How national bioeconomy strategies address governance challenges arising from forest-related trade-offs

ABSTRACT The term ‘bioeconomy’ stands for an economy that primarily relies on renewable biotic resources and thus supports the vision of a low carbon society. The respective ‘bioeconomy strategies’ bear high conflict potential as they, sometimes unintentionally, rely on forest-land or wood as a resource, which are already appropriated also in other policies. We first outline the resulting governance challenges in terms of coherence of policy goals, consistency of instruments and the congruence between the two and identify trade-offs between forest ecosystem services that exhibit a high conflict potential regarding the bioeconomy. We then provide a comparative analysis of the extent to which bioeconomy strategies tackle the related governance challenges for two pairs of countries from the temperate (Germany and Switzerland) and the boreal (Sweden and Norway) forest zone. We find that the strategies do not mention conflicts related to wood mobilization. Coherence and consistency tend to be addressed for non-extractive forest utilizations that are perceived as a market opportunity rather than solely a restriction on wood mobilization. The latter seems more common in countries with a multi-functional forestry paradigm. Consequences for the prevailing forest management paradigm, however, are not explored in the strategies and thus policy congruence is neglected.

[1]  A. Zabel,et al.  Clearing forests to make way for a sustainable economy transition in Switzerland , 2021, Forest Policy and Economics.

[2]  D. Pettenella,et al.  Power analysis as a tool to analyse trade-offs between ecosystem services in forest management: A case study from nine European countries , 2021 .

[3]  E. Hansen,et al.  Company-level cross-sector collaborations in transition to the bioeconomy: A multi-case study , 2021 .

[4]  C. Panoutsou,et al.  Policy review for biomass value chains in the European bioeconomy , 2021 .

[5]  M. Hafner,et al.  Perceptions of Bioeconomy and the Desire for Governmental Action: Regional Actors’ Connotations of Wood-Based Bioeconomy in Germany , 2020, Sustainability.

[6]  W. Botzen,et al.  Regional Inequalities in Flood Insurance Affordability and Uptake under Climate Change , 2020, Sustainability.

[7]  Alexandru Giurca,et al.  Bioeconomy imaginaries: A review of forest-related social science literature , 2020, Ambio.

[8]  Michael Böcher,et al.  Research trends: Bioeconomy politics and governance , 2020, Forest Policy and Economics.

[9]  Manuel Fischer,et al.  Policy instrument mixes for operating modular technology within hybrid water systems , 2020, Environmental Science & Policy.

[10]  S. Holmgren,et al.  Swedish Forests in the Bioeconomy: Stories from the National Forest Program , 2020 .

[11]  E. Schulze,et al.  The climate change mitigation effect of bioenergy from sustainably managed forests in Central Europe , 2020, GCB Bioenergy.

[12]  R. Quitzow,et al.  The role of the policy mix in the transition toward a circular forest bioeconomy , 2020 .

[13]  P. Gong,et al.  Assessing the impacts of rising fuelwood demand on Swedish forest sector: An intertemporal optimization approach , 2019, Forest Policy and Economics.

[14]  Michael Howlett,et al.  Procedural Policy Tools and the Temporal Dimensions of Policy Design , 2019, International Review of Public Policy.

[15]  T. Ahlqvist,et al.  Contradictions of Spatial Governance: Bioeconomy and the Management of State Space in Finland , 2019, Antipode.

[16]  Pietro Goglio,et al.  The potential roles of bio-economy in the transition to equitable, sustainable, post fossil-carbon societies: Findings from this virtual special issue , 2018, Journal of Cleaner Production.

[17]  M. Hanewinkel,et al.  Segregated versus integrated biodiversity conservation: Value-based ecosystem service assessment under varying forest management strategies in a Swiss case study , 2018, Ecological Indicators.

[18]  J. Newig,et al.  Actor perceptions of polycentricity in wind power governance , 2018, Environmental Policy and Governance.

[19]  K. Eyvindson,et al.  Mitigating forest biodiversity and ecosystem service losses in the era of bio-based economy , 2018, Forest Policy and Economics.

[20]  F. Kupper,et al.  Toward a socially desirable EU research and innovation agenda on urban waste : A transnational EU citizen consultation , 2018 .

[21]  U. Pröbstl-Haider,et al.  Mountain bike tourism in Austria and the Alpine region – towards a sustainable model for multi-stakeholder product development , 2018 .

[22]  Arnaud Diemer,et al.  The Bio-Based Economy: Dynamics Governing Transition Pathways in the Swedish Forestry Sector , 2018 .

[23]  H. Pülzl,et al.  Coordinating the Uncoordinated: The EU Forest Strategy , 2018 .

[24]  S. Borgström Reviewing natural resources law in the light of bioeconomy: Finnish forest regulations as a case study , 2018 .

[25]  M. Craske,et al.  Mitigating the effect of persistent postnatal depression on child outcomes through an intervention to treat depression and improve parenting: a randomised controlled trial. , 2018, The lancet. Psychiatry.

[26]  Georg Schütte What kind of innovation policy does the bioeconomy need? , 2018, New biotechnology.

[27]  Alexandra Purkus,et al.  A Governance Framework for a Sustainable Bioeconomy: Insights from the Case of the German Wood-based Bioeconomy , 2018 .

[28]  Alexandru Giurca,et al.  Environmental concerns in political bioeconomy discourses , 2017 .

[29]  M. Kröger,et al.  Finnish forest policy in the era of bioeconomy: A pathway to sustainability? , 2017 .

[30]  M. Marchetti,et al.  Forest bioeconomy - a new scope for sustainability indicators , 2016 .

[31]  Reinhard Steurer,et al.  Multi-sectoral strategies as dead ends of policy integration: Lessons to be learned from sustainable development , 2016 .

[32]  N. Scarlat,et al.  The role of biomass and bioenergy in a future bioeconomy: Policies and facts , 2015 .

[33]  Reinhard Madlener,et al.  Wind Farm Siting Using a Spatial Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach: A Case Study of the Städteregion Aachen , 2014 .

[34]  H. Petersson,et al.  Reforming the EU approach to LULUCF and the climate policy framework , 2014 .

[35]  H. Pülzl,et al.  Bioeconomy – an emerging meta-discourse affecting forest discourses? , 2014 .

[36]  Alicia Gómez López Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency and Power , 2014 .

[37]  M. Howlett,et al.  Patching vs Packaging in Policy Formulation: Assessing Policy Portfolio Design , 2013 .

[38]  M. Sotirov,et al.  The sustainably managed forest heats up: discursive struggles over forest management and climate change in Germany , 2011 .

[39]  Frank Werner,et al.  National and global greenhouse gas dynamics of different forest management and wood use scenarios: a model-based assessment , 2010 .

[40]  R. Brännlund,et al.  Damned if you do, Damned if you don't – Reduced Climate Impact vs. Sustainable Forests in Sweden , 2009 .

[41]  J. Rayner,et al.  Design Principles for Policy Mixes: Cohesion and Coherence in ‘New Governance Arrangements’ , 2007 .

[42]  Michael Howlett,et al.  Beyond Good and Evil in Policy Implementation: Instrument Mixes, Implementation Styles, and Second Generation Theories of Policy Instrument Choice , 2004 .