Abstract
In this pilot study, we examine the relationship between the organisation of property rights and the economic importance of forestry on the one hand and the degree to which integrative nature conservation is formally implemented in forest policy on the other hand. Further, we are interested in whether political institutions moderate this relationship. We first offer a conceptualization of integrative nature conservation in forests and how to measure its implementation in law, ordinances and private agreements for a sample of European national and sub-national jurisdictions (Austria, Croatia, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Flanders, Baden-Württemberg and Piedmont). We subsequently try to assess the implementation of these rules and to relate them both to the structural characteristics of forestry and to an appraisal of pluralism in forest policy. Our qualitative analysis reveals that among the jurisdictions with a more centralized and corporatist forest policy, integrative nature conservation in forests tend to be less formally implemented the more corporatism dominates decision-making. It also confirms the expectation that among the more consensual jurisdictions with a strong forestry sector, rules tend to be less formally implemented. Further, the suspicion prevails that in the latter case, such rules are either complemented with exceptions for private forests or higher compensation. A more in-depth comparative examination is needed to further corroborate these findings.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We are aware that „close-to-nature“silviculture can be ill-defined and has been criticized for failing to emulate large-scale disturbances and therefore biodiversity associated to open landscapes (Puettmann et al. 2009).
Participatory policy making is becoming more common in France, though. The "Grenelle de l’Environnement" that had been negotiated in 2008 under Sarkozy’s presidency (2007–2012) had already brought together environmentalists and the forestry sector and resulted in the integration of biodiversity goals in management plans for pubic forest as well as corresponding committments by the owners of private forests. A participatory process is currently also applied to improve the reporting on Sustainable Forest Management indicators.
Italy has a strong tradition of limitations to the use of forests for public services (particularly regarding erosion control and landscape values, implemented by national laws, such as the Serpieri Forest Law of 1923 or the Glasso Law on Nature and Landscape of 1986) and this may also be a reason for the existence of a larger set of rules. While the Regional Forest Law of Piedmont does indeed list many mandatory limitations, they usually imply insufficient thresholds to really guarantee the conservation of biodiversity, and they have thus been strongly criticized by forest and environmental scientists alike.
Clearly, these reforms are to some extent motivated by the planned accession of Croatia to the European Union, which has provided an extra momentum (Börzel and Buzogany 2010). A more comprehensive analysis would have to look also into the implementation of these rules, because it has been found that in transition countries, a high level of formal pre-accession compliance is usually followed by low level of practical compliance after the accession to the EU (Jacoby 1999, McDermott et al. 2010: 349).
Country reports of the INTEGRATE I project
Angst M (2012) Integration of nature protection in swiss forest POLICY. INTEGRATE country report. EFICENT-OEF, Freiburg
Van der Maaten-Theunissen M, Schuck A (2013) Integration of nature protection in forest policy in the Netherlands. INTEGRATE country report. EFICENT-OEF, Freiburg
Vandekerkhove K (2013) Integration of nature protection in forest policy in Flanders (Belgium). INTEGRATE country report. EFICENT-OEF, Freiburg
Lier M, Parviainen J (2013) Integration of nature protection in forest policy in Finland. INTEGRATE country report. EFICENT-OEF, Freiburg
Lovrić M, Lovrić N (2013) Integration of nature protection in Croatian forest policy. INTEGRATE country report for Croatia. European Forest Institute, EFICEEC – EFISEE Regional Office
Spielmann M, Bücking W, Quadt V, Krumm F (2013) Integration of nature protection in forest policy in Baden–Württemberg (Germany). INTEGRATE Country Report. EFICENT-OEF, Freiburg
Tissot W, Kohler Y (2013) Integration of nature protection in forest policy in France. INTEGRATE Country Report. EFICENT-OEF, Freiburg
