The RECCS report: better alternatives to commercial forest bioenergy
Over the last 10 years this power source has become the largest element of so-called ‘renewable’ energy in Europe – from where it is now expanding globally.
RECCS, the Renewable Energy and Climate Change Strategy, has been commissioned by Wild Europe from Trinomics Consultancy, energy advisors to the European Commission and national governments. It calls for reallocation of subsidies from forest bioenergy to costed alternatives, highlighting their massive benefits – economic as well as environmental
Wild Europe has played a key role in the RECCS development since its inception at our 2019 Bratislava Conference. But it is far more than a representation from climate and biodiversity campaigners.
Broad input has also been provided from economic, investment, enterprise and healthcare perspectives. As such it represents a call from a broad and growing coalition of interests.
Despite his success with lowering the rate of forest clearance in the Brazilian Amazon, Lula’s influence was perhaps always going to be compromised by his political need to allow hydrocarbon drilling in the Amazon. But other disappointments accompanied failure to mention a roadmap for fossil fuel cessation in the final COP text.
Meanwhile 2024 was recorded globally as the hottest year on record – the first to breach that ominous 1.5 degree marker, with the Amazon suffering its longest drought in recorded history.
COP 30 – the very number is cause for concern. It was 1995 when COP 1 was held in Berlin, with the first warnings of climate change stretching back to the 1960s. Thirty years on, reinforced by climate modelling in the 1980s and the Paris Agreement in 2015, there is momentum – but thus far it remains insufficient to halt climate change.
Our Ten Proposals from Belém for address of climate change and biodiversity are proffered in the context of a European arena, although they also have wider application. There is no silver bullet, but if adopted they could significantly strengthen the effectiveness of the conservation sector’s campaign.
A positive response has been received for the proposals from NGOs, government delegations and institutions consulted at COP30.
1. Renewable Energy & Climate Change Strategy (RECCS)
Ongoing promotion of our RECCS programmeseeks cessation of commercial scale forest bioenergy. The action programme proposed by the RECCS Report involves reallocation of subsidies, expected to reach 35 bn Euro annually in Europe alone by 2050 if Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) is adopted. These subsidies, geared by matched funding, should be redirected to three alternative means of addressing climate change:
Genuine renewables: wind, solar, heat pumps, marine, geothermal – together with appropriate infrastructure
Investment in carbon absorbent ecosystems, as a mainline element in climate strategy
In addition to producing 25% of the EU net zero target by 2050, the RECCS strategy offers massive comparative economic benefits by that date for the European Union economy: over 90 billion Euro Gross Value Added annually, 40 bn Euro energy cost reduction annually and an extra 1.6 million jobs in high-tech employment.
This programme supports the EU competitiveness, counter-inflation and energy security agendas – alongside biodiversity recovery and climate change address. Active interest has been shown in Europe, including at meetings with most of the EU Commissioner cabinet representatives. And beyond, from East Asia and the USA.
2. A full ecosystem service component for the EU Bioeconomy Strategy
A healthy bioeconomy strategy has an important role to play in any economy. But at present the Bioeconomy Challenge in Belém, and its EU Bioeconomy Strategy counterpart launched in Brussels in November, are heavily focused on extractive products.
Of course circumstances between the two regions are very different, but these strategies need to be rapidly balanced with greater emphasis on the environmental and economic role of non-extractive ecosystem services. The need for this ‘tertiary’ element in the EU Bioeconomy Strategy was stressed by Wild Europe at a seminal forum organised by EU land user associations on 14th October.
These ecosystem services have a highly significant role to play, not merely in addressing the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss – but also supporting economic growth and employment at regional and community level.
They include climate mitigation and resilience, biodiversity enhancement, flood and drought alleviation, air and water pollution regulation, together with ‘cultural’ benefits such as nature tourism, recreation, health and therapy initiatives. Monetary values can be applied to each of these, splitting crudely into two groups of economic impact:
The PES (Payment for Ecosystem Services) agenda, whereby an increasingly sophisticated array of official and voluntary funding mechanisms can translate them into funding streams for conservation and a wide range of socio-economic benefits. Most recently in the EU this includes current development of biodiversity credits, in addition to existing carbon credits.
The diminution of costs related to climate change, by lessening the occurrence and impact of increasingly erratic weather patterns now affecting almost all sectors of the global economy. Such costs need calculating on a reliable standardised basis and factoring into decision taking for economic as well as environmental strategy. The same approach can be applied to diminution or avoidance of costs related to biodiversity loss.
Collectively, the economic and environmental worth of these services is growing fast and in many areas already exceeds the extractive ‘product related’ value of forests – principally timber, energy and chemical – at a time when growing demand for the latter is threatening carbon sinks, while undermining net zero and biodiversity targets.
To ensure successful delivery of this Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) agenda, infrastructure development needs to be speeded up:
Extension of ‘markets’ matching supply and demand of funding
Verification and linkage of intermediate agency networks
Stricter environmental criteria for instruments, objectives and outcome monitoring
Comparative economic valuation in support of environmental benefit assessment
Capacity building for all parties (see proposal 3. below)
This approach for a more balanced Bioeconomy Strategy should be promoted in tandem with the EU Forest & Biodiversity Strategies, to land user associations, governments and institutions such as the European Development Bank for its new 2025 Route Map where Wild Europe has provided detailed input.
3. A capacity building strategy for all sectors
A comprehensive Capacity Building Strategy, with short, medium and long term elements, is urgently needed.
For the conservation sector, it has become increasingly apparent that economic, finance and enterprise related approaches can significantly reinforce (not replace) environmental arguments, particularly given the shift in political balance towards greater short-term prioritisation of “competitiveness” and other agendas.
It is equally in the interests of extractive user, financial and corporate sectors to acquire greater understanding of environmental standpoints.
For all sides, this points to the need for accelerated capacity building.
For the conservation sector, eg:
An urgent need to build capacity in all sectors, and work from common ground
economic valuation to strengthen environmental arguments
ability to co-design and manage financial instruments for private sector funding
enterprise implementation – to maximise local community & land owner benefits
wider application of legal approaches, including mechanisms for long-term protection
For ecosystem service providers, financiers and intermediary agents, eg:
clear understanding of environmental principles and definitions
stringent ecological criteria in design of financial instruments
ditto for target setting and monitoring of projects
stronger environmental impact assessment, linked to economic valuation
If properly delivered the Capacity Building Strategy can enable more even balance between resource usage and protection in the wider bioeconomy. It can also provide significant supplementary funding for Biodiversity and Forest Strategy objectives – both for the EU and globally. And it can strengthen common ground, fostering greater cooperation between different sectoral interests.
