European forest governance post-2020
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
FROM SCIENCE TO POLICY 10
European forest governance
post-2020
Bernhard Wolfslehner, Helga Pülzl, Daniela Kleinschmit, Filip Aggestam,
Georg Winkel, Jeroen Candel, Katarina Eckerberg, Peter Feindt, Constance McDermott,
Laura Secco, Metodi Sotirov, Magdalena Lackner, Jeanne-Lazya Roux
From Science to Policy 10
Authors
Bernhard Wolfslehner, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, and EFI Forest Policy
Research Network, Austria
Helga Pülzl, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, and EFI Forest Policy Research
Network, Austria
Daniela Kleinschmit, University of Freiburg, Germany
Filip Aggestam, senior researcher, Sweden
Georg Winkel, European Forest Institute
Jeroen Candel, Wageningen University and Research, the Netherlands
Katarina Eckerberg, Umeå University, Sweden
Peter Feindt, Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany
Constance McDermott, University of Oxford, UK
Laura Secco, University of Padova, Italy
Metodi Sotirov, University of Freiburg, Germany
Magdalena Lackner, International Union of Forest Research Organisations (IUFRO), Austria
Jeanne-Lazya Roux, European Forest Institute
Acknowledgements
The report benefited from helpful comments by two external reviewers, Eeva Primmer from the Finnish
Environment Institute and Knut Øistad from the Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research. We wish to
express our thanks for their insights and comments that helped to improve the report, and acknowledge that
they are in no way responsible for any remaining errors.
This work and publication has been financed by EFI’s Multi-Donor Trust Fund for policy support, which
is supported by the governments of Austria, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania,
Norway, Spain and Sweden.
ISSN 2343-1229 (print)
ISSN 2343-1237 (online)
ISBN 978-952-5980-84-4 (print)
ISBN 978-952-5980-85-1 (online)
Editor in chief: Lauri Hetemäki
Managing editor: Rach Colling
Layout: Grano Oy / Jouni Halonen
Printing: Grano Oy
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this publication are those
of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the
European Forest Institute, or of the funders.
Recommended citation: Wolfslehner, B., Pülzl, H., Kleinschmit, D.,
Aggestam, F., Winkel, G., Candel, J., Eckerberg, K., Feindt, P.,
McDermott, C., Secco, L., Sotirov, M., Lackner, M., Roux, J.-L. 2020.
2020. European forest governance post-2020. From Science to
Policy 10. European Forest Institute. https://doi.org/10.36333/fs10
2European forest governance post-2020
Contents
Executive summary..................................................................................................................................... 4
1. Introduction: changes in the post-2020 forest policy framework................................................... 7
2. Megatrends and drivers specific to the forest sector...................................................................... 9
2.1. Setting the scene: five important trends for forests and the forest sector.............................. 9
2.2 Societal and demographic trends.............................................................................................. 9
2.3. Economic trends........................................................................................................................ 9
2.4. Technological developments .................................................................................................. 11
2.5. Environmental trends.............................................................................................................. 12
2.6. Governance trends................................................................................................................... 12
3. How are forests and the forest-based sector currently governed?............................................... 15
3.1. A snapshot of global forest-relevant instruments in Europe................................................. 15
3.2. Regional initiatives affecting forests governance in Europe.................................................. 16
3.3. Forest governance in the European Union............................................................................. 17
3.4 Key lessons learned about EU policy instruments affecting forests ...................................... 20
4. Insights from other policy domains............................................................................................... 22
4.1 EU agricultural policy integration............................................................................................. 22
4.2 Energy policy and forests.......................................................................................................... 24
4.3 EU water policy and forests...................................................................................................... 26
4.4 Conclusions: What could forest policy learn from other sectors?.......................................... 26
5. Towards an EU forest policy post-2020: interests and expectations............................................. 28
5.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 28
5.2 Part 1: literature assessment ................................................................................................... 28
5.3 Part 2: empirical assessment of interests and expectations................................................... 29
5.4 Concluding remarks.................................................................................................................. 33
6. Pathways for future European forest policy – a matrix approach................................................. 35
7. Policy implications.......................................................................................................................... 42
8. References....................................................................................................................................... 44
3From Science to Policy 10
Executive summary
A new era of forest policymaking generating income and employment, and as a pro-
vider of ecosystem services to an increasingly urban-
E urope and the EU will face a significant new era of
forest policymaking after 2020. A strategic and co-
ordinated policy direction will be required, not least
ized and ageing society. Clearly, this generates po-
tential synergies and trade-offs between the different
needs for forests, which all have to be dealt with in a
to support the implementation of globally agreed context of a complex inter-sectoral policy landscape
policy targets such as the Sustainable Development that also operates at regional, national and supra-na-
Goals, the Paris Climate Agreement and Convention tional levels.
on Biological Diversity. In the global policy arena, This report reviews significant developments in
trade developments related e.g. to China, Russia and the forest governance framework including EU and
North America will also have important implications international developments, and discusses how co-
for the European forest sector. On a pan-European ordination in other policy areas than forests leads to
scale, a decision on whether to start negotiations on policy integration. Based on evidence from a litera-
a legally binding agreement on forests in Europe un- ture review, stakeholder interviews and workshop re-
der the umbrella of the United Nations Economic sults, it outlines several potential pathways for future
Commission for Europe (UNECE) will have to be tak- forest policymaking in Europe.
en in 2020.
Forest products and services are increasingly an Policy implications
inherent and integrated element of many other sec-
tors, ranging from energy to food production to con- • To increase EU forest policy coordination, the in-
servation and public health. This wide range of sec- tegration between EU and Member States (verti-
tors and multiple interests, at different levels, leads cal integration) and of separate EU policy objec-
to a complex multi-sectoral governance system. For tives (horizontal integration) has to be defined
example, within the EU, negotiations are current- and developed. Future interaction between pub-
ly ongoing on post-2020 EU policies on agriculture lic (government) and private initiatives forms a
and rural development, biodiversity, climate, indus- third mode. In practice, integration may take hy-
try, food security, circular economy and new legisla- brid forms across the three levels, including for-
tion on sustainable finance. All of them will have an est agenda-setting, cooperation and coordination
important influence on forest-related decision-mak- across different levels, sectoral and cross-sectoral
ing processes. In addition, the European Green Deal coalitions as well as the provision of proper finan-
launched in December 2019, will affect forest-related cial and human resourcing for targeted forest pol-
policies in the coming decade. icy integration.
Forests are the biggest land-based natural re- • The forest sector should increase cross-sectoral
source in Europe and there are increasing demands policy initiatives and become a strategic player in
to use this resource for many different purposes. addressing the role of forests and forest resourc-
Climate change and biodiversity have become ma- es for the future EU society and economy. It has
jor drivers of all environmental questions, with high to become proactive rather than reactive in ad-
expectations for European forests to contribute. The dressing major EU policy goals, which often arise
European bioeconomy also has many opportunities from global challenges and from outside the for-
and demands for forests, which can play a major role est sector. This would allow a more rapid and co-
in phasing-out fossil raw materials and products, ordinated response to emerging issues, and help
4European forest governance post-2020
articulate national forest-related policy goals in • A major divide as to whether forests should serve
the EU framework more clearly. It would require a mainly environmental or economic forestry objec-
common political vision, or at least an agreement tives was found in previous studies and confirmed
on the main political priorities for forests and for- by a new interview series with representatives
est resources. from Member States, stakeholders and EU-level
• The major challenges for EU forest policymaking administrators. While the results show largely
are linked to several policy domains, and will re- well-known interest coalitions with regard to EU
quire new modes of cooperative forest governance forest policy (e.g. conservation vs. commodity in-
and processes. This may include new forms of di- terests, forest-rich producer vs. forest-poor con-
alogue, information exchange, and cross-sectoral sumer states), new configurations also occur de-
initiatives including the discussion of synergies pending on the topic.
and trade-offs on an EU level. Existing forms of • Defining joint topics on forests might be key to fos-
forest governance have shown limitations in mov- tering forest policy integration. Currently (in par-
ing towards better coordination and integration. allel with the Green Deal proposal), bioeconomy,
To balance the major socio-economic and environ- climate change and biodiversity protection could
mental demands on forests, while maintaining the serve as such. It will be important to demonstrate
competitiveness of the sector in an economy mov- the realistic potential contribution of forests, and
ing towards low carbon and renewable resourc- to further develop the concept of sustainable forest
es, it is also important that forest-related interests management as the major coherent and compre-
are integrated into other EU policy domains. This hensive element that forests and the forest-based
requires consistent and coordinated policy goals sector can bring into different policy processes
and targets on forests, and active handling of syn- such as the Green Deal.
ergies and trade-offs. • The European Green Deal puts the forest-based
• Experiences from other policy domains show that sector in a key position in climate change mitiga-
policy integration is typically incremental and tion and biodiversity protection, and it is there-
path-dependent. Radical changes are often not fore important to trigger stronger forest policy
successful and may in fact counteract ambitious integration and strengthen its implementation.
goals for deeper integration. Attempts to strength- However, more resources for forest expertise in
en cross-sectoral integration in these policy do- the European Commission services and nation-
mains often remain largely symbolic, hence alter- al administrations will be needed to ensure that
ing existing policy frameworks or even introducing the integration of distinct forest demands can be
new instruments and practices would require ex- properly addressed. The Green Deal proposal puts
traordinary political and/or external pressures. a strong focus on biodiversity conservation and
• The forest sector and its product markets differ the carbon storage function of forests, but hardly
from the heavily subsidised EU agricultural mar- mentions (forest) bioeconomy at all. This has led
kets, and might require fewer resources for fos- to significant concerns regarding the need to also
tering policy integration. However, the integration strengthen the transition to a circular bioeconomy,
challenge is to support and boost non-market for- to advance EU policy objectives and sustainability
est ecosystem services, such as biodiversity, cli- in all dimensions. It is important to clarify how dif-
mate mitigation, recreation services, etc. and to ferent forest-related policy objectives can be met,
ensure ecosystem services provision without im- and to develop governance mechanisms that take
peding the functioning of existing forest products into full account the entire set of ecosystem ser-
markets. It is also important that new policies do vices that forests provide, including the global di-
not lead to the offsetting of EU climate and envi- mension.
ronmental goals in other regions, with sustaina-
bility leakages like carbon leakages, illegal logging
and biodiversity loss.
5From Science to Policy 10
• The development of future forest policy in Europe important to define what forest policy integration
post-2020 requires consistent policymaking on means along the different possible future path-
and across all levels of governance. The way forests ways, and which elements of integration are poten-
are dealt with on different levels (international, EU, tial priorities. The debate on the future of EU for-
national) requires better inter- and intra-govern- ests and what services are required from them has
mental coordination (e.g. between forestry and na- often been strongly ideological in the past. Using
ture authorities). Apart from global and EU pro- evidence-based information and seeking practical
cesses, the future of the Forest Europe process means to maximise synergies and minimise trade-
and the developments around a Legally Binding offs between the different needs for forests would
Agreement are expected to influence how forestry give a better basis for future forest policy develop-
topics will be shaped in Europe in the future. It is ment.
