Luonnonvarakeskus
Luke
Luonnonvarakeskus (Luke) on tutkimus- ja asiantuntijaorganisaatio, joka tuottaa uusia ratkaisuja biotalouden kestävään kehittämiseen ja uusien elinkeinojen edistämiseen, tavoitteena biotaloudelle rakentuva yhteiskunta.
ID: 361571732547-27
Lobbying Activity
Meeting with Sirpa Pietikäinen (Member of the European Parliament)
13 Nov 2023 · Soil Health
Meeting with Silvia Modig (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)
28 Sept 2023 · Soil Monitoring Law
Meeting with Sirpa Pietikäinen (Member of the European Parliament)
27 Sept 2023 · Soil Health
Meeting with Elsi Katainen (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur for opinion)
27 Sept 2023 · Soil monitoring legislation
Meeting with Henna Virkkunen (Member of the European Parliament)
11 Apr 2023 · EU Environmental Policy
Meeting with Henna Virkkunen (Member of the European Parliament)
2 Mar 2023 · EU Food Security and security of supply
Meeting with Elsi Katainen (Member of the European Parliament)
1 Mar 2023 · Boreal food production
Meeting with Henna Virkkunen (Member of the European Parliament) and Finnish Energy - Energiateollisuus ry
29 Sept 2022 · EU Energy Policy
Response to New EU Forest Monitoring and Strategic Planning Framework
6 May 2022
We thank for the opportunity to respond to the online consultation and want to raise the following points:
1) The Section ”Practical need for EU action” mentions the need “to reward foresters and land managers who implement land management schemes…”. However, it is unrealistic to assume that an EU level monitoring system, aiming at tactical level planning could support operational, stand level, decisions directly. Separate systems for planning and monitoring at the operational level and at the tactical/strategic level are foreseen, and the EU level initiatives should obviously aim at the tactical/strategic level.
2) Almost all EU Member States (MS) do already have regular National Forest Inventory systems, NFIs, that in many cases can provide long time series of data that at national level are harmonized over time. NFIs have solid scientific base, usually utilizing permanent field plots in a regular 5 year rotating cycle. The NFI data are invaluable for understanding the changes ongoing in forest habitats, including the carbon binding capacity, biodiversity and production of raw materials as well as other goods and services. For building the EU level forest monitoring system we should find solutions to utilize the already existing networks of permanent field plots. In this task, a well established cooperation of MS NFI organisations is necessary because the location of permanent plots needs to be secret to avoid biased management of those forests where the plots are located.
3) MS NFI organizations have long term experience in the analyzing monitoring data and combining field observations with remote sensing data, such as satellite images. For providing harmonized information, NFIs have already formed voluntary network, ENFIN. The European monitoring system should utilize this existing network of experts that can overcome the scientific challenges related to deriving harmonized information from varying measurements and sampling designs.
4) The International Co-operative Programme on Assessment and Monitoring of Air Pollution Effects on Forests (ICP Forests) represents a European wide monitoring scheme having harmonized methods and providing freely accessible data on tree crown condition, soil status, vegetation communities, litterfall and deposition quality among others. The integrated monitoring data facilitates provision of evidence-based information on cause-effect relationships behind the changes in the structure of forest ecosystem provided by Earth Observation.
Read full responseMeeting with Nils Torvalds (Member of the European Parliament)
2 Mar 2022 · Climate change and biodiversity loss in the land use sector
Meeting with Ville Niinistö (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)
1 Dec 2021 · LULUCF, forest strategy
Meeting with Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner) and
10 Sept 2021 · Presentation of COST Action final report, findings and policy recommendations
Response to European Bioeconomy Policy: Stocktaking and future developments
31 Aug 2021
National Resources Institute Finland (Luke) thanks the Commission for the possibility to give feedback and suggestions to the bioeconomy policy roadmap. Luke sees as important to ensure that the development and deployment of the bioeconomy is on track towards the objectives of the Bioeconomy Strategy.
HOLISTIC AND SYSTEMIC APPROACH TO MANAGING BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Biomass is an abundant yet constrained resource. Investing in new, resource efficient processes hold significant potential in increasing both the overall production and the value of the existing resource use.