Quadt V, van der Maaten-Theunissen M, Frank G. (2013) Integration of nature protection in Austrian forest policy. INTEGRATE country report for Austria. EFICENT-OEF, Freiburg
References
Bollmann K, Braunisch V (2013) To integrate or to segregate: balancing commodity production and biodiversity conservation in European forests. In: Kraus D, Krumm F (eds) Integrative approaches as an opportunity for the conservation of forest biodiversity, chapter 1.1, pp 18–31
Börzel TA, Buzogany A (2010) Environmental organisations and the Europanisation of public policy in Central and Eastern Europe: the case of biodiversity governance. Environ Polit 19(5):708–735
Bosschap (2012) Gedragscode Bosbeheer 2010–2015. http://www.bosschap.nl/cmsAdmin/uploads/gedragscode-bosbeheer-2010-2015.pdf. Accessed Mar 2014
Brändli UB (ed) (2010) Schweizerisches Landesforstinventar. Ergebnisse der dritten Erhebung 2004–2006, Birmensdorf: Eidgenössische Forschungsanstalt für Wald, Schnee und Landschaft WSL
Busink RL (2010) Reporting on the pan-European qualitative indicators for sustainable forest management and national implementation commitments of the ministerial conference on protection of forests in Europe: Netherlands, Tech. rep., UN economic commission for Europe, food and agricultural organization, ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe, Geneva
Buttoud G, Kouplevatskaya-Buttoud I, Slee B, Weiss G (2011) Barriers to institutional learning and innovations in the forest sector in Europe: markets, policies and stakeholders. For Policy Econ 13(2):124–131
Buttoud G (2004) France: A forests strategy with no programme? In: David Humphreys (ed) Forests for the future. National forest programmes in Europe. Country and regional reports from COST Action E19, pp 101–111
Carbone F, Venzi L (2004) Italy: The evolution of a 1980s national forest policy. In: David Humphreys (ed) Forests for the future. National forest programmes in Europe. Country and regional reports from COST Action E19, pp 159–175
Chaudron A (2010) Reporting on the pan-European qualitative indicators for sustainable forest management and national implementation commitments of the ministerial conference on protection of forests in Europe: France, Tech. rep., UN economic commission for Europe, food and agricultural organization, ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe, Geneva
Colletti L (2010) Reporting on the pan-European qualitative indicators for sustainable forest management and national implementation commitments of the ministerial conference on protection of forests in Europe: Italy, Tech. rep., UN economic commission for Europe, food and agricultural organization, ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe, Geneva
Cullotta S, Maetzke F (2008) La Pianificazione Forestale ai diversi Livelli in Italia. Italia Forestale e Montana 1:29–47
Dürr C (2010) Reporting on the pan-European qualitative indicators for sustainable forest management and national implementation commitments of the ministerial conference on protection of forests in Europe: Switzerland, Tech. rep., UN economic commission for Europe, food and agricultural organization, ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe, Geneva
Elsasser P, Pretzsch J (2004) Germany: A socio-political dialogue to promote sustainable forest management. In: David Humphreys (ed) Forests for the future. National forest programmes in Europe. Country and regional reports from COST Action E19, pp 113–126
Finnish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry (2013). Finnish Forest Research Institute (Metla). http://www.metla.fi/metinfo/tilasto/julkaisut/vsk/2013/index.html Accessed Mar 2014
Flash Eurobarometer 379 (2013) Attitudes towards Biodiversity. Report. European Commission, Directorate-General for Environment and Directorate-General for Communication
Forest Europe and UNECE/FAO (2011a) Forest Types. In: Forest Europe and UNECE/FAO (eds) The State of Europe’s Forests. Status and trends in sustainable forest management in Europe, Geneva, http://www.unece.org/forests/fr/outputs/soef2011.html. Accessed Mar 2014
Forest Europe and UNECE/FAO (2011b) Pan-European qualitative indicators for sustainable forest management. In: Forest Europe and UNECE/FAO (eds) The State of Europe’s forests. status and trends in sustainable forest management in Europe, Geneva, http://www.unece.org/forests/fr/outputs/soef2011.html. Accessed Mar 2014
Foster BC, Wang D, Keeton WS, Ashton MS (2010) Implementing sustainable forest management using six concepts in an adaptive management framework. J Sustain For 29(1):79–108
