Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Governing Forests of the European Union: Institutional Framework for Interest Representation at the European Community Level
Marius Lazdinis,1* Per Angelstam2 and Imantas Lazdinis3
Unit Bioenergy, Biomass, Forestry and Climate Change, Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium 2 School for Forest Engineers, Faculty of Forest Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Skinnskatteberg, Sweden 3 Faculty of Strategic Management and Policy, Mykolas Romeris University of Lithuania, Vilnius, Lithuania
1
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 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 sufcient 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. 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 Rural Development, European Commission, B-1049 Brussels, Belgium. E-mail: marius@bmm.lt
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
45
Introduction
the present day globalization. Practices of governance now seem to be more globalized, but simultaneously fragmented/integrated and multilayered (Stripple, 2006). Recent years have also witnessed a change in authority in global environmental politics, with increasingly noted inuence of a variety of non-state actors (Auer, 2000; Fairbrass and Jordan, 2001; Stripple, 2006). The presence of multiple stakeholders seeking to inuence formulation and implementation of policies concerning the management (or choice of no management) of forest resources also seems to be increasing in the European Union (EU). However, the empirical 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-related projects, with the European Commission publishing a communication on a Community strategy and action programme for the forestry sector (COM (88255), European Parliament, 2007). In 1992, EC measures in forests and forestry entered an even more ambitious phase, strengthening measures to protect forests from atmospheric pollution and res (Regulations 2157/92 and 2158/92), and co-nancing forestry research under the EUs research and development programmes in the elds of agricultural and environmental research. In 1998, the Council Resolution 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 management, based on the co-ordination of the forest policies of the member states and Community policies and initiatives 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. supplying a multitude of goods, services and values to society (see, e.g., Merlo and Croitoru, 2005) and contributing to achievement of objectives in policy areas such as rural development, biodiversity conservation, renewable energy production and others (Commission of the European Communities, 2005a). This multiplicity of functions and values served by forests and forestry has increased the numbers of actors and stakeholders in forest policyand 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-making in balancing the multiple objectives and accommodating the variety of interests have transformed into a relatively complex set of formal and ad hoc institutional arrangements. There are many ways to dene and interpret the concept of governance in general (for examples see Hayward and 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 relationships in the pursuit of collective interests. This pursuit of collective interests generally involves four main components or activities: (1) articulating a common set of priorities for society; (2) creating coherence between individual goals to achieve the priorities; (3) steering the society to attain the goals and (4) holding actors delivering governance to the society accountable for their actions (Pierre and Peters, 2005). In a similar manner, a White Paper on European Governance outlines ve 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
The use of the following terms for the purposes of this paper ought to be claried: the European Community here is mainly seen as the rst pillar of the European Union i.e. the joint policy- and decision-making system on the EU level in the policy areas under the competence foreseen in the treaties; the European Union is viewed here as in addition to the Community pillar encompassing the intergovernmental dimension and is understood as an entirety of the Community and the member states; the European Commission is a body independent of EU governments that upholds the collective European interest. Env. Pol. Gov. 19, 4456 (2009) DOI: 10.1002/eet
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
46
M. Lazdinis et al.
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 participation aspects of good governance. As articulating a common set of priorities for society is closely inter-linked with creating coherence between individual goals to achieve the priorities (co-ordination and co-operation in formal and ad hoc institutional arrangements), we consider the aspect of coherence in forest governance in the EU as well. We aim to nd 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 institutional framework (fora sensu Broscheid and Coen, 2007) enabling the variety of interest groups to participate in forest and related policy- and decision-making at the European Community level. We rst review the existing formal and ad hoc institutional arrangements for forest policy- and decision-making at the EC level. We then use the outputs of an internet-based stakeholder consultation carried out in 2004 to assess the presence of interested parties at the level of the EC as well as to learn about the opinions of these parties concerning possible areas for enhancing coherence in forest governance in the EU.
