European forest governance post-2020

Wolfslehner, Bernhard; Pülzl, Helga; Kleinschmit, Daniela; Aggestam, Filip; Winkel, Georg; Candel, Jeroen; Eckerberg, Katarina; Feindt, Peter H.; McDermott, Constance L.; Secco, Laura; Sotirov, Metodi; Lackner, Magdalena; Roux, Jeanne-Lazya

doi:10.36333/fs10

Cited by 35 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In a forward-looking perspective, there is little doubt that cross-coalitional conflicts will endure in EU environmental forest policy and possibly intensify (Wolfslehner et al 2020 ). An interesting question is in how far the EU’s ambition to be a leader in global sustainable development, as exemplified with the EU Green Deal, and the urgency of global policy issues such as climate change mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity conservation, and the interrelation between trade and sustainability issues, might affect the EU forest policy arena.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet a multitude of other established EU sectoral policies is impacting national forest policies (Pu ¨lzl et al 2018). This includes the Common Agriculture and Rural Development Policy (CAP), Renewable Energy Policy (Renewable Energy Directive: RED I and II), the EU's Nature Protection and Biodiversity Policy (Habitats and Birds Directives, also known as the Nature Directives), the EU's Water Protection Policy (Water Framework and Drinking Water Directives), the EU's Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Policy (EU FLEGT VPAs/EU Timber Regulation), and the EU's Climate Action in the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) Sector (EU's LULUCF Regulation) (Hix 2005;Wolfslehner et al 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The coalitional politics of the European Union’s environmental forest policy: Biodiversity conservation, timber legality, and climate protection

Sotirov

Winkel

Eckerberg

2021

Ambio

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

European forest policymaking is shaped by progressing European integration, yet with notable ideological divisions and diverging interests among countries. This paper focuses on the coalitional politics of key environmental forest issues: biodiversity conservation, timber legality, and climate protection policy. Combining the Advocacy Coalition Framework and the Shifting Coalition Theory, and informed by more than 186 key informant interviews and 73 policy documents spanning a 20-year timeframe, we examine the evolution of coalitional forest politics in Europe. We find that the basic line-up has remained stable: an environmental coalition supporting EU environmental forest policy integration and a forest sector coalition mostly opposing it. Still, strategic alliances across these coalitions have occurred for specific policy issues which have resulted in a gradual establishment of an EU environmental forest policy. We conclude with discussion of our findings and provide suggestions for further research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The coalitional politics of the European Union’s environmental forest policy: Biodiversity conservation, timber legality, and climate protection

Sotirov

Winkel

Eckerberg

2021

Ambio

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the global policy arena, particularly trade developments related to China, Russia and North America, for example, will have important implications for the European forest sector (Wolfslehner et al, 2020). In September 2020, Russia announced a plan to ban all its foreign exports of unprocessed or lightly processed coniferous roundwood and valuable non-coniferous roundwood from 2022.…”

Section: Geopoliticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

China-Europe Forest Bioeconomy: Assessment and Outlook

Kallio¹,

Chen²,

Jonsson³

et al. 2020

From Science to Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These events present a unique period of EU enlargement that allows for meaningful insight into the uptake of a soft policy instrument by new and old EU Member States. The Forest Action Plan can accordingly reveal more about the Europeanization of forest policy than, for example, the more recent Multi-Annual Implementation Plan of the EU Forest Strategy (Forest MAP) [38][39][40]. Moreover, given recent developments with regard to the European Green Deal, forest policy has once again found a place in the EU Agenda setting process [41], including the development of a third EU Forest Strategy, measures to support deforestation-free value chains, and a suggested revision of the Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry Regulation (LULUCF) in 2021.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Downloading Europe: A Regional Comparison in the Uptake of the EU Forest Action Plan

Aggestam

Pülzl

2020

Sustainability

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The first EU Forest Strategy was adopted in 1998 to provide general guidelines for an EU forest policy designed to coordinate other EU forest-relevant policies. The implementation of the first strategy was done under the auspices of the EU Forest Action Plan, covering the period from 2007 to 2011. The Forest Action Plan was a tool that facilitated voluntary cooperation between EU Member States (no enforcement capabilities), with some coordinating actions being implemented by the European Commission. The reason for returning to the Forest Action Plan in this article is to provide further insight into how it was employed by EU Member States—in contrast to the majority of similar articles on the topic, which are primarily concerned with an examination of EU forest-relevant policies by either analyzing the impact of EU decision-making on forestry at the national level or studying EU Member States’ influence on the EU rather than how EU Member States actually react to EU strategies. This paper addresses this empirical gap and highlights the significant variations of the Europeanization effects on EU Member States when deciding upon and implementing a non-legally binding policy instrument when compared to legally binding policy instruments. Individual Member States exhibit varied strategies when implementing a soft policy instrument, as their respective decision spaces are substantially different, particularly when the costs and benefits of complying are not comparable to those of a legally binding instrument. These results highlight the need for a more nuanced and varied approach to the implementation of soft policy instruments by the EU, with the additional implementation strategies suggested in this article being presented to assist in meeting this need for variation.

show abstract

European forest governance post-2020

Cited by 35 publications

References 0 publications

The coalitional politics of the European Union’s environmental forest policy: Biodiversity conservation, timber legality, and climate protection

The coalitional politics of the European Union’s environmental forest policy: Biodiversity conservation, timber legality, and climate protection

China-Europe Forest Bioeconomy: Assessment and Outlook

Downloading Europe: A Regional Comparison in the Uptake of the EU Forest Action Plan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About