Chapter 29. Central Europe

Figure 29-1. Central Europe: forest cover map

The 15 countries comprising this subregion are Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Switzerland and the United Kingdom[44] (Figure 29-1). All are industrially advanced countries and are important per capita users of wood products. Most are net importers of wood products, the exceptions being Austria, the Czech Republic and Poland, which are net exporters. The climate in the subregion is temperate, generally moist and cool; it is influenced by the Atlantic Ocean to the west, but becoming increasingly continental with hard winters to the east, and Mediterranean with hot dry summers in the southern part of France. France, Germany and Poland are the largest countries, accounting for three-fifths of the total land area of the group of 196 million hectares. Germany, the United Kingdom and France are the most densely populated.

FOREST RESOURCES

About one-quarter of the land area, 52 million hectares, is covered with forest, while a further 2.2 million hectares are classed as other wooded land, of which the largest part is in France. France, Germany and Poland account for two-thirds of the forest land in the subregion, France alone for 30 percent.

Until the arrival of humans, forest covered a large part of the land area, and temperate broad-leaved species made up most of the natural forest cover in the subregion. In past centuries, much of that cover has been removed to make way for agriculture and other land uses, and nearly all the remaining forest has been disturbed or modified, mostly by being brought under management. Today, there are only scattered remnants of forest undisturbed by humans; it is estimated that there are less than a quarter of a million hectares of such forest in the subregion, the largest area being in Poland (144 000 ha). Most of the forest is classed as semi-natural forest which, together with forest undisturbed by humans, makes up the total area of natural forest of 47.8 million hectares (Table 29-1). It should be noted that the term "natural" forest as used in this report refers, so far as the industrialized temperate and boreal countries are concerned, to all forest that is not put under the heading of plantations. In the case of central Europe, this means that more than 90 percent of all forests are classed here as natural (Figure 29-2). There is an area of 4.1 million hectares of plantations, the largest areas being in the United Kingdom, France and Ireland. In many countries there are large areas of semi-natural forest (included in natural forest in the present document) that started out as plantations but have lost their plantation-like appearance as they have matured.

Table 29-1. Central Europe: forest resources and management

Country/area	Land area	Forest area 2000					Area change 1990-2000 (total forest)		Volume and above-ground biomass (total forest)		Forest under management plan
		Natural forest	Forest plantation	Total forest
	000 ha	000 ha	000 ha	000 ha	%	ha/ capita	000 ha/ year	%	m3/ha	t/ha	000 ha	%
Austria	8 273	3 886		3 886	47.0	0.5	8	0.2	286	250	3 886	100
Belgium and Luxembourg	3 282	728		728	22.2	0.1	-1	-0.2	218	101	656	90
Czech Republic	7 728	2 632		2 632	34.1	0.3	1	n.s.	260	125	2 632	100
Denmark	4 243	114	341	455	10.7	0.1	1	0.2	124	58	455	100
France	55 010	14 380	961	15 341	27.9	0.3	62	0.4	191	92	15 341	100
Germany	34 927	10 740		10 740	30.7	0.1	n.s.	n.s.	268	134	10 740	100
Hungary	9 234	1 704	136	1 840	19.9	0.2	7	0.4	174	112	1 840	100
Ireland	6 889	69	590	659	9.6	0.2	17	3.0	74	25	551	84
Liechtenstein	15	7		7	46.7	0.2	n.s.	1.2	254	119	7	100
Netherlands	3 392	275	100	375	11.1	n.s.	1	0.3	160	107	375	100
Poland	30 442	9 008	39	9 047	29.7	0.2	18	0.2	213	94	9 047	100
Slovakia	4 808	2 162	15	2 177	45.3	0.4	18	0.9	253	142	1 988	91
Switzerland	3 955	1 195	4	1 199	30.3	0.2	4	0.4	337	165	1 153	96
United Kingdom	24 160	866	1 928	2 794	11.6	n.s.	17	0.6	128	76	2 319	83
Total Central Europe	196 358	47 766	4 114	51 880	26.4	0.2	152	0.3	222	117	50 990	98
Total Europe	2 259 957	1 007 236	32 015	1 039 251	46.0	1.4	881	0.1	112	59	954 707	92
TOTAL WORLD	13 063 900	3 682 722	186 733	3 869 455	29.6	0.6	-9 391	-0.2	100	109	-	-

Source: Appendix 3, Tables 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9.
Note: Belgium and Luxembourg are reported together, as they are in SOFO 2001.