For climate change, clear collated proof and projection of costs to the overall economy from insufficient action, alongside demonstration of benefit from the Green Economy, is the only way of winning against the entrenched interests of atmospheric polluters.
Wild Europe is proposing a summary model for this capacity building. We have already liaised on this in workshops with the UN Paris Committee on Capacity
Building (PCCB) at the 2025 Bonn COP, the European Investment Bank in Luxembourg and others. In a European context there is no single organisation with a remit to deliver such a strategy, but a valuable potential role could lie ahead for the EC as facilitator.
Conservation strategy needs a wider economic context to reinforce its environmental message
4. Development of alliances beyond the conservation sector
There is considerable potential to identify common ground and common approaches between different interests.
Perverse subsidies, eg for forest bioenergy, are expensive for consumers and taxpayers, most of whom are also unaware of their environmental damage. Beyond that, land owners, relevant corporates and land user associations are all interested parties.
Such joint linkages can greatly strengthen individual campaigns, and will be boosted by capacity building to enable greater mutual understanding.
Agriculture, forestry and fisheries in the EU together represent under 3% of Gross Value Added (GVA), yet these costs are relevant to the remaining 97% of the economy. Indeed they also apply to agriculture, forestry and fisheries – with growing impact of climate change evident on economic performance across all three sectors. This further underlines the need to build alliances across economic sectors, reinforcing environmental arguments from the conservation sector.
5. Closer coordination between NGO climate change networks
Closer links are needed between fossil fuel and forest bioenergy campaigns, recognising that wood bioenergy has higher CO2 equivalent emissions than fossil fuels. Success in curbing use of the fossil fuels, vital though that is, can merely add to demand for bioenergy
Co-firing is another perverse outcome, perpetuating use of coal and also aggravating climate change.
The overall unifying slogan should change from “end fossil fuels” to “end carbon fuels”. Wild Europe met with Powering Past Coal Alliance directorate and others in Belém, discussing cooperation to renew in 2026 our 2022 webinar initiative involving Ville Ninisto MEP (then European Parliament rapporteur for LULCF reform) and Mike Norton (then Head of Environmental Policy for European Academies of Science Advisory Council (EASAC) together with some 40 NGOs from both campaigns.
6. Resolving misuse of carbon accounting rules
With emissions counted at the point of felling and then ‘lost’ in national land use inventories, power stack emissions are counted by the feedstock importing country as carbon neutral. This is at the heart of why we continue to subsidise worsening of climate change through forest bioenergy use.
It should be the role of IPCC as key provider of information for policy making to ensure proper use and intended outcomes for their information. Ought failure to do so with sufficient vigour and thus effectiveness count as failure in Duty of Care? Lawyers watch this space.
Meanwhile concepts of “carbon neutrality” and “sustainability”, of management practice and supply in particular, are too heavily mutilated by lobbying and often wilful misinterpretation to be reliable. The investment community is increasingly aware of this as a danger to its own credibility, and even to the credibility of the climate change hypothesis itself in the face of growing cynicism – witness the absence of USA from Belém.
Cutting the Gordian Knot of this bureaucratic muddle, the interim way ahead here is simply to use straightforward measure of CO2 equivalent emissions adjusted for lifecycle. These, again, show wood bioenergy to have higher emissions than the fossil fuels it is meant to replace, even coal – a point now widely agreed on all sides but scarcely acted on.
The irrefutable facts of solid (forest) bioenergy emissions, Trinomics Consultants, energy advisors to the European Commission
FCC Carpathia – a message to Europe and beyond
7. Model nature protection initiatives to address climate change
Even with substantial funding available, it will ultimately prove difficult if not futile persuading poorer countries to maintain massive tracts of their national land in undeveloped natural ecological condition, unless the developed world assumes a higher moral high ground through mega-scale restoration and protection on its own territory.
One such initiative already underway in Europe is being developed by Fundatia Conservation Carpathia, originating as a private sector partnership alongside local communities and the Romanian government, to establish a 250,000 hectare National Park. This will be bequeathed to the nation.
A trans-national model for even wider vision is currently being assessed.
8. A rebalanced agenda for state forest agencies
Again, the need for a healthy timber producing sector should be recognised, particularly in countries where it occupies a larger element of the economy. In Europe, Wild Europe has for the last decade also promoted a wider role for non-extractive ecosystem services to senior management in EUSTAFOR, the State Forest Association for Europe, representing state agencies managing 40% of its forests.
Two of the four policy areas in their 2022 – 2026 Strategy cite the aim of addressing climate change and biodiversity issues.
To support this aspect of their public sector responsibility, and in recognition of general public and taxpayer opinion, we have in particular proposed formation of a Working Party of member state agencies (EUSTAFOR members) to collate experience of projects promoting these non-extractive services for protection and restoration of high nature value, old growth and primary forest set aside.
Equally, we are seeking to assess how further policy reform could facilitate improved access and use of the Payment for Ecosystem Services agenda by state agencies. Although focused on Europe, this approach could have wider application – particularly in achieving better a balance within forest and bioeconomy strategies between production for timber, other raw materials and bioenergy, and protection for address of climate change and biodiversity.
With overall timber production representing under 1% of European GDP, this positive approach can only bring benefit to all parties: supporting climate and biodiversity related projects while seeking diversification of income.
9.Reinforcement of key conservation policies
Democratic politics are by definition an arena of fluctuating priorities. It is for the conservation sector to craft policies whose benefits appeal across the party spectrum, thus avoiding major shifts in approach when the demands of a healthy environment clearly necessitate long-term, stable strategy.
This currently applies in particular to two climate & biodiversity related policies:
The Forest Monitoring Law (FML), withdrawn in the EU by the EC due to opposition from foresters concerned about administrative costs, and governments eager to argue sovereign rights. Yet a comprehensive, standardised FML in Europe and elsewhere has to be a key plank of any strategy – in the interest of those same users and a much wider audience.
A key means of reintroducing the FML should be rapidly reconstructed, and we have made proposals here. The Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) agenda, in particular existing carbon and developing biodiversity credits, could be a key link here. Without an effective FML, whether overseen at EU or MS level, land users would have problems accessing PES funding.
EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR). Delay and potential dilution by the EU merely serve to hamper implementation. Alongside its environmental consequences, has appropriate economic assessment been undertaken of the impact on future forests (timber producing or otherwise) of aggravated climate change
10. Reforms to the representation of conservation interests
The sector could consider the following reforms:
There is scope for strengthening the scientific basis for conservation arguments, which must retain primacy, with greater use of economic, financial, enterprise and other specialisms – particularly in the current political context. Whether to establish relative value for securing appropriate policy priority, funding support, land use or successful project implementation engaging all interests. Systematic capacity building is needed for this.