FRA (2010) Country report Italy. Global forest resources assessment 2010, Nr. 101. Forestry department, food and agriculture organization of the United Nations, Rome
Frank G, Parviainen J, Latham J, Vandekerkhove K, Schuck A, Little D (2007) Main results, conclusions and recommendations. In: Frank Georg et al (eds) Protected forest areas in Europe—analysis and harmonisation (PROFOR): results, conclusions and recommendations. Federal research and training centre for forests. Natural Hazards and Landscape, Vienna, pp 149–159
Glück P, Avibegovic M, Cabaravdic A, Nonic D, Petrovic N, Posavec S, Stojanovska M (2011) Private forest owners in the Western Balkans—Ready for the formation of interest associations, research report 25, European Forest Institute
Gregurović (2010) Reporting on the pan-European qualitative indicators for sustainable forest management and national implementation commitments of the ministerial conference on protection of forests in Europe: Croatia
Gulbrandsen LH (2008) The role of science in environmental governance: competing knowledge producers in Swedish and Norwegian forestry. Glob Environ Polit 8(2):99–122
Hahn WA, Knoke T (2010) Sustainable development and sustainable forestry: analogies, differences, and the role of flexibility. Eur J For Res 129(5):787–801
Hänninen H, Ollonqvist P, Saastamoinen O (2004) Finland: sustainable welfare via forest diversity. In: David Humphreys (ed) Forests for the future. National forest programmes in Europe. Country and regional reports from COST Action E19, pp 87–99
Hogl K (2000) The Austrian domestic forest policy community in change? Impacts of the globalisation and Europeanisation of forest politics. For Policy Econ 1:3–13
Hogl K, Nordbeck R, Kvarda E (2009) When international impulses hit home: the role of domestic policy subsystem configurations in explaining different types of sustainability strategies. For Policy Econ 11:357–364
Holvoet B, Muys B (2004) Sustainable forest management worldwide: a comparative assessment of standards. Int For Rev 6(2):99–122
Jacoby W (1999) Priest and penitent: the European Union as a force in the domestic politics of Eastern Europe. East Eur Const Rev 8(1–2):62–67
Jordan A, Lenschow A (2010) Environmental policy integration: a state of the art review. Environ Policy Gov 20:147–158
Konisky DM, Wood ND (2012) Measuring state environmental policy. Rev Policy Res 29(4):544–569
Kraus D, Krumm F (2013) Integrative approaches as an opportunity for the conservation of forest biodiversity. European Forest Institute, Freiburg
Laurent C (2010) Reporting on the pan-European qualitative indicators for sustainable forest management and national implementation commitments of the ministerial conference on protection of forests in Europe: Belgium. Tech. rep., UN economic commission for Europe, food and agricultural organization, ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe, Geneva
Lijphart A (1999) Patterns of democracy: government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. Yale University Press, New Haven
Lust N, Nachtergale L, Serbruyns I (2001) Long term plan forestry and action plan forestry in flanders. Silva Gandav 66:89–115
Lust N, Serbruyns I, Van Gossum P (2004) Flanders: a free-standing regional forest programme in Belgium. In: David Humphreys (ed) Forests for the future. National forest programmes in Europe. Country and regional reports from COST Action E19, pp 319–329
MAAPRAT-IFN—Indicateurs de gestion durable des forêts françaises métropolitaines. 2011
Maes WH, Fontaine M, Rongé K, Hermy M, Muys B (2011) A quantitative indicator framework for stand level evaluation and monitoring of environmentally sustainable forest management. Ecol Ind 11(2):468–479
McDermott CL, Noah E, Cashore B (2008) Differences that `Matter’? A framework for comparing environmental certification standards and government policies. J Environ Plan Policy Manage 10(1):47–70
McDermott CL, Cashore B, Kanowski P (2010) Global environmental forest policies, London/New York: Earthscan
Parviainen J, Frank G (2003) Protected forests in Europe approaches—harmonising the definitions for international comparison and forest policy making. In: Parviainen, J (ed) Special issue: maintaining forest biodiversity. J Environ Manag 67(1): 27–36
Poloni-Staudinger LM (2008) Are consensus democracies more environmentally effective? Environ Polit 17(3):410–430
Posavec S, Šasěk M, Beljan K (2011) The structure and potential of small scale forests in the North-West of Croatia. In: FVA (ed.), Small scale forestry in a changing world, Freiburg, Germany, pp. 107–112, Fakultät für Forst- und Umweltwissenschaften der Universität Freiburg Forstliche Versuchs- und Forschungsanstalt Baden–Württemberg
