Environmental Policy and Governance5.pdf

7/29/2019 Environmental Policy and Governance5.pdf

1/13

Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Environmental Policy and GovernanceEnv. Pol. Gov. 19, 4456 (2009)Published online in Wiley InterScience(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/eet.492

Governing Forests of the European Union:Institutional Framework for Interest Representation

at the European Community Level

Marius Lazdinis,1* Per Angelstam2 and Imantas Lazdinis31 Unit Bioenergy, Biomass, Forestry and Climate Change, Directorate General for Agriculture and

Rural Development, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium2 School for Forest Engineers, Faculty of Forest Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,

Skinnskatteberg, Sweden3 Faculty of Strategic Management and Policy, Mykolas Romeris University of Lithuania,

Vilnius, Lithuania

ABSTRACTWe analyse whether the European Community provides for articulating a common set ofpriorities for society and supports openness and participation in the area of forest policyat the Community level. In doing so, we review the institutional framework and, using theresults of the internet-based stakeholder consultation, assess the presence of interestedparties at the level of the European Community. In addition, from the same consultationwe learn about the opinions of the interest groups concerning possible areas for enhancingcoherence in forest governance in the European Union.

The results of the study demonstrate that there is a range of possibilities for participationof different interest groups and flow of information between the European Commission andthe stakeholders. However, the number of interest groups prepared to actively participate inCommunity-level forest and forestry-related policy- and decision-making is relatively low.

We conclude that the present institutional arrangements should be sufficient for openand participatory priority setting in forest governance at the European Community level.However, based on the stakeholder consultation we also conclude that co-ordinationand co-operation, and hence coherence, in forest and forestry-related policy- and decision-making at the Community level should be improved. Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons,Ltd and ERP Environment.

Received 29 April 2008; revised 29 September 2008; accepted 14 Octover 2008

Keywords: EU Forestry Strategy; European Union; governance; stakeholder participation

* Correspondence to: Marius Lazdinis, Unit Bioenergy, Biomass, Forestry and Climate Change, Directorate General for Agriculture and RuralDevelopment, European Commission, B-1049 Brussels, Belgium. E-mail: [email protected]


2/13

Interest Representation in Forest Governance in the EU 45

Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Env. Pol. Gov.19, 4456 (2009)

DOI: 10.1002/eet

Introduction

O

RGANIZATIONAL EXPLOSION IS IDENTIFIED BY ROSENAU (2003) AS A SUBSTANTIAL DYNAMICS UNDERPINNINGthe present day globalization. Practices of governance now seem to be more globalized, but simulta-neously fragmented/integrated and multilayered (Stripple, 2006). Recent years have also witnessed a

change in authority in global environmental politics, with increasingly noted influence of a variety ofnon-state actors (Auer, 2000; Fairbrass and Jordan, 2001; Stripple, 2006). The presence of multiple stakeholdersseeking to influence formulation and implementation of policies concerning the management (or choice of nomanagement) of forest resources also seems to be increasing in the European Union (EU). However, the empiri-cal evidence on this is lacking.

Policy on forest management in the EU since 1957 has been largely a matter of national responsibility. However,since 1988, the European Community1 (EC) has attempted to adopt a more coherent approach to its forest-relatedprojects, with the European Commission publishing a communication on a Community strategy and action pro-gramme for the forestry sector (COM (88255), European Parliament, 2007). In 1992, EC measures in forestsand forestry entered an even more ambitious phase, strengthening measures to protect forests from atmosphericpollution and fires (Regulations 2157/92 and 2158/92), and co-financing forestry research under the EUs researchand development programmes in the fields of agricultural and environmental research. In 1998, the CouncilResolution on a Forestry Strategy for the European Union (Council of the European Union, 1999) was adopted.It aimed at establishing a framework for forest and forestry-related actions in support of sustainable forest man-agement, based on the co-ordination of the forest policies of the member states and Community policies andinitiatives relevant to forests and forestry.

Over the years, the role of forest management has been broadening from the sustained yield forestry concept,i.e. ensuring sustained timber provision, to endorsing a much wider combination of multiple interests, i.e. sup-plying a multitude of goods, services and values to society (see, e.g., Merlo and Croitoru, 2005) and contribut-ing to achievement of objectives in policy areas such as rural development, biodiversity conservation, renewableenergy production and others (Commission of the European Communities, 2005a). This multiplicity of functionsand values served by forests and forestry has increased the numbers of actors and stakeholders in forest policy-and decision-making, representing a broad range of interests, making the governance of European forests more

complex. Eventually, the Communitys attempts to co-ordinate and steer forest-related policy- and decision-makingin balancing the multiple objectives and accommodating the variety of interests have transformed into a relativelycomplex set of formal and ad hocinstitutional arrangements.