6European forest governance post-2020
1. Introduction: changes in the post-2020 forest policy
framework
Forests are the largest land-based natural resource on a legally binding agreement (LBA) on forests in
in Europe, covering more than 40% of the EU land Europe, under the umbrella of the United Nations
area. There are increasing demands to use this re- (UN), will have to be taken in 2020.
source for many different purposes. For example, In addition, after the autumn 2020 Ministerial
with climate change becoming a major driver of all Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe,
environmental questions, and given the potential a new orientation of the Forest Europe process will
of EU forests to help in climate change mitigation, be needed that leads into a post-2020 European for-
they are the subject of many climate-change relat- est policy era. Within the European Union, nego-
ed political targets. The view that forests have to be tiations are ongoing on post-2020 EU policies on
preserved as carbon and biodiversity reservoirs has agriculture and rural development, biodiversity, cli-
also grown increasingly dominant. In this context, mate, industry, food security, circular economy and
the European Commission’s ‘European Green Deal’ upcoming new legislation on sustainable finance.
proposal, launched in December 2019, is likely to All of them will have an influence on forest-related
affect how forests are dealt with in the coming dec- decision-making processes.
ade. Afforestation and restoration of forests are cen- How well the EU policy framework fulfils the
tral to the Green Deal’s view of forests, which opens needs of the Member States in relation to forests
up many aspects of what has so far been understood and the forest sector is not a new question. On the
by sustainable forest management (SFM). one hand, the EU forest governance framework has
European forests are also subject to many de- been effective to a certain extent in setting common
mands – and opportunities – from the European bi- goals, helping information exchange, promoting
oeconomy. They play a major role in generating in- the sustainable forest management (SFM) concept,
come, as part of the value chain for bio-products and forest certification and other advances. On the oth-
bioenergy, and as a provider of ecosystem services er hand, the framework is weakened by many open
to an increasingly urbanised and ageing society. issues, including a perceived lack of coordination
Clearly, the need to enhance biodiversity and a wide and coherence of forest-related policies and a lim-
variety of ecosystem services generates potential ited monitoring and evaluation of policy effective-
synergies and trade-offs between the different needs ness keep such a framework weak. In addition, per-
for forests. Simultaneously, the horizontal and verti- ceptions of the merits, caveats and the future role
cal integration of forest-related policies and their ob- of forests in Europe vary among Member State rep-
jectives depends on diverse regional, national, and resentatives, stakeholders and EU level administra-
supra-national competencies. Non-harmonised pol- tors, and will continue to be intensively discussed,
icies are also likely to neglect the trade-offs that arise given the changes that can be expected.
from divergent goal-setting activities, creating con- As a consequence, there are different policy per-
flicts and inefficiencies. spectives and objectives, different expectations and
Europe and the European Union (EU) will face perceptions, and different responsibilities for dif-
a significant new era of forest policymaking after ferent segments of the forest value chain. This is
2020. A strategic and coordinated policy direction why the issue of policy integration lies at the core
will be required, not least to support the implemen- of this study. While integration is often discussed
tation of globally agreed policy targets such as the and requested, its absence is still a major obstacle
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Paris to a targeted and coherent forest policy framework
climate agreement and the Convention on Biological in Europe.
Diversity. In the global policy arena, trade devel- In this report, we offer an alternative point of
opments related to e.g. China, Russia and North view on the challenges for forest policymaking in
America will also have important implications for Europe post-2020. While evaluating past and more
the European forest sector. On the pan-European recent developments that affect forests and forestry
scale, a decision on whether to start negotiations in Europe, we also look ahead. New trends and their
7From Science to Policy 10
potential impacts on forests need scrutiny, wheth- • Reviews significant developments in the EU for-
er from economic, social, ecological or governance est governance framework, including internation-
points of view. Climate change-attributed forest dis- al developments.
turbances, such as forest fires, bark beetle raids and • Discusses how coordination in policy areas other
storm damage, as well as degradation processes, than forests leads to policy integration.
will increase in the future. They will also influence • Assesses the interests and expectations of for-
the public perception of forests and increasingly put est-relevant stakeholders, EU administrators and
pressure on politicians to act. Member State representatives with regards to
In summary, this report their perceptions on the current and future forest
• Assesses current emerging trends potentially af- policy framework.
fecting future forest governance, to feed into the • Outlines pathways for future European forest pol-
analysis of prospective policy pathways. icy.
8European forest governance post-2020
2. Megatrends and drivers specific to the forest sector
2.1. Setting the scene: five • A growing focus on the importance and value
important trends for forests and of non-material ecosystem services such as rec-
reation (Masiero et al. 2019, Rojas-Briales et al.
the forest sector
2018).
In this chapter, we aim to identify emerging ma- • New social demands for forests and trees in urban
jor trends and their consequences for forests and contexts (Konijnendijk van der Bosch 2018) such
the forest sector – i.e. risks and uncertainties that as human wellbeing and nature-based therapies
have resulted, or might result, in demands for for- (Herpiner-Saunier et al. 2018).
est policy responses in the next three to five decades. • That internal European migration may lead to ru-
We establish some trends in outlook, using a lim- ral depopulation, with structural consequences
ited review of trend literature published between for the forest sector (e.g. spreading of wildlife and
2016 and 2018, and taking into account the differ- related diseases, labour availability in the sector).
ing time dimensions in these trends (e.g. Pelli et al.