The economic output of the bioeconomy has increased particularly in the forest and construction sectors resulting from larger production volumes. In the future more emphasis should be put on value-adding investments and production. Also climate and biodiversity issues challenge bioeconomy, its raw material sourcing and product life cycles.
Generally, also forest should be discussed in cross-sectoral manner, and understanding the holistic sustainability as a basement. Forest relevant targets of EU Policy documents are listed in attachment (Lier et all 2021, table 1).
Insights and snapshots of future products, see also:
https://www.vttresearch.com/sites/default/files/2021-02/Bioeconomy-products-2035-whitepaper-VTT-Luke.pdf
https://scar-europe.org/images/FORESIGHT/FINAL-REPORT-5th-SCAR-Foresight-Exercise.pdf
BIOECONOMY STRATEGY AND SECTORAL AND CROSS-CUTTING POLICIES
At least these dimensions need attention if transition should be accelerated:
1. The principles of circularity, cascading and carrying capacity
2. Closing cycles and "zero-waste" principles
3. Policy coherence
4. Awareness of the food chains vulnerability
5. Regional scale supply chain connection with one another
6. Retailers role in a circular system
7. Barrier against circularity: investment cost in the short run
8. Information and traceability
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AND BIOECONOMY STRATEGY
R&I, to be transformative, need a new set of organizational, rather than purely technical, tools:
Science-Policy-Society interfaces. Put plainly, these are groups of experts and
stakeholders that gather and communicate scientific evidence to policymakers – so that
action becomes possible. With as complex a field as food and agriculture, we need more
and better interfaces.
Partnerships. The EU’s Framework Programmes have long supported R&I partnerships. We urge creating more, and broader, partnerships to unite science, farming and communities.
Long-term R&I networks. The term of most EU research networks is too short for the long-term nature of the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
International collaboration. Global R&I cooperation is vital for food and agriculture research. The EU must find new, flexible tools to
promote it post-pandemic.
New types of collaborative projects. Transformative research must involve all stakeholders in society and be quite inter-disciplinary. Horizon should invite more experiments in engagement, and other EU programmes should amplify the successful models.
Manage the silos. Duplicative or contradictory policies are a common feature of food and agriculture work as rival ministries, agencies or regions fail to coordinate their work. Again, greater coherence and stronger coordination among policy areas is needed, and potential cross-sector trade-offs should be evaluated before taking decisions
Read full responseResponse to Climate change mitigation and adaptation taxonomy
18 Dec 2020
Recent IPCC and IPBES reports have clearly showed that Europe and the planet need efficient and large-scale actions to mitigate climate change and stop biodiversity loss, and that the window of opportunity for these actions is closing rapidly. We are also aware that responding to these critical environmental challenges requires transformational changes in natural resource use, industrial processes, energy production and consumption patterns. These changes cannot be achieved without harnessing the power of capital markets and fundamental shifts in capital allocation.
Natural Resources Institute Finland welcomes Commission efforts to create a transparent, science-based and coherent taxonomy and criteria for sustainable investments. However, the administrative burden and costs of the regulation should be proportional also to the capacities of small businesses and landowners. In Finland this concern relates especially to those 600 000 private family forest owners whose holdings are usually relatively small and timber volumes low but who invest annually over EUR 200 million in forest management activities. The sustainable finance regulation should be carefully designed so that potential adverse effects on best practice forest management and investments, and more generally, progressive circular bioeconomy, can be avoided.
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) is one of Europe’s leading bioeconomy government research institutes performing non-profit research and providing expert services in renewable natural resources and sustainable food production. LUKE has about 1,300 employees, and an annual turnover of EUR 125 million (2019).
Read full responseResponse to New EU Soil Strategy - healthy soil for a healthy life
1 Dec 2020
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) welcomes the EU’s approach addressing soils, their functionality, immanent role in the environment and relevance towards achieving sustainability in the European Union and linked third countries. Luke supports the soil health approach presented in the in the Roadmap. However, we suggest considering following thoughts and comments during revision of the New Soil Strategy:
Section A “Context, Problem definition and Subsidiary Check”
• Define “healthy soils”; e.g. a footnote: Soil health is “the soil’s fitness to support crop growth without becoming degraded or otherwise harming the environment” (Acton and Gregorich, 1995) .
