Ref. Ares(2022)5578775 - 04/08/2022
Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans
Meeting with CEI-BOIS & CEPI
Video-call, 24 June 2022
CEI-BOIS (470333818389-37) + EOS (024776016336-52)
Elena Montani (CAB-Sinkevicius)
) expressed worries about the possible shortage of wood
and the fact that the Commission has not impact assessed this. Requested to
transmit this information to the EP.
There is a shortage of 10 million M3 of wood. Harvesting rates are decreasing
and projected to decrease by 60% by 2025, leading to higher prices on the
market. Despite this, the Commission put forward ambitious env
agenda without impact assessing the consequences for the sector, composed
primarily of SMEs
) asked for some clarifications: there is a requirement in
NRL not just to restore but also to ensure the non-deterioration and
continuous improvement (art 4). In NR Plans MS must be specific on the
measures to adopt. Forest cycles are long so result can only be seen after
years, how will MS be able to prove the improving trends, or is protection the
most likely outcome?
CAB EVP (
- As committed in the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, the nature
restoration proposal will cover all ecosystems, not just Natura 2000 network.
- Impact assessment that the proposal will be based on is thorough and
has been scrutinised by the Commission’s Regulatory Scrutiny Board. As for
those restoration areas where Member States will be given significant
flexibilities, certain impacts will become clear only once Member States will
have decided, which areas to cover and which measures to take.
- While there is the urgency to act, the targets can be expected to be set only
in 2030, 2040 and 2050 perspective because Member States will need time to
develop nature restoration plans and restoration is a longer term process.
Hence, references to the current situation in Europe and Putin’s terrible war
against Ukraine are not relevant.
-Restoration does not equal protection. While also the ecological condition in
protected areas will have to significantly improve, restoration is not the same
as protection and it should not be seen as incompatible with socio-economic
activities. Instead, it is about living and producing better with nature.
-Regarding wood availability, science is increasingly clear that if we do not
improve forest biodiversity and ecosystem condition, we further weaken
forest resilience and risk not only ecological but also socio-economic
functions of forests, including forests’ capacity to provide wood. We
therefore count also on the forestry sector to be strong supporters of the
nature restoration law proposal.
CAB Sinkevicius (
We have a 600 pages IA which looked into all relevant aspects
Subsidiarity is very clear – new article on ecosystem not covered by legislation
we want nature to be back - this is the EGD message
Governance of proposal very important, first time we ask for restoration
plans, MS will have strong flexibility on which land to target and how to
achieve the targets
The IM shows that restoration does not in general reduce productivity but it
may imply some changes of management (closer to nature forestry or more
sustainable approached – this also makes forests more resilient. NR plans are
the way to cater for new practices to come in and MS have to plan for this,
and have ample funding instruments available for them to do this.
EOS complained in 2020 that wood prices were too low, now that they are
too high. The legislation can create conditions for improving forest resilience,
cannot replace the market
We do not necessarily ask for measures – we did not complain about low
prices, we just say there is a change in wood availability