Natura 2000 and climate change—Polarisation, uncertainty, and pragmatism in discourses on forest conservation and management in Europe

ENVSCI-1264; No. of Pages 10 environmental science & policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

Natura 2000 and climate change—Polarisation, uncertainty, and pragmatism in discourses on forest conservation and management in Europe J. de Koning a,*, G. Winkel b, M. Sotirov b, M. Blondet c, L. Borras b, F. Ferranti d, M. Geitzenauer e a

Forest and Nature Conservation Policy, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands b Institute of Environmental Social Sciences and Geography, Forest and Environmental Policy Group, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Str. 4 (4.OG), D-79106 Freiburg, Germany c AgroParisTech – ENGREF, Centre de Nancy, 14 rue Girardet CS 14216, 54042 Nancy cedex, France d European Forest Institute Central Regional Office (EFICENT), Wonnhaldestr. 4, 79100 Freiburg, Germany e EFICEEC – European Forest Institute Central-East European Regional Office, c/o Institute of Forest, Environmental and Natural Resource Policy, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU), Feistmantelstr. 4, A-1180 Wien, Austria

article info

abstract

Article history:

European forests are a resource that is targeted by several EU environmental and land use

Received 26 February 2013

policies as forests can be of critical importance to mitigate climate change. At the same time,

Received in revised form

they are central to the EU’s biodiversity policy, and particular the Natura 2000 network of

25 July 2013

protected areas. Yet, the interlinkage between climate change and biodiversity policy is

Accepted 17 August 2013

complex and discursively contested. In this paper, we assess how the debate on climate

Available online xxx

change adaptation affects forest conservation and management under Natura 2000. Drawing on the concept of argumentative discourse analysis, we present evidence from 213 qualitative

Keywords:

interviews with policy stakeholders and practitioners that were conducted at both the

Natura 2000

European policy level and the local country level in 6 EU member states. Our results demon-

Forest policy

strate that the nexus between climate change adaptation and forest conservation policy is

European nature conservation

conceptualised differently by different stakeholders and practioners at different levels. Three

policy

major discourses can be made out (pragmatic discourse, dynamics discourse, threat dis-

Biodiversity

course), which are characterised by a set of partially overlapping story lines. These discourses

Climate change

are employed by four discourse coalitions (environmental, forest users’, expert, and grass root

Argumentative discourse analysis

coalition). As a general rule, debates at the European level are more polarised and politicised, while the local debates on climate change and Natura 2000 remain rather vague and are less polarised. This seems to indicate that the link between climate change adaptation and forest conservation is mostly an issue for an abstract high-level policy debate. At this level, climate change is used to influence well-known policies, and to legitimise distinct interests that were already present before the climate change debate has emerged. # 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 317 486204. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. de Koning), [email protected] (G. Winkel), [email protected] (M. Sotirov), [email protected] (M. Blondet), [email protected] (L. Borras), [email protected] (F. Ferranti), [email protected] (M. Geitzenauer). 1462-9011/$ – see front matter # 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.010 Please cite this article in press as: de Koning, J., et al., Natura 2000 and climate change—Polarisation, uncertainty, and pragmatism in discourses on forest conservation and management in Europe. Environ. Sci. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.010

ENVSCI-1264; No. of Pages 10

2

environmental science & policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

1.

Introduction

On 1 February 2012, a group of Greenpeace activists entered the Bavarian Spessart forest in Germany to start an inventory of oak and beech trees that characterise this forest. They explained the need for tree counting campaign with the refusal by the Bavarian State Forests Company to provide detailed environmentally relevant information on these forests. Six weeks later, Greenpeace presented their own forest maps of the Spessart at a press conference, arguing that the current harvesting would destroy the ecological value of these forests (Greenpeace, 2012), which was strongly controverted by the Bavarian State Forests Company. This situation quickly developed into a conflict over legal and scientific arguments about biodiversity and forest management. Moreover, climate change mitigation and adaptation became central in the attempts of both sides to convince the public of the rightness of their stances. On the one hand, Greenpeace erected a banner stating ‘‘Who destroys the forest destroys the climate’’ in the midst of harvested beeches. On the other hand, the Bavarian State Forests Company countered the attack by prominently posting an interview with a forest scientist on their webpage, basically saying that the sustainable harvesting of forests is more beneficial for climate protection than their strict protection (Bayerische Staatsforsten, 2012). The confrontation between Greenpeace and the Bavarian State Forests Company is exemplary of a greater debate on forests, climate change, and nature conservation. Forests are linked to climate change (policy) in two ways: First, forest ecosystems need to be adapted to a changing climate (Lindner et al., 2010), and, second, forests play a vital role in the mitigation of climate change for their potential of carbon sequestration (Canadell and Raupach, 2008). As a consequence, forest management (including conservation) has been discursively connected to climate change at all policy levels and on different occasions (Winkel et al., 2011; Storch and Winkel, 2013). The policy debate is particularly challenging as the specific characteristics of forests – such as slow growth and long lasting regeneration processes – involve a long-term

vision (Hoogstra, 2008; Hoogstra and Schanz, 2008; Winkel et al., 2011). Moreover, as the Spessart example shows, debates on forest and climate change intrinsically link distinct knowledge claims and expertise to political ideas and interests (Winkel et al., 2011; Wesselink et al., 2013). In this paper, we aim to understand how the issue of climate change influences the debates about European forest conservation. Drawing on the argumentative discourse analysis approach of Hajer (Hajer, 1995, 2006; Hajer and Versteeg, 2005), we show how discussions on climate change in the context of forest conservation and management under the EU’s Natura 2000 policy are shaped through and consolidated into distinct discourses. Our analysis concentrates on two levels: (1) the EU policymaking level represented by EU institutions and interest groups at this level, and (2) a ‘‘local country level’’ including stakeholders of selected cases of forest management and conservation under Natura 2000 in 6 EU member states (cf. Table 1). In the following text, we will first give a short introduction into European forest policy and Natura 2000 (Section 2.1), followed by a review of the state of knowledge related to the current discussion on Natura 2000 and climate change (Section 2.2). Section 3 introduces the argumentative discourse analysis approach. Section 4 presents the results of our analysis, finally followed by the conclusion in Section 5.

2.

Setting the stage

2.1.

European forest conservation policy

Forest (conservation) policy in Europe is characterised by the complex arrangement of competencies, objectives, and instruments that stretches across different policy levels and sectors (Fairbrass and Jordan, 2001; Winkel et al., 2009; Winkel et al., 2013). The EU does not hold a legal competency for forest policy, but there is a long history of Community actions relating to the support of forest conservation and management (Winkel et al., 2009; Winkel et al., 2013). The institutional framework for forest conservation is built up by the EU’s nature conservation policies institutionalised by the Birds

Table 1 – Local case studies covered in this paper. Country

Case

Region

Austria

Wienerwald – Thermenregion Ettenau Nordo¨stliches Leithagebirge

Lower Austria Upper Austria Burgenland

France

La Montange de Lure Foreˆts et ruisseaux de Piemont vosgien

Alpes de Haute Provence Territoire de Belfort

Germany

Oberer Hotzenwald Stromberg Albtrauf von Do¨rnwasserlos bis Zeggendorf Eierberge bei Banz und Teile Banzer Wald

Baden-Wu¨rttemberg Baden-Wu¨rttemberg Bavaria Bavaria

The Netherlands

Geuldal

Province of Limburg

Spain

Massis del Montseny

Catalun˜a

United Kingdom

East Hampshire Hangers Wye Valley Woodlands

Hampshire East Midlands

Please cite this article in press as: de Koning, J., et al., Natura 2000 and climate change—Polarisation, uncertainty, and pragmatism in discourses on forest conservation and management in Europe. Environ. Sci. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.010

ENVSCI-1264; No. of Pages 10 environmental science & policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Directive (Directive 79/409/EEC of 1979) and the Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC of 1992). Both directives set the frame for the European network of protected areas called Natura 2000, covering 17.5% of the EU’s territory (European Commission, 2011). Forest habitat types are crucial for Natura 2000. 81 of the 231 habitat types are woodland types, making up around 50% of the terrestrial surface of designated habitats (European Commission, 2013). Consequently, roughly 30% of European forests are designated as Natura 2000 protected areas (European Commission, 2012b). In the absence of a common forest policy, Natura 2000 is probably the most influential EU policy on forests. As with all habitats covered by the network, forest habitats are subject to the provision that a favourable conservation status should be maintained. All over Europe, the national and local implementation of Natura 2000 has been hampered by conflicts (Ledoux et al., 2000; Fairbrass and Jordan, 2001; Hiedanpa¨a¨, 2005; Papageorgiou and Vogiatzakis, 2006; Young et al., 2007; Apostolopoulou and Pantis, 2009, Ferranti et al., 2010; Ioja˘ et al., 2010; Grodzinska-Jurczak and Cent, 2011). These conflicts were related to institutional ‘misfit’ (Bo¨rzel and Buzoga´ny, 2010), conflicts of interest, and clashing knowledge ‘cultures’ related to land use (Sotirov et al., 2013). For example, the (conservation) science-based approach of the policy leading to the exclusion of local stakeholders was criticised (Alphandery and Fortier, 2001; Beunen et al., 2013). This partially resulted in a shift towards more participation for land users in the implementation process (Rauschmayer et al., 2009). Recently, climate change has become a major issue in the political debate over Natura 2000 policies, as the protected areas host some of the most vulnerable habitats (European Commission, 2010a, 2012b). The links between forest conservation and Natura 2000 are heavily disputed, with the debate taking place in both political and scientific circles.

2.2. The scientific debate on climate change, nature and forest conservation A large number of papers analyse potential impacts of climate change on forest ecosystems and management (cf. Hemery, 2008; Felton et al., 2009; Allen et al., 2010; Lindner et al., 2010; Spies et al., 2010; Milad et al., 2011; Schoene and Bernier, 2012). In relation to European nature conservation, there is an interesting dichotomy in scholars’ policy recommendations. Whereas some scholars, including many practice-oriented experts, consider the approach and the related objectives of Natura 2000 to be feasible in a changing climate (Dodd et al., 2009; Ellwanger et al., 2012; Evans, 2012), others point to the static character of the Natura 2000 framework and underline the necessity to revise it given the growing evidence of climatic changes (Cliquet et al., 2009a,b; Cliquet et al., 2009a,b; Arau´jo et al., 2011). In spite of these differences, there is widespread consensus that climate change arguments must not be used to directly question the European biodiversity conservation policy (Cliquet et al., 2009a,b). Moreover, climate change would underline the necessity to better integrate the areas outside the Natura 2000 network into conservation schemes, and work towards ecological corridors across Europe (Brooker et al.,

3

2007; Cliquet et al., 2009a,b; Cliquet et al., 2009a,b; Huntley et al., 2012). As for the analysis of forest policy discourses related to forest conservation and climate change, few studies exist (Winkel et al., 2011; Winkel et al., 2012) Winkel et al. (2012), for instance, describe forest policy discourses relating to climate change and their potential to redefine the content of sustainable forest management within Natura 2000 protected forest areas in Germany. Yet, for other countries and the European level, no systematic analysis of policy discourses related to climate change and forest conservation exist.

3.