2018, Nilsson and Ingemarson 2017, Hagemann et 2.3. Economic trends
al. 2016, Korhonen 2016) in addition to our litera-
ture synthesis. 2.3.1. Consumption and production
While the EU has made some progress in decou-
2.2 Societal and demographic pling production and resource use through in-
trends creased production efficiencies, overall EU energy
consumption and waste generation have contin-
In Europe, almost 75% of the population live in cities ued to rise (Eurostat 2019). Reaching the European
and settlements. Urbanisation is changing lifestyles Commission Green Deal proposal (European
and practices and, therefore, the demands expressed Commission 2019) for carbon neutrality by 2050
by the urban majority, which is often the most po- will pose a major challenge and have severe impacts
litically influential, on the use of forests and trees, on EU consumption and production. At the same
and their products and services. The main drivers time, the region continues its long-term shifts to
are demands for a growing service-oriented econo- digital and service economies.
my (opportunities for education, employment, cred- In the past two decades (since 2000), the EU’s
it, assurance and healthcare) and, on the other side, import dependency trend for different materials has
emerging crises, extreme events and the consequent increased markedly only for fossil energy materials;
forced migration. The world’s population is also for others (such as biomass), it has stayed fairly con-
growing older. This ageing society, together with de- stant (Eurostat 2019). However, if in the future the
creasing birth rates in some countries and a declin- EU is to face an increasing import demand for e.g.
ing proportion of working-age people, puts pressure bioenergy and bio-materials, attention must be paid
on social security systems (healthcare, pensions and to issues such as land use impacts, environmental
social protection for older people). and legality certification, pledges for ‘zero deforest-
Societal changes also imply value changes for ation’ imports and bioenergy carbon capture and
forests. A majority of EU citizens consider nature storage (BECCS) (Oberle et al. 2019). On the oth-
protection to be important (European Commission er hand, the Green Deal also addresses the feedback
2017a). Equally important are variations and chang- impacts of stricter EU manufacturing carbon poli-
es in the attitudes of forest owners, alongside struc- cies within the region and the consequent possibili-
tural changes in forest ownership (Weiss et al. ty of increasing ‘carbon leakages’ outside the EU: it
2019). suggests possible trade policy measures that would
For forests and the forest-based sector this means: help to minimise the effects. Regarding forest prod-
• A shift in population from rural to urban areas, ucts, the demand for traditional products such as
which may lead to a change in perception of na- printing paper has been declining or stagnating
ture and, more specifically, forests (Farcy et al. while there is an increasing trend in product diver-
2018). sification – moving towards portfolios of products
9From Science to Policy 10
and services (Jonsson et al. 2017, Hurmekoski et al. increasing fragmentation of the trade system and al-
2018). Meanwhile, the closure of traditional wood lied systems of sustainability-related standards and
processing mills is having a negative impact on the traceability. Mechanisms to trace international trade
economies of some rural communities (Neelam et flows are increasingly used by companies, and re-
al. 2017). Energy-based industries and bio-based quested by governments, as instruments to reduce
products can contribute to revitalising affected com- the risks of illegal activities (and associated costs),
munities. enhance the efficiency and competitiveness of com-
In forest product markets, trends show that wood panies and demonstrate sustainability.
for construction purposes (supported by green pub- In the context of forests and the forest-based sec-
lic procurement), green consumption (wood used to tor, this means:
substitute for non-renewable materials, increased • China has become one of the biggest economies
demand for certified sustainable biomasses) and with a great demand for wood and a huge capaci-
high-value products from wood (e.g. bio-refinery, ty to purchase, process and trade wood products.
bio-plastics etc.) will gain increasing importance. Also, as a consequence of growing protectionism,
The supply of raw material will depend on the mo- particularly in the US, the trade flows for wood
bilisation of European wood resources and the free- products may change.
dom or restrictions of global trade, while satisfying • Regarding exports, in recent years Europe has
sustainability criteria in supply and production. rapidly become a major supplier of softwood logs
For forests and the forest-based sector this means: to China (a flow that is also generated by forest
• Increasing opportunities when fossil-based eco- disturbances), while Russia and North America
nomic activities need to be replaced with more have lost market share. It has to be seen if this is a
sustainable alternatives. lasting trend or cyclical phenomenon.
• A growing demand for European forests and their • The EU Forest Law Enforcement, Governance
management to provide a range of ecosystem ser- and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan aims to ensure
vices – from biodiversity protection to recreation, the legality of wood entering EU markets. This
health and wellbeing to bio-products, fibre, bio- might encourage the diversion of timber prod-
fuel production and carbon capture and storage. ucts from traditional large importers to destina-
This may generate conflicts over land use and tions with a less stringent regulatory framework
the risk of displacing production impacts to oth- (Masiero et al. 2019).
er world regions but also creates new market and • There is some evidence of a positive correla-
non-market opportunities. tion between international trade and markets for
• Resource efficiency, circularity, innovations and wood products certified as sustainable (Lovrić et
high-value products will be key in enabling the al. 2018).
sector to compete in a bioeconomy. The diversi- • The increasing use of traceability systems and
fication of the sector requires the broadening of digitalisation to trace wood along the whole val-
goods and services portfolios, together with strat- ue chain will contribute to the development of the
egies for intensification or extensification of tim- forest sector as a service sector.
ber production in different countries. • Non-wood forest products and services can be
particularly significant for a diversified forest sec-
2.3.2. International trade tor and for rural areas in many parts of Europe
In the wake of market globalisation, there will be a (Wolfslehner et al. 2019b).
shift from the trade and manufacturing of goods to
the assembly of parts from many different regions 2.3.3. Circular bioeconomy
and countries, and a shift in the trade in tasks and The growing awareness of the need to replace fos-
services towards a process of service sector develop- sil-based economic activities, and the finite nature
ment. The 2008 economic crisis and the increase of fossil raw materials, has led to the concept of the
in protectionist measures accelerated the growth of bioeconomy, which is expected to further broad-
intraregional trade, particularly in Asia. The multi- en its scope internationally (D’Amato et al. 2020).
lateral trade regime is as much under pressure as However, the bioeconomy cannot be assumed to
multilateral environmental agreements, leading to be sustainable on its own: it needs to be imposed
10European forest governance post-2020
and monitored (Hetemäki et al. 2017, Ramcilovic- platforms for information about forest manage-
Suominen and Pülzl 2018, Wolfslehner et al. 2016). ment and economy, wood supply and ecological
Resulting environmental regulations might impose factors.