47
Draft Commission working document: general comment Please 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 is done in a balanced way? Do you think that some issues are underrepresented? Trends in EU forest policy Do you think that all important issues relevant to this section have been included; or do you think that some issues are underrepresented? Emerging issues What 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 are underrepresented? 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 certication Forestry within the EU research policy EU development co-operation in the eld of forests Co-ordination, communication and co-operation
deadline for contributions was initially set for 15 September 2004, but at the request of some stakeholders was extended until 22 September. The package provided for the consultation contained general information and links to a privacy statement, the text of the EU Forestry Strategy of 1998, the draft Commission staff working document on implementation of the EU Forestry Strategy and a list of questions for comments. All documents were available in English, French and German, 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 the contributions and the processing of the responses (see Table 1 for a list of questions). The questions closely corresponded to the sections of the working document. On the emerging issues, the stakeholders were asked to list the major needs to be addressed in the context of the EU Forestry Strategy in the future. Respondents were asked to specify whether the input was individual or from an organization, and if so, which one, as well as to provide contact 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 large extent was prepared based on the reports submitted by the member states. Therefore, these two factors eliminated the need, and interest, of the national forestry authorities to respond to the questionnaire. It was considered that national forestry authorities had sufcient opportunities to express their opinions in the meetings of Standing Forestry Committee.
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
48
M. Lazdinis et al.
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 and forestry-related interest groups in policy- and decision-making in the EU. In this subsection, we provide a brief overview 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 include 27 countries its member states. Accession of the three highly forested countries Austria, Finland and Sweden to the EU in 1995 has raised the prole of the forest sector. The environment of governance of forests in the EU is quite complex. From the forest sector perspective, the EU member states vary in many aspects, among others in size, population density and extent of forest cover. Forests and other wooded land in the EU cover approximately 42% of the territory (Eurostat, 2008). The forest area per capita 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 share of private ownership is also very diverse among the EU member states. In general, it is considered that private forests 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 EU in 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 political system is historically unique and has been constantly evolving over more than 50 years. The policies in the EU are the result of decisions taken by the institutional triangle made up of the Council (representing national governments), the European Parliament (representing the people) and the European Commission (a body independent of 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 sheries for example, the Community intervention is strong. By contrast, in other policy areas such as employment and social policies, the EC plays only a minor role, namely to facilitate co-ordination. Currently, forest policy at the EC level is being dealt with by applying the principle of subsidiarity. The principle generally means that the member states are responsible for areas that they govern more effectively at their own level, while the Community is given those powers that the member states cannot discharge satisfactorily at national, regional or local level (European Parliament, 2007). Therefore, the Commission is not involved in direct policy-making in the area of forestry and rather tries to guide and co-ordinate the member states in achieving common objectives. Despite a limited number of directly forestry-related instruments, since 1957 many policies were adopted in the area of forests and forestry and actions carried out at the Community level using the competences provided by other policy 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, affect sustainable forest management and the forest policies of the member states (Commission of the European Communities, 2005a). The role of the EC in this regard is to ensure the presence of relevant information and technical forestry 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 being made at the European Community level. On one hand, diverse biophysical and socio-economic conditions, environmental histories and systems of governance have resulted in a multitude of expectations and perceptions of goods and values to be provided and served by forests and forestry in the EU. These multiple expectations and perceptions 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
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
49
