topic and the ERDF as a financing opportunity and contain project examples for the thematic focus from the partner regions as well as best practice case studies. The thematic booklet on forest biodiversity This booklet addresses the issue of European funding on the topic of forest biodiversity. Forests are the shelter for a major part of European biodiversity and their ecological functions (protection of soil, water quality, protection against erosion, etc.) are crucial for our well being. Forests also protect us from multiple risks e.g. landslides, avalanches, flooding, while fulfilling numerous social functions providing leisure and aesthetic benefits to European citizens. With regard to climate change, forests are a major carbon reservoir and play a main role both mitigating and adapting to the effects of burning fossil fuels.

Among all these aspects, forest biodiversity and its functions are central topics that should be taken into consideration in any activity or project that is implemented in or in someway affects, forestry areas. The focus on these topics requires an understanding of forests as ecosystems that need to be managed in an holistic way, putting the emphasis on the ecosystem management approach instead of other more sectoral and/or fragmented perspectives. Funding of activities that support forest biodiversity conservation should not constitute a hindrance to the protective function of these ecosystems, and if feasible should support the prevention of climate change effects, floods, fires or other natural risks. Equally, funding of risk prevention activities should recognise the intrinsic value of local biodiversity and promote the implementation of sustainable forest management techniques. In some fields, the links between these topics are more evident e.g. in the biological realm, where maintaining species and genetic diversity addresses the need to be prepared for whatever environmental changes might happen. Chapter 1 of the booklet offers a general description of the state of Europes forests including updated data and statistics, detailing the status of biodiversity and indicating the valuable services that this ecosystem provides to our society. Chapter 2 has an overview of the current state of European funding options for investment in forest biodiversity with a specific focus on the opportunities offered by regional funds (referred to as ERDF: European Regional Development Fund) financial framework. This chapter provides ideas for improvement for the next funding period. Chapter 3 highlights the most relevant quotes from 6 interviews with Eu-

ropean forestry experts experienced in the implementation of ERDF funds. These interviews were of great value in identifying the main barriers and opportunities relating to, improving financing opportunities. Chapter 4 focuses on good practices and innovative approaches, showing three ERDF examples illustrating the potential of Regional Policy to finance forest biodiversity related projects and gathering some recommendations for successful project implementation. This chapter also includes some relevant provisions of the Alpine convention as an example of an innovative regulatory approach which integrates forest biodiversity, risk prevention and other sustainable development considerations. Finally, the conclusions in chapter 5 collect the most relevant data and insights of the previous chapters to bring forward the key messages and formulate some policy recommendations.

1. Facts about Europes forests

In order to give an overview of the situation on the status of forest biodiversity the following topics will be presented: 1. 2. 3. Forest ecosystems General status Key findings relating to maintenance, conservation and appropriate enhancement of biodiversity in forest ecosystems Pressures, threats and risks EU Forest Policy Table below shows that the services provided by healthy forests range from recreational benefits to a real economic value including job creation. However, there are significant differences in forest distribution and extent in different regions of the EU. Currently, there is no major deforestation in Europe and forest area increased slightly in most countries between 1990 and 2005, partly due to afforestation programmes and natural regeneration on abandoned agricultural or formerly grazed land. The spatial forest pattern is changing locally due to different dynamics such as loss of forest areas, fragmentation of forest cover and therefore loss of connectivity. Because of their structural complexity, forests are a key factor for biological diversity providing ideal habitats for a huge number of plants, birds and animals. However, these species are in many cases highly dependent on the environmental quality of forests, which has been reduced in the past few decades because of changes such as intensified silvicultural practices, the use of exotic species and the resulting increase in uniformity.

Important 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 of land use, also reducing wind velocity, moderating soil temperature and increasing relative humidity. - Protection from wind erosion Wind-rows and shelterbelts reduce the loss of nutrient rich topsoil and protect young 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 with protection 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 matter as long as the pollution does not damage or kill them. Protecting water resources Forests protect water by reducing 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 a benefit to peoples souls. The scent of the forest soil and the trees makes us breathe deeply and relax. Silence and direct contact with nature have a recreational and purifying effect. - Sustainable tourism Forests hold a wide range of recreational opportunities and cultural values which are increasing sought after by a growing number of tourists. - Timber production for the sawmill, pulp and paper industry in Europe is important and this sector provides work places for approx. 3.5 million employees. In 2005, the gross value added by forestry, wood industries, and pulp and paper industries totalled 110 billion in the 44 countries participating in the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) (excl. Russia) and the sectors contribution to GDP was 1%. - Carbon storage Forests store much carbon and provide a carbon sink: European forests sequester increasing amounts of carbon in tree biomass. Between 2005 and 2010, about 870 million tonnes of CO2 were removed annually from the atmosphere by photosynthesis and tree biomass growth in the European countries. In 2008 this 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 on Earth. They offer a variety of habitats for plants, animals and micro-organisms.

4. 5.

1.1 Forest ecosystems

There is no common definition of forests agreed among the Member States. In this section, the term forest ecosystems includes woodland vegetation comprising species forming forests of tall trees with typical undergrowth, therefore the following forest types of Broadleaf forests, Coniferous forests, Mixed forests and Transitional woodland-shrub are included. EU forests and other wooded areas now cover 176 million ha, more than 42 % of the EU land area.

1.2 General status

Forest habitats play an important role for native species diversity and biodiversity and also fulfil many different functions for the public benefit.
6

1.3 Key findings relating to maintenance, conservation and appropriate enhancement of biodiversity in forest ecosystems
The following sections give an overview of the most important areas for forest biodiversity with fields of special interest for the SURF project discussed more extensively. The information is mainly focused on Natura 2000 sites and does not include data on all EU forests. Protected forests Protected areas are one of the oldest instruments for protecting nature and natural resources. Explicitly designated protected areas focus mainly on conserving the biological diversity, landscapes, natural monuments and protective functions of forests. In the EU, around 20.4 million hectares of forest (equivalent to 13.0 % of the total area) were in protected areas in 2010. The Member States with the largest protected forest areas were Italy, Germany and Spain. Protected forests make up a large share of the land area protected under 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 Sites of 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 between biogeographical regions, but altogether more than half the species and nearly two thirds of habitats have an unfavourable conservation status.
Conservation 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, 2008

The graph above shows that only 15% of the assessments of forest species of Natura 2000 relevance are in favourable status and over 50% of the are in unfavourable status. Also remarkable is that the percentage of unknown assessments differs significantly among the different biogeographical regions. The Macaronesian and Boreal regions show the highest percentage of favourable assessments (respectively 30 % and more than 40 %). Naturalness Over 87% of forests in the 44 countries of the MCPFE (excluding the Russian Federation) are semi-natural. Plantations cover about 8% of the forest area, located mainly in North West Europe, and undisturbed forests cover about 5% of the forest area, located mainly in East and Nordic/Baltic Europe. The degree of naturalness of 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 areas allowing natural disturbance processes to occur. Undisturbed forests also serve as reference areas for understanding ecological principles and contribute to the development of forest management methods. The development of instruments to secure and increase the naturalness of forests is one of the future challenges.