new constraints and costs for the forest-based sec- • Frontier technologies – such as blockchain and
tor. A response to this is a circular bioeconomy with advanced, remote sensing and monitoring tech-
a more sustainable and efficient use of natural re- nologies – are likely to be introduced to increase
sources (Hetemäki et al. 2017). wood traceability, forest management, control
For forests and the forest-based sector this means: property rights and food security, and to address
• A need for new innovations and products that are bottlenecks in supply chains.
more resource-efficient and sustainable, and help • Innovation and improvements in communication
to replace fossil-based production. technologies, and social and digital media, will
• That a further developing bioeconomy in the fu- improve access to information even in remote ru-
ture could lead to an increased demand for re- ral areas, helping in business creation, network-
newable resources. Apart from more demand for ing and marketing.
roundwood, the improved resource efficiency will
allow the increasing use of wood residues, waste 2.4.2. Innovation and technology disruptions
streams and process sidestreams. The bioeconomy aim to replace fossil-based prod-
• Sustainably produced wood-based bio-resources ucts with new products based on biological resourc-
have gained increasing attention in recent years. es and waste is an example of a driver for techno-
Standards and labelling are currently under discus- logical innovation, as well as digitalisation and
sion. The role of the forest sector in a circular bioec- transition to operating as a service sector. So far, the
onomy has been underestimated so far and shows emphasis has been on technological innovations,
the potential to contribute significantly with new, with attention almost completely focused on bio-re-
smart products and services (Hetemäki et al. 2017). fineries and construction (Toppinen et al. 2020).
However, material science is also developing new,
2.4. Technological developments high-tech, high-performance materials (e.g. nano-
materials) which raise concerns over novel types of
2.4.1. Digitalisation risk and require a suitable governance framework
Digitalisation continues to evolve with high speed (Stone et al. 2018). It can be argued that sustain-
because of a rapid growth in the rate of IT comput- able development necessitates not just technolog-
ing power, storage capacity, connectedness, soft- ical innovation but large-scale, interrelated social
ware applications and artificial intelligence (O’Reilly and technical change (Geels 2013), including so-
et al. 2018). The inclusion of digitalisation and se- cial developments for an innovative learning society
curity systems (e.g. systems for timber traceabili- (Moulaert et al. 2013).
ty, such as blockchain) is expected to improve cus- For the forest-based sector this means:
tomer value but creates issues around the control • Innovations along the value chain (such as cas-
and use of data. Digital platforms with data-driv- cading use of biomasses) could reduce the costs
en business models, such as Amazon, Google and and environmental impacts of the entire produc-
Facebook, have been highly successful over the last tion process, increasing the sector’s overall sus-
decade but a concentration of corporate power, orig- tainability (Mair and Stern 2017).
inating from first-mover advantages and the control • Technological and organisational innovation
of critical infrastructures and digital platforms, has trends are still weak for traditional forest enter-
become a major concern (Mazzuccato 2019). prises with traditional business models, particu-
For the forest-based sector this means: larly small and medium ones (D’Amato et al.
• The development of new concepts and digital 2020). A broadened understanding of bioecono-
technologies will shape forestry’s practice and re- my might create new opportunities.
search, taking advantage of technological overspill • In addition to technological innovations, social in-
from other industrial sectors. Both traditional novations are required for the co-creation of bene-
land-use sectors, such as forestry, and innovative fits involving a wide range of forest actors and in-
services will have to use digitalisation and develop stitutions (Secco et al. 2018).
11From Science to Policy 10
2.5. Environmental trends environmental and policy driver, post-2020 (IPBES
2019, European Environment Agency 2019). In
2.5.1. Climate change the pre-Brexit EU (EU28), around 25% of the 28
Climate change is at the top of the political agen- nations’ forests were part of Natura 2000, the
da. Forest ecosystems and wood products current- world’s largest coordinated network of protected
ly sequester about 13% of greenhouse gas (GHG) areas, and there is an increasing number of oth-
emissions in the EU (Nabuurs et al. 2018a). The er smaller or bigger protected forest areas (Sotirov
role of forests and the best way of implementing cli- 2017). The EU’s biodiversity conservation and na-
mate-smart forest management is at the centre of ture protection policy (as found in the EU biodi-
the scientific and political debate. Forests’ climate versity strategy, EU Habitats and Birds Directives –
mitigation potential includes not only carbon se- also known as the Nature Directives – and Natura
questration in forests but also the substitution of 2000) has not yet met its objectives to achieve a
fossil-based raw materials and products. It also ad- favourable conservation status of forest habitats
dresses some major drivers of land-borne carbon and species, and to tackle and reverse biodiversi-
loss, including land-use change (as a part of land ty loss. Full achievement of the Nature Directives’
use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) ac- goals will depend on improving the implementa-
tivities) and deforestation reduction – e.g. process- tion of policy and practice in partnership with local
es for reducing emissions from deforestation and authorities and stakeholders in the Member States
forest degradation (REDD). Adapting forests to cli- (European Commission 2016). Equally, some main
mate change is gaining importance in climate ac- objectives of global biodiversity conservation policy
tions. Bark beetle disturbance, storm damage and (e.g. the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD),
forest fires are strong signals that only resilient, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the United
adapted forests can fulfil their promising mitigation Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
potential, while vulnerable forests turn into net car- (UNFCCC), the Paris agreement, REDD+, FLEGT
bon sources. etc.) are still not achieved (Pokorny et al. 2019).
