Project of contribution to the Commission’s Green Paper on
"Forest Protection and Information in the EU:
Preparing forests for climate change"

 I. It is essential to pay more attention on the protection, on the balance and on the intensification of the services returned by forests. In this perspective, the relevant level of intervention stays that of the member states (or regions if they have forestry schemes considering the local forest specificities) who have to remain responsible for the implementation of the forest policies. The European Union has to play a role of support, strength of logistic backup in member states and European regions in the implementation of their policy in sustainable management of the forest spaces. In a pragmatic way, the European Union has to help Member States and European regions by supplying them the tools which allow them to limit the impact of climate change. Consequently, the European Union, occurring in a more global environmental approach, would gather the means to define the modes of adaptations of the European forests in front of climate change while leaving to Member States the responsibility for applying their forest policies.

 II. EU’s forests are able to face the nature and the scale of the problems which puts the climate change provided that it exists:

1. A localized approach by the decisions of management in front of climate change;
2. A mapping of the risks by massif;
3. A diversification of the stocking;
4. An improvement in the follow-up of the quality of grounds.

Before thirty or forty years, it seems that some regions of the South of Europe would be more frequently exposed to drought episodes of such as those planned by the climatic projections. However, during the next decades, according to climatologist’s projections, the wooded lands of the North of Europe are likely to experience the negative effects of the climatic evolutions (as severe droughts). Consequently, it appears that all European regions will know in more or less brief term and according to diverse degrees, the effects of climate changes.

It is not indispensable that EU immediately adopts measures to guarantee the continuity of the functions performed by forests, but it seems nevertheless that EU has to help Member States in their initiative of sustainable management of forests on logistic and financial issues.

The added value of the European Union could be a strong implication in the deepening of scientific data collected to slowing down the climatic changes: indeed, forest administrators need information which allow them to make decisions on the basis of data actually rather ill-assorted. Now these scattered data may sketch a trend but do not dissipate numerous uncertainties in this matter.

From this point of view, harmonization of the data stemming from national forest inventories (IFN) (under the aegis of the Commission), which hold the largest part of the relevant forest resources information, would turn out useful for the constitution of an European tool.

In any case, the implementation of a follow-up system allowing to collect information on climate change’s theme deserves to be prioritized by the European Union.

More generally, EU can finance scientific studies, give its technical tools and in fine contribute to refine the decisions which, locally, are going to turn out relevant to support a sustainable management of forests.

 III. The European Union policies could be strengthened on three points:

- preservation of forest resources,
- support for the biodiversity,
- follow-up of grounds.

First of all, it would be useful that the Program on the European Forest Genetic Resources (EUFORGEN) introduced in 1994 emphasizes the gathering of reliable information about the forest genetic resources in Europe, seen particularly under the angle of the climate change.

European Commission could thus support the research led to a national level and work on the pooling of the national information to be able to obtain a consistent database at a community level.

In this way, data collected before 2011 within the framework of research cooperation (action "COST") concerning forestry adaptation to the climate change, would contribute to complete this information, with in view the creation of a community observatory on the consequences of the climatic evolution (maybe in 2012).

Secondly, in the perspective of biodiversity and wooded lands preservation, European Agency for the Environment must be a leader : at a European level, AEA has to lead the studies and research to review the most vulnerable housing environments to the climate change; and it would be done in a wider frame than "Natura 2000" existing sites.

Thirdly, in matter of ground’s follow-up, it would be profitable if the project "BioSoil" (from the European regulation "Forest Focus") would be stable and continuous. Indeed, to estimate the textures of the ground, it is sometimes necessary in practice to realize prospecting in several places of the same wooded spaces; but this approach, which allows to strengthen results, is expensive. In these conditions, European Union could contribute to the densification of these prospecting to refine analyses and obtain strengthened results. Concretely, within the framework of the "BioSoil" project, the number of measures distributed by "small place" could be increased, the scope of removals would be lowered and the follow-up of the quality of grounds would be improved.

Globally, to anticipate the effects of future droughts and facilitate the choices of the European forest administrators for the renewal of plantations or the relevant management of their forest lands, European Union could provide Member States its cartographic resources, even the data of the system EFFIS (prevention of forest fires) as well as the information which the European Center of data on forests (EFDAC) has, to determine the European forest territories likely to gather the climatic characteristics which would become widespread before fifty years.

 IV. In matter of sustainable forest management, the following principles could be usefully observed : first of all, sustainable forest management demands stability when fundamental orientations are decided ; even though climatic changes would turn out more important than planned, these do not have to upset choices made for a long time (example: the respect for the biodiversity).

Secondly, it is important to plan regular forestry revision (three-year or five-year period) so that the forest administrators can assimilate new scientific knowledge and adapt themselves regularly.

Thirdly, it may be efficient to select species with fast growth because it allows shortening revolutions of the populating and authorizes a faster harvest of trees. Fourthly, species of transition are adapted to the current climate and probably less vulnerable to the climate to come (For example in France, the Société Forestière facilitates the future plantation of sweet chestnut trees, maples, maritime pines, sessile oaks, lime trees, douglas and cedars).

Finally, it is necessary to be attentive to the useful reserve in water of grounds because the summer droughts have decisive impacts on forests. It is essential to evaluate with accuracy the capacity of grounds to restore the water to stocking according to the seasons. To save available water, it is necessary to enhance the knowledge of the forest stations and to facilitate an aeration of the plantations (a lesser density facilitates a more reasonable consumption of water).

 V. It seems that climatologists are relatively convergent on diagnoses. However, make a prospective on the precise way climate change is going to impact (in the medium and long term) on the EU’s forests is very complex. One of the major difficulties is that in exceptional phenomena, as storms or droughts, forecasters models are little efficient to predict the level and the mergence of these kind of events. Now, these events have a very important impact on the forestry and the chronological series related to the damages caused by storms in the European Union are fragmentary.

In these conditions, EU could contribute to the financing of new studies and investigations led to deepen the knowledge on these exceptional climatic phenomena and allow an adequate analysis of the risks to which are exposed the forest zones.

Also European Union can improve the communication to the citizens, relative to the protection of the European forest spaces and the necessity to manage it in a sustainable way. The European platform of information and communication about forests (EFICP) could be put in contribution this way and the European Center of data on forests (EFDAC) would become the reference tool in information about forests in Europe.

Indeed, biodiversity and forest protection are long-term issues: European population still has only a split up vision of it. The awareness-raising of European public opinion is thus important from this point of view (for example: repeat the initiative of European Commission about the “loss of biodiversity”, even if this communication is more a continuation of UNO’s manifestation (“2010: year of the biodiversity”).

Finally, European Union could strengthen coordinating between stakeholders: interested parts would gather their knowledge and exchange regularly on their know-how in the frame either of the permanent forest committee or the consultative group “Forests” under the aegis of the European Commission.

François Calonne (July 2010)

See the pdf version in French and English:

Contribution Protection des forêts de l’UE - François Calonne