Pouta E (2005) Sensitivity to scope of environmental regulation in contingent valuation of forest cutting practices in Finland. For Policy Econ 7(4):539–550
Prem J (2010) Reporting on the pan-European qualitative indicators for sustainable forest management and national implementation commitments of the ministerial conference on protection of forests in Europe: Austria. Tech. rep., UN economic commission for Europe, food and agricultural organization, ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe, Geneva
Primmer E (2011) Policy, project and operational networks: channels and conduits for learning in forest biodiversity conservation. For Policy Econ 13(2):132–142
Puettmann KJ, Coates KD, Messier Ch (2009) A critique of silviculture: managing for complexity. Island Press, Washington, DC
Pulla P, Schuck A, Verkerk PJ, Lasserre B, Marchetti M, Green T (2013) Mapping the distribution of forest ownership in Europe. Technical Report 88, European Forest Institute
Rands MRW, Adams WM, Bennun L, Butchart SHM, Clements A, Coomes D, Entwistle A, Hodge I, Kapos V, Scharlemann JPW, Sutherland WJ, Vira B (2010) Biodiversity Conservation: challenges beyond 2010. Science 329:1298–1303
Rantala T (2008) Discourse on legitimacy of forest and nature conservation policy in Finnish print media: framework for analysis and revised principles of democratic legitimacy. In: Böcher M, Giessen L, Kleinschmit D (eds) Environmental and forest governance. The role of governance and expertise. Proceedings of the international conference. Universitätsverlag Göttingen Göttingen, pp 41–68
Rayner J, Howlett M (2007) The national forest strategy in comparative perspective. For Chron 83(5):651–657
Saarikoski H, Akerman M, Primmer E (2012) The challenge of governance in regional forest planning: an analysis of participatory forest program processes in Finland. Soc Nat Resour 25(7):667–682
Sgobbi A (2010) Environmental policy integration and the nation state: what can we learn from current practices? In: Goria A, Sgobbi A, von Homeyer I (eds) Governance for the environment. A comparative analysis of environmental policy integration. The fondazione eni enrico mattei (FEEM) series on economics, the environment and sustainable development. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, Northhampton, MA, pp 9–41
Schanz H, Ottitsch A (2004) Netherlands: Forest policy paragon or NFP failure? In: David Humphreys (ed) Forests for the future. National forest programmes in Europe. Country and regional reports from COST Action E19, pp 193–206
Schanz H (2002) National forest programmes as discursive institutions. For Policy Econ 4(4):269–279
Schmitz F (2010) Reporting on the pan-European qualitative indicators for sustainable forest management and national implementation commitments of the ministerial conference on protection of forests in Europe: Germany. Tech. rep., UN economic commission for Europe, food and agricultural organization, ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe, Geneva
Secco L, Da Re R, Gatto P, Tassa DT (2011a) How to measure governance in forestry: key dimensions and indicators from emerging economic mechanisms. Allg For und Jagdztg 182(5–6):69–82
Secco L, Pettenella D, Gatto P (2011b) Forestry governance and collective learning process in Italy: likelihood or utopia? For Policy Econ 13(2):104–112
Serbruyns I, Luyssaert S (2006) Acceptance of sticks, carrots and sermons as policy instruments for directing private forest management. For Policy Econ 9(3):285–296
UNECE-FAO (2000) Forest resources of Europe, CIS, North America, Australia, Japan and New Zealand. Geneva timber and forest study papers 17, United Nations economic commission for Europe, food and agriculture organization of the United Nations
UNECE/FAO, MCPFE and CEPF (2007) Private forest ownership in Europe. Enquiry issued by the United Nations economic commission for europe (UNECE), the food and agricultural organization of the United Nations (FAO), the ministerial conference on the protection of forest s in Europe (MCPFE) and the confederation of European forest owners (CEPF). http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/timber/country-info/PFO/UNECE_Enquiry_Private_Forest_Ownership_Handout.pdf. Accessed Mar 2014
Van Gossum P, De Maeyer W (2006) Performance of forest groups in achieving multifunctional forestry in Flanders. Small-Scale For Econ Manag Policy 5(1):19–36
