European forest governance post-2020

Page created by Miguel Horton
 
CONTINUE READING
European forest governance post-2020
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
European forest governance post-2020
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

2
European 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

                                                                                                                                                                    3
From 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

4
European 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.

                                                                                                                         5
From 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.

6
European 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

                                                                                                                          7
From 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.

8
European 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

                                                                                                                        9
From 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

10
European 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).

                                                                                                                          11
From 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

12
European 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

                                                                                                                       13
From 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.

14
European 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

                                                                                                                     15
From 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/.

16
European 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.

                                                                                                                                           17
You can also read