Methodological approach

Our paper develops its argument based on a comprehensive discourse analysis. This approach is increasingly used for the analysis of forest policy, with various nuances regarding exact method and the ontological and epistemological preferences of the authors (cf. Ba¨ckstrand and Lo¨vbrand, 2006; Arts and Buizer, 2009; Kleinschmit et al., 2009; Humphreys, 2009; Dang et al., 2012; Van Heeswijk and Turnhout, 2012; Winkel, 2012). In our work, we draw on Maarten Hajer’s (1995, p. 44) classical definition of discourse as ‘‘an ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categorizations that are produced, reproduced, and transformed in a particular set of practices and through which meaning is given to physical and social realities.’’ Discourse analysis is thus the study of language-in-use (Wetherell et al., 2001), aimed at tracing particular linguistic and conceptual regularities found in environmental debates (Hajer, 2006). In his operationalisation of discourse analysis, Hajer (1995) uses the concepts of storylines and discourse coalitions. Storylines are ‘‘a generative sort of narrative that allows actors to draw upon various discursive categories to give meaning to specific physical or social phenomena’’ (Hajer, 1995, p. 56). They are condensed statements or narratives that, in the political realm, combine problematizations and solutions to a concise political story about what should be done (Hajer, 2006). A discourse coalition is ‘‘the ensemble of a set of story lines, the actors that utter these storylines and the practices that conform to these story lines, all organised around a discourse’’ (Hajer, 1995, p. 47). Discourse coalitions link people with different interests around common goals. Interests and values are claimed, defined, or reshaped in the interaction between and within coalitions. Through storylines, discourse coalitions are able to construct a shared interest (Hajer, 1995) and connect people they would not have talked to one another otherwise (Bingham, 2010). To collect the data on discourses of climate change in forested areas of the Natura 2000 network, open ended, semi structured personal interviews were conducted at the European policy level and the local country level. At the European level, 25 interviews were conducted. Interviewees included experts of EU institutions – the involved Directorates Generals (DG): DG Environment and DG Agriculture – and interest groups such as environmental, forest, forest industry, landowner, and agricultural organisations. At the local country level, a total of 188 interviews were conducted with relevant stakeholders at different (sub-) national administrative levels and with local stakeholders in 14 case studies located in 6 EU member states (Table 1). Interviewees include forest

Please cite this article in press as: de Koning, J., et al., Natura 2000 and climate change—Polarisation, uncertainty, and pragmatism in discourses on forest conservation and management in Europe. Environ. Sci. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.010

ENVSCI-1264; No. of Pages 10

4

environmental science & policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Table 2 – Discourses and storylines on Natura 2000 and climate change. Discourse Threat discourse

Dynamics discourse

Pragmatic discourse

Content discourse

Storyline/issue

Problematization

Policy solution

Unpredictable climate change but negative effect on forests. Natura 2000 is important in responding to climate change and needs to be enforced more strictly.

Green infrastructure

Biodiversity is threatened by climate change Climate change will cause more disasters

Increase (connectivity between) Natura 2000 areas Stricter implementation of Natura 2000 and protection needed More monitoring needed

Climate change has dynamic effects on forests. Natura 2000 does not allow responses to such effects and needs to be revised.

Unknown effect of climate change on forests. No change to Natura 2000 policies before there is more knowledge to predict the future.

Disasters

Proof

More information is needed

Dynamic process

Forests underlie new and partly unknown dynamics Climate change will cause more disasters

Disasters

Proof

More information is needed

Proof

More information is needed

Dynamic process

Forests underlie new and partly unknown dynamics Uncertainty and scepticism

No investment

managers, forest owners, farmers, policymakers at different administrative levels, scientists, environmentalists, etc. All data were collected between 2011 and 2012. Interviews touched upon general issues of Natura 2000 implementation and forest conservation and management. The issue of climate change was addressed by asking two specific questions: (1) How important is climate change in the context of Natura 2000 and forest management? (2) How does climate change affect your management and/or policy decisions? Interviews were recorded and fully transcribed. The relevant text passages (related to the two questions on climate change) were translated into English and handed over to the first author who did the subsequent coding in close interaction with the co-authors. To identify the discourses and storylines, several rounds of coding took place. The first round of coding looked for the general descriptions stakeholders gave of climate change and the impact it has on Natura 2000 policies and forest management. Here, we looked for common themes and patterns that occurred frequently in the interviews. This round of analysis allowed us to identify different perceptions and statements, and to connect them to stakeholders and policy levels. The second, interpretive round of analysis resulted in a general overview of the different discourses and how they relate to coalitions and policy levels. In a subsequent, third step, we undertook a more detailed analysis of the ‘discursive rhetoric’ of climate change and forest conservation. That is, we looked for buzzwords, metaphors and other rhetorical devices that were used in the communication by stakeholders. This detailed analysis resulted in the identification of different storylines which are employed under different discourses. For instance, the story line ‘‘disasters’’ was connected to codes related to talking in any way about (un-)natural disturbances and catastrophes induced by climate change. Finally, the findings of this interpretive analysis were discussed with colleagues and

Flexible implementation of Natura 2000 and active management needed Flexible implementation of Natura 2000 and active management needed No sensible decisions until evidence is high Monitoring needed/no decisions until evidence is higher Not much to do about it now

No new investments in nature now

stakeholders that work in this field in order to check the validity of the results.

4.

Results

4.1.

Discourses and storylines

At the European level, 20 of 25 interviewees (80%) considered the topic of climate change to be important for forest conservation policy and made an elaborated link between forest conservation and climate change responding to the questions, while 20% did not discuss the topic. At the local level, only 63 of 188 interviewees (32%) considered climate change to be important for the issue of Natura 2000 and forests. For many local stakeholders, climate change was not at all an issue when talking about Natura 2000 and forest management. This shows an important difference in responses depending on policy level. Based on the responses to the two climate change related questions, three discourses relating to climate change, forests, and Natura 2000 could be distinguished: a threat discourse, a dynamics discourse, and a pragmatic discourse. Table 2 gives an overview of these discourses including related storylines. In what follows, we will introduce the three discourses in detail.

4.1.1.

