The aim of the study is to quantitatively assess the potential impact of the implementation of the European Union (EU) Biodiversity Strategy on resource reduction and to qualitatively evaluate the potential negative impact on forestry both in the European Union and in third countries (countries outside the EU).
In the first phase of the study, an implementation scenario for the EU Biodiversity Strategy is used to estimate the extent to which roundwood production in the European Union could decrease. A global timber market model is used to calculate how global markets for roundwood and wood products could change and to which third countries outside the EU roundwood production might be shifted. Finally, the vulnerability and risk of third countries regarding "less" sustainable forest management are assessed.
1. Decrease in roundwood production in the EU. Estimates
To estimate the impact of the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy on roundwood production in the EU, the following measures were examined:
1. leaving 10% of forest area to lie fallow,
2. non-use of "old-growth forests",
3. compliance with management requirements for 30% of protected forest areas (in accordance with the Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Habitats Directive) (COM. 1992)).
As the authors of the study were unable to obtain information on the state of forests, forest development, future roundwood production, and the implementation of nature conservation measures in EU Member States in the short term, the assessment of the measures' impact on roundwood production in the EU was carried out based on the assessment of such impacts in Germany. In the first phase, three different nationwide implementation scenarios (fallow, old-growth forest, and habitat scenarios) were developed based on the main nature conservation measures defined and proposed in the EU Biodiversity Strategy. In the second phase, these individual scenarios were integrated into one overarching scenario. To estimate the potential impact of implementing the measures on roundwood production in the EU as a whole, factors for the potential decrease in roundwood production in Germany were calculated. These factors were then "transferred" to the actual roundwood production of other EU Member States, which were subsequently used for future projections. The main data sources for the calculations were the National Forest Inventory (BWI) (2012), the Forest Development and Timber Volume Modelling (WEHAM) base scenario (2012), and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) data on roundwood production in the EU-27 Member States.
2. Development of scenarios for the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy
The definitions of the objectives of the EU Biodiversity Strategy (COM. (2020) 5.p.) leave room for interpretation (various translations). The first objective - to legally protect at least 30% of land and sea areas - does not specify the degree or type of protection status to which these areas should be officially subjected. According to Polley (Polley), p. 75 (2009), already in 2002, 67% of German forest areas were subject to one or more categories of nature conservation laws, if national parks, biosphere reserves, nature reserves, Natura 2000 sites, nature parks, and landscape protection areas are taken into account. The requirements for nature conservation in different categories range from the preservation of the (forest) cultural landscape with limited impact on roundwood production to the protection of natural processes, which would result in the complete cessation of roundwood production. To successfully implement the EU Biodiversity Strategy, minimum legal requirements for protection status must be defined and communicated. The habitat scenario assumed nature conservation requirements for the preservation of forest habitat types, which continue to allow forestry management and restrict roundwood production significantly but not severely. The assumption that management requirements apply to 30% of the forest area in accordance with the Habitats Directive seems moderate, as the EU Biodiversity Strategy requires at least 30% of the EU's land area. In reality, forest areas likely constitute a relatively large proportion of protected land areas, as settled and infrastructure areas (as part of the EU's land area) cannot be designated as protected.