Development of comprehensive ‘maps’ for contact targets, for example in the forest bioenergy campaign, providing tailored information for representation. Information shared among NGOs can ensure comprehensive coverage, particularly where resources are limited, with identification of priorities and gaps for joint action. Under 50% of appropriate audience reach is currently achieved with even fairly basic information.
Promotion of long-term alliance with other sectors, per Section 4 above. There is considerable opportunity, as well as need, to identify and operate from common ground which is often overlooked as a basis for progress.
There should be greater focus on the important role played by large natural ecosystem areas under a strictly protected, non-intervention regime of management by natural processes. Among other benefits this is a highly cost-effective form of management which can generally deliver significantly a higher degree of climate mitigation and resilience than managed habitats, particularly for natural forests.
Fagaras wilderness model gathers momentum
Recognition for an outstanding conservation achievement
A special award for the directors of FCC
Barbara and Christoph Promberger, directors of Fundatia Conservation Carpathia (FCC) in Romania, last week received the highly prestigious Federal Cross of Merit from German Federal President Steinmeier.
Their work in protecting very large areas of wild forest and montane shrub and grassland, for nature and local communities, was described as “outstanding”.
At its heart is their dedication to supporting creation of a world class 250,000 hectare National Park in the Fagaras Mountains, aiming to address the twin challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss, while benefiting the regional economy.
Can massive Highland restoration save the salmon from regional extinction?
Leaping towards an unknown future
The fate of one of the world’s most iconic species hangs in the balance across the Highlands of Scotland, and in many other parts of Europe.
Due to climate change, water temperatures now frequently surpass the crucial 23 degree level above which survival of the Atlantic salmon is not sustainable.
Wild Europe is engaging through its associate The European Nature Trust (TENT) in initiation of a massive ecological restoration programme to save the salmon and its aquatic habitat. But can this be implemented in time?
New mapping initiative to support natural ecosystem area conservation
Protection and extension of wild areas has received a significant boost with the publication of CARTNAT, a high-resolution process to identify and measure levels of naturalness in France.
Although the value of large natural (wild) areas with non-intervention management regimes and minimal human impact is increasingly recognised for addressing twin crises of biodiversity loss and climate change, only 10% of those areas so far identified in France currently receive “strong” protection (protection forte). They represent just under 2% of total terrestrial area, echoing a wider situation on the continent.
CARTNAT (CARTographie des espaces français de haute NATuralité) can help improve protection of existing natural areas, and locate potential for restoration and connectivity. Backed by Wild Europe, the initiative offers timely support for policy makers and practitioners, and has potential for replication across Europe.
While operating at national level, CARTNAT adopts three sets of layered criteria at 20m resolution along a ‘continuum of wildness’ and is also applicable at regional and local level:
Biophysical integrity: identifying buildings, transport networks, water bodies and vegetation – assigning weights to level of naturalness for the latter
Spontaneity of process: the degree of human influence, as measured by indicators such as distance from roads and building density, with assumption of negative correlation with spontaneity
Spatial-temporal connectivity: for determining the collective degree and impact of naturalness particularly across landscape scale areas
Applications of CARTNAT
Developed since early 2017, and led by Jonathan Carruthers (Helsinki University) along with Adrien Guetté (Tours University) and Steve Carver (Leeds University), CARTNAT can provide support in a variety of contexts.
Linked to the multi-criteria definition of wilderness and wild areasdeveloped by Wild Europe under commission from the 2019 European Parliament resolution on wilderness, it offers a standardised fast-track tool for identifying potential areas of high naturalness, particularly those not currently receiving adequate protection, and is thus of value to a range of official and NGO conservation endeavours, including the French National Strategy on Protected Areasto 2030 (SNAP).
CARTNAT can in turn help deliver the EU Biodiversity Strategy target of 10% terrestrial area to be strictly protected, relating to the Montreal-Kunming targets in the Global Biodiversity Framework. This could also involve implementation of the Nature Restoration Regulation, and the Forest Monitoring Law once the latter is determined.
In addition to developing the base definition for natural (wilderness and wild) areas, Wild Europe has provided technical input and funding support for CARTNAT, along with IUCN France and WWF France.
Wild Europe with consortium wins large EU Horizon project for forest ecosystem support
A large EU funded initiative for safeguarding carbon and biodiversity rich forests is to be undertaken by a group of eighteen organisations led by the University of Oulu in Finland.
Wild Europe Foundation played a key role coordinating the preparatory stages and selecting the locations for in-depth study. It is now helping coordinate the implementation.
Over the next four years our contribution will focus mainly on formulating and communicating policy recommendations as well as identifying socio-economic benefits of ecosystem services. These will be linked to relevant legal contexts across a range of forest types and management practices.
The RECCS Report, Renewable Energy and Climate Change Strategy calling for cessation of commercial scale solid (forest) bioenergy and reallocation of subsidies to costed alternatives for addressing climate change, was launched at COP 29 on 14th November. See the summary leafletand a main document.
The Report was produced by Trinomics Consultants, energy advisors to the European Commission and national governments, and commissioned by Wild Europe.
Some 65,000 delegates registered at the COP29 climate conference in Baku, with key issues at stake including agreement on climate funding for developing countries, and the impact of withdrawal from the Paris Agreement by the forthcoming US Trump regime.
Wild Europe also promoted two other key initiatives at the COP: closer links between fossil fuel and solid bioenergy campaign networks, and an International Shareholder Action Plan to promote diversification of climate action, using the reallocated subsidies from solid bioenergy.
The RECCS Report, Renewable Energy and Climate Change Strategy, was launched at COP 29 on 14th November, with a summary leafletand a main document. It was produced by Trinomics Consultants, energy advisors to the European Commission and national governments, and commissioned by Wild Europe.
Some 65,000 delegates registered at COP29 climate summit in Baku, with key issues at stake including agreement on climate funding for developing countries, and the impact of withdrawal from the Paris Agreement by the forthcoming US Trump regime.
RECCS: better alternatives to commercial forest bioenergy
Over the last 10 years solid (forest) energy has become the largest element of so-called ‘renewable’ energy in Europe – from where it is now expanding globally.
Subsidies for forest bioenergy in Europe are likely to total over 35 billion EUR per year by 2050 if BECCS (Bioenergy with Carbon Capture & Storage) proceeds.
