Geospatial Sensing and Data-Driven Technologies in the Western Balkan 6 (Agro)Forestry Region: A Strategic Science–Technology–Policy Nexus Analysis

Abstract

Geospatial sensing and data-driven technologies (GSDDTs) are playing an increasingly important role in transforming (agro)forestry practices across the Western Balkans 6 region (WB6). This review critically examines the current state of GSDDT application in six WB countries (also known as the WB6 group)—Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo*, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia—with a focus on their contributions to sustainable (agro)forest management. The analysis explores the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), light detection and ranging (LiDAR), geographic information systems (GIS), and satellite imagery in (agro)forest monitoring, biodiversity assessment, landscape restoration, and the promotion of circular economy models. Drawing on 25 identified case studies across WB6—for example, ALFIS, Forest Beyond Borders, ForestConnect, Kuklica Geosite Survey, CREDIT Vibes, and Project O₂ (including drone-assisted reforestation in Kosovo*)—this review highlights both technological advancements and systemic limitations. Key barriers to effective GSDDT deployment across WB6 in the (agro)forestry sector and its cross-border cooperation initiatives include fragmented legal frameworks, limited technical expertise, weak institutional coordination, and reliance on short-term donor funding. In addition to mapping current practices, this paper offers a comparative overview of UAV regulations across the WB6 region and identifies six major challenges influencing the adoption and scaling of GSDDTs. To address these, it proposes targeted policy interventions, such as establishing national LiDAR inventories, harmonizing UAV legislation, developing national GSDDT strategies, and creating dedicated GSDDT units within forestry agencies. This review also underscores how GSDDTs contribute to compliance with seven European Union (EU) acquis chapters, how they support eight Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and their sixteen targets, and how they advance several EU Green Agenda objectives. Strengthening institutional capacities, promoting legal alignment, and enabling cross-border data interoperability are essential for integrating GSDDTs into national (agro)forest policies and research agendas. This review underscores GSDDTs’ untapped potential in forest genetic monitoring and landscape restoration, advocating for their institutional integration as catalysts for evidence-based policy and ecological resilience in WB6 (agro)forestry systems.

1. Introduction

Remote sensing (as a part of geospatial sensing and data-driven technologies (GSDDTs)) is the science of acquiring information about the Earth’s surface without direct contact. It comprises technologies such as satellite imagery, light detection and ranging (LiDAR), synthetic aperture radar (SAR), aerial photogrammetry, thermal infrared sensors, and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) equipped with multispectral or hyperspectral cameras [1]. These technologies use a wide variety of sensors whose purpose is to collect various targeted information by detecting reflected or emitted electromagnetic energy from the Earth’s surface [2]. Reflecting on the application of GSDDTs in (agro)forestry in the Western Balkans 6 region (WB6) is crucial for enhancing sustainable land management, improving climate resilience, and addressing region-specific challenges through data-driven, efficient, and scalable solutions, and this is only the beginning as their use is expected to expand across various sectors and industries [3].

GSDDTs have emerged as critical instruments in forestry and agroforestry ((agro)forestry), offering exceptional opportunities for mapping, monitoring, and managing forest resources (including forest genetic resources [4]) and for assessing and improving current management practices. In this review, the term (agro)forestry is used throughout to inclusively reflect the diversity of case studies analyzed, which span both forestry and agroforestry applications of GSDDTs across the WB6, and to ensure the wording is clear and practical while still easy for readers to understand.

Due to the very dynamic nature of forest systems and their constant changes, GSDDTs address the need for accurate, timely, and spatially detailed data to tackle challenges such as climate change, pest outbreaks, and natural disasters [5,6,7]. At a broad level, this may involve leveraging Earth observation data to map forest types or tree species across a country or region [8]. In Europe, notably in the central and eastern regions, recent findings indicate the importance of integrating high-resolution climate and topographic data into remote sensing practices in order to improve forest ecosystem models [9]. These large-scale perspectives are critical in helping generate strategic inventories and ensuring the overall sustainability of managed land [8].

UAVs are widely recognized for their potential to transform forest operations by bridging the gap between coarse-resolution satellite data and intensive ground-based surveys [7,10]. UAVs can serve as multi-purpose, cost-effective tools capable of carrying diverse sensors [11]. Remote sensing systems (e.g., red–green–blue (RGB), multispectral, and hyperspectral cameras, LiDAR, and thermal sensors) can generate high-resolution and precise data, enabling the derivation of indicators for tree height, diameter at breast height (DBH), biomass, and vegetation structure [10]. The resulting metrics are applied in a range of use cases, from supporting artificial intelligence (AI) in enhancing tree planting and wildlife monitoring to facilitating search and rescue operations [12]. Data collected using sensors mounted on UAVs can also be combined to help provide ground terrain models or can be used for the assessment and characterization of three-dimensional configurations of the terrain below [10].

Moreover, remote sensing with UAVs enables efficient data acquisitions in critical conditions, for instance, during time-sensitive events such as pest outbreaks, wildfires, and forest degradation [13]. Despite these advances, realizing the full potential of remote sensing requires addressing key limitations. These include the accurate prediction of tree species, accounting for different characteristics [8,9], and the integration of high spatial resolution satellite data [8]. Additionally, a major obstacle is the perceived lack of interpretability, which is often difficult to replicate using complex workflows [10].

UAV-based forestry research is also often very specific to particular forest types and locations, which can affect technology transferability [14]. These considerations are especially relevant for the implementation of sustainable forest management (SFM) and forest conservation by ensuring ecosystem health and resilience [10,14]. UAVs have several advantages over traditional remote sensing (RS) technologies in forestry, such as satellite imagery and airborne LiDAR. These advantages include higher spatial resolution, lower operational costs, greater flexibility in data acquisition timing, and the ability to capture data in areas with frequent cloud cover or complex terrain [15]. The main challenge is providing updated and timely data that can be used for various tasks, such as estimating forest structural parameters, classifying tree species, monitoring forest health, and assessing fire and post-fire conditions [7]. This is why forest mapping is an essential tool for understanding, managing, and conserving these ecosystems. By using various sensors in combination with data analysis and machine learning techniques, UAVs can quickly and efficiently collect high-resolution data, revolutionizing the way forests are mapped [16].

One of the initiatives that employs remote sensing in forestry and is closest to the WB6 region is that of Hristov et al. [17]. They explored emerging methods for early forest fire detection using UAVs and LoRaWAN (Long-Range Wide-Area Network) sensor networks in Bulgaria. The study proposes two solutions: deploying UAVs equipped with specialized cameras in various operational scenarios, including coordinated fixed-wing and rotary-wing systems, and developing LoRaWAN-based sensor networks for environmental monitoring [17].

GSDDTs in the WB6 started gaining major traction in agriculture in recent years, with drone-based technologies being increasingly recognized for their potential to enhance precision farming practices [18,19]. Although the current use of UAVs in agricultural production remains limited, there is growing interest in their ability to improve crop monitoring, water stress detection, pest control, and targeted spraying [18,20]. The application of UAVs promises not only economic benefits but also promotes more sustainable and eco-friendly agricultural practices [18,21]. However, legal frameworks remain restrictive, particularly in Serbia, where specific regulations limit commercial drone operations in agriculture [18,22]. In WB6 forestry, the use of UAVs is still largely in its infancy, focusing mainly on experimental projects aimed at forest monitoring and post-fire assessments [22]. Despite the potential for UAVs to provide high-resolution spatial data critical for SFM, regulatory and technical challenges in the WB6 region persist [22]. Nevertheless, there is a clear recognition that UAVs offer new, efficient tools for managing both agricultural and forest resources, especially under variable environmental conditions [18,22]. Future development is expected to hinge on the alignment of technological advances with improved legislative support and greater investment in education and capacity building [18]. Thus, while progress in agriculture is becoming increasingly evident, in forestry the shift is just beginning, laying the groundwork for a broader transition toward remote sensing-based management practices in the WB6.

2. Methodological Approach and Analytical Framework

This review employed a structured, stepwise methodology to systematically map and analyze the application of GSDDTs in the (agro)forestry sectors of the WB6 region. The methodological design was informed by a strategic science–technology–policy (STP) nexus framework (Figure 1), aiming to assess how technological implementation interacts with regional scientific capacities and policy infrastructures. The process consisted of four interconnected phases: identification of sources, data extraction and categorization, nexus-based analysis, and formulation of policy-relevant conclusions.

2.1. Phase 1: Literature Search and Case Study Identification

A comprehensive online literature search was conducted using major academic and policy-oriented databases, including Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and relevant national institutional repositories. All legal and strategic documents are cited in the References Section with corresponding hyperlinks and are accessible via standard web browser search. EU-based legal and policy documents were primarily accessed through the EUR-Lex online repository (https://eur-lex.europa.eu, accessed on 29 April 2025), while UN documents were retrieved from the official websites of relevant UN bodies, including the United Nations Treaty Collection (https://treaties.un.org/, accessed on 5 May 2025) and the FAOLEX database (https://www.fao.org/faolex, accessed on 6 May 2025), ensuring authoritative and up-to-date referencing. This combined approach ensures methodological transparency and supports the replicability of our research process. The search strategy applied well-defined keywords in both English and regional languages (Albanian, Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, and Macedonian), combining terms such as “remote sensing,” “UAV,” “GIS,” “LiDAR,” “forest management,” “agroforestry,” and “WB6.” The review considered material published between 2010 and 2025, including peer-reviewed articles, technical reports, policy documents, and publicly available case studies. In total, 103 references were analyzed, comprising 76 peer-reviewed articles and project reports, 21 international legal and policy documents (primarily from the European Union and United Nations), and 6 national regulatory instruments from the WB6 countries. Documents were selected based on three strict inclusion criteria: (1) the explicit application of GSDDT tools or methods, (2) geographic focus on at least one WB6 country, and (3) empirical outcomes or policy-relevant implications for sustainable (agro)forestry management. Studies not meeting these criteria were systematically excluded to ensure relevance and quality.

2.2. Phase 2: Data Extraction and Categorization

Each selected source was subjected to full-text review, and key information was extracted: type of GSDDT employed (e.g., UAV, satellite imagery, LiDAR, GIS platforms), thematic focus (e.g., biodiversity monitoring, biomass estimation, fire risk detection), institutional actors involved, scale of implementation, outcomes achieved, and national regulatory context. The extracted data were categorized by country, technology type, and application theme, enabling structured comparisons and the identification of regional trends and gaps.

2.3. Phase 3: Strategic Nexus Analysis

The extracted data were analyzed through a strategic STP nexus lens to understand how technology use aligns with or challenges national and regional capabilities and governance structures. The two tables presented in the Supplementary File form the core of the STP analysis: Table S1 provides a case-by-case breakdown of the scientific aims with accompanying project/case study information, while Table S2 presents a detailed policy analysis categorized by the type of technology used in each case study. Special attention was given to the interaction between GSDDT initiatives and relevant policy frameworks such as the EU acquis communautaire, the Green Agenda for the Western Balkans, and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This analysis enabled the identification of enabling and limiting factors across the science–policy interface and highlighted opportunities for scaling technological innovation in line with regional priorities.

2.4. Phase 4: Comparative and Synthesis Analysis

To enhance clarity and depth, several comparative analyses were conducted and visualized through tables. Table 1 shows the case study overview. Table 2 compares GSDDT types and applications across identified case studies. Table 3 provides an overview of national UAV regulatory frameworks in WB6 countries. Table 4 benchmarks each country’s institutional readiness, legal environment, and infrastructural support for GSDDT adoption. These structured comparisons provided a cross-national perspective on capacity gaps, innovation potential, and systemic constraints.

The review encountered several constraints. First, the number of publicly documented case studies varied significantly by country. Serbia was the most represented, with a total of 15 case studies—not including 3 others (1 from North Macedonia and 2 from Bosnia and Herzegovina) that may have been influenced by funding sources from Serbia—followed by Montenegro (7), Bosnia and Herzegovina (7), and North Macedonia (5). Albania (4) and Kosovo* (2) were underrepresented, reflecting disparities in research dissemination, legal openness, and data availability. In addition, many GSDDT applications remain in pilot phases or are implemented within academic settings, with limited scaling or institutional integration. Although all WB6 countries participate in EU-funded initiatives such as Horizon Europe and COST Actions, many projects are either ongoing or lack accessible outputs, limiting their full information inclusion in this review. Furthermore, outdated and fragmented UAV legislation in several countries continues to impede broader implementation and experimentation.