There are many ways to define and interpret the concept of governance in general (for examples see Haywardand Menon, 2003; Goldsmith and Eggers, 2004; Kjr, 2004), and the governance in the EU more particularly(Wallace et al., 2005; Nugent, 2006; Treib et al., 2007; Schout and Jordan, 2008). Pierre and Peters (2005, p. 6)argue that understanding governance is basically a matter of understanding the nature of statesociety relation-ships in the pursuit of collective interests. This pursuit of collective interests generally involves four maincomponents or activities: (1) articulating a common set of priorities for society; (2) creating coherence betweenindividual goals to achieve the priorities; (3) steering the society to attain the goals and (4) holding actors deliver-ing governance to the society accountable for their actions (Pierre and Peters, 2005). In a similar manner, a WhitePaper on European Governance outlines five principles that underpin good governance: openness, participation,

accountability, effectiveness and coherence (Commission of the European Communities, 2001).Our ultimate goal would be to shed light on the governance of forests in the EU. This would mean overlaying the

current set of institutional arrangements for forest and forest-related policy- and decision-making in the entire EU(at both the Community and national levels) with the above or another theoretical governance framework. However,despite our interest, we realize that this would go beyond our ability at the time and would require a much larger

1 The use of the following terms for the purposes of this paper ought to be clarified: the European Community here is mainly seen as the firstpillar of the European Union i.e. the joint policy- and decision-making system on the EU level in the policy areas under the competenceforeseen in the treaties; the European Union is viewed here as in addition to the Community pillar encompassing the intergovernmentaldimension and is understood as an entirety of the Community and the member states; the European Commission is a body independent ofEU governments that upholds the collective European interest.


3/13

46 M. Lazdinis et al.


DOI: 10.1002/eet

volume than is available to this paper. Therefore, here we focus on initial stages of policy- and decision-making establishing priorities for society at the European Community level and look into the openness and participa-tion aspects of good governance. As articulating a common set of priorities for society is closely inter-linked withcreating coherence between individual goals to achieve the priorities (co-ordination and co-operation in formal andad hocinstitutional arrangements), we consider the aspect of coherence in forest governance in the EU as well. We

aim to find out whether and how the openness, participation and coherence could be improved.In practical terms, in this paper we limit ourselves to the analysis of the extent to which the EC provides an insti-tutional framework (fora sensu Broscheid and Coen, 2007) enabling the variety of interest groups to participatein forest and related policy- and decision-making at the European Community level. We first review the existingformal and ad hocinstitutional arrangements for forest policy- and decision-making at the EC level. We then usethe outputs of an internet-based stakeholder consultation carried out in 2004 to assess the presence of interestedparties at the level of the EC as well as to learn about the opinions of these parties concerning possible areas forenhancing coherence in forest governance in the EU.

Material and Methods

Broscheid and Coen (2007) in their study on lobbying activity and forum creation in the EU have shown thatinvestigations of the interest groups in the EU should not be conducted without simultaneous analysis of policy-and decision-making, and vice versa. Therefore, here we combine two methodological approaches to analyse towhat extent the EC provides an institutional framework enabling the variety of interested parties to participate inforest and related policy- and decision-making at the European Community level. In addition, we seek to betterunderstand how the coherence in policy- and decision-making, and forest governance from the EC perspective,could be improved from the point of view of the stakeholders.

Mapping Institutional Arrangements

As a first step in this study, we map EC-level formal and ad hocinstitutional arrangements for representation ofvarious interests in forest policy- and decision-making at the EU level. As a methodological approach in this exer-

cise we carried out elite interviews, made direct and participant observations and analysed documents (for moreon these methods see Patton and Sawicki, 1993; Yin, 1994).

Stakeholder Consultation on Implementation of the EU Forestry Strategy

We use an internet-based stakeholder consultation carried out in 2004 to assess the presence of interested partiesin the EU forest policy fora and to learn about the opinions of these parties on how coherence in forest policy- anddecision-making, and subsequently forest governance, at the Community level in the EU could be improved.

The EU Forestry Strategy of 1998 has asked the European Commission to present to the Council an implemen-tation report five years after its adoption. This report was produced in March 2005 (Commission of the EuropeanCommunities, 2005b), providing a detailed overview of activities carried out in the context of the implementationof the EU Forestry Strategy in the period 19992004.

In order to complement the formal consultation procedures used in preparation of this report, the Commissionlaunched an internet-based stakeholder consultation to give everyone opportunity to provide their input. Eventhough formally titled as a stakeholder consultation, participation was not restricted in any way. The consulta-tion was launched on 13 August 2004, with corresponding information placed on Your Voice in Europe (theEuropean Commissions single access point to a wide variety of consultations, discussions and other tools) andthe Commissions DG Agriculture and Rural Development websites.

This information was freely accessible for anyone. The fact of the ongoing consultation was also publicizedthrough the usual Commission communication channels in forestry-related matters the Standing Forestry Com-mittee and the Advisory Group on Forestry and Cork (the composition and the role of both bodies is explainedfurther in the paper). Any organization or a private individual could have responded to the consultation. The


4/13



DOI: 10.1002/eet

deadline for contributions was initially set for 15 September 2004, but at the request of some stakeholders wasextended until 22 September.

The package provided for the consultation contained general information and links to a privacy statement, thetext of the EU Forestry Strategy of 1998, the draft Commission staff working document on implementation of theEU Forestry Strategy and a list of questions for comments. All documents were available in English, French andGerman, except for the working document, which was only in English.