policies being relevant to forestry, there is a number of ways and channels through which the information held by the stakeholders may be used to the benet of policy- and decision-making. Hence, we continue this section by presenting the institutional framework for participation in policy- and decision-making in forestry-related matters at the Community level and by looking at the presence of stakeholders and their views on how to improve the coherence. 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 been developed and ad hoc consultation and co-ordination means have been applied in forest policy- and decisionmaking. The main objectives of these mechanisms are co-ordination and co-operation in the European Commission, between the Commission and the member states, and among the member states, and consultation with relevant interest groups and stakeholders in the eld of forest policy. These institutional mechanisms in one way or another provide for participation of interested parties in forest and forest-related policy- and decision-making and are presented below. Co-Ordination Within the Commission The Inter-Service Group on Forestry is an intra-institutional co-ordination and co-operation mechanism and probably has the least direct effect on participation of interested parties in policy- and decision-making. The group was established in 2001 in order to improve the co-ordination between the Commission services responsible for relevant Community policies. The main objective of the group is to improve internal coherence and hence better exploit the potential synergies among policy areas, by managing the information ow between the areas concerned and facilitating collaborative efforts. Since establishment, the group by the autumn 2008 has met 20 times, with at least two meetings being organized each year. Typically, representatives from at least six different Commission departments attend the meetings. Depending on the items on the agenda, this number may increase to over ten. The Commission reports that the experience with the Inter-Service Group, in respect of improving co-ordination and co-operation, and thus coherence, has been positive (Commission of the European Communities, 2005a). Co-Ordination With the Member States The co-ordination with the member states is generally taking place in three forms: the Council Working Party on Forestry, 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 international meetings in the Council Working Party on Forestry. The Working Party, while representing the national governments, also deals with forest-relevant Commission policy and legislative initiatives. Prior to 2002, this group had existed on an ad hoc basis, but then a decision was taken for it to become a permanent Council Working Party. The Standing Forestry Committee (SFC), which brings together representatives of the member states and which is chaired by the Commission, has a threefold role: (1) it acts as an advisory and management Committee for specic forestry measures; (2) it is also an ad hoc consultation forum that provides expertise in connection with the development of forest-related measures in the framework of various Community policies, such as those on rural development and the environment; (3) it provides a venue for exchange of information among member states, and between 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 the Commission, has become more important, which is reected in the increasing number of presentations made by Commission staff from the different services (Commission of the European Communities, 2005a). Successive presidencies of the EU organize periodic and informal meetings of Directors-General responsible for forestry in the member states (these meetings are attended by director-level ofcials from forestry authorities). These meetings have also contributed to improving the exchange of information on issues of common interest.
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
50
M. Lazdinis et al.
Direct Communication and Co-Operation With Stakeholders Formal and ad hoc co-operation and communication with stakeholders takes place in the context of the existing committees. There is a regular information exchange, co-operation and co-ordination with forest and forestryrelated interest groups through the Advisory Group on Forestry and Cork. The Advisory Group includes representatives 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 represented are distributed as follows: producers (representatives of both private and state forest owners as well as other landowner 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 relevant experts. This body is a channel for co-operation between the forest-based sector and the Commission, largely in addressing industry-related issues. In addition, a Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee was established for the woodworking industries in 1998, in which the organizations representing employers and workers of the woodworking industries at European level develop their social dialogue. It provides a forum for the discussion of issues linked to employment, working conditions, vocational training, industrial change, enlargement etc. Stakeholder Consultation and the EU Forestry Strategy Types of Contribution In total 58 contributions were received (Figure 1). The following logic was applied to group the contributors according to their type and the interests they represent. Private individuals. In the last section of the questionnaire stakeholders were asked whether they were answering as an individual or whether they represented an organization, institution or country. Most of those who answered 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 forestry activities (e.g. timber processing, consulting, forestry services). Academia. There were contributions from research institutions and universities.