The applied methodology enabled a robust, context-sensitive assessment of GSDDT deployment across the WB6 region. Through a stepwise design rooted in a STP nexus framework, the review captured both operational practices and systemic barriers, producing actionable insights for strengthening digital innovation in (agro)forestry systems.

The scope of this review is not to prescribe fully developed action plans for WB6 countries, but rather to provide an evidence-based foundation upon which such plans can be built. While the paper presents strategic directions and policy-relevant insights, the formulation of concrete short-, mid-, and long-term goals must follow a structured national dialogue and thorough needs assessment within each country. This review should be seen as a catalyst for such a process, not as a replacement for participatory and democratic policy development. On the contrary, it fully supports these processes and aims to initiate an informed and inclusive discussion on the role of GSDDTs in advancing sustainable (agro)forestry in the region. That is why, for example, merging of Table 5 and Table 6 is not considered necessary at this stage, as a structured dialogue and needs assessment involving targeted stakeholders are essential to fully bridge and operationalize the data and recommendations presented.

Given targeted gaps in the literature and online sources and the growing significance of GSDDTs, the aims of this paper are as follows: (1) to map and present the current GSDDT practices and challenges applied in (agro)forestry in WB6 countries, specifically, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo*, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia (hereinafter, *this designation is without prejudice to positions on status and is in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) and the International Court of Justice Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence); (2) to provide clear political and strategic recommendations for future actions that aim to enhance the use of GSDDTs in (agro)forestry research and practice in the region and thus to improve sustainable, (agro)forestry management to become fully climate-smart; (3) based on the given recommendations, to serve as a foundation for upcoming advocacy efforts in WB6 countries, aiming to support the development of evidence-based national legislation, policy reforms, intersectional collaboration, and the introduction of targeted incentives based on new upcoming national action plans of GSDDT usage.

This review focuses exclusively on WB6 countries that are EU candidate states to critically assess how the adoption of remote sensing and UAV technologies in (agro)forestry case studies contributes to meeting specific EU acquis communautaire chapters relevant to the accession process, deliberately excluding Croatia and Slovenia as they have already completed accession and thus operate under fully harmonized EU frameworks. The case studies presented in the following tables throughout the paper are organized in a random order to avoid any perceived visibility bias or potential competitive disadvantage in future cooperation initiatives, which might result from a public discourse process. While this study focuses on the strategic analysis of GSDDTs within the WB6 region, future research could benefit from a comparative assessment with selected EU member states (especially neighboring ones, e.g., Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania) to better contextualize regional gaps, opportunities, and pathways for integration.

3. (Agro)Forestry in WB6 Countries

In the WB6 countries, (agro)forestry systems represent vital ecological and socio-economic resources, with forest cover reaching approximately 32% in Serbia, 28% in Albania, 42% in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and 61.49% in Montenegro [23]. Overall, the region hosts around 15.3 million hectares of forested land, accounting for roughly 31.1% of its total land area and 8.3% of Europe’s forested zones [24]. Despite this substantial coverage, the integration of remote sensing technologies in (agro)forestry remains significantly underdeveloped in comparison to the EU member states. This discrepancy stems from a combination of complex and interrelated factors, including fragmented legal frameworks, outdated forest inventories, and insufficient technical and institutional capacities [25]. Moreover, the WB6’s mountainous terrain and ecological diversity demand localized and context-sensitive remote sensing approaches, which further hinder standardization and scalability across the region [25]. While traditional forestry practices persist, efforts to modernize the sector through digital tools, ecosystem-based planning, and participatory governance are gradually emerging [26].

Several successful agroforestry initiatives have been documented across the WB6, demonstrating both ecological and economic benefits, as well as growing integration with remote sensing and GIS technologies. In Serbia, protective forest belts (PFBs) and shelterbelts are well established in the Vojvodina province, covering more than 6.5% of agricultural land, which significantly mitigates wind erosion and enhances local microclimates. Furthermore, these systems play a vital role in supporting local biodiversity and improving overall agricultural productivity [27]. Bosnia and Herzegovina have notably advanced in establishing shelterbelts, which now play a pivotal role in flood control and biodiversity corridors, substantially improving ecological connectivity [27]. In Montenegro, silvopastoral and agrosilvopastoral systems, which combine tree cultivation with livestock grazing, are adapted to mountainous terrains and contribute to soil conservation while offering dual income streams from both timber and animal husbandry [27]. These diverse agroforestry practices, although still developing technologically, are increasingly supported by geospatial tools that enhance planning, monitoring, and optimization across varied environmental and agricultural contexts in the region. For instance, the implementation of windbreak systems in certain areas reflects advanced planning and landscape-level integration. However, the downstream valorization of agroforestry biomass, particularly its systematic collection, processing, and use for bioenergy, remains underdeveloped. This gap is especially notable given the abundance of pruned material, residues, and secondary biomass generated by these systems, which often goes unused. Therefore, while structural and ecological elements of agroforestry (e.g., windbreaks, mixed cropping) show promising development, the bioenergy and circular economy potential of agroforestry biomass is still largely untapped in WB6 countries [26]. One of the key advancements in modern (agro)forestry is the integration of remote sensing technologies with Geographic Information Systems (GIS). GIS is supporting spatial analysis and informed decision-making, particularly in conservation planning, resource allocation, and the implementation of SFM strategies [28]. GIS and remote sensing applications, particularly multispectral imaging and digital surface modeling, enable precise evaluations of vegetation health, biomass potential, and environmental impacts, which are critical for sustainable management of (agro)forestry systems in WB6 countries [29]. The extent to which this approach can benefit the (agro)forestry sector is demonstrated by Lelong et al. [30], who used advanced GIS to map all dominant tree species in the Niakhar area, Senegal, showing that such technologies can be applied to other types of agroforestry systems in different regions of the world.

4. Introduction of GSDDTs in WB6 Countries

The WB6 region is increasingly exposed to the impacts of climate change. Extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and intense, significantly affecting economies, infrastructure, ecosystems, and human lives. In May 2014, historic floods struck Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia, pushing over 125,000 people into poverty in Serbia alone and causing damages and losses exceeding USD 2 billion in Bosnia and Herzegovina [31]. Additionally, Southern Europe has experienced severe heat waves, with temperatures exceeding 40 °C, such as the “Lucifer” event [31]. Scientific evidence has linked these extreme events directly to climate change and predicts worsening conditions in the coming decades. A World Bank report indicated that by the end of the century, average summer temperatures in the WB6 could rise by up to 7.5 °C above pre-industrial levels [31]. These temperature increases would bring severe droughts, reduce agricultural yields, induce water scarcity, and diminish hydropower production, a key renewable energy source for the region. Winter and spring flood risks are expected to intensify, increasing the vulnerability of already fragile economies and ecosystems [32]. Water scarcity is also expected to intensify due to declining precipitation and altered hydrological patterns [33]. These changes threaten the aforementioned hydropower production, which could decline by as much as 15% by 2050 in some countries such as Albania [34]. At the same time, winter and spring flood risks are projected to increase due to earlier snowmelt and heavier rainfall, further stressing vulnerable ecosystems and infrastructure [34]. Without urgent climate resilience measures, the region will face rising economic instability and escalating threats to sustainable development [32].

The 2014 flooding in Bosnia triggered landslides that displaced marked minefields and rendered traditional clearance methods unreliable. In response, the Royal Military Academy of Belgium and the Bosnia and Herzegovina Mine Action Centre deployed micro-UAVs equipped with high-resolution optical and near-infrared (NIR) cameras to map displaced explosives. Flying for up to 88 min per sortie, the UAVs captured thousands of images that were merged into orthophoto mosaics and digital elevation models (DEMs), enabling targeted demining in areas such as Olovske and Grabovica Creek despite limitations from saturated soils [35].

Building on these successes, the TIRAMISU project integrated drone imagery, remote sensing, and decision-support tools across the WB6 to streamline post-disaster mine action [36]. Giulio Coppi’s Osservatorio report emphasized how turning UAVs from military to humanitarian assets marked a milestone in demining innovation, allowing rapid, safe surveys in terrain too hazardous for ground teams [37]. This approach not only reduced risks to personnel but also demonstrated the transformative role of UAV-supported remote sensing in crisis response.

Given the emerging threats mentioned, there is a growing need for comprehensive, evidence-based approaches to disaster risk reduction and environmental management, particularly in (agro)forestry regions. Although historically underdeveloped in the use of advanced monitoring technologies, WB6 countries have begun turning toward remote sensing, UAVs, satellite imagery, LiDAR, and other technologies to enhance their resilience and adaptation capabilities [25].

5. Case Studies on GSDDTs in the (Agro)Forestry Sector of the WB6 Region

5.1. Local and National Initiatives

Local and national initiatives within the WB6 illustrate significant innovation in (agro)forestry, leveraging remote sensing and drone technologies tailored to specific ecological and agroforestry challenges (Table S1). Forestry-focused projects such as those in Serbia’s Surčin municipality exemplify strategic spatial integration aligned with the European Landscape Convention (ELC), employing high-resolution GIS analyses to guide reforestation and ecological restoration in urban and peri-urban landscapes, integrating socio-economic evaluations and multifunctional landscape design [38]. In the Stara Planina mountain region of eastern Serbia, Šurjanac et al. [39] conducted a pioneering study using UAVs equipped with RGB and multispectral cameras to detect physiological stress in forest vegetation. The study employed vegetation indices such as NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) and NDRE (Normalized Difference Red Edge Index), which allowed detection of subtle changes in tree vitality. Notably, NDRE proved particularly effective in identifying early signs of pest outbreaks. Ground validation confirmed that areas with low NDRE values were infested by the beech weevil Orchestes fagi L. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), underscoring the value of remote sensing for timely and targeted forest pest management [39]. Complementing this regional effort, the TreeVita project [40] operates on a broader scale across Serbia, focusing on the vitality and genetic structure of Quercus robur L. under climate stress. Recognizing climate change as a critical driver of forest decline, TreeVita integrates dendroecological analysis, genetic assessment, and remote sensing to understand the resilience of this economically important species. The project’s geographic scope spans vulnerable oak populations across Serbia, and its outcomes are geared toward practical forestry. An online decision-support platform is being developed to guide adaptive forest management based on remote sensing data and genetic insights [40]. The integrated geospatial hazard mapping in Serbia’s Šar Mountains National Park combines erosion potential models and wildfire susceptibility indices derived from Sentinel-2 and VIIRS satellite data, providing critical insights for sustainable land-use planning and ecological risk management across (agro)forestry landscapes [41]. Another study [42] assessed drought-induced tree stress in the Vršac Mountains (Serbia) using Sentinel-2 satellite imagery and vegetation indices, including Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI), Triangular Vegetation Index (TVI), Moisture Stress Index (MSI), and Normalized Difference Moisture Index (NDMI). The research aimed to detect and quantify spatial and temporal changes in forest health between 2023 and 2024 caused by climate extremes. Results revealed a sharp rise in drought-affected forest areas in 2024, over 40% across all indices, highlighting the effectiveness of remote sensing for early warning and adaptive forest management under increasing climate stress.

