WIXLIB

iiiQ3 Forest industries labour market and employment, as well as the domestic andinternational demands for forest products and services.The rapid and unexpected change in the timber market, exacerbated in some countries by severesalvage felling of fire and insect damaged timber, forced changes in the harvesting and processingsectors in particular. This has been amplified by a severe drop in demand for construction timber inmany but not all countries in the region. In most cases, government fiscal support measurescushioned the impact but companies with a niche focus and processors with hard to adaptconversion chains experienced the most difficulty. A number of countries noted a reduction indemand for construction timber that was partially balanced by much increased demand for DIYtimber and other domestic uses; this may change with the second wave in winter in Europe.Because of the second wave of Covid‐19 now affecting most of the region, it is impossible to foreseehow quickly economies will bounce back and most respondents indicated that at least some of thechanges were likely to be permanent as there are strong indications that overall working patternswill change with more home‐working and less commuting to centralised offices. The severe impacton the hospitality sector linked to forest recreation is noted above.Q4Access to forest financing and investment, and public spending on forests.All governments in countries in the region set up financial support systems for employees and self‐employed people together with a range of business support grants and similar instruments fromwhich the forest sector benefitted as did the country as a whole. Many commented that lockdownstimulated increased use of the recreational opportunities offered by forests and that this had led toimproved awareness of service values.No country reported serious change to public investment in forests as a result of the initial response.However, several expressed concern that the currently unknown impact of the second wave and theresulting economic recession could lead to reduced availability of financing as part of a generalreduction in the capacity of public finance. Urgent demands from more badly affected sectors andpossibly from rising unemployment could worsen this. The specific country pictures vary but in nonewas it particularly clear at this point in time.A number of countries suggested that economic stringencies could lead to pressure on developmentassistance financing for forests. While forests and forestry are often a relatively low priority fordevelopment assistance compared with sectors such as health and education, which are likely tohave pressing needs, there is some positivity in that trees and forests have an important role to playin climate change responses. This is the other serious global issue, which has not disappearedalthough Covid‐19 has tended to suppress its prominence in the immediate term.Q5 Forest sector, international institutional capacity at the regional, sub‐regional, andnational and subnational levels.All countries in the region have well‐established, well‐staffed and adequately resourced institutionsthat are, consequently, robust and reasonably resilient. None felt any need to make significantchanges to policies or strategies beyond noting the lesson from the pandemic for risk assessmentsand all felt that existing systems were largely adequate with no major revision or updating required.Although all countries had quickly adapted to increased use of virtual meetings, which were anywayalready in use prior to Covid‐19, they equally recognised the limitations of virtual meetings in thelonger term. The lack of social contact in such meetings does make resolution of complex anddifficult issues more challenging and larger meetings tend to restrict engagement of all attendees;these points were widely noted. Most expected that physical meetings would return reasonably soonwhile also valuing the reduced travel time and cost that virtual meetings offer. The future balance islikely to change from the past to include more virtual meetings where these are appropriate.

ivQ6International and regional cooperation on forests and forestry issues.This element, which was mentioned by nearly all countries, has been most severely impacted byCovid‐19 and the resulting restrictions that the response to the pandemic incurred. The general viewwas that in the short term there were advantages in that the virtual meetings enabled more peopleto engage in meetings at much lower cost but that in the long term, the limitations of virtualmeetings to deal with complex and difficult issues would more than counter the benefits.Much will depend on how quickly regional and international travel becomes possible but mostcountries recognised that there is likely to be a step‐change with more use of virtual meetings as ameans of exchanging information at lower cost. This will not, however, obviate completely the needfor some physical meetings to deal with more complex and difficult issues.Q7 Emerging opportunities (if any) that Covid‐19 has brought to the fore and potentialresponses and measures for the forest sector’s recovery and enhanced contribution of foreststo inclusive SFM.Notwithstanding the sad loss of life and the continued ill‐health of some survivors due to Covid‐19,the pandemic has also given rise to some positives. Within the WEOG region it has proven that forestinstitutions and systems are generally robust and able to deal quickly and effectively withunexpected shocks. There will inevitably be some causalities in terms of job losses and the need toreframe businesses but these have been partially insulated by strong and very quick governmentresponses although these were economy wide and not sector specific. In light of the severe, secondwave of Covid‐19 experienced in Western Europe and the imminence of national vaccinationprogrammes, it would be useful to do a follow up study in 12 to 18 months’ time.There has been little impact on SFM of the resource base. The increased recreational use of theforest in many countries may have raised both its profile and appreciation of its value, even if thehospitality sector that serves those partaking of recreation opportunities has been badly hit. Theforest industry sector has had to adapt to changing demand, which while it may have led to shortterm difficulties has also emphasised the need for flexibility and shown the potential weaknesses ofcomplex global supply chains and just‐in‐time purchasing. In this sense, it is perhaps a wake‐up callfor improved risk assessment and the need for flexibility and diversification.Although there are significant differences in terms of the forest cover and the way it is used betweenthe countries that make up the WEOG group, all ascribe a high value to forest services, even if theseare not priced, as well as to forest products. Covid‐19 has probably raised the profile of service valuesand, depending on how the second wave of Covid‐19 plays out and the efficacy of nationalvaccination programmes, the overall impact may not be very large. Although climate change is amuch slower acting risk, it is also less amenable to rapid solution than a pandemic and there is anopportunity to learn from the pandemic to assist in raising awareness of and attention to climatechange.Although many countries noted that the economic recession caused by Covid‐19 had raised thepolitical profile of moving to a green economy as a response, this has not yet been translated intoconcrete commitments. Although it is the greatest opportunity to arise from the pandemic, it ispossible that short term economic priorities may limit the scope and extent of a green transition; theemergence of the more transmissible mutation of Covid‐19 has, at the very least, muddied thewaters around such initiatives. There are clearly immediate possibilities for positive change arisingfrom Covid‐19, for example increased use of virtual meetings and technologies such as drones forforest inspection but the most important is to harness lessons that can be applied to a globalresponse to climate change.