The second objective - to strictly protect "all remaining primary and old-growth forests", i.e., so-called "old-growth forests" - also leaves room for interpretation. The EU Biodiversity Strategy clarifies that "[...] strict protection [...] does not necessarily mean that the area is closed to people, but essentially undisturbed natural processes remain in order to respect the ecological requirements of the areas (COM. (2020) 4.p.). Thus, in the "fallow" scenario, forest areas were determined in the sense of the "National Biodiversity Strategy (NBS)" according to the criteria of "natural forest development (NFD)". The aim of the fallow scenario is the protection of natural processes, which includes all tree species and age classes. According to the EU Biodiversity Strategy, conservation must take place in strictly protected areas. This will result in the designation of relatively large parts of forest areas compared to other land-use types (due to the conservation of natural processes in the German agricultural landscape, there may be an increase in forest areas, mainly as a result of natural succession (Elsasser (Elsasser) 2008)). This specification means the cessation of roundwood production and other forestry measures, as well as active nature conservation and landscape management measures to maintain the protected objects. Accordingly, these strictly protected areas cannot be converted into forests in accordance with the Habitats Directive, as many forest habitat types (e.g., secondary oak habitat types) can only be maintained with active measures. Furthermore, due to climate change, active measures to preserve forest habitats may increasingly be required. Due to the long development cycles of forest ecosystems, it can be concluded that, with the help of strict protection status, all stages of forest development must be included in a balanced proportion to ensure the protection of undisturbed natural processes. A focus solely on the later stages of forest ecosystem development, which are particularly valuable from a nature conservation perspective, would depict only partial aspects of the natural processes of forest ecosystems.
In the cultural landscape of Germany and many other EU Member States, old-growth forests are largely absent (Sabatini et al. 2018). The EU Biodiversity Strategy gives the impression that "old-growth forests" should be considered as natural forests, which are not present in many EU Member States, as "substitute habitats". Since there is no uniform EU definition for "old-growth forests" and many related terms are used in the EU, an "understanding" of "old-growth forests" was used.
Secondary forests are forests where the main tree species, although adapted to the specific sites, are nevertheless not competitive; they can only be maintained as forests in the final stages of stand development through special, continuous forestry management. Therefore, for "old-growth forests" according to the "old-growth forest scenario in the German case", all age groups exceeding the usual production period of the tree species were assigned. Given the assumptions about the average production times of tree species groups, a larger proportion is assigned to coniferous forest area. From a nature conservation perspective, a higher proportion of deciduous trees would be desirable in Germany. Under the assumption of overall protection of "old-growth forests", 12% of forest areas would no longer be available for roundwood production.
Furthermore, the second objective of the EU Biodiversity Strategy - to strictly protect one third of the entire EU protected area - does not specify whether strict protection applies to the target of 30% of the total protected area, or to the actual protected area (one third of 30% or more of protected area would mean, for example, 10% strictly protected area, while one third of the 67% actually protected forest areas in Germany (Polley (Polley) 2009) would mean 20% strictly protected area).
In the habitat scenario, only age classes within the usual production period are designated as protected areas, in order to avoid overlap with "old-growth forests". As a result, a situation may arise where the decrease in roundwood production in forests managed according to the Habitats Directive is insufficiently estimated, because the proportion of old-growth forests may be under-represented.
In the German EU Biodiversity scenario, the double-counting of areas in the highest age classes in the old-growth forest scenario and the fallow scenario was corrected. Thus, old-growth forests in the German Biodiversity scenario are under-represented, failing to provide a sufficient idea of the negative impact on roundwood production. In the scenario, 20.9% of total forest areas are designated as fallow and old-growth forest areas.
3. National Forest Inventory (2012) and WEHAM base scenario (2012)
The current level of forest nature conservation is calculated based on the National Forest Inventory (2012) and the WEHAM base scenario (2012). It is assumed that conservation measures resulting from the strategic goals of the EU Biodiversity Strategy will only be implemented in the available and stock-rich forest area, which occupies 10,627,513 ha. However, conservation measures can potentially be implemented in the entire German forest area, which includes inaccessible and non-forested areas and occupies 11,419,124 ha. In the latter case, the described decrease in roundwood production would be overestimated, as the implementation of conservation measures in such a case would affect a smaller area of forest management and roundwood production.
Furthermore, the data sources used refer to 2012. Since then, the forest area in "natural forest development" has increased (Engel et al. 2016), and some forest-related companies may also include additional biodiversity conservation measures in their management concepts. Therefore, the actual initial level of forest conservation is likely underestimated.