In North Macedonia, Milevski et al. [43] employed a low-cost UAV (DJI Mini 4 Pro) to survey the Kuklica geosite, generating high-resolution digital elevation models (DEMs) and orthophotos that enabled the delineation of over 140 earth pyramids and the assessment of erosion and flash flood susceptibility. Machine learning classification techniques were used to analyze land cover and identify erosion-prone zones, demonstrating the utility of UAV-derived data for detailed geomorphological monitoring. In parallel, Aleksova et al. [44] conducted a comprehensive multi-hazard vulnerability assessment in the mountainous and forested municipality of Makedonska Kamenica. Their study integrated GIS and remote sensing tools—including CORINE Land Cover data, Sentinel-2 imagery, and the Bare Soil Index (BSI)—to model forest fire, landslide, erosion, and flash flood risks using methods such as the Erosion Potential Model (EPM), Landslide Susceptibility Index (LSI), and Flash Flood Potential Index (FFPI). The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was applied to systematically evaluate fire susceptibility by incorporating expert-defined weighting of environmental and anthropogenic factors. Both studies underscore the growing relevance of combining UAV photogrammetry, remote sensing, and GIS-based modeling in mountain (agro)forestry landscapes to support risk-informed land management under escalating climatic and anthropogenic pressures [43,44].

Montenegro’s efforts in forest monitoring have been significantly enhanced through the development of its National Forest Inventory (NFI), which incorporates remote sensing technologies such as satellite imagery and aerial photography to assess forest cover, biomass, and inaccessible areas. Supported by the Government of Montenegro and international partners, the NFI aims to establish a comprehensive and empirical data baseline for SFM [45]. Complementary to this, a project funded by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the Ministry of Agriculture utilized both optical and radar satellite data for forest biomass estimation and condition monitoring between 2018 and 2020. These initiatives aim to enhance data accuracy, inform climate resilience strategies, and support evidence-based policymaking in the forestry sector [45]. One more case study from Montenegro’s Mount Garač highlights the effective use of NDVI analyses from satellite imagery to monitor post-fire vegetation recovery, illustrating the significant changes in vegetation density due to frequent fires and facilitating the evaluation of ecosystem resilience and regeneration potential [46].

Four case studies from Bosnia and Herzegovina demonstrate the use of GSDDTs in forestry applications. Garbarino et al. [47] combined high-resolution Kompsat-2 multispectral satellite imagery with field data to analyze canopy gap disturbances and regeneration dynamics in the Lom old-growth forest. They used unsupervised pixel-based classification with neural network algorithms to identify 650 canopy gaps, concluding that gap geometry significantly influences species composition and that such multispectral data effectively captures recent disturbances at the landscape scale. Gebert [48] employed Landsat-based Global Forest Change (GFC) datasets in combination with official illegal logging reports from Canton Sarajevo to assess spatial overlaps. The study concluded that due to selective understory logging, which rarely disturbs the canopy, remote sensing methods relying on canopy loss significantly underestimate illegal logging, highlighting the need for refined techniques tailored to the region’s ecological and socio-political context. The authors of [49] applied remote sensing technologies, including Sentinel-2 satellite imagery, Google Earth Engine, and GIS, to monitor and analyze wildfires in the Sana River Basin, Bosnia and Herzegovina. The research aimed to assess drought-related wildfire hazards and quantify their spatial impacts on vegetation and land use types using indices such as SPEI, Angstrom Index, dNDVI, and dNBR. Results revealed that severe drought conditions in July and August 2017 significantly contributed to wildfire occurrence, affecting over 500 km² of forests, meadows, and agricultural land, and impacting nearly 19,000 residents. The study demonstrates the effectiveness of integrating geospatial technologies for hazard prediction, land degradation assessment, and post-fire management planning. In the last case study, detailed remote sensing and GIS mapping of forest degradation in Stanari municipality have enabled identification of over 977 hectares of forest loss attributed to mining operations, providing critical data to inform land reclamation and sustainable management strategies, setting a replicable model for similar mining-affected areas [50].

In Albania, a national-level effort to integrate GSDDTs is exemplified by the Albanian Forest Information System (ALFIS). Developed between 2019 and 2021 under the Environmental Services Project and funded by the Swedish Government through the World Bank, ALFIS represents the country’s first integrated digital forest cadaster. It combines digitized historical maps, satellite imagery, and updated forest inventory data into a web-based platform, enabling real-time monitoring, land-use assessment, and improved forest management. The system enhances transparency, supports evidence-based decision-making, and strengthens alignment with EU environmental frameworks [51].

5.2. Agroforestry Initiatives

Conversely, agroforestry initiatives such as CREDIT Vibes and EINSTEIN in Serbia (Table S1) highlight innovative approaches to sustainable agriculture integrated with forestry practices. CREDIT Vibes promotes drone-based biological control methods to combat pests in organic maize, soybean, and wheat fields, emphasizing biomass residue utilization for soil conditioning and bio-based packaging, thus exemplifying the symbiotic benefits of integrating trees and crops within agricultural systems [52]. Furthermore, the project supports the co-cultivation of crops and woody perennials by valorizing agroforestry by-products into high-value bioinputs, such as biostimulants and composted soil enhancers, directly enhancing biodiversity and carbon sequestration in such systems. The EINSTEIN project highlights the transformation of viticultural waste into valuable bio-based products, employing UAV and Sentinel-2 imagery for biomass monitoring and waste valorization, ultimately aiming to establish a zero-waste agroforestry-based viticulture system in the National Park of Fruška Gora [53]. Fruška Gora, located in northern Serbia, is home to one of Europe’s largest linden forests and a long-standing tradition of viticulture, positioning it as a key location for advancing organic wine production within an ecological agroforestry framework [54]. The project promotes eco-friendly plant protection and supports the transition to organic grape production, with nutriwaste from vineyards being repurposed into edible electronic components, aligning with circular economy principles and contributing to sustainable agroforestry development. Treesury further illustrates agroforestry innovation in Serbia, combining precision agriculture, blockchain-based financing, and remote sensing technologies to optimize hazelnut production as an agroforestry system, significantly improving yield efficiency, lowering production costs, and reducing carbon footprints through advanced agri-tech interventions [55]. As an example, some Serbian companies, such as DronSpray and GridX, actively engage in agroforestry services, offering drone-based pest control, multispectral scanning, and infrastructure monitoring, effectively bridging forestry and agricultural productivity through technological innovation [56,57]. The agroforestry-focused DiVine project employs AI-enhanced remote sensing for vineyard management, dramatically reducing manual inspection efforts and providing timely, data-driven insights into plant health, effectively addressing significant economic threats such as Esca disease in viticulture and its supporting agroforestry systems [58]. These case studies demonstrate how strategically applied GSDDTs can sustainably address complex ecological and agroforestry challenges in the WB6.

5.3. International and Cross-Border Initiatives

Internationally, transboundary projects increasingly integrate forestry and agroforestry through advanced remote sensing, reinforcing regional ecological connectivity and conservation (Table S1). The forestry-oriented Forest Beyond Borders case study demonstrates cross-border collaboration, using multispectral cameras, LiDAR, SAR imagery, and machine learning models to produce harmonized, high-resolution maps of old-growth forests, complemented by field validation and legal framework analyses to ensure lasting conservation efforts across multiple WB6 countries [59,60]. Similarly, ForestConnect leverages GIS, digital twin models, and interactive online viewers to establish transboundary corridors for large carnivores, addressing habitat fragmentation and climate resilience across the Carpathians, Balkans, and Dinarides, promoting biodiversity conservation through technologically sophisticated approaches [61]. The COST Action projects ARiF and 3DForEcoTech demonstrate advancements in forestry management by integrating augmented reality for user-friendly field applications and high-resolution terrestrial technologies for accurate ecological monitoring [62,63]. Project O₂ exemplifies an innovative forestry-driven international approach to drone-assisted reforestation across WB6, including Serbia and Kosovo*, using robust SeedBomb technology adapted to local climates, enhancing reforestation efficiency on challenging terrains, and achieving notable success rates in seedling survival [64]. Forestry-driven drone reforestation in Kosovo*, implemented through this project, addresses severe deforestation by dispersing seed balls via UAVs at a rate five times faster than traditional planting [64].

5.4. Country-Level Adoption and Technological Trends

From Table 1 and Table S1, widespread adoption of GSDDTs in the WB6 reflects a growing national commitment to environmental monitoring, climate resilience, and sustainable land use through precise (agro)forestry practices. This commitment is reinforced by strong external funding streams, particularly from EU programs such as Horizon Europe, COST Action, and Interreg.

Table 1. Key statistical overview of presented case studies.

Indicator	Count/Insights
Total number of case studies reviewed	25
Forestry-focused cases	17 (68%)
Agroforestry-focused cases	4 (16%)
Case studies including both forestry and agroforestry	4 (16%)
Most active country	Serbia—involved in 18 projects, both directly and indirectly through funding support (72%)
National case studies exclusively	20 in total (80%) (Serbia—10; Bosnia and Herzegovina—4; Montenegro—3; North Macedonia—2; Albania—1)
Multinational initiatives (include 2 or more WB6 countries)	5 case studies (20%) (Forest Beyond Borders, Forest Connect, ARiF, 3DForEcoTech, Project O2)
Privately funded case studies	4 case studies (16%) (Treesury, Project O2, DronSpray, GridX)
Horizon-funded EU projects	CREDIT Vibes, EINSTEIN, DiVine (12%)
COST Action program projects	ARiF, 3DForEcoTech
The oldest case study	Gap disturbances in BiH (2009–2012) by Garbarino et al. [47]
Most recent case studies (2024 start)	ARiF, ForestConnect, Treesury
Dominant technologies	UAVs, multispectral and satellite imagery, GIS, NDVI, LiDAR

Table 1. Key statistical overview of presented case studies.

Indicator	Count/Insights
Total number of case studies reviewed	25
Forestry-focused cases	17 (68%)
Agroforestry-focused cases	4 (16%)
Case studies including both forestry and agroforestry	4 (16%)
Most active country	Serbia—involved in 18 projects, both directly and indirectly through funding support (72%)
National case studies exclusively	20 in total (80%) (Serbia—10; Bosnia and Herzegovina—4; Montenegro—3; North Macedonia—2; Albania—1)
Multinational initiatives (include 2 or more WB6 countries)	5 case studies (20%) (Forest Beyond Borders, Forest Connect, ARiF, 3DForEcoTech, Project O2)
Privately funded case studies	4 case studies (16%) (Treesury, Project O2, DronSpray, GridX)
Horizon-funded EU projects	CREDIT Vibes, EINSTEIN, DiVine (12%)
COST Action program projects	ARiF, 3DForEcoTech
The oldest case study	Gap disturbances in BiH (2009–2012) by Garbarino et al. [47]
Most recent case studies (2024 start)	ARiF, ForestConnect, Treesury
Dominant technologies	UAVs, multispectral and satellite imagery, GIS, NDVI, LiDAR

As can be seen from Table 1, Serbia emerges as the regional leader, participating in 18 out of 25 targeted case studies (72%). Serbia’s relative dominance in the application of GSDDTs stems from a combination of factors, including its comparatively stronger research infrastructure. Several leading institutions, such as the Institute of Lowland Forestry and Environment (ILFE), the Institute of Forestry, and the Faculty of Forestry, University of Belgrade, have actively participated in international projects involving remote sensing, UAVs, and AI-based monitoring systems (the abovementioned COST Actions). Additionally, Serbia has benefited from bilateral and EU-supported capacity-building programs, most notably COST Actions, ERASMUS+, IPARD (II and III), and Horizon 2020 for more than 20 years now, further strengthening institutional readiness for digital transitions in the (agro)forestry sector. Montenegro (seven case studies, 28%) and Bosnia and Herzegovina (seven case studies, 28%) follow with multiple national and regional initiatives, particularly in forest biomass estimation, land degradation monitoring, and canopy analysis. Regions with lower participation in cross-border initiatives and limited application of GSDDTs—particularly in the southern part of the WB6, including North Macedonia (five case studies, 23%), Albania (four case studies, 16%), and Kosovo* (two case studies, 8%)—should intensify their involvement through regional cooperation mechanisms and EU-funded programs. The existing case studies from these countries demonstrate both basic operational capacities and untapped potential for advancing GSDDT-based collaboration. Strengthening their engagement in cross-regional initiatives, especially within the framework of the EU integration process, would not only accelerate harmonization but also unlock substantial opportunities for the application of GSDDTs in sustainable (agro)forestry management.

Technologically, GSDDT applications in the region are evolving beyond traditional forest inventory and satellite image interpretation. Recent projects are also leveraging AI-powered diagnostics, blockchain for traceability in agroforestry (e.g., Treesury), and autonomous UAVs for reforestation using the SeedBombs (Project O₂). These innovations indicate a shift toward value-added, precision-driven, and data-integrated practices in both forestry and agriculture.

Furthermore, interdisciplinary approaches are gaining popularity. Several case studies link GSDDTs with sectors such as energy, disaster risk reduction [43,50], cultural heritage mapping [43], and genetic conservation (e.g., TreeVita). This underscores a regional readiness for cross-sectoral innovation, particularly where forestry intersects with spatial planning and ecosystem services.

The private sector also plays an increasingly active role: 4 out of 25 projects (16%) (Table 1) were privately initiated or co-funded. Their focus on tech-based solutions suggests a promising trajectory for public–private innovation ecosystems around GSDDT applications in the region.

Table 2 presents a breakdown analysis of GSDDT types and associated innovative components utilized within targeted WB6 case studies. The results reveal that the combination of technologies (UAV, satellite, and/or terrestrial remote sensing) is the most prevalent approach, appearing in 48% of the case studies. UAV remote sensing is applied in 28% of cases, while satellite remote sensing appears in 24% of the applications. This distribution reflects a growing preference for integrated, multi-source approaches that leverage the strengths of different platforms to support comprehensive (agro)forestry monitoring and analysis. Terrestrial remote sensing is not used independently but features as part of combined approaches, indicating its still underutilized potential for high-resolution ecological assessments. Notably, the COST Action 3DForEcoTech stands out as a project that integrates all three types of remote sensing—UAV, satellite, and terrestrial—demonstrating a cutting-edge approach to forest ecosystem monitoring. Furthermore, 24% of the case studies incorporate innovative digital components such as AI-assisted viticulture management (DiVine), blockchain for traceability in hazelnut agroforestry (Treesury), digital twin applications (ARiF, 3DForEcoTech), UAV-based SeedBomb reforestation (Project O₂), and a multi-layered integration of satellite, dendroecological, isotopic, and genetic analysis (TreeVita). These innovations signal a clear trend toward the adoption of advanced, data-rich solutions for climate-resilient and adaptive (agro)forestry practices across the region.

Table 2. Technological screening of GSDDT types and usage frequency in targeted WB6 case studies.

GSDDT Types	Number of Case Studies with Percentages	Case Studies Breakdown
UAV remote sensing	7 (28%)	DiVine project Treesury CREDIT Vibes Forest stress monitoring—Stara Planina [39] Project O2 DronSpray and GridX Kuklica geosite survey [43]
Satellite remote sensing	6 (24%)	Monitoring land degradation in Stanari [50] Forestry Tech (NDVI Garač) [46] Dual-hazard mapping in Šar Mountains [41] TreeVita Vršac Mountains drought stress monitoring [42] Forest recovery in Hutovo Blato Nature Park [49]
Combination of two or more	12 (48%)	COST Action 3DForEcoTech (Satellite + UAV + Terrestrial) Bosnian old-growth forest gaps [47] (Satellite + Terrestrial) COST Action ARiF (Satellite + Terrestrial) EINSTEIN project (UAV + Satellite) Forest Beyond Borders (UAV + Terrestrial) National Forest Inventory (Montenegro) and Forest Biomass Estimation (Montenegro) [45] (UAV + Terrestrial) Forest Connect (UAV + Terrestrial) Illegal logging detection (BiH) [48] (Satellite + Terrestrial) Makedonska Kamenica multi-hazard assessment [44] (UAV + Satellite) Surčin, Forest Landscape Restoration (Satellite + Terrestrial) ALFIS (Satellite + Terrestrial)
Innovative components (aside GSDDTs)	6 (24%)	SeedBomb UAV reforestation (Project O2) Integrated AI in agroforestry-based viticulture (DiVine) Integrated blockchain in hazelnut agroforestry (Treesury) Digital twins and virtual forest models (ARiF, 3DForEcoTech) Satellite remote sensing, dendroecological analysis, stable carbon isotope profiling and genetic characterization (TreeVita)

Table 2. Technological screening of GSDDT types and usage frequency in targeted WB6 case studies.

GSDDT Types	Number of Case Studies with Percentages	Case Studies Breakdown
UAV remote sensing	7 (28%)	DiVine project Treesury CREDIT Vibes Forest stress monitoring—Stara Planina [39] Project O2 DronSpray and GridX Kuklica geosite survey [43]
Satellite remote sensing	6 (24%)	Monitoring land degradation in Stanari [50] Forestry Tech (NDVI Garač) [46] Dual-hazard mapping in Šar Mountains [41] TreeVita Vršac Mountains drought stress monitoring [42] Forest recovery in Hutovo Blato Nature Park [49]
Combination of two or more	12 (48%)	COST Action 3DForEcoTech (Satellite + UAV + Terrestrial) Bosnian old-growth forest gaps [47] (Satellite + Terrestrial) COST Action ARiF (Satellite + Terrestrial) EINSTEIN project (UAV + Satellite) Forest Beyond Borders (UAV + Terrestrial) National Forest Inventory (Montenegro) and Forest Biomass Estimation (Montenegro) [45] (UAV + Terrestrial) Forest Connect (UAV + Terrestrial) Illegal logging detection (BiH) [48] (Satellite + Terrestrial) Makedonska Kamenica multi-hazard assessment [44] (UAV + Satellite) Surčin, Forest Landscape Restoration (Satellite + Terrestrial) ALFIS (Satellite + Terrestrial)
Innovative components (aside GSDDTs)	6 (24%)	SeedBomb UAV reforestation (Project O2) Integrated AI in agroforestry-based viticulture (DiVine) Integrated blockchain in hazelnut agroforestry (Treesury) Digital twins and virtual forest models (ARiF, 3DForEcoTech) Satellite remote sensing, dendroecological analysis, stable carbon isotope profiling and genetic characterization (TreeVita)

5.5. Integrating GSDDTs with Forest Genetic Monitoring (FGM): A Pathway to Climate-Resilient Forest Conservation in the WB6

Forest genetic monitoring (FGM) in the WB6 remains limited and fragmented. Only a few countries—such as Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and to a lesser extent Montenegro and North Macedonia—have made sporadic and periodic efforts to assess and monitor genetic variability within forest ecosystems [65,66,67,68,69]. Despite these initiatives, comprehensive and long-term monitoring of genetic diversity and adaptive traits is still largely underdeveloped across the region. Persistent capacity constraints, insufficient funding, and the absence of coordinated national strategies for forest genetic resources (FGR) continue to hinder progress in this critical area [69,70].

Nevertheless, the findings of identified case studies highlight an untapped opportunity to integrate GSDDTs into forest genetic monitoring frameworks. These technologies can enhance spatial precision, operational efficiency, and the scalability of efforts to track genetic diversity, especially for rare and endemic species. GSDDTs offer transformative potential by enabling non-invasive, repeatable, and large-scale assessments of forest ecosystems.

When integrated with species- and genetic-level monitoring, GSDDTs can help uncover spatial patterns of genetic variation, monitor the health and distribution of priority populations, and detect environmental stressors affecting adaptive traits [4,71]. High-resolution imagery and LiDAR technologies can map phenotypic variation and assess habitat conditions, thereby supporting the development and management of in situ conservation sites and dynamic gene conservation units [72]. Furthermore, UAVs equipped with multispectral sensors are capable of detecting early signs of physiological stress in genetically valuable stands, allowing for targeted field sampling and subsequent genetic analysis [72].

By combining GSDDT outputs with existing genetic inventories and provenance trial data, countries in the WB6 can significantly strengthen evidence-based decision-making related to forest reproductive material management [73]. Such integration is essential for designing climate-resilient restoration strategies and ensuring the long-term conservation of FGR in alignment with EU and SDG policy frameworks (see Section 7 of this paper). The only documented example of intentional integration of GSDDTs with genetic monitoring in WB6 is the TreeVita project from Serbia, which combined satellite remote sensing, dendroecology, carbon isotope profiling, and genetic analysis to assess spatial genetic diversity of pedunculate oak at the population level across Serbia [74]. Nevertheless, data gathered in the study of [42] can inform FGM by identifying populations exposed to recurrent or extreme climatic pressures. By mapping areas of canopy decline and physiological stress, it enables targeted selection of forest stands for genetic assessment of adaptive traits such as drought tolerance. Integrating such remote sensing outputs with FGM enhances early detection of vulnerability and supports the development of climate-resilient tree populations through informed conservation and breeding strategies.

6. Challenges in Integrating GSDDTs in (Agro)Forestry Management in WB6

The use of GSDDTs in European forest research has expanded significantly in recent years, driven by reductions in the size and cost of GPS receivers, navigation systems, onboard computers, and remote sensing sensors [3]. In WB6, sustainable management of (agro)forestry systems is gaining institutional recognition, although its implementation remains inconsistent across countries. Recent international and national initiatives have begun to address these disparities. For instance, the Regional Program for Landscape Fire Management has improved fire preparedness in Montenegro and North Macedonia, while Albania, Kosovo*, and Serbia have introduced upgraded forestry information systems that integrate satellite data and geospatial technologies for improved decision-making [25]. In Serbia, GSDDTs have been tested in state forests for forest health monitoring and illegal logging detection, representing concrete steps toward technology integration [25]. Moreover, the same author highlights that Albania’s adoption of a digital cadastral registry has streamlined forest ownership documentation and land-use planning, indirectly supporting sustainable management of (agro)forestry systems [25].

Despite these advances, (agro)forestry management in the WB6 region faces persistent barriers to integrating GSDDTs into routine practice. Institutional inertia, fragmented regulatory frameworks, technical skills gaps, and limited funding continue to impede progress. In contrast to the centralized forest monitoring systems and streamlined UAV regulations observed in parts of Central and Western Europe, many WB6 countries face significant obstacles in harmonizing operational data flows and policy implementation at both national and cross-border levels [9]. Moreover, the region’s complex terrain and diverse forest ecosystems necessitate tailored remote sensing approaches, further complicating integration efforts. These unique challenges underscore the urgent need for customized remote sensing strategies that align with both the ecological complexity and the policy ambitions of the region’s sustainable development frameworks [3,75]. A review of the abovementioned case studies reveals six core challenges outlined below (each entry is labeled with a number and the suffix ‘c’ (standing for ‘challenge’), to facilitate easier reference and structured action planning in later stages of the design process).

(1c) Fragmented national UAV legislations: This hinders cross-border cooperation potential, including remote sensing via drones; national UAV and remote-sensing regulations differ widely, and that inconsistency in regulations (Table 3) slows cross-border collaborations and multi-country research efforts. Since UAV-based remote sensing is the dominant type of GSDDT used in targeted WB6 case studies (Table 1), it is critically important to analyze country-specific legislation on UAV usage, as it directly influences the practical implementation and applicability of these technologies. Serbia’s mandatory insurance, airport-buffer zones, and licensing requirements, for example, constrain both commercial and research flights [22]. Furthermore, outdated or inconsistent laws hinder UAV deployment and satellite data use. In North Macedonia and Kosovo*, regulations are relatively flexible, but the absence of regional harmonization creates administrative barriers for cross-border (agro)forestry research initiatives [22].

Table 3. Overview of national UAV regulations in WB6 countries, compared with EU legislation.

Country	Legislation Adoption Date	Max Flight Altitude (m)	Min Distance from People (m)	Visual Line of Sight (VLOS)	Restricted Areas	Drone Registration Requirements	Pilot Licensing Requirements	References
Albania	2022	120	30 (5 in “low-speed” mode)	Required at all times	Airports, heliports, and zones designated by the CAA	Mandatory for UAVs ≥ 250 g or equipped with a camera	Minimum age: 16; pilot ID required after passing an online test	[76]
Bosnia and Herzegovina	2020	30	30	Required at all times	300 m from borders; 500 m from industrial, military, or public sites	Required for UAVs 0.249–25 kg	Minimum age: 18; theoretical exam on aviation rules required	[77]
Kosovo*	2017 (revised 2021)	150	30	Required at all times	1 km from borders and NATO Camp Film City	Required for UAVs ≥ 500 g	Minimum age: 16; theoretical knowledge test required	[78]
Montenegro	2016 (revised 2023)	120	30	Required at all times	Airports, heliports, and restricted zones designated by the CAA	Required for UAVs ≥ 250 g or equipped with a camera	Minimum age: 16; online training and exam required	[79]
North Macedonia	2017 (revised 2024)	120	50	Required at all times	3 km from borders, 100 m from sensitive objects, 1 km from airports	Required for UAVs ≥ 250 g or equipped with a camera	Minimum age: 18; competency training and exam required	[80]
Serbia	2015 (revised 2020)	100	30 (5 in “low-speed” mode)	Required at all times	500 m from government/military buildings, 5 km from airports	Required for UAVs ≥ 250 g or equipped with a camera	Minimum age: 18; knowledge test on air law and operational procedures required	[81]
EU Legislation	2019 (revised 2025)	120	30 (5 in “low-speed” mode)	Required at all times	UAS geographical zones *	Required for UAVs ≥ 250 g or equipped with a camera	Minimum age: 16; online training course and pass an online theoretical knowledge examination	[82]

* UAS (Unmanned Aircraft Systems) geographical zones refer to portions of airspace established by the competent authority that facilitate, restrict, or exclude UAS operations in order to address risks related to safety, privacy, protection of personal data, security, or the environment arising from UAS activities [82].

Table 3. Overview of national UAV regulations in WB6 countries, compared with EU legislation.

Country	Legislation Adoption Date	Max Flight Altitude (m)	Min Distance from People (m)	Visual Line of Sight (VLOS)	Restricted Areas	Drone Registration Requirements	Pilot Licensing Requirements	References
Albania	2022	120	30 (5 in “low-speed” mode)	Required at all times	Airports, heliports, and zones designated by the CAA	Mandatory for UAVs ≥ 250 g or equipped with a camera	Minimum age: 16; pilot ID required after passing an online test	[76]
Bosnia and Herzegovina	2020	30	30	Required at all times	300 m from borders; 500 m from industrial, military, or public sites	Required for UAVs 0.249–25 kg	Minimum age: 18; theoretical exam on aviation rules required	[77]
Kosovo*	2017 (revised 2021)	150	30	Required at all times	1 km from borders and NATO Camp Film City	Required for UAVs ≥ 500 g	Minimum age: 16; theoretical knowledge test required	[78]
Montenegro	2016 (revised 2023)	120	30	Required at all times	Airports, heliports, and restricted zones designated by the CAA	Required for UAVs ≥ 250 g or equipped with a camera	Minimum age: 16; online training and exam required	[79]
North Macedonia	2017 (revised 2024)	120	50	Required at all times	3 km from borders, 100 m from sensitive objects, 1 km from airports	Required for UAVs ≥ 250 g or equipped with a camera	Minimum age: 18; competency training and exam required	[80]
Serbia	2015 (revised 2020)	100	30 (5 in “low-speed” mode)	Required at all times	500 m from government/military buildings, 5 km from airports	Required for UAVs ≥ 250 g or equipped with a camera	Minimum age: 18; knowledge test on air law and operational procedures required	[81]
EU Legislation	2019 (revised 2025)	120	30 (5 in “low-speed” mode)	Required at all times	UAS geographical zones *	Required for UAVs ≥ 250 g or equipped with a camera	Minimum age: 16; online training course and pass an online theoretical knowledge examination	[82]

* UAS (Unmanned Aircraft Systems) geographical zones refer to portions of airspace established by the competent authority that facilitate, restrict, or exclude UAS operations in order to address risks related to safety, privacy, protection of personal data, security, or the environment arising from UAS activities [82].

Table 3 provides a comparative overview of drone regulations in WB6 countries, revealing relative harmonization efforts and persistent fragmentation in national regulatory frameworks. Despite broad alignment on the requirement for visual line of sight (VLOS) operations and restricted zones near airports and sensitive areas, maximum flight altitudes vary significantly—from only 30 m in Bosnia and Herzegovina to 150 m in Kosovo* [77,78]. Such disparity indicates a lack of regional coordination, which could hinder cross-border drone operations and research applications. All six countries mandate drone registration, typically for UAVs weighing ≥ 250 g or carrying a camera, aligning with broader EU trends [76,79]. However, pilot licensing requirements differ. While Kosovo* and Montenegro permit individuals as young as 16 to operate drones after passing online or theoretical tests, Serbia and North Macedonia restrict licensing to those aged 18 or older, reflecting stricter national aviation safety standards [80,81]. One of the main legislative challenges regarding UAV deployment across WB6 countries lies in the inconsistent definition and designation of restricted airspaces, which vary from country to country. Although the EU has defined what constitutes a “geographical zone,” it is up to each member state to identify and map these zones individually [82]. Furthermore, UAV regulations in WB6 countries generally follow International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) recommendations and show a degree of uniformity; notable differences remain, particularly in how drones are categorized by maximum take-off weight. These regulatory discrepancies may hinder international cooperation and alignment with broader EU frameworks [18]. Therefore, revising and harmonizing UAV rules across the region is essential to ensure safe and efficient drone use in agriculture and other sectors. When it comes to the WB6, these zones are not harmonized and are not fully aligned with EU Regulation 2019/947 [83]

A particularly restrictive case is Bosnia and Herzegovina, where drones are limited to a maximum altitude of only 30 m, potentially hindering their use in forestry, agriculture, and emergency services [77]. This limitation may be one of the key reasons for the lack of identified case studies from this country in the context of this mapping exercise. Furthermore, minimum safe distances from people also differ, ranging from 30 to 50 m, which poses inconsistencies in public safety approaches. Despite recent revisions (e.g., Montenegro in 2023; North Macedonia in 2024), regional legislative timelines show irregular adoption and updates, underscoring varied policy responsiveness. Additionally, there is a lack of detailed categorization and sub-categorization concerning drone operations. Rather than using a “risk-based” approach, classification usually concentrates on the very generic Maximum Take-Off Mass (MTOM). In addition, the rules are not as well-defined or explained as those in the EU [84].

(2c) Technical and infrastructure capacity gaps: Reliance on external experts reflects a shortage of locally trained personnel in data analysis, machine learning, and field verification—critical for validating models such as those used in the EuroNatur forest mapping project [59]. Effective remote sensing demands expertise in UAV operations, satellite imagery, AI-driven mapping, and GIS database management. Many WB6 countries lack sufficiently trained staff, while outdated national forest inventories and isolated digital systems further limit application [59]. In the WB6 region several training initiatives on geospatial sensing and data-driven technologies (GSDDTs) have been launched, often within EU projects. Notable successes include ERASMUS+ projects such as GEOBIZ and BESTSDI, which supported harmonized GIS curricula across regional universities [85,86]. However, training remains donor-dependent and short-term and lacks depth in core areas such as drone sensor calibration, spatial analysis, and data interpretation. Despite isolated workshops and academic programs, regional coordination is absent, and there is no system for continuous certification or follow-up support. Critical skills are missing, particularly in AI integration, remote sensing automation, and interoperable database design, all of which are essential for smart forestry and climate monitoring. At the university level, only a few faculties of forestry offer basic GIS or remote sensing courses, and these are often elective, outdated, or lacking practical components. Institutions such as the University of Belgrade and the University of Sarajevo provide some instruction, but without modern infrastructure or alignment with current digital standards [85]. Urgent needs include embedding GSDDTs as mandatory modules in forestry and agriculture curricula, enhancing field-based learning, and ensuring academic–industry–policy partnerships for applied research and internships. Establishing a regional standard for GSDDT education, aligned with the EU Green Agenda, would sustainably build expertise and bridge the gap between academic knowledge and real-world application. Strengthening higher education’s role in GSDDTs is therefore crucial to address pressing needs in land monitoring, ecosystem services, and forest resilience in the WB6.

(3c) Lack of circularity in GSDDT production: The strategic issue of a lack of circularity in GSDDTs used across the WB6 represents a significant environmental and sustainability challenge. Currently, most components within these advanced technological systems, particularly composite materials, electronic circuits, and batteries, possess limited recyclability or reusability due to complex material structures and hazardous constituents [87]. This creates substantial environmental burdens, complicating compliance with the EU Circular Economy Action Plan and related waste-management directives [88]. Strategically investing in research and innovation aimed at designing UAVs and remote sensing tools from biodegradable, recyclable, or sustainably sourced materials would greatly reduce the environmental impact and support broader EU sustainability goals [89]. Theoretically, some of the reviewed case studies mention the specific GSDDT components they employed, and several of these technologies include parts that could be recyclable. However, none of the studies provide information on actual recycling, reuse, or disposal practices. This gap highlights an opportunity for further investigation into the lifecycle management of such technologies in environmental monitoring projects. In the Kuklica geosite study, ref. [43] used a DJI Mini 4 Pro drone and the LiDAR module of an iPhone 14 Pro, both of which contain recyclable elements such as aluminum, lithium-polymer batteries, plastic composites, and glass optics. Similarly, ref. [39] deployed a DJI Phantom 4 Pro and MicaSense RedEdge M multispectral sensor in forestry assessments on Stara Planina; these devices are recyclable in theory. Ref. [41] relied on Sentinel-2 and VIIRS satellite data for hazard modeling in the Šar Mountains, which do not generate local hardware waste but depend on ground-based sensors and field equipment. Refs. [38,44] focused on GIS-based modeling and landscape restoration, respectively, often using digital sensors and UAV-based terrain data. In [50], although remote sensing and supervised classification techniques were applied to assess land degradation in mining zones, the sustainability of the hardware used (e.g., sensors, drones, computer systems) remained unaddressed.

Although empirical lifecycle data specific to GSDDT applications in the WB6 region remain very limited, the claim regarding the lack of circularity is based on the broader material composition and end-of-life characteristics of GSDDT components, particularly UAVs, sensors, and related electronics. These systems typically rely on non-recyclable composite polymers, rare earth elements, and lithium-based batteries, which present major challenges for recycling and safe disposal [87,89]. Furthermore, current procurement and deployment practices in the WB6 region rarely include provisions for component recovery or material circularity, indicating a systemic gap in circular design and waste management integration. This issue is especially relevant given the alignment requirements with the EU Circular Economy Action Plan and Directive 2012/19/EU on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment [88,90]. Addressing this gap requires not only improved material innovation but also stronger regulatory incentives and infrastructure for responsible end-of-life management of GSDDT systems. Effective policy frameworks, such as enhanced Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regulations under the EU Directive 2012/19/EU on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), can encourage the design and manufacture of eco-friendly and easily recyclable technological solutions in (agro)forestry GSDDT initiatives, fostering long-term sustainability [88]. Establishing regional recycling centers and standardized procedures aligned with the EU’s WEEE Directive could significantly mitigate environmental impacts, especially of used GSDDTs.

Despite the advanced functionalities of GSDDTs, their non-green components significantly limit their potential to fully contribute to international environmental policy goals (e.g., the EU Green Deal, the Paris Agreement [91], and the UN SDGs). Only when these technologies begin integrating green and eco-friendly materials into their design and structure will GSDDTs be considered truly aligned with green-based international frameworks. Until then, their material composition remains a major and persistent limitation to their sustainability and broader environmental credibility.

(4c) Institutional and governance integration issues: Without harmonized policies or clear mandates, GSDDT innovations remain peripheral to strategic planning across forestry, agriculture, and disaster management [25]. Complex governance—such as Bosnia and Herzegovina’s split forest mandates—undermines coordination and policy uptake. Without unified national strategies, GSDDT outputs struggle to inform decision-making or secure institutional backing [25]. In Kosovo*, the absence of a centralized forest governance system and limited inter-ministerial coordination hampers the integration of GSDDT outputs into national strategies, resulting in fragmented implementation across forestry, agriculture, and emergency response sectors [92].