Threat discourse

‘‘You really have to increase the resilience of ecosystems, and one of the ways of doing this is to implement the conservation legislation better, and tightly.’’ (European Environmental NGO 01) This discourse focuses on the negative effects that climate change is expected to have on forests and nature conservation

Please cite this article in press as: de Koning, J., et al., Natura 2000 and climate change—Polarisation, uncertainty, and pragmatism in discourses on forest conservation and management in Europe. Environ. Sci. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.010

ENVSCI-1264; No. of Pages 10 environmental science & policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

within Natura 2000. Its main argument is that the effects of climate change on nature cannot be fully predicted but should be expected to be a significant threat to forest ecosystems. Hence, the Natura 2000 network should be reinforced and strengthened. The protection of forests should be strong enough for these forests to withstand any threat. In this discourse, Natura 2000 is often conceptualised as a buffer zone that must be extended. If this is not done, forests are likely to be seriously impaired by climate-change induced disasters. This discourse refers to a strict (‘true’) implementation of Natura 2000, and is popular among actors from environmental organisations, state actors at the European Union, and scientists. This discourse is most commonly found at the European policy level. Within this discourse, three storylines were identified. These storylines are ordered according to their frequency of appearance: The first frequently used storyline is that of disasters. Disasters are frequently addressed in the threat discourse to underline the pressing character of climatic changes and the destructive effect they will have on forests. Several people draw on the examples of storms, fires, and extreme weather conditions to describe the possible destruction of forests. The second storyline is that of green infrastructure. This storyline states that in order to fight the threats of climate change on biodiversity, the connectivity, i.e. a green infrastructure, between different Natura 2000 areas must be increased. The green infrastructure storyline is often used at the European level by environmental organisations. It is actually not new for Natura 2000,1 and has also found its way into the communication of the European Commission (European Commission, 2010b) and into the European Parliament Resolution of 20 April 2012 (European Union, 2012). However, climate change is seen as adding importance to this concept. Finally, the third storyline is about proof. It is about the need for more knowledge on the exact consequences of climate change to back up the threat discourse. The proof storyline in this discourse is related to the precautionary principle. The reinforcement of Natura 2000 and the creation of a green infrastructure is needed in any case, but more proof will show that these measures are the best response to climate change.

4.1.2.

Dynamics discourse

‘‘. . .climate-change-nature [nature under climate change, the authors] will be much more dynamic compare[d] to what we know today and therefore we need to be more flexible in how we manage nature.’’ (Representative European forestry organisation 01) This discourse entails the expectation that climate change will have unpredictable effects on forests. Consequently, it is argued that there is no use in keeping and implementing Natura 2000 rules strictly. Natura 2000 is framed as being too static to deal with the dynamics triggered by climate change. Actors deploying this discourse opt for active, sustainable 1

Article 10 of the Habitats Directive mentions that member states should, wherever necessary, increase the ecological coherence of the Natura 2000 network by creating linkages and stepping stones among the protected sites.

5

forest management and creating forests that include numerous tree species, including non-native ones, in order to respond to changing climatic conditions. This would necessitate a more lenient approach towards Natura 2000. Proponents of this discourse include commodity-oriented forest owners and forest users, such as representatives of the forestry sector, timber industry, agriculture, or landowner groups at the European and the local levels. Within this discourse, different storylines have developed. These are described below and ordered according to their frequency of appearance. The first storyline is that of dynamic processes. This popular storyline problematises the uncertain and dynamic character of climate change and its impacts on forests. Actors stress the fact that it is impossible to maintain tree species in places where changing environmental conditions do not allow for its growth. Hence, climate change is a force that cannot completely be captured in regulations. Regulations must not be too fixed or static, as climate change necessitates a flexible and active management approach. Yet, Natura 2000 would disregard this new dynamic caused by climate change. Consequently, a softer and more flexible approach to Natura 2000 implementation in terms of management requirements and the concept of a favourable conservation status, and even a reassessment of the site designation, is needed. The second frequently heard storyline is on disasters – also problematised in the threat discourse. Within the dynamics discourse, however, disasters are not thematized to argue for stricter protection but rather for more active management possibilities. Sustainable forest management is seen as necessary to deal with, for example, the effects of storms. This storyline stresses that Natura 2000 should allow for active and possibly intense management in order to adequately respond to the effects of natural disasters. Thus, again, flexibility as opposed to a ‘‘static’’ approach is central when referring to Natura 2000. The third storyline is on proof. Just as in the threat discourse, this storyline emphasises the need for more data on the effects of climate change on habitats and species before policy changes are made. Yet, in the dynamics discourse, the need for (more) proof is seen as warning against hasty policy decisions. It reflects a fear that the climate change debate, in the absence of reliable information, will become too politicised by interests that the adherents of this discourse do not share.

4.1.3.

Pragmatic discourse

‘‘Look, in the discussion on good nature conservation policy [under climate change, the authors] there are different views. One view focuses on the conservation of species: ‘keeping what you have.’ Then there is another view that says: ‘No, we have to let nature run its course.’ The truth lies somewhere in the middle.’’ (Government representative, the Netherlands). This discourse is characterised by uncertainty resulting in pragmatism. It argues for informed decision making based on more knowledge and information. In this perspective, Natura 2000 policies should not be adjusted now as there is no knowledge to predict the future. The discourse prioritises biodiversity conservation, but also emphasises that it is not desirable to conserve species in a certain location at all costs.

Please cite this article in press as: de Koning, J., et al., Natura 2000 and climate change—Polarisation, uncertainty, and pragmatism in discourses on forest conservation and management in Europe. Environ. Sci. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.010

ENVSCI-1264; No. of Pages 10

6

environmental science & policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Also, it objects a perceived politicisation of the climate change debate. Actors deploying this discourse are scientists, researchers, local landowners, local forest owners, government officials, and some representatives of European environmental organisations. The following storylines, ordered according to their frequency of appearance, are part of this discourse. The first storyline is (again) on proof. In the pragmatic discourse, the need for better information and knowledge (proof) is central. Yet, the need for proof is used differently than in the threat and the dynamics discourse. First, similarly to the threat discourse, it argues for more monitoring and research. Second, dissimilarly to the other two discourses, it relates to a general scepticism about assumptions made in climate change debates. People doubt whether all the information they hear about climate change is true. The second storyline is on dynamic processes. Actors deploying this storyline claim that climate change is first and foremost a process beyond human control. Its consequences are not necessarily negative, and there is no need to be over-concerned. Again, this storyline is coined by scepticism against some of the heated policy debates on climate change. People do not necessarily doubt the existence of climate change (yet some do), but rather they wonder whether policy is able to respond to the issue at all. The last storyline can be called no investments. Similar to the proof storyline, the no investment storyline states that no large investments should be made yet. Investing money, time, and resources in forest conservation is seen as untimely as it should be clear first what the exact consequences of climate change are. Again, this storyline stresses the role of sound decisions that should not be made for political reasons.