The respondents were asked to answer a series of structured questions in order to facilitate the analysis of thecontributions and the processing of the responses (see Table 1 for a list of questions). The questions closely cor-

responded to the sections of the working document. On the emerging issues, the stakeholders were asked to listthe major needs to be addressed in the context of the EU Forestry Strategy in the future. Respondents were askedto specify whether the input was individual or from an organization, and if so, which one, as well as to providecontact information.

Draft documents previously had been discussed in the Standing Forestry Committee by national delegations.Moreover, the report on implementation of the EU Forestry Strategy (a subject of the consultation) to a largeextent was prepared based on the reports submitted by the member states. Therefore, these two factors eliminatedthe need, and interest, of the national forestry authorities to respond to the questionnaire. It was considered thatnational forestry authorities had sufficient opportunities to express their opinions in the meetings of StandingForestry Committee.

Draft Commission working document: general commentPlease inform us whether all important issues in the European forest sector have been included in the document.Do you consider that all the aspects relevant to sustainable forest management are covered in the document, and that isdone in a balanced way?Do you think that some issues are underrepresented?

Trends in EU forest policyDo you think that all important issues relevant to this section have been included; or do you think that some issues areunderrepresented?

Emerging issuesWhat do you foresee as the major needs to be addressed in the context of the EU Forestry Strategy in the future?

The following questions were asked for each of the below areas:Do you think that all important issues relevant to this section have been included; or do you think that some issues areunderrepresented?Do you think that there has been progress in the implementation of the EU Forestry Strategy in this area?What do you foresee as the major needs for improvement in this area in the future?

Development of national forest programmes

The EU and the international forest regime Forestry and rural development Support for forestry measures in accession countries the Sapard programme The EU forestry information and communication system (EFICS) EU forest monitoring measures Forests and biodiversity Forests and climate change Forest-based and related industries Forest certification Forestry within the EU research policy EU development co-operation in the field of forests Co-ordination, communication and co-operation

Table 1. List of questions asked in the internet-based stakeholder consultation


5/13



DOI: 10.1002/eet

Results

Forest Sector in the EU Context

It is important to have a clear understanding of the context, prior to investigating the presence of forest andforestry-related interest groups in policy- and decision-making in the EU. In this subsection, we provide a briefoverview of the forest sector in the EU context.

The European Union began life in 1957 as the European Economic Community with six founding members Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. By now it has gradually expanded to include27 countries its member states. Accession of the three highly forested countries Austria, Finland and Sweden to the EU in 1995 has raised the profile of the forest sector.

The environment of governance of forests in the EU is quite complex. From the forest sector perspective, the EUmember states vary in many aspects, among others in size, population density and extent of forest cover. Forestsand other wooded land in the EU cover approximately 42% of the territory (Eurostat, 2008). The forest area percapita in the EU ranges from 4.2 hectares in Finland and 3.1 ha in Sweden to 0.1 ha in Germany and Belgium.

Roughly around 60% of forests (excluding other wooded land) in the EU are in private ownership, while around

40% are publicly owned (Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, 2008). However, the shareof private ownership is also very diverse among the EU member states. In general, it is considered that privateforests are owned by roughly 15 million private forest owners. Private forest holdings have an average size of 13 ha,but many privately owned forests are less than 3 ha in size.

Forest-based industry is the main direct user of forest resources. Forestry and forest-based industries in the EUin total employ about 3.4 million people (European Commission, 2008).

The European Union is more than just a confederation of countries, but it is not a federal state. Its politicalsystem is historically unique and has been constantly evolving over more than 50 years. The policies in the EU arethe result of decisions taken by the institutional triangle made up of the Council (representing national govern-ments), the European Parliament (representing the people) and the European Commission (a body independentof EU governments that upholds the collective European interest) (European Parliament, 2007).

Policy-making and governance in general in the EU varies among individual policy areas (Wallace et al., 2005;

Hayward and Menon, 2003). In some areas, such as agriculture and fisheries for example, the Community inter-vention is strong. By contrast, in other policy areas such as employment and social policies, the EC plays only aminor role, namely to facilitate co-ordination.

Currently, forest policy at the EC level is being dealt with by applying the principle of subsidiarity. The prin-ciple generally means that the member states are responsible for areas that they govern more effectively at theirown level, while the Community is given those powers that the member states cannot discharge satisfactorily atnational, regional or local level (European Parliament, 2007). Therefore, the Commission is not involved in directpolicy-making in the area of forestry and rather tries to guide and co-ordinate the member states in achievingcommon objectives.

Despite a limited number of directly forestry-related instruments, since 1957 many policies were adopted in thearea of forests and forestry and actions carried out at the Community level using the competences provided by otherpolicy areas, such as agriculture, environment, energy and the internal market (Plzl, 2005). Several EU policies,

such as the common agricultural policy (CAP), environment, energy, enterprise and industry, and research, affectsustainable forest management and the forest policies of the member states (Commission of the European Com-munities, 2005a). The role of the EC in this regard is to ensure the presence of relevant information and technicalforestry expertise in policy- and decision-making in those forestry-related policy areas.

