Exploring Opportunities and Challenges: SWOT Analysis for Advancing Smart Tech Solutions in Managing Lymantria dispar dispar Infestations in Forests of the European Union

Abstract

The European spongy moth, Lymantria dispar dispar (L.) (Lepidoptera: Erebidae), originating from Eurasia, is found in Europe, Africa, and North America. Its polyphagous larvae infest deciduous and coniferous trees, causing severe damage during mass outbreak years. Thus, it is listed as one of the top 100 invasive alien species worldwide. The management and containment of this pest vary significantly between Europe and North America, with North America exhibiting a more robust response regarding the containment of the outbreaks. This study evaluates the current state of the European Union (EU-27) forests’ legal, political and cooperative protection frameworks concerning L. dispar dispar. We identified active and potential new stakeholders to assess the level of national and international collaboration in forest protection. We conducted a SWOT analysis to propose new strategies and solutions, aiming for enhanced cooperation in protecting EU forests from L. dispar dispar outbreaks. Our findings highlight the potential of new monitoring and reporting technologies and the importance of increased social and political awareness through social media and public campaigns. These measures would enable more centralized and coordinated efforts among member states. A few of the most significant results in each category of SWOT analysis are as follows: for strengths, a well-established network of EU and national stakeholders exists; for opportunities, emerging innovative technologies, such as IoT, AI, and 5G, are transforming our approach to forest protection; for weaknesses, there is a lack of informed choices regarding proactive measures to contain the outbreak due to a lack of centralized EU coordination and the inefficiencies of national state policies. Finally, the numerous threats to the well-being of EU forests competing for the attention of institutions and relevant stakeholders is by far one of the most important parameters regarding the threats to the EU’s forest protection. The study advocates for a unified, technologically advanced approach to manage and mitigate L. dispar dispar impacts in European forests, emphasizing the need for strengthened international cooperation and the strategic implementation of innovative solutions.

1. Introduction

In academic research, the primary findings on the economic impact of the invasive European spongy moth, Lymantria dispar dispar (L.) (Lepidoptera: Erebidae), are predominantly found in research papers from the US and Canada, as well as in their policy guidelines [1,2,3,4,5]. As analyzed by Hill et al. [6], studies on a limited number of noxious forest insects (both native and planted) in North America have significantly advanced the understanding of the pathways of introduction, the population dynamics, and the spread of invasive insects. It is important to note that female individuals of L. dispar dispar are not able to fly due to their stronger abdominal muscles, poorly developed flight muscles, and smaller wings compared to the Asian spongy moth, Lymantria dispar asiatica Vnukovskij [7,8]. Additionally, L. dispar asiatica occurs in continental Asia and the eastern regions of Russia [9], while the L. dispar dispar introduced to North America has flightless females [10]. Forest entomologists in the USA and Canada have utilized survey data to identify invasion occurrences and to gain crucial insights into the mechanisms driving them [11,12,13,14]. Lymantria dispar dispar has significant ecological and economic consequences, as it partially or completely defoliates canopies during outbreaks, frequently resulting in substantial growth loss and physiological stress in trees [15,16]. The research on L. dispar dispar has elucidated the factors influencing time delays and distribution patterns, as well as the importance of long-distance dispersion in invasions [17].

The forest landscapes of Europe encompass 158 M Ha, accounting for 5% of the global total and covering 37.7% of the EU’s terrain [18,19]. Sweden, Finland, Spain, France, Germany, and Poland have the largest forest portions compared to the rest of the member states, collectively representing over 66.6% of the Union’s forested area. Key data for these forests include the total forest and other wooded land area in Ha, the share of forests as a percentage of the total member state area, Gross Value Added (GVA) per Ha, the percentage of public forest ownership, forest and other wooded land per inhabitant, and the number of persons employed in forestry per 1000 Annual Work Units (AWU) [18,19]. According to the European Academies Science Advisory Council Report on Multi-functionality and Sustainability in the EU’s Forests, forest ecosystems in the EU are diverse, spanning several climatic and biogeographic zones. The Boreal, Mediterranean, and Temperate (Atlantic and Continental) zones constitute 87% of the land area [20]. Each zone features different species, growth rates, and management traditions that have evolved over centuries [20]. Climate, soil, and hydrological factors determine the potential climax vegetation, and combined with historical and present human impacts, have resulted in the current variety of forest types [20]. There are various existing schemes of forest classification, including one based on the main tree species [21].

Forest cover varies significantly among EU member states: nearly 60% of Finland, Sweden, and Slovenia are forested, while only 8.9% of the Netherlands is covered by forests [18,19]. Unlike many other regions of the globe, where deforestation is a significant concern, the forest cover of the EU has been increasing. By 2010, forest cover had grown by approximately 11 M Ha since 1990, due to both natural growth and afforestation efforts [22]. The EU boasts a wide variety of forest types, reflecting its geographic diversity, including alpine and boreal forests characterized by coniferous trees [22]. The location of these forests is dictated by temperature, soil, altitude, and geography. Only 4% of wooded areas remain unaffected by human activity, 8% are plantations, and the rest are ‘semi-natural’ woods due to human intervention. Additionally, about 60% of European forests are privately owned, with the remaining 40% under public ownership [22]. Despite the extensive forested areas of the EU, there is no single forestry policy due to the absence of a specific reference to forests in the Treaties. Consequently, forest policy remains primarily a national concern. However, several EU policies impact forests both within the EU and in non-EU countries [22].