• What does mean “land degradation neutrality”? Note, it`s almost impossible to compensate degraded soil (i.e. mostly a rather rapid process; e.g. water erosion removing highly complex solum developed within millennia) with restored soils (i.e. rather slow an incomplete process as restoration approaches hardly respect complexity of soils). Thus, please consider a rewording by referring to the above mentioned soil health: “…help to build up, maintain and enhance soil health by 2050”.
• Define “soil fertility”; e.g. a footnote: Soil fertility is “the ability of the soil to supply essential plant nutrients and soil water in adequate amounts and proportions for plant growth and reproduction in the absence of toxic substances which may inhibit plant growth” (www.fao.org)
Section B “What does the initiative aim to achieve and how”
• Some soils are less fertile, but rare and highly relevant for some ecosystems (e.g. Arenosols; dunes in Eastern Germany and Europe). Thus, soil fertility is one objective (ecosystem service: biomass production) while another objective should relate to rarity and naturalness (less degraded soils; e.g. sandy and poor soils may are a habitat for some highly specialized insects [ecosystem services: habitat, biodiversity]). Therefore, you may revise: “Step up efforts to protect soil functionality, fertility and stability” followed by another bullet point on “Prevent soil degradation induced by erosion, desertification, salinization, compaction, sealing, and diffuse pollution.”
• What is a carbon rich system? Do you refer to organic soils; fens and bogs and their above ground biomass? Please be specific as living above ground biomass of bogs may be much lower compared to natural forests grown on mineral soils.
• Again what does mean “land degradation neutrality”?
• Consider to improve following measure “Improving the monitoring of soil quality and its functionality”
Section C
• No comment
Attachment:
Acton DF, Gregorich LJ (1995) Understanding soil health. pp 5–10. In: Acton DF, Gregorich LJ (eds.), The health of our soils: Toward Sustainable Agriculture in Canada. Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, ON
Read full responseResponse to EU Forest Strategy
1 Dec 2020
Luke welcomes the overarching context of the EU Forest Strategy, enabling contribution of the forest sector to the building of a new growth model through the European Green Deal, including advancing rural areas. Forest-based circular bioeconomy provides solutions and will have an important role to play in achieving these EU priorities of the Green Deal. In this context, the EU Bioeconomy strategy (2018) should also be referred to.
We also support the need for a comprehensive Forest Strategy, in order to reach coherence between sectoral policies affecting the use of forests.
Luke proposes to highlight or reshape the following aspects of the text:
• We suggest that the objectives of the forest strategy are clearly grounded on the sustainable management of EU’s forests so that all different aspects of sustainability are properly considered. Furthermore, the different natural conditions, challenges and traditions regarding the use of forests in different parts of Europe should be recognized. This is particularly important when considering the role of forests in the forested regions of Europe.
Therefore, we see that the most important guideline in strategy “Ensure the sustainable management of all EU forests, maximising the provision of their multiple functions while enhancing their productive capacity” is even more emphasised and positioned as an umbrella for the specific forest functions (biodiversity, carbon, restoration etc.).
• While discussing the use, restoration and protection of the forests, we should also be aware of the reality that EU is at the same time outsourcing the negative effects of our policies to non-EU countries. There are study results which indicate the leakage of harvests, forest industry production and employment opportunities as well as negative effects of harvesting to non-EU countries, if harvesting of roundwood in the EU is restricted by different policies. (Kallio et al. 2018, attached; Dieter et all.2020).
• We strongly support the effort of improving and harmonising the monitoring of forests. The existing National Forest Inventories (NFIs) are comprehensive and cost-efficient instruments that enable reliable and science-based designs. NFIs can deliver up-to-date forest information which is comparable over time and across the different EU Member States, and are thus valuable support for monitoring of the strategy’s impacts and decision making. To develop the NFIs further, some EU-funded forest related projects such as H2020 DIABOLO have already provided frameworks and development suggestions.
DIABOLO Policy Brief avilable at: https://jukuri.luke.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/543806/Diabolo_policybrief_final.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Furthermore, the development of real-time European forest monitoring system (RT-EFMS) would support the monitoring of European forests (Kleinschmit von Lengefeld et all 2020).
• We strongly support a strong R&I agenda. The strategy comprises multiple aims for forest management encompassing e.g. climate mitigation, biodiversity and at the same time increasing demand to utilise more wood products to substitute fossil-based materials. This calls for more science and research to support the EU decision making to reach the aims of the strategy, through EU’s various funding programmes notably Horizon Europe.