Conservation status of habitat types 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, 2008

Distribution (%) of forest area in the MCPFE region excluding the Russian Federation by classes of naturalness, 2005. Source: MCPF, 2007

1 Natura 2000, Corinne Land Cover (CLC) 2006 for the EU except Greece and the United Kingdom (where CLC 2000 was used).

Introduced tree species In total, about 8.1 million hectares, or 5.2% of the total forest area, is dominated by introduced tree species of which 10% are dominated by invasive species. Countries with the highest share of introduced tree species are Ireland, Denmark, Iceland, the UK, Hungary, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Deadwood Deadwood in the form of decaying wood as standing and lying trees is a habitat for a wide range of organisms, especially saproxylic species, and is seen as an important component of biodiversity. After humification, deadwood also constitutes an important component of forest soils. During some part of their life cycle, some species are dependent on dead or dying wood of moribund or dead trees, or on wood-inhabiting fungi or invertebrate species. Examples of species dependent on deadwood are hole-nesting birds such as woodpeckers, several forest-occurring beetle species, epixylic lichens and bryophytes. The amount of deadwood varies considerably between the forest types, the standing volume of the stands, decaying rates, vegetation zones and the level of management carried out in the forest. In many forests, lack of deadwood endangers those species that are dependent on it. However, in some circumstances, accumulations of fresh dying deadwood may cause a risk of insect outbreaks.

Genetic resources Genetic diversity is the ultimate source of biodiversity at all levels. A loss of genetic diversity may have negative consequences for general adaptation and production, and may prevent adaptation of tree populations in response to climate change and reduce their capacity to fix CO2. In Europe, a total of 135 tree species, subspecies and hybrids are included in gene conservation and seed production efforts, but most of these efforts are targeted to a limited number of economically important tree species as Fagus sylvatica, Picea abies and Pinus sylvestris. In addition, the genetic resources of several rare and endangered tree species are still inadequately conserved and need urgent attention. Furthermore, the marginal populations of many widely distributed tree species are facing new threats at the edges of their geographical range areas due to climate change. Threatened species The most recognizable form of depletion of biodiversity is the loss of plant and animal species. Slowing down the rate of species extinction due to anthropogenic factors is a key objective of biodiversity conservation. Threatened forest species are seen as indicators of change in the forest ecosystems. Most threatened species are limited in their geographical distribution to single countries, therefore the implementation of sustainable forest management at the national level is important. Some tree species are endemic and rare, only occurring in very restricted areas. Central and East

European countries report the highest numbers of threatened vascular plant species occurring in the forests. Larger animals, particularly mammals and birds, tend to be proportionally more threatened than the smaller ones. In Europe, forests are important habitats for big mammals such as wolf, bear, and lynx, especially in the northern countries. The loss of connectivity of forest areas is also a threat to these species. In Europe, birds seem to be less dependent than mammals on forests as habitat. Typically, one-fifth of forest-occurring bird species have been reported as threatened. The highest numbers are reported in Central and East European countries, but the numbers vary significantly between individual countries. The data on threatened species by countries is very heterogeneous and does not yet allow monitoring of trends at the European level. The changes in forests are always very slow, which means that the new biodiversity orientation in forest management will be reflected in future results and trends of threatened species.

be detrimental to birds. Intensification measures including the drainage of peatlands and wet forests, fertilisation, and forest-tree genetic modification have had a particularly negative effect on the biodiversity values of forests. Forest managers must preserve genetic diversity and consequently practise risk prevention through the maintenance of seed repositories. These areas should be the focus in the coming years and are essential to reach the biodiversity targets 2020. However, the main threat is climate change which, together with other factors such as uncontrolled game keeping, intensive profit-orientated forest management in northern countries, or forest fires in Mediterranean countries, represent high risks for European forests. Landslides, avalanches, storms, flooding or erosion are also important pressures and after effects of the climate change. In Mediterranean countries, climate change also increases the probability of forest fires both in frequency and intensity. Low profitability and lack of forest management also constitute major causes of forest fires due to fuel accumulation. Risk prevention and adaptation of the European forests, especially in mountainous areas are therefore important tasks to be carried out in the future. The activities or methods used will vary depending on the particular features of the ecosystem. European funding policy should focus more strongly on these challenges in order to secure forests ecosystem services and overall biodiversity.

1.4 Pressures, threats and risks

In our interviews with the experts (see chapter III) we gathered information about important pressures and threats. These included nonsustainable forest management, fragmentation, and the loss of ecosystem connectivity which was especially important for bigger mammals and birds. In addition, the trend for planting non-native trees and the lack of deadwood was considered to

10

11

Habitat loss and fragmentation In many places urban sprawl, expanding transport networks or forest harvesting that breaks core forest areas into smaller parts, have caused the fragmentation of European forest ecosystems. Forest losses to agriculture and artificial surfaces are more frequent in southwestern Europe. One of the consequences of fragmentation is the loss of ecological connectivity, which impacts on forest species.
Core forest fragmentation between 1990 and 2000. Source: JRC, 2009

Between 1990 and 2000, the process of fragmentation, breaking core forest areas larger than 100 ha into smaller units, was significant (very high and high intensity) in western Latvia, some areas of Portugal, the Basque country and Andaluca in Spain, south-western France, the Northern Carpathians and the Tatra mountains. Pollution and nutrient load Air pollution is a major threat to Europes forest biodiversity as it can degrade or destroy culturally and historically important ancient woodlands and associated species. Forest soil acidification is widespread in Europe, despite now being below critical loads in many countries. It is mainly caused by atmospheric depositions of pollutants, especially related to nitrogen emissions, which can affect tree roots and soil biodiversity and also impair the supply of nutrients to plants. So far, efforts to reduce the emissions of nitrogen to the atmosphere have not been as successful as for sulphur, which is considered as one of the most significant international environmental success stories. Climate change and adaptation Climate change is likely to affect forest stands directly through changing temperature and precipitation patterns (especially on the edge of tree species distribution), and indirectly, by altering the distribution and frequency 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 wide range of environments; o (genetic) adaptation to new conditions in existing locations; o migration to areas with more suitable conditions.
12

Climate change is likely to favour species with high levels of flexibility (whereas low flexibility may lead to extinction). At forest ecosystem level, the coexistence of tree species with different flexibility levels can act as a buffer against changes. In many parts of Europe, the rate of climate change is likely to exceed the adaptive capacity of many wild and domesticated plant species, including forest trees, which have the highest levels of genetic diversity of any group of plants and have wide geographic and ecological ranges. In this sense, the maintenance and conservation of biodiversity in forests constitutes an essential insurance policy against eventual climate change impacts and associated risks. Diversity of species, genetic variability and a regional pool of species and ecosystems are key factors for assessing the level of resilience of a forest ecosystem to changing environmental conditions.