There is a wide diversity of forest types in the subregion, epitomized by France. Over the western and central parts of the country, broad-leaved forests predominate with beech (Fagus sylvatica) and oak (Quercus spp.) the most common species. To the east and in the mountainous areas of the Alps and the Pyrenees, conifers are the main species, notably spruce and fir, often mixed with beech, while in the southwest (Les Landes) there is the largest area of human-made coniferous forest in Europe, consisting of maritime pine (Pinus pinaster). To the south there is Mediterranean-type vegetation with pines and oaks as well as considerable areas of maquis and scrub. Coppice and coppice with standards are a common feature in many parts of the country and account for nearly half the total forest area. The active programme of reforestation (partly to replace coppice) and afforestation has included the use of certain exotic species, notably Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga spp.), as well as poplars (Populus spp.).

The composition of Germany's forests has been heavily influenced by management practices over the past two centuries, which emphasized the use of coniferous species in replanting. Today, more than half the forest area is predominantly coniferous, with a further fifth mixed coniferous/broad-leaved. Two thirds of the growing stock volume is coniferous. The forests are concentrated in the southern, central and eastern parts of the country, with relatively little on the northern plain. The main coniferous species are Norway spruce and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris), and beech and oak the commonest broad-leaved species. The average volume of growing stock per hectare in Germany, as in other countries in central Europe, is very high, as is the net annual increment per hectare.

Austria and Switzerland share some of the same forestry features as Germany, including a preponderance of coniferous species: in Austria 88 percent of the forest area area is predominantly coniferous or mixed coniferous/broad-leaved species; in Switzerland the proportion is 77 percent. Much of their forest area is mountainous, which influences the species composition in favour of coniferous, as well as the functions of the forest. Protection against avalanches and landslides is of considerable importance in these countries. The volume of growing stock per hectare in Switzerland and Austria is the highest and second highest in Europe, exceeding 300 m³ per hectare. Wood production is particularly important in Austria, which is the only major net exporter of wood products in the subregion (Poland and the Czech Republic are also small net exporters).

Two thirds of Poland's forest area is predominantly coniferous, with a further fifth mixed coniferous/broad-leaved. Scots pine is the main coniferous species, and oak the main broad-leaved species. Most of Poland's forests are classed as semi-natural but, as mentioned earlier, there are 144 000 ha of forest undisturbed by humans and an even larger area of forest not available for wood supply for conservation reasons or under some form of protection. In the Czech Republic, over half of the forest area is mixed coniferous/broad-leaved, although as much as four fifths of the growing stock volume consists of coniferous species. Norway spruce is the most important, with European larch and Scots pine, while beech is the commonest broad-leaved species. All forest is classed as semi-natural and nearly all is available for wood supply; only a small area is not available for conservation reasons.

Figure 29-2. Central Europe: natural forest and forest plantation areas 2000 and net area changes 1990-2000

Broad-leaved species predominate in Slovakia and Hungary; in the latter country they account for nearly nine tenths of the forest area, one of the highest proportions in the temperate and boreal regions. Beech and oak are the main broad-leaved species in Slovakia (and Norway spruce, silver fir and pines among the coniferous species), while in Hungary black locust and poplars are also very important. Young stands are over represented in that country as a result of reforestation and afforestation and short rotations for some species.

Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg and the Netherlands are relatively lightly forested, apart from the Ardennes hills region of Belgium and Luxembourg. In Denmark and the Netherlands, forest cover is not much more than one-tenth. In the Netherlands, with its very dense population, the area of forest per capita, 0.02 ha, is the lowest in Europe. The forest area and growing stock volume in these countries is divided in roughly equal parts between broad-leaved and coniferous species, the main species being oak, beech and Norway spruce, with other species included in reforestation and afforestation programmes such as poplars, pines and Douglas fir.

Ireland and the United Kingdom are the two countries in the subregion, and indeed in Europe, with the highest proportion of plantations in their total forest area, with 90 percent and 69 percent, respectively. Until recently, the bulk of planting was of coniferous species, notably Sitka and Norway spruce, but also several other species such as pines, larches and Douglas fir. As a result the share of conifers (including mixed coniferous/broad-leaved species) in the total forest area has increased considerably over the past 80 years or so, reaching 86 percent in Ireland and 68 percent in the United Kingdom by the end of the twentieth century. Over the same period, afforestation raised the level of forest cover from a very low level to around one-tenth, still low by average European standards.

In the subregion as a whole, the area of forest increased during the 1990s by about 150 000 ha, or 0.3 percent a year. The largest area expansion was in France, with 62 000 ha, but there were appreciable increases also in Germany, Ireland, Poland, Slovakia and the United Kingdom. The fastest growth was in Ireland with 3 percent per annum. The area increases shown in Table 29-1 are net changes after allowing for loss of forest to other land uses, notably urbanization and communications infrastructure. Increases in the area of forest were mainly a result of afforestation (planting) and the conversion of other wooded land to forest, although in a few countries, notably France, natural colonization of non-forest land, mostly abandoned agricultural land, occurred.