4.2. Relating discourses, storylines, policy levels, and coalitions 4.2.1.

Storylines and discourses

Our findings demonstrate that similar problematizations occur within different discourses. Issues that are problematised in more than one discourse are disasters, the dynamic process related to climate change, and the need for better proof. Yet, based on similar problematizations, the specific storylines differ from the policy solution dimension, depending on the discourse. The best examples are the different proof storylines that are employed in all the three discourses. In the threat discourse, more proof is regarded as backing up the argumentation for stronger Natura 2000 policy and better protection of forests. In the dynamics discourse, proof is strategically deployed to warn against the politicisation of the climate change debate, and against far-reaching decisions being taken before there is more knowledge on climate change effects. Finally, in the pragmatic discourse, proof refers to the necessity to monitor the development and is often not connected to the political debate. The occurrence of related, but distinct storylines in different discourses can, on one hand, be interpreted as an opportunity to create linkages between the different discourses. On the other hand, one can also speak of counter storylines by competing discourses that relate to the same problematization, but derive fundamentally different policy conclusions. In this case, closely related but logically opposing counter story lines would neutralise or

block each other. For example, certain available problematizations of climate change and forest conservation can no longer be mobilised to support a specific discourse as discourses can only be supported by certain storylines. Finally, there are two story lines that are specifically occurring only in one discourse. First, the green infrastructure story line combining a perceived threat to biodiversity through climate change with the need to reinforce and extend the Natura 2000 network is only used in the threat discourse. Second, the no investment story line – being essentially fatalist in its problematization and problem solution – is only occurring in the pragmatic discourse. In contrast to the (counter-) storylines that create linkages between the discourses, these storylines rather contribute to maintaining fundamental differences between discourses in term of both problematization and problem solution.

4.2.2.

Discourses and storylines at different policy levels

At the European level, discourses and storylines appear to be more delineated and strongly articulated than at the local level. Moreover, discourses at the European level emphasise the need for policy measures to conserve and manage forests in a changing climate. At the local level, discourses on climate change are, first, less evident, and, second, less polarised. Actors at this level argue for more monitoring and control, and specific management options, or question the existence of any possibility for policy to effectively respond to climate change. Several local respondents stress that the issue is of minor importance to them now: ‘‘With regard to Natura 2000, I have to say that climate change is currently a luxury problem. At this moment, it is actually the smallest problem we have.’’ (Local implementation officer, Germany) Hence, there seems to be a general and significant difference in how climate change is discursively constructed at the European and at the local country level. Climate change at the European level is highly political. At the local country level, actors struggle with the abstractness of the issue. The discussion is characterised by difficulties in foreseeing the exact consequences of climate change, and by resulting indifference and pragmatism.

4.2.3.

Discourse coalitions

Based on our data, four discourse coalitions can be distinguished according to their shared discursive repertoire: an environmental coalition, a forest-user coalition, an expert coalition, and a grass-root coalition. The environmental coalition consists of conservationists, mostly environmental NGOs and environmental administrations. This coalition is mostly visible at the European level. The members of the environmental coalition often deploy the threat discourse. The forest-user coalition consists of forest users, landowner groups, agricultural groups, and policymakers. This coalition can be identified at both the European and the local country level. It generally deploys the dynamics discourse on climate change. The expert coalition consists of scientists, other experts, and policymakers. This coalition includes members from both the European and the local country level. It

Please cite this article in press as: de Koning, J., et al., Natura 2000 and climate change—Polarisation, uncertainty, and pragmatism in discourses on forest conservation and management in Europe. Environ. Sci. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.010

ENVSCI-1264; No. of Pages 10 environmental science & policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

7

Fig. 1 – Coalitions and their relationship to discourses (oval shapes) and storylines (rectangles).

frequently, though not exclusively, deploys the pragmatic discourse. The grass-root coalition consists of a diverse group of stakeholders primarily at the local level. Members belonging to this coalition are local forest managers, forest owners, conservationists, and policymakers. Like the expert coalition, this coalition frequently uses the pragmatic discourse. Fig. 1 gives an overview of the four coalitions identified and the storylines and discourses that they deploy. The environmental and forest-user coalitions engage in the politicised and polarised debate on climate change and forest conservation at the European level. These coalitions are easily distinguishable in terms of their discourses on forest conservation and Natura 2000 policies. The polarisation encourages de-legitimisation practices on the part of their ‘opponents.’ For example, members of the forest-user coalition frame the green infrastructure plans in a sarcastic way as an example of ‘environmental technocracy’: ‘‘That [corridors between Natura 2000 areas] sounds a bit scary to many of the members: to build a lot of green highways, so to speak, through the Natura 2000 areas. (Representative European forestry organisation 02) The members of the environmental coalition, however, accuse the forest-user coalition of employing the flexibility discourse strategically to diminish the influence of Natura 2000. They perceive sustainable forest management as a euphemism for more timber harvesting, and flexibility as rhetoric to protect economic interests: ‘‘So, there is often an instrumental use by people, that do want to build the motorways and the ski slopes and so on, to misuse the

whole climate issue and say things like: you need to be pragmatic and you need flexibility.’’ (Representative European environmental NGO 02) Such opposing statements are seldom found within the other identified coalitions: the expert coalition and the grassroot coalition. Both coalitions argue less in political than in practical terms. While they share the pragmatic discourse to a significant degree, they borrow, however, also elements from competing discourses. The expert coalition occasionally uses the disaster storyline of the threat discourse, mostly pointing on the need to gather more information (and thus connecting disasters with the proof storyline). The grass-root coalition, however, borrows the dynamic processes problematization from the dynamics discourse in order to either underline the necessity of a flexible approach to management if no new information becomes available, or to highlight the impossibility of reacting to climate change at all.

5.

