The ongoing debate surrounding the Forest Monitoring Law (FML) has been described as an “infected debate”, highlighting the contentious and polarised nature of a discussion around a simple topic: how to show timely, improved information on forests. This apt characterisation underscores the burgeoning risk of helpful legislation being overshadowed by the political campaign to deregulate environmental laws.
Why does the pushback target improving the quality of data?
Bad data is information that is erroneous, misleading or confusing in its format. It also refers to data that is missing or outdated. In the forest sector, there is no shortage of need for good data.
We already see the effects of bad data, which lead to poor business choices. From damaged reputations of forest companies that run into legal infractions, to ill-adapted business strategies that will now need systemic changes in forest management and from wood-processing sectors.
Academics, supported by the European Association of Remote Sensing Companies (EARSC), have been vocal about the significant benefits that the FML could bring. They emphasise the law’s potential to enhance the quality and consistency of forest data across Europe, which in turn promotes effective forest management and policy-making.
Moreover, experts have pointed out that the FML aligns well with the competitiveness goals of the Clean Industrial Deal. By providing a robust framework for data collection and monitoring, the Law could give forest owners and managers the ability to adapt their management to climate change’s looming impacts and secure a sustainable wood supply for a variety of industries.
Despite these clear advantages, the positions of the Council and the European Parliament seem to be diverging from the evidence-based recommendations put forth by the academic community. In addition to EP amendments to scrap the law entirely, a leaked Polish presidency text shows all Earth Observation removed from the Law.
Innovation and collaboration to modernise the sector
For the FML to be truly effective, it must include a comprehensive Earth Observation Framework. While respecting data security, Earth Observation must show useful information about important forest features linked to or affected by forest management practices, such as tree cover disturbances, the location of primary and old-growth forests, stand structure and defoliation.
As the debate continues, it is imperative that policymakers prioritise evidence-based approaches in shaping the FML. This includes heeding the advice of academics and industry experts who advocate for a robust monitoring system that supports Earth Observation with detailed ground-based measurements to ensure the accuracy of the data collected. Such a system will not only improve the utility of forest data, but also support sustainable management practices that benefit policymakers, foresters, academics and the general public.
If, however, the proposals of Parliament and Member States continue to degrade or abandon the idea of better collective data, this should serve as a sobering lesson of the harm caused by wielding the simplification agenda to demolish coordination efforts for better oversight.
When industries stop embracing innovation and collaboration – both central objectives of this proposal – they risk falling behind. If the FML is discarded, we must critically examine the motivations of governments and industry lobbies that were so unfavourable to this proposal.
Go back to the main page Sign up for Forest Watch
Image: European Space Agency/Flickr
Categories: News, Forest Watch, European forests