This brief overview shows a complexity in which forest and forestry-related policy and decisions are beingmade at the European Community level. On one hand, diverse biophysical and socio-economic conditions, envi-ronmental histories and systems of governance have resulted in a multitude of expectations and perceptions ofgoods and values to be provided and served by forests and forestry in the EU. These multiple expectations andperceptions generate a diverse range of interests to be taken into consideration in policy- and decision-making.On the other hand, with the absence of Community policy in forestry, and with a number of other Community


6/13



DOI: 10.1002/eet

policies being relevant to forestry, there is a number of ways and channels through which the information heldby the stakeholders may be used to the benefit of policy- and decision-making. Hence, we continue this section bypresenting the institutional framework for participation in policy- and decision-making in forestry-related mattersat the Community level and by looking at the presence of stakeholders and their views on how to improve thecoherence.

EC Institutional Framework for Participation in Forest Policy- and Decision-Making

Over the years of deliberations in the area of forest policy on the EC level, a set of formal institutions have beendeveloped and ad hoc consultation and co-ordination means have been applied in forest policy- and decision-making. The main objectives of these mechanisms are co-ordination and co-operation in the European Commis-sion, between the Commission and the member states, and among the member states, and consultation withrelevant interest groups and stakeholders in the field of forest policy. These institutional mechanisms in one wayor another provide for participation of interested parties in forest and forest-related policy- and decision-makingand are presented below.

Co-Ordination Within the CommissionThe Inter-Service Group on Forestry is an intra-institutional co-ordination and co-operation mechanism and prob-ably has the least direct effect on participation of interested parties in policy- and decision-making. The groupwas established in 2001 in order to improve the co-ordination between the Commission services responsible forrelevant Community policies. The main objective of the group is to improve internal coherence and hence betterexploit the potential synergies among policy areas, by managing the information flow between the areas concernedand facilitating collaborative efforts.

Since establishment, the group by the autumn 2008 has met 20 times, with at least two meetings being orga-nized each year. Typically, representatives from at least six different Commission departments attend the meet-ings. Depending on the items on the agenda, this number may increase to over ten. The Commission reports thatthe experience with the Inter-Service Group, in respect of improving co-ordination and co-operation, and thuscoherence, has been positive (Commission of the European Communities, 2005a).

Co-Ordination With the Member StatesThe co-ordination with the member states is generally taking place in three forms: the Council Working Party onForestry, the Standing Forestry Committee, and the forestry Directors-General meetings.

The EU member states and the Commission co-ordinate positions prior to major forest-related internationalmeetings in the Council Working Party on Forestry. The Working Party, while representing the national govern-ments, also deals with forest-relevant Commission policy and legislative initiatives. Prior to 2002, this grouphad existed on an ad hoc basis, but then a decision was taken for it to become a permanent Council WorkingParty.

The Standing Forestry Committee (SFC), which brings together representatives of the member states and whichis chaired by the Commission, has a threefold role: (1) it acts as an advisory and management Committee for spe-

cific forestry measures; (2) it is also an ad hocconsultation forum that provides expertise in connection with thedevelopment of forest-related measures in the framework of various Community policies, such as those on ruraldevelopment and the environment; (3) it provides a venue for exchange of information among member states, andbetween member states and the Commission. The Commission organizes and chairs the Committee meetings.

Over the years, the third role of the SFC, the exchange of information between member states and with theCommission, has become more important, which is reflected in the increasing number of presentations made byCommission staff from the different services (Commission of the European Communities, 2005a).

Successive presidencies of the EU organize periodic and informal meetings of Directors-General responsiblefor forestry in the member states (these meetings are attended by director-level officials from forestry authorities).These meetings have also contributed to improving the exchange of information on issues of common interest.


7/13



DOI: 10.1002/eet

Direct Communication and Co-Operation With StakeholdersFormal and ad hocco-operation and communication with stakeholders takes place in the context of the existingcommittees. There is a regular information exchange, co-operation and co-ordination with forest and forestry-related interest groups through the Advisory Group on Forestry and Cork. The Advisory Group includes repre-sentatives of forest owner organizations (public and private), forest-based industries, environmental NGOs, forest

trade unions, traders and consumer groups. The group has 49 members; the seats among interests representedare distributed as follows: producers (representatives of both private and state forest owners as well as otherlandowner organizations) 28; traders 2; industry (forest-based industry) 11; workers 3; consumers 1;environmentalists (environmental NGOs) 4.

The Advisory Committee on Community Policy Regarding Forestry and Forest-Based Industries, set up in 1983,involves representatives from the whole spectrum of EU forest-based industries, forest owners and other relevantexperts. This body is a channel for co-operation between the forest-based sector and the Commission, largely inaddressing industry-related issues.

In addition, a Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee was established for the woodworking industries in 1998, inwhich the organizations representing employers and workers of the woodworking industries at European leveldevelop their social dialogue. It provides a forum for the discussion of issues linked to employment, workingconditions, vocational training, industrial change, enlargement etc.

Stakeholder Consultation and the EU Forestry Strategy

Types of ContributionIn total 58 contributions were received (Figure 1). The following logic was applied to group the contributors accord-ing to their type and the interests they represent.