Conclusions

In this paper, we have shown that climate change is conceptualised in very different ways in the debate about forest conservation under Natura 2000. Our analysis has identified distinct discourses that are linked to each other via related storylines that share (similar) problematizations, but combine them for distinct policy (and management) solutions. Our analysis demonstrates that there are important differences not only between the discourses, the meaning and strategic importance of storylines, but also the actors that use them, and the levels at which they are deployed. At the

Please cite this article in press as: de Koning, J., et al., Natura 2000 and climate change—Polarisation, uncertainty, and pragmatism in discourses on forest conservation and management in Europe. Environ. Sci. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.010

ENVSCI-1264; No. of Pages 10

8

environmental science & policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

European level, discourses are more polarised and crystalize around to distinct policy concepts related to Natura 2000, either emphasising the reinforcement of regulation or arguing for flexibility. At the local level, the climate change debate is much less pronounced, let alone politicised. These findings may be, first, exemplary for a lack of consideration at the local level for long-term issues such as climate change (Evans et al., 2013; Wesselink et al., 2013). Second, our findings allow conclusions regarding the influence of discourses and storylines on policy. Storylines do not just contain knowledge but are entwined with political interests and ideologies. In our case, discourses and storylines at the European level are more clearly related to certain political ideas and interests. At the local level, similar storylines are employed differently. They are less politicised and not as clearly defined as the ones at the European level. These findings raise the question of how both local and European discourses are linked to each other. Considering the available literature, it is clear that there is no simple reproduction of discourses across policy levels. Rather, discourses originating from higher policy levels are renegotiated in different local contexts (cf. Medina et al., 2009; Evans et al., 2013). However, similar problematizations and storylines shared by different stakeholders at different levels can be important drivers for policy change (Bulkely, 2000; Smith and Kern, 2011) as they allow joint sense making even if different groups do not fully understand each other. This resembles for example Offermans and Co¨rvers (2012) article on shared ‘‘strategies’’ that, in spite of different perspectives, can still lead to socially robust action that is able to deal with dynamic societal perceptions and remains socially supported in the light of changing environments. Yet, in our case, the production of counter story lines for similar problematizations, and the non-relatedness of some problematizations may significantly hamper the possibility for socially robust action based on coordination across levels and discourses. In this regard, an important element which was not covered by our study are national policy discourses. It seems plausible to assume that the discourses and storylines created at this level may serve as a bridge or ‘translator’ of the politicised EU level debates and local indifference and pragmatism. The only paper available that assesses national forest policy discourses on climate change demonstrates, however, that, at least in the case of Germany, national forest and conservation policy debates are as politicised and polarised as at the EU level (Winkel et al., 2011). It would be interesting to conduct similar analysis of national forest conservation and climate change discourses in relation to the debates on the local and EU policy level. In addition, it would also be worthwhile to analyse ‘place specific’ differences of the discourses. Our data suggest that there are differences in how climate change debates are shaped in different regions of the EU. These differences seem to be related to biographic and geographical characteristics and socio-economic conditions. However, the amount of data per country was too scant (given the surprisingly low number of pronounced responses at the local country level) to systematically compare discourses across different regions. To conclude, different discourses on forest conservation under Natura 2000 are related to certain policy levels and

coalitions are, to a certain degree, marked by invisible boundaries that prevent a closer linking of the different levels. Yet, sometimes storylines and discourses break through policy levels. In the Spessart forest (see introduction), politicised climate change rhetoric suddenly entered the forest. It was used as an additional discursive weapon in a polarised debate over forest conservation, and increased the polarisation and politicisation of a local conflict that was basically fought by regional and national policy stakeholders. Interestingly, in this case, the break-through of ‘big policy’ storylines at the local level led to some disorientation amongst the local stakeholders about what was at stake in this case; this can easily be discerned in the respective internet discussion fora and local newspapers. In light of the conclusions of this paper, this local disorientation in front of higher level policy discourses is not surprising. In this sense, European politics and its concerns about climate change regarding land use and conservation is far away from the foresters and citizens in the Spessart forest.

Acknowledgements The data used for this paper were collected within the European BeFoFu project (www.befofu.org/). BeFoFu is funded by national funding agencies (Austrian Wissenschaftsfond, the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, the UK’s Natural Environment Research Council and the UK’s Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs). We are grateful to our funders and the experts that devoted their time for the interviews.

references

Allen, C.D., Macalady, A.K., Chenchouni, H., Bachelet, D., McDowell, N., Vennetier, M., 2010. A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. Forest Ecology and Management 259, 660–684. Alphandery, P., Fortier, A., 2001. Can a territorial policy be based on science alone? the system for creating the Natura 2000 network in France. Sociologia Ruralis 41 (3) 311–328. Apostolopoulou, E., Pantis, J.D., 2009. Conceptual gaps in the national strategy for the implementation of the European Natura 2000 conservation policy in Greece. Biological Conservation. 142 (1) 221–237. Arau´jo, M.B., Alagador, D., Cabeza, M., Nogue´s-Bravo, D., Thuiller, W., 2011. Climate change threatens European conservation areas. Ecology Letters 14, 484–492. Arts, B., Buizer, M., 2009. Forests, discourses, institutions: a discursive-institutional analysis of global forest governance. Forest Policy and Economic 11 (5–6) 340–347. Ba¨ckstrand, K., Lo¨vbrand, E., 2006. Planting trees to mitigate climate change. Contested discourses of ecological modernization, green governmentality and civic environmentalism. Global Environmental Politics 6 (1) 50–75. Bayerische Staatsforsten, 2012. Prima fuer das Klima. http:// www.baysf.de/de/home/unternehmen_wald/aktuelles/ detailansicht/article/47/prima-fuer-das-klima.html?

