Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 23, Issue 14, pp 3425–3450 | Cite as

Comparison of integrative nature conservation in forest policy in Europe: a qualitative pilot study of institutional determinants

  • Tobias Schulz
  • Frank Krumm
  • Winfried Bücking
  • Georg Frank
  • Daniel Kraus
  • Markus Lier
  • Marko Lovrić
  • Marieke van der Maaten-Theunissen
  • Yoan Paillet
  • Jari Parviainen
  • Giorgio Vacchiano
  • Kris Vandekerkhove
Original Paper

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.

Keywords

Integrative nature protection Forest policy Country comparison 

Notes

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.

Country reports of the INTEGRATE I project

  1. Angst M (2012) Integration of nature protection in swiss forest POLICY. INTEGRATE country report. EFICENT-OEF, FreiburgGoogle Scholar
  2. Van der Maaten-Theunissen M, Schuck A (2013) Integration of nature protection in forest policy in the Netherlands. INTEGRATE country report. EFICENT-OEF, FreiburgGoogle Scholar
  3. Vandekerkhove K (2013) Integration of nature protection in forest policy in Flanders (Belgium). INTEGRATE country report. EFICENT-OEF, FreiburgGoogle Scholar
  4. Lier M, Parviainen J (2013) Integration of nature protection in forest policy in Finland. INTEGRATE country report. EFICENT-OEF, FreiburgGoogle Scholar
  5. Lovrić M, Lovrić N (2013) Integration of nature protection in Croatian forest policy. INTEGRATE country report for Croatia. European Forest Institute, EFICEEC – EFISEE Regional OfficeGoogle Scholar
  6. 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, FreiburgGoogle Scholar
  7. Tissot W, Kohler Y (2013) Integration of nature protection in forest policy in France. INTEGRATE Country Report. EFICENT-OEF, FreiburgGoogle Scholar
  8. 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, FreiburgGoogle Scholar