Wood burning Drax – an image of ‘green’ energy bathed in naturalness
The RECCS Report calls for these subsidies to be reallocated, together with incentivised matched funding, to costed alternative approaches for addressing climate change:
Genuine renewables (wind power, solar, marine, together with heat pumps, storage and transmission capacity)
Investment in carbon absorbent ecosystems – eg forest, wetland, salt marsh
RECCS offers massive benefits, economic as well as environmental, and has been developed since its inception at Wild Europe’s 2019 Bratislava Conference.
It is far more than a representation from climate and biodiversity campaigners. Broad input has also been provided from economic, investment, enterprise, consumer and healthcare perspectives. As such it represents a call from a broad and growing coalition of interests.
Principal findings of the RECCS Report
These findings are collated in the summary leaflet, with some of them listed below:
Forest bioenergy produces higher CO2 equivalent emissions than the fossil fuels it is intended to replace, even coal, and makes Paris Agreement targets much harder to achieve
Forest bioenergy is the least cost-efficient source of power generation and can be replaced by genuine renewables at roughly 30% of the cost, freeing up massive funding for effective alternative means of addressing climate change
The direct and opportunity costs of proceeding with BECCS, in both environmental and economic terms, would be colossal
By 2050 reallocation of resources from forest bioenergy with BECCS to the above alternative means of addressing climate change could create carbon savings of 870 million tons of CO2 equivalent – 26% of the EU net zero goal
Boosted investment through RECCS could deliver 94 billion EUR pa in Gross Value Added by 2050, together over 1.6 million in higher tech employment
Instead of destroying large areas of carbon reservoirs and biodiversity rich ecosystems using forest bioenergy, large new ecosystems can be restored and protected
Promoting implementation for RECCS
Liaison on RECCS was arranged by Wild Europe with the following entities, among others, during COP 29 and the parallel World Climate Summit in Baku:
National government delegations (including energy, environment and finance ministries)
The UK Transition Plan & Finance network and associated organisations
EU – European Commission / Directorates General
UNFCC and consultants; related organisations including the Climate Champions Team, IPCC, UNESC energy departments, PRI, CEET, ZAOA, SDS network together with IEA and IFRS
Key climate policy and research institutes
Global Carbon Capture & Storage Institute and associated network
OECD, World Bank, IFC, IBRD, EBRD, regional development banks together with private sector finance & consultancy networks
Renewable energy sector representatives
Organisations linking to COP30 in Belem: Brazilian Development Bank, CEBRI, PNF etc
Closer networking links to “End Carbon Fuels”
Wild Europe will also be seeking to promote closer partnerships at the COP, building on the telecoms it first organised in October 2021 to share experience and objectives between some 30 key forest bioenergy and fossil fuel campaign NGOs.
With presentations from Ville Niinisto MEP, then Rapporteur for LULUCF Reform (Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry) in the European Parliament, and Professor Mike Norton, Environmental Programme Director for the European Academy of Sciences Advisory Council, the aim was to secure great coordination between two networks with their similar objectives.
Enlightened self-interest means more than money
Five key aims included:
For the bioenergy campaigners to learn from economic and financial lobbying expertise in the fossil fuel campaigns
For fossil fuel campaigners to learn that just ending fossil fuel burning, whilst entirely laudable, can lead to more higher emission forest bioenergy burning
To highlight the dangers of co-firing, creating so-called ‘abated coal by mixing it with wood. The resulting emission may be even higher than coal alone, but the process labelled ‘green’ and eligible for subsidy – thus prolonging use of coal
To thus agree a joint campaign slogan “End Carbon Fuels”, widening the existing “End Fossil Fuels” banner
To introduce RECCS to the fossil fuel campaign NGOs, offering an alternative renewable energy strategy that could apply costed substitutes for fossil fuels as well as forest bioenergy
It is hoped that further coordination between the two networks can be secured to mutual benefit.
Shareholder Action Plan
This involves extending existing arrangements whereby NGOs acquire shareholdings in key corporates involved in the forest bioenergy sector, thus gaining greater insight into their mode of operation and having opportunity to represent in the presence of other investors.
The process can quite positive, involving suggestions for business plan diversification away from higher risk solid bioenergy into a broader product of renewables and other alternative industrial process approaches that are both more climate friendly and offer a potentially higher rate of return on capital employed (ROCE), being much less dependent on subsidy and often inherently profitable by comparison.
Wild Europe is conducting a consultancy on a related issue. Could institution of Clean Energy/Tech Indices in individual international Stock Exchanges help facilitate the financing of this process, which also has potential to bring new issue business to those exchanges involving high growth enterprise?
Welcome to Kriton Arsenis
We are very pleased to welcome Kriton as a trustee of Wild Europe.
Twice voted “MEP of the Year” by his colleagues in the European Parliament for achievements in forest and marine conservation during his tenure from 2009 – 2014, he has a significant track record as environmentalist and politician.
He played a key role in development of forest policy, including establishment of the EU Timber Regulation, and led the Parliament in adopting EU legislation on monitoring emissions from land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF), as well as ending important derogations of EU environmental assessment legislation. He was also active in fisheries legislation,establishing the non-intervention Fish Stock Recovery Areas in the CFP.
Kriton has since been a member of the Greek parliament until 2023. He shares Wild Europe’s principles on the importance of wilderness and non-intervention management, and founded the Roadfree Campaign which has recently scored significant successes in Greece (read more here). Additionally he brings a significant background in planning and regional development.
Call for cessation of commercial bioenergy at UNFCC conference
Bonn 2024, Credit: UNclimatechange.
Representatives from five continents called to a rapid and drastic reduction in burning of forest biomass – dubbing it a ‘fake’ form of renewable energy – at the UN conference in Bonn on 8th June.
Wild Europe’s presentation, as part of this call, focused on the need to reallocate all existing official subsidies to alternative far more effective means of addressing climate change.
1. Support for key outcomes from EU Biodiversity Strategy:
Ongoing promotion of the strict protection adopted for the 10% of EU terrestrial & marine areas, particularly old growth/primary forest, with non-intervention as its general default mode – allowing exceptions for managed habitats (secondary: grasslands, heathlands) and key threatened species
Development and joint presentation of key elements for a Restoration Strategy at the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) in Alicante, September 2022, by Wild Europe (Ladislav Miko, Erika Stanciu, Toby Aykroyd) and SER (Kris DeCleer)
Promotion of importance of ecosystem integrity (especially natural forest), non-intervention for Post 2022 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) at COP15 (Zoltan Kun) in Montreal
Wild Europe definitional criteria used in large scale wilderness mapping for Iceland, a model project for land use planning and large-scale protection with restoration, launched by partner Wildland Research Centre with Wild Europe in Reykjavik by Environment Minister
Enterprise element of successful Sumava NP programme to be assessed
Sumava and Bayerischerwald: non intervention at the heart of Europe
Wild Europe’s initiative to identify local community enterprise opportunities in and around Sumava National Park is to be assessed for further development.