(5c) Financial constraints and sustainability: A significant number of targeted case studies (15 case studies, 60%, Table S1) are in the form of short-term funded projects that depend on national and/or international donors (EU, World Bank, UN agencies, resource ministries, and other external funds). The long-term impact of using GSDDTs in (agro)forestry is uncertain once funding ends; high costs for imagery, UAV maintenance, and specialized personnel often exceed national budgets [25]. Creating robust incentive mechanisms on a national level across WB6 countries might expand the usage of these technologies in (agro)forestry practices. Furthermore, despite Serbia having consistently been acknowledged as the regional frontrunner in securing EU-funded project participation, dependence on project-based funding cannot be regarded as a sustainable financial pathway for GSDDT-relevant stakeholders. To ensure the long-term deployment and advancement of GSDDTs, it is imperative that all relevant stakeholders from WB6 countries institutionalize stable and recurrent funding mechanisms. Such mechanisms should be embedded within national research and innovation strategies, aligned with EU frameworks such as Horizon Europe and the European Green Deal, thereby enabling continuous investment in GSDDT research and application irrespective of political fluctuations. Additionally, fostering profit-oriented programs for capacity building, innovation, and the practical application of GSDDTs through the establishment of small and medium-sized spin-off enterprises represents a viable pathway for ensuring financial sustainability derived from GSDDT-related products and services (e.g., case studies of DronSpray and GridX). Crowdfunding may also serve as an emerging financing mechanism; however, it remains in a nascent, pilot phase in Serbia and is yet to demonstrate its full potential as a reliable fundraising avenue for this sector.

(6c) Pilot vs. Scale: While the abovementioned case studies and their upcoming results show promise, systemic adoption is rare, often due to regulatory hurdles, fragmented governance, and uncertain post-project funding. More precisely, while many identified case studies demonstrate promising results at the pilot level—such as improved land monitoring, precision planting, or forest health assessments—these innovations rarely transition into systemic, long-term use. This is primarily due to the fact that this particular challenge is interlinked with all other issues, particularly with regulatory hurdles, fragmented governance, and post-project sustainability. Many initiatives rely heavily on external funding (e.g., EU or donor programs), with limited planning for financial and institutional continuity once the project ends. This creates a gap between short-term innovation and long-term integration into public or private sector practices.

7. Policy Alignment Analysis (PAA) of Targeted GSDDT Case Studies with the EU Acquis, the EU Green Agenda for the WB, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

GSDDTs are increasingly emerging not only as operational tools in (agro)forestry management across the WB6, but also as strategic enablers of European integration, institutional reform, and global sustainability. Across 25 identified and reviewed GSDDT case studies reviewed (Table S2), significant contributions were made to the implementation of key EU acquis chapters, pillars of the EU Green Agenda, and relevant SDG targets. The forthcoming PAA (Table S2) focuses specifically on the application of GSDDTs within the (agro)forestry sector, rather than examining the composition and circularity of materials used to manufacture these technologies. Across the presented case studies, these technologies actively contribute to sustainable production and climate-smart management practices in (agro)forestry systems throughout the WB6 countries.

7.1. Alignment with the EU Acquis Communautaire

The WB6 region holds significant geopolitical importance due to its strategic location between the EU and other non-EU countries (e.g., in the Eurasian region), making it a critical area for cross-border environmental governance and the integration of technologies such as GSDDTs to support EU accession processes [93]. Although there are significant differences among WB6 countries in their EU accession progress, an analytical perspective on the contribution of GSDDTs to achieving EU acquis chapters is highly relevant, particularly due to its recognized importance for fostering cross-border regional cooperation and legal harmonization. The EU acquis chapters serve as a foundational framework for aligning candidate countries (almost all WB6 countries, except Kosovo*) with the EU’s legal, institutional, and policy standards, guiding geopolitical integration and ensuring consistency in governance, environmental protection, and socio-economic development across member and aspiring states [94]. Targeted GSDDT case studies addressed seven EU acquis chapters [94], with varying frequency and depth (Table S2). Many of the case studies contribute to multiple EU acquis chapters, reflecting their interdisciplinary nature and multipurpose objectives:

• Chapter 27—Environment and Climate Change was the most frequently referenced (23 of 25 case studies, 92%). Technologies such as UAVs, LiDAR, and multispectral imaging were used for biodiversity monitoring, forest health assessment, ecological restoration, and climate change adaptation. Notable examples include Forest Beyond Borders, TreeVita, Forest recovery in Hutovo Blato Nature Park, and the Kuklica Geosite Survey. Additionally, the mentioned case studies support climate adaptation planning and disaster risk reduction, particularly through data-driven assessments of wildfire susceptibility and land degradation that threaten energy infrastructure and ecosystem stability.
• Chapter 11—Agriculture and Rural Development was referenced in six case studies (24%), emphasizing applications in precision agroforestry and land-use optimization. Case studies such as Credit Vibes, Treesury, and DronSpray and GridX showcased how UAVs and AI analytics support sustainable production, enhance productivity, and improve resource use efficiency.

Less frequently addressed but equally relevant are the following:

• Chapter 12—Food Safety, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Policy (one project, 4%) through DiVine, using AI to detect vineyard health issues and reduce agrochemical exposure. The analyzed case study contributes to this chapter by enabling early detection and monitoring of plant pests and diseases, thus strengthening phytosanitary control. High-resolution imagery and spectral data from UAVs facilitate rapid response and risk assessment, improving the traceability and safety of food and feed production systems.
• Chapter 25—Science and Research (one project, 4%) through TreeVita, integrating genetics and GSDDTs for adaptive forest management and advancing scientific knowledge. The mentioned case study is collecting new, untackled data, especially from natural ecosystems using GSDDTs and genetic analysis, supporting scientific progress and new knowledge on ecosystem restoration and climate change.
• Chapter 22—Regional Policy and Structural Instruments (one project, 4%), exemplified by Montenegro’s NFI using GSDDTs to inform regional planning [45]. This case study contributes to this chapter by providing high-resolution spatial data and hazard assessments that inform evidence-based regional planning, enhance the effectiveness of cohesion policy interventions, and ensure targeted use of structural and investment funds for sustainable development.
• Chapter 29—Customs Union (one project, 4%) through cultural heritage mapping with UAVs in Kuklica Geosite Survey. This UAV-based survey and digital monitoring technologies support this chapter by enhancing the documentation and protection of cultural and natural heritage sites, which are essential for regulating cross-border heritage trade and preventing illicit trafficking.
• Chapter 23—Judiciary and Fundamental Rights (one project, 4%), where Gebert [48] used RS and Landsat imagery to detect illegal logging, enhancing institutional transparency and forest governance.

These applications highlight GSDDTs’ role in supporting evidence-based planning, regulatory compliance, and cross-sector policy coherence, especially in climate, biodiversity, agriculture, and land use [94].

7.2. Support for the EU Green Agenda for the WB

The analyzed GSDDT case studies also demonstrate strong alignment with four core pillars of the EU Green Agenda (Table S2), a strategic framework endorsed by all WB6 governments to accelerate alignment with the EU Green Deal [95]:

• Climate Action and Resilience: Fourteen case studies (56%) contribute to this pillar through hazard mapping, reforestation monitoring, and post-fire recovery (e.g., ALFIS, Forest Connect, Garač NDVI Analysis, and O₂ Project).
• Biodiversity and Ecosystems: Twelve case studies (48%) address this pillar, particularly in forest stress detection, ecosystem services assessment, and protected area monitoring (e.g., Stara Planina, Forest Beyond Borders [47]).
• Digital Transition and Data Infrastructure: Six case studies (24%) enhance this area through 3D forest modeling, digital twins, blockchain, and AI-powered analytics (e.g., 3DForEcoTech, Treesury, ARiF).
• Circular Economy and Sustainable Resource Use: Three case studies (12%), such as CREDIT Vibes, DiVine, and DronSpray and GridX, contribute to this pillar by reducing input waste, optimizing biocontrol and agrochemical application, and supporting more sustainable (agro)forestry value chains.

7.3. Contributions to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDGs are a universal set of 17 goals and 169 targets adopted by the United Nations to end poverty, protect the environment, and promote peace and prosperity by 2030, serving as a global geopolitical framework for international cooperation and development [96]. This strategic framework is also highly relevant for the WB6 group, as all UN member countries in the region (except Kosovo*) have committed to actively contributing to the achievement of these goals and their associated targets. The reviewed GSDDT case studies support eight SDGs and 16 individual targets (Table S2), affirming their cross-cutting importance in global sustainability planning [96]:

• (17 projects, 68%)—direct contributions to targets 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, and 15.9. through continuous forest-cover monitoring.
• (11 projects, 44%)—supporting targets 13.1 and 13.2. through continuous environmental stress monitoring.
• (four projects, 16%)—contributing through DiVine, Treesury, CREDIT Vibes and DronSpray and GridX.
• (five projects, 20%)—contributing through TreeVita, ARiF, Treesury, DronSpray and GridX [45]. These case studies contribute to this SDG by enhancing scientific research and enabling the development of smart, data-driven (agro)forestry monitoring systems that strengthen rural infrastructure and promote sustainable industrial innovation.
• (two projects, 8%)—supported by Treesury and CREDIT Vibes.
• (two projects, 8%)—Kuklica Geosite Survey via early-warning systems and urban–forest interface management and Forest Connect.
• (two projects, 8%)—Gebert [48] contributes to this SDG by providing verifiable spatial evidence of illegal activities, where GSDDTs strengthen institutional effectiveness and support the development of transparent and accountable enforcement mechanisms in the forestry sector. ALFIS from Albania [51] supports this SDG by promoting effective and transparent forest governance through integrated geospatial technologies and a centralized digital forest cadaster.
• (one project, 4%) via DiVine. GSDDTs improve food safety, reduce input waste, and enhance the quality control of crops and vineyard products. In turn, they foster sustainable practices and phytosanitary standards across circular agroforestry value chains.

GSDDTs provide the means to gather precise, real-time environmental data, which is essential for meeting regulatory obligations and sustainability targets that demand evidence-based planning, monitoring, and reporting. For instance, in alignment with EU Chapter 27 on Environment and Climate Change, projects such as Forest Beyond Borders have used UAVs, multispectral imaging, and LiDAR to map primary and old-growth forests across the WB6. This has allowed countries to identify ecologically valuable forest areas, assess gaps in formal protection, and align their forest management strategies with EU biodiversity conservation policies [97,98,99,100]. Likewise, initiatives such as 3DForEcoTech have used advanced UAV technologies to create 3D forest ecosystem models—vital tools for national administrations to track climate impacts, support adaptive forest policies, and fulfill climate monitoring requirements under the EU acquis. The O₂ project, through its UAV-based reforestation efforts and SeedBomb technology, supports Chapter 27 of the EU acquis communautaire by promoting ecosystem restoration, enhancing biodiversity, and contributing to the implementation of EU environmental legislation on habitat conservation [99]. Under Chapter 11 on Agriculture and Rural Development, precision agroforestry examples such as the CREDIT Vibes and Treesury projects demonstrate how UAVs and AI-powered analytics can optimize food production while reducing environmental impact. These tools support sustainable (agro)forestry practices by helping small-scale farmers manage inputs more efficiently, monitor crop health, and respond to climate variability—practices that directly advance digital transition goals and sustainable rural development promoted by the EU. In terms of energy and risk management (Chapter 15), tools such as VIIRS and Wildfire Susceptibility Indices used in forest fire risk assessment [41] provided governments with early warning systems and risk maps, enabling more proactive disaster risk reduction strategies—another critical pillar of both EU and international climate adaptation agendas. From a research and innovation standpoint (Chapter 25), integrating multispectral drone scanning, IoT sensors, and digital platforms, as seen in the TreeVita and DronSpray initiatives, not only advances (agro)forestry productivity but also strengthens the scientific infrastructure and innovation capacity that the EU expects from member and candidate countries.

Ultimately, these technologies are the operational tools that bridge the gap between policy and practice. They help translate sustainability principles—such as restoration, resilience, digitalization, and circularity—into measurable action. By enabling countries to track forest conditions, support ecosystem services, manage (agro)forestry landscapes sustainably, and respond to climate hazards, GSDDTs provide the very foundation upon which EU-aligned strategies and SDG-related actions are built and verified.

