1. Qualitative Indicators MCPFE Report “State of Forests and SFM in Europe 2007” Meeting of the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on “Monitoring forest resources for SFM in the UNECE Region” (Rome, FAO/UNECE, 6 July 2007) Olga Zyrina, Roman Michalak/ LU Warsaw

2. Data collection Sent on December 5, 2006 30 replies received (out of 46 MCPFE countries) 2 countries declared their intention to provide replies later, but they will not be included into the MCPFE report MCPFE Enquiry on the - Implementation of the MCPFE Commitments 2007 and - Reporting on the MCPFE Qualitative Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management

3. Countries responded (30) Austria Belarus Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania Netherlands Norway Poland Romania Russian Federation Slovak Republic Slovenia Sweden Switzerland Ukraine United Kingdom 30 countries => 94,1% of forest area within MCPFE

4. MCPFE Report Questions Base Implementation report MCPFE Resolutions (measures used?) -Vienna 2003 -Lisbon 1998, Helsinki 1993, Strasbourg 1990 State of Forests report (Qualitative part) -MCPFE Criteria & Indicators

5. Enquiry structure A. Overall policies, institutions and instruments for SFM A.1 National forest programmes or similar A.2 Institutional frameworks A.3 Legal/regulatory frameworks and international commitments A.4 Financial instruments/economic policy A.5 Informational means (According to the format of indicators)

6. B. Policies, institutions and instruments by policy area B.1 Land use and forest area and OWL2 B.2 Carbon balance B.3 Health and vitality B.4 Production and use of wood B.5 Production and use of non-wood goods and services, provision of especially recreation B.6 Biodiversity B.7 Protective forests and OWL B.8 Economic viability B.9 Employment (incl. safety and health) B.10 Public awareness and participation B.11 Research, training and education B.12 Cultural and spiritual values Enquiry structure (cont.)

7. Internet Database

8. QL

9. A. Overall policies, institutions and instruments for SFM

10. B. Policies, institutions and instruments by policy area

11. Replies received (within 30 countries) Overall policies and institutions (A) – 87.1% By policy area (B) – 83.7% Measures used for implementation – 79.1%

12. % Replies received (A) (within 30 countries)

13. % Replies received (B) (within 30 countries)

14. Comments, concerns Such QL enquiry was done for the 1 st time Data verification possibilities were limited due to this Countries reported problems with limited human and time resources for report preparation, and also complexity and large volume of the report

15. Comments, concerns (cont.) Question understanding varied – difficulties in summarizing -List of precise definitions -Examples of replies

16. Future work From January 2008, MCPFE Liaison Unit will move to Norway, which will continue coordinating work on -MCPFE reports (SFM and Implementation) MCPFE enquiry Internet database

17. Thank you!