While the environmental and social functions of the forest in all countries of the subregion have increased in absolute and relative importance in recent decades, wood production remains, and is likely to remain in the foreseeable future in most areas, the single most important function. Exceptions to this generalization include the Netherlands, parts of Denmark and the United Kingdom, areas with high population density where the recreation and nature conservancy uses of the forest are particularly important. Wood removals in the late 1990s from forest available for wood supply, which accounted for the bulk of the total, amounted to 156 million cubic metres under bark, with France, Germany, Poland and Austria the largest producers. After including the volume of bark on the felled wood and the volume of unrecovered fellings (harvesting losses), the equivalent volume of fellings was about 217 million cubic metres over bark. That volume may be compared with the annual volume of growth as measured by net annual increment (NAI), in order to obtain an idea of the net change in growing stock. The volume of NAI on forest available for wood supply, as reported by the countries in the subregion, was 366 million cubic metres over bark in the late 1990s. Accordingly, fellings were only about 59 percent of NAI, resulting in an appreciable expansion in the volume of growing stock. This is a phenomenon that has been occurring over several decades and is common to all the constituent countries. The fellings per NAI percentage or ratio is not, by itself, a reliable indication of the potential to increase fellings or of the sustainability of the forest resource, especially where the age-class structure of the forest is oriented towards less mature stands, as in Hungary, Ireland and the United Kingdom. There could also be environmental and practical reasons why it is unlikely that fellings could be raised to the level of NAI on a sustainable basis. Nevertheless, there could be scope in most of the countries to expand wood production without any risk of straining the sustainability of the forest resource.

FOREST MANAGEMENT AND USES

All the countries in central Europe provided national-level information on the forest area managed (Table 29-1), applying the definition used by industrialized countries - i.e. forests managed in accordance with a formal or an informal plan applied regularly over a sufficiently long period (five years or more) and including areas where a decision had been taken not to undertake any management interventions. The reported figures ranged from 83 percent of the total forest area in 2000 (United Kingdom) to 100 percent in most countries. In total, approximately 51 million hectares, or 98 percent of the total forest area in central Europe, were reported as being managed in accordance with a formal or informal plan.

Among the countries in the subregion there are three main types of forest ownership: by the State, by other public bodies such as communes and municipalities and by private individuals. Other types exist, for example by private institutions and corporations and by forest industries, but these are less important. The pattern of ownership varies from country to country as a result of historical, political and social influences, but on average in the subregion the ownership distribution is: by the State 36 percent; by other public bodies 13 percent; by private individuals 43 percent; by others 8 percent. These proportions refer to the ownership of forest available for wood supply, which in the countries of the subregion accounts for most of the forest area. Countries where ownership by the State accounts for the major share include Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary (81, 71 and 63 percent, respectively), which with Slovakia (43 percent) were formerly centrally planned economies but are in transition to forms of market economy and part of whose forest estates are in the process of privatization or restitution. The shares of State forest are likely to continue to fall in these countries. Of the other countries, only Ireland has the larger part of its forests in State ownership (66 percent), while in the United Kingdom it is also important (42 percent). In both these countries, the State acquired land for its afforestation programmes, although during the 1990s some State forests were sold back to the private sector. In Germany, the State owns 33 percent of forest available for wood supply, the relatively high figure being explained by total State ownership in the eastern Länder dating from the time before reunification. In other countries, the State generally owns a modest share of the forest estate.

In several countries, communes, municipalities and other public bodies other than the State are important forest owners, notably in Belgium, France, Germany, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg and Switzerland. In Switzerland, the share of total ownership is as high as 65 percent. The biggest areas of forest available for wood supply owned by public bodies other than the State are in France and Germany, with 2.3 million and 2.0 million hectares, respectively.

The highest proportions of forest available for wood supply owned by private individuals are found in Austria and France, with 69 and 62 percent, respectively, but this type of ownership is also important in Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Ireland and the United Kingdom. In many cases, forest ownership is linked with farming and the owners live near to the forest and derive part of their income from it. There has been a trend in some countries, however, partly associated with the population drift from the countryside to towns, towards an increasing share of absentee ownership, sometimes resulting in neglect of their forest properties. The number of private forest owners in the subregion runs into the millions - more than three and a half million in France alone - and the average size of privately owned forests is small, probably less than 5 ha. This complicates the problems of organizing efficient management and achieving profitability of forest operations, although on many of the smaller properties commercial wood production is not the most important function.

There are substantial areas of forest by private institutions or corporations in France, as well as in Hungary, the Netherlands, Slovakia and the United Kingdom. In the case of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, a feature in recent years has been the acquisition of forest (and other land) by nature conservancy organizations to be managed as wildlife habitats, nature reserves, etc. In Hungary, cooperatives have been formed to manage forest on behalf of private owners, while there and in Slovakia areas still in the process of restitution have been included in the "other private ownership" category. The only country in the subregion with forest owned by forest industries is the United Kingdom where, however, the area is small.