Private individuals. In the last section of the questionnaire stakeholders were asked whether they were answer-ing as an individual or whether they represented an organization, institution or country. Most of those whoanswered as individuals were professionals (academics, members of associations, managers etc.).

Private companies. These contributors were from a whole range of private companies involved in various forestryactivities (e.g. timber processing, consulting, forestry services).

Academia. There were contributions from research institutions and universities.

12

43

9

1413

3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Individuals Private

companies

Academia NGOs Associations

and

federations

Governmental

bodies

Member States

Number

ofcontributions

Figure 1. Number of contributions by type of contributor


8/13



DOI: 10.1002/eet

NGOs. About half of these were either international or national-level environmental NGOs; others, judging bythe title, seemed to be locally oriented.

Associations and federations. There was a broad range of contributors, from landowner associations to an interestgroup within a political party. They are all involved in forestry-related activities at inter-national and nationallevels.

Government bodies. Besides government institutions, this category also includes semi-governmental bodies, suchas state-owned forestry companies. Member states. Although member states had an opportunity to express their views in the Standing Forestry

Committee, some also chose to participate in this stakeholder consultation.

It must be noted that other ways for grouping the respondents could have been used. However, this study doesnot seek to compare the responses between individual groups of respondents and to subsequently draw conclu-sions based on the division between respondents. Here we are interested in an overall level of participation andcombined opinions of all respondents on individual issues. Therefore, the approach to grouping of respondentsis not viewed as of importance to the findings of the study.

All but four responses were structured to respond to the questions provided in the questionnaire. Most contribu-tions were well elaborated. In particular, the comments of NGOs and associations/federations were specific andexhaustive. There were some simple yes or no answers, but only in sections that were not of priority concernto individual stakeholders. Full comments were provided on the other sections.

Generally, most of the comments summarized were forward looking and addressed the need for change in spe-cific areas covered by the EU Forestry Strategy. The points addressed under the General comments and emergingissues are those that did not directly relate to any of the other sections of the working document. A full summaryof all comments is available in the stakeholder consultation report (Commission of the European Communities,2005c).

Analysis of ResponsesAs Table 1 indicates, the majority of the questions centred on specific technical aspects of forest and forestry-relatedpolicy. We view these as being outside the scope of this paper. In this subsection we extract and summarize onlythese comments that are relevant to the aspects of forest governance under investigation in this study, i.e. articula-

tion of a common set of priorities, openness, participation and coherence (co-ordination and co-operation).Generally, the responses have shown that despite the progress in the sustainable management of EU forests over

recent years, the policy context has changed and new issues have emerged. Responses indicated that the competi-tiveness and economic viability of sustainable forestry in many parts of the EU are increasingly being challengedin the global market place. The respondents reported that the importance of good governance for the protectionand sustainable management of forests is increasing. This is seen to require additional skills and efforts fromforest owners and managers. Generally, there appears to be a necessity to enhance cross-sectoral co-operation, andco-ordination between forest policy and other policies that affect forests and forestry.

The respondents stressed that in the future the EU Forestry Strategy should include measures to ensure coher-ence among various policies affecting forests, in particular those on biodiversity, agriculture and rural develop-ment, environment, trade, energy, climate change, water and transport. Some proposed more EU-level initiatives,such as an action plan, to serve as a basis for more coherent forest-related actions and to allow more targeted use

of EC funds.The respondents in their comments referred to insufficient overall co-ordination in the forest and forestry-related

policy- and decision-making on Community level and a lack of resources for this purpose. The current integrationof existing consultation mechanisms the Council Working Party on Forestry, the Standing Forestry Committeeand the Advisory Group on Forestry and Cork in all forest-related policy formulation was seen by some as beinginsufficient. They also argued for more co-operation within the forest sector and more communication with thegeneral public. It was thought that a better system of communication and co-ordination at Community level wouldrequire more human and financial resources dedicated to the issue in the Community institutions.

Several respondents urged the European Community to take a more active and greater co-ordination and facilita-tion role in the development of the European forest sector. It was considered that, for co-ordination of forest policy


9/13



DOI: 10.1002/eet

at EU level to have any real added value, there had to be a clear and visible mandate to the EU institutions and wellestablished coherent co-ordination framework.

There were many specific suggestions on how to improve co-ordination of, communication of and co-operationon forest-related issues, focusing largely on possible changes in the EU institutions (in the European Commis-sion in particular). It was suggested that the Council Working Party on Forestry, the Standing Forestry Commit-

tee and the Advisory Group on Forestry and Cork should co-ordinate their activities pro-actively in order to avoidduplication and make policy formulation more consistent. It was also proposed that the combined expertise andknowledge present in these three groups should be used for ex ante policy advice.

As suggested, one improvement might be to establish a horizontal co-ordination unit within the Secretar-iat-General of the European Commission, which could co-operate closely with the Commission departmentsdealing with forest and forestry-related issues. Others suggested that forest and forestry-related issues should beaddressed by a separate Directorate-General established for this purpose, or else exclusively by one of the existingDirectorate-Generals.