vAcronyms and AbbreviationsCPDContinuing Professional DevelopmentECDCEuropean Centre for Disease Prevention and ControlGDPGross Domestic ProductGNIGross National IncomeODAOfficial Development AssistanceOECDOrganisation for Economic Co‐operation and DevelopmentPPPPurchasing Power ParitySFMSustainable Forest ManagementUK ICFUK Institute of Chartered ForestersUNECEUnited Nations Economic Commission for EuropeUNFFUnited Nations Forum on ForestsUNFFSUnited Nations Forum on Forests SecretariatWEOGWestern Europe and other States Group

11IntroductionForests cover around a third of the world’s terrestrial surface and are critically important forhuman well‐being. Diverse systems of forest resource use have evolved over time and today directlyand indirectly support the livelihoods of billions of people around the world (Winkel et al. 2019).Given the differences in forest types and socio‐economic settings, many of these resource usesystems may have little in common on a regular basis, but the Covid‐19 pandemic, in a tragic way,has created a common ground.At the time of writing (December 2020), there have been over 60 million confirmed cases ofCovid‐19 and the pandemic has claimed the lives of almost one and a half million people globally(WHO 2020). Apart from the direct health implications of the disease, the response measures takento slow the spread of the virus have resulted in enormous disruptions to global economic systems,supply chains, and peoples’ livelihoods.With forests forming a major life‐supporting global ecosystem, it is of great importance tounderstand how forest use and management changed as consequence of the Covid‐19 pandemic andthe measures taken to halt its spread. Looking forward, there is need to consider how efforts toreduce deforestation and forest degradation that disrupt natural equilibria in forest ecosystems canbecome part of short‐ and longer‐term recovery packages. This is particularly relevant for future riskprevention strategies, given that biodiversity destruction is a main reason for zoonosis outbreaks andseveral zoonoses can be traced back to forests (Olivero et al. 2017; Karesh et al. 2012; Wertz‐Kanounnikoff and Rodina 2020; OECD 2020).In response to these needs, Members of the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF)mandated the UNFF Secretariat to compile an initial assessment of the impacts of Covid‐19 onforests and the forest sector through the omnibus resolution during its fifteenth session on 30 June2020. The aim is to compile an initial assessment of the impact of the Covid‐19 pandemic on: (i)sustainable forest management; (ii) the forest sector, forest dependent people, indigenous peoplesand local communities; and (iii) forest financing. In fulfilling this mandate, the UNFFS involved severalconsultants to collect the initial information for this assessment in various regions.The geographical focus of this report is ‘Western Europe and Others Group (WEOG), excludingthe USA and Canada, for which a separate assessment is being conducted. The pandemic hasfollowed a similar trend in the 27 WEOG countries (see Figure 1). After the initial outbreak in theEuropean spring 2020, the number of daily new confirmed cases decreased over summer but therehas been a second wave in many countries since the beginning of autumn. To set the stage for theassessment of Covid‐19 impacts on forests in the WEOG, the sections below review pre‐Covid‐19data on selected dimensions of SFM, the forest sector and forest financing.

2Daily new confirmed Covid‐19 cases per million people in WEOG countries, excludingCanada & USASource: https://ourworldindata.org (7 day rolling average)1.1Forest cover and protected areasThe WEOG countries have avery diverse forest cover, withnearly 74% in Finland and only2% in Iceland (see Figure 2).The countries in the WEOGregion (excluding Canada andUSA) are: Andorra, Australia,Austria, Belgium, Denmark,Finland, France, Germany,Greece, Iceland, Ireland,Israel, Italy, Liechtenstein,Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco,Netherlands, New Zealand,Norway, Portugal, San Marino,Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,Turkey, United Kingdom ofGreat Britain and NorthernIreland.(This list of WEOG members is based onthe relevant UN regional grouping ofcountries)Forest cover among the WEOG countries