The initiative was originally proposed in an outline feasibility study for (non-extractive) enterprise related to wilderness areas in Sumava, which also promoted close links to the adjoining BayerischerWald National Park in Bavaria.
The Czech Environment Ministry gave its support to the initiative in 2018, with a statement from Vice Minister Vladimir Dolejsky:
“I consider elaboration of this study very important not only for the development of the National Park Sumava region, but also in terms of the future course of national parks in the Czech Republic in general”.
Clouds gather over European environmental policy – a way ahead
Thirsty for environmental finance
Just as 2023 was declared the hottest year on record, the last few weeks have seen a series of setbacks to essential environmental reforms.
CAP reform measures are being eroded, there are calls for the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) to be delayed and diluted, massive further funding is recommended for solid (forest) bioenergy that worsens climate change with higher emissions than fossil fuels.
Now the Nature Restoration Law (NRL) is also faltering, and the Forest Monitoring Law (FML) is under threat from gross over-simplification.
This article proposes reforms to address the NRL and FML situations in particular.
Nature Restoration Law (NRL) passed – lessons for the future
Nature – and the economy – triumphs over 275 Neros. For now.
At last a prize worth cheering about, as the European parliament votes 329 votes in favour, 275 against, to back the NRL.
The final step will involve Council endorsement towards the end of March, with Environment Ministers meeting on 26th. Thereafter successful implementation will depend on Member States adopting effective National Restoration Plans.
Behind the celebrations there is much ground to cover.
UK Government warned against adoption of ‘deeply flawed’ BECCS energy policy
In its response to the Government’s consultation on subsidies for Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage on 29th February, Wild Europe has strongly advised the cessation of all further support for solid (forest) bioenergy.
We are very pleased to welcome Kriton as a trustee of Wild Europe Foundation.
Twice voted “MEP of the Year” by his colleagues in the European Parliament for achievements in forest and marine conservation during his tenure from 2009 – 2014, he has a significant track record as environmentalist and politician.
He played a key role in development of forest policy, including establishment of the EU Timber Regulation, and led the Parliament in adopting EU legislation on monitoring emissions from land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF), as well as ending important derogations of EU environmental assessment legislation. Kriton has since been a member of the Greek parliament until 2023.
NRL squeezed though the European Parliament, but fundamental reforms are needed for it to succeed
It is a stark but surprisingly little-known fact that farming and forestry interests opposing the Nature Restoration Law (NRL) represent less than 2.5%of Gross Domestic Product in the EU.
Yet the costs of inappropriate management in worsening climate change and ecological degradation fall on the remaining 97.5% of the economy.
European Business & Biodiversity Forum shows the need for alliance
The growing urgency of climate change and biodiversity loss necessitates rapid increase in mutual understanding between business and biodiversity.
The European Business and Biodiversity Forum, involving some 500 enterprises on 21stJune in Paris, sought to address this issue.
Wild Europe’s presentationto the Forumstressed the important role of companies in conservation, particularly restoration, and outlined measures needed to enhance this.
Australia declassifies wood from natural forests as renewable energy
Saved from the incinerator – Australia’s natural heritage
On 15th December Australia became the first G20 nation to renounce natural forests as a legitimate feedstock for bioenergy. They will no longer qualify for subsidies through Large-Scale Generation Certificates.
It underlines the need for strict protection of remaining primary/old growth forest, coinciding with the latest reporttodemonstrate a much higher carbon carrying capacity of larger trees than previously calculated.
Ambitious Restoration Strategy outlined at SERE symposium
Key proposals for a Restoration Strategy based were laid out in a symposium held at the Society for Ecological Restoration (SERE, Europe Chapter) in Alicante on 9th September.
Titled “Large scale rewilding across Europe: overcoming challenges to achieve a historic opportunity“, the symposium suggested ambitious objectives and called for extensive reforms to achieve these.
It was headed by Ladislav Miko, lead environmental advisor to the current EC Presidency and Wild Europe trustee. Toby Aykroyd of Wild Europe coordinated the event with Kris Decleer of SERE Council and there was further keynote participation from Erika Stanciu, Vice Chair of WCPA, Chair of Wild Europe, and Cara Nelson, Chair of the IUCN Ecosystem Thematic Group.
Key proposals
The symposium’s proposals ranged widely cross the spectrum of habitat types and conservation modes. They included:
Non-intervention management through natural processes to be a core default element in restoration and ‘strict protection’ of 10% of the EU terrestrial and maritime territory: to secure cost-effective conservation, effective protection of dependent species, mitigation, resilience and adaptation to climate change, with scale delivery of quality ecosystem services
Strict protection of primary/old growth forest, involving a ban on all extractive activity, to be extended to 15% of European forest cover – enabling consolidation of fragmented remnants, effective ecosystem function, buffering and connectivity; wherever possible this will be based on recovery through natural regeneration for the c 12% needing restoration.
The interface between areas with conservation governed solely by natural processes and those where conservation is actively managed (secondary habitats such as grasslands, healthlands, silvopastoral landscapes, together with individual endangered species) to be carefully identified, specified, and enacted; this includes initial intervention where needed followed by long-term set aside.
The above proposals to be implemented through multi-sector cooperation based on reformed grants for protection & restoration, together with a fully activated
Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) agenda and emphasis on securing long-term protection.
Close alignment with EU plans
The proposals are designed to be supportive of the necessarily far-reaching EU Biodiversity and Forest Strategies, and relate to emerging elements for the forthcoming EU Restoration Law – as well as linking to requests by conservation networks more generally.
The call for non-intervention management as a default within the definition of ‘strict protection echoes the representations of the European Habitat Forum on the Biodiversity Strategy produced in May 2019.
Growing momentum for the key role of non-intervention
Equally, Resolution 127 at IUCN Marseilles in 2021 called for a ban on logging and extraction generally as a key element in stronger support for protection & restoration of primary/old growth forest. This was backed by a massive vote of 674 members, 93 of whom category A – ie including governments; it is in turn based on Wild Europe’s 2018 Old Growth Forest Protection Strategy.
The need for far-reaching reforms
The symposium welcomed the extra funding to be made available by the EU for biodiversity targets. However far-reaching reforms are still needed, against a backdrop of growing climate crisis ,with the main 2020 Biodiversity Strategy targets missed and 81% of habitats and 63% of species in poor conservation status.
