Governing forests of the European Union: institutional framework for interest representation at the European Community level

Abstract

We analyse whether the European Community provides for articulating a common set of priorities for society and supports openness and participation in the area of forest policy at the Community level. In doing so, we review the institutional framework and, using the results of the internet-based stakeholder consultation, assess the presence of interested parties at the level of the European Community. In addition, from the same consultation we learn about the opinions of the interest groups concerning possible areas for enhancing coherence in forest governance in the European Union.The results of the study demonstrate that there is a range of possibilities for participation of different interest groups and fl ow of information between the European Commission and the stakeholders. However, the number of interest groups prepared to actively participate in Community-level forest and forestry-related policy-and decision-making is relatively low.We conclude that the present institutional arrangements should be suffi cient for open and participatory priority setting in forest governance at the European Community level. However, based on the 'stakeholder consultation' we also conclude that co-ordination and co-operation, and hence coherence, in forest and forestry-related policy-and decisionmaking at the Community level should be improved.

Coordinating the Uncoordinated: The EU Forest Strategy

“…As policy coordination is assumed to be actors-driven, actors are thus understood to be empowered to reach those different levels of coordination from sharing information in the forest domain, formally exchanging information to reaching shared goals as well as making joint decisions for the common good. The minimum level of coordination-information sharing both formally and informally between group members in different settings-does take place as analysed elsewhere [9,23]. However, while these activities may contribute to reaching shared policy goals, they are seemingly not winning the battle between coherence and divergence of policy objectives that affect forests [9,24].…”

Assessing Online Consultation in Participatory Governance: Conceptual framework and a case study of a national sustainability‐related consultation platform in Germany

“…Typically, online consultations take advantage of the increased reach of online communication by allowing for open, unrestricted participation (Lazdinis et al, 2009). This potentially enhances the legitimacy of a decisionmaking process because everyone who feels affected can participate (Webler, 1995).…”

May the Open Method of Coordination be a new instrument for forest policy deliberations in the European Union?

“…This second part should be regularly updated at the highest possible political level. The Council Working Party on Forestry (see Lazdinis et al, 2008) could be used as a technical body to aid in preparation of the Community-level guidelines and monitoring the progress in implementation on a political level. Relevant documents could be discussed at the Forest Directors meetings.…”

“…The operational and technical coordination of the process could be carried out by the Commission, supported by the Standing Forestry Committee (an advisory body to the European Commission consisting of the experts coming from the member state forestry authorities, see Lazdinis et al, 2008) and the Advisory Group on Forestry and Cork (an advisory body to the European Commission consisting of the representatives of the forest sector stakeholders, see Lazdinis et al, 2008). Therein the member states could consult their counterparts and stakeholders in matching the priorities of the national forest programmes with the EU-level policy objectives and guidelines.…”

“…The action plan is meant for the period 2007-2011. As the time went by, the Community's attempts to co-ordinate and steer forest-related policy and decision-making in balancing the multiple objectives and accommodating variety of interests have transformed into a set of formal and ad-hoc institutional arrangements (Lazdinis et al, 2008). Thus, the challenge of establishing a better coherence in the European domain seems to have even further increased.…”