limited visibility of the forest sector and the need for greater coherence of related policies. In 2006 the Forest Action Plan for the period 20072011was approved, consisting of a set of actions that the Commission proposes to implement with the Member States. The overall objective of the Action Plan is to maintain and enhance the biodiversity, carbon sequestration, integrity, health and resilience of forest ecosystems. It also aims to serve as an instrument of coordination between EU activities and forest policies of the Member States and it is thus supported both from existing Community and national or subnational instruments. The actions of the plan are divided into 4 main goals: Improving long-term competiveness Improving and protecting the environment Contributing to the quality of life Fostering communication and coordination

1.5 EU Forest policy

Unlike agriculture and fisheries where there is the Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy, there is no formal EU Forest Policy. The Treaty of Rome has left forestry apart from the competencies delegated to the European Commission, therefore forests are dealt with through other sectors for which the EC has legal competence: agriculture, environment, health, enterprise, trade, regional development, energy, etc. There are nevertheless some instruments in place to coordinate the actions of the different DGs, with mixed results. An EU forestry strategy which was adopted in 1998 is currently being reviewed in order to improve the

From the institutional point of view, an Interservice Group on Forestry issues has been created within the European Commission as well as one Standing Committee and 2 Advisory Committees. However, the lack of a central, converging policy body is generally seen as hindering both forest development and protection in Europe. In the FOREST EUROPE Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (June 2011 Oslo,) European ministers launched negotiations for a Legally Binding Agreement on Forests in Europe. Under this initiative, there is a common understanding that the protection and sustainable management of Europes forests requires a stable
13

and efficient platform for coherent policy development and implementation. The Ministerial Conference also adopted European 2020 targets for forests which comprise strategic goals, measurable targets and priority actions at national and international level to enhance sustainable forest management.
The Alpine Convention: an example of forest biodiversity, risk prevention and other sustainable development considerations in one regulatory framework. The Alpine Convention is the worlds first binding accord for protection of a mountainous region. It puts special attention on safeguarding economic and cultural interests of the local population in the signatory states, but also focuses on safeguarding the biodiversity in the Alpine region and emphasises the special importance of risk prevention in this region. The new implementation protocols, which are the core of the convention, pertain to the areas of traffic, energy, spatial planning, sustainable development, nature and landscape conservation, alpine farming, mountain forest, tourism, soil conservation and organisational regulations. The Alpine Convention is already operative in Germany, Liechtenstein, Austria, Slovenia and France. Protocols on alpine farming, energy, tourism and soil conservation have already been ratified by the EU. The Convention encompasses all areas of sustainability and consequently ensures that an all-inclusive consideration is possible for a large area of Europe. The Alpine Convention is subdivided into a framework convention and so-called implementation protocols. In the framework protocol the contract parties pledge that they intend to safeguard the precautionary, polluter pays and cooperative principle through a holistic policy for preservation and protection of the Alps. Pursuant to the nature and landscape conservation protocol, it is planned that the signatory states create cross-border measures for the implementation of a larger ecological linkage in the Alpine region. This is currently being worked on within the framework of an INTERREG project, Living Space ECONNECT, which encompasses areas ranging from France to Austria and Slovenia. This convention was the role model for the Carpathians, where similar efforts have been made and an agreement is already operative in the meantime. More information: http://www.alpconv.org/index_en . and http://www.econnectproject.eu/cms/

2. EU Regional funds for forest biodiversity

2.1 European funding for forest biodiversity
There are several financing opportunities in the European funding framework that enable the application and implementation of forest biodiversity and forest related risk prevention projects, addressing the main threats and pressures described in chapter 1. These funding instruments address a range of activities, including the enhancement of sustainable forest management techniques, the quantification of the influence of biodiversity on forests ecosystems functions and services (research), and the conservation of key riparian buffer zones to prevent the negative effects of floods to name a few. Currently, at least eight different Community funding instruments, including EAFRD, EFF, the Regional funds, LIFE+ and the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Development include options to finance forest biodiversity and risk prevention related activities. This fragmented approach is part of a decision taken in the 2007-2013 period, the so called integrated funding model, which aims to integrate the funding of biodiversity and Nature 2000 activities in different financing instruments and embed biodiversity goals into other policy sectors. The EAFRD allocates a higher budget to such type of initiatives (especially under Axis 2) than other funds even though it is very difficult to follow a precise track of the resources allocated to the different themes. The EAFRD supports measures in the fields of forestry or agri-environment which can be used to promote connectivity within rural landscapes. Through the application of national and regional Rural Development Programmes the EAFRD finances, among other activities, measures to improve the environment and the countryside, encouraging farmers and forest holders to employ methods of land use compatible with the need to preserve the natural environment and landscape and protect and improve natural resources. The main aspects to take into account include biodiversity, the management of Natura 2000 sites, water and soil protection and climate change mitigation (Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005). These funds also support agri-environmental or forest-environmental payments, which cover commitments beyond the obligatory standards. In some

14

15

member states the accessibility to the programme is only available for private landowners. Both EU LIFE+ Biodiversity and Environment programmes offer different opportunities for forest biodiversity and risk prevention funding, e.g. for the improvement of functional connectivity of wildlife habitats and the movements of species between protected areas in the former, or the establishment of linkages between forested areas in the latter.
Example of 2007-2013 EU LIFE project EC- Square: The conservation of the European red squirrel Eradication and control of grey squirrel: actions for preservation of biodiversity in forest ecosystems The project focuses on protecting the species from the competition of the introduced Eastern grey squirrel. For more information: http://www.life-ecsquare.eu/ en/project

aims to support and complement the efforts of Member States for the protection, primarily of people, but also of the environment and property, including cultural heritage, in the event of natural and manmade disasters, acts of terrorism and technological, radiological or environmental accidents.
Example of 2007-2013 European Civil Protection Financial Instrument project Accidental, Natural and Social Fire Risk (ANSFR): The prevention and diminution of the human and financial costs of fire through effective risk assessment and management The overall aim of the ANSFR project is to reduce the human, financial and environmental cost of fires in the partner countries (United Kingdom, Denmark, Italy and Finland) and across Europe. For more information: www.fire-risk.eu