Among further proposals from the symposium:
Crucial linkage between restoration and addressing climate change
A systematic strengthening in the capacity of the conservation sector for economic valuation, enterprise management, financial procurement and lobbying specialisms was cited as a key requirement – at all strategic and operational levels. This is felt essential, to strengthen rather than supplant traditional conservation approaches, if the EU Strategies are to be adequately funded and win out against competitive or damaging land use practices.
More immediately, there is a requirement for carefully collated restoration targets: per country, area and habitat type – with sequential milestones up to 2050. These should be based on clearly formulated baseline and achievement goals, aiming to maximise both the extent of ecosystem renovation and of the total areas involved.
Adoption of SERE principles of restoration has a crucial role to play here, bringing together stakeholders, identifying common ground and setting clear goals along a continuum of restorative activity – in both strictly protected and protected areas.
Clearer linkage is also needed in practical planning to address the twin climate change and biodiversity crises – focused on a joint UNFCC/CBD approach, reflected at national and local level.
One element of this is a costed strategy to abolish climate-damaging subsidies for commercial scale forest bioenergy, and reallocate these to genuine renewables, conservation of carbon absorbent landscapes and measures to reduce emissions and boost the green economy
The overall Restoration Strategy is being finalized. It draws substantially off Wild Europe’s 2020 Action Plan and will include inputs provided by the Symposium audience after the presentations on 9th September.
Let nature do the job. Large-scale spontaneous regeneration: where and where not? Kris Decleer, SERE Council; Senior Researcher Research Institute for Nature and Forest Belgium
After centuries of deforestation and degradation, ecological restoration projects are starting to spring up across Ireland – seeking to address climate change and reverse biodiversity loss.
There is useful scope for establishing a few standardised principles of good practice, and this was the theme of a presentation to some 120 members of the Irish Wildlife Trust, given in 2021 by Zoltan Kun of Wild Europe and member of the IUCN Thematic Rewilding Group.
Former Secretary of State for Forests in the Romanian government, now Vice Chair of World Council for Protected Areas (WCPA) for Europe. Founder-director of the Propark Foundation providing training and consultancy services, and Coordinator of Wild Europe’s Wilderness Working Group. Previously President of Europarc Federation (c 400 organisations) and Director of Retezat National Park.
Ladislav Miko (Slovakia)
Trustee and Chair from 2009
Currently lead advisor on environmental affairs to the Czech EC Presidency, with a role encompassing COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh and COP15 in Montreal. Formerly Director of Natural Environment at DG Environment with the European Commission, Environment Minister in the Czech government, Deputy Director-General of DG Sanco (EC), and subsequently Head of the EC delegation in Slovakia. Author of 116 publications.
Cyril Kormos (USA)
Trustee
Chair of IUCN World Heritage Network, Vice Chair for World Heritage on WCPA, Founder-Director of Wild Heritage a project of the Earth Island Institute, Founder-Director of the global Primary Forest Alliance (formerly IntAct). Previously with WILD (US) and Conservation International. Author of books on Transboundary Conservation, Natural World Heritage and A Handbook on International Wilderness Law & Policy
Kriton Arsenis (Greece)
Trustee
Twice voted conservationist of the year by colleagues in the European Parliament during his tenure from 2009 – 2014, with a string of achievements in forest and marine policy as environmentalist and politician, and a background in planning and regional development. A member of the Greek parliament until 2023, he also founded the Roadless Campaign.
Erik Balaz (Slovakia)
Trustee
Chairman of the Aevis Foundation, forest ecology specialist, writer, Director of Arolla Films producing documentaries on wild nature including Keeper of the Wilderness, The Living River and Wolf Mountains. Active campaigner for the protection of ancient natural forests, and originator of the Eastern Carpathian Mountain conservation strategy.
Gernant Magnin (Netherlands)
Foundation Secretary
Environmental consultant. Formerly with WWF Netherlands, and previously Director of the Eurosite network and WWF Turkey. Bird specialist, campaigner against illegal shooting, author of several publications focused on the Danube Basin, fish migration, bird guides and falconry.
Foundation Executive
Toby Aykroyd (UK)
Director and Trustee
Background including economic development (UN Development Programme), enterprise management and forestry; also formerly director of SME lobby group representing 12,500 businesses. Involved in conservation of large natural ecosystems for the last 20 years. Trustee of the European Nature Trust, Rewilding Britain, FCC (Romania). Chair of CHASE Africa Foundation. Former Chair of Funding Support Group for BBC Wildlife Fund.
Zoltan Kun (Hungary)
Head of Conservation
Member of IUCN Primary Forest Task Force and IUCN Rewilding Thematic Group, representing Griffiths Primary Forest programme and PFPI (US), with specific interest in management of wilderness protected. Member of Wildland Research Institute. Former Director of the PAN Parks Foundation operating in 12 European countries, prior to that with WWF Hungary. President of the Federation of Large Lakes & Wetlands in Hungary.
France – superb potential for pleine naturalité
France Sauvage – New national wildness network proposed
Earlier this summer, Wild Europe with its French associates proposed an initiative to coordinate support for creation and protection of wilderness (espaces à haute naturalité) and wild areas (zones sauvages).
Based on the Wild Europe definition[1] of such areas developed in 2012, this would involve creating “France Sauvage”, the working title for a network of NGOs and supportive entities to champion the set aside of large areas of natural ecosystem where non-intervention allows natural succession (libre evolution), with management by natural processes.
Frans Timmermans launches the BioStrategy with Commisioners Kyriakides (Health, Food Safety) & Sinkevičius (Environment)
EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: A major step forward
The EU 2030 Biodiversity Strategy published on 20th May 2020 retains the visionary key targets in its earlier version.
Proper implementation of the Strategy will require adequate funding and enforcement on the ground. Nonetheless the Commission is to be congratulated for sticking to its guns, so far, in advocating necessarily ambitious objectives for protection and restoration.
This represents good news for large natural ecosystem areas (“wilderness”) and natural forests – responding positively to major requests in Wild Europe’s most recent representation to Frans Timmermans and the Commissioners for Environment, Agriculture & Rural Development and Energy. This was subsequently responded to by Environment Commissioner Sinkevicius.