Despite the extensive forested EU area, a unified forestry policy is lacking. Therefore, although several EU policies impact forests both in the EU and in non-EU countries, forest policy remains mainly a national concern. To evaluate these varying dynamics and their implications for forest management, a SWOT analysis can be employed. SWOT analysis is a strategic tool used to evaluate the strengths (S), weaknesses (W), opportunities (O), and threats (T) of an organization or project aiming to achieve a specific objective [23]. Its purpose is to provide a clear characterization of internal and external environments and to differentiate them [24]. According to Viszlai et al. [25], internal features that aid in achieving objectives are termed “strengths”, while those that hinder goals are “weaknesses”. External factors that facilitate or impede goal attainment are called “opportunities” and “threats”, respectively. SWOT analysis (i) is simple to process and use; (ii) is easy to understand; (iii) focuses on significant internal and external factors; (iv) aids in formulating future objectives; and (v) initiates further research. It aims to identify a strategy that maximizes strengths and opportunities, as well as minimizing weaknesses and threats, by combining relevant factors [26]. It has four fundamental outcomes: “Maxi–Maxi” strategies exploit strengths to maximize opportunities; strength–threat (ST) tactics leverage strengths to mitigate threats; weakness–opportunity (WO) strategies address vulnerabilities by seizing opportunities; and weakness–threat (WT) tactics minimize weaknesses and threats. The main tangible result is a matrix showing the most important strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats for the area or industry studied, providing a comprehensive overview of the major issues to be addressed when creating strategic plans for a corporation [27].

The absence of comprehensive management strategies at the EU level has allowed L. dispar dispar populations to cause significant damage without intervention [16]. The lack of prioritization by the EU, insufficient public information, and inadequate provisions for mandatory measures such as quarantining infected areas, have significantly hindered the ability to contain the outbreaks. Therefore, the present study aimed to record the status of EU forest protection and to assess stakeholder awareness through the analysis of policies and means of addressing pest infection in EU forests. We conducted secondary research by investigating institutions, legislation, policies, and stakeholders in EU member states, which served as primary sources of information for the implementation of a SWOT analysis. Policy-relevant papers, best practices, and literature reviews regarding EU forest stakeholders were analyzed. The data gathered could be used to maximize the efficiency of cooperation and implementation during the introduction and development of novel policy and practical–field responses with the deployment of smart technological solutions for monitoring and controlling L. dispar dispar infections and their spread. Therefore, the objective of this study is to record the current state of EU forest protection, evaluate stakeholder awareness, and conduct a SWOT analysis to propose a new roadmap for combating L. dispar dispar outbreaks, highlighting the urgent need for a unified EU forest management approach to effectively monitor and control the outbreaks of this pest, ensuring the ecological and economic stability of both EU and non-EU forests.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. The Reference Framework of European Forest

In its September 2013 Communication on ‘A new EU Forest Strategy: for forests and the forest-based industry’ (COM (2013) 0659), the European Commission introduced a novel union strategy, proposing a European framework for policies impacting forests [28]. This strategy has two primary objectives: (1) ensuring the sustainable management of European forests, and (2) strengthening the EU’s dedication to advancing sustainable forest management and combating global deforestation. Additionally, it establishes a strategic framework for the coordinated efforts of the Commission and Member States. In September 2015, the Commission approved the corresponding multi-year action plan for the EU forest strategy (SWD (2013) 0343), also known as the ‘Forest MAP’, which outlines activities to address the challenges faced by the European forestry sector. As this plan was set to expire in 2020, the Council requested a new forest strategy for the subsequent years. This updated strategy was outlined in the December 2019 Commission communication on the European Green Deal (COM (2019) 0640), which highlights the crucial role of forests in climate change adaptation [29].

2.2. An Overview of Forest Sector Policies, Institutions, and Stakeholders

2.2.1. Presenting Institutions and Stakeholders Policy Papers Analysis

The institutions and stakeholders policy analysis reviewed twenty-seven research papers and forty-nine legislative and policy papers, mainly from the EU, United States of America (USA), Canada, United Nations, and other stakeholders, as presented in

Table 1. Institutions and stakeholders’ policy papers analysis by region type and subject.