GSDDT case studies reviewed in this paper directly support key pillars of the Green Agenda for the WB6, including biodiversity conservation, digital and data-driven environmental governance, and sustainable agriculture and forestry. These technologies facilitate ecosystem monitoring and restoration and landscape-level planning—functions essential for implementing the Agenda’s transition toward climate resilience and a circular bioeconomy. As a strategic framework endorsed by all WB6 leaders, the Green Agenda is critical for aligning the region with the EU Green Deal and ensuring sustainable development amid accelerating environmental challenges [95].

What is particularly significant is that many case studies potentially target multiple policy frameworks simultaneously, bridging EU acquis obligations with SDG targets and EU Green Agenda pillars, but also other regulatory frameworks of the EU mentioned above. This multi-layered policy coherence positions GSDDTs as a key driver of evidence-based decision-making in the region. Finally, the growing interdisciplinary nature of GSDDT policy applications—spanning (agro)forestry, energy, science, and urban heritage—suggests a strong foundation for upcoming cross-sectoral strategies. It further validates the need for harmonized regulatory frameworks, shared data infrastructure, and long-term investment in capacity building across the WB6.

7.4. Comparative Readiness for GSDDT Adoption in WB6 Countries

The comparative analysis table (Table 4) highlights significant variability in readiness for adopting GSDDTs among WB6 countries across several key criteria. Serbia demonstrates moderate preparedness in technical capacity, infrastructure readiness, institutional coordination, and financial sustainability, marking it as relatively advanced compared to other WB6 countries. In contrast, North Macedonia, Albania, and Kosovo* consistently show low to very low readiness across almost all analyzed categories, particularly emphasizing their critical gaps in technical expertise, institutional coordination, and financial stability. Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina present mixed readiness levels, characterized primarily by moderate-low to low technical, institutional, and infrastructural capacities, reflecting substantial room for strategic improvements. Notably, circularity practices across all WB6 countries are uniformly assessed as very low, indicating an urgent need for targeted policy interventions and infrastructure development aligned with EU sustainability frameworks, such as the WEEE Directive.

Table 4. Comparative readiness analysis of WB6 countries in GSDDT adoption with six key criteria.

Criteria	Serbia	Montenegro	Bosnia and Herzegovina	North Macedonia	Albania	Kosovo*
Contribution to EU policies (EU acquis and Green Deal)	Moderate	Moderate-low	Moderate-low	Low	Low	Low
Technical capacity (local expertise)	Moderate	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Institutional support and coordination	Moderate	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Infrastructure readiness (equipment, software)	Moderate	Low	Moderate-Low	Low	Low	Low
Financial sustainability (local funding)	Moderate	Low	Moderate-Low	Low	Low	Low
Circularity practices	Very Low	Very Low	Very Low	Very Low	Very Low	Very Low

This designation is without prejudice to positions on status and is in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) and the International Court of Justice Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence.

Table 4. Comparative readiness analysis of WB6 countries in GSDDT adoption with six key criteria.

Criteria	Serbia	Montenegro	Bosnia and Herzegovina	North Macedonia	Albania	Kosovo*
Contribution to EU policies (EU acquis and Green Deal)	Moderate	Moderate-low	Moderate-low	Low	Low	Low
Technical capacity (local expertise)	Moderate	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Institutional support and coordination	Moderate	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Infrastructure readiness (equipment, software)	Moderate	Low	Moderate-Low	Low	Low	Low
Financial sustainability (local funding)	Moderate	Low	Moderate-Low	Low	Low	Low
Circularity practices	Very Low	Very Low	Very Low	Very Low	Very Low	Very Low

This designation is without prejudice to positions on status and is in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) and the International Court of Justice Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence.

8. Conclusions and Action Plans

An important lesson from this mapping exercise was that while GSDDTs offer high potential, their full effectiveness relies heavily on regulatory burdens, technical training, and integration with existing traditional knowledge and techniques in (agro)forestry. The success of humanitarian-based operations, mentioned at the beginning of this study, not only influenced subsequent UAV-based remote sensing deployments in disaster prevention but also fueled broader acceptance of GSDDTs in civil protection activities and research and development of (agro)forestry across the WB6. Overall, while a basic regulatory foundation exists, gaps in altitude allowances, licensing protocols, and definitions of restricted areas demand harmonization to foster safer and more efficient regional UAV integration in environmental monitoring and sustainable (agro)forestry management.

GSDDTs offer powerful, data-driven solutions for transforming (agro)forestry practices in the WB6 to become fully climate smart. From generating high-resolution forest inventories to enabling real-time detection of illegal logging and landscape degradation, these tools support the implementation of SFM, improve agroforestry efficiency, and enhance biodiversity protection. GSDDTs are also instrumental for the conservation of forest genetic resources by enabling large-scale and cost-effective monitoring of habitat conditions, species distributions, and environmental stressors affecting genetic diversity [4]. When combined with field-based assessments, spatial data (generated by GSDDTs) helps identify conservation priorities and guide adaptive management at both ecosystem and individual levels. GSDDTs offer precise and scalable monitoring capabilities that can significantly enhance forest genetic resource management monitoring in the WB6 by providing accurate spatial and temporal data. Integrating blockchain technology could further increase transparency and data integrity, enabling secure, immutable tracking of genetic samples, field observations, and environmental conditions [4]. Such a combined approach would facilitate reliable cross-border data sharing, supporting coordinated regional conservation strategies and compliance with international biodiversity frameworks. A strategic and cross-sectoral approach is essential to ensure that GSDDTs are not only introduced but also embedded within long-term forest policy, research, and monitoring frameworks. Notably, the application of GSDDTs in bio-circular models, such as the one demonstrated in the Fruška Gora viticulture-agroforestry case study supported by the EU-funded CREDIT Vibes project, illustrates how digital tools can enable regional innovation and development pathways. By leveraging satellite and UAV-based monitoring of biowaste streams in vineyard productivity, such models foster zero-waste solutions and open new horizons for smart rural development, health-tech innovation, and green entrepreneurship. The functionalities of GSDDTs discussed in this review align strongly with the European Green Deal, the Green Agenda for the WB6, and relevant chapters of the EU acquis, making their uptake a geopolitical and environmental priority for the EU accession process. By bridging science, governance, and digital innovation, GSDDTs support the twin goals of ecological resilience and EU integration. Addressing the implementation gaps requires targeted interventions, including legal harmonization, investment in infrastructure and training, and the creation of national and regional platforms for geospatial data sharing. Additionally, a forest information system needs to be developed across all WB6 countries. It could serve as the primary tool for monitoring and implementing climate-smart SFM. A key emerging priority for the WB6 region is the development of integrated forest information systems that combine satellite and UAV-based remote sensing with early warning fire modules, while aligning forest monitoring standards with EU frameworks such as the Forest Information System for Europe (FISE), the EU Forest Strategy for 2030, and the EU Regulation on Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) to support a more cohesive and sustainable (agro)forestry approach [25,101,102,103].

Challenges identified in Section 6 of this paper highlight the urgent need to develop a comprehensive national strategy and action plan dedicated to the integration of GSDDTs across WB6 countries. Such a strategy must prioritize addressing context-specific challenges across key sectors, including nature conservation, climate change mitigation and adaptation, (agro)forestry, and disaster risk management. Moreover, national action plans should proactively promote coordinated and complementary cross-border regional collaboration to effectively respond to emerging transboundary issues. These include shared concerns such as forest degradation, agricultural resilience, climate-induced risks, and ecosystem-based disaster risk assessment and prevention. A unified approach would enhance both national capacities and regional coherence in deploying innovative technologies for sustainable development.

The following action plan (Table 5) outlines fifteen concrete issues derived from the previously identified six overarching challenges and proposes structured, evidence-based solutions to enhance the uptake, interoperability, and long-term sustainability of GSDDTs in (agro)forestry across the WB6. As a strategic framework, this table outlines targeted issues and corresponding proposed resolutions, which also represents a foundational step toward the formulation of evidence-based national strategies for the intensified integration of GSDDTs across WB6 countries and their key sectors and industries.

Table 5. Action plan for the advanced application and strategic deployment of GSDDTs in addressing context-specific challenges and operational demands within the (agro)forestry sector of the WB6.

Codes of Previously Targeted Challenges (from Section 6 of This Study)	Concrete Issue	Proposed Solutions
1c	Legal restrictions on UAV flights over forested and protected areas.	Harmonize UAV operation laws with EU regulations (e.g., EASA standards) and introduce streamlined permitting for environmental and scientific monitoring purposes, while actively working on the practical application, enforcement, and institutional integration of these standards.
1c	A key legislative challenge in the WB6 is the lack of harmonized definitions and mappings of restricted UAV flight zones, particularly around military areas, which increases the risk of unintentional violations during aerial surveys.	Coordinated mapping and harmonization of restricted UAV zones across the WB6, along with the alignment of authorization procedures necessary for UAV operations in or near such zones. This would enhance legal clarity, ensure safe and compliant UAV use for scientific and environmental purposes, and support cross-border collaboration in line with EU integration processes.
2c	Outdated forest inventories and lack of geospatial data on forest/agroforestry systems.	Conduct national LiDAR scanning and drone-based mapping campaigns to produce high-resolution forest inventory datasets. Update regularly every 5–10 years.
2c	Lack of expertise in interpreting GSDDT data for (agro)forest management.	Establish specialized training programs and forestry curricula combining remote sensing, GIS, and ecological modeling for (agro)forestry professionals and researchers.
		It is recommended that a regional standard for GSDDT education aligned with the EU Green Agenda be established, as this would provide a sustainable framework for building local expertise and closing the gap between academic knowledge and practical application.
2c	Insufficient monitoring of forest degradation, fires, and illegal logging.	Deploy early warning remote sensing systems (e.g., satellite change detection, UAV patrols) with rapid alert mechanisms to forestry inspection authorities.
2c	Poor accessibility and interoperability of (agro)forestry remote sensing data.	Develop national open-access (agro)forestry geospatial data portals following the INSPIRE Directive framework, ensuring compatibility with EU environmental data networks.
3c	GSDDTs currently employed in (agro)forestry in the WB6 predominantly utilize non-recyclable and environmentally harmful materials, posing significant sustainability and waste management issues at the end of their product lifecycle.	Strategically invest in research, development, and innovation to design and construct GSDDTs using biodegradable, recyclable, or sustainably sourced materials. This approach would substantially decrease environmental impacts, enhance circularity, and ensure compliance with broader EU sustainability frameworks and waste management objectives.
		It is recommended that WB6 countries establish dedicated regional recycling centers and standardized procedures for the disposal of UAV batteries and composite materials generated by GSDDTs, in alignment with the WEEE Directive, to address the current lack of such infrastructure and reduce potential environmental impacts.
4c	Fragmented institutional responsibility for (agro)forestry monitoring.	Create centralized Forestry Remote Sensing Units within national forest agencies, coordinating between ministries, universities, and NGOs.
4c	Weak integration of GSDDT outputs into (agro)forestry management planning.	Mandate that remote sensing-derived maps and models (e.g., biomass estimates, species distribution models) are used in Forest Management Plans (FMPs) and Agroforestry Action Plans (AAPs).
4c, 5c	Lack of integrated data management supporting sustainable FGR management in WB6 countries.	Supported national programs and international cross-border collaboration, which will integrate macro and molecular data in order to kick off precision forestry practice and support conservation of forest tree species on individual, group, and population levels.
		Integrate blockchain technologies into accumulated GSDDT and genetic data in (agro)forestry to support the development of the first blockchain-based (agro)forestry forensics system, aimed at combating illegal activities and advancing the EU integration process.
4c	Lack of integrated GSDDTs in (agro)forest genetic monitoring practices.	Integrating GSDDTs into forest genetic monitoring in WB6 countries requires harmonizing national policies and investing in standardized data infrastructures.
		Capacity-building initiatives and regional cooperation can significantly enhance the practical application of GSDDTs in (agro)forestry genetic monitoring initiatives in WB6.
4c	Lack of a coordinated national strategy and cross-sectoral integration for the use of GSDDTs in addressing environmental and climate-related challenges in the WB6.	Develop and implement a national GSDDT strategy with a cross-sectoral action plan, tailored to address specific contextual challenges in forestry, agriculture, climate change, and disaster risk management. Ensure the strategy includes mechanisms for cross-border collaboration to tackle transboundary issues and foster regional knowledge-sharing, standardization, and joint response frameworks.
5c	Insufficient financial resources to acquire and maintain GSDDT equipment in the (agro)forestry sector.	Leverage EU pre-accession instruments (IPA III) and LIFE+ funding streams for investment in UAV fleets, satellite data procurement, and processing infrastructure.
6c	Low adoption of precision agroforestry techniques.	Promote UAV and satellite data applications in agroforestry systems for optimizing tree-crop-livestock interactions, soil moisture monitoring, and pest control.
6c	Project-driven initiatives without long-term research and operational integration.	Embed GSDDT projects into national (agro)forestry research institutes’ permanent programs, ensuring stable funding and knowledge continuity beyond donor cycles.
		Design profit-based service portfolios of research and development stakeholders across WB6 countries, who are using GSDDTs in the (agro)forestry sector, to support their own financial autonomy.