For forests and the forest-based sector this means: For forests and the forest-based sector this means:
• Within forest sciences, there is broad consensus • Persistent environmental issues and policy devel-
that climate change mitigation has to go hand in opments are likely to maintain and put addition-
hand with adaption (Lindner et al. 2014). Because al pressure on the forest sector to consider and
of the pace of change, financial instruments for implement the biodiversity conservation and en-
adaptation measures will be important. vironmental aspects of forest policy, management
• REDD programmes to combat deforestation glob- planning and practice (Sotirov 2017).
ally are potentially an important instrument, • The sector is likely to be impacted by growing
though many questions remain about the condi- pressure for substantial, additional nature conser-
tions under which they contribute effectively and vation efforts, and global and local sustainability,
efficiently to both climate change mitigation and fuelled by a combination of the ‘biodiversity cri-
local livelihoods. sis’, increasing demand for bio-resources and a
• The role of forest management in climate change ‘greening’ consumerism.
mitigation is vital in the scientific and political • These trends are likely to demand more compre-
debate, and often complex and driven by distinct hensive integration of biodiversity conservation
interests and ideologies. This refers particular- in the forest policy and practices of forest owners
ly to methods of reporting carbon sequestration and forest authorities.
(cf LULUCF reference levels) and accounting of
wood products and substitution effects. Climate- 2.6. Governance trends
smart forestry approaches may contribute effec-
tively to this debate (Nabuurs et al. 2018a). 2.6.1. Shift of global power to multiple cen-
tres of power
2.5.2. Biodiversity conservation The balance of global political, economic and mili-
Biodiversity loss and the need for effective na- tary power has shifted from the bipolar political sys-
ture conservation will continue to be a central tem of the Cold War towards a multipolar global
12European forest governance post-2020
order, with multiple centres of power including the 2.6.4. Shift towards complex multi-sectoral
US, China, Russia, India and the EU (Wade 2011). governance
Emerging economies are becoming increasing- Policymaking with a sectoral focus is not and will
ly powerful in global markets. This economic shift not be able to respond to global challenges and
also strongly influences international political pow- trends that are regarded partly as ‘wicked’, if not
er relations. The establishment of the World Trade ‘super-wicked’, problems (Levin et al. 2012). The
Organisation (WTO) and the accompanying liber- trends faced by forests and the forest sector demon-
alisation of trade in goods and services have creat- strate that problems arise only to a minor extent
ed novel transnational spaces of operation for cor- from within the sector. They instead have diverse
porations, together with increasingly complex value and interconnected social, economic, environmen-
chains. tal and technological determinants, as well as asso-
ciated multi-sectoral policy configurations. These
2.6.2. Shift towards multilevel governance cross-sector interdependencies have increased the
There is a simultaneous movement of political pow- need to organise connectivity and policy integration
er – generally deliberate and coordinated – from the between sectors (Candel and Biesbroek 2016). The
national level of government up to transnational lev- development of the UN SDGs and associated gov-
els and down to local governments, referred to as ernance arrangements provide a good example of at-
multilevel governance (Hooghe and Marks, 2003). tempts to foster such connectivity (United Nations
The position of local and regional actors as actors in- 2015). The capacity of governance systems to pro-
dependent of national governments has clearly be- cess multiple logics of operation and to anticipate
come strengthened (Pierre, 2000). Consequently, and adapt to changing circumstances has become
decisions that impact local conditions and practic- critical (Feindt and Weiland 2018).
es may now originate from different levels and even
entail sequential decision-making across levels, e.g. 2.6.5. Austerity measures
through delegation as well as transnational and in- The great recession of 2007-09 led many European
tergovernmental networks. In the European con- governments to adopt a policy of austerity, involv-
text, the expansion of the European Union has been ing considerable cuts in public spending. It appears
a key driver of, as well as response to, this vertical that austerity measures aggravated the recession
dispersion of authority. and slowed down economic revival, escalated health
and social crises, and contributed to the rise of illib-
2.6.3. The emergence of network governance eral democracy (Mounk 2018). Apart from affecting
arrangements people working in the forestry sector, these meas-
Recent decades have seen a prolific debate on the ures also challenged the financing of green ambi-
emergence of network governance in the political tions (Comerford et al. 2010), the abilities of stake-
sciences. Network governance can be defined as the holders to engage in forest management (White et
attempt to achieve common goals through complex al. 2018), and the capacity for emergency responses,
processes of negotiations between autonomous but such as fire management.
interdependent public, private and societal actors In the context of forestry, all these governance
(Kooiman 2003). Network governance complements considerations mean:
both hierarchical rule-making and market compe- • Forest governance has become increasingly mul-
tition by introducing participatory governance ap- ti-scale and cross-sectoral. International forest-re-
proaches; an example is consumer interests in label- lated laws, norms and policy strategies interact
ling and certification systems. A related development with a wide range of regional, national and local
is the emergence of hybrid governance systems in policies. Policymaking initiatives that affect for-
which public and private regulation interact in com- est management are pursued by a suite of institu-
plex ways, e.g. for coordination along transnation- tions, including public and private actors.
al value chains or in response to new consumer de- • The EU has increasingly leveraged its role as a
mands. This has led to concerns about the power of major importer of forest-related products to in-
corporations to impose standards, and control mar- fluence forest governance outside its own borders
ket access and surveillance (Gupta et al. 2020) through, for example, prohibiting the import of
13From Science to Policy 10
illegally produced wood products, setting sustain- important driver of multilevel, multi-sectoral for-
ability standards for biofuels and supporting zero est initiatives, and is likely to continue.
deforestation commodity initiatives. • Complex polycentric and multi-sector governance
• Meanwhile, policies in other sectors, such as the also typifies efforts to promote a bioeconomy,
European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and where the path transition towards bio-based pro-
Natura 2000, also influence priorities for land duction and innovation is strongly interconnected
and forest use. The strong relationship between with environmental concerns, involving different
climate change and forests has been a particularly sectors and non-governmental interests.
14European forest governance post-2020
3. How are forests and the forest-based sector currently
governed?