Institution	Region of Interest	Type	Subject	Reference
Forest Europe	EU	Stakeholder	Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe	[30]
Forest Europe	EU	Stakeholder	State of Europe’s Forests 2020	[31]
International Association for Mediterranean Forests (AIFM)	MED	Stakeholder	Policy analysis	[32]
Bioenergy Europe. A non-profit, Brussels-based international organisation	EU	Stakeholder	Policy analysis	[33]
EU Commission	EU	Institution	Agriculture and rural development: The common agricultural policy at a glance	[34]
EU Commission	EU	Institution	European agricultural fund for rural development (EAFRD)	[35]
EU Commission	EU	Institution	European agriculture and rural development	[36]
EU Commission	EU	Institution	Energy, Climate change, Environment. 2030 climate targets.	[37]
EU Commission	EU	Institution	Evaluation of Civil Protection Mechanism—Case study report—Forest Fires in Europe	[38]
EU Commission	EU	Institution	Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020	[39]
EU Commission	EU	Institution	Public procurement for a better environment.	[40]
EU Commission	EU	Institution	Product groups and criteria. EU Ecolabel—Coverings.	[41]
EU Commission	EU	Institution	European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations (DG NEAR)	[42]
EU Commission—EU institutions	EU	Institution	A new EU Forest Strategy: for forests and the forest-based sector	[28]
EU Commission—EU institutions	EU	Institution	The European Green Deal	[29]
European Academies Science Advisory Council	EU	Stakeholder	Multi-functionality and sustainability in the European Union’s forests	[20]
European Confederation of Woodworking Industries	EU	Stakeholder	Policy analysis	[43]
European Environment Agency	EU	Stakeholder	The Natura 2000 protected areas network	[44]
European Environment Agency (EEA)	EU	Stakeholder	Policy analysis	[45]
European Environment Information and Observation Network	EU	Stakeholder	Policy analysis	[46]
European Forest Fire Information System (EFFIS)	EU	Stakeholder	Policy analysis	[47]
European Forest Institute (EFI)	EU	Stakeholder	Policy analysis	[48]
European Forest Institute (EFI).	EU	Stakeholder	VPA Africa-Latin America	[49]
European Network for Rural Development (ENRD)	EU	Stakeholder	Policy analysis	[50]
European Network for Rural Development (ENRD)	EU	Stakeholder	Horizon 2020 funding for agriculture and forestry	[51]
European Parliament—European Council	EU	Institution	Common Agricultural Policy	[18]
European Parliament—European Council	EU	Institution	Fact Sheets on the European Union: The European Union and forests	[22]
European Parliament—European Council	EU	Institution	Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013	[52]
European Parliament—European Council	EU	Institution	Fact Sheets on the European Union: The European Union and Forests	[22]
European Parliament—European Council	EU	Institution	Regulation (EU) 2018/841	[53]
European Parliament—European Council	EU	Institution	Directive 1999/105/EC	[54]
European Parliament—European Council	EU	Institution	Directive 2000/29/EC	[55]
European Parliament—European Council	EU	Institution	Directive 2009/28/EC	[56]
European Parliament—European Council	EU	Institution	Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002	[57]
European Parliament—European Council	EU	Institution	Decision 1313/2013/EU	[58]
European Parliament—European Council	EU	Institution	Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013	[59]
European Parliament—European Council	EU	Institution	Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 Bringing nature back into our lives.	[60]
European Parliament—European Council	EU	Institution	Regulation (EU) No 995/2010	[61]
European Parliament—European Council	EU	Institution	Regulation (EU) 2018/841	[53]
European Parliament—European Council	EU	Institution	Addressing the challenges of deforestation and forest degradation to tackle climate change and biodiversity loss	[62]
Eurostat	EU	Institution	Forestry	[19]
Food Agriculture Organisation	UN	Stakeholder	[European Forest Convention (EU)]/[Forest Convention (UA, GA, KZ, BY, CH, RU)]/[Convention on Forests (RU, CH, KG)]. INC4 Draft Negotiating Text	[63]
Forest Europe	EU	Stakeholder	Ministerial Conferences	[64]
International Union for Conservation of Nature	UN	Stakeholder	European Neighborhood and Partnership Instrument East Countries Forest Law Enforcement and Governance Program	[65]
Minnesota Department of Agriculture	NORTH AMERICA	Institution	Spongy Moth Quarantine. Formerly known as gypsy moth	[66]
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan).	NORTH AMERICA	Institution	The Canadian Forest Service	[67]
Steamship Mutual	NORTH AMERICA	Stakeholder	Asian gypsy moth US and Canada	[68]
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change	UN	Institution	Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries	[69]
United Nations	UN	Institution	What is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change?	[70]

.

The analysis mainly focused on EU institutions but also utilized resources from North America and the UN, which contributed to the recognition of the main differences in policies, mainly those dealing with the containment of the outbreak through the early deployment of quarantine measures.

2.2.2. EU Forest Sector Policies

At the EU level, Directive 1999/105/EC regulates the sale of forest reproductive material [54]. Additionally, the European plant health regime (Directive 2000/29/EC) aims to prevent the introduction of harmful organisms into forests [55]. The EU also invests in forest research, most notably through the Horizon 2020 initiative [51]. The EU set a legally obligatory objective for 20% renewable energy usage by 2020 in its energy strategy (Directive 2009/28/EC) [56], which was expected to increase demand for forestry biomass. The updated EU climate and energy framework for 2030 establishes an even more ambitious target of 27% [37]. Furthermore, as part of the EU’s cohesion strategy, forestry initiatives—such as fire control, renewable energy generation, and climate change adaptation—may be co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund. The Solidarity Fund (Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002) was established to assist Member States in recovering from catastrophic natural disasters, including hurricanes and forest fires [57]. The EU’s Civil Protection Mechanism (Decision 1313/2013/EU) may be activated when a crisis exceeds a Member State’s capacity to respond, as seen in certain forest fires (e.g., Greece, 2007 and 2012) and storms [38,58].