Van Herzele A, Van Gossum P (2009) Owner-specific factors associated with conversion activity in secondary pine plantations. For Policy Econ 11:230–236
Van Herzele A, Aarts N (2013) “My forest, my kingdom”—Self-referentiality as a strategy in the case of small forest owners coping with government regulations. Policy Sci 46(1):63–81
Vandekerkhove K, De Keersmaeker L, Walleyn R, Köhler F, Crevecoeur L, Govaere L, Thomaes A, Verheyen K (2011) Reappearance of old-growth elements in lowland woodlands in northern Belgium: do the associated species follow? Silva Fenn 45(5):909–935
Veenman S, Liefferink D, Arts B (2009) A short history of Dutch forest policy: the ‘de-institutionalisation’ of a policy arrangement. For Policy Econ 11(3):202–208
Veltheim T (2010) Reporting on the pan-European qualitative indicators for sustainable forest management and national implementation commitments of the ministerial conference on protection of forests in Europe: Finland. Tech. rep., UN economic commission for Europe, food and agricultural organization, ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe, Geneva
Venzi L (2008) Outlines of forest policy in Italy: Past experienes and recent developments. In: Cesaro L, Gatto P, Pettenella. D (eds) The multifunctional role of forests—policies, methods and case studies. EFI Proceedings 55, European Forest Institute, Joensuu, pp 39–45
Voitleithner J (2004) Austria: In the initial stage of a forest dialogue. In: David Humphreys (ed) Forests for the future. National forest programmes in Europe. Country and regional reports from COST Action E19, pp 63–73
Von Arb C, Zimmermann W (2004) Federalism. A characteristic element of swiss forest policy. Institute for human-environment systems department of environmental sciences. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, ETH Zurich
Vuletić D, Ištok I, Paladinić E (2008) The national forestry policy and strategy—Process or static document? 10th international symposium on legal aspects of European forest sustainable development, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, May 7–9
Weiland S (2010) Sustainability transitions in transition countries: forest policy reforms in South-eastern Europe. Environ Policy Gov 20(6):397–407
Weiland S (2012) Reflexive governance: a way forward? In: Hogl K, Kvarda E, Nordbeck R, Pregernig M (eds) Environmental Governance. The challenge of legitimacy and effectiveness. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 178–195
Weiss G (1998) Evaluation of mountain forest policy in Austria. Publication series of the institute of forest sector policy and economics 35, Institute of forest sector policy and economics, Vienna, pp 107–136
Weiss G (2004) The political practice of mountain forest restoration—comparing restoration concepts in four European countries. For Ecol Manag 195(1–2):1–13
Winkel G, Sotirov M (2011) An obituary for national forest programmes? Analyzing and learning from the strategic use of “new modes of governance” in Germany and Bulgaria. For Policy Econ 13(2):143–154
Winkel G, Sotirov M (2014) Whose integration is this? European forest policy between the gospel of coordination, institutional competition, and a new spirit of integration. Environ Plan C 32, doi:10.1068/c1356j
Zimmermann W, Zingerli C (2004) Optimising sustainable forest management. In: David Humphreys (ed) Forests for the future. National forest programmes in Europe. Country and regional reports from COST Action E19, pp 277–293
Zingerli C, Bisang K, Zimmermann W (2004) Nationale forstpolitische Programme: kontext, Anforderungen und das Beispiel “Waldprogramm Schweiz”, Forstwissenschaftliche Beiträge 32. ETHZ, Zürich
Acknowledgments
France We are grateful to C. Biache (ONF, France), M. Gosselin (Irstea, France), S. Groualle (MAAF, France), P. Beaudesson (CNPF, France) for helping us filling the assessment tables and subsequent informative discussions on integration at a national level. Switzerland We are grateful to Kurt Bollmann (WSL) and Anton Bürgi (WSL) for giving valuable information about the organisation of nature conservation in Swiss forests.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Georg Winkel.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schulz, T., Krumm, F., Bücking, W. et al. Comparison of integrative nature conservation in forest policy in Europe: a qualitative pilot study of institutional determinants. Biodivers Conserv 23, 3425–3450 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0817-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0817-0