3Conservation is an integral part of sustainable forest management. Among the WEOGcountries, the share of forest area located within legally established protected areas appears toincrease with forest cover. However, there are outliers such as the Netherlands with a comparativelylow forest cover but high share of protected forests and Nordic countries such as Sweden andFinland with high forest cover but comparatively low shares of protected forests.Share of protected forest areas and forest cover1.2Forest sectorThe countries in the WEOG are among the world’s wealthiest in terms of GNI per capita usingboth the Atlas and PPP methods. While forest cover varies widely within the group, from 2% inIceland to 74% in Finland, the contribution of the forest sector to GDP has been declining since 1990(FAO 2020a), (FAO, 2014). It is only in Austria, Finland, Liechtenstein and Sweden where employmentin the forest sector is 1.5% or more of the national total employment and only in Austria, Finland,New Zealand and Sweden does it contribute more than 1.5% to GDP. Although the figures are higherwhen looking at the percentage contribution to agricultural and manufacturing GDP, the pattern isthat these same four countries are outliers with higher percentages (FAO, 2014).In absolute terms, the number of people finding employment in the forestry sector variesgreatly between the countries, ranging from more than 40,000 in Portugal, Turkey, Italy andGermany, to less than 1,000 in Switzerland and Iceland (Forest Europe/UNECE/FAO 2016). It isimportant to note that in Western Europe, 69% of forest is privately owned (FAO, 2015), including bynumerous small forest owners, who may also be farmers and undertake forest work in the wintermonths when the demand for agricultural work is less. Historically, as mobility was often restrictedduring this season, this was a valuable mechanism for capitalising the value of labour.Direct consumption of forest products is very limited across all countries in the region. Inrecent decades, nearly all have moved to an increased focus on service values in parallel withproduction, even where the latter may be a primary goal. While the service values themselves, suchas amenity and landscape, may be free at the point of delivery, they have supported active growth inthe service sector, such as hotels, campsites, refreshment facilities and specialist guidance, that caterto users of these values.

4The number of student graduations in forest‐related education appear to reflect theemployment opportunities in the forest sector. Italy, Spain, Turkey, Germany and Finland had morethan 1,000 students annually (FAO 2020a). Between 100 and 400 graduations are reported forAustralia, Netherlands, Austria, Denmark, United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Belgium. All othercountries either reported fewer annual graduations or did not provide data.Several of the WEOG countries are home to indigenous peoples. Given the lack of a unanimousunderstanding or definition of the term indigenous peoples, it is difficult to find data that explicitlydescribe indigenous people in view of the forest sector. Generally, it is however well‐acknowledgedthat indigenous peoples are the custodians of some of the world’s most biodiverse regions (UN DESA2009). From a financial perspective, forest enterprises run by indigenous peoples and lacking accessto capital markets are among the hardest hit by the pandemic in the forest sector (Lang et al. 2020).1.3Development assistance to forest financingData on ODA flows to the forestry sector are provided by OECD for most of the WEOGcountries. Although there can be substantial variation in spending amounts across years, Norway,Germany, Finland, France and the United Kingdom have provided the largest volumes of forestryspecific ODA (see Figure 4). Reducing temporarily the United Kingdom’s legal requirement tocontribute to development assistance from 0.7% of 0.5% of GDP is currently being debated (UKParliament, 2020).Total ODA flows to the forestry sector by donor country

52Assessment questions and methodsThe assessment questions provided in the Terms of Reference for this report focus onunderstanding the impact and implications of Covid‐19 on:a. Sustainable forest management, and conservation activities production, forest protection,afforestation etc.b. Livelihoods of forest‐dependent people, indigenous peoples and local communities,smallholder forest owners, workers, women and youth.c. Forest industries labour market and employment, as well as the domestic and internationaldemands for forest products and services.d. Access to forest financing and investment, and public spending on forests.e. Forest sector, international institutional capacity at the regional, sub‐regional, and nationaland subnational levels.f. International and regional cooperation on forests and forestry issues.Additionally, the assessment is requested to provide answers to the question: What are theemerging opportunities (if any) that Covid‐19 has brought to the fore and potential responses andmeasures for the forest sector’s recovery and enhanced contribution of forests to inclusive SFM?We argue that the response measures taken to curb the spread of the Covid‐19 pandemic arethe primary drivers of change relevant to the forest sector, rather than the health implicationscaused by the pandemic itself. This calls for a two‐step assessment framework. In a first step, weneed to understand which key response measures were taken in the WEOG region. In a second step,we can then assess their impacts and implications on the forest sector.We compiled the data for this two‐step assessment from several sources. Information onresponse measures in many of the WEOG countries was obtained from the European Centre forDisease Prevention and Control. The information for the second step was collected through anexplorative literature review, a survey sent to the UNFF focal points of the WEOG countries (seeError! Reference source not found. for the survey questions), and expert interviews with selectednational forest sector stakeholders. The surveys were sent out to the focal points on 12 October2020, followed by several rounds of reminders.While the results of the survey and interviews focus on the WEOG countries, the geographicalscope of the literature review is broader. Overall, 15 responses were received from the followingcountries: Andorra, Austria, Australia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, I

An Important Limitation to this Study This report is based on information from consultees describing the effects of the first wave of