Ecologically priceless, beautiful – but is it protected? Matthias Schickhofer
Strong EC Commitments to protection
Key commitments by the Commission in the Biodiversity Strategy include
Legal protection by 2030 for a minimum 30% of the EU’s land and seas:
Strict protection for at least a third of these Protected Areas – ie 10% of total area, offering great potential for large natural ecosystem areas
This stipulation includes strict protection of all remaining EU old growth/primary forests along with other ecosystems
Establishment of comprehensive green & blue ecological connectivity
Call for effective definitions, mapping and management of the above – with implicit funding availability
For restoration – there is a new EU Nature Restoration Plan, with core focus on ecosystem services:
The Great Fen – international icon for peatland restoration, IUCN UK National Committee
Legally binding Nature Restoration Targets by 2021 for degraded ecosystems, now delayed to end of 2022
These include no deterioration in PA conservation status by 2030
Criteria for additional areas to be determined at national level by end 2021, with effective action by 2023
3 billion trees planted by 2030 (natural forest is needed)
25,000 km of free flowing rivers, which can be linked to ‘blue connectivity’ and basin-scale flood mitigation, including restoration of riverine, flood sink and upland watershed forest and wetland
A new CAP to deliver at least 10% of agricultural area under “high diversity landscape features”. Wild Europe will be re-stressing its proposal for a supplementary Ecological Focus Area, tradable at regional level, to promote creation of consolidated large areas of natural ecosystem funded by CAP
A more mixed picture for renewable energy
For renewable energy, and the related RE Strategy, the picture is more mixed.
A stain on the EU image: subsidised destruction of beech forest for commercial burning
Wording of permitted inputs for bioenergy remains significantly vague. Use of whole trees should be disallowed for financial support, not just “minimised”
It is unclear whether improved operational guidance on RED II sustainability criteria will support further improvements needed to recent TEG Taxonomy suggestions
Subsidies for wood burning bioenergy must cease forthwith or this damaging practice, now representing half of timber consumption in Europe, will continue toundermine all eight elements of the EU Green Deal and compromise the EU’s coveted position as global leader in sound environmental practice. A poor image at COP15 in Kunming, 2021.
As Environment Commissioner Sinkevicius said at the Biodiversity Strategy launch “We cannot halt and reverse biodiversity loss without achieving Paris Agreement goals, and vice versa”.
Next steps in implementation
Much work is required to translate the 2030 Biodiversity Strategy commitments into adequate action.
Protection of old growth/primary forest should involve linkage of fragmented remnants and restoration of adjacent areas to enable proper ecosystem function and resilience
The importance of scale and the central role of non-intervention management in delivering ecosystem services for strictly protected areas needs full recognition and application
The EC should promote the objectives of its Biodiversity Strategy in non EU European countries: through neighbour agreements, accession treaties, trade & aid policies, exchange of best practice
The 2021 EU Forestry Strategy needs to be truly aligned to biodiversity objectives with appropriate conservation measures
The new Forest Information System for Europe (FISE) should be an effective instrument for protection as well as restoration
Capacity building must address major gaps in the conservation sector’s ability to utilise macro-economic approaches and PES enterprise (payment for ecosystem services) for achievement of biodiversity objectives
The ‘significant proportion’ of the 25% EU budget on climate change to be spent on nature-based solutions needs clearly elaborating, along with other funding instruments – including the Recovery Instrument.
A strategy for all of Europe
A strategy for all of Europe
The European Commission should also promote the objectives of its Biodiversity Strategy in non EU European countries.
Many of these contain the most valuable remaining areas of natural ecology in our continent, but generally have the lowest budgets for protection and the least effective legal protection. The EC can achieve much here: through neighbour agreements, accession treaties, trade & aid policies, exchange of best practice.
Implementation of Stage II of the current EU Wilderness Register, proposed by Wild Europe, will be an important step here. This would incorporate non EU countries into the existing Register and focus on non-extractive enterprise to secure conservation funding and local community and landholder support from the PES agenda
Funding and enforcement
The 20 bn Euro funding per year is relatively under budgeted for the scale of the task, and will have to come from private as well as public funds
There is additionally a ‘significant proportion’ of the 25% EU budget on climate change to be spent on nature-based solutions. This allocation needs clearly elaborating, along with other funding instruments – including the Recovery Initiative.
The need to ensure full enforcement is also critical. Many areas in the Natura 2000 network have little or no appropriate protection. Poor management at local level and slow prosecution are a major problem – with Court action at EC level (ECJ) on infringements of environmental law often being a very slow process.
Another glaringly simple problem is key habitats such as old growth forest are still not directly identified as requiring protection – one reason among many why the EU Guidelines on the Management of Wilderness and Wild Areas now need a Stage II version.
Effective reform of the Arhus Convention, strengthening access to information and justice for NGOs and individual citizens, will be helpful.
A complete overhaul of the Environmental Impact Assessment procedure is also urgently needed.
Congratulations and cooperation
Subject to the above, the EU is to be warmly congratulated for advocating the visionary aims in its Biodiversity Strategy that are so critical for addressing the dual crises of climate change and species extinction.
For its part Wild Europe also looks forward to liaising closely with representatives from forestry and land user sectors – including CEPF, EUSTAFOR and EFI – in identifying common ground and ensuring benefit for local landholders and communities as well as conservation.
Wood bioenergy “undermines every aspect” of EU Green Deal
Wild Europe’s draft consultation report, Sound Science for Forests and Bioenergy, examines the impact of wood burning for bioenergy the eight key elements in the European Commission’s draft Green Deal, published on 11th December 2019.
All elements are significantly undermined, as outlined below.
Logging of 180 yr old beech forest inside Bükk National Park, Hungary (WWF Hungary)
Tarnishing the EU’s environmental image
The European Union has won global respect over the decades as an iconic standard bearer for good environmental practice.
This image is under a growing cloud as the Union continues to promote wood burning for bioenergy, despite its clear negative impacts on climate change, widespread destruction of biodiversity, inefficiency and huge expense.
Meanwhile further rapid growth is forecast, as international investors continue to take their cue from Europe’s example.
A Motion calling for improved policy and funding support for old growth/primary forest is now proceeding.
Based on the Protection Strategy from Wild Europe’s 2017 Brussels conference and associated consultations, the Motion for this Resolution was developed by Daniel Vallauri of WWF France. It is currently being discussed online: (https://www.iucncongress2020.org/motion/125).
The Motion will be proposed for adoption online in late March (online), or in June during the IUCN Congress in Marseilles. The resulting Resolution will provide a significant platform at the 2020 IUCN Marseille Congress for promoting stringent protection and extensive restoration across Europe.
ACTION: Please comment online, support – and forward this information to your networks. Deadline 11th of March!
Final stage for mapping wild France
Wild Europe signed an agreement on 31st January 2020 to fund the third and final stage of this initiative title “CARTNAT” to identify and map actual and potential wild and wilderness areas.
France: Mapping for a vision of true nature
The exercise is undertaken by IGN (Institut National de l’Information Géographique et Forestiere), Nantes University and the Wildland Research Institute at Leeds University
Phase 1 ending in October 2018 developed methodology appropriate to project objectives and geographic criteria.