2.2 Regional Policy and forest biodiversity

The goal of regional policy is to encourage the development of balanced and sustainable economic growth, the development of employment and human resources, environmental protection, the elimination of inequalities and the promotion of equal opportunities across the Union. During 2007 - 2013, Regional Policy consists of the - - - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), European Social Fund (ESF), and the Cohesion Fund

biodiversity, for instance waste water treatment and natural risk prevention. This low level of funding has led the Committee of the Regions and other European institutions to urge the EU 2020 Biodiversity strategy to address the current underspend of structural funds on environment and biodiversity-related issues and promote the exchange of best practice to empower regional and local authorities for action on the ground. On the other hand, some activities financed by the European funds may cause negative impacts on forest ecosystems. There are several cases which provide examples of conflicting funding in the EU Regional Policy, particularly associated with the creation and extension of all types of infrastructures which fragment forest habitats and displace some species. Despite the current underspending in nature conservation measures and the funding of activities that may result in the promotion of contradictory objectives, Regional Policy has great potential for creating win-win situations that pursue a sustainable forest management approach, enhancing synergies, promoting innovative silviculture techniques, protecting biodiversity and at the same time reducing forest related risks (fire, floods, climate change, etc.). The priorities of each of the Convergence, Regional Competitiveness and Employment and European Territorial Cooperation allow for the funding of forest biodiversity and natural risk prevention activities through for example, developing plans and measures to prevent and cope with natural risks, and promoting the development of infrastructure linked to biodiversity and Natura 2000 sites.
17

The 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7) may result in benefits for biodiversity conservation as there are specific actions funded for the sustainability of the natural and man-made environment.
Example of 2007-2013 FP 7 project FunDivEUROPE: Functional significance of forest biodiversity This project works on quantifying the influence of biodiversity on ecosystem functions and services and the delivery of timely, relevant and understandable information to policymakers and stakeholders about forest biodiversity and ecosystem services. For more information: www.fundiveurope.eu

Finally, Regional Policy covers a broad spectrum of activities that include risk prevention, natural heritage, biodiversity and nature conservation supporting measures among others, even though the main objective is to promote coherent development within the EU and reduce gaps between the poor and rich regions. This funding source is available for all types of rural land not only in protected areas. Despite the adoption of the integrative approach, the amount of funds allocated to biodiversity is insignificant across the different instruments, including Regional Policy. In this sense, LIFE + Nature & Biodiversity component (the only one exclusively addressed to biodiversity and environment purposes) includes approximately 120 million per year, less than 0.1% of the total EU budget. According to a recent study, only 20% of the total financing needs for managing protected areas in Europe, including the Natura 2000 network, are being met.

The Regional funds are administered on the basis of Operational Programmes that are negotiated between the Member States, regions and the Commission. Measures in the forestry sector related to biodiversity and risk prevention may be included as long as they contribute to the above said overall goals. In the 2007-2013 programming period, Member States have allocated 2.7 billion to the Promotion of biodiversity and nature protection (including Natura 2000), 1.1 billion has been allocated to the promotion of natural assets and 1.4 billion for the protection and development of natural heritage. This means that approximately 1.5% of the total 2007-2013 Regional Policy funding is allocated to measures that can directly and indirectly support biodiversity policy. In addition there are also other funding themes that have the potential to contribute indirectly to nature and

Specific funds have also been created, such as the European Civil Protection Financial Instrument, which
16

As the SURF Nature project analysis shows, many ERDF Operational Programmes provide cofinancing for managing protected areas, particularly Natura 2000 (over half of all proposed sites for the EUwide Natura 2000 network include forest areas) and for implementing measures that protect valuable habitats and support ecological coherence and connectivity in the context of regional development. These measures are often funded under the budget line for promotion of biodiversity and nature protection (code 51). Other options 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). How ever, such activities can also be linked indirectly with other budget lines, for example, code 56 (protection and 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 potential opportunities. However the actual availability of funds and relevant measures is based on the regional or national Operational Programmes (OP).
Article 4 Possible application for (forest) biodiversity Categories of expenditure which could already cover the investments

5(2)e

6 6(1)b

4(4)

4(5)

Convergence Environment, including investments connected with water supply and water and waste management; wastewater treatment and air quality; prevention, control and fight against desertification; integrated pollution prevention and control; aid to mitigate the effects 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 sustainable production patterns through the introduction of costeffective environmental management systems and the adoption and use of pollutionprevention technologies; Restoration of forest habitats with special interest, connect 49 Mitigation and adaptation to climate change ecologically valuable natural and cultural landscapes 51 Promotion of biodiversity and nature protection Establishment of a regional management body to promote (including Natura 2000) sustainable forest management 55 Promotion of natural assets Reintroduction of threatened species in forest habitats of special 56 Protection and development of natural heritage interest Prevention of risks, including development and implementation of plans to prevent and cope with natural and technological risks; Development of forest habitat management plans in 49 Adaptation and mitigation to climate change crucial sites for risk management (eg flood prevention) 53 Risk prevention () Establishment of networking activities with regard to 54 Other measures to preserve the environment forests as big contributors to risk prevention and Tree planting of low firerisk native trees prevent risks Regional competitiveness and employment Promoting the development of infrastructure linked to biodiversity and investments in Natura 2000 sites where this contributes to sustainable economic development and/or diversification of rural areas;

2(b)

5 5(2)b

Restoration activities at forest areas of special interest 49 Mitigation and adaptation to climate change to enable long-term habitat management and enhance 51 Promotion of biodiversity and nature protection sustainable tourism in the region (including Natura 2000) Creation of underpasses/ overpasses in transport 55 Promotion of natural assets infrastructures to reduce the effect of forest habitats 56 Protection and development of natural heritage fragmentation Developing 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 in 49 Adaptation and mitigation to climate change crucial sites for risk management (eg flood prevention) 53 Risk prevention () Establishment of networking activities with regard to 54 Other measures to preserve the environment forests as big contributors to risk prevention and Tree planting of low fire-risk native trees prevent risks European territorial cooperation Development of cross-border economic, social and environmental activities through joint strategies for sustainable territorial development: by encouraging and improving the joint protection and management of natural and cultural resources, as well as the prevention of natural and technological risks; Development of management plans for a cross border 49 Mitigation and adaptation to climate change network of forest habitats/ sites 51 Promotion of biodiversity and nature protection Establishment of a cross border body to promote (including Natura 2000) sustainable forest management practices in the area 53 Risk prevention (...) Establishment of cross border networking activities with 54 Other measures to preserve the environment regard to forests as big contributors to risk prevention and prevent risks Reintroduction of threatened species in cross border forest 55 Promotion of natural assets habitats 56 Protection and development of natural heritage The establishment and development of transnational cooperation, including bilateral cooperation between maritime regions not 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 and environmental protection activities with a clear transnational dimension. Actions may include: protection and management of river basins, coastal zones, marine resources, water services and wetlands; fire, drought and flood prevention; the promotion of maritime security and protection against natural and technological risks; and protection and enhancement of the natural heritage in support of socio-economic development and sustainable tourism; Development of management plans for transnational network 49 Mitigation and adaptation to climate change of forest habitats/ sites of special interest 51 Promotion of biodiversity and nature protection Establishment of a transnational body in charge of managing (including Natura 2000) transnational sensitive forest areas from different perspectives 53 Risk prevention (...) (nature conservation, risk prevention, etc.) 54 Other measures to preserve the environment Establishment of transnational networking activities with regard and prevent risks to forests as big contributors to risk prevention 55 Promotion of natural assets Transfer of knowledge concerning management mechanisms 56 Protection and development of natural heritage (including management plans where necessary) related to sites designated as special areas of conservation Integrated transnational approaches to the management of trans-boundary mountain and forest areas of transnational significance

Source: Interpretation of the authors based on categories of expenditure provided by implementing regulation (EC) No. 1080/2006

18

19

2.3 Oppportunities to improve regional funding for forest biodiversity

Currently, Regional Funds do not establish minimum funding requirements to be allocated to specific activities. As a result, the actual decisions on how to allocate the Community financing are mainly taken at the national level, allowing great disparities among Member States. The requirement of a minimum funding for biodiversity goals could be complemented by a stricter enforcement of eco-conditionality requirements when allocating financial support, increasing for example the capacity of the Commission to monitor and ensure that the allocation of funds to forest biodiversity and risk prevention supporting activities is spread across relevant sectoral policies. This approach requires the establishment of a methodology with clear and reliable indicators to enable the monitoring of spending. There are difficulties associated with separating out forest biodiversity spending per se, since some measures have the potential to simultaneously support multiple benefits e.g. forest biodiversity, water quality and adaptation to climate change and this poses additional challenges in terms of its cost-effectiveness. However, it is not only a matter of increasing the funds allocated to forest biodiversity and risk prevention, but also to ensure that Regional Funds are coherent in the promotion of their objectives. Some of the investments supporting infrastructure development may contribute directly to the
20

fragmentation of forestry habitats and landscapes. Even though important efforts have been made in recent years to mainstream environment and biodiversity considerations into all policy sectors, more effort should be made to avoid financing measures that pursue contradictory objectives. One way to tackle this issue is to understand forests as an ecosystem that demands to be managed in an holistic way. For example, active forest management measures funded under the risk prevention theme in order to decrease the risk of forest fires can also create more diverse habitat structures, by mimicking natural disturbances, which in turn can favour higher species diversity in comparison to forest areas with no management. This approach has proven to be successful in the implementation of internationally well known sustainable certification schemes for forestry areas, like the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC), which seek simultaneously to prevent risks, improve local economic conditions, enhance the capacity of forests to retain more CO2 and to adapt to climate change challenge, together with the protection of forest biodiversity. According to a WWF and IEEP report, experience at the national level also shows that the bureaucracy and administrative burden associated with accessing the EU funds can make them inaccessible or unappealing for some stakeholders. To address this problem, efforts should be made to simplify the processes and to empower local stakeholders to apply for and to manage Regional Funds efficiently, thus reducing the concentration of such funds in a relatively low number of highly specialized organisations.

3. Stakeholders views
In this chapter, 6 interviews have been conducted with the purpose of gathering relevant information on the opportunities and challenges that Regional funds present to improve forest biodiversity and risk prevention aspects. The interviewees are experts in the field and represent different views and interests (public administrations, NGOs, companies, etc.). They also come from diverse European geographical areas and therefore manage or regulate different typologies of forests. The main aspects and findings from the interviews follow: high stocks of game, which not only endanger the forests biodiversity, but also the stability. As far as the EU nature conservation funding programmes are concerned, the programmes should be opened up and made more suitable for funding the protection of state forests. A more well-balanced access to these programmes on a national level is necessary to reach the EU Biodiversity targets 2020. Experience with the application and implementation of ERDF funds The length of time between expenditure and reimbursement is a problem. Priority should also be given to the funding of projects focused on the implementation of measures on the ground rather than to more theoretically oriented approaches which sometimes lack a practical component.

Discussion with Georg Erlacher, CEO, Austrian Federal Forests (Bf), President of EUSTAFOR (European State Forest Association): Problems and threats in the field of forest biodiversity We see a very rapid development towards fragmentation of habitats, and thereby also a threat for the biodiversity. In the future, the forest management also has to be sure of preserving genetic diversity and consequently practising risk prevention. The pursuit of sustainable forestry is a good basis for safeguarding biodiversity, and at the same time this is also a good form of risk prevention. The themes of wildlife and hunting are also risk factors, especially in the Alpine region. In some regions we have too

Discussion with Wolfgang Lexer, Project Manager (environmental expert), Umweltbundesamt GmbH, (this interview reflect the personal view of the respondent) Problems and threats in the field of forest biodiversity Currently the main two topics are the Convention on biological diversity and the EUs goal for 2020 to stop the decline in biodiversity.
21

The main strength and at the same time opportunity is sustainable forest management in Europe. Experience with the application and implementation of ERDF funds Particularly the administrative loads, especially due to reporting regulations, should be reduced for the project participants: controlling, reporting, accounting, first level and second level control require a lot of time. Public funds should be used more efficiently and more emphasis should be put on the capitalisation of the projects. The promotion of knowledge transfer to the user could possibly be a project, which could be particularly focused on towards the end of such a programme period. Discussion with Matias Garcia Morell, Delegate for the Region ofMurcia, Association ofForestEngineers of the Region of Murcia Problems and threats in the field of forest biodiversity Forest and mountain ecosystems are extremely valuable and fragile. Problems and threats as a direct result of the excessive and inappropriate use of natural resources will have greater relevance in the future, with special emphasis on the most populated areas. We need sound rules in terms of planning and management instruments as well as tools for the diagnosis and early follow-up of the main problems. Experience with the application and implementation of ERDF funds More funds should be available for a series of infrastructures and to gain the knowledge needed for the improvement of biodiversity conservation and the monitoring of forest risks.

good governance and short term profiteering are other factors that lead to a reduction on forest biodiversity. A new threat is that the search for new renewable energy sources can lead to the extension of biodiversity poor plantations for wood production. Experience with the application and implementation of ERDF funds ERDF funds potentially fill a very important funding gap for biodiversity issues. The contract conditions for spending ERDF funds are very difficult to work under, at least in some countries with management authorities and payment agencies not trained well enough and pre-financing being often a problem. Other aspects that should be taken into account are: shorter pre-financing time spans; better contract conditions; faster processing of applications; more training of fund managers in forest biodiversity issues; more advertisement of using ERDF for (forest) biodiversity issues

Experience with the application and implementation of ERDF funds Some rules have obstacles which make participation difficult for small organisations. There is need for advice and technical support addressed to small organisations that do not have enough capacity to maintain such complex project management.

Discussion with Gerald Pfiffinger , Managing Director, Birdlife Austria Problems and threats in the field of forest biodiversity Some of the most important problems are climate change and the trend of planting foreign trees which influence birds in a very sensitive way. The lack of Natura 2000 management plans is also a reason for concern. We need to involve all the important players in the field of native forests and we need more targeted research in the area of extensive forestry practices. Experience with the application and implementation of ERDF funds More funding for biodiversity-related issues should be available and we should definitely ensure that this increasingly continues to happen.
22

Discussion with Virginie Fabre Ayala, Director, GEIE FORESPIR Problems and threats in the field of forest biodiversity The main threats are: climate change, agro-pastoral pressure, fire risk and lack of forest management. Pyrenean forests remain underexploited due to high operating costs if we compare it with other areas both at European and global level.

Discussion with Irene Lucius, Head of Policy, WWF Danube Carpathian Programme Problems and threats in the field of forest biodiversity The main problems and threats stem from the strong focus on the use of wood from forests and not sufficient emphasis on preservation and sustainable use of other forest ecosystem services. Lack of

23

4. Good practices and innovative approaches

4.1 Project examples
The following projects illustrate the potential of Regional Funds to finance Forest Biodiversity related projects. Nevertheless, these projects show that there are further opportunities for improvement, and that lessons learnt from the projects could make future projects even more effective and sustainable.

Connectivity with key EU policies and regulations

The activities developed in the project are completely coherent and complementary with other plans and projects, mainly Natura 2000 management rules in the sites protected by this figure and the implementation of the Habitats and Birds EC Directives. It is in accordance too with regional development plans that specifically exclude some types of development and foster nature conservation practices in the project areas. The design of the project has been based in the experiences and lessons learned from previous and similar French projects in the Pyrenees. It has boosted the conviction and motivation of all the partners 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 about the objectives of their work (improve the habitat of endangered species) and to transmit the value of what they are doing. One of the key factors for success of the project has been the double approach used to both carry on habitat restoration activities and monitor the impact of these activities on the endangered species through innovative techniques such as camera trapping. Most of the budget has been allocated to perform activities of habitat restoration and monitoring of indicators, thus less resources were left to communication and dissemination activities. Nevertheless, the project has performed in various media to the general public: television, regional and local newspapers, etc. and preliminary results have been announced in international and regional conferences and workshops addressed to specialized target groups such as ornithologists, nature conservation actors, scientists, etc. Finally, the project team will work on a practical Handbook on how to manage Western Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) and the Grey Partridge (Perdix perdix) habitats to improve its conditions and favour the animals reproduction addressed to public administrators and experts. The project brings forward potential benefits related to eco-tourism/recreation and regional marketing of products. The preservation of those species and particularly the emblematic Western Capercaillie will increase the attractiveness of the area for tourists and may enhance the apparition of local products that take advantage of the uniqueness of such species (jams from the Western Capercaillie habitat, etc.). The project provides direct income and formation to local population hiring personnel to work in the restoration of habitats. http://www.gallipyr.eu

Key factors for success

Communication Cross-border multistakeholders conservation project OP France- Spain- Andorra 2007-2013 Operational Programme Priority 2. Natural heritage and risk prevention, tourism and local products. The main objective is to harmonize in the three States of the Pyrnes (France, Spain and Andorra) the monitoring and 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 of 3 species of mountain game fowl between 3 States that make up the Pyrenean Massif (SpainFrance-Andorra): the Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus), the Rock ptarmigan (Lagopus mutus) and Grey partridge (Perdix perdix). Actions are also conducted to encourage the return of Hazel Grouse (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 across the Observatoire des Galliformes de Montagne. The GALLIPYR project will expand and develop expertise between French-Spanish-Andorran specialists for the mountain game fowl in the whole of the Pyrenean chain for a better cross-border balance.The project provides for the creation of a network of Pyrenean mountain game fowl, assistance to the creation of a database and in implementing actions for habitats and species of mountain game fowl. The partners are: GEIE Forespir ; Govern dAndorra; Office National des Forts; Office National de la Chasse et de la Faune Sauvage; Fdration Rgionale des Chasseurs de Midi-Pyrnes et Fdrations Dpartementalesdes Chasseurs (Arige, Haute-Garonne, Hautes-Pyrnes, Pyrnes-Atlantiques et Pyrnes-Orientales); Generalitat de Catalunya (Departament de Medi Ambient i Habitage); Centre Tecnolgic Forestal de Catalunya; Conselh Generau dAran; Gestin Ambiental Viveros y Repoblaciones deNavarra SA; Diputacin de Alava The project has had a very important support from public administrations at both sides of the border. It has not included the direct support of social groups in financial terms, but permanent dialogue with livestock farmers and other social actors has been necessary to perform the duties of the project.
Photos:Jordi Camprodon and David Guix

Win-win situations

Background information.

Further information

Photos:Jordi Camprodon and David Guix

Partners and actors involved

24

25

Communication Interregional focus on riparian forests restoration

Operational Programme

OP South West European Space (2007-2013) Priority 2: Improvement of sustainability for the protection and conservation of the environment and natural surroundings of the SUDOE space. The main objective is to define and implement common methodologies and strategies to recover and improve the ecological status of riparian forests in the Mediterranean rivers. Total cost: 1.798.182,64 ERDF Funds: 1.348.636,98 The project aims to define and implement (through pilot interventions) strategies and methodologies of joint protection and conservation of riparian forests in the SUDOE area, taking into account, inter alia, natural features and biodiversity, the preservation of priority habitats and Heritage of the Natura 2000 network, the importance of rivers as ecological corridors, their contribution to the natural water cycle, the need for rich river and its economic value The partners are: Instituto Superior de Agronomia. Universidade Tcnica de Lisboa; guas do Algarve, SA; Administraao da Regiao Hidrogrfica do Algarve; Biodiversity and Animal Conservation lab. Centre Tecnolgic Forestal de Catalunya. Permanent dialogue with property owners, fishermen and other social actors has been necessary to perform the duties of the project and obtain their support. Land stewardship agreements have been accorded and implemented. Private owners have taken advantage of the habitat and 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 respecting their interests and needs. Ongoing communication with local stakeholders has been carried out to explain the purpose of the project and to avoid conflicts of interest. Win-win situations

Important efforts have been devoted to communication activities in the project. Preliminary results of the project have been announced in international and regional conferences and workshops 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 project team to organize partners meetings together with workshops on specific topics open to local stakeholders and the scientific community: Workshop on the restoration of river banks (Flix), Workshop on invasive plant species (Faro) and Workshop on biodiversity indicators (Mrida).

The project brings forward potential benefits related to eco tourism/recreation since it will increase the attractiveness of riparian areas for tourists. The projects promotes that local communities get more engaged and become closer to the river, understanding its value, the functions and services that provides and its uniqueness. The project provides direct income and formation hiring personnel with social exclusion problems to work in the squads adding thus a social dimension to the project. http://www.ricover.eu

Background information

Further information

Photos:Jordi Camprodon and David Guix

Partners and actors involved

Connectivity with key EU policies and regulations

The activities developed in the project are completely coherent and complementary with other plans and projects, mainly the Water Framework Directive. It is focused on the achievement of a good ecological status of waters and river banks in 2015 according to the established in the Water Framework Directive. It is in accordance too with Nature 2000 management rules and regional development plans that specifically exclude some types of development and foster nature conservation practices in the project areas.

Key factors for success

The already organized workshops and partner meetings have been used to present early successes of the project to boost conviction and motivation of the partners and actors involved. Activities are carried out from the beginning of the project to motivate the squad members about the objectives of their work and to transmit the value of what they are doing. One of the key factors for success of the project has been the double approach used to both carry on habitat restoration activities and monitor the impact of these activities through the application of bioindicators. 27

26

Photos:Jordi Camprodon and David Guix

Wildlife improvement in the mountains of Peas de Bejar

Operational Program: OP 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. It promotes and encourages biodiversity in the forest ecosystem of Murcia. 49.950,00 : 70% ERDF and 30% by Own Funds of the Region of Murcia The Monte de Peas de Bjar is an SPAs (ES0000262 Sierras del Gigante-Pericay, Lomas del Buitre-Ro 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, highlighting a nest of Bonellis Eagle (Hieraaetus fasciatus) and species of Bubo bubo, Circaetus gallicus, peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) and the Tortuga mora (Testudo graeca) among others. The aim of the project is the conservation of biodiversity and nature in the region of Murcia. It acts on two key factors for the development of life in an area of Natura 2000, SPA Sierras del Gigante-Pericay, Lomas del Buitre-Rio Luchena and Sierra de la Torrecilla, which are: availability of water points and planting in areas for the conservation of wild species, many of which are protected in the Region. The main objective is the improvement of the wildlife that lives in the Monte Peas de Bjar through the increase of the trophic resources and the availability of water supply. Both actions promote and encourage biodiversity in this forest ecosystem of Murcia. The project has been designed and implemented directly by DG Environment of the Region of Murcia. The activities developed in the project are completely coherent and complementary with other plans and projects, mainly Natura 2000 management rules in the sites protected by this figure and the implementation of the Habitats and Birds EC Directives. The execution of the project can be characterized as successful until now, because the more realistic projection shows that by encouraging permanently the provision of water and food in this 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 on the recovery of the terraces: to slow the runoff and erosion while maintaining the same water needed 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 through masonry (mortar and stone) the base of the terrace, from where it drains the excess water once land is soaked, but does not drag and erosion it. The budget has been allocated to perform the activities of the Project and its monitoring. The preliminary results have been very positive and communication activities will be carried out once the final results are available.

4.2 Recommendations for successful project implementation

A successful project application consists of several different aspects: the specific requirements of the respective programme e.g. concerning partnership; strategic knowledge; bringing the right proposal at the right time; having the lead partner from the right country and the quality of the project itself. With this regard, the following recommendations for the successful implementation of a project were agreed upon as the most relevant during a SURF-Nature Interregional Workshop on Forest Biodiversity and Risk Prevention that took place in May 2011 in Solsona, Catalonia (Spain): 1. Develop an in depth analysis of the needs in the preparation and scoping phase of the project, with a good identification of the state of the artof the topics addressed, in order to capitalize and take advantage of the existing experiences and projects. 2. The idea and preparation of the project should have a bottom up approach, with huge and key stakeholder involvement and support, therefore enabling the afterlife sustainability of the project. 3. There should be innovative mechanisms to provide technical support and prefinancing for good partnerships and ideas. In particular, site managers, NGOs and other local actors that directly intervene in the landscape should receive more support in accessing ERDF. The idea of professional support during the preparation phase is crucial (for instance via collaboration of local actors with research centres). 4. The partnership and the stakeholders involved in the project should have similar institutional goals, be reliable and representative of the regional and local levels 5. Good project planning is necessary to minimize administrative and financial problems. However, a high degree of flexibility is needed to change goals and activities during the implementation of the project, depending upon changing circumstances. 6. Developing a good communication strategy appears to be a key element for success, particularly with regard to natural conservation issues. However, it is important to be critical with the project communication approaches most predominantly used, for example, is there a need to develop a website page for each project? Are press releases the only way to measure the achievement of communication objectives? 7. Leadership is crucial for project success as are cooperation and collaboration between partners. Changing roles during project implementation could be interesting in order to understand others needs (e.g. do partners always give an answer to coordination e-mails?) 8. Establishing good networking with other projects and transferring results through capacity building activities is crucial for project success and to seek win-win situations. With this regard, a key word is capitalisation, which demands an effort to make the knowledge acquired during the implementation of the project available to the user and to put it into practice. 9. Actions of the projects should be clear and target oriented. The need for clear actions versus broad ideas should be stressed.
29

Background Information:

Partners and actors involved Connectivity with key EU policies and regulations Key factors for success

Communication

The project brings forward potential benefits related to eco tourism / recreation as it will increase the attractiveness of the area for tourists. Win-win situations The measures contribute to the conservation of nature in ancient agricultural abandoned terraces that have been recovered through this action, sides have been maintained to support the shelter of wildlife living in the SPA, with the aim of improving the habitat for them. http://www.murcianatural.carm.es

Further information

28

4.3 The Alpine Convention: an example of an innovative regulatory approach

The following section offers a more detailed view of relevant provisions of the Alpine Convention concerning forest biodiversity and prevention of risk and hazards. It constitutes a good example of how forest biodiversity, risk prevention and other sustainable development considerations can be integrated into one regulatory framework. The main points of the Convention are shown in the box on page 14. Spatial planning and sustainable development In this protocol, the objectives stipulate that there must be a harmonisation of spatial utilisation with the ecological objectives and requirements. In order to promote the sustainable development of the Alpine region, the contract parties pledge to develop instruments which lead to a better coordination of sectoral policies. Nature conservation und landscape conservation The target provisions of the Convention stipulate that arrangements will be made to protect or maintain and restore nature and landscape so that the functional capability of the ecosystems will be permanently safeguarded. Agriculture and forestry play a crucial role in the implementation of nature and landscape conservation measures and it is therefore envisaged that the protection, preservation and maintenance of near-natural biotopes will be achieved on the basis of agreements with landowners or managers. Marketbased control instruments such as economic incentives or payments are also particularly suitable for this purpose. With regard to the protected areas, which are connected through a cross-border ecological network, it is recommended that these shall be preserved and further developed. New protected areas are also to be designated and the establishment of protective and environmental zones for wild animal and plant species is also envisaged. In other provisions, the parties to the Convention will be called upon or will pledge to take measures to preserve animal and plant species and natural or near-natural types of biotopes and to safeguard their functionally adequate spatial distribution. Mountain forest Mountain forest in the Alpine region can provide climate regulation and protection against natural hazards which reaches beyond mountainous areas. The objective is therefore to preserve, develop or augment the mountain forest as a near-natural habitat and to enhance its stability. For this purpose the Convention parties particularly pledge to implement the following measures:
30

Reduction of air pollutant burdens Restriction of hoofed game populations to an extent whereby the natural rejuvenation of 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 if necessary can also be restricted Promotion and utilisation of increased timber production from sustainably managed forests Sufficient consideration of the danger of forest fires Provision of appropriately qualified staff provided by the signatory states for fulfilment of the forests ecosystem benefits

The contract parties pledge to create the necessary financial framework and to contribute towards sufficient silvicultural promotion to safeguard the protective and utility function of the mountain forest, fulfilment of its social and ecological benefits, forest development and designation of natural forest protection areas. Soil conservation The reduction of quantitative and qualitative soil impairments is the focal point of efforts here. Soilconserving agricultural 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 the provisions. The obligation to preserve bogs and fens is relevant to biodiversity in this protocol. The soils which are 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 sets a trend for the sustainable protection and utilisation of the Alps.