16 Number of contributions 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
Individuals Private companies Academia NGOs
14 12 9
13
51
NGOs. About half of these were either international or national-level environmental NGOs; others, judging by the title, seemed to be locally oriented. Associations and federations. There was a broad range of contributors, from landowner associations to an interest group within a political party. They are all involved in forestry-related activities at inter-national and national levels. Government bodies. Besides government institutions, this category also includes semi-governmental bodies, such as 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 does not seek to compare the responses between individual groups of respondents and to subsequently draw conclusions based on the division between respondents. Here we are interested in an overall level of participation and combined opinions of all respondents on individual issues. Therefore, the approach to grouping of respondents is not viewed as of importance to the ndings of the study. All but four responses were structured to respond to the questions provided in the questionnaire. Most contributions were well elaborated. In particular, the comments of NGOs and associations/federations were specic and exhaustive. There were some simple yes or no answers, but only in sections that were not of priority concern to 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 specic areas covered by the EU Forestry Strategy. The points addressed under the General comments and emerging issues are those that did not directly relate to any of the other sections of the working document. A full summary of all comments is available in the stakeholder consultation report (Commission of the European Communities, 2005c). Analysis of Responses As Table 1 indicates, the majority of the questions centred on specic technical aspects of forest and forestry-related policy. We view these as being outside the scope of this paper. In this subsection we extract and summarize only these comments that are relevant to the aspects of forest governance under investigation in this study, i.e. articulation 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 competitiveness and economic viability of sustainable forestry in many parts of the EU are increasingly being challenged in the global market place. The respondents reported that the importance of good governance for the protection and sustainable management of forests is increasing. This is seen to require additional skills and efforts from forest owners and managers. Generally, there appears to be a necessity to enhance cross-sectoral co-operation, and co-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 coherence among various policies affecting forests, in particular those on biodiversity, agriculture and rural development, 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 insufcient 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 integration of existing consultation mechanisms the Council Working Party on Forestry, the Standing Forestry Committee and the Advisory Group on Forestry and Cork in all forest-related policy formulation was seen by some as being insufcient. They also argued for more co-operation within the forest sector and more communication with the general public. It was thought that a better system of communication and co-ordination at Community level would require more human and nancial 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 facilitation role in the development of the European forest sector. It was considered that, for co-ordination of forest policy
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
52
M. Lazdinis et al.
at EU level to have any real added value, there had to be a clear and visible mandate to the EU institutions and well established coherent co-ordination framework. There were many specic suggestions on how to improve co-ordination of, communication of and co-operation on forest-related issues, focusing largely on possible changes in the EU institutions (in the European Commission in particular). It was suggested that the Council Working Party on Forestry, the Standing Forestry Committee and the Advisory Group on Forestry and Cork should co-ordinate their activities pro-actively in order to avoid duplication and make policy formulation more consistent. It was also proposed that the combined expertise and knowledge 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 Secretariat-General of the European Commission, which could co-operate closely with the Commission departments dealing with forest and forestry-related issues. Others suggested that forest and forestry-related issues should be addressed by a separate Directorate-General established for this purpose, or else exclusively by one of the existing Directorate-Generals. The option of establishing a Committee of Members of the European Parliament dealing with forestry-related issues was mentioned. Respondents also suggested that an EU Forestry Forum should be established to overcome the 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 of governance. 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 information: (1) on the formal and ad hoc institutional framework for participation in forest policy- and decision-making at 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 collective interests in governing European forest resources. Before discussing the ndings of the study in the context of the aspects of good governance of interest to the current 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 using the participant observation technique may potentially contain some biases (Yin, 1994). We tried to avoid these biases by not using our own judgement and only reporting the ndings generated by this technique. The second set of potential weaknesses of the methodology relates to the public consultation. First, the responses from the governmental bodies and national forestry authorities account for about one-quarter of all contributions received. This was not expected, as the national forestry authorities had an opportunity to provide an input to developing the documents at earlier stages. However, we do not view this negatively, as the responses typically came from more nationally-oriented forest and forestry-related organizations. On the contrary, we believe that such an active participation should be welcomed and demonstrates an interest of local actors in the EU-level policy- 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 from internet consultations in other Community policy areas shows higher participation rates. In this respect, it must be considered that this consultation requested qualitative input instead of the quantitative input asked in most other consultations. This was probably one of the reasons why there were perhaps not as many contributions as compared to the consultations on other subjects. Some respondents also found the period of about 40 days for consultation too short. Last, there may simply be a smaller number of interest groups active in this policy domain at the Community level. This last issue is more extensively discussed further in the paper. Coming back to the main ndings, in our view the results of the study demonstrate that the institutional framework (the fora) for representation of variety of interests in forest and forest-related policy- and decision-making at the Community level is present. The current mechanisms provide a number of possibilities for participation
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
53
of different interest groups and ow 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 these parties received either directly through the Advisory Group on Forestry and Cork or more indirectly, through the Standing Forestry Committee and even through the Inter-Service Group on Forestry. As the level of participation 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 in theory these institutional arrangements should be sufcient for open and participatory priority setting in the area of 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 groups could also contribute to improving co-ordination and co-operation, ultimately improving coherence and governance of forests in the EU.