According to the definition of the NWE5 research project, "natural forest development (NWE)" for 2013 was determined to be an WE area of 213,145 ha, or 1.9% of the total forest area (based on the company's own assessment of the area, it would be 2.01%). It is expected that by 2020 the NWE share will be 2.3%, and in the period after that - 3% (Engel et al. 2016) 46).
It is possible that the additional measures required for the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy have been overestimated. As a result, the potential decrease in roundwood production may also be overestimated.
In the WEHAM base scenario (2002), actual coniferous harvests were underestimated, while actual deciduous harvests were overestimated (Scmitz et al 2005; BWI 2012). As WEHAM base scenarios specifically reflect forest management according to the forest policy goals of the federal states, this overestimation and underestimation also apply to the WEHAM base scenario (2012). Thus, the decrease in roundwood production caused by the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy can be underestimated for coniferous species and overestimated for deciduous species.
It should also be noted that the WEHAM base scenario (2012) is not sensitive to climate change and does not take into account forest conversion. Furthermore, forest damage caused by extreme weather conditions and bark beetle infestations in Germany since 2018 is not taken into account in the assessment of the forest state and potential roundwood production. Spruce trees are affected particularly severely, and future roundwood supply is likely to decrease.
The aim of the EU Biodiversity Strategy is to increase the percentage of protected areas and the level of protection of forest biodiversity in these areas. The associated decrease in roundwood supply could theoretically be compensated for by increasing roundwood production in the remaining areas (within certain limits). This possibility was not considered in the submitted study, and this will likely lead to ecological losses in the EU.
4. Transfer to EU-27 Member States
The reduction coefficients calculated for Germany regarding potential roundwood supply were transferred to the roundwood production of other EU Member States. In the short term, it was not possible to verify whether the forest structures, forest management, and forest nature conservation concepts in Germany could be brought closer to the EU average. At least at the level of individual EU Member States, significant changes in the decrease in roundwood supply can be expected as a result of the procedures chosen.
FAO data on roundwood production in the EU-27 were consistently extrapolated into the future using (historical) multi-year average values for 2015–2018 and reducing them by the factors calculated for Germany. This reduced roundwood production in the EU-27 countries was used as a constraint in the subsequent market modelling of the EU Biodiversity scenario, which is an exogenous constraint with an impact on market equilibrium. In the Global Forest Products Model (GFPM), roundwood demand is met according to these settings, depending on the relevant prices in relation to national and international production.
Although the extrapolated actual roundwood production in the EU-27 Member States over the multi-year period from 2015 to 2018 according to FAO data is 473 million m3/year, the EFSOS II reference scenario shows a potential roundwood production for the EU-27 Member States ("Harvests in forests available for wood supply (FAWS)") of 509 million m3/year (2020) and 526 million m3/year (2030) (UNECE and FAO 2011). This discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the European Forest Sector Outlook Study II (EFSOS II) scenario shows potential, whereas FAO data show actual roundwood production in the past. The magnitude of the deviation shows that the assumed roundwood production in the EU Biodiversity scenario is already close to the potential roundwood production in the EU. Nevertheless, the biological production limit could be underestimated by extrapolating historical FAO data on actual roundwood production.
For Germany, too, potential roundwood production is higher than actual roundwood production in the past. While FAO data for Germany show that the actual supply of roundwood in 2015–2018 was on average 68 million m3/year, in the WEHAM base scenario (2012) the potential supply of roundwood in the simulation period from 2018 to 2032 is 77 million m3/year. The EFSOS II reference scenario for Germany is again slightly higher - with 80 million m3/year in the simulation period from 2020 to 2030.
It was also assumed that the historical distribution of total roundwood production in the EU-27 Member States between industrial roundwood and fuelwood assortments will not change in the future. If a significant shortage of roundwood arises due to the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy, these proportions could shift towards material use.