References

  1. 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 18–31Google Scholar
  2. 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):708–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3.  Bosschap (2012) Gedragscode Bosbeheer 2010–2015. http://www.bosschap.nl/cmsAdmin/uploads/gedragscode-bosbeheer-2010-2015.pdf. Accessed Mar 2014
  4. Brändli UB (ed) (2010) Schweizerisches Landesforstinventar. Ergebnisse der dritten Erhebung 2004–2006, Birmensdorf: Eidgenössische Forschungsanstalt für Wald, Schnee und Landschaft WSLGoogle Scholar
  5. 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, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  6. 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):124–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 101–111Google Scholar
  8. 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 159–175Google Scholar
  9. 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, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  10. 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, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  11. Cullotta S, Maetzke F (2008) La Pianificazione Forestale ai diversi Livelli in Italia. Italia Forestale e Montana 1:29–47Google Scholar
  12. 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, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 113–126Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Flash Eurobarometer 379 (2013) Attitudes towards Biodiversity. Report. European Commission, Directorate-General for Environment and Directorate-General for CommunicationGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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):79–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. FRA (2010) Country report Italy. Global forest resources assessment 2010, Nr. 101. Forestry department, food and agriculture organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 149–159Google Scholar
  21. 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 InstituteGoogle Scholar
  22. 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: CroatiaGoogle Scholar
  23. Gulbrandsen LH (2008) The role of science in environmental governance: competing knowledge producers in Swedish and Norwegian forestry. Glob Environ Polit 8(2):99–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hahn WA, Knoke T (2010) Sustainable development and sustainable forestry: analogies, differences, and the role of flexibility. Eur J For Res 129(5):787–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 87–99Google Scholar
  26. Hogl K (2000) The Austrian domestic forest policy community in change? Impacts of the globalisation and Europeanisation of forest politics. For Policy Econ 1:3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 11:357–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Holvoet B, Muys B (2004) Sustainable forest management worldwide: a comparative assessment of standards. Int For Rev 6(2):99–122Google Scholar
  29. 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):62–67Google Scholar
  30. Jordan A, Lenschow A (2010) Environmental policy integration: a state of the art review. Environ Policy Gov 20:147–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Konisky DM, Wood ND (2012) Measuring state environmental policy. Rev Policy Res 29(4):544–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kraus D, Krumm F (2013) Integrative approaches as an opportunity for the conservation of forest biodiversity. European Forest Institute, FreiburgGoogle Scholar
  33. 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, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  34. Lijphart A (1999) Patterns of democracy: government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  35. Lust N, Nachtergale L, Serbruyns I (2001) Long term plan forestry and action plan forestry in flanders. Silva Gandav 66:89–115Google Scholar
  36. 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 319–329Google Scholar
  37. MAAPRAT-IFN—Indicateurs de gestion durable des forêts françaises métropolitaines. 2011Google Scholar
  38. 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):468–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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):47–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McDermott CL, Cashore B, Kanowski P (2010) Global environmental forest policies, London/New York: EarthscanGoogle Scholar
  41. 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): 27–36Google Scholar
  42. Poloni-Staudinger LM (2008) Are consensus democracies more environmentally effective? Environ Polit 17(3):410–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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–WürttembergGoogle Scholar
  44. Pouta E (2005) Sensitivity to scope of environmental regulation in contingent valuation of forest cutting practices in Finland. For Policy Econ 7(4):539–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  46. Primmer E (2011) Policy, project and operational networks: channels and conduits for learning in forest biodiversity conservation. For Policy Econ 13(2):132–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Puettmann KJ, Coates KD, Messier Ch (2009) A critique of silviculture: managing for complexity. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  48. 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 InstituteGoogle Scholar
  49. 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 329:1298–1303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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 41–68Google Scholar
  51. Rayner J, Howlett M (2007) The national forest strategy in comparative perspective. For Chron 83(5):651–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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):667–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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 9–41Google Scholar
  54. 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 193–206Google Scholar
  55. Schanz H (2002) National forest programmes as discursive institutions. For Policy Econ 4(4):269–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  57. 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):69–82Google Scholar
  58. Secco L, Pettenella D, Gatto P (2011b) Forestry governance and collective learning process in Italy: likelihood or utopia? For Policy Econ 13(2):104–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Serbruyns I, Luyssaert S (2006) Acceptance of sticks, carrots and sermons as policy instruments for directing private forest management. For Policy Econ 9(3):285–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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 NationsGoogle Scholar
  61. 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
  62. 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):19–36Google Scholar
  63. Van Herzele A, Van Gossum P (2009) Owner-specific factors associated with conversion activity in secondary pine plantations. For Policy Econ 11:230–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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):63–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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):909–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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):202–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  68. 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 39–45Google Scholar
  69. 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 63–73Google Scholar
  70. 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 ZurichGoogle Scholar
  71. 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 7–9Google Scholar
  72. Weiland S (2010) Sustainability transitions in transition countries: forest policy reforms in South-eastern Europe. Environ Policy Gov 20(6):397–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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 178–195Google Scholar
  74. 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 107–136Google Scholar
  75. Weiss G (2004) The political practice of mountain forest restoration—comparing restoration concepts in four European countries. For Ecol Manag 195(1–2):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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):143–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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
  78. 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 277–293Google Scholar
  79. Zingerli C, Bisang K, Zimmermann W (2004) Nationale forstpolitische Programme: kontext, Anforderungen und das Beispiel “Waldprogramm Schweiz”, Forstwissenschaftliche Beiträge 32. ETHZ, ZürichGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tobias Schulz
    • 1
  • Frank Krumm
    • 2
  • Winfried Bücking
    • 3
  • Georg Frank
    • 4
  • Daniel Kraus
    • 2
  • Markus Lier
    • 5
  • Marko Lovrić
    • 6
  • Marieke van der Maaten-Theunissen
    • 7
  • Yoan Paillet
    • 8
  • Jari Parviainen
    • 5
  • Giorgio Vacchiano
    • 9
  • Kris Vandekerkhove
    • 10
  1. 1.Swiss Federal Research Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape ResearchBirmensdorfSwitzerland
  2. 2.EFI Central European Regional Office EFICENTFreiburgGermany
  3. 3.Previously Forest Research Institute of Baden-WürttembergSöldenAustria
  4. 4.Federal Research and Training Centre for Forests, Natural Hazards and LandscapeViennaAustria
  5. 5.The Finnish Forest Research InstituteJoensuuFinland
  6. 6.European Forest InstituteJoensuuFinland
  7. 7.Institute of Botany and Landscape EcologyUniversity of GreifswaldGreifswaldGermany
  8. 8.Irstea, UR EFNO, Domaine des BarresNogent-Sur-VernissonFrance
  9. 9.Università degi Studi di Torino, DISAFAGrugliascoItaly
  10. 10.INBO, Research Institute for Nature and ForestsBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations