Search

Within forest governance research, the transfer of power from governmental actors to civil society and market actors has been subject to intense scientific debate. We move forward on this debate by analyzing how ongoing transformations and power shifts in forest governance affect the power relations of actors with interest in various ecosystem services (ESs) in nine countries (Germany, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal, Slovakia, Sweden, the Netherlands, Turkey). In order to examine power resources of actors, we triangulated 220 qualitative interviews, document analysis, and participatory observations. Governmental actors (with various interests in ESs) were the most powerful actors in most countries, and thus drove forest management. Our analysis shows that the power relations of actors with interest in different forest ESs, varied within the nine countries, though many similarities existed. Governmental, market, and civil society actors differed in their capacity to apply the power strategies “coercion”, “(dis)incentives”, and “dominant information”, to realize their interests in ESs. In Lithuania, Slovakia and Turkey, governmental actors relied mostly on coercion; in the Netherlands on incentives; and in Sweden on dominant information. In Germany, Ireland, Italy and Portugal governmental actors relied on a mix of coercion, incentives, and dominant information. Market actors in all countries relied mostly on incentives, and civil society actors on dominant information as their power strategy.

Forests are of major importance to people, providing fundamental ecosystem services (ESs). Increasing the supply of an ES might negatively affect the supply of another ES. For example, increasing game densities might reduce timber production. Such trade-offs among ESs may lead to conflicts between actors interested in prioritizing different ESs. This study describes which actors dominated conflicts about ES trade-offs, and which power strategies they used to do so. Forest management practices and resulting trade-offs between ESs differ widely among the studied countries: Germany, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal, Slovakia, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Turkey. We triangulated 220 qualitative interviews, literature review, document analysis, and participatory observations. We mapped the interests of actors in ESs and identified conflicts between interests. We tested three hypotheses about which actors were more or less powerful, enabling them to be winners and losers in ES conflicts. Cultural and regulating and maintenance ESs played an important role in conflicts about forest ES trade-offs. We identified the power relations of actors with different interests in ES. Local interests often dominated national interests. Actors interested in provisioning ESs had strong power resources but because of specific bio-geophysical, political or economic conditions, actors with interest in regulating and maintenance ES or cultural ESs can have equal or stronger power resources. The study highlights the relevance of including power analysis in ES research.

For forest sustainability and vulnerability assessment, the landscape scale is considered to be more and more relevant as the stand level approaches its known limitations. This review, which describes the main forest landscape simulation tools used in the 20 European case studies of the European project “Future-oriented integrated management of European forest landscapes” (INTEGRAL), gives an update on existing decision support tools to run landscape simulation from Mediterranean to boreal ecosystems. The main growth models and software available in Europe are described, and the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches are discussed. Trades-offs between input efforts and output are illustrated. Recommendations for the selection of a forest landscape simulator are given. The paper concludes by describing the need to have tools that are able to cope with climate change and the need to build more robust indicators for assessment of forest landscape sustainability and vulnerability. The INTEGRAL project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement No. 282887. http://www. integral-project.eu/. Moreover, financial support by the Transnational Access to Research Infrastructures activity in the 7th Framework Programme of the EC under the Trees4Future project (No. 284181) for conducting the research is gratefully acknowledged. This research has also received funding from the European Union H2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 691149 (SuFoRun). Researcher Jordi Garcia-Gonzalo was supported by a “Ramon y Cajal” research contract from the MINECO (Ref. RYC-2013-14262) and has received funding from CERCA Programme/Generalitat de Catalunya. This paper could be achieved thanks to support of EFIATLANTIC donors: Conseil regional d’Aquitaine, Ministère de l’agriculture et de la forêt.

While sustainable forestry in Europe is characterized by the provision of a multitude of forest ecosystem services, there exists no comprehensive study that scrutinizes their sensitivity to forest management on a pan-European scale, so far. We compile scenario runs from regionally tailored forest growth models and Decision Support Systems (DSS) from 20 case studies throughout Europe and analyze whether the ecosystem service provision depends on management intensity and other co-variables, comprising regional affiliation, social environment, and tree species composition. The simulation runs provide information about the case-specifically most important ecosystem services in terms of appropriate indicators. We found a strong positive correlation between management intensity and wood production, but only weak correlation with protective and socioeconomic forest functions. Interestingly, depending on the forest region, we found that biodiversity can react in both ways, positively and negatively, to increased management intensity. Thus, it may be in tradeoff or in synergy with wood production and forest resource maintenance. The covariables species composition and social environment are of punctual interest only, while the affiliation to a certain region often makes an important difference in terms of an ecosystem service’s treatment sensitivity info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion