OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Wild Europe Stichting

WEF

Wild Europe was formally launched in 2009 at an EC Presidency conference we organised in Prague.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Ion Codescu (Acting Director Environment)

15 Jan 2026 · Discussions on forestry and forest-related issues

Response to Uniform format for national restoration plans

7 Feb 2025

The NRR is crucial for delivering commitments from the EU Biodiversity & Forest Strategies for 2030 and the CBD Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). The EU must consider the GBF guidance notes for Target (https://www.cbd.int/gbf/targets/2) and the aims of the National Action Plans for climate change. Information must be collected for any new degradation of habitats, together with detail of causes, with MSs assessed in terms of the net result of restoration. This will contribute to constant improvement of the NRPs. The section on assessing the effectiveness of restoration measures (point 5.2) should provide guidance on what to monitor. This can include: multi taxon measures, evaluate ecological integrity of restored habitats, assess connectivity. These topics are clearly relevant for GBF, because effective restoration should aim to enhance biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, ecological integrity and connectivity. (GBF guidance notes, Target 2) Sharing of best practice must be included from monitoring across biogeographical regions and national boundaries. MSs must strive for cooperation in order to increase effectiveness and this cooperation must be encouraged throughout the NRR. In order to link the responses to the interlinked biodiversity and climate crises, MSs should indicate in their NRPs how the climate impact of restoration measures are also recognised in their national climate plans (NAPs). Point 4.3.2.1 Replace fossil fuel with carbon fuel since forest bioenergy has higher emissions than fossil fuels Point 6.1.2. should collect information about habitats inside and outside N2000 areas and the template must reflect that. Point 6.2.2.3. Required scale is unclear. Based on the fast development of Earth Observation MSs should report at least on 1x1 km grid citing key sites individually Point 11.1.2.1 should include water retention measures. Points 11.1.2.3, 11.2.1.3, 12.1.2.3 and 12.1.2.4. should not be optional. Without a baseline report for each selected indicator, it will be difficult to assess the effectiveness of restoration measures. Making these points obligatory can help to improve restoration measures across biogeographical regions. For peatland restoration, MSs should also report on measures that aim at rewetting peatlands and agriculture areas for the benefit of farmland birds. Point 12.1.3.1 EC guiding framework should specify old growth forest & importance of non- intervention. Part C to include natural regeneration. Non-bird species indicators for forests must be included. There are various EU funded projects as models for this, eg Bottoms-up, EU Cost Action. The NRR must identify a) forests with conservation objectives compared to production forest; b) strictly protected forest; c) the size of forests in various naturalness categories (Buchwald, 2005). The NRR should require MSs to report the scale of restored ecosystem services. The list could be taken from the EU JRC Ecosystem Assessment, 2020. The full societal benefits of restoring degraded habitats can only be valued if we are clear about the scale of restoring ecosystem services. This is particularly important as the new EU seems to shift the focus from the EU Green Deal to industrial competitiveness.. Civil society participation is essential, with adoption of our LEAF proposals [attachment] Point 14.6.4 finance sources include usage of ecosystem service income. Measurements are needed to facilitate potential funding from non-extractive ecosystem services (eg carbon & biodiversity credits) for land owners and users to implement nature restoration. In terms of financing NRRs should require information on the total value of EUR financial investments per year. For comparative cost-benefit analysis, information on costs per hectare and benefits (ie when reaching favourable conservation status) should be averaged for each main restoration measure in the nine habitat groups.
Read full response

Response to New EU Forest Monitoring and Strategic Planning Framework

7 Feb 2024

We welcome the new EU Framework for Forest Monitoring and Strategic Plans. We have worked with others on assessing this Framework including the Forest Friends coalition coordinated by FERN. Rather than reiterate the many good representations already made, we focus here on a few additional issues which we feel merit further coverage. 1) Funding benefits. At least some of the opposition to the EU Framework stems from concerns about the cost and burden of administration and conformity, despite most of the implementation cost being borne by Member States rather than forest owners and users. One key way of countering those concerns, and incentivising adoption of the full monitoring programme needed, is through providing greater clarification on how this facilitates identification of funding potential from quantification of the whole range of ecosystem services - through conservation grants and the general Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) agenda. 2) Measurements of ecosystem service delivery need to be appropriately devised and sufficiently precise to be utilised in development of funding instruments (for example carbon or biodiversity credits), that are fully eco-proofed: maximising effective outcomes for climate change and/or nature recovery eg without greenwashing or offsetting undiminished emissions 3) Thoroughness of the monitoring process. If application of the Framework is to be effective in achieving its objectives, it is important that MS budgetary shortfalls do not lead to substandard implementation or enforcement, with comprehensive ground truthing to parallel remote surveillance. In this respect due consideration should be given to provision of supplementary monitoring by appropriately trained volunteers acting under the aegis of local NGOs. Operating within the law, these could provide useful feedback eg on illegal logging, and an effective early warning system. [See Wild Europes LEAF proposals]. 4) The listing of indicators must be sufficiently sophisticated to inform appropriate management practices. eg: for address of climate change including assessment of intra-forest air currents, humidity and temperature; for non-tree vegetation including a wider variety of species options that take into account biogeographically relevant food plant, nesting and shelter requirements; for biodiversity enrichment including reference to spatial mosaics of different habitats (eg encouraging wetland in woodland) and ecotones 5) The value of measurements, however thorough, is dependent on the effectiveness of the standards, practices and policies to which they are related. In this respect it is important that the EU Framework is supported by an updated version of the EU 2015 Natura 2000 and Forests (management) guidance document (this updating was discontinued without explanation), and by the full eco-proofing of financial and other instruments being developed from the 2022 EC Guidance on the Development of Public and Private Payment Schemes for Forest Ecosystem Services 6) Ecosystems under non-intervention management. Aside from other advantages such as greater retention and protection of carbon storage, such regimes make carbon measurement easier and cheating on extraction quotas much more difficult than where mixed use is practised 7) The importance of previously under-utilised indicators must be fully reflected in their prioritisation. For example, measurement of soil carbon content in order to assess emissions from logging activity generally, and provide more accurate calculations for carbon accounting to assess the full climate impact of solid (wood) bioenergy. 8) Improved reporting eg on implementation of forestry measures under the CAP RDP. Include in the qualification criteria for grant applications a condition that specific information be provided on intended usage, particularly where such grants are funded directly or indirectly by taxpayers
Read full response