In addition, the Natura 2000 network protects approximately 37.5 M Ha of forested land, accounting for 23% of European forests, under the EU environmental legislation [44]. Sustainable forest management is one of the major goals of the EU’s Environment and Climate Action Program (LIFE 2014–2020, Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013) [59]. Alongside the EU biodiversity strategy (COM (2011) 0244), which mandated the implementation of sustainable forest management plans for national forests by 2020, the Commission’s communication on the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030 (COM (2020) 380) calls for the expansion of areas of protection to cover 30% of all land and sea areas in the EU, with 10% being strictly protected, which would further safeguard European forests [39,60].

The European Forest Fire Information System (EFFIS) monitors forest fires across Europe. Additionally, the EU promotes ecological tendering (COM (2008) 0400), which may increase the demand for sustainably sourced wood [40,47]. The European ecolabels for wood flooring, furniture, and paper have also been introduced [71]. Furthermore, the EU’s action plan on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance, and Trade (FLEGT) includes both optional collaboration arrangements with timber-exporting nations and regulations that took effect in March 2013 to prohibit the sale of illegally harvested timber (Regulation (EU) No 995/2010) [61,72].

The EU participates in various international initiatives concerning forests, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [70]. Forest Europe continues to spearhead the pan-European political dialogue concerning forests [64]. Efforts are underway to establish a legally binding agreement on the sustainable management of forests and their products [63]. As part of its climate policy, the EU has initiated steps to incorporate farms and forests into its environmental strategy (see Regulation (EU) 2018/841 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018, concerning the incorporation of emissions of greenhouse gases and sequestration from land use, land use modifications, and forestry in the 2030 energy and climate framework) [53]. Moreover, the EU has set the target of halting global forest cover loss by 2030 and reducing tropical deforestation by 50% by 2020 (COM (2008) 0645) [62]. The EU is also funding REDD+ programs in Asia, Africa, and Latin America to mitigate emissions resulting from deforestation and forest degradation [69]. Lastly, the Neighborhood Policy may be utilized; from 2012 to 2016, the FLEG II initiative allocated EUR 9 M to advance effective forestry administration, the responsible management of forests, and the preservation of forests in the EU’s eastern neighboring countries [42,73].

2.2.3. Definition of Stakeholders

Stakeholders (e.g., local authorities, forest administrations, research organizations, forest owners, forest industries and forest-related sectors, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), employer organizations, entrepreneurs, youth organizations, leisure-time organizations, and associations).

2.2.4. Stakeholders at EU—Supranational Level

To meet the requirements of this study, we used internet sources and determined the most relevant stakeholders at the EU level [30,32,33,36,43,45,46,48,50]:

• Bioenergy Europe (formerly known as AEBIOM) European Biomass Association;
• European Confederation of Woodworking Industries (CEI-Bois);
• Directorate-General Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission (DG AGRI);
• EFI European Forest Institute;
• European Environment Agency (EEA);
• European Environmental Information and Observation Network;
• ENRD—European Network for Rural Development;
• International Association for Mediterranean Forests (AIFM);
• MCPFE Forest Europe (formerly Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe).

2.2.5. Stakeholders at the National Level

For the national-level study, we conducted internet research to identify stakeholders and National Forest Accounting Plans. The most relevant and systematic data were sourced from the State of European Forests (SoEF) 2020 report [31]. Based on this, we compiled a reference table, which includes the URLs for each EU27 member state (

Table 2. URLs of national forest accounting plans for EU member states, listed in alphabetical order.

EU Member State	URL of National Forests Accounting Plans
Austria	https://www.bmk.gv.at (accessed on 8 August 2024)
Belgium	https://www.cnc-nkc.be/sites/default/files/report/file/national_forest_accounting_plan_-_belgium.pdf (accessed on 8 August 2024)
Bulgaria	https://www.moew.government.bg/static/media/ups/articles/attachments/NFAP_final_EN_Resubmission_BGdad3c7848cb89f2e2b466e6ad7665106.pdf (accessed on 8 August 2024)
Croatia	https://mingor.gov.hr/ (accessed on 8 August 2024)
Cyprus	http://www.moa.gov.cy (accessed on 8 August 2024)
Czechia	https://www.mzp.cz (accessed on 8 August 2024)
Denmark	https://kefm.dk/media/7111/danishnationalforestaccountingplan-2019.pdf (accessed on 8 August 2024)
Estonia	https://envir.ee/ (accessed on 8 August 2024)
Finland	https://www.luke.fi/ (accessed on 8 August 2024)
France	https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/French%20National%20Accounting%20Forest%20Plan%20-%20english%20version.pdf (accessed on 8 August 2024)
Germany	https://www.bmuv.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Klimaschutz/nfap_germany_bf.pdf (accessed on 8 August 2024)
Greece	https://necca.gov.gr/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/NFAP_March-2020.pdf (accessed on 8 August 2024)
Ireland	https://www.gov.ie/ (accessed on 8 August 2024)
Italy	https://www.mite.gov.it/ (accessed on 8 August 2024)
Latvia	https://www.zm.gov.lv/en/ (accessed on 8 August 2024)
Lithuania	https://am.lrv.lt/uploads/am/documents/files/KLIMATO%20KAITA/Studijos%2C%20metodin%C4%97%20med%C5%BEiaga/National%20Forestry%20Accounting%20Plan%20of%20LT_revision_2020%2002%2002_submitted.pdf (accessed on 8 August 2024)
Luxembourg	https://environnement.public.lu/fr.html (accessed on 8 August 2024)
Netherlands	https://english.rvo.nl/ (accessed on 8 August 2024)
Poland	https://bip.mos.gov.pl/fileadmin/user_upload/bip/strategie_plany_programy/Krajowy_Plan_Rozliczen_dla_Lesnictwa/NFAP_2018_POLAND_ENG_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 8 August 2024)
Portugal	https://apambiente.pt/sites/default/files/_Clima/Mitiga%C3%A7%C3%A3o/Plano%20Contabilidade%20Florestal%20Nacional%202021-2025/National%20Forestry%20Accounting%20Plan_Revised%20version%20january%202020.pdf (accessed on 8 August 2024)
Romania	http://www.mmediu.ro/app/webroot/uploads/files/National%20forestry%20accounting%20plan%20of%20Romania.pdf (accessed on 8 August 2024)
Slovakia	https://web.nlcsk.org/ (accessed on 8 August 2024)
Slovenia	https://www.gozdis.si/en/ (accessed on 8 August 2024)
Spain	https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/cambio-climatico/temas/mitigacion-politicas-y-medidas/nfap_env20_tcm30-506250.pdf (accessed on 8 August 2024)
Sweden	https://www.regeringen.se/4aa103/contentassets/38eaf6f23f284fb0a440b0742fe7bcf7/national-forestry-accounting-plan-for-sweden (accessed on 8 August 2024)

).

2.3. Measures Taken by the EU in Support of Forests

The primary source of forest financing within the EU is the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) [34], with over 90% of EU forest financing being provided through the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) [35]. Between 2007 and 2013, the EAFRD allocated approximately EUR 5.4 billion to co-finance forestry initiatives. Following the latest CAP revision, the European Commission introduced new regulations on EAFRD funding for rural development in December 2013 (Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 3.2.6) [52]. From 2015 to 2020, a unified metric was established to streamline all forms of forest investment support [22]. This included investments in forested area development, forest viability enhancements, afforestation, woodland creation, agroforestry systems, the prevention against damage to forests from fires and forest restoration, natural disasters, and catastrophic events, as well as investments in forestry technologies and the processing, promotion, and marketing of forest products [22]. Additionally, there are provisions for compensating forestry, environmental, and climatic services, along with forest conservation [22]. Allowances are also made for non-forestry actions, such as Natura 2000 and Water Framework Directive payments [22]. Member States are responsible for selecting and financing forestry initiatives within their rural development programs. For the 2015–2020 period, EUR 8.2 billion was allocated, with 27% dedicated to reforestation, 18% to increasing forest resilience, and 18% to damage prevention [22].

2.4. SWOT Analysis at the EU Level

To achieve the objectives of the study, we collected secondary data from various disciplines and organizations involved in forest conservation. These data were sourced from both public and unpublished materials, gathered at different stages of the project. The SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis was selected as the most suitable methodological approach for analyzing these data. The four most relevant criteria within each category (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) were used as key indicators.

2.4.1. Strengths

At the regulatory level, numerous EU regulations and directives address the protection and well-being of EU forests. Similarly, at the national level, most of the 27 EU member states have complied with these regulations by developing and implementing National Forestry Accounting Plans. Scientifically, a wide range of studies cover the ecological, economic, and social aspects of forest protection, with biodiversity recognized as a primary goal.

Technologically, there is significant innovation supported by various EU-funded projects, ranging from electronic sensors and smart tech solutions to the Earth Observation program of the European Space Agency, which is used for remote sensing applications.

The study also highlights well-established networks of stakeholders across the international, European, and national levels, representing public, private, scientific, and economic interests in the health and well-being of EU forests. Lastly, all new tech innovations are designed to have a positive environmental footprint, aiming to protect EU forests from severe pest outbreaks while remaining eco-friendly and recyclable.

2.4.2. Weaknesses

The review of the status of EU forests and the relevant stakeholders revealed several challenges in implementing new technologies for forest protection. Currently, most scientific research and observations on L. dispar dispar have been conducted primarily in the US and Canada, with limited focus on EU forests. This lack of scientific attention has resulted in the early containment of L. dispar dispar not being prioritized in the action plans of relevant institutions and stakeholders.

Additionally, there is a significant lack of public information regarding the threat posed by L. dispar dispar and the proactive measures that can be taken to limit its spread. This deficiency in public awareness extends to both stakeholders and citizens engaged in EU forests for business, recreational, or other purposes. Consequently, there is also a notable absence of national and EU legal provisions that would make proactive measures, such as the quarantine of infected areas, mandatory for all concerned parties.

2.4.3. Opportunities

The present research highlights numerous opportunities associated with the EU’s political, socioeconomic, and environmental initiatives, as well as with ongoing scientific projects.

At the political and legislative level, it is important that, after 2018, the majority (if not all) of the EU member states have submitted National Forestry Accounting Plans under Regulation EU/2018/841 of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 May 2018 [59]. Networking among various stakeholders is mature, with national, European, and international forums being well-established and having extensive experience.

From a technological perspective, the monitoring and early containment of L. dispar dispar outbreaks are more achievable than ever, due to technologies like the Internet of Things (IoT), fast and reliable wireless data communications (5G), Earth Observation (EO) from NASA and ESA, remote sensing technologies, and Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications.

Additionally, with the rise of social networks among EU institutions and the public, designing and implementing public awareness campaigns is now easier and more effective. These campaigns can transform forest visitors and users from potential hosts and spreaders of L. dispar dispar into effective field inspectors.

With solid political and legislative frameworks, alongside advanced technology and social media outreach, there are ample means to implement a more direct strategy for forest protection against L. dispar dispar outbreaks and enforce necessary quarantines, as done in the US and Canada [66,67,68].

2.4.4. Threats

The successful implementation of smart tech solutions for L. dispar dispar control depends on understanding when, where, and under what conditions these technologies can be effectively deployed. The efficiency of new smart tech solutions is influenced by various factors. Primarily, raising awareness among stakeholders about the threat posed by L. dispar dispar and the proposed tech solutions is crucial. However, this task is challenging, as the existing network of public and private institutions and stakeholders, despite having decades of expertise, faces competing priorities. Issues such as deforestation from illegal logging, wildfires, and other forest pest diseases are among the key competitors for attention.

Another significant threat is the tendency to approach issues at a broad, theoretical level rather than focusing on the practical, specific actions required by the situation. As highlighted by the current study, many EU institutions and national counterparts lack hands-on experience, failing to provide actionable, specific solutions.

Finally, the technologies for L. dispar dispar containment are still in their early stages and must overcome several obstacles. This necessitates steady and timely funding to advance the research and development (R&D) process across the EU.

3. Results

The SWOT analysis of forest protection and the implementation of smart tech solutions for managing L. dispar dispar outbreaks has identified several critical components that are essential for the effective adoption of new technologies (

Table 3. SWOT analysis of technological solutions for the control of L. dispar dispar through EU forest protection stakeholders.

Strengths	Opportunities
The EU and its Member States have a well-established legislative environment, which can be considered a supportive instrument for forest-related policies. EU policies advocate for multifunctional forests under sustainable forest management. Within this framework, a variety of scientific studies highlight the ecological, social, and economic aspects of forest protection. Technological innovation is supported by numerous EU-funded projects, and new technological solutions could play a significant role in further promoting this scientific trend to achieve environmental protection goals. A well-established network of EU and national stakeholders exists and can serve as an effective platform to communicate and inform relevant parties. The overall positive environmental footprint of new technological solutions for L. dispar dispar control is an advantage compared to other, less environmentally friendly methods.	The National Forestry Accounting Plans of EU Member States provide a common legislative and socioeconomic framework that coordinates and ensures the mobilization of resources. Networking and cooperation among key stakeholders and institutional players are at a highly advanced level, with many years of experience and expertise. Emerging innovative technologies, such as IoT, AI, 5G, and EO, are transforming our approach to forest protection and creating new opportunities for technological solutions. Social networking can be leveraged to design and implement a public awareness campaign focused on the threats posed by L. dispar dispar and the available solutions. It is crucial to reach out to every individual who visits, works in, or uses forest areas, informing them about the potential risk of spreading L. dispar dispar infections. By empowering them to act as field inspectors rather than contributors to the problem, they can become part of the solution.
Weaknesses	Threats
Most scientific studies on L. dispar dispar were primarily conducted in the USA and Canada. There is a significant lack of prioritization regarding the containment of L. dispar dispar outbreaks in the EU. Within the EU public consensus, there exists a notable vacuum concerning the threat that L. dispar dispar outbreaks pose to the health of EU forests. There is also a lack of informed choices regarding proactive measures to contain the outbreak. EU legislation does not include provisions for mandatory measures, such as the quarantine of infected areas, to contain the outbreak.	Numerous threats to the well-being of EU forests are competing for the attention of institutions and relevant stakeholders. Stakeholders tend to examine and act at a broader and more theoretical level than is warranted by the circumstances. The proposed solutions should not remain at a theoretical and general level; rather, they must be more specific regarding actionable steps and solutions. The actions taken should be easily and practically implemented; otherwise, the project may lack local ownership by the communities and stakeholders involved. The early stage of the development of new technologies for L. dispar dispar containment could potentially serve as a basis for further financial and human resource support for research, development, and implementation at the EU level.