European Commission The empirical evidence demonstrates that the European Commission has over a short time drastically changed from a traditionally hierarchical organization with little room for horizontal co-ordination into an organization that is much more informal and open to internal and external co-ordination (Schout and Jordan, 2008). In the eld of environmental policy it has been demonstrated that the Commission and environmental groups have worked in alliance in shaping the political agenda (Fairbrass and Jordan, 2001; Weber and Christophersen, 2002). Several studies have also emphasized the importance of NGOs and subnational administrations in the European forest policy process (Anderson et al., 1998; Weber and Christophersen, 2002). In the EC context Weber and Christophersen (2002) argue that further co-operation with organized European interests in the form of NGOs may serve the Commission as a catalyst for more integration. Our study has shown that, in addition to the institutional mechanisms for stakeholder participation, better co-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 and coherence, the European Commission proposed to develop an EU Forest Action Plan (Commission of the European Communities, 2005b). The underlying idea of the EU Forest Action Plan is to provide the necessary impetus to transform the EU Forestry Strategy into a dynamic process capable of responding to the newly emerging policy context and delivering tangible outcomes (improving long-term competitiveness, improving and protecting the environment, 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 interacting with and providing guidance to the objectives of other Community policies; the Action Plan should encompass both Community forest-related actions and forest-related actions in member states. The EU Forest Action Plan will use, and further extend, the existing formal and ad hoc institutional arrangements in order to pursue the coherence 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 the Commission is that a successful implementation of the Action Plan will mean a major improvement in better coordination and co-operation (and coherence) in forest and forest-related policy- and decision-making at the Community level. However, the improved openness, participation and coherence do not depend on the European Commission alone. As Beyers and Kerremans (2007) report, although the Community level institutions may create new opportunities for domestic interest groups to adapt, Europeanization is not a natural or immediate response. Below we discuss how the interest groups themselves may contribute to improving coherence in the Community level policy- and decision-making. Based on the other studies in this area we outline the reasons why this may be difcult.
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
54
Interest Groups
M. Lazdinis et al.
The presence of enabling institutional mechanisms is a key factor in facilitating the openness and participation for articulating a common set of priorities. However, the presence of channels for coordination and co-operation alone is not able to guarantee successful participation of the interest groups and deliberations 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 continued and intensive collaboration on the sides of both the Community institutions and the interested parties. In this respect, the issue of capacities of the interest groups to participate in the forest and forestry-related policy- and decision-making at the Community level becomes very important. We believe, therefore, that more active participation of interest groups (more stakeholders with higher capacities) would help improve co-ordination and co-operation in forest and forestry-related policy- and decision-making at the Community level. Evidence from other studies shows that Commission activity is interlinked with group activity, meaning that more group activity would lead to further 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 level is difcult 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 and forestry interest groups at the Community level, as this is the rst time the Commission has launched an open stakeholder consultation on forestry. Moreover, complete empirical information on the overall presence of forest and forestry-related interest groups at the Community level is not available. The usual interest groups actively participating in Community-level policy- and decision-making in this policy area are known to the European Commission through their presence in the Advisory Group on Forestry and Cork and other ad hoc participation instruments. The CONECCS database (which used to contain listings of interest groups working with the European Commission), used in the research of Broscheid and Coen (2007), has been closed. A replacement Register of Interest representatives was launched only in Spring 2008 and on 29 September 2008 contained in total only 370 interest representatives. Therefore, without having more reliable information on interest groups, based on the intensity 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 improvements in co-ordination and co-operation. Weber and Christophersen (2002) indicated that in the past (1991/1992) some forestry stakeholders have failed to utilize all participation opportunities granted to them, resulting in declining offered participation opportunities and reducing their future potential inuence. They argue that the lack of resources and initiative account for the limited access of forest owner representatives on a European level to the political arena today (Weber and Christophersen, 2002). Other studies on EU lobbying activity have shown that the presence of stakeholders differs between policy domains 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 less inclined 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 might help 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 of priorities for society and supports openness and participation in the area of forest policy at the Community level. We reviewed the institutional framework, composed of formal and ad hoc institutional arrangements, and, using the results of the internet-based stakeholder consultation, assessed the presence of interested parties at the level of the EC, also learning about the opinions of the interest groups concerning possible areas for enhancing coherence in forest governance in the EU.
