A new piece of legislation on forest monitoring may enter into force in the EU this July. What will it achieve? For one, access to comparable data will facilitate the assessment of nature restoration laws. The European Union's environmental and climate goals are described as ambitious, and they have also influenced the new legislative proposal on forest monitoring put forward by the European Commission. The regulation is likely to be adopted in July.
“The European Commission wants to monitor the state of forests in member states. It also wants to improve the comparability of data from different member states,” explains Juha Ropola, an advisor at the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. He stresses that data obtained and compiled on EU forests must be accurate so that relevant decisions are not taken based on incorrect information. “Erroneous perceptions can steer future policy and actions in the wrong direction,” notes J. Ropola.
EU issues related to forests are particularly important for Finland, which is the most forested country in Europe; forests cover more than 75% of Finland's land area.
Implementing nature restoration requires data
The aim of the monitoring initiative is to obtain data on forests; this data will also be used as a basis for the EU Nature Restoration Regulation or other forest-related decisions. Data is necessary because estimates of the costs of nature restoration vary greatly, at least in Finland.
The European Commission estimates that the practical implementation of nature restoration legislation will cost Finland €930 million per year, while also delivering 10 billion euros in benefits.
According to an estimate by the Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), the cost of implementing the EU Nature Restoration legislation for Finland by 2050 could be 13–19 billion euros, i.e., approximately €500 million per year.
In Finland, the European Commission's calculations regarding financial benefits were considered “empty talk”, unsuitable for serious political debate. One of the voices expressing this view is Member of the European Parliament Miapetra Kumpula-Natri (Social Democrats), who was interviewed* in February by the portal forest.fi.
“If every euro invested in nature restoration yielded at least eight in return, I would think that, for example, Germany would find it worth investing a couple more billion,” mused M. Kumpula-Natri.
According to the EC proposal, 30% of degraded ecosystem areas should be restored by 2030.
Finland's forests first inventoried over a century ago
Finland's forest resources were first inventoried in 1921. The knowledge accumulated over a hundred years has become available to EU lawmakers. Forest inventory in Finland is carried out by Luke, which is responsible for the National Forest Inventory (NFI).
“Not all forest data is comparable; it is important to use the existing base to prepare future EU proposals,” J. Ropola is convinced, explaining that it is not yet known what indicators have been proposed for monitoring. “We have relatively little information about the European Commission's proposal and its further development. It would be important to avoid any duplication and to take cost-effectiveness into account when drafting proposals,” he emphasises.
J. Ropola suggests that the Commission should use the ENFIN network, which focuses on forest inventory, when preparing proposals.
“Luke publishes annual data on Finland's forest resources, forest health and biodiversity, as well as on carbon stocks and their changes. This data is used to monitor the sustainability of forest use, carbon sequestration and biodiversity,” explains J. Ropola.
Opinions express concerns about reliability
According to the explanation provided by the government led by Sanna Marin, Finland supports the EC initiative. Responses from other member states and stakeholders suggest similar views. Finland's response to the EC notes that decisions on sustainable forest management are taken at the local level: there is no need to set forest management methods in EU legislation.
The Commission hopes that forest monitoring will be a means of combating illegal logging. This could be achieved through remote sensing and on-site observations. The Commission's document states that without the latest logging data, it is difficult to fight illegal logging, which continues in some parts of the EU.
Many of the responses received by the EC have emphasised the need to ensure the reliability, comparability and transparency of data collection. The Finnish Forest Industries Federation points out that it is important to prevent any interference in the monitored forests.
“To ensure the reliability of monitoring, the maps and coordinates of sampling sites must be kept confidential from forest owners, forestry companies and the public at large,” explains the federation.
This position of the Finnish Forest Industries Federation is not in conflict with established practice, as in Finland data on forest resources can be collected without informing the forest owner, to ensure that the monitored areas are managed exactly like other areas. The Central Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners in Finland stresses in its response that monitoring must not violate the privacy of forest owners.
* https://forest.fi/article/whos-to-pay-the-cost-of-eus-nature-restoration-regulation-ms-or-eu-finnish-meps-disagree/#c95e0e46