The option of establishing a Committee of Members of the European Parliament dealing with forestry-relatedissues was mentioned. Respondents also suggested that an EU Forestry Forum should be established to overcomethe lack of communication at local and regional level in the Community.

Discussion

Articulating a common set of priorities for society, openness and participation are among the main components ofgovernance. These principles are closely interlinked with the other governance aspects, such as: creating coherence,steering, accountability, and effectiveness. The results of this study have provided us with three types of informa-tion: (1) on the formal and ad hocinstitutional framework for participation in forest policy- and decision-makingat the Community level, (2) on the presence of forest and forestry-related interest groups on the EU level and (3)on the opinions of stakeholders on the need of and possible areas for improving coherence in pursue of collectiveinterests in governing European forest resources.

Before discussing the findings of the study in the context of the aspects of good governance of interest to thecurrent paper, we would like to address some potential methodological weaknesses of our approach.

First, it is reported in the literature that, despite the obvious advantages, the information gathered while usingthe participant observation technique may potentially contain some biases (Yin, 1994). We tried to avoid thesebiases by not using our own judgement and only reporting the findings generated by this technique.

The second set of potential weaknesses of the methodology relates to the public consultation. First, the responsesfrom the governmental bodies and national forestry authorities account for about one-quarter of all contributionsreceived. This was not expected, as the national forestry authorities had an opportunity to provide an input todeveloping the documents at earlier stages. However, we do not view this negatively, as the responses typicallycame from more nationally-oriented forest and forestry-related organizations. On the contrary, we believe thatsuch an active participation should be welcomed and demonstrates an interest of local actors in the EU-levelpolicy- and decision-making. Second, as the document subject to the consultation was available only in English,this might have made some interested parties reluctant to respond. We acknowledge this limitation. However,it must be emphasized that the remaining documents were available in English, French and German. Third, it

may be argued that a relatively small number of stakeholders participated in the consultation. Experience frominternet consultations in other Community policy areas shows higher participation rates. In this respect, it mustbe considered that this consultation requested qualitative input instead of the quantitative input asked in mostother consultations. This was probably one of the reasons why there were perhaps not as many contributions ascompared to the consultations on other subjects. Some respondents also found the period of about 40 days forconsultation too short. Last, there may simply be a smaller number of interest groups active in this policy domainat the Community level. This last issue is more extensively discussed further in the paper.

Coming back to the main findings, in our view the results of the study demonstrate that the institutional frame-work (the fora) for representation of variety of interests in forest and forest-related policy- and decision-makingat the Community level is present. The current mechanisms provide a number of possibilities for participation


10/13



DOI: 10.1002/eet

of different interest groups and flow of information between the European Commission and the stakeholders.The information contained by the interested parties could be conveyed or relevant information of interest to theseparties received either directly through the Advisory Group on Forestry and Cork or more indirectly, through theStanding Forestry Committee and even through the Inter-Service Group on Forestry. As the level of participa-tion in the stakeholder consultation indicates, the number of interest groups prepared to actively participate in

Community-level forest and forestry-related policy- and decision-making is not large. Therefore, we believe that intheory these institutional arrangements should be sufficient for open and participatory priority setting in the areaof forests and forestry at the European Community level.

However, even though having not expressed concerns over the participation possibilities, in the consultation,the interest groups were worried over the lack of coherence and called for more co-ordination and co-operation.Below we discuss how the co-ordination and co-operation, and therefore openness, participation and coherence,could be improved both from the perspective of the European Commission. We also discuss how interest groupscould also contribute to improving co-ordination and co-operation, ultimately improving coherence and governanceof forests in the EU.

European Commission

The empirical evidence demonstrates that the European Commission has over a short time drastically changedfrom a traditionally hierarchical organization with little room for horizontal co-ordination into an organization thatis much more informal and open to internal and external co-ordination (Schout and Jordan, 2008). In the field ofenvironmental policy it has been demonstrated that the Commission and environmental groups have worked inalliance in shaping the political agenda (Fairbrass and Jordan, 2001; Weber and Christophersen, 2002). Severalstudies have also emphasized the importance of NGOs and subnational administrations in the European forestpolicy process (Anderson et al., 1998; Weber and Christophersen, 2002). In the EC context Weber and Christo-phersen (2002) argue that further co-operation with organized European interests in the form of NGOs may servethe Commission as a catalyst for more integration.

Our study has shown that, in addition to the institutional mechanisms for stakeholder participation, betterco-ordination and co-operation for improved coherence are necessary. After the completion of the stakeholder

consultation, in the attempt to improve co-ordination and co-operation, and hence openness, participation andcoherence, the European Commission proposed to develop an EU Forest Action Plan (Commission of the Euro-pean Communities, 2005b). The underlying idea of the EU Forest Action Plan is to provide the necessary impetusto transform the EU Forestry Strategy into a dynamic process capable of responding to the newly emerging policycontext and delivering tangible outcomes (improving long-term competitiveness, improving and protecting theenvironment, contributing to the quality of life).