Please cite this article in press as: de Koning, J., et al., Natura 2000 and climate change—Polarisation, uncertainty, and pragmatism in discourses on forest conservation and management in Europe. Environ. Sci. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.010

ENVSCI-1264; No. of Pages 10 environmental science & policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

tx_veguestbook_pi1[pointer]=1&cHash= bc861ed37d41e4852d49e145498221e6 [accessed 26.11.12]. Beunen, R., Van Asche, K., Duineveld, M., 2013 March. 2013 Performing failure in conservation policy: The implementation of European Union directives in the Netherlands. Land Use Policy Volume31, 280–288. Bingham, A., 2010. Discourse of the dammed: A study of the impacts of sustainable development discourse on indigenous peoples in the Brazilian Amazon in the context of the proposed Belo Monte hydroelectric dam. POLIS Journal 4 http://www.polis.leeds.ac.uk/assets/files/students/studentjournal/ma-winter-10/bingham-e.pdf [accessed 22.01.13]. Bo¨rzel, T.A., Buzoga´ny, A., 2010. Governing EU accession in transition countries: the role of non-state actors. Acta Politica 45 (1-2) 158–182. Brooker, R., Young, J.C., Watt, A.D., 2007. Climate change and biodiversity: impacts and policy development challenges – a European case study. International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 3 (1) 12–30. Bulkely, H., 2000. Discourse coalitions and the Australian climate change policy network. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 18, 727–748. Canadell, J.G., Raupach, M.R., 2008. Managing forests for climate change mitigation. Science 320 (5882) 1456–1457. Cliquet, A., Backes, C., Harris, J., Howsam, P., 2009a. Adaptation to climate change. Legal challenges for protected areas. Utrecht Law Review 5 (1) 158–175. Cliquet, A., Harris, J., Howsam, P., Backes, C., 2009b. Response to ‘Protected areas and climate change – Reflections from a practitioner’s perspective.’ Utrecht Law Review 6 (1) 149– 150. Dang, T.K.P., Turnhout, E., Arts, B., 2012. Changing forestry discourses in Vietnam in the past 20 years. Forest Policy and Economics 25, 31–41. Dodd, A., Hardiman, A., Jennings, K., Williams, G., 2009. Commentary. Protected areas and climate change. Reflections from a practitioner’s perspective. Utrecht Law Review 6 (1) 148 http://ssrn.com/abstract=1551260 [accessed 21.01.13] Ellwanger, G., Ssymank, A., Paulsch, C. (Eds.), 2012. Natura 2000 and Climate Change. A challenge. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt, Bonn: Bundesamt fu¨r Naturschutz. European Commission, 2010a. Green paper. On Forest Protection and Information in the EU: Preparing Forests for Climate Change. SEC(2010)163 final. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do? uri=COM:2010:0066:FIN:EN:PDF [accessed 28.11.12] European Commission, 2010b. Green Infrastructure. http:// ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/ greeninfrastructure.pdf [accessed 28.11.12] European Commission, 2011. Natura 2000 Barometer. Update January 2011. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ natura2000/barometer/docs/n2000.pdf [accessed 14.12.12] European Commission, 2013. Scoping Document on Natura 2000 and Forests. , unpublished. European Commission, 2012. Draft Guidelines on Climate Change and Natura 2000. Dealing with the impact of climate change on the management of the Natura 2000 Network. Final Draft Version to be subject to approval of Commission Services 11 July 2012. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ nature/climatechange/pdf/N2_CC_guidelines.pdf [accessed 14.12.12] European Union, 2012. European Parliament Resolution On Our Life Insurance, Our Natural Capital: an EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 20.04.12. 2011/2307(INI) http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/ EP_resolution_april2012.pdf [accessed 28.11.12] Evans, D., 2012. The habitats of annex I and climate change. In: Ellwanger, G., Ssymank, A., Paulsch, C. (Eds.), Natura 2000

and Climate Change. A challenge. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt, Bonn: Bundesamt fu¨r Naturschutz, pp. 73–81. Evans, K., Murhpy, L., de Jong, W., 2013. Global versus local narratives of REDD: a case study from Peru’s Amazon. Environmental Science and Policy http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.envsci.2012.12.013. Fairbrass, J., Jordan, A., 2001. Making European Union biodiversity policy: national barriers and European opportunities. Journal of European Public Policy 8 (4) 499– 518. Felton, A., Fischer, J., Lindenmayer, D.B., Montague-Drake, R., Lowe, A.R., Saunders, D., Felton, A.M., Steffen, W., Munro, N.T., Youngentob, K., Gillen, J., Gibbons, P., Bruzgul, J.E., Fazey, I., Bond, S.J., Elliott, C.P., Macdonald, B.C.T., Porfirio, L.L., Westgate, M., Worthy, M., 2009. Climate change, conservation and management: an assessment of the peerreviewed scientific journal literature. Biodiversity and Conservation 18, 2243–2253. Ferranti, F., Beunen, R., Speranza, M., 2010. Natura 2000 network: a comparison of the Italian and Dutch implementation experiences. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 12 (3) 293–314. Greenpeace, 2012. Maps of the Spessart Forest. http:// www.greenpeace.de/fileadmin/gpd/user_upload/themen/ waelder/gpkarten.pdf [accessed 14.12.12]. Grodzinska-Jurczak, M., Cent, J., 2011. Expansion of nature conservation areas: problems with Natura 2000 implementation in Poland? Environmental Management 47 (1) 11–27. Hajer, M.A., 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse. Ecological modernisation and the policy process. Clarendon Press, Oxford/NewYork. Hajer, M.A., 2006. Doing discourse analysis: coalitions, practices, meaning. In: van den Brink, M., Metze, T. (Eds.), Words Matter in Policy and Planning: Discourse theory and method in the social sciences.. Labor Grafimedia, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Hajer, M.A., Versteeg, W., 2005. A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: achievements, challenges, perspectives. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 7 (3) 175–184. Van Heeswijk, L., Turnhout, E., 2012. The discursive structure of FLEGT (Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade): the negotiation and interpretation of legality in the EU and Indonesia. Forest Policy and Economics http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.10.009. Hemery, G.E., 2008. Forest management and silvicultural responses to projected climate change impacts on European broadleaved trees and forests. International Forestry Review 10, 591–607. Hiedanpa¨a¨, J., 2005. The edges of conflict and consensus: a case for creativity in regional forest policy in Southwest Finland. Ecological Economics 55 (4) 485–498. Hoogstra, M.A., 2008. Coping With the Long Term: An Empirical Analysis of Time Perspectives, Time Orientations, and Temporal Uncertainty in Forestry [online] Doctoral Dissertation. Wageningen University http://edepot.wur.nl/ 122076 [accessed 28.10.11] Hoogstra, M.A., Schanz, H., 2008. How (un)certain is the future in forestry? A comparative assessment of uncertainty in the forest and agricultural sector. Forest Science 54 (3) 316–327. Humphreys, D., 2009. Discourse as ideology: Neoliberalism and the limits of international forest policy. Forest Policy and Economics 11 (5-6) 319–325. Huntley, B., Collingham, Y., Willis, S., Hole, D., 2012. Protected areas and climate change in Europe: introduction. In: Ellwanger, G., Ssymank, A., Paulsch, C. (Eds.), Natura 2000 and Climate Change. A challenge. Naturschutz und

