Navigation path

Themes
Agriculture & food
Energy
Environment
  Atmosphere
  Biodiversity
  Clean technology and recycling
  Climate & global change
  Cultural heritage
  Earth Observation
  Ecosystems, incl. land, inland waters, marine
  Health & environment
  Land management
  Natural disasters
  Sustainable development
  Urban living
  Other
ERA-NET
Health & life sciences
Human resources & mobility
Industrial research
Information society
Innovation
International cooperation
Nanotechnology
Pure sciences
Research infrastructures
Research policy
Science & business
Science in society
Security
SMEs
Social sciences and humanities
Space
Special Collections
Transport

Countries
Countries
  Argentina
  Australia
  Austria
  Belarus
  Belgium
  Brazil
  Bulgaria
  Cameroon
  Canada
  Chile
  China
  Colombia
  Croatia
  Cyprus
  Czech Republic
  Denmark
  Egypt
  Estonia
  Ethiopia
  Finland
  France
  Georgia
  Germany
  Ghana
  Greece
  Hungary
  Iceland
  India
  Ireland
  Israel
  Italy
  Jamaica
  Japan
  Kazakhstan
  Kenya
  Korea
  Latvia
  Lithuania
  Luxembourg
  Malta
  Mexico
  Morocco
  Netherlands
  Nigeria
  Norway
  Peru
  Poland
  Portugal
  Romania
  Russia
  Senegal
  Serbia
  Slovakia
  Slovenia
  South Africa
  Spain
  Sri Lanka
  Swaziland
  Sweden
  Switzerland
  Taiwan
  Tunisia
  Turkey
  Uganda
  Ukraine
  United Kingdom
  United States


This page was published on 01/06/2007
Published: 01/06/2007

   Headlines

Last Update: 01-06-2007  
Related category(ies):
Agriculture & food  |  International cooperation  |  Environment

 

Add to PDF "basket"

Forest protection pushes Europeans into action

Scientists and industry experts from Europe and abroad recently launched a joint effort for the protection of forests. The 100-strong group initiated COST Action E27 targeting a better understanding of national and international distinctions of protected forest areas in Europe, and an explanation behind this diversity. They analysed an entire range of protected forest area categories. The findings showed that a marked separation exists between restrictions related to timber resources and silvicultural management, and those linked to non-timber production and public access. The publication Protected forest areas – analysis and harmonisation (PROFOR): Results, conclusions and recommendations was published last March and is now available.

A substantial part of northern Europe, like Germany (above) is rich in forests. © Nikater
A substantial part of northern Europe, like Germany (above) is rich in forests.
Image: Nikater
The COST Action team, hailing from 25 European countries, found that the differences that do exist are in parallel between north and south. The working restrictions in northern Europe influence the harvesting of timber resources, as well as the forest infrastructure; a substantial part of northern Europe is rich in forests, while population density is rather low. On the other hand, the Mediterranean and Atlantic countries, which have high population densities, have low forest cover.

The team, which evaluated direct and indirect benefits, found differences between the restrictions and compensations. According to the project partners, the individual stakeholder, including forest owners, hunters, scientists and communities, is the key element. In fact, actual beneficiaries of protected areas are local. It should be noted that it is not the forest owners themselves who actually benefit. Conversely, more people benefit from areas that lack more stringent protection regulations.

The team said that the findings showed significant disparities between two international classification systems assessed: The World Conservation Union 'Protected Area Management Categories' and the 'Assessment Guidelines for Protected and Protective Forest and Other Wooded Land in Europe' of the Ministerial Conference on the Protection in Europe (MCPFE). The partners said confusion does exist, and no standardised and comparable dataset on Protected Forest Areas in Europe is available.

The project partners have suggested a number of ways on how the quality and comparability of the statistics can be enhanced. According to them, the Liaison Unit of MCPFE drafted an Information Note of MCPFE Assessment Guidelines for the use of TBFRA country correspondents for their collection of data for the fifth MCPFE conference scheduled for August in the Polish capital of Warsaw.

A copy of the publication can be obtained from the PROFOR website.

Convert article(s) to PDF

No article selected


loading


Search articles

Notes:
To restrict search results to articles in the Information Centre, i.e. this site, use this search box rather than the one at the top of the page.

After searching, you can expand the results to include the whole Research and Innovation web site, or another section of it, or all Europa, afterwards without searching again.

Please note that new content may take a few days to be indexed by the search engine and therefore to appear in the results.

Print Version
Share this article
See also

PROFOR homepage
COST Action E27





  Top   Research Information Center