5. Decrease in roundwood volume in the EU using nature conservation scenarios
Based on the projected future roundwood production in Germany of approximately 77 million m3/year according to the WEHAM 2012 scenario, the increase in fallow area from 1.67% to 10% of productive forest area results in a decrease in total roundwood production of 6 million m3/year in the period from 2018 to 2052. In the old-growth forest scenario, roundwood production is reduced by 18 million m3/year. A comparison of both scenarios allows us to conclude that, in the event that old-growth forests are not used, particularly high alternative costs arise for roundwood production in the medium term. It should also be taken into account that the protection of old-growth forests disproportionately hinders forestry work, as the economic value is often not evenly distributed across age groups but rather accumulated in old forest stands.
In the habitat scenario, the potential roundwood supply is reduced by 1 million m3/year in total. The integrated implementation of the three nature conservation measures reduces the roundwood potential by a total of 24 million m3/year, of which 7 million m3/year is deciduous and 17 million m3/year is coniferous. Based on the roundwood potential of the WEHAM base scenario (2012) of 77 million m3/year, domestic roundwood production in the period from 2018 to 2052 would be reduced to 53 million m3/year or 69% of the average value.
To carry out the impact assessment on the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy, the reduction factors obtained from these results for Germany were transferred to other EU Member States. Based on the total multi-year average roundwood production in the EU-27 Member States in the period from 2015 to 2018 of 473 million m3, after the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy, roundwood supply in 2050 would be reduced by 149 million m3, reaching 324 million m3.
Summarizing the above, there are reasons to consider the calculated decrease in roundwood supply in the EU as both overestimated and underestimated. For example, although the double-counted areas in the fallow and old-growth forest scenarios have been corrected, in the habitat scenario, protected areas are only included in the remaining forest area. The inclusion of already protected areas (old-growth and fallow areas) in the 30% requirement would have limited the decrease in roundwood production. However, the decision on the "correct" distribution of protected areas has not yet been taken, and thus the result shows policymakers the options to implement the EU Biodiversity Strategy as efficiently as possible, i.e., by reducing roundwood production as little as possible.
On the other hand, the current results do not represent the maximum scenario, because the precise definition of "old-growth forests" largely determines how large the decrease in roundwood production will be. Proponents of the EU Biodiversity Strategy in future discussions may further reduce the threshold value determined here for key tree species groups with a correspondingly larger decrease in roundwood production.
6. Numerical expression of the impact of the decrease outside the EU
The developed scenario for the potential decrease in roundwood volume through the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy was compared with the reference scenario in market modelling. Since 1991, actual roundwood production has been characterized by continuous growth. In the reference scenario calculated here, this dynamic continues during the simulation period. At the same time, the development of demand and also supply in third countries outside the EU and the development of international trade are simulated. Accordingly, the decrease in the reference scenario until 2019 develops very similarly to the data actually submitted by the FAO (FAO 2020a). Furthermore, the reference scenario describes market development for the coming decades without the restrictions of the EU Biodiversity Strategy on roundwood production in the EU.
The goal of market modelling was to show potential changes in the international production situation as a result of the decrease in roundwood production in EU-27 Member States using a partial global equilibrium model. For this purpose, the quantities calculated in Chapter 0 regarding roundwood production in EU-27 Member States in the period from 2020 to 2050 were transferred to the world timber market model as exogenous production potential. The assessment of roundwood potential in Chapter 0 is based on the multi-year average of roundwood production reported by the FAO (2015–2018) (FAO 2020a). The estimates for the base year in Chapter 2 show that roundwood production in Germany decreased by 31%. In the EU Biodiversity Strategy, this reduced quantity of roundwood with wood volume assessment is consistently extrapolated to 2050. As the available roundwood quantities estimated in Chapter 0 were naturally lower than the current roundwood production reported by the FAO, this production potential at the beginning of the simulation period acted as an exogenous production constraint in the EU Biodiversity scenario.