Please cite this article in press as: de Koning, J., et al., Natura 2000 and climate change—Polarisation, uncertainty, and pragmatism in discourses on forest conservation and management in Europe. Environ. Sci. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.010

9

ENVSCI-1264; No. of Pages 10

10

environmental science & policy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Biologische Vielfalt, Bonn: Bundesamt fu¨r Naturschutz, pp. 29–47. Ioja˘, C.I., Pa˘troescu, M., Rozylowicz, L., Popescu, V.D., Verghelet?, M., Zotta, M.I., Felciuc, M., 2010. The efficacy of Romania’s protected areas network in conserving biodiversity. Biological Conservation 143 (11) 2468–2476. Kleinschmit, D., Bo¨cher, M., Giessen, L., 2009. Discourse and expertise in forest and environmental governance – an overview. Forest Policy and Economics 11 (5-6) 309–312. Ledoux, L., Crooks, S., Jordan, A., Kerry Turner, R., 2000. Implementing EU biodiversity policy: UK experiences. Land Use Policy 17, 257–268. Lindner, M., Maroschek, M., Netherer, S., Kremer, A., Barbati, A., Garcia-Gonzalo, J., Seidl, R., Delzon, S., Corona, P., Kolstro¨ma, M., Lexer, M.J., Marchetti, M., 2010. Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of European forest ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management 259 (4) 698–709. Medina, G., Pokorny, B., Weigelt, J., 2009. The power of discourse: hard lessons for traditional forest communities in the Amazon. Forest Policy and Economics 11 (5–6) 309–312. Milad, M., Schaich, H., Bu¨rgi, M., Konold, W., 2011. Climate change and nature conservation in Central European forests: A review of consequences, concepts and challenges. Forest ecology and management 261, 829–843. Offermans, A., Co¨rvers, R., 2012. Learning from the past; changing perspectives on river management in the Netherlands. Environmental science and policy 15, 13–22. Papageorgiou, K., Vogiatzakis, I.N., 2006. Nature protection in Greece: an appraisal of the factors shaping integrative conservation and policy effectiveness. Environmental Science and Policy 9 (5) 476–486. Rauschmayer, F., van den Hove, S., Koetz, T., 2009. Participation in EU biodiversity governance: how far beyond rhetoric? Environmental Planning C. 27 (1) 42–58. Schoene, D.H.F., Bernier, P.Y., 2012. Adapting forestry and forests to climate change: a challenge to change the paradigm. Forest Policy and Economics 24, 12–19. Smith, A., Kern, F., 2011. The transitions storyline in Dutch environmental policy. Environmental Politics 18 (1) 78–98. Spies, T.A., Giesen, T.W., Swanson, F.J., Franklin, J.F., Lach, D., Johnson, K.N., 2010. Climate change adaptation strategies for federal forests of the Pacific Northwest USA: ecological policy and socio-economic perspectives. Landscape Ecology 25 (8) 1185–1199.

Sotirov, M., Blondet, M., Borrass, L., de Koning, J., Ferranti, F., Geitzenauer, M., Winkel, G. 2013. The politics of conserving europe’s biodiversity: an analysis of scholarly and expert knowledge on the formulation and implementation process of Natura 2000, Unpublished. Storch, S., Winkel, G., 2013. Coupling climate change and forest policy: a multiple streams analysis of two German case studies. Forest Policy and Economics Available online: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.01.009. Wesselink, A., Buchanan, K., Georgiadou, Y., Turnhout, E., 2013. Technical knowledge, discursive spaces and politics at the science – policy interface. Environmental Science and Policy http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.12.008. Wetherell, M., Taylor, S., Yates, J., 2001. Discourse as Data. A guide for Analysis. Sage, London. Winkel, G., 2012. Foucault in the forests – a review of the use of ‘Foucauldian’ concepts in forest policy analysis. Forest Policy and Economics 16, 81–92. Winkel, G., Gleissner, J., Pistorius, T., Sotirov, M., Storch, S., 2011. The sustainably managed forest heats up – discursive struggles over forest management and climate change in Germany. Critical Policy Studies 5, 361–390. Winkel, G., Kaphengst, T., Herbert, S., Robaey, Z., Rosenkranz, L., Sotirov, M., 2009. EU policy options for the protection of European forests against harmful impacts. , http:// ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/fprotection.htm [accessed 24 January 2013] Winkel, G., Pistorius, T., Gleissner, J., 2012. Will climate change redefine the sustainable forest management of Natura 2000 protected sites? Reflections on the current debate about forests, biodiversity and climate change. In: Ellwanger, G., Ssymank, A., Paulsch, C. (Eds.), Natura 2000 and Climate Change. A challenge. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt, Bonn: Bundesamt fu¨r Naturschutz, pp. 139–152. Winkel, G., Aggestam, F., Sotirov, M., Weiss, G., 2013. Forest policy in the european union in european forest governance. In: Pu¨lzl, H., Arts, B., Buttoud, G., Dominguez, G., Winkel, G., Wolfslehner, B. (Eds.), What Science Can Tell Us. European Forestry Institute, Finland. Young, J., Pichards, C., Fischer, A., Halada, L., Kull, T., Kuzniar, A., Tartes, U., Uzunov, Y., Watt, A., 2007. Conflicts between Biodiversity conservation and human activities in the central and eastern European countries. Journal of the Human Environment 36 (7) 545–550.

Please cite this article in press as: de Koning, J., et al., Natura 2000 and climate change—Polarisation, uncertainty, and pragmatism in discourses on forest conservation and management in Europe. Environ. Sci. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.010