). The analysis, incorporating policy documents and a literature review on L. dispar dispar awareness in forest environments, has yielded several important insights. Notably, the strengths and opportunities that were identified outweigh the threats and weaknesses, indicating a favorable landscape for technological solutions. This balance suggests that a strength–opportunity strategy can be effectively employed, allowing for the maximization of opportunities by leveraging existing strengths. Nevertheless, it is crucial that any initiatives aimed at managing L. dispar dispar populations also consider potential weaknesses and threats.

Key findings derived from the analysis related to the implementation of smart tech solutions for L. dispar dispar containment include the following:

• At the political and legislative level, the retrieval of National Forestry Accounting Plans from the majority of EU member states, submitted under Regulation EU/2018/841 of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 May 2018, is imperative.
• The networking among various stakeholders is well-established and mature, with numerous national, European, and international fora having years of experience and a notable presence.
• Technologically, the monitoring and early-stage containment of L. dispar dispar outbreaks are more feasible than ever, thanks to available technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT), fast and reliable wireless data communications (5G), and Earth Observatories (EO) from NASA and ESA, alongside remote sensing technologies and Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications.
• Furthermore, the rise in the popularity of social networks among institutions and individuals facilitates the design and implementation of effective public awareness campaigns regarding the threats posed by L. dispar dispar outbreaks. This trend allows for the transformation of the average forest visitor into an effective field inspector of relevant countermeasure technologies.

4. Discussion

Lymantria dispar dispar poses a significant threat to forest ecosystems. In contrast to North America, the EU’s response has been less prompt and targeted. To illustrate the current state of affairs, we conducted secondary research on the policies, structures, and stakeholders involved in forest protection at both the national and EU levels. Following this, we performed a SWOT analysis on the application of innovative technological solutions to enhance the capacity of EU institutions to combat L. dispar dispar outbreaks. The SWOT analysis indicated that both the EU and its Member States possess a well-established legislative framework, relevant policies, and a network of stakeholders, alongside various EU-funded technological projects. Moreover, emerging technologies and social media can be effectively utilized to implement a more timely, decisive, and informed campaign against the spread of this pest. Consistent with the literature, this research highlights the need for enhanced international collaboration by stressing that the threat presented by L. dispar dispar to forest ecosystems requires a more synchronized and globally cooperative strategy, extending beyond individual nations to encompass regional and local levels. We propose that the EU should spearhead the formulation and execution of a comprehensive communication campaign to combat the threat posed by L. dispar dispar. This study aims to promote subnational collaboration at the regional level and enhance knowledge regarding the pest’s possible threats. The strengthening of the legal framework is another conclusion, as highlighted by the necessity of creating a more comprehensive legal framework inside the EU to address L. dispar dispar infestations. This entails the implementation of quarantine measures in both afflicted and unaffected regions, drawing from the more stringent regulations applied in the USA and Canada. Thus, we contend that heightened awareness, stringent legal penalties, and the extensive use of preventive technology, such as monitoring and reporting sensors, are essential for effectively addressing the proliferation of this pest. Another highlight is the role of research and funding. The research emphasizes that technical solutions alone cannot completely resolve the problem of L. dispar dispar infestations. The effective execution of these solutions depends on the presence of sufficient support for all indicated resources, especially financial resources for R&D. This financing would be crucial for the advancement, execution, and enhancement of early detection and evaluation technologies. We underline the necessity for enhanced investment in human resources within the scientific, political, and business sectors to elevate awareness and promote national and regional collaboration. We recognize the difficulties presented by financial limitations at both the national and EU levels, with the increasing obligations of national governments regarding the stewardship of natural resources. It is in this context that the EU’s role is most substantial. That is why this research identifies the EU as an essential platform for fostering national collaboration and offering finance, knowledge, and avenues for international cooperation. We also emphasize the EU’s robust environmental commitment and its capacity to enhance forest conservation via the deployment of novel monitoring and preventative technology. Another crucial parameter is the recognition of potential risks and challenges. We highlight potential concerns linked to this predominantly political process, such as insufficient cooperation at the local and regional levels and conflicts stemming from the management of natural resources. We juxtapose the EU’s approach, regarded as more theoretical, with the aggressive and formal techniques utilized in the USA and Canada, characterized by comprehensive public information campaigns and rigorous legal enforcement. Also, we recognize the inherent risks associated with assessing and examining the technical dimensions of the suggested solutions at the EU level and underscore the necessity for ongoing scientific competence and a committed forestry workforce over an extended duration. Supporting evidence from literature is mostly found in recent research. Potter and Urguhart [74] emphasize the importance of early detection and rapid response in managing diseases, aligning with this research paper’s call for improved surveillance and monitoring systems. Early detection markedly enhances the likelihood of effective eradication and control initiatives. Pocock et al. [75] illustrate the efficacy of citizen research in the early identification of invasive alien species, specifically the oak processionary moth, Thaumetopoea processionea (L.) (Lepidoptera: Notodontidae). Their research highlights the need to involve volunteers in extensive, prolonged surveillance initiatives, which can serve as a cost-efficient method for identifying infrequent occurrences such as the introduction of new invasive species.