The preceding section highlights an essential point: Efforts to tackle climate change through the
that the forest-based sector involves a wide range UNFCCC have also increased the overall atten-
of sectors and multiple interests, at different lev- tion to forests over time, as specified through the
els, making up a complex multi-sectoral govern- Kyoto Protocol (2005), the Paris agreement (2015)
ance system. Forest products and services are, even and various other decisions taken over the last dec-
more, an inherent and integrated element of many ade (Turnhout et al. 2017). Key mechanisms for ad-
other sectors, ranging from energy to food produc- dressing forest emissions under the UNFCCC in-
tion to conservation and public health. From a poli- clude the LULUCF mechanism, which stipulates
cy perspective, this emphasises the relevance of con- how developed countries can account for land use
sidering forest governance – from global to national and forest-related emissions, and the REDD and
level – as a multi-sectoral endeavour. REDD+ mechanism, which focuses on reduc-
ing forest loss in developing countries. The rele-
3.1. A snapshot of global forest- vance of the UNFCCC in the EU is demonstrated
relevant instruments in Europe by the inclusion of GHG emissions and remov-
als from LULUCF in the 2030 climate and energy
International efforts to agree on a comprehensive framework, adopted in 2018 (Regulation 2018/841).
and legally binding agreement on forests have, to Recent literature shows that LULUCF still poses
date, not been successful. However, there are sev- major challenges and contradicting views on identi-
eral key ‘forest-relevant’ conventions that play a fying its impacts on forests and forest management
central role in global decision-making on forests. (Nabuurs et al. 2018b, Kallio et al. 2018, Grassi et
Foremost among these are the CBD1, the United al. 2018).
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change There are also other legally binding agreements
(UNFCCC)2, and the United Nations Convention to for the international trade of forest products, such as
Combat Desertification in Countries Experiencing the World Trade Agreement (WTA), the Convention
serious Drought and/or Desertification, particular- on International Trade in Endangered Species of
ly in Africa (UNCCD)3, that came out of the 1992 Wild Fauna and Flora (Cites), and the International
United Nations Conference on Environment and Tropical Timber Agreement (ITTA). For example,
Development (UNCED) – also known as the ‘Rio Cites is implemented in the EU through the Wildlife
Earth Summit’ (Rayner et al. 2010). Trade Regulations (Regulation, 338/97). These in-
From a forest perspective, the relevance of the struments stress significant intersectoral links be-
CBD cannot be overestimated, especially as a legally tween trade, deforestation and the degradation of
binding convention. For instance, the CBD’s Aichi global forests. Other key initiatives of cross-sec-
Biodiversity Targets underpin the EU Strategy on toral relevance include the Amsterdam declara-
Biological Diversity and its subsequent implementa- tion ‘Towards Eliminating Deforestation from
tion by EU Member States (European Commission Agricultural Commodity Chains with European
2011). The EU’s network of nature protection areas Countries’ (2015), the New York Declaration on
(Natura 2000) is also based on CBD principles and Forests (2014), the UNECE Aarhus Convention
goals (Beresford et al. 2016). Forests play an impor- (1998) on access to justice in environmental mat-
tant role in the Natura 2000 network as they hold a ters, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of
significant proportion of Europe’s threatened biodi- Indigenous Peoples (2007).
versity. Efforts to preserve forest habitats and spe- It can be noted that while the number and com-
cies are consequently intertwined with global and plexity of international instruments affecting for-
EU objectives to arrest biodiversity loss. ests have proliferated over time (McDermott et al.
2007, Rayner et al. 2010), there is also an increased
recognition that fundamental societal challenges
1 See https://www.cbd.int
2 See https://unfccc.int (e.g. climate change and biodiversity loss) require
3 See https://www.unccd.int
15From Science to Policy 10
integrative policy solutions. This type of integra- (FSC)7 and the Program for the Endorsement of
tive thinking is evident in the 2030 Agenda for Forest Certification (PEFC)8, launched respective-
Sustainable Development4, which demands an in- ly by international non-governmental organisations
tegrated approach to natural resource use and man- (NGOs) and by the forest-based industry and forest
agement, including forests. For instance, from an owners (Cashore et al. 2004). To date, the majority
SDG perspective, it can be noted that Sustainable of the world’s certified forest area is located in the
Development Goal 15 (life on land) explicitly states temperate and boreal forests of Europe and North
the need to “protect, restore and promote sustaina- America (Ehrenberg-Azcárate and Peña-Claros
ble use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably man- 2020). Increasing the forest products from sustain-
age forests, combat desertification, and halt and re- ably managed forest and expanding the forest areas
verse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss”. that are sustainably managed represent one of the
This goal, in short, recognises the synergistic inter- Global Forest Goals introduced by UNFF.
actions between forest, water and biodiversity, call- Integral to the forestry regime on trade and cer-
ing for integrative and collective action. tification, there is also an emerging regime for the
Relevant, non-legally binding forest-relevant in- assurance of transnational timber legality, aimed
struments include two key outputs from the 1992 at controlling trade in illegally logged wood and
Rio Summit, namely, the Forest Principles and the wood products. For instance, the EU’s Forest Law
Agenda 21 (Chapter 11, Combating Deforestation). Enforcement Governance and Trade (FLEGT)9 ini-
These instruments have, among other things, con- tiative, interacting with public legal timber regula-
tributed to almost 300 proposals for forest-relevant tions and private legality verification and sustain-
actions at the global, regional and local level dur- ability certification schemes, constitutes a global
ing the 1995 to 2000 period, as well as the estab- timber legality regime (Cashore et al. 2016).
lishment of the United Nations Forum on Forests
(UNFF) as an international forum to discuss for- 3.2. Regional initiatives affecting
est-relevant issues. In support of better integration forests governance in Europe
and policy coherence with forest-relevant SDGs, it
can be noted that UNFF has set out six Global Forest In parallel with the proliferation of global agree-
Goals and 26 associated targets (e.g. increase forest ments, there are several forest-relevant initia-
area by 3% worldwide by 2030). Another example tives that have emerged at the pan-European level.