--------------------------
References:
Kallio et al. 2018, Forest Policy and Economics vol 92, pages 193-201. [ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.04.010 ]
Kleinschmit von Lengefeld et al. 2020. A Real-Time European Forest Monitoring System RT-EFMS for Green-Growth and Prospective. Final Report. European Organisation of Sawmill Industry.
Dieter et al. 2020. Assessment of possible leakage effects of implementing EU COM proposals for the EU Biodiversity Strategy on forestry and forests in non-EU countries. Thünen Working Paper 159.
DOI:10.3220/WP1604416717000 [https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/307498/]
Read full responseResponse to Land use, land use change and forestry – review of EU rules
26 Nov 2020
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) welcomes the proposed increase of the EU emission reductions target for 2030, and the opportunity to provide feedback to the Commissions revision of LULUCF regulation.
We notice that in the Context description the initiative fully recognizes the need for substitution of fossil-based materials with bio-based ones (e.g. use of wood in construction). Therefore, it would be logical that this need is reflected in the Objectives and Policy options part of the initiative. To our understanding this goal could be included in the Option 2: to strengthen the flexibility with the Effort Sharing Regulation. We recommend investigating this option, as well as all the other options, with the goal to replace fossil-based materials with bio-based ones.
Regarding the part C Preliminary Assessment of Expected Impacts we highlight the importance of realizing the recent findings on problems related to Remote Sensing based carbon monitoring. Copernicus products can be an asset in the monitoring but statistically sound ground truthing cannot be avoided. This has been proven in several studies utilizing the best available ground truth data. The expertise existing in Member States and scientific community must not be ignored in the evaluation of monitoring options.
Regarding the part D Evidence base, Data collection and Better Regulation Instruments, we encourage to find solutions to fully utilize best available data and scientific expertise from Member States in the scenario modeling campaigns.
Read full responseResponse to Protecting biodiversity: nature restoration targets
20 Nov 2020
We warmly welcome a new ambitious biodiversity strategy with numerous measures, such as ecosystem restoration, to combat the degradation of biodiversity in the European Union. We want to emphasise the following:
1) In order to overcome the challenges in implementation of the previous BD strategies, biodiversity protection and ecosystem restoration should be taken equitably into account with other land and sea use targets in all decision-making. Thus, Luke emphasizes the importance of biodiversity mainstreaming in the society, which promotes not only the ecosystems but also human wellbeing and health. The biodiversity mainstreaming includes replacement of such subsidies to agriculture, forestry, fishery and energy sector, which have negative impacts on biodiversity, by economic incentives having neutral or positive impacts on biodiversity.
2) In order to offset the costs of biodiversity protection and restoration, which may fall to private land and forest owners, economic incentives, such as compensation mechanisms should be developed. In this way the goal could be not only the no-net-loss of biodiversity, but the overall improvement of the state of ecosystems and biodiversity.
3) Apart from intensive land use, climate change is a remarkable threat to biodiversity. The impacts of climate change are however uncertain and difficult to predict. To ensure the safeguarding of biodiversity under changing climate, the new EU biodiversity strategy should be reflected on CBD national biodiversity strategies and action plans, as well as on national and EU legislation that allow a dynamic response to climate change.
4) Scientific research is crucial in supporting the EU biodiversity strategy and the measures therein. Sufficient funding is needed to investigate the impacts of the strategy on the biodiversity, ecosystems, human wellbeing and health, and to evaluate the uncertainties caused by climate change. Research will also provide means for the mainstreaming of biodiversity in the societies and help to assess the overall sustainability of the implementation of the strategy. By incorporating the state-of-the-art research knowledge into decision making ensures that all decisions influencing biodiversity are based on the best available knowledge.
Read full responseResponse to 2030 Climate Target Plan
9 Apr 2020
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) supports the Commission’s proposal of EU’s climate neutrality by 2050, tightening the EU’s GHG emission reductions target for 2030, as well as the goal of a just and fair transition. In order to support the Commission in its work, Luke suggests the following elements to be considered in the Climate Target Plan.