Employment of natural forest rejuvenation methods Development of a well-structured, stepped population with tree species in accordance with the location Utilisation of autochthonous reproductive material as well as Prevention of soil erosion and soil compaction;
31
Photo: Bf AG-Pritz

5. Conclusions and recommendations

The following conclusions/policy recommendations may be highlighted in relation to improving ERDF Regulations and general political procedures with regard to forest biodiversity and risk prevention considerations: 1. There is a need to develop a funding system that fosters synergies, ensures cost efficiency and seeks to promote win-win situations in the different areas that affect forest management. The ERDF regulations should prioritize projects that integrate key aspects in the management of forests such as biodiversity conservation, mitigation and adaptation to climate change and risk prevention and develop market based instruments to fulfil and value this ecosystem service. 2. There is a need to maximise and better value the benefits of the Regional Funds for forest biodiversity and risk prevention activities and tackle the current under spending in these and other 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 well known that some of the investments to support infrastructure development may contribute directly to the fragmentation of forest habitats and landscapes. In this regard, it is imperative that no ERDF-funded project should constitute a hindrance or adversely affect the development of 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 of forest fires are adopted, they must respect specific local biodiversity considerations. If fire risks are reduced in an area or region, the capacity of the forest to retain CO2 will be maintained and endemic species will be preserved in the long term. The benefits of adopting an ecosystem based approach rather than a more technological one when defining ERDF priorities and financial lines should be stressed. 5. The forest should be developed and nurtured so that it can better withstand future climate warming and be more stable and robust in the long term, ensuring that forest management practices preserve genetic diversity and consequently foster risk prevention whilst still fulfilling their important function of timber production.
32

6. This global approach should also be taken into consideration in the application and implementation of ERDF funds in cross-sectoral topics such as fire risk prevention, seeking to involve a range of public administrations with powers on natural environment, territorial planning, education, etc., therefore covering the different perspectives of forest management. 7. Managers of European funds should be aware of the particular needs of both Mediterranean forests (higher risk of fires, land abandonment, low economic profitability, etc.) and continental and northern forests (less prone to fire risks, higher profitability, etc.), so that funds are distributed according to the particular requirements of the region. 8. There is a need to improve communication and perception issues. The final beneficiaries of ERDF funds are local site managers with real potential capacity to intervene and manage forests in a sustainable way. ERDF funds should be oriented to empower these agents to carry on their activities in a sustainable way therefore a higher degree of understanding is needed between fund managers and these final beneficiaries. 9. A stronger orientation towards implementation of measures should be adopted, since the impression 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. 10. It is necessary to establish mechanisms that facilitate participation of NGOs and other local actors (for example via cooperation with research centres, regional advisers or specialised associations) in ERDF funding since these groups often lack the degree of technical expertise and financial capacity required to apply for and/or manage those funds. In this sense, efforts should be devoted to simplifying the processes from the administrative/bureaucratic point of view and to empowering local stakeholders via pre-financing, training and capacity building activities, networking activities, etc. In general terms, the time allocated to first level and second level controlling, reporting, accounting, etc. should be reduced and spent instead in the achievement of substantive project goals. 11. 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 appropriately in 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 therefore considered important that a common forest policy or a special commissariat at the Brussels level is developed.

33

12. 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 create spill over effects into national policies in order to enhance sustainable forest management and the protection of this key ecosystem.

6. References
- - - - - Committee of the Regions.2010. Opinion on EU and international biodiversity policy beyond 2010 (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 17 Report (2001-2002) Gantioler S., Ten Brink P., Rayment M., Bassi S., Kettunen M., McConville A., Financing Natura 2000 Financing needs and socio-economic benefits resulting from investment in the network. Background Paper for the Conference on Financing Natura 2000, 15-16 July 2010. DG Environment Contract. ENV.B.2/SER/2008/0038. Institute for European Environmental Policy / GHK / Ecologic, Brussels 2010 - - Halacher, P. 2003. Vademecum Alpenkonvention, Innsbruck. JRC, Estreguil, C. and Mouton, C., 2009. European Forest Data Centre (JRC EFDAC Map viewer at 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 the European 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 NGOs Coalition 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 the context of the EU budget review, WWF and IEEPIs - - Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE). 2007. State of Europes forests 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 4/2009

34

35

- - -

Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Regional Development Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999 Stndiges 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 Regional Development Funding for Biodiversity: An analysis of selected Operational Programmes, SURFNature Interreg IV C Project.

www.surf-nature.eu

WWF, IEEP. 2007. Financing Natura 2000 Guidance Handbook.Commissioned by the European Commission DG Environment.

Other project partners: AT / Environment Agency Austria RO / Giurgiu County Council PL / Marshal Offi ce of Warmia & Mazury Voivodship IT / Province of Rieti GR / Municipal Enterprise For Planning & Development of Patras S.A. GR / Prefecture Preveza ES / DG Environment of the Region of Murcia ES / Forest Sciences Center of Catalonia UK / Environment Agency Wales CZ / University Olomouc AT / Austrian Federal Forests AT / Donau-Auen National Park FR / Ctes dArmor General Council SL / Development Agency Savinja

Project Partner Forest Sciences Center of Catalonia Ctra. St. Lloren de Morunys, Km2 25280 Solsona Spain Contact: Francesc Cots Phone: +34973481752 francesc.cots@ctfc.es www.ctfc.cat Lead Partner: Spittelauer Lnde 5 1090 Wien Austria Contact: Peter Tramberend Klara Brandl Phone: + 43 1313 045935 coordination@surf-nature.eu www.umweltbundesamt.at Project Coordination: WWF Deutschland Reinhardtstrae 14 10117 Berlin Germany Contact: Peter Torkler Melanie Hillmann Julia Steinert Phone: + 49 30 311777222 coordination@surf-nature.eu www.wwf.de

36

37

Photo: Bf AG-Pritz