The losses determined at the beginning of the simulation period (a 31% decrease in roundwood production) are smaller than the losses determined at the end of the simulation period in the reference scenario (roundwood production decreases by approximately 40%). This percentage should be understood as the projected deficit in roundwood production. The increasing discrepancy between the scenarios also arises from the fact that the dynamic reference scenario of the EU Biodiversity scenario is contrasted with an almost constant roundwood production, and thus there will be no development of wood production in the managed areas. The assumption of constant roundwood production in the EU Biodiversity scenario is primarily a result of the fact that the roundwood supply assessment for Germany does not suggest a growth path for roundwood production. This result was transferred to the other EU Member States in Chapter 2. Due to the assumed stagnation of area production in the EU Biodiversity scenario, compared to the dynamic development in the reference scenario, an overestimation of the decrease may have occurred in this study, depending on the stringency of future versions of the Habitats Directive's forest management regulations.
Comparing the EU Biodiversity scenario with the reference scenario highlights potential market changes caused by the Europe-wide production shortage. It becomes clear that the components of the impact of the decrease change in different simulation decades. Especially at the beginning of the simulation period, when the impact of the reduced roundwood production in EU-27 Member States first appears, a more significant abandonment of the use of wood raw materials can be observed. Over the further course of the simulation, the abandonment of wood consumption in EU-27 Member States decreases, because production in third countries becomes increasingly competitive, thus meeting the demand for wood products in EU-27 Member States. The fact that the competitiveness of third countries in the EU Biodiversity scenario constantly increases is, among other things, related to the strong and continuous roundwood shortage in EU-27 Member States. This creates a gap between roundwood demand and supply, which continuously increases roundwood prices in EU-27 Member States and thus makes foreign products (despite high transportation costs) more attractive to the EU market. A similar effect can currently also be observed in North America. Here, sawn softwood prices are rising very rapidly, because the demand for house construction clearly exceeds the currently possible production (EUWID 2020). If this situation were to continue, exports to North America would become increasingly attractive due to high prices.
Since the roundwood volume assessment implies a very significant decrease in roundwood production in EU-27 Member States, which has not been possible to observe in their history so far (FAO 2020a), further research into alternative scenarios and sensitivity analysis would be useful. In addition to various lower rates of decrease in roundwood production, it would be desirable to carry out a dynamic, country-specific study of forest development and associated potential roundwood production, where the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy is determined for each Member State individually. It is likely that the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy would have a different impact on the timber market due to the different forest resources of individual EU Member States. The intensity of roundwood production in productive areas would also likely be different. Consequently, roundwood production, as well as the production, trade, and consumption of wood products, will show different dynamics in different countries. In such alternative scenarios, for example, a smaller-scale impact could occur, which in that case would have a direct impact on price development. For example, a smaller roundwood shortage in EU-27 Member States could lead to a smaller increase in roundwood prices compared to the scenario used here. This, in turn, could make transportation from more distant third countries less profitable, so that, as a result of the changes, the focus could be more on closer third countries outside the EU with lower transport costs. These market changes do not necessarily have to be linear, as they depend on the interaction of prices and costs. If, for example, roundwood production in an alternative scenario throughout the EU were only 15% lower than the reference level, this would not necessarily lead to a proportional impact to the same extent as determined so far in third countries; structural changes in market operations could also occur. Such structural changes could not only change the level of the decrease and the assessment of countries, but also, it is assumed, change the country composition.
The version of the Global Forest Products Model (GFPM) used here does not model bilateral trade flows. Thus, it is not possible to show any direct trade changes or loss impacts between individual countries, but only the overall results. Calculating bilateral trade flows to determine the direct impact of the decrease would be a good basis for assessing political options to limit resource reduction.
When interpreting the results of the partial equilibrium model, it must also be borne in mind that the development of production and demand in both the entire reference scenario and the EU Biodiversity scenario is influenced by exogenous forecasts of global income and population trends. The version of the model used here is based on the dynamic economic growth rates of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) A1 scenario (Nakicenovic et al. 2000). Adjustments to these events have been made in the recently published SSP scenarios (The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways), Neill et al. 2014). The results regarding the impact of losses arising from the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy would likely be different using the current SSP scenario. It is not possible to specifically pre-evaluate what its form would be. However, the composition of those third countries where roundwood production is clearly increasing may change depending on new income forecasts.
7. Vulnerability and risk assessment
The interdependency was illustrated using a concept developed for the study, which places individual thematic areas into a logical context. The list of vulnerability indicators characterizing these thematic areas is based on publicly available datasets. The concept can also be applied to other issues, and in that case, additional indicators should be considered. The choice of compared indicators is also determined by data availability. Only globally available indicators could be used. For example, in the thematic area of biodiversity conservation, there are only two forest-specific indicators. Additional information on threatened forest species (Bubb et al. 2009) or the "biological integrity" of forests (UN Environment Programme (UNEP) World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) and Natural History Museum 2016) is available. However, the relevant indicators would first have to be evaluated and compiled in additional studies at the national level. An updated list of threatened tree species is currently being created (https://globaltrees.org/threatened-trees/red-list/). The socioeconomic impact of wood use cannot be compared globally. Furthermore, there are no comparable data on formal and informal employment in the forest sector. Additional data could be collected that might potentially affect the results. However, this study has already examined several indicators in each thematic area to provide a consolidated and consistent basis, especially for comparison between the EU and third countries outside the EU.
All calculations are based on national data. A local-scale view that takes into account the vulnerability and risks of the actually affected areas is not possible using globally available data. Although it would be possible to spatially identify theoretically new protected areas in the EU, there is no information on which areas and under what conditions additional roundwood will be produced in third countries outside the EU. Moreover, even if the relevant areas were known, there would be no comparable indicator values at the local level.
To include as many countries as possible, countries with at least 0.1% of the total additional impact in third countries were selected for comparison. Relative changes in roundwood production in individual countries were not taken into account. In countries with large relative changes, the additional pressure on forests would be particularly high. Of all third countries, only Saudi Arabia shows calculated relative changes in roundwood production exceeding 20%. However, absolute roundwood production here is extremely low. Furthermore, the selected countries account for 99% of the additional roundwood production.
The results presented do not include forecasts of how the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy will affect biodiversity conservation in third countries. The current assessment only indicates which countries, based on the selected indicators, might be exposed to a higher risk of biodiversity loss compared to the EU. Furthermore, the socioeconomic aspects of countries are analyzed to gain an initial understanding of the future side effects of the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy. To better understand the underlying mechanisms, a more detailed analysis of individual countries with the highest potential risk would be required. This would allow tailoring policy approaches to the specific country context, but additional data on individual sectors and regions of countries would be needed.
Individual principal component analysis (PCA) was performed for the indicators of individual thematic areas. However, alternative analytical approaches are also possible. For example, PCA could be calculated with all indicators without prior definition of thematic areas, in order to classify new categories based on the principal components obtained.
Future projections are based on timber market forecasts. In contrast, future vulnerability indicators could not be predicted, as it is not possible to model indicator values for future years without specific extensive studies. Therefore, current indicator values were compared with additional future logging.
Risk assessments are based on multiplying the vulnerability indicator by the additional wood volume. For risk assessment, it was assumed that the risk increases linearly with the additional roundwood volume. In reality, the function could also be non-linear and thus result in higher or lower risk values. However, this would not affect the comparability of countries and regions.
The results show a relative comparison of countries. An absolute risk determination is not possible.
The current risk assessment is based on the decrease in roundwood production (as the difference between the reference scenario and the EU Biodiversity scenario). It would be possible to calculate risk indicators separately for the reference scenario and the EU Biodiversity scenario at different times in the 2020/2050 period.
Vulnerability and risk assessment with more comprehensive datasets, supplemented by statistical methods, could improve the reliability of the results, but this requires more time.
Translated from English.