The Audit Court’s report paints a negative picture regarding the effectiveness of reforestation programs in Greece following forest fires.

Specifically, the report notes that the authority responsible for implementing the National Forest Strategy and overseeing reforestation policy—the General Directorate of Forests and Forest Environment—does not possess reliable overall data either on areas designated for reforestation across the country or on which of these areas require reforestation work according to scientific principles. Consequently, public funds allocated for reforestation are distributed opportunistically.

The Audit Court, in its announcement, highlights:

“The Audit Court publishes today Audit Report 2/2025: Forest Fires: Has the Effectiveness of Reforestation Programs Been Studied and Monitored?
The report presents the results of the audit conducted to determine whether national and EU public resources allocated for reforestation are used rationally and whether they achieve the intended results in restoring damaged forest ecosystems.

>Related articles

“L’Abreuvoir”: From Paris to the dirt road of Kolonaki, where Onassis, Callas, Peter Ustinov, and Sean Connery dined

INSETE: Tourists stay for shorter periods but spend more in Greece

UNHCR expresses its deep sorrow for the incident in Chios

The audit also examined the new system of reforestation adoption, where private individuals, selected based on interest, assume the cost and responsibility for carrying out reforestation and restoration projects on public forest lands.”

Key findings include:

1. The General Directorate of Forests and Forest Environment lacks reliable data on reforestation-designated areas and on which require reforestation work, resulting in public funds being allocated opportunistically.
2. The overly ambitious design of the reforestation measures under the Rural Development Program 2014–2022, combined with project immaturity and complications from transferring regional forest services to the Ministry of Environment and Energy during the program, led to minimal results in terms of fund absorption and achieving reforestation targets.
3. Despite issues in contractor selection and partial supervision, the adoption system accelerated reforestation work; however, in some cases, funds intended for reforestation projects were not released in time.
4. Historically, far fewer reforestations have been carried out than planned. Restoration of the forest environment in damaged areas is not monitored and, therefore, cannot be verified.

The report includes recommendations for the responsible authorities to improve their actions in this direction.