The type of ownership, and more particularly the size of holdings, provide an indication of the intensity of forest management. The data for "forest under management plan" in Table 29-1 are based on information provided by countries on areas managed in accordance with a formal or an informal plan applied regularly over a sufficiently long period. Furthermore, a decision not to manage an area at all, for example to preserve it as a wilderness area or nature reserve, also qualified it as being managed. Although the Table shows for several of the countries that most or all of their forest is managed, it does not give an indication of how much of the area is being satisfactorily managed. In the past, management was usually directed primarily towards wood production, but this has been shifting towards a multifunction approach, with increasing emphasis on non-wood goods and services. As a generalization, it may be said that the quality of management is good or at least adequate on practically all publicly owned forest and most of the larger private forests, whether owned by individuals or institutions or corporations. As mentioned above, providing good management on smaller properties is more problematic, except where they can be grouped into some kind of cooperative.

CONCLUSIONS AND ISSUES

The foregoing has pointed to a number of issues with important policy implications. One concerns the need to adapt management and silviculture to the changing pattern of demands by society on the forest, notably the increasing emphasis on the environmental and social functions, and the actual or potential impact on the "traditional" wood supply function. The countries of the subregion are mostly densely populated and largely urbanized and have high standards of living; their needs for benefits from the countryside are increasingly diverse, both material and other. Many of them have well-developed forest industries which will continue to depend on roundwood supplies from the forest. However, industry will increasingly use other raw materials, such as waste paper and industrial residues. It will be a major challenge to maintain the economic viability of the forest sector, while at the same time ensuring that it provides the non-market goods and services that are increasingly in demand.

One type of pressure faced by all countries is to remove a greater part of their forest resource from wood production for environmental protection reasons, especially for the preservation of biodiversity - the protection of rare species of fauna and flora. Targets have been set in some countries of the proportion of forest to be classed in this way. Another development has been to adapt silvicultural practices to enhance biodiversity and sustainability, for example to transform coniferous monocultures to stands with a range of species, notably by the introduction of broadleaves. These and other measures, for instance the lengthening of rotations, will take a long time to achieve but may eventually have an impact on the quantity of wood harvested, although it is very difficult to assess how great an impact.

Since UNCED in 1992 and the Second Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, held in Helsinki in 1993, all European countries, not least those in the subregion, have been giving increased attention to ensuring that their forests are managed according to the principles of sustainable forest management. Several international and national schemes have been introduced to allow owners, both public and private, to certify that their forests are managed in accordance with the principles of sustainable forest management and that the products passing along the chain of custody through the forest industries, trade and commerce to the final consumer come from such forests. The extent to which certification has been embraced by forest owners in the subregion has varied from country to country and among the different classes of owner. The likely cost of certification and doubts about its benefits have often inhibited smaller private owners from adopting it.

The countries in the eastern part of the subregion, in transition towards market economies, inherited generally well-managed forests from the previous regimes, but often dilapidated forest industries and infrastructure. They face enormous tasks of modernizing industry and institutions, as well as of privatization and restitution. Among the problems they face are that of raising the living standards of their populations towards the European average while carrying out the necessary measures to improve environmental quality, which had often been neglected by the previous regimes. Privatization of forests, while politically and socially justified, has brought certain problems in its wake, such as how to ensure the continuation of acceptable levels of sustainable management, of environmental protection and access by the public.

Grave concerns arose during the 1980s and 1990s about the health condition of the forests in the subregion, especially the impact of air pollution. An increasing proportion of both conifers and broadleaves were observed to be suffering loss of foliage, while the number of dead and dying trees rose. Further research seemed to show, however, that air pollution by itself was the cause of tree mortality only in extreme cases and that probably it was a combination of causes, including climatic conditions and past silvicultural practices, for example the establishment of stands of species outside their natural range, that was resulting in loss of vitality, with air pollution an important contributory factor. Other health concerns were the decimation of the elm (Ulmus spp.) population in the subregion as a result of the accidental importation of a particularly virulent virus from North America, and a widespread decline in the health of oaks. Several heavy storms within a relatively short period, the latest at the end of 1999, caused severe damage to forests. This raised the question of whether there might be a link with possible changes in climate and the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Whether or not such a link exists, the possible role of forests as a sink for carbon dioxide has entered policy debates. For example, the extensive establishment of new plantations has come under consideration, although the relative shortage of suitable land in the subregion would probably limit the possibilities for countries to contribute in more than a minor way to such an initiative.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

UNECE/FAO. 2000. Forest resources of Europe, CIS, North America, Australia, Japan and New Zealand: contribution to the global Forest Resources Assessment 2000. Geneva Timber and Forest Study Papers 17. New York and Geneva, United Nations.
www.unece.org/trade/timber/fra/pdf/contents.htm