Meurisse et al. [76] emphasize the importance of international collaboration in tackling the issues presented by invasive forest insects. Worldwide trade and transportation networks enable the dissemination of these pests, highlighting the necessity of concerted cross-border initiatives to avert their introduction and establishment. Panzavolta et al. [77] underscore the essential importance of studies in comprehending the taxonomy, biology, and ecology of invasive alien pests and diseases (IAPPs). Their research highlights the necessity of creating efficient diagnostic instruments and examining the adaptation of IAPPs to novel situations, which can guide the formulation of effective management strategies. Identifying the need for effective forest protection necessitates greater coordination and enhanced international collaboration, not only at the national level but also at the local and regional levels [78]. A comprehensive communication strategy should be developed, agreed upon, and implemented at the EU level, targeting subnational cooperation at the regional level while facilitating awareness-raising efforts regarding the threats posed by L. dispar dispar. Furthermore, the establishment of a more robust legal framework concerning quarantines in both affected and non-affected areas is essential, supported by legal restrictions similar to those enforced in the USA and Canada. Finally, in conjunction with raising awareness and implementing punitive measures through legislation, preventive technologies, such as monitoring and reporting sensors for L. dispar dispar detection, must be widely adopted and effectively integrated into the overall solution.

An evaluation of the limitations of the existing technology reveals that it can only achieve limited effectiveness if not implemented appropriately. Successful implementation necessitates that all other resources identified in the research are adequately addressed. Notably, financial resources must be secured for R&D, focused on furthering the advancement, implementation, and precision of initial detection and assessment technologies [79,80]. Additionally, funding will be required to enhance human resources across the scientific, political, and business sectors, as well as among other stakeholders, to raise awareness and promote national and regional cooperation. This challenge is exacerbated by budgetary cutbacks at both national and EU levels, alongside the gradual rise in national responsibilities for managing natural resources.

The EU serves as a stable and reliable platform for national collaboration, offering a range of forums that provide essential funding, expertise, and opportunities for international cooperation. Additionally, the EU stands out as the most environmentally conscious supranational political and economic entity on the international stage, possessing both the will and the resources to advance forest protection through the implementation of new monitoring and infection prevention technologies.

The risks associated with this primarily political process are largely linked to the potential lack of cooperation at the local and regional levels, as well as national conflicts over the control of natural resources. In contrast to the regimes in the USA and Canada, which exhibit a more proactive and formal approach to addressing L. dispar dispar infestations through extensive public information campaigns and stringent legal enforcement measures, the EU appears to focus more on theoretical strategies [78]. Additionally, there are inherent risks in evaluating and reviewing the technical aspects and properties of the proposed solutions at the EU level, as this will require a sustained demand for scientific expertise and a dedicated forestry workforce over an extended period.

The limitations of this research include the reliance on data gathered from environmental news sources, public and private institutions, and academic research papers. While more direct engagement with stakeholders involved in EU forest policy would enhance the study, such an approach necessitates considerable resources in terms of funding and human capital to effectively coordinate and analyze the perspectives of each stakeholder. Currently, the most comprehensive available resource is the SoEF report, with the latest edition published in 2020 [31], which provided substantial data for this analysis.

5. Conclusions

This research concluded that while L. dispar dispar can inflict significant damage during years of mass reproduction, the response of the EU to this issue is neither as immediate nor as precise as that observed in North America. To assess the current situation, we conducted secondary research examining the policies, institutions, and stakeholders involved in forest preservation at both the national and EU levels. Subsequently, we performed a SWOT analysis to evaluate the potential for employing new technological solutions to enhance EU institutions’ capacity to combat L. dispar dispar outbreaks. The SWOT analysis revealed that the EU and its Member States possess a well-established legal framework, along with relevant policies and stakeholders, as well as a range of technological initiatives funded by the EU. Furthermore, emerging innovative technologies and social media can be utilized to implement a more timely and decisive campaign against the spread of the pest, ensuring that this campaign is comprehensive and well-informed. However, there are still problems to be solved, such as the absence of legal regulations for critical activities like quarantining contaminated sites to regulate the spread of the disease, a lack of prioritizing within the EU, and insufficient public awareness. In addition, there are a number of other dangers to the health of forests in the EU that compete for the attention and available funding of key stakeholders and relevant organizations. The SWOT analysis indicated a balance of positive and negative factors; however, it is encouraging that we identified a greater number of strengths and opportunities than threats and weaknesses. Consequently, we concluded that a strength–opportunity strategy could be effectively adopted to implement technological solutions aimed at addressing the containment of L. dispar dispar.