of a global voluntary effort is the Bonn Challenge5 Foremost among these is the Ministerial Conference
as well as the Global Partnership on Forest and on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE),
Landscape Restoration6. The aim of these initiatives later renamed Forest Europe, which is a voluntary
is to bring 150 million ha of deforested and degrad- political process encompassing 46 member coun-
ed land into restoration by 2020, and 350 million tries including the EU and its Member States, the
ha by 2030. Such targets are linked to other for- Russian Federation, Switzerland and Norway. This
est-relevant international commitments, such as the process has generated a series of voluntary political
SDG Target 15, the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, the commitments and, most importantly, a definition of
UNFCCC REDD+ goal and the Rio+20 land degra- what SFM means in the pan-European context, to-
dation neutrality goal. gether with criteria and indicators that form the ba-
There have also been initiatives driven mainly by sis for the State of Europe’s Forests Report (Linser et
the private sector. One prominent example is for- al. 2018). Further, a political process to establish a le-
est certification. Forest certification aims to pro- gally binding agreement (LBA) on forests within the
vide market incentives for SFM by setting standards United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
for responsible forest management and awarding (ECE) region is ongoing. Despite a breakdown in
green labels to producers who meet those stand- negotiations in 2007, informal negotiations are
ards. (Two major certification systems compete running again to discuss options for restarting ne-
with each other: the Forest Stewardship Council gotiations on an LBA for forests in preparation for
4 See https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/
transformingourworld 7 See https://fsc.org
5 See https://www.bonnchallenge.org 8 See https://www.pefc.org
6 See http://www.forestlandscaperestoration.org 9 See http://www.euflegt.efi.int/.
16European forest governance post-2020
the eighth Ministerial Conference on the Protection (such as the EU Timber Regulation, the Common
of Forests in Europe, in 2020. Agricultural Policy and the Habitats Directive) that
The CBD has also had an impact on the re- affect the forest-based sector directly because of its
gional level. The pan-European response to the existing competences in agriculture, trade, envi-
implementation of the CBD has been the Pan- ronment and energy. This provides one argument
European Biological and Landscape Diversity for contending that the EU Commission has com-
Strategy (PEBLDS)10, which was endorsed at the petences on forests. However, from the perspective
third Environment for Europe (EfE) Ministerial of governing forestry and forests within the EU, the
Conference in 1995 (in Sofia, Bulgaria). Other for- European Commission does not have competenc-
est-relevant predecessor agreements have also been es, though currently challenged via article 191 of the
adopted and ratified at the regional level. For ex- treaty on the functioning of the European Union
ample, the Bern Convention on the Conservation (TFEU) on natural resources. It can only propose
of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats11, rati- legislation linked to its shared or exclusive compe-
fied in 1982, which includes a list of forest species tences as outlined in the TFEU13. These diverging
to be protected, as well as the European Landscape perspectives are relevant, not only because there is
Convention12, which relates in parts to forests. Two no common agreement on whether there is an EU
sub-regional agreements, the Alpine Convention forest policy at all, but because, in the absence of
and the Carpathian Convention, have protocols on a common language and framework on forests, the
forests which are binding to several countries in the likelihood of multilevel governance and integrated
respective mountain regions. forest management is exceedingly low.
It is beyond the scope of this report to provide
3.3. Forest governance in the an in-depth introduction to all forest-relevant poli-
European Union cy domains in the EU. However, it is interesting to
note that recent estimates suggest that more than
Forest policy in the EU is characterised by a para- 570 policy documents, including legislation (see
dox. The EU does not have a common forest poli- Figure 1), have direct or indirect effects on the EU
cy, and forest products (except for cork and some forest-based sector (Rivera León et al. 2016). This
forest-related fruits) are excluded from existing EU supports the notion that there actually is an indirect
treaties. This implies that the formulation and im- “EU forest policy” and that the EU acts on forests
plementation of forest-relevant policy is subject to through regulatory frameworks based on compe-
the principle of subsidiarity (article 5(2) of the EC tencies in other sectors14. Nevertheless, the complex
treaty) and is under the competence of EU Member interactions between different sectors affecting the
States. However, there is a long history of EU-level use of forest resources highlights a core challenge
action on forestry and forest monitoring measures. for a coordinated policy approach on forests, name-
In fact, policy instruments that affect forest goods ly, the fundamental synergies and trade-offs that re-
and services include several EU policy domains, main unresolved. This holds particularly true given
ranging from climate to energy to agriculture, the competition between different political para-
where the EU has explicit competencies. These pol- digms, such as energy and biodiversity conserva-
icy instruments affect everything from forest man- tion. To briefly consider some of the key challenges
agement to the provision of forest ecosystem servic- facing the forest-based sector, now and in the future,
es to global timber trade. three case examples are introduced below.
Due to this complex policy arrangement and in-
tersectoral interactions, it is often argued that the
EU does in fact have a forest policy despite lacking
the explicit competence (Aggestam and Pülzl 2018,
Aggestam et al. 2017, Pülzl et al. 2013). For instance, 13 The forest-based sector falls outside annex I and article 42 of the
TFEU that define the products that come under the CAP. All
the EU has adopted forest-relevant legislation competition rules consequently fully apply (EU competition law
is mostly derived from articles 101 to 109 of the TFEU).
14 For example, the precautionary principle (detailed in article 191
of the TFEU) has implications for the forest-based sector as it
10 See https://www.cbd.int/doc/nbsap/rbsap/peblds-rbsap.pdf aims at ensuring a higher level of environmental protection. This
11 See https://www.coe.int/en/web/bern-convention demonstrates how the EU can put forward legislation that affects
12 See https://www.coe.int/en/web/landscape forest management on the Member States level.
17You can also read