Phase 2 ending in October 2019 mapped ten test sites, of which seven contain significant wild or even prospective wilderness areas. The remainder provided a context of different land uses.
Phase 3, now starting, will extend the exercise to remaining areas across France. Along with its partners IUCN France and WWF France, Wild Europe has provided funding for all three stages.
Give your views on wood bioenergy for an IUCN motion
Use of wood as bioenergy worsens climate change, is an expensive and inefficient form of energy generation and causes huge damage to forests across Europe and in the USA (see below).
Fighting for forests? IUCN Marseilles 2020
If you represent an IUCN member organisation or are a member of WCPA or any IUCN commission, you can comment on submitted motions for the IUCN 2020 Marseilles conference.
Motion # 038 ‘Promoting biodiversity preservation through energy transformation measures’
Representations could include (a) end subsidies for burning wood for bioenergy (b) burning wood is not carbon zero (c) safeguards are needed to protect forest biodiversity. If you have a chance to comment the document, please do so before 26 February (and encourage other allies eg. European Paper Network network to do so too).
ACTION: Log into the conference website using this procedure
Snapshots of the conference on wilderness and old-growth/primary forests in Bratislava
With the permission of attendees, this post includes a few images of the Conference on Wilderness and Old-Growth/Primary Forest in Bratislava on 20-21 November 2019.
Wood biomass workshop leaders Mary Booth (Director PPI, USA) and Professor Michael Norton (Director of the Environment Programme, European Academies of Science Advisory Council – EASAC) on day 1
The Griffith/FZS team on day 1 explains progress with old growth/primary forest protection, Francesco Sabatini (Humboldt University, Berlin), Zoltan Kun (Chair – Head of Conservation, Wild Europe), Martin Mikolas (Czech University of Life Sciences), Mary Booth (Director PPI, USA), Maike Bartels (Frankfurt Zoological Society) and Michael Brombacher (Head of Europe Department, Frankfurt Zoological Society)
Workshop on illegal logging led by David Gehl (European Director, Environmental Investigation Agency, white shirt in middle)
A framework for large-scale restoration explained by Kris Decleer , International Board, Society for Ecological Restoration)
President Zuzana Caputova and Ladislav Miko welcomed the participants
Model initiatives in the field: Lydie Doisy (Coordinator of PRELE, France), Manuel Schweiger (Programme Director Germany, Frankfurt Zoological Society), Sorin Banciu (Regional Forest Lead, WWF Central & East Europe), Professor Pavel Kindlmann (Director CzechGlobe Foundation), Eladio Fernandez Galliano (Former Head of Biodiversity Council of Europe)
Toby Aykroyd (Coordinator Wild Europe), Luc Bas (Director IUCN Regional Office for Europe), President Zuzana Caputova, and Ladislav Miko (Head of EU Representation in Slovakia, Chairman Wild Europe)
Michal Wiezik MEP (Slovakia) assessing options for a European Parliament resolution of old growth/primary forest
Overview: challenges and achievements in an era of climate change Luc Bas (Director IUCN Regional Office for Europe), Andreas Beckmann (Chief Executive WWF Central & East Europe), Harald Egerer (Chair – Head of UNEP Vienna Office and Carpathian Convention ), Toby Aykroyd (Coordinator Wild Europe)
Model initiatives in Slovakia for wider replication – Martin Mikolas (Czech University of Life Sciences), Professor Viliam Pichler (Forestry Faculty University of Zvolen, Slovakia), Michal Wiezik MEP (European Parliament Environment Committee) Ladislav Miko (Head of EU Representation Slovakia, Chairman Wild Europe)
Workshop on Rewilding Task Force: Steve Carver (Director Wildland Research Institute, Leeds University) explains the objectives
Zoltan Kun (Head of Conservation Wild Europe) leading the Griffith session on old growth/primary forest protection
New legal, enterprise and funding frameworks – provided by Bernhard Kohler (WWF Austria), Anastaysiya Bakteeva (Conservation Capital), Adam Eagle (Clifford Chance LLP) and Session Chair Viktoria Hasler (Federal Ministry for Sustainability & Tourism, Austria)
David Gehl (European Director, Environmental Investigation Agency), Stephanie Kalberer (Frankfurt Zoological Society), Becka la Moine MP (Sweden) with Bill Murphy – Session Chair (former Head of Environment & Recreation at Irish Forestry Agency) – promoting best practice in the wild
Launch of the European Wilderness Forum, facilitated by Adrian Hagatis (General Manager Romanian Wilderness Society), with Kaili Viilma (Environmental Board Estonia), Christoph Promberger (Director FCC, Carpathian Wilderness Reserve), Gernant Magnin – Chair (Wild Europe Executive Committee)
A question from Edita Vysna (European Parliament), with Anand Punja (Regional Director Europe, Forest Stewardship Council) ) and Lydia Agari (European Parliament)
Presentations of the conference on wilderness and old-growth forest, Day 2
Session 1. Model initiatives for the wild
Session Chair: Eladio Fernandez Galliano, Former Head of Biodiversity and Heritage, Council of Europe
Session 2. Launch of the European Wilderness Forum
Session Chair: Gernant Magnin, Wild Europe Executive Committee
Session 3. Natural habitats, ecosystem services and climate change: the need for sound science
Session Chair: Martin Mikolas, Forestry Faculty, Czech University of Life Sciences
Ecosystem services and climate change – why sound science must guide the New Green Deal and beyond Michael Norton, Director of the Environment Programme, European Academies of Science Advisory Council (EASAC)
Linking incentives to science: action for bioenergy in Europe – EU level and country model replication, Mary S Booth, Director, Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) USA
Session 4. Promoting best practice in the wild
Session Chair: Bill Murphy, former Head of Environment and Recreation, Coillte Irish Forestry Agency
Session 8. European policy & practice – the wider impact
Session Chair: Andreas Beckmann, Chief Executive, WWF Central & East Europe
The New Green Deal and the global impact of Europe, Katja Garson, FERN (video conference)
European linkage with key international instruments, (UN Decade for Restoration, CBD) – the Carpathian Convention and UNEP, Harald Egerer, Head of the UN Environment Programme Vienna Office Head of the Carpathian Convention
Updating key instruments: Stage II of Management Guidelines for N2000 wilderness, and the Wilderness Register, Steve Carver, Director Wildland Research Institute (Leeds University), Co-Chair IUCN Rewilding Task Force
Closing session: Implementing and communicating the Action Plan for wilderness and old growth/ primary forest in Europe
Session Chair: Ladislav Miko, Head of EU Representation in Slovakia, Chairman, Wild Europe