Table 5. Action plan for the advanced application and strategic deployment of GSDDTs in addressing context-specific challenges and operational demands within the (agro)forestry sector of the WB6.

Codes of Previously Targeted Challenges (from Section 6 of This Study)	Concrete Issue	Proposed Solutions
1c	Legal restrictions on UAV flights over forested and protected areas.	Harmonize UAV operation laws with EU regulations (e.g., EASA standards) and introduce streamlined permitting for environmental and scientific monitoring purposes, while actively working on the practical application, enforcement, and institutional integration of these standards.
1c	A key legislative challenge in the WB6 is the lack of harmonized definitions and mappings of restricted UAV flight zones, particularly around military areas, which increases the risk of unintentional violations during aerial surveys.	Coordinated mapping and harmonization of restricted UAV zones across the WB6, along with the alignment of authorization procedures necessary for UAV operations in or near such zones. This would enhance legal clarity, ensure safe and compliant UAV use for scientific and environmental purposes, and support cross-border collaboration in line with EU integration processes.
2c	Outdated forest inventories and lack of geospatial data on forest/agroforestry systems.	Conduct national LiDAR scanning and drone-based mapping campaigns to produce high-resolution forest inventory datasets. Update regularly every 5–10 years.
2c	Lack of expertise in interpreting GSDDT data for (agro)forest management.	Establish specialized training programs and forestry curricula combining remote sensing, GIS, and ecological modeling for (agro)forestry professionals and researchers.
		It is recommended that a regional standard for GSDDT education aligned with the EU Green Agenda be established, as this would provide a sustainable framework for building local expertise and closing the gap between academic knowledge and practical application.
2c	Insufficient monitoring of forest degradation, fires, and illegal logging.	Deploy early warning remote sensing systems (e.g., satellite change detection, UAV patrols) with rapid alert mechanisms to forestry inspection authorities.
2c	Poor accessibility and interoperability of (agro)forestry remote sensing data.	Develop national open-access (agro)forestry geospatial data portals following the INSPIRE Directive framework, ensuring compatibility with EU environmental data networks.
3c	GSDDTs currently employed in (agro)forestry in the WB6 predominantly utilize non-recyclable and environmentally harmful materials, posing significant sustainability and waste management issues at the end of their product lifecycle.	Strategically invest in research, development, and innovation to design and construct GSDDTs using biodegradable, recyclable, or sustainably sourced materials. This approach would substantially decrease environmental impacts, enhance circularity, and ensure compliance with broader EU sustainability frameworks and waste management objectives.
		It is recommended that WB6 countries establish dedicated regional recycling centers and standardized procedures for the disposal of UAV batteries and composite materials generated by GSDDTs, in alignment with the WEEE Directive, to address the current lack of such infrastructure and reduce potential environmental impacts.
4c	Fragmented institutional responsibility for (agro)forestry monitoring.	Create centralized Forestry Remote Sensing Units within national forest agencies, coordinating between ministries, universities, and NGOs.
4c	Weak integration of GSDDT outputs into (agro)forestry management planning.	Mandate that remote sensing-derived maps and models (e.g., biomass estimates, species distribution models) are used in Forest Management Plans (FMPs) and Agroforestry Action Plans (AAPs).
4c, 5c	Lack of integrated data management supporting sustainable FGR management in WB6 countries.	Supported national programs and international cross-border collaboration, which will integrate macro and molecular data in order to kick off precision forestry practice and support conservation of forest tree species on individual, group, and population levels.
		Integrate blockchain technologies into accumulated GSDDT and genetic data in (agro)forestry to support the development of the first blockchain-based (agro)forestry forensics system, aimed at combating illegal activities and advancing the EU integration process.
4c	Lack of integrated GSDDTs in (agro)forest genetic monitoring practices.	Integrating GSDDTs into forest genetic monitoring in WB6 countries requires harmonizing national policies and investing in standardized data infrastructures.
		Capacity-building initiatives and regional cooperation can significantly enhance the practical application of GSDDTs in (agro)forestry genetic monitoring initiatives in WB6.
4c	Lack of a coordinated national strategy and cross-sectoral integration for the use of GSDDTs in addressing environmental and climate-related challenges in the WB6.	Develop and implement a national GSDDT strategy with a cross-sectoral action plan, tailored to address specific contextual challenges in forestry, agriculture, climate change, and disaster risk management. Ensure the strategy includes mechanisms for cross-border collaboration to tackle transboundary issues and foster regional knowledge-sharing, standardization, and joint response frameworks.
5c	Insufficient financial resources to acquire and maintain GSDDT equipment in the (agro)forestry sector.	Leverage EU pre-accession instruments (IPA III) and LIFE+ funding streams for investment in UAV fleets, satellite data procurement, and processing infrastructure.
6c	Low adoption of precision agroforestry techniques.	Promote UAV and satellite data applications in agroforestry systems for optimizing tree-crop-livestock interactions, soil moisture monitoring, and pest control.
6c	Project-driven initiatives without long-term research and operational integration.	Embed GSDDT projects into national (agro)forestry research institutes’ permanent programs, ensuring stable funding and knowledge continuity beyond donor cycles.
		Design profit-based service portfolios of research and development stakeholders across WB6 countries, who are using GSDDTs in the (agro)forestry sector, to support their own financial autonomy.

It is commendable not only to observe the application of these technologies in both forestry and agroforestry but also to recognize their interdisciplinary potential and multifunctionality—supporting synergies between forestry, agroforestry, infrastructure development, cultural and natural heritage conservation, legislative compliance, and disaster risk reduction and prevention. This integrative use highlights their pivotal role in fostering cross-sectoral resilience and sustainability in line with EU and global environmental frameworks.

Based on detailed analyses from regional case studies included in Table 5, Table 6 provides the top three concrete recommendations tailored for each WB6 country aimed at significantly scaling up GSDDT utilization. Targeted recommendations provided in this table emphasize strategic alignment of legal frameworks, capacity building, institutional strengthening, and enhanced regional collaboration, collectively poised to substantially advance GSDDT implementation in sustainable (agro)forestry across the WB6 region.

Following these recommendations, the last strategic roadmap presented in Figure 2 outlines strategic actions for scaling up GSDDTs in the (agro)forestry sectors of the WB6 countries from 2026 to 2030. It presents a year-by-year visualization of national priorities, including policy reforms, capacity-building, institutional development, and technology deployment. The roadmap highlights the region’s gradual alignment with EU standards and fosters cross-border collaboration and innovation-driven governance. This mid-term strategical roadmap is well suited to the WB6 countries, as its exact five-year duration provides sufficient time to implement the proposed reforms in parallel with the required structural dialogue. Additionally, the year 2030 represents a key global milestone for achieving the SDGs, which are also addressed in this study.

Table 6. Top three recommendations per WB6 country for scaling up GSDDTs in (agro)forestry.

Country	Recommendations
Albania	1. Develop and adopt a harmonized national UAV policy aligned with EU Regulation 2019/947. 2. Increase local technical capacities through targeted training programs on UAV operations, satellite data interpretation, and GIS applications. 3. Establish cross-sectoral GSDDT working groups to streamline governance and foster public–private collaboration.
Bosnia and Herzegovina	1. Raise permissible drone flight altitudes to match regional standards (at least 120 m) to enhance operational feasibility. 2. Integrate GSDDTs into national (agro)forestry strategies to promote systematic adoption beyond individual pilot projects. 3. Facilitate comprehensive training programs for forestry officials on GSDDTs to enhance technical capacity.
Kosovo*	1. Strengthen cross-border cooperation initiatives utilizing GSDDTs through regional and EU-funded projects. 2. Expand capacity-building programs specifically targeting data analytics, drone operations, and GIS-based (agro)forest management. 3. Implement a detailed UAV regulatory framework harmonized with neighboring countries to ease cross-border project implementation.
Montenegro	1. Further develop and standardize remote sensing methodologies within the existing National Forest Inventory (NFI). 2. Establish a dedicated national center for GSDDTs within the forestry agency to ensure continuous operational capacity. 3. Enhance infrastructure and analytical capabilities through international funding and strategic partnerships.
North Macedonia	1. Update and harmonize UAV legislation to remove restrictive barriers and facilitate greater GSDDT adoption. 2. Develop an institutional GSDDT action plan linked explicitly to national and regional (agro)forestry management strategies. 3. Conduct intensive training and education initiatives focused on advanced GSDDT applications in landscape restoration and ecological monitoring.
Serbia	1. Institutionalize GSDDT usage by creating a centralized national platform for GSDDT data management and policy integration. 2. Promote advanced GSDDT applications such as AI and blockchain through increased public–private partnerships and innovation incentives. 3. Expand existing educational and technical training programs to cover advanced GSDDT analytics, ensuring sustainable local expertise.

Table 6. Top three recommendations per WB6 country for scaling up GSDDTs in (agro)forestry.

Country	Recommendations
Albania	1. Develop and adopt a harmonized national UAV policy aligned with EU Regulation 2019/947. 2. Increase local technical capacities through targeted training programs on UAV operations, satellite data interpretation, and GIS applications. 3. Establish cross-sectoral GSDDT working groups to streamline governance and foster public–private collaboration.
Bosnia and Herzegovina	1. Raise permissible drone flight altitudes to match regional standards (at least 120 m) to enhance operational feasibility. 2. Integrate GSDDTs into national (agro)forestry strategies to promote systematic adoption beyond individual pilot projects. 3. Facilitate comprehensive training programs for forestry officials on GSDDTs to enhance technical capacity.
Kosovo*	1. Strengthen cross-border cooperation initiatives utilizing GSDDTs through regional and EU-funded projects. 2. Expand capacity-building programs specifically targeting data analytics, drone operations, and GIS-based (agro)forest management. 3. Implement a detailed UAV regulatory framework harmonized with neighboring countries to ease cross-border project implementation.
Montenegro	1. Further develop and standardize remote sensing methodologies within the existing National Forest Inventory (NFI). 2. Establish a dedicated national center for GSDDTs within the forestry agency to ensure continuous operational capacity. 3. Enhance infrastructure and analytical capabilities through international funding and strategic partnerships.
North Macedonia	1. Update and harmonize UAV legislation to remove restrictive barriers and facilitate greater GSDDT adoption. 2. Develop an institutional GSDDT action plan linked explicitly to national and regional (agro)forestry management strategies. 3. Conduct intensive training and education initiatives focused on advanced GSDDT applications in landscape restoration and ecological monitoring.
Serbia	1. Institutionalize GSDDT usage by creating a centralized national platform for GSDDT data management and policy integration. 2. Promote advanced GSDDT applications such as AI and blockchain through increased public–private partnerships and innovation incentives. 3. Expand existing educational and technical training programs to cover advanced GSDDT analytics, ensuring sustainable local expertise.