It is expected that the EU Forest Action Plan will have a coherent set of actions, based on clear objectives inter-acting with and providing guidance to the objectives of other Community policies; the Action Plan should encom-pass both Community forest-related actions and forest-related actions in member states. The EU Forest ActionPlan will use, and further extend, the existing formal and ad hocinstitutional arrangements in order to pursue thecoherence in EU-level steering, while allowing for democratic articulation of a common set of priorities for society,openness and participation. Responsibilities of forest policy implementation will continue to be shared between

the Community, member states and stakeholders taking part in the forest governance. The expectation in theCommission is that a successful implementation of the Action Plan will mean a major improvement in better co-ordination and co-operation (and coherence) in forest and forest-related policy- and decision-making at the Com-munity level.

However, the improved openness, participation and coherence do not depend on the European Commissionalone. As Beyers and Kerremans (2007) report, although the Community level institutions may create new oppor-tunities for domestic interest groups to adapt, Europeanization is not a natural or immediate response. Belowwe discuss how the interest groups themselves may contribute to improving coherence in the Community levelpolicy- and decision-making. Based on the other studies in this area we outline the reasons why this may bedifficult.


11/13



DOI: 10.1002/eet

Interest Groups

The presence of enabling institutional mechanisms is a key factor in facilitating the openness andparticipation for articulating a common set of priorities. However, the presence of channels for co-ordination and co-operation alone is not able to guarantee successful participation of the interest groups and deli-berations of a common set of priorities. Active and effective participation from the side of interest groups is the

second key factor for success. Moreover, creating coherence in policy- and decision-making will require continuedand intensive collaboration on the sides of both the Community institutions and the interested parties. In thisrespect, the issue of capacities of the interest groups to participate in the forest and forestry-related policy- and deci-sion-making at the Community level becomes very important. We believe, therefore, that more active participationof interest groups (more stakeholders with higher capacities) would help improve co-ordination and co-operationin forest and forestry-related policy- and decision-making at the Community level. Evidence from other studiesshows that Commission activity is interlinked with group activity, meaning that more group activity would lead tofurther strengthening of fora for interest representation (Broscheid and Coen, 2007).

Unfortunately, in our case the intensity and capacity of participation of stakeholders at the Community levelis difficult to estimate. The number of responses in the stakeholder consultation seems to be relatively low.However, it is hard to objectively judge how representative this number is of the overall population of forest andforestry interest groups at the Community level, as this is the first time the Commission has launched an openstakeholder consultation on forestry. Moreover, complete empirical information on the overall presence of forestand forestry-related interest groups at the Community level is not available. The usual interest groups activelyparticipating in Community-level policy- and decision-making in this policy area are known to the EuropeanCommission through their presence in the Advisory Group on Forestry and Cork and other ad hocparticipationinstruments. The CONECCS database (which used to contain listings of interest groups working with the EuropeanCommission), used in the research of Broscheid and Coen (2007), has been closed. A replacement Register ofInterest representatives was launched only in Spring 2008 and on 29 September 2008 contained in total only370 interest representatives. Therefore, without having more reliable information on interest groups, based on theintensity of stakeholder participation we would argue that the presence of interest groups is relatively low.

Literature on European interest groups emphasizes the importance of resources (Beyers and Kerremans, 2007;Broscheid and Coen, 2007). We believe that relatively low capacities might be a limiting factor in stakeholder

participation in forest and forestry-related policy domain at the Community level, impeding further improvementsin co-ordination and co-operation. Weber and Christophersen (2002) indicated that in the past (1991/1992) someforestry stakeholders have failed to utilize all participation opportunities granted to them, resulting in declin-ing offered participation opportunities and reducing their future potential influence. They argue that the lack ofresources and initiative account for the limited access of forest owner representatives on a European level to thepolitical arena today (Weber and Christophersen, 2002).

Other studies on EU lobbying activity have shown that the presence of stakeholders differs between policydomains in European-level policy- and decision-making (Beyers and Kerremans, 2007; Broscheid and Coen,2007). In the policy areas where Community competences are weak or non-existent, interest groups tend to be lessinclined to function at the European level, as they are still able to realize many of their goals at the domestic level(Beyers and Kerremans, 2007). As forestry falls largely under the competence of the member states, this mighthelp explain the relatively low presence of interest groups in the domain of forest and forestry-related policy.

Conclusions

In this paper we have analysed whether the European Community provides for articulating a common set ofpriorities for society and supports openness and participation in the area of forest policy at the Communitylevel. We reviewed the institutional framework, composed of formal and ad hocinstitutional arrangements, and,using the results of the internet-based stakeholder consultation, assessed the presence of interested parties at thelevel of the EC, also learning about the opinions of the interest groups concerning possible areas for enhancingcoherence in forest governance in the EU.


12/13



DOI: 10.1002/eet

The results of the study demonstrate that the institutional framework (the fora) for representation of variety ofinterests in forest and forest-related policy- and decision-making at the Community level is present. A range ofpossibilities for participation of different interest groups and flow of information between the European Commis-sion and the stakeholders is provided. However, the number of interest groups prepared to actively participate inCommunity-level forest and forestry-related policy- and decision-making is relatively low.

We conclude that the present institutional arrangements should be sufficient for open and participatory prioritysetting 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 decision-making at the Community level should be improved.

Since the consultation was carried out, the European Commission has launched the EU Forest Action Plan inorder to improve co-ordination and co-operation, and thus coherence and good governance of forests at the Com-munity level. However, in order to succeed, an active participation and commitment from all of those involved inforest governance at the Community level is necessary. All stakeholders in the forest and forestry-related policydomain must realize that the improved co-ordination and co-operation does not only mean more venues for influ-ence at the Community level. A stronger and more coherent voice in the priority setting must be accompanied bymore active participation and better capacities of interest groups themselves.

The mid-term evaluation of the EU Forest Action Plan will take place in 2009 and the final evaluation in 2012.

We recommend that during these evaluations particular attention should be paid to the presence of stakeholdersin forest and forestry-related policy- and decision-making at the Community level. We also hope that by then moreof the lacking empirical evidence on the overall presence and capacities of the interest groups in the forest andforestry-related policy domain at the Community level will be available.

Acknowledgements

We thank the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. This manuscript represents solely the viewsof its authors and cannot in any circumstances be regarded as the official position of the Commission.

References

Anderson J, Clment J, Crowder LV. 1998. Accommodating conflicting interests in forestry concepts emerging from pluralism. Unasylva194:310.

Auer MR. 2000. Who participates in global environmental governance? Partial answers from international relations theory. Policy Sciences33: 155180.

Beyers J, Kerremans B. 2007. Critical resource dependencies and the Europeanization of domestic interest groups.Journal of European PublicPolicy14(3): 460481.

Broscheid A, Coen D. 2007. Lobbying activity and fora creation in the EU: empirically exploring the nature of the policy good. Journal ofEuropean Public Policy14(3): 346365.

Commission of the European Communities. 2001. European Governance: A White Paper, COM(2001) 428 final. Commission of the EuropeanCommunities: Brussels.

Commission of the European Communities. 2005a. Commission Staff Working Document on the Implementation of the EU Forestry Strategy,

COM(2005) 84 final.Commission of the European Communities. 2005b. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament Reporting

on the Implementation of the EU Forestry Strategy, COM(2005) 84 final.Commission of the European Communities. 2005c. Report from the Stakeholder Consultation on the Draft Commission Staff Working Document

on the Implementation of the EU Forestry Strategy. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/consultations/forestry/report_en.pdf Access date 14thDecember 2008.

Council of the European Union. 1999. Council Resolution on a Forestry Strategy for the European Union. Official Journal C56: 1.Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. 2008. Agriculture in the European Union: Statistical and Economic Information

2007.European Commission. 2008. Commission Communication on a Contribution to the EUs Growth and Jobs Strategy, SEC(2008) 262.European Parliament. 2007. Fact Sheets on the European Union. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Eurostat. 2008. Eurostat Pocketbook Agricultural Statistics, 2008 edn (using data of UNECE/FAO, Reference Year 2005).


13/13



DOI / t

Fairbrass J, Jordan A. 2001. Protecting biodiversity in the European Union: national barriers and European opportunities.Journal of EuropeanPublic Policy8(4): 499518.

Goldsmith S, Eggers WD. 2004. Governing by Network: the New Shape of the Public Sector. Brookings Institution. WashingtonD.C.

Hayward J, Menon A (eds). 2003. Governing Europe. Oxford University Press: Oxford.Kjr AM. 2004. Governance. Polity. Cambridge.

Merlo M, Croitoru L. 2005. Concepts and methodology: a first attempt towards quantification. InValuing Mediterranean Forests. Towards Total

Economic Value, Merlo M, Croitoru L (eds). CABI Publishing; 1736. Cambridge.Nugent N. 2006. The Government and Politics of the European Union, 6th edn. Duke University Press. Durham.Patton CV, Sawicki DS. 1993. Basic Methods of Policy Analysis and Planning. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Pierre J, Peters G. 2005. Governing Complex Societies: Trajectories and Scenarios. Palgrave Macmillan. New York.Plzl H. 2005. Evaluation of European Community Regulations and Policies Relevant to Forest Policy, a study financed by the Federal Ministry of

Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management of Austria. Vienna.Rosenau JN. 2003. Distant Proximities: Dynamics Beyond Globalization. Princeton University Press: Princeton.Schout A, Jordan A. 2008. The European Unions governance ambitions and its administrative capacities. Journal of European Public Policy

15(7): 957974.Stripple J. 2006. Editorial: Rules for the environment; reconsidering authority in global environmental governance. European Environment

16: 259264.Treib O, Bhr H, Falkner G. 2007. Modes of governance: towards a conceptual clarification.Journal of European Public Policy14(1): 120.Wallace H, Wallace W, Pollack MA. 2005. Policy-Making in the European Union, 5th edn. Oxford University Press: Oxford.Weber N, Christophersen T. 2002. The influence of non-governmental organisations on the creation of Natura 2000 during the European

Policy process. Forest Policy and Economics4: 112.Yin RK. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd edn. Sage. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi.

Environmental Policy and Governance5.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Environmental Policy and Governance5.pdf