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
55
The results of the study demonstrate that the institutional framework (the fora) for representation of variety of interests in forest and forest-related policy- and decision-making at the Community level is present. A range of possibilities for participation of different interest groups and ow of information between the European Commission and the stakeholders is provided. 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 sufcient 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 policyand 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 in order to improve co-ordination and co-operation, and thus coherence and good governance of forests at the Community level. However, in order to succeed, an active participation and commitment from all of those involved in forest governance at the Community level is necessary. All stakeholders in the forest and forestry-related policy domain must realize that the improved co-ordination and co-operation does not only mean more venues for inuence at the Community level. A stronger and more coherent voice in the priority setting must be accompanied by more 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 nal evaluation in 2012. We recommend that during these evaluations particular attention should be paid to the presence of stakeholders in forest and forestry-related policy- and decision-making at the Community level. We also hope that by then more of the lacking empirical evidence on the overall presence and capacities of the interest groups in the forest and forestry-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 views of its authors and cannot in any circumstances be regarded as the ofcial position of the Commission.
References
Anderson J, Clment J, Crowder LV. 1998. Accommodating conicting interests in forestry concepts emerging from pluralism. Unasylva 194: 310. Auer MR. 2000. Who participates in global environmental governance? Partial answers from international relations theory. Policy Sciences 33: 155180. Beyers J, Kerremans B. 2007. Critical resource dependencies and the Europeanization of domestic interest groups. Journal of European Public Policy 14(3): 460481. Broscheid A, Coen D. 2007. Lobbying activity and fora creation in the EU: empirically exploring the nature of the policy good. Journal of European Public Policy 14(3): 346365. Commission of the European Communities. 2001. European Governance: A White Paper, COM(2001) 428 nal. Commission of the European Communities: Brussels. Commission of the European Communities. 2005a. Commission Staff Working Document on the Implementation of the EU Forestry Strategy, COM(2005) 84 nal. 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 nal. 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 14th December 2008. Council of the European Union. 1999. Council Resolution on a Forestry Strategy for the European Union. Ofcial 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. Ofce for Ofcial Publications of the European Communities. Eurostat. 2008. Eurostat Pocketbook Agricultural Statistics, 2008 edn (using data of UNECE/FAO, Reference Year 2005).
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
56
M. Lazdinis et al.
Fairbrass J, Jordan A. 2001. Protecting biodiversity in the European Union: national barriers and European opportunities. Journal of European Public Policy 8(4): 499518. Goldsmith S, Eggers WD. 2004. Governing by Network: the New Shape of the Public Sector. Brookings Institution. Washington D.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 rst attempt towards quantication. In Valuing 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 nanced 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 clarication. Journal of European Public Policy 14(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 inuence of non-governmental organisations on the creation of Natura 2000 during the European Policy process. Forest Policy and Economics 4: 112. Yin RK. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd edn. Sage. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi.
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment