Suchergebnisse

The ecological network Natura 2000 is one element of the common European Union policy regarding biodiversity protection. National implementation of Natura 2000 differs across the European Union. Ecologically valuable forest ecosystems are often within private lands. The aim of this paper is to assess the implementation of the compensation mechanism developed through adapted management of private forests by using the Natura 2000 payments' measure of the European rural development programmes for the financing period 2007–2014. The econometric Heckman selection model was used to assess the drivers influencing the implementation of the payments measure. Data sources include European and national statistics and expert knowledge. The results show that the countries with the highest proportion of forest cover in Natura 2000 protected areas are the least paid for compensation, and the implementation apparently does not follow the needs of private forests (assuming from the share of private forests in the country). The state of progress in designating Natura 2000 sites can be an important driver for increasing the probability of Natura 2000 payments for those countries accessing the European Union after 1995. Other evidence includes that national economic development is not observed to be significant in explaining the implementation of Natura 2000 payments. The drivers affecting the implementation of Natura 2000 payments are more focused on increasing the competitiveness of the forest sector than supporting environmental sustainability.

The ecological network Natura 2000 is one element of the common European Union policy regarding biodiversity protection. National implementation of Natura 2000 differs across the European Union. Ecologically valuable forest ecosystems are often within private lands. The aim of this paper is to assess the implementation of the compensation mechanism developed through adapted management of private forests by using the Natura 2000 payments' measure of the European rural development programmes for the financing period 2007–2014. The econometric Heckman selection model was used to assess the drivers influencing the implementation of the payments measure. Data sources include European and national statistics and expert knowledge. The results show that the countries with the highest proportion of forest cover in Natura 2000 protected areas are the least paid for compensation, and the implementation apparently does not follow the needs of private forests (assuming from the share of private forests in the country). The state of progress in designating Natura 2000 sites can be an important driver for increasing the probability of Natura 2000 payments for those countries accessing the European Union after 1995. Other evidence includes that national economic development is not observed to be significant in explaining the implementation of Natura 2000 payments. The drivers affecting the implementation of Natura 2000 payments are more focused on increasing the competitiveness of the forest sector than supporting environmental sustainability.

The role of Natura 2000 network is to ensure the long-term survival of Europe's most valuable and threatened species and habitats. Ecologically valuable forest ecosystems are often owned or managed by private forest owners. Natura 2000 benefits communities by enhancing tourism, regional brands and marketing. In private forests, however, its restrictions imposed on land owners cause financial losses in comparison to the usual forest management. The paper compares the level at which the compensation mechanism within the European Rural Development Programmes (RDP) for the period 2007–2013 was implemented in seven European Union countries - Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania and Slovakia. The research focuses on compensation and restrictions within Measure 224 - Natura 2000 Payments - imposed on forest owners in Natura 2000 sites. To obtain the data, a non-reactive research method was applied using a content analysis of the existing documentation. The data sources include European and national statistics and expert knowledge based on common terms of reference. The results show that due to substantial gaps in the implementation of Measure 224 across the EU, there are significant differences in compensation and restrictions for private forest owners in individual countries of the European Union (EU). As opposed to the initial expectations of the measure, the financial support reached less than a third of the forest holdings and less than half of the forest land. The member states (MSs) which implemented the measure spent 92% of their original budget on average. Moreover, rural development funds for private forest owners are very limited and the implementation of Measure 224 says nothing about the success of Natura 2000 with regard to biodiversity targets in private forests. One approach to financing Natura 2000 network is a comprehensive use of all existing EU funds, another would be to propose own Natura 2000 fund.

The role of Natura 2000 network is to ensure the long-term survival of Europe's most valuable and threatened species and habitats. Ecologically valuable forest ecosystems are often owned or managed by private forest owners. Natura 2000 benefits communities by enhancing tourism, regional brands and marketing. In private forests, however, its restrictions imposed on land owners cause financial losses in comparison to the usual forest management. The paper compares the level at which the compensation mechanism within the European Rural Development Programmes (RDP) for the period 2007–2013 was implemented in seven European Union countries - Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania and Slovakia. The research focuses on compensation and restrictions within Measure 224 - Natura 2000 Payments - imposed on forest owners in Natura 2000 sites. To obtain the data, a non-reactive research method was applied using a content analysis of the existing documentation. The data sources include European and national statistics and expert knowledge based on common terms of reference. The results show that due to substantial gaps in the implementation of Measure 224 across the EU, there are significant differences in compensation and restrictions for private forest owners in individual countries of the European Union (EU). As opposed to the initial expectations of the measure, the financial support reached less than a third of the forest holdings and less than half of the forest land. The member states (MSs) which implemented the measure spent 92% of their original budget on average. Moreover, rural development funds for private forest owners are very limited and the implementation of Measure 224 says nothing about the success of Natura 2000 with regard to biodiversity targets in private forests. One approach to financing Natura 2000 network is a comprehensive use of all existing EU funds, another would be to propose own Natura 2000 fund.

Forests are the dominant land cover in Nordic–Baltic countries, and forestry, the management of forests for improved ecosystem-service (ES) delivery, is an important contributor to sustainability. Forests and forestry support multiple United Nations Sustainability Goals (UN SDGs) and a number of EU policies, and can address conflicting environmental goals. Forests provide multiple ecosystem services and natural solutions, including wood and fibre production, food, clear and clean water and air, animal and plant habitats, soil formation, aesthetics, and cultural and social services. Carbon sequestered by growing trees is a key factor in the envisaged transition from a fossil-based to a biobased economy. Here, we highlight the possibilities of forest-based solutions to mitigate current and emerging societal challenges. We discuss forestry effects on forest ecosystems, focusing on the optimisation of ES delivery and the fulfilment of UN SDGs while counteracting unwanted effects. In particular, we highlight the trilemma of (i) increasing wood production to substitute raw fossil materials, (ii) increasing forest carbon storage capacity, and (iii) improving forest biodiversity and other ES delivery.

Forests are the dominant land cover in Nordic–Baltic countries, and forestry, the management of forests for improved ecosystem-service (ES) delivery, is an important contributor to sustainability. Forests and forestry support multiple United Nations Sustainability Goals (UN SDGs) and a number of EU policies, and can address conflicting environmental goals. Forests provide multiple ecosystem services and natural solutions, including wood and fibre production, food, clear and clean water and air, animal and plant habitats, soil formation, aesthetics, and cultural and social services. Carbon sequestered by growing trees is a key factor in the envisaged transition from a fossil-based to a biobased economy. Here, we highlight the possibilities of forest-based solutions to mitigate current and emerging societal challenges. We discuss forestry effects on forest ecosystems, focusing on the optimisation of ES delivery and the fulfilment of UN SDGs while counteracting unwanted effects. In particular, we highlight the trilemma of (i) increasing wood production to substitute raw fossil materials, (ii) increasing forest carbon storage capacity, and (iii) improving forest biodiversity and other ES delivery.

In the last two decades, attention on forests and ownership rights has increased in different domains of international policy, particularly in relation to achieving the global sustainable development goals. This paper looks at the changes in forest-specific legislation applicable to regular productive forests, across 28 European countries. We compare the legal framework applicable in the mid-1990s with that applicable in 2015, using the Property Rights Index in Forestry (PRIF) to measure changes across time and space. The paper shows that forest owners in most western European countries already had high decision-making power in the mid-1990s, following deregulation trends from the 1980s; and for the next two decades, distribution of rights remained largely stable. For these countries, the content and direction of changes indicate that the main pressure on forest-focused legislation comes from environmental discourses (e.g. biodiversity and climate change policies). In contrast, former socialist countries in the mid-1990s gave lower decision-making powers to forest owners than in any of the Western Europe countries; over the next 20 years these show remarkable changes in management, exclusion and withdrawal rights. As a result of these changes, there is no longer a clear line between western and former socialist countries with respect to the national governance systems used to address private forest ownership. Nevertheless, with the exception of Baltic countries which have moved towards the western forest governance system, most of the former socialist countries still maintain a state-centred approach in private forest management. Overall, most of the changes we identified in the last two decades across Europe were recorded in the categories of management rights and exclusion rights. These changes reflect the general trend in European forest policies to expand and reinforce the landowners' individual rights, while preserving minimal rights for other categories of forest users; and to promote the use of financial instruments when targeting policy goals related to the environmental discourse.

In the last two decades, attention on forests and ownership rights has increased in different domains of international policy, particularly in relation to achieving the global sustainable development goals. This paper looks at the changes in forest-specific legislation applicable to regular productive forests, across 28 European countries. We compare the legal framework applicable in the mid-1990s with that applicable in 2015, using the Property Rights Index in Forestry (PRIF) to measure changes across time and space. The paper shows that forest owners in most western European countries already had high decision-making power in the mid-1990s, following deregulation trends from the 1980s; and for the next two decades, distribution of rights remained largely stable. For these countries, the content and direction of changes indicate that the main pressure on forest-focused legislation comes from environmental discourses (e.g. biodiversity and climate change policies). In contrast, former socialist countries in the mid-1990s gave lower decision-making powers to forest owners than in any of the Western Europe countries; over the next 20 years these show remarkable changes in management, exclusion and withdrawal rights. As a result of these changes, there is no longer a clear line between western and former socialist countries with respect to the national governance systems used to address private forest ownership. Nevertheless, with the exception of Baltic countries which have moved towards the western forest governance system, most of the former socialist countries still maintain a state-centred approach in private forest management. Overall, most of the changes we identified in the last two decades across Europe were recorded in the categories of management rights and exclusion rights. These changes reflect the general trend in European forest policies to expand and reinforce the landowners' individual rights, while preserving minimal rights for other categories of forest users; and to promote the use of financial instruments when targeting policy goals related to the environmental discourse.