In this article, the development and operationalisation of forestry-wood chain indicators within the frame of sustainability impact assessment are discussed. The analytical framework follows a distinction between indicator definition and selection in a first phase, and a second operational phase of indicator application in terms of interconnecting material flows, calculation of chain performance and utilisation within evaluation components. A clear boundary drawing effort in terms of the development of indicator definitions, related subclasses, and measurement units as well as the creation of conversion factors between indicator values and individual chain stages supports this. Economic, social and environmental indicators have to respond to data collection needs on individual process levels (that correspond to sub-divisions of the forestry-wood chain). For the usage of indicators within evaluation tools, a functional hierarchy has to be provided that supports clear preference elicitation as well as information on related externalities. In total, this paper aims at demonstrating an enhanced spectrum in the use of sustainability indicators, and the challenges that arise from a developing and applying multi-functional indicators in sustainability impact assessment.

Climate vulnerability of managed forest ecosystems is not only determined by ecological processes but also influenced by the adaptive capacity of forest managers. To better understand adaptive behaviour, we conducted a questionnaire study among current and future forest managers (i.e. active managers and forestry students) in Austria. We found widespread belief in climate change (94.7 % of respondents), and no significant difference between current and future managers. Based on intended responses to climate-induced ecosystem changes, we distinguished four groups: highly sensitive managers (27.7 %), those mainly sensitive to changes in growth and regeneration processes (46.7 %), managers primarily sensitive to regeneration changes (11.2 %), and insensitive managers (14.4 %). Experiences and beliefs with regard to disturbance-related tree mortality were found to particularly influence a manager's sensitivity to climate change. Our findings underline the importance of the social dimension of climate change adaptation, and suggest potentially strong adaptive feedbacks between ecosystems and their managers.

No abstract

Abstract:The second European Union (EU) Forest Strategy responds to new challenges facing both forests and the forest-based sector which highlights the EU's need for a policy framework ensuring coordination and coherence of forest-related policies. The objective of the present article is to analyse whether the new Strategy contributes towards horizontal policy coherence of EU forest-related policies, given its shared and exclusive competences. This is achieved by comparing European Commission and forest industry policy priorities as articulated in the Strategy and through research carried out for the recent Cumulative Cost Assessment (CCA) of forest-based industries. Results from the comparative analysis demonstrate that the Strategy does not address many EU policies and policy instruments that affect the whole forest value chain and that it clearly omits existing EU policy instrument objectives that entail significant costs for the forest-based industry. It is therefore argued that without coordinating collective EU goals and gathering strong political support, it is at best extremely difficult or at worst impossible, to achieve coherence for EU forest-related policies across the whole forest value chain. Improving coherence of Union forest-related policies will require the Strategy to address more policy areas and instruments, including clearly defined parameters of what constitutes an EU forest-related policy. These pressing needs reach beyond what the Strategy presently sets out to achieve. Keywords: forest policy; European Commission; policy coordination; policy coherence; forest industry Introducing a Strategy for Europe's ForestsThe European Commission (EC) adopted the second European Union (EU) Forest Strategy in 2013, responding to additional challenges facing forests and the forest-based sector [1]. The Strategy provides an updated and integrative framework in response to the increasing demands on forests, addressing changing societal and policy priorities since the first Strategy was published in 1998 [2]. It has been frequently noted that the previous EU Forestry Strategy has had a limited impact on national forest policy [3][4][5][6]. The prevailing view is that the first Strategy simply had insufficient political traction to facilitate the operational change needed to achieve policy cooperation across sectors and EU policies (horizontal) and coordination between different governance levels (vertical). In addition, previous analysis of actors' preferences towards improving policy integration have revealed institutional constraints between the EU and its Member States [7][8][9].By now linking forests to other domains of EU competence, the EC argues for increased policy coordination on forest policy. In contrast to the first Strategy and its associated forest action plan [4,10], the new Strategy has ventured even further out of the forest to encompass not only rural development, but increasingly also the environment, forest-based industries, energy production and climate change.

No abstract