The faster the transition, the more carefully the transformation of the relevant industries needs to be planned. In the transition, the industries using natural resources, especially agriculture and forestry, will face both challenges and opportunities. When re-designing the EU climate and energy policy framework and in order to utilize the arising opportunities and tackle the challenges, a systematic understanding of the processes and structures as well as their variation across the MS’s and regions is essential. Therefore, referring to the Section D, Luke suggests that in ex-ante policy impact analysis, the EU should exploit the knowledge, data collection, and modelling capacities developed in H2020 projects, e.g. the DIABOLO project .
The inception impact assessment anticipates further development of actions under the Green Deal, such as the circular economy, the EU industrial strategy, sustainable and smart mobility, the greening of agriculture policy, and preserving biodiversity. Luke emphasizes that bioeconomy should also be acknowledged. For example, wood can replace fossil-based raw materials needed for hygienic products, packaging, textiles, and construction. This is also linked to the EU’s industrial strategy and investments: in order to improve material and energy efficiency and to decrease the negative environmental footprint, the EU needs a profound transformation of production technologies and processes along the value-chains and networks of sustainable, circular bioeconomy. By modernizing its green industry, the EU could develop its competitive advantage and secure a fair transition while reaching the objective of climate neutrality.
As to agriculture, it is important to recognize the specific characteristics in production conditions in the national and regional scales. Special attention should be paid to agriculture in regions where natural conditions such as soil type (i.e. peat soils) create a potential source of high GHG emissions. In rural areas, policy measures and instruments should provide a just and fair compensation for reaching the GHG reduction targets. Furthermore, as it is likely that supporting only investments aimed to promote emission reduction technology in agriculture is not effective enough in economic terms, the fair and just transition in agriculture may need instruments for direct compensation of farmers’ income losses. A similar approach should also be adopted in those rural areas where peat production for energy and other activities with high GHG emissions contribute greatly to the economic viability of local communities.
The EU’s land use sector - forests especially - is an important carbon sink. However, in the changing climate with frequent natural disturbances, the risk of losing carbon storages in forests increases. Therefore, in the EU policy making, the vital role of sustainable and profitable forestry that enables the active management and mitigation of large-scale disturbances (e.g. drought, forest fires, storms, pests, floods) should be acknowledged. The risk of unfavorable and uncontrollable development of the carbon sinks and storages of forests are already materializing in several MS’s. This emphasizes the need for open, multilateral, and science-based discussion how to balance between the different uses of forests while simultaneously increasing forests’ resilience in the changing climate.
Referring to Section B, R&D&I is required particularly in the fields of sustainable, circular bioeconomy and transition to material and energy efficient value chains. The EU could be a forerunner also in R&D&I in these fields.
Read full responseResponse to Farm to Fork Strategy
16 Mar 2020
Natural Resources Institute Finland`s (Luke) views on drafted Farm to Fork Strategy
Luke welcomes the Commissions approach addressing sustainable food production, processing, retailing, and consumption of food in the European Union and linked third countries. Luke supports the Farm to Fork approach presented in the Green Deal .
In order to support the European Commission in its work, we suggest following topics to the Farm to Fork Strategy:
IN THE SECTION “Problem the initiative aims to tackle”
• Clarifying the term “safe” in second paragraph: “…global temperatures at safe levels”. Or do you mean “desirable”?
• Adding “animal production” into: “…affecting agricultural, animal, and seafood production…”, as animal welfare has been mentioned in section
B, following also the Council conclusions on animal welfare adopted in December 2019.
IN THE SECTION B:
• Luke supports emphasizing of aquaculture as one of the competitive primary production sectors needed, and stresses the potential
aquaculture has in production of food and proteins.
• Adding non-timber forest products as it is of socio-economic relevance in the Nordic countries (e.g. reindeer, wild berries and mushrooms): “…
agriculture, fisheries, aquaculture, non-timber forest products …”.
• Considering rephrasing first bullet point to highlight “profitability”: “Ensure profitability and sustainability of primary production”.
• Both sustainability and resilience are crucial to ensure growth and prosperity; thus, considering to change the wording to: “…stimulate sustainable and resilient food production...”.
• Nutrients removed with harvested biomass have to be replaced. Thus, agriculture won`t work without nutrient management, but excessive use
of fertilizers should be banned: “…the excessive use of fertilizers…” or convert into “…support appropriate use of fertilizers…”.
• Indeed, use and release of antibiotics into the environment should be reduced, but what about any other pharmaceuticals (e.g. hormones). Thus, we encourage the Commission to add: “…antibiotics and release of pharmaceuticals into the environment.”
• Informing consumers is important, but does it change the human behavior? Information might be just the first step in a cascade of activities,
e.g. in depth information and training at regular medical checkups, financial incentives for consuming "nutritional and healthy food", games (e.g.
mobile applications). Please consider expansion of this section with an aim to widen scope of activities appropriate to change human behavior.
IN THE SECTION C
• Two platforms have been mentioned (i.e. Food Loss/Waste and Animal Welfare). However, it is of utmost importance that European Innovation Partnership (EIP) AGRI will be embedded within the strategy.
Read full responseMeeting with Arto Virtanen (Cabinet of Commissioner Jutta Urpilainen) and Helsinki EU Office
6 Feb 2020 · Green Deal
Response to EU 2030 Biodiversity Strategy
20 Jan 2020
LUKE Natural Resources Institute Finland welcomes the opportunity to participate in the Consultation on the Roadmap - EU 2030 biodiversity strategy.
The EU is aiming to demonstrate readiness to lead by example, by putting forward EU commitments to mitigate biodiversity loss with quantified objectives and measures proposed in the roadmap. Five specific topics included in the roadmap have a good evidence base and they contribute to the post-2020 global biodiversity framework as drafted by Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) working group (zero draft by CBD WG2020/2/3, 6 Jan 2020; https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/efb0/1f84/a892b98d2982a829962b6371/wg2020-02-03-en.pdf, attached). Since the CBD zero daft (Chapter D 2030 action targets, Reducing threats to biodiversity) include proposal for quantitative targets to protect sites of particular importance for biodiversity, the EU BD strategy needs to set quantitative targets for increasing the coverage and effectiveness of protected areas. In the roadmap this is included as a general statement only.
The EU is aiming to fully integrate biodiversity consideration into other EU policies, which strongly supports ambitious targets of the CBD zero draft (Chapter D 2030 action targets, Tools and solutions for implementation and mainstreaming) suggesting that parties of the CBD will be committed to reform incentives, eliminating the subsidies that are most harmful for biodiversity, ensuring by 2030 that incentives, including public and private economic and regulatory incentives, are either positive or neutral for biodiversity.
The sources of information listed in part C of the roadmap include two important reports by IPBES, the Global assessment and the Regional assessment for Europe and Central Asia, as well as the recent IPCC report on Climate Chang and Land. In order to increase the consistency of the data to be used, we recommend taking into account also the thematic IPBES assessment on Land Degradation and Restoration (2018). Together with the IPCC Climate Change and Land report, the IPBES Land Degradation report focusing on biodiversity, contributes to the achievement of sustainable solutions and synergies to meet the challenges caused by climate change and biodiversity loss.
The new proposed objectives should be based on the evaluation of 1) achievements of the previous strategic objectives both at European and Member State (MS) level and 2) work that has already been done in the MSs.
In the evaluation, the FOREST EUROPE process (https://foresteurope.org/) should be acknowledged as the evidence base concerning sustainable management of forests. Since 1990 the FOREST EUROPE process (former MCPFE) has monitored and assessed the state of Europe’s forests to support the development of common strategies to protect and manage forests sustainably. There is evidence from the FOREST EUROPE process that e.g. the area of protected forest has increased in Europe (most recent report). In addition, various policy measures have been implemented in Europe to encourage land owners to protect and enhance biodiversity. However, more information is needed about the effectiveness of protected forests and implemented policy measures in improving biodiversity. Such information is essential when planning cost efficient measures to reach conservation targets. Furthermore, the FOREST EUROPE process has recognized the need for better information concerning e.g. threatened species. Improvements in these can be achieved, for example, by linking new developments (e.g. from the H2020 project DIABOLO; https://jukuri.luke.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/543806/Diabolo_policybrief_final.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y), European Forest Information System (FISE) together with the experts participating in European networks such as ENFIN (European National Forest Inventory Network; http://www.enfin.info/) and NRC Forests (https://www.eionet.europa.eu/countries/national-reference